T41n1821_俱舍論記

大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

No. 1821 [cf. No. 1558]

俱舍論記卷第一

沙門釋光述

分別界品第一之一

將釋論文。三門分別。一明論緣起。二釋論題目三隨文別解　蓋俱舍論者。筏蘇槃豆之所作也(筏蘇名世。槃豆名親。印度有天俗號世親。世人親近供養。故以名焉。菩薩父母　從所乞處為名也。舊譯為天。此翻謬矣。若言天。應號提婆也)　菩薩。學通內外。博達古今。名振五天。聲流四主。故能潛名數載討廣說之教源。制論一時播芳名于萬古。密申傳說有部懷疑。請釋頌本文方袪宿滯　斯論。乃文同鉤鎖結引萬端。義等連環始終無絕。采六足之綱要備盡無遺。顯八蘊之妙門如觀掌內　雖述一切有義。時以經部正之。論師據理為宗。非存朋執　遂使九十六道。同玩斯文。十八異部。俱欣秘典。自解開異見部制群分。各謂連城。齊稱照乘　唯此一論。卓乎迥秀。猶妙高之據宏海。等赫日之瞙眾星　故印度學徒。號為聰明論也　往有三藏真諦法師。已於嶺表譯茲論訖。但為方言未融。時有舛錯。至如現法非得先哲同疑。常非果因前賢莫辨。如斯等類難可備詳。略舉二．三以彰今譯　和上三藏法師。志存弘傳誓游西域。搜揭奧

典盡鷲嶺之遺言。斫檄法門窮上賢之餘說。既而遍觀其聖蹟。問道復周。旋軔上京奉詔翻譯。

此論。以永徽年中於大慈恩寺譯。文義周備。妙理無虧。傳彼梵言務存其本。庶使懷疑之侶渙若冰消。佇決之徒實忘餐寢。此即第一明論緣起。

言釋題目者阿毗達磨。形二藏以立名。俱舍。標一部之別稱　阿毗。言對。能所對故　達磨。名法。持生解故　俱舍。名藏。攝依彼故　論。謂言論。教誡學徒　此卷在初故稱第一。

分別界品第一者。此下第三隨文別解。就中有三。一明依經造論。二別釋品名。三依文正解　一明依經造論者。西方造論皆釋佛經。經教雖多。略有三種。謂三法印。一諸行無常。二諸法無我。三涅槃寂靜。此印諸法故名法印。若順此印即是佛經。若違此印即非佛說。故後作論者皆釋法印　于中意樂廣略不同。或有偏釋一法印。或有舉一以明三。如五蘊論等唯解諸行無常。如涅槃論等唯釋涅槃寂靜。此即偏釋一法印。如俱舍論等解諸法無我。此即是舉一以明三　所以就此釋者。諸行無常唯明有為。涅槃寂靜唯明無為。諸法無我通明有為無為。欲彰此論無事不攝故。就廣以明　二別釋品名者。就中有二。一正釋品名。二明品之前後　言正釋品名者。族義。持義。性義。名界　品謂品類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他窮盡了在鷲嶺（Grdhrakuta，又名靈鷲山，是釋迦牟尼佛常說法之所）所留下的遺教，竭力闡明佛法，繼承了前代聖賢的遺說。之後，他廣泛地考察了佛教的聖蹟，四處問道求法，最終返回上京，奉皇帝的詔令翻譯佛經。

這部論著，是在永徽年間于大慈恩寺翻譯完成的。它的文辭義理周全完備，精妙的道理沒有絲毫缺失。翻譯時，力求保持梵文原著的本來面貌，希望能夠使那些心存疑惑的人如同冰雪消融一般釋懷，使那些翹首以盼的人甚至忘記了吃飯睡覺。這就是第一品闡明論著緣起的內容。

解釋題目：『阿毗達磨』（Abhidharma，論藏），是根據二藏（經藏和論藏）而立的名。『俱舍』（Kosha，藏），是一部論著的別稱。『阿毗』（Abhi），意思是『對』，能觀之智與所觀之境相對。『達磨』（Dharma），意思是『法』，具有保持自性和產生理解的作用。『俱舍』（Kosha），意思是『藏』，包含並依附於上述的法。『論』，指的是言論，用以教誡和指導學徒。因為這一卷是全論的開端，所以稱為『第一』。

『分別界品第一』，以下是第三部分，隨文分別解釋。其中包含三個方面：一是說明依據佛經造論，二是分別解釋品名，三是依據經文進行正式的解釋。一是說明依據佛經造論：西方的論師造論都是爲了解釋佛經。佛經的教義雖然很多，但大致可以歸納為三種，即三法印：一、諸行無常（Anitya，一切事物都在變化）；二、諸法無我（Anatma，一切事物沒有永恒不變的自我）；三、涅槃寂靜（Nirvana，解脫后的寂靜狀態）。這三個原則可以印證一切法，所以稱為法印。如果符合這三個法印，就是佛經；如果違背這三個法印，就不是佛所說。因此，後來的論師都以解釋法印為己任。其中，作者的意願和側重點各有不同，有的偏重解釋其中一個法印，有的則舉一法印以闡明其他兩個。例如，《五蘊論》等只解釋諸行無常；《涅槃論》等只解釋涅槃寂靜。這些都是偏重解釋一個法印。而像《俱舍論》等解釋諸法無我，這就是舉一以明三。之所以選擇解釋『諸法無我』，是因為『諸行無常』只說明有為法（Samksrita-dharma，由因緣和合而成的法），『涅槃寂靜』只說明無為法（Asamskrita-dharma，不依賴因緣而存在的法），而『諸法無我』則可以通用於有為法和無為法。爲了彰顯此論無所不包，所以選擇從廣闊的角度進行闡述。二是分別解釋品名：其中包含兩個方面：一是正式解釋品名，二是說明品的前後順序。正式解釋品名：族義、持義、性義，稱為『界』（Dhatu，界）。『品』（Varga），指的是品類。

【English Translation】 English version: He exhausted the bequeathed teachings from Vulture Peak (Grdhrakuta, also known as the Holy Eagle Peak, where Shakyamuni Buddha often preached), striving to elucidate the Dharma and inherit the remaining sayings of the previous sages. Afterward, he extensively examined the sacred sites of Buddhism, inquiring and seeking the Dharma everywhere, and finally returned to the capital, where he translated scriptures by imperial decree.

This treatise was translated at the Great Compassion and Kindness Temple during the Yonghui era. Its wording and meaning are comprehensive and complete, with no deficiency in its subtle principles. In translation, efforts were made to preserve the original appearance of the Sanskrit text, hoping to dispel the doubts of those who harbor them like melting ice, and to make those who eagerly await it forget even eating and sleeping. This is the content of the first chapter, explaining the origin of the treatise.

Explanation of the title: 'Abhidharma' (Collection of Treatises) is a name established based on the two collections (the Sutra Collection and the Treatise Collection). 'Kosha' (Treasury) is another name for a treatise. 'Abhi' means 'towards,' referring to the wisdom that observes in relation to the object being observed. 'Dharma' means 'law,' having the function of maintaining its own nature and generating understanding. 'Kosha' means 'treasury,' containing and depending on the aforementioned laws. 'Treatise' refers to discourse, used to teach and guide disciples. Because this volume is the beginning of the entire treatise, it is called 'First'.

'Chapter One on Distinguishing Realms': The following is the third part, explaining the text separately. It contains three aspects: first, explaining the creation of the treatise based on the Buddhist scriptures; second, separately explaining the chapter title; and third, formally explaining based on the scripture text. First, explaining the creation of the treatise based on the Buddhist scriptures: Western treatise writers create treatises to explain the Buddhist scriptures. Although there are many teachings in the Buddhist scriptures, they can be roughly summarized into three types, namely the Three Dharma Seals: 1. All conditioned things are impermanent (Anitya, everything is changing); 2. All dharmas are without self (Anatma, everything has no permanent self); 3. Nirvana is quiescent (Nirvana, the state of tranquility after liberation). These three principles can verify all dharmas, so they are called Dharma Seals. If it conforms to these three Dharma Seals, it is a Buddhist scripture; if it violates these three Dharma Seals, it is not what the Buddha said. Therefore, later treatise writers took it as their responsibility to explain the Dharma Seals. Among them, the author's intentions and focuses are different, some focusing on explaining one of the Dharma Seals, and some using one Dharma Seal to explain the other two. For example, the 'Treatise on the Five Aggregates' only explains the impermanence of all conditioned things; the 'Treatise on Nirvana' only explains Nirvana's quiescence. These are all focused on explaining one Dharma Seal. And like the 'Abhidharma-kosha', which explains the non-self of all dharmas, this is using one to explain three. The reason for choosing to explain 'the non-self of all dharmas' is because 'the impermanence of all conditioned things' only explains conditioned dharmas (Samksrita-dharma, dharmas formed by the combination of causes and conditions), 'Nirvana's quiescence' only explains unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrita-dharma, dharmas that exist independently of causes and conditions), while 'the non-self of all dharmas' can be applied to both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. In order to highlight that this treatise encompasses everything, it is chosen to explain from a broad perspective. Second, separately explaining the chapter title: It contains two aspects: first, formally explaining the chapter title; second, explaining the order of the chapters. Formally explaining the chapter title: lineage meaning, holding meaning, nature meaning, called 'realm' (Dhatu). 'Chapter' (Varga) refers to categories.

。即界名品。故名界品。此品廣明故名分別　此論始終總有九品。此品居初故言第一。或言。第一帶數釋也　問此品之中亦明蘊．處。何故以界標名。解云。界者性也。性之言體。此品明諸法體。以界標名。蘊．處非體故不別說　又解。蘊．處．界三中。界名義廣。故偏說之。處雖義廣。名狹不說。蘊名與義俱狹不說　又解。有情根性有上．中．下。上根樂略說蘊便解。中根稍遲辨處方了。下根好廣談界乃悟。上能兼地獄益三根。下不及上。處二。蘊一。益廣為勝故以界標名　又解。此品廣以諸門分別十八界義。故以界標名。蘊．處不爾　二明品之前後者。此論一部總有九品。釋佛經中諸法無我。前八品明諸法事。雖亦明理從多分說。或非正明　后一品釋無我理雖亦明事從多分說。或非正明　事粗先說。理細后明　又解。事是所依所以先說。理是能依所以後說　就前八品中。初二品總明有漏．無漏。后六品別明有漏．無漏。總是其本所以先明。依總釋別所以後說。即如諸論先舉總章後方別釋　就總明中。界品明諸法體。雖亦明用。從多分說。或非正明。根品明諸法用。雖亦明體。從多分說。或非正明　體是其本故先明界。依體起用故次明根　就別明六品中。前三品明有漏法。于中雖亦明無漏法。從多分說。或非正明　

后三品明無漏法。于中雖亦明有漏法。從多分說。或非正明　有漏法粗。所以先說。無漏法細。所以後明。如四諦中先明苦集后明滅．道　又解。有漏可厭。所以先明。厭已令欣。所以無漏后說　又解。有漏無始來起。是故先明。無漏新生。是故后說　就別明有漏中有其三品。謂世．業．隨眠。約果．因．緣三以明前後。世品明有漏果。相粗易厭。所以先明。于中雖亦明因及緣。從多分說。或非正明　業品明感果之因。果必由因而起。必其力勝。所以次說。于中雖亦明果及緣。從多分說。或非正明　隨眠品明業之緣。業自不能感果。必藉其緣。隨眠生果稍劣。所以後辨。于中雖亦明果及因。從多分說。或非正明　就別明無漏法中。有其三品。謂賢聖．智．定。亦約果．因．緣三以辨前後。賢聖品明無漏果。相顯易欣故。所以先說。于中雖亦明因及緣。從多分說。或非正明　智品明證果因。果必藉因。又證果強。所以次說。于中雖亦明果及緣。從多分說。成非正明　定品明智之緣。智獨不能證果。必依定緣。定望彼果其力稍劣。所以後說。于中雖亦明果及因。從多分說。或非正明。

諸一切種至我當說者。此下第三依文正解。此論一部大文有三。一序分。二正宗。三流通。聖人造論。必有由致故初明序分。序分既

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：後面的三品闡明的是無漏法（anāsrava-dharma，沒有煩惱和業的法）。雖然其中也闡明了有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱和業的法），但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。有漏法粗顯，所以先說；無漏法細微，所以後闡明。如同四聖諦（catvāri ārya satyāni）中先闡明苦諦（duḥkha-satya）和集諦（samudaya-satya），后闡明滅諦（nirodha-satya）和道諦（mārga-satya）。又解釋說，有漏法令人厭惡，所以先闡明；厭惡之後令人欣喜，所以無漏法后說。又解釋說，有漏法從無始以來就存在，所以先闡明；無漏法是新生的，所以後說。就分別闡明有漏法而言，其中有三品，即世品、業品和隨眠品。按照果、因、緣三者來闡明前後順序。世品闡明有漏的果報，相狀粗顯容易厭惡，所以先闡明。其中雖然也闡明了因和緣，但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。業品闡明的是能感果報的因。果報必定由因而生起，而且因的力量強大，所以其次闡明。其中雖然也闡明了果和緣，但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。隨眠品闡明的是業的緣。業自身不能感果，必須憑藉其緣。隨眠產生果報的力量稍弱，所以最後辨析。其中雖然也闡明了果和因，但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。就分別闡明無漏法而言，其中有三品，即賢聖品、智品和定品。也按照果、因、緣三者來辨別前後順序。賢聖品闡明無漏的果報，相狀明顯容易欣喜，所以先說。其中雖然也闡明了因和緣，但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。智品闡明的是證得果報的因。果報必定憑藉因，而且證得果報的力量強大，所以其次闡明。其中雖然也闡明了果和緣，但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。定品闡明的是智的緣。智自身不能證得果報，必須依靠定緣。定對於果報來說，其力量稍弱，所以最後說。其中雖然也闡明了果和因，但主要是從大部分內容來說的，或者並非主要闡明。『諸一切種至我當說者』，這以下是第三部分，按照經文正式解釋。這部論典的大體結構有三部分：一是序分，二是正宗分，三是流通分。聖人造論，必定有其原因，所以首先闡明序分。序分既然...

【English Translation】 English version: The following three sections explain the anāsrava-dharma (undefiled dharma, the dharma without afflictions and karma). Although they also explain the sāsrava-dharma (defiled dharma, the dharma with afflictions and karma), it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. The sāsrava-dharma is coarse, so it is explained first; the anāsrava-dharma is subtle, so it is explained later. Just as in the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ārya satyāni), the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya) and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (samudaya-satya) are explained first, and the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (nirodha-satya) and the Truth of the Path to the Cessation of Suffering (mārga-satya) are explained later. Another explanation is that the sāsrava-dharma is repulsive, so it is explained first; after being repulsed, it brings joy, so the anāsrava-dharma is explained later. Another explanation is that the sāsrava-dharma has existed since beginningless time, so it is explained first; the anāsrava-dharma is newly arisen, so it is explained later. Specifically explaining the sāsrava-dharma, there are three sections: the Section on the World, the Section on Karma, and the Section on Latent Afflictions. The order is explained according to the three aspects of result, cause, and condition. The Section on the World explains the defiled result, which is coarse and easy to be repulsed, so it is explained first. Although it also explains the cause and condition, it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. The Section on Karma explains the cause that produces the result. The result must arise from the cause, and the power of the cause is strong, so it is explained next. Although it also explains the result and condition, it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. The Section on Latent Afflictions explains the condition of karma. Karma itself cannot produce the result, it must rely on its condition. The power of latent afflictions to produce the result is slightly weaker, so it is analyzed last. Although it also explains the result and cause, it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. Specifically explaining the anāsrava-dharma, there are three sections: the Section on the Virtuous and Noble Ones, the Section on Wisdom, and the Section on Concentration. The order is also distinguished according to the three aspects of result, cause, and condition. The Section on the Virtuous and Noble Ones explains the undefiled result, which is obvious and easy to be rejoiced in, so it is explained first. Although it also explains the cause and condition, it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. The Section on Wisdom explains the cause of attaining the result. The result must rely on the cause, and the power of attaining the result is strong, so it is explained next. Although it also explains the result and condition, it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. The Section on Concentration explains the condition of wisdom. Wisdom itself cannot attain the result, it must rely on the condition of concentration. The power of concentration in relation to the result is slightly weaker, so it is explained last. Although it also explains the result and cause, it is mainly from the perspective of the majority of the content, or not the primary explanation. 『The various kinds of all to what I shall say,』 this below is the third part, formally explaining according to the text. The overall structure of this treatise has three parts: first, the introduction; second, the main body; and third, the conclusion. Sages create treatises, there must be a reason, so first explain the introduction. Since the introduction...

彰。必有所說故次明正宗。正宗既終。勸學流通故后明流通　釋斯三分三解不同。第一解日。初三行頌名序分。何法名為已下。至破我品。名正宗。破我品末已善說此已下。名流通分。此論一部。總釋經中諸法無我。故破我品亦正宗攝。雖定品末。傷嘆勸學。為在正宗前故亦名正宗。第二解云。序分同前。何法名為已下。至定品名正宗。從定品末。前來分別以下。總名流通。所以破我品亦名流通者以乘流通分起問。剩明破我品為在流通后故。亦名流通　第三解曰。此論釋經諸法無我。前八品明諸法有體。除損減執。即有三分。序分．正宗同第二師。從前未分別已下。至定品末名流通分　后一品明無我除增益執。亦有三分。初兩句。越此依余豈無解說。名序分。理定無有已下名正宗已善說此已下名流通。以釋經中二義。所以各別有三分不同　隨明諸論正宗定有。序分．流通有無不定　或有序分而無流通。如毗婆沙論。或有流通而無序分。如二十唯識。或二分俱有。如此論說　或二分俱無。如發智論　隨作論者意各異故　就序分中。一正明序分。二隨難別解。此初一頌正明序分。就中。前三句明歸敬序。第四句明發起序　歸敬謂歸敬世尊。發起謂發起正宗。故先歸敬。后明發起　問何故。論初贊德歸敬。解云。恐有魔事造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：彰顯。必定有所要說的，所以接著闡明正宗。正宗結束后，爲了勸勉學習和流通，所以在後面闡明流通。解釋這三分，有三種不同的解釋。第一種解釋說，最初的三行頌詞名為序分。『什麼法名為』以下，到『破我品』，名為正宗。『破我品』末尾『已善說此』以下，名為流通分。此論一部，總的來說是解釋經中的諸法無我，所以『破我品』也屬於正宗。雖然『定品』末尾，傷感嘆息勸勉學習，因為它在正宗之前，所以也名為正宗。第二種解釋說，序分與前相同。『什麼法名為』以下，到『定品』名為正宗。從『定品』末尾，『前來分別』以下，總名為流通。之所以『破我品』也名為流通，是因為憑藉流通分而發起提問，剩餘的闡明『破我品』因為它在流通之後，所以也名為流通。第三種解釋說，此論解釋經中的諸法無我，前八品闡明諸法有體，去除損減執，即有三分：序分、正宗與第二種解釋相同。從『前未分別』以下，到『定品』末尾名為流通分。后一品闡明無我，去除增益執，也有三分。最初兩句，『越此依余豈無解說』，名為序分。『理定無有』以下名為正宗，『已善說此』以下名為流通。因為解釋經中的兩種意義，所以各自有三分不同。隨著闡明諸論，正宗必定有，序分、流通有無不定。或者有序分而沒有流通，如《毗婆沙論》。或者有流通而沒有序分，如《二十唯識》。或者二分都有，如此論所說。或者二分都沒有，如《發智論》。隨著作論者的意願各自不同。就序分中，一是正式闡明序分，二是隨著疑問分別解釋。這是最初一頌正式闡明序分。其中，前三句闡明歸敬序，第四句闡明發起序。歸敬是指歸敬世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀）。發起是指發起正宗。所以先歸敬，后闡明發起。問：為什麼論的開始要讚歎功德進行歸敬？解釋說：恐怕有魔事造作。

【English Translation】 English version: Manifestation. There must be something to be said, so next is the explanation of the Proper Doctrine (正宗, Zhèngzōng). After the Proper Doctrine ends, to encourage learning and circulation, the Circulation (流通, Liútōng) is explained last. There are three different explanations for these three divisions. The first explanation says that the first three lines of verses are called the Introductory Section (序分, Xùfēn). From 'What Dharma is called' onwards, to the 'Destruction of Self Chapter (破我品, Pòwǒ pǐn)', it is called the Proper Doctrine. From the end of the 'Destruction of Self Chapter', 'It has been well said' onwards, it is called the Circulation Section. This treatise as a whole explains the non-self of all Dharmas in the scriptures, so the 'Destruction of Self Chapter' is also included in the Proper Doctrine. Although at the end of the 'Concentration Chapter (定品, Dìng pǐn)', there is sadness, sighing, and encouragement to learn, it is still called the Proper Doctrine because it is before the Proper Doctrine. The second explanation says that the Introductory Section is the same as before. From 'What Dharma is called' onwards, to the 'Concentration Chapter', it is called the Proper Doctrine. From the end of the 'Concentration Chapter', 'Previously distinguished' onwards, it is collectively called Circulation. The reason why the 'Destruction of Self Chapter' is also called Circulation is because the question arises by relying on the Circulation Section, and the remaining explanation of the 'Destruction of Self Chapter' is after the Circulation, so it is also called Circulation. The third explanation says that this treatise explains the non-self of all Dharmas in the scriptures. The first eight chapters explain that all Dharmas have substance, removing the attachment to reduction, which is divided into three parts: the Introductory Section, the Proper Doctrine, which are the same as the second explanation. From 'Previously not distinguished' onwards, to the end of the 'Concentration Chapter', it is called the Circulation Section. The last chapter explains non-self, removing the attachment to addition, which also has three parts. The first two sentences, 'Beyond this, relying on others, is there no explanation?', are called the Introductory Section. 'Reasonably determined to be non-existent' onwards is called the Proper Doctrine, 'It has been well said' onwards is called Circulation. Because it explains the two meanings in the scriptures, each has three different parts. Following the explanation of the various treatises, the Proper Doctrine must exist, while the Introductory Section and Circulation may or may not exist. There may be an Introductory Section without Circulation, such as the Vibhasa Sastra (毗婆沙論, Pí婆shā lùn). There may be Circulation without an Introductory Section, such as the Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only (二十唯識, Èrshí wéishì). Or both sections may exist, as in this treatise. Or both sections may not exist, such as the Jnanaprasthana Sastra (發智論, Fā zhì lùn). It depends on the different intentions of the authors. Within the Introductory Section, one is to formally explain the Introductory Section, and the other is to explain separately according to the questions. This is the first verse that formally explains the Introductory Section. Among them, the first three sentences explain the Homage Section, and the fourth sentence explains the Arousal Section. Homage refers to paying homage to the World Honored One (Bhagavan, 世尊). Arousal refers to arousing the Proper Doctrine. Therefore, first pay homage, then explain the arousal. Question: Why does the beginning of the treatise praise virtues and pay homage? Explanation: Fearing that there might be demonic deeds.

論不終。贊德歸敬請加備故。故顯宗云。以贊禮言滅諸惡障。標嘉瑞故　又解。為知世尊有勝功德。于佛說法生信尊重　又解。猶如孝子。凡有所作皆啟父母。論主亦爾。今欲造論先啟世尊　泛明諸論。歸敬．發起有無不定。或有歸敬而無發起。如阿毗曇心論　或有發起而無歸敬。如雜心論。或二序俱有。如俱舍論　或二序俱無。如發智論　亦隨作論者意各異故　就歸敬序中。初兩句明佛三德。第三句指德歸敬。就前兩句中。初之諸字。明德所成人。一切已下。明人所成德。依人辨德。故人先。德后。初說諸言顯無朋黨。以德召人。諸有三德我即歸敬。以諸外道各謂自師是一切智。若偏歸敬釋迦牟尼。恐彼生謗。故置諸言息其異論　或恐佛化根淺有情。權作彼師引人正法。故置諸言。此之諸字。起自西方母兒論師。凡欲歸敬皆置諸言。論主。將為當理。故亦言諸　就人所成德中。上句六字明自利德。下一句明利他德。所以先明自利后明利他者。若不自利何能利他。經言菩薩為利他者。據意樂說　一切種諸冥滅者。此明自利德。冥有二種。一染污無知。二不染無知。滅亦有二。一者擇滅。二非擇滅　一切種冥滅斷不染無知。得非擇滅。此顯智德　諸冥滅斷染污無知。得擇滅。此顯斷德　冥滅二字通於兩處　不染無知。種

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：論不終。贊德（Zande，讚頌的功德）歸敬請加備故。故顯宗云：『以贊禮之言，滅除一切惡障，標示吉祥的徵兆。』又解釋說：『爲了讓人們知道世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）具有殊勝的功德，從而對佛陀的說法生起信心和尊重。』又解釋說：『就像孝順的兒子，凡有所作為都會稟告父母一樣，論主也是如此。現在想要造論，所以先稟告世尊。』泛泛地說明各種論著，歸敬序和發起序的有無並不一定。或者有歸敬序而沒有發起序，比如《阿毗曇心論》；或者有發起序而沒有歸敬序，比如《雜心論》；或者兩種序都有，比如《俱舍論》；或者兩種序都沒有，比如《發智論》。這也隨著作論者的意願而各有不同。就歸敬序中，最初兩句說明佛陀的三種功德（三德），第三句指明歸依功德。就前兩句中，最初的『諸』字，說明功德所成就的人。『一切』以下，說明人所成就的功德。依據人來辨別功德，所以人先於功德。最初說『諸』字，是爲了表明沒有朋黨偏私。以功德來召感眾人，凡是具有三種功德的人，我就歸依敬奉。因為各個外道都認為自己的老師是一切智者，如果偏袒地歸敬釋迦牟尼佛，恐怕他們會產生誹謗，所以用『諸』字來平息不同的議論。或者恐怕佛陀教化根基淺薄的有情眾生，權且以他們的老師來引導他們進入正法，所以用『諸』字。這個『諸』字，起源於西方的母子論師，凡是想要歸敬時都用『諸』字。論主認為這是合乎道理的，所以也用『諸』字。就人所成就的功德中，上一句六個字說明自利之德，下一句說明利他之德。之所以先說明自利而後說明利他，是因為如果不自利，又怎麼能利他呢？經書上說菩薩爲了利益他人，是根據意樂而說的。『一切種諸冥滅者』，這說明自利之德。『冥』有兩種，一是染污的無知，二是不染污的無知。『滅』也有兩種，一是擇滅，二是非擇滅。一切種類的『冥』滅斷除了不染污的無知，得到非擇滅。這顯示了智德。諸種『冥』滅斷除了染污的無知，得到擇滅。這顯示了斷德。『冥』和『滅』兩個字可以通用於兩處。不染污的無知，種類……

【English Translation】 English version: The treatise is not finished. The merit of Zande (praise) is added to the reverence. Therefore, the Manifest School says: 'With the words of praise and reverence, eliminate all evil obstacles and mark auspicious omens.' Another explanation says: 'To let people know that the World Honored One (Sakyamuni Buddha) has supreme merits, so that they can generate faith and respect for the Buddha's teachings.' Another explanation says: 'Just like a filial son, who reports everything he does to his parents, so is the author of the treatise. Now wanting to write a treatise, he first reports to the World Honored One.' Generally speaking about various treatises, the presence or absence of the Homage Preface and the Introductory Preface is not fixed. Some have a Homage Preface but no Introductory Preface, such as the Abhidharmahrdaya; some have an Introductory Preface but no Homage Preface, such as the Samuccaya; some have both prefaces, such as the Abhidharmakosha; and some have neither, such as the Jnanaprasthana. This also varies according to the intentions of the authors. In the Homage Preface, the first two sentences explain the three virtues (triguna) of the Buddha, and the third sentence indicates the merit of taking refuge. In the first two sentences, the initial word 'all' indicates the person who has achieved the merits. 'Everything' below indicates the merits achieved by the person. According to the person to distinguish the merits, so the person comes before the merits. The initial word 'all' is said to show that there is no partisanship. Using merits to summon all people, I pay homage to all those who have three virtues. Because each of the non-Buddhist paths claims that their teacher is omniscient, if I were to partially pay homage to Sakyamuni Buddha, I fear that they would generate slander, so I use the word 'all' to quell different opinions. Or perhaps the Buddha is transforming sentient beings with shallow roots, temporarily using their teachers to guide them into the right Dharma, so I use the word 'all'. This word 'all' originated from the mother-son teachers of the West, who use the word 'all' whenever they want to pay homage. The author of the treatise thinks this is reasonable, so he also uses the word 'all'. In the merits achieved by the person, the first six words explain the merit of self-benefit, and the next sentence explains the merit of benefiting others. The reason why self-benefit is explained first and then benefiting others is because if one does not benefit oneself, how can one benefit others? The scriptures say that Bodhisattvas benefit others based on their intention. 'Those who have extinguished all kinds of darkness', this explains the merit of self-benefit. There are two kinds of 'darkness': one is defiled ignorance, and the other is undefiled ignorance. There are also two kinds of 'extinction': one is selective extinction (pratisamkhyanirodha), and the other is non-selective extinction (apratisamkhyanirodha). Extinguishing all kinds of 'darkness' and cutting off undefiled ignorance, one obtains non-selective extinction. This reveals the virtue of wisdom. Extinguishing all kinds of 'darkness' and cutting off defiled ignorance, one obtains selective extinction. This reveals the virtue of cessation. The two words 'darkness' and 'extinction' can be used in both places. Undefiled ignorance, kinds...

類眾多故言一切。染污無知。種類非多故但言諸　或一切與諸眼目異名。或一切與諸雖眼目異名。此中且以一切為寬。諸言是狹　所以染污不言種者。種謂種類。不染無知種類無邊。是故言種　染污無知種類非多。故不言種　或應言種。略而不論　或可影顯　或此種言通於兩處　自利德中。所以先明智德后明斷德者。智德唯佛是故先說。斷德亦通二乘是故后明　又解。智德有為是故先說。斷德無為是故后明　又解。智因先說斷果后明　拔眾生出生死泥者。此明利他德。謂拔眾生出生死泥。此顯恩德　受眾多生死故名眾生。夫生必死。言生可以攝死。故言眾生。死不必生如入涅槃。是故不言眾死　或舉初顯后。設有餘文言眾死者。舉后顯初　生死無邊深廣難出故以喻泥　敬禮如是如理師者　指德歸敬。如是之言指上三德　問何故。長行雲。如理師言顯利他德。解云但說利他即顯自利。夫利他者必自利故　又解。敬禮如是三德。敬禮如理師。如是。總指三德。如理師言。別顯利他德　問何故。此論但敬三德不言三寶。解曰。三德．三寶其義不同。隨造論者意樂說故　泛明諸論。三德．三寶。有無不定。或說三德不言三寶。如此論說　或說三寶不言三德。如阿毗曇心論　或二種俱說。亦應有文。然未撿得　或二俱不說。如發

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：之所以說『一切』，是因為類別眾多。染污和無知，種類並非繁多，所以只說『諸』。或者，『一切』和『諸』是眼和目的不同名稱。或者，『一切』和『諸』雖然與眼和目是不同的名稱。這裡暫且認為『一切』是寬泛的，『諸』是狹窄的。染污不稱為『種』的原因是，『種』指的是種類。不染污的無知種類是無邊的，所以說『種』。染污的無知種類不多，所以不說『種』。或者應該說『種』，只是省略不談。或者可以隱約顯示。或者這個『種』字可以通用於兩處。在自利德中，之所以先說明智德后說明斷德，是因為智德唯有佛（Buddha）才具備，所以先說。斷德也通於二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna），所以後說明。又一種解釋是，智德是有為法（Saṃskṛta），所以先說。斷德是無為法（Asaṃskṛta），所以後說明。又一種解釋是，智是因，所以先說；斷是果，所以後說明。『拔眾生出生死泥』，這說明利他德。意思是拔眾生出生死泥，這顯示了恩德。因為承受眾多的生死，所以稱為眾生（Sattva）。凡是生必定有死，說生可以包括死，所以說眾生。死不一定有生，比如進入涅槃（Nirvāṇa）。所以不說『眾死』。或者舉出開始的來顯示後面的。如果還有其他文句說『眾死』，那就是舉出後面的來顯示開始的。生死無邊，深廣難以脫離，所以用泥來比喻。『敬禮如是如理師』，這是指歸於德而表示敬意。『如是』這個詞指代上面的三種德。問：為什麼？長行中說，『如理師』這個詞顯示了利他德。解釋說，只說利他也就顯示了自利。因為利他的人必定自利。又一種解釋是，敬禮如是三種德，敬禮如理師。『如是』，總括地指代三種德。『如理師』這個詞，分別地顯示了利他德。問：為什麼？這部論只敬三種德，而不說三寶（Triratna）。解答說：三德和三寶，它們的意義不同，隨造論者的意樂而說。泛泛地說明各種論典，三德和三寶，有或沒有不一定。或者說三德而不說三寶，就像這部論所說。或者說三寶而不說三德，比如《阿毗曇心論》（Abhidharmahrdaya）。或者兩種都說。也應該有這樣的文句，但是還沒有查到。或者兩種都不說，比如《發……》

【English Translation】 English version: The reason for saying 'all' is because there are many categories. Defilement (Kleśa) and ignorance (Avidyā), the types are not numerous, so it is only said 'various'. Alternatively, 'all' and 'various' are different names for eye and sight. Or, 'all' and 'various' although different names from eye and sight. Here, let's consider 'all' as broad and 'various' as narrow. The reason why defilement is not called 'species' is that 'species' refers to types. The types of undefiled ignorance are boundless, so it is said 'species'. The types of defiled ignorance are not many, so it is not said 'species'. Or, it should be said 'species', but it is omitted. Or it can be subtly revealed. Or this word 'species' can be used in both places. In the virtue of self-benefit, the reason for first explaining the virtue of wisdom (Jñāna) and then explaining the virtue of severance (Prahāṇa) is that the virtue of wisdom is unique to the Buddha, so it is said first. The virtue of severance is also common to the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), so it is explained later. Another explanation is that the virtue of wisdom is conditioned (Saṃskṛta), so it is said first. The virtue of severance is unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta), so it is explained later. Another explanation is that wisdom is the cause, so it is said first; severance is the result, so it is explained later. 'Pulling beings out of the mud of birth and death', this explains the virtue of benefiting others (Parārtha). It means pulling beings out of the mud of birth and death, which shows kindness. Because they endure many births and deaths, they are called beings (Sattva). Whoever is born must die, saying birth can include death, so it is said beings. Death does not necessarily lead to birth, such as entering Nirvāṇa. So it is not said 'various deaths'. Or, mentioning the beginning reveals the end. If there are other sentences saying 'various deaths', then mentioning the end reveals the beginning. Birth and death are boundless, deep and difficult to escape, so it is compared to mud. 'Paying homage to such a teacher of truth', this refers to paying respect by attributing to virtue. The word 'such' refers to the above three virtues. Question: Why? The prose says, 'teacher of truth' reveals the virtue of benefiting others. The explanation is that only saying benefiting others also reveals self-benefit. Because those who benefit others must benefit themselves. Another explanation is, paying homage to such three virtues, paying homage to the teacher of truth. 'Such', generally refers to the three virtues. The word 'teacher of truth', specifically reveals the virtue of benefiting others. Question: Why? This treatise only respects the three virtues and does not mention the Three Jewels (Triratna). The answer is: the three virtues and the Three Jewels, their meanings are different, depending on the intention of the author. Generally explaining various treatises, the three virtues and the Three Jewels, their presence or absence is uncertain. Or it speaks of the three virtues without mentioning the Three Jewels, as this treatise says. Or it speaks of the Three Jewels without mentioning the three virtues, such as the Abhidharmahrdaya. Or both are mentioned. There should also be such sentences, but they have not been found. Or neither is mentioned, such as the Fa...

智論　又解。此論亦敬佛寶。于智德中兼顯佛故　又解。此論亦敬法寶。涅槃果法。即斷德故　不言僧者。略而不論　或四向．四果說之為僧。世親菩薩。一阿僧祇耶向滿。智慧勝彼。故不歸敬。

問何故。論主造攝論中亦敬僧耶。解曰。僧者謂眾。大乘菩薩容有眾多。同時入聖。名僧歸敬。此宗菩薩。唯一。得入三十四心。不名為僧。故不歸敬　又解。此論亦敬僧寶。于恩德中兼顯僧故。故下論云正法教手拔濟令出。泥拔眾生令出三界。即顯僧寶。真諦三藏亦作此解對法藏論我當說者。此明發起序。對法藏論。下文自釋　我當說者。五蘊假者目之為我。當說之言。簡已．正說。歸世尊既終。許發論端言我當說。次欲造論故先發起。

論曰至方申敬禮者。就長行中。一總標頌意。二別釋頌文。此即總標　論主。今欲造俱舍論。雖復以德召人．本意為顯釋迦自師。德體尊高。超諸二乘．菩薩聖眾。故先贊德方申敬禮　或聖眾者。諸外道等自謂聖眾　諸言所表謂佛世尊者。此下別釋。以德召人餘人無德。諸言雖總還表世尊。

此能破闇故稱冥滅者。此通伏難。伏難意云。諸言是總。如何表佛。故今通言。此佛世尊智慧能破二種闇冥。故稱世尊。二冥俱滅。由佛世尊二冥滅故。諸言雖總還表世尊　又解。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

智論又解釋說：這部論也尊敬佛寶（Buddha Jewel），因為在智慧的功德中兼帶著彰顯了佛陀的緣故。又解釋說：這部論也尊敬法寶（Dharma Jewel），涅槃（Nirvana）的果法，就是斷除煩惱的功德的緣故。沒有提到僧寶（Sangha Jewel），是省略而不論述。或者將四向（four paths）和四果（four fruits）說成是僧。世親（Vasubandhu）菩薩經歷了一個阿僧祇耶（asamkhya）劫才圓滿了趨向，他的智慧勝過他們，所以不歸敬。

問：為什麼論主在撰寫《攝論》（Compendium of Abhidharma）時也尊敬僧呢？解答說：僧指的是大眾，大乘（Mahayana）菩薩容許有很多，同時進入聖位，稱為僧，所以歸敬。這個宗派的菩薩，只有一位，得以進入三十四心（thirty-four moments of thought），不稱為僧，所以不歸敬。又解釋說：這部論也尊敬僧寶，因為在恩德中兼帶著彰顯了僧的緣故。所以下面的論中說，『正法教手拔濟令出』，救拔眾生令出離三界（Three Realms），這就是彰顯僧寶。真諦（Paramārtha）三藏也是這樣解釋的。『對法藏論我當說者』，這是說明發起序。『對法藏論』，下文會自己解釋。『我當說者』，五蘊（five aggregates）假合的稱為我，『當說』的意思，是簡別已說的和正要說的。歸敬世尊（Bhagavan）完畢，允許開始論述，所以說『我當說』。接下來想要造論，所以先發起。

論中說『至方申敬禮者』，就長行文中，一是總標頌的意義，二是分別解釋頌文。這裡是總標。論主現在想要造《俱舍論》（Abhidharma-kośa），即使是用功德來召引人，本意是爲了彰顯釋迦（Śākya）牟尼佛是自己的老師。他的功德和本體尊貴高尚，超越了所有的二乘（two vehicles）和菩薩聖眾，所以先讚歎功德，然後才表達敬意。或者『聖眾』指的是那些外道等自稱為聖眾的人。『諸言所表謂佛世尊者』，這以下是分別解釋。用功德來召引人，其他人沒有功德。『諸』這個字雖然是總稱，但還是指代世尊。

『此能破闇故稱冥滅者』，這是爲了普遍地消除疑問。疑問的意思是，『諸』這個字是總稱，怎麼能指代佛呢？所以現在普遍地說，這位佛世尊的智慧能夠破除兩種黑暗，所以稱世尊。兩種黑暗都滅除了，因為佛世尊滅除了兩種黑暗的緣故，『諸』這個字雖然是總稱，但還是指代世尊。又解釋說：

【English Translation】 English version:

Furthermore, it is explained in the Treatise on Wisdom (智論): This treatise also reveres the Buddha Jewel (Buddha Jewel), because it concurrently manifests the Buddha within the virtue of wisdom. It is also explained that this treatise also reveres the Dharma Jewel (Dharma Jewel), as the fruit-dharma of Nirvana (Nirvana) is the virtue of cessation. The Sangha Jewel (Sangha Jewel) is not mentioned, being omitted for brevity. Alternatively, the four paths (four paths) and four fruits (four fruits) are referred to as the Sangha. The Bodhisattva Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu) completed his progression after one asamkhya (asamkhya) kalpa, and his wisdom surpasses them, therefore he does not pay homage.

Question: Why did the author of the treatise also revere the Sangha when composing the Compendium of Abhidharma (攝論)? Answer: Sangha refers to the assembly. Mahayana (Mahayana) Bodhisattvas may be numerous, entering the state of sainthood simultaneously, and are called Sangha, hence they are revered. The Bodhisattva of this school is only one, attaining entry into the thirty-four moments of thought (thirty-four moments of thought), and is not called Sangha, therefore he is not revered. It is also explained that this treatise also reveres the Sangha Jewel, because it concurrently manifests the Sangha within the virtue of grace. Therefore, the following treatise says, 'The teaching of the Right Dharma rescues and delivers,' saving sentient beings and liberating them from the Three Realms (Three Realms), which manifests the Sangha Jewel. The Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha (Paramārtha) also explains it this way. 'Regarding the Abhidharma-kośa, I shall speak,' this clarifies the introductory preface. 'Regarding the Abhidharma-kośa,' the text will explain itself later. 'I shall speak,' the aggregation of the five aggregates (five aggregates) is called 'I,' the meaning of 'shall speak' is to distinguish between what has already been said and what is about to be said. Having completed the homage to the Bhagavan (Bhagavan), permission is granted to begin the discourse, hence the statement 'I shall speak.' Next, intending to compose the treatise, he first initiates it.

The treatise says, 'To respectfully offer obeisance,' within the prose section, firstly, it generally indicates the meaning of the verse, and secondly, it separately explains the verse. This is the general indication. The author of the treatise now intends to compose the Abhidharma-kośa (Abhidharma-kośa), even if using virtue to attract people, the original intention is to manifest that Śākya (Śākya) Muni Buddha is his own teacher. His virtue and essence are noble and lofty, surpassing all of the two vehicles (two vehicles) and the assembly of Bodhisattvas, therefore he first praises the virtue and then expresses reverence. Alternatively, 'the assembly of saints' refers to those non-Buddhists who call themselves saints. 'What the word 'all' represents is the World-Honored One,' below is the separate explanation. Using virtue to attract people, others have no virtue. Although the word 'all' is a general term, it still refers to the World-Honored One.

'This can destroy darkness, hence it is called the extinction of darkness,' this is to universally resolve doubts. The meaning of the doubt is, 'The word 'all' is a general term, how can it refer to the Buddha?' Therefore, it is now universally said that the wisdom of this World-Honored One can destroy two kinds of darkness, hence he is called the World-Honored One. Both darknesses are extinguished, because the World-Honored One extinguished both darknesses, although the word 'all' is a general term, it still refers to the World-Honored One. It is also explained that:

此文別顯能破闇人。此佛力能永破諸闇故稱世尊冥滅。

言一切種至一切品冥者。謂滅諸境冥。斷染污無知。諸境即是四諦．修道。迷此境故說之為冥。此釋諸冥滅。故正理云。諸境界冥亦永滅故。斷德圓滿。謂滅一切品冥斷不染無知。一切品即一切法品類。迷此品故說之為冥。此釋一切種冥滅。故正理云。一切種冥皆永滅故。智德圓滿　問何故頌文先說一切。長行后明。解云。頌本義次。長行言便　或阿毗達磨。性相以求。言便即說。前後何定　問智德．斷德以何為體。解云。智德以佛身中智慧為體。若並隨行五蘊為體　斷德以擇滅為體。

問若言斷德擇滅為體。何故俱舍二十七云。斷圓德有四種。一一切煩惱斷。二一切定障斷。三畢竟斷。四並習斷。準彼論文。若一切煩惱障斷得擇滅。若不染無知定障斷得非擇滅。即前二障斷已不退名畢竟斷。通得擇滅及非擇滅。此簡異鈍根。如來不但斷彼煩惱。並彼煩惱習氣亦斷得非擇滅。生簡利根二乘　又解。並習斷者。不但斷煩惱障．定障。並二障習氣亦斷。準彼斷德通非擇滅。何故唯說擇滅為體。解云。斷德從強擇滅為體。若據其兼通非擇滅。故不相違　又解。斷德唯以擇滅為體。然有定障等擇滅不顯。定障等若無擇滅即顯。能顯斷故名斷圓德　又解。彼文

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這段經文特別顯示了佛陀能夠破除眾生的愚昧黑暗。因為佛陀的力量能夠永遠破除一切黑暗，所以被稱為『世尊冥滅』（Bhagavān and the extinction of darkness）。『言一切種至一切品冥者』，是指佛陀滅除對一切境界的愚昧，斷除染污的無知。這些境界就是四諦（catvāri-ārya-satyāni，四聖諦）、修道。因為迷惑于這些境界，所以稱之為『冥』（darkness）。這裡解釋了諸冥的滅除。所以《正理》中說，諸境界的愚昧也永遠滅除，這是斷德（prahāṇa-guṇa，斷德）的圓滿。滅除一切品類的愚昧，斷除不染污的無知，一切品類就是一切法的品類。因為迷惑于這些品類，所以稱之為『冥』。這裡解釋了一切種冥的滅除。所以《正理》中說，一切種類的愚昧都永遠滅除，這是智德（jñāna-guṇa，智德）的圓滿。問：為什麼頌文先說『一切』，而長行后才闡明？解：頌文是按照義理的次第，長行是爲了方便表達。或有人根據阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）的性相來探求，認為爲了方便表達，所以這樣說。那麼前後順序又有什麼確定的呢？問：智德和斷德以什麼為本體？解：智德以佛身中的智慧為本體。如果加上隨行的五蘊（pañca-skandha，五蘊），也可以作為本體。斷德以擇滅（prasaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）為本體。問：如果說斷德以擇滅為本體，為什麼《俱舍論》第二十七卷說，斷圓德有四種：一、一切煩惱斷；二、一切定障斷；三、畢竟斷；四、並習斷。按照那裡的說法，如果一切煩惱障斷得到擇滅，如果不染污的無知定障斷得到非擇滅（apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，非擇滅），那麼前兩種障礙斷除后不再退轉，就叫做畢竟斷，這既可以得到擇滅，也可以得到非擇滅。這是爲了區別鈍根的人。如來不僅斷除他們的煩惱，連同煩惱的習氣也斷除，得到非擇滅，這是爲了區別利根的二乘（śrāvaka-yāna and pratyekabuddha-yāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）。又有一種解釋，『並習斷』是指不僅斷除煩惱障和定障，連同這兩種障礙的習氣也斷除。按照這種說法，斷德也包括非擇滅。為什麼只說擇滅為本體呢？解：斷德從最強的方面來說，以擇滅為本體。如果考慮到它也兼顧非擇滅，那麼就沒有矛盾了。又有一種解釋，斷德只以擇滅為本體。然而有些定障等的擇滅不明顯。定障等如果沒有擇滅就會顯現出來，能夠顯現斷德，所以叫做斷圓德。又有一種解釋，那段經文...

【English Translation】 English version: This text specifically reveals that the Buddha is capable of dispelling the ignorance and darkness of sentient beings. Because the Buddha's power can eternally eradicate all darkness, he is called 'Bhagavān and the extinction of darkness'. '言一切種至一切品冥者' (The statement 'from all kinds to all categories of darkness') refers to the Buddha extinguishing ignorance regarding all realms and severing defiled unknowing. These realms are the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni) and the path of cultivation. Because of delusion regarding these realms, it is called 'darkness'. This explains the extinction of all darknesses. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says that the darkness of all realms is also eternally extinguished, which is the perfection of the virtue of abandonment (prahāṇa-guṇa). Extinguishing the darkness of all categories, severing undefiled unknowing; all categories are the categories of all dharmas. Because of delusion regarding these categories, it is called 'darkness'. This explains the extinction of all kinds of darkness. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says that all kinds of darkness are eternally extinguished, which is the perfection of the virtue of wisdom (jñāna-guṇa). Question: Why does the verse first mention 'all', while the prose explanation clarifies it later? Answer: The verse follows the order of meaning, while the prose explanation is for ease of expression. Or, someone may inquire based on the characteristics and nature of the Abhidharma (論藏), arguing that it is for ease of expression. Then, what determines the order of precedence? Question: What is the substance of the virtue of wisdom and the virtue of abandonment? Answer: The virtue of wisdom has the wisdom in the Buddha's body as its substance. If including the accompanying five aggregates (pañca-skandha), it can also be considered the substance. The virtue of abandonment has cessation through discernment (prasaṃkhyā-nirodha) as its substance. Question: If it is said that the virtue of abandonment has cessation through discernment as its substance, why does the twenty-seventh chapter of the Abhidharmakośa say that there are four kinds of perfect virtue of abandonment: 1. Abandonment of all afflictions; 2. Abandonment of all obstructions to concentration; 3. Ultimate abandonment; 4. Abandonment together with habit. According to that text, if the abandonment of all afflictive obstructions is attained through cessation by discernment, and if the abandonment of undefiled unknowing and obstructions to concentration is attained through cessation without discernment (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), then the non-regression after the abandonment of the first two types of obstructions is called ultimate abandonment, which can be attained through both cessation by discernment and cessation without discernment. This is to distinguish those of dull faculties. The Tathāgata not only abandons their afflictions but also abandons the habitual tendencies of those afflictions, attaining cessation without discernment, which is to distinguish the sharp-witted śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Another explanation is that 'abandonment together with habit' refers to not only abandoning afflictive obstructions and obstructions to concentration but also abandoning the habitual tendencies of these two types of obstructions. According to this explanation, the virtue of abandonment also includes cessation without discernment. Why is only cessation by discernment said to be the substance? Answer: The virtue of abandonment, in its strongest aspect, has cessation by discernment as its substance. If considering that it also encompasses cessation without discernment, then there is no contradiction. Another explanation is that the virtue of abandonment only has cessation by discernment as its substance. However, the cessation by discernment of some obstructions to concentration is not obvious. If there is no cessation by discernment of obstructions to concentration, then it becomes apparent, and it can manifest the virtue of abandonment, so it is called the perfect virtue of abandonment. Yet another explanation is that the passage...

四斷皆是擇滅。若煩惱斷是自性斷。緣縛斷。若定障斷．並習斷是緣縛斷。若畢竟斷通自性斷．緣縛斷。

以諸無知至故說為冥者。此釋冥義。染與不染。無知非一。名諸無知。若染無知能覆理．事二種實義。不染無知能障理．事二種真見　又解。能覆實義是不染無知。能障真見是染無知　又解。能覆實義謂覆外境。能障真見謂障內心。能覆．能障皆是冥義通二無知　問染污無知何以為體。解云。以無明為體．所以不言余煩惱者。無明通與諸惑相應。若說無明亦顯余惑。問不染無知其義云何。解云。將釋此義。略以三門分別。一出體。二釋名。三諸門分別。就出體中一敘異說。二出過非。三述正義　言敘異說者。人及論說。總有十一師　第一師言。不染無知。以未成佛來。鈍異熟無記心心所法為體　第二師云。不染無知。以未成佛來。鈍四無記心．心所法為體　第三西方德光論師云。不染無知。以未成佛來。鈍自性無記心．心所法為體。而非四無記攝。通於三界恒成過未　第四師云。不染無知。以未成佛來。鈍眾同分為體。依此同分所起慧等。觀境不明　第五師云。不染無知。以不自在為體故正理七十出解脫障體中雲。有餘師說。此解脫障。即以于諸定不自在為體　第六師云。不染無知。以非得為體。故正理七

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本四斷（catuh-prahāṇa）都是擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha）。如果煩惱斷是自性斷（prakṛti-prahāṇa），緣縛斷（pratyaya-prahāṇa）。如果定障斷以及習斷是緣縛斷。如果畢竟斷（atyanta-prahāṇa）通自性斷、緣縛斷。

因為諸無知（ajñāna）的緣故，所以說為冥（tamas）。這是解釋冥的含義。染污和不染污的無知不止一種，名為諸無知。如果染污的無知能夠覆蓋理和事兩種真實意義，不染污的無知能夠障礙理和事兩種真實見解。又解釋說，能夠覆蓋真實意義的是不染污的無知，能夠障礙真實見解的是染污的無知。又解釋說，能夠覆蓋真實意義是指覆蓋外境，能夠障礙真實見解是指障礙內心。能夠覆蓋、能夠障礙都是冥的含義，通於兩種無知。問：染污的無知以什麼為體？回答說：以無明（avidyā）為體。之所以不提其他煩惱，是因為無明普遍與各種迷惑相應，如果說無明，也就顯現了其他迷惑。問：不染污的無知它的含義是什麼？回答說：將要解釋這個含義，大概用三個方面來分別：一是出體，二是釋名，三是諸門分別。就出體中，一是敘述不同的說法，二是指出過失和錯誤，三是陳述正確的含義。說到敘述不同的說法，人和論述，總共有十一位師父。第一位師父說：不染污的無知，以未成佛之前，遲鈍的異熟無記心心所法為體。第二位師父說：不染污的無知，以未成佛之前，遲鈍的四無記心、心所法為體。第三位西方德光論師說：不染污的無知，以未成佛之前，遲鈍的自性無記心、心所法為體，而不是四無記所攝，通於三界，恒常成就過去和未來。第四位師父說：不染污的無知，以眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga）為體。依靠這個同分所產生的慧等，觀察境界不明白。第五位師父說：不染污的無知，以不自在為體。所以《正理七十》中解釋解脫障的體性時說：有其他師父說，這個解脫障，就是以對於各種禪定不自在為體。第六位師父說：不染污的無知，以非得（aprāpti）為體。所以《正理七》

【English Translation】 English version The four severances (catuh-prahāṇa) are all selective cessations (pratisamkhyā-nirodha). If the severance of afflictions is severance by nature (prakṛti-prahāṇa), it is severance by causal bondage (pratyaya-prahāṇa). If the severance of obstructions to concentration and the severance of habits are severance by causal bondage. If ultimate severance (atyanta-prahāṇa) encompasses both severance by nature and severance by causal bondage.

Because of the presence of various ignorances (ajñāna), it is referred to as darkness (tamas). This explains the meaning of darkness. Defiled and undefiled ignorance are not singular, hence the term 'various ignorances.' If defiled ignorance can obscure the two kinds of true meanings of principle and phenomena, undefiled ignorance can obstruct the two kinds of true insights into principle and phenomena. Another explanation is that what can obscure true meaning is undefiled ignorance, and what can obstruct true insight is defiled ignorance. Yet another explanation is that obscuring true meaning refers to obscuring external objects, and obstructing true insight refers to obstructing the inner mind. Both obscuring and obstructing are meanings of darkness, encompassing both kinds of ignorance. Question: What is the substance of defiled ignorance? Answer: Its substance is ignorance (avidyā). The reason for not mentioning other afflictions is that ignorance is universally associated with various delusions. If ignorance is mentioned, other delusions are also revealed. Question: What is the meaning of undefiled ignorance? Answer: This meaning will be explained, roughly divided into three aspects: first, identifying the substance; second, explaining the name; and third, distinguishing various aspects. Regarding identifying the substance, first, narrating different views; second, pointing out faults and errors; and third, stating the correct meaning. Speaking of narrating different views, there are a total of eleven masters in terms of individuals and treatises. The first master says: Undefiled ignorance has as its substance the dull, resultant, indeterminate mind and mental factors before becoming a Buddha. The second master says: Undefiled ignorance has as its substance the dull four indeterminate minds and mental factors before becoming a Buddha. The third master, the Western master De Guang, says: Undefiled ignorance has as its substance the dull, self-natured, indeterminate mind and mental factors before becoming a Buddha, but it is not included in the four indeterminates, encompassing the three realms, constantly accomplishing the past and the future. The fourth master says: Undefiled ignorance has as its substance the commonality of beings (nikāya-sabhāga). Relying on the wisdom and so on arising from this commonality, the observation of objects is not clear. The fifth master says: Undefiled ignorance has as its substance non-freedom. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says in explaining the nature of the obstruction to liberation: Some other masters say that this obstruction to liberation is precisely having non-freedom regarding various concentrations. The sixth master says: Undefiled ignorance has as its substance non-attainment (aprāpti). Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra 7

十云。有餘師說。此解脫障。即以諸定不得為體　第七師云。不染無知。以不勤求等為體。故正理七十云。有餘師說。于彼加行不勤求故。不聽聞故。不數習故。解脫不生。即此名為解脫障體　第八師云。不染無知。以智無為體。故正理二十八云解二無知差別中雲。有作是說。若能障智是染無知．不染無知唯智非有　解云。此無明體能障智明。能障之體是染無知。智無之處說為不染　又解。是經部師義　第九師云。不染無知。以心心所法總習氣為體。故正理二十八云。心及所總名習氣　解云。正理雖無別計。準古師破知有此說。此說心．心所法所有習氣總名無知。無知習氣無有寬．狹　第十師云。不染無知。即名習氣。心所法中別有體性。故正理二十八云。有古師說習氣相言。有不染污心所差別。染．不染法。數習所引。非一切智相續。現行。令心．心所不自在轉。是名習氣。解云。古師。是說一切有部古師。此古師說。於心所中別有一體。名為習氣。是不染無知。習氣無知體無寬狹。如染無知別有無明。通由一切染不染法數習所引。未成佛來。一切心品恒相續生。令所俱心。不自在轉。雖復遍與三性相應。然其體是無覆無記　第十一師云。不染無知。以習氣為體。故正理云。大德𨗴摩作如是說。有不染法名為習氣。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第十種觀點：有些老師說，非染污無知（avidyā）（無明）的本體就是習氣（vāsanā），存在於心所法（caitta）中，具有獨立的體性。如《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）第二十八節所說：『有些古代老師說，習氣是指不染污的心所的差別。染污和非染污的法，通過反覆熏習所產生，並非一切智者（sarvajña）的相續，現行時，使心和心所不能自在運轉，這就是習氣。』解釋：這裡的『古代老師』，是指說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的古代老師。這位古代老師認為，在心所法中，存在著一種獨立的實體，名為習氣，這就是非染污無知。習氣無知的本體沒有寬狹之分，就像染污無明（kleśāvaraṇa）一樣，具有獨立的無明。它普遍地由一切染污和非染污的法通過反覆熏習所產生。在未成佛之前，一切心品（citta）恒常相續產生，使與之相應的心不能自在運轉。雖然它普遍地與三性（善、惡、無記）相應，但其本體是無覆無記（anivṛtāvyākṛta）。第十一種觀點：有些老師說，非染污無知以習氣為本體。如《正理經》所說：『大德瞿摩（Ghoṣa）這樣說，存在一種非染污的法，名為習氣。』第九種觀點：有些老師說，非染污無知以心和心所法的總習氣為本體。如《正理經》第二十八節所說：『心和心所的總和名為習氣。』（citta-caitta-samudāya vāsanā）解釋：雖然《正理經》沒有明確說明，但根據古代老師的駁斥可以推斷出這種說法。這種說法認為，心和心所法的所有習氣總稱為無知。無知習氣沒有寬狹之分。第八種觀點：有些老師說，非染污無知以智無為本體。如《正理經》第二十八節在解釋兩種無知的差別時說：『有些人這樣認為，如果能夠障礙智慧，那就是染污無知；非染污無知僅僅是智慧的缺乏。』解釋：這種無明的本體能夠障礙智慧光明。能夠障礙的本體是染污無知，缺乏智慧的地方就被稱為非染污無知。又解釋：這是經部師（Sautrāntika）的觀點。第七種觀點：有些老師說，非染污無知以不勤求等為本體。所以《正理七十論》（Tattvasaṃgraha）中說：『有些老師說，因為對彼加行（prayoga）不勤奮尋求，不聽聞，不反覆修習，解脫就不會產生。這就是解脫障的本體。』第六種觀點：有些老師說，這種解脫障（mokṣāvaraṇa）的本體就是各種禪定（dhyāna）。

【English Translation】 English version Sixth view: Some teachers say that this obstacle to liberation (mokṣāvaraṇa) has the nature of various meditations (dhyāna). Seventh view: Some teachers say that non-afflicted ignorance (avidyā) has the nature of non-diligence, etc. Therefore, the Tattvasaṃgraha says: 'Some teachers say that because one is not diligent in seeking that application (prayoga), does not listen, and does not repeatedly practice, liberation does not arise. This is the nature of the obstacle to liberation.' Eighth view: Some teachers say that non-afflicted ignorance has the nature of the absence of wisdom. Therefore, Nyāyasūtra 28, in explaining the difference between the two ignorances, says: 'Some say that if it can obstruct wisdom, it is afflicted ignorance; non-afflicted ignorance is merely the absence of wisdom.' Explanation: This nature of ignorance can obstruct the light of wisdom. The nature that can obstruct is afflicted ignorance, and the place where wisdom is lacking is called non-afflicted ignorance. Another explanation: This is the view of the Sautrāntika school (Sautrāntika). Ninth view: Some teachers say that non-afflicted ignorance has the nature of the total habitual tendencies (vāsanā) of the mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta). Therefore, Nyāyasūtra 28 says: 'The totality of mind and mental factors is called habitual tendencies (citta-caitta-samudāya vāsanā).' Explanation: Although the Nyāyasūtra does not explicitly state this, it can be inferred from the refutation by ancient teachers. This view holds that all the habitual tendencies of the mind and mental factors are collectively called ignorance. The habitual tendencies of ignorance have no breadth or narrowness. Tenth view: Some teachers say that non-afflicted ignorance is the habitual tendencies (vāsanā) themselves, existing separately in the mental factors (caitta) and having an independent nature. Therefore, Nyāyasūtra 28 says: 'Some ancient teachers say that habitual tendencies refer to the differences in non-afflicted mental factors. Afflicted and non-afflicted dharmas, produced through repeated practice, are not the continuous stream of an omniscient being (sarvajña). When they manifest, they cause the mind and mental factors to not function freely. This is called habitual tendencies.' Explanation: The 'ancient teachers' here refer to the ancient teachers of the Sarvāstivāda school (Sarvāstivāda). These ancient teachers believe that there is an independent entity in the mental factors called habitual tendencies, and this is non-afflicted ignorance. The nature of habitual tendencies of ignorance has no breadth or narrowness, just like afflicted ignorance (kleśāvaraṇa), which has an independent ignorance. It is universally produced by all afflicted and non-afflicted dharmas through repeated practice. Before becoming a Buddha, all mental states (citta) constantly arise in succession, causing the associated mind to not function freely. Although it universally corresponds to the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), its nature is uncovered and neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta). Eleventh view: Some teachers say that non-afflicted ignorance has the nature of habitual tendencies. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'The venerable Ghoṣa said that there is a non-afflicted dharma called habitual tendencies.'

如不善因所招異熟。世尊昔在菩薩位中。三無數劫修諸加行。雖有煩惱。而能漸除煩惱所引不染習氣。白法習氣漸令增長。彼于永斷諸漏得時。前諸習氣有滅不滅。以于長時修加行故。證得無上諸漏永盡。然佛猶有白法習氣。言習氣有滅不滅故　解云。此師執。有別法是不染污而能障慧。如不善因招異熟果。別有體故。然此無知即是一切煩惱習氣。余文可知。𨗴摩此云喜樂　二出過非者。破第一師云。若不染無知。異熟無記心心所法為體性者。二乘無學。異熟生心不現在前。非成就故。應名為佛。若言以必起故不名佛者。後起成時可不名佛。未起不成應名為佛。若言有習氣故不名佛者。是即由彼不名為佛。何關異熟心心所法。故說非理　破第二師云。若不染無知。以四無記心等為體者。欲色二界無覆無記不現在前。容成過．未。無色無學。異熟生心不現在前。非成過．未。應名為佛。故亦非理。若言以必起故。有習氣故。不名為佛者。準前徴破。故亦非理　破第三師云。若不染無知以自性無記心等為體。通三界中恒成過．未者。雖無不成之過。然與識身足論十四相違。彼論解十二心中。生無色界異熟生心不現在前。不成就無覆無記心。既違此說。故亦非理　破第四師云。若不染無知。以眾同分為體者。別作一途或容此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果是不善之因所招感的異熟果報，那麼世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）過去在菩薩位中，經歷了三大阿僧祇劫（漫長的時間單位）修習各種加行（修行），雖然有煩惱，但能逐漸去除煩惱所引發的不染污習氣。白法（善良的法）的習氣逐漸增長。當他最終斷除所有煩惱證得阿羅漢果位時，之前的那些習氣是已經滅盡還是沒有滅盡呢？因為他長期修習加行，所以證得了無上正等正覺，所有煩惱都永遠斷盡。然而，佛陀仍然有白法的習氣。說習氣有滅盡或未滅盡的說法。解釋說：這位論師認為，存在一種特殊的法，它是不染污的，但能障礙智慧，就像不善之因招感異熟果報一樣，因為它有獨立的體性。然而，這種無知實際上就是一切煩惱的習氣。其餘的文字可以理解。𨗴摩（Kṣānti）此云喜樂（delight）。第二種觀點是指出過失：駁斥第一位論師的觀點說，如果說不染污的無知以異熟無記（非善非惡的果報）的心和心所法為體性，那麼二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的無學（已經證得阿羅漢果位）之人，異熟所生的心不現在前，因為他們沒有成就這種心，那麼他們應該被稱為佛。如果說因為這種心必然會生起，所以不能被稱為佛，那麼在後來的生起成就時，就可以不被稱為佛，但在未生起未成就時，應該被稱為佛。如果說因為有習氣所以不能被稱為佛，那麼是因為那些習氣而不被稱為佛，這與異熟的心和心所法有什麼關係呢？所以這種說法是不合理的。駁斥第二位論師的觀點說，如果說不染污的無知以四種無記心等為體性，那麼欲界和色界的有覆無記（被煩惱覆蓋的非善非惡）的心不現在前，或許會造成過去和未來的過失。無色界的無學之人，異熟所生的心不現在前，沒有成就過去和未來，那麼他們應該被稱為佛。所以這種說法也是不合理的。如果說因為這種心必然會生起，因為有習氣，所以不能被稱為佛，那麼按照前面的方式進行駁斥，所以這種說法也是不合理的。駁斥第三位論師的觀點說，如果說不染污的無知以自性無記的心等為體性，貫通三界（欲界、色界、無色界）中恒常成就過去和未來，雖然沒有不成就的過失，但與《識身足論》（Vijñānakāya）的十四種說法相違背。該論在解釋十二種心中，說生無想（Saṃjñā-nāsti）的異熟所生的心不現在前，不成就無覆無記的心。既然與這種說法相違背，所以這種說法也是不合理的。駁斥第四位論師的觀點說，如果說不染污的無知以眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga）為體性，另外開闢一條途徑或許可以。

【English Translation】 English version: If the dissimilar result is caused by an unwholesome cause, then the World-Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) in the past, while in the position of a Bodhisattva, cultivated various practices for three countless kalpas (asaṃkhyeya-kalpa, immense units of time). Although he had afflictions, he was able to gradually remove the non-defiled habitual tendencies caused by afflictions. The habitual tendencies of white dharmas (wholesome dharmas) gradually increased. When he finally severed all outflows and attained the state of an Arhat, were those previous habitual tendencies extinguished or not? Because he cultivated practices for a long time, he attained unsurpassed complete enlightenment, and all outflows were permanently extinguished. However, the Buddha still had the habitual tendencies of white dharmas. It is said that habitual tendencies are either extinguished or not. The explanation says: This teacher holds that there is a special dharma that is non-defiled but can obstruct wisdom, just as an unwholesome cause causes a dissimilar result, because it has an independent nature. However, this ignorance is actually the habitual tendency of all afflictions. The remaining text can be understood. Kṣānti (𨗴摩) means delight. The second view is to point out faults: Refuting the view of the first teacher, if it is said that non-defiled ignorance has the nature of the mind and mental factors of dissimilar result and neutral (neither wholesome nor unwholesome), then the non-learners (those who have attained Arhatship) of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), the mind born of dissimilar result does not appear in the present, because they have not accomplished this mind, then they should be called Buddhas. If it is said that because this mind will necessarily arise, they cannot be called Buddhas, then when it arises and is accomplished later, they cannot be called Buddhas, but when it has not arisen and is not accomplished, they should be called Buddhas. If it is said that because there are habitual tendencies, they cannot be called Buddhas, then it is because of those habitual tendencies that they are not called Buddhas. What does this have to do with the mind and mental factors of dissimilar result? Therefore, this statement is unreasonable. Refuting the view of the second teacher, if it is said that non-defiled ignorance has the nature of the four neutral minds, etc., then the obscured neutral (covered by afflictions, neither wholesome nor unwholesome) minds of the desire realm and the form realm do not appear in the present, which may cause faults in the past and future. The non-learners of the formless realm, the mind born of dissimilar result does not appear in the present, and they have not accomplished the past and future, then they should be called Buddhas. Therefore, this statement is also unreasonable. If it is said that because this mind will necessarily arise, because there are habitual tendencies, they cannot be called Buddhas, then refute it according to the previous method, so this statement is also unreasonable. Refuting the view of the third teacher, if it is said that non-defiled ignorance has the nature of the self-natured neutral mind, etc., and constantly accomplishes the past and future in the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), although there is no fault of non-accomplishment, it contradicts the fourteen statements in the Vijñānakāya (識身足論). In explaining the twelve minds, that treatise says that the mind born of dissimilar result of the state of non-perception (Saṃjñā-nāsti) does not appear in the present, and the obscured neutral mind is not accomplished. Since it contradicts this statement, this statement is also unreasonable. Refuting the view of the fourth teacher, if it is said that non-defiled ignorance has the nature of commonality (nikāya-sabhāga), then opening up another path may be possible.

說。撿尋諸論全無此文。故亦非理　破第五師云。若以不自在為障體者。正理七十破云。必有少法力為能障。令彼于定不自在轉。若不爾者。彼有何緣。于諸定中不得自在　解云。必有少不染無知法　破第六師云。若以不得為障體者。正理七十破云。不得定者。必有所因。不可說言即因不得。自體不應還因自故。或煩惱障。亦應可說即以應果不得為性。彼既不然。此云何爾　破第七師云。若以不勤求等為障體者。正理七十破云。阿羅漢果。亦由於加行不勤求等故。體不得生。豈便無別煩惱障體　破第八師云。若不染無知。以智無為體者。正理二十八云。古師破云。非唯智無。無法無容能為因　破第九師云。若不染無知。以心心所總名習氣為體性者。正理二十八。古師破云亦不應說有如是類心及心所。總名習氣。不染無知前已說故。謂此無知。為自性住心等為體。為有差別。若自性住心等為體。佛亦應有不染無知。若有差別。能差別者。可是無知。非所差別。現見善等品類差別心．心所中。必有別法為能差別。非即一切。如善品中必有信等。不善品中有無漸等。染污品中有放逸等。如是等類。心．心所中必有別法為能差別。故知。此中亦有別法能為差別者。是不染無知(解云準此破文故知有總計家)　破第十古師云。若

【現代漢語翻譯】說：在所有收集到的論著中都沒有這段文字，因此這也是不合理的。駁斥第五位老師的觀點：如果認為不自在是障礙的本體，那麼《正理七十》中反駁說：必須有少許法力能夠成為障礙，使他在禪定中不能自在運轉。如果不是這樣，那麼他有什麼原因在各種禪定中不能獲得自在？解釋：必定有少許不染污的無知法。駁斥第六位老師的觀點：如果認為不得是障礙的本體，那麼《正理七十》中反駁說：不得禪定必定有其原因，不能說原因就是不得本身。自體不應該反過來成為自身的原因。或者說，煩惱障也可以被認為是應得的結果而不得的性質。既然那種說法不成立，那麼這種說法又怎麼能成立呢？駁斥第七位老師的觀點：如果認為不勤求等是障礙的本體，那麼《正理七十》中反駁說：阿羅漢果也是因為加行不勤求等原因而無法產生。難道就可以說沒有別的煩惱障本體了嗎？駁斥第八位老師的觀點：如果不染污的無知以智的無為法為本體，那麼《正理二十八》中，古代的老師反駁說：不僅僅是智的無為法，沒有法也沒有容納之處可以作為原因。駁斥第九位老師的觀點：如果不染污的無知以心和心所的總和，也就是習氣，作為本體，那麼《正理二十八》中，古代的老師反駁說：也不應該說有這樣一類心和心所，總稱為習氣。因為之前已經說過不染污的無知了。也就是說，這種無知是以自性住的心等為本體，還是有差別？如果以自性住的心等為本體，那麼佛也應該有不染污的無知。如果有差別，那麼能夠區分差別的東西，才是無知，而不是被區分差別的。現在看到善等品類的差別，在心和心所中，必定有別的法能夠區分差別，而不是一切都是一樣的。比如在善的品類中，必定有信等；在不善的品類中，有無慚等；在染污的品類中，有放逸等。像這些類別，在心和心所中必定有別的法能夠區分差別。所以知道，這裡面也有別的法能夠作為區分差別的東西，那就是不染污的無知。（解釋：根據這段反駁的文字，就知道有總計家這種說法）駁斥第十位古代老師的觀點：如果...

【English Translation】 Said: 'There is no such text in all the collected treatises, so this is also unreasonable.' Refuting the fifth teacher's view: 'If one considers non-freedom (avaśa) as the substance of the obstruction (āvaraṇa), then the Nyāya-sūtra-seventy refutes it by saying: There must be a small amount of power (śakti) that can become an obstruction, causing him to be unable to freely operate in meditation (dhyāna). If this is not the case, then what reason does he have for not being able to obtain freedom in various meditations?' Explanation: 'There must be a small amount of undefiled (anāsrava) ignorance (ajñāna) dharma.' Refuting the sixth teacher's view: 'If one considers non-attainment (alābha) as the substance of the obstruction, then the Nyāya-sūtra-seventy refutes it by saying: Non-attainment of meditation must have its cause. It cannot be said that the cause is non-attainment itself. The self-nature (svabhāva) should not in turn be the cause of itself. Or, the kleśāvaraṇa (煩惱障, obstruction of afflictions) could also be said to have the nature of not attaining the result that should be attained. Since that statement is not valid, how can this statement be valid?' Refuting the seventh teacher's view: 'If one considers non-diligence (anādaravat) etc. as the substance of the obstruction, then the Nyāya-sūtra-seventy refutes it by saying: The fruit of Arhat (阿羅漢果, the state of an enlightened being) also cannot arise due to non-diligence etc. in application (prayogā). Could it be said that there is no separate substance of kleśāvaraṇa?' Refuting the eighth teacher's view: 'If undefiled ignorance has the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) of wisdom (jñāna) as its substance, then in the Nyāya-sūtra-twenty-eight, the ancient teacher refutes it by saying: Not only the unconditioned of wisdom, but no dharma and no place can be a cause.' Refuting the ninth teacher's view: 'If undefiled ignorance has the totality of mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta), that is, habit-energy (vāsanā), as its substance, then in the Nyāya-sūtra-twenty-eight, the ancient teacher refutes it by saying: It should also not be said that there is such a category of mind and mental factors, collectively called habit-energy. Because undefiled ignorance has already been discussed before. That is to say, does this ignorance have the self-nature abiding mind (svabhāva-sthita-citta) etc. as its substance, or is there a difference? If it has the self-nature abiding mind etc. as its substance, then the Buddha (佛) should also have undefiled ignorance. If there is a difference, then what can differentiate the difference is ignorance, not what is being differentiated. Now seeing the differences in the categories of good etc., in the mind and mental factors, there must be other dharmas that can differentiate the difference, not everything is the same. For example, in the category of good, there must be faith (śraddhā) etc.; in the category of unwholesome, there is no shame (ahrī) etc.; in the category of defilement, there is recklessness (styāna) etc. Like these categories, in the mind and mental factors, there must be other dharmas that can differentiate the difference. Therefore, it is known that there are also other dharmas here that can be the differentiator, that is, undefiled ignorance. (Explanation: According to this refutation, it is known that there is such a thing as a totalizing school (sarvasaṃgrahavādin).)' Refuting the tenth ancient teacher's view: 'If...'

不染無知。於心所中別有一體者。正理二十八云。正義家破云。今詳。彼言有太過失。諸異生等。心心所法。皆不如實覺味．勢．熟等相。然不見生余心心所故　又一一念。彼心心所差別而生。應唸唸中各有別別無知法起　若謂有異相令無知差別。即此是能差別心品。何須別計不染無知　解云。若未知位此法恒行。一切異生．聲聞．獨覺。皆不了知故。應並有無知。而實不見生余心品。但有善等諸心所生　若謂此法不違一切。于唸唸中常相應者。所相應品有差別故應有差別。由彼差別令相應品。別異而生　若謂異相是差別者。即彼異相。能令心品。別別無知。何勞別法　破第十一𨗴摩云。若不染無知。以習氣為體者。正理二十八破云。如是所說理亦可然。而彼不能顯其體性。不染習氣其體是何。非但虛言令生實解(解云。總言習氣。理亦無違不能顯體。終成謬說也)　三述正義者。不染無知。以未成佛來。所有一切有漏無染劣慧為體。故正理二十八云。是故即于味．勢．熟等。不勤求解。慧。與異相法俱。為因。引生彼同類慧。此慧。于解又不勤求。復為因引生不勤求解慧。如是展轉無始時來。因果相仍習以成性。故。即于彼味等境中。數習於解無堪能智。此所引劣智名不染無知　即此俱生心．心所法總名習氣。理定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『不染無知』（一種與生俱來的無知）。如果認為在心所法（心理活動）中存在一個獨立的實體，正如《正理》第二十八卷所說，正義學派駁斥道：『現在詳細考察，他們的說法有過度之失。所有異生（凡夫）等的心和心所法，都不能如實地覺知味道、力量、成熟等相狀。然而，並沒有見到它產生其他的心和心所。』又，每一個念頭，那些心和心所法都是差別地產生。那麼，應該在每一個念頭中，都有各自不同的『無知法』生起。如果說有不同的相狀使『無知』產生差別，那麼這個『異相』就是能夠區分心品的因素，何必另外設立『不染無知』呢？解釋說：如果在未知狀態，這個法恒常執行，一切異生、聲聞（小乘修行者）、獨覺（辟支佛）都不瞭解，所以應該都有『無知』。但實際上並沒有見到它產生其他心品，只有善等各種心所法產生。如果說這個法不違背一切，在每一個念頭中都常相應，那麼，所相應的品類有差別，因此應該有差別。由於那些差別，使得相應的品類差別地產生。如果說『異相』就是差別，那麼這個『異相』就能使心品產生不同的『無知』，何必另外設立一個法呢？駁斥第十一『𨗴摩』說：如果不染無知以習氣為體，那麼，《正理》第二十八卷駁斥道：『這樣說，道理上也可以成立，但是它不能顯明它的體性。不染的習氣，它的體性是什麼？不能僅僅用空話來產生真實的理解。』（解釋說：總的來說，說是習氣，道理上也沒有違背，但是不能顯明它的體性，最終會成為謬論。）第三，闡述正義的人認為，『不染無知』是以未成佛之前，所有一切有漏（有煩惱）的、無染污的、低劣的智慧為體。所以《正理》第二十八卷說：『因此，對於味道、力量、成熟等，不努力去尋求瞭解的智慧，與不同的相狀法一起，作為原因，引生那些同類的智慧。這種智慧，對於理解又不努力尋求，又作為原因，引生不努力求解的智慧。』像這樣輾轉，從無始以來，因果相續，習以為常。所以，對於那些味道等境界，多次習慣於對理解沒有堪能的智慧。這種所引發的低劣智慧，就叫做『不染無知』。這個與生俱來的心、心所法，總稱為『習氣』，這是理所當然的。

【English Translation】 English version 'Innate Ignorance' (a type of ignorance that is inherent). If one believes that there is a separate entity within the mental factors (psychological activities), as stated in the twenty-eighth volume of the Nyāyānusāra, the proponents of the orthodox school refute: 'Upon detailed examination, their statement contains an excessive flaw. All ordinary beings (prthagjana), etc., their minds and mental factors, are unable to truly perceive the characteristics of taste, strength, maturity, etc. However, it is not observed that it generates other minds and mental factors.' Furthermore, with each thought, those minds and mental factors arise differentially. Therefore, in each thought, there should be separate 'ignorance-dharmas' arising. If it is said that there are different characteristics that cause 'ignorance' to be differentiated, then this 'different characteristic' is the factor that can distinguish the mind-categories, so why establish 'innate ignorance' separately? The explanation is: If in the state of unknowing, this dharma constantly operates, and all ordinary beings, Śrāvakas (Hinayana practitioners), and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) do not understand, then they should all possess 'ignorance'. But in reality, it is not observed that it generates other mind-categories, only wholesome mental factors, etc., arise. If it is said that this dharma does not contradict everything and is constantly associated in every thought, then the associated categories have differences, therefore there should be differences. Due to those differences, the associated categories arise differentially. If it is said that 'different characteristics' are the differences, then those 'different characteristics' can cause the mind-categories to generate different 'ignorances', so why establish a separate dharma? Refuting the eleventh 'Kṣauma': If innate ignorance has habit-energy as its substance, then the twenty-eighth volume of the Nyāyānusāra refutes: 'Such a statement can be established in principle, but it cannot reveal its substance. The untainted habit-energy, what is its substance? One cannot merely use empty words to generate true understanding.' (Explanation: Generally speaking, saying it is habit-energy is not contradictory in principle, but it cannot reveal its substance, and will ultimately become a fallacy.) Third, those who expound the orthodox view believe that 'innate ignorance' has as its substance all defiled (with afflictions), untainted, inferior wisdom that exists before becoming a Buddha. Therefore, the twenty-eighth volume of the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Therefore, regarding taste, strength, maturity, etc., the wisdom that does not diligently seek understanding, together with different characteristic-dharmas, serves as a cause to generate those similar wisdoms. This wisdom, again, does not diligently seek understanding, and again serves as a cause to generate wisdom that does not diligently seek understanding.' In this way, revolving from beginningless time, cause and effect continue, becoming habitual. Therefore, regarding those realms of taste, etc., one is repeatedly accustomed to wisdom that lacks the capacity for understanding. This inferior wisdom that is generated is called 'innate ignorance'. This mind and mental factors that are born together are collectively called 'habit-energy', which is logically certain.

應然　或諸有情有煩惱位。所有無染心。及相續。由諸煩惱間雜所熏。有能順生煩惱氣分。故諸無染心。及眷屬。似彼行相差別而生。由數習力相繼而起故。離過身中。仍名有習氣。一切智者。永斷不行　然于已斷見所斷位。通染．不染心。相續中。有餘順生煩惱習性。是見所斷煩惱氣分。于中。染者。說名類性。金剛道斷皆不現行。若不染者。名見所斷煩惱習氣。亦彼道斷。由根差別有行．不行　若於已斷修所斷位。唯于不染心。相續中。有餘順生煩惱習性。是修所斷煩惱氣分。名修所斷煩惱習氣。是有漏故。無學已斷。隨根勝．劣有行．不行。世尊已得法自在故。彼如是煩惱畢竟不行。故佛獨稱善凈相續。即由此故。行無誤失。得不共法．三念住等。又由此故。密意說言。唯佛獨名得無學果　解云。正理意說。不染無知。劣慧為體。無知狹。習氣寬。然解習氣二解不同。一解。劣慧俱生心．心所法總名習氣。一解。習氣不但通心．心所法。亦通相續身　又婆沙一百五十三出解脫障體中雲。解脫障。有說。以下無知為體　有說。于定不自在為體　有說。諸定不得為體。婆沙雖無評家。準正理論。以初師為正。故正理七十于解脫障體總有四師　初師云。有劣無知無覆無記效能障解脫。是解脫障體　第二師以不自在為體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：應然：或者說，在諸有情（sattva）處於煩惱狀態時，所有無染污的心及其相續（santāna），由於諸煩惱的間雜熏習，具有能夠順勢產生煩惱氣分（vāsanā）的能力。因此，諸無染污的心及其眷屬，會以類似於煩惱行相的差別而生起，這是由於數數串習的力量相繼而產生的緣故。所以，在遠離過失的阿羅漢（arhat）身中，仍然稱之為有習氣（vāsanā）。一切智者（sarvajña），永遠斷除不行。然而，在已經斷除見所斷（darśana-heya）的階段，在通於染污和不染污的心相續中，還有殘餘的順勢產生煩惱的習性，這就是見所斷煩惱的氣分。其中，染污的，稱為類性（nikāya-sabhāga）；金剛喻定（vajropama-samādhi）斷除后，都不會現行。如果不染污的，稱為見所斷煩惱的習氣，也由金剛喻定斷除。由於根器的差別，有行和不行。如果對於已經斷除修所斷（bhāvanā-heya）的階段，僅僅在不染污的心相續中，還有殘餘的順勢產生煩惱的習性，這就是修所斷煩惱的氣分，稱為修所斷煩惱的習氣。因為是有漏（sāsrava）的緣故，無學（aśaikṣa）已經斷除。隨著根器的勝劣，有行和不行。世尊（bhagavat）已經獲得法的自在，所以，這些煩惱畢竟不行。因此，佛（buddha）才被單獨稱為善凈相續。正因為如此，行為沒有誤失，獲得不共法（āveṇikadharma）、三念住（trīṇi smṛtyupasthānāni）等。又因為這個緣故，密意地說，只有佛才被稱為獲得無學果。解釋說，正理的意思是說，不染污的無知（ajñāna），以劣慧為體性。無知的範圍狹窄，習氣的範圍寬廣。然而，對於習氣的解釋有兩種不同。一種解釋是，劣慧俱生的心、心所法（citta-caitta）總稱為習氣。另一種解釋是，習氣不僅通於心、心所法，也通於相續身。此外，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第一百五十三卷中，在解釋解脫障（vimukti-āvaraṇa）的體性時說：解脫障，有人說，以下品無知為體性；有人說，以于禪定不自在為體性；有人說，以諸禪定不得為體性。《大毗婆沙論》雖然沒有評判者，但根據《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya），以第一位論師的觀點為正確。所以，《阿毗達磨順正理論》第七十卷中，對於解脫障的體性總共有四位論師的觀點：第一位論師說，有劣無知，無覆無記性（anivṛtāvyākṛta），能夠障礙解脫，這是解脫障的體性；第二位論師以不自在為體性。

【English Translation】 English version: Indeed, when sentient beings (sattva) are in a state of affliction, all undefiled minds and their continuums (santāna), due to the intermingling and熏習(xūn xí, perfuming) by afflictions, have the ability to generate tendencies (vāsanā) that lead to further afflictions. Therefore, undefiled minds and their retinues arise with differences resembling the characteristics of afflictions, due to the power of repeated practice. Thus, even in the bodies of Arhats (arhat) who have abandoned faults, it is still called having tendencies (vāsanā). All-knowing ones (sarvajña) have eternally ceased these tendencies. However, in the stage of having abandoned what is abandoned by seeing (darśana-heya), within the continuums of both defiled and undefiled minds, there remain residual tendencies that lead to the arising of afflictions. These are the tendencies of afflictions abandoned by seeing. Among them, the defiled ones are called 'categories' (nikāya-sabhāga); they will not manifest after being severed by the Vajra-like Samadhi (vajropama-samādhi). If they are undefiled, they are called the tendencies of afflictions abandoned by seeing, which are also severed by the Vajra-like Samadhi. Due to differences in faculties, they may or may not manifest. If, in the stage of having abandoned what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya), only within the continuums of undefiled minds do there remain residual tendencies that lead to the arising of afflictions. These are the tendencies of afflictions abandoned by cultivation, called the tendencies of afflictions abandoned by cultivation. Because they are with outflows (sāsrava), they have been abandoned by the non-learners (aśaikṣa). Depending on the superiority or inferiority of faculties, they may or may not manifest. The World-Honored One (bhagavat) has attained mastery over the Dharma, so these afflictions ultimately do not manifest. Therefore, the Buddha (buddha) is uniquely called a 'well-purified continuum.' Precisely because of this, actions are without error, and one attains the unique qualities (āveṇikadharma), the three establishments of mindfulness (trīṇi smṛtyupasthānāni), etc. Also, for this reason, it is said with hidden meaning that only the Buddha is called the one who has attained the fruit of non-learning. It is explained that the meaning of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is that undefiled ignorance (ajñāna) has inferior wisdom as its nature. Ignorance is narrow in scope, while tendencies are broad. However, there are two different interpretations of tendencies. One interpretation is that the minds and mental factors (citta-caitta) that arise together with inferior wisdom are collectively called tendencies. Another interpretation is that tendencies not only encompass minds and mental factors but also the continuum of the body. Furthermore, in the 153rd fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā, in explaining the nature of the obstructions to liberation (vimukti-āvaraṇa), it says: Regarding the obstructions to liberation, some say that it is inferior ignorance that is its nature; some say that it is the lack of freedom in samādhi that is its nature; some say that it is the non-attainment of samādhis that is its nature. Although there is no commentator in the Mahāvibhāṣā, according to the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, the view of the first teacher is correct. Therefore, in the 70th fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, there are a total of four teachers' views on the nature of the obstructions to liberation: The first teacher says that there is inferior ignorance, which is of the nature of uncovered and indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta), that can obstruct liberation; this is the nature of the obstructions to liberation. The second teacher takes the lack of freedom as its nature.

第三師以不得為體　第四師以不勤求等為體　又云。初說應理故。彼三師說具如前說。以此文證故知。不染無知劣慧為體　又元瑜法師。解順正理或諸有情已下云。以諸無染心。及相續身中。有諸煩惱熏成氣分。是無明多者。善心現行。亦多闇昧隨順無明。余例亦爾。以此習氣。名此無知。此體是何。以未成佛來。一切有漏善。無記法。順無明故。違遍知故。皆名無知。如是氣分染品。亦有漏。于染攝。故此不論。故於已斷見所斷位。謂從預流乃至無學。染．不染品皆有見所斷煩惱習性。唯除無漏。染名類性煩惱類故。不染名習氣習煩惱成故。此意總以無染有漏若心。若身順煩惱者似煩惱故。名為習氣。不染無知。習氣無知。無有寬狹。佛身畢竟不順煩惱。斷習氣故。名凈相續。更不學慧方名無學。余文可知。第二釋名者。體非染故名為不染。于境不悟名曰無知。無知即不染。名不染無知。持業釋也　或名習氣。故正理云。此不染無知。即說名習氣。言習氣者。習謂數習。氣謂氣分。有諸煩惱及劣智等數習氣分。故名習氣。習之氣故。名為習氣。依主釋也　又解。即習名氣。有諸煩惱等所習氣分。持業釋也　或名不勤求解慧。或名無堪能智。或名劣智。或名劣無知。如正理說　或名下無智。或名邪智。如婆沙說　此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第三師以『不得』（無法獲得）為體。第四師以『不勤求』（不勤奮尋求）等為體。又說：最初的說法是應理的，所以前三師的說法都如前面所說。以此文證可知，『不染無知』（非染污的無知）以『劣慧』（低劣的智慧）為體。又元瑜法師解釋《順正理論》時說：『或者對於諸有情』以下說，以諸無染心，以及相續身中，有諸煩惱熏成的氣分，是無明多的人，善心現行時，也多昏暗，隨順無明。其餘情況也類似。以此習氣，名此無知。此體的本質是什麼？以未成佛以來，一切有漏善、無記法，順無明故，違遍知故，都名為無知。』像這樣的氣分染品，也是有漏的，屬於染污的範疇，所以這裡不討論。所以在已斷見所斷的階段，即從預流果（Srotapanna）乃至無學果（Arhat），染、不染品都有見所斷煩惱的習性，唯獨沒有無漏。染名為類性煩惱的類別，不染名為習氣，由習煩惱而成。此意總而言之，以無染的有漏，無論是心還是身，凡是順從煩惱的，都類似於煩惱，所以名為習氣，不染無知。習氣無知，沒有寬狹之分。佛身畢竟不順從煩惱，因為斷除了習氣，所以名為清凈相續。不再學習智慧才名為無學。其餘文句可以自己理解。第二，解釋名稱：體不是染污的，所以名為『不染』。對於境界不領悟，名為『無知』。『無知』即『不染』，名為『不染無知』，這是持業釋。或者名為『習氣』。所以《順正理論》說：『此不染無知，即說名習氣。』所謂『習氣』，『習』是指數數串習，『氣』是指氣分。有諸煩惱以及劣智等數數串習的氣分，所以名為『習氣』。習的氣，所以名為『習氣』，這是依主釋。又解釋說：即習名為氣，有諸煩惱等所習的氣分，這是持業釋。或者名為『不勤求解慧』（不勤奮尋求智慧的智慧），或者名為『無堪能智』（沒有能力的智慧），或者名為『劣智』（低劣的智慧），或者名為『劣無知』（低劣的無知），如《順正理論》所說。或者名為『下無智』（低下的無智），或者名為『邪智』（錯誤的智慧），如《大毗婆沙論》所說。此（指不染無知）...

【English Translation】 English version The third teacher takes 'impossibility of attainment' as its substance. The fourth teacher takes 'lack of diligent seeking' etc. as its substance. Furthermore, it is said: The initial statement is reasonable, so the statements of the first three teachers are as previously mentioned. Based on this textual evidence, it is known that 'non-defiled ignorance' takes 'inferior wisdom' as its substance. Furthermore, the Dharma Master Yuan Yu, in explaining the Abhidharmasamayapradipika (Commentary on the Nyayanusara), says: 'Or, regarding sentient beings' and so on, 'with undefiled minds, and in the continuous stream of the body, there are subtle influences formed by the defilements, those who have much ignorance, when wholesome thoughts arise, are also mostly obscured, conforming to ignorance. The remaining cases are similar. This habitual energy is called this ignorance. What is the essence of this substance? Since before becoming a Buddha, all defiled wholesome and neutral dharmas, because they conform to ignorance and contradict omniscience, are all called ignorance.' Such subtle influences of defiled qualities are also defiled and belong to the category of defilement, so they are not discussed here. Therefore, in the stage where what is to be abandoned by seeing has been abandoned, that is, from Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) to Arhat (Arhat), both defiled and non-defiled qualities have the habitual nature of afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, except for the undefiled. The defiled is called the category of afflictions by nature, the non-defiled is called habitual energy, formed by habitual afflictions. The general idea is that with non-defiled defiled, whether mind or body, whatever conforms to afflictions is similar to afflictions, so it is called habitual energy, non-defiled ignorance. Habitual energy ignorance has no distinction of width or narrowness. The Buddha's body ultimately does not conform to afflictions, because it has eliminated habitual energy, so it is called pure continuum. Only when one no longer studies wisdom is one called Arhat. The remaining sentences can be understood by oneself. Secondly, explaining the name: The substance is not defiled, so it is called 'non-defiled'. Not understanding the object is called 'ignorance'. 'Ignorance' is 'non-defiled', called 'non-defiled ignorance', this is a Karmadharaya compound. Or it is called 'habitual energy'. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamayapradipika says: 'This non-defiled ignorance is also called habitual energy.' The so-called 'habitual energy', 'habit' refers to repeated habituation, 'energy' refers to subtle influence. There are subtle influences of repeated habituation of afflictions and inferior wisdom, so it is called 'habitual energy'. The energy of habit, so it is called 'habitual energy', this is a Tatpurusa compound. Another explanation says: That is, habit is called energy, there are subtle influences habituated by afflictions etc., this is a Karmadharaya compound. Or it is called 'wisdom of not diligently seeking' (aprayatna-jnana), or it is called 'incapable wisdom' (asamartha-jnana), or it is called 'inferior wisdom' (hina-jnana), or it is called 'inferior ignorance' (hina-ajnana), as the Abhidharmasamayapradipika says. Or it is called 'lower ignorance' (adho-ajnana), or it is called 'wrong wisdom' (mithya-jnana), as the Mahavibhasa says. This (referring to non-defiled ignorance)...

等諸名名異體同。思之可解　三諸門分別者。一對染辨差別。二對習明寬．狹。三三性分別。四明斷分位。

一對染辨差別者。正理論總有三解。第一解云。今詳。二種無知相別。謂由此故立愚．智殊。如是名為染無知相。若由此故。或有境中智不及愚是第二相　解曰。愚謂異生。智謂聖者。此二差別由染無知。斷名聖者。不斷名凡。若由此不染無知有輕．重故。諸境中。或有阿羅漢不識赤鹽。然有異生善通三藏。是名于境智不及愚　第二解云。又若斷已。佛．二乘皆無差別。是第一相。若有斷已。佛與二乘有行．不行。是第二相解云。染污無知。三乘同斷齊不現行。名無差別。或同證擇滅名無差別。不染無知雖復三乘同斷緣縛。二乘現行。佛不現行。

第三解曰。又若於事自．共相愚。是名第一染無知相。若於諸法味．勢．熟．德．數．量．處．時．同．異等相。不能如實覺。是名不染無知　解云。若於諸事迷自性迷共相是染無知。若於諸法微細差別。味(諸法滋味。或苦等味)勢(諸法勢力引后自果。或有損益等勢力)熟(諸法正起力能引自果名熟或成就名就)德(諸法德用)數(一．二等數)量(大．小等量)處(近．遠等處)時(近．遠等時)同(諸法相似)異(諸法差別等相)。不能如實覺。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本這些名稱雖然不同，但本質是相同的。仔細思考就能理解。三、諸門分別： 1. 一對染辨差別：正理論總共有三種解釋。第一種解釋說：仔細分析，兩種無知（無明）的差別在於，由此而建立愚蠢和智慧的區別，這稱為染污的無知之相。如果由此，在某些境界中，智慧不如愚蠢，這是第二種相。解釋：愚蠢指的是異生（凡夫），智慧指的是聖者。這二者的差別在於染污的無知。斷除了染污的無知就稱為聖者，沒有斷除就稱為凡夫。如果由於這種不染污的無知有輕重之分，在某些境界中，阿羅漢可能不認識赤鹽，但有些凡夫卻精通三藏。這稱為在某些境界中智慧不如愚蠢。第二種解釋說：如果斷除之後，佛和二乘（聲聞、緣覺）之間沒有差別，這是第一種相。如果斷除之後，佛和二乘在行持和不行持方面有差別，這是第二種相。解釋：染污的無知，三乘（佛、菩薩、聲聞緣覺）共同斷除，都達到不再現行的狀態，這稱為沒有差別。或者共同證得擇滅（涅槃），這稱為沒有差別。不染污的無知雖然三乘共同斷除對煩惱的束縛，但二乘會現行，佛不會現行。第三種解釋說：如果對於事物的自相和共相愚昧無知，這稱為第一種染污的無知之相。如果對於諸法的味（taste，諸法的滋味，如苦味等）、勢（power，諸法的勢力，能引發後續的果報，或有損益等勢力）、熟（maturity，諸法正起作用，能引發自身果報，稱為成熟，或成就）、德（virtue，諸法的德用）、數（number，一、二等數）、量（quantity，大、小等量）、處（place，近、遠等處）、時（time，近、遠等時）、同（sameness，諸法相似）、異（difference，諸法差別）等相，不能如實覺知，這稱為不染污的無知。解釋：如果對於諸事的自性迷惑，對於共相迷惑，這是染污的無知。如果對於諸法微細的差別，如味（諸法滋味，或苦等味）、勢（諸法勢力引后自果，或有損益等勢力）、熟（諸法正起力能引自果名熟或成就名就）、德（諸法德用）、數（一．二等數）、量（大．小等量）、處（近．遠等處）、時（近．遠等時）、同（諸法相似）、異（諸法差別等相）等，不能如實覺知。

【English Translation】 English version These names are different, but their essence is the same. It can be understood through careful consideration. 3. Distinguishing the Various Gates: 1. Differentiation based on Defilement: The Zheng Lilun (Shastra on the Correct Principle) has three interpretations in total. The first interpretation says: Upon careful analysis, the difference between the two types of ignorance (avidya) lies in the fact that it establishes the distinction between foolishness and wisdom. This is called the aspect of defiled ignorance. If, because of this, wisdom is inferior to foolishness in certain realms, this is the second aspect. Explanation: Foolishness refers to ordinary beings (prthagjana), and wisdom refers to the noble ones (aryas). The difference between the two lies in defiled ignorance. Cutting off defiled ignorance is called being a noble one, and not cutting it off is called being an ordinary being. If, because of this non-defiled ignorance, there are degrees of lightness and heaviness, in some realms, an Arhat may not recognize red salt, but some ordinary beings are well-versed in the Tripitaka (Three Baskets). This is called wisdom being inferior to foolishness in certain realms. The second interpretation says: If, after cutting it off, there is no difference between the Buddha and the two vehicles (Shravaka and Pratyekabuddha), this is the first aspect. If, after cutting it off, there is a difference between the Buddha and the two vehicles in terms of what they practice and do not practice, this is the second aspect. Explanation: Defiled ignorance is cut off by the three vehicles (Buddha, Bodhisattva, Shravaka and Pratyekabuddha) together, and they all reach a state where it no longer manifests. This is called no difference. Or, jointly attaining nirodha-satya (cessation, Nirvana) is called no difference. Although non-defiled ignorance is cut off by the three vehicles together, binding afflictions, the two vehicles manifest, but the Buddha does not manifest. The third interpretation says: If one is ignorant of the self-nature and common characteristics of things, this is called the first aspect of defiled ignorance. If one cannot truly perceive the aspects of the dharmas (phenomena) such as rasa (taste, the flavor of dharmas, such as bitterness), bala (power, the power of dharmas to cause subsequent results, or the power of benefit and harm), vipaka (maturity, the dharmas that are functioning and can cause their own results are called mature, or accomplished), guna (virtue, the virtues and functions of dharmas), sankhya (number, such as one, two, etc.), mana (quantity, such as large, small, etc.), sthana (place, such as near, far, etc.), kala (time, such as near, far, etc.), sameness (similarity of dharmas), difference (differences of dharmas), etc., this is called non-defiled ignorance. Explanation: If one is confused about the self-nature of things and confused about the common characteristics, this is defiled ignorance. If one cannot truly perceive the subtle differences of the dharmas (phenomena), such as rasa (the flavor of dharmas, such as bitterness), bala (the power of dharmas to cause subsequent results, or the power of benefit and harm), vipaka (the dharmas that are functioning and can cause their own results are called mature, or accomplished), guna (the virtues and functions of dharmas), sankhya (number, such as one, two, etc.), mana (quantity, such as large, small, etc.), sthana (place, such as near, far, etc.), kala (time, such as near, far, etc.), sameness (similarity of dharmas), difference (differences of dharmas), etc.

是不染無知。第二對習明寬．狹者。無知狹習氣寬。不染無知必是習氣　有是習氣而非無知。謂無知俱生心心所法。或相續身所有習氣　第三三性分別者。不染無知通善．無覆無記。既言不染。明非不善．有覆無記。若通於善。無色無學恒成就故。可不名佛。若唯無記。無色無學異熟生心不現在前。不成就故應名為佛。以此而言故亦通善　問若通善者。何故婆沙第九云。問此邪智是何。答此是欲界修所斷中。無覆無記邪行相智。如於杌起人想。及於人起杌想。于非道起道想。于道起非道想。如是等　又正理七十云。有劣無知無覆無記效能障解脫。是解脫障體又云。諸大論師咸言。練根皆為遮遣見．修斷惑力所引發。無覆無記無知現行　準彼兩論。但言無記。解云。婆沙但解邪行相智非實知故名之為邪。故言無記。正理出解脫障體及根障體。故言無記。今者總出一切不染無知體性。故亦通善。或無知有二。一者是善障法力劣。二者無記障法力勝。婆沙。正理據勝而說。故言無記。今言通善亦據劣明　又解。諸論皆云不染無知無覆無記。明知不通於善。雖亦有時不成無覆心．心所法以必起故。有習氣故。不名為佛。雖有兩解意謂前勝。若難后家準前應說　第四明斷分位者。此不染無知。若菩薩三無數劫隨位漸斷。至金剛喻

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本是不染無知（未受污染的無知）。第二對習明寬狹者：無知狹，習氣寬。不染無知必定是習氣所致，但有習氣卻不一定是不染無知。這裡說的無知，指的是俱生（與生俱來）的心和心所法（心理活動），或者相續身（持續存在的身體）所具有的習氣。第三，關於三性（善、惡、無記）的分別：不染無知通於善和無覆無記（不導致惡果的無記）。既然說是『不染』，就說明不是不善和有覆無記（導致惡果的無記）。如果通於善，因為無色界（沒有物質的禪定境界）和無學（已證得阿羅漢果位）恒常成就，所以不能稱之為佛。如果僅僅是無記，因為無色界和無學的異熟生心（由業力產生的果報心）不現在前，不成就，所以應該稱之為佛。因此說，不染無知也通於善。問：如果通於善，為什麼《婆沙論》第九卷說：『問：這個邪智是什麼？答：這是欲界（充滿慾望的境界）修所斷（通過修行斷除）中的無覆無記邪行相智（錯誤的認知）。比如把樹樁看成人，把人看成樹樁，把非道看成道，把道看成非道，等等。』又《正理》第七十卷說：『有劣無知，無覆無記，效能障礙解脫，是解脫的障礙。』又說：『各位大論師都說，練根（通過修行提升根器）都是爲了遮遣見所斷（通過見道斷除）和修所斷的惑力所引發的無覆無記無知現行。』按照這兩部論典，都只說是無記。解釋說，《婆沙論》只是解釋邪行相智，因為不是真實的智慧，所以說是無記。《正理》指出解脫的障礙和根的障礙，所以說是無記。現在總的來說，不染無知具有一切體性，所以也通於善。或者無知有兩種：一種是障礙善法的力量較弱，一種是障礙善法的力量較強。《婆沙論》和《正理》是根據力量較強的情況來說的，所以說是無記。現在說通於善，也是根據力量較弱的情況來說的。又解釋說，各部論典都說不染無知是無覆無記，說明不通於善。雖然有時也不成就無覆的心和心所法，但因為必定會生起，有習氣，所以不能稱之為佛。雖然有兩種解釋，但認為前一種解釋更好。如果有人反駁后一種解釋，應該按照前一種解釋來說。第四，說明斷除的階段：這種不染無知，菩薩要經過三大阿僧祇劫（極長的時間）隨著修行階段逐漸斷除，直到金剛喻定（如金剛般堅固的禪定）。

【English Translation】 English version It is undefiled ignorance (not contaminated ignorance). The second pair clarifies the breadth and narrowness of habits: ignorance is narrow, habits are broad. Undefiled ignorance must be caused by habits, but having habits does not necessarily mean having undefiled ignorance. The ignorance referred to here is the co-arisen (innate) mind and mental factors (psychological activities), or the habits possessed by the continuous body (the continuously existing body). Third, regarding the distinction of the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral): undefiled ignorance is common to wholesome and uncovered neutral (neutral without leading to bad consequences). Since it is said to be 'undefiled,' it indicates that it is not unwholesome or covered neutral (neutral leading to bad consequences). If it is common to wholesome, because the Formless Realm (meditative states without material form) and the No-More-Learning (the state of an Arhat) are constantly achieved, it cannot be called a Buddha. If it is only neutral, because the resultant mind (mind arising from karmic effects) of the Formless Realm and the No-More-Learning does not manifest, it is not achieved, so it should be called a Buddha. Therefore, it is said that undefiled ignorance is also common to wholesome. Question: If it is common to wholesome, why does the ninth volume of the Vibhasa say: 'Question: What is this wrong wisdom? Answer: This is the uncovered neutral wrong-conduct-aspect wisdom (incorrect cognition) in the Desire Realm (realm full of desires) that is severed by cultivation (through practice). For example, seeing a tree stump as a person, seeing a person as a tree stump, seeing the non-path as the path, seeing the path as the non-path, and so on.' Also, the seventieth volume of the Nyaya says: 'There is inferior ignorance, uncovered neutral, whose nature hinders liberation, and is an obstacle to liberation.' It also says: 'All great masters say that training the roots (improving one's faculties through practice) is all to prevent the manifestation of uncovered neutral ignorance caused by the power of afflictions severed by view (through the path of seeing) and severed by cultivation.' According to these two treatises, they only say it is neutral. The explanation is that the Vibhasa only explains the wrong-conduct-aspect wisdom, because it is not true wisdom, so it is said to be neutral. The Nyaya points out the obstacle to liberation and the obstacle to the roots, so it is said to be neutral. Now, generally speaking, undefiled ignorance has all natures, so it is also common to wholesome. Or there are two types of ignorance: one is that the power of obstructing wholesome dharmas is weak, and the other is that the power of obstructing wholesome dharmas is strong. The Vibhasa and the Nyaya speak according to the situation where the power is strong, so it is said to be neutral. Now saying that it is common to wholesome is also according to the situation where the power is weak. It is also explained that all treatises say that undefiled ignorance is uncovered neutral, indicating that it is not common to wholesome. Although sometimes it does not achieve uncovered mind and mental factors, because it will definitely arise and has habits, it cannot be called a Buddha. Although there are two explanations, it is considered that the former explanation is better. If someone refutes the latter explanation, it should be explained according to the former explanation. Fourth, explaining the stages of severance: this undefiled ignorance is gradually severed by the Bodhisattva through three great asamkhyeya kalpas (extremely long periods of time) according to the stages of practice, until the Vajra-like Samadhi (diamond-like firm concentration).

定方總斷過。若二乘等雖有分斷。而非斷過。應知此中所言斷者畢竟不生得非擇滅。名之為斷。非據擇滅。若據擇滅。三乘同斷即無差別　問菩薩斷不染無知。得非擇滅。於何位得。解云。至金剛喻定方總斷盡得非擇滅　問見道所斷染污無知。增上忍時定不行。故得非擇滅。不染無知三十四念亦定不行。何故不于見道初位得非擇滅　解云。得非擇滅但據闕緣。勝緣闕時方得彼滅。至金剛喻三摩地時。不染無知勝緣方闕。故於此位得非擇滅。如現觀邊世俗智等。雖復體性畢竟不生。於前位中亦不出觀。然至三諦現觀後邊。勝緣闕故得非擇滅。故正理論解三現觀邊世俗智云。謂于爾時起得自在。余緣障故體不現前(已上論文)　不染無知例亦可爾。見染無知增上忍位。亦勝緣闕得非擇滅。故不成例　若據西方師說。三十四念亦容出觀。即不成難　應知此論。據證不生名之為斷。且說未來。若據不成名之為斷。亦通過去。

唯佛世尊至故稱為滅者。此釋滅義　唯簡二乘　成就名為得　不退名永對治。對治有二．一者聖道。二如實覺　一切境。謂四諦及修道。一切種。謂一切種類　冥有二種。謂染不染　不生亦二。一者擇滅。二者非擇滅。無為體常故言不生。唯佛世尊。得永對治聖道故。於一切理．事境染污冥。證擇滅

不生法。故稱為滅　得永對治如實覺故。於一切種類不染污冥。證非擇滅不生法。故稱為滅。

聲聞獨覺至非一切種者。舉劣顯勝。二乘雖滅諸冥與世尊等。以染無知畢竟斷故。名為二乘。非斷一切種不染無知故。不名為佛。

所以者何者。問何以得知二乘非斷一切種冥。

由於佛法至猶未斷故者。答　佛法。謂佛身中十力等法　又解。佛所知法。即極遠等　極遠時。謂八萬劫外時　極遠處。謂三千大千世界外處　諸義類。謂一切法種種義類無邊差別。

聲聞．獨覺。不染無知猶未斷故。于極遠等所以不知。由不知故。顯彼非能斷一切種。然諸論說二乘能斷不染無知者。據緣縛斷說。

已贊世尊至利他德圓者。此結引也。

拔眾生出至所以譬泥者。牒頌別釋生死泥也。由彼生死。是諸眾生沈處溺處。難可出故　或深故名沈處。黏故名溺處　𤄃故難出　所以譬泥。謂業．異熟為土。煩惱為水。更相間雜名生死泥。即生死名泥。持業釋也　又解。生死泥。以一切有漏法為體。由彼受于多生死故。學人漸出。若無學人。盡此一生更不受故。得名為出　又解。生死之泥名生死泥。生死即異熟果。泥即惡業煩惱。若學人分出生死之泥。若無學人出生死之泥總盡又解。未來生死名之為泥。若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『不生法，故稱為滅』：因為獲得永恒的對治，如實覺悟的緣故。對於一切種類的不染污無知，證得非擇滅，不生之法，所以稱為滅。

『聲聞獨覺至非一切種者』：這是舉出低劣的，來顯示殊勝的。二乘（Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha）雖然滅除了各種無知，與世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）相等，因為染污的無知已經徹底斷除的緣故，所以稱為二乘。但因為沒有斷除一切種類的不染污無知，所以不稱為佛。

『所以者何者』：這是提問，憑什麼得知二乘沒有斷除一切種類的無知？

『由於佛法至猶未斷故者』：這是回答。佛法，指的是佛身中十力（Dasabala）等法。另一種解釋是，佛所知之法，即極遠等。極遠時，指的是八萬劫（Kalpa）以外的時間。極遠處，指的是三千大千世界（Trisahasra-Mahasahasra-lokadhatu）以外的地方。諸義類，指的是一切法種種義類無邊差別。

聲聞、獨覺，不染污的無知仍然沒有斷除的緣故，對於極遠等情況所以不知。由於不知的緣故，顯示他們不能斷除一切種類的不染污無知。然而各種論典中說二乘能斷除不染污無知的說法，是根據緣縛斷來說的。

『已贊世尊至利他德圓者』：這是總結引申。

『拔眾生出至所以譬泥者』：這是依照頌文，分別解釋生死泥。由於生死是眾生沉溺之處，難以脫離。或者因為深所以叫做沉處，因為粘所以叫做溺處，因為污濁所以難以脫離。所以用泥來比喻。所謂業（Karma）、異熟（Vipaka）為土，煩惱（Klesha）為水，互相間雜叫做生死泥。即生死名為泥，是持業釋。另一種解釋是，生死泥，以一切有漏法為體。由於它承受多次生死。學人逐漸脫離，如果無學人，盡此一生更不再受，就可稱為脫離。又一種解釋是，生死的泥叫做生死泥。生死即異熟果，泥即惡業煩惱。如果學人分部分地脫離生死之泥，如果無學人就完全脫離生死之泥。又一種解釋是，未來的生死稱之為泥。若

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not-arising Dharma, therefore it is called cessation': Because of obtaining the eternal antidote, and truly realizing, with regard to all kinds of undefiled ignorance, attaining Nirodha (cessation), the Dharma of non-arising, therefore it is called cessation.

'Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas up to not all kinds': This is to highlight the superior by mentioning the inferior. Although the Two Vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) extinguish all kinds of ignorance, being equal to the World-Honored One (Sakyamuni Buddha), because defiled ignorance has been completely cut off, therefore they are called the Two Vehicles. But because they have not cut off all kinds of undefiled ignorance, therefore they are not called Buddhas.

'What is the reason': This is asking, how is it known that the Two Vehicles have not cut off all kinds of ignorance?

'Because of the Buddha-Dharma up to still not cut off': This is the answer. Buddha-Dharma refers to the ten powers (Dasabala) and other Dharmas in the Buddha's body. Another explanation is that the Dharmas known by the Buddha are extremely distant, etc. Extremely distant time refers to time beyond eighty thousand Kalpas. Extremely distant places refer to places beyond the Trisahasra-Mahasahasra-lokadhatu (three-thousand-great-thousand world system). All kinds of meanings refer to all Dharmas, various kinds of meanings, and boundless differences.

Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, because undefiled ignorance has still not been cut off, therefore they do not know about extremely distant things, etc. Because they do not know, it shows that they cannot cut off all kinds of undefiled ignorance. However, the statement in various treatises that the Two Vehicles can cut off undefiled ignorance is based on the severance of bondage by conditions.

'Having praised the World-Honored One up to the perfection of the virtue of benefiting others': This is a concluding extension.

'Pulling sentient beings out up to therefore likened to mud': This is explaining the mud of Samsara (cycle of rebirth) separately according to the verses. Because Samsara is where sentient beings are submerged and drowned, and it is difficult to escape. Or because it is deep, it is called the place of submergence, because it is sticky, it is called the place of drowning, and because it is turbid, it is difficult to escape. Therefore, it is likened to mud. So-called Karma and Vipaka (result of action) are the soil, Klesha (afflictions) are the water, and the mutual mixture is called the mud of Samsara. That is, Samsara is called mud, which is a possessive determinative compound. Another explanation is that the mud of Samsara takes all conditioned Dharmas as its substance. Because it undergoes many Samsaras. Learners gradually escape, but if there are no more learners, they will not receive it again in this life, so it can be called escape. Another explanation is that the mud of Samsara is called the mud of Samsara. Samsara is the result of Vipaka, and mud is evil Karma and Klesha. If learners partially escape the mud of Samsara, if there are no more learners, they will completely escape the mud of Samsara. Another explanation is that future Samsara is called mud. If

學人更受。未名為出。無學不受。得名為出。故十二緣起中。未來名生老死　眾生於中至拔濟令出者。此釋拔濟義。眾生於生死泥中。沉淪沒溺無能救者故。世尊哀憐愍念投機說法。隨授所應三乘正法教手。拔濟令出。故正理云。授正法教手拔眾生出生死泥。故恩德圓滿　問恩德以何為體。解云。以大悲為體。若據隨行五蘊為體。故顯宗云。諸有成就巧智大悲授如應言拔濟令出　彼論巧智即是大悲　或可。恩德以善巧智及大悲為體。

已贊佛德次申敬禮者。此結引也。

敬禮如是至名如理師者。稽之言至。首之言頭。以己之尊接佛之卑。故稱敬禮　總指三德故云如是　如實無倒教授眾生。令行善法。誡勖眾生令不造惡。名如理師。故婆沙十六云。遮無利益故名教誡。與有利益故名教授。如彼廣說。

如理師言至與愿神通者。上雖具陳三德。今復偏敬利他。此頌應言敬禮如是自他利德　敬禮如理師。利他德。此利他德益物為勝故重歸敬。但由正教拔濟有情令出生死。不由輪王等威力。不由天神等與愿。不由示現神通。令出生死。此三但能暫時拔濟。非能究竟令出生死。

禮如理師欲何所作者。問歸敬意。

對法藏論至故稱為論者。舉頌答。教誡學徒行善斷惡。故名為論。

其論者

何者。問　謂對法藏者。答。

何謂對法者。此下第二隨難別解。就中。一出對法體。二釋藏名。三明說意．說人。此即出對法體。頌前問起。

頌曰至諸慧論者。頌答。凈慧隨行名為對法。及能得此無漏凈慧諸慧諸論。亦名對法　梵云伽陀。此翻名頌。舊云偈訛也。

論曰至阿毗達磨者。就長行中。一出體。二釋名。此下出體。釋頌上句　慧謂簡擇四聖諦法　凈謂無漏。離二縛故。故名凈慧　問何故相應俱有等中偏說慧耶。解云。唯慧一種具三現觀。推求名見．慮境名緣。成辨名事。故獨標名。余心．心所有緣．事二無見現觀。余俱有法唯事現觀無見緣二。故不標名　或慧斷惑強故獨標名　問何故不言凈忍智見。而言凈慧。解云。有忍非智如八忍。有智非見如盡．無生。慧具攝三。以名寬故獨立凈慧　眷屬即慧相應．俱有及得。名曰隨行　問相應．俱有。俱有因故可名隨行。得非俱有因。如何說隨行。解曰。隨順名隨非要成因　問法俱。法后可說名隨。得在法前如何隨行。解曰。性相隨順說名為隨．非要俱．後方名為隨　問若得是隨行者。何故諸論解俱有因中。得非隨轉。又婆沙第三解得非世等第一法中雲。得與彼法不相隨行。準彼諸論得非隨行。解云。隨轉有二．一俱有因故名隨轉。二相隨順

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：什麼（是阿毗達磨（Abhidharma），對法）？問：是指對法藏（Abhidharma Pitaka）嗎？答：是的。

什麼叫做對法呢？以下第二部分是隨著提問分別解釋。其中，一是說明對法的本體，二是解釋藏（Pitaka）的名稱，三是說明講述的意圖和講述的人。這裡是說明對法的本體。承接前面的提問而開始。

頌文說：乃至諸慧論者。這是頌文的回答。清凈的智慧及其隨行被稱為對法，以及能夠獲得這種無漏清凈智慧的各種智慧和論著，也叫做對法。梵文叫伽陀（Gatha），這裡翻譯成頌，舊譯為偈（ge），是訛誤。

論中說：乃至阿毗達磨。在長行文中，一是說明本體，二是解釋名稱。下面是說明本體，解釋頌文的上半句。智慧是指簡擇四聖諦的智慧。清凈是指無漏，遠離兩種束縛的緣故，所以叫做清凈智慧。問：為什麼在相應、俱有等法中偏偏說智慧呢？解釋說：只有智慧這一種具備三種現觀（Abhisamaya）。推求叫做見現觀（darsana-abhisamaya），考慮境界叫做緣現觀（anvaya-abhisamaya），成就辨別叫做事現觀（krtya-abhisamaya）。所以單獨標明智慧。其餘的心、心所有法只有緣現觀和事現觀，沒有見現觀。其餘的俱有法只有事現觀，沒有見現觀和緣現觀，所以不標明。或者因為智慧斷除迷惑的力量強大，所以單獨標明。問：為什麼不說清凈的忍、智、見，而說清凈的智慧呢？解釋說：有忍不是智，比如八忍（astakshanti）。有智不是見，比如盡智（ksayanajnana）和無生智（anutpadajnana）。智慧全部包含這三種，因為名稱寬泛，所以單獨立為清凈智慧。眷屬就是智慧的相應法、俱有法以及得，叫做隨行。問：相應法、俱有法，因為是俱有因，所以可以叫做隨行。得不是俱有因，怎麼能說是隨行呢？解釋說：隨順叫做隨，不一定要是成因。問：法俱有，法后可以叫做隨。得在法前，怎麼能說是隨行呢？解釋說：性相隨順叫做隨，不一定要俱有、在後才叫做隨。問：如果得是隨行，為什麼各種論著解釋俱有因的時候，得不是隨轉呢？又《婆沙論》第三卷解釋得不是世等第一法的時候說，得不與那個法相隨行。按照那些論著，得不是隨行。解釋說：隨轉有兩種，一是俱有因的緣故叫做隨轉，二是性相隨順。

【English Translation】 English version: What is it (Abhidharma, 'that which is towards the Dharma')? Question: Does it refer to the Abhidharma Pitaka (the collection of Abhidharma texts)? Answer: Yes.

What is called Abhidharma? The following second part explains each question separately. Among them, the first is to explain the substance of Abhidharma, the second is to explain the name of Pitaka, and the third is to clarify the intention of the teaching and the person who teaches. Here, it explains the substance of Abhidharma, starting from the previous question.

The verse says: 'Even the wise ones who discuss.' This is the answer in verse. Pure wisdom and its concomitants are called Abhidharma, as well as all the wisdoms and treatises that can attain this un-leaked pure wisdom are also called Abhidharma. In Sanskrit, it is called Gatha, which is translated here as 'verse'. The old translation as 'ge' is a mistake.

The treatise says: 'Even Abhidharma.' In the prose section, the first is to explain the substance, and the second is to explain the name. Below is the explanation of the substance, explaining the first half of the verse. Wisdom refers to the wisdom that discerns the Four Noble Truths. Pure means without outflows (anasrava), because it is free from the two bonds, hence it is called pure wisdom. Question: Why is wisdom specifically mentioned among associated, co-existent, etc., dharmas? Explanation: Only wisdom possesses the three Abhisamayas (realizations). Investigation is called darsana-abhisamaya (seeing-realization), considering the object is called anvaya-abhisamaya (following-realization), and accomplishing discrimination is called krtya-abhisamaya (doing-realization). Therefore, wisdom is singled out. The remaining mind and mental factors only have anvaya-abhisamaya and krtya-abhisamaya, lacking darsana-abhisamaya. The remaining co-existent dharmas only have krtya-abhisamaya, lacking darsana-abhisamaya and anvaya-abhisamaya, so they are not specified. Or, because the power of wisdom to sever delusions is strong, it is singled out. Question: Why not say pure forbearance (ksanti), wisdom (jnana), and seeing (darsana), but say pure wisdom? Explanation: There is forbearance that is not wisdom, such as the eight forbearances (astakshanti). There is wisdom that is not seeing, such as the knowledge of exhaustion (ksayanajnana) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpadajnana). Wisdom encompasses all three, and because the name is broad, it is independently established as pure wisdom. Retinue refers to the associated dharmas, co-existent dharmas, and attainment (prapti) of wisdom, which are called concomitants. Question: Associated dharmas and co-existent dharmas can be called concomitants because they are co-existent causes. Attainment is not a co-existent cause, so how can it be said to be a concomitant? Explanation: Following is called concomitant, but it does not necessarily have to be a cause. Question: Dharmas are co-existent, and what comes after a dharma can be called following. Attainment comes before the dharma, so how can it be called a concomitant? Explanation: The similarity in nature and characteristics is called following, and it does not necessarily have to be co-existent or come after to be called following. Question: If attainment is a concomitant, why do various treatises explain that attainment is not a co-existent cause when explaining co-existent causes? Also, the third volume of the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa) explains that attainment does not accompany the first dharma such as the world, etc., saying that attainment does not accompany that dharma. According to those treatises, attainment is not a concomitant. Explanation: There are two kinds of accompanying: one is called accompanying because it is a co-existent cause, and the other is the similarity in nature and characteristics.

故名隨轉。隨行亦有二．一俱有因名隨行。二相隨順故名隨行　若諸論中說得名隨行．隨轉。據相隨順說。若諸論中說得非隨轉．隨行。據非俱有因說　又解。準彼引文得非隨行　問隨行為攝慧不。解云。亦攝於慧。凈慧及眷屬皆名隨行。彼此展轉互隨行故。故婆沙八十一。出喜無量體云。喜者以喜根為自性。若兼取相應隨轉。欲界者四蘊為自性。色界者五蘊為自性。又正理顯宗三念住中。解相雜念住。皆言攝慧。以三念住中。唯相雜念住能斷惑故。至念住中當具引釋　又解。隨行不攝於慧。隨慧行故名曰隨行。婆沙據互相隨轉。正理．顯宗據更相交雜。各據一義。並不相違　雖有兩解先解為勝。

如是總說無漏五蘊名為對法。此即勝義阿毗達磨。是無漏故名勝。有義用故名義。勝即名義。即勝義名阿毗達磨。持業釋也。

若說世俗至阿毗達磨者。釋頌下句。言世俗者有漏之法。隱障真理名世。事相顯現隨順俗情名俗　又解。有漏之法可毀壞故。有對治故。名為世俗　即世名俗。即世俗名阿毗達磨。持業釋也。即能得此凈慧對法諸慧諸論。慧謂得此凈慧對法有漏諸慧。修慧謂。𤏙等四善根。思慧謂總別念住。聞慧謂五停心觀。生得慧謂能受持三藏教法。但依一相明四種慧。漸入觀位前後次第未是盡理　若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此稱為『隨轉』。『隨行』也有兩種：一、俱有因（俱時存在的因）而得名『隨行』；二、互相隨順的緣故，稱為『隨行』。如果各種論典中說得到『名隨行』、『隨轉』，那是根據互相隨順的方面來說的。如果各種論典中說得到『非隨轉』、『隨行』，那是根據非俱有因的方面來說的。另一種解釋是，根據他們引用的經文，得到『非隨行』的結論。問：『隨行』是否包含『慧』（智慧）？答：也包含于『慧』。清凈的智慧以及它的眷屬都稱為『隨行』，因為彼此輾轉互相隨行。所以《婆沙論》第八十一卷中，解釋喜無量（Upeksa）的體性時說：『喜』是以喜根為自性。如果兼取相應的隨轉，欲界（Kāmadhātu）的四蘊（四大名蘊）為自性，**的五蘊為自性。而且《正理》和《顯宗》在三念住（Smṛtyupasthāna）中，解釋相雜念住時，都說包含『慧』。因為在三念住中，只有相雜念住能夠斷除迷惑。關於至念住的內容，將在至念住中詳細引用解釋。另一種解釋是，『隨行』不包含于『慧』，因為隨著『慧』而行，所以稱為『隨行』。《婆沙論》是根據互相隨轉來說的，《正理》和《顯宗》是根據互相交雜來說的，各自根據一個方面來解釋，並不互相矛盾。雖然有兩種解釋，但第一種解釋更為優勝。像這樣總括地說，無漏的五蘊（Pañca Skandha）稱為『對法』（Abhidharma）。這就是勝義阿毗達磨。因為是無漏的，所以稱為『勝』；因為有作用，所以稱為『義』。『勝』就是『義』，『勝義』就是『阿毗達磨』，這是持業釋。如果說世俗的阿毗達磨，那是解釋頌文的下句。所說的『世俗』，是有漏的法，隱蔽障蔽真理，所以稱為『世』；事相顯現，隨順世俗的情感，所以稱為『俗』。另一種解釋是，有漏的法可以被毀壞，因為有對治，所以稱為『世俗』。『世』就是『俗』，『世俗』就是『阿毗達磨』，這是持業釋。也就是能夠得到這種清凈智慧對法的各種智慧和論典。『慧』是指得到這種清凈智慧對法的有漏的各種智慧。修慧是指煗（ūṣmagata）等四善根（catvāri kuśalamūlāni）。思慧是指總念住和別念住。聞慧是指五停心觀（pañca sthiticittāni）。生得慧是指能夠受持三藏（Tripiṭaka）教法。只是依據一個方面來說明四種智慧，漸次進入觀位的先後次第，還不是完全透徹的道理。如果

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is called 'following transformation' (隨轉, suízhuǎn). 'Following conduct' (隨行, suíxíng) also has two aspects: first, it is named 'following conduct' because of co-existent causes (俱有因, jùyǒu yīn); second, it is called 'following conduct' because of mutual compliance. If various treatises speak of obtaining 'name following conduct' or 'following transformation,' it is based on the aspect of mutual compliance. If various treatises speak of obtaining 'non-following transformation' or 'following conduct,' it is based on the aspect of non-co-existent causes. Another explanation is that, according to the texts they cite, they arrive at the conclusion of 'non-following conduct.' Question: Does 'following conduct' include 'wisdom' (慧, huì)? Answer: It also includes 'wisdom.' Pure wisdom and its retinue are all called 'following conduct' because they mutually follow and transform each other. Therefore, in the eighty-first fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論, Póshā lùn), when explaining the nature of equanimity (Upeksa), it says: 'Equanimity' has the root of equanimity as its self-nature. If also considering the corresponding following transformation, the four aggregates (Skandha) of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) are its self-nature, and the five aggregates of ** are its self-nature. Moreover, in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理, Zhènglǐ) and Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (顯宗, Xiǎnzōng), when explaining the mixed mindfulness (Smṛtyupasthāna) in the three foundations of mindfulness (Smṛtyupasthāna), they all say it includes 'wisdom.' Because among the three foundations of mindfulness, only mixed mindfulness can sever delusions. The content of mindfulness will be quoted and explained in detail in the mindfulness section. Another explanation is that 'following conduct' does not include 'wisdom,' because it conducts following 'wisdom,' so it is called 'following conduct.' The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra is based on mutual following transformation, while the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra and Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya are based on mutual intermingling. Each is based on one aspect, and they do not contradict each other. Although there are two explanations, the first explanation is superior. In this way, generally speaking, the five aggregates (Pañca Skandha) free from outflows (無漏, Wúlòu) are called 'counter-Dharma' (對法, Duìfǎ) or Abhidharma. This is the ultimate Abhidharma. Because it is free from outflows, it is called 'ultimate' (勝, Shèng); because it has function, it is called 'meaning' (義, Yì). 'Ultimate' is 'meaning,' and 'ultimate meaning' is 'Abhidharma.' This is a possessive determinative compound. If speaking of mundane Abhidharma, it is explaining the latter half of the verse. What is called 'mundane' (世俗, Shìsú) is the Dharma with outflows (有漏, Yǒulòu), which conceals and obscures the truth, so it is called 'mundane' (世, Shì); the appearance of phenomena follows mundane sentiments, so it is called 'mundane' (俗, Sú). Another explanation is that the Dharma with outflows can be destroyed because there is an antidote, so it is called 'mundane.' 'Mundane' is 'mundane,' and 'mundane' is 'Abhidharma.' This is a possessive determinative compound. That is, the various wisdoms and treatises that can attain this pure wisdom of counter-Dharma. 'Wisdom' refers to the various wisdoms with outflows that attain this pure wisdom of counter-Dharma. Cultivated wisdom (修慧, xiū huì) refers to the four roots of goodness (catvāri kuśalamūlāni) such as warmth (ūṣmagata). Contemplative wisdom (思慧, sī huì) refers to general mindfulness and specific mindfulness. Acquired wisdom (聞慧, wén huì) refers to the five cessations of mind (pañca sthiticittāni). Innate wisdom (生得慧, shēng dé huì) refers to the ability to uphold the teachings of the Tripiṭaka. It is only based on one aspect to explain the four types of wisdom, and the order of gradually entering the position of contemplation is not yet a completely thorough principle. If

據盡理共相別相。及五停位。皆通修慧思慧聞慧。下文當辨。有漏四慧。依漸次第應順次說四。今望聖道親．疏近．遠．故逆說四　有古德說。聞慧緣名亦能受持讀誦者　此解不然。當毗婆沙不正義故。婆沙四十二云。評曰應作是說。若於三藏．十二分教。受持讀誦究竟流佈是生得慧　問何故不許聞慧。受持讀誦。解云。若正聞者唯生得慧。由聞所成名聞慧。故。有漏四慧自性皆慧。若辨隨行皆通五蘊。思聞生得皆能發業。同一性故性相隨順。亦名隨行。故通色蘊　問如何得知聞．思二慧能發業耶。解云。正理四十二曰。諸律儀果。有從加行善。所生。有從生得善心所生。若從加行善心生。律儀先舍后斷善根。又婆沙云。問相異熟業以何為自性。為身業。為語業。為意業耶。答三業為自性　又婆沙曰。問相異熟業。為聞所成思所成．修所成耶。答唯思所成。非聞．非修。所以者何。此業勝故非聞所成。欲界系故非修所成　有說此業通聞．思所成。但非修所成　以此文證。故知聞．思能發身。語　問若言聞．思能發身．語。既能發語。即能受持三藏教法。何故但言生得慧耶。解云。聞．思能發勝身．語業。彼業非勝。故唯生得　然古德說。加行善心不能發身．語業。引婆沙四十七證云。問色界善心一切皆有隨轉戒不。答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於盡理共相別相（徹底理解事物普遍和個別特徵），以及五停心觀（用以停止錯誤思想的五種禪修方法），都貫通修慧（通過禪修獲得的智慧）、思慧（通過思考獲得的智慧）和聞慧（通過聽聞獲得的智慧）。下文將會辨析。有漏四慧（與煩惱相關的四種智慧），按照漸進的次第，應該依次講述這四種智慧。現在因為考慮到它們與聖道的親疏遠近關係，所以逆向講述這四種智慧。有古德認為，聞慧緣于名相，也能受持讀誦經典。這種解釋是不正確的，因為它不符合毗婆沙（佛教論書）的正確含義。婆沙第四十二卷說：『評論說，應該這樣說，如果對於三藏（佛教經典的總稱）、十二分教（佛經的十二種分類），受持讀誦，究竟流佈，這是生得慧（與生俱來的智慧）。』問：為什麼不允許聞慧具有受持讀誦的功能？答：如果正確地聽聞，只會產生生得慧。由聽聞所產生的智慧，稱為聞慧。因此，有漏四慧的自性都是智慧。如果辨析它們的隨行，都貫通五蘊（構成個體存在的五種要素）。思慧、聞慧和生得慧都能引發業（行為和其結果）。因為它們的性質相同，性相隨順，也稱為隨行，所以貫通色蘊（物質現象）。問：如何得知聞慧和思慧能夠引發業？答：正理第四十二卷說：『諸律儀果（遵守戒律的果報），有的從加行善（通過努力獲得的善行）所生，有的從生得善心所生。如果從加行善心生，律儀會先捨棄，然後斷除善根。』又，婆沙說：『問：相異熟業（導致不同果報的業）以什麼為自性？是身業（身體的行為）、語業（語言的行為）還是意業（思想的行為）？答：三業為自性。』又，婆沙說：『問：相異熟業，是聞所成、思所成還是修所成？答：唯思所成，非聞非修。為什麼呢？因為這種業殊勝，所以不是聞所成；因為屬於欲界，所以不是修所成。』有人說，這種業貫通聞所成和思所成，但不是修所成。根據這些經文可以證明，聞慧和思慧能夠引發身業和語業。問：如果說聞慧和思慧能夠引發身業和語業，既然能夠引發語業，就能受持三藏教法，為什麼只說是生得慧呢？答：聞慧和思慧能夠引發殊勝的身業和語業，但這些業不是最殊勝的，所以只是生得慧。然而，古德認為，加行善心不能引發身業和語業，並引用婆沙第四十七卷來證明：『問：善心是否都有隨轉戒（伴隨產生的戒律）？答…』

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the exhaustive understanding of common and distinct characteristics (thorough comprehension of universal and individual traits of phenomena), and the Five Stoppages of Mind (five methods of meditation to cease erroneous thoughts), all are connected to Cultivation Wisdom (wisdom gained through meditation), Thinking Wisdom (wisdom gained through contemplation), and Hearing Wisdom (wisdom gained through listening). These will be distinguished later. The Four Conditioned Wisdoms (four types of wisdom associated with afflictions), according to a gradual sequence, should be discussed in order. Now, considering their proximity and distance to the Noble Path, these four are discussed in reverse order. Some ancient masters believe that Hearing Wisdom, being related to names and forms, can also uphold, recite, and chant scriptures. This interpretation is incorrect because it does not align with the correct meaning of the Vibhasha (Buddhist treatises). The forty-second chapter of the Vibhasha states: 'Commentary: It should be said that if one upholds, recites, and extensively propagates the Tripitaka (the complete collection of Buddhist scriptures) and the Twelve Divisions of Teachings (twelve categories of Buddhist scriptures), this is Innate Wisdom (wisdom that is inherent).' Question: Why is Hearing Wisdom not allowed to have the function of upholding and reciting? Answer: If one listens correctly, only Innate Wisdom arises. Wisdom arising from listening is called Hearing Wisdom. Therefore, the nature of the Four Conditioned Wisdoms is all wisdom. If their accompanying factors are analyzed, they all connect to the Five Aggregates (the five elements that constitute individual existence). Thinking Wisdom, Hearing Wisdom, and Innate Wisdom can all generate karma (actions and their consequences). Because their nature is the same, and their characteristics are in accordance, they are also called accompanying factors, thus connecting to the Aggregate of Form (material phenomena). Question: How is it known that Hearing Wisdom and Thinking Wisdom can generate karma? Answer: The forty-second chapter of the Treatise on Correct Reasoning states: 'The fruits of precepts (the rewards of adhering to precepts), some arise from virtuous actions through effort, and some arise from innate virtuous thoughts. If arising from virtuous thoughts through effort, the precepts will first be abandoned, and then the roots of goodness will be severed.' Furthermore, the Vibhasha states: 'Question: What is the nature of karma that ripens into different results? Is it bodily karma (actions of the body), verbal karma (actions of speech), or mental karma (actions of thought)? Answer: The nature is all three karmas.' Also, the Vibhasha states: 'Question: Is karma that ripens into different results derived from hearing, thinking, or cultivation? Answer: Only from thinking, not from hearing or cultivation. Why? Because this karma is superior, so it is not derived from hearing; because it belongs to the Desire Realm, so it is not derived from cultivation.' Some say that this karma connects to that derived from hearing and thinking, but not from cultivation. Based on these scriptures, it can be proven that Hearing Wisdom and Thinking Wisdom can generate bodily and verbal karma. Question: If it is said that Hearing Wisdom and Thinking Wisdom can generate bodily and verbal karma, and since they can generate verbal karma, they can uphold the teachings of the Tripitaka, why is it only said to be Innate Wisdom? Answer: Hearing Wisdom and Thinking Wisdom can generate superior bodily and verbal karma, but these karmas are not the most superior, so it is only Innate Wisdom. However, ancient masters believe that virtuous thoughts through effort cannot generate bodily and verbal karma, and they cite the forty-seventh chapter of the Vibhasha to prove it: 'Question: Do all virtuous thoughts have accompanying precepts? Answer...'

非一切有。謂初靜慮有六善心。無隨轉戒。一善眼議。二善耳識。三善身識。四死時善心。五起表善心。六聞所成慧相應。善心　古德意言。婆沙既聞慧外別說發表心。故知聞慧不能發業。難云。命終是生得。別說生得能發業。何妨聞慧外別說聞慧能發業。若言命終心劣不能發業。所以別說生得發業心。何妨聞慧不發業者。說聞慧心能發業者亦發業心攝。故非定證。況有明文。以此故知。古德說非理　又解。有漏四慧相應俱有。是俱有因者。方名隨行　論謂展轉傳生無漏慧者。論望聖道最疏遠故在慧后說。此諸慧論。雖望聖道前加行位中遠近不同。皆是聖道勝資糧故。亦得名為阿毗達磨　言諸論者謂六足發智。但言本論可以收末　或可。諸論亦攝末論　言六足者。舍利子。造集異門足論。一萬二千頌。略本八千頌(舍利此云百舌鳥也。子是唐言)　大目乾連造法蘊足論。六千頌(目乾連。此云采菽氏。大是唐言。故法蘊足論云大采菽氏)　大迦多衍那。造施設足論。一萬八千頌(迦多此云剪剃。衍此云種。那是男聲。婆羅門中一姓也)　已上三論。佛在世時造。佛涅槃后一百年中。提婆設摩。造識身足論。七千頌(此雲天寂)　至三百年初。筏蘇密多羅。造品類足論。六千頌(即是舊眾事分阿毗曇也)　又造界身足論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本並非一切皆為『有』（存在）。例如，在初禪中有六種善心：沒有隨轉戒，一是善眼識，二是善耳識，三是善身識，四是臨死時的善心，五是起表善心，六是與聞所成慧相應的善心。古代德高望重的僧侶認為，《婆沙論》既然在聞慧之外單獨說明發表心，由此可知聞慧不能引發業力。有人反駁說：『命終心是生得的，單獨說明生得心能夠引發業力，為什麼妨礙在聞慧之外單獨說明聞慧能夠引發業力呢？』如果說命終心低劣不能引發業力，所以單獨說明生得心能夠引發業力，那麼為什麼妨礙聞慧不引發業力呢？因為能引發業力的聞慧心也包含在引發業力的心中，所以不能作為確定的證據。況且還有明確的經文。因此可知，古代德高望重僧侶的說法不合道理。另一種解釋是，與有漏的四種智慧相應的俱有因，才能稱為隨行。《論》中提到的輾轉傳生的無漏慧，是因為《論》認為它距離聖道最為疏遠，所以在慧之後才說。這些智慧，雖然從趨向聖道的前加行位來看，有遠近的不同，但都是成就聖道的殊勝資糧，因此也可以稱為阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論）。諸位論師認為，六足論和發智論，只需提及根本論就可以涵蓋末論。或者說，諸論也包含末論。所說的『六足』是：舍利子（Sariputra，舍利此云百舌鳥也。子是唐言）造《集異門足論》，一萬二千頌，略本八千頌。大目乾連（Mahamaudgalyayana，目乾連。此云采菽氏。大是唐言。故法蘊足論云大采菽氏）造《法蘊足論》，六千頌。大迦多衍那（Mahakatyayana，迦多此云剪剃。衍此云種。那是男聲。婆羅門中一姓也）造《施設足論》，一萬八千頌。以上三論，是佛陀在世時所造。佛陀涅槃后一百年中，提婆設摩（Devasarma，此雲天寂）造《識身足論》，七千頌。到三百年初，筏蘇密多羅（Vasumitra，即是舊眾事分阿毗曇也）造《品類足論》，六千頌。又造《界身足論》。

【English Translation】 English version Not everything is 『existent』. For example, in the first Dhyana (Jhana, meditation) there are six wholesome minds: without accompanying precepts, one is wholesome eye-consciousness, two is wholesome ear-consciousness, three is wholesome body-consciousness, four is the wholesome mind at the time of death, five is the initiating wholesome mind, and six is the wholesome mind corresponding to wisdom acquired through hearing. Ancient virtuous monks believed that since the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa, commentary) separately explains the initiating mind apart from wisdom acquired through hearing, it is known that wisdom acquired through hearing cannot generate karma. Someone refuted, 『The mind at the time of death is innate, and it is separately explained that the innate mind can generate karma. Why does it prevent separately explaining wisdom acquired through hearing apart from wisdom acquired through hearing being able to generate karma?』 If it is said that the mind at the time of death is inferior and cannot generate karma, so it is separately explained that the innate mind can generate karma, then why does it prevent wisdom acquired through hearing from not generating karma? Because the mind of wisdom acquired through hearing that can generate karma is also included in the mind that generates karma, so it cannot be used as definite evidence. Moreover, there are clear sutras. Therefore, it can be known that the saying of ancient virtuous monks is unreasonable. Another explanation is that the co-existent causes corresponding to the four wisdoms with outflows are called accompanying. The Treatise mentions the non-outflow wisdom transmitted through transformation because the Treatise considers it the most distant from the Holy Path, so it is mentioned after wisdom. Although these wisdoms differ in distance in the preliminary practice stage towards the Holy Path, they are all excellent resources for achieving the Holy Path, so they can also be called Abhidharma (Abhidharma, scholastic treatises). The commentators believe that for the Six Padas (Satpadabhidharma, six treatises) and the Jnanaprasthana (Jnanaprasthana, treatise), it is sufficient to mention the root treatise to cover the derivative treatises. Or it can be said that the treatises also include the derivative treatises. The so-called 『Six Padas』 are: Sariputra (Sariputra, Sariputra means 'bird with a hundred tongues'. 'Putra' is a Tang Dynasty word) created the Sangitiparyaya Pada Sastra (Sangitiparyaya, collection of different meanings), with 12,000 verses, and an abridged version with 8,000 verses. Mahāmaudgalyāyana (Mahamaudgalyayana, Maudgalyayana means 'bean collector'. 'Maha' is a Tang Dynasty word. Therefore, the Dharma Skandha Pada Sastra says 'Great Bean Collector') created the Dharma Skandha Pada Sastra (Dharma Skandha, collection of dharma aggregates), with 6,000 verses. Mahākatyāyana (Mahakatyayana, Katyayana means 'scissors'. 'Yana' means 'seed'. 'Na' is a masculine sound, a surname among Brahmins) created the Prajnapti Pada Sastra (Prajnapti, establishment), with 18,000 verses. The above three treatises were created when the Buddha was alive. One hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, Devasarma (Devasarma, meaning 'heavenly silence') created the Vijnanakaya Pada Sastra (Vijnanakaya, collection of consciousness aggregates), with 7,000 verses. At the beginning of the third century, Vasumitra (Vasumitra, which is the old Sarvastivada Abhidharma) created the Prakarana Pada Sastra (Prakarana, exposition), with 6,000 verses. He also created the Dhatukaya Pada Sastra (Dhatukaya, collection of elements).

。廣本六千頌。略本七百頌(筏蘇密多羅此云世友。非婆沙會世友。同名異體)　至三百年末。迦多衍尼子。造發智論。二萬五千頌。後代誦者廣略不同。一本一萬八千頌。一本一萬六千頌此本即是和上所翻　前之六論義門稍少。發智一論法門最廣。故後代論師說六為足。發智為身　此上七論。是說一切有部根本論也。和上。唯施設足論未翻。余之六論皆悉翻訖。

論釋此名者至故稱對法者。此釋對法名。一釋法。二釋對　位釋法名有二．一能持自性。謂一切法各守自性。如色等性常不改變。二軌生勝解。如無常等生人無常等解　此文且據能持以釋。軌生勝解略而不存。義亦應有　或可影顯　相之言效能持自性故名為法　又解。於一體上性相義分。望自名性。望他緣邊名相。義說效能持相。若諸論說能持自性。即相能持性其法不同略有二種。一勝義法。二法相法　若勝義法唯涅槃果。是善．常故名勝。有實體故名義。即勝名義。即勝義名法。持業釋也。涅槃此云圓寂　若法相法通四諦境。即法相名法。持業釋也　若據法相法。持自性故名之為法。亦通虛空及非擇滅。以此二種非諦攝故。非果攝故。非與無漏慧為境故。此中不說　此能對向涅槃果法故名對向。以因對果。趣向名因所欣名果　或約性因性果以說　謂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：《廣本六千頌》，《略本七百頌》（筏蘇密多羅（Vasumitra），此云世友，並非《婆沙》大會的世友，同名異人）。至三百年末，迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra）造《發智論》，二萬五千頌。後代誦讀者廣略不同，一本作一萬八千頌，一本作一萬六千頌，此本即是和上（Upādhyāya，親教師）所翻譯的。之前的六論義門稍少，《發智論》一論法門最廣，故後代論師說六論為足，《發智論》為身。此上七論，是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）根本論也。和上唯《施設足論》未翻，其餘六論皆已翻譯完畢。

論釋此名者至故稱對法者。此解釋對法（Abhidharma）之名。一釋『法』，二釋『對』。位釋『法』名有二：一、能持自性，謂一切法各守自性，如色等性常不改變。二、軌生勝解，如無常等生人無常等解。此文且據能持以釋，軌生勝解略而不存，義亦應有，或可影顯。相之言效能持自性故名為法。又解，於一體上性相義分，望自名性，望他緣邊名相。義說效能持相。若諸論說能持自性，即相能持性其法不同略有二種：一、勝義法，二、法相法。若勝義法唯涅槃（Nirvana）果，是善、常故名勝，有實體故名義，即勝名義，即勝義名法，持業釋也。涅槃，此云圓寂。若法相法通四諦境，即法相名法，持業釋也。若據法相法，持自性故名之為法，亦通虛空及非擇滅。以此二種非諦攝故，非果攝故，非與無漏慧為境故，此中不說。此能對向涅槃果法故名對向，以因對果，趣向名因，所欣名果。或約性因性果以說。謂

【English Translation】 English version: The 'Extensive Six Thousand Verses' and the 'Abridged Seven Hundred Verses' (Vasumitra, meaning 'Friend of the World,' is different from the Vasumitra of the Council of Vibhāṣā, though they share the same name). Towards the end of the third century, Kātyāyanīputra composed the 'Jñānaprasthāna' (Treatise on the Foundation of Knowledge), consisting of twenty-five thousand verses. Later reciters varied in their abridgements, with one version containing eighteen thousand verses and another sixteen thousand verses. This latter version is the one translated by Upādhyāya (preceptor). The previous six treatises had fewer doctrinal points, while the 'Jñānaprasthāna' had the most extensive teachings. Therefore, later commentators considered the six treatises as the 'feet' and the 'Jñānaprasthāna' as the 'body.' These seven treatises are the fundamental treatises of the Sarvāstivāda (Doctrine That Everything Exists) school. Upādhyāya only did not translate the 'Prajñaptiśāstra' (Treatise on Designations); the other six treatises have all been translated.

The commentary explains the name 'Abhidharma' (that which is 'towards Dharma'). First, it explains 'Dharma'; second, it explains 'Abhi' (towards). There are two ways to explain the name 'Dharma': 1. That which upholds its own nature, meaning that each Dharma maintains its own nature, such as the nature of form, which never changes. 2. That which generates understanding, such as impermanence generating the understanding of impermanence. This passage explains it based on 'upholding its own nature,' while 'generating understanding' is omitted, though it should also be included, perhaps implicitly. The word 'characteristic' means that it can uphold its own nature, hence it is called 'Dharma'. Another explanation is that on one entity, there is a division of nature and characteristic. When viewed from itself, it is called 'nature'; when viewed from its relationship to other conditions, it is called 'characteristic.' It is said that the meaning is that it can uphold the characteristic. If the treatises say that it can uphold its own nature, then the characteristic can uphold the nature. There are roughly two types of Dharma that differ: 1. Ultimate Dharma (paramārtha-dharma); 2. Phenomenal Dharma (lakṣaṇa-dharma). If it is Ultimate Dharma, it is only the fruit of Nirvana (extinction), which is good and permanent, hence it is called 'ultimate,' and it has substance, hence it is called 'meaning.' Thus, 'ultimate' means 'meaning,' and 'ultimate meaning' means 'Dharma,' which is a possessive compound. Nirvana means 'perfect stillness'. If it is Phenomenal Dharma, it encompasses the realm of the Four Noble Truths, thus 'phenomenal characteristic' means 'Dharma,' which is a possessive compound. If based on Phenomenal Dharma, it is called 'Dharma' because it upholds its own nature, and it also includes space and non-selective cessation. Because these two are not included in the Truths, not included in the fruit, and not an object of undefiled wisdom, they are not discussed here. This can be directed towards the Dharma of the fruit of Nirvana, hence it is called 'towards.' Because the cause is directed towards the fruit, the direction is called the cause, and what is desired is called the fruit. Or it can be explained in terms of the nature of the cause and the nature of the fruit. That is,

無漏慧是真對向。余修慧等生真對向故名對向。解脫勝進雖望當品不名對向。望后所證亦對向或望無餘涅槃。四道皆名對向　又解。有漏修慧能分斷惑亦名對向餘思慧等能生對向故名對向　又解。思慧散位勝故亦名對向。余聞慧等能生對向故名對向　又解。聞慧加行善時。亦名對向。餘生得等能生對向故名對向　又解。生得慧。以能分別趣涅槃故亦名對向。論者能生對向故名對向　又解。所有無漏有漏慧等。及諸論。皆有力能對向涅槃．勝義果法皆名對向　或能對觀四聖諦境故名對觀。以心對境。謂無漏慧是真對觀。余修慧等生真對觀。故名對觀。或是對向而非對觀　又解。修慧能觀諦故亦名對觀。餘思慧等能生對觀故亦名對觀。或是對向而非對觀　又解。思慧散位學觀諦勝亦名諦觀。余聞慧等能生對觀故名對觀　或是對向而非對觀　又解。聞慧加行善攝學觀諦勝亦名對觀。餘生得等能生對觀故名對觀。或是對向而非對觀　又解。生得慧以能分別學觀諦故亦名對觀　論教能生對觀故名對觀。或是對向而非對觀　又解。所有無漏有漏慧等。及與諸論。皆有力能對觀諦故皆名對觀　故稱對法。此即結也。應知。此中能對。對勝。且與對名。以實而言亦名為法持自性故。所對。法勝。且與法名。以實而言亦名為對是所對故或

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無漏慧（Anāsrava-prajñā，無煩惱的智慧）才是真正的對向（pratyanmukha，趨向、面向涅槃）。其餘的修慧等因為能生起真正的對向，所以被稱為對向。解脫勝進（vimukti-viśeṣa，解脫的殊勝進步）雖然就其當下的品類而言不稱為對向，但就其之後所證得的境界而言，也可以說是對向，或者說是趨向于無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，無餘依涅槃）。四道（catvāri-mārga，四種修行道）都可稱為對向。又一種解釋是，有漏修慧（sāsrava-bhāvanā-prajñā，有煩惱的修習智慧）能夠分斷煩惱，因此也稱為對向。其餘的思慧等因為能生起對向，所以被稱為對向。又一種解釋是，思慧（cintā-prajñā，思所成慧）在散亂狀態下殊勝，因此也稱為對向。其餘的聞慧等因為能生起對向，所以被稱為對向。又一種解釋是，聞慧（śruta-prajñā，聞所成慧）在加行善時，也稱為對向。其餘的生得慧等因為能生起對向，所以被稱為對向。又一種解釋是，生得慧（jāti-prajñā，生來就有的智慧），因為它能夠分別趣向涅槃，所以也稱為對向。論者因為能生起對向，所以被稱為對向。又一種解釋是，所有無漏有漏的智慧等，以及各種論著，都有力量趨向涅槃、殊勝的果法，因此都稱為對向。或者說，因為能夠對觀四聖諦（catvāri-ārya-satya，四種高貴的真理）的境界，所以稱為對觀（pratyavekṣaṇa，如實觀察）。以心對境，指的是無漏慧才是真正的對觀。其餘的修慧等因為能生起真正的對觀，所以被稱為對觀。或者說是對向，但不是對觀。又一種解釋是，修慧能夠觀察諦理，因此也稱為對觀。其餘的思慧等因為能生起對觀，所以被稱為對觀。或者說是對向，但不是對觀。又一種解釋是，思慧在散亂狀態下學習觀察諦理殊勝，因此也稱為諦觀。其餘的聞慧等因為能生起對觀，所以被稱為對觀。或者說是對向，但不是對觀。又一種解釋是，聞慧在加行善的攝持下學習觀察諦理殊勝，因此也稱為對觀。其餘的生得慧等因為能生起對觀，所以被稱為對觀。或者說是對向，但不是對觀。又一種解釋是，生得慧因為它能夠分別學習觀察諦理，所以也稱為對觀。論教因為能生起對觀，所以被稱為對觀。或者說是對向，但不是對觀。又一種解釋是，所有無漏有漏的智慧等，以及各種論著，都有力量對觀諦理，因此都稱為對觀。所以稱為對法（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）。這是一種總結。應該知道，這裡所說的『能對』、『對勝』，只是賦予了『對』這個名稱。實際上，它也被稱為『法』，因為它持有自身的特性。所對的『法勝』，只是賦予了『法』這個名稱。實際上，它也被稱為『對』，因為它是所對的對象。

【English Translation】 English version Anāsrava-prajñā (wisdom without outflows) is the true pratyanmukha (facing, oriented towards Nirvana). Other bhāvanā-prajñā (cultivation wisdom) etc., are called pratyanmukha because they give rise to true pratyanmukha. Vimukti-viśeṣa (superior progress in liberation), although not called pratyanmukha with respect to its current state, can be considered pratyanmukha with respect to the state it will realize later, or with respect to nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (Nirvana without remainder). All four catvāri-mārga (four paths) are called pratyanmukha. Another explanation: Sāsrava-bhāvanā-prajñā (cultivation wisdom with outflows) can sever afflictions, so it is also called pratyanmukha. Other cintā-prajñā (wisdom from thinking) etc., are called pratyanmukha because they give rise to pratyanmukha. Another explanation: Cintā-prajñā (wisdom from thinking) is superior in a scattered state, so it is also called pratyanmukha. Other śruta-prajñā (wisdom from hearing) etc., are called pratyanmukha because they give rise to pratyanmukha. Another explanation: Śruta-prajñā (wisdom from hearing) during the stage of application is also called pratyanmukha. Other jāti-prajñā (innate wisdom) etc., are called pratyanmukha because they give rise to pratyanmukha. Another explanation: Jāti-prajñā (innate wisdom) is also called pratyanmukha because it can distinguish and direct towards Nirvana. Commentators are called pratyanmukha because they can give rise to pratyanmukha. Another explanation: All āsrava (with outflows) and anāsrava (without outflows) wisdoms, etc., and all treatises, have the power to direct towards Nirvana and superior fruit, so they are all called pratyanmukha. Or, because they can contemplate the realm of the four catvāri-ārya-satya (Four Noble Truths), they are called pratyavekṣaṇa (contemplation). 'Mind facing the object' refers to anāsrava-prajñā (wisdom without outflows) as the true pratyavekṣaṇa (contemplation). Other bhāvanā-prajñā (cultivation wisdom) etc., are called pratyavekṣaṇa because they give rise to true pratyavekṣaṇa. Or they are pratyanmukha but not pratyavekṣaṇa. Another explanation: Bhāvanā-prajñā (cultivation wisdom) can contemplate the Truths, so it is also called pratyavekṣaṇa. Other cintā-prajñā (wisdom from thinking) etc., are called pratyavekṣaṇa because they give rise to pratyavekṣaṇa. Or they are pratyanmukha but not pratyavekṣaṇa. Another explanation: Cintā-prajñā (wisdom from thinking) is superior in learning to contemplate the Truths in a scattered state, so it is also called Truth-contemplation. Other śruta-prajñā (wisdom from hearing) etc., are called pratyavekṣaṇa because they give rise to pratyavekṣaṇa. Or they are pratyanmukha but not pratyavekṣaṇa. Another explanation: Śruta-prajñā (wisdom from hearing) is superior in learning to contemplate the Truths under the guidance of application, so it is also called pratyavekṣaṇa. Other jāti-prajñā (innate wisdom) etc., are called pratyavekṣaṇa because they give rise to pratyavekṣaṇa. Or they are pratyanmukha but not pratyavekṣaṇa. Another explanation: Jāti-prajñā (innate wisdom) is also called pratyavekṣaṇa because it can distinguish and learn to contemplate the Truths. Commentaries are called pratyavekṣaṇa because they can give rise to pratyavekṣaṇa. Or they are pratyanmukha but not pratyavekṣaṇa. Another explanation: All āsrava (with outflows) and anāsrava (without outflows) wisdoms, etc., and all treatises, have the power to contemplate the Truths, so they are all called pratyavekṣaṇa. Therefore, it is called Abhidharma (Higher Doctrine). This is a conclusion. It should be known that what is said here as 'able to face' and 'superior in facing' are merely given the name 'facing'. In reality, it is also called 'dharma' because it holds its own nature. What is faced, the 'superior dharma', is merely given the name 'dharma'. In reality, it is also called 'facing' because it is the object being faced.

各舉一邊影略互顯　或據依主。謂法之對故能對名對。所對名法。若據有財．持業。能．所俱名對法。以此準知。四諦名理對法。涅槃名果對法。頌本偏舉能對。所以不說理果。長行通舉能．所。所以亦言理果。或可影顯　問何故言對法不言對有法。若依梵音。何故言阿毗達磨不言阿毗達磨寐。解云法是諸法共相。泛生勝解。有法是諸法自相。凡聖常緣。不生勝解。故言對法不言對有法。然論且約能持釋法。

此法有法。如因明中廣釋　因茲義便略明對法開合不同者。就中有二。一正明開合。二略釋名。就正明開閤中。復有二種。一明隨數增。二明漸加增。就隨數增中復有四種。謂一種一．二種二．三種三．四種四　言一種一者。所謂對法以一切法為體諸論不說虛空．非擇滅者。以此二種非諦攝故。非果攝故。非與無漏慧為境故　言二種二者。第一二云。一勝義對法。謂無漏五蘊。二世俗對法。謂有漏五蘊。此二俱是能對法故名為對法。如此論說　第二二者。一境對法。境謂四諦境。二果對法。果謂涅槃。此二俱是所對法。名為對法。亦如此論　言三種三者。第一三云。一自性對法。謂無漏慧。二隨行對法。謂慧相應俱有諸法。三資糧對法。謂有漏四慧及慧隨行。諸論為體。如此論說　第二三云。一勝義對法。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：各舉一邊，影略地互相顯現，或者根據『依主釋』。能對之法，因為能對，所以名為『對』，所對之法，名為『法』。如果根據『有財釋』或『持業釋』，能對和所對都可名為『對法』。依此可以推知，四諦名為『理對法』，涅槃名為『果對法』。頌本偏重於能對，所以沒有說理和果。長行則通舉能對和所對，所以也說了理和果。或者可以影略地顯現。問：為什麼說『對法』，而不說『對有法』？如果按照梵音，為什麼說『阿毗達磨』（Abhidharma，殊勝之法），而不說『阿毗達磨寐』？答：法是諸法的共相，普遍產生殊勝的理解。有法是諸法的自相，凡夫和聖人都經常緣取，不能產生殊勝的理解。所以說『對法』，而不說『對有法』。然而，論典且約能持來解釋法。此法和有法，如因明中廣泛解釋。因為這個意義，便簡略地說明對法的開合不同。其中有二：一是正式說明開合，二是簡略解釋名稱。在正式說明開閤中，又有兩種：一是說明隨數增加，二是說明漸次增加。在隨數增加中，又有四種：即一種一、二種二、三種三、四種四。所謂『一種一』，就是說對法以一切法為體。諸論不說虛空（Ākāśa，沒有障礙的狀態）、非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力量實現的滅盡），因為這兩種不是諦所攝，不是果所攝，也不是無漏慧的所緣境。所謂『二種二』，第一種二是指：一、勝義對法，即無漏五蘊；二、世俗對法，即有漏五蘊。這兩種都是能對之法，所以名為對法。如此論所說。第二種二是指：一、境對法，境指四諦之境；二、果對法，果指涅槃。這兩種都是所對之法，名為對法。也如此論所說。所謂『三種三』，第一種三是指：一、自性對法，即無漏慧；二、隨行對法，即與慧相應俱有的諸法；三、資糧對法，即有漏四慧及慧隨行。諸論以此為體。如此論所說。第二種三是指：一、勝義對法。

【English Translation】 English version: Each side is mentioned, subtly revealing each other, or based on 'dependent possessive compound'. The 'dharma' that can oppose, because it can oppose, is called 'opposition'; the 'dharma' that is opposed is called 'dharma'. If based on 'possessive compound' or 'determinative compound', both the opposing and the opposed can be called 'Abhidharma' (対法). From this, it can be inferred that the Four Noble Truths are called 'reason Abhidharma', and Nirvana is called 'result Abhidharma'. The verse focuses on the opposing, so it does not mention reason and result. The prose broadly mentions both the opposing and the opposed, so it also mentions reason and result. Or it can subtly reveal. Question: Why say 'Abhidharma' (対法) and not 'possessing dharma' (対有法)? If according to the Sanskrit sound, why say 'Abhidharma' (阿毗達磨, superior dharma) and not 'Abhidharma-me'? Answer: 'Dharma' is the common characteristic of all dharmas, universally generating superior understanding. 'Possessing dharma' is the self-characteristic of all dharmas, which ordinary people and sages constantly contemplate, and it does not generate superior understanding. Therefore, it is said 'Abhidharma' (対法) and not 'possessing dharma' (対有法). However, the treatise explains 'dharma' in terms of its ability to uphold. This 'dharma' and 'possessing dharma' are extensively explained in Hetu-vidya (因明). Because of this meaning, I will briefly explain the differences in the opening and closing of Abhidharma. There are two aspects to this: first, formally explaining the opening and closing; second, briefly explaining the names. Within the formal explanation of opening and closing, there are two types: first, explaining the increase according to number; second, explaining the gradual increase. Within the increase according to number, there are four types: namely, one type of one, two types of two, three types of three, and four types of four. The so-called 'one type of one' means that Abhidharma takes all dharmas as its substance. The treatises do not mention Ākāśa (虛空, state of unobstruction) and Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅, cessation through the power of wisdom) because these two are not included in the Truths, not included in the Results, and not objects of undefiled wisdom. The so-called 'two types of two', the first type of two refers to: first, ultimate Abhidharma, which is undefiled five aggregates; second, conventional Abhidharma, which is defiled five aggregates. Both of these are dharmas that can oppose, so they are called Abhidharma. As this treatise says. The second type of two refers to: first, object Abhidharma, the object refers to the objects of the Four Noble Truths; second, result Abhidharma, the result refers to Nirvana. Both of these are dharmas that are opposed, so they are called Abhidharma. Also as this treatise says. The so-called 'three types of three', the first type of three refers to: first, self-nature Abhidharma, which is undefiled wisdom; second, accompanying Abhidharma, which is all dharmas that are corresponding and co-existing with wisdom; third, resource Abhidharma, which is defiled four wisdoms and the accompanying practices of wisdom. The treatises take these as their substance. As this treatise says. The second type of three refers to: first, ultimate Abhidharma.

二世俗對法。三所對對法。皆如前說。

第三三云。一境對法．二果對法．三能對對法。亦如前說　言四種四者　第一四云。一教對法。教謂論教。故此論云。論謂傳生無漏慧教。以聲為體。如下別明　二理對法。理謂諦理。如此論說。又婆沙云。此中何者是甚深阿毗達磨。謂空無我及如實覺　又解。諸法甚深道理皆名為理。故婆沙云。此中何者甚深阿毗達磨。謂滅定退。及如實覺等。如彼廣說　三行對法。行謂無漏慧及有漏慧並慧隨行。如此論說　四果對法。果謂涅槃。如此論說。又婆沙云。復有甚深阿毗達磨。謂一切依皆永舍離。愛盡離染。寂滅涅槃　又解。果有二種。若證得名為果涅槃名為果。若從因生故名為果亦通余有為　應知四種先後次第者。教能顯理。依理起行。依行證果。且約一相以明次第。若據依教起行。行證理果亦無妨矣　第二四云。一教對法。二行對法。三境對法。四果對法。初二后一如次前說。第三境者若理若事。但是所緣皆名為境　第三四云。一世俗對法。二勝義對法。三境界對法。四果對法。如前兩種對法中說　第四四云。正理意說。一自性對法。謂無漏慧。二隨行對法。謂慧相應俱有諸法。婆沙云。隨轉名異體同。三方便對法。謂有漏四慧等。婆沙云資糧。名異體同。四資糧對法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二、世俗對法（Samvrti-pratidharma，指基於世俗諦的對法）。三、所對對法（Pratipaksa-pratidharma，指通過對治煩惱而產生的對法）。都如前面所說。

第三十三云：一、境對法（Visaya-pratidharma，指以境界為對象的對法）。二、果對法（Phala-pratidharma，指以果報為對象的對法）。三、能對對法（Samartha-pratidharma，指具有對治能力的對法）。也如前面所說。

說到四種四（Caturvidha-catuh）者：第一種四云：一、教對法（Sastra-pratidharma，指教義方面的對法）。教指論教（論的教義）。所以此論說：『論指傳生無漏慧的教義，以聲音為體。』如下面分別說明。二、理對法（Tattva-pratidharma，指真理方面的對法）。理指諦理（四聖諦的真理）。如此論所說。又《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『這其中什麼是甚深的阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）？就是空、無我以及如實覺。』又解釋說：諸法甚深的道理都名為理。所以《婆沙論》說：『這其中什麼是甚深的阿毗達磨？就是滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti）的退失，以及如實覺等。』如彼處廣說。三、行對法（Pratipad-pratidharma，指修行方面的對法）。行指無漏慧以及有漏慧，並慧隨行（與智慧相應的行為）。如此論所說。四、果對法（Phala-pratidharma，指果報方面的對法）。果指涅槃（Nirvana）。如此論所說。又《婆沙論》說：『復有甚深的阿毗達磨，就是一切依皆永舍離，愛盡離染，寂滅涅槃。』又解釋說：果有兩種，若證得名為果，涅槃名為果。若從因生故名為果，也通於其餘有為法。

應當知道四種先後次第是：教能顯理，依理起行，依行證果。且約一相以明次第。若據依教起行，行證理果，也無妨礙。

第二種四云：一、教對法。二、行對法。三、境對法。四、果對法。初二后一如次前說。第三境者若理若事，但是所緣都名為境。

第三種四云：一、世俗對法。二、勝義對法（Paramartha-pratidharma，指基於勝義諦的對法）。三、境界對法。四、果對法。如前兩種對法中所說。

第四種四云：正理意說：一、自性對法（Svabhava-pratidharma，指自性方面的對法），指無漏慧。二、隨行對法（Anuvrtti-pratidharma，指隨行方面的對法），指慧相應俱有諸法。《婆沙論》說：『隨轉名異體同。』三、方便對法（Upaya-pratidharma，指方便方面的對法），指有漏四慧等。《婆沙論》說：資糧，名異體同。四、資糧對法（Sambhara-pratidharma，指資糧方面的對法）。

【English Translation】 English version Two, Samvrti-pratidharma (conventional truth counter-dharma). Three, Pratipaksa-pratidharma (antidotal counter-dharma). Both are as previously described.

The thirty-third states: One, Visaya-pratidharma (object counter-dharma). Two, Phala-pratidharma (fruit counter-dharma). Three, Samartha-pratidharma (capable counter-dharma). Also as previously described.

Speaking of the four types of four: The first four states: One, Sastra-pratidharma (doctrine counter-dharma). Sastra refers to doctrinal teachings. Therefore, this treatise states: 'Sastra refers to the teaching that transmits and generates undefiled wisdom, with sound as its essence,' as explained separately below. Two, Tattva-pratidharma (truth counter-dharma). Tattva refers to the truth of the Noble Truths, as this treatise states. Furthermore, the Vibhasa states: 'Among these, what is the profound Abhidharma? It is emptiness, selflessness, and true realization.' Another explanation: The profound principles of all dharmas are called Tattva. Therefore, the Vibhasa states: 'Among these, what is the profound Abhidharma? It is the regression from Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment), and true realization, etc.,' as extensively explained there. Three, Pratipad-pratidharma (practice counter-dharma). Pratipad refers to undefiled wisdom and defiled wisdom, along with the activities that accompany wisdom, as this treatise states. Four, Phala-pratidharma (fruit counter-dharma). Phala refers to Nirvana, as this treatise states. Furthermore, the Vibhasa states: 'There is also profound Abhidharma, which is the complete abandonment of all dependencies, the exhaustion of craving, detachment from defilement, the quiescence of Nirvana.' Another explanation: There are two types of fruit. Attainment is called fruit, Nirvana is called fruit. That which arises from a cause is called fruit, and it also applies to other conditioned dharmas.

It should be understood that the sequential order of the four is: the teaching reveals the principle, based on the principle practice arises, based on practice the fruit is realized. This explains the sequence in terms of one aspect. If practice arises based on the teaching, and practice realizes the principle and fruit, there is no obstacle.

The second four states: One, Sastra-pratidharma. Two, Pratipad-pratidharma. Three, Visaya-pratidharma. Four, Phala-pratidharma. The first two and the last one are as previously described. The third, Visaya, whether principle or matter, anything that is an object of perception is called Visaya.

The third four states: One, Samvrti-pratidharma. Two, Paramartha-pratidharma (ultimate truth counter-dharma). Three, Visaya-pratidharma. Four, Phala-pratidharma. As described in the previous two types of counter-dharma.

The fourth four states: According to the meaning of correct reasoning: One, Svabhava-pratidharma (self-nature counter-dharma), referring to undefiled wisdom. Two, Anuvrtti-pratidharma (concomitant counter-dharma), referring to all dharmas that arise together in association with wisdom. The Vibhasa states: 'Following transformation, the names are different but the substance is the same.' Three, Upaya-pratidharma (means counter-dharma), referring to defiled four wisdoms, etc. The Vibhasa states: 'Accumulation of merit, the names are different but the substance is the same.' Four, Sambhara-pratidharma (accumulation counter-dharma).

。謂教為體。婆沙云具。名異體同。若依俱舍。四慧及論總名資糧。開合為異。此即第一明隨數增　言漸加增者。或立一種所謂自性。或立二種又加隨行。或立三種又加方便。或立四種又加資糧。或立五種又加境界。或立六種又加於果　自古諸師但立前五不立果者。未委所由。若言果是滅諦所攝。五中境界收。不別立者。自性隨行道諦攝。方便資糧苦集收。亦應不別立。良由境名對法約心境以論。果名對法據因果以辨。由斯道理故別立果　又解。或立一種。所謂自性。或立二種又加隨行。或立三種又加修慧。或立四種加修惠隨行。或立五種又加思慧。或立六種加思隨行。或立七種又加聞慧。或立八種加聞隨行。或立九種又加生得。或立十種加生隨行。或立十一又加論教。或立十二又加諦境。或立十三加非諦境。或立十四加涅槃果。或立十五加非涅槃果　二略釋名者。前明對法雖有多種。且依四種對法之中。初四對法教．理．行．果以釋其名　西方釋名。多依六釋。言六釋者。一依主釋。謂此依彼。或云依士。名異義同　二有財釋。如人有財。亦名多財如有多財。名異義同　三持業釋。謂一法體雙持兩業。業謂業用。或云同依。兩用同依一體。名異義同　四相違釋。謂二法體彼此各別據。互不相屬　五鄰近釋。體非是彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所謂『教』是本體。《婆沙論》說『具』，名稱不同而本體相同。如果按照《俱舍論》的說法，四種智慧以及論典總稱為資糧，只是開合不同而已。這第一點說明了隨著數量的增加而增加。所說的『漸次增加』，或者建立一種，稱為自性（svabhāva，事物的本性）；或者建立兩種，又加上隨行（anuvṛtti，伴隨的性質）；或者建立三種，又加上方便（upāya，方法）；或者建立四種，又加上資糧（sambhāra，修行的準備）；或者建立五種，又加上境界（gocara，對像）；或者建立六種，又加上果（phala，結果）。自古以來的各位法師只建立了前五種而不建立果，不知道是什麼原因。如果說果是滅諦（nirodha-satya，寂滅的真理）所包含的，包含在五種中的境界里，所以不單獨建立，那麼自性、隨行被道諦（mārga-satya，通向解脫的真理）所包含，方便、資糧被苦諦（duḥkha-satya，痛苦的真理）和集諦（samudāya-satya，痛苦的根源）所包含，也應該不單獨建立。真正的原因是，『境界』這個名稱是對法（dharma，佛法）從心和境界的關係來論述的，而『果』這個名稱是對法從因和果的關係來辨別的。因為這個道理，所以單獨建立果。另一種解釋是，或者建立一種，稱為自性；或者建立兩種，又加上隨行；或者建立三種，又加上修慧（bhāvanā-prajñā，修習的智慧）；或者建立四種，加上修慧和隨行；或者建立五種，又加上思慧（cintā-prajñā，思考的智慧）；或者建立六種，加上思慧和隨行；或者建立七種，又加上聞慧（śruta-prajñā，聽聞的智慧）；或者建立八種，加上聞慧和隨行；或者建立九種，又加上生得（jāta，天生的）；或者建立十種，加上生得和隨行；或者建立十一種，又加上論教（śāstra-deśanā，論典的教導）；或者建立十二種，又加上諦境（satya-gocara，真理的境界）；或者建立十三種，加上非諦境（asatya-gocara，非真理的境界）；或者建立十四種，加上涅槃果（nirvāṇa-phala，涅槃的果實）；或者建立十五種，加上非涅槃果（anirvāṇa-phala，非涅槃的果實）。第二，簡略解釋名稱。前面說明對法有很多種，暫且依據四種對法中的教、理、行、果來解釋它們的名稱。西方解釋名稱，大多依據六種解釋方法。所說的六種解釋方法是：第一，依主釋（tat-puruṣa），意思是這個依靠那個，也叫做依士釋，名稱不同而意義相同。第二，有財釋（bahuvrīhi），比如人有財富，也叫做多財，如同有很多財富一樣，名稱不同而意義相同。第三，持業釋（karma-dhāraya），意思是同一個法體同時具有兩種作用。『業』指的是作用，也叫做同依，兩種作用共同依靠一個本體，名稱不同而意義相同。第四，相違釋（dvandva），意思是兩個法體彼此各不相同，互相不隸屬。第五，鄰近釋（avyayībhāva），本體不是那個。

【English Translation】 English version 'Teaching' is said to be the essence. The Vibhāṣā states 'possessing', the names are different but the essence is the same. If according to the Kośa, the four wisdoms and treatises are collectively called provisions, the difference lies in opening and closing. This first point clarifies the increase according to the number. The so-called 'gradual increase' is either establishing one, called self-nature (svabhāva, the inherent nature of things); or establishing two, adding accompaniment (anuvṛtti, accompanying qualities); or establishing three, adding means (upāya, methods); or establishing four, adding provisions (sambhāra, preparations for practice); or establishing five, adding realm (gocara, object); or establishing six, adding fruit (phala, result). The reason why ancient masters only established the first five and not the fruit is unknown. If it is said that the fruit is included in the cessation of suffering (nirodha-satya, the truth of cessation), contained within the realm of the five, and therefore not established separately, then self-nature and accompaniment are included in the path to liberation (mārga-satya, the truth of the path), and means and provisions are included in suffering (duḥkha-satya, the truth of suffering) and the origin of suffering (samudāya-satya, the truth of the origin), and should also not be established separately. The real reason is that the name 'realm' refers to the Dharma (dharma, Buddhist teachings) discussed from the relationship between mind and realm, while the name 'fruit' refers to the Dharma distinguished from the relationship between cause and effect. Because of this reason, the fruit is established separately. Another explanation is that either establish one, called self-nature; or establish two, adding accompaniment; or establish three, adding wisdom from cultivation (bhāvanā-prajñā, wisdom from practice); or establish four, adding wisdom from cultivation and accompaniment; or establish five, adding wisdom from thought (cintā-prajñā, wisdom from thinking); or establish six, adding wisdom from thought and accompaniment; or establish seven, adding wisdom from hearing (śruta-prajñā, wisdom from listening); or establish eight, adding wisdom from hearing and accompaniment; or establish nine, adding innate (jāta, inborn); or establish ten, adding innate and accompaniment; or establish eleven, adding treatise teachings (śāstra-deśanā, teachings from treatises); or establish twelve, adding realm of truth (satya-gocara, realm of truth); or establish thirteen, adding realm of non-truth (asatya-gocara, realm of non-truth); or establish fourteen, adding the fruit of nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa-phala, the fruit of nirvāṇa); or establish fifteen, adding the fruit of non-nirvāṇa (anirvāṇa-phala, the fruit of non-nirvāṇa). Second, briefly explain the names. Although there are many kinds of Dharma, for now, explain their names based on the teachings, principles, practice, and fruit of the four kinds of Dharma. In the West, the explanation of names mostly relies on six kinds of explanation methods. The so-called six kinds of explanation methods are: first, possessive compound (tat-puruṣa), meaning this relies on that, also called possessive case, the names are different but the meaning is the same. Second, bahuvrīhi compound (bahuvrīhi), such as a person has wealth, also called wealthy, just like having a lot of wealth, the names are different but the meaning is the same. Third, appositional compound (karma-dhāraya), meaning the same dharma body simultaneously possesses two functions. 'Function' refers to the operation, also called co-dependent, two functions co-depend on one entity, the names are different but the meaning is the same. Fourth, dvandva compound (dvandva), meaning two dharma bodies are different from each other and do not belong to each other. Fifth, avyayībhāva compound (avyayībhāva), the entity is not that.

近彼得名。

六帶數釋。謂法帶數。如言五蘊　四對法中。若將教望理依釋。六中有其三釋。若言法之對故名為對法依主釋。即理名法教名為對。若即對名法持業釋。即此論教是對亦法。若用法為對有財釋。即所顯理名為對法。此教用彼理法為對故名對法　若將理望行。以行望果。各有三釋。準前應知。此即順釋　若將果望行亦有三釋。若言法之對故依主釋。果是所對故名為對。行名為法。若即對名法持業釋。即所證果是對亦法。若用法為對有財釋。即能證行名為對法。此所證果用彼行法為對法故　若將行望理。以理望教。各有三釋。準前應知。此即逆解　若將教望行。行證理果順逆三釋。及釋余對法皆準前思。

已釋對法至名對法藏者。此下第二釋藏名。結前問起。

頌曰至俱舍名者。頌答。攝彼勝義故。依彼故。此立對法俱舍名。

論曰至此得藏名者。釋攝彼勝義故。苞含名藏。由彼根本對法論中所有勝義。入此論攝。此論得藏名。對法之藏名對法藏。依主釋也　又解。藏謂堅實。此論是彼根本對法之堅實義。故正理云。藏謂堅實。猶如樹藏　解云。樹藏謂樹心。樹之堅實莫過樹心。即以樹之堅實名為樹藏。此藏屬樹。樹家之藏名為樹藏。況法可知。

或此依彼至故亦名藏者。釋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

靠近它而得名。

六帶數解釋。指的是法所帶的數字。例如說五蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）。在四種對法中，如果將教義比作理，依據解釋，六種情況中有三種解釋。如果說法是對立的，所以名為對法，這是依主釋（Tatpurusha）。即理名為法，教名為對。如果就對立本身名為法，這是持業釋（Karmadharaya）。即此論的教義是對立，也是法。如果用法作為對立，這是有財釋（Bahuvrihi）。即所顯的理名為對法。此教義用彼理法作為對立，所以名叫對法。如果將理比作行，以行比作果，各有三種解釋。參照前面的解釋應該知道。這即是順向解釋。如果將果比作行，也有三種解釋。如果說法是對立的，這是依主釋。果是所對立的，所以名為對。行名為法。如果就對立本身名為法，這是持業釋。即所證的果是對立，也是法。如果用法作為對立，這是有財釋。即能證的行名為對法。此所證的果用彼行法作為對法，所以這樣說。如果將行比作理，以理比作教，各有三種解釋。參照前面的解釋應該知道。這即是逆向解釋。如果將教義比作行，行證理果的順向、逆向三種解釋，以及解釋其餘的對法，都參照前面的思路。

已經解釋了對法，接下來解釋名為對法藏。這是下面第二段解釋藏的名稱。總結前面的內容，提出問題。

頌文說：乃至俱舍名。這是頌文的回答。因為攝取了殊勝的意義，依靠它，所以立名為對法俱舍（Abhidharmakosa）。

論述說：乃至此得藏名。解釋攝取了殊勝的意義。包容包含稱為藏。由於彼根本對法論中所有的殊勝意義，被此論所攝取，此論才得到藏的名稱。對法之藏，名為對法藏，這是依主釋。又一種解釋，藏的意思是堅實。此論是彼根本對法的堅實意義。所以正理中說，藏的意思是堅實，猶如樹藏。解釋說，樹藏指的是樹心。樹的堅實沒有超過樹心的。就用樹的堅實來命名為樹藏。此藏屬於樹。樹家的藏，名為樹藏。更何況是法呢，可以知道。

或者此論依靠彼論，所以也名為藏。

【English Translation】 English version:

It is named because of its proximity.

Sixfold explanation with numbers. This refers to the numbers associated with the Dharma. For example, the five skandhas (skandha, the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Among the four types of Abhidharma, if we consider the teachings in relation to the principles, based on the explanation, there are three interpretations out of the six. If we say that the dharmas are in opposition, hence named 'Abhidharma,' this is a Tatpurusha compound. That is, the principle is named 'Dharma,' and the teaching is named 'Abhi' (towards, in relation to). If we name the opposition itself as Dharma, this is a Karmadharaya compound. That is, the teachings of this treatise are both 'Abhi' and 'Dharma.' If we use the Dharma as the opposition, this is a Bahuvrihi compound. That is, the revealed principle is named 'Abhidharma.' This teaching uses that principle-dharma as the opposition, hence it is named 'Abhidharma.' If we consider the principle in relation to practice, and practice in relation to the result, each has three interpretations. It should be understood by referring to the previous explanations. This is a forward explanation. If we consider the result in relation to practice, there are also three interpretations. If we say that the dharmas are in opposition, this is a Tatpurusha compound. The result is what is opposed, hence it is named 'Abhi.' Practice is named 'Dharma.' If we name the opposition itself as Dharma, this is a Karmadharaya compound. That is, the attained result is both 'Abhi' and 'Dharma.' If we use the Dharma as the opposition, this is a Bahuvrihi compound. That is, the practice that enables attainment is named 'Abhidharma.' This attained result uses that practice-dharma as 'Abhidharma.' If we consider practice in relation to principle, and principle in relation to teaching, each has three interpretations. It should be understood by referring to the previous explanations. This is a reverse explanation. If we consider the teachings in relation to practice, the forward and reverse three interpretations of practice proving principle and result, and the explanations of the remaining Abhidharma, should all be considered based on the previous reasoning.

Having explained Abhidharma, next explaining the name 'Abhidharma-kosa.' This is the second section below explaining the name 'kosa' (treasury). Summarizing the previous content, raising the question.

The verse says: '...even the name Kosa.' This is the verse's answer. Because it encompasses the superior meaning, and relies on it, therefore it is named Abhidharma-kosa (Abhidharmakosa).

The treatise says: '...hence it obtains the name Kosa.' Explaining 'because it encompasses the superior meaning.' Containing and including is called 'kosa' (treasury). Because all the superior meanings in that fundamental Abhidharma treatise are encompassed by this treatise, this treatise obtains the name 'kosa' (treasury). The treasury of Abhidharma is named 'Abhidharma-kosa,' this is a Tatpurusha compound. Another explanation, 'kosa' means solid and substantial. This treatise is the solid and substantial meaning of that fundamental Abhidharma. Therefore, the Nyaya-sastra says, 'kosa' means solid and substantial, like a tree's kosa (core). The explanation says, 'tree's kosa' refers to the heartwood. The solidity of a tree does not surpass the heartwood. Thus, the solidity of the tree is named 'tree's kosa.' This kosa belongs to the tree. The tree's family's kosa is named 'tree's kosa.' How much more so with the Dharma, it can be known.

Or, this treatise relies on that treatise, therefore it is also named 'kosa'.

依彼故。所依名藏。或此論依彼對法。從彼對法論中引生。是彼對法所藏。而名藏者。以對法為藏名對法藏。有財釋也。故正理論云。藏或所依。猶如刀藏　解云刀藏謂刀鞘。是刀所依。以刀從彼藏中出故。此刀以鞘為藏。故名刀藏。況法可知　釋藏名中。理亦應有持業釋。論主不欲自取。推功歸本。

是故此論名對法藏者。結釋下句。

何因說彼至恭敬解釋者。此下第三明說意．說人。雙舉兩問徴起頌文。

頌曰至說對法者。前三句。及因此說對法。明說意。答初問　傳佛說對法。明說人答后問　說對法言。通於兩段　世間。謂有情世間　有海。謂三有海　余文可知。

論曰至說彼對法者。總釋頌文。

欲令世間至如理簡擇者。別明說意　欲令世間諸有情類得擇法故。所以說此對法　伏難云。說餘二藏足能利物。何須別說此對法耶　今通言。若離對法。弟子。不能于諸法相如理簡擇。經正詮定。律正詮戒。定．戒二種。于斷惑中但助非正。

然佛世尊至鄔柁南頌。別明說人。亦通伏難。伏難意云。若是佛說。何故乃言迦多衍尼子等造。通意可知　迦多衍尼子。是造發智論師　等。謂等取捨利子等造六足論師　迦多衍尼子者。迦多名剪剃。衍名為種。尼是女聲。此人是剪剃種女

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『依彼故，所依名藏』。因為依靠它，所以被依靠之物稱為『藏』（Abhidhamma Pitaka，論藏）。或者說，這部論著是依據彼《對法》（Abhidhamma，阿毗達摩）而作，是從彼《對法》論中引申出來的，是彼《對法》所藏。而名為『藏』，是因為以《對法》為藏，所以名為《對法藏》（Abhidhamma Pitaka，論藏），這是一種有財釋。所以《正理論》說：『藏，或者說是所依，就像刀藏』。解釋說，刀藏就是刀鞘，是刀所依靠的。因為刀從刀鞘中取出，所以這把刀以刀鞘為藏，因此名為刀藏。其他法的情況也可以依此類推。在解釋『藏』這個名稱時，理應也有持業釋，但論主不願自己承擔，而是將功勞歸於根本（佛陀）。因此，這部論著名為《對法藏》，這是總結解釋下句。『何因說彼至恭敬解釋者』。接下來第三部分，說明說的意圖和說的人。同時提出兩個問題，引出下面的頌文。『頌曰至說對法者』。前面的三句，以及因此說對法，說明說的意圖，回答第一個問題。『傳佛說對法』，說明說的人，回答第二個問題。『說對法』這個詞，貫通於兩段。『世間』，指有情世間。『有海』，指三有海。其餘文字可以自行理解。『論曰至說彼對法者』。總括地解釋頌文。『欲令世間至如理簡擇者』。分別說明說的意圖。爲了讓世間諸有情能夠獲得擇法（dharma-vicaya，選擇法）的能力，所以才說這部《對法》。有人反駁說，說其他二藏（經藏和律藏）也足以利益眾生，為什麼需要特別說這部《對法》呢？現在統一回答說，如果離開了《對法》，弟子就不能對諸法之相如理簡擇。經藏主要詮釋『定』（samadhi，禪定），律藏主要詮釋『戒』（sila，戒律）。『定』和『戒』這兩種，在斷除迷惑方面只是輔助作用，並非根本。『然佛世尊至鄔柁南頌』。分別說明說的人，也同時迴應反駁。反駁的意圖是，如果是佛陀所說，為什麼又說是迦多衍尼子（Katyayaniputra）等人所造呢？統一的解釋可以自行理解。迦多衍尼子，是造《發智論》（Jnanaprasthana）的論師。『等』，指等同於舍利子（Sariputra）等造六足論的論師。迦多衍尼子，『迦多』的意思是剪剃，『衍』的意思是種，『尼』是女聲，這個人是剪剃種女所生。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Because of that, what is relied upon is called a Pitaka (藏)'. Because it is relied upon, that which is relied upon is called 'Abhidhamma Pitaka' (論藏). Or, this treatise is based on that 'Abhidhamma' (對法), and is derived from that 'Abhidhamma' treatise, it is what is contained in that 'Abhidhamma'. The name 'Pitaka' (藏) is because 'Abhidhamma' is the pitaka, so it is called 'Abhidhamma Pitaka' (對法藏), this is a possessive compound. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Pitaka, or what is relied upon, is like a sword sheath'. The explanation is that a sword sheath is what a sword relies on. Because the sword is taken out from the sheath, this sword uses the sheath as its pitaka, therefore it is called a sword pitaka. The case of other dharmas can be understood by analogy. In explaining the name 'Pitaka', there should also be an appositional compound, but the author does not want to take the credit himself, but attributes the merit to the root (Buddha). Therefore, this treatise is called 'Abhidhamma Pitaka', this is a concluding explanation of the following sentence. 'What is the reason for saying that... to respectfully explain?' The third part below explains the intention of speaking and the person who speaks. At the same time, two questions are raised, leading to the following verse. 'The verse says... to speak of Abhidhamma'. The first three sentences, and therefore speaking of Abhidhamma, explain the intention of speaking, answering the first question. 'Transmitting the Buddha's teaching of Abhidhamma' explains the person who speaks, answering the second question. The term 'speaking of Abhidhamma' applies to both sections. 'World' refers to the sentient world. 'Ocean of existence' refers to the ocean of the three realms. The remaining text can be understood by oneself. 'The treatise says... to speak of that Abhidhamma'. This is a general explanation of the verse. 'Desiring to enable the world... to properly discern'. This separately explains the intention of speaking. In order to enable all sentient beings in the world to obtain the ability to discern dharmas (dharma-vicaya, 擇法), this Abhidhamma is spoken. Someone objects, saying that speaking of the other two pitakas (Sutra Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka) is sufficient to benefit beings, why is it necessary to specifically speak of this Abhidhamma? Now, the unified answer is that if one is separated from Abhidhamma, disciples cannot properly discern the characteristics of all dharmas. The Sutra Pitaka mainly explains 'samadhi' (定,禪定), and the Vinaya Pitaka mainly explains 'sila' (戒,戒律). These two, 'samadhi' and 'sila', are only auxiliary in cutting off delusion, not fundamental. 'However, the Buddha, the World Honored One... to the Udanas'. This separately explains the person who speaks, and also responds to the objection. The intention of the objection is, if it was spoken by the Buddha, why is it said that it was created by Katyayaniputra (迦多衍尼子) and others? The unified explanation can be understood by oneself. Katyayaniputra is the teacher who created the Jnanaprasthana (發智論). 'Others' refers to those such as Sariputra (舍利子) who created the six pada treatises. Katyayaniputra, 'Katyā' means to cut or shave, 'yani' means lineage, 'putra' is a feminine suffix, this person was born from a woman of the barber caste.

生。從母姓為名。故名迦多衍尼子。是婆羅門十姓中一姓也。此剪剃種。西方貴族。所以名剪剃種者。依婆羅門法七歲已上在家學問。十五已去受婆羅門法遊方學問。至年四十。恐家嗣斷絕。歸家娶婦生子繼嗣。年至五十。入山修道　昔劫初時。有婆羅門。生二子已入山修道。二子覲問見父鬢髮蓬亂遂為剃除。形容端正。諸仙見已皆欲剃除。弟性慈愍來即為剃。兄心傲慢非我父者我不能剃。諸仙嗔怒咒愿弟言。乃至劫末是汝種族常大富貴。咒愿兄言。乃至劫末是汝種族常大貧窮剪剃自活。故今印度見有二類。其弟種族名剪剃種。從本為名。極大富貴而不作剪剃事。其兄種族名非父種。極大貧窮剪剃自活。仙人咒力使之然也。若言迦多衍那。迦多衍如前釋。那是男聲。從父為名也　法救。梵名達磨多羅。佛涅槃后。三百年出世　等者。等取空．無我等　鄔陀南。此云自說。即十二部經中第五自說經也。無人問佛佛自說故。大德法救。佛說無常頌者集為無常品。佛說空．無我頌者立空．無我品。乃至說梵志頌立梵志品。印度現有梵本流行。

若言鄔陀南。此雲集散。集散說故。或言集施集所說義施有情故。

毗婆沙師傳說如此者。毗名為廣。或名為勝。或名為異。婆沙名說。謂彼論中分別義廣故名廣說。說義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生。隨母親的姓氏作為名字，所以叫做迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra，迦多衍那之子）。這是婆羅門十個姓氏中的一個姓氏。這個是剪剃種（Kṣaurika），在西方是貴族。之所以叫做剪剃種，是因為按照婆羅門教的規矩，七歲以上在家學習，十五歲以後接受婆羅門教的教義，四處遊歷學習。到了四十歲，擔心家族後繼無人，就回家娶妻生子來延續後代。到了五十歲，就進入山林修行。過去在劫初的時候，有一個婆羅門，生了兩個兒子后就入山修行。兩個兒子去拜見父親，看到父親鬢髮蓬亂，就為他剃除了頭髮，使他容貌端正。眾仙人看到后都想剃髮，弟弟心懷慈悲，來為他們剃髮。哥哥心懷傲慢，說不是我父親的人我不能為他剃髮。眾仙人嗔怒，詛咒弟弟說：『直到劫末，你的種族都會一直大富大貴。』詛咒哥哥說：『直到劫末，你的種族都會一直大貧大窮，靠剪剃為生。』所以現在印度有這兩類人。弟弟的種族叫做剪剃種，從一開始就以此為名，極其富貴而不做剪剃的事情。哥哥的種族叫做非父種，極其貧窮，靠剪剃為生。這是仙人的咒力造成的。如果說迦多衍那（Kātyāyana），迦多衍如前面解釋的。那是男性的稱謂，隨父親的姓氏作為名字。法救（Dharmatrāta），梵文名字是達磨多羅（Dharmatrata），佛陀涅槃后三百年出世。『等』的意思是，包括空（Śūnyatā）、無我（Anātman）等等。鄔陀南（Udāna），這裡翻譯為自說，就是十二部經中的第五種自說經。因為沒有人問佛，佛自己說的緣故。大德法救，佛陀所說的無常頌，就收集起來成為無常品。佛陀所說的空、無我頌，就立為空、無我品。乃至佛陀所說的梵志頌，就立為梵志品。印度現在還有梵文字在流傳。如果說鄔陀南（Udāna），這裡翻譯為集散，因為是收集分散的說法。或者說是收集佈施，收集所說的義理來佈施給有情眾生。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）的傳說是這樣的。毗（Vi）的意思是廣，或者說是勝，或者說是異。婆沙（bhāṣā）的意思是說。意思是說，在那部論中，分別義理很廣，所以叫做廣說。說義...

【English Translation】 English version: He was born and named after his mother's family name, hence the name Kātyāyanīputra (son of Kātyāyanī). This is one of the ten Brahman surnames. This is the Kṣaurika (barber) caste, a noble class in the West. The reason for being called Kṣaurika is that according to Brahmanical law, from the age of seven, one studies at home, and after fifteen, one receives Brahmanical teachings and travels around to learn. At the age of forty, fearing the extinction of the family line, one returns home to marry and have children to continue the lineage. At the age of fifty, one enters the mountains to cultivate the Way. In the past, at the beginning of the kalpa (aeon), there was a Brahman who entered the mountains to cultivate the Way after having two sons. The two sons visited their father and, seeing his disheveled hair, shaved it off for him, making his appearance dignified. When the immortals saw this, they all wanted to have their hair shaved. The younger brother, with a compassionate heart, came to shave them. The elder brother, with an arrogant heart, said, 'I cannot shave those who are not my father.' The immortals were angry and cursed the younger brother, saying, 'Until the end of the kalpa, your lineage will always be wealthy and noble.' They cursed the elder brother, saying, 'Until the end of the kalpa, your lineage will always be extremely poor, living by shaving.' Therefore, there are now these two types of people in India. The younger brother's lineage is called Kṣaurika, named from the beginning, extremely wealthy and not engaged in shaving. The elder brother's lineage is called Apitṛka (fatherless), extremely poor, living by shaving. This is caused by the power of the immortals' curse. If we speak of Kātyāyana, Kātya is as explained before. 'Na' is a masculine suffix, named after the father's family name. Dharmatrāta, the Sanskrit name is Dharmatrata, appeared three hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana. 'Etc.' means including Śūnyatā (emptiness), Anātman (non-self), etc. Udāna, here translated as 'self-utterance,' is the fifth of the twelve divisions of scripture, the Udāna. Because no one asked the Buddha, the Buddha spoke it himself. The virtuous Dharmatrāta, collected the verses on impermanence spoken by the Buddha and made them the Impermanence Chapter. He established the Emptiness and Non-Self Chapter from the verses on emptiness and non-self spoken by the Buddha. And so on, he established the Brahmin Chapter from the verses on Brahmins spoken by the Buddha. There are still Sanskrit versions circulating in India today. If we speak of Udāna, here it is translated as 'collection and dispersion,' because it is a collection of dispersed sayings. Or it means collecting offerings, collecting the meaning of what is said to give to sentient beings. The Vaibhāṣika school's tradition is like this. Vi means broad, or superior, or different. Bhāṣā means saying. It means that in that treatise, the differentiation of meanings is broad, so it is called 'broad saying.' Saying the meaning...

勝故名為勝說。五百阿羅漢。各以異義解釋發智。名為異說。具此三義故存梵音　世親論主。健馱羅國人也。本于說一切有部出家。因即受持彼部三藏。後學經部情謂為真。于本所學時懷取捨。然更欲往迦濕彌羅國研核有部考定是非。恐彼諸師情懷忌憚。遂改本名潛往尋究。時經四載。數以經部異義難破說一切有部宗。時有阿羅漢名塞建地羅。唐言悟入。即眾賢師主。怪其神異遂入定觀知是世親。乃私告曰。可急歸本國。長老此來。數以自義難破他宗。眾中必有未離欲者知是世親。恐當相害。因此遂歸本國。至而未久。造俱舍論六百行頌。遣門人寄往迦濕彌羅。時彼國王及諸僧眾。聞皆欣悅。嚴飾幢幡華香伎樂。出境來迎標頌香象。前後引從至國。尋讀。咸謂弘我宗義無不歡慶。時彼悟入。告眾人曰。此非專弘汝義。何事須歡。頌有傳說之言。似相調耳。如其不信請釋即知。於是。國王及諸僧眾。發使往請。並奉珠珍。論主受請為釋本文。凡八千頌。還遣寄往。果如悟入所言也　論主意朋經部。于本處學心生疑惑。所以。於此俱舍論頌文。往往置斯傳說之語。顯非親聞也。

何法名為至說對法耶者。此下大文第二明正宗。前解正宗。雖有三說。今依初說　就正宗中。一明前八品。二明後一品。就前八品中。一總

【現代漢語翻譯】勝故名為勝說（因為殊勝所以稱為勝說）。五百阿羅漢（Five hundred Arhats），各自用不同的見解解釋《發智論》，稱為異說（不同的說法）。具備這三種含義，所以保留梵文發音。世親論主（Vasubandhu），是健馱羅國（Gandhara）人。最初在說一切有部（Sarvastivada）出家，因此受持該部的三藏（Tripitaka）。後來學習經部（Sautrantika），認為經部的觀點才是真理，對於先前所學的說一切有部，心中有所取捨。然而，他更想前往迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）研究考察說一切有部，以確定是非。但他擔心那裡的法師們心懷嫉妒，於是改了名字，悄悄地前去探究。經過四年時間，多次用經部的不同見解來辯駁說一切有部的宗義。當時有一位阿羅漢，名叫塞建地羅（Sthiramati），唐朝話的意思是『悟入』，是眾賢論師（Sanghabhadra）的老師。他覺得世親論主的神異，於是入定觀察，知道他是世親。就私下告訴他說：『你應該趕快回到你的國家。長老你來到這裡，多次用自己的見解來辯駁其他宗派。僧眾中一定有尚未斷除慾望的人，知道你是世親，恐怕會加害於你。』因此，世親論主就回到了自己的國家。不久之後，他造了《俱舍論》六百頌，派門人寄往迦濕彌羅。當時那裡的國王和僧眾，聽到這個訊息都非常高興，用華麗的幢幡、鮮花香料和伎樂，到國境之外迎接《俱舍論》的頌文，像迎接香像一樣。前後簇擁著回到國內，仔細閱讀。大家都認為《俱舍論》弘揚了他們的宗義，無不歡欣鼓舞。當時那位悟入阿羅漢告訴眾人說：『這部論並非專門弘揚你們的宗義，有什麼值得高興的？頌文中有『傳說』之類的字眼，似乎是在調侃你們。如果不相信，請世親論主來解釋就知道了。』於是，國王和僧眾派遣使者前去邀請世親論主，並奉上珍珠寶物。世親論主接受邀請，為《俱舍論》的本文作了解釋，總共有八千頌，然後寄回迦濕彌羅。結果正如悟入阿羅漢所說的那樣。世親論主的心意傾向於經部，在他學習說一切有部時，心中產生了疑惑。所以，在這部《俱舍論》的頌文中，常常使用『傳說』這樣的字眼，表明這些內容並非他親自聽聞的。什麼法稱為至說對法呢？下面這段大的段落是第二部分，闡明正宗。前面解釋正宗，雖然有三種說法，現在依照第一種說法。在正宗中，第一部分闡明前八品，第二部分闡明后一品。在前八品中，第一部分是總說。

【English Translation】 'Sheng gu ming wei sheng shuo' (Because of its excellence, it is called 'Sheng Shuo'). Five hundred Arhats, each using different interpretations to explain the 'Jñānaprasthāna', which is called 'Yi Shuo' (different interpretations). Possessing these three meanings, the Sanskrit pronunciation is retained. Vasubandhu, was a native of Gandhara. He initially became a monk in the Sarvastivada school, thus upholding the school's Tripitaka. Later, he studied the Sautrantika school, believing its views to be the truth, and had reservations about what he had previously learned from the Sarvastivada school. However, he wanted to go to Kashmir to investigate the Sarvastivada school to determine what was right and wrong. Fearing that the teachers there would be jealous, he changed his name and secretly went to investigate. After four years, he repeatedly used the different views of the Sautrantika school to refute the Sarvastivada school's doctrines. At that time, there was an Arhat named Sthiramati, which in Chinese means 'Enlightenment,' who was the teacher of Sanghabhadra. He felt that Vasubandhu was extraordinary, so he entered into meditation and realized that he was Vasubandhu. He secretly told him, 'You should quickly return to your country. Elder, you have come here and repeatedly used your own views to refute other schools. Among the monks, there must be those who have not yet severed their desires, and if they know you are Vasubandhu, they may harm you.' Therefore, Vasubandhu returned to his country. Not long after, he composed the 'Abhidharmakośa' with six hundred verses and sent his disciples to Kashmir. At that time, the king and monks there were very happy to hear this news, and they used ornate banners, flowers, incense, and music to welcome the verses of the 'Abhidharmakośa' outside the country, like welcoming a fragrant elephant. They escorted it back to the country and carefully read it. Everyone believed that the 'Abhidharmakośa' promoted their school's doctrines, and they were all overjoyed. At that time, the Arhat Sthiramati told the crowd, 'This treatise does not exclusively promote your school's doctrines, so what is there to be happy about? The verses contain words like 'legend,' which seem to be mocking you. If you don't believe me, please ask Vasubandhu to explain it.' Therefore, the king and monks sent messengers to invite Vasubandhu and offered him pearls and treasures. Vasubandhu accepted the invitation and explained the text of the 'Abhidharmakośa,' which totaled eight thousand verses, and then sent it back to Kashmir. The result was just as the Arhat Sthiramati had said. Vasubandhu's mind leaned towards the Sautrantika school, and he had doubts in his mind when he was studying the Sarvastivada school. Therefore, in the verses of this 'Abhidharmakośa,' he often used words like 'legend,' indicating that these contents were not personally heard by him. What Dharma is called 'Zhi Shuo Dui Fa'? The following large section is the second part, clarifying the main doctrine. The previous explanation of the main doctrine, although there are three views, now follows the first view. In the main doctrine, the first part clarifies the first eight chapters, and the second part clarifies the last chapter. In the first eight chapters, the first part is a general explanation.

標章。二別解釋。此下總標　問何法名為彼無漏慧所以間擇法。因此傳佛說能簡擇對法耶。舉能簡擇問所簡擇。虛空非擇滅。雖非是彼無漏慧緣。答文義便兼明彼二　又解。彼者。有漏。無漏慧。以頌答中亦說虛空．非擇滅故。

頌曰至別得非擇滅者。此即頌答。此三行頌。標前八品名總標綱要分初一句。總明有漏．無漏法。標界．根二品。次三句。別明有漏法。標世．業．隨眠三。后兩行頌。別明無漏法。標賢聖．智．定三品。前之序分及此總標。以文少故。寄在界品中明　又解。此頌但標界．根二品。以此三頌通明有漏．無漏法故。又解。此頌唯標界品。于界品中初標顯故。

論曰至謂有漏無漏者。此釋初句。

有漏法雲何者。此下別明有漏。此即問也。

謂除道諦余有為法者答。四諦之中苦．集．道諦。是有為法。于中除道諦。余苦．集有為法名有漏。

所以者何。徴。

諸漏于中至自當顯說者。釋也　漏謂漏泄。即諸煩惱。諸漏。于彼苦．集二諦相應法中。所緣境中。互相隨順。互相增長。相望力齊。故名為等　又解。諸漏。于彼相應法中。所緣境中等皆隨順增長義均名等。

緣滅道下。顯非有漏。指同下解　佛涅槃后五百年中土火羅縛蠋國法勝論師。造阿毗曇

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：標章。二、別解釋。以下是總標：問：什麼法被稱為無漏慧，因此可以簡擇法？因此，佛陀說能夠簡擇對法嗎？舉出能簡擇的，問所簡擇的，即虛空和非擇滅（通過智慧抉擇而證得的滅盡）。雖然虛空和非擇滅不是無漏慧所緣，但回答的文義方便，兼明瞭這二者。又解釋說：『彼』指有漏和無漏慧。因為在頌的回答中也說了虛空和非擇滅。頌曰：至別得非擇滅者。這即是頌的回答。這三行頌，標明前面八品的名稱，總標綱要，第一句總明有漏和無漏法，標明界品和根品。接下來的三句，分別說明有漏法，標明世品、業品和隨眠品。後面的兩行頌，分別說明無漏法，標明賢聖品、智品和定品。前面的序分和這個總標，因為文字較少，寄放在界品中說明。又解釋說：這首頌只標明界品和根品，因為這三頌貫通說明有漏和無漏法。又解釋說：這首頌只標明界品，因為在界品中首先標顯。論曰：至謂有漏無漏者。這是解釋第一句。有漏法雲何者？以下分別說明有漏法，這是提問。謂除道諦余有為法者答。在四諦（苦、集、滅、道）之中，苦諦、集諦和道諦是有為法。其中除去道諦，其餘的苦諦和集諦的有為法稱為有漏。所以者何？征問。諸漏于中至自當顯說者。這是解釋。『漏』是漏泄的意思，即各種煩惱。各種煩惱，在苦諦和集諦相應的法中，在所緣境中，互相隨順，互相增長，力量相等，所以稱為『等』。又解釋說：各種煩惱，在相應的法中，在所緣境中，都隨順增長，意義相同，稱為『等』。緣滅道下。顯示非有漏。指同下解。佛陀涅槃后五百年中，土火羅縛蠋國（梵文：Tokharistan）的法勝論師，造了《阿毗曇（梵文：Abhidhamma）》。

【English Translation】 English version: Chapter heading. Two, separate explanations. The following is a general heading: Question: What dharma is called the non-outflow wisdom (Anasrava-jnana), which is why it can discern dharmas? Therefore, did the Buddha say that it can discern counterpart dharmas? To cite what can discern, and ask what is discerned, namely space and Nirodha-asamapatti (cessation attained through wisdom). Although space and Nirodha-asamapatti are not objects of non-outflow wisdom, the meaning of the answer conveniently clarifies both. Another explanation says: 'That' refers to outflow (Sasrava) and non-outflow wisdom. Because space and Nirodha-asamapatti are also mentioned in the verse's answer. Verse says: To separately attain Nirodha-asamapatti. This is the verse's answer. These three lines of verse mark the names of the preceding eight chapters, generally marking the outline. The first sentence generally clarifies outflow and non-outflow dharmas, marking the Dhatu (realm) and Hetu (cause) chapters. The next three sentences separately clarify outflow dharmas, marking the Loka (world), Karma (action), and Anusaya (latent tendencies) chapters. The last two lines of verse separately clarify non-outflow dharmas, marking the Arya (noble), Jnana (wisdom), and Samadhi (concentration) chapters. The preceding preface and this general heading, because of the small amount of text, are placed in the Dhatu chapter for explanation. Another explanation says: This verse only marks the Dhatu and Hetu chapters, because these three verses comprehensively explain outflow and non-outflow dharmas. Another explanation says: This verse only marks the Dhatu chapter, because it is first marked and revealed in the Dhatu chapter. Treatise says: To say outflow and non-outflow, this explains the first sentence. What are outflow dharmas? The following separately explains outflow dharmas; this is the question. To say, except for the Path Truth (Marga-satya), the remaining conditioned dharmas, is the answer. Among the Four Noble Truths (Dukkha-satya, Samudaya-satya, Nirodha-satya, Marga-satya), the Suffering Truth, Accumulation Truth, and Path Truth are conditioned dharmas. Among them, excluding the Path Truth, the remaining Suffering Truth and Accumulation Truth's conditioned dharmas are called outflow. Why is that? A question. The outflows within, to be clearly explained later. This is the explanation. 'Outflow' means leakage, namely various afflictions (Kleshas). Various outflows, in the dharmas corresponding to the Suffering Truth and Accumulation Truth, in the object of perception, mutually accord, mutually increase, and have equal strength, so they are called 'equal'. Another explanation says: Various outflows, in the corresponding dharmas, in the object of perception, all accord and increase, with the same meaning, called 'equal'. Regarding cessation and path below, it shows non-outflow. Refer to the explanation below. Five hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, the Dharma Master Dharmatrata of Tokharistan (Tukhara), composed the Abhidhamma.

心論中。隨生解有漏。至六百年。達磨多羅(此云法救)　以生義有過。如滅．道諦諸漏雖生。而非有漏。改為隨增。即無有過。故今論主亦同彼釋　又解。緣滅道下。通伏難。伏難意云。苦．集生諸漏即名為有漏。滅．道亦生漏。應亦名有漏。通斯伏難故有此文　又解。此文牒破法勝論師。

已辨有漏無漏云何者。此下別明無漏結問。

謂道聖諦及三無為者。總答。

何等為三者。問數。

虛空二滅者何者。問數。

擇非擇滅者。答。

此虛空等至名無漏法者。結無漏法。

所以者何者。徴。

諸漏于中不隨增故者。答。諸漏。于彼無漏法中不隨增故。謂無漏法。性違于漏。必非相應可為漏境。然性相違互不隨增。不可對漏說名有漏。若滅道諦。緣不隨增。若於虛空非擇滅。非緣非隨增。

于略所說至色于中行者。此中亦應明道聖諦。後文廣解故今不釋　無為體性。若隨事別體乃眾多。今總標三。故言略說　虛空但以無礙為性。容受一切諸有為法故。正理論云。虛空容受色等有為(已上論文)雖言容受而不可說虛空體性在此在彼。無方所故。如眼識等　問若不礙故說名虛空。空界色性。亦不礙他。應名虛空。解云。空界色。性雖非能礙。而是所礙。被余色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本在《心論》中，『隨生解』認為有漏（煩惱）會隨之產生。直到六百年後，達磨多羅（Dharmatrāta，意為法救）認為『生』的解釋存在問題，因為像滅諦和道諦這些產生的煩惱，並非有漏。因此，他將其改為『隨增』，這樣就沒有問題了。所以現在的論主也同意他的解釋。另一種解釋是，『緣滅道下』是爲了普遍地駁斥詰難。詰難的意思是，苦諦和集諦產生諸漏，因此被稱為有漏。滅諦和道諦也產生漏，應該也被稱為有漏。爲了駁斥這種詰難，所以有了這段文字。還有一種解釋是，這段文字是爲了駁斥法勝論師的觀點。已經辨明了什麼是有漏，什麼是無漏。下面分別說明無漏，並提出問題。『謂道聖諦及三無為者』，這是總體的回答。『何等為三者』，這是提問數量。『虛空二滅者何者』，這是提問數量。『擇非擇滅者』，這是回答。『此虛空等至名無漏法者』，這是總結無漏法。『所以者何者』，這是提問原因。『諸漏于中不隨增故者』，這是回答。諸漏在那些無漏法中不會隨之增長。也就是說，無漏法的性質與煩惱相違背，必然不會相應，也不能成為煩惱的對境。因為性質相反，所以互相不隨之增長，不能針對煩惱而說是有漏。如果是滅諦和道諦，因為不隨之增長。如果是虛空和非擇滅，既不是因緣，也不是隨之增長。『于略所說至色于中行者』，這裡也應該說明道聖諦。因為後面的文章會詳細解釋，所以現在不解釋。無為的體性，如果按照事物來區分，體性有很多種。現在總共標出三種，所以說是簡略的說明。虛空只是以沒有阻礙為性質，能夠容納一切有為法。正如《正理論》所說，虛空能夠容納色等有為法（以上是論文的內容）。雖然說是容納，但是不能說虛空的體性在這裡或者在那裡，因為它沒有固定的處所，就像眼識等。提問：如果因為沒有阻礙所以被稱為虛空，那麼空界的色性，也不會阻礙其他事物，應該也被稱為虛空。解答：空界的色性，雖然不是能夠阻礙，而是被阻礙的，被其他的色所阻礙。

【English Translation】 English version In the Heart Treatise, the 'attendant arising interpretation' (sui sheng jie) holds that āsrava (leaks, outflows, defilements) arise accordingly. Six hundred years later, Dharmatrāta (法救, meaning 'saved by the Dharma') considered the interpretation of 'arising' to be problematic because, like the cessation and path truths, although āsrava arise, they are not sāsrava (with outflows). Therefore, he changed it to 'attendant increase' (sui zeng), which eliminates the problem. Thus, the current author of the treatise also agrees with his interpretation. Another interpretation is that 'regarding cessation and path' is to universally refute objections. The meaning of the objection is that the truths of suffering and origination give rise to āsrava, and are therefore called sāsrava. The truths of cessation and path also give rise to āsrava, and should also be called sāsrava. To refute this objection, this passage exists. Yet another interpretation is that this passage is to refute the views of the Dharma-vijaya (法勝) masters. Having distinguished what is sāsrava and what is anāsrava (without outflows), the following separately explains anāsrava and poses a question. 'Referring to the path truth and the three unconditioned (trayo asamskṛtāḥ)', this is the general answer. 'What are the three?', this is asking for the number. 'What are space and the two cessations?', this is asking for the number. 'Discriminating cessation and non-discriminating cessation', this is the answer. 'That space, etc., are called anāsrava dharmas', this is concluding the anāsrava dharmas. 'What is the reason?', this is asking for the cause. 'Because the āsrava do not increase within them', this is the answer. The āsrava do not increase within those anāsrava dharmas. That is to say, the nature of anāsrava dharmas is contrary to āsrava, and they will certainly not be in accordance, nor can they become the object of āsrava. Because their natures are contrary, they do not increase with each other, and cannot be called sāsrava in relation to āsrava. In the case of the cessation and path truths, it is because they do not increase with them. In the case of space and non-discriminating cessation, they are neither conditions nor do they increase with them. 'Regarding the briefly stated, up to 'form moves within it'', the path truth should also be explained here. Because the later text will explain it in detail, it is not explained now. The nature of the unconditioned, if distinguished according to things, has many natures. Now, three are generally marked, so it is said to be a brief explanation. Space is only characterized by being unobstructed, and can accommodate all conditioned dharmas. As the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says, space can accommodate form and other conditioned dharmas (the above is the content of the treatise). Although it is said to accommodate, it cannot be said that the nature of space is here or there, because it has no fixed location, like eye consciousness, etc. Question: If it is called space because it is unobstructed, then the color nature of the space realm also does not obstruct other things, and should also be called space. Answer: The color nature of the space realm, although it is not able to obstruct, is obstructed, obstructed by other colors.

障而開避故。其體不生。世言虛空者。于空界色說虛空聲　若爾。無表非能．所礙應名虛空。解云。以從礙生故亦非例　若爾心．心所法。二無為等。非能．所礙。又非礙生。應名虛空。解云。據此義邊亦同虛空。從別立名。虛空但以無礙為性。雖標總稱即受別名。如色處等。由此虛空無障礙故。能所造色。于中行動。以實住等亦據虛空。據顯說行　或行謂生。色于中生　又解。虛空既無方所。不可得言色于中行。而言行者。于空界色中行。空界復由虛空得有。此中解虛空。而言空界色者以粗顯細　問虛空體亦不礙無色。何故但言色于中行。解云。虛空。理亦不礙無色。以色相顯故偏說之　問無色之法。亦無礙性。如何虛空言不礙無色。解云。無色有為。能起作用。虛空不障名為無礙。

擇滅即以至名為擇滅者。出擇滅體。擇滅即以離係爲性　云何離系。諸有漏法。遠離相應．所緣二縛。而能證得解脫涅槃。然彼滅體。離系所顯故名擇滅　問若離繫縛證得擇滅　如苦智已生集智未生。見苦所斷。猶為集下遍行惑系。如何證滅　修道九品。隨斷一品乃至前八品。猶后品系。如何證滅。解云。雖斷能縛。所縛解脫。證得擇滅。然能縛惑有強有弱　一相應縛。謂諸煩惱縛彼同時心．心所法。令于所緣不得自在　二所緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為有障礙才需要開闢躲避。它的本體是不生的。世俗所說的虛空（ākāśa），是指在空界（ākāśadhātu）中的色法（rūpa）上說的虛空。如果這樣說，無表色（avijñapti-rūpa）既不能被阻礙，也不能阻礙其他事物，應該也叫做虛空。解釋說，因為它（無表色）是從障礙中產生的，所以不能作為例子。如果這樣說，心（citta）、心所法（caitta），以及二無為（dva asaṃskṛta）等，既不能被阻礙，也不能阻礙其他事物，又不是從障礙中產生的，應該也叫做虛空。解釋說，按照這個意義來說，它們也和虛空相同。只是爲了區分而另立名稱。虛空只是以無障礙為特性。雖然標立了總的名稱，但還是接受了別的名稱，比如色處（rūpa-āyatana）等。因此，虛空沒有障礙，能被阻礙的事物（能造色）才能在其中行動。以真實存在等也是依據虛空。依據顯現來說行動。或者說，行動是指生，色法在其中產生。又一種解釋，虛空既然沒有方位，不能說色法在其中行動。而說行動，是指在空界中的色法中行動。空界又由虛空而存在。這裡解釋虛空，而說空界中的色法，是用粗顯來代表細微。問：虛空的本體也不障礙無色法（arūpa），為什麼只說色法在其中行動？答：虛空在道理上也不障礙無色法，因為色法的相狀明顯，所以偏重說它。問：無色法也沒有阻礙的性質，為什麼說虛空不障礙無色法？答：無色法是有為法（saṃskṛta），能產生作用。虛空不阻礙它，叫做無礙。

擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha），即以至於用離系（visaṃyoga）作為擇滅的名稱，是爲了說明擇滅的本體。擇滅就是以離係爲特性。什麼是離系？各種有漏法（sāsrava-dharma），遠離相應（saṃprayoga）和所緣（ālambana）這兩種束縛，才能證得解脫涅槃（nirvāṇa）。然而那個滅的本體，是由離系所顯現的，所以叫做擇滅。問：如果因為離系束縛而證得擇滅，比如苦智（duḥkha-jñāna）已經產生，集智（samudaya-jñāna）還沒有產生，見苦所斷的煩惱，仍然被集下遍行惑（samudāyānugāmika-kleśa）束縛，如何證得滅？修道（bhāvanā-mārga）有九品，隨著斷除一品，乃至前八品，仍然被后品束縛，如何證得滅？答：雖然斷除了能束縛的，所束縛的就解脫了，從而證得擇滅。然而能束縛的煩惱有強有弱。第一種是相應縛，是指各種煩惱束縛與它們同時存在的心和心所法，使它們對於所緣不得自在。第二種是所緣

【English Translation】 English version It is because of obstruction that there is opening and avoidance. Its substance is unproduced. What the world calls 'emptiness' (ākāśa) refers to speaking of emptiness in relation to form (rūpa) within the space element (ākāśadhātu). If that's the case, unmanifest form (avijñapti-rūpa), which neither obstructs nor is obstructed, should also be called 'emptiness.' The explanation is that because it (unmanifest form) arises from obstruction, it cannot be used as an example. If that's the case, mind (citta), mental factors (caitta), and the two unconditioned elements (dva asaṃskṛta), which neither obstruct nor are obstructed, and do not arise from obstruction, should also be called 'emptiness.' The explanation is that according to this meaning, they are the same as emptiness. However, names are established separately for the sake of distinction. Emptiness is characterized only by non-obstruction. Although a general term is designated, it still receives a separate name, such as the sense-sphere of form (rūpa-āyatana). Therefore, because emptiness has no obstruction, what can be obstructed (what is created by obstruction) can move within it. 'Existing in reality' and so on are also based on emptiness. 'Movement' is spoken of based on manifestation. Or, 'movement' refers to arising; form arises within it. Another explanation is that since emptiness has no location, it cannot be said that form moves within it. Rather, 'movement' refers to movement within form in the space element. The space element exists because of emptiness. Here, emptiness is explained, and 'form in the space element' is mentioned to represent the subtle by the coarse. Question: The substance of emptiness also does not obstruct formless phenomena (arūpa), so why is it only said that form moves within it? Answer: In principle, emptiness also does not obstruct formless phenomena, but because the characteristics of form are obvious, it is emphasized. Question: Formless phenomena also have no obstructing nature, so how can it be said that emptiness does not obstruct formless phenomena? Answer: Formless phenomena are conditioned (saṃskṛta) and can produce effects. Emptiness not obstructing them is called non-obstruction.

Cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), that is, using 'separation' (visaṃyoga) as the name for cessation through discrimination, is to explain the substance of cessation through discrimination. Cessation through discrimination is characterized by separation. What is separation? Various defiled phenomena (sāsrava-dharma), by being apart from the two bonds of association (saṃprayoga) and object (ālambana), can attain liberation and nirvāṇa. However, that substance of cessation is manifested by separation, so it is called cessation through discrimination. Question: If cessation through discrimination is attained by separating from bonds, for example, when the knowledge of suffering (duḥkha-jñāna) has arisen but the knowledge of origin (samudaya-jñāna) has not, and the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing suffering are still bound by the pervasive afflictions under origin (samudāyānugāmika-kleśa), how is cessation attained? The path of cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga) has nine stages; as one stage is abandoned, even the previous eight stages are still bound by the later stages, so how is cessation attained? Answer: Although what can bind is abandoned, what is bound is liberated, thereby attaining cessation through discrimination. However, the afflictions that can bind are strong or weak. The first is the bond of association, which refers to various afflictions binding the mind and mental factors that exist simultaneously with them, preventing them from being free with regard to their objects. The second is the object

縛。謂惑緣境有毒勢力。縛此所緣令不自在。就緣縛中復有其四。一同部同品。二同部異品。三異部同品。四異部異品。並前相應總有五縛。就五縛中斷強證滅。斷弱非證　言強弱者。一相應縛其力最強。二同部同品縛其力次強。三同部異品縛其力次強。四異部同品縛其力稍弱。五異部異品縛其力最弱　於五縛中。前三是強。后二是弱。若斷前三隨其所應證得擇滅。后之二種能縛力微。非由斷彼而證得擇滅　如見苦所斷法總有二種。相應法為一類。得．四相為一類。相應法具五縛。得與四相除相應縛有餘四縛　若苦智已生集智未生。見苦所斷相應法。由斷相應縛。同部同品縛。同部異品縛故。證得擇滅以斷強故。得與四相。由斷同部同品。同部異品縛故。證得擇滅。以斷強故　此相應法。得及四相。爾時雖為集下異部同品異品遍行惑縛。以微劣故而證得擇滅。又設爾時雖斷後四部。見苦所斷異部同品異品縛。而不能證后四部無為。未斷強故　見所斷惑九品一品總斷。約所斷惑有九品故。所以得說同品異品　如見苦所斷。見集。見滅見道所斷各有二類。準釋可知　修道所斷總有三類。染相應法為一類。染相應法上得四相為一類。余有漏法為一類。即是染污色。並此色上得及四相。及不染五蘊　初類具五縛。后二類各有四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『縛』，指的是煩惱因緣境界而具有的毒害力量，束縛所緣境使之不得自在。就緣縛而言，又有四種：一是同部同品，二是同部異品，三是異部同品，四是異部異品。加上先前的相應縛，總共有五種縛。對於這五種縛，斷除力量強的可以證得擇滅（Nirvana），斷除力量弱的則不能證得擇滅。所謂『強弱』，一是相應縛的力量最強，二是同部同品縛的力量次強，三是同部異品縛的力量再次強，四是異部同品縛的力量稍弱，五是異部異品縛的力量最弱。在這五種縛中，前三種是強的，后兩種是弱的。如果斷除了前三種，就可以隨其所應證得擇滅。后兩種的束縛力量微弱，不是通過斷除它們就能證得擇滅的。例如，見苦所斷的法總共有兩種：相應法為一類，得（Prāpti）、四相（Lakṣaṇa）為一類。相應法具有五種縛，得與四相除了相應縛之外，還有其餘四種縛。如果苦智（duḥkha-jñāna）已經生起，而集智（samudaya-jñāna）尚未生起，那麼見苦所斷的相應法，由於斷除了相應縛、同部同品縛、同部異品縛，所以證得擇滅，因為斷除了力量強的。得與四相，由於斷除了同部同品縛、同部異品縛，所以證得擇滅，因為斷除了力量強的。此時，這些相應法、得以及四相，雖然為集下異部同品、異品遍行惑所縛，但因為力量微弱，所以證得擇滅。又假設此時雖然斷除了后四部，見苦所斷的異部同品、異品縛，也不能證得后四部的無為（Asamskrta），因為沒有斷除力量強的。見所斷的煩惱有九品，一品總斷。因為所斷的煩惱有九品，所以才會有同品、異品的說法。例如，見苦所斷、見集（darśana-samudaya）、見滅（darśana-nirodha）、見道（darśana-mārga）所斷各有兩類，可以參照上述解釋來理解。修道所斷的總共有三類：染相應法為一類，染相應法上的得、四相為一類，其餘有漏法為一類，也就是染污色，以及此色上的得及四相，以及不染的五蘊（pañca-skandha）。第一類具有五種縛，后兩類各有四種。

【English Translation】 English version 'Bandhana' (縛, Bondage) refers to the power of affliction arising from conditioned objects, which binds these objects, preventing them from being free. Regarding bondage to objects, there are four types: 1. Same category, same type; 2. Same category, different type; 3. Different category, same type; 4. Different category, different type. Adding the previous associated bondage, there are a total of five bondages. Among these five bondages, the strong ones, when severed, lead to the attainment of Nirvana (擇滅, Nirvāṇa); severing the weak ones does not lead to the attainment of Nirvana. Regarding 'strong' and 'weak,' 1. Associated bondage is the strongest; 2. Same category, same type bondage is the next strongest; 3. Same category, different type bondage is the next strongest; 4. Different category, same type bondage is slightly weaker; 5. Different category, different type bondage is the weakest. Among these five bondages, the first three are strong, and the last two are weak. If the first three are severed, Nirvana is attained accordingly. The latter two have weak binding power, and Nirvana is not attained by severing them. For example, the dharmas (法, dharma) severed by the view of suffering (見苦, darśana-duḥkha) are of two types: associated dharmas as one category, and attainment (得, Prāpti) and the four characteristics (四相, Lakṣaṇa) as another category. Associated dharmas have five bondages. Attainment and the four characteristics have the remaining four bondages, excluding associated bondage. If the wisdom of suffering (苦智, duḥkha-jñāna) has arisen, but the wisdom of origination (集智, samudaya-jñāna) has not yet arisen, then the associated dharmas severed by the view of suffering, due to severing associated bondage, same category, same type bondage, and same category, different type bondage, Nirvana is attained because the strong ones are severed. Attainment and the four characteristics, due to severing same category, same type bondage, and same category, different type bondage, Nirvana is attained because the strong ones are severed. At this time, these associated dharmas, attainment, and the four characteristics, although bound by the pervasive afflictions of different category, same type, and different type under origination, Nirvana is attained because their power is weak. Furthermore, even if the latter four categories are severed at this time, the different category, same type, and different type bondages severed by the view of suffering, the unconditioned (無為, Asamskrta) of the latter four categories cannot be attained because the strong ones have not been severed. The afflictions severed by view have nine grades, severed completely in one instance. Because the afflictions to be severed have nine grades, there are terms like 'same type' and 'different type.' For example, the dharmas severed by the view of suffering (darśana-duḥkha), the view of origination (見集, darśana-samudaya), the view of cessation (見滅, darśana-nirodha), and the view of the path (見道, darśana-mārga) each have two categories, which can be understood by referring to the above explanation. The dharmas severed by cultivation (修道, bhāvanā-mārga) are of three types: associated afflicted dharmas as one category, attainment and the four characteristics on associated afflicted dharmas as one category, and the remaining conditioned dharmas as one category, which are defiled form, and attainment and the four characteristics on this form, and undefiled five aggregates (五蘊, pañca-skandha). The first category has five bondages, and the latter two categories each have four.

縛。除相應縛非惑相應故　若斷初品染相應法。由斷相應縛。同部同品縛。證得無為以斷強故。爾時雖為同部異品餘八品縛。以劣弱故亦證無為。不同見道。見道九品一品斷故。所以同部同品異品俱可說強。修道九品別斷。所以同部異品說名為弱　或可。見道同部異品亦名為弱。如諸異生五部雜斷。隨斷前品。猶為未斷見惑之所繫縛。以劣弱故亦證擇滅以此而言。故知是弱。若異部同品異品遍行惑先已斷故。設不斷彼亦證無為。以縛劣故　初品染得四相。斷初品時。由斷同部同品縛。以斷強故。證得無為。同部異品。異部同品異品皆準前釋。如斷初品斷餘八品準釋可知　諸餘有漏法亦有九品。擬儀相當故。說同品異品。斷余有漏法時由斷同部同品異品縛。以斷強故證得無為。異部同品異品先已斷故。設不斷彼亦證擇滅。以縛劣故又此余有漏法是緣縛斷。要斷能緣九品惑盡。所緣之法方名為斷　問得與四相亦是緣縛。何故隨斷何品煩惱。彼得四相同證擇滅。九品煩惱亦能發得九品色業。何故所髮色業。不隨彼惑同斷證滅。解曰。得與四相雖是緣縛。四相望惑為俱有因。以是親故。同斷同證。得雖非俱有因望惑亦親。以有此品惑必有得故。無有有惑而無得時所髮色業。有無不定。雖有色業時亦有能發惑。自有此品惑而無彼

色業。如已舍者。以望惑疏。要斷九品方證得滅　問如斷善．舍戒。隨彼善心發得此戒。彼心若斷此戒便舍。惑髮色業。隨斷彼惑時。何故色業非與惑同斷。解云。斷．舍義別。不可為例。自有斷而非舍。如斷有漏善等。自有舍而非斷。如舍別解脫戒等。

擇謂簡擇至故作是說者。釋擇滅名　謂無漏慧異有漏慧名慧差別　或無染異染名慧差別　此差別慧各別簡擇四聖諦故　滅體先有。但不成就。由擇力所得名為擇滅　略力所得但言擇滅。擇之滅故。名為擇滅。依主釋也。如牛所駕車名曰牛車。略所駕中言。故作是說。擇滅亦爾。

一切有漏法同一擇滅耶者。問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

隨系事別至則為無用者。釋　謂隨所繫諸有漏法事量多少。離系事量多少亦爾　若不爾者。而言諸有漏法同一擇滅。于證見苦所斷煩惱滅時。應證一切五部所斷諸煩惱滅。若如是證者。修餘四部所斷能對治道。則為無用。前已證故。若言初證少分非全。即一滅體應有多分。一體多分與理相違。故滅隨下。體別眾多。然諸有情證彼滅時。雖起得別而皆同證。

依何義說滅無同類者。難　滅體既多應有同類。經依何義說滅無同類耶。

依滅自無至非無同類者。通　依滅自體相望。定無同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本色業（Karma of Form）。如果已經捨棄了色業，因為對迷惑的疏忽。需要斷除九品煩惱才能證得滅盡。

問：如果斷除善根、捨棄戒律，隨著善心的生起而獲得此戒律，如果彼善心斷滅，此戒律便捨棄。迷惑引發色業，隨著斷除彼迷惑時，為什麼色業不是與迷惑一同斷除？

答：斷除和捨棄的意義不同，不可作為例子。有斷除而非捨棄的，如斷除有漏善等。有捨棄而非斷除的，如捨棄別解脫戒等。

擇謂簡擇，至於故作是說者：解釋擇滅的名稱。所謂無漏慧不同於有漏慧，名為慧差別。或者無染不同於有染，名為慧差別。此差別慧各自簡擇四聖諦的緣故。滅的本體先前就存在，但是不成就。由簡擇的力量所得，名為擇滅。省略力量所得，只說擇滅。擇之滅的緣故，名為擇滅，是依主釋。如牛所駕的車名為牛車，省略所駕中而言。故作是說，擇滅也是如此。

一切有漏法是同一個擇滅嗎？問。

不是這樣。答。

怎麼樣呢？征問。

隨著所繫的事物不同，至於則為無用者：解釋。所謂隨著所繫諸有漏法的事量多少，離系的事量多少也是如此。如果不這樣，而言諸有漏法是同一個擇滅，在證見苦所斷煩惱滅時，應該證得一切五部所斷諸煩惱滅。如果這樣證得，修餘四部所斷的能對治道，則為無用，因為前面已經證得了。如果說初證得少分而非全部，那麼一個滅的本體應該有很多分。一個本體有很多分，與道理相違背。所以滅隨。別眾多。然而諸有情證得彼滅時，雖然生起得別，而都一同證得。

依據什麼意義說滅沒有同類？難。滅的本體既然多，應該有同類。經書依據什麼意義說滅沒有同類呢？

依據滅自身沒有，至於非無同類者：通。依據滅的自體相互比較，一定沒有同類。

【English Translation】 English version Karma of Form. If it has been abandoned, due to negligence of delusion. One must sever the nine grades of afflictions to attain cessation.

Question: If one severs a root of goodness or abandons precepts, with the arising of a virtuous mind, one obtains these precepts. If that virtuous mind ceases, these precepts are abandoned. Delusion gives rise to karma of form. When severing that delusion, why is the karma of form not severed along with the delusion?

Answer: 'Severing' and 'abandoning' have different meanings and cannot be used as examples. There is severing without abandoning, such as severing defiled goodness. There is abandoning without severing, such as abandoning the Pratimoksha precepts.

'Discernment' means selection, as for 'therefore it is said': Explaining the name of Nirodha-satya (Cessation through discernment). So-called undefiled wisdom is different from defiled wisdom, called the distinction of wisdom. Or undefiled is different from defiled, called the distinction of wisdom. This distinctive wisdom individually discerns the Four Noble Truths. The substance of cessation exists beforehand, but is not accomplished. Obtained by the power of discernment, it is called Nirodha-satya. Omitting the power obtained, it is only called Nirodha-satya. Because it is the cessation of discernment, it is called Nirodha-satya, which is a dependent determinative compound. Like a cart driven by an ox is called an ox cart, omitting 'driven by'. Therefore it is said, Nirodha-satya is also like this.

Are all defiled dharmas the same Nirodha-satya? Question.

Not so. Answer.

How so? Inquiry.

Depending on the associated things, as for 'then it would be useless': Explanation. Depending on the amount of associated defiled dharmas, the amount of dissociation is also the same. If not, and it is said that all defiled dharmas are the same Nirodha-satya, when realizing the cessation of afflictions severed by seeing suffering, one should realize the cessation of all afflictions severed by the five parts. If one realizes it in this way, cultivating the antidotal path to sever the remaining four parts would be useless, because it has already been realized before. If it is said that the initial realization is a small part and not the whole, then one substance of cessation should have many parts. One substance having many parts contradicts reason. Therefore, cessation follows *. * being numerous. However, when sentient beings realize that cessation, although the arising is different, they all realize it together.

According to what meaning is it said that cessation has no similar kind? Difficulty. Since the substance of cessation is numerous, there should be similar kinds. According to what meaning does the scripture say that cessation has no similar kind?

According to cessation itself not having, as for 'not without similar kinds': Explanation. According to the comparison of the self-nature of cessation, there is definitely no similar kind.

類因義。亦不與他為同類因。此簡苦忍。故彼經中作如是說。非滅自無多體同類　已說擇滅者。結　永礙當生至得非擇滅者。此釋非擇滅　謂有法體　而能永礙未來法生。此法本欲礙生法不生。若法不生便起得送與行者。故名得滅　前滅是善。后滅無記。故云異前　名非擇滅。此結體也　由擇故得名為擇滅。得不因擇但由闕緣。名非擇滅。此釋名也　又解。擇滅由擇故得。非擇滅由闕緣得。故言得滅異前　如眼與意識前後相續專一色時。言眼已攝眼識。以見色時必有識故　或言意者。所謂眼識。十二處中亦名意故　或言意者。所謂意處。以七心界皆名意故。若作此解具攝意識及眼識故。眼識同時。意識前後　余色．聲．香．味．觸等境落謝過去。應緣彼境五識身等。住未來世畢竟不生。由五識等不能緣彼過去境界。緣不具故得非擇滅　觸等等取法界等中。有與能緣同時為境。如他心智所緣境等　五識身等。等取意識等。以亦有緣同時境故。如他心智等　問法不生時。但由闕緣。何關此滅。答顯宗論云。非唯緣闕便永不生。后遇同類緣彼復應生故。謂若先緣闕。彼法可不生。后遇同類緣何障令不起(解云。彼論意說。非唯緣闕令法不生。此法不生亦由滅故)　應知。此滅約得偏說不生。據體實通三世．有為。故婆沙三十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本類因義（hetu-pratyaya）：指同類因的意義。它不與其他事物構成同類因。這裡是爲了簡化苦忍（duḥkha-kṣānti）。因此，經文中這樣說：『並非滅盡自身，而是多種同類。』已經解釋了擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha）。總結：永遠阻礙未來生起，從而獲得非擇滅（apratisamkhyā-nirodha）。這是對非擇滅的解釋：指某種法體，能夠永遠阻礙未來法的生起。這種法本來想要阻礙生起的法不生起。如果法不生起，就會產生『得』，並將其賦予修行者。因此稱為『得滅』。前面的滅是善（kuśala），後面的滅是無記（avyākṛta）。因此說『異前』，名為非擇滅。這是對體性的總結。由於選擇而獲得的稱為擇滅。獲得不依賴於選擇，僅僅由於缺少因緣，稱為非擇滅。這是對名稱的解釋。另一種解釋是：擇滅是由於選擇而獲得的，非擇滅是由於缺少因緣而獲得的。因此說『得滅異前』。例如，當眼和意識前後相續，專注于同一顏色時，可以說眼已經包含了眼識（cakṣu-vijñāna），因為在看到顏色時必然有識。或者說『意』，指的是眼識，因為在十二處（dvādaśāyatana）中也稱為意。或者說『意』，指的是意處（mana-āyatana），因為七心界（sapta vijñāna-dhātavaḥ）都稱為意。如果這樣解釋，就包含了意識和眼識。眼識是同時的，意識是前後的。其餘的色（rūpa）、聲（śabda）、香（gandha）、味（rasa）、觸（sparśa）等境，已經消逝過去，應該緣于這些境界的五識身（pañca vijñāna-kāyāḥ）等，在未來世畢竟不生起。由於五識等不能緣於過去的境界，因緣不具足，所以獲得非擇滅。觸等，包括法界（dharma-dhātu）等，有與能緣同時作為境界的，例如他心智（paracitta-jñāna）所緣的境界等。五識身等，包括意識（mano-vijñāna）等，因為也有緣于同時境界的，例如他心智等。問：法不生起時，僅僅由於缺少因緣，與這種滅有什麼關係？答：《顯宗論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）中說：『並非僅僅缺少因緣就永遠不生起，後來遇到同類因緣，它又應該生起。』意思是說，如果先缺少因緣，這個法可能不生起，但後來遇到同類因緣，有什麼障礙使它不生起呢？（解釋說：該論的意思是，並非僅僅缺少因緣就使法不生起，這個法不生起也是由於滅的緣故。）應該知道，這種滅是就『得』而言，偏重於說不生起。就體性而言，實際上貫通三世（tri-kāla）、有為（saṃskṛta）。因此，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第三十卷中說：

【English Translation】 English version Hetu-pratyaya (類因義): Refers to the meaning of homogeneous cause. It does not constitute a homogeneous cause with other things. This is to simplify duḥkha-kṣānti (苦忍). Therefore, the sutra says: 'It is not the extinction of itself, but many of the same kind.' Pratisamkhyā-nirodha (擇滅) has been explained. Summary: It permanently hinders future arising, thereby obtaining apratisamkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅). This is an explanation of apratisamkhyā-nirodha: It refers to a certain dharma-entity that can permanently hinder the arising of future dharmas. This dharma originally wanted to hinder the dharma from arising from not arising. If the dharma does not arise, 'attainment' arises and is given to the practitioner. Therefore, it is called 'attainment-cessation'. The previous cessation is kuśala (善), and the latter cessation is avyākṛta (無記). Therefore, it is said to be 'different from the previous', and it is called apratisamkhyā-nirodha. This is a summary of the nature. What is obtained through choice is called pratisamkhyā-nirodha. Attainment does not depend on choice, but only on the lack of conditions, and is called apratisamkhyā-nirodha. This is an explanation of the name. Another explanation is: pratisamkhyā-nirodha is obtained through choice, and apratisamkhyā-nirodha is obtained through lack of conditions. Therefore, it is said that 'attainment-cessation is different from the previous'. For example, when the eye and consciousness are continuously focused on the same color, it can be said that the eye already contains cakṣu-vijñāna (眼識), because there must be consciousness when seeing color. Or 'mind' refers to eye-consciousness, because it is also called mind in the dvādaśāyatana (十二處). Or 'mind' refers to mana-āyatana (意處), because the sapta vijñāna-dhātavaḥ (七心界) are all called mind. If explained in this way, it includes both consciousness and eye-consciousness. Eye-consciousness is simultaneous, and consciousness is before and after. The remaining rūpa (色), śabda (聲), gandha (香), rasa (味), sparśa (觸), etc., have disappeared into the past, and the pañca vijñāna-kāyāḥ (五識身), etc., which should be related to these realms, will not arise in the future. Because the five consciousnesses, etc., cannot be related to past realms, and the conditions are not complete, apratisamkhyā-nirodha is obtained. Touch, etc., including dharma-dhātu (法界), etc., have simultaneous objects with the cognizer, such as the objects cognized by paracitta-jñāna (他心智), etc. The five consciousness bodies, etc., include mano-vijñāna (意識), etc., because there are also those who are related to simultaneous realms, such as paracitta-jñāna, etc. Question: When a dharma does not arise, it is only due to the lack of conditions. What does it have to do with this cessation? Answer: The Abhidharmasamuccaya (顯宗論) says: 'It is not that it will never arise simply because of the lack of conditions. Later, when encountering similar conditions, it should arise again.' The meaning is that if there is a lack of conditions first, this dharma may not arise, but later, when encountering similar conditions, what obstacle prevents it from arising? (The explanation is: The meaning of the treatise is that it is not only the lack of conditions that prevents the dharma from arising, but the fact that the dharma does not arise is also due to cessation.) It should be known that this cessation is in terms of 'attainment', with emphasis on saying that it does not arise. In terms of nature, it actually runs through the tri-kāla (三世) and saṃskṛta (有為). Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論), Volume 30, says:

二評家云。非擇滅如有為法數量。擇滅但如有漏法數量　彼論既言如有為量。過去．現在及當生法既有為攝。準知。彼法有非擇滅。若言無者。此體不生應無此滅。若言不生方有此滅。此滅含有。應是無常。若言生．不生法其性各定。生法即無。不生即有。故言常者。論不應說闕緣之言。又若爾者。修道無用。由斯理證。故通有為。更有多文不能廣引　問此非擇滅。諸有情類為皆共得。不共得耶。解云。若外非情共有法上非擇滅。即共得。以諸有情共業感故。若內有情不共法上非擇滅。即各別得。以諸有情別業感故。故婆沙三十二云。此不快定。于共有法非擇滅即共得。于不共法上非擇滅即各別得　又解。外非情法及他身中色．香．味．觸。相顯皆可共受用故。此若闕緣即共起得。五根及心心．所法等。相隱別用。此若闕緣即各別得　又解。諸內外法。隨若干有情應令共受用。此各不生。隨若干有情應令共受用者。即起得得。此名共得。若唯令自受用者。此法不生。但自起得。名各別得。

於法得滅至過現生法者。明得二滅四句差別　虛空無得故不對辨。無得所以如下別明。謂過．現．生法。及不生法。此曰各有有漏．無漏。二四成八　第一句有三法。謂諸有漏過．現．生法。以有漏故得擇滅。以過．現．生法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二評家說：『如果非擇滅像有為法一樣有數量，那麼擇滅就只有像有漏法一樣的數量。』既然他們的論述說『像有為法一樣有數量』，那麼過去、現在和未來所生的法都屬於有為法。因此可以推知，這些法有非擇滅。如果說沒有，那麼這個本體不生，應該就沒有這個滅。如果說不生才有這個滅，那麼這個滅就含有『有』，應該是無常的。如果說生和不生的法的性質各自確定，生法就是『無』，不生法就是『有』，所以說是常，那麼論中就不應該說缺少因緣的話。又如果這樣，修道就沒有用了。因此，根據這些道理可以證明，非擇滅普遍存在於有為法中。還有很多經文，不能一一引用。

問：這種非擇滅，所有的有情都能共同獲得，還是各自獲得？

答：如果是外在非情（無情）的、共同的法上的非擇滅，就是共同獲得，因為是所有有情共同的業力所感。如果是內在有情的、不共同的法上的非擇滅，就是各自獲得，因為是各個有情各自的業力所感。所以《婆沙論》第三十二卷說：『這不一定。對於共同的法，非擇滅就是共同獲得；對於不共同的法，非擇滅就是各自獲得。』

又解釋說：外在非情法以及他身中的色、香、味、觸，這些相狀顯現，都可以共同受用，因此如果缺少因緣，就會共同獲得非擇滅。而五根以及心、心所法等，相狀隱蔽，作用各不相同，因此如果缺少因緣，就會各自獲得非擇滅。

又解釋說：各種內外之法，如果應該讓若干有情共同受用，這些法各自不生，那麼凡是應該讓若干有情共同受用的，就共同獲得非擇滅。如果僅僅讓自己受用，這些法不生，那麼僅僅是自己獲得非擇滅，這叫做各自獲得。

『於法得滅至過現生法者』，說明獲得二滅的四句差別。虛空沒有『得』，所以不對它進行辨析。沒有『得』的原因如下面分別說明。所謂過去、現在、未來所生的法，以及不生的法，這些各自都有有漏、無漏兩種，二四得八。第一句有三種法，就是各種有漏的過去、現在、未來所生的法。因為是有漏的，所以能獲得擇滅；因為是過去、現在、未來所生的法

【English Translation】 English version: The second commentator says: 'If non-selective cessation (非擇滅) is like conditioned dharmas (有為法) in quantity, then selective cessation (擇滅) would only be like defiled dharmas (有漏法) in quantity.' Since their argument states 'like conditioned dharmas in quantity,' then past, present, and future-born dharmas are included within conditioned dharmas. Therefore, it can be inferred that these dharmas have non-selective cessation. If it is said that they do not, then if this entity is not born, there should be no cessation. If it is said that only when it is not born is there this cessation, then this cessation contains 'existence' and should be impermanent. If it is said that the nature of born and unborn dharmas are each fixed, that born dharmas are 'non-existent,' and unborn dharmas are 'existent,' therefore it is said to be permanent, then the treatise should not speak of lacking conditions. Furthermore, if that were the case, cultivation would be useless. Therefore, based on these reasons, it can be proven that non-selective cessation is universally present in conditioned dharmas. There are many more sutras that cannot be cited one by one.

Question: Is this non-selective cessation obtained jointly by all sentient beings, or individually?

Answer: If it is non-selective cessation on external, non-sentient, common dharmas, then it is obtained jointly, because it is caused by the shared karma of all sentient beings. If it is non-selective cessation on internal sentient beings', non-common dharmas, then it is obtained individually, because it is caused by the separate karma of each sentient being. Therefore, the thirty-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) says: 'This is not fixed. For common dharmas, non-selective cessation is obtained jointly; for non-common dharmas, non-selective cessation is obtained individually.'

Another explanation: External non-sentient dharmas and the colors, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations in others' bodies, these appearances are all available for shared use, therefore if conditions are lacking, non-selective cessation will be jointly obtained. The five roots (五根) and mental factors (心所法), etc., have hidden appearances and separate functions, therefore if conditions are lacking, non-selective cessation will be obtained individually.

Another explanation: Various internal and external dharmas, if they should be jointly used by several sentient beings, these dharmas do not arise individually, then those that should be jointly used by several sentient beings jointly obtain non-selective cessation. If they are only for one's own use, these dharmas do not arise, then only oneself obtains non-selective cessation, which is called individual obtaining.

'Obtaining cessation of dharmas up to past, present, and future-born dharmas' explains the four-fold distinction of obtaining the two cessations. Space (虛空) has no 'obtaining,' so it is not analyzed. The reason for not having 'obtaining' is explained separately below. The so-called past, present, and future-born dharmas, and unborn dharmas, each have defiled (有漏) and undefiled (無漏) aspects, two times four makes eight. The first category has three dharmas, which are the various defiled past, present, and future-born dharmas. Because they are defiled, they can obtain selective cessation; because they are past, present, and future-born dharmas

故不得非擇滅　第二句有一法。謂不生法無漏有為。以不生故得非擇滅。以無漏故不得擇滅。以無漏簡有漏。有為簡無為　第三句有一法。謂彼不生諸有漏法。以有漏故得擇滅。以不生故得非擇滅　第四句有三法。謂諸無漏過．現．生法。以無漏故不得擇滅。以過．現．生法故不得非擇滅也。

如是已說至何謂有為者。此下第二別解釋。就中。初二品總明。后六品別解。就總明中。初界品明體。后根品明用。就明體中。一辨異名。二正辨體。就辨異名中。一明有為。二明有漏。此下第二明有為異名。結牒問起。

頌曰至有離有事等者。就頌答中。上兩句出體。下兩句顯異名　等者。等取有果等。

論曰至如乳如薪者。為別戒等無漏五蘊故言色等以色等五具攝有為。故。此偏說　緣謂四緣。隨其所應眾緣聚集共所作故。名曰有為。必無有少法一緣所生　伏難意曰。過．現眾緣造可得名有為。未來既未造。如何名有為。故今通言。是彼過．現有為類故。亦名有為。未來無妨。如兒飲名乳。在乳房中亦名乳者。飲流類故。正燒名薪。未燒名薪。燒流類故。

此有為法至所吞食故者。此有為法亦名世路。謂有為法於此世中行。過去法是已行性。現在法是正行性。未來法是當行性。諸不生法是彼類故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，第一句『故不得非擇滅』沒有符合條件的法。第二句『第二句有一法。謂不生法無漏有為』有一種法，即不生法（utpada-nirodha-dharma，指不生不滅的法）、無漏有為法（anasrava-samskrta-dharma，指沒有煩惱的有為法）。因為不生，所以得到非擇滅（apratisankhya-nirodha，指非由智慧力而證得的滅）；因為無漏，所以不能得到擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，指由智慧力而證得的滅）；用『無漏』來簡別有漏（sasrava，指有煩惱），用『有為』來簡別無為（asamskrta，指無生滅變化）。第三句『第三句有一法。謂彼不生諸有漏法』有一種法，即那些不生的有漏法。因為有漏，所以得到擇滅；因為不生，所以得到非擇滅。第四句『第四句有三法。謂諸無漏過．現．生法』有三種法，即所有無漏的過去法（atita，已滅）、現在法（vartamana，當下存在）、和未來生法（anagata，尚未生起）。因為無漏，所以不能得到擇滅；因為是過去、現在、未來生法，所以不能得到非擇滅。像這樣已經說了『至何謂有為者』。這以下是第二部分，分別解釋。其中，最初的兩品總括地說明，後面的六品分別解釋。在總括說明中，第一界品說明體性，後面的根品說明作用。在說明體性中，一是辨別不同的名稱，二是正式辨別體性。在辨別不同名稱中，一是說明有為，二是說明有漏。這以下是第二部分，說明有為的異名，總結前文並提出問題。頌文說『頌曰至有離有事等者』。在頌文的回答中，上面兩句說明體性，下面兩句顯示不同的名稱。『等者』，等同於取『有果』等。論述說『論曰至如乳如薪者』。爲了區別戒等無漏五蘊（skandha，指構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識），所以說色等（rupa，指物質現象）。因為色等五蘊完全包含有為法，所以這裡偏重說明。緣（pratyaya，指事物生起的原因和條件）是指四緣（hetu-pratyaya, samanantara-pratyaya, alambana-pratyaya, adhipati-pratyaya，因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣、增上緣）。隨其所應，各種因緣聚集在一起共同作用，所以叫做『有為』。一定沒有少許的法是由單一的因緣所生的。反駁疑問的意思是：過去、現在的各種因緣造作可以稱為有為。未來既然還沒有造作，如何稱為有為？所以現在總括地說，是那些過去、現在的有為法的同類，所以也叫做有為，未來沒有妨礙。比如嬰兒喝的叫做乳，在**中也叫做乳，是因為飲用的流動性質相似。正在燃燒的叫做薪，沒有燃燒的叫做薪，是因為燃燒的流動性質相似。這有為法『此有為法至所吞食故者』，這有為法也叫做世路（loka-marga，指輪迴的道路）。所謂有為法在這個世間執行。過去法是已經執行的性質，現在法是正在執行的性質，未來法是將要執行的性質。所有不生法是它們的同類。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the first phrase '故不得非擇滅' (gu bu de fei ze mie) does not have a corresponding dharma. The second phrase '第二句有一法。謂不生法無漏有為' (di er ju you yi fa. wei bu sheng fa wu lou you wei) has one dharma, namely, 'non-arising dharma' (utpada-nirodha-dharma, referring to the dharma of non-arising and non-ceasing), 'untainted conditioned dharma' (anasrava-samskrta-dharma, referring to conditioned dharma without afflictions). Because of non-arising, one obtains 'non-selective cessation' (apratisankhya-nirodha, referring to cessation attained not through the power of wisdom); because of being untainted, one cannot obtain 'selective cessation' (pratisankhya-nirodha, referring to cessation attained through the power of wisdom); 'untainted' is used to distinguish from 'tainted' (sasrava, referring to having afflictions), and 'conditioned' is used to distinguish from 'unconditioned' (asamskrta, referring to without arising and ceasing). The third phrase '第三句有一法。謂彼不生諸有漏法' (di san ju you yi fa. wei bi bu sheng zhu you lou fa) has one dharma, namely, those non-arising tainted dharmas. Because of being tainted, one obtains selective cessation; because of non-arising, one obtains non-selective cessation. The fourth phrase '第四句有三法。謂諸無漏過．現．生法' (di si ju you san fa. wei zhu wu lou guo. xian. sheng fa) has three dharmas, namely, all untainted past dharmas (atita, already ceased), present dharmas (vartamana, currently existing), and future arising dharmas (anagata, not yet arisen). Because of being untainted, one cannot obtain selective cessation; because they are past, present, and future arising dharmas, one cannot obtain non-selective cessation. Having spoken thus, '至何謂有為者' (zhi he wei you wei zhe). The following is the second part, explaining separately. Among them, the first two sections explain generally, and the latter six sections explain separately. In the general explanation, the first 'Realm' section explains the essence, and the latter 'Faculty' section explains the function. In explaining the essence, first, differentiate the different names, and second, formally differentiate the essence. In differentiating the different names, first, explain 'conditioned', and second, explain 'tainted'. The following is the second part, explaining the different names of 'conditioned', summarizing the previous text and raising questions. The verse says '頌曰至有離有事等者' (song yue zhi you li you shi deng zhe). In the verse's answer, the above two sentences explain the essence, and the below two sentences reveal the different names. '等者' (deng zhe), is equivalent to taking 'having result' and so on. The treatise says '論曰至如乳如薪者' (lun yue zhi ru ru ru xin zhe). In order to distinguish the untainted five aggregates (skandha, referring to the five elements that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) such as precepts, therefore it says form and so on (rupa, referring to material phenomena). Because the five aggregates such as form completely contain conditioned dharmas, therefore it emphasizes explanation here. 'Condition' (pratyaya, referring to the causes and conditions for the arising of things) refers to the four conditions (hetu-pratyaya, samanantara-pratyaya, alambana-pratyaya, adhipati-pratyaya, causal condition, immediate condition, object condition, dominant condition). As appropriate, various conditions gather together and act jointly, therefore it is called 'conditioned'. There must not be a small amount of dharma that is born from a single condition. The meaning of refuting the question is: the creation of various past and present conditions can be called conditioned. Since the future has not yet been created, how can it be called conditioned? Therefore, it is now said in general that they are of the same kind as those past and present conditioned dharmas, so they are also called conditioned, and the future is not hindered. For example, what a baby drinks is called milk, and it is also called milk in the **s, because the flowing nature of drinking is similar. What is burning is called firewood, and what is not burning is called firewood, because the flowing nature of burning is similar. This conditioned dharma '此有為法至所吞食故者' (ci you wei fa zhi suo tun shi gu zhe), this conditioned dharma is also called the 'path of the world' (loka-marga, referring to the path of reincarnation). The so-called conditioned dharmas operate in this world. Past dharmas are of the nature of having already operated, present dharmas are of the nature of currently operating, and future dharmas are of the nature of about to operate. All non-arising dharmas are of the same kind as them.

。立名無失。以世為路故名世路。有財釋也。故正理云。色等五蘊生滅法故。未來．現在．過去路中而流轉故　又解。世無別體。依法而立。法是世所依名之為路。謂過去法是世已行性。現在法是世正行性。未來法是世當行性。世之路故名為世路。依主釋也　無常四相是能吞食。諸有為法是所吞食。此所吞食法是可破壞故名世。是無常所依故名路。即世名路持業釋也。故真諦師云。路為行所食。如萬里之路。行行不已。終路則盡極。五蘊亦爾。為無常所行故終即滅盡。

或名言依至十八界攝者。此有為法亦名言依　言謂語言。以聲為體。此言所依。即名及義。以言依名及義轉故　名俱義者。謂名及與義。俱行三世義。於三世中或名前義后。或名后義前。或名義同時。能詮所詮雖同或異。同墮世攝皆可說俱。此名與義望能說言。復同墮世有用親故。故是言依由此。無為是離世法。望能說言無用疏遠。雖亦是義。言亦能說而非言依　又解。名如前說。言俱義者。謂義與言俱同墮世故　又解。俱者通名及義。謂名俱。義俱。此名及義。與言俱也。若義若名。可俱說故。同墮世故。名之為俱。名．義望言三世同異。如應說俱。故婆沙十五云。脅尊者言。有為諸法。與言可有俱時轉義。故立言依。無為不然。是故不說(已

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『立名無失』，因為以『世』為道路，所以叫做『世路』。這是有財釋。所以《正理》中說：『色等五蘊是生滅之法，所以在未來、現在、過去的路中流轉。』又解釋說，『世』沒有別的本體，是依法而建立的。法是『世』所依賴的，所以叫做『路』。也就是說，過去的法是『世』已行之性，現在的法是『世』正行之性，未來的法是『世』當行之性。是『世』的道路，所以叫做『世路』。這是依主釋。無常的四相是能吞食者，諸有為法是被吞食者。這被吞食的法是可以破壞的，所以叫做『世』。是無常所依賴的，所以叫做『路』。即『世』就是『路』，這是持業釋。所以真諦師說：『路為行所食，如萬里之路，行行不已，終路則盡極。五蘊也是這樣，為無常所行，所以最終會滅盡。』

或者說，『名言依』直到十八界所攝的，這些有為法也是『名言依』。『言』指的是語言，以聲音為本體。這『言』所依賴的，就是『名』和『義』，因為『言』依賴『名』和『義』而運轉。『名俱義』指的是，『名』和『義』，共同執行於三世。義在三世中，或者名先義后，或者名后義先，或者名義同時。能詮釋的和所詮釋的，雖然相同或不同，都屬於『世』所攝，都可以說是『俱』。這『名』和『義』，對於能說的『言』來說，也同樣屬於『世』，因為有用且親近。所以是『言依』。因此，無為法是遠離『世』法的，對於能說的『言』來說，無用且疏遠。雖然也是『義』，『言』也能說，但不是『言依』。又解釋說，『名』如前面所說。『言俱義』指的是，『義』和『言』共同屬於『世』。又解釋說，『俱』是通指『名』和『義』。指的是『名俱』，『義俱』。這『名』和『義』，與『言』同在。無論是『義』還是『名』，都可以共同說，因為同屬于『世』，所以叫做『俱』。『名』、『義』對於『言』的三世同異，應該如實說『俱』。所以《婆沙》第十五卷中說，脅尊者說：『有為諸法，與言可以有俱時運轉的意義，所以立為言依。無為法不是這樣，所以不說。』（已完）

【English Translation】 English version: 'Establishing a name without error' is because 'Samsara (世)' is taken as the path, hence it is called 'Samsara-path (世路)'. This is a possessive compound (有財釋). Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra (正理) says: 'The five aggregates (色等五蘊) are subject to arising and ceasing, hence they transmigrate in the paths of the future, present, and past.' Another explanation is that 'Samsara (世)' has no separate entity; it is established based on the Dharma (法). The Dharma is what 'Samsara (世)' relies on, hence it is called 'path (路)'. That is to say, the past Dharma is the nature of 'Samsara (世)' that has already been traversed, the present Dharma is the nature of 'Samsara (世)' that is currently being traversed, and the future Dharma is the nature of 'Samsara (世)' that will be traversed. It is the path of 'Samsara (世)', hence it is called 'Samsara-path (世路)'. This is a dependent determinative compound (依主釋). The four characteristics of impermanence (無常四相) are the devourers, and all conditioned dharmas (諸有為法) are the devoured. These devoured dharmas are destructible, hence they are called 'Samsara (世)'. It is what impermanence relies on, hence it is called 'path (路)'. That is, 'Samsara (世)' is 'path (路)', this is an appositional compound (持業釋). Therefore, the Paramārtha (真諦) says: 'The path is consumed by action, like a ten-thousand-mile road, walking and walking without end, the end of the road is exhaustion. The five aggregates are also like this, being traversed by impermanence, hence they will eventually be extinguished.'

Or, 'name-utterance-support (名言依)' up to what is included in the eighteen realms (十八界), these conditioned dharmas (有為法) are also 'name-utterance-support (名言依)'. 'Utterance (言)' refers to language, with sound as its essence. What this 'utterance (言)' relies on is 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)', because 'utterance (言)' operates relying on 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)'. 'Name-together-with-meaning (名俱義)' refers to 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)' both operating in the three times. In the three times, meaning can precede name, or name can precede meaning, or name and meaning can occur simultaneously. What is expressed and what is explained, although the same or different, both belong to what is included in 'Samsara (世)', and can both be said to be 'together (俱)'. This 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)', in relation to the 'utterance (言)' that can express them, also both belong to 'Samsara (世)', because they are useful and close. Therefore, they are 'utterance-support (言依)'. Therefore, unconditioned dharmas (無為法) are separate from the dharmas of 'Samsara (世)', and in relation to the 'utterance (言)' that can express them, they are useless and distant. Although they are also 'meaning (義)', 'utterance (言)' can also express them, but they are not 'utterance-support (言依)'. Another explanation is that 'name (名)' is as previously explained. 'Utterance-together-with-meaning (言俱義)' refers to 'meaning (義)' and 'utterance (言)' both belonging to 'Samsara (世)'. Another explanation is that 'together (俱)' refers to both 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)'. It refers to 'name-together (名俱)', 'meaning-together (義俱)'. This 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)' are together with 'utterance (言)'. Whether it is 'meaning (義)' or 'name (名)', they can be spoken of together, because they both belong to 'Samsara (世)', hence they are called 'together (俱)'. The sameness and difference of 'name (名)' and 'meaning (義)' in relation to 'utterance (言)' in the three times should be spoken of as 'together (俱)' as appropriate. Therefore, the fifteenth chapter of the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙) says that the Venerable Ghoṣaka (脅尊者) said: 'Conditioned dharmas (有為諸法) can have the meaning of operating simultaneously with utterance (言), hence they are established as utterance-support (言依). Unconditioned dharmas (無為法) are not like this, therefore they are not spoken of.' (End)

上論文)如是言依具攝一切有為諸法。若不爾者。而但執名為言依體。相違品類足論。彼說言依十八界攝。

問如正理論引品類足論云。由此善通品類足論。彼說言依五蘊所攝。何故兩論引文不同。解云。此論正理各引少分。婆沙十五具說。故。彼論云。問言依以何為自性。答品類足論說。言依十八界。十二處。五蘊所攝　又解。此論為遮唯執言依名為體者故。偏引彼十八界文。正理為破言依亦通無為者執故。偏引五蘊文也。各引一邊並無違害　問婆沙一說。名是言依。義。是言展轉依。一說名義俱是言依。既有二師。此論言依。為同何者。解云。或同前師。或同后師。皆無有妨。問何故說名不說句文。解云。言名影顯。或舉初顯后。

或名有離至有彼離故者。此有為法亦名有離。離謂永離。即是涅槃。以此涅槃永能捨離一切有為。一切有為有彼離故。如有財者名為有財。是故聖道猶如船筏。亦應舍離。如契經言。法尚應舍。何況非法。

或名有事至傳說如此者。此有為法亦名有事。事是因義。有為諸法從因生故。名為有事　經部釋。事是體。有為有體。無為無體　論主意朋經部。不信事因。故云傳說如此　如是等類至差別眾名者。結。

於此所說至見處三有等者。此下第二明有漏眾名。牒

前舉頌　等謂等取有染等四。

論曰此何所立者。問　於此有漏復何所立。

謂立取蘊至如華果樹者。答　於此有漏謂立取蘊。此取蘊不但名取蘊。亦名為蘊　或有唯蘊而非取蘊。謂無漏行。蘊名通故　火從草糠生名草糠火。蘊從取生故名取蘊。從因為名。煩惱名取能執取故。依主釋也。臣屬於王名帝王臣。蘊屬於取故名取蘊。從屬為名　樹生華果名華果樹。蘊能生取故名取蘊。從果為名。

此有漏法至猶如有漏者。煩惱乖違故立諍名　觸動善品損害自他。此釋諍名。

諍隨增故名為有諍。猶如前說漏隨增故名為有漏。此釋有諍。

亦名為苦違聖心故者。此有漏法亦名為苦。有漏苦果流轉無常。凡夫不覺。聖者厭之。是故但說違于聖心。

亦名為集能招苦故者。此有漏法亦名為集。招苦果故。

亦名世間至有對治故者。此有漏法亦名世間　可毀壞故。簡異無為　有對治故。簡異道諦。

亦名見處至隨增眠故者。此有漏法亦名見處。見謂五見。見住有漏法中隨順增長眠行相故。行相微細說之為眠　問漏取諍中亦攝於見。貪等諸惑亦皆隨增。何故此中偏標五見。解云。依正理論四門廢立。一一切種。二一切時。三無差別。四堅執不動。解云。彼論云。遍緣五部名一切種

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前舉頌：等謂等取有染等四。

論曰：此何所立者？問：於此有漏復何所立？

謂立取蘊至如華果樹者。答：於此有漏謂立取蘊（Upadanaskandha）。此取蘊不但名取蘊，亦名為蘊；或有唯蘊而非取蘊，謂無漏行。蘊名通故。火從草糠生名草糠火，蘊從取生故名取蘊，從因為名。煩惱名取（Upadana），能執取故，依主釋也。臣屬於王名帝王臣，蘊屬於取故名取蘊，從屬為名。樹生華果名華果樹，蘊能生取故名取蘊，從果為名。

此有漏法至猶如有漏者。煩惱乖違故立諍名，觸動善品損害自他。此釋諍名。

諍隨增故名為有諍（Sopadrava），猶如前說漏隨增故名為有漏（Sasrava）。此釋有諍。

亦名為苦違聖心故者。此有漏法亦名為苦（Duhkha）。有漏苦果流轉無常，凡夫不覺，聖者厭之。是故但說違于聖心。

亦名為集能招苦故者。此有漏法亦名為集（Samudaya）。招苦果故。

亦名世間至有對治故者。此有漏法亦名世間（Loka），可毀壞故，簡異無為（Asamskrta）；有對治故，簡異道諦（Margasatya）。

亦名見處至隨增眠故者。此有漏法亦名見處。見謂五見（五種錯誤的見解）。見住有漏法中隨順增長眠行相故。行相微細說之為眠。問：漏取諍中亦攝於見，貪等諸惑亦皆隨增，何故此中偏標五見？解云：依正理論四門廢立。一一切種，二一切時，三無差別，四堅執不動。解云：彼論云：遍緣五部名一切種。

【English Translation】 English version: Verse stated earlier: 'Equal' means equal, 'grasping', 'defiled', and so forth, these four.

Treatise says: What is established by this? Question: What further is established here regarding the contaminated?

It means establishing the grasping aggregates (Upadanaskandha) up to 'like a flowering and fruiting tree'. Answer: Here, regarding the contaminated, it means establishing the grasping aggregates (Upadanaskandha). These grasping aggregates are not only called 'grasping aggregates', but are also called 'aggregates'; some are only aggregates and not grasping aggregates, referring to uncontaminated activities. The name 'aggregate' is general. Just as fire born from grass and chaff is called 'grass and chaff fire', aggregates born from grasping are called 'grasping aggregates', named from the cause. 'Grasping' (Upadana) means afflictions, because they can grasp, explained according to the dependent relation. A subject belonging to a king is called 'the king's subject', aggregates belonging to grasping are called 'grasping aggregates', named from belonging. A tree producing flowers and fruits is called 'a flowering and fruiting tree', aggregates able to produce grasping are called 'grasping aggregates', named from the result.

This contaminated dharma up to 'just like the contaminated': Because afflictions are contrary, the name 'strife' (Upadrava) is established, agitating wholesome qualities and harming oneself and others. This explains the name 'strife'.

Because strife increases, it is called 'with strife' (Sopadrava), just as it was said earlier that because outflows increase, it is called 'with outflows' (Sasrava). This explains 'with strife'.

Also called 'suffering' (Duhkha) because it goes against the mind of the noble ones: This contaminated dharma is also called 'suffering'. The contaminated result of suffering flows, changes, and is impermanent. Ordinary people do not realize it, but noble ones detest it. Therefore, it is only said to go against the mind of the noble ones.

Also called 'accumulation' (Samudaya) because it can bring about suffering: This contaminated dharma is also called 'accumulation', because it brings about the result of suffering.

Also called 'world' (Loka) up to 'because there is an antidote': This contaminated dharma is also called 'world', because it can be destroyed, distinguishing it from the unconditioned (Asamskrta); because there is an antidote, distinguishing it from the truth of the path (Margasatya).

Also called 'place of views' up to 'because sleep increases along with it': This contaminated dharma is also called 'place of views'. 'Views' refers to the five views (five kinds of wrong views). Because views reside in contaminated dharmas, following and increasing the aspect of sleep. The aspect is subtle, so it is called 'sleep'. Question: Views are also included in outflows, grasping, and strife, and defilements such as greed also increase along with them. Why are the five views specifically mentioned here? Explanation: According to the theory of proper reasoning, there are four aspects of establishing and abolishing. 1. All kinds, 2. All times, 3. No difference, 4. Firmly holding without moving. Explanation: That treatise says: 'Completely connecting with the five aggregates is called all kinds.'

。或遍緣六境名一切種　任運而起名一切時。或可意．不可意中平等皆起名一切時　體無異相名無差別　執境堅固名堅執不動　貪．嗔．慢三。雖緣五部或緣六境名一切種。非一切時。遇緣起故。或貪．慢于可意時起。嗔于不可意時起。皆不遍故非一切時。

無明雖一切時非無差別。以有獨頭．相應差別故。言非無差別　疑雖無差別。而非堅執不動　唯此五見具有四義。從強別標。

亦名三有至三有攝故者。此有漏法亦名三有。三有即是欲有色有及無色有。與三有為因。因即集諦。與三有為依。依即苦諦。復是三有攝故。具斯三義故名三有　如是等類至隨義別名者。結。

如上所言至色蘊者何者。此下第二正辨體。就中。一總辨體性。二別釋名義。三諸門分別。就總辨體中。一正出體。二明總攝。三數開合。就第一正出體中。一明色蘊。二明三蘊。三明識蘊。就第一明色蘊中。一正立蘊。二立處．界。就立蘊中。一開章．二明別釋。此即開章牒前問起。

頌曰至立色蘊名者。此即答也　若如經部不立無表也。覺天不立所造色。大乘於法處中更立多色。此宗唯依十一色量立色蘊名　簡異心所中觸故言所觸。

此中先應說五根相者。此下第二別釋就中。一釋五根。二釋五境。三釋無表。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本或者普遍緣於六境，名為『一切種』；任運自然而起，名為『一切時』。或者在可意和不可意中平等生起，名為『一切時』；本體沒有差異相，名為『無差別』；執取境界堅固，名為『堅執不動』；貪、嗔、慢三種煩惱，雖然緣於五部或者緣於六境，名為『一切種』，但並非『一切時』，因為是遇到因緣才生起。或者貪和慢在可意時生起，嗔在不可意時生起，都不普遍，所以不是『一切時』。

無明雖然在一切時存在，但並非沒有差別，因為它有獨頭和相應的差別，所以說『非無差別』。疑雖然沒有差別，但並非堅執不動。只有這五見（五種錯誤的見解）具有四種含義，這是從最強的方面來區分標示。

『亦名三有，至三有攝故』的意思是：這些有漏法也稱為『三有』。三有就是欲有（kāmadhātu），色有（rūpadhātu）和無色有（arūpadhātu）。與三有為因，因就是集諦（samudayasatya）；與三有為所依，所依就是苦諦（duḥkhasatya）；並且被三有所攝，具備這三種含義，所以稱為『三有』。『如是等類，至隨義別名者』的意思是：結（bandhana）等煩惱，隨其意義而有不同的名稱。

『如上所言，至色蘊者何者』的意思是：下面第二部分正式辨析體性。其中，一、總辨體性；二、別釋名義；三、諸門分別。在總辨體性中，一、正出體；二、明總攝；三、數開合。在第一部分『正出體』中，一、明色蘊（rūpaskandha）；二、明三蘊（受、想、行蘊）；三、明識蘊（vijñānaskandha）。在第一部分『明色蘊』中，一、正立蘊；二、立處（āyatana）、界（dhātu）。在『立蘊』中，一、開章；二、明別釋。這裡就是開章，承接前面的問題而引發。

『頌曰，至立色蘊名』的意思是：這是回答。如果像經部（Sautrāntika）那樣不立無表色（avijñaptirūpa），覺天（Buddhadeva）不立所造色（upādāyarūpa），大乘（Mahāyāna）在法處（dharmāyatana）中更立多種色法，那麼本宗只依據十一色量來建立色蘊的名稱。爲了簡別於心所中的觸（sparśa），所以說『所觸』。

『此中先應說五根相者』的意思是：下面第二部分分別解釋，其中，一、解釋五根（pañcendriyāṇi）；二、解釋五境（pañcaviṣayāḥ）；三、解釋無表。

【English Translation】 English version Or universally relating to the six objects (ṣaḍviṣaya), it is called 'all kinds' (sarva prakāra); arising spontaneously, it is called 'all times' (sarva dā). Or arising equally in agreeable and disagreeable situations, it is called 'all times'; the substance having no different characteristics, it is called 'non-differentiation' (anānātva); firmly grasping the object, it is called 'firmly unmoving' (dṛḍhābhiniveśa). Greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), and pride (māna), although relating to the five categories (pañca skandha) or the six objects, are called 'all kinds,' but not 'all times,' because they arise when conditions are met. Or greed and pride arise in agreeable situations, and hatred arises in disagreeable situations, none of which are universal, so they are not 'all times.'

Although ignorance (avidyā) exists at all times, it is not without differentiation, because it has independent (獨頭) and associated (相應) differences, so it is said 'not without differentiation.' Doubt (vicikitsā), although without differentiation, is not firmly unmoving. Only these five views (pañca dṛṣṭi) have four meanings; this is distinguished and indicated from the strongest aspect.

'Also called three existences, up to being included in the three existences' means: these contaminated dharmas are also called 'three existences' (trayo bhavaḥ). The three existences are the desire realm (kāmadhātu), the form realm (rūpadhātu), and the formless realm (arūpadhātu). Being the cause of the three existences, the cause is the truth of origination (samudayasatya); being the basis of the three existences, the basis is the truth of suffering (duḥkhasatya); and being included in the three existences, possessing these three meanings, it is called 'three existences.' 'Such categories, up to different names according to meaning' means: fetters (bandhana), etc., have different names according to their meanings.

'As mentioned above, up to what is the form aggregate?' means: the second part below formally distinguishes the nature. Among them: 1. Generally distinguishing the nature; 2. Separately explaining the names and meanings; 3. Distinguishing through various aspects. In the general distinction of nature, 1. Directly stating the substance; 2. Clarifying the general inclusion; 3. Numbering the opening and closing. In the first part, 'directly stating the substance,' 1. Clarifying the form aggregate (rūpaskandha); 2. Clarifying the three aggregates (受、想、行蘊); 3. Clarifying the consciousness aggregate (vijñānaskandha). In the first part, 'clarifying the form aggregate,' 1. Formally establishing the aggregate; 2. Establishing the bases (āyatana) and realms (dhātu). In 'establishing the aggregate,' 1. Opening the chapter; 2. Clarifying the separate explanations. This is opening the chapter, continuing the previous question and arising.

'The verse says, up to establishing the name of the form aggregate' means: this is the answer. If, like the Sautrāntika school, unmanifest form (avijñaptirūpa) is not established, and Buddhadeva does not establish derived form (upādāyarūpa), and the Mahāyāna further establishes many forms in the dharma base (dharmāyatana), then this school only relies on the eleven form elements to establish the name of the form aggregate. To distinguish it from contact (sparśa) in mental factors, it is said 'what is touched.'

'Among these, the characteristics of the five roots should be explained first' means: the second part below separately explains, among them: 1. Explaining the five roots (pañcendriyāṇi); 2. Explaining the five objects (pañcaviṣayāḥ); 3. Explaining unmanifest form.

即第一釋五根。結前問起。

頌曰至名眼等五根者。頌答　言彼識依凈色者。五理意云。前彼識依。簡耳等四根。后凈色言。簡無間滅意　又正理云。前言顯同分．眼。後言顯彼同分．眼　又解。色通十一處。依言簡境。依通六根。凈言簡意。凈通五根及信。色言簡信　又解。若具彼識依凈色方名眼等。隨有所闕不名眼等。若唯言彼識依。不言凈色。即濫等無間依。五識亦以意為依故。故五事論第一云。唯說識依濫無間意。但言凈色五體應同。故凈色言簡無間意。與眼等識為所依彼言。顯眼等根差別有五(已上論文)若唯言彼識凈不言依色。信亦是凈。應名眼等　若唯言彼識色不言依凈。十一種色通名色故。皆應名眼等　若但言彼識依凈不言色。信是其凈。體非是依。用識為依容有財釋。為遮此釋故置色言。顯屬主釋。故正理云。如是釋者。為遣疑難。須置色言。若識依言。就有財釋則應凈信是眼等根。故置色言。為簡此釋。無有一法以識為依色而是凈可為此釋。是故色言甚為有用(已上論文)若但言彼識依色不言凈。扶根四境。亦名能為依。復通名色。應名眼等　若但言彼識凈色。不言依。清池明鏡。亦是凈色應名眼等。若具足說依凈色三方無有失　若但言依凈色不言彼識。五體應同。顯眼等根差別有五故言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第一釋五根。總結前面的問題並引發新的問題。

頌文說：『乃至名為眼等五根者』。這是對頌文的解答。『言彼識依凈色者』。五理的含義是：前面的『彼識依』，是爲了區分耳等其他四根；後面的『凈色』，是爲了區分無間滅意。又，《正理》中說：前面的『言』字，是爲了顯示同分眼；後面的『言』字，是爲了顯示彼同分眼。又一種解釋是，『色』涵蓋了十一種處，『依』字是爲了排除外境，『依』通用於六根，『凈』字是爲了排除意根，『凈』通用於五根和信根，『色』字是爲了排除信根。又一種解釋是，只有具備『彼識依凈色』的條件，才能稱為眼等根。如果缺少任何一個條件，就不能稱為眼等根。如果只說『彼識依』，而不說『凈色』，就會與等無間依混淆，因為五識也以意為所依。所以，《五事論》第一卷中說：『只說識依，會與無間意混淆。』但如果只說『凈色』，五根的體性就應該相同。所以，『凈色』是爲了排除無間意，與眼等識作為所依。『彼』字，顯示眼等根的差別有五（以上是論文內容）。如果只說『彼識凈』，而不說『依色』，那麼信根也是清凈的，就應該稱為眼等根。如果只說『彼識色』，而不說『依凈』，那麼十一種色都可以稱為色，都應該稱為眼等根。如果只說『彼識依凈』，而不說『色』，那麼信根是清凈的，但其體性不是所依，用識作為所依，容許有財釋。爲了排除這種解釋，所以加上『色』字，顯示屬主釋。所以，《正理》中說：『這樣解釋，是爲了消除疑難，必須加上『色』字。』如果只說『識依』，就有財釋，那麼清凈的信根就應該是眼等根。所以加上『色』字，是爲了排除這種解釋。沒有一種法是以識為所依，而且是清凈的，可以作為這種解釋。所以，『色』字非常有用（以上是論文內容）。如果只說『彼識依色』，而不說『凈』，那麼扶根四境，也可以稱為能為所依，又都稱為色，就應該稱為眼等根。如果只說『彼識凈色』，而不說『依』，那麼清澈的池塘和明亮的鏡子，也是清凈的色，就應該稱為眼等根。如果完整地說出『依凈色』這三個條件，才不會有缺失。如果只說『依凈色』，而不說『彼識』，那麼五根的體性就應該相同。顯示眼等根的差別有五，所以說『彼識』。

【English Translation】 English version The first explanation concerns the five roots (五根, pañca indriya). It concludes the previous question and initiates a new one.

The verse says: 'Up to what is called the five roots of eye, etc.' This is the answer to the verse. 'Those that rely on pure form (凈色, prasāda-rūpa) for their consciousness (識, vijñāna).' The meaning of the five principles is: the preceding 'rely on consciousness' distinguishes it from the other four roots of ear, etc.; the following 'pure form' distinguishes it from the immediately ceasing mind (無間滅意, anantara-niruddha-manas). Furthermore, the Nyāyasūtra says: the preceding 'word' shows the same category of eye; the following 'word' shows that category of eye. Another explanation is that 'form' encompasses the eleven sense bases (十一處, ekādaśa āyatana). The word 'rely' excludes the objective realm. 'Rely' applies to the six roots. The word 'pure' excludes the mind root. 'Pure' applies to the five roots and faith (信, śraddhā). The word 'form' excludes faith. Another explanation is that only when the condition of 'relying on pure form for consciousness' is met can it be called the root of eye, etc. If any condition is missing, it cannot be called the root of eye, etc. If only 'relying on consciousness' is mentioned without 'pure form', it will be confused with the immediately ceasing reliance, because the five consciousnesses also rely on the mind. Therefore, the first volume of the Pañcavastuka says: 'Only saying relying on consciousness will be confused with the immediately ceasing mind.' But if only 'pure form' is mentioned, the nature of the five roots should be the same. Therefore, 'pure form' is to exclude the immediately ceasing mind, with the consciousness of eye, etc., as the reliance. The word 'those' shows that the differences of the roots of eye, etc., are five (the above is the content of the treatise). If only 'pure consciousness' is mentioned without 'relying on form', then faith is also pure and should be called the root of eye, etc. If only 'form of consciousness' is mentioned without 'relying on purity', then the eleven types of form can all be called form and should all be called the root of eye, etc. If only 'relying on pure' is mentioned without 'form', then faith is pure, but its nature is not the reliance. Using consciousness as the reliance allows for a possessive interpretation. To exclude this interpretation, the word 'form' is added to show the attributive interpretation. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'This explanation is to eliminate doubts and the word 'form' must be added.' If only 'relying on consciousness' is mentioned, there will be a possessive interpretation, then pure faith should be the root of eye, etc. Therefore, the word 'form' is added to exclude this interpretation. There is no dharma that relies on consciousness and is pure that can be used for this explanation. Therefore, the word 'form' is very useful (the above is the content of the treatise). If only 'relying on form for consciousness' is mentioned without 'pure', then the four objective realms that support the roots can also be called the ability to rely on, and are all called form, and should be called the root of eye, etc. If only 'pure form of consciousness' is mentioned without 'relying', then clear ponds and bright mirrors are also pure form and should be called the root of eye, etc. If the three conditions of 'relying on pure form' are fully stated, there will be no omissions. If only 'relying on pure form' is mentioned without 'consciousness', then the nature of the five roots should be the same. Showing that the differences of the roots of eye, etc., are five, therefore it is said 'consciousness'.

彼識　若但言彼識不言依凈色。眼等五識應名眼等　或可。此中應言彼識所依凈色。若不言所但言依者。即濫身根。身望四識。亦是依凈色。而非所依。故頌依言顯所依也。

論曰至如是廣說者。頌中彼字。文有兩釋。此即初釋。此言彼者。彼色等境。謂五識身緣彼五境。故言彼識。彼識所依凈色名根。引經意證根是凈色。

或復彼者至如是廣說者。第二釋彼言。彼即彼根。彼識所依名為眼等。論言眼識等。明知彼根非境。

已說五根次說五境者。此下第二釋五境結前問起。

頌曰至觸十一為性者。頌答　印度造頌皆依聲明。若先香後味即犯聲。若先味后香即不犯聲。今依本翻故味先香后　又正理云。越次說者。顯彼境識生無定故。謂彼五識起時不定次第。

論曰至不正為後者。就長行中。一解五境。二明生識總別。此下解五境。文即為五　所見名色。就解色境中。一出色體。二辨四句　就出色體中總有三說。此即初解釋頌色二　一顯。二形　顯色有四。青黃赤白。是本顯色　餘光．影．明．闇．云．煙．塵．霧八種顯色是此四色差別建立　光是黃攝。日初出時見赤色者余物映故。或光是赤攝。或光是黃．赤色攝　影．闇青色攝　明通青．黃．赤．白色攝。皆有明故　云．煙．塵．霧

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果只說『彼識』（bǐ shí，那個識）而不說它依賴於凈色（jìng sè，清凈的色），那麼眼等五識（yǎn děng wǔ shí，眼等五種識）就應該被稱為眼等（yǎn děng，眼等）本身了，或許可以這樣說。這裡應該說『彼識所依凈色』（bǐ shí suǒ yī jìng sè，那個識所依賴的清凈的色）。如果不說『所』（suǒ，所）而只說『依』（yī，依賴），那就和身根（shēn gēn，身體的根）混淆了。身根對於四識（sì shí，四種識）來說，也是依賴於凈色，但不是所依賴的。所以頌文中的『依』（yī，依賴）字，是爲了顯示『所依』（suǒ yī，所依賴）的意思。

論曰：至如是廣說者。頌中的『彼』（bǐ，那個）字，文中有兩種解釋。這是第一種解釋。這裡說『彼』（bǐ，那個），是指彼色等境（bǐ sè děng jìng，那個色等境界），即五識身（wǔ shí shēn，五識的集合）緣于彼五境（bǐ wǔ jìng，那五個境界），所以說『彼識』（bǐ shí，那個識）。彼識所依的凈色（jìng sè，清凈的色）稱為根（gēn，根）。引用經文是爲了證明根是凈色。

或復彼者至如是廣說者。這是第二種解釋『彼』（bǐ，那個）字。『彼』（bǐ，那個）就是彼根（bǐ gēn，那個根）。彼識所依的稱為眼等（yǎn děng，眼等）。論中說眼識等（yǎn shí děng，眼識等），明確地表明彼根（bǐ gēn，那個根）不是境（jìng，境界）。

已說五根次說五境者。下面第二部分解釋五境（wǔ jìng，五種境界），總結前面的問題並引出新的問題。

頌曰：至觸十一為性者。這是頌文的回答。印度造頌都依據聲明（shēng míng，梵文語法）。如果先說香（xiāng，香味）后說味（wèi，味道）就違反了聲明。如果先說味（wèi，味道）后說香（xiāng，香味）就不違反聲明。現在按照原本翻譯，所以味（wèi，味道）在前，香（xiāng，香味）在後。又《正理》（Zhèng lǐ，一部論書）中說，顛倒次序說，是爲了顯示彼境識（bǐ jìng shí，那個境界和識）的生起沒有固定的次序。意思是說，那五識（wǔ shí，五種識）生起的時間沒有固定的次第。

論曰：至不正為後者。在長行中，第一部分解釋五境（wǔ jìng，五種境界），第二部分說明生識（shēng shí，識的產生）的總相和別相。下面解釋五境（wǔ jìng，五種境界）。文章分為五個部分。所見名色（suǒ jiàn míng sè，所見之物名為色），在解釋色境（sè jìng，色境界）中，第一部分說明色體（sè tǐ，色的本體），第二部分辨別四句（sì jù，四種情況）。在說明色體（sè tǐ，色的本體）中，總共有三種說法。這是第一種解釋頌文中的色（sè，色）的兩種屬性：一、顯（xiǎn，顯現），二、形（xíng，形狀）。顯色（xiǎn sè，顯現的顏色）有四種：青（qīng，藍色或綠色）、黃（huáng，黃色）、赤（chì，紅色）、白（bái，白色）。這是本顯色（běn xiǎn sè，基本的顯現的顏色）。其餘的光（guāng，光芒）、影（yǐng，影子）、明（míng，明亮）、闇（àn，黑暗）、云（yún，雲彩）、煙（yān，煙霧）、塵（chén，塵土）、霧（wù，霧氣）這八種顯色（xiǎn sè，顯現的顏色）是這四種顏色的差別建立。光（guāng，光芒）屬於黃色（huáng sè，黃色）。日初出時看到赤色（chì sè，紅色）是因為其他物體映照的緣故。或者光（guāng，光芒）屬於紅色（chì sè，紅色），或者光（guāng，光芒）屬於黃色（huáng sè，黃色）和赤色（chì sè，紅色）。影（yǐng，影子）和闇（àn，黑暗）屬於青色（qīng sè，藍色或綠色）。明（míng，明亮）貫通青（qīng，藍色或綠色）、黃（huáng，黃色）、赤（chì，紅色）、白（bái，白色）四種顏色，因為都有明亮。云（yún，雲彩）、煙（yān，煙霧）、塵（chén，塵土）、霧（wù，霧氣）。

【English Translation】 English version If we only say 'that consciousness' (bǐ shí, that consciousness) without mentioning its reliance on pure matter (jìng sè, pure matter), then the five consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness (yǎn děng wǔ shí, the five consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness) should be called eye, etc. (yǎn děng, eye, etc.) themselves. Perhaps it can be said this way. Here, it should be said 'the pure matter on which that consciousness relies' (bǐ shí suǒ yī jìng sè, the pure matter on which that consciousness relies). If we don't say 'on which' (suǒ, on which) but only say 'relies' (yī, relies), then it will be confused with the body-faculty (shēn gēn, body faculty). The body-faculty, in relation to the four consciousnesses (sì shí, four consciousnesses), also relies on pure matter, but it is not what is relied upon. Therefore, the word 'relies' (yī, relies) in the verse is to show the meaning of 'what is relied upon' (suǒ yī, what is relied upon).

The Treatise says: 'To such an extensive explanation.' The word 'that' (bǐ, that) in the verse has two explanations in the text. This is the first explanation. Here, saying 'that' (bǐ, that) refers to those objects such as matter (bǐ sè děng jìng, those objects such as matter), meaning the five aggregates of consciousness (wǔ shí shēn, the five aggregates of consciousness) are conditioned by those five objects (bǐ wǔ jìng, those five objects). Therefore, it is said 'that consciousness' (bǐ shí, that consciousness). The pure matter (jìng sè, pure matter) on which that consciousness relies is called faculty (gēn, faculty). Quoting the sutra is to prove that the faculty is pure matter.

Or again, 'that' (bǐ, that) to such an extensive explanation. This is the second explanation of the word 'that' (bǐ, that). 'That' (bǐ, that) is that faculty (bǐ gēn, that faculty). What that consciousness relies on is called eye, etc. (yǎn děng, eye, etc.). The Treatise says eye-consciousness, etc. (yǎn shí děng, eye-consciousness, etc.), clearly indicating that that faculty (bǐ gēn, that faculty) is not an object (jìng, object).

Having spoken of the five faculties, next speaking of the five objects. The following second part explains the five objects (wǔ jìng, five objects), summarizing the previous question and raising a new question.

The Verse says: 'To touch, having eleven characteristics.' This is the answer in the verse. In India, verses are composed according to grammar (shēng míng, Sanskrit grammar). If fragrance (xiāng, fragrance) is mentioned before taste (wèi, taste), it violates the grammar. If taste (wèi, taste) is mentioned before fragrance (xiāng, fragrance), it does not violate the grammar. Now, according to the original translation, taste (wèi, taste) comes before fragrance (xiāng, fragrance). Also, the Nyāyasūtra (Zhèng lǐ, a treatise) says that speaking in a reversed order shows that the arising of those objects and consciousnesses (bǐ jìng shí, those objects and consciousnesses) has no fixed order. It means that the time of arising of those five consciousnesses (wǔ shí, five consciousnesses) has no fixed sequence.

The Treatise says: 'To not being correct as the latter.' In the prose, the first part explains the five objects (wǔ jìng, five objects), and the second part explains the general and specific characteristics of the arising of consciousness (shēng shí, the arising of consciousness). The following explains the five objects (wǔ jìng, five objects). The text is divided into five parts. What is seen is called matter (suǒ jiàn míng sè, what is seen is called matter). In explaining the object of matter (sè jìng, object of matter), the first part explains the substance of matter (sè tǐ, substance of matter), and the second part distinguishes the four possibilities (sì jù, four possibilities). In explaining the substance of matter (sè tǐ, substance of matter), there are three explanations in total. This is the first explanation of the two attributes of matter (sè, matter) in the verse: first, manifestation (xiǎn, manifestation), and second, form (xíng, form). Manifested colors (xiǎn sè, manifested colors) are of four types: blue/green (qīng, blue or green), yellow (huáng, yellow), red (chì, red), and white (bái, white). These are the primary manifested colors (běn xiǎn sè, primary manifested colors). The remaining eight types of manifested colors (xiǎn sè, manifested colors), such as light (guāng, light), shadow (yǐng, shadow), brightness (míng, brightness), darkness (àn, darkness), clouds (yún, clouds), smoke (yān, smoke), dust (chén, dust), and fog (wù, fog), are established as differentiations of these four colors. Light (guāng, light) belongs to yellow (huáng sè, yellow). Seeing red (chì sè, red) when the sun first rises is because of the reflection of other objects. Or light (guāng, light) belongs to red (chì sè, red), or light (guāng, light) belongs to yellow (huáng sè, yellow) and red (chì sè, red). Shadow (yǐng, shadow) and darkness (àn, darkness) belong to blue/green (qīng sè, blue or green). Brightness (míng, brightness) pervades the four colors of blue/green (qīng, blue or green), yellow (huáng, yellow), red (chì, red), and white (bái, white), because they all have brightness. Clouds (yún, clouds), smoke (yān, smoke), dust (chén, dust), and fog (wù, fog).

皆通青．黃．赤．白色攝　問光等八色是四差別。寧非是假。解云論其本色但是青．黃．赤．白四種。於此四中隨義差別立餘八名。各有實體而非是假　問云．煙．塵．霧若顯色收。如何四句之中是俱句攝　一解云．云．煙．塵．霧是顯非形。相狀顯彰名之為顯。質礙粗著因觸可憶知。長．短等說之為形。云．煙．塵．霧無此礙用。故顯非形。此即理證。又諸論中。形．顯二種說云等四皆顯色攝。若亦通形何故不說。此即文證。然諸論說云等四種俱句攝者。謂此四色實非長等。似長等現。意識緣彼勝解力故起長等解。如不凈觀。雖緣實色。勝解力故作青瘀等解。以此四色。顯中稍粗生長等解。故俱句攝。影．光．明．闇。在於空中自體疏散。托質方現。以微細故不同云等　第二解云。云．煙．塵．霧通顯及形。諸論皆說俱句攝故。然諸論中說云等四顯色攝者。生顯智強故俱偏顯攝　問若據生顯智強即顯攝者。四句分別應初句收。如何乃是俱句所攝。解云。四句之中前兩單句。雖據生智強說。若於此聚有別新生形．顯色者。立兩單句。云等四色雖顯強形。無別新生顯．形俱故。生智非過希奇。所以非初句攝　第三解云。云．煙．塵．霧。是顯色攝。同第一解。然說俱句者。是余師義　第四解云。云．煙．塵．霧。通顯及

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本皆通青（Nīla，藍色）.黃（Pīta，黃色）.赤（Lohita，紅色）.白色（Śveta，白色）攝。問：光等八色是四種差別的體現，難道不是假有嗎？答：從本色上來說，只有青、黃、赤、白四種。在這四種顏色的基礎上，根據意義的差別，設立其餘八種名稱。每一種顏色都有實體，而不是虛假的。問：云（Megha，云）.煙（Dhūma，煙）.塵（Rajāṃsi，塵土）.霧（Mahikā，霧）如果被歸為顯色，為什麼在四句分別中屬於俱句所攝？一種解釋是：云、煙、塵、霧是顯色而非形色。相狀明顯彰顯，稱之為顯色。質礙粗糙，因接觸可以憶知，長、短等被說為形色。云、煙、塵、霧沒有這種阻礙作用，所以是顯色而非形色。這是理證。而且，在各種論典中，形色、顯色兩種都說云等四種屬於顯色所攝。如果也通形色，為什麼不說呢？這是文證。然而，各種論典中說云等四種屬於俱句所攝，是因為這四種顏色實際上不是長等，而是類似長等顯現。意識緣取它們，憑藉勝解的力量，產生長等的理解，就像不凈觀一樣，雖然緣取的是真實顏色，憑藉勝解的力量，產生青瘀等理解。因為這四種顏色在顯色中稍微粗糙，產生長等理解，所以屬於俱句所攝。影（Chāyā，影子）.光（Āloka，光）.明（Prabhā，光明）.闇（Tamas，黑暗）在空中自體疏散，依託物質才顯現，因為微細，所以不同於云等。第二種解釋是：云、煙、塵、霧通於顯色和形色。各種論典都說屬於俱句所攝。然而，各種論典中說云等四種屬於顯色所攝，是因為產生顯現的智慧強烈，所以偏向于顯色所攝。問：如果根據產生顯現的智慧強烈就屬於顯色所攝，那麼在四句分別中應該屬於初句所攝，為什麼是俱句所攝？答：在四句之中，前兩個單句，雖然根據產生智慧強烈來說，如果在這個集合中有另外新生的形色、顯色，就立為兩個單句。云等四色雖然顯色強於形色，但沒有另外新生的顯色、形色，產生智慧並非過於稀奇，所以不屬於初句所攝。第三種解釋是：云、煙、塵、霧是顯色所攝，同第一種解釋。然而，說屬於俱句，是其他師的觀點。第四種解釋是：云、煙、塵、霧通於顯色和形色。

【English Translation】 English version All are included within blue (Nīla), yellow (Pīta), red (Lohita), and white (Śveta). Question: The eight colors such as light are four kinds of differences. Isn't it false? Answer: In terms of their original colors, there are only four types: blue, yellow, red, and white. Based on these four, the remaining eight names are established according to the differences in meaning. Each has its own entity and is not false. Question: If clouds (Megha), smoke (Dhūma), dust (Rajāṃsi), and fog (Mahikā) are included in manifest colors, why are they included in the both category in the fourfold classification? One explanation is: Clouds, smoke, dust, and fog are manifest but not form. Manifestations that are clearly visible are called manifest colors. Material obstruction is coarse, and can be remembered through touch. Length, shortness, etc., are described as form. Clouds, smoke, dust, and fog do not have this obstructive function, so they are manifest but not form. This is a logical proof. Moreover, in various treatises, both form and manifest colors are said to include the four types of clouds, etc., as manifest colors. If they also include form, why is it not mentioned? This is textual proof. However, the reason why various treatises say that the four types of clouds, etc., are included in the both category is that these four colors are not actually long, etc., but appear similar to long, etc. The consciousness cognizes them, and due to the power of superior understanding, generates the understanding of long, etc., just like in the contemplation of impurity, although the object is a real color, due to the power of superior understanding, the understanding of bluish-purple, etc., is generated. Because these four colors are slightly coarser in manifest colors and generate the understanding of long, etc., they are included in the both category. Shadow (Chāyā), light (Āloka), brightness (Prabhā), and darkness (Tamas) are scattered in space and only appear when relying on matter. Because they are subtle, they are different from clouds, etc. The second explanation is: Clouds, smoke, dust, and fog include both manifest and form colors. Various treatises say that they are included in the both category. However, the reason why various treatises say that the four types of clouds, etc., are included in manifest colors is that the wisdom that generates manifestation is strong, so they are biased towards manifest colors. Question: If, according to the strength of the wisdom that generates manifestation, they are included in manifest colors, then in the fourfold classification, they should be included in the first category. Why are they included in the both category? Answer: In the four categories, the first two single categories, although based on the strength of the wisdom that generates manifestation, if there are newly generated form and manifest colors in this collection, two single categories are established. Although manifest colors are stronger than form colors in the four colors of clouds, etc., there are no newly generated manifest and form colors, and the generation of wisdom is not overly rare, so they are not included in the first category. The third explanation is: Clouds, smoke, dust, and fog are included in manifest colors, the same as the first explanation. However, saying that they belong to the both category is the view of other teachers. The fourth explanation is: Clouds, smoke, dust, and fog include both manifest and

形。同第二解。然說顯者是余師義也。

或二十者至影光明闇者。第二解色或二十。此與前說開合為異。亦無有妨。

青黃赤白。現見可知　言長短者。長．短極微各有別體。相雜而住。形長見短。形短見長　問若長．短等別有極微。何故婆沙一百三十六云。應知極微是最細色。非長．短．方．圓等。解云。婆沙據別一微。是最細分更不可折。非眼所見言非長等。此論據見已去。有實體類故。成長等故。故名長等。若泛明長．短亦通假．實。若二十種色中長．短相對。以實對實。若通約諸假聚相對辨長．短。即以假對假。故婆沙第九解諸有中。第三師云。五相待有。謂此彼岸長短事等　又解。可量已去名長。不可量者名短。世間形長說為短者。于彼長中假說為短。如於重中假說為輕　問此短極微既有眾多。如何說彼而不可量。解雖有多體。而不可量。如輕極微雖有多體。而不可秤。短極微雖多。而不可量。若言眼見寧不可量。顯亦眼見。應當可量。若言同聚應可量者。香等同聚應亦可量。此既雜住而不可量。短與長雜亦不可量　方謂界方　圓謂團圓中凸名高　中凹名下　問長與高何別。短與下何殊。解云。長．短據四邊。高．下據處中。然世人言此物高．下。于長．短中說高．下故　又解。長．短據橫。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『形』，與第二種解釋相同。然而，說『顯』是其他老師的觀點。

『或二十者至影光明闇者』，第二種解釋說色有二十種。這與之前的說法在開合上有差異，但沒有妨礙。

『青黃赤白』，是顯而易見、可以知曉的。說到『長短』，長和短的極微各自有不同的實體，它們混合在一起。形狀長卻看起來短，形狀短卻看起來長。問：如果長、短等各自有極微，為什麼《婆沙論》第一百三十六卷說，『應當知道極微是最細的色，不是長、短、方、圓等』？答：婆沙論是根據單一的極微來說的，它是最細的，不能再分割，眼睛看不到，所以說不是長等。此論是根據已經可見的，有實體類別的緣故，能夠成長為長等，所以名為長等。如果泛泛地說明長短，也包括假和實。如果在二十種色中，長短是相對的，以實對實。如果總括各種假聚相對來辨別長短，就是以假對假。所以《婆沙論》第九卷解釋諸有中，第三位老師說，『五種是相待而有的，即此岸彼岸、長短事等。』又解釋說，可以量度的稱為長，不可量度的稱為短。世間形狀長的東西說成短，是在那長之中假說為短，如同在重的東西中假說為輕。問：這短的極微既然有很多，為什麼說它是不可量度的？答：雖然有很多個體，但不可量度。如同輕的極微雖然有很多個體，但不可稱量。短的極微雖然多，但不可量度。如果說眼睛能看到，難道不可量度嗎？顯也眼睛能看到，應當可以量度。如果說同聚就應當可以量度，那麼香等同聚也應當可以量度。既然它們混合在一起而不可量度，短與長混合在一起也不可量度。『方』，指的是界限是方的。『圓』，指的是團圓，中間凸起名為高，中間凹陷名為下。問：長與高有什麼區別？短與下有什麼不同？答：長短是根據四邊來說的，高下是根據中間的位置來說的。然而世人說這東西高下，是在長短之中說高下的緣故。又解釋說，長短是根據橫向的。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Shape' is the same as the second explanation. However, saying 'manifest' is the meaning of other teachers.

'Or twenty to shadow light darkness', the second explanation says that there are twenty kinds of colors. This differs from the previous statement in terms of opening and closing, but there is no hindrance.

'Blue, yellow, red, and white' are obvious and knowable. Speaking of 'long and short', the ultimate particles of long and short each have different entities, and they live mixed together. The shape is long but looks short, and the shape is short but looks long. Question: If long, short, etc. each have ultimate particles, why does the 136th volume of the Vibhasa say, 'It should be known that the ultimate particle is the finest color, not long, short, square, round, etc.'? Answer: The Vibhasa is based on a single ultimate particle, which is the finest and cannot be further divided. The eye cannot see it, so it is said that it is not long, etc. This treatise is based on what is already visible, because there are real categories, and it can grow into long, etc., so it is called long, etc. If long and short are generally explained, it also includes false and real. If long and short are relative among the twenty kinds of colors, it is real against real. If we generally distinguish long and short relative to various false aggregates, it is false against false. Therefore, in the ninth volume of the Vibhasa, explaining all existences, the third teacher said, 'Five are relative, namely, this shore and the other shore, long and short matters, etc.' Another explanation is that what can be measured is called long, and what cannot be measured is called short. The shape of things in the world is said to be short, which is falsely said to be short in that long, just as falsely saying light in heavy. Question: Since there are many short ultimate particles, why is it said that they are immeasurable? Answer: Although there are many entities, they are immeasurable. Just as there are many light ultimate particles, they cannot be weighed. Although there are many short ultimate particles, they cannot be measured. If you say that the eye can see, can't it be measured? Manifest can also be seen by the eye, and should be measurable. If you say that the same cluster should be measurable, then the same cluster of incense, etc. should also be measurable. Since they are mixed together and cannot be measured, short and long mixed together cannot be measured. 'Square' refers to the boundary being square. 'Round' refers to being round, with the middle protruding being called high, and the middle concave being called low. Question: What is the difference between long and high? What is the difference between short and low? Answer: Long and short are based on the four sides, while high and low are based on the middle position. However, people say that this thing is high and low, because they say high and low in long and short. Another explanation is that long and short are based on the horizontal direction.

高．下約豎。世間言豎名長．短者。于高．下中說長．短故　龍氣名云。火氣名煙　風吹細土。名塵　余色如文自釋　問像色二十種色中。何色所收。解云。顯攝非形。夫是形色。必依極礙能表有形。鏡等中像。觸不能了。猶如影等。故非是形。言見形者。似形非實。如鏡中火似火非真。于顯色中如其所應。青．黃．赤．白四色所攝。說像是顯非是形色。廣如正理三十四說。所以得知非余顯者。有光之處必無有影。光中像現。故像非影。說像非影廣如正理　像非余顯雖未見文。準影可知。既光中像現。表像非影。準知光中像現。表像非闇。既光中像現。像非影闇。準知影中像現。像非光明　若言光中像現即是光攝。影中像現即是影攝　此亦非理。日焰名光。非日焰故。障光明生名影。非障起故　云．煙．塵．霧。亦顯亦形。理非像色。像色非形故。有說。云等是顯色者。此非定證　又在空中理非像故。◎

◎有餘師說至第二十一者。第三敘異說。

謂妙高山四邊空中。各一顯色。名空一顯色。故正理三十四云。空一顯色。謂見空中蘇迷廬山所現純色　問空一顯色以何為體。解云。以空界色為體。故正理論第一云。有說色有二十一種。空一顯色第二十一。是即空界色差別　問若以空界色為體者。何故識身論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本高和下相對，大約是垂直的。世間所說的『豎』，又稱作『長』或『短』，是因為在高和下之間比較而言的。龍的氣息叫做云，火的氣息叫做煙。風吹起的細土叫做塵。其餘的顏色如同文字本身解釋的那樣。問：影像的顏色屬於二十種顏色中的哪一種？答：屬於顯色，而非形色。凡是形色，必定依賴於極微的阻礙，能夠表現出有形之物。而鏡子等中的影像，觸覺無法感知，就像影子一樣，所以不是形色。說『見到影像』，是類似形色而非真實的形色，如同鏡子中的火，類似火而非真火。在顯色中，根據情況，被青、黃、赤、白四種顏色所包含。說明影像屬於顯色，而非形色，詳細的論述在《正理》第三十四篇中。之所以知道它不是其餘的顯色，是因為有光的地方必定沒有影子，影像在光中顯現，所以影像不是影子。關於影像不是影子的論述，詳細的在《正理》中。影像不是其餘的顯色，即使沒有見到文字記載，也可以根據影子來推知。既然影像在光中顯現，表明影像不是影子，由此推知光中的影像顯現，表明影像不是黑暗。既然影像在光中顯現，影像不是影子和黑暗，由此推知影子中的影像顯現，影像不是光明。如果說光中的影像顯現就是光所包含的，影子中的影像顯現就是影子所包含的，這也是不合理的。太陽的光焰叫做光，但它不是太陽的光焰本身。阻礙光明產生的東西叫做影子，但它不是阻礙本身。云、煙、塵、霧，既是顯色也是形色，但從道理上來說不是影像的顏色，因為影像的顏色不是形色。有人說，云等是顯色，但這並不是確定的證據。而且，云等存在於空中，從道理上來說不是影像。 ◎有其他論師說到第二十一種顏色，第三部分敘述不同的說法。指的是妙高山（Sumeru Mountain，須彌山）四邊的空中，各自有一種顯色，叫做空一顯色。所以《正理》第三十四篇說，空一顯色，指的是見到空中蘇迷廬山（Sumeru Mountain，須彌山）所顯現的純色。問：空一顯色以什麼為本體？答：以空界色為本體。所以《正理論》第一篇說，有人說色有二十一種，空一顯色是第二十一種，也就是空界色的差別。問：如果以空界色為本體，為什麼《識身論》……

【English Translation】 English version High and low are relative, approximately vertical. What the world calls 'vertical' is also called 'long' or 'short' because it is compared between high and low. The breath of a dragon is called cloud, and the breath of fire is called smoke. Fine soil blown by the wind is called dust. The remaining colors are as explained by the text itself. Question: To which of the twenty types of colors does the color of an image belong? Answer: It belongs to manifest color (顯色), not form color (形色). All form colors must rely on extremely minute obstruction and be able to express tangible things. However, the image in a mirror, etc., cannot be perceived by touch, just like a shadow, so it is not a form color. To say 'seeing an image' is like a form color but not a real form color, like fire in a mirror, similar to fire but not true fire. Among manifest colors, it is included in the four colors of blue, yellow, red, and white, as appropriate. It is explained that an image belongs to manifest color, not form color, as detailed in the thirty-fourth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra. The reason for knowing that it is not the remaining manifest colors is that where there is light, there is certainly no shadow, and the image appears in the light, so the image is not a shadow. The discussion about the image not being a shadow is detailed in the Nyāyānusāra. The image is not the remaining manifest color, even if there is no written record, it can be inferred from the shadow. Since the image appears in the light, it indicates that the image is not a shadow. From this, it can be inferred that the image appearing in the light indicates that the image is not darkness. Since the image appears in the light, and the image is not shadow and darkness, it can be inferred that the image appearing in the shadow is not light. If it is said that the image appearing in the light is included in the light, and the image appearing in the shadow is included in the shadow, this is also unreasonable. The flame of the sun is called light, but it is not the sun's flame itself. What obstructs the generation of light is called a shadow, but it is not the obstruction itself. Clouds, smoke, dust, and fog are both manifest colors and form colors, but logically speaking, they are not the color of an image, because the color of an image is not a form color. Some say that clouds, etc., are manifest colors, but this is not definite evidence. Moreover, clouds, etc., exist in the air, and logically speaking, they are not images. ◎ Some other teachers speak of a twenty-first color; the third part narrates different views. It refers to each of the four sides of the sky around Mount Sumeru (妙高山, Sumeru Mountain) having a manifest color, called 'space-one manifest color' (空一顯色). Therefore, the thirty-fourth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra says that space-one manifest color refers to the pure color seen in the sky of Mount Sumeru (蘇迷廬山, Sumeru Mountain). Question: What is the substance of space-one manifest color? Answer: It takes the color of the space realm (空界色) as its substance. Therefore, the first chapter of the Nyāyānusāraloka says that some say there are twenty-one types of colors, and space-one manifest color is the twenty-first, which is the difference of the space realm color. Question: If it takes the color of the space realm as its substance, why does the Vijñānakāya...

第十一云。空一顯色此即如彼青．黃．赤．白。準彼論文。即以青．黃．赤．白為體。解云。彼論言如彼青．黃赤白者。謂妙高山四邊空中。各現一色。名空界色。如之言似。此空一顯色。似彼青．黃．赤．白非即是也。

或可。如之言是。此空一顯色。即是彼青．黃．赤．白　問準諸論文。此空界色。以影．光．明．闇為體。如何乃說青．黃．赤．白。解云。青．黃．赤．白有其二類。若即質青等。非空界色。若妙高四邊離質青等。亦是空界色　又解。此空界色雖以光．影．明．闇為體。然彼光．影．明．闇。若據正顯。隨其所應亦是青．黃．赤．白所攝。故正理云。青等四種。是正顯色。云等八種。是此差別(已上論文)若言青等據本以說。若言光等據末以論。各據一義並不相違　問空一顯色。即是空界色。空界色是光．影．明．闇。未知。空一顯色。于影．光．明．闇中以何為體。解云。若據一切空界色。即以光．影．明．闇為體。若據別相。即四色不定。此中言空一顯色是空界色者。此空界色以明為體。妙高山體四寶所成。寶現空中。即是明色。故諸論說。寶焰名明。以此故知。非光．影．闇。日焰名光。彼非日焰故非是光。障光．明生。于中余色可見名影。翻此為闇。非由障生故非是影。于中見色故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第十一[云]。空中的一種顯色，就像青、黃、赤、白四種顏色一樣。依據相關論著，這種顯色以青、黃、赤、白為本體。解釋說，那些論著所說的『如彼青、黃、赤、白』，是指妙高山（Sumeru，佛教宇宙觀中的須彌山）四邊的空中，各自顯現一種顏色，稱為空界色。這裡的『如』字，是相似的意思。這種空中的一種顯色，類似於青、黃、赤、白，但並非就是青、黃、赤、白。或者可以這樣理解，這裡的『如』字，是『是』的意思。這種空中的一種顯色，就是青、黃、赤、白。有人問：依據各種論著，這種空界色，是以影、光、明、暗為本體的，為什麼又說是青、黃、赤、白呢？解釋說：青、黃、赤、白有兩種。如果是指實質的青色等，那就不是空界色。如果是妙高山四邊脫離了實質的青色等，那就是空界色。又一種解釋是：這種空界色雖然以光、影、明、暗為本體，但是光、影、明、暗，如果從其主要顯現的方面來說，也都可以被青、黃、赤、白所包含。所以《正理經》（Nyaya Sutra）說：青等四種顏色，是正顯色；云等八種顏色，是這些顏色的差別（以上是論著原文）。如果說青等顏色是根據其根本性質來說的，如果說光等是根據其最終顯現來說的，各自依據一個方面來論述，並不互相矛盾。有人問：空中的一種顯色，就是空界色；空界色是光、影、明、暗。那麼，空中的一種顯色，在影、光、明、暗中，以什麼為本體呢？解釋說：如果從一切空界色來說，就是以光、影、明、暗為本體。如果從個別現象來說，那就是四種顏色不確定。這裡說空中的一種顯色是空界色，那麼這種空界色是以明為本體的。妙高山的本體是由四種寶物構成的，寶物顯現在空中，就是明色。所以各種論著說，寶焰名為明。因此可知，不是光、影、暗。太陽的光焰名為光，這裡不是太陽的光焰，所以不是光。遮蔽光、明而產生的，在其中可以看到其他顏色的，名為影。與此相反的，名為暗。不是由於遮蔽而產生的，所以不是影。在其中可以看到顏色。

【English Translation】 English version: Eleventh [section] says: A single manifested color in the sky is like those blue, yellow, red, and white colors. According to the relevant treatises, this manifested color takes blue, yellow, red, and white as its substance. The explanation says that the treatises' statement 'like those blue, yellow, red, and white' refers to the fact that in the sky surrounding the four sides of Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, the cosmic mountain in Buddhist cosmology), each side manifests a different color, which is called the 'color of the sky realm'. The word 'like' here means similar. This single manifested color in the sky is similar to blue, yellow, red, and white, but it is not exactly those colors. Alternatively, it can be understood that the word 'like' here means 'is'. This single manifested color in the sky is blue, yellow, red, and white. Someone asks: According to various treatises, this color of the sky realm takes shadow, light, brightness, and darkness as its substance. Why then is it said to be blue, yellow, red, and white? The explanation says: There are two kinds of blue, yellow, red, and white. If it refers to the substantial blue color, etc., then it is not the color of the sky realm. If it refers to the blue color, etc., that is detached from the substance around the four sides of Mount Sumeru, then it is also the color of the sky realm. Another explanation is: Although this color of the sky realm takes light, shadow, brightness, and darkness as its substance, light, shadow, brightness, and darkness, if considered from their primary manifestation, can also be included within blue, yellow, red, and white. Therefore, the Nyaya Sutra says: The four colors of blue, etc., are primary manifested colors; the eight colors of clouds, etc., are the differences of these colors (the above is the original text of the treatises). If it is said that blue, etc., are discussed according to their fundamental nature, and if it is said that light, etc., are discussed according to their ultimate manifestation, each is based on one aspect, and they do not contradict each other. Someone asks: A single manifested color in the sky is the color of the sky realm; the color of the sky realm is light, shadow, brightness, and darkness. Then, what is the substance of the single manifested color in the sky among shadow, light, brightness, and darkness? The explanation says: If considered from all colors of the sky realm, it takes light, shadow, brightness, and darkness as its substance. If considered from individual phenomena, then the four colors are uncertain. Here, it is said that a single manifested color in the sky is the color of the sky realm, then this color of the sky realm takes brightness as its substance. The substance of Mount Sumeru is composed of four kinds of treasures, and the treasures manifest in the sky, which is brightness. Therefore, various treatises say that the flame of treasures is called brightness. From this, it can be known that it is not light, shadow, or darkness. The flame of the sun is called light, but this is not the flame of the sun, so it is not light. That which obstructs light and brightness and in which other colors can be seen is called shadow. The opposite of this is called darkness. It is not produced by obstruction, so it is not shadow. Colors can be seen within it.

非是闇。由斯理證定知是明。故此明色即是青．黃．赤．白差別。若作此釋。空一顯色。余師所說正義無違。然別說者為顯差別。◎

俱舍論記卷第一

俱舍論記卷第一(末)

◎又解。是不正義。以別說故。雖說空一顯色是空界色。然別有體　正理不破。前解為勝　若依法蘊足論第十卷。二十種色外。更說有空一顯色。相雜紅．紫．碧．綠．皂．褐。及余所有眼根所見　解云。空一顯色廣如前釋　紅是赤攝。紫。碧青收。或碧是青．白。綠是黃色。或是青．黃．皂．是青色。褐色不定。隨其所應青．黃等攝。此等諸色隨其所應。余色相雜。更立異名。據本正色皆青等攝。

此中正者至故今不釋者。隨難別解。如文可知。

或有色處至影光明闇者。此下明四句。此即初句　問影．光．明．闇。自體虛疏。無有形段。觸非極礙。唯生顯智。理在不疑。青．黃．赤．白。必與形俱。如何唯顯初句攝耶　解云。理實無有離形青等。而言青等有顯無形。據生顯智偏強勝說。如新染絹。雖亦有形。以顯新生。生顯智強故初句攝。此文應言青等一分。以顯。形力齊生智等者俱句攝故。而不說者略而不論　又解四洲空中所見顯色。青．黃．赤．白唯顯無形　或可。天中青．黃．赤．白四種寶地。如光

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：並非是黑暗。通過這個道理可以確定地知道是光明。因此，這種明色就是青、黃、赤、白等差別。如果這樣解釋，空一顯色（指在空中顯現的顏色）與其餘師父所說的正義沒有衝突。然而，特別說明是爲了顯示差別。

《俱舍論記》卷第一

《俱舍論記》卷第一（末）

又一種解釋是，這是不正義的，因為是特別說明的。即使說空一顯色是空界色（指存在於空界中的顏色），但它有單獨的體性，正理（指正確的道理）並不否定這一點。前面的解釋更好。如果依據《法蘊足論》第十卷，在二十種色之外，還說有一種空一顯色，它混合了紅、紫、碧、綠、皂、褐以及其他所有眼根所能見到的顏色。解釋說，空一顯色廣泛地如同前面的解釋。紅色屬於赤色，紫色和碧色屬於青色。或者碧色是青色和白色，綠色是黃色，或者是青色和黃色，皂色是青色，褐色不確定，根據情況可以歸入青色、黃色等。這些顏色根據情況，與其他顏色混合，從而產生不同的名稱。根據其本來的正色，都屬於青色等。

這段文字中，從『此中正者』到『故今不釋者』，是根據提問分別解釋，如同原文一樣可以理解。

從『或有色處』到『影光明闇者』，以下說明四句。這裡是第一句。提問：影、光、明、闇，它們的自體虛疏，沒有形狀和段落，觸感並非極度阻礙，僅僅產生顯現的智慧，這個道理沒有疑問。青、黃、赤、白，必定與形狀一起出現，為什麼僅僅是顯現，被第一句所包含呢？解釋說：實際上沒有脫離形狀的青色等，說青色等只有顯現而沒有形狀，是根據產生顯現智慧的偏重和強盛來說的。如同新染的絹，雖然也有形狀，但因為顯現是新產生的，產生顯現智慧的力量強，所以被第一句所包含。這段文字應該說青色等的一部分，因為顯現和形狀的力量同時產生，智慧等同的情況被俱句所包含。而不說這種情況，是省略而不論述。又一種解釋是，四大洲的空中所見到的顯色，青、黃、赤、白只有顯現而沒有形狀。或者可以認為是天空中青、黃、赤、白四種寶地，如同光一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not darkness. Through this reasoning, it can be definitively known that it is light. Therefore, this 'ming se' (bright color) is the difference between blue, yellow, red, white, etc. If explained in this way, 'kong yi xian se' (color manifested in the sky) does not conflict with the correct meaning stated by other masters. However, the special explanation is to show the difference.

《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》Volume 1

《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》Volume 1 (End)

Another explanation is that this is incorrect because it is a special explanation. Even if it is said that 'kong yi xian se' is 'kong jie se' (color existing in the space realm), it has a separate nature, and 'zheng li' (correct reasoning) does not deny this. The previous explanation is better. According to the tenth volume of the 《Dharmaskandha》, in addition to the twenty types of 'se' (form), it is also said that there is a 'kong yi xian se', which mixes red, purple, azure, green, dark, brown, and all other colors seen by the eye. The explanation says that 'kong yi xian se' is as broad as the previous explanation. Red belongs to red, and purple and azure belong to blue. Or azure is blue and white, green is yellow, or blue and yellow, dark is blue, and brown is uncertain, and can be classified into blue, yellow, etc. according to the situation. These colors are mixed with other colors according to the situation, resulting in different names. According to their original true colors, they all belong to blue, etc.

In this passage, from 'ci zhong zheng zhe' to 'gu jin bu shi zhe', the explanations are given separately according to the questions, and can be understood as in the original text.

From 'huo you se chu' to 'ying guang ming an zhe', the following explains the four sentences. This is the first sentence. Question: Shadow, light, brightness, and darkness, their nature is empty and sparse, without shape or segments, and the sense of touch is not extremely obstructive, only producing manifest wisdom, there is no doubt about this principle. Blue, yellow, red, and white must appear with shape, why are they only manifestations and included in the first sentence? The explanation says: In reality, there are no blue colors, etc. that are separated from shape. Saying that blue colors, etc. only have manifestation and no shape is based on the emphasis and strength of the production of manifest wisdom. Like newly dyed silk, although it also has shape, because the manifestation is newly produced, the power of producing manifest wisdom is strong, so it is included in the first sentence. This passage should say a part of blue colors, etc., because the power of manifestation and shape are produced at the same time, and the situation where wisdom is equal is included in the 'ju ju' (both sentence). Not mentioning this situation is an omission. Another explanation is that the manifest colors seen in the sky of the four continents, blue, yellow, red, and white, only have manifestation and no shape. Or it can be considered as the four kinds of treasure lands of blue, yellow, red, and white in the sky, like light.

明等有顯無形。故初句攝。若作此解。形俱顯色及顯新生。皆俱句攝　若依識身十一．婆娑十三．正理三十四。第一句中更加空一顯色。此非正義以別說故　或是正義。空一顯色。若據本色青等色攝。若據末色明色所攝。並如前解　然別說者。為顯差別　若依正理三十四有一說。第一句中唯說影．光．明．闇。此師意說。青．黃．赤．白無有離形。俱句所攝非初句收。此即意別　又解。此非正義。諸論皆說青．黃．赤．白。初句攝故　又解。是正義。影．光．明．闇．決定無形。是故別說。青等不定。若別新生即初句攝。若形俱起即俱句收。故不別說　或可。青等有離形者。有附形者。不定不說。

或有色處至身表業性者。此即第二句。雖有形處必亦有顯。言無顯者。據生形智偏強勝說。如新裁製絹白等物。雖亦有顯。形色新生生形智勝故。第二句攝。長等一分身表業性。即是新生身表相顯。此中偏說。以實亦通新裁絹等　又解。長等一分。即是一切形新生者如身表業性。此即別指事　若作此兩解。無別新生顯．形俱者。皆俱句攝　又解。即身表業名長等一分。業性暫起生形智勝故偏說表。不通余形。故婆沙一百二十二云。形可了知非顯者。謂身表色。若作此解。顯．形俱色。及新裁製者皆俱句攝。若依婆沙七

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本明等有顯無形，所以包含在第一句中。如果這樣解釋，那麼形俱顯色以及顯新生，都包含在俱句中。如果按照《識身論》第十一卷、《婆沙論》第十三卷、《正理論》第三十四卷的說法，第一句中還要加上空和顯色。這不是正確的解釋，因為是單獨說明的。或者這是正確的解釋，空和顯色，如果根據本色青等色來說，就包含在色中；如果根據末色來說，就包含在明色中。都和前面的解釋一樣。然而單獨說明，是爲了顯示差別。如果按照《正理論》第三十四卷的一種說法，第一句中只說影、光、明、闇。這位論師的意思是說，青、黃、赤、白沒有離開形體的，包含在俱句中，不包含在第一句中。這就是意思上的區別。又一種解釋，這不是正確的解釋，因為各種論典都說青、黃、赤、白包含在第一句中。又一種解釋，這是正確的解釋，影、光、明、闇，決定沒有形體，所以單獨說明。青等不定，如果單獨新生就包含在第一句中，如果和形體一起產生就包含在俱句中，所以不單獨說明。或者，青等有離開形體的，有附著形體的，不確定所以不說。

或者有色處到身表業性，這就是第二句。雖然有形處必定也有顯，說沒有顯，是根據產生形智偏強勝來說的。比如新裁製的絹白等物，雖然也有顯，但是形色新生，產生形智更強，所以包含在第二句中。長等一部分身表業性，就是新生身表相顯，這裡偏說，實際上也包括新裁製的絹等。又一種解釋，長等一部分，就是一切形新生者，比如身表業性，這是特別指明的事。如果這樣兩種解釋，沒有單獨新生顯、形俱者，都包含在俱句中。又一種解釋，就是身表業名叫長等一部分，業性暫時產生，產生形智更強，所以偏說表，不包括其他的形。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說，形可以瞭解但不是顯，指的是身表色。如果這樣解釋，顯、形俱色，以及新裁製者都包含在俱句中。如果按照《婆沙論》第七卷

【English Translation】 English version 'Ming' (brightness) and others have 'xian' (manifestation) but are without 'xing' (form). Therefore, the first phrase encompasses them. If interpreted this way, then 'xing ju xian se' (form and manifestation together) and 'xian xin sheng' (newly arisen manifestation) are both encompassed by the 'ju' (together) phrase. If according to the eleventh volume of the Vijnanakaya Sastra (Treatise on the Body of Consciousness), the thirteenth volume of the Vibhasa (Great Commentary), and the thirty-fourth volume of the Nyayanusara (Following the Course of Reason), one should add 'kong' (emptiness) and one 'xian se' (manifestation color) in the first phrase. This is not the correct meaning because it is explained separately. Or perhaps this is the correct meaning: 'kong' and 'xian se', if based on the original colors like blue, etc., are included in 'se' (color); if based on the final colors, they are included in 'ming se' (brightness color). All are as explained before. However, the separate explanation is to show the difference. If according to one explanation in the thirty-fourth volume of the Nyayanusara, the first phrase only speaks of 'ying' (shadow), 'guang' (light), 'ming' (brightness), and 'an' (darkness). This teacher's intention is that blue, yellow, red, and white do not exist apart from form, and are included in the 'ju' phrase, not included in the first phrase. This is a difference in intention. Another explanation: this is not the correct meaning, because all treatises say that blue, yellow, red, and white are included in the first phrase. Another explanation: this is the correct meaning. 'Ying', 'guang', 'ming', and 'an' are definitely without form, therefore they are explained separately. Blue, etc., are uncertain; if they arise newly and separately, they are included in the first phrase; if they arise together with form, they are included in the 'ju' phrase, therefore they are not explained separately. Or perhaps, blue, etc., sometimes have separation from form, sometimes are attached to form, uncertain and therefore not spoken of.

Or, 'you se chu zhi shen biao ye xing' (from the realm of color to the nature of bodily expression), this is the second phrase. Although there is a realm of form, there must also be manifestation. Saying there is no manifestation is based on the idea that the arising of form-wisdom is particularly strong and superior. For example, newly cut silk white and other things, although they also have manifestation, because the form-color is newly arisen, the arising of form-wisdom is stronger, therefore they are included in the second phrase. 'Chang deng yi fen shen biao ye xing' (length, etc., a portion of the nature of bodily expression) is the newly arisen bodily expression appearance. This is a partial explanation, but in reality it also includes newly cut silk, etc. Another explanation: 'chang deng yi fen' (length, etc., a portion) is all newly arisen forms, such as the nature of bodily expression. This is a specific reference to the matter. If these two explanations are made, there is no separate newly arisen manifestation, those with form and manifestation together are all included in the 'ju' phrase. Another explanation: the name of bodily expression is 'chang deng yi fen' (length, etc., a portion). The nature of karma arises temporarily, and the arising of form-wisdom is stronger, therefore 'biao' (expression) is partially spoken of, not including other forms. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-second volume of the Vibhasa says, 'xing ke liao zhi fei xian zhe' (form can be understood but is not manifest), referring to bodily expression color. If this explanation is made, 'xian xing ju se' (manifestation and form together color), and newly cut things are all included in the 'ju' phrase. If according to the seventh volume of the Vibhasa

十五有一說。不立第二句。此非正義。諸論皆說身表業色第二句故　或於正義理亦無違。不立第二句者。以身表邊必有顯故。俱句所攝。以青等色有離形者故初句攝。此即意別。

或有色處至謂所餘色者。此即第三句。顯．形平等無別新生。生智力齊皆俱句攝　所餘色者。即餘十二種色。故婆沙云。或有顯。形故可知。謂餘十二種色。謂長．短．方．圓．正．不正．高．下．云．煙．塵．霧(已上論文)　此第三句亦應言青等一分長等一分。而不說者。略而不論　或可。影顯　或余色言已表一分　又解。於此聚中有顯形者。皆俱句攝。若顯離形是第一句。雖身表邊亦有顯色。然別立為第二句者。業性暫起生形智勝故別說之。若依正理三十四。有一說意。第三句中十六種。除影．光．明．闇。此師意說。無有離形青．黃．赤．白故青等四俱句所攝。非初句收。雖身表處亦有顯色。而別立為第二句者。如前釋通。此即意別　又解。此非正義。諸論皆說青．黃．赤．白初句攝故　或於正義亦不相違。且據青等有形者說．以實。青等一分亦初句攝　若依雜心。立壁畫等為第三句。此非正義。正理論意。不許壁畫有別實形。夫形色者。觸憶長等。觸畫不憶。明非有形　或是正義。正理論說畫無形者。據輕薄色觸不憶形。雜

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於第十五種說法，不設立第二句，這並非正確的解釋。因為各種論著都說身表業色屬於第二句。或者，這與正確的解釋在道理上並沒有衝突。不設立第二句的原因是，在身表（身體的表達）的邊緣必然有顯色（可見的顏色），因此屬於俱句（同時屬於兩個範疇）。因為青色等顏色有脫離形體的，所以屬於第一句。這只是理解上的差異。

或者，『有色處』到『謂所餘色者』，這指的是第三句。顯色和形色平等，沒有新的產生。生智力齊，都屬於俱句。『所餘色者』，指的是剩餘的十二種色。所以《婆沙論》說，或者有顯色和形色，這是可以理解的，指的是剩餘的十二種色，即長、短、方、圓、正、不正、高、下、云、煙、塵、霧（以上是論文原文）。這第三句也應該說青色等顏色的一部分，長短等形狀的一部分。而不這樣說的原因是，省略而不論述。或者可以理解為，影和顯色。或者『余色』已經表達了一部分。另一種解釋是，在此聚集體中有顯色和形色的，都屬於俱句。如果顯色脫離形色，則屬於第一句。雖然身表邊緣也有顯色，但特別設立為第二句的原因是，業的性質暫時產生，生形智更為突出，所以特別說明。如果依據正理三十四，有一種說法認為，第三句中有十六種，除去影、光、明、暗。這位論師認為，沒有脫離形體的青、黃、赤、白，所以青色等四種顏色屬於俱句，而不是第一句。雖然身表處也有顯色，但特別設立為第二句的原因，如前面的解釋一樣。這只是理解上的差異。另一種解釋是，這並非正確的解釋。因為各種論著都說青、黃、赤、白屬於第一句。或者，這與正確的解釋並沒有衝突。姑且認為青色等顏色是有形體的。實際上，青色等顏色的一部分也屬於第一句。如果依據《雜心論》，設立壁畫等為第三句，這並非正確的解釋。《正理論》認為，不承認壁畫有別的真實形體。形色指的是，觸控后能回憶起長短等形狀。觸控圖畫卻不能回憶起形狀，說明它沒有形體。或者這是正確的解釋。《正理論》說圖畫沒有形體，指的是輕薄的顏色，觸控后不能回憶起形狀。《雜心論》

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the fifteenth point, not establishing a second category is not a correct explanation, because various treatises state that bodily expression and karmic color belong to the second category. Or, this does not contradict the correct explanation in principle. The reason for not establishing a second category is that there must be visible color (顯色) at the edge of bodily expression (身表), therefore it belongs to the 'both' category (俱句). Because blue and other colors can be separated from form, they belong to the first category. This is just a difference in understanding.

Or, 'colored places' to 'what is called remaining colors' refers to the third category. Visible color and form color are equal, with no new arising. The power of arising wisdom is equal, and they all belong to the 'both' category. 'Remaining colors' refers to the remaining twelve types of color. Therefore, the Vibhasa says, 'Or there are visible colors and form colors,' which is understandable, referring to the remaining twelve types of color, namely long, short, square, round, regular, irregular, high, low, cloud, smoke, dust, and mist (above is the original text of the treatise). This third category should also say that a part of blue and other colors, and a part of long and other shapes. The reason for not saying so is that it is omitted and not discussed. Or it can be understood as shadow and visible color. Or 'remaining colors' has already expressed a part. Another explanation is that if there are visible colors and form colors in this aggregate, they all belong to the 'both' category. If visible color is separated from form, it belongs to the first category. Although there is also visible color at the edge of bodily expression, the reason for specifically establishing it as the second category is that the nature of karma arises temporarily, and the wisdom of arising form is more prominent, so it is specifically explained. If according to the Nyayanusara, there is a saying that there are sixteen types in the third category, excluding shadow, light, brightness, and darkness. This teacher believes that there are no blue, yellow, red, and white that are separated from form, so blue and other four colors belong to the 'both' category, not the first category. Although there is also visible color in the place of bodily expression, the reason for specifically establishing it as the second category is the same as the previous explanation. This is just a difference in understanding. Another explanation is that this is not a correct explanation, because various treatises state that blue, yellow, red, and white belong to the first category. Or, this does not contradict the correct explanation. Let's assume that blue and other colors have form. In reality, a part of blue and other colors also belongs to the first category. If according to the Samuccaya, establishing murals and the like as the third category is not a correct explanation. The Nyayapravesa believes that it does not recognize that murals have other real forms. Form color refers to the ability to recall long and other shapes after touching. Touching a painting does not recall the shape, indicating that it has no form. Or this is a correct explanation. The Nyayapravesa says that paintings have no form, referring to the thin color that cannot recall the shape after touching. The Samuccaya

心言有據重色說。觸可憶形。各據一義理並無違。

有餘師說至有長等故者。敘異說。唯光．明色其體清妙。以散空中無形狀故。唯生顯智。現見世間青．黃．赤．白．影．闇色處。其相稍粗形狀可了。有長等故。此非正義。諸論皆說影．闇色等初句攝故。若依婆沙七十五有一說。空界色為第四句。此非正義。諸論皆說顯色攝故　若依正理三十四有一說．意．香．味．觸．及無表色為第四句。故彼論云。或有色聚俱非可知如香．味等及無表聚。正理論意約六境說。然不說聲以非恒故　或等中攝。此于正義亦不相違　若依識身十一意。說五根．四境．及無表色為第四句。故彼論云。無顯無形者。謂若諸色無顯無形　識身論意據十一種色四句分別。此于正義亦不相違。

如何一事具有顯形者。外難。外難。不解意謂。一色具有顯。形二體。便一極微有二分過。故為徴問。如何一極微事。具有顯．形二體說為俱句　此難前師　或難后師　或通難二。

由於此中至非有境義者。通難。由於此色聚中顯．形二種俱可知故。此俱句中言有顯．形者。是有形．顯二智義。由生顯形二智。表有顯．形二色。非。言一體亦顯．亦形。故言非有境義　此述毗婆沙師解。

若爾身表中亦應有顯智者。論主難破毗婆沙

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心識和語言的依據在於對顏色的重視。觸覺可以回憶形狀。各自依據一個義理，並沒有衝突。

有些其他老師說，因為有長等形狀的緣故（而有顯色和形色之分）。這是敘述不同的說法。只有光和明亮之色，其本體清澈微妙，因為散佈在空中沒有形狀的緣故，所以只產生顯現的智慧。現在看到世間的青色（Nīla），黃色（Pīta），紅色（Rakta），白色（Śveta），影子（Chāyā），黑暗（Andhakāra）等顏色之處，它們的相狀稍微粗糙，形狀可以瞭解，因為有長等形狀的緣故。這並非正確的義理。各種論典都說影子、黑暗等顏色包含在第一句（顯色）中。如果依照《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）七十五的說法，空界之色為第四句（非顯非形）。這並非正確的義理。各種論典都說包含在顯色中。如果依照《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra）三十四的說法，意、香（Gandha）、味（Rasa）、觸（Sparśa）以及無表色為第四句。所以該論說：『或者有些色聚既非可知，如香、味等，以及無表之聚。』《正理論》的意義是約六境而說，然而不說聲音，因為它不是恒常存在的緣故。或者包含在『等』中。這與正確的義理也不相違背。如果依照《識身論》（Vijñānakāya）十一的意義，說五根、四境以及無表色為第四句。所以該論說：『無顯無形者，是指那些沒有顯色也沒有形色的。』《識身論》的意義是根據十一種色進行四句的分別。這與正確的義理也不相違背。

如何一件事物同時具有顯色和形色呢？這是外人的提問。外人不理解其中的意義，認為一種顏色同時具有顯色和形色兩種本體，那麼一個極微（paramāṇu）就有了兩個部分，這是過失。所以提出疑問：如何一個極微的事物，同時具有顯色和形色兩種本體，而說為俱句（既是顯色又是形色）呢？這是對前一位老師的提問，或者對后一位老師的提問，或者同時對兩位老師的提問。

由於此中……乃至……不是有境的意義。這是對提問的解釋。由於這個色聚中，顯色和形色兩種都可以被認知，所以這個俱句中說有顯色和形色，是有形色和顯色兩種智慧的意義。由於產生顯色和形色兩種智慧，表明有顯色和形色兩種顏色，並非說一個本體既是顯色又是形色。所以說不是有境的意義。這是敘述毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）的解釋。

如果這樣，那麼身體的表面也應該有顯色的智慧了？這是論主爲了駁斥毗婆沙（Vaibhāṣika）而提出的疑問。

【English Translation】 English version: The basis of mind and speech lies in the importance of color. Touch can recall shape. Each relies on a principle, and there is no conflict.

Some other teachers say that the distinction between manifest color (varṇa) and shape (saṃsthāna) arises because of the existence of length, etc. This is a narration of different views. Only light and bright colors, whose essence is clear and subtle, exist because they are scattered in the air without shape, thus only producing manifest wisdom. Now, seeing the places in the world where blue (Nīla), yellow (Pīta), red (Rakta), white (Śveta), shadow (Chāyā), darkness (Andhakāra), etc., exist, their appearances are slightly coarser, and their shapes can be understood because they have length, etc. This is not the correct principle. Various treatises say that shadows, darkness, etc., are included in the first category (manifest color). If according to the Vibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā) seventy-five, the color of the space realm is the fourth category (neither manifest nor shape). This is not the correct principle. Various treatises say that it is included in manifest color. If according to the Nyāyānusāra (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) thirty-four, mind, smell (Gandha), taste (Rasa), touch (Sparśa), and non-revealing form (avijñapti-rūpa) are the fourth category. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Or some aggregates of color are neither knowable, such as smell, taste, etc., and aggregates of non-revealing form.' The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra is spoken about the six realms, but it does not speak of sound because it is not constant. Or it is included in 'etc.' This is not contradictory to the correct principle. If according to the meaning of the Vijñānakāya (Vijñānakāya-śāstra) eleven, the five roots, four realms, and non-revealing form are the fourth category. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Those without manifest and shape refer to those colors that have neither manifest color nor shape.' The meaning of the Vijñānakāya is to distinguish the eleven types of color into four categories. This is not contradictory to the correct principle.

How can one thing simultaneously have both manifest color and shape? This is an external question. The outsider does not understand the meaning, thinking that one color simultaneously has both manifest color and shape as two entities, then one ultimate particle (paramāṇu) would have two parts, which is a fault. Therefore, the question is raised: How can one ultimate particle simultaneously have both manifest color and shape as two entities, and be said to be a co-existing category (both manifest color and shape)? This is a question for the former teacher, or a question for the latter teacher, or a question for both teachers simultaneously.

Because in this... up to... it is not the meaning of having an object. This is an explanation of the question. Because in this aggregate of color, both manifest color and shape can be recognized, therefore, saying that there are manifest color and shape in this co-existing category means that there are two types of wisdom: shape and manifest color. Because manifest color and shape produce two types of wisdom, it indicates that there are two types of color: manifest color and shape. It does not mean that one entity is both manifest color and shape. Therefore, it is said that it is not the meaning of having an object. This is a narration of the explanation of the Vaibhāṣika.

If so, then the surface of the body should also have the wisdom of manifest color? This is the question raised by the master of the treatise to refute the Vaibhāṣika.

師　若彼聚中能生二智。即謂彼聚有顯有形。身表業色既必顯俱。亦應有顯智。不應唯形無顯句攝。

已說色處當說聲處者。結前生后。

聲有八種至差別成八者。此下別解。所聞名聲。

差別有八。一有執受大種為因有情名可意聲。二有執受大種為因有情名不可意聲。三有執受大種為因非有情名可意聲。四有執受大種為因非有情名不可意聲　無執受大種為因聲亦有四種。準此應釋　故婆沙十三云。聲處有八種。謂執受大種為因聲。非執受大種因聲。此各有二。謂有情名聲。非有情名聲。此復各有可意．不可意別。故成八種　問無執受中。如何得有有情名聲　答如入阿毗達磨論第一云。聲有二種。謂有執受。及無執受。大種為因有差別故　隨自體者名有執受。是有覺受義。與此相違名無執受　前所生者名有執受大種為因。謂手．語等聲　后所生者名無執受大種為因。謂風．林．河等聲　此有情名非有情名差別為四。謂前聲中語聲名有情名聲。餘聲名非有情名聲。后聲中化語聲名有情名聲。餘聲名非有情名聲　此復可意及不可意差別成八　彼論既說后無執受聲中。化語聲是有情名聲明知無執受中得有有情名聲　問化語有名。為成就不　解云。成就。故此論第五卷云。又名身等。有情數攝。能說者成。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本論師（指論述《俱舍論》的作者）如果認為一個組合（聚）中能夠產生兩種智慧（顯智和形智），那麼就說這個組合既有顯現的性質，也有形狀的性質。既然身體的表示（身表）和業所生的顏色（業色）必然與顯現的性質同時存在，那麼也應該有顯現的智慧（顯智），不應該只有形狀而沒有顯現的性質，被『無顯句』所涵蓋。

已經講完了色處，接下來要講聲處，這是爲了總結前面的內容，並引出後面的內容。

『聲音有八種，直到差別形成八種』，以下是分別解釋。所聽到的稱為聲音（名聲）。

差別有八種：第一種，以有執受的大種為原因，有情所發出的令人喜愛的聲音（可意聲）；第二種，以有執受的大種為原因，有情所發出的令人不喜愛的聲音（不可意聲）；第三種，以有執受的大種為原因，非有情所發出的令人喜愛的聲音；第四種，以有執受的大種為原因，非有情所發出的令人不喜愛的聲音。以無執受的大種為原因的聲音也有四種，可以參照前面的解釋。所以《婆沙論》第十三卷說，聲處有八種，即以執受的大種為原因的聲音，和以非執受的大種為原因的聲音。這兩種又各有兩種，即有情的聲音和非有情的聲音。這些又可以分為令人喜愛和令人不喜愛，因此形成八種。問：在無執受中，怎麼會有有情的聲音呢？答：如《阿毗達磨論》第一卷所說，聲音有兩種，即有執受和無執受，因為大種的原因有差別。隨從自身產生的稱為有執受，是有感覺和領受的意思。與此相反的稱為無執受。先前產生的稱為以有執受的大種為原因，如手勢、語言等發出的聲音。後來產生的稱為以無執受的大種為原因，如風聲、林聲、河聲等。這裡有情的聲音和非有情的聲音的差別分為四種，即前面的聲音中，語言的聲音稱為有情的聲音，其餘的聲音稱為非有情的聲音。後面的聲音中，化現的語言的聲音稱為有情的聲音，其餘的聲音稱為非有情的聲音。這些又可以分為令人喜愛和令人不喜愛，形成八種。該論既然說了後面的無執受的聲音中，化現的語言的聲音是有情的聲音，就說明無執受中可以有有情的聲音。問：化現的語言的聲音有名稱嗎？能成就嗎？解釋說：能成就。所以該論第五卷說，又名稱、身體等，屬於有情的範疇，能說話者能成就。

【English Translation】 English version The Master (referring to the author of the Abhidharma-kosa-sastra) states that if a combination (samghata) can produce two kinds of wisdom (manifest wisdom and form wisdom), then it is said that this combination has both the nature of manifestation and the nature of form. Since bodily expression (kaya-vijnapti) and karma-produced color (karma-varna) necessarily coexist with the nature of manifestation, there should also be manifest wisdom (vijnapti-jnana), and it should not only have form without the nature of manifestation, being encompassed by the 'non-manifestation clause'.

Having finished discussing the sense-sphere of color (rupa-ayatana), we will now discuss the sense-sphere of sound (sabda-ayatana). This is to summarize the previous content and introduce the following content.

'Sound has eight types, until the distinctions form eight.' The following is a separate explanation. What is heard is called sound (sabda).

There are eight distinctions: First, sound caused by sentient beings, originating from the great elements with apprehension (upadana-mahabhuta-hetuka), which is pleasant (ista-sabda); second, sound caused by sentient beings, originating from the great elements with apprehension, which is unpleasant (anista-sabda); third, sound caused by non-sentient beings, originating from the great elements with apprehension, which is pleasant; fourth, sound caused by non-sentient beings, originating from the great elements with apprehension, which is unpleasant. There are also four types of sound caused by the great elements without apprehension; the explanation should be similar to the previous ones. Therefore, the Vibhasa-sastra, volume thirteen, states that there are eight types of sound-sphere, namely sound caused by the great elements with apprehension and sound caused by the great elements without apprehension. Each of these has two types: sound of sentient beings and sound of non-sentient beings. These can be further divided into pleasant and unpleasant, thus forming eight types. Question: How can there be sound of sentient beings in the absence of apprehension? Answer: As stated in the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, volume one, there are two types of sound: with apprehension and without apprehension, because the causes of the great elements are different. That which arises from itself is called with apprehension, which means having sensation and reception. The opposite of this is called without apprehension. That which arises earlier is called caused by the great elements with apprehension, such as sounds from hand gestures and speech. That which arises later is called caused by the great elements without apprehension, such as the sound of wind, forests, and rivers. Here, the distinction between the sound of sentient beings and the sound of non-sentient beings is divided into four types: in the former sound, the sound of speech is called the sound of sentient beings, and the remaining sounds are called the sound of non-sentient beings. In the latter sound, the sound of transformation speech is called the sound of sentient beings, and the remaining sounds are called the sound of non-sentient beings. These can be further divided into pleasant and unpleasant, forming eight types. Since that treatise states that in the latter sound without apprehension, the sound of transformation speech is the sound of sentient beings, it shows that there can be sound of sentient beings in the absence of apprehension. Question: Does the sound of transformation speech have a name? Can it be accomplished? The explanation is: It can be accomplished. Therefore, volume five of that treatise states that names, bodies, etc., belong to the category of sentient beings, and those who can speak can accomplish it.

非所顯義　問化語有名。為是業不。解云。是業。故婆沙一百二十二云。問諸化語是業不。有作是說。彼是語業。由心發故　有餘師說。彼非語業但名語聲。以所化身無執受故。婆沙雖無評文。且以前師為正。不言有餘師故。

問化語是業。為成就不　解云。成就。故婆沙一百三十二云。有成就欲界系所造色。亦色界系所造色。謂生欲界得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語　以此準知。成就化語。若言婆沙據即質化故言成就。若離質化則不成就者。撿尋婆沙上下論文但言成就化語。無有不成化語之文。若言化語通成．不成。婆沙應言若即質化語成就。若離質化語不成就。彼論既無此說。故知定成化語　問如簫笛等。亦是無執受大種因聲。同化語聲。為有名不。及是業不。覆成就不　解云。無名。故此論云。有情名聲謂語表業　此非語業故無有名。有歌曲等似名。非真。如鏡中火似真火。而非真火　亦非是業。故婆沙一百二十二云。問簫笛等聲。是語業不。答．彼非語業但是語聲。由風氣等所引發故(已上論文)既非有名亦非是業。故不成就　問如化四境。非名非業。如何說成。解云。由心力能親發化故。可說成就。簫笛等聲即不如是。故不成就　又解。化語無有實名。論言化語是有情名聲者。似有情名。非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於非顯義的問題：化語（通過神通變化而產生的語言）是否有名？是否屬於業（karma，行為）？解答：是業。因此，《婆沙論》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》，佛教論書）第一百二十二卷說：『問：諸化語是業否？』有人這樣說：『彼是語業，由心發故。』（因為它們是由心發起的，所以是語業。）有其他老師說：『彼非語業，但名語聲，以所化身無執受故。』（它們不是語業，只是被稱為語聲，因為被變化出來的身體沒有執受。）《婆沙論》雖然沒有評判性的文字，但暫且以前面的老師的說法為正確，因為它沒有說有其他老師的說法。

問：化語是業，是否成就（產生果報）？解答：成就。因此，《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷說：『有成就欲界系所造色，亦系所造色，謂生欲界得善心。若生作欲界化發欲界語。』（有成就欲界所繫的有表色，也有所繫的有表色，例如生在欲界獲得善心，或者生在，造作欲界的化身，發出欲界的語言。）以此可以推知，化語是成就的。如果說《婆沙論》是根據即質化（依託于實體而變化）的情況而言成就，如果離開實體而變化則不成就，那麼應該檢查《婆沙論》上下的論文，但其中只說成就化語，沒有說不成就化語的文字。如果說化語有成就和不成就兩種情況，《婆沙論》應該說『如果依託于實體而變化的語言則成就，如果離開實體而變化的語言則不成就』。既然該論沒有這樣的說法，所以可知化語一定是成就的。問：像簫笛等樂器，也是無執受的大種（組成物質世界的元素）所產生的音聲，與化語的聲音相似，是否有名稱？是否是業？是否成就？解答：沒有名稱。因此，此論說：『有情名聲謂語表業。』（有情所發出的名稱和聲音被稱為語表業。）簫笛等樂器的聲音不是語業，所以沒有名稱。有些歌曲等似乎有名，但不是真的，就像鏡子中的火看起來像真火，但不是真火。也不是業。因此，《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說：『問：簫笛等聲，是語業不？答：彼非語業，但是語聲，由風氣等所引發故。』（問：簫笛等的聲音，是語業嗎？答：它們不是語業，只是語聲，由風氣等所引發。）既然沒有名稱，也不是業，所以不成就。問：像變化出來的四種境界（色、聲、香、味），既不是名稱也不是業，如何說成就？解答：由於心力能夠親自發起變化，所以可以說成就。簫笛等樂器的聲音就不是這樣，所以不成就。另一種解釋是，化語沒有真實的名義，論中說化語是有情名聲，只是類似有情名聲，並非真正的有情名聲。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the meaning that is not manifest: Is there a name for 'transformed speech' (化語, speech produced through supernatural transformation)? Is it karma (業, action)? Answer: It is karma. Therefore, the Vibhasa (《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, a Buddhist treatise), Chapter 122, says: 'Question: Are all transformed speeches karma?' Some say: 'They are verbal karma because they are produced by the mind.' Other teachers say: 'They are not verbal karma, but are merely called speech sounds because the transformed body has no apprehension (執受).' Although the Vibhasa does not have judgmental text, for the time being, the former teacher's statement is considered correct because it does not say that there are other teachers' statements.

Question: If transformed speech is karma, is it accomplished (產生果報, produces consequences)? Answer: It is accomplished. Therefore, the Vibhasa, Chapter 132, says: 'There is accomplishment of form produced by the desire realm, and also form produced by the ** realm, namely, being born in the desire realm and obtaining ** wholesome mind. If born in , one creates a transformed body of the desire realm and utters speech of the desire realm.' From this, it can be inferred that transformed speech is accomplished. If it is said that the Vibhasa speaks of accomplishment based on the case of 'transformation relying on substance' (即質化), and that if transformation is apart from substance, then it is not accomplished, then one should examine the texts above and below in the Vibhasa, but it only says that transformed speech is accomplished, and there is no text saying that transformed speech is not accomplished. If it is said that transformed speech has both accomplishment and non-accomplishment, the Vibhasa should say, 'If speech transformed relying on substance is accomplished, then speech transformed apart from substance is not accomplished.' Since that treatise does not have such a statement, it is known that transformed speech is definitely accomplished. Question: Are instruments such as flutes and pipes, which are also sounds produced by the great elements (大種, elements constituting the material world) without apprehension, similar to the sounds of transformed speech, do they have names? Are they karma? Are they accomplished? Answer: They have no name. Therefore, this treatise says: 'The names and sounds of sentient beings are called verbal expression karma (語表業).' The sounds of instruments such as flutes and pipes are not verbal karma, so they have no name. Some songs, etc., seem to have names, but they are not real, just like the fire in a mirror looks like real fire, but it is not real fire. They are also not karma. Therefore, the Vibhasa, Chapter 122, says: 'Question: Are the sounds of flutes and pipes verbal karma? Answer: They are not verbal karma, but merely speech sounds, because they are produced by wind, etc.' Since they have no name and are not karma, they are not accomplished. Question: Like the four transformed realms (色、聲、香、味, form, sound, smell, taste), which are neither names nor karma, how can they be said to be accomplished? Answer: Because the power of the mind can personally initiate the transformation, it can be said to be accomplished. The sounds of instruments such as flutes and pipes are not like this, so they are not accomplished. Another explanation is that transformed speech has no real meaning. The treatise says that transformed speech is the name and sound of sentient beings, but it is only similar to the name and sound of sentient beings, not the real name and sound of sentient beings.

實有情名。如鏡中火似真火。而非真火　既非實名。亦非成就。

化語非業　婆沙解。化語是業．非業。既無評家。且以後師為正　又此論業品亦同婆沙后師。故業品云。散依等流性。有受。異大生　解表大種同散無表。用執受大種造。化語既不用執受大種造。明知非業　化語雖非是業。而得名語　由心力能親發起故。可言成就　簫．笛等聲雖名為語。非親發起。故不成就。若作前解。釋后證言同散無表者。據非化語業。若據化語業。即用無執受大種為因　上來雖解化語真似兩說。于無執受皆具四聲　又解。由門異故成八種聲。謂有執受。無執受因聲。有情名聲．非有情名聲。各有可意。不可意。總成八種　問執受．不執受因聲。與有情非有情名聲。相對何別　解云。應作四句。有是執受因聲非有情名聲。謂手等聲　有是有情名聲非執受因聲謂化語聲有是執受因聲亦是有情名聲。謂語表業聲　有非執受因聲亦非有情名聲。謂風林等聲　問執受不執受因聲與可意不可意聲相對何別　解云。應作四句。有是執受因聲非可意聲。謂內發惡聲　有是可意聲非執受因聲。謂外發好聲　有是執受因聲亦是可意聲。謂內出好聲　有非執受因聲亦非可意聲。謂外發惡聲　問有情非有情名聲。與可意不可意聲何別　解云。應作四句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『實有情名』（真實存在的有情眾生的名稱），就像鏡子中的火，看起來像真火，但並非真正的火。既然不是真實的名，也就不是真實的成就。

『化語』（變化出來的語言）不是業。根據《婆沙論》的解釋，化語是業，又不是業。既然沒有評判的標準，就以後來的論師的說法為準。而且此論中的『業品』也與《婆沙論》後來的論師的觀點相同。所以『業品』中說，散亂的、相似的等流性，是有感受的，與四大不同而產生。解釋說，表色的大種與散亂的無表色相同，是用執受的大種造作的。化語既然不是用執受的大種造作的，明顯可知它不是業。化語雖然不是業，但可以稱為語，因為它是通過心力直接發起的，所以可以稱為成就。像簫、笛等聲音，雖然也稱為語，但不是直接發起的，所以不能稱為成就。如果按照之前的解釋，解釋後來的『同散無表』的說法，指的是非化語的業。如果指的是化語的業，那就是用無執受的大種作為因。

以上雖然解釋了化語的真和似兩種說法，但在無執受的情況下都具備四種聲音。又解釋說，由於門徑不同，形成了八種聲音。即有執受、無執受因的聲音，有情名聲、非有情名聲，各有可意、不可意，總共形成八種。

問：執受、不執受因的聲音，與有情、非有情名聲，相對來說有什麼區別？答：應該分為四句：有的是執受因的聲音，不是有情名聲，比如手等發出的聲音；有的是有情名聲，不是執受因的聲音，比如化語的聲音；有的是執受因的聲音，也是有情名聲，比如語表業的聲音；有的不是執受因的聲音，也不是有情名聲，比如風聲、樹林的聲音。

問：執受、不執受因的聲音，與可意、不可意的聲音，相對來說有什麼區別？答：應該分為四句：有的是執受因的聲音，不是可意的聲音，比如內心發出的惡聲；有的是可意的聲音，不是執受因的聲音，比如外在發出的好聲；有的是執受因的聲音，也是可意的聲音，比如內心發出的好聲；有的不是執受因的聲音，也不是可意的聲音，比如外在發出的惡聲。

問：有情、非有情名聲，與可意、不可意的聲音，有什麼區別？答：應該分為四句。

【English Translation】 English version: 『The name of a real sentient being』 (a name for a truly existing sentient being) is like fire in a mirror, appearing like real fire, but not actually real fire. Since it is not a real name, it is also not a real accomplishment.

『Transformation speech』 (speech created through transformation) is not karma. According to the interpretation of the Vibhasa (《婆沙論》), transformation speech is karma and also not karma. Since there is no standard for judgment, we should follow the later teachers. Moreover, the 『Karma Chapter』 in this treatise also agrees with the later teachers of the Vibhasa. Therefore, the 『Karma Chapter』 says that scattered, similar, and flowing nature has sensation and arises differently from the four great elements. It explains that the great elements of manifestation are the same as scattered non-manifestation, and are created using the great elements of apprehension. Since transformation speech is not created using the great elements of apprehension, it is clearly known that it is not karma. Although transformation speech is not karma, it can be called speech because it is directly initiated by the power of the mind, so it can be called an accomplishment. Sounds like flutes and pipes, although also called speech, are not directly initiated, so they cannot be called accomplishments. If we follow the previous explanation, the later statement 『same as scattered non-manifestation』 refers to non-transformation speech karma. If it refers to transformation speech karma, then it uses the great elements without apprehension as the cause.

Although the above explains the two views of true and similar transformation speech, all four sounds are present in the absence of apprehension. It is also explained that due to different paths, eight kinds of sounds are formed. That is, sounds caused by apprehension and non-apprehension, the sound of sentient beings' names, and the sound of non-sentient beings' names, each having pleasant and unpleasant sounds, totaling eight kinds.

Question: What is the difference between sounds caused by apprehension and non-apprehension, and the names of sentient and non-sentient beings? Answer: It should be divided into four sentences: Some are sounds caused by apprehension but not the names of sentient beings, such as the sound of hands; some are the names of sentient beings but not sounds caused by apprehension, such as the sound of transformation speech; some are sounds caused by apprehension and also the names of sentient beings, such as the sound of verbal karma; some are neither sounds caused by apprehension nor the names of sentient beings, such as the sound of wind and forests.

Question: What is the difference between sounds caused by apprehension and non-apprehension, and pleasant and unpleasant sounds? Answer: It should be divided into four sentences: Some are sounds caused by apprehension but not pleasant sounds, such as bad sounds from within; some are pleasant sounds but not sounds caused by apprehension, such as good sounds from outside; some are sounds caused by apprehension and also pleasant sounds, such as good sounds from within; some are neither sounds caused by apprehension nor pleasant sounds, such as bad sounds from outside.

Question: What is the difference between the names of sentient and non-sentient beings, and pleasant and unpleasant sounds? Answer: It should be divided into four sentences.

。有是有情名聲非可意聲。謂語出惡聲。

有是可意聲非有情名聲。謂外出好聲。而無有名　有是有情名聲亦是可意聲。謂語出好聲　有非有情名聲亦非可意聲。謂外出惡聲。而無有名　若依婆沙十三。有一師更說。有有情數。非有情數大種因聲　故故彼論云。有作是說。執受大種因聲。非執受大種因聲。各有可意不可意別　有情數大種因聲。非有情數大種因聲。亦各有可意．不可意別。故成八種　正理八聲亦同此說　問此論執受．不執受因聲。與婆沙有情數。非有情數因聲。何別　解云。但是執受因聲定是有情數因聲　有是有情數因聲非是執受因聲。謂化語聲　但是非有情數因聲。定是非執受因聲。有是非執受因聲而非是非有情數因聲。謂化語聲　問此論有情名。非有情名聲。與婆沙有情數。非有情數因聲。何別　解云。但是有情名聲。定是有情數因聲。有是有情數因聲。而非是有情名聲。謂手等聲　但是非有情數因聲。定是非有情名聲。有是非有情名聲。而非是非有情數因聲謂手等聲　問此論可意。不可意聲。與婆沙有情數非有情數因聲。何別。

解云。應作四句。有是有情數因聲非可意聲。謂語出惡聲　有是可意聲非有情數因聲。謂外非情出好聲　有是有情數因聲亦是可意聲。謂語出好聲　有非有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有的是有情（sentient beings）的名聲，但不是悅耳的聲音。這是指發出的聲音是難聽的。

有的是悅耳的聲音，但不是有情（sentient beings）的名聲。這是指外面傳來的好聽的聲音，但沒有名稱。有的是有情（sentient beings）的名聲，也是悅耳的聲音。這是指發出的聲音是好聽的。有的不是有情（sentient beings）的名聲，也不是悅耳的聲音。這是指外面傳來的難聽的聲音，而且沒有名稱。如果按照《婆沙論》第十三卷的說法，有一位論師進一步說，有有情數（sentient beings category）的，非有情數（non-sentient beings category）的大種（mahābhūta）所產生的聲音。因此，該論說，有人這樣認為，執受（consciousness-related）的大種（mahābhūta）所產生的聲音，非執受（non-consciousness-related）的大種（mahābhūta）所產生的聲音，各有悅耳和不悅耳的區別。有情數（sentient beings category）的大種（mahābhūta）所產生的聲音，非有情數（non-sentient beings category）的大種（mahābhūta）所產生的聲音，也各有悅耳和不悅耳的區別。因此形成了八種。《正理》中的八種聲音也與此相同。問：此論中執受（consciousness-related）和不執受（non-consciousness-related）所產生的聲音，與《婆沙論》中有情數（sentient beings category）和非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，有什麼區別？答：解釋說，凡是執受（consciousness-related）所產生的聲音，一定是屬於有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音。有的是有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，但不是執受（consciousness-related）所產生的聲音。例如化生之語的聲音。凡是非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，一定是非執受（non-consciousness-related）所產生的聲音。有的是非執受（non-consciousness-related）所產生的聲音，但不是非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音。例如化生之語的聲音。問：此論中有情名（sentient beings name）和非有情名（non-sentient beings name）的聲音，與《婆沙論》中有情數（sentient beings category）和非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，有什麼區別？答：解釋說，凡是有情名（sentient beings name）的聲音，一定是屬於有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音。有的是有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，但不是有情名（sentient beings name）的聲音。例如手等發出的聲音。凡是非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，一定是非有情名（non-sentient beings name）的聲音。有的是非有情名（non-sentient beings name）的聲音，但不是非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，例如手等發出的聲音。問：此論中悅耳（pleasant）和不悅耳（unpleasant）的聲音，與《婆沙論》中有情數（sentient beings category）和非有情數（non-sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，有什麼區別？

答：解釋說，應該分為四句。有的是有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，但不是悅耳（pleasant）的聲音。例如發出的聲音是難聽的。有的是悅耳（pleasant）的聲音，但不是有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音。例如外界非有情（non-sentient）發出的好聽的聲音。有的是有情數（sentient beings category）所產生的聲音，也是悅耳（pleasant）的聲音。例如發出的聲音是好聽的。有的是非有

English version: There are sounds that are the names of sentient beings (sentient beings), but are not pleasing sounds. This refers to sounds that are unpleasant.

There are sounds that are pleasing, but are not the names of sentient beings (sentient beings). This refers to good sounds coming from outside, but without a name. There are sounds that are the names of sentient beings (sentient beings), and are also pleasing sounds. This refers to sounds that are pleasant. There are sounds that are not the names of sentient beings (sentient beings), and are also not pleasing sounds. This refers to unpleasant sounds coming from outside, and without a name. According to the thirteenth volume of the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra', one teacher further says that there are sounds caused by the mahābhūta (great elements) of the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category). Therefore, that treatise says that some people think that sounds caused by the consciousness-related (consciousness-related) mahābhūta (great elements) and sounds caused by the non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related) mahābhūta (great elements) each have pleasant and unpleasant distinctions. Sounds caused by the mahābhūta (great elements) of the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and sounds caused by the mahābhūta (great elements) of the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) also each have pleasant and unpleasant distinctions. Therefore, eight types are formed. The eight types of sounds in the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' are also the same as this. Question: What is the difference between the sounds caused by consciousness-related (consciousness-related) and non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related) in this treatise, and the sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) in the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra'? Answer: It is explained that all sounds caused by consciousness-related (consciousness-related) are definitely sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category). There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), but are not sounds caused by consciousness-related (consciousness-related). For example, the sound of transformation speech. All sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) are definitely sounds caused by non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related). There are sounds caused by non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related), but are not sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category). For example, the sound of transformation speech. Question: What is the difference between the sounds of sentient beings name (sentient beings name) and non-sentient beings name (non-sentient beings name) in this treatise, and the sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) in the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra'? Answer: It is explained that all sounds of sentient beings name (sentient beings name) are definitely sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category). There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), but are not sounds of sentient beings name (sentient beings name). For example, sounds made by hands, etc. All sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) are definitely sounds of non-sentient beings name (non-sentient beings name). There are sounds of non-sentient beings name (non-sentient beings name), but are not sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category), for example, sounds made by hands, etc. Question: What is the difference between pleasant (pleasant) and unpleasant (unpleasant) sounds in this treatise, and the sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) in the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra'?

Answer: It should be divided into four sentences. There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), but are not pleasant (pleasant) sounds. For example, the sounds produced are unpleasant. There are sounds that are pleasant (pleasant), but are not sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category). For example, pleasant sounds produced by external non-sentient (non-sentient) beings. There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), and are also pleasant (pleasant) sounds. For example, the sounds produced are pleasant. There are non-

【English Translation】 English version: There are sounds that are the names of sentient beings (sentient beings), but are not pleasing sounds. This refers to sounds that are unpleasant.

There are sounds that are pleasing, but are not the names of sentient beings (sentient beings). This refers to good sounds coming from outside, but without a name. There are sounds that are the names of sentient beings (sentient beings), and are also pleasing sounds. This refers to sounds that are pleasant. There are sounds that are not the names of sentient beings (sentient beings), and are also not pleasing sounds. This refers to unpleasant sounds coming from outside, and without a name. According to the thirteenth volume of the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra', one teacher further says that there are sounds caused by the mahābhūta (great elements) of the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category). Therefore, that treatise says that some people think that sounds caused by the consciousness-related (consciousness-related) mahābhūta (great elements) and sounds caused by the non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related) mahābhūta (great elements) each have pleasant and unpleasant distinctions. Sounds caused by the mahābhūta (great elements) of the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and sounds caused by the mahābhūta (great elements) of the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) also each have pleasant and unpleasant distinctions. Therefore, eight types are formed. The eight types of sounds in the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' are also the same as this. Question: What is the difference between the sounds caused by consciousness-related (consciousness-related) and non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related) in this treatise, and the sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) in the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra'? Answer: It is explained that all sounds caused by consciousness-related (consciousness-related) are definitely sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category). There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), but are not sounds caused by consciousness-related (consciousness-related). For example, the sound of transformation speech. All sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) are definitely sounds caused by non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related). There are sounds caused by non-consciousness-related (non-consciousness-related), but are not sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category). For example, the sound of transformation speech. Question: What is the difference between the sounds of sentient beings name (sentient beings name) and non-sentient beings name (non-sentient beings name) in this treatise, and the sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) in the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra'? Answer: It is explained that all sounds of sentient beings name (sentient beings name) are definitely sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category). There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), but are not sounds of sentient beings name (sentient beings name). For example, sounds made by hands, etc. All sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) are definitely sounds of non-sentient beings name (non-sentient beings name). There are sounds of non-sentient beings name (non-sentient beings name), but are not sounds caused by the non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category), for example, sounds made by hands, etc. Question: What is the difference between pleasant (pleasant) and unpleasant (unpleasant) sounds in this treatise, and the sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category) and non-sentient beings category (non-sentient beings category) in the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra'?

Answer: It should be divided into four sentences. There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), but are not pleasant (pleasant) sounds. For example, the sounds produced are unpleasant. There are sounds that are pleasant (pleasant), but are not sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category). For example, pleasant sounds produced by external non-sentient (non-sentient) beings. There are sounds caused by the sentient beings category (sentient beings category), and are also pleasant (pleasant) sounds. For example, the sounds produced are pleasant. There are non-

情數因聲亦非可意聲。謂外非情出惡聲。

執受大種至非有情名者。此即別釋。如文可知。

問此論言有情名聲謂語表業者。何故正理第一云。此語表業復有二種。謂依名起。及不待名起　依名起者復有二種。一者有記。二者無記　不待名者二種亦然。

準彼論文。有語表業非與名合。如何乃言有情名聲謂語表業　解云。但言有情名聲是語表業。非言一切語表業。皆是有情名。如有語表無名合者。即是非有情名聲。依名起者謂有詮表。不待名起者謂嗔笑等聲。故不相違　又問語皆業不。解云。口內者是語亦業。出口者是語非業　故正理六十解發語風中雲。此居口內名語亦業。流出外時但名為語　又以此文亦可證有離質聲也。

有說有聲至合所生聲者。此敘雜心論師義。許內．外兩具四大。合生一聲。名因俱聲。

如不許一至聲亦應爾者。論主破。如色中不許一顯色。極微。二四大造。聲中亦應不許一聲．二四大造。若二四大同造一聲。同得一果。應二四大展轉相望為俱有因。成過失故。理非二大同得一果為俱有因　復有別過。此聲為情非情。若言是情。有外大造。若言非情有內大造　有解。據緣說俱。然聲各別。此解不然。若作斯解破即不成準破故知彼計俱聲。

已說聲處至苦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『情數因聲』（有情數目的原因所發出的聲音）也不是令人滿意的聲音。這是指外在發出的不是有情所發出的惡劣聲音。

『執受大種至非有情名者』（由執受的大種所產生，以至於不被稱為有情的聲音），這是一種特別的解釋，如文中所述，可以理解。

問：此論說『有情名聲謂語表業者』（有情的聲音被稱為語言表達的業），為什麼《正理》第一卷說：『此語表業復有二種，謂依名起，及不待名起。依名起者復有二種，一者有記，二者無記。不待名者二種亦然』（這種語言表達的業有兩種，一種是依賴於名相而生起，一種是不依賴於名相而生起。依賴於名相而生起的又分為兩種，一種是有意義的，一種是沒有意義的。不依賴於名相而生起的也是如此）。

按照《正理》的論文，有語言表達的業不是與名相結合的。為什麼說『有情名聲謂語表業』（有情的聲音被稱為語言表達的業）？解釋說：只是說有情的聲音是語言表達的業，不是說所有的語言表達的業都是有情的聲音。如果有的語言表達沒有與名相結合，那就是非有情的聲音。依賴於名相而生起的，指的是有詮釋表達意義的；不依賴於名相而生起的，指的是嗔怒、歡笑等聲音。所以並不矛盾。又問：所有的語言都是業嗎？解釋說：在口內的聲音是語言也是業，出口外的聲音是語言但不是業。所以《正理》第六十卷在解釋發語風中說：『此居口內名語亦業，流出外時但名為語』（這在口內的被稱為語言也是業，流出到外面時就只被稱為語言）。又可以用這段文字來證明有離開物質的聲音。

『有說有聲至合所生聲者』（有人說有聲音，直到由結合所產生的聲音），這是敘述《雜心論》論師的觀點，認為內在和外在都具有四大，結合產生一種聲音，稱為因俱聲。

『如不許一至聲亦應爾者』（如果像不承認一個，直到聲音也應該如此），論主進行駁斥。就像在色法中不承認一種顯色是由極微和二大（地、水、火、風）所造，在聲音中也應該不承認一種聲音是由二大所造。如果二大共同造一種聲音，共同得到一個結果，那麼二大相互之間就應該成為俱有因，造成過失。道理上不應該二大共同得到一個結果作為俱有因。還有其他的過失，這種聲音是有情還是非有情？如果說是情，那麼就是由外在的大種所造；如果說不是情，那麼就是由內在的大種所造。有一種解釋，根據因緣說是共同的，然而聲音是各自不同的。這種解釋是不對的，如果這樣解釋，駁斥就不成立了，根據駁斥可知他們計算的是俱聲。

已說聲處至苦（已經說了聲音的處所，直到苦）。

【English Translation】 English version 『Emotional number cause sound』 (the sound caused by the number of sentient beings) is also not a satisfactory sound. This refers to the bad sounds emitted externally that are not from sentient beings.

『Grasping the great elements to the name of non-sentient beings』 (produced by the grasped great elements, to the extent that it is not called the sound of sentient beings), this is a special explanation, as can be understood from the text.

Question: This treatise says 『the sound of sentient beings is called language expression karma』, why does the first volume of the Nyāyānusāra say: 『This language expression karma is of two types, namely arising dependent on names, and arising not dependent on names. Those arising dependent on names are again of two types, one is meaningful, and the other is meaningless. Those not dependent on names are also the same』.

According to the Nyāyānusāra, there is language expression karma that is not combined with names. Why say 『the sound of sentient beings is called language expression karma』? The explanation is: it is only said that the sound of sentient beings is language expression karma, not that all language expression karma is the sound of sentient beings. If some language expression is not combined with names, then that is the sound of non-sentient beings. Those arising dependent on names refer to those with interpretive expression of meaning; those not dependent on names refer to sounds such as anger and laughter. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Also asked: Is all language karma? The explanation is: the sound inside the mouth is language and also karma, the sound outside the mouth is language but not karma. Therefore, the sixtieth volume of the Nyāyānusāra, in explaining the wind of speech, says: 『This residing inside the mouth is called language and also karma, when flowing out it is only called language』. This passage can also be used to prove that there are sounds apart from matter.

『Some say there is sound, until the sound produced by combination』 This narrates the view of the Saṃyuktabhidharma Hṛdaya masters, who believe that both internal and external have the four great elements, which combine to produce a sound, called cause-concurrent sound.

『If one is not admitted, until sound should also be so』 The author refutes. Just as in form it is not admitted that one manifest color is made of extremely small particles and the two great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), in sound it should also not be admitted that one sound is made of the two great elements. If the two great elements jointly create a sound, jointly obtaining a result, then the two great elements should mutually become coexistent causes, causing faults. In principle, the two great elements should not jointly obtain a result as coexistent causes. There are other faults, is this sound sentient or non-sentient? If it is said to be sentient, then it is made by external great elements; if it is said to be non-sentient, then it is made by internal great elements. There is an explanation that according to conditions it is said to be joint, but the sounds are separate. This explanation is incorrect, if explained in this way, the refutation would not be established, according to the refutation it is known that they calculate the joint sound.

The place of sound has been spoken of, until suffering.

淡別故者。此別明味　所嘗名味。如文可知。

已說味處至及平等香者。此別解香　所嗅名香。婆沙十三亦說四香。與此論同。於四香中。好．惡二類攝香總盡。於二類中有等。不等　正理解等．不等香有兩解。第一師云。增益損減依身別故(解云。等謂平等。香力均平增益依身。不等謂太強成損。太弱無益。損減依身於好惡香中有增損者名等不等　餘者即是無益無損)　第二解云。有說微弱．增盛異故(解云。微劣是等。增盛名不等)正理解本論三香亦有兩解。第一解云若能長養諸根大種名好香。與此相違名惡香。無前二用名平等香。入阿毗達磨亦同此解(解云從是惡香。但能長養諸根大種亦名好香。縱是好香。若能損減諸根大種亦名惡香。此師意說但能長養名好香。但能損減名惡香。無長養損減者名平等香)　第二解云。或諸福業增上所生名為好香。若諸罪業增上所生名為惡香。唯四大種勢力所生名平等香。此師約勝．劣．處中以解　又五事論云諸悅意者說名好香。不悅意者說名惡香。順舍受處者名平等香　解云。約情說故名好．惡等香。論體無記。此與正理第二解義亦無違　問四香．三香各有兩解。如何相攝。

解云正理四香中第一解與三香中第一解相攝。增益義當長養。損減義當非長養。無益無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『淡別故者。此別明味所嘗名味。如文可知。』——這是對味道的辨別，說明所嘗之物的味道，正如文中所說的那樣可以理解。

『已說味處至及平等香者。此別解香所嗅名香。婆沙十三亦說四香。與此論同。於四香中。好．惡二類攝香總盡。於二類中有等。不等正理解等．不等香有兩解。第一師云。增益損減依身別故(解云。等謂平等。香力均平增益依身。不等謂太強成損。太弱無益。損減依身於好惡香中有增損者名等不等餘者即是無益無損) 第二解云。有說微弱．增盛異故(解云。微劣是等。增盛名不等)正理解本論三香亦有兩解。第一解云若能長養諸根大種名好香。與此相違名惡香。無前二用名平等香。入阿毗達磨亦同此解(解云從是惡香。但能長養諸根大種亦名好香。縱是好香。若能損減諸根大種亦名惡香。此師意說但能長養名好香。但能損減名惡香。無長養損減者名平等香) 第二解云。或諸福業增上所生名為好香。若諸罪業增上所生名為惡香。唯四大種勢力所生名平等香。此師約勝．劣．處中以解又五事論云諸悅意者說名好香。不悅意者說名惡香。順舍受處者名平等香解云。約情說故名好．惡等香。論體無記。此與正理第二解義亦無違問四香．三香各有兩解。如何相攝。』——這是對香的辨別，說明所嗅之物的香氣。《婆沙論》第十三卷也說了四種香，與此論相同。四種香中，好香和惡香兩類涵蓋了所有的香。在這兩類香中，又有相等和不相等之分。對於相等和不相等的香，有兩種理解。第一種觀點認為，增益或損減取決於身體的差異（解釋說：相等指的是香氣力量均衡，對身體有增益；不相等指的是香氣太強造成損害，或太弱沒有益處。損減取決於身體，在好香和惡香中有增損的稱為相等和不相等，其餘的則是無益無損）。第二種觀點認為，有的人說是由於香氣微弱或增盛的差異（解釋說：微弱的是相等，增盛的是不相等）。《正理論》對本論中的三種香也有兩種理解。第一種理解認為，如果能滋養諸根（zhū gēn，感官）和大種（dà zhǒng，四大元素）的稱為好香，與此相反的稱為惡香，沒有前兩種作用的稱為平等香。《入阿毗達磨論》也持同樣的解釋（解釋說：即使是惡香，但如果能滋養諸根和大種，也稱為好香；縱然是好香，如果能損減諸根和大種，也稱為惡香。這位論師的意思是說，只能滋養的稱為好香，只能損減的稱為惡香，沒有滋養和損減作用的稱為平等香）。第二種理解認為，由福業（fú yè，善業）增上所生的稱為好香，由罪業（zuì yè，惡業）增上所生的稱為惡香，只有四大種（sì dà zhǒng，地、水、火、風）勢力所生的稱為平等香。這位論師是從殊勝、低劣、中等的角度來解釋的。另外，《五事論》說，令人愉悅的稱為好香，不令人愉悅的稱為惡香，順應舍受（shě shòu，不苦不樂的感受）之處的稱為平等香。解釋說：這是從情感的角度來說的好香、惡香和平等香，香的本體是無記（wú jì，非善非惡）。這與《正理論》第二種解釋的意義也沒有衝突。問：四種香和三種香各有兩種解釋，如何相互包含？

『解云正理四香中第一解與三香中第一解相攝。增益義當長養。損減義當非長養。無益無』——解釋說，《正理論》四種香中的第一種解釋與三種香中的第一種解釋相互包含。增益的意義相當於長養，損減的意義相當於非長養，無益無……』

【English Translation】 English version 『淡別故者。此別明味所嘗名味。如文可知。』— This distinguishes flavors, clarifying the taste of what is experienced. As the text indicates, it can be understood.

『已說味處至及平等香者。此別解香所嗅名香。婆沙十三亦說四香。與此論同。於四香中。好．惡二類攝香總盡。於二類中有等。不等正理解等．不等香有兩解。第一師云。增益損減依身別故(解云。等謂平等。香力均平增益依身。不等謂太強成損。太弱無益。損減依身於好惡香中有增損者名等不等餘者即是無益無損) 第二解云。有說微弱．增盛異故(解云。微劣是等。增盛名不等)正理解本論三香亦有兩解。第一解云若能長養諸根大種名好香。與此相違名惡香。無前二用名平等香。入阿毗達磨亦同此解(解云從是惡香。但能長養諸根大種亦名好香。縱是好香。若能損減諸根大種亦名惡香。此師意說但能長養名好香。但能損減名惡香。無長養損減者名平等香) 第二解云。或諸福業增上所生名為好香。若諸罪業增上所生名為惡香。唯四大種勢力所生名平等香。此師約勝．劣．處中以解又五事論云諸悅意者說名好香。不悅意者說名惡香。順舍受處者名平等香解云。約情說故名好．惡等香。論體無記。此與正理第二解義亦無違問四香．三香各有兩解。如何相攝。』— This distinguishes scents, clarifying the fragrance of what is smelled. The thirteenth chapter of the Vibhasa (Póshā, a commentary) also discusses four types of scents, which aligns with this treatise. Among the four scents, the categories of good and bad encompass all scents. Within these two categories, there are equal and unequal scents. There are two interpretations of equal and unequal scents. The first view is that increase or decrease depends on the individual body (explanation: equal refers to scents with balanced strength that benefit the body; unequal refers to scents that are too strong and cause harm, or too weak and provide no benefit. Increase or decrease depends on the body; scents that cause increase or decrease in good or bad scents are called equal and unequal; the rest are neither beneficial nor harmful). The second view is that some say it is due to differences in weakness or intensity (explanation: weak is equal, intense is unequal). The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (Zhènglǐ lùn, Treatise on the Correct Principle) also has two interpretations of the three scents in this treatise. The first interpretation is that if it can nourish the sense organs (zhū gēn) and the great elements (dà zhǒng), it is called a good scent; the opposite is called a bad scent; and that which has neither of the previous two functions is called an equal scent. The Abhidharmavatara-sastra (Rù Āpídámó lùn) also holds the same interpretation (explanation: even if it is a bad scent, if it can nourish the sense organs and the great elements, it is also called a good scent; even if it is a good scent, if it can harm the sense organs and the great elements, it is also called a bad scent. This teacher means that only that which can nourish is called a good scent, only that which can harm is called a bad scent, and that which has neither nourishing nor harming effects is called an equal scent). The second interpretation is that what is produced by the increase of meritorious deeds (fú yè) is called a good scent, what is produced by the increase of sinful deeds (zuì yè) is called a bad scent, and what is produced only by the power of the four great elements (sì dà zhǒng) is called an equal scent. This teacher explains it from the perspective of superior, inferior, and neutral. Furthermore, the Pañcavastuka-prakarana (Wǔ shì lùn) says that what is pleasing is called a good scent, what is displeasing is called a bad scent, and what accords with the feeling of equanimity (shě shòu) is called an equal scent. Explanation: This refers to good, bad, and equal scents from an emotional perspective. The essence of the treatise is neutral (wú jì). This does not conflict with the second interpretation of the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra. Question: The four scents and the three scents each have two interpretations. How do they encompass each other?

『解云正理四香中第一解與三香中第一解相攝。增益義當長養。損減義當非長養。無益無』— Explanation: The first interpretation of the four scents in the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra encompasses the first interpretation of the three scents. The meaning of increase corresponds to nourishment, the meaning of decrease corresponds to non-nourishment, and neither beneficial nor…

損義當平等　三香中好香攝四香中等香　三香中惡香攝四香中不等香　三香中平等香攝四香中好．惡二香。以於好．惡二香中。增益者名等香。損減者名不等香。余不能增益．損減者名好香．惡香。此即義當平等香　又解。三香中好香。攝四香中等香全。好．惡香各少分　三香中惡香攝四香中不等香全好。惡．香各少分　三香中平等香。攝四香中好．惡二香少分。以四香中好．惡二香攝香總盡。于中離出等．不等香故。三香中等香。攝四香中好．惡香各少分　正理四香中第二解。與三香中第二解相攝　增盛義當罪福業生。體既增盛故知業感　微劣義當唯大種生。體既微劣故知非親業感。唯大種生　以此微劣．增盛二香攝好．惡。盡。故說三香攝四香盡　又解。三香中。若福業增上所生名好香。即攝四香中好香全．不等香中少分。三香中。若罪業增上所生名惡香。即攝四香中惡香全．不等香中少分。三香中。若四大勢力所生香名平等香。即攝四香中等香。以當微劣故。所以四香中別說不等香者。於好．惡香中。有增盛者別立。如沈．麝等。是好香中不等香。如蔥．韭等。是惡香中不等香故　三香中好．惡二香。各攝四香中不等香少分。

已說香處至同修勇進樂者。此下別解觸　所觸名觸。即十一種　雖根對境實不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本損益應當平等：三香中的好香包含四香中的等香；三香中的惡香包含四香中的不等香；三香中的平等香包含四香中的好香和惡香。因為對於好香和惡香，增加其香味的稱為等香，減少其香味的稱為不等香，其餘不能增加或減少香味的稱為好香或惡香。這就是損益應當平等的香。另一種解釋是：三香中的好香，完全包含四香中的等香，以及好香和惡香的少部分；三香中的惡香，完全包含四香中的不等香，以及好香和惡香的少部分；三香中的平等香，包含四香中的好香和惡香的少部分。因為四香中的好香和惡香包含了所有的香，從中分離出等香和不等香。三香中的等香，包含四香中的好香和惡香的少部分。正理論中對四香的第二種解釋，與三香的第二種解釋相符。增盛的含義是指罪業和福業的產生。因為其本體已經增盛，所以知道是業力所感召；微弱的含義是指唯有四大種（地、水、火、風）所生。因為其本體微弱，所以知道不是親近的業力所感召，而是唯有四大種所生。用這種微弱和增盛的兩種香，包含了好香和惡香的全部。所以說三香包含了四香的全部。另一種解釋是：在三香中，如果是福業增上所生的香，稱為好香，即包含四香中的好香全部和不等香中的少部分。在三香中，如果是罪業增上所生的香，稱為惡香，即包含四香中的惡香全部和不等香中的少部分。在三香中，如果是四大勢力所生的香，稱為平等香，即包含四香中的等香，因為它微弱。所以四香中特別說不等香的原因是，在好香和惡香中，有增盛的特別設立，例如沉香（Agarwood）和麝香（Musk）等，是好香中的不等香，例如蔥（Scallion）和韭菜（Leek）等，是惡香中的不等香。三香中的好香和惡香，各自包含四香中不等香的少部分。已經說了香的處所，直到一同修習勇猛精進快樂的人。下面分別解釋觸：所觸的稱為觸，即有十一種。即使根（感官）對境（對像）實際上不是...

【English Translation】 English version The increase and decrease should be equal: 'Good scent' in the three scents includes 'Equal scent' in the four scents; 'Bad scent' in the three scents includes 'Unequal scent' in the four scents; 'Equal scent' in the three scents includes 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent' in the four scents. Because for 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent', those that increase their fragrance are called 'Equal scent', those that decrease their fragrance are called 'Unequal scent', and the rest that cannot increase or decrease the fragrance are called 'Good scent' or 'Bad scent'. This is the scent where increase and decrease should be equal. Another explanation is: 'Good scent' in the three scents completely includes 'Equal scent' in the four scents, and a small part of 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent'; 'Bad scent' in the three scents completely includes 'Unequal scent' in the four scents, and a small part of 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent'; 'Equal scent' in the three scents includes a small part of 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent' in the four scents. Because 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent' in the four scents include all scents, from which 'Equal scent' and 'Unequal scent' are separated. 'Equal scent' in the three scents includes a small part of 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent' in the four scents. The second explanation of the four scents in the Nyaya theory corresponds to the second explanation in the three scents. The meaning of 'increasing' refers to the arising of sinful karma and meritorious karma. Because its substance has already increased, it is known that it is induced by karma; the meaning of 'weak' refers to only the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) arising. Because its substance is weak, it is known that it is not induced by close karma, but only by the four great elements. These two scents, 'weak' and 'increasing', include all of 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent'. Therefore, it is said that the three scents include all of the four scents. Another explanation is: In the three scents, if the scent is produced by the increase of meritorious karma, it is called 'Good scent', which includes all of 'Good scent' in the four scents and a small part of 'Unequal scent'. In the three scents, if the scent is produced by the increase of sinful karma, it is called 'Bad scent', which includes all of 'Bad scent' in the four scents and a small part of 'Unequal scent'. In the three scents, if the scent is produced by the power of the four great elements, it is called 'Equal scent', which includes 'Equal scent' in the four scents, because it is weak. The reason why 'Unequal scent' is specifically mentioned in the four scents is that, among 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent', there are those that are particularly established due to their increase, such as Agarwood (沈香) and Musk (麝香), which are 'Unequal scent' in 'Good scent', and Scallion (蔥) and Leek (韭菜), which are 'Unequal scent' in 'Bad scent'. 'Good scent' and 'Bad scent' in the three scents each include a small part of 'Unequal scent' in the four scents. Having spoken of the place of scent, up to those who cultivate diligently and joyfully together. Below, touch is explained separately: What is touched is called touch, which is of eleven kinds. Even though the root (sense organ) is actually not facing the object (sense object)...

相觸。無間生時。根是識依假說能觸。觸非識依不說彼觸能觸身根。但名所觸。觸與身根極相鄰近故得觸名。香．味二種雖亦至根。非如彼境故不名觸　問一切四大。皆發身識不　答異說不同。故婆沙一百二十七云。問緣五色根所依大種發身識不。有說不發。如五色根。不可觸故。不發身識。所依大種理亦應然　問若爾何故。說為身識所識。答依法性說身識所識。未來世中身識境故。然無現在發身識義　有說。除身根所依大種。皆能發身識。以身根所依極鄰近。故不能發身識。然他身識所緣境故。亦得名為身識所識(雖有兩解然無評文)　滑等四種顯別有體。不同經部故各言性　冷．饑．渴三。是心所中欲之異名。非正目觸言觸是欲。從果標名。故不言性　法蘊第十亦同此論。然婆沙十三。七所造觸皆有性字。言性者據體性說。一切諸法皆有性故。不言性者顯從果立名。或略不說　若依經部。觸中。但有四大種無別所造觸　問澀．滑．輕．重．各相對立。何故對冷不說燸耶　解云暖即火大故不別立。難云冷即水大應不別立。解云。水是濕性不應名冷　問七所造觸。何大偏增相望有異。答如婆沙一百二十七云。不由大種偏增故。滑乃至渴。但由大種性類差別。有生滑果。乃至。有生渴果。

有餘師言。水．火增故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本相觸。在無間生的時候，根是識所依賴的，假說為能觸。觸不是識所依賴的，所以不說那種觸能觸身根，只稱作『所觸』。觸與身根極其相鄰近，所以得到『觸』這個名稱。香、味兩種雖然也到達根，但不如身根的境界那樣，所以不稱為觸。問：一切四大（地、水、火、風，構成物質世界的四種基本元素），都能引發身識嗎？答：對此有不同的說法。如《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十七卷所說：『問：緣五色根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）所依的大種（構成五色根的基本物質）能引發身識嗎？』有人說不能引發，就像五色根一樣，因為不可觸，所以不引發身識。所依的大種，道理上也應該這樣。問：如果這樣，為什麼說它是身識所識的呢？答：這是依法性（事物本性）來說的，是未來世中身識的境界。但沒有現在引發身識的意義。有人說，除了身根所依的大種，都能引發身識。因為身根所依的大種極其鄰近，所以不能引發身識。然而，因為是他身識所緣的境界，也可以稱為身識所識。（雖然有兩種解釋，但沒有評論性的文字）滑等四種（澀、滑、輕、重）顯示它們有各自不同的體性，不同於經部（佛教部派之一）的觀點，所以各自稱為『性』。冷、饑、渴三種，是心所（心理活動）中『欲』的不同名稱，不是直接指觸，說觸是欲，是從結果來標示名稱，所以不說『性』。《法蘊論》第十品也與此論相同。然而，《大毗婆沙論》第十三卷說，七所造觸（由四大組合而成的觸感）都有『性』字。說『性』是根據體性來說的，一切諸法都有體性。不說『性』是顯示從結果來立名，或者省略不說。如果依據經部（佛教部派之一）的觀點，觸中只有四大種，沒有另外的所造觸。問：澀、滑、輕、重各自相對立，為什麼相對冷不說暖呢？解釋說，暖就是火大，所以不另外設立。難：冷就是水大，應該不另外設立。解釋說，水是濕性，不應該稱為冷。問：七所造觸中，哪種大種偏多，相互之間有什麼不同？答：如《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十七卷所說：『不是由於大種偏多，才產生滑乃至渴，而是由於大種的性類差別，才產生滑的結果，乃至產生渴的結果。』有其他老師說，水、火增多……

【English Translation】 English version Contact. When arising without interval, the root is what consciousness relies on, hypothetically called 'that which can touch'. Contact is not what consciousness relies on, so it is not said that such contact can touch the body-root; it is only called 'that which is touched'. Contact and the body-root are extremely close, hence the name 'contact'. Although smell and taste also reach the root, they are not like the realm of the body-root, so they are not called contact. Question: Do all four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind, the four basic elements constituting the material world) generate body-consciousness? Answer: There are different views on this. As stated in the Mahavibhasa, volume 127: 'Question: Do the great elements on which the five sense-organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) rely generate body-consciousness?' Some say they do not, just like the five sense-organs, because they are intangible and do not generate body-consciousness. The great elements on which they rely should also be the same. Question: If so, why is it said that they are cognized by body-consciousness? Answer: This is said according to the nature of things; it is the realm of body-consciousness in the future. But there is no meaning of generating body-consciousness in the present. Some say that all great elements except those on which the body-root relies can generate body-consciousness. Because the great elements on which the body-root relies are extremely close, they cannot generate body-consciousness. However, because it is the object cognized by the body-consciousness of others, it can also be called cognized by body-consciousness. (Although there are two explanations, there is no commentary.) The four types of smoothness, etc. (roughness, smoothness, lightness, heaviness) show that they have their own distinct natures, different from the view of the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school), so they are each called 'nature'. Cold, hunger, and thirst are different names for 'desire' among mental factors (psychological activities), not directly referring to contact. Saying that contact is desire is to indicate the name from the result, so it is not called 'nature'. The tenth chapter of the Dharmaskandha is also the same as this treatise. However, the thirteenth volume of the Mahavibhasa says that the seven produced contacts (sensations formed by the combination of the four great elements) all have the word 'nature'. Saying 'nature' is based on the inherent nature; all dharmas have nature. Not saying 'nature' is to show that the name is established from the result, or it is omitted. According to the view of the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school), there are only the four great elements in contact, and no other produced contacts. Question: Roughness, smoothness, lightness, and heaviness are opposite to each other. Why is warmth not mentioned in relation to cold? The explanation is that warmth is the fire element, so it is not established separately. Objection: Cold is the water element, so it should not be established separately. The explanation is that water is of a wet nature and should not be called cold. Question: Among the seven produced contacts, which great element is predominant, and what are the differences between them? Answer: As stated in the Mahavibhasa, volume 127: 'It is not because of the predominance of the great elements that smoothness, etc., up to thirst arise, but because of the difference in the nature of the great elements that the result of smoothness arises, and so on, up to the result of thirst arising.' Other teachers say that water and fire increase...

滑。地．風增故澀。火．風增故輕。地．水增故重。水．風增故冷。風增故饑。謂風增故擊動食消。引饑觸生．便發食慾。火增故渴。謂火增故煎迫飲消。引渴觸生便發飲欲(然無評家。正理同后師)問悶．力．劣等。何觸所收。答正理第一云。悶不離滑。力即澀．重。劣在輕．耎。輕性中攝。如是其餘所觸種類。隨其所應十一中攝(已上論文)　四大指同下解　釋滑等四如文可知　冷．饑．渴三相隱難知。若不約果以明其體難顯。謂暖欲因名冷。食慾因名饑。飲欲因名渴。冷．饑．渴三是欲異名。因觸生欲。觸是因．欲是果。此三皆于觸因之上立欲果之名。作如是說。故入阿毗達磨云。由此所逼。暖欲因名冷。食慾因名饑。飲欲因名渴。此皆于因立果名故　引頌證於因立果名。佛出世非樂。能生樂故稱佛為樂。因立果名。余準此釋　問火大熱觸亦生冷欲。何不以欲標名。解云。火大是強當體立稱。冷觸昧劣故從果立名。

於色界中至傳說如此者。約界分別。色界不資段食故無饑．渴。余皆有。彼界衣服。一一別住即不可稱。多衣積聚方可稱故。此顯有重　涼風觸身能為饒益。表有冷觸　經部色界無冷。論主意明經部不信有冷。故云傳說　若依婆沙一百二十七云。有說。色界衣雖不可稱。而余物可稱　有說。彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：滑：地大和風大增加的緣故導致澀。火大和風大增加的緣故導致輕。地大和水大增加的緣故導致重。水大和風大增加的緣故導致冷。風大增加的緣故導致飢餓。這是因為風大增加導致擊動食物，消化加快，引發飢餓感，從而產生進食的慾望。火大增加的緣故導致口渴。這是因為火大增加導致煎熬逼迫，飲水快速消耗，引發口渴感，從而產生飲水的慾望。（然而沒有評判家，正理與後來的論師相同）問：悶、力、劣等，屬於哪種觸所包含？答：正理第一中說，悶不離滑，力即是澀、重，劣在於輕、軟，輕性包含在其中。像這樣其餘的觸的種類，根據它們各自相應的，包含在十一觸中。（以上是論文內容）四大指的含義與下文解釋相同。解釋滑等四種觸，如文中所說即可明白。冷、饑、渴三種相狀隱晦難以知曉。如果不依據結果來闡明它們的本體，就難以顯現。所謂的暖欲的因叫做冷，食慾的因叫做饑，飲欲的因叫做渴。冷、饑、渴三種是慾望的不同名稱。因為觸而產生慾望，觸是因，慾望是果。這三種都是在觸的因之上建立慾望的果的名稱，這樣說。所以進入《阿毗達磨》中說，由此所逼迫，暖欲的因叫做冷，食慾的因叫做饑，飲欲的因叫做渴。這些都是在因上建立果的名稱的緣故。引用頌詞來證明在因上建立果的名稱。佛出世不是快樂，但能產生快樂，所以稱佛為快樂。這是因上立果名。其餘的可以參照這個解釋。問：火大的熱觸也會產生冷的慾望，為什麼不以慾望來標明名稱？解釋說：火大是強盛的，直接以本體來立稱。冷觸是微弱的，所以從結果來立名稱。在中到傳說如此這些內容，是根據界來分別的。不依靠段食，所以沒有飢餓、口渴。其餘的都有。那個界的衣服，每一件都單獨存在，所以不可稱量。只有多件衣服聚集在一起才可以稱量，這顯示了有重觸。涼風觸碰身體能夠帶來益處，表明有冷觸。經部沒有冷觸。論主的意圖是表明經部不相信有冷觸，所以說是傳說。如果依據《婆沙》一百二十七的說法，有人說，的衣服雖然不可稱量，但是其餘的物品可以稱量。有人說。

【English Translation】 English version: Slippery: The increase of earth element and wind element causes roughness. The increase of fire element and wind element causes lightness. The increase of earth element and water element causes heaviness. The increase of water element and wind element causes coldness. The increase of wind element causes hunger. This is because the increase of wind element causes the food to be agitated and digested quickly, triggering hunger, thus generating the desire to eat. The increase of fire element causes thirst. This is because the increase of fire element causes scorching and pressing, and the rapid consumption of water, triggering thirst, thus generating the desire to drink. (However, there is no critic, and the correct principle is the same as later masters.) Question: Dullness, strength, inferiority, etc., are included in which touch? Answer: The first of the correct principles says that dullness is inseparable from slipperiness, strength is roughness and heaviness, and inferiority lies in lightness and softness, and the nature of lightness is included in it. Like this, the remaining types of touch are included in the eleven touches according to their respective correspondences. (The above is the content of the paper.) The meaning of the four great elements is the same as the explanation below. The explanation of the four touches such as slippery is clear from the text. The three characteristics of cold, hunger, and thirst are obscure and difficult to know. If you don't use the result to explain their essence, it will be difficult to manifest. The so-called cause of warm desire is called cold, the cause of food desire is called hunger, and the cause of drink desire is called thirst. The three of cold, hunger, and thirst are different names for desire. Because of touch, desire arises, touch is the cause, and desire is the result. These three are all based on the cause of touch to establish the name of the fruit of desire, so to speak. Therefore, it is said in the Abhidharma that, compelled by this, the cause of warm desire is called cold, the cause of food desire is called hunger, and the cause of drink desire is called thirst. These are all because the name of the fruit is established on the cause. Citing a verse to prove that the name of the fruit is established on the cause. The Buddha's appearance in the world is not happiness, but it can produce happiness, so the Buddha is called happiness. This is establishing the name of the fruit on the cause. The rest can be explained with reference to this. Question: The hot touch of the fire element will also produce a cold desire, why not mark the name with desire? The explanation says: The fire element is strong, and the name is established directly with the body. The cold touch is weak, so the name is established from the result. From ** to the legend that these contents are distinguished according to the realm. ** does not rely on sectional food, so there is no hunger or thirst. The rest have it. The clothes of that realm, each one exists separately, so it cannot be weighed. Only when many clothes are gathered together can they be weighed, which shows that there is a heavy touch. The cool wind touching the body can bring benefits, indicating that there is a cold touch. The Sutra Department ** has no cold touch. The intention of the commentator is to show that the Sutra Department does not believe in cold touch, so it is said to be a legend. According to the saying of Vibhasa one hundred and twenty-seven, some say that although the clothes of ** cannot be weighed, the rest of the items can be weighed. Some say.

界一一衣雖不可稱。多衣積集即可稱。如細縷．輕毛積集便重(然無評家。此論同后師)　問五境之中。何故色．味二種。當體立名　聲．香．觸．三約因等辨。如聲中執受。不執受．大種因聲。此是約因。有情名．非有情名聲。此是約用。由聲顯故。可意．不可意聲。此是約果。因聲生故。

或約情說。如香中好．惡等香此是約情。

或據相形。或據勝劣。如觸中四大澀．滑．輕．重．據體。后三約果。或皆約體　解云。色．味相顯故約體明。聲．香相隱故約因等辨。觸通隱顯故約體約果　又解。離中知內色相顯了當相立名。聲相稍隱約因等辨。閤中知內。味相顯了當相立名。香相難知約情以辨。觸通隱顯故約體說八。約果說三。以實而言。色等五境皆有執受．不執受為因。有情數．非有情數大種為因。可意．不可意好．惡．平等。此論不具說者。略而不論。或可影顯。廣如正理．法蘊．品類．五事．入阿毗達磨論說。若作句數皆準聲應知。

此中已說至十一觸起者。此下第二明生識總別　如文可知　身識極多緣觸。兩說不同后說為正。故婆沙一百二十七云。問十一觸中極多緣。幾發生身識。有作是說。一一別緣發生身識。十一種相。用增故　有餘師言。極多緣五發生身識。謂四大種．滑等隨一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本界一一衣雖然不能單獨稱量，但多件衣服積累起來就可以稱量了。就像細線、輕毛積累起來就變重了（然而沒有評判家，此論點與後來的論師相同）。問：在五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）之中，為什麼色和味兩種，直接以本體來立名？答：聲、香、觸三種，則根據因等來辨別。例如，聲之中，有執受（有情所感受的）和不執受（非有情所感受的），以及大種（地、水、火、風四大元素）是聲的因。這是從因的角度來說的。有情名聲和非有情名聲，這是從作用的角度來說的。由於聲音顯現的緣故，可意的聲音和不可意的聲音，這是從果的角度來說的，因為聲音是由因而產生的。或者從情感的角度來說。例如，香之中，好的香和壞的香，這是從情感的角度來說的。或者根據形狀來形容，或者根據優劣來形容。例如，觸之中，四大（地、水、火、風）的澀、滑、輕、重，是根據本體來說的。后三種（輕、重、滑）是從果的角度來說的。或者都可以從本體的角度來說。解釋說：色和味，它們的相狀顯現，所以從本體來闡明。聲和香，它們的相狀隱晦，所以從因等來辨別。觸，既有隱晦的，也有顯現的，所以既可以從本體的角度來說，也可以從果的角度來說。又一種解釋是：在分離的狀態下，知道內在的色相顯現，就直接以它的相狀來立名。聲相稍微隱晦，就從因等來辨別。在結合的狀態下，知道內在的味相顯現，就直接以它的相狀來立名。香相難以知曉，就從情感的角度來辨別。觸，既有隱晦的，也有顯現的，所以從本體的角度來說八種，從果的角度來說三種。實際上，色等五境都有執受和不執受作為因，有情數和非有情數的大種作為因，以及可意、不可意、好、壞、平等。這裡沒有詳細說明的，就省略而不論述，或者可以影射顯現。詳細的可以參考《正理》、《法蘊》、《品類》、《五事》、《入阿毗達磨論》等論述。如果計算句數，都應該按照聲音來理解。此中已說到十一觸起，下面第二部分說明產生意識的總體和個別。如文可知。身識極多緣觸，兩種說法不同，后一種說法是正確的。所以《婆沙》第一百二十七卷說：問：在十一觸中，最多能緣幾種觸而發生身識？有人這樣說：每一種觸單獨作為緣，都能發生身識，因為十一種相的作用增強的緣故。有其他論師說：最多能緣五種觸而發生身識，即四大種（地、水、火、風）和滑等中的一種。

【English Translation】 English version A single piece of clothing, by itself, cannot be weighed. However, when many pieces of clothing are accumulated, they can be weighed. Just as fine threads or light feathers, when accumulated, become heavy (however, there is no appraiser; this argument is the same as that of later teachers). Question: Among the five sense objects (rupa (form/color), shabda (sound), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), and sparsha (touch)), why are rupa (form/color) and rasa (taste) named directly after their essence? Answer: The other three, shabda (sound), gandha (smell), and sparsha (touch), are distinguished based on causes, etc. For example, in sound, there is 'grasped' (experienced by sentient beings) and 'ungrasped' (not experienced by sentient beings), and the 'great elements' (earth, water, fire, wind) are the cause of sound. This is speaking from the perspective of cause. 'Sound named by sentient beings' and 'sound named by non-sentient beings' is speaking from the perspective of function. Because sound manifests, 'pleasant sound' and 'unpleasant sound' are speaking from the perspective of result, because sound arises from a cause. Or, it can be spoken from the perspective of emotion. For example, in smell, 'good smell' and 'bad smell' are from the perspective of emotion. Or, it is based on shape or based on superiority or inferiority. For example, in touch, the 'roughness,' 'smoothness,' 'lightness,' and 'heaviness' of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) are based on their essence. The latter three (lightness, heaviness, smoothness) are based on result. Or, all can be based on essence. The explanation is: Rupa (form/color) and rasa (taste) are manifest in their characteristics, so they are explained based on their essence. Shabda (sound) and gandha (smell) are hidden in their characteristics, so they are distinguished based on causes, etc. Sparsha (touch) has both hidden and manifest aspects, so it can be explained based on essence or based on result. Another explanation is: In a separated state, knowing that the internal rupa (form/color) is manifest, it is named directly after its characteristic. The characteristic of shabda (sound) is slightly hidden, so it is distinguished based on causes, etc. In a combined state, knowing that the internal rasa (taste) is manifest, it is named directly after its characteristic. The characteristic of gandha (smell) is difficult to know, so it is distinguished based on emotion. Sparsha (touch) has both hidden and manifest aspects, so eight are explained based on essence, and three are explained based on result. In reality, all five sense objects, rupa (form/color), etc., have 'grasped' and 'ungrasped' as causes, the great elements of sentient and non-sentient beings as causes, and pleasant, unpleasant, good, bad, and neutral. What is not explained in detail here is omitted, or it can be implied. For details, refer to the treatises such as 'Nyaya,' 'Dharma Skandha,' 'Categories,' 'Five Matters,' and 'Entering the Abhidharma.' If counting the number of sentences, all should be understood according to sound. Having spoken about the arising of the eleven touches, the second part below explains the general and specific arising of consciousness. As the text indicates. Body consciousness is mostly conditioned by touch; there are two different views, the latter being correct. Therefore, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, volume 127, says: Question: Among the eleven touches, how many touches at most can be conditioned to give rise to body consciousness? Some say: Each touch individually can be a condition for the arising of body consciousness, because the function of the eleven aspects is enhanced. Other teachers say: At most, five touches can be conditioned to give rise to body consciousness, namely, one of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) and smoothness, etc.

復有說者總緣十一亦生身識問答(云云)　如是說者。緣十一事亦生身識。如緣色處二十種事亦生眼識。此亦應爾　舊婆沙觸中生識總別。文少雜亂。良由舊論。時屬火焚遺文雜亂。不引會釋。今所引者。並是新婆沙。既有正文無勞致惑。

若爾五識至非自相境者。難　經言五識取自相境。既能總緣應非自相。

約處自相至斯有何失者。通　處謂色處等。事謂色處等中別事。約處自相許五識取自相境。不能取他處境名取自相。非緣別事名取自相。

今應思擇至何識先起者。問二根同處兩境俱來。身．舌二識何識先起。

隨境強盛至令相續故者。答　隨境強盛彼識先生。兩境均平舌識先起。貪味增故名為食慾。由有食慾方能進食。由進食已身識相續。由貪食味故舌識先生　問身．鼻同處兩境俱至。何識先生。眼．耳雖別境。若俱至何識先生。於此文中何故不說。解云。味．觸有時偏增。有時均等故此別明。香．觸雖不相離。香勝觸劣鼻識先生。故此不明　或可。影顯。應準身舌　色．聲兩種離中知故此中不說　或可。準知。強者先生。境若均平眼識先起。色相顯故眼用速故。

已說根境至今次當說者。此下第三釋無表。就中一明無表相。二明能造大。此即第一明無表相。結前問起。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

還有一種說法認為，總共有十一種緣（條件）也能產生身識（kayavijnana，身體的意識）。

問答（以下是問答內容）：

如果像這樣說，憑藉十一種事物也能產生身識，就像憑藉色處（rupayatana，視覺的領域）的二十種事物也能產生眼識（caksuvijnana，眼睛的意識）一樣，這裡也應該如此。

舊的《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中關於觸（sparsha，接觸）中產生識（vijnana，意識）的總相和別相的描述，文字很少而且雜亂。這是因為舊論在當時遭遇火災，遺留下來的文字雜亂無章，沒有引用會釋。現在所引用的，都是新的《婆沙論》。既然有正確的原文，就不需要產生疑惑。

如果這樣，五識（pancavijnana，五種感官的意識）達到非自相境（asvalaksana-visaya，非自身特徵的境界）時，就難以解釋了：

經文說五識取自相境（svalaksana-visaya，自身特徵的境界）。既然能夠總緣（sarva-alambana，緣取一切），應該不是自相。

通過處（ayatana，領域）的自相（svalaksana，自身特徵）達到這裡有什麼缺失呢？

通：處指的是色處等，事指的是色處等中的個別事物。通過處的自相，允許五識取自相境。不能取其他處的境界，叫做取自相。不是緣取個別事物，叫做取自相。

現在應該思考選擇，什麼識先產生呢？

問：如果兩個根（indriya，感官）在同一處，兩個境界同時到來，身識和舌識（jihvavijnana，舌頭的意識）哪個識先產生？

隨著境界強盛，導致相續不斷：

答：隨著境界強盛，那個識就先產生。如果兩個境界均等，舌識先產生。因為貪圖味道增加，所以叫做食慾（ahara-trsna，對食物的渴望）。因為有食慾，才能進食。因為進食完畢，身識相續不斷。因為貪圖食物的味道，所以舌識先產生。

問：如果身根和鼻根（ghranendriya，鼻子的感官）在同一處，兩個境界同時到來，哪個識先產生？眼根和耳根（srotendriya，耳朵的感官）雖然境界不同，如果同時到來，哪個識先產生？為什麼在這段文字中沒有說呢？

解釋說：味覺和觸覺有時偏重，有時均等，所以這裡特別說明。香氣和觸覺雖然不相離，香氣勝過觸覺，鼻識先產生，所以這裡沒有說明。

或者可以，影子顯現，應該參照身根和舌根的情況。

顏色和聲音兩種是離開身體而知的，所以這裡沒有說。

或者可以，參照可知，強者先產生。如果境界均等，眼識先產生。因為顏色相明顯，眼睛的作用迅速。

已經說了根和境，現在接下來應當說的是：

下面第三部分解釋無表（avijnapti，無表色）。其中，一是說明無表的相狀，二是說明能造作的大的方面。這裡是第一部分，說明無表的相狀。總結前面，提出問題。

【English Translation】 English version:

Furthermore, there are those who say that eleven conditions in total can also give rise to body consciousness (kayavijnana, consciousness of the body).

Question and Answer (the following is the content of the question and answer):

If it is said in this way that body consciousness can also arise by relying on eleven things, just as eye consciousness (caksuvijnana, consciousness of the eye) can arise by relying on twenty things of the visual sphere (rupayatana, sphere of sight), it should be the same here.

In the old Vibhasa (Vibhasa), the descriptions of the general and specific characteristics of the arising of consciousness (vijnana, consciousness) from contact (sparsha, touch) are few in words and chaotic. This is because the old treatise was burned in a fire at that time, and the remaining texts were disordered, without any explanations or interpretations. What is quoted now is all from the new Vibhasa. Since there is a correct original text, there is no need to create doubts.

If so, when the five consciousnesses (pancavijnana, the five sense consciousnesses) reach the non-self-characteristic realm (asvalaksana-visaya, realm of non-own characteristics), it is difficult to explain:

The sutra says that the five consciousnesses take the self-characteristic realm (svalaksana-visaya, realm of own characteristics). Since they can grasp everything (sarva-alambana, grasping all), they should not be self-characteristic.

What is the fault in reaching here through the self-characteristic (svalaksana, own characteristic) of the sphere (ayatana, sphere)?

Answer: 'Sphere' refers to the visual sphere, etc., and 'thing' refers to the individual things within the visual sphere, etc. Through the self-characteristic of the sphere, it is permissible for the five consciousnesses to take the self-characteristic realm. Not being able to take the realm of other spheres is called taking the self-characteristic. Not grasping individual things is called taking the self-characteristic.

Now we should consider and choose, which consciousness arises first?

Question: If two roots (indriya, sense organs) are in the same place and two objects arrive at the same time, which consciousness arises first, body consciousness or tongue consciousness (jihvavijnana, consciousness of the tongue)?

Following the strength of the realm, causing continuous succession:

Answer: Whichever realm is stronger, that consciousness arises first. If the two realms are equal, tongue consciousness arises first. Because craving for taste increases, it is called appetite (ahara-trsna, craving for food). Because there is appetite, one can eat. Because eating is completed, body consciousness continues uninterrupted. Because of craving for the taste of food, tongue consciousness arises first.

Question: If the body root and nose root (ghranendriya, sense organ of the nose) are in the same place and two objects arrive at the same time, which consciousness arises first? Although the eye root and ear root (srotendriya, sense organ of the ear) have different realms, if they arrive at the same time, which consciousness arises first? Why is this not mentioned in this passage?

Explanation: Taste and touch sometimes have a bias, and sometimes they are equal, so this is specifically explained here. Although smell and touch are inseparable, smell is stronger than touch, and nose consciousness arises first, so this is not explained here.

Or perhaps, the shadow appears, and it should be compared to the situation of the body root and tongue root.

Color and sound are known separately from the body, so this is not mentioned here.

Or perhaps, it can be known by analogy that the stronger one arises first. If the realms are equal, eye consciousness arises first. Because the appearance of color is clear, and the function of the eye is fast.

Having spoken of the roots and realms, what should be spoken of next is:

Below, the third part explains unmanifested form (avijnapti, unmanifested matter). Among them, one is to explain the characteristics of unmanifested form, and the other is to explain the great aspects of what can be created. This is the first part, explaining the characteristics of unmanifested form. Summarizing the previous, posing a question.

頌曰至由此說無表者。初句出無表位。隨流出無表相。凈不凈出無表體。第三句簡法。第四句結名。

論曰至謂此余心者。以三性心望善惡無表。明亂不亂。若異性相望名亂。以異性故。若同性相望名不亂。以同性故。謂此善無表。余不善。無記名為亂心。即以自善心名不亂。謂此不善無表。余善．無記名為亂心。即以自不善心名不亂。是即善．不善心通亂．不亂。無記唯名亂。自無無表故。

若依正理。不善．無記名亂心。善心名不亂。釋稍不同。

無心者至及滅盡定者。所以不言無想異熟者。以于彼位無表不行。生色界故無散無表。以無心故無定無表。故無心言不攝於彼。

等言顯示不亂有心者。亂心等。等取不亂心。無心等。等取有心。隨其所應無表。於此四位中行　問何故。頌文別標亂心。無心。不言不亂．有心　解云。無表于亂心。無心位中行。顯彼希奇。于不亂．有心位行。非顯希奇。故標亂心。無心不言不亂．有心　又解。若言不亂。有心。還應有難。必有一難。此不須通　正理破云。又謂等言通無心者。此言無用。前已攝故。亂心等言已攝一切余有心位。第二等言。復何所攝。經主應思。或謂后等攝不亂心前無用者。此不應然。無容攝故。何容后等攝不亂心。遮言。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：　　頌文說到了由此而說的『無表』（Avijñapti-karma，無表業）。第一句指出了『無表』所處的位置。『隨流』指出了『無表』的相狀。『凈不凈』指出了『無表』的本體。第三句是爲了簡別『法』（Dharma，佛法、法則）。第四句總結了名稱。

論述說到了『謂此余心者』。以具有三種性質的心來觀察善、惡『無表』，可以區分明了和混亂。如果不同性質的心相互觀察，就稱為『亂』，因為性質不同。如果相同性質的心相互觀察，就稱為『不亂』，因為性質相同。也就是說，對於這個善『無表』來說，其餘的不善、無記心就稱為『亂心』。而對於自身這個善心來說，就稱為『不亂』。對於這個不善『無表』來說，其餘的善、無記心就稱為『亂心』。而對於自身這個不善心來說，就稱為『不亂』。因此，善、不善心既可以處於『亂』的狀態，也可以處於『不亂』的狀態。而無記心只能處於『亂』的狀態，因為它自身沒有『無表』。

如果按照《正理》的觀點，不善、無記心稱為『亂心』，善心稱為『不亂』，解釋稍有不同。

『無心者』說到了以及『滅盡定』（Nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡定）的狀態。之所以沒有說『無想異熟』（Asañjñika，無想有情）的狀態，是因為在這種狀態下，『無表』不行。因為是生得的，所以沒有散亂的『無表』。因為沒有心，所以沒有禪定的『無表』。因此，『無心』這個詞不包括『無想異熟』。

『等』字顯示了『不亂』的有心狀態。『亂心等』，『等』字包括了『不亂心』。『無心等』，『等』字包括了『有心』。根據情況，『無表』在這四種狀態中執行。問：為什麼頌文特別標出『亂心』、『無心』，而不說『不亂』、『有心』？解釋說，『無表』在『亂心』、『無心』的狀態中執行，顯示了這種情形的稀奇。而在『不亂』、『有心』的狀態中執行，並非顯示稀奇。所以標出『亂心』、『無心』，而不說『不亂』、『有心』。又一種解釋是，如果說『不亂』、『有心』，還應該有疑問，必定會有一個疑問，這裡不需要解釋。《正理》反駁說，又說『等』字包括了『無心』，這種說法沒有用，因為前面已經包括了。『亂心等』已經包括了一切其餘的有心狀態。第二個『等』字，又包括了什麼呢？經主要思考。或者說後面的『等』字包括了『不亂心』，前面的『等』字沒有用，這種說法不應該這樣。沒有理由包括。憑什麼後面的『等』字包括『不亂心』？遮止這種說法。

【English Translation】 English version: The verse speaks of 'Avijñapti' (unmanifested karma) from this point onwards. The first line indicates the position of 'Avijñapti'. 'Following the flow' indicates the appearance of 'Avijñapti'. 'Pure and impure' indicates the substance of 'Avijñapti'. The third line is to distinguish 'Dharma' (teachings, law). The fourth line concludes the name.

The treatise speaks of 'referring to this remaining mind'. Using minds with three natures to observe good and evil 'Avijñapti', one can distinguish clarity and confusion. If minds of different natures observe each other, it is called 'confusion' because the natures are different. If minds of the same nature observe each other, it is called 'non-confusion' because the natures are the same. That is to say, for this good 'Avijñapti', the remaining unwholesome and neutral minds are called 'confused mind'. For this good mind itself, it is called 'non-confused'. For this unwholesome 'Avijñapti', the remaining wholesome and neutral minds are called 'confused mind'. For this unwholesome mind itself, it is called 'non-confused'. Therefore, wholesome and unwholesome minds can be in a state of 'confusion' or 'non-confusion'. Neutral mind can only be in a state of 'confusion' because it does not have 'Avijñapti' itself.

According to the view of Nyāyānusāriṇīśāstra (Following the Path of Reasoning), unwholesome and neutral minds are called 'confused mind', and wholesome mind is called 'non-confused', the explanation is slightly different.

'Mindlessness' speaks of and the state of 'Nirodha-samāpatti' (Cessation Attainment). The reason why 'Asañjñika' (Non-Perception Realm) is not mentioned is because 'Avijñapti' does not function in this state. Because it is innate, there is no scattered 'Avijñapti'. Because there is no mind, there is no meditative 'Avijñapti'. Therefore, the word 'mindlessness' does not include 'Asañjñika'.

The word 'etc.' shows the mindful state of 'non-confusion'. 'Confused mind etc.', 'etc.' includes 'non-confused mind'. 'Mindlessness etc.', 'etc.' includes 'mindfulness'. Depending on the situation, 'Avijñapti' operates in these four states. Question: Why does the verse specifically mark 'confused mind' and 'mindlessness', but not 'non-confusion' and 'mindfulness'? The explanation is that 'Avijñapti' operates in the states of 'confused mind' and 'mindlessness', showing the rarity of this situation. Operating in the states of 'non-confusion' and 'mindfulness' does not show rarity. Therefore, 'confused mind' and 'mindlessness' are marked, but 'non-confusion' and 'mindfulness' are not mentioned. Another explanation is that if 'non-confusion' and 'mindfulness' are mentioned, there should still be questions, there will definitely be a question, and there is no need to explain it here. Nyāyānusāriṇīśāstra refutes, saying that saying 'etc.' includes 'mindlessness' is useless because it has already been included before. 'Confused mind etc.' has already included all other mindful states. What does the second 'etc.' include? The author should think about it. Or saying that the latter 'etc.' includes 'non-confused mind' and the former 'etc.' is useless, this should not be the case. There is no reason to include it. Why does the latter 'etc.' include 'non-confused mind'? Stop this statement.

理于相似處起。乘無起等。理不及余。故非全攝或可。亂心言成無用(解云。或二位三位足攝心盡。何須四耶。若言亂心等。等取不亂心及無心。三位即攝心皆盡。何須有心。若言無心等。等取不亂心。此即非相似處起。不可等彼。若言無心等。等有心。二位亦攝心盡。即亂心無用)　安惠菩薩。俱舍釋中。救云。眾賢論師。不得世親阿阇梨意。輒彈等字。亂心．不亂心。此是散位一對。無心．有心。此是定位一對。亂心等等取不亂心。散自相似。無心等等取有心。定自相似。故此等言通於兩處。顯頌巧善。

相似相續說名隨流者。相似謂與表業及心性相似　或可。前後相似　相續。謂前後相續　或相似名隨。相續名流　正理破言。非初剎那可名相續。勿有太過之失。是故決定初念無表。不入所說相中　又相續者。是假非實。無表非實失對法宗　又定所發。亂．無心位不隨流故。應非無表。若言不亂．有心位中此隨流故。無斯過者。凈不凈表業應有無表相　俱舍師救云。言相續者。或以前續後如初無表。或以後續前如后無表。或續前續後如中間無表。故初及后皆名相續。設有無表唯一剎那。相續類故亦名相續。如乳如新。故入阿毗達磨云。亦有無表唯一剎那。依總種類故說相續(已上論文)　此無表體即名相續

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『理于相似處起』，意為道理在於相似之處產生。『乘無起等』，意思是憑藉無起等狀態。道理無法涵蓋其餘情況，因此並非完全包含，或許可以成立。『亂心言成無用』，意思是說，如果只用亂心來解釋，就變得沒有意義。（解釋說：或許兩位或三位就足以涵蓋所有心，何必需要四位呢？如果說亂心等，等同於包括不亂心和無心，三位就足以涵蓋所有心，何必需要有心呢？如果說無心等，等同於包括不亂心，這就不屬於相似之處產生，不能等同於前者。如果說無心等，等同於有心，兩位也足以涵蓋所有心，那麼亂心就沒有用了。）安慧菩薩在《俱舍釋》中辯護說：眾賢論師沒有理解世親阿阇梨的意圖，隨意批評『等』字。亂心、不亂心，這是散位的一對；無心、有心，這是定位的一對。亂心等等同於包括不亂心，散位與自身相似；無心等等同於包括有心，定位與自身相似。因此，這個『等』字適用於兩種情況，顯示了頌文的巧妙之處。『相似相續說名隨流者』，意思是說，相似的相續被稱為隨流。相似，指的是與表業（行為的表現）以及心性相似。或者說，前後相似。相續，指的是前後相續。或者說，相似名為隨，相續名為流。《正理》駁斥說：最初的剎那不能被稱為相續，否則會有太過分的過失。因此，可以確定最初的念頭沒有無表（無形的業力），不屬於所說的相中。而且，相續是虛假的，不是真實的；無表不是真實的，這與對法宗（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）的觀點相悖。此外，由禪定所引發的無表，在亂心、無心狀態下不隨流，因此不應該是無表。如果說在不亂心、有心狀態下，這種無表隨流，就沒有這個過失。那麼，清凈和不凈的表業應該有無表相。《俱舍論》的論師辯護說：所說的相續，或者以前續後，如最初的無表；或者以後續前，如後來的無表；或者續前又續後，如中間的無表。因此，最初和最後都可以稱為相續。即使無表只有一個剎那，因為屬於相續的類別，也可以稱為相續，如牛奶和新事物。因此，《阿毗達磨》中說，也有無表只有一個剎那，因為依據總的種類而說相續（以上是論文）。這個無表的本體就叫做相續。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The principle arises from similarity', meaning the rationale lies in where similarities occur. 'Riding on non-arising etc.', means relying on states such as non-arising. The principle cannot encompass the remaining situations, therefore it is not fully inclusive, perhaps it can be established. 'Confused mind speech becomes useless', meaning if only confused mind is used to explain, it becomes meaningless. (Explanation: Perhaps two or three positions are sufficient to encompass all minds, why need four? If it says confused mind etc., 'etc.' includes non-confused mind and no-mind, three positions are sufficient to encompass all minds, why need mind? If it says no-mind etc., 'etc.' includes non-confused mind, this does not arise from similarity, it cannot be equated with the former. If it says no-mind etc., 'etc.' includes mind, two positions are also sufficient to encompass all minds, then confused mind is useless.) Anhui Bodhisattva, in the 'Kosa Commentary', defends by saying: The Master Zhongxian did not understand the intention of Master Vasubandhu (世親阿阇梨), and arbitrarily criticized the word 'etc.'. Confused mind, non-confused mind, this is a pair in the scattered position; no-mind, mind, this is a pair in the fixed position. Confused mind etc. is equivalent to including non-confused mind, the scattered position is similar to itself; no-mind etc. is equivalent to including mind, the fixed position is similar to itself. Therefore, this word 'etc.' applies to both situations, showing the skillful goodness of the verse. 'Similar continuity is called following the flow', meaning similar continuity is called following the flow. Similarity refers to similarity with expressive karma (表業, behavior's expression) and mind-nature. Or, similarity between before and after. Continuity refers to continuity between before and after. Or, similarity is called following, continuity is called flow. 'The Correct Principle' refutes by saying: The initial moment cannot be called continuity, otherwise there would be an excessive fault. Therefore, it can be determined that the initial thought has no avijñapti (無表, unmanifested karma), it does not belong to the said aspect. Moreover, continuity is false, not real; avijñapti is not real, this contradicts the view of the Abhidharma (阿毗達磨) school. Furthermore, avijñapti arising from samadhi (禪定, meditation) does not follow the flow in the confused mind and no-mind states, therefore it should not be avijñapti. If it is said that in the non-confused mind and mind states, this avijñapti follows the flow, there is no such fault. Then, pure and impure expressive karma should have the aspect of avijñapti. The Kosa master defends by saying: The so-called continuity, either the former continues the latter, like the initial avijñapti; or the latter continues the former, like the later avijñapti; or it continues the former and continues the latter, like the intermediate avijñapti. Therefore, both the beginning and the end can be called continuity. Even if avijñapti is only one moment, because it belongs to the category of continuity, it can also be called continuity, like milk and new things. Therefore, in the Abhidharma it is said that there is also avijñapti that is only one moment, because it is based on the general category that continuity is spoken of (the above is the thesis). This substance of avijñapti is called continuity.

。前後實體而相續也。誰言是假　又定無表。雖復非遍四位中行。名無表者。四位之言隨應而說。非言無表皆遍四位。如定俱無表。有心位行。不善無表。亂．不亂心位行。若散善無表。通四位行。汝立無心亦為一位。定俱無表豈得行耶。表業為難亦為非理。期心一發任運相續。彼位中行是無表相。表雖心發。心斷則無而非任運。故不成例。

善與不善名凈不凈者。為遮余計無記無表。故辨其性唯善不善。言善簡凈中無記。言不善簡不凈中有覆無記。

為簡諸得至五種因故者。簡得。得雖相似相續通四位行。而非大所造故非無表。此宗。造是因義能生所造果故。簡異覺天等。彼言。造是成義。施設義。即以此大成所造故。即以此大施設所造故。

顯立名因至名為無表者。釋第四句　顯立無表名之因緣。故言由此　表．無表二。雖同色業為性。表能表示心等令他了知。無表不能表示心等令他了知。故名無表。論主不信如是無表。別有體相。故言此是師宗所說。略說表業所生善．不善色．及定所生善色。名為無表。

既言無表至大種云何者。此下第二明能造大。就中。一明實四大。二對假顯實。此即明實四大。牒前問起。

頌曰至堅濕暖動性者。上半頌舉數列名。第三句辨業。第四句顯體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前後相續的實體。誰說它是虛假的？又確實存在無表色（Avijñapti-rūpa，不可表示的色法）。雖然它並非遍行於所有四種狀態（四位：指有心位、無心位、亂心位、不亂心位），但被稱為『無表』。『四位』的說法是根據情況而說的，並非所有無表色都遍行於四種狀態。例如，由禪定產生的無表色只在有心位中執行；不善的無表色在亂心位和不亂心位中執行；如果是散心的善無表色，則通行於四種狀態。你們宗派（指經部宗）認為無心也是一種狀態，那麼由禪定產生的無表色怎麼可能執行呢？用表業（Vijñapti-karma，可表示的業）來反駁也是不合理的。因為發起意願的那一刻，它就自然而然地相續下去，在那狀態中執行的就是無表色的相狀。表業雖然由心發起，但心念斷滅，表業也就停止，並非自然相續，所以不能作為例子。

之所以說善與不善名為清凈與不清凈，是爲了排除其他宗派認為存在無記的無表色。因此，辨別其性質只有善與不善。說『善』是爲了排除清凈中的無記；說『不善』是爲了排除不清凈中有覆無記。

爲了排除諸『得』，說明無表色產生的五種原因。這裡是爲了排除『得』。『得』雖然與無表色相似，相續通行於四種狀態，但它不是由『大』（四大種）所造，所以不是無表色。此宗（指有部宗）認為，『造』是『因』的意思，能產生所造的果。排除異生、覺天等，他們認為『造』是『成就』的意思，『施設』的意思，即用『大』成就所造，用『大』施設所造。

爲了闡明建立名稱的原因，說明被稱為『無表』的原因。這是解釋第四句，闡明建立無表名稱的因緣。所以說，由於表業和無表業雖然同樣以色業為性質，但表業能夠表示心等，使他人瞭解；無表業不能表示心等，使他人瞭解，所以稱為『無表』。論主（指世親菩薩）不相信有這樣的無表色，具有獨立的體相。所以說，這是師宗（指有部宗）所說。簡略地說，表業所生的善與不善的色，以及由禪定所生的善色，稱為無表色。

既然說了無表色，那麼能造的四大種是什麼呢？下面第二部分說明能造的『大』。其中，第一部分說明真實的四大種，第二部分通過與假立的對比來顯示真實的。這裡是說明真實的四大種。承接前面的問題而提出。

頌文說：『堅、濕、暖、動性』。上半頌列舉名稱，第三句辨別作用，第四句顯示體性。

【English Translation】 English version: They are entities that continue in sequence, both before and after. Who says they are false? Furthermore, Avijñapti-rūpa (unmanifested form) certainly exists. Although it does not pervade all four states (four states: referring to the state of having a mind, the state of having no mind, the state of a disturbed mind, and the state of an undisturbed mind), it is called 'Avijñapti' (unmanifested). The term 'four states' is used according to the situation; it does not mean that all Avijñapti pervades all four states. For example, Avijñapti arising from meditative concentration operates only in the state of having a mind; unwholesome Avijñapti operates in the states of a disturbed mind and an undisturbed mind; if it is wholesome Avijñapti arising from a scattered mind, it operates in all four states. Your school (referring to the Sautrāntika school) considers the state of having no mind as one of the states, so how can Avijñapti arising from meditative concentration operate in it? Using Vijñapti-karma (manifested karma) as a counter-argument is also unreasonable. Because from the moment the intention arises, it naturally continues, and what operates in that state is the characteristic of Avijñapti. Although Vijñapti arises from the mind, when the mind ceases, Vijñapti also ceases and does not continue naturally, so it cannot be used as an example.

The reason for saying that wholesome and unwholesome are called pure and impure is to exclude other schools that believe in the existence of neutral Avijñapti. Therefore, its nature is distinguished as only wholesome and unwholesome. Saying 'wholesome' is to exclude the neutral in purity; saying 'unwholesome' is to exclude the obscured neutral in impurity.

In order to exclude the 'attainments' (Prāpti), the five causes for the arising of Avijñapti are explained. Here, it is to exclude 'attainment'. Although 'attainment' is similar to Avijñapti and continues through the four states, it is not created by the 'great elements' (Mahābhūta, the four great elements), so it is not Avijñapti. This school (referring to the Sarvāstivāda school) believes that 'creation' means 'cause', which can produce the created result. It excludes beings like the 'different born' and 'gods of perception', who believe that 'creation' means 'accomplishment' and 'establishment', that is, using the 'great elements' to accomplish the created and using the 'great elements' to establish the created.

In order to clarify the reason for establishing the name, it explains the reason for being called 'Avijñapti'. This is explaining the fourth sentence, clarifying the cause and condition for establishing the name Avijñapti. Therefore, it is said that although both Vijñapti-karma and Avijñapti-karma have the nature of form-karma, Vijñapti can express the mind, etc., allowing others to understand; Avijñapti cannot express the mind, etc., allowing others to understand, so it is called 'Avijñapti'. The author of the treatise (referring to Vasubandhu) does not believe in such Avijñapti, which has an independent entity. Therefore, it is said that this is what the teacher's school (referring to the Sarvāstivāda school) says. Briefly speaking, the wholesome and unwholesome forms produced by Vijñapti-karma, as well as the wholesome forms produced by meditative concentration, are called Avijñapti.

Since Avijñapti has been mentioned, what are the creating great elements? The second part below explains the creating 'great elements'. Among them, the first part explains the real four great elements, and the second part shows the real by contrasting it with the falsely established. Here, the real four great elements are explained. It is raised by continuing the previous question.

The verse says: 'Solidity, fluidity, heat, and motion'. The first half of the verse lists the names, the third sentence distinguishes the function, and the fourth sentence reveals the essence.

。

論曰至大事用故者。持義名界。一能持大種自相不改。二能持所造色相續　言大種者。一切余所造色．所依性故。余色所依．是能生義。此即釋種　問四大在造色何處。而言為所依性耶。答如婆沙一百二十七云。有說在下為因。所依法應爾故　問若爾于逼近色可說能造。于隔遠者云何造耶。答不說一聚所有大種都在其下。造諸造色。但說一樹分分皆有大種在下。造色在上　有作是說。相雜而住。大種在外。造色在中　問若爾。應斷截時。見有孔隙猶如斷藕。答雖有孔隙而不可見。以諸大種非有見故。所見孔隙是造色故(已上論文)　三義釋大。一約體寬名大。一一所造各有四大。二約相名大。如大地．大山地增盛。大江．大海水增盛。炎爐．猛焰火增盛。黑風．團風風增盛。三約用名大。如火．水．風災。如其次第能壞初．二．三定。地能任持世界。故用大也　若依正理釋大種云。虛空雖大不名種。余有為法雖是種而非大。唯此四種具兩義故名為大種。婆沙等論亦同正理。即大名種故名大種。持業釋也　此四大種能成何業者。問。

如其次第至或複流引者。答　增盛．如種生芽此據上下。流引．如油渧水此即據傍。

風業稍隱故別解也。

業用既爾自性云何者。問性。

如其次第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

論中說『至大事用故者』，『持』的意思是『界』（dhātu，要素、界）。第一，它能保持『大種』（mahābhūta，四大元素）的自性不變；第二，它能保持『所造色』（upādāyarūpa，衍生色法）的相續不斷。所說『大種』，是因為它是一切其餘『所造色』的所依之性。其餘色法的所依，就是能生的意思。這就是解釋『種』的含義。

問：四大在『造色』的什麼位置，而被稱為所依之性呢？答：如《婆沙論》第一百二十七卷所說，有人說在下方作為因，所依之法應當如此。問：如果這樣，對於逼近的色法可以說能造，對於隔遠的色法，如何造作呢？答：不是說一個聚合體中的所有大種都在其下方，造作各種造色。只是說一棵樹的各個部分都有大種在下方，造色在上方。有人這樣說，它們相雜而住，大種在外，造色在中間。問：如果這樣，應該在斷截時，看到有孔隙，猶如斷藕。答：雖然有孔隙，但不可見，因為諸大種不是有可見性的。所見的孔隙是造色。

從三個方面解釋『大』的含義：第一，從體積寬廣來說，稱為『大』。每一個所造色都有四大。第二，從相狀來說，稱為『大』。如大地、大山，是地增盛；大江、大海，是水增盛；炎爐、猛焰，是火增盛；黑風、團風，是風增盛。第三，從作用來說，稱為『大』。如火、水、風災，依次能壞初禪、二禪、三禪。地能任持世界，所以作用大。

如果依據正理來解釋『大種』，虛空雖然大，但不稱為『種』。其餘有為法雖然是『種』，但不是『大』。只有這四種具足兩種含義，所以稱為『大種』。《婆沙論》等論也與正理相同。即『大』名為『種』，所以名為『大種』，這是持業釋。這四大種能成就什麼作用呢？問。

『如其次第至或複流引者』，答：增盛，如種子生芽，這是指上下關係。流引，如油滴入水，這是指旁邊關係。

風的作用稍微隱晦，所以特別解釋。

『業用既爾自性云何者』，問的是自性。

『如其次第』

【English Translation】 English version:

The treatise says, 'The reason for 'great' and 'important function' is that 'dhātu' (element, realm) means 'to hold'. First, it can hold the self-nature of the 'mahābhūta' (great elements, the four primary elements) without change; second, it can hold the continuous flow of 'upādāyarūpa' (derived form). The term 'mahābhūta' is used because it is the nature upon which all other 'upādāyarūpa' depend. The dependence of other forms is the meaning of being able to produce. This explains the meaning of 'seed'.

Question: Where are the four great elements located in relation to 'upādāyarūpa' that they are called the nature of dependence? Answer: As stated in the 127th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā, some say they are below as the cause, as the dependent dharma should be. Question: If so, it can be said that they can create the forms that are close, but how do they create the forms that are far away? Answer: It is not said that all the great elements in an aggregate are below it, creating various derived forms. It is only said that each part of a tree has great elements below, and the derived forms are above. Some say that they dwell intermingled, with the great elements on the outside and the derived forms in the middle. Question: If so, when cutting, one should see holes, like a cut lotus root. Answer: Although there are holes, they are not visible, because the great elements are not visible. The visible holes are derived forms.

The meaning of 'great' is explained in three ways: First, it is called 'great' in terms of its broad volume. Each derived form has the four great elements. Second, it is called 'great' in terms of its characteristics. For example, the great earth and great mountains are the increase of earth; the great rivers and great seas are the increase of water; the flaming furnace and fierce flames are the increase of fire; the black wind and swirling wind are the increase of wind. Third, it is called 'great' in terms of its function. For example, fire, water, and wind disasters can destroy the first, second, and third dhyānas (meditative states) respectively. Earth can uphold the world, so its function is great.

If we explain 'mahābhūta' according to correct reasoning, although space is great, it is not called a 'seed'. Although other conditioned dharmas are 'seeds', they are not 'great'. Only these four possess both meanings, so they are called 'mahābhūta'. The Vibhāṣā and other treatises are also in accordance with correct reasoning. That is, 'great' is named 'seed', so it is named 'mahābhūta', which is a possessive compound. What functions can these four great elements accomplish? Question.

'In due order to or also flowing and drawing', answer: Increasing, like a seed sprouting, this refers to the relationship of above and below. Flowing and drawing, like oil dripping into water, this refers to the relationship of beside.

The function of wind is slightly obscure, so it is explained separately.

'Since the functions are such, what is the nature?', asks about the nature.

'In due order'

至故亦言輕者。答自性可知　動性稍隱。是故別解。理實。有為．皆剎那滅。無容從此轉至余方。而言相續至余方者。據相續運轉至余方。由風動故說色往來。若無此風即無運轉　引論及經證此風界動為自性　言輕等者。輕是所造觸。風界體性與輕相似。故言輕等　風體是動。而言輕者。以風．動性。微細難知故。約輕相以顯動性　業。謂所作業。果即是其輕。八轉聲中第二聲也。以業顯體。即是以果顯因之義。故正理云。輕為風者。舉果顯因。是風果故　問火．風增故輕。何故但言風為輕因。解云。風遍為輕因。火即不遍如柳絮等飄舉輕性。火即非增。故別舉輕偏顯風界。地等相顯非舉果明　言八轉聲者。一體。謂直詮法體。二業。謂所作事業。三具。謂作者作具。四為。謂所為也。五從。謂所從也。六屬。謂所屬也。七依謂所依也。八呼謂呼彼也。依聲明法凡喚諸法。隨其所應有八轉聲。

云何地等地等界別者。此下第二對假顯實。云何假地等。與實地等界別。此即問起。

頌曰至風即界亦爾者頌答。

論曰至表示風故者。就長行中。一釋頌。二釋色義。此即初文。地謂顯．形色處為體。世人相示皆指形．顯。故佛隨世約顯與形立地名想。水火亦爾　唯有風界即名為風。以世計動風體故。此是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：至於說『輕』也是因為風的緣故，這是為什麼呢？回答是，風的自性是可以被感知的，但其運動的性質稍微隱蔽。因此需要特別解釋。實際上，一切有為法都是剎那生滅的，不可能從一個地方轉移到另一個地方。如果說相續不斷地轉移到另一個地方，那是根據相續的運轉而言的。由於風的運動，所以說色法往來。如果沒有風的運動，就沒有運轉。引用論典和經文來證明風界的運動是其自性。說到『輕』等，『輕』是所造作的觸，風界的體性與『輕』相似，所以說『輕』等。風的體性是運動，而說『輕』，是因為風的運動性質微細難以察覺，所以通過『輕』的現象來顯示其運動的性質。『業』，指的是所造作的行為，『果』就是其『輕』。在八轉聲中，屬於第二聲。用『業』來顯示『體』，就是用『果』來顯示『因』的含義。所以《正理》中說，『輕』是風的果，這是舉果顯因，因為『輕』是風的果。問：火、風增強會導致輕，為什麼只說風是『輕』的原因？解釋說，風普遍是『輕』的原因，而火併不普遍，比如柳絮等飄舉的輕性，火就不是增強的原因。所以特別舉出『輕』來偏重顯示風界。地等相顯，不是舉果明因。說到八轉聲，一是體，指的是直接詮釋法體；二是業，指的是所作事業；三是具，指的是作者的工具；四是為，指的是所為的目的；五是從，指的是所從出的地方；六是屬，指的是所屬的關係；七是依，指的是所依賴的事物；八是呼，指的是呼喚的對象。依據聲明法，凡是稱呼諸法，根據其相應的關係，有八轉聲。什麼是地（Prithvi）等、地等界（Dhatu）的差別呢？下面第二部分是對假象的揭示，以彰顯真實。什麼是假的地等，與真實的地等界有什麼區別？這是問題的提出。頌文說：乃至風即是界也是如此。這是對問題的回答。論中說：乃至表示風的緣故。在長行文中，一是解釋頌文，二是解釋色（Rupa）的含義。這裡是第一部分。地（Prithvi）指的是顯色、形色所佔據的處所為體。世人相互指示，都指向形色和顯色。所以佛（Buddha）隨順世俗的說法，根據顯色和形色來建立地（Prithvi）的名相概念。水（Apas）、火（Tejas）也是如此。只有風界（Vayu-dhatu）才直接被稱為風（Vayu），因為世人認為運動就是風的本體。

【English Translation】 English version: As for saying 'lightness' is also due to wind, why is that? The answer is that the self-nature of wind can be perceived, but its moving nature is slightly hidden. Therefore, a special explanation is needed. In reality, all conditioned dharmas are momentary and do not allow for moving from one place to another. If it is said that there is a continuous movement to another place, it is according to the continuous operation. Because of the movement of wind, it is said that form (Rupa) comes and goes. If there is no movement of wind, there is no operation. Citing treatises and sutras to prove that the movement of the wind element (Vayu-dhatu) is its self-nature. When talking about 'lightness' and so on, 'lightness' is the touch that is created. The nature of the wind element is similar to 'lightness', so it is called 'lightness' and so on. The nature of wind is movement, but saying 'lightness' is because the moving nature of wind is subtle and difficult to perceive, so the moving nature is revealed through the phenomenon of 'lightness'. 'Karma' refers to the actions that are performed, and the 'result' is its 'lightness'. In the eight inflections, it belongs to the second inflection. Using 'karma' to reveal the 'essence' is the meaning of using 'result' to reveal the 'cause'. Therefore, the Hetu-vidya (正理) says that 'lightness' is the result of wind, which is to reveal the cause through the result, because 'lightness' is the result of wind. Question: If fire and wind increase, it will lead to lightness, why only say that wind is the cause of 'lightness'? The explanation is that wind is universally the cause of 'lightness', while fire is not universal. For example, the lightness of willow catkins being lifted is not caused by the increase of fire. Therefore, specifically mentioning 'lightness' emphasizes the wind element. The manifestation of earth (Prithvi) and other elements is not to clarify the cause through the result. Speaking of the eight inflections, the first is the substance, which refers to directly explaining the essence of the dharma; the second is the action, which refers to the actions performed; the third is the instrument, which refers to the tools of the actor; the fourth is the purpose, which refers to the purpose of the action; the fifth is the origin, which refers to the place from which it originates; the sixth is the belonging, which refers to the relationship of belonging; the seventh is the dependence, which refers to the things on which it depends; the eighth is the calling, which refers to the object being called. According to the science of sounds (聲明法), whenever dharmas are addressed, there are eight inflections according to their corresponding relationships. What are the differences between earth (Prithvi) and other elements, and the earth element (Dhatu) and other elements? The second part below is the revelation of false appearances to highlight the truth. What are the false earth and other elements, and what are the differences between them and the real earth element and other elements? This is the posing of the question. The verse says: Even the wind is also the element. This is the answer to the question. The treatise says: Even because it indicates the wind. In the prose section, the first is to explain the verse, and the second is to explain the meaning of form (Rupa). This is the first part. Earth (Prithvi) refers to the place occupied by visible form and shape as its essence. People point to shape and visible form when they indicate each other. Therefore, the Buddha (Buddha) followed the worldly saying and established the conceptual name of earth (Prithvi) based on visible form and shape. Water (Apas) and fire (Tejas) are also like this. Only the wind element (Vayu-dhatu) is directly called wind (Vayu), because people think that movement is the essence of wind.

異說　亦言顯．形。通表示風。此是正說　問假地．水．火．風皆以色．香．味．觸為體。何故偏言形．顯　解云。偏言色者從多分說謂世多於地．水．火．風以顯．形色而相指示。非多於彼地．水．火．風。以香．味．觸而相指示　又解。色遍．勝故。謂世雖說我今嗅地。而不多說嗅水．火．風。世雖亦言我今嘗水。而不多說嘗地．風．火。雖亦言觸地．水．火。風即地等界故。故雖假地等皆有香．味．觸。而形與顯。通能表示地．水．火．風遍勝體強。是故偏說。

何故　此蘊至說為色耶者。此下第二別解色義。問何故色蘊。始自眼根終於無表。說為色耶。

由變壞故至名色取蘊者。答　可變可壞故名為色。引證可知　又婆沙九十七云。問變與壞有何差別。答變者。顯示細無常法。壞者。顯示粗無常法　複次。變者。顯示剎那無常。壞者。顯示眾同分無常複次。變者。顯示內分無常。壞者。顯示外分無常　複次。變者。顯示有情數無常。壞者。顯示非情數無常。如說舍壞倉庫等壞。

誰能變壞者。問。

謂手觸故至惱壞如箭中者。答。

謂彼色法。由手觸故即便變壞。廣說乃至。蚊等觸。五根及色．聲．香．味雖非手等觸著。然與彼觸同一聚生。若觸觸時彼便變壞　或可。觸彼能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本異說：也有人說，『顯』和『形』可以普遍表示風。這才是正確的說法。問：假使地（Prithvi, 地球）, 水（Ap, 水）, 火（Tejas, 火）, 風（Vayu, 風）都以色（Rupa, 顏色）, 香（Gandha, 氣味）, 味（Rasa, 味道）, 觸（Sparsha, 觸覺）為本體，為什麼偏偏只說『形』和『顯』呢？解說：偏偏說『色』，是從多數情況來說的，意思是世人大多用地、水、火、風的『顯』和『形色』來相互指示，而不是用香、味、觸來指示地、水、火、風。又解說：因為『色』普遍且殊勝。世人雖然會說『我聞到了地的氣味』，但很少說聞到水、火、風的氣味。世人雖然也會說『我嚐到了水的味道』，但很少說嚐到地、風、火的味道。雖然也會說觸碰到地、水、火、風，但地等同於界（Dhatu, 界），所以，即使地等都有香、味、觸，但『形』和『顯』普遍且能表示地、水、火、風，本體也更強，所以偏偏說『形』和『顯』。

為什麼說此蘊（Skandha, 蘊）到最後都歸為色呢？以下第二部分是分別解釋色的含義。問：為什麼色蘊，從眼根（Eye sense-organ, 眼根）開始到無表色（Avijnapti-rupa, 無表色）結束，都說是色呢？

因為會變壞，所以稱為色，並以此作為色取蘊（Rupa-upadanaskandha, 色取蘊）的名字。回答：因為可以變化、可以毀壞，所以稱為色。引用的證據可以知道。另外，《婆沙論》第九十七卷說：問：變化和毀壞有什麼區別？答：變化，顯示細微的無常法；毀壞，顯示粗大的無常法。其次，變化，顯示剎那無常；毀壞，顯示眾同分無常。再次，變化，顯示內部分的無常；毀壞，顯示外部分的無常。再次，變化，顯示有情數的無常；毀壞，顯示非情數的無常。例如說房屋倒塌、倉庫倒塌等。

誰能使其變壞呢？問。

是手觸碰的緣故，乃至像箭射中一樣惱壞。答。

意思是，那些色法，由於手的觸碰就會變壞。廣而言之，乃至蚊子等的觸碰。五根（Five sense-organs, 五根）以及色、聲（Shabda, 聲音）、香、味，雖然不是手等直接觸碰，但與那些觸碰同一時間產生。如果觸碰發生時，它們就會變壞。或者可以認為，觸碰它們能夠...

【English Translation】 English version Alternative view: Some say that 'appearance' (顯) and 'form' (形) can universally represent wind (Vayu, 風). This is the correct view. Question: If earth (Prithvi, 地球), water (Ap, 水), fire (Tejas, 火), and wind (Vayu, 風) all have color (Rupa, 顏色), smell (Gandha, 氣味), taste (Rasa, 味道), and touch (Sparsha, 觸覺) as their essence, why do we specifically mention only 'form' and 'appearance'? Explanation: Specifically mentioning 'color' is based on the majority of cases, meaning that people mostly use the 'appearance' and 'form' of earth, water, fire, and wind to indicate each other, rather than using smell, taste, and touch to indicate earth, water, fire, and wind. Another explanation: Because 'color' is universal and superior. Although people might say 'I smell the earth', they rarely say they smell the water, fire, or wind. Although people might also say 'I taste the water', they rarely say they taste the earth, wind, or fire. Although they might also say they touch earth, water, fire, and wind, earth is equivalent to a realm (Dhatu, 界). Therefore, even though earth, etc., all have smell, taste, and touch, 'form' and 'appearance' are universal and can represent earth, water, fire, and wind, and their essence is stronger, so we specifically mention 'form' and 'appearance'.

Why is it said that this aggregate (Skandha, 蘊) ultimately belongs to color? The second part below explains the meaning of color separately. Question: Why is the aggregate of color, from the eye sense-organ (Eye sense-organ, 眼根) to non-manifest color (Avijnapti-rupa, 無表色), all said to be color?

Because it is subject to change and decay, it is called color, and this is used as the name for the aggregate of grasping at color (Rupa-upadanaskandha, 色取蘊). Answer: Because it can change and decay, it is called color. The cited evidence can be understood. Furthermore, the ninety-seventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: Question: What is the difference between change and decay? Answer: Change shows subtle impermanence; decay shows coarse impermanence. Secondly, change shows momentary impermanence; decay shows the impermanence of the multitude of shared characteristics. Thirdly, change shows the impermanence of internal components; decay shows the impermanence of external components. Fourthly, change shows the impermanence of sentient beings; decay shows the impermanence of non-sentient beings. For example, it is said that houses collapse, warehouses collapse, etc.

Who can cause it to change and decay? Question.

It is because of the touch of the hand, even to the point of being disturbed and destroyed like being hit by an arrow. Answer.

It means that those color-dharmas (色法), due to the touch of the hand, will change and decay. Broadly speaking, even the touch of mosquitoes, etc. The five sense-organs (Five sense-organs, 五根) and color, sound (Shabda, 聲音), smell, and taste, although not directly touched by the hand, etc., arise at the same time as those touches. If touch occurs, they will change and decay. Or it can be thought that touching them can...

造四大令所造色亦變壞。故此變壞即是可為他惱壞義　故法救所集義品之中作如是說。趣求諸五欲境人。常起于希望。彼諸欲境若不遂會。令色變壞。猶如毒箭在身中也　色等五境是所欲故　或能生欲名之為欲　言義品者。此品之中釋諸義故　故婆沙四十四云。釋迦菩薩為多求王說此頌。廣如彼解。

色復云何欲所惱壞者。問。

欲所擾惱變壞生故者。答　是由欲惱令色變壞生故。

有說變礙故名為色者。第二釋。色可變有礙。可變謂可變壞故。有礙謂有礙用故。

若爾極微至無變礙故者。難。

此難不然至變礙義成者。釋　五識依緣皆應積集。故無現在獨住極微。由恒積集故有變礙。然正理第二有兩說。一說同此論　又一說云。有說亦有獨住極微。然能變礙而不發識。五識依緣要積集故。如立極微。雖無方分亦無觸對。而許極微有礙。有對。有障用故。應知變礙義亦如是。

過去未來應不名色者。難　現在眾微集變礙義可成。過．未眾微散應不名為色。

此亦曾當至如所燒薪者。通　過去曾礙。未來生法當礙。諸不生法是彼礙類。如所燒薪。

諸無表色應不名色者。又難。五根。五境極微成變礙。可得名為色。無表既非極微成。非變礙故應非色。

有釋表

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本四大（地、水、火、風）所造的色法也會變壞。因此，這種變壞就是可以被其他事物惱亂和破壞的意思。所以法救在《集義品》中這樣說：『追求各種五欲境界的人，常常生起希望。如果這些慾望不能如願以償，就會使色法變壞，就像毒箭射入身體一樣。』色等五境，是人們所貪求的，或者說，能夠產生慾望的事物就叫做『欲』。《義品》的意思是，這一品中解釋各種義理。因此，《婆沙論》第四十四卷說，釋迦菩薩為多求王說了這首偈頌，詳細的解釋可以參考那裡。

色法又如何被慾望惱亂和破壞呢？（問）

因為慾望的擾亂，導致色法變壞而產生。（答）是因為慾望的惱亂，導致色法變壞而產生。

有人說，因為可以變化和有阻礙，所以叫做『色』。（第二種解釋）色法是可以變化的，並且具有阻礙性。可以變化，指的是可以變壞；有阻礙，指的是具有阻礙作用。

如果這樣，那麼極微（物質的最小單位）就沒有變化和阻礙了。（難）

這個難題是不成立的，……變化和阻礙的意義是可以成立的。（釋）五識所依賴的因緣都需要積聚，所以沒有單獨存在的極微。由於恒常積聚，所以具有變化和阻礙。然而，《正理》第二卷有兩種說法。一種說法與此論相同。另一種說法是：也有單獨存在的極微，但是它能夠變化和阻礙，卻不產生識。五識所依賴的因緣需要積聚。就像建立極微的理論一樣，雖然沒有方位和接觸，但也承認極微具有阻礙、對立和障礙作用。應該知道，變化和阻礙的意義也是如此。

過去和未來之色，就不應該叫做色了。（難）現在眾多極微積聚，變化和阻礙的意義可以成立。過去和未來眾多極微散開，就不應該叫做色了。

這也可以用『曾經』和『將要』來解釋，……就像燒過的柴火一樣。（通）過去曾經有阻礙，未來產生的法將會有阻礙。那些不產生的法，是那些阻礙的同類。就像燒過的柴火一樣。

無表色（無法用視覺感知的色法）就不應該叫做色了。（又難）五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）和五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）由極微組成，具有變化和阻礙，可以叫做色。無表色不是由極微組成，沒有變化和阻礙，所以不應該是色。

有人解釋說，表

【English Translation】 English version The material forms (rupa) produced by the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) also undergo decay. Therefore, this decay means that it can be troubled and destroyed by other things. Thus, Dharmatrāta says in the Samuccayārtha (Collection of Meanings): 'Those who seek the objects of the five desires constantly give rise to hope. If these desires are not fulfilled, they cause the material form to decay, just like a poisoned arrow in the body.' The five objects of sense, such as form, are what people crave, or that which can generate desire is called 'desire'. The meaning of Arthapada is that this section explains various meanings. Therefore, the forty-fourth volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says that Śākyamuni Bodhisattva spoke this verse to King Bahudhātuka, and a detailed explanation can be found there.

How is material form troubled and destroyed by desire? (Question)

Because of the disturbance of desire, material form decays and arises. (Answer) It is because of the disturbance of desire that material form decays and arises.

Some say that it is called 'form' because it can change and has obstruction. (Second explanation) Material form can change and has obstruction. Can change means it can decay; has obstruction means it has an obstructing function.

If so, then the ultimate particle (paramāṇu) has no change or obstruction. (Objection)

This objection is not valid... the meaning of change and obstruction can be established. (Explanation) The conditions on which the five consciousnesses rely must all accumulate, so there is no single, independently existing ultimate particle. Because of constant accumulation, there is change and obstruction. However, there are two views in the second volume of the Nyāyānusāra. One view is the same as this treatise. Another view is: some say that there are also independently existing ultimate particles, but they can change and obstruct without producing consciousness. The conditions on which the five consciousnesses rely need to accumulate. Just like establishing the theory of the ultimate particle, although it has no direction or contact, it is still admitted that the ultimate particle has obstruction, opposition, and hindering function. It should be known that the meaning of change and obstruction is also like this.

The past and future forms should not be called form. (Objection) The accumulation of many present particles, the meaning of change and obstruction can be established. The scattering of many past and future particles should not be called form.

This can also be explained by 'once' and 'will be'... like burnt firewood. (Response) The past once had obstruction, and the future arising dharmas will have obstruction. Those dharmas that do not arise are of the same kind as those obstructions, like burnt firewood.

Unmanifested form (aviññatti-rūpa) should not be called form. (Another objection) The five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) are composed of ultimate particles, have change and obstruction, and can be called form. Unmanifested form is not composed of ultimate particles, has no change or obstruction, so it should not be form.

Some explain that the manifest

色至影亦隨動者。釋無表妨。有二釋。此即初解。約隨表色釋。是雜心論主義。影依樹起。樹動影動。無表依表生。表色無表色。

此釋不然至影必隨滅者。難　本以變礙解釋色名。體無變礙不應名色。又約喻難。影依于樹。樹滅影隨滅。無表依于表。表滅無表不滅。滅既不同。色寧同彼又正理破云。此不應理。隨心轉色不從表生。應非色故。

有釋所依至亦得色名者。第二釋。此約大種名色。

若爾所依至應亦名色者。難　若所依是變礙。能依得色名。所依五根既變礙。能依五識應名色。

此難不齊至助生緣故者。此述古師通難。無表親從大種生。如彼影．光親依樹．寶。可得從大名為色。以諸大種望所造色。作生等五因故是親也。眼等五識依眼等五根時。則不如是。唯能為作助生增上緣故。以識望根是其疏故。不名為色。

此影依樹至未為釋難者。此顯有過　說一切有宗。造色極微各別依止自四大種。而言影．光依樹．寶生。且非符順毗婆沙義。彼宗。影．光．各自依止四大種故。樹．寶還是助生增上緣。義將類眼根。義應相似。

設許以下縱破　假設許汝影．光依止樹．寶。而無表色不同彼影．光依止樹．寶。彼宗許所依大種雖滅。而無表色常相續生不隨滅故。是故此師

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『色至影亦隨動者』。解釋無表色不應妨礙。有兩種解釋。這是第一種解釋，根據隨表色來解釋。這是《雜心論》的主張。影子依靠樹而生起，樹動影子也動。無表色依靠表色而生，表色和無表色。

『此釋不然至影必隨滅者』。這是反駁。原本用變礙來解釋色的名稱，如果本體沒有變礙就不應該稱為色。又用比喻來反駁，影子依靠樹，樹滅影子也隨之滅。無表色依靠表色，表色滅無表色不滅。滅的情況既然不同，色怎麼能與影子相同？《正理》也駁斥說：『這不合道理。隨心轉變的色不是從表色所生，因此不應是色。』

『有釋所依至亦得色名者』。這是第二種解釋，根據大種來解釋色。

『若爾所依至應亦名色者』。這是反駁。如果所依是變礙，能依的就能得到色的名稱。所依的五根既然是變礙，能依的五識應該也稱為色。

『此難不齊至助生緣故者』。這是敘述古代論師來解釋這個反駁。無表色直接從大種所生，如同影子和光直接依靠樹和寶物。可以從大種的名稱而稱為色。因為諸大種對於所造的色，作為生等五種原因，所以是直接的。眼等五識依靠眼等五根時，則不是這樣。只能作為助生增上緣。因為識對於根是疏遠的，所以不稱為色。

『此影依樹至未為釋難者』。這顯示了過失。說一切有宗認為，造色的極微各自依靠自四大種。而說影子和光依靠樹和寶物而生，這不符合《毗婆沙論》的意義。那個宗派認為，影子和光各自依靠四大種。樹和寶物還是助生增上緣，意義將類似於眼根，意義應該相似。

『設許以下』縱然駁斥。假設允許你影子和光依靠樹和寶物，而無表色不同於影子和光依靠樹和寶物。那個宗派允許所依的大種雖然滅了，而無表色常常相續生起不隨之滅。因此這位論師

【English Translation】 English version '色至影亦隨動者 (se zhi ying yi sui dong zhe)' [If color moves, then the shadow also moves]. This explains why the non-revealing form (無表色, wu biao se) should not be an obstacle. There are two explanations. This is the first explanation, based on the revealing form (表色, biao se). This is the doctrine of the Abhidharma-samuccaya (雜心論, Za Xin Lun). A shadow arises depending on a tree; when the tree moves, the shadow moves. The non-revealing form arises depending on the revealing form; the revealing form and the non-revealing form.

'此釋不然至影必隨滅者 (ci shi bu ran zhi ying bi sui mie zhe)' [This explanation is not right, until the shadow must perish accordingly]. This is a refutation. Originally, the name of 'form' (色, se) was explained by change and obstruction. If the substance has no change and obstruction, it should not be called 'form'. It is also refuted by analogy: a shadow depends on a tree; when the tree perishes, the shadow also perishes accordingly. The non-revealing form depends on the revealing form; when the revealing form perishes, the non-revealing form does not perish. Since the perishing is different, how can 'form' be the same as a shadow? The Nyāyānusāra (正理, Zheng Li) also refutes, saying: 'This is not reasonable. The form that transforms according to the mind is not born from the revealing form, therefore it should not be form.'

'有釋所依至亦得色名者 (you shi suo yi zhi yi de se ming zhe)' [Some explain that what is relied upon also obtains the name of 'form']. This is the second explanation, based on the great elements (大種, da zhong) to explain 'form'.

'若爾所依至應亦名色者 (ruo er suo yi zhi ying yi ming se zhe)' [If so, what is relied upon should also be called 'form']. This is a refutation. If what is relied upon is change and obstruction, then what relies on it can obtain the name of 'form'. Since the five sense organs (五根, wu gen) that are relied upon are change and obstruction, the five consciousnesses (五識, wu shi) that rely on them should also be called 'form'.

'此難不齊至助生緣故者 (ci nan bu qi zhi zhu sheng yuan gu zhe)' [This refutation is not consistent, until it is a helping condition for arising]. This is a narration of ancient teachers to explain this refutation. The non-revealing form is directly born from the great elements, just as shadows and light directly depend on trees and treasures. It can be called 'form' from the name of the great elements. Because the great elements act as the five causes such as arising for the forms that are created, therefore they are direct. When the five consciousnesses such as the eye consciousness depend on the five sense organs such as the eye organ, it is not like this. They can only act as a helping condition for arising. Because the consciousness is distant from the organ, it is not called 'form'.

'此影依樹至未為釋難者 (ci ying yi shu zhi wei wei shi nan zhe)' [This, the shadow depends on the tree, until it has not yet explained the difficulty]. This shows the fault. The Sarvāstivāda school (說一切有宗, Shuo Yi Qie You Zong) believes that the ultimate particles (極微, ji wei) of created form each rely on their own four great elements. And to say that shadows and light depend on trees and treasures to arise does not conform to the meaning of the Vibhasa (毗婆沙論, Pi Po Sha Lun). That school believes that shadows and light each rely on the four great elements. Trees and treasures are still helping conditions for arising, and the meaning will be similar to the eye organ, and the meaning should be similar.

'設許以下 (she xu yi xia)' [Suppose you allow the following] even refuting. Suppose you allow that shadows and light depend on trees and treasures, but the non-revealing form is different from shadows and light depending on trees and treasures. That school allows that although the great elements that are relied upon perish, the non-revealing form constantly continues to arise and does not perish accordingly. Therefore, this teacher

未為釋難　正理救云。此言意顯影等大種。樹等大種為所依故。所以者何。影等大種。生．住．變時皆隨彼故。此影．光言。意表總聚。非唯顯色。如樹寶言。是故影等顯色極微。依止影等大種而轉。影等大種復依樹等大種而生。故於此中無不順過。

正理救縱破云。此難不關毗婆沙義。能依所依許俱滅故。無表所依大種若滅。能依無表未嘗不滅　初念無表。可與所依大種俱滅。第二念等無表。云何　第二念等。大種若無。其無表色豈得現有　雖此位中非無大種。而彼大種非此所依。非生因故。

奇哉如是。善解對法。豈不非唯生因大種。望所造色。能為所依。然更有餘四因大種。望所造色許為依故　俱舍師破云。汝言影等大種。樹等大種為所依者。何異影等依于樹等。樹等望彼皆是疏依。並非親生。等非能造。汝說影等大種。依樹等大種。還是違宗。故救非理　又破救縱云。汝意云初念生因大種。望第二念等無表。能為所依。第二念等四因大種。望第二念等同時無表。亦為所依。故說能依．所依俱滅。同樹等滅。影等隨即滅。言初念大種為生因。第二念大種為依等四因者　豈有別世兩具四大共為五因。生一所造。諸論皆說。一切四大。望所造色皆具五因。故婆沙一百三十二云。過去大種。與未來所造色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：未為釋難，正理以救云：『此言意在闡明影等大種（構成影子的基本元素）。樹等大種（構成樹木的基本元素）是影等大種所依賴的基礎。』為什麼這麼說呢？因為影等大種的生起、存在和變化都跟隨樹等大種。這裡說的『影』和『光』，指的是總體的聚集，不僅僅是顯色。就像說『樹寶』一樣。因此，影等顯色的極微（最小單位）依賴於影等大種而運轉，而影等大種又依賴於樹等大種而生起。所以，這裡面沒有任何不合理的地方。

正理救縱破云：『這個詰難與毗婆沙（佛教論書）的義理無關，因為能依（依賴者）和所依（被依賴者）都被允許同時滅亡。如果無表色（不可見的色法）所依賴的大種滅亡，那麼能依的無表色沒有不滅亡的。』初念（第一念）的無表色，可以和所依的大種一同滅亡。但是第二念等的無表色，又該如何解釋呢？如果第二念等的大種不存在，那麼它的無表色怎麼可能存在呢？雖然在這個階段並非沒有大種，但是那些大種並非這個無表色所依賴的，因為它們不是生因（產生的原因）。

奇哉，竟然如此善於理解對法（佛教術語，指對法的教義）！難道不是隻有生因的大種，對於所造色（被創造的色法）來說，才能作為所依嗎？然而，還有其餘的四因大種，也被允許作為所造色的所依。』俱舍師（《俱舍論》的學者）反駁說：『你說影等大種，以樹等大種為所依，這和說影子等依賴於樹等有什麼區別？樹等對於影等來說，都是疏遠的所依，並非直接產生的原因，也不是能造者。你說影等大種依賴於樹等大種，這還是違背了你的宗義。所以你的辯護是不合理的。』又反駁救縱說：『你的意思是，初唸的生因大種，對於第二念等的無表色來說，可以作為所依；第二念等的四因大種，對於第二念等同時的無表色來說，也可以作為所依。所以說能依和所依一同滅亡，就像樹等滅亡，影等隨即滅亡一樣。』說初唸的大種是生因，第二唸的大種是依等四因——難道有在不同的世界裡，兩組四大（地、水、火、風）共同作為五因，產生一個所造色的嗎？各種論典都說，一切四大，對於所造色都具備五因。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷說，過去的大種，與未來的所造色……

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not having refuted the difficulty, the Correct Reasoning rescues, saying: 『This statement clearly indicates that the shadow-like great elements (the basic elements constituting shadows). The tree-like great elements (the basic elements constituting trees) are what the shadow-like great elements rely on.』 Why is this so? Because the arising, abiding, and changing of the shadow-like great elements all follow those of the tree-like great elements. The words 『shadow』 and 『light』 here represent the total aggregation, not just visible color. It's like saying 『tree-treasure.』 Therefore, the extremely subtle particles of visible color, such as shadows, operate relying on the shadow-like great elements, and the shadow-like great elements in turn arise relying on the tree-like great elements. Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable here.'

The Correct Reasoning, having rescued, then refutes, saying: 『This difficulty is not relevant to the meaning of the Vibhasha (Buddhist treatise), because both the dependent (that which relies) and the depended-upon (that which is relied upon) are allowed to perish simultaneously. If the great elements upon which the unmanifested form (invisible form) relies perish, then the dependent unmanifested form never fails to perish.』 The unmanifested form of the first moment can perish together with the great elements upon which it relies. But how about the unmanifested form of the second moment, and so on? If the great elements of the second moment, and so on, do not exist, how can its unmanifested form possibly exist? Although there are great elements in this state, those great elements are not what this unmanifested form relies on, because they are not the cause of its arising.

How strange, to be so skilled in understanding the Abhidharma (Buddhist term, referring to Abhidharma teachings)! Isn't it the case that only the great elements that are the cause of arising can serve as the depended-upon for the created form (the form that is created)? However, there are also the remaining four causal great elements that are allowed to serve as the depended-upon for the created form.』 The Kosa master (scholar of the Abhidharmakosa) refutes, saying: 『You say that the shadow-like great elements rely on the tree-like great elements. What is the difference between saying that shadows, etc., rely on trees, etc.? Trees, etc., are distant depended-upons for shadows, etc., not the direct cause of arising, nor the creators. Your saying that the shadow-like great elements rely on the tree-like great elements still contradicts your own doctrine. Therefore, your defense is unreasonable.』 He further refutes the rescue, saying: 『Your meaning is that the great elements that are the cause of arising in the first moment can serve as the depended-upon for the unmanifested form of the second moment, and so on; the four causal great elements of the second moment, and so on, can also serve as the depended-upon for the simultaneous unmanifested form of the second moment, and so on. Therefore, you say that the dependent and the depended-upon perish together, just as when trees, etc., perish, shadows, etc., immediately perish.』 Saying that the great elements of the first moment are the cause of arising, and the great elements of the second moment are the four causes of dependence, etc.—could there be two sets of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) in different worlds that jointly serve as the five causes to produce one created form? Various treatises all say that all four great elements possess the five causes for the created form. Therefore, the 132nd fascicle of the Vibhasha says that the past great elements, together with the future created form…

。為幾緣　答因．增上。因者五因謂生等五。增上者如前說　又云。過去大種。與現在所造色為幾緣。答因．增上。因者五因謂生等五。增上者如前說　又云。現在大種。與未來所造色為幾緣。答因．增上。因者五因謂生等五。增上者如前說　準彼論文。初念大種。望第二念所造色具五因。云何乃言但作生因　若轉救言初念大種為生因者。即五因皆名生因。以親能生造色故。第二念四因大種。名依等四因　雖初念大種得具五因。第二念大種即闕生因。還有別世兩具四大共造色過。若轉救言第二四念因大種者。非是依等四因。即四大種各為一因名為四因。總是依因。故諸論說初念大種。能為生因。現身大種能為依因　若作此救。雖無闕因之過。既言第二念大種為所依為別起大種。為即造身根等大種。為是親所依。為是疏依。若言即是身根等大種。望無表色但為疏依者。我亦許此同時疏依。非親所依。無表不由同時依力而得色名。但由初念所依力故。而得色名。由此理故。初念大種為親所依。可得同彼影．光二種。親依樹．寶故。我約此說所依滅無表不滅。不可說彼疏依。為所依。但應言依。彼說所依言中有過　若言無表。亦望同時疏依得名色者。眼等五根。望眼等識亦是疏依。應眼識等亦名為色。又由彼力得名色者。應

是能造。若是能造。還應具有生等五因。故為非理。

復有別釋至理得成就者。論主第二釋通外難　五識二依。或有變礙。或無變礙。以不定故不名色。無表一依。唯有變礙。以決定故說名為色。前難不齊。變礙名色得理成就。

頌曰至身界觸界者。此下大文第二立處界　言此中。是簡持義。或起論端義。此前所說十一種色蘊中。毗婆沙師許即根．境為十處界。然經部師處假．界實。不可即以處為界體。于彼有違。故言許即表非共信。

已說色蘊至三蘊處界者。此下大文第二明三蘊。結前問起。

頌曰至名法處法界者。就明三蘊中。前三句正明三蘊。后三句立處界。

論曰至所生受者。此別釋受。謂能領納隨順觸境。是受自性　問諸心心所同緣一境皆能執受。與受何別。解云。諸心．心所雖復同緣俱名執受。受領納強名自性受。猶如十人同處坐。一人是賊。傍匆有人叫喚呼賊。雖復十人同聞賊聲。實是賊者領即偏強。不同餘九。受領境強。想等領境弱。應知亦爾　又解。諸心心所雖復同緣皆執受境。想等諸法從別立名。受無別名。雖標總稱即受別名。如色處等雖有兩解前解為勝　總說有三。謂樂受等。約依因異別說成六。言受身者。身是體義。故對法論云。身義體義無差別也　若依顯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是能造（能夠創造）。如果說是能夠創造，還應該具有生等五因（五種原因，即生、老、病、死、滅），所以是不合理的。

又有另一種解釋，認為這樣才能成就至理。論主第二種解釋是爲了消除外道的詰難：五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的兩個所依（根和境），或者有變礙（會變化和阻礙），或者沒有變礙，因為不確定，所以不稱為色（物質）。無表色（無法表示的色法）只有一個所依（根），只有變礙，因為是確定的，所以說名為色。之前的詰難並不一致，變礙名為色是合理的。

頌曰至身界觸界者。這以下是第二大段，建立處界（十二處和十八界）。言『此中』，是簡擇持取的意思，或者發起論端的意思。此前所說的十一種色蘊（色法的集合）中，毗婆沙師（佛教論師）認為根（感覺器官）和境（感覺對像）就是十處界。然而經部師（佛教論師）認為處是假名，界是實法，不可以立即以處為界的本體，與他們的觀點相違背。所以說『許即』，表示並非共同認可的。

已說色蘊至三蘊處界者。這以下是第二大段，闡明三蘊（受蘊、想蘊、行蘊）。總結前文，發起疑問。

頌曰至名法處法界者。在闡明三蘊中，前三句正面闡明三蘊，后三句建立處界。

論曰至所生受者。這是分別解釋受（感受）。所謂能夠領納隨順觸境（接觸的境界），是受的自性。問：諸心（各種心識）和心所（心理活動）都緣于同一個境界，都能執受（執取），與受有什麼區別？解答說：諸心和心所雖然一同緣于境界，都名為執受，但受的領納作用更強，是受的自性。猶如十個人同處一室，其中一人是賊。旁邊有人叫喊『抓賊』，雖然十個人都聽到了賊的聲音，但真正是賊的人領受得就特別強烈，不同於其餘九人。受領納境界的作用強，想等領納境界的作用弱，應該知道也是這樣。又解釋說：諸心和心所雖然一同緣于境界，都執受境界，但想等諸法是從別的方面立名，受沒有別的名稱，雖然標明總的名稱，也就是受的別名。如色處等。雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更好。總的說有三種，即樂受等。根據所依的因不同，分別說就成了六種。說『受身』，身是體的意思。所以對法論（佛教論典）說，身義和體義沒有差別。如果依據顯

【English Translation】 English version: 'Is able to create.' If it is said to be able to create, it should also possess the five causes of arising, etc. (the five causes, namely birth, old age, sickness, death, and extinction), therefore it is unreasonable.

There is another explanation that only in this way can the ultimate truth be achieved. The second explanation by the author of the treatise is to dispel the difficulties of externalists: The two supports of the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) (sense organs and sense objects), either have obstruction and change, or do not have obstruction and change, because they are uncertain, therefore they are not called 'rupa' (matter). Non-revealing rupa (unmanifested matter) has only one support (sense organ), only has obstruction and change, because it is certain, therefore it is said to be called 'rupa'. The previous difficulty is not consistent, the name 'rupa' for obstruction and change is reasonably achieved.

The verse says 'to the body realm and touch realm'. Below this is the second major section, establishing the 'ayatana' (twelve sense bases) and 'dhatu' (eighteen elements). The words 'in this' have the meaning of selective holding, or the meaning of initiating a debate. Among the eleven types of 'rupa skandha' (aggregates of form) mentioned earlier, the Vaibhashika masters (Buddhist scholars) consider the 'indriya' (sense organs) and 'vishaya' (sense objects) to be the ten 'ayatana' and 'dhatu'. However, the Sautrantika masters (Buddhist scholars) consider the 'ayatana' to be nominal and the 'dhatu' to be real, so it is not possible to immediately take the 'ayatana' as the substance of the 'dhatu', which contradicts their views. Therefore, saying 'consider to be' indicates that it is not a commonly accepted belief.

Having spoken of the 'rupa skandha' to the three 'skandha', 'ayatana', and 'dhatu'. Below this is the second major section, clarifying the three 'skandha' (vedana skandha, samjna skandha, samskara skandha). Summarizing the previous text, raising questions.

The verse says 'to the name, dharma ayatana, and dharma dhatu'. In clarifying the three 'skandha', the first three lines directly clarify the three 'skandha', and the last three lines establish the 'ayatana' and 'dhatu'.

The treatise says 'to the feeling that arises'. This is a separate explanation of 'vedana' (feeling). What is called the ability to receive and follow the touching of objects is the nature of 'vedana'. Question: All 'citta' (various states of consciousness) and 'caitasika' (mental activities) are related to the same object and are able to grasp it, what is the difference between them and 'vedana'? The answer is: Although all 'citta' and 'caitasika' are related to the same object and are called grasping, 'vedana' has a stronger receiving function, which is the nature of 'vedana'. It is like ten people sitting in the same room, one of whom is a thief. Someone next to them shouts 'catch the thief', although all ten people hear the sound of the thief, the one who is truly the thief receives it particularly strongly, unlike the other nine. 'Vedana' has a strong function of receiving objects, while 'samjna' (perception) etc. have a weak function of receiving objects, it should be known that it is also like this. Another explanation is: Although all 'citta' and 'caitasika' are related to the same object and grasp the object, 'samjna' etc. are named from other aspects, 'vedana' has no other name, although the general name is marked, it is also the specific name of 'vedana'. Such as 'rupa ayatana' etc. Although there are two explanations, the former explanation is better. Generally speaking, there are three types, namely pleasant feeling etc. According to the different causes on which they depend, they become six types when explained separately. Saying 'vedana kaya', 'kaya' means body. Therefore, the Abhidharma treatise (Buddhist scripture) says that there is no difference between the meaning of 'kaya' and the meaning of body. If based on the manifestation

宗第二領納隨觸名自性受。故彼論云。云何此受。領納隨觸。謂受是觸鄰近果故。此隨觸聲為顯因義。能順受故。受能領納。能順觸．因。是故說受領納隨觸。領納隨觸名自性受。領納所緣亦是受相。與一境法別相難知。一切皆同領納境故。以心心所執受境時。一切皆各領納自境是故唯說領納隨觸。名自性受。別相定故。領納所緣名執取受。非此所辨相不定故。廣辯二受。如順正理及五事論　解云。彼論意說。受有二種。一執取受。謂一切心．心所法執取前境。皆名執取受。二自性受謂受能領納自所隨觸。取觸勢分名領納觸。執取難分不約彼說。自性易顯故約此明受。

言領納觸名自性受者。謂即此受領納自體。言領觸者。觸是其因。受是其果。受能領納觸順．違．俱相。領納觸果。果即是受。還領自體以領觸相故　故正理論釋果云。如言王食國土。非食地土飲食地中所出。言食國土。舉因顯果。領觸亦然。又如父生子。子之媚好皆似於父。亦如果從種生。果似於因。受從觸生應知亦然　若作俱舍師破云。諸心心所同一剎那俱緣前境。如何可言領相應觸。若從他生及相似者。即名為受。子從父生。果從因生。皆應名受　又解。釋此論文。同顯宗等義亦無違。言領觸者。謂領觸因。

想蘊謂能至應如受說者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第二，領納隨觸名為自性受。因此，《彼論》中說：『什麼是受？領納隨觸。』意思是說，受是觸的鄰近結果。這裡的『隨觸』是爲了顯示原因的意義，因為它能順應受。受能領納，能順應觸，是觸的原因。所以說受領納隨觸。領納隨觸名為自性受。領納所緣也是受的相狀，但與同一境界的法難以區分，因為一切都同樣領納境界。因為心和心所執取境界時，一切都各自領納自己的境界，所以只說領納隨觸，名為自性受，因為它的別相是確定的。領納所緣名為執取受，這不是這裡要辨析的，因為它的相狀是不確定的。關於這兩種受的詳細辨析，可以參考《順正理論》和《五事論》。解釋說，《彼論》的意思是說，受有兩種：一是執取受，指一切心和心所法執取前面的境界，都叫做執取受；二是自性受，指受能領納自己所隨順的觸，取觸的勢分，名為領納觸。執取受難以區分，所以不就它來說明；自性受容易顯現，所以就此來說明受。

說『領納觸名為自性受』，意思是說，就是這個受領納它自身。說『領觸』，觸是它的原因，受是它的結果。受能領納觸的順、違、俱相，領納觸的結果，結果就是受，反過來領納自身，因為領納觸的相狀。所以《正理論》解釋結果說：『比如，說國王食用國土，不是食用地土，而是食用土地中所出產的。說食用國土，是用原因來顯示結果。領觸也是這樣。』又比如父親生兒子，兒子的美好都像父親，也如果實從種子生出，果實像它的原因。受從觸生，應該知道也是這樣。

如果俱舍師反駁說：『諸心心所同一剎那同時緣取前境，怎麼能說領相應觸？如果從他生以及相似者，就名為受，那麼兒子從父親生，果實從原因生，都應該名為受。』又解釋說，解釋這篇論文，與顯宗等的意義也沒有違背。說『領觸』，是說領觸的原因。

想蘊，謂能至，應該像受一樣說。

【English Translation】 English version: Secondly, the reception that accompanies contact is called 'self-nature feeling' (自性受). Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: 'What is feeling? It is the reception that accompanies contact.' This means that feeling is the immediate result of contact. The term 'accompanies contact' (隨觸) is used to indicate the meaning of cause, because it can accord with feeling. Feeling can receive and accord with contact, which is its cause. Therefore, it is said that feeling receives what accompanies contact. The reception that accompanies contact is called 'self-nature feeling'. Receiving the object (所緣) is also a characteristic of feeling, but it is difficult to distinguish from other mental factors (法) that share the same object, because everything receives the object in the same way. Because when the mind and mental factors grasp an object, everything receives its own object, therefore it is only said that receiving what accompanies contact is called 'self-nature feeling', because its distinct characteristic is definite. Receiving the object is called 'grasping feeling' (執取受), but this is not what is being discussed here, because its characteristic is indefinite. A detailed discussion of these two types of feeling can be found in the Nyāyānusāra and the Pañcavastuka. The explanation says that the meaning of Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is that there are two types of feeling: one is 'grasping feeling', which refers to all minds and mental factors grasping the preceding object, which are all called 'grasping feeling'; the other is 'self-nature feeling', which refers to feeling being able to receive the contact that it accompanies, taking the force of contact, which is called 'receiving contact'. Grasping feeling is difficult to distinguish, so it is not discussed in terms of that; self-nature feeling is easy to manifest, so feeling is explained in terms of this.

Saying 'receiving contact is called self-nature feeling' means that this feeling receives itself. Saying 'receiving contact' means that contact is its cause and feeling is its result. Feeling can receive the agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral aspects of contact, receiving the result of contact, which is the feeling itself, and in turn receiving itself, because it receives the characteristics of contact. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra explains the result by saying: 'For example, saying that a king eats the country does not mean eating the land, but eating what is produced from the land. Saying eating the country is using the cause to show the result. Receiving contact is also like this.' Also, like a father begetting a son, the son's beauty is all similar to the father, and like a fruit growing from a seed, the fruit is similar to its cause. Feeling arising from contact should be understood to be like this.

If a Kośa master refutes by saying: 'All minds and mental factors simultaneously cognize the preceding object in the same moment, how can it be said that feeling receives the corresponding contact? If what arises from another and is similar is called feeling, then the son arising from the father and the fruit arising from the cause should all be called feeling.' Another explanation says that explaining this passage is not contradictory to the meaning of the Vijñānavāda school. Saying 'receiving contact' means receiving the cause of contact.

The aggregate of perception (想蘊), which is the ability to reach, should be explained like feeling.

。別釋想蘊。像。謂諸法自相共相。此想能取。故名取像。如緣青時。想能封疆盡界非非青故名之為青。黃等亦爾。此所取像。余心所等不能取故。余心所等雖緣一境。各別起用行解不同。約依不同別說成六。應如受說。

除前及后至名為行蘊者。此下別釋行蘊。謂五蘊中除前色受想三。及除后識。餘一切有為行法。名為行蘊。

然薄伽梵至由最勝故者。經部。以佛經中唯說六思身名為行蘊。不說余法。故知。但以思為行蘊故引釋言。由思最勝故但說思。理實。余法亦行蘊攝。

所以者何者。問。

行名造作至皆行蘊攝者。答　行名造作。思是業性。體是造作。與行相似。造作義強故為最勝。是故佛說。若能造作未來有漏有為果法。名行取蘊。故知。造作是行　或證造作義強。如我所說。除四蘊外余有為法。皆行蘊攝。若不爾者。余心所法．及不相應。既非行蘊。復非色等應非蘊攝。若非蘊攝應非苦．集。若非苦．集則不可說為苦應知．集應斷。然蘊諦攝　恐彼答言非攝何失。有違聖教。如世尊說。若於一苦諦法。未為無間道達未為解脫道證知。我說不能作苦邊際得無學果未斷未滅。此據集諦說亦如是。例同苦諦。應言若於一集諦法。未為無間道斷。未為解脫道證滅。我說。不能作集邊際得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：別釋想蘊（Saṃjñāskandha）。像。謂諸法自相共相。此想能取。故名取像。如緣青時。想能封疆盡界非非青故名之為青。黃等亦爾。此所取像。余心所等不能取故。余心所等雖緣一境。各別起用行解不同。約依不同別說成六。應如受說。

除前及后至名為行蘊（Saṃskāraskandha）者。此下別釋行蘊。謂五蘊中除前色（Rūpa）受（Vedanā）想（Saṃjñā）三。及除后識（Vijñāna）。餘一切有為行法。名為行蘊。

然薄伽梵（Bhagavān）至由最勝故者。經部。以佛經中唯說六思身名為行蘊。不說余法。故知。但以思為行蘊故引釋言。由思最勝故但說思。理實。余法亦行蘊攝。

所以者何者。問。

行名造作至皆行蘊攝者。答：行名造作。思是業性。體是造作。與行相似。造作義強故為最勝。是故佛說。若能造作未來有漏有為果法。名行取蘊。故知。造作是行。或證造作義強。如我所說。除四蘊外余有為法。皆行蘊攝。若不爾者。余心所法．及不相應。既非行蘊。復非色等應非蘊攝。若非蘊攝應非苦．集。若非苦．集則不可說為苦應知．集應斷。然蘊諦攝。恐彼答言非攝何失。有違聖教。如世尊說。若於一苦諦法。未為無間道達未為解脫道證知。我說不能作苦邊際得無學果未斷未滅。此據集諦說亦如是。例同苦諦。應言若於一集諦法。未為無間道斷。未為解脫道證滅。我說。不能作集邊際得

【English Translation】 English version: Explanation of the Saṃjñāskandha (aggregate of perception). 'Image' refers to the self-characteristics and common characteristics of all dharmas (phenomena). This perception is capable of grasping, hence it is called 'grasping image'. For example, when perceiving blue, perception can delineate and define, distinguishing what is not blue and thus identifying it as blue. The same applies to yellow and other colors. This grasped image cannot be grasped by other mental factors. Although other mental factors perceive the same object, their functions and understandings differ. Based on the differences in their foundations, they are separately explained as six. This should be explained similarly to Vedanā (aggregate of feeling).

Regarding 'excluding the former and the latter, it is called Saṃskāraskandha (aggregate of mental formations)': This section separately explains the Saṃskāraskandha. It refers to all conditioned dharmas (phenomena) within the five aggregates, excluding the first three—Rūpa (form), Vedanā (feeling), and Saṃjñā (perception)—and excluding the last, Vijñāna (consciousness). These remaining conditioned dharmas are called Saṃskāraskandha.

However, regarding 'Bhagavān (the Blessed One) said it is due to the most excellent': The Sautrāntika school holds that only the six bodies of thought (思身) are mentioned as Saṃskāraskandha in the Buddhist scriptures, and no other dharmas are mentioned. Therefore, it is understood that only thought is considered Saṃskāraskandha, hence the explanation is cited: 'Because thought is the most excellent, only thought is mentioned.' In reality, other dharmas are also included in the Saṃskāraskandha.

'What is the reason for this?' (Question)

Regarding 'the name 'action' means creation, all are included in the Saṃskāraskandha': (Answer) 'Action' means creation. Thought is the nature of karma (業). Its essence is creation, similar to action. The meaning of creation is strong, hence it is the most excellent. Therefore, the Buddha said, 'If one can create future contaminated and conditioned results, it is called the Saṃskāraskandha.' Thus, it is known that creation is action. Or, it proves that the meaning of creation is strong. As I said, all conditioned dharmas other than the four aggregates are included in the Saṃskāraskandha. If not, other mental factors and non-associated formations, since they are not Saṃskāraskandha and are not Rūpa (form) etc., should not be included in the aggregates. If they are not included in the aggregates, they should not be suffering or accumulation. If they are not suffering or accumulation, then it cannot be said that suffering should be known and accumulation should be abandoned. However, they are included in the truths of the aggregates. Fearing that they might answer, 'What is the loss if they are not included?', it contradicts the holy teachings. As the World Honored One said, 'If one dharma of the truth of suffering has not been penetrated by the path of immediate insight and has not been realized by the path of liberation, I say that one cannot make an end to suffering, attain the fruit of non-learning, and has not been cut off and extinguished.' This also applies to the truth of accumulation. It is the same as the truth of suffering. It should be said, 'If one dharma of the truth of accumulation has not been cut off by the path of immediate insight and has not been extinguished by the path of liberation, I say that one cannot make an end to accumulation and attain'

無學果　苦邊際者。所謂涅槃。涅槃出苦名苦邊際　或苦盡處名苦邊際　說集邊際準苦應知。由如是理。是故定應許除色．受．想．識四餘有為行皆行蘊攝問若據造作。或約遷流。余之四蘊亦名為行。何故行蘊獨得行名。解云。其餘四蘊雖亦名行。攝行少故。各受別名。行蘊攝行多故。故得行名。雖標總稱即受別名。故雜心云。五陰雖是行。而一受行名。

即此所說至立為法界者。別立處．界。

已說受等至並立處界者。此下第三明識蘊體。就中。一明識蘊。二釋妨難。此即明識蘊　結前問起。

頌曰至六識轉為意者。上一句正明識蘊。下三句立處界。

論曰至至意識身者。識非一故名各各了別。境非一故名彼彼境界　問五識。對五境可名為各。意識。遍緣。云何名各。解云。且據法界名之為各　又解。緣十三界名各。若五識據非緣他境名各。非不被他緣自境。意識能緣十三界名各。非不能緣他境　又解。意識隨緣何法即名。為各。總取境相者。謂彼六識。各于彼彼境不取別相。取境總相。故名識蘊　問心與心所各有行解。取諸境相差別云何。解云。就行解中。一敘異解。二問答分別　一敘異解者。心對心所行解不同。略為四解　第一解云。夫于境中有二種相。一者總相。謂色．聲等。二者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『無學果』（Arhatship）的『苦邊際』（dukkha-anta）是指『涅槃』（Nirvana）。『涅槃』超出痛苦，因此被稱為『苦邊際』；或者說，痛苦止息之處被稱為『苦邊際』。關於『集邊際』（samudaya-anta）的解釋，應參照對『苦』（dukkha）的理解。基於這樣的道理，因此必須承認，除了色（rupa）、受（vedana）、想（samjna）、識（vijnana）這四蘊之外，其餘的有為行（samskrta dharma）都屬於『行蘊』（samskara-skandha）所攝。問：如果從造作或遷流的角度來看，其餘的四蘊也可以被稱為『行』，為什麼『行蘊』獨獨獲得了『行』這個名稱？答：其餘的四蘊雖然也可以被稱為『行』，但它們所包含的『行』的成分較少，因此各自獲得了不同的名稱。而『行蘊』所包含的『行』的成分較多，所以獲得了『行』這個名稱。雖然它被賦予了總稱，但也接受了不同的名稱。因此，《雜心論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）中說：『五陰』（panca-skandha）雖然都是『行』，但其中之一被稱為『行蘊』。

從以上所說的內容到建立為『法界』（dharma-dhatu），是分別建立『處』（ayatana）和『界』（dhatu）。

已經說了『受』（vedana）等，直到並立『處』（ayatana）和『界』（dhatu），以下第三部分闡明『識蘊』（vijnana-skandha）的體性。其中，一是闡明『識蘊』，二是解釋疑問。這裡是闡明『識蘊』，總結前文並提出問題。

頌曰：『六識轉為意』，上一句明確闡明了『識蘊』，下面三句確立了『處』和『界』。

論曰：直到『意識身』（mano-vijnana-kaya），『識』不是單一的，因此被稱為『各各了別』（prati-vijnapti）。所緣的『境』（visaya）不是單一的，因此被稱為『彼彼境界』（tatra tatra gocara）。問：五識（panca-vijnana）對應五境（panca-visaya），可以被稱為『各』。但意識（mano-vijnana）普遍緣取，如何被稱為『各』？答：可以這樣解釋，暫且根據『法界』（dharma-dhatu）的範圍，稱其為『各』。另一種解釋是，緣取十三界（trayodasa-dhatu）時稱為『各』。如果說五識不緣取其他境界，所以稱為『各』，但並非不被其他境界所緣。意識能夠緣取十三界，所以稱為『各』，但並非不能緣取其他境界。另一種解釋是，意識隨緣何法，即以該法命名，所以稱為『各』。總取境相（samanya-laksana）是指，這六識（sad-vijnana）各自在不同的境界中不取個別相（visesa-laksana），而是取境界的總相（samanya-laksana），因此被稱為『識蘊』。問：心（citta）和心所（caitasika）各自具有行解（pravrtti），它們在取諸境相（visaya-laksana）上的差別是什麼？答：關於行解，一是敘述不同的解釋，二是問答分別。一是敘述不同的解釋，心（citta）和心所（caitasika）的行解不同，大致有四種解釋。第一種解釋是，在境界中有兩種相，一是總相（samanya-laksana），如色（rupa）、聲（sabda）等；二是

【English Translation】 English version: 『Fruition of No-More-Learning』 (Arhatship), the 『end of suffering』 (dukkha-anta), refers to 『Nirvana』 (Nirvana). 『Nirvana』 transcends suffering, hence it is called 『the end of suffering』; or, the place where suffering ceases is called 『the end of suffering』. The explanation of 『the end of arising』 (samudaya-anta) should be understood in accordance with the understanding of 『suffering』 (dukkha). Based on such reasoning, it must be admitted that, apart from the four skandhas (aggregates) of rupa (form), vedana (feeling), samjna (perception), and vijnana (consciousness), all other conditioned dharmas (samskrta dharma) are included within the 『skandha of formations』 (samskara-skandha). Question: If, from the perspective of fabrication or flux, the remaining four skandhas can also be called 『formations』 (samskara), why does the 『skandha of formations』 alone obtain the name 『formations』? Answer: Although the remaining four skandhas can also be called 『formations』, they contain fewer elements of 『formations』, and therefore each obtains a different name. The 『skandha of formations』, however, contains more elements of 『formations』, and therefore obtains the name 『formations』. Although it is given a general name, it also receives different names. Therefore, the Abhidharma-samuccaya says: 『Although the five skandhas (panca-skandha) are all 『formations』, one of them is called the 『skandha of formations』.

From what has been said above to the establishment as the 『dharma-dhatu』 (dharma-dhatu), is the separate establishment of 『ayatanas』 (sense-fields) and 『dhatus』 (elements).

Having spoken of 『vedana』 (feeling) etc., up to the co-establishment of 『ayatanas』 (sense-fields) and 『dhatus』 (elements), the third part below elucidates the nature of the 『vijnana-skandha』 (skandha of consciousness). Among these, first is the elucidation of the 『vijnana-skandha』, and second is the explanation of difficulties. Here is the elucidation of the 『vijnana-skandha』, summarizing the previous text and raising questions.

The verse says: 『The six consciousnesses transform into mind』 (mano), the first line clearly elucidates the 『vijnana-skandha』, and the following three lines establish the 『ayatanas』 and 『dhatus』.

The treatise says: Up to the 『body of mind-consciousness』 (mano-vijnana-kaya), 『consciousness』 is not singular, therefore it is called 『distinctly discriminating』 (prati-vijnapti). The 『objects』 (visaya) of cognition are not singular, therefore they are called 『those various realms』 (tatra tatra gocara). Question: The five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana) correspond to the five objects (panca-visaya), and can be called 『distinct』. But mind-consciousness (mano-vijnana) universally cognizes, how can it be called 『distinct』? Answer: It can be explained that, provisionally according to the scope of the 『dharma-dhatu』 (dharma-dhatu), it is called 『distinct』. Another explanation is that, when cognizing the thirteen dhatus (trayodasa-dhatu), it is called 『distinct』. If it is said that the five consciousnesses do not cognize other realms, therefore they are called 『distinct』, but it is not that they are not cognized by other realms. Mind-consciousness is able to cognize the thirteen dhatus, therefore it is called 『distinct』, but it is not that it cannot cognize other realms. Another explanation is that, mind-consciousness is named according to whatever dharma it cognizes, therefore it is called 『distinct』. Cognizing the general characteristics (samanya-laksana) refers to the fact that these six consciousnesses (sad-vijnana), each in their different realms, do not cognize individual characteristics (visesa-laksana), but rather cognize the general characteristics (samanya-laksana) of the realm, therefore it is called the 『vijnana-skandha』. Question: The mind (citta) and mental factors (caitasika) each have activity (pravrtti), what is the difference in their cognition of objects (visaya-laksana)? Answer: Regarding activity, first is the narration of different explanations, and second is the question and answer analysis. First is the narration of different explanations, the activity of the mind (citta) and mental factors (caitasika) is different, and there are roughly four explanations. The first explanation is that, in a realm there are two kinds of characteristics, one is the general characteristic (samanya-laksana), such as rupa (form), sabda (sound), etc.; and the other is

別相。謂違．順等。心．心所法對所緣境。心取總相不能取別。心所各自取境別相。不能取總。以於一體無多解故故入阿毗達磨論第二云。唯總分別色等境事說名為識。若能分別差別相者。即名受等諸心所法。識無彼用但作所依　第二解云。心王正取總相兼取別相。諸心所法各自取別相。非能取總相。此家意說。心王力強能取總．別。心所力劣取別非總　第三解云。諸心所法。各各正能取自別相。兼取總相。心王但取總相非別。此家意說王所作處。心所必隨。故心所法兼能取總。王非隨所故非取別　第四解云。心．心所法。一一皆能取總別相。然彼心王。正取總相。兼取別相。諸心所法。各各正能取自別相。兼能取他別相．及與總相。所以得知諸心．心所。皆能取境總。別相者。如婆沙第三十四無慚納息中。解無慚行相云。有餘師說。此顯無慚行相。此行相對余應作四句。有無慚非無慚行相轉。謂無慚作余行相轉　有無慚行相轉．非無慚。謂無慚相應法作無慚行相轉　有無慚亦無慚行相轉。謂無慚作無慚行相轉　有非無慚亦非無慚行相轉。謂若取此種類。應說無慚相應法作余行相轉。若不爾者。應說除前相　解無愧等中亦有四句。不能具引　以此準知皆取總．別　二問答分別者。就中。一會釋論文。二對行相明差別。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『別相』（Visesa-laksana）：指違背、順應等等。心（Citta）、心所法（Caitasika）相對於所緣境（Alambana）。心取總相（Samanya-laksana），不能取別相。心所各自取境的別相，不能取總相。因為對於一體沒有多種理解的緣故。所以入《阿毗達磨論》（Abhidharma）第二卷說：『唯有總的分別色等境事，才被稱作識（Vijnana）。如果能夠分別差別相的，就叫做受（Vedana）等諸心所法。識沒有那樣的作用，只是作為所依。』第二種解釋說，心王（Citta-raja，即主要的心）正確地取總相，兼取別相。諸心所法各自取別相，不能取總相。這家認為，心王力量強大，能取總相和別相。心所力量弱小，取別相而非總相。第三種解釋說，諸心所法各自正確地能取自己的別相，兼取總相。心王只取總相，不取別相。這家認為，心王所作之處，心所必定跟隨。所以心所法兼能取總相。心王並非跟隨心所，所以不取別相。第四種解釋說，心、心所法，一一都能取總相和別相。然而心王，正確地取總相，兼取別相。諸心所法，各自正確地能取自己的別相，兼能取其他的別相以及總相。所以得知諸心、心所，都能取境的總相和別相。例如《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第三十四卷『無慚納息』中，解釋無慚（Ahrikya）的行相（Akara）說：『有其他老師說，這顯示了無慚的行相。此行相對應于其他，應該作四句：有無慚，不是無慚的行相轉變，是指無慚作其他的行相轉變。有無慚的行相轉變，不是無慚，是指與無慚相應的法作無慚的行相轉變。有無慚也是無慚的行相轉變，是指無慚作無慚的行相轉變。有不是無慚，也不是無慚的行相轉變，是指如果取此種類，應該說與無慚相應的法作其他的行相轉變。如果不這樣，應該說除去前面的相。』解釋無愧（Anapatrapya）等中也有四句，不能全部引用。以此推知都能取總相和別相。二、問答分別：其中，一、會釋論文。二、對照行相，說明差別。

【English Translation】 English version 'Visesa-laksana' (Distinctive characteristic): Refers to opposition, compliance, etc. Citta (mind) and Caitasika (mental factors) are in relation to Alambana (object of cognition). Citta grasps Samanya-laksana (general characteristic) and cannot grasp Visesa-laksana (distinctive characteristic). Each Caitasika grasps the distinctive characteristic of the object and cannot grasp the general characteristic, because there is no multiple understanding of a single entity. Therefore, the second volume of the Abhidharma states: 'Only the general distinction of objects such as form is called Vijnana (consciousness). If one can distinguish the differential characteristics, it is called Vedana (feeling) and other mental factors. Consciousness does not have that function, but only serves as a basis.' The second explanation says that Citta-raja (the principal mind) correctly grasps the general characteristic and also grasps the distinctive characteristic. Each of the mental factors grasps the distinctive characteristic and cannot grasp the general characteristic. This school believes that the Citta-raja has strong power and can grasp both general and distinctive characteristics. Mental factors have weak power and grasp the distinctive characteristic but not the general characteristic. The third explanation says that each of the mental factors can correctly grasp its own distinctive characteristic and also grasp the general characteristic. The Citta-raja only grasps the general characteristic and does not grasp the distinctive characteristic. This school believes that where the Citta-raja acts, the mental factors must follow. Therefore, mental factors can also grasp the general characteristic. The Citta-raja does not follow the mental factors, so it does not grasp the distinctive characteristic. The fourth explanation says that each of the Citta and Caitasika can grasp both general and distinctive characteristics. However, the Citta-raja correctly grasps the general characteristic and also grasps the distinctive characteristic. Each of the mental factors can correctly grasp its own distinctive characteristic and also grasp other distinctive characteristics as well as the general characteristic. Therefore, it is known that all Citta and Caitasika can grasp both the general and distinctive characteristics of the object. For example, in the thirty-fourth volume of the Vibhasa, in the section on 'Ahrikya-nasyati' (Shamelessness), the explanation of the Akara (aspect) of Ahrikya (shamelessness) says: 'Some other teachers say that this shows the aspect of shamelessness. This aspect corresponds to others and should be made into four sentences: There is shamelessness, not the transformation of the aspect of shamelessness, which means that shamelessness makes other transformations of aspects. There is the transformation of the aspect of shamelessness, not shamelessness, which means that the dharma corresponding to shamelessness makes the transformation of the aspect of shamelessness. There is shamelessness and also the transformation of the aspect of shamelessness, which means that shamelessness makes the transformation of the aspect of shamelessness. There is neither shamelessness nor the transformation of the aspect of shamelessness, which means that if this kind is taken, it should be said that the dharma corresponding to shamelessness makes other transformations of aspects. If not, it should be said to remove the previous aspect.' There are also four sentences in the explanation of Anapatrapya (lack of embarrassment), etc., which cannot all be quoted. From this, it can be inferred that both general and distinctive characteristics can be grasped. Two, questions and answers are distinguished: Among them, one, explaining the text of the paper. Two, comparing the aspects to clarify the differences.

三會釋行相名。四辨得一行名。五明得能緣名。六三性分別　言會釋論文者。問若初家說。心．心所法。各唯一解不起多者。無慚四句云何釋通。解云。此據行解互相隨順。故作此說。非謂一體起多行解　或余師義。不必須通。問若后三說。於一體上有多解者。入阿毗達磨云何釋通。解云。彼論所說據正非兼　或余師義。不必須通　問若后三說。於一體上有多解者。既有多解。如何不有體多過耶。解云。兼行雖多性相隨順。正行唯一故體非多　二對行相明差別者。問行解．行相差別云何。解云。言行解者。謂心．心所行解不同。于諸境中取總．別相。即是心．心所法作用差別。此之行解于所緣境。或起正解。或起邪解。如上四說。即行名解故名行解。言行相者。謂心．心所。其體清凈。但對前境不由作意。法爾任運影像顯現。如清池明鏡眾像皆現　三會釋行相名者。問如前所引。無慚四句所說行相。彼論應言行解。何故乃言行相。又若義同即無差別。何故相對辨差別耶。解云。若言行解。唯是心等作用差別。若言行相有其二種。一影像名行相。二行解名行相。前為相對辨差別故作用名行解。影像與行相名。據義不同實有差別　論行相名兼通行解。無慚四句言行相者。即是行解相故。名為行相。更有餘文準此通釋。如是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三、會釋行相名：四、辨得一行名：五、明得能緣名：六、三性分別：關於會釋論文方面：問：如果最初的學派說，心（citta，意識）和心所法（caitta，心理活動）各自只有一個理解，不會產生多種理解，那麼無慚（ahrikya，無慚愧）的四句該如何解釋才能融會貫通？答：這（最初學派的說法）是根據行為和理解互相隨順的情況而說的，並非指一個本體產生多種行為和理解。或者其他學派的觀點，不一定需要融會貫通。問：如果後面的三個學派說，在一個本體上有多種理解，那麼入阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）又該如何解釋才能融會貫通？答：那部論典所說是根據正解，而不是兼帶的理解。或者其他學派的觀點，不一定需要融會貫通。問：如果後面的三個學派說，在一個本體上有多種理解，既然有多種理解，為什麼沒有本體過多的過失呢？答：兼帶的行為雖然多，但其性質和表相是隨順的，正行的理解只有一個，所以本體並非過多。二、對行相（ākāra，相狀）明差別方面：問：行解（pravṛtti-jñāna，行為理解）和行相的差別是什麼？答：所謂行解，是指心和心所的行為理解不同，在各種境界中取總相和別相，這就是心和心所法的作用差別。這種行為理解對於所緣境，或者產生正解，或者產生邪解，如上面四種說法。即行為名為理解，所以名為行解。所謂行相，是指心和心所，其本體清凈，但面對前境不由自主地，自然而然地影像顯現，就像清澈的池塘和明亮的鏡子，各種影像都會顯現。三、會釋行相名方面：問：如前面所引用的，無慚四句所說的行相，那部論典應該說行解，為什麼卻說行相？又如果意義相同就沒有差別，為什麼相對地辨別差別呢？答：如果說行解，只是心等的作用差別。如果說行相，有兩種：一是影像名為行相，二是行解名為行相。前面爲了相對地辨別差別，所以作用名為行解，影像與行相名，根據意義不同，實際上有差別。論典中行相名兼通行解。無慚四句說行相，就是行為理解的相，所以名為行相。還有其他的經文，可以參照這個進行融會貫通地解釋。就像這樣。

【English Translation】 English version Third, Explaining the Meaning of 'Ākāra' (行相, aspect): Fourth, Discriminating the Meaning of Obtaining One 'Pravṛtti' (一行, activity): Fifth, Clarifying the Meaning of Obtaining the 'Nimitta-grāhaka' (能緣, grasper of the object): Sixth, Differentiating the Three Natures (三性, tri-svabhāva): Regarding the explanation of the texts: Question: If the initial school says that each 'citta' (心, mind) and 'caitta' (心所, mental factors) has only one understanding and does not give rise to multiple understandings, how can the four statements about 'ahrikya' (無慚, shamelessness) be explained to be consistent? Answer: This (the initial school's statement) is based on the mutual accordance of action and understanding. It does not mean that one entity gives rise to multiple actions and understandings. Or, according to the views of other teachers, it is not necessary to reconcile everything. Question: If the latter three schools say that there are multiple understandings on one entity, how can this be reconciled with the 'Abhidharma' (阿毗達磨, scholastic treatises)? Answer: What is said in that treatise is based on the primary understanding, not the secondary one. Or, according to the views of other teachers, it is not necessary to reconcile everything. Question: If the latter three schools say that there are multiple understandings on one entity, since there are multiple understandings, why is there no fault of having too many entities? Answer: Although there are many secondary actions, their nature and characteristics are in accordance. The primary understanding is only one, so the entity is not too many. Second, Clarifying the Difference in 'Ākāra' (行相, aspect): Question: What is the difference between 'pravṛtti-jñāna' (行解, activity-understanding) and 'ākāra'? Answer: 'Pravṛtti-jñāna' refers to the difference in the activity-understanding of the 'citta' and 'caitta'. They grasp the general and specific characteristics in various realms. This is the difference in the function of the 'citta' and 'caitta'. This activity-understanding, with respect to the object, either gives rise to correct understanding or gives rise to incorrect understanding, as in the four statements above. That is, the activity is called understanding, so it is called 'pravṛtti-jñāna'. 'Ākāra' refers to the 'citta' and 'caitta', whose essence is pure, but when facing the object, images appear naturally and effortlessly, like clear ponds and bright mirrors where all images appear. Third, Explaining the Meaning of 'Ākāra': Question: As quoted earlier, the 'ākāra' mentioned in the four statements about 'ahrikya', that treatise should have said 'pravṛtti-jñāna', why did it say 'ākāra'? Also, if the meaning is the same, there is no difference, why differentiate them relatively? Answer: If we say 'pravṛtti-jñāna', it is only the difference in the function of the 'citta', etc. If we say 'ākāra', there are two types: one is that the image is called 'ākāra', and the other is that 'pravṛtti-jñāna' is called 'ākāra'. The former is to differentiate relatively, so the function is called 'pravṛtti-jñāna'. The names 'image' and 'ākāra' are actually different according to their meanings. In the treatises, the name 'ākāra' also includes 'pravṛtti-jñāna'. The 'ākāra' mentioned in the four statements about 'ahrikya' is the aspect of activity-understanding, so it is called 'ākāra'. There are other texts that can be interpreted consistently in this way. Like this.

名為二種差別。四辨得一行名者　問行解．行相。據何名為同一行相　解云。據行相同名一行相。心心所法。其體明凈。隨對何境法爾相現。同有此相名同一行相。故入阿毗達磨第二云。如眼識等依眼等生。帶色等義影像而現。能了自境(已上論文)　由此準知。但約行相名為一行　問心等行解。有說亦同。如何不名同一行相　解云。行解。異說不同理非決定。行相。同說故約此明　又解。心等行解。有說同家。亦得名為同一行相。此言行相即行名相　五明得能緣名者。問行解．行相。為約何者說名能緣。解云。據行相說。非據行解。謂彼心等對境之時。有影像現。據此義邊名為能緣。境名所緣。以心．心所緣境之時。非如燈焰舒光至境亦非如鉗押取彼物。據影現義名能．所緣　問清池．明鏡。亦有像現。應說彼類亦是能緣。解云。雖有像現而無行解。非如心等。亦不說能緣　問若爾應約行解名為能緣。何故約彼有影像現說名能緣　解云。行解或正。或邪。于境不定。行相理定。故約此明　又解。正約行相名為能緣。理實而言。亦兼行解　又解。但約行解名為能緣。以是用故　又解約行解名為能緣。理實而言。亦兼行相　又解。俱正約彼行相．行解名為能緣。以此二種必定有故　六三性分別者。問行解．行相。與心．

心所。性皆同不。解云。行解．行相。既不離體。應知三性皆與體同　問如善心．心所法緣不善色時。有影像現。如何行相同彼體耶。解云。雖所緣色是其不善。以此影像不離能緣故亦是善。如鏡中火似火非真。影像亦爾。似彼不善而非不善。如善既爾。不善．無記．準善應知　若依大乘。此行相當相分。此相分是境攝。隨變色等即色等中攝　若依正量部。心．心所法。亦直緣前境。無別行相現心等上。不同說一切有部。不變相分復不同大乘。

應知如是至轉為意界者。別立處．界。

如是此中至復為意界者。此下釋妨。就中。一建立意二建立界。此即初文。謂總牒上相攝義門舉有妨者。由問為難。

更無異法至即名餘種者。此釋妨　意界雖無別體。與六識異轉位得名。據顯說在過去。論體實通三世。從他生邊名識。能生他邊名意　喻況可知　問未來無前後。而說有意界。亦可未來無前後應有等無間解云。等無間緣作用所顯。故未來無。意界據體故未來有。依如是義說十八界皆通三世　問過．未可爾。現住一念六識不併。義分根識。極多隻可得有十三。如何得有十八界耶。解云。此據現在多念相續。或據現在一念多人。故言十八。若據現在一人．一念。極多十三。少則不定。

若爾實界至十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心所（citta-samprayutta，與心相應的心理活動）。它們的性質都相同嗎？解釋說：『行解』（xing jie，行為和理解）、『行相』（xing xiang，行為的特徵），既然不離本體（tǐ，自性），應當知道三種性質（三性，指善、不善、無記）都與本體相同。』問：『如果善心、心所法緣于不善的色法時，有影像顯現，這如何使得行相與那不善色法的本體相同呢？』解釋說：『雖然所緣的色法是不善的，但因為這影像不離能緣的心，所以也是善的。就像鏡子中的火，看似火卻不是真火，影像也是如此，看似不善卻不是真正的不善。』善心如此，不善心、無記心，也應參照善心來理解。如果依據大乘佛教的觀點，這『行相』相當於『相分』（xiang fen，所取境），這『相分』屬於『境』（境界）的範疇，隨著所變的色等，就被歸入色等之中。如果依據正量部（Sammitīya）的觀點，心、心所法直接緣於前境，沒有另外的『行相』顯現在心等之上，這不同於說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda），也不變現『相分』，也不同於大乘。『應知如是』（ying zhi ru shi，應當知道像這樣）到『轉為意界者』（zhuan wei yi jie zhe，轉變為意界），是分別建立處（ayatana，感覺的來源）、界（dhātu，要素）。『如是此中』（ru shi ci zhong，像這樣，在此之中）到『復為意界者』（fu wei yi jie zhe，又成為意界），這以下是解釋疑問。其中，一是建立意（manas，意識），二是建立界。這裡是第一個部分，總括上面相攝的意義，提出疑問來發難。『更無異法』（geng wu yi fa，沒有其他的法）到『即名餘種者』（ji ming yu zhong zhe，就叫做其他的種類），這是解釋疑問。意界（manodhātu，意識界）雖然沒有別的自體，但與六識（liu shi，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）不同，在轉變的位置上得到名稱。從顯現上說，它存在於過去。但從本體上說，它貫通三世（過去、現在、未來）。從它生起其他（心識）的角度來說，叫做『識』（vijñāna，了別作用），從它能生起其他（心識）的角度來說，叫做『意』（manas，意識）。比喻的情況可以自己理解。問：『未來沒有前後順序，卻說有『意界』，那麼也可以說未來沒有前後順序，應該有等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，無間緣）。』解釋說：『等無間緣是作用所顯現的，所以未來沒有。意界是就本體而言，所以未來有。』依據這樣的意義，說十八界（十八界，指六根、六境、六識）都貫通三世。問：『過去、未來可以這樣說，但現在安住於一念，六識不能同時並起，從意義上區分根識，最多也只能有十三界。如何能有十八界呢？』解釋說：『這是根據現在多念相續，或者根據現在一念多人。』所以說有十八界。如果根據現在一人、一念，最多隻有十三界，少則不確定。『若爾實界』（ruo er shi jie，如果這樣，真實的界）到『十』

【English Translation】 English version: Citta-samprayutta (mental factors associated with the mind). Are their natures all the same? The explanation says: 'Xing jie' (conduct and understanding), 'xing xiang' (characteristics of conduct), since they are inseparable from the substance (tǐ, essence), it should be known that the three natures (three natures, referring to good, bad, and neutral) are all the same as the substance.' Question: 'If a wholesome mind and its mental factors are conditioned by an unwholesome form, and an image appears, how can the characteristic of conduct be the same as the substance of that unwholesome form?' The explanation says: 'Although the form that is conditioned is unwholesome, because this image is inseparable from the conditioning mind, it is also wholesome. Just like fire in a mirror, it appears to be fire but is not real fire. The image is also like that, appearing to be unwholesome but not truly unwholesome.' If it is like this for wholesome minds, then unwholesome and neutral minds should be understood in the same way. According to the Mahayana Buddhist viewpoint, this 'xing xiang' is equivalent to 'xiang fen' (object-aspect), and this 'xiang fen' belongs to the category of 'jing' (realm). As the transformed form, etc., it is categorized within form, etc. According to the Sammitīya school, the mind and mental factors directly condition the preceding realm, without a separate 'xing xiang' appearing on the mind, etc. This is different from the Sarvāstivāda school, and it also does not transform 'xiang fen', which is also different from Mahayana. 'Ying zhi ru shi' (it should be known like this) to 'zhuan wei yi jie zhe' (transforms into the mind element), is to separately establish ayatana (source of sensation), and dhātu (element). 'Ru shi ci zhong' (like this, within this) to 'fu wei yi jie zhe' (again becomes the mind element), what follows is an explanation of doubts. Among them, one is the establishment of manas (mind, consciousness), and two is the establishment of dhātu. This is the first part, summarizing the meaning of mutual inclusion above, and raising questions to challenge. 'Geng wu yi fa' (there is no other dharma) to 'ji ming yu zhong zhe' (is called another kind), this is an explanation of doubts. Although the manodhātu (mind element) has no separate self-nature, it is different from the six consciousnesses (liu shi, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness), and it obtains its name in the position of transformation. From the perspective of manifestation, it exists in the past. But from the perspective of substance, it pervades the three times (past, present, future). From the perspective of it generating other (consciousness), it is called 'vijñāna' (consciousness, discriminating function), and from the perspective of it being able to generate other (consciousness), it is called 'manas' (mind, consciousness). The analogy can be understood by oneself. Question: 'The future has no before and after, but it is said that there is a 'mind element', then it can also be said that the future has no before and after, and there should be samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition).' The explanation says: 'The immediately preceding condition is manifested by function, so it does not exist in the future. The mind element is in terms of substance, so it exists in the future.' According to this meaning, it is said that the eighteen dhātus (eighteen realms, referring to the six sense organs, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses) all pervade the three times. Question: 'The past and future can be said like this, but the present abides in one thought, and the six consciousnesses cannot arise simultaneously. From the meaning of distinguishing the sense organs and consciousnesses, there can only be a maximum of thirteen realms. How can there be eighteen realms?' The explanation says: 'This is based on the continuous succession of many thoughts in the present, or based on many people in one thought in the present.' Therefore, it is said that there are eighteen realms. If it is based on one person and one thought in the present, there are at most thirteen realms, and less is uncertain. 'Ruo er shi jie' (if so, the real realm) to 'shi' (ten)

八界耶者。此即建立界問起。若六識攝意。應有十七。若意攝六識。應有十二。何緣得立十八界耶。

頌曰至界成十八者。答。如文可知。

若爾無學至非意界故者。難。

不爾此已至后識不生者。通　由入涅槃闕余受生緣故后識不生。住意性故得名為意。如眼已滅未發眼識名眼界故。

此中蘊攝至總攝云何者。此下大文第二明總攝問起。

頌曰至以離他性故者。答此明總攝　以化地部說他性相應非自性。亦他性相攝非自性。如以戒定慧攝八支正道。彼執不然　若論其體。體相不同。若義相似便相攝者。一切諸法無我理同。並應相攝。經依相順假說相攝。若就勝義唯攝自體。故婆沙五十九云。諸法自性攝自性時。非如以手取食。指捻衣等。然彼各各執持自體。令不散壞故名為攝。于執持義立以攝名。故勝義攝唯攝自性。

論曰至攝徒眾等者　諸處。謂諸經論處　真攝名勝義　假攝名世俗　四攝事。謂佈施。愛語．利行．同事。佈施謂財．法佈施．愛語謂實語等。利行謂利益行。同事謂同作善事。由此四種攝徒眾等令不散故　余文可知。

眼耳鼻三至非二十一者。此下大文第三明數開合。就中。一明數合。二明依開。此即初文問起。

此難非理者。總非。

所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：八界是什麼？這是建立在『界』的提問上。如果六識被意所包含，應該有十七界。如果意被六識所包含，應該有十二界。為何能成立十八界呢？『頌曰至界成十八者』。回答：如文中所說的那樣可以理解。如果無學（arhat，已證得阿羅漢果位的人）……直到『不是意界』，這是個難題。不是這樣。這已經……到『后識不生』。這是通達的說法。由於進入涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的狀態），缺少了其餘受生的因緣，所以後識不會產生。因為保持著意的性質，所以可以稱作意。如同眼睛已經滅去，但未生起眼識時，仍可稱為眼界一樣。這裡，蘊的包含……直到『總攝是什麼』。這以下是大的段落，第二部分說明總攝的提問。『頌曰至以離他性故者』。回答：這說明了總攝。化地部（Mahīśāsaka，佛教部派之一）認為他性相應不是自性，也是他性所包含而不是自性。如同用戒、定、慧來包含八支正道（the Noble Eightfold Path）一樣。他們認為不是這樣。如果討論其體性，體性和現象不同。如果意義相似就互相包含，那麼一切諸法（all dharmas）的無我（anatta，佛教術語，指沒有永恒不變的自我）的道理相同，都應該互相包含。經典依據相似之處，假說互相包含。如果就勝義（paramārtha，佛教術語，指究竟真實）而言，只包含自體。所以《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第五十九卷說，諸法的自性包含自性時，不是像用手取食物，手指捏衣服等。而是它們各自執持自體，使之不散壞，所以稱為包含。在執持的意義上建立包含的名稱。所以勝義的包含只包含自性。論中說……直到『攝徒眾等』。諸處，指各種經論之處。真攝名為勝義，假攝名為世俗。四攝事（catu-saṃgrahavastu，佛教術語，指四種攝取眾生的方法），指佈施（dāna，佛教術語，指給予）、愛語（priyavacana，佛教術語，指和藹可親的言語）、利行（arthakriyā，佛教術語，指做有益於他人的行為）、同事（samānārthatā，佛教術語，指與他人一同修行善事）。佈施指財佈施、法佈施。愛語指真實語等。利行指利益眾生的行為。同事指一同做善事。通過這四種方法來攝取徒眾等，使他們不離散。其餘的文字可以理解。眼、耳、鼻三種……直到『不是二十一』。這以下是大的段落，第三部分說明數的開合。其中，第一部分說明數的合併，第二部分說明依據的開立。這是最初的提問。這個難題不合理。總的來說是不合理。

【English Translation】 English version: What are the Eighteen Dhātus (eighteen elements)? This is based on the question of establishing the 'dhātu'. If the six consciousnesses are included by mind (manas), there should be seventeen. If mind is included by the six consciousnesses, there should be twelve. Why can eighteen dhātus be established? 'The verse says, 'Until the eighteen dhātus are formed'.' Answer: As it can be understood from the text. If an Arhat (one who has attained the state of Arhatship)... until 'not the mind-dhātu', this is a difficult question. It is not so. This has already... reached 'later consciousnesses do not arise'. This is a comprehensive explanation. Because of entering Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), lacking the remaining conditions for rebirth, later consciousnesses do not arise. Because the nature of mind is maintained, it can be called mind. Just as when the eye has ceased, but the eye-consciousness has not arisen, it can still be called the eye-dhātu. Here, the inclusion of the skandhas (aggregates)... until 'what is the total inclusion'. The following is a major section, the second part explaining the question of total inclusion. 'The verse says, 'Until because of being separate from otherness'.' Answer: This explains the total inclusion. The Mahīśāsaka (one of the early Buddhist schools) school believes that otherness in association is not self-nature, and is also included by otherness, not self-nature. Just as using morality (śīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (prajñā) to include the Noble Eightfold Path. They believe it is not so. If we discuss its essence, essence and phenomena are different. If the meanings are similar and thus mutually inclusive, then the principle of no-self (anatta) of all dharmas (phenomena) is the same, and they should all be mutually inclusive. The scriptures rely on similarities and falsely say they are mutually inclusive. If we consider the ultimate truth (paramārtha), it only includes itself. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 59, says that when the self-nature of dharmas includes self-nature, it is not like using a hand to take food, or fingers to pinch clothes. Rather, they each hold onto their own self-nature, preventing it from scattering and breaking, so it is called inclusion. The name of inclusion is established in the sense of holding. Therefore, the ultimate inclusion only includes self-nature. The treatise says... until 'gathering disciples, etc.'. The various places refer to the places in various sutras and treatises. True inclusion is called ultimate truth, and false inclusion is called conventional truth. The Four Saṃgrahavastus (four means of gathering disciples), refer to giving (dāna), kind speech (priyavacana), beneficial conduct (arthakriyā), and cooperation (samānārthatā). Giving refers to material giving and Dharma giving. Kind speech refers to truthful words, etc. Beneficial conduct refers to actions that benefit sentient beings. Cooperation refers to doing good deeds together. Through these four methods, disciples and others are gathered, so that they do not disperse. The remaining text can be understood. The three, eye, ear, and nose... until 'not twenty-one'. The following is a major section, the third part explaining the opening and closing of numbers. Among them, the first part explains the merging of numbers, and the second part explains the establishment of the basis. This is the initial question. This difficulty is unreasonable. It is generally unreasonable.

以者何。徴。

頌曰至如是安立者。答　文可知。

若爾何緣生依二處者。此明依開。問。

頌曰至各生二處者。釋　端嚴有兩解。初解令身端嚴。此解有過　第二解令識端嚴。此解無妨。舌．身形大發識用足。故不須二　又婆沙十三云。問何故眼．耳．鼻各有二處。而舌身唯一耶。答諸色根處為莊嚴身。若有二舌是鄙陋事。世便蚩笑。云何此人若有二舌。如似毒蛇。若有二身亦是鄙陋。世所蚩笑。云何一人而有二身。如兩指並。

已說諸蘊至別義云何者。此下大文第二別釋名義。就中。一釋三名。二教起因。三體廢立。四名次第。五名廢立。六攝異名。此即釋三名。結前問起。

頌曰至是蘊處界義者。聚義是蘊義。生門義是處義。種族義是界義　梵云塞建陀唐云蘊。舊譯名陰(于禁反)此陰是陰覆義。若言陰梵本應言缽羅娑陀。案陰音應以陰(於今反)　陽之陰也。近代諸師竟作異釋　或云。淡聚名淡陰。此釋不然。然醫方說淡飲不言陰　更有異釋不能具述　若言陰氣萬物所藏。即是聚義。借喻此名。粗可通途。然非正目故今名蘊　或翻為眾。故法花云五眾之生滅。此亦不爾。若言眾。梵本應云僧伽　或翻為聚。此亦不然。若言聚。梵本應云曷邏陀　梵云阿野怛那。唐云處。舊翻為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以者何？徴（zhēng，詢問）。

頌曰：『至如是安立者』。答：文可知。

若爾，何緣生依二處者？此明依開。問。

頌曰：『至各生二處者』。釋：端嚴有兩解。初解令身端嚴。此解有過。第二解令識端嚴。此解無妨。舌、身形大發識用足，故不須二。又《婆沙》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的簡稱）十三云：『問：何故眼、耳、鼻各有二處，而舌身唯一耶？答：諸色根處為莊嚴身。若有二舌是鄙陋事，世便蚩笑，云何此人若有二舌，如似毒蛇。若有二身亦是鄙陋，世所蚩笑，云何一人而有二身，如兩指並。』

已說諸蘊，至別義云何者？此下大文第二別釋名義。就中：一釋三名，二教起因，三體廢立，四名次第，五名廢立，六攝異名。此即釋三名。結前問起。

頌曰：『至是蘊處界義者』。聚義是蘊義，生門義是處義，種族義是界義。梵云塞建陀（Skandha），唐云蘊。舊譯名陰（于禁反），此陰是陰覆義。若言陰，梵本應言缽羅娑陀（Prasada）。案陰音應以陰（於今反），陽之陰也。近代諸師竟作異釋。或云：『淡聚名淡陰』。此釋不然。然醫方說淡飲不言陰。更有異釋不能具述。若言陰氣萬物所藏，即是聚義，借喻此名，粗可通途，然非正目故今名蘊。或翻為眾，故《法華》（《妙法蓮華經》的簡稱）云五眾之生滅。此亦不爾。若言眾，梵本應云僧伽（Samgha）。或翻為聚，此亦不然。若言聚，梵本應云曷邏陀（Harada）。梵云阿野怛那（Ayatana），唐云處。舊翻為

【English Translation】 English version: What is 'yi zhe he'? Inquiry.

The verse says: 'As for those who are established in this way.' Answer: The meaning is clear from the text.

If so, what is the reason that birth relies on two places? This clarifies reliance on opening. Question.

The verse says: 'To each is born two places.' Explanation: 'Duan yan' (端嚴, dignified appearance) has two interpretations. The first interpretation is to make the body dignified. This interpretation has a fault. The second interpretation is to make the consciousness dignified. This interpretation is not problematic. The tongue and body have large forms and sufficient functions of consciousness, so they do not need two. Also, the thirteenth volume of the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'Question: Why do the eyes, ears, and nose each have two places, while the tongue and body have only one? Answer: The places of the sense organs of form are for adorning the body. If there were two tongues, it would be a vulgar thing, and the world would ridicule it, saying, 'How can this person have two tongues, like a poisonous snake?' If there were two bodies, it would also be vulgar, and the world would ridicule it, saying, 'How can one person have two bodies, like two fingers side by side?'

Having spoken of the skandhas, to 'what is the different meaning?' Below is the second major section explaining the meaning of the names separately. Within this, there are: 1. Explaining the three names; 2. The cause of the teaching's arising; 3. The establishment and abolition of the substance; 4. The order of the names; 5. The establishment and abolition of the names; 6. Collecting different names. This is explaining the three names. Concluding the previous and raising the question.

The verse says: 'To be the meaning of skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus.' The meaning of 'gathering' is the meaning of skandha (蘊, aggregation). The meaning of 'gate of birth' is the meaning of ayatana (處, sense base). The meaning of 'species' is the meaning of dhatu (界, element). Skandha (塞建陀) in Sanskrit, is 'yun' (蘊) in Tang Chinese. The old translation was 'yin' (陰, 于禁反), this 'yin' is the meaning of 'yin fu' (陰覆, covering). If it were 'yin', the Sanskrit should be Prasada (缽羅娑陀). According to the sound of 'yin', it should be 'yin' (陰, 於今反), the 'yin' of yang. Modern teachers have made different interpretations. Some say: 'A faint gathering is called faint yin.' This interpretation is not correct. However, medical texts speak of faint drinks but do not say 'yin'. There are other different interpretations that cannot be fully described. If it is said that 'yin qi' (陰氣, yin energy) is where all things are stored, then it is the meaning of 'gathering', borrowing this name as a metaphor, which is roughly acceptable, but it is not the proper term, so now it is called skandha. Or it is translated as 'multitude', so the Lotus Sutra (法華) says of the arising and ceasing of the five multitudes. This is also not correct. If it were 'multitude', the Sanskrit should be Samgha (僧伽). Or it is translated as 'gathering', this is also not correct. If it were 'gathering', the Sanskrit should be Harada (曷邏陀). Ayatana (阿野怛那) in Sanskrit, is 'chu' (處) in Tang Chinese. The old translation was

入。此亦不然。若言入。梵本應云缽羅吠舍。舊經亦有譯為處者。如空無邊處等。及阿練若處。並與今同。梵云馱都唐言界。有譯為持。偏據一義非盡理也。

論曰至蘊義得成者。引經五門以釋。色聚名蘊。此言略者。名略非體。以三世法非可聚故。故婆沙七十四云。問過去．未來．現在諸色。可略聚耶。答雖不可略聚其體。而可略聚其名。乃至識蘊。應知亦爾　問若爾無為亦應立蘊。諸無為名可略聚故　答諸有為法有作用故。有略聚義。雖體有時不可略聚。而略聚其名。立色等蘊。諸無為法。無作用故無略聚義。雖可略聚其名。而不可立為蘊。

於此經中至名現在者。三世門　正滅是現在故。舉已滅名過去。簡異擇滅。非擇滅故言無常已滅。已生是現在。若未來未至已生位名未來。至已生位未落謝過去名現在。集異門同此論。

自身名內至或約處辨者。內外門。自身成就名內。不成就及他身非情名外。故集異門足論第十一云。云何內色。答若色在此相續。已得不失是名內色　云何外色。答若色在此相續。或本未得。或得已失。若他相續。若非情數。是名外色(已上論文)　或約處者。處謂十二處。五根名內。六境名外色。

有對名粗至苦集諦等者。粗細門。五根．五境有對名粗。無表無對

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：進入。這種說法也不對。如果說是『入』，梵文原本應該寫作『缽羅吠舍』(Praveśa，意為進入)。舊的經文中也有翻譯為『處』的，例如『空無邊處』(Ākāśānantyāyatana，意為空無邊處)等等，以及『阿練若處』(Araṇya，意為寂靜處)，都與現在的翻譯相同。梵文『馱都』(Dhātu)翻譯成漢語是『界』的意思，也有翻譯為『持』的，但這種翻譯只偏重於一個方面的意思，沒有完全表達其含義。

論中說『至蘊義得成者』，引用了五種方式來解釋。色聚被稱為『蘊』，這裡是省略的說法，省略的是名稱，而不是本體。因為三世的法是無法聚集的。所以《婆沙論》第七十四卷中說：『問：過去、未來、現在的各種色法，可以省略地聚集嗎？』回答說：『雖然無法省略地聚集它們的本體，但可以省略地聚集它們的名稱。』乃至識蘊，也應該這樣理解。問：如果這樣，無為法也應該設立為蘊，因為各種無為法的名稱可以省略地聚集。答：各種有為法因為有作用，所以有省略地聚集的意義。雖然本體有時無法省略地聚集，但可以省略地聚集它們的名稱，從而設立色等蘊。各種無為法，因為沒有作用，所以沒有省略地聚集的意義。雖然可以省略地聚集它們的名稱，但不能設立為蘊。』

在這些經文中說『至名現在者』，這是從三世的角度來說的。正滅是現在。舉出已滅的名稱，是爲了區別于擇滅(Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，意為通過智慧力而達到的滅)和非擇滅(Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，意為非通過智慧力而達到的滅)。因為非擇滅不是無常的已滅。已生是現在。如果未來法還沒有到達已生的階段，就稱為未來。到達已生的階段，但還沒有衰落到過去，就稱為現在。《集異門論》的說法與此相同。

自身稱為內，乃至或者從處所來辨別的，這是從內外兩個方面來說的。自身所成就的稱為內，不成就的以及他人的身體和非有情之物稱為外。所以《集異門足論》第十一卷中說：『什麼是內色？』回答說：『如果色法存在於這個相續中，已經獲得並且沒有失去，這稱為內色。』『什麼是外色？』回答說：『如果色法存在於這個相續中，或者原本沒有獲得，或者獲得后已經失去；如果是他人的相續，或者是非有情之物，這稱為外色。』（以上是論文原文）或者從處所來辨別，這裡所說的處所是指十二處(Dvādaśa āyatanāni，意為十二種感官領域)。五根(Pañcendriyāṇi，意為五種感覺器官)稱為內，六境(Ṣaḍviṣayāḥ，意為六種感覺對像)稱為外色。

有對的稱為粗，乃至苦集諦等，這是從粗細的角度來說的。五根、五境有對，稱為粗。無表色(Avijñapti-rūpa，意為無表色)沒有對礙，稱為細。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Entering.' This is also not correct. If it were 'entering,' the original Sanskrit should be 'Praveśa' (meaning entering). Old scriptures also have translations as 'place,' such as 'Realm of Infinite Space' (Ākāśānantyāyatana, meaning realm of infinite space), etc., and 'Araṇya' (meaning secluded place), which are the same as the current translation. The Sanskrit word 'Dhātu' is translated into Chinese as 'realm,' and some translate it as 'holding,' but this translation only focuses on one aspect of the meaning and does not fully express its meaning.

The treatise says 'to the extent that the meaning of aggregates is established,' citing five approaches to explain it. A collection of forms is called an 'aggregate.' This is an abbreviated expression, abbreviating the name, not the substance. Because the dharmas of the three times cannot be gathered. Therefore, the seventy-fourth volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: Can the various forms of the past, future, and present be abbreviated and gathered?' The answer is: 'Although their substance cannot be abbreviated and gathered, their names can be abbreviated and gathered.' And so on, with the aggregate of consciousness, it should be understood in the same way. Question: If so, unconditioned dharmas should also be established as aggregates, because the names of various unconditioned dharmas can be abbreviated and gathered. Answer: Because various conditioned dharmas have functions, they have the meaning of being abbreviated and gathered. Although the substance sometimes cannot be abbreviated and gathered, their names are abbreviated and gathered, thereby establishing the aggregates of form, etc. Because various unconditioned dharmas have no function, they have no meaning of being abbreviated and gathered. Although their names can be abbreviated and gathered, they cannot be established as aggregates.'

In these scriptures, saying 'to the name of the present,' this is from the perspective of the three times. Cessation is the present. Mentioning the name of what has ceased is to distinguish it from cessation through wisdom (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, meaning cessation attained through the power of wisdom) and cessation without wisdom (Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, meaning cessation not attained through the power of wisdom). Because cessation without wisdom is not impermanent and ceased. Arising is the present. If a future dharma has not yet reached the stage of arising, it is called the future. Reaching the stage of arising but not yet declining into the past is called the present. The Saṃgīti-paryāya says the same thing as this treatise.

The self is called internal, and even distinguished from the perspective of location, this is from the perspective of internal and external. What is accomplished by oneself is called internal, what is not accomplished, as well as the bodies of others and non-sentient beings, are called external. Therefore, the eleventh volume of the Saṃgīti-paryāya-pāda says: 'What is internal form?' The answer is: 'If a form exists in this continuum, has been obtained and not lost, this is called internal form.' 'What is external form?' The answer is: 'If a form exists in this continuum, or was originally not obtained, or has been lost after being obtained; if it is the continuum of others, or is a non-sentient thing, this is called external form.' (The above is the original text of the treatise) Or distinguished from the perspective of location, the location mentioned here refers to the twelve āyatanas (Dvādaśa āyatanāni, meaning twelve sense fields). The five indriyas (Pañcendriyāṇi, meaning five sense organs) are called internal, and the six viṣayas (Ṣaḍviṣayāḥ, meaning six sense objects) are called external form.

What has resistance is called coarse, and even the Four Noble Truths, etc., this is from the perspective of coarse and fine. The five indriyas and the five viṣayas have resistance and are called coarse. Unmanifest form (Avijñapti-rūpa, meaning unmanifest form) has no resistance and is called fine.

名細。或相待立。謂約有見等三。或約欲界等三。集異門說。或約有見有對．無見有對．無見無對三色。相待。前粗。后細。或約欲．色．不繫三色相待。前粗。后細。

若言相待粗細不成者。此難不然。觀待異故故成粗．細。

猶如父子苦集諦等。雖是一物所望不同。得名父．子。苦．集諦等　問粗．細相待對立一法。說粗細。亦可長．短相待對一體相形立。解云。色處簡差別。長短別有體。粗．細通五蘊。不可例長短。

染污名劣不染名勝者。劣勝門　約體以明。謂善．無覆名勝色。不善．有覆名劣色　若依集異門論意。釋劣．勝。或約不善色．有覆色無覆色．有漏善色．無漏善色如其次第觀待相形。前劣后勝。或約欲．色。不繫三色。觀待相形。前劣后勝。廣如彼釋。

去來名遠現在名近者。遠近門　可知　集異門一解同此論　又一解云。云何遠色。答若色過去非無間滅。若色未來非現前起。是名遠色。云何近色。答若色過去無間已滅。若色未來現前正起是名近色。

乃至識蘊至所說如是者。釋餘四蘊。大同色蘊。而有差別。謂餘四蘊依五根名粗。唯依意根名細　或約九地展轉相形。上細下粗。以辨其相　若依集異門論解。受等四蘊三世同此論。若在此相續已得不失名內。若在

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本名細：或者相互對待而成立，這指的是依據『有見』等三種情況（有見有對、無見有對、無見無對）。或者依據欲界等三種情況（欲界、色界、無色界）。《集異門論》中說，或者依據有見有對、無見有對、無見無對這三種色法相互對待。相互對待時，前者粗顯，後者微細。或者依據欲界、色界、非系（無色界）這三種色法相互對待，前者粗顯，後者微細。

如果說相互對待的粗細不能成立，這種詰難是不對的。因為觀待的對象不同，所以能成立粗和細。

猶如父子、苦集諦等，雖然是同一事物，但所觀待的對象不同，因此得名『父』、『子』、『苦諦』、『集諦』等。問：粗細相互對待而對立，同一法可以被說成粗細，也可以像長短相互對待，同一物體通過比較而顯現。解答說：色處（色蘊）有簡別和差別，長短有各自的體性。粗細通於五蘊，不能用長短來類比。

染污的稱為劣，不染污的稱為勝：這是劣勝門。依據體性來闡明，善和無覆無記的稱為勝色，不善和有覆無記的稱為劣色。如果依據《集異門論》的意義來解釋劣和勝，或者依據不善色、有覆無記色、無覆無記色、有漏善色、無漏善色，按照這樣的次序相互觀待比較，前者劣，後者勝。或者依據欲界、色界、非系（無色界）這三種色法，相互觀待比較，前者劣，後者勝。詳細內容如該論所述。

過去和未來稱為遠，現在稱為近：這是遠近門。可以理解。《集異門論》的一種解釋與此論相同。又一種解釋說：什麼是遠色？回答：如果色法是過去，但不是無間滅的；如果色法是未來，但不是現在正要生起的，這稱為遠色。什麼是近色？回答：如果色法是過去，是無間已經滅的；如果色法是未來，是現在正要生起的，這稱為近色。

乃至識蘊所說的內容也是如此：這是解釋其餘四蘊（受、想、行、識）。大體上與色蘊相同，但也有差別。其餘四蘊依據五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）稱為粗，唯獨依據意根稱為細。或者依據九地（欲界、離生喜樂地、定生喜樂地、離喜妙樂地、舍念清凈地、空無邊處地、識無邊處地、無所有處地、非想非非想處地）輾轉相互比較，上方微細，下方粗顯，以此來辨別它們的相狀。如果依據《集異門論》來解釋，受等四蘊的三世（過去、現在、未來）與此論相同。如果在此相續中已經獲得並且沒有失去，稱為內；如果在

【English Translation】 English version Name and Subtlety: Or they are established in relation to each other, referring to the three conditions of 'having visibility' (having visibility and resistance, having no visibility but having resistance, having no visibility and no resistance). Or based on the three realms of desire, etc. (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). The Sangitiparyaya says, or based on the three types of form—having visibility and resistance, having no visibility but having resistance, having no visibility and no resistance—in relation to each other. In relation to each other, the former is coarse, and the latter is subtle. Or based on the three types of form—desire realm, form realm, and non-attachment (formless realm)—in relation to each other, the former is coarse, and the latter is subtle.

If it is said that the coarseness and subtlety in relation to each other cannot be established, this objection is not valid. Because the object of observation is different, coarseness and subtlety can be established.

Just like father and son, the dukkha (suffering) and samudaya (arising) truths, etc., although they are the same thing, they are named 'father', 'son', 'dukkha truth', 'samudaya truth', etc., because the object of observation is different. Question: Coarseness and subtlety are in opposition to each other, and the same dharma can be said to be coarse and subtle. Similarly, length and shortness are in opposition to each other, and the same object appears through comparison. The answer is: The sense base of form has distinctions and differences, while length and shortness have their own entities. Coarseness and subtlety pervade the five skandhas (aggregates), so they cannot be compared to length and shortness.

Defiled is called inferior, and undefiled is called superior: This is the gate of inferiority and superiority. It is explained based on the nature, that good and uncovered-unspecified are called superior form, while unwholesome and covered-unspecified are called inferior form. If we interpret inferiority and superiority according to the meaning of the Sangitiparyaya, or based on unwholesome form, covered-unspecified form, uncovered-unspecified form, defiled wholesome form, and undefiled wholesome form, in that order, comparing them in relation to each other, the former is inferior, and the latter is superior. Or based on the three types of form—desire realm, form realm, and non-attachment (formless realm)—comparing them in relation to each other, the former is inferior, and the latter is superior. The details are as explained in that treatise.

Past and future are called distant, and present is called near: This is the gate of distance and nearness. It can be understood. One explanation in the Sangitiparyaya is the same as this treatise. Another explanation says: What is distant form? The answer is: If the form is past but not immediately ceased; if the form is future but not presently arising, this is called distant form. What is near form? The answer is: If the form is past and has immediately ceased; if the form is future and is presently arising, this is called near form.

And so on, the contents of the vijnana skandha (aggregate of consciousness) are as described: This explains the remaining four skandhas (feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). In general, it is the same as the rupa skandha (aggregate of form), but there are also differences. The remaining four skandhas are called coarse based on the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), and are called subtle only based on the mind root. Or based on the nine grounds (desire realm, the ground of joy and pleasure born of detachment, the ground of joy and pleasure born of concentration, the ground of wonderful pleasure apart from joy, the ground of purity of equanimity and mindfulness, the sphere of boundless space, the sphere of boundless consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception), comparing them in relation to each other, the upper is subtle, and the lower is coarse, in order to distinguish their characteristics. If we interpret according to the Sangitiparyaya, the three times (past, present, future) of the four skandhas of feeling, etc., are the same as this treatise. If it has been obtained and not lost in this continuum, it is called internal; if it is in

此相續或本未得或得已失。若他相續名外　受等四蘊粗細者。或約有尋有伺．無尋有伺．無尋無伺。如次觀待。前粗。后細　或約欲．色．無色．不繫如次觀待。前粗。后細　受等四蘊劣．勝者。或約不善．有覆．無覆．有漏善．無漏善。如次觀待前劣。后勝　或約欲．色．無色．不繫。如次觀待前劣。后勝　受等四蘊遠近者。一解同此論　又一解意若過去非無間滅。若未來非現前起是名遠。若過去無間已滅。若未來現前正起名近。

大德法救至粗細同前者。敘異釋。五根所取五境名粗色。所餘五根。無表名細色　約情明勝．劣。非可意者名劣。若可意者名勝　又解。十一種色。若非可意名劣色。若可意名勝色。劣勝通十一種色　約可見處名近。不可見處名遠　餘十種色雖不可見。隨其所應。隨彼可見．不可見色說近說遠　三世內外。如自名顯。既無別釋義同前家　受等四蘊亦然。例同色蘊。言差別者。隨其所依身力應知遠．近。在可見處名近。在不可見處名遠　具粗細同前第一家依五根名粗。唯依意根名細　或約地釋。

心心所法至彼作用義者。此釋處義　心等生長門義是處義。彼十二種。能生長心等故名為處。法體先有不可云生。但能生長彼作用義。

法種族義至是生本義者。此下別釋界。有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此相續（samtan，心識流）或者原本沒有獲得，或者獲得后又失去。如果是其他的相續，就稱為『外』。受（vedanā，感受）等四蘊（skandha，蘊）的粗細，或者根據有尋有伺（savitarka-savicāra，有粗細分別的思考）、無尋有伺（avitarka-savicāra，無粗分別的有細分別的思考）、無尋無伺（avitarka-avicāra，無粗細分別的思考）來依次看待，前者粗，後者細。或者根據欲界（kāmadhātu，充滿慾望的界）、色界（rūpadhātu，有物質但無慾望的界）、無色界（arūpadhātu，既無物質也無慾望的界）、不繫（asamskrta，不屬於任何界的涅槃）來依次看待，前者粗，後者細。受等四蘊的劣勝，或者根據不善（akuśala，不好的）、有覆（sāvarana，被覆蓋的）、無覆（anāvarana，未被覆蓋的）、有漏善（sāsrava-kuśala，有煩惱的善）、無漏善（anāsrava-kuśala，無煩惱的善）來依次看待，前者劣，後者勝。或者根據欲界、色界、無色界、不繫來依次看待，前者劣，後者勝。受等四蘊的遠近，一種解釋與此論相同。又一種解釋是，如果過去已經過去但並非剛剛滅去，如果未來尚未生起，這叫做遠。如果過去剛剛滅去，如果未來正在生起，這叫做近。

大德法救（Dharmatrāta）認為粗細與前者相同。敘述不同的解釋：五根（indriya，感覺器官）所取的五境（visaya，感覺對像）稱為粗色（rūpa，物質），其餘五根和無表色（avijñapti-rūpa，不可知的物質）稱為細色。根據情感來區分勝劣，不可意的稱為劣，可意的稱為勝。又一種解釋是，十一種色（rūpa，物質），如果不是可意的，就稱為劣色，如果是可意的，就稱為勝色。劣勝通用於十一種色。根據可見處稱為近，不可見處稱為遠。其餘十種色雖然不可見，但根據情況，隨著那些可見或不可見的色來說近說遠。三世（tri-kāla，過去、現在、未來）內外，如字面意思一樣明顯，既然沒有別的解釋，意思與前一家相同。受等四蘊也是如此，與色蘊類似。說到差別，根據所依的身力，應當知道遠近。在可見處稱為近，在不可見處稱為遠。具粗細與前面第一家相同，依靠五根的稱為粗，只依靠意根（manas-indriya，意識器官）的稱為細。或者根據地（bhūmi，境界）來解釋。

心心所法（citta-caitta-dharma，心和心理活動）到『彼作用義』，這是解釋『處』（āyatana，生長門）的含義。心等生長之門的意思就是『處』的意思。那十二種處，能夠生長心等，所以稱為『處』。法的體性本來就存在，不能說是生，但能生長它的作用。

『法種族義』到『是生本義』，下面分別解釋『界』（dhātu，種族）。有

【English Translation】 English version This continuum (samtan, mind stream) either has not been obtained, or having been obtained, has been lost. If it is another's continuum, it is called 'external'. Regarding the coarseness and subtlety of the four aggregates (skandha) such as feeling (vedanā), it is considered sequentially based on with investigation and analysis (savitarka-savicāra, thinking with coarse and subtle distinctions), without investigation but with analysis (avitarka-savicāra, thinking without coarse distinctions but with subtle distinctions), and without investigation or analysis (avitarka-avicāra, thinking without coarse or subtle distinctions). The former is coarse, the latter is subtle. Or, it is considered sequentially based on the desire realm (kāmadhātu, realm full of desires), the form realm (rūpadhātu, realm with matter but without desires), the formless realm (arūpadhātu, realm without matter or desires), and the unconditioned (asamskrta, Nirvana which does not belong to any realm). The former is coarse, the latter is subtle. Regarding the inferiority and superiority of the four aggregates such as feeling, it is considered sequentially based on unwholesome (akuśala, bad), obscured (sāvarana, covered), unobscured (anāvarana, uncovered), wholesome with outflows (sāsrava-kuśala, wholesome with afflictions), and wholesome without outflows (anāsrava-kuśala, wholesome without afflictions). The former is inferior, the latter is superior. Or, it is considered sequentially based on the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, and the unconditioned. The former is inferior, the latter is superior. Regarding the distance of the four aggregates such as feeling, one explanation is the same as this treatise. Another explanation is that if the past has passed but is not just extinguished, if the future has not yet arisen, this is called distant. If the past has just been extinguished, if the future is just arising, this is called near.

The Venerable Dharmatrāta considers coarseness and subtlety to be the same as the former. He narrates a different explanation: the five objects (visaya, objects of sense) taken by the five sense faculties (indriya, sense organs) are called coarse form (rūpa, matter), the remaining five sense faculties and non-revealing form (avijñapti-rūpa, unknowable matter) are called subtle form. Superiority and inferiority are distinguished based on emotion; what is undesirable is called inferior, and what is desirable is called superior. Another explanation is that of the eleven types of form (rūpa, matter), if it is not desirable, it is called inferior form, and if it is desirable, it is called superior form. Inferiority and superiority apply to all eleven types of form. What is visible is called near, and what is invisible is called far. Although the remaining ten types of form are invisible, depending on the situation, nearness and distance are spoken of according to those visible or invisible forms. The three times (tri-kāla, past, present, future) and internal/external are as obvious as the literal meaning. Since there is no other explanation, the meaning is the same as the previous school. The four aggregates such as feeling are also the same, similar to the aggregate of form. Speaking of the difference, the distance should be known according to the strength of the body on which it depends. What is in a visible place is called near, and what is in an invisible place is called far. Having coarseness and subtlety is the same as the first school mentioned earlier; what relies on the five sense faculties is called coarse, and what relies only on the mind faculty (manas-indriya, organ of consciousness) is called subtle. Or, it is explained according to the ground (bhūmi, realm).

From 'mind and mental factors' (citta-caitta-dharma, mind and mental activities) to 'the meaning of their function', this explains the meaning of 'source' (āyatana, gate of growth). The meaning of the gate of growth for mind etc. is the meaning of 'source'. Those twelve sources are able to grow mind etc., therefore they are called 'sources'. The nature of the dharma already exists, so it cannot be said to be born, but it can grow its function.

From 'the meaning of the dharma's lineage' to 'is the meaning of the origin of birth', the following separately explains 'element' (dhātu, lineage). There is

兩釋。此即初解約因以釋。能生諸法諸法生因。如人于其姓等生。以彼姓人名為種族。是生本義。如一山中金．銀等礦名金等族。是多法族說名多界　一身。謂一有情身。一相續謂一期相續　或一身謂一期身。一相續謂一有情相續　有十八類諸法種族名十八界。

如是眼等誰之生本者。問　謂自種類同類因故者。答。謂與自種類為同類因故。即是生本。

若爾無為應不名界者。難　有為同類因可得名為界。無為非同類無為應非界。

心心所法生之本故者。通　無為雖非同類因生心心所。為境界生心．心所故。亦名生本　正理破云。若爾。處．界義應相濫。俱心．心所生本義故　若作俱舍師救云。一同類因名生本。十七界全．一界少分。二境界緣生名生本。謂無為一界少分　從多分說處義不同。少分相濫亦無有失。

有說界聲至名十八界者。第二師約差別釋　族謂族類。如世種類剎帝利等種類不同。如是一身有十八法種類各別。名十八界　或可。此師別為一解種類釋界。不同頌文　正理難云。若爾。意界望於六識無別體類。應非別界　此難不然。所依．能依體類別故。有說安立時分異故。廣如彼釋。

若言聚義至如聚如我者。毗婆沙宗。蘊等三門皆是實法　經部所立。蘊．處是假。唯界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本兩種解釋。這是最初的解釋，通過原因來解釋。能夠產生諸法，諸法產生的原因，就像人從他的姓氏等產生一樣。因為那個姓氏的人被稱為種族，這是產生的根本含義。就像一座山中的金、銀等礦物，被稱為金等族類。這是多種法的族類，所以稱為多界。一個身體，指一個有情眾生的身體。一個相續，指一個時期的相續。或者，一個身體指一個時期的身體，一個相續指一個有情眾生的相續。有十八種法的種族，稱為十八界。那麼，像眼等是誰產生的根本呢？（問）說是從自身種類，同類因產生的。（答）說是與自身種類作為同類因的緣故，這就是產生的根本。如果這樣，無為法應該不被稱為界吧？（難）有為法有同類因，可以被稱為界。無為法沒有同類因，無為法應該不是界。因為是心和心所法產生的根本。（通）無為法雖然不是同類因，但能產生心和心所法，作為心和心所法的境界而產生，所以也稱為產生的根本。正理論破斥說：如果這樣，處和界的意義應該混淆，因為都是心和心所法產生的根本。如果俱舍師辯護說：同類因才稱為產生的根本，十七界是全部，一界是少部分。二，作為境界的緣而產生，才稱為產生的根本，指無為法這一界的少部分。從大部分來說，處的意義不同。少部分混淆也沒有什麼過失。有人說，『界』這個詞，最終被稱為十八界。（第二位論師通過差別來解釋）族，指的是族類。就像世間的種類，剎帝利等種類不同。就像一個身體有十八種法，種類各自不同，稱為十八界。或者，這位論師可以單獨解釋，用種類來解釋界，不同於頌文。正理論反駁說：如果這樣，意界對於六識來說，沒有不同的體類，應該不是單獨的界。這個反駁不對。因為所依和能依的體類不同。有人說，安立的時間不同。詳細的解釋就像那裡所說。如果說聚集的意義，就像聚集如我。（毗婆沙宗認為，蘊等三門都是實法）經部所立，蘊、處是假，只有界是實法。

【English Translation】 English version Two explanations. This is the initial explanation, explaining through causes. That which can produce all dharmas, the cause of the arising of all dharmas, is like a person arising from their surname, etc. Because people of that surname are called a lineage, this is the fundamental meaning of arising. Like gold, silver, and other minerals in a mountain, they are called the 'gold lineage,' etc. This is a lineage of multiple dharmas, hence called multiple realms. 'One body' refers to the body of a sentient being. 'One continuum' refers to a continuum of one lifetime. Or, 'one body' refers to the body of one lifetime, 'one continuum' refers to the continuum of one sentient being. There are eighteen kinds of dharma lineages, called the Eighteen Realms (Ashtadasha Dhatu). Then, whose fundamental source of arising are things like the eye (caksu)? (Question) It is said to arise from its own kind, a cause of the same kind. (Answer) It is said that because it takes its own kind as a cause of the same kind, that is the fundamental source of arising. If that's the case, should the Unconditioned (Asamskrta) not be called a realm (Dhatu)? (Objection) Conditioned (Samskrta) dharmas have a cause of the same kind and can be called a realm. Unconditioned dharmas do not have a cause of the same kind; Unconditioned dharmas should not be realms. Because it is the fundamental source of the arising of mind (citta) and mental factors (caitasika). (Explanation) Although the Unconditioned is not a cause of the same kind, it can produce mind and mental factors, and because it arises as the object (visaya) of mind and mental factors, it is also called the fundamental source of arising. The Nyaya Sutra refutes this, saying: If that's the case, the meanings of 'sphere' (ayatana) and 'realm' (dhatu) should be confused, because both are the fundamental source of the arising of mind and mental factors. If the Kosa master defends this, saying: A cause of the same kind is called the fundamental source of arising; seventeen realms are complete, and one realm is a small part. Two, arising as a condition of the object is called the fundamental source of arising, referring to the small part of the Unconditioned realm. Speaking from the majority, the meaning of 'sphere' is different. A small part being confused is not a fault. Some say that the term 'realm' (dhatu) ultimately refers to the Eighteen Realms (Ashtadasha Dhatu). (The second teacher explains through differentiation) 'Lineage' (kula) refers to a class, like worldly classes, such as the different classes of Kshatriyas (warrior caste), etc. Just as one body has eighteen dharmas, each with its own distinct class, these are called the Eighteen Realms. Or, this teacher can explain it separately, using 'lineage' to explain 'realm,' which is different from the verse. The Nyaya Sutra refutes this, saying: If that's the case, the mind realm (mano-dhatu) has no different substantial class from the six consciousnesses (vijnana), and should not be a separate realm. This refutation is not correct, because the supported (asraya) and the supporting (asrayin) have different substantial classes. Some say that the established time is different. The detailed explanation is as described there. If it speaks of the meaning of aggregation, like the aggregation of 'I' (atman). (The Vaibhashika school believes that the three doors of aggregates (skandha), spheres (ayatana), and realms (dhatu) are all real dharmas.) According to the Sautrantika school, aggregates and spheres are conceptual, only realms are real.

是實　今論主意。以經中說略一聚言。許蘊是假。餘二是實。今立比量破毗婆沙說蘊是實。立比量云。色等五蘊必定是假。多實成故。猶如聚．我。

此難不然至亦名蘊故者。毗婆沙師救云。一一極微亦得蘊相可積集故。既一一極微亦名為蘊。非多實成。顯所立因於一一蘊有不成過。

若爾不應言至有聚義故者。論主難　經說聚義名之為蘊。而言一一實亦名蘊者。聖教相違。

有說能荷至物所聚故者。述異釋。

有為之法為因取果。果所積集名為能荷。由諸世間以其兩肩能荷重擔。說肩名蘊。物所聚故　此釋亦以聚故名蘊。符經順假。故論主不破。

或有說者至我當與汝者。又述異釋。

可分段義。是蘊義。故言一一分亦名蘊。故引彼世間舉貸財物。皆令彼人三時還足。便作是言。汝三蘊還。我當與汝物。顯一一分皆名為蘊。

此釋越經至廣說如前者。論主難　雖有此釋。不順聖言。隨俗浮言何容準定。由與經說過去等義有相違故　此文但破后家分段　或可。此文亦破前師能荷名蘊。雖復義釋符經順假亦無有違。然經中說聚義是蘊。故今亦破。

若謂此經至蘊定假有者。上來毗婆沙師被他難殺今復釋經。論主牒破。若謂過去等一一名蘊。此執非理。經言略聚。何得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是實：現在討論主張。根據經文中的簡略說法，許蘊（Skandha，五蘊，即色、受、想、行、識）是假，其餘二者是實。現在建立比量來破斥毗婆沙師認為蘊是實的說法。建立比量如下：色等五蘊必定是假，因為是由多個實法構成，就像聚合體和我（Atman，神我）一樣。

此難不然至亦名蘊故者：毗婆沙師辯解說，每一個極微（Paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）也可以具有蘊的相狀，可以積聚。既然每一個極微也可以稱為蘊，就不是由多個實法構成。這表明所立的因對於每一個蘊來說，有不成立的過失。

若爾不應言至有聚義故者：論主反駁說，經文說聚合之義才稱為蘊。如果說每一個實法也稱為蘊，就與聖教相違背。

有說能荷至物所聚故者：述異的解釋。

有為之法作為因，從而取得果。果所積聚稱為能荷。由於世間人用他們的雙肩能夠承載重擔，所以說肩名為蘊，因為是事物所聚集的緣故。這種解釋也是因為聚合的緣故而稱為蘊，符合經義，順應假名，所以論主不破斥。

或有說者至我當與汝者：又述異的解釋。

可分段的意義，就是蘊的意義。所以說每一部分也稱為蘊。所以引用世間借貸財物的事例，都讓那個人在三個時期還清，就說：『你三蘊還清了，我當給你東西。』這表明每一部分都可以稱為蘊。

此釋越經至廣說如前者：論主反駁說，雖然有這種解釋，但不順應聖言。隨順世俗的浮誇之言，怎麼可以作為準則呢？因為與經文所說的過去等意義相違背。這段文字只是破斥后一種分段的說法。或者，這段文字也破斥前一種能荷名為蘊的說法。雖然這種義理解釋符合經義，順應假名，也沒有什麼違背之處。然而經文中說聚合之義是蘊，所以現在也破斥。

若謂此經至蘊定假有者：前面毗婆沙師被他人難倒，現在又重新解釋經文。論主加以駁斥。如果說過去等一一都名為蘊，這種執著是不合理的。經文說的是簡略的聚合，怎麼能……

【English Translation】 English version: 'Is Real': Now discussing the main point. According to the concise statement in the scriptures, the Skandhas (five aggregates, namely form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are provisional, while the other two are real. Now, a logical argument is established to refute the Vaibhāṣika's assertion that the Skandhas are real. The argument is established as follows: The five Skandhas, such as form, are certainly provisional because they are composed of multiple real entities, just like an aggregate and the self (Ātman).

'This difficulty is not so, up to also named Skandha': The Vaibhāṣika defends by saying that each Paramāṇu (smallest unit of matter) can also have the characteristic of a Skandha, capable of accumulation. Since each Paramāṇu can also be called a Skandha, it is not composed of multiple real entities. This shows that the established reason has the fault of being unestablished for each Skandha.

'If so, one should not say, up to having the meaning of aggregation': The principal debater refutes by saying that the scriptures state that the meaning of aggregation is called a Skandha. If it is said that each real entity is also called a Skandha, it contradicts the sacred teachings.

'Some say that the ability to bear, up to things being gathered': A different explanation is given.

Conditioned dharmas act as causes to obtain effects. The accumulation of effects is called 'the ability to bear'. Because worldly people can carry heavy burdens with their shoulders, the shoulder is called a Skandha, because it is where things are gathered. This explanation also calls it a Skandha because of aggregation, which aligns with the scriptural meaning and conforms to provisional names, so the principal debater does not refute it.

'Or some say, up to I will give you': Another different explanation is given.

The meaning of being divisible is the meaning of a Skandha. Therefore, it is said that each part is also called a Skandha. Therefore, the example of worldly borrowing and lending of wealth is cited, where they make that person repay in full at three times, saying: 'You have repaid the three Skandhas, and I will give you the thing.' This shows that each part can be called a Skandha.

'This explanation goes against the scriptures, up to extensively explained as before': The principal debater refutes by saying that although there is this explanation, it does not conform to the sacred words. How can following worldly exaggerations be taken as a standard? Because it contradicts the meaning of the past, etc., as stated in the scriptures. This passage only refutes the later explanation of division. Or, this passage also refutes the former explanation of 'the ability to bear' being called a Skandha. Although this interpretation of meaning aligns with the scriptural meaning, conforms to provisional names, and has no contradictions, the scriptures say that the meaning of aggregation is a Skandha, so it is now also refuted.

'If it is said that this scripture, up to Skandhas are definitely provisionally existent': Earlier, the Vaibhāṣika was defeated by others, and now they re-explain the scriptures. The principal debater refutes it. If it is said that each of the past, etc., is called a Skandha, this attachment is unreasonable. The scriptures speak of a concise aggregation, how can...

一．一皆名為蘊。故知。如聚。蘊假義成。

若爾應許至成生門故者。經部難論主。

若以聚義名蘊許是假者。諸處極微亦由積集方是生門。何因不許處亦是假。應立量云。諸有色處定應是假。處因積聚方得成故。猶如諸蘊。

此難非理至十二處別者。論主破經部　雖因多微積集方作生門。然多集時。一一諸微皆有因用。是則一一皆成生門。顯所立因有不成過。若不爾者。而說根．境相助共生識等。無別因用。應非別處同一處攝。若同一處但應立六。是則應無十二處別。合共發識既非同處。根境各別因用不同。說十二處。故知根．境共發識等。一一極微亦有因用。各得處名　按上所說。論主此宗許蘊是假。違破婆沙。許處是實故破經部。以理為量。不執一宗。隨何勝者釋為已立。

然毗婆沙至亦說燒衣者。論主牒婆沙文通釋　婆沙師說。若觀假蘊彼說一微為一蘊少分。若不觀假蘊。觀實蘊彼說一極微即是一蘊。既許一微即是一蘊故知婆沙許蘊是實　今論主釋。婆沙既引經中聚義釋蘊。故應亦許蘊唯是假。而言一微是一蘊者。此應于蘊一分。假說有分。全蘊總有別分故。名有分。如衣一分燒亦說為燒衣。諸後學徒。不達婆沙本意。說蘊是實。故應如是蘊定是假　然正理第三云。于聚所依立義言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一、一切都名為蘊（skandha，積聚之意）。因此可知，蘊如積聚，是假立的意義。

如果這樣，就應該允許『至成生門故』的說法，這是經部（Sautrāntika）論主的詰難。

如果以積聚的意義來命名蘊，並承認它是假立的，那麼各處的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）也因為積集才能成為生門（感覺的入口）。為什麼不允許處（āyatana，感覺的場所）也是假立的呢？應該立論說：凡是有色的處，必定是假立的，因為處是由積聚而成，就像諸蘊一樣。

這個詰難不合理，『至十二處別』，這是論主（指世親，Vasubandhu）駁斥經部。即使因為眾多極微積集才能成為生門，但在眾多積集時，每一個極微都有其作用。這樣，每一個極微都能成為生門。這表明所立的因有不成立的過失。如果不是這樣，而說根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（viṣaya，感覺對像）相互幫助共同產生識（vijñāna，意識）等，沒有別的作用，就應該不是別的處，而是同一個處所攝。如果同一個處，就應該隻立六處。這樣，就應該沒有十二處之別。合起來共同產生識既然不是同一個處，根和境各自不同，作用也不同，所以說十二處。因此可知，根、境共同產生識等，每一個極微也有其作用，各自得到處的名字。按照上面所說，論主此宗承認蘊是假立的，違背了《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）。承認處是真實的，所以駁斥經部。以理為衡量標準，不執著於一個宗派，無論哪一方更勝一籌，就解釋為自己所贊同的。

然而，《毗婆沙論》『至亦說燒衣』，論主引用《毗婆沙論》的文句來通達解釋。《毗婆沙論》的論師說，如果觀察假立的蘊，他們說一個極微是一個蘊的少分。如果不觀察假立的蘊，觀察真實的蘊，他們說一個極微就是一個蘊。既然承認一個極微就是一個蘊，因此可知《毗婆沙論》承認蘊是真實的。現在論主解釋說，《毗婆沙論》既然引用經中的積聚之義來解釋蘊，所以也應該承認蘊只是假立的。而說一個極微就是一個蘊，這應該是在蘊的一部分上，假立地說有部分。整個蘊總體上有不同的部分，所以名為有部分。如衣服的一部分被燒，也說成是燒衣服。那些後來的學徒，不瞭解《毗婆沙論》的本意，說蘊是真實的。所以應該這樣，蘊一定是假立的。然而，《正理》第三卷說，在積聚所依賴的基礎上建立意義。

【English Translation】 English version I. All are named skandhas (aggregates). Therefore, it is known that skandhas, like gatherings, are established with imputed meaning.

If so, then the statement 'because it becomes a gateway of arising' should be accepted, which is a challenge from the Sautrāntika master.

If the meaning of 'gathering' is used to name skandhas and it is admitted that they are imputed, then the ultimate particles (paramāṇu) in each āyatana (sense base) also become gateways of arising because of accumulation. Why is it not admitted that āyatanas are also imputed? It should be argued: all colored āyatanas must be imputed, because āyatanas are formed by accumulation, just like the skandhas.

This challenge is unreasonable, 'up to the distinction of the twelve āyatanas.' This is the master (Vasubandhu) refuting the Sautrāntika. Even if many ultimate particles accumulate to become a gateway of arising, when many accumulate, each ultimate particle has its own function. Thus, each ultimate particle can become a gateway of arising. This shows that the established reason has the fault of being unestablished. If it were not so, and it were said that the indriyas (sense organs) and viṣayas (sense objects) mutually help each other to jointly produce vijñāna (consciousness), without any other function, then they should not be different āyatanas, but included in the same āyatana. If it were the same āyatana, then only six āyatanas should be established. Thus, there should be no distinction of the twelve āyatanas. Since jointly producing consciousness is not the same āyatana, and the indriyas and viṣayas are different and have different functions, therefore the twelve āyatanas are spoken of. Thus, it is known that the indriyas and viṣayas jointly produce consciousness, and each ultimate particle also has its own function, and each obtains the name of āyatana. According to what was said above, the master of this school admits that skandhas are imputed, which contradicts the Mahāvibhāṣā. He admits that āyatanas are real, so he refutes the Sautrāntika. He uses reason as the measure, and does not adhere to one school. Whichever is superior, he explains as his own position.

However, the master quotes the sentence from the Mahāvibhāṣā, 'up to also saying burning clothes,' to explain it thoroughly. The master of the Mahāvibhāṣā says that if one observes the imputed skandhas, they say that one ultimate particle is a small part of a skandha. If one does not observe the imputed skandhas, but observes the real skandhas, they say that one ultimate particle is one skandha. Since it is admitted that one ultimate particle is one skandha, therefore it is known that the Mahāvibhāṣā admits that skandhas are real. Now the master explains that since the Mahāvibhāṣā quotes the meaning of 'gathering' from the sutras to explain skandhas, it should also admit that skandhas are only imputed. And saying that one ultimate particle is one skandha, this should be said imputedly on a part of the skandha. The entire skandha has different parts in general, so it is called having parts. For example, if a part of the clothes is burned, it is also said that the clothes are burned. Those later students do not understand the original intention of the Mahāvibhāṣā and say that skandhas are real. Therefore, it should be like this, skandhas must be imputed. However, the third volume of the Nyāya-sūtra says that meaning is established on the basis of what the gathering relies on.

故。非聚即義。義是實物名之差別。聚非實故(解云聚之義故名為聚義。依主釋。聚假。義實。聚義是蘊)　又云。又一極微三世等攝。以慧分析略為一聚。蘊雖即聚而實義成。余法亦然。故蘊非假(解云此一極微有三世．遠．近等義故名為聚。即聚名義。持業釋)　又云。又於一一別起法中亦說蘊故蘊定非假。如說俱生受名受蘊想名想蘊。余說如經。於一切時和合生故。蘊雖各別而聚義成(解云。即受蘊等一一。皆是可積集相名蘊。持業釋。或受蘊等。定與積聚法俱起。且如一微。猶與大小八法俱起)　正理亦應同彼婆沙。蘊通假實。為俱舍論主說蘊唯假。故且說實。

何故世尊至作三種說者。此下第二明教起因。問起。

頌曰至蘊處界三者。答　愚謂迷境以無明為體。迷境不同有其三種。或愚心所總執為我。為說蘊。以蘊廣明心所法故　或唯愚色執為我。為說處。以處廣明諸色法故　或愚色．心總執為我。為說界。以界廣明色．心法故　根謂根機。以信等五根為體　樂以勝解為體。故正理論云樂謂勝解　又解。樂謂樂欲。利根樂略為說蘊。中根樂中為說處。鈍根樂廣為說界。

何緣世尊至受想別為蘊者。此下第三體廢立。就中一建立受．想。二無為非蘊。此即建立受．想。問及頌答。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，『聚』不等於『義』。『義』是指實物的名稱和差別，而『聚』並非實物本身（解釋說，因為『聚』具有『義』的含義，所以稱為『聚義』，屬於依主釋，即『聚』是假，『義』是實，『聚義』是『蘊』）。又說，即使是一個極微之物，也包含過去、現在、未來三世等含義，通過智慧分析，可以略微視為一個『聚』。『蘊』雖然是『聚』，但實際上是由『義』構成的。其他法也是如此，所以『蘊』並非虛假（解釋說，這一個極微之物具有三世、遠近等含義，所以稱為『聚』，即『聚』就是『義』，屬於持業釋）。又說，在每一個個別的生起法中，也說到了『蘊』，所以『蘊』肯定不是虛假的。例如，說『俱生』的感受稱為『受蘊』，『俱生』的想念稱為『想蘊』，其他的說法如同經中所說。因為在一切時和合而生，所以『蘊』雖然各不相同，但『聚』的含義是成立的（解釋說，受蘊等每一個，都是可以積集的相，所以稱為『蘊』，屬於持業釋。或者說，受蘊等必定與積聚法一同生起，比如一個極微，也與大小等八法一同生起）。《正理》也應該與《婆沙》相同，認為『蘊』既可以是假，也可以是實。因為《俱舍論》的作者說『蘊』只是假，所以這裡暫且說是實。

為什麼世尊要作三種說法呢？以下第二部分說明教法產生的因緣，這是提問。

頌曰：『蘊、處、界』三者。回答：愚昧是指以無明（avidyā）為本體的迷惑。迷惑的對象不同，有三種情況。或者愚昧的心所總執著于『我』（ātman），所以為他們說『蘊』（skandha），因為『蘊』廣泛地闡明了心所法。或者僅僅愚昧於色法（rūpa），執著于『我』，所以為他們說『處』（āyatana），因為『處』廣泛地闡明了諸色法。或者愚昧於色法和心法，總執著于『我』，所以為他們說『界』（dhātu），因為『界』廣泛地闡明了色法和心法。根是指根機，以信等五根（pañca indriyāṇi）為本體。樂以勝解為本體，所以《正理論》說，『樂』就是勝解。又解釋說，『樂』就是樂欲。對於利根的人，喜歡簡略，所以為他們說『蘊』；對於中根的人，喜歡適中，所以為他們說『處』；對於鈍根的人，喜歡廣博，所以為他們說『界』。

為什麼世尊要將受（vedanā）、想（saṃjñā）單獨建立為『蘊』呢？以下第三部分討論『體』的廢立。其中分為兩點：一是建立受、想為蘊，二是無為法（asaṃskṛta dharma）不是蘊。這裡討論的是建立受、想為蘊。這是提問和頌的回答。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, 'aggregate' (聚, pinyin: jù) is not equivalent to 'meaning' (義, pinyin: yì). 'Meaning' refers to the names and distinctions of real objects, while 'aggregate' is not the real object itself (it is explained that because 'aggregate' has the meaning of 'righteousness', it is called 'righteous aggregate', which belongs to the dependent possessive explanation, that is, 'aggregate' is false, 'meaning' is real, and 'righteous aggregate' is 'skandha' (蘊)). It is also said that even a single extremely small particle contains the meanings of the past, present, and future three times. Through wisdom analysis, it can be slightly regarded as an 'aggregate'. Although 'skandha' is an 'aggregate', it is actually composed of 'meaning'. The same is true for other dharmas, so 'skandha' is not false (it is explained that this one extremely small particle has the meanings of the three times, far and near, so it is called 'aggregate', that is, 'aggregate' is 'meaning', which belongs to the possessive explanation). It is also said that in each individual arising dharma, 'skandha' is also mentioned, so 'skandha' is definitely not false. For example, it is said that the feeling (vedanā) arising together is called 'feeling skandha' (受蘊), and the thought (saṃjñā) arising together is called 'thought skandha' (想蘊). Other statements are as stated in the sutras. Because they arise together at all times, although 'skandhas' are different, the meaning of 'aggregate' is established (it is explained that each of the feeling skandha, etc., is an accumulable phase called 'skandha', which belongs to the possessive explanation. Or, feeling skandha, etc., must arise together with the accumulating dharma, such as a single extremely small particle, which also arises together with the eight dharmas such as size). The Abhidharmakośa (正理) should also be the same as the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙), believing that 'skandha' can be both false and real. Because the author of the Abhidharmakośa says that 'skandha' is only false, so here it is temporarily said to be real.

Why did the World Honored One (世尊) make three kinds of statements? The second part below explains the causes and conditions for the arising of the teachings, which is a question.

Verse says: 'Skandhas (蘊), āyatanas (處), dhātus (界)' are three. Answer: Ignorance (愚) refers to the delusion whose essence is ignorance (avidyā). The objects of delusion are different, and there are three situations. Or the ignorant mental factors are always attached to 'self' (ātman), so 'skandha' is spoken for them, because 'skandha' extensively explains the mental factors. Or only ignorant of form (rūpa), attached to 'self', so 'āyatana' is spoken for them, because 'āyatana' extensively explains all forms. Or ignorant of form and mind, always attached to 'self', so 'dhātu' is spoken for them, because 'dhātu' extensively explains form and mind. Faculty (根) refers to the faculty, with the five faculties such as faith (śraddhā) as the essence. Joy (樂) takes understanding (勝解) as its essence, so the Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says that 'joy' is understanding. It is also explained that 'joy' is desire. For those with sharp faculties, they like brevity, so 'skandha' is spoken for them; for those with medium faculties, they like moderation, so 'āyatana' is spoken for them; for those with dull faculties, they like extensiveness, so 'dhātu' is spoken for them.

Why did the World Honored One establish feeling (vedanā) and thought (saṃjñā) separately as 'skandhas'? The third part below discusses the establishment and abolition of 'essence'. It is divided into two points: one is to establish feeling and thought as skandhas, and the other is that unconditioned dharma (asaṃskṛta dharma) is not a skandha. Here we discuss the establishment of feeling and thought as skandhas. This is the question and the answer of the verse.

論曰至鄰次當辨者。諍根有二。謂在家者貪著諸欲。若出家者貪著諸見。此欲．見二。受．想如次能為勝因。由味受力故貪著諸欲。由倒想力故貪著諸見　煩惱名諍。即諍名根　或與諍為根　生死法。謂三界生死法。由耽著樂受起倒想故。所以生死輪迴。故此受．想為最勝因　由此諍根因。生死因。及后頌當說五蘊次第因。故別立受．想。

何故無為至例應成失者。此即明無為非蘊。問及答也　總有三解。一明無為非蘊中攝。不可積聚故非第六　又解。亦不可說下。通伏難。伏難云。若非五蘊。何故不說為第六蘊。為通此伏難故。言亦不可說為第六蘊。無為之法非如色等可積聚故　二明蘊是染．凈二依。依是因義。無為不爾故不立蘊　三明無為是蘊息處。非蘊。息謂滅處。如瓶破滅處。非瓶　論主。許前二解不許第三。故言彼于處．界例應成失。若便蘊息名無為。無為非蘊攝。處．界息故名無為。無為非是處．界攝　正理救云。若於是處。蘊相都無名為蘊息。三無為上聚義都無。可言蘊息。非門．族義于彼亦無。故不應例　若俱舍師破云。若言無為無聚義者。與我此論初解何殊。

如是已說至界別次第立者。此下第四明次第。就中。一明蘊次第二處．界次第。此即明蘊次第。結問頌答。

論曰至立

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：論中說到了接下來應當辨析的內容。爭論的根源有兩個：一是在家人貪戀各種慾望，二是修行人貪戀各種見解。這慾望和見解兩種，感受（受，vedanā）和思想（想，saṃjñā）依次能成為它們的主要原因。由於對樂受的執著，所以貪戀各種慾望；由於顛倒的妄想，所以貪戀各種見解。煩惱被稱為爭論，也就是爭論的根源，或者說是爭論的根本。生死之法，指的是三界中的生死輪迴。由於耽溺於快樂的感受而產生顛倒的妄想，所以才會有生死的輪迴。因此，這感受和思想是最主要的原因。由於這個爭論的根源，生死的根源，以及後面頌文將要說的五蘊次第的原因，所以特別提出感受和思想。

為什麼說無為法如果也算作蘊，那麼處和界也應該算作蘊，這樣就會出現過失呢？這說明無為法（asaṃskṛta）不是蘊（skandha）。這是提問和回答。總共有三種解釋：第一種解釋說明無為法不包含在蘊中，因為它不可積聚，所以不是第六蘊。另一種解釋，也可以說在下面，是用來普遍地駁斥詰難。詰難說，如果無為法不是五蘊，為什麼不說它是第六蘊呢？爲了駁斥這個詰難，所以說也不能說它是第六蘊，因為無為法不像色法等可以積聚。第二種解釋說明蘊是染污和清凈兩種狀態所依賴的基礎，依賴是原因的意思，而無為法不是這樣，所以不建立為蘊。第三種解釋說明無為法是蘊的止息之處，不是蘊。止息指的是滅盡之處，就像瓶子破碎后的滅盡之處，不是瓶子本身。論主認可前兩種解釋，不認可第三種解釋。所以說，如果按照處和界的例子，就會出現過失。如果說蘊的止息叫做無為，那麼無為就不是蘊所包含的。處和界的止息叫做無為，那麼無為就不是處和界所包含的。正理論進行辯護說，如果在這個地方，蘊的相狀完全沒有了，就叫做蘊的止息。三種無為法上面聚集的含義完全沒有，可以說成是蘊的止息。但是門和族的含義在那裡也沒有，所以不應該用這個例子。如果俱舍論師反駁說，如果說無為法沒有聚集的含義，那麼和我的這個論的最初解釋有什麼區別呢？

像這樣已經說完了蘊的次第，接下來要說明處和界的次第建立。這下面第四部分說明次第。其中，第一部分說明蘊的次第，第二部分說明處和界的次第。這說明了蘊的次第，總結提問和回答。

論中說到了建立

【English Translation】 English version: The treatise says that what should be distinguished next is this. There are two roots of contention: one is that householders are attached to various desires, and the other is that renunciants are attached to various views. These two, desire and view, are followed by feeling (vedanā) and perception (saṃjñā), which can become the primary causes in that order. Because of the power of savoring feelings, one becomes attached to various desires; because of the power of distorted perceptions, one becomes attached to various views. Afflictions are called contention, which is the root of contention, or the root of strife. The laws of birth and death refer to the cycle of birth and death in the three realms. Because of indulging in pleasurable feelings and giving rise to distorted perceptions, there is the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, feeling and perception are the most important causes. Because of this root of contention, the root of birth and death, and the reason for the order of the five skandhas (pañcaskandha) that will be discussed in the verses below, feeling and perception are specifically mentioned.

Why is it said that if the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) were also considered a skandha, then the āyatanas (āyatana) and dhātus (dhātu) should also be considered skandhas, which would lead to a fault? This explains that the unconditioned is not a skandha. This is a question and answer. There are three explanations in total: the first explanation clarifies that the unconditioned is not included in the skandhas because it cannot be accumulated, so it is not the sixth skandha. Another explanation, which can also be said below, is used to universally refute the challenge. The challenge says, if the unconditioned is not the five skandhas, why not say it is the sixth skandha? To refute this challenge, it is said that it cannot be said to be the sixth skandha because the unconditioned is not like form, etc., which can be accumulated. The second explanation clarifies that the skandhas are the basis upon which both defilement and purity depend; dependence means cause, but the unconditioned is not like this, so it is not established as a skandha. The third explanation clarifies that the unconditioned is the place where the skandhas cease, not a skandha. Cessation refers to the place of extinction, like the place of extinction after a bottle is broken, not the bottle itself. The treatise master accepts the first two explanations but does not accept the third. Therefore, it is said that if following the example of the āyatanas and dhātus, there would be a fault. If the cessation of the skandhas is called the unconditioned, then the unconditioned is not included in the skandhas. The cessation of the āyatanas and dhātus is called the unconditioned, then the unconditioned is not included in the āyatanas and dhātus. The Nyāyānusāra defends by saying that if in this place, the characteristics of the skandhas are completely absent, it is called the cessation of the skandhas. The meaning of accumulation is completely absent in the three unconditioned dharmas, so it can be said to be the cessation of the skandhas. However, the meanings of 'gate' and 'lineage' are also not present there, so this example should not be used. If the Abhidharmakośa master refutes by saying that if it is said that the unconditioned does not have the meaning of accumulation, then what is the difference between this and my treatise's initial explanation?

Having thus explained the order of the skandhas, next, the establishment of the order of the āyatanas and dhātus will be explained. Below, the fourth part explains the order. Among them, the first part explains the order of the skandhas, and the second part explains the order of the āyatanas and dhātus. This explains the order of the skandhas, summarizing the question and answer.

The treatise says regarding the establishment

蘊次第者。此約隨粗明次第　色有對故五蘊中粗。是故先說　四無色中粗唯受行相。故世說言我手等痛。痛是苦受。不言想等。四中先說　於後三中。待行．識二想蘊最粗。男．女等想易可知故。三中先說　於後二中。行粗過識。貪等易了。二中先說　於五蘊中識最為細。總相難分故最後說。

或從無始至立蘊次第者。約隨染明次第。

或從無始生死已來。男．女於色更相愛樂。由顯形等故初說色。此色愛生由耽受味。故次說受　耽受復因倒想故次說想。

此倒想生由煩惱。故次說行　如是煩惱依識而生。此行及前色．受．想三。皆染污識。故后說識　問行蘊有惑可能染識。色．受．想三體非煩惱。如何染識。解云。色．受．想三。雖性非惑。而能為緣生染污識。說名染識　或色為緣生染污識。受．想與惑相應。能染污識。說名染識。

或色如器至立蘊次第者。約隨器等明次第　如欲迎客先求好器。謂色如器受所依故。故色初說。既得器已擬有所盛。次求飲食謂米．面等。受類飲食　增益損減有情身故。故次說受　求得食已不可獨進。次求助味謂𦵔．鹽等。想同助味。由取怨．親．中平等相助生受故。故次說想　雖得飲食．助味復須人調合。次求廚人。行似廚人。出貪．思等。業．煩惱力。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本蘊的次第安排，是根據由粗到細的順序來確定的。色蘊（Rūpa-skandha，物質之蘊）因為是有對的，所以在五蘊（Pañca-skandha）中最粗顯，因此最先說。在四種無色蘊（Arūpa-skandha）中，受蘊（Vedanā-skandha）和行蘊（Saṃskāra-skandha）的行相比較粗顯。所以世俗之人會說『我的手等處疼痛』，這裡的『痛』就是苦受（Dukkha-vedanā）。而不會說『我想』等等。在四蘊中，受蘊最先被提及。在剩下的三個蘊中，相對於行蘊和識蘊（Vijñāna-skandha），想蘊（Saṃjñā-skandha）最為粗顯，因為對於男人、女人等的想法很容易被認知。所以在三蘊中，想蘊最先被提及。在剩下的兩個蘊中，行蘊比識蘊粗顯，因為貪婪等情緒很容易被察覺。在五蘊中，識蘊最為細微，總體的相狀難以分辨，所以最後才說。

或者，從無始以來建立蘊的次第，是根據隨順染污的順序來確定的。

或者，從無始生死以來，男人和女人對於色蘊更加相互愛戀，因為顯現的形貌等原因，所以最先說色蘊。這種對於色蘊的愛戀，是由於貪戀感受的滋味而產生的，所以接著說受蘊。貪戀感受又是因為顛倒的想而產生的，所以接著說想蘊。

這種顛倒的想，是由於煩惱而產生的，所以接著說行蘊。這些煩惱依賴於識而生起。這些行蘊以及之前的色蘊、受蘊、想蘊，都染污了識，所以最後說識蘊。有人問：行蘊有迷惑，可能染污識，但是色蘊、受蘊、想蘊的體性不是煩惱，如何染污識呢？解釋說：色蘊、受蘊、想蘊，雖然其自性不是迷惑，但是能夠作為因緣生起染污的識，所以說它們染污了識。或者說，色蘊作為因緣生起染污的識，受蘊、想蘊與迷惑相應，能夠染污識，所以說它們染污了識。

或者，色蘊如同器皿來建立蘊的次第，是根據隨順器皿等來闡明的。比如要迎接客人，首先要尋找好的器皿，色蘊就像器皿，是受蘊所依賴的，所以色蘊最先被提及。已經得到了器皿，就想要盛放東西，接著尋找飲食，比如米、面等，受蘊類似於飲食，能夠增益或損減有情的身心，所以接著說受蘊。求得了飲食，不能獨自享用，接著尋找佐料，比如醬、鹽等，想蘊如同佐料，由於取怨、親、中平等之相，幫助生起感受，所以接著說想蘊。雖然得到了飲食和佐料，還需要人來調和，接著尋找廚師，行蘊類似於廚師，產生貪婪、思慮等業和煩惱的力量。

【English Translation】 English version The order of the aggregates (Skandha) is determined by the sequence from gross to subtle. The form aggregate (Rūpa-skandha), being tangible, is the grossest among the five aggregates (Pañca-skandha), hence it is mentioned first. Among the four formless aggregates (Arūpa-skandha), the feeling aggregate (Vedanā-skandha) and the mental formations aggregate (Saṃskāra-skandha) are relatively gross in their aspects. Therefore, people commonly say, 'My hand, etc., hurts,' where 'hurt' refers to painful feeling (Dukkha-vedanā). They do not say, 'I think,' etc. Among the four, feeling is mentioned first. Among the remaining three, the perception aggregate (Saṃjñā-skandha) is grosser than the mental formations and consciousness aggregates (Vijñāna-skandha), as perceptions of 'man,' 'woman,' etc., are easily recognizable. Thus, among the three, perception is mentioned first. Among the remaining two, mental formations are grosser than consciousness, as greed, etc., are easily understood. Among the five aggregates, consciousness is the subtlest, and its overall nature is difficult to discern, hence it is mentioned last.

Alternatively, the order of establishing the aggregates from beginningless time is determined by the sequence of following defilements.

Or, from beginningless birth and death, men and women are more attached to the form aggregate, due to its manifest appearance, hence form is mentioned first. This attachment to form arises from indulging in the taste of feeling, hence feeling is mentioned next. Indulging in feeling is caused by distorted perception, hence perception is mentioned next.

This distorted perception arises from afflictions (Kleśa), hence mental formations are mentioned next. These afflictions arise dependent on consciousness. These mental formations, as well as the preceding form, feeling, and perception, all defile consciousness, hence consciousness is mentioned last. Someone asks: The mental formations aggregate has delusion and can defile consciousness, but the nature of form, feeling, and perception is not affliction, how do they defile consciousness? The explanation is: Although the nature of form, feeling, and perception is not delusion, they can serve as conditions for the arising of defiled consciousness, hence they are said to defile consciousness. Or, form serves as a condition for the arising of defiled consciousness, and feeling and perception are associated with afflictions, and can defile consciousness, hence they are said to defile consciousness.

Or, the order of establishing the aggregates with form likened to a vessel is explained according to the sequence of vessels, etc. For example, when welcoming a guest, one first seeks a good vessel. Form is like a vessel, upon which feeling depends, hence form is mentioned first. Having obtained a vessel, one intends to fill it with something, and then seeks food, such as rice, flour, etc. Feeling is similar to food, as it can increase or decrease the well-being of sentient beings, hence feeling is mentioned next. Having obtained food, one cannot enjoy it alone, and then seeks condiments, such as sauce, salt, etc. Perception is like condiments, as it helps to generate feeling by taking the aspects of enemies, friends, and neutrals equally, hence perception is mentioned next. Although one has obtained food and condiments, one still needs someone to prepare it, and then seeks a cook. Mental formations are similar to a cook, producing the power of karma and afflictions such as greed and thought.

愛．非愛等異熟生故。故次說行　既調合已延客受用。名為食者。識喻食者。有情身中識為主勝。故最後說。

或隨界別至無增減過者。約界立次第。思感八萬故思最勝。四是所住喻之如田。識是能住類之如種　余文可知。

即由如是至故別立蘊者。前指下文。故今略顯。四義非一者名諸次第。所以于諸行中別立受．想者。一為相粗粗．細門也。二為生染起過門也。三類食同助。器等門也。四二界中強。界別門也。

處界門中至次第可知者。此下第二明處．界次第。辨根次第。境．識類知。此即問起。

頌曰至或隨處次第者。頌答　余謂身．意根余。即眼等四根。

論曰至舌後嘗味者。於六根中。前五境定。是故前說。意境不定。所以後說　言不定者。三世．無為。於此四種。一．一別緣為四。二．二合緣為六。三．三合緣為四。四．四合緣為一。總有十五故言不定　就前五中　前四境定。是故前說。身境不定所以後說　故正理云。境決定者。用無雜亂其相分明。所以先說。境不定者。用有雜亂相不分明。所以後說(已上論文)就前四中。眼．耳先說。取遠境故。鼻．舌後說。取近境故。眼先．耳後。由遠由速。鼻先．舌後。由速由明。所言明者。鼻能取味中之細香。舌不能取香中之

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由於愛和非愛等異熟果的產生，所以接下來講述『行』（karma）。既然已經調和好了，就邀請客人來享用，這被稱為『食』（food）。『識』（consciousness）比喻為『食』，在有情眾生中，『識』是主要且殊勝的，所以最後講述。

或者，爲了避免在界別上出現增減的錯誤，按照界來建立次第。『思』（thought）能感知八萬種事物，所以『思』最為殊勝。前四者是所居住的地方，比喻為田地。『識』是能居住者，類似於種子。其餘的文字可以理解。

正是由於這些原因，所以特別設立『蘊』（skandha）。前面指的是下文，所以現在簡略地顯示。四種意義並非單一，這就是各種次第的名稱。在各種『行』中特別設立『受』（feeling）和『想』（perception），第一是因為它們的粗細程度不同。第二是因為它們會產生染污和過失。第三是因為它們與『食』同類，可以輔助，如同器皿等。第四是因為它們在兩個界中強大，這是界別的不同。

在『處』（ayatana）和『界』（dhatu）的門中，次第是可以知道的。下面第二部分闡明『處』和『界』的次第，辨別根的次第，境和識可以類推得知。這實際上是問題的開始。

頌文說：『或者按照處的次第』。這是頌文的回答。其餘指的是身根和意根。也就是眼根等四根。

論述說：『直到舌根嘗味』。在六根中，前五根的境是確定的，所以先說。意根的境是不確定的，所以後說。所說的不確定，指的是三世（過去、現在、未來）和無為法。在這四種情況中，一、一種別緣為四種，二、兩種合緣為六種，三、三種合緣為四種，四、四種合緣為一種，總共有十五種，所以說不確定。在前五根中，前四根的境是確定的，所以先說。身根的境是不確定的，所以後說。所以《正理》中說，境是確定的，其作用沒有雜亂，其相分明，所以先說。境是不確定的，其作用有雜亂，相不分明，所以後說（以上是論文）。在前四根中，眼根和耳根先說，因為它們能取遠處的境。鼻根和舌根后說，因為它們取近處的境。眼根在前，耳根在後，是因為遠和速度。鼻根在前，舌根在後，是因為速度和明晰。所說的明晰，指的是鼻根能取味道中細微的香味，而舌根不能取香味中的

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the maturation of love and non-love, etc., 『karma』 (行) is discussed next. Since it has been harmonized, guests are invited to enjoy it, which is called 『food』 (食). 『Consciousness』 (識) is likened to 『food』. Among sentient beings, 『consciousness』 is the main and superior one, so it is discussed last.

Or, to avoid errors of increase or decrease in terms of realms, the order is established according to realms. 『Thought』 (思) can perceive eighty thousand things, so 『thought』 is the most superior. The first four are the places where one dwells, likened to fields. 『Consciousness』 is the one who dwells, similar to seeds. The remaining text can be understood.

It is precisely because of these reasons that 『skandhas』 (蘊) are specifically established. The previous refers to the following text, so it is now briefly shown. The four meanings are not singular, and these are the names of the various orders. Among the various 『actions』 (行), 『feeling』 (受) and 『perception』 (想) are specifically established, first because of their different degrees of coarseness and fineness. Second, because they generate defilements and faults. Third, because they are of the same kind as 『food』, they can assist, like utensils, etc. Fourth, because they are strong in two realms, this is the difference in realms.

In the gate of 『ayatanas』 (處) and 『dhatus』 (界), the order can be known. The second part below clarifies the order of 『ayatanas』 and 『dhatus』, distinguishes the order of the roots, and the objects and consciousness can be inferred by analogy. This is actually the beginning of the question.

The verse says: 『Or according to the order of the ayatanas』. This is the answer in the verse. The rest refers to the body root and the mind root. That is, the four roots such as the eye root.

The treatise says: 『Until the tongue root tastes』. Among the six roots, the objects of the first five roots are fixed, so they are mentioned first. The object of the mind root is uncertain, so it is mentioned later. What is meant by uncertain refers to the three times (past, present, future) and unconditioned dharmas (無為法). In these four cases, one, one kind of separate condition is four kinds, two, two kinds of combined condition is six kinds, three, three kinds of combined condition is four kinds, four, four kinds of combined condition is one kind, there are fifteen kinds in total, so it is said to be uncertain. Among the first five roots, the objects of the first four roots are fixed, so they are mentioned first. The object of the body root is uncertain, so it is mentioned later. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says that the object is fixed, its function is not confused, and its appearance is clear, so it is mentioned first. The object is uncertain, its function is confused, and its appearance is not clear, so it is mentioned later (the above is the treatise). Among the first four roots, the eye root and ear root are mentioned first because they can take distant objects. The nose root and tongue root are mentioned later because they take nearby objects. The eye root is before, and the ear root is after, because of distance and speed. The nose root is before, and the tongue root is after, because of speed and clarity. What is meant by clarity refers to the nose root being able to take the subtle fragrance in the taste, while the tongue root cannot take the fragrance in the

細味　余文可知。

或於身中至故最後說者。此約所依上．下。明前五根次第。所依謂扶根四境。眼．耳．鼻三。若據所依得有上．下。若據根體即無上．下。故下論云。此初三根橫作行度。處無高．下。如冠華鬘。意無方處。有即依止諸五色根生者。故最後說　故正理第三云。意無方所。有即依止五根生者。故最後說(已上論文)。謂意根攬六識成。意識依雖唯意。五識亦依五根。有斯不定。故言有即依止諸根生者。雖無色界唯依意根。通三界論故作是說　又婆沙七十三云。複次。隨順粗．細次第法故。謂六內處。眼處最粗。是故前說。乃至意處最細。是故后說。廣如彼說。

何緣十處至立法處名者。此下第五明名廢立　問若礙故名為色。應十併名色。若持故名為法。應一切皆名法。何故唯一立以通名。

頌曰至一名為法處者。就頌答中。以四義簡。一為差別。通釋色處．法處　二最勝。別釋色處　三攝多法。四攝增上法。別釋法處。

論曰至非於眼等者。別解色處。為令了知境．有境性差別相故。色蘊分十不總為一。法處無表以少不論。

若無眼等九差。別想．名。而體是色總立色處名。此色處為眼等九名所簡別。雖標總稱而即別名。如多主馬同群各有別印。一主無印即以無印別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：細細品味，剩餘的文字就可以理解了。

或者說，在身體中最後提到『故』（指意根）的原因，這是根據所依（指五根所依賴的扶根四塵）的上、下位置來說明前五根的次第。所依指的是扶助五根的四種境界（色、聲、香、味）。眼、耳、鼻這三種根，如果根據它們所依賴的境界來說，可以有上、下的區別；如果根據根本身的性質來說，就沒有上、下的區別。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說：『這前三種根是橫向運作的，沒有高低的位置，就像頭上的花冠一樣。』意根沒有固定的方位，它依賴於五色根而生起，所以最後才說它。《阿毗達磨順正理論》第三卷中說：『意根沒有固定的處所，它依賴於五根而生起，所以最後才說它。』（以上是引用的論文）。意思是說，意根統攝六識而成。雖然意識的所依只有意根，但前五識也依賴於五根，這並不確定。所以說『依賴於諸根而生起』。雖然沒有『唯依意根』的說法，但因為意根通於三界，所以這樣說。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第七十三卷中說：『再者，這是隨順粗細次第的法則。』六內處中，眼處最粗，所以先說；乃至意處最細，所以後說。詳細內容可以參考該論。

為什麼十處（眼處、耳處、鼻處、舌處、身處、色處、聲處、香處、味處、觸處）中，只有色處和法處被立為名稱呢？這以下第五點說明名稱的廢立。問：如果因為有障礙所以稱為『色』，那麼十處都應該稱為『色』；如果因為能保持（自性）所以稱為『法』，那麼一切都應該稱為『法』。為什麼只有色處和法處被立為通用的名稱呢？

頌文說：『...一個名為法處』。在頌文的回答中，用四個方面來簡別：一是為差別，通泛地解釋色處和法處；二是為最勝，特別解釋色處；三是攝取多種法；四是攝取增上法，特別解釋法處。

論中說：『...不是對於眼等』。這是分別解釋色處。爲了讓人瞭解境（所觀察的對象）和有境性（能觀察的主體）的差別相，所以色蘊分為十個，不總合為一個。法處中的無表色很少，所以不單獨討論。

如果沒有眼等九處的差別，就沒有不同的想法和名稱。而其體性是色，總的立為色處的名稱。這個色處被眼等九個名稱所簡別。雖然標明的是總稱，但實際上是別名。就像一群馬，雖然屬於同一個主人，但每匹馬都有不同的標記。沒有標記的馬，就用沒有標記來區分。

【English Translation】 English version: By carefully savoring, the remaining text can be understood.

Alternatively, the reason for mentioning '故' (意根, manas-indriya, mind faculty) last in the body is to explain the order of the preceding five faculties based on the upper and lower positions of what they rely on (扶根四塵, four supporting objects of the faculties). What they rely on refers to the four realms (色, sound, smell, taste) that support the five faculties. Among the eye, ear, and nose faculties, if based on the realms they rely on, there can be upper and lower distinctions; if based on the nature of the faculties themselves, there are no upper and lower distinctions. Therefore, the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'These first three faculties operate horizontally and have no high or low positions, like a garland on the head.' The mind faculty has no fixed location; it arises dependent on the five sense faculties, so it is mentioned last. The third volume of the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The mind faculty has no fixed location; it arises dependent on the five faculties, so it is mentioned last.' (The above is a quote from the treatise). It means that the mind faculty encompasses the six consciousnesses. Although the support of consciousness is only the mind faculty, the preceding five consciousnesses also rely on the five faculties, which is not fixed. Therefore, it is said that 'it arises dependent on the faculties.' Although there is no statement of 'solely relying on the mind faculty,' it is said this way because the mind faculty pervades the three realms. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra volume 73 says: 'Moreover, this follows the principle of coarse and fine order.' Among the six internal āyatanas (處, sense bases), the eye base is the coarsest, so it is mentioned first; and the mind base is the finest, so it is mentioned last. Detailed content can be found in that treatise.

Why are only the 色處 (rūpāyatana, form base) and 法處 (dharmāyatana, dharma base) established as names among the ten āyatanas (眼處, ear base, 鼻處, nose base, 舌處, tongue base, 身處, body base, 色處, form base, 聲處, sound base, 香處, smell base, 味處, taste base, 觸處, touch base)? The fifth point below explains the establishment and abolition of names. Question: If it is called '色 (rūpa, form)' because it obstructs, then all ten should be called '色'; if it is called '法 (dharma, phenomena)' because it maintains (its own nature), then everything should be called '法.' Why are only 色處 and 法處 established as common names?

The verse says: '...one is called 法處 (dharmāyatana, dharma base).' In the answer of the verse, four aspects are used to distinguish: first, for differentiation, generally explaining 色處 (rūpāyatana, form base) and 法處 (dharmāyatana, dharma base); second, for supremacy, specifically explaining 色處 (rūpāyatana, form base); third, encompassing many dharmas; fourth, encompassing adhipati-dharma (增上法, dominant phenomena), specifically explaining 法處 (dharmāyatana, dharma base).

The treatise says: '...not for the eye, etc.' This separately explains 色處 (rūpāyatana, form base). To make people understand the difference between the object (what is observed) and the nature of having an object (the subject that can observe), the 色蘊 (rūpa-skandha, aggregate of form) is divided into ten, not combined into one. The avijñapti-rūpa (無表色, non-revealing form) in 法處 (dharmāyatana, dharma base) is small, so it is not discussed separately.

If there were no differences in the nine āyatanas (眼處, ear base, 鼻處, nose base, 舌處, tongue base, 身處, body base, 聲處, sound base, 香處, smell base, 味處, taste base, 觸處, touch base) such as the eye, there would be no different thoughts and names. And its nature is 色 (rūpa, form), which is generally established as the name of 色處 (rūpāyatana, form base). This 色處 (rūpāyatana, form base) is distinguished by the nine names such as the eye. Although what is indicated is a general term, it is actually a specific name. Like a group of horses, although they belong to the same owner, each horse has a different mark. The horse without a mark is distinguished by having no mark.

有印者。此亦如是。故言總即別名　應有問言。何故餘九不立通名。唯標色處　故今通言。又諸十色中。色處最勝故亦立通名。一有對故。二有見故。三同說色故。具茲三義勝立通名。或有對言簡無表色。有見．同說簡眼等九。

又為差別至獨名為法者。別解法處　又為差別餘十一處立一法處名。非於一切十一處。雖標總稱即受別名。如色應知。

應有問言。何故餘十一處不立通名。唯標法處。故復釋言。以法處中。攝多法處故。攝增上法故。故立通名。余處不爾。

有餘師說至獨立法名者。敘異師釋　色得通名。一體多粗顯。二三眼境故。故立通名。余處不爾。雖十色處。皆慧眼境。眼等九處非肉．天境。又非粗顯不立　法眼及佛眼者。慧眼名法。即此四眼。至佛身中總名佛眼　法處中有能詮諸法名故。有能緣諸法智故。故得法名。余處不爾　言名顯文句。或名與智體增上故。

諸契經中至為離此耶者。此下第六攝異名。就中。一略攝法蘊。二類攝蘊等。三別明六界。就第一略攝法蘊中。一明攝法蘊。二明法蘊量。此下第一明攝法蘊。頌前問起。一總。二別。此即總問。

彼皆此攝如應當知者。總答。

且辨攝余諸蘊名想者。別起頌文。

頌曰至皆行蘊攝者。西方數法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『有印者，此亦如是』。因此說總稱即是別名。應該有人會問：為什麼其餘九處不設立通名，唯獨標明色處（Rūpa-āyatana，色蘊）？現在統一回答：又在所有十種色法中，色處最為殊勝，所以也設立通名。一是因為它『有對』（sapratiha），二是因為它『有見』（sanidarśana），三是因為它與『色』同說。具備這三種意義，所以殊勝地設立通名。或者說，『有對』是爲了簡別無表色（avijñapti-rūpa）；『有見』、『同說』是爲了簡別眼等其餘九處。

『又為差別至獨名為法者』，是爲了分別解釋法處（Dharma-āyatana，法蘊）。『又為差別餘十一處立一法處名』，不是對所有十一個處都這樣。雖然標明總稱，即接受別名，如色處應當知曉。

應該有人會問：為什麼其餘十一個處不設立通名，唯獨標明法處？所以再次解釋說：因為法處中，攝取了眾多的法處，所以攝取了增上法，因此設立通名，其餘處則不是這樣。

『有餘師說至獨立法名者』，這是敘述其他論師的解釋。色處得到通名，一是其體性眾多且粗顯，二是它是肉眼和天眼的境界，所以設立通名，其餘處則不是這樣。雖然十種色處，都是慧眼的境界，但眼等九處不是肉眼和天眼的境界，又不是粗顯，所以不設立通名。『法眼及佛眼者』，慧眼名為法眼，即這四種眼，到佛身中總名為佛眼。法處中有能詮釋諸法的名，有能緣取諸法之智，所以得到法名，其餘處則不是這樣。『言名顯文句』，或者說名與智的體性增上。

『諸契經中至為離此耶者』，這以下是第六部分，攝取異名。其中，一是略攝法蘊，二是類別攝取蘊等，三是分別說明六界。就第一部分，略攝法蘊中，一是說明攝取法蘊，二是說明法蘊的量。這以下是第一部分，說明攝取法蘊。總頌前文的問，一是總問，二是別問，這裡是總問。

『彼皆此攝如應當知者』，這是總的回答。

『且辨攝余諸蘊名想者』，這是分別開始頌文。

『頌曰至皆行蘊攝者』，這是西方數法。

【English Translation】 English version 'Those with marks, it is also thus.' Therefore, it is said that the general name is also a specific name. One might ask: Why are the other nine āyatana (spheres of sense) not given a general name, but only the Rūpa-āyatana (sphere of form) is designated? Now, to answer generally: Among all ten types of form, the Rūpa-āyatana is the most excellent, so it is also given a general name. Firstly, because it is 'with resistance' (sapratiha); secondly, because it is 'visible' (sanidarśana); and thirdly, because it is spoken of together with 'form'. Possessing these three meanings, it is excellently given a general name. Or, 'with resistance' is to distinguish it from non-manifest form (avijñapti-rūpa); 'visible' and 'spoken of together' are to distinguish it from the eye and the other nine āyatana.

'Moreover, to differentiate, that which is uniquely named Dharma', is to separately explain the Dharma-āyatana (sphere of phenomena). 'Moreover, to differentiate, the other eleven āyatana are given the single name Dharma-āyatana', this is not the case for all eleven āyatana. Although a general name is designated, it receives a specific name, as should be understood with form.

One might ask: Why are the other eleven āyatana not given a general name, but only the Dharma-āyatana is designated? Therefore, it is explained again: Because within the Dharma-āyatana, many Dharma-āyatana are included, therefore it includes the superior Dharma, hence a general name is given. The other āyatana are not like this.

'Some teachers say, up to the independent name Dharma', this is narrating the explanation of other teachers. The Rūpa-āyatana obtains a general name because firstly, its nature is numerous, coarse, and manifest; secondly, it is the realm of the physical eye and the heavenly eye, therefore a general name is given. The other āyatana are not like this. Although the ten Rūpa-āyatana are all the realm of the wisdom eye, the eye and the other nine āyatana are not the realm of the physical eye and the heavenly eye, and are not coarse and manifest, so a general name is not given. 'The Dharma-eye and the Buddha-eye', the wisdom eye is called the Dharma-eye, that is, these four eyes, when in the Buddha's body, are collectively called the Buddha-eye. Within the Dharma-āyatana, there are names that can explain all dharmas, and there is the wisdom that can perceive all dharmas, therefore it obtains the name Dharma, the other āyatana are not like this. 'Words name manifest sentences', or the nature of name and wisdom is superior.

'In the sutras, up to, is it apart from this?', this below is the sixth part, collecting different names. Among them, firstly, briefly collecting the Dharma-skandha (aggregate of phenomena); secondly, categorizing and collecting the skandhas (aggregates) etc.; thirdly, separately explaining the six dhātus (elements). Regarding the first part, briefly collecting the Dharma-skandha, firstly, explaining the collection of the Dharma-skandha; secondly, explaining the measure of the Dharma-skandha. This below is the first part, explaining the collection of the Dharma-skandha. Generally, the question precedes, firstly, a general question; secondly, a specific question; this is the general question.

'They are all included in this, as should be known accordingly', this is the general answer.

'And to distinguish the names and thoughts of the remaining skandhas', this is to separately begin the verse.

'The verse says, up to, all are included in the Saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of mental formations)', this is the Western counting of dharmas.

。多以十．百為因乘成多數。百．千以上以百因之。未滿百．千以十乘之。故目八萬為八十千也　此中教體兩說不同。自古諸德出教體。或有以聲為體。或有以名．句．文為體。或具含二種　若約逗機說法以聲為體　若據詮法以名．句．文為體　所以諸論出教體中。皆有兩說不同。今依新譯婆沙以此論初說為正。故婆沙一百二十六云。問如是佛教以何為體。為是語業。為是名等。答應作是說。語業為體　問若爾。次後所說當云何通。如說佛教名何法。答謂名身．句身．文身．乃至次第連合。答後文為顯佛教作用。不欲顯示佛教自體。謂次第行列．安布．連合．名．句．文身。是佛教用　問伽陀所說復云何通。答有于名轉。有于義轉。此中且說于名轉者　有說佛教名等為體　問若爾所說當云何通。如說佛教云何。謂佛語言。乃至．語表．是謂佛教。答依展轉因故作是說。如世子孫展轉生法。謂語起名。名能顯義　如是說者。語業為體。佛意所說他所聞故　又云。問何故佛教唯是語表。非無表耶。答生他正解故名佛教。他正解生但由表業。非無表故(廣如彼釋)　又云。佛教當言善耶。無記耶。答或善．或無記　云何善。謂佛善心所發語言乃至語表。云何無記。謂佛無記心所發語言。乃至語表　問教體若通善者。何故金剛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：多數是通過以十或百為因數相乘而成的。超過百或千的數字，以百為單位遞增。不足百或千的數字，以十為單位遞增。因此，稱八萬為八十千。關於此中教義的本體，有兩種不同的說法。自古以來，各位德行高尚的人對教義的本體有不同的解釋。有些人認為聲音是本體，有些人認為名、句、文是本體，或者兼含兩種。如果根據適應根機說法，那麼聲音是本體。如果根據詮釋佛法，那麼名、句、文是本體。因此，在各種論典中關於教義本體的解釋，總是有兩種不同的說法。現在根據新翻譯的《婆沙論》，以該論最初的說法為正確。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十六卷說：『問：這樣的佛教以什麼為本體？是語業嗎？是名等嗎？』答：『應當這樣說，語業是本體。』『問：如果這樣，那麼後面所說的該如何解釋呢？比如佛教是什麼法？』答：『指的是名身、句身、文身，乃至次第連線。』答：『後面的文字是爲了顯示佛教的作用，不是爲了顯示佛教的自體。所謂次第排列、安布、連線、名、句、文身，是佛教的作用。』『問：伽陀所說的又該如何解釋呢？』答：『有的是從名上轉變，有的是從義上轉變。這裡且說從名上轉變的。』有人說佛教以名等為本體。『問：如果這樣，那麼所說的該如何解釋呢？比如佛教是什麼？指的是佛的語言，乃至語表，這就是佛教。』答：『依據展轉因的緣故這樣說。比如世間的子孫展轉相生，所謂語言產生名，名能夠顯義。』這樣說來，語業是本體，因為佛的意思通過語言表達出來，被他人聽聞。又說：『問：為什麼佛教唯獨是語表，而不是無表呢？』答：『因為能使他人產生正確的理解，所以稱為佛教。他人正確的理解產生，只是由於表業，而不是無表業。』（詳細內容見該論的解釋）又說：『佛教應當說是善的呢？還是無記的呢？』答：『或者善，或者無記。』什麼是善？指的是佛以善心所發出的語言乃至語表。什麼事無記？指的是佛以無記心所發出的語言乃至語表。『問：如果教體也通於善，那麼為什麼《金剛經》』

【English Translation】 English version: Multiples are formed by multiplying by factors of ten or one hundred. Numbers exceeding one hundred or one thousand increase by units of one hundred. Numbers less than one hundred or one thousand increase by units of ten. Therefore, eighty thousand is referred to as eighty thousand. Regarding the substance of the teachings within this, there are two different views. Since ancient times, various virtuous individuals have had different interpretations of the substance of the teachings. Some consider sound to be the substance, some consider name, sentence, and word to be the substance, or a combination of both. If speaking according to adapting to the capacity of the audience, then sound is the substance. If according to explaining the Dharma, then name, sentence, and word are the substance. Therefore, in various treatises on the explanation of the substance of the teachings, there are always two different views. Now, according to the newly translated Vibhasa (Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra), the initial statement in that treatise is considered correct. Therefore, Vibhasa, volume one hundred and twenty-six, says: 'Question: What is the substance of such Buddhism? Is it verbal karma? Is it name, etc.?' Answer: 'It should be said that verbal karma is the substance.' 'Question: If so, how should what is said later be explained? For example, what Dharma is Buddhism?' Answer: 'It refers to name-body, sentence-body, word-body, and even sequential connection.' Answer: 'The later text is to show the function of Buddhism, not to show the self-nature of Buddhism. The so-called sequential arrangement, placement, connection, name, sentence, and word-body are the function of Buddhism.' 'Question: How should what is said in the Gatha (verses) be explained?' Answer: 'Some are transformed from name, and some are transformed from meaning. Here, let's talk about those transformed from name.' Some say that Buddhism takes name, etc., as its substance. 'Question: If so, how should what is said be explained? For example, what is Buddhism? It refers to the Buddha's language, and even verbal expression, that is Buddhism.' Answer: 'It is said so because of the cause of mutual transformation. For example, the descendants of the world are born through mutual transformation, the so-called language produces name, and name can reveal meaning.' In this way, verbal karma is the substance, because the Buddha's intention is expressed through language and heard by others. It also says: 'Question: Why is Buddhism only verbal expression and not non-expression?' Answer: 'Because it can cause others to produce correct understanding, it is called Buddhism. The correct understanding of others arises only from expressive karma, not from non-expressive karma.' (See the explanation in that treatise for details) It also says: 'Should Buddhism be said to be good or neutral?' Answer: 'Either good or neutral.' What is good? It refers to the language and even verbal expression uttered by the Buddha with a good mind. What is neutral? It refers to the language and even verbal expression uttered by the Buddha with a neutral mind. 'Question: If the substance of the teachings also extends to good, then why is the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedika Sutra)'

般若論云。我法是善。汝法是無記。解云。十八部中有立無記。非汝．我部。

此諸法蘊至如實行對治者。此下明法蘊量。問及頌答。

論曰至二蘊所攝者。說法蘊量三說不同　第一師解。謂佛別說八萬部法蘊經。一．一部。皆如六足阿毗達磨中。法蘊足論有六千頌。此約文定量　第二師約所詮義定量。說一義門名一法蘊。謂隨所詮蘊等言一一差別數有八萬。能詮法蘊其數亦然。隨說一一教門名一法蘊。所謂五蘊．十二處．十八界．十二緣起．四諦．四食．四靜慮．四無量．四無色定．八解脫．八勝處．十遍處．三十七覺品．六神通．無諍．愿智．四無礙解　等。謂等取所餘法門　第三正義。約用定量。隨除一惑名一法蘊。謂由有情貪．瞋等行八萬別故。為治彼行。世尊宣說不凈等觀八萬法蘊。八萬法蘊。皆此五蘊中色．行二蘊所攝。如前兩說　有釋。此是第三解者。不然。依大數說但言八萬。若具足說有八萬四千　真諦師解云。十隨眠為十。一．一各有九隨眠為方便。一一具十即成一百。一百各有前分．後分。並本成三百。置本一百就前後二百中。一一以九隨眠為方便。並本二百合成二千。足本一百為二千一百。又約多貪．多瞋．思覺．愚癡．著我五。品品有二千一百成一萬五百。已起有一萬五百。未

起有一萬五百。合二萬一千。又以三毒．等分四人。各有二萬一千。合成八萬四千。

如是余處至應審觀自相者。此即第三類攝蘊等。若以共相相攝。是則萬法皆同爲合。體相共分互無濫故。應觀自相以體相收。

論曰至一一自相者。略釋頌文。

且諸經中至此行蘊攝者。此下舉名略攝。即別攝蘊。戒蘊是色蘊攝。餘四行蘊攝。謂定蘊。以行中定為體。慧蘊及解脫知見蘊。以行中慧為體。解脫蘊。以行中勝解為體　故婆沙三十三。出戒等五蘊體中雲。無漏身．語業名無學戒蘊　云何無學定蘊。答無學三．三摩地。謂空．無愿．無相　云何無學慧蘊。答無學正見智。云何無學解脫蘊。答無學作意相應心。已解脫今解脫當解脫謂盡．無生無學正見相應勝解　云何無學解脫智見蘊。答盡無生智　解云。勝解心數法中當廣分別。無學位中勝解相顯立解脫名。言解脫知見者。即智名見故名智見。緣解脫涅槃故名解脫知見　又解脫身中起故名解脫知見。故婆沙三十二云。答解脫身中獨有此故。最能審決解脫事故。

又諸經說至四蘊性故者。此攝處異名。此中文意大分可知　言五解脫者。一聞佛等說法得解脫。二因自讀誦得解脫。三為他說法得解脫。四靜處思惟得解脫。五善取定相得解脫。解脫謂涅槃。因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：起初有一萬零五百（指某種數量）。合起來是二萬一千。又用三毒（貪嗔癡）平均分給四個人，每個人各有二萬一千，總共是八萬四千。

像這樣，其餘的地方乃至應當審視自己的體相。這屬於第三類，即攝蘊等。如果用共相來相互統攝，那麼萬法都相同，成為一個整體。因為體相、共相、區分相互之間沒有混淆，所以應當觀察自相，用體相來歸納。

論中說乃至一一自相，這是簡略地解釋頌文。

而且在各種經書中乃至此行蘊所攝。下面是列舉名稱來簡略地統攝，也就是分別統攝五蘊。戒蘊屬於色蘊所攝，其餘四蘊屬於行蘊所攝。所謂定蘊，以行中的定為本體；慧蘊以及解脫知見蘊，以行中的慧為本體；解脫蘊，以行中的殊勝理解為本體。所以《婆沙論》第三十三卷，在解釋戒等五蘊的本體時說：『無漏的身語業稱為無學戒蘊。』『什麼是無學定蘊？』回答是：『無學的三種三摩地，即空、無愿、無相。』『什麼是無學慧蘊？』回答是：『無學的正見智。』『什麼是無學解脫蘊？』回答是：『無學作意相應的心，已經解脫、現在解脫、將來解脫，即滅盡、無生，與無學正見相應的殊勝理解。』『什麼是無學解脫智見蘊？』回答是：『滅盡智和無生智。』解釋說：『殊勝理解在心數法中應當廣泛地分別，在無學位中殊勝理解的相貌顯現，建立解脫的名稱。』所說的解脫知見，就是智慧，因為智慧被稱為見，所以稱為智見。因為緣于解脫涅槃，所以稱為解脫知見。又因為在解脫身中生起，所以稱為解脫知見。所以《婆沙論》第三十二卷說：『回答說，因為在解脫身中只有這個，所以最能審慎決斷解脫的事情。』

又各種經書說乃至四蘊的性質，這是統攝之處的異名。這段文字的意思大部分可以理解。所說的五種解脫是：一、聽聞佛等說法而得到解脫；二、因為自己讀誦而得到解脫；三、為他人說法而得到解脫；四、在安靜的地方思維而得到解脫；五、善於選取定的相狀而得到解脫。解脫指的是涅槃，因為

【English Translation】 English version: Initially, there are ten thousand five hundred (referring to a certain quantity). Combined, it is twenty-one thousand. Furthermore, using the three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion), divide them equally among four people, each receiving twenty-one thousand, totaling eighty-four thousand.

Likewise, in other places, one should carefully examine one's own characteristics. This belongs to the third category, namely the aggregates (skandhas) and so on. If common characteristics are used to encompass each other, then all dharmas become the same, forming a whole. Because individual characteristics, common characteristics, and distinctions do not mix with each other, one should observe individual characteristics, using individual characteristics to categorize.

The treatise says, 'down to each individual characteristic,' which is a brief explanation of the verse.

Moreover, in various sutras, 'down to what is encompassed by the activity aggregate (行蘊).' Below is a brief categorization by listing names, which is a separate categorization of the five aggregates. The morality aggregate (戒蘊) is encompassed by the form aggregate (色蘊), and the remaining four aggregates are encompassed by the activity aggregate. The concentration aggregate (定蘊) has concentration within activity as its essence; the wisdom aggregate (慧蘊) and the liberation knowledge and vision aggregate (解脫知見蘊) have wisdom within activity as their essence; the liberation aggregate (解脫蘊) has superior understanding within activity as its essence. Therefore, the thirty-third volume of the Vibhasa says, when explaining the essence of the five aggregates such as morality: 'The non-outflow body and verbal actions are called the non-learning morality aggregate.' 'What is the non-learning concentration aggregate?' The answer is: 'The non-learning three samadhis, namely emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness.' 'What is the non-learning wisdom aggregate?' The answer is: 'The non-learning right view wisdom.' 'What is the non-learning liberation aggregate?' The answer is: 'The non-learning mind associated with attention, already liberated, now liberated, and will be liberated, namely cessation, non-arising, and superior understanding associated with non-learning right view.' 'What is the non-learning liberation knowledge and vision aggregate?' The answer is: 'The knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of non-arising.' The explanation says: 'Superior understanding should be widely distinguished among mental factors. In the state of non-learning, the appearance of superior understanding is manifested, establishing the name of liberation.' What is called liberation knowledge and vision is wisdom, because wisdom is called vision, so it is called knowledge and vision. Because it is conditioned by liberation Nirvana, it is called liberation knowledge and vision. Also, because it arises in the liberation body, it is called liberation knowledge and vision. Therefore, the thirty-second volume of the Vibhasa says: 'The answer is, because only this exists in the liberation body, it is most capable of carefully deciding the matter of liberation.'

Furthermore, various sutras say 'down to the nature of the four aggregates,' which is a different name for the place of encompassing. The meaning of this passage is mostly understandable. The so-called five liberations are: first, obtaining liberation by hearing the teachings of the Buddha and others; second, obtaining liberation through one's own reading and recitation; third, obtaining liberation by teaching the Dharma to others; fourth, obtaining liberation by contemplating in a quiet place; fifth, being good at selecting the characteristics of concentration. Liberation refers to Nirvana, because

此五種得解脫故名解脫處。依主釋也。此即略依集異門足論十三．十四．及阿含經第九。列名標釋。廣如彼解　言皆慧為性者　第二生得。故婆沙云。受持讀誦十二部經是生得善　初及第三聞慧。由聞聖教生勝慧故　或可。第三亦取思慧。為他說法必先思故　第四思慧。如名可知　第五修慧。于彼定中善取相故　雖說不同皆慧為體。此法處攝　若兼助伴。前三。聲．意．法處所攝。后二。意．法所攝　又解。聲在第二．第三。取自聲故非第一。非以他聲為自助伴。無想有情聲恒成就故得有聲　故發智論說。誰成就身。謂欲．色界有情。如身色．聲．觸亦爾。故知。此聲恒成就也。正受無想異熟果時雖無有心。初生．后死必有心故。故亦言意。又婆沙百三十七云。問世尊。何故於無想天有頂天多說為處。答有諸外道執此二處以為解脫。佛為遮彼說為生處。廣如彼釋。

又多界經至十八界攝者。別攝界異名　六十二界。謂三種六．六種三．一種四．兩種二．更加十八界。故成六十二。隨其所應十八界攝。出體相攝。如次別明。

且彼經中至名識界耶者。此下第三別明六界。將明問起。地．水．火．風如前已說。空．識未說。為即虛空無為名為空界。為一切有漏．無漏識名識界耶。

不爾者。答。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這五種（指前文提到的五種智慧）因為能夠得到解脫，所以被稱為解脫處（vimokkha-ayatana）。這是依主釋（tatpurusa）。以上是簡略地依據《集異門足論》第十三、十四卷以及《阿含經》第九卷，列出名稱並加以解釋，詳細內容可以參考原文。『言皆慧為性者』，第二種（指聞慧）是生得的。所以《婆沙論》說，受持讀誦十二部經是生得的善。第一種和第三種（指聞慧和思慧）是聞慧，因為聽聞聖教而產生殊勝的智慧。或者，第三種也可以取思慧，因為為他人說法必定先思考。第四種（指思慧）是思慧，正如其名稱所表明的。第五種（指修慧）是修慧，因為在禪定中能夠很好地把握所觀之相。雖然說法不同，但它們的本體都是智慧。這些都屬於法處所攝。如果加上助伴，前三種屬於聲處、意處、法處所攝，后兩種屬於意處、法處所攝。另一種解釋是，聲音存在於第二種和第三種中，因為取自自身的聲音，而不是以他人的聲音作為自己的助伴。無想有情的聲音是恒常成就的，所以能夠有聲音。因此，《發智論》說，誰成就身？是指欲界、色界有情。如同身、色、聲、觸也是如此。由此可知，這種聲音是恒常成就的。正處於領受無想異熟果報時，雖然沒有心，但初生和后死時必定有心，所以也說是意。另外，《婆沙論》第一百三十七卷說，有人問世尊，為什麼對於無想天、有頂天更多地說是『處』（ayatana）？佛回答說，因為有許多外道執著于這兩個地方，認為它們是解脫之處。佛爲了破除他們的這種執著，所以說它們是生處。詳細內容可以參考原文的解釋。又，多界經所說的乃至十八界所攝，是分別攝取界的不同名稱。六十二界，是指三種六、六種三、一種四、兩種二，再加上十八界，所以總共有六十二界。根據它們各自的情況，都包含在十八界之中。關於它們的本體和相互包含關係，將在下面分別詳細說明。且說那部經中提到的，乃至名為識界嗎？下面第三部分分別說明六界。將要說明，所以先提出問題。地界、水界、火界、風界，前面已經說過了。空界、識界還沒有說。是把虛空無為法稱為空界呢？還是把一切有漏、無漏的識都稱為識界呢？『不爾者』，這是回答。

【English Translation】 English version: These five (referring to the five wisdoms mentioned earlier), because they can attain liberation, are called 'places of liberation' (vimokkha-ayatana). This is a tatpurusa compound. The above is a brief explanation based on the thirteenth and fourteenth volumes of the Abhidharmasamuccaya and the ninth volume of the Agama Sutra, listing the names and providing explanations. For detailed content, please refer to the original text. 'Saying that all are of the nature of wisdom', the second (referring to learning wisdom) is innate. Therefore, the Vibhasa says that receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting the twelve divisions of scripture is an innate good. The first and third (referring to learning wisdom and thinking wisdom) are learning wisdom, because superior wisdom arises from hearing the holy teachings. Alternatively, the third can also be taken as thinking wisdom, because one must first think before speaking the Dharma for others. The fourth (referring to thinking wisdom) is thinking wisdom, as its name indicates. The fifth (referring to cultivating wisdom) is cultivating wisdom, because one can well grasp the characteristics of what is being contemplated in samadhi. Although the explanations differ, their essence is all wisdom. These are all included in the Dharma-ayatana. If combined with auxiliaries, the first three are included in the sound-ayatana, mind-ayatana, and Dharma-ayatana, while the latter two are included in the mind-ayatana and Dharma-ayatana. Another explanation is that sound exists in the second and third, because it is taken from one's own voice, rather than using the voice of others as one's auxiliary. The sound of beings in the realm of non-perception is constantly accomplished, so they can have sound. Therefore, the Jnanaprasthana says, who accomplishes the body? It refers to beings in the desire realm and form realm. It is the same with body, form, sound, and touch. From this, it can be known that this sound is constantly accomplished. Although there is no mind when receiving the result of non-perception, there must be mind at the beginning and end of life, so it is also said to be mind. Furthermore, the 137th volume of the Vibhasa says, someone asked the World Honored One, why are the realms of non-perception and the peak of existence more often referred to as 'places' (ayatana)? The Buddha replied, because many non-Buddhists are attached to these two places, believing them to be places of liberation. The Buddha, in order to dispel their attachment, said that they are places of birth. For detailed content, please refer to the original explanation. Also, the Sutra on Many Realms, up to what is included in the eighteen realms, is the separate collection of different names for realms. The sixty-two realms refer to three types of six, six types of three, one type of four, two types of two, plus the eighteen realms, so there are a total of sixty-two realms. According to their respective situations, they are all included in the eighteen realms. Regarding their essence and mutual inclusion, they will be explained separately in detail below. Moreover, in that sutra, it is mentioned, 'up to what is called the consciousness realm?' The third part below separately explains the six realms. As it is about to be explained, a question is first raised. The earth realm, water realm, fire realm, and wind realm have already been discussed earlier. The space realm and consciousness realm have not yet been discussed. Is the unconditioned Dharma of empty space called the space realm? Or is all conditioned and unconditioned consciousness called the consciousness realm? 'Not so' is the answer.

云何者。徴。

頌曰至有情生所依者。釋　說一切有部傳說。空界以明．闇為體。即顯色差別。體亦是實。論主不信空界實有。故言傳說。理實亦通光．影。光．明為一對。明輕。光重。偏言明者。舉輕以顯重　影．闇為一對影輕。闇重。偏言闇者。舉重以顯輕。

此即影略互顯　然正理云傳說是光．闇者。此論輕．重互舉。正理偏說二重故不相違。

論曰至名為空界者。內．外竅隙名為空界。非即虛空名為空界。

如是竅隙云何應知者。問。

傳說竅隙至不離晝夜者。答　傳說竅隙。空界即是明．闇。此空界色是顯色差別。非離明．闇顯色外。別有竅隙可取。故空界色明．闇為體。應知。此體不離晝．夜。晝以明為體。夜以闇為體。此空界色以明．闇為體。晝．夜為位　又解。空界實有者。此非論主所許。故論主言。應知此體不離晝．夜。謂如晝．夜于明．闇等假立其體。晝．夜非實。空界亦然。應非實有。

即此說名至鄰阿伽色者。此述本論空界異名。有二釋。即此空界色說名鄰阿伽色。伽翻為礙。阿通二義。或名為極。或名為無。

若言鄰極礙色。謂空界色與極礙相鄰。是鄰阿伽之色。名鄰阿伽色。約相鄰釋。

若言鄰無礙色。即無礙名色。此無礙色與余

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：什麼是『徴』（Lakṣaṇa，相）？

頌曰：直至有情眾生所依賴者。釋：一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）傳說，空界（ākāśadhātu）以明（lightness, clarity）、闇（darkness）為體（essence）。即是顯色（vijñapti-rūpa）的差別。其體也是真實的。論主（作者，Vasubandhu）不相信空界是真實存在的，所以說是『傳說』。實際上，也包括光（radiance）、影（shadow）。光和明是一對，明較輕，光較重。偏說『明』，是爲了舉輕以顯重。影和闇是一對，影較輕，闇較重。偏說『闇』，是爲了舉重以顯輕。

這是一種影略互顯的說法。然而，《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）說，傳說是光和闇，此論是輕重互舉。《正理經》偏說二重，所以不相違背。

論曰：乃至名為空界者。內部和外部的孔隙（space, gap）名為空界，並非虛空（empty space）名為空界。

問：像這樣的孔隙，應當如何理解呢？

答：傳說孔隙乃至不離晝夜者。傳說，孔隙、空界就是明和闇。這個空界色（ākāśa-rūpa）是顯色的差別，並非離開明和闇的顯色之外，另有孔隙可以把握。所以空界色以明和闇為體，晝夜為位。又一種解釋是，空界是真實存在的，這並非論主所認可的。所以論主說，應當知道這個體不離晝夜。如同晝夜對於明和闇等假立其體，晝夜並非真實存在，空界也是這樣，應該不是真實存在的。

即此說名乃至鄰阿伽色者。這是敘述本論中空界的異名。有兩種解釋。即這個空界色，說名為鄰阿伽色（anantākāśa-varṇa）。伽（āka）翻譯為礙（obstructed）。阿（an）通兩種意義，或者名為極（end），或者名為無（without）。

如果說鄰極礙色，是指空界色與極礙相鄰，是鄰阿伽之色，名為鄰阿伽色。這是約相鄰來解釋。

如果說鄰無礙色，即無礙名為色，這個無礙色與其餘

【English Translation】 English version Question: What is 『Lakṣaṇa』 (characteristic, sign)?

Verse: Up to that which sentient beings rely on. Explanation: The Sarvāstivāda tradition says that the ākāśadhātu (space element) has lightness (clarity) and darkness as its essence. This is a distinction of vijñapti-rūpa (manifested form). Its essence is also real. The author (Vasubandhu) does not believe that the ākāśadhātu is truly existent, so he says 『tradition』. In reality, it also includes radiance and shadow. Radiance and lightness are a pair; lightness is lighter, radiance is heavier. Mentioning 『lightness』 specifically is to exemplify the heavy by mentioning the light. Shadow and darkness are a pair; shadow is lighter, darkness is heavier. Mentioning 『darkness』 specifically is to exemplify the light by mentioning the heavy.

This is a way of mutually revealing by omitting some aspects. However, the Nyāyasūtra says that the tradition is radiance and darkness; this treatise mentions both light and heavy. The Nyāyasūtra specifically mentions the two heavy aspects, so there is no contradiction.

Treatise: Up to that which is called ākāśadhātu. Internal and external gaps are called ākāśadhātu; it is not that empty space is called ākāśadhātu.

Question: How should such gaps be understood?

Answer: Tradition says that gaps are up to not being separate from day and night. Tradition says that gaps, the ākāśadhātu, are lightness and darkness. This ākāśa-rūpa (space-form) is a distinction of manifested form; it is not that apart from the manifested form of lightness and darkness, there are other gaps that can be grasped. Therefore, ākāśa-rūpa has lightness and darkness as its essence, and day and night as its position. Another explanation is that the ākāśadhātu is truly existent, but this is not accepted by the author. Therefore, the author says that it should be known that this essence is not separate from day and night. Just as day and night falsely establish their essence in relation to lightness and darkness, day and night are not truly existent, and the ākāśadhātu is also like this, and should not be truly existent.

That which is called up to anantākāśa-varṇa. This describes the different names for ākāśadhātu in this treatise. There are two explanations. That is, this ākāśa-rūpa is called anantākāśa-varṇa (limitless-space-color). Āka (āka) is translated as obstructed. An (an) has two meanings, either called end or called without.

If it is said to be adjacent to the extremely obstructed color, it means that the ākāśa-rūpa is adjacent to the extremely obstructed, and is the color of anantākāśa, called anantākāśa-varṇa. This is explained in terms of adjacency.

If it is said to be adjacent to the unobstructed color, that is, the unobstructed is called color, and this unobstructed color is with the rest of

礙相鄰。即鄰是阿伽。故名鄰阿伽色　兩師各據一釋。義並無違。

諸有漏識名為識界者。別釋識界　謂一切有漏識皆名識界。

云何不說至為識界耶者。問。

由許六界至則不如是者。答　由許六界是諸有情生所依故。又恒持生。諸無漏法則不如是故。正理第三云。由無漏法。于有情生。斷．害．壞等差別轉故。非生所依。如是六界于有情生。生．長．養因。差別轉故。是生所依。生因謂識界續生種故。養因謂大種生依止故。長因謂空界容受生故　又婆沙七十五云。若法能長養諸有。攝益諸有。任持諸有者。立六界中　無漏意識能損減諸有。散壞諸有。破滅諸有。是故不立在六界中。廣如彼釋　問入無心定識即不行。云何乃言恒持生故　解云。從多分說　又解。定前心作等無間緣。決定能引後心生故。及彼心得相續恒起。故謂持生　又解。色法中強偏說四大。亦攝所造。無色中強心法為勝亦攝余法。既攝命根故言恒持生也　又解。夫言死者心不再生。于無心位雖現無心。后之出心必定應起。后當起故身命不終。是故名為恒持生故也　問無色界中而無前五。如何恒持　解云。約欲．色說　或無色中雖無前五。有後一故依總相說。故言諸界。

彼六界中至七心界攝者。攝彼六界。如文可知　問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『礙相鄰。即鄰是阿伽（不可得）。故名鄰阿伽色』：兩種解釋各自成立，意義上並沒有衝突。

『諸有漏識名為識界者』：這是對識界的分別解釋，指的是一切有漏的識都可稱為識界。

『云何不說至為識界耶者』：這是提問。

『由許六界至則不如是者』：這是回答。因為承認六界是所有有情眾生賴以生存的基礎，並且持續維持生命。而無漏法則不是這樣。正如《正理》第三卷所說：『由於無漏法對於有情眾生的產生，具有斷絕、損害、破壞等不同的作用，所以不是生命賴以生存的基礎。』這六界對於有情眾生的產生、成長、滋養具有不同的作用，所以是生命賴以生存的基礎。產生的原因是識界延續生命的種子，滋養的原因是大種（地、水、火、風）是產生的基礎，成長的原因是空界提供了容納生長的空間。另外，《婆沙論》第七十五卷說：『如果某種法能夠使眾生增長、攝取利益、維持存在，那麼就將其歸入六界之中。』無漏意識能夠減少眾生的存在，破壞眾生的存在，毀滅眾生的存在，因此不將其歸入六界之中。詳細的解釋可以參考該論。

問：進入無心定（沒有心識活動的禪定狀態）時，識就不起作用了，怎麼能說持續維持生命呢？答：這是從大多數情況來說的。或者說，入定前的心作為等無間緣（直接引發後續事件的條件），能夠決定性地引發後續心的產生。並且那個心能夠持續不斷地相續產生，所以說是維持生命。或者說，在色法（物質現象）中，強調四大（地、水、火、風）的同時也包括了所造色（由四大產生的物質），在無色法（精神現象）中，強調心法（意識）為最主要的同時也包括了其他法。既然包括了命根，所以說是持續維持生命。或者說，所謂死亡就是心不再產生。在無心位（沒有心識活動的狀態）雖然現在沒有心，但之後的出定之心必定會產生。因為之後會產生，所以身命不會終結，因此稱為持續維持生命。

問：在無色界中沒有前五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識），如何持續維持生命？答：這是就欲界和色界來說的。或者說，無色界中雖然沒有前五識，但有後一識（意識），所以是依據總相來說的，因此說是諸界。

『彼六界中至七心界攝者』：這是對六界的攝取，如文中所述即可理解。問：

【English Translation】 English version 'Obstruction is adjacent. That is, adjacent is Agama (unattainable). Therefore, it is named adjacent Agama-rupa (form)'. The two interpretations each stand, and there is no conflict in meaning.

'All contaminated consciousnesses are called the Consciousness Realm': This is a separate explanation of the Consciousness Realm, referring to all contaminated consciousnesses that can be called the Consciousness Realm.

'Why not say that it is the Consciousness Realm?': This is a question.

'Because it is admitted that the Six Realms are the basis for the existence of all sentient beings, and they continuously maintain life, the unconditioned dharmas are not like this.' As the third volume of the Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reasoning) says: 'Because the unconditioned dharmas have different functions such as severing, harming, and destroying the arising of sentient beings, they are not the basis for the existence of life.' These Six Realms have different functions for the arising, growth, and nourishment of sentient beings, so they are the basis for the existence of life. The cause of arising is that the Consciousness Realm continues the seed of life, the cause of nourishment is that the Great Elements (earth, water, fire, wind) are the basis of arising, and the cause of growth is that the Space Realm provides space for growth. Furthermore, the seventy-fifth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary) says: 'If a dharma can increase sentient beings, gather benefits for sentient beings, and maintain sentient beings, then it is included in the Six Realms.' Unconditioned consciousness can reduce the existence of sentient beings, destroy the existence of sentient beings, and annihilate the existence of sentient beings, so it is not included in the Six Realms. A detailed explanation can be found in that treatise.

Question: When entering a state of no-mind samadhi (a meditative state without mental activity), consciousness does not function, so how can it be said to continuously maintain life? Answer: This is speaking from the majority of cases. Or, the mind before entering samadhi, as an immediately preceding condition (a condition that directly causes subsequent events), can decisively cause the arising of subsequent minds. And that mind can continuously arise in succession, so it is said to maintain life. Or, in the case of form (material phenomena), while emphasizing the Four Great Elements (earth, water, fire, wind), it also includes derived form (matter produced by the Four Great Elements). In the case of formless phenomena (mental phenomena), while emphasizing consciousness as the most important, it also includes other dharmas. Since it includes the life-force, it is said to continuously maintain life. Or, so-called death is when the mind no longer arises. In the state of no-mind (a state without mental activity), although there is no mind present, the mind that emerges from samadhi will definitely arise later. Because it will arise later, the body and life will not end, so it is called continuously maintaining life.

Question: In the Formless Realm, there are no first five consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness), how can life be continuously maintained? Answer: This is speaking in terms of the Desire Realm and the Form Realm. Or, although there are no first five consciousnesses in the Formless Realm, there is the later one consciousness (mind-consciousness), so it is spoken of in terms of the general characteristics, therefore it is said to be the Realms.

'Among those Six Realms, up to the inclusion of the seven Mind Realms': This is the inclusion of the Six Realms, which can be understood as stated in the text. Question:

無為無用可非生依。余有為法。何故不說但標六界。解云。四大及空。五法中色法攝。識是心法攝。色．心二種諸部極成。是故偏說。心所有法。不相應行。即非極成。如覺天說心所是假。經部說不相應行是假。是故不說　問色十一中。何故偏說色．觸。不言餘九。解云。眼等四根初生即無。身根雖有無發識能。聲疏轉故於生用劣。香．味欲界雖有。上界即無。無表有．無不定。于生無用。唯色．觸二有體有用。故偏說之　問何故色中唯說空界。觸中唯說大種　解云。空界定有始從初生乃至命終。恒持生故。所以偏說。青．黃等色有．無不定。非恒有故。是故不說　四大是強必定恒有。是故偏說　澀滑等觸有．無不定。非恒有故是故不說　又解。一切諸法總有二種。一者色法。二者無色法。色法中強．謂四大種。是故偏說。無色中強．所謂心王。空界雖是所造除疑故說。謂或有疑。初受生時有空界不。佛為除疑故說空界。于初受生此定有故　又娑沙七十五云。問置本論師。世尊。何故十八界中略出少分施設六界。彼論解云。愚少分者為說六界。愚一切者為說十八界　又云。為利根者說六界。為鈍根者說十八界　又云。為樂略者說六界。為樂廣者說十八界　又云。複次。於十八界為略現門故說六界。謂十八界中有是色有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『無為』和『無用』不能作為生命存在的依據。除了『有為法』之外，為什麼不說其他的，而只標明『六界』（六界：地界、水界、火界、風界、空界、識界）呢？解釋說，『四大』（四大：地、水、火、風）及『空』，在五法（五法：名、相、分別、正智、如如）中屬於『色法』所包含的。『識』屬於『心法』所包含的。『色』和『心』這兩種，各個部派都極為認可，所以特別說明。『心所有法』和『不相應行』，就不是各個部派都認可的。例如覺天（姓名不詳）說『心所』是虛假的，經部（佛教部派之一）說『不相應行』是虛假的，所以不說這些。問：在色法的十一種（色法：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、色、聲、香、味、觸、法）中，為什麼只說『色』和『觸』，而不說其餘九種呢？解釋說，眼等四根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根）最初產生時就沒有了。身根雖然有，但沒有產生識別的能力。聲音因為傳播的媒介不同，所以在產生作用上較弱。香和味在欲界（佛教三界之一）雖然有，但在上界（色界和無色界）就沒有了。『無表色』（佛教術語）的存在與否不確定，對於生命產生沒有作用。只有『色』和『觸』這兩種有實體，有作用，所以特別說明它們。問：為什麼在色界中只說『空界』，在觸界中只說『四大種』（四大種：地、水、火、風）呢？解釋說，『空界』是確定的，從最初產生直到生命終結，一直維持生命的存在，所以特別說明。青、黃等顏色存在與否不確定，不是恒常存在的，所以不說。四大是強有力的，必定恒常存在的，所以特別說明。澀、滑等觸感存在與否不確定，不是恒常存在的，所以不說。又解釋說，一切諸法總共有兩種：一是色法，二是無色法。色法中強有力的，就是四大種，所以特別說明。無色法中強有力的，就是心王（心的主體）。空界雖然是所造之法，但爲了消除疑惑才說，就是或許有人懷疑，最初受生時是否有空界。佛爲了消除這種疑惑，所以說空界，因為在最初受生時，空界是必定存在的。又，娑沙七十五（可能是某種論典或註釋）中說：問：請教本論師（著作本論的人），世尊（釋迦摩尼佛）為什麼在十八界（十八界：眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界、色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界、眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界）中，只取出少部分來設立六界？那部論的解釋是：爲了愚昧於少部分的人，才說六界；爲了愚昧於一切的人，才說十八界。又說：爲了利根（根器敏銳）的人，才說六界；爲了鈍根（根器遲鈍）的人，才說十八界。又說：爲了喜歡簡略的人，才說六界；爲了喜歡廣博的人，才說十八界。又說：再者，在十八界中，爲了簡要地展現入門的方法，所以說六界。也就是說，十八界中有屬於色法的存在。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-action' (wu wei) and 'uselessness' cannot be the basis for the arising of life. Besides 'conditioned dharmas' (you wei fa), why not speak of others, but only specify the 'six elements' (liu jie: earth element, water element, fire element, wind element, space element, consciousness element)? The explanation is that the 'four great elements' (si da: earth, water, fire, wind) and 'space' are included in 'form dharmas' (se fa) among the five dharmas (wu fa: name, form, discrimination, right knowledge, suchness). 'Consciousness' (shi) is included in 'mind dharmas' (xin fa). These two, 'form' and 'mind,' are extremely recognized by all schools, so they are specifically mentioned. 'Mental factors' (xin suo you fa) and 'non-associated formations' (bu xiang ying xing) are not recognized by all schools. For example, Jue Tian (name unknown) says that 'mental factors' are false, and the Sautrāntika school (jing bu, a Buddhist school) says that 'non-associated formations' are false, so these are not mentioned. Question: Among the eleven types of form (se fa: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma), why only speak of 'form' and 'touch,' and not the other nine? The explanation is that the four sense faculties (si gen: eye faculty, ear faculty, nose faculty, tongue faculty) cease to exist immediately after their initial arising. Although the body faculty exists, it does not have the ability to generate cognition. Sound is inferior in its ability to produce effects because of the different mediums through which it travels. Although smell and taste exist in the desire realm (yu jie, one of the three realms in Buddhism), they do not exist in the upper realms (the form realm and the formless realm). The existence of 'non-revealing form' (wu biao se, a Buddhist term) is uncertain and has no effect on the arising of life. Only 'form' and 'touch' have substance and function, so they are specifically mentioned. Question: Why only speak of the 'space element' in the realm of form, and only speak of the 'four great elements' (si da zhong: earth, water, fire, wind) in the realm of touch? The explanation is that the 'space element' is definite, constantly maintaining the existence of life from its initial arising until its end, so it is specifically mentioned. Colors such as blue and yellow are uncertain in their existence and are not constant, so they are not mentioned. The four great elements are powerful and definitely constant, so they are specifically mentioned. Sensations such as roughness and smoothness are uncertain in their existence and are not constant, so they are not mentioned. Another explanation is that all dharmas can be generally divided into two types: form dharmas and formless dharmas. Among form dharmas, the powerful ones are the four great elements, so they are specifically mentioned. Among formless dharmas, the powerful one is the mind-king (xin wang, the main consciousness). Although the space element is a created dharma, it is mentioned to eliminate doubt, that is, perhaps someone doubts whether the space element exists at the initial moment of conception. The Buddha spoke of the space element to eliminate this doubt, because the space element definitely exists at the initial moment of conception. Furthermore, the Sāśvata-uccheda-vāda (possibly a type of treatise or commentary) says: Question: I ask the author of this treatise, why did the World Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) extract only a small portion from the eighteen realms (shi ba jie: eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm) to establish the six elements? The explanation in that treatise is: The six elements are spoken for those who are ignorant of a small portion; the eighteen realms are spoken for those who are ignorant of everything. It also says: The six elements are spoken for those with sharp faculties (gen qi min rui); the eighteen realms are spoken for those with dull faculties (gen qi chi dun). It also says: The six elements are spoken for those who prefer brevity; the eighteen realms are spoken for those who prefer extensiveness. It also says: Furthermore, in the eighteen realms, the six elements are spoken to briefly reveal the method of entry. That is to say, among the eighteen realms, there are those that belong to form.

非色。若說前五界。當知已說諸是色界。若說識界。當知已說諸非色界。廣如彼釋。

彼經余界至十八界攝者。類說余界。皆此十八界攝　略依法蘊足論第十．第十一多界品。出六十二界體攝入十八界中者。法蘊頌曰。界有六十二。十八界為初。三六．一四種。六三．后二二　十八界謂六根．六境．六識．如自名攝　言三六者。謂三種六　第一六。謂地．水．火．風．空．識(前四界觸界攝。空界以光．影．明．闇為體。色界攝。識界以有漏識為體。七心界攝)　第二六者。謂欲．恚．害．無慾．無恚．無害界(欲以貪為性。恚以嗔為性。害以害為性。無慾以無貪為性。無恚以無瞋為性。無害以不害為性。此六是心所法。皆是法界攝)　第三六。謂樂．苦．喜．憂．舍．無明界(前五界以受為性。后一以癡為性。是心所故。皆法界攝)　一四種。謂受．想．行．識界(受．想．行法界攝。識界七心界攝)　六三者　第一三。謂欲．色．無色界(欲界十八界攝。色界十四界攝除香．味．及鼻．舌識。無色界意．法．意識界攝)　第二三界。謂色．無色．滅界(色界謂欲．色界。以有色故總名色界。十八界攝。無色界后三界攝。滅界以擇滅．非擇滅為性．法界攝)　第三三界。謂過去．未來．現在界(皆以五蘊為性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：非色（非物質）。如果說前五界（眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界），應當知道已經說了諸（諸色界）。如果說識界（意識界），應當知道已經說了諸非（諸非色界）。詳細情況如彼釋所說。

彼經中剩餘的界，至於十八界所包含的，是類似地說明剩餘的界，都包含在這十八界中。簡略地依據《法蘊足論》第十、第十一多界品。從中取出六十二界的體性，包含並歸入十八界中的情況是，《法蘊頌》說：『界有六十二，十八界為初，三六、一四種，六三、后二二』。十八界是指六根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、意根）、六境（色境、聲境、香境、味境、觸境、法境）、六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識），如它們自身的名字所包含的。

所說的『三六』，是指三種六。第一種六，是指地界、水界、火界、風界、空界、識界（前四界包含在觸界中。空界以光、影、明、暗為體，包含在**中。識界以有漏識為體，包含在七心界中）。第二種六，是指欲界、恚界、害界、無慾界、無恚界、無害界（欲以貪為性質，恚以嗔為性質，害以害為性質，無慾以無貪為性質，無恚以無瞋為性質，無害以不害為性質。這六種是心所法，都是法界所包含）。第三種六，是指樂界、苦界、喜界、憂界、舍界、無明界（前五界以受為性質，后一界以癡為性質，因為是心所，所以都屬於法界所包含）。一四種，是指受界、想界、行界、識界（受、想、行屬於法界所包含，識界屬於七心界所包含）。

六三種，第一種三，是指欲界、色界、無色界（欲界包含在十八界中，色界包含在十四界中，除了香、味、以及鼻識、舌識。無色界包含在意識、法界、意識界中）。第二種三界，是指色界、無色界、滅界（色界是指欲界、色界。因為有色，所以總名為色界，包含在十八界中。無色界包含在後三界中。滅界以擇滅、非擇滅為性質，屬於法界所包含）。第三種三界，是指過去界、未來界、現在界（都以五蘊為性質）。

【English Translation】 English version: Non-form. If the first five realms (eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm) are spoken of, it should be known that all ** (all form realms) have been spoken of. If the consciousness realm (mind realm) is spoken of, it should be known that all non-** (all non-form realms) have been spoken of. Details are as explained in that commentary.

The remaining realms in that scripture, as for those included within the eighteen realms, are similarly explained as the remaining realms, all included within these eighteen realms. Briefly based on the 'Many Realms' chapter, tenth and eleventh of the Dharmaskandha. The case of extracting the nature of the sixty-two realms and including them within the eighteen realms is as the Dharmaskandha verse says: 'Realms are sixty-two, eighteen realms are the first, three sixes, one fourfold, six threes, then two twos.' The eighteen realms refer to the six roots (eye root, ear root, nose root, tongue root, body root, mind root), the six objects (form object, sound object, smell object, taste object, touch object, dharma object), the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness), as their own names imply.

The 'three sixes' refer to three kinds of six. The first six refers to the earth realm, water realm, fire realm, wind realm, space realm, consciousness realm (the first four realms are included in the touch realm. The space realm takes light, shadow, brightness, darkness as its nature, included in **. The consciousness realm takes defiled consciousness as its nature, included in the seven mind realms). The second six refers to the desire realm, anger realm, harm realm, non-desire realm, non-anger realm, non-harm realm (desire takes greed as its nature, anger takes hatred as its nature, harm takes harmfulness as its nature, non-desire takes non-greed as its nature, non-anger takes non-hatred as its nature, non-harm takes non-harmfulness as its nature. These six are mental factors, all included in the dharma realm). The third six refers to the pleasure realm, pain realm, joy realm, sorrow realm, equanimity realm, ignorance realm (the first five realms take feeling as their nature, the last one takes delusion as its nature, because they are mental factors, they all belong to the dharma realm). The one fourfold refers to the feeling realm, perception realm, volition realm, consciousness realm (feeling, perception, volition belong to the dharma realm, the consciousness realm belongs to the seven mind realms).

The six threes, the first three, refer to the desire realm, form realm, formless realm (the desire realm is included in the eighteen realms, the form realm is included in the fourteen realms, except for smell, taste, and nose consciousness, tongue consciousness. The formless realm is included in the mind consciousness, dharma realm, mind consciousness realm). The second three realms refer to the form realm, formless realm, cessation realm (the form realm refers to the desire realm, form realm. Because it has form, it is generally called the form realm, included in the eighteen realms. The formless realm is included in the last three realms. The cessation realm takes selective cessation, non-selective cessation as its nature, belonging to the dharma realm). The third three realms refer to the past realm, future realm, present realm (all take the five aggregates as their nature).

。十八界攝)　第四三界。謂劣．中．妙界(劣界以不善。有覆無記法為性。七心界。色．聲．法界攝。中界以有漏善．及無覆無記法為性。十八界攝。妙界以無漏善法為性。意．法．意識界攝)　第五三界。謂善。不善。無記界(善界以一切善法為性。不善界以諸不善法為性。此二七心界．色．聲．法界攝。無記界以一切無記法為性。十八界攝)　第六三界。謂學．無學．非學非無學界(學界以學．無漏五蘊為性。無學界以無學無漏五蘊為性。此二意．法．意識界攝。非學非無學界以有漏五蘊。及三無為為性。十八界攝)　后二二者　第一二界。謂有漏．無漏界(有漏界以有漏五蘊為性。十八界攝。無漏界謂無漏五蘊。及三無為為性。意．法．意識界攝)　第二二界。謂有為界．無為界(有為界以五蘊為性。十八界攝。無為界以三無為為性。法界攝)　略依法蘊出六十二界體性。今界攝入十八界中。廣明六十二界體性。如彼論說(阿含經中亦列六十二界名)。

俱舍論記卷第一(末)

長承三年正月二十九日夜半與兩三門弟讀並切句了

一交了

校　了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二

沙門釋光述

分別界品第一之二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：（十八界所包含）第四，三界：指劣界（以不善法、有覆無記法為體性，包含七心界、色界、聲界、法界）、中界（以有漏善法及無覆無記法為體性，包含十八界）、妙界（以無漏善法為體性，包含意界、法界、意識界）。第五，三界：指善界（以一切善法為體性）、不善界（以一切不善法為體性，此二者包含七心界、色界、聲界、法界）、無記界（以一切無記法為體性，包含十八界）。第六，三界：指學界（以學位的無漏五蘊為體性）、無學界（以無學位的無漏五蘊為體性，此二者包含意界、法界、意識界）、非學非無學界（以有漏五蘊及三種無為法為體性，包含十八界）。后兩種情況都是二界：第一，二界：指有漏界（以有漏五蘊為體性，包含十八界）、無漏界（指無漏五蘊及三種無為法為體性，包含意界、法界、意識界）。第二，二界：指有為界（以五蘊為體性，包含十八界）、無為界（以三種無為法為體性，包含法界）。簡略地依據《法蘊論》闡述六十二界的體性。現在將這些界歸納到十八界中，詳細說明六十二界的體性，如《法蘊論》所說（《阿含經》中也列出了六十二界的名字）。

《俱舍論記》卷第一（末）

長承三年正月二十九日夜半，與兩三位同門弟子一起閱讀並斷句完畢。

一校完畢

校對完畢《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第二

沙門釋光述

《分別界品》第一之二

【English Translation】 English version: （Included within the Eighteen Dhatus）Fourth, the Three Dhatus: These refer to the Inferior Dhatu (characterized by unwholesome dharmas and obscured indeterminate dharmas, encompassing the Seven Mind-Dhatus, the Rupa-dhatu (form element), the Sabda-dhatu (sound element), and the Dharma-dhatu), the Intermediate Dhatu (characterized by defiled wholesome dharmas and unobscured indeterminate dharmas, encompassing the Eighteen Dhatus), and the Superior Dhatu (characterized by undefiled wholesome dharmas, encompassing the Mano-dhatu (mind element), the Dharma-dhatu, and the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element)). Fifth, the Three Dhatus: These refer to the Wholesome Dhatu (characterized by all wholesome dharmas), the Unwholesome Dhatu (characterized by all unwholesome dharmas; these two encompass the Seven Mind-Dhatus, the Rupa-dhatu, the Sabda-dhatu, and the Dharma-dhatu), and the Indeterminate Dhatu (characterized by all indeterminate dharmas, encompassing the Eighteen Dhatus). Sixth, the Three Dhatus: These refer to the Dhatu of the Learner (characterized by the undefiled five skandhas of the state of learning), the Dhatu of the Non-Learner (characterized by the undefiled five skandhas of the state of no-more-learning; these two encompass the Mano-dhatu, the Dharma-dhatu, and the Manovijnana-dhatu), and the Dhatu of Neither-Learner-Nor-Non-Learner (characterized by the defiled five skandhas and the three unconditioned dharmas, encompassing the Eighteen Dhatus). The latter two cases are both Two Dhatus: First, the Two Dhatus: These refer to the Defiled Dhatu (characterized by the defiled five skandhas, encompassing the Eighteen Dhatus) and the Undefiled Dhatu (characterized by the undefiled five skandhas and the three unconditioned dharmas, encompassing the Mano-dhatu, the Dharma-dhatu, and the Manovijnana-dhatu). Second, the Two Dhatus: These refer to the Conditioned Dhatu (characterized by the five skandhas, encompassing the Eighteen Dhatus) and the Unconditioned Dhatu (characterized by the three unconditioned dharmas, encompassing the Dharma-dhatu). Briefly, based on the Dharmaskandha, the nature of the sixty-two dhatus is explained. Now, these dhatus are summarized into the Eighteen Dhatus, and the nature of the sixty-two dhatus is explained in detail, as stated in the Dharmaskandha (the Agama Sutras also list the names of the sixty-two dhatus).

Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika Volume 1 (End)

On the 29th night of the first month of the third year of Chosho (1042), I finished reading and punctuating with two or three fellow disciples.

First proofreading completed.

Proofread completed. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika

Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika Volume 2

Commentary by Shramana Shakya Guang

Chapter 1, Part 2: Analysis of the Dhatu

複次至幾無記者。此下大文第三諸門分別。總有二十二門。分別十八界。所以不約蘊．處分別者。正理第四云。界中具顯根．境．識故。諸門義類易可了知。故今且約十八界辨。由斯蘊．處義類已成　此下明初三門。將明問起。

頌曰至無記餘三種者頌答中。上一句有見．無見門。次一句有對．無對門。下兩句三性門。

論曰至說余無見者。謂此色界以可示現在此在彼差別不同。有能示現此．彼言說故名有見。此即言說名見準余無見　若依正理第四。總有三說云。由二義故。一者此色定與見俱故名有見。由色與眼俱時起故。如有伴侶。

二者此色可有示現。故名有見。可示現在此在彼別故。如有所緣　有說此色于鏡等中。有像可現。故名有見。可示如彼此亦爾故。不可說聲有谷響等。應成有見。不俱生故　婆沙七十五。及一百二十八。亦有三說。皆同正理。初師以眼名見。觀照色故。第二說。以言為見。能示現故。第三說以像名見。見謂現也　問此論何故不具說三　解云。隨作論者意樂說故　又解。經部計。眼無實作用說名為見。根．境．識三和合之時。假名眼見。非實眼見。又無實像色　論主意朋經部。不言眼見。不言像現。示現名見不違經部。故依此說。一解雖同。然意違兩說　問雜心第一。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：再次說到『至幾無記者』。這以下是正文的第三部分，關於各個門類的分別。總共有二十二個門類，分別說明十八界。之所以不按照五蘊、十二處來分別，是因為《阿毗達磨順正理論》第四卷中說，在十八界中能夠完整地顯現根、境、識的緣故。各個門類的意義和類別容易理解，所以現在暫且按照十八界來辨析。通過這樣，五蘊、十二處的意義和類別也就明白了。這以下說明最初的三個門類，將要說明提問的開始。

『頌曰至無記餘三種者』是對於頌文的回答。上一句是關於有見（sarūpa-darśana，可見的）和無見（arūpa-darśana，不可見的）門。下一句是關於有對（sa-pratigha，有障礙的）和無對（a-pratigha，無障礙的）門。下面兩句是關於三性（tri-svabhāva，三種性質）門。

『論曰至說余無見者』是說，這個色法（rūpa，物質）可以通過指示來顯示，比如『現在這裡』、『在那裡』，有差別不同。因為能夠指示顯示『這裡』、『那裡』的言說，所以叫做『有見』。這裡把言說稱為『見』，可以類推其餘的『無見』。如果依據《阿毗達磨順正理論》第四卷，總共有三種說法：因為兩個原因，一是這個色法必定和見（darśana，視覺）同時存在，所以叫做『有見』。因為色法和眼根（cakṣur-indriya，視覺器官）同時生起，就像有伴侶一樣。

二是這個色法可以被指示顯示，所以叫做『有見』。可以指示顯示『現在這裡』、『在那裡』的差別，就像有所緣（ālambana，所緣境）一樣。有人說，這個色法在鏡子等之中，有影像可以顯現，所以叫做『有見』。可以指示顯示『如此』、『彼此』也是這樣。因此，不能說聲音有山谷迴響等，就應該成為『有見』，因為不是同時生起的緣故。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第七十五卷和第一百二十八卷，也有三種說法，都和《阿毗達磨順正理論》相同。第一個說法是以眼根為『見』，因為能夠觀照色法。第二個說法是以言說為『見』，因為能夠指示顯示。第三個說法是以影像為『見』，『見』就是顯現的意思。問：這部論為什麼不全部說出這三種說法？解答說：隨著作者的意願而說。又解答說：經部（sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）認為，眼根沒有實際的作用，只是在根、境、識三者和合的時候，假名為『眼見』，並非真實的眼見，也沒有真實的色法影像。論主的意願傾向於經部，所以不談眼見，不談影像顯現，用『指示顯示』來作為『見』，不違背經部的觀點，所以依據這種說法。一種解釋雖然相同，但是意思違背了兩種說法。問：《雜阿毗曇心論》第一卷

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, regarding 'to the point of having no record'. The following is the third major section, the distinctions of the various categories. There are a total of twenty-two categories, distinguishing the eighteen dhātus (elements). The reason for not distinguishing according to the five skandhas (aggregates) or the twelve āyatanas (sense bases) is that, as stated in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Metaphysics) , Volume 4, the roots, objects, and consciousness are fully manifested within the eighteen dhātus. The meanings and types of the categories are easily understood, so for now, let's analyze based on the eighteen dhātus. Through this, the meanings and types of the five skandhas and twelve āyatanas will become clear. The following explains the first three categories, about to explain the beginning of the question.

'The verse says to the remaining three of the unconditioned' is the answer to the verse. The previous sentence is about the sarūpa-darśana (visible) and arūpa-darśana (invisible) categories. The next sentence is about the sa-pratigha (obstructive) and a-pratigha (non-obstructive) categories. The following two sentences are about the tri-svabhāva (three natures) category.

'The treatise says to speak of the remaining invisible' means that this rūpa (matter) can be shown through indication, such as 'here now', 'there', with different distinctions. Because it can indicate and show the speech of 'here' and 'there', it is called 'visible'. Here, speech is called 'seeing', and the rest of the 'invisible' can be inferred. If based on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 4, there are a total of three explanations: because of two reasons, one is that this rūpa must exist simultaneously with darśana (seeing), so it is called 'visible'. Because rūpa and cakṣur-indriya (eye faculty) arise simultaneously, like having a companion.

Second, this rūpa can be indicated and shown, so it is called 'visible'. It can indicate and show the difference between 'here now' and 'there', like having an ālambana (object of focus). Some say that this rūpa has an image that can appear in mirrors, etc., so it is called 'visible'. It can indicate and show 'such' and 'each other' as well. Therefore, it cannot be said that the echo of sound in a valley, etc., should become 'visible', because they do not arise simultaneously. The Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary), Volume 75 and Volume 128, also has three explanations, all the same as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. The first explanation takes the eye faculty as 'seeing', because it can observe rūpa. The second explanation takes speech as 'seeing', because it can indicate and show. The third explanation takes the image as 'seeing', 'seeing' means manifestation. Question: Why doesn't this treatise fully state these three explanations? Answer: It is said according to the author's intention. Another answer: The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) believes that the eye faculty has no actual function, it is only when the root, object, and consciousness come together that it is nominally called 'eye seeing', not real eye seeing, and there is no real image of rūpa. The treatise's intention leans towards the Sautrāntika, so it does not talk about eye seeing, does not talk about image manifestation, and uses 'indication and showing' as 'seeing', which does not violate the Sautrāntika's view, so it is based on this explanation. Although one explanation is the same, the meaning violates the two explanations. Question: Abhidharmahrdaya (The Heart of Abhidharma), Volume 1

慧亦名見故。故彼論云。又說。一切界皆可見。慧眼境界故　何故此論不說　解云。分別法相意存差別。若言慧見。十八皆名有見。無無見者即無差別。論主不說意在於茲。或略不論。

如是已說至所緣異故者。頌本唯明障礙。長行義便明三有對。對是礙義。礙有二種。一障礙。二拘礙。若障礙有對。是障礙礙。若境界．所緣有對。是拘礙礙。此即標章。

障礙有對至或二相礙者。據積集色更相障礙　或二相礙。謂手．石相礙。據顯且言手石。論礙實通十種。

境界有對至境界有對者　十二界。謂五根．七心界全及法界一分相應諸有境法。為色等境之所拘礙故。名境界有對　施設論。即六足中一稱也。大迦多延那造　引彼水．陸。晝．夜二對。可知　畢舍遮。唐言食血肉。鬼之異名　室獸摩羅。傍生類也。形如壁[蟲*弓]。小者二丈。大者乃至百尺。

所緣有對至於自所緣者。謂心．心所。為自所緣之所拘礙。故名所緣有對。

境界所緣復有何別者。問二差別。

若於彼法至名為所緣者。答　境界有對。若於彼色等境。此眼．耳等有見．聞等取境功能。即說彼色等。為此眼等境。功能所託名為境界。如人于彼有勝功能。便說彼為我之境界。此約有能。非要起用。故彼同分仍名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『慧』也稱為『見』，所以那個論典中說：『又說，一切界都是可見的，因為是慧眼的境界。』為什麼這個論典中沒有說呢？解釋說：『分別法相，意在區分差別。如果說慧能見，那麼十八界都可以稱為有見，沒有無見的，那就沒有差別了。論主不說，意圖就在於此。或者（論主）省略而不論述。』

像這樣已經說完了，到『所緣異故』。頌文字身只說明瞭障礙，長行的意義就說明了三有對。『對』就是『礙』的意思。『礙』有兩種：一是障礙，二是拘礙。如果是障礙有對，就是障礙的障礙；如果是境界、所緣有對，就是拘礙的障礙。這便是標明綱要。

『障礙有對』到『或二相礙者』。根據積聚的色法互相障礙，或者兩種相互相障礙，比如手和石頭互相障礙。這裡爲了方便說明，只說了手和石頭，實際上障礙可以包括十種。

『境界有對』到『境界有對者』，指十二界，即五根、七心界全部，以及法界中一部分相應的有境法。因為被色等境界所拘礙，所以稱為境界有對。《施設論》（Prajñāpti-śāstra），就是六足論（Abhidharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra）中的一種，由大迦多衍那（Mahākātyāyana）所造。其中引用的水、陸、晝、夜這兩種『對』，可以理解。畢舍遮（Piśāca），唐朝話翻譯為食血肉，是鬼的一種異名。室獸摩羅（Śiśumāra），是傍生類，形狀像壁虎，小的有二丈，大的甚至有百尺。

『所緣有對』到『于自所緣者』，指心、心所，因為被自己的所緣拘礙，所以稱為所緣有對。

『境界所緣復有何別者』，問的是這二者的差別。

『若於彼法至名為所緣者』，回答說：境界有對，如果對於那些色等境界，這眼、耳等有見、聞等取境的功能，就說那些色等，是這眼等的境界，功能所依託的，稱為境界。比如人對於某事有很強的能力，就說那件事是我的境界。這裡說的是有能力，不一定要實際使用。所以那些同分仍然稱為所緣。

【English Translation】 English version 'Wisdom' is also called 'seeing,' therefore that treatise says: 'It is also said that all realms are visible because they are the realm of the eye of wisdom.' Why doesn't this treatise say so? The explanation is: 'Distinguishing the characteristics of dharmas intends to differentiate. If it is said that wisdom can see, then all eighteen realms can be called having-seeing, and there would be no non-seeing, which would be no difference. The intention of the author of the treatise lies in this. Or (the author) omits and does not discuss it.'

Having said this, we come to 'because the object of cognition is different.' The verse itself only explains obstruction, but the meaning of the prose explains the three kinds of opposition. 'Opposition' means 'obstruction.' There are two kinds of 'obstruction': one is obstruction, and the other is restriction. If it is obstruction-opposition, it is the obstruction of obstruction; if it is realm-opposition or object-opposition, it is the obstruction of restriction. This is to clarify the outline.

'Obstruction-opposition' to 'or two aspects obstruct each other.' According to accumulated form obstructing each other, or two aspects obstructing each other, such as a hand and a stone obstructing each other. Here, for the sake of explanation, only hand and stone are mentioned, but in reality, obstruction can include ten kinds.

'Realm-opposition' to 'realm-opposition' refers to the twelve realms, namely the five sense faculties, the seven mind realms in their entirety, and a portion of the dharma realm that corresponds to the objects of cognition. Because they are restricted by objects such as form, they are called realm-opposition. The Prajñāpti-śāstra is one of the six-part Abhidharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra, created by Mahākātyāyana. The water, land, day, and night 'oppositions' cited therein are understandable. Piśāca, translated in the Tang dynasty as 'eater of blood and flesh,' is another name for a ghost. Śiśumāra is a type of animal, shaped like a gecko, the smaller ones being two zhang (approximately 6.6 meters), and the larger ones being up to a hundred chi (approximately 33 meters).

'Object-opposition' to 'regarding one's own object' refers to mind and mental factors, because they are restricted by their own objects of cognition, they are called object-opposition.

'What is the difference between realm and object?' This asks about the difference between the two.

'If regarding that dharma to be called the object,' the answer is: realm-opposition, if regarding those objects such as form, the functions of seeing and hearing of the eye and ear, etc., which take the object, then those forms, etc., are said to be the realm of the eye, etc., and the function that relies on it is called the realm. For example, if a person has a strong ability in something, it is said that that thing is my realm. This refers to having the ability, not necessarily using it. Therefore, those same divisions are still called objects of cognition.

有對　所緣有對。謂心．心所。其性羸劣非境不生。猶如羸人非杖不起。執所緣境方起至現。現謂起彼取果用故。彼所緣於心等名為所緣。此約有緣其用得起。無緣不起。皆名有對。非必起者。故未來心等亦名有對。

若境界有對。據礙取境用。若所緣有對據礙取果用。如彼同分眼。雖不對境。取果之用任運得生。然彼眼等非所緣有對。故知。礙取境用名境界有對。礙取果用名所緣有對　又解。礙體義邊名所緣有對。礙用義邊名境界有對。如彼同分眼體雖恒有無見色能。不名境界有對。以此準知。境界約用。所緣據體　又解。礙取境用名境界有對。礙緣境用名所緣有對。

云何眼等至說名有礙者。此問礙義　云何眼等於自境界轉時說名有礙。此問境界有對　云何眼識等於自所緣轉時說名有礙。此問所緣有對　此中言自者。五根．五識。各取自境不能取他名自。非不為他緣。意．及意識緣法境故名自。非不能緣他　又解。緣十三界名自。非五根．五識取故　又解。十八界中。隨所取者即名為自。

越彼于余至和會轉故者。答　謂此眼等緣色等時。越彼色等於餘聲等。此眼等不轉故。此即拘礙名礙　或復礙者是和會義。謂眼等法于自境界和會轉時。于自所緣和會轉時。于餘聲等而不得起。此和會言還是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『有對』是指『所緣有對』。這裡指的是心和心所（心理活動）。它們的性質羸弱，如果沒有所緣境就不會產生，就像體弱的人沒有枴杖就站不起來一樣。心和心所執取所緣境才能生起並顯現。『現』指的是生起、執取（所緣境）併產生作用。所緣境對於心和心所來說，就叫做『所緣』。這是就能夠緣取（所緣境）併產生作用的情況來說的，如果沒有所緣境，心和心所就無法生起作用，這種情況都叫做『有對』，但並非所有『有對』都會生起作用，所以未來的心等也叫做『有對』。

如果說境界『有對』，那是根據阻礙（其他境界）而取得境界的作用來說的；如果說所緣『有對』，那是根據阻礙（其他所緣）而取得結果的作用來說的。比如，具有相同性質的眼根，即使不對境，也能任運地產生取果的作用。然而，眼根等並不是『所緣有對』。因此可知，阻礙（其他境界）而取得境界的作用，叫做『境界有對』；阻礙（其他所緣）而取得結果的作用，叫做『所緣有對』。另一種解釋是，從阻礙的本體意義上來說，叫做『所緣有對』；從阻礙的作用意義上來說，叫做『境界有對』。比如，具有相同性質的眼根，雖然一直具有見色的能力，但不能叫做『境界有對』。由此可以推知，『境界有對』側重於作用，『所緣有對』側重於本體。還有一種解釋是，阻礙（其他境界）而取得境界的作用，叫做『境界有對』；阻礙（其他所緣）而緣取境界的作用，叫做『所緣有對』。

『為什麼說眼等（五根）乃至（五識）叫做『有礙』呢？』這是在詢問『礙』的含義。『為什麼說眼等（五根）在自己的境界運轉時叫做『有礙』呢？』這是在詢問『境界有對』。『為什麼說眼識等（五識）在自己的所緣運轉時叫做『有礙』呢？』這是在詢問『所緣有對』。這裡所說的『自』，指的是五根和五識各自取自己的境界，不能取其他的境界，所以叫做『自』。但並非不作為其他的緣，因為意和意識能夠緣取法境，所以叫做『自』，但並非不能緣取其他的境界。另一種解釋是，緣取十三界叫做『自』，因為不是五根和五識所能取到的。還有一種解釋是，在十八界中，隨其所取的就是『自』。

『越過那個而對於其他的……和合運轉的緣故』，這是回答。意思是說，當眼等緣取色等時，越過色等而對於其他的聲等，眼等就不能運轉。這就是拘礙，叫做『礙』。或者說，『礙』是和合的意思。意思是說，眼等法在自己的境界和合運轉時，在自己的所緣和合運轉時，對於其他的聲等就不能生起。這裡的『和合』還是（指阻礙）。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Having resistance' refers to 'having resistance to the object of thought (所緣, suǒyuán)'. This refers to the mind and mental factors (心所, xīnsǔo). Their nature is weak, and they cannot arise without an object of thought, just as a weak person cannot stand without a cane. The mind and mental factors grasp the object of thought in order to arise and manifest. 'Manifestation' means arising, grasping (the object of thought), and producing a function. The object of thought, in relation to the mind and mental factors, is called 'object of thought'. This refers to the situation where one is able to grasp (the object of thought) and produce a function. If there is no object of thought, the mind and mental factors cannot arise. These situations are all called 'having resistance', but not all 'having resistance' will arise, so the future mind, etc., is also called 'having resistance'.

If it is said that the realm of sense (境界, jìngjiè) 'has resistance', it is based on the function of obstructing (other realms of sense) and obtaining the realm of sense. If it is said that the object of thought 'has resistance', it is based on the function of obstructing (other objects of thought) and obtaining the result. For example, the eye faculty (眼根, yǎngēn) with the same nature, even if it does not face an object, can spontaneously produce the function of obtaining the result. However, the eye faculty, etc., is not 'having resistance to the object of thought'. Therefore, it can be known that obstructing (other realms of sense) and obtaining the function of the realm of sense is called 'having resistance to the realm of sense'; obstructing (other objects of thought) and obtaining the function of the result is called 'having resistance to the object of thought'. Another explanation is that, from the perspective of the substance of obstruction, it is called 'having resistance to the object of thought'; from the perspective of the function of obstruction, it is called 'having resistance to the realm of sense'. For example, the eye faculty with the same nature, although it always has the ability to see colors, cannot be called 'having resistance to the realm of sense'. From this, it can be inferred that 'having resistance to the realm of sense' emphasizes function, and 'having resistance to the object of thought' emphasizes substance. Another explanation is that obstructing (other realms of sense) and obtaining the function of the realm of sense is called 'having resistance to the realm of sense'; obstructing (other objects of thought) and cognizing the realm of sense is called 'having resistance to the object of thought'.

'Why are the eye, etc. (the five faculties) and even (the five consciousnesses) called 'having obstruction'?' This is asking about the meaning of 'obstruction'. 『Why is it said that the eye, etc. (the five faculties) are called 'having obstruction' when they operate in their own realm of sense?』 This is asking about 'having resistance to the realm of sense'. 『Why is it said that eye consciousness, etc. (the five consciousnesses) are called 'having obstruction' when they operate in their own object of thought?』 This is asking about 'having resistance to the object of thought'. The 'self' mentioned here refers to the five faculties and the five consciousnesses each taking their own realm of sense, unable to take other realms of sense, so it is called 'self'. But it is not that it does not act as other conditions, because the mind (意, yì) and consciousness (意識, yìshì) can cognize the realm of phenomena (法境, fǎjìng), so it is called 'self', but it is not that it cannot cognize other realms. Another explanation is that cognizing the thirteen realms is called 'self', because it cannot be taken by the five faculties and the five consciousnesses. Another explanation is that, among the eighteen realms, whatever is taken is called 'self'.

『Transgressing that and for the rest… because of harmonious operation』, this is the answer. It means that when the eye, etc., cognize form, etc., transgressing form, etc., and for the rest of sound, etc., the eye, etc., cannot operate. This is restriction, called 'obstruction'. Or, 'obstruction' means harmony. It means that when the eye, etc., operate harmoniously in their own realm of sense, when they operate harmoniously in their own object of thought, they cannot arise for the rest of sound, etc. The 'harmony' here still (refers to obstruction).

拘礙名礙。

應知此中至說余無對者。泛明有對。總有三種。應知。此頌中唯就障礙有對而說故。但言十有色有對。極微整合更相障故。由此義準說余無對　又正理第四云。言有色者。謂除無表。余色蘊攝。變礙名色。有變礙義故名有色　有說。色者。謂能示現在此彼言。有此彼言故名有色　有說。諸色有自體故。名為有色。稱說易故。唯於色體說有色言　解言。初解有變礙色用故言有色。第二師有能示現色言故名有色。第三師體即是色故言有色　問第二師於十色中。色界可說有示現言。餘九不爾。如何可說有示現言。如何言色。解云。餘九雖不可見。而亦可說在此．在彼。如言此處有眼．耳等　又解。餘九相從說故。隨色可得說在此彼。

若法境界至謂眼等五根者。約三有對四句差別　依毗婆沙。若以寬問狹順后句答。若以狹問廣。順前句答。若互有寬狹四句分別。若寬狹相似如是句答　境界有對通心非境。障礙有對通境非心。互有寬狹故成四句　七心界．相應法界。是第一句。為境拘故是境界有對。非更相礙故非障礙有對　色等五境是第二句。更相礙故是障礙有對。非境界拘故非境界有對　眼等五根是第三句。為境拘故是境界有對。更相礙故是障礙有對　非相應法是第四句。非境拘故非境界有對。非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『拘礙』指的是名相上的障礙。

應該知道，在這裡，對於那些認為沒有對立面的說法，泛泛地說明存在對立面。總的來說，有三種對立面應該瞭解。這首偈頌中僅僅就障礙性的對立面而說，所以只說『十種有色的對立面』，因為極微小的物質聚集在一起會互相阻礙。由此可以推斷，其餘的則沒有對立面。另外，《正理》第四卷中說：『所說的有色，是指除了無表色之外，其餘色蘊所包含的。因為變化和阻礙被稱為色，具有變化和阻礙的意義，所以稱為有色。』有人說，『色』是指能夠指示現在這裡或那裡。因為有『這裡』、『那裡』的說法，所以稱為有色。有人說，各種色都有其自身實體，所以稱為有色。因為稱說容易，所以只在色的實體上說『有色』。

解釋說，最初的解釋是因為有變化和阻礙的色用，所以說有色。第二位老師認為有能夠指示顯現的色，所以稱為有色。第三位老師認為本體就是色，所以稱為有色。有人問，第二位老師所說的十種色中，可以說有指示顯現的說法，其餘九種則不然，怎麼能說有指示顯現的說法呢？怎麼能說是色呢？解釋說，其餘九種雖然不可見，但也可以說在這裡、在那裡。比如，說這裡有眼、耳等。又解釋說，其餘九種是相互依存而說的，隨著色可以得到，就可以說在這裡、在那裡。

『若法境界』到『謂眼等五根者』，是關於三種對立面的四句差別。依據《毗婆沙論》，如果用寬泛的問題來問狹隘的，就順著後面的句子回答；如果用狹隘的問題來問寬泛的，就順著前面的句子回答；如果互相有寬泛和狹隘，就用四句來分別；如果寬泛和狹隘相似，就用這樣的句子回答。境界上的對立面貫通心和非境，障礙上的對立面貫通境和非心。因為互相有寬泛和狹隘，所以形成四句。七種心界、相應法界是第一句。因為被境界所拘束，所以是境界上的對立面；因為沒有互相阻礙，所以不是障礙上的對立面。色等五境是第二句。因為互相阻礙，所以是障礙上的對立面；因為沒有被境界所拘束，所以不是境界上的對立面。眼等五根是第三句。因為被境界所拘束，所以是境界上的對立面；因為互相阻礙，所以是障礙上的對立面。非相應法是第四句。因為沒有被境界所拘束，所以不是境界上的對立面；因為沒有互相阻礙，所以不是障礙上的對立面。

【English Translation】 English version 'Kujing (拘礙)' refers to the obstruction in terms of names and forms.

It should be known that here, regarding those who claim there are no opposites, it broadly explains the existence of opposites. In general, there are three types of opposites that should be understood. This verse only speaks of obstructive opposites, so it only mentions 'ten types of colored opposites,' because extremely small substances gather together and obstruct each other. From this, it can be inferred that the rest do not have opposites. Furthermore, the fourth volume of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'What is called colored refers to what is contained in the rūpaskandha (色蘊, aggregate of form) excluding avijñapti-rūpa (無表色, non-revealing form). Because change and obstruction are called rūpa (色, form), having the meaning of change and obstruction, it is called colored.' Some say that 'rūpa (色, form)' refers to what can indicate the present here or there. Because there is the saying 'here' or 'there,' it is called colored. Some say that various rūpas (色, forms) have their own entities, so they are called colored. Because it is easy to name and describe, the term 'colored' is only used for the entity of rūpa (色, form).

The explanation says that the initial explanation is that it is called colored because of the function of rūpa (色, form) that changes and obstructs. The second teacher believes that there is rūpa (色, form) that can indicate manifestation, so it is called colored. The third teacher believes that the substance itself is rūpa (色, form), so it is called colored. Someone asks, among the ten types of rūpa (色, form) mentioned by the second teacher, it can be said that there is the saying of indicating manifestation, but the other nine are not like that. How can it be said that there is the saying of indicating manifestation? How can it be said to be rūpa (色, form)? The explanation says that although the other nine are invisible, it can also be said that they are here or there. For example, it is said that there are eyes, ears, etc. here. It is also explained that the other nine are spoken of in dependence on each other. As rūpa (色, form) can be obtained, it can be said to be here or there.

『If the dharma (法, law) is a boundary』 to 『meaning the five roots such as eyes,』 it is about the fourfold distinction of the three opposites. According to the Vibhasa (毗婆沙論), if a broad question is used to ask about a narrow one, then answer according to the latter sentence; if a narrow question is used to ask about a broad one, then answer according to the former sentence; if there is broadness and narrowness mutually, then distinguish with four sentences; if broadness and narrowness are similar, then answer with such a sentence. The opposition of boundaries pervades mind and non-object, and the opposition of obstructions pervades object and non-mind. Because they have broadness and narrowness mutually, they form four sentences. The seven citta-dhātu (心界, mind realms) and samprayukta-dharma-dhātu (相應法界, realms of associated dharmas) are the first sentence. Because they are constrained by the boundary, they are the opposition of boundaries; because they do not obstruct each other, they are not the opposition of obstructions. The five objects such as rūpa (色, form) are the second sentence. Because they obstruct each other, they are the opposition of obstructions; because they are not constrained by the boundary, they are not the opposition of boundaries. The five roots such as eyes are the third sentence. Because they are constrained by the boundary, they are the opposition of boundaries; because they obstruct each other, they are the opposition of obstructions. Non-associated dharmas (法, laws) are the fourth sentence. Because they are not constrained by the boundary, they are not the opposition of boundaries; because they do not obstruct each other, they are not the opposition of obstructions.

更相礙故非障礙有對　若將境界望所緣。境界有對寬。所緣有對狹。故此論文。順后句答。所以不將所緣．障礙相對辨者。互不相攝。體無濫故　問若據用相攝。用各不同。若據體相攝。體即非有境界等別。云何相攝。解云。論用不同實不相攝。以用從體不離體故明相攝也。

此中大德至此是所許者　鳩摩邏多。此云豪童。是經部祖師。于經部中造喻鬘論．癡鬘論．顯了論等。經部本從說一切有中出。以經為量名經部。執理為量名說一切有部。

今此頌意。夫言礙者。為他障礙而不得生。正緣自境如何名礙。且如眼識。欲於色處生。為他聲等礙令不起。為他礙時。應知是有對。正緣色時名為無對　與此宗不同。論主意朋經部。故云此是所許　雜心四句文同經部。梵本不然。譯者謬矣　有古德釋。此頌同說一切有部者。不然。

如是已說至故名無記者。此下釋后兩句。三性分別十八界。就中。一明眼等八界。二明餘十界　此即明眼等八界　有善增上可讚置白品中。有惡增上可毀置黑品中。故名有記　若非可讚．毀非二品收體不分明故名無記　言三性者。一善。二不善。三無記　善略有三。一生得。二加行謂聞．思．修。三無漏謂學．無學．勝義。就無漏中前二有為無漏。后一無為無漏　善總有七。一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：更互相妨礙的緣故，所以說障礙是有對的。如果將境界與所緣相比，境界的有對範圍更寬泛，所緣的有對範圍更狹窄。因此，這篇論文順應后一句來回答。之所以不將所緣和障礙相對比辨析，是因為它們互相不包含，本體沒有混淆之處。問：如果根據作用來互相包含，作用各自不同；如果根據本體來互相包含，本體就不是有境界等區別，如何互相包含呢？解答說：根據作用不同，實際上不互相包含，因為作用從本體產生，不離開本體，所以說明互相包含。

鳩摩羅多（Kumaralata），這裡稱作豪童，是經量部（Sautrantika）的祖師。他在經量部中創作了《譬喻鬘論》、《癡鬘論》、《顯了論》等。經量部本來是從說一切有部（Sarvastivada）中分離出來的，以經為衡量標準，所以稱為經量部；執著理為衡量標準，稱為說一切有部。

現在這首偈頌的意思是：所謂『礙』，是指因為其他事物的障礙而不能產生。正當緣取自己的境界時，如何能稱作『礙』呢？比如眼識，想要在色處產生，因為其他聲音等障礙而不能生起。因為其他事物障礙時，應當知道是有對的；正當緣取色時，稱為無對。這與此宗不同。論主的意圖是支援經量部，所以說『這是所許』。《雜心論》的四句與經量部相同，梵文字不是這樣，是譯者翻譯錯了。有古德解釋說，這首偈頌與說一切有部相同，是不對的。

像這樣已經說了，到『所以稱為無記』。下面解釋后兩句。三性分別十八界，其中，一是說明眼等八界，二是說明其餘十界。這裡是說明眼等八界。有善的增上，可以讚揚，放在白品中；有惡的增上，可以譭謗，放在黑品中，所以稱為有記。如果不是可以讚揚或譭謗的，不被這兩類品所收攝，本體不分明，所以稱為無記。所說的三性，一是善，二是不善，三是無記。善略有三種：一是生得，二是加行（通過聽聞、思考、修習），三是無漏（通過學習、無學習、勝義）。在無漏中，前兩種是有為無漏，后一種是無為無漏。善總共有七種：一

【English Translation】 English version: Because of mutual obstruction, 'obstacle' is said to have resistance (有對, pratigha). If comparing the realm (境界, visaya) with the object (所緣, alambana), the realm's resistance is broader, while the object's resistance is narrower. Therefore, this treatise answers in accordance with the latter phrase. The reason for not comparing and distinguishing between the object and obstacle is that they do not encompass each other, and their essence is not confused. Question: If according to function they encompass each other, the functions are different; if according to essence they encompass each other, the essence is not differentiated by realm, etc., how do they encompass each other? Answer: According to different functions, they do not actually encompass each other, but because function arises from essence and does not depart from essence, it is said to encompass each other.

Kumaralata (鳩摩羅多), here called 'Noble Child' (豪童), is the patriarch of the Sautrantika (經量部) school. Within the Sautrantika school, he composed works such as the 'Garland of Similes' (喻鬘論), 'Garland of Delusion' (癡鬘論), and 'Manifestation Treatise' (顯了論). The Sautrantika school originally emerged from the Sarvastivada (說一切有部) school. It is named Sautrantika because it uses the sutras as its standard of measurement; the school that adheres to principle as its standard of measurement is called Sarvastivada.

The meaning of this verse now is: What is meant by 'obstruction' (礙) is that it cannot arise due to the obstruction of other things. When directly cognizing one's own realm, how can it be called 'obstruction'? For example, eye-consciousness (眼識), wanting to arise in the realm of form (色處), is prevented from arising by the obstruction of other sounds, etc. When obstructed by other things, it should be known as having resistance (有對); when directly cognizing form, it is called without resistance (無對). This differs from this school. The treatise master's intention is to support the Sautrantika school, so it is said 'this is what is accepted'. The four lines of the Abhidharmahṛdaya (雜心論) are the same as the Sautrantika school, but the Sanskrit text is not so; the translator is mistaken. Some ancient worthies explain that this verse is the same as the Sarvastivada school, but this is not correct.

Having spoken thus, up to 'therefore it is called indeterminate' (無記). The following explains the latter two lines. The eighteen realms are distinguished by the three natures (三性), among which, one is to explain the eight realms of the eye, etc., and the second is to explain the remaining ten realms. This explains the eight realms of the eye, etc. That which has wholesome increase can be praised and placed in the white category; that which has unwholesome increase can be criticized and placed in the black category, therefore it is called determinate (有記). If it is neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy, it is not included in these two categories, and its essence is not distinct, therefore it is called indeterminate. The three natures are: one is wholesome (善), two is unwholesome (不善), and three is indeterminate (無記). Wholesome is roughly of three types: one is innate (生得), two is acquired through effort (加行), namely hearing, thinking, and cultivation, and three is without outflows (無漏), namely learning, no-more-learning, and ultimate meaning. Among the without outflows, the first two are conditioned without outflows, and the latter is unconditioned without outflows. Wholesome in total has seven types: one

生得。二聞。三思。四修。五學。六無學。七勝義　不善唯一　無記有二．一有覆．二無覆。

就無覆中有六。一異熟．二威儀。三工巧。四通果。五自性。六勝義。前五有為無記。后一無為無記。並前有覆總有七種　于無覆中。此論下文但說勝義　若依正理。總說二種。有為中立自性無記。無為中立勝義無記　今言六種為辨差別。異熟等四所不攝者。皆名自性。為辨差別于有為中開為五種　善有七。不善有一。無記有七。總有十五。以此十五種分別十八界　言分別者。十八界中五根．香．味．觸。此八唯無記　異熟者。通八種。謂異熟五根．香．味．觸。

威儀．工巧．通果者。謂香．味．觸　自性者。謂長養五根．香．味．觸。及外香．味．觸。於七無記中不通有覆．勝義。

有說不能至故名無記者。敘異說。言無記者。不能記異熟果故名無記。

若爾無漏應唯無記者。論主意存前解故難破后家　若言不記異熟名無記者。無漏不能記異熟果。應唯無記。若言有為無漏亦有異熟。以擇滅為果。常．無常為異。證得名熟　此亦不然。有為無漏或容此釋。無為擇滅既無有果。如何名善。若言為能作因有增上果。有違自宗。設許不礙取增上果。理亦不然。無記之法亦不障礙。取增上果應名有記。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生得（從出生就具有的）。二聞（通過聽聞而獲得的）。三思（通過思考而獲得的）。四修（通過修行而獲得的）。五學（通過學習而獲得的）。六無學（無需再學習的）。七勝義（殊勝的意義）。不善唯一（只有一種）。無記有二（有兩種無記）。一有覆（有覆蓋的）。二無覆（無覆蓋的）。

就無覆中有六（在無覆蓋的無記中，有六種）。一異熟（異熟果）。二威儀（威儀）。三工巧（工巧）。四通果（共通的果報）。五自性（自性）。六勝義（殊勝的意義）。前五有為無記（前五種是有為的無記）。后一無為無記（后一種是無為的無記）。並前有覆總有七種（加上前面的有覆無記，總共有七種）。于無覆中（在無覆無記中）。此論下文但說勝義（這部論的下文只說勝義）。若依正理（如果依據正理）。總說二種（總共說兩種）。有為中立自性無記（在有為法中建立自性無記）。無為中立勝義無記（在無為法中建立勝義無記）。今言六種為辨差別（現在說六種是爲了辨別差別）。異熟等四所不攝者（異熟等四種所不包含的）。皆名自性（都叫做自性）。為辨差別于有為中開為五種（爲了辨別差別，在有為法中分為五種）。善有七（善有七種）。不善有一（不善有一種）。無記有七（無記有七種）。總有十五（總共有十五種）。以此十五種分別十八界（用這十五種來分別十八界）。

言分別者（說到分別）。十八界中五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五根），香（香塵），味（味塵），觸（觸塵）。此八唯無記（這八種只有無記）。異熟者（異熟）。通八種（貫通八種）。謂異熟五根（指異熟所生的五根），香（香塵），味（味塵），觸（觸塵）。

威儀（威儀）、工巧（工巧）、通果者（共通的果報）。謂香（香塵），味（味塵），觸（觸塵）。自性者（自性）。謂長養五根（指能增長的五根），香（香塵），味（味塵），觸（觸塵）。及外香（外在的香塵），味（味塵），觸（觸塵）。於七無記中不通有覆（在七種無記中，不包括有覆無記）、勝義（勝義無記）。

有說不能至故名無記者（有人說，因為不能達到某種結果，所以叫做無記）。敘異說（敘述不同的說法）。言無記者（說到無記）。不能記異熟果故名無記（因為不能記錄異熟果，所以叫做無記）。

若爾無漏應唯無記者（如果這樣，那麼無漏法應該只有無記）。論主意存前解故難破后家（論主的意圖在於前面的解釋，所以難以駁倒後面的說法）。若言不記異熟名無記者（如果說不記錄異熟果叫做無記）。無漏不能記異熟果（無漏法不能記錄異熟果）。應唯無記（應該只有無記）。若言有為無漏亦有異熟（如果說有為的無漏法也有異熟）。以擇滅為果（以擇滅為果）。常（常）、無常為異（無常為異）。證得名熟（證得叫做成熟）。此亦不然（這也是不對的）。有為無漏或容此釋（有為的無漏法或許可以這樣解釋）。無為擇滅既無有果（無為的擇滅既然沒有果）。如何名善（如何叫做善）。若言為能作因有增上果（如果說是作為能作因，有增上果）。有違自宗（就違背了自己的宗義）。設許不礙取增上果（假設允許不障礙取得增上果）。理亦不然（道理也不對）。無記之法亦不障礙（無記的法也不障礙）。取增上果應名有記（取得增上果應該叫做有記）。

【English Translation】 English version: Born. Second, hearing. Third, thinking. Fourth, cultivating. Fifth, learning. Sixth, no more learning. Seventh, ultimate meaning. Non-virtue is only one. Neutral has two: 1. Covered. 2. Uncovered.

Among the uncovered, there are six. 1. Resultant. 2. Dignified conduct. 3. Skillful arts. 4. Common result. 5. Self-nature. 6. Ultimate meaning. The first five are conditioned neutral. The last one is unconditioned neutral. Together with the previous covered, there are seven types in total. Among the uncovered, this treatise only discusses ultimate meaning in the following text. If based on correct reasoning, there are two types in total. In the conditioned, establish self-nature neutral. In the unconditioned, establish ultimate meaning neutral. Now, saying there are six types is to distinguish differences. Those not included in the resultant and the other four are all called self-nature. To distinguish differences, the conditioned is divided into five types. Virtue has seven. Non-virtue has one. Neutral has seven. In total, there are fifteen. Use these fifteen types to differentiate the eighteen realms.

Speaking of differentiation, among the eighteen realms, the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), smell, taste, and touch, these eight are only neutral. Resultant refers to all eight types, namely the resultant five roots, smell, taste, and touch.

Dignified conduct, skillful arts, and common result refer to smell, taste, and touch. Self-nature refers to the nourishing five roots, smell, taste, and touch, as well as external smell, taste, and touch. Among the seven neutral types, covered and ultimate meaning are not included.

Some say that it is called neutral because it cannot reach a certain result. This is narrating a different view. Speaking of neutral, it is called neutral because it cannot record the resultant fruit.

If so, then the un-leaked (untainted) should only be neutral. The treatise master's intention is to focus on the previous explanation, so it is difficult to refute the later view. If it is said that not recording the resultant is called neutral, then the un-leaked cannot record the resultant fruit and should only be neutral. If it is said that the conditioned un-leaked also has resultant, with cessation as the result, and permanence and impermanence as different, attainment is called maturation. This is also not correct. The conditioned un-leaked may allow this explanation, but since the unconditioned cessation has no result, how can it be called virtue? If it is said that it is a causal factor that produces an augmenting result, it contradicts one's own doctrine. Even if it is allowed that it does not hinder obtaining the augmenting result, the reasoning is also not correct. Neutral dharmas also do not hinder obtaining the augmenting result, so it should be called marked.

若言擇滅體可讚故說為善者。即同前解。重說唐捐。

其餘十界通善等三者。此即明餘十界。就中。一總摽。二別釋。此即總摽。

謂七心界至餘名無記者。此下別釋。就中。一明七心界。二明法界。三明色．聲　此即別明七心界。此七心界皆通三性若別分別。生得者。謂七心界。聞．思．修．學．無．學者。謂意界．意識界。不善者。謂七心界。有覆者。眼．耳．身．識．意界．意識。異熟．威儀。工巧者。謂七心界。通果者。謂眼．耳識。二通相應亦是通果。及意界．意識界。由異熟等攝心盡故。所以不通自性　問眼．耳．意．識。及與意根。皆通三性。鼻．舌．身識。不善．無記。此知可並。鼻．舌．身識。起善云何。解云。若泛爾起者。三識非善。若修行者。觀段食等。深生厭離心。能起善三識。

法界若是至餘名無記者。此即別明法界。於法界中。善有四種。一自性善。謂無貪等三善根．及慚．愧。二相應善。謂與自性善相應。三等起善。謂無表．得．四相．二定。四勝義善謂擇滅　於法界中。不善有三。一自性不善。謂貪等三不善根。及無慚．無愧。二相應不善。謂與自性不善相應。三等起不善。謂無表．得．四相　於法界中除善．不善餘名無記　此論下文。及毗婆沙。善．不善各說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果說『擇滅』（Nirvana，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態）的本體可以被讚美，所以說它是『善』，那就和之前的解釋相同了，重複說明是徒勞的。

其餘十界（Ten Realms，佛教中的十種生命狀態）通於善、不善、無記三種性質。這裡是說明其餘的十界。其中，一、總標；二、別釋。這裡是總標。

『謂七心界至餘名無記者』，以下分別解釋。其中，一、明七心界；二、明法界（Dharma Realm，宇宙萬法的總稱）；三、明色（rupa，物質）．聲（shabda，聲音）。這裡是分別說明七心界。這七心界都通於三性（三種性質：善、不善、無記），如果分別來說，生得者，指的是七心界。聞（hearing，聽聞佛法）．思（thinking，思考佛法）．修（cultivation，修行佛法）．學（learning，學習佛法）．無學（no learning，已證阿羅漢果位，無需再學）者，指的是意界（Manodhatu，意識界）．意識界（Vijnanadhatu，更廣義的意識界）。不善者，指的是七心界。有覆者，眼（eye，視覺器官）．耳（ear，聽覺器官）．身（body，身體）．識（consciousness，意識）．意界（Manodhatu，意識界）．意識（Vijnana，意識）。異熟（Vipaka，業報成熟）．威儀（Iryapatha，行為舉止）。工巧者，指的是七心界。通果者，指的是眼識（eye-consciousness，視覺意識）．耳識（ear-consciousness，聽覺意識）。二通相應也是通果。以及意界（Manodhatu，意識界）．意識界（Vijnanadhatu，意識界）。由於異熟等攝盡了心，所以不通於自性。問：眼（eye，視覺器官）．耳（ear，聽覺器官）．意（mind，意識）．識（consciousness，意識），以及意根（Manas, 末那識），都通於三性。鼻（nose，嗅覺器官）．舌（tongue，味覺器官）．身識（body-consciousness，身體意識），不善．無記。由此可知可以合併。鼻（nose，嗅覺器官）．舌（tongue，味覺器官）．身識（body-consciousness，身體意識），生起善念時如何解釋？解釋說：如果泛泛而起，這三種識不是善。如果修行者，觀察段食（physical food，食物）等，深深生起厭離心，能生起善的三種識。

『法界若是至餘名無記者』，這裡是分別說明法界（Dharma Realm，宇宙萬法的總稱）。在法界中，善有四種：一、自性善，指的是無貪（non-greed，不貪婪）等三種善根（three roots of good，三種善的根本）以及慚（Hri，羞恥心）．愧（Apatrapya，慚愧心）。二、相應善，指的是與自性善相應。三、等起善，指的是無表（Avijnapti-rupa，無表色）．得（Prapti，獲得）．四相（four characteristics，生、住、異、滅）．二定（two samadhis，兩種禪定）。四、勝義善，指的是擇滅（Nirvana，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態）。在法界中，不善有三種：一、自性不善，指的是貪（greed，貪婪）等三種不善根（three roots of evil，三種不善的根本）以及無慚（no shame，沒有羞恥心）．無愧（no remorse，沒有慚愧心）。二、相應不善，指的是與自性不善相應。三、等起不善，指的是無表（Avijnapti-rupa，無表色）．得（Prapti，獲得）．四相（four characteristics，生、住、異、滅）。在法界中，除了善．不善之外，其餘的稱為無記。此論的下文，以及《毗婆沙》（Vibhasa，佛教論書），對善．不善各有說明。

【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that the substance of 'Nirvana' (Cessation through choice, the state of extinction attained through wisdom) can be praised, therefore it is said to be 'good,' then it is the same as the previous explanation. Repeating it would be in vain.

The remaining Ten Realms (Ten Realms, the ten states of life in Buddhism) are all connected to the three natures of good, unwholesome, and neutral. Here, the remaining ten realms are explained. Among them, first, a general statement; second, a separate explanation. This is the general statement.

'Referring to the seven mind realms to the remaining named neutral,' the following are separate explanations. Among them, first, explaining the seven mind realms; second, explaining the Dharma Realm (Dharma Realm, the totality of all phenomena in the universe); third, explaining form (rupa, matter) and sound (shabda, sound). Here, the seven mind realms are explained separately. These seven mind realms all connect to the three natures (three natures: good, unwholesome, and neutral). If explained separately, those born with it refer to the seven mind realms. Those who hear (hearing, hearing the Dharma), think (thinking, thinking about the Dharma), cultivate (cultivation, cultivating the Dharma), learn (learning, learning the Dharma), those beyond learning (no learning, having attained the state of Arhat, no need to learn anymore) refer to the mind element (Manodhatu, the realm of consciousness) and the consciousness element (Vijnanadhatu, the broader realm of consciousness). The unwholesome refers to the seven mind realms. The obscured refers to the eye (eye, the visual organ), ear (ear, the auditory organ), body (body, the physical body), consciousness (consciousness, awareness), mind element (Manodhatu, the realm of consciousness), and consciousness (Vijnana, consciousness). Resultant maturation (Vipaka, the maturation of karmic retribution) and deportment (Iryapatha, behavior). The skillful refers to the seven mind realms. Those connected to the result refer to eye-consciousness (eye-consciousness, visual consciousness) and ear-consciousness (ear-consciousness, auditory consciousness). The two connected to correspondence are also connected to the result, as well as the mind element (Manodhatu, the realm of consciousness) and the consciousness element (Vijnanadhatu, the realm of consciousness). Because the mind is completely encompassed by resultant maturation, etc., it is not connected to self-nature. Question: The eye (eye, the visual organ), ear (ear, the auditory organ), mind (mind, consciousness), consciousness (consciousness, awareness), and the root of mind (Manas, the seventh consciousness), all connect to the three natures. Nose (nose, the olfactory organ), tongue (tongue, the gustatory organ), and body-consciousness (body-consciousness, bodily awareness) are unwholesome and neutral. From this, it can be known that they can be combined. Nose (nose, the olfactory organ), tongue (tongue, the gustatory organ), and body-consciousness (body-consciousness, bodily awareness), how is it explained when good thoughts arise? The explanation is: If they arise generally, these three consciousnesses are not good. If practitioners observe physical food (physical food, food) etc., and deeply generate a mind of aversion, they can generate good three consciousnesses.

'The Dharma Realm if to the remaining named neutral,' here the Dharma Realm (Dharma Realm, the totality of all phenomena in the universe) is explained separately. In the Dharma Realm, there are four types of good: First, self-nature good, referring to non-greed (non-greed, not being greedy) and the three roots of good (three roots of good, the three roots of goodness) as well as shame (Hri, a sense of shame) and remorse (Apatrapya, a sense of remorse). Second, corresponding good, referring to corresponding with self-nature good. Third, arising together good, referring to non-revealing form (Avijnapti-rupa, non-revealing form), attainment (Prapti, attainment), the four characteristics (four characteristics, birth, abiding, change, and extinction), and the two samadhis (two samadhis, two types of meditative concentration). Fourth, ultimate good, referring to Nirvana (Cessation through choice, the state of extinction attained through wisdom). In the Dharma Realm, there are three types of unwholesome: First, self-nature unwholesome, referring to greed (greed, being greedy) and the three roots of evil (three roots of evil, the three roots of unwholesomeness) as well as no shame (no shame, having no sense of shame) and no remorse (no remorse, having no sense of remorse). Second, corresponding unwholesome, referring to corresponding with self-nature unwholesome. Third, arising together unwholesome, referring to non-revealing form (Avijnapti-rupa, non-revealing form), attainment (Prapti, attainment), and the four characteristics (four characteristics, birth, abiding, change, and extinction). In the Dharma Realm, apart from good and unwholesome, the rest are called neutral. The following text of this treatise, as well as the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a Buddhist treatise), each explain good and unwholesome.

四種。何故此中不善說三。不言勝義　解云。勝義不善。體通三性。此中三性分別十八界。所以不說勝義不善。若說勝義。即無差別　若別分別。於法界中總有六十四法。謂無表四十六心所法。十四不相應。三無為　生得者。有三十法。謂無表。大地法十。大善地法十。尋．伺．睡眠．惡作。得四相　聞．思者有二十八法。謂無表。大地法十。大善地法十。尋．伺。得．四相　修者有三十法。謂無表。大地法十。大善地法十。尋．伺。得．四相．二定　學．無學者有二十八法。謂無表。大地法十。大善地法十。尋．伺。得．四相　勝義善者有一法。謂擇滅　不善者有四十二法。謂無表。大地法十。大煩惱地法六。大不善地法二。小煩惱地法十。尋．伺．睡眠．惡作．貪．嗔．慢．疑。得．四相　有覆者有三十法。謂大地法十。大煩惱地法六。小煩惱中諂．誑．憍．尋．伺．睡眠．貪．慢．疑。得．四相。

異熟者有二十一法。謂大地法十。尋．伺．睡眠．得．四相．命根．同分．無想．異熟　威儀．工巧者有十八法。謂大地法十。尋．伺．睡眠。得．四相。婆沙．正理各更有一說。睡眠不通威儀．工巧。至十纏中當具引釋　通果者有十七法。謂大地法十。尋．伺。得．四相　自性無記者有十法。謂得．非得．四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：四種。什麼原因導致這裡不恰當地說了三種？不說勝義（Paramārtha，究竟真實）是因為勝義不善，其本體貫通三種性質。這裡的三種性質分別對應十八界，所以不說勝義不善。如果說勝義，就沒有差別了。如果分別，在法界中總共有六十四法，即無表（aviññatti，無表色）四十六心所法，十四不相應行法，以及三無為法（asaṃskṛta，無為法）。生得者有三十法，即無表，大地法十，大善地法十，尋（vitarka，尋），伺（vicāra，伺），睡眠（middha，睡眠），惡作（kaukṛtya，惡作），得（prāpti，得），四相（caturlakṣaṇa，四相）。聞、思者有二十八法，即無表，大地法十，大善地法十，尋，伺，得，四相。修者有三十法，即無表，大地法十，大善地法十，尋，伺，得，四相，二定（dhyāna，禪定）。學、無學者有二十八法，即無表，大地法十，大善地法十，尋，伺，得，四相。勝義善者有一法，即擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）。不善者有四十二法，即無表，大地法十，大煩惱地法六，大不善地法二，小煩惱地法十，尋，伺，睡眠，惡作，貪（rāga，貪），嗔（dveṣa，嗔），慢（māna，慢），疑（vicikitsā，疑），得，四相。有覆者有三十法，即大地法十，大煩惱地法六，小煩惱中諂（śāṭhya，諂），誑（māyā，誑），憍（mada，憍），尋，伺，睡眠，貪，慢，疑，得，四相。異熟者有二十一法，即大地法十，尋，伺，睡眠，得，四相，命根（jīvitendriya，命根），同分（nikāya-sabhāga，同分），無想（asañjñika，無想），異熟（vipāka，異熟）。威儀、工巧者有十八法，即大地法十，尋，伺，睡眠，得，四相。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，大毗婆沙論）、正理（Nyāya，正理）各有另一種說法，睡眠不通於威儀、工巧。到十纏中會詳細解釋。通果者有十七法，即大地法十，尋，伺，得，四相。自性無記者有十法，即得，非得（aprāpti，非得），四

【English Translation】 English version: Four kinds. Why is it that only three are improperly mentioned here? The reason why 'Paramārtha' (ultimate truth) is not mentioned is because 'Paramārtha' is not wholesome; its essence encompasses the three natures. Here, these three natures correspond to the eighteen dhātus (elements), so 'Paramārtha' is not said to be unwholesome. If 'Paramārtha' were mentioned, there would be no distinction. If distinctions are made, there are a total of sixty-four dharmas (phenomena) in the Dharmadhātu (realm of phenomena): namely, forty-six aviññatti (non-revealing form) mental factors, fourteen citta-viprayukta-saṃskāras (non-associated formations), and three asaṃskṛta dharmas (unconditioned dharmas). Those born with it have thirty dharmas: namely, aviññatti, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas (great universal mental factors), ten kuśala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas (great wholesome universal mental factors), vitarka (initial application of thought), vicāra (sustained application of thought), middha (sleep), kaukṛtya (remorse), prāpti (attainment), and the four caturlakṣaṇa (characteristics). Those who hear and contemplate have twenty-eight dharmas: namely, aviññatti, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, ten kuśala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas, vitarka, vicāra, prāpti, and the four characteristics. Those who cultivate have thirty dharmas: namely, aviññatti, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, ten kuśala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas, vitarka, vicāra, prāpti, the four characteristics, and two dhyānas (meditative absorptions). Those who are learners and non-learners have twenty-eight dharmas: namely, aviññatti, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, ten kuśala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas, vitarka, vicāra, prāpti, and the four characteristics. The 'Paramārtha' that is wholesome is one dharma: namely, pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom). The unwholesome has forty-two dharmas: namely, aviññatti, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, six kleśa-mahā-bhūmika dharmas (great afflictive universal mental factors), two akuśala-mahā-bhūmika dharmas (great unwholesome universal mental factors), ten paritta-kleśa-bhūmika dharmas (minor afflictive universal mental factors), vitarka, vicāra, middha, kaukṛtya, rāga (greed), dveṣa (hatred), māna (pride), vicikitsā (doubt), prāpti, and the four characteristics. Those that are obscured have thirty dharmas: namely, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, six kleśa-mahā-bhūmika dharmas, śāṭhya (deceit), māyā (hypocrisy), mada (conceit) among the minor afflictions, vitarka, vicāra, middha, rāga, māna, vicikitsā, prāpti, and the four characteristics. Those that are vipāka (resultant) have twenty-one dharmas: namely, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, vitarka, vicāra, middha, prāpti, the four characteristics, jīvitendriya (life faculty), nikāya-sabhāga (species likeness), asañjñika (non-perception), and vipāka (result). Those that are related to deportment and skill have eighteen dharmas: namely, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, vitarka, vicāra, middha, prāpti, and the four characteristics. The Vibhāṣā and Nyāya each have another explanation: sleep does not extend to deportment and skill. A detailed explanation will be given in the section on the ten fetters. Those that are common results have seventeen dharmas: namely, ten mahā-bhūmika dharmas, vitarka, vicāra, prāpti, and the four characteristics. Those that are inherently indeterminate have ten dharmas: namely, prāpti, aprāpti (non-attainment), four

相．名．句．文．同分。于不相應中異熟等四所不攝者。諸餘無記皆自性攝。於心所中異熟等四攝無記盡。故自性無記不攝心所法　勝義無記者有二法。謂虛空．非擇滅。

色界聲界至余是無記者。此即別明色．聲。色．聲二界。若善心力等起身．語表攝是善。若不善心力等起身．語表攝是不善。若無記心力等起身．語表攝是無記。及非等起色．聲皆名無記。以無記色．聲中有非等起故。不別說等起。以實而言。無記心亦能等起身．語表業　若別分別。生得．聞．思者皆通色．聲。以皆能作因等起故。加行故發業。如先已說　不善者通色．聲　有覆者通色．聲。謂初定中有覆修惑等起身．語　異熟者謂色威儀．工巧．通果．自性者。皆通色．聲。異熟等四所不攝者。皆名自性無記。

已說善等至無色系后三者。此下第四明三界系門。問及頌答。

論曰至無所緣故者。欲界十八。色界十四。香．味段食性。彼無段食。故無香．味。又雜心云。彼無揣食性。以身微妙故(已上論文)　凡說有識必有所緣。彼無香．味所緣。故無能緣二識。若依宗輪論。大眾部等。色．無色界具六識身。

若爾觸界至段食性故者。難。觸界。色界應無有觸。段食性故。猶如香．味。

彼所有觸非段食性者。通

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本相（Lakshana，相狀）。名（Nama，名稱）。句（Pada，語句）。文（Vyanjana，文身）。同分（Nikayasabhaga，眾同分）。于不相應行法中，異熟生、等流生、士用果、增上果四者所不包括的，其餘所有無記法都屬於自性攝。在心所法中，異熟生等四者所攝的無記法全部包括在內。因此，自性無記不包括心所法。勝義無記有兩種法，即虛空（Akasa）和非擇滅（Pratisankhyanirodha）。

聲界乃至其餘是無記法。這裡特別說明色界和聲界。色界和聲界，如果是善心力量等引發的身表業和語表業，則屬於善。如果是不善心力量等引發的身表業和語表業，則屬於不善。如果是無記心力量等引發的身表業和語表業，則屬於無記。以及非由心力等引發的色和聲，都稱為無記。因為無記的色和聲中有非由心力等引發的緣故，所以不特別說明等起。但實際上，無記心也能引發身表業和語表業。如果分別來說，生得、聽聞、思惟所生的色和聲，都包括色和聲，因為它們都能作為因等起。通過加行而發起業，如先前已經說過。不善的色和聲也包括色和聲。有覆無記也包括色和聲，指初禪中有覆的修惑等引發的身語。異熟生包括色、威儀、工巧、通果。自性包括所有色和聲。異熟生等四者所不包括的，都稱為自性無記。

已經說了善等，直到無色界的后三者。下面第四部分說明三界系屬的分類。以下是問答。

論曰：乃至無所緣的緣故。欲界有十八界。色界有十四界。香、味是段食的性質。因為彼處沒有段食，所以沒有香、味。又《雜心論》說，彼處沒有揣食的性質，因為身體非常微妙的緣故（以上是論文）。凡是說有識的，必定有所緣。彼處沒有香、味所緣，所以沒有能緣的二識。如果依據《宗輪論》的觀點，大眾部等認為色界和無色界具有六識身。

如果這樣，觸界乃至段食性的緣故。難：觸界，色界和無色界應該沒有觸，因為具有段食的性質。猶如香、味。

彼處所有的觸不是段食的性質。通達。

【English Translation】 English version Lakshana (相, characteristics). Nama (名, name). Pada (句, sentence). Vyanjana (文, phrase). Nikayasabhaga (同分, commonality of beings). Among the non-associated formations, those not included in the four categories of Vipakaja (異熟生, result of maturation), Nisandaja (等流生, result of outflow), Paurusakara (士用果, result of effort), and Adhipati (增上果, result of dominance) are all included in Svarupa (自性, own-nature). In mental factors, all the non-specified (無記) factors included in the four categories of Vipakaja, etc., are included. Therefore, Svarupa-avyakrta (自性無記, non-specified by nature) does not include mental factors. There are two dharmas that are ultimately non-specified: Akasa (虛空, space) and Pratisankhyanirodha (非擇滅, cessation by wisdom).

The realm of sound and the rest are non-specified. Here, the realms of form and sound are specifically explained. If the actions of body and speech arising from the power of wholesome mind, etc., are wholesome. If the actions of body and speech arising from the power of unwholesome mind, etc., are unwholesome. If the actions of body and speech arising from the power of non-specified mind, etc., are non-specified. And the form and sound not arising from such causes are all called non-specified. Because there are form and sound that are not arising from such causes, the arising from such causes is not specifically mentioned. But in reality, the non-specified mind can also cause actions of body and speech. If distinguished separately, those arising from birth, hearing, and thought all include form and sound, because they can all arise as causes. Actions are initiated through effort, as previously stated. Unwholesome includes form and sound. Obscured includes form and sound, referring to the actions of body and speech arising from obscured cultivation in the first dhyana. Vipakaja includes form, deportment, skill, and the result of supernatural powers. Svarupa includes all form and sound. Those not included in the four categories of Vipakaja, etc., are all called Svarupa-avyakrta.

Having discussed the wholesome, etc., up to the last three of the formless realm, the fourth part below explains the classification of the three realms. The following is a question and answer.

The treatise says: '...because there is no object of perception.' The desire realm has eighteen realms. The form realm has fourteen realms. Smell and taste are of the nature of solid food. Because there is no solid food there, there is no smell or taste. Also, the Samuccaya-hrdaya says that there is no nature of morsel food there, because the body is very subtle (the above is from the treatise). Whenever it is said that there is consciousness, there must be an object of perception. There is no object of perception for smell and taste there, so there are no two consciousnesses that can perceive them. According to the Tattvasamgraha, the Mahasanghika school, etc., believe that the form and formless realms have six bodies of consciousness.

If so, the realm of touch and the nature of solid food. Objection: The realm of touch, the form and formless realms should not have touch, because they have the nature of solid food, like smell and taste.

All the touch there is not of the nature of solid food. Understand.

色界觸非段食故觸色界有。香．味唯段食。故下不通上。顯所立因有不成過。

若爾香味類亦應然者。又難　色界有其觸。是觸非段食。何妨有香．味而亦非段食。

香味離食至故觸非無者。又通　香．味離食無別受用。色離食貪故無香．味。於色界中觸離段食更有別用謂四大種是能造故能持色根。能持衣服．宮殿等用。故觸非無。

有餘師說至故在彼無者。敘婆沙異說。謂住此欲界。依彼四靜慮現起等至。起天眼見上界色。起天耳聞上界聲　輕安謂大善地法中輕安。定中用勝故別標名　觸與輕安同時故言俱起　有殊勝觸。即色界大種。欲界身雖不能取上界觸。以觸身中行故。能攝益身。身在欲界既能見彼地色。聞彼地聲。起彼地觸。是故此三。生彼靜慮猶相隨逐。香．味不爾。故在彼無　又解。輕安。謂身輕安。即細滑觸。或是輕觸　與二通同時故言俱起　能攝益身。雖色．及聲。通欲．色界所引輕安唯是欲界。益欲界身故。以于欲界三種相隨。故生色界亦具三種　又解。輕安。謂心所中輕安　俱起。謂所起引欲界勝觸與輕安俱起。準正理論不破。即是婆沙異說　然和須蜜。俱舍釋中雲是室利邏多解。彼師意說。入定方有輕安。或是輕安風。正理不破者。言中不違故不破也。

若爾鼻舌

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本： 觸非段食故觸有（觸不是粗 खाद्य आहार，所以觸存在）。香（गंध，氣味）、味（रस，味道）只是粗 खाद्य आहार。因此，下面的（欲界）不能通達上面的（色界）。這顯示了所立的因（ हेतु，理由）有不成過（理由不成立的過失）。

如果這樣，香、味也應該一樣嗎？又難：有其觸。是觸非段食。何妨有香．味而亦非段食（存在觸，這個觸不是粗 खाद्य आहार，為什麼不能有香、味也不是粗 खाद्य आहार呢）？

香、味離開食物就沒有了，所以觸不是沒有。又通：香、味離開食物就沒有別的受用。色離開食物，貪著它，所以沒有香、味。在中觸離段食更有別用謂四大種是能造故能持色根。能持衣服．宮殿等用。故觸非無（觸離開粗 खाद्य आहार還有別的用處，就是四大種是能造作的，所以能支援色根，能支援衣服、宮殿等用處，所以觸不是沒有）。

有餘師說至故在彼無者（有其他老師說，所以在那裡沒有）。這是敘述《婆沙論》的不同說法。說的是住在欲界，依靠彼四靜慮（ध्यान，禪定）現起等至（समापत्ति，等至），起天眼見上界色，起天耳聞上界聲。輕安（प्रश्रब्धि，輕安）指的是大善地法中的輕安。禪定中用處殊勝，所以特別標明。觸與輕安同時，所以說俱起。有殊勝的觸，就是大種（ महाभूत，四大種）。欲界身雖然不能取上界觸，因為觸在身中執行，所以能攝益身。身在欲界，既然能見彼地色，聞彼地聲，起彼地觸，因此這三種，生彼靜慮仍然相隨逐。香、味不是這樣，所以在那裡沒有。又解釋，輕安，指的是身輕安，就是細滑觸，或者是輕觸。與二通（兩種神通）同時，所以說俱起。能攝益身。雖然色、及聲，通欲、所引輕安唯是欲界。益欲界身故。以于欲界三種相隨。故生亦具三種（所引發的輕安只是欲界的，利益欲界身，因為在欲界三種相隨，所以生**也具有三種）。又解釋，輕安，指的是心所中的輕安。俱起，指的是所起引欲界勝觸與輕安俱起。按照《正理論》不破斥，就是《婆沙論》的不同說法。然而和須蜜，《俱舍釋》中說是室利邏多的解釋。那位老師的意思是說，入定才有輕安，或者是輕安風。《正理論》不破斥，是因為言語中沒有違背，所以不破斥。

如果這樣，鼻舌（ghrana-jihva，鼻和舌）...

【English Translation】 English version: Because touch is not coarse food, therefore touch exists. Smell (gandha, odor) and taste (rasa, flavor) are only coarse खाद्य आहार (khādya āhāra, solid food). Therefore, the lower (desire realm) cannot reach the upper (form realm). This shows that the established reason (hetu, cause) has the fault of being unestablished (the reason is not valid).

If that's the case, should smell and taste be the same? It is also difficult to argue: There is touch. This touch is not coarse food. Why can't there be smell and taste that are also not coarse food?

Smell and taste are absent without food, so touch is not non-existent. It also makes sense: smell and taste have no other use apart from food. Form is separated from food, and there is attachment to it, so there is no smell or taste. Among these, touch, apart from coarse food, has other uses, namely the four great elements, which are the creators and can support the sense organs of form. They can support clothes, palaces, and other uses. Therefore, touch is not non-existent.

Some other teachers say that therefore they are not present there. This narrates a different view from the Vibhasha. It says that residing in the desire realm, relying on those four dhyanas (meditative states), one arises in samapatti (attainment), arises with the divine eye to see forms in the upper realm, and arises with the divine ear to hear sounds in the upper realm. Tranquility (prashrabdhi, ease) refers to tranquility among the great wholesome mental factors. Because its use in meditation is superior, it is specifically marked. Touch and tranquility are simultaneous, so it is said that they arise together. There is superior touch, which is the great elements (mahabhuta, the four great elements). Although the body in the desire realm cannot grasp the touch of the upper realm, because touch operates within the body, it can benefit the body. Since the body is in the desire realm, it can see the forms of that realm, hear the sounds of that realm, and arise with the touch of that realm. Therefore, these three accompany one even when born in those dhyanas. Smell and taste are not like that, so they are not present there. Another explanation is that tranquility refers to bodily tranquility, which is fine and smooth touch, or light touch. It is simultaneous with the two abhijna (two kinds of superknowledges), so it is said that they arise together. It can benefit the body. Although form and sound, which are common to the desire realm, the tranquility induced is only of the desire realm. It benefits the body of the desire realm. Because the three accompany one in the desire realm, therefore birth also possesses the three. Another explanation is that tranquility refers to tranquility among the mental factors. 'Arising together' means that the superior touch of the desire realm that arises induces tranquility to arise together. According to the Nyayanusara, it is not refuted, which means it is a different view from the Vibhasha. However, Vasumitra, in the commentary on the Kosa, says that it is the explanation of Shrilata. That teacher's intention is that tranquility only exists when entering meditation, or it is the wind of tranquility. The Nyayanusara does not refute it because there is no contradiction in the words, so it is not refuted.

If that's the case, the nose and tongue (ghrana-jihva)...

至彼無用故者。論主難前師　鼻舌二根。色界應無。彼無用故。猶如香．味。

不爾二根至及莊嚴身者。前師解。明根有用。顯所立因有不成過。謂舌能起言說用。鼻能莊嚴身用。

若為嚴身至何用二根者。論主復難　明根無用。顯因極成。嚴身。起說。依處足能。根非可見何所莊嚴。依處起言何須根體。故知。二根于彼無用。

如無男根至依處亦無者。前師復救　顯根有用。引例證成。如無男根亦無依處。若二根無者依處亦應無。既有依處顯根有用　雖非有見為有見因。雖非起言為起言因。展轉相因根還有用。由有根故依處方生。由依處生嚴身．起說。

于彼可無至離根應有者。論主又難　于彼色界可無男根依處。彼界無用故。設男依處。彼界有用。離根應有。由無用故。彼界中無。鼻．舌依處。彼有用故離根應有。何用二根。根既無用。因還得成。

有雖無用至而非無因者。前師又釋　論主若言諸根依處不由根生要由見色聞聲等用根方生者。凡有根生非要有用。如處胞胎業定死者。雖無見色等用。其根亦生。故知根生非要有用　伏難云。此根無用。應非因生　為通伏難故作是言有雖無用而非無因。此總出理　問前解二根于彼有用。今言無用。豈不相違。解云。前言有用。有展轉疏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『至彼無用故者』。論主反駁前師：鼻根和舌根『應無』（應該不存在）。因為它們『無用』，就像香和味一樣沒有實際作用。

『不爾二根至及莊嚴身者』。前師解釋說：說明根是有用的，以此來顯示所立的因『有不成過』（不能成立的過失）。意思是舌頭能起到言說的作用，鼻子能起到莊嚴身體的作用。

『若為嚴身至何用二根者』。論主再次反駁：說明根沒有用處，以此來顯示因是『極成』（完全成立）的。用依處（身體）就足以莊嚴身體和進行言說，根不是可見的，如何莊嚴身體？用依處進行言說，又何須根的本體？所以說，鼻根和舌根對於莊嚴身體和進行言說沒有用處。

『如無男根至依處亦無者』。前師再次辯解：顯示根是有用的，引用例子來證明成立。就像沒有男根，也就沒有男根的依處一樣。如果鼻根和舌根沒有了，那麼它們的依處也應該沒有。既然有依處，就說明根是有用的。雖然根不是有見（可見）的，但卻是『有見』（產生視覺）的原因；雖然根不是『起言』（產生言語）的，但卻是『起言』（產生言語）的原因。輾轉相因，根還是有用的。因為有了根，依處才能產生；由依處產生莊嚴身體和言說。

『于彼可無至離根應有者』。論主又反駁：在那個地方（指沒有男根的地方），可以沒有男根的依處，因為男根在那個地方沒有用處。假設男根的依處在那個地方有用處，那麼即使沒有男根也應該有男根的依處。因為沒有用處，所以在那個地方沒有男根。鼻根和舌根的依處，因為它們有用處，所以即使沒有鼻根和舌根也應該有它們的依處。那還要鼻根和舌根做什麼呢？根既然沒有用處，那麼『因』（理由）還是能夠成立的。

『有雖無用至而非無因者』。前師又解釋說：論主如果說諸根的依處不是由根產生的，而是要通過見色、聞聲等作用，根才能產生，那麼凡是有根產生，不一定要有用處。比如處在胞胎中，業力決定要死去的人，即使沒有見色等作用，他的根也會產生。所以說根的產生不一定要有用處。反駁論主的詰難說：『此根無用，應非因生』（這個根沒有用處，應該不是由因產生的）。爲了解釋這個詰難，所以才說『有雖無用而非無因』（雖然沒有用處，但不是沒有原因）。這總的來說明了道理。問：前面解釋說鼻根和舌根在那個地方有用處，現在又說沒有用處，豈不是互相矛盾？解釋說：前面說的有用處，是有輾轉的、間接的用處。

【English Translation】 English version 『To that which is without use.』 The debater refutes the previous teacher: The nose and tongue roots 『should not exist』 (should not be present). Because they are 『useless,』 like fragrance and taste, which have no practical function.

『If not, the two roots to and adorn the body.』 The previous teacher explains: It shows that the roots are useful, thereby demonstrating that the established reason has the fault of 『inconclusive』 (cannot be established). It means that the tongue can perform the function of speech, and the nose can perform the function of adorning the body.

『If for adorning the body, what use are the two roots?』 The debater refutes again: It shows that the roots are useless, thereby demonstrating that the reason is 『fully established.』 The support (the body) is sufficient to adorn the body and perform speech. The roots are not visible, so how can they adorn the body? Using the support to perform speech, what need is there for the essence of the roots? Therefore, it is said that the nose and tongue roots are useless for adorning the body and performing speech.

『Like the absence of the male root to the absence of the support.』 The previous teacher argues again: It shows that the roots are useful, citing examples to prove it. Just as without the male root, there is no support for the male root. If the nose and tongue roots are absent, then their supports should also be absent. Since there are supports, it shows that the roots are useful. Although the roots are not 『visible』 (capable of seeing), they are the cause of 『seeing』 (producing vision); although the roots are not 『speech-producing』 (capable of producing speech), they are the cause of 『speech-producing』 (producing speech). Interdependently, the roots are still useful. Because there are roots, the support can arise; from the support arises adorning the body and speech.

『In that, it can be without to apart from the root, there should be.』 The debater refutes again: In that place (referring to a place without the male root), there can be no support for the male root, because the male root is useless in that place. Suppose the support for the male root is useful in that place, then even without the male root, there should be the support for the male root. Because it is useless, there is no male root in that place. The supports for the nose and tongue roots, because they are useful, even without the nose and tongue roots, there should be their supports. Then what is the use of the nose and tongue roots? Since the roots are useless, then the 『reason』 (argument) can still be established.

『Having although useless to not without cause.』 The previous teacher explains again: If the debater says that the supports of the roots are not produced by the roots, but only through the functions of seeing forms, hearing sounds, etc., can the roots be produced, then whenever a root is produced, it does not necessarily have to be useful. For example, a person in the womb who is destined to die due to karma, even without the functions of seeing forms, etc., his roots will still be produced. Therefore, it is said that the production of roots does not necessarily have to be useful. Refuting the debater's challenge: 『This root is useless, it should not be produced by a cause』 (This root is useless, it should not be produced by a cause). To explain this challenge, it is said 『Having although useless, it is not without cause』 (Although having is useless, it is not without a cause). This generally explains the principle. Question: Earlier it was explained that the nose and tongue roots are useful in that place, but now it is said that they are useless, is this not contradictory? Explanation: The usefulness mentioned earlier is a roundabout, indirect usefulness.

用。今言無用無親作用。非現嚴身。非現起說　或被難轉計。

彼從何因得有根起者。論主別徴　彼色界鼻．舌二根從何因生。

于根有愛發殊勝業者。前師答　于根有愛發殊勝業。此業即是鼻舌根因。

若離境愛至鼻舌應無者。論主又以理難　夫根愛者。擬用取境。由境有愛根愛方生。是知根愛由境愛起。夫離境愛于根定離彼離香．味貪應無有鼻．舌。若謂根生非由境愛。雖無香．味愛而有鼻．舌者。或應許彼雖無淫觸愛。而有男根愛男根亦生　正理論第四非此解云。此中何因作如是執。若離境愛。根愛亦無。非根愛無。處愛亦離。根與依處鄰近而生。境界不然如何倒執。男根依處於彼不生。即顯男根于彼離愛。既許鼻．舌依處彼生。故知二根彼愛未離。故不應執彼離根愛未離處愛　彼論意說。境望根疏。依處望根親何不以親為證而倒以疏為證。非由境有無故根有無。但由依處有無故足顯根有無　若依俱舍師救。應問彼言。何故彼無男根依處若謂為無淫觸。是即淫。觸為本。故境證強。非彼依處　若謂醜陋于彼不生者。如來陰藏隱密。端嚴入相好中。何容醜陋　又汝前說有諸根生非由有用。但有因力無用亦生。男根於色雖為醜陋。設許有因於色應起。汝若言男根無因非有。我還難汝。鼻．舌無因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在說沒有用處也沒有親近的作用，不是現在就用來裝飾身體，也不是現在才開始說。或者會被辯論者抓住把柄進行反駁。

『他們從什麼原因得以生出根呢？』論主特別提出疑問：『那些鼻根、舌根是從什麼原因產生的呢？』

『對於根有愛而生起殊勝的業。』之前的老師回答：『對於根有愛而生起殊勝的業，這個業就是鼻根、舌根產生的原因。』

『如果離開對境界的愛，那麼鼻根、舌根就應該不存在。』論主又用道理進行反駁：『所謂的根愛，是打算用來獲取境界的。因為對境界有愛，所以根愛才產生。由此可知，根愛是由境愛產生的。如果離開對境界的愛，那麼對於根的愛也必定會消失，如果離開了對香、味的貪愛，那麼就不應該有鼻根、舌根。如果說根的產生不是因為對境界的愛，即使沒有對香、味的愛，也會有鼻根、舌根，那麼就應該允許即使沒有對淫觸的愛，也會有男根，男根也會產生。』《正理論》第四中並非如此解釋，說：『這裡是什麼原因導致你這樣認為？如果離開了對境界的愛，那麼根愛也會消失。不是根愛消失了，依處愛也會消失。根和依處是鄰近而生的，境界卻不是這樣，為什麼要顛倒執著呢？男根的依處在那裡不產生，就表明男根在那裡離開了愛。既然允許鼻根、舌根的依處在那裡產生，所以知道這兩個根在那裡愛還沒有離開。所以不應該認為在那裡離開了根愛，卻沒有離開依處愛。』那部論的意思是說，境界相對於根來說是疏遠的，依處相對於根來說是親近的，為什麼不以親近的作為證據，反而以疏遠的作為證據呢？不是因為境界的有無，根就有無，只要因為依處的有無，就足以表明根的有無。如果按照俱舍師的解釋來救，應該問他們說：『為什麼在那裡沒有男根的依處呢？』如果說是爲了沒有淫觸，那就是淫觸為根本，所以境界的證據更強，而不是那個依處。如果說是醜陋，所以不產生，那麼如來的陰藏是隱秘的，端正莊嚴，屬於相好之中，怎麼能說是醜陋呢？而且你之前說有諸根的產生不是因為有用處，只要有因的力量，即使沒有用處也會產生。男根對於顏色來說雖然是醜陋的，如果允許有因，也應該在那裡產生。如果你說男根沒有因，所以沒有，我還要反駁你，鼻根、舌根沒有因嗎？』

【English Translation】 English version: Now, it is said that there is no use and no close function. It is not used to adorn the body now, nor is it just beginning to be said now. Or it may be seized upon and refuted by debaters.

'From what cause do they arise?' The master of the treatise specifically asks: 'From what cause do those nose and tongue roots arise?'

'Having love for the roots gives rise to excellent karma.' The previous teacher answers: 'Having love for the roots gives rise to excellent karma. This karma is the cause of the nose and tongue roots.'

'If one is separated from love for the objects, then the nose and tongue should not exist.' The master of the treatise further refutes with reason: 'The so-called root-love is intended to grasp objects. Because there is love for the objects, root-love arises. From this, it is known that root-love arises from object-love. If one is separated from love for the objects, then love for the roots must also disappear. If one is separated from greed for smells and tastes, then there should be no nose and tongue. If it is said that the arising of the roots is not due to love for the objects, that even without love for smells and tastes, there will be nose and tongue, then it should be allowed that even without love for sexual touch, there will be a male organ, and the male organ will arise.' The fourth chapter of the Zheng Li Lun (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) does not explain it this way, saying: 'What is the reason for holding such a view here? If one is separated from love for the objects, then root-love will also disappear. It is not that when root-love disappears, the love for the support also disappears. The root and the support are born close to each other, but the object is not like this. Why hold on to it in reverse? The support of the male organ does not arise there, which shows that the male organ has left love there. Since it is allowed that the support of the nose and tongue arises there, it is known that the love for these two roots has not left there. Therefore, it should not be thought that root-love has left there, but the love for the support has not left.' The meaning of that treatise is that the object is distant from the root, and the support is close to the root. Why not use the close as evidence, but instead use the distant as evidence? It is not because of the presence or absence of the object that the root exists or does not exist, but only because of the presence or absence of the support that it is sufficient to show the existence or non-existence of the root. If one relies on the explanation of the Kosa masters to save it, one should ask them: 'Why is there no support for the male organ there?' If it is said that it is because there is no sexual touch, then sexual touch is the root, so the evidence of the object is stronger, not that support. If it is said that it is ugly, so it does not arise, then the Tathāgata's (如來) hidden genitals are secret, upright, and dignified, belonging to the auspicious marks, how can it be said to be ugly? Moreover, you said earlier that the arising of some roots is not because they are useful, but as long as there is the power of cause, they will arise even if they are not useful. Although the male organ is ugly in color, if it is allowed that there is a cause, it should also arise there. If you say that the male organ has no cause, so it does not exist, I will also refute you, do the nose and tongue have no cause?'

應無。若言男根無境非有。鼻．舌無境彼亦應無。

若爾便違至不減諸根者。前師出聖教相違若言色界無鼻．舌者。便違經說。彼色界中無身支缺不減色根。

隨彼諸根至男根應有者。論主為通　經言不減隨其所應。若執不減。男根應有。

如是說者至男根非有者。論主正解　鼻．舌彼有。但無香．味。以六根愛依內身生。非依境界而得現起。由得上定起上界愛愛上界身。故生色界得有鼻．舌。其男根愛依淫觸生。淫觸。色無。男根非有。經說為男有餘男相　或能離染故說為男。

故於色界至理得成立者論主結。

無色界系至無色界系者可知。

已說界系至唯名有漏者。此即第五有漏．無漏門。后三通二。餘十五界唯名有漏。道諦．無為所不攝故。如諸煩惱。以譬喻部。非情五境．無學身中十五界。非漏所依皆名無漏。雖皆無漏非道諦收。猶如虛空．及非擇滅。是故得為如是比量余文可知。

如是已說至后三三餘無者。此下第六有尋有伺門。就中。一正分別。二釋妨難　此即正分別。問及頌答　尋．伺相似於一心中。或二俱起或唯有一。故此偏明。憍．慢雖亦相似亦唯有一。非二俱起。無慚．無愧雖亦相似。亦二俱起。非唯有一。愛．敬亦然。故此不明。

論曰至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：應無：如果說男根沒有對境所以不存在，那麼鼻和舌沒有對境也應該不存在。

若爾便違至不減諸根者：如果這樣說，就違背了『諸根不減』的說法。前師的說法與聖教相違背，如果說色界天沒有鼻和舌，就違背了經文所說。那色界天中沒有身體上的殘缺，色根也沒有減少。

隨彼諸根至男根應有者：論主爲了解釋經文所說的『不減』，是隨其所應的。如果執著于『不減』，那麼色界天就應該有男根。

如是說者至男根非有者：論主正確地解釋說，鼻和舌在色界天是有的，只是沒有香和味。因為六根的愛是依靠內在的身體產生的，不是依靠外在的境界而得以顯現。由於得到上定，生起對上界的愛，愛著上界的身，所以在色界天有鼻和舌。而男根的愛是依靠淫慾的觸覺產生的，色界天沒有淫慾的觸覺，所以沒有男根。經文說，對於男性來說，還有剩餘的男性特徵，或者能夠遠離染污，所以說他是男性。

故於**至理得成立者：論主總結。

無系至無系者：可知。

已說界系至唯名有漏者：這指的是第五個有漏、無漏門。后三個（無色界）通於二者（有漏和無漏）。其餘十五界（欲界、色界）僅僅是有漏，因為它們不被道諦（Dukkha-nirodha-gamini-patipada-ariya-sacca）和無為法所包含。就像各種煩惱一樣。根據譬喻部（Dārṣṭāntika）的觀點，非情之物的五境以及無學之人的身體中的十五界，不是煩惱的所依，都稱為無漏。雖然都是無漏，但不被道諦所攝，就像虛空和非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）一樣。因此，可以得出這樣的比量，其餘的文字可以理解。

如是已說至后三三餘無者：以下是第六個有尋有伺門。其中，一、正確地分別；二、解釋妨難。這是正確地分別。問和頌的回答。尋（Vitarka）和伺（Vicara）相似，在一個心中，或者兩者都生起，或者只有一種生起。因此，這裡特別說明。憍（Mada）和慢（Māna）雖然也相似，但也只有一種生起，不會兩者都生起。無慚（Ahrikya）和無愧（Anapatrāpya）雖然也相似，但兩者都會生起，不會只有一種生起。愛（Raga）和敬（Gaurava）也是這樣，所以這裡不說明。

論曰至

【English Translation】 English version: Should not be. If it is said that the male organ has no object, therefore it does not exist, then the nose and tongue, having no object, should also not exist.

If so, it contradicts the statement 'the faculties are not diminished'. The previous teacher's statement contradicts the holy teachings. If it is said that the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu) has no nose and tongue, then it contradicts the sutra which says that in the Form Realm there is no physical defect, and the sense faculties are not diminished.

According to those faculties, up to 'the male organ should exist': The commentator explains that the sutra's statement 'not diminished' is according to what is appropriate. If one insists on 'not diminished', then the Form Realm should have the male organ.

As it is said, up to 'the male organ does not exist': The commentator correctly explains that the nose and tongue exist in the Form Realm, but there is no smell or taste. Because the love for the six senses arises from the inner body, not from the external objects. Because of attaining higher samadhi (concentration), one generates love for the higher realms, loving the body of the higher realms, so the Form Realm has nose and tongue. But the love for the male organ arises from the touch of lust. The Form Realm has no touch of lust, so there is no male organ. The sutra says that for a male, there are remaining male characteristics, or he is able to be free from defilements, so he is called a male.

Therefore, in the Form Realm, up to 'the principle can be established': The commentator concludes.

No Form Realm bond, up to 'no Form Realm bond': It is knowable.

Having spoken of the realm bonds, up to 'only named as contaminated': This refers to the fifth gate of contaminated (sāsrava) and uncontaminated (anāsrava). The latter three (Arupadhatu) are common to both. The remaining fifteen realms (Kāmadhātu, Rūpadhātu) are only named as contaminated, because they are not included in the Path Truth (Dukkha-nirodha-gamini-patipada-ariya-sacca) and the Unconditioned (Asamskrta). Like the various afflictions. According to the Dārṣṭāntika school, the five objects of non-sentient beings and the fifteen realms in the body of an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana), which are not the basis of contamination, are all called uncontaminated. Although all are uncontaminated, they are not included in the Path Truth, like space and cessation through discrimination (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Therefore, such an analogy can be drawn, and the remaining text can be understood.

Having spoken thus, up to 'the latter three, three, the rest are not': Below is the sixth gate of Vitarka (applied thought) and Vicara (sustained thought). Among them, 1. Correctly distinguish; 2. Explain the difficulties. This is the correct distinction. Question and verse answer. Vitarka and Vicara are similar, in one mind, either both arise or only one arises. Therefore, this is specifically explained. Mada (conceit) and Māna (pride) are also similar, but only one arises, not both. Ahrikya (shamelessness) and Anapatrāpya (lack of embarrassment) are also similar, but both arise, not only one. Raga (attachment) and Gaurava (respect) are also like this, so it is not explained here.

The Treatise says, up to

故說唯言者。正理第四彈云。經主釋言。以行相粗外門轉故。此因非理。現見。意識內門轉時。亦常與彼共相應故　彼彈意。現見．初定內門意識與尋伺俱。即顯外門非為定證　欲界及初靜慮。內門意識。與尋．伺俱　俱舍師救云。一行相粗。是通因。二外門轉故。是別因。五識具二。內門意識雖無外門轉。而有行相粗。故有尋．伺。上地外門意識。雖有外門轉。而無行相粗。故無尋．伺。

后三謂是至伺相應故者。明後三界。法界中有四法。一尋。二．伺。三餘相應法。四非相應法。於此四中。余相應法界。及意界。意識界。皆通三品。非相應法界。及靜慮中間伺。亦同第三品。尋在第二品收　無第二尋。顯無有尋　但伺相應。顯彼有伺　正理論破無第二尋云。設有第二許相應耶。有第二受而不相應。無第二言非為定證。彼自解云。尋。一切時無尋唯伺。自體．自體不相應故　俱舍師救云。設有同時第二尋。亦許相應。然無第二故不相應。以受例尋。亦為非理。汝言三受隨一現前餘名第二。若據別義。尋亦同受有第二尋。如善．不善．無記尋。隨一現前。餘名第二。誰言無第二。我言無第二者。同時無第二尋。反徴正理云。何故自體不與自體相應。彼應解言。無第二尋故。若作斯解何異我釋。若謂。我言自體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此說『唯言』。《正理》第四彈中說，經主解釋說：『因為行相粗重，在外門運轉的緣故。』這個理由不合理。明明可見，意識在內門運轉時，也常常與它們共同相應。那個彈難的意思是，明明可見，初禪定的內門意識與尋（vitarka，粗略的觀察）伺（vicara，精細的觀察）俱生。這就表明外門不是確定的證據。欲界和初禪的內門意識，與尋、伺俱生。俱舍師（Abhidharmakosa）辯護說：『一行相粗重，是通因。二外門運轉，是別因。五識（five consciousnesses）具備兩者。內門意識雖然沒有外門運轉，但有行相粗重，所以有尋、伺。上地的外門意識，雖然有外門運轉，但沒有行相粗重，所以沒有尋、伺。』后三界說是與伺相應，說明后三界（即二禪、三禪、四禪）的法界中有四法：一、尋；二、伺；三、其餘相應法；四、非相應法。在這四種法中，其餘相應法界，以及意界（manodhatu，意識界），意識界（vijnanadhatu，更廣義的意識界），都通於三品（善、不善、無記）。非相應法界，以及靜慮中間的伺，也屬於第三品。尋在第二品中收攝。『沒有第二尋』，表明沒有尋。『但與伺相應』，表明那裡有伺。《正理論》駁斥『沒有第二尋』說：『假如有第二尋，允許相應嗎？有第二受（vedana，感受）而不相應，沒有第二言（尋）不是確定的證據。』他自己解釋說：『尋，任何時候都沒有尋唯有伺，自體、自體不相應。』俱舍師辯護說：『假如有同時的第二尋，也允許相應。然而沒有第二尋，所以不相應。』以受來類比尋，也是不合理的。你說三種受（苦受、樂受、舍受）隨一現前，其餘名為第二。如果根據不同的意義，尋也和受一樣有第二尋，如善尋、不善尋、無記尋，隨一現前，其餘名為第二。誰說沒有第二尋？我說沒有第二尋，是指同時沒有第二尋。』反過來質問《正理論》說：『為什麼自體不與自體相應？』他應該解釋說：『因為沒有第二尋。』如果這樣解釋，和我解釋有什麼不同？如果說，我說自體

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said 'only speech'. The fourth refutation in the Nyaya-sastra says, 'The sutra master explains, 'Because the characteristic is coarse and it operates in the external door.' This reason is not valid. It is clearly seen that when consciousness operates in the internal door, it often corresponds with them.' The meaning of that refutation is, it is clearly seen that the internal door consciousness of the first dhyana (meditative state) is accompanied by vitarka (initial application of thought, gross observation) and vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle observation). This shows that the external door is not a definite proof. The internal door consciousness of the desire realm and the first dhyana is accompanied by vitarka and vicara. The Abhidharmakosa master defends, 'One, the characteristic is coarse, is a common cause. Two, operating in the external door, is a specific cause. The five consciousnesses (five senses) possess both. Although the internal door consciousness does not operate in the external door, it has a coarse characteristic, so it has vitarka and vicara. Although the external door consciousness of the higher realms operates in the external door, it does not have a coarse characteristic, so it does not have vitarka and vicara.' The latter three realms are said to be associated with vicara, indicating that in the dharma-dhatu (realm of elements) of the latter three realms (second, third, and fourth dhyanas), there are four dharmas (elements): one, vitarka; two, vicara; three, other associated dharmas; four, non-associated dharmas. Among these four dharmas, the realm of other associated dharmas, as well as the manodhatu (mind element, consciousness element), and the vijnanadhatu (consciousness element, broader consciousness element), all pertain to the three categories (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). The realm of non-associated dharmas, as well as the vicara in the intermediate state of dhyana, also belong to the third category. Vitarka is included in the second category. 'There is no second vitarka', indicating that there is no vitarka. 'But associated with vicara', indicating that there is vicara there. The Nyaya-sastra refutes the statement 'There is no second vitarka', saying, 'If there is a second vitarka, is it allowed to be associated? There is a second vedana (feeling) that is not associated, the absence of a second speech (vitarka) is not a definite proof.' He himself explains, 'At any time, there is no vitarka, only vicara, because self-nature and self-nature are not associated.' The Abhidharmakosa master defends, 'If there is a simultaneous second vitarka, it is also allowed to be associated. However, there is no second vitarka, so it is not associated.' Using vedana to analogize vitarka is also unreasonable. You say that when one of the three vedanas (painful feeling, pleasant feeling, neutral feeling) manifests, the others are called the second. If based on different meanings, vitarka is also like vedana and has a second vitarka, such as wholesome vitarka, unwholesome vitarka, and neutral vitarka, when one manifests, the others are called the second. Who says there is no second vitarka? I say there is no second vitarka, meaning there is no simultaneous second vitarka.' He in turn questions the Nyaya-sastra, saying, 'Why is self-nature not associated with self-nature?' He should explain, 'Because there is no second vitarka.' If he explains it this way, what is the difference from my explanation? If he says, I say self-nature

．自體不相應者。顯尋自體非自相應。即難云。雖此尋不與此尋相應可與余尋相應。彼應答言。無第二尋故。若作斯解還同我釋。

伺在欲界至應名何等者。問　於法界尋．及中間伺．余相應．不相應法。隨其所應三品所收。如前可知。伺在欲界．初靜慮中。三品不收應名何等。

此應名曰至謂即是伺者。答　此應名曰無伺唯尋。第四句攝。無第二伺故名無伺。但尋相應故言有尋。由此攝法盡故。言有尋伺地有四品法。如文可知。順地作法故。俱句在初。一單第二。俱非第三。一單第四。地中無別無伺唯尋。故此單句第四。所以頌文但說前三。不言第四者。顯宗云。然法少故頌中不說。

餘十色界至不相應故者。五根．五境尋．伺俱無。

若五識身至無分別耶者。此即第二釋妨問起　若五識身有尋．伺。尋體即是自性分別。如何經說無分別耶。

頌曰至意諸念為體者。答。上兩句正答　言無分別。無二分別。下兩句出二分別體。

論曰至三隨念分別者　自性是尋　尋求動踴。如魚躍水。體即分別名自性分別。若能計度青．黃等別。男．女等差別。名計度分別　隨念曾更。或隨境念。名隨念分別。

由五識身至名為無足者。三分別中。五識有一。無二。從多分說名無分別。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本．自體不相應者：如果說『尋』（Vitarka，粗分別）的自體和自身不相應，那麼可以反駁說，雖然這個『尋』和它自身不相應，但可以和其他的『尋』相應。對此，可以回答說：因為沒有第二個『尋』。如果這樣解釋，就和我之前的解釋相同。

伺在欲界至應名何等者：問：在法界中，『尋』（Vitarka，粗分別）和『伺』（Vicara，細分別），以及中間的『伺』，還有其他相應的、不相應的法，根據它們的情況，可以被三品所攝。如前所述。那麼，『伺』在欲界和初禪中，不被這三品所攝，應該叫做什麼呢？

此應名曰至謂即是伺者：答：這應該叫做『無伺唯尋』，屬於第四句所攝。因為沒有第二個『伺』，所以叫做『無伺』。但因為和『尋』相應，所以叫做『有尋』。由此，所有這些法都被包括在內。所以說，在『有尋伺地』有四品法，如文中所說。因為順應地而作法，所以『俱』句在第一，『一單』在第二，『俱非』在第三，『一單』在第四。地中沒有單獨的『無伺唯尋』，所以這個單句在第四。因此，頌文只說了前三，沒有說第四，是因為《顯揚聖教論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）中說，因為這種法很少，所以在頌中沒有說。

餘十**至不相應故者：五根（五種感覺器官）、五境（五種感覺對像）都既沒有『尋』，也沒有『伺』。

若五識身至無分別耶者：這是第二種解釋，爲了反駁提問而提出的。問：如果五識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）有『尋』和『伺』，而『尋』的體性就是自性分別，那麼為什麼經典上說五識身沒有分別呢？

頌曰至意諸念為體者：答：上面的兩句是正面回答，說五識身『無分別』，是沒有『二分別』。下面的兩句說明了『二分別』的體性。

論曰至三隨念分別者：自性分別就是『尋』，是尋求和動躍，就像魚在水中跳躍。它的體性就是分別，所以叫做自性分別。如果能夠計量青色、黃色等差別，以及男人、女人等差別，就叫做計度分別。隨念分別是指曾經經歷過，或者隨著境界而產生的念頭，叫做隨念分別。

由五識身至名為無足者：在這三種分別中，五識身只有一種，沒有兩種。因為從多數來說，所以叫做『無分別』。

【English Translation】 English version ．'Self-nature not corresponding': If it is said that the self-nature of Vitarka (coarse examination) does not correspond with itself, then it can be countered that although this Vitarka does not correspond with itself, it can correspond with other Vitarkas. To this, it can be answered: because there is no second Vitarka. If explained in this way, it is the same as my previous explanation.

'Vicara in the Desire Realm to What should it be called?': Question: In the Dharma realm, Vitarka (coarse examination) and Vicara (subtle examination), as well as the intermediate Vicara, and other corresponding and non-corresponding dharmas, according to their circumstances, can be included in the three categories. As mentioned before. Then, Vicara in the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana, not included in these three categories, what should it be called?

'This should be called to namely it is Vicara': Answer: This should be called 'No Vicara Only Vitarka', belonging to the fourth phrase. Because there is no second Vicara, it is called 'No Vicara'. But because it corresponds with Vitarka, it is called 'With Vitarka'. Therefore, all these dharmas are included. So it is said that in the 'With Vitarka and Vicara Ground' there are four categories of dharmas, as stated in the text. Because the dharma is made in accordance with the ground, the 'Both' phrase is in the first, 'One Single' is in the second, 'Neither' is in the third, and 'One Single' is in the fourth. There is no separate 'No Vicara Only Vitarka' in the ground, so this single phrase is in the fourth. Therefore, the verse only mentions the first three, not the fourth, because the Abhidharmasamuccaya says that because this dharma is rare, it is not mentioned in the verse.

'The remaining ten ** to not corresponding': The five roots (five sense organs) and the five objects (five sense objects) have neither Vitarka nor Vicara.

'If the five consciousnesses to without discrimination?': This is the second explanation, raised to refute the question. Question: If the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) have Vitarka and Vicara, and the nature of Vitarka is self-nature discrimination, then why do the sutras say that the five consciousnesses have no discrimination?

'Verse says to mind all thoughts as the body': Answer: The above two sentences are a direct answer, saying that the five consciousnesses 'have no discrimination', meaning they have no 'two discriminations'. The following two sentences explain the nature of 'two discriminations'.

'Treatise says to three subsequent thought discriminations': Self-nature discrimination is Vitarka, which is seeking and leaping, like a fish leaping in the water. Its nature is discrimination, so it is called self-nature discrimination. If one can measure the differences between blue, yellow, etc., and the differences between men and women, it is called conceptual discrimination. Subsequent thought discrimination refers to thoughts that have been experienced or arise with the environment, called subsequent thought discrimination.

'Because the five consciousnesses to called without feet': Among these three discriminations, the five consciousnesses have only one, not two. Because it is said from the majority, it is called 'without discrimination'.

喻況可知。自性分別五識必有。雖有慧．念而非分別。故正理第四云。五識雖與慧．念相應。擇．記用微。故唯取意。又婆沙四十二云。欲界五識身唯有一種。自性分別。雖亦有念而非隨念分別。不能憶念故。雖亦有慧而非推度分別。不能推度故(準婆沙文隨所更事名為隨念計度。推度名異義同)　自性分別至自當辨釋者。指同后解六識相應諸尋。皆是自性分別　問若體唯尋。何故婆沙四十二云。自性分別謂尋．伺。解云。此論從強說故唯說尋。婆沙強．弱並說故通尋．伺　或略而不說　或舉初顯后　或論意不同。

餘二分別至諸念為體者。問尋性分別。此事可然。于余心所何故念．慧名為分別。非余心所。解云。余心所法非似順尋。唯二似順。故不說余。故正理云。夫分別者。推求行相故說尋為自性分別。簡擇．明記行似順尋。故分別名亦通慧．念　問余心所法與尋相應。應似順尋。何非似順。解云。若據相應同性義邊。皆似順尋　若據似尋順尋分別義邊。即非似順故不說余。

散謂非定至計度分別者。所以計度散非定者。婆沙四十二解定中慧非計度分別云。雖亦有慧。而非推度分別。若推度時便出定故　又正理云。定中不能計度境故。非定中者。能于所緣。如此如是計度而轉。故於此中簡定取散　問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這些情況可以通過比喻來理解。自性分別（Svalaksana-vikalpa，指對事物自身性質的分別）必然存在於五識（Panca-vijnana，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）中。雖然五識具有慧（Prajna，智慧）和念（Smrti，記憶），但它們並非是分別。因此，《正理經》（Nyayasutra）第四卷說，五識雖然與慧和念相應，但其選擇和記憶的功能非常微弱，所以只有意識（Manovijnana）才具有分別的功能。此外，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）第四十二卷說，欲界（Kama-dhatu，指眾生有情慾的世界）的五識身只有一種自性分別。雖然五識也有念，但並非隨念分別（Anusmrti-vikalpa，指伴隨記憶的分別），因為它們不能憶念。雖然五識也有慧，但並非推度分別（Vitarka-vikalpa，指通過推理來分別），因為它們不能推度。（根據《大毗婆沙論》的說法，隨著所經歷的事情而產生的念頭稱為隨念計度，推度是同義詞）。『自性分別』到『自當辨釋者』，指的是後面解釋的與六識（Sad-vijnana，指眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）相應的各種尋（Vitarka，尋求），都是自性分別。問：如果其體性只是尋，為什麼《大毗婆沙論》第四十二卷說，自性分別是指尋和伺（Vicara，伺察）？答：這是因為該論從強調的角度只說了尋。《大毗婆沙論》則兼顧了強和弱，所以同時說了尋和伺。或者省略而不說。或者舉出最初的來顯示後面的。或者論的意圖不同。

『餘二分別』到『諸念為體者』。問：尋的性質是分別，這件事可以理解。但對於其他心所（Citta-vrtti，心的作用），為什麼念和慧被稱為分別？而不是其他心所？答：因為其他心所不像尋那樣順從，只有念和慧有些相似，所以不說其他心所。因此，《正理經》說，所謂分別，就是推求事物的行相，所以說尋是自性分別。簡擇和明記的行相類似於順從尋，所以分別的名稱也適用於慧和念。問：其他心所與尋相應，應該類似於順從尋，為什麼不是類似於順從尋？答：如果根據相應和同性的角度來看，都類似於順從尋。但如果根據類似於尋和順從尋的分別意義來看，就不是類似於順從尋，所以不說其他心所。

『散謂非定』到『計度分別者』。之所以說計度是散亂而非禪定中的，是因為《大毗婆沙論》第四十二卷解釋說，禪定中的慧不是計度分別，說：『雖然也有慧，但不是推度分別，如果進行推度，就會出定。』此外，《正理經》說，禪定中不能計度境界。非禪定中的，能夠對所緣境，如此如此地進行計度而運轉。因此，在這裡區分了禪定和散亂。問：

【English Translation】 English version: These situations can be understood through analogies. Svalaksana-vikalpa (discrimination of the self-nature of things) necessarily exists in the five consciousnesses (Panca-vijnana, namely eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, and body-consciousness). Although the five consciousnesses possess Prajna (wisdom) and Smrti (memory), they are not discriminations. Therefore, the Nyayasutra, Volume 4, states that although the five consciousnesses are associated with Prajna and Smrti, their functions of selection and memory are very weak, so only Manovijnana (mind-consciousness) has the function of discrimination. Furthermore, the Mahavibhasa, Volume 42, states that the five consciousness-bodies of the Kama-dhatu (the desire realm) have only one kind of Svalaksana-vikalpa. Although the five consciousnesses also have memory, it is not Anusmrti-vikalpa (discrimination accompanied by memory), because they cannot recall. Although the five consciousnesses also have wisdom, it is not Vitarka-vikalpa (discrimination through reasoning), because they cannot reason. (According to the Mahavibhasa, thoughts that arise with experienced events are called Anusmrti-vikalpa, and Vitarka is a synonym). 'Svalaksana-vikalpa' to 'will be explained later' refers to the various Vitarka (seeking) associated with the six consciousnesses (Sad-vijnana, namely eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness) explained later, all of which are Svalaksana-vikalpa. Question: If its nature is only Vitarka, why does the Mahavibhasa, Volume 42, say that Svalaksana-vikalpa refers to Vitarka and Vicara (investigation)? Answer: This is because the treatise speaks only of Vitarka from the perspective of emphasis. The Mahavibhasa considers both strength and weakness, so it speaks of both Vitarka and Vicara. Or it is omitted without mention. Or it reveals the latter by mentioning the former. Or the intention of the treatise is different.

'The remaining two discriminations' to 'whose nature is thoughts'. Question: The nature of Vitarka is discrimination, which is understandable. But why are Smrti and Prajna called discriminations for other Citta-vrtti (mental functions), and not other mental functions? Answer: Because other mental functions are not as compliant as Vitarka, only Smrti and Prajna are somewhat similar, so other mental functions are not mentioned. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says that discrimination is the investigation of the characteristics of things, so Vitarka is said to be Svalaksana-vikalpa. The characteristics of selection and clear memory are similar to complying with Vitarka, so the name of discrimination also applies to Prajna and Smrti. Question: Other mental functions are associated with Vitarka, so they should be similar to complying with Vitarka, why are they not similar to complying with Vitarka? Answer: If viewed from the perspective of association and sameness, they are all similar to complying with Vitarka. But if viewed from the perspective of the meaning of discrimination between similar to Vitarka and complying with Vitarka, then they are not similar to complying with Vitarka, so other mental functions are not mentioned.

'Scattered means non-meditative' to 'discriminating discrimination'. The reason why discrimination is said to be scattered and not in meditation is because the Mahavibhasa, Volume 42, explains that wisdom in meditation is not discriminating discrimination, saying: 'Although there is also wisdom, it is not discriminating discrimination, if one engages in discrimination, one will exit meditation.' Furthermore, the Nyayasutra says that one cannot discriminate objects in meditation. Those who are not in meditation can discriminate and operate on the object of focus in this way and that way. Therefore, meditation and scattering are distinguished here. Question:

慧順彼尋。尋通定．散。慧亦應通。何故計度唯散非定。解云。散慧計度。又順尋強。定慧定伏。順尋非強　問依定發慧。定應順慧。如何伏慧令不順尋。解云。簡擇諦等實定順慧若似順尋邊定即制伏　問定中尋起定不能伏。如何能伏似順尋慧耶。解云。尋是自性分別。有體即名分別。慧似順他起勢力易除。

若定若散至隨念分別者。念通定．散。意識相應。故正理云。明記所緣用均等故　問念．慧二種俱行似尋。如何彼定伏慧非念。解云。念于定中似順尋強慧。定製不得　問若爾念于定強。應不通散。解云。夫唸作用多順於慧。散慧用勝名為分別。故念順彼名為分別。故四念住雖慧為體。立念住名。以相順故。

如是已說至無執受餘二者。此下第七有緣無緣門。第八執受．不執受門．結問頌答　於法界中一分有所緣。故言半也。

論曰至有所緣等者。緣謂攀緣。心．心所法名能緣。境是所緣。有彼所緣名有所緣。如人有子。心．心所法其性羸劣執境方起。猶如羸人非杖不行　十八界中至皆無執受者。正理論云。頌中及言具含二義。一顯總集。謂八及聲。總無執受。二顯異門。謂余師說。不離根聲亦有執受。

所餘九界　至名無執受者。眼等五根住現在世。有彼心．心所法執受名有執受。去

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：慧（Prajna）順著尋（Vitarka）的路徑。尋可以通向禪定（Samadhi）和散亂（Vikshepa）。慧也應該可以通向兩者。為什麼你們認為它只能通向散亂而不能通向禪定呢？解釋說：散亂時的慧會進行計度（Kalpana），而且順著尋的趨勢很強。而禪定中的慧是被禪定所制伏的，順著尋的趨勢不強。問：如果慧是依禪定而生起的，那麼禪定應該順著慧才對。如何才能制伏慧，使它不順著尋呢？解釋說：簡擇真諦（Satya）等的真實的禪定是順著慧的，如果像是順著尋的邊緣禪定，就可以制伏慧。問：在禪定中，尋生起時，禪定都不能制伏它，如何能制伏像是順著尋的慧呢？解釋說：尋是自性分別（Svabhava-vikalpa），有實體就叫做分別。慧像是順著其他而生起的，勢力容易去除。

無論是禪定還是散亂，直到隨念分別（Anusmriti-vikalpa）為止。念（Smriti）可以通向禪定和散亂，與意識（Vijnana）相應。所以《正理》（Nyaya）中說：『明記所緣，作用均等。』問：念和慧這兩種同時生起，都像是尋。為什麼禪定能制伏慧，而不能制伏念呢？解釋說：念在禪定中，像是順著尋，而且很強，禪定無法制伏。問：如果這樣，念在禪定中很強，應該不能通向散亂才對。解釋說：唸的作用多是順著慧的。散亂時的慧作用很強，叫做分別。所以念順著它，叫做分別。因此，四念住（Catuḥsmṛtyupasthāna）雖然以慧為體，卻立名爲念住，是因爲念與慧相順的緣故。

像這樣已經說了，直到無執受（Anupalabdhi）的其餘兩種為止。下面是第七個有緣無緣門（Salambana-Niralambana），第八個執受不執受門（Upalabdhi-Anupalabdhi），以及總結的問答頌。在法界（Dharmadhatu）中，一部分是有所緣的，所以說是『半』。

論中說，直到有所緣等為止。緣（Alambana）是指攀緣。心（Citta）、心所法（Caitasika）叫做能緣，境（Vishaya）是所緣。有那個所緣叫做有所緣，就像人有兒子一樣。心、心所法的性質羸弱，執取境才能生起，就像羸弱的人不拄著枴杖就不能行走一樣。在十八界（Dhatus）中，直到都是無執受為止。《正理論》（Nyāyasūtra）中說：頌中的『及』字包含兩種含義。一是顯示總集，即八個『及』字，總的來說是無執受的。二是顯示異門，即其他論師說，不離根的聲也有執受。

其餘的九界，直到名為無執受為止。眼等五根（Indriya）住在現在世（Adhvan），有那個心、心所法的執受，叫做有執受。過去

【English Translation】 English version: Prajna (慧, Wisdom) follows the path of Vitarka (尋, Investigation). Vitarka can lead to Samadhi (定, Concentration) and Vikshepa (散, Distraction). Prajna should also be able to lead to both. Why do you consider it only leads to distraction and not to concentration? It is explained that: Prajna in distraction engages in Kalpana (計度, Conceptualization), and the tendency to follow Vitarka is strong. While Prajna in concentration is subdued by concentration, and the tendency to follow Vitarka is not strong. Question: If Prajna arises from concentration, then concentration should follow Prajna. How can Prajna be subdued so that it does not follow Vitarka? It is explained that: Real concentration that discerns Satya (諦, Truth) etc. follows Prajna, if it is like marginal concentration that follows Vitarka, then Prajna can be subdued. Question: In concentration, when Vitarka arises, concentration cannot subdue it, how can it subdue Prajna that seems to follow Vitarka? It is explained that: Vitarka is Svabhava-vikalpa (自性分別, Self-nature discrimination), having substance is called discrimination. Prajna seems to arise following others, and its power is easily removed.

Whether it is concentration or distraction, up to Anusmriti-vikalpa (隨念分別, Recollection-discrimination). Smriti (念, Mindfulness) can lead to concentration and distraction, and is associated with Vijnana (意識, Consciousness). Therefore, it is said in the Nyaya (正理, Logic): 'Clearly remembering the object, the function is equal.' Question: Smriti and Prajna arise simultaneously, both seem like Vitarka. Why can concentration subdue Prajna but not Smriti? It is explained that: Smriti in concentration seems to follow Vitarka and is strong, concentration cannot subdue it. Question: If so, Smriti is strong in concentration, it should not lead to distraction. It is explained that: The function of Smriti mostly follows Prajna. Prajna's function is strong in distraction, it is called discrimination. Therefore, Smriti follows it, it is called discrimination. Therefore, although the Four Smrtyupasthanas (四念住, Foundations of Mindfulness) have Prajna as their essence, they are named Smrtyupasthanas because Smriti is in accordance with Prajna.

It has been said like this, up to the remaining two of Anupalabdhi (無執受, Non-apprehension). Below are the seventh Salambana-Niralambana (有緣無緣, With-object-Without-object) gate, the eighth Upalabdhi-Anupalabdhi (執受不執受, Apprehension-Non-apprehension) gate, and the concluding question and answer verse. In the Dharmadhatu (法界, Dharma Realm), a part is with object, so it is said 'half'.

It is said in the treatise, up to with object etc. Alambana (緣, Object) refers to clinging. Citta (心, Mind), Caitasika (心所法, Mental factors) are called the clinger, and Vishaya (境, Object) is the object. Having that object is called with object, just like a person has a son. The nature of Citta and Caitasika is weak, they can only arise by grasping the object, just like a weak person cannot walk without a cane. In the eighteen Dhatus (界, Realms), up to all are without apprehension. It is said in the Nyāyasūtra (正理論, Treatise on Logic): The word 'and' in the verse contains two meanings. One is to show the total collection, that is, the eight 'and' words, in general, are without apprehension. The second is to show different gates, that is, other teachers say that sound not separated from the root also has apprehension.

The remaining nine realms, up to named without apprehension. The five Indriyas (根, Faculties) such as the eye reside in the present Adhvan (世, Time), having the apprehension of that Citta and Caitasika is called with apprehension. Past

．來不爾名無執受　問現在五根。若入無心或起意識。即無識執受。或五識間起非識依者。亦無執受．如何說現在五根執受。解云。現在五根。識不依時亦名執受。執受類故　問去．來五根。亦執受類應名執受。解云。現在五根容有發識名有執受。去．來五根無容發識。名無執受　又解。現在五根。識不起時非是執受。而言執受據識起時。以執受義作用顯故。如定．道大種雖不離身亦現在。名無執受。五根亦爾。又品類足說。表業非執受。此亦現在不離身故　若作前解通彼文言。定．道大種。入定雖有。出定即無。名無執受。此論說表屬身執受。論意各別　或可。品類據表暫起猶如客寄。名無執受。此論業品據多時起得與根合。名有執受。

色香味．觸至而無執受者　色．香．味．觸住現在世。簡異去．來　不離五根。簡異離根。名有執受　若住現在非不離根．及在過．未。名無執受。如現身內除與根合發．毛．爪．齒。余非根合發．毛．爪．齒．並大便等。及外非情色．香．味．觸。雖在現在而無執受。

問此論若說血無執受。何故婆沙一百三十八云。問於此身中三十六種諸不凈物。幾有執受．幾無執受。答發．毛．爪．齒。根有執受。余無執受。皮．膽．腦．血。生有執受．朽無執受。骨．肉．筋．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本來不爾（Lairbu）：名稱上沒有執受。問：現在的五根，如果進入無心狀態或生起意識，就沒有識的執受；或者五識之間生起非識所依的情況，也沒有執受。如何說現在的五根有執受呢？解答：現在的五根，即使在識不依附的時候，也稱為執受，因為它們屬於執受的範疇。問：過去和未來的五根，也屬於執受的範疇，應該稱為執受嗎？解答：現在的五根容許生起識，所以稱為有執受；過去和未來的五根沒有生起識的可能性，所以稱為無執受。另一種解釋：現在的五根，在識不起作用的時候，並非是執受，但之所以稱為執受，是根據識生起的時候，執受的意義和作用才顯現的緣故。例如，禪定和道的大種，雖然不離開身體，也處於現在，但被稱為無執受。五根也是如此。此外，《品類足論》說，表業不是執受，這也是因為它處於現在，不離開身體的緣故。如果按照前面的解釋來理解《品類足論》的說法，禪定和道的大種，進入禪定的時候有，出禪定的時候就沒有，所以稱為無執受。而此論說表業屬於身體的執受，兩者的意思各不相同。或者可以這樣理解，《品類足論》認為表業是暫時生起的，就像客人寄居一樣，所以稱為無執受。而此論的業品認為表業是長時間生起的，可以與根結合，所以稱為有執受。

色、香、味、觸，達到而沒有執受的情況：色、香、味、觸存在於現在世，這與過去和未來不同。不離開五根，這與離開五根不同，稱為有執受。如果存在於現在，但不與根結合，或者存在於過去或未來，就稱為無執受。例如，現在身體內部，除了與根結合的發、毛、爪、齒之外，其餘不與根結合的發、毛、爪、齒，以及大便等；以及外部的非色、香、味、觸，即使存在於現在，也沒有執受。

問：如果此論說血沒有執受，為什麼《婆沙論》第一百三十八卷說：問：在這個身體中，三十六種不凈之物，哪些有執受，哪些沒有執受？答：發、毛、爪、齒、根有執受，其餘沒有執受。皮、膽、腦、血，生的時候有執受，腐朽的時候沒有執受。骨、肉、筋……

【English Translation】 English version Lairbu (來不爾): There is no clinging in name. Question: If the present five roots enter a state of no-mind or give rise to consciousness, then there is no clinging of consciousness; or if non-consciousness arises between the five consciousnesses, there is also no clinging. How can it be said that the present five roots have clinging? Answer: The present five roots are also called clinging even when consciousness does not depend on them, because they belong to the category of clinging. Question: Do the past and future five roots also belong to the category of clinging and should be called clinging? Answer: The present five roots allow the arising of consciousness, so they are called having clinging; the past and future five roots have no possibility of arising consciousness, so they are called having no clinging. Another explanation: The present five roots are not clinging when consciousness is not functioning, but the reason they are called clinging is because the meaning and function of clinging are manifested when consciousness arises. For example, the great elements of meditation and the path, although they do not leave the body and are in the present, are called having no clinging. The five roots are also like this. Furthermore, the Prakaranapada (品類足論) says that biao ye (表業) is not clinging, because it is also in the present and does not leave the body. If we understand the statement of the Prakaranapada (品類足論) according to the previous explanation, the great elements of meditation and the path are present when entering meditation, but not present when exiting meditation, so they are called having no clinging. However, this treatise says that biao ye (表業) belongs to the clinging of the body, and the meanings of the two are different. Or it can be understood in this way: the Prakaranapada (品類足論) considers biao ye (表業) to be temporarily arising, like a guest staying temporarily, so it is called having no clinging. However, the karma section of this treatise considers biao ye (表業) to be arising for a long time and can be combined with the roots, so it is called having clinging.

The situation where rupa (色), gandha (香), rasa (味), sparsa (觸) reach without clinging: rupa (色), gandha (香), rasa (味), sparsa (觸) exist in the present world, which is different from the past and future. Not leaving the five roots, which is different from leaving the five roots, is called having clinging. If it exists in the present, but is not combined with the roots, or exists in the past or future, it is called having no clinging. For example, within the present body, except for hair, nails, teeth that are combined with the roots, the remaining hair, nails, teeth that are not combined with the roots, as well as feces, etc.; and external non-rupa (色), gandha (香), rasa (味), sparsa (觸), even if they exist in the present, have no clinging.

Question: If this treatise says that blood has no clinging, why does the 138th volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙論) say: Question: In this body, among the thirty-six kinds of impure things, which have clinging and which do not have clinging? Answer: Hair, nails, teeth, and roots have clinging, and the rest do not have clinging. Skin, bile, brain, and blood have clinging when alive, and do not have clinging when decayed. Bones, flesh, tendons...

脈．心．肺．脾．腎．肝．腸．胃．膜．脂．髓．腦．胲．生．熟二藏。皆有執受。膏．膿．痰．飲．洟．唾．淚．汗．屎．尿．塵垢。皆無執受　準婆沙文血通二種。何故此論言無執受解云。此論據朽言無執受。婆沙亦約生說。故通二種。

有執受者此言何義者。問。

心心所法至名無執受者。答　心心所法共所執持。攝為五根為所依處。攝扶根四境為依處。色等四境若不離根。雖非所依可得言依。而是心等之所親附依與所依。俱名依處名有執受。心．心所法與彼依處。損．益展轉更相隨故。謂心．心所法起憂．苦損。依處亦損起喜．樂益。依處亦益。依處若得好食等益。心等亦益。得惡食等損。心等亦損。由斯九界名有執受　即諸世間。於五色根．扶根四境。相雜住中說有覺觸此九眾緣所觸對時能覺苦．樂等故。與此相違名無執受　正理論云毗婆沙說。若諸色法逼迫斷壞便能生苦。與此相違即能生樂。是己身攝名有執受。有餘師說。若諸有情執為自體。一切處時方便防護茅．灰．火．刺．霜．雹等緣。是已身攝名有執受。

如是已說至俱非二種者。此下第九大種所造門。第十積集．非積集門　可知。

尊者覺天至唯大種性者。敘計。可知。又正理第五云。譬喻論師作如是說。諸所造色非

異大種　彼說不然至理定不然者。論主破。非堅．濕等眼等所取。故知　堅等非色．聲等。非色．聲等身根所覺。故知。色等非堅．濕等。

又契經說至皆非大種者。教證。可知。

若爾何故至乃至廣說者。覺天。引經為難　若眼等根非大種者。何故經言云何名內地界。謂于眼肉團中。若內各別堅性堅類。乃至廣說。彼經于眼說堅性等。故知。眼根即是堅等。彼經即眼名為肉團。肉團是總。堅等是別。別依于總。故言于中為簡非情故言若內。諸有情異名為各別。或大小不同名為各別。簡濕性等名為堅性堅．中非一名為堅類。或此堅性是余堅類名為堅類。乃至廣說濕．暖．動性。

彼說不離至無相違過者　論主通經　以實眼根別類造色。肉團即是扶根四境。其性各別。世間不了實眼根體。于肉團上立以眼名。此眼肉團。總說一切不離眼根大種所造。故彼經說不離眼根肉團聚中。有彼所依堅等體性。非言實眼即是堅等。

入胎經中至差別義成者。論主又別通　經唯說六界為士夫者。為顯此六初受生時。體用強勝。能成士夫根本事故。以四大是造色所依。空是動所依。心是心所所依。所依勝故別說非唯爾所。廣如瑜伽五十六說。經雖說六觸。然更有餘心所法。經雖說六界。何妨有餘所造色。若言說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『異大種（不同的主要元素）』，他們說並非如此，如果道理確定不是這樣。論主駁斥：不是堅、濕等，也不是眼等所能獲取的。因此可知，堅等不是色、聲等。色、聲等不是身根所能感覺的。因此可知，色等不是堅、濕等。

『又契經說皆非大種（又契經說都不是主要元素）』，這是教證，可以知道。

『若爾何故乃至廣說者（如果這樣，為什麼乃至廣說）』，覺天。引用經文作為詰難：如果眼等根不是主要元素，為什麼經文說『云何名內地界（什麼叫做內在的地界）？謂于眼肉團中，若內各別堅性堅類（就是在眼肉團中，如果內在各有不同的堅性堅類），乃至廣說』。那部經文在眼睛上說了堅性等，因此可知，眼根就是堅等。那部經文把眼睛叫做肉團，肉團是總稱，堅等是別稱，別稱依存於總稱，所以說『于中』，爲了簡別非有情，所以說『若內』。諸有情不同，叫做『各別』，或者大小不同，叫做『各別』。簡別濕性等，叫做『堅性堅』，中非一名為『堅類』，或者這個堅性是其餘堅類，叫做『堅類』。乃至廣說濕、暖、動性。

『彼說不離乃至無相違過者（他們說不離開乃至沒有相違的過失）』，論主解釋經文：用真實的眼根別類造色，肉團就是扶助根的四境，它們的性質各不相同。世間不瞭解真實眼根的本體，在肉團上安立了眼睛的名稱。這個眼肉團，總的說一切不離開眼根主要元素所造。所以那部經文說不離開眼根肉團聚中，有它所依的堅等體性，不是說真實的眼睛就是堅等。

『入胎經中乃至差別義成者（入胎經中乃至差別義成立）』，論主又分別解釋：經文只說六界為士夫，是爲了顯示這六種在最初受生的時候，體用強盛，能夠成就士夫的根本事故。因為四大是造色所依，空是動所依，心是心所所依，所依殊勝所以特別說明，不只是這些。詳細的就像《瑜伽師地論》第五十六卷所說。經文雖然說了六觸，然而還有其餘的心所法。經文雖然說了六界，又妨礙有其餘所造色嗎？如果說

【English Translation】 English version 'Different Mahabhuta (different primary elements)', they say it is not so, if the principle is definitely not like this. The author refutes: It is not solidity, moisture, etc., nor can it be perceived by the eye, etc. Therefore, it can be known that solidity, etc., are not form, sound, etc. Form, sound, etc., are not felt by the body sense. Therefore, it can be known that form, etc., are not solidity, moisture, etc.

'Also, the scripture says that all are not Mahabhuta (also, the scripture says that all are not primary elements)', this is scriptural proof, which can be known.

'If so, why even extensively explain (if so, why even extensively explain)?', Jue Tian (Sentient Heaven). Citing the scripture as a challenge: If the eye and other senses are not primary elements, why does the scripture say, 'What is called the inner earth element? It refers to the solid nature and solid category that are individually present within the fleshy mass of the eye, even extensively explaining.' That scripture speaks of solidity, etc., in relation to the eye. Therefore, it can be known that the eye sense is solidity, etc. That scripture calls the eye a fleshy mass. The fleshy mass is a general term, and solidity, etc., are specific terms. Specific terms depend on general terms. Therefore, it says 'within it'. To distinguish non-sentient beings, it says 'if inner'. The differences among sentient beings are called 'individual'. Or differences in size are called 'individual'. Distinguishing moisture, etc., is called 'solid nature'. 'Zhong fei yi ming wei (中非一名為)' is called 'solid category'. Or this solid nature is another solid category, called 'solid category'. Even extensively explaining moisture, warmth, and motility.

'They say not separate even without contradictory faults (they say not separate even without contradictory faults)', the author explains the scripture: Using the real eye sense to create form of a separate category, the fleshy mass is the four realms that support the sense. Their natures are different. The world does not understand the true nature of the eye sense, and establishes the name of the eye on the fleshy mass. This fleshy mass of the eye, generally speaking, is all created by the primary elements of the eye sense. Therefore, that scripture says that within the mass of the eye sense, there is the nature of solidity, etc., on which it depends. It does not say that the real eye is solidity, etc.

'In the Womb Entry Sutra even the difference meaning is established (in the Womb Entry Sutra even the difference meaning is established)', the author explains separately again: The scripture only says that the six elements are the person, in order to show that these six are strong in body and function at the time of initial birth, and can accomplish the fundamental affairs of the person. Because the four great elements are what created form relies on, space is what movement relies on, and mind is what mental functions rely on. Because what is relied on is superior, it is specially explained, not just these. In detail, it is like what is said in the fifty-sixth volume of the Yogacarabhumi-sastra. Although the scripture speaks of the six contacts, there are still other mental functions. Although the scripture speaks of the six elements, does it hinder the existence of other created forms? If it is said

六界即無餘造色。經亦說六觸。應無餘心所。亦不應執心所即心。經言想等依止心故。豈心自體還依自耶。又經亦說有貪心等。言觸處者。觸之所依故名觸處。即眼等六根。故婆沙七十四云。複次眼等六處。作觸所依義名六觸處(已上論文)此中引意。取能依觸非所依處。

如是已說至非極微故者。可知。

如是已說至能燒所稱諍者。此下第十一能斫．所斫門．十二能燒．所燒門。十三能稱．所稱門。結問頌答。

論曰至能斫所斫者。若依婆沙一百四十三云。有作是說是四處能斫四處所斫。有餘師說．堅性是能斫。四處是所斫。然無評家。此論同前師　又解。說四能斫據不相離說堅能斫。克體以論。各據一義理並無違。雖復堅性俱遍能所。據事用勝說為能斫。事用劣者說為所斫。

何法名斫者問　豈不有為剎那自滅非能所斫。

薪等色聚至如珠寶光者。答　理實有為剎那自滅。非能所斫。但先薪等色聚極相逼續生。斧等異緣分隔薪等。令各續起令別義邊。此法名斫。非令法滅。故不相違。支分離身。根非有故。根非所斫。以凈妙法故亦非能斫　問地獄碎身。或斷蛇等。令成多分。分各別行。是即支分離身有根。解云。地獄現相見成多分。理實．諸分皆有身根。斷蛇等身有餘勢動。故婆

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：六界（Liujie，指地、水、火、風、空、識六種元素）並非完全由造色（zaose，指物質的創造）構成。《經》中也說到六觸（liuchu，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官與色、聲、香、味、觸、法六種對像接觸產生的六種感覺）。那麼，是否應該認為所有心所（xin suo，指心理活動）也都是如此呢？也不應該執著于認為心所就是心（xin，指意識）。因為《經》中說，想（xiang，指想像）、等（deng，指等等）都依賴於心，難道心本身還要依賴自己嗎？而且，《經》中也說到有貪心（tanxin，指貪婪之心）等等。說到觸處（chuchu，指感覺的場所），是因為它們是觸（chu，指感覺）所依賴的地方，所以被稱為觸處，也就是眼等六根（liugen，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）。因此，《婆沙論》（Poshalun）第七十四卷說：『再者，眼等六處，作為觸所依賴的意義，被稱為六觸處。』（以上是論文的內容）這裡引用的意思是，取能依賴的觸，而不是所依賴的處。像這樣已經說到『至非極微故』（zhifeijiweigu，指不是最小的微粒的原因）的部分，可以理解。像這樣已經說到『至能燒所稱諍』（zhinengshaosuochengzheng，指能燃燒和所稱量的爭論）的部分，以下是第十一能斫（nengzhuo，指能砍）與所斫（suozhuo，指被砍）門、第十二能燒（nengshao，指能燃燒）與所燒（suoshao，指被燃燒）門、第十三能稱（nengcheng，指能稱量）與所稱（suocheng，指被稱量）門。總結提問並回答。論中說『至能斫所斫者』（zhinengzhuosuozhuozhe，指能砍和被砍的東西）的部分，如果依據《婆沙論》（Poshalun）第一百四十三卷所說，有人認為是四處（sichu，指四種元素）能砍四處，四處被砍。有其他老師說，堅硬的性質是能砍，四處是被砍。但是沒有評論家。這個論點與之前的老師相同。另一種解釋是，說四能砍是根據不相離的情況來說的，堅硬能砍是根據克制物體來說的，各自根據一個意義，道理上並沒有違背。即使堅硬的性質普遍存在於能砍和被砍之中，根據事物的作用強弱，說為能砍或被砍。『什麼法叫做斫？』（shenmefajiaozhuo）是提問。難道不是有為法（youweifa，指有生滅變化的法）剎那間自己消滅，而不是能被砍或所被砍嗎？『薪等色聚至如珠寶光者』（xindengsejuzhiruzhubao guangzhe，指柴火等物質聚集到像珠寶的光芒一樣）是回答。道理上，有為法剎那間自己消滅，不是能被砍或所被砍。但是，先是柴火等物質聚集非常緊密地連續產生，斧頭等不同的因緣分隔柴火等，使它們各自連續產生，使意義有所區別。這種法叫做斫，不是使法滅亡，所以沒有矛盾。肢體分離身體，根（gen，指感覺器官）不是存在的，所以根不是被砍的。因為是清凈微妙的法，所以也不是能砍的。提問：地獄裡身體被粉碎，或者蛇被砍斷等，使之成為很多部分，各個部分分別行動，這就是肢體分離身體有根。解釋說，地獄的現象看起來像是分成很多部分，但實際上，各個部分都有身體的根。蛇被砍斷等，身體還有剩餘的勢力在動，所以《婆沙論》（Poshalun）說……

【English Translation】 English version: The six realms (Liujie, referring to the six elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness) are not entirely composed of created matter (zaose, referring to the creation of matter). The Sutra also speaks of the six contacts (liuchu, referring to the six sensations produced by the contact of the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind with the six objects of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma). Then, should it be considered that all mental activities (xin suo, referring to mental activities) are also like this? Nor should one be attached to the idea that mental activities are the same as mind (xin, referring to consciousness). Because the Sutra says that thought (xiang, referring to imagination), etc. (deng, referring to etc.) depend on the mind, does the mind itself still depend on itself? Moreover, the Sutra also speaks of greedy thoughts (tanxin, referring to greedy thoughts), etc. Speaking of the sense bases (chuchu, referring to the place of sensation), it is because they are the places on which contact (chu, referring to sensation) depends, so they are called sense bases, that is, the six sense organs (liugen, referring to the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). Therefore, the Vibhasa (Poshalun), volume 74, says: 'Furthermore, the six sense bases of eye, etc., are called the six sense bases because they serve as the basis for contact.' (The above is the content of the paper.) The meaning quoted here is to take the contact that can depend, not the place that is depended upon. As has been said, regarding the part 'to the reason of not being extremely subtle' (zhifeijiweigu, referring to the reason of not being the smallest particle), it can be understood. As has been said, regarding the part 'to the dispute of what can be burned and what is weighed' (zhinengshaosuochengzheng, referring to the dispute of what can be burned and what is weighed), the following are the eleventh gate of what can be chopped (nengzhuo, referring to what can chop) and what is chopped (suozhuo, referring to what is chopped), the twelfth gate of what can be burned (nengshao, referring to what can burn) and what is burned (suoshao, referring to what is burned), and the thirteenth gate of what can be weighed (nengcheng, referring to what can weigh) and what is weighed (suocheng, referring to what is weighed). Summarize the questions and answers. The treatise says, regarding the part 'to what can be chopped and what is chopped' (zhinengzhuosuozhuozhe, referring to what can chop and what is chopped), if according to the Vibhasa (Poshalun), volume 143, some believe that the four elements (sichu, referring to the four elements) can chop the four elements, and the four elements are chopped. Other teachers say that the nature of hardness is what can chop, and the four elements are what is chopped. But there are no commentators. This argument is the same as the previous teacher's. Another explanation is that saying the four can chop is based on the inseparable situation, and the hardness can chop is based on restraining the object. Each is based on one meaning, and there is no contradiction in principle. Even if the nature of hardness is universally present in what can chop and what is chopped, according to the strength of the function of things, it is said to be what can chop or what is chopped. 'What dharma is called chopping?' (shenmefajiaozhuo) is the question. Isn't it that conditioned dharmas (youweifa, referring to dharmas with birth and death) extinguish themselves in an instant, rather than being able to be chopped or being chopped? 'The gathering of firewood and other forms to the light of jewels' (xindengsejuzhiruzhubao guangzhe, referring to the gathering of firewood and other materials to the light of jewels) is the answer. In principle, conditioned dharmas extinguish themselves in an instant, not being able to be chopped or being chopped. However, first, firewood and other materials gather very closely and continuously produce, and different causes and conditions such as axes separate the firewood, etc., causing them to produce continuously and making the meaning different. This dharma is called chopping, not causing the dharma to perish, so there is no contradiction. Limbs separate from the body, and the roots (gen, referring to sense organs) are not present, so the roots are not chopped. Because it is a pure and subtle dharma, it is also not what can chop. Question: In hell, the body is crushed, or a snake is cut off, etc., making it into many parts, and each part acts separately, which is the separation of limbs from the body with roots. The explanation is that the phenomenon of hell looks like it is divided into many parts, but in reality, each part has the roots of the body. When a snake is cut off, etc., the body still has remaining power to move, so the Vibhasa (Poshalun) says...

沙十九云。有餘師說。諸地獄中。雖解支節為百千分。而諸分內皆有身根。諸分中間有連續故。如碎杜中．及藕根莖。亦如破菰蒂不相離。若相離者身根即無。非一有情有二身故而世現見。斷諸蟲身為多分已猶行動者。風勢所轉非有身根　問有斷蛇等各別生者。此云何釋。解云　是余有情依託生故。

如能斫所斫至所稱唯重者。身等色根亦非二事。謂非能燒．所燒。能稱．所稱。以凈妙故。燒身盡時根亦盡者。由彼扶根四境無故根亦隨無。非能燒根　聲界。六義總非。不相續故　能燒．所稱。有二諍論。前約世俗不相離說故言四界。后約勝義克體以論唯火能燒。所稱唯重。各據一義理亦無違。雖復性火俱遍能所。據事用勝說為能燒。若用劣者說為所燒。

如是已說至剎那唯后三者。此下第十四五類門。就中一總釋五類。二別顯頌能。言釋五類者。一異熟生除聲界餘十七界少分　二所長養。泛明長養有二。一長養用勝。通十八界。二長養體增五根．五境小分。此中據長養體說　三等流。泛明等流有二。一從同類．遍行因生者名等流。據此義邊十五界全后三小分。二非異熟．長養所攝。然從同類．遍行因生者。名等流據此義邊。除五色根餘十三界小分。雖異熟．長養亦有等流。為辨異門廢總論別。此中據第二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沙十九說：『有些其他的老師說，在地獄中，即使肢體被分解成成百上千份，每一份裡面都還有身根（身體感覺的根源）。這是因為各個部分之間有連續性，就像被打碎的杜仲，以及藕的根莖，也像破開的菰米根蒂一樣不會分離。如果分離了，身根就沒有了，因為一個有情（眾生）不可能有兩個身體。』現在世間所見，蟲子身體被切成多段后仍然能動，那是風的勢力在推動，不是因為有身根。問：『如果蛇等被切斷後各自都能存活，這又該如何解釋呢？』答：『那是其他的有情依託著它而生。』就像能砍的刀和被砍的東西，以及能稱的秤和被稱的東西，如果只考慮重量，身根等色根（顏色和形狀的根源）也不是兩回事。也就是說，不是能燒的和被燒的，能稱的和被稱的。因為它們是清凈微妙的。燒身盡時根也盡，是因為扶持根的四大（地、水、火、風）不存在了，所以根也隨之消失，而不是根能被燒燬。聲界（聲音的領域），從六個方面來說都不成立，因為它不連續。關於能燒和所稱，有兩種不同的爭論。前者是根據世俗的觀點，認為它們不可分離，所以說是四大。後者是根據勝義（究竟的真理）的觀點，認為只有火才能燒，只有重量才能被稱。各自根據一個道理，所以沒有矛盾。雖然自性和火都普遍存在於能燒和所燒之中，但根據實際作用的強弱，說作用強的為能燒，作用弱的為所燒。像這樣已經說過的『直到剎那唯后三者』，這是第十四五類門。其中，一是總的解釋五類，二是分別顯示頌的功用。解釋五類，一是異熟生（由業力成熟而生），除了聲界，其餘十七界（十八界中除去聲界）少部分是異熟生。二是所長養（通過滋養而增長），泛指長養有兩種，一是長養的作用強，通於十八界。二是長養的本體增長，五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）和五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）的小部分。這裡是根據長養的本體來說的。三是等流（與因同類的果），泛指等流有兩種，一是從同類因和遍行因所生的，叫做等流。根據這個意義，十五界全部和后三界（法界、意識界、無意識界）的小部分是等流。二是非異熟生和所長養所攝，但是從同類因和遍行因所生的，叫做等流。根據這個意義，除了五色根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身），其餘十三界的小部分是等流。雖然異熟生和所長養也有等流，但爲了區分不同的方面，所以捨棄總的討論而分別討論。這裡是根據第二種等流來說的。

【English Translation】 English version: Sha Shijiu said: 'Some other teachers say that in the hells, even if the limbs are dismembered into hundreds of thousands of pieces, each piece still has a body-root (the source of bodily sensation). This is because there is continuity between the parts, just like the broken eucommia ulmoides, and the rhizomes of lotus roots, also like the broken culm of Zizania latifolia which are not separated. If they are separated, the body-root will be gone, because it is impossible for a sentient being to have two bodies.' Now, what is seen in the world, that insects can still move after their bodies are cut into many segments, is due to the force of the wind, not because they have body-roots. Question: 'If snakes and the like can survive separately after being cut off, how should this be explained?' Answer: 'That is because other sentient beings rely on it to be born.' Just like the able-to-cut knife and the thing being cut, and the able-to-weigh scale and the thing being weighed, if only considering the weight, the body-root and other color-roots (the source of color and shape) are not two different things either. That is to say, not the able-to-burn and the being-burned, the able-to-weigh and the being-weighed. Because they are pure and subtle. When the body is burned to ashes, the root also ceases, because the four elements (earth, water, fire, wind) that support the root no longer exist, so the root also disappears, rather than the root being able to be burned. The sound-realm (the realm of sound), is not established in six aspects, because it is not continuous. Regarding the able-to-burn and the being-weighed, there are two different arguments. The former is based on the worldly view, considering them inseparable, so it is said to be the four elements. The latter is based on the ultimate truth (paramartha), believing that only fire can burn, and only weight can be weighed. Each is based on a principle, so there is no contradiction. Although nature and fire are both universally present in the able-to-burn and the being-burned, according to the strength of the actual function, the one with the stronger function is said to be the able-to-burn, and the one with the weaker function is said to be the being-burned. As has been said, 'until the moment only the latter three', this is the fourteenth and fifth category gates. Among them, one is a general explanation of the five categories, and the other is a separate display of the function of the verses. Explaining the five categories, one is Vipaka-born (born from the maturation of karma), except for the sound-realm, the remaining seventeen realms (of the eighteen realms, excluding the sound-realm) a small part are Vipaka-born. The second is what is nourished (grown through nourishment), generally speaking, there are two types of nourishment, one is that the function of nourishment is strong, which applies to all eighteen realms. The second is that the substance of nourishment increases, a small part of the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch). Here it is based on the substance of nourishment. The third is Isotropic-flow (fruit of the same kind as the cause), generally speaking, there are two types of Isotropic-flow, one is what is born from the same kind of cause and pervasive cause, called Isotropic-flow. According to this meaning, all fifteen realms and a small part of the latter three realms (Dharma-realm, Consciousness-realm, Non-consciousness-realm) are Isotropic-flow. The second is not included in Vipaka-born and what is nourished, but is born from the same kind of cause and pervasive cause, called Isotropic-flow. According to this meaning, except for the five color-roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), a small part of the remaining thirteen realms are Isotropic-flow. Although Vipaka-born and what is nourished also have Isotropic-flow, in order to distinguish different aspects, the general discussion is abandoned and separate discussions are made. Here it is based on the second type of Isotropic-flow.

等流說　四剎那。泛明剎那有二一剎那滅故。故名剎那。十七界全．一界小分。二不從同類．遍行因生。非等流故名剎那。謂初無漏意．法．意識小分。此中據第二剎那說　五實事。泛明實事有二。一有實體故名為實。十八界全。二體堅實故名為實。唯是無為法界小分。此中據第二實說　應知。五類攝十八界體各不同互不相攝。於五類中后四不攝名異熟就后四中后三不攝名長養。就后三中后二不攝名等流。就后二后一不攝名剎那。餘名實。此即順釋　又解。於五類中前四不攝名實。就前四中前三不攝名剎那。就前三中前二不攝名等流。就前二中前一不攝名長養。餘名異熟。此即逆解　於五類中且依一相有為．無為義次前後。故說剎那第四．實事第五。若依文次第。順．逆兩釋解亦無有妨　又解。於五類中非餘四攝名異熟。如是乃至非餘四攝名剎那。此即展轉相望非互相攝　言顯頌能者以十八界對攝五類。謂內五色根。有異熟．長養。不言有等流。故知非等流。實唯法界。不通餘十七　剎那唯后三。不通餘十五　義準。此三。五內非有　聲無異熟生。既不言無長養．等流。義準知有。上即影取長養。下即影取等流。無實剎那。如前說　十八界中既言八無礙明知即是七心．法界此八有等流。亦有異熟。既不言長養。明知非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本等流說：四剎那（Kshana，極短的時間單位）。泛指剎那有二：一剎那滅故，故名剎那。包括十七界全部，一界的小部分。二不從同類、遍行因生。非等流故名剎那。指最初的無漏意、法、意識的小部分。此處根據第二剎那來說。五實事（Satya，真實存在的事物）。泛指實事有二：一有實體故名為實，包括十八界全部。二體堅實故名為實，唯是無為法界的小部分。此處根據第二實事來說。應知，五類攝十八界，其體各不相同，互不相攝。於五類中，后四類不攝，名為異熟（Vipaka，果報）。就后四類中，后三類不攝，名為長養（Aharaja，增長）。就后三類中，后二類不攝，名為等流（Nisyanda，同類相續）。就后二類中，后一類不攝，名為剎那。剩餘的名為實事。此即順向解釋。又一種解釋：於五類中，前四類不攝，名為實事。就前四類中，前三類不攝，名為剎那。就前三類中，前二類不攝，名為等流。就前二類中，前一類不攝，名為長養。剩餘的名為異熟。此即逆向解釋。於五類中，且依據一相有為、無為的意義，按次第前後排列。故說剎那第四，實事第五。若依據文字次第，順向、逆向兩種解釋也沒有妨礙。又一種解釋：於五類中，非其餘四類所攝，名為異熟。如此乃至非其餘四類所攝，名為剎那。此即展轉相望，並非互相攝屬。言語顯示頌文的能力，以十八界對應攝取五類。即內五色根（Pancha-rupa-indriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官），有異熟、長養，不言有等流，故知非等流。實事唯法界（Dharma-dhatu，法界），不通於其餘十七界。剎那唯后三界，不通於其餘十五界。義理上推斷，此三界，五內非有。聲音沒有異熟生，既然不言無長養、等流，義理上推斷可知有。上面即影射長養，下面即影射等流。沒有實事剎那，如前所說。十八界中既然說八無礙，明知即是七心、法界，此八有等流，也有異熟，既然不言長養，明知非長養。

【English Translation】 English version The Doctrine of Nisyanda (Equiflow): Four Kshanas (Kshana, an extremely short unit of time). Generally speaking, there are two types of Kshana: one is called Kshana because it perishes in an instant. It includes all seventeen realms and a small portion of one realm. The second does not arise from similar causes or pervasive causes. It is called Kshana because it is not Nisyanda. It refers to the small portions of the initial Anasrava (non-outflow) mind, Dharma, and consciousness. Here, it is discussed based on the second Kshana. Five Satyas (Satya, truly existing things). Generally speaking, there are two types of Satya: one is called Satya because it has substance, including all eighteen realms. The second is called Satya because its substance is solid, only a small portion of the Asamskrita-dharma-dhatu (unconditioned Dharma realm). Here, it is discussed based on the second Satya. It should be understood that the five categories encompass the eighteen realms, and their entities are different and do not mutually encompass each other. Among the five categories, the latter four are not encompassed, and it is called Vipaka (Vipaka, retribution). Among the latter four categories, the latter three are not encompassed, and it is called Aharaja (Aharaja, nourishment). Among the latter three categories, the latter two are not encompassed, and it is called Nisyanda (Nisyanda, homogeneous continuation). Among the latter two categories, the latter one is not encompassed, and it is called Kshana. The remaining one is called Satya. This is the forward explanation. Another explanation: Among the five categories, the former four are not encompassed, and it is called Satya. Among the former four categories, the former three are not encompassed, and it is called Kshana. Among the former three categories, the former two are not encompassed, and it is called Nisyanda. Among the former two categories, the former one is not encompassed, and it is called Aharaja. The remaining one is called Vipaka. This is the reverse explanation. Among the five categories, based on the meaning of Samskrita (conditioned) and Asamskrita (unconditioned) in one aspect, they are arranged in order. Therefore, Kshana is said to be the fourth, and Satya is the fifth. If based on the order of the text, there is no hindrance to both the forward and reverse explanations. Another explanation: Among the five categories, what is not encompassed by the other four categories is called Vipaka. Similarly, what is not encompassed by the other four categories is called Kshana. This is a mutual comparison and not mutual encompassing. The ability of language to reveal the verses is to correlate the eighteen realms with the five categories. That is, the five internal Rupa-indriyas (Pancha-rupa-indriya, the five sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) have Vipaka and Aharaja, but it is not said to have Nisyanda, so it is known that it is not Nisyanda. Satya is only the Dharma-dhatu (Dharma-dhatu, Dharma realm), not extending to the other seventeen realms. Kshana is only the latter three realms, not extending to the other fifteen realms. Based on logical inference, these three realms are not present in the five internal realms. Sound does not have Vipaka-arising, and since it is not said to have no Aharaja or Nisyanda, it can be inferred that it has them. The above implies Aharaja, and the below implies Nisyanda. There is no Satya-Kshana, as mentioned earlier. Since it is said that the eight among the eighteen realms are unobstructed, it is clear that they are the seven minds and the Dharma realm. These eight have Nisyanda and also have Vipaka. Since it is not said to have Aharaja, it is clear that it is not Aharaja.

有。五識無實．剎那。意界．意識界無實。皆如前說　余謂前說十四界余。即色．香．味．觸。此四各三。謂異熟．長養．等流．非實．剎那亦如前說。實唯法界。唯言不通餘十七界。法界前在八無礙中。已得二類。今又加實足前為三。后三即是意．法．意識。剎那唯在此後三中。唯言顯剎那不通餘十五。法界至此又加一種。足前為四意．及意識。前無礙中各得二種。今又加一足前成三。

論曰至無別性故者。眼等五界有異熟。有長養。此眼等五同類因生亦是等流。今顯異門。廢總論別。離異熟．長養外無別性故。所以不說。

異熟因所生至昔所造業者。釋異熟生總有四解　第一解言。異熟者異在因。熟在果　或異在果。熟在因　或異通因．果熟在果或在因　或熟通因．果。異在因或在果　或異熟。在因　或異．熟。在果　或異．熟。通因．及果　若言即異名熟。持業釋若言異之熟。依主釋。故名異熟　或異熟言。此且總說。未別屬當　言異熟因者若言異熟即因。持業釋。若言異熟之因。依主釋　異熟因所生果。名異熟生。亦是依主釋。略去因所二字。如言牛車略所駕二字　第二解昔所造業至得果時。起與果用與前異故名異。是能熟故名熟。即異名熟故名異熟。持業釋果從彼生名異熟生。依主釋。異熟屬

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有。五識（Panca-vijnana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官的意識）無實、剎那（Ksana，極短的時間單位）。意界（Manodhatu，意識的元素）、意識界（Vijnanadhatu，意識的元素）無實，都如前面所說。其餘指前面所說的十四界（Dhatu，元素）之外的，即色（Rupa，顏色、形狀）、香（Gandha，氣味）、味（Rasa，味道）、觸（Sprasta，觸覺）。這四種各有三種，即異熟（Vipaka，果報）、長養（Posha，增長）、等流（Nisyanda，相似的流動），非實、剎那也如前面所說。實唯有法界（Dharmadhatu，法的元素）。『唯』字不包括其餘十七界。法界前面在八無礙中，已經得到二類，現在又加上實，總共為三。後面三種即是意（Manas，意）、法（Dharma，法）、意識（Vijnana，意識）。剎那唯在此後三種中。『唯』字顯示剎那不包括其餘十五種。法界至此又加一種，總共為四。意及意識，前面無礙中各得二種，現在又加一種，總共成三種。

論曰：至無別性故者。眼等五界有異熟，有長養。此眼等五同類因生，亦是等流。今顯示不同之處，廢除總論而論述個別。離開異熟、長養外，沒有別的性質，所以不說。

異熟因所生至昔所造業者。解釋異熟生總共有四種解釋：第一種解釋說，異熟，異在因，熟在果；或異在果，熟在因；或異通因、果，熟在果或在因；或熟通因、果，異在因或在果；或異熟在因；或異、熟在果；或異、熟通因及果。如果說『即異名熟』，是持業釋（Karmadharaya，一種複合詞的構成方式）；如果說『異之熟』，是依主釋（Tatpurusa，一種複合詞的構成方式），故名異熟。或異熟言，這只是總說，未分別屬於哪個。說『異熟因』，如果說『異熟即因』，是持業釋；如果說『異熟之因』，是依主釋。異熟因所生果，名異熟生，也是依主釋，省略『因所』二字，如說『牛車』省略『所駕』二字。第二種解釋，昔所造業至得果時，起與果用與前不同，故名異。是能成熟，故名熟。即異名熟，故名異熟，持業釋。果從彼生，名異熟生，依主釋。異熟屬

【English Translation】 English version It exists. The five consciousnesses (Panca-vijnana, consciousnesses of the five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) are unreal and momentary (Ksana, an extremely short unit of time). The mind element (Manodhatu, element of mind) and the consciousness element (Vijnanadhatu, element of consciousness) are unreal, as previously stated. The remainder refers to what is beyond the fourteen elements (Dhatu, elements) mentioned earlier, namely form (Rupa, color, shape), smell (Gandha, odor), taste (Rasa, flavor), and touch (Spasta, tactile sensation). Each of these four has three aspects: resultant (Vipaka, retribution), nourishing (Posha, growth), and outflow (Nisyanda, similar flow). Unreal and momentary are also as previously stated. Only the Dharma element (Dharmadhatu, element of Dharma) is real. The word 'only' excludes the other seventeen elements. The Dharma element previously obtained two categories in the eight unobstructed states. Now, adding reality, the total becomes three. The latter three are mind (Manas), Dharma, and consciousness (Vijnana). Momentariness exists only in these latter three. The word 'only' indicates that momentariness does not extend to the other fifteen. The Dharma element, up to this point, adds one more, totaling four. Mind and consciousness each obtained two types in the previous unobstructed states. Now, adding one more, the total becomes three.

The Treatise says: 'Up to 'because there is no separate nature.' The five elements of eye, etc., have resultant and nourishing aspects. These five elements of eye, etc., born from similar causes, are also outflows. Now, we reveal the differences, abandoning the general discussion to discuss the specific. Apart from the resultant and nourishing aspects, there is no other nature, so it is not discussed.

The 'born from resultant cause' up to 'past deeds.' There are four explanations for 'born from resultant': The first explanation says that in 'resultant,' the difference is in the cause, and the maturation is in the effect; or the difference is in the effect, and the maturation is in the cause; or the difference applies to both cause and effect, and the maturation is in the effect or in the cause; or the maturation applies to both cause and effect, and the difference is in the cause or in the effect; or the resultant is in the cause; or the difference and maturation are in the effect; or the difference and maturation apply to both cause and effect. If it is said 'that which is different is called maturation,' it is a Karmadharaya compound (a type of compound word formation); if it is said 'the maturation of difference,' it is a Tatpurusa compound (a type of compound word formation), hence it is called 'resultant.' Or the term 'resultant' is a general statement, not specifically assigned to any one. When it says 'resultant cause,' if it is said 'resultant is the cause,' it is a Karmadharaya compound; if it is said 'the cause of resultant,' it is a Tatpurusa compound. The effect born from the resultant cause is called 'born from resultant,' which is also a Tatpurusa compound, omitting the words 'caused by,' just as saying 'ox cart' omits the words 'driven by.' The second explanation is that past deeds, until the time of obtaining the effect, arise with a function different from the previous effect, hence it is called 'different.' It is capable of maturing, hence it is called 'maturation.' That which is different is called maturation, hence it is called 'resultant,' a Karmadharaya compound. The effect born from that is called 'born from resultant,' a Tatpurusa compound. Resultant belongs to

因生即屬果　第三解。因是善．惡。果是無記。彼所得果與因別類名異。而是所熟名熟。即異是熟故名異熟。即異熟是生名異熟生。持業釋。異熟．生並屬果　第四解。果是異熟如前解。因非異熟言因異熟此于因上假立果名。因從果得名。是有財釋。有異熟故名為異熟。果從彼生名異熟生。依主釋　泛舉得名不同。亦有于果立因名。如契經云。今六觸處果。應知即是昔造業因。觸所依處名六觸處。即眼等六根此中意取所依六處。不取能依六觸。

飲食資助至防援內城者。釋所長養　長小令大。養瘦令肥。諸有礙法極微所成名所長養。一飲食。二資助。謂塗油等。三睡眠。四等持謂定。此四勝緣是能長養。由緣所益眼等體增。眼等增時名所長養　有雜心師說。持戒．梵行亦能長養。論主破言。此唯無損。非別有益所長養體。異熟色劣。無異熟生離所長養。故恒長養護持。長養色勝。有離異熟生。如無眼．耳修得眼．耳。故婆沙云。無異熟生眼離長養眼。如人重人。如壚重壚。長養防護異熟亦爾。然有長養眼離異熟生眼。如從無眼得天眼者　問長養通非情不。解云．不通　難如穀麥等。雖無飲食．睡眠．等持所益。而有糞等資助所益。如何長養不通非情。解云。若泛言長養亦通非情。糞．水等緣能長養故。此中言長

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『因生即屬果』第三解：『因』指的是善和惡，『果』指的是無記（既非善亦非惡）。所得到的果與因在類別和名稱上不同，但果是由因成熟而來，因此稱為『熟』。因為不同於『熟』，所以稱為『異熟』（Vipāka）。『異熟』是『生』的原因，所以稱為『異熟生』（Vipākaja）。這是持業釋（Karmadhāraya）。『異熟』和『生』都屬於果。第四解：『果』就是『異熟』，如前所述。『因』不是『異熟』，所以說『因異熟』，這是在因上假立果的名稱。因從果那裡得到名稱，這是有財釋（Tatpuruṣa）。因為有『異熟』，所以稱為『異熟』。果從彼（因）而生，所以稱為『異熟生』。這是依主釋（Bahuvrīhi）。泛泛地舉例說明，得名的依據不同。也有在果上建立因的名稱的情況，如契經（Sūtra）所說：『現在的六觸處果（Ṣaḍāyatana），應當知道就是過去造業的因。』觸所依之處稱為六觸處，即眼等六根（Indriya）。這裡指的是作為所依的六處，而不是作為能依的六觸（Sparśa）。

『飲食資助至防援內城者』，解釋所長養（Upacita）：使小的長大，使瘦的肥胖。一切有礙法（Saparigha）都是由極微（Paramāṇu）組成的，稱為所長養。一是飲食，二是資助，如塗油等，三是睡眠，四是等持，即禪定（Samādhi）。這四種殊勝的因緣是能長養的。由於這些因緣的增益，眼等（感官）的本體得到增長。眼等增長的時候，就稱為所長養。有《雜心論》（Abhidharmasaṃgraha）的論師說，持戒（Śīla）、梵行（Brahmacarya）也能長養。論主（Vasubandhu）反駁說，這只是沒有損害，而不是特別有益於所長養的本體。異熟色（Vipākaja-rūpa）是劣的，沒有異熟生（Vipākaja）能夠離開所長養。所以要經常長養和護持。長養色（Upacita-rūpa）是殊勝的，有離開異熟生的，如沒有眼睛、耳朵的人通過修行得到眼睛、耳朵。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）說，沒有異熟生的眼睛離開了長養的眼睛，就像人疊加在人身上，像土塊疊加在土塊上。長養防護異熟也是如此。然而有長養眼離開了異熟生眼的情況，如從沒有眼睛的人那裡得到天眼（Divyacakṣus）。問：長養是否也適用於非情（無情，非生物）？答：不適用。難：如穀麥等，雖然沒有飲食、睡眠、等持的增益，但有糞等資助的增益。為什麼長養不適用于非情？答：如果泛泛地說長養，也適用於非情，因為糞、水等因緣能夠長養它們。這裡所說的長養。

【English Translation】 English version 『Because birth immediately belongs to the result』—the third explanation: 『Cause』 refers to good and evil. 『Result』 refers to indeterminate (neither good nor evil). The result obtained is different from the cause in category and name, but the result is matured from the cause, hence it is called 『mature』. Because it is different from 『mature』, it is called 『Vipāka』 (異熟, differing maturation). 『Vipāka』 is the cause of 『birth』, so it is called 『Vipākaja』 (異熟生, born of differing maturation). This is Karmadhāraya (持業釋). 『Vipāka』 and 『birth』 both belong to the result—the fourth explanation: 『Result』 is 『Vipāka』, as mentioned earlier. 『Cause』 is not 『Vipāka』, so it is said 『cause Vipāka』; this is falsely establishing the name of the result on the cause. The cause obtains its name from the result; this is Tatpuruṣa (有財釋). Because there is 『Vipāka』, it is called 『Vipāka』. The result is born from it (the cause), so it is called 『Vipākaja』. This is Bahuvrīhi (依主釋). Generally speaking, the basis for naming is different. There are also cases where the name of the cause is established on the result, as the Sūtra (契經) says: 『The present six sense-bases result (Ṣaḍāyatana, 六觸處果) should be known as the cause of past karma.』 The place where contact relies is called the six sense-bases, namely the six roots such as the eye (Indriya, 眼等六根). Here, it refers to the six bases as the relied-upon, not the six contacts (Sparśa, 六觸) as the relier.

『Food and drink assist to defend the inner city』—explaining what is nourished (Upacita, 所長養): making the small grow large, making the thin become fat. All obstructive dharmas (Saparigha, 有礙法) are composed of extremely small particles (Paramāṇu, 極微), called what is nourished. First is food and drink, second is assistance, such as applying oil, third is sleep, and fourth is equanimity, namely meditation (Samādhi, 等持). These four excellent conditions are what can nourish. Due to the increase from these conditions, the substance of the eye, etc. (sense organs) increases. When the eye, etc., increase, it is called what is nourished. Some teachers of the Abhidharmasaṃgraha (雜心論) say that precepts (Śīla, 持戒) and pure conduct (Brahmacarya, 梵行) can also nourish. The master of the treatise (Vasubandhu, 論主) refutes this, saying that it only prevents harm and does not specifically benefit the substance of what is nourished. Vipāka-rūpa (異熟色, form born of differing maturation) is inferior; no Vipākaja (異熟生, born of differing maturation) can be separated from what is nourished. Therefore, it must be constantly nourished and protected. Upacita-rūpa (長養色, nourished form) is superior; there are those that are separated from Vipākaja, such as those who obtain eyes and ears through cultivation when they did not have them before. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論) says that the eye not born of differing maturation is separate from the nourished eye, like a person stacked on top of a person, like a clod of earth stacked on top of a clod of earth. Nourishing, protecting, and Vipāka are also like this. However, there are cases where the nourished eye is separate from the eye born of differing maturation, such as obtaining the divine eye (Divyacakṣus, 天眼) from someone who did not have eyes. Question: Does nourishing also apply to non-sentient beings (non-emotional, inanimate)? Answer: It does not apply. Objection: Like grains and wheat, although they do not have the benefit of food, drink, sleep, and equanimity, they have the benefit of assistance such as manure. Why does nourishing not apply to non-sentient beings? Answer: If we speak of nourishing in a general sense, it also applies to non-sentient beings, because conditions such as manure and water can nourish them. What is being spoken of here is nourishing.

養者。唯是有情勝緣所益。外法非情非勝緣益不名長養。

聲有等流至隨欲轉故者。聲有二類。無異熟生。夫異熟色任運而起。聲隨欲生故非異熟。

若爾不應至梵音聲相者。引論難　若聲非異熟論不應說遠離粗惡語故。感得三十二大士相中梵音聲相。

有說聲屬至緣擊發聲者。答　有兩說。此即初師　有說。聲屬第三傳故。雖遠展轉由彼業生。不能親感。而非異熟。謂業為第一傳　從業生大種為第二傳。從大種發聲為第三傳。理亦應有第四．第五傳。而不說者。從異熟大種生聲。尚非異熟。從長養等流生聲。理在不疑故不別說　又解應立量。即聲非異熟。屬第三傳故。如善惡身受　問若聲從業．大種生故。此四大種即是異熟。為是何等異熟大種生此聲耶。解云。先有異熟大種獨住。若相擊時即便生聲。不相擊時但有大種　問若爾。應有現在大種無所造色。解云。許亦無失。故正理二十。解大種望所造色非俱有因中雲。謂有成就諸所造色非四大種。或有成就能造大種非所造色　解云。謂聖生無色。成下無漏戒不成能造大。及在欲．色成過．未定共戒　不成能造大。在欲第二念已去成過．現戒。非成過去能造大。若有初受別解脫戒。初念有等流四大。懸造未來當生無表。彼大種現在成就。所造無表仍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：滋養。只有有情眾生的殊勝因緣才能增益。外在事物沒有情感，不是殊勝的因緣，不能稱為滋養。

聲音有等流，乃至隨心所欲而轉變。聲音有兩類。沒有異熟所生。異熟所生的色法自然而起。聲音隨心所欲而生，所以不是異熟所生。

如果這樣，不應該感得梵音聲相。引用論典來反駁：如果聲音不是異熟所生，那麼論典不應該說遠離粗惡語，因此感得三十二大丈夫相中的梵音聲相。

有人說聲音屬於第三傳，因為因緣擊發而產生聲音。回答：有兩種說法。這是第一種說法。有人說，聲音屬於第三傳的緣故，即使遙遠輾轉，由那個業力所生，也不能親身感受，所以不是異熟所生。意思是業力是第一傳，從業力所生的大種是第二傳，從大種發出的聲音是第三傳。道理上也應該有第四、第五傳，但不說的原因是，從異熟所生的大種產生的聲音，尚且不是異熟所生，從長養等流所產生的聲音，道理上是毫無疑問的，所以不另外說明。又解釋說，應該立一個量：即聲音不是異熟所生，因為它屬於第三傳。如同善惡的身受。問：如果聲音從業力、大種所生，那麼這四大種就是異熟所生。是什麼樣的異熟大種產生了這個聲音呢？解釋說：先有異熟大種獨自存在，如果相互撞擊時，就會產生聲音。不相互撞擊時，只有大種。問：如果這樣，應該有現在的大種沒有所造的色法。解釋說：允許這樣也沒有過失。所以《正理》第二十品解釋大種對於所造色法並非同時具有因果關係時說：有成就諸所造色法而非四大種，或者有成就能造大種而非所造色法。解釋說：比如聖者生於無色界，成就下品的無漏戒，不成就造色的大種。以及在欲界、色界成就過去、未來不定的共戒，不成就造色的大種。在欲界第二念以后成就過去、現在的戒，不是成就過去能造的大種。如果有人初次受別解脫戒，初念有等流四大，懸造未來將要產生的無表色，那些大種現在成就，所造的無表色仍然

【English Translation】 English version: Nourishment. Only sentient beings' superior conditions can benefit. External phenomena are not sentient and are not superior conditions, so they are not called nourishment.

Sound has is flowing onwards, even to the point of changing according to desire. There are two types of sound. Not born of Vipaka (result of actions). Vipaka-born form arises naturally. Sound arises according to desire, so it is not Vipaka-born.

If so, one should not attain the Brahma sound characteristic. Quoting the treatise to refute: If sound is not Vipaka-born, then the treatise should not say that by abstaining from coarse and evil speech, one attains the Brahma sound characteristic among the thirty-two marks of a great man (Mahapurusha Lakshana).

Some say that sound belongs to the third transmission because it is produced by the striking of conditions. Answer: There are two views. This is the first view. Some say that sound belongs to the third transmission, so even if it is far away and transmitted, it is born from that karma and cannot be directly felt, so it is not Vipaka-born. Meaning that karma is the first transmission, the great elements (Mahabhuta) born from karma are the second transmission, and the sound emitted from the great elements is the third transmission. Logically, there should also be a fourth and fifth transmission, but the reason for not mentioning them is that the sound produced from the great elements born of Vipaka is not Vipaka-born, and the sound produced from the flowing onwards of nourishment is undoubtedly so, so it is not explained separately. Another explanation is that a measure should be established: that is, sound is not Vipaka-born because it belongs to the third transmission. Like the bodily sensations of good and evil. Question: If sound is born from karma and the great elements, then these four great elements are Vipaka-born. What kind of Vipaka-born great elements produce this sound? Explanation: First, there are Vipaka-born great elements existing alone. If they collide, sound will be produced. If they do not collide, there are only great elements. Question: If so, there should be present great elements without any produced form. Explanation: It is permissible and there is no fault. Therefore, the twentieth chapter of the Abhidharmakosha explains that the great elements are not simultaneous causes and effects in relation to the produced form, saying: There are those who achieve all produced forms but not the four great elements, or there are those who achieve the able-to-produce great elements but not the produced form. Explanation: For example, a saint is born in the Formless Realm (Arupadhatu), achieves the lower non-outflow (Anasrava) precepts, and does not achieve the great elements that can produce form. And in the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu) and Form Realm (Rupadhatu), one achieves past and future undetermined shared precepts, and does not achieve the great elements that can produce form. In the Desire Realm, from the second thought onward, one achieves past and present precepts, but does not achieve the past able-to-produce great elements. If someone initially receives the Pratimoksha precepts, the first thought has the flowing onwards of the four great elements, suspending the creation of future unmanifested form. Those great elements are now achieved, and the produced unmanifested form is still

住未來。無前得故仍未成就。如是等類。是謂成就大種非所造色　準彼論文。故知。亦有成能造大非所造色　問若爾。即與婆沙相違。故婆沙一百三十二云。若成就現在大種。彼現在所造色耶。答如是。設成就現在所造色。彼現在大種耶。答如是。以非現在大種無果故。亦非現在所造色無因故　婆沙既云以非現在大種無果故。明知。現在大種皆有所造色果無獨住大。解云。論意各別無勞會釋。或可亦不相違。婆沙從多分說。若不爾者。如受戒時初念懸造未來世戒。豈得成彼未來戒耶　問等流大種。懸造當戒。可有現在獨住大種。異熟大種非是懸造。應無現在獨住大種。解云。雖義不同。大種類故。等流既容現在獨住。異熟容有。何理能遮。又解現在無有異熟大種。無所造色。前引婆沙極分明故。既言以非現在大種無果故。故知。無有現大獨住。既言以非現在所造色無因故。故知。無有現所造色獨住。應知后念無表望現大種。雖無生因。有依因故　問若爾即與正理相違。彼論既言。有成就能造大種非所造色。明知。亦有能造大種無所造色。解云。正理論主述異師義。撿尋婆沙上下論文。全無此說。有成就能造大種非所造色此即論意各別。無勞會釋　或可。亦不相違。如受戒時初念大種　造初念戒。即此大種。復能懸造未

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本執著于未來。因為沒有先前的原因，所以仍然沒有成就。像這些情況，就叫做成就大種（組成物質的基本元素）但不是所造色（由大種組合而成的物質）。根據《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的論述，可知也有成就能造大種但不是所造色的情況。問題：如果這樣，就與《大毗婆沙論》相違背。《大毗婆沙論》第一百三十二卷說：『如果成就現在的大種，那麼它就是現在的所造色嗎？』回答：『是的。』『假設成就現在的所造色，那麼它就是現在的大種嗎？』回答：『是的。』因為不是現在的大種沒有結果，也不是現在的所造色沒有原因。《大毗婆沙論》既然說因為不是現在的大種沒有結果，就明確知道現在的大種都有所造色的結果，沒有單獨存在的大種。解釋說：論的意義各自不同，不必勉強解釋。或者也可以說不相違背。《大毗婆沙論》是從大多數情況來說的。如果不是這樣，就像受戒時最初一念懸造未來世的戒，難道能成就那個未來的戒嗎？問題：等流大種（性質相同的大種），懸造未來的戒，可能有現在單獨存在的大種。異熟大種（不同性質的大種）不是懸造的，應該沒有現在單獨存在的大種。解釋說：雖然意義不同，但都是大種類，等流既然容許現在單獨存在，異熟容許存在，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？又解釋說現在沒有異熟大種，沒有所造色。前面引用的《大毗婆沙論》非常明確，既然說因為不是現在的大種沒有結果，所以知道沒有現在的大種單獨存在。既然說因為不是現在的所造色沒有原因，所以知道沒有現在的所造色單獨存在。應該知道后唸的無表色（無法用視覺或聽覺感知的色法）相對於現在的大種，雖然沒有生因，但有依因。問題：如果這樣，就與《正理經》相違背。《正理經》既然說有成就的能造大種不是所造色，明確知道也有能造大種沒有所造色。解釋說：《正理經》的作者敘述的是其他學派的觀點，查閱《大毗婆沙論》的上下文，完全沒有這種說法。有成就的能造大種不是所造色，這只是論的意義各自不同，不必勉強解釋。或者也可以說不相違背，就像受戒時最初一念的大種，造最初一念的戒，就是這個大種，又能懸造未

【English Translation】 English version Clinging to the future. Because there is no prior cause, it is still not accomplished. Such cases are called accomplishing the Mahabhutas (the basic elements that make up matter) but not the Rupas (matter formed by the Mahabhutas). According to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, it is known that there are also cases of accomplishing the capable-of-producing Mahabhutas but not the Rupas. Question: If so, it contradicts the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. Volume 132 of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'If one accomplishes the present Mahabhutas, are they the present Rupas?' Answer: 'Yes.' 'Suppose one accomplishes the present Rupas, are they the present Mahabhutas?' Answer: 'Yes.' Because the present Mahabhutas have no result, and the present Rupas have no cause. Since the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that because the present Mahabhutas have no result, it is clear that the present Mahabhutas all have the result of Rupas, and there are no Mahabhutas that exist alone. The explanation says: The meanings of the treatises are different, and there is no need to force an explanation. Or it can be said that they are not contradictory. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra speaks from the majority of cases. If not, like the initial thought of vowing future precepts when taking precepts, can it accomplish those future precepts? Question: The Equal-Flow Mahabhutas (Mahabhutas of the same nature), vowing future precepts, may have present Mahabhutas that exist alone. The Vipaka Mahabhutas (Mahabhutas of different natures) are not vowed, so there should be no present Mahabhutas that exist alone. The explanation says: Although the meanings are different, they are all types of Mahabhutas. Since the Equal-Flow allows present existence alone, the Vipaka allows existence, what reason can prevent it? Another explanation says that there are no Vipaka Mahabhutas now, and there are no Rupas. The previously quoted Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra is very clear, since it says that because the present Mahabhutas have no result, it is known that there are no present Mahabhutas that exist alone. Since it says that because the present Rupas have no cause, it is known that there are no present Rupas that exist alone. It should be known that the non-manifested form (form that cannot be perceived by sight or hearing) of the later thought, relative to the present Mahabhutas, although it has no cause of production, it has a dependent cause. Question: If so, it contradicts the Nyaya Sutra. Since the Nyaya Sutra says that there are accomplished capable-of-producing Mahabhutas that are not Rupas, it is clear that there are also capable-of-producing Mahabhutas that have no Rupas. The explanation says: The author of the Nyaya Sutra narrates the views of other schools. Examining the context of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, there is no such statement at all. There are accomplished capable-of-producing Mahabhutas that are not Rupas, this is just that the meanings of the treatises are different, and there is no need to force an explanation. Or it can be said that they are not contradictory, like the Mahabhutas of the initial thought when taking precepts, creating the precepts of the initial thought, these Mahabhutas can also vow the future.

來身中一期無表。理實成此初念大種。亦成現在所造無表。且望未來懸造戒說故。正理言有成就能造大種非所造色。若作此解。與彼正理亦不相違　問若言此聲無先獨住異熟大造。是何大種。若謂此大種聲有即有。聲無即無。應異熟色斷已更續。有違宗過。若謂即以造身根等異熟大造。一四大種造二有對色。還有違宗。若謂造身根等異熟大種為緣。擊發生聲。據緣義邊說大第二。次後聲起說聲第三。以實此聲隨其所應。長養．等流大種所造。若作此解。雖無有失。何異第四．第五傳家。既非用彼異熟大造。何須別說第三傳耶　解云。異熟大種雖非親能造彼聲界。據緣生邊。說聲第三亦無有失。

有說聲屬至此乃生聲者。此即第二師答　有說聲屬第五傳故。雖遠展轉由彼業。生。疏非親感。而非異熟。謂業為第一傳。從業所感造身根等異熟大種為第二傳。從此異熟邊復有造身根等長養大種為第三傳。從此長養色復起等流大種為第四傳。從此等流方乃生聲為第五傳　理亦應許有第四傳。而不說者。略而不說。

或可。影顯　或長養聲雖於一處而有間絕若據一身諸支節中。輪環不絕。說非異熟。其理稍隱。故不說之。若等流聲有全間斷。說非異熟。于理稍顯偏約此明　此師意說。長養大種造長養聲。等流四大造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於來世身體中產生的『一期無表』（指生命週期內持續存在的、不可見的業力），實際上是由最初的念頭所產生的大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風）構成。這也構成了現在所造的『無表』。考慮到未來可能產生的戒律，所以這樣說。正理（佛教邏輯）認為，存在能夠產生所造色的大種，但並非所造色本身。如果這樣解釋，與正理的觀點並不矛盾。

問：如果說這個聲音沒有先前獨立存在的、由異熟（業力成熟的結果）產生的大種，那麼它是由什麼大種產生的呢？如果說這個大種的聲音，有它就有，沒有它就沒有，那麼異熟色斷滅后又重新延續，這就有違背宗義的過失。如果說直接用產生身體、根等的異熟大種，一個四大種產生兩個有對色（可觸知的顏色和形狀），這仍然有違背宗義的過失。如果說以產生身體、根等的異熟大種為緣，撞擊而發生聲音，根據緣起的意義來說，大種是第二位的。緊接著聲音產生，說聲音是第三位的。實際上，這個聲音是隨其所應，由長養（滋養）和等流（相似相續）的大種所造。

如果這樣解釋，雖然沒有錯誤，但和第四、第五傳家有什麼區別呢？既然不是用那個異熟大種來產生聲音，為什麼需要特別說明第三傳呢？

答：異熟大種雖然不是直接產生那個聲界的，但根據緣起而生的角度來說，說聲音是第三位的也沒有錯誤。

有人說聲音屬於第五傳才產生聲音。這是第二位論師的回答。有人說聲音屬於第五傳的緣故，雖然經過遙遠的輾轉，由那個業力所生，關係疏遠並非直接感受，而不是異熟。意思是說，業力是第一傳，從業力所感的產生身體、根等的異熟大種是第二傳，從這個異熟的基礎上又有產生身體、根等的長養大種是第三傳，從這個長養色又產生等流大種是第四傳，從這個等流才產生聲音是第五傳。道理上也應該允許有第四傳，而不說的原因是，省略而不說。

或者，可以理解為影顯（不明顯）。或者長養的聲音雖然在一個地方有間斷，但如果根據一身的各個支節中，輪環不絕，說它不是異熟，這個道理稍微隱晦，所以不說。如果等流的聲音有完全的間斷，說它不是異熟，這個道理稍微明顯，所以偏重於說明這一點。這位論師的意思是說，長養大種產生長養的聲音，等流四大產生等流的聲音。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the 'Eka-kāla-nirvikalpa' (one-period unmanifested karma) that arises in the body of the next life, it is actually composed of the 'Mahābhūta' (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) produced by the initial thought. This also constitutes the 'Nirvikalpa' (unmanifested karma) created in the present. This is said in consideration of the precepts that may arise in the future. The 'Nyāya' (Buddhist logic) believes that there are 'Mahābhūta' that can produce the 'Rūpa' (form) that is created, but are not the 'Rūpa' themselves. If explained in this way, it does not contradict the view of 'Nyāya'.

Question: If it is said that this sound does not have a previously independently existing 'Vipāka Mahābhūta' (great elements produced by the result of karma), then by what 'Mahābhūta' is it produced? If it is said that the sound of this 'Mahābhūta', it exists when it exists, and it does not exist when it does not exist, then the 'Vipāka Rūpa' (form resulting from karma) will be cut off and then continue again, which would violate the principle of the sect. If it is said that the 'Vipāka Mahābhūta' that directly produces the body, roots, etc., one 'Mahābhūta' produces two 'Sa-pratigha Rūpa' (tangible colors and shapes), this still violates the principle of the sect. If it is said that the 'Vipāka Mahābhūta' that produces the body, roots, etc., is the cause, and the sound is generated by striking, according to the meaning of dependent origination, the 'Mahābhūta' is second. Immediately after the sound is produced, it is said that the sound is third. In fact, this sound is produced by the 'Poṣa' (nourishing) and 'Niḥṣyanda' (similar continuation) 'Mahābhūta', as appropriate.

If explained in this way, although there is no error, what is the difference between the fourth and fifth transmissions? Since that 'Vipāka Mahābhūta' is not used to produce the sound, why is it necessary to specifically explain the third transmission?

Answer: Although the 'Vipāka Mahābhūta' does not directly produce that 'Śabda-dhātu' (sound element), it is not wrong to say that the sound is third from the perspective of arising from dependent origination.

Some say that the sound belongs to the fifth transmission before the sound is produced. This is the answer of the second teacher. Some say that the sound belongs to the fifth transmission, so although it is generated by that karma through distant transmission, the relationship is distant and not directly felt, and it is not 'Vipāka'. It means that karma is the first transmission, the 'Vipāka Mahābhūta' that produces the body, roots, etc., from the karma is the second transmission, and from this 'Vipāka' there is also the 'Poṣa Mahābhūta' that produces the body, roots, etc., which is the third transmission, and from this 'Poṣa Rūpa' (nourishing form) there is also the 'Niḥṣyanda Mahābhūta' (similar continuation great elements) which is the fourth transmission, and from this 'Niḥṣyanda' the sound is produced which is the fifth transmission. It should also be allowed that there is a fourth transmission, but the reason for not saying it is that it is omitted.

Or, it can be understood as 'Ābhāsa' (not obvious). Or, although the 'Poṣa Śabda' (nourishing sound) is interrupted in one place, if it is based on the various limbs of the body, the cycle is continuous, and it is said that it is not 'Vipāka', the reason is slightly obscure, so it is not said. If the 'Niḥṣyanda Śabda' (similar continuation sound) has a complete interruption, and it is said that it is not 'Vipāka', the reason is slightly obvious, so the emphasis is on explaining this point. The meaning of this teacher is that the 'Poṣa Mahābhūta' produces the 'Poṣa Śabda', and the 'Niḥṣyanda Mahābhūta' produces the 'Niḥṣyanda Śabda'.

等流聲。故許說有第四．第五傳聲非異熟。故非異熟大造故不許有第三傳也。故正理述第二師解云。有餘師說。聲非異熟。如何異熟大種所造。故應許聲屬第四傳．第五傳故非異熟。謂從業生異熟大種。從此傳生長養大種此復傳生等流大種。長養大種髮長養聲。等流大種發等流聲　又解此師別為一解。婆沙一百一十八。亦有第三．第五傳同此論。又婆沙一百二十七云。問諸有情類所發聲。當言何處大種所造。有說。喉邊大種所造。有說。心邊大種所造。有說。臍邊大種所造。評曰。總說。此聲一切身支大種所造。若別說者。輕小語聲。應言喉邊大種所造。叱吒哮吼號叫等聲。應言遍身大種所造。現見。此等舉身為掉動故。

若爾身受至便違正理者。此論雖有兩說　論主意存后師。破初師云。若說此聲從業所生大種生起。屬第三傳故非異熟者。身識相應受從業所生大種生故。謂業為第一傳。異熟大種為第二傳。由此大種生身受為第三傳。身受。同聲俱第三傳。應非異熟。若受。如聲非異熟者。便違正理。以宗說受通異熟故　正理救云。此難不然。非諸身受皆因大種。及因業生大種所發。亦非一切皆是異熟　然諸身受。亦因非業所生大種及非大種而得生故。謂身受起。要假身．觸．身識等緣。由此亦緣外大種起。非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：等流聲（與先前相似的聲音）。因此，允許有第四、第五傳聲，它們不是異熟（果報）。因此，不是異熟大造（由異熟果報產生的大種所造），所以不允許有第三傳聲。因此，《正理述》中第二位論師解釋說：『有其他論師說，聲音不是異熟，如何由異熟大種所造？』因此，應該允許聲音屬於第四傳、第五傳，所以不是異熟。意思是，從業（業力）產生異熟大種，從此傳生長養大種，此又傳生等流大種。長養大種發出長養聲，等流大種發出等流聲。』又解釋說，這位論師是另一種解釋。《婆沙》第一百一十八卷中，也有第三、第五傳，與此論相同。又《婆沙》第一百二十七卷說：『問：諸有情類所發出的聲音，應當說是何處的大種所造？』有說：『喉邊的大種所造。』有說：『心邊的大種所造。』有說：『臍邊的大種所造。』評論說：『總的來說，此聲由一切身體支分的大種所造。若分別來說，輕小語聲，應該說是喉邊的大種所造。叱吒、哮吼、號叫等聲，應該說是遍身的大種所造。』現在看到，這些聲音發出時，全身都在掉動。『如果這樣，身受（身體感受）就違背了《正理》』，此論雖然有兩種說法，但論主的意圖在於后一位論師，駁斥前一位論師說：『如果說此聲從業所生的大種生起，屬於第三傳，所以不是異熟，那麼身識相應的受，從業所生的大種而生，業為第一傳，異熟大種為第二傳，由此大種生出身受為第三傳。身受與聲音同為第三傳，應該不是異熟。如果受像聲音一樣不是異熟，就違背了《正理》，因為宗義說受通於異熟。』《正理》辯護說：『這個責難不成立。不是所有的身受都因為大種，以及因為業生的大種所發。也不是一切都是異熟。』然而，諸身受，也因為非業所生的大種以及非大種而得生。意思是，身受的生起，需要依靠身、觸、身識等緣，因此也依靠外在的大種而生起，並非...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Equal-flow sound.' Therefore, it is permissible to say that there are fourth and fifth transmissions of sound that are not Vipāka (result of karma). Therefore, it is not Vipāka-great-produced (produced by the great elements resulting from Vipāka), so it is not permissible to have a third transmission of sound. Therefore, the second teacher in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra explains: 'Some other teachers say that sound is not Vipāka; how can it be produced by Vipāka-great-elements?' Therefore, it should be permissible to say that sound belongs to the fourth and fifth transmissions, so it is not Vipāka. This means that from karma arises Vipāka-great-elements, from this transmission grow nourishing great-elements, and from this again arises equal-flow great-elements. Nourishing great-elements produce nourishing sound, and equal-flow great-elements produce equal-flow sound. It is also explained that this teacher has another interpretation. In Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume one hundred and eighteen, there are also third and fifth transmissions, which are the same as this treatise. Furthermore, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume one hundred and twenty-seven, says: 'Question: The sounds produced by sentient beings, where should it be said that they are produced by great-elements?' Some say: 'Produced by the great-elements at the throat.' Some say: 'Produced by the great-elements at the heart.' Some say: 'Produced by the great-elements at the navel.' The commentary says: 'Generally speaking, this sound is produced by the great-elements of all parts of the body. If speaking separately, light and small speech should be said to be produced by the great-elements at the throat. Sounds of scolding, roaring, howling, and screaming should be said to be produced by the great-elements throughout the body.' It is now seen that when these sounds are produced, the whole body is moving. 'If so, bodily feeling (vedanā) would contradict the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra.' Although this treatise has two views, the author's intention is with the latter teacher, refuting the former teacher, saying: 'If it is said that this sound arises from the great-elements produced by karma, belonging to the third transmission, so it is not Vipāka, then the feeling associated with bodily consciousness arises from the great-elements produced by karma. Karma is the first transmission, Vipāka-great-elements are the second transmission, and from these great-elements arises bodily feeling as the third transmission. Bodily feeling and sound are both in the third transmission, so they should not be Vipāka. If feeling, like sound, is not Vipāka, then it contradicts the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, because the doctrine says that feeling is common to Vipāka.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra defends: 'This objection is not valid. Not all bodily feelings are because of great-elements, and because of great-elements produced by karma. Nor are all of them Vipāka.' However, bodily feelings also arise because of great-elements not produced by karma and because of non-great-elements. This means that the arising of bodily feeling requires relying on conditions such as body, touch, and bodily consciousness, and therefore also relies on external great-elements, not...

要待業所感大生。于理無違。故通異熟　正理救意云。謂身受生非皆因大種。亦假非大種身．觸．身識等緣。設有因大種者。又非但因業生大種。謂亦因非業等流．長養大種生。設因業生大種者。又體非唯是異熟。亦通善．惡等。由此三義不定故通異熟。意救第三傳　若作俱舍師破云。汝若言身受從大種．非大種生故。通異熟。聲唯大種生。不通異熟者。色亦唯從大種生。應不通異熟　汝若言身受從異熟．長養．等流大種生。通異熟者。汝亦許聲從此三生。應通異熟　汝若言身受異熟大種生者。亦非一切皆是異熟。有通善．惡者。我亦非言一切身受。從異熟大種生者。皆是異熟。亦通善．惡。今此中破。且據身受是異熟者。從業所生大種生者為難。汝若言聲屬第三傳非異熟者。此第三傳非為定證。為如異熟身受。屬第三傳故。聲是異熟。為如善．惡身受。屬第三傳故。聲非異熟。我以不定出汝過失。言身受不定故通異熟。豈不徒言。竟不救難。故聲非屬第三傳也。初師既破。后師還立　又正理論救第三傳云。豈不如從無記大種發善．惡聲。從有執受發無執受。從身境界發耳境界。如是若從異熟大種發非異熟。有何相違　若作俱舍師破。大種造色理實無定。此異熟大種所發之聲。既非異熟。為是何等。若是長養。理應用

彼長養大造。若是等流。理應用彼等流大造。有何所以異熟大造。

八無礙者至非所長養者。釋第三．第四句　前後均等名等。流類相似名流。或果續因名流　諸異熟生雖亦從同類起。為顯別相廢總論別但名異熟。異熟不攝方名等流。據用長養亦通無色。此約體說故無長養。

余謂餘四至有等流性者。此釋餘三可知。

實唯法者至獨名有實者此釋實唯法　以此準。實唯是無為。

意法意識至名為法界者。此釋第六句　意．法．意識有一剎那。謂初無漏苦法忍品。非等流故名一剎那。此說究竟不從同類因生者名一剎那　余有為法無非等流　苦忍俱心名意界．意識界。望后名意。望前名意識　余俱起法。即相應等名為法界　初苦忍言顯取現忍。故正理云．此說正現行亦非等流者。問何故但取現忍非取未來。解云。現行苦忍非是等流其義決定。未來苦忍雖在凡位非是等流。若至聖位住不生者。即是現忍等流果故非是剎那。其義不決　問如上忍現行。未來下忍住不生法。非等流攝應是剎那。如何但取現忍。解云。苦忍名一剎那。由具二義。一者現行。二者非等流。如不生下忍。雖非等流而闕現行。如苦法智等。雖有現行闕非等流。如不生上忍。二義並闕。余隨所應準此通釋　若依正理。五類有兩解。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『彼長養大造』（由其滋養而生的大種）。如果是『等流』（性質相似的因果相續），理應使用『彼等流大造』（與其等流相似的大種）。為什麼會是『異熟大造』（由異熟果報產生的大種）呢？

『八無礙者至非所長養者』。解釋第三、第四句：前後相等叫做『等』，流類相似叫做『流』。或者說，果相續于因叫做『流』。各種異熟所生的大種雖然也從同類因產生，但爲了顯示其差別相，捨棄總的方面而只論述其差別，所以只稱為『異熟』。『異熟』不包含的才叫做『等流』。就作用而言，『長養』也通於無色界。這裡是從本體上說的，所以沒有『長養』。

『余謂餘四至有等流性者』。這解釋了其餘三種大種，可以類推得知。

『實唯法者至獨名有實者』。這解釋了『實唯法』（真實存在的只有法）。以此類推，真實存在的只有無為法。

『意法意識至名為法界者』。這解釋了第六句：意、法、意識只有一個剎那。指的是最初的無漏苦法忍品（Kṣānti-jñāna，忍智）。因為它不是等流，所以稱為『一剎那』。這裡說的是究竟不從同類因所生的才叫做『一剎那』。其餘的有為法沒有不是等流的。苦忍俱生的心叫做意界、意識界。相對於後者叫做意，相對於前者叫做意識。其餘俱起的法，即相應等等，叫做『法界』。初苦忍的說法是爲了顯示選取現行的忍。所以《正理》中說：『這裡說的是正在現行的，也不是等流。』問：為什麼只取現行的忍，而不取未來的忍？解釋說：現行的苦忍不是等流，這個意義是確定的。未來的苦忍雖然在凡夫位，也不是等流。如果到了聖位，安住于不生法，那就是現行的忍的等流果，所以不是剎那，這個意義是不確定的。問：像上面的忍現行，未來的下忍安住于不生法，不屬於等流，應該是剎那，為什麼只取現行的忍？解釋說：苦忍被稱為一剎那，因為它具有兩種含義：一是現行，二是非等流。像不生下忍，雖然不是等流，但缺少現行。像苦法智等等，雖然有現行，但缺少非等流。像不生上忍，兩種含義都缺少。其餘的可以根據情況類推解釋。如果依據《正理》，五類有兩種解釋。

【English Translation】 English version: 'They nourish and create the great elements' (mahābhūta, the great elements produced by their nourishment). If it is 'equal flow' (samatā-niṣyanda, the continuous flow of similar causes and effects), it should use 'those equal flow great elements' (those great elements similar to their equal flow). Why are they 'vipāka great elements' (the great elements produced by the result of vipāka, karmic retribution)?

'The eight unobstructed ones to those not nourished'. Explaining the third and fourth sentences: Being equal before and after is called 'equal' (samatā), being similar in kind is called 'flow' (niṣyanda). Or, the effect continuing from the cause is called 'flow'. Although the various vipāka-born great elements also arise from similar causes, in order to show their difference, the general aspect is abandoned and only the difference is discussed, so they are only called 'vipāka'. What 'vipāka' does not include is called 'equal flow'. In terms of function, 'nourishment' (poṣaṇa) also applies to the formless realm (arūpadhātu). This is spoken from the perspective of the substance, so there is no 'nourishment'.

'The remaining four to having the nature of equal flow'. This explains the remaining three great elements, which can be understood by analogy.

'Reality is only dharma to uniquely named as real'. This explains 'reality is only dharma' (vastu-dharmamātra, reality exists only as dharma). By analogy, only unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) are real.

'Mind, object, consciousness to named as dharma-dhātu'. This explains the sixth sentence: Mind (manas), object (dharma), and consciousness (vijñāna) have only one instant (kṣaṇa). This refers to the initial undefiled Kṣānti-jñāna (忍智, knowledge of forbearance) of the苦法忍品 (kṣānti-dharma-duḥkha, forbearance regarding the dharma of suffering). Because it is not equal flow, it is called 'one instant'. Here it is said that what ultimately does not arise from a similar cause is called 'one instant'. The remaining conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) are all equal flow. The mind arising together with the forbearance of suffering is called the mind-element (manodhātu), the consciousness-element (vijñānadhātu). Relative to the latter, it is called mind; relative to the former, it is called consciousness. The remaining co-arising dharmas, that is, those that are associated, etc., are called 'dharma-dhātu' (法界, the element of dharma). The statement of initial forbearance of suffering is to show that the currently active forbearance is selected. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'Here it is said that what is currently active is also not equal flow.' Question: Why only take the currently active forbearance and not the future forbearance? The explanation is: the currently active forbearance of suffering is not equal flow, and this meaning is certain. Although the future forbearance of suffering is in the position of an ordinary person, it is also not equal flow. If one reaches the position of a sage and abides in the unarisen dharma, then that is the equal flow result of the currently active forbearance, so it is not an instant, and this meaning is uncertain. Question: Like the above forbearance being currently active, the future lower forbearance abiding in the unarisen dharma, not belonging to equal flow, should be an instant, why only take the currently active forbearance? The explanation is: the forbearance of suffering is called one instant because it has two meanings: one is currently active, and the other is not equal flow. Like the unarisen lower forbearance, although it is not equal flow, it lacks being currently active. Like the knowledge of the dharma of suffering, etc., although it is currently active, it lacks being not equal flow. Like the unarisen higher forbearance, both meanings are lacking. The rest can be explained by analogy according to the circumstances. If based on the Nyāyānusāra, the five categories have two explanations.

一解同此論。又一解云。復有餘師。此中異說。謂一切法皆有實事有實相故　除無為法皆一剎那。速謝滅故　除初無漏心．及助伴余有為法。皆是等流　十色少分是所長養　十七少分是異熟生　由此眼等五內色根。各有二種。謂所長養。及異熟生。雖有餘三。而無別性。義雜亂故所以不說。余皆準此　聲界有二五識亦然　意．意識三　色等亦爾　法界有四除所長養。◎

◎如是已說至獨俱得非等者。此下第十五得．成就等門　獨得。謂兩單句。俱得。謂第三句。非謂第四句。等謂等取成就等。此中總明得．成就。舍．不成。如婆沙具說。恐繁不述。總復言等　問得與成就何別。舍與不成何別。解云各別不同。若法今時創至生相爾時名得。若流至現方名成就。得時不名成就。成就時不名得　故正理十二云。豈不盡智于成佛時亦不名得。況滅盡定。以諸菩薩住金剛喻三摩地時名得盡智。得體生時名為得故正理既云得體生時名得。故知。法至生相名得。流至現在方名成就　設有文言法至生相名成就者。於此得中立成就名　設有文言法至現在名得。于成就中立得名故　若法先時相續恒起。今忽遇緣不至生相。現在猶成爾時名舍。至第二念。現成法謝方名不成　舍時未名不成。不成時不名為舍。

如苦法忍至生相。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一種解釋與此相同。另一種解釋說，還有其他論師，對此有不同的說法，認為一切法都有真實的事體和真實的體相。除了無為法之外，一切有為法都是一剎那間迅速消逝的。除了最初的無漏心以及它的助伴之外，其餘的有為法都是等流（samanantara-pratyaya，相似相續的因果關係）。十種色法中的少部分是所長養（āhāraja，由食物滋養產生）的，十七種色法中的少部分是異熟生（vipāka-ja，由業力成熟產生）的。因此，眼等五種內在的色根，各有兩種，即所長養的和異熟生的。雖然還有其餘三種（地、水、火），但沒有特別的性質，意義混雜，所以不說。其餘的都可以依此類推。聲界有兩種，五識也是如此。意、意識有三種，色等也是這樣。法界有四種，除了所長養的。

如上已經說了『至獨俱得非等者』。下面是第十五個門，關於得（prāpti，獲得）、成就（siddhi，成就）等。『獨得』指的是兩個單句，『俱得』指的是第三句，『非』指的是第四句。『等』指的是等取成就等。這裡總括地說明得、成就、舍（prahāṇa，捨棄）、不成（aprāpti，未得）。詳細的說明在《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）中，因為內容繁多，所以不在這裡敘述。總而言之，『等』字... 問：得與成就有什麼區別？舍與不成有什麼區別？答：各有不同。如果一個法在現在這個時刻，剛剛產生，呈現出生的狀態，那麼就叫做『得』。如果這個法持續到現在，呈現出現在的狀態，那麼就叫做『成就』。得到的時候不叫做成就，成就的時候不叫做得到。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第十二卷說：『難道盡智（ksaya-jñāna，知滅盡之智）在成佛的時候也不叫做得嗎？更何況是滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡受想的禪定）？』因為諸位菩薩在住于金剛喻三摩地（vajropama-samādhi，如金剛般堅固的禪定）的時候，叫做得到盡智。得到的狀態產生的時候叫做得。正理既然說得到的狀態產生的時候叫做得，所以知道，法呈現出生的狀態叫做得，持續到現在才叫做成就。如果有的經文說，法呈現出生的狀態叫做成就，那麼就是在『得』之中立了『成就』的名字。如果有的經文說，法持續到現在叫做得，那麼就是在『成就』之中立了『得』的名字。如果一個法先前一直相續不斷地生起，現在忽然遇到因緣，沒有呈現出生的狀態，現在仍然成就，那麼就叫做『舍』。到了第二念，現在成就的法消失了，才叫做『不成』。舍的時候不叫做不成，不成的時候不叫做舍。

例如苦法忍（kṣānti，對苦諦的忍）呈現出生的狀態。

【English Translation】 English version One explanation agrees with this. Another explanation says that there are other teachers who have different views on this, believing that all dharmas have real entities and real characteristics. Except for unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma), all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) are momentary and quickly perish. Except for the initial undefiled mind (anāsrava-citta) and its associates, the remaining conditioned dharmas are all equiflow (samanantara-pratyaya). A small portion of the ten types of form (rūpa) are nourished (āhāraja), and a small portion of the seventeen are resultantly born (vipāka-ja). Therefore, the five internal sense organs such as the eye each have two types, namely, nourished and resultantly born. Although there are three others (earth, water, fire), they do not have special characteristics, and their meanings are mixed, so they are not mentioned. The rest can be inferred accordingly. The sound realm has two, and so do the five consciousnesses. Mind and consciousness have three, and so do form, etc. The dharma realm has four, except for the nourished.

As mentioned above, 'to the exclusive and concurrent attainment of the non-equal.' Below is the fifteenth section, concerning attainment (prāpti), accomplishment (siddhi), etc. 'Exclusive attainment' refers to the two single clauses, 'concurrent attainment' refers to the third clause, and 'non-' refers to the fourth clause. 'Etc.' refers to including accomplishment, etc. This section summarizes attainment, accomplishment, abandonment (prahāṇa), and non-attainment (aprāpti). Detailed explanations are in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, which are not described here due to their complexity. In summary, the word 'etc.'... Question: What is the difference between attainment and accomplishment? What is the difference between abandonment and non-attainment? Answer: They are different. If a dharma at this moment is newly produced, showing the state of being born, then it is called 'attainment'. If this dharma continues to the present, showing the present state, then it is called 'accomplishment'. Attainment is not called accomplishment, and accomplishment is not called attainment. Therefore, the twelfth volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Isn't exhaustive knowledge (ksaya-jñāna) not called attainment even when becoming a Buddha? How much more so is cessation attainment (nirodha-samāpatti)?' Because when the Bodhisattvas dwell in the vajra-like samadhi (vajropama-samādhi), it is called attaining exhaustive knowledge. When the state of attainment arises, it is called attainment. Since the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that when the state of attainment arises, it is called attainment, it is known that when a dharma shows the state of being born, it is called attainment, and continuing to the present is called accomplishment. If some texts say that when a dharma shows the state of being born, it is called accomplishment, then it is establishing the name of 'accomplishment' within 'attainment'. If some texts say that when a dharma continues to the present, it is called attainment, then it is establishing the name of 'attainment' within 'accomplishment'. If a dharma has been continuously arising in the past, and now suddenly encounters conditions and does not show the state of being born, and is still accomplished in the present, then it is called 'abandonment'. When it reaches the second thought, and the dharma that is now accomplished disappears, then it is called 'non-attainment'. Abandonment is not called non-attainment, and non-attainment is not called abandonment.

For example, endurance of suffering (kṣānti) shows the state of being born.

爾時名得聖性不名成就。若流至現．名成就聖法不名得　如世第一法在現在時名舍異生性。不名不成就。若落謝過去方名不成就不名舍。

若正得聖性時．即舍異生性。此即得．舍同時。若成就聖法時。即不成就異生性。此即成．不成同時　如是余法準此應思　又應將成就時名得。將不成就時名舍。故正理五十六云。夫言得．舍。據將說故。又婆沙一百五十五云。謂諸異生位。乃至增上忍位。于無漏根非舍非得。非滅非起。住世第一法時。于無漏根非舍而得。非滅而起。若諸聖者住苦法智忍。乃至道法智時。于無漏根非舍而得。亦滅亦起。道類智忍時。于無漏根亦舍亦得。亦滅亦起　婆沙．正理更有多文不能具述　問若得。成就不同時者。何故婆沙一百六十二。云得唯在初。成就通初．后。解云。此據成就中自辨初．后。非據得初。以得之時未成就故。

有古德言。成通新．舊。得據新論不成通新．舊。舍據新論。得時即名成就。舍時即名不成者　此解謬矣。

論曰至謂除前相者。此明得也　謂生欲界胎．卵．濕生漸得眼根。簡異頓得。色根無記非成過．未。起時名得。識通三性。亦有前．后得。識先成故今不名得。雖有生盲．及漸舍眼等。欲界沒還生欲界等。名得眼．不得識。若從二定已上生欲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本爾時，名為『得聖性』（Gotten Holy Nature）但不名為『成就』（Accomplishment）。如果（聖法）流轉至現在，名為『成就聖法』（Accomplishment of Holy Dharma）但不名為『得』（Getting）。例如，世第一法（Worldly First Dharma）在現在時，名為『舍異生性』（Abandoning the nature of ordinary beings），不名為『不成就』（Non-accomplishment）。如果（世第一法）衰落過去，方名為『不成就』（Non-accomplishment），不名為『舍』（Abandoning）。如果正在獲得聖性時，即捨棄異生性。這即是『得』（Getting）、『舍』（Abandoning）同時。如果成就聖法時，即不成就異生性。這即是『成』（Accomplishment）、『不成』（Non-accomplishment）同時。像這樣，其餘的法也應依此來思考。又應當將成就時名為『得』（Getting），將不成就時名為『舍』（Abandoning）。所以《正理》（Abhidharmakosha-bhasya）第五十六卷說：『所謂得、舍，是就將來的情況來說的。』又《婆沙》（Mahavibhasa）第一百五十五卷說：『在異生位，乃至增上忍位（Superior Endurance），對於無漏根（Anasrava-indriya）非舍非得，非滅非起。住在世第一法時，對於無漏根非舍而得，非滅而起。如果諸聖者住在苦法智忍（Ksudra-dharma-jnana-ksanti），乃至道法智（Marga-dharma-jnana）時，對於無漏根非舍而得，亦滅亦起。道類智忍（Marga-anvaya-jnana-ksanti）時，對於無漏根亦舍亦得，亦滅亦起。』《婆沙》、《正理》還有很多經文不能全部敘述。問：如果得、成就不同時，為何《婆沙》第一百六十二卷說：『得唯在初，成就通初、后。』解釋說：『這是就成就中自己辨別初、后，不是就得的最初。因為得的時候未成就。』有古德說：『成通新、舊，得據新論，不成通新、舊，舍據新論。得時即名成就，舍時即名不成者。』這種解釋是錯誤的。《論》曰至謂除前相者。這是說明『得』（Getting）。即是說，生於欲界（Kamadhatu）的胎生、卵生、濕生眾生，逐漸獲得眼根（Eye-faculty），簡別于頓得。色根（Rupa-indriya）是無記性（Avyakrta），不是已成、未成。起時名為『得』（Getting）。識（Vijnana）通於三性（Tri-svabhava），也有前、后得。識先已成就，所以現在不名為『得』（Getting）。雖有生盲，以及逐漸捨棄眼等，欲界死後還生欲界等，名為得眼、不得識。如果從二定（Two Dhyanas）以上生於欲界

【English Translation】 English version At that time, it is called 'Gotten Holy Nature' but not called 'Accomplishment'. If it flows to the present, it is called 'Accomplishment of Holy Dharma' but not called 'Getting'. For example, Worldly First Dharma, in the present time, is called 'Abandoning the nature of ordinary beings', not called 'Non-accomplishment'. If it declines into the past, then it is called 'Non-accomplishment', not called 'Abandoning'. If one is in the process of obtaining Holy Nature, one is abandoning the nature of ordinary beings. This is 'Getting' and 'Abandoning' simultaneously. If one accomplishes Holy Dharma, one is not accomplishing the nature of ordinary beings. This is 'Accomplishment' and 'Non-accomplishment' simultaneously. Likewise, other dharmas should be considered in this way. Furthermore, one should call the time of accomplishment 'Getting', and the time of non-accomplishment 'Abandoning'. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya, volume 56, says: 'So-called getting and abandoning are spoken in terms of the future.' Also, the Mahavibhasa, volume 155, says: 'In the position of ordinary beings, up to the Superior Endurance, there is neither abandoning nor getting, neither cessation nor arising, with respect to the Anasrava-indriya (Root of Non-Outflow). When dwelling in the Worldly First Dharma, there is getting without abandoning, arising without cessation, with respect to the Anasrava-indriya. If the holy ones dwell in the Ksudra-dharma-jnana-ksanti (Endurance of the Knowledge of the Dharma of Suffering), up to the Marga-dharma-jnana (Knowledge of the Dharma of the Path), there is getting without abandoning, also cessation and arising, with respect to the Anasrava-indriya. At the time of Marga-anvaya-jnana-ksanti (Endurance of the Knowledge that Follows the Path), there is both abandoning and getting, also cessation and arising, with respect to the Anasrava-indriya.' The Mahavibhasa and Abhidharmakosha-bhasya have many more texts that cannot be fully narrated. Question: If getting and accomplishment are not simultaneous, why does the Mahavibhasa, volume 162, say: 'Getting is only at the beginning, accomplishment is common to both beginning and end.' The explanation is: 'This is distinguishing the beginning and end within accomplishment itself, not in terms of the beginning of getting. Because at the time of getting, there is no accomplishment.' Some ancient worthies say: 'Accomplishment is common to both new and old, getting is based on the new, non-accomplishment is common to both new and old, abandoning is based on the new. The time of getting is called accomplishment, the time of abandoning is called non-accomplishment.' This explanation is wrong. The Treatise says, 'Up to excluding the previous aspect.' This explains 'Getting'. That is to say, beings born in the Kamadhatu (Desire Realm) through womb-birth, egg-birth, and moisture-birth gradually obtain the Eye-faculty, distinguishing it from sudden getting. The Rupa-indriya (Form Faculty) is avyakrta (unspecified), neither accomplished nor unaccomplished. The time of arising is called 'Getting'. Vijnana (Consciousness) is common to the Tri-svabhava (Three Natures), and there is also prior and subsequent getting. Consciousness has already been accomplished, so it is not now called 'Getting'. Although there are those born blind, and those who gradually abandon the eye, and those who die in the Desire Realm and are reborn in the Desire Realm, it is called getting the eye, not getting consciousness. If one is born in the Desire Realm from the Two Dhyanas (Two Meditations) or above

界等中有初心。即名得識．不得眼。若無色沒生欲界等即眼．識俱得。以生欲界等不定故。約漸得眼說　又解。略而不論非皆舉盡　又解。漸得眼言亦攝此等　及從無色沒生上三定時中有初心。必得眼根名得眼。識未起故不名得　第二句。生二定等眼識現起。識現起故名得。現之言正。起之言生。識在生相名為現起。爾時名得。眼先成故不名得　及從二定等沒生下欲．初定時中有初心。必得識故名得識。從彼沒。顯正住死有。中有至生相時名生下地。爾時名得也。眼先成故不名得。

第三．第四句可知　應知。生上三地起下眼識。唯是無記故婆沙七十三云。此中眼識依自地眼緣下地色。容有二種謂除染污。緣自地色容有三種。若依上地眼唯無覆無記。善．染污眼識唯生自地容現在前。由此必定系屬生故　問生上三定起下三識。是何無記　解云。泛借起者。是威儀無記異熟生心非起異地。工巧上界無。泛借下識復非通果。故知威儀　問生上三定起下眼．耳二通。是何無記。解云雜心論主達摩多羅造對法藏論中說。天眼。耳通。是威儀無記。工巧唯欲不通上界。異熟非異地起。變化唯意。既非餘三。明知二通定威儀　此解不然。違理．教故。如下論云。色界威儀心。二十心中從五心生。謂自界五除通果心能生七心。

謂自界四除加行通果。欲界二染污。無色界一染污　若言二通。威儀心者。應生加行善心。如變化心由定引起。與定相生不與余心相生。二通亦爾。既由定引起還應與定相生不生余心　若說威儀能生於定。此即不然。違論文故。威儀定不能生加行　若言生上三定起下二通。非入于定。隨其所應入上三定生得等心　亦此不然生上起下。設許此解。如生欲界三乘無學起上二通。從何心出。既無煩惱不能出染。身生下地非能起上生得善心。不起異地生得善心。正理有文。如下當引。亦不能起異地聞慧。此慧由彼生得導引。既不能起生得善心。故聞慧心亦不能起。不起異地聞慧善心。婆沙有文。亦如下引。假設得起。聞慧亦不能生。以威儀心不能生加行善心故。修慧既是加行。威儀理亦不生。異熟生心非起異地。變化唯與定心相生。又上威儀不能生欲善及無覆。如廣心說。由斯徴責。故知。彼執天眼．耳通是威儀心。理亦不成立　又西方德光論師。集真論中說。眼．耳二通。是自性無記非四無記　此亦不然。諸論廣心唯說二十心。若言更有自性無記。應說有二十一心。故亦非理。今依正解。眼．耳二通四無記中通果無記。應知。通果名寬。變化等狹。如非得名寬。異生性等狹。既說二是通果攝。與定相生。即無妨矣　問二通若

是通果心攝。同化心者。諸論皆說二通變化三世成就。生上三定成下化心。未知。二通為成下不。若說成下。即不應言生上三定眼識現起方言得識。若不成下。與彼化心同是通果同是無記。何故成下化心不成二通。解云。生上三定成下二通。是通果故。如成化心。論不說成據泛借說　又解。生上三定不成下二通。通果有二。一在意識。其力強盛生上成下。如變化心。二在五識。其力稍劣不能成下。若系屬自地。依自地發者。即有三世得。如善習自地威儀。工巧有三世得諸論說二通。三世得者。據初定二通說。若生上三定起下異地二通。唯有法俱。如泛借下三識。及威儀心非是善習。唯法俱得。此論言不成下據此以說　問若生上地不成就下異地二通者。身在欲界離欲界染。應亦無有成上異地二通。然論說五通曾修離染得。既有離染得。明知亦有能成異地。何故生上不成下。生下得成上。解云。生下成上易故。成生上成下難故。不成　又解。生上三定。下地二通或成．不成。若串習者即成。若不串習者不成。以不定故不說成也。

等謂若有至謂除前相者。此明成就四句　第一句。生上三定。顯定成眼　眼識不起。顯不成識　第二句。謂生欲界。顯定成識　未得．已失。顯不成眼　第三句。謂生欲界。顯定成識　得眼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：通果心（神通的果報之心）能夠包含並影響其他心嗎？如果能夠同化其他心，那麼按照各種論著的說法，二通（天眼通和天耳通）能夠變化併成就過去、現在、未來三世。通過修習上三禪定可以成就下地的變化心。那麼，是否通過修習上三禪定也能成就下地的二通呢？如果說能夠成就下地的二通，那麼就不應該說只有在上三禪定中眼識現起時才能獲得識別能力。如果說不能成就下地的二通，那麼二通和變化心都是神通的果報，都是無記性（非善非惡），為什麼能夠成就下地的變化心卻不能成就下地的二通呢？解答：修習上三禪定能夠成就下地的二通，因為二通也是神通的果報，就像能夠成就變化心一樣。論著中沒有明確說能夠成就，只是泛泛地借用這種說法。另一種解答：修習上三禪定不能成就下地的二通。神通的果報有兩種：一種是在意識層面，其力量強大，能夠通過修習上地禪定成就下地神通，比如變化心；另一種是在五識層面，其力量稍弱，不能成就下地神通。如果是屬於自身所處的地界，依據自身地界而發起的，那麼就能獲得三世的果報，比如善於學習自身地界的威儀，工巧技藝也能獲得三世的果報。各種論著所說的二通能夠獲得三世的果報，是根據初禪的二通來說的。如果修習上三禪定而生起下地異地的二通，那麼就只有法俱得（與法相應而得），就像泛泛地借用下三識，以及威儀心並非是善習，只有法俱得。此論說不能成就下地二通，就是根據這種情況來說的。問：如果生於上地不能成就下地異地的二通，那麼身在欲界而遠離欲界染污，也應該不能成就上地異地的二通。然而，論著中說五通（天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿命通、神足通）是通過曾經的修行和遠離染污而獲得的。既然有通過遠離染污而獲得的說法，就說明也能成就異地神通。為什麼修習上地禪定不能成就下地神通，而生於下地卻能成就上地神通呢？解答：生於下地成就上地神通容易，而修習上地禪定成就下地神通困難，所以不能成就。另一種解答：修習上三禪定，下地二通或者能夠成就，或者不能成就。如果經常串習，就能成就；如果不經常串習，就不能成就。因為不確定，所以沒有明確說能夠成就。

『等謂若有至謂除前相者』：這說明了成就的四種情況。第一句：生於上三禪定，說明禪定能夠成就眼識。眼識不起，說明不能成就識別能力。第二句：生於欲界，說明禪定能夠成就識別能力。未得或已失，說明不能成就眼識。第三句：生於欲界，說明禪定能夠成就識別能力。得眼（獲得眼識）。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Can the citta (mind) of the resultant power of abhijñā (supernormal knowledges), encompass and influence other cittas? If it can assimilate other cittas, then according to various treatises, the two abhijñās (divine eye and divine ear) can transform and accomplish the three times (past, present, and future). By cultivating the three upper dhyānas (meditative absorptions), one can accomplish the transformation citta of the lower realm. Then, can one also accomplish the two abhijñās of the lower realm through cultivating the three upper dhyānas? If it is said that one can accomplish the two abhijñās of the lower realm, then it should not be said that only when the eye-consciousness arises in the three upper dhyānas can one obtain the ability to recognize. If it is said that one cannot accomplish the two abhijñās of the lower realm, then both the two abhijñās and the transformation citta are the result of abhijñā, and both are indeterminate (neither good nor evil). Why can one accomplish the transformation citta of the lower realm but not the two abhijñās of the lower realm? Answer: Cultivating the three upper dhyānas can accomplish the two abhijñās of the lower realm, because the two abhijñās are also the result of abhijñā, just like accomplishing the transformation citta. The treatises do not explicitly say that one can accomplish it, but rather vaguely borrow this statement. Another answer: Cultivating the three upper dhyānas cannot accomplish the two abhijñās of the lower realm. There are two kinds of results of abhijñā: one is at the level of consciousness, whose power is strong and can accomplish the abhijñās of the lower realm through cultivating the dhyānas of the upper realm, such as the transformation citta; the other is at the level of the five consciousnesses, whose power is slightly weaker and cannot accomplish the abhijñās of the lower realm. If it belongs to one's own realm and is initiated based on one's own realm, then one can obtain the results of the three times, such as being good at learning the deportment of one's own realm, and skillful techniques can also obtain the results of the three times. The various treatises say that the two abhijñās can obtain the results of the three times, which is based on the two abhijñās of the first dhyāna. If one cultivates the three upper dhyānas and arises the two abhijñās of a different realm in the lower realm, then there is only dharma-samanantara (simultaneous attainment with the dharma), just like vaguely borrowing the lower three consciousnesses, and the deportment citta is not a good habit, only dharma-samanantara is obtained. This treatise says that one cannot accomplish the two abhijñās of the lower realm, which is based on this situation. Question: If one who is born in the upper realm cannot accomplish the two abhijñās of a different realm in the lower realm, then one who is in the desire realm and is far from the defilements of the desire realm should also not be able to accomplish the two abhijñās of a different realm in the upper realm. However, the treatises say that the five abhijñās (divine eye, divine ear, mind-reading, recollection of past lives, and magical powers) are obtained through past cultivation and being far from defilements. Since there is a saying that one can obtain them through being far from defilements, it shows that one can also accomplish abhijñās of a different realm. Why can't one accomplish the abhijñās of the lower realm by cultivating the dhyānas of the upper realm, but one can accomplish the abhijñās of the upper realm by being born in the lower realm? Answer: It is easy to accomplish the abhijñās of the upper realm by being born in the lower realm, but it is difficult to accomplish the abhijñās of the lower realm by cultivating the dhyānas of the upper realm, so one cannot accomplish them. Another answer: By cultivating the three upper dhyānas, the two abhijñās of the lower realm may or may not be accomplished. If one is often familiar with them, then one can accomplish them; if one is not often familiar with them, then one cannot accomplish them. Because it is uncertain, it is not explicitly said that one can accomplish them.

'等謂若有至謂除前相者' (Etc., meaning 'if there is' to 'meaning excluding the previous characteristics'): This explains the four situations of accomplishment. The first sentence: Being born in the three upper dhyānas, it shows that dhyāna can accomplish eye-consciousness. Eye-consciousness does not arise, it shows that one cannot accomplish the ability to recognize. The second sentence: Being born in the desire realm, it shows that dhyāna can accomplish the ability to recognize. Not yet obtained or already lost, it shows that one cannot accomplish eye-consciousness. The third sentence: Being born in the desire realm, it shows that dhyāna can accomplish the ability to recognize. 得眼 (Obtaining eye-consciousness).

不失。復顯成眼。

生梵世者。顯眼．及識必定成就　生上三定。顯定成眼。正見色言。復顯成識　既言正見色時。明知法現名成。

如是眼界至總復言等者。此下類釋　若以眼對色。得有二句。若得色必得眼。以中有蘊必具根故。有得眼不得色。謂生欲界漸得眼根　成就亦有二句。若成就眼必成就色。有成就色不成就眼。謂生欲界未得眼根及得已失　若將識對色得有四句。有得識不得色。謂生上三定眼識現在前。及上三定沒生欲界．及梵世時。有得色不得識。謂無色沒生上三定　俱得。謂無色沒生欲界．及梵世時　俱不得。謂除前相。

成就有二句。若成就識定成就色。有成就色不成就識。謂生上三定眼識不起。故言得成就等如理應思　於六．三中且辨初三相望得成。后五種三。得與成就。並互相望。及舍．不成等。皆應思擇。廣如婆沙。不能繁述。是故頌復言等。

如是已說至外謂此餘者。此下第十六內外門　泛明內外略有三種。故婆沙一百四十八云。然內外法差別有三。一相續內外謂在自身名內。在他身及非情數名為外。二處內外。謂心．心所所依名內。所緣名外。三情．非情內外。謂有情數法名內。非情數法名外　今此論中約處內外。心名為我。是我依根即名為內。故言十二。外謂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

不失（不會失去）。重新顯現成為眼根。

如果眾生投生到梵世（色界天的第一層），那麼顯現的眼根和意識必定成就。如果投生到上三禪定（色界天的后三層），那麼顯現的禪定成就眼根。如果正確地看到色法，那麼重新顯現成就意識。既然說『正確地看到色法』，那麼明顯知道法塵顯現，名稱成就。

像這樣，從眼界到總復言等等，這是下面的分類解釋。如果用眼根對照色法，可以得到兩種情況：如果得到色法，必定得到眼根，因為中有蘊（中陰身）必定具有根。有得到眼根而沒有得到色法的情況，是指投生到欲界，逐漸得到眼根。

成就也有兩種情況：如果成就眼根，必定成就色法。有成就色法而沒有成就眼根的情況，是指投生到欲界，還沒有得到眼根，或者已經得到但又失去了。如果將意識對照色法，可以得到四種情況：有得到意識而沒有得到色法的情況，是指投生到上三禪定，眼識現在前，以及從上三禪定死亡后投生到欲界和梵世的時候。有得到色法而沒有得到意識的情況，是指從無色界死亡后投生到上三禪定。俱得（同時得到）的情況，是指從無色界死亡后投生到欲界和梵世的時候。俱不得（同時得不到）的情況，是指排除前面所說的情況。

成就只有兩種情況：如果成就意識，必定成就色法。有成就色法而沒有成就意識的情況，是指投生到上三禪定，眼識不起作用。所以說得到成就等等，應該如理思維。在六、三中，先辨別最初的三種相互觀望的得到和成就。後面的五種三，得到和成就，以及互相觀望，和捨棄、不成就等等，都應該仔細思考。詳細內容如同《婆沙論》所說，不能在此繁瑣地敘述。所以用頌詞再次說明等等。

像這樣已經說了，到外謂此余等等，這是下面的第十六內外門。泛泛地說明內外，大概有三種。所以《婆沙論》第一百四十八卷說，內外法的差別有三種：一是相續內外，在自身叫做內，在他人身和非情數叫做外；二是處內外，心和心所所依之處叫做內，所緣之境叫做外；三是情與非情內外，有情數的法叫做內，非情數的法叫做外。現在這個論中，按照處內外來區分。心稱為我，是我所依的根就叫做內，所以說是十二處。外是指……

【English Translation】 English version:

Not lost (will not be lost). Re-manifests as the eye faculty.

Those born in the Brahma world (the first level of the Form Realm) will certainly have the manifested eye faculty and consciousness accomplished. Those born in the upper three Dhyana states (the last three levels of the Form Realm) will have the manifested Dhyana accomplishing the eye faculty. If one correctly sees form, then re-manifestation accomplishes consciousness. Since it is said 'correctly sees form,' it is clearly known that the dharma-dhātu appears, and the name is accomplished.

Like this, from the eye-dhātu to the general re-statement, etc., this is the following classification explanation. If the eye is paired with form, two statements can be obtained: if form is obtained, the eye must be obtained, because the intermediate existence (antarābhava) must have faculties. There is obtaining the eye but not obtaining form, which refers to being born in the Desire Realm and gradually obtaining the eye faculty.

Accomplishment also has two statements: if the eye faculty is accomplished, form must be accomplished. There is accomplishing form but not accomplishing the eye faculty, which refers to being born in the Desire Realm and not yet obtaining the eye faculty, or having obtained it and then lost it. If consciousness is paired with form, four statements can be obtained: there is obtaining consciousness but not obtaining form, which refers to being born in the upper three Dhyana states, where eye-consciousness is present, and when dying from the upper three Dhyana states and being born in the Desire Realm and the Brahma world. There is obtaining form but not obtaining consciousness, which refers to dying from the Formless Realm and being born in the upper three Dhyana states. Obtaining both (simultaneously) refers to dying from the Formless Realm and being born in the Desire Realm and the Brahma world. Not obtaining both (simultaneously) refers to excluding the aforementioned situations.

Accomplishment only has two statements: if consciousness is accomplished, form must be accomplished. There is accomplishing form but not accomplishing consciousness, which refers to being born in the upper three Dhyana states, where eye-consciousness does not arise. Therefore, it is said that obtaining accomplishment, etc., should be contemplated reasonably. Among the six and three, first distinguish the obtaining and accomplishment of the initial three mutual observations. The latter five types of three, obtaining and accomplishment, as well as mutual observation, and abandonment, non-accomplishment, etc., should all be carefully considered. Detailed content is as described in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, which cannot be elaborately narrated here. Therefore, the verse is used to restate, etc.

Like this has been said, to 'outer, meaning this remainder,' etc., this is the following sixteenth inner and outer gate. Generally explaining inner and outer, there are roughly three types. Therefore, the 148th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that there are three differences between inner and outer dharmas: first, the inner and outer of the continuum, what is in oneself is called inner, what is in another's body and non-sentient things are called outer; second, the inner and outer of location, the basis of mind and mental factors is called inner, the object of cognition is called outer; third, the inner and outer of sentient and non-sentient, dharmas of sentient beings are called inner, dharmas of non-sentient things are called outer. In this treatise, the distinction is made according to the inner and outer of location. The mind is called 'I,' and the root on which 'I' relies is called inner, so it is said to be the twelve āyatanas. Outer refers to...

此余色等六境。非我依故。雖諸根．識亦通所緣。約處以明。所依常定但名為內。不據為境名為外也。

我體既無內外何有者。問。

我執依止至故說名外者。答　我執。謂我見　依止。謂心。心與我見相應故。名我執依止。心是我依假名為我。余心雖非我見相應。是彼心類故亦得我名　又解。心是我執所緣故名我執依止。雖諸有漏皆我見緣。以心是勝多執為我。余無漏心雖我不緣。是彼心類故亦得我名　又解。我執有二。一者迷執。謂即我見。但緣有漏。二者取執。謂一切心。于境自在執取前境皆名我執。二執所緣雖通諸法。心強勝故偏名依止。故於此心假說為我。此解依止遍通諸心。可無妨矣　復引經證。前經調我。后經伏心。故知於心假說為我　眼等十二為此假我所依。親近故說名內。色等六境。為此假我所緣疏遠故說名外。雖諸心所。依彼心王同一生等。不名內者。異類相望非所依故不名為親。所依與心。異類相望皆為所依。故名親近可名為內　又正理第六解心為我云。恒于自內境自在行故　若作俱舍師破。不異我前第三解也。

若爾六識至非心依故者。難　若爾。現．未六識。未至過去意位。非心依故應不名內。

至意位時至無改易故者。通　六識至過去意位時。不失六識界。現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『此余色等六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法六種外境）。非我（ātman，真我）所依賴的。』雖然諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根）和識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識六識）也都能作為所緣（ālambana，認識的對象），但這裡是根據它們所處的位置來區分內外。作為所依賴的，通常是固定的，所以稱為『內』。不作為認識的對象，所以稱為『外』。

問：『如果我（ātman，真我）的本體沒有內外之分，那麼內外之說又從何而來呢？』

答：『因為我執（ātma-graha，對自我的執著）依止於心（citta，心識），所以說心是「外」。』我執，指的是我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi，認為有我的邪見）。依止，指的是心。心與我見相應，所以稱為我執的依止。心是我所依賴的，所以假名為我。其餘的心雖然不與我見相應，但因為是同類的心，所以也可以稱為我。另一種解釋是，心是我執所緣的對象，所以稱為我執的依止。雖然所有有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）的心都可能成為我見的所緣，但因為心是最主要的，所以大多執著於心為我。其餘無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）的心雖然不是我所緣的對象，但因為是同類的心，所以也可以稱為我。還有一種解釋是，我執有兩種：一種是迷執，也就是我見，只緣于有漏法；另一種是取執，也就是一切心，對於境界自在地執取，將前面的境界都執著為我。這兩種執著所緣的對象雖然包括一切法，但因為心是最強勝的，所以偏稱為依止。因此，對於心假名為我。這種解釋認為依止遍通於一切心，應該沒有妨礙。再引用經文來證明，前面的經文說調伏我，後面的經文說調伏心，所以知道對於心假名為我。眼等十二處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根和色、聲、香、味、觸、法六境）是這個假我的所依，因為親近所以稱為『內』。色等六境是這個假我的所緣，因為疏遠所以稱為『外』。雖然諸心所（caitta，心的附屬物），依彼心王（citta-rāja，主要的心）同一生等，但不稱為『內』，因為異類相望，不是所依賴的，所以不稱為親近。所依與心，異類相望，都是所依賴的，所以稱為親近，可以稱為『內』。又，《正理》第六卷解釋心為我，說：『恒常在自己的內在境界自在執行。』如果按照俱舍師的觀點來破斥，就與前面第三種解釋沒有區別了。

難：『如果這樣，那麼現在和未來的六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識），在未到達過去意位（mano-dhātu，意識的階段）時，因為不是心的所依，所以不應該稱為「內」。』

通：『六識到達過去意位時，不失去六識的界限，現在』

【English Translation】 English version: 'These remaining six external realms, such as form (rūpa), etc., are not what the 'I' (ātman) relies on.' Although the six sense faculties (indriya) and the six consciousnesses (vijñāna) can also be objects of cognition (ālambana), here, the distinction between internal and external is made based on their location. What is relied upon is usually fixed, so it is called 'internal.' What is not an object of cognition is called 'external.'

Question: 'If the essence of the 'I' (ātman) has no internal or external division, then where does the concept of internal and external come from?'

Answer: 'Because attachment to the 'I' (ātma-graha) relies on the mind (citta), it is said that the mind is 'external'.' Attachment to the 'I' refers to the view of the 'I' (ātma-dṛṣṭi). Reliance refers to the mind. Because the mind is associated with the view of the 'I', it is called the reliance of attachment to the 'I'. The mind is what I rely on, so it is nominally called 'I'. Although other minds are not associated with the view of the 'I', they are of the same kind, so they can also be called 'I'. Another explanation is that the mind is the object of attachment to the 'I', so it is called the reliance of attachment to the 'I'. Although all defiled (sāsrava) minds can be objects of the view of the 'I', because the mind is the most important, it is mostly clung to as the 'I'. Although other undefiled (anāsrava) minds are not objects of my cognition, they are of the same kind, so they can also be called 'I'. Yet another explanation is that there are two kinds of attachment to the 'I': one is delusional attachment, which is the view of the 'I', which only relates to defiled dharmas; the other is grasping attachment, which is all minds, which freely grasp at objects and cling to the preceding objects as the 'I'. Although the objects of these two kinds of attachment include all dharmas, because the mind is the strongest, it is preferentially called reliance. Therefore, the mind is nominally called 'I'. This explanation considers reliance to be pervasive in all minds, which should be no obstacle. Furthermore, scriptures are cited as proof. The previous scripture says to subdue the 'I', and the later scripture says to subdue the mind, so it is known that the mind is nominally called 'I'. The twelve āyatanas (the six sense faculties and the six sense objects) are what this nominal 'I' relies on, and because they are close, they are called 'internal'. The six external realms, such as form, are what this nominal 'I' cognizes, and because they are distant, they are called 'external'. Although the mental factors (caitta) rely on the mind-king (citta-rāja) and have the same arising, etc., they are not called 'internal' because they are of different kinds and are not what is relied on, so they are not called close. What is relied on and the mind, being of different kinds, are all what is relied on, so they are called close and can be called 'internal'. Furthermore, the sixth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya explains the mind as the 'I', saying: 'It constantly operates freely in its own internal realm.' If it is refuted according to the view of the Kośa master, it is no different from the third explanation above.

Objection: 'If so, then the present and future six consciousnesses, when they have not reached the past mind-element (mano-dhātu), because they are not the reliance of the mind, should not be called 'internal'.'

Response: 'When the six consciousnesses reach the past mind-element, they do not lose the boundary of the six consciousnesses, now'

．未未至過去意位。亦非越意相　若異此者下。反難外人顯違宗過。又若未．現六識無意界相。過去意界亦應不立。此宗說相三世無改。

已說內外至作不作自業者。此下第十七明同分．彼同分　法界。定被意識緣恒名同分。餘十七通二。作自業名同分。不作自業名彼同分。

論曰至恒名同分者。此釋法同分。將解法同分先明境同分相。

夫言境同分者。若境與識定為所緣。定為所緣是不共義。六境各為自識所緣名定所緣　問法境一識緣。可說名為定。五境二識緣。如何望自定。解云。境定有二。或境於心定。如法對意。或心於境定。如五識對境。若法對意。即定是所緣。若五境對五識。即與定為所緣。于彼境上皆有定義。對其定處以辨同分。識于所緣境中。過．現已．正生。未來當生法。生法簡不生法。此所緣境說名同分。此即總明境同分相　問論其六境根亦能取。何故此文言識非根。解云。意根過去。不能取境。五根現在。或取．不取。以不定故略而不說　又解。言識可以攝根。識取境時根亦取。故言識可以影根。無邊意識。是無我觀緣一切法。於法界中。無一法界不于其中。已生正生當生無邊意識。由定生故恒名同分　由諸聖者下。別顯無我觀。可知　問法界意識緣。即名同分。餘十七界亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『未未至』指的是過去意（Manas，末那識，意根）的意位。也不是超越意相。如果與此不同，下面會反駁外人，顯示其違背宗義的過失。又如果未、現六識沒有意界相，那麼過去意界也不應該成立。此宗認為諸法的體相在過去、現在、未來三世都不會改變。

『已說內外』到『作不作自業者』，下面第十七個部分說明同分、彼同分。法界一定會被意識所緣，恒常名為同分。其餘十七界則通於二者。作自業名為同分，不作自業名為彼同分。

論曰到『恒名同分者』，這裡解釋法同分。在解釋法同分之前，先說明境同分的體相。

所謂境同分，如果境與識一定是所緣，一定是所緣是不共的含義。六境各自為自識所緣，名為定所緣。問：法境一識緣，可以說名為定。五境二識緣，如何望自定？解答：境的『定』有兩種，或者境對於心是定的，如法對意；或者心對於境是定的，如五識對境。如果法對意，那麼『定』就是所緣。如果五境對五識，那麼『定』就是所緣。在那些境上都有『定』的定義。對於其『定』處，用來辨別同分。識在所緣境中，過去已生、現在正生、未來當生的法，『生』法簡擇了不生法。這些所緣境被稱為同分。這總的說明了境同分的體相。問：討論六境，根也能取，為什麼這裡說識而不是根？解答：意根是過去的，不能取境。五根是現在的，或者取，或者不取，因為不確定所以省略不說。又解答：說識可以包括根。識取境的時候根也取，所以說識可以影射根。無邊意識，是無我觀所緣的一切法。在法界中，沒有一個法界不包含已生、正生、當生的無邊意識。由於『定』而生，所以恒常名為同分。由諸聖者以下，分別顯示無我觀，可以知道。問：法界意識緣，就名為同分，其餘十七界也...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Wei Wei Zhi' refers to the position of the past Manas (the mind-basis consciousness, the root of mind). It is also not beyond the characteristic of mind. If it is different from this, the following will refute outsiders, showing the fault of violating the tenets. Furthermore, if the unmanifested and present six consciousnesses do not have the characteristic of the mind realm, then the past mind realm should also not be established. This school believes that the characteristics of dharmas do not change in the three periods of past, present, and future.

From 'already explained inside and outside' to 'those who create or do not create their own karma', the seventeenth part below explains Samanabhaga (commonality) and Visamanabhaga (distinctiveness). The Dharmadhatu (法界) is definitely cognized by consciousness and is constantly called Samanabhaga. The remaining seventeen realms are common to both. Creating one's own karma is called Samanabhaga, and not creating one's own karma is called Visamanabhaga.

The treatise says to 'constantly named Samanabhaga', this explains Dharma-Samanabhaga. Before explaining Dharma-Samanabhaga, first explain the characteristics of object-Samanabhaga.

The so-called object-Samanabhaga, if the object and consciousness are definitely what is cognized, then definitely what is cognized is the meaning of non-commonality. The six objects are each cognized by their own consciousness, called definitely cognized. Question: The Dharma-object is cognized by one consciousness, which can be said to be definite. The five objects are cognized by two consciousnesses, how can it be considered definite? Answer: The 'definiteness' of the object is of two types, either the object is definite for the mind, such as Dharma to Manas; or the mind is definite for the object, such as the five consciousnesses to the five objects. If Dharma is to Manas, then 'definiteness' is what is cognized. If the five objects are to the five consciousnesses, then 'definiteness' is what is cognized. On those objects, there is a definition of 'definiteness'. For its 'definite' place, it is used to distinguish Samanabhaga. In the object cognized by consciousness, the past already arisen, the present arising, and the future about to arise dharmas, the 'arisen' dharmas are selected from the non-arisen dharmas. These objects cognized are called Samanabhaga. This generally explains the characteristics of object-Samanabhaga. Question: Discussing the six objects, the sense organs can also grasp them, why does this text say consciousness and not the sense organs? Answer: The Manas is past and cannot grasp objects. The five sense organs are present, and either grasp or do not grasp, because it is uncertain, so it is omitted. Another answer: Saying consciousness can include the sense organs. When consciousness grasps the object, the sense organs also grasp, so it is said that consciousness can reflect the sense organs. Boundless consciousness is all dharmas cognized by the non-self view. In the Dharmadhatu, there is not a single Dharmadhatu that does not contain the boundless consciousness that has already arisen, is arising, and will arise. Because it arises from 'definiteness', it is constantly called Samanabhaga. From the noble ones below, the non-self view is separately shown, which can be known. Question: The Dharmadhatu is cognized by consciousness, which is called Samanabhaga, and the remaining seventeen realms also...

為意識緣。何非同分。解云。夫十八界名同分．彼同分者。六根．六識據能取境名同分。但能取境皆名同分。不約為境名同分故。雖意識緣而非同分。若外六境約為境名同分。雖約為境辨同分。然據定說。六境二定如先已說。法界名定。體即是定。唯為意識緣不通餘五。意識緣定時即名同分。若五境名定。與定為所緣故名為定。五各自緣不緣余法故名為定。所以。五識緣時方名同分。意識非定。雖緣五境不名同分　或可。於六境中。法境正與意識為所緣所以。望意名同分。五境正與五識為所緣。所以。望五名同分。雖亦兼意緣。以非正故非同分　又解。六境中。法定五不定。忠雜亂故約定說。於六根．六識。五定一不定。不多雜亂。故約用說　又解。分別法門意存差別。若但意緣即名同分。無有一法而非同分即無差別故。或約用以明。或約定以說。或約正以辨。故婆沙七十一云。問餘十七界亦是意識所了別境。應皆是同分便無彼同分。如何說有彼同分耶。答。餘十七界不依意識界。立為同分．及彼同分。但依各別根境相對。為眼對色。色對眼。乃至身對觸。觸對身　問若爾意界．及意識界。唯應對法界立同分．彼同分。是即緣餘十七界者。應非同分。答理應如是。然以意界。及意識界。通能了別一切法故。依自作用立

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『為意識緣。何非同分。』（為什麼意識所緣的不是同分呢？）解答說：『十八界被稱為同分，這同分是指，六根、六識就其能取境界而言，被稱為同分。』只要能取境界，都可稱為同分，不以所緣的境界來確定是否為同分。因此，雖然意識緣取境界，但它本身不是同分。如果外面的六境以所緣的境界來確定是否為同分，雖然以所緣的境界來辨別同分，但根據確定的說法，六境和二定（指受和想）如先前已經說過的。法界被稱為定，它的本體就是定，只被意識緣取，不與其他五識相通。意識緣取定時，就稱為同分。如果五境被稱為定，因為與定作為所緣的對境，所以稱為定。五境各自緣取，不緣取其他法，所以五識緣取時才稱為同分。意識不是定，雖然緣取五境，但不稱為同分。或者可以這樣理解，在六境中，法境正是意識所緣取的對境，因此，相對於意識來說，法境是同分。五境正是五識所緣取的對境，因此，相對於五識來說，五境是同分。雖然也兼帶被意識緣取，但因為不是主要的，所以不是同分。又一種解釋是，六境中，法境是『定』，五境是『不定』，因為混雜錯亂。所以按照『定』來說。在六根、六識中，五識是『定』，意識是『不定』，因為不多雜亂，所以按照『用』來說。又一種解釋是，分別法門意在區分差別。如果只是意識緣取，就稱為同分。如果沒有一種法不是同分，那就沒有差別了。或者按照『用』來闡明，或者按照『定』來說明，或者按照『正』來辨別。所以《婆沙論》第七十一卷說：『問：其餘十七界也是意識所了別的境界，應該都是同分，那就沒有彼同分了。如何說有彼同分呢？』答：其餘十七界不依據意識界來建立為同分及彼同分，只是依據各自的根境相對，比如眼對色（Rūpa，形態、顏色），色對眼，乃至身對觸（Sparśa，接觸），觸對身。『問：如果這樣，意界和意識界，只應對於法界建立同分、彼同分，那麼緣取其餘十七界的，應該不是同分。』答：道理上應該是這樣。然而因為意界和意識界，普遍能夠了別一切法，所以依據自身的作用來建立。

【English Translation】 English version 『Why is it that what is conditioned by consciousness is not a shared characteristic (Sabhāga)?』 The explanation is: 『The eighteen realms are called shared characteristics. These shared characteristics refer to the six sense organs and six consciousnesses in terms of their ability to apprehend objects, which is called a shared characteristic.』 As long as something can apprehend an object, it can be called a shared characteristic. It is not determined by the object being conditioned. Therefore, although consciousness conditions, it is not a shared characteristic. If the six external objects are used to determine whether something is a shared characteristic based on the object being conditioned, although shared characteristics are distinguished based on the object being conditioned, according to a definitive explanation, the six objects and the two fixed states (referring to feeling and thought) are as previously stated. The Dharma realm (Dharmadhātu, the realm of all phenomena) is called fixed, and its essence is fixed. It is only conditioned by consciousness and does not communicate with the other five consciousnesses. When consciousness conditions on fixed states, it is called a shared characteristic. If the five objects are called fixed, because they are the objects conditioned by fixed states, they are called fixed. The five objects each condition on their own and do not condition on other dharmas, so they are called shared characteristics only when conditioned by the five consciousnesses. Consciousness is not fixed, and although it conditions on the five objects, it is not called a shared characteristic. Or it can be understood this way: among the six objects, the Dharma realm is precisely the object conditioned by consciousness. Therefore, relative to consciousness, the Dharma realm is a shared characteristic. The five objects are precisely the objects conditioned by the five consciousnesses. Therefore, relative to the five consciousnesses, the five objects are shared characteristics. Although they are also incidentally conditioned by consciousness, because it is not the primary conditioning, they are not shared characteristics. Another explanation is that among the six objects, the Dharma realm is 『fixed,』 and the five objects are 『unfixed』 because they are mixed and confused. Therefore, it is explained according to 『fixed.』 Among the six sense organs and six consciousnesses, the five consciousnesses are 『fixed,』 and consciousness is 『unfixed』 because they are not numerous and confused. Therefore, it is explained according to 『function.』 Another explanation is that the purpose of distinguishing the Dharma gate is to differentiate differences. If it is only conditioned by consciousness, it is called a shared characteristic. If there is no Dharma that is not a shared characteristic, then there is no difference. Or it is explained according to 『function,』 or it is explained according to 『fixed,』 or it is distinguished according to 『primary.』 Therefore, the seventy-first volume of the Vibhāṣā says: 『Question: The remaining seventeen realms are also the objects discerned by consciousness, and they should all be shared characteristics, so there would be no other shared characteristics. How can it be said that there are other shared characteristics?』 Answer: The remaining seventeen realms are not established as shared characteristics and other shared characteristics based on the consciousness realm, but only based on the relative relationship between their respective sense organs and objects, such as the eye versus form (Rūpa, shape, color), form versus the eye, and so on, up to the body versus touch (Sparśa, contact), and touch versus the body. 『Question: If that is the case, the mind realm and the consciousness realm should only establish shared characteristics and other shared characteristics for the Dharma realm. Then, those that condition on the remaining seventeen realms should not be shared characteristics.』 Answer: In principle, that should be the case. However, because the mind realm and the consciousness realm can universally discern all dharmas, they are established based on their own function.』

為同分。如眼等根有見等用。必不立為彼同分故。餘二者謂至名彼同分者。此下釋餘十七。總標略釋。

此中眼界至應說自用者。此下別釋十七界。此即釋十一界。就中。一正釋。二辨差別。此即正釋　六根各別對彼六境名為自境　又解。五根若取自境名自境。意根通取一切皆名自境　問過．未曾．當用皆說名同分。過．未曾．當覺皆應名執受。解云。有執受義異體相有。要假相依方成有義。故唯現在。同分據有作用。用非離體。故約曾．當皆名同分　又解．分是類義。可以遍收同類。執受非類。所以唯局現在　問意能生識可名同分。無學后意既不生識。應非同分。解云。得同分名有二。一生識。二取境。無學后意雖不生識。能取境故名為同分　迦濕彌邏。迦云惡。濕彌羅云名。舊云罽賓訛也　然舊俱舍云是西方師　翻者謬也　西方諸師。即是迦濕彌羅國西健馱邏國。彼亦多有說一切有部師　彼于不生開為二者　此解不然若於不生有根無識。生中亦有。何獨不生。生既不開。不生如何別立。此即違理。又婆沙云。舊此國師說有五種。西方諸師說有四種。今此國師說有四種。西方諸師說有五種。造婆沙時既取四種為正。明知說五非理。此即文證　如眼既然。乃至身界應知亦爾　意界已．正．當生皆同分。故彼同分

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『為同分』，例如眼等根有見等作用，必定不設立為它們的同分。『餘二者謂至名彼同分者』，這以下解釋剩餘的十七界。總的標出並簡略地解釋。

『此中眼界至應說自用者』，這以下分別解釋十七界。這裡是解釋十一界。其中，一是正式解釋，二是辨別差別。這裡是正式解釋。六根各自對應於它們各自的六境，稱為『自境』。又一種解釋是，五根如果取自境，就名為『自境』。意根普遍地取一切境，都名為『自境』。

問：過去、未來曾經、將要發生作用的都說名為『同分』，過去、未來曾經、將要覺知的都應該名為『執受』。解釋說：有『執受』的意義，異體和相有，需要依靠相才能成立『有』的意義，所以唯有現在。『同分』是根據有作用而說的，作用不是離開本體的，所以就曾經、將要發生作用的都名為『同分』。

又一種解釋是，『分』是類別的意思，可以普遍地包含同類。『執受』不是類別，所以唯獨侷限於現在。問：意能產生識，可以名為『同分』。無學（arhat，阿羅漢）之後的意既然不產生識，應該不是『同分』。解釋說：得到『同分』的名稱有兩種，一是產生識，二是取境。無學之後的意雖然不產生識，但能取境，所以名為『同分』。

『迦濕彌邏』（Kashmir），『迦』（Ka）的意思是惡，『濕彌羅』（Shmira）的意思是名，舊譯為『罽賓』是訛誤。然而舊《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa）說是西方師，翻譯者是錯誤的。西方諸師，就是迦濕彌邏國（Kashmir）西部的健馱邏國（Gandhara）。他們那裡也有很多說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的論師。他們對於不生開立為兩種，這種解釋不對。如果在不生中有根而沒有識，那麼在生中也有，為什麼唯獨不生中才有？生中既然不開立，不生中又如何特別設立？這不合道理。而且《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，舊時此國論師說有五種，西方諸師說有四種，現在此國論師說有四種，西方諸師說有五種。在造《婆沙論》時既然取四種為正確，明顯知道說五種是不合道理的。這是文獻的證據。

如眼既然如此，乃至身界（kaya-dhatu）應該知道也是這樣。意界（mano-dhatu）已生、正生、當生都是同分，所以它們的同分...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Being a commonality (sabhāga)' For example, roots such as the eye have functions such as seeing, and they are certainly not established as their own commonality. 'The remaining two refer to those called their commonality,' this below explains the remaining seventeen realms. It generally outlines and briefly explains.

'Among these, the eye realm to should be said to be self-use,' this below separately explains the seventeen realms. This explains eleven realms. Among them, one is a formal explanation, and two is to distinguish differences. This is the formal explanation. The six roots each correspond to their respective six objects, called 'self-object'. Another explanation is that if the five roots take their own objects, they are called 'self-object'. The mind-root universally takes all objects and is called 'self-object'.

Question: Past, future, once, and about-to-be functions are all said to be 'commonality', past, future, once, and about-to-be cognitions should all be called 'appropriation (upādāna)'. The explanation is: there is a meaning of 'appropriation', different entities and characteristics exist, and the meaning of 'existence' can only be established by relying on characteristics, so it is only present. 'Commonality' is based on having a function, and the function is not separate from the substance, so those that have functioned or will function are all called 'commonality'.

Another explanation is that 'part (bhāga)' means category, which can universally include the same category. 'Appropriation' is not a category, so it is limited to the present. Question: The mind can produce consciousness and can be called 'commonality'. Since the mind after no-more-learning (arhat) does not produce consciousness, it should not be 'commonality'. The explanation is: there are two ways to obtain the name 'commonality', one is to produce consciousness, and the other is to take objects. Although the mind after no-more-learning does not produce consciousness, it can take objects, so it is called 'commonality'.

'Kashmir', 'Ka' means evil, 'Shmira' means name, and the old translation 'Kipin' is a corruption. However, the old Abhidharmakośa says it is a Western teacher, and the translator is wrong. The Western teachers are the Gandhara country in the west of Kashmir. There are also many Sarvāstivāda teachers there. They establish two types for non-arising, this explanation is incorrect. If there is a root without consciousness in non-arising, then there is also in arising, why only in non-arising? Since it is not established in arising, how can it be specially established in non-arising? This is unreasonable. Moreover, the Vibhasa says that the old teachers of this country said there were five types, the Western teachers said there were four types, now the teachers of this country say there are four types, and the Western teachers say there are five types. Since four types were taken as correct when the Vibhasa was created, it is clear that saying five types is unreasonable. This is documentary evidence.

Since the eye is like this, it should be known that the body realm (kaya-dhatu) is also like this. The past, present, and future mind realms (mano-dhatu) are all commonality, so their commonality...

唯不生法。過．現生意起必緣境。故皆同分。過．現．當生眼等五根。有不假緣生故有彼同分。非同意界　余文可知。

應知同分至應知亦爾者。此下辨差別　根是不共。一人之眼。必無多人同用此眼而得見色。故根不共　五境容有多人受用。故名為共。由不共故一起用時名為同分。所餘一切不起用者望此眼亦同分。彼同分亦爾。

由色共故。於此色等起見等者名同分。不見等者名彼同分。

聲可如色至不應如色說者。難　香．味．觸三。一取非余。應如眼等。不應如色。

雖有是理至故如色說者。答　色．聲二境有多有情同共見．聞。故名為共。香．味．觸三。雖於一人根正合時余不能取。若在未來根未合時。於一及余。皆有可生鼻等識義。容有共取。眼等不然。故如色說　又解。猶如兩人鼻．舌．身三。根各相著。同嗅中間香。同嘗中間味。同覺中間觸。故名為共。根即不爾。無有兩人共用一根　或一類香．味．觸能發多識故名為共。根即不爾。無一類根兩人共用發識。根各別故　問如正理第六云。聲如色說是共境故。香．味．觸三如內界說非共境故。然諸世間依假名想。有言我等同嗅此香。同嘗此味。同覺此觸。雜心意同正理說。香．味．觸第一義如眼說。俗數如色說。此論豈不與彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本唯有不生之法（Anutpada-dharma，不生法）。過去、現在生起之意念必然緣于外境，因此都是相同的分位（Samana-bhagya，同分）。過去、現在、未來所生的眼等五根，有不依賴外緣而生的，因此有它們的同分。並非是相同的意界（Manodhatu，意界）。其餘文句可以類推得知。

『應知同分』到『應知亦爾』，這段文字以下辨別差別。根是不共的，一個人的眼睛，絕對沒有多人同時使用這隻眼睛而能看見顏色的。所以根是不共的。五境容許多人受用，所以名為共。由於不共的緣故，一起作用時名為同分。其餘一切不起作用的，相對於這隻眼睛也是同分。其他的同分也是如此。

由於顏色是共同的緣故，對於這個顏色等生起見等作用的，名為同分。不見等作用的，名為彼同分。

『聲音可以像顏色一樣』到『不應該像顏色一樣說』，這是提問。香、味、觸三種，一者被取用時，其餘則不能被取用，應該像眼等一樣，不應該像顏色一樣。

『雖有是理』到『故如色說』，這是回答。顏色、聲音兩種境，有許多有情共同見、聞，所以名為共。香、味、觸三種，即使在一個人的根與境正相合時，其餘的人也不能取用。如果在未來根未相合時，對於一個人以及其餘的人，都有可能生起鼻等識的意義，容許共同取用。眼等不是這樣，所以像顏色一樣說。另一種解釋是，猶如兩個人的鼻、舌、身三根各自相接觸，共同嗅聞中間的香，共同嘗中間的味，共同覺知中間的觸，所以名為共。根就不是這樣，沒有兩個人共同使用一個根。或者一類香、味、觸能夠引發多種識，所以名為共。根就不是這樣，沒有一類根兩個人共同使用而引發識，因為根是各自不同的。提問：如《正理》第六卷所說，聲音像顏色一樣說是共同的境，香、味、觸三種像內界一樣說不是共同的境。然而世間人依據假名想，有說『我們共同嗅到這個香』，『共同嚐到這個味』，『共同覺到這個觸』。雜心意與《正理》所說相同。香、味、觸在第一義上像眼睛一樣說，在世俗上像顏色一樣說。這個論典難道不是與那個（《正理》）……

【English Translation】 English version Only the unarisen dharma (Anutpada-dharma). The thoughts arising in the past and present must be conditioned by objects, therefore they are all the same division (Samana-bhagya). The five roots of eye, etc., arising in the past, present, and future, some arise without relying on external conditions, therefore they have their own division. They are not the same mind element (Manodhatu). The rest of the text can be understood by analogy.

From 'It should be known as the same division' to 'It should also be known as such', the following text distinguishes the differences. The root is non-common. One person's eyes, absolutely no multiple people can use these eyes at the same time and be able to see colors. Therefore, the root is non-common. The five objects can be enjoyed by many people, so it is called common. Because of the non-commonness, when working together, it is called the same division. All the rest that do not work, relative to these eyes, are also the same division. The other same divisions are also like this.

Because color is common, for this color, etc., arising seeing and other functions, it is called the same division. Not seeing and other functions, it is called the other division.

From 'Sound can be like color' to 'Should not be said like color', this is a question. The three of smell, taste, and touch, when one is taken, the others cannot be taken, should be like the eyes, etc., should not be like color.

From 'Although there is this reason' to 'Therefore it is said like color', this is the answer. The two objects of color and sound, many sentient beings commonly see and hear, so it is called common. The three of smell, taste, and touch, even when one person's root is properly combined with the object, the others cannot take it. If in the future the root is not combined, for one person and the others, there is the meaning of the possibility of arising nose and other consciousnesses, allowing common taking. The eyes, etc., are not like this, so it is said like color. Another explanation is, like two people's nose, tongue, and body three roots are in contact with each other, commonly smelling the fragrance in the middle, commonly tasting the flavor in the middle, commonly perceiving the touch in the middle, so it is called common. The root is not like this, there are no two people commonly using one root. Or one kind of smell, taste, and touch can trigger multiple consciousnesses, so it is called common. The root is not like this, there is no one kind of root that two people commonly use to trigger consciousness, because the roots are different. Question: As the sixth volume of Abhidharmakosha says, sound is said to be a common object like color, the three of smell, taste, and touch are said to be non-common objects like the inner realm. However, worldly people rely on false name thoughts, saying 'We commonly smell this fragrance', 'Commonly taste this flavor', 'Commonly perceive this touch'. The miscellaneous mind meaning is the same as what Abhidharmakosha says. Smell, taste, and touch in the first meaning are said like the eyes, in the conventional meaning are said like color. Isn't this treatise contradicting that (Abhidharmakosha) ...?

相違。解云此論約外香．味．觸未取之時在未來世。容有多人共受用義。故如色說。雜心．正理。據正取時余不能取。說非共境故如內界。各據一義亦不相違　又解。論意各別。雜心．正理。唯取身中內香．味．觸不能取外。外但為緣引發于內。此論意說。不但取內香．味．觸亦能取外。故婆沙七十一亦有兩說云。或有欲令唯嗅嘗覺各自身中諸香．味．觸。復有欲令亦嗅嘗覺他．及非情諸香．味．觸。若依前義應作是說。香．味．觸界。依世俗理如色界說。依勝義理。如眼界說。若依后義。應作是說。香．味．觸界若已受用。及受用時。依世俗理如色界說。依勝義理如眼界說。若未受用依勝義理亦可得言如色界說。是故諸論皆作是說。如色界聲．香．味．觸界亦爾。以香．味．觸可共得故(已上論文)　雜心．正理。同婆沙前師。此論同婆沙后師。若依前解。雜心．正理亦同婆沙后師。婆沙雖有兩說然無評家。且以後師為正。以攝法盡故。若外香．味．觸非三根取。應法處收。既法處中無香等三。明知后師為正。

眼等六識至如意界說者。此釋六識。準意可知。

云何同分彼同分義者。問二種義。

根境識三至名彼同分者。答　根．境．識三各起作用。互相隨順更相交涉。故名為分。同有此交涉分

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：相違。解釋說，此論是以外香、味、觸尚未被攝取，處於未來世的情況而言。容許有多人共同受用的含義，所以像色界一樣來說明。而《雜心論》、《正理經》則根據正在攝取時，其他人不能攝取的情況，說明不是共同的境界，所以像內界一樣。各自根據一種含義，因此並不互相違背。

又一種解釋是，各論的意旨不同。《雜心論》、《正理經》只取自身中的內香、味、觸，不能取外香、味、觸。外香、味、觸只是作為引發內香、味、觸的緣。此論的意旨是說，不但能取內香、味、觸，也能取外香、味、觸。所以《婆沙論》第七十一卷也有兩種說法，一種是有人想要唯有嗅覺、味覺才能覺知各自自身中的諸香、味、觸；另一種是有人想要嗅覺、味覺也能覺知他人以及非情之物的諸香、味、觸。如果依照前一種含義，應該這樣說，香界（gandha-dhātu，氣味的元素）、味界（rasa-dhātu，味道的元素）、觸界（spraṣṭavya-dhātu，觸覺的元素），依照世俗的道理，如所說。依照勝義的道理，如眼界（cakṣur-dhātu，視覺的元素）所說。如果依照后一種含義，應該這樣說，香界、味界、觸界如果已經受用，以及受用時，依照世俗的道理，如所說。依照勝義的道理，如眼界所說。如果未受用，依照勝義的道理，也可以說如所說。因此，各論都這樣說，如聲界（śabda-dhātu，聲音的元素）、香界、味界、觸界也是如此。因為香、味、觸可以共同獲得（以上是論文內容）。

《雜心論》、《正理經》與《婆沙論》的前一種說法相同。此論與《婆沙論》的后一種說法相同。如果依照前一種解釋，《雜心論》、《正理經》也與《婆沙論》的后一種說法相同。《婆沙論》雖然有兩種說法，但沒有評判者，暫且以後一種說法為正確，因為能涵蓋所有法。如果外香、味、觸不是三種根所取，應該歸入法處（dharma-āyatana，法所依處）所攝。既然法處中沒有香等三種，明顯可知后一種說法是正確的。

眼等六識至如意界所說，這是解釋六識（ṣaṭ vijñānāni，六種意識），準照意界（mano-dhātu，意識的元素）可知。

什麼是同分（sabhāga，相似性）、彼同分（nikāya-sabhāga，集合相似性）的含義？這是提問兩種含義。

根境識三至名為彼同分，回答說，根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（viṣaya，感覺對像）、識（vijñāna，意識）三者各自產生作用，互相隨順，互相交涉，所以名為分。共同具有這種交涉分。

【English Translation】 English version: Contradiction. The explanation is that this treatise refers to the situation where external smells, tastes, and tactile sensations have not yet been taken and are in the future. It allows for the meaning of multiple people enjoying them together, so it is explained like the rūpa-dhātu (form element). However, the Abhidharma-hṛdaya and Nyāyānusāra state that when something is being taken, others cannot take it, so it is not a shared realm, and thus it is like the internal elements. Each is based on a different meaning, so they do not contradict each other.

Another explanation is that the intentions of the treatises are different. The Abhidharma-hṛdaya and Nyāyānusāra only take the internal smells, tastes, and tactile sensations within oneself and cannot take external ones. External smells, tastes, and tactile sensations only serve as conditions to trigger the internal ones. The intention of this treatise is that not only can internal smells, tastes, and tactile sensations be taken, but external ones can also be taken. Therefore, the seventy-first fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā also has two views: one is that some want only the olfactory and gustatory senses to perceive the smells, tastes, and tactile sensations in their own bodies; the other is that some want the olfactory and gustatory senses to also perceive the smells, tastes, and tactile sensations of others and inanimate objects. If according to the former meaning, it should be said that the gandha-dhātu (smell element), rasa-dhātu (taste element), and spraṣṭavya-dhātu (touch element), according to conventional truth, are as ** said. According to ultimate truth, they are as the cakṣur-dhātu (eye element) said. If according to the latter meaning, it should be said that the gandha-dhātu, rasa-dhātu, and spraṣṭavya-dhātu, if already enjoyed or while being enjoyed, according to conventional truth, are as ** said. According to ultimate truth, they are as the cakṣur-dhātu said. If not yet enjoyed, according to ultimate truth, it can also be said to be like ** said. Therefore, all treatises say that the śabda-dhātu (sound element), gandha-dhātu, rasa-dhātu, and spraṣṭavya-dhātu are also like this. Because smells, tastes, and tactile sensations can be obtained together (the above is the content of the treatise).

The Abhidharma-hṛdaya and Nyāyānusāra are the same as the former teacher of the Mahāvibhāṣā. This treatise is the same as the latter teacher of the Mahāvibhāṣā. If according to the former explanation, the Abhidharma-hṛdaya and Nyāyānusāra are also the same as the latter teacher of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Although the Mahāvibhāṣā has two views, there is no commentator, so for now, the latter teacher is considered correct because it encompasses all dharmas. If external smells, tastes, and tactile sensations are not taken by the three roots, they should be included in the dharma-āyatana (sphere of ideas). Since there are no smells, etc., in the dharma-āyatana, it is clear that the latter teacher is correct.

The six consciousnesses, from the eye, etc., to what is said about the mano-dhātu (mind element), this explains the six consciousnesses (ṣaṭ vijñānāni), which can be understood by analogy to the mano-dhātu.

What are the meanings of sabhāga (similarity) and nikāya-sabhāga (collection of similarity)? This is a question about two meanings.

The three of indriya (sense organ), viṣaya (sense object), and vijñāna (consciousness) to what is called nikāya-sabhāga, the answer is that the three of indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna each arise in function, mutually accord with each other, and mutually interact, so they are called bhāga (part). They commonly have this interacting part.

故名同分　或復。分者是已作用。故前說言。若作自業名為同分。根．境．識三。同有此已作用分。故名同分　或復。分者。是所生觸果。根．境．識同有此果分。故名同分　與上相違名彼同分。如不見色眼名非同分。見色眼名同分。由非同分不見色眼。與彼見色眼同分。種類分同。名彼同分　言種類分同者。正理解云。云何與彼種類分同。謂此與彼同見等相。同處同界。互為因故。互相屬故。互相引故。種類分同　解云。無用與彼有用種類分同。能見義同。同是眼處。眼界互為同類因。互為等流果。相屬互相引起。如是種類名分。有用無用同有此分即以無用與彼有用同有此分名彼同分。

已說同分至色定非見斷者。此下第十八三斷門。上兩句界分別。下兩句遮異計。

論曰至皆非所斷者。釋上兩句　斷謂斷縛證得離系。顯宗第四云。一自性斷。二所緣斷。若法是結。及一果等。對治生時于彼得斷。名自性斷。由彼斷故。于所緣事便得離系。不必于中得不成就名所緣斷　解云。自性．所緣。俱約離縛名斷。等者等取得。準彼論文。惑等上四相．及得。不成義邊亦名自性斷。若緣縛斷。據緣彼惑。究竟盡時方名為斷。不必不成。廣如正理　言十五界唯修斷者。若五根．香．味．觸不染污性。又是色法緣縛斷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，它被稱為『同分』。或者，『分』指的是已經發生作用的部分。所以前面說，如果造作自己的業，就稱為『同分』。根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（viṣaya，感覺對像）、識（vijñāna，意識）三者，共同具有這已經發生作用的部分，所以稱為『同分』。或者，『分』指的是所產生的觸（sparśa，接觸）的果報。根、境、識共同具有這果報的部分，所以稱為『同分』。與上述相反的，稱為『彼同分』。例如，不能看見顏色的眼睛，稱為『非同分』。能看見顏色的眼睛，稱為『同分』。由於『非同分』的眼睛不能看見顏色，與那能看見顏色的眼睛的『同分』，在種類上是相同的，所以稱為『彼同分』。所說的『種類分同』，正確的理解是：如何與彼在種類上相同？意思是說，此與彼在共同的見相等方面，在相同的處所、相同的界，互為因，互相隸屬，互相引發，所以在種類上是相同的。解釋說，無用的與有用的，在種類上是相同的。能見的功能相同，同屬于眼處（cakṣu-āyatana，眼根處）。眼界（cakṣu-dhātu，眼界）互為同類因，互為等流果。互相隸屬，互相引起。像這樣在種類上相同的部分。有用和無用共同具有這部分，即以無用的與那有用的共同具有這部分，稱為『彼同分』。已經說了『同分』，直到『色定非見斷』。這以下是第十八個『三斷門』。上面兩句是界（dhātu，界）的分別，下面兩句是遮止不同的觀點。論述說，直到『皆非所斷』。解釋上面的兩句。『斷』指的是斷除繫縛，證得離系（visaṃyoga，解脫）。《顯宗》第四卷說：一、自性斷（svabhāva-prahāṇa，自性斷），二、所緣斷（ālambana-prahāṇa，所緣斷）。如果法是結（bandhana，束縛），以及一果等，對治產生時，于彼得斷，名為『自性斷』。由於彼斷的緣故，對於所緣的事物便得離系，不必于其中得不成就，名為『所緣斷』。解釋說，『自性』、『所緣』，都依據離開繫縛而稱為『斷』。『等』字等同取得。根據那篇論文，惑（kleśa，煩惱）等上面的四相，以及得，不成就的意義方面也稱為『自性斷』。如果緣縛斷，根據緣彼惑，究竟窮盡時才稱為斷，不必不成就。詳細的在《正理》中說明。所說的『十五界唯修斷』，如果五根（pañcendriyāṇi，五根）、香（gandha，香）、味（rasa，味）、觸（sparśa，觸）是不染污的性質，又是色法（rūpa-dharma，色法），緣縛斷。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is called 'Sabhāga' (commonality). Or, 'bhāga' refers to the part that has already functioned. So, it was said earlier that if one creates one's own karma, it is called 'Sabhāga'. The three—indriya (sense faculty), viṣaya (sense object), and vijñāna (consciousness)—commonly possess this part that has already functioned, hence it is called 'Sabhāga'. Or, 'bhāga' refers to the result of sparśa (contact) that is produced. The root, object, and consciousness commonly possess this part of the result, hence it is called 'Sabhāga'. The opposite of the above is called 'Tatsabhāga' (that commonality). For example, an eye that cannot see color is called 'Asabhāga' (non-commonality). An eye that can see color is called 'Sabhāga'. Because the 'Asabhāga' eye cannot see color, it is of the same kind as the 'Sabhāga' eye that can see color, hence it is called 'Tatsabhāga'. What is meant by 'kind of commonality' is correctly understood as: How is it the same in kind as that? It means that this and that are the same in aspects such as seeing, in the same place, in the same realm, mutually being causes, mutually belonging, and mutually inducing, so they are the same in kind. It is explained that the useless and the useful are the same in kind. The function of seeing is the same, both belonging to the cakṣu-āyatana (eye base). The cakṣu-dhātu (eye element) are mutually causes of the same kind, mutually results of equal flow. They mutually belong and mutually induce each other. Such a kind is called a part. The useful and the useless commonly possess this part, that is, the useless and the useful commonly possess this part, hence it is called 'Tatsabhāga'. Having spoken of 'Sabhāga' up to 'color concentration is not severed by seeing', below is the eighteenth 'three severances gate'. The two sentences above are a distinction of dhātu (realm), and the two sentences below are to refute different views. The treatise says, up to 'all are not to be severed'. Explaining the two sentences above. 'Severance' refers to severing bonds and attaining visaṃyoga (separation). The fourth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states: 1. Svabhāva-prahāṇa (severance by nature), 2. Ālambana-prahāṇa (severance by object). If a dharma is a bandhana (bond) and one result, etc., when the antidote arises, severance is attained in it, called 'Svabhāva-prahāṇa'. Because of that severance, one attains separation from the object, without necessarily attaining non-accomplishment in it, called 'Ālambana-prahāṇa'. It is explained that 'Svabhāva' and 'Ālambana' are both called 'severance' based on leaving bondage. The word 'etc.' is taken equally. According to that treatise, kleśa (affliction) and the four characteristics above, as well as attainment, are also called 'Svabhāva-prahāṇa' in terms of non-accomplishment. If severance is due to the bond of the object, it is only called severance when the affliction is completely exhausted, without necessarily being non-accomplished. This is explained in detail in the Nyāyānusāraśāstra. What is said about 'the fifteen realms are only severed by cultivation', if the pañcendriyāṇi (five roots), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), sparśa (touch) are of an unpolluted nature, and are also rūpa-dharma (form dharmas), severance is due to the bond of the object.

故。色．聲二界修所斷心親發起故。又是色法緣縛斷故。若五識界善．無記者。是不染污緣縛斷故。是染污者。迷事起故皆唯修斷。無見斷相不通見斷。皆非無漏不通非斷　后三通三者。見斷隨眠．及相應法。迷理起故。四相．與得。是彼見惑親發起故。皆見所斷。無修斷相不通修。非無漏故不通非斷　又解。八十八惑。迷理起故是見所斷。惑相應法望惑是親。相應縛故相應因故。故隨惑斷。四相望惑雖非相應。同部縛故俱有因故。亦隨惑斷。得望彼惑雖非相應．俱有。同部縛故。惑有即有惑無即無。雖是緣縛望惑亦親。故隨惑斷。非是迷事等故非通修斷。是斷法故不通非斷。諸餘有漏若無色善．無覆無記。是不染污緣縛斷故。若諸煩惱．及彼相應。迷事起故。四相．及得是彼修惑親發起故。若善．染無表是修斷心親發起故。又是色法緣縛斷故。皆修所斷。無見斷相不通見斷。非無漏故不通非斷。一切無漏非縛系故皆非所斷。

豈不更有至極相違故者。此下釋後半頌。

經部等難。異生性等得聖不起。與聖相違理應見斷。

雖爾此法至定非見斷者答　略開三章顯非見斷。一不染污法。顯宗云。言不染者。謂有漏善．無覆無記。二非六生。謂五識等。從五根生名非六生。雖亦從意且據別依。三色顯宗

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，色界和聲界是修所斷，因為它們是心親近發起的。此外，它們也是色法緣縛所斷。如果是五識界中的善和無記，則是由於不染污的緣縛斷除。如果是染污的，則是由於對事物的迷惑而生起，所以都只是修所斷。沒有見斷的相，不通於見斷。都不是無漏，不通於非斷。后三者都通於三種情況：見斷的隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）以及相應的法，是因為對理的迷惑而生起。四相（生、住、異、滅）和得，是因為它們是見惑親近發起的，所以都是見所斷。沒有修斷的相，不通於修斷。因為不是無漏，所以不通於非斷。另一種解釋是，八十八惑，因為對理的迷惑而生起，所以是見所斷。與惑相應的法，相對於惑來說是親近的，因為是相應的束縛，也是相應的因，所以隨著惑而斷除。四相相對於惑來說，雖然不是相應，但因為是同部的束縛，也是俱有的因，所以也隨著惑而斷除。得相對於那些惑來說，雖然不是相應和俱有，但因為是同部的束縛，惑存在它就存在，惑消失它就消失，雖然是緣縛，但相對於惑來說也是親近的，所以隨著惑而斷除。不是因為對事物的迷惑等原因，所以不通於修所斷。因為是斷法，所以不通於非斷。其餘的有漏法，如果是無色界的善和無覆無記，是因為不染污的緣縛斷除。如果諸煩惱以及它們相應的法，是因為對事物的迷惑而生起。四相和得，是因為它們是修惑親近發起的。如果善和染污的無表色（Avijñapti-rūpa，一種不可見的色法），是因為修斷的心親近發起的。此外，它們也是色法緣縛所斷，所以都是修所斷。沒有見斷的相，不通於見斷。因為不是無漏，所以不通於非斷。一切無漏法，因為不是縛所繫縛，所以都不是所斷。

難道沒有更至極相違的原因嗎？以下解釋後半頌。

經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）等提出疑問：異生性（Pṛthag-janatva，凡夫的性質）等，得到聖道后就不會生起，與聖道相違背，理應是見斷。

雖然如此，此法必定不是見斷。回答：略微展開三個方面來顯示它不是見斷。一，不染污法。顯宗（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）說：所謂不染污，指的是有漏的善和無覆無記。二，非六生。指的是五識等，從五根生起，名為非六生。雖然也從意根生起，但這裡主要根據其個別的所依。三，色法。顯宗。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the realms of form (Rūpadhātu) and sound are abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya) because they are closely initiated by the mind. Furthermore, they are also abandoned by the bond of form (rūpa-bandhana). If they are wholesome (kuśala) and neutral (avyākṛta) in the realm of the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna-kāya), it is because the non-defiled bond is severed. If they are defiled, it is because they arise from delusion about things, so they are all only abandoned by cultivation. There is no aspect of abandonment by seeing (darśana-prahātavya), not extending to abandonment by seeing. They are all non-outflow (anāsrava), not extending to non-abandonment. The latter three are all connected to the three: the latent tendencies (anuśaya) abandoned by seeing and the corresponding dharmas, because they arise from delusion about principles. The four characteristics (lakṣaṇa) [of existence: birth, duration, change, and extinction] and attainment (prāpti) are all abandoned by seeing because they are closely initiated by the afflictions abandoned by seeing. There is no aspect of abandonment by cultivation, not extending to cultivation. Because they are not non-outflow, they do not extend to non-abandonment. Another explanation is that the eighty-eight afflictions (kleshas), because they arise from delusion about principles, are abandoned by seeing. The dharmas corresponding to the afflictions are close in relation to the afflictions because they are corresponding bonds and corresponding causes, so they are abandoned along with the afflictions. Although the four characteristics are not corresponding to the afflictions, they are abandoned along with the afflictions because they are bonds of the same category and co-existent causes. Although attainment is neither corresponding nor co-existent with those afflictions, it is a bond of the same category. If the afflictions exist, it exists; if the afflictions cease, it ceases. Although it is a condition-bond, it is also close in relation to the afflictions, so it is abandoned along with the afflictions. It is not abandoned by cultivation because it is not due to delusion about things, etc. Because it is a dharma to be abandoned, it does not extend to non-abandonment. The remaining outflow dharmas, if they are wholesome and uncovered-neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta) in the formless realm (arūpadhātu), are abandoned because of the non-defiled condition-bond. If the afflictions and their corresponding dharmas arise from delusion about things, the four characteristics and attainment are closely initiated by these afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation. If the wholesome and defiled non-revealing form (avijñapti-rūpa) are closely initiated by the mind to be abandoned by cultivation, and they are also abandoned by the condition-bond of form, then they are all abandoned by cultivation. There is no aspect of abandonment by seeing, not extending to abandonment by seeing. Because they are not non-outflow, they do not extend to non-abandonment. All non-outflow dharmas are not bound by bonds, so they are not abandoned.

Isn't there an even more extremely contradictory reason? The following explains the latter half of the verse.

The Sautrāntika school and others raise the question: The nature of an ordinary being (pṛthag-janatva), etc., does not arise after attaining the holy path, and is contrary to the holy path, so it should be abandoned by seeing.

Although this is so, this dharma is definitely not abandoned by seeing. Answer: Briefly explain three aspects to show that it is not abandoned by seeing. First, non-defiled dharmas. The Abhidharma says: What is called non-defiled refers to outflow wholesome and uncovered-neutral dharmas. Second, not born from the six. This refers to the five consciousnesses, etc., which arise from the five roots and are called not born from the six. Although they also arise from the mind-root, here it is mainly based on their individual supports. Third, form. The Abhidharma.

云。色謂有漏染．不染色　又作一解。一切不染法。一切非六生法。一切色法。無漏之法。理亦定非見所斷故　或可。顯宗且據斷法。無漏非斷理在不疑。故不別說。應知。此中諸不染法定非見斷。此中偏說。不言是染皆悉見斷。于其染中。若見惑相應等是見斷。余是修斷。以不定故不說。非六生定非見斷。此中偏說。不言是六生者皆悉見斷。於六生中。若見惑相應等見斷。余有漏修斷。若無漏非斷以不定故不說。色定非見斷此中偏說。不言非色皆是見斷。于非色中。若見惑相應等見斷。余有漏修斷。若無漏非斷。以不定故不說。

其異生性至親發起故者。別釋　其異生性。是不染污無記性攝。緣縛斷故。已離欲者猶成就故。明知非染污。斷善根者猶成就故。明知非善。既非是染。明非見斷。雖非見斷由先舍故不名異生　返難經部等云。此異生性。若見所斷。苦法忍位既成彼性。應是異生。爾時若成。即有一人名凡．聖過。成聖法故名聖。成凡性故名凡。與理相違。故非見斷　釋非六生及色可知　前不染．非六生．及此色。定非見斷。所以者何。此之三種。一非迷諦理。二非是見惑親發起故　或不染．非六生非迷諦理。色非見惑親發起。故非見斷　又解。前非六．及此色。定非見斷。五識非迷諦理。色非見惑親

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本云：『色』是指有『有漏』（Sanskrit: sāsrava，指伴隨煩惱的）的染污法，而不是『不染色』。另一種解釋是：一切不染污法，一切非『六生』（指六道眾生）之法，一切色法，以及『無漏』（Sanskrit: anāsrava，指沒有煩惱的）之法，從道理上來說，必定不是『見所斷』（指通過見道才能斷除的煩惱），因為它們不是通過見道斷除的。或者可以這樣理解，《顯宗》只是根據斷法來闡述，而無漏法並非一定要斷除，這個道理是毋庸置疑的，所以沒有特別說明。應該知道，這裡所說的不染污法，必定不是見所斷。這裡只是片面地說，並非所有染污法都是見所斷。在染污法中，如果是與見惑相應的，就是見所斷，其餘的是修所斷，因為不確定，所以沒有說。非六生必定不是見所斷，這裡只是片面地說，並非所有六生者都是見所斷。在六生中，如果是與見惑相應的，就是見所斷，其餘的有漏法是修所斷，如果是無漏法，則不是斷除的對象，因為不確定，所以沒有說。色法必定不是見所斷，這裡只是片面地說，並非所有非色法都是見所斷。在非色法中，如果是與見惑相應的，就是見所斷，其餘的有漏法是修所斷，如果是無漏法，則不是斷除的對象，因為不確定，所以沒有說。

關於『其異生性至親發起故』：特別解釋一下，『其異生性』是不染污的無記性所攝，因為它是通過緣縛斷除的。已經離欲的人仍然具有異生性，這表明它不是染污法。斷善根的人仍然具有異生性，這表明它不是善法。既然不是染污法，那麼顯然不是見所斷。雖然不是見所斷，但由於先前已經捨棄，所以不稱為異生。

經部等反駁說：如果這種『異生性』是見所斷，那麼在『苦法忍』（Kṣānti-jñāna-kṣaṇa，證悟苦諦的忍位）位已經成就了這種異生性，那麼這個人應該是異生。如果那時成就了異生性，那麼就會出現一個人既是凡夫又是聖人的矛盾。因為他成就了聖法，所以是聖人；因為他成就了凡夫的性質，所以是凡夫，這與道理相悖，因此異生性不是見所斷。

解釋『非六生』和『色』可以類推得知。前面所說的『不染污』、『非六生』以及這裡的『色』，必定不是見所斷。原因是什麼呢？這三種情況，一種不是迷惑真諦的道理，另一種不是見惑直接引發的。

或者說，不染污法和非六生法不是迷惑真諦的道理，而色法不是見惑直接引發的，所以不是見所斷。

另一種解釋是，前面的『非六生』以及這裡的『色』，必定不是見所斷。五識不是迷惑真諦的道理，而色法不是見惑直接引發的。

【English Translation】 English version Cloud: 'Rūpa' (色, form) refers to defiled dharmas (法, phenomena) that are 'āsrava' (有漏, with outflows, i.e., accompanied by afflictions), not 'anāsrava rūpa' (不染色, undefiled form). Another explanation is: all undefiled dharmas, all dharmas that are not 'six kinds of beings' (六生, referring to beings in the six realms of existence), all rūpa dharmas, and 'anāsrava' (無漏, without outflows, i.e., without afflictions) dharmas, in principle, are certainly not 'dṛṣṭi-heya' (見所斷, to be abandoned by seeing), because they are not abandoned through the path of seeing. Or it can be understood this way: the Abhidharmakośa (顯宗) only explains based on the dharmas to be abandoned, while anāsrava dharmas do not necessarily need to be abandoned. This principle is beyond doubt, so it is not specifically mentioned. It should be known that the undefiled dharmas mentioned here are certainly not dṛṣṭi-heya. This is only a partial statement; not all defiled dharmas are dṛṣṭi-heya. Among the defiled dharmas, if they are associated with the afflictions of seeing, then they are dṛṣṭi-heya; the rest are bhāvanā-heya (修所斷, to be abandoned by cultivation), because it is uncertain, so it is not mentioned. Non-six kinds of beings are certainly not dṛṣṭi-heya. This is only a partial statement; not all six kinds of beings are dṛṣṭi-heya. Among the six kinds of beings, if they are associated with the afflictions of seeing, then they are dṛṣṭi-heya; the rest of the āsrava dharmas are bhāvanā-heya. If they are anāsrava dharmas, then they are not objects to be abandoned, because it is uncertain, so it is not mentioned. Rūpa dharmas are certainly not dṛṣṭi-heya. This is only a partial statement; not all non-rūpa dharmas are dṛṣṭi-heya. Among the non-rūpa dharmas, if they are associated with the afflictions of seeing, then they are dṛṣṭi-heya; the rest of the āsrava dharmas are bhāvanā-heya. If they are anāsrava dharmas, then they are not objects to be abandoned, because it is uncertain, so it is not mentioned.

Regarding 'because its nature of being a common being is closely initiated': A special explanation: 'its nature of being a common being' is included in the undefiled and indeterminate nature, because it is abandoned through the bondage of conditions. Those who have already abandoned desire still possess the nature of being a common being, which shows that it is not a defiled dharma. Those who have severed their roots of goodness still possess the nature of being a common being, which shows that it is not a good dharma. Since it is not a defiled dharma, then it is obviously not dṛṣṭi-heya. Although it is not dṛṣṭi-heya, it is not called a common being because it has been previously abandoned.

The Sautrāntikas (經部) and others refute: If this 'nature of being a common being' is dṛṣṭi-heya, then in the moment of 'kṣānti-jñāna-kṣaṇa' (苦法忍, forbearance-knowledge-moment) of the duḥkha-satya (苦諦, truth of suffering), this nature of being a common being has already been achieved, then this person should be a common being. If the nature of being a common being is achieved at that time, then there will be a contradiction of one person being both a common being and a noble being. Because he has achieved the noble dharma, he is a noble being; because he has achieved the nature of a common being, he is a common being. This contradicts reason, therefore the nature of being a common being is not dṛṣṭi-heya.

The explanation of 'non-six kinds of beings' and 'rūpa' can be inferred. The 'undefiled', 'non-six kinds of beings', and 'rūpa' mentioned earlier are certainly not dṛṣṭi-heya. What is the reason? These three situations, one is not deluded about the principle of the true meaning, and the other is not directly initiated by the afflictions of seeing.

Or, undefiled dharmas and non-six kinds of beings are not deluded about the principle of the true meaning, while rūpa dharmas are not directly initiated by the afflictions of seeing, so they are not dṛṣṭi-heya.

Another explanation is that the previous 'non-six kinds of beings' and the 'rūpa' here are certainly not dṛṣṭi-heya. The five consciousnesses are not deluded about the principle of the true meaning, while rūpa dharmas are not directly initiated by the afflictions of seeing.

發起故。不染非見斷前已別解故　問修斷染色。九品修惑各別親發。既親別發。此色應隨彼惑別斷。解云。此染污色。修惑親發是修所斷。緣縛斷故。故九品惑除方名為斷。非別斷也。若修惑上得．及四相。自性斷故。非例此色。如前釋。應知。惑等法上。得．及四相。若自性斷．所緣斷。是自性斷攝。若相應縛．所緣縛。是所緣縛攝。若依顯宗第四。釋此三法雲。且不染法。及諸色法。非見斷者。緣彼煩惱。究竟斷時方名斷故　又云。非六生法非見斷者。緣色等境外門轉故。

如是已說至被障諸色故者。此下第十九是見．非見門。就中。一正明。二傍論。此即正明。初兩句出見體。下六句釋妨遮計　尊者世友眼見。尊者法救眼識見。尊者妙音眼識相應慧見。譬喻者眼識同時心．心所法和合見　問如婆沙．五事．雜心等論。皆破識．慧．和合。此頌何故但破識耶　解云隨作論者意樂破故　又解亦兼破慧。頌言五識俱生慧非見。已知破慧但不破和合。或可。以和合計分同經部。論主意明故不別破　又解具破三種。不見障色言從強破識。慧．及和合準破。應知。故雜心云。同分眼見色非彼眼識見。非慧。非和合。不見障色故　又解此論從強破識。具破三種廣如諸論。故五事論第一云。問誰能見色。為眼根見。為眼識

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：發起的原因是，不染污的法不是見所斷的，因為在之前已經通過別解脫斷除了。問：修所斷的染色法，九品修惑各自親近地引發。既然是親近地分別引發，那麼這個色法應該隨著那些惑而分別斷除。解答說：這個染污的色法，是修惑親近引發的，是修所斷的。因為是緣縛斷的緣故，所以九品惑被去除才稱為斷，不是分別斷除。如果修惑上的得和四相，是自性斷的緣故，就不能作為這個色法的例子。應該像前面解釋的那樣理解。要知道，惑等法上的得和四相，如果是自性斷、所緣斷，就屬於自性斷所攝；如果是相應縛、所緣縛，就屬於所緣縛所攝。如果依據顯宗第四的解釋，這三種法是：不染污法和各種色法，不是見所斷的，因為緣彼煩惱究竟斷除的時候才稱為斷。又說：不是六生法不是見所斷的，因為緣色等境外門轉的緣故。像這樣已經說到了『被障諸色故』。這以下第十九是見與非見門。其中，一是正明，二是傍論。這裡就是正明。最初兩句是說明見的體性，下面六句是解釋妨難和遮止計度。尊者世友（Vasumitra）認為是眼見，尊者法救（Dharmatrāta）認為是眼識見，尊者妙音（Ghosa）認為是眼識相應的慧見，譬喻者（Dārṣṭāntika）認為是眼識同時的心、心所法和合見。問：像《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā）、《五事》（Pañcavastuka）、《雜心》（Abhidharmahṛdaya）等論，都破斥了識、慧、和合的觀點，這個頌為什麼只破斥識呢？解答說：這是隨作者的意樂而破斥的緣故。又解答說：也兼破斥了慧。頌中說『五識俱生慧非見』，就已經知道破斥了慧，但是沒有破斥和合。或者可以這樣認為，因為和合計度與經部（Sautrāntika）的觀點相同，論主的意圖是明確的，所以沒有分別破斥。又解答說：是具足破斥了三種觀點。『不見障色』是從強盛的角度破斥識，慧和和合可以類推破斥。應該知道。所以《雜心》中說：『同分眼見色，不是那個眼識見，不是慧，不是和合，因為不見障色的緣故。』又解答說：這個論是從強盛的角度破斥識，具足破斥了三種觀點，詳細的論述如同各種論典。所以《五事論》第一中說：『問：誰能見色？是眼根見，還是眼識見？』

【English Translation】 English version: The reason for initiating [this discussion] is that undefiled dharmas are not severed by view, because they have already been separately liberated before. Question: Regarding defiled colors that are severed by cultivation, the nine grades of afflictions of cultivation each closely initiate [them] separately. Since they are closely and separately initiated, these colors should be severed separately along with those afflictions. Answer: These defiled colors are closely initiated by the afflictions of cultivation and are severed by cultivation. Because they are severed by the bond of conditions, the removal of the nine grades of afflictions is called severance, not separate severance. If 'attainment' and the four characteristics on the afflictions of cultivation are severed by their own nature, they cannot be taken as examples for these colors. It should be understood as explained earlier. It should be known that 'attainment' and the four characteristics on afflictions and other dharmas, if they are severed by their own nature or by conditions, are included in severance by their own nature; if they are corresponding bonds or bonds of conditions, they are included in severance by conditions. According to the fourth explanation of the Vaibhāṣika school, these three dharmas are: undefiled dharmas and various colors are not severed by view, because they are called severance only when the afflictions related to them are completely severed. It is also said: dharmas that are not born from the six senses are not severed by view, because they operate through the external gates of colors, etc. Having spoken thus far about 'because of the colors that are obstructed'. The following nineteenth section is about the gate of seeing and not seeing. Among them, the first is the direct explanation, and the second is the side discussion. This is the direct explanation. The first two sentences explain the nature of seeing, and the following six sentences explain the objections and refute the calculations. Venerable Vasumitra (世友) believes that it is the eye that sees. Venerable Dharmatrāta (法救) believes that it is the eye consciousness that sees. Venerable Ghosa (妙音) believes that it is the wisdom corresponding to the eye consciousness that sees. The Dārṣṭāntika (譬喻者) believes that it is the combination of mind and mental factors simultaneous with the eye consciousness that sees. Question: The treatises such as Vibhāṣā (婆沙), Pañcavastuka (五事), and Abhidharmahṛdaya (雜心) all refute the views of consciousness, wisdom, and combination. Why does this verse only refute consciousness? Answer: This is because the refutation follows the inclination of the author. Another answer: It also refutes wisdom. The verse says 'wisdom arising together with the five consciousnesses is not seeing', which already indicates the refutation of wisdom, but not the refutation of combination. Or it can be considered that because the calculation of combination is the same as the Sautrāntika (經部) school, the intention of the author is clear, so it is not refuted separately. Another answer: It fully refutes the three views. 'Not seeing obstructed colors' refutes consciousness from a strong perspective, and wisdom and combination can be refuted by analogy. It should be known. Therefore, the Abhidharmahṛdaya says: 'The eye seeing colors in the same category is not that eye consciousness, not wisdom, not combination, because it does not see obstructed colors.' Another answer: This treatise refutes consciousness from a strong perspective, and fully refutes the three views, as detailed in various treatises. Therefore, the first section of the Pañcavastuka says: 'Question: Who can see colors? Is it the eye faculty that sees, or the eye consciousness that sees?'

見。為與眼識相應慧見。為心．心所和合見耶。如何所疑。一切有疑過。若眼根見。余識行時寧不見色。何不俱取一切境耶。若眼識見。識但以了別為相。非見為相豈能見色。若與眼識相應慧見。應許耳識相應慧聞。彼既非聞。此云何見。若心心所和合能見。諸心．心所和合不定。謂善眼識與二十二心所相應。不善眼識與二十一心所相應。有覆無記眼識與十八種心所相應。無覆無記眼識與十二種心所相應既不決定。云何和合。答眼根能見然與眼識合位非余。譬如眼識了別色用依眼方有。又如受等領納等用必依於心。此亦應爾。由斯理趣。余識了時眼識既空不能見色。亦無俱取一切境失。以一相續中無二心轉故。問何故六所依．所緣。而一相續中無六識俱轉。答等無間緣唯有一故。復有餘義。若眼識見誰復能識。若慧見者誰復能知。若心．心所和合能見諸法一一業用不同。于中定無和合見義。又應一體有二作用。謂許能見．及領納等。復有餘義。若識見者識無對故。則應能見被障諸色。慧及和合應知亦然。是故眼根獨名能見。

論曰至余皆非見者。十八界中眼全是見。法界一分八種是見。餘十六界全。及法界少分。皆非是見。應知此中見有二種。一者觀照名見。所謂眼根。雖慧亦名觀照。此中且以眼名觀照　問眼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本見（dṛṣṭi，觀察）。是與眼識相應的智慧見，還是心、心所（citta-caitta，心和心理活動）和合見？你如何疑惑？一切都有疑惑的可能。如果眼根（cakṣur-indriya，視覺器官）能見，那麼在其他識（vijñāna，意識）活動時，難道就不能見色（rūpa，顏色和形狀）了嗎？為什麼不能同時攝取一切境界（viṣaya，感官對像）呢？如果眼識能見，識只是以了別（vijñāna，辨別）為相，不是以見為相，怎麼能見色呢？如果與眼識相應的智慧能見，就應該允許耳識相應的智慧能聽。既然耳識相應的智慧不是聽，那麼眼識相應的智慧怎麼能見呢？如果心、心所和合能見，諸心、心所和合是不定的。比如，善的眼識與二十二種心所相應，不善的眼識與二十一種心所相應，有覆無記（sāvṛtāvākṛta，被覆蓋的、非善非惡的）眼識與十八種心所相應，無覆無記（anāvṛtāvākṛta，未被覆蓋的、非善非惡的）眼識與十二種心所相應。既然不決定，怎麼能和合呢？回答：眼根能見，然而與眼識結合的位置不是其他。譬如眼識了別色用的作用，依靠眼根才存在。又如受（vedanā，感受）等領納等作用，必定依靠於心。這裡也應該是這樣。由於這個道理，其他識了別時，眼識既然空無，就不能見色。也沒有同時攝取一切境界的過失。因為在一個相續（saṃtāna，連續）中沒有兩個心同時運轉的緣故。問：為什麼有六所依（ṣaḍāyatana，六個感官）和六所緣（ṣaḍviṣaya，六個感官對像），而一個相續中沒有六識同時運轉呢？答：等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，直接無間斷的條件）只有一個的緣故。還有其他意義。如果眼識能見，誰又能識別呢？如果是智慧能見，誰又能知道呢？如果心、心所和合能見，諸法一一的業用不同，其中必定沒有和合見的意義。又應該一個自體有兩種作用，即允許能見以及領納等。還有其他意義。如果識能見，識沒有對立，那麼就應該能見被遮蔽的諸色。智慧以及和合，應該知道也是這樣。所以眼根獨自被稱為能見。論曰：至於其餘皆非見者。十八界（aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ，十八界）中，眼全是見。法界（dharma-dhātu，法界）一分，八種是見。其餘十六界全，以及法界少分，都不是見。應該知道，這裡見有兩種。一者，觀照名見，所謂眼根。雖然智慧也名觀照，這裡且以眼名觀照。問：眼

【English Translation】 English version Seeing (dṛṣṭi, observation). Is it the wisdom that sees in conjunction with eye-consciousness, or is it the seeing of the combination of mind and mental factors (citta-caitta, mind and mental activities)? How do you doubt? Everything has the possibility of doubt. If the eye-organ (cakṣur-indriya, visual organ) can see, then when other consciousnesses (vijñāna, consciousness) are active, can it not see form (rūpa, color and shape)? Why can't it simultaneously grasp all objects of sense (viṣaya, sensory objects)? If eye-consciousness can see, consciousness only takes discrimination (vijñāna, discernment) as its characteristic, not seeing as its characteristic, how can it see form? If the wisdom that is in conjunction with eye-consciousness can see, then it should be allowed that the wisdom that is in conjunction with ear-consciousness can hear. Since the wisdom that is in conjunction with ear-consciousness is not hearing, then how can the wisdom that is in conjunction with eye-consciousness see? If the combination of mind and mental factors can see, the combination of mind and mental factors is not fixed. For example, wholesome eye-consciousness is associated with twenty-two mental factors, unwholesome eye-consciousness is associated with twenty-one mental factors, obscured and indeterminate (sāvṛtāvākṛta, covered, neither good nor bad) eye-consciousness is associated with eighteen mental factors, and unobscured and indeterminate (anāvṛtāvākṛta, uncovered, neither good nor bad) eye-consciousness is associated with twelve mental factors. Since it is not fixed, how can it be combined? Answer: The eye-organ can see, but the position of combination with eye-consciousness is not other. For example, the function of eye-consciousness to discriminate form exists only by relying on the eye-organ. Also, like feeling (vedanā, sensation) and other functions of reception, it must rely on the mind. It should be the same here. Because of this reason, when other consciousnesses discriminate, since eye-consciousness is empty, it cannot see form. There is also no fault of simultaneously grasping all objects of sense. Because there are no two minds operating simultaneously in one continuum (saṃtāna, continuity). Question: Why are there six bases (ṣaḍāyatana, six sense organs) and six objects (ṣaḍviṣaya, six sense objects), but there are no six consciousnesses operating simultaneously in one continuum? Answer: Because there is only one immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya, directly uninterrupted condition). There are other meanings as well. If eye-consciousness can see, who can recognize it? If wisdom can see, who can know it? If the combination of mind and mental factors can see, the functions of each and every dharma are different, and there is definitely no meaning of combined seeing in it. Also, one self should have two functions, that is, allowing seeing and reception, etc. There are other meanings as well. If consciousness can see, since consciousness has no opposition, then it should be able to see obscured forms. Wisdom and combination, it should be known, are also like this. Therefore, the eye-organ alone is called capable of seeing. The treatise says: As for the rest, they are not seeing. Among the eighteen realms (aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ, eighteen realms), the eye is entirely seeing. A portion of the dharma realm (dharma-dhātu, dharma realm), eight kinds, is seeing. The remaining sixteen realms entirely, and a small portion of the dharma realm, are not seeing. It should be known that there are two kinds of seeing here. First, observation is called seeing, namely the eye-organ. Although wisdom is also called observation, here we will call the eye observation. Question: The eye

對色時如何名見。若言舒光至境。燈．日亦應名見。若言影現。水鏡應亦名見。若言體清妙故。耳等四根應亦名見　解云眼見色時。不舒光至境不同燈日。亦非影現不同水鏡。雖五色根體皆清凈起用各別。謂眼見色。耳聞聲。鼻嗅香。舌嘗味。身覺觸。眼對色非如鉗之取物。但起觀照色用。故獨名見不同耳等。二者推度名見。于其慧中唯此八種。餘十六界全．法界少分不能觀照。又無推度。皆非是見。

何等為八者。問。

謂身見等至明昧不同者。答　世間諸見。謂有染．無染。或染．無染名世間　學．無學名諸見　夜分有云喻有染。五見有漏故如夜。是煩惱故如雲。

夜分無雲喻無染。正見有漏故如夜。非煩惱故如無雲　晝分有云喻有學。正見無漏故如晝。有煩惱故如雲　晝分無雲喻無學。正見無漏故如晝。無煩惱故如無雲。余文可知。

何故世間正見唯意識相應者。問。

以五識至是故非見者。答。可知　問五識無計度分別可名無分別。如定中有漏正見。及學．無學正見。既無計度分別。云何名見。以計度分別唯散慧故　解云定慧雖非計度分別。而能審慮決度故名見。準。

此所餘至非見應知者。此例釋也。十八界中眼全是見觀照色故。法界八種是見。推度性故。就彼慧中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：當眼睛接觸到色（Rūpa，形態、顏色）時，如何稱之為『見』（Darśana，看見）？如果說是光線延伸到物體，那麼燈和太陽也應該被稱為『見』。如果說是影像顯現，那麼水和鏡子也應該被稱為『見』。如果說是根（Indriya，感官）的本體清凈微妙，那麼耳等其他四根也應該被稱為『見』。答：眼睛看見色時，不是像燈和太陽那樣光線延伸到物體，也不是像水和鏡子那樣影像顯現。雖然五色根（Pañca-rūpindriya，五種色根）的本體都清凈，但它們的作用各不相同，即眼睛看見色，耳朵聽見聲，鼻子嗅到香，舌頭嚐到味，身體感覺到觸。眼睛面對色，不像鉗子那樣抓取物體，只是生起觀照色的作用，所以唯獨眼睛被稱為『見』，不同於其他感官。這是通過推度而稱之為『見』。在智慧中，只有這八種是『見』。其餘的十六界（Ṣoḍaśa dhātu，十八界中的十六界）全部和法界（Dharmadhātu，法界）的少部分不能觀照，又沒有推度，所以都不是『見』。問：哪八種是『見』？答：就是身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊為我）、邊見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi，執斷常二邊）、邪見（Mithyādṛṣṭi，否定因果的見解）等等，它們的明昧程度不同。世間的各種見解，有染污的、無染污的，或者說染污的和無染污的稱為世間。有學的（Śaikṣa，正在修學的聖者）和無學的（Aśaikṣa，已經完成修學的聖者）稱為諸見。夜晚有云比喻有染污，五見（Pañca-dṛṣṭi，五種惡見）有煩惱，所以像夜晚，是煩惱，所以像云。夜晚無雲比喻無染污，正見（Samyagdṛṣṭi，正確的見解）有煩惱，所以像夜晚，不是煩惱，所以像沒有云。白天有云比喻有學，正見沒有煩惱，所以像白天，有煩惱，所以像云。白天無雲比喻無學，正見沒有煩惱，所以像白天，沒有煩惱，所以像沒有云。其餘的文句可以類推得知。問：為什麼世間的正見只有意識（Vijñāna，識別作用）相應？答：因為五識（Pañca-vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）沒有計度分別，所以不是『見』。五識沒有計度分別，可以稱為無分別。比如禪定（Dhyāna，禪定）中，有漏的正見，以及有學的和無學的正見，既然沒有計度分別，為什麼稱為『見』？因為計度分別只是散亂的智慧。解釋說，禪定中的智慧雖然不是計度分別，但能夠審慮決斷，所以稱為『見』。其餘的十八界（Aṣṭādaśa dhātu，十八界）中，眼睛全部是『見』，因為能觀照色。法界的八種是『見』，因為有推度的性質。就智慧中而言。

【English Translation】 English version Question: When the eye comes into contact with rūpa (form, color), how is it called 'seeing' (darśana)? If it is said that light extends to the object, then lamps and the sun should also be called 'seeing'. If it is said that an image appears, then water and mirrors should also be called 'seeing'. If it is said that the essence of the sense organ is pure and subtle, then the other four sense organs, such as the ear, should also be called 'seeing'. Answer: When the eye sees rūpa, it is not like light extending to the object as with lamps and the sun, nor is it like an image appearing as with water and mirrors. Although the essence of the five rūpindriya (five sense organs related to form) are all pure, their functions are different, namely, the eye sees rūpa, the ear hears sound, the nose smells fragrance, the tongue tastes flavor, and the body feels touch. The eye facing rūpa is not like tongs grasping an object, but only gives rise to the function of observing rūpa, so only the eye is called 'seeing', unlike the other sense organs. This is called 'seeing' through inference. In wisdom, only these eight are 'seeing'. All of the remaining sixteen dhātu (sixteen realms out of the eighteen realms) and a small part of the dharmadhātu (dharma realm) cannot observe, nor do they have inference, so they are not 'seeing'. Question: Which eight are 'seeing'? Answer: They are satkāya-dṛṣṭi (belief in a self), antagrahadṛṣṭi (holding to extremes), mithyādṛṣṭi (wrong view), etc., and their degrees of clarity and obscurity are different. Worldly views, whether defiled or undefiled, or defiled and undefiled, are called worldly. Śaikṣa (one in training) and aśaikṣa (one beyond training) are called views. Night with clouds is a metaphor for defilement. The five dṛṣṭi (five wrong views) have outflows, so they are like night, and are afflictions, so they are like clouds. Night without clouds is a metaphor for undefilement. Samyagdṛṣṭi (right view) has outflows, so it is like night, and is not an affliction, so it is like no clouds. Day with clouds is a metaphor for śaikṣa. Samyagdṛṣṭi is without outflows, so it is like day, and has afflictions, so it is like clouds. Day without clouds is a metaphor for aśaikṣa. Samyagdṛṣṭi is without outflows, so it is like day, and has no afflictions, so it is like no clouds. The remaining sentences can be inferred. Question: Why is worldly right view only associated with vijñāna (consciousness)? Answer: Because the five vijñāna (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) do not have calculation and discrimination, so they are not 'seeing'. The five vijñāna do not have calculation and discrimination, and can be called non-discrimination. For example, in dhyāna (meditation), the right view with outflows, and the śaikṣa and aśaikṣa right view, since they do not have calculation and discrimination, why are they called 'seeing'? Because calculation and discrimination are only scattered wisdom. It is explained that although wisdom in dhyāna is not calculation and discrimination, it can deliberate and decide, so it is called 'seeing'. Among the remaining eighteen dhātu (eighteen realms), the eye is entirely 'seeing' because it can observe rūpa. Eight kinds of the dharmadhātu (dharma realm) are 'seeing' because they have the nature of inference. In terms of wisdom.

五識俱慧總非是見。非決度故。準此所餘染慧。所餘無染慧。及諸餘法。非見　所餘染慧。謂意地貪．瞋．慢．疑．忿等十惑相應慧。為二鈍惑之所損覆。一貪等隨一。二彼相應無明。不共無明相應慧。雖復唯為一惑損覆。其過尤重過二煩惱。染悔俱慧。雖復唯有相應無明其力稍劣。惡作共損故並非見。雖彼五見亦有相應無明。其力微劣不能損慧。唯一故不同貪等。無力故不同獨頭。故名見　所餘無染慧。謂意地異熟生等四無記慧。其性中庸。勢力羸劣而非猛利。如不成善。不成染污。故不成見。盡．無生慧以息求故亦不名見　及諸餘法。即十六界全。法界少分。既無觀照。又無推度。故皆非見　或可。此文別簡法界。於法界中準此前義所餘染慧。及諸餘法界非見。應知乘前解慧有此文故。

若爾眼根至云何名見者。識見家難。即是法救。大眾部等。

以能明利至故亦名見者。眼見家答。

若眼見者至亦應名見者。識見家難。

非一切眼皆能現見者。眼見家答。

誰能現見者。識見家徴。

謂同分眼至能見非餘者。眼見家釋。解頌第五句。

若。爾即應至見色非眼者。識見家難。

不爾眼識定非能見者　總非識見家。釋第六句。

所以者何者。識見家徴。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『五識俱慧總非是見』，因為它們不能決斷和衡量。按照這個標準，其餘的染污智慧、其餘的無染污智慧以及其他的法，都不是『見』。其餘的染污智慧，指的是意地的貪（greed）、瞋（hatred）、慢（pride）、疑（doubt）、忿（resentment）等十種煩惱相應的智慧，它們被兩種遲鈍的煩惱所損害和覆蓋：一是貪等煩惱中的任何一種，二是與這些煩惱相應的無明（ignorance）。與不共無明相應的智慧，雖然只被一種煩惱所損害和覆蓋，但它的過失比兩種煩惱還要嚴重。與染污的後悔相應的智慧，雖然只有相應的無明，但它的力量稍弱，因為有惡作（remorse）共同損害，所以不是『見』。雖然五見（five wrong views）也有相應的無明，但它的力量微弱，不能損害智慧，因為只有一種煩惱，所以不同於貪等煩惱；因為力量微弱，所以不同於獨頭意識（independent consciousness）。因此被稱為『見』。其餘的無染污智慧，指的是意地的異熟生等四種無記（neutral）智慧，它們的性質中庸，勢力羸弱而不猛利，就像不能成為善，也不能成為染污一樣，所以不能成為『見』。盡智（knowledge of exhaustion）和無生智（knowledge of non-arising）因為息滅了追求，所以也不稱為『見』。以及其他的法，指的是十六界（sixteen realms）的全部，以及法界（dharma realm）的少部分。它們既沒有觀照，也沒有推度，所以都不是『見』。或者，這段文字特別簡別了法界。在法界中，按照前面的意義，其餘的染污智慧以及其他的法界不是『見』。應該知道，因為前面的解釋慧有這段文字的緣故。『如果這樣，眼根（eye faculty）為什麼被稱為見呢？』這是識見家（consciousness-as-seeing school）的詰難，也就是法救（Dharmatrāta），大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）等宗派的觀點。『因為能夠明瞭和銳利，所以也稱為見』，這是眼見家（eye-as-seeing school）的回答。『如果眼睛能見，也應該被稱為見』，這是識見家的詰難。『不是所有的眼睛都能現見』，這是眼見家的回答。『誰能現見呢？』這是識見家的提問。『指的是同分眼（eye of similar kind），能夠見，而不是其他的』，這是眼見家的解釋，解釋了頌文的第五句。『如果這樣，就應該見色（see form）而不是眼』，這是識見家的詰難。『不是這樣的，眼識（eye consciousness）一定不能見』，總的來說，這是識見家的觀點，解釋了第六句。『為什麼呢？』這是識見家的提問。

【English Translation】 English version 『The wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses is definitely not seeing,』 because they cannot decide or measure. According to this standard, the remaining defiled wisdom, the remaining undefiled wisdom, and all other dharmas are not 『seeing.』 The remaining defiled wisdom refers to the wisdom associated with the ten afflictions of the mind realm, such as greed (greed), hatred (hatred), pride (pride), doubt (doubt), resentment (resentment), etc. They are damaged and covered by two dull afflictions: one is any of the afflictions such as greed, and the other is ignorance (avidyā) associated with these afflictions. The wisdom associated with non-common ignorance, although only damaged and covered by one affliction, its fault is even more serious than two afflictions. The wisdom associated with defiled regret, although it only has corresponding ignorance, its power is slightly weaker because it is jointly damaged by remorse (kukṛtya), so it is not 『seeing.』 Although the five wrong views (five wrong views) also have corresponding ignorance, its power is weak and cannot damage wisdom, because there is only one affliction, so it is different from afflictions such as greed; because the power is weak, it is different from independent consciousness (independent consciousness). Therefore, it is called 『seeing.』 The remaining undefiled wisdom refers to the four neutral (avyākṛta) wisdoms such as the result of maturation in the mind realm. Their nature is neutral, and their power is weak and not strong, just like they cannot become good or defiled, so they cannot become 『seeing.』 The knowledge of exhaustion (kṣaya-jñāna) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpāda-jñāna) are not called 『seeing』 because they have extinguished seeking. And all other dharmas refer to the entirety of the sixteen realms (ṣoḍaśa dhātu) and a small part of the dharma realm (dharma dhātu). They have neither contemplation nor measurement, so they are not 『seeing.』 Or, this passage specifically distinguishes the dharma realm. In the dharma realm, according to the previous meaning, the remaining defiled wisdom and other dharma realms are not 『seeing.』 It should be known that this passage exists because the previous explanation of wisdom has this passage. 『If so, why is the eye faculty (cakṣurindriya) called seeing?』 This is the challenge from the consciousness-as-seeing school, which is the view of Dharmatrāta (Dharmatrāta), the Mahāsāṃghika (Mahāsāṃghika), and other schools. 『Because it can be clear and sharp, it is also called seeing,』 this is the answer from the eye-as-seeing school. 『If the eye can see, it should also be called seeing,』 this is the challenge from the consciousness-as-seeing school. 『Not all eyes can directly see,』 this is the answer from the eye-as-seeing school. 『Who can directly see?』 This is the question from the consciousness-as-seeing school. 『It refers to the eye of similar kind (sabhāga cakṣus), which can see, not others,』 this is the explanation from the eye-as-seeing school, explaining the fifth line of the verse. 『If so, then one should see form (rūpa) and not the eye,』 this is the challenge from the consciousness-as-seeing school. 『It is not like that; eye consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna) definitely cannot see,』 in general, this is the view of the consciousness-as-seeing school, explaining the sixth line. 『Why?』 This is the question from the consciousness-as-seeing school.

傳說不能至應見障色者。眼見家為釋反徴。解第七．第八句。識既不能觀被障色故非能見。復反徴識見家。若識見者識無對故。壁等不礙應見障色。于被障色至如何當見者。識見家答。

眼識于彼至何緣不起者。眼見家總徴。理定眼識于被障色何故不生。此即總徴。許眼見者已下。理定我宗許眼見者。眼有對故不見障色。識與依根一境轉故。可言于被障色眼識不生。汝許識見者。于被障色何緣不起。

眼豈如身至無見功能者。識見家又難。眼若境合。可同身根不取障色。眼根既能取非至境。如何不能見被障色　頗胝迦下。引事難見障外色。

若爾所執眼識云何者。眼見家反徴。

若於是處至故不能見者。識見家答。頗胝迦等。光明無隔識見障色。壁等。光明有隔于被障色眼識不生。

然經說眼至唯為見色者。識見家通經引證。經言眼見是見所依。如意能識　或就所依根說能依識業用。如座言聲　又如眼所識色亦就所依說能依識。已上通經引例　又如經說下。復證眼識依眼門見。此經意說。門非是見。依門識見。若門即見。豈容被經重說見言。

若識能見至二用何異者。眼見家難。若識能見誰復了別。見與了別二用何別。

以即見色至亦能了別者。識見家答。如一慧

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本傳說如果眼根不能看到被遮蔽的顏色，那麼眼識的『見』的功能就被推翻了。這是對第七句和第八句的解釋。既然眼識不能觀察被遮蔽的顏色，那麼它就不是能『見』的主體。這裡反過來質疑眼識的『見』的功能。如果眼識能『見』，那麼由於眼識沒有對立的阻礙，墻壁等不應該阻礙它看到被遮蔽的顏色。對於被遮蔽的顏色，它應該如何看到呢？這是眼識『見』的擁護者的回答。

『眼識對於那些被遮蔽的顏色，為何不起作用呢？』這是眼見宗的總體質問。從道理上講，眼識對於被遮蔽的顏色，為什麼不產生作用呢？這就是總體的質問。『如果承認眼根能見』以下是眼見宗的觀點。從道理上講，我宗承認眼根能見，因為眼根有對立的阻礙，所以不能看到被遮蔽的顏色。眼識和它所依賴的根在同一個境界中運轉，所以可以說眼識對於被遮蔽的顏色不產生作用。如果你們承認眼識能見，那麼對於被遮蔽的顏色，它為什麼不起作用呢？

『眼根難道像身體一樣，沒有見的功能嗎？』這是識見宗的反駁。如果眼根與境界結合，可以像身根一樣不取被遮蔽的顏色。眼根既然能夠取非至境，為什麼不能看到被遮蔽的顏色呢？』『頗胝迦』以下，引用事例來反駁眼根不能見遮蔽物之外的顏色。

『如果這樣，那麼你所堅持的眼識又是什麼呢？』這是眼見宗的反問。

『如果在那些地方，光明沒有阻隔，眼識就能看到被遮蔽的顏色；在墻壁等地方，光明有阻隔，眼識就不能產生作用。』這是識見宗的回答。這裡用頗胝迦等透明物體和墻壁等不透明物體來做比喻。

『然而經典上說，眼根只是爲了見色。』這是識見宗通過引用經典來證明自己的觀點。經典上說，眼根的『見』是眼識所依賴的。就像意識能夠識別一樣。或者就所依賴的根來說能依賴的識的作用，就像座位能發出聲音一樣。又比如眼根所識別的顏色，也是就所依賴的根來說能依賴的識。以上是通過引用經典來舉例說明。『又如經典上說』以下，再次證明眼識是依靠眼門來見的。這段經文的意思是說，眼門不是『見』，而是依靠眼門，眼識才能見。如果眼門就是『見』，那麼為什麼經典還要重複說『見』呢？

『如果眼識能見，那麼誰來分別呢？見和分別這兩種作用有什麼區別呢？』這是眼見宗的質問。

『因為眼識既能見色，也能分別。』這是識見宗的回答。就像一個智慧一樣。

【English Translation】 English version The tradition says that if the eye cannot see obstructed colors, then the 'seeing' function of eye-consciousness is overturned. This explains the seventh and eighth sentences. Since eye-consciousness cannot observe obstructed colors, it is not the subject that can 'see'. Here, the 'seeing' function of eye-consciousness is questioned in return. If eye-consciousness can 'see', then since eye-consciousness has no opposing obstruction, walls, etc., should not prevent it from seeing obstructed colors. How should it see obstructed colors? This is the answer of the supporter of eye-consciousness 'seeing'.

'Why does eye-consciousness not arise for those obstructed colors?' This is the general question of the eye-seeing school. Logically speaking, why does eye-consciousness not arise for obstructed colors? This is the general question. 'If one admits that the eye can see' below is the view of the eye-seeing school. Logically speaking, our school admits that the eye can see, because the eye has opposing obstructions, so it cannot see obstructed colors. Eye-consciousness and the root it depends on operate in the same realm, so it can be said that eye-consciousness does not arise for obstructed colors. If you admit that eye-consciousness can see, then why does it not arise for obstructed colors?

'Is the eye like the body, without the function of seeing?' This is the refutation of the consciousness-seeing school. If the eye is combined with the realm, it can be like the body root and not take obstructed colors. Since the eye root can take non-immediate realms, why can't it see obstructed colors?' 'Sphatika' below, cites examples to refute that the eye cannot see colors outside of obstructions.

'If so, then what is the eye-consciousness that you insist on?' This is the counter-question of the eye-seeing school.

'If in those places, there is no obstruction of light, eye-consciousness can see obstructed colors; in places like walls, there is obstruction of light, and eye-consciousness cannot arise.' This is the answer of the consciousness-seeing school. Here, transparent objects like sphatika and opaque objects like walls are used as metaphors.

'However, the scriptures say that the eye is only for seeing colors.' This is the consciousness-seeing school proving its point by quoting scriptures. The scriptures say that the 'seeing' of the eye is what eye-consciousness depends on. Just like consciousness can recognize. Or, in terms of the root that is depended on, it speaks of the function of the consciousness that depends on it, just like a seat can make a sound. Also, like the colors recognized by the eye, it also speaks of the consciousness that depends on the root that is depended on. The above is illustrating by quoting scriptures. 'Also, as the scriptures say' below, it proves again that eye-consciousness sees by relying on the eye-door. The meaning of this scripture is that the eye-door is not 'seeing', but by relying on the eye-door, eye-consciousness can see. If the eye-door is 'seeing', then why do the scriptures repeat the word 'seeing'?

'If eye-consciousness can see, then who distinguishes? What is the difference between the two functions of seeing and distinguishing?' This is the question of the eye-seeing school.

'Because eye-consciousness can both see colors and distinguish them.' This is the answer of the consciousness-seeing school. It's like a single wisdom.

體推求名見。亦名簡擇。識亦應然。亦名能見亦能了別。有慧非見故言少分慧。如盡智等。有識非見。如耳識等。故言少分識。

有餘難言至誰是見用者。有餘異執作是難言。若眼能見眼是見者。誰是見用。彼計見．用各別。由計不同故為斯難　或是識見家異師難。彼計眼是見者識是見用。

此言非難至見亦應爾者。眼見家答。此言非難。如共許識是能了別。然無了者．了用不同。即識名了。見亦應爾即眼名見。無別見者。見用不同。

有餘復言至亦說鐘能鳴者。識見家異師復通前經。引喻不同計亦無別。或是別部故今重敘。

若爾眼根至應名能識者。眼見家難。眼是見依說眼能見。眼是識依說眼能識。

無如是失至名能作晝者。識見家答。無如是失。世間人同許。眼根識生時說此眼是見。由彼識生時。說眼能見色不言眼識色　又解世人同許。眼識生時說眼是見。由彼識生時。說眼能見色不言識色　又解世間同許眼識是見者。此文應言同許眼根是見。而言眼識者。此舉能依顯所依事　又解應言同許眼根是見。而言眼識。于所依因立能依果名　又解世間同許眼識是見。識體微細世不了知。但言眼見。言眼見時即是識見。由彼識生時說眼能見色。不言眼根能識色　問若眼不名識色。何故前

文言。又如經言眼所識色可愛可樂。然實非此可愛樂色是眼所識。準彼前文。色是眼所識。眼即是能識。于所依根立能識號。何故後文不言識色　解云前文約典說眼能識。後文據俗眼非能識　又解前約法救．大眾部等引經。亦復異部別解。故不同也　識見家言。何但我作斯解。毗婆沙中亦作是說。若眼所得說名所見。明知眼名能見。眼識所受同文故來。此即證眼名能見不名能識　又解眼識所受說名所見。明知眼識名能見。此即證識名見。若眼所得同文故來　又解。若眼所得說名所見。此即證眼名能見不名能識。眼識所受說名所見。此即證識名能見。是故但說眼名能見不名能識。唯識現前說能識色。譬如說日名能作晝即日名晝。非離日外別有其晝。其識亦爾。識現前時即名能識。非離識外別有能識　上來雖複眼見．識見兩家異諍。看其文勢論主意朋識見。

經部諸師至不應固求者。上來諍見兩說不同。今經部師。傍觀德失俱破兩家。經部諸師有作是說。見用本無。如何浪執。或說眼見。或說識見。猶如共聚揸掣虛空。眼．色等緣生於眼識。此等於見誰為能．所。諸法生時。前因後果相引而起。實無作用。相續道中及緣成位。遍計所執謂有作用能見聞等。若言實有作用。應同勝論業句義也　問經部宗中無作用耶。

解云諸法但有功能實無作用世尊為順世情假說見．耳。皆俗諦攝不應封著。如世尊說。方域言詞種種異說。不應堅執。世俗名想隨情即立。不應固求。唯法因果勝義諦收。

然迦濕彌羅至意能了者。說一切有部結歸本宗。

于見色時至為二眼見者。此下第二傍論。就中。一兩眼見先後。二六根．境離合。三根．境量大少。四六識依世攝。五眼等得依名。六識隨根立名。七依地同異別　此下第一明兩眼見先後。問起。

此無定準至不同礙色者。答。如犢子部兩眼互見。非俱時見。處隔越故。速疾轉故謂俱時見。如婆沙十三破云。若一眼見非二眼者。身諸分亦應不俱時覺觸。如身根兩臂相去雖遠。而得俱時覺觸生一身識。兩眼亦爾。相去雖遠。何妨俱時見色生一眼識(已上論文)。

若依此宗。有時一眼見色。或時二眼見色。以見色分明故知兩眼同見　頌中言或。顯不定也。

二眼俱時。表異犢子　又如兩眼同觀一月。以手觸一名觸一眼。不被觸者名開一眼。此被觸眼便於現前見二月等。以實觸眼與不觸眼。同觀一月非見二月。但被觸眼所引意識。妄謂見二非觸眼見。此證兩眼同見一月俱發一識。若不爾者。如閉一眼但觸一眼即不見彼二月等事。故知同見一月。以此明知。非但兩眼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：　　解釋說，諸法只有功能，實際上沒有作用。世尊爲了順應世俗的情感，假說有『見』（dṛṣṭi，視覺）、『耳』（śrotra，聽覺）等。這些都屬於世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）的範疇，不應該執著。正如世尊所說，不同地域的語言詞彙有種種差異，不應該固執己見。世俗的名稱概念，隨著人們的情感而建立，不應該強求統一。只有法的因果關係才屬於勝義諦（paramārtha-satya，絕對真理）的範疇。　　然而，迦濕彌羅（Kashmir，古印度地名）那些用心領會的人，認為一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派）最終歸結于其根本宗旨。　　關於『在看見顏色時，由兩隻眼睛看見』，以下是第二段旁論。其中包含：一、兩眼看見的先後順序；二、六根（ṣaḍ indriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）與六境（ṣaḍ viṣaya，色、聲、香、味、觸、法）的離合；三、根與境的量的大小；四、六識（ṣaḍ vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）屬於世俗諦；五、眼等獲得依的名稱；六、識隨著根而立名；七、所依之地相同或不同。以下首先說明兩眼看見的先後順序。提出問題：　　『這沒有一定的準則』，回答：如同犢子部（Vātsīputrīya，佛教部派）認為兩眼互相看見，並非同時看見，因為處在隔開的位置。因為轉動迅速，所以認為同時看見。如同《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第十三卷駁斥說：『如果一隻眼睛看見，不是兩隻眼睛看見，那麼身體的各個部分也不應該同時感覺到觸覺。』如同身體的兩臂雖然相距遙遠，卻能同時感覺到觸覺，產生同一個身識。兩隻眼睛也是這樣，相距雖然遙遠，為什麼妨礙同時看見顏色，產生一個眼識（以上是論文的內容）。　　如果按照這個宗派的觀點，有時一隻眼睛看見顏色，有時兩隻眼睛看見顏色。因為看見顏色很分明，所以知道兩隻眼睛同時看見。頌文中的『或』字，顯示不確定。　　兩眼同時，表明不同於犢子部。又如兩隻眼睛一同觀看一個月亮，用手觸控一隻眼睛，稱作『觸一眼』，不被觸控的眼睛稱作『開一眼』。這隻被觸控的眼睛便會顯現出看見兩個月亮等。因為實際觸控的眼睛與不觸控的眼睛，一同觀看一個月亮，並非看見兩個月亮。只是被觸控的眼睛所引發的意識，錯誤地認為看見兩個月亮，並非不觸控的眼睛看見。這證明兩隻眼睛一同看見一個月亮，同時發出一個識。如果不是這樣，如同閉上一隻眼睛，只觸控一隻眼睛，就看不見那兩個月亮等事物。所以知道一同看見一個月亮。由此明確知道，並非只有兩隻眼睛。

【English Translation】 English version: It is explained that all dharmas only have functions but no actual actions. The World-Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) provisionally spoke of 'seeing' (dṛṣṭi, vision), 'hearing' (śrotra, audition), etc., to accord with worldly sentiments. All these are included in the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya, relative truth) and should not be clung to. Just as the World-Honored One said, languages and words vary in different regions, and one should not stubbornly adhere to one's own views. Worldly names and concepts are established according to people's feelings and should not be rigidly sought. Only the cause and effect of dharmas are included in the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya, absolute truth). However, those in Kashmir (Kashmir, ancient Indian place name) who can understand with utmost sincerity say that the Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda, a Buddhist school) ultimately returns to its fundamental principle. Regarding 'when seeing colors, they are seen by two eyes,' the following is the second digression. It includes: 1. The order in which the two eyes see; 2. The separation and combination of the six sense organs (ṣaḍ indriya, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) and the six sense objects (ṣaḍ viṣaya, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma); 3. The size of the measure of the sense organs and sense objects; 4. The six consciousnesses (ṣaḍ vijñāna, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness) belong to the conventional truth; 5. The eyes, etc., obtain the name of reliance; 6. Consciousness is named according to the sense organ; 7. The ground of reliance is the same or different. The following first explains the order in which the two eyes see. A question is raised: 'There is no fixed standard for this,' the answer is: Like the Vātsīputrīya (Vātsīputrīya, a Buddhist school) who believe that the two eyes see each other, but not simultaneously, because they are in separate positions. Because the rotation is fast, it is thought that they see simultaneously. As the thirteenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Great Commentary on the Abhidharma) refutes: 'If one eye sees and not two eyes, then the parts of the body should also not simultaneously feel touch.' Just as the two arms of the body, although far apart, can simultaneously feel touch and produce the same body consciousness. The two eyes are also like this, although far apart, why should it prevent them from simultaneously seeing colors and producing one eye consciousness (the above is the content of the treatise). If according to the view of this school, sometimes one eye sees color, and sometimes two eyes see color. Because seeing color is very clear, it is known that the two eyes see simultaneously. The word 'sometimes' in the verse shows uncertainty. The two eyes are simultaneous, indicating a difference from the Vātsīputrīya. Also, like two eyes watching the same moon, touching one eye with a hand is called 'touching one eye,' and the eye that is not touched is called 'opening one eye.' The eye that is touched will then appear to see two moons, etc. Because the eye that is actually touched and the eye that is not touched watch the same moon together, they do not see two moons. It is only the consciousness triggered by the eye that is touched that mistakenly thinks it sees two moons, not the eye that is not touched. This proves that the two eyes see the same moon together and emit one consciousness at the same time. If this were not the case, like closing one eye and only touching one eye, one would not see the two moons, etc. Therefore, it is known that they see the same moon together. From this, it is clearly known that it is not only the two eyes.

互見。亦有或時二眼俱見。非所依別能依之識分成二分。無色之法住無方故。不同礙色。根雖兩處依性一故。眼設一百千尚生一識。況唯有二。若依經部中上座計。大同犢子。故正理第七云。由此亦遮上座所說。彼作是言。二眼于境前後起用見則分明。或復一眼有閉壞時。一眼雖開無相替代。彼所生識唯依一門。速疾轉故見不明瞭。此說亦非。所執二眼剎那展轉相替代時。一眼常空不能見色。恒唯一眼能見色故。與一眼者見色。明．昧差別應無。故彼所言不能令喜　廣如彼破。

若此宗說至不至三相違者。此下第二明六根境離合。若據功能至境名為至。六根皆名至。若據體無間故名為至。即三至。三不至。此中約第二以答　三相違。即鼻等三唯取至境。違不至義故曰相違。

論曰至如鼻根等者。此宗眼．耳．意三取非至境。鼻．舌．身三唯取至境。若依勝論外道。六根皆取至境。彼計。眼等五根如其次第。以火．空．地．水．風為體。眼以火為體。故舒光至境。或日光等至眼能取。耳無光故聲來入耳故。先見擊鐘后聞聲。故彼計有離質聲。餘三根同此論。故成實論根塵離合品。說外道意。六根皆取至境　即是勝論師義　反難勝論師言。汝宗若說眼．耳二根唯取至境。則修定者。應不修生天眼．天耳如鼻根

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本互見。也有時候兩隻眼睛同時看到。不是所依賴的、能依賴的識分成兩部分。無色的法沒有固定的方位，所以不同於有障礙的色法。根雖然在兩個地方，但其體性是一致的，所以即使有一百個、一千個眼睛，也只會產生一個識，更何況只有兩個眼睛呢？如果按照經部（Sautrāntika）中一些上座部（Sthavira）的觀點，那就和大同犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）一樣了。所以《正理經》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）第七卷說：『由此也駁斥了上座部的說法。』他們這樣說：『兩隻眼睛對於境界前後起作用，所見就分明。或者一隻眼睛有閉合或損壞的時候，另一隻眼睛即使睜開也沒有相互替代的作用。它所產生的識只依賴一個門（指眼根），因為運轉迅速所以見得不清楚。』這種說法也是不對的。如果按照他們所執著的，兩隻眼睛剎那間交替替代，那麼一隻眼睛常常是空無作用的，不能見色。因為總是隻有一隻眼睛能見色，那麼和只有一隻眼睛的人相比，在見色的明暗程度上應該沒有差別。所以他們的說法不能令人信服。詳細的破斥見於《正理經》。

如果這個宗派說至（prāpta）與不至（aprāpta）是三種相違的情況，下面第二部分說明六根（ṣaḍindriya）與六境（ṣaḍviṣaya）的離合關係。如果根據功能到達境界稱為『至』，那麼六根都可稱為『至』。如果根據體性沒有間隔的緣故稱為『至』，那就是三種『至』，三種『不至』。這裡採用第二種說法來回答，三種相違。就是鼻根（ghrāṇendriya）等三種根只取『至』的境界，違背了『不至』的含義，所以說是相違。

論曰：『至如鼻根等者。』這個宗派認為，眼根（cakṣurindriya）、耳根（śrotrendriya）、意根（manas）這三種根取『不至』的境界，鼻根、舌根（jihvendriya）、身根（kāyendriya）這三種根只取『至』的境界。如果按照勝論（Vaiśeṣika）外道的觀點，六根都取『至』的境界。他們認為，眼等五根依次以火（tejas）、空（ākāśa）、地（pṛthivī）、水（ap）、風（vāyu）為體。眼根以火為體，所以能舒放光明到達境界。或者日光等到達眼睛才能取境。耳根沒有光明，所以聲音進入耳朵。先看到敲鐘，后聽到聲音，所以他們認為有離開實體的聲音。其餘三根與此論相同。所以《成實論》（Tattvasiddhi-śāstra）的根塵離合品，說外道的觀點是六根都取『至』的境界，這就是勝論師的觀點。反駁勝論師說：『如果你們宗派說眼根、耳根這兩種根只取『至』的境界，那麼修習禪定的人，就不應該修生天眼（divyacakṣus）、天耳（divyaśrotra），如同鼻根一樣。』

【English Translation】 English version Mutual seeing. There are also times when both eyes see simultaneously. It is not that the dependent and the relying consciousness are divided into two parts. Formless dharmas do not reside in a fixed direction, so they are different from obstructive form. Although the sense organs are in two places, their nature is one, so even if there were a hundred or a thousand eyes, only one consciousness would arise, let alone just two? If according to the views of some Sthaviras (Elders) in the Sautrāntika (Sūtra school), it would be the same as the Vātsīputrīya (Personalist school). Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Manifest Knowledge) says in the seventh volume: 'Therefore, it also refutes the views of the Sthaviras.' They say: 'When two eyes function one after the other in relation to an object, what is seen is clear. Or when one eye is closed or damaged, the other eye, even if open, does not replace it. The consciousness produced by it relies only on one gate (referring to the eye sense organ), and because it turns quickly, what is seen is not clear.' This statement is also incorrect. If according to what they hold, the two eyes alternate momentarily, then one eye is often empty and cannot see form. Because it is always only one eye that can see form, then compared to a person with only one eye, there should be no difference in the clarity or obscurity of seeing form. Therefore, their statement is not convincing. A detailed refutation can be found in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.

If this school says that 'reached' (prāpta) and 'not reached' (aprāpta) are three contradictory situations, then the second part below explains the relationship of separation and combination between the six sense organs (ṣaḍindriya) and the six sense objects (ṣaḍviṣaya). If according to the function of reaching the object it is called 'reached,' then all six sense organs can be called 'reached.' If according to the nature of no interval it is called 'reached,' then there are three 'reached' and three 'not reached.' Here, the second statement is used to answer the three contradictions. That is, the nose sense organ (ghrāṇendriya) and the other two only take the 'reached' object, which contradicts the meaning of 'not reached,' so it is said to be contradictory.

The treatise says: 'Reached, such as the nose sense organ, etc.' This school believes that the eye sense organ (cakṣurindriya), the ear sense organ (śrotrendriya), and the mind (manas) take the 'not reached' object, while the nose sense organ, the tongue sense organ (jihvendriya), and the body sense organ (kāyendriya) only take the 'reached' object. If according to the view of the Vaiśeṣika (Particularist school) heretics, all six sense organs take the 'reached' object. They believe that the five sense organs, such as the eye, etc., are respectively composed of fire (tejas), space (ākāśa), earth (pṛthivī), water (ap), and wind (vāyu). The eye sense organ is composed of fire, so it can emit light to reach the object. Or sunlight, etc., reaches the eye to grasp the object. The ear sense organ has no light, so sound enters the ear. First one sees the striking of the bell, then one hears the sound, so they believe that there is sound separate from substance. The remaining three sense organs are the same as this treatise. Therefore, the chapter on the separation and combination of sense organs and sense objects in the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (Establishment of Truth Treatise) says that the heretical view is that all six sense organs take the 'reached' object, which is the view of the Vaiśeṣika. Refuting the Vaiśeṣika, saying: 'If your school says that the eye sense organ and the ear sense organ only take the 'reached' object, then those who practice meditation should not cultivate the divine eye (divyacakṣus) and the divine ear (divyaśrotra), just like the nose sense organ.'

等。此比量云。天眼．天耳應不須修。取至境故。如鼻等。若作順成比量。天眼．天耳不取至境。以修得故。如他心通。

若眼能見至不至諸色者。外難。若取不至。何故不能普取一切不至諸色。如何磁石至耳根亦爾者。論主反難外人。以眼能取不至境。即令普取不至境。磁石能吸不至鐵。何不普吸不至鐵。此即引事反難。汝勝論師執眼能見至境。亦同此難。何不普見眼藥．籌等至眼諸色。此即入彼宗難　又如鼻等下。引例反成。如眼既然耳根亦爾　問眼在闇中見闇色時。為見逼眼者。為見遠者。若見逼者應取至境。若取遠者應取所障　解云闇中不見色者。不見所障瓶瓫等．及大遠色。于次近者雖無光明有空故見。眼之勢力強弱皆爾。隨其所應例應思擇。

意無色故非能有至者。意無色故無有方所。非能有至。

有執耳根至亦能聞故者。婆沙異說不正義。若依正義。自耳中聲極相近者猶隔一微已上。若通耳根即不能聞。

所餘鼻等至唯取至境者。釋第二句。

如何知鼻唯取至香者。問。身．舌取至相顯可知。鼻取至隱故別標問。

由斷息時不嗅香故者。答。由斷息時全不嗅香。若息引香鼻方能取。非言有息皆能取香。

云何名至者。又問至義。

謂無間生者。總答

。

又諸極微為相觸不者。又問。既言無間。是諸極微為相觸不。

迦濕彌羅至說不相觸者。答。就答中。一敘異說。二述其長。三斥其短。就異說中總有四說。此下初師。

所以者何者徴。

若諸極微至更無細分者。正釋無間非觸所以。若諸極微。遍體相觸同爲一體。即有實物物體相雜過。若觸一分不觸余分。極微便成有細分失。唯觸一邊不觸余處。然諸極微。更無細分故不相觸。但無間住名取至境。

若爾何故相擊發聲者。難。極微既不相觸。何故相擊發聲。

但由極微至體應相糅者。答。但由極微無間生故。彼．此相擊即發得聲。若許極微相觸。擊石。拊手體應相糅合成一體。即有實物體相雜過。以己宗反難外人。

不相觸者至云何不散者。外難。既不相觸聚色相擊云何不散。

風界攝持至如劫成時者。答。風界攝持故令不散　有伏難云。豈不風界能飄散耶。或有已下通此伏難。

云何三根至名取至境者。外難。極微既不相觸。云何三根由無間至名取至境。

即由無間至都無片物者。答。即由根．境無間生時名取至境。謂于根．境中間都無片物。乃至無有容一極微。名無間至。非實相觸。言無間者。無餘礙色中間間隔故名無間。或名定問。定有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：又問：諸極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）之間是相互接觸的嗎？既然說它們之間沒有間隔，那麼這些極微是相互接觸的嗎？

迦濕彌羅的論師說它們不相互接觸。回答這個問題時，分為三個部分：一、敘述不同的觀點；二、陳述他們的優點；三、駁斥他們的缺點。在這些不同的觀點中，總共有四種說法。以下是第一位論師的觀點。

『所以者何』是提問。

『若諸極微至更無細分者』，這是對『無間』（nirantara，沒有間隔）而非『相觸』的解釋。如果諸極微遍及整體相互接觸，成為一體，就會有實物和物體混雜的過失。如果只接觸一部分而不接觸其餘部分，那麼極微就會有細分的缺失，只接觸一邊而不接觸其他地方。然而，諸極微沒有更細微的部分，所以它們不相互接觸，只是以沒有間隔的方式存在，被稱為『取至境』（grahaṇa-gocara，被根識所取）。

『若爾何故相擊發聲者』，這是個詰難。如果極微不相互接觸，為什麼相互撞擊會發出聲音？

『但由極微至體應相糅者』，這是回答。僅僅由於極微沒有間隔地產生，它們之間的相互撞擊就會發出聲音。如果允許極微相互接觸，那麼撞擊石頭或拍手時，它們的本體應該混合在一起，成為一體，這樣就會有實物和物體混雜的過失。這是用自己的宗派觀點反駁外人的觀點。

『不相觸者至云何不散者』，這是外人的詰難。既然不相互接觸，聚集的色法（rūpa，物質）相互撞擊為什麼不會散開？

『風界攝持至如劫成時者』，這是回答。由於風界（vāyu-dhātu，風元素）的攝持，所以不會散開。這裡有一個潛在的詰難：難道風界不會使物體飄散嗎？或者以下的內容可以用來解釋這個潛在的詰難。

『云何三根至名取至境者』，這是外人的詰難。如果極微不相互接觸，為什麼三種根（眼根、耳根、鼻根）可以通過沒有間隔的到達來獲取境界？

『即由無間至都無片物者』，這是回答。僅僅由於根和境界沒有間隔地產生，這被稱為『取至境』。這意味著在根和境界之間沒有任何片狀的物體，甚至沒有容納一個極微的空間，這被稱為『無間至』，而不是實際的相互接觸。『無間』指的是沒有其他阻礙的色法在中間間隔，所以被稱為『無間』。或者這被稱為『定問』，即確定的存在。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, are these ultimate atoms (paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter) in contact with each other? This is another question. Since it is said that there is no interval between them, are these ultimate atoms in contact with each other?

The Kashmirian teachers say that they are not in contact. In answering this question, there are three parts: first, narrating different views; second, stating their strengths; and third, refuting their weaknesses. Among these different views, there are a total of four opinions. The following is the view of the first teacher.

'What is the reason?' is the question.

'If these ultimate atoms to no further division,' this explains 'without interval' (nirantara) rather than 'contact.' If these ultimate atoms are in contact throughout the entire body, becoming one entity, then there would be the fault of real substances and objects being mixed together. If they only touch one part and not the rest, then the ultimate atom would have the fault of having fine divisions, only touching one side and not other places. However, these ultimate atoms have no further divisions, so they are not in contact. They simply exist without interval, which is called 'taking to the object' (grahaṇa-gocara, being taken by the root consciousness).

'If so, why do they make a sound when they collide?' This is a challenge. If ultimate atoms are not in contact, why do they make a sound when they collide?

'But because the ultimate atoms to bodies should mix,' this is the answer. Merely because ultimate atoms arise without interval, their collision produces sound. If it is allowed that ultimate atoms are in contact, then when striking a stone or clapping hands, their bodies should mix together, becoming one entity, which would have the fault of real substances and objects being mixed together. This is refuting the outsider's view with one's own sectarian view.

'Those not in contact to how not scattered?' This is the outsider's challenge. Since they are not in contact, why don't aggregated forms (rūpa, matter) scatter when they collide?

'The wind element holds to like when a kalpa is formed,' this is the answer. Because of the holding of the wind element (vāyu-dhātu, wind element), they do not scatter. Here is a potential challenge: Doesn't the wind element cause objects to scatter? Or the following can be used to explain this potential challenge.

'How do the three roots to called taking to the object?' This is the outsider's challenge. If ultimate atoms are not in contact, why can the three roots (eye-sense, ear-sense, nose-sense) obtain objects by arriving without interval?

'Immediately by no interval to all without a fragment of matter,' this is the answer. Merely because the root and the object arise without interval, this is called 'taking to the object.' This means that there is no fragment of matter between the root and the object, not even space to accommodate one ultimate atom, which is called 'arriving without interval,' rather than actual contact. 'Without interval' refers to no other obstructing forms intervening in the middle, so it is called 'without interval.' Or this is called a 'definite question,' that is, a definite existence.

間隔。若依正理第八具說二種。故彼論云。故彼涅間言定顯鄰近義。此中涅言或顯定義。定有間隙故名定間。如定有熱故名定熱。是定有隙理得成義。或顯無義。謂此中無如極微量觸色所間故名無間　問鼻．舌．身三複有何理非觸境著。又俱名至。何故唯一立以觸名　解云所以根．境不相觸者。諸法四邊各有勢用。如人四邊皆有勢運。若遇水．鏡等緣其像即現。極微亦爾。各有勢力相逼之時。互相拒遏不得觸著故不相觸。故正理云。雖于中間有少空隙。而有勢力拒遏其行(已上論文)　三根雖俱名至非無差別。鼻根取香。假說一微分為四分。鼻取香中間相去有三分空處。舌取味有二分空處。身取觸有一分空處。所以然者。香體微妙勢力復強。所以稍遠。味體次粗力勢次劣。觸體最粗其力最弱。故最近者名為所觸。身名能觸。若謂所觸亦能觸者。應許身根亦是所觸。則境．有境便應雜亂。然無雜亂。立境．有境餘二稍遠立香味名。故正理第八云。鄰近雖同而於其中有品別故。如眼瞼等雖至名同。而於其中非無品別。非眼瞼等同得至名。即令一切至無差別。瞼籌藥醫于彼眼根漸鄰近中品類別故。

又和合色至同類相續者。此下第二師解。雖諸極微互不相觸。許和合色有方分故。相觸無失。由此拊擊得發音聲故。許此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：間隔。如果按照《正理》第八卷所說，有兩種間隔。所以該論著說：『涅』這個詞在這裡明確表示鄰近的意思。這裡，『涅』這個詞或者表示定義，因為定義有間隙，所以叫做『定間』，就像定義有熱量所以叫做『定熱』一樣。這是定義有間隙，道理才能成立的意思。或者表示沒有的意思，意思是這裡沒有像極微量觸色所間隔，所以叫做『無間』。問：鼻、舌、身這三種感覺器官，又有什麼道理不是接觸境界呢？而且都叫做『至』，為什麼唯獨身體感覺器官用『觸』來命名？答：根和境之所以不相接觸，是因為諸法四邊各有勢力的作用，就像人四邊都有勢力的執行一樣。如果遇到水、鏡子等因緣，它的影像就會顯現。極微也是這樣，各有勢力，在互相逼近的時候，互相抗拒遏止，不能接觸，所以不相觸。所以《正理》說：『即使在中間有少許空隙，也有勢力抗拒遏止它的執行。』（以上是論文內容）三種感覺器官雖然都叫做『至』，但並非沒有差別。鼻根取香，假設將一個極微分為四份，鼻根取香中間相隔有三分的空隙。舌根取味有二分空隙。身根取觸有一分空隙。之所以這樣，是因為香的本體微妙，勢力又強，所以稍遠。味的本體稍微粗糙，力勢稍微弱。觸的本體最粗糙，它的力量最弱。所以最近的叫做所觸，身體叫做能觸。如果說所觸也能觸，就應該允許身體感覺器官也是所觸，那麼境和有境就應該混雜了。然而並沒有混雜。設立境和有境，其餘兩種稍遠，設立香味的名稱。所以《正理》第八卷說：『鄰近雖然相同，但在其中有品類的差別。』就像眼瞼等，雖然都叫做『至』，但在其中並非沒有品類的差別。眼瞼等不能同樣得到『至』的名稱，即使一切都『至』也沒有差別。眼瞼、籌、藥、醫生，對於眼根逐漸鄰近中，有品類的差別。又，和合色達到同類相續，以下是第二位論師的解釋。即使諸極微互相不接觸，也允許和合色有方分，所以相接觸沒有過失。因此，拍打能夠發出聲音，所以允許這樣。

【English Translation】 English version: Interval. According to the eighth chapter of Nyaya Sutra, there are two kinds of intervals. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Nir' here clearly indicates the meaning of proximity. Here, 'Nir' either indicates definition, because definition has gaps, so it is called 'defined interval', just as definition has heat, so it is called 'defined heat'. This means that the principle of definition having gaps can be established. Or it means 'no', meaning that there is no interval like extremely small touchable colors here, so it is called 'no interval'. Question: What is the reason that the three sense organs of nose, tongue, and body do not contact the object? And they are all called 'reaching', why is only the body sense organ named 'touch'? Answer: The reason why the root and the object do not touch each other is that the four sides of all dharmas have their own forces, just as the four sides of a person have their own movements. If it encounters conditions such as water or a mirror, its image will appear. The extremely small is also like this, each has its own force, and when they approach each other, they resist and prevent each other from touching, so they do not touch. Therefore, Nyaya Sutra says: 'Even if there is a slight gap in the middle, there is also a force to resist and prevent its movement.' (The above is the content of the paper) Although the three sense organs are all called 'reaching', they are not without differences. The nose root takes fragrance. Suppose dividing an extremely small into four parts, the nose root takes fragrance with a gap of three parts in the middle. The tongue root takes taste with a gap of two parts. The body root takes touch with a gap of one part. The reason for this is that the substance of fragrance is subtle and its force is strong, so it is slightly farther away. The substance of taste is slightly coarser and its force is slightly weaker. The substance of touch is the coarsest and its force is the weakest. Therefore, the closest is called the touched, and the body is called the toucher. If it is said that the touched can also touch, then it should be allowed that the body sense organ is also the touched, then the object and the subject should be mixed up. However, there is no mixture. Establishing the object and the subject, the other two are slightly farther away, establishing the names of fragrance and taste. Therefore, the eighth chapter of Nyaya Sutra says: 'Although the proximity is the same, there are differences in categories among them.' Just like eyelids, etc., although they are all called 'reaching', there are differences in categories among them. Eyelids, etc., cannot equally obtain the name of 'reaching', even if everything 'reaches' there is no difference. Eyelids, probes, medicine, and doctors, in the gradual proximity to the eye root, there are differences in categories. Also, when the combined color reaches the continuous succession of the same kind, the following is the explanation of the second teacher. Even if the extremely small do not touch each other, it is allowed that the combined color has directions, so there is no fault in touching. Therefore, striking can produce sound, so it is allowed.

和合色相觸理。毗婆沙文義善成立。此和合名是觸。顯粗聚義。離散名非觸。顯細聚義。望粗名非觸。若不爾者。向游塵中已有無量極微聚故。應名為觸。第一句謂和合離散。如糰粉散空。此顯粗聚生細聚義。第二句謂離散和合。如攬紛成團。此顯細聚生粗聚義。第三句謂和合。和合。如糰粉復團。此顯粗聚生粗聚義。或生自類。或轉生粗。雖復前後少別。俱名粗也。若第二句前細后粗。體性懸別不可為例。若不爾者轉更粗是何句攝。若言第二句攝。應無第三句也。若言粗自類生粗自類是第三句者。自類相望已得名觸。轉更生粗。何故前觸今後名非觸耶。第四句謂離散離散。向游塵。此顯細聚生細聚義。或生自類。或轉生細。雖復前後少別俱名細也。第一句前粗后細。體性懸別。不可例此。此論且約同類相續。若不爾者。從向游塵更生細色是何句攝。若言第一句攝。是即應無第四句也。若言細自類生細自類是第四句者自類相望已名非觸。轉更生細。何故前非觸今複名觸耶。

尊者世友至住至后念者。此第三師解。此師意說。過去．未來極微散住。若從未來流至現在微不相觸。散入過去此即易成。若現相觸欲入過去離散即難。要經少時方得相離。如膠粘物。急遣相離猶經少時。若現經停應至后念。若至后念其性應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『和合色相觸理』（和合的色相接觸的道理）。『毗婆沙文義善成立』（《毗婆沙論》的文義能夠很好地成立）。這裡的『和合』名稱是『觸』（Sparsha），顯示的是粗大的聚集之義。『離散』名稱是『非觸』，顯示的是微細的聚集之義。相對於粗大的來說，就是『非觸』。如果不是這樣，那麼在空中的游塵中已經有無數的極微聚集，應該被稱為『觸』了。第一句說的是和合離散，就像粉團散開在空中。這顯示了粗大的聚集產生微細的聚集之義。第二句說的是離散和合，就像把散亂的東西聚攏成團。這顯示了微細的聚集產生粗大的聚集之義。第三句說的是和合和合，就像粉團再次聚成團。這顯示了粗大的聚集產生粗大的聚集之義，或者產生同類的，或者轉變產生粗大的。雖然前後稍微有些差別，都叫做粗大。如果第二句是前面微細後面粗大，體性差別很大，不能作為例子。如果不是這樣，轉變變得更粗大屬於哪一句所包含的呢？如果說是第二句所包含的，那麼就應該沒有第三句了。如果說粗大自身產生粗大自身是第三句，自身相互比較已經可以稱為『觸』了，轉變變得更粗大，為什麼之前的『觸』現在又叫做『非觸』呢？第四句說的是離散離散，就像空中的游塵。這顯示了微細的聚集產生微細的聚集之義，或者產生同類的，或者轉變產生微細的。雖然前後稍微有些差別，都叫做微細。第一句是前面粗大後面微細，體性差別很大，不能作為例子。這個論述暫且按照同類相續來說。如果不是這樣，從空中的游塵產生更微細的色屬於哪一句所包含的呢？如果說是第一句所包含的，那麼就應該沒有第四句了。如果說微細自身產生微細自身是第四句，自身相互比較已經可以稱為『非觸』了，轉變變得更微細，為什麼之前的『非觸』現在又叫做『觸』呢？尊者世友（Vasumitra）認為，到達、停留、之後才憶念。這是第三位論師的解釋。這位論師的意思是說，過去、未來的極微是分散停留的。如果從未來流向現在的微細不相接觸，分散進入過去，這很容易成立。如果現在相互接觸想要進入過去，離散就很難。需要經過很短的時間才能相互分離，就像用膠粘住的東西，即使快速地讓它們分離，仍然需要經過很短的時間。如果現在經過停留，應該到達后一念。如果到達后一念，它的性質應該...

【English Translation】 English version: 'The principle of contact with aggregated color-form' (和合色相觸理). 'The meaning of the Vibhasa text is well established' (毗婆沙文義善成立). Here, the name 'aggregation' (和合) is 'Sparsha' (觸), which signifies the meaning of coarse gathering. 'Dispersion' (離散) is called 'non-Sparsha,' signifying the meaning of subtle gathering. Relative to the coarse, it is 'non-Sparsha.' If it were not so, then in the dust motes in the air, there would already be countless extremely minute particles gathered, and they should be called 'Sparsha.' The first sentence refers to aggregation and dispersion, like a ball of powder scattering in the air. This shows the meaning of a coarse gathering producing a subtle gathering. The second sentence refers to dispersion and aggregation, like gathering scattered things into a ball. This shows the meaning of a subtle gathering producing a coarse gathering. The third sentence refers to aggregation and aggregation, like a ball of powder gathering again into a ball. This shows the meaning of a coarse gathering producing a coarse gathering, either producing its own kind or transforming to produce coarse. Although there are slight differences before and after, both are called coarse. If the second sentence is subtle before and coarse after, the nature is very different and cannot be taken as an example. If it were not so, to which sentence does the transformation to become coarser belong? If it is said to be included in the second sentence, then there should be no third sentence. If it is said that coarse itself produces coarse itself is the third sentence, if they are compared to each other, they can already be called 'Sparsha.' Transforming to become coarser, why is the previous 'Sparsha' now called 'non-Sparsha'? The fourth sentence refers to dispersion and dispersion, like dust motes in the air. This shows the meaning of a subtle gathering producing a subtle gathering, either producing its own kind or transforming to produce subtle. Although there are slight differences before and after, both are called subtle. The first sentence is coarse before and subtle after, the nature is very different and cannot be taken as an example. This discussion is temporarily based on the continuation of the same kind. If it were not so, to which sentence does the production of more subtle color-form from dust motes in the air belong? If it is said to be included in the first sentence, then there should be no fourth sentence. If it is said that subtle itself produces subtle itself is the fourth sentence, if they are compared to each other, they can already be called 'non-Sparsha.' Transforming to become more subtle, why is the previous 'non-Sparsha' now called 'Sparsha'? Venerable Vasumitra (世友) believes that arriving, dwelling, and then recollecting. This is the explanation of the third teacher. This teacher means that the extremely minute particles of the past and future are dispersed and dwell. If the minute particles flowing from the future to the present do not touch each other, dispersing into the past is easily established. If they are touching each other now and want to enter the past, dispersion is difficult. It takes a short time to separate from each other, like things glued together, even if you quickly separate them, it still takes a short time. If the present dwells, it should reach the next moment. If it reaches the next moment, its nature should...

常　又解未來極微散住。若言相觸。如二極微初念至現中有空隙。才欲相觸便謝過去。若度此空應至后念。以度一微名一剎那。雖有空隙不容一微。欲相觸時還至后念。若至后念還應是常。

然大德說至假立觸名者。此即第四解。四大論師中法救。敬其德不多序其名故稱大德。以實而言。微不相觸。但由無間極鄰近假立觸名。

此大德意應可愛樂者。此即第二述其長　上來雖有四解。論主評取第四大德。婆沙一百三十二亦有四解。同此論。

若異此者至許為有對者。此下第三斥其短。

就中。一破前第三師。二破前第二師。三破前第一師。從後向前破。此即初文。所以先破第三家。論主意謂大德極微無間最相鄰近。將世友說中間稍遠。故言。若異此大德說者。是諸極微應有間隙。中間既空。誰障其行不得前進相逼近耶。若各別住。中間有空即不相礙。如何許為障礙有對　又解此文破婆沙中異說。不破世友。以世友解言無違故。為婆沙異說中有空隙故今非彼　又解此文亦破和合家。故婆沙七十三云。有作是說。極微展轉實不相觸。亦非無間。但和合住彼此相近假立觸名。彼論既言亦非無間。明知相去稍遠不同大德　又解假設破也。

又離極微至此亦應爾者。此即破前第二說。若和合色許

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『常』，又解釋為未來極微（未來最小的物質單位）分散存在的情況。如果說它們相互接觸，就像兩個極微在初唸到現念之間存在空隙，剛要接觸就已成為過去。如果度過這個空隙，就應該到達后念。因為度過一個極微的時間被稱為一剎那（極短的時間單位）。即使有空隙，也不容納一個極微。想要接觸的時候，時間已經到了后念。如果到了后念，那還應該是常（恒常不變）。

然而，大德（指法救）說達到假立觸名（只是假設的接觸）的情況。這是第四種解釋。四大論師中的法救，因為尊敬他的德行，所以不詳細敘述他的名字，稱之為大德。實際上，極微並沒有相互接觸，只是因為它們之間沒有間隔，極其鄰近，所以才假設有接觸的名稱。

這位大德的觀點應該是令人喜愛的。這是第二點，敘述他的優點。上面雖然有四種解釋，但論主（作者）採納了第四種大德的觀點。《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷也有四種解釋，與此論相同。

如果與此不同，直到『允許是有對』。這是下面第三點，指出其他觀點的缺點。

其中，第一點是駁斥前面第三位論師的觀點，第二點是駁斥前面第二位論師的觀點，第三點是駁斥前面第一位論師的觀點。從後向前駁斥。這是第一段文字。之所以先駁斥第三家，是因為論主認為大德的極微之間沒有間隔，最為鄰近，而世友的說法是中間稍有距離。所以說，如果與這位大德的說法不同，那麼這些極微之間應該有間隙。中間既然是空的，誰來阻礙它們的運動，使它們不能前進並相互逼近呢？如果各自獨立存在，中間有空隙，就不會相互妨礙。怎麼能允許它們是障礙性的、有對立的呢？又一種解釋是，這段文字駁斥《婆沙論》中的不同說法，而不是駁斥世友的觀點。因為世友的解釋沒有違背大德的觀點。因為《婆沙論》的不同說法中有空隙，所以現在駁斥它。又一種解釋是，這段文字也駁斥了和合家的觀點。所以《婆沙論》第七十三卷說：『有人這樣認為，極微輾轉相觸實際上並不是真的接觸，也不是沒有間隔，只是和合在一起，彼此鄰近，所以假設有接觸的名稱。』該論既然說『也不是沒有間隔』，就表明它們之間相距稍遠，與大德的觀點不同。又一種解釋是，這是一種假設性的駁斥。

『又離開極微，直到『這裡也應該是這樣』。這是駁斥前面第二種說法。如果和合的色（物質）允許

【English Translation】 English version 『Constant』 also explains the scattered existence of future ultimate infinitesimals (the smallest units of matter in the future). If it is said that they touch each other, it is like the gap between two ultimate infinitesimals from the initial thought to the present thought; they become past as soon as they are about to touch. If this gap is crossed, it should reach the subsequent thought. Because the time it takes to cross one infinitesimal is called one kshana (an extremely short unit of time). Even if there is a gap, it does not accommodate one infinitesimal. When they want to touch, the time has already reached the subsequent thought. If it reaches the subsequent thought, then it should still be constant (unchanging).

However, the Bhadanta (referring to Dharmatrāta) says that it reaches the state of a nominally established touch (merely hypothetical contact). This is the fourth explanation. Dharmatrāta, one of the four great masters, is called Bhadanta because of respect for his virtue, so his name is not described in detail. In reality, ultimate infinitesimals do not touch each other, but because there is no gap between them and they are extremely close, the name of contact is assumed.

This Bhadanta's view should be pleasing. This is the second point, describing his strengths. Although there are four explanations above, the author adopts the fourth Bhadanta's view. The Vibhasa Volume 132 also has four explanations, which are the same as this treatise.

If it is different from this, up to 『allowing it to be obstructive』. This is the third point below, pointing out the shortcomings of other views.

Among them, the first point is to refute the view of the third teacher mentioned earlier, the second point is to refute the view of the second teacher mentioned earlier, and the third point is to refute the view of the first teacher mentioned earlier. Refuting from back to front. This is the first passage. The reason why the third school is refuted first is that the author believes that there is no gap between the ultimate infinitesimals of the Bhadanta, and they are the closest, while the saying of Vasumitra is that there is a slight distance in the middle. Therefore, it is said that if it is different from this Bhadanta's saying, then there should be gaps between these ultimate infinitesimals. Since the middle is empty, who will hinder their movement and prevent them from moving forward and approaching each other? If they exist independently, with gaps in the middle, they will not hinder each other. How can it be allowed that they are obstructive and have opposition? Another explanation is that this passage refutes the different sayings in the Vibhasa, rather than refuting Vasumitra's view. Because Vasumitra's explanation does not violate the Bhadanta's view. Because there are gaps in the different sayings of the Vibhasa, it is now refuted. Another explanation is that this passage also refutes the view of the aggregation school. Therefore, Vibhasa Volume 73 says: 『Some people think that the mutual contact of ultimate infinitesimals is actually not real contact, nor is it without gaps, but they are aggregated together and close to each other, so the name of contact is assumed.』 Since that treatise says 『nor is it without gaps』, it shows that they are slightly far apart, which is different from the Bhadanta's view. Another explanation is that this is a hypothetical refutation.

『Also, leaving the ultimate infinitesimal, up to 『it should also be like this here』. This is refuting the second saying mentioned earlier. If the aggregated color (matter) allows

相觸者。然離極微無和合色。和合相觸即觸極微。如和合變礙。于和合中一一極微亦名變礙。汝立相觸亦同此理。和合名觸。于和合中極微相望應亦相觸。故言如可變礙此亦應爾。

又許極微至亦無斯過者。此即破前第一師。論主以理總破。又許極微若有方分。觸與不觸皆有方分。若無方分設許相觸。亦無有方分之過。何須避微相觸成過失耶。正理救云。有分．方分名異義同立無分言。已遮方分。如何於此復更生疑。謂許極微若有方分。既無方分如何可觸。又遍體觸。或觸一分。二皆有過。前已具論。如何復言若無方分。設許相觸亦無斯過　若作俱舍師救。應反說言。汝立無方分。極微何不相觸。若言相觸成過失者。言不相觸亦不免過。對向六方面不同故。若言極微各有勢用。更相拒遏不相觸者。此之勢用為離體不。若離體者。同勝論業句義也。若不離體。體外無用。何不相觸。故亦成過。

又眼等根至不等量耶者。此下第三明根．境量大小。或有諸宗執眼等根唯取等量境。見大山等速疾轉故如旋火輪。故有斯問。

頌曰至唯取等量境者。頌中文略。但說三根等量。義準餘三大小不定。

論曰至形量差別者。就長行中。一正釋頌本。二明根形狀。三明同分等。此即初文。鼻等三根至境方取。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『相觸』是指什麼？如果離開最小的微粒，就沒有和合的色法。和合就是相觸，也就是觸及最小的微粒。如同和合會產生變礙，在和合中，每一個最小的微粒也可以稱為變礙。你所建立的『相觸』也同樣是這個道理。和合就叫做『觸』。在和合之中，各個微粒相互之間也應該相觸。所以說，如果可以變礙，那麼也應該可以相觸。

又，如果承認極微至也是沒有這種過失的。』這是爲了反駁之前的第一個觀點。論主用道理總括地進行駁斥。如果承認極微有方分，那麼觸與不觸都有方分。如果沒有方分，即使承認相觸，也沒有有方分的過失。為什麼一定要避免微粒相觸而造成過失呢？正理派辯解說：『有分』和『方分』只是名稱不同，意義相同。建立『無分』的說法，就已經遮止了方分。為什麼還要在這裡再次產生疑問，說如果承認極微有方分，既然沒有方分，怎麼可以相觸呢？而且，無論是遍體相觸，還是隻觸及一部分，都有過失，之前已經詳細討論過了。為什麼還要說如果沒有方分，即使承認相觸也沒有這種過失呢？如果用俱舍宗的觀點來辯解，就應該反過來說：你建立沒有方分的極微，為什麼不相觸呢？如果說相觸會造成過失，那麼說不相觸也無法避免過失，因為朝向六個方向是不同的。如果說極微各自有勢用，互相排斥而不相觸，那麼這種勢用是離開本體的嗎？如果離開本體，就和勝論的『業』的定義一樣了。如果不離開本體，本體之外沒有作用，為什麼不相觸呢？所以也會造成過失。

『又，眼等根至不等量耶？』下面第三部分說明根（indriya）和境（viṣaya）的大小。有些宗派認為眼等根只能取等量的境，因為看到大山等事物快速轉動，就像旋轉的火輪一樣。所以有這樣的提問。

『頌曰至唯取等量境者。』頌文比較簡略，只說了三種根是等量的，按照義理推斷，其餘三種根的大小是不確定的。

『論曰至形量差別者。』在長行中，第一是正確地解釋頌文的含義，第二是說明根的形狀，第三是說明同分等。這裡是第一部分的內容。鼻等三種根只能取等量的境。

【English Translation】 English version What does 『contact』 (sparśa) refer to? If we move away from the smallest particle (paramāṇu), there is no composite matter (saṃghāta-rūpa). Composition is contact, which is touching the smallest particle. Just as composition produces obstruction (vyāghāta), in composition, each smallest particle can also be called obstruction. Your establishment of 『contact』 is the same principle. Composition is called 『touch』. Within composition, the particles should also be in contact with each other. Therefore, if it can be obstructed, then it should also be able to contact.

Furthermore, 『admitting that the smallest particle has no such fault.』 This is to refute the first viewpoint mentioned earlier. The author refutes it comprehensively with reason. If it is admitted that the smallest particle has directional parts (diśā-bhāga), then both contact and non-contact have directional parts. If there are no directional parts, even if contact is admitted, there is no fault of having directional parts. Why must one avoid the contact of particles and create a fault? The Nyaya school defends by saying: 『Having parts』 and 『directional parts』 are just different names with the same meaning. Establishing the statement of 『no parts』 has already prevented directional parts. Why raise doubts again here, saying that if it is admitted that the smallest particle has directional parts, how can it contact if it has no directional parts? Moreover, whether it is contact throughout the entire body or only touching a part, both have faults, which have been discussed in detail before. Why say again that if there are no directional parts, there is no such fault even if contact is admitted? If one defends from the perspective of the Abhidharma-kośa school, one should say in reverse: You establish the smallest particle without directional parts, why doesn't it contact? If you say that contact will cause faults, then saying non-contact also cannot avoid faults, because the directions facing the six sides are different. If it is said that the smallest particles each have their own force (śakti), repelling each other and not contacting, then is this force separate from the substance (dravya)? If it is separate from the substance, it is the same as the definition of 『action』 (karma) in the Vaiśeṣika school. If it is not separate from the substance, there is no function outside the substance, why doesn't it contact? Therefore, it also becomes a fault.

『Furthermore, do the sense faculties such as the eye, etc., up to unequal quantities?』 The third part below explains the size of the sense faculties (indriya) and objects (viṣaya). Some schools hold that the sense faculties such as the eye can only take objects of equal quantity, because seeing large mountains and other things rotating quickly is like a rotating fire wheel. Therefore, there is such a question.

『The verse says up to only taking objects of equal quantity.』 The verse is relatively brief, only stating that three sense faculties are of equal quantity. According to the meaning, the size of the remaining three sense faculties is uncertain.

『The treatise says up to the difference in shape and quantity.』 In the prose, the first is to correctly explain the meaning of the verse, the second is to explain the shape of the sense faculties, and the third is to explain the commonality, etc. This is the first part. The three sense faculties such as the nose can only take objects of equal quantity.

故根．境微相稱發識。此言等者。隨其所應根．境相觸名為量等。顯非能取過量境故。非無小分根能取少分境。若眼根傍布。蒲桃上皮。若說眼根如丸。如蒲桃內外　問云何得見蒲桃內色　解云皮薄故見　又解縱使皮厚天眼亦觀。正理論云。如見蒲桃．野棗果等　耳根取境隨其所應所發種種少大音聲。若聽蚊子聲。即根大境少。若聽云聲。即根少。境大。西方喚雷聲為云聲。雷依云起從所依為名若聽琴聲即根．境量等。故正理第八云。耳根亦取蚊．云．琴聲小．大．等量(已上論文)　言。聽蚊云等者。等謂等量　又解等取等量琴聲。前五色根極微成故。可得對境辨大．小等。意無質礙不可對境辨形量別。然容得說彼所緣境或大或小　余文可知。

云何眼等至安布差別者。此下明根形量。此即問也。

眼根極微至形如指鞜者。答。眼微二說前說似勝。不言有說故。耳根如卷樺皮。西方國俗初穿耳時。多卷樺皮內于孔中欲令漸大。由近耳相似故以為喻。準此。耳中有孔通於腦中。有說耳根猶如燈器者。亦據四唇非取其底。鼻微可知。此初三根。若約根體處無高下。若據所依即有高下。故前捲雲或隨處次第。舌微可知。于舌根中如毛端量。無舌根者雖無經論文說。西方古德相傳解云。醫方家說。于舌根中如毛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，根（indriya，感覺器官）與境（viṣaya，感覺對像）微妙地相互適應而產生識（vijñāna，意識）。這裡說的『等』，是指根據情況，根與境相互接觸，其量相當，這被稱為『量等』。這表明根不能獲取超過其量的境。並非微小的根能獲取少量的境。如果眼根橫向分佈，就像葡萄的外皮。如果說眼根像丸子，像葡萄一樣有內外。有人問：『如何能看到葡萄內部的顏色？』回答說：『因為皮薄所以能看到。』又有人解釋說，即使皮厚，天眼（divyacakṣus，天眼通）也能看到。正理論中說，就像看到葡萄、野棗等水果一樣。耳根獲取境，根據情況發出各種大小不同的聲音。如果聽蚊子的聲音，就是根大境小；如果聽云的聲音，就是根小境大。西方稱雷聲為云聲，雷依附於云而產生，所以從所依之處命名。如果聽琴聲，就是根與境的量相等。所以正理第八中說：『耳根也能獲取蚊子、云、琴的聲音，分別是小、大、等量。』（以上是論文內容）說『聽蚊云等』，『等』是指等量。另一種解釋是，『等』是指獲取等量的琴聲。前五色根由極微組成，因此可以對境辨別大小等。意根沒有實質性的阻礙，無法對境辨別形狀和大小的差別。然而，可以說意根所緣的境有大有小。其餘的文字可以理解。云何眼等至安布差別者。這下面說明根的形狀和大小。這是提問。眼根極微至形如指鞜者。回答。關於眼根的微細結構有兩種說法，前一種說法似乎更好。因為沒有說『有說』。耳根像捲起來的樺樹皮。在西方國家，最初穿耳洞時，大多將捲起來的樺樹皮塞入孔中，想要讓耳洞逐漸變大。因為與耳朵相似，所以用它來比喻。由此推斷，耳朵中有孔通向腦中。有人說耳根像燈器，也是根據四唇來說的，不是指燈器的底部。鼻根的微細結構可以知道。這前三個根，如果從根的本體來說，位置沒有高下之分；如果從所依處來說，就有高下之分。所以前面的卷中說，或者按照位置的順序。舌根的微細結構可以知道。在舌根中像毛髮尖端那麼大。沒有舌根的人，雖然沒有經文或論文說明，但西方古代的賢者相傳解釋說，醫生說，在舌根中像毛髮

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the root (indriya, sense organ) and the object (viṣaya, sense object) subtly correspond to each other to generate consciousness (vijñāna, awareness). The term 'equal' here means that, depending on the situation, the root and the object come into contact with each other, and their quantities are comparable, which is called 'equal quantity'. This indicates that the root cannot acquire an object that exceeds its quantity. It is not that a tiny root can acquire a small amount of object. If the eye-root is distributed laterally, like the outer skin of a grape. If it is said that the eye-root is like a pill, like a grape with inside and outside. Someone asks: 'How can one see the inner color of a grape?' The answer is: 'Because the skin is thin, one can see it.' Another explanation is that even if the skin is thick, the divine eye (divyacakṣus, clairvoyance) can see it. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that it is like seeing grapes, wild dates, and other fruits. The ear-root acquires objects, and emits various sounds of different sizes depending on the situation. If one listens to the sound of a mosquito, it is that the root is large and the object is small; if one listens to the sound of a cloud, it is that the root is small and the object is large. In the West, the sound of thunder is called the sound of a cloud. Thunder arises depending on the cloud, so it is named from the place it depends on. If one listens to the sound of a zither, it is that the quantity of the root and the object are equal. Therefore, the eighth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The ear-root can also acquire the sounds of mosquitoes, clouds, and zithers, which are small, large, and equal in quantity, respectively.' (The above is the content of the thesis) Saying 'listening to mosquitoes, clouds, etc.', 'etc.' refers to equal quantity. Another explanation is that 'etc.' refers to acquiring the sound of a zither of equal quantity. The first five sense-roots are composed of extremely small particles, so it is possible to distinguish between large, small, etc. in relation to the object. The mind-root has no substantial obstruction, so it is impossible to distinguish the difference in shape and size in relation to the object. However, it can be said that the object that the mind-root cognizes is either large or small. The rest of the text can be understood. 云何眼等至安布差別者。Below, the shape and size of the roots are explained. This is a question. 眼根極微至形如指鞜者。Answer. There are two theories about the subtle structure of the eye-root, and the former seems better. Because it does not say 'some say'. The ear-root is like a rolled-up birch bark. In Western countries, when piercing ear holes for the first time, most people insert rolled-up birch bark into the hole, wanting to gradually enlarge the ear hole. Because it is similar to the ear, it is used as a metaphor. From this, it can be inferred that there is a hole in the ear that leads to the brain. Some say that the ear-root is like a lamp stand, which is also based on the four lips, not referring to the bottom of the lamp stand. The subtle structure of the nose-root can be known. For the first three roots, if we talk about the root itself, there is no high or low position; if we talk about the place they depend on, there is a high or low position. Therefore, the previous volume says, or according to the order of the position. The subtle structure of the tongue-root can be known. It is as large as the tip of a hair in the tongue-root. For those who do not have a tongue-root, although there is no explanation in the scriptures or treatises, the ancient sages of the West have passed down the explanation that doctors say that in the tongue-root, it is like a hair.

端量無舌根處。是末磨死節。若針刺著其人即死。舌中法爾有斯空處　又解於人腦中有極臭穢不凈腦垢。若見飲食腦垢流出渧此空處。若無此處承此腦垢。觸著舌根令人歐吐不能飲食。因解身根剩明男．女二根　余文可知。

眼根極微至不可見故者。此下第三明同分等。前四根可解。身根定無皆是同分。乃至極熱捺落迦中猛焰纏身。猶有身根。是彼同分　說一切有部師傳說。身根設遍發識身應散壞。以無身根．及所取境。各一極微前後間隔為所依．緣能發身識。以五識身決定積集眾多極微。方成所依．所緣性故能發自識。即由此理亦說。極微一一名無見體。以一極微不可見故。要多積集方名有見。若於身中一重根一重境。即有根．境各一極微發識之過。又隔身根令成多分斷壞之過。故言身應散壞　問鼻．舌二根亦遍發識。何不散壞　解云鼻．舌二根身為依持遍發不散。身無別依遍發即散　又問鼻．舌根微為但傍布。亦通重累。若說傍布。即有鼻．舌一微對境同身根過。不成積集。若說重累。遍發識時。還有根．境相隔各一極微為依．緣過　解云鼻．舌根微形但傍布。雖無重累傍布名積集。故無一微發識之過。又根性利不假重累。又內依身相依有力　難云身根觸境前後相間亦傍積集應遍發識。何故乃言以無根．境

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：端量舌根沒有舌頭的根部。這是末磨死穴。如果針刺到那裡，人就會立刻死亡。舌頭中間自然而然地存在著這樣的空隙。還有一種解釋是，人的大腦中有極其惡臭污穢的腦垢。如果飲食時腦垢流出滴到這個空隙，如果沒有這個空隙來承接這些腦垢，觸碰到舌根就會令人嘔吐，無法飲食。因此解釋了身根，並進一步闡明了男根和女根。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

眼根極其微小以至於無法看見，因此下面第三點說明了同分等。前面的四根可以理解。身根一定是普遍存在的，都是同分。即使在極其炎熱的地獄中，被猛烈的火焰纏繞，仍然有身根存在，那是他們的同分。說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的師父們傳說，如果身根是普遍存在的，那麼身體發出意識時身體應該散壞。因為沒有身根以及所取之境，各自以一個極微前後間隔作為所依和緣，才能發出身識。因為五識身決定是積聚了眾多極微，才能形成所依和所緣的性質，才能發出自身的意識。也因此說，極微一個一個都沒有可見的形體，因為一個極微是不可見的，需要很多積聚在一起才能被稱為可見。如果在身體中一重根一重境，就會有根和境各自以一個極微發出意識的過失。又因為隔開了身根，使其成為多分，有斷壞的過失。所以說身體應該散壞。有人問：鼻根和舌根也是普遍發出意識，為什麼不會散壞呢？解釋說：鼻根和舌根以身體作為依靠，普遍發出意識而不會散散。身體沒有別的依靠，普遍發出意識就會散壞。又有人問：鼻根和舌根的微粒是僅僅橫向分佈，還是也縱向重疊？如果說是橫向分佈，那麼鼻根和舌根的一個微粒面對境界，就和身根一樣有過失，不能形成積聚。如果說是縱向重疊，那麼普遍發出意識時，還是有根和境相互間隔，各自以一個極微作為所依和緣的過失。解釋說：鼻根和舌根的微粒形狀只是橫向分佈。雖然沒有縱向重疊，但是橫向分佈也叫做積聚，所以沒有一個微粒發出意識的過失。而且根的性質銳利，不需要縱向重疊。而且內在依靠身體，相互依靠有力量。有人反駁說：身根接觸境界前後相互間隔，也是橫向積聚，應該普遍發出意識。為什麼卻說因為沒有根和境呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Measuring the tongue, there is no root of the tongue. This is the fatal point of 'momo'. If a needle pierces it, the person will die immediately. In the middle of the tongue, there is naturally such a void. Another explanation is that there is extremely foul and unclean brain filth in the human brain. If, when eating and drinking, brain filth flows out and drips into this void, if there is no void to receive this brain filth, touching the root of the tongue will cause vomiting and inability to eat. Therefore, the body root is explained, and the male and female roots are further clarified. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

The eye root is extremely subtle to the point of being invisible, therefore the third point below explains 'samabhāga' (同分, having the same characteristics) etc. The first four roots can be understood. The body root must be universally present, all are 'samabhāga'. Even in the extremely hot hell, being entangled by fierce flames, there is still a body root, that is their 'samabhāga'. The Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部) masters say that if the body root is universally present, then when the body emits consciousness, the body should disintegrate. Because there is no body root and the object taken, each with a 'paramāṇu' (極微, ultimate particle) separated before and after as the support and condition, can body consciousness be emitted. Because the five consciousness bodies must accumulate many 'paramāṇu' to form the nature of support and object, can they emit their own consciousness. Therefore, it is also said that each 'paramāṇu' has no visible form, because one 'paramāṇu' is invisible, it needs many to accumulate together to be called visible. If there is one root and one object in the body, there will be the fault of the root and object each emitting consciousness with one 'paramāṇu'. Also, because the body root is separated, making it into many parts, there is the fault of being broken. Therefore, it is said that the body should disintegrate. Someone asks: The nose root and tongue root also universally emit consciousness, why don't they disintegrate? The explanation is: the nose root and tongue root rely on the body, universally emitting consciousness without disintegrating. The body has no other reliance, universally emitting consciousness will disintegrate. Someone also asks: Are the particles of the nose root and tongue root only distributed laterally, or are they also stacked vertically? If it is said that they are distributed laterally, then one particle of the nose root and tongue root facing the object has the same fault as the body root, and cannot form an accumulation. If it is said that they are stacked vertically, then when universally emitting consciousness, there is still the fault of the root and object being separated from each other, each with one 'paramāṇu' as the support and condition. The explanation is: the shape of the particles of the nose root and tongue root is only distributed laterally. Although there is no vertical stacking, lateral distribution is also called accumulation, so there is no fault of one particle emitting consciousness. Moreover, the nature of the root is sharp, and it does not need vertical stacking. Moreover, it internally relies on the body, and mutual reliance has power. Someone rebuts: The body root touches the object with intervals before and after, and is also laterally accumulated, it should universally emit consciousness. Why is it said that there is no root and object?

各一極微為所依．緣能發身識　解云。夫積集有二。一傍名積集。二重累名積集。言五識決定積集多微成依．緣者。據總相說。隨其所應。若別分別鼻．舌即傍名積集。身根即據前後．及傍方名積集。故彼身根但傍積集不能發識。又根性鈍要假重累。相依有力方能取境。又無別依故須重累　又解鼻．舌根微亦通重累。雖復根．境前後相間能遍發識。傍名積集故。又性利故。又內依身相依有力。由此義殊故與身別。雖有兩解。鼻．舌根微前解似勝。問如入第三定時。遍身受輕安樂。身應散壞　解云正入定時不發身識。發身識時即便出定。故無遍身受輕安樂。若依經部身根能遍發識。故正理第七云。又彼上座論宗所說。全身設在冷暖水中。身根極微遍能生識(已上論文。論主意朋經部故言傳說)。

如前所說至依亦爾耶者。此下第四明六識依世攝。此即問。若依經部五識唯緣過去。故正理第八云。有執五識境唯過去。如彼廣破。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至心所法界者　后。謂意識。於六識中最居后故　依唯過去。由六識身無間滅已皆名為意。此與意識作所依根。是故意識唯依過去無間滅意　問此宗十八界皆通三世。如何說意唯過去耶　解云若據意體實通三世。約世據用就顯以論故唯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『各一極微為所依，緣能發身識』——解釋說，積集有兩種：一是傍名積集，二是重累名積集。說五識決定積集多個微塵才能成為所依和所緣，這是從總相上說的。根據具體情況，如果分別討論鼻識和舌識，那就是傍名積集；身根則是根據前後和旁邊方位來積集。因此，身根只是傍名積集，不能引發身識。而且，根的性質遲鈍，需要依靠重重累積，相互依靠才能有力地取境。又因為沒有別的所依，所以需要重重累積。還有一種解釋是，鼻根和舌根的微塵也貫通重累。即使根和境前後相間，也能普遍地引發識，這是因為它們是傍名積集，而且性質敏銳，又內在依靠身體，相互依靠有力。因為這個原因，它們與身根不同。雖然有兩種解釋，但鼻根和舌根的微塵以前一種解釋似乎更好。問：如果進入第三禪定時，遍身感受到輕安快樂，身體應該散壞嗎？答：正入定時不發生身識。發生身識時，就立即出定，所以不會遍身感受到輕安快樂。如果按照經部的觀點，身根能夠普遍地引發識。所以，《正理》第七卷說：『又有上座論宗所說，全身處在冷暖水中，身根的極微能夠普遍地產生識（以上是論文，論主的意圖是支援經部，所以說是傳說）。』

『如前所說至依亦爾耶者』——以下第四部分說明六識依世所攝。這是提問：如果按照經部的觀點，五識只緣過去，所以《正理》第八卷說：『有人認為五識的境唯有過去』，如其中廣泛破斥。

『不爾者』——回答：不是這樣。

『云何者』——提問：為什麼？

『頌曰至心所法界者』——后，指的是意識。在六識中，意識最後產生。所依唯有過去，因為六識身無間斷滅后，都稱為意。這與意識作為所依根。因此，意識只依靠過去無間斷滅的意。問：按照這個宗派，十八界都貫通三世，為什麼說意只屬於過去呢？答：如果從意的本體來說，確實貫通三世。但從作用和顯現來說，所以只說過去。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Each single ultimate particle (ekavikara, smallest indivisible unit of matter) is the basis and condition for the arising of body consciousness (kāya-vijñāna).』 – Explanation: There are two types of accumulation: one is lateral accumulation (pārśva-nāma-saṃcaya), and the other is cumulative accumulation (punaḥ-punaḥ-saṃcaya). The statement that the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna) definitely require the accumulation of multiple particles to become the basis and condition is a general statement. Depending on the specific case, if we discuss nose consciousness (ghrāṇa-vijñāna) and tongue consciousness (jihvā-vijñāna) separately, it is lateral accumulation; the body sense (kāya-indriya) accumulates based on the front, back, and side directions. Therefore, the body sense is only lateral accumulation and cannot generate body consciousness. Moreover, the nature of the sense organ is dull, requiring reliance on repeated accumulation and mutual dependence to effectively grasp the object. Also, because there is no other basis, repeated accumulation is necessary. Another explanation is that the particles of the nose and tongue senses also involve cumulative accumulation. Even if the sense organ and object are interspersed in time, they can universally generate consciousness because they are lateral accumulation, and because their nature is sharp, and they internally rely on the body, and mutual reliance is powerful. For this reason, they are different from the body sense. Although there are two explanations, the former explanation seems better for the particles of the nose and tongue senses. Question: If one enters the third dhyana (third level of meditative absorption), experiencing light and blissful ease throughout the body, should the body disintegrate? Answer: Body consciousness does not arise when one is properly in dhyana. When body consciousness arises, one immediately exits dhyana, so there is no experience of light and blissful ease throughout the body. According to the Sautrāntika school (a Buddhist school emphasizing the importance of sutras), the body sense can universally generate consciousness. Therefore, the seventh volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (a key text in Abhidharma) says: 『Also, the venerable elders of the Sthavira school (an early Buddhist school) say that if the whole body is placed in cold or warm water, the ultimate particles of the body sense can universally generate consciousness (the above is from the text, and the author's intention is to support the Sautrāntika school, so it is said to be a tradition).』

『As previously stated, is the basis also the same?』 – The fourth section below explains that the six consciousnesses are included in the world (loka). This is a question: According to the Sautrāntika school, the five consciousnesses only cognize the past, so the eighth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 『Some hold that the objects of the five consciousnesses are only the past,』 as refuted extensively therein.

『Not so.』 – Answer: It is not so.

『How so?』 – Question: Why?

『The verse says, up to the realm of mental factors.』 – 『Later』 refers to consciousness (manovijñāna). Among the six consciousnesses, consciousness arises last. The basis is only the past, because after the six consciousnesses cease without interruption, they are all called 『mind』 (manas). This serves as the basis for consciousness. Therefore, consciousness only relies on the past, uninterruptedly ceased mind. Question: According to this school, the eighteen elements (dhātu) all pervade the three times (past, present, future), so why is it said that mind only belongs to the past? Answer: If we consider the essence of mind, it does indeed pervade the three times. But considering its function and manifestation, we only speak of the past.

過去。故論云。過去名意。未來名心。現在名識。五識二依如文可解　顯依不定。或同時依。或過去依。故引本文將所依性對等無間緣。問答以定。六根據勢用增上故非心所。等無間緣據開避義。亦通心所不通色根。寬狹不同。引為問答以定依別　問羅漢後心豈非是意識依。而非等無間緣。何故乃言是意識所依性。定是意識等無間緣。

解云若據依義理實如是。今此文中舉識所依以為問答。羅漢後心更無後識。非是所問是俱非句攝　又解此中據體類說。不約作用。還是俱句攝。前解似勝。

何因識起至眼等非餘者。此下第五明眼等得依名。如文可解。又正理第八云。若爾意識亦隨身轉。謂風病等損惱身時意識即亂。身清泰時意識安靜。何緣彼意識不以身為依。隨自所依故無此失。謂風病等損惱身時。發生苦受相應身識。如是身識名亂意界。此與苦受俱落謝時。能為意根生亂意識。與此相違意識安靜。是故意識隨自所依　又彼論意。但據增．損明．昧差別。非一切同故有漏意生無漏識　問如眼識生。亦由空．明．能生作意。何故但約二緣為問　解云如正理論云。又眼識生必藉所依．所緣力故。及不共故。眼識生時必藉眼．色為所依．所緣。余法不定。謂夜行類識不藉明生。水行類識不待空發。人于琉璃．頗

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：過去。因此，《論》中說，『過去』名為『意』（Manas，末那識，第七識），『未來』名為『心』（Citta，集起識，第八識），『現在』名為『識』（Vijnana，了別識，前六識）。五識和二依，如經文所說可以理解。顯現的所依是不定的，或者同時依，或者過去依。因此引用經文，將所依的性質與等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，無間緣，又名次第緣，是心、心所生起時，前念為后念開導，如道路之開闢，無間隔者）相對比，通過問答來確定。六根根據其作用力而作為增上緣（Adhipati-pratyaya，增上緣，又名勝緣，指有勢力能助他生果的法），所以不是心所法。等無間緣根據其開闢的意義，也通於心所法，但不通於色根，寬狹不同。引用這些來通過問答確定所依的差別。

問：阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）的後心（臨終時的心）難道不是意識的所依，而不是等無間緣嗎？為什麼說它是意識的所依性，一定是意識的等無間緣呢？

答：如果根據所依的意義，道理確實如此。現在這段經文中，舉出識的所依作為問答。阿羅漢的後心之後，不再有後來的識，不是所問的內容，屬於俱非句所攝。又解釋說，這裡根據體類來說，不涉及作用，還是屬於俱非句所攝。前一種解釋似乎更好。

什麼原因導致識的生起，到眼等根而不是其他的根？下面第五點說明眼等根獲得所依之名的原因，如經文所說可以理解。又《正理》第八卷說：『如果這樣，意識也隨著身體而轉移。』意思是說，當風病等損害身體時，意識就會混亂；身體清泰時，意識就安靜。為什麼那個意識不以身體為所依呢？因為意識隨其自身的所依，所以沒有這個過失。意思是說，當風病等損害身體時，發生苦受相應的身識。這樣的身識名為亂意界。這個身識與苦受一同消逝時，能為意根（Manas，末那識）生起混亂的意識。與此相反，意識就安靜。因此，意識隨其自身的所依。又那部論的意義，只是根據增、損、明、昧的差別來說明，不是一切都相同，所以有漏的意能生起無漏的識。問：如眼識生起，也由空、明、能生作意（Manasikara，作意，心所法之一，能令心警覺，注意于所緣境），為什麼只根據二緣來提問？答：如《正理論》所說：『又眼識的生起，必定憑藉所依、所緣的力量，以及不共的緣故。』眼識生起時，必定憑藉眼根和色塵作為所依和所緣，其餘的法是不定的。意思是說，夜行類的眾生，其眼識不憑藉光明而生起；水行類的眾生，其眼識不等待空間而發生。人對於琉璃、頗胝迦

【English Translation】 English version: Past. Therefore, the treatise says, 'Past' is named 'Manas' (意, the seventh consciousness, the mind), 'Future' is named 'Citta' (心, the eighth consciousness, the storehouse consciousness), 'Present' is named 'Vijnana' (識, the six consciousnesses). The five consciousnesses and the two supports can be understood as explained in the text. The manifested support is not fixed, either simultaneous or past. Therefore, the text is cited to compare the nature of the support with Samanantarapratyaya (等無間緣, the immediately preceding condition, also known as the uninterrupted condition, which refers to the preceding thought opening the way for the subsequent thought, like clearing a path, without interruption), and to determine through questions and answers. The six roots, based on their function, act as Adhipati-pratyaya (增上緣, the dominant condition, which refers to a dharma that has the power to help other dharmas produce results), so they are not mental factors. Samanantarapratyaya, according to its meaning of opening up, also applies to mental factors but not to sense organs, differing in scope. These are cited to determine the difference in support through questions and answers.

Question: Isn't the last thought of an Arhat (阿羅漢, a saint who has eradicated afflictions and attained liberation) a support of consciousness and not Samanantarapratyaya? Why is it said that it is the nature of the support of consciousness and must be the Samanantarapratyaya of consciousness?

Answer: If based on the meaning of support, the principle is indeed so. In this text, the support of consciousness is used for questions and answers. After the last thought of an Arhat, there is no subsequent consciousness, which is not the subject of the question and belongs to the category of neither. Another explanation is that it is based on the category of substance, not involving function, and still belongs to the category of neither. The former explanation seems better.

What causes the arising of consciousness to be based on the eye and other roots rather than others? The fifth point below explains why the eye and other roots are named as supports, which can be understood as explained in the text. Furthermore, the eighth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'If so, consciousness also shifts with the body.' It means that when wind disease or other ailments harm the body, consciousness becomes confused; when the body is clear and peaceful, consciousness is quiet. Why doesn't that consciousness take the body as its support? Because consciousness follows its own support, there is no such fault. It means that when wind disease or other ailments harm the body, bodily consciousness arises in accordance with painful sensations. Such bodily consciousness is called the realm of confused mind. When this bodily consciousness and painful sensations disappear together, they can cause the mind root (Manas, 末那識) to generate confused consciousness. Conversely, consciousness is quiet. Therefore, consciousness follows its own support. Furthermore, the meaning of that treatise is only to explain based on the differences of increase, decrease, clarity, and obscurity, not that everything is the same, so defiled mind can generate undefiled consciousness. Question: For example, the arising of eye consciousness is also due to space, light, and the arising of Manasikara (作意, attention, a mental factor that alerts the mind and focuses it on the object), why only ask based on two conditions? Answer: As the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Furthermore, the arising of eye consciousness must rely on the power of the support and the object, as well as the uncommon condition.' When eye consciousness arises, it must rely on the eye root and the object of sight as the support and the object, while other dharmas are not fixed. It means that the eye consciousness of nocturnal beings does not arise by relying on light; the eye consciousness of aquatic beings does not wait for space to arise. People looking at crystal or sphatika

胝迦等障色亦爾。天眼發識不假空．明　又云。能生作意。通與六識作共生緣。眼．色非共。廣如彼說。

何緣色等至及麥芽等者。此下第六明識隨根立名。一由所依勝。二由不共因。根具二義隨根說識。境即不然。法界雖是不共而非所依。五境二義俱闕。意根雖通六識為依。而言不共者。五識有二依。從別立名。意識無別所依。雖標總稱即受別名。故意名不共。文中所以唯約五根解不共五境名共。不約意．法明者。謂五根不共。五境是共。義無雜亂所以偏舉。意根不共即有所濫。若據別義亦五識依法非是共。所以不說意．及法界。又解所依．不共隨有即立。不要具二。意是所依。法非所依。故名意識不名法識。不約不共以意亦能生五識故。雖法非為五識緣。唯意識緣邊是不共。自他意緣亦名共。由唯一義故文不說。又有別過。若言色等識即濫意識。以彼意識亦緣色等　問五境二識緣可便有相濫。法唯一識緣。何不名法識　解云若據通法即濫色等。若約別法攝識不盡。所以不言法識。故正理第八云。豈不意識境不共故應名法識。此難非理。通別法名共非遍故。境不具前二種因故。謂通名法非唯不共。別名法界非遍攝識。又別法界雖不共余。而非意識所依根性。是故若法。是識所依．及不共者。隨彼說識。色等不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『胝迦』（Thika，一種顏色）等障礙色也是如此。天眼生起意識不需要空和明。又說，『能生作意』（manasikara，心理活動），普遍與六識作為共同生起之緣。眼和色不是共同的。詳細內容如彼處所說。

為什麼說色等至和麥芽等呢？下面第六點說明意識隨著根而立名。一是由於所依殊勝，二是由於不共之因。根具有兩種含義，所以隨著根來說意識。境就不是這樣。法界雖然是不共的，但不是所依。五境兩種含義都缺乏。意根雖然普遍作為六識的所依，但說不共，是因為五識有兩種所依，從差別處立名。意識沒有其他的所依，雖然標明總稱，卻接受了別名。所以意被稱為不共。文中只圍繞五根解釋不共，五境解釋為共同，不圍繞意和法說明，是因為五根是不共的，五境是共同的，意義沒有雜亂，所以只舉了五根和五境。意根不共就有所混淆。如果根據別義，五識也是依法而生，不是共同的，所以不說意和法界。又解釋說，所依和不共，隨有其一就可立名，不需要具備兩種。意是所依，法不是所依，所以名為意識，不名法識。不圍繞不共來說，是因為意也能生起五識。雖然法不是五識的緣，只有意識緣法界是不共的。自己和他人的意緣也是共同的，由於只有一種含義，所以文中沒有說。還有其他的過失。如果說色等識，就和意識相混淆，因為那個意識也緣色等。問：五境和二識的緣，可能容易有相混淆。法只有一識緣，為什麼不名法識？解釋說：如果根據通法，就和色等相混淆。如果根據別法，就不能完全包含所有的識，所以不說『法識』。所以《正理》第八卷說：『難道不是因為意識的境是不共的，所以應該名為法識嗎？』這種責難沒有道理。通和別法的名稱是共同的，不是普遍的。境不具備前面的兩種原因。所謂通名法，不是唯一的不共。別名法界，不是普遍包含所有的識。而且別法界雖然不與其他相共，但不是意識所依的根性。因此，如果是識所依的，以及不共的，就隨著它來說識。色等不是。

【English Translation】 English version: The obstructive colors such as 『Thika』 (a type of color) are also the same. The divine eye's arising of consciousness does not rely on emptiness and clarity. Furthermore, it is said that 『manasikara』 (mental activity) can universally act as a co-arising condition with the six consciousnesses. The eye and color are not common. The details are as described there.

Why are 『color-samadhi』 and 『barley sprouts』 mentioned? The sixth point below explains that consciousness is named according to the root. Firstly, it is due to the superiority of the support (所依). Secondly, it is due to the non-common cause. The root has two meanings, so consciousness is spoken of according to the root. The object (境) is not like this. Although the 『dharmadhatu』 (法界, realm of phenomena) is non-common, it is not the support. The five objects lack both meanings. Although the 『manas-root』 (意根, mind-organ) universally serves as the support for the six consciousnesses, it is said to be non-common because the five consciousnesses have two supports, and the name is established from the difference. The 『mano-vijnana』 (意識, mind-consciousness) has no other support. Although it is labeled with a general term, it receives a specific name. Therefore, the mind is called non-common. In the text, only the five roots are explained as non-common, and the five objects are explained as common. The mind and dharma are not explained because the five roots are non-common, and the five objects are common, so the meaning is not confused. Therefore, only the five roots and five objects are mentioned. The non-commonness of the 『manas-root』 is somewhat confusing. If based on the specific meaning, the five consciousnesses also arise based on dharma, and are not common, so the mind and 『dharmadhatu』 are not mentioned. It is also explained that the support and non-commonness are established as soon as one of them is present, and it is not necessary to have both. The mind is the support, and dharma is not the support, so it is called 『mano-vijnana』 and not 『dharma-vijnana』. It is not discussed in terms of non-commonness because the mind can also give rise to the five consciousnesses. Although dharma is not a condition for the five consciousnesses, only the 『mano-vijnana』s』 connection with the 『dharmadhatu』 is non-common. The mind-connection of oneself and others is also common. Because there is only one meaning, it is not mentioned in the text. There are also other faults. If one says 『color-consciousness』, it will be confused with 『mano-vijnana』, because that 『mano-vijnana』 also connects with colors. Question: The connection between the five objects and the two consciousnesses may easily be confused. Dharma is only connected with one consciousness, so why is it not called 『dharma-vijnana』? Explanation: If based on the general dharma, it will be confused with colors, etc. If based on the specific dharma, it will not completely include all consciousnesses, so 『dharma-vijnana』 is not mentioned. Therefore, the eighth volume of the Nyayapravesa says: 『Isn't it because the object of 『mano-vijnana』 is non-common, so it should be called 『dharma-vijnana』?』 This accusation is unreasonable. The names of general and specific dharmas are common, not universal. The object does not have the previous two causes. The so-called general name dharma is not uniquely non-common. The specific name 『dharmadhatu』 does not universally include all consciousnesses. Moreover, although the specific 『dharmadhatu』 is not common with others, it is not the root nature supported by 『mano-vijnana』. Therefore, if something is supported by consciousness and is non-common, consciousness is spoken of according to it. Colors, etc., are not.

然。故不隨彼說色等識(已上論文)　如名鼓聲及麥芽等者。雖復手．鼓俱能生聲。鼓依勝故聲隨鼓。變不共因故唯生鼓聲故。但名鼓聲。手是劣故非隨手變是共因故亦生餘聲故。不言手聲。水．土亦能生麥等芽麥等依勝故。芽隨麥。變不共因故唯生麥芽故。但名麥芽。水等劣故非隨彼。變是共因故亦生余芽故。不名水芽等。六識生時雖境亦生。以根勝故。不共因故。隨根立名。又正理云。有言。根．識俱是內性。境唯是外。故隨根說。有言。根．識俱有情數。色等不定故隨根說。

隨身所住至地皆同不者。此下第七明依地同異別。就中。初約法廣明。次別顯定相。

此即初文問起。先約眼問。后例余界　色形聚集總名為身。非獨身根　隨身所住在何地中。眼見色時。身．眼．色．識。地為同不。

應言此四至如理應思者。答。此約身生欲界約諸地。明身．眼．色．識同異差別。

生初靜慮至如理應思者。此約此身生初定約諸地。明身．眼．色．識同異差別。如是若以三．四靜慮地眼。見自地色或下．上色者。以色望身說自．下．上。謂身生初定。以三．四定眼。見初定色名自。見欲界色名下。見二定已上色名上。若以色望眼但有自．下不得言上。以下地眼不見上色故。

如是生二至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『然。故不隨彼說色等識』（以上論文）。如同命名鼓聲及麥芽等。雖然手和鼓都能發出聲音，但因為鼓的作用更強，所以聲音隨鼓而定。因為鼓的變化是不共因，所以只產生鼓聲，因此只稱作鼓聲。手的作用較弱，所以聲音不隨手而變，而且手是共因，也能產生其他聲音，所以不稱為手聲。水和土也能使麥子等發芽，但因為麥子的作用更強，所以芽隨麥子而定。因為麥子的變化是不共因，所以只產生麥芽，因此只稱作麥芽。水等的作用較弱，所以芽不隨水等而變，而且水等是共因，也能產生其他芽，所以不稱為水芽等。六識產生時，雖然境也同時產生，但因為根的作用更強，而且是不共因，所以隨根來立名。另外，《正理》中說：『有人說，根和識都是內在的性質，境只是外在的。所以隨根來說。』也有人說：『根和識都是有情數的，色等是不定的，所以隨根來說。』

『隨身所住至地皆同不者』。以下第七部分說明依地的同異差別。其中，先從法理上廣泛說明，然後分別顯示確定的相狀。

這裡是最初的提問。先從眼界提問，然後類推到其他界。『色形聚集總名為身』，並非單指身根。『隨身所住在何地中』，眼睛看到顏色時，身、眼、色、識，與地相同還是不同？

『應言此四至如理應思者』。回答：這是指身體生在欲界，討論各個地，說明身、眼、色、識的同異差別。

『生初靜慮至如理應思者』。這是指這個身體生在初禪定，討論各個地，說明身、眼、色、識的同異差別。如果用三禪、四禪地的眼睛，看到自己地的顏色，或者下地、上地的顏色，以顏色相對於身體來說，有自己地、下地、上地的說法。比如身體生在初禪定，用三禪、四禪定的眼睛，看到初禪定的顏色，稱為自己地；看到欲界的顏色，稱為下地；看到二禪定以上的顏色，稱為上地。如果以顏色相對於眼睛來說，只有自己地、下地，不能說上地。因為下地的眼睛看不到上地的顏色。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Indeed. Therefore, one does not follow the explanation of form, etc., and consciousness' (as stated in the above treatise). It is like naming the sound of a drum and wheat sprouts, etc. Although both the hand and the drum can produce sound, because the drum's influence is stronger, the sound follows the drum. Because the drum's change is a non-common cause, it only produces the sound of the drum; therefore, it is only called the sound of the drum. The hand's influence is weaker, so the sound does not follow the hand's change, and because the hand is a common cause, it can also produce other sounds; therefore, it is not called the sound of the hand. Water and soil can also cause wheat, etc., to sprout, but because the wheat's influence is stronger, the sprout follows the wheat. Because the wheat's change is a non-common cause, it only produces wheat sprouts; therefore, it is only called wheat sprouts. The influence of water, etc., is weaker, so the sprout does not follow the change of water, etc., and because water, etc., is a common cause, it can also produce other sprouts; therefore, it is not called water sprouts, etc. When the six consciousnesses arise, although the object also arises simultaneously, because the root's influence is stronger and it is a non-common cause, the name is established according to the root. Furthermore, the Nyaya Sutra states: 'Some say that the root and consciousness are both internal natures, while the object is only external. Therefore, one speaks according to the root.' Others say: 'The root and consciousness are both sentient beings, while form, etc., are uncertain; therefore, one speaks according to the root.'

'Regarding 'depending on where the body dwells, are all the grounds the same or not?'' The following seventh section explains the differences and similarities based on the ground. Among them, the initial part broadly explains the principle, and then separately reveals the definite characteristics.

This is the initial question. It begins with the realm of the eye and then extends to other realms. 'The collection of form and shape is generally called the body,' not just the body-root. 'Depending on where the body dwells,' when the eye sees a color, are the body, eye, color, and consciousness the same as or different from the ground?

'One should say these four, up to 'as it should be considered''. The answer: This refers to the body being born in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), discussing the various grounds, and explaining the differences and similarities of body, eye, color, and consciousness.

'Born in the First Dhyana (Prathamadhyāna) up to 'as it should be considered''. This refers to this body being born in the First Dhyana (Prathamadhyāna) state, discussing the various grounds, and explaining the differences and similarities of body, eye, color, and consciousness. If one uses the eyes of the Third or Fourth Dhyana (Tṛtīyadhyāna, Caturthadhyāna) grounds to see colors of their own ground, or of lower or higher grounds, in relation to the body, there are the terms 'own ground,' 'lower ground,' and 'higher ground.' For example, if the body is born in the First Dhyana (Prathamadhyāna) state, and one uses the eyes of the Third or Fourth Dhyana (Tṛtīyadhyāna, Caturthadhyāna) to see the colors of the First Dhyana (Prathamadhyāna), it is called 'own ground'; seeing the colors of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) is called 'lower ground'; seeing the colors of the Second Dhyana (Dvitiyadhyāna) and above is called 'higher ground.' If one considers the colors in relation to the eye, there are only 'own ground' and 'lower ground,' and one cannot say 'higher ground,' because the eyes of the lower ground cannot see the colors of the higher ground.

如理應思者。生上三定類釋應思。

余界亦應如是分別者。上來明初三界。餘五三界亦應如是分別。

今當略辨至意不定應知者。此下別顯定相。略舉頌文。

論曰至欲界初定者。將辨差別。先明四種約地通局。

此中眼根至如色于識者。釋初一頌。此中眼根望身生地。或等．或上終不居下。上地之身。必有勝眼不起下劣。故眼不下身。慕上勝眼故得身上　色．識望眼。或等．或下必非在上。下眼不能見上色故。色非眼上。上識不依下地眼。下地眼自有識故云識非眼上　問何故下眼不見上色　答以上色細故下不見上　問下識隨上根隨根了上色。亦可下眼隨上識隨識見上色。

答根是其主。識是其隨只可識隨根。無容根隨識　問識得隨根故隨根了上色。識得隨根故上識依下根　答下眼若無識可須上識依。下眼自有識上識不依下　問若下不能見可須上眼見。下眼見下色不須上眼見　答上得兼于下。上眼見下色　問上得兼于下上眼見下色。上得兼于下上身覺下觸　答下觸是粗上身非覺　問下觸是其粗上身不能覺。下色是其粗上眼不能見　答色是離中知兼能取下粗。觸是閤中覺故非取下粗　色望于識或等．或上．或下　色識望身或等．或上．或下。如色望識思之可知。

廣說耳界至廣如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『如理應思者』，是指生於上三禪定之地的眾生，應當如是思維。『余界亦應如是分別者』，是指上面已經闡明了初禪、二禪、三禪這三個色界。其餘的五蘊、三界也應當像這樣分別說明。『今當略辨至意不定應知者』，接下來將簡略地辨析禪定的相狀，應當知曉其意並不固定。這裡簡要地列舉了頌文。『論曰至欲界初定者』，在辨析差別之前，首先闡明四種關於地界、通局的說法。『此中眼根至如色于識者』，解釋第一首頌文。此處的眼根，相對於其所生的身，可以是同等，可以是更高，但終究不會處於更低的位置。上地之身，必定具有更勝一籌的眼根，不會產生低劣的眼根。因此，眼根不會低於身。因為羨慕更勝一籌的眼根，所以才能得到身上的眼根。色、識相對於眼，可以是同等，可以是更低，但一定不會處於更高的位置。因為下地的眼不能看見上地的色。所以色不會高於眼。上地的識不依賴於下地的眼，因為下地的眼自身就有識，所以說識不會高於眼。問：為什麼下地的眼不能看見上地的色？答：因為上地的色更加精細，所以下地的眼不能看見。問：下地的識可以跟隨上地的根，跟隨根來了解上地的色。也可以下地的眼跟隨上地的識，跟隨識來看見上地的色。答：根是其主導，識是其跟隨，只能是識跟隨根，不可能根跟隨識。問：識能夠跟隨根，所以跟隨根來了解上地的色。識能夠跟隨根，所以上地的識依賴於下地的根。答：如果下地的眼沒有識，或許需要上地的識來依賴。但是下地的眼自身就有識，所以上地的識不依賴於下地的眼。問：如果下地的眼不能看見，或許需要上地的眼來看見。但是下地的眼能夠看見下地的色，不需要上地的眼來看見。答：上地的可以兼顧下地的。上地的眼能夠看見下地的色。問：上地的可以兼顧下地的，上地的眼能夠看見下地的色。上地的可以兼顧下地的，上地的身能夠覺察下地的觸覺。答：下地的觸覺是粗糙的，上地的身不能覺察。問：下地的觸覺是粗糙的，上地的身不能覺察。下地的色是粗糙的，上地的眼不能看見。答：色是分離中知，兼能獲取下地的粗糙之物。觸是結合中覺，所以不能獲取下地的粗糙之物。色相對於識，可以是同等、可以是更高、可以是更低。色識相對於身，可以是同等、可以是更高、可以是更低。如同色相對於識一樣，思考就可以知道。廣說耳界，內容廣泛，如同...

【English Translation】 English version: 『Those who should think appropriately』 refers to beings born in the upper three Dhyana realms, who should contemplate in this way. 『The remaining realms should also be distinguished in this way』 means that the initial three realms of form (初禪初禪, second dhyana, third dhyana) have been explained above. The remaining five aggregates (五蘊, Skandhas) and three realms (三界, Triloka) should also be distinguished in this manner. 『Now, let us briefly discern that the meaning is not fixed and should be known』 means that next, the characteristics of Dhyana will be briefly analyzed, and it should be known that its meaning is not fixed. Here, the verses are briefly listed. 『The treatise says to the initial determination of the desire realm』 means that before distinguishing the differences, the four types of statements regarding realms and their scope will be clarified first. 『Here, the eye faculty to like form in relation to consciousness』 explains the first verse. Here, the eye faculty, in relation to the body from which it arises, can be equal, can be higher, but will never be in a lower position. The body of a higher realm must have a superior eye faculty and will not produce an inferior one. Therefore, the eye faculty will not be lower than the body. Because of admiring the superior eye faculty, one can obtain the eye faculty on the body. Form and consciousness, in relation to the eye, can be equal, can be lower, but will certainly not be in a higher position. Because the eye of a lower realm cannot see the form of a higher realm, therefore form will not be higher than the eye. The consciousness of a higher realm does not rely on the eye of a lower realm, because the eye of a lower realm has its own consciousness, so it is said that consciousness will not be higher than the eye. Question: Why can't the eye of a lower realm see the form of a higher realm? Answer: Because the form of a higher realm is more subtle, the eye of a lower realm cannot see it. Question: The consciousness of a lower realm can follow the root of a higher realm, following the root to understand the form of a higher realm. Can the eye of a lower realm also follow the consciousness, following the consciousness to see the form of a higher realm? Answer: The root is the master, and consciousness is its follower. It can only be that consciousness follows the root, and it is impossible for the root to follow consciousness. Question: Consciousness can follow the root, so it follows the root to understand the form of a higher realm. Consciousness can follow the root, so the consciousness of a higher realm relies on the root of a lower realm. Answer: If the eye of a lower realm has no consciousness, perhaps it needs the consciousness of a higher realm to rely on. But the eye of a lower realm has its own consciousness, so the consciousness of a higher realm does not rely on the eye of a lower realm. Question: If the eye of a lower realm cannot see, perhaps it needs the eye of a higher realm to see. But the eye of a lower realm can see the form of a lower realm, so it does not need the eye of a higher realm to see. Answer: The higher realm can encompass the lower realm. The eye of a higher realm can see the form of a lower realm. Question: The higher realm can encompass the lower realm, the eye of a higher realm can see the form of a lower realm. The higher realm can encompass the lower realm, the body of a higher realm can perceive the touch of a lower realm. Answer: The touch of a lower realm is coarse, and the body of a higher realm cannot perceive it. Question: The touch of a lower realm is coarse, and the body of a higher realm cannot perceive it. The form of a lower realm is coarse, and the eye of a higher realm cannot see it. Answer: Form is known in separation and can also take the coarse things of the lower realm. Touch is felt in combination, so it cannot take the coarse things of the lower realm. Form in relation to consciousness can be equal, can be higher, or can be lower. Form and consciousness in relation to the body can be equal, can be higher, or can be lower. Just like form in relation to consciousness, you can know it by thinking. Extensive explanation of the ear realm, the content is extensive, like...

眼釋者。釋第五句。類解可知。

鼻．舌身三至謂之為下者。釋第六．第七句　鼻．舌．身三總皆自地。多分同故香．味二識唯欲界故。鼻．舌唯取至境界故。

于中別者謂身與觸其地必同。取至境故。

識望已下。可知。

應知意界至用少功多者。釋第八句。指同下釋。思亦可知。

傍論已周至並內界十二者。此下第二十諸識所識門。二十一常．無常門。二十二是根．非根門。頌中第一句明識所識。第二句解常．無常。下兩句釋根．非根。頌文中略但言二所識。是常．是根。義準應知所餘唯是一識所識．無常．非根。

論曰至所緣境故者。五境二識所識。十三界唯意識所識。故雜心云。色界二識識乃至觸亦然。諸餘十三界一向意識緣。

十八界中至法余余界者。十八界中法界中一分是常。謂三無為。義準無常即法界中除三無為諸餘法界。故言法余及餘十七界也。

又經中說至有所緣故者。釋下兩句。將釋根．非根。依經列名。會釋次第。經據六根次第故。意在男．女根前。對法據有所緣．無所緣故。說意根在命根后。以命等八無所緣故作一類說。意等十四有所緣故復為一類。

如是所說至皆體非根者。如是所說二十二根。十八界中內十二界。法界一分攝。

此即開章　言法一分者。命等十一。謂命．樂．苦．喜．憂．舍．信．勤．念．定．慧。及后三一分者。謂二十二中后三無漏根。此三根此以九根為體。謂意．喜．樂．舍．信等五根。於九根中后八是法界攝。故言后三一分。此等並是法界一分攝　言內十二者。眼等五根如自名相攝。意根通是七心界攝。后三一分即是意根。是意．意識攝。女．男二根身一分攝。如后根品當辨。此等並是內十二攝。義準所餘色等五界。及法界一分。皆體非根也。

俱舍論記卷第二　沙門釋光述

一交了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第三

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之一

分別根品者。勝用增上故名為根。此品廣明故名分別。所以界后次明根者。界品明諸法體。根品明諸法用。依體起用故次明根　問此品廣明有為作用。何故以根標名　解云此品雖明有為作用。以根初辨。又用增上故以標名　問雜心名行品。正理名差別品。何故此論名根品耶　解云此品之中意明作用。根定顯用行雖造作。或顯遷流明用非定。差別雖亦顯用不同。或顯有無差別或顯有為無為差別。顯用亦非決定。故我論主以根標名。

如是因界至根是何義者。就總明有漏．無漏法中。此品

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

這段是《俱舍論記》開篇，講述『法一分』的內容。『法一分』指的是命等十一法，即命根、樂受、苦受、喜受、憂受、舍受、信根、勤根、念根、定根、慧根。以及後面的『三一分』，指的是二十二根中后三無漏根（未知根、已知根、具知根）。這三個根以九根為本體，即意根、喜根、樂根、舍根、信根、勤根、念根、定根、慧根。在這九根中，后八個屬於法界所攝。所以說『后三一分』。這些都屬於法界的一部分。

『內十二』指的是眼等五根，如它們各自的名稱和體相所攝。意根通於七心界所攝。后三一分也就是意根，是意和意識所攝。女根和男根屬於身根的一部分，如後面的根品中將要辨析的。這些都屬於『內十二』所攝。由此可以推知，其餘的色等五界，以及法界的一部分，其體都不是根。

《俱舍論記》卷第二，沙門釋光述。

一交了。

《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第三

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之一

『分別根品』，因為根具有殊勝的作用和增上的力量，所以稱為『根』。此品廣泛地闡明根的含義，所以稱為『分別』。之所以在界品之後接著說明根品，是因為界品闡明諸法的體性，根品闡明諸法的作用。依體而起用，所以接著說明根。

問：此品廣泛地闡明有為的作用，為什麼用『根』來標明品名？

答：此品雖然闡明有為的作用，但以根作為最初的辨析對象。而且根的作用增上，所以用『根』來標明品名。

問：《雜心論》名為『行品』，《正理論》名為『差別品』，為什麼這部論典名為『根品』呢？

答：此品主要闡明作用。根明確地顯示作用。行雖然是造作，或者顯示遷流，但其作用並不確定。差別雖然也顯示作用的不同，或者顯示有無的差別，或者顯示有為無為的差別，但顯示作用也不是決定的。所以我的論主用『根』來標明品名。

『如是因界至根是何義者』，就總的闡明有漏法和無漏法中，此品...

【English Translation】 English version:

This is the opening chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, discussing the 'portion of dharma'. 'Portion of dharma' refers to the eleven dharmas such as life, namely, jīvita (life faculty), sukha (pleasure), duḥkha (pain), saumanasya (joy), daurmanasya (grief), upekṣā (indifference), śraddhā (faith), vīrya (effort), smṛti (mindfulness), samādhi (concentration), and prajñā (wisdom). And the later 'three portions', refers to the three anāsrava (untainted) roots among the twenty-two roots (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya, ājñendriya, ājñātāvīndriya). These three roots have nine roots as their substance, namely, manas (mind), saumanasya (joy), sukha (pleasure), upekṣā (indifference), śraddhā (faith), vīrya (effort), smṛti (mindfulness), samādhi (concentration), and prajñā (wisdom). Among these nine roots, the latter eight are included in the dharmadhātu (dharma realm). Therefore, it is said 'three later portions'. These all belong to a portion of the dharmadhātu.

'The twelve internal' refers to the five roots such as the eye (cakṣurindriya), as included by their respective names and characteristics. The manas (mind) root is connected to the seven citta (mind) realms. The later three portions are also the manas (mind) root, included by manas (mind) and manovijñāna (mind consciousness). The female (strīndriya) and male (puruṣendriya) roots belong to a portion of the body root (kāyendriya), as will be discussed in the later chapter on roots. These all belong to the 'twelve internal'. From this, it can be inferred that the remaining five realms such as form (rūpa), and a portion of the dharmadhātu (dharma realm), their substance is not a root.

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 2, composed by Śramaṇa (Buddhist monk) Shishi Guang.

Completed.

T41, No. 1821 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 3

Composed by Śramaṇa (Buddhist monk) Shishi Guang

Chapter 2 on the Analysis of Roots, Part 1

The 'Chapter on the Analysis of Roots', is named 'root' because roots have superior function and increasing power. This chapter extensively explains the meaning of roots, so it is called 'analysis'. The reason why the chapter on roots follows the chapter on realms is that the chapter on realms explains the nature of dharmas, and the chapter on roots explains the function of dharmas. Function arises based on nature, so the chapter on roots follows.

Question: This chapter extensively explains conditioned action, why is the chapter named with 'root'?

Answer: Although this chapter explains conditioned action, it begins with the analysis of roots. Moreover, the function of roots is increasing, so the chapter is named with 'root'.

Question: The Abhidharmasamuccaya is named 'Chapter on Actions', the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is named 'Chapter on Differences', why is this treatise named 'Chapter on Roots'?

Answer: This chapter mainly explains function. Roots clearly show function. Actions, although they are creations, or show change and flow, their function is not definite. Differences, although they also show the difference in function, or show the difference between existence and non-existence, or show the difference between conditioned and unconditioned, the display of function is also not definite. Therefore, my treatise master uses 'root' to name the chapter.

'What is the meaning of thus, because of realms, to roots?', in the general explanation of tainted and untainted dharmas, this chapter...

文第二明諸法用　就中。一明二十二根。二明俱生諸法。三明六因．四緣　此下第一明二十二根。即約根辨用。

就中。一釋根義。二根廢立。三明根體。四辨諸門。五雜分別　然初釋根義中。一述自宗。二敘異部。此下述自宗。即說一切有部。牒前問起。

最勝自在至根增上義者。答。西方聲明法。造字有字界．字緣。最勝．自在是字界。光顯是字緣。由此字界．字緣總成根增上義。故正理第九云。此增上義界義顯成。界謂伊地。或謂忍地。最勝自在是伊地義。照灼明瞭是忍地義準此熾盛光顯名根　解云二十二根各於事中有增上用。增上是何義。即是有大勢用相極明顯方名增上。此增上義界義顯成。界是體義。西方字型有三百頌。謂伊地．忍地等一一各有眾多義　釋最勝自在是伊地義者。梵釋云伊(上聲呼)地波羅迷濕伐羅(上聲)曳(去聲)此中波羅迷是最勝義。濕伐羅是自在義。曳是第七轉聲。是于中義。謂于最勝自在義中立伊地言故。最勝自在是伊地界家之義亦名界義　言照灼明瞭是忍地義者。梵釋云忍地地般到。此中地般是照明義。到亦是第七轉聲。謂于照明義中立忍地言故。照明是忍地家之義亦名界義。如是二種界義。前是最勝自在。即是有大勢用。后是照明。即是相極明顯　熾盛光顯者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第二部分闡明諸法的功用，其中分為四個部分：一、闡明二十二根；二、闡明俱生諸法；三、闡明六因和四緣。以下是第一部分，闡明二十二根，即通過根來辨別其功用。

其中分為五個部分：一、解釋根的含義；二、根的廢立；三、闡明根的本體；四、辨別各種門類；五、雜項分別。首先解釋根的含義，分為兩部分：一、陳述本宗觀點；二、敘述其他部派的觀點。以下陳述本宗觀點，即說一切有部的觀點，通過對之前的提問進行解釋。

『最勝自在』直到『根增上義』是什麼意思呢？回答：西方的聲明法（Shabda-vidya，古印度研究語音、語法、詞源、詩律和修辭的學科），創造文字有字界（Akshara-sima，文字的界限）和字緣（Akshara-pratyaya，文字的條件）。『最勝』（Parama）和『自在』（Ishvara）是字界，『光顯』是字緣。由此字界和字緣總合而成根的增上義。所以《正理經》（Nyaya-sutra）第九卷說：『此增上義，界義顯成。』界指的是伊地（Idhi，力量）。或者說是忍地（Kshanti-dhi，忍耐的智慧）。『最勝自在』是伊地義，照灼明瞭是忍地義。因此，熾盛光顯被稱為根。解釋說，二十二根各自在事物中具有增上作用。增上是什麼意思呢？就是具有強大的勢力和作用，並且相狀極其明顯，才稱為增上。此增上義，界義顯成。界是本體的含義。西方的字型有三百頌，包括伊地、忍地等，每一個都有眾多含義。

解釋『最勝自在是伊地義』，梵文解釋是：伊（上聲呼）地（Idhi）波羅迷濕伐羅（Parameshvara，偉大的自在）曳（e，梵文第七格，表示『在…之中』）。其中，波羅迷（Parama）是最勝義，濕伐羅（Ishvara）是自在義，曳（e）是第七轉聲，是『于…之中』的意思。意思是說，在最勝自在的含義中建立伊地這個詞。因此，最勝自在是伊地界家的含義，也稱為界義。『照灼明瞭是忍地義』，梵文解釋是：忍地（Kshanti-dhi）地般（dhi-bha，智慧之光）到（tah，梵文第七格，表示『在…之中』）。其中，地般（dhi-bha）是照明義，到（tah）也是第七轉聲，意思是說，在照明的含義中建立忍地這個詞。照明是忍地家的含義，也稱為界義。像這樣兩種界義，前面是最勝自在，就是具有強大的勢力和作用；後面是照明，就是相狀極其明顯。熾盛光顯是...

【English Translation】 English version: Section Two elucidates the functions of all dharmas, which is divided into four parts: 1. Elucidating the twenty-two roots (indriya); 2. Elucidating co-arisen dharmas; 3. Elucidating the six causes (hetu) and four conditions (pratyaya). The following is the first part, elucidating the twenty-two roots, that is, distinguishing their functions through the roots.

It is divided into five parts: 1. Explaining the meaning of 'root'; 2. Establishment and abolition of roots; 3. Elucidating the substance of roots; 4. Distinguishing various categories; 5. Miscellaneous distinctions. First, explaining the meaning of 'root', divided into two parts: 1. Stating the view of our own school; 2. Narrating the views of other schools. The following states the view of our own school, i.e., the Sarvastivada school, explaining through answering the previous question.

What does 'supreme sovereignty' (Parameshvara) up to 'root's dominant meaning' (indriya-adhipati-artha) mean? Answer: The Western science of language (Shabda-vidya, the ancient Indian discipline of studying phonetics, grammar, etymology, metrics, and rhetoric), creating words has 'letter-boundary' (Akshara-sima, the boundary of a letter) and 'letter-condition' (Akshara-pratyaya, the condition of a letter). 'Supreme' (Parama) and 'sovereignty' (Ishvara) are letter-boundaries, and 'illumination' is a letter-condition. Thus, the letter-boundary and letter-condition together form the dominant meaning of the root. Therefore, the ninth volume of the Nyaya-sutra says: 'This dominant meaning is manifested by the boundary meaning.' 'Boundary' refers to Idhi (power). Or it refers to Kshanti-dhi (patience-wisdom). 'Supreme sovereignty' is the meaning of Idhi, and 'illuminating clarity' is the meaning of Kshanti-dhi. Therefore, intense illumination is called a root. It is explained that each of the twenty-two roots has a dominant function in things. What does 'dominant' mean? It means having great power and function, and its appearance is extremely obvious, that is called 'dominant'. This dominant meaning is manifested by the boundary meaning. 'Boundary' is the meaning of substance. Western scripts have three hundred verses, including Idhi, Kshanti-dhi, etc., each of which has many meanings.

Explaining 'supreme sovereignty is the meaning of Idhi', the Sanskrit explanation is: I (pronounced in the rising tone) dhi (Idhi) Parameshvara (the great sovereign) e (the seventh case in Sanskrit, meaning 'in...'). Among them, Parama is the meaning of 'supreme', Ishvara is the meaning of 'sovereignty', and e is the seventh case ending, meaning 'in...'. It means that the word Idhi is established in the meaning of supreme sovereignty. Therefore, supreme sovereignty is the meaning of the Idhi boundary family, also called the boundary meaning. 'Illuminating clarity is the meaning of Kshanti-dhi', the Sanskrit explanation is: Kshanti-dhi dhi-bha (light of wisdom) tah (the seventh case in Sanskrit, meaning 'in...'). Among them, dhi-bha is the meaning of 'illumination', and tah is also the seventh case ending, meaning that the word Kshanti-dhi is established in the meaning of illumination. Illumination is the meaning of the Kshanti-dhi family, also called the boundary meaning. Like these two kinds of boundary meanings, the former is supreme sovereignty, which is having great power and function; the latter is illumination, which is an extremely obvious appearance. Intense illumination is...

。光顯梵云因檀底是字緣。助伊地界即名因侄唎焰。此譯為根。顯增上義　熾盛。梵云地逸底。是字緣。助前忍地界即名因侄唎焰。此譯為根。顯增上義。此因侄唎焰具含有大勢用相極明顯。此譯為根。並顯增上。俱舍約前義解。故云最勝．自在．光顯名根。即是正理以光顯字緣助伊地。伊地是最勝自在。由緣助界成因侄唎焰。此譯為根。由此最勝等總成根增上義　又解根體勝故名為最勝。根用勝故名為自在。體用勝故名為光顯。

此增上義誰望于誰者。徴。

頌曰至各別為增上者。頌答。

論曰至香味觸故者。釋第一句。若具五根身即莊嚴。隨有所闕身便醜陋。身根必無總闕。言闕據餘四根　或據少分名闕。如無手等　或餘四根亦有闕少分者皆名醜陋　言導養者。眼見險避。耳聞險避。導養于身。身資段食方得增上。段食以香．味．觸為體。鼻嗅。舌嘗。身覺。此三根于段食能受用故。身得增上名導養身　生識等。等取相應法　不共事。事謂色等事。五根別取故名不共　女男命意至乳房等別者。此下釋第二句　有情異者。劫初有情形類皆等。由二根生令諸有情女．男類別　分別異者由此二根。男身形相粗大。言音雄朗。乳房小女身形相尪弱。言音細少。乳房大　等者等取作業等。此形相等別。能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：梵文 '因檀底' (indanti) 是 '字緣' (字根)。輔助 '伊地界' (id-dhi-dhātu) 就叫做 '因侄唎焰' (indriya)。這裡翻譯為 '根'，顯示增上之義，即熾盛。梵文 '地逸底' (dhi-iti) 也是 '字緣'。輔助前面的 '忍地界' (kṣānti-dhātu) 就叫做 '因侄唎焰'。這裡翻譯為 '根'，顯示增上之義。這個 '因侄唎焰' 具有強大的作用和極明顯的相。這裡翻譯為 '根'，並且顯示增上。俱舍論根據前面的意義解釋，所以說最勝、自在、光顯名為根。這就是正理，用光顯的 '字緣' 輔助 '伊地'，'伊地' 是最勝自在。由 '緣' 輔助 '界' 成為 '因侄唎焰'。這裡翻譯為 '根'。由此最勝等總成根的增上之義。又解釋說，根的本體殊勝所以名為最勝，根的作用殊勝所以名為自在，本體和作用都殊勝所以名為光顯。這個增上之義是誰相對於誰而言的呢？這是提問。頌文說：'至各別為增上'，這是頌文的回答。論述說：'至香味觸故'，這是解釋第一句。如果具備五根，身體就莊嚴。如果缺少任何一個，身體就醜陋。身根必定不會完全缺失，說缺失是根據其餘四根，或者根據少部分缺失，例如沒有手等。或者其餘四根也有缺少少部分的情況，都叫做醜陋。說到導養，眼睛看到危險就避開，耳朵聽到危險就避開，這是導養身體。身體依靠段食才能得到增上。段食以香、味、觸為本體。鼻子嗅，舌頭嘗，身體感覺。這三個根對於段食能夠受用，所以身體得到增上，叫做導養身體。生識等，'等' 包括相應的法。不共事，'事' 指的是色等事。五根分別取用，所以叫做不共。女男命意至等別，這以下解釋第二句。有情異，劫初的有情，形體種類都相同。由於男女二根的產生，使得有情分為女、男兩類。分別異，由於男女二根，男身形相粗大，言語音調雄渾響亮，小，女身形相瘦弱，言語音調細微輕柔，**大。'等' 包括作業等。這些形相等別，能夠...

【English Translation】 English version: The Sanskrit word 'indanti' (因檀底) is a 'syllable-cause' (字緣, literal translation). Assisting the 'id-dhi-dhātu' (伊地界) is called 'indriya' (因侄唎焰). This is translated as 'root,' showing the meaning of increase, which is flourishing. The Sanskrit word 'dhi-iti' (地逸底) is also a 'syllable-cause.' Assisting the preceding 'kṣānti-dhātu' (忍地界) is called 'indriya.' This is translated as 'root,' showing the meaning of increase. This 'indriya' has great function and extremely obvious characteristics. This is translated as 'root,' and shows increase. The Abhidharmakośa interprets according to the preceding meaning, so it says that the most excellent, self-existent, and luminous are called roots. This is the correct principle, using the 'syllable-cause' of luminosity to assist 'id-dhi,' and 'id-dhi' is the most excellent and self-existent. By the 'cause' assisting the 'dhātu,' it becomes 'indriya.' This is translated as 'root.' Therefore, the most excellent, etc., together form the meaning of the root's increase. It is also explained that because the substance of the root is superior, it is called the most excellent; because the function of the root is superior, it is called self-existent; and because both the substance and function are superior, it is called luminous. Regarding this meaning of increase, in relation to whom is it? This is a question. The verse says: 'To each separately as increase,' this is the answer in verse. The treatise says: 'To fragrance, taste, and touch,' this explains the first sentence. If one possesses the five roots, the body is adorned. If any one is missing, the body is ugly. The body root will certainly not be completely missing; saying 'missing' is based on the remaining four roots, or based on a small part being missing, such as having no hands, etc. Or the remaining four roots may also have a small part missing, all of which are called ugly. Speaking of guiding and nourishing, the eyes see danger and avoid it, the ears hear danger and avoid it; this is guiding and nourishing the body. The body relies on coarse food to obtain increase. Coarse food takes fragrance, taste, and touch as its substance. The nose smells, the tongue tastes, the body feels. These three roots can receive and use coarse food, so the body obtains increase, called guiding and nourishing the body. 'Generating consciousness, etc.,' 'etc.' includes corresponding dharmas. Non-common affairs, 'affairs' refers to form, etc. The five roots take separately, so it is called non-common. 'Female, male, life, mind, to **, etc., are different,' below this explains the second sentence. 'Sentient beings are different,' at the beginning of the kalpa, the forms and kinds of sentient beings were all the same. Due to the production of the two roots of male and female, sentient beings are divided into female and male categories. 'Distinguished differently,' due to the two roots of male and female, the male body's form is coarse and large, the voice is loud and strong, ** small; the female body's form is thin and weak, the voice is fine and soft, ** large. 'Etc.' includes actions, etc. These differences in form, etc., can...

生分別異解故名分別異　又解形相等分別各異。名分別異　前有情異約總相。後分別異約別相。又正理第九云。有說勇．怯有差別故名有情異。衣服．莊嚴有差別故名分別異。此師約內．外以明。

有說此于至諸清凈法者。敘異說。於二增上。此男．女根隨成就一。于染。于凈。有增上用故言於二。于染增上謂得不律儀。造無間業。能斷善根。于凈增上謂得律儀。得果。離染。彼扇搋等即無是事。增上染．凈俱依勝身。此身劣故非彼所依。如堿鹵田不生穢草。故無不律儀。無五無間。無斷善根諸雜染法。如堿鹵田嘉苗不植。是故亦無律儀。亦無得果。亦無離染諸清凈法。一一別明如業品說。應知扇搋．半擇俱名黃門。故業品云二黃門二形。扇搋唯無根。無根有二。一本性扇搋。二損壞扇搋。半擇唯有根。有根有三。一嫉妒。二半月。三灌灑　又解扇搋唯無根。半擇通有根．無根本性．損壞亦通半擇。若作此解半擇迦寬。扇搋迦挾。若是扇搋即是半擇。有是半擇非扇搋。謂嫉妒．半月．灌灑。故對法論第八云。又半擇迦有五種。謂生便半擇迦。嫉妒半擇迦。半月半擇迦。灌灑半擇迦。除去半擇迦　解云生便謂本性。嫉妒謂見他行淫男勢方起。半月謂半月能為男事。半月不能。灌灑謂澡浴等灌灑男勢方起。除去謂被

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『生分別異解故名分別異』：因為對『生』（有情）的理解和區分不同，所以稱為『分別異』。『又解形相等分別各異。名分別異』：另一種解釋是，雖然形體和相貌相同，但其行為和表現各有不同，這也稱為『分別異』。『前有情異約總相。後分別異約別相』：前述的『有情異』是從總體、共性的角度來區分，而後述的『分別異』是從個體、差異性的角度來區分。『又正理第九云。有說勇．怯有差別故名有情異。衣服．莊嚴有差別故名分別異。此師約內．外以明』：正如《正理》第九卷所說，有人認為，因為有情眾生在勇敢和怯懦方面存在差別，所以稱為『有情異』；因為衣服和裝飾存在差別，所以稱為『分別異』。這位論師是從內在和外在兩個方面來闡釋的。

『有說此于至諸清凈法者。敘異說。於二增上。此男．女根隨成就一。于染。于凈。有增上用故言於二』：有人說，（扇搋（Pandaka，黃門）和半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人））在達到清凈之法的能力上有所不同。在兩種增上（Adhipati，主導）方面——染污和清凈，男女的性根各自成就一種。因為在染污和清凈方面有增上的作用，所以說是『於二』。『于染增上謂得不律儀。造無間業。能斷善根。于凈增上謂得律儀。得果。離染』：在染污方面增上，指的是獲得不律儀（不持戒），造作無間業（必墮地獄的罪業），能夠斷絕善根。在清凈方面增上，指的是獲得律儀（持戒），證得果位（修行成就），遠離染污。『彼扇搋等即無是事。增上染．凈俱依勝身。此身劣故非彼所依。如堿鹵田不生穢草。故無不律儀。無五無間。無斷善根諸雜染法』：那些扇搋（Pandaka，黃門）等就沒有這些能力。增上的染污和清凈都依賴於殊勝的身體。因為他們的身體低劣，所以不具備這些條件。就像鹽堿地不生長雜草一樣，所以沒有不律儀，沒有五無間業，沒有斷絕善根等各種雜染之法。『如堿鹵田嘉苗不植。是故亦無律儀。亦無得果。亦無離染諸清凈法。一一別明如業品說』：就像鹽堿地不適合種植好的莊稼一樣，所以也沒有律儀，也沒有證得果位，也沒有遠離染污等各種清凈之法。這些一一分別的說明，如《業品》所說。『應知扇搋．半擇俱名黃門。故業品云二黃門二形。扇搋唯無根。無根有二。一本性扇搋。二損壞扇搋。半擇唯有根。有根有三。一嫉妒。二半月。三灌灑』：應當知道，扇搋（Pandaka，黃門）和半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）都稱為黃門。所以《業品》說，有兩種黃門和兩種二形人。扇搋（Pandaka，黃門）只有無根的，無根的有兩種：一是本性扇搋（Pandaka，天生閹人），二是損壞扇搋（Pandaka，後天閹人）。半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）只有有根的，有根的有三種：一是嫉妒（嫉妒他人性行為），二是半月（每月只有半個月有效能力），三是灌灑（需要灌溉才能勃起）。『又解扇搋唯無根。半擇通有根．無根本性．損壞亦通半擇。若作此解半擇迦寬。扇搋迦挾。若是扇搋即是半擇。有是半擇非扇搋。謂嫉妒．半月．灌灑』：另一種解釋是，扇搋（Pandaka，黃門）只有無根的，而半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）既可以是有根的，也可以是無根的。本性和損壞也可以歸類為半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）。如果這樣解釋，半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）的範圍更寬泛，扇搋（Pandaka，黃門）的範圍更狹窄。如果是扇搋（Pandaka，黃門），那一定是半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）；但有的是半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）卻不是扇搋（Pandaka，黃門），比如嫉妒、半月、灌灑。『故對法論第八云。又半擇迦有五種。謂生便半擇迦。嫉妒半擇迦。半月半擇迦。灌灑半擇迦。除去半擇迦』：所以《對法論》第八卷說，半擇迦（Pandaka，半性人）有五種：一是天生半擇迦（Pandaka），二是嫉妒半擇迦（Pandaka），三是半月半擇迦（Pandaka），四是灌灑半擇迦（Pandaka），五是除去半擇迦（Pandaka）。『解云生便謂本性。嫉妒謂見他行淫男勢方起。半月謂半月能為男事。半月不能。灌灑謂澡浴等灌灑男勢方起。除去謂被』：解釋說，天生半擇迦（Pandaka）指的是本性如此。嫉妒半擇迦（Pandaka）指的是看到他人性行為時才能勃起。半月半擇迦（Pandaka）指的是每月只有半個月能進行性行為，另半個月則不能。灌灑半擇迦（Pandaka）指的是需要通過洗浴等方式刺激才能勃起。除去半擇迦（Pandaka）指的是被...

【English Translation】 English version 'Differences in Understanding of Beings are Called Differentiated Differences': Because of different understandings and distinctions regarding 'beings' (sentient beings), it is called 'differentiated differences'. 'Another Explanation: Forms are Similar, but Distinctions are Different, Called Differentiated Differences': Another explanation is that although forms and appearances are the same, their behaviors and expressions are different, which is also called 'differentiated differences'. 'The Former 'Difference in Sentient Beings' is About General Characteristics; the Latter 'Differentiated Differences' is About Specific Characteristics': The aforementioned 'difference in sentient beings' distinguishes from a general, common perspective, while the latter 'differentiated differences' distinguishes from an individual, differing perspective. 'Also, in the Ninth Volume of the Nyaya Sutra, it is said that some argue that differences in courage and cowardice are called 'difference in sentient beings,' and differences in clothing and adornment are called 'differentiated differences.' This teacher explains it from internal and external aspects.' Just as it is said in the ninth volume of the Nyaya Sutra, some believe that because sentient beings differ in courage and cowardice, it is called 'difference in sentient beings'; because clothing and adornments differ, it is called 'differentiated differences.' This teacher explains it from internal and external aspects.

'Some Say This Regarding the Pure Dharmas: Narrating Different Views. In Two Adhipatis. These Male and Female Roots Each Accomplish One. In Defilement. In Purity. There is Adhipati Use, Hence the Term 'In Two'.' Some say that (Pandakas (hermaphrodites) and eunuchs) differ in their ability to attain pure dharmas. In two adhipatis (dominant factors)—defilement and purity—the male and female sexual organs each accomplish one. Because there is an adhipati effect in defilement and purity, it is said 'in two'. 'In Defilement, Adhipati Means Obtaining Non-Precepts, Creating Interminable Karma, and Being Able to Sever Roots of Goodness. In Purity, Adhipati Means Obtaining Precepts, Attaining Fruition, and Separating from Defilement.' Adhipati in defilement refers to obtaining non-precepts (not upholding precepts), creating interminable karma (deeds that lead to hell), and being able to sever roots of goodness. Adhipati in purity refers to obtaining precepts (upholding precepts), attaining fruition (achievements in practice), and separating from defilement. 'Those Pandakas, etc., Do Not Have These Abilities. Adhipati Defilement and Purity Both Rely on Superior Bodies. Because These Bodies are Inferior, They Do Not Rely on Them. Just as Salty Fields Do Not Grow Weeds, Therefore There are No Non-Precepts, No Five Interminable Karmas, and No Various Defiled Dharmas that Sever Roots of Goodness.' Those Pandakas (eunuchs), etc., do not have these abilities. Adhipati defilement and purity both rely on superior bodies. Because their bodies are inferior, they do not possess these conditions. Just as salty fields do not grow weeds, therefore there are no non-precepts, no five interminable karmas, and no various defiled dharmas that sever roots of goodness. 'Just as Good Crops are Not Planted in Salty Fields, Therefore There are Also No Precepts, No Attainment of Fruition, and No Various Pure Dharmas that Separate from Defilement. Each Separate Explanation is as Explained in the Karma Chapter.' Just as good crops are not suitable for planting in salty fields, therefore there are also no precepts, no attainment of fruition, and no various pure dharmas that separate from defilement. These separate explanations are as explained in the Karma Chapter. 'It Should Be Known that Pandakas and Eunuchs are Both Called Eunuchs. Therefore, the Karma Chapter Says There are Two Eunuchs and Two Hermaphrodites. Pandakas Only Have No Roots. There are Two Types of No Roots: One is Natural Pandakas, and the Other is Damaged Pandakas. Eunuchs Only Have Roots. There are Three Types of Roots: One is Jealousy, Two is Half-Month, and Three is Irrigation.' It should be known that Pandakas (hermaphrodites) and eunuchs are both called eunuchs. Therefore, the Karma Chapter says there are two eunuchs and two hermaphrodites. Pandakas (eunuchs) only have no roots, and there are two types of no roots: one is natural Pandakas (born eunuchs), and the other is damaged Pandakas (castrated eunuchs). Eunuchs only have roots, and there are three types of roots: one is jealousy (jealous of others' sexual behavior), two is half-month (only sexually capable for half the month), and three is irrigation (requires irrigation to become erect). 'Another Explanation: Pandakas Only Have No Roots. Eunuchs Can Have Roots or No Roots. Natural and Damaged Can Also Be Classified as Eunuchs. If Explained This Way, Eunuchs are Broader, and Pandakas are Narrower. If it is a Pandaka, it Must Be a Eunuch. Some Eunuchs are Not Pandakas, Such as Jealousy, Half-Month, and Irrigation.' Another explanation is that Pandakas (eunuchs) only have no roots, while eunuchs can have roots or no roots. Natural and damaged can also be classified as eunuchs. If explained this way, the scope of eunuchs is broader, and the scope of Pandakas is narrower. If it is a Pandaka (eunuch), it must be a eunuch; but some eunuchs are not Pandakas, such as jealousy, half-month, and irrigation. 'Therefore, the Eighth Volume of the Abhidharma-samuccaya Says: Also, There are Five Types of Eunuchs: Namely, Born Eunuchs, Jealous Eunuchs, Half-Month Eunuchs, Irrigation Eunuchs, and Removed Eunuchs.' Therefore, the eighth volume of the Abhidharma-samuccaya says that there are five types of eunuchs: namely, born eunuchs, jealous eunuchs, half-month eunuchs, irrigation eunuchs, and removed eunuchs. 'Explanation: Born Refers to Natural. Jealous Refers to the Male Organ Only Arousing When Seeing Others Engaging in Sexual Activity. Half-Month Refers to Being Able to Perform Male Acts for Half the Month and Not Being Able to for the Other Half. Irrigation Refers to the Male Organ Only Arousing When Irrigated with Bathing, etc. Removed Refers to Being...' The explanation is that born refers to natural. Jealous refers to the male organ only arousing when seeing others engaging in sexual activity. Half-month refers to being able to perform male acts for half the month and not being able to for the other half. Irrigation refers to the male organ only arousing when stimulated by bathing, etc. Removed refers to being...

損壞　問若扇搋半擇本性損壞無男根者。何故婆沙九十解離欲名丈夫四句中。云或有成就男根而不名丈夫。如扇搋半擇迦等　解云男根有二。一丈夫男根。二非丈夫男根。言扇搋等不成者。據丈夫男根有志氣者。言扇搋等成就者。據非丈夫男根無志氣者　又解男根有二。一具足成。謂有勢力能離欲等。二不具足成。謂無勢力不能離欲等。言不成者據初說。言成者據第二說　又解從多分說。雖扇搋不成男根。以半擇．二形成就男根彼言扇搋者同文故來。

等者。等取二形。

命根二者至及能持者。此解命根於二增上。一由命根故於眾同分能令續前。二由命故於眾同分能持不斷。能續望前。能持據現。

意根二者至皆自在隨行者。此解意根於二增上。一能續後有中增上。謂中有未心。與愛等俱能續生有故。名能續後有　健達縛。健達名香。縛名為尋。尋香食故。或名為食。由食香故。即中有名也。二自在隨行中增上。引經釋云心能導世間是自在義。謂能導引一切世間故名自在。心能遍攝受是隨行義。謂心能遍攝受諸法故名隨行　又解心能導世間是隨行義。心能遍攝受是自在義　又解兩句皆通自在．隨行。有勢力故名為自在。隨境而轉名曰隨行。

樂等五受至隨生長故者。釋第三．第四句。五受于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本損壞：問：如果扇搋（梵語：paṇḍaka，指無性人）、半擇迦（梵語：paṇḍaka，指閹人或性功能不全者）本性損壞，沒有男根，為什麼在《婆沙論》九十解離欲中，說『或者有成就男根而不名為丈夫，如扇搋、半擇迦等』？答：男根有兩種：一是丈夫男根，二是非丈夫男根。說扇搋等不成就是指丈夫男根，即有志氣者；說扇搋等成就就是指非丈夫男根，即無志氣者。又解：男根有兩種：一是具足成，即有勢力能離欲等；二是不具足成，即無勢力不能離欲等。說不成是指第一種情況，說成是指第二種情況。又解：從大多數情況來說，雖然扇搋不成男根，但半擇迦、二形（指具有兩性性徵的人）成就男根。這裡說扇搋，是因為同類而並列提及。『等者』，『等』包括二形。命根二者至及能持者：這裡解釋命根在兩種情況下起增上作用：一是由命根的緣故，在眾同分中能令相續於前世；二是由命的緣故，在眾同分中能保持不中斷。能續是相對於前世而言，能持是就現在來說。意根二者至皆自在隨行者：這裡解釋意根在兩種情況下起增上作用：一是在能續後有中起增上作用，即中有（指死亡到投生之間的過渡階段）未謝的心，與愛等一起能相續于生有，所以名為能續後有。健達縛（梵語：gandharva），健達（gandha）是香的意思，縛（va）是尋的意思，因為尋香而食，或者名為食，因為食香的緣故，也就是中有之名。二是在自在隨行中起增上作用。引用經文解釋說，『心能引導世間』是自在的含義，即能引導一切世間，所以名為自在。『心能普遍攝受』是隨行的含義，即心能普遍攝受諸法，所以名為隨行。又解：『心能引導世間』是隨行的含義，『心能普遍攝受』是自在的含義。又解：兩句都可通於自在、隨行。有勢力所以名為自在，隨順境界而運轉所以名叫隨行。樂等五受至隨生長故者：解釋第三、第四句。五受對於……

【English Translation】 English version Damage: Question: If a paṇḍaka (one without sexual organs or with damaged sexual organs) or a napuṃsaka (one who is impotent or of impaired gender) is inherently damaged and has no male organ, why does the Vibhāṣā in its ninety explanations of detachment state, 'Or there are those who possess a male organ but are not called men, such as paṇḍakas and napuṃsakas'? Answer: There are two types of male organs: one is the male organ of a man, and the other is the male organ of a non-man. Saying that paṇḍakas, etc., are not complete refers to the male organ of a man, that is, one with vigor. Saying that paṇḍakas, etc., are complete refers to the male organ of a non-man, that is, one without vigor. Another explanation: There are two types of male organs: one is fully complete, meaning having the power to detach from desires, etc.; the other is incompletely complete, meaning lacking the power to detach from desires, etc. Saying 'not complete' refers to the first case, and saying 'complete' refers to the second case. Another explanation: Speaking from the majority perspective, although a paṇḍaka does not complete the male organ, a napuṃsaka or ubhayavyañjanaka (one with both male and female sexual characteristics) completes the male organ. The mention of paṇḍaka here is due to being of the same category and mentioned together. 'Etc.' includes ubhayavyañjanaka. The two life faculties to and including 'able to sustain': This explains that the life faculty has an increasing effect in two ways: first, because of the life faculty, it can cause continuity from the previous life in the multitude of shared characteristics; second, because of life, it can maintain non-interruption in the multitude of shared characteristics. 'Able to continue' refers to the past life, and 'able to sustain' refers to the present. The two mind faculties to and including 'all are free and follow': This explains that the mind faculty has an increasing effect in two ways: first, it has an increasing effect in continuing the subsequent existence, that is, the mind of the antarābhava (intermediate state between death and rebirth) that has not yet ceased, together with craving, etc., can continue into the existence of rebirth, hence it is called 'able to continue the subsequent existence'. Gandharva (a celestial musician), gandha means fragrance, and va means seeking, because they seek fragrance and eat, or it is called food because they eat fragrance, which is the name of the intermediate state. Second, it has an increasing effect in freedom and following. Quoting a sutra to explain, 'The mind can guide the world' is the meaning of freedom, that is, it can guide all the world, hence it is called freedom. 'The mind can universally embrace' is the meaning of following, that is, the mind can universally embrace all dharmas, hence it is called following. Another explanation: 'The mind can guide the world' is the meaning of following, and 'the mind can universally embrace' is the meaning of freedom. Another explanation: Both phrases can apply to both freedom and following. Having power is called freedom, and turning according to the environment is called following. The five feelings of pleasure, etc., to and including 'according to growth': Explains the third and fourth phrases. The five feelings towards...

染增上。貪等隨眠所隨順．增長故。或於相應。或於所緣。隨順．增長。雖此五受亦通於善。于染用勝言染增上。信等五根及三無漏根于凈增上可知。

有餘師說至傳說如此者。敘異師說。樂等五受不但于染增上。于凈亦為增上。如契經說由安樂故心便得定。由厭苦故引涅槃樂。信有欣求出離六謂六境。喜．憂．舍三緣六境故。出離謂涅槃。善喜．憂．舍與出離為依名出離依。故下論云。出離依者謂諸善受　上來釋根增上。毗婆沙師傳說如此。

有餘師說至眼等成根者。此下第二敘異師。有餘識見等家作如是說。能導養身非眼等用。是識增上。識了避險。受段食故。見色等用亦非異識。故不共事非眼等根別增上用。此即破前師導養身．不共事。所以此中不破莊嚴身者。前第一卷已破云。若本來爾誰言醜陋。或前文云若為嚴身及起說用。但須依處何用二根。所以不破。發識等者識見家亦許故不別破。

若爾云何者。徴。

頌曰至涅槃等增上者。頌答。

論曰至各立為根者。五識各緣自境名各別境識。意識遍緣一切名為一切境識。亦名自境。六根能生六識。有增上用故立為根。

豈不色等至應立為根者難。以境例根。

境于識中至於法亦爾者。釋。夫增上用最勝自在。眼于所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：染污增上：貪等隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式）所隨順、增長的緣故。或者對於相應的法，或者對於所緣的境，隨順、增長。雖然這五種感受也通於善法，但在染污方面作用更勝，所以說是染污增上。信等五根以及三種無漏根在清凈方面增上，可以理解。有其他論師說，乃至傳說如此：這是敘述其他論師的觀點。樂等五種感受，不但在染污方面增上，在清凈方面也是增上。如契經所說：『由於安樂的緣故，心便能得定。』『由於厭惡痛苦的緣故，能引生涅槃之樂。』信有欣求出離六境，這六境指的是六種境界。喜、憂、舍三種感受緣於六境的緣故。出離指的是涅槃。善的喜、憂、舍以出離為所依，名為出離依。所以下文論述說：『出離依，指的是各種善的感受。』以上是解釋根的增上作用。毗婆沙師的傳說是這樣的。有其他論師說，乃至眼等成為根：這以下是第二次敘述其他論師的觀點。有其他識見等學派的人這樣說：能引導養護身體的，不是眼等的作用，而是識的增上作用。因為識能了別並躲避危險，感受段食的緣故。見色等作用也不是異於識的。所以不共事不是眼等根的特別增上作用。這即是破斥前一位論師所說的引導養護身體、不共事。這裡沒有破斥莊嚴身體的說法，是因為在第一卷已經破斥過，說：『如果本來就是這樣，誰會說醜陋呢？』或者前文說：『如果爲了莊嚴身體以及發起說話的作用，只需要所依之處，哪裡需要兩種根呢？』所以不破斥。發起識等作用，識見學派也認可，所以不特別破斥。如果這樣，那又該如何解釋呢？這是提問。頌說，乃至涅槃等增上：這是用頌來回答。論述說，乃至各自立為根：五識各自緣于自己的境界，名為各別境識。意識普遍緣於一切境界，名為一切境識，也名為自境。六根能生六識，有增上作用，所以立為根。難道色等不應該也立為根嗎？這是用境來類比根，進行詰難。境在識中，乃至法也是如此：這是解釋。增上作用是最殊勝自在的。眼對於所

【English Translation】 English version: Defiled Enhancement: Because of the compliance and growth of latent defilements such as greed. Either in relation to corresponding dharmas, or in relation to the object of perception, complying and growing. Although these five feelings also extend to wholesome dharmas, their function is superior in defilement, hence they are called defiled enhancement. The five roots of faith, etc., and the three non-outflow roots are enhanced in purity, which can be understood. Some other teachers say, even to the extent of such traditions: This narrates the views of other teachers. The five feelings of pleasure, etc., are not only enhanced in defilement, but also enhanced in purity. As the sutras say: 'Because of pleasure, the mind can attain samadhi.' 'Because of aversion to suffering, one can bring forth the bliss of Nirvana.' Faith has the aspiration to escape the six realms, which refer to the six objects of perception. The three feelings of joy, sorrow, and equanimity are conditioned by the six realms. Escape refers to Nirvana. Wholesome joy, sorrow, and equanimity rely on escape, and are called the basis of escape. Therefore, the following treatise says: 'The basis of escape refers to various wholesome feelings.' The above explains the enhancement of the roots. The tradition of the Vibhasha masters is like this. Some other teachers say, even to the extent that the eyes, etc., become roots: The following is the second narration of the views of other teachers. Some schools of consciousness-only and other views say this: What guides and nourishes the body is not the function of the eyes, etc., but the enhancement of consciousness. Because consciousness can distinguish and avoid danger, and experience coarse food. The function of seeing forms, etc., is also not different from consciousness. Therefore, the non-common function is not the special enhancement function of the roots such as the eyes. This refutes the previous teacher's statement about guiding and nourishing the body and non-common function. The reason why the adornment of the body is not refuted here is because it has already been refuted in the first volume, saying: 'If it is originally like this, who would say it is ugly?' Or the previous text said: 'If it is for adorning the body and initiating the function of speech, only a basis is needed, why need two roots?' Therefore, it is not refuted. The initiation of consciousness and other functions is also recognized by the consciousness-only school, so it is not specifically refuted. If so, how should it be explained? This is a question. The verse says, even to the enhancement of Nirvana, etc.: This is answering with a verse. The treatise says, even to each being established as a root: The five consciousnesses each condition their own realm, called separate realm consciousnesses. The consciousness universally conditions all realms, called all realm consciousness, also called self-realm. The six roots can generate the six consciousnesses, and have an enhancing function, so they are established as roots. Shouldn't forms, etc., also be established as roots? This is using the realm to analogize the root, and questioning. The realm in consciousness, even to dharmas is also like this: This is an explanation. The enhancing function is the most supreme and free. The eye in relation to what is

發了色識中最勝自在。一于了眾色為通因故。謂一眼根能與了別眾色諸識為通因故。二識隨眼根有明昧故。謂根強識明。根弱識昧故名增上。為通因故名最勝。有明昧故名自在。或有明昧故名最勝。為通因故名自在。或通因．明昧俱名最勝自在。色即不然。二相違故。一非通因謂青等色但能生青等識不能生黃等識。二非隨色境有明昧故。謂不隨境有強弱故識有明昧。或有境弱識強。如觀青色。或有境強識弱。如觀日等。由二相違故不立根。乃至意根於法亦爾。

從身復立至於二性增上者。釋第三．第四句。女身形類尪弱。音聲細少。作縫衣等業。志樂脂粉等。男身形類粗大。音聲雄朗。作書寫等業。志樂弓．馬等。二性不同由女．男根。故女．男根於二性增上。余文可知。

于眾同分至各能為根者。釋第二頌。由有命根故同分得住。故於眾同分命有增上用。由五受故。起諸煩惱故。于雜染中五受有增上用。引證可知。經約三受不言憂．喜。以苦攝憂。以樂攝喜。信等五根于清凈中有增上用。由此信等善根勢力。伏諸煩惱引聖道生。余文可知。

三無漏根至能般涅槃故者。釋第三頌。解三無漏根。初引第二故於已知有增上用。第二引第三故於具知有增上用。第三能證涅槃故於涅槃有增上用。心無煩惱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本眼根在識別顏色方面具有最殊勝的自在力。原因有二：一是眼根對於識別各種顏色來說是普遍的原因（通因）。也就是說，眼根能夠作為普遍的原因，產生識別各種顏色的意識。二是意識會隨著眼根的強弱而有明暗的變化。眼根強，意識就明亮；眼根弱，意識就昏暗。因此，眼根被稱為『增上』，因為它作為普遍的原因，所以被稱為『最勝』。因為它有明暗的變化，所以被稱為『自在』。或者說，因為有明暗的變化，所以被稱為『最勝』；因為它作為普遍的原因，所以被稱為『自在』。或者說，普遍的原因和明暗的變化都可稱為『最勝自在』。顏色本身就不是這樣，因為它具有兩種相反的特性：一，它不是普遍的原因。比如，青色只能產生對青色的意識，不能產生對黃色的意識。二，意識的明暗不會隨著顏色的強弱而變化。也就是說，意識的明暗不會隨著外境的強弱而變化。有時外境弱，意識反而強，比如觀察青色時；有時外境強，意識反而弱，比如觀察太陽時。由於這兩種相反的特性，所以顏色不能被認為是根。同樣的道理，意根對於法也是如此。

從身根開始，到男女二性的增上力，這是解釋第三和第四句。女性的身體形態柔弱，聲音細小，從事縫紉等工作，喜歡脂粉等。男性的身體形態粗壯，聲音洪亮，從事書寫等工作，喜歡弓箭、騎馬等。男女二性的不同，是由男女的性根決定的。因此，男女的性根對於男女二性具有增上力。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

『對於眾生共同的命運』到『各自能夠成為根』，這是解釋第二首偈頌。因為有命根的存在，眾生的共同命運才得以維持。因此，對於眾生的共同命運，命根具有增上作用。因為有五種感受（受），才會產生各種煩惱。因此，在雜染（不清凈）之中，五種感受具有增上作用。引用的經文可以自行理解。經文中只說了三種感受，沒有說憂和喜，是因為憂被苦所包含，喜被樂所包含。信等五根在清凈的修行中具有增上作用。因為信等善根的力量，才能降伏各種煩惱，引導聖道的產生。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

『三種無漏根』到『能夠進入涅槃』，這是解釋第三首偈頌。解釋三種無漏根。首先引用第二種無漏根，說明它對於『已知』具有增上作用。其次引用第三種無漏根，說明它對於『具知』具有增上作用。第三種無漏根能夠證得涅槃，因此對於涅槃具有增上作用。心中沒有煩惱。

【English Translation】 English version The eye-faculty (cakṣurindriya) possesses the most supreme mastery (adhipati) in the discernment of colors. There are two reasons for this: first, the eye-faculty is a common cause (hetu) for the discernment of all colors. That is, the eye-faculty can serve as a common cause for the arising of consciousnesses (vijñāna) that discern various colors. Second, consciousness varies in clarity and obscurity depending on the strength of the eye-faculty. A strong faculty leads to clear consciousness, while a weak faculty leads to obscure consciousness. Therefore, it is called 'adhipati' (dominant), and because it is a common cause, it is called 'most supreme' (śreṣṭha). Because it has clarity and obscurity, it is called 'free' (svatantra). Alternatively, because it has clarity and obscurity, it is called 'most supreme'; because it is a common cause, it is called 'free'. Or, both the common cause and the clarity/obscurity are called 'most supreme and free'. Color itself is not like this, because it has two contradictory characteristics: first, it is not a common cause. For example, blue can only produce the consciousness of blue, not the consciousness of yellow. Second, the clarity and obscurity of consciousness do not vary with the strength of the color. That is, the clarity and obscurity of consciousness do not vary with the strength of the external object. Sometimes the external object is weak, but the consciousness is strong, such as when observing the color blue; sometimes the external object is strong, but the consciousness is weak, such as when observing the sun. Because of these two contradictory characteristics, color cannot be considered a faculty. The same principle applies to the mind-faculty (mana-indriya) in relation to dharmas.

From the body-faculty (kāya-indriya) onwards, up to the dominance of the two genders, this explains the third and fourth lines. The female body is delicate and weak, the voice is soft, they engage in activities such as sewing clothes, and they enjoy cosmetics and the like. The male body is coarse and strong, the voice is loud, they engage in activities such as writing, and they enjoy bows, horses, and the like. The difference between the two genders is determined by the male and female faculties (strīndriya and puruṣendriya). Therefore, the male and female faculties have dominance over the two genders. The remaining text can be understood on its own.

From 'in the common destiny of beings' to 'each can be a faculty', this explains the second verse. Because of the life-faculty (jīvitendriya), the common destiny of beings is maintained. Therefore, the life-faculty has a dominant function in the common destiny of beings. Because of the five feelings (vedanā), various afflictions (kleśa) arise. Therefore, in defilement (saṃkleśa), the five feelings have a dominant function. The cited scriptures can be understood on their own. The scriptures only mention three feelings, not sorrow (daurmanasya) and joy (harṣa), because sorrow is included in suffering (duḥkha), and joy is included in pleasure (sukha). The five faculties of faith (śraddhā), etc., have a dominant function in purification (viśuddhi). Because of the power of these wholesome roots (kuśala-mūla) such as faith, various afflictions can be subdued, and the arising of the noble path (ārya-mārga) can be guided. The remaining text can be understood on its own.

From 'the three unconditioned faculties' to 'can enter nirvāṇa', this explains the third verse. Explaining the three unconditioned faculties (anāsrava-indriya). First, citing the second unconditioned faculty, it explains that it has a dominant function in 'already knowing' (ājñā). Second, citing the third unconditioned faculty, it explains that it has a dominant function in 'fully knowing' (jñāta). The third unconditioned faculty can attain nirvāṇa, therefore it has a dominant function in nirvāṇa. The mind is without afflictions.

方得涅槃。非心未解脫煩惱能般涅槃故。言後後者。第二根是初根后道。第三根是第二根后道故言後後道。第三根于涅槃有增上。

等言為顯復有異門者。別釋等字。

云何異門者。徴。

謂見所斷至解脫喜樂故者。答。于見惑滅中。未知根有增上用。于修惑滅中已知根有增上用。于現在世受用法樂住中。具知根有增上用。由此具知而能領受解脫身中諸喜樂故。

若增上故至有增上用故者。此下第二明根廢立　就中。一述自宗。二敘異說　此下述自宗。將明問起　就問中。一約自宗為問。二約數論為問。此即約自宗為問。

十二緣起中無明等因。於行等果。各各別有增上用。故應立為根。

又語具等至有增上故者。此約數論為問。數論宗立二十五諦義。言二十五諦者。一我彼計常。我以思為體。性但是受者而非作者。餘二十四諦是我所。是我之所受用。二自性以薩埵．剌阇．答摩為體。亦名樂．苦．癡。亦名憂．喜．暗。此三猶如我之臣佐。我若欲得受用境時。即為我變。未變之時各住自性故名自性。三從自性生大。謂我思量欲得受用諸境界時。三法即知動轉之時。其體大故名之為大。四從大生我執。謂緣彼我故名我執五從我執生五唯量。謂色．聲．香．味．觸足前為九。六從

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：才能證得涅槃（Nirvana）。如果內心沒有從煩惱中解脫，就不能證得涅槃。『後後者』是指，第二種根是第一種根之後的道路，第三種根是第二種根之後的道路，所以說是『後後道』。第三種根對於涅槃有增上的作用。『等言』是爲了表明還有其他的解釋方法。下面分別解釋『等』字的含義。『什麼是其他的解釋方法呢？』（提問）『是指在見所斷的煩惱滅除，到解脫喜樂的階段。』（回答）在見惑滅除的過程中，我們尚未知曉根有增上的作用；在修惑滅除的過程中，我們已經知曉根有增上的作用；在現在世享受法樂的住持中，我們完全知曉根有增上的作用。因此，通過完全的知曉，我們能夠領受解脫之身中的各種喜樂。『如果因為增上的緣故，到有增上作用的緣故。』下面第二部分說明根的廢立，其中分為：一、闡述自己的宗派觀點；二、敘述其他宗派的說法。下面闡述自己的宗派觀點，將要說明提問的緣起，提問中分為：一、根據自己的宗派來提問；二、根據數論（Samkhya）的觀點來提問。這裡是根據自己的宗派來提問。在十二緣起（Twelve Nidanas）中，無明（Avidya）等因，對於行（Samskara）等果，各自都有增上的作用，所以應該設立為根。『還有語具等，到有增上作用的緣故。』這是根據數論的觀點來提問。數論宗派設立二十五諦（Tattvas）的義理。所說的二十五諦是：一、我（Purusha），他們認為是常恒不變的，『我』以思為本體，性質只是領受者而不是作者，其餘的二十四諦是『我』所擁有的，是『我』所受用的。二、自性（Prakriti），以薩埵（Sattva）、剌阇（Rajas）、答摩（Tamas）為本體，也叫做樂（Sukha）、苦（Duhkha）、癡（Moha），也叫做憂（Sorrow）、喜（Joy）、暗（Darkness）。這三種就像『我』的臣佐，『我』如果想要受用境界的時候，它們就為『我』變化。在沒有變化的時候，各自安住于自己的自性，所以叫做自性。三、從自性產生大（Mahat），意思是當『我』思量想要受用各種境界的時候，這三種法就知道動轉，它的體性廣大，所以叫做『大』。四、從『大』產生我執（Ahamkara），意思是緣著彼和我的概念，所以叫做我執。五、從我執產生五唯量（Tanmatras），指的是色（Rupa）、聲（Shabda）、香（Gandha）、味（Rasa）、觸（Sparsha），加上前面的，總共有九個。六、從

【English Translation】 English version: Only then can one attain Nirvana. If the mind has not been liberated from afflictions, it cannot attain Nirvana. 'The latter after the latter' refers to the second root being the path after the first root, and the third root being the path after the second root, hence the term 'latter after the latter path.' The third root has an increasing effect on Nirvana. The term 'etc.' is to indicate that there are other ways of explaining it. The meaning of the word 'etc.' is explained separately below. 'What are the other ways of explaining it?' (Question) 'It refers to the stage from the extinction of afflictions severed by seeing to the joy and happiness of liberation.' (Answer) In the process of extinguishing the afflictions of seeing, we are not yet aware that the root has an increasing effect; in the process of extinguishing the afflictions of cultivation, we are already aware that the root has an increasing effect; in the present life, while dwelling in the enjoyment of the Dharma bliss, we fully know that the root has an increasing effect. Therefore, through complete knowledge, we are able to receive all the joys and happiness in the liberated body. 'If because of the increasing effect, to the reason of having an increasing effect.' The second part below explains the establishment and abolition of roots, which is divided into: 1. Stating one's own sectarian viewpoint; 2. Narrating the views of other sects. The following explains one's own sectarian viewpoint, which will explain the origin of the question, which is divided into: 1. Asking questions according to one's own sect; 2. Asking questions according to the Samkhya school. Here, the question is asked according to one's own sect. In the Twelve Nidanas (Twelve Links of Dependent Origination), ignorance (Avidya) and other causes each have an increasing effect on actions (Samskara) and other effects, so they should be established as roots. 'Also, the aggregates of speech, etc., to the reason of having an increasing effect.' This is asking questions according to the Samkhya school. The Samkhya school establishes the doctrine of the twenty-five Tattvas (realities). The so-called twenty-five Tattvas are: 1. Purusha (Self), which they consider to be constant and unchanging. The 'Self' has thought as its essence, and its nature is only the receiver and not the creator. The remaining twenty-four Tattvas are possessed by the 'Self' and are enjoyed by the 'Self'. 2. Prakriti (Nature), which has Sattva (Goodness), Rajas (Passion), and Tamas (Ignorance) as its essence, and is also called Sukha (Pleasure), Duhkha (Suffering), and Moha (Delusion), and is also called Sorrow, Joy, and Darkness. These three are like the ministers of the 'Self'. If the 'Self' wants to enjoy the realm, they will change for the 'Self'. When they have not changed, they each abide in their own nature, so it is called Prakriti. 3. Mahat (Great) is produced from Prakriti, meaning that when the 'Self' thinks about wanting to enjoy various realms, these three dharmas know to move, and its essence is vast, so it is called 'Great'. 4. Ahamkara (Ego) is produced from 'Great', meaning that it is based on the concept of 'that' and 'I', so it is called Ahamkara. 5. Tanmatras (Subtle Elements) are produced from Ahamkara, referring to Rupa (Form), Shabda (Sound), Gandha (Smell), Rasa (Taste), and Sparsha (Touch), plus the previous ones, there are a total of nine. 6. From

五唯量生五大。謂地．水．火．風．空。足前為十四。謂色能生火以火赤色故。聲能生空以空中有聲故。香能生地以地中多香故。味能生水以水中多味故。觸能生風以風能觸身故。七從五大生十一根。謂眼．耳．鼻．舌．身．意．手．足．大便處．小便處．語具。語具即是肉舌。足前為二十五。謂火能生眼還能見色。空能生耳還能聞聲。地能生鼻還能嗅香。水能生舌還能嘗味。風能生身還能覺觸。五大並能生意．手．足．大便處．小便處．語具。彼計肉心名意彼宗所執諸法是常。如轉變金成環玔等。金色不改環等相異。若我欲得受用境時從自性生大。從大生我執。從我執生五唯量。從五唯量生五大。從五大生十一根。若我不受用境時。從十一根卻入五大。從五大卻入五唯量。從五唯量卻入我執。從我執卻入大。從大卻入自性。今約彼宗十一根中五作業根。為難。語具謂肉舌于語有增上。手于執增上。足於行增上。大便處於棄捨便穢增上。小便處於淫慾樂事增上。此等並增上。應立為根。

如是等事至增上用故者。述自宗答。即說一切有部。此內六處共成有情是有情本。是心所依。皆有根義。即此六根相差別者由女．男根。復由命根此六根一期住。此六根成雜染由五受根。此六根能為清凈無漏資糧由信等五。此六

根成清凈無漏由后三根　有差別者。別住二種皆攝六根。雜染．資糧及凈。唯在於意　又解從此相差別已下五種．皆此於心　或此有情。由此六種建立諸根事皆究竟。彼無明等．語具等。無有此中增上用故不應立根。

復有餘師至立二十二根者。此下第二敘異說。是識見等家立根相　言流轉還滅者。正理云。生死相續是流轉義。生死止息是還滅義。即是六根畢竟斷滅。又婆沙一百云。流轉者謂更受生。還滅者趣涅槃。

流轉所依至前十四根者。于流轉位約四義立前十四根。三界生死以識為主。識起必以六根為依。此六根生由女．男根。此六根住復由命根。六根受用境界復由五受。因彼五受六根領彼境界故。受用境界名為領納。不同於受。

還滅位中至經立次第者。于還滅位即約四義立后八根。正理論意約涅槃得明。故正理第九云。生死止息是還滅義。即是六處畢竟斷滅。此得所依謂信等五。以是一切善根生長最勝因故。初無漏根能生此得。正定聚中此初生故。次無漏根令此得住。由彼長時相續起故。后無漏根令得受用現法樂住。彼所顯故(已上論文)　謂還滅得所依謂信等五。由初無漏故涅槃得生。由次無漏故涅槃得住。由后無漏故涅槃得受用現法樂住。根量由此四義建立。無減無增。即由此流轉

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本根的成就清凈無漏，取決於后三根（未知）。有差別的情況是：別住二種都包含六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。雜染、資糧和清凈，只存在於意根。另外，解釋從『從此相差別已下五種』開始，都與心有關，或者與此有情有關。通過這六種根的建立，所有的事情都得以究竟。那些無明等等，以及語具等等，因為沒有在此處增上的作用，所以不應該被立為根。

又有其他老師主張建立二十二根。這以下第二部分敘述不同的說法。這是識見等學派建立根的相狀。『流轉還滅』指的是：正理中說，生死相續是流轉的意義，生死止息是還滅的意義，也就是六根徹底斷滅。又，《婆沙》第一百卷說，流轉指的是再次受生，還滅指的是趨向涅槃（Nirvana）。

流轉所依，直到前十四根：在流轉的階段，根據四種意義建立前十四根。三界生死以識為主導。識的生起必然以六根為依託。這六根的產生依賴於女根（女性性器官）和男根（男性性器官）。這六根的住立又依賴於命根（生命力）。六根受用境界又依賴於五受（苦、樂、喜、憂、舍）。因為這五受，六根才能領納境界。受用境界稱為領納，不同於單純的感受。

還滅位中，直到經立次第：在還滅的階段，就根據四種意義建立后八根。正理論的意圖在於通過涅槃來獲得光明。所以《正理》第九卷說，生死止息是還滅的意義，也就是六處徹底斷滅。這種獲得所依賴的是信等五根（信、精進、念、定、慧），因為它們是一切善根生長的最殊勝的因。最初的無漏根（未知）能夠產生這種獲得，因為在正定聚中，它是最初產生的。其次的無漏根使這種獲得得以住立，因為它長時間相續生起。最後的無漏根使獲得能夠受用現法樂住，因為它所顯現的緣故（以上是論文內容）。也就是說，還滅的獲得所依賴的是信等五根。由於最初的無漏根，涅槃的獲得得以產生；由於其次的無漏根，涅槃的獲得得以住立；由於最後的無漏根，涅槃的獲得能夠受用現法樂住。根的數量由此四種意義建立，沒有減少也沒有增加。也就是由此流轉

【English Translation】 English version The accomplishment of pure and undefiled roots depends on the latter three roots (unknown). In cases of difference: the two kinds of separate abodes both encompass the six roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). Defilement, accumulation, and purity exist only in the mind root. Furthermore, the explanation from 'From this difference in characteristics onwards, the five kinds' all relate to the mind, or to this sentient being. Through the establishment of these six kinds of roots, all matters are ultimately resolved. Those ignorance, etc., and verbal instruments, etc., because they do not have an increasing function here, should not be established as roots.

Moreover, there are other teachers who advocate establishing twenty-two roots. The following second part narrates different views. This is the school of consciousness and perception establishing the characteristics of roots. 'Transmigration and cessation' refers to: the principle states that the continuation of birth and death is the meaning of transmigration, and the cessation of birth and death is the meaning of cessation, which is the complete extinction of the six roots. Furthermore, the hundredth volume of the Vibhasa states that transmigration refers to being born again, and cessation refers to approaching Nirvana (Nirvana).

The basis of transmigration, up to the first fourteen roots: In the stage of transmigration, the first fourteen roots are established according to four meanings. The cycle of birth and death in the Three Realms is primarily led by consciousness. The arising of consciousness necessarily relies on the six roots. The generation of these six roots depends on the female root (female sexual organ) and the male root (male sexual organ). The abiding of these six roots also depends on the life root (vitality). The six roots' enjoyment of realms also depends on the five feelings (suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, equanimity). Because of these five feelings, the six roots can apprehend the realms. The enjoyment of realms is called apprehension, which is different from mere feeling.

In the state of cessation, up to the order established in the sutras: In the stage of cessation, the latter eight roots are established according to four meanings. The intention of the Nyaya is to attain enlightenment through Nirvana. Therefore, the ninth volume of the Nyaya states that the cessation of birth and death is the meaning of cessation, which is the complete extinction of the six senses. What this attainment relies on are the five roots of faith, etc. (faith, diligence, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom), because they are the most excellent cause for the growth of all good roots. The initial undefiled root (unknown) can generate this attainment, because it is the first to arise in the assembly of right concentration. The second undefiled root enables this attainment to abide, because it arises continuously for a long time. The final undefiled root enables the attainment to enjoy the dwelling in the present life with bliss, because it is what is manifested (the above is the content of the thesis). That is to say, what the attainment of cessation relies on are the five roots of faith, etc. Due to the initial undefiled root, the attainment of Nirvana is generated; due to the second undefiled root, the attainment of Nirvana is established; due to the final undefiled root, the attainment of Nirvana can enjoy dwelling in the present life with bliss. The number of roots is established by these four meanings, without decrease or increase. That is, from this transmigration

．還滅四義因緣。經立二十二根次第前後。

不應語具至語方成故者。此下別破。此破語具。不應語具于語為根。此語待習學差別語等方成故。故知語具望語非有增上。若語具于語能為增上。初生有舌應即能言。

手足不應至建立為根者。此破手．足。手于執。足於行。此執與行。離手．足外無異性故。謂即手．足從此至彼名異處。舉．下．屈．申名異相。由此差別生時名執名行。離手．足外無別執行　又離手．足亦有執行猶如蛇等諸腹行類。雖無有足而亦能行。雖無有手亦能執縛　是故手．足不可於彼執．行建立為根。若固執者亦有由腹。應立腹根。

出大便處至引令出故者。此破大便處。出大便處於能棄捨便穢等事不應立根。重物在空性不停住。若內若外遍墮落故。非由其處。若固執者。亦由空墮應立空根。身中不凈。又由風力引令出故非關其處。若固執者。亦由風引出應立風根。

出小便處至起此樂故者。此破小便處出小便處於生淫慾樂事。不應立根。即女．男根能起此樂。何須計處別立為根。

又諸喉齒至不應立根者。引例反破。如喉于吞。齒于嚼。眼瞼于開．閉。支節于屈．申。各有力用。皆應立根。或一切因。於一切自所作果各有力用。皆應立根。彼喉．齒等雖有力用。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本還滅四義因緣（還滅：指事物生滅變化的循環；四義因緣：指四種產生因緣的意義）。經中建立了二十二根（二十二根：佛教術語，指構成生命體的二十二種要素）的次第和前後關係。

『不應語具至語方成故者』：以下分別破斥。這裡破斥『語具』（語具：指發聲器官）。不應該認為發聲器官是語言的根本，因為語言的形成依賴於學習和各種不同的語言環境等因素。因此，可知發聲器官對於語言並非具有增上緣（增上緣：佛教術語，指能幫助事物產生的條件）。如果發聲器官對於語言能夠作為增上緣，那麼初生嬰兒有舌頭就應該立刻能夠說話。

『手足不應至建立為根者』：這裡破斥手和足。手用於執持，足用於行走。這種執持和行走，離開手和足之外，沒有其他的性質。也就是說，手和足從這裡到那裡叫做異處，舉起、放下、彎曲、伸展叫做異相。由於這些差別，產生時叫做執持和行走。離開手和足之外，沒有其他的執持和行走。而且，離開手和足也有執持和行走，就像蛇等腹行類動物。雖然沒有足，也能行走；雖然沒有手，也能執縛。因此，手和足不應該被認為是執持和行走的根本。如果有人固執己見，那麼腹部也能行走，應該建立腹根。

『出大便處至引令出故者』：這裡破斥大便處。排出大便的地方，對於能夠丟棄便穢等事，不應該被認為是根本。重物在空中無法停留，無論在內在外都會掉落，這不是由排便之處決定的。如果有人固執己見，那麼從空中掉落，應該建立空根。身體中的不凈之物，又由於風力的作用才被排出，與排便之處無關。如果有人固執己見，那麼由於風力排出，應該建立風根。

『出小便處至起此樂故者』：這裡破斥小便處。排出小便的地方，對於產生淫慾之樂，不應該被認為是根本。男女的性器官能夠產生這種快樂，何必另外設立小便之處作為根本。

『又諸喉齒至不應立根者』：引用例子反駁。例如喉嚨對於吞嚥，牙齒對於咀嚼，眼瞼對於開合，肢節對於屈伸，各自有其作用，都應該被認為是根本。或者說，一切因對於其所產生的果，各自有其作用，都應該被認為是根本。那些喉嚨、牙齒等雖然有作用，（也不應該被認為是根）。

【English Translation】 English version The causes and conditions for the cessation of the four meanings (cessation: refers to the cycle of arising and ceasing of things; four meanings: refers to the four kinds of meanings that produce causes and conditions). The sutra establishes the sequence and order of the twenty-two roots (twenty-two roots: Buddhist term, referring to the twenty-two elements that constitute the life body).

'It should not be said that the instruments of speech are the root because speech is formed': The following refutes separately. This refutes the 'instruments of speech' (instruments of speech: refers to the vocal organs). It should not be considered that the vocal organs are the root of language, because the formation of language depends on learning and various different language environments. Therefore, it can be known that the vocal organs are not an 'Adhipati-pratyaya' (dominant condition) for language. If the vocal organs can act as an Adhipati-pratyaya for language, then a newborn infant with a tongue should be able to speak immediately.

'Hands and feet should not be established as roots': This refutes hands and feet. Hands are for grasping, and feet are for walking. This grasping and walking have no other nature apart from hands and feet. That is to say, hands and feet going from here to there are called different places, and lifting, lowering, bending, and stretching are called different appearances. Due to these differences, when they arise, they are called grasping and walking. Apart from hands and feet, there is no other grasping and walking. Moreover, there is grasping and walking even without hands and feet, like snakes and other reptiles. Although they have no feet, they can walk; although they have no hands, they can bind. Therefore, hands and feet should not be considered the root of grasping and walking. If someone insists, then the abdomen can also walk, and an abdominal root should be established.

'The place of excrement should not be established as a root because it leads to excretion': This refutes the place of excrement. The place where excrement is discharged should not be considered the root for being able to discard excrement and filth. Heavy objects cannot stay in the air; they will fall everywhere, whether inside or outside. This is not determined by the place of excretion. If someone insists, then falling from the air should establish an air root. The impurities in the body are discharged by the force of the wind, which has nothing to do with the place of excretion. If someone insists, then being discharged by the wind should establish a wind root.

'The place of urination should not be established as a root because it gives rise to this pleasure': This refutes the place of urination. The place where urine is discharged should not be considered the root for generating the pleasure of lust. The sexual organs of men and women can produce this pleasure, so why establish the place of urination as a separate root?

'Moreover, the throat, teeth, etc., should not be established as roots': Citing examples to refute. For example, the throat is for swallowing, the teeth are for chewing, the eyelids are for opening and closing, and the limbs are for bending and stretching. Each has its function and should be considered a root. Or, every cause has its function for the effect it produces and should be considered a root. Although those throats, teeth, etc., have functions, (they should not be considered roots).

非增上故不立根者。此語具等亦非增上不應立根。由此亦通無明等難　或於等中亦攝無明等故　問如二十二根。若約七十五法等出體。但有十三。男．女二根即身根故。五受總是受攝。三無漏根即九根故。言十三者謂眼．耳．鼻．舌．身．意．念．定．慧．受．信．精進．命。何故七十五法中。唯立十三為根。余不立耶　解云略依婆沙等廢立　第一色十一中。五根唯內亦唯所依。故立為根。色等不爾。故不立根。男．女立根即身根故　第二心法是內亦是所依。通三性心並有增上。故立為根　第三心所有法中。但立念．定．慧．受．信．精進為根。余不立者。若順凈偏勝即立為根　大地法中念．定．慧．受立根。余不立者。念．定．慧三順凈偏勝故立為根。作意雖偏順凈初勝后劣故不立為根。勝解雖偏順凈無學位強立解脫蘊。學位即劣故不立根　問定亦定強散劣。何故立根。答定於散位專注亦強。想．思．觸．欲順染偏勝故不立根。受雖通順染．凈俱勝。且據善邊簡法立根。所以得知通順染．凈者。故婆沙云有說受雖隨順染品。而亦與善法交通。猶如獄正所居雖下。而與貴勝交往。故於大地法中四立為根。餘六不立　大善地法中信勤立根余不立者。信為諸善根本。無有善品離信而成。精進普能策發眾善。無有善品離精進

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『非增上故不立根』的說法，如果『此語具等』也不具有增上作用，那麼也不應該被立為根。由此，也同樣可以解決針對無明等的詰難。或者，在『等』中也包含了無明等。問：如果按照二十二根，根據七十五法等來確定其體性，那麼只有十三種。男根和女根實際上是身根，五種受（苦、樂、喜、憂、舍）都屬於受的範疇，三種無漏根（未知當知根、已知根、具知根）實際上是九根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、樂、喜、舍）。這十三種根是指眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、意根、念根、定根、慧根、受根、信根、精進根、命根。為什麼在七十五法中，只設立這十三種為根，其餘的不設立呢？答：大致依據《婆沙論》等來決定廢立。第一，在色法的十一種中，五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）唯是內在的，也唯是所依的，所以被立為根。色等不是這樣，所以不被立為根。男根和女根被立為根，實際上是身根。第二，心法是內在的，也是所依的，通於三種性質的心（善、惡、無記），並且具有增上作用，所以被立為根。第三，在心所有法中，只設立念根、定根、慧根、受根、信根、精進根為根，其餘的不設立。如果順於清凈並且特別殊勝，就被立為根。在大地法中，念根、定根、慧根、受根被立為根，其餘的不設立。念、定、慧三種順於清凈並且特別殊勝，所以被立為根。作意雖然偏向順於清凈，但開始殊勝後來減弱，所以不被立為根。勝解雖然偏向順於清凈，但在無學位時力量強大，可以建立解脫蘊，但在有學位時就減弱了，所以不被立為根。問：定也有定力強和散亂弱的時候，為什麼被立為根？答：定在散亂的狀態下，專注的力量也很強。想、思、觸、欲順於染污並且特別殊勝，所以不被立為根。受雖然通於順染和順凈，都殊勝，但這裡只根據善的一面來簡擇法，設立為根。如何得知受通於順染和順凈呢？《婆沙論》說，有人說受雖然隨順染品，但也與善法交通，就像監獄長所居住的地方雖然低下，但也與貴人交往。所以在大地法中，四種被立為根，其餘六種不被立。在大善地法中，信根和精進根被立為根，其餘的不設立。信是諸善的根本，沒有哪個善品可以離開信而成就。精進普遍能夠策發各種善法，沒有哪個善品可以離開精進。

【English Translation】 English version The statement 'not established as a root because it is not an adhipati (增上)' implies that if 'this phrase, etc. (此語具等)' also lacks the quality of adhipati, it should not be established as a root either. This also addresses the difficulties related to ignorance (無明), etc. Alternatively, 'etc.' may encompass ignorance, etc. Question: Regarding the twenty-two roots, if we determine their nature based on the seventy-five dharmas, etc., there are only thirteen. The male (男) and female (女) roots are essentially the body root (身根). The five feelings (受) are all included within the category of feeling. The three non-outflow roots (無漏根) are essentially the nine roots (眼, 耳, 鼻, 舌, 身, 意, 樂, 喜, 舍). These thirteen roots are the eye root (眼根), ear root (耳根), nose root (鼻根), tongue root (舌根), body root (身根), mind root (意根), mindfulness root (念根), concentration root (定根), wisdom root (慧根), feeling root (受根), faith root (信根), vigor root (精進根), and life root (命根). Why are only these thirteen established as roots among the seventy-five dharmas, and not the others? Answer: The establishment and rejection are roughly based on the Vibhasha (婆沙論), etc. First, among the eleven types of form (色), the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are exclusively internal and exclusively that on which something relies. Therefore, they are established as roots. Form, etc., are not like this, so they are not established as roots. The male and female roots, when established as roots, are essentially the body root. Second, the mind dharma (心法) is internal and that on which something relies, encompassing minds of the three natures (善, 惡, 無記) and possessing the quality of adhipati. Therefore, it is established as a root. Third, among the mental factors (心所有法), only mindfulness root (念根), concentration root (定根), wisdom root (慧根), feeling root (受根), faith root (信根), and vigor root (精進根) are established as roots. The others are not established because if they are conducive to purity and particularly superior, they are established as roots. Among the universal mental factors (大地法), mindfulness root (念根), concentration root (定根), wisdom root (慧根), and feeling root (受根) are established as roots. The others are not established because mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are conducive to purity and particularly superior, so they are established as roots. Attention (作意), although inclined towards purity, is initially superior but later weakens, so it is not established as a root. Resolution (勝解), although inclined towards purity, is strong in the state of no-more-learning (無學位), establishing the aggregate of liberation (解脫蘊), but is weaker in the state of learning (有學位), so it is not established as a root. Question: Concentration (定) also has times when it is strong and times when it is scattered and weak. Why is it established as a root? Answer: Even in a scattered state, the power of focus in concentration is strong. Thought (想), volition (思), contact (觸), and desire (欲) are conducive to defilement and particularly superior, so they are not established as roots. Feeling (受), although it is common to both conducive to defilement and conducive to purity, and both are superior, here we select dharmas based on the side of goodness and establish them as roots. How do we know that feeling is common to both conducive to defilement and conducive to purity? The Vibhasha (婆沙論) says that some say that although feeling follows the side of defilement, it also interacts with good dharmas, just as the place where the prison warden resides is low, but he also interacts with noble people. Therefore, among the universal mental factors, four are established as roots, and the other six are not established. Among the wholesome mental factors (大善地法), faith root (信根) and vigor root (精進根) are established as roots, and the others are not established. Faith is the root of all good, and no good quality can be achieved without faith. Vigor universally motivates all good dharmas, and no good quality can be achieved without vigor.

成。此二順凈偏勝立根　慚．愧二種雖能對治遍不善心一向黑品自性不善。得名為自及自性善。然于生長諸善法中。無別勝能故無根義　無貪．無瞋。雖彼所治與六識俱。通五所斷。是隨眠性。能發粗重身．語惡業。與斷善根作勝加行。具斯五義立不善根。無貪等三能對治彼。及起諸散善業。得名善根。然信等立根通望生長一切善法故。無貪等於此非根。根義別故　輕安．舍．不放逸．不害以所對治四隨煩惱。三唯遍染心。一為惡尋伴惱亂菩薩障取菩提。雖善法中立彼能治。然于生長諸清凈法無勝所作。故不立根。欣．厭二種散強。定劣。非兩位勝。又非並起。故不立根　大煩惱地法六。不善地法二。小煩惱地法十。及地外貪．嗔．慢．疑皆非順凈。其性下劣無根相故。不立為根　問若爾染污受應不立根　答受于染品勢用增上故立為根。煩惱不爾。以依諸受生煩惱故。

問若爾想應立根。亦能生煩惱故　答想雖能生煩惱。而不及受勝。由此義故亦不說在緣起支中。有說受雖隨順染品。而亦與善法交通。煩惱唯于染品隨順而不順善。故不立根。猶如獄正所居雖下而與貴勝交往。非如守門獄卒雖有威猛苦切於人。而極鄙惡可厭賤故貴勝離之。

惡作．睡眠．尋．伺．及怖不立根者。怖染無記不通於善。惡作．

【現代漢語翻譯】成。此二順凈偏勝立根，慚（hri，羞恥）.愧（apatrapya，內疚）二種雖能對治遍不善心一向黑品自性不善。得名為自及自性善。然于生長諸善法中。無別勝能故無根義。無貪（alobha，不貪）.無瞋（advesa，不嗔）。雖彼所治與六識俱。通五所斷。是隨眠性。能發粗重身．語惡業。與斷善根作勝加行。具斯五義立不善根。無貪等三能對治彼。及起諸散善業。得名善根。然信等立根通望生長一切善法故。無貪等於此非根。根義別故。輕安（prasrabdhi，輕快安適）.舍（upeksa，捨棄）.不放逸（apramada，不放逸）.不害（avihimsa，不傷害）以所對治四隨煩惱。三唯遍染心。一為惡尋伴惱亂菩薩障取菩提。雖善法中立彼能治。然于生長諸清凈法無勝所作。故不立根。欣（abhinandana，歡喜）.厭（pratigha，厭惡）二種散強。定劣。非兩位勝。又非並起。故不立根。大煩惱地法六。不善地法二。小煩惱地法十。及地外貪．嗔．慢．疑皆非順凈。其性下劣無根相故。不立為根。問若爾染污受應不立根。答受于染品勢用增上故立為根。煩惱不爾。以依諸受生煩惱故。問若爾想應立根。亦能生煩惱故。答想雖能生煩惱。而不及受勝。由此義故亦不說在緣起支中。有說受雖隨順染品。而亦與善法交通。煩惱唯于染品隨順而不順善。故不立根。猶如獄正所居雖下而與貴勝交往。非如守門獄卒雖有威猛苦切於人。而極鄙惡可厭賤故貴勝離之。惡作（kaukritya，後悔）.睡眠（middha，睡眠）.尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）.伺（vicara，精細的思考）。及怖不立根者。怖染無記不通於善。惡作．

【English Translation】 English version: These two, in accordance with purity, are pre-eminently established as roots: shame (hri) and guilt (apatrapya). Although these two can counteract universally unwholesome minds, they are inherently unwholesome, belonging entirely to the dark side. They are named as self and inherently wholesome. However, in the growth of all wholesome dharmas, they have no distinct superior function, hence they lack the meaning of 'root'. Non-greed (alobha) and non-hatred (advesa), although what they counteract is associated with the six consciousnesses, pervade the five that are to be abandoned. They are of the nature of latent tendencies (anusaya), capable of generating coarse physical and verbal evil deeds, and act as superior contributing factors to the severing of wholesome roots. Possessing these five meanings, they are established as unwholesome roots. Non-greed and the other two can counteract these, and give rise to scattered wholesome actions, thus gaining the name 'wholesome roots'. However, faith and others are established as roots in general, with the prospect of growing all wholesome dharmas. Therefore, non-greed and the others are not roots in this context, because the meaning of 'root' is different. Tranquility (prasrabdhi), equanimity (upeksa), non-negligence (apramada), and non-harming (avihimsa), along with the four secondary afflictions they counteract—three of which exclusively pervade defiled minds, and one of which is an evil thought that accompanies and torments Bodhisattvas, obstructing the attainment of Bodhi—although they are established as counteracting factors in wholesome dharmas, they have no superior function in the growth of all pure dharmas. Therefore, they are not established as roots. Delight (abhinandana) and aversion (pratigha) are strong in scattering and weak in concentration, not superior in both aspects, nor do they arise simultaneously. Therefore, they are not established as roots. The six mental factors of the great affliction ground, the two mental factors of the unwholesome ground, the ten mental factors of the minor affliction ground, and greed, hatred, pride, and doubt that are outside these grounds are all not in accordance with purity. Their nature is inferior, lacking the characteristics of roots, hence they are not established as roots. Question: If that is the case, then defiled feeling (vedana) should not be established as a root. Answer: Feeling is established as a root because its influence and function are increased in the defiled category. Afflictions are not like this, because afflictions arise dependent on feelings. Question: If that is the case, then perception (samjna) should be established as a root, since it can also generate afflictions. Answer: Although perception can generate afflictions, it is not as superior as feeling. For this reason, it is also not mentioned in the limbs of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada). Some say that although feeling accords with the defiled category, it also communicates with wholesome dharmas. Afflictions only accord with the defiled category and do not accord with the wholesome. Therefore, they are not established as roots. It is like a prison, where the main residents are of low status but interact with the noble and superior, unlike the prison guards who, although they may be fierce and inflict suffering on people, are extremely base and repulsive, so the noble and superior distance themselves from them. Remorse (kaukritya), sleep (middha), coarse thought (vitarka), subtle thought (vicara), and fear are not established as roots because fear is defiled and indeterminate, not extending to the wholesome. Remorse...

睡眠雖亦通善性。唯散非定。尋．伺雖通定．散不通諸地。並順善非勝。故不立根　問若爾苦．樂．憂．喜不通諸地。應不立根　答總而言之。受遍諸地以舍受通諸地故。彼依種類故並立根。又受皆有生長增上。怖等不爾　問道支中立尋。靜慮支中立尋．伺。豈非生長有增勝耶　答此于定慧有策持力故立為支。非於生長有增上用。是故非根　第四心不相應行中唯是命立根。余不立者。命具三義故立為根。一唯有情。二唯異熟。三遍任持　四相三義皆無。無想異熟雖有前二。無遍任持。眾同分雖有初．后非唯異熟。通等流故。二無心定．名．句．文身．得．非得。雖有初義闕后二義。故皆非根　第五無為非根者。根滅盡處名為無為。又無生用故不立根。且隨意樂略釋如上。廣如婆沙。

此中眠等至故今應釋者。此下第三明根體性生起頌文　此中眼等六根如前界品蘊．界．處中說。男．女二根如此品初說。命根至后不相應中辨。信等五根至心所法中辨。此十四根前說．后說故此不明。余根未明故今應釋。

頌曰至依九立三根者。頌文略釋。

論曰至名曰憂根者。釋初五句。身有二義。若言六受身身則是體。若言身受心受。身即是色聚。色聚名身。此中言身色聚名身即諸色根。依身起故名為身受。從依為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本睡眠雖然也通於善性，但它是散亂而非禪定。尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，精細的思考）雖然通於禪定和散亂，但不通於所有地（Bhumi，境界）。並且它們順於善，但並非殊勝，所以不建立為根（Indriya，增上力）。問：如果這樣，苦（Dukkha，不適）、樂（Sukha，舒適）、憂（Daurmanasya，精神上的不適）、喜（Saumanasya，精神上的舒適）不通於所有地，是否也不應建立為根？答：總而言之，受（Vedana，感受）遍及所有地，因為舍受（Upeksha，不苦不樂的感受）通於所有地。並且它們依賴於種類，所以都建立為根。而且，所有受都有生長和增上，怖（Bhaya，恐懼）等則不然。問：道支（Marga-anga，八正道的分支）中建立尋，靜慮支（Dhyana-anga，禪定的分支）中建立尋和伺，難道不是生長和增勝嗎？答：這是因為它們對於定和慧有策勵和支援的力量，所以建立為支。並非對於生長有增上的作用，所以不是根。在第四類心不相應行法（Citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非心也非色的行法）中，只有命（Ayuh，壽命）建立為根，其餘不建立的原因是，命具足三種意義，所以建立為根：一是唯有情（Sattva，有情眾生）具有，二是唯異熟（Vipaka，果報）生，三是普遍任持（Dharana，保持）。四相（Lakshana，生、住、異、滅）不具備這三種意義。無想異熟（Asanjni-vipaka，無想定的果報）雖然具有前兩種意義，但沒有普遍任持。眾同分（Nikaya-sabhaga，同類眾生的共性）雖然具有第一和第三種意義，但並非唯異熟生，而是通於等流果（Nisyanda-phala，與因相似的果報）。二無心定（Dve asamadhyah，兩種無心定）、名（Nama，名稱）、句（Pada，句子）、文身（Vyanjana-kaya，詞組）、得（Prapti，獲得）、非得（Aprapti，未獲得），雖然具有第一種意義，但缺少后兩種意義，所以都不是根。第五，無為法（Asamskrita-dharma，不生不滅的法）不是根的原因是，根滅盡之處名為無為。又因為沒有生起作用，所以不建立為根。以上是隨意的簡略解釋，詳細的解釋在《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中。因為睡眠等與至相關，所以現在應該解釋的是，下面第三部分闡明根的體性和生起的頌文。這裡，眼等六根（Shad indriyani，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）如前面界品（Dhatu-prakarana，界的章節）、蘊界處（Skandha-dhatu-ayatana，五蘊、十八界、十二處）中說的那樣。男根（Purusendriya，男性性器官）和女根（Striindriya，女性性器官）如此品（Prakarana，章節）開始時所說。命根（Jivitendriya，生命力）在後面的不相應行法中辨析。信等五根（Panca indriyani，信、精進、念、定、慧）在心所法（Caitasika-dharma，心所法）中辨析。這十四根前面已經說過或後面將要說，所以這裡不作闡明。其餘未闡明的根，所以現在應該解釋。頌曰：至依九立三根者。頌文的簡略解釋。論曰：至名曰憂根者。解釋最初五句。身（Kaya，身體）有兩種意義。如果說六受身（Sad vedanakayah，六種感受的身），身就是體（Atman，自體）。如果說身受（Kaya-vedana，身體的感受）和心受（Citta-vedana，心的感受），身就是色聚（Rupa-samghata，色法的集合）。色聚名為身。這裡所說的身，色聚名為身，即是諸色根（Rupa-indriya，色法的根）。因為依身而起，所以名為身受。從所依而得名。

【English Translation】 English version Although sleep also accords with wholesome nature, it is scattered and not meditative. Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought), although according with both meditation and scattering, do not accord with all Bhumis (planes/levels of existence). Furthermore, they are in accordance with the wholesome but are not superior, therefore they are not established as Indriyas (controlling faculties). Question: If that is the case, should Dukkha (unpleasant feeling), Sukha (pleasant feeling), Daurmanasya (mental unpleasant feeling), and Saumanasya (mental pleasant feeling), which do not accord with all Bhumis, also not be established as Indriyas? Answer: In general, Vedana (feeling) pervades all Bhumis because Upeksha (neutral feeling) accords with all Bhumis. And they rely on types, therefore they are all established as Indriyas. Moreover, all feelings have growth and increase, which is not the case with Bhaya (fear) and others. Question: In the Marga-angas (limbs of the path), Vitarka is established, and in the Dhyana-angas (limbs of meditation), Vitarka and Vicara are established. Are these not growth and increase? Answer: This is because they have the power to encourage and support Samadhi (concentration) and Prajna (wisdom), therefore they are established as limbs. They do not have the function of increasing growth, therefore they are not Indriyas. In the fourth category of Citta-viprayukta-samskaras (formations that are neither mental nor physical), only Ayuh (lifespan) is established as an Indriya. The reason the others are not established is that Ayuh possesses three meanings, therefore it is established as an Indriya: first, it is possessed only by Sattvas (sentient beings); second, it arises only from Vipaka (resultant effect); third, it universally sustains (Dharana). The four Lakshanas (characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing) do not possess these three meanings. Asanjni-vipaka (result of the non-perceptual state) possesses the first two meanings but lacks universal sustenance. Nikaya-sabhaga (community of kind) possesses the first and third meanings but does not arise solely from Vipaka; it also accords with Nisyanda-phala (result similar to the cause). Dve asamadhyah (two non-mindful states), Nama (name), Pada (phrase), Vyanjana-kaya (collection of letters), Prapti (attainment), and Aprapti (non-attainment) possess the first meaning but lack the latter two meanings, therefore they are not Indriyas. Fifth, Asamskrita-dharma (unconditioned dharma) is not an Indriya because the place where Indriyas cease is called Asamskrita. Also, because it has no arising function, it is not established as an Indriya. The above is a brief explanation at will; a detailed explanation is in the Vibhasa. Because sleep and others are related to attainment, what should be explained now is the verse below in the third part, which clarifies the nature and arising of the Indriyas. Here, the six Indriyas (Shad indriyani: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) are as described in the previous Dhatu-prakarana (chapter on elements) and Skandha-dhatu-ayatana (aggregates, elements, and sense bases). Purusendriya (male organ) and Striindriya (female organ) are as described at the beginning of this Prakarana (chapter). Jivitendriya (life force) is analyzed in the later section on non-associated formations. The five Indriyas (Panca indriyani: faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom) are analyzed in the section on Caitasika-dharmas (mental factors). These fourteen Indriyas have been mentioned before or will be mentioned later, so they are not clarified here. The remaining Indriyas that have not been clarified should be explained now. Verse: To establish three Indriyas based on nine. A brief explanation of the verse. Treatise: To name it the sorrow Indriya. Explaining the first five sentences. Kaya (body) has two meanings. If we say six Kaya of feeling, Kaya is the Atman (self). If we say Kaya-vedana (bodily feeling) and Citta-vedana (mental feeling), Kaya is the Rupa-samghata (collection of forms). The collection of forms is called Kaya. Here, the Kaya that is called the collection of forms is the Rupa-indriya (form Indriya). Because it arises depending on the body, it is called bodily feeling. Named after what it depends on.

名。余文易了　問三定極悅心與樂相應亦可地獄極不悅心與苦相應　解云極悅無分別可與樂相應。極損有分別非與苦相應。若依大乘地獄意識亦苦相應。

中謂非悅至名為舍根者。釋第六句中舍。

如是舍根至為是心受者。問。

應言通二者。答。釋二。

何因此二總立一根者。問。何因此身．心二總立一舍根。

此受在身心至故總立根者。答。釋無別。此舍受在身．心同無分別故不別立。苦．樂有異是故別立　在心苦．樂。多分別生名憂名喜　三定心樂雖不分別。從多分別故言多分別生　在身苦．樂無分別生。隨境力起名苦名樂　阿羅漢等等前三果。隨其所應起彼五受。亦如是生。此即舉聖同凡。

故此苦．樂立根身．心各別。舍無分別任運而生。是故立根身．心合一　又苦在身．心為損各異。樂在身．心為益各異。故別立根。舍無異相故總立一。

意樂喜舍至立具知根者。釋后兩句。三無漏根九根為體。三道建立。如文可知。

如是三名因何而立者。問立名因。

謂在見道至未知當知者。答。就中。一約三道以明。二別釋根。此即約見道立未知當知。知者是智。謂在見道十五剎那。八忍．七智。于上．下八諦。皆有未曾知當知行轉。故說彼行者名未知當

【現代漢語翻譯】名。余文易了問：三禪定（指色界第三禪定）中極悅的心與樂相應，那麼地獄中極不悅的心與苦相應嗎？解：極悅沒有分別，可以與樂相應。極損有分別，不是與苦相應。如果依照大乘佛教的觀點，地獄的意識也與苦相應。

中：指非悅也非不悅的狀態，被稱為舍根（upekṣā-indriya，不苦不樂根）。解釋第六句中的『舍』。

如是舍根至為是心受者。問：

應言通二者。答：釋二。

何因此二總立一根者。問：為什麼身、心這二者總合立為一舍根？

此受在身心至故總立根者。答：解釋無差別。這種舍受在身、心都是沒有分別的，所以不分別設立。苦、樂有差異，因此分別設立。在心中的苦、樂，多由分別產生，名為憂、喜。三禪定中的心樂雖然沒有分別，但從多分別的角度來說，就說是由多分別產生。在身上的苦、樂沒有分別產生，隨著境界的力量而生起，名為苦、樂。阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）等等前三果（指須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含），隨著他們所處的果位，生起那五種感受，也是這樣產生的。這裡是舉聖人與凡人相同之處。

故此苦．樂立根身．心各別。舍無分別任運而生。是故立根身．心合一。又苦在身．心為損各異。樂在身．心為益各異。故別立根。舍無異相故總立一。

意樂喜舍至立具知根者。釋后兩句。三無漏根九根為體。三道建立。如文可知。

如是三名因何而立者。問：建立名稱的原因。

謂在見道至未知當知者。答：就其中。一、約三道來說明。二、分別解釋根。這裡是約見道（darśana-mārga，見道）建立未知當知根（anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya，未知當知根）。知，指的是智慧。在見道的十五個剎那，八忍（指苦法忍等八忍）、七智（指苦法智等七智），對於上界、地獄的八諦（指苦集滅道四聖諦），都有未曾知而當知的行轉，所以說這種行者名為未知當知。

【English Translation】 Name. The remaining text is easy to understand. Question: In the third Dhyana (jhāna, meditative state) of the Form Realm, the extremely pleasant mind corresponds to happiness. Then, does the extremely unpleasant mind in hell correspond to suffering? Answer: Extreme pleasure has no discrimination and can correspond to happiness. Extreme harm has discrimination and does not correspond to suffering. If according to the view of Mahayana Buddhism, the consciousness in hell also corresponds to suffering.

'Middle' refers to the state of neither pleasure nor displeasure, which is called upekṣā-indriya (the root of equanimity). Explaining 'upekṣā' in the sixth sentence.

『As such, the root of equanimity... to be the mental feeling.』 Question:

『It should be said it applies to both.』 Answer: Explaining the two.

『Why are these two combined into one root?』 Question: Why are the body and mind combined into one root of equanimity?

『This feeling is in body and mind... therefore, they are combined into one root.』 Answer: Explaining the lack of difference. This feeling of equanimity is the same in body and mind, without discrimination, so it is not established separately. Suffering and happiness are different, therefore they are established separately. Suffering and happiness in the mind are mostly produced by discrimination, called sorrow and joy. Although the mental happiness in the third Dhyana has no discrimination, from the perspective of much discrimination, it is said to be produced by much discrimination. Suffering and happiness in the body are produced without discrimination, arising according to the power of the object, called suffering and happiness. Arhats (Arhat, a saint who has exhausted afflictions) and the first three fruits (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami), according to their respective stages, generate those five feelings in the same way. This illustrates the similarity between saints and ordinary beings.

Therefore, suffering and happiness are established as separate roots for body and mind. Equanimity arises naturally without discrimination. Therefore, the root is established as one combining body and mind. Moreover, suffering in body and mind is different in terms of harm. Happiness in body and mind is different in terms of benefit. Therefore, separate roots are established. Equanimity has no different characteristics, so it is combined into one.

『Mental pleasure, joy, equanimity... to establish the root of knowing.』 Explaining the last two sentences. The three non-outflow roots have nine roots as their substance. The three paths are established. As the text explains.

『Why are these three names established?』 Question: The reason for establishing the names.

『Namely, in the Path of Seeing... to the root of 'I shall know what was not yet known'.』 Answer: Regarding this. First, explaining in terms of the three paths. Second, explaining the roots separately. Here, the root of 'I shall know what was not yet known' (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya) is established in relation to the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga). 'Knowing' refers to wisdom. In the fifteen moments of the Path of Seeing, the eight kṣānti (endurance, e.g., suffering-dharma-kṣānti) and seven jñāna (wisdom, e.g., suffering-dharma-jñāna), regarding the eight truths of the upper and lower realms (referring to the Four Noble Truths), there is the turning of 'not yet known' and 'shall be known'. Therefore, such a practitioner is called 'I shall know what was not yet known'.

知　問八忍非智可言未知當知。七智正知諦理何故亦名未知當知　解云七智望緣自諦義邊雖名正智。今望八諦作法。以知八諦猶未周遍知諦未盡。中間起故亦名未知當知。

若在修道至名為已知者。約修道立已知。若在修道。于上下八諦無未曾知當知。以知八諦皆周遍故。但為斷除余隨眠故。即于彼諦複數數了知。是故說彼行者名為已知。修道初念道類智時。于上界道。爾時正知。雖如七智。而名已知者。已后無量無邊諸智。皆與前別。以少從多。總名已知。故婆沙一百四十三云。問第十六心應如七智。何故獨說為已知根。非已知而知故。答此亦從多分說。謂初剎那雖與七智相似。后諸剎那皆與彼異。從多分說悉名已知根。一類性故。有說此後更無未已知道所凌所覆。不以下著上令不得自在。必當爾故。于知言已知。如去時名已去。彼亦如是(已上論文)　問道類智至第二念為所緣境。爾時正知。何故名已知耶　解云約諦作法。不約剎那。以少從多名為已知。如大海一渧妙高一塵不可說言塵等未度。又解道類忍。智眷屬故亦名為知　問道類忍后。道類智創緣。如何名已知　解云約諦作法。不約剎那。以少從多總名已知。如大海一渧妙高一塵。據此義邊七智亦名已知。知諦未盡。中間起故。不名已知。

在

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：八忍（Baren，八種忍辱）不是可以用智慧來描述的嗎？為什麼說『未知當知』？七智（Qizhi，七種智慧）正確地認識了真理，為什麼也叫做『未知當知』？答：七智從其所緣的自諦義理方面來說，可以稱為正智。但如果從八諦（Badi，八種真理）的運作方式來看，因為對八諦的瞭解還不夠全面，對真理的認識還沒有窮盡，中間還有提升的空間，所以也叫做『未知當知』。如果在修道過程中達到了『已知』的境界，那是根據修道的狀態來確立的。如果在修道過程中，對於上下八諦沒有未曾瞭解或應當瞭解的，因為對八諦的瞭解已經很全面了。只是爲了斷除剩餘的隨眠（Suimian，煩惱的殘餘），所以對於那些真理反覆地瞭解。因此說那些修行者達到了『已知』的境界。修道初唸的道類智（Daoleizhi，關於道的智慧）產生時，對於上界的道，那時是正確瞭解的。雖然像七智，但被稱為『已知』，是因為之後無量無邊的智慧，都與之前的智慧有所區別，以少從多，總稱為『已知』。所以《婆沙論》（Poshalun）第一百四十三卷說：『問：第十六心應該像七智一樣，為什麼唯獨說它是已知根（Yizhigen）？不是已知而知嗎？』答：『這也是從大部分來說的。所謂最初的剎那雖然與七智相似，但之後的剎那都與它不同。從大部分來說，都稱為已知根，因為它們屬於同一類性質。』有人說，此後不再有未已知道所凌駕或覆蓋，不會以下位的狀態影響上位，使其不得自在，必定會這樣。因此，對於『知』，就說是『已知』，就像『去』的時候稱為『已去』，道理是一樣的（以上是論文內容）。』問：道類智（Daoleizhi）達到第二念時，以所緣境為目標，那時是正確瞭解的，為什麼稱為『已知』呢？答：這是從真理的運作方式來說的，不是從剎那的角度來說的。以少從多，稱為『已知』。就像大海中的一滴水，須彌山（Xumi Shan）上的一粒塵土，不能說塵土等還沒有度過。又解釋說，道類忍（Daoleiren，關於道的忍）是道類智的眷屬，所以也稱為『知』。問：道類忍之後，道類智開始產生，如何稱為『已知』？答：這是從真理的運作方式來說的，不是從剎那的角度來說的。以少從多，總稱為『已知』。就像大海中的一滴水，須彌山（Xumi Shan）上的一粒塵土。根據這個意義，七智也可以稱為『已知』，因為對真理的認識還沒有窮盡，中間還有提升的空間，所以不稱為『已知』。

【English Translation】 English version Question: Are the Eight Forbearances (Baren, eight types of forbearance) not describable by wisdom? Why is it said 'unknown yet to be known'? The Seven Wisdoms (Qizhi, seven types of wisdom) correctly understand the truth, why are they also called 'unknown yet to be known'? Answer: The Seven Wisdoms, from the perspective of their object of focus, the self-truth, can be called correct wisdom. However, if viewed from the perspective of the operation of the Eight Truths (Badi, eight noble truths), because the understanding of the Eight Truths is not yet comprehensive, and the knowledge of the truth is not yet exhaustive, with room for improvement in between, it is also called 'unknown yet to be known'. If one reaches the state of 'already known' in the process of cultivation, it is established based on the state of cultivation. If, in the process of cultivation, there is nothing among the upper and lower Eight Truths that has not been understood or should be understood, because the understanding of the Eight Truths is already comprehensive. It is only to eliminate the remaining latent tendencies (Suimian, remnants of afflictions) that one repeatedly understands those truths. Therefore, it is said that those practitioners have reached the state of 'already known'. When the Wisdom of the Category of the Path (Daoleizhi, wisdom concerning the path) arises in the initial thought of cultivation, one correctly understands the path of the upper realms at that time. Although it is like the Seven Wisdoms, it is called 'already known' because the countless subsequent wisdoms are all different from the previous ones, and from the perspective of few to many, they are collectively called 'already known'. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Poshalun), volume 143, says: 'Question: The sixteenth mind should be like the Seven Wisdoms, why is it uniquely said to be the root of the already known (Yizhigen)? Is it not knowing through what is already known?' Answer: 'This is also spoken from the majority. Although the initial moment is similar to the Seven Wisdoms, the subsequent moments are all different from it. From the perspective of the majority, they are all called the root of the already known because they belong to the same category.' Some say that after this, there will be no more that is not yet known being surpassed or covered, and the lower state will not affect the upper state, preventing it from being free; it will certainly be so. Therefore, regarding 'knowing', it is said to be 'already known', just as 'going' is called 'already gone', the principle is the same (the above is the content of the treatise).' Question: When the Wisdom of the Category of the Path (Daoleizhi) reaches the second thought, with the object of focus as its target, at that time it is correctly understood, why is it called 'already known'? Answer: This is spoken from the perspective of the operation of truth, not from the perspective of a moment. From the perspective of few to many, it is called 'already known'. Just like a drop of water in the ocean, a grain of dust on Mount Sumeru (Xumi Shan), it cannot be said that the dust, etc., have not yet been crossed over. It is also explained that the Forbearance of the Category of the Path (Daoleiren, forbearance concerning the path) is a relative of the Wisdom of the Category of the Path, so it is also called 'knowing'. Question: After the Forbearance of the Category of the Path, the Wisdom of the Category of the Path begins to arise, how is it called 'already known'? Answer: This is spoken from the perspective of the operation of truth, not from the perspective of a moment. From the perspective of few to many, it is collectively called 'already known'. Just like a drop of water in the ocean, a grain of dust on Mount Sumeru (Xumi Shan). According to this meaning, the Seven Wisdoms can also be called 'already known', because the knowledge of the truth is not yet exhaustive, and there is room for improvement in between, so it is not called 'already known'.

無學道至乃至廣說者。約無學道立具知根。謂修道中猶有煩惱。於四諦理未能作知己已知之解。在無學道由無惑故。能于諦境作知己已知之解。故名為知。此釋知義。有成就此知者名為具知。約成就釋具　或數數習此知已成性者名為具知。約習釋具。謂得盡智．無生智故名為具知。我遍知苦是盡智。不復遍知是無生智。我已斷集是盡智。不復斷集是無生智。我已證滅是盡智。不復證滅是無生智。我已修道是盡智。不復修道是無生智。故言乃至廣說。

彼所有根至當知根等者。此別釋根。彼未知當知行者等所有根。名未知當知根等。未知當知等之根依主釋。正理論意。未知當知等即根持業釋。各據一義又正理第九云。如是根名雖二十二。而諸根體但有十七。女．男二根身根攝故。三無漏根九根攝故。

如是已釋至有漏無漏者。此下第四諸門分別。總有六門。此即是初有漏無漏門。色蘊攝故名為有色。意等九根三無漏攝。是無漏。餘名有漏。余文可知。

有餘師說至外異生品者。敘化地部計。即是毗婆沙婆提。此云分別論師。計信等唯無漏。故世尊說。若人成就如是信等名阿羅漢。乃至。若人成就如是信等。名預流向。作是語已復作是言。若全無此信等五根。我說彼住外異生品。以此故知。信等唯是無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『無學道至乃至廣說者』，是根據無學道來確立具知根（jñātā-indriya，已知根）。這是說在修道中仍然有煩惱，對於四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni）的道理，不能夠產生『我已經知道』的理解。在無學道中，因為沒有迷惑，能夠對於四諦的境界產生『我已經知道』的理解，所以叫做『知』。這是解釋『知』的含義。有成就這種『知』的人，叫做『具知』。這是根據成就來解釋『具』。或者，多次修習這種『知』，已經成為習性的人，叫做『具知』。這是根據修習來解釋『具』。也就是說，因為得到盡智（ksaya-jñāna）和無生智（anutpāda-jñāna），所以叫做『具知』。『我已經遍知苦』是盡智，『不再需要遍知』是無生智。『我已經斷集』是盡智，『不再需要斷集』是無生智。『我已經證滅』是盡智，『不再需要證滅』是無生智。『我已經修道』是盡智，『不再需要修道』是無生智。所以說『乃至廣說』。關於『彼所有根至當知根等者』，這是分別解釋各種根。那些『未知當知行者』等所具有的根，叫做未知當知根等。『未知當知』等的根，是依主釋。這是正理論的觀點。『未知當知』等就是根，是持業釋。各自根據一種意義。而且《正理論》第九卷說：『像這樣，根的名稱雖然有二十二種，但是根的自體只有十七種。』女根（strīndriya）、男根（puruṣendriya）被包含在身根（kāyendriya）中，三種無漏根（anāsrava-indriya）被包含在九根中。關於『如是已釋至有漏無漏者』，這以下是第四個諸門分別，總共有六個門。這裡就是第一個有漏無漏門。因為被色蘊（rūpa-skandha）所攝，所以叫做有色。意根（mana-indriya）等九根被三種無漏根所攝，是無漏。其餘的叫做有漏。其餘的文字可以自己理解。關於『有餘師說至外異生品者』，這是敘述化地部（Lokottaravāda）的觀點，也就是毗婆沙婆提（Vaibhāṣika），這裡翻譯為分別論師。他們認為信等五根（pañca indriyāṇi）只有無漏。所以世尊（Śākyamuni Buddha）說：『如果有人成就這樣的信等，就叫做阿羅漢（arhat）。』乃至『如果有人成就這樣的信等，就叫做預流向（srota-āpanna）。』說了這些話之後，又說：『如果完全沒有這信等五根，我就說他住在外異生品。』因為這個緣故，就知道信等五根只有無漏。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'Anāgamiphala to, and so on, extensively explained,' it establishes the Jñātā-indriya (faculty of knowing) based on the state of Anāgamiphala (non-returning). This means that during the path of cultivation, there are still afflictions, and one cannot have the understanding of 'I have already known' regarding the principles of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni). In the state of Anāgamiphala, because there is no delusion, one can have the understanding of 'I have already known' regarding the realm of the Truths, so it is called 'knowing.' This explains the meaning of 'knowing.' One who has accomplished this 'knowing' is called 'possessing knowing.' This explains 'possessing' based on accomplishment. Or, one who has repeatedly practiced this 'knowing' and it has become a habit is called 'possessing knowing.' This explains 'possessing' based on practice. That is to say, because one has obtained the Knowledge of Exhaustion (ksaya-jñāna) and the Knowledge of Non-arising (anutpāda-jñāna), one is called 'possessing knowing.' 'I have completely known suffering' is the Knowledge of Exhaustion, 'no longer needing to completely know' is the Knowledge of Non-arising. 'I have already severed accumulation' is the Knowledge of Exhaustion, 'no longer needing to sever accumulation' is the Knowledge of Non-arising. 'I have already realized cessation' is the Knowledge of Exhaustion, 'no longer needing to realize cessation' is the Knowledge of Non-arising. 'I have already cultivated the path' is the Knowledge of Exhaustion, 'no longer needing to cultivate the path' is the Knowledge of Non-arising. Therefore, it is said 'and so on, extensively explained.' Regarding 'Those possessing faculties to the faculty of knowing, etc.,' this separately explains the various faculties. Those faculties possessed by 'those who are not yet knowing what should be known,' etc., are called faculties of not yet knowing what should be known, etc. 'Not yet knowing what should be known,' etc., the faculty is a dependent determinative compound. This is the view of the Abhidharma-kośa. 'Not yet knowing what should be known,' etc., is the faculty, a descriptive determinative compound. Each is based on one meaning. Moreover, the ninth volume of the Abhidharma-kośa says: 'Like this, although the names of the faculties are twenty-two, the substance of the faculties is only seventeen.' The female faculty (strīndriya) and male faculty (puruṣendriya) are included in the body faculty (kāyendriya), and the three unconditioned faculties (anāsrava-indriya) are included in the nine faculties. Regarding 'Thus, it has been explained to conditioned and unconditioned,' below this are the fourth of the various categories, with a total of six categories. This is the first category of conditioned and unconditioned. Because it is included in the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha), it is called conditioned. The mind faculty (mana-indriya) and the other nine faculties are included in the three unconditioned faculties, and are unconditioned. The rest are called conditioned. The rest of the text can be understood on your own. Regarding 'Some teachers say to the category of external ordinary beings,' this narrates the view of the Lokottaravāda school, which is the Vaibhāṣika, here translated as the 'Analysts.' They believe that the five faculties of faith, etc. (pañca indriyāṇi), are only unconditioned. Therefore, the World-Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) said: 'If someone accomplishes such faith, etc., they are called an Arhat (arhat).' And even 'If someone accomplishes such faith, etc., they are called a Stream-enterer (srota-āpanna).' After saying these words, he further said: 'If there is completely no such five faculties of faith, etc., I say that they dwell in the category of external ordinary beings.' Because of this reason, it is known that the five faculties of faith, etc., are only unconditioned.

漏。

此非誠證至說此言故者。論主破。經言異生無信等者。依無漏根故說言無。

云何知然者。余師徴。

先依無漏至說此言故者。釋。以契經中。先依無漏信等五根。建立四果．四向諸聖位差別已。說此言故。若全無此無漏信等五根。我說彼住外異生品。非攝有漏。

或諸異生至外異生品者。又通。經云外異生者。是斷善根人。據彼言無。

又契經說至亦通有漏者。又引經證信等有漏。謂佛將欲轉法輪時。先以佛眼遍觀世界。有情處在世間。初生。后長。有上．中．下信等諸根差別。是佛猶未轉法輪時。觀有情有信等別應可度脫。故知。信等亦通有漏。若佛未轉法輪。世間已有無漏根者。如來出世則為唐捐。

又世尊說至通有漏無漏者。又引經證信等有漏　是集。謂招集生死即是苦因　是沒。謂是沉淪沒溺之處　是味。謂是愛味處　是過患。謂是過患處　是出離。謂應可出離。集等皆是有漏異名　又解能如實知。是能觀智。即是道諦。

集．沒．味是集諦　過患。是苦諦　或集是集諦。沒．味．過患是苦諦　或沒．味通苦．集。出離是滅諦　魔。謂他化自在天魔　梵謂梵王　等等取已上諸天　又世尊說。我若於此信等五根。未如實知是集．沒等。未能超此天．人世間

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本漏（āsrava）：

『此非誠證至說此言故者』：論主的駁斥。經文中說異生（pṛthagjana，指凡夫）沒有信等，是依據沒有無漏根（anāsrava-mūla，指超越煩惱的根基）而說的。

『云何知然者』：其他老師的提問。

『先依無漏至說此言故者』：解釋。因為契經中，先依據無漏的信等五根（śraddhādi-pañcendriya，指信等五種無漏的根），建立四果（catvāri phalāni，指須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）和四向（catvāri mārga，指預流向、一來向、不還向、阿羅漢向）等聖位的差別之後，才說這句話。如果完全沒有這些無漏的信等五根，我就說他們住在外異生品（bāhya-pṛthagjana-pakṣa，指不信佛法的外道凡夫），不包括有漏（sāsrava，指有煩惱）的眾生。

『或諸異生至外異生品者』：又一種解釋。經文中說的外異生，是指斷了善根的人。這是根據他們的情況來說沒有無漏根。

『又契經說至亦通有漏者』：又引用經文來證明信等也有有漏的情況。比如佛將要轉法輪（dharma-cakra-pravartana，指宣講佛法）時，先用佛眼遍觀世界，看到有情（sattva，指眾生）處在世間，有初生、后長，有上、中、下信等諸根的差別。這是佛還沒有轉法輪時，觀察到有情有信等差別，應該可以度脫。所以知道，信等也包括有漏的情況。如果佛還沒有轉法輪，世間就已經有無漏根的人，如來（tathāgata，指佛）出世就沒有意義了。

『又世尊說至通有漏無漏者』：又引用經文來證明信等有有漏的情況。『是集』，指招集生死，也就是苦的原因；『是沒』，指沉淪沒溺之處；『是味』，指愛味之處；『是過患』，指過患之處；『是出離』，指應該可以出離。集等都是有漏的別名。又解釋說，能如實地知道這些，是能觀的智慧，也就是道諦（mārga-satya，指八正道）。

集、沒、味是集諦（samudaya-satya，指苦的根源）；過患是苦諦（duḥkha-satya，指痛苦的真相）；或者集是集諦，沒、味、過患是苦諦；或者沒、味通於苦諦和集諦。出離是滅諦（nirodha-satya，指涅槃寂滅的境界）。魔（māra），指他化自在天魔（paranirmita-vaśavartin-māra，指欲界頂天的魔王）；梵（brahman），指梵王（brahmā，指色界諸天的天王）；等等，包括以上諸天。又世尊說，我如果對於這些信等五根，沒有如實地知道它們是集、沒等，就不能超越這些天、人世間。

【English Translation】 English version Āsrava (Leakages/Influxes):

'This is not a sincere proof to say this statement' : The rebuttal of the commentator. The sutra says that ordinary beings (pṛthagjana, referring to ordinary people) do not have faith, etc., because they are said to be without the un-leaked roots (anāsrava-mūla, referring to the foundation beyond afflictions).

'How is this known?' : The question of other teachers.

'First rely on the un-leaked to say this statement' : Explanation. Because in the sutra, first relying on the un-leaked five roots of faith, etc. (śraddhādi-pañcendriya, referring to the five un-leaked roots of faith, etc.), the differences between the four fruits (catvāri phalāni, referring to Srotaāpanna, Sakṛdāgāmin, Anāgāmin, and Arhat) and the four paths (catvāri mārga, referring to Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner and Arhat) and other noble positions are established, and then this statement is made. If there are no un-leaked five roots of faith, etc. at all, I would say that they live in the category of external ordinary beings (bāhya-pṛthagjana-pakṣa, referring to non-Buddhist ordinary people), not including those with leakages (sāsrava, referring to those with afflictions).

'Or all ordinary beings to the external ordinary beings' : Another explanation. The external ordinary beings mentioned in the sutra refer to people who have cut off their roots of goodness. This is based on their situation to say that they have no un-leaked roots.

'Also, the sutra says that it also includes the leaked' : Also, quoting the sutra to prove that faith, etc. also have leaked situations. For example, when the Buddha was about to turn the wheel of Dharma (dharma-cakra-pravartana, referring to preaching the Dharma), he first used the Buddha's eye to observe the world and saw that sentient beings (sattva, referring to beings) were in the world, with the differences of initial birth, later growth, and superior, middle, and inferior roots of faith, etc. This was when the Buddha had not yet turned the wheel of Dharma, and he observed that sentient beings had differences in faith, etc., and should be able to be liberated. Therefore, it is known that faith, etc. also include leaked situations. If the world already had people with un-leaked roots before the Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma, then the Tathagata's (tathāgata, referring to the Buddha) appearance in the world would be meaningless.

'Also, the World Honored One said that it includes both leaked and un-leaked' : Also, quoting the sutra to prove that faith, etc. have leaked situations. 'It is the accumulation', referring to attracting birth and death, which is the cause of suffering; 'It is the submergence', referring to the place of sinking and drowning; 'It is the taste', referring to the place of loving taste; 'It is the fault', referring to the place of fault; 'It is the departure', referring to what should be departed from. Accumulation, etc. are all other names for the leaked. Also, it is explained that being able to truly know these is the wisdom of being able to observe, which is the path truth (mārga-satya, referring to the Eightfold Path).

Accumulation, submergence, and taste are the truth of accumulation (samudaya-satya, referring to the origin of suffering); fault is the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya, referring to the truth of suffering); or accumulation is the truth of accumulation, submergence, taste, and fault are the truth of suffering; or submergence and taste are common to the truth of suffering and the truth of accumulation. Departure is the truth of cessation (nirodha-satya, referring to the state of Nirvana). Māra (māra), referring to Paranirmita-vaśavartin-māra (paranirmita-vaśavartin-māra, referring to the demon king of the highest heaven of the desire realm); Brahman (brahman), referring to Brahmā (brahmā, referring to the king of the heavens of the form realm); and so on, including all the heavens above. Also, the World Honored One said, if I do not truly know that these five roots of faith, etc. are accumulation, submergence, etc., I will not be able to transcend these heavens and the human world.

及魔．梵等。乃至。未能證得無上正等菩提。乃至廣說　非無漏法可作如是集．沒．味等品類觀察。故知信等通二種。

如是已說至一一皆通二者。此下第二是異熟非異熟門。結問頌答。

論曰至定是異熟者。釋初句。二十二根中。唯一命根決定異熟。

若如是者至誰之異熟者。問。若唯異熟。阿羅漢留命或經百年或千年等。皆由現在佈施衣等。引壽續前。應非異熟。如是命根。誰之異熟。而言唯命定異熟。

如本論說至壽異熟果者。就答中。一依宗正答。二敘異說。此下依宗正答　就中有二。此即初師舉本論答。如本論說。云何苾芻留多壽行。答文有六。一人勝。謂阿羅漢。即聲聞極果簡異學人。二解脫勝。成就神通顯俱解脫。簡慧解脫。三修習勝。得心自在。顯不動性。簡時解脫。四福田勝。若於僧眾。若於別人。僧眾謂四人已上。別人謂初從慈定。無諍定。滅盡定。見道。修道。起者。以諸活命緣衣缽針筒等物。隨分佈施。佈施謂正行施業。簡異劣田。五依止勝。施已發願。或愿得自在入邊際定。或愿此招異熟果。即入第四邊際靜慮。諸定上品名邊際。止．觀均等中。此勢用最勝故入此定。簡異余定及不發願。六轉業勝。從定起已心念口言。諸我感富異熟業。愿皆轉招壽異熟果。恐不

【現代漢語翻譯】以及魔眾、梵天等等，直到未能證得無上正等菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上的、正確的、平等的覺悟）。乃至廣泛宣說，無漏法（Anasrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法）不可作如此聚集、消沒、品味等品類觀察。所以得知信等（Sradha，信念等）通於兩種（有漏和無漏）。

如上已說到一一皆通兩種情況。接下來第二部分是從異熟（Vipaka，果報）與非異熟的角度來分析。以下是總結提問和回答的偈頌。

論曰：到確定是異熟。這是解釋第一句。在二十二根（Indriya，生理機能）中，只有命根（Jivitindriya，生命力）是決定性的異熟果。

若如是者：到誰的異熟？這是提問。如果命根唯一是異熟果，那麼阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟的人）留住壽命，或者一百年，或者一千年等等，都是由於現在佈施衣服等，引導壽命延續，這應該不是異熟果。那麼這樣的命根，是誰的異熟果？而言命根唯一是異熟果。

如本論說：到壽命的異熟果。在回答中，分為兩部分：一是依據宗義正面回答，二是敘述不同的說法。以下是依據宗義正面回答。其中又有兩部分，這是第一位論師引用本論來回答。如本論所說：云何苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘）留住長壽的行為？答文有六點：一是人殊勝，指阿羅漢，即聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛法而修行證果的人）的最高果位，區別于其他學人。二是解脫殊勝，成就神通（Abhijnana，超自然能力），顯示俱解脫（Ubhayato-bhaga-vimutta，同時具有慧解脫和身解脫）。區別于慧解脫（Prajna-vimutta，僅有智慧上的解脫）。三是修習殊勝，得到心自在，顯示不動性（不為外境所動）。區別於時解脫（Samayika-vimutta，在特定時間才能解脫）。四是福田殊勝，若對於僧眾（Sangha，僧團），若對於別人。僧眾指四人以上。別人指最初從慈定（Maitri-samadhi，慈悲禪定）、無諍定（Arana-samadhi，無諍禪定）、滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，滅盡定）、見道（Darshana-marga，見道位）、修道（Bhavana-marga，修道位）起者。以諸活命的因緣，如衣服、缽、針筒等物，隨其分佈佈施。佈施指正確地進行佈施的行為，區別於劣田。五是依止殊勝，佈施后發願，或者愿得到自在進入邊際定（Bhavagra-samapatti，有頂定），或者愿此佈施招感異熟果，即進入第四邊際靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）。諸定中的上品名為邊際。止（Samatha，止禪）和觀（Vipassana，觀禪）均等中，此定勢用最殊勝，所以進入此定。區別于其他禪定以及不發願。六是轉變業殊勝，從定起后，心中念想，口中言說：諸我所感的富有的異熟業，愿都轉變招感壽命的異熟果。恐怕不

【English Translation】 And also to Mara, Brahma, etc., until one has not attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled perfect enlightenment), and so on, extensively explained. Non-Asrava-dharma (undefiled dharmas) cannot be observed with such categories as aggregation, disappearance, taste, etc. Therefore, it is known that faith (Sradha) and so on are common to both (defiled and undefiled).

As it has been said above that each and every one is common to both. The second part below analyzes from the perspective of Vipaka (resultant) and non-Vipaka.

The treatise says: 'To determine is Vipaka.' This explains the first sentence. Among the twenty-two Indriyas (faculties), only Jivitindriya (the faculty of life) is definitely a Vipaka result.

If so: 'To whom does it ripen?' This is the question. If the faculty of life is solely a Vipaka result, then an Arhat (one who has attained enlightenment) remains alive, either for a hundred years or a thousand years, etc., all due to present giving of clothes, etc., guiding the continuation of life, this should not be a Vipaka result. Then, whose Vipaka result is such a faculty of life? And it is said that the faculty of life is solely a Vipaka result.

As the treatise says: 'To the Vipaka result of life.' In the answer, there are two parts: first, answering directly based on the doctrine; second, narrating different views. Below is answering directly based on the doctrine. Among them, there are two parts; this is the first teacher quoting the treatise to answer. As the treatise says: 'How does a Bhikkhu (monk) maintain a long life?' The answer has six points: First, the superiority of the person, referring to an Arhat, the highest fruit of a Sravaka (listener of the Dharma who practices and attains fruition), distinguishing them from other learners. Second, the superiority of liberation, achieving Abhijna (supernatural powers), showing Ubhayato-bhaga-vimutta (liberation in both wisdom and body), distinguishing them from Prajna-vimutta (liberation only in wisdom). Third, the superiority of practice, attaining freedom of mind, showing immovability (not being moved by external circumstances), distinguishing them from Samayika-vimutta (liberation at a specific time). Fourth, the superiority of the field of merit, whether to the Sangha (community of monks), or to others. The Sangha refers to four or more people. Others refer to those who initially arise from Maitri-samadhi (loving-kindness meditation), Arana-samadhi (non-conflict meditation), Nirodha-samapatti (cessation meditation), Darshana-marga (path of seeing), Bhavana-marga (path of cultivation). With the conditions for sustaining life, such as clothes, bowls, needle cases, etc., distribute and give them accordingly. Giving refers to correctly performing the act of giving, distinguishing it from inferior fields. Fifth, the superiority of reliance, after giving, making a vow, either wishing to attain freedom and enter Bhavagra-samapatti (the peak of existence), or wishing that this giving will bring about a Vipaka result, that is, entering the fourth Dhyana (meditation). The highest quality of all meditations is called the peak of existence. In the equality of Samatha (calm abiding) and Vipassana (insight), this meditation has the most superior power, so one enters this meditation, distinguishing it from other meditations and not making a vow. Sixth, the superiority of transforming karma, after arising from meditation, thinking in the mind and speaking in the mouth: 'May all the rich Vipaka karma that I have accumulated be transformed to bring about the Vipaka result of longevity.' Fearing that it will not

能感故出定已複審定之。作是愿已。時彼能招富異熟業。則皆轉招壽異熟果。簡不轉業　此家意說。以佈施時無貪相應思。正能感現異熟命根。以邊際定等為緣。能轉富業令感壽果。此即現業感現命果　問同分亦現感不。命與同分誰總。誰別　第一解云。同分是總。命根是別。同分非現感。命根容現感。由有總．別不同。現．非現異故。即同分長。命根短者可延。若同分亦短者命不可延。此論既言轉招壽果。以此故知現容感命。又下論云。四善容俱作。引同分唯三。除順現受。現身同分先業引故。彼文既不言命根。故知現業不感同分容感命根。又下論云。一業引一生。多業能圓滿。又云。此一生言顯一同分。又云。亦無一生多業所引。勿眾同分分分差別。雖彼一業引一同分。而彼圓滿許由多業。譬如畫師先以一色圖其形狀。后填眾彩。彼文既不言命。明知同分是總非別。命別非總。又婆沙一百一十四解四業有三說。一云生．后二業感眾同分及滿。現及不定感滿非眾同分。二云三感眾同分及滿除現。現能感滿非眾同分。三云四能感眾同分及滿　婆沙既對滿說眾同分不言命根。故知同分總。命根是別。婆沙雖無評家且以第二師為正。以餘論文於四業中皆不說現感同分故　問若命根是別。何故婆沙三十一云。複次命根．眾同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，能夠感知（死亡）的眾生，從禪定中出來后，再次審視自己的願望。在許下這樣的願望之後，那時，那些能夠招感財富的異熟業，都會轉而招感壽命的異熟果。這是爲了區分那些不能轉變的業。這家（指某個學派或論師）的觀點認為，以佈施時沒有貪婪相應的思心所，才能真正招感現世的異熟果，即命根。憑藉邊際定等作為助緣，能夠轉變財富的業，使其招感壽命的果報。這就是現世的業感得現世的壽命果報。問：同分（Sabhāgatā，眾生共業所感的身心相似性）也是現世感得果報嗎？命根和同分，哪個是總相，哪個是別相？第一種解釋是：同分是總相，命根是別相。同分不是現世感得的，命根可以現世感得。因為有總相和別相的不同，所以有現世和非現世的差異。如果同分長，命根短，那麼壽命可以延長。如果同分也短，那麼壽命就不可延長。這部論典既然說『轉招壽果』，因此可知現世可以感得壽命。而且，下面的論典說，四種善業可以同時做，引同分只有三種，除去順現受業。現世的身同分是先前的業所引的。那段文字既然沒有說命根，因此可知現世的業不感同分，但可以感命根。而且，下面的論典說，一個業引一生，多個業能夠圓滿。又說，『此一生』是指同一個同分。又說，也沒有一生是由多個業所引的，免得眾生的同分有種種差別。雖然一個業引一個同分，但是它的圓滿允許由多個業來完成。譬如畫師先用一種顏色畫出形狀，然後填上各種色彩。那段文字既然沒有說命，明顯可知同分是總相，不是別相；命是別相，不是總相。而且，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第一百一十四卷解釋四種業有三種說法：第一種說法是，生業和后業感得眾生的同分和圓滿，現業和不定業感得圓滿，但不感眾生的同分。第二種說法是，三種業感得眾生的同分和圓滿，除去現業，現業能夠感得圓滿，但不感眾生的同分。第三種說法是，四種業都能感得眾生的同分和圓滿。《婆沙論》既然針對圓滿說了眾生的同分，沒有說命根，因此可知同分是總相，命根是別相。《婆沙論》雖然沒有評判，但暫時以第二位論師的說法為正確，因為其餘的論典在四種業中都沒有說現業感得同分。問：如果命根是別相，為什麼《婆沙論》第三十一卷說：『再者，命根、眾同……』

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, those beings who are able to sense (death), after emerging from Samadhi (deep meditative state), re-examine their vows. Having made such a vow, at that time, those karmas that are capable of attracting the Vipāka (result of karma) of wealth, will all be transformed to attract the Vipāka of longevity. This is to distinguish those karmas that cannot be transformed. This school (referring to a specific school or commentator) believes that only the thought (cetanā) associated with generosity without greed can truly attract the present Vipāka, which is the life-force (jīvitendriya). Relying on the marginal Samadhi etc. as conditions, it is possible to transform the karma of wealth to attract the result of longevity. This is the present karma that brings about the present result of life. Question: Does Sabhāgatā (commonality, the similarity of mind and body resulting from shared karma) also bring about results in the present? Between life-force and Sabhāgatā, which is the general characteristic and which is the specific characteristic? The first explanation is: Sabhāgatā is the general characteristic, and life-force is the specific characteristic. Sabhāgatā is not obtained in the present, but life-force can be obtained in the present. Because there is a difference between general and specific characteristics, there is a difference between present and non-present. If Sabhāgatā is long and life-force is short, then life can be extended. If Sabhāgatā is also short, then life cannot be extended. Since this treatise says 'transforms to attract the result of longevity', it can be known that the present can obtain life. Moreover, the following treatise says that four good karmas can be done simultaneously, but only three attract Sabhāgatā, except for karma that is experienced in the present. The present body's Sabhāgatā is attracted by previous karma. Since that passage does not mention life-force, it can be known that present karma does not attract Sabhāgatā, but can attract life-force. Moreover, the following treatise says that one karma attracts one life, and multiple karmas can complete it. It also says, 'This one life' refers to the same Sabhāgatā. It also says that there is no one life attracted by multiple karmas, lest the Sabhāgatā of beings have various differences. Although one karma attracts one Sabhāgatā, its completion is allowed to be done by multiple karmas. For example, a painter first uses one color to draw the shape, and then fills in various colors. Since that passage does not mention life, it is clear that Sabhāgatā is the general characteristic, not the specific characteristic; life is the specific characteristic, not the general characteristic. Moreover, the Vibhāṣā (Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra) Volume 114 explains the four karmas with three statements: The first statement is that birth karma and subsequent karma attract the Sabhāgatā and completion of beings, while present karma and indeterminate karma attract completion, but do not attract the Sabhāgatā of beings. The second statement is that three karmas attract the Sabhāgatā and completion of beings, except for present karma, which can attract completion but not the Sabhāgatā of beings. The third statement is that all four karmas can attract the Sabhāgatā and completion of beings. Since the Vibhāṣā speaks of the Sabhāgatā of beings in relation to completion, without mentioning life-force, it can be known that Sabhāgatā is the general characteristic and life-force is the specific characteristic. Although the Vibhāṣā does not have a commentary, the second teacher's statement is temporarily considered correct, because the remaining treatises do not mention present karma attracting Sabhāgatā among the four karmas. Question: If life-force is a specific characteristic, why does Vibhāṣā Volume 31 say: 'Furthermore, life-force, the commonality of beings...'

分是牽引果　解云引業非唯感總同分。亦能兼感別命根故　又問若命別何故。婆沙廢立二十二根中。說命．同分名遍任持　解云。任持有二。同分是總．遍任持。命是別遍任持　第二解云。同分是總．命根是別同第一解云差別者俱容現感。雖俱容現感由業力故。若有同分長命短者唯延命。若有命長同分短者。同分亦容現感。故婆沙解四業中第三師云。四業能感眾同分及滿　彼論既無評家。且以此師為正。故知現業容感同分。言現容感。此據延壽別勝緣說。然諸論文于延壽中不言同分者。依問答故。以問命根不問同分。故答命根不言同分。婆沙四業中第二師。及諸論。不云現感同分者。據常途說　第三解云。同分是總．命根是別同第一解。俱容現感同第二解。云差別者。雖總．別不同由彼俱容現業感故。長即齊長。短即齊短。延即同延。促即同促　第四解云。同分非現感。命根容現感同第一解。云差別者。二俱是總雖俱是總由業力故。若有同分長．命根短者。命容現業感。同分非現感。故婆沙云。命根．同分是牽引果。又婆沙廢立二十二根中說命同分名遍任持。以此故知。命亦總。婆沙四業中對滿說眾同分。不言命者且舉一邊。以此命根必定有故　第五解云。俱容現感同第二解。二俱是總同第四解云差別者。雖俱是總俱

容現感。由業力故。若有同分長．命根短者唯延命。若有命長同分短者唯延同分　第六解云。俱容現感同第二解。二俱是總同第四解。云差別者。既俱容現感。又同是總。長即齊長。短即齊短。延即同延。促即同促　雖作六解初解稍勝。非但多順論文亦于理為善　又空法師云。命根．同分．及五色根皆是總報。此解不然。五根是總無文說故　復有欲令至引取受用者。此即第二師。引取宿業殘壽異熟。殘業雖多取強勝者。或取近者。或取數習者。若據此說命非現感。余文可知。

問豈不一業能感多生。復有一生多業感過　解云若據常途。一業感一生。一生一業感。若據別緣。一業感多生。多業感一生或生據同分今說命根　若依正理第九有三說。兩說同此論。更有一說云。有餘師說。彼由邊際定力。引取前生順不定受業所感壽命。令現受用　問雖無一業引多生。而有一生多業感　解云。若據別緣許亦無失。或生據同分今說命根。若依婆沙一百二十六。有四說。三說同前。更一說云。有餘師說有業先感壽異熟果。然有災障。由今佈施邊際定力。彼災障滅壽異熟起。雖俱可轉。而彼今時不願富果。祈壽果故　問此說還有一生多業感　解云若據別緣許亦無失。或生據同分今說命根　問上來四說何者為正　解云此論．正理．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：容許現世感受果報。由於業力的緣故。如果同分（Samatā-bhāga，眾生在某一類生命形式上的相似性）長而命根（Jīvitindriya，維持生命的能力）短，就只能延長命根。如果命根長而同分短，就只能延長同分。第六種解釋說：都容許現世感受果報，與第二種解釋相同。這兩種都是總的解釋，與第四種解釋相同。所說的差別在於：既然都容許現世感受果報，又都是總的解釋，長就是一起長，短就是一起短，延長就是一同延長，縮短就是一同縮短。雖然有六種解釋，但第一種解釋稍微好一些。不僅多數順應論文，而且在道理上也比較完善。還有空法師說：命根、同分以及五色根（Pañca-varṇa-indriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）都是總報。這種解釋不對。因為沒有文獻說明五根是總報。還有人想讓它達到引取受用的階段，這就是第二位老師的觀點。引取宿業（Pūrva-karma，前世的業力）殘壽（Āyuḥ-śeṣa，剩餘的壽命）的異熟果（Vipāka-phala，果報）。剩餘的業力雖然很多，但選取最強勝的，或者選取最近的，或者選取多次習行的。如果根據這種說法，命根就不是現世感受果報。其餘的文字可以類推得知。問：難道不是一個業力能夠感得多生，又有一生感受多個業力嗎？答：如果按照常理，一個業力感一生，一生感受一個業力。如果按照特殊的因緣，一個業力可以感得多生，多個業力可以感一生，或者生是指同分，現在說的是命根。如果依照《正理》（Nyāyānusāra，佛教經論名）第九，有三種說法。兩種說法與此論相同。還有一種說法是：有其他老師說，這是由於邊際定力（Anta-koṭi-samādhi-bala，一種高級的禪定力量），引取前生順不定受業（Aniyata-vedanīya-karma，果報不確定的業力）所感的壽命，使其現在受用。問：即使沒有一個業力引得多生，但有一生感受多個業力嗎？答：如果按照特殊的因緣，允許也是沒有過失的。或者生是指同分，現在說的是命根。如果依照《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，佛教經論名）第一百二十六，有四種說法。三種說法與前面相同。還有一種說法是：有其他老師說，有業力先感得壽命的異熟果，然而有災障。由於現在佈施邊際定力，那些災障消滅，壽命的異熟果生起。雖然都可以轉變，但那些人現在不希望得到富有的果報，而是祈求壽命的果報。問：這種說法還有一生感受多個業力的情況嗎？答：如果按照特殊的因緣，允許也是沒有過失的。或者生是指同分，現在說的是命根。問：以上四種說法哪一種是正確的？答：此論、《正理》……

【English Translation】 English version: Allowing for present experience of retribution. Due to the force of karma. If the Samatā-bhāga (commonality of beings in a certain life form) is long and the Jīvitindriya (life-sustaining faculty) is short, then only the Jīvitindriya is extended. If the Jīvitindriya is long and the Samatā-bhāga is short, then only the Samatā-bhāga is extended. The sixth explanation says: both allow for present experience of retribution, which is the same as the second explanation. Both are general explanations, the same as the fourth explanation. The difference is that since both allow for present experience of retribution and are both general, long means together long, short means together short, extension means together extension, and shortening means together shortening. Although there are six explanations, the first explanation is slightly better. Not only does it mostly accord with the text, but it is also more reasonable. Furthermore, the Dharma master Kong said: the Jīvitindriya, Samatā-bhāga, and Pañca-varṇa-indriya (five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are all general retributions. This explanation is incorrect because there is no textual evidence stating that the five sense organs are general retributions. There are also those who want it to reach the stage of drawing upon and experiencing, which is the view of the second teacher. Drawing upon the Vipāka-phala (result of maturation) of past karma (Pūrva-karma) and remaining lifespan (Āyuḥ-śeṣa). Although there is much remaining karma, the strongest is chosen, or the nearest is chosen, or the most frequently practiced is chosen. According to this view, the Jīvitindriya is not presently experienced retribution. The rest of the text can be inferred. Question: Isn't it the case that one karma can cause multiple births, and one birth can experience multiple karmas? Answer: According to the usual course, one karma causes one birth, and one birth experiences one karma. According to special conditions, one karma can cause multiple births, and multiple karmas can cause one birth, or 'birth' refers to the Samatā-bhāga, and we are now speaking of the Jīvitindriya. According to the ninth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra (a Buddhist treatise), there are three views. Two views are the same as this treatise. There is another view that says: other teachers say that it is due to the power of Anta-koṭi-samādhi-bala (a high level of meditative power) that the lifespan caused by the Aniyata-vedanīya-karma (karma with uncertain retribution) of the previous life is drawn upon and experienced in the present. Question: Even if one karma does not cause multiple births, is it the case that one birth experiences multiple karmas? Answer: According to special conditions, it is permissible without fault. Or 'birth' refers to the Samatā-bhāga, and we are now speaking of the Jīvitindriya. According to the one hundred and twenty-sixth chapter of the Vibhāṣā (a Buddhist treatise), there are four views. Three views are the same as before. There is another view that says: other teachers say that there is karma that first causes the Vipāka-phala of lifespan, but there are disasters. Due to the power of giving and Anta-koṭi-samādhi-bala in the present, those disasters are extinguished, and the Vipāka-phala of lifespan arises. Although both can be transformed, those people do not wish for the result of wealth now, but rather pray for the result of lifespan. Question: Does this view still have the situation of one birth experiencing multiple karmas? Answer: According to special conditions, it is permissible without fault. Or 'birth' refers to the Samatā-bhāga, and we are now speaking of the Jīvitindriya. Question: Which of the above four views is correct? Answer: This treatise, the Nyāyānusāra...

及與婆沙。既無立．破。誰敢輒定　又問於四說中。初說現感可須佈施。后三說壽有別業感。何勞佈施　解云佈施雖非能正感彼壽。然為勝緣。若不行施彼終不能引壽果故。如不入定彼終不能引壽果。故促壽行施準此應釋。

云何苾芻至富異熟果者。因解延壽義便兼明促壽。若依婆沙一百二十六有五說。故彼論云。問理無壽異熟果可成富異熟果。何故乃說壽異熟業即轉能招富異熟果。答無轉果體。有轉業力。謂由佈施邊際定力。轉壽業招富異熟果。雖俱可轉。而彼今時不願壽果。祈富果故。有餘師說有業先感富異熟果然有災障。由今佈施邊際定力。彼災障滅富異熟起。雖俱可轉。而彼今時不願壽果祈富果故。有作是說。有業先招富異熟果。然不決定。由今佈施邊際定力。令招富業決定與果。復有說者。有業先招富異熟果。粗而非妙。由今佈施邊際定力令感粗業轉招妙果。謂彼先引長時粗果。今由佈施．定．祈願力故。令彼轉招促時妙果。復有欲令由施．定故。引取宿世殘富異熟。謂阿羅漢。有餘生中殘富異熟。由今佈施．邊際定力。令引現前。定力不思議令久斷還續(俱舍同初說)。

尊者妙音至或舍壽行者。此下第二敘二異說。此即初師不正義也。彼阿羅漢。由邊際定力。引色界四大令身中現前。而彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以及與《婆沙論》的觀點。既然沒有確立和駁斥，誰敢輕易下定論？又問：在四種說法中，第一種說法認為現世的感受可以通過佈施來改善，而後三種說法認為壽命有其自身的業力感召，為何還要佈施？解釋說：佈施雖然不能直接感召壽命的延長，但它是一種殊勝的助緣。如果不進行佈施，壽命的果報終究無法顯現。就像不入定就無法獲得禪定的果報一樣。所以，縮短壽命的人進行佈施，也應該這樣解釋。

什麼是比丘獲得財富的異熟果報？因為解釋延長壽命的意義，所以順便說明縮短壽命的情況。如果依據《婆沙論》第一百二十六卷，有五種說法。該論中說：問：道理上沒有壽命的異熟果報可以轉變成財富的異熟果報，為什麼說壽命的異熟業可以轉而招感財富的異熟果報？答：沒有果報體的轉變，只有業力的轉變。意思是說，通過佈施和邊際定力的作用，使原本招感壽命的業力轉而招感財富的異熟果報。雖然兩者都可以轉變，但那個人現在不希望獲得壽命的果報，而是祈求財富的果報。有其他論師說：有業力先感召了財富的異熟果報，但有災禍障礙。通過現在的佈施和邊際定力，使災禍障礙消除，財富的異熟果報顯現。雖然兩者都可以轉變，但那個人現在不希望獲得壽命的果報，而是祈求財富的果報。有人這樣說：有業力先招感了財富的異熟果報，但不確定。通過現在的佈施和邊際定力，使招感財富的業力確定地給予果報。還有人說：有業力先招感了財富的異熟果報，但粗糙而不精妙。通過現在的佈施和邊際定力，使感召粗糙的業力轉而招感精妙的果報。意思是說，那業力先前會引發長時間的粗糙果報，現在由於佈施、禪定和祈願的力量，使它轉而招感短時間的精妙果報。還有人希望通過佈施和禪定，來引取宿世剩餘的財富異熟果報。意思是說，阿羅漢在過去世中還有剩餘的財富異熟果報，通過現在的佈施和邊際定力，使它在現在顯現。禪定的力量不可思議，使已經斷絕的果報重新延續（《俱舍論》的觀點與第一種說法相同）。

尊者妙音乃至捨棄壽命的行為。這以下第二部分敘述兩種不同的說法。這實際上是第一位論師不正確的觀點。那位阿羅漢，通過邊際定力，引動四大元素，使其在身體中顯現，而他...

【English Translation】 English version: And in accordance with the Vibhasa (Commentary). Since there is no establishing or refuting, who dares to readily conclude? Furthermore, it is asked: Among the four explanations, the first explanation suggests that present feelings can be improved through dana (giving/charity). The latter three explanations suggest that lifespan has its own karmic retribution. Why bother with dana? The explanation is: Although dana cannot directly cause the extension of lifespan, it serves as a superior condition. If dana is not practiced, the fruit of lifespan ultimately cannot manifest. Just as without entering samadhi (meditative state), one cannot attain the fruit of samadhi. Therefore, the practice of dana by those with shortened lifespans should be explained in this way.

What is it for a bhikshu (monk) to attain the vipaka (result/fruit) of wealth? In explaining the meaning of extending lifespan, the situation of shortening lifespan is also explained. If based on the Vibhasa, volume one hundred and twenty-six, there are five explanations. That treatise says: Question: In principle, there is no vipaka of lifespan that can be transformed into the vipaka of wealth. Why is it said that the karma of lifespan vipaka can transform and bring about the vipaka of wealth? Answer: There is no transformation of the fruit-body, only the transformation of karmic force. It means that through the power of dana and parikarmasamadhi (preparatory concentration), the karma that originally brings about lifespan is transformed to bring about the vipaka of wealth. Although both can be transformed, that person now does not desire the fruit of lifespan but prays for the fruit of wealth. Some other teachers say: There is karma that first brings about the vipaka of wealth, but there are calamities and obstacles. Through the present dana and parikarmasamadhi, the calamities and obstacles are eliminated, and the vipaka of wealth arises. Although both can be transformed, that person now does not desire the fruit of lifespan but prays for the fruit of wealth. Some say: There is karma that first brings about the vipaka of wealth, but it is uncertain. Through the present dana and parikarmasamadhi, the karma that brings about wealth is made certain to give its fruit. Others say: There is karma that first brings about the vipaka of wealth, but it is coarse and not refined. Through the present dana and parikarmasamadhi, the karma that brings about coarseness is transformed to bring about refined fruit. It means that the karma would previously cause a long period of coarse fruit, but now, due to the power of dana, samadhi, and prayer, it is transformed to bring about a short period of refined fruit. Others wish to use dana and samadhi to draw upon the remaining vipaka of wealth from past lives. It means that an arhat (enlightened being) still has remaining vipaka of wealth from past lives, and through the present dana and parikarmasamadhi, it is made to manifest in the present. The power of samadhi is inconceivable, causing the fruit that has been severed for a long time to be continued again (the view of the Abhidharmakosa is the same as the first explanation).

Venerable Myo-on (Wonderful Sound) even to the act of abandoning lifespan. The second part below narrates two different explanations. This is actually the incorrect view of the first teacher. That arhat, through the power of parikarmasamadhi, moves the four great elements, causing them to manifest in the body, and he...

大種有其二類。一順壽行。二違壽行。若起順者令身增益能留壽行。若起違者令身散壞能捨壽行　問所延壽行是異熟不　解云此是等流。別有一類等流命根。由定力故以身為依。非言業感。明非異熟。若非異熟。有違宗過。若言即身。同經部假。此則自宗不正義也　又解是異熟。妙音意說。所引命根雖現業感。或宿殘業感。或不定業感。要由起彼色界大種。扶持此身隨順壽行壽方得延。若作斯解亦不違宗。

應如是說至皆是異熟者。此即第二敘經部說。論主意明經部。故言應如是說。若延壽時。彼阿羅漢。由此自在三摩地力。轉去曾得宿業所生異熟諸根大種住時勢分。引取未曾得定力所起長養諸根大種住時勢分。經部師說。諸根大種住時勢分不斷義邊。假立命根。長養勢分假建立者。由定力故非是異熟。是等流　又解是長養。既異熟上假建立者是異熟。明知長養上假建立者。亦名長養。前解為勝　所餘一切異熟勢分假建立者。皆是異熟。若促壽時者但轉宿業諸根大種令不現前。不引定力諸根大種。正理破云。且不應執是長養性。彼能防守異熟果故。所防異熟已轉盡故。不應異熟相續斷已獨有長養　俱舍師救云。有異熟處必有長養。自有長養處而無異熟。如無眼者　修得天眼。正理前文自作是說。如何至后復更生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『大種』（四大元素）有兩種型別：一是順應壽命延續的，二是違背壽命延續的。如果生起順應壽命延續的，就能使身體增益，能夠保持壽命的延續；如果生起違背壽命延續的，就能使身體散壞，能夠捨棄壽命的延續。問題：所延續的壽命是『異熟』（果報）嗎？解答說：這是『等流』（與因同類的果報）。另外有一種『等流』的『命根』（生命力），由於禪定的力量，以身體為依託，不是由言語行為所感得的，明確說明不是『異熟』。如果不是『異熟』，就有違背宗義的過失。如果說是即身，就和經部的假說相同，這則是自己宗派的不正當的義理。又解答說是『異熟』，妙音的意說是，所引生的『命根』雖然是現世業力所感，或者是過去殘餘業力所感，或者是不定業力所感，一定要由生起那些『大種』，扶持這個身體，順應壽命延續的行為，壽命才能夠得以延續。如果這樣解釋，也不違背宗義。

『應該這樣說，直至都是異熟』，這即是第二種敘述經部的說法。論主的意圖是闡明經部的觀點，所以說『應該這樣說』。如果延長壽命的時候，那位阿羅漢，由此自在的三摩地力量，轉變去除曾經獲得的宿業所生的『異熟』諸根『大種』的住時勢分（存在的時間和力量），引取未曾獲得的禪定力量所生長的諸根『大種』的住時勢分。經部師說，諸根『大種』的住時勢分不斷絕的意義方面，假立『命根』，生長勢分假建立者，由於禪定力量的緣故，不是『異熟』，是『等流』。又解釋說是生長，既然在『異熟』上假建立者是『異熟』，明確知道在生長上假建立者，也叫做生長。前一種解釋更為殊勝。其餘一切『異熟』勢分假建立者，都是『異熟』。如果縮短壽命的時候，只是轉變宿業諸根『大種』令不現前，不引取禪定力量諸根『大種』。《正理》駁斥說：而且不應該執著是生長性，因為它能夠防守『異熟』果報的緣故。所防守的『異熟』已經轉變窮盡的緣故，不應該『異熟』相續斷絕之後，唯獨有生長。俱舍師辯解說：有『異熟』的地方必定有生長，自有生長的地方卻沒有『異熟』，例如沒有眼睛的人，修得天眼。《正理》前文自己作這樣的說法，如何到後面又再生起？

【English Translation】 English version There are two types of 『Mahabhutas』 (Great Elements): one that accords with the continuation of life, and one that opposes the continuation of life. If one arises that accords with the continuation of life, it can benefit the body and maintain the continuation of life. If one arises that opposes the continuation of life, it can scatter and destroy the body and abandon the continuation of life. Question: Is the extended lifespan a result of 『Vipaka』 (karmic retribution)? The answer is: This is 『Nisyanda』 (a result similar to the cause). There is another type of 『Nisyanda』 called 『Jivitendriya』 (life force), which relies on the body due to the power of Samadhi (meditative concentration). It is not caused by speech or actions, clearly indicating that it is not 『Vipaka』. If it is not 『Vipaka』, there is a fault of contradicting the doctrine. If it is said to be the body itself, it is the same as the hypothetical assertion of the Sautrantikas (a Buddhist school), which is an incorrect doctrine of our own school. Another explanation is that it is 『Vipaka』. The intention of Myo-on (a commentator) is that the 『Jivitendriya』 that is drawn, although felt by present karma, or felt by past residual karma, or felt by indefinite karma, must be supported by the arising of those 『Mahabhutas』, supporting this body, and in accordance with the behavior of the continuation of life, then life can be extended. If explained in this way, it does not contradict the doctrine.

『It should be said in this way, until all are Vipaka』, this is the second narrative of the Sautrantika school's statement. The intention of the author of the treatise is to clarify the viewpoint of the Sautrantika school, so he says, 『It should be said in this way』. If extending life, that Arhat (enlightened being), by the power of this free Samadhi, transforms and removes the dwelling time and strength of the 『Vipaka』 of the roots and 『Mahabhutas』 born from past karma that was once obtained, and draws the dwelling time and strength of the roots and 『Mahabhutas』 that have not been obtained and are grown by the power of Samadhi. The Sautrantika teacher says that in terms of the meaning of the uninterrupted dwelling time and strength of the roots and 『Mahabhutas』, 『Jivitendriya』 is hypothetically established, and the growth strength is hypothetically established, because of the power of Samadhi, it is not 『Vipaka』, but 『Nisyanda』. Another explanation is that it is growth. Since what is hypothetically established on 『Vipaka』 is 『Vipaka』, it is clear that what is hypothetically established on growth is also called growth. The former explanation is more excellent. All other 『Vipaka』 strength hypothetically established are 『Vipaka』. If shortening life, only transform the roots and 『Mahabhutas』 of past karma so that they do not appear, and do not draw the roots and 『Mahabhutas』 of the power of Samadhi. The 『Nyaya』 (logic) refutes, saying: Moreover, it should not be insisted that it is of the nature of growth, because it can defend the 『Vipaka』 result. Because the 『Vipaka』 that is defended has already been transformed and exhausted, it should not be that after the continuous interruption of 『Vipaka』, there is only growth. The Kosa master defends, saying: Where there is 『Vipaka』, there must be growth, and where there is growth, there is no 『Vipaka』, such as a person without eyes who obtains divine eyes through cultivation. The 『Nyaya』 itself made such a statement in the previous text, how can it arise again later?

疑。

因論生論至留多壽行者。問。

謂為利益至二種堪能者。答。一為利益安樂他故。二為聖教久住世故。觀知自身壽行將盡。觀他無此二種堪能故留壽行。

復何因緣舍多壽行者。問。

彼阿羅漢至猶如舍眾病者答。彼阿羅漢。自觀住世於他利益安樂事少。又見聖教有人住持。或為病等苦逼自身　言病等者等取營事等四。故婆沙六十云。又契經說。由五因緣。令時解脫阿羅漢。退．隱沒．忘失。云何為五。一多營事業。二樂諸戲論。三好和斗諍。四喜涉長途。五身恒多病　引此頌意。明阿羅漢舍壽　梵行。謂持戒　聖道。謂無漏聖道。

此中應知至留舍壽行者。問處及人。

謂三洲人至無煩惱故者。答。三洲簡北洲等。就三洲中取女．男相續。簡扇搋等。就女．男中取不時解脫。簡時解脫。就不時解脫中取得邊際定。簡不得者。諸阿羅漢。簡異學人。由彼身中一有自在定。顯是利根。二無煩惱故顯諸惑盡。

經說世尊至命壽何別者。依經起問。

有言無別至名為命行者。答中有三。初解無別。壽釋命故。第二師解。先世業果名壽行。現在佈施業果名命行。第三師解。由此命根。令眾同分一期住為壽行。由此命根。令眾同分暫時延住。名為命行。

多言為

【現代漢語翻譯】疑。

因論生論至留多壽行者。問。

謂為利益至二種堪能者。答。一為利益安樂他故。二為聖教久住世故。觀知自身壽行將盡。觀他無此二種堪能故留壽行。

復何因緣舍多壽行者。問。

彼阿羅漢至猶如舍眾病者答。彼阿羅漢。自觀住世於他利益安樂事少。又見聖教有人住持。或為病等苦逼自身　言病等者等取營事等四。故婆沙六十云。又契經說。由五因緣。令時解脫阿羅漢（Arhat）。退．隱沒．忘失。云何為五。一多營事業。二樂諸戲論。三好和斗諍。四喜涉長途。五身恒多病　引此頌意。明阿羅漢舍壽　梵行。謂持戒　聖道。謂無漏聖道。

此中應知至留舍壽行者。問處及人。

謂三洲人至無煩惱故者。答。三洲簡北洲等。就三洲中取女．男相續。簡扇搋（Hermaphrodite）等。就女．男中取不時解脫。簡時解脫。就不時解脫中取得邊際定。簡不得者。諸阿羅漢。簡異學人。由彼身中一有自在定。顯是利根。二無煩惱故顯諸惑盡。

經說世尊至命壽何別者。依經起問。

有言無別至名為命行者。答中有三。初解無別。壽釋命故。第二師解。先世業果名壽行。現在佈施業果名命行。第三師解。由此命根。令眾同分一期住為壽行。由此命根。令眾同分暫時延住。名為命行。

多言為

【English Translation】 Doubt.

Because of the discussion, the debaters asked the venerable who remains in long life.

What is meant by 'for the benefit' to 'two kinds of capability'? Answer: First, it is for the benefit and happiness of others. Second, it is for the long-term existence of the Holy Teaching (Dharma). Observing that one's own life is about to end, and observing that others do not have these two kinds of capabilities, therefore one remains in long life.

For what reasons does one relinquish long life? Question.

That Arhat (Enlightened being) is like one who abandons many illnesses. Answer: That Arhat (Enlightened being), observing that their remaining in the world provides little benefit and happiness to others, and also seeing that there are people who uphold the Holy Teaching (Dharma), or being afflicted by suffering such as illness—'Illness, etc.' includes four things such as managing affairs. Therefore, the Vibhasha (Commentary) says in its sixtieth section: 'Also, the sutra says that due to five causes, an Arhat (Enlightened being) who is liberated in time will decline, disappear, and forget. What are the five? First, being overly engaged in managing affairs. Second, delighting in frivolous discussions. Third, enjoying harmony and disputes. Fourth, liking to travel long distances. Fifth, constantly having many illnesses.' This verse explains that Arhats (Enlightened beings) relinquish life. 'Pure conduct' means upholding precepts. 'Holy path' means the undefiled holy path.

In this context, one should know the place and person to ask about remaining in or relinquishing life.

It refers to the people of the three continents up to 'without煩惱(Klesha)'. Answer: 'Three continents' excludes 北洲(Uttarakuru) and others. Among the three continents, take the continuous stream of women and men, excluding 扇搋(Hermaphrodite) and others. Among women and men, take those who are not liberated in time, excluding those who are liberated in time. Among those who are not liberated in time, take those who have attained the border-line concentration, excluding those who have not attained it. All Arhats (Enlightened beings) exclude adherents of other teachings. Because in their bodies, first, there is自在定(Samadhi) , which shows sharp faculties. Second, because there is no 煩惱(Klesha), it shows that all delusions are exhausted.

The sutra says, 'The World Honored One (Bhagavan)' to 'What is the difference between life and lifespan?' This question arises based on the sutra.

Some say there is no difference up to 'is called life activity'. There are three answers. The first explanation is that there is no difference; lifespan explains life. The second teacher explains that the result of past karma is called lifespan, and the result of present giving is called life activity. The third teacher explains that due to this life force, the commonality of beings dwells for a period, which is lifespan. Due to this life force, the commonality of beings temporarily extends its dwelling, which is called life activity.

More words are

顯至不應言行者。別解多言。亦有三解。第一解云。此顯命壽留舍多念。非一剎那有留舍義。故婆沙云。多言顯示所留．所舍．非一剎那。行言顯示所留．所舍。是無常法　第二．說一切有部師解。有說。此多言為遮正量部。彼計有一命壽實體。經多時住。初起名生。終盡名滅。中間名住異。多言為顯留舍多念命行壽行。唸唸體別非一命壽經多時住　第三經部師。破說一切有部實命壽體有。經部師說。此多言為顯無一實命壽體。但於五蘊眾多行上。假立如是命．壽二名。故說多行。若謂不然。不應言行。但可應言留多命舍多壽。以此行是有為通名非唯命壽。

世尊何故至留多命行者。因解阿羅漢延．舍。復問世尊。

為顯于死至即便能住者。論主解。為顯于死得自在故。舍多壽行。或舍四十年。或舍二十年。故婆沙一百二十六云。經說世尊留多命行。舍多壽行。其義云何。有作是說。諸佛世尊舍第三分壽。有作是說。諸佛世尊舍第五分壽。若說諸佛舍第三分壽者。彼說世尊釋迦牟尼壽量。應住百二十歲。舍后四十但受八十。問佛出世時。此洲人壽不過一百歲。何故世尊釋迦牟尼壽百二十。答如佛色力種姓．富貴．徒眾．智見勝餘有情。壽量亦應過眾人故。若說諸佛舍第五分壽者。彼說世尊釋迦牟尼所感壽

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『顯至不應言行者。別解多言。亦有三解。』這句話的意思是，對於『顯至』這種不應該用『言行』來表達的情況，有多種不同的解釋，其中『多言』有三種解釋。第一種解釋是，這裡的『多言』顯示了生命和壽命的留存和捨棄包含多個念頭，並非一個剎那間就能完成留存和捨棄的動作。所以《婆沙論》中說，『多言』顯示了所留存和所捨棄的，並非一個剎那。『行言』顯示了所留存和所捨棄的是無常法。第二種解釋是，說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的論師認為，這個『多言』是爲了反駁正量部（Sammitīya）。正量部認為存在一個命壽的實體，可以持續很長時間。最初產生叫做『生』，最終消亡叫做『滅』，中間狀態叫做『住異』。『多言』是爲了顯示留存和捨棄包含多個念頭的命行和壽行，每個念頭的體性都是不同的，並非一個命壽可以持續很長時間。第三種解釋是，經部（Sautrāntika）的論師反駁說一切有部關於命壽實體存在的觀點。經部論師認為，這個『多言』是爲了顯示沒有一個真實的命壽實體，只是在五蘊（skandha）的眾多行之上，假立了命和壽這兩個名稱。所以說是『多行』。如果不是這樣，就不應該說『言行』，而應該說『留多命舍多壽』。因為『行』是有為法的通用名稱，並非僅僅指命壽。

『世尊何故至留多命行者。因解阿羅漢延．舍。復問世尊。』這句話的意思是，世尊為什麼會說到留存多個命行呢？這是因為要解釋阿羅漢（Arhat）的延壽和舍壽，所以又問了世尊。

『為顯于死至即便能住者。』論主的解釋是，爲了顯示對於死亡能夠自在，所以捨棄多個壽行，或者捨棄四十年，或者捨棄二十年。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十六卷中說，經中說世尊留存多個命行，捨棄多個壽行，是什麼意思呢？有人這樣解釋，諸佛世尊捨棄三分之一的壽命。也有人這樣解釋，諸佛世尊捨棄五分之一的壽命。如果說諸佛捨棄三分之一的壽命，那麼就是說世尊釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni）的壽命本來應該是一百二十歲，捨棄了後面的四十年，只活了八十年。有人問，佛出世的時候，這個洲的人的壽命不超過一百歲，為什麼世尊釋迦牟尼的壽命是一百二十歲呢？回答說，就像佛的色身、力量、種姓、富貴、徒眾、智見勝過其他有情一樣，他的壽命也應該超過眾人。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Manifestly, one should not speak of actions and conduct. Different interpretations of 『many words.』 There are also three interpretations. The first interpretation says that 『many words』 here show that the retention and abandonment of life and lifespan involve many thoughts. It is not a matter of retaining and abandoning in a single instant. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā states, 『Many words』 show what is retained and what is abandoned, not in a single instant. 『Actions and conduct』 show that what is retained and what is abandoned are impermanent dharmas (laws).』 The second interpretation is from the Sarvāstivāda masters. Some say that these 『many words』 are to refute the Sammitīya school. They posit that there is a real entity of life and lifespan that lasts for a long time. Its initial arising is called 『birth,』 its final cessation is called 『death,』 and the intermediate state is called 『duration and change.』『Many words』 are to show that the retention and abandonment involve many thoughts of life-actions and lifespan-actions. Each thought is distinct in nature, not a single life and lifespan lasting for a long time. The third interpretation is from the Sautrāntika masters, refuting the Sarvāstivāda』s view of a real entity of life and lifespan. The Sautrāntika masters say that these 『many words』 are to show that there is no real entity of life and lifespan. It is merely a provisional establishment of the names 『life』 and 『lifespan』 upon the many actions of the five skandhas (aggregates). Therefore, it is said 『many actions.』 If it were not so, one should not say 『actions and conduct,』 but rather 『retain much life and abandon much lifespan.』 Because 『action』 is a general term for conditioned dharmas, not solely referring to life and lifespan.

『Why did the World-Honored One speak of retaining many life-actions? Because of explaining the prolongation and abandonment of an Arhat』s (Arhat) life. Again, ask the World-Honored One.』 This means, why did the World-Honored One speak of retaining multiple life-actions? This is because it is to explain the prolongation and abandonment of an Arhat』s lifespan, so the question is asked to the World-Honored One.

『To show that even when death arrives, one can still abide.』 The commentator explains, 『To show that one has freedom over death, therefore abandoning many lifespan-actions, either abandoning forty years or abandoning twenty years.』 Therefore, Vibhāṣā 126 says, 『The sutra says that the World-Honored One retains many life-actions and abandons many lifespan-actions. What does it mean? Some say that the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, abandon one-third of their lifespan. Others say that the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, abandon one-fifth of their lifespan. If it is said that the Buddhas abandon one-third of their lifespan, then it means that the lifespan of the World-Honored One Śākyamuni (Śākyamuni) should have been one hundred and twenty years, abandoning the last forty years and only living eighty years. Someone asks, 『When the Buddha appeared in the world, the lifespan of people in this continent did not exceed one hundred years. Why was the lifespan of the World-Honored One Śākyamuni one hundred and twenty years?』 The answer is, 『Just as the Buddha』s physical form, strength, lineage, wealth, retinue, and wisdom surpass other sentient beings, his lifespan should also exceed that of others.』

量應住百歲。舍后二十但受八十。問諸佛色力種姓．富貴．徒眾．智見勝餘有情。何故壽量與眾人等。答生在爾所壽量時故。由此經云。舍壽行者。謂舍四十或二十歲　正理三十二同婆沙后師。為顯于活得自在故。留多命行。唯留三月不增減者。越此更無所化事故。所以不增。減此利生不究竟故。所以不減。故世尊最後說法。度蘇跋陀羅。此云善賢。又為成立世尊先自稱言我善修行四神足故。于定自在延．促任情。欲住一劫或一劫餘。如心所期則便能住。

毗婆沙師至煩惱魔故者。第二解佛留．舍。蘊魔意欲留連行者。多時住世相續不斷。死魔意故催促行者。令不住世速歸無常。如來舍壽顯伏蘊魔。復留三月顯伏死魔。世尊先於菩提樹下。已伏天魔．煩惱魔故。留．舍正顯伏蘊．死魔。義便兼顯伏天．煩惱。總明如來伏四魔也　又解若不延．促唯破二魔。顯佛世尊具破四魔故令延．促。

傍論已竟至是有記故者。憂善．不善。信等五根及三無漏。此八唯善。皆非異熟。是有記故。

余皆通二至余皆異熟者。餘十二根皆通二類。七有色根若所長養則非異熟。余皆異熟。四受即是苦．樂．喜．舍。意及四受。若善．染污非異熟。言威儀路．工巧處者。此舉所依顯能依也。名如下釋。意及舍受。若威儀路

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果應該活到一百歲，捨棄（壽命）后只剩下二十歲，但接受八十歲。問：諸佛在色身、力量、種姓、富貴、徒眾、智見上都勝過其他有情，為什麼壽命和普通人一樣？答：因為生存在那個壽命的時段。因此經中說：『舍壽行者』，是指捨棄四十年或二十年（的壽命）。《正理》三十二同《婆沙》后師的觀點，爲了顯示對於活著的自在，所以留下較多的壽命。唯獨留下三個月不多不少，是因為超過這個時間就沒有可以度化的事情了，所以不增加；減少這個時間，利益眾生就不夠徹底，所以不減少。所以世尊最後說法，度化了蘇跋陀羅（Subhadra，善賢）。又爲了成立世尊先前自己宣稱的『我善於修行四神足』，所以在禪定中自在地延長或縮短壽命，想住一劫（kalpa，極長的時間單位）或超過一劫，如心中所愿就能住下去。

毗婆沙師認為，『至煩惱魔故』，第二種解釋是佛陀留下或捨棄壽命的原因。蘊魔（Skandha-mara）希望修行者長時間住世，相續不斷；死魔（Mrtyu-mara）則催促修行者，令其不住世，迅速歸於無常。如來捨棄壽命，是顯示降伏蘊魔；留下三個月，是顯示降伏死魔。世尊先前在菩提樹下，已經降伏了天魔（Deva-mara）、煩惱魔（Klesha-mara），所以留下或捨棄壽命，主要顯示降伏蘊魔、死魔，其意義也兼顧顯示降伏天魔、煩惱魔。總而言之，是說明如來降伏了四魔。

又一種解釋是，如果不延長或縮短壽命，就只能破除二魔，而顯示佛世尊具足破除四魔的能力，所以要延長或縮短壽命。

旁論已經結束，『至是有記故』，憂、善、不善，信等五根（五種產生善法的能力）以及三種無漏根（三種超越世間的智慧），這八種都是善的，都不是異熟果（Vipaka，由業力產生的果報），因為是有記（Vyakrta，可以明確區分善惡的）。

『余皆通二至余皆異熟者』，其餘十二根都通於二類（善與不善）。七有色根（七種色法根）如果是所長養的，就不是異熟果，其餘都是異熟果。四受（四種感受）即是苦、樂、喜、舍。意根（Manas，意識）以及四受，如果是善或染污的，就不是異熟果。說到威儀路、工巧處，這是舉出所依，來顯示能依。名稱如下解釋。意根以及舍受，如果是威儀路（的行為）

【English Translation】 English version: If one should live to be a hundred years old, after relinquishing (lifespan), only twenty years remain, but accepts eighty years. Question: The Buddhas surpass other sentient beings in form, strength, lineage, wealth, retinue, wisdom, and insight. Why is their lifespan the same as ordinary people? Answer: Because they are born in that lifespan's period. Therefore, the sutra says: 'The practitioner who relinquishes lifespan' refers to relinquishing forty or twenty years (of lifespan). The view of the thirty-second Nyaya (Nyaya, logical text) is the same as the later teachers of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary). To show the freedom of living, more lifespan is left. Leaving only three months, no more and no less, is because there is nothing more to be converted beyond this time, so it is not increased; reducing this time, benefiting sentient beings would not be thorough, so it is not reduced. Therefore, the World-Honored One preached the Dharma for the last time, converting Subhadra (Subhadra, 'Good Virtue'). Also, to establish the World-Honored One's previous self-proclamation, 'I am good at cultivating the Four Divine Feet (catvāro ṛddhipādāḥ, the four bases of spiritual power)', so in meditation, one can freely extend or shorten lifespan, wanting to stay for a kalpa (kalpa, an extremely long unit of time) or more than a kalpa, one can stay as desired.

The Vibhasa masters believe that 'because of the affliction-mara (Klesha-mara)', the second explanation is the reason for the Buddha leaving or relinquishing lifespan. The Skandha-mara (Skandha-mara, the demon of the aggregates) hopes that practitioners will live in the world for a long time, continuously; the Mrtyu-mara (Mrtyu-mara, the demon of death) urges practitioners to not stay in the world and quickly return to impermanence. The Tathagata relinquishing lifespan is to show the subduing of the Skandha-mara; leaving three months is to show the subduing of the Mrtyu-mara. The World-Honored One had previously subdued the Deva-mara (Deva-mara, the demon of the heavens) and the Klesha-mara under the Bodhi tree, so leaving or relinquishing lifespan mainly shows the subduing of the Skandha-mara and the Mrtyu-mara, and its meaning also includes showing the subduing of the Deva-mara and the Klesha-mara. In summary, it explains that the Tathagata subdued the Four Maras.

Another explanation is that if lifespan is not extended or shortened, only two maras can be broken, but to show that the World-Honored Buddha has the ability to break all four maras, so lifespan must be extended or shortened.

The digression is over, 'to is Vyakrta (Vyakrta, can be clearly distinguished between good and evil)', worry, good, non-good, the five roots of faith, etc. (five abilities to generate good dharmas) and the three non-outflow roots (three kinds of wisdom beyond the world), these eight are all good, and are not Vipaka (Vipaka, retribution from karma), because they are Vyakrta.

'The rest all connect to two to the rest are all Vipaka', the remaining twelve roots all connect to two types (good and non-good). The seven material roots (seven kinds of material roots), if they are nurtured, are not Vipaka, the rest are all Vipaka. The four feelings (four kinds of feelings) are suffering, pleasure, joy, and equanimity. The Manas (Manas, consciousness) and the four feelings, if they are good or defiled, are not Vipaka. Speaking of deportment and skillful actions, this is to cite the basis to show the ability to rely on. The name is explained below. The Manas and equanimity, if it is deportment (behavior)

．工巧處非異熟　問何故不通苦．樂．喜根。

答婆沙一百四十四。解苦根通三性中雲。云何無記。謂無記作意相應苦根。此復云何。謂異熟生(已上論文)　婆沙苦根。四無記中但云異熟不云餘三。明知苦根不通威儀．工巧。苦根既不通威儀．工巧。準知樂根亦不通彼。喜根有二。一者分別。二者任運。若分別強者。唯同憂根不通無記。若任運者。四無記中唯是異熟。不通餘三。以此準知。但是威儀．工巧處心。唯是舍根不通苦．樂．喜根　又解意及喜．舍。若威儀路．工巧處非異熟。憂強分別可唯善．惡。喜通無記。有非過強復唯意地。故知喜亦通威儀．工巧。但不通苦．樂。苦．樂五識不能發業。第三定樂雖在意地。非尋．伺俱。亦非發業　又解意．苦．樂．喜．舍。若威儀路．工巧處非異熟。若據起威儀．工巧心。六識之中唯意識。四受之中唯喜．舍。不通苦．樂。以苦．樂受不能發業。如前釋。若據威儀路加行心．緣威儀路心。亦通四識。似威儀路心亦通五識。若據工巧處加行心．緣工巧處心。似工巧處心。亦通五識。故言威儀．工巧亦通苦樂　問何故婆沙苦根但言異熟。不言威儀．工巧解云。婆沙據起威儀．工巧心說故。不云苦根通威儀．工巧。今據加行．緣．似故亦說通。言加行．緣．似者。若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『工巧處非異熟』，問：為什麼（威儀路和工巧處）不通苦、樂、喜根？

答：根據《婆沙論》第一百四十四卷的解釋，關於苦根通於三性（善、惡、無記）中說：『什麼是無記？是指與無記作意相應的苦根。』這又是什麼呢？是指異熟生（以上是論文原文）。《婆沙論》中關於苦根，在四種無記中只說了異熟，沒有說其餘三種（威儀、工巧、通果）。這表明苦根不通於威儀和工巧。既然苦根不通威儀和工巧，那麼可以推知樂根也不通於它們。喜根有兩種：一是分別，二是任運。如果分別心強，那麼就只和憂根相同，不通於無記。如果是任運，那麼在四種無記中就只是異熟，不通於其餘三種。由此可以推知，只是威儀和工巧處的心，只是舍根，不通於苦、樂、喜根。又解釋說，意以及喜、舍，如果是威儀路和工巧處，不是異熟，憂是強烈的分別，可能只是善或惡。喜通於無記，有不是過分強烈的，也只是意地。所以知道喜也通於威儀和工巧，但不通於苦和樂。苦和樂是五識，不能發業。第三禪的樂雖然在意地，但不是尋和伺同時存在，也不是發業。又解釋說，意、苦、樂、喜、舍，如果是威儀路和工巧處，不是異熟。如果根據生起威儀和工巧的心來說，六識之中只有意識，四受之中只有喜和舍，不通於苦和樂。因為苦和樂受不能發業，如前面的解釋。如果根據威儀路的加行心、緣威儀路的心，也通於四識。相似威儀路的心也通於五識。如果根據工巧處的加行心、緣工巧處的心，相似工巧處的心，也通於五識。所以說威儀和工巧也通於苦樂。問：為什麼《婆沙論》中關於苦根只說了異熟，沒有說威儀和工巧？解釋說：《婆沙論》是根據生起威儀和工巧的心說的，所以沒有說苦根通於威儀和工巧。現在根據加行、緣、相似，所以也說通。所說的加行、緣、相似，如果……』

【English Translation】 English version 『Skillful actions are not the result of different maturation.』 Question: Why do they not extend to the roots of suffering, pleasure, and joy?

Answer: According to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 144, in the explanation of the root of suffering extending to the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), it says: 『What is neutral? It refers to the root of suffering that corresponds to neutral attention.』 What is this again? It refers to that which is born from different maturation (vipāka-ja) (the above is the original text). In the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra concerning the root of suffering, among the four types of neutral (states), it only mentions different maturation and does not mention the other three (demeanor, skillful actions, and universal result). This clearly indicates that the root of suffering does not extend to demeanor and skillful actions. Since the root of suffering does not extend to demeanor and skillful actions, it can be inferred that the root of pleasure also does not extend to them. There are two types of joy root: one is discrimination (vikalpa), and the other is spontaneous (nirnimitta). If discrimination is strong, then it is only the same as the root of sorrow and does not extend to the neutral. If it is spontaneous, then among the four types of neutral (states), it is only different maturation and does not extend to the other three. From this, it can be inferred that only the mind in demeanor and skillful actions is the root of equanimity, and it does not extend to the roots of suffering, pleasure, and joy. Furthermore, it is explained that intention (manas) and joy, equanimity, if they are demeanor and skillful actions, are not the result of different maturation. Sorrow is strong discrimination and may only be wholesome or unwholesome. Joy extends to the neutral, and if it is not excessively strong, it is only in the mental realm (manodhātu). Therefore, it is known that joy also extends to demeanor and skillful actions, but it does not extend to suffering and pleasure. Suffering and pleasure are the five consciousnesses (vijñāna) and cannot generate karma. The pleasure of the third dhyana, although in the mental realm, is not accompanied by both initial thought (vitarka) and sustained thought (vicāra), nor does it generate karma. Furthermore, it is explained that intention, suffering, pleasure, joy, and equanimity, if they are demeanor and skillful actions, are not the result of different maturation. If based on the mind that arises from demeanor and skillful actions, among the six consciousnesses, only consciousness (vijñāna), and among the four feelings (vedanā), only joy and equanimity, do not extend to suffering and pleasure. Because suffering and pleasure cannot generate karma, as explained earlier. If based on the preparatory mind (prayoga-citta) of demeanor, the mind that conditions demeanor, it also extends to the four consciousnesses. The mind similar to demeanor also extends to the five consciousnesses. If based on the preparatory mind of skillful actions, the mind that conditions skillful actions, the mind similar to skillful actions, it also extends to the five consciousnesses. Therefore, it is said that demeanor and skillful actions also extend to suffering and pleasure. Question: Why does the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra only mention different maturation regarding the root of suffering and not mention demeanor and skillful actions? It is explained that the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra speaks based on the mind that arises from demeanor and skillful actions, so it does not say that the root of suffering extends to demeanor and skillful actions. Now, based on preparation, condition, and similarity, it is also said to extend. What is meant by preparation, condition, and similarity? If...

四識是威儀路加行名威儀路加行心。或緣威儀路名緣威儀路心。若五識泛緣外境名似威儀路心。又如二定已上泛爾起下三識。隨其所應加行．緣．似名威儀路心。身生上地不得起下善．染污心。異熟生心異地不起。泛借起者復非通果。上地復無工巧又非意地非是能起威儀路心。不是加行．緣．似威儀路心。更是何心。若五識是工巧處加行名工巧處心。或緣工巧處名緣工巧處心。若泛爾緣外境名似工巧處心。言能變化者。意及舍受若能變化非異熟。不通苦．樂．喜根　問苦唯五識可言不通。樂．喜亦通意地。何故不說　解云諸論解十八意近行中皆云。若生色界。唯成欲界一舍法近行。謂通果心俱(已上論文)　以此故知。不通喜．樂　又解意．喜．樂．舍。若能變化非異熟。但非苦根。唯五識故　問若通喜．樂。意近行中生上成下。何故不言　解云舍是中庸。起時稍易。生上可言成下。喜．樂非是中庸。起時稍難。生上不能成下。故但言舍不言喜．樂。以實余時亦有成就　或可。此文應言通果。而言能變化者。且舉通果心中一分。如解非得言異生性。通果有二。一在意地如變化心。二在五識如眼．耳通　問能變化心與受相應。可如前釋。未審。二通何受相應。為樂。為舍。若云樂相應者。異生生第四定起下二通。應成下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本四識（指眼、耳、鼻、舌四種感官的意識）是威儀路加行（指爲了某種行為而做的準備）時產生的，可以稱為威儀路加行心（指準備行為時的心理活動）。或者，當意識專注于威儀路時，可以稱為緣威儀路心（指專注於行為的心理活動）。如果五識（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感官的意識）泛泛地感知外境，則可以稱為似威儀路心（指類似於專注於行為的心理活動）。此外，例如在二禪以上的境界中，如果泛泛地生起較低的三識（指眼、耳、鼻三種感官的意識），根據具體情況，可以分別稱為加行、緣、似威儀路心。在較高的禪定境界中，身體無法生起較低層次的善心或染污心。由異熟（指業力的果報）所生的心，在不同的境界中無法生起。如果泛泛地借用而生起，則並非通果（指修行所獲得的普遍性的果報）。而且，較高的境界中沒有工巧（指精巧的技藝），也不是意地（指意識的活動範圍），因此無法生起威儀路心。這既不是加行、緣、也不是似威儀路心，那麼這又是什麼心呢？如果五識在工巧處（指精巧的技藝）的加行時產生，可以稱為工巧處心。或者，當意識專注于工巧處時，可以稱為緣工巧處心。如果泛泛地感知外境，則可以稱為似工巧處心。說到能夠變化的心，指的是意（指意識）以及舍受（指不苦不樂的感受），如果能夠變化，就不是異熟。它不包括苦、樂、喜三種感受。問：苦受只與五識相關，可以理解為不包括在意地。但是，樂受和喜受也與意地相關，為什麼不說呢？答：各種論典在解釋十八意近行（指十八種與意識相關的修行）時都說，如果生起**，就只能成就欲界的一種舍受法近行。這指的是通果心（指修行所獲得的普遍性的果報）同時存在（以上是論文的內容）。因此可知，它不包括喜受和樂受。另一種解釋是，意、喜、樂、舍，如果能夠變化，就不是異熟，但它不包括苦受，因為苦受只與五識相關。問：如果包括喜受和樂受，那麼在意近行中，生起上界的心，成就地獄的心，為什麼不說呢？答：舍受是中庸的，生起時比較容易。生起上界的心可以說成就地獄的心。喜受和樂受不是中庸的，生起時比較困難。生起上界的心不能成就地獄的心。所以只說舍受，不說喜受和樂受。實際上，在其他時候也有成就。或者，這段文字應該說的是通果，而說到能夠變化，只是舉了通果心中的一部分。例如，解釋非得時說的是異生性。通果有兩種，一種在意地，如變化心；另一種在五識，如眼、耳通。問：能夠變化的心與感受相應，可以像前面那樣解釋。但是，這兩種通（指眼通和耳通）與什麼感受相應呢？是樂受還是舍受？如果說是樂受相應，那麼異生（指凡夫）生起第四禪定時，生起較低的兩種通，應該成就地獄的心。

【English Translation】 English version The four consciousnesses (referring to the consciousnesses of the eye, ear, nose, and tongue) arise during the preparatory actions of dignified conduct, and can be called 'dignified conduct preparatory mind' (referring to the psychological activity during the preparation for an action). Alternatively, when consciousness focuses on dignified conduct, it can be called 'mind focused on dignified conduct' (referring to the psychological activity focused on the action). If the five consciousnesses (referring to the consciousnesses of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) vaguely perceive external objects, it can be called 'mind similar to dignified conduct' (referring to the psychological activity similar to focusing on an action). Furthermore, for example, in the realms above the second Dhyana (meditative state), if the lower three consciousnesses (referring to the consciousnesses of the eye, ear, and nose) vaguely arise, they can be respectively called preparatory, focused, or similar to dignified conduct mind, depending on the specific situation. In higher meditative states, the body cannot generate lower-level wholesome or defiled minds. The mind born from Vipaka (karmic retribution) cannot arise in different realms. If it vaguely arises by borrowing, then it is not a Sarvatraga-phala (universal result, referring to the universal results obtained through practice). Moreover, there is no skillful activity in higher realms, and it is not the realm of mind (referring to the scope of mental activity), so it cannot generate dignified conduct mind. This is neither preparatory, focused, nor similar to dignified conduct mind, so what kind of mind is it? If the five consciousnesses arise during the preparatory actions of skillful activity, it can be called 'skillful activity mind'. Alternatively, when consciousness focuses on skillful activity, it can be called 'mind focused on skillful activity'. If it vaguely perceives external objects, it can be called 'mind similar to skillful activity'. When it is said that the mind is capable of transformation, it refers to the mind (consciousness) and Upeksha (equanimity, referring to the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain). If it is capable of transformation, it is not Vipaka. It does not include the feelings of suffering, pleasure, and joy. Question: Suffering is only related to the five consciousnesses, so it can be understood as not being included in the realm of mind. However, pleasure and joy are also related to the realm of mind, so why is it not mentioned? Answer: Various treatises explain that in the eighteen mental near-attainments (referring to the eighteen practices related to consciousness), if ** arises, it can only accomplish one Upeksha-dharma near-attainment of the desire realm. This refers to the Sarvatraga-phala mind (universal result obtained through practice) existing simultaneously (the above is the content of the treatise). Therefore, it can be known that it does not include joy and pleasure. Another explanation is that mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity, if capable of transformation, are not Vipaka, but it does not include suffering, because suffering is only related to the five consciousnesses. Question: If it includes joy and pleasure, then in the mental near-attainments, when the mind of the higher realm arises, accomplishing the mind of the lower realm, why is it not mentioned? Answer: Equanimity is neutral, and it is easier to arise. When the mind of the higher realm arises, it can be said to accomplish the mind of the lower realm. Joy and pleasure are not neutral, and it is more difficult to arise. When the mind of the higher realm arises, it cannot accomplish the mind of the lower realm. Therefore, only equanimity is mentioned, not joy and pleasure. In reality, there are also accomplishments at other times. Alternatively, this passage should be referring to Sarvatraga-phala, and when it is said that it is capable of transformation, it is only citing a part of the Sarvatraga-phala mind. For example, when explaining non-attainment, it refers to the nature of ordinary beings. There are two types of Sarvatraga-phala, one in the realm of mind, such as the transformation mind; the other in the five consciousnesses, such as the divine eye (Divyacakṣus) and divine ear (Divyaśrotra). Question: The mind capable of transformation is associated with feelings, which can be explained as before. However, what feelings are the two divine powers (Divyacakṣus and Divyaśrotra) associated with? Are they associated with pleasure or equanimity? If it is said that they are associated with pleasure, then when an ordinary being arises in the fourth Dhyana, the lower two divine powers arise, and the mind of the lower realm should be accomplished.

樂。若成下樂即違論文。故下論云。樂根異生生第四定及無色界。定不成就(已上論文)　如何得與樂相應耶　若言舍相應者。論說五通依四根本定。又準正理婆沙。根本地中無有舍受(引文如下)　如何得與舍相應耶　解云。二通但與舍根相應　問前難善通。后難云何　解云。論說二通依根本定者。意說二通依本定得。非即是彼根本地攝。如欲化心依本定得。非本定收。二通亦爾。或據二通無間道說。或據二通所依根說言依本定。亦無有失。若要執文即為定者。論說五通依四靜慮。二通應亦上三定收　又解二通樂．舍相應　問前之二難云何釋通　解云舍根雖非根本地攝。依根本得如前通釋。身生上地起下二通。但舍非樂。舍是中庸起時稍易故。生上起下。樂非中庸起時稍難。故生上不起下。又如異生生第四定。泛爾起下三識但起舍根不起樂根。二通亦爾。故與彼文皆不相違　又空法師亦說二通樂．舍相應　言隨其所應者。三無記心。受相應異故言隨應。非是異熟。余皆異熟。

若說憂根至順舍受業者。問。經言順憂受業。明知憂是異熟。

依受相應至說名順樂受觸者。答。經言順憂受業。約相應中順非據前後。如順樂受觸。

若爾順喜至一經說故者難若爾。順喜受業．順舍受業。亦應如是。由彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果成就地獄的快樂，就違背了論著的說法。所以下面的論著說：『樂根的異生能夠生起第四禪定以及無想定，但樂根的禪定不能成就。』（以上是論著原文）如何能夠與快樂相應呢？如果說是與舍受相應，論著又說五神通依靠四根本定。而且根據《正理婆沙》的說法，根本地中沒有舍受（引文如下）。如何能夠與舍受相應呢？解釋說：二神通只是與舍根相應。問：前面的難題容易解釋，後面的難題如何解釋呢？解釋說：論著說二神通依靠根本定，意思是說二神通依靠根本定而獲得，並非就是屬於那個根本地所包含的。如同欲界化生心依靠根本定而獲得，但並非被根本定所包含，二神通也是這樣。或者根據二神通的無間道來說，或者根據二神通所依靠的根來說，所以說依靠根本定，也沒有什麼過失。如果一定要執著文字，認為就是禪定本身，論著說五神通依靠四靜慮，那麼二神通也應該被上三禪定所包含。又解釋說二神通與樂受、舍受相應。問：前面的兩個難題如何解釋呢？解釋說：舍根雖然不是根本地所包含的，但依靠根本定而獲得，如同前面所解釋的。身體生於上地，生起地獄的二神通，只有舍受而沒有樂受。舍受是中庸的，生起時稍微容易，所以生於上地可以生起地獄的二神通。樂受不是中庸的，生起時稍微困難，所以生於上地不能生起地獄的二神通。又如同異生生於第四禪定，普遍地生起地獄的三識，但只生起舍根而不生起樂根，二神通也是這樣。所以與那些經文都沒有相違背。又有空法師也說二神通與樂受、舍受相應。說『隨其所應』，是指三種無記心，受的相應不同，所以說『隨應』，不是異熟。其餘的都是異熟。如果說憂根直到順舍受業，問：經文說順憂受業，明明知道憂是異熟。依靠受相應直到說名為順樂受觸，答：經文說順憂受業，是就相應中的順來說的，不是根據前後順序。如同順樂受觸。如果這樣，順喜直到一經所說，難：如果這樣，順喜受業、順舍受業，也應該這樣。因為那些...

【English Translation】 English version: If lower realm pleasure is achieved, it contradicts the statements in the treatises. Therefore, the following treatise states: 'A sentient being (異生, yìshēng) with the root of pleasure can generate the fourth Dhyana (禪定, chándìng) and the state of non-perception (無想定, wúxiǎngdìng), but the Dhyana of the root of pleasure cannot be achieved.' (The above is the original text of the treatise.) How can it be associated with pleasure? If it is said to be associated with equanimity (舍受, shěshòu), the treatise also states that the five supernormal powers (五神通, wǔ shéntōng) rely on the four fundamental Dhyanas. Moreover, according to the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (正理婆沙, Zhènglǐ Póshā), there is no equanimity in the fundamental ground (引文如下). How can it be associated with equanimity? The explanation is: the two supernormal powers are only associated with the root of equanimity. Question: The previous difficulty is easy to explain, but how to explain the latter difficulty? Explanation: The treatise says that the two supernormal powers rely on the fundamental Dhyana, meaning that the two supernormal powers are obtained by relying on the fundamental Dhyana, but they are not included in that fundamental ground. Just as the mind of transformation in the desire realm is obtained by relying on the fundamental Dhyana, but it is not included in the fundamental Dhyana, the two supernormal powers are also like this. Or, according to the immediate path (無間道, wújiàndào) of the two supernormal powers, or according to the root on which the two supernormal powers rely, it is said that they rely on the fundamental Dhyana, and there is no fault. If one must adhere to the text and consider it to be the Dhyana itself, the treatise says that the five supernormal powers rely on the four dhyanas (靜慮, jìnglǜ), then the two supernormal powers should also be included in the upper three dhyanas. Another explanation is that the two supernormal powers are associated with pleasure and equanimity. Question: How to explain the previous two difficulties? Explanation: Although the root of equanimity is not included in the fundamental ground, it is obtained by relying on the fundamental Dhyana, as explained earlier. The body is born in the upper realm, and the two supernormal powers of the lower realm arise, but there is only equanimity and no pleasure. Equanimity is neutral, and it is slightly easier to arise, so being born in the upper realm can give rise to the two supernormal powers of the lower realm. Pleasure is not neutral, and it is slightly more difficult to arise, so being born in the upper realm cannot give rise to the two supernormal powers of the lower realm. Also, just as a sentient being born in the fourth dhyana universally generates the three consciousnesses of the lower realm, but only the root of equanimity arises and not the root of pleasure, the two supernormal powers are also like this. Therefore, there is no contradiction with those scriptures. Also, the Dharma master Kong (空法師, Kōng Fǎshī) also said that the two supernormal powers are associated with pleasure and equanimity. Saying 'according to what is appropriate' refers to the three indeterminate (無記, wújì) minds, the association of feelings is different, so it is said 'according to what is appropriate', not the result of different maturation (異熟, yìshú). The rest are all the result of different maturation. If it is said that the root of sorrow leads to karma that accords with equanimity, question: The scripture says karma that accords with sorrow, clearly knowing that sorrow is the result of different maturation. Relying on the association of feelings until it is said to be called contact that accords with pleasure, answer: The scripture says karma that accords with sorrow, which is said to accord in the association, not according to the order of before and after. Like contact that accords with pleasure. If so, joy until one scripture says, difficulty: If so, karma that accords with joy, karma that accords with equanimity, should also be like this. Because those...

憂根相應中順非是異熟。以與憂根一經說故。

隨汝所欲至理皆無失者。通隨汝所欲於我無違。喜．舍二受或約異熟明．順。或約相應明順。理皆無失。

無逃難處至憂非異熟者。復難無逃難處作此通經。理實何因憂非異熟。

以憂分別至異熟不爾者。復以理通。以憂分別差別所生。若止息時。亦分別而息。故言止息亦然。言差別者。眾多不如意事名為差別。憂根緣此差別所生。

若爾喜根至生及息故者。復難。若爾喜根應非異熟。亦由分別生。亦由分別息。

若許憂根至應名果已熟者。返徴前難。若許憂根是異熟者。造五無間業已。因即生憂。此業爾時應名果已熟。

亦應如是至果已熟者。復返例喜。難意可知。

毗婆沙師至故非異熟者。毗婆沙師。復為好解咸作是說。已離欲者無憂根故。以彼憂根離欲舍故。異熟不然非離欲舍故。說憂根非是異熟。

若爾應說至何相知有者。復難。若爾。應說離欲有情。于欲界中異熟喜根何相知有。

隨彼有相至定非異熟者。復通。謂善喜根。此離欲位容有故。言隨彼有相。此無記異熟喜。應類非無。故言此相亦然。於此離欲位中。憂。一切種若善．若染。無容有故。皆不現行。已離欲者無憂愁故。所以不行。由此準知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『憂根相應中順非是異熟。以與憂根一經說故。』——在與憂根相應的狀態中，順（vedanānuparivattana）並非異熟（vipāka），因為經典中是這樣說的，它與憂根是同時發生的。

『隨汝所欲至理皆無失者。通隨汝所欲於我無違。喜．舍二受或約異熟明．順。或約相應明順。理皆無失。』——『隨汝所欲』（隨你的意願）的說法，在道理上都沒有錯。可以這樣理解，『隨汝所欲』對我來說沒有衝突。喜受（somanassa）和舍受（upekkhā）這兩種感受，或者從異熟的角度來說明『順』，或者從相應的角度來說明『順』，在道理上都沒有錯。

『無逃難處至憂非異熟者。復難無逃難處作此通經。理實何因憂非異熟。』——『無逃難處』（沒有逃脫之處）的說法，如果說憂不是異熟，那麼就很難找到沒有逃脫之處來解釋這部經。實際上，憂不是異熟的原因是什麼呢？

『以憂分別至異熟不爾者。復以理通。以憂分別差別所生。若止息時。亦分別而息。故言止息亦然。言差別者。眾多不如意事名為差別。憂根緣此差別所生。』——可以用道理來解釋。憂是由分別（vikalpa）和差別（visesa）所產生的。如果憂止息的時候，也是通過分別而止息的，所以說止息也是這樣。所說的『差別』，是指眾多不如意的事情被稱為差別。憂根是緣于這些差別而產生的。

『若爾喜根至生及息故者。復難。若爾喜根應非異熟。亦由分別生。亦由分別息。』——如果這樣，那麼喜根也應該不是異熟，因為它也是由分別而生，也是由分別而息。

『若許憂根至應名果已熟者。返徴前難。若許憂根是異熟者。造五無間業已。因即生憂。此業爾時應名果已熟。』——反過來提出之前的難題。如果承認憂根是異熟，那麼造了五無間業（pāñcānantarya）之後，因立即產生憂，那麼這個業在當時就應該被稱為果已經成熟。

『亦應如是至果已熟者。復返例喜。難意可知。』——也應該像這樣，反過來用喜根來舉例。這個難題的意思是可以理解的。

『毗婆沙師至故非異熟者。毗婆沙師。復為好解咸作是說。已離欲者無憂根故。以彼憂根離欲舍故。異熟不然非離欲舍故。說憂根非是異熟。』——毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）爲了更好地解釋，都這樣說：已經離欲的人沒有憂根，因為他們的憂根因為離欲而被捨棄了。異熟不是這樣，不是因為離欲而被捨棄的，所以說憂根不是異熟。

『若爾應說至何相知有者。復難。若爾。應說離欲有情。于欲界中異熟喜根何相知有。』——如果這樣，那麼應該說，已經離欲的有情，在欲界（kāmadhātu）中的異熟喜根，通過什麼現象可以知道它存在呢？

『隨彼有相至定非異熟者。復通。謂善喜根。此離欲位容有故。言隨彼有相。此無記異熟喜。應類非無。故言此相亦然。於此離欲位中。憂。一切種若善．若染。無容有故。皆不現行。已離欲者無憂愁故。所以不行。由此準知』——可以這樣解釋。指的是善的喜根（kuśala somanassa），這種喜根在離欲的境界中是可能存在的，所以說『隨彼有相』（根據那個現象）。這種無記的異熟喜（avyākata vipāka somanassa），應該不是沒有類似的。所以說『此相亦然』（這個現象也是這樣）。在這個離欲的境界中，憂，無論哪一種，無論是善的還是染污的，都不可能存在，所以都不會顯現。因為已經離欲的人沒有憂愁，所以憂不會產生。由此可以推斷。

【English Translation】 English version: 'In the context of sorrow-rooted association, 'anuvartana' (following) is not vipāka (result of maturation), because the scripture says it occurs simultaneously with the root of sorrow.' - In the state of being associated with the root of sorrow, 'anuvartana' is not 'vipāka', because the scripture says that it happens simultaneously with the root of sorrow.

'The statement 'as you wish' is without error in principle. It means 'as you wish' is not contradictory to me. The two feelings of joy (somanassa) and equanimity (upekkhā) can be explained as 'anuvartana' in terms of 'vipāka' or in terms of association. Both explanations are without error in principle.' - The statement 'as you wish' is not wrong in principle. It can be understood as 'as you wish' is not contradictory to me. The two feelings of joy and equanimity, can be explained as 'anuvartana' either in terms of 'vipāka' or in terms of association. Both explanations are without error in principle.

'If there is no escape, and sorrow is not 'vipāka', then it is difficult to explain this scripture without any escape. What is the real reason why sorrow is not 'vipāka'?' - If the statement 'no escape' is made, and sorrow is not 'vipāka', then it is difficult to find a way to explain this scripture without any escape. What is the real reason why sorrow is not 'vipāka'?

'Because sorrow arises from discrimination and differentiation, when it ceases, it also ceases through discrimination. Therefore, it is said that cessation is also the same. 'Differentiation' refers to many undesirable things. The root of sorrow arises from these differentiations.' - It can be explained with reason. Sorrow arises from discrimination (vikalpa) and differentiation (viśeṣa). If sorrow ceases, it also ceases through discrimination, so it is said that cessation is also the same. 'Differentiation' refers to many undesirable things. The root of sorrow arises from these differentiations.

'If that is the case, then the root of joy should not be 'vipāka' either, because it also arises from discrimination and ceases through discrimination.' - If that is the case, then the root of joy should not be 'vipāka' either, because it also arises from discrimination and ceases through discrimination.

'If you admit that the root of sorrow is 'vipāka', then after committing the five heinous crimes (pāñcānantarya), the cause immediately produces sorrow, and this karma should be called the fruit has already matured.' - Turn back to the previous difficulty. If you admit that the root of sorrow is 'vipāka', then after committing the five heinous crimes, the cause immediately produces sorrow, and this karma should be called the fruit has already matured at that time.

'It should also be the same, using the root of joy as an example. The meaning of the difficulty is understandable.' - It should also be the same, using the root of joy as an example. The meaning of the difficulty is understandable.

'The Vaibhāṣika masters, in order to provide a better explanation, all say that those who have abandoned desire do not have the root of sorrow, because their root of sorrow is abandoned due to abandoning desire. 'Vipāka' is not like this, it is not abandoned due to abandoning desire, so it is said that the root of sorrow is not 'vipāka'.' - The Vaibhāṣika masters, in order to provide a better explanation, all say that those who have abandoned desire do not have the root of sorrow, because their root of sorrow is abandoned due to abandoning desire. 'Vipāka' is not like this, it is not abandoned due to abandoning desire, so it is said that the root of sorrow is not 'vipāka'.

'If that is the case, then it should be said, how can we know that beings who have abandoned desire have the 'vipāka' root of joy in the desire realm (kāmadhātu)?' - If that is the case, then it should be said, how can we know that beings who have abandoned desire have the 'vipāka' root of joy in the desire realm?

'It can be explained that it refers to the wholesome root of joy (kuśala somanassa), which can exist in the state of abandoning desire, so it is said 'according to that phenomenon'. This indeterminate 'vipāka' joy (avyākata vipāka somanassa) should not be without similar examples, so it is said 'this phenomenon is also the same'. In this state of abandoning desire, sorrow, of all kinds, whether wholesome or defiled, cannot exist, so they do not manifest. Because those who have abandoned desire do not have sorrow, so sorrow does not arise. From this, it can be inferred.'

定非異熟。

眼等八根至善業引故者。此即約趣明善．惡異熟。八根謂七色根．命根。善趣謂天．人。惡趣謂三惡趣。眼等八根善趣是善異熟。惡趣是惡異熟。意根于善趣中。若與喜．樂．舍相應是善異熟。若與苦根相應是惡異熟。于惡趣中若在傍生．鬼趣。如善趣說是俱異熟。若在地獄唯苦相應是惡異熟。無善異熟。據總相說故言惡趣通二。喜．樂．舍根隨人．天．傍生．鬼趣。是善異熟。唯善感故。地獄中無善業果故　問喜．樂善感相顯可知。舍是中庸。何故不通善．惡業感耶　解云舍行微細順於善故。故唯善感。又業品中。問感舍受業云。此業為善。為不善耶。是善而劣　又云惡唯感苦受。由此故知。舍唯善感。苦根隨在人．天善趣．及三惡趣是惡異熟。非可愛果故　于善趣下通伏難。伏難云。眼等八根。若在善趣是善異熟者。善趣二形云何是善。今牒通云。于善趣中有二形者。唯二根所依處所。是不善業招。非感根體。以彼二根身根攝故。善趣色根善業引故。

如是已說至一一皆通二者。此下第三有異熟．無異熟門。結問頌答。

論曰至定有異熟者。釋第一句。如次前文所諍憂根。定有異熟。一依唯義。二依越義。頌說定聲。唯即唯有異熟。越即復具二義。一憂非無記。強思起故是善。不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：並非沒有異熟果報。

『眼等八根至善業引故者』：這是就所趣向的善惡果報而言。八根指的是七種色根和命根。善趣指的是天道和人道，惡趣指的是三惡道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）。眼等八根在善趣是善的異熟果報，在惡趣是惡的異熟果報。意根在善趣中，如果與喜根、樂根、舍根相應，就是善的異熟果報；如果與苦根相應，就是惡的異熟果報。在惡趣中，如果在傍生道和鬼道，就像在善趣一樣，說是俱異熟果報；如果在地獄，只與苦根相應，是惡的異熟果報，沒有善的異熟果報。總的來說，惡趣包括兩種情況，喜根、樂根、舍根隨人道、天道、傍生道、鬼道，是善的異熟果報，因為只有善業才能感得。地獄中沒有善業的果報。問：喜根、樂根是善業感得的，這很明顯。舍根是中性的，為什麼不能通過善業和惡業感得呢？解答說：舍行微細，順應善，所以只有善業才能感得。在業品中，問感舍受的業說：『這個業是善的，還是不善的呢？』回答是：『是善的，但是比較弱。』又說：『惡業只能感得苦受。』由此可知，舍根只有善業才能感得。苦根隨在人道、天道等善趣以及三惡道，是惡的異熟果報，因為不是可愛的果報。在善趣下，是爲了駁斥疑問。駁斥的疑問是：眼等八根，如果在善趣是善的異熟果報，那麼善趣中的二形人（指男性和女性性器官不明顯的人）怎麼能說是善的呢？現在解釋說：在善趣中有二形人，只是二根所依之處是不善業招感的，而不是感得根的本體。因為那二根屬於身根，善趣的色根是善業所引生的。

像這樣已經說了，到『一一皆通二者』：這以下第三是有異熟和沒有異熟的方面，總結提問並回答。

論曰至定有異熟者：解釋第一句。像前面所爭論的憂根，一定有異熟果報。『一依唯義』，『二依越義』。頌文說『定』字，『唯』就是隻有異熟，『越』就是又具有兩種含義：一是憂根不是無記，因為強烈的思慮而產生，是善的。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not without definitely ripened results.

'The eight roots, such as the eye, etc., are led by wholesome karma': This refers to the wholesome and unwholesome ripened results in terms of the realms one is destined to. The eight roots refer to the seven sense-organs and the life-force. The wholesome realms refer to the heavens and the human realm, while the unwholesome realms refer to the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, and animals). The eight roots, such as the eye, etc., in the wholesome realms are wholesome ripened results, while in the unwholesome realms, they are unwholesome ripened results. The mind-organ in the wholesome realms, if associated with joy, pleasure, or equanimity, is a wholesome ripened result; if associated with the suffering faculty, it is an unwholesome ripened result. In the unwholesome realms, if in the animal or hungry ghost realms, it is said to be both ripened results, as in the wholesome realms; if in hell, it is only associated with suffering and is an unwholesome ripened result, with no wholesome ripened result. Generally speaking, the term 'unwholesome realms' encompasses both. Joy, pleasure, and equanimity faculties, wherever they are in the human, heavenly, animal, or hungry ghost realms, are wholesome ripened results because they are only produced by wholesome karma. There is no result of wholesome karma in hell. Question: It is clear that joy and pleasure are produced by wholesome karma. Equanimity is neutral. Why can't it be produced by both wholesome and unwholesome karma? The answer is that equanimity is subtle and conducive to wholesomeness, so it is only produced by wholesome karma. Also, in the chapter on karma, it is asked regarding the karma that produces the feeling of equanimity: 'Is this karma wholesome or unwholesome?' The answer is: 'It is wholesome, but inferior.' It is also said: 'Unwholesome karma only produces the feeling of suffering.' From this, it is known that equanimity is only produced by wholesome karma. The suffering faculty, wherever it is in the human, heavenly, or other wholesome realms, as well as in the three evil realms, is an unwholesome ripened result because it is not a desirable result. Below 'in the wholesome realms' is a general refutation of a difficulty. The difficulty is: If the eight roots, such as the eye, etc., are wholesome ripened results in the wholesome realms, then how can those with two sets of genitals in the wholesome realms be considered wholesome? Now it is explained that in the wholesome realms, those with two sets of genitals, only the place where the two sets of genitals are located is produced by unwholesome karma, not the essence of the roots themselves. Because those two roots are included in the body-organ, the sense-organs in the wholesome realms are produced by wholesome karma.

Having spoken thus, up to 'each is connected to both': Below this, the third aspect is whether there are ripened results or not, summarizing the question and answering.

The treatise says, '...definitely has ripened results': Explaining the first sentence. Like the sorrow faculty that was previously debated, it definitely has ripened results. 'One relies on the meaning of 'only'', 'the other relies on the meaning of 'exceeding''. The verse says the word 'definitely', 'only' means only having ripened results, 'exceeding' means having two meanings: first, sorrow is not neutral, because it arises from strong thought, it is wholesome.

善。以無記法劣思起故。二亦非無漏。唯散地故。由此二義。於二十二根中。越次先說憂根定有異熟。

眼等前八至無異熟者。釋下三句。文顯可知。

如是已說至唯無記性者。此即第四三性門。二十二根先後次第信等八根數雖居后。乘次前文明信等五文勢便故。故今先說信等八根是善。三無漏根前雖非后。從多分說義便並乘　又解乘前先問善。是故先說所以憂根不通無記者。強思起故。又婆沙一百四十四。解憂非無記云。憂根且非有覆無記。由與欲界有身見．邊執見不相應故。所以者何。行相異故。彼二見歡行相轉。憂根戚行相轉。互相違法不相應故。憂根亦非無覆無記。非威儀路．工巧處．異熟生所攝故。問何故憂根非威儀路所攝。答憂根分別轉。威儀路無分別轉。若威儀路有憂根者。設有分別我今應作如是威儀。如佛世尊或如馬勝。即分別時便應已住如是威儀。然威儀路無此分別。故威儀路無有憂根。問何故憂根非工巧處。答憂根分別轉。工巧處無分別轉。若工巧處有憂根者。設有分別我今應作如是工巧。如佛世尊或如妙業天子。即分別時。已應成辨如是工巧。然工巧處無此分別。故工巧處無有憂根。問何故憂根非異熟生。答憂根分別轉。異熟生無分別轉。若異熟生有憂根者。設有分別我今應受如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：好。因為以無記法微弱的思慮生起（憂根），所以（憂根）不是無漏的，只在散亂的心地中才有。由於這兩個原因，在二十二根中，越過順序先說憂根必定有異熟果報。

『眼等前八至無異熟者』，解釋下面三句經文。文義顯明，可以理解。

『如是已說至唯無記性者』，這是第四個三性門。二十二根的先後次序中，信等八根的數目雖然靠後，但承接前面的經文明信等五根的文勢方便的緣故，所以現在先說信等八根是善的。三個無漏根雖然在前面不是在後面，但從多數情況來說，義理上方便並且承接前文。又解釋說，承接前面先問善，所以先說。憂根不通於無記性，是因為強烈的思慮生起（憂根）的緣故。另外，《婆沙論》第一百四十四卷解釋憂根不是無記性說：憂根且不是有覆無記，因為它與欲界有身見、邊執見不相應。為什麼呢？因為行相不同。那兩種見是歡喜的行相，憂根是憂戚的行相，互相違背，所以不相應。憂根也不是無覆無記，因為它不是威儀路、工巧處、異熟生所攝。問：為什麼憂根不是威儀路所攝？答：憂根是分別轉的，威儀路是無分別轉的。如果威儀路有憂根，那麼（這個人）就會分別『我現在應該做出這樣的威儀，像佛世尊或者像馬勝』，在分別的時候就應該已經處於這樣的威儀中了。然而威儀路沒有這樣的分別，所以威儀路沒有憂根。問：為什麼憂根不是工巧處所攝？答：憂根是分別轉的，工巧處是無分別轉的。如果工巧處有憂根，那麼（這個人）就會分別『我現在應該做出這樣的工巧，像佛世尊或者像妙業天子』，在分別的時候，就已經應該成就這樣的工巧了。然而工巧處沒有這樣的分別，所以工巧處沒有憂根。問：為什麼憂根不是異熟生所攝？答：憂根是分別轉的，異熟生是無分別轉的。如果異熟生有憂根，那麼（這個人）就會分別『我現在應該承受如

【English Translation】 English version: Good. Because (the root of sorrow) arises from inferior thought based on indeterminate (avyākrta) dharmas, therefore it is not unconditioned (anāsrava); it exists only in distracted states of mind. Due to these two reasons, among the twenty-two roots, the root of sorrow is mentioned out of order first, as it definitely has a distinct result (vipāka).

'The first eight, such as the eye, etc., do not have distinct results': This explains the following three sentences. The meaning of the text is clear and understandable.

'As has been said, up to only indeterminate nature': This is the fourth section on the three natures. In the order of the twenty-two roots, although the number of the eight roots such as faith is later, it is convenient to continue the momentum of the previous text on the five roots such as faith, so now it is said first that the eight roots such as faith are wholesome (kuśala). Although the three unconditioned roots are not later, they are convenient in meaning and continue the previous text from the majority perspective. Also, it is explained that it continues the previous question about wholesomeness, so it is said first. The root of sorrow does not extend to the indeterminate because it arises from strong thought. Furthermore, the one hundred and forty-fourth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā explains that the root of sorrow is not indeterminate, saying: The root of sorrow is not obscured-indeterminate (saṃvṛta-avyākrta), because it is not compatible with the view of self in the desire realm (kāmadhātu-satkāyadṛṣṭi) and the view of holding to extremes (antagrāhadṛṣṭi). Why? Because their characteristics are different. Those two views have the characteristic of joy, while the root of sorrow has the characteristic of grief; they contradict each other and are therefore incompatible. The root of sorrow is also not unobscured-indeterminate (anāvṛta-avyākrta), because it is not included in deportment (īryāpatha), skillful activities (śilpasthāna), or maturation-born (vipākaja). Question: Why is the root of sorrow not included in deportment? Answer: The root of sorrow is characterized by discrimination (vikalpa), while deportment is characterized by non-discrimination (nirvikalpa). If deportment had the root of sorrow, then (a person) would discriminate, 'I should now make such deportment, like the World-Honored One (Buddha-Bhagavat) or like Aśvajit (Aśvajit)', and at the time of discrimination, he should already be in such deportment. However, deportment does not have such discrimination, so deportment does not have the root of sorrow. Question: Why is the root of sorrow not included in skillful activities? Answer: The root of sorrow is characterized by discrimination, while skillful activities are characterized by non-discrimination. If skillful activities had the root of sorrow, then (a person) would discriminate, 'I should now make such skillful activities, like the World-Honored One or like the son of the god of wonderful deeds (Subrahmā)', and at the time of discrimination, he should already have accomplished such skillful activities. However, skillful activities do not have such discrimination, so skillful activities do not have the root of sorrow. Question: Why is the root of sorrow not included in maturation-born? Answer: The root of sorrow is characterized by discrimination, while maturation-born is characterized by non-discrimination. If maturation-born had the root of sorrow, then (a person) would discriminate, 'I should now receive such

是異熟。如佛世尊或轉輪聖王。即分別時便應現受如是異熟。然異熟生無此分別。故異熟生無有憂根(廣如彼釋)　意及餘四受一一通三性。七色．命八唯無記性　問受．念．定．慧俱大地法。皆通三性。何故分別二十二根中。受通三性。非念．定．慧　解云三性受皆有勝用故。受通三性。唯善念．定．慧有別勝用。不善．無記念．定．慧無別勝用。故三唯善　又解善受于凈品有勝用。不善受于染品有勝用。無記受通於染凈有勝用。所以受通三性。故前文言。有餘師說。樂等於凈亦為增上。善念．定．慧于凈用勝。不善．無記無別勝用。故三唯善　又解通三性受于染污品皆有勝用故。受通三性所順雖復唯染。能順之受乃通三性。故。前文言樂等五受。于染增上。善念．定．慧唯于凈品有勝作用。故三唯善。不善．無記念．定．慧三。于凈品非勝故。此三種不通不善．無記。染法易起。故三性受皆能順染。凈法難起。故染．無記念．定．慧三不能順凈。故婆沙云。問何故受善．染．無記皆立為根。念．定．慧三唯善立根非染．無記。答受于順染品勢用增上。善．染．無記受皆有勢力。順雜染品故並立根。慧．念．定三順清凈品勢用增上。唯善慧．念．定順清凈品故立為根。染慧．念．定乃相資助斷清凈品。無記慧等亦于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是異熟（Vipāka，果報）。例如佛世尊或轉輪聖王，在（死亡）分別時便應立即承受這樣的異熟果報。然而，異熟所生的法沒有這種分別（立即受報的特性）。所以，異熟所生的法沒有憂根（詳細解釋見相關論釋）。意（Manas，意識）及其他四種受（樂受、苦受、喜受、憂受、舍受）各自通於三種性質（善、不善、無記）。七種色法（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、色、聲）和命根這八種法，唯是無記性。問：受（Vedanā，感受）、念（Smṛti，憶念）、定（Samādhi，禪定）、慧（Prajñā，智慧）都是大地法（普遍存在於一切心識活動中的心理要素），都通於三種性質。為什麼在分別二十二根（二十二種增上作用的要素）中，只有受通於三種性質，而念、定、慧不通於三種性質呢？答：因為三種性質的受都有殊勝的作用，所以受通於三種性質。只有善的念、定、慧有特別殊勝的作用，不善和無記的念、定、慧沒有特別殊勝的作用。所以，念、定、慧三種法唯是善性。又解釋說，善的受對於清凈品（善法）有殊勝的作用，不善的受對於染污品（惡法）有殊勝的作用，無記的受通於染污和清凈品都有作用。所以受通於三種性質。因此，前面的經文說，有其他論師說，樂受等對於清凈品也是增上緣。善的念、定、慧在清凈品中有殊勝的作用，不善和無記的念、定、慧沒有特別殊勝的作用。所以，念、定、慧三種法唯是善性。又解釋說，通於三種性質的受，對於染污品都有殊勝的作用，所以受通於三種性質。受所順從的（境界）雖然只是染污，但能順從它的受卻通於三種性質。所以，前面的經文說，樂受等五種受，對於染污是增上緣。善的念、定、慧唯于清凈品有殊勝的作用，所以念、定、慧三種法唯是善性。不善和無記的念、定、慧三種法，對於清凈品沒有殊勝的作用。因此，這三種法不通於不善和無記。染污法容易生起，所以三種性質的受都能順從染污。清凈法難以生起，所以染污和無記的念、定、慧三種法不能順從清凈。所以《婆沙論》說：問：為什麼受的善、染、無記三種性質都立為根（增上緣），而念、定、慧三種法只有善的才立為根，染污和無記的不能立為根？答：受對於順從染污品的勢力作用是增上的，善、染、無記的受都有勢力，順從雜染品，所以都立為根。慧、念、定三種法順從清凈品的勢力作用是增上的，只有善的慧、念、定順從清凈品，所以立為根。染污的慧、念、定反而互相資助，斷滅清凈品，無記的慧等也于（染污品有作用）

【English Translation】 English version: It is Vipāka (resultant). For example, the Buddha, the World Honored One, or a Cakravartin King, upon separation (death), should immediately experience such Vipāka results. However, Dharmas born of Vipāka do not have this distinction (of immediate retribution). Therefore, Dharmas born of Vipāka do not have the root of sorrow (explained extensively in the related commentaries). Manas (mind) and the other four feelings (pleasant feeling, painful feeling, joyful feeling, sorrowful feeling, neutral feeling) each connect to the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral). The seven types of form (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, form, sound) and the life faculty, these eight, are only of neutral nature. Question: Feeling (Vedanā), mindfulness (Smṛti), concentration (Samādhi), and wisdom (Prajñā) are all Great Ground Dharmas (universal mental factors present in all consciousness), and all connect to the three natures. Why, when distinguishing the twenty-two faculties (twenty-two elements of increasing influence), does only feeling connect to the three natures, while mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom do not connect to the three natures? Answer: Because feelings of the three natures all have superior functions, feeling connects to the three natures. Only wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom have particularly superior functions; unwholesome and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom do not have particularly superior functions. Therefore, these three Dharmas, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, are only wholesome. Another explanation is that wholesome feeling has a superior function in the pure category (wholesome Dharmas), unwholesome feeling has a superior function in the defiled category (unwholesome Dharmas), and neutral feeling has a function in both the defiled and pure categories. Therefore, feeling connects to the three natures. Thus, the previous text says that some other teachers say that pleasant feeling, etc., are also increasing conditions for the pure category. Wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom have superior functions in the pure category; unwholesome and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom do not have particularly superior functions. Therefore, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are only wholesome. Another explanation is that feeling, which connects to the three natures, has a superior function in the defiled category, so feeling connects to the three natures. Although what feeling follows is only defilement, the feeling that can follow it connects to the three natures. Therefore, the previous text says that the five feelings, such as pleasant feeling, are increasing conditions for defilement. Wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom only have superior functions in the pure category, so mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are only wholesome. Unwholesome and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom do not have superior functions in the pure category. Therefore, these three do not connect to unwholesome and neutral. Defiled Dharmas easily arise, so feelings of the three natures can all follow defilement. Pure Dharmas are difficult to arise, so defiled and neutral mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom cannot follow purity. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā says: Question: Why are the wholesome, defiled, and neutral natures of feeling all established as roots (increasing conditions), while only wholesome mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are established as roots, and defiled and neutral are not? Answer: Feeling has an increasing influence on following the defiled category; wholesome, defiled, and neutral feelings all have the power to follow the mixed defiled category, so they are all established as roots. Wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration have an increasing influence on following the pure category; only wholesome wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration follow the pure category, so they are established as roots. Defiled wisdom, mindfulness, and concentration instead mutually assist in cutting off the pure category, and neutral wisdom, etc., also have a function in the (defiled category).

凈品不順。是故皆不立根(已上論文)。

如是已說至並余色喜樂者。此下第五界系門。結問頌答。

論曰至唯有十九根者。明欲界系。可知。

色界如前至身醜陋故者。此下明色界系。色界已離淫慾法故無男．女根。又由女男根身醜陋故所以彼無。正理破云。此說不然。陰藏隱密非醜陋故。俱舍師救云。論主故作此解。欲招后難順己前文。

若爾何故說彼為男者。問若色界無男根者。何故說彼色界為男。

於何處說者。反徴說處。

契經中說至男身為梵者。外答。如契經說。必無有處。必無容有女身為梵。然有處所。然約容有男身為梵。

別有男相至男身所有者。為外通經。謂大梵王．別有欲界中男身所有相貌。無女身形類。故說為男。非有男根。又正理云。離欲猛利似男用故　無苦根者至惱害事故者。釋色界無憂．苦。身凈妙故非苦依。無不善法故無苦境。由奢摩他潤相續身故非憂依。無惱害事故無憂境。

無色如前至信等五根者。可知。若依經部苦．樂隨身至四定。憂．喜隨心至有頂。彼宗意說有身即有苦．樂。有心即有憂．喜。

如是已說至是所斷故者。此即第六三斷分別門。意．喜．樂．舍若見惑相應是見所斷。余有漏是修所斷。若是無漏非所斷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『凈品不順。是故皆不立根（已上論文）。』

如是已說至並余色喜樂者。此下第五界系門。結問頌答。

論曰至唯有十九根者。明欲界系。可知。

如前至身醜陋故者。此下明系。已離淫慾法故無男．女根。又由女男根身醜陋故所以彼無。正理破云。此說不然。陰藏隱密非醜陋故。俱舍師救云。論主故作此解。欲招后難順己前文。

若爾何故說彼為男者。問若無男根者。何故說彼為男？

於何處說者。反徴說處。

契經中說至男身為梵者。外答。如契經說。必無有處。必無容有女身為梵。然有處所。然約容有男身為梵。

別有男相至男身所有者。為外通經。謂大梵王（Mahābrahmā）。別有欲界中男身所有相貌。無女身形類。故說為男。非有男根。又正理云。離欲猛利似男用故　無苦根者至惱害事故者。釋無憂．苦。身凈妙故非苦依。無不善法故無苦境。由奢摩他（Śamatha）潤相續身故非憂依。無惱害事故無憂境。

無色如前至信等五根者。可知。若依經部苦．樂隨身至四定。憂．喜隨心至有頂。彼宗意說有身即有苦．樂。有心即有憂．喜。

如是已說至是所斷故者。此即第六三斷分別門。意．喜．樂．舍若見惑相應是見所斷。余有漏是修所斷。若是無漏非所斷 English version: 'Pure qualities are not in accordance. Therefore, no roots are established (as discussed in the above treatise).'

As has been said, 'to and including other colors, joy, and pleasure.' This below is the fifth section on the realm and its affiliations, concluding with questions and answers in verse.

The treatise says, 'to only nineteen roots.' This clarifies the realm of desire and its affiliations. Understandable.

As before, 'to because the body is ugly.' This below clarifies the affiliations. Having departed from the law of lust, there are no male or female roots. Moreover, because the bodies with male and female roots are ugly, they do not exist there. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying, 'This is not so. The hidden private parts are not ugly.' The Kośa master defends, saying, 'The author of the treatise deliberately makes this explanation in order to invite later difficulties and conform to his previous text.'

If so, why is it said that they are male? Question: If there are no male roots, why is it said that they are male?

Where is it said? A counter-question asking where it is said.

It is said in the sūtra, 'to a male body as Brahma.' External answer: As the sūtra says, there is absolutely no place, no possibility, for a female body to be Brahma. However, there is a place, a possibility, for a male body to be Brahma.

'Having separate male characteristics to all that a male body possesses.' This is to explain the sūtra externally, referring to Mahābrahmā (大梵王). They have separate appearances of male bodies in the desire realm, without female forms. Therefore, they are said to be male, but they do not have male roots. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says, 'Because their detachment is fierce, resembling male function.' 'Without the root of suffering' to 'because of the cause of affliction.' This explains absence of sorrow and suffering. Because the body is pure and subtle, it is not a basis for suffering. Because there are no unwholesome dharmas, there is no object of suffering. Because the body is continuously nourished by Śamatha (奢摩他), it is not a basis for sorrow. Because there is no cause of affliction, there is no object of sorrow.

The formless realm is as before, 'to the five roots of faith, etc.' Understandable. According to the Sautrāntika school, suffering and pleasure accompany the body up to the fourth dhyāna. Sorrow and joy accompany the mind up to the peak of existence. According to their view, where there is a body, there is suffering and pleasure; where there is a mind, there is sorrow and joy.

As has been said, 'to because it is what is to be abandoned.' This is the sixth section on the differentiation of the three abandonments. Mental activity, joy, pleasure, and equanimity, if associated with the afflictions of view, are abandoned by seeing. The remaining contaminated dharmas are abandoned by cultivation. If they are uncontaminated, they are not to be abandoned.

【English Translation】 'Pure qualities are not in accordance. Therefore, no roots are established (as discussed in the above treatise).' As has been said, 'to and including other colors, joy, and pleasure.' This below is the fifth section on the realm and its affiliations, concluding with questions and answers in verse. The treatise says, 'to only nineteen roots.' This clarifies the realm of desire and its affiliations. Understandable. As before, 'to because the body is ugly.' This below clarifies the affiliations. Having departed from the law of lust, there are no male or female roots. Moreover, because the bodies with male and female roots are ugly, they do not exist there. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying, 'This is not so. The hidden private parts are not ugly.' The Kośa master defends, saying, 'The author of the treatise deliberately makes this explanation in order to invite later difficulties and conform to his previous text.' If so, why is it said that they are male? Question: If there are no male roots, why is it said that they are male? Where is it said? A counter-question asking where it is said. It is said in the sūtra, 'to a male body as Brahma.' External answer: As the sūtra says, there is absolutely no place, no possibility, for a female body to be Brahma. However, there is a place, a possibility, for a male body to be Brahma. 'Having separate male characteristics to all that a male body possesses.' This is to explain the sūtra externally, referring to Mahābrahmā (大梵王). They have separate appearances of male bodies in the desire realm, without female forms. Therefore, they are said to be male, but they do not have male roots. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says, 'Because their detachment is fierce, resembling male function.' 'Without the root of suffering' to 'because of the cause of affliction.' This explains absence of sorrow and suffering. Because the body is pure and subtle, it is not a basis for suffering. Because there are no unwholesome dharmas, there is no object of suffering. Because the body is continuously nourished by Śamatha (奢摩他), it is not a basis for sorrow. Because there is no cause of affliction, there is no object of sorrow. The formless realm is as before, 'to the five roots of faith, etc.' Understandable. According to the Sautrāntika school, suffering and pleasure accompany the body up to the fourth dhyāna. Sorrow and joy accompany the mind up to the peak of existence. According to their view, where there is a body, there is suffering and pleasure; where there is a mind, there is sorrow and joy. As has been said, 'to because it is what is to be abandoned.' This is the sixth section on the differentiation of the three abandonments. Mental activity, joy, pleasure, and equanimity, if associated with the afflictions of view, are abandoned by seeing. The remaining contaminated dharmas are abandoned by cultivation. If they are uncontaminated, they are not to be abandoned.

憂根若見惑相應是見所斷。余有漏是修所斷。非無漏故不通非所斷　七色命．苦唯修所斷。七色．命根不染污故。苦根非六生故。非見所斷。皆有漏故唯修所斷。非無漏故不通非所斷　信等五根非染污故不通見斷。通有漏故是修所斷。通無漏故是非所斷　最後三根皆無漏故。唯非所斷。非無過法是所斷故。又正理第九云。豈不聖道亦所斷耶。如契經言應知聖道猶如船筏。法尚應斷何況非法。此非見．修二道所斷。入無餘依涅槃界位舍故名斷。

已說諸門至幾異熟根者。此下大文第五雜分別。總有六門。此即第一明受生得異熟根。結問可知。地理云。須問初得異熟根者。遮無染心能續生故(解云大眾部許無染心受生。如菩薩三時正知。或經部計異熟心受生。初受生得為遮彼說)。

頌曰至色六上唯命者。頌答。

論曰至根漸起故者。舉胎．卵．濕。顯除化生。化生色根無漸起故。由此三生亦非中有。以彼中有化生攝故　初受生位。顯生有初念。既根漸起故唯初得二異熟根。

彼何不得意舍二根者。問。意．舍二根初生必有。彼何不得。

此續生時定染污故者。答。此意．舍二于續生時雖亦必有定染污故。非是異熟。以據異熟為問答故。苦．樂．憂．喜．信等五根。初受生位雖亦成就。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若憂根與迷惑相應，則屬於見所斷（dṛṣṭi-heya）。其餘有漏法屬於修所斷（bhāvanā-heya）。因為不是無漏法，所以不屬於非所斷（aprahātabya）。七色根、命根、苦根唯有修所斷。七色根、命根不染污的緣故。苦根不是六生（ṣaḍ-gati）的緣故，不屬於見所斷。因為都是有漏法，所以唯有修所斷。因為不是無漏法，所以不屬於非所斷。信等五根因為不是染污法，所以不屬於見斷。因為是有漏法，所以是修所斷。因為是無漏法，所以是非所斷。最後三根（未知當知根（anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya）、已知根（ājñendriya）、具知根（ājñātāvīndriya））都是無漏法，所以唯有非所斷。因為沒有超過的法是所斷的緣故。又《正理》第九卷說，難道聖道（ārya-mārga）不是所斷嗎？如契經所說，應知聖道猶如船筏，法尚且應斷，何況非法？這並非見道（darśana-mārga）、修道（bhāvanā-mārga）二道所斷，進入無餘依涅槃界（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa-dhātu）的位次捨棄的緣故，名為斷。

已經說了諸門到有幾種異熟根（vipāka-indriya）的問題。下面是第五個大段，雜分別。總共有六個門。這是第一個，說明受生時得到的異熟根。總結提問可知。《地理》說，必須問最初得到異熟根的人。遮止沒有染污的心能夠繼續受生的說法（解釋說大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）允許沒有染污的心受生，如菩薩三時正知。或者經部（Sautrāntika）認為異熟心受生，最初受生得到是爲了遮止他們的說法）。

頌文說到色六上唯命根。這是頌文的回答。

論述說到根漸次生起的原因。舉出胎生（jarāyuja）、卵生（aṇḍaja）、濕生（saṃsvedaja），顯示排除化生（upapāduka）。化生的色根沒有漸次生起的緣故。由此三種生也並非中有（antarābhava），因為那中有包含在化生之中。最初受生位，顯示生有（bhava）的最初一念。既然根是漸次生起的，所以唯有最初得到兩種異熟根。

他們為什麼沒有得到意根（manas-indriya）、舍根（upekṣā-indriya）這兩種根呢？這是提問。意根、舍根最初生時必定有，他們為什麼沒有得到呢？

這是因為續生時一定是染污的緣故。回答說，這意根、舍根在續生時雖然也必定有，但一定是染污的緣故，不是異熟。因為根據異熟來提問和回答的緣故。苦根（duḥkha-indriya）、樂根（sukha-indriya）、憂根（daurmanasya-indriya）、喜根（saumanasya-indriya）、信等五根，最初受生位雖然也成就。

【English Translation】 English version If the root of sorrow (daurmanasya-indriya) is associated with delusion, then it is severed by seeing (dṛṣṭi-heya). The remaining contaminated (sāsrava) dharmas are severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya). Because they are not uncontaminated (anāsrava), they do not belong to what is not to be severed (aprahātabya). The seven sense-faculties (varṇa-indriya), life-faculty (jīvitendriya), and pain-faculty (duḥkha-indriya) are only severed by cultivation. The seven sense-faculties and life-faculty are not defiled. The pain-faculty is not of the six destinies (ṣaḍ-gati), so it is not severed by seeing. Because they are all contaminated, they are only severed by cultivation. Because they are not uncontaminated, they do not belong to what is not to be severed. The five faculties of faith, etc. (śraddhā-indriya), because they are not defiled, do not belong to what is severed by seeing. Because they are contaminated, they are severed by cultivation. Because they are uncontaminated, they belong to what is not to be severed. The last three faculties (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya, ājñendriya, ājñātāvīndriya) are all uncontaminated, so they are only what is not to be severed. Because there is no surpassing dharma that is to be severed. Moreover, the ninth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says, 'Isn't the noble path (ārya-mārga) also to be severed?' As the sutra says, 'One should know that the noble path is like a raft; even dharmas should be abandoned, how much more so non-dharmas?' This is not severed by the two paths of seeing (darśana-mārga) and cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga), but is called severance because it is abandoned in the state of entering the realm of nirvana without remainder (nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa-dhātu).

Having spoken of the gates to how many resultant faculties (vipāka-indriya) there are, below is the fifth major section, miscellaneous distinctions. There are a total of six gates. This is the first, explaining the resultant faculties obtained at the time of birth. The summary question is knowable. The Geography says, 'It is necessary to ask about those who initially obtain resultant faculties.' This prevents the statement that an undefiled mind can continue to be reborn (The explanation says that the Mahāsāṃghika school allows an undefiled mind to be reborn, such as the bodhisattva's correct knowledge at three times. Or the Sautrāntika school considers the resultant mind to be reborn; the initial obtaining of rebirth is to prevent their statement).

The verse speaks of only the life-faculty above the six sense-faculties. This is the answer to the verse.

The treatise says that the reason for the gradual arising of the faculties. Citing viviparous (jarāyuja), oviparous (aṇḍaja), and moisture-born (saṃsvedaja) births shows the exclusion of spontaneously born (upapāduka) beings. The sense-faculties of spontaneously born beings do not gradually arise. Therefore, these three kinds of birth are also not intermediate existence (antarābhava), because that intermediate existence is included in spontaneous birth. The initial moment of birth shows the initial thought of existence (bhava). Since the faculties gradually arise, only two resultant faculties are initially obtained.

Why do they not obtain the mind-faculty (manas-indriya) and indifference-faculty (upekṣā-indriya)? This is the question. The mind-faculty and indifference-faculty are necessarily present at the initial birth, so why do they not obtain them?

This is because it is necessarily defiled at the time of rebirth. The answer is that although the mind-faculty and indifference-faculty are necessarily present at the time of rebirth, they are necessarily defiled, so they are not resultant. This is because the questions and answers are based on the resultant. The pain-faculty (duḥkha-indriya), pleasure-faculty (sukha-indriya), sorrow-faculty (daurmanasya-indriya), joy-faculty (saumanasya-indriya), and the five faculties of faith, etc., are also accomplished at the initial moment of birth.

非異熟故此亦不說。意．舍二根成而亦現尚非所說。況苦等九成而不現。理在絕言故不別問。

化生初位至初得八根者。化生亦攝中有。簡餘三生故言化生。初位謂中．生有初受生位。二形化生。唯是生有初念不通中有。以中有身女．男定故。故下論云。必無中有非男非女。以中有身必具根故。余文可知。應知此中四生初得異熟根者。通據中．生二有初念。是異熟根。體現在前剎那．新成即名為得。非先不成方名為得。與前解得義稍不同。七色．命根于中．生有初受生位隨應而得。意及五受信等五根。于中．生有初生位。雖亦有得。非異熟故不名為得。故婆沙一百四十七云。問余無色根爾時亦得。謂意．五受．信等五根。此中何故不說。答此中應說。而不說者當知有餘。有說爾時一切得者此中即說。余無色根．雖有得者而非一切。是故不說。謂上地沒生下地時。雖得彼根。若自地沒還生自地。彼皆不得。是故不說。有說此中但問初得業所生者。初受生位余無色根．雖有得者。而非業生。故此不說。后位所得雖業所生。而非初得。故亦不說(已上論文)。

豈有二形受化生者者。問。化生應勝福感。豈有二形受化生耶。

惡趣容有二形化生者。答。亦有惡業。能感惡趣二形化生。

說欲界中至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為它們不是異熟果，所以這裡沒有提及。即使是意根和捨棄二根（男女根）的成就和顯現尚且不被提及，更何況苦等九根的成就而不顯現呢？因為道理超越了言語，所以沒有特別詢問。

關於化生最初的階段到最初獲得八根的情況：化生也包括了中有（中陰身）。爲了區分其餘三種生，所以說是化生。最初的階段指的是中有和生有最初接受生命的狀態。二形（男女二根）的化生，僅僅是生有最初的念頭，不包括中有，因為中有的身體男女是確定的。所以下文的論述說：『必定沒有中有既非男也非女』，因為中有的身體必定具備根。其餘的文字可以理解。應該知道這裡四種生最初獲得異熟根的情況，包括了中有和生有的最初念頭。這是異熟根，它的體現在目前的剎那，新成就就叫做獲得，不是先沒有成就才叫做獲得，和前面解釋的獲得意義稍有不同。七色（七種顏色）、命根在中有的和生有的最初受生階段，根據情況而獲得。意根和五種受信等五根，在中有的和生有的最初生起階段，雖然也有獲得，但因為不是異熟果，所以不叫做獲得。所以《婆沙論》第一百四十七卷說：『問：其餘無色根在那個時候也獲得嗎？指的是意根、五種受信、信等五根。這裡為什麼沒有說？答：這裡應該說，但是沒有說，應該知道有其餘的原因。』有的人說，那個時候一切都獲得，這裡就說了。其餘的無色根，雖然有獲得，但不是一切都獲得，所以沒有說。指的是上地死亡而生到下地的時候，雖然獲得了那些根，如果自己所在的地死亡后還生到自己所在的地，他們都沒有獲得，所以沒有說。有的人說，這裡只是問最初獲得業所生的根。最初受生階段，其餘的無色根，雖然有獲得，但不是業所生，所以這裡沒有說。後面的階段所獲得的，雖然是業所生，但不是最初獲得，所以也沒有說（以上是論文）。

『難道有二形（男女二根）接受化生的嗎？』問：化生應該是殊勝的福報所感，難道有二形接受化生的嗎？

『惡趣容許有二形化生』答：也有惡業，能夠感得惡趣的二形化生。

『說欲界中…』

【English Translation】 English version: Because they are not Vipaka (result of karma), they are not mentioned here. Even the attainment and manifestation of the mind-organ (意) and the two organs of abandonment (舍二根, the male and female organs) are not mentioned, let alone the attainment without manifestation of the nine organs such as suffering (苦等九根)? Because the principle is beyond words, there is no separate question.

Regarding the initial stage of transformation birth (化生) to the initial attainment of eight organs: Transformation birth also includes the intermediate existence (中有, bardo). To distinguish it from the other three births, it is called transformation birth. The initial stage refers to the initial state of receiving life in the intermediate existence and birth existence. The transformation birth with two forms (二形, male and female organs) is only the initial thought of birth existence and does not include the intermediate existence, because the body of the intermediate existence is definitely male or female. Therefore, the following discussion says: 'There is definitely no intermediate existence that is neither male nor female,' because the body of the intermediate existence must have organs. The rest of the text can be understood. It should be known that the initial attainment of Vipaka organs in the four types of birth here includes the initial thought of the intermediate existence and birth existence. This is the Vipaka organ, and its manifestation in the current moment, the new attainment, is called attainment, not that it is called attainment only when it was not attained before, which is slightly different from the previous explanation of the meaning of attainment. The seven colors (七色) and the life-organ (命根) are attained accordingly in the initial stage of receiving life in the intermediate existence and birth existence. The mind-organ (意) and the five receptive organs (五受信) such as faith (信) are also attained in the initial stage of the intermediate existence and birth existence, but because they are not Vipaka, they are not called attainment. Therefore, the 147th volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: Are the other formless organs also attained at that time? Referring to the mind-organ, the five receptive organs, and the five organs such as faith. Why are they not mentioned here? Answer: They should be mentioned here, but if they are not mentioned, it should be known that there are other reasons.' Some say that everything that is attained at that time is mentioned here. The other formless organs, although they are attained, are not all attained, so they are not mentioned. This refers to when one dies in a higher realm and is born in a lower realm, although they attain those organs, if they die in their own realm and are reborn in their own realm, they do not attain them, so they are not mentioned. Some say that here only the initial attainment of organs born from karma is asked about. In the initial stage of receiving life, the other formless organs, although they are attained, are not born from karma, so they are not mentioned here. The attainment in the later stages, although born from karma, is not the initial attainment, so it is also not mentioned (the above is the text of the treatise).

'Could there be beings with two forms (二形, male and female organs) who are born by transformation (化生)?' Question: Transformation birth should be due to the perception of superior merit, so could there be beings with two forms who are born by transformation?

'Evil destinies may have beings with two forms who are born by transformation.' Answer: There is also evil karma that can cause beings with two forms to be born by transformation in evil destinies.

'It is said that in the desire realm...'

唯命非餘者。釋第四句。便釋欲．色界名。欲界欲勝故但言欲。色界色勝故但言色。契經亦言八解脫中滅定解脫最極寂靜。過色．無色解脫。言寂靜過。不言出過三界。不繫言過。經既言色。明知色勝。余文同文故來。定勝顯因。生勝顯果。余文可知。

說異熟根至漸四善增五者。此下第二約死位滅根多少　滅之言舍　最後死位體現在前。滅入過去。令不現前。故名為舍。非將不成說之為舍。如善心死還生自地。及染心死生自下地。雖成善染亦名舍故。應知。此中於命終位所有三性心。但滅入過去即名為舍。非論后位成與不成　問何故受生唯約異熟。命終通據三性　解云有情發願多欣前果。故初受生唯約異熟。死時任運不欲作意別舍諸根。故通三性。

論曰至而命終者者。此約三界染．無記心命終舍根多少。文顯可知　若在三界至如理應知者。此約三界善心命終舍根多少。無色三根加至八根。乃至欲界漸終至九。中間多少如理應知者。謂色八加至十三。欲十加至十五。九加至十四。八加至十三也。

分別根中至依一容有說者。此下第三明得果用根多少。正理云雖沙門果非根亦得。此辨根故但問諸根。

論曰至在中間故者。釋邊。釋中。可知。

初預流果至依因性故者。初果及向未至地

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『唯命非餘者』。解釋第四句。『便』，名（nama，名稱）。欲界（Kāmadhātu， desire realm）的慾望更強，所以只說『欲』。色界（Rūpadhātu， form realm）的色更強，所以只說『色』。《契經》（Sūtra，佛經）也說八解脫（Aṭṭha vimokkha， eight deliverances）中，滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti， cessation attainment）的解脫最為寂靜，超過色界和無色界（Arūpadhātu， formless realm）的解脫。說『寂靜』是超過，不說『超出』三界（Trailokya， three realms）。『不繫』是說超過。經中既然說了『色』，就明顯知道色界更強。其餘的文句和前面的文句相同，所以省略了。『定』的殊勝在於顯示因，『生』的殊勝在於顯示果，其餘的文句可以類推得知。

『說異熟根至漸四善增五者』。下面第二部分是關於死亡時捨棄的根有多少。『滅』的意思是捨棄。最後死亡時的身體顯現於前，滅入過去，使其不再顯現，所以稱為捨棄。不是說將要不成才說成是捨棄。比如善心死亡后還會生到自地（own realm），以及染污心死亡後會生到較低的界。雖然成就了善或染污，也稱為捨棄。應該知道，這裡在臨終時，所有三性（tri-svabhāva， three natures）的心，只是滅入過去就稱為捨棄，不是討論後面的階段是否成就。問：為什麼受生只說異熟（vipāka， resultant），而命終卻包括三性？解釋說：有情（sentient beings）發願大多欣求之前的果報，所以最初受生只說異熟。死亡時是自然而然的，不想要特意捨棄諸根，所以包括三性。

論曰至而命終者者。這是關於三界（Trailokya， three realms）的染污心和無記心（avyākata， unspecified）命終時捨棄根的多少。文句顯而易見。若在三界至如理應知者。這是關於三界的善心命終時捨棄根的多少。無色界的三根增加到八根。乃至欲界（Kāmadhātu， desire realm）逐漸死亡時達到九根。中間的多少應該如理了解。意思是色界（Rūpadhātu， form realm）的八根增加到十三根，欲界的十根增加到十五根，九根增加到十四根，八根增加到十三根。

分別根中至依一容有說者。下面第三部分說明獲得果位時使用的根有多少。《正理》（Nyāyāgama， न्याय，Logic scripture）說，即使不是根也能獲得沙門果（Śrāmaṇaphala， fruits of asceticism）。這裡辨別根，所以只問諸根。

論曰至在中間故者。解釋邊地和中間地，可以理解。

初預流果至依因性故者。初果（Sotāpanna， stream-enterer）以及趨向初果的未至定（anāgamya， non-returner）。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Only life is not the remainder.』 Explaining the fourth sentence. 『Ben』 is nama (name). Because desire is stronger in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), it only mentions 『desire.』 Because form is stronger in the Rūpadhātu (form realm), it only mentions 『form.』 The Sūtra (scripture) also says that among the eight Aṭṭha vimokkha (eight deliverances), the nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment) is the most tranquil, surpassing the deliverances of the Rūpadhātu (form realm) and Arūpadhātu (formless realm). Saying 『tranquil』 is surpassing, not saying 『exceeding』 the Trailokya (three realms). 『Unbound』 means surpassing. Since the scripture mentions 『form,』 it is clear that the form realm is stronger. The remaining sentences are the same as the previous ones, so they are omitted. The excellence of 『concentration』 lies in revealing the cause, and the excellence of 『birth』 lies in revealing the result. The remaining sentences can be inferred.

『Speaking of resultant roots to gradually four wholesome increase five.』 The second part below is about how many roots are abandoned at the time of death. 『Extinction』 means abandoning. At the final moment of death, the body manifests before, and extinction enters the past, causing it to no longer manifest, so it is called abandoning. It is not said that something is abandoned because it is about to fail. For example, a wholesome mind dies and is reborn in its own realm, and a defiled mind dies and is reborn in a lower realm. Although wholesomeness or defilement is achieved, it is also called abandoning. It should be known that here, at the moment of death, all minds of the tri-svabhāva (three natures) are simply extinguished into the past and called abandoning, without discussing whether they will be achieved in later stages. Question: Why does rebirth only refer to vipāka (resultant), while death includes the three natures? Explanation: Sentient beings mostly aspire to rejoice in previous results, so initial rebirth only refers to vipāka. At the time of death, it is natural and unintentional to abandon the roots separately, so it includes the three natures.

The treatise says, 『Until the end of life.』 This is about how many roots are abandoned at the end of life with defiled and avyākata (unspecified) minds in the Trailokya (three realms). The sentences are clear and understandable. 『If in the three realms, until it should be known accordingly.』 This is about how many roots are abandoned at the end of life with wholesome minds in the three realms. The three roots of the Arūpadhātu (formless realm) increase to eight roots. Even in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), gradually dying reaches nine roots. The amount in between should be understood accordingly. It means that the eight roots of the Rūpadhātu (form realm) increase to thirteen roots, the ten roots of the Kāmadhātu increase to fifteen roots, nine roots increase to fourteen roots, and eight roots increase to thirteen roots.

『Distinguishing roots, until it can be said to depend on one.』 The third part below explains how many roots are used when attaining the fruit. The Nyāyāgama (Logic scripture) says that even if it is not a root, one can attain the Śrāmaṇaphala (fruits of asceticism). Here, roots are distinguished, so only the roots are asked about.

The treatise says, 『Until in the middle.』 Explaining the borderlands and the middle lands, it can be understood.

『The initial Sotāpanna (stream-enterer) fruit, until depending on the causal nature.』 The first fruit and the approaching anāgamya (non-returner).

攝故唯有舍。若據未知根在無間道能斷惑邊。望離系得能為引因性故。引因謂同類因。能引彼離系得起為等流士用果。若據已知根在解脫道。望離系得能為依因性故。依因謂能作因。依者持也。同時能持離系得故。名曰依因。由無間道能引得起。于無為沙門果說能證得。由解脫道與得為依。于無為沙門果說正證得。故二相資證得初果。此中言得。得證故名得故通二道。若據得舍名得。即唯無間道名為得也　又解此中得名亦通成就。無間道得故名得。解脫道成就故名得。應知此中問能證得何沙門果故。今且以離系得答。理實果體亦通有為解脫道也。彼非名證故此不明。此論但據從向得果唯論初得。故說九根不據轉根。若據轉根由八根得。除未知根。故正理有一解云。成已知根亦同類因能得預流果。謂轉根時。如阿羅漢就容有說亦無有過(已上論文)阿羅漢果至依因性故者。此果及向通九地攝。故於三受隨取其一。余準前釋。

中間二果至九根所得者。釋中間二果。此即總解。

所以者何。徴。

且一來果至由九根得者。此釋一來。有漏名世間道。無漏名出世道。先凡位中。于欲界九品貪。已斷前六品名倍離欲貪。應知此中有一種七。一種八。一種九。

若不還果至此俱有故者。釋不還果。總說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，只有『舍』（upeksha，一種心理狀態）才能攝取（she，包含）。如果根據『未知根』（anajñatamājñāsyāmīndriya，一種根，指在無間道中能斷除煩惱的能力）在『無間道』（ānantaryamārga，直接通往解脫的道路）能斷除煩惱的方面來說，期望『離系得』（visaṃyoga-prāpti，通過斷除煩惱而獲得的解脫）能夠作為引發原因的性質，那麼『引因』（hetu，原因）指的是同類因。它能夠引發『離系得』的生起，作為『等流士用果』（nisyanda-puruṣakāra-phala，與原因相似的結果）。如果根據『已知根』（ājñendriya，一種根，指在解脫道中已經瞭解真理的能力）在『解脫道』（vimuktimārga，從煩惱中解脫的道路）來說，期望『離系得』能夠作為依附原因的性質，那麼『依因』（āśrayahetu，支援原因）指的是能作因。『依』（āśraya，支援）是支援的意思。它同時能夠支援『離系得』，因此被稱為『依因』。由於『無間道』能夠引發『得』（prāpti，獲得）的生起，所以在關於『無為沙門果』（asaṃskṛta-śrāmaṇyaphala，無為的沙門果位）的討論中，說能夠『證得』（adhigama，實現）。由於『解脫道』與『得』互為依附，所以在關於『無為沙門果』的討論中，說『正證得』（sākṣātkaraṇa，直接實現）。因此，兩種因素相互資助，證得初果（srotaāpanna-phala，入流果）。這裡所說的『得』，因為『得』是『證』（adhigama，實現）的緣故，所以被稱為『得』，因此貫通了兩種道路（無間道和解脫道）。如果根據『得』和『舍』來命名『得』，那麼只有『無間道』才能被稱為『得』。另一種解釋是，這裡的『得』（prāpti，獲得）也貫通了『成就』（siddhi，完成）。『無間道』的獲得被稱為『得』，『解脫道』的成就被稱為『得』。應該知道，這裡提問的是能夠證得什麼沙門果，所以現在暫且用『離系得』來回答。實際上，果的本體也貫通了有為的『解脫道』。但它不是被稱為『證』，所以這裡沒有明確說明。這部論典只是根據從『向』（mārga，道）獲得果的情況，只討論初次獲得，所以說九根（navendriya，九種根）不包括轉根（indriyaparivarta，根的轉變）。如果根據轉根的情況，由八根獲得，除了『未知根』。因此，《正理》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）有一種解釋說，成就『已知根』也屬於同類因，能夠獲得預流果。也就是說，在轉根的時候，就像阿羅漢（arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）的情況，允許這樣說也沒有過失（以上是論文內容）。阿羅漢果（arhat-phala，阿羅漢果位）到『依因性故』（āśrayahetukatva，作為依附原因的性質）為止，這個果和『向』貫通了九地（navabhūmi，九個禪定層次）所包含的內容，所以在三種感受（三受，三種感受）中隨便取一種，其餘的參照前面的解釋。中間的二果（sakṛdāgāmin-phala，一來果和anāgāmin-phala，不還果）到『九根所得者』（navendriyaprāpta，由九根所獲得）為止，這是解釋中間的二果，這是總體的解釋。『所以者何』（tat kasya hetoḥ，為什麼），這是提問。『且一來果』（sakṛdāgāmin-phala，一來果）到『由九根得者』（navendriyaprāpta，由九根所獲得）為止，這是解釋一來果。有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）的稱為世間道（laukikamārga，世間道），無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）的稱為出世道（lokottaramārga，出世道）。在最初的凡夫位中，對於欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）的九品貪（navakleśatṛṣṇā，九種煩惱貪慾），已經斷除了前六品，稱為『倍離欲貪』（vītarāga，遠離貪慾）。應該知道，這裡有一種七（七種根），一種八（八種根），一種九（九種根）。『若不還果』（anāgāmin-phala，不還果）到『此俱有故者』（sahabhāva，同時存在）為止，這是解釋不還果，這是總體的說明。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, only 'upeksha' (equanimity, a mental state) can encompass (she, include). If based on the 'anajñatamājñāsyāmīndriya' (unknown faculty, referring to the ability to sever afflictions in the path of immediate consequence) in terms of the ability to sever afflictions in the 'ānantaryamārga' (path of immediate consequence, the direct path to liberation), expecting the 'visaṃyoga-prāpti' (cessation-attainment, liberation obtained through severing afflictions) to be able to serve as the nature of a generating cause, then 'hetu' (cause) refers to a homogeneous cause. It can cause the arising of 'visaṃyoga-prāpti' as a 'nisyanda-puruṣakāra-phala' (result of outflow and effort, a result similar to the cause). If based on the 'ājñendriya' (known faculty, referring to the ability to understand truth in the path of liberation) in the 'vimuktimārga' (path of liberation, the path of freedom from afflictions), expecting the 'visaṃyoga-prāpti' to be able to serve as the nature of a dependent cause, then 'āśrayahetu' (supporting cause) refers to an efficient cause. 'Āśraya' (support) means to support. It can simultaneously support 'visaṃyoga-prāpti', hence it is called 'āśrayahetu'. Because the 'ānantaryamārga' can cause the arising of 'prāpti' (attainment), in the discussion about 'asaṃskṛta-śrāmaṇyaphala' (unconditioned fruit of a renunciate), it is said to be able to 'adhigama' (realize). Because the 'vimuktimārga' and 'prāpti' are mutually dependent, in the discussion about 'asaṃskṛta-śrāmaṇyaphala', it is said to 'sākṣātkaraṇa' (directly realize). Therefore, the two factors mutually assist in realizing the srotaāpanna-phala (stream-enterer fruit). The 'prāpti' mentioned here, because 'prāpti' is the reason for 'adhigama' (realization), is called 'prāpti', thus encompassing the two paths (ānantaryamārga and vimuktimārga). If 'prāpti' is named based on 'prāpti' and 'upeksha', then only 'ānantaryamārga' can be called 'prāpti'. Another explanation is that the 'prāpti' (attainment) here also encompasses 'siddhi' (accomplishment). The attainment of 'ānantaryamārga' is called 'prāpti', and the accomplishment of 'vimuktimārga' is called 'prāpti'. It should be known that the question here is about what śrāmaṇyaphala can be realized, so for now, we will answer with 'visaṃyoga-prāpti'. In reality, the essence of the fruit also encompasses the conditioned 'vimuktimārga'. But it is not called 'adhigama', so it is not explicitly stated here. This treatise only discusses the initial attainment based on obtaining the fruit from the 'mārga' (path), so it says that the navendriya (nine faculties) do not include indriyaparivarta (transformation of faculties). If based on the transformation of faculties, it is obtained by eight faculties, except for the 'anajñatamājñāsyāmīndriya'. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Abhidharma) has an explanation that achieving the 'ājñendriya' also belongs to the homogeneous cause and can obtain the srotaāpanna-phala. That is, at the time of transformation of faculties, like the case of an arhat (one who has attained nirvana), it is permissible to say this without fault (the above is the content of the treatise). The arhat-phala (arhat fruit) up to 'āśrayahetukatva' (being the nature of a dependent cause), this fruit and 'mārga' encompass the content included in the navabhūmi (nine levels of meditation), so take any one of the three feelings (three feelings), and the rest refer to the previous explanation. The intermediate two fruits (sakṛdāgāmin-phala, once-returner fruit and anāgāmin-phala, non-returner fruit) up to 'navendriyaprāpta' (obtained by the nine faculties), this is an explanation of the intermediate two fruits, which is a general explanation. 'Tat kasya hetoḥ' (why), this is a question. The 'sakṛdāgāmin-phala' (once-returner fruit) up to 'navendriyaprāpta' (obtained by the nine faculties), this is an explanation of the once-returner fruit. The sāsrava (with afflictions) is called laukikamārga (mundane path), and the anāsrava (without afflictions) is called lokottaramārga (supramundane path). In the initial ordinary position, for the navakleśatṛṣṇā (nine types of afflictive craving) of the kāmadhātu (desire realm), having already severed the first six types is called 'vītarāga' (free from desire). It should be known that there is one seven (seven faculties), one eight (eight faculties), and one nine (nine faculties) here. The 'anāgāmin-phala' (non-returner fruit) up to 'sahabhāva' (coexistence), this is an explanation of the non-returner fruit, which is a general explanation.

雖同一來七．八．九證。而有差別。謂此全離欲貪超越證者。雖九數同。然受有異。若依未至．中間．及第四定用舍根證。若依初定．二定用喜根證。若依第三定用樂根證。故言可隨取一。前一來果超越。依未至定唯一舍根。此即超越用受差別。又次第證不還果者。若於第九解脫道中。不入根本地依世間道。由七根。得。謂意．舍．信等五。若入根本地依世間道。由八根得。加喜．受。彼無間道舍受。解脫道喜受。此二受相資得第三果。于離系得引．依二因如前說。引．依雖同非無差別。超越證者如預流說。若次第證者以世間道證者。若望有漏離系得為同類因。若望無漏離系得為能作因。若以出世道證者。望無漏離系得為同類因。若望有漏離系得。為能作因。若依因望離系得皆為能作因也。若依第九解脫中。不入根本依出世道。由八根得。意．舍．信等五根．及已知根。若入根本地依出世道。由九根得。八根如前。已知第九。無間．解脫道此已知根俱有故。或此二道俱有已知。應知。不還有一種七。二種八。二種九。故與一來義有差別。若據頌文七．八．九中二。總有二種七。三種八。三種九。以數同故。又婆沙一百四十八云。問離欲界染第九解脫道。誰即入靜慮。誰不入耶。答有說欣多者入。厭多者不入。有說為求

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本雖然同樣是一來向、一來果、不還向、不還果的七根、八根、九根的證得，但還是有差別的。這裡所說的完全離欲貪的超越證得，雖然九根的數量相同，但感受卻有不同。如果依據未至定（Kusala-citta, 接近初禪的定）、中間定（Majjhanajjhana, 位於初禪和二禪之間的禪定）以及第四禪定用舍根（Upekkhindriya, 不苦不樂的感受）證得，如果依據初禪定（Pathamajjhana, 初禪）、二禪定（Dutiyajjhana, 二禪）用喜根（Somanassindriya, 喜悅的感受）證得，如果依據第三禪定（Tatiyajjhana, 三禪）用樂根（Sukhindriya, 快樂的感受）證得，所以說可以選擇其中一種。前面的一來果的超越證得，依據未至定只有舍根。這就是超越證得在感受上的差別。又，次第證得不還果（Anagami-phala, 不還果）的人，如果在第九解脫道（Navama-vimuttimagga, 第九解脫道）中，不進入根本地（Mula-bhumi, 根本定）而依據世間道（Lokiya-magga, 世間道），由七根證得，即意根（Manindriya, 意根）、舍根、信根（Saddhindriya, 信根）等五根。如果進入根本地而依據世間道，由八根證得，加上喜根、受根（Vedanindriya, 感受根）。他們的無間道（Anantarika-magga, 無間道）是舍受，解脫道（Vimuttimagga, 解脫道）是喜受。這兩種感受互相資助而證得第三果。對於離系得（Visesadhisaya, 特殊勝解），引因（Hetu-paccaya, 因緣）、依因（Adhipati-paccaya, 增上緣）如前所述。引因、依因雖然相同，並非沒有差別。超越證得的人如預流果（Sotapatti-phala, 預流果）所說。如果次第證得的人以世間道證得，如果就對有漏的離系得來說，是同類因（Sabhaga-hetu, 同類因）；如果就對無漏的離系得來說，是能作因（Karana-hetu, 能作因）。如果以出世道（Lokuttara-magga, 出世道）證得，就對無漏的離系得來說，是同類因；如果就對有漏的離系得來說，是能作因。如果就因對離系得來說，都是能作因。如果在第九解脫道中，不進入根本地而依據出世道，由八根證得，即意根、舍根、信根等五根，以及已知根（Aññatavindriya, 已知根）。如果進入根本地而依據出世道，由九根證得，八根如前，已知第九。無間道、解脫道都有已知根，或者這兩個道都有已知根。應當知道，不還果有一種七根，兩種八根，兩種九根，所以與一來果的意義有差別。如果根據頌文，七根、八根、九根中有兩種七根，三種八根，三種九根，因為數量相同。又，《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, 阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百四十八卷說：『問：離欲界染的第九解脫道，誰進入靜慮（Samatha, 止），誰不進入呢？』答：『有人說，欣喜多的人進入，厭惡多的人不進入。有人說是爲了求』

【English Translation】 English version Although the attainment of the seven, eight, or nine roots is the same for Sakadagami-magga (approaching the state of Once-Returner), Sakadagami-phala (state of Once-Returner), Anagami-magga (approaching the state of Non-Returner), and Anagami-phala (state of Non-Returner), there are still differences. The transcendence attainment of completely abandoning desire and greed, although the number of nine roots is the same, the feelings are different. If it is attained based on the Kusala-citta (access concentration), Majjhanajjhana (intermediate dhyana), and the fourth dhyana using Upekkhindriya (the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain), if it is attained based on the Pathamajjhana (first dhyana) and Dutiyajjhana (second dhyana) using Somanassindriya (the feeling of joy), if it is attained based on the Tatiyajjhana (third dhyana) using Sukhindriya (the feeling of happiness), so it is said that one can choose one of them. The previous transcendence attainment of Sakadagami-phala only has Upekkhindriya based on Kusala-citta. This is the difference in feeling in transcendence attainment. Furthermore, for those who attain Anagami-phala in sequence, if they do not enter Mula-bhumi (fundamental state) in the Navama-vimuttimagga (ninth path of liberation) and rely on Lokiya-magga (mundane path), they attain it with seven roots, namely Manindriya (root of mind), Upekkhindriya, Saddhindriya (root of faith), and the five roots. If they enter Mula-bhumi and rely on Lokiya-magga, they attain it with eight roots, adding Somanassindriya and Vedanindriya (root of feeling). Their Anantarika-magga (path of immediate proximity) is Upekkhindriya, and Vimuttimagga (path of liberation) is Somanassindriya. These two feelings support each other and attain the third fruit. Regarding Visesadhisaya (distinctive attainment), Hetu-paccaya (causal condition) and Adhipati-paccaya (dominance condition) are as mentioned before. Although Hetu-paccaya and Adhipati-paccaya are the same, they are not without differences. The transcendence attainment is as described for Sotapatti-phala (Stream-Enterer). If those who attain in sequence attain it with Lokiya-magga, if it is with respect to the defiled Visesadhisaya, it is Sabhaga-hetu (homogeneous cause); if it is with respect to the undefiled Visesadhisaya, it is Karana-hetu (efficient cause). If it is attained with Lokuttara-magga, it is Sabhaga-hetu with respect to the undefiled Visesadhisaya; if it is with respect to the defiled Visesadhisaya, it is Karana-hetu. If it is with respect to the cause and Visesadhisaya, they are all Karana-hetu. If in the ninth path of liberation, one does not enter Mula-bhumi and relies on Lokuttara-magga, it is attained with eight roots, namely Manindriya, Upekkhindriya, the five roots such as Saddhindriya, and Aññatavindriya (root of knowledge). If one enters Mula-bhumi and relies on Lokuttara-magga, it is attained with nine roots, the eight roots as before, knowing the ninth. Anantarika-magga and Vimuttimagga both have Aññatavindriya, or both paths have Aññatavindriya. It should be known that there is one type of Anagami-phala with seven roots, two types with eight roots, and two types with nine roots, so there is a difference in meaning from Sakadagami-phala. According to the verses, there are two types of seven roots, three types of eight roots, and three types of nine roots among the seven, eight, and nine roots, because the numbers are the same. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra (Great Commentary on the Abhidharma), volume 148, says: 'Question: In the ninth path of liberation from the defilements of the desire realm, who enters Samatha (tranquility) and who does not enter?' Answer: 'Some say that those with more joy enter, and those with more aversion do not enter. Some say it is for seeking'

靜慮而離染者入。為求解脫而離染者不入。有說利根者入。鈍根者不入　廣如彼釋　問如超越人證不還果。依未至定。何不無間道舍受相應。解脫道入根本定喜受相應。得不還果。解云修道容預得異受續起。見道迅疾初出不得異受續起　又解若次第人先未得根本定。欣求心強有能入根本。超越人先得根本。欣求心劣故不能入。

豈不根本至由九根得者。外難。發智本論云十一得。今言九得。豈不相違。實得第四至定由九根者。通難。實得第四唯用九根。我據此說。本論據數退。容有三受別而得。故說十一。然無一時三受俱起得第四果。是故今說定由九根。各據一義。兩論無違。應知此據從向得果唯論初得故。說九根三受隨一。不據轉根。若據轉根應說八根三受隨一　問如依未至定取無學果。何不容有無間道舍受相應。解脫道入根本地喜受相應。此二相資得第四果。何不如彼不還果耶　解云解脫道是盡智。盡智是息求。故不能入　又解次第不還未得本定欣樂能入。將證無學已得根本。情不欣樂故不能入。

于不還果中何不如是說者。問。于不還中亦容三受得。何不如彼無學說十一根。

以無樂根至極堅牢故者。答。以無第三靜慮樂根證不還果。而於后時得有退義。以樂證果必是超越。夫超越人必無退

義。亦無次第人退已由樂復得。以樂依第三定故。夫次第人。無間道依未至定舍受相應。解脫道或未至定舍受相應。或入根本喜受相應。證不還果。必無退已由樂復得故。無一人具用三受故。不可說十一根得。雖超越人或喜．或舍。證不還果。亦無退義。若次第者以喜．舍證則容有退。是則喜．舍不定。樂根即決定不退。故偏說樂。若用樂根得果者。必無複用喜．舍根得。若用喜．捨得者。亦無由樂復得。若據轉根亦容樂得。今據從向得果唯論初得。故不說彼也。非先離欲界超越證第三果有還退義。此離欲不還果二道所得極堅牢故。一先以世間道得。二后以出世道得。此顯超越不還不退也。若次第證無二道重得義故容有退。其第四果唯次第得。無超越證義。故容數退。

今應思擇至初無漏十三者。此下第四明成就諸根定量。

論曰至所餘根者者。命．意．舍三隨成就一定成就三。必無有闕成余根義。以此三根遍於九地。一切有情皆定成故。

除此三根至皆定成就者。明餘十九或成．不成。如上所遮即不成就。于非遮位皆定成就。

若成樂根至第五自根者。此釋樂身及眼等四定成。此中言定成者。約三界．九地通凡及聖該羅總說決定成者。非約一人。思之可知。

若成喜根至樂根喜根者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本意義。也沒有次第修行者在退失后因樂受而重新獲得果位的說法。因為樂受依附於第三禪定。次第修行者的無間道依附於未至定（Kusala-mūla-citta）的舍受相應，解脫道或者依附於未至定的舍受相應，或者進入根本定的喜受相應。證得不還果（Anāgāmi）的人，絕對不會出現退失后因樂受而重新獲得的情況。因為沒有人會同時具備三種感受，所以不能說同時獲得十一種根。即使是超越修行者，通過喜受或舍受證得不還果，也不會有退失的情況。如果是次第修行者，通過喜受或舍受證果，則可能出現退失。因此，喜受和舍受是不確定的，而樂根是決定不會退失的。所以這裡特別強調樂受。如果用樂根獲得果位，必定不會再用喜受或舍受獲得果位。如果用喜受或舍受獲得果位，也不會因為樂受而重新獲得。如果根據轉根的情況，也可能通過樂受獲得果位。現在是根據從修行到獲得果位的最初獲得情況來討論，所以不討論那種情況。不是先離開欲界，通過超越的方式證得第三果（Anāgāmi-phala）會有退還的情況。這種離開欲界的不還果，兩種道所獲得的果位非常堅固。一種是先用世間道獲得，另一種是後用出世道獲得。這顯示了超越修行者證得不還果是不會退失的。如果是次第證得，沒有兩種道重複獲得的情況，所以可能出現退失。而第四果（Arahatta-phala）只能通過次第獲得，沒有超越證得的情況，所以可能多次退失。

現在應該思考直到最初無漏的十三種根。這以下第四部分說明成就諸根的定量。

論曰：到所餘根者。命根（Jīvitindriya）、意根（Manindriya）、舍根（Upekkhindriya）這三種根，隨成就一種，必定成就三種。絕對不會出現缺少而成就其他根的情況。因為這三種根遍佈於九地（Navabhūmi），一切有情都必定成就。

除此三根到皆定成就者。說明其餘十九種根或者成就，或者不成就。如上面所遮止的情況，就是不成就。在非遮止的位置，都必定成就。

若成樂根到第五自根者。這裡解釋了樂根（Sukhindriya）、身根（Kāyindriya）以及眼根（Cakkhundriya）等四種根是必定成就的。這裡所說的『必定成就』，是從三界（Trailokya）、九地（Navabhūmi），包括凡夫和聖人的總體情況來說的，是普遍意義上的必定成就，而不是針對某一個人。思考一下就可以明白。

若成喜根到樂根喜根者

【English Translation】 English version Meaning. Nor is there any saying that a gradual practitioner, after falling back, regains the fruit due to pleasant feeling. This is because pleasant feeling relies on the third dhyana (Jhāna). The immediate path (Anantarika-magga) of a gradual practitioner relies on the feeling of equanimity (Upekkhā) corresponding to the preliminary concentration (Upacāra-samādhi), and the liberation path (Vimutti-magga) either relies on the feeling of equanimity corresponding to the preliminary concentration, or enters the fundamental concentration (Appanā-samādhi) corresponding to the feeling of joy (Somanassa). One who attains the fruit of non-returning (Anāgāmi) will absolutely not fall back and regain it due to pleasant feeling. Because no one possesses three kinds of feeling simultaneously, it cannot be said that eleven faculties are obtained simultaneously. Even if a transcendent practitioner attains the fruit of non-returning through joy or equanimity, there is no falling back. If it is a gradual practitioner who attains the fruit through joy or equanimity, then falling back is possible. Therefore, joy and equanimity are uncertain, while the faculty of pleasant feeling is definitely not subject to falling back. Therefore, pleasant feeling is particularly emphasized here. If one attains the fruit with the faculty of pleasant feeling, one will definitely not attain the fruit again with the faculty of joy or equanimity. If one attains the fruit with joy or equanimity, one will not regain it through pleasant feeling. If based on the transformation of faculties, it is also possible to attain the fruit through pleasant feeling. Now, we are discussing the initial attainment of the fruit from practice, so we are not discussing that situation. It is not the case that one who transcends the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) and attains the third fruit (Anāgāmi-phala) will fall back. This fruit of non-returning, which is attained by the two paths of leaving the desire realm, is extremely firm. One is attained first through the mundane path (Lokiya-magga), and the other is attained later through the supramundane path (Lokuttara-magga). This shows that the non-returning of a transcendent practitioner is not subject to falling back. If it is a gradual attainment, there is no meaning of attaining it twice through two paths, so falling back is possible. The fourth fruit (Arahatta-phala) can only be attained gradually, and there is no transcendent attainment, so multiple falls are possible.

Now we should consider the thirteen roots up to the initial unconditioned (Anāsava). The fourth part below explains the quantitative determination of the faculties that are attained.

The treatise says: 'To the remaining faculties.' The faculty of life (Jīvitindriya), the faculty of mind (Manindriya), and the faculty of equanimity (Upekkhindriya)—if one attains one of these three faculties, one will definitely attain all three. There will absolutely be no case of lacking one and attaining the other faculties. Because these three faculties pervade the nine realms (Navabhūmi), all sentient beings will definitely attain them.

Excluding these three faculties, 'to all are definitely attained' indicates that the remaining nineteen faculties may or may not be attained. As mentioned above, what is prohibited is not attained. In the non-prohibited positions, all are definitely attained.

If one attains the faculty of pleasant feeling, 'to the fifth self-faculty' explains that the faculty of pleasant feeling (Sukhindriya), the faculty of body (Kāyindriya), and the four faculties of eye (Cakkhundriya) etc. are definitely attained. The 'definitely attained' mentioned here refers to the general situation of the three realms (Trailokya) and nine realms (Navabhūmi), including ordinary people and sages, and is a universal meaning of definite attainment, not for a specific person. Thinking about it will make it clear.

If one attains the faculty of joy, 'to the faculty of pleasant feeling and the faculty of joy'

。此釋喜根定成。

第二靜慮至此成何樂根者。問。如生二定未得三定。舍下初定樂未得上第三定善樂。此人成何樂根。

當言成就至余未得故者。答。未得第三定時。當言成就第三靜慮染污樂根。余善．無覆無記未得故。

若成苦根至信等五根者。此釋苦．女．男．憂．及信等五定成。思之可知。

若成具知根至及已知根者。釋具知．已知。思之可知。

若成未知根至及未知根者。此釋未知根定成十三。成未知根必在欲界。故身．及苦亦說定成。舊俱舍不說苦根。男．女隨一者。譯家謬矣　問于見道中男．女二根隨成一不。若言成者何故不說。若不成者如何入聖　古德念法師解云。于見道中男．女二根雖定成一。成男不成女。成女不成男。以不定故不說。復有法師解意同念法師。然引正理第九解極多成十九根中證云。言一形者。無有二形及與無形得聖法故。正理既言無有無形入聖。故知男．女定成隨一。諸論說言漸命終位入見道者。據漸舍彼眼等四根。非據男女。復有法師解意。亦同念法師。然引正理第九證云。若成未知根定成就十三。謂身．命．意．苦．樂．喜．舍．信等五根．及未知根。漸命終位。傳說深心厭生死故能入見道　此師意說。漸命終位舍男．女根。自宗古德傳說。

【現代漢語翻譯】此解釋了喜根的確定成就。

第二禪定（Dhyana）至此成就何種樂根（Sukha-indriya）？問：如果有人修習了第二禪定，但尚未獲得第三禪定，捨棄了較低的第一禪定的樂受，但尚未獲得第三禪定的善樂，那麼這個人成就何種樂根？

答：應當說成就……因為其餘的尚未獲得。答：在尚未獲得第三禪定時，應當說成就第三禪定的染污樂根（Klista Sukha-indriya），因為其餘的善（Kushala）、無覆無記（Avyakrta）尚未獲得。

如果成就苦根（Duhkha-indriya）……乃至信等五根（Shraddha-adi-panca-indriya）？此解釋了苦根、女根（Stri-indriya）、男根（Purusha-indriya）、憂根（Daurmanasya-indriya）以及信等五根的確定成就。仔細思考就可以理解。

如果成就具知根（Ajnatavindriya）……乃至及已知根（Jnatendriya）？解釋了具知根、已知根。仔細思考就可以理解。

如果成就未知根（Anajnatavisyami-indriya）……乃至及未知根？此解釋了未知根的確定成就為十三種。成就未知根必定在欲界（Kama-dhatu）。因此，身根（Kaya-indriya）以及苦根也說是確定成就。舊《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakosa）沒有說苦根，男根、女根隨一，是譯者的錯誤。問：在見道（Darshana-marga）中，男根、女根這兩種根隨一成就嗎？如果說成就，為什麼不說？如果說不成就，如何入聖（Arya）？古德念法師解釋說：在見道中，男根、女根這兩種根雖然必定成就一個，成就男根就不成就女根，成就女根就不成就男根，因為不確定所以不說。又有法師解釋，意思與念法師相同。然而引用《正理》（Nyayanusara）第九，在解釋極多成就十九根中證明說：『說一形者，沒有二形以及無形能夠獲得聖法。』《正理》既然說沒有無形入聖，所以知道男根、女根必定成就隨一。諸論說在漸命終位入見道的人，是根據逐漸捨棄眼等四根，不是根據男女。又有法師解釋，意思也與念法師相同。然而引用《正理》第九證明說：『如果成就未知根，必定成就十三種，即身根、命根（Jivita-indriya）、意根（Manas-indriya）、苦根、樂根、喜根（Saumanasya-indriya）、舍根（Upeksha-indriya）、信等五根、以及未知根。』漸命終位，傳說因為深心厭惡生死所以能夠入見道。這位法師的意思是說，漸命終位捨棄男根、女根。自宗古德傳說。

【English Translation】 This explains the definite accomplishment of the joy faculty (Hri-indriya).

What kind of pleasure faculty (Sukha-indriya) is accomplished at this point, from the second Dhyana (meditative absorption)? Question: If someone has cultivated the second Dhyana but has not yet attained the third Dhyana, having abandoned the lower pleasure of the first Dhyana but not yet attained the wholesome pleasure of the third Dhyana, what kind of pleasure faculty does this person accomplish?

Answer: It should be said that they accomplish... because the rest have not yet been attained. Answer: When the third Dhyana has not yet been attained, it should be said that they accomplish the defiled pleasure faculty (Klista Sukha-indriya) of the third Dhyana, because the remaining wholesome (Kushala), non-defiled neutral (Avyakrta) have not been attained.

If the pain faculty (Duhkha-indriya) is accomplished... up to the five faculties of faith, etc. (Shraddha-adi-panca-indriya)? This explains the definite accomplishment of the pain faculty, the female faculty (Stri-indriya), the male faculty (Purusha-indriya), the sorrow faculty (Daurmanasya-indriya), and the five faculties of faith, etc. Careful thought will make it understandable.

If the faculty of knowing (Ajnatavindriya) is accomplished... up to and including the faculty of having known (Jnatendriya)? Explains the faculty of knowing, the faculty of having known. Careful thought will make it understandable.

If the faculty of not-yet-knowing (Anajnatavisyami-indriya) is accomplished... up to and including the faculty of not-yet-knowing? This explains that the definite accomplishment of the faculty of not-yet-knowing is thirteen. The accomplishment of the faculty of not-yet-knowing must be in the desire realm (Kama-dhatu). Therefore, the body faculty (Kaya-indriya) and the pain faculty are also said to be definitely accomplished. The old Abhidharmakosa does not mention the pain faculty, and says that either the male or female faculty is accomplished, which is a translator's error. Question: In the path of seeing (Darshana-marga), is one of the male or female faculties accomplished? If it is said that it is accomplished, why is it not mentioned? If it is said that it is not accomplished, how does one enter the state of a noble one (Arya)? The ancient virtuous teacher Nian Fa explains: In the path of seeing, although one of the male or female faculties is definitely accomplished, if the male faculty is accomplished, the female faculty is not, and if the female faculty is accomplished, the male faculty is not, it is not mentioned because it is uncertain. Another Dharma teacher explains with the same meaning as Dharma teacher Nian. However, he quotes the ninth chapter of Nyayanusara, proving from the explanation of the nineteen faculties that are accomplished in most cases: 'Those who have one form, neither those with two forms nor those without form can attain the sacred Dharma.' Since Nyayanusara says that those without form cannot enter the state of a noble one, it is known that either the male or female faculty must be accomplished. The treatises that say that one enters the path of seeing at the moment of gradual death are based on the gradual abandonment of the four faculties of eye, etc., not based on male or female. Another Dharma teacher explains with the same meaning as Dharma teacher Nian. However, he quotes the ninth chapter of Nyayanusara, proving: 'If the faculty of not-yet-knowing is accomplished, thirteen are definitely accomplished, namely the body faculty, the life faculty (Jivita-indriya), the mind faculty (Manas-indriya), the pain faculty, the pleasure faculty, the joy faculty (Saumanasya-indriya), the equanimity faculty (Upeksha-indriya), the five faculties of faith, etc., and the faculty of not-yet-knowing.' At the moment of gradual death, it is said that one can enter the path of seeing because of a deep aversion to birth and death. This teacher means that the male and female faculties are abandoned at the moment of gradual death. This is the tradition of the ancient virtuous teachers of our school.

深心厭生死故能入見道。正理稱傳顯己不信。故知男．女定隨成一或漸命終者。據漸舍彼眼等四根非舍男．女。破第一念法師云。若言男．女于見道中不定故不說者。何故婆沙一百五十六云。若成就女．男二根定成就余根中雲。定成過去．未來九。三世二。現在四。過．未九者。謂四受．信等五。三世二者。謂意．一受。現在四者謂男．女．身．命。余不定如前說。西方師云。應說過．未定成十。謂五受．信等五。三世定成一謂意。受名不定。故迦濕彌羅國諸師言。名雖不定而數即定。必有一受現在前。故此中說數不說名。又婆沙云。若成就未知當知根。定成就三世七。過去．未來三。未來．現在一。現在二。三世七者。謂意．一受．信等五。過．未三者謂三受。未．現一者。謂未知當知。現二者謂身．命　此中二說如前。余不定如前說。婆沙若成就男．女二根定成就余根中雲。三世二者。謂意．一受。又成就未知當知根定成就余根中雲。三世七者。謂意．一受．信等五根。彼論既云三世定成一受。雖名不定。以數定故標數說之男．女二根于見道中既隨成一。何故不說。念法師若說男．女二根于見道雖定成一。名以不定故不說者。此是西方師義。若必成一者迦濕彌羅國義。說數定故應有十四。然說十三故說非理。良由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因內心深切厭惡生死輪迴，所以能夠進入見道（Dṛṣṭimārga，佛教修行中的一個階段）。正理宗的論述表明他們不相信這一點。因此，要知道男性或女性的性別在證得見道時，必定會隨之成就其中一種，或者在逐漸死亡的過程中也是如此。根據逐漸捨棄的說法，他們捨棄的是眼等四根，而不是捨棄男性或女性的性別。駁斥第一念法師的觀點，他說：『如果說男性或女性的性別在見道中是不確定的，所以不說，那麼為什麼《大毗婆沙論》第一百五十六卷說，如果成就了女性或男性兩種性根，就必定成就其餘的根呢？』其中說到，必定成就過去、未來九種，三世兩種，現在四種。過去、未來九種，指的是四種受（Vedanā，感受）和信等五根。三世兩種，指的是意根（Manas，心意）和一種受。現在四種，指的是男性、女性、身根（Kāya，身體）和命根（Jīvitendriya，生命）。其餘不確定的情況如前所述。西方師說，應該說過去、未來必定成就十種，指的是五種受和信等五根。三世必定成就一種，指的是意根。受的名稱不確定。所以迦濕彌羅國的諸位論師說，名稱雖然不確定，但數量是確定的，必定有一種受現在前。所以這裡說數量，不說名稱。另外，《大毗婆沙論》說，如果成就了未知當知根（Ajñātājñāsyāmīndriya，一種無漏根），必定成就三世七種，過去、未來三種，未來、現在一種，現在兩種。三世七種，指的是意根、一種受、信等五根。過去、未來三種，指的是三種受。未來、現在一種，指的是未知當知根。現在兩種，指的是身根和命根。這裡兩種說法如前所述。其餘不確定的情況如前所述。《大毗婆沙論》說，如果成就了男性或女性兩種性根，必定成就其餘的根，其中說到，三世兩種，指的是意根和一種受。又說，如果成就了未知當知根，必定成就其餘的根，其中說到，三世七種，指的是意根、一種受、信等五根。該論既然說三世必定成就一種受，雖然名稱不確定，但因為數量確定，所以標明數量來說。男性或女性兩種性根在見道中既然必定隨之成就一種，為什麼不說呢？念法師說，如果說男性或女性兩種性根在見道中雖然必定成就一種，但因為名稱不確定所以不說，這是西方師的觀點。如果必定成就一種，這是迦濕彌羅國的觀點。因為說數量確定，所以應該有十四種，然而說了十三種，所以說得不合理。這是因為……

【English Translation】 English version Deeply disliking Saṃsāra (cycle of birth and death), one can enter the Dṛṣṭimārga (path of seeing, a stage in Buddhist practice). The statements of the Vaibhāṣika (a Buddhist school) show that they do not believe this. Therefore, know that when a male or female achieves the path of seeing, one of the two genders must be accomplished, or in the process of gradual death. According to the gradual abandonment, they abandon the four roots such as the eye, not abandoning the male or female gender. Refuting the view of the first thought master, he said: 'If it is said that the male or female gender is uncertain in the path of seeing, so it is not mentioned, then why does the Mahāvibhāṣā (a Buddhist text) Volume 156 say that if one achieves the two roots of female or male, one must achieve the remaining roots?' It says that one must achieve nine in the past and future, two in the three times, and four in the present. The nine in the past and future refer to the four Vedanā (feelings) and the five roots of faith, etc. The two in the three times refer to the Manas (mind) and one Vedanā. The four in the present refer to male, female, Kāya (body), and Jīvitendriya (life). The remaining uncertain situations are as previously stated. The Western teacher said that it should be said that ten must be achieved in the past and future, referring to the five Vedanā and the five roots of faith, etc. One must be achieved in the three times, referring to the Manas. The name of Vedanā is uncertain. Therefore, the teachers of Kashmir said that although the name is uncertain, the number is certain, and there must be one Vedanā present. Therefore, here we talk about the number, not the name. In addition, the Mahāvibhāṣā says that if one achieves the Ajñātājñāsyāmīndriya (root of 'I will know the unknown'), one must achieve seven in the three times, three in the past and future, one in the future and present, and two in the present. The seven in the three times refer to the Manas, one Vedanā, and the five roots of faith, etc. The three in the past and future refer to the three Vedanā. The one in the future and present refers to the Ajñātājñāsyāmīndriya. The two in the present refer to the Kāya and Jīvitendriya. The two statements here are as previously stated. The remaining uncertain situations are as previously stated. The Mahāvibhāṣā says that if one achieves the two roots of male or female, one must achieve the remaining roots, where it says that the two in the three times refer to the Manas and one Vedanā. It also says that if one achieves the Ajñātājñāsyāmīndriya, one must achieve the remaining roots, where it says that the seven in the three times refer to the Manas, one Vedanā, and the five roots of faith, etc. Since that treatise says that one Vedanā must be achieved in the three times, although the name is uncertain, because the number is certain, the number is marked and said. Since one of the two roots of male or female must be achieved in the path of seeing, why not say it? The thought master said that if it is said that although one of the two roots of male or female must be achieved in the path of seeing, it is not said because the name is uncertain, this is the view of the Western teacher. If one must be achieved, this is the view of Kashmir. Because it is said that the number is certain, there should be fourteen, but thirteen are said, so it is unreasonable. This is because...

未見新婆沙也。復有法師助念法師救云。受通成三世。雖名不定故說。男．女二根。于見道中雖定成一。以不成三世故不說。難云身．命亦不成三世。何故即說。彼法師解云。以現在定成故說。又難男．女二根　見道中亦定成就。何故不說。彼師解云以名不定故不說。難云若作此解還同念法師。是西方師義。破第二師云若言男．女定成一。應說有十四。約數定故。若約名不定故不說。還同西方師義。正理言無有無形得聖法者。此據本性損壞扇搋．半擇．無形者說。或可。正理言中有失。以此論解極多中不云無形故。此論云女．男二根隨除一種。以諸聖者無二形故。破第三師云不定如前破。正理稱傳。自是不信本宗之義。非我過也。撿尋婆沙論文全無傳說之語　或可。正理敘古相傳何必不信。既無別破。不可執斯傳字以作指南　今正解云于見道中。男．女二根或有。或無。若有者隨成就一。若無者。據從下漸舍男．女根說。所以無形能入聖者。漸命終位。深心猛利厭生死故。能入見道。故婆沙一百五十解隨信行極少成十三根。十三者身．命．意．四受．信等五．一無漏根。即離欲染漸命終位入見道者。婆沙意說漸命終位舍男女根。無眼等四能入見道。此在不疑。故知漸終意說男．女　或可。婆沙一無漏根言。顯不成餘二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：未見《新婆沙》中有此說法。又有法師（Dharma master）助念法師（Dharma master）救場說：『受』和『通』成就三世。雖然『名』不確定，所以不說。男根（male organ）、女根（female organ）這兩種根，在見道（path of seeing）中雖然必定成就一個，因為不成三世，所以不說。有人反駁說：身（body）、命（life）也不成三世，為什麼就說呢？那位法師解釋說：因為現在必定成就，所以說。又有人反駁：男根、女根這兩種根，在見道中也必定成就，為什麼不說呢？那位法師解釋說：因為『名』不確定，所以不說。有人反駁說：如果這樣解釋，就和念法師（Dharma master）的說法一樣了。這是西方師（Western teacher）的觀點。駁斥第二位法師（Dharma master）的觀點：如果說男根、女根必定成就一個，應該說有十四個（根），因為數量確定。如果因為『名』不確定所以不說，就和西方師（Western teacher）的觀點一樣了。正理（correct principle）認為沒有無形（sexless）之人能夠獲得聖法（holy Dharma）。這是針對本性損壞的扇搋（eunuch）、半擇（hermaphrodite）、無形（sexless）之人說的。或者可以這樣理解：正理（correct principle）認為中有（intermediate existence）會失去（聖法）。因為這部論（treatise）的解釋極多，其中沒有說無形（sexless）之人不能獲得聖法（holy Dharma）。這部論（treatise）說，女根（female organ）、男根（male organ）這兩種根，隨去除一種。因為諸位聖者（saints）沒有兩種形體。駁斥第三位法師（Dharma master）的觀點：『不確定』如前文所駁斥。正理（correct principle）稱之為『傳說』，這是不相信本宗的意義，不是我的過錯。檢查《婆沙》（Vibhasa）的論文，完全沒有『傳說』的說法。或者可以這樣理解：正理（correct principle）敘述古老的相傳，為什麼不相信呢？既然沒有其他的駁斥，不可執著于這個『傳』字作為指南。現在正確地解釋：在見道（path of seeing）中，男根（male organ）、女根（female organ）或者有，或者沒有。如果有，就隨成就一個。如果沒有，就根據從下漸舍男根（male organ）、女根（female organ）來說。所以無形（sexless）之人能夠進入聖道（holy path），是因為在漸命終位（gradual dying state），內心深刻猛烈地厭惡生死，所以能夠進入見道（path of seeing）。所以《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第一百五十解說，隨信行（follower of faith）極少成就十三根（thirteen roots）。十三根（thirteen roots）是：身（body）、命（life）、意（mind）、四受（four feelings）、信等五（five faculties of faith, etc.）、一無漏根（one root of non-outflow），即離開欲染在漸命終位（gradual dying state）進入見道（path of seeing）的人。《婆沙》（Vibhasa）的意思是說，在漸命終位（gradual dying state）捨棄男女根（male and female organs），沒有眼等四根（four sense organs）也能進入見道（path of seeing），這在不懷疑的情況下。所以知道漸終（gradual end）的意思是說男女根（male and female organs）。或者可以這樣理解：《婆沙》（Vibhasa）的一無漏根（one root of non-outflow）說明不能成就其餘二根（other two roots）。

【English Translation】 English version: This is not found in the New Vibhasa. Furthermore, a Dharma master assists and another Dharma master rescues, saying: 'Reception' and 'penetration' accomplish the three times. Although the 'name' is uncertain, it is not mentioned. The male organ (male organ) and female organ (female organ), these two roots, although one is certainly accomplished in the path of seeing (path of seeing), it is not mentioned because it does not accomplish the three times. Someone objects, saying: The body (body) and life (life) also do not accomplish the three times, why are they mentioned? That Dharma master explains, saying: Because it is certainly accomplished in the present, it is mentioned. Someone objects again: The male organ and female organ, these two roots, are also certainly accomplished in the path of seeing, why are they not mentioned? That Dharma master explains, saying: Because the 'name' is uncertain, it is not mentioned. Someone objects, saying: If explained in this way, it is the same as the Dharma master's idea. This is the view of the Western teacher (Western teacher). Refuting the view of the second Dharma master: If it is said that the male organ and female organ certainly accomplish one, it should be said that there are fourteen (roots), because the number is certain. If it is not mentioned because the 'name' is uncertain, it is the same as the view of the Western teacher. The correct principle (correct principle) believes that no sexless (sexless) person can obtain the holy Dharma (holy Dharma). This is said in reference to eunuchs (eunuch), hermaphrodites (hermaphrodite), and sexless (sexless) people whose nature is damaged. Or it can be understood in this way: The correct principle (correct principle) believes that intermediate existence (intermediate existence) will lose (the holy Dharma). Because there are extremely many explanations of this treatise (treatise), it does not say that sexless (sexless) people cannot obtain the holy Dharma (holy Dharma). This treatise (treatise) says that the female organ (female organ) and male organ (male organ), these two roots, are removed as one pleases. Because all saints (saints) do not have two forms. Refuting the view of the third Dharma master: 'Uncertainty' is refuted as before. The correct principle (correct principle) calls it a 'tradition', which is not believing in the meaning of one's own school, and is not my fault. Examining the papers of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), there is no mention of 'tradition' at all. Or it can be understood in this way: The correct principle (correct principle) narrates the ancient tradition, why not believe it? Since there is no other refutation, one should not cling to this word 'tradition' as a guide. Now, the correct explanation is: In the path of seeing (path of seeing), the male organ (male organ) and female organ (female organ) either exist or do not exist. If they exist, then one is accomplished. If they do not exist, it is based on the gradual abandonment of the male organ (male organ) and female organ (female organ) from below. Therefore, a sexless (sexless) person can enter the holy path (holy path) because, in the gradual dying state (gradual dying state), their heart deeply and intensely detests birth and death, so they can enter the path of seeing (path of seeing). Therefore, the one hundred and fiftieth explanation of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa) says that a follower of faith (follower of faith) rarely accomplishes thirteen roots (thirteen roots). The thirteen roots (thirteen roots) are: body (body), life (life), mind (mind), four feelings (four feelings), five faculties of faith, etc. (five faculties of faith, etc.), and one root of non-outflow (one root of non-outflow), which is the person who leaves desire and enters the path of seeing (path of seeing) in the gradual dying state (gradual dying state). The meaning of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa) is that in the gradual dying state (gradual dying state), the male and female organs (male and female organs) are abandoned, and one can enter the path of seeing (path of seeing) without the four sense organs (four sense organs) such as the eyes, which is in a state of no doubt. Therefore, it is known that the meaning of gradual end (gradual end) refers to the male and female organs (male and female organs). Or it can be understood in this way: The one root of non-outflow (one root of non-outflow) in the Vibhasa (Vibhasa) indicates that the other two roots (other two roots) cannot be accomplished.

無漏根。離欲染言顯不成憂。漸命終位入見道言。顯舍男．女．及眼等四。以此故知。漸舍男．女能入見道　問漸舍男．女得入見道。何故此卷初云本性損壞扇搋．半擇及二形人亦無律儀得果．離染諸清凈法。解云彼文既不遮漸舍入見道。何妨無形能入見道。彼言不得入者。據本性損壞扇搋．半擇說　問漸死無形得入聖者。亦可漸死無形得受具戒　解云得受具戒。如入見道心猛利故。言無根不得戒者。據本性損壞扇搋．半擇說　又解不得戒以受戒時先問彼言是男子．女人不。既無有根故不得戒。入聖不問故無根得入　又解戒得．不得。若戒師問已後方舍者得戒。以當問時根未舍故。若戒師未問。先已舍者即不得戒。以正問時無有根故　問若漸命終雖無根能入見道。亦應無根得不律儀。造無間業。能斷善根　解云將入見道必先厭離生死過失。故漸死位得入見道。得不律儀等。非別厭離善法功德。故漸舍位非得不律儀等　又解漸死既得入聖。厭生死。故。何妨漸命終位。心猛利故得不律儀等。而言不得。據本性損壞扇搋．半擇．二形者說。

諸極少者至成善命意舍者。此下第五明成根極少。

論曰至立圓滿名者。釋上兩句。已斷之言簡異正斷。以正斷時猶成善故。彼若極少成就八根。據漸捨命故唯身根。義便

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『無漏根』（anāsrava-indriya，指無漏的根，即超越慾望和煩惱的感官能力）。如果說『離欲染言顯不成憂』，意思是說，通過捨棄慾望和污染，可以顯現出沒有憂慮的狀態。『漸命終位入見道言』，意思是說，在逐漸死亡的過程中進入見道（darśana-mārga，佛教修行中的初果位），這表明可以捨棄男性、女性的性徵以及眼等四根（眼、耳、鼻、舌）。因此可知，逐漸捨棄男女性徵的人能夠進入見道。問：既然逐漸捨棄男女性徵的人可以進入見道，為什麼此捲開頭說『本性損壞的扇搋（paṇḍaka，指天生性無能者）、半擇（napuṃsaka，指閹人）以及二形人（ubhayavyañjanaka，指雙性人）也沒有律儀，不能獲得果位，不能遠離染污，不能獲得各種清凈的法』？答：那段經文並沒有阻止逐漸捨棄性徵的人進入見道，所以不妨礙無性徵的人進入見道。他們說不能進入見道，是針對本性損壞的扇搋、半擇說的。問：逐漸死亡的無性徵者可以進入聖道，那麼逐漸死亡的無性徵者也可以受具足戒嗎？答：可以受具足戒，就像進入見道一樣，因為他們的心很猛利。說無根者不能得戒，是針對本性損壞的扇搋、半擇說的。又解釋說，不得戒是因為受戒時會先問他們是男子還是女人。既然他們沒有性根，所以不得戒。進入聖道則不問這些，所以無根者可以進入。又解釋說，得戒與不得戒的區別在於，如果戒師問過之後才捨棄性根，那麼可以得戒，因為在被問的時候，性根還沒有捨棄。如果戒師沒有問，就已經捨棄了性根，那麼就不得戒，因為在正式提問的時候，已經沒有性根了。問：如果逐漸死亡的人即使沒有性根也能進入見道，那麼也應該無根者可以獲得不律儀（不符合戒律的行為），造作無間業（ānantarika-karma，指五種極重的罪業），能夠斷滅善根。答：將要進入見道的人必定先厭離生死的過失，所以逐漸死亡的人可以進入見道。獲得不律儀等，並不是因為特別厭離善法的功德，所以逐漸捨棄性徵的人不能獲得不律儀等。又解釋說，逐漸死亡的人既然可以進入聖道，是因為厭離生死。為什麼妨礙逐漸死亡的人，因為心很猛利而獲得不律儀等呢？說不能獲得，是針對本性損壞的扇搋、半擇、二形人說的。

『諸極少者至成善命意舍者』，這以下第五部分說明成就根的極少情況。

『論曰至立圓滿名者』，解釋上面兩句。『已斷之言簡異正斷』，意思是說，『已斷』這個詞不同於『正斷』，因為在『正斷』的時候，仍然可以成就善業。他們如果極少地成就八根，根據逐漸捨棄生命的情況，就只有身根。這樣理解就方便了。

【English Translation】 English version 'Anāsrava-indriya' (無漏根, referring to the undefiled faculties, i.e., sensory abilities that transcend desire and affliction). If it is said that 'by abandoning desire and defilement, it is shown that there is no worry,' it means that by abandoning desire and defilement, a state without worry can be manifested. 'Entering the path of seeing in the gradual dying state' means that entering the darśana-mārga (見道, the first stage of enlightenment in Buddhism) in the process of gradual death indicates that one can abandon male and female characteristics, as well as the four indriyas (根, faculties) such as the eyes. Therefore, it can be known that those who gradually abandon male and female characteristics can enter the path of seeing. Question: Since those who gradually abandon male and female characteristics can enter the path of seeing, why does this volume initially say that 'paṇḍakas (扇搋, those who are congenitally impotent), napuṃsakas (半擇, eunuchs), and ubhayavyañjanakas (二形人, hermaphrodites) with damaged nature also have no precepts, cannot attain fruition, cannot be free from defilement, and cannot attain various pure dharmas'? Answer: That passage does not prevent those who gradually abandon their sexual characteristics from entering the path of seeing, so it does not hinder those without sexual characteristics from entering the path of seeing. Their statement that they cannot enter the path of seeing is directed at paṇḍakas and napuṃsakas with damaged nature. Question: If a gradually dying person without sexual characteristics can enter the holy path, can a gradually dying person without sexual characteristics also receive the full precepts? Answer: They can receive the full precepts, just like entering the path of seeing, because their minds are very sharp. The statement that those without roots cannot receive the precepts is directed at paṇḍakas and napuṃsakas with damaged nature. It is also explained that they cannot receive the precepts because when receiving the precepts, they are first asked whether they are male or female. Since they have no sexual organs, they cannot receive the precepts. Entering the holy path does not ask these questions, so those without roots can enter. It is also explained that the difference between receiving and not receiving the precepts lies in whether the preceptor asked before the sexual organs were abandoned. If the sexual organs were abandoned after the preceptor asked, then the precepts can be received, because the sexual organs had not yet been abandoned when asked. If the preceptor did not ask and the sexual organs had already been abandoned, then the precepts cannot be received, because there are no sexual organs at the time of the formal question. Question: If a gradually dying person can enter the path of seeing even without sexual organs, then those without sexual organs should also be able to obtain unwholesome conduct (不律儀), commit ānantarika-karma (無間業, the five heinous crimes), and be able to sever roots of goodness. Answer: Those who are about to enter the path of seeing must first be disgusted with the faults of birth and death, so gradually dying people can enter the path of seeing. Obtaining unwholesome conduct, etc., is not because of a particular aversion to the merits of wholesome dharmas, so those who gradually abandon their sexual characteristics cannot obtain unwholesome conduct, etc. It is also explained that since gradually dying people can enter the holy path because they are disgusted with birth and death, why hinder gradually dying people from obtaining unwholesome conduct, etc., because their minds are very sharp? The statement that they cannot obtain it is directed at paṇḍakas, napuṃsakas, and ubhayavyañjanakas with damaged nature.

'Those who are extremely few to those who intentionally abandon to achieve goodness,' the fifth part below explains the extremely few cases of achieving roots.

'The treatise says to establish the name of perfection,' explaining the above two sentences. 'The words 'already cut off' are different from 'just cutting off',' meaning that the term 'already cut off' is different from 'just cutting off' because one can still achieve good karma at the time of 'just cutting off'. If they achieve the eight roots to a very small extent, according to the situation of gradually abandoning life, there is only the body faculty. This understanding is convenient.

釋受。能受名受從用立名。受性名受當體立名。如鏡圓滿性故立圓滿名。亦當體立名。

如斷善根至未見諦故者。釋下兩句。愚夫異生。生無色界．亦成八根。

何等為八者。問。

謂信等五至總名為善者。答。謂信等五．命．意．舍八。信等五根一向善故。所以頌文總名為善。

若爾應攝三無漏根者。難。若言善故。應當亦攝三無漏根。

不爾此中至無色界故者。答。不爾此頌文中依命．意．舍．信等八根中唯是善者說。不依二十二根中唯是善者說。又說愚生無色界故。明知不成三無漏根。

諸極多者至除二凈一形者。此下第六明成根極多。

論曰至故有十九者。釋上兩句。極多容成十九。謂二形必是欲界異生。若眼等四根得已不失既有。二形必不斷善有信等五。二形不能離欲定成五受。其身．命．意亦必定成故成十九。二形不能入聖除三無漏。二縛謂相應縛．及所緣縛。

唯此具十九為更有耶者。問。

聖者未離欲至無二形故者。答。釋下兩句。此解未離欲聖極多容成十九。隨其所應除二無漏。及除一形。女．男二根隨除一種。以諸聖者無二形故不成二十。又正理解云。言一形者。無有二形及與無形得聖法故　彼論既說無有無形得聖法者。即顯男．女根

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

釋受（Shì shòu）：能感受的叫做『受』，這是從作用上立名。『受』的自性叫做『受』，這是從本體上立名。就像鏡子圓滿，因為它的自性是圓滿的，所以立名為圓滿，這也是從本體上立名。

如『斷善根至未見諦故者』：解釋下面兩句。愚夫異生（yú fū yì shēng，指凡夫俗子），生來沒有**（原文如此，可能指某種缺失或障礙），也成就八根。

『何等為八者』：提問。

『謂信等五至總名為善者』：回答。指信等五根（即信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）、命根、意根、舍根這八種。信等五根完全是善的，所以頌文總稱為善。

『若爾應攝三無漏根者』：提出疑問。如果說是善的緣故，那麼應當也包括三無漏根（即未知當知根、已知根、具知根）。

『不爾此中至無故者』：回答。不是這樣的，這個頌文中是依據命根、意根、舍根、信等八根中唯是善的來說的，不是依據二十二根中唯是善的來說的。又說愚夫異生沒有，明顯知道不能成就三無漏根。

『諸極多者至除二凈一形者』：下面第六部分說明成就的根最多。

論曰至故有十九者：解釋上面兩句。最多可以成就十九根。二形（指同時具有男女兩性的根）一定是欲界異生。如果眼等四根已經獲得且沒有失去，那麼就具有。二形一定不斷善根，具有信等五根。二形不能離開欲界禪定，成就五受（苦、樂、喜、憂、舍）。他們的身根、命根、意根也必定成就，所以成就十九根。二形不能進入聖道，所以排除三無漏根。二縛指相應縛和所緣縛。

『唯此具十九為更有耶者』：提問。

『聖者未離欲至無二形故者』：回答。解釋下面兩句。這解釋了未離開欲界的聖者最多可以成就十九根。根據情況排除二無漏根，以及排除一種形根。女根、男根兩種根隨之排除一種。因為聖者沒有二形，所以不能成就二十根。又正確的理解是，說一種形根，是沒有二形以及沒有無形（沒有性器官）而獲得聖法的緣故。那部論既然說了沒有無形的人能夠獲得聖法，就顯示了男根、女根。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Shi shou' (釋受, Explanation of 'Reception'): What is capable of receiving is called 'reception' (受), which is named from its function. The self-nature of 'reception' is called 'reception,' which is named from its essence. Just as a mirror is perfect, it is named 'perfect' because its self-nature is perfect, which is also named from its essence.

As in 'severing roots of goodness to not seeing the truth': Explains the following two sentences. 'Yu fu yi sheng' (愚夫異生, Ignorant ordinary beings) are born without ** (as in the original text, possibly referring to some deficiency or obstacle), and also accomplish eight roots.

'What are the eight?': Question.

'Referring to the five of faith, etc., to collectively being called good': Answer. It refers to the five roots of faith, etc. (namely, the root of faith, the root of diligence, the root of mindfulness, the root of concentration, and the root of wisdom), the root of life, the root of mind, and the root of equanimity. The five roots of faith, etc., are entirely good, so the verse collectively calls them good.

'If so, should the three unconditioned roots be included?': Question. If it is said to be because of goodness, then the three unconditioned roots (namely, the root of the unknown to be known, the root of knowledge, and the root of complete knowledge) should also be included.

'Not so, in this context, to without ': Answer. It is not so; this verse is based on saying that among the eight roots of life, mind, equanimity, and faith, etc., only those that are good are mentioned, not based on saying that among the twenty-two roots, only those that are good are mentioned. Moreover, it is said that ignorant ordinary beings do not have , which clearly indicates that the three unconditioned roots cannot be accomplished.

'Those with the most, to excluding two pure ones and one form': The sixth part below explains that the most roots are accomplished.

The treatise says, 'Therefore, there are nineteen': Explains the above two sentences. At most, nineteen roots can be accomplished. 'Er xing' (二形, Those with two forms, referring to those with both male and female sexual characteristics) must be ordinary beings in the desire realm. If the four roots of eye, etc., have been obtained and not lost, then they are possessed. 'Er xing' (二形, Those with two forms) certainly do not sever the roots of goodness and have the five roots of faith, etc. 'Er xing' (二形, Those with two forms) cannot leave the desire realm's samadhi and accomplish the five sensations (suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, equanimity). Their body root, life root, and mind root are also certainly accomplished, so nineteen roots are accomplished. 'Er xing' (二形, Those with two forms) cannot enter the holy path, so the three unconditioned roots are excluded. The two bonds refer to the corresponding bond and the object-related bond.

'Only this one has nineteen, or are there more?': Question.

'Saints who have not left desire, to without two forms': Answer. Explains the following two sentences. This explains that saints who have not left the desire realm can accomplish at most nineteen roots. Depending on the situation, the two unconditioned roots are excluded, as well as one form root. Either the female root or the male root is excluded. Because saints do not have two forms, they cannot accomplish twenty roots. Moreover, the correct understanding is that saying one form root means that there are no two forms and no formless (without sexual organs) who can obtain the holy Dharma. Since that treatise says that no formless person can obtain the holy Dharma, it reveals the male root and the female root.

定隨成一如何漸捨得入聖耶。通此妨難如前解釋。

因分別界至二十二根竟者。此總結也。

俱舍論記卷第三大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第四

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之二

今應思擇至決定俱生者。此下當品大文第二明俱生法。即約俱生辨用。就中。一正明俱起。二廣辨差別　就初門中。一明色法俱生。二明四品同起　此下第一明色法俱生。將明問起　就中。一問。二答。此即問也　今應思擇。一切有為如體相不同。生時亦各各別異而生。為有諸法決定俱生　又解總為一問。一切有為如體相不同。其生亦各異。於此異體別生有為法中。為有諸法決定俱生　有定俱生至此中不說者。就答中。一總答。二別明。此即總答　必有諸行決定俱生。總說諸法略有五品。所以不說無為。此品明諸法用。所以但明前四品法。就中。色．心界品廣明。更不別顯但辨但生。心所．不相應前來不說。此品廣明。且辨俱生。

今先辨色至十事有餘根者。此即別答。明色俱生。一切諸色略有二種。一是極微聚即五根五境。二非極微聚即無表色。此中且辨極微聚也。微聚是假。假必依實。實有多小不同。是即約假聚明有實數也。

論曰至隨一不減

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『定隨成一』如何逐漸捨棄而得以進入聖位呢？對此妨難，如前解釋。

『因分別界至二十二根竟者』，這是總結。

《俱舍論記》卷第三大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第四

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之二

『今應思擇至決定俱生者』，這以下是本品的大文第二部分，闡明俱生法。即圍繞俱生來辨別作用。其中，一、正式闡明俱起；二、廣泛辨別差別。在第一個部分中，一、闡明色法俱生；二、闡明四品（四種分類）一同生起。這以下是第一部分，闡明色法俱生，將要闡明，先提出問題。其中，一、提問；二、回答。這就是提問。現在應當思考，一切有為法，如體相不同，生起時也各自不同而生起，是否有諸法決定一同生起？

又可以理解為總的一個問題：一切有為法，如體相不同，其生起也各自不同。在這異體別生的有為法中，是否有諸法決定一同生起？

『有定俱生至此中不說者』，在回答中，一、總的回答；二、分別闡明。這是總的回答。必定有諸行決定一同生起。總的說來，諸法略有五品（五種分類）。所以不說無為法。此品闡明諸法的作用，所以只闡明前四品法。其中，色、心界品廣泛闡明，不再另外顯示，只辨別但生。心所、不相應行，前面沒有說，此品廣泛闡明，且辨別俱生。

『今先辨色至十事有餘根者』，這是分別回答，闡明色法俱生。一切諸色略有二種：一是極微聚，即五根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根）五境（色境、聲境、香境、味境、觸境）；二是非極微聚，即無表色。這裡且辨別極微聚。微聚是假，假必依實，實有多小不同，這是圍繞假聚闡明有實數。

論曰至隨一不減

【English Translation】 English version How can 『fixed following becoming one』 be gradually abandoned to attain sainthood? This obstacle is explained as before.

『Because distinguishing the realms to the twenty-two roots is complete,』 this is a summary.

Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 3 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā

Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 4

Commentary by the Śramaṇa Śhì Guāng

Chapter Two, Part Two: Analysis of the Roots

『Now we should consider to the determined co-arising,』 below this is the second major section of this chapter, clarifying co-arising dharmas. That is, distinguishing the function based on co-arising. Among them, first, formally clarify co-arising; second, extensively distinguish differences. In the first section, first, clarify the co-arising of rūpa (form) dharmas; second, clarify the simultaneous arising of the four categories. Below this is the first section, clarifying the co-arising of rūpa dharmas, about to clarify, first raise the question. Among them, first, ask; second, answer. This is the question. Now we should consider, all conditioned dharmas, like the differences in their substance and characteristics, also arise differently at the time of arising, are there dharmas that are determined to arise together?

It can also be understood as one general question: all conditioned dharmas, like the differences in their substance and characteristics, their arising is also different. Among these differently arising conditioned dharmas, are there dharmas that are determined to arise together?

『There are determined co-arisings to not speaking about them here,』 in the answer, first, a general answer; second, separate clarifications. This is the general answer. There must be saṃskāras (activities) that are determined to arise together. Generally speaking, dharmas are roughly divided into five categories. Therefore, unconditioned dharmas are not mentioned. This chapter clarifies the function of dharmas, so it only clarifies the first four categories of dharmas. Among them, the realms of rūpa and mind are extensively clarified, no longer separately displayed, only distinguishing mere arising. Mental factors and non-associated formations were not mentioned earlier, this chapter extensively clarifies, and distinguishes co-arising.

『Now first distinguish rūpa to the ten matters have remaining roots,』 this is a separate answer, clarifying the co-arising of rūpa dharmas. All rūpa dharmas are roughly of two kinds: first, aggregates of ultimate particles, namely the five roots (eye-faculty, ear-faculty, nose-faculty, tongue-faculty, body-faculty) and the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch); second, non-aggregates of ultimate particles, namely non-revealing rūpa. Here, let's distinguish aggregates of ultimate particles. Aggregates of particles are provisional, provisional must rely on real, real has many differences in size, this is clarifying the existence of real numbers around provisional aggregates.

The Treatise says to any one not diminished

者。就長行中。一釋頌文。二便明上界。三問答分別。四止諍論　就釋頌文中。一正釋。二釋外難。此下正釋。即釋上兩句。于欲界中色聚極細。無聲無根。外山．河等猶八俱生隨一不減。立微聚名。為顯更無細於此者　言微聚者。顯細少聚。謂色聚中極少細聚名為微聚。即微是聚也。非是極微名為微聚。又正理第十云。如是眾微展轉和合。定不離者說為微聚(彼論微之聚故名為微聚。各據一義。亦不相違)應知。微有二種。一色聚微。即極少八事俱生不可減也。此論據斯說。二極微微。即色極少更不可分。正理據此說。

云何八事者。問。

謂四大種至色香味觸者。答。數可知。

無聲有根至處各別故者。釋下兩句。若內無聲有根。諸極微聚有身根聚九事俱生。八事如前外無聲處身為第九。有餘眼．耳．鼻．舌根聚十事俱生。九事如前有身根處加眼等一。眼．耳．鼻．舌必不離身依身轉故。顯定有身。眼等四根展轉相望處各別故。顯非同聚。

於前諸聚至大種因起者。此別顯加。於前八．九．十等諸聚。若有聲生八增至九。九增至十。十增至十一。

以有聲處下通伏難。伏難意云。外聲相顯此即可知。內有根處何得有聲。故今通言以有聲處不離根生。謂有執受大種因起。此即正顯不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這是關於長行（Gāthā，佛經中的一種文體）的解釋。一、解釋頌文。二、闡明上界（higher realms）。三、問答辨析。四、止息爭論。在解釋頌文部分，一、正面解釋。二、解釋外來的疑問。以下是正面解釋，即解釋上面兩句：在欲界（Kāmadhātu，佛教宇宙觀中眾生有情慾的世界）中，色聚（rūpa-skandha，構成物質存在的元素集合）極其微細，沒有聲音，沒有根（indriya，感覺器官）。外在的山、河等仍然是八俱生（aṣṭa-samutpāda，同時產生的八種要素），任何一個都不能減少，因此立名為微聚（aṇu-samuccaya，微小的集合）。這是爲了顯示沒有比這更微細的了。所說的『微聚』，是顯示微細而少的集合。指的是色聚中最少最細的集合，名為微聚。也就是說，『微』就是『聚』。而不是極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）被稱為微聚。另外，《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）第十卷說：『像這樣眾多微塵輾轉和合，必定不分離的，就稱為微聚。』（該論典認為微塵的集合稱為微聚，各自依據一種意義，也不互相違背）應該知道，微有兩種：一是色聚微，即極少且八事（aṣṭa-vastu，八種要素）同時產生，不可減少。此論典依據這個來說。二是極微微，即色極少，不能再分割。正理經依據這個來說。『什麼是八事呢？』問。『就是四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風四種基本元素）到色、香、味、觸（rūpa-gandha-rasa-spraṣṭavya，物質的四種屬性）。』答。數量是可以知道的。『沒有聲音，有根，處所各不相同』，解釋下面兩句。如果內在沒有聲音，有根，那麼極微聚（aṇu-samuccaya，微小的集合）有身根聚（kāya-indriya-samuccaya，身體感覺器官的集合），九事（nava-vastu，九種要素）同時產生。八事如前所述，外在沒有聲音的地方，身體作為第九種。其餘的眼、耳、鼻、舌根聚（cakṣur-ghrāṇa-jihvā-indriya-samuccaya，視覺、嗅覺、味覺感覺器官的集合），十事（daśa-vastu，十種要素）同時產生。九事如前所述，有身根的地方加上眼等一種。眼、耳、鼻、舌必定不離開身體，依靠身體而運轉，因此顯示一定有身體。眼、耳、鼻、舌四根互相之間，處所各不相同，因此顯示不是同一個集合。『在前面各種聚中，到大種因起』，這是分別顯示增加的情況。在前面的八、九、十等各種聚中，如果有聲音產生，八種增加到九種，九種增加到十種，十種增加到十一種。『以有聲處』以下，是爲了普遍地制伏疑問。制伏疑問的意思是：外在的聲音相明顯，這還可以知道。內在有根的地方，怎麼會有聲音呢？所以現在普遍地說，因為有聲音的地方不離開根而產生。指的是有執受（upādāna，執著）的大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風四種基本元素）作為原因而生起。這正是明確地顯示不（…）

【English Translation】 English version: This is about the explanation of the Gāthā (a type of verse in Buddhist scriptures). First, explain the verses. Second, clarify the higher realms. Third, analyze through questions and answers. Fourth, stop the disputes. In the explanation of the verses, first, a direct explanation. Second, explain external doubts. The following is a direct explanation, which is to explain the above two sentences: In the Kāmadhātu (the world of desire in Buddhist cosmology), the rūpa-skandha (aggregate of material form) is extremely subtle, without sound, without indriya (sense organs). External mountains, rivers, etc., are still aṣṭa-samutpāda (eight co-arising elements), none of which can be reduced, hence the name aṇu-samuccaya (minute aggregate). This is to show that there is nothing more subtle than this. The so-called 'aṇu-samuccaya' shows a subtle and small aggregate. It refers to the smallest and most subtle aggregate in the rūpa-skandha, called aṇu-samuccaya. That is to say, 'aṇu' is 'samuccaya'. It is not that paramāṇu (the smallest unit of matter) is called aṇu-samuccaya. In addition, the Nyāyasūtra, Volume 10, says: 'In this way, numerous minute particles combine and definitely do not separate, which is called aṇu-samuccaya.' (That treatise considers the aggregate of minute particles to be called aṇu-samuccaya, each based on one meaning, and they do not contradict each other.) It should be known that there are two types of aṇu: one is rūpa-skandha aṇu, which is the smallest and eight aṣṭa-vastu (eight elements) arise simultaneously and cannot be reduced. This treatise is based on this. The second is paramāṇu, which is extremely small in form and cannot be further divided. The Nyāyasūtra is based on this. 'What are the eight aṣṭa-vastu?' Question. 'They are the mahābhūta (four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) to rūpa-gandha-rasa-spraṣṭavya (form, smell, taste, and touch).' Answer. The number is knowable. 'Without sound, with roots, places are different', explaining the following two sentences. If there is no sound internally, and there are roots, then the aṇu-samuccaya (minute aggregate) has the kāya-indriya-samuccaya (aggregate of body sense organs), and nava-vastu (nine elements) arise simultaneously. The eight elements are as mentioned before, and in places where there is no external sound, the body is the ninth. The remaining cakṣur-ghrāṇa-jihvā-indriya-samuccaya (aggregate of eye, ear, nose, and tongue sense organs), daśa-vastu (ten elements) arise simultaneously. The nine elements are as mentioned before, with the addition of one of the eye, etc., in the place where there is a body root. The eye, ear, nose, and tongue must not leave the body and rely on the body to operate, thus showing that there must be a body. The four roots of eye, ear, nose, and tongue are in different places from each other, thus showing that they are not the same aggregate. 'In the previous aggregates, to mahābhūta-hetu-utpāda', this separately shows the increase. In the previous aggregates of eight, nine, ten, etc., if sound arises, eight increases to nine, nine increases to ten, and ten increases to eleven. 'With the place of sound' below is to universally subdue doubts. The meaning of subduing doubts is: the external sound appearance is obvious, which can still be known. How can there be sound in a place with internal roots? So now it is generally said that because the place with sound does not arise apart from the roots. It refers to the mahābhūta (four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) with upādāna (attachment) as the cause of arising. This clearly shows that it does not (...)

離根聲　又解內聲相隱所以偏明。外聲相顯故不別說　又解不說外聲影顯可知　問于內身中聲若新加至十．十一。何故發智論云若成就身定成就色．聲觸。又云。身．色．聲．觸界。欲色界成就。無色界不成就。準彼論文。內有情身恒成就聲。如何此論說聲新加　解云聲在內身雖定成就相續不斷。非能總遍一切身份。發智言成據一身中相續不斷。此論言無據身一分不發聲處。各據一義並不相違。故婆沙九十云。身．色．聲．觸界。欲．色界成就。無色界不成就者。問身．色．觸界可爾。聲界云何恒時成就。有作是說。大種合離必生聲界。有情若在欲色界中。大種恒有故常發聲。評曰。彼不應作是說。若四大種必恒生聲。此所生聲何大種造。若即此造。應多有對色一四大種生。若說余造。餘四大種復必生聲。如是展轉有無窮過。應作是說。生欲．色界有情身中多四大種在一身內。有相擊者便發生聲。不相擊者即無聲起。雖一身中必有聲界。非諸身份皆悉遍發聲(已上論文)有古德說。身中遍能發聲。其聲微小。論說無聲。無粗大聲。此解不然。微聚據體不論小大。此解稍疏。聲若遍身還同婆沙評家所破　問舊婆沙一師云。一切四大必不離色．聲。一切欲界色必不離香味。又一師云。一切四大不必有色．聲。一切欲界色不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本離根聲：又解釋說，因為內在的聲音和形相隱沒，所以才特別說明。外在的聲音和形相顯現，所以就不另外說明了。又解釋說，不說外在的聲音，是因為它的形相顯現，可以知道。問：在內在身體中的聲音，如果新增加到十、十一，為什麼《發智論》說，如果成就了身，就成就了色、聲、觸？又說，身、色、聲、觸界，欲界和色界成就，無色界不成就。按照那篇論文，內在有情的身恒常成就聲音。為什麼這部論說聲音是新增加的？解答說：聲音在內在身體中雖然一定成就，相續不斷，但不能總括遍及一切身份。《發智論》說成就，是根據一身中相續不斷。這部論說沒有，是根據身體一分不發聲的地方。各自根據一個意義，並不互相違背。所以《婆沙》第九十卷說，身、色、聲、觸界，欲界和色界成就，無色界不成就。問：身、色、觸界可以這樣說，聲界為什麼恒常時成就？有人這樣說：四大種聚合分離必定產生聲界。有情如果在欲界和色界中，四大種恒常存在，所以常常發聲。評論說：他不應該這樣說。如果四大種必定恒常產生聲音，這所產生的聲音是什麼大種造的？如果就是這四大種造的，應該多有對立的色，一個四大種產生。如果說其餘的造，其餘的四大種又必定產生聲音。這樣輾轉下去，有無窮的過失。應該這樣說：生在欲界和色界的有情身體中，多個四大種在一個身體內，有互相撞擊的就發生聲音，不互相撞擊的就沒有聲音產生。雖然一個身體中必定有聲界，但不是各個身份都普遍地發聲。（以上是論文）有古代的德行之人說，身體中普遍能發聲，那聲音微小。論說沒有聲音，是沒有粗大的聲音。這種解釋不對。微小的聚集根據體性，不論大小。這種解釋稍微疏漏。聲音如果遍及全身，還和《婆沙》評論家所破斥的一樣。問：舊《婆沙》一位論師說，一切四大必定不離色、聲。一切欲界色必定不離香味。又一位論師說，一切四大不必有色、聲。一切欲界色不

【English Translation】 English version Sound apart from the root: It is also explained that because the internal sound and appearance are hidden, it is specifically explained. The external sound and appearance are manifest, so it is not explained separately. It is also explained that the external sound is not mentioned because its appearance is manifest and can be known. Question: If sound in the internal body is newly added to ten or eleven, why does the Abhidharma-jñānaprasthāna-śāstra say that if the body is accomplished, then form (rūpa), sound (śabda), and touch (sparśa) are accomplished? It also says that the realms of body, form, sound, and touch are accomplished in the desire realm (kāmadhātu) and form realm (rūpadhātu), but not in the formless realm (arūpadhātu). According to that text, the body of sentient beings in the internal realm constantly accomplishes sound. How does this treatise say that sound is newly added? The answer is: Although sound in the internal body is certainly accomplished and continuous, it cannot encompass all parts of the body. The Abhidharma-jñānaprasthāna-śāstra says it is accomplished based on the continuous nature within one body. This treatise says it is not, based on the part of the body that does not emit sound. Each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. Therefore, the ninetieth fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says that the realms of body, form, sound, and touch are accomplished in the desire and form realms, but not in the formless realm. Question: The realms of body, form, and touch can be said to be so, but how is the sound realm constantly accomplished? Some say that the aggregation and separation of the four great elements (mahābhūta) necessarily produce the sound realm. If sentient beings are in the desire and form realms, the four great elements are constantly present, so they often emit sound. Comment: He should not say that. If the four great elements necessarily constantly produce sound, what great element creates this produced sound? If it is created by these four great elements, there should be many opposing forms, and one of the four great elements produces it. If it is said that the rest create it, the rest of the four great elements must again produce sound. In this way, there is an infinite fault in the cycle. It should be said that in the bodies of sentient beings born in the desire and form realms, multiple four great elements are within one body. Those that collide with each other produce sound, and those that do not collide do not produce sound. Although there must be a sound realm in one body, not all parts of the body universally emit sound. (The above is the text of the treatise.) Some ancient virtuous people say that the body can universally emit sound, but that sound is subtle. The treatise says there is no sound, meaning there is no coarse sound. This explanation is incorrect. A subtle aggregation is based on the nature of the body, regardless of size. This explanation is slightly flawed. If sound pervades the entire body, it is the same as what the commentators of the Vibhāṣā refuted. Question: An old Vibhāṣā master said that all four great elements necessarily do not depart from form and sound. All forms in the desire realm necessarily do not depart from flavor and smell. Another master said that all four great elements do not necessarily have form and sound. All forms in the desire realm do not

必有香．味。又於此二說何者為正。此論復同何說　念法師解云。兩師並非正義。各取少分方可為正。應言一切四大必不離色。不必有聲。一切欲界色必不離香．味。故雜心云。極微在四根十種。應當知身根九。餘八。謂是有香味地　念法師意以雜心不說有聲。明知此聲非恒成就　泰法師解云。念法師若作斯釋。此大謬也。發智云誰成就聲持。答曰欲．色界　又雜心云。無想眾生十八性　聲既恒成就。故知婆沙初師一切四大必不離色．聲一切欲界色必不離香．味是其正義。然雜心．俱舍頌不說聲者。以聲因大種相擊故生。非如色等恒時有故。故俱舍別加。雜心略而不說。泰法師意說聲既恒成。明知一切四大必不離聲　今詳二德互有是非。念法師解兩師俱是不正。各取少分。應言一切四大必不離色。不必有聲。一切欲界色必不離香．味。此即是。若言非恒成就聲。此即非。以諸論說聲定成就故。泰法師解若言定成就聲此即是。若言初師為正。一切四大必不離色．聲。此即非。只可定不離色。何得必不離聲。準婆沙評家義。有四大種不離聲。有四大種離聲。何得說言一切四大種必不離聲。若言大種皆遍發聲。還同婆沙評家所破。故亦非理。

若四大種至可得非餘者。此下第二釋難。就中。一釋四大種難。二釋造色難

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：必定具有香和味。那麼，這兩種說法中哪一種是正確的呢？此論又與哪種說法相同呢？念法師解釋說：『兩位法師的說法都不是完全正確的。各自取其少部分才可以認為是正確的。應該說一切四大（地、水、火、風，四大元素）必定不離色（顏色、形狀），但不一定有聲（聲音）。一切欲界（佛教宇宙觀中眾生有情慾和物質欲的界別）的色必定不離香和味。』所以《雜心論》（佛教論書）中說：『極微（物質的最小單位）存在於四根（眼、耳、鼻、舌四種感覺器官）的十種（感覺對像）。』應當知道身根（觸覺器官）有九種（感覺對像），其餘八種。指的是有香味的地。念法師的意思是，《雜心論》沒有說有聲，表明這種聲音不是恒常存在的。泰法師解釋說：『念法師如果這樣解釋，那就大錯特錯了。《發智論》（佛教論書）中說誰成就聲持（保持聲音）？回答說欲界、色界。又《雜心論》中說：無想眾生（沒有思想的眾生）有十八性。』既然聲音是恒常存在的，所以可知《婆沙論》（佛教論書）最初的法師所說的一切四大必定不離色和聲，一切欲界色必定不離香和味，才是正確的。然而，《雜心論》和《俱舍論頌》（佛教論書）沒有說聲，是因為聲音是由大種（組成物質的基本元素）相擊而產生的，不像色等是恒常存在的。所以《俱舍論》特別加上了，而《雜心論》則省略了不說。泰法師的意思是說，既然聲音是恒常成就的，就表明一切四大必定不離聲。現在詳細分析兩位法師的觀點，各有對錯。念法師認為兩位法師的解釋都不正確，各自取其少部分。應該說一切四大必定不離色，不一定有聲。一切欲界色必定不離香和味。這樣說才是正確的。如果說聲音不是恒常成就的，那就是錯誤的。因為各種論典都說聲音是必定成就的。泰法師認為如果說聲音是必定成就的，那就是正確的。如果說最初的法師是正確的，一切四大必定不離色和聲，那就是錯誤的。只能說必定不離色，怎麼能說必定不離聲呢？按照《婆沙論》評論家的觀點，有四大種不離聲，有四大種離聲。怎麼能說一切四大種必定不離聲呢？如果說大種都普遍發聲，那就和《婆沙論》評論家所破斥的觀點相同了，所以也是不合理的。『如果四大種到可得而非其餘者』，這以下是第二種解釋困難的方法。其中，一是解釋四大種的困難，二是解釋造色的困難。

【English Translation】 English version: It must have fragrance and taste. Which of these two statements is correct? And with which statement does this treatise agree? Master Nian explained: 'Neither of the two masters' statements is entirely correct. Only by taking a small part of each can it be considered correct. It should be said that all four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) must not be separated from form (color, shape), but do not necessarily have sound. All form in the desire realm (the realm of beings with desires in Buddhist cosmology) must not be separated from fragrance and taste.' Therefore, the Zaxin Lun (a Buddhist treatise) says: 'Extremely small particles (the smallest units of matter) exist in the ten kinds (of sense objects) of the four sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue).』 It should be known that the body sense organ (the organ of touch) has nine kinds (of sense objects), and the remaining eight kinds refer to the earth that has fragrance and taste. Master Nian's meaning is that the Zaxin Lun does not mention sound, indicating that this sound is not constantly present. Master Tai explained: 'If Master Nian interprets it this way, then that is a great mistake. The Fazhi Lun (a Buddhist treatise) says, who achieves and maintains sound? The answer is the desire realm and the form realm. Also, the Zaxin Lun says: beings without thought (beings without mental activity) have eighteen characteristics.' Since sound is constantly present, it can be known that the initial master in the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) is correct in saying that all four great elements must not be separated from form and sound, and all form in the desire realm must not be separated from fragrance and taste. However, the Zaxin Lun and the Abhidharmakosabhasyam (a Buddhist treatise) do not mention sound because sound is produced by the collision of the great elements (the basic elements that make up matter), unlike form, etc., which are constantly present. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosabhasyam specifically adds it, while the Zaxin Lun omits it. Master Tai's meaning is that since sound is constantly achieved, it indicates that all four great elements must not be separated from sound. Now, analyzing the views of the two masters in detail, each has its own right and wrong. Master Nian believes that the explanations of the two masters are not correct, and each takes a small part of it. It should be said that all four great elements must not be separated from form, but not necessarily have sound. All form in the desire realm must not be separated from fragrance and taste. This is correct. If it is said that sound is not constantly achieved, then that is wrong. Because various treatises say that sound is definitely achieved. Master Tai believes that if it is said that sound is definitely achieved, then that is correct. If it is said that the initial master is correct, and all four great elements must not be separated from form and sound, then that is wrong. It can only be said that it must not be separated from form, how can it be said that it must not be separated from sound? According to the view of the commentators of the Vibhasa, some four great elements are not separated from sound, and some four great elements are separated from sound. How can it be said that all four great elements must not be separated from sound? If it is said that the great elements all universally produce sound, then it is the same as the view refuted by the commentators of the Vibhasa, so it is also unreasonable. 'If the four great elements reach what can be obtained and not the rest', the following is the second method of explaining the difficulty. Among them, one is to explain the difficulty of the four great elements, and the second is to explain the difficulty of created form.

。就釋四大難中。一問。二答此即問也。若言四大不相離生。于諸色聚中。堅．濕．暖．動云何隨一可得。非餘二大。如金等中唯堅可得如水等中唯濕可得。如炎等中唯暖可得。如空等中唯動可得。

于彼聚中至與面合味者。此下第二答。總有三師。此即第一說一切有部師。約用增以釋。于彼聚中體雖俱有用有勝劣。勢用增者隨其所應明瞭可得。余體非無。如針與籌齊觸身時。針強先覺。籌劣難知。如鹽麨末俱時嘗味。鹽勢先覺。面用難知。正理第五取四大體增為正。廣破用增。故彼論云。如酢和水。良藥和毒。鹽和水等。雖兩數同而用者有異。如何言色就體說增。此不相違。以酢與水觸微雖等。而味不同。酢味微多。水味微少。故酢微勝還此體增。于諸聚中有味等物體增強故謂是用增。良藥毒等。緣起理門有差別故體類如是。由此雖少而能伏多。非異體類有別用生。故執用增是為邪計。又彼論云。或如類別品別亦爾。故唯心等就用說增。就體說增。謂諸色法。譬如依多依一成故　解云。顯彼色．心差別。如色．心性類別。勝劣品亦應別。謂色即約體有勝劣。心即約用有勝劣。如色依一成。謂但依色。心依多成。謂通依色．心故。彼不應以心例色言唯用增。若作俱舍師救。且如一合酢和一升水。但覺酢味不覺水

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於解釋四大難以理解之處，這裡有一個問答。這是提問：如果說四大（地、水、火、風）是不可分離地共同產生的，那麼在各種色聚（物質的集合）中，堅（地）、濕（水）、暖（火）、動（風）這四大元素，怎麼能各自獨立地被感知到呢？難道不是隻能感知到其中一個，而無法感知到其他三個嗎？比如在金子等物質中，只能感知到堅硬；在水等物質中，只能感知到濕潤；在火焰等物質中，只能感知到溫暖；在空間等物質中，只能感知到運動。

『于彼聚中至與面合味者』，這以下是第二個回答。總共有三位論師。這是第一位，即一切有部論師的觀點，他們通過作用的增強來解釋。在那些色聚中，雖然四大元素的本體都存在，但它們的作用有強弱之分。作用增強的那個元素，就能夠清晰地被感知到，而其他元素的本體並非不存在。比如，當針和籌同時接觸身體時，針的刺激更強，所以先被感覺到；籌的刺激較弱，難以察覺。又比如，當鹽和麥粉同時品嚐時，鹽的味道更強烈，所以先被感覺到；麥粉的味道較弱，難以察覺。正理論第五卷認為，應該以四大元素的本體的增強作為正確的解釋，並廣泛駁斥了作用增強的觀點。所以該論中說：『比如醋和水混合，良藥和毒藥混合，鹽和水混合等，雖然數量相同，但作用卻不同。』怎麼能說色法（物質）就本體而言是增強的呢？這並不矛盾。因為醋和水混合，觸感可能相同，但味道不同，醋的味道更濃，水的味道更淡，所以醋的味道更勝一籌，這仍然是本體的增強。在各種色聚中，有味道等物體，本體增強，所以才說是作用增強。良藥和毒藥等，是因為緣起理門有差別，所以本體的類別就是這樣。因此，即使少量也能壓制大量，而不是因為不同本體的類別產生了不同的作用。所以執著于作用增強是一種錯誤的觀點。而且該論中說：『或者像類別和品類的區別一樣。』所以唯心等就作用而言是增強的，就本體而言是增強的，指的是各種色法。譬如依靠多和依靠一而成就。』解釋說：這顯示了色法和心法的差別。就像色法和心法的類別一樣，勝劣的品也應該有所區別。所謂色法，就是就本體而言有勝劣；所謂心法，就是就作用而言有勝劣。比如色法依靠一而成就，指的是隻依靠色法；心法依靠多而成就，指的是既依靠色法，也依靠心法。所以他們不應該用心法來類比色法，說只有作用增強。如果以俱舍論師的觀點來辯護，比如一合醋和一升水混合，只感覺到醋的味道，感覺不到水的味道。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the explanation of the difficulties in understanding the Four Great Elements, here is a question and answer. This is the question: If it is said that the Four Great Elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) arise inseparably together, then in various aggregates of matter (collections of material elements), how can the qualities of solidity (earth), liquidity (water), heat (fire), and motion (wind) be perceived independently? Isn't it the case that only one can be perceived, while the other three cannot? For example, in substances like gold, only solidity can be perceived; in substances like water, only liquidity can be perceived; in substances like flame, only heat can be perceived; in substances like space, only motion can be perceived.

'In that aggregate... to the taste combined with flour,' the following is the second answer. There are three masters in total. This is the view of the first, the Sarvastivada school, which explains it in terms of the increase in function. In those aggregates, although the substance of the Four Great Elements is present, their functions have strengths and weaknesses. The element whose function is increased can be clearly perceived, but the substance of the other elements is not absent. For example, when a needle and a counter simultaneously touch the body, the stimulation of the needle is stronger, so it is felt first; the stimulation of the counter is weaker and difficult to perceive. Also, when salt and wheat flour are tasted simultaneously, the taste of salt is stronger, so it is felt first; the taste of wheat flour is weaker and difficult to perceive. The fifth volume of the Nyayanusara (Following the Correct Reasoning) argues that the increase in the substance of the Four Great Elements should be taken as the correct explanation, and widely refutes the view of the increase in function. Therefore, that treatise says: 'For example, when vinegar and water are mixed, when good medicine and poison are mixed, when salt and water are mixed, etc., although the quantities are the same, the functions are different.' How can it be said that material phenomena are increased in terms of substance? This is not contradictory. Because when vinegar and water are mixed, the tactile sensation may be the same, but the taste is different; the taste of vinegar is stronger, and the taste of water is weaker, so the taste of vinegar is superior, which is still an increase in substance. In various aggregates, there are objects with taste, etc., whose substance is increased, so it is said that the function is increased. Good medicine and poison, etc., are because the principle of dependent origination has differences, so the categories of substances are like this. Therefore, even a small amount can subdue a large amount, and it is not because different categories of substances produce different functions. Therefore, clinging to the increase in function is a wrong view. Moreover, that treatise says: 'Or like the difference between categories and types.' Therefore, only mind, etc., is increased in terms of function, and what is increased in terms of substance refers to various material phenomena. For example, it is accomplished by relying on many and relying on one.' The explanation says: This shows the difference between material phenomena and mental phenomena. Just like the categories of material phenomena and mental phenomena, the superior and inferior qualities should also be different. What is called material phenomena is that there are superior and inferior qualities in terms of substance; what is called mental phenomena is that there are superior and inferior qualities in terms of function. For example, material phenomena are accomplished by relying on one, which means relying only on material phenomena; mental phenomena are accomplished by relying on many, which means relying on both material phenomena and mental phenomena. Therefore, they should not use mental phenomena to analogize material phenomena, saying that only function is increased. If we defend from the perspective of the Abhidharmakosha master, for example, if one he of vinegar is mixed with one sheng of water, only the taste of vinegar is felt, and the taste of water is not felt.

淡味。明知用增又不可言水中淡味有處有。無處無。成相離過。今說用增甚為正計又難云。正理論師以世親論主。造勝義諦論中敘用增家破遂不認此解。然婆沙一百三十一說。四大種或說體增。或說用增。然無評家。俱舍同用增。正理同體增。是即用增是自宗義。豈不能救。便破自宗。

云何于彼知亦有餘者。復徴。既言余體非無。云何于彼聚中知亦有餘三大。

由有攝熟長持業故者。通釋。約業證有。由色聚中有水攝．火熟．風長．地持。四種業用。明知四大體遍諸聚。故婆沙一百三十一云。問云何得知此四大種恒不相離。答自相．作業一切聚中皆可得故。謂堅聚中地界自相現可得故。有義極成。於此聚中若無水界金．銀．錫等應不可銷。又水若無彼應分散。若無火界石等相擊火不應生。又火若無無能成熟彼應腐敗。若無風界應無動搖。又若無風應無增長　于濕聚中水界自相現可得故。有義極成。於此聚中若無地界至嚴寒位應不成冰。又地界無船等應沒。若無火界應無暖時。又火若無彼應腐敗。若無風界應不動搖。又風若無應無增長　于暖聚中火界自相現可得故。有義極成。於此聚中若無地界燈燭等焰應不可回。又地若無不應持物。若無水界應不生流。又水若無焰不應聚。若無風界不應動搖又若無風應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『淡味』。明明知道『用增』（四大作用的增強）的說法是正確的，但又不能說水中淡味有時有，有時無，這樣就成了『成相離過』（實體和性質分離的過失）。現在說『用增』是極為正確的說法，但又難以解釋。正理論師以世親（Vasubandhu）論主在《勝義諦論》中敘述『用增』的觀點並加以破斥，因此不認可這種解釋。然而，《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷說，四大種有時說『體增』（四大的體性增強），有時說『用增』，但沒有評判哪種說法正確。俱舍宗贊同『用增』，正理宗贊同『體增』。既然『用增』是自宗的觀點，難道不能維護它，反而要破斥自宗的觀點嗎？

『云何于彼知亦有餘者？』（如何在那聚集之中知道也有其餘的呢？）這是進一步的質問。既然說其餘的體不是沒有，那麼如何在那聚集之中知道也有其餘的三大呢？

『由有攝熟長持業故者』（由於有攝、熟、長、持的作用的緣故）。這是總體的解釋。通過作用來證明有。由於色聚中有水的攝持、火的成熟、風的增長、地的支援這四種作用，明確地知道四大體性遍佈于各種聚集之中。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷說：『問：云何得知此四大種恒不相離？答：自相、作業一切聚中皆可得故。』（問：如何得知這四大種恒常不相分離？答：因為它們的自相和作用在一切聚集之中都可以得到。）也就是說，在堅硬的聚集之中，地界的自相顯現可以得到，這是有意義且極易證明的。在這種聚集之中，如果沒有水界，金、銀、錫等應該不能被熔化。而且水如果不存在，它們應該分散。如果沒有火界，石頭等相互撞擊不應該產生火。而且火如果不存在，沒有東西能夠使它們成熟，它們應該腐爛。如果沒有風界，應該沒有動搖。而且如果沒有風，應該沒有增長。在潮濕的聚集之中，水界的自相顯現可以得到，這是有意義且極易證明的。在這種聚集之中，如果沒有地界，在極寒冷的時候應該不能結成冰。而且地界如果不存在，船等應該沉沒。如果沒有火界，應該沒有溫暖的時候。而且火如果不存在，它們應該腐爛。如果沒有風界，應該不動搖。而且風如果不存在，應該沒有增長。在溫暖的聚集之中，火界的自相顯現可以得到，這是有意義且極易證明的。在這種聚集之中，如果沒有地界，燈燭等的火焰應該不能被迴轉。而且地如果不存在，不應該能支撐物體。如果沒有水界，應該不產生流動。而且水如果不存在，火焰不應該聚集。如果沒有風界，應該不動搖。而且如果沒有風，應該沒有增長。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'blandness'. It is clearly known that the statement of 'use-increase' (the enhancement of the four great elements' functions) is correct, but one cannot say that the bland taste in water sometimes exists and sometimes does not, as this would lead to the fault of 'entity and property separation'. Now, saying 'use-increase' is an extremely correct statement, but it is difficult to explain. The Sautrāntika masters, with Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu) as their proponent, described and refuted the view of 'use-increase' in the Treatise on the Ultimate Truth, thus not acknowledging this explanation. However, Vibhāṣā volume 131 states that the four great elements are sometimes said to have 'substance-increase' (the enhancement of the four great elements' substance) and sometimes 'use-increase', but there is no judgment on which statement is correct. The Abhidharmakośa school agrees with 'use-increase', while the Sautrāntika school agrees with 'substance-increase'. Since 'use-increase' is the view of our own school, how can we not defend it and instead refute our own school's view?

'How is it known that there are also others in that aggregate?' This is a further question. Since it is said that the other substances are not non-existent, how is it known that there are also the other three great elements in that aggregate?

'Because there are the functions of cohesion, maturation, growth, and support.' This is a general explanation. Proof of existence is based on function. Because in the aggregate of form there are the four functions of water's cohesion, fire's maturation, wind's growth, and earth's support, it is clearly known that the nature of the four great elements pervades all aggregates. Therefore, Vibhāṣā volume 131 says: 'Question: How is it known that these four great elements are always inseparable? Answer: Because their self-characteristics and functions can all be obtained in all aggregates.' That is to say, in a solid aggregate, the self-characteristic of the earth element is manifest and can be obtained, which is meaningful and very easy to prove. In this aggregate, if there were no water element, gold, silver, tin, etc., should not be able to be melted. And if water did not exist, they should be dispersed. If there were no fire element, fire should not be produced when stones, etc., collide. And if fire did not exist, nothing would be able to mature them, and they should decay. If there were no wind element, there should be no movement. And if there were no wind, there should be no growth. In a wet aggregate, the self-characteristic of the water element is manifest and can be obtained, which is meaningful and very easy to prove. In this aggregate, if there were no earth element, ice should not be formed in extremely cold conditions. And if the earth element did not exist, boats, etc., should sink. If there were no fire element, there should be no warm times. And if fire did not exist, they should decay. If there were no wind element, there should be no movement. And if there were no wind, there should be no growth. In a warm aggregate, the self-characteristic of the fire element is manifest and can be obtained, which is meaningful and very easy to prove. In this aggregate, if there were no earth element, the flames of lamps, candles, etc., should not be able to be turned back. And if earth did not exist, it should not be able to support objects. If there were no water element, flow should not be produced. And if water did not exist, flames should not gather. If there were no wind element, there should be no movement. And if there were no wind, there should be no growth.

無增長　于動聚中風界自相現可得故。有義極成。於此聚中若無等界觸墻等障應不析回。又地若無應不持物。若無水界應無冷風。又水若無彼應分散。若無火界應無暖風。又火若無彼應腐敗。

有說遇緣至用有勝劣者。此即第二說一切有部師。約緣顯有。還據用增。如金．銀．銅．鐵．堅硬等物。遇火等緣便有流．濕．暖．動等相。故知彼聚先有水等。如水聚中由極冷故變成凍雪。此凍雪上有乾燥用名暖相起。冷．暖雖不相離。而冷用增。冷雖非水是水果故。約果顯因此中言冷。故婆沙云。水風增故冷(已上論文)　又如將欲下雨。空中水聚。由極冷故擊出電炎。名暖相起。

又如極冷井水便暖。如地獄中苦勝舍劣但言受苦。如三定中樂勝舍劣但言樂受。此約處說。非據剎那。如打鼓時雖復手鼓俱各出聲。鼓勝。手劣。但言鼓聲。

有餘師說至界謂種子者。此是第三經部師解。有餘經部師。隨其所應。於此偏增現行色聚中。現行者有體。余不現行但有種子未有體相。故契經說。於水聚中有種種界。界謂種子。即是火等種　又解隨其所應。於此地．水．火．風偏增現行聚中。現行者有體。餘三大不現行者。但有種子功能未有體相。釋經如前　若依經部宗。俱生有二。一種子俱生。二現行俱生。種子俱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『無增長』：在運動聚集體中，風界的自性顯現是可以獲得的。這是有意義且被廣泛認可的。在這個聚集體中，如果沒有像土界一樣的支撐，遇到墻壁等障礙物，它應該不會折回。另外，如果沒有地界（Dhatu）（支撐萬物的元素），它應該不能夠支撐物體。如果沒有水界（Ap-Dhatu）（濕潤的元素），應該沒有冷風。另外，如果水界不存在，它應該會分散。如果沒有火界（Tejo-Dhatu）（熱能的元素），它應該會腐敗。

有人說，遇到因緣時，作用有勝劣之分。這是第二種說法，一切有部（Sarvastivada）的論師的觀點，他們根據因緣來顯示諸法的存在，並根據作用來區分增減。例如，金、銀、銅、鐵等堅硬的物體，遇到火等因緣，便會呈現出流動、濕潤、溫暖、運動等狀態。因此可知，這些聚集體中原本就存在水等元素。例如，在水聚集體中，由於極度寒冷，會變成凍雪。這凍雪上具有乾燥的作用，被稱為暖相生起。寒冷和溫暖雖然不相分離，但寒冷的作用增強。寒冷雖然不是水，但它是水的結果，所以根據結果來顯示原因，因此這裡說『冷』。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中說：『水風增故冷』（以上是論文內容）。又如將要下雨時，空中的水聚集體，由於極度寒冷，會擊出電炎，這被稱為暖相生起。

又如極冷的井水反而會變暖。如同在地獄中，痛苦勝過舍受，所以只說感受痛苦。如同在三禪定中，快樂勝過舍受，所以只說感受快樂。這是根據處所來說的，不是根據剎那來說的。如同打鼓時，雖然手和鼓都會發出聲音，但鼓的聲音更強，手的聲音較弱，所以只說鼓聲。

有其他論師說，『界』指的是種子。這是第三種說法，經部（Sautrantika）論師的解釋。有些經部論師認為，根據情況，在這個偏增的現行色聚集體中，現行者具有實體，其餘不現行者只有種子，還沒有實體形態。所以契經（Sutra）中說，在水聚集體中有種種界，界指的是種子，也就是火等的種子。另一種解釋是，根據情況，在這個地、水、火、風偏增的現行聚集體中，現行者具有實體，其餘三大不現行者，只有種子功能，還沒有實體形態。解釋經文如前。如果依照經部宗的觀點，俱生有兩種：一種子俱生，二現行俱生。種子俱生

【English Translation】 English version 'No increase': In the aggregate of motion, the self-nature of the wind element manifests and can be obtained. This is meaningful and widely accepted. Within this aggregate, if there were no support like the earth element (Dhatu) (the element that supports all things), it should not turn back upon encountering obstacles like walls. Furthermore, if there were no earth element, it should not be able to support objects. If there were no water element (Ap-Dhatu) (the element of moisture), there should be no cold wind. Moreover, if the water element did not exist, it should disperse. If there were no fire element (Tejo-Dhatu) (the element of heat), it should decay.

Some say that when encountering conditions, the function has superior and inferior aspects. This is the second view, the view of the Sarvastivada masters, who explain the existence of dharmas based on conditions and differentiate increase and decrease based on function. For example, hard substances like gold, silver, copper, and iron, when encountering conditions like fire, will exhibit states of flowing, wetness, warmth, and motion. Therefore, it can be known that elements like water originally exist in these aggregates. For example, in the water aggregate, due to extreme cold, it will transform into frozen snow. This frozen snow has the function of dryness, which is called the arising of the warm aspect. Although cold and warmth are not separate, the function of cold increases. Although cold is not water, it is the result of water, so the cause is shown based on the result, therefore 'cold' is mentioned here. So the Vibhasa says: 'Cold is due to the increase of water and wind' (The above is the content of the thesis). Also, like when it is about to rain, the water aggregate in the air, due to extreme cold, will strike out electric flames, which is called the arising of the warm aspect.

Also, like extremely cold well water will instead become warm. Just as in hell, suffering surpasses equanimity, so only the experience of suffering is mentioned. Just as in the third dhyana, happiness surpasses equanimity, so only the experience of happiness is mentioned. This is according to the place, not according to the moment. Just as when beating a drum, although both the hand and the drum produce sound, the sound of the drum is stronger, and the sound of the hand is weaker, so only the sound of the drum is mentioned.

Other teachers say that 'element' refers to the seed. This is the third view, the explanation of the Sautrantika masters. Some Sautrantika masters believe that, according to the situation, in this predominantly increasing manifest aggregate of form, the manifest has substance, and the rest that are not manifest only have seeds, and do not yet have a substantial form. So the Sutra says that in the water aggregate there are various elements, and element refers to the seed, which is the seed of fire, etc. Another explanation is that, according to the situation, in this predominantly increasing manifest aggregate of earth, water, fire, and wind, the manifest has substance, and the other three great elements that are not manifest only have the function of seeds, and do not yet have a substantial form. The explanation of the sutra is as before. If according to the view of the Sautrantika school, there are two kinds of co-arising: one is seed co-arising, and the other is manifest co-arising. Seed co-arising

生者。謂體未現行。但有能生因種功能。據此義邊說種子俱生。如諸色聚若遇緣時。隨其所應即有地．水．火．風．色．香．味．觸等現行。明知彼聚先有種子。現行俱生者。謂體現行事相顯了。據此義邊說。現行俱生如色聚中地．水．火．風．色．香．味．觸等。隨其所應。或一現行。或二俱起。乃至具八。多少不定。以彼宗許有所造色離諸四大。如日光等及孤遊香獨行觸等。又許四大或具不具。所以得作斯解。又許一具四大容造多所造色。于俱生中同處不相離。乃至析至一極微處。四大．造色。隨其多少同一處所。更相涉入不相障礙。如眾燈光同於一室。于同一處不相礙中。大種．造色展轉相望。若異性相望即不障礙。若同性相望即相障礙。如國無二王。天唯一日。應知此中若有種子不必有彼現行。若有現行定有種子。隨其所應若內若外辨二俱生。或約現行俱生。或約種子俱生。或二種俱生。當說其相。

如何風中知有顯色者。此下第二釋造色難。就中。一問。二答。此即問也。既言外聚必具八微。風中如何知有顯色。

此義可信至不相離故者。此即答也。風中有顯。此義但可依教故信。不可比知。或所合香。鼻現可取。香與顯色不相離故。風中有香明知有顯。此即以香證顯　雖有黃．黑等風現亦可

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『生者』，指的是體性尚未顯現，但具有能夠產生果的因和種子功能。根據這個意義來說，種子是同時產生的。例如，各種色聚如果遇到適當的因緣時，就會隨其所應地有地、水、火、風、色、香、味、觸等顯現出來。這清楚地表明這些色聚先前就存在種子。『現行俱生者』，指的是體性顯現，事相明顯。根據這個意義來說，現行是同時產生的，例如色聚中的地、水、火、風、色、香、味、觸等，隨其所應，或者一種現行，或者兩種同時生起，乃至具備八種。多少不定。因為他們宗派允許有所造色離開四大種而存在，例如日光等，以及孤立存在的香和單獨存在的觸等。又允許四大種或者具足，或者不具足，所以可以這樣解釋。又允許一個具足四大種的物質可以造出多種所造色，在同時產生中，它們處於同一處所，不互相分離，乃至分析到一個極微之處，四大種和所造色，隨其多少，都在同一處所，互相涉入，不互相障礙。如同眾多燈的光芒在同一個房間里，在同一處所不互相妨礙一樣。大種和所造色相互觀望，如果是異性，則不互相障礙；如果是同性，則互相障礙，如同一個國家不能有兩個國王，天上只有一個太陽。應當知道，這裡如果有種子，不一定有它的現行；如果有現行，一定有它的種子。隨其所應，或者內在，或者外在，辨別兩種俱生，或者就現行俱生而言，或者就種子俱生而言，或者兩種俱生。下面將說明它們的相狀。

『如何從風中得知有顯色呢？』以下第二部分解釋所造色的難題，其中分為一問一答。這是提問。既然說外在的色聚必定具備八種極微，那麼如何從風中得知有顯色呢？

『這個道理可以相信，乃至不互相分離的緣故。』這是回答。風中有顯色，這個道理只能依據教義而相信，不能通過比量來得知。或者所組合的香，鼻子可以直接感知到，香和顯色不互相分離的緣故。風中有香，表明有顯色。這是用香來證明顯色。即使有黃色、黑色等的風，現在也可以感知到。

【English Translation】 English version 'Birth' refers to a state where the substance has not yet manifested, but possesses the potential to generate effects through causal seeds. According to this meaning, seeds arise simultaneously. For example, when various aggregates of form encounter appropriate conditions, elements such as earth, water, fire, wind, color, smell, taste, and touch may manifest accordingly. This clearly indicates that these aggregates of form previously contained seeds. 'Co-arising manifestation' refers to the explicit manifestation of substance and the clear appearance of phenomena. According to this meaning, manifestations arise simultaneously, such as earth, water, fire, wind, color, smell, taste, and touch within an aggregate of form. Depending on the circumstances, one or two may manifest simultaneously, or even all eight. The quantity is not fixed. This is because their school allows for derived form (所造色) to exist independently of the four great elements (四大), such as sunlight, isolated scents, and solitary touches. They also allow for the four great elements to be either complete or incomplete, hence this explanation. Furthermore, they allow one substance possessing the four great elements to create multiple derived forms, which co-exist in the same location without separation. Even when analyzed down to a single ultimate particle, the four great elements and derived forms, regardless of their quantity, occupy the same space, interpenetrating without obstructing each other. Just as the light of many lamps fills a single room, coexisting without interference, the primary elements and derived forms, when viewed in relation to each other, do not obstruct each other if they are of different natures; however, if they are of the same nature, they obstruct each other, just as a country cannot have two kings, and the sky has only one sun. It should be understood that if there is a seed, its manifestation is not necessarily present; however, if there is a manifestation, there must be a seed. According to the circumstances, whether internal or external, distinguish between the two types of co-arising, either in terms of co-arising manifestation, or in terms of co-arising seeds, or both. The characteristics of these will be described below.

'How can one know that there is visible form in the wind?' The second part below explains the difficulty of derived form, which is divided into a question and an answer. This is the question. Since it is said that external aggregates of form must possess eight subtle elements, how can one know that there is visible form in the wind?

'This principle can be believed, even because they are not separated.' This is the answer. That there is visible form in the wind can only be believed based on doctrine, not known through inference. Or the combined scent can be directly perceived by the nose, because scent and visible form are not separated. That there is scent in the wind indicates that there is visible form. This is using scent to prove visible form. Even if there is yellow or black wind, it can now be perceived.

取。此據微細清風為問答也　問于欲界中色．香．味．觸定不相離。何故此中偏問於色　解云恐文繁廣不能具說。色在初故舉初顯后　又解清風顯色相相隱難知。所以偏問。于余色聚形色．香．味觸等相顯故略不論　又解隨外所疑即便為問。何必遍舉　問若言欲界色．香．味．觸定不相離。何故正理第二有一師釋大云。有說一切色等聚中。具有堅等故名為大。風增聚中闕於色等。火增聚中闕于味等。色界諸聚皆無香．味　準彼師釋大。風中闕色．味。火增中闕味．香。是即欲界八微亦有相離。云何此中乃言風中有顯。欲界八微定不相離　解云正理有說非是正義　又解此說據顯言闕。據隱非無。若作斯解亦不相違。

前說色界至故不別說者。此即第二便明上界。類釋色界前文具說於色界中香．味並無故。彼無聲有六．七．八。有聲有七．八．九俱生。此可準知。故於頌文不別說也。

此中言事至為依處說者。此下第三問答分別。就中。一問。二答。三徴。四釋。五難。六通。此即問也。

若爾何過者。此即答。

二俱有過至有太多失者。此即徴也。依體依處。二俱有過。若依體性說者八等便少。由諸微聚不但有顯。亦必有形多微集故。體應有多。雖于光．影．明．暗等中有顯無形。此中且據形

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：取：這是根據微細的清風來進行問答。

問：在欲界（Kāmadhātu，指眾生有情慾和物質慾望的生存領域）中，色（rūpa，指物質形態）、香（gandha，指氣味）、味（rasa，指味道）、觸（sparśa，指觸覺）必定不相分離。為什麼這裡偏偏問色呢？

解：回答說，恐怕文字繁多，不能全部說盡。色排在第一位，所以舉出第一個來顯示後面的。又解釋說，清風顯示的是色的相狀，相狀隱蔽難以知曉，所以偏偏問色。對於其餘的色聚，如形色、香、味、觸等相狀顯現，所以簡略地不討論。又解釋說，隨著外界所疑惑的，就針對它進行提問，何必全部列舉呢？

問：如果說欲界的色、香、味、觸必定不相分離，為什麼《正理經》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）第二卷中有一位論師解釋大云（Mahāmegha，一種云的名稱）時說，有種說法是一切色等聚合中，具有堅硬等性質，所以名為大。風增多的聚合中缺少色等，火增多的聚合中缺少味等。各種聚合都沒有香、味。按照那位論師的解釋，風中缺少色、味，火增多的聚合中缺少味、香。這就是說欲界的八微（aṣṭadravya，構成物質世界的八種基本元素）也有相分離的情況。為什麼這裡卻說風中有顯現，欲界的八微必定不相分離呢？

解：回答說，《正理經》中的那種說法並非是正確的意義。又解釋說，這種說法是根據顯現來說缺少，根據隱蔽來說並非沒有。如果這樣解釋，也就不相違背。

前文說「至故不別說者」：這也就是第二部分便說明了上界（Ārupyadhātu，無色界）。類似地解釋前文已經詳細說明了色界（Rūpadhātu，色界）中香、味都沒有，所以那裡沒有聲音的有六、七、八種，有聲音的有七、八、九種同時產生。這可以依此類推得知，所以在頌文中不另外說明。

此中說「言事至為依處說者」：這以下第三部分是問答分別。其中，一問，二答，三征，四釋，五難，六通。這也就是提問。

「若爾何過者」：這也就是回答。

「二俱有過至有太多失者」：這也就是征問。依據體性依據處所，兩者都有過失。如果依據體性來說，八等就顯得太少。因為各種微聚不僅僅有顯現，也必定有形體，多種微塵聚集在一起，體性應該有很多。雖然在光、影、明、暗等中有顯現而沒有形體，這裡且根據形體。

【English Translation】 English version: Taking: This is based on subtle pure wind for questions and answers.

Question: In the Kāmadhātu (desire realm, referring to the realm of existence where beings have sensual and material desires), rūpa (form, referring to material form), gandha (smell, referring to odor), rasa (taste, referring to flavor), and sparśa (touch, referring to tactile sensation) are certainly inseparable. Why is it that only rūpa is questioned here?

Answer: The explanation is that it is feared that the text would be too extensive to fully explain. Rūpa is the first, so the first is mentioned to reveal the rest. Another explanation is that pure wind reveals the appearance of rūpa, and the appearance is hidden and difficult to know, so rūpa is specifically questioned. For the remaining aggregates of rūpa, such as shape, smell, taste, touch, etc., their appearances are manifest, so they are briefly not discussed. Another explanation is that whatever is doubted externally is questioned, why must everything be listed?

Question: If it is said that rūpa, gandha, rasa, and sparśa in the Kāmadhātu are certainly inseparable, why does a teacher in the second volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Abhidharma) explain Mahāmegha (Great Cloud, a type of cloud) by saying that some say that in the aggregation of all rūpa, etc., there are properties such as hardness, so it is called great. In the aggregation where wind increases, rūpa, etc., are lacking. In the aggregation where fire increases, rasa, etc., are lacking. All aggregations lack gandha and rasa. According to that teacher's explanation, wind lacks rūpa and rasa, and fire lacks rasa and gandha. This means that the eight dravyas (aṣṭadravya, the eight basic elements that constitute the material world) of the Kāmadhātu also have separation. Why is it said here that there is manifestation in wind, and that the eight dravyas of the Kāmadhātu are certainly inseparable?

Answer: The explanation is that the statement in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is not the correct meaning. Another explanation is that this statement refers to the lack of manifestation, but not the absence of concealment. If explained in this way, there is no contradiction.

The previous statement '至故不別說者' (therefore, they are not mentioned separately): This is the second part that explains the Ārupyadhātu (formless realm). Similarly, the previous text has explained in detail that in the Rūpadhātu (form realm), there are no gandha and rasa, so there are six, seven, and eight types without sound, and seven, eight, and nine types with sound arising simultaneously. This can be inferred accordingly, so it is not mentioned separately in the verse.

Here, the statement '言事至為依處說者' (the matter is spoken of as relying on a place): The following third part is the distinction of questions and answers. Among them, one question, two answers, three inquiries, four explanations, five difficulties, and six solutions. This is the question.

'若爾何過者' (If so, what is the fault?): This is the answer.

'二俱有過至有太多失者' (Both have faults, leading to too many errors): This is the inquiry. According to the nature and according to the place, both have faults. If based on the nature, eight, etc., would seem too few. Because various aggregates of minute particles not only have manifestation, but also must have form, and many minute particles gather together, the nature should have many. Although there is manifestation without form in light, shadow, brightness, darkness, etc., here it is based on form.

．顯俱說。重．輕二性定隨有一。滑澀二性亦定有一。冷．飢渴三或有。或無。非定有故不言定有。是則所言有太少過。若依十二處說。八等便多由四大種觸處攝故。八應說四。九應說五。十應說六。是則所言有太多失　問五境之中。何故唯約色觸難。不約聲．香．味耶　解云隨問者疑廣略何定　又解於五境中。舉初舉后以顯中間　又解色．觸相續遍欲．色界。故以為問。聲即間絕。香．味唯欲。故略不論。

二俱無過至謂能依造色者。此即釋也。應知此中事者。大種依體。造色依處。能造義強故約事說。所造義劣故約處說。

若爾大種至一四大種故者。此即難也。若四大種約體說者。事應成多。色．香．味．觸諸所造色。各別依一四大種故並本為五。八應成二十。九應成二十五。十應成三十。若有聲生二十至二十五。二十五三十。三十至三十五。

應知此中至類無別故者。此即通也。應知此中大種雖多。但說四者依體類說。諸四大種流類相似無差別故。造色差別故約處說。若依正理第十總有三說。初說同此論。后二說云。或唯依體亦無有失。由此中說定俱生故。形色等體非決定有。光．明等中則無有故。或唯依處。然為遮遣多誹謗故。別說大種。

多誹謗者。或復謗言。大種．造色無別有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：顯宗論說，重性和輕性必定相隨存在。滑性和澀性也必定相隨存在。冷、饑、渴這三種性質，有時存在，有時不存在。因為不是必定存在，所以不說必定存在。這樣說來，所說的『有』就太少了。如果按照十二處來說，八種（觸處）就顯得多了，因為它們被四大種所包含。八種應該說成四種，九種應該說成五種，十種應該說成六種。這樣說來，所說的『有』就太多了。問：在五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）之中，為什麼只針對色和觸提出疑問，而不針對聲、香、味呢？答：這取決於提問者想要詳細還是簡略地瞭解。又答：在五境中，舉出最初的色和最後的觸，是爲了顯示中間的聲、香、味。又答：因為色和觸相續不斷，遍及欲界和**界，所以以此提問。聲音是間斷的，香和味只存在於欲界，所以略而不論。

二者都沒有過失，直到『能依造色者』。這是一種解釋。應該知道，這裡所說的『事』，指的是大種所依的本體；所說的『處』，指的是造色所依的處所。因為能造的意義更強，所以從『事』的角度來說；因為所造的意義較弱，所以從『處』的角度來說。

如果這樣，四大種如果從本體來說，那麼『事』就應該變得很多。色、香、味、觸這些所造之色，各自依附於一個四大種，加上原本的四大種，總共有五種。八種應該變成二十種，九種應該變成二十五種，十種應該變成三十種。如果加上聲音，那麼二十種變成二十五種，二十五種變成三十種，三十種變成三十五種。

應該知道，這裡所說的，直到『種類沒有區別』。這是一種解釋。應該知道，這裡的大種雖然很多，但只說四種，是從本體的種類來說的。各種四大種的流類相似，沒有區別。造色有差別，所以從處所來說。如果按照正理第十的說法，總共有三種說法。第一種說法與此論相同。后兩種說法是：或者只從本體來說，也沒有過失。因為這裡說的是必定同時產生。形色等的本體不是決定存在的，因為在光、明等中就沒有。或者只從處所來說。然而，爲了消除眾多的誹謗，所以特別說明大種。

眾多的誹謗，指的是有人誹謗說：大種和造色沒有區別。

【English Translation】 English version: The Abhidharmakośa states that heaviness and lightness invariably coexist. Smoothness and roughness also invariably coexist. Cold, hunger, and thirst may or may not exist. Because they are not invariably present, it is not stated that they are invariably present. Thus, what is said to 'exist' is too little. If based on the twelve āyatanas (bases of perception), eight (the tangible base) would be too many, because they are included within the four great elements (mahābhūta). Eight should be stated as four, nine should be stated as five, and ten should be stated as six. Thus, what is said to 'exist' is too much. Question: Among the five sense objects (rūpa (form/color), śabda (sound), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), sparśa (touch)), why are questions raised only about rūpa and sparśa, and not about śabda, gandha, and rasa? Answer: It depends on whether the questioner wants to understand in detail or briefly. Another answer: Among the five sense objects, mentioning the first (rūpa) and the last (sparśa) is to show the middle ones (śabda, gandha, rasa). Another answer: Because rūpa and sparśa are continuous and pervasive throughout the desire realm (kāmadhātu) and the ** realm, questions are raised about them. Sound is intermittent, and smell and taste exist only in the desire realm, so they are omitted.

Neither is at fault, up to 'those that can rely on derived matter (upādāyarūpa)'. This is an explanation. It should be known that 'thing' (事, sa) here refers to the substance on which the great elements rely; 'place' (處, sthāna) refers to the location on which derived matter relies. Because the meaning of 'capable of creating' is stronger, it is discussed from the perspective of 'thing'; because the meaning of 'created' is weaker, it is discussed from the perspective of 'place'.

If that is so, if the four great elements are discussed from the perspective of substance, then 'things' should become many. Form, smell, taste, and touch, all derived matter, each relies on one of the four great elements, plus the original four great elements, making a total of five. Eight should become twenty, nine should become twenty-five, and ten should become thirty. If sound is added, then twenty becomes twenty-five, twenty-five becomes thirty, and thirty becomes thirty-five.

It should be known that here, up to 'because there is no difference in kind'. This is an explanation. It should be known that although there are many great elements here, only four are mentioned, based on the kind of substance. The streams of the various great elements are similar and have no difference. Derived matter has differences, so it is discussed from the perspective of location. According to the tenth chapter of the Nyāyasūtra, there are three general statements. The first statement is the same as this treatise. The latter two statements are: or only from the perspective of substance, there is no fault. Because it is said here that they are invariably co-arisen. The substance of shape, etc., is not necessarily present, because it is not present in light, etc. Or only from the perspective of location. However, in order to eliminate many slanders, the great elements are specifically explained.

The many slanders refer to those who slander, saying that there is no difference between the great elements and derived matter.

性。或復謗言無別觸處所造色體。或復謗言非一切聚皆具一切。或復謗言數不決定。別說大種此謗皆除(解云初說唯依體說。若分形等即有形而非顯。顯而非形。聚各_差別。便非決定故不應分。若總言色決定恒有。乃至輕重分別亦然。四大便定未曾減一故說八等亦無有過　第二說唯依處說應唯有四。為遮大　多誹謗故。覺天論師及譬喻尊者立四大外無別造色　室利邏多說于觸中無所造觸。許余造色。諸經部師許有色聚無四大種故言非具。或言定有大種不必具四故言數不定。今說造色有四別立四大種。四謗皆除。故復偏說)。

何用分別至義應思擇者。此即第四止諍。論主勸言。此色俱生。或離。或合。或多。或少。亦復何定。此非深義。何用分別如是語為。語從欲生。義應思擇。

如是已辨至諸行相或得者。此下明四品同起。結問頌答。

論曰至是故言或者。心與心所二種相望。必定俱生。闕一不起。三性心所。望彼心王非無差別。就總相說故言定俱。諸行即是色等四法。前第一句必俱二言。流至於此第二句中。謂色．心等諸行生時。必與有為四相俱起　言或得者。謂諸行內唯有情法與得俱生。余非情法非與得俱生。顯得不定。是故言或。若依成實論訶利伐摩．及覺天計。無有心所。但有心王。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：性。或者又誹謗說沒有別的觸處所造的色體。或者又誹謗說不是一切聚合都具有一切（大種）。或者又誹謗說數量不決定。分別解說大種，這些誹謗都可以消除（解釋說，最初說只是依據體來說。如果區分形等，就有形而不是顯，顯而不是形。聚合各自有差別，便不是決定的，所以不應該區分。如果總的說色，決定恒常存在，乃至輕重分別也是這樣。四大便已確定，未曾減少一個，所以說八等也沒有過失。第二種說法只是依據處所說，應該只有四種。爲了遮止對大種的多種誹謗的緣故。覺天論師以及譬喻尊者認為四大之外沒有別的所造色。室利邏多說在觸中沒有所造觸，允許其餘的所造色。諸經部師認為有色聚而沒有四大種，所以說不是具足。或者說一定有大種，不一定具足四種，所以說數量不一定。現在說所造色有四種，分別建立四大種，四種誹謗都可以消除。所以又特別說明）。

為什麼要分別乃至義理應該思擇呢？這即是第四種止諍。論主勸告說：這色是俱生，還是分離，還是結合，還是多，還是少，又有什麼確定呢？這不是深刻的義理。為什麼要分別這樣的言語呢？言語是從慾望產生的，義理應該思擇。

像這樣已經辨明乃至諸行之相或者得到。這下面說明四品同時生起。總結問頌和回答。

論中說乃至所以說或者。心與心所兩種相互觀望。必定同時生起。缺少一個就不會生起。三性心所，相對於心王並非沒有差別。就總相來說，所以說必定同時。諸行即是色等四法。前面第一句『必俱』二字，流傳到這第二句中。說色、心等諸行生起時，必定與有為四相同時生起。說到『或者得到』，是指諸行內只有有情法與『得』同時生起，其餘的非有情法不與『得』同時生起。顯得不確定。所以說『或者』。如果依據成實論訶利伐摩（Harivarman，論師名）以及覺天（Buddha Deva，論師名）的說法，沒有心所，只有心王。

【English Translation】 English version: Alternatively, there are those who slander, saying that there is no separate tangible object created by the sense-sphere of touch. Or they slander, saying that not all aggregates possess all (the great elements). Or they slander, saying that the number is not fixed. Explaining the great elements separately eliminates these slanders (The explanation is that the initial statement is based solely on the substance. If we distinguish form, etc., there is form but not manifestation, manifestation but not form. The aggregates each have differences, so they are not fixed, and therefore should not be distinguished. If we speak generally of color, it is definitely constant, even in terms of lightness and heaviness. The four great elements are fixed and have never been reduced by one, so saying eight, etc., is also without fault. The second statement is based solely on the sense-sphere, and there should only be four. This is to prevent many slanders against the great elements. The teacher覺天 (Buddha Deva, a teacher's name) and the Venerable譬喻 (Upamā, a title) believe that there are no created objects other than the four great elements. 室利邏多 (Śrīlāta, a teacher's name) says that there is no created touch within touch, but allows other created objects. The Sautrāntikas believe that there are aggregates of color without the four great elements, so they say they are not complete. Or they say that there are definitely great elements, but they do not necessarily possess all four, so they say the number is not fixed. Now we say that there are four types of created objects, and we separately establish the four great elements, eliminating the four slanders. Therefore, we explain it specifically again).

Why should we distinguish, and why should we contemplate the meaning? This is the fourth way to stop disputes. The master advises: Is this color co-arisen, separate, combined, many, few, or what is fixed? This is not a profound meaning. Why distinguish such words? Words arise from desire, and the meaning should be contemplated.

Thus, it has been explained up to the characteristics of all phenomena, or what is obtained. Below, it explains the simultaneous arising of the four categories. Concluding with a question and answer in verse.

The treatise says, 'Therefore, it is said, 'or''. The mind and mental factors are viewed in relation to each other. They definitely arise simultaneously. If one is missing, they will not arise. The mental factors of the three natures are not without difference in relation to the mind-king. Speaking in general terms, it is said that they are definitely simultaneous. All phenomena are the four dharmas of color, etc. The words 'definitely simultaneous' in the first sentence flow into this second sentence. When phenomena such as color and mind arise, they definitely arise simultaneously with the four characteristics of conditioned existence. When it says 'or obtained', it refers to the fact that only sentient phenomena arise simultaneously with 'attainment' among all phenomena, while other non-sentient phenomena do not arise simultaneously with 'attainment'. This appears uncertain. Therefore, it says 'or'. According to the Satyasiddhi Śāstra of 訶利伐摩 (Harivarman, a teacher's name) and 覺天 (Buddha Deva, a teacher's name), there are no mental factors, only the mind-king.

心分位殊假立心所。

向言心所至大地法等異者。此下大文第二廣辨差別　就中。一明心所有。二辨不相應色．心。界品廣明故不別說　就明心所中。一明五地法。二明定俱生。三明相似殊。四明眾名別　就第一明五地法中。一總標名數。二別釋名體。此下第一總標名數。問及頌答。

論曰至且有五品者。心之所有故名心所。應言心所有。略故但言心所。猶如我所。於心所中。廣即更有不定等法。略而言之故言且五。

何等為五者。問。

一大地法至少煩惱地法者。答。數可知。若依婆沙四十二說。諸地法。與此論有同。有異。大地法十。大善地法十。小煩惱法十(此三地與此論同)又說大煩惱地法十(同此論下文。開合為異。然婆沙不說惛沈者。順等持故。過失輕故)。又說大不善地法有五。謂無明．惛沈．掉舉．無慚．無愧(解云無明是隨眠性。通一切不善心相應。惛沈障慧勝。掉舉障定勝。以過重故所以別顯。與此論亦開合為異)又立大有覆無記地法有三。謂無明．惛沈．掉舉(解云無明是隨眠性。遍與一切有覆無記心相應。于隨煩惱中。惛沈障慧勝。掉舉障定勝。以過重故所以別顯與此論亦開合為異)又說大無覆無記地法有十。即受等大地法(解云以此十法通一切無覆無記心中可得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『心分位殊假立心所』（因為心的不同狀態而假立心所）。

前面說到『心所』到『大地法』等不同。下面大段文字第二部分廣泛辨別差別。其中，一是說明心所有，二是辨別不相應行色、心。『界品』廣泛說明，所以不另外說明。在說明心所中，一是說明五地法，二是說明定俱生，三是說明相似差別，四是說明眾多名稱的差別。在第一說明五地法中，一是總標名稱數量，二是分別解釋名稱體性。下面是第一總標名稱數量，提問和頌文回答。

論中說『乃至且有五品』，心的所有物，所以叫做『心所』。應該說『心所有』，省略的說法，所以只說『心所』，就像『我所』一樣。在心所中，廣義上還有不定等法。簡略來說，所以說『且五』。

『何等為五者』，提問。

『一大地法乃至少煩惱地法者』，回答。數量可以知道。如果依照《婆沙》四十二種說法，諸地法，與此論有相同，有不同。大地法十種，大善地法十種，小煩惱法十種（這三種地與此論相同）。又說大煩惱地法十種（同此論下文。開合不同。然而《婆沙》不說『惛沈』，因為順於等持，過失輕微）。又說大不善地法有五種，即無明（ignorance）、惛沈（lethargy）、掉舉（restlessness）、無慚（shamelessness）、無愧（lack of embarrassment）（解釋說無明是隨眠的性質，與一切不善心相應。惛沈障礙智慧，掉舉障礙禪定，因為過失嚴重，所以特別顯示。與此論也是開合不同）。又立大有覆無記地法有三種，即無明（ignorance）、惛沈（lethargy）、掉舉（restlessness）（解釋說無明是隨眠的性質，普遍與一切有覆無記心相應。在隨煩惱中，惛沈障礙智慧，掉舉障礙禪定，因為過失嚴重，所以特別顯示，與此論也是開合不同）。又說大無覆無記地法有十種，即受等大地法（解釋說這十種法普遍在一切無覆無記心中可以得到）。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Due to the differences in mental states, mental factors are provisionally established.'

Previously, it was mentioned that 'mental factors' differ from 'Great Ground Dharmas' and others. The following large section, the second part, extensively distinguishes the differences. Among them, the first is to explain what mental factors are, and the second is to distinguish non-corresponding formations, form, and mind. The 'Section on Realms' explains extensively, so it is not explained separately. In explaining mental factors, the first is to explain the five grounds, the second is to explain those that arise simultaneously with concentration, the third is to explain similar differences, and the fourth is to explain the differences in many names. In the first explanation of the five grounds, the first is to generally state the names and numbers, and the second is to separately explain the nature of the names. The following is the first general statement of the names and numbers, with questions and verses answering.

The treatise says, 'Up to and including the five categories,' that which belongs to the mind is called 'mental factor'. It should be called 'belonging to the mind', but it is abbreviated, so it is only called 'mental factor', just like 'belonging to me'. Among the mental factors, broadly speaking, there are also indeterminate dharmas. Briefly speaking, it is said 'only five'.

'What are the five?' Question.

'The Great Ground Dharmas up to the Minor Affliction Ground Dharmas,' Answer. The number can be known. If according to the forty-two kinds of explanations in the Vibhasa, the dharmas of the grounds are the same and different from this treatise. There are ten Great Ground Dharmas, ten Great Wholesome Ground Dharmas, and ten Minor Affliction Dharmas (these three grounds are the same as this treatise). It also says that there are ten Great Affliction Ground Dharmas (the same as the following in this treatise, but with different divisions and combinations. However, the Vibhasa does not mention 'lethargy' because it accords with equanimity, and the fault is slight). It also says that there are five Great Unwholesome Ground Dharmas, namely ignorance (avidya), lethargy (styana), restlessness (auddhatya), shamelessness (ahrikya), and lack of embarrassment (anapatrapya) (explaining that ignorance is the nature of latent tendencies, corresponding to all unwholesome minds. Lethargy obstructs wisdom, and restlessness obstructs meditation. Because the faults are serious, they are specially shown. It is also different from this treatise in terms of divisions and combinations). It also establishes three Great Defiled and Indeterminate Ground Dharmas, namely ignorance (avidya), lethargy (styana), and restlessness (auddhatya) (explaining that ignorance is the nature of latent tendencies, universally corresponding to all defiled and indeterminate minds. Among the secondary afflictions, lethargy obstructs wisdom, and restlessness obstructs meditation. Because the faults are serious, they are specially shown, and it is also different from this treatise in terms of divisions and combinations). It also says that there are ten Great Undefiled and Indeterminate Ground Dharmas, namely the Great Ground Dharmas such as feeling (vedana) (explaining that these ten dharmas can be universally obtained in all undefiled and indeterminate minds).

。故別標顯。與此論亦開合為異)地謂行處至一切心有者。此下第二別釋名體。隨解五地不同。文即為五。就初明大地法中。一釋名。二辨體。此即釋名　言大地法者。地謂行處。即是心王。若此心王。是彼心所所行處。即說此心王。為彼心所法地。此即別釋地義。受等十法通一切心。名為大法。此地是大法之地。名為大地。依主釋也。即目心王。此即別釋大地義也。此心所中。若法。是大地家所有。名大地法。第二依主釋也。即目受等十法。謂法恒於一切心有故名大地法。此即別釋大地法也。若但言大即目受等。若言大地即目心王。若言大地法還目受等。此中意取大地法也。正理文大同此論。若依婆沙十六云。問大地法是何義。答大者謂心。如是十法是心起處。大之地故名為大地。大地即法名大地法。有說心名為大。體用勝故。即大是地故名大地。是諸心所所依處故。受等十法。于諸大地遍可得故。名大地法。有說受等十法。遍諸心品故名為大。心是彼地故名大地。受等即是大地所有。名大地法(前兩解與此論異。后一解同此論。文顯可知。大善法等皆有兩重依主釋。準大地法應知)。

彼法是何者。此下第二辨體。將明問起。

頌曰至遍於一切心者。此即頌答。自古諸德。皆以多義廢立大地法等。各

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此特別標明顯示，與此論在開合上有差異。)『地』指的是行處，直到『一切心有』。這以下第二部分是分別解釋名稱和體性。隨著對五地的不同理解，文字也分為五個部分。首先，在闡明大地法中，一是解釋名稱，二是辨別體性。這裡是解釋名稱。『大地法』中的『地』指的是行處，也就是心王（Citta-raja，心的主宰）。如果這個心王是那些心所（Caitasika，心的附屬作用）所行之處，就說這個心王是那些心所法的『地』。這是分別解釋『地』的含義。受（Vedana，感受）等十種法普遍存在於一切心中，被稱為『大法』。這個『地』是『大法』的『地』，所以稱為『大地』，這是依主釋。指的是心王。這是分別解釋『大地』的含義。在這些心所中，如果某個法是屬於『大地』這個家族所有的，就稱為『大地法』，這是第二種依主釋。指的是受等十種法。意思是這些法恒常存在於一切心中，所以稱為『大地法』。這是分別解釋『大地法』的含義。如果只說『大』，指的是受等；如果說『大地』，指的是心王；如果說『大地法』，還是指受等。這裡的意思是取『大地法』。正理的文義與此論大體相同。如果依據《婆沙論》第十六卷的說法：問：『大地法』是什麼意思？答：『大』指的是心。這十種法是心生起的地方，因為是『大』的『地』，所以稱為『大地』。『大地』即是法，稱為『大地法』。有人說，心名為『大』，因為其體性和作用殊勝。『大』就是『地』，所以稱為『大地』，是各種心所的所依之處。受等十種法，在各種『大地』中普遍可以得到，所以稱為『大地法』。有人說，受等十種法，遍及各種心品，所以稱為『大』。心是它們的『地』，所以稱為『大地』。受等就是『大地』所有的，稱為『大地法』。(前兩種解釋與此論不同，后一種解釋與此論相同，文義顯明可知。大善法等都有兩重依主釋，可以參照大地法來理解)。

那些法是什麼呢？這以下第二部分是辨別體性，將要闡明，所以先提出問題。

頌文說直到『遍於一切心』。這以下是頌文回答。自古以來的各位德者，都用多種意義來廢立大地法等，各自...

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is specially marked and displayed, which differs from this treatise in terms of opening and closing.) 'Ground' refers to the place of activity, up to 'present in all minds'. The following second part separately explains the name and nature. According to the different understandings of the five grounds, the text is also divided into five parts. First, in clarifying the Mahābhūmika Dharmas (大地法, universal mental factors), one is to explain the name, and the other is to distinguish the nature. This is to explain the name. In 'Mahābhūmika Dharmas', 'ground' refers to the place of activity, which is Citta-raja (心王, mind-king). If this Citta-raja is the place where those Caitasikas (心所, mental factors) act, then this Citta-raja is said to be the 'ground' of those Caitasika dharmas. This is a separate explanation of the meaning of 'ground'. Vedana (受, feeling) and the other ten dharmas are universally present in all minds and are called 'Mahādharmas' (大法, great dharmas). This 'ground' is the 'ground' of 'Mahādharmas', so it is called 'Mahābhūmi' (大地, great ground), which is a possessive compound (依主釋). It refers to Citta-raja. This is a separate explanation of the meaning of 'Mahābhūmi'. Among these Caitasikas, if a certain dharma belongs to the family of 'Mahābhūmi', it is called 'Mahābhūmika Dharma', which is the second type of possessive compound. It refers to Vedana and the other ten dharmas. It means that these dharmas are constantly present in all minds, so they are called 'Mahābhūmika Dharmas'. This is a separate explanation of the meaning of 'Mahābhūmika Dharmas'. If only 'Mahā' (大, great) is mentioned, it refers to Vedana and others; if 'Mahābhūmi' is mentioned, it refers to Citta-raja; if 'Mahābhūmika Dharma' is mentioned, it still refers to Vedana and others. The meaning here is to take 'Mahābhūmika Dharma'. The meaning of the Zhengli (正理, Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) is largely the same as this treatise. According to the sixteenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論): Question: What is the meaning of 'Mahābhūmika Dharma'? Answer: 'Mahā' refers to the mind. These ten dharmas are the place where the mind arises. Because it is the 'ground' of 'Mahā', it is called 'Mahābhūmi'. 'Mahābhūmi' is dharma, called 'Mahābhūmika Dharma'. Some say that the mind is called 'Mahā' because its nature and function are superior. 'Mahā' is 'ground', so it is called 'Mahābhūmi', which is the basis of various mental factors. Vedana and the other ten dharmas are universally obtainable in various 'Mahābhūmis', so they are called 'Mahābhūmika Dharmas'. Some say that Vedana and the other ten dharmas pervade various mental categories, so they are called 'Mahā'. The mind is their 'ground', so it is called 'Mahābhūmi'. Vedana and others belong to 'Mahābhūmi', called 'Mahābhūmika Dharmas'. (The first two explanations differ from this treatise, and the last explanation is the same as this treatise. The meaning of the text is clear and understandable. Great wholesome dharmas and others all have two possessive compounds, which can be understood by referring to Mahābhūmika Dharma).

What are those dharmas? The following second part is to distinguish the nature. It is about to be explained, so the question is raised first.

The verse says up to 'pervading all minds'. The following is the verse answer. Since ancient times, various virtuous people have used various meanings to establish and abolish Mahābhūmika Dharmas, etc., each...

謂指南齊稱第一。並皆費言論不能具述。今依此論。各以一義廢立大地法等。此乃論能。非關人解。西方號為聰明論也。信不虛言。有古德五義廢立。今依此論一義廢立大地法者。謂遍於一切心名大地法。余心所法非遍一切。故不立為大地法也。

論曰至和合遍有者。此釋第四句。

毗婆沙師傳說如是。所列十法。一切諸心一剎那中和合遍有。論主意朋經部　非信十法皆有別體。故言傳說。

此中受謂至有差別故者。受即標名。三種舉數。領納前境約用顯體。苦謂苦受。樂謂樂受。俱非謂舍。三受不同名有差別。雖心．心所領境義邊並應名受。受領強故偏得受名。喻況如前受蘊中說。正理第十云。領愛．非愛．俱相違觸說名為受　正理論意約彼觸因以辨受果。受似彼觸領似觸邊名為領觸。此亦如前受蘊中說。

想謂于境取差別相者。想謂于境執取男．女等種種差別相。能于境中封疆畫界。此是男等非非男等。故名男等。正理云。安立執取男．女等境差別相因(解云謂能為因安立女等相。令心心所執取女等境差別相。是差別相因)。

思謂能令心有造作者。思有勢力能令心王于境運動。有造作用。理實亦令余心所法有所造作。從強說心。故正理云。由有思故。令心於境有動作用。猶如磁

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他們稱讚南齊是第一。所有這些讚美之詞都無法詳盡敘述。現在根據這部論著，各自用一個義理來廢除或確立大地法等。這是論著的能力，與人的理解無關。在西方，這被稱為聰明的論著。這些話真實不虛。古代的賢德之人用五個義理來廢除或確立，現在根據這部論著，用一個義理來廢除或確立大地法，指的是遍及一切心的稱為大地法。其餘的心所法並非遍及一切心，所以不被確立為大地法。論中說到『和合遍有』，這是解釋第四句。毗婆沙師的傳說是這樣的：所列的十種法，在一切心中一剎那間和合遍有。論主的意圖傾向於經部，不相信這十種法都有各自獨立的實體，所以說是『傳說』。這裡說到『受』，即『有差別故』。『受』是標明名稱，用三種來舉例說明。領納前境，是從作用方面來顯現本體。苦是指苦受，樂是指樂受，俱非是指舍。三種感受不同，所以說『有差別』。雖然心和心所領納境界的意義方面都應該稱為『受』，但因為『受』的領納作用強烈，所以偏偏得到『受』這個名稱。比喻的情況如同前面受蘊中所說。《正理》第十說：『領愛、非愛、俱相違觸，說名為受。』《正理論》的意義是根據那觸的因來辨別受的果。受類似那觸，領納類似觸的方面，稱為領觸。這也如同前面受蘊中所說。『想』是指『于境取差別相』。『想』是指對於境界執取男女等種種差別相，能夠在境界中劃分界限，確定這是男等，不是非男等，所以稱為男等。《正理》說：『安立執取男女等境差別相因（解釋說，是指能夠作為原因來安立女等相，使心和心所執取女等境界的差別相，是差別相因）。』『思』是指『能令心有造作者』。『思』具有勢力，能夠使心王在境界上運動，產生造作作用。實際上也使其他心所法產生造作作用，這裡是從強盛的作用方面來說心。所以《正理》說：『由於有思的緣故，使心在境界上產生動的作用，就像磁石一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: They praise the Sautrantikas as the foremost. All these praises cannot be fully described. Now, according to this treatise, each uses one principle to abolish or establish the Mahabhumi-dharma (Great Ground Dharma) and others. This is the ability of the treatise, and it is not related to human understanding. In the West, this is called an intelligent treatise. These words are true and not false. Ancient virtuous people used five principles to abolish or establish, but now, according to this treatise, using one principle to abolish or establish the Mahabhumi-dharma refers to what pervades all minds, which is called Mahabhumi-dharma. The remaining mental factors (citta-caitta) do not pervade all minds, so they are not established as Mahabhumi-dharma. The treatise says 'harmoniously and universally present,' which explains the fourth sentence. The Sarvastivadins' tradition is like this: the ten dharmas listed are harmoniously and universally present in all minds in one moment. The treatise master's intention leans towards the Sutra School (Sautrantika), not believing that these ten dharmas all have their own independent entities, so it is said to be a 'tradition'. Here it says 'Vedana (feeling)', that is, 'because there are differences'. 'Vedana' is to indicate the name, using three to illustrate. Receiving the previous object is to reveal the substance from the aspect of function. Suffering refers to painful feeling, pleasure refers to pleasant feeling, and neither refers to indifference (upeksa). The three feelings are different, so it is said that 'there are differences'. Although the mind and mental factors should both be called 'Vedana' in terms of the meaning of receiving the object, because the receiving function of 'Vedana' is strong, it particularly obtains the name 'Vedana'. The analogy is as described in the previous Skandha of Feeling (Vedana-skandha). The tenth chapter of the Nyayanusara says: 'Receiving what is loved, not loved, and mutually contradictory touches is called Vedana.' The meaning of the Nyayanusara is to distinguish the result of feeling based on the cause of that touch. Feeling is similar to that touch, and receiving is similar to the aspect of touch, which is called receiving touch. This is also as described in the previous Skandha of Feeling. 'Samjna (perception)' refers to 'taking different characteristics in the object'. 'Samjna' refers to grasping various different characteristics such as male and female in the object, and being able to draw boundaries in the object, determining that this is male, etc., and not non-male, etc., so it is called male, etc. The Nyayanusara says: 'Establishing the cause of grasping different characteristics of objects such as male and female (explaining that it is able to establish the characteristics of female, etc. as a cause, causing the mind and mental factors to grasp the different characteristics of objects such as female, etc., which is the cause of different characteristics).'" 'Cetana (volition)' refers to 'being able to make the mind have activity'. 'Cetana' has the power to make the mind-king move in the object, producing activity. In reality, it also makes other mental factors produce activity, but here it refers to the mind from the aspect of strong function. Therefore, the Nyayanusara says: 'Because there is Cetana, it makes the mind have the function of moving in the object, just like a magnet.'

石勢力。能令鐵有動用。

觸謂根境至能有觸對者。根．識．境三和合而生。舉因以辨。能有作用觸對前境舉業以明　又解能令心等觸對前境。雖心心所對境義邊並應名觸。觸對強故偏得觸名。故入阿毗達摩云。觸謂根．境．識和合生。令心觸境。以能養活心．心所為順樂受等差別有三(解云從強令心。理實亦令心所觸境)若依正理云能為受因。(解云舉果顯因也)　欲謂希求所作事業者。欲謂于境能有希求所作事業。由有此欲心等趣境。又入阿毗達摩云。欲謂希求所作事業。隨順精進。謂我當作如是事業。

慧謂於法能有簡擇者。推求名見。決斷名智。簡擇名慧。謂于諸法能有簡擇。約用辨也　問慧寧疑俱　答正理第十云。若疑相應。全無慧者。云何得有二品推尋。於二品中。差別簡擇。推尋理趣乃成疑故　準彼論故應得疑俱。慧與無明相應。故知亦與疑並。

念謂于緣明記不忘者。念之作用於所緣境分明記持。能為后時不忘失因。非謂但念過去境也。故正理云。于境明記。不忘失因說名爲念　又入阿毗達摩云。念謂令心於境明記。即是不忘已．正．當作諸事業義(解云彼論從強說心。理實亦令心所)。

作意謂能令心警覺者。作動于意故名作意。謂能令心警覺前境。心如睡眠沉沒不行。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本石勢力（Shishi shili）：能使鐵產生動能。

觸（Chu）：指根、境相遇，能夠產生觸對。由根、識、境三者和合而生。從因的角度來說，能夠對前境產生作用；從業的角度來說，能夠闡明。又可以解釋為能夠使心等觸對前境。雖然心和心所對境在意義上都應該稱為觸，但因為觸對的作用更強，所以偏稱為觸。因此，《阿毗達摩論》（Apidamo lun）中說：『觸是指根、境、識和合而生，使心觸境。』因為它能夠滋養心和心所，所以有順樂受等差別，分為三種（解釋說這是從作用強的方面來說心，實際上也使心所觸境）。如果按照《正理》（Zhengli）的說法，觸能夠成為受的因（解釋說這是舉果顯因）。

欲（Yu）：指希求所作的事業。欲是指對於境界能夠產生希求所作事業。因為有了這種欲，心等才會趨向境界。另外，《阿毗達摩論》（Apidamo lun）中說：『欲是指希求所作的事業，隨順精進，即我想做這樣的事業。』

慧（Hui）：指對於法能夠進行簡擇。推求稱為見，決斷稱為智，簡擇稱為慧。是指對於諸法能夠進行簡擇，這是從作用上來說的。問：慧和疑可以同時存在嗎？答：《正理》（Zhengli）第十中說：『如果與疑相應，完全沒有慧，怎麼會有兩種品類的推尋？在兩種品類中，進行差別簡擇，推尋理趣才能形成疑。』按照該論的說法，疑和慧應該可以同時存在。慧與無明相應，因此可知也與疑並存。

念（Nian）：指對於所緣的境界，能夠清楚地記住而不忘記。唸的作用在於對於所緣的境界分明地記住和保持，能夠成為以後不忘記的原因，並非只是念過去境。因此，《正理》（Zhengli）中說：『對於境界清楚地記住，成為不忘記的原因，這叫做念。』另外，《阿毗達摩論》（Apidamo lun）中說：『念是指使心對於境界清楚地記住，也就是不忘記已經、正在、將要做的事業的意義（解釋說該論是從作用強的方面來說心，實際上也使心所）。』

作意（Zuoyi）：指能夠使心警覺。作動于意，所以叫做作意。是指能夠使心警覺前境。心就像睡眠一樣沉沒不行。

【English Translation】 English version Shishi shili: It can make iron have kinetic energy.

Chu: Refers to the encounter of root and object, which can produce contact. It arises from the combination of root, consciousness, and object. From the perspective of cause, it can produce effects on the object in front; from the perspective of karma, it can be clarified. It can also be explained as being able to make the mind, etc., touch the object in front. Although the mind and mental functions should be called touch in meaning, because the effect of touch is stronger, it is preferentially called touch. Therefore, the Abhidharma says: 'Touch refers to the combination of root, object, and consciousness, which makes the mind touch the object.' Because it can nourish the mind and mental functions, it has differences such as pleasant feelings, and is divided into three types (the explanation says that this is from the aspect of the strong function of the mind, but in reality it also makes the mental functions touch the object). According to Zhengli, touch can be the cause of feeling (the explanation says that this is revealing the cause from the effect).

Yu: Refers to the career that is hoped to be done. Yu refers to being able to generate the career that is hoped to be done for the realm. Because of this desire, the mind, etc., will tend to the realm. In addition, the Abhidharma says: 'Yu refers to the career that is hoped to be done, following diligence, that is, I want to do such a career.'

Hui: Refers to being able to select from the Dharma. Seeking is called seeing, deciding is called wisdom, and selecting is called Hui. It refers to being able to select from all Dharmas, which is from the perspective of function. Question: Can Hui and doubt coexist? Answer: Zhengli No. 10 says: 'If it corresponds to doubt, and there is no Hui at all, how can there be two types of seeking? In the two types, differential selection, and seeking reason can form doubt.' According to this theory, doubt and Hui should be able to coexist. Hui corresponds to ignorance, so it can be known that it also coexists with doubt.

Nian: Refers to being able to clearly remember and not forget the object of attention. The function of Nian lies in clearly remembering and maintaining the object of attention, which can become the reason for not forgetting in the future, not just thinking about the past. Therefore, Zhengli says: 'Clearly remember the realm, and become the reason for not forgetting, this is called Nian.' In addition, the Abhidharma says: 'Nian refers to making the mind clearly remember the realm, that is, not forgetting the meaning of the career that has been, is being, and will be done (the explanation says that this theory is from the aspect of the strong function of the mind, but in reality it also makes the mental functions).'

Zuoyi: Refers to being able to make the mind alert. Acting on the mind, so it is called Zuoyi. It refers to being able to make the mind alert to the object in front. The mind is like sleep, sinking and not moving.

由作意力警覺取境。理實亦能警覺心所。從強說心。故正理云。諸心．所法依心轉故。但動于意余動亦成。又正理云。引心．心所。令于所緣有所警覺說名作意。此即世間說為留意。雜心。名憶。又入阿毗達摩云。作意謂能令心警覺。即是引心趣境為義。亦是憶持曾受境等。

勝解謂能于境印可者。殊勝之解故名勝解。謂能于境。印可審定是事必爾非不如是　問若爾者與疑相應如何有勝解　解云有耶．無耶前後二心皆能印可故有勝解。又入阿毗達摩云。勝解謂能于境印可。即是令心於所緣境無怯弱義(解云從強令心。亦令心所)　正理十一云。勝解別有亦如經說。心由勝解印可所緣。謂心起時皆能印境(解云從強說心。謂心所法亦能印境)　又正理更敘雜心等師解云。有餘師云。勝謂增勝。解謂解脫。此能令心於境無礙自在而轉。如勝戒等(解云令心於境自在為勝。境不能礙故得改易名為解脫。如言勝戒．勝定．勝慧如說由觸故心屬於境。由勝解故心離於境。即斯義也。雜心云解脫者但得脫義闕于勝義譯家謬也)　三摩地謂心一境性者。等持力能令心王於一境轉。若無等持。心性掉動不能住境。從強說心。理實亦令諸心所法於一境轉。故正理云。令心無亂取所緣境不流散因。名三摩地　言三摩地者。此云等持。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本由作意（Manasikara，心理活動）的力量警覺地去認知對象。實際上，作意也能警覺其他的心所（Caitasika，心理作用）。這裡是從主要作用方面來說心。所以《正理》中說：『所有心和心所法都依心而轉，所以動了意，其他的動也就完成了。』《正理》中又說：『引導心和心所，使它們對所緣之境有所警覺，這叫做作意。』這也就是世俗所說的留意。《雜心》中，作意又名憶。另外，《入阿毗達摩》中說：『作意是指能夠使心警覺，也就是引導心趣向對象的意思。』也是憶持曾經感受過的對象等等。

勝解（Adhimoksha，確認）是指能夠對對像進行印可。殊勝的理解所以叫做勝解。是指能夠對對像進行印可審定，確定這件事必然如此，而不是不如是。問：如果是這樣，那麼與疑（Vicikitsa，懷疑）相應時，如何會有勝解呢？答：有耶、無耶，前後兩個心都能印可，所以有勝解。另外，《入阿毗達摩》中說：『勝解是指能夠對對像進行印可，也就是使心對於所緣之境沒有怯弱的意思。』（解釋說，從主要作用方面來說心，實際上也使心所沒有怯弱）《正理》第十一卷中說：『勝解是另外存在的，就像經中所說，心由勝解印可所緣。』意思是說，心生起時都能印可對像（解釋說，從主要作用方面來說心，實際上心所法也能印可對像）。另外，《正理》中還敘述了《雜心》等論師的解釋：有其他論師說：『勝是指增勝，解是指解脫。』這能使心對於對像沒有障礙，自在地運轉，就像殊勝的戒等等（解釋說，使心對於對像自在為勝，對像不能阻礙，所以能夠改變，叫做解脫。如說勝戒、勝定、勝慧，就像說由觸（Sparsha，感覺）的緣故，心屬於對象，由勝解的緣故，心離開對象，就是這個意思。《雜心》中說解脫只是得到脫離的意思，缺少殊勝的意義，譯者錯了）。

三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）是指心一境性。等持的力量能夠使心王（Citta，心）在一境上運轉。如果沒有等持，心性掉舉動搖，不能安住于境。這裡是從主要作用方面來說心。實際上也使所有心所法在一境上運轉。所以《正理》中說：『使心沒有散亂，取所緣境不流散的原因，叫做三摩地。』所謂三摩地，這裡翻譯成等持。

【English Translation】 English version Cognition of objects is achieved through the power of Manasikara (attention). In reality, Manasikara can also alert other Caitasikas (mental factors). This is described from the perspective of the primary function of the mind. Therefore, the Nyayasutra states: 'All mental and mental factors depend on the mind; therefore, when the mind moves, other movements are also completed.' The Nyayasutra also states: 'Guiding the mind and mental factors, causing them to be alert to the object of focus, is called Manasikara.' This is what the world calls 'paying attention.' In the Samuccaya, Manasikara is also called 'memory.' Furthermore, the Abhidharmakosha states: 'Manasikara means being able to make the mind alert, which means guiding the mind towards the object.' It also involves remembering objects that have been experienced before.

Adhimoksha (conviction) refers to the ability to affirm an object. A superior understanding is called Adhimoksha. It means being able to affirm and ascertain an object, confirming that this matter is certainly so, and not otherwise. Question: If that is the case, how can there be Adhimoksha when it is associated with Vicikitsa (doubt)? Answer: 'Is it?' or 'Is it not?' Both the preceding and following minds can affirm, so there is Adhimoksha. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakosha states: 'Adhimoksha means being able to affirm an object, which means that the mind has no timidity towards the object of focus.' (Explanation: It is said from the perspective of the primary function of the mind; in reality, it also makes the mental factors without timidity.) Nyayasutra Volume Eleven states: 'Adhimoksha exists separately, just as the sutras say, the mind affirms the object of focus through Adhimoksha.' This means that when the mind arises, it can affirm the object (Explanation: It is said from the perspective of the primary function of the mind; in reality, mental factors can also affirm the object). Furthermore, the Nyayasutra also narrates the explanations of teachers such as those in the Samuccaya: Other teachers say: 'Adhi means superior, and moksha means liberation.' This enables the mind to move freely and without hindrance towards the object, like superior precepts, etc. (Explanation: Making the mind free towards the object is superior; the object cannot hinder it, so it can be changed, which is called liberation. For example, superior precepts, superior Samadhi, superior wisdom, just as it is said that due to Sparsha (contact), the mind belongs to the object, and due to Adhimoksha, the mind is separated from the object, which is this meaning. The Samuccaya says that liberation only obtains the meaning of detachment, lacking the superior meaning; the translator is mistaken.)

Samadhi (concentration) refers to the one-pointedness of mind. The power of Samadhi enables the Citta (mind) to operate on one object. Without Samadhi, the nature of the mind is distracted and agitated, unable to abide in the object. This is described from the perspective of the primary function of the mind. In reality, it also enables all mental factors to operate on one object. Therefore, the Nyayasutra states: 'The cause that makes the mind without distraction, taking the object of focus without scattering, is called Samadhi.' The so-called Samadhi is translated here as 'equal holding' (equanimity).

即平等持心．心所法。令專一境有所成辨。故婆沙一百四十一云。問何名等持。答平等持心。令專一境有所成辨。故名等持。

諸心心所至唯覺慧取者。嘆心．心所行相微細。如文可知。若依義次第。一欲。二作意。三思。四觸。五受。六想。七勝解。八慧。九念。十定。所以頌文不依此說者。顯一剎那同時並起。或受等五顯染用勝。慧等五顯凈用勝。作用類說。

如是已說至諸善心有者。此下第二明大善地法。就中。一釋名。二辨體。此即釋名。地義如前故今不解。兩重依主準前大地法釋。恒善心有故名為大。

彼法如何者。此下辨體。頌前問起。

頌曰至勤唯遍善心者。上三句出體。第四句釋大義。今依此論。一義廢立大善地法十。謂唯遍善心。大地法十雖遍善心。而非唯善心。余心所法非唯善心。亦非遍善心故。皆不名大善地法。

論曰至唯遍善心者。釋第四句。

此中信者至故名為信者。信謂令心澄凈。理亦能令心所凈。從強說心。由此信珠在心皆得澄凈。故入阿毗達摩解信云。是能除遣心濁穢法。如水清珠置於池內。令濁穢水皆即澄凈。如是信珠在心池內。心諸濁穢皆即除遣(已上論文)　有說此信於四諦．三寶．善惡業．異熟果中。現前忍許故名為信。又正理云爲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『即平等持心．心所法』，指的是令心專注于單一境界，從而有所成就和辨別的心所法。因此，《婆沙論》第一百四十一卷中說：『問：什麼叫做等持？答：平等地保持心念，使之專注于單一境界，從而有所成就和辨別，所以叫做等持。』

『諸心心所至唯覺慧取者』，這是讚歎心和心所的行相非常微細，如文中所說的那樣可以理解。如果按照義理的次第，應該是：一、欲（chanda，意願）。二、作意（manaskara，注意）。三、思（cetana，意志）。四、觸（sparsha，感覺）。五、受（vedana，感受）。六、想（samjna，認知）。七、勝解（adhimoksha，確信）。八、慧（prajna，智慧）。九、念（smriti，記憶）。十、定（samadhi，禪定）。頌文不按照這個順序來說，是爲了顯示一剎那間這些心所同時生起。或者說，受等五種心所顯示染污的作用更強，慧等五種心所顯示清凈的作用更強，這是按照作用的類別來說的。

『如是已說至諸善心有者』，接下來第二部分說明大善地法。其中，第一是解釋名稱，第二是辨別體性。這裡是解釋名稱。『地』的含義如前所述，所以現在不再解釋。『兩重依主』參照前面大地法的解釋。因為恒常與善心相應，所以叫做『大』。

『彼法如何者』，接下來辨別體性。這是頌文之前的提問。

『頌曰至勤唯遍善心者』，前三句是說明體性，第四句是解釋『大』的含義。現在根據這部論典，以一個義理來廢立大善地法，共有十種，也就是唯獨遍於善心的心所法。大地法雖然遍於善心，但並非唯獨是善心。其他心所法並非唯獨是善心，也不是遍於善心，所以都不叫做大善地法。

『論曰至唯遍善心者』，這是解釋第四句。

『此中信者至故名為信者』，信，是指使心澄凈。理智也能使心所清凈，這裡是從強盛的作用來說心。因為有了信珠，心就能變得澄凈。所以進入《阿毗達摩》解釋信的時候說，信是能夠去除心中污濁的法。就像清水珠放在池塘里，能使渾濁的水立刻變得清澈一樣。同樣，信珠在心中，能使心中的各種污濁立刻被去除（以上是論文原文）。有人說，這種信是對四諦（catuh-satya，四聖諦）、三寶（tri-ratna，佛法僧三寶）、善惡業（karma，業）和異熟果（vipaka-phala，異熟果）的現前認可，所以叫做信。另外，《正理》中說，信是……

【English Translation】 English version: 'That is, equanimously holding the mind, mental factors.' This refers to the mental factors that enable the mind to focus on a single object, thereby achieving accomplishment and discernment. Therefore, the one hundred and forty-first fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'Question: What is called equanimity? Answer: Equanimously holding the mind, enabling it to focus on a single object, thereby achieving accomplishment and discernment, hence it is called equanimity.'

'All mental factors up to only perceptive wisdom are taken.' This praises the subtle characteristics of the mind and mental factors, which can be understood as stated in the text. If according to the order of meaning, it should be: 1. Desire (chanda). 2. Attention (manaskara). 3. Volition (cetana). 4. Contact (sparsha). 5. Feeling (vedana). 6. Perception (samjna). 7. Conviction (adhimoksha). 8. Wisdom (prajna). 9. Mindfulness (smriti). 10. Concentration (samadhi). The reason why the verse does not follow this order is to show that these mental factors arise simultaneously in an instant. Or, the five mental factors such as feeling show the superior function of defilement, and the five mental factors such as wisdom show the superior function of purity. This is categorized according to function.

'As has been said, up to those that exist in all wholesome minds.' The second part below explains the great wholesome ground dharmas. Among them, the first is to explain the name, and the second is to distinguish the nature. This is to explain the name. The meaning of 'ground' is as explained before, so it will not be explained now. 'Twofold dependence' refers to the explanation of the great ground dharmas. Because it is constantly associated with wholesome minds, it is called 'great'.

'How are those dharmas?' The following distinguishes the nature. This is the question before the verse.

'The verse says, up to diligence is only pervasive in wholesome minds.' The first three lines explain the nature, and the fourth line explains the meaning of 'great'. Now, according to this treatise, using one meaning to establish and abolish the great wholesome ground dharmas, there are ten in total, which are the mental factors that are only pervasive in wholesome minds. Although the great ground dharmas are pervasive in wholesome minds, they are not exclusively wholesome minds. Other mental factors are neither exclusively wholesome minds nor pervasive in wholesome minds, so they are not called great wholesome ground dharmas.

'The treatise says, up to only pervasive in wholesome minds.' This explains the fourth line.

'Among these, faith, up to therefore it is called faith.' Faith means making the mind clear and pure. Reason can also make the mental factors pure, but here it is spoken of from the perspective of the stronger function of the mind. Because of the faith pearl, the mind can become clear and pure. Therefore, when entering the Abhidharma to explain faith, it is said that faith is the dharma that can remove the turbidity and impurities of the mind. Just like a clear water pearl placed in a pond can immediately make the turbid water clear, similarly, the faith pearl in the mind can immediately remove all the turbidity and impurities of the mind (the above is the original text of the treatise). Some say that this faith is the present acceptance of the Four Noble Truths (catuh-satya), the Three Jewels (tri-ratna), wholesome and unwholesome karma, and the results of karma (vipaka-phala), so it is called faith. Also, the Nyayasutra says that faith is...

欲所依。能資勝解(解云由信彼故希求彼境。信許有境方能印可。此明信因)。

不放逸者修諸善法者。謂能修諸善法名不放逸(即放逸相違)。

離諸善法復何名修者。問。即諸善法說名為修。離諸善法復何名修。

謂此于善至名不放逸者。答。謂由有此不放逸故。于諸善法專注為性。餘部經言。能守護心。明知有體。理實亦守心所。從強說心。

輕安者謂心堪任性者。輕安謂能令心於善有所堪任。故正理云。正作意轉。身．心輕利安適之因。心堪任性說名輕安。又入阿毗達摩云。心堪任性說名輕安。違害惛沈。隨順善法。

豈無經亦說有身輕安耶者。經部難。豈無經亦說有身輕安。何故但說心輕安耶。經部計身輕安是觸事輕安。觸用風為體。為輕安名通輕觸。故以為難。彼宗心輕安是心所。身輕安是輕觸。

雖非無說至應知亦爾者。說一切有部通經。經雖說有身輕安性。此如身受。受雖心所。若五識相應名身受。若意識相應名心受。應知輕安亦爾。雖是心所。若五識相應名身輕安。若意識相應名心輕安。

如何可立此為覺支者。經部復難。若五識相應名身輕安。即是有漏。如何可立此為七覺支中。此中難殺難絕。

應知此中至身堪任性者。上既難殺。論主依經

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『欲所依』（yu suo yi）：指依靠慾望。『能資勝解』（neng zi sheng jie）（勝解意為由於相信某種事物，因而希望得到該事物。只有確信並認可某種境界，才能真正印可。這說明了信心的作用）。

『不放逸者修諸善法者』（bu fang yi zhe xiu zhu shan fa zhe）：指能夠修習各種善法的人被稱為不放逸（即與放逸相反的狀態）。

『離諸善法復何名修者』（li zhu shan fa fu he ming xiu zhe）：問：既然各種善法被稱為修習，那麼離開善法又有什麼可以稱為修習呢？

『謂此于善至名不放逸者』（wei ci yu shan zhi ming bu fang yi zhe）：答：因為有了這種不放逸，所以能夠專注于各種善法。其他經典中說，能夠守護內心。由此可知不放逸是有實體的。實際上，它也守護著心所。這裡是從強調的角度來說守護內心。

『輕安者謂心堪任性者』（qing an zhe wei xin kan ren xing zhe）：輕安是指能夠使內心對於善法有所勝任。因此，《正理》中說：『正作意轉，身心輕利安適之因。』內心堪任的狀態被稱為輕安。此外，在《阿毗達摩》中也說，內心堪任的狀態被稱為輕安，它能對抗昏沉，順應善法。

『豈無經亦說有身輕安耶者』（qi wu jing yi shuo you shen qing an ye zhe）：經部提出疑問：難道沒有經典也提到有身體的輕安嗎？為什麼只說內心的輕安呢？經部認為身體的輕安是觸覺上的輕安，以風為體。因為『輕安』這個名稱也適用於輕觸，所以提出疑問。他們認為內心的輕安是心所，身體的輕安是輕觸。

『雖非無說至應知亦爾者』（sui fei wu shuo zhi ying zhi yi er zhe）：說一切有部解釋經典：雖然經典中提到了身體的輕安，但這就像身體的感受一樣。感受雖然是心所，但如果與五識相應，就稱為身體的感受；如果與意識相應，就稱為內心的感受。應該知道輕安也是如此，雖然是心所，但如果與五識相應，就稱為身體的輕安；如果與意識相應，就稱為內心的輕安。

『如何可立此為覺支者』（ru he ke li ci wei jue zhi zhe）：經部再次提出疑問：如果與五識相應就稱為身體的輕安，那就是有漏的，怎麼能將它列為七覺支之一呢？這裡提出的問題難以駁倒，難以解決。

『應知此中至身堪任性者』（ying zhi ci zhong zhi shen kan ren xing zhe）：上面提出的問題難以駁倒，論主依據經典

【English Translation】 English version 'Yu suo yi' (欲所依, the basis of desire): Refers to relying on desire. 'Neng zi sheng jie' (能資勝解, capable of supporting superior understanding) (Superior understanding means that because one believes in something, one hopes to obtain it. Only by being certain and acknowledging a certain state can one truly approve of it. This illustrates the role of faith).

'Bu fang yi zhe xiu zhu shan fa zhe' (不放逸者修諸善法者, those who are non-negligent cultivate all good dharmas): Refers to those who are able to cultivate various good dharmas being called non-negligent (i.e., the opposite of negligence).

'Li zhu shan fa fu he ming xiu zhe' (離諸善法復何名修者, apart from all good dharmas, what else is called cultivation?): Question: Since various good dharmas are called cultivation, then apart from good dharmas, what else can be called cultivation?

'Wei ci yu shan zhi ming bu fang yi zhe' (謂此于善至名不放逸者, this, in relation to goodness, is called non-negligence): Answer: Because of this non-negligence, one is able to focus on various good dharmas. Other scriptures say that it is able to guard the mind. From this, it can be known that non-negligence has substance. In reality, it also guards the mental factors. Here, it is said to guard the mind from the perspective of emphasis.

'Qing an zhe wei xin kan ren xing zhe' (輕安者謂心堪任性者, tranquility means the mind's ability to be capable): Tranquility refers to being able to make the mind capable of good dharmas. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says: 'Right intention turns, the cause of lightness and comfort of body and mind.' The state of the mind being capable is called tranquility. Furthermore, in the Abhidhamma, it is also said that the state of the mind being capable is called tranquility, which counteracts dullness and accords with good dharmas.

'Qi wu jing yi shuo you shen qing an ye zhe' (豈無經亦說有身輕安耶者, are there not also sutras that speak of bodily tranquility?): The Sautrantika school raises the question: Are there not also sutras that mention bodily tranquility? Why only speak of mental tranquility? The Sautrantika school believes that bodily tranquility is tactile tranquility, with wind as its substance. Because the name 'tranquility' also applies to light touch, the question is raised. They believe that mental tranquility is a mental factor, and bodily tranquility is light touch.

'Sui fei wu shuo zhi ying zhi yi er zhe' (雖非無說至應知亦爾者, although it is not without saying, it should be known to be the same): The Sarvastivada school explains the sutras: Although the sutras mention the nature of bodily tranquility, this is like bodily feeling. Although feeling is a mental factor, if it corresponds to the five consciousnesses, it is called bodily feeling; if it corresponds to the mind consciousness, it is called mental feeling. It should be known that tranquility is also like this. Although it is a mental factor, if it corresponds to the five consciousnesses, it is called bodily tranquility; if it corresponds to the mind consciousness, it is called mental tranquility.

'Ru he ke li ci wei jue zhi zhe' (如何可立此為覺支者, how can this be established as a factor of enlightenment?): The Sautrantika school raises the question again: If it corresponds to the five consciousnesses and is called bodily tranquility, then it is defiled. How can it be listed as one of the seven factors of enlightenment? The question raised here is difficult to refute and difficult to resolve.

'Ying zhi ci zhong zhi shen kan ren xing zhe' (應知此中至身堪任性者, it should be known that in this, up to the body's ability to be capable): The question raised above is difficult to refute, and the master relies on the sutras

部宗復為好解。應知此經中言身輕安者。身堪任性。輕安即是輕安風觸。此觸在身。于諸善法有所堪任。諸師多解。此文。是說一切有部答者。此解謬矣應善思之。

復如何說此為覺支者。說一切有部師難經部師。此身輕安既是輕觸。還是有漏。復如何說此為覺支。

能順覺支至心輕安故者。經部通難。此身輕安風雖是有漏。能順覺支心輕安故。名為覺支亦無有失。如何順者。由入定故。身中即有輕安風起。能引覺支心輕安故。此即同時說名能引。由斯相順故名覺支。

于余亦見有是說耶者。說一切有部復徴經部。于余經中。亦見有是相順說耶。

有如經說至得名無失者。經部答言有　如經已下引經出例。喜是喜受。順喜法即是與喜相應．俱有等法。皆名喜覺支。瞋謂瞋恚。瞋因緣即是瞋相應．俱有等法。皆名瞋恚蓋。慧蘊克性但攝正見。而攝思惟．及正勤者隨順慧故。亦攝思．勤故。身輕觸能順覺支心輕安故。得名覺支亦無有失。正理救云。有作是言。此中既說身輕安故。非唯心所說名輕安。此言非理。受等亦應同此說故。然五識身相應諸受。說名身受。有作是說。設有輕安體非心所。然此中說心所法故。不應說彼。以能隨順覺支體故。亦名覺支。謂身輕安。能引覺支心輕安故。亦見余處

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本部派宗義再次提出一個容易理解的觀點。應該知道這部經中說的『身輕安』，是指身體能夠勝任各種狀態。輕安就是輕安的風觸。這種觸覺在身體中，對於各種善法有所勝任。許多論師解釋這段經文，認為是說一切有部的回答。這種解釋是錯誤的，應該仔細思考。

又如何說這個是覺支呢？說一切有部的論師質問經部的論師，這個身輕安既然是輕觸，還是有漏的，又如何說這個是覺支呢？（覺支：bōjjhaṅga，又稱七覺支、七菩提分，是通往覺悟的七種要素）

能夠順應覺支，達到至心輕安的緣故。經部反駁說一切有部。這個身輕安的風雖然是有漏的，但能夠順應覺支的心輕安，所以稱為覺支也沒有什麼過失。如何順應呢？由於進入禪定，身體中就會有輕安的風生起，能夠引導覺支的心輕安，這就可以同時說它能夠引導。由於這種相互順應的關係，所以稱為覺支。

在其他的經典中也見到有這樣的說法嗎？說一切有部再次質問經部，在其他的經典中，也見到有這種相互順應的說法嗎？

有，就像經中所說，可以這樣命名而沒有過失。經部回答說，有的。就像經文以下引經文作為例子。喜是喜受（vedanā，感受）。順應喜法，就是與喜相應的、俱有的等法，都稱為喜覺支。瞋（dosa，嗔）是指瞋恚。瞋的因緣，就是與瞋相應的、俱有的等法，都稱為瞋恚蓋。慧蘊（paññākkhandha，智慧蘊）的特性只是包含正見（sammā-diṭṭhi，正見），而包含思惟以及正精進（sammā-vāyāma，正精進），是因為隨順智慧的緣故，所以也包含思惟和精進。因此，身輕觸能夠順應覺支的心輕安，所以可以命名為覺支，也沒有什麼過失。正理救論中說，有人這樣說，這裡既然說了身輕安，就不僅僅是心所法才能稱為輕安。這種說法是不合理的，受等也應該同樣這樣說。然而，五識身相應的各種感受，稱為身受。有人這樣說，即使輕安的本體不是心所法，但這裡說的是心所法，所以不應該說它，因為它能夠隨順覺支的本體，所以也稱為覺支。也就是說，身輕安能夠引導覺支的心輕安，也在其他地方見到過。

【English Translation】 English version The Vaibhāṣikas (a school of Sarvāstivāda Buddhism) again offer an easily understood point. It should be known that the 'bodily lightness' mentioned in this sutra refers to the body being capable of various states. Lightness is the touch of the wind of lightness. This touch, being in the body, makes it capable of all kinds of wholesome dharmas. Many teachers interpret this passage as the answer of the Sarvāstivāda school. This interpretation is wrong and should be carefully considered.

How can this be said to be a limb of enlightenment (bojjhaṅga)? The Sarvāstivāda teachers question the Sautrāntika (another school of Buddhism) teachers, 'Since this bodily lightness is a light touch and still defiled (āsrava), how can it be said to be a limb of enlightenment?'

Because it can accord with the limb of enlightenment, reaching the lightness of the mind. The Sautrāntikas refute the Sarvāstivādas. 'Although this wind of bodily lightness is defiled, it can accord with the lightness of the mind of the limb of enlightenment, so it is called a limb of enlightenment without any fault. How does it accord? Because of entering into meditation (dhyāna), there will be a wind of lightness arising in the body, which can lead to the lightness of the mind of the limb of enlightenment. This can be said to lead simultaneously. Because of this mutual accord, it is called a limb of enlightenment.'

Is there such a saying seen in other sutras? The Sarvāstivādas again question the Sautrāntikas, 'In other sutras, is there such a saying of mutual accord seen?'

'Yes, as the sutra says, it can be named without fault.' The Sautrāntikas answer, 'Yes, there is.' The following sutra quotes a sutra as an example. 'Joy is the feeling of joy (vedanā). Accordant with the dharma of joy, that is, the dharmas that are associated with joy, co-existent, etc., are all called the limb of enlightenment of joy. Anger (dosa) refers to hatred. The cause of anger, that is, the dharmas that are associated with anger, co-existent, etc., are all called the cover of anger. The characteristic of the aggregate of wisdom (paññākkhandha) only includes right view (sammā-diṭṭhi), but includes thinking and right effort (sammā-vāyāma) because it accords with wisdom, so it also includes thinking and effort. Therefore, the touch of bodily lightness can accord with the lightness of the mind of the limb of enlightenment, so it can be named a limb of enlightenment without any fault.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says, 'Some say that since bodily lightness is mentioned here, it is not only mental dharmas that can be called lightness. This statement is unreasonable, and feelings, etc., should be said in the same way.' However, the various feelings associated with the five consciousness bodies are called bodily feelings. Some say that even if the substance of lightness is not a mental dharma, but mental dharmas are spoken of here, so it should not be spoken of, because it can accord with the substance of the limb of enlightenment, so it is also called a limb of enlightenment. That is to say, bodily lightness can lead to the lightness of the mind of the limb of enlightenment, and it has also been seen elsewhere.'

。瞋．及瞋因名瞋恚蓋。見．思惟．勤名為慧蘊。雖彼瞋因思惟．及勤非瞋非慧。然順彼故亦得彼名。此亦應爾　解云一有作是言下敘經部說總非。以受例破。見有身輕安即說輕安非心所。既說有身受應有身受非心所。然有五識相應名身受是心所。亦應五識相應名身輕安是心所。此有何失　二有作是說下敘自異說縱破經部。設許輕安非是心所。此正辨心所法故不應說彼。三以能隨順下引例自釋。身輕安雖是有漏。五識相應為因。能引無漏覺支心輕安故。是即身輕安是因。心輕安是果。因從果目總名覺支。雖立身輕安是心所不同經部。引經釋順其文不別　若作俱舍師救第一身受難云。輕安之名通非心所。故身輕安得名輕觸。受是領納唯局心所。不得身受通非心所。救第二縱破云。輕安之名通於二種。或是心所。或是輕觸。為簡差別於心所中。說亦何苦。救第三身輕觸是覺支云。我說身輕安觸與入定心輕安。同時能引能順。望彼有力。可得相從說名覺支。汝說身輕安。五識相應唯在散位。引后定心輕安起時。前後隔遠。如何相順可立覺支。如身欲界將入聖道。先起五識。次起生得。次聞。次思。次修。後方入聖。起心輕安時分即遠。如何相順。故不可說為覺支也。論主意朋經部。所以此論文中。絕救敘經部釋。若依經部許

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『瞋』（嗔怒，一種負面情緒）以及『瞋』的起因被稱為『瞋恚蓋』（阻礙修行的煩惱）。『見』（知見，此處指錯誤的知見）、『思惟』（思考，此處指與錯誤知見相應的思考）、『勤』（精進，此處指爲了錯誤知見而努力）被稱為『慧蘊』（智慧的集合）。雖然『瞋』的起因，即與『瞋』相應的『思惟』和『勤』，本身既不是『瞋』也不是『慧』，但因為它們順應『瞋』，所以也被稱為『瞋恚蓋』。這裡的情況也應該如此（指『身輕安』因為順應『心輕安』，所以也被稱為『覺支』）。解釋說：第一種觀點認為，下面敘述的是經部的觀點，他們全面否定『身輕安』是心所法。他們用『受』（感受）來舉例反駁。經部認為，既然存在『有身輕安』，就應該說『輕安』不是心所法。既然說存在『有身受』，就應該說『有身受』不是心所法。然而，與五識相應的感受被稱為『身受』，是心所法。那麼，與五識相應的『身輕安』也應該是心所法，這有什麼不對呢？第二種觀點認為，下面敘述的是自宗（論主的宗派）不同於經部的觀點，並對經部進行駁斥。假設承認『輕安』不是心所法，但這裡正在辨析心所法，所以不應該討論『輕安』。第三種觀點認為，通過引用例子來解釋自己的觀點。『身輕安』雖然是有漏法（受煩惱污染的法），但它以與五識相應為因，能夠引發無漏的『覺支心輕安』（證悟的組成部分）。也就是說，『身輕安』是因，『心輕安』是果。因為因順應果，所以總的來說被稱為『覺支』。雖然認為『身輕安』是心所法與經部的觀點不同，但引用經典來解釋，順應經文的表面意思，並沒有特別的區別。如果俱舍師（《俱舍論》的學者）要反駁第一種關於『身受』的難題，他們會說：『輕安』這個名稱既可以指心所法，也可以指非心所法。所以『身輕安』可以被稱為『輕觸』（輕微的觸覺）。而『受』是領納，只能是心所法，不能像『身受』那樣既指心所法，又指非心所法。爲了反駁第二種觀點，他們會說：『輕安』這個名稱可以指兩種，一種是心所法，一種是輕微的觸覺。爲了區分差別，在心所法中討論『輕安』又有什麼問題呢？爲了反駁第三種關於『身輕觸』是覺支的觀點，他們會說：我說的是『身輕安觸』與入定時的『心輕安』，它們同時能夠引發和順應彼此，因為後者更有力量，所以可以勉強地將前者也稱為『覺支』。你們說的『身輕安』，是與五識相應的，只存在於散亂的狀態。它要引發後面的入定時的『心輕安』，時間間隔很遠。如何能說它們是順應的，可以被立為『覺支』呢？比如，身處欲界的人要進入聖道，首先生起五識，然後生起生得慧（天生的智慧），然後是聞慧（聽聞佛法而獲得的智慧），然後是思慧（思考佛法而獲得的智慧），然後是修慧（通過修行而獲得的智慧），最後才能進入聖道。生起『心輕安』的時間間隔很遠，如何能說它們是順應的呢？所以不能說『身輕安』是覺支。』論主的意圖是支援經部的觀點。所以在這篇論文中，完全沒有反駁，而是敘述了經部的解釋。如果按照經部的觀點，承認『身輕安』不是心所法。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Cher』 (anger, a negative emotion) and the cause of 『cher』 are called 『Cher-gai』 (hindrances to practice). 『Jian』 (views, here referring to wrong views), 『Siwei』 (thinking, here referring to thinking corresponding to wrong views), 『Qin』 (diligence, here referring to effort for wrong views) are called 『Huiyun』 (aggregate of wisdom). Although the cause of 『cher』, that is, 『siwei』 and 『qin』 corresponding to 『cher』, are neither 『cher』 nor 『hui』 themselves, they are also called 『Cher-gai』 because they conform to 『cher』. The situation here should also be like this (referring to 『Shen Qingan』 also being called 『Juezhi』 because it conforms to 『Xin Qingan』). The explanation says: The first view is that the following describes the view of the Jingbu school, which comprehensively denies that 『Shen Qingan』 is a mental factor. They use 『Shou』 (feeling) as an example to refute. The Jingbu school believes that since there is 『You Shen Qingan』, it should be said that 『Qingan』 is not a mental factor. Since it is said that there is 『You Shen Shou』, it should be said that 『You Shen Shou』 is not a mental factor. However, the feeling corresponding to the five consciousnesses is called 『Shen Shou』, which is a mental factor. Then, 『Shen Qingan』 corresponding to the five consciousnesses should also be a mental factor, what's wrong with that? The second view is that the following describes the view of one's own school (the author's school) which is different from the Jingbu school, and refutes the Jingbu school. Suppose it is admitted that 『Qingan』 is not a mental factor, but here we are analyzing mental factors, so 『Qingan』 should not be discussed. The third view is that one's own view is explained by citing examples. Although 『Shen Qingan』 is a contaminated dharma (dharma contaminated by afflictions), it can cause uncontaminated 『Juezhi Xin Qingan』 (a component of enlightenment) because it corresponds to the five consciousnesses. That is to say, 『Shen Qingan』 is the cause, and 『Xin Qingan』 is the result. Because the cause conforms to the result, it is generally called 『Juezhi』. Although the view that 『Shen Qingan』 is a mental factor is different from the view of the Jingbu school, the interpretation by citing scriptures conforms to the superficial meaning of the scriptures, and there is no special difference. If the Kosa master (a scholar of the 『Abhidharmakosa』) wants to refute the first difficulty about 『Shen Shou』, they will say: The name 『Qingan』 can refer to both mental factors and non-mental factors. So 『Shen Qingan』 can be called 『Qingchu』 (slight touch). And 『Shou』 is reception, it can only be a mental factor, and cannot be like 『Shen Shou』 which refers to both mental factors and non-mental factors. In order to refute the second view, they would say: The name 『Qingan』 can refer to two kinds, one is a mental factor, and the other is a slight touch. In order to distinguish the difference, what's wrong with discussing 『Qingan』 in mental factors? In order to refute the third view that 『Shen Qingchu』 is a 『Juezhi』, they would say: What I am talking about is 『Shen Qingan Chu』 and 『Xin Qingan』 when entering samadhi, they can cause and conform to each other at the same time, because the latter is more powerful, so the former can be barely called 『Juezhi』. The 『Shen Qingan』 you are talking about corresponds to the five consciousnesses and only exists in a scattered state. It takes a long time to cause the 『Xin Qingan』 when entering samadhi later. How can you say that they are conforming and can be established as 『Juezhi』? For example, a person in the desire realm wants to enter the holy path, first the five consciousnesses arise, then the innate wisdom arises, then the hearing wisdom (wisdom obtained by hearing the Dharma), then the thinking wisdom (wisdom obtained by thinking about the Dharma), then the cultivation wisdom (wisdom obtained through practice), and finally can enter the holy path. The time interval for the arising of 『Xin Qingan』 is very long, how can you say that they are conforming? So it cannot be said that 『Shen Qingan』 is a 『Juezhi』. The author's intention is to support the view of the Jingbu school. Therefore, in this paper, there is no refutation at all, but the interpretation of the Jingbu school is described. If according to the view of the Jingbu school, it is admitted that 『Shen Qingan』 is not a mental factor.

有心輕安而無別體。即思差別唯定心有。于散即無。五識相應理即非有。若身輕安是輕安風觸。若說一切有部宗輕安通六識。五識相應唯有漏。唯散位。意識相應通漏．無漏。通定．及散。

心平等性至說名為舍者。令心平等性從強說心亦令心所。或心之平等性。無警覺性。如持秤縷。掉舉相違。說名為舍。故入阿毗達摩論云。心平等性說名為舍。舍背非理。及向理故。由此勢力。令心於理．及於非理。無向．無背。平等而住。如持秤縷。又正理云。心平等性說名為舍。掉舉相違。如理所引。令心不越是為舍義。

如何可說至二相應起者。難。作意有警覺性。舍無警覺性。如何一心二相應起。

豈不前說至難可了知者。引前微細難了以答。

有雖難了至而不乖反者。復難。世間諸物。有雖難了由審推度而復可知。此舍．作意最難了知。謂有警覺．及無警覺。二相違背而不乖反一心中起。

此有警覺至有何乖反者。釋。若一體之上。說有警覺。說無警覺。可言乖反。此作意有警覺于舍則無。二既懸殊有何乖反。

若爾不應至皆互相應者。復難。雖於一體無彼二用。然性相違。不應同緣一境。若兩性相違同緣一境。或應一切貪．瞋等法皆互相應。

如是種類至應知亦爾者。引

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『有心輕安而無別體』。意思是說，輕安（Prasrabdhi）並非獨立存在，它與心識相伴而生。『即思差別唯定心有。于散即無』。只有在禪定（Samadhi）狀態下，才能清晰地感受到這種差別，在散亂的狀態下則無法體會。『五識相應理即非有』。輕安與五識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）同時生起的說法，在理上是不成立的。『若身輕安是輕安風觸』。如果感受到身體的輕安，那是因為輕安之風觸及身體。『若說一切有部宗輕安通六識。五識相應唯有漏。唯散位。意識相應通漏．無漏。通定．及散』。如果按照一切有部（Sarvastivada）的觀點，輕安可以與六識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意識）相應。與五識相應的輕安，只有有漏（Sasrava）的狀態，並且只在散亂的狀態下。而與意識相應的輕安，則可以是有漏或無漏（Anasrava）的狀態，也可以在禪定或散亂的狀態下。

『心平等性至說名為舍者』。之所以將心的平等性稱為舍（Upeksa），是因為從強調的角度來說，心所（Caitasika）也令心達到平等。或者說，心的平等性是沒有警覺性的，就像拿著天平的線一樣。舍與掉舉（Audhatya）相反。『故入阿毗達摩論云。心平等性說名為舍。舍背非理。及向理故』。因此，《阿毗達摩論》（Abhidharma）中說，心的平等性被稱為舍，因為舍能背離非理，趨向真理。『由此勢力。令心於理．及於非理。無向．無背。平等而住。如持秤縷』。憑藉這種力量，使心對於真理和非理，既不趨向也不背離，保持平等的狀態，就像拿著天平的線一樣。『又正理云。心平等性說名為舍。掉舉相違。如理所引。令心不越是為舍義』。此外，《正理》（Nyaya）中說，心的平等性被稱為舍，它與掉舉相反，如理引導，使心不越界，這就是舍的含義。

『如何可說至二相應起者』。問題：作意（Manaskara）具有警覺性，而舍沒有警覺性，如何能說一個心中同時生起兩種相應的心所？

『豈不前說至難可了知者』。引用前面關於微細難以理解的道理來回答。

『有雖難了至而不乖反者』。進一步提出疑問：世間萬物，雖然有些難以理解，但通過仔細推敲還是可以理解的。而舍和作意最難以理解，因為它們一個有警覺性，一個沒有警覺性，這兩種相互矛盾的特性，竟然可以在一個心中同時生起而不互相沖突。

『此有警覺至有何乖反者』。解釋：如果在一個事物上，既說它有警覺性，又說它沒有警覺性，那才可以說是互相矛盾。而作意有警覺性，舍沒有警覺性，兩者是不同的，有什麼矛盾呢？

『若爾不應至皆互相應者』。進一步提出疑問：即使在同一個事物上沒有這兩種作用，但它們的性質是相反的，不應該同時緣于同一個對象。如果兩種性質相反的事物可以同時緣于同一個對象，那麼所有的貪（Raga）、嗔（Dvesha）等煩惱都應該可以互相相應。

『如是種類至應知亦爾者』。引用...

【English Translation】 English version: 『There is mental ease (Prasrabdhi) without a separate entity.』 This means that Prasrabdhi does not exist independently; it arises together with consciousness. 『The difference in thought is only present in a concentrated mind; it is absent in a scattered mind.』 Only in a state of Samadhi can this difference be clearly felt; it cannot be experienced in a scattered state. 『The principle of correspondence with the five consciousnesses is not valid.』 The idea that Prasrabdhi arises simultaneously with the five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) is not logically sound. 『If there is physical ease, it is the touch of the wind of ease.』 If physical ease is felt, it is because the wind of ease has touched the body. 『If, according to the Sarvastivada school, Prasrabdhi is associated with the six consciousnesses, the association with the five consciousnesses is only with the defiled (Sasrava) and only in a scattered state. The association with the mind consciousness (Manovijnana) can be either defiled or undefiled (Anasrava), and can be in a state of Samadhi or scatteredness.』

『The mind's equanimity, which is called Upeksa (equanimity),』 is so named because, from an emphatic perspective, the mental factors (Caitasika) also cause the mind to achieve equanimity. Or, the mind's equanimity is without alertness, like holding the thread of a scale. Upeksa is the opposite of Audhatya (agitation). 『Therefore, it is said in the Abhidharma that the mind's equanimity is called Upeksa, because Upeksa turns away from the irrational and towards the rational.』 Therefore, the Abhidharma states that the mind's equanimity is called Upeksa because Upeksa turns away from the irrational and towards the rational. 『By this power, the mind neither inclines towards nor turns away from the rational or irrational, but remains in equanimity, like holding the thread of a scale.』 By this power, the mind neither inclines towards nor turns away from the rational or irrational, but remains in equanimity, like holding the thread of a scale. 『Furthermore, Nyaya states that the mind's equanimity is called Upeksa, which is the opposite of agitation. Guided by reason, it prevents the mind from transgressing; this is the meaning of Upeksa.』

『How can it be said that the two arise together?』 Question: Manaskara (attention) has alertness, while Upeksa does not. How can it be said that two corresponding mental factors arise simultaneously in one mind?

『Did we not say earlier that it is difficult to understand?』 This refers back to the earlier explanation about subtle and difficult-to-understand principles to answer the question.

『Although some things are difficult to understand, they are not contradictory.』 Further question: Although some things in the world are difficult to understand, they can be understood through careful examination. However, Upeksa and Manaskara are the most difficult to understand because one has alertness and the other does not. These two contradictory characteristics can arise simultaneously in one mind without conflicting with each other.

『If one says there is alertness, what contradiction is there?』 Explanation: If it is said that one thing has alertness and does not have alertness, then it can be said to be contradictory. However, Manaskara has alertness, while Upeksa does not. Since the two are different, what contradiction is there?

『If so, should not all correspond with each other?』 Further question: Even if these two functions are not present in the same entity, their natures are contradictory and should not simultaneously focus on the same object. If two things with contradictory natures can simultaneously focus on the same object, then all afflictions such as Raga (greed) and Dvesha (hatred) should be able to correspond with each other.

『Such kinds should also be known to be the same.』 Referring to...

例釋通。如是種類所餘受等諸法。種類．作用。各各不同。此一性心中應來。種類之言例同作意及舍。如彼受等各別相應理趣。今於此舍．作意中。各別相應應知亦爾　又解今於此一心中。舍．作意二。行別相應應知亦爾。應知心所互相應中。或有行解不同互相隨順一心相應。如受．想等。或有行解不同非互相順非一心起。如貪瞋等。故不可難皆互相應。

慚愧二種如后當釋者。指同下釋。

二根者謂無貪．無瞋者。于諸境界。無愛染性說名無貪。貪相違也。于情．非情。無恚害性說名無瞋。瞋相違也。

無癡善根至大善地法者。三善根中應說無癡。大地法中慧為性故善中不說。

言不害者謂無損惱者。心賢善性無損惱他名為不害。能違害也。

勤謂令心勇悍為性者。勤謂令心勇悍為性。即勤斷二惡勤修二善無退義也。懈怠相違。故入阿毗達磨云。精進謂于善．不善法。生．滅事中。勇悍為性。即是沉溺生死泥者。能策勵心令速出義。若依正理。于善法中更說欣．厭。彼論意言。頌說二及言兼攝欣．厭。厭謂厭背如緣苦．集。欣謂欣尚如緣滅．道。此二互起。必於一心不得俱生。雖唯是善非遍善心。故大善地法中不別標顯。又入阿毗達磨論云欣謂欣尚。于還滅品。見功德已令心欣慕。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：例釋『通』。像這樣，其餘的受等諸法，種類和作用各不相同，都應在這個『一性心』中出現。『種類』一詞的用法，類似於作意和舍。正如那些受等法各有其相應的道理，現在對於這個舍和作意，也應知各有其相應的道理。又解釋說，現在在這個『一性心』中，舍和作意這二者，其行相和理解不同，但應知它們是相互相應的。應當知道，在心所的相互相應中，或者有行相和理解不同，但互相隨順，一心相應的，如受和想等；或者有行相和理解不同，並非互相隨順，也非一心生起的，如貪和瞋等。所以，不能以此來責難說它們都是互相相應的。『慚愧二種如后當釋者』，指的是與下文的解釋相同。『二根者謂無貪．無瞋者』，對於各種境界，沒有愛戀染著的性質，這叫做『無貪』，是貪的相反；對於有情和非有情，沒有憎恨損害的性質，這叫做『無瞋』，是瞋的相反。『無癡善根至大善地法者』，在三種善根中，應該說無癡。因為在大地法中，慧是其自性，所以在善根中就不再說了。『言不害者謂無損惱者』，心懷賢善的性質，沒有損害惱亂他人的行為，這叫做『不害』，是能損害的相反。『勤謂令心勇悍為性者』，勤是指使心變得勇敢強悍的性質，也就是勤斷二惡，勤修二善，沒有退縮之意，是懈怠的相反。所以《阿毗達磨論》中說，精進是指對於善和不善法的生起和滅除，具有勇敢強悍的性質，也就是對於沉溺在生死泥潭中的人，能夠策勵其心，使其迅速脫離。如果依據《正理》，在善法中還要說欣和厭。該論的意思是說，頌文中的『二』以及『言』字，兼攝了欣和厭。厭是指厭背，如緣苦和集；欣是指欣尚，如緣滅和道。這二者相互對立，必定不能在同一心中同時生起。雖然僅僅是善，但並非遍於所有善心，所以在大善地法中就不特別標明顯示。又《阿毗達磨論》中說，欣是指欣尚，對於還滅品，見到其功德后，使心欣慕。

【English Translation】 English version: An explanation of 'universal'. Like this, the remaining dharmas such as feeling (受, shòu) and so on, with their different kinds and functions, should all arise in this 'one-natured mind'. The use of the word 'kind' is similar to attention (作意, zuòyì) and equanimity (舍, shě). Just as those feelings and so on each have their corresponding principles, now for this equanimity and attention, it should also be known that each has its corresponding principles. Another explanation is that now in this 'one-natured mind', equanimity and attention, these two, although their aspects and understanding are different, it should be known that they are mutually corresponding. It should be known that in the mutual correspondence of mental factors, there are those whose aspects and understanding are different, but mutually compliant and corresponding in one mind, such as feeling and thought (想, xiǎng); or there are those whose aspects and understanding are different, not mutually compliant, and not arising in one mind, such as greed (貪, tān) and hatred (瞋, chēn). Therefore, it cannot be argued that they are all mutually corresponding. 'The two, shame (慚, cán) and embarrassment (愧, kuì), will be explained later,' refers to the same explanation as below. 'The two roots refer to non-greed and non-hatred.' Towards all realms, having no nature of love and attachment is called 'non-greed', which is the opposite of greed. Towards sentient beings and non-sentient things, having no nature of hatred and harm is called 'non-hatred', which is the opposite of hatred. 'The root of non-ignorance (無癡, wúchī) leads to the dharmas of the great wholesome ground.' Among the three wholesome roots, non-ignorance should be mentioned. Because in the great ground dharmas, wisdom (慧, huì) is its nature, so it is not mentioned in the wholesome roots. 'The term non-harming (不害, bùhài) refers to those without harm or annoyance.' Having a virtuous nature in the mind, without harming or disturbing others, is called 'non-harming', which is the opposite of harming. 'Diligence (勤, qín) refers to making the mind courageous and vigorous as its nature.' Diligence refers to making the mind courageous and vigorous as its nature, which is diligently abandoning the two evils and diligently cultivating the two goods, without the meaning of retreat, and is the opposite of laziness (懈怠, xièdài). Therefore, the Abhidharma says, 'Effort (精進, jīngjìn) refers to having a courageous and vigorous nature in the arising and ceasing of wholesome and unwholesome dharmas,' which is to encourage those who are sinking in the mud of samsara to quickly escape. According to the Nyaya, joy (欣, xīn) and aversion (厭, yàn) should also be mentioned in wholesome dharmas. The meaning of that treatise is that the 'two' and 'words' in the verse include both joy and aversion. Aversion refers to aversion, such as conditioning suffering (苦, kǔ) and accumulation (集, jí); joy refers to admiration, such as conditioning cessation (滅, miè) and the path (道, dào). These two are mutually opposed and cannot arise simultaneously in the same mind. Although it is only wholesome, it is not pervasive in all wholesome minds, so it is not specifically indicated in the great wholesome ground dharmas. Also, the Abhidharma says, 'Joy refers to admiration, upon seeing the merits in the cessation, causing the mind to admire.'

隨順修善心有此故欣樂涅槃。與此相應名欣作意。厭謂厭患。于流轉品。見過失已令心厭離。隨順離染心有此故厭惡生．死。與此相應名厭作意。

又婆沙二十八云。評曰有別法名厭。非慧。非無貪是心所法與心相應。此說攝在復有所餘如是類。諸心所法與心相應。然見蘊說苦集忍智名能厭者。由彼忍智與厭相應故名能厭。非厭自性　又婆沙一百九十六評家別說有厭體。與前文同。此厭唯是善。通漏．無漏　又婆沙一百四十三亦別立欣．厭。準上諸論欣．厭定有　然此論中別不說者。以非恒起。或非並生。故不說為大善地法。

如是已說至染污心有者。此下第三明大煩惱地法　就中。一釋名。二辨體　此即釋名。兩重依主準前應釋。恒染心有故名為大。

彼法是何至惛掉恒唯染者。此即辨體。問答可知。有古德五義廢立。今依此論。一義廢立大煩惱地法六。謂恒唯染心名大煩惱地法。恒染。顯遍染心。唯染。顯不通凈。大地法十雖恒染而非唯染。余染心所雖唯染而非恒染。大善地法十．及尋．伺．睡眠．惡作。非恒染亦非唯染。故皆不名大煩惱地法。

論曰至無智無顯者。癡謂愚癡于所知境障如理解。無辨了相說名愚癡。照矚名明。審決名智。彰了名顯。此三皆是慧之別名。癡無明等故名為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：隨順修習善良的心，因此而欣喜于涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。與此相應的心所（Caitasika，心理活動）稱為『欣作意』（desire）。『厭』是指厭惡、厭患。對於流轉輪迴的現象，看到其中的過失后，使內心厭離。隨順於遠離染污的心，因此而厭惡生死。與此相應的心所稱為『厭作意』（disgust）。

《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第二十八卷中說，評論說有一種特別的法稱為『厭』，它不是智慧（Prajna），也不是無貪（alobha），而是一種與心相應的心理活動。這裡所說的是包含在其他類似的心所法中，與心相應。然而，經文中說苦集滅道四聖諦中的苦諦和集諦的忍智（Kshanti-jnana）能夠產生『厭』，是因為這些忍智與『厭』相應，所以才被稱為能夠產生『厭』，而不是『厭』本身的自性。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百九十六卷中，評論家分別認為有『厭』的自體存在，與前面的說法相同。這種『厭』僅僅是善的，通於有漏（sāsrava，與煩惱相關的）和無漏（anāsrava，超越煩惱的）。此外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百四十三卷也分別設立了『欣』和『厭』。根據以上各種論述，『欣』和『厭』肯定是存在的。然而，這部論（《成唯識論》）中沒有特別說明，是因為它們不是恒常生起，或者不是同時生起，所以沒有被列為大善地法。

如上已經說完了。『至染污心有者』，下面第三部分說明大煩惱地法。其中，第一是解釋名稱，第二是辨別體性。這裡是解釋名稱。『兩重依主』，按照前面的方式來解釋。因為恒常與染污心相應，所以稱為『大』。

『彼法是何至惛掉恒唯染者』，這裡是辨別體性。通過問答可以瞭解。有古代的德行之人用五種意義來廢立。現在依據這部論（《成唯識論》）。用一種意義來廢立，大煩惱地法有六種，即恒常且唯一與染污心相應，稱為大煩惱地法。『恒染』，顯示普遍染污心。『唯染』，顯示不通於清凈。大地法有十種，雖然恒常染污，但不是唯一染污。其餘的染污心所，雖然唯一染污，但不是恒常染污。大善地法有十種，以及尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（Vicara，精細的思考）、睡眠（Middha）、惡作（Kaukṛtya，後悔），既不是恒常染污，也不是唯一染污。所以都不稱為大煩惱地法。

論中說『至無智無顯者』，癡（Moha）是指愚癡，對於所知的境界，障礙如實的理解。沒有辨別了知的相狀，稱為愚癡。照亮稱為明，審慎決斷稱為智，彰顯了知稱為顯。這三種都是智慧的別名。癡（Moha）就是無明等等，所以稱為癡。

【English Translation】 English version: By following and cultivating a virtuous mind, one rejoices in Nirvana (liberation). The mental factor (Caitasika, mental activity) that corresponds to this is called 'desire' (chanda). 'Aversion' (dvesha) refers to disgust and abhorrence. Upon seeing the faults in the cycle of rebirth, the mind becomes averse to it. By following a mind that is detached from defilements, one becomes disgusted with birth and death. The mental factor that corresponds to this is called 'aversion' (dvesha).

In the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 28, it is commented that there is a distinct dharma called 'aversion' (dvesha), which is neither wisdom (Prajna) nor non-greed (alobha), but a mental factor that corresponds to the mind. This refers to being included among other similar mental factors that correspond to the mind. However, the scriptures state that the forbearance-wisdom (Kshanti-jnana) regarding the truth of suffering and the truth of the accumulation of suffering among the Four Noble Truths can generate 'aversion' (dvesha), because these forbearance-wisdoms correspond to 'aversion' (dvesha), and are therefore called capable of generating 'aversion' (dvesha), rather than 'aversion' (dvesha) itself. Furthermore, in volume 196 of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, commentators separately argue that there is a self-nature of 'aversion' (dvesha), which is consistent with the previous statement. This 'aversion' (dvesha) is only virtuous, encompassing both defiled (sāsrava, related to afflictions) and undefiled (anāsrava, beyond afflictions). Additionally, volume 143 of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra also separately establishes 'desire' (chanda) and 'aversion' (dvesha). According to the above discussions, 'desire' (chanda) and 'aversion' (dvesha) certainly exist. However, this treatise (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi) does not specifically mention them because they do not arise constantly or simultaneously, and therefore are not listed as universally virtuous mental factors.

As mentioned above. 'To those with defiled minds', the third part below explains the universally afflictive mental factors. Among them, the first is to explain the name, and the second is to distinguish the nature. Here is the explanation of the name. 'Twofold dependence', explain according to the previous method. Because it constantly corresponds to the defiled mind, it is called 'great'.

'What are these dharmas that are constantly and exclusively defiled?', here is the distinction of nature. It can be understood through questions and answers. Some ancient virtuous people use five meanings to establish and abolish. Now according to this treatise (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi). Using one meaning to establish and abolish, there are six universally afflictive mental factors, that is, constantly and exclusively corresponding to the defiled mind, called universally afflictive mental factors. 'Constantly defiled' shows universally defiling the mind. 'Exclusively defiled' shows that it does not extend to purity. There are ten universal mental factors, although constantly defiled, they are not exclusively defiled. The remaining defiled mental factors, although exclusively defiled, are not constantly defiled. There are ten universally virtuous mental factors, as well as Vitarka (initial application of thought), Vicara (sustained application of thought), Middha (sleep), and Kaukṛtya (remorse), which are neither constantly defiled nor exclusively defiled. Therefore, they are not called universally afflictive mental factors.

The treatise says 'to those without wisdom or clarity', Moha (delusion) refers to ignorance, which obstructs the true understanding of the objects of knowledge. Lacking the aspect of distinguishing and knowing is called ignorance. Illuminating is called clarity, careful decision is called wisdom, and manifesting knowledge is called clarity. These three are all different names for wisdom. Moha (delusion) is ignorance, etc., so it is called Moha (delusion).

無。即是無癡所對除法　又解欲．色．無色。如其次第名無明等　又解過．現．未來。如其次第名無明等　又解如其次第障見．修．無學道名無明等。

逸謂放逸至所對治法者。逸謂放逸。不修諸善恐濫無記。故言是修諸善即不放逸所對治法。又正理云。于專己利棄捨縱情。名為放逸。

怠謂懈怠至勤所對治者。怠謂懈怠。于諸善法心不勇悍。是前所說勤所對治。又正理云。怠謂懈怠。于善事業闕減勝能。于惡事業順成勇悍。無明等流名為懈怠。由此說為鄙劣勤性。勤習鄙穢故名懈怠。

不信者謂至信所對治者。可知。

惛謂惛沉至是名惛沈者。引本論證。身．心重性。無堪任性。惛沈性故名惛沈。惛謂惛昧。沈謂沉重義也。正理論云。輕安所治。

此是心所如何名身者。問。身是色聚。此惛沈是心所。如何名身。

如身受言故亦無失者。答。如受。五識相應依身起故。名身受。意識相應。依心起故名心受。惛沈言身故亦無失。

掉謂掉舉令心不靜者。理實亦能令心所不靜。從強說心。正理論說。舍所對治。

唯有如是至煩惱地法者。結數。

豈不根本至掉舉放逸者。問。本論說十又不說惛沈。今言說六太減太增。

天愛汝今至不閑意旨者。答。西方

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『無』，即是與『無癡』（amoha，不愚癡，智慧）相對的對治之法。又可以解釋為欲界（kāmadhātu）、色界（rūpadhātu）、無色界（arūpadhātu），按照順序分別稱為無明（avidyā，無知）等。又可以解釋為過去、現在、未來，按照順序分別稱為無明等。又可以解釋為按照順序障礙見道（darśanamārga）、修道（bhāvanāmārga）、無學道（aśaikṣamārga）的，稱為無明等。

『逸』，指的是放逸（pramāda），直到其所對治之法。『逸』指的是放逸，不修習各種善法，恐怕會混淆無記法（avyākṛta）。所以說修習各種善法就是不放逸所對治之法。又《正理》中說：『對於只顧自己的利益而捨棄，放縱自己的情感，這叫做放逸。』

『怠』，指的是懈怠（kausīdya），直到其所對治之勤（vīrya）。『怠』指的是懈怠，對於各種善法，內心不勇猛果敢，這是前面所說的勤所對治。又《正理》中說：『怠，指的是懈怠，對於善的事業，缺少殊勝的能力，對於惡的事業，順從成就而勇猛果敢。無明等的等流，叫做懈怠。』因此說為鄙劣的勤性，勤于習染鄙穢的事物，所以叫做懈怠。

『不信』，指的是不信（āśraddhya），直到信（śraddhā）所對治。可知。

『惛』，指的是惛沉（styāna），直到這叫做惛沉。引用本論來證明，身和心的沉重性，沒有堪能性，因為是惛沉的性質，所以叫做惛沉。『惛』指的是惛昧，『沉』指的是沉重的意思。《正理論》中說：『是輕安（praśrabdhi）所對治。』

『此是心所，如何名身者？』問：身是色聚（rūpaskandha），這惛沉是心所（caitta）。如何稱作身呢？

『如身受言，故亦無失者。』答：如受（vedanā，感受），五識（pañcavijñāna）相應，依靠身體而生起，所以叫做身受。意識（manovijñāna）相應，依靠心而生起，所以叫做心受。惛沉說成身，也沒有過失。

『掉』，指的是掉舉（auddhatya），使心不得安定。實際上也能使心所不得安定，從強盛的一面來說心。《正理論》中說：『是舍（upekṣā）所對治。』

『唯有如是，至煩惱地法者。』總結數量。

『豈不根本，至掉舉放逸者？』問：本論中說十種，又沒有說惛沉，現在說六種，是太少還是太多了？

『天愛汝今，至不閑意旨者。』答：西方（Pāścātya）

【English Translation】 English version 'Absence' refers to the antidote to 'amoha' (non-delusion, wisdom). It can also be interpreted as the desire realm (kāmadhātu), the form realm (rūpadhātu), and the formless realm (arūpadhātu), which are sequentially referred to as ignorance (avidyā) and so on. It can also be interpreted as the past, present, and future, which are sequentially referred to as ignorance and so on. It can also be interpreted as sequentially obstructing the path of seeing (darśanamārga), the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), and the path of no more learning (aśaikṣamārga), which are referred to as ignorance and so on.

'Indulgence' refers to carelessness (pramāda), up to its antidotal practice. 'Indulgence' refers to carelessness, not cultivating various virtuous dharmas, fearing confusion with neutral dharmas (avyākṛta). Therefore, cultivating various virtuous dharmas is said to be the antidote to non-carelessness. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Abandoning oneself to selfish interests and indulging one's emotions is called carelessness.'

'Sloth' refers to laziness (kausīdya), up to its antidotal diligence (vīrya). 'Sloth' refers to laziness, lacking courage and vigor towards various virtuous dharmas, which is the antidote to diligence mentioned earlier. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Sloth refers to laziness, lacking superior ability in virtuous activities, and readily and courageously accomplishing evil activities. The outflow of ignorance and so on is called laziness.' Therefore, it is described as a base and inferior diligence, diligently engaging in defiled and impure things, hence it is called laziness.

'Disbelief' refers to lack of faith (āśraddhya), up to the antidote of faith (śraddhā). It is knowable.

'Torpor' refers to dullness (styāna), up to what is called torpor. Quoting the original treatise to prove, the heaviness of body and mind, the lack of fitness, because of the nature of torpor, it is called torpor. 'Torpor' refers to dullness, 'heaviness' refers to the meaning of being heavy. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'It is counteracted by pliancy (praśrabdhi).'

'This is a mental factor, how is it called body?' Question: The body is a mass of form (rūpaskandha), this torpor is a mental factor (caitta). How is it called body?

'Like the term bodily feeling, therefore there is no fault.' Answer: Like feeling (vedanā), the five consciousnesses (pañcavijñāna) arise in dependence on the body, therefore it is called bodily feeling. The mind consciousness (manovijñāna) arises in dependence on the mind, therefore it is called mental feeling. Saying torpor is related to the body is not a fault.

'Excitement' refers to agitation (auddhatya), causing the mind to be unstable. In reality, it can also cause mental factors to be unstable, speaking from the aspect of strength. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'It is counteracted by equanimity (upekṣā).'

'Only these, up to the dharmas of the affliction ground.' Summarizing the numbers.

'Why does the original treatise, up to excitement and carelessness?' Question: The original treatise speaks of ten, and does not mention torpor, now speaking of six, is it too few or too many?

'Beloved of the gods, now, up to not understanding the meaning.' Answer: Western (Pāścātya)

相弄呼為天愛。非能自活天愛得存。汝今但知本論言至不閑意旨。

意旨者何者。徴。

謂失念至謂除前相者。釋。此顯不減過。無癡慧性善中不說。失念等五念等為體。大惑地中亦不說也。故本論說相對四句。如文可知。故念等五大地法攝　問大地法十皆通於染。何故本論。于大煩惱地法中。說念等五非受等五　解云受．想．思．觸．欲順染偏強。念．定．慧．作意．勝解順凈偏勝。恐疑念等五法。唯凈中有不通染中。為釋此疑是故別翻。若爾。亦應恐疑受等五法唯染中有。于凈品中何故不說　解云據此義邊。于善法中亦應別說。而不說者略而不論。或可影顯　又解念等五法。雖順凈品。于染品中不起即已。起必猛利勝受等五。故偏說之。受等順染據長時說。今據猛利。是故別翻　若爾。受等於凈品中不起即已。起必猛利勝念等五。于善法中何不別說　解云據此義邊。于善法中亦應別說。而不說者略而不論。或可影顯　又解念等五法偏順凈品。不應起染障善法生。而今障善顯法希寄。如自眷屬忽相違背　若爾受等偏順染品。不應起凈障染法生。起善心時障染不生。亦顯法希奇。何故不于善法中說　解云據此義邊。于善法中亦應別說。而不說者略而不論。或可影顯。

有執邪等持至與此不同者。敘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有人稱呼你為『天愛』（Devānāmpriya，意為『天神所喜愛的人』）。如果不能自給自足，『天愛』這個稱呼又有什麼意義呢？你現在只知道本論的言辭，卻不理解其中的意旨。

什麼是意旨呢？（提問）

意旨是指從『失念』（forgetfulness）到『去除前相』（removing prior appearances）。（解釋）這表明不會減少過失。無癡的智慧本性在善法中沒有提及。失念等五種念等是其本體。在大惑之地中也沒有提及。因此，本論說了相對的四句，如文中所知。所以，念等五種屬於大地法所攝。（提問）大地法十種都通於染污，為什麼本論在大煩惱地法中，說念等五種，而不是受等五種？（解答）受（feeling）、想（perception）、思（volition）、觸（contact）、欲（desire）順應染污的力量更強。念（mindfulness）、定（concentration）、慧（wisdom）、作意（attention）、勝解（ascertainment）順應清凈的力量更強。恐怕有人懷疑念等五法只在清凈中有，不通於染污中。爲了解釋這個疑惑，所以特別翻譯。如果這樣，也應該恐怕有人懷疑受等五法只在染污中有。在清凈品中為什麼不說？（解答）根據這個道理，在善法中也應該特別說明。而不說，是省略而不論。或者可以隱約地顯示。

又解釋說，念等五法雖然順應清凈品，在染污品中不起作用就算了，一旦生起，必定猛利，勝過受等五種。所以偏重說明。受等順應染污，是根據長時間來說。現在是根據猛利來說，所以特別翻譯。（提問）如果這樣，受等在清凈品中不起作用就算了，一旦生起，必定猛利，勝過念等五種。在善法中為什麼不特別說明？（解答）根據這個道理，在善法中也應該特別說明。而不說，是省略而不論。或者可以隱約地顯示。

又解釋說，念等五法偏向順應清凈品，不應該生起染污，障礙善法生起。而現在卻障礙善法，顯示法是稀有難得的，就像自己的眷屬忽然互相違背。（提問）如果這樣，受等偏向順應染污品，不應該生起清凈，障礙染法生起。生起善心時，障礙染污不生起，也顯示法是稀奇的。為什麼不在善法中說？（解答）根據這個道理，在善法中也應該特別說明。而不說，是省略而不論。或者可以隱約地顯示。

有人執著邪等持（wrong concentration）到與此不同。（敘述）

【English Translation】 English version: People call you 『Devānāmpriya』 (meaning 『Beloved of the Gods』). If you cannot support yourself, what is the point of the title 『Devānāmpriya』? You only know the words of the original treatise, but you do not understand its meaning.

What is the meaning? (Question)

The meaning refers to 『from forgetfulness』 to 『removing prior appearances.』 (Explanation) This shows that faults will not decrease. The wisdom nature of non-delusion is not mentioned in the context of wholesome qualities. Forgetfulness and the five kinds of mindfulness are its essence. It is also not mentioned in the realm of great delusion. Therefore, the original treatise speaks of the four relative statements, as can be understood from the text. Thus, the five of mindfulness etc. are included in the all-pervasive mental factors. (Question) All ten all-pervasive mental factors are common to defilement. Why does the original treatise, in the context of the mental factors of great afflictions, speak of the five of mindfulness etc., and not the five of feeling etc.? (Answer) Feeling, perception, volition, contact, and desire tend to strongly favor defilement. Mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, attention, and ascertainment tend to strongly favor purity. It is feared that some may doubt that the five of mindfulness etc. are only present in purity and not in defilement. To resolve this doubt, it is specifically translated. If so, it should also be feared that some may doubt that the five of feeling etc. are only present in defilement. Why is it not mentioned in the context of purity? (Answer) According to this reasoning, it should also be specifically mentioned in the context of wholesome qualities. However, it is not mentioned, being omitted for brevity. Or it may be implicitly indicated.

Another explanation is that although the five of mindfulness etc. tend to favor purity, if they do not arise in the context of defilement, that is fine. But if they do arise, they will be intense and stronger than the five of feeling etc. Therefore, it is emphasized. Feeling etc. favor defilement in the long term. Now it is based on intensity, so it is specifically translated. (Question) If so, if feeling etc. do not arise in the context of purity, that is fine. But if they do arise, they will be intense and stronger than the five of mindfulness etc. Why is it not specifically mentioned in the context of wholesome qualities? (Answer) According to this reasoning, it should also be specifically mentioned in the context of wholesome qualities. However, it is not mentioned, being omitted for brevity. Or it may be implicitly indicated.

Another explanation is that the five of mindfulness etc. tend to favor purity and should not give rise to defilement, obstructing the arising of wholesome qualities. But now they obstruct wholesome qualities, showing that the Dharma is rare and precious, like one's own family members suddenly turning against each other. (Question) If so, feeling etc. tend to favor defilement and should not give rise to purity, obstructing the arising of defiled qualities. When wholesome thoughts arise, they obstruct the arising of defilement, also showing that the Dharma is rare and wonderful. Why is it not mentioned in the context of wholesome qualities? (Answer) According to this reasoning, it should also be specifically mentioned in the context of wholesome qualities. However, it is not mentioned, being omitted for brevity. Or it may be implicitly indicated.

Some hold to wrong concentration as being different from this. (Narration)

異說。此非正義。有執大地法中邪等持。非即是大煩惱地法中心亂。彼作四句與此四句不同第一句加等持。第二句加心亂第三句除定。第四句可知。

又許惛沉至於誰有過者。此顯不增過也。論主責言。汝宗自許惛沈通與諸惑相應。而不說在大煩惱地法中。于誰有過。

有作是言至非掉舉行者。法救釋也。惛沈應說大煩惱地法中。而不說者。彼謂惛沈行者速發等持。非掉舉行。以過輕故而不別說。順等持故。

誰惛沈行至不俱行故者。論主難。二既同時未曾別起。如何可說二行不同。

雖爾應知隨增說行者。法救釋。二雖俱起行有增．微。隨增說行。亦有何過。

雖知說行至唯六義成者。論主復難。雖知說行隨用偏增。而依有體建立地法。故此大煩惱地法唯六義成。

此唯遍染心俱起非余故者。釋恒唯染。此六唯染非余凈心　遍染心。顯染俱起　俱起即顯並生。

如是已說至不善心有者。此下第四明大不善地法　就中。一釋名。二辨體。此即釋名。兩重依主釋亦準前釋。恒遍不善故名為大。

彼法是何至無慚及無愧者。此下辨體。問答可知。有古德亦以五義廢立大不善地法。一通六識。二通五斷。三並頭起。四唯不善。五唯欲界。若具五義立大不善地法。余心所法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本異議：這並非正當的理論。有人認為，在執持大地的法則中，存在著錯誤的等持（Samadhi，專注）。這種錯誤的等持並非屬於大煩惱地法（Mahaklesa-bhūmika，大煩惱生起之地）中的心亂。他們提出了四種說法，與之前的四種說法不同：第一句增加了『等持』，第二句增加了『心亂』，第三句去除了『定』，第四句可以依此類推理解。

又，如果承認惛沉（Styana，昏沉）存在，那麼誰會因此有過失呢？這表明不會增加過失。論主的責難是：你們宗派自己承認惛沉與各種迷惑相應，但卻不認為它屬於大煩惱地法，那麼誰會因此有過失呢？

有人這樣說，直到『不是掉舉（Audhatya，掉舉）的行為』：這是法救的解釋。惛沉應該被歸類為大煩惱地法，但卻沒有被這樣歸類，是因為他們認為惛沉能使修行者迅速進入等持，而不是掉舉的行為。因為過失較輕，並且順應等持，所以沒有特別說明。

誰的惛沉行為，直到『不一起發生』：論主提出疑問。既然兩者同時存在，從未單獨生起，怎麼能說兩者的行為不同呢？

即使如此，也應該知道隨著增上來描述行為：法救解釋說，兩者雖然同時生起，但行為有增強和減弱。隨著增強來描述行為，又有什麼過失呢？

即使知道隨著行為來描述，直到『只有六種意義成立』：論主再次提出疑問。即使知道隨著行為來描述，並根據作用的偏重來增加，但地法的建立是依據其本體而定的。因此，這個大煩惱地法只有六種意義才能成立。

這隻有普遍染污的心一起生起，而不是其他：解釋『恒常』和『唯一染污』。這六種心所法只有染污，而不是清凈的心。『普遍染污的心』，顯示了染污是同時生起的。『一起生起』，即顯示了同時產生。

像這樣已經說了，直到『不善心中存在』：接下來第四部分說明大不善地法（Akuśala-mahā-bhūmika，大不善生起之地）。其中，一是解釋名稱，二是辨別本體。這裡是解釋名稱。兩種依主釋的解釋也與之前類似。因為恒常且普遍不善，所以稱為『大』。

這些法是什麼，直到『無慚（Ahrikya，無慚）及無愧（Anapatrāpya，無愧）』：接下來辨別本體。問答可知。有古代的德行之人也用五種意義來廢除或建立大不善地法：一、通於六識；二、通於五斷；三、並頭生起；四、唯有不善；五、唯有欲界。如果具備這五種意義，才能建立大不善地法。其餘的心所法。

【English Translation】 English version Objection: This is not a correct principle. Some hold that in adhering to the law of the earth, there is a wrong Samadhi (concentration). This wrong Samadhi is not mental disturbance within the Mahaklesa-bhūmika (ground of great affliction). They propose four statements, different from the previous four: the first adds 'Samadhi,' the second adds 'mental disturbance,' the third removes 'concentration,' and the fourth can be understood accordingly.

Furthermore, if one admits the existence of Styana (sloth), who would be at fault? This indicates that no fault is added. The master of the treatise questions: Your school admits that Styana corresponds with various delusions, but does not say it is within the Mahaklesa-bhūmika. Who is at fault?

Some say, up to 'not the act of Audhatya (restlessness)': This is Vasubandhu's explanation. Styana should be said to be in the Mahaklesa-bhūmika, but it is not said because they believe Styana enables practitioners to quickly enter Samadhi, not the act of Audhatya. Because the fault is light and it accords with Samadhi, it is not specifically mentioned.

Whose act of Styana, up to 'do not occur together': The master of the treatise questions. Since the two occur simultaneously and have never arisen separately, how can it be said that the two acts are different?

Even so, it should be known that the act is described according to the increase: Vasubandhu explains. Although the two arise together, the acts have increase and decrease. What fault is there in describing the act according to the increase?

Even knowing that the act is described, up to 'only six meanings are established': The master of the treatise questions again. Even knowing that the act is described and increased according to the emphasis of function, the establishment of the ground of phenomena is based on its substance. Therefore, this Mahaklesa-bhūmika can only be established with six meanings.

This only arises together with universally defiled minds, not others: Explaining 'constant' and 'solely defiled.' These six mental factors are only defiled, not pure minds. 'Universally defiled minds' shows that defilement arises simultaneously. 'Arising together' shows that they arise at the same time.

As has been said, up to 'exists in unwholesome minds': The fourth part below explains the Akuśala-mahā-bhūmika (ground of great unwholesomeness). Among them, first is explaining the name, and second is distinguishing the substance. Here is explaining the name. The explanation of the two dependent clauses is also similar to the previous explanation. Because it is constant and universally unwholesome, it is called 'great'.

What are these phenomena, up to 'Ahrikya (shamelessness) and Anapatrāpya (lack of consideration)': Next, distinguish the substance. The questions and answers can be understood. Some ancient virtuous people also use five meanings to abolish or establish the Akuśala-mahā-bhūmika: first, it is common to the six consciousnesses; second, it is common to the five severances; third, they arise together; fourth, it is only unwholesome; fifth, it is only in the desire realm. If these five meanings are possessed, the Akuśala-mahā-bhūmika can be established. The remaining mental factors.

不具五義。是故不立。亦費言論不能具述也。今依此論。以一義廢立大不善地法二。謂唯遍不善心。泰法師解云。唯簡大地十。遍不善心簡餘三十四數。此解不然。如大煩惱地法六。尋．伺二。此八既遍不善心。云何將遍不善以簡。應以唯不善以簡同大地十。又大善地法十。少惑中謟．誑．憍。及睡眠．惡作．貪．慢．疑。此十八應以二義簡。遍不善言。但應簡忿．覆．慳．嫉．惱．害．恨．及瞋。非是法師不達此應誤耳　今解云大地法十。大煩惱地法六。及尋．伺二。此十八法雖遍不善心。而非唯不善。忿．覆．慳．嫉．惱．害．恨．及瞋。此八雖唯不善而非遍不善。余大善地法十。少惑中諂．誑．憍。及地外睡眠．惡作．貪．慢．疑。此十八法非唯不善。亦非遍不善故。皆不名大不善地法。作斯解釋可無妨矣。

論曰至如后當辨者。指同下釋　如是已說至染污心俱者。此下第五明少煩惱地法。一釋名。二辨體。此即釋名。兩重依主亦準前釋。

彼法是何至小煩惱地法者。此下辨體。有古德亦以五義廢立少煩惱地法。一不通六識。二不通五斷。三不通三性。四不通三界。五別頭起。亦費言論不能具述。若具五義立少煩惱。余心所法不具五義是故不立。今依此論。一義廢立少煩惱地法十。謂唯修所斷。意

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不具備五種意義。因此不成立。而且費時論述也無法完全詳盡。現在依照此論，以一個意義來廢除成立『大不善地法』中的二法，即唯有遍不善心。泰法師解釋說，只是簡別大地十法。遍不善心簡別其餘三十四種心所。這種解釋不對。例如大煩惱地法有六種，尋、伺二種。這八種既然遍於不善心，為何要用遍不善來簡別？應該用唯不善來簡別同大地十法。又大善地法有十種，少惑中的諂、誑、憍，以及睡眠、惡作、貪、慢、疑。這十八種應該用兩種意義來簡別。遍不善的說法，只應該簡別忿、覆、慳、嫉、惱、害、恨、以及瞋。不是泰法師不明白這個道理，就是誤解了。

現在解釋說，大地法十種，大煩惱地法六種，以及尋、伺二種。這十八種法雖然遍於不善心，但並非唯有不善。忿、覆、慳、嫉、惱、害、恨、以及瞋，這八種雖然唯有不善，但並非遍於不善。其餘大善地法十種，少惑中的諂、誑、憍，以及地外的睡眠、惡作、貪、慢、疑，這十八種法並非唯有不善，也並非遍於不善，所以都不稱為大不善地法。這樣解釋就可以沒有妨礙了。

論中說『至於後面應當辨明的』，指的是與下文的解釋相同。『像這樣已經說了與染污心相應的』，下面第五部分說明少煩惱地法。第一是解釋名稱，第二是辨別體性。這裡就是解釋名稱。兩重依主釋也按照前面的解釋。

『這些法是什麼，直到小煩惱地法』，下面辨別體性。有古德也用五種意義來廢除成立少煩惱地法。一是不通於六識，二是不通於五斷，三是不通於三性，四是不通於三界，五是別頭起。而且費時論述也無法完全詳盡。如果具備五種意義就成立少煩惱，其餘心所法不具備五種意義，因此不成立。現在依照此論，用一個意義來廢除成立少煩惱地法十種，即唯有修所斷的意。

【English Translation】 English version: They do not possess the five meanings. Therefore, they are not established. Moreover, it would be time-consuming to discuss and impossible to fully describe them. Now, according to this treatise, we use one meaning to reject the establishment of two dharmas within the 'Great Unwholesome Ground Dharmas,' namely, only pervasive unwholesome mind. The Dharma Master Tai explains that it merely distinguishes the ten Great Ground Dharmas. The pervasive unwholesome mind distinguishes the remaining thirty-four mental factors. This explanation is incorrect. For example, the Great Affliction Ground Dharmas have six, and investigation (尋, xún) and discernment (伺, sì) are two. Since these eight are pervasive in unwholesome minds, why use 'pervasive unwholesome' to distinguish them? One should use 'only unwholesome' to distinguish the ten that are the same as the Great Ground Dharmas. Furthermore, the Great Wholesome Ground Dharmas have ten, and among the minor delusions are flattery (諂, chǎn), deceit (誑, kuáng), and arrogance (憍, jiāo), as well as sleep (睡眠, shuìmián), regret (惡作, èzuò), greed (貪, tān), pride (慢, màn), and doubt (疑, yí). These eighteen should be distinguished by two meanings. The term 'pervasive unwholesome' should only distinguish anger (忿, fèn), concealment (覆, fù), stinginess (慳, qiān), jealousy (嫉, jí), vexation (惱, nǎo), harm (害, hài), resentment (恨, hèn), and hatred (瞋, chēn). It must be that Dharma Master Tai did not understand this and made a mistake.

Now, we explain that the ten Great Ground Dharmas, the six Great Affliction Ground Dharmas, and investigation and discernment. These eighteen dharmas, although pervasive in unwholesome minds, are not only unwholesome. Anger, concealment, stinginess, jealousy, vexation, harm, resentment, and hatred, these eight, although only unwholesome, are not pervasive in unwholesome minds. The remaining ten Great Wholesome Ground Dharmas, flattery, deceit, and arrogance among the minor delusions, as well as sleep, regret, greed, pride, and doubt outside the ground, these eighteen dharmas are neither only unwholesome nor pervasive in unwholesome minds. Therefore, they are not called Great Unwholesome Ground Dharmas. This explanation should be without fault.

The treatise says, 'As for what will be distinguished later,' referring to the same as the explanation below. 'Having thus spoken of those associated with defiled minds,' the fifth part below explains the Minor Affliction Ground Dharmas. First, explain the name; second, distinguish the nature. This is explaining the name. The two-fold dependent relation is also explained according to the previous explanation.

'What are these dharmas, up to the Minor Affliction Ground Dharmas,' below distinguishes the nature. Some ancient worthies also used five meanings to reject the establishment of the Minor Affliction Ground Dharmas: 1. They do not extend to the six consciousnesses; 2. They do not extend to the five severances; 3. They do not extend to the three natures; 4. They do not extend to the three realms; 5. They arise separately. Moreover, it would be time-consuming to discuss and impossible to fully describe them. If one possesses the five meanings, one establishes minor afflictions; the remaining mental factors do not possess the five meanings, therefore they are not established. Now, according to this treatise, we use one meaning to reject the establishment of the ten Minor Affliction Ground Dharmas, namely, only those to be severed by cultivation (修所斷, xiū suǒ duàn).

癡相應。慢．疑二種雖唯意癡非唯修斷。惡作雖唯修斷非唯意癡。余心所法非唯修所斷。亦非唯意癡故。皆不名小煩惱地法。

論曰至當廣分別者。就長行中。一釋小指下。二總結顯余。此即釋小指同下解。忿等十法名如是類若依正理第十一釋頌類云。類言為攝不忍．不樂．憤發等義(淮彼論于小惑中更說有不忍等)又法蘊足論第九雜事品中。更說有眾多小煩惱名。可有五六行。不能具述　問諸論具說何故此論不言　解云諸論既別各立異名。論其體性。皆是此論忿等十攝。且如正理不忍．不樂。于嫉中攝。憤發忿中以收。法蘊足論眾多異名。隨其所應皆此十攝　又解隨煩惱名眾多差別。或多或少。頭數何定。或說十種且據顯相以論。或更說多隨事別說。餘論既說眾多不可限其頭數。

如是已說至尋伺等法者。此即總結顯余不定。不入五地名為不定。不定所依名不定地。不定地家法名不定地法　等者等取貪．瞋．慢．疑。此不定地法。因解五地文便兼明　若依婆沙。于不定中更說有怖。故婆沙四十五云。睡眠．惡作．怖．及尋．伺心。又婆沙七十五云評曰應作是說。此所起中應別說怖。所以者何。有別心所與心相應是怖自性。此即攝在復有所餘如是類法。與心相應心所法內。非諸煩惱(彼論復說怖唯欲界。

【現代漢語翻譯】與癡相應的煩惱。『慢』（Māna，驕慢）、『疑』（Vicikicchā，懷疑）二種煩惱雖然僅僅與『意』（Manas，意識）相應，但並非僅僅通過修習才能斷除。『惡作』（Kaukṛtya，追悔）雖然僅僅通過修習才能斷除，但並非僅僅與『意』相應。其餘心所法並非僅僅通過修習才能斷除，也並非僅僅與『意』相應，因此都不稱為小煩惱地法。

論中說要廣泛地分別。就長行文（散文形式的經文）中，一是解釋『小』（Paritta，小）的含義，二是總結並顯示其餘內容。這裡是解釋『小』與下文相同。『忿』（Krodha，忿怒）等十種法，名稱就是這樣一類。如果依據《阿毗達磨順正理論》第十一卷的解釋，『類』這個詞是爲了涵蓋『不忍』、『不樂』、『憤發』等的含義（《阿毗達磨順正理論》在小煩惱中還說了『不忍』等）。另外，《法蘊足論》第九雜事品中，還說了眾多小煩惱的名稱，可能有五六行，不能全部敘述。問：各論都詳細說了，為什麼這部論不說？答：各論既然分別設立不同的名稱，但就其體性而言，都是這部論中『忿』等十種所涵蓋的。比如《阿毗達磨順正理論》中的『不忍』、『不樂』，包含在『嫉』（Īrṣyā，嫉妒）中；『憤發』包含在『忿』中。《法蘊足論》中眾多不同的名稱，都根據其相應的情況包含在這十種之中。又解釋說，隨煩惱的名稱眾多，差別很大，或多或少，數量如何確定？或者說十種，只是根據顯而易見的方面來論述；或者說更多，根據具體的事情分別敘述。其餘論既然說了眾多，無法限制其數量。

像這樣已經說了，直到『尋』（Vitarka，尋）『伺』（Vicāra，伺）等法。這裡是總結並顯示其餘不定的法。不屬於五地（五種不同的心境或存在狀態）的稱為不定。不定所依的稱為不定地。不定地家的法稱為不定地法。『等』字包括『貪』（Rāga，貪慾）、『瞋』（Dveṣa，嗔恨）、『慢』（Māna，驕慢）、『疑』（Vicikicchā，懷疑）。這些不定地法，因為解釋五地文的緣故，就兼帶說明了。如果依據《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》，在不定中還說了『怖』（Bhaya，恐懼）。所以《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第四十五卷說：『睡眠』（Middha，睡眠）、『惡作』（Kaukṛtya，追悔）、『怖』（Bhaya，恐懼）以及『尋』（Vitarka，尋）、『伺』（Vicāra，伺）心。另外《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第七十五卷評論說：『應該這樣說，在這種所生起之中，應該分別說『怖』。為什麼呢？有別的心所與心相應，這就是『怖』的自性。』這包含在『復有所餘如是類法，與心相應的心所法』之內，不是諸煩惱（該論又說『怖』僅僅存在於欲界）。

【English Translation】 Afflictions associated with ignorance (Mohā). Although 'Pride' (Māna) and 'Doubt' (Vicikicchā) are only associated with 'Mind' (Manas), they are not solely severed by cultivation. Although 'Regret' (Kaukṛtya) is only severed by cultivation, it is not solely associated with 'Mind'. Other mental factors are not only severed by cultivation, nor are they solely associated with 'Mind'; therefore, they are not all called minor affliction ground dharmas.

The treatise says to extensively differentiate. Within the prose section, first, explain the meaning of 'minor' (Paritta); second, summarize and reveal the remainder. This explains that 'minor' is the same as the explanation below. 'Anger' (Krodha) and the other ten dharmas are named as such a category. If based on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the eleventh chapter explains the category as encompassing 'impatience', 'displeasure', 'resentment', and other meanings (the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya further discusses 'impatience' etc. among the minor afflictions). Furthermore, in the ninth miscellaneous affairs chapter of the Dharmaskandha, many minor affliction names are further mentioned, possibly spanning five or six lines, which cannot all be narrated. Question: Since the various treatises explain in detail, why does this treatise not mention them? Answer: Since the various treatises separately establish different names, their nature is all encompassed by the ten, such as 'Anger' in this treatise. For example, 'impatience' and 'displeasure' in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya are included in 'Jealousy' (Īrṣyā); 'resentment' is included in 'Anger'. The numerous different names in the Dharmaskandha are all encompassed by these ten according to their corresponding situations. Another explanation is that the names of the secondary afflictions are numerous and greatly differentiated, either more or less, so how is the number determined? Or, saying ten is only based on discussing the obvious aspects; or saying more is based on separately narrating specific matters. Since the other treatises have mentioned many, their number cannot be limited.

Having spoken thus, up to the dharmas of 'Initial Application of Thought' (Vitarka) and 'Sustained Application of Thought' (Vicāra). This summarizes and reveals the remaining indeterminate dharmas. Those not belonging to the five grounds (five different states of mind or existence) are called indeterminate. That on which the indeterminate relies is called the indeterminate ground. The dharmas of the indeterminate ground family are called indeterminate ground dharmas. 'Etc.' includes 'Greed' (Rāga), 'Hatred' (Dveṣa), 'Pride' (Māna), and 'Doubt' (Vicikicchā). These indeterminate ground dharmas are explained incidentally because of explaining the text on the five grounds. If based on the Mahāvibhāṣa, 'Fear' (Bhaya) is further mentioned among the indeterminate. Therefore, the forty-fifth chapter of the Mahāvibhāṣa says: 'Sleep' (Middha), 'Regret' (Kaukṛtya), 'Fear' (Bhaya), and 'Initial Application of Thought' (Vitarka) and 'Sustained Application of Thought' (Vicāra) mind. Furthermore, the seventy-fifth chapter of the Mahāvibhāṣa comments: 'It should be said that 'Fear' should be separately mentioned among these arising. Why? There is a separate mental factor associated with the mind, which is the nature of 'Fear'.' This is included within 'other such dharmas associated with the mind', and is not among the afflictions (that treatise also says that 'Fear' only exists in the desire realm).

上界言怖于厭說怖)又婆沙七十五云。問若爾厭．怖有何差別。答名即差別。謂彼名厭。此名怖。尊者世友作如是說。怖唯欲界。厭通三界。復作是說怖在煩惱品。厭在善品。復作是說怖通染污．無覆無記。厭唯是善。大德說曰。于衰事深心疑慮欲得遠離。說名為怖。已得遠離深心憎惡。說名為厭。如是名為怖．厭差別(雖有四說然無評家)問準上婆沙文別說有怖。何故此論不說　解云此論據顯故於不定但說八種。不說怖也。或可。等中亦攝。或可。論意各別　問諸心所法相對翻名。何故於中有翻．不翻　解云詳諸經．論。心所多少難為一準。多少不定。若總蒐括相對廢立便成雜亂。只依此論顯相廢立。總有四十六種。謂大地法十至不定有八。於四十六中。如大地法十．尋．伺．睡眠．惡作以通三性。或通二性故。此十四不別翻名。餘三十二中總有二類。一凈品有十。謂信等。二染品有二十二。謂大煩惱地法六。大不善地法二。小煩惱地法十。及貪．瞋．慢．疑。若於染中通五斷遍六識者。即正翻入凈中。若不遍五斷不遍六識者。但可傍翻非正翻也。言通五斷遍六識正翻者。總有十法。謂大煩惱地法六。大不善地法二。及與貪．瞋。大煩惱地法六中翻癡為無癡。無癡即是大地法慧故。于善地中不立無癡。翻放逸為不放

逸。翻懈怠為精進。翻不信為信。翻惛沈為輕安。翻掉舉為舍。不善地法二中翻無慚為慚。翻無愧為愧。翻貪為無貪。翻瞋為無瞋。于少惑中。害雖不通五斷非遍六識。而別翻者以過重故。惱亂菩薩障趣菩提。菩薩將證無上菩提。仍起欲．恚．害覺。由斯過重所以別翻。余少惑九及與慢．疑。二義不具。但可傍翻非正翻也。謂余少惑九．及疑。非通五斷非遍六識。慢雖通五斷。而不通六識故不翻也。此十一種但可傍翻者。就中有二。一約等流門翻。二約行相相似門翻。言約等流翻者。謂是本惑等流果故。念．恨．嫉是瞋等流。翻入無瞋。惱是見取等流。翻見取為正見。正見即是大地法中慧數。所以善中不別立也。覆或是貪等流翻入無貪。或是癡等流。翻入無癡。無癡是慧故善中不別立也。慳．誑．憍是貪等流。翻入無貪。諂是諸見等流。翻五見為正見。正見還是慧數故善中不立。約等流門但翻得九。慢．疑本惑非是等流。故此二種不別翻也。害雖是瞋等流。過重別翻也。已如前釋。言約行相相似翻者。如忿．恨．嫉．惱。總與瞋行相相似。翻入無瞋。覆若貪等流與貪行相相似。翻入無貪。若是癡等流與癡行相相似。翻入無癡。即慧攝也。慳．誑二種與貪行相相似。翻入無貪。諂謂諂曲翻曲即為正直。正直是舍。故品類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：逸，要翻轉懈怠成為精進，翻轉不信成為信，翻轉惛沉（昏沉）成為輕安，翻轉掉舉（散亂）成為舍（平靜）。在不善地法二中，翻轉無慚為慚（羞恥），翻轉無愧為愧（慚愧）。翻轉貪為無貪，翻轉瞋（嗔恨）為無瞋（無嗔）。在少數的煩惱中，『害』雖然不遍通五斷（五種煩惱的斷除），也不遍及六識（六種意識），但特別翻轉它，是因為它的過失嚴重。它會惱亂菩薩，障礙菩薩趨向菩提（覺悟）。菩薩將要證得無上菩提時，仍然會生起欲覺（慾望的念頭）、恚覺（嗔恨的念頭）、害覺（傷害的念頭）。因為這些過失嚴重，所以特別翻轉。其餘的少數煩惱，如九種隨煩惱以及慢、疑，這兩種意義不完全具備，只能傍翻，不能正翻。也就是說，其餘的九種隨煩惱以及疑，不遍通五斷，也不遍及六識。慢雖然遍通五斷，但不遍通六識，所以不翻轉。這十一種煩惱只能傍翻，其中有兩種情況：一是約等流門翻，二是約行相相似門翻。約等流翻是指，這些煩惱是根本煩惱的等流果（相似的結果）。念、恨、嫉是瞋的等流，翻轉入無瞋。惱是見取（錯誤的見解）的等流，翻轉見取為正見。正見就是大地法中的慧數（智慧），所以在善法中不另外設立。覆（隱藏）或者是貪的等流，翻轉入無貪；或者是癡（愚癡）的等流，翻轉入無癡。無癡就是慧，所以在善法中不另外設立。慳（吝嗇）、誑（欺騙）、憍（驕傲）是貪的等流，翻轉入無貪。諂（諂媚）是諸見的等流，翻轉五見為正見。正見還是慧數，所以在善法中不設立。約等流門只能翻轉九種，慢、疑這兩種根本煩惱不是等流，所以不特別翻轉。害雖然是瞋的等流，但因為過失嚴重，所以特別翻轉，這已經在前面解釋過了。約行相相似翻是指，像忿（憤怒）、恨、嫉、惱，總體上與瞋的行相相似，所以翻轉入無瞋。覆如果是貪的等流，就與貪的行相相似，翻轉入無貪；如果是癡的等流，就與癡的行相相似，翻轉入無癡，也就是被智慧所攝。慳、誑這兩種與貪的行相相似，翻轉入無貪。諂，就是諂曲，翻轉曲即為正直，正直是舍，所以在品類上...

【English Translation】 English version: To transform laziness into diligence, disbelief into faith, lethargy (Hunshen) into ease (Qing'an), and agitation (Diaoju) into equanimity (She). Among the two categories of unwholesome mental factors, transform shamelessness (Wu Can) into shame (Can), and impudence (Wu Kui) into conscientiousness (Kui). Transform greed (Tan) into non-greed (Wu Tan), and hatred (Chen) into non-hatred (Wu Chen). Among the minor afflictions, although 'harm' (Hai) does not pervade the five severances (Wu Duan) [severance of the five types of afflictions] nor the six consciousnesses (Liu Shi) [the six types of consciousness], it is specifically transformed because its fault is severe. It disturbs Bodhisattvas and obstructs their path to Bodhi (enlightenment). When a Bodhisattva is about to attain unsurpassed Bodhi, they may still generate thoughts of desire (Yu Jue), aversion (Hui Jue), and harm (Hai Jue). Because these faults are severe, they are specifically transformed. The remaining minor afflictions, such as the nine secondary afflictions, as well as pride (Man) and doubt (Yi), do not fully possess these two meanings, and can only be transformed indirectly, not directly. That is to say, the remaining nine secondary afflictions and doubt do not pervade the five severances nor the six consciousnesses. Pride, although pervading the five severances, does not pervade the six consciousnesses, so it is not transformed. These eleven types of afflictions can only be transformed indirectly, in two ways: one is through the 'equal flow' (Deng Liu) aspect, and the other is through the 'similar characteristic' (Xing Xiang Si Siang) aspect. Transformation through 'equal flow' means that these afflictions are the 'equal flow' results of the fundamental afflictions. Remembrance (Nian), resentment (Hen), and jealousy (Ji) are the 'equal flow' of hatred, and are transformed into non-hatred. Annoyance (Nao) is the 'equal flow' of holding onto wrong views (Jian Qu), and transforms holding onto wrong views into right view (Zheng Jian). Right view is the wisdom (Hui) among the universal mental factors (Da Di Fa), so it is not separately established in the wholesome factors. Concealment (Fu) is either the 'equal flow' of greed, transforming into non-greed; or the 'equal flow' of delusion (Chi), transforming into non-delusion (Wu Chi). Non-delusion is wisdom, so it is not separately established in the wholesome factors. Stinginess (Qian), deceit (Kuang), and arrogance (Jiao) are the 'equal flow' of greed, transforming into non-greed. Flattery (Chan) is the 'equal flow' of various views, transforming the five views into right view. Right view is still wisdom, so it is not established in the wholesome factors. Through the 'equal flow' aspect, only nine types can be transformed. Pride and doubt, these two fundamental afflictions, are not 'equal flow', so they are not specifically transformed. Harm, although it is the 'equal flow' of hatred, is specifically transformed because its fault is severe, as explained earlier. Transformation through 'similar characteristic' means that afflictions like anger (Fen), resentment, jealousy, and annoyance, generally have similar characteristics to hatred, so they are transformed into non-hatred. Concealment, if it is the 'equal flow' of greed, has similar characteristics to greed, transforming into non-greed; if it is the 'equal flow' of delusion, it has similar characteristics to delusion, transforming into non-delusion, which is encompassed by wisdom. Stinginess and deceit, these two types, have similar characteristics to greed, transforming into non-greed. Flattery, which is crookedness, transforming crookedness into uprightness, and uprightness is equanimity, so in terms of categories...

足第二云。身正直心正直。憍之與慢。憍自傲逸。慢凌蔑他。不敬師長。若不憍慢心便恭敬。敬即是慚翻入慚中。疑謂猶豫不決行相。若能正決即是其慧。翻入慧中。害雖似瞋過重別翻已如前釋。

此中應說至決定俱生者。此下大文第二明定俱生　就中。一約欲界俱生。二約上界俱生。此下約欲界俱生。頌前問起。

頌曰至若有皆增一者。就頌答中。初一句總標顯有尋．伺。次三句明善品俱生。次四句明不善俱生。次兩句明無記俱生。后兩句顯遍增眠。

論曰至及無覆無記者。此總標顯心品有五　問準前頌文。不善三見與不共無明合說。何故長行余煩惱收　解云于頌文中不善三見數同不共。所以合結。長行五品別分。故彼三見余煩惱攝。

然欲界心至至二十三者。此釋初頌。善心俱生其數可知。於心所中。隨從．自力相對差別成四句者。隨從謂隨他起。自力謂別作頭生　第一句隨從非自力。有二十九法。謂大地法十中除慧餘九法。大善地法十。大煩惱法六中除無明餘五法。大不善地二。及尋．伺．睡眠　問若睡眠是隨從非自力者。何故婆沙五十簡纏非結中有複次云。睡眠．惡作雖亦獨立。而不離二　準彼論文睡眠是獨立。如何乃言非自力耶　解云婆沙據睡眠不與貪等．忿等相應。與善．無覆

無記心相應名獨立。如無明不與貪等忿等相應。名不共無明。今立四句中睡眠非自力起者。據無別自力起相。如尋．伺等故初句攝　又解婆沙此師意說。一切睡眠皆名獨立。此貪等皆名隨從。以于睡位起故。若作斯解第二句攝　又解睡通二種。若與貪等相應名隨從。若與善．無覆無記心相應名自力。婆沙但言雖亦獨立。不言不通隨從若作斯解即第三句攝　又解是余師義不必須通　第二句自力非隨從。有十五法。謂小煩惱地十。及惡作．貪．瞋．慢．疑　第三句隨從亦自力。有二法。謂慧．無明。慧若是五見名自力。餘三性相應名隨從。無明若不與貪等．忿等．惡作相應名自力。若與貪等九惑及忿等十惑。並惡作相應名隨從　第四句謂除前說。

惡作者何者。問。

惡所作體至說為不凈者。答。惡所作之體名惡作。惡作是所緣境。體即正是追悔　又解體之言事。惡所作事名為惡作。此即正解惡作。應知此中緣惡作法。心追悔性說名惡作。此即從所緣立名。如緣空解脫門體正是定。說名空者從所緣立名。亦如不凈觀以無貪為體。說為不凈從所緣立名　又見世間至說為惡作者。第二解悔名惡作從所依立名。惡作即是追悔所依。謂惡作言顯能依悔。如村邑等皆來集會。此舉所依意顯能依人也　又于果體至名宿作業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：與無記心相應的狀態被稱為『獨立』。例如，『無明』（ignorance）不與『貪』（greed）等或『忿』（anger）等煩惱相應，被稱為『不共無明』（uncommon ignorance）。現在建立四句分類，其中睡眠並非自身獨立生起的情況，是根據它沒有獨特的自身獨立生起之相來判斷的，就像『尋』（coarse thought）和『伺』（subtle thought）等一樣，所以被第一句所涵蓋。另一種解釋來自《婆沙論》，認為這位論師的意思是，一切睡眠都可以稱為『獨立』，而『貪』等煩惱都可以稱為『隨從』，因為它們在睡眠狀態中生起。如果這樣解釋，則被第二句所涵蓋。還有一種解釋是，睡眠有兩種情況：如果與『貪』等煩惱相應，則稱為『隨從』；如果與善心、無覆無記心相應，則稱為『自力』。《婆沙論》只是說睡眠『雖亦獨立』，沒有說它不屬於『隨從』。如果這樣解釋，則被第三句所涵蓋。還有一種解釋是，這是其他論師的觀點，不一定必須普遍適用。第二句，『自力非隨從』，有十五種法，即小煩惱地法中的十種，以及『惡作』（remorse）、『貪』（greed）、『瞋』（hatred）、『慢』（pride）、『疑』（doubt）。第三句，『隨從亦自力』，有兩種法，即『慧』（wisdom）和『無明』（ignorance）。如果『慧』是五見（five wrong views）之一，則稱為『自力』；如果與其餘三種性質的心相應，則稱為『隨從』。如果『無明』不與『貪』等、『忿』等、『惡作』相應，則稱為『自力』；如果與『貪』等九種煩惱以及『忿』等十種煩惱，以及『惡作』相應，則稱為『隨從』。第四句，指的是排除以上所說的所有情況。

『惡作』（remorse）是什麼？問。

『惡所作體』（the substance of bad actions）乃至『說為不凈者』（that which is spoken of as impure）。答：『惡所作』的體性稱為『惡作』。『惡作』是所緣境（object of focus）。其體性正是追悔（regret）。另一種解釋是，『體』指的是『事』（matter/event）。惡所作之事稱為『惡作』。這才是對『惡作』的正確解釋。應該知道，這裡緣于惡作之法，內心追悔的性質被稱為『惡作』。這是從所緣境來立名。例如，緣于空解脫門（emptiness liberation door），其體性正是定（samadhi），被稱為『空』，是從所緣境來立名。也像不凈觀（impurity contemplation）以無貪（non-greed）為體性，被稱為『不凈』，是從所緣境來立名。又見世間乃至說為惡作者。第二種解釋是，追悔被稱為『惡作』，是從所依（basis）來立名。『惡作』就是追悔所依之物。『惡作』這個詞顯示了能依的追悔。就像村邑等都來聚集，這是舉所依來顯示能依的人。又于果體乃至名宿作業。

【English Translation】 English version: That which corresponds to an indeterminate (avyākrta) mind is called 'independent'. For example, 'ignorance' (avidyā) that does not correspond with 'greed' (rāga) etc., or 'anger' (krodha) etc., is called 'uncommon ignorance' (asādhārana avidyā). Now, establishing four categories, the case where sleep does not arise independently is judged based on its lack of a unique, self-reliant arising aspect, like 'coarse thought' (vitarka) and 'subtle thought' (vicāra) etc., thus being included in the first category. Another explanation comes from the Vibhāsa, stating that this teacher means all sleep can be called 'independent', while 'greed' etc., can be called 'dependent', because they arise in the state of sleep. If explained this way, it is included in the second category. Another explanation is that sleep has two situations: if it corresponds with 'greed' etc., it is called 'dependent'; if it corresponds with wholesome (kusala) or neutral indeterminate (anivrta-avyākrta) minds, it is called 'self-reliant'. The Vibhāsa only says sleep 'is also independent', not saying it does not belong to 'dependent'. If explained this way, it is included in the third category. Another explanation is that this is the view of other teachers, not necessarily universally applicable. The second category, 'self-reliant, not dependent', has fifteen dharmas, namely the ten from the minor afflictions (upaklesa) ground, as well as 'remorse' (kaukṛtya), 'greed' (rāga), 'hatred' (dvesa), 'pride' (māna), 'doubt' (vicikitsa). The third category, 'dependent and also self-reliant', has two dharmas, namely 'wisdom' (prajñā) and 'ignorance' (avidyā). If 'wisdom' is one of the five wrong views (pañca drsti), it is called 'self-reliant'; if it corresponds with the remaining three natures of mind, it is called 'dependent'. If 'ignorance' does not correspond with 'greed' etc., 'anger' etc., or 'remorse', it is called 'self-reliant'; if it corresponds with the nine afflictions of 'greed' etc., and the ten afflictions of 'anger' etc., as well as 'remorse', it is called 'dependent'. The fourth category refers to excluding all the above-mentioned situations.

What is 'remorse' (kaukṛtya)? Question.

'The substance of bad actions' (kṛtya) up to 'that which is spoken of as impure'. Answer: The nature of 'bad actions' is called 'remorse'. 'Remorse' is the object of focus (ālambana). Its nature is precisely regret (anutāpa). Another explanation is that 'substance' refers to 'matter/event' (artha). The matter of bad actions is called 'remorse'. This is the correct explanation of 'remorse'. It should be known that here, based on the dharma of bad actions, the nature of inner regret is called 'remorse'. This is naming from the object of focus. For example, based on the emptiness liberation door (śūnyatā vimokṣa mukha), its nature is precisely samadhi (samādhi), and it is called 'emptiness', naming from the object of focus. Also, like impurity contemplation (aśubha bhāvanā) with non-greed (alobha) as its nature, it is called 'impure', naming from the object of focus. Furthermore, seeing the world up to that which is spoken of as remorse. The second explanation is that regret is called 'remorse', naming from the basis (āśraya). 'Remorse' is that upon which regret relies. The word 'remorse' reveals the regret that relies upon it. Just as villages etc., all come to gather, this is citing the basis to reveal the people who rely upon it. Furthermore, regarding the fruit body up to that which is called past karma.

者。第三解。惡作是因。追悔是果。因惡作事而有追悔故。惡作是因。追悔是果。今言追悔名惡作者。于其果體假立因名。如說此六觸處果。應知名宿作業因。此亦于果立因名也。六觸所依處即是眼等六根　若緣未作事云何名惡作者。難。緣已作事可名惡作。緣未作事云何名惡作　于未作事至是我惡作者。釋。于未作事業亦立作名。如追悔言我先不作如是受戒等事業是我惡作。此即緣未作事亦名惡作。亦得從境為名　何等惡作說名為善者。問　謂于善惡至二處而起者。答。謂于善不作于惡作。心追悔性名善惡作。若與此善惡作相違名不善惡作。謂于善作于惡不作。心追悔性。此善．不善二種惡作。各依善．惡二處而起。故婆沙三十七云此中惡作總有四句。一有惡作是善。于不善處起。二有惡作是不善。于善處起。三有惡作是善。于善處起。四有惡作是不善。于不善處起。

若於不善至謂尋與伺者。此即第二明不共無明。可知。

何等名為不共心品者。問。

謂此心品至貪煩惱等者。答。謂此心品唯有無明。無有所餘貪等本惑。忿等小惑。及惡作等。故名不共自力起故。若作斯解。不共無明唯見所斷。若貪等．忿等惡作相應無明。皆是相應不名不共。他力起故。若依正理論意解不共無明。不與貪等本

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『者。第三解。惡作（kukkritya，後悔）是因，追悔是果。因為做了惡作之事才會有追悔，所以說惡作是因，追悔是果。現在說追悔名為惡作者，這是在果的本體上假立了因的名稱。就像說這六觸處是果，應該知道是宿作業的因。這也是在果上立因的名稱。六觸所依之處就是眼等六根。

若緣未作事云何名惡作者。』難：『緣已作事可名惡作，緣未作事云何名惡作？』

『于未作事至是我惡作者。』釋：『對於未作的事業也立作的名稱。如追悔說我先前不作如是受戒等事業，是我的惡作。這就是緣未作事也名為惡作，也可以從境上取名。』

『何等惡作說名為善者？』問。

『謂于善惡至二處而起者。』答：『在於善事不作，在惡事上作，心中追悔的性質名為善惡作。如果與此善惡作相反，則名為不善惡作，即在善事上作，在惡事上不作，心中追悔的性質。這善、不善兩種惡作，各自依據善、惡兩種處所而生起。所以《婆沙》第三十七卷說，此中惡作總共有四句：一有惡作是善，于不善處生起；二有惡作是不善，于善處生起；三有惡作是善，于善處生起；四有惡作是不善，于不善處生起。』

『若於不善至謂尋與伺者。』此即第二，說明不共無明，可知。

『何等名為不共心品者？』問。

『謂此心品至貪煩惱等者。』答：『此心品唯有無明，沒有其餘的貪等根本煩惱，忿等小隨煩惱，以及惡作等。所以名為不共，因為是自力生起。如果這樣解釋，不共無明唯有見所斷。如果貪等、忿等與惡作相應的無明，都是相應的，不名不共，因為是他力生起。如果依照《正理論》的意義來解釋不共無明，不與貪等根本煩惱相應。』

【English Translation】 English version:

'者. The third explanation: Kukkritya (悪作, remorse) is the cause, and regret is the effect. Because there is regret due to doing evil deeds, it is said that evil deeds are the cause and regret is the effect. Now, saying that regret is called the 'doer of evil deeds' is to falsely establish the name of the cause on the substance of the effect. It is like saying that these six sense bases are the result, and it should be known that they are the cause of past karma. This is also establishing the name of the cause on the result. The places where the six contacts rely are the six roots of eye, etc.

If it is related to an unmade thing, how is it called the doer of evil deeds?' Question: 'It can be called the doer of evil deeds if it is related to a made thing, but how is it called the doer of evil deeds if it is related to an unmade thing?'

'Regarding the unmade thing, it is the doer of evil deeds.' Explanation: 'The name of 'doing' is also established for unmade deeds. For example, regretting and saying, 'I did not do such things as taking precepts before, which is my evil deed.' This is also called evil deed when it is related to an unmade thing, and it can also be named from the object.'

'What kind of evil deed is said to be good?' Question.

'It means that it arises in two places, good and evil.' Answer: 'Not doing good deeds and doing evil deeds, the nature of regret in the mind is called good evil deeds. If it is contrary to this good evil deed, it is called non-good evil deed, that is, doing good deeds and not doing evil deeds, the nature of regret in the mind. These two kinds of evil deeds, good and non-good, arise according to the two places of good and evil. Therefore, the thirty-seventh volume of the Vibhasha says that there are four sentences in total for evil deeds: First, there are evil deeds that are good, arising in non-good places; second, there are evil deeds that are non-good, arising in good places; third, there are evil deeds that are good, arising in good places; fourth, there are evil deeds that are non-good, arising in non-good places.'

'If it is not good, it means seeking and contemplating.' This is the second, explaining non-common ignorance, which can be known.

'What is called a non-common mental state?' Question.

'It means that this mental state is only ignorance, without any other fundamental afflictions such as greed.' Answer: 'This mental state only has ignorance, without any other fundamental afflictions such as greed, minor afflictions such as anger, and evil deeds, etc. Therefore, it is called non-common, because it arises from one's own power. If explained in this way, non-common ignorance can only be cut off by seeing. If ignorance is associated with greed, anger, and evil deeds, it is all associated and not called non-common, because it arises from the power of others. If the meaning of non-common ignorance is explained according to the Zhengli Theory, it is not associated with fundamental afflictions such as greed.'

惑相應名不共。即是獨頭無明。及忿等．惡作相應無明。皆名不共。若作斯解不共無明通見．修斷。故正理第十一云。是故惡作是不善者唯無明俱。容在不共。忿等亦爾。若依正理解不共。不共無明容有二十一法俱生。又婆沙三十八解不共無明具有兩解。一解意不與貪等忿等相應。自力而起名不共。唯見所斷以修所斷忿等相應。非自力起故。不名不共。第二師解意不與貪等本惑相應皆名不共。應知即是忿等相應．及獨頭起。若作斯解通見．修斷。此論同婆沙前師。正理同婆沙后說。各據一義釋不共名並無違害　應知諸論說不共無明。若說唯見所斷據前師說若言通見．修所斷者據后師說。

于不善見至或戒禁取者。此下第三明五品中余煩惱等相應。即明不善三見。二十俱生。

於四不善至加忿等隨一者。此明四惑．忿等。二十一俱生。

不善惡作至第二十一者。此明不善惡作。二十一俱生。不善惡作自力起故。所以不與貪等．忿等相應。唯與無明相應。

略說不善至有二十一者。將明無記略結不善四節煩惱。不善惡作十纏攝故。隨煩惱攝。

若於無記至應知如前釋者。此即第四於五品中。明有覆無記心所俱生。能有覆障。或有癡覆故名有覆。以過輕故無勝用記不能感果故名無記。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：與『惑』相應的『名不共』，指的就是『獨頭無明』（獨立生起的愚昧），以及與『忿』（憤怒）等、『惡作』（後悔）相應的『無明』（愚昧），都叫做『不共』（不與其他煩惱共同生起）。如果這樣理解，『不共無明』就既有『見所斷』（通過見道斷除的），也有『修所斷』（通過修道斷除的）。所以《正理》第十一卷說：『因此，惡作是不善的，只是與無明共同生起，可能是不共的。忿等也是如此。』如果依據《正理》理解『不共』，『不共無明』可能與二十一種法共同生起。另外，《婆沙論》第三十八卷對『不共無明』有兩種解釋。一種解釋認為，它不與『貪』（貪婪）等、『忿』（憤怒）等相應，而是依靠自身的力量生起，所以叫做『不共』，只是『見所斷』。因為與『修所斷』的『忿』等相應，不是依靠自身的力量生起，所以不叫做『不共』。第二種解釋認為，它不與『貪』（貪婪）等根本煩惱相應，都叫做『不共』，應該知道就是與『忿』（憤怒）等相應，以及獨立生起的。如果這樣理解，就既有『見所斷』，也有『修所斷』。此論與《婆沙論》的前一種說法相同，《正理》與《婆沙論》的后一種說法相同，各自依據一種意義解釋『不共』這個名稱，並沒有衝突。應該知道，各論述說的『不共無明』，如果說只是『見所斷』，是依據前一種說法；如果說既有『見所斷』，也有『修所斷』，是依據后一種說法。

對於不善的『見』（邪見），乃至『戒禁取』（執著于錯誤的戒律和禁忌）的情況，這以下第三部分說明五品中其餘煩惱等的相應情況，也就是說明不善的三種『見』（邪見），有二十種法共同生起。

對於四種不善，加上『忿』（憤怒）等中的一種的情況，這說明四種煩惱、『忿』（憤怒）等，有二十一種法共同生起。

不善的『惡作』（後悔），乃至第二十一種法的情況，這說明不善的『惡作』（後悔），有二十一種法共同生起。不善的『惡作』（後悔）依靠自身的力量生起，所以不與『貪』（貪婪）等、『忿』（憤怒）等相應，只是與『無明』（愚昧）相應。

簡略地說，不善，乃至有二十一種法的情況，這是將要說明無記，簡略地總結不善四節煩惱。不善的『惡作』（後悔）被十纏所攝，所以屬於隨煩惱。

如果對於無記，應該知道如前面的解釋的情況，這也就是第四部分，在五品中，說明有覆無記心所共同生起。能夠覆蓋障礙，或者有癡覆蓋，所以叫做『有覆』。因為過失輕微，沒有殊勝的作用可以記別，不能感果，所以叫做『無記』。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Nāma-asaṃskṛta』 (name not common) corresponding to 『moha』 (delusion) refers to 『dve-mu』 (independent ignorance), and 『moha』 (delusion) corresponding to 『krodha』 (anger) etc., and 『kukṛtya』 (remorse). All are called 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common). If understood this way, 『asaṃskṛta moha』 (not common delusion) includes both 『darśana-heya』 (abandoned by seeing) and 『bhāvanā-heya』 (abandoned by cultivation). Therefore, the eleventh volume of 『Nyāyānusāra』 says: 『Therefore, 『kukṛtya』 (remorse) is unwholesome, only arising together with 『moha』 (delusion), possibly being 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common). 『Krodha』 (anger) etc. are also like this.』 If understanding 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common) according to 『Nyāyānusāra』, 『asaṃskṛta moha』 (not common delusion) may arise together with twenty-one dharmas. In addition, the thirty-eighth volume of 『Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā-śāstra』 has two explanations for 『asaṃskṛta moha』 (not common delusion). One explanation believes that it does not correspond to 『rāga』 (greed) etc., 『krodha』 (anger) etc., but arises by its own power, so it is called 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common), only 『darśana-heya』 (abandoned by seeing). Because it corresponds to 『krodha』 (anger) etc. which are 『bhāvanā-heya』 (abandoned by cultivation), it does not arise by its own power, so it is not called 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common). The second explanation believes that it does not correspond to fundamental afflictions such as 『rāga』 (greed) etc., and all are called 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common), which should be understood as corresponding to 『krodha』 (anger) etc., and arising independently. If understood this way, it includes both 『darśana-heya』 (abandoned by seeing) and 『bhāvanā-heya』 (abandoned by cultivation). This treatise is the same as the former saying of 『Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā-śāstra』, and 『Nyāyānusāra』 is the same as the latter saying of 『Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā-śāstra』, each explaining the name 『asaṃskṛta』 (not common) according to one meaning, without conflict. It should be known that the 『asaṃskṛta moha』 (not common delusion) mentioned in various treatises, if it is said to be only 『darśana-heya』 (abandoned by seeing), it is based on the former saying; if it is said to include both 『darśana-heya』 (abandoned by seeing) and 『bhāvanā-heya』 (abandoned by cultivation), it is based on the latter saying.

Regarding the case of unwholesome 『dṛṣṭi』 (views), up to 『śīlavrata-parāmarśa』 (clinging to rules and rituals), the third part below explains the correspondence of other afflictions etc. in the five categories, which is to explain that the three unwholesome 『dṛṣṭi』 (views) arise together with twenty dharmas.

Regarding the case of four unwholesome dharmas, plus one of 『krodha』 (anger) etc., this explains that the four afflictions, 『krodha』 (anger) etc., arise together with twenty-one dharmas.

Unwholesome 『kukṛtya』 (remorse), up to the twenty-first dharma, this explains that unwholesome 『kukṛtya』 (remorse) arises together with twenty-one dharmas. Unwholesome 『kukṛtya』 (remorse) arises by its own power, so it does not correspond to 『rāga』 (greed) etc., 『krodha』 (anger) etc., but only corresponds to 『moha』 (delusion).

Briefly speaking, unwholesome, up to the case of twenty-one dharmas, this is going to explain the indeterminate, briefly summarizing the four sections of unwholesome afflictions. Unwholesome 『kukṛtya』 (remorse) is included in the ten entanglements, so it belongs to the secondary afflictions.

If regarding the indeterminate, it should be known as explained before, this is the fourth part, explaining the co-arising of obscured indeterminate mental factors in the five categories. Able to cover and obstruct, or covered by ignorance, so it is called 『obscured』. Because the fault is slight, there is no superior function to distinguish, and it cannot cause results, so it is called 『indeterminate』.

于余無記至並不定尋伺者。此即第五明無覆無記心所俱生。無能障覆或無癡覆故名無覆。無勝用記不能感果故名無記。又正理云。工巧處等諸無記心。似有勇悍。然非稱理而起加行。故無有勤。又非染污故無懈怠。無信．不信類此應知　問何故惡作不通無記　答正理第十一云。然此惡作通善．不善。不通無記。隨憂行故。離欲貪者不成就故。非無記法有如是事。然有追變我頃何為不消而食。我頃何為不畫此壁。如是等類彼心乃至未觸憂根。但是省察未起惡作。若觸憂根便起惡作。爾時惡作理同憂根。故說惡作有如是相。謂令心戚惡作心品。若離憂根誰令心戚(解云省察是慧)。

外方諸師至心所俱起者。前十二是迦濕彌羅諸論師說。今外國諸師說有十三。即是印度國諸師也。故正理論云。有執惡作亦通無記。憂如喜根非唯有記。此相應品便有十三心所俱起(此非正義)。

應知睡眠至如例應知者。釋下兩句。應知睡眠與前所說五種心品。皆不相違。有皆增一。睡眠通三性者。據有夢說。若無夢時唯是無記。

已說欲界至上兼除伺等者。此下第二約上界明。結問頌答。

論曰至如欲界說者。釋上兩句定所滋潤無瞋等惑不善法。故無不善。無憂根故無惡作。無假食故無睡眠。余如欲界。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本對於餘下的無記心所，乃至不定尋伺的情況。這指的是第五類，即與無覆無記心所同時生起。因為沒有能力去障蔽或沒有愚癡的覆障，所以稱為『無覆』。因為沒有殊勝的作用，不能感生果報，所以稱為『無記』。此外，《正理》中說，工巧之處等各種無記心，看似有勇猛精進，但並非按照道理而發起行動，所以沒有勤奮。又因為不是染污的，所以沒有懈怠。對於信和不信等心所，也應該像這樣理解。問：為什麼惡作不通於無記？答：《正理》第十一中說：『然而，這種惡作通於善和不善，但不通於無記。因為它隨順憂行。離開欲貪的人不會成就惡作。無記法沒有這樣的情況。』然而，會有追悔變化，例如『我剛才為什麼不吃東西？』，『我剛才為什麼不畫這面牆？』等等。像這樣的心，乃至沒有觸及憂根，都只是省察，還沒有生起惡作。如果觸及憂根，就會生起惡作。那時，惡作的道理與憂根相同。所以說惡作有這樣的相狀，即令心悲慼。惡作是心品。如果離開憂根，誰會令心悲慼呢？』（解釋說，省察是慧）。外方諸師乃至心所俱起的情況。前面的十二種心所是迦濕彌羅諸論師的說法。現在外國諸師說有十三種，也就是印度國的諸位論師。所以《正理論》中說：『有人認為惡作也通於無記，憂就像喜根一樣，不只有記。』與此相應的品類，便有十三種心所同時生起（這並非正確的觀點）。『應知睡眠』乃至『如例應知』的情況。解釋下面兩句。應該知道，睡眠與前面所說的五種心品，都不相違背。都有各自增加一種的情況。睡眠通於三性，這是根據有夢的情況來說的。如果沒有夢時，就只是無記。已經說了欲界，乃至上界兼除伺等的情況。這以下第二部分，是關於上界的說明。總結提問並回答。論中說乃至『如欲界說』的情況。解釋上面兩句，因為有定所滋潤，沒有瞋恚等煩惱不善法，所以沒有不善。沒有憂根，所以沒有惡作。沒有假食，所以沒有睡眠。其餘的與欲界相同。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the remaining indeterminate mental factors (無記心所), up to and including unfixed investigation (不定尋伺). This refers to the fifth category, which arises together with the non-obscured indeterminate mental factors (無覆無記心所). Because it lacks the ability to obscure or the obscuration of ignorance, it is called 'non-obscured' (無覆). Because it lacks a superior function and cannot produce karmic results, it is called 'indeterminate' (無記). Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) states that various indeterminate minds, such as those involved in skillful activities, may appear to have vigor and diligence, but they do not initiate actions in accordance with reason, and therefore lack diligence (勤). Also, because they are not defiled, they lack laziness (懈怠). Belief (信) and disbelief (不信) and similar mental factors should be understood in this way. Question: Why doesn't regret (惡作) extend to the indeterminate? Answer: The eleventh chapter of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) states: 'However, this regret extends to the wholesome (善) and unwholesome (不善), but not to the indeterminate. Because it follows the course of sorrow (憂行). Those who are detached from desire (離欲貪者) do not achieve regret. Indeterminate dharmas do not have such characteristics.' However, there are instances of regretful changes, such as 'Why didn't I eat a moment ago?' or 'Why didn't I paint this wall a moment ago?' Such a mind, until it touches the root of sorrow (憂根), is merely reflection (省察) and has not yet given rise to regret. If it touches the root of sorrow, regret will arise. At that time, the principle of regret is the same as the root of sorrow. Therefore, it is said that regret has such characteristics, namely, causing mental distress. Regret is a mental quality (心品). If it is separated from the root of sorrow, who would cause mental distress?' (The explanation is that reflection is wisdom (慧)). Regarding the situation of foreign teachers (外方諸師) up to the simultaneous arising of mental factors (心所俱起). The previous twelve mental factors are the teachings of the Kashmirian masters (迦濕彌羅諸論師). Now, foreign teachers say there are thirteen, namely, the teachers of India (印度國). Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理論) states: 'Some hold that regret also extends to the indeterminate, and sorrow is like the root of joy, not only determinate.' The corresponding category then has thirteen mental factors arising simultaneously (this is not the correct view). Regarding 'It should be known that sleep (睡眠)' up to 'It should be known as an example (如例應知)'. Explaining the following two sentences. It should be known that sleep is not contradictory to the five mental qualities mentioned earlier. Each has an additional element. Sleep extends to the three natures (三性), which is based on the condition of having dreams. If there are no dreams, it is only indeterminate. Having spoken of the desire realm (欲界), up to the higher realms also excluding investigation and so on (上界兼除伺等). The second part below explains the higher realms. Summarizing the question and answering. The treatise says up to 'As it is said in the desire realm (如欲界說)'. Explaining the above two sentences, because it is nourished by samadhi (定所滋潤), there are no afflictions such as anger (瞋恚) and other unwholesome dharmas (不善法), so there is no unwholesome. Because there is no root of sorrow (憂根), there is no regret (惡作). Because there is no need for coarse food (假食), there is no sleep (睡眠). The rest is the same as in the desire realm.

中間靜慮至如前具有者。釋不兩句。上地漸細漸離災患故。中定除尋。上兼除伺。二定已上無眾相依王臣等別亦無諂．誑。余皆如前具有。

經說諂誑至令還問佛者。引經證成。經說。諂誑始從欲界至初定梵天。由有王．臣尊．卑差別。更相接事眾相依故。故有諂．誑。二定已上乃至有頂。無王．臣等尊．卑差別。無有諂．誑。所以得知初定有諂．誑者。如佛昔在室羅筏城住誓多林。時有苾芻名曰馬勝。是阿羅漢。作是思惟。諸四大種。當於何位盡滅無餘。為欲知故入勝等持。即以定心於誓多林沒。於四大王眾天出。從定而起問彼天眾。諸四大種。當於何位盡滅無餘。答曰不知。如是欲界六天展轉。相推乃至他化自在天所。彼復仰推梵眾。欲往梵世入勝等持。復以定心自在宮沒。梵眾天出。從定而起還作上問。梵眾咸曰。我等不知。復推大梵。馬勝苾芻。尋問彼大梵王。時大梵王處自梵眾。忽被馬勝苾芻。問言此欲．色界諸四大種。當於何位盡滅。無餘煩惱繫縛。梵王不知隨其所應。依四根本靜慮．未至．中間．空處近分。斷第四靜慮煩惱盡時。諸四大種究竟離縛。無餘滅位。便矯自嘆顯彼有誑。謟言愧謝顯彼有謟。略述如是。廣如婆沙一百二十九說。

問是大梵等有何差別　解云梵眾中尊名為大梵。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：中間禪定和之前的禪定一樣，都具有某些特質。這裡用『釋不兩句』來解釋。因為上層的禪定境界逐漸變得精微，逐漸遠離災患的緣故。中間禪定去除了尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考），而上層禪定則兼去除了伺（Vicara，精細的觀察）。二禪及以上的境界沒有眾生相互依賴的王臣等差別，也沒有諂媚（Flattery）和欺誑（Deceit）。其餘的特質都和之前的禪定一樣具備。

經文說從諂誑開始一直到讓佛陀來回答這個問題。這是引用經文來證明。經文說，諂媚和欺誑從欲界開始，一直到初禪的梵天（Brahma Heaven）。因為有國王、臣子、尊貴、卑賤的差別，互相交往依賴，所以有諂媚和欺誑。二禪及以上的境界，乃至有頂天（Akanistha），沒有國王、臣子等尊卑差別，所以沒有諂媚和欺誑。那麼，如何得知初禪有諂媚和欺誑呢？例如，過去佛陀在室羅筏城（Sravasti）的誓多林（Jetavana）居住時，有一位比丘名叫馬勝（Asvajit），是阿羅漢（Arhat）。他這樣思惟：諸四大種（Four Great Elements），應當在哪個位置才能完全滅盡無餘？爲了知道這個，他進入殊勝的等持（Samadhi）。隨即以定心在誓多林消失，出現在四大王眾天（Cāturmahārājakāyika Devas）。從禪定中起來后，他問那些天眾：諸四大種，應當在哪個位置才能完全滅盡無餘？他們回答說不知道。像這樣，欲界的六天輾轉相推，乃至到他化自在天（Paranirmita-vasavartin Devas）那裡。他們又向上推到梵眾天（Brahma-parisadya Devas）。想要去梵世（Brahma World），進入殊勝的等持。又以定心在他化自在天宮消失，出現在梵眾天。從禪定中起來后，又問了同樣的問題。梵眾天都說：我們不知道。又推到大梵天（Mahabrahma）。馬勝比丘尋找並詢問那位大梵天王。當時大梵天王正在自己的梵眾中，忽然被馬勝比丘問到，這個慾望和**諸四大種，應當在哪個位置才能滅盡無餘，斷除煩惱的繫縛？梵王不知道應當如何回答，就按照他所認為的，依靠四根本靜慮（Four Dhyanas）、未至定（Upacarasamadhi）、中間定（Antara-samadhi）、空處近分定（Akasanantyayatana-samadhi），斷除第四禪的煩惱盡時，諸四大種究竟解脫繫縛，達到無餘滅盡的位置。於是他假裝嘆息，顯示他有欺誑。用慚愧的言語來謝罪，顯示他有諂媚。簡略地敘述就是這樣。詳細的在《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）第一百二十九卷中有說。

問：大梵天等有什麼差別？答：梵眾天中的尊者，名為大梵天。

【English Translation】 English version: The intermediate Dhyana (Jhāna, meditative state) possesses the same qualities as the previous ones. The phrase '釋不兩句' (Shi Bu Liang Ju) is used to explain this. This is because the higher Dhyana realms gradually become more subtle and move away from calamities. The intermediate Dhyana removes Vitarka (initial application of thought), while the higher Dhyanas also remove Vicara (sustained application of thought). The second Dhyana and above lack the distinctions of kings, ministers, and mutual dependence among beings, and also lack flattery (Flattery) and deceit (Deceit). The remaining qualities are the same as those possessed by the previous Dhyanas.

The sutra says that flattery and deceit exist from the desire realm up to the point where the Buddha is asked to answer the question. This is quoting the sutra to prove it. The sutra says that flattery and deceit begin from the desire realm up to the Brahma Heaven (Brahma Heaven) of the first Dhyana. Because there are distinctions of kings, ministers, nobility, and lowliness, and mutual interaction and dependence, there are flattery and deceit. The second Dhyana and above, up to the Akanistha Heaven (Akanistha), lack the distinctions of kings, ministers, and nobility, so there are no flattery and deceit. So, how do we know that the first Dhyana has flattery and deceit? For example, in the past, when the Buddha was residing in Jetavana (Jetavana) in Sravasti (Sravasti), there was a Bhiksu (monk) named Asvajit (Asvajit), who was an Arhat (Arhat). He thought: In what position will the Four Great Elements (Four Great Elements) be completely extinguished without remainder? To know this, he entered a superior Samadhi (Samadhi). Then, with a concentrated mind, he disappeared in Jetavana and appeared in the Heaven of the Four Great Kings (Cāturmahārājakāyika Devas). After arising from Samadhi, he asked those Devas: In what position will the Four Great Elements be completely extinguished without remainder? They replied that they did not know. In this way, the six heavens of the desire realm passed the question on to each other, up to the Paranirmita-vasavartin Devas (Paranirmita-vasavartin Devas). They then passed it up to the Brahma-parisadya Devas (Brahma-parisadya Devas). Wanting to go to the Brahma World (Brahma World), he entered a superior Samadhi. Again, with a concentrated mind, he disappeared in the Paranirmita-vasavartin Heaven and appeared in the Brahma-parisadya Heaven. After arising from Samadhi, he asked the same question. The Brahma-parisadya Devas all said: We do not know. Then they passed it on to Mahabrahma (Mahabrahma). Bhiksu Asvajit sought and asked that Great Brahma King. At that time, the Great Brahma King was in his own Brahma assembly, when suddenly Bhiksu Asvajit asked him, in what position will this desire and ** the Four Great Elements be extinguished without remainder, and the bonds of afflictions be severed? The Brahma King did not know how to answer, so he answered according to what he thought, relying on the Four Dhyanas (Four Dhyanas), Upacarasamadhi (Upacarasamadhi), Antara-samadhi (Antara-samadhi), Akasanantyayatana-samadhi (Akasanantyayatana-samadhi), when the afflictions of the fourth Dhyana are exhausted, the Four Great Elements are ultimately liberated from bondage, reaching the position of complete extinction without remainder. So he pretended to sigh, showing that he had deceit. He used words of shame to apologize, showing that he had flattery. This is a brief account. A detailed account is in the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra), volume 129.

Question: What is the difference between Mahabrahma and others? Answer: The most honored among the Brahma-parisadya Devas is called Mahabrahma.

統攝一切皆得自在。能作器世間名作者。能化有情世間名化者。言生者釋前作者重顯作義。謂能生器世間者故名作者。養者已下釋前化者重顯化義。謂能養育有情世間者。是一切有情父故名化者(此是婆沙正理意釋)　問馬勝至彼更化身不。至彼一念復容得有幾通果俱　解云馬勝運身至彼初定。作彼地化。大梵故得執手相牽。若不別化欲界色粗執便不得。應知運身及化神境通果。先留化身後起天眼見彼地色。或起天耳聞彼地聲。二通互起。總而言之。於一念中容二俱起。故婆沙一百五十云。問一念得起幾通果耶。答諸有欲令無留化事天眼．天耳無彼同分者。彼說一念唯起一通果。謂五通隨一。諸有欲令有留化事天眼．天耳無彼同分者。彼說一念得起二通果。謂神境通果．及餘四隨一。諸有欲令有留化事天眼．天耳有彼同分。彼說一念得起四通果。謂神境通果．天眼．天耳．及餘二隨一。謂他心通．宿住隨念通。境界各別不俱起故。如是說者。應知第二所說為善。以化事可留天眼．天耳必無彼同分。要于同時乃現前故。

如是已說至少分差別者。此下大文第三明相似殊。于其體性。實各不同有少相似。故辨差別總有四對。此下明前兩對。頌前問起。就問起中。一總。二別。此即總也。

無慚無愧至差別云何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『統攝一切皆得自在』，指的是能完全掌控一切事物並獲得自在。『能作器世間名作者』，指的是能夠創造器世間（指山河大地等物質世界）的被稱為作者。『能化有情世間名化者』，指的是能夠化育有情世間（指一切有生命的眾生）的被稱為化者。『言生者釋前作者重顯作義』，這裡說的『生』字，是爲了解釋前面的『作者』，再次強調創造的意義，意思是說能夠創造器世間的，所以稱為作者。『養者已下釋前化者重顯化義』，『養』字以下，是爲了解釋前面的『化者』，再次強調化育的意義，意思是說能夠養育有情世間的，是一切有情眾生的父親，所以稱為化者（這是《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》和《阿毗達磨順正理論》的解釋）。問：馬勝（Aśvajit，佛陀的五比丘之一）到達彼處后，是否會再次化身？到達彼處的一念之間，是否可以同時具有幾種神通果報？答：馬勝運用神通到達彼處，最初入定，在那裡變化出土地，因為是大梵天（Mahābrahman，色界天的天神），所以可以執手相牽。如果不另外變化，欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生居住的世界）的色身粗糙，就無法執持。應當知道，這是運用神通和變化的神境通果。先留下化身，然後生起天眼（Divyacakṣus，能看見遠處或隱藏事物的能力）看見彼處的顏色，或者生起天耳（Divyaśrotra，能聽見遠處聲音的能力）聽見彼處的聲音。這兩種神通可以互相生起。總而言之，在一念之中可以同時生起兩種神通果報。所以《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百五十卷說：『問：一念之間可以生起幾種神通果報？答：有些人認為沒有留下化身的事情，天眼、天耳沒有相同的分，他們說一念之間只能生起一種神通果報，即五神通（Pañcābhijñā，佛教中的五種神通能力）中的任何一種。有些人認為有留下化身的事情，天眼、天耳沒有相同的分，他們說一念之間可以生起兩種神通果報，即神境通果（ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna，變化的能力）和其餘四種神通中的任何一種。有些人認為有留下化身的事情，天眼、天耳有相同的分，他們說一念之間可以生起四種神通果報，即神境通果、天眼、天耳和其餘兩種神通中的任何一種，即他心通（Paracitta-jñāna，瞭解他人想法的能力）和宿住隨念通（Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，回憶過去世的能力），因為境界各不相同，所以不會同時生起。』這樣說的人，應當知道第二種說法是正確的，因為變化的事情可以留下，天眼、天耳必定沒有相同的分，必須在同時才能顯現。像這樣已經說了至少部分的差別，下面這部分大的文章第三部分說明相似的差別，在它們的體性上，實際上各自不同，只有少許相似之處，所以辨別差別總共有四對，下面說明前兩對，用頌文來提問，在提問中，一總，二別，這裡是總的提問。無慚（Ahrikya，不感到羞恥）和無愧（Anapatrāpya，不害怕罪惡）的差別是什麼？

【English Translation】 English version: 'Governing all, attaining freedom' refers to being able to completely control all things and attain freedom. 'Being able to create the world of vessels is called the creator' refers to being able to create the world of vessels (referring to the material world such as mountains, rivers, and the earth) and being called the creator. 'Being able to transform the world of sentient beings is called the transformer' refers to being able to nurture the world of sentient beings (referring to all living beings) and being called the transformer. 'The word 'birth' explains the previous 'creator', re-emphasizing the meaning of creation' The word 'birth' here is to explain the previous 'creator', re-emphasizing the meaning of creation, meaning that being able to create the world of vessels is called the creator. 'Nurturing' below explains the previous 'transformer', re-emphasizing the meaning of nurturing, meaning that being able to nurture the world of sentient beings is the father of all sentient beings, so it is called the transformer (this is the explanation from the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra and the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya). Question: When Aśvajit (one of the Buddha's five first disciples) arrives there, will he transform his body again? In a single moment upon arriving there, can one simultaneously possess several supernatural powers and their results? Answer: Aśvajit uses his supernatural power to arrive there, initially entering into samadhi, and transforms the land there. Because he is Mahābrahman (a deity of the Form Realm), he can hold hands. If he does not transform separately, the form body of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu, the world where sentient beings live) is coarse and cannot be held. It should be known that this is the result of using supernatural power and the divine realm of transformation. First, he leaves behind a transformed body, and then arises the divine eye (Divyacakṣus, the ability to see distant or hidden things) to see the colors of that place, or arises the divine ear (Divyaśrotra, the ability to hear distant sounds) to hear the sounds of that place. These two supernatural powers can arise mutually. In summary, two supernatural powers and their results can arise simultaneously in a single moment. Therefore, the 150th volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: How many supernatural powers and their results can arise in a single moment? Answer: Some people think that there is no leaving behind a transformed body, and the divine eye and divine ear do not have the same division. They say that only one supernatural power and its result can arise in a single moment, that is, any one of the five supernatural powers (Pañcābhijñā, the five supernatural abilities in Buddhism). Some people think that there is leaving behind a transformed body, and the divine eye and divine ear do not have the same division. They say that two supernatural powers and their results can arise in a single moment, that is, the result of the supernatural power of the divine realm (ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna, the ability to transform) and any one of the remaining four supernatural powers. Some people think that there is leaving behind a transformed body, and the divine eye and divine ear have the same division. They say that four supernatural powers and their results can arise in a single moment, that is, the supernatural power of the divine realm, the divine eye, the divine ear, and any one of the remaining two supernatural powers, that is, the knowledge of others' minds (Paracitta-jñāna, the ability to understand others' thoughts) and the knowledge of remembering past lives (Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna, the ability to recall past lives), because the realms are different, they will not arise simultaneously.' Those who say this should know that the second statement is correct, because the matter of transformation can be left behind, and the divine eye and divine ear must not have the same division, and must appear at the same time. Having thus spoken of at least a partial difference, the third part of this large section below explains the difference in similarity. In their nature, they are actually different, with only slight similarities, so distinguishing the differences has a total of four pairs. The following explains the first two pairs, using a verse to raise the question. In the question, one is general, and two are specific. This is the general question. What is the difference between Ahrikya (shamelessness) and Anapatrāpya (lack of fear of wrongdoing)?

者。此即別也。頌曰至唯于欲色有者。就頌答中。上兩句明無慚．無愧。下兩句明愛．敬。

論曰至所敵對法者　諸功德。謂戒．定等　有德者。謂師長等　無敬等四總顯不重。於前二境無敬．無崇。或於諸德無敬。于有德者無崇。或於有德者無敬。于諸功德無崇。於前二境無所忌難。無所隨屬。或於諸德無所忌難。于有德者無所隨屬說名無慚。即是敬．慚所敵對法。以敬。慚為體故　為諸善士至能生怖故者。此釋無愧　罪。謂罪業。於此罪中。不見能招可怖畏果。說名無愧　此中怖言顯非愛果。能生怖故名之為怖。

不見怖言至名不見怖者。外難。不見怖言欲顯何義。為見彼罪怖果。而不怖畏名不見怖。為不見彼罪怖果。名不見怖　又解為見罪而不怖名不見怖。此問怖屬心。即緣境怯怖。為不見彼罪家怖果名不見怖。此問怖屬境。即所怖果。

若爾何失者。論主總答。

二俱有過至應顯無明者。外人出過。若見彼罪怖果。而不怖畏名不見怖。應顯智慧。智慧謂邪見。以此邪見撥因果故。故正理云。應顯邪見。若不見彼罪怖畏果。名不見怖。應顯無明。以此無明不見怯怖　又解若見罪而不怖。應顯邪見。若不見彼罪家怖果。應顯無明。

此言不顯見與不見者。論主答。此不見怖言不顯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：者，這就是區別。[頌曰]到[唯于欲色有者]，就偈頌的回答中，上面兩句說明[無慚]、[無愧]，下面兩句說明[愛]、[敬]。

論曰]到[所敵對法者]，各種功德，指戒、定等。[有德者]，指師長等。[無敬等四]總括地顯示不尊重。對於前面兩種對像沒有敬、沒有崇。或者對於各種功德沒有敬，對於有德者沒有崇。或者對於有德者沒有敬，對於各種功德沒有崇。對於前面兩種對像沒有顧忌、沒有隨從，或者對於各種功德沒有顧忌，對於有德者沒有隨從，這叫做[無慚]，也就是敬、慚所對立的法，因為敬、慚是它的本體。[為諸善士]到[能生怖故者]，這是解釋[無愧]。[罪]，指罪業。對於這種罪業，不見能招致可怕畏懼的果報，叫做[無愧]。這裡的[怖]字顯示不是可愛的果報，能產生畏懼所以叫做[怖]。

[不見怖言]到[名不見怖者]，外人提問。[不見怖言]想要顯示什麼意義？是見到那罪的畏懼果報，而不畏懼，叫做[不見怖]，還是不見那罪的畏懼果報，叫做[不見怖]？又解釋為見到罪而不畏懼叫做[不見怖]。這裡問的[怖]屬於心，就是緣于境界的怯懦畏懼。還是不見那罪所帶來的畏懼果報叫做[不見怖]，這裡問的[怖]屬於境界，就是所畏懼的果報。

若爾何失者]，論主總的回答。

[二俱有過]到[應顯無明者]，外人指出過失。如果見到那罪的畏懼果報，而不畏懼，叫做[不見怖]，應該顯示智慧，智慧指邪見，因為這種邪見否定因果。所以[正理]說，應該顯示邪見。如果不見那罪的畏懼果報，叫做[不見怖]，應該顯示無明，因為這種無明不見怯懦畏懼。又解釋為如果見到罪而不畏懼，應該顯示邪見。如果不見那罪所帶來的畏懼果報，應該顯示無明。

[此言不顯見與不見者]，論主回答。這個[不見怖]不顯示。

【English Translation】 English version: That is the distinction. From '[Verse]' to '[Only in desire and form exists]', in the answer to the verse, the first two lines explain [Ahrikya (Shamelessness)] and [Anapatrapya (Lack of embarrassment)], and the last two lines explain [Love] and [Respect].

From '[Treatise]' to '[The opposing dharma]', various merits, referring to precepts, concentration, etc. '[Virtuous ones]', referring to teachers, etc. '[Lack of respect, etc., four]' generally shows disrespect. Towards the first two objects, there is no respect or reverence. Or, towards various merits, there is no respect; towards virtuous ones, there is no reverence. Or, towards virtuous ones, there is no respect; towards various merits, there is no reverence. Towards the first two objects, there is no hesitation or following; or, towards various merits, there is no hesitation; towards virtuous ones, there is no following. This is called [Ahrikya (Shamelessness)], which is the dharma opposing respect and embarrassment, because respect and embarrassment are its essence. From '[For all virtuous people]' to '[Able to generate fear]', this explains [Anapatrapya (Lack of embarrassment)]. '[Sin]', referring to sinful karma. Regarding this sin, not seeing that it can bring about a terrible and fearful result is called [Anapatrapya (Lack of embarrassment)]. The word '[fear]' here indicates that it is not a desirable result; being able to generate fear is called '[fear]'.

From '[Not seeing the word fear]' to '[Called not seeing fear]', an outsider asks: What meaning does '[Not seeing the word fear]' intend to show? Is it that seeing the fearful result of that sin, but not being afraid, is called '[not seeing fear]', or is it that not seeing the fearful result of that sin is called '[not seeing fear]'? Another explanation is that seeing the sin but not being afraid is called '[not seeing fear]'. Here, the question of '[fear]' belongs to the mind, which is the cowardice and fear arising from the object. Or, is it that not seeing the fearful result brought about by that sin is called '[not seeing fear]'? Here, the question of '[fear]' belongs to the object, which is the fearful result.

If so, what is the fault? The treatise master gives a general answer.

From '[Both have faults]' to '[Should reveal ignorance]', an outsider points out the fault. If seeing the fearful result of that sin, but not being afraid, is called '[not seeing fear]', it should reveal wisdom, and wisdom refers to wrong views, because this wrong view denies cause and effect. Therefore, '[Reasoning]' says that it should reveal wrong views. If not seeing the fearful result of that sin is called '[not seeing fear]', it should reveal ignorance, because this ignorance does not see cowardice and fear. Another explanation is that if seeing the sin but not being afraid, it should reveal wrong views. If not seeing the fearful result brought about by that sin, it should reveal ignorance.

This statement does not reveal seeing or not seeing, the treatise master answers. This '[not seeing fear]' does not reveal.

邪見．及與無明。

何所顯耶者。外人復徴。

此顯有法至說名無愧者。論主答。此顯有法無愧。是隨煩惱。為彼邪見．無明二因。說名無愧。故正理云。能與現行無智．邪智。為鄰近因說名無愧。

有餘師說至說名無愧者。敘異釋。此師約自．他無恥辨二差別。

若爾此二至云何俱起者。難。無慚．無愧．自他別觀云何俱起。

不說此二至說為無愧者。余師釋。不說此二無愧．無慚。一時俱起。無慚別觀自無愧別觀他。然有無恥觀自身時用勝說名無慚。爾時觀自身雖亦有無愧。觀自身時用劣故。復有無恥觀他身時。用增說為無愧。爾時觀他身雖有無慚。觀他身時用劣。又正理云。有說獨處造罪無恥。名曰無慚。若處眾中造罪無恥。說為無愧　廣如彼釋。婆沙三十四亦廣說二種差別。不能具述。

慚愧差別至說名為愧者。便釋慚．愧翻上二釋應知。前說慚．愧。無慚．無愧如后當辨。指此文也。

已說無慚至謂除前三相者。此下辨愛．敬差別。愛謂愛樂。體即是信。然泛明愛有其二種。一有染謂貪。二無染謂信。若泛明信亦有二種。一忍許相。或名信可。名異義同。二愿樂相。或名信樂。或名信愛。名異義同。由斯信愛寬狹不同得作四句　第一句有信非愛。謂緣苦．集信

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本邪見和無明。

『顯示什麼呢？』外人再次提問。

『此顯有法至說名無愧者』。論主的回答是：這顯示了有法無愧，是隨煩惱，因為邪見和無明這兩個原因，所以稱為無愧。因此，《正理》中說：『能夠與現行的無智和邪智作為鄰近因的，稱為無愧。』

『有餘師說至說名無愧者』。敘述不同的解釋。這位法師是從自身和他人的角度來辨別這二者的差別。

『若爾此二至云何俱起者』。這是個疑問：無慚和無愧，分別觀察自身和他人，怎麼能同時生起呢？

『不說此二至說為無愧者』。另一位法師解釋說：不是說這兩種無愧和無慚，在同一時間一起生起。無慚是分別觀察自身，無愧是分別觀察他人。然而，有一種情況是，觀察自身時，作用更強，所以稱為無慚。那時觀察自身，雖然也有無愧，但觀察自身時的作用較弱。還有一種情況是，觀察他人時，作用增強，所以稱為無愧。那時觀察他人，雖然也有無慚，但觀察他人時的作用較弱。另外，《正理》中說：『有人說，獨自一人做壞事的情況，叫做無慚；如果在眾人面前做壞事的情況，就叫做無愧。』詳細的解釋就像那裡所說的。《婆沙》第三十四卷也廣泛地說明了這兩種差別，不能全部敘述。

『慚愧差別至說名為愧者』。於是解釋慚和愧，與上面兩種解釋相反，應該知道。前面說的是慚和愧，無慚和無愧就像後面將要辨析的那樣。這裡指的是這段文字。

『已說無慚至謂除前三相者』。下面辨析愛和敬的差別。愛，指的是愛樂，其本體就是信。然而，泛泛地說明愛，有兩種：一種是有染的，就是貪；一種是無染的，就是信。如果泛泛地說明信，也有兩種：一種是忍許相，或者叫做信可，名稱不同，意義相同；一種是愿樂相，或者叫做信樂，或者叫做信愛，名稱不同，意義相同。因此，信和愛寬泛和狹窄不同，可以構成四句：第一句，有信但不是愛，指的是緣于苦諦（Dukkha Satya，苦的真理）、集諦（Samudaya Satya，苦的根源的真理）的信。

【English Translation】 English version Evil views and ignorance (Avidya).

'What does it reveal?' An outsider asks again.

'This reveals the existence of Dharma (truth) up to what is called shamelessness.' The master answers: This reveals that the Dharma of shamelessness is a secondary affliction (Upaklesha), because of these two causes, evil views and ignorance, it is called shamelessness. Therefore, the Nyaya (logical text) says: 'That which can be a proximate cause for the current manifestation of non-wisdom and evil wisdom is called shamelessness.'

'Some other teachers say up to what is called shamelessness.' Narrating different interpretations. This teacher distinguishes the two differences from the perspective of self and others.

'If so, how can these two arise together?' A question: How can shamelessness and lack of embarrassment, which separately observe self and others, arise simultaneously?

'It is not said that these two up to what is called shamelessness.' Another teacher explains: It is not said that these two, shamelessness and lack of embarrassment, arise together at the same time. Shamelessness separately observes the self, and lack of embarrassment separately observes others. However, there is a situation where, when observing the self, the function is stronger, so it is called shamelessness. At that time, when observing the self, although there is also lack of embarrassment, the function of observing the self is weaker. There is also a situation where, when observing others, the function increases, so it is called lack of embarrassment. At that time, when observing others, although there is also shamelessness, the function of observing others is weaker. Also, the Nyaya says: 'Some say that committing sins alone is called shamelessness; if committing sins in a crowd, it is called lack of embarrassment.' Detailed explanations are as described there. The thirty-fourth volume of the Vibhasha also extensively explains these two differences, which cannot be fully described.

'The difference between shame and embarrassment up to what is called embarrassment.' Thus, explaining shame and embarrassment, the opposite of the above two explanations should be understood. The previous discussion was about shame and embarrassment; shamelessness and lack of embarrassment will be analyzed later. This refers to this passage.

'Having spoken of shamelessness up to excluding the previous three characteristics.' Below, the differences between love and respect are analyzed. Love refers to affection and joy, and its essence is faith. However, generally speaking, there are two types of love: one is tainted, which is greed; the other is untainted, which is faith. If we generally speak of faith, there are also two types: one is the aspect of acceptance, or it can be called belief, different names but the same meaning; the other is the aspect of desire and joy, or it can be called faith-joy, or faith-love, different names but the same meaning. Therefore, faith and love differ in breadth and narrowness, and can form four sentences: The first sentence, having faith but not love, refers to faith in the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya), the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya Satya).

。忍許苦．集有第一信故名有信。有漏之法非可愛樂。無第二信故名非愛　第二句有愛非信。謂諸染污愛。緣妻子等起染污愛。是有第一愛故名有愛。是染污故非信。

第三句有通訊．愛。謂緣滅道信。忍許滅．道有第一信故名有信。無漏之法是可愛樂。有第二信故名有愛。應知此中緣滅．道信。通攝兩種　第四句除前相。

有說信者至故愛非信者。敘不正義。此師意說。忍許．愛樂。既不同時。故愛非信。

敬謂敬重至緣滅道慚者。此別解敬．慚。慚寬。敬狹。但為兩句　第一句有慚非敬。謂緣苦．集慚緣彼苦．集善心起時有慚恥故。所以有慚。有漏之法非可尊重。所以無敬。故緣苦．集慚而非敬也　第二句有通慚．敬。謂緣滅．道慚。緣彼滅．道善心起時。有慚恥故有慚。無漏之法可尊重故有敬。故緣滅．道慚。即攝敬故也。

有說敬者至故敬非慚者。敘不正義。敬先．慚后。時既不同。敬非慚。正理第十一破此師云。彼師應許無慚恥者能起恭敬。以執先起敬時未有慚恥故。應無慚者能起恭敬。若謂敬時已有慚恥。則不應說由敬為先方生慚恥。若謂敬時非無慚恥。然敬非慚。此亦非理。言敬非慚無證因故　望所緣境至謂除前三相者。約所緣境辨愛．敬有無四句差別　第一句有愛無敬。于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：忍許苦（Dukkha，痛苦）、集（Samudaya，苦的根源）有第一信，所以稱為有信。有漏之法（Samskrta-dharma，受煩惱影響的法）並非可愛樂的，沒有第二信，所以稱為非愛。第二句是有愛非信，指各種染污的愛，緣于妻子等生起的染污愛。因為有第一愛，所以稱為有愛，因為是染污的，所以不是信。

第三句是有通訊、愛，指緣于滅（Nirodha，苦的止息）、道（Marga，達到止息苦的道路）的信。忍許滅、道有第一信，所以稱為有信。無漏之法（Asamskrta-dharma，不受煩惱影響的法）是可愛樂的，有第二信，所以稱為有愛。應當知道這裡緣于滅、道的信，通攝兩種。第四句是除去前面的相。

有人說信者至故愛非信者，這是敘述不正當的見解。這位師父的意思是說，忍許、愛樂既然不同時，所以愛不是信。

敬，指敬重，至緣滅道慚者，這是分別解釋敬、慚。慚的範圍寬，敬的範圍窄，但分為兩句。第一句是有慚非敬，指緣于苦、集生慚，緣于彼苦、集善心生起時，有慚恥的緣故，所以有慚。有漏之法並非可尊重的，所以沒有敬。所以緣于苦、集生慚而不是敬。第二句是有通慚、敬，指緣于滅、道生慚。緣于彼滅、道善心生起時，有慚恥的緣故有慚，無漏之法可尊重，所以有敬，所以緣于滅、道生慚，就包含敬的緣故。

有人說敬者至故敬非慚者，這是敘述不正當的見解。敬在前，慚在後，時間既然不同，敬不是慚。《正理》第十一品駁斥這位師父說，那位師父應該允許沒有慚恥的人能夠生起恭敬，因為執著先起敬時沒有慚恥的緣故，應該沒有慚的人能夠生起恭敬。如果說敬時已經有慚恥，就不應該說由敬為先生起慚恥。如果說敬時並非沒有慚恥，然而敬不是慚，這也是沒有道理的，說敬不是慚沒有證據的緣故。望所緣境至謂除前三相者，約所緣境辨別愛、敬有無的四句差別。第一句是有愛無敬，于

【English Translation】 English version: 'Enduring and accepting suffering (Dukkha) and the origin (Samudaya) have the first faith, therefore it is called 'having faith'. Conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma) are not lovely and desirable, and there is no second faith, therefore it is called 'not loving'. The second phrase is 'having love but not faith', referring to various defiled loves, the defiled love arising from attachment to wife and children, etc. Because there is the first love, it is called 'having love', and because it is defiled, it is not faith.

The third phrase is 'having both faith and love', referring to faith in cessation (Nirodha) and the path (Marga). Enduring and accepting cessation and the path have the first faith, therefore it is called 'having faith'. Unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta-dharma) are lovely and desirable, and there is a second faith, therefore it is called 'having love'. It should be known that the faith in cessation and the path here encompasses both. The fourth phrase is removing the previous characteristics.

Some say 'believing' to 'therefore love is not faith', which is narrating an incorrect view. This teacher means that since enduring and accepting and loving and desiring do not occur at the same time, therefore love is not faith.

'Reverence' refers to respect, to 'regarding cessation and the path, shame', this separately explains reverence and shame. Shame is broad, reverence is narrow, but it is divided into two phrases. The first phrase is 'having shame but not reverence', referring to shame arising from suffering and the origin, when good thoughts arise from suffering and the origin, there is shame, therefore there is shame. Conditioned dharmas are not respectable, therefore there is no reverence. Therefore, shame arises from suffering and the origin, but not reverence. The second phrase is 'having both shame and reverence', referring to shame arising from cessation and the path. When good thoughts arise from cessation and the path, there is shame, therefore there is shame. Unconditioned dharmas are respectable, therefore there is reverence. Therefore, shame arising from cessation and the path includes reverence.

Some say 'reverence' to 'therefore reverence is not shame', which is narrating an incorrect view. Reverence comes first, shame comes later, since the times are different, reverence is not shame. The eleventh chapter of the Nyaya Sutra refutes this teacher, saying that the teacher should allow those without shame to be able to generate respect, because they insist that there is no shame when respect first arises, so those without shame should be able to generate respect. If it is said that there is already shame when respect arises, then it should not be said that shame arises from respect first. If it is said that there is no lack of shame when respect arises, but reverence is not shame, this is also unreasonable, because there is no evidence for saying that reverence is not shame. 'Looking at the object' to 'referring to removing the previous three characteristics', distinguishing the four differences of having or not having love and reverence based on the object. The first phrase is 'having love but no reverence', regarding

妻．子等由貪染故有染污愛。非可尊重所以無敬　第二句有敬無愛。於他師等可尊重故有敬。非愿樂故無愛　第三句有愛有敬。于自師等可願樂故有愛。無染污愛可尊重故有敬　第四句無愛無敬。除前三相　補特迦羅此云數取趣。數數取諸趣也。總而言之通於五趣。

如是愛敬至無色界無者。約界分別。

豈不信慚至無色亦有者。難。愛以信為體。敬以慚為體。大善地法無色亦有。如何言無。

愛敬有二至無色界無者。答。若據緣法愛．敬實通三界。此中意說。緣補特迦羅故不通無色。以欲．色界有色身故。有尊．卑故。相貌顯故。可得相望有愛有敬。無色不爾。故在彼無。

問若通色界。何故婆沙二十九云。問如是愛．敬於何處有。答三界．五趣雖皆容有。而此中說殊勝愛．敬。唯在欲界人趣非余。唯佛法中有此愛．敬。準婆沙據別意說。唯在欲界。何故此論通色界耶　解云此論據顯故通色界。婆沙據殊勝故欲界。各據一義並不相違。

如是已說至心高無所顧者。此明後兩對。初一句明尋．伺第三對。下三句明慢．憍第四對。

論曰至細性名伺者。心之粗性名尋。心之細性名伺。於心所中各別有體。與心相應。非體即心。言心粗．細依主釋也。

云何此二一心相應者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本妻子、兒女等因為貪戀執著而產生染污的愛，因為不值得尊重所以沒有敬意。第二種情況是有敬無愛，對於其他的老師等，因為值得尊重所以有敬意，因為不是自己所期望的所以沒有愛。第三種情況是有愛有敬，對於自己的老師等，因為是自己所期望的所以有愛，因為沒有染污的愛所以值得尊重而有敬意。第四種情況是無愛無敬，排除以上三種情況。補特迦羅（Pudgala）：此詞意為『數取趣』，即一次又一次地在各個趣（輪迴的道途）中受生。總的來說，這個概念適用於五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）。像這樣，愛和敬直到無無（無色界沒有愛和敬）的情況，是從界（三界：欲界、色界、無色界）的角度來分別說明的。難道不是信和慚直到無色界也有嗎？』這是一個疑問。愛以信為本體，敬以慚為本體，大善地法（普遍存在於善心中的心理活動）在無色界也有，為什麼說沒有呢？愛和敬有二種情況直到無無（無色界沒有愛和敬）的情況。』回答：如果從所緣之法（愛和敬所緣的對象）來說，愛和敬實際上遍通三界。這裡的意思是說，因為所緣的是補特迦羅（Pudgala），所以不通無色界。因為欲界和有色身，所以有尊卑之分，相貌明顯，可以相互觀察，因此有愛有敬。無色界不是這樣，所以在那裡沒有愛和敬。問：如果遍通，為什麼《婆沙論》第二十九卷說：『問：像這樣的愛和敬在什麼地方有？答：三界、五趣雖然都可能存在，但這裡所說的殊勝的愛和敬，只在欲界的人趣，而不是其他地方。只有佛法中才有這種愛和敬。』按照《婆沙論》的說法，是根據特別的含義來說的，只在欲界。為什麼這部論典說遍通呢？解釋說：這部論典是根據顯而易見的情況來說的，所以遍通。《婆沙論》是根據殊勝的情況來說的，所以在欲界。各自根據一個含義來說，並不互相矛盾。像這樣已經說過的，直到內心高傲自大、無所顧忌的情況。』這是說明后兩種情況（慢和憍）。第一句說明尋和伺第三種情況。下面三句說明慢和憍第四種情況。論中說：『心的細微性質叫做伺。』心的粗略性質叫做尋，心的細微性質叫做伺。在心所法（心理活動）中，各自有獨立的自體，與心相應，但自體不是心本身。說心粗、細，是依主釋（一種語法結構）。為什麼這二者能一心相應呢？

【English Translation】 English version Wives, children, etc., have defiled love due to attachment and craving. Because they are not worthy of respect, there is no reverence. The second case is having reverence without love. Towards other teachers, etc., there is reverence because they are worthy of respect, but there is no love because they are not desired. The third case is having both love and reverence. Towards one's own teachers, etc., there is love because they are desired, and there is reverence because there is no defiled love and they are worthy of respect. The fourth case is having neither love nor reverence, excluding the previous three cases. Pudgala (補特迦羅): This term means 'number taker of destinies,' referring to repeatedly taking birth in various destinies (paths of rebirth). Generally speaking, this concept applies to the five destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods). Like this, the discussion of love and reverence extending to the absence of absence (no love and reverence in the Formless Realm) is explained from the perspective of the realms (the Three Realms: Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). Isn't it the case that faith and shame extend to the Formless Realm as well?' This is a question. Love has faith as its essence, and reverence has shame as its essence. Great wholesome mental factors (mental activities universally present in wholesome minds) also exist in the Formless Realm, so why say they don't? There are two cases of love and reverence extending to the absence of absence (no love and reverence in the Formless Realm).' Answer: If considering the objects of love and reverence, love and reverence actually pervade the Three Realms. The intention here is that because the object is a Pudgala (補特迦羅), it does not extend to the Formless Realm. Because the Desire Realm and have a physical body, there is a distinction between superior and inferior, appearances are clear, and they can be observed by each other, thus there is love and reverence. The Formless Realm is not like this, so there is no love and reverence there. Question: If it pervades , why does the 29th fascicle of the Vibhasa say: 'Question: Where do such love and reverence exist? Answer: Although they may exist in the Three Realms and Five Destinies, the superior love and reverence spoken of here only exist in the human destiny of the Desire Realm, and not elsewhere. Only in the Buddha-dharma is there such love and reverence.' According to the Vibhasa, it is based on a special meaning, only existing in the Desire Realm. Why does this treatise say it pervades ? Explanation: This treatise speaks from the perspective of what is obvious, so it pervades . The Vibhasa speaks from the perspective of what is superior, so it is in the Desire Realm. Each is based on one meaning, and they do not contradict each other. Like this, what has already been said extends to the case of being arrogant and self-important, with no regard for anything.' This explains the latter two cases (conceit and pride). The first sentence explains the third case of seeking and examining. The following three sentences explain the fourth case of arrogance and pride. The treatise says: 'The subtle nature of the mind is called examination (伺, sì).' The coarse nature of the mind is called seeking (尋, xún), and the subtle nature of the mind is called examination (伺, sì). In the mental factors (psychological activities), each has an independent entity, corresponding to the mind, but the entity is not the mind itself. Saying the mind is coarse or subtle is a possessive compound (a type of grammatical structure). Why can these two be in accordance with one mind?

論主難。尋粗。伺細。性相違故。云何此二一心相應。經部不許尋．伺二法一心相應。論主意朋經部故為此難。

有作是釋至俱有作用者。此下毗婆沙師總有兩釋。此即初師。蘇由水故非釋。蘇由日故非凝。水是凝因。日是釋因。如是一心由有尋故不過細。由有伺故不過粗。尋是粗因。伺是細因。故於一心俱有作用。何理相違。

若爾尋伺至體非凝釋者。論主約喻難。如水是凝因。日是釋因。體非凝．釋。亦應尋是粗因。伺是細因。非粗．細體。

又粗細性至以別尋伺者。論主又難。夫粗．細性相待而立。或約三界。或約九地。或約九品。差別不同。上．下相形下地名粗。上地名細。乃至有頂望下地為細。望滅定為粗。應有尋．伺　又解粗名為上。細名為下。即粗．細相形乃至有頂應有尋．伺。論主敘經部計為難。故婆沙五十二云。或有執從欲界乃至有頂皆有尋．伺。如譬喻者。(已上論文)。又諸法中粗．細二性無別體類。不可依之以別尋．伺二種差別。如受領納所顯。想取像所顯。諸心所法皆有別相。此粗．細性總通五蘊。故不可依以別尋．伺。

復有釋言至於理何違者。此即第二毗婆沙師釋。行之言因。尋．伺二種是語言因。能發語言故。因中有二。粗者名尋。細者名伺。於一心中粗

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：論主提出疑問：尋找粗略的（尋，Vitarka），伺察精細的（伺，Vicara），二者性質相違背，為何能在同一心中相應存在？經部（Sautrantika）不認可尋和伺這兩種心所法在同一心中同時存在。論主意在支援經部的觀點，因此提出這個疑問。

有人這樣解釋（至俱有作用者）：接下來，毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）總共有兩種解釋。這是第一種解釋。就像水因為寒冷而凝結，太陽因為光照而融化，水是凝結的原因，太陽是融化的原因。同樣，一心因為有尋，所以不會過於精細；因為有伺，所以不會過於粗略。尋是粗略的原因，伺是精細的原因。因此，在同一心中，尋和伺同時發揮作用，這在道理上有什麼相違背的呢？

若爾尋伺（至體非凝釋者）：論主用比喻來反駁。如果像水是凝結的原因，太陽是融化的原因，但水和太陽的本體並非凝結或融化。那麼，尋是粗略的原因，伺是精細的原因，尋和伺的本體也應該不是粗略或精細。

又粗細性（至以別尋伺者）：論主再次提出疑問。粗略和精細的性質是相對而存在的，可以從三界（Trailokya）、九地（Navabhumi），或者九品（Nine stages of meditation）的角度來區分，差別各不相同。以上下相互比較，下地稱為粗略，上地稱為精細。乃至有頂天（Bhavagra）相對於下地是精細的，相對於滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti）是粗略的。那麼，是否應該在所有這些境界中都有尋和伺呢？又有人解釋說，粗略是指向上，精細是指向下，即粗略和精細是相對而言的，乃至有頂天都應該有尋和伺。論主敘述經部的觀點來提出疑問。所以《大毗婆沙論》第五十二卷說：『或者有人認為從欲界（Kama-dhatu）乃至有頂天都有尋和伺，例如譬喻者（Drshtantika）。』（以上是論文內容）。而且，在諸法（Dharma）中，粗略和精細這兩種性質沒有獨立的實體，不能依靠它們來區分尋和伺這兩種差別。就像受（Vedana）以領納為特徵，想（Samjna）以取像為特徵，各種心所法（Caitasikas）都有各自不同的特徵。而粗略和精細這兩種性質普遍存在於五蘊（Panca-skandha）之中，因此不能依靠它們來區分尋和伺。

復有釋言（至於理何違者）：這是第二位毗婆沙師的解釋。行，指的是原因。尋和伺這兩種是語言的原因，因為它們能夠引發語言。在原因中有兩種，粗略的稱為尋，精細的稱為伺。在同一心中，粗略

【English Translation】 English version: The objector asks: 'Vitarka (尋, gross investigation) seeks the coarse, and Vicara (伺, subtle investigation) examines the fine. Since their natures are contradictory, how can these two exist simultaneously in one mind?' The Sautrantika (經部) school does not allow the two mental factors of Vitarka and Vicara to exist simultaneously in one mind. The objector intends to support the Sautrantika view, hence this question.

Some explain (up to 'both have functions'): Following this, the Vaibhashika (毗婆沙師) masters offer two explanations in total. This is the first explanation. Just as water solidifies due to cold and melts due to the sun, water is the cause of solidification, and the sun is the cause of melting. Similarly, a mind with Vitarka is not overly subtle, and a mind with Vicara is not overly coarse. Vitarka is the cause of coarseness, and Vicara is the cause of fineness. Therefore, in one mind, both have functions. What contradiction is there in principle?

If so, Vitarka and Vicara (up to 'the entities are neither solidification nor melting'): The objector refutes using an analogy. If water is the cause of solidification and the sun is the cause of melting, but the entities of water and the sun are neither solidification nor melting, then Vitarka should be the cause of coarseness, and Vicara should be the cause of fineness, but the entities of Vitarka and Vicara should not be coarse or fine.

Furthermore, the nature of coarse and fine (up to 'to distinguish Vitarka and Vicara'): The objector asks again. The natures of coarse and fine are established relative to each other, and can be distinguished from the perspective of the three realms (Trailokya), the nine grounds (Navabhumi), or the nine stages of meditation (Nine stages of meditation), with different distinctions. Comparing above and below, the lower ground is called coarse, and the upper ground is called fine. Even Bhavagra (有頂天) is fine relative to the lower grounds and coarse relative to Nirodha-samapatti (滅盡定). So, should Vitarka and Vicara exist in all these realms? Some also explain that coarse means upward and fine means downward, that is, coarse and fine are relative, and even Bhavagra should have Vitarka and Vicara. The objector narrates the Sautrantika's view to raise the question. Therefore, the fifty-second volume of the Maha-Vibhasha-Shastra says: 'Or some hold that from the Kama-dhatu (欲界) up to Bhavagra, there are both Vitarka and Vicara, such as the Drshtantikas (譬喻者).' (The above is the content of the treatise). Moreover, among all dharmas (Dharma), the two natures of coarse and fine do not have independent entities, and one cannot rely on them to distinguish the two differences of Vitarka and Vicara. Just as Vedana (受) is characterized by reception, and Samjna (想) is characterized by image-taking, all mental factors (Caitasikas) have their own distinct characteristics. However, the two natures of coarse and fine are universally present in the five skandhas (Panca-skandha), so one cannot rely on them to distinguish Vitarka and Vicara.

Another explanation says (up to 'what contradiction is there in principle?'): This is the explanation of the second Vaibhashika master. 'Action' refers to cause. The two, Vitarka and Vicara, are the cause of language, because they can initiate language. Among the causes, there are two: the coarse one is called Vitarka, and the fine one is called Vicara. In one mind, the coarse

．細俱起。何理相違。

若有別體類至別相云何者。論主復難。於心所中。若有粗．細二別體類以別尋．伺。理實無違。然無粗．細二別體類。故成違理。上名為粗。下名為細。下準此釋。同一心體類中無容粗．細俱時起故　又解同一性體類心．心所中無容細．粗俱時起故。汝毗婆沙師若言尋．伺體類亦有差別。應說體類別相云何。

此二體類至顯其別相者。毗婆沙師答。尋．伺體類別相難說。但由上粗下細顯其別相。

非由上下至一心相應者。論主復難。非由粗．細能顯尋．伺別相。心．心所法一一類中。據相待對皆有粗．細。既無別相以簡尋．伺。由是應知。尋．伺二法定不可執一心相應。

若爾云何至具足五支者。毗婆沙師引經反難。若不許彼尋．伺二法一心相應。云何契經說初靜慮具足尋．伺喜．樂．及定五支。

具五支言至故無有過者。論主通經。具足五支言。就於一地前後而說。非一剎那。故無有過。論主意朋經部。故順彼解此中絕救。

如是已說至無所顧性者。明第四對。慢謂對他稱量德類。心自舉恃凌蔑於他。此中亦應言稱量種姓等。略而不論　憍謂染著種姓．色等自法為先。令心傲逸于諸善法無所顧性。故婆沙四十三云。此中憍者謂不方他。但自染著種姓．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：粗細同時生起，在道理上有什麼相違背的呢？如果存在不同本體類別，那麼它們之間的差別相狀又是什麼呢？論主再次發難：在心所法中，如果存在粗和細兩種不同的本體類別，用以區分尋（vitarka，粗略的觀察）和伺（vicara，細緻的觀察），那麼在道理上確實沒有衝突。但是，實際上並不存在粗和細兩種不同的本體類別，因此就構成了違背道理。上面稱為粗，下面稱為細，下面的解釋也依此為準。在同一個心體類別中，不可能同時生起粗和細。另一種解釋是，在同一性體類別的心和心所中，不可能同時生起細和粗。你們毗婆沙師如果說尋和伺的本體類別也有差別，就應該說明本體類別的差別相狀是什麼。這兩種本體類別之間的差別相狀是什麼呢？毗婆沙師回答：尋和伺的本體類別之間的差別相狀難以說明，只能通過上面是粗，下面是細來顯示它們的差別相狀。論主再次發難：不能通過粗和細來顯示尋和伺的差別相狀。在每一個心和心所的類別中，根據相互對待的情況，都存在粗和細。既然沒有其他差別相狀來區分尋和伺，由此應該知道，尋和伺這兩種法，絕對不能執著為在一個心中同時相應存在。毗婆沙師引用經文反駁：如果你們不承認尋和伺這兩種法在一個心中同時相應存在，那麼為什麼契經中說初禪具足尋、伺、喜（priti，喜悅）、樂（sukha，快樂）以及定（samadhi，禪定）這五支？論主解釋經文：『具足五支』的說法，是就一個地（bhumi，層次）的前後相續而言說的，而不是指一個剎那（ksana，極短的時間）。因此，並沒有過失。論主的意思是傾向於經部（Sautrantika），所以順應他們的解釋，在這裡斷絕了爭論。像這樣已經說了尋和伺的差別，下面說明第四對。慢（mana，傲慢）是指對他人的德行和類別進行衡量，內心自我抬高，輕視他人。這裡也應該說衡量種姓等等，只是省略而不論述。憍（mada，驕傲）是指以染著于種姓、容貌等自身的優點為前提，使內心傲慢放逸，對於各種善法毫無顧忌。所以《婆沙論》第四十三卷說，這裡的憍是指不顧及他人，只是自我染著于種姓等等。

【English Translation】 English version: If subtle and coarse arise simultaneously, what principle does it contradict? If there are distinct entities, what are their distinct characteristics? The master debater challenges again: If, within mental factors (citta-caitta), there are two distinct entities, coarse and subtle, to differentiate between vitarka (initial application of thought, gross observation) and vicara (sustained application of thought, subtle observation), then there is indeed no contradiction in principle. However, there are actually no two distinct entities, coarse and subtle, thus creating a contradiction in principle. The former is called coarse, and the latter is called subtle; the following explanations follow this standard. Within the same entity category of mind, it is impossible for coarse and subtle to arise simultaneously. Another explanation is that within the same entity category of mind and mental factors, it is impossible for subtle and coarse to arise simultaneously. If you, the Vaibhashika masters, say that the entity categories of vitarka and vicara are also different, you should explain what the distinct characteristics of these entity categories are. What are the distinct characteristics of these two entity categories? The Vaibhashika master replies: The distinct characteristics of the entity categories of vitarka and vicara are difficult to explain; they can only be distinguished by the fact that the former is coarse and the latter is subtle. The master debater challenges again: The distinct characteristics of vitarka and vicara cannot be shown by coarse and subtle. In each category of mind and mental factors, there are coarse and subtle aspects according to relative comparison. Since there are no other distinct characteristics to differentiate vitarka and vicara, it should be known that these two dharmas, vitarka and vicara, absolutely cannot be held to be simultaneously present in one mind. The Vaibhashika master cites a sutra to counter: If you do not admit that these two dharmas, vitarka and vicara, are simultaneously present in one mind, then why does the sutra say that the first dhyana (jhana, meditative state) is complete with five factors: vitarka, vicara, priti (joy), sukha (happiness), and samadhi (concentration)? The master debater explains the sutra: The statement 'complete with five factors' refers to the sequential occurrence within one bhumi (level), not in one ksana (instant). Therefore, there is no fault. The master debater's intention is to favor the Sautrantika school, so he follows their explanation and cuts off the debate here. Having thus explained the difference between vitarka and vicara, the fourth pair is now explained. Mana (pride) refers to measuring the virtues and qualities of others, elevating oneself, and looking down on others. Here, it should also be said to measure lineage, etc., but it is omitted. Mada (arrogance) refers to taking one's own merits, such as lineage and appearance, as a prerequisite, causing the mind to be arrogant and unrestrained, and having no regard for various good dharmas. Therefore, the forty-third volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says that mada here refers to disregarding others and only being attached to one's own lineage, etc.

色．力．財．位．智等心傲逸相。此中慢者。謂方於他種姓．色．力．財．位．智等自舉恃相　問慢皆方他以不　答方他之言從多分說。故婆沙云。評曰應作是說。非一切慢要方他起。無始時來數習力故。依自相續慢亦現行(解云慢．過慢．慢過慢．卑慢。此四方他。我慢．增上慢．邪慢依自相續起)　有餘師說至差別之相者。敘余師釋憍。如因酒生欣舉之差別。說名為醉。憍是貪等流果。如是因貪生欣舉之差別。說名為憍。欣舉名寬。憍名即狹。此憍是欣舉之差別也。

如是已說至名義差別者。此下大文第四明眾名別　如是已說諸心．心所五地法等品類不同。三性心品俱生定量。四對心所異相差別　然心．心所下。問起　言名想者。或從果為名。或從因立稱。故言名想。

頌曰至相應義有五者。上一句別明心異名。下三句通明心．心所異名。

論曰至故名識者。此訓釋異名。梵名質多。此云心。是集起義。謂由心力集起心所及事業等。故經云心能導世間。心能遍攝受。故能集起說名為心。梵云末那。此云意。是思量義。梵云毗若南。此云識。是了別義也。

復有釋言至故名為識者。第二說一切有部解。界之言性。凈．不凈性種種差別。行相不同故名為心。即以種種釋心義也。即此心為他作

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於色（Rūpa，外貌）、力（Bala，力量）、財（Dhana，財富）、位（Āsana，地位）、智（Jñāna，智慧）等產生傲慢自滿的心態，就稱為『慢』。這裡的『慢』，是指在種姓、外貌、力量、財富、地位、智慧等方面，與他人比較時，自我抬高、自以為是的心理狀態。問：所有的『慢』都是通過與他人比較產生的嗎？答：說『與他人比較』，是從大多數情況來說的。所以《婆沙論》中說：『評論說，應該這樣說，不是所有的『慢』都要通過與他人比較才會產生。因為無始以來長期串習的力量，即使依賴於自身的相續，『慢』也會顯現。』（解釋說，『慢』、『過慢』、『慢過慢』、『卑慢』，這四種是與他人比較產生的。『我慢』、『增上慢』、『邪慢』是依賴於自身的相續產生的。）還有其他論師解釋『憍』的差別相，比如因飲酒而產生的欣快、飄飄然的狀態，稱為『醉』。『憍』是貪的等流果。像這樣，因為貪而產生欣快、飄飄然的差別，就稱為『憍』。『欣快』是廣義的，『憍』是狹義的。這個『憍』就是『欣快』的一種差別。

像這樣已經說了（五位百法中的前九十四法），下面是第四個大段，說明各種名稱的差別。像這樣已經說了諸心、心所、五地法等品類的不同，三性心品俱生定量的關係，四對心所異相的差別。然而，心、心所……下面提出疑問。說『名想』，或者從結果來命名，或者從原因來立稱，所以說是『名想』。

頌曰：異名相應義有五。上一句單獨說明心的不同名稱，下面三句共同說明心、心所的不同名稱。

論曰：故名為識。這裡訓釋不同的名稱。梵文是Citta（質多），這裡翻譯為『心』，是『集起』的意思。意思是說，由於心的力量，集起心所和事業等。所以經中說，『心能引導世間，心能普遍攝受』，所以能夠集起，稱為『心』。梵文是Manas（末那），這裡翻譯為『意』，是『思量』的意思。梵文是Vijñāna（毗若南），這裡翻譯為『識』，是『了別』的意思。

還有一種解釋說……所以稱為『識』。第二種說法是一切有部的解釋。『界』的意思是『性質』。清凈、不清凈性質種種差別，行相不同，所以稱為『心』。這就是用種種方式來解釋『心』的含義。即此心為他所作……

【English Translation】 English version: The state of mind that arises from arrogance and self-satisfaction regarding Rūpa (form/appearance), Bala (strength), Dhana (wealth), Āsana (position/status), Jñāna (wisdom), etc., is called 'Māna' (pride/conceit). Here, 'Māna' refers to the psychological state of elevating oneself and being self-righteous when comparing oneself to others in terms of caste, appearance, strength, wealth, status, wisdom, etc. Question: Does all 'Māna' arise through comparison with others? Answer: Saying 'comparison with others' is from the perspective of the majority of cases. Therefore, the Vibhasa states: 'The commentary says, it should be said this way, not all 'Māna' necessarily arises through comparison with others. Because of the power of habitual practice from beginningless time, even relying on one's own continuum, 'Māna' can manifest.' (Explanation: 'Māna', 'Atimāna' (excessive pride), 'Mānātimāna' (pride beyond pride), 'Omanā' (false pride), these four arise through comparison with others. 'Asmimāna' (I-pride), 'Adhimāna' (superiority pride), 'Mithyāmāna' (wrong pride) arise relying on one's own continuum.) There are other teachers who explain the distinguishing characteristics of 'Mada' (intoxication/vanity), such as the joyful and elated state produced by drinking alcohol, which is called 'drunkenness'. 'Mada' is the is a result of greed. In this way, the distinction of joy and elation arising from greed is called 'Mada'. 'Joy' is broad, 'Mada' is narrow. This 'Mada' is a distinction of 'joy'.

Having spoken thus (the first ninety-four dharmas of the five categories of the hundred dharmas), below is the fourth major section, explaining the differences in various names. Having spoken thus about the differences in the categories of the various minds, mental factors, and the dharmas of the five grounds, the relationship of the co-arising and fixed quantity of the three natures of mind, and the differences in the characteristics of the four pairs of mental factors. However, mind, mental factors... below a question is raised. Saying 'name-thought' is either naming from the result or establishing a designation from the cause, therefore it is called 'name-thought'.

Verse: Different names correspond to five meanings. The previous line separately explains the different names of the mind, and the following three lines jointly explain the different names of the mind and mental factors.

Treatise: Therefore, it is called 'Vijñāna'. Here, different names are explained. The Sanskrit name is Citta, which is translated here as 'mind', meaning 'accumulation and arising'. It means that due to the power of the mind, mental factors and activities, etc., are accumulated and arise. Therefore, the sutra says, 'The mind can guide the world, the mind can universally embrace', so it can accumulate and arise, and is called 'mind'. The Sanskrit name is Manas, which is translated here as 'intellect', meaning 'thinking'. The Sanskrit name is Vijñāna, which is translated here as 'consciousness', meaning 'discernment'.

There is another explanation... therefore it is called 'Vijñāna'. The second explanation is the explanation of the Sarvastivada school. 'Realm' means 'nature'. The various differences in pure and impure natures, and the different characteristics, are called 'mind'. This is to explain the meaning of 'mind' in various ways. That is, this mind is made by others...

所依止。故名為意。即以所依釋意義也。以作能依止故名為識。即以能依釋識義也。

故心意識至而體是一者。結文可知。又婆沙七十二解心．意．識云。或有說者無有差別。復有說者謂名即差別。複次世亦有差別。謂過去名意。未來名心。現在名識故。複次施設亦有差別。謂界中施設心。處中施設意。蘊中施設識故。複次義亦有差別。謂心是種族義。意是生門義。識是積聚義。複次業亦有差別。謂遠行是心業。前行是意業。續生是識業(更有三複次釋業。不能具述)。

如心意識至等和合故者。心．心所法有四異名　一名有所依。必托依根故　二名有所緣。必杖境起故　三名有行相。即于所緣一切諸法。品類差別種種不同。心．心所法。隨緣何法等起行相故。名有行相。謂心．心所法其體明凈。隨對何境。法爾前境皆悉現於心．心所上。此所現者名為行相。即由此現帶境義邊。似前境邊說為能緣。然此行相無有別體。不離心等。即心等攝非是所緣。猶如明鏡對眾色相皆現鏡面。此所現像而非所照。然約像現說鏡能照此亦應然言行相者。謂有境界像貌故名行相　又解有所行境家相故名行相　又解遷流名行。心等上現名相。即行名相故名行相　又解行謂行解如了別等。相謂相貌如影像等。行家相故名為行相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所依止，所以叫做意（Manas，意）。這就是用所依來解釋意的意義。因為作為能依止，所以叫做識（Vijnana，識）。這就是用能依來解釋識的意義。

所以說心（Citta，心）、意、識，它們的體性是一樣的。總結上下文就可以知道。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第七十二卷解釋心、意、識說：『或者有人說沒有差別。』又有人說：『名稱就是差別。』其次，世俗上也有差別，過去叫做意，未來叫做心，現在叫做識。所以說有差別。再次，施設上也有差別，在界中施設心，在處中施設意，在蘊中施設識。所以說有差別。再次，意義上也有差別，心是種族義，意是生門義，識是積聚義。再次，作用上也有差別，遠行是心的作用，前行是意的作用，續生是識的作用（還有三種解釋作用，不能全部敘述）。』

如心、意、識等和合的緣故。心、心所法有四個不同的名稱：一是『有所依』，必定依託于根（感覺器官）的緣故；二是『有所緣』，必定憑藉境界生起的緣故；三是『有行相』，對於所緣的一切諸法，品類差別種種不同。心、心所法，隨著所緣的什麼法而等起行相的緣故，叫做『有行相』。意思是說，心、心所法的體性明凈，隨著面對什麼境界，自然而然地，前面的境界都顯現在心、心所上。這所顯現的叫做行相。就是由此顯現的帶有境界意義的一面，類似於前面的境界，所以說成是能緣。然而這行相沒有別的自體，不離開心等，被心等所包含，不是所緣。就像明鏡對著各種色相，都顯現在鏡面上，這所顯現的影像，而不是所照的。然而根據影像的顯現，說鏡子能照，這裡也應該這樣說。所謂行相，就是說有境界的像貌，所以叫做行相。又解釋為有所行境的家相，所以叫做行相。又解釋為遷流叫做行，在心等上顯現叫做相，就是行和相，所以叫做行相。又解釋為行是指行解，如了別等；相是指相貌，如影像等。行家相，所以叫做行相。

【English Translation】 English version: That which is relied upon, is called Manas (意). That is, the meaning of Manas is explained by that which is relied upon. Because it acts as that which can be relied upon, it is called Vijnana (識). That is, the meaning of Vijnana is explained by that which can rely.

Therefore, it is said that Citta (心), Manas, and Vijnana are of the same nature. This can be understood by summarizing the context. Furthermore, the seventy-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra explains Citta, Manas, and Vijnana by saying: 'Or some say there is no difference.' Others say: 'The name is the difference.' Secondly, there is also a difference in common usage: the past is called Manas, the future is called Citta, and the present is called Vijnana. Therefore, it is said there is a difference. Again, there is also a difference in designation: Citta is designated in the realm, Manas is designated in the place, and Vijnana is designated in the aggregate. Therefore, it is said there is a difference. Again, there is also a difference in meaning: Citta is the meaning of lineage, Manas is the meaning of the gate of birth, and Vijnana is the meaning of accumulation. Again, there is also a difference in function: traveling far is the function of Citta, going forward is the function of Manas, and continuing birth is the function of Vijnana (there are three more explanations of function, which cannot all be described).'

Like Citta, Manas, Vijnana, etc., coming together. Citta and mental functions (Caitasikas) have four different names: First, 'that which has a basis', because it must rely on the roots (sense organs); second, 'that which has an object', because it must rely on a condition to arise; third, 'that which has an appearance', with respect to all dharmas that are objects, the categories and differences are various and different. Citta and mental functions, depending on what dharma they are conditioned by, arise with an appearance, therefore it is called 'that which has an appearance'. It means that the nature of Citta and mental functions is clear and pure, and whatever object they face, naturally, the preceding object appears on Citta and mental functions. That which appears is called the appearance. That is, this aspect that appears with the meaning of bearing the object, is similar to the preceding object, so it is said to be the able-to-apprehend. However, this appearance has no separate substance, it does not leave Citta, etc., it is included in Citta, etc., and is not the object. Just like a clear mirror reflects all kinds of colors on its surface, the reflected image is not what is being illuminated. However, based on the appearance of the image, it is said that the mirror can illuminate, and it should be said in the same way here. The so-called appearance means that there is the appearance of a realm, so it is called appearance. It is also explained as the family appearance of the object being acted upon, so it is called appearance. It is also explained that flowing is called action, and appearing on Citta, etc., is called appearance, that is, action and appearance, so it is called appearance. It is also explained that action refers to the action of understanding, such as discernment, etc.; appearance refers to the appearance, such as images, etc. The family appearance of action, so it is called appearance.

。釋此行相廣如前釋　四名相應。等和合故。

依何義故名等和合者。問。既以等和合釋彼相應。依何義故名等和合。

有五義故至各各亦爾者。答。謂心．心所。五義平等相似故說相應　一所依平等。謂必同所依根。意識．及相應法有一種依。謂無間滅意根。五識．及相應法各有二依。一同時依止根。二無間滅意根。隨應皆是所依平等。此文欲攝二種所依故。不別言同一所依。諸論中說心．心所法同一依者。且據別依。故說六識．及相應法各同一依　又解所依平等。此顯六識．及相應法各同一依。故解相應因中雲。此中同言顯所依一。雖復五識亦依意根。此文且據同時依說　二所緣平等。謂必同所緣境。于所緣中或時緣一。或復緣多。隨應皆是所緣平等。諸論中說心．心所法同一緣者。且據別緣一法說也。若不爾者．如無我觀除自相應．俱有通緣一切。此豈同一所緣　又解所緣平等。此顯六識．及相應法各同一緣。故諸論中說心．心所法同一所緣。雖復亦有緣多境者。此文且據緣一境說　三行相平等。心．心所法。其體明凈隨緣何境各起行相。或緣一法各一行相。或緣多法各多行相。若一。若多。行相皆各別。隨應皆是行相平等。以多現時各有多相故不言同一行相。諸論中說心．心所法同一行相者。且

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：解釋這種行相，如同前面解釋的一樣廣泛。四種名稱是相應的，因為它們是平等的和合。

問：依據什麼意義而稱為『等和合』呢？既然用『等和合』來解釋『相應』，那麼依據什麼意義而稱為『等和合』呢？

答：因為有五種意義。（心和心所）五種意義是平等相似的，所以說是相應：一、所依平等。意思是必定是相同的所依根。意識以及相應的法有一種所依，即無間滅意根。五識以及相應的法各有兩種所依：一是同時依止的根，二是無間滅意根。根據情況，都是所依平等。這段文字想要包括兩種所依，所以沒有特別說『同一所依』。各種論典中說心和心所法同一所依的，只是就個別的所依而言。所以說六識以及相應的法各自同一所依。另一種解釋是所依平等，這顯示六識以及相應的法各自同一所依。所以在解釋相應的原因時說：『這裡面的『同』字顯示所依是一。』即使五識也依賴意根，這段文字只是就同時依止而言。二、所緣平等。意思是必定是相同的所緣境。在所緣中，有時緣一個，有時緣多個。根據情況，都是所緣平等。各種論典中說心和心所法同一所緣的，只是就個別緣一個法而言。如果不是這樣，比如無我觀除了自身相應，普遍緣一切。這怎麼能說是同一所緣呢？另一種解釋是所緣平等，這顯示六識以及相應的法各自同一所緣。所以各種論典中說心和心所法同一所緣。即使也有緣多個境的情況，這段文字只是就緣一個境而言。三、行相平等。心和心所法，其體性明凈，隨著所緣的什麼境，各自生起行相。或者緣一個法，各自一個行相；或者緣多個法，各自多個行相。無論一個還是多個，行相都是各自不同的。根據情況，都是行相平等。因為多個現時各自有多個相，所以不說同一行相。各種論典中說心和心所法同一行相的，只是就……

【English Translation】 English version: Explaining this characteristic is as extensive as the previous explanation. The four names are corresponding because they are equally harmonized.

Question: Based on what meaning is it called 'equal harmonization'? Since 'equal harmonization' is used to explain 'correspondence', based on what meaning is it called 'equal harmonization'?

Answer: Because there are five meanings. (Mind and mental factors) The five meanings are equally similar, so they are said to be corresponding: 1. Equality of support (所依平等, suǒ yī píngděng). This means that they must have the same supporting root. Consciousness (意識, yìshí) and its corresponding dharmas have one support, which is the immediately preceding mind-root (無間滅意根, wú jiàn miè yì gēn). The five consciousnesses (五識, wǔshí) and their corresponding dharmas each have two supports: one is the root they simultaneously rely on, and the other is the immediately preceding mind-root. Depending on the situation, all are equal in support. This passage intends to include both types of support, so it does not specifically say 'same support'. Various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same support, but this is only in terms of individual support. Therefore, it is said that the six consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas each have the same support. Another explanation is the equality of support, which shows that the six consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas each have the same support. Therefore, in explaining the cause of correspondence, it is said: 'The word 'same' here shows that the support is one.' Even though the five consciousnesses also rely on the mind-root, this passage only refers to simultaneous reliance. 2. Equality of object (所緣平等, suǒ yuán píngděng). This means that they must have the same object. In the object, sometimes they cognize one, and sometimes they cognize many. Depending on the situation, all are equal in object. Various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same object, but this is only in terms of individually cognizing one dharma. If this were not the case, such as in the contemplation of no-self, apart from its own correspondence, it universally cognizes everything. How could this be said to be the same object? Another explanation is the equality of object, which shows that the six consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas each have the same object. Therefore, various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same object. Even though there are also cases of cognizing multiple objects, this passage only refers to cognizing one object. 3. Equality of characteristic (行相平等, xíng xiàng píngděng). Mind and mental factors, their nature is clear and pure, and depending on what object they cognize, each arises with a characteristic. Or, cognizing one dharma, each has one characteristic; or, cognizing multiple dharmas, each has multiple characteristics. Whether one or many, the characteristics are each different. Depending on the situation, all are equal in characteristic. Because multiple present moments each have multiple characteristics, it is not said to be the same characteristic. Various treatises say that mind and mental factors have the same characteristic, but this is only in terms of...

據緣一境相似義。理實皆別　又解行相平等。此顯心．心所法同緣一境。名同一行相。故諸論說心．心所法。同一行相。雖復行相各別不同。據相似同故。言同一行相。雖復亦有緣多境時多行相現。各互相望而不相似。此中且約緣一境說　四時平等。謂心．心所必定同一剎那時也。或同生．住．滅．及墮一世故。言時平等　五事平等。事之言體顯各體一故言事等。於一相應心．心所中。如心體一。諸心所法體亦各一。必無二體一時俱行。此約剎那同時體等。非言前．后異．品數等。應知此中所依．所緣．行相三種。如前已釋。時義可知故不別釋。事稍難知故偏明也　若依五事論。一複次釋相應義云複次同一時分．同一所依．同一行相．同一所緣．同一果．同一等流．同一異熟是相應義。

已說心心所至何者是耶者。此下大文第二明不相應行　就中。一總標名數。二別牒解釋。三諸門分別。此即第一總標名數。結前生下　問準前文勢。此中應但結心所法問不相應行。何故此中亦結心耶　解云辨心品俱生及異名中。兼明心故故亦結心。

頌曰至不相應行者　心不相應。簡異心所　行。謂行蘊。簡色．心．無為。非行蘊故　又解心不相應。簡行蘊中諸心所法。行謂行蘊。簡色．受．想．識．及與無為。非行蘊故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『據緣一境相似義。理實皆別』：這是說，雖然心和心所法（Citta-caitta dharmas）緣于同一個境，並且在行相上相似，但它們的本質實際上是不同的。『又解行相平等』：這顯示了心（Citta）和心所法在行相上的平等性。這意味著心和心所法共同緣於一個境，因此被稱為具有『同一行相』。所以，各種論典都說心和心所法具有『同一行相』。雖然它們的行相可能各自不同，但由於它們在相似性上是相同的，所以被稱為具有『同一行相』。雖然也可能出現緣于多個境時，呈現出多種行相的情況，但這些行相彼此之間並不相似。這裡只討論緣於一個境的情況。『四時平等』：指的是心和心所法必定在同一剎那（Kshana）時存在。或者說，它們同時生、住、滅，並且都屬於同一個時期，所以被稱為『時平等』。『五事平等』：『事』指的是實體，強調每個實體的獨一性，因此被稱為『事等』。在一個相應的心和心所法中，如同心只有一個實體一樣，每個心所法也只有一個實體。絕對不會有兩個實體同時存在。這裡指的是剎那間的實體平等，而不是指前後不同或品類數量的不同。應該明白，這裡所說的所依（Ashraya）、所緣（Alambana）、行相（Akara）這三種，如前文已經解釋過。時間的意義是顯而易見的，所以不再單獨解釋。『事』的意義稍微難以理解，所以特別加以說明。『若依五事論。一複次釋相應義云複次同一時分．同一所依．同一行相．同一所緣．同一果．同一等流．同一異熟是相應義。』：如果依據五事來討論，另一種解釋相應意義的方式是：在同一時間段、同一所依、同一行相、同一所緣、同一果、同一等流、同一異熟的情況下，才是相應的意義。

『已說心心所至何者是耶者』：以上已經說了心和心所法，那麼什麼是不相應行呢？此下大文第二明不相應行：以下是第二大部分，闡明不相應行（Citta-viprayukta-samskara）。就中。一總標名數。二別牒解釋。三諸門分別。此即第一總標名數。結前生下：其中分為三個部分：一、總標名稱和數量；二、分別解釋；三、從各個方面進行區分。這裡是第一部分，總標名稱和數量，總結前文，引出下文。問準前文勢。此中應但結心所法問不相應行。何故此中亦結心耶：問：按照前文的結構，這裡應該只總結心所法，然後提問不相應行。為什麼這裡也總結了心呢？解云辨心品俱生及異名中。兼明心故故亦結心：解釋說：因為在辨別心品的同時，也說明了心的俱生和異名，所以這裡也總結了心。

『頌曰至不相應行者』：偈頌說的是不相應行。心不相應。簡異心所：『心不相應』，是爲了區別於心所法。行。謂行蘊。簡色．心．無為。非行蘊故：『行』，指的是行蘊（Samskara-skandha），是爲了區別於色（Rupa）、心、無為法（Asamskrta）。因為它們不是行蘊。又解心不相應。簡行蘊中諸心所法。行謂行蘊。簡色．受．想．識．及與無為。非行蘊故：另一種解釋是，『心不相應』，是爲了區別於行蘊中的各種心所法。『行』，指的是行蘊，是爲了區別於色、受（Vedana）、想（Samjna）、識（Vijnana）以及無為法。因為它們不是行蘊。

【English Translation】 English version: 'According to the meaning of similarity in experiencing a single object, their natures are actually different': This means that although the mind (Citta) and mental factors (Citta-caitta dharmas) experience the same object and are similar in their aspects, their essences are actually different. 'Also, the explanation of equality in characteristics': This shows the equality of mind and mental factors in their characteristics. This means that the mind and mental factors jointly experience one object, so they are called having 'the same characteristic'. Therefore, various treatises say that the mind and mental factors have 'the same characteristic'. Although their characteristics may be different, they are called having 'the same characteristic' because they are the same in similarity. Although there may also be cases where multiple objects are experienced, and multiple characteristics appear, these characteristics are not similar to each other. Here, we only discuss the case of experiencing one object. 'Equality in the four times': This refers to the fact that the mind and mental factors must exist at the same moment (Kshana). Or, they arise, abide, and cease at the same time, and they all belong to the same period, so they are called 'equality in time'. 'Equality in the five entities': 'Entity' refers to substance, emphasizing the uniqueness of each substance, so it is called 'equality in entities'. In a corresponding mind and mental factors, just as the mind has only one substance, each mental factor also has only one substance. There will never be two substances existing at the same time. This refers to the equality of substances in a moment, not to the differences in before and after or in the number of categories. It should be understood that the three things mentioned here, the basis (Ashraya), the object (Alambana), and the characteristic (Akara), have been explained before. The meaning of time is obvious, so it will not be explained separately. The meaning of 'entity' is slightly difficult to understand, so it is specifically explained. 'If based on the theory of the five entities, another explanation of the meaning of correspondence is that correspondence means having the same time, the same basis, the same characteristic, the same object, the same result, the same outflow, and the same fruition.'

'Having spoken of the mind and mental factors, what are the non-associated formations?': Above, the mind and mental factors have been discussed, so what are the non-associated formations? The second major section below clarifies the non-associated formations (Citta-viprayukta-samskara): The following is the second major part, clarifying the non-associated formations. Among them: 1. General listing of names and numbers; 2. Separate explanations; 3. Distinctions from various aspects. This is the first part, the general listing of names and numbers, summarizing the previous and introducing the following: It is divided into three parts: 1. General listing of names and numbers; 2. Separate explanations; 3. Distinctions from various aspects. Here is the first part, the general listing of names and numbers, summarizing the previous and introducing the following. Question: According to the structure of the previous text, this should only summarize the mental factors and then ask about the non-associated formations. Why is the mind also summarized here?: Question: According to the structure of the previous text, this should only summarize the mental factors and then ask about the non-associated formations. Why is the mind also summarized here? Explanation: Because in distinguishing the categories of mind, the co-arising and different names of the mind are also explained, so the mind is also summarized here: Explanation: Because in distinguishing the categories of mind, the co-arising and different names of the mind are also explained, so the mind is also summarized here.

'The verse says regarding the non-associated formations': The verse speaks of the non-associated formations. 'Non-associated with the mind, distinguishing from mental factors': 'Non-associated with the mind' is to distinguish it from mental factors. 'Formation, referring to the formation aggregate, distinguishing from form, mind, and the unconditioned, because they are not the formation aggregate': 'Formation' refers to the formation aggregate (Samskara-skandha), to distinguish it from form (Rupa), mind, and the unconditioned (Asamskrta). Because they are not the formation aggregate. 'Another explanation is that non-associated with the mind distinguishes from the various mental factors in the formation aggregate. Formation refers to the formation aggregate, distinguishing from form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and the unconditioned, because they are not the formation aggregate': Another explanation is that 'non-associated with the mind' is to distinguish it from the various mental factors in the formation aggregate. 'Formation' refers to the formation aggregate, to distinguish it from form (Rupa), feeling (Vedana), perception (Samjna), consciousness (Vijnana), and the unconditioned. Because they are not the formation aggregate.

二定。謂無想定．滅盡定　相謂四相　等。謂等取句身．文身　類。謂流類即是得等　今案此論。心不相應行但有十四。若依正理加和合性。故正理十二云。等者等取句身．文身．及和合性。二論既說不同。無容並是。假興賓主問答研尋　俱舍師問云。此和合性如何證知。正理師解云。如破僧時舍和合性。明知別有　正理師問云。如我所立別有體性。汝不立者何法中收。俱舍師解云。此和合性眾同分攝　正理師難云。凡言同分必依法得。和合同分依何法得。俱舍師解云。依戒而得。謂受戒時得二同分。一和合同分。破僧時舍。二大戒同分。破僧不捨。以成戒故　正理師復難云。若依戒得。破僧之時戒既不捨。如何舍彼和合同分。俱舍師解云。諸法不定。何必因彼而得與彼同舍。如因十戒得勤策同分。受大戒時不捨十戒。而舍勤策同分。以得苾芻眾同分故　正理師復難云。誰言。受大戒時舍勤策同分。引不極成此中為喻。俱舍師復反詰言。若不捨者。即應一人亦名苾芻。亦名勤策。正理師解云。從強立稱偏名苾芻。以不捨勤策同分。如大戒身中。亦成十戒而名苾芻。俱舍師復引極成喻云。如因戒得持戒同分。遇犯戒緣雖不捨彼戒體。而舍持戒同分。此既極成不應違拒　俱舍師復反問彼正理師言。汝立和合性。復依何法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二定：指的是無想定和滅盡定。相：指的是四相。等：指的是等同包含句身、文身。類：指的是流類，也就是『得』等等。現在來分析此論。心不相應行法只有十四種。如果按照《正理》的說法，加上和合性，那麼《正理》第十二卷說：『等』指的是等同包含句身、文身以及和合性。這兩部論典的說法既然不同，就不能同時成立。現在假設賓主問答來研究探討。俱舍師問：『這個和合性如何證明得知？』正理師解釋說：『比如在破僧的時候，捨棄和合性，就明顯知道另外有和合性。』正理師問：『如果按照我所建立的，另外有體性，你不建立，那麼在什麼法中收攝？』俱舍師解釋說：『這個和合性屬於眾同分所攝。』正理師反駁說：『凡是說到同分，必定依法而得。和合同分依據什麼法而得？』俱舍師解釋說：『依據戒律而得。就是在受戒的時候，得到兩種同分：一是和合同分，破僧的時候捨棄；二是大戒同分，破僧的時候不捨棄，因為已經成就戒體。』正理師再次反駁說：『如果依據戒律而得，破僧的時候戒律既然不捨棄，如何捨棄那個和合同分？』俱舍師解釋說：『諸法是不定的。為什麼一定要因為那個因而得到，就和那個因一同捨棄呢？比如因為十戒得到勤策同分，受大戒的時候不捨棄十戒，而捨棄勤策同分，因為得到比丘眾同分。』正理師再次反駁說：『誰說受大戒的時候捨棄勤策同分？引用不極成的例子作為比喻。』俱舍師反過來詰問說：『如果不捨棄，那麼就應該一個人既名叫比丘，又名叫勤策。』正理師解釋說：『從強盛的方面建立名稱，偏重稱為比丘。因為不捨棄勤策同分，就像大戒身中，也成就十戒，而名稱為比丘。』俱舍師再次引用極成的比喻說：『比如因為戒律得到持戒同分，遇到犯戒的因緣，雖然不捨棄那個戒體，而捨棄持戒同分。這已經是極成的道理，不應該違背拒絕。』俱舍師反過來問正理師說：『你建立和合性，又依據什麼法？』

【English Translation】 English version The two Samādhis: referring to Asaṃjñā-samāpatti (無想定, Samadhi of Non-Perception) and Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, Samadhi of Cessation). Lakṣaṇa (相): referring to the four characteristics (四相). Etc. (等): referring to including sentence-body (句身), word-body (文身), etc. Category (類): referring to the stream-category, which is 'attainment' (得), etc. Now, let's analyze this treatise. The citta-viprayukta-saṃskāras (心不相應行, non-mind related formations) are only fourteen types. If according to the Nyāyānusāra (正理), adding the quality of harmony (和合性), then the twelfth fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Etc.' refers to including sentence-body, word-body, and the quality of harmony. Since the statements of these two treatises are different, they cannot both be established. Now, let's assume a host-guest question and answer to research and discuss. The Kośa master asks: 'How can this quality of harmony be proven and known?' The Nyāyānusāra master explains: 'For example, when breaking the Saṃgha (破僧), abandoning the quality of harmony, it is clear that there is another quality of harmony.' The Nyāyānusāra master asks: 'If according to what I have established, there is another entity, and you do not establish it, then in what dharma is it included?' The Kośa master explains: 'This quality of harmony is included in the commonality of the multitude (眾同分所攝).' The Nyāyānusāra master refutes: 'Whenever speaking of commonality, it must be attained according to the law. According to what law is the commonality of harmony attained?' The Kośa master explains: 'It is attained according to the precepts (戒律). That is, when receiving the precepts, two types of commonality are attained: one is the commonality of harmony, which is abandoned when breaking the Saṃgha; the other is the commonality of the great precepts, which is not abandoned when breaking the Saṃgha, because the precept body has already been accomplished.' The Nyāyānusāra master refutes again: 'If it is attained according to the precepts, since the precepts are not abandoned when breaking the Saṃgha, how is that commonality of harmony abandoned?' The Kośa master explains: 'All dharmas are impermanent. Why must it be that because of that cause it is attained, it is abandoned together with that cause? For example, because of the ten precepts, the śrāmaṇera (勤策) commonality is attained. When receiving the great precepts, the ten precepts are not abandoned, but the śrāmaṇera commonality is abandoned, because the bhikṣu (比丘) Saṃgha commonality is attained.' The Nyāyānusāra master refutes again: 'Who says that the śrāmaṇera commonality is abandoned when receiving the great precepts? Citing a non-established example as a metaphor.' The Kośa master retorts: 'If it is not abandoned, then one person should be called both bhikṣu and śrāmaṇera.' The Nyāyānusāra master explains: 'From the aspect of strength, the name bhikṣu is established, with emphasis on being called bhikṣu. Because the śrāmaṇera commonality is not abandoned, just like in the great precept body, the ten precepts are also accomplished, and the name is bhikṣu.' The Kośa master again cites an established metaphor: 'For example, because of the precepts, the commonality of upholding the precepts is attained. When encountering the cause of violating the precepts, although that precept body is not abandoned, the commonality of upholding the precepts is abandoned. This is already an established principle, and should not be violated or rejected.' The Kośa master asks the Nyāyānusāra master in return: 'You establish the quality of harmony, according to what dharma?'

得耶。正理師解云。我和合性依戒而得。俱舍師難云。破僧之時戒既不捨。如何舍彼和合性耶　正理師解云。如持戒同分受戒時得。后犯戒時非與持戒同舍。還同汝立和合同分。依戒而得。非與戒同舍　俱舍師復難云。破僧之時舍和合同分不。正理師答云舍　俱舍師復難云。若破僧時不捨和合同分。可使別舍和合性。破僧之時既舍和合同分。何須別舍和合性耶。由斯理證故知同分攝和合性。

其和合性異說不同。故須研究。和合同分。宗必許有。隨何和合法上即有和合同分。所以不別研尋　問破僧不和合即是非得攝。何妨僧和合以彼得為體　解云夫論其得必有所得。和合無別所得。故體非是得收　又解諸法不必皆相翻立。如以凡翻聖凡性是非得。不可以聖翻凡聖性唯得。然諸聖法皆名為聖性　若依品類足第一。十三同俱舍。不說非得。然別說有依得．事得．處得。彼論解云。依得云何。謂得所依處。事得云何。謂得諸蘊。處得云何。謂得內外處　又云。復有所餘如是類法與心不相應　法蘊足論第十同品類足論　若依雜心。十三同俱舍。不說非得。然說異生性。

問諸論不同如何會釋　解云。品類足說依．事．處得約法別說。應知即是得中攝也。不說非得即是復有所餘不相應攝。即是此論非得所收。雜心說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：是這樣嗎？正理師（Nyaya School philosopher）解釋說：『我和合性（harmony）是依靠戒律而獲得的。』俱舍師（Abhidharma School philosopher）反駁說：『破僧（Sangha schism）之時，戒律並沒有捨棄，如何捨棄那和合性呢？』正理師解釋說：『如同持戒同分（commonality of upholding precepts）在受戒時獲得，之後犯戒時，並非與持戒一同捨棄。還如同你們所立的和合同分（commonality of harmony），依靠戒律而獲得，並非與戒律一同捨棄。』俱舍師再次反駁說：『破僧之時，捨棄和合同分嗎？』正理師回答說：『捨棄。』俱舍師再次反駁說：『如果破僧時沒有捨棄和合同分，還可以使之單獨捨棄和合性。破僧之時既然捨棄了和合同分，何須另外舍棄和合性呢？』由此道理可以證明，和合性是由同分所攝持的。其和合性的不同說法很多，所以需要研究。和合同分，宗派必定承認有。無論什麼和合法上，就存在和合同分，所以不另外研究。問：破僧的不和合，就是非得（non-attainment）所攝持的嗎？為什麼僧眾的和合要以『得』（attainment）為體呢？解釋說：『凡是論及『得』，必定有所得。和合沒有另外的所得，所以它的體不是『得』所包含的。』又解釋說：『諸法不必都以相反的方式建立。例如以凡夫（ordinary being）來反襯聖人（sage），凡夫性是非得。不可以聖人來反襯凡夫，聖人性唯是得。然而諸聖法都名為聖性。』如果依據《品類足論》（Prakaranapada），第十三品與《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakosa）相同，沒有說非得。然而分別說了依得（dependent attainment）、事得（substantial attainment）、處得（locational attainment）。該論解釋說：『依得是什麼？就是獲得所依賴之處。事得是什麼？就是獲得諸蘊（skandhas）。處得是什麼？就是獲得內外處（internal and external bases）。』又說：『還有一些像這樣的法，與心不相應。』《法蘊足論》（Dharmaskandha）第十品與《品類足論》相同。如果依據《雜心論》（Samucchayabodhisattva-abhidharma-sastra），第十三品與《俱舍論》相同，沒有說非得。然而說了異生性（prthag-jana-tva）。問：各種論典說法不同，如何會通解釋呢？解釋說：《品類足論》說依得、事得、處得，是就法的類別分別來說的，應當知道就是『得』中所包含的。不說非得，就是『還有一些不相應的法』所包含的，也就是此論所說的非得所收。《雜心論》說。

【English Translation】 English version Question: Is that so? The Nyaya School philosopher explains: 'Harmony (samghata) is attained by relying on precepts (sila).' The Abhidharma School philosopher refutes: 'When the Sangha schism (sanghabheda) occurs, the precepts are not abandoned, so how is that harmony abandoned?' The Nyaya School philosopher explains: 'It is like the commonality of upholding precepts (silasamanya) is attained at the time of receiving precepts, and later, when precepts are violated, it is not abandoned together with upholding precepts. It is still like the commonality of harmony (samghatasamanya) that you establish, which is attained by relying on precepts, and is not abandoned together with precepts.' The Abhidharma School philosopher refutes again: 'At the time of Sangha schism, is the commonality of harmony abandoned?' The Nyaya School philosopher answers: 'Abandoned.' The Abhidharma School philosopher refutes again: 'If the commonality of harmony is not abandoned at the time of Sangha schism, it can be made to abandon harmony separately. Since the commonality of harmony is abandoned at the time of Sangha schism, why is it necessary to abandon harmony separately?' From this reasoning, it can be proven that harmony is encompassed by commonality. There are many different views on the nature of harmony, so it needs to be studied. The commonality of harmony, the school must admit exists. On whatever harmonious dharma, there exists the commonality of harmony, so it is not studied separately. Question: Is the non-harmony of Sangha schism encompassed by non-attainment (aprapti)? Why is the harmony of the Sangha considered to have 'attainment' (prapti) as its essence? Explanation: 'Whenever 'attainment' is discussed, there must be something attained. Harmony has no separate attainment, so its essence is not included in 'attainment'.' Another explanation: 'Dharmas do not necessarily all establish themselves in opposite ways. For example, using an ordinary being (prthagjana) to contrast a sage (arya), the nature of an ordinary being is non-attainment. One cannot use a sage to contrast an ordinary being, the nature of a sage is only attainment. However, all noble dharmas are called noble nature.' If according to the Prakaranapada (Treatise on Categories), the thirteenth chapter is the same as the Abhidharmakosa (Treasury of Abhidharma), it does not mention non-attainment. However, it separately mentions dependent attainment (asraya-prapti), substantial attainment (dravya-prapti), and locational attainment (ayatana-prapti). That treatise explains: 'What is dependent attainment? It is the place where attainment depends. What is substantial attainment? It is the attainment of the skandhas (aggregates). What is locational attainment? It is the attainment of internal and external bases (ayatana).' It also says: 'There are also some dharmas like these that are not associated with the mind.' The tenth chapter of the Dharmaskandha (Collection of Dharmas) is the same as the Prakaranapada. If according to the Samucchayabodhisattva-abhidharma-sastra (Compendium of Abhidharma), the thirteenth chapter is the same as the Abhidharmakosa, it does not mention non-attainment. However, it mentions the nature of an ordinary being (prthag-jana-tva). Question: How can the different statements of the various treatises be reconciled and explained? Explanation: The Prakaranapada says dependent attainment, substantial attainment, and locational attainment, which are discussed separately according to the categories of dharmas, and it should be known that they are included in 'attainment'. Not mentioning non-attainment means that it is included in 'there are also some dharmas that are not associated', which is what this treatise says is encompassed by non-attainment. The Samucchayabodhisattva-abhidharma-sastra says.

異生性。應知即是非得少分。如變化心是通果少分。雜心略舉一邊。非為盡理　又正理解頌中類字。言類者顯余所計度法即前種類。謂有計度離得等有蘊得等性　解云余所計度。謂說一切有部中。後代不正義浪作計度。離得等外計有蘊得。處得。界得。退等性。今顯彼計隨其所應即得等攝　若作俱舍師救。類言即顯此十四種同流類。故非顯余計。

于中且辨至自相續二滅者。此下第二別牒解釋　就中有七。一明得．非得。二明同分。三明無想。四明二定。五明命根。六明四相。七明名等　就第一明得．非得中。一明自性。二明差別　此即明自性。上兩句正出體。下兩句明所依。

論曰至與此相違者。就長行中。初正釋頌。后廣問答。此下釋頌。即釋上兩句。得。獲．成就。義雖是一而依異門。說差別名。故於此文總言一得。于中義別立獲．成就。謂若有法。從來未得．及得已失。俱今初得。此法上得。創至生相將成就時名獲。若流至現得已不失名成就。獲時不名成就。成就時不名獲。設有文言得至生相名成就者。于彼獲中。說成就故。設有文言得至現在名為獲者。于成就中說彼獲故。如是名為獲．成就別。應知。若於彼法有獲定有成就。得至生相。決定流入現在世故。自有於法有成就無獲。如非想見惑。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『異生性』，應當理解為『非得』（aprāpti，未獲得）的一小部分。例如，變化心是神通果（ṛddhi-phala，神通的果報）的一小部分。這裡對『雜心』（saṃklista-citta，染污心）的簡略提及只是一方面，並非窮盡了所有道理。此外，在『正理解頌』（正理之歌）中的『類』（sajātīya，同類）字，指的是揭示其餘所計度的法，即前述的種類。也就是說，有人計度認為，存在脫離『得』（prāpti，獲得）等的『有蘊得』（skandha-prāpti，蘊的獲得）等性質。解釋說，『其餘所計度』，指的是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）中，後代不正之義的隨意計度。他們認為，除了『得』等之外，還存在『蘊得』、『處得』（āyatana-prāpti，處的獲得）、『界得』（dhātu-prāpti，界的獲得）、『退』（parihāṇi，退失）等性質。現在表明，他們的這些計度，根據其相應的情況，都包含在『得』等之中。如果按照俱舍師（abhidharmakośa-ācārya，俱舍論師）的辯解，『類』字指的是這十四種同流之類，因此並非揭示其餘的計度。

『于中且辨至自相續二滅者』，以下是第二部分，分別解釋。其中有七個方面：一、闡明『得』與『非得』；二、闡明『同分』（sabhāga，同類）；三、闡明『無想』（asaṃjñā，無想）；四、闡明『二定』（dve samāpattī，二種禪定）；五、闡明『命根』（jīvitendriya，命根）；六、闡明『四相』（catvāri lakṣaṇāni，四相）；七、闡明『名』（nāma，名）等。在第一部分，闡明『得』與『非得』中，又分為：一、闡明自性；二、闡明差別。這裡闡明的是自性。上面兩句是直接說明本體，下面兩句是說明所依賴之處。

論曰『至與此相違者』，在長行文中，首先是正式解釋頌文，然後是廣泛的問答。以下是解釋頌文，即解釋上面的兩句話。『得』、『獲』（lābha，獲得）、『成就』（siddhi，成就），意義雖然相同，但依據不同的角度，而有不同的名稱。因此，在這段文字中，總稱為『一得』。其中，意義不同，而分別設立『獲』和『成就』。也就是說，如果有一個法，從來沒有得到過，或者得到后又失去，現在是第一次得到，這種法上的『得』，從最初到即將成就『生相』（jāti-lakṣaṇa，生之相）時，稱為『獲』。如果持續到現時，得到后沒有失去，稱為『成就』。『獲』的時候不稱為『成就』，『成就』的時候不稱為『獲』。如果經文說，『得至生相名成就者』，那是因為在『獲』之中，說了『成就』的緣故。如果經文說，『得至現在名為獲者』，那是因為在『成就』之中，說了『獲』的緣故。這就是『獲』和『成就』的區別，應當瞭解。如果對於某個法，有『獲』，必定有『成就』，因為『得』到『生相』，必定流入現在世的緣故。但也有對於某個法，有『成就』而沒有『獲』的情況，例如非想非非想處（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，非想非非想處）的見惑（dṛṣṭi-klesha，見煩惱）。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Heterogeneity』 (異生性, Īśvaratva). It should be understood as a small portion of 『non-attainment』 (非得, aprāpti). For example, the mind of transformation is a small portion of the fruit of supernormal powers (神通果, ṛddhi-phala). The brief mention of 『defiled mind』 (雜心, saṃkliṣṭa-citta) here is only one aspect and does not exhaust all the reasons. Furthermore, the word 『category』 (類, sajātīya) in the 『Verse of Correct Understanding』 (正理解頌) refers to revealing the remaining contemplated dharmas, which are the aforementioned categories. That is, some contemplate that there are properties such as 『aggregate-attainment』 (有蘊得, skandha-prāpti) that are separate from 『attainment』 (得, prāpti) etc. The explanation says, 『the remaining contemplated』 refers to the arbitrary contemplations of incorrect meanings by later generations in the Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部). They believe that in addition to 『attainment』 etc., there are also 『aggregate-attainment』, 『sphere-attainment』 (處得, āyatana-prāpti), 『realm-attainment』 (界得, dhātu-prāpti), 『decline』 (退, parihāṇi), and other properties. Now it is shown that their contemplations, according to their corresponding situations, are all included within 『attainment』 etc. If according to the defense of the Abhidharmakośa masters (俱舍師, abhidharmakośa-ācārya), the word 『category』 refers to these fourteen kinds of homogeneous categories, therefore it does not reveal the remaining contemplations.

『Among these, to distinguish up to the two cessations of one's own continuum』 (于中且辨至自相續二滅者). The following is the second part, explaining separately. There are seven aspects: 1. Clarifying 『attainment』 and 『non-attainment』; 2. Clarifying 『commonality』 (同分, sabhāga); 3. Clarifying 『non-perception』 (無想, asaṃjñā); 4. Clarifying 『two attainments』 (二定, dve samāpattī); 5. Clarifying 『life-faculty』 (命根, jīvitendriya); 6. Clarifying 『four characteristics』 (四相, catvāri lakṣaṇāni); 7. Clarifying 『name』 (名, nāma) etc. In the first part, clarifying 『attainment』 and 『non-attainment』, it is further divided into: 1. Clarifying self-nature; 2. Clarifying differences. Here, self-nature is clarified. The above two sentences directly explain the substance, and the following two sentences explain what it relies on.

The treatise says, 『up to those contrary to this』 (論曰至與此相違者). In the prose text, first is the formal explanation of the verse, and then is extensive questions and answers. The following is the explanation of the verse, which is the explanation of the above two sentences. 『Attainment』 (得, prāpti), 『acquisition』 (獲, lābha), and 『accomplishment』 (成就, siddhi), although the meanings are the same, have different names according to different perspectives. Therefore, in this passage, it is generally called 『one attainment』. Among them, the meanings are different, and 『acquisition』 and 『accomplishment』 are established separately. That is, if there is a dharma that has never been attained before, or has been lost after being attained, and is now attained for the first time, the 『attainment』 of this dharma, from the beginning to the time when the 『characteristic of birth』 (生相, jāti-lakṣaṇa) is about to be accomplished, is called 『acquisition』. If it continues to the present time and is not lost after being attained, it is called 『accomplishment』. 『Acquisition』 is not called 『accomplishment』, and 『accomplishment』 is not called 『acquisition』. If the scripture says, 『attainment up to the characteristic of birth is called accomplishment』, it is because 『accomplishment』 is spoken of within 『acquisition』. If the scripture says, 『attainment up to the present is called acquisition』, it is because 『acquisition』 is spoken of within 『accomplishment』. This is the difference between 『acquisition』 and 『accomplishment』, which should be understood. If for a certain dharma there is 『acquisition』, there must be 『accomplishment』, because 『attainment』 to the 『characteristic of birth』 must flow into the present world. But there are also cases where for a certain dharma there is 『accomplishment』 but no 『acquisition』, such as the view-delusions (見惑, dṛṣṭi-klesha) of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (非想非非想處, naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana).

無始來成無初得故　問于成位中。得至生相為名獲。為名成就　解云。非初得故不名獲。未至現在不名成就。但可說言前後俱得　古德皆云。成通新．舊。獲據新論。是獲皆成。有成非獲者。不然。辨二差別如前具說。前文言得。後文言獲。名異義同　應知。非得與此相違者。謂若有法。先未曾失。及重得已。但今初失。此法非得創至生相。將不成時說名不獲。若流至現在名不成就。不獲時未名不成就。不成就時不名不獲。設有文言非得至生相名不成就者。于不獲中說不成就設有文言非得至現在名不獲者。于不成就中說不獲故。應知若於彼法。說有不獲定有不成就。非得至生相。決定流入現在世故。自有于彼法有不成就無不獲。如無生智。以于彼智無初非得故　問于不成位。非得至生相。為名不獲。為名不成就　解云。非是初非得故不名不獲。未至現在故不名不成就。但可說言前後非得。應知。此中獲與不獲。據得．非得初至生相。成與不成。據得．非得流至現在相續已去又正理十二。釋此四種差別云。得有二種。謂先未得。及先已得。先未得得說名為獲。先已得得說名成就。應知非得與此相違。謂先未得。及得已失。未得非得說名不獲。已失非得名不成就。故說異生性名不獲聖法　解云。正理論意。但據從來未得。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『無始來成無初得故』，問：在『成』（成就）的階段中，『得』（獲得）到達『生相』（產生之相）時，稱為什麼？是稱為『獲』（獲得）還是『成就』？解答：因為不是最初獲得，所以不稱為『獲』；因為還未到達現在，所以不稱為『成就』。但可以說前後都獲得了。古德都說，『成』通於新、舊，『獲』根據新論。是『獲』都『成』，有『成』而非『獲』的說法嗎？不是的。辨別二者的差別如前面所說。前文說『得』，後文說『獲』，名稱不同，意義相同。應當知道，與此『得』相違背的，是指如果有一個法，先前未曾失去，以及重新獲得后，但現在初次失去，此法不是最初到達『生相』的『得』，將要不成的時候，說名稱為『不獲』。如果流至現在，名稱為『不成就』。『不獲』的時候，未稱為『不成就』；『不成就』的時候，不稱為『不獲』。如果經文說『非得至生相，名稱為不成就』，那是在『不獲』中說『不成就』；如果經文說『非得至現在，名稱為不獲』，那是在『不成就』中說『不獲』的緣故。應當知道，如果對於那個法，說有『不獲』，必定有『不成就』，因為『非得』到達『生相』，必定流入現在世的緣故。自有對於那個法有『不成就』而無『不獲』的，如無生智（Anutpāda-jñāna，不生智）。因為對於那個智慧沒有最初的『非得』的緣故。問：在『不成』（未成就）的階段，『非得』（未獲得）到達『生相』，稱為什麼？是稱為『不獲』，還是稱為『不成就』？解答：因為不是最初的『非得』，所以不稱為『不獲』；因為未到達現在，所以不稱為『不成就』。但可以說前後都是『非得』。應當知道，此中的『獲』與『不獲』，根據『得』、『非得』最初到達『生相』；『成』與『不成』，根據『得』、『非得』流至現在相續已去。又《正理十二》（Nyāyadvādaśa）解釋這四種差別說：『得』有兩種，即先前未得，以及先前已得。先前未得的『得』，說名稱為『獲』；先前已得的『得』，說名稱為『成就』。應當知道，『非得』與此相反，即先前未得，以及獲得后失去。未得的『非得』，說名稱為『不獲』；已失去的『非得』，名稱為『不成就』。所以說異生性（Pṛthag-jana-tva，凡夫性）名稱為『不獲聖法』。解答：《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra）的意義，只是根據從來未得。

【English Translation】 English version 'Coming from beginningless time, becoming without initial attainment,' the question is: In the stage of 'becoming' (accomplishment), when 'attainment' (gaining) reaches the 'phase of arising' (utpāda-lakṣaṇa), what is it called? Is it called 'acquisition' (lābha) or 'accomplishment'? Answer: Because it is not initially attained, it is not called 'acquisition'; because it has not yet reached the present, it is not called 'accomplishment.' But it can be said that both before and after, it is attained. The ancient virtuous ones all say that 'becoming' applies to both new and old, while 'acquisition' is based on the new theory. Is it the case that all 'acquisitions' are 'becomings,' and there are 'becomings' that are not 'acquisitions'? No. Differentiating the two is as previously stated. The previous text speaks of 'attainment,' the later text speaks of 'acquisition'; the names are different, but the meanings are the same. It should be known that what contradicts this 'attainment' refers to a dharma that was previously never lost, and after being regained, is now lost for the first time. This dharma is not the initial 'attainment' reaching the 'phase of arising'; when it is about to not become, it is called 'non-acquisition.' If it flows to the present, it is called 'non-accomplishment.' At the time of 'non-acquisition,' it is not called 'non-accomplishment'; at the time of 'non-accomplishment,' it is not called 'non-acquisition.' If the scripture says, 'Non-attainment reaching the phase of arising is called non-accomplishment,' that is speaking of 'non-accomplishment' within 'non-acquisition'; if the scripture says, 'Non-attainment reaching the present is called non-acquisition,' that is speaking of 'non-acquisition' within 'non-accomplishment.' It should be known that if, with respect to that dharma, it is said there is 'non-acquisition,' there is definitely 'non-accomplishment,' because 'non-attainment' reaching the 'phase of arising' definitely flows into the present world. There is, with respect to that dharma, 'non-accomplishment' without 'non-acquisition,' such as Anutpāda-jñāna (無生智, the wisdom of non-arising). Because with respect to that wisdom, there is no initial 'non-attainment.' Question: In the stage of 'non-becoming' (non-accomplishment), when 'non-attainment' (non-gaining) reaches the 'phase of arising,' what is it called? Is it called 'non-acquisition' or 'non-accomplishment'? Answer: Because it is not the initial 'non-attainment,' it is not called 'non-acquisition'; because it has not reached the present, it is not called 'non-accomplishment.' But it can be said that both before and after, it is 'non-attainment.' It should be known that in this context, 'acquisition' and 'non-acquisition' are based on 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' initially reaching the 'phase of arising'; 'becoming' and 'non-becoming' are based on 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' flowing to the present and continuing. Furthermore, the Nyāyadvādaśa (正理十二, Twelvefold Logic) explains these four differences by saying: 'Attainment' has two types, namely, previously unattained and previously attained. The 'attainment' of what was previously unattained is called 'acquisition'; the 'attainment' of what was previously attained is called 'accomplishment.' It should be known that 'non-attainment' is the opposite of this, namely, previously unattained and lost after attainment. The 'non-attainment' of what was unattained is called 'non-acquisition'; the 'non-attainment' of what was lost is called 'non-accomplishment.' Therefore, Pṛthag-jana-tva (異生性, the state of being an ordinary being) is called 'non-acquisition of the holy dharma.' Answer: The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra (正理論, Treatise on Logic) is based solely on what has never been attained.

今時創得名獲。即未得法上非得名不獲。若已曾得。設令因退今時重得。但名成就以重得故。即用已失法上非得。名不成就正理若作斯解。而得．舍成就不成就。四句相違。或可。得．獲．成就本唯一物。隨作論者寬．狹異門莊嚴于義。不可皆使例同。

於何法中有得．非得者。此下釋後半頌。此即問起。

于自相續及二滅中者。此即總答。顯得．非得所依法也。自相續謂自身。二滅謂擇滅．非擇滅　謂有為法至決定如是者。此下別釋。就別釋中。所依有二。一有為。二無為。此即別解有為。謂有為法中。若墮在自相續身有得．非得。非他相續身無有成就他身法故。非屬我故所以不成。若有成就他相續身。即有趣．身．業壞。自．他雜亂過故　非相續謂外非情。非是內相續身故。言非相續。非非相續。無有成就非情法故。以非屬我故不成就。若成非情即壞法性。為是有情。為非有情。且有為法決定如是。

無為法中至相翻而立故者。別釋無為。就無為中。唯於二滅有得．非得。擇滅是所證法有得．非得。非擇滅礙法不生有得．非得　一切已下。證成二滅。唸唸必有闕緣不生。故諸有情定成無漏非擇滅。先未斷惑今初入聖。苦法忍位名初剎那具縛聖者。以彼身中具成惑故。及餘一切未斷三界見．修二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

如果現在才獲得名稱，那麼如果未獲得法，就不能說獲得了名稱；如果已經獲得，假設因為退失而現在重新獲得，只是名稱成就，因為是重新獲得，所以在已經失去的法上不能說是獲得。如果名稱不成就，這才是正理。如果這樣解釋，那麼『得』、『舍』、『成就』、『不成就』這四句就互相矛盾。或許，『得』、『獲』、『成就』本來就是一回事，只是隨著論者的寬泛或狹隘，用不同的方式來修飾這個意義，不能都用同樣的例子。

在什麼法中有『得』和『非得』呢？下面解釋後半頌。這是提問。

在自身的相續和二滅（擇滅（通過智慧斷滅煩惱）和非擇滅（因緣不具足而自然不生））中。這是總的回答，顯示了『得』和『非得』所依賴的法。自身的相續指的是自身。二滅指的是擇滅和非擇滅。所謂有為法到決定如此，下面分別解釋。在分別解釋中，所依賴的有兩種：一是有為，二是無為。這裡是分別解釋有為。所謂有為法中，如果落在自身的相續身中，就有『得』和『非得』。不在他人的相續身中，因為不能成就他人身中的法。因為不屬於我，所以不能成就。如果有成就他人相續身，就會有興趣、身體、業力壞滅，自身和他人的混雜的過失。所謂非相續，指的是外在的非情之物，不是內在的相續身。說『非相續』，不是『非非相續』，因為不能成就非情之法。因為不屬於我，所以不能成就。如果成就非情，就會破壞法性，成為有情或非有情。且有為法決定是這樣。

在無為法中到相互顛倒而成立，這是分別解釋無為。在無為中，只有在二滅中有『得』和『非得』。擇滅是所證的法，有『得』和『非得』。非擇滅是障礙法不生，有『得』和『非得』。一切以下，證明成就二滅。唸唸必定有缺少因緣而不生，所以諸有情必定成就無漏的非擇滅。先前沒有斷惑，現在初次入聖，在苦法忍位，名為最初剎那的具縛聖者（仍然被煩惱束縛的聖者），因為他的身中具足煩惱。以及其餘一切未斷三界見、修二惑的眾生，

【English Translation】 English version:

If one now newly obtains a name, if one has not obtained the Dharma, it cannot be said that one has obtained the name. If one has already obtained it, and then loses it and re-obtains it, only the name is accomplished. Because it is re-obtained, it cannot be said to be obtained on the Dharma that has already been lost. If the name is not accomplished, that is the correct principle. If explained in this way, the four phrases 'obtaining', 'relinquishing', 'accomplishing', and 'not accomplishing' would contradict each other. Perhaps 'obtaining', 'acquiring', and 'accomplishing' are originally the same thing, but depending on whether the commentator is broad or narrow, they are adorned with different expressions. They cannot all be treated as the same example.

In what Dharma are there 'obtaining' and 'non-obtaining'? The following explains the second half of the verse. This is the question.

In one's own continuum and the two cessations (Nirodha-satya (cessation through wisdom) and Apratisankhya-nirodha (natural cessation due to lack of conditions)). This is the general answer, showing the Dharmas on which 'obtaining' and 'non-obtaining' depend. One's own continuum refers to oneself. The two cessations refer to Nirodha-satya and Apratisankhya-nirodha. As for conditioned Dharmas, up to 'it is definitely so', the following explains them separately. In the separate explanation, there are two things on which they depend: one is conditioned, and the other is unconditioned. Here is the separate explanation of the conditioned. As for conditioned Dharmas, if they fall within one's own continuum, there is 'obtaining' and 'non-obtaining'. Not in the continuum of others, because one cannot accomplish the Dharma in the body of others. Because it does not belong to me, it cannot be accomplished. If one accomplishes the continuum of others, there will be the faults of interest, body, and karma being destroyed, and the mixing of oneself and others. As for non-continuum, it refers to external non-sentient things, not the internal continuum. Saying 'non-continuum' is not 'non-non-continuum', because one cannot accomplish non-sentient Dharmas. Because it does not belong to me, it cannot be accomplished. If one accomplishes non-sentient things, it will destroy the nature of Dharma, becoming sentient or non-sentient. And conditioned Dharmas are definitely like this.

In unconditioned Dharmas, up to 'established by reversing each other', this is the separate explanation of the unconditioned. In the unconditioned, only in the two cessations are there 'obtaining' and 'non-obtaining'. Nirodha-satya is the Dharma to be realized, there is 'obtaining' and 'non-obtaining'. Apratisankhya-nirodha is the obstruction of the arising of Dharma, there is 'obtaining' and 'non-obtaining'. Everything below proves the accomplishment of the two cessations. In every moment, there must be a lack of conditions that prevents arising, so all sentient beings must accomplish the unconditioned Apratisankhya-nirodha. Those who have not previously severed delusions and now enter the holy path for the first time, in the Ksanti (patience) of the Dharma of Suffering, are called the bound saint (Srotapanna) of the first moment, because their bodies are full of afflictions. And all other beings who have not severed the delusions of views and practices in the three realms,

惑。具縛異生不成擇滅。除此二種諸餘有情皆成擇滅　決定已下。別釋虛空無得．非得。虛空非是所證不同擇滅。非能礙法不生不同非擇滅。所以無得．非得。

諸有得者至故不別釋者。以理而言。諸有得者亦有非得。義準可知。故於前文但解二滅得。不別釋二滅非得。

何緣知有別物名得者。此下廣問答。此即經部師問。

契經說故至乃至廣說者。說一切有部師答。引聖教證得有別體　十無學法。謂八支聖道．及正智．正解脫五支。謂五順上分結　以之言由。聖者于彼十無學法。由生由得由成就故。已斷五支。乃至廣說。經言得成。明知別有實物。

若爾非情至亦應成就者。經部難。

所以者何者。說一切有部徴。

契經說故至乃至廣說者。經部引經出過。經言輪王成就七寶。若成就是假。可言成就他身．非情。汝若言實。於七寶中。若成輪．珠成非情過。若成象．馬．女．主藏．主兵成他相續過。故婆沙九十三敘譬喻者說云。問彼何故作是執。答彼依契經故作是執。謂契經說有轉輪王成就七寶。若成就性是實有者。成就輪寶．神珠寶故應法性壞。所以者何。亦是有情。亦非有情故。成就像寶．及馬寶故復應趣壞。所以者何。亦是傍生。亦是人故。成就女寶故復應身壞。所以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『惑。』被束縛的凡夫俗子不能成就擇滅（nirodha-samāpatti，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅盡），除了這兩種人之外，其餘的有情眾生都能成就擇滅。『決定已下。』分別解釋虛空無得（aprāpti，未獲得）和非得（prāpti，已獲得）。虛空不是所證悟的，不同於擇滅。不能阻礙法不生起，不同於非擇滅（apratiṣṭhita-nirodha，非由智慧選擇而達到的滅盡）。所以有無得和非得。

『諸有得者至故不別釋者。』從道理上說，凡是獲得者，也有未獲得。根據這個意義可以推知。所以在前面的文章中只解釋了二滅的獲得，沒有分別解釋二滅的未獲得。

『何緣知有別物名得者。』下面廣泛地問答。這是經部師（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）的提問。

『契經說故至乃至廣說者。』說一切有部師（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一）回答。引用聖教來證明獲得有獨立的實體。『十無學法。』指八支聖道（aṣṭāṅga-mārga，八正道）以及正智（samyag-jñāna，正確的智慧）、正解脫（samyag-vimukti，正確的解脫）五支。指五順上分結（pañca-ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana，導致眾生投生到色界和無色界的五種煩惱）。『以之言由。』聖者對於這十種無學法，由於生起、由於獲得、由於成就的緣故，已經斷除了五支。乃至廣泛地說。經文中說『得成』，明確知道有獨立的實物。

『若爾非情至亦應成就者。』經部師反駁。

『所以者何者。』說一切有部師質問。

『契經說故至乃至廣說者。』經部師引用經典來指出過失。經文中說輪王成就七寶（saptaratna，轉輪王擁有的七種寶物）。如果成就只是假立的，可以說成就他身、非情。如果你們說是真實的，在七寶中，如果成就輪寶、珠寶，就會有成就非情的過失。如果成就像寶、馬寶、女寶、主藏臣、主兵臣，就會有成就他相續的過失。所以《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā，說一切有部的論書）第九十三卷敘述譬喻的人說：『問：他們為什麼會這樣執著？答：他們依據契經所以這樣執著。』所謂契經說有轉輪王成就七寶。如果成就的自性是真實存在的，成就輪寶、神珠寶的緣故，應該法性壞。為什麼呢？因為輪寶、神珠寶既是有情，也是非有情。成就像寶以及馬寶的緣故，又應該趣壞。為什麼呢？因為象寶和馬寶既是傍生，也是人。成就女寶的緣故，又應該身壞。所以。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Confusion.' A bound ordinary being cannot achieve nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment through wisdom), except for these two types of beings, all other sentient beings can achieve nirodha-samāpatti. 'Decision below.' Separately explains the aprāpti (non-attainment) and prāpti (attainment) of space. Space is not what is realized, differing from nirodha-samāpatti. It cannot obstruct the non-arising of dharmas, differing from apratiṣṭhita-nirodha (cessation not through wisdom). Therefore, there are non-attainment and attainment.

'Those who have attainment, up to the reason for not explaining separately.' Logically speaking, those who have attainment also have non-attainment. The meaning can be inferred accordingly. Therefore, in the previous text, only the attainment of the two cessations is explained, without separately explaining the non-attainment of the two cessations.

'What reason is there to know that there is a separate entity called attainment?' Below is a broad question and answer. This is a question from the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school).

'Because the sutra says, up to the extensive explanation.' The Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) answers. Quoting the holy teachings to prove that attainment has an independent entity. 'Ten non-learning dharmas.' Refers to the eightfold noble path (aṣṭāṅga-mārga) and the five branches of samyag-jñāna (right knowledge) and samyag-vimukti (right liberation). Refers to the five higher fetters (pañca-ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana, the five fetters that bind beings to the form and formless realms). 'The word 'by' means because.' Because of arising, because of attainment, because of accomplishment, the holy ones have already cut off the five branches with respect to these ten non-learning dharmas. Up to the extensive explanation. The sutra says 'attainment is accomplished,' clearly knowing that there is an independent real entity.

'If so, non-sentient beings should also be accomplished.' The Sautrāntika refutes.

'What is the reason?' The Sarvāstivāda questions.

'Because the sutra says, up to the extensive explanation.' The Sautrāntika quotes the sutra to point out the fault. The sutra says that the wheel-turning king accomplishes the seven treasures (saptaratna, the seven treasures possessed by a wheel-turning king). If accomplishment is only a provisional establishment, it can be said to accomplish other bodies and non-sentient beings. If you say it is real, among the seven treasures, if the wheel treasure and the jewel treasure are accomplished, there will be the fault of accomplishing non-sentient beings. If the elephant treasure, horse treasure, woman treasure, treasurer minister, and military minister are accomplished, there will be the fault of accomplishing other continuums. Therefore, the person who narrates the metaphors in the ninety-third volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā (a treatise of the Sarvāstivāda) says: 'Question: Why do they hold this view? Answer: They hold this view because they rely on the sutra.' The so-called sutra says that the wheel-turning king accomplishes the seven treasures. If the nature of accomplishment is truly existent, because of accomplishing the wheel treasure and the jewel treasure, the nature of dharma should be destroyed. Why? Because the wheel treasure and the jewel treasure are both sentient and non-sentient. Because of accomplishing the elephant treasure and the horse treasure, the realms should be destroyed again. Why? Because the elephant treasure and the horse treasure are both animals and humans. Because of accomplishing the woman treasure, the body should be destroyed again. Therefore.

者何。亦是男身。亦是女身故。成就主兵．主藏臣故復應業壞。所以者何。君臣雜故。勿有此失。故成就性定非實有。

此中自在至隨樂轉故者。說一切有部通經。謂轉輪王。于彼七寶有自在力。隨樂受用。據自在說名為成就。非別有體。

此既自在至知有別物者。經部復難。此輪王經既言自在說名成就。余經成就復由何因知有別物。

許有別物有何非理者。說一切有部復問經部。復許有別物名得。有何非理。

如是非理至是為非理者。經部出過。上來約聖言量破。今約現．比量破。謂所執得。無體可知。如色．聲等五識現取。如貪．瞋等他心智現取。無用可知。如眼．耳等。謂眼．耳等由有見．聞等用。比知有眼等根。得既無用。寧知實有。開現．比二量俱不可知。故無容執別物名得。是為非理。

若謂此得至理不成立者。經部縱破。若謂得有作用作法生因。無為不生應無有得　又若執得為法生因。如所得法。或時未得。或時已舍。或三界．九地往來轉易。或復離染。如是諸法彼現無得。后若起時當云何生　若言雖無法前得生。而有法俱生得為生因者。大生少生復何所作　又非情法既無有得。應定不生　又具縛異生。煩惱未斷等有九品煩惱生因。生因既等。下．中．上品煩惱現起差

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『者何。亦是男身。亦是女身故。成就主兵．主藏臣故復應業壞。』這是什麼意思呢？因為（轉輪聖王）可以是男身，也可以是女身。如果成就了主兵臣和主藏臣，反而會因為應合（過去）的業力而壞事。為什麼呢？因為君臣混雜，所以不要有這樣的失誤。因此，成就的自性決定不是真實存在的。

『此中自在至隨樂轉故者。』說一切有部通過經典認為，轉輪王對於他的七寶具有自在的力量，可以隨心所欲地享用。根據這種自在的說法，就稱為成就，並非另外有一個實體。

『此既自在至知有別物者。』經部反駁說，既然這部關於轉輪王的經典說自在就叫做成就，那麼其他的經典中的成就又根據什麼原因知道有別的實物呢？

『許有別物有何非理者。』說一切有部反問經部，如果允許有別的實物叫做『得』（prāpti），有什麼不合道理的呢？

『如是非理至是為非理者。』經部指出其中的過失。上面是從聖言量的角度來破斥，現在從現量和比量的角度來破斥。所謂的『得』，沒有實體可以被認知。比如顏色、聲音等，可以通過五識直接感知；比如貪婪、嗔恨等，可以通過他心智直接感知。『得』也沒有作用可以被認知。比如眼睛、耳朵等，因為有見、聞等作用，所以可以通過比較來知道有眼睛等根。『得』既然沒有作用，怎麼能知道它是真實存在的呢？無論是現量還是比量都無法認知，所以不能執著于有別的實物叫做『得』，這是不合道理的。

『若謂此得至理不成立者。』經部進一步破斥。如果認為『得』有作用，是法產生的因，那麼無為法不產生，就不應該有『得』。而且，如果執著『得』是法產生的因，比如所得到的法，有時沒有得到，有時已經捨棄，或者在三界、九地往來轉移，或者已經脫離染污。像這樣的諸法，在它們沒有『得』的時候，後來產生的時候應該怎麼產生呢？如果說即使在法產生之前，『得』已經產生，並且和法一起產生的『得』是產生的因，那麼大生、少生又有什麼作用呢？而且，非情法既然沒有『得』，就應該一定不會產生。而且，具有束縛的異生，煩惱沒有斷除等，有九品煩惱產生的因。既然產生的因相同，為什麼下品、中品、上品煩惱的顯現會有差別呢？

【English Translation】 English version 『What is this? It is also a male body, also a female body. Achieving the minister of the army and the minister of the treasury will again cause the destruction of karma.』 What does this mean? Because (the Chakravartin King) can be a male body or a female body. If he achieves the minister of the army and the minister of the treasury, it will instead cause bad things because it corresponds to (past) karma. Why? Because the ruler and ministers are mixed, so do not have such mistakes. Therefore, the nature of achievement is definitely not truly existent.

『Here, being at ease means turning as one pleases.』 The Sarvāstivāda school, through the scriptures, believes that the Chakravartin King has the power to be at ease with his seven treasures and can enjoy them as he pleases. According to this statement of being at ease, it is called achievement, not a separate entity.

『Since this is being at ease, how do we know there is a separate object?』 The Sautrāntika school refutes, since this scripture about the Chakravartin King says that being at ease is called achievement, then according to what reason in other scriptures about achievement do we know that there is a separate object?

『If a separate object is allowed, what is unreasonable?』 The Sarvāstivāda school asks the Sautrāntika school, if it is allowed that there is a separate object called 『prāpti』 (得, attainment), what is unreasonable?

『If it is unreasonable, then it is unreasonable.』 The Sautrāntika school points out the fault. The above was refuted from the perspective of scriptural authority, now it is refuted from the perspective of direct perception and inference. The so-called 『prāpti』 has no entity that can be cognized. For example, color, sound, etc., can be directly perceived through the five consciousnesses; for example, greed, hatred, etc., can be directly perceived through the mind-reading wisdom. 『Prāpti』 also has no function that can be cognized. For example, eyes, ears, etc., because there are functions such as seeing and hearing, it can be known through comparison that there are roots such as eyes. Since 『prāpti』 has no function, how can it be known that it is truly existent? Neither direct perception nor inference can cognize it, so one cannot be attached to having a separate object called 『prāpti』, which is unreasonable.

『If it is said that this 『prāpti』 does not establish the principle.』 The Sautrāntika school further refutes. If it is thought that 『prāpti』 has a function and is the cause of the arising of dharma, then unconditioned dharmas do not arise, so there should be no 『prāpti』. Moreover, if one is attached to 『prāpti』 being the cause of the arising of dharma, such as the dharma that is attained, sometimes it is not attained, sometimes it has been abandoned, or it is transferred back and forth in the three realms and nine grounds, or it has been liberated from defilement. Like these dharmas, when they do not have 『prāpti』, how should they arise later? If it is said that even before the dharma arises, 『prāpti』 has already arisen, and the 『prāpti』 that arises together with the dharma is the cause of arising, then what is the function of great arising and small arising? Moreover, since non-sentient dharmas have no 『prāpti』, they should definitely not arise. Moreover, sentient beings with bonds, whose afflictions have not been severed, etc., have the cause of the arising of the nine grades of afflictions. Since the cause of arising is the same, why is there a difference in the manifestation of lower, middle, and upper grade afflictions?

別應無。所以者何。得為生因無差別故。既得無別。應不可言上品貪現行名貪行者。非中．下品。瞋等亦爾　今此難意。生因既等。不得現起三品不同。隨增說行。汝若救云由余因故。煩惱現起有差別者。即應由彼余因諸法得生。得復何用。故執得用作法生因。理不成立。

誰言此得作法生因者。說一切有部救云。誰言此得作法生因。而徴難我。

若爾此得有何作用者。經部復徴。

謂於差別為建立因者。說一切有部答　所以者何者。經部復徴。

若無有得至建立差別者。說一切有部答。若有得體。可得建立異生．聖者兩種差別。若無有得。異生．聖者起世俗有漏心。應無兩種差別。

豈不煩惱至應有差別者。經部為釋差別。豈不煩惱已斷名聖。未斷名凡。有差別故。應有差別。

若執無得至離未離故者。說一切有部難。我許有得斷．未斷成。由煩惱得離故名斷。未離故名未斷。若執無得如何可說惑斷．未斷。

此由所依至但假非實者。經部釋。斷．未斷由治道力。令所依身無復功能令其現起名為斷。名不成就。與此相違名為未斷。名為成就。若聖道力畢竟斷故名斷。若世間道損伏斷故名斷。成與不成皆假非實。昔有惑種。今斷即無故名轉變異本。

善法有二至亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：別得（prāpti，獲得）應是無。為什麼呢？因為得作為生起的原因沒有差別。既然得沒有差別，就不應該說上品貪現行才名為貪行者，而非中品、下品。嗔等煩惱也是一樣。現在這個詰難的意思是，生起的原因既然相同，就不應該現起三品不同的煩惱，然後根據增上的情況來說明行為。你如果辯解說，由於其他原因，煩惱的現起才有差別，那麼就應該由那些其他原因諸法而生起，得又有什麼用呢？所以認為得的作用是作為法生起的原因，在理上是不能成立的。答：誰說此得是作為法生起的原因呢？說一切有部回答說，誰說此得是作為法生起的原因，而要詰難我呢？問：如果這樣，此得有什麼作用呢？經部反問。答：在差別上作為建立的原因。說一切有部回答。為什麼呢？經部追問。答：如果沒有得，就不能建立差別。說一切有部回答說，如果有得的體性，就可以建立異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）和聖者兩種差別。如果沒有得，異生和聖者生起世俗有漏心，就不應該有兩種差別。問：難道煩惱的斷與未斷不應該有差別嗎？經部解釋差別。難道煩惱已斷名為聖者，未斷名為凡夫，有差別，所以應該有差別。答：如果認為沒有得，就不能成立斷與未斷。說一切有部反駁。我承認有得，斷與未斷才能成立。由於煩惱得離故名為斷，未離故名為未斷。如果認為沒有得，如何能說惑斷與未斷？問：斷與未斷是由所依身的功能決定的，但這是假立的，不是真實的。經部解釋說，斷與未斷是由修道的力量，使所依身沒有再產生煩惱的功能，這稱為斷，名為不成就。與此相反稱為未斷，名為成就。如果是聖道的力量，畢竟斷除煩惱，就名為斷。如果是世間道損伏斷除煩惱，就名為斷。成就與不成就都是假立的，不是真實的。過去有煩惱的種子，現在斷除了就沒有了，所以名為轉變異本。善法有二至亦

【English Translation】 English version: Question: The prāpti (得, acquisition) should be non-existent. Why? Because the cause of arising is not different. Since there is no difference in acquisition, it should not be said that only the manifest action of superior greed is called a greedy person, and not the middle or inferior ones. The same applies to anger and other afflictions. The meaning of this challenge is that since the cause of arising is the same, it should not manifest three different levels of afflictions, and then explain the behavior based on the increasing situation. If you argue that the manifestation of afflictions differs due to other causes, then it should arise from those other causes, so what is the use of acquisition? Therefore, the idea that the function of acquisition is the cause of the arising of dharmas is not logically valid. Answer: Who says that this acquisition is the cause of the arising of dharmas? The Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部) replies, 'Who says that this acquisition is the cause of the arising of dharmas, that you challenge me?' Question: If so, what is the function of this acquisition? The Sautrāntika (經部) asks in return. Answer: It is the cause of establishing differences. The Sarvāstivāda replies. Why? The Sautrāntika asks again. Answer: If there is no acquisition, differences cannot be established. The Sarvāstivāda replies, 'If there is the substance of acquisition, then the two differences between a pṛthagjana (異生, ordinary being) and a noble one can be established. If there is no acquisition, then the ordinary being and the noble one arising mundane contaminated minds should not have two differences.' Question: Shouldn't there be a difference between the severance and non-severance of afflictions? The Sautrāntika explains the difference. 'Isn't it that afflictions that have been severed are called noble ones, and those that have not been severed are called ordinary beings? There is a difference, so there should be a difference.' Answer: If it is thought that without acquisition, severance and non-severance cannot be established. The Sarvāstivāda refutes, 'I admit that there is acquisition, and severance and non-severance can be established. Because afflictions are separated, it is called severance; because they are not separated, it is called non-severance. If it is thought that there is no acquisition, how can one speak of the severance and non-severance of defilements?' Question: Severance and non-severance are determined by the function of the dependent body, but this is a provisional establishment, not real. The Sautrāntika explains, 'Severance and non-severance are due to the power of the path of cultivation, causing the dependent body to no longer have the function of producing afflictions, which is called severance, and is called non-accomplishment. The opposite of this is called non-severance, and is called accomplishment. If it is the power of the noble path that ultimately severs afflictions, it is called severance. If it is the mundane path that subdues and severs afflictions, it is called severance. Accomplishment and non-accomplishment are both provisional establishments, not real. In the past, there were seeds of afflictions, but now that they are severed, they are gone, so it is called transformation and change of substance.' Good dharmas have two to also

假非實者。經部義便。約二善辨成．不成。斷與未斷　生得善不由功力修得。有斷．未斷。有成．不成。言斷者。謂邪見力。能損身中生得善種。令不能生現行善心。應知名斷。非畢竟害令其總無故。說名為斷。有而無用故名為損。損時名斷名不成。未損名成名未斷　加行善要由功力修得有成．不成。若所依中彼善法種。由已起故。善種增長生彼現行。功能自在勢力無損。自在義邊說名成就。即當大乘自在成就。若彼善種雖復先有。或時未起。或起已退還不自在名不成就　故所依中至無有別物者。經部結成已義故所依身中唯有種子。未為聖道永拔煩惱種子。未為世間道伏損煩惱種子。未為邪見損伏生得善種子。若加行善增長自在。于如是位立成就名。但假無有別物。前諍得體故今偏結成就　此中何法名為種子者。說一切有部問。

謂名與色至生果功能者。經部答。言名色者名謂四蘊。色謂色蘊。彼宗種子熏名．及色。謂名．色中於生自果。所有種子相續不斷名展轉。將生自果。名鄰近。鄰近果也。無間取果名功能。正起功能也。此三皆是種子異名。此展轉。由種子相續故展轉不斷。此鄰近。由種子轉變故鄰近於果。此功能。由種子差別故正起功能。此三亦是種子異名。如其次第釋上三種　又解此果。由種子相續

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『假非實者』，這是經部的觀點。他們通過兩種善來區分『成』與『不成』、『斷』與『未斷』。『生得善』是不依賴於後天努力修習而自然產生的善。這種善有『斷』與『未斷』，『成』與『不成』。所謂『斷』，是指邪見的勢力能夠損害身中本有的『生得善』的種子，使其無法產生實際的善心。這應被理解為『斷』。但並非徹底消滅，使其完全不存在，所以稱為『斷』。因為存在但無用，所以稱為『損』。損害之時稱為『斷』，也稱為『不成』。未被損害則稱為『成』，也稱為『未斷』。『加行善』是必須通過後天努力修習才能獲得的善。這種善也有『成』與『不成』。如果所依之身中，這種善法的種子因為已經生起，使得善的種子增長，產生實際的行為，功能自在，勢力沒有受到損害，從自在的角度來說，就稱為『成就』，這相當於大乘的自在成就。如果這種善的種子雖然先前存在，但有時沒有生起，或者生起后又退失，不再自在，就稱為『不成就』。因此，『所依中至無有別物者』，這是經部總結已有的觀點。因此，在所依之身中只有種子，尚未被聖道永遠拔除煩惱的種子，尚未被世間道伏損煩惱的種子，尚未被邪見損害伏滅生得善的種子。如果加行善增長自在，在這種狀態下就稱為『成就』。但這只是假設，並沒有其他不同的東西。先前爭論已經得到了本體，所以現在特別總結『成就』。『此中何法名為種子者？』，這是一切有部提出的問題。『謂名與色至生果功能者』，這是經部的回答。『名色』，『名』指的是四蘊（受、想、行、識四種精神現象的總稱），『色』指的是色蘊（物質現象的總稱）。他們宗派認為種子熏習『名』和『色』。也就是說，在『名』和『色』中，對於產生自身結果的所有種子，相續不斷，稱為『展轉』。將要產生自身結果，稱為『鄰近』，也就是鄰近於果。無間隔地獲取結果，稱為『功能』，也就是真正產生功能。這三種都是種子的不同名稱。這種『展轉』，是因為種子相續不斷而展轉不斷。這種『鄰近』，是因為種子轉變而鄰近於果。這種『功能』，是因為種子差別而真正產生功能。這三種也是種子的不同名稱，依次解釋了上面三種。

【English Translation】 English version 'False is not real,' this is the view of the Sautrantika school (a Buddhist school emphasizing the importance of sutras). They distinguish 'accomplishment' and 'non-accomplishment,' 'severed' and 'unsevered' through two kinds of goodness. 'Innate goodness' (生得善) is the goodness that arises naturally without relying on later efforts of cultivation. This kind of goodness has 'severed' and 'unsevered,' 'accomplished' and 'non-accomplished.' The so-called 'severed' refers to the power of wrong views that can harm the seeds of 'innate goodness' in the body, preventing them from producing actual good thoughts. This should be understood as 'severed.' But it is not a complete annihilation, making them completely non-existent, so it is called 'severed.' Because it exists but is useless, it is called 'harmed.' The time of harm is called 'severed,' and also called 'non-accomplished.' Not being harmed is called 'accomplished,' and also called 'unsevered.' 'Acquired goodness' (加行善) is the goodness that must be obtained through later efforts of cultivation. This kind of goodness also has 'accomplished' and 'non-accomplished.' If, in the dependent body, the seeds of this good dharma, because they have already arisen, cause the seeds of goodness to grow, producing actual actions, with function being unhindered and power undiminished, from the perspective of freedom, it is called 'accomplishment,' which is equivalent to the unhindered accomplishment of Mahayana. If these seeds of goodness, although previously existing, sometimes do not arise, or after arising, regress and are no longer unhindered, it is called 'non-accomplishment.' Therefore, 'in the dependent body, there is nothing else,' this is the Sautrantika school summarizing existing views. Therefore, in the dependent body, there are only seeds, seeds of afflictions that have not yet been permanently eradicated by the holy path, seeds of afflictions that have not yet been subdued and diminished by the worldly path, seeds of innate goodness that have not yet been harmed and subdued by wrong views. If acquired goodness grows and is unhindered, in this state it is called 'accomplishment.' But this is just an assumption, there is nothing else different. The previous debate has already obtained the substance, so now we specifically summarize 'accomplishment.' 'What dharma is called a seed in this?' This is a question raised by the Sarvastivada school (說一切有部, a Buddhist school asserting the existence of all things). 'It refers to name and form up to the function of producing results,' this is the answer of the Sautrantika school. 'Name and form' (名色), 'name' refers to the four skandhas (四蘊, the aggregate of sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness), 'form' refers to the form skandha (色蘊, the aggregate of material phenomena). Their school believes that seeds permeate 'name' and 'form.' That is to say, in 'name' and 'form,' for all the seeds that produce their own results, the continuous succession is called 'transformation' (展轉). About to produce its own result is called 'proximity' (鄰近), which is close to the result. Obtaining the result without interruption is called 'function' (功能), which is truly producing function. These three are different names for seeds. This 'transformation' is continuous because the seeds are continuously succeeding. This 'proximity' is close to the result because the seeds are transforming. This 'function' is truly producing function because the seeds are different. These three are also different names for seeds, explaining the above three in order.

．轉變．差別故生。何名第二轉變。謂相續種子中將欲生果。其種轉變后異於前。猶如種子將欲生芽其體轉變。何名第一相續。謂此種子望后為因。望前為果。故得通攝三世諸行。總名相續。於此文中。所以先解展轉后解相續者。以約相續明展轉故　又解義便即明。何論次第。何名第三差別謂有種子無間生果功能。此後念種與前種異故名差別。經部因．果前後不同故。說無間生果功能　又解謂展轉功能鄰近功能。謂相續轉變相續差別。由此相續轉變即是展轉功能。此由相續差別即是鄰近功能。

然有處說至必不能修者。經部通經。所以須通此經文者。經部意說。雖覆成就染法種子。而能修善。然有處經。說若成就貪便不能修四念住者。彼經意說。耽著貪現行者不能厭舍現行貪惑故名成就。由隨耽著貪愛現行時分。於四念住必不能修。經據現行說成就。言不能修。我據種子成就能修諸善。故對法論云。有三種成就。一種子成就。二自在成就。三現行成就。經部同彼　又解通說一切有部伏難。伏難意云。若得無別體。何故經說若成就貪便不能修四念住。經言成貪不修四念住。明知得有別體　經部通云。然有經說若成就貪便不能修四念住者。彼經意說。耽現貪者不能厭舍故名成就。由隨耽著現貪時分。於四念住必不能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本轉變和差別因此產生。什麼叫做第二轉變？指的是相續的種子將要產生結果時，其種子轉變后與之前不同。就像種子將要生芽時，其本體發生轉變一樣。什麼叫做第一相續？指的是這個種子相對於後面的果來說是因，相對於前面的因來說是果，因此能夠統攝過去、現在、未來三世的所有行為，總稱為相續。在這段文字中，之所以先解釋展轉后解釋相續，是因為要依據相續來說明展轉的緣故。而且解釋了意義就明白了，何必拘泥於次第呢？什麼叫做第三差別？指的是種子具有無間產生結果的功能。此後的念頭種子與之前的種子不同，所以叫做差別。經部認為因和果在時間上前後不同，所以說無間產生結果的功能。另一種解釋是，展轉是功能，鄰近也是功能。相續轉變是相續的功能，相續差別是鄰近的功能。因此，相續轉變就是展轉的功能，相續差別就是鄰近的功能。然而，有些地方說必定不能修習，經部（Sautrantika）通達經典。為什麼要通達這段經文呢？經部的意思是說，即使成就了染法的種子，也能修習善法。然而，有些經典說如果成就了貪慾，就不能修習四念住（catuḥsmṛtyupasthāna），那些經典的意思是說，耽著于貪慾現行的人，不能厭離捨棄現行的貪慾迷惑，所以叫做成就。由於隨順耽著貪愛現行的時候，對於四念住必定不能修習。經典是根據現行來說成就，說不能修習。我是根據種子成就來說能夠修習各種善法。所以對法論（Abhidharma）說，有三種成就：一種子成就，二自在成就，三現行成就。經部的觀點與他們相同。另一種解釋是，通說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的詰難。詰難的意思是說，如果『得』沒有別的自體，為什麼經典說如果成就了貪慾就不能修習四念住？經典說成就了貪慾就不修習四念住，明明知道『得』有別的自體。經部解釋說，然而，有些經典說如果成就了貪慾就不能修習四念住，那些經典的意思是說，耽著于現行貪慾的人不能厭離捨棄，所以叫做成就。由於隨順耽著現行貪慾的時候，對於四念住必定不能。

【English Translation】 English version Transformation and difference thus arise. What is called the second transformation? It refers to when a seed in the continuum is about to produce a result, its transformation is different from before. It is like when a seed is about to sprout, its substance transforms. What is called the first continuum? It refers to this seed being a cause in relation to the subsequent result, and a result in relation to the preceding cause, thus encompassing all actions of the three times (past, present, and future), collectively called the continuum. In this passage, the reason for explaining 'transformation' before 'continuum' is to explain 'transformation' in relation to the continuum. Moreover, once the meaning is explained, it becomes clear, so why be attached to the order? What is called the third difference? It refers to the seed having the function of producing a result without interruption. The subsequent thought-seed is different from the previous seed, so it is called difference. The Sautrantika school believes that cause and effect are different in time, so they say that it has the function of producing a result without interruption. Another explanation is that 'transformation' is a function, and 'proximity' is also a function. The transformation of the continuum is the function of the continuum, and the difference of the continuum is the function of proximity. Therefore, the transformation of the continuum is the function of 'transformation', and the difference of the continuum is the function of 'proximity'. However, there are places that say one will definitely not be able to cultivate. The Sautrantika school understands the scriptures. Why is it necessary to understand this passage? The Sautrantika school means that even if one has accomplished the seeds of defilement, one can still cultivate virtue. However, some scriptures say that if one has accomplished greed, one cannot cultivate the four mindfulnesses (catuḥsmṛtyupasthāna). Those scriptures mean that those who are attached to the present manifestation of greed cannot厭離捨棄reject and abandon the present manifestation of greed and delusion, so it is called accomplishment. Because one follows and is attached to the present manifestation of greed and love, one will definitely not be able to cultivate the four mindfulnesses. The scriptures speak of accomplishment based on the present manifestation, saying that one cannot cultivate. I speak of being able to cultivate various virtues based on the accomplishment of the seed. Therefore, the Abhidharma says that there are three types of accomplishment: one, seed accomplishment; two, freedom accomplishment; and three, present manifestation accomplishment. The Sautrantika school agrees with them. Another explanation is to refute the difficulties of the Sarvāstivāda school. The meaning of the refutation is: if 'attainment' has no separate self-nature, why do the scriptures say that if one has accomplished greed, one cannot cultivate the four mindfulnesses? The scriptures say that if one has accomplished greed, one does not cultivate the four mindfulnesses, clearly knowing that 'attainment' has a separate self-nature. The Sautrantika school explains, 'However, some scriptures say that if one has accomplished greed, one cannot cultivate the four mindfulnesses. Those scriptures mean that those who are attached to the present greed cannot reject and abandon it, so it is called accomplishment. Because one follows and is attached to the present greed, one will definitely not be able to cultivate the four mindfulnesses.'

修。非言成就別有體性。

如是成就至亦假非實者。經部總結。如是成就。隨其所應遍一切種類。唯假非實。唯遮於此成就名不成就。亦假非實。

毗婆沙師至實而非假者。說一切有部結歸本宗。

如是二途皆為善說者。論主雙印兩宗。

所以者何者。徴論主。理無兩是。必有一非。如何贊言皆為善說。

不違理故我所宗故者。論主釋。經部說假不違理故。亦說一切有部說實我所宗故。論主意朋經部故作斯解。

已辨自性至旦應辨得者。此下第二明差別。就中。一明得差別。二明非得差別。就第一明得差別中。一正辨差別。二隨難別解。此下第一正辨差別。將明問起。就問起中。一總。二別。此即總問。

且應辨得者。此即別問。

頌曰至非所斷二種者。就頌答中。初一句三世門。第二句三性門。第三．第四句系．不繫門。第五句三學門。第六句三斷門。今此文中約所得法說能得別。

論曰至各有三得者。三世分別門。過去法有過去得者。或是法前．或是法后．或是法俱。有現在．未來得者皆是法后。據世橫望雖皆法后。若據起用前後。未來亦有彼法前得。

未來法有過去．現在得者。皆是法前。有未來得者或是法前．或是法后．或是法俱。未來雖無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：修。並非語言能夠完全表達其體性（本質）。

『如是成就』（這樣的成就）乃至『亦假非實』（也是虛假的而非真實的）者。經部（Sautrāntika）總結說：『如是成就』，隨其所應，遍及一切種類，唯是假立而非真實存在。唯有遮止於此，成就名為『不成就』，也是假立而非真實存在。

『毗婆沙師』（Vaibhāṣika）乃至『實而非假』（真實的而非虛假的）者。說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）總結歸於本宗（自身的宗義）。

『如是二途皆為善說』（這兩種途徑都是善巧的說法）者。論主（作者）同時印可兩宗。

『所以者何』（為什麼這樣說）者。這是論主提出的疑問：道理上不可能兩者都對，必定有一個是錯的。如何讚歎說都是善巧的說法呢？

『不違理故我所宗故』（因為不違背道理，也因為是我所宗奉的）者。論主解釋說：經部說假，因為不違背道理；又說一切有部說實，因為是我所宗奉的。論主意在支援經部，所以這樣解釋。

『已辨自性』（已經辨明了自性）乃至『旦應辨得』（接下來應當辨明獲得）者。以下第二部分說明差別。其中，第一部分說明獲得的差別，第二部分說明非獲得的差別。在第一部分說明獲得的差別中，第一是正式辨明差別，第二是隨順難題分別解釋。以下第一部分正式辨明差別，將要說明，先提出問題。在提出問題中，一是總問，二是別問。這裡是總問。

『且應辨得』（並且應當辨明獲得）者。這是別問。

『頌曰』（頌文說）乃至『非所斷二種』（不是所斷的兩種）者。就頌文的回答中，第一句是三世門（過去、現在、未來），第二句是三性門（善、惡、無記），第三、第四句是系（有繫縛）、不繫（無繫縛）門，第五句是三學門（戒、定、慧），第六句是三斷門（見道所斷、修道所斷、非所斷）。現在這段文字中，是就所獲得的法來說明能獲得的差別。

『論曰』（論述說）乃至『各有三得』（各有三種獲得）者。這是三世分別門。過去法有過去得，或者是在此法之前，或者是在此法之後，或者與此法同時。有現在、未來得，都是在此法之後。從時間上橫向來看，雖然都是在此法之後，如果從起作用的前後來看，未來也有在此法之前的獲得。

未來法有過去、現在得，都是在此法之前。有未來得，或者是在此法之前，或者是在此法之後，或者與此法同時。未來雖然沒有...

【English Translation】 English version: Cultivation. The nature (essence) cannot be fully expressed by language.

'Such accomplishment' to 'also false and not real'. The Sautrāntika concludes: 'Such accomplishment', as appropriate, pervades all kinds, is only provisionally established and not truly existent. Only by negating this, the accomplishment is named 'non-accomplishment', which is also provisionally established and not truly existent.

'Vaibhāṣika' to 'real and not false'. The Sarvāstivāda concludes by returning to its own doctrine.

'Both of these paths are well-spoken'. The author simultaneously approves both schools.

'Why is that?' This is the question raised by the author: It is impossible for both to be correct in principle; one must be wrong. How can you praise them both as well-spoken?

'Because it does not contradict reason, and because it is what I uphold'. The author explains: The Sautrāntika says it is false because it does not contradict reason; and the Sarvāstivāda says it is real because it is what I uphold. The author intends to support the Sautrāntika, so he explains it this way.

'Having distinguished the self-nature' to 'then one should distinguish attainment'. The second part below explains the differences. Among them, the first part explains the differences in attainment, and the second part explains the differences in non-attainment. In the first part explaining the differences in attainment, the first is to formally distinguish the differences, and the second is to explain the difficulties separately. The first part below formally distinguishes the differences, and before explaining, it raises the question. In raising the question, the first is a general question, and the second is a specific question. This is the general question.

'And one should distinguish attainment'. This is the specific question.

'The verse says' to 'the two kinds that are not to be abandoned'. In the answer of the verse, the first line is the three times (past, present, future), the second line is the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral), the third and fourth lines are the bound (with bondage) and unbound (without bondage), the fifth line is the three learnings (discipline, concentration, wisdom), and the sixth line is the three abandonments (abandoned by the path of seeing, abandoned by the path of cultivation, not to be abandoned). In this passage, it explains the differences in what can be attained in terms of what is attained.

'The treatise says' to 'each has three attainments'. This is the distinction of the three times. A past dharma has a past attainment, either before the dharma, after the dharma, or simultaneous with the dharma. The present and future attainments are all after the dharma. Although they are all after the dharma from a horizontal perspective in time, if viewed from the perspective of the order of functioning, the future also has an attainment before that dharma.

A future dharma has past and present attainments, which are all before the dharma. A future attainment is either before the dharma, after the dharma, or simultaneous with the dharma. Although the future does not have...

前．后次第。約得類別約容起用說前．后也　現在法有過去得者唯法前。有未來得者唯法后。據世橫望雖唯法后。若據起用前後。未來亦有彼法前得。有現在得者唯法俱得。約容有義且作是說其中差別后當更辨　若依婆沙一百五十八云。能得總有四種。一在彼法前。二在彼法后。三與彼法俱。四非彼法前．后．及俱。若所得法則有六種。一有所得法唯有俱得。如異熟生等。二有所得法唯有前得。如三類邊世俗智等。有說此等亦有俱得。三有所得法唯有俱得．后得。如別解脫戒等。四有所得法唯有俱得．前得。如道類忍等。五有所得法具有前．后．俱得。如所餘善．染污等。六有所得法不可說有前．后．俱得而有諸得。謂擇滅．非擇滅。必無有法唯有法后得者。現在前時必有得故　解云異熟生等等余無記。世俗智等等相應法等。此智既畢竟不生故。無法俱．法后。有說亦有俱得。應在第四類攝。別解脫戒等等余惡戒等。道類忍等等相應法等　問現在道類忍如何得有法前得耶　解云現在道類忍。雖復唯有法俱得。未來道類忍亦有法前得。約忍種類說故言有法前。以所得法據種類說故　又解現在道類忍。今雖唯有法俱得。脫不現前即有法前得。約容有說言有法前　又解現道類忍約世而言唯有法俱得而無法前得。由此現忍有未

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前與后、次第：根據類別來區分，可以根據容許生起作用來說明前與后。現在法獲得過去法，只有法在前。獲得未來法，只有法在後。如果根據世俗的橫向觀察，似乎只有法在後。但如果根據生起作用的前後，未來法也有在其之前獲得的。獲得現在法，只有法同時獲得。根據容許的情況，姑且這樣說，其中的差別之後會進一步辨析。如果依照《婆沙論》第一百五十八卷所說，能獲得總共有四種：一、在彼法之前；二、在彼法之後；三、與彼法同時；四、非彼法之前、后、及同時。如果就所獲得的法來說，則有六種：一、有所得的法只有同時獲得，如異熟生（Vipāka-ja，果報所生）等。二、有所得的法只有先前獲得，如三類邊世俗智（Lokika-jñāna，世俗的智慧）等。有人說這些也有同時獲得。三、有所得的法只有同時獲得、之後獲得，如別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa-śīla，防止惡行的戒律）等。四、有所得的法具有同時獲得、先前獲得，如道類忍（Dharmajñāna-kṣānti，對法的忍耐）等。五、有所得的法具有前、后、俱得，如其餘的善法、染污法等。六、有所得的法不可說有前、后、俱得，但有諸種獲得，指的是擇滅（Pratisamkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅盡）、非擇滅（Apratisamkhyā-nirodha，非通過智慧選擇而自然達到的滅盡）。必定沒有法只有法后得的情況，因為現在顯現時必定有獲得。解釋說，異熟生等等是其餘的無記法。世俗智等等是相應的法等等。因為這種智慧畢竟不生起，所以沒有法同時、法在後。有人說也有同時獲得，應該歸在第四類。別解脫戒等等是其餘的惡戒等等。道類忍等等是相應的法等等。問：現在的道類忍如何能有法前得呢？答：現在的道類忍，雖然只有法同時獲得，但未來的道類忍也有法前得。因為是根據忍的種類來說的，所以說有法在前。因為所獲得的法是根據種類來說的。又解釋說，現在的道類忍，現在雖然只有法同時獲得，如果不再現前，就有了法前得。根據容許的情況，所以說有法在前。又解釋說，現在的道類忍，就世俗而言，只有法同時獲得，而沒有法前得。由此，現在的忍有未……

【English Translation】 English version: Before and After, Sequence: Distinguishing according to categories, 'before' and 'after' can be explained based on the allowance for arising and functioning. When a present dharma obtains a past dharma, it is only when the dharma is 'before'. When obtaining a future dharma, it is only when the dharma is 'after'. According to worldly horizontal observation, it seems only the dharma is 'after'. However, according to the sequence of arising and functioning, a future dharma can also be obtained 'before' that dharma. When obtaining a present dharma, it is only when the dharmas are obtained simultaneously. According to the allowance, let's say it this way for now; the differences within will be further analyzed later. According to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 158, there are four types of obtaining in total: 1. Before that dharma; 2. After that dharma; 3. Simultaneously with that dharma; 4. Neither before, after, nor simultaneous with that dharma. Regarding the dharma that is obtained, there are six types: 1. The dharma that is obtained only has simultaneous obtaining, such as Vipāka-ja (異熟生, born of fruition) etc. 2. The dharma that is obtained only has prior obtaining, such as the three types of mundane knowledge (Lokika-jñāna, 世俗智) etc. Some say these also have simultaneous obtaining. 3. The dharma that is obtained only has simultaneous and subsequent obtaining, such as Prātimokṣa-śīla (別解脫戒, precepts of individual liberation) etc. 4. The dharma that is obtained has both simultaneous and prior obtaining, such as Dharmajñāna-kṣānti (道類忍, forbearance regarding the dharma) etc. 5. The dharma that is obtained has prior, subsequent, and simultaneous obtaining, such as the remaining wholesome and defiled dharmas etc. 6. The dharma that is obtained cannot be said to have prior, subsequent, or simultaneous obtaining, but has various obtainings, referring to Pratisamkhyā-nirodha (擇滅, cessation through discernment) and Apratisamkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅, cessation without discernment). There is definitely no dharma that only has subsequent obtaining, because there must be obtaining when the present manifests. It is explained that Vipāka-ja etc. are the remaining indeterminate dharmas. Mundane knowledge etc. are the corresponding dharmas etc. Because this wisdom ultimately does not arise, there is no dharma that is simultaneous or after. Some say there is also simultaneous obtaining, which should be categorized under the fourth type. Prātimokṣa-śīla etc. are the remaining evil precepts etc. Dharmajñāna-kṣānti etc. are the corresponding dharmas etc. Question: How can the present Dharmajñāna-kṣānti have prior obtaining? Answer: Although the present Dharmajñāna-kṣānti only has simultaneous obtaining, the future Dharmajñāna-kṣānti also has prior obtaining. Because it is spoken of according to the type of forbearance, it is said that there is dharma 'before'. Because the dharma that is obtained is spoken of according to type. It is also explained that the present Dharmajñāna-kṣānti, although it only has simultaneous obtaining now, if it no longer manifests, then there is prior obtaining. According to the allowance, it is said that there is dharma 'before'. It is also explained that the present Dharmajñāna-kṣānti, in terms of the mundane, only has simultaneous obtaining and no prior obtaining. Therefore, the present forbearance has not...

來法前得故。亦名有法前得。此未來得。約世橫望實在現忍后。而名法前得不名法后得者。以此得不起即已。起必在彼忍前。以能得得約容起用說前．后．俱也。由斯現忍亦有前得。

又善等法至無記三得者。三性分別門。此得大分雖約所得判性。于中非無少分差別。故婆沙一百五十八云。問何故得與所得法性類或同．或異耶。答得有三種。一有為法得。二擇滅得。三非擇滅得。有為法得隨所得法性類差別。以有為法能有作用引自得故。擇滅得隨能得道性類差別。以諸擇滅自無作用。但由道力求證彼時。引彼得故。非擇滅得隨自所依性類差別。以非擇滅自無作用。非道所求。彼得但依命根．眾同分而現前故。

又有系法至得有四種者。系．不繫分別門。若三界系法得。隨所得法還三界系。以有為法得隨所得法判性。若無漏不繫法得。三界系．及不繫。總相如是　別分別者。諸不繫法總有三類。一擇滅。二非擇滅。三道諦。若非擇滅得通三界系。隨身在何界。得即彼界系。以非擇滅得隨所依判性。若擇滅得隨能證道判性。若有漏道所引者。色．無色界系。以欲界無能斷道故。若無漏道所引者。即不繫故。云及與無漏。若道諦得唯是無漏。是不繫。道是有為。以有為法得隨所得法判性故。無系法得通三界．不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『來法前得』（lāi fǎ qián dé，指未來之法在生起之前獲得的『得』）也稱為『有法前得』。這種未來之『得』，是從世俗角度橫向觀察，認為它實在地存在於現忍（xiàn rěn，指現觀智的忍位）之後。之所以稱為『法前得』而不稱為『法后得』，是因為這種『得』一旦生起就立即消失，而且必定在現忍之前生起。因為能獲得的『得』，是從可能生起的作用來說的，所以有前、后、俱三種情況。因此，現忍也有『前得』。

關於『善等法至無記三得』，這是從三性（sān xìng，指善、惡、無記三種性質）分別的角度來說的。這種『得』的大分類雖然是根據所得之法的性質來判斷的，但其中並非沒有少許差別。所以《婆沙》（Póshā，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的簡稱）第一百五十八卷中說：『問：為什麼「得」與所得之法的性質有時相同，有時不同呢？答：「得」有三種：一、有為法得（yǒu wéi fǎ dé，指通過因緣和合而產生的法的獲得），二、擇滅得（zé miè dé，指通過智慧選擇而證得的滅），三、非擇滅得（fēi zé miè dé，指不通過智慧選擇自然而然證得的滅）。有為法得隨所得之法的性質而有差別，因為有為法能夠發揮作用，引生自身的「得」。擇滅得隨能證之道（néng zhèng zhī dào，指能夠證得涅槃的修行方法）的性質而有差別，因為諸擇滅本身沒有作用，只是通過道的力量來求證彼滅時，引生彼滅的「得」。非擇滅得隨自身所依之法的性質而有差別，因為非擇滅本身沒有作用，也不是通過道來求證的，它的「得」只是依靠命根（mìng gēn，指維持生命的能力）、眾同分（zhòng tóng fēn，指眾生共同擁有的特性）而顯現。』

關於『又有系法至得有四種』，這是從繫縛與不繫縛（xì yǔ bù xì fù，指煩惱對眾生的束縛與解脫）的角度來說的。如果是有繫縛之法的『得』，那麼隨所得之法仍然是被三界（sān jiè，指欲界、色界、無色界）所繫縛。因為有為法得是隨所得之法的性質來判斷的。如果是無漏不繫縛之法的『得』，那麼包括三界繫縛之法和不繫縛之法。總的來說是這樣，具體分別來說：諸不繫縛之法總共有三類：一、擇滅，二、非擇滅，三、道諦（dào dì，指通往涅槃的道路）。如果是非擇滅得，那麼通於三界繫縛，隨身在哪個界，『得』就是哪個界的繫縛。因為非擇滅得是隨所依之法來判斷的。如果是擇滅得，那麼隨能證之道來判斷。如果是有漏道（yǒu lòu dào，指有煩惱的修行方法）所引生的，那麼屬於色界、無色界繫縛，因為欲界沒有能斷煩惱的道。如果是無漏道（wú lòu dào，指沒有煩惱的修行方法）所引生的，那麼就是不繫縛的。『云及與無漏』，如果道諦得，那麼唯是無漏，是不繫縛的。道是有為法，因為有為法得是隨所得之法來判斷的。無繫縛之法得通於三界、不繫縛。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Láifǎ qián dé' (來法前得, the 'attainment' of a future dharma before it arises) is also called 'yǒufǎ qián dé' (有法前得, the 'prior attainment' of a dharma). This future 'attainment', viewed horizontally from a worldly perspective, is considered to exist substantially after the 'present endurance' (xiàn rěn, 現忍, the kṣānti-jñāna in the present moment of insight). It is called 'prior attainment of dharma' and not 'posterior attainment of dharma' because this 'attainment' disappears immediately upon arising, and it must arise before the present endurance. Because the 'attainment' that can be obtained is spoken of in terms of the function of possible arising, there are three situations: prior, posterior, and simultaneous. Therefore, the present endurance also has 'prior attainment'.

Regarding 'good dharmas, etc., to the three attainments of neutral', this is from the perspective of distinguishing the three natures (sān xìng, 三性, good, evil, and neutral). Although the major classification of this 'attainment' is judged according to the nature of the dharma obtained, there are still some minor differences. Therefore, the 158th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā (Póshā, 婆沙, short for Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'Question: Why is the nature of the 'attainment' sometimes the same as, and sometimes different from, the nature of the dharma obtained? Answer: There are three types of 'attainment': first, the 'attainment of conditioned dharma' (yǒu wéi fǎ dé, 有為法得, the attainment of dharmas produced through the combination of causes and conditions); second, the 'attainment of selective cessation' (zé miè dé, 擇滅得, the cessation attained through the selection of wisdom); and third, the 'attainment of non-selective cessation' (fēi zé miè dé, 非擇滅得, the cessation attained naturally without the selection of wisdom). The 'attainment of conditioned dharma' varies according to the nature of the dharma obtained, because conditioned dharmas can function to produce their own 'attainment'. The 'attainment of selective cessation' varies according to the nature of the path (néng zhèng zhī dào, 能證之道, the practice that can attain nirvāṇa) that can realize it, because selective cessations themselves have no function, but when seeking to realize them through the power of the path, they produce the 'attainment' of that cessation. The 'attainment of non-selective cessation' varies according to the nature of the dharma it relies on, because non-selective cessations themselves have no function and are not sought through the path; their 'attainment' manifests only relying on the life-force (mìng gēn, 命根, the ability to sustain life) and the commonality of beings (zhòng tóng fēn, 眾同分, the characteristics shared by all beings).'

Regarding 'there are also conditioned dharmas to the four types of attainment', this is from the perspective of bondage and non-bondage (xì yǔ bù xì fù, 系與不繫縛, the bondage and liberation of afflictions on sentient beings). If it is the 'attainment' of a dharma that is bound, then the dharma obtained is still bound by the three realms (sān jiè, 三界, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm). Because the 'attainment of conditioned dharma' is judged according to the nature of the dharma obtained. If it is the 'attainment' of an unconditioned, non-bound dharma, then it includes dharmas bound by the three realms and non-bound dharmas. Generally speaking, it is like this; specifically speaking: there are three types of non-bound dharmas in total: first, selective cessation; second, non-selective cessation; third, the truth of the path (dào dì, 道諦, the path to nirvāṇa). If it is the 'attainment of non-selective cessation', then it is common to the bondage of the three realms; whichever realm the body is in, the 'attainment' is bound by that realm. Because the 'attainment of non-selective cessation' is judged according to the dharma it relies on. If it is the 'attainment of selective cessation', then it is judged according to the path that can realize it. If it is produced by a defiled path (yǒu lòu dào, 有漏道, a practice with afflictions), then it belongs to the bondage of the form realm and the formless realm, because there is no path in the desire realm that can sever afflictions. If it is produced by an undefiled path (wú lòu dào, 無漏道, a practice without afflictions), then it is non-bound. 'It is said to be with undefiled', if it is the 'attainment of the truth of the path', then it is only undefiled and non-bound. The path is a conditioned dharma, because the 'attainment of conditioned dharma' is judged according to the dharma obtained. The 'attainment of non-bound dharma' is common to the three realms and non-bound.

系四種。

又有學法至得即無學者。三學分別門。學．無學法是有為故。得隨所得。是學．無學．非學非無學法得有差別。若總說通三學。若別分別。一切有漏．及三無為。是非學．非無學。且有漏法唯有非學非無學得。以有為法得隨所得法判。若非擇滅得隨所依判。若非聖道所引擇滅得隨能證道判。皆有漏故並是非學非無學。若有學道所引擇滅得即有學。隨能證道是有學故。若無學道轉根時。所引擇滅得即無學。隨能證道是無學故　問學人以有漏．無漏道。能斷無所有處已下八地修惑。隨用何道。各能引起二離系得。既互相引。云何隨道判性　解云無漏道斷惑。雖亦能引有漏得。有漏道斷惑。雖亦能引無漏得。而非正引。但是兼引。故不互隨二道判性。但隨自道。彼能證道雖復不起。然互相修。而由彼力擇滅得起。故各隨自能證道判　問頌中但言非學非無學。何故長行具明三學　解云頌中文窄唯論一種。長行文寬故具明三　又解非學非無學得。有差別。通三學故所以別標。學．無學得各唯一種。無多差別故不別顯　或舉后顯初。

又見修所至皆非所斷者。三斷分別門。見．修所斷法體是有為。能得隨彼亦是見．修所斷。一切無漏名非所斷法。得有差別。總說有二。或修所斷。或非所斷。若別分別非擇滅

得唯修所斷。隨所依身同修斷故。若有漏道所引擇滅得。亦唯修斷。以隨能證道同修斷故。若無漏道所引擇滅得。隨能證道是無漏故名非所斷。若道諦得道是有為。得隨所得同是無漏名非所斷　問頌文但明非所斷。何故長行通明三斷　解云頌窄別標。或通二斷是故別顯。或舉后顯初。

前雖總說至欲色無前起者。此下第二隨難別解。問起頌答。

論曰至得亦現在者。釋初句。

一切無覆至皆如是耶者。問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

除眼耳通至及俱起得者。釋。即解第二句。謂二通慧．及能化心俱生四蘊。一勢力強故。二加行差別所成辨故。雖是無記而有前．后．及俱起得。

若工巧處至得亦許爾者。工巧處以色．聲．香．味．觸為體。威儀路以色．香．味．觸為體。此舉所依顯能依四蘊。故婆沙一百二十六云。工巧處者。謂色．聲．香．味．觸五處為體。起工巧處者。謂能起彼意．法二處為體　又云威儀路者。謂色．香．味．觸四處為體。起威儀路者。謂能起彼意．法二處為體　又解應言工巧處心．威儀路心。不言心者略而不論　又一解云心是威儀．工巧所依名處。名路。若作此解即與婆沙相違。若工巧處．及威儀路四蘊。極數習者亦有前．后．俱得。除上別簡

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：唯有通過修習才能斷除（修所斷）。因為隨著所依之身，一同修習而斷除。如果是有漏之道所引發的擇滅（Nirvana obtained through discrimination）之獲得，也唯有通過修習才能斷除。因為隨著能夠證得此道的修行，一同修習而斷除。如果是無漏之道所引發的擇滅之獲得，隨著能夠證得此道的修行是無漏的，因此被稱為非所斷（not to be abandoned）。如果道諦（Truth of the Path）之獲得，道是有為法（conditioned phenomena），獲得隨著所獲得的道一同是無漏的，因此被稱為非所斷。問：頌文只說明瞭非所斷，為什麼長行（散文部分）卻通明三種斷（三斷：見所斷、修所斷、非所斷）？答：頌文篇幅狹窄，分別標明；或者通指兩種斷（修所斷和非所斷），因此特別顯示；或者舉出後面的（非所斷）來顯示前面的（見所斷和修所斷）。

前面雖然總說了，（現在）到『至欲色無前起者』，這以下第二部分，隨著疑問分別解釋。問起頌（引發疑問的偈頌），回答。

論曰：至『得亦現在者』，解釋第一句。

『一切無覆至皆如是耶者』，提問。

『不爾者』，回答。

『云何者』，征問。

『除眼耳通至及俱起得者』，解釋。即解釋第二句。指二通慧（two kinds of super knowledge）以及能化心（mind capable of transformation）俱生的四蘊（four aggregates）。一是勢力強盛的緣故，二是加行（effort）差別所成就的緣故。雖然是無記（neutral），但有前、后、以及俱起得。

『若工巧處至得亦許爾者』，工巧處（skillful activities）以色（form）、聲（sound）、香（smell）、味（taste）、觸（touch）為體。威儀路（manner of conduct）以色、香、味、觸為體。這裡舉出所依（that which is relied upon）來顯示能依（that which relies upon）的四蘊。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百二十六卷說：『工巧處，是指色、聲、香、味、觸五處為體。起工巧處，是指能起彼意的意、法二處為體。』又說：『威儀路，是指色、香、味、觸四處為體。起威儀路，是指能起彼意的意、法二處為體。』又解釋說，應該說工巧處心、威儀路心。不說心，是省略而不論。又一種解釋說，心是威儀、工巧所依，名為處，名為路。如果這樣解釋，就與《婆沙論》相違背。如果工巧處以及威儀路的四蘊，極度串習，也有前、后、俱得。除去上面特別簡擇的情況。

【English Translation】 English version: Only what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya) is severed. Because it is abandoned by cultivation along with the body it relies on. If the attainment of cessation through discrimination (nirodha-samāpatti) is induced by a defiled path (sāsrava-mārga), it is also only abandoned by cultivation. Because it is abandoned by cultivation along with the path that can realize it. If the attainment of cessation through discrimination is induced by an undefiled path (anāsrava-mārga), it is called 'not to be abandoned' because the path that can realize it is undefiled. If the attainment of the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya) is a conditioned phenomenon (saṃskṛta), the attainment is undefiled along with the path it is attained by, hence it is called 'not to be abandoned'. Question: The verse only clarifies what is 'not to be abandoned', why does the prose (long commentary) explain all three types of abandonment (three abandonments: what is abandoned by seeing, what is abandoned by cultivation, and what is not to be abandoned)? Answer: The verse is concise and specifically indicates; or it generally refers to two abandonments (what is abandoned by cultivation and what is not to be abandoned), therefore it is specifically shown; or it mentions the latter (what is not to be abandoned) to reveal the former (what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation).

Although it was generally stated earlier, (now) up to 'to the realm of desire and form, there is no prior arising', the second part below explains separately according to the questions. The verse raises the question, and the answer follows.

The treatise says: 'to the attainment is also present', explaining the first sentence.

'Are all unwholesome things up to such as these?', a question.

'Not so', an answer.

'How so?', an inquiry.

'Except for the supernormal powers of the eye and ear, up to the co-arising attainments', an explanation. This explains the second sentence. It refers to the two kinds of super knowledge (abhijñā) and the four aggregates (skandha) that arise together with the mind capable of transformation (nirmāṇa-citta). One is because of the strength of the power, and the other is because of the accomplishment through the difference in effort (prayoga). Although they are neutral (avyākṛta), they have prior, subsequent, and co-arising attainments.

'If skillful activities up to the attainment is also permitted thus', skillful activities (karmānta) have form (rūpa), sound (śabda), smell (gandha), taste (rasa), and touch (sparśa) as their substance. Manner of conduct (iryāpatha) has form, smell, taste, and touch as its substance. Here, the basis (āśraya) is mentioned to reveal the four aggregates that rely on it. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Mahāvibhāṣā) volume 126 says: 'Skillful activities refer to the five places of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch as their substance. Arising skillful activities refers to the two places of mind and dharma that can arise from that intention as their substance.' It also says: 'Manner of conduct refers to the four places of form, smell, taste, and touch as their substance. Arising manner of conduct refers to the two places of mind and dharma that can arise from that intention as their substance.' Another explanation says that one should say 'mind of skillful activities' and 'mind of manner of conduct'. Not mentioning the mind is an omission. Another explanation says that the mind is the basis of manner of conduct and skillful activities, hence it is called a place, called a path. If explained this way, it contradicts the Vibhasa. If the four aggregates of skillful activities and manner of conduct are extremely practiced, they also have prior, subsequent, and co-arising attainments. Except for the specifically selected cases above.

有三世得。自餘一切異熟五蘊．及威儀路．工巧處．通果色蘊。及威儀路．工巧處四蘊一分。並自性無記色．行一分。唯有法俱得。故正理十二云。又威儀路四蘊之得。多分世斷．及剎那斷。唯除諸佛．馬勝苾芻．及余善習威儀路者。若工巧處四蘊之得。亦多分世斷．及剎那斷。除毗濕縛羯摩天神．及余善習工巧處者　問色界威儀路四蘊。有三世得不　解云彼界非極串習。無三世得。又婆沙一百五十七解欲界中雲。威儀路四蘊中。善串習者。如佛．馬勝．及余有情所善串習。並工巧處四蘊中。善串習者。如佛．妙業天子．及余有情所善串習。彼得亦皆世雜。剎那雜。謂在三世各有三世得故。又婆沙解色界中雲。一切有覆無記．無覆無記色蘊．及威儀路異熟四蘊。彼得世不雜。剎那不雜。隨在彼世即唯有彼世得故。準婆沙文。于欲界中。即別簡威儀．工巧極串習者。有三世得。於色界中。即不別簡威儀有三世得。明知色界威儀四蘊。無三世得　問若威儀路．工巧處不串習者。無前後得。何故識身足論云。成就欲界善心．不善心。皆云定成就欲界無覆無記心彼論既言定成。是即初生欲界。必定成就二無記心。云何乃言不串習者無三世得　解云論意各別。難為會釋　又解此論．正理．婆沙．雜心。亦據不串習者。所以有不成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有三世（過去、現在、未來）才能獲得。其餘一切異熟五蘊（由業力成熟而產生的色、受、想、行、識五種聚合）、以及威儀路（有規律的行動）、工巧處（精巧的技藝）所生的色蘊，以及威儀路、工巧處四蘊（受、想、行、識）的一部分，以及自性無記色（非善非惡的色法）、行（意志活動）的一部分，只有法俱得（與法同時獲得）。所以《正理》第十二卷說：『又威儀路四蘊的獲得，大多是世斷（一個生命週期結束時斷滅）、以及剎那斷（一個念頭結束時斷滅），唯獨諸佛（Buddha）、馬勝苾芻（Aśvajit，佛陀的弟子）、以及其他善於習練威儀路的人除外。如果工巧處四蘊的獲得，也大多是世斷、以及剎那斷，除了毗濕縛羯摩天神（Viśvakarman，工巧之神）、以及其他善於習練工巧處的人。』問：威儀路四蘊，有三世得嗎？答：彼界（指色界或無色界）並非極度串習，沒有三世得。又《婆沙》第一百五十七卷解釋欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生有情慾的世界）中說：『威儀路四蘊中，善於串習的人，如佛、馬勝、以及其他有情所善於串習的。』『並工巧處四蘊中，善於串習的人，如佛、妙業天子（善於創造的天神）、以及其他有情所善於串習的。』他們的獲得也都是世雜（與不同世混合）、剎那雜（與不同剎那混合）。意思是說在三世各有三世得。又《婆沙》解釋中說：『一切有覆無記（被煩惱覆蓋的非善非惡）、無覆無記色蘊（沒有煩惱覆蓋的非善非惡）、以及威儀路異熟四蘊，他們的獲得世不雜、剎那不雜。』意思是說，隨其存在於哪一世，就只有那一世的獲得。根據《婆沙》的文義，在欲界中，就特別區分威儀、工巧極度串習的人，有三世得。在中，就不特別區分威儀有三世得。明顯可知威儀四蘊，沒有三世得。問：如果威儀路、工巧處不串習的人，沒有前後得，為什麼《識身足論》說：『成就欲界善心、不善心，都說必定成就欲界無覆無記心。』彼論既然說必定成就，就是說初生欲界，必定成就二無記心。為什麼又說不串習的人沒有三世得？答：論的意義各自不同，難以會通解釋。又解釋此論、《正理》、《婆沙》、《雜心》，也是根據不串習的人，所以有不成就的情況。

【English Translation】 English version There are three times (past, present, and future) to be attained. All other Vipāka five aggregates (the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness produced by the maturation of karma), as well as the form aggregate produced by Īryāpatha (regulated actions), skillful activities, and a portion of the four aggregates (feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) of Īryāpatha and skillful activities, along with the inherently neutral form and a portion of mental formations, are only attained with Dharma. Therefore, the twelfth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states: 'Furthermore, the attainment of the four aggregates of Īryāpatha is mostly terminated by lifetimes and moments, except for the Buddhas, the Bhikṣu Aśvajit (one of Buddha's first five disciples), and others who are skilled in practicing Īryāpatha. If the attainment of the four aggregates of skillful activities is also mostly terminated by lifetimes and moments, except for the Deva Viśvakarman (the divine architect), and others who are skilled in practicing skillful activities.' Question: Do the four aggregates of Īryāpatha have attainment in the three times? Answer: That realm (referring to the Form Realm or Formless Realm) is not extremely practiced, and there is no attainment in the three times. Furthermore, the one hundred and fifty-seventh volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā explains in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu, the world of beings with sensual desires): 'Among the four aggregates of Īryāpatha, those who are skilled in practice, such as the Buddha, Aśvajit, and other sentient beings who are well-practiced.' 'And among the four aggregates of skillful activities, those who are skilled in practice, such as the Buddha, the Deva of Wonderful Deeds (a deity skilled in creation), and other sentient beings who are well-practiced.' Their attainments are also mixed with lifetimes and moments. This means that in each of the three times, there is attainment in the three times. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā explains: 'All obscured neutral (covered by afflictions, neither good nor bad), unobscured neutral form aggregate (not covered by afflictions, neither good nor bad), and the Vipāka four aggregates of Īryāpatha, their attainments are not mixed with lifetimes and moments.' This means that wherever they exist in which time, there is only attainment in that time. According to the meaning of the Mahāvibhāṣā, in the Desire Realm, those who are extremely practiced in Īryāpatha and skillful activities are specifically distinguished as having attainment in the three times. In , there is no specific distinction of Īryāpatha having attainment in the three times. It is clearly known that the four aggregates of ** Īryāpatha do not have attainment in the three times. Question: If those who do not practice Īryāpatha and skillful activities do not have prior and subsequent attainment, why does the Vijñānakāya say: 'Attaining wholesome mind and unwholesome mind in the Desire Realm, it is said that one definitely attains the unobscured neutral mind in the Desire Realm.' Since that treatise says definite attainment, it means that one who is newly born in the Desire Realm definitely attains the two neutral minds. Why then is it said that those who do not practice do not have attainment in the three times? Answer: The meanings of the treatises are different and difficult to reconcile. Furthermore, the explanations of this treatise, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, the Mahāvibhāṣā, and the Samuccaya, are also based on those who do not practice, so there is a situation of non-attainment.

就。識身唯據串習者。故言成就。各據一義並不相違。至后得心當更分別　問威儀路．工巧處四蘊。若極串習者有三世得。何故頌文不簡。但簡二通變化　解云二通變化　以定成故。所以別簡。威儀．工巧以不定故　故不別標。

唯有無覆至但俱起耶者。問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

有覆無記至法前後得者。釋。解第三句。謂唯色界初靜慮中。修所斷惑。發有覆無記身．語表色。得亦如前但有俱起。雖有上品煩惱。而亦不能發無表故。勢力微劣。由此定無法前．后得。或雖有上品表業。應知一切有覆無記四蘊。有三世得。心望色強。又是能發故三世得。色望心劣。又是所發故唯法俱所以此色唯初定者。欲界有覆無記身．邊二見。不能發業。二定已上非尋．伺俱。亦不發業。

如無記法至亦有異耶者。問。

亦有者。答。

云何者。徴。

謂欲界系至及後起得者。釋。解第四句。謂欲界系善．不善表．無表色。是有記故有法俱．法后得。非心俱故無法前得　問初定善身．語表。亦唯有俱得．后得。何故頌。及長行不別說耶　解云總而言之。色界善色其得不定。若初定善表。有俱得．后得。若隨心戒有三世得。以不定故略而不論。欲界善色定故別標也。應知除

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：就『識身唯據串習者』而言，這是因為只有通過串習才能達到這種程度，所以說『成就』。各自依據一個含義，並不互相違背。至於后得心，之後會進一步分別說明。問：威儀路（行為舉止）、工巧處（工藝技巧）的四蘊，如果極度串習，可以有三世得（過去、現在、未來獲得），為什麼頌文不加以區分，只區分二通（天眼通、天耳通）和變化（神通變化）？答：二通和變化，因為是通過禪定成就的，所以特別區分。威儀和工巧因為不確定，所以不特別標明。

『唯有無覆至但俱起耶者』，這是提問。

『不爾者』，這是回答。

『云何者』，這是提問。

『有覆無記至法前後得者』，這是解釋。解釋第三句，指的是隻有在初禪中，通過修所斷的煩惱，才能引發有覆無記的身語表色（身體和語言的表達），其獲得也如前所述，只有俱起（同時產生）。即使有上品煩惱，也不能引發無表色（無法察覺的色法），因為其勢力微弱。因此，這種禪定無法產生法前得（在法產生之前獲得）和法后得（在法產生之後獲得）。或者即使有上品表業，也應該知道一切有覆無記的四蘊，都有三世得。心相對於色法來說更強，而且是能引發者，所以有三世得。色法相對於心來說較弱，而且是被引發者，所以只有法俱得（與法同時獲得）。因此，這種色法只在初禪中存在。欲界（慾望界）的有覆無記的身見和邊見，不能引發業。二禪以上沒有尋伺（粗細思考），也不能引發業。

『如無記法至亦有異耶者』，這是提問。

『亦有者』，這是回答。

『云何者』，這是提問。

『謂欲界系至及後起得者』，這是解釋。解釋第四句，指的是欲界的善和不善的表色和無表色，因為是有記（有善惡記別）的，所以有法俱得和法后得，因為沒有心俱得（與心同時獲得），所以沒有法前得。問：初禪的善身語表，也只有俱得和后得，為什麼頌文和長行（詳細解釋）中不特別說明？答：總而言之，善色的獲得是不確定的。如果初禪的善表色，有俱得和后得。如果隨心戒（隨心所愿持守的戒律），有三世得。因為不確定，所以略而不論。欲界的善色是確定的，所以特別標明。應該知道，除了這些情況。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'consciousness-body solely based on habitual practice,' it is because only through habitual practice can this level be achieved, hence the term 'accomplishment.' Each relies on a single meaning and does not contradict each other. As for the subsequent acquired mind, it will be further distinguished later. Question: The four aggregates (skandhas) of deportment (manner of behavior) and skillful arts, if extremely practiced, can be acquired in three times (past, present, and future). Why does the verse not differentiate but only distinguish the two superknowledges (divine eye and divine ear) and transformations (supernatural powers)? Answer: The two superknowledges and transformations are specifically distinguished because they are accomplished through meditation. Deportment and skillful arts are not specifically marked because they are uncertain.

'Only the non-obscured to only arise together?' This is a question.

'Not so?' This is an answer.

'How so?' This is an inquiry.

'Obscured and indeterminate to dharma acquired before and after?' This is an explanation. Explaining the third line, it refers to only in the first dhyana (level of meditation), through afflictions severed by cultivation, can obscured and indeterminate bodily and verbal expressions (manifestations of body and speech) be generated. Their acquisition is as previously stated, only arising together (simultaneous arising). Even with superior afflictions, unmanifested form (imperceptible form) cannot be generated because its power is weak. Therefore, this meditation cannot produce dharma acquired before (acquired before the dharma arises) or dharma acquired after (acquired after the dharma arises). Or even if there are superior manifested karmas, it should be known that all obscured and indeterminate four aggregates are acquired in three times. The mind is stronger relative to form and is the generator, so it is acquired in three times. Form is weaker relative to the mind and is generated, so it is only acquired together with the dharma (simultaneous acquisition). Therefore, this form only exists in the first dhyana. The obscured and indeterminate views of self and extremes in the desire realm (realm of desires) cannot generate karma. The second dhyana and above do not have coarse and subtle thought (seeking and examining), so they cannot generate karma either.

'Like indeterminate dharmas to also have differences?' This is a question.

'Also have?' This is an answer.

'How so?' This is an inquiry.

'Referring to the desire realm to and acquired after arising?' This is an explanation. Explaining the fourth line, it refers to the good and unwholesome manifested and unmanifested forms of the desire realm, because they are determinate (having good and bad distinctions), they have dharma acquired together and dharma acquired after. Because they do not have mind acquired together (simultaneous acquisition with the mind), they do not have dharma acquired before. Question: The good bodily and verbal expressions of the first dhyana also only have acquired together and acquired after. Why are they not specifically mentioned in the verse and the extensive explanation? Answer: Generally speaking, the acquisition of good form is uncertain. If the good manifested form of the first dhyana has acquired together and acquired after. If the precepts followed at will (precepts observed according to one's wishes) are acquired in three times. Because it is uncertain, it is briefly omitted. The good form of the desire realm is definite, so it is specifically marked. It should be known, except for these cases.

欲界善．不善色。及初定善表色。餘一切不善四蘊。及餘一切善五蘊。即是有漏．無漏善四蘊。及隨心道定善色蘊。皆有三世得。

非得如得至品類別耶者。此下第二明非得差別。將明問起。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至得法易地舍者。釋。頌第一句三性門。第二句三世門。第三句界系門。后一句明舍門　今此文中約所不得法。說非得差別也　若準得中。亦應合有三學．三斷分別。以初句言非得凈無記。明知唯是非學非無學。唯修所斷義準可知。故不別說。

論曰至無記性攝者。三性分別門。一切非得無覆無記。以諸非得皆隨所依命根．眾同分無記性故。故婆沙一百五十八云。問非得隨何性類差別。答彼定不隨所不得法。以相違故。又不隨道。非道所求故。但依命根．眾同分轉。故隨所依性類差別。問若諸非得。非擇滅得。俱隨所依性類別者。所依或異熟．或唯等流。此二隨何性類差別。答隨等流性。以義遍故。異熟非遍故不隨立。問非得若隨所不得法。性類差別有何過耶。答斷善根者應成就善。已離欲染者應成就不善。諸無學者應成就染。異生應成三乘無漏法。退果應成果。舍嚮應成向。二滅非得應是無為。由此等過。非得不可隨所不得性類有異。

世差別者至三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：欲界的善和不善的色法，以及初禪的善的表色，還有一切不善的四蘊，以及一切善的五蘊，即是有漏和無漏的善的四蘊，以及隨心道（Cittānuparāga，跟隨心意的道路）的定所生的善的色蘊，都有過去、現在、未來三世的獲得。

如果非得（aprāpti，未獲得）像獲得一樣有品類的差別嗎？這是下面第二部分說明非得的差別，先提出問題。

不是這樣的。回答。

為什麼這樣說？提問。

頌文說：『乃至獲得法易地舍』。解釋。頌文第一句是三性門（關於三種性質的方面），第二句是三世門（關於三種時態的方面），第三句是界系門（關於界和系的方面），最後一句說明舍門（關於捨棄的方面）。現在這段文字中，是根據所未獲得的法，來說明非得的差別。如果按照獲得來說，也應該有三學（tri-śikṣā，戒定慧三學）、三斷（關於三種斷除的方面）的分別。因為第一句說非得是凈無記（vyākṛtāvyākṛta，既非善也非惡），明確知道只是非學非無學（aśaikṣāśaikṣa，非有學和無學），唯有修所斷（bhāvanāpahātavya，通過修行才能斷除）的含義可以推知，所以不另外說明。

論述說：『乃至無記性攝』。三性分別門。一切非得都是無覆無記（anivṛtāvyākṛta，不覆蓋的無記），因為各種非得都隨著所依的命根（jīvitendriya，生命力）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga，同類眾生的共性）的無記性。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）第一百五十八卷說：『問：非得隨著什麼性質類別而有差別？答：它一定不隨著所未獲得的法，因為相互違背的緣故。也不隨著道，因為不是道所追求的緣故。只是隨著命根和眾同分而運轉，所以隨著所依的性質類別而有差別。問：如果各種非得，以及非擇滅得（pratisaṃkhyānirodha-prāpti，通過智慧力而獲得的滅），都隨著所依的性質類別，那麼所依或者是異熟（vipāka，果報），或者只是等流（niṣyanda，等同於因的流出），這二者隨著什麼性質類別而有差別？答：隨著等流的性質。因為意義普遍的緣故。異熟不普遍，所以不隨立。問：如果非得隨著所未獲得的法的性質類別而有差別，有什麼過失呢？答：斷善根（kuśalamūla-samuccheda，斷絕善的根源）的人應該成就善，已經離欲染（vītarāga，脫離慾望的污染）的人應該成就不善，各種無學者（arhat，阿羅漢）應該成就染污，異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）應該成就三乘（triyāna，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的無漏法（anāsrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法），退果（phalapratilabdha，退失果位）的人應該成果，舍向（mārga-parityāga，捨棄趨向果位的修行）的人應該成向，二滅（關於兩種滅的方面）的非得應該是無為（asaṃskṛta，不生不滅的境界）。因為這些過失，非得不可以隨著所未獲得的性質類別而有不同。』

世差別（loka-viśeṣa，世界的差別）是說乃至三

【English Translation】 English version: The wholesome and unwholesome form in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), as well as the wholesome manifested form of the first Dhyana (first meditative absorption), and all unwholesome aggregates of four skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations), and all wholesome aggregates of five skandhas, which are the wholesome aggregates of four skandhas with outflows (sāsrava) and without outflows (anāsrava), and the wholesome form aggregate arising from the Samadhi (concentration) of the Path Following the Mind (Cittānuparāga), all have the attainment of the three times (past, present, and future).

If non-attainment (aprāpti) is like attainment, does it have different categories of qualities? This is the second part below explaining the differences in non-attainment, first posing the question.

It is not so. Answer.

Why is it so? Question.

The verse says: 'Even to the attainment of the Dharma, easily abandoning the ground.' Explanation. The first line of the verse is the gate of the three natures (regarding the aspects of three natures), the second line is the gate of the three times (regarding the aspects of three times), the third line is the gate of realms and bonds (regarding the aspects of realms and bonds), and the last line explains the gate of abandonment. Now, in this text, it is based on the Dharma that has not been attained to explain the differences in non-attainment. If according to attainment, there should also be distinctions of the three learnings (tri-śikṣā: morality, concentration, and wisdom) and the three severances (regarding the aspects of three severances). Because the first line says that non-attainment is pure and neutral (vyākṛtāvyākṛta), it is clearly known that it is only non-learning and non-no-more-learning (aśaikṣāśaikṣa), and the meaning that only what is to be severed by cultivation (bhāvanāpahātavya) can be inferred, so it is not explained separately.

The treatise says: 'Even to being included in the neutral nature.' The gate of distinguishing the three natures. All non-attainments are uncovered and neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta), because all non-attainments follow the neutral nature of the life faculty (jīvitendriya) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) on which they depend. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (Buddhist treatise) Volume 158 says: 'Question: What kind of nature does non-attainment follow to have differences? Answer: It certainly does not follow the Dharma that has not been attained, because they contradict each other. Nor does it follow the path, because it is not what the path seeks. It only follows the life faculty and the commonality of beings, so it has differences according to the nature of what it depends on. Question: If all non-attainments, as well as the attainment of cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyānirodha-prāpti), follow the nature of what they depend on, then what they depend on is either the result of maturation (vipāka) or only the outflow of equality (niṣyanda), what kind of nature do these two follow to have differences? Answer: It follows the nature of the outflow of equality. Because the meaning is universal. The result of maturation is not universal, so it is not established to follow it. Question: If non-attainment follows the nature of the Dharma that has not been attained to have differences, what fault is there? Answer: One who has severed the roots of goodness (kuśalamūla-samuccheda) should attain goodness, one who has departed from the defilements of desire (vītarāga) should attain unwholesomeness, all Arhats (arhat) should attain defilement, ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) should attain the unconditioned Dharma (anāsrava-dharma) of the three vehicles (triyāna: Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), one who has regressed from the fruit (phalapratilabdha) should attain the fruit, one who has abandoned the path (mārga-parityāga) should attain the path, and the non-attainment of the two cessations (regarding the aspects of two cessations) should be unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). Because of these faults, non-attainment cannot have differences according to the nature of what has not been attained.'

World difference (loka-viśeṣa) is saying even to three

世非得者。三世分別門。過去法有過去非得者。謂若在法前。若在法后。今時同在過去總名過去非得。有現在．未來非得者。皆是法后非得。據世橫望雖皆法后。若據起用前後未來亦有彼法前非得　未來法有未來非得者。謂若是法前．若是法后。今時同在未來總名未來非得。雖復未來未有前後次第安立。約性類別。約容起用。說前後也。有過．現非得者。謂皆法前非得　現在法有過去非得者。唯有法前非得。有未來非得者。唯有法后非得。據世橫望雖唯法后。若據起用前後。未來亦有彼法前非得。現在法決定無有現在非得。故正理云。以現在法與不成就不俱行故。有說現法無現非得。性相違故。舊俱舍云。現在法有現在非得者。此翻謬矣。若依婆沙一百五十八解非得云。一切非得總有三種。一在彼法前。二在彼法后。三非彼法前後及俱。所不得法亦有三種。一有所不得法唯有彼前非得。謂未來情數畢竟不生法。及入無餘涅槃最後剎那心等。二有所不得法通有彼前．后非得。謂余隨應有情數法。三有所不得法無彼前．后．及俱非得。而有非得。謂擇滅．非擇滅。必無非得可與法俱。以法現在前時。是所得者必有得故。非所得者無得。無非得故亦無唯有法后非得。非無始來。恒成就彼未舍。必起彼類盡故。然諸非得性羸劣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本世間存在著『非得』（Aprāpti，未獲得）的現象。從三世（過去、現在、未來）分別的角度來看：對於過去法來說，存在著『過去非得』。這意味著，如果某個法在另一個法之前，或者在另一個法之後，只要它們都同屬於過去，就總稱為『過去非得』。也存在著『現在非得』和『未來非得』，這些都是在某個法之後的『非得』。雖然從世間的橫向角度來看，它們都在某個法之後，但如果從生起作用的前後關係來看，未來也存在著在某個法之前的『非得』。對於未來法來說，存在著『未來非得』。這意味著，如果某個法在另一個法之前，或者在另一個法之後，只要它們都同屬于未來，就總稱為『未來非得』。雖然未來還沒有前後次第的安立，但可以根據性質類別，以及可能生起的作用，來說明前後關係。也存在著『過去非得』和『現在非得』，這些都是在某個法之前的『非得』。對於現在法來說，存在著『過去非得』，這僅僅是在某個法之前的『非得』。也存在著『未來非得』，這僅僅是在某個法之後的『非得』。雖然從世間的橫向角度來看，僅僅是在某個法之後，但如果從生起作用的前後關係來看，未來也存在著在某個法之前的『非得』。現在法絕對不存在『現在非得』。因此，《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）中說，因為現在法與不成就（Asiddhi）不會同時存在。有人說現在法沒有『現在非得』，因為它們的性質相互違背。舊的《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa）中說，現在法存在『現在非得』，這是翻譯上的錯誤。如果依據《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第一百五十八卷對『非得』的解釋，一切『非得』總共有三種：一是在某個法之前，二是在某個法之後，三是不在某個法的前後，也不與某個法同時。所不能獲得的法也有三種：一是所不能獲得的法只有在某個法之前的『非得』，例如未來情識（Citta，心）的數量，畢竟不會生起的法，以及進入無餘涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）的最後剎那的心等等。二是所不能獲得的法，既有在某個法之前，也有在某個法之後的『非得』，例如其餘隨順相應的情識數量的法。三是所不能獲得的法，沒有在某個法之前、之後、以及同時的『非得』，而是有『非得』，例如擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而滅盡）和非擇滅（Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，不通過智慧選擇而自然滅盡）。必定沒有『非得』可以與法同時存在，因為當法現在前的時候，是已經獲得的，必定有獲得，所以沒有未獲得，沒有未獲得也就沒有『非得』。也沒有僅僅存在於某個法之後的『非得』，因為沒有從無始以來，恒常成就某個法，而未曾捨棄，必定生起同類的法而最終滅盡。然而，各種『非得』的性質是羸弱的。

【English Translation】 English version In the world, there exists the phenomenon of 'Aprāpti' (non-attainment). From the perspective of distinguishing the three times (past, present, and future): For past dharmas, there exists 'past aprāpti'. This means that if a dharma is before another dharma, or after another dharma, as long as they both belong to the past, they are collectively called 'past aprāpti'. There also exists 'present aprāpti' and 'future aprāpti', which are all 'aprāpti' after a certain dharma. Although from the horizontal perspective of the world, they are all after a certain dharma, if viewed from the perspective of the order of arising and functioning, the future also has 'aprāpti' before a certain dharma. For future dharmas, there exists 'future aprāpti'. This means that if a dharma is before another dharma, or after another dharma, as long as they both belong to the future, they are collectively called 'future aprāpti'. Although the future does not yet have an established order of before and after, the relationship of before and after can be explained based on the nature, category, and possible function. There also exists 'past aprāpti' and 'present aprāpti', which are all 'aprāpti' before a certain dharma. For present dharmas, there exists 'past aprāpti', which is only 'aprāpti' before a certain dharma. There also exists 'future aprāpti', which is only 'aprāpti' after a certain dharma. Although from the horizontal perspective of the world, it is only after a certain dharma, if viewed from the perspective of the order of arising and functioning, the future also has 'aprāpti' before a certain dharma. There is absolutely no 'present aprāpti' for present dharmas. Therefore, the 'Nyāyasūtra' states that because present dharmas and 'Asiddhi' (non-accomplishment) do not exist simultaneously. Some say that present dharmas do not have 'present aprāpti' because their natures contradict each other. The old 'Abhidharmakośa' says that present dharmas have 'present aprāpti', which is a translation error. According to the explanation of 'aprāpti' in the 158th fascicle of the 'Vibhāṣā', there are three types of 'aprāpti' in total: one is before a certain dharma, the second is after a certain dharma, and the third is neither before nor after, nor simultaneous with a certain dharma. There are also three types of dharmas that cannot be attained: one is that the dharma that cannot be attained only has 'aprāpti' before a certain dharma, such as the number of future 'Citta' (mind), dharmas that will never arise, and the last moment of mind entering 'Nirvāṇa' (extinction) without remainder, etc. The second is that the dharma that cannot be attained has both 'aprāpti' before and after a certain dharma, such as the remaining dharmas of the number of 'Citta' that correspond accordingly. The third is that the dharma that cannot be attained does not have 'aprāpti' before, after, or simultaneously with a certain dharma, but has 'aprāpti', such as 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' (cessation through wise choice) and 'Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' (cessation without wise choice). There is definitely no 'aprāpti' that can exist simultaneously with a dharma, because when a dharma is present, it has already been attained, and there must be attainment, so there is no non-attainment, and without non-attainment, there is no 'aprāpti'. There is also no 'aprāpti' that exists only after a certain dharma, because there is no dharma that has been constantly accomplished from beginningless time without being abandoned, and dharmas of the same kind will definitely arise and eventually cease. However, the nature of various 'aprāpti' is weak.

故。唯成就現在一剎那。現在一剎那得已即舍。于未得彼法及已舍位。恒有此非得應知　解云非得三種可知。言有所不得法。唯有彼法前非得。未來簡過．現。情數簡非情。畢竟不生法。謂三類智邊世俗智等。此法既畢竟不生。所以唯有法前非得。及三乘人臨入無餘涅槃時最後一剎那心等。謂未來有一類心。唯作臨入涅槃心。從來未曾起彼種類。所以唯有法前非得。無有法后非得。等者等取相應法等。及無生智等。此無生智等一得不退故。亦無有法后非得　問最後心．及無生智等。起現前時。未來世中有彼法前非得性類。何不說有法后非得　解云凡言非得。約容起用說其前．后。未來非得約世前．后。實在彼后。以此非得不起即已。起必在彼最後等前。故說法前不名法后。第二．第三所不得法。及必無非得下可知　言亦無唯有至彼類盡故者。此是反解。顯無唯有法后非得　若無始來恒成就彼法。于未舍位必起。彼種類入過去盡。可得唯有法后非得。非無始來恒成就彼法。于未斷舍位。必起彼法種類。令盡入於過去。以彼種類無量無邊不可起盡故。無唯有法后非得　問如斷有頂見惑必無有退。已入過去者。豈非唯有法后非得　解云所不得法。約法種類說有非得。有頂見惑種類眾多已入過去。雖復但有法后非得。在未來者

即有法前非得故。彼有頂過去見惑。不可得說唯有法后非得　又解過去見惑。今雖但有法后非得。脫不現前即有法前非得。約容有說言有法前　又解過去見惑。約世而言唯有法后非得。而無法前非得。由彼過惑有未來法前非得　故。亦名法前非得。此未來一類非得。約世橫望實在過去惑后。而名法前非得不名法后非得者。以此非得不起即已。起必在彼法前。由彼非得約容起用辨前後也。由斯過惑亦有法前非得。此中三解應知準前道類忍說。

界差別者至是無漏應理者。界系分別門。非得隨所依系故。一一法非得皆通三界系。定無非得是無漏者。非通不繫。所以者何。由許聖道非得說名異生性故。以異生性定非無漏。隨所依身是有漏故。引本論證。可知　問異生性。非得聖非得是有漏。聖不得異生非得是應無漏　解云一切非得皆隨所依。所依有漏故皆有漏。

不獲何聖法名異生性者。問異生性所不得法。

謂不獲一切至應名異生性者。答。若在凡位。不獲一切三乘聖法非得。名異生性。以本論中不別說故。此不獲言表離於獲。若獲少分聖法即名聖者。若異此者而言獲得一切聖法方名聖者。諸佛世尊。亦不成就二乘種姓。應名異生　又解此不獲言。表離於獲。若獲少分即名聖者。雖聖身中亦有非得不獲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『即有法前非得故』：因為存在『法前非得』（Pragabhāva，事物產生前的非得狀態）。彼『有頂』（Bhavāgra，色界最高的禪定層）過去所見的迷惑，不可說唯有『法后非得』（Pradhvaṃsābhāva，事物滅亡后的非得狀態）。

又解釋過去所見的迷惑：即使現在只有『法后非得』，如果它不現前，就存在『法前非得』。這是就可能性而言，所以說存在『法前非得』。

又解釋過去所見的迷惑：就時間而言，只有『法后非得』，而沒有『法前非得』。因為過去的迷惑有未來的『法前非得』的緣故，所以也稱為『法前非得』。這種未來一類的『非得』，就時間上橫向來看，實際上在過去的迷惑之後，而稱為『法前非得』，不稱為『法后非得』的原因是，這種『非得』不起作用就結束了，如果起作用必定在那法之前。因為這種『非得』是就可能產生作用來區分前後的。因此，過去的迷惑也有『法前非得』。這三種解釋應該知道，可以參照前面關於『道類忍』（Dharmajñānakṣānti，對法之忍）的說法。

『界差別者至是無漏應理者』：關於界系的區別，『非得』隨著所依的界系而繫縛，因此，每一種法的『非得』都通於三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的繫縛。絕對沒有『非得』是無漏的，因為不通於不繫縛。為什麼呢？因為允許聖道的『非得』被稱為『異生性』（Pṛthagjanatva，凡夫性），而『異生性』一定不是無漏的，因為所依的身是有漏的緣故。引用本論的論證，可以知道。問：『異生性』的『非得』、聖者的『非得』是有漏的，聖者的『不得』、『異生』的『非得』難道是無漏的嗎？解釋說：一切『非得』都隨著所依，所依是有漏的，所以都是有漏的。

『不獲何聖法名異生性者』：問的是『異生性』所不能獲得的法。

『謂不獲一切至應名異生性者』：回答說：如果在凡夫的地位，不能獲得一切三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）聖法的『非得』，稱為『異生性』。因為在本論中沒有分別說明的緣故。這個『不獲』表示遠離於獲得。如果獲得少分聖法，就稱為聖者。如果不是這樣，而是說獲得一切聖法才稱為聖者，那麼諸佛世尊，也不成就二乘的種姓，應該稱為『異生』。又解釋說，這個『不獲』表示遠離於獲得。如果獲得少分，就稱為聖者。即使在聖者的身中，也有『非得』，不獲得。 English version:

'Because there is Pragabhāva (prior non-existence)': Because there exists 'Pragabhāva' (the state of non-existence before a thing comes into being). The delusions seen in the past in 'Bhavāgra' (the highest realm of form), it cannot be said that there is only 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva' (subsequent non-existence, the state of non-existence after a thing has ceased to be).

Another explanation of past delusions: Even if now there is only 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva', if it does not manifest, then there is 'Pragabhāva'. This is in terms of possibility, so it is said that there is 'Pragabhāva'.

Another explanation of past delusions: In terms of time, there is only 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva', and there is no 'Pragabhāva'. Because past delusions have future 'Pragabhāva', they are also called 'Pragabhāva'. This type of future 'non-existence', viewed horizontally in time, is actually after past delusions, and is called 'Pragabhāva' and not 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva' because this 'non-existence' ends as soon as it does not arise, and if it arises, it must be before that dharma. Because this 'non-existence' distinguishes before and after in terms of potential function. Therefore, past delusions also have 'Pragabhāva'. These three explanations should be understood by referring to the previous explanation of 'Dharmajñānakṣānti' (the forbearance of knowledge of dharma).

'The difference in realms to that which is unconditioned is reasonable': Regarding the distinction of realms, 'non-existence' is bound by the realm it depends on, therefore, the 'non-existence' of each dharma is connected to the bonds of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). There is absolutely no 'non-existence' that is unconditioned, because it is not connected to non-bondage. Why? Because it is allowed that the 'non-existence' of the noble path is called 'Pṛthagjanatva' (the state of being an ordinary being), and 'Pṛthagjanatva' is certainly not unconditioned, because the body it depends on is conditioned. Citing the proof from the original treatise, it can be known. Question: Is the 'non-existence' of 'Pṛthagjanatva', the 'non-existence' of the noble one conditioned, is the 'non-attainment' of the noble one, the 'non-existence' of the 'ordinary being' unconditioned? The explanation is: all 'non-existence' follows what it depends on, and what it depends on is conditioned, so all are conditioned.

'Not obtaining what noble dharma is called Pṛthagjanatva': This asks about the dharma that 'Pṛthagjanatva' cannot obtain.

'That is, not obtaining everything to should be called Pṛthagjanatva': The answer is: If in the position of an ordinary person, the 'non-existence' of not obtaining all the noble dharmas of the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) is called 'Pṛthagjanatva'. Because it is not explained separately in this treatise. This 'not obtaining' indicates being apart from obtaining. If one obtains a small part of the noble dharma, one is called a noble one. If it is not like this, but it is said that one is called a noble one only when one obtains all the noble dharmas, then the Buddhas, the World Honored Ones, would also not achieve the lineage of the two vehicles, and should be called 'ordinary beings'. Another explanation is that this 'not obtaining' indicates being apart from obtaining. If one obtains a small part, one is called a noble one. Even in the body of a noble one, there is 'non-existence', not obtaining.

【English Translation】 English version:

'Because there is Pragabhāva (prior non-existence)': Because there exists 'Pragabhāva' (the state of non-existence before a thing comes into being). The delusions seen in the past in 'Bhavāgra' (the highest realm of form), it cannot be said that there is only 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva' (subsequent non-existence, the state of non-existence after a thing has ceased to be).

Another explanation of past delusions: Even if now there is only 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva', if it does not manifest, then there is 'Pragabhāva'. This is in terms of possibility, so it is said that there is 'Pragabhāva'.

Another explanation of past delusions: In terms of time, there is only 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva', and there is no 'Pragabhāva'. Because past delusions have future 'Pragabhāva', they are also called 'Pragabhāva'. This type of future 'non-existence', viewed horizontally in time, is actually after past delusions, and is called 'Pragabhāva' and not 'Pradhvaṃsābhāva' because this 'non-existence' ends as soon as it does not arise, and if it arises, it must be before that dharma. Because this 'non-existence' distinguishes before and after in terms of potential function. Therefore, past delusions also have 'Pragabhāva'. These three explanations should be understood by referring to the previous explanation of 'Dharmajñānakṣānti' (the forbearance of knowledge of dharma).

'The difference in realms to that which is unconditioned is reasonable': Regarding the distinction of realms, 'non-existence' is bound by the realm it depends on, therefore, the 'non-existence' of each dharma is connected to the bonds of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). There is absolutely no 'non-existence' that is unconditioned, because it is not connected to non-bondage. Why? Because it is allowed that the 'non-existence' of the noble path is called 'Pṛthagjanatva' (the state of being an ordinary being), and 'Pṛthagjanatva' is certainly not unconditioned, because the body it depends on is conditioned. Citing the proof from the original treatise, it can be known. Question: Is the 'non-existence' of 'Pṛthagjanatva', the 'non-existence' of the noble one conditioned, is the 'non-attainment' of the noble one, the 'non-existence' of the 'ordinary being' unconditioned? The explanation is: all 'non-existence' follows what it depends on, and what it depends on is conditioned, so all are conditioned.

'Not obtaining what noble dharma is called Pṛthagjanatva': This asks about the dharma that 'Pṛthagjanatva' cannot obtain.

'That is, not obtaining everything to should be called Pṛthagjanatva': The answer is: If in the position of an ordinary person, the 'non-existence' of not obtaining all the noble dharmas of the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) is called 'Pṛthagjanatva'. Because it is not explained separately in this treatise. This 'not obtaining' indicates being apart from obtaining. If one obtains a small part of the noble dharma, one is called a noble one. If it is not like this, but it is said that one is called a noble one only when one obtains all the noble dharmas, then the Buddhas, the World Honored Ones, would also not achieve the lineage of the two vehicles, and should be called 'ordinary beings'. Another explanation is that this 'not obtaining' indicates being apart from obtaining. If one obtains a small part, one is called a noble one. Even in the body of a noble one, there is 'non-existence', not obtaining.

余聖法。而不名異生性。若異此者。而言但是不獲一切聖法非得。皆名異生性。諸佛世尊。亦不成就聲聞．獨覺種姓聖法。應名異生　問何故凡身非得名異生性。聖身非得非異生性　答如婆沙四十五云。復有說者不得一切聖法。是異生性。問若爾則應一切有情皆名異生。無聖者成就一切聖法故。答雖無聖者具足成就一切聖法。而非異生。以彼非得雜聖得故。謂若凡身中聖法非得。不雜聖得者。是異生性。聖者身中聖法非得。雜聖得故。非異生性。彼得．非得恒俱生故。複次彼非得有二種。一共。二不共。不共者是異生性。共者非異生性。聖者身中聖法非得。一向是共故無前失。複次彼非得有二種。一未被害。二已被害。未被害者是異生性。已被害者非異生性。聖者身中聖法非得。皆已被害故無前失。複次一切聖法非得有二。一依異生相續現起。二依聖者相續現起。前是異生性。后非異生性。故無聖者名異生失　問非得於聖法說名異生性。非得於凡法應名為聖性　解云凡不成聖法。可說非得異生性。聖必成凡法故。彼非得非聖性　問聖性是何　解云謂諸聖法　難云即諸聖法皆名為聖性。亦可即諸凡法皆名異生性　解云聖法不通凡。可立為聖性。凡法亦通聖非皆異生性。故正理十二云。豈不如聖法即說是聖性。成就此性故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：我（提出問題者）認為，如果只是沒有獲得聖法，而不能稱之為『異生性』（prthag-janatva，指凡夫的性質）。如果與此不同，認為僅僅是沒有獲得一切聖法而非獲得，都可以稱為『異生性』，那麼諸佛世尊（Buddha-bhagavat）也不會成就聲聞（sravaka）、獨覺（pratyeka-buddha）種姓的聖法，應該也被稱為『異生』。問：為什麼凡夫之身沒有獲得的聖法可以稱為『異生性』，而聖者之身沒有獲得的聖法卻不是『異生性』呢？答：如《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）第四十五卷所說：還有一種說法是，沒有獲得一切聖法，就是『異生性』。問：如果這樣，那麼一切有情（sarva sattva）都應該被稱為『異生』，因為沒有聖者能夠成就一切聖法。答：雖然沒有聖者能夠完全成就一切聖法，但他們不是『異生』，因為他們沒有獲得的聖法與已獲得的聖法混合在一起。也就是說，如果凡夫之身中聖法沒有獲得，並且與已獲得的聖法不混合，那就是『異生性』。聖者之身中聖法沒有獲得，但與已獲得的聖法混合，所以不是『異生性』，因為他們已獲得的和未獲得的聖法恒常同時生起。其次，這種沒有獲得（非得）有兩種：一種是共同的，一種是不共同的。不共同的是『異生性』，共同的不是『異生性』。聖者之身中聖法沒有獲得，一向是共同的，所以沒有前面的過失。其次，這種沒有獲得（非得）也有兩種：一種是未被損害的，一種是已被損害的。未被損害的是『異生性』，已被損害的不是『異生性』。聖者之身中聖法沒有獲得，都是已被損害的，所以沒有前面的過失。其次，一切聖法沒有獲得（非得）也有兩種：一種是依異生相續（prthag-jana-samtana）現起的，一種是依聖者相續現起的。前者是『異生性』，後者不是『異生性』。所以聖者不會被錯誤地稱為『異生』。問：如果對聖法的沒有獲得（非得）稱為『異生性』，那麼對凡夫之法的沒有獲得（非得）應該稱為『聖性』嗎？解釋說：凡夫不能成就聖法，可以說沒有獲得（非得）是『異生性』。聖者必定成就凡夫之法，所以這種沒有獲得（非得）不是『聖性』。問：什麼是『聖性』（aryatva）？解釋說：就是諸聖法。難：既然諸聖法都可以稱為『聖性』，那麼也可以說諸凡夫之法都可以稱為『異生性』。解釋說：聖法不與凡夫共通，可以建立為『聖性』。凡夫之法也與聖者共通，並非都是『異生性』。所以《正理》（Nyayanusara-sastra）第十二卷說：難道不像聖法那樣，直接就說是『聖性』，因為成就了這種性質嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: I (the questioner) hold that merely not attaining the holy dharmas (arya-dharma) should not be called 'prthag-janatva' (the nature of a common person). If it were otherwise, and merely not attaining all the holy dharmas, but not obtaining them, were called 'prthag-janatva,' then the Buddhas (Buddha-bhagavat) would not achieve the holy dharmas of the sravaka (hearer) and pratyeka-buddha (solitary Buddha) lineages and should also be called 'prthag-jana'. Question: Why is it that the non-attainment of holy dharmas by a common person's body can be called 'prthag-janatva,' while the non-attainment of holy dharmas by a noble person's body is not 'prthag-janatva'? Answer: As stated in Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume 45: There is another view that not obtaining all the holy dharmas is 'prthag-janatva.' Question: If so, then all sentient beings (sarva sattva) should be called 'prthag-jana,' because no noble person achieves all the holy dharmas. Answer: Although no noble person fully achieves all the holy dharmas, they are not 'prthag-jana' because their non-obtained holy dharmas are mixed with the obtained holy dharmas. That is, if the holy dharmas are not obtained in the body of a common person and are not mixed with the obtained holy dharmas, that is 'prthag-janatva.' The holy dharmas are not obtained in the body of a noble person, but they are mixed with the obtained holy dharmas, so it is not 'prthag-janatva,' because their obtained and non-obtained dharmas constantly arise together. Furthermore, this non-attainment (prapti-abhava) is of two kinds: one is common, and one is uncommon. The uncommon is 'prthag-janatva,' and the common is not 'prthag-janatva.' The non-attainment of holy dharmas in the body of a noble person is always common, so there is no previous fault. Furthermore, this non-attainment (prapti-abhava) is also of two kinds: one is not yet harmed, and one is already harmed. The one not yet harmed is 'prthag-janatva,' and the one already harmed is not 'prthag-janatva.' The non-attainment of holy dharmas in the body of a noble person is all already harmed, so there is no previous fault. Furthermore, the non-attainment (prapti-abhava) of all holy dharmas is also of two kinds: one arises based on the prthag-jana-samtana (continuum of a common person), and one arises based on the arya-samtana (continuum of a noble person). The former is 'prthag-janatva,' and the latter is not 'prthag-janatva.' Therefore, noble persons will not be mistakenly called 'prthag-jana'. Question: If the non-attainment (prapti-abhava) of holy dharmas is called 'prthag-janatva,' then should the non-attainment (prapti-abhava) of common dharmas be called 'aryatva' (nobility)? It is explained: A common person cannot achieve holy dharmas, so it can be said that the non-attainment (prapti-abhava) is 'prthag-janatva.' A noble person necessarily achieves common dharmas, so this non-attainment (prapti-abhava) is not 'aryatva'. Question: What is 'aryatva' (nobility)? It is explained: It is the holy dharmas. Objection: Since all holy dharmas can be called 'aryatva,' then it can also be said that all common dharmas can be called 'prthag-janatva'. It is explained: Holy dharmas are not common to common people, so they can be established as 'aryatva.' Common dharmas are also common to noble people, and not all are 'prthag-janatva.' Therefore, the Nyayanusara-sastra (Treatise Following Reason) volume 12 says: Is it not like the holy dharmas, which are directly called 'aryatva' because this nature is achieved?

名聖者。如是異生法．應即異生性。成就此性故名異生。此例不然。以諸聖法唯聖者可得。即聖法說為聖性。諸異生法聖者亦有。如何可立為異生性　問異生性體如上可知。未審。其名如何解釋　答婆沙四十五云。尊者世友作如是說。能令有情起異類見異類煩惱造異類業受異類果異類生。故名異生。複次能令有情墮欲界故往異趣故受異生故。名異生性。廣如彼釋。

若爾彼論應說純言者。難。若爾本論應說純不獲聖法名異生性。

不要須說至食水食風者。通。不要須說純言。此不獲聖法一句文中含純義故。如說魚類食水。龜類食風。雖無純言。而亦知彼純食水．風　有說不獲至彼非得故者。第二師解。謂不獲苦法智忍．及俱生法。名異生性。不可難我。言道類智得果時。舍此向中苦法忍故。彼忍非得還起。應成非聖。前苦法忍時。已永害彼異生性非得故。應知苦忍非得有二。一依凡身。非與無漏得俱行故。是異生性。故見道已前苦忍非得。依凡身故名異生性。二依聖身。與無漏得俱行故。但名非得。不名異生。道類智時。雖有苦忍非得。以依聖身不名異生。又婆沙四十五云。有作是說。不得苦法智忍是異生性。問若爾道類智已生。舍苦法智忍。爾時苦法智忍非得。應是異生性。是則住修道．無學道者。亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『名聖者。如是異生法．應即異生性。成就此性故名異生。』這個例子是不成立的。因為只有聖者才能獲得聖法（Aryadharma），所以聖法才被稱為聖性（Aryatva）。而異生（prthag-jana）之法，聖者也有。怎麼能把它立為異生性呢？問：異生性的體性如上所述可以理解。但它的名稱該如何解釋呢？答：《大毗婆沙論》第四十五卷中說，尊者世友（Vasumitra）這樣說：『能使有情（sattva）產生異類見、異類煩惱、造異類業、受異類果、異類生，所以叫做異生。』其次，『能使有情墮入欲界（Kāmadhātu），前往異趣（gati），感受異生之苦，所以叫做異生性。』詳細的解釋可以參考《大毗婆沙論》。『如果那樣，彼論應該說「純言」』，這是難點。『如果那樣，本論應該說「純不獲得聖法」才叫異生性。』『不需要說到「食水食風」』，這是通用的說法。不需要說「純言」，因為「不獲得聖法」這句話中已經包含了「純」的含義。比如，說魚類吃水，龜類吃風，雖然沒有「純」字，但我們也知道它們是純粹吃水、吃風的。有人說『不獲得…到彼非得故』，這是第二位論師的解釋。指的是不獲得苦法智忍（kṣānti-jñāna）以及與其俱生的法，叫做異生性。不要用道類智（dharmajñāna）得果時，捨棄此向中的苦法忍來為難我，因為那個忍非得還會生起，應該成為非聖。因為之前的苦法忍時，已經永遠損害了那個異生性非得。應該知道苦忍非得有兩種：一種是依凡夫之身，因為不與無漏得（anāsrava-lābha）俱行，所以是異生性。因此見道（darśanamārga）之前的苦忍非得，因為依凡夫之身，所以叫做異生性。另一種是依聖者之身，因為與無漏得俱行，所以只叫做非得，不叫做異生。道類智時，雖然有苦忍非得，但因為依聖者之身，所以不叫做異生。另外，《大毗婆沙論》第四十五卷中說，有人這樣說：『不得苦法智忍是異生性。』問：如果這樣，道類智已經生起，捨棄苦法智忍，這時苦法智忍非得，應該是異生性。那麼住在修道（bhāvanāmārga）、無學道（aśaikṣamārga）的人，也

【English Translation】 English version: 'Named a noble one. Thus, the law of a non-noble one should be the same as the nature of a non-noble one. Because of accomplishing this nature, one is called a non-noble one.' This example is not valid. Because only noble ones can attain noble laws (Aryadharma), thus noble laws are referred to as noble nature (Aryatva). But the laws of non-noble ones (prthag-jana) are also possessed by noble ones. How can it be established as the nature of a non-noble one? Question: The nature of the state of being a non-noble one is understandable as described above. But how should its name be explained? Answer: The forty-fifth volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says, Venerable Vasumitra said: 'That which causes sentient beings (sattva) to generate different kinds of views, different kinds of afflictions, create different kinds of karma, receive different kinds of results, and different kinds of births, is called a non-noble one.' Furthermore, 'That which causes sentient beings to fall into the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), go to different destinies (gati), and experience the suffering of being a non-noble one, is called the nature of a non-noble one.' A detailed explanation can be found in the Mahāvibhāṣā. 'If that's the case, that treatise should say "purely words,"' this is a difficulty. 'If that's the case, this treatise should say "purely not obtaining noble laws" is called the nature of a non-noble one.' 'It is not necessary to mention "eating water and eating wind,"' this is a common explanation. It is not necessary to say "purely words," because the phrase "not obtaining noble laws" already contains the meaning of "purely." For example, saying that fish eat water and turtles eat wind, although there is no word "purely," we also know that they purely eat water and wind. Some say 'not obtaining... to that non-attainment,' this is the explanation of the second teacher. It refers to not obtaining the forbearance-knowledge of suffering-dharma (kṣānti-jñāna) and the laws that arise with it, which is called the nature of a non-noble one. Do not challenge me by saying that when the knowledge of the path category (dharmajñāna) attains the fruit, it abandons the forbearance of suffering-dharma in this direction, because that non-attainment of forbearance will still arise, and should become non-noble. Because in the previous forbearance of suffering-dharma, it has already permanently damaged that non-attainment of the nature of a non-noble one. It should be known that there are two types of non-attainment of the forbearance of suffering: one is based on the body of an ordinary person, because it does not coexist with the unconditioned attainment (anāsrava-lābha), so it is the nature of a non-noble one. Therefore, the non-attainment of the forbearance of suffering before the path of seeing (darśanamārga), because it is based on the body of an ordinary person, is called the nature of a non-noble one. The other is based on the body of a noble one, because it coexists with the unconditioned attainment, so it is only called non-attainment, not called the nature of a non-noble one. At the time of the knowledge of the path category, although there is non-attainment of the forbearance of suffering, because it is based on the body of a noble one, it is not called a non-noble one. Furthermore, the forty-fifth volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says, some say: 'Not obtaining the forbearance-knowledge of suffering-dharma is the nature of a non-noble one.' Question: If that's the case, the knowledge of the path category has already arisen, abandoning the forbearance-knowledge of suffering-dharma, at this time the non-attainment of the forbearance-knowledge of suffering-dharma should be the nature of a non-noble one. Then those who dwell in the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) and the path of no-more-learning (aśaikṣamārga) also

應名異生。答苦法智忍生時。害彼非得。令于自相續永不復生。故住修道．無學道者。于苦法智忍雖不成就。而不名不得。亦不名得。如眼根生時害彼非得。令于自相續永不復生。眼根滅已雖不成就。而不名不得。亦不名得。此亦如是。故無前過。複次道類智已生。苦法智忍雖不成就。而成就彼等流果故不名異生。

若爾此性至名異生性者。問。此苦忍性既通三乘。不獲何等名異生性。

此亦應言不獲一切者。答。謂不獲一切三乘苦法智忍。

若爾此應同前有難者。難。若爾此應同前有難。本論應說純言。謂純不獲聖法　此難復應如前通釋者。通。此難亦應如前通釋。不要須說。此不獲聖法一句文中。含純義故。如食水．風。

若爾重說唐捐其功者。論主難第二師。汝今所立大意同前無兩差別。而復重說豈不唐捐　又解論主難前兩師。皆與本論不獲聖法說無差別。二師重說唐捐其功。

如經部師所說為善者。論主印經部說。

經部所說其義云何者。問。

謂曾未生至名異生性者。經部答。謂曾未生聖法。相續身上分位差別。假立異生性。

如是非得當何時舍者。問。

此法非得至舍于非得者。答。舍分別門。二時舍非得。一此法非得得此法時舍此非得。此據

以得替于非得處說名為舍。如聖道非得名異生性。得此聖道時舍彼非得。二轉易地時舍此非得。此非定有得替非得處。以彼非得隨所依身。但捨身時非得亦舍。于轉易地。雖非能捨異生性盡。亦舍少分。余法非得。隨其所應類此應思。若非得上法俱得斷。于所舍非得上。復有非得生。非得前非得。如是名為舍于非得。據實而言于所舍非得上法俱得。亦有非得生。此文正明舍非得故。但言非得非得生。不言得非得生　問非得無記。剎那成就。得已即舍。無前．后得。於前非得既不成就。有非得起。是即剎那剎那皆舍非得。如何乃言得法易地方舍非得　解雲實有斯理。今言舍非得者。據舍一類盡。非據舍少分。

得與非得至得與非得者。問。得復有得不。非得復有非得不　又解得復有得．非得不。非得復有得．非得不。

應言此二至得及非得者。答。應言此得復有得。非得復有非得。若別說者。得有同時得。前．后得。若非得有前．后非得。無同時非得　又解應言得復有餘得．非得。非得復有得．非得。若別說者。得有同時得．及前．后得。非得無同時非得。若非得有同時得。有前．后非得。無同時非得。

若爾豈不有無窮過者。難。得復有得。非得復有非得。豈不有無窮過　又解準下答文此唯問得。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以『得到』代替『未得到』來說，這叫做『舍』（Śesa，斷滅）。例如，聖道（Ārya-mārga）並非通過『得到』而被稱為異生性（Pṛthag-jana-tva）。當得到聖道時，就捨棄了那『未得到』的狀態。在轉變位置時，就捨棄了這『未得到』的狀態。這並非一定存在『得到』來代替『未得到』的情況。因為那『未得到』隨著所依之身而存在，僅僅在捨棄身體時，『未得到』也隨之捨棄。在轉變位置時，即使不能完全捨棄異生性，也能捨棄少部分。其餘的法『未得到』，也應根據情況進行思考。如果『未得到』的上法同時斷滅，對於所捨棄的『未得到』，又會有『未得到』產生，『未得到』之前還有『未得到』。這叫做捨棄『未得到』。實際上，對於所捨棄的『未得到』，上法同時得到，也會有『未得到』產生。這段文字明確說明了捨棄『未得到』的緣故，所以只說『未得到』和『未得到』的產生，而不說『得到』和『未得到』的產生。問：『未得到』是無記（Avyākṛta），剎那間成就，得到后立即捨棄，沒有前後的『得到』。對於之前的『未得到』既然沒有成就，卻有『未得到』生起，那麼就是剎那剎那都在捨棄『未得到』。怎麼能說得到法，改變位置才捨棄『未得到』呢？答：實際上有這樣的道理。現在所說的捨棄『未得到』，是根據捨棄一類全部，而不是根據捨棄少部分。

『得到』與『未得到』達到『得到』與『未得到』：問：『得到』之後還有『得到』嗎？『未得到』之後還有『未得到』嗎？又解：『得到』之後還有『得到』或『未得到』嗎？『未得到』之後還有『得到』或『未得到』嗎？

答：應該說這二者達到『得到』及『未得到』：答：應該說這『得到』之後還有『得到』，『未得到』之後還有『未得到』。如果分別來說，『得到』有同時『得到』，前後『得到』。如果『未得到』有前後『未得到』，沒有同時『未得到』。又解：應該說『得到』之後還有其餘的『得到』、『未得到』，『未得到』之後還有『得到』、『未得到』。如果分別來說，『得到』有同時『得到』以及前後『得到』。『未得到』沒有同時『未得到』。如果『未得到』有同時『得到』，有前後『未得到』，沒有同時『未得到』。

如果這樣，豈不是有無窮的過失？難：『得到』之後還有『得到』，『未得到』之後還有『未得到』，豈不是有無窮的過失？又解：根據下面的回答，這裡只問『得到』。

【English Translation】 English version: To speak of 'attainment' replacing 'non-attainment' is called 'abandonment' (Śesa). For example, the Noble Path (Ārya-mārga) is not called the state of an ordinary being (Pṛthag-jana-tva) through 'attainment'. When the Noble Path is attained, that state of 'non-attainment' is abandoned. When changing locations, this state of 'non-attainment' is abandoned. This does not necessarily mean that 'attainment' exists to replace 'non-attainment'. Because that 'non-attainment' exists with the dependent body, only when abandoning the body is 'non-attainment' also abandoned. When changing locations, even if the state of an ordinary being cannot be completely abandoned, a small portion can be abandoned. The remaining dharmas ('non-attainment') should be considered accordingly. If the superior dharma of 'non-attainment' is simultaneously cut off, for the abandoned 'non-attainment', there will be 'non-attainment' arising again, and before 'non-attainment' there is still 'non-attainment'. This is called abandoning 'non-attainment'. In reality, for the abandoned 'non-attainment', the superior dharma is simultaneously attained, and there will also be 'non-attainment' arising. This passage clearly explains the reason for abandoning 'non-attainment', so it only speaks of 'non-attainment' and the arising of 'non-attainment', and does not speak of 'attainment' and the arising of 'non-attainment'. Question: 'Non-attainment' is indeterminate (Avyākṛta), accomplished in an instant, and abandoned immediately after attainment, without prior or subsequent 'attainment'. Since there is no accomplishment for the previous 'non-attainment', yet 'non-attainment' arises, then it is abandoning 'non-attainment' in every instant. How can it be said that attaining the dharma and changing locations abandons 'non-attainment'? Answer: In reality, there is such a principle. The abandonment of 'non-attainment' now spoken of is based on abandoning an entire category, not on abandoning a small portion.

'Attainment' and 'non-attainment' reaching 'attainment' and 'non-attainment': Question: Is there 'attainment' after 'attainment'? Is there 'non-attainment' after 'non-attainment'? Another explanation: Is there 'attainment' or 'non-attainment' after 'attainment'? Is there 'attainment' or 'non-attainment' after 'non-attainment'?

Answer: It should be said that these two reach 'attainment' and 'non-attainment': Answer: It should be said that there is 'attainment' after 'attainment', and there is 'non-attainment' after 'non-attainment'. If speaking separately, 'attainment' has simultaneous 'attainment', prior and subsequent 'attainment'. If 'non-attainment' has prior and subsequent 'non-attainment', there is no simultaneous 'non-attainment'. Another explanation: It should be said that there is other 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' after 'attainment', and there is 'attainment' and 'non-attainment' after 'non-attainment'. If speaking separately, 'attainment' has simultaneous 'attainment' and prior and subsequent 'attainment'. 'Non-attainment' has no simultaneous 'non-attainment'. If 'non-attainment' has simultaneous 'attainment', there is prior and subsequent 'non-attainment', but no simultaneous 'non-attainment'.

If so, wouldn't there be an infinite fault? Objection: There is 'attainment' after 'attainment', and there is 'non-attainment' after 'non-attainment', wouldn't there be an infinite fault? Another explanation: According to the answer below, this only asks about 'attainment'.

以現非得無現非得無無窮過。故不別問。

無無窮過至後後轉增者。釋。法之得故名為法得。即是大得。大得之得名為得得。即小得也。大得力強成就二種。得得力劣唯成一種。故初剎那於三法中。大得得二。小得得一。此三落謝第二剎那隨前三法起三法得。起三得得。六法俱起此六落謝足前成九。第三剎那於前九法。起九法得起九得得。十八俱起。如是諸得後後剎那展轉增多。如理應釋　問如第一剎那三法俱起。各有大．小四相。此之四相為更起得得。為三法中得得。若更起得。得復有相。相復有得。便有無窮。若不起得此誰得耶　解云即三法中得得。如初三法各有大．小四相。三九總成二十七法。於此法中。若大得得十八法。謂得本法並本法上大．小四相。又得小得．並小得上大．小四相。若小得得九法。謂得大得．並大得上大．小四相。由此故無無窮過。理實初念有二十七法。但言三者且據法體不論能相。故婆沙一百五十八云。如是說者。法與生等同一得得。相與所相極親近故。由此善通色蘊．行蘊一得得等。又云如前無窮過失。具作問答。廣如彼說　問第二剎那有三大得。有三小得。復各得幾法。解云若大得各得十八法。謂得過去本法．及本法上大．小四相。又得同時小得。並小得上大．小四相。若小

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『以現非得無現非得無無窮過。故不別問。』——因為以已存在的（法）去獲得，或者以非已存在的（法）去獲得，都不會導致無窮的過失，所以不單獨提問。

『無無窮過至後後轉增者。釋。法之得故名為法得。即是大得。大得之得名為得得。即小得也。大得力強成就二種。得得力劣唯成一種。故初剎那於三法中。大得得二。小得得一。此三落謝第二剎那隨前三法起三法得。起三得得。六法俱起此六落謝足前成九。第三剎那於前九法。起九法得起九得得。十八俱起。如是諸得後後剎那展轉增多。如理應釋』——解釋『沒有無窮的過失，並且在後來的剎那中逐漸增多』。獲得法，因此稱為法得（Dharmaprapti），也就是大得（Mahaprapti）。獲得大得，稱為得得（Praptiprapti），也就是小得（Alpapti）。大得的力量強，成就兩種（法），得得的力量弱，只成就一種（法）。因此，在第一個剎那中，在三種法中，大得獲得兩種，小得獲得一種。這三種（法）消逝后，在第二個剎那，隨著之前的三種法生起三種法得，生起三種得得，六種法一起生起，這六種消逝后，加上之前的，總共成為九種。在第三個剎那，在前九種法中，生起九種法得，生起九種得得，十八種一起生起。像這樣，各種獲得在後來的剎那中逐漸增多，應該按照道理來解釋。

『問如第一剎那三法俱起。各有大．小四相。此之四相為更起得得。為三法中得得。若更起得。得復有相。相復有得。便有無窮。若不起得此誰得耶　解云即三法中得得。如初三法各有大．小四相。三九總成二十七法。於此法中。若大得得十八法。謂得本法並本法上大．小四相。又得小得．並小得上大．小四相。若小得得九法。謂得大得．並大得上大．小四相。由此故無無窮過。理實初念有二十七法。但言三者且據法體不論能相。故婆沙（Vibhasa）一百五十八云。如是說者。法與生等同一得得。相與所相極親近故。由此善通色蘊（Rupaskandha）．行蘊（Samskaraskandha）一得得等。又云如前無窮過失。具作問答。廣如彼說』——問：如果第一個剎那三種法一起生起，各有大、小四種相，這四種相是再次生起得得，還是在三種法中獲得得得？如果再次生起獲得，獲得又會有相，相又會有獲得，就會有無窮。如果不生起獲得，那麼誰獲得呢？答：就是在三種法中獲得得得。比如最初的三種法各有大、小四種相，三九總共成為二十七種法。在這（二十七）種法中，如果大得獲得十八種法，也就是獲得本法，以及本法上的大、小四種相，又獲得小得，以及小得上的大、小四種相。如果小得獲得九種法，也就是獲得大得，以及大得上的大、小四種相。因此沒有無窮的過失。實際上，最初一念有二十七種法，但說三種，只是根據法體，不論能相。所以《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第一百五十八卷說：這樣說，法與生等同一種得得，相與所相極其親近。因此可以很好地理解色蘊（Rupaskandha）、行蘊（Samskaraskandha）等同一種得得。又說：像前面無窮過失，詳細地作了問答，詳細內容如彼處所說。

『問第二剎那有三大得。有三小得。復各得幾法。解云若大得各得十八法。謂得過去本法．及本法上大．小四相。又得同時小得。並小得上大．小四相。若小』——問：第二個剎那有三種大得，有三種小得，又各自獲得幾種法？答：如果大得各自獲得十八種法，也就是獲得過去的本法，以及本法上的大、小四種相，又獲得同時的小得，以及小得上的大、小四種相。如果小

【English Translation】 English version: '以現非得無現非得無無窮過。故不別問。' - Because obtaining with existing (dharmas), or obtaining with non-existing (dharmas), does not lead to infinite faults, therefore, there is no separate question.

'無無窮過至後後轉增者。釋。法之得故名為法得。即是大得。大得之得名為得得。即小得也。大得力強成就二種。得得力劣唯成一種。故初剎那於三法中。大得得二。小得得一。此三落謝第二剎那隨前三法起三法得。起三得得。六法俱起此六落謝足前成九。第三剎那於前九法。起九法得起九得得。十八俱起。如是諸得後後剎那展轉增多。如理應釋' - Explanation of 'There is no infinite fault, and it gradually increases in later kshanas (instants)'. Obtaining a dharma, therefore it is called Dharmaprapti (法得), which is Mahaprapti (大得, great attainment). Obtaining Mahaprapti is called Praptiprapti (得得), which is Alpapti (小得, small attainment). Mahaprapti's power is strong, accomplishing two (dharmas), Praptiprapti's power is weak, only accomplishing one (dharma). Therefore, in the first kshana, among the three dharmas, Mahaprapti obtains two, Alpapti obtains one. After these three (dharmas) vanish, in the second kshana, following the previous three dharmas, three Dharmapraptis arise, three Praptipraptis arise, six dharmas arise together, after these six vanish, adding to the previous ones, it becomes a total of nine. In the third kshana, among the previous nine dharmas, nine Dharmapraptis arise, nine Praptipraptis arise, eighteen arise together. Like this, various attainments gradually increase in later kshanas, it should be explained according to reason.

'問如第一剎那三法俱起。各有大．小四相。此之四相為更起得得。為三法中得得。若更起得。得復有相。相復有得。便有無窮。若不起得此誰得耶　解云即三法中得得。如初三法各有大．小四相。三九總成二十七法。於此法中。若大得得十八法。謂得本法並本法上大．小四相。又得小得．並小得上大．小四相。若小得得九法。謂得大得．並大得上大．小四相。由此故無無窮過。理實初念有二十七法。但言三者且據法體不論能相。故婆沙（Vibhasa）一百五十八云。如是說者。法與生等同一得得。相與所相極親近故。由此善通色蘊（Rupaskandha）．行蘊（Samskaraskandha）一得得等。又云如前無窮過失。具作問答。廣如彼說' - Question: If in the first kshana, three dharmas arise together, each having four aspects of large and small, do these four aspects arise again as Praptiprapti, or do they obtain Praptiprapti within the three dharmas? If attainment arises again, attainment will again have aspects, and aspects will again have attainment, then there will be infinity. If attainment does not arise, then who obtains it? Answer: It is obtaining Praptiprapti within the three dharmas. For example, the initial three dharmas each have four aspects of large and small, three times nine totals twenty-seven dharmas. Among these (twenty-seven) dharmas, if Mahaprapti obtains eighteen dharmas, that is, obtaining the original dharma, and the large and small four aspects on the original dharma, and also obtaining Alpapti, and the large and small four aspects on Alpapti. If Alpapti obtains nine dharmas, that is, obtaining Mahaprapti, and the large and small four aspects on Mahaprapti. Therefore, there is no infinite fault. In reality, the initial thought has twenty-seven dharmas, but saying three is only based on the dharma body, not discussing the functional aspects. Therefore, the Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 158 says: Saying it this way, dharma and arising are the same as one Praptiprapti, because aspect and what is aspected are extremely close. Therefore, it can be well understood that Rupaskandha (色蘊), Samskaraskandha (行蘊), etc. are the same as one Praptiprapti. It also says: Like the previous infinite fault, detailed questions and answers were made, and the details are as described there.

'問第二剎那有三大得。有三小得。復各得幾法。解云若大得各得十八法。謂得過去本法．及本法上大．小四相。又得同時小得。並小得上大．小四相。若小' - Question: In the second kshana, there are three Mahapraptis, and three Alpaptis, how many dharmas do they each obtain again? Answer: If Mahaprapti each obtains eighteen dharmas, that is, obtaining the past original dharma, and the large and small four aspects on the original dharma, and also obtaining the simultaneous Alpapti, and the large and small four aspects on Alpapti. If small

得各得九法。謂各得大得。並大得上大．小四相　又解大得各得十法。謂得過去二十七法。中隨得一法。又得同時小得。並小得上大．小四相。若小得得九法。如前釋。雖有兩解前解為勝。若據無為大得得十法。謂得無為。及得小得．並小得上大．小四相。小得得九法。謂得大得．並大得上大．小四相。故婆沙云。有為．無為一得得　問如得既然。非得復非得幾法　解云。非得必無法俱非得。但有法前．法后非得。應知非得非得九法。謂非得法體。並法體上大．小四相。法體現前必無非得故。不得望法俱以說也。故望大得小九法也。言得非相翻立者。隨其所應非要數等　又解非得唯非得一法。雖有兩解前解為勝。

一切過去至諸得俱起者。嘆得無邊。如文可知。無記過．未非定成就。加行起難而非任運。且約煩惱．生得以明。

如是諸得極多集會者。問。如是諸得。極多集會寧相容受。

無對礙故至況第二等者。答。得無對礙互相容受。若如色礙一有情得。虛空不容。況第二念。

俱舍論記卷第四

久安三年四月八日辰刻於石山寺一見了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第五

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之三

如是已辨至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於『得各得』有九種法則。即『各得』（各自獲得）能『大得』（獲得大的利益），以及『大得』之上再『大得』，還有『小四相』（小的四種特徵）。另一種解釋是，『大得各得』有十種法則。即獲得過去二十七種法則中的一種，又獲得同時的『小得』（獲得小的利益），以及『小得』之上再『大得』，還有『小四相』。如果『小得』，則有九種法則，如前所述。雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更為優勝。如果根據『無為』（涅槃）來說，『大得』有十種法則，即獲得『無為』，以及獲得『小得』，還有『小得』之上再『大得』，以及『小四相』。『小得』有九種法則，即獲得『大得』，以及『大得』之上再『大得』，以及『小四相』。所以《婆沙論》說，『有為』（輪迴）、『無為』，都是一種獲得。問：如果『得』（獲得）是這樣，那麼『非得』（未獲得）和『復非得』（再次未獲得）又有幾種法則？答：『非得』必然是無法同時『非得』的。只有在法之前、法之後才存在『非得』。應當知道『非得非得』有九種法則，即『非得』的法體，以及法體之上的『大四相』、『小四相』。法體顯現時必然沒有『非得』，所以不能用法同時來說。所以說相對於『大得』，有『小九法』。說『得』與『非』相對而立，是根據其所應，不一定要數量相等。另一種解釋是，『非得』只有『非得』一種法則。雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更為優勝。『一切過去至諸得俱起者』，是讚歎獲得的無邊無際，如文可知。『無記』（非善非惡）的過去、未來，並非必定成就，需要通過加行才能生起，而非任運而生。這裡主要以煩惱、生得來說明。『如是諸得極多**者』，問：像這樣諸多的獲得，難道能夠互相容納嗎？『無對礙故至況第二等者』，答：獲得沒有對礙，所以能夠互相容納。如果像色礙一樣，一個有情獲得，虛空都不能容納，更何況第二念。

【English Translation】 English version There are nine principles regarding 'each attainment' (de ge de). That is, 'each attainment' (ge de) can 'greatly attain' (da de) [achieve great benefits], and 'great attainment' upon 'great attainment', as well as the 'small four characteristics' (xiao si xiang) [minor four aspects]. Another explanation is that 'great attainment each attainment' (da de ge de) has ten principles. That is, attaining one of the twenty-seven past principles, and also attaining simultaneous 'small attainment' (xiao de) [small benefits], and 'small attainment' upon 'great attainment', as well as the 'small four characteristics'. If it is 'small attainment', then there are nine principles, as described earlier. Although there are two explanations, the former is superior. If based on 'non-action' (wu wei) [Nirvana], 'great attainment' has ten principles, that is, attaining 'non-action', and also attaining 'small attainment', and 'small attainment' upon 'great attainment', as well as the 'small four characteristics'. 'Small attainment' has nine principles, that is, attaining 'great attainment', and 'great attainment' upon 'great attainment', as well as the 'small four characteristics'. Therefore, the Vibhasa says that 'action' (you wei) [samsara] and 'non-action' are both a kind of attainment. Question: If 'attainment' (de) [acquisition] is like this, then how many principles are there for 'non-attainment' (fei de) [non-acquisition] and 'again non-attainment' (fu fei de) [repeated non-acquisition]? Answer: 'Non-attainment' is necessarily that the Dharma cannot be simultaneously 'non-attained'. Only before and after the Dharma exists 'non-attainment'. It should be known that 'non-attainment non-attainment' has nine principles, that is, the Dharma-body of 'non-attainment', and the 'great four characteristics' (da si xiang), 'small four characteristics' upon the Dharma-body. When the Dharma-body manifests, there is necessarily no 'non-attainment', so it cannot be spoken of simultaneously with the Dharma. Therefore, it is said that relative to 'great attainment', there are 'small nine principles'. Saying that 'attainment' and 'non-' are established relatively is based on what is appropriate, and the numbers do not necessarily have to be equal. Another explanation is that 'non-attainment' only has one principle of 'non-attainment'. Although there are two explanations, the former is superior. 'All past to all attainments arising together' is praising the boundlessness of attainment, as can be known from the text. The past and future of 'non-specified' (wu ji) [neither good nor evil] are not necessarily accomplished; they need to arise through effort rather than spontaneously. Here, it is mainly explained in terms of afflictions and innate attainment. 'Such attainments are extremely numerous **', Question: Can such numerous attainments accommodate each other? 'Without obstruction, therefore, to the second, etc.', Answer: Attainments have no obstruction, so they can accommodate each other. If it is like color obstruction, where one sentient being attains, even space cannot accommodate it, let alone the second thought.

同分有情等者下大文第二明同分。結問頌答　同分。牒章　有情等。正釋。有體類等名同。簡異經部。彼計同分體是假故。分是別義。雖復類同而體各別。簡異勝論有句義等。彼執一物貫多法故。即分名同。故名同分。持業釋也。有情簡異非情。舉所依法也等簡不等。正顯能依同分體也　又解身形等同故名為同。顯所生果。分是因義故名為分。顯能生因。同之分故名為同分。依主釋也。此從果及因為名。故正理十二云。此中身形．業用．樂欲。展轉相似故名為同。分是因義。有別實物。是此同因故名同分。

論曰至展轉類等者。就長行中。一自述己宗。二問答徴定。就述己宗中。一略釋頌。二會異名。三別解釋。四證有體。五明得舍。此即略釋頌也。

有別實物名為同分。此即標宗　謂諸有情。顯所依法　展轉類等。顯能依同分　或諸有情展轉類等。此即舉果以顯其因。令諸有情展轉類等。

本論說此名眾同分者。此即第二會異名。多體類等名為眾同。分是則別義　又解眾多法相似因名眾同分　又解眾多有情展轉同因名眾同分。

此復二種至各等有故者。此下第三別解釋。就中。一明有情同分。二明法同分。此即明有情同分。此同分復有二種。一無差別。謂諸有情顯所依也。有情同分顯能依

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：同分有情等者，下文第二部分說明『同分』（Samatā-bhāga，共同的性質或類別）。總結提問並回答：『同分』。解釋章節標題：『有情等』（Sattvādi，有情等等）。正式解釋：具有相同『體』（本質）和『類』（類別）的事物稱為『同』（Sama，相同）。這與經部（Sautrāntika，佛教的一個學派）的觀點不同，因為他們認為『同分』的『體』是虛假的。『分』（Bhāga，部分）是『別』（差異）的意思。即使類別相同，它們的『體』也是各不相同的。這與勝論（Vaiśeṣika，印度教的一個學派）的『有句義』（具有屬性的實體）等觀點不同，因為他們認為一個事物貫穿多種屬性。『即分名同』，因此稱為『同分』，這是持業釋（Karmadhāraya，一種複合詞）。『有情』（Sattva，有情眾生）是爲了區別于『非情』（非有情眾生），這是舉出所依賴的『法』（Dharma，事物）。『等』（ādi，等等）是爲了區別于『不等』（不同），正式顯示了能依賴的『同分』的『體』。另一種解釋：『身形等同』（身體和形狀相同）因此稱為『同』，這顯示了所產生的『果』（結果）。『分』是『因』（原因）的意思，這顯示了能產生的『因』。『同之分』（相同的因）因此稱為『同分』，這是依主釋（Tatpuruṣa，一種複合詞）。這是從『果』和『因』來命名的，因此《正理十二》（Nyāyapraveśa，因明學入門）中說：『其中身形、業用、樂欲，輾轉相似，故名為同。分是因義。有別實物，是此同因，故名同分。』

論曰：『至輾轉類等者』，就長行中，一、自述己宗，二、問答征定。就述己宗中，一、略釋頌，二、會異名，三、別解釋，四、證有體，五、明得舍。此即略釋頌也。

『有別實物名為同分』，此即標宗。『謂諸有情』，顯所依法。『輾轉類等』，顯能依同分。『或諸有情輾轉類等』，此即舉果以顯其因，令諸有情輾轉類等。

『本論說此名眾同分者』，此即第二會異名。多體類等名為眾同。分是則別義。又解眾多法相似因名眾同分。又解眾多有情輾轉同因名眾同分。

『此復二種至各等有故者』，此下第三別解釋。就中，一、明有情同分，二、明法同分。此即明有情同分。此同分復有二種。一、無差別，謂諸有情顯所依也。有情同分顯能依

【English Translation】 English version: 『Samatā-bhāga-sattvādi』 (Those sharing similar characteristics, etc.), the second major section below explains 『Samatā-bhāga』 (同分, commonality). Concluding with a question and answer: 『Samatā-bhāga』 (同分). Explaining the chapter title: 『Sattvādi』 (有情等, sentient beings, etc.). Formal explanation: Things with the same 『essence』 (體, substance) and 『category』 (類, class) are called 『Sama』 (同, same). This differs from the view of the Sautrāntika (經部, a Buddhist school), because they consider the 『essence』 of 『Samatā-bhāga』 to be false. 『Bhāga』 (分, part) means 『difference』 (別, distinction). Even if the categories are the same, their 『essences』 are different. This differs from the view of the Vaiśeṣika (勝論, a Hindu school) regarding 『entities with attributes』 (有句義), because they believe that one thing pervades multiple attributes. 『That part is called the same,』 hence it is called 『Samatā-bhāga』 (同分), which is a Karmadhāraya (持業釋, appositional compound). 『Sattva』 (有情, sentient being) is to distinguish it from 『non-sentient beings』 (非情), which is to cite the 『Dharma』 (法, thing) on which it depends. 『Ādi』 (等, etc.) is to distinguish it from 『unequal』 (不等, different), formally showing the 『essence』 of the 『Samatā-bhāga』 on which it can depend. Another explanation: 『Similar body shapes, etc.』 (身形等同) are therefore called 『Sama』 (同, same), which shows the 『fruit』 (果, result) produced. 『Bhāga』 (分, part) means 『cause』 (因, cause), which shows the 『cause』 that can produce. 『The part of the same』 (同之分) is therefore called 『Samatā-bhāga』 (同分), which is a Tatpuruṣa (依主釋, dependent determinant compound). This is named from 『fruit』 and 『cause,』 therefore the Nyāyapraveśa (正理十二, Introduction to Logic) says: 『Among these, body shape, actions, desires, are mutually similar, therefore they are called the same. Part means cause. There is a separate real thing, which is the common cause, therefore it is called Samatā-bhāga.』

The treatise says: 『To the extent that they are mutually similar, etc.』 In the extended text, first, one describes one's own school; second, one questions and answers to determine. Within describing one's own school, first, one briefly explains the verse; second, one reconciles different names; third, one separately explains; fourth, one proves the existence of the entity; fifth, one clarifies obtaining and abandoning. This is the brief explanation of the verse.

『A separate real thing is called Samatā-bhāga,』 this is stating the principle. 『Referring to all sentient beings,』 this reveals the Dharma on which it depends. 『Mutually similar, etc.,』 this reveals the Samatā-bhāga on which it can depend. 『Or all sentient beings are mutually similar, etc.,』 this is citing the result to reveal its cause, causing all sentient beings to be mutually similar, etc.

『The treatise says this is called Bahu-samatā-bhāga,』 this is the second reconciliation of different names. Multiple entities of the same kind are called Bahu-sama. Part means distinction. Another explanation is that the similar cause of many things is called Bahu-samatā-bhāga. Another explanation is that the common cause of many sentient beings is called Bahu-samatā-bhāga.

『This again has two types, to the extent that each has equality,』 below is the third separate explanation. Among these, first, one clarifies the Samatā-bhāga of sentient beings; second, one clarifies the Samatā-bhāga of things. This is clarifying the Samatā-bhāga of sentient beings. This Samatā-bhāga again has two types. First, without difference, referring to all sentient beings, revealing what it depends on. The Samatā-bhāga of sentient beings reveals what it can depend on.

也。諸有情上有情同分。一切有情各等有故名無差別同分。謂此同分。能令有情展轉類等　一有差別。謂諸有情中。三界．九地．五趣．四生．婆羅門等種．迦葉波．瞿曇等性．男身．女身．五戒．近事．大戒苾芻．四向．三果．學人．阿羅漢無學等各別同分。一類有情各等有故。有此眾多故言有差別　有情界等顯所依也　各別同分顯能依也。由此同分能令界等展轉同故　問無差別同分等。望一有情。為體各一。為體各多　解云隨其所應體各有一。猶如命根　或體各多。如所依法。又正理十四云。云何異熟謂地獄等．及卵生等。趣．生同分。云何等流。謂界．地．處．種性．族類．沙門．梵志．學．無學等所有同分。有餘師說。諸同分中先業所引生是異熟同分。現在加行起是等流同分。

復有法同分謂隨蘊．處界者。此明法同分。于同分中復有法同分　隨蘊．處．界。此舉所依法顯能依同分。由此同分。能令蘊．處．界．法展轉同故　準有情同分。於法同分亦應說有二種。而不說者略故不論。於法同分一體多體準前應知　問有情同分與法同分為體各別。為一體義分　解云體性各別。能令有情相似名有情同分。能令法門相似名法同分。有情．法門義異。所以兩同分不同。故諸論文皆說兩種。雖復離法無別有情。約

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：也。諸有情上有情同分（所有有情共有的部分）。一切有情各自平等具有，所以稱為無差別同分。這個同分，能使有情之間互相類似。一是有差別。指在所有有情中，三界（欲界、色界、無色界）、九地（欲界五趣地、色界四禪地、無色界四空處地）、五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）、四生（卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）、婆羅門等種姓、迦葉波、瞿曇等姓氏、男身、女身、五戒、近事（優婆塞、優婆夷）、大戒苾芻（比丘）、四向（預流向、一來向、不還向、阿羅漢向）、三果（預流果、一來果、不還果）、學人（有學位的人）、阿羅漢無學等各自不同的同分。同一類有情各自平等具有。因為有這些眾多差別，所以說有差別。有情界等，顯示所依（同分所依之處）。各別同分，顯示能依（同分本身）。由於這些同分，能使界等互相相同。問：無差別同分等，對於一個有情來說，是體性各一，還是體性各多？答：根據情況，體性各一。例如命根。或者體性各多。例如所依之法。又，《正理十四》中說：『什麼是異熟？指地獄等，以及卵生等。趣、生同分。什麼是等流？指界、地、處、種姓、族類、沙門、梵志、學、無學等所有的同分。』有其他論師說：『在所有同分中，由先前的業力所引生的，是異熟同分。現在所作的努力而產生的，是等流同分。』

復有法同分，指隨蘊、處、界者。這說明法同分。在同分中，還有法同分。隨蘊、處、界。這裡舉出所依之法，顯示能依之同分。由於這些同分，能使蘊、處、界、法互相相同。參照有情同分，對於法同分也應該說有兩種，但是這裡沒有說，是因為省略的緣故。對於法同分是一體還是多體，參照前面應該知道。問：有情同分與法同分，是體性各自不同，還是體性相同而意義不同？答：體性各自不同。能使有情相似的，稱為有情同分。能使法門相似的，稱為法同分。有情和法門的意義不同，所以兩種同分也不同。因此，各種論著都說有兩種同分。雖然離開了法就沒有有情，但是從...

【English Translation】 English version: Also. The sentient beings have a 'sentient being commonality' (the part shared by all sentient beings). All sentient beings equally possess it, hence it is called 'non-differentiated commonality'. This commonality enables sentient beings to resemble each other. One is 'differentiated commonality'. This refers to the different commonalities among all sentient beings, such as the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), the nine grounds (the five realms of the desire realm, the four dhyana grounds of the form realm, the four formless realms), the five destinies (hell-beings, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, gods), the four types of birth (oviparous, viviparous, moisture-born, metamorphic), castes such as Brahmins, surnames such as Kashyapa and Gautama, male bodies, female bodies, the five precepts, lay followers (Upasakas and Upasikas), fully ordained Bhikshus (monks), the four paths (stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, Arhat), the three fruits (stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning), learners (those with something to learn), Arhats without learning, and so on. Sentient beings of the same type equally possess it. Because there are so many differences, it is called 'differentiated'. The realm of sentient beings, etc., shows what is relied upon (where the commonality relies). The separate commonalities show what relies (the commonality itself). Because of these commonalities, the realms, etc., can be the same. Question: Are the non-differentiated commonality, etc., for one sentient being, each a single entity or multiple entities? Answer: Depending on the situation, each is a single entity, like the life force. Or each is multiple entities, like the Dharma that is relied upon. Furthermore, in 'Nyayasutra XIV', it says: 'What is the Vipaka (result of actions)? It refers to hells, etc., and oviparous birth, etc. The commonality of destiny and birth. What is the Nisyanda (flowing forth)? It refers to the commonality of realms, grounds, places, castes, clans, Shramanas, Brahmins, learners, non-learners, etc.' Some other teachers say: 'Among all commonalities, that which is brought about by past karma is the Vipaka commonality. That which arises from present effort is the Nisyanda commonality.'

There is also the 'Dharma commonality', which refers to those who follow the skandhas (aggregates), ayatanas (sense bases), and dhatus (elements). This explains the Dharma commonality. Among the commonalities, there is also the Dharma commonality. Following the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus. Here, the Dharma that is relied upon is cited to show the commonality that relies. Because of these commonalities, the skandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, and Dharma can be the same. Referring to the sentient being commonality, there should also be two types of Dharma commonality, but it is not mentioned here because it is omitted. Whether the Dharma commonality is one entity or multiple entities should be understood by referring to the previous explanation. Question: Are the sentient being commonality and the Dharma commonality different entities, or are they the same entity with different meanings? Answer: They are different entities. That which makes sentient beings similar is called the sentient being commonality. That which makes Dharma teachings similar is called the Dharma commonality. The meanings of sentient beings and Dharma teachings are different, so the two commonalities are also different. Therefore, various treatises say that there are two types of commonality. Although there are no sentient beings apart from the Dharma, from the perspective of...

義有殊。同分各別。亦有古德。立二同分體性各別　又解有情離法無別體性。而於法上建立有情。以此準知。法同分上立有情同分。一體義分說二同分。非體各別。若攬法成有情即不說法同分。若廢有情論法。即不說有情同分。若法。有情。並論即雙說二種同分。由此義故。所以。諸論或唯說一。或兩種俱論　各據一義。並不相違　問何故頌文但說有情　解云略故不說法同分也　或可。頌文亦攝法同分。言有情者簡異非情。

若無實物至如理應知者。此即第四證有體及徴經部證有實體。有情非一名有情有情。同是有情名等無差別。若無實物無差別相名有情同分者。欲．色界等展轉差別諸有情中。有情有情等無差別覺慧。有情有情等無差別施設名言。不應得有。以覺慧必緣境故。名言必詮說法故。既起慧．言。明知有體。此約無差別有情同分為難。以遍故偏舉為問。有差別不遍故不約彼論　復例釋法同分言。如是蘊等。等無差別覺慧。等無差別施設名言。不應得有。故言如理應知。

頗有死生至謂除前相者。此即第五明得舍。以死．生對得舍同分應作四句。　第一句有死．有生。不捨．不得有情同分。謂隨其所應是處死還生是處　第二句有舍．有得有情同分。不死．不生。謂入正性離生位時。舍異生同分得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：意義有所不同。『同分』（Sabhāga，眾生共有的性質）各有差別。也有古代的德行高尚者，認為兩種『同分』的體性和性質各自不同。另一種解釋是，有情眾生離開『法』（Dharma，佛法）就沒有不同的體性和性質，而是在『法』的基礎上建立有情眾生。由此可以推知，在『法同分』上建立『有情同分』，一體的意義可以分為兩種『同分』來說，並非體性各自不同。如果執取『法』而成為有情，就不說『法同分』。如果拋棄有情而談論『法』，就不說『有情同分』。如果『法』和有情並列討論，就同時說兩種『同分』。因為這個緣故，所以各種論著或者只說一種，或者兩種都論述，各自根據一個意義，並不互相違背。問：為什麼頌文只說有情？解答說：因為省略的緣故，沒有說『法同分』。或許，頌文也包含『法同分』。說有情是爲了區分于非有情。如果不存在實體，直到『如理應知』，這便是第四個證明『有體』，以及引用經部來證明存在實體。『有情』不是一個名字，有情、有情，同是有情，名字等等沒有差別。如果沒有實體，沒有差別相，名為『有情同分』，那麼在慾望等等輾轉差別的各種有情中，有情、有情等等沒有差別的覺慧，有情、有情等等沒有差別的施設名言，不應該存在。因為覺慧必定緣于境界，名言必定詮釋說法。既然產生覺慧和名言，就明顯知道存在實體。這是針對沒有差別的『有情同分』提出的疑問，因為普遍的緣故，所以只舉出一個方面來提問。有差別的不普遍，所以不針對那個方面進行討論。再次舉例解釋『法同分』說，像這樣，蘊等等沒有差別的覺慧，等等沒有差別的施設名言，不應該存在。所以說『如理應知』。如果存在死亡和出生，直到『謂除前相者』，這便是第五個說明獲得和捨棄。因為死亡和出生相對，獲得和捨棄『同分』應該構成四句話。第一句：有死亡、有出生，不捨棄、不獲得『有情同分』，是指隨其所應，在這個地方死亡，又在這個地方出生。第二句：有捨棄、有獲得『有情同分』，沒有死亡、沒有出生，是指進入正性離生位時，捨棄異生同分，獲得...

【English Translation】 English version: The meanings are different. 'Sabhāga' (common nature, the shared characteristic of beings) are distinct from each other. Some ancient virtuous ones also posit that the nature and characteristics of the two types of 'Sabhāga' are different. Another explanation is that sentient beings have no different nature or characteristics apart from 'Dharma' (the teachings of the Buddha), and sentient beings are established on the basis of 'Dharma'. From this, it can be inferred that 'sentient being Sabhāga' is established on 'Dharma Sabhāga'. The meaning of one entity can be divided into two types of 'Sabhāga' to explain, but their natures are not different. If one grasps 'Dharma' and becomes a sentient being, then 'Dharma Sabhāga' is not discussed. If one abandons sentient beings and discusses 'Dharma', then 'sentient being Sabhāga' is not discussed. If 'Dharma' and sentient beings are discussed together, then both types of 'Sabhāga' are discussed simultaneously. Because of this reason, some treatises only discuss one type, while others discuss both, each based on a particular meaning, and they do not contradict each other. Question: Why does the verse only mention sentient beings? Answer: Because of brevity, 'Dharma Sabhāga' is not mentioned. Perhaps the verse also includes 'Dharma Sabhāga'. Mentioning sentient beings is to distinguish them from non-sentient beings. If there is no real entity, up to 'as it should be known', this is the fourth proof of 'having substance', and citing the scriptures to prove the existence of a real entity. 'Sentient being' is not just a name; sentient being, sentient being, are all sentient beings, and the names etc. have no difference. If there is no real entity, no differentiating characteristic, called 'sentient being Sabhāga', then among the various sentient beings with different desires etc., the non-differentiated awareness of sentient being, sentient being, etc., and the non-differentiated establishment of names and words for sentient being, sentient being, etc., should not exist. Because awareness must arise from an object, and names and words must explain the teachings. Since awareness and names/words arise, it is clear that there is a real entity. This is a question raised against the non-differentiated 'sentient being Sabhāga', and because it is universal, only one aspect is mentioned in the question. The differentiated is not universal, so it is not discussed in that context. Again, exemplifying and explaining 'Dharma Sabhāga', like this, the non-differentiated awareness of aggregates etc., and the non-differentiated establishment of names and words etc., should not exist. Therefore, it is said 'as it should be known'. If there is death and birth, up to 'meaning excluding the previous aspect', this is the fifth explanation of gaining and relinquishing. Because death and birth are relative, gaining and relinquishing 'Sabhāga' should form four statements. First statement: There is death, there is birth, but there is no relinquishing or gaining of 'sentient being Sabhāga', meaning that as it should be, one dies in this place and is born in this place. Second statement: There is relinquishing and gaining of 'sentient being Sabhāga', but there is no death and no birth, meaning that when entering the stage of being rightly fixed in liberation, one relinquishes the ordinary being Sabhāga and gains...

聖者同分　第三句有死．有生。亦舍．亦得有情同分。謂是趣死生余趣等　第四句謂除前相。

言有情同分簡異非情。隨其所應是別同分。非是總有情同分。以總有情同分。入無餘涅槃時方可舍故。

若別有實物至別有人性故者。此下第二問答徴定。文總有六　此下第一述經部五難。一無異生性難。二非見．無用難。三非情同分難。四別有同分難。五應同勝論難。此即第一無異生性難　就中。一依文述難。二正理論救。三俱舍師破。余難準此。皆作三門　言依文述難者。異生同分是與聖別。何用別立異生性耶。如人同分外不別立人性。何故異生同分外。別立異生性　第二正理論救云。豈不異生性即異生同分。此不應然。所作異故。謂彼身形．業用．樂欲。互相似因名為同分。若與聖道成就相違是異生因名異生性。入離生時于眾同分亦舍．亦得。于異生性舍而不得　正理意說。異生性。異生同分。所作異故。異生同分外別立異生性。人同分外無別人性。所作同故。人同分外不立人性。又入聖時于同分。舍異生同分。得聖者同分。于異生性。但舍異生性。不得異生性。不應言不得聖性。以即聖法名聖性故　第三俱舍師破云。入聖不捨于同分。可須別立異生性。入聖既舍于同分。何須別立異生性。若言所作各異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本聖者同分（Arya-sāmānyabhāga）：第三句『有死，有生。亦舍，亦得有情同分』，是指眾生在生死輪迴中的共同屬性。所謂『趣死生余趣等』，是指眾生會經歷死亡和再生，並流轉于不同的生命形態之中。第四句『謂除前相』，是指去除之前的種種表象。

『言有情同分簡異非情』，說明有情眾生的共同屬性與非有情之物的區別。隨其所應，這是個別的同分，而不是總體的有情同分。因為總體的有情同分，只有在進入無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa）時才能捨棄。

『若別有實物至別有人性故者』，以下是第二段問答，用來辨析和確定。總共有六個部分。以下是第一部分，闡述經部的五種詰難：一、無異生性難；二、非見、無用難；三、非情同分難；四、別有同分難；五、應同勝論難。這裡是第一個詰難，即無異生性難。其中，一、依文闡述詰難；二、正理論的辯護；三、俱舍論師的駁斥。其餘的詰難也按照這三個方面進行分析。『言依文述難者』，異生同分（pṛthagjana-sāmānyabhāga）是與聖者（ārya）的區別，為何還要另外設立異生性（pṛthagjanatva）呢？就像人的同分之外不另外設立人性一樣，為什麼在異生同分之外，要另外設立異生性呢？第二，正理論辯護說：『難道異生性不是就是異生同分嗎？』不應該是這樣，因為作用不同。所謂的異生同分，是指他們的身形、行為、喜好等，因為相似而被稱為同分。而與聖道成就相違背的，是異生的原因，稱為異生性。進入離生位（vītarāga）時，對於眾生的同分，既有捨棄也有獲得；而對於異生性，只是捨棄而不能獲得。正理論的意思是說，異生性與異生同分，作用不同，所以在異生同分之外，另外設立異生性。人的同分之外沒有另外的人性，是因為作用相同，所以在人的同分之外不設立人性。而且，進入聖位時，對於同分，是捨棄異生同分，獲得聖者同分；對於異生性，只是捨棄異生性，不能獲得異生性。不應該說不能獲得聖性，因為聖法本身就叫做聖性。第三，俱舍論師駁斥說：進入聖位如果不捨棄同分，或許需要另外設立異生性。進入聖位既然捨棄了同分，為什麼還需要另外設立異生性呢？如果說作用各不相同……

【English Translation】 English version Arya-sāmānyabhāga (The Commonality of the Noble Ones): The third sentence, 'There is death, there is birth. Also abandoning, also obtaining the commonality of sentient beings,' refers to the shared attributes of sentient beings in the cycle of birth and death. The phrase 'going to death, going to other destinies, etc.' means that sentient beings experience death and rebirth, and transmigrate through different forms of life. The fourth sentence, 'meaning excluding the previous characteristics,' refers to removing the various previous appearances.

'Saying the commonality of sentient beings distinguishes it from non-sentient beings,' explains the difference between the shared attributes of sentient beings and non-sentient things. According to what is appropriate, this is an individual commonality, not a general commonality of sentient beings. Because the general commonality of sentient beings can only be abandoned when entering nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (Nirvana without remainder).

'If there is a separate real entity leading to a separate human nature,' the following is the second question and answer, used to analyze and determine. There are six parts in total. The following is the first part, elaborating on the five difficulties of the Sautrāntika school: 1. The difficulty of no ordinary being nature; 2. The difficulty of not being seen and useless; 3. The difficulty of non-sentient commonality; 4. The difficulty of separate commonality; 5. The difficulty of being the same as the Vaiśeṣika school. Here is the first difficulty, namely the difficulty of no ordinary being nature. Among them, 1. Elaborating on the difficulty according to the text; 2. The defense of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra; 3. The refutation of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya master. The remaining difficulties are analyzed in the same three aspects. 'Saying elaborating on the difficulty according to the text,' the pṛthagjana-sāmānyabhāga (commonality of ordinary beings) is the distinction from the ārya (noble ones), why is it necessary to separately establish pṛthagjanatva (ordinary being nature)? Just as human nature is not separately established outside of the commonality of humans, why is it necessary to separately establish ordinary being nature outside of the commonality of ordinary beings? Second, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra defends, 'Isn't ordinary being nature the same as the commonality of ordinary beings?' It shouldn't be like this, because the functions are different. The so-called commonality of ordinary beings refers to their body shape, behavior, preferences, etc., which are called commonality because they are similar. And what is contrary to the accomplishment of the noble path is the cause of ordinary beings, called ordinary being nature. When entering the vītarāga (detached from desire) position, for the commonality of sentient beings, there is both abandoning and obtaining; but for ordinary being nature, there is only abandoning and no obtaining. The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is that ordinary being nature and the commonality of ordinary beings have different functions, so ordinary being nature is separately established outside of the commonality of ordinary beings. There is no separate human nature outside of the commonality of humans, because the functions are the same, so human nature is not established outside of the commonality of humans. Moreover, when entering the noble position, for the commonality, it is abandoning the commonality of ordinary beings and obtaining the commonality of noble ones; for ordinary being nature, it is only abandoning ordinary being nature and not obtaining ordinary being nature. It shouldn't be said that noble nature cannot be obtained, because the noble dharma itself is called noble nature. Third, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya master refutes, 'If the commonality is not abandoned when entering the noble position, perhaps it is necessary to separately establish ordinary being nature. Since the commonality is abandoned when entering the noble position, why is it necessary to separately establish ordinary being nature?' If it is said that the functions are different…

故。須別立人同分。人性所作亦各異。何不別立自類相似名人同分。違于非人名為人性。

又非世間至亦何所用者。此即第二非見．無用難。又非世間現量證見此同分體。以非色故。亦非覺慧比量道理所能了別。無別用故世間之人。雖亦不了有情同分別有實體。而於有情謂無差別起覺．言說。故設有體亦何所用　第二正理救云。同分非色。如何得知有用能生無別事類。由見彼果知有彼故。如見現在業所得果。知有前生曾所作業。又觀行者現證知故　解云同分非色至無別事類。敘俱舍難意　由見彼果下正理釋通　第三俱舍師破云。若因緣不能生彼同類果。可須同分生。因緣自能生彼果。何須同分生。外道觀行亦言證我。豈得信彼有我實體。

又何因不許至互相似故者。此即第三非情同分難。谷等無情亦互相似。何不于彼立同分耶　庵羅。是果名。形似木菰。始．終形．色相似。生．熟難知　半娜娑。亦是果名。形如冬菰。其味甘美。其樹極多　第二正理救云。何不許有無情同分。不應如是責。有太過失故。汝亦許有人．天等趣。胎．卵等生。何不亦許庵羅等趣。綠豆等生　又云由彼草木等。無有展轉業用樂欲互相似故。于彼不說別立有同分　第三俱舍師破云。趣謂五趣。生謂四生。無情非彼可非趣．生。體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，必須另外設立人同分（指人類共有的性質）。人性的作用也各有不同，為什麼不另外設立自類相似的名人同分呢？與非人類不同的，就叫做人性。

另外，如果不是世間所能感知的，那又有什麼用呢？這是第二個難題，即不可見、無用。而且，這種同分的實體，也不是世間通過現量（直接感知）所能證見的，因為它不是色法（物質）。也不是通過覺慧（智慧）或比量（推理）的道理所能瞭解的。因為沒有其他作用，世間之人，即使不瞭解有情同分有實體，也會認為有情之間沒有差別，從而產生感覺和言說。所以，即使假設有這種實體，又有什麼用呢？

第二種正理的解釋是：同分不是色法，如何得知它有用，能夠產生沒有差別的事類呢？通過看到它的結果，就知道有它的存在。比如，看到現在由業力所得的果報，就知道前生曾經造作過業。而且，觀行者（修行者）現在也能證知。

解釋：『同分非色至無別事類』，是敘述俱舍宗的難題。『由見彼果下』，是正理宗的解釋和疏通。

第三種俱舍宗的觀點是：如果因緣不能產生同類的果，才需要同分來產生。如果因緣自身就能產生果，那又何須同分來產生呢？外道觀行者也說證得了『我』（Atman），難道可以相信他們真的有『我』的實體嗎？

又是什麼原因不允許在無情物上設立同分呢？這是第三個難題，即非情同分難。穀物等無情物也互相相似，為什麼不在它們上面設立同分呢？庵羅（Āmra），是果實的名字，形狀像木菰（一種菌類），開始和結束時的形狀和顏色相似，生和熟難以分辨。半娜娑（Panasa），也是果實的名字，形狀像冬菰（冬菇），味道甘甜美好，樹木極多。

第二種正理的解釋是：為什麼不允許有無情同分呢？不應該這樣責難，因為有太過失（過度推論的錯誤）。你們也承認有人、天等趣（五道輪迴中的類別），胎生、卵生等生（四種出生方式），為什麼不允許庵羅等趣，綠豆等生呢？

又說：因為草木等沒有展轉（相互）的業用和樂欲（意願），所以沒有說另外設立同分。第三種俱舍宗的觀點是：趣是指五趣，生是指四生。無情物不是五趣和四生，所以不能用趣和生來否定它。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is necessary to separately establish a 'person-commonality' (referring to the shared nature of humanity). The functions of human nature also differ from each other. Why not separately establish a 'self-similar-name-person-commonality'? That which differs from non-humans is called human nature.

Furthermore, if it is not perceptible to the world, then what is its use? This is the second difficulty: invisibility and uselessness. Moreover, the entity of this commonality cannot be directly perceived by the world through 'present awareness' (direct perception), because it is not 'rupa' (matter). Nor can it be understood through 'wisdom' or the reasoning of 'inference'. Because it has no other function, people in the world, even if they do not understand that 'sentient-being-commonality' has an entity, will still think that there is no difference between sentient beings, and thus generate feelings and speech. So, even if we assume that this entity exists, what is its use?

The second 'correct reasoning' explanation is: 'Commonality' is not 'rupa', how can we know that it is useful and can produce undifferentiated categories of things? By seeing its result, we know that it exists. For example, by seeing the results obtained from karma in the present, we know that karma was created in the past. Moreover, practitioners can now directly realize it.

Explanation: ''Commonality' is not 'rupa' to 'undifferentiated categories of things'' is a narration of the difficulties of the Sarvastivada school. ''By seeing its result below'' is the explanation and clarification of the Nyaya school.

The third view of the Sarvastivada school is: If causes and conditions cannot produce the same kind of result, then 'commonality' is needed to produce it. If causes and conditions themselves can produce the result, then why is 'commonality' needed to produce it? Non-Buddhist practitioners also say that they have realized 'Atman' (self), can we believe that they really have the entity of 'Atman'?

Also, for what reason is it not allowed to establish 'commonality' on inanimate objects? This is the third difficulty: the difficulty of 'non-sentient-being-commonality'. Inanimate objects such as grains are also similar to each other, why not establish 'commonality' on them? Āmra (mango), is the name of a fruit, its shape is like a mushroom, its shape and color are similar at the beginning and end, and it is difficult to distinguish between raw and ripe. Panasa (jackfruit), is also the name of a fruit, its shape is like a winter mushroom, its taste is sweet and delicious, and there are many trees.

The second 'correct reasoning' explanation is: Why is it not allowed to have 'inanimate-object-commonality'? It should not be criticized like this, because there is the fault of 'over-extension' (the error of over-generalization). You also admit that there are 'gatis' (categories in the cycle of rebirth) such as humans and gods, and 'births' (modes of birth) such as womb-born and egg-born, why not allow 'gatis' such as mangoes and 'births' such as green beans?

It is also said: Because plants and trees do not have 'reciprocal' karma and 'desire', it is not said that 'commonality' is established separately. The third view of the Sarvastivada school is: 'Gati' refers to the five 'gatis', and 'birth' refers to the four 'births'. Inanimate objects are not the five 'gatis' and four 'births', so 'gati' and 'birth' cannot be used to negate it.

類相似應有同分　又破樂欲等同故別須立同分。綠豆等亦同。何不立同分。

又諸同分至覺施設耶者。此即第四別有同分難。所同分之法體各異。由別同分故得同。能同相望亦各異。如何更無同分同。而起無別能緣覺慧。而起無別施設名言。若更有同分。展轉即有無窮之過　第二正理救云。由諸同分是同類事等因性故。即為同類展轉相似覺．施設因。如眼．耳等。由大種造方成色性。大種雖無餘大種造。而色性成　第三俱舍師破云。若言是同因故體即是同者。同分自類等。無別同分同即為覺．施設因。亦可所同自類等。不須同分同即為覺．施設因。又所引喻有違宗過。眼等色性三世常定。如何乃言由大種造方成色性。但應言由大種造。不應言由大種造方成色性。

又應顯成至由此發生者。此即第五應同勝論難。梵云吠世師。此云勝論。舊云鞞世師。或云衛世師訛也。汝說一切有部。執於法上別有同分。又應顯成勝論所執。彼宗執有總同句義。通一切法故名總同。於一切法上總同言。總同智。由此總同句義發生。彼復執有同異句義。于眾多異品類中同類相望名同。異類相望名異。同是即遍在同法。異即遍在異法。于眾多異品類法上。同異言。同異智。由此同異句義發生　又解汝說無差別同分。應顯成勝論總

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本類似於類別的事物應該有共同的分類，並且爲了打破快樂和慾望等同的觀點，需要另外建立共同的分類。例如，綠豆等也屬於同一類。為什麼不建立一個共同的分類呢？

此外，對於『所有共同分類的事物都能產生覺知和施設嗎？』這個問題，這實際上是第四個難題，即不同的事物具有相同的分類。由於存在不同的共同分類，它們才被認為是相同的。能產生共同分類的事物彼此之間也各不相同。如果沒有更深層次的共同分類，如何能產生沒有差別的能緣覺慧？如何能產生沒有差別的施設名言？如果存在更深層次的共同分類，就會陷入無窮無盡的循環。

第二種正理的解釋是：由於這些共同分類是同類事物的原因，因此它們是同類事物之間相互相似的覺知和施設的原因。就像眼、耳等器官一樣，它們由四大種（地、水、火、風）構成，才能形成色性。雖然四大種不是由其他四大種構成，但色性卻能形成。

第三種俱舍師的駁斥是：如果說因為它們是相同的原因，所以它們的本體就是相同的，那麼共同分類的自類等，如果沒有其他共同分類，也能成為覺知和施設的原因。同樣，被共同分類的事物的自類等，不需要共同分類也能成為覺知和施設的原因。此外，你所引用的比喻存在違背宗義的過失。眼等器官的色性在過去、現在、未來都是恒常不變的，怎麼能說是由四大種構成才能形成色性呢？應該只說由四大種構成，而不應該說由四大種構成才能形成色性。

此外，應該明顯地成就勝論的觀點，因為由此而發生。這是第五個難題，即應該與勝論相同。梵語『吠世師』（Vaisheshika）在這裡被稱為『勝論』。舊譯為『鞞世師』或『衛世師』，是錯誤的。你們說一切有部，認為在法上存在不同的共同分類，那麼也應該明顯地成就勝論所持有的觀點。勝論宗認為存在一種普遍的共同屬性，它貫穿於一切法，因此被稱為『總同』。對於一切法來說，『總同』這個詞語、『總同』的智慧，都是由此『總同』的屬性而產生的。勝論宗還認為存在『同異』的屬性。在眾多不同的事物中，同類事物之間相互比較稱為『同』，異類事物之間相互比較稱為『異』。『同』遍在於相同的法中，『異』遍在於不同的法中。對於眾多不同的事物來說，『同異』這個詞語、『同異』的智慧，都是由此『同異』的屬性而產生的。

此外，解釋你們所說的沒有差別的共同分類，應該明顯地成就勝論的『總同』。

【English Translation】 English version Things similar in kind should have a common division, and in order to break the view that pleasure and desire are the same, a common division must be established separately. For example, mung beans and the like are also of the same kind. Why not establish a common division?

Furthermore, regarding the question of 'do all things with a common division give rise to awareness and designation?', this is actually the fourth difficulty, that different things have the same classification. Because there are different common divisions, they are considered the same. The things that can produce a common division are also different from each other. If there is no deeper common division, how can undifferentiated cognizing wisdom arise? How can undifferentiated designating words arise? If there is a deeper common division, it will fall into an endless cycle.

The second correct reasoning explanation is: because these common divisions are the cause of similar things, they are the cause of mutually similar awareness and designation between similar things. Just like the eyes, ears, etc., they are made up of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) to form color properties. Although the four great elements are not made up of other four great elements, color properties can be formed.

The third rebuttal from the Kosa master is: if it is said that because they are the same cause, their essence is the same, then the self-nature of the common division, etc., without other common divisions, can also become the cause of awareness and designation. Similarly, the self-nature of the things being commonly divided, etc., does not need a common division to become the cause of awareness and designation. Furthermore, the metaphor you cited has the fault of violating the doctrine. The color properties of the eyes, etc., are constant in the past, present, and future. How can it be said that they are formed by the four great elements to form color properties? It should only be said that they are formed by the four great elements, and it should not be said that they are formed by the four great elements to form color properties.

Furthermore, the view of the Vaisheshika (勝論) should be clearly accomplished, because it arises from this. This is the fifth difficulty, that it should be the same as the Vaisheshika. The Sanskrit word 'Vaisheshika' is called 'Sheng Lun (勝論)' here. The old translations 'Pishi (鞞世師)' or 'Weishi (衛世師)' are incorrect. You, the Sarvastivadins (一切有部), believe that there are different common divisions on dharmas (法), then you should also clearly accomplish the views held by the Vaisheshika. The Vaisheshika school believes that there is a universal common attribute that runs through all dharmas, so it is called 'totality-sameness (總同)'. For all dharmas, the word 'totality-sameness', the wisdom of 'totality-sameness', are all produced by this attribute of 'totality-sameness'. The Vaisheshika school also believes that there is an attribute of 'sameness-difference (同異)'. Among many different things, the comparison between similar things is called 'sameness', and the comparison between different things is called 'difference'. 'Sameness' pervades the same dharmas, and 'difference' pervades the different dharmas. For many different things, the word 'sameness-difference', the wisdom of 'sameness-difference', are all produced by this attribute of 'sameness-difference'.

Furthermore, explaining your so-called undifferentiated common division, should clearly accomplish the 'totality-sameness' of the Vaisheshika.

同句義。有差別同分。應顯成勝論同異句義　若依勝論宗中先代古師。立六句義。一實。二德。三業。四有。五同異。六和合。後代慧月論師立十句義。如十句義論中立　一實。解云諸法體實。是德等所依二德。解云謂實家道德也　三業。解云謂動作是實家業　四同。解云體遍實等同有名同　五異。解云唯在實上令實別異。六和合。解云謂與諸法為生．至因　七有能。解云謂實等生自果時。由此有能助方生果　八無能。解云謂遮生余果　九俱分。解云謂性遍實．德．業等。亦同．亦異故名俱分　十無說。解云謂說無也　實句義云何。謂九種實名實句義。何者為九。一地。二水。三火。四風。五空。六時。七方。八我。九意。是為九實。地云何。謂有色．味．香．觸是為地。水云何謂有色．味．觸．及液．潤是為水。火雲何。謂有色．觸是為火。風雲何。謂唯有觸是為風。空云何。謂唯有聲是為空。時云何。謂是彼．此．俱．不俱．遲．速．許．緣因。是為時。方云何。謂是東．南．北等。詮．緣因是為方。我云何。謂是覺．樂．苦．欲．瞋．勤勇．行．法．非法等。和合因緣起智為相。是為我。意云何。謂是覺．樂．苦．欲．瞋．勤勇．法．非法行。不和合因緣起智為相。是為意　德句義云何。謂二十四德名德句義。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：同句義。有差別同分。應顯成勝論同異句義。若依勝論宗（Vaisheshika school）中先代古師，立六句義：一、實（Dravya，實體）。二、德（Guna，性質）。三、業（Karma，活動）。四、有（Sāmānya，共性）。五、同異（Vishesha，個性）。六、和合（Samavāya，內在關係）。後代慧月論師立十句義，如《十句義論》中所立：一、實。解云：諸法體實，是德等所依。二、德。解云：謂實家道德也。三、業。解云：謂動作是實家業。四、同。解云：體遍實等，同有名同。五、異。解云：唯在實上，令實別異。六、和合。解云：謂與諸法為生至因。七、有能。解云：謂實等生自果時，由此有能助方生果。八、無能。解云：謂遮生余果。九、俱分。解云：謂性遍實、德、業等，亦同亦異，故名俱分。十、無說。解云：謂說無也。實句義云何？謂九種實名實句義。何者為九？一、地（Prithvi，土）。二、水（Ap，水）。三、火（Tejas，火）。四、風（Vayu，風）。五、空（Akasha，空）。六、時（Kāla，時間）。七、方（Dik，空間）。八、我（Atman，靈魂）。九、意（Manas，心）。是為九實。地云何？謂有色、味、香、觸，是為地。水云何？謂有色、味、觸、及液、潤，是為水。火雲何？謂有色、觸，是為火。風雲何？謂唯有觸，是為風。空云何？謂唯有聲，是為空。時云何？謂是彼、此、俱、不俱、遲、速、許、緣因，是為時。方云何？謂是東、南、北等，詮、緣因，是為方。我云何？謂是覺、樂、苦、欲、瞋、勤勇、行、法、非法等，和合因緣起智為相，是為我。意云何？謂是覺、樂、苦、欲、瞋、勤勇、法、非法行，不和合因緣起智為相，是為意。德句義云何？謂二十四德名德句義。

【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'Sama' (same), 'Vaisheshika' (distinction), and 'Sama-Vaisheshika' (both same and distinction). It should reveal the meaning of 'Sama' and 'Vaisheshika' in the Vaisheshika school. According to the ancient teachers of the Vaisheshika school (Vaisheshika school), six categories (Padārtha) are established: 1. Dravya (substance). 2. Guna (quality). 3. Karma (activity). 4. Sāmānya (generality). 5. Vishesha (particularity). 6. Samavāya (inherence). Later, the teacher Huìyuè established ten categories, as stated in the 'Treatise on Ten Categories': 1. Dravya (substance). Explanation: The essence of all dharmas is substance, which is the basis of qualities, etc. 2. Guna (quality). Explanation: It refers to the qualities of the substance. 3. Karma (activity). Explanation: It refers to actions as the activity of the substance. 4. Sāmānya (generality). Explanation: Its essence pervades substances, etc., and it is the same in name. 5. Vishesha (particularity). Explanation: It exists only in substances, making them distinct. 6. Samavāya (inherence). Explanation: It is the cause of the arising of all dharmas. 7. Potency (Shakti). Explanation: When substances, etc., produce their own effects, this potency helps to produce the effect. 8. Impotency (A-shakti). Explanation: It prevents the production of other effects. 9. Ubhaya (both). Explanation: Its nature pervades substance, quality, activity, etc.; it is both the same and different, hence the name 'Ubhaya'. 10. Inexpressible (Avaktavya). Explanation: It means 'inexpressible'. What is the meaning of 'Dravya' (substance)? It means the nine kinds of substances are called the meaning of 'Dravya'. What are the nine? 1. Prithvi (earth). 2. Ap (water). 3. Tejas (fire). 4. Vayu (wind). 5. Akasha (space). 6. Kāla (time). 7. Dik (direction). 8. Atman (self/soul). 9. Manas (mind). These are the nine substances. What is 'Prithvi' (earth)? It is that which has color, taste, smell, and touch; this is 'Prithvi'. What is 'Ap' (water)? It is that which has color, taste, touch, liquidity, and moistness; this is 'Ap'. What is 'Tejas' (fire)? It is that which has color and touch; this is 'Tejas'. What is 'Vayu' (wind)? It is that which has only touch; this is 'Vayu'. What is 'Akasha' (space)? It is that which has only sound; this is 'Akasha'. What is 'Kāla' (time)? It is that which is 'that', 'this', 'both', 'not both', 'slow', 'fast', 'permission', and 'causal condition'; this is 'Kāla'. What is 'Dik' (direction)? It is that which is east, south, north, etc., explanation and causal condition; this is 'Dik'. What is 'Atman' (self/soul)? It is that which is awareness, pleasure, pain, desire, anger, effort, action, dharma, non-dharma, etc., with the arising of wisdom due to the combination of causes and conditions as its characteristic; this is 'Atman'. What is 'Manas' (mind)? It is that which is awareness, pleasure, pain, desire, anger, effort, dharma, non-dharma, action, with the arising of wisdom not due to the combination of causes and conditions as its characteristic; this is 'Manas'. What is the meaning of 'Guna' (quality)? It means the twenty-four qualities are called the meaning of 'Guna'.

何者名為二十四德。一色。二味。三香。四觸。五數。六量。七別體。八合。九離。十彼體。十一此體。十二覺。十三樂。十四苦。十五欲。十六瞋。十七勤勇。十八重體。十九液體。二十潤。二十一行。二十二法。二十三非法。二十四聲。如是名為二十四德。廣如十句義論　業句義云何。謂五種業名業句義。何者為五。一取業。二舍業。三屈業。四申業。五行業。廣釋如十句義論　同句義云何。謂有性。何者為有性。謂與一切實．德．業句義和合。一切根所取。于實．德．業有詮．智因。是謂有性　異句義云何。謂于實轉。依一實。是遮彼覺因．及表此覺因名異句義。和合句義云何。謂合實等不離相屬。此詮．智因。又性是一。名和合句義　有能句義云何。謂實．德．業和合。共．或非一。造各自果決定所須。如是名為有能句義　無能句義云何。謂實．德．業和合。共．或非一。不造余果決定所須。如是名為無能句義。

俱分句義云何。謂實性．德性．業性．及彼一義和合。地性色性取性等。如是名為俱分句義。廣釋如十句義論　無說句義云何。謂五種無。是名無說句義。何者為五。一未生無。二已滅無。三互更無。四不會無。五畢竟無。是謂五無。廣釋如十句義論　問六句．十句相攝如何　解云十句中實．

德．業三。即是六句中實．德．業句。第四句同。即是六句中第四有句。第六和合。即是六句中第六和合句。第五異句。第七有能句。第八無能句。第九俱分。是六句義中同異句攝。言同異者。自類相望名同。異類相望名異。第十無說非六句攝。所以然者。六句唯論有體之法故唯說六。十句有．無俱論故說第十。各據一義亦不相違　此論總同句義即是十句義中同句義。又是六句義中有句義。能令諸法有故。與同句義名異義同。此論同異句義。即是六句義中第五同異句義如望實句義中九法。自類相望名同。異類相望名異。余皆準此。又當十句義中第五異句義．第七有能句義．第八無能句義．第九俱分句義。

毗婆沙師至乃至廣說者。此即第二毗婆沙師救。於五難中前四不能救。但救第五諍同勝論。彼執二句與此同分義類不同。彼說一物于多轉故。我說同分于諸法上其體各別。多體．一體其義既殊。云何令我顯同勝論。又縱于彼勝論外道若顯．不顯。然此同分必有實物。經言同分。明知別有。

雖有是說至名為同分者。此即第三經部復難諍同勝論可知。所言引經證實。將為未可。

若爾所說同分是何者。此第四毗婆沙師。反徴經部。如我所說同分實有。汝即不許。彼宗所說同分是何。

即如是類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：德、業三，即是六句中的實句、德句、業句。第四句相同，即是六句中的第四有句。第六和合，即是六句中的第六和合句。第五異句，第七有能句，第八無能句，第九俱分，是六句義中同異句所包含的。說同異，自類相互比較稱為同，異類相互比較稱為異。第十無說，不被六句所包含。之所以這樣，是因為六句只論述有實體的法，所以只說六句。十句有和無都論述，所以說第十句。各自根據一個意義，也不互相違背。此論總的同句義，即是十句義中的同句義。又是六句義中的有句義。能使諸法存在，所以與同句義名稱不同意義相同。此論同異句義，即是六句義中的第五同異句義，如觀察實句義中的九法。自類相互比較稱為同，異類相互比較稱為異。其餘都依此推論。又相當於十句義中的第五異句義、第七有能句義、第八無能句義、第九俱分句義。

毗婆沙師乃至廣說，這是第二位毗婆沙師的辯護。對於五難中的前四難不能辯護，只能辯護第五難，即與勝論（Vaisheshika，印度哲學流派之一）的爭論。他們認為二句與此同分（Samanabhaga，同類因）的意義類別不同。他們說一個事物在多個地方轉變，我說同分在諸法之上，其本體各自不同。多體和一體，其意義既然不同，怎麼能讓我顯示與勝論相同呢？又即使對於勝論外道，無論顯示還是不顯示，然而此同分必定有實物。《經》中說同分，明明知道另有別的東西。

雖有是說乃至名為同分，這是第三位經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一）再次反駁，與勝論爭論可知。所說的引用經典來證實，將認為還不能確定。

若爾所說同分是何，這是第四位毗婆沙師反過來質問經部。如我所說同分是真實存在的，你們就不允許。他們宗派所說的同分是什麼？

即如是類

【English Translation】 English version: 'De', 'Karma' three, which are the 'Sat' (Reality), 'De' (Virtue), 'Karma' (Action) sentences in the six sentences. The fourth sentence is the same, which is the fourth 'Asti' (Existence) sentence in the six sentences. The sixth is 'Samavaya' (Combination), which is the sixth 'Samavaya' sentence in the six sentences. The fifth is 'Visesa' (Difference) sentence, the seventh is 'Sakti' (Potency) sentence, the eighth is 'Asakti' (Impotency) sentence, and the ninth is 'Ubhayabhaga' (Both-partaking) sentence, which are included in the 'Samanya-Visesa' (Similarity-Difference) sentence in the meaning of the six sentences. Speaking of similarity and difference, comparing within the same category is called similarity, and comparing between different categories is called difference. The tenth 'Anukta' (Unsaid) is not included in the six sentences. The reason for this is that the six sentences only discuss the Dharma (teachings) with substance, so only six sentences are mentioned. The ten sentences discuss both existence and non-existence, so the tenth sentence is mentioned. Each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. The general 'Samanya' (Similarity) sentence meaning in this treatise is the 'Samanya' sentence meaning in the ten sentences. It is also the 'Asti' sentence meaning in the six sentences. It can make all Dharmas exist, so it has the same meaning as the 'Samanya' sentence meaning, but with a different name. This treatise's 'Samanya-Visesa' sentence meaning is the fifth 'Samanya-Visesa' sentence meaning in the six sentences, such as observing the nine Dharmas in the 'Sat' sentence meaning. Comparing within the same category is called similarity, and comparing between different categories is called difference. The rest can be inferred from this. It is also equivalent to the fifth 'Visesa' sentence meaning, the seventh 'Sakti' sentence meaning, the eighth 'Asakti' sentence meaning, and the ninth 'Ubhayabhaga' sentence meaning in the ten sentences.

The Vibhasha (commentary masters) to even extensively explain, this is the second Vibhasha master's defense. They cannot defend against the first four difficulties in the five difficulties, but can only defend against the fifth difficulty, which is the dispute with the Vaisheshika (one of the schools of Indian philosophy). They believe that the two sentences are different from the meaning category of 'Samanabhaga' (commonality). They say that one thing transforms in many places, and I say that 'Samanabhaga' is above all Dharmas, and its substance is different in each. Since the meanings of multiple entities and one entity are different, how can you make me appear the same as the Vaisheshika? Moreover, even for the Vaisheshika heretics, whether it is revealed or not, this 'Samanabhaga' must have a real substance. The Sutra (scripture) says 'Samanabhaga', clearly knowing that there is something else.

Although there is this saying, even called 'Samanabhaga', this is the third Sautrantika (one of the Buddhist schools) refuting again, and the dispute with the Vaisheshika can be known. The so-called quoting scriptures to prove it will be considered uncertain.

If so, what is the 'Samanabhaga' you are talking about? This is the fourth Vibhasha master questioning the Sautrantika in return. As I said, 'Samanabhaga' is real, and you do not allow it. What is the 'Samanabhaga' that their school says?

It is just like that kind.

至豆等同分者。此即第五經部答。相似種類諸行生時。于中假立人同分等。無別實體。如諸谷等同分非實。

此非善說違我宗故者。此即第六毗婆沙師。理盡言窮作此說也。

已辨同分至異熟居廣果者。此下大文第三明無想。上兩句明無想體。下一句二門分別。上無想是無想異熟。下無想是無想天。通有心．無心。

論曰至如堰江河者。釋前兩句。若生無想有情天中有不相應行異熟果法。能令未來心．心所滅。名為無想。此法體性是實有物。所以能遮未來心．心所法。於五百劫令暫不起。如堰江河。故知實有。恐濫草等故言有情。

此法一向是異熟果者。五類分別。唯是異熟。

誰之異熟者問。

謂無想定者。答。故婆沙一百一十八云。或有說者。無想定感無想．及色異熟。命根．眾同分。是彼有心靜慮異熟。所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者。無想定感無想．及色異熟。命根是彼有心靜慮異熟。所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者。無想定感無想異熟。所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者。若有心時亦感無心諸蘊異熟。若無心時亦感有心諸蘊異熟。評曰應作是說。無想異熟唯無想定感。一切命根．及眾同分．眼等色根。皆業所感。余蘊俱感　正理十二。同彼婆沙初師不正義。此論同婆沙評家　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於『至豆等同分者』，這是第五經部（Sautrāntika）的回答。當相似種類的諸行（saṃskāra）產生時，其中假立人同分等，沒有別的實體。如同各種穀物等同分不是真實存在一樣。對於『此非善說違我宗故者』，這是第六毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）在理屈詞窮時所作的辯解。『已辨同分至異熟居廣果者』，這以下是第三大段，闡明無想（asaṃjñā）。前面兩句說明無想的體性，下一句從兩個方面進行區分。上面的無想是無想的異熟果（vipāka），下面的無想是無想天（Asaṃjñadeva）。兩者都包含有心和無心。論曰：『至如堰江河者』，解釋前面兩句。如果生於無想有情天（Asaṃjñā sattva）中，存在不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra）的異熟果法，能夠使未來的心和心所（citta-caitta）滅盡，這被稱為無想。此法的體性是真實存在的，所以能夠遮止未來心和心所法，在五百劫（kalpa）中暫時不起作用，就像用堤壩攔住江河一樣。因此可知它是真實存在的。爲了避免與草木等混淆，所以說是『有情』。『此法一向是異熟果者』，從五類進行區分，它僅僅是異熟果。『誰之異熟者』，這是提問。『謂無想定者』，這是回答。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第一百一十八卷說：『或者有人說，無想定（Asaṃjñā-samāpatti）感得無想和色（rūpa）的異熟果，命根（jīvitendriya）、眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga）是彼有心靜慮（dhyāna）的異熟果，其餘諸蘊（skandha）是俱異熟。』『又有人說，無想定感得無想和色的異熟果，命根是彼有心靜慮的異熟果，其餘諸蘊是俱異熟。』『又有人說，無想定感得無想異熟果，其餘諸蘊是俱異熟。』『又有人說，若有心時也感得無心諸蘊的異熟果，若無心時也感得有心諸蘊的異熟果。』評論說，應該這樣說，無想異熟果僅僅由無想定感得。一切命根以及眾同分、眼等色根，都是業所感得。其餘諸蘊是共同感得。《正理》（Nyāyānusāra）第十二卷，與《婆沙論》最初的說法相同，是不正確的。此論與《婆沙論》的評論家的觀點相同。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'To those who are similar in kind to beans,' this is the answer from the Sautrāntikas (the fifth school). When similar kinds of saṃskāras (formations) arise, the similarity of humans is nominally established within them, without any separate entity. Just as the similarity of various grains is not real. Regarding 'This is not well said, as it contradicts my doctrine,' this is the explanation made by the sixth Vaibhāṣika (school) when they are at the end of their reasoning and words. 『Having distinguished the similarity in kind, to the Vipāka (result) residing in the Wide Fruit (Brahatphala) realm,』 below this is the third major section, explaining Asaṃjñā (non-perception). The first two sentences explain the nature of Asaṃjñā, and the next sentence distinguishes it from two aspects. The upper Asaṃjñā is the Vipāka of Asaṃjñā, and the lower Asaṃjñā is the Asaṃjñadeva (non-perceptual heaven). Both include mind and no-mind. The Treatise says: 『Like damming a river,』 explains the previous two sentences. If one is born in the Asaṃjñā sattva (non-perceptual being) realm, there is a citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (non-associated formation) that is the Vipāka fruit, which can cause the future citta (mind) and caitta (mental factors) to cease. This is called Asaṃjñā. The nature of this dharma is real, so it can prevent future citta and caitta dharmas from arising temporarily for five hundred kalpas (aeons), just like damming a river. Therefore, it is known to be real. To avoid confusion with grass and trees, it is said to be 『sentient beings.』『This dharma is always a Vipāka fruit,』 distinguishing it from five categories, it is only a Vipāka fruit. 『Whose Vipāka is it?』 This is a question. 『It is said to be that of Asaṃjñā-samāpatti (non-perceptual attainment),』 this is the answer. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary) Volume 118 says: 『Or some say that Asaṃjñā-samāpatti causes the Vipāka fruit of Asaṃjñā and rūpa (form), jīvitendriya (life faculty), and nikāya-sabhāga (community of beings) are the Vipāka fruit of their mindful dhyāna (meditation), and the remaining skandhas (aggregates) are co-resultant Vipāka.』『Others say that Asaṃjñā-samāpatti causes the Vipāka fruit of Asaṃjñā and rūpa, jīvitendriya is the Vipāka fruit of their mindful dhyāna, and the remaining skandhas are co-resultant Vipāka.』『Others say that Asaṃjñā-samāpatti causes the Vipāka fruit of Asaṃjñā, and the remaining skandhas are co-resultant Vipāka.』『Others say that if there is mind, it also causes the Vipāka fruit of mindlessness skandhas, and if there is no mind, it also causes the Vipāka fruit of mindful skandhas.』 The commentary says that it should be said that the Vipāka of Asaṃjñā is only caused by Asaṃjñā-samāpatti. All jīvitendriya, nikāya-sabhāga, and rūpa-indriya (sense faculties) such as eyes are caused by karma. The remaining skandhas are co-resultant. Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reason) Volume 12, is the same as the initial incorrect meaning of the Vibhāṣā. This treatise is the same as the view of the commentator of the Vibhāṣā.

問此論若同婆沙評家。命．及色根非無想定感。何故下文感引．滿中。但言二定．及得不能感眾同分。不言不感命．及色根　解云。下文明感引．滿二種。但言二定．及得不能感引。能感滿。非於滿中能感一切。

無想有情居在何處者。問。

居在廣果至名無想天者。答。明所居處。廣果天中有高勝處。無想有情而居其上。如中間定梵王。于梵輔天中。起臺別住。此亦如彼。名無想天。

彼為恒無想為亦有想耶者。問。

生死位中至還起于想者答。眾生於彼生死位中多時有想。然言無想者。由彼有情生后死前中間。五百大劫長時。想不起故。從多分說故名無想。如契經中引證起想　問無想有情。前心多。後心多　答一百五十四評家曰。如是說者。此事不定。或前多后小。或前小后多。隨彼意樂有差別故　又準婆沙評家。出無想心通生得善．有覆無記．無覆無記。通五部所斷　問入無想心。為通幾性。幾部所斷　解云雖未見文。準彼出心入心亦爾　問經說有情皆因食住。于無想中四食既無。如何得住。答正理十二云。彼以宿業．等無間緣為任持食。謂由宿業引眾同分．及命根等。由續生心．及無間入無想果心。牽引資助故。彼亦有過去觸等為任持食。無心位中唯有過去觸等為食。現在都無。有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果這個理論與《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）的評家相同，那麼命根（jīvitendriya）和色根（rūpendriya）不應是由無想定（asañjñā-samāpatti）所感得的。為什麼下文說感得引業（ākarṣa）和滿業（pūraṇa）時，只說二種定（dhyāna）和得（lābha）不能感得眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga），而不說不能感得命根和色根？答：下文明確說感得引業和滿業兩種時，只說二種定和得不能感得引業，但能感得滿業。然而，在滿業中，並非能感得一切。

問：無想有情（asañjñā sattva）居住在哪裡？答：居住在廣果天（Bṛhatphala）直至名為無想天的地方。這表明了他們所居住的處所。廣果天中有高勝之處，無想有情就居住在那裡，如同中間禪定的梵王（Brahmā），在梵輔天（Brahmapāriṣadya）中建造臺閣，獨自居住。這裡的情況也與此類似，所以稱為無想天。

問：他們是恒常處於無想狀態，還是也有生起想念的時候？答：眾生在彼處的生死輪迴中，多數時候是有想念的。之所以稱為無想，是因為那些有情在出生后死亡前的中間階段，有五百大劫（mahākalpa）的漫長時間沒有生起想念。這是從多數情況來說的，所以稱為無想。正如契經（sūtra）中引證的那樣，他們會生起想念。問：無想有情，是前一剎那的心多，還是后一剎那的心多？答：一百五十四評家說：這樣說來，這件事是不確定的。或者前一剎那多而後一剎那少，或者前一剎那少而後一剎那多，隨著他們的意樂（chanda）不同而有差別。又根據《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點，從無想心（asañjñā-citta）生起時，通於生得善（jāti-lābha-kuśala）、有覆無記（sāvṛtāvyākṛta）、無覆無記（anāvṛtāvyākṛta）三種性質，通於五部所斷（pañca-sthānīya）。問：進入無想心時，通於幾種性質，幾種部所斷？答：雖然沒有看到相關經文，但根據他們出無想心的情況，進入無想心的情況也應如此。問：經中說有情都依靠食物而住，在無想狀態中，四食（catvāra āhārāḥ）既然都沒有，如何能夠安住？答：正理論（Nyāyānusāra）第十二卷說：他們以宿業（pūrva-karma）和等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya）作為任持食（sthiti-āhāra）。也就是說，由宿業引生眾同分和命根等，由續生心（pratisandhi-citta）和無間進入無想果心（asañjñā-phala-citta）牽引資助。他們也有過去的觸（sparśa）等作為任持食。在無心位（acitta-avasthā）中，只有過去的觸等作為食物，現在的觸等都沒有。有。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If this theory is the same as that of the commentators of the Mahavibhasa (Mahavibhasa), then the life faculty (jīvitendriya) and the sense faculty of color (rūpendriya) should not be felt by the non-perception attainment (asañjñā-samāpatti). Why does the following text, when feeling the attraction karma (ākarṣa) and the fulfillment karma (pūraṇa), only say that the two kinds of meditation (dhyāna) and attainment (lābha) cannot feel the commonality of beings (nikāya-sabhāga), but does not say that they cannot feel the life faculty and the sense faculty of color? Answer: The following text clearly states that when feeling the two kinds of attraction karma and fulfillment karma, it only says that the two kinds of meditation and attainment cannot feel the attraction karma, but can feel the fulfillment karma. However, within the fulfillment karma, it is not possible to feel everything.

Question: Where do the non-perception beings (asañjñā sattva) reside? Answer: They reside in the Bṛhatphala heaven (Bṛhatphala) up to the place called the non-perception heaven. This clarifies the place where they reside. In the Bṛhatphala heaven, there is a superior place where the non-perception beings reside, just like the Brahmā (Brahmā) in the intermediate meditation, who builds a pavilion in the Brahmā's retinue heaven (Brahmāpāriṣadya) and resides alone. The situation here is similar, so it is called the non-perception heaven.

Question: Are they constantly in a state of non-perception, or do they also have times when thoughts arise? Answer: Beings in the cycle of birth and death there mostly have thoughts. The reason they are called non-perception is that those beings, in the intermediate stage between birth and death, have a long period of five hundred great kalpas (mahākalpa) without the arising of thoughts. This is said from the majority of cases, so it is called non-perception. As the sutra (sūtra) cites, they will have thoughts arising. Question: For non-perception beings, is there more mind in the previous moment or in the later moment? Answer: Commentator one hundred and fifty-four says: In this way, this matter is uncertain. Either there is more in the previous moment and less in the later moment, or there is less in the previous moment and more in the later moment, depending on their different intentions (chanda). Also, according to the view of the commentators of the Mahavibhasa, when arising from the non-perception mind (asañjñā-citta), it is connected to the three natures of innate goodness (jāti-lābha-kuśala), obscured and unspecified (sāvṛtāvyākṛta), and unobscured and unspecified (anāvṛtāvyākṛta), and it is connected to what is severed by the five categories (pañca-sthānīya). Question: When entering the non-perception mind, is it connected to how many natures and how many categories of severance? Answer: Although I have not seen the relevant texts, according to their arising from the non-perception mind, the situation of entering the non-perception mind should also be the same. Question: The sutras say that beings all rely on food to dwell, but in the state of non-perception, since the four kinds of food (catvāra āhārāḥ) are not present, how can they dwell? Answer: The Nyāyānusāra (Nyāyānusāra), volume twelve, says: They use past karma (pūrva-karma) and the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya) as sustaining food (sthiti-āhāra). That is to say, past karma causes the arising of the commonality of beings and the life faculty, etc., and the rebirth mind (pratisandhi-citta) and the mind of entering the fruit of non-perception (asañjñā-phala-citta) immediately assist. They also have past contact (sparśa), etc., as sustaining food. In the state of no-mind (acitta-avasthā), only past contact, etc., is food, and present contact, etc., is not present. Yes.

心位中二種俱有　解云以宿業為思食。以續生心無間入心牽引資助為識食。以識相應觸為觸食。故無心位唯有過去三食。現在即無。諸有心位亦有現在食。其無想事。雖不從彼等無間緣生。然由彼力牽引資助體方得起。若無前心等。其體無容得起。

從彼沒已至生天之業者。此明退生處。從無想天沒竟。於三界中必生欲界非余處。所以者何。初師解先修無想定因勢力盡故。或有心無心定因勢力盡故。不能感果。從彼命終還生欲界。于彼不能更修無想定故。或有心．無心定故非生彼界。如箭射空勢力盡時便即墮地。還生欲界應知亦爾。若諸有情應生無想天處。必有欲界順后受業。如生北洲必有生天順后受業。由有欲界順后受業故。唯生欲界不生余界。故婆沙一百五十四云。有說若造無想天順次生受業者。法爾亦造欲界順后次受業。如造北俱盧洲順次生受業者。法爾亦造欲界天順后次受業　問生欲何趣。解云五趣不定。故婆沙一百五十四云。問定生何處。答有說生地獄。有說生惡趣。如是說者定生欲界處處不定。或生惡趣。或天。或人　問欲順后業於何時造　解云將修無想加行時造。以彼強勝故今先受。謂諸外道將修無想。或起邪見謗釋種涅槃。或起見取計彼為真。或起戒取計彼為道。如是等惑為惡趣因。既修此定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在無心位（沒有心識活動的狀態）中，存在兩種俱有（同時存在）的情況：解釋為以宿業（過去的行為）為思食（維持生命的精神食糧），以續生心（連線下一生的心識）無間（不間斷地）進入心識，牽引和資助為識食（維持意識的食糧），以識（意識）相應的觸（感覺）為觸食（維持感覺的食糧）。因此，在無心位只有過去的三種食，沒有現在的食。在有心位（有心識活動的狀態）中，也有現在的食。至於無想事（無想定的狀態），雖然不是從彼等無間緣（從之前的無間緣）產生，但由於彼力（無想定的力量）的牽引和資助，其體（身體）才能得以生起。如果沒有前心等（之前的意識等），其體是無法生起的。

從彼沒已至生天之業者（從那裡死亡後到生天的業力），這說明了退生之處。從無想天（沒有思想的禪定天界）死亡后，在三界（欲界、色界、無色界）中必定會生於欲界（充滿慾望的界），而不是其他地方。為什麼呢？初師（最初的老師）解釋說，因為先前修習無想定（沒有思想的禪定）的因（原因）和勢力（力量）已經耗盡。或者因為有心定（有思想的禪定）和無心定（沒有思想的禪定）的因和勢力已經耗盡，不能感果（產生結果）。從那裡命終（死亡）后，還會生於欲界。因為在那裡不能再修習無想定，或者因為有心定和無心定，所以不會生於彼界（無想天）。就像箭射向天空，勢力耗盡時就會立即墜落地面一樣，還生於欲界也應該這樣理解。如果諸有情（所有眾生）應該生於無想天，必定有欲界（充滿慾望的界）的順后受業（在未來接受果報的業力）。就像生於北俱盧洲（北方的快樂之地）必定有生天的順后受業一樣。由於有欲界的順后受業，所以只會生於欲界，不會生於其他界。所以《婆沙論》（佛教論書）第一百五十四卷說，有人說，如果造了無想天的順次生受業（在下一生接受果報的業力），自然也會造欲界的順后次受業。就像造了北俱盧洲的順次生受業，自然也會造欲界天的順后次受業。

問：生於欲界的哪一趣（哪一道）？答：五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）不定。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十四卷說，問：一定生於何處？答：有人說生地獄。有人說生惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）。這樣說的人認為，一定生於欲界，但具體生於何處是不定的，或者生於惡趣，或者生於天，或者生於人。問：欲界的順后業（在未來產生果報的業力）在什麼時候造？答：在將要修習無想加行（修習無想定的準備階段）時造。因為這種業力強大而殊勝，所以現在先接受果報。也就是說，諸外道（佛教以外的修行者）將要修習無想，或者生起邪見（錯誤的見解），誹謗釋種涅槃（釋迦牟尼佛的涅槃），或者生起見取（執著于錯誤的見解），認為那是真實的，或者生起戒取（執著于錯誤的戒律），認為那是正道。像這樣的迷惑是惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）的原因。既然修習這種禪定。

【English Translation】 English version: In the state of no-mind (absence of mental activity), there exist two co-existences: explained as taking past karma (actions) as nutritive thought (sustenance for life's spirit), taking the continuous mind of rebirth (connecting the next life's consciousness) uninterruptedly entering the mind, drawing and assisting as nutritive consciousness (sustenance for awareness), and taking the contact (sensation) corresponding to consciousness (awareness) as nutritive contact (sustenance for sensation). Therefore, in the state of no-mind, there are only the three past nutritions, without the present nutrition. In the state of having-mind (presence of mental activity), there is also the present nutrition. As for the matter of no-thought (state of no-thought concentration), although it does not arise from the immediate condition of those, its body (physical form) can only arise due to the drawing and assisting power of that (no-thought concentration). If there is no previous mind, etc. (previous consciousness, etc.), its body cannot possibly arise.

』From the death there to the karma of being born in heaven,』 this explains the place of regressive rebirth. After dying from the Heaven of No-Thought (a realm of meditation without thought), one will certainly be born in the Desire Realm (realm full of desires) within the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm), and not elsewhere. Why? The initial teacher explains that it is because the cause (reason) and power (strength) of previously cultivating the No-Thought Concentration (meditation without thought) have been exhausted. Or because the cause and power of having-mind concentration (meditation with thought) and no-mind concentration (meditation without thought) have been exhausted, and one cannot experience the result (bear fruit). After dying from there, one will still be born in the Desire Realm. Because one cannot cultivate the No-Thought Concentration there, or because of having-mind concentration and no-mind concentration, one will not be born in that realm (Heaven of No-Thought). Just as an arrow shot into the sky falls to the ground immediately when its power is exhausted, it should be understood that being reborn in the Desire Realm is also like that. If all sentient beings should be born in the Heaven of No-Thought, they must have karma of the Desire Realm (realm full of desires) that will be received later (karma that will bear fruit in the future). Just as being born in Uttarakuru (northern land of pleasure) must have karma of being born in heaven that will be received later. Because there is karma of the Desire Realm that will be received later, one will only be born in the Desire Realm and not in other realms. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa (Buddhist treatise), volume 154, says that some say that if one creates karma of the Heaven of No-Thought to be received in the next life, one will naturally also create karma of the Desire Realm to be received later. Just as creating karma of Uttarakuru to be received in the next life, one will naturally also create karma of the Desire Realm heaven to be received later.

Question: In which of the five destinies (paths) will one be born in the Desire Realm? Answer: The five destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, gods) are uncertain. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa, volume 154, says, question: Where will one definitely be born? Answer: Some say one will be born in hell. Some say one will be born in evil destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals). Those who say this believe that one will definitely be born in the Desire Realm, but where specifically is uncertain, either in evil destinies, or in heaven, or as a human. Question: When is the karma of the Desire Realm (that will produce results in the future) created? Answer: It is created when one is about to cultivate the preliminary practices (preparatory stage) for no-thought concentration. Because this karma is strong and superior, one receives the results first. That is to say, those non-Buddhists (practitioners outside of Buddhism) are about to cultivate no-thought, or they give rise to wrong views (incorrect understandings), slandering the Nirvana of the Shakya lineage (Shakyamuni Buddha's Nirvana), or they give rise to view-attachment (attachment to wrong views), considering that to be real, or they give rise to precept-attachment (attachment to wrong precepts), considering that to be the right path. Such delusions are the cause of evil destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals). Since they cultivate this concentration.

復須離欲。或起生得。或聞。或思。如是等善為善趣因。餘生雖有順后受業。加行中造勢力強故乘彼受生。或善亦通後起位造。應知將生北俱盧洲。欲界天業亦於人中。修無我觀加行時造。以彼強勝。故今先受。或亦通於後起位造。將生北洲業純凈故彼沒生天。將生無想善惡雜起。故從彼沒通生五趣。

已辨無想二定者何者。此下大文第四明二定。就中。一明無想定。二明滅盡定。三明依身別。此下明無想定。將明問起　就中。一總。二別。此即總問。

謂無想定及滅盡定者。總答。

初無想定其相云何者。別問。

頌曰至非聖得一世者。別答。初一句明體　后靜慮。明依地　求脫。明作意　善。明性攝　唯順生受。明招果　非聖。明修人　得一世。明成就。

論曰至與無想同者。如前所說有無想異熟法。能令心．心所滅名為無想。如是復有別心不相應行法。能令心．心所滅名無想定體。身中無想名無想者。無想者之定名無想定。依主釋也　或即定無想名無想定。持業釋也　頌說如是聲。唯顯此定滅心．心所。與前無想異熟天同。非一切同。準婆沙一百五十一。入無想定心。及出無想定心。俱是第四靜慮有漏善心。不能具述。

此在何地者。問。

謂后靜慮至非餘者。答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：還必須遠離慾望。或者（這種遠離）是與生俱來的，或者是聽聞佛法后產生的，或者是通過思索佛法后產生的。像這樣的善行是善趣的因。其他生世雖然有順次後受的業，但由於在加行位（修行過程中）所造的業勢力強大，因此會憑藉這些強大的業力而受生。或者善業也可能在後起位（修行之後）造作。應當知道，將要出生的北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以享樂為主）的眾生，其欲界天（Kāmadhātu，佛教宇宙觀中的欲界）的業，也是在人中修習無我觀（anatta-vipassanā，佛教中觀察事物無自性的修行方法）的加行時造作的。因為這些業力強大殊勝，所以現在先承受果報。或者也可能是在後起位造作的。將要出生的北俱盧洲的眾生，其業純凈，因此從那裡命終後會轉生到天界。將要轉生到無想天（Asaññasatta，色界天之一，特點是沒有心識活動）的眾生，善業和惡業混雜而起，因此從那裡命終后，可以轉生到五趣（五道輪迴）。

已經辨析了無想（Asañña）的問題，那麼二定（兩個禪定）指的是什麼？下面這段大文是第四部分，闡明二定。其中，第一部分闡明無想定（Asaññasamāpatti，一種通過修行而達到的無心識狀態），第二部分闡明滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，一種更高的禪定狀態，連受想都滅盡），第三部分說明它們在依身方面的區別。下面闡明無想定。在闡明之前先提出問題。其中，分為總問和別問。這裡是總的提問。

所謂的無想定和滅盡定是什麼？這是總的回答。

最初的無想定，它的相狀是怎樣的？這是分別提問。

頌文說：『后靜慮，求脫善，唯順生，非聖得一世。』這是分別回答。第一句說明無想定的體性。『后靜慮』，說明它所依的禪定地。『求脫』，說明它的作意（manasikara，心理活動）。『善』，說明它的性質屬於善。『唯順生受』，說明它招感的果報。『非聖』，說明修習它的人不是聖者。『得一世』，說明它的成就。

論述說：如前面所說，有無想異熟法（asañña-vipāka，無想天的果報），能夠使心和心所（citta-cetasika，心理活動）滅除，這稱為無想。像這樣，還有另外一種不相應行法（citta-vippayutta-saṅkhāra，既非心也非心所的抽像概念），能夠使心和心所滅除，這稱為無想定的體性。身中的無想稱為無想者，無想者的禪定稱為無想定，這是依主釋（一種梵文複合詞的解釋方法）。或者直接說，以禪定為無想，稱為無想定，這是持業釋（另一種梵文複合詞的解釋方法）。頌文說『如是』，只是爲了表明這種禪定滅除心和心所，與之前的無想異熟天相同，並非一切都相同。根據《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百五十一卷，入無想定之心，以及出無想定之心，都是第四靜慮（catuttha-jhāna，第四禪）的有漏善心（sāsrava-kusala-citta，伴隨煩惱的善心），不能詳細敘述。

此定在什麼地？這是提問。

所謂的后靜慮，乃至非其餘地。這是回答。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, one must abandon desires. This abandonment can be either innate, acquired through hearing the Dharma, or developed through contemplation. Such virtuous actions are the cause of good destinies. Although other lifetimes may have karmic debts that ripen later, the strong karmic force created during the stage of application (practice) allows one to be reborn according to that stronger karma. Alternatively, virtuous deeds can also be created in the post-practice stage. It should be understood that the beings who will be born in Uttarakuru (one of the four great continents, primarily focused on enjoyment) create the karma for their desire realm (Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire in Buddhist cosmology) while practicing the contemplation of no-self (anatta-vipassanā, the Buddhist practice of observing the absence of inherent existence in phenomena) during the stage of application in the human realm. Because this karma is powerful and superior, they experience its results first. Or it may also be created in the post-practice stage. The karma of those who will be born in Uttarakuru is pure, so they are reborn in the heavens after death. Those who will be born in the Realm of Non-Perception (Asaññasatta, a realm in the form realm characterized by the absence of consciousness) experience a mixture of good and bad karma, so after death, they can be reborn in any of the five realms (of rebirth).

Having discussed Non-Perception (Asañña), what are the two attainments (two samāpattis)? The following major section is the fourth part, clarifying the two attainments. Among them, the first part clarifies the attainment of Non-Perception (Asaññasamāpatti, a state of mindlessness achieved through practice), the second part clarifies the Cessation Attainment (nirodha-samāpatti, a higher state of meditative absorption where even perception and feeling cease), and the third part explains their differences in terms of the physical basis. The following clarifies the attainment of Non-Perception. Before clarifying, a question is raised. Among them, there is a general question and a specific question. This is the general question.

What are the so-called Attainment of Non-Perception and Cessation Attainment? This is the general answer.

What is the nature of the initial Attainment of Non-Perception? This is the specific question.

The verse says: 'Later dhyana, seeking liberation, virtuous, only sequential birth, not attained by noble ones, one lifetime.' This is the specific answer. The first line explains the nature of the Attainment of Non-Perception. 'Later dhyana' indicates the meditative ground it relies on. 'Seeking liberation' indicates its intention (manasikara, mental activity). 'Virtuous' indicates its nature as virtuous. 'Only sequential birth' indicates the result it brings. 'Not attained by noble ones' indicates that it is not practiced by noble beings. 'One lifetime' indicates its accomplishment.

The treatise says: As previously stated, there is the fruition of Non-Perception (asañña-vipāka, the result of being born in the Realm of Non-Perception), which can cause the cessation of mind and mental factors (citta-cetasika, mental activities), and this is called Non-Perception. Likewise, there is another non-associated formation (citta-vippayutta-saṅkhāra, abstract concepts that are neither mind nor mental factors) that can cause the cessation of mind and mental factors, and this is called the nature of the Attainment of Non-Perception. The Non-Perception in the body is called the non-perceiver, and the samadhi of the non-perceiver is called the Attainment of Non-Perception, which is a possessive compound (a type of Sanskrit compound word). Or directly, taking samadhi as Non-Perception is called the Attainment of Non-Perception, which is a determinative compound (another type of Sanskrit compound word). The verse says 'thus' only to indicate that this samadhi ceases mind and mental factors, similar to the previous Realm of Non-Perception, but not everything is the same. According to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 151, the mind entering the Attainment of Non-Perception and the mind emerging from the Attainment of Non-Perception are both defiled wholesome minds (sāsrava-kusala-citta, wholesome minds accompanied by defilements) of the fourth dhyana (catuttha-jhāna, the fourth jhana), which cannot be described in detail.

In what realm is this attainment? This is the question.

The so-called later dhyana, up to not other realms. This is the answer.

。唯在第四靜慮。非余上下諸地。故婆沙一百五十一云。又下諸地有歡．戚受。行相粗動難可除滅。第四靜慮。唯有處中受。行相微細易可斷滅。故下地中無無想定。問何故無色界無彼定耶。答唯有異生計習此定。以為能證無想涅槃。無色界中無有無想異熟可計。故無想定於彼亦無。又諸異生怖畏斷滅。彼界無色。若更滅心便為斷滅。是彼所怖故彼界中無無想定。

修無想定為何所求者。問。

謂求解脫至修無想定者。答。修無想人。為求解脫涅槃。彼執無想異熟是真解脫涅槃。為求證彼修無想定。作出離道。

前說無想至五蘊異熟者。前說無想是異熟。故。無記性攝不說自成。故不別說。此定唯善。能招無想有情天中五蘊異熟。初生．后沒。有心．心所故具五蘊。

既是善性為順何受者。問。

唯順生受至正性離生者。唯順生受。如文可解。正理一說同此論。又一說。一類諸師作此定執。謂順生受．及不定受。所以者何。成此定者。亦容得入正性離生。入已必無現起此定。由約現行。說無想定名異生定。非約成就。

又許此定至必不修行者。凡．聖分別。唯異生得。以無想定。感五百劫生死大果。空無所得。聖者厭離如見深坑。不樂入故。要執無想異熟。為真解脫涅槃。于無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：只有在第四靜慮（Dhyana，禪定的一種）中才有無想定，在其他上下層級的禪定中沒有。正如《大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百五十一卷所說：『又下層級的禪定中有歡喜和憂戚的感受，其行相粗糙浮動，難以去除和滅盡。而第四靜慮只有舍受（處中受），其行相微細，容易斷滅。』因此，在下層級的禪定中沒有無想定。問：為什麼在無色界（Arūpadhātu）中沒有無想定呢？答：只有異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）執著于修習此定，認為能夠由此證得無想涅槃（Nirvana）。無色界中沒有無想的異熟果報可以執著，因此無想定在無色界中也不存在。而且，諸異生畏懼斷滅，如果他們在無色界中更進一步滅除心識，就等同於斷滅。這是他們所畏懼的，所以無色界中沒有無想定。

問：修習無想定是爲了追求什麼呢？

答：是爲了求解脫而修習無想定。修習無想定的人，爲了求解脫涅槃，他們執著于無想的異熟果報是真正的解脫涅槃，爲了求證它而修習無想定，並將其作為出離之道。

前面說無想是五蘊（Skandha）的異熟果報。前面已經說過無想是異熟果，因此，屬於無記性（Avyākrta，非善非惡）所攝，無需特別說明。此定唯是善性，能夠招感無想有情天中的五蘊異熟果報。初生和后死時，有心和心所，因此具備五蘊。

問：既然是善性，那麼順應哪種感受呢？

答：只順應生受，如文義可解。《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）的一種說法與此論相同。另一種說法是，有一類論師執著認為此定順應生受和不定受。為什麼呢？因為成就此定的人，也可能證入正性離生（Niyata，確定能解脫的階段）。一旦證入，必定不會再現起此定。因為是就現行來說，所以說無想定是異生定，而不是就成就來說。

又允許此定只有凡夫才能獲得，聖者必定不會修行。凡夫和聖者有所區別。只有異生才能獲得無想定，因為無想定會感得五百劫生死輪迴的巨大果報，最終空無所得。聖者厭離它，如同看見深坑一樣，不樂於進入。只有執著于無想的異熟果報是真正的解脫涅槃，才會修習無想定。

【English Translation】 English version: Only in the Fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption) does the Asamjnasamapatti (non-perception attainment) exist; it does not exist in other higher or lower realms. As stated in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 151: 'Furthermore, lower realms have feelings of joy and sorrow, whose characteristics are coarse and difficult to remove and extinguish. The Fourth Dhyana only has neutral feeling (equanimity), whose characteristics are subtle and easy to cut off and extinguish.' Therefore, in the lower realms, there is no Asamjnasamapatti. Question: Why is there no Asamjnasamapatti in the Arūpadhātu (formless realm)? Answer: Only Prthagjanas (ordinary beings) cling to practicing this attainment, believing that they can attain Asamjna Nirvana (Nirvana without perception) through it. There is no Asamjna Vipaka (result of action) to cling to in the Arūpadhātu; therefore, Asamjnasamapatti does not exist there either. Moreover, ordinary beings fear annihilation. If they were to further extinguish consciousness in the formless realm, it would be equivalent to annihilation. This is what they fear; therefore, there is no Asamjnasamapatti in that realm.

Question: What do those who cultivate Asamjnasamapatti seek?

Answer: They seek liberation by cultivating Asamjnasamapatti. Those who cultivate Asamjnasamapatti seek liberation and Nirvana. They cling to the Asamjna Vipaka as true liberation and Nirvana. To attain it, they cultivate Asamjnasamapatti, considering it as a path of renunciation.

Earlier, it was said that Asamjna is the Vipaka of the five Skandhas (aggregates). It has already been said that Asamjna is a Vipaka; therefore, it is included in Avyākrta (undetermined, neither good nor evil) and does not need to be specifically mentioned. This attainment is only wholesome and can attract the Vipaka of the five Skandhas in the Asamjna sentient being realm. At the beginning of birth and the end of death, there is mind and mental factors; therefore, it possesses the five Skandhas.

Question: Since it is wholesome, what kind of feeling does it accord with?

Answer: It only accords with the feeling of being born, as the text explains. One explanation in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Principles) is the same as this treatise. Another explanation is that some teachers hold that this attainment accords with the feeling of being born and undetermined feeling. Why? Because those who achieve this attainment may also enter Niyata (the stage of being certain to be liberated). Once entered, they will certainly not manifest this attainment again. Because it is discussed in terms of present activity, Asamjnasamapatti is called an attainment of ordinary beings, not in terms of achievement.

Furthermore, it is permitted that only ordinary beings can attain this attainment, and sages will certainly not cultivate it. There is a distinction between ordinary beings and sages. Only ordinary beings can attain Asamjnasamapatti because Asamjnasamapatti will cause the great result of five hundred kalpas (aeons) of samsaric existence, ultimately leading to nothing. Sages are disgusted with it, like seeing a deep pit, and are not happy to enter it. Only those who cling to the Asamjna Vipaka as true liberation and Nirvana will cultivate Asamjnasamapatti.

想定。起能出離生死想。而修此定　一切聖者。不執有漏無想異熟。為真解脫涅槃。不執有漏無想定。為真出離聖道。故於此定必不修行。

若諸聖者至無想定不者。此下明成就問。若諸聖者。修得第四靜慮定時。必得無始過去．未來諸有心定。此無想定。為如靜慮亦得去．來無始曾習無想定不。

余亦不得者。答。余凡夫人。修得第四定時。亦不得去．來無想定。何況聖人。

所以者何者。徴。

彼雖曾習至無未來修者。彼無想定。雖復過去曾習。以無心故。要起大加行方便修得。故初得時唯得現在。如初受得別解脫戒。亦唯成現。得此定已。第二念等乃至未舍以來。亦成就過去。出已乃至未舍已來。唯成過去。以無心故無未來修。

次滅盡定至三十四念故者。此下第二明滅盡定。初一句明自體　為靜。明作意　住有頂。明依地　善。明性攝　二受不定。明招果　聖明修人　由加行得。明初修行　后兩句明成佛得。

論曰至滅定亦然者。例同無想。

此亦然聲為例何義者。問。

例無想定至名滅盡定者。答。此正出體。如是復有別不相應行法。能令心心所滅。名滅盡定。又婆沙一百五十二云。問此滅盡定幾物為體。有說此定一物為體。若滅現前即名無心。問云何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

想定。如何才能生起出離生死的想法，並修習這種禪定？一切聖者，不會執著于有漏的無想異熟果報，認為那是真正的解脫涅槃，也不會執著于有漏的無想定，認為那是真正的出離聖道。因此，他們必定不會修行這種禪定。

『若諸聖者至無想定不者』，這以下說明成就的問題。如果各位聖者修得第四靜慮（catuttha jhāna）的定時，必定獲得無始過去、未來的各種有心定。那麼，這種無想定，是否像靜慮一樣，也能獲得過去、未來無始以來曾經修習的無想定呢？

『余亦不得者』，回答說，其餘的凡夫俗子，即使修得第四定時，也無法獲得過去、未來的無想定，更何況是聖人呢？

『所以者何者』，這是提問。

『彼雖曾習至無未來修者』，那種無想定，即使過去曾經修習過，因為沒有心識的緣故，需要發起大的加行方便才能修得。因此，初次獲得時只能獲得現在的。如同初次受得別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa），也只能成就現在的。獲得這種禪定之後，第二個念頭等等，乃至沒有捨棄之前，也能成就過去。出去之後，乃至沒有捨棄之前，只能成就過去。因為沒有心識的緣故，沒有未來的修習。

『次滅盡定至三十四念故者』，這以下第二部分說明滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti）。第一句說明自體是寂靜的。『明作意』，說明作意。『住有頂』，說明所依止的處所。『善』，說明性質是善的。『二受不定』，說明二受是不定的。『明招果』，說明招感的果報。『聖明修人』，說明是聖人修習的。『由加行得』，說明是通過加行獲得的。『明初修行』，說明最初的修行。后兩句說明成佛才能獲得。

『論曰至滅定亦然者』，舉例說明與無想定相同。

『此亦然聲為例何義者』，這是提問。

『例無想定至名滅盡定者』，回答說，這正是說明它的體性。像這樣，還有另外一種不相應行法，能夠使心和心所滅盡，名為滅盡定。另外，《婆沙論》第一百五十二卷說，問：這種滅盡定以幾種事物為體？有人說，這種禪定以一種事物為體。如果滅盡現前，就名為無心。問：如何…… English version:

Saṃjñā (perception). How can one generate the thought of liberation from birth and death and cultivate this samādhi (concentration)? All noble ones do not cling to the contaminated, fruition of non-perception, considering it to be true liberation and nirvāṇa (cessation), nor do they cling to the contaminated asaṃjñā-samāpatti (attainment of non-perception), considering it to be the true path of liberation. Therefore, they will certainly not cultivate this samādhi.

'If the noble ones attain asaṃjñā-samāpatti or not,' this below explains the question of attainment. If the noble ones cultivate and attain the fourth dhyāna (fourth meditative absorption), they will certainly attain various samādhis with mind from the beginningless past and future. Then, is this asaṃjñā-samāpatti, like dhyāna, also able to attain the asaṃjñā-samāpatti that has been practiced from the beginningless past and future?

'The others also cannot attain it,' the answer is, the other ordinary people, even if they cultivate and attain the fourth dhyāna, cannot attain the asaṃjñā-samāpatti of the past and future, let alone the noble ones?

'What is the reason for this?' This is a question.

'Although they have practiced it, they will not cultivate it in the future,' that asaṃjñā-samāpatti, even if it has been practiced in the past, because there is no mind, it needs to generate great effort and skillful means to cultivate and attain it. Therefore, when it is first attained, it can only attain the present. Just like when one first receives the Prātimokṣa (vows of individual liberation), it can only accomplish the present. After attaining this samādhi, the second thought and so on, until it is not abandoned, it can also accomplish the past. After exiting it, until it is not abandoned, it can only accomplish the past. Because there is no mind, there is no future cultivation.

'Next, nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment) until the thirty-fourth thought,' this below, the second part, explains nirodha-samāpatti. The first sentence explains that the self-nature is tranquility. 'Ming zuo yi (clarifying intention),' explains intention. 'Zhu you ding (abiding in the peak of existence),' explains the place of reliance. 'Shan (wholesome),' explains that the nature is wholesome. 'Er shou bu ding (two feelings are uncertain),' explains that the two feelings are uncertain. 'Ming zhao guo (clarifying the result),' explains the result that is attracted. 'Sheng ming xiu ren (noble ones clarify cultivation),' explains that it is cultivated by noble ones. 'You jia xing de (obtained through effort),' explains that it is obtained through effort. 'Ming chu xiu xing (clarifying initial cultivation),' explains the initial cultivation. The last two sentences explain that one can only attain it upon becoming a Buddha.

'The treatise says that nirodha-samāpatti is also the same,' gives an example to illustrate that it is the same as asaṃjñā-samāpatti.

'What is the meaning of this 'also the same' as an example?' This is a question.

'Example of asaṃjñā-samāpatti to the name nirodha-samāpatti,' the answer is, this is precisely explaining its essence. Like this, there is also another non-associated dharma that can cause the mind and mental factors to cease, called nirodha-samāpatti. Also, the 152nd volume of the Vibhāṣā (commentary) says, question: How many things are the essence of this nirodha-samāpatti? Some say that this samādhi has one thing as its essence. If cessation is present, it is called no-mind. Question: How...?

【English Translation】 Saṃjñā (perception). How can one generate the thought of liberation from birth and death and cultivate this samādhi (concentration)? All noble ones do not cling to the contaminated, fruition of non-perception, considering it to be true liberation and nirvāṇa (cessation), nor do they cling to the contaminated asaṃjñā-samāpatti (attainment of non-perception), considering it to be the true path of liberation. Therefore, they will certainly not cultivate this samādhi. 'If the noble ones attain asaṃjñā-samāpatti or not,' this below explains the question of attainment. If the noble ones cultivate and attain the fourth dhyāna (fourth meditative absorption), they will certainly attain various samādhis with mind from the beginningless past and future. Then, is this asaṃjñā-samāpatti, like dhyāna, also able to attain the asaṃjñā-samāpatti that has been practiced from the beginningless past and future? 'The others also cannot attain it,' the answer is, the other ordinary people, even if they cultivate and attain the fourth dhyāna, cannot attain the asaṃjñā-samāpatti of the past and future, let alone the noble ones? 'What is the reason for this?' This is a question. 'Although they have practiced it, they will not cultivate it in the future,' that asaṃjñā-samāpatti, even if it has been practiced in the past, because there is no mind, it needs to generate great effort and skillful means to cultivate and attain it. Therefore, when it is first attained, it can only attain the present. Just like when one first receives the Prātimokṣa (vows of individual liberation), it can only accomplish the present. After attaining this samādhi, the second thought and so on, until it is not abandoned, it can also accomplish the past. After exiting it, until it is not abandoned, it can only accomplish the past. Because there is no mind, there is no future cultivation. 'Next, nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment) until the thirty-fourth thought,' this below, the second part, explains nirodha-samāpatti. The first sentence explains that the self-nature is tranquility. 'Ming zuo yi (clarifying intention),' explains intention. 'Zhu you ding (abiding in the peak of existence),' explains the place of reliance. 'Shan (wholesome),' explains that the nature is wholesome. 'Er shou bu ding (two feelings are uncertain),' explains that the two feelings are uncertain. 'Ming zhao guo (clarifying the result),' explains the result that is attracted. 'Sheng ming xiu ren (noble ones clarify cultivation),' explains that it is cultivated by noble ones. 'You jia xing de (obtained through effort),' explains that it is obtained through effort. 'Ming chu xiu xing (clarifying initial cultivation),' explains the initial cultivation. The last two sentences explain that one can only attain it upon becoming a Buddha. 'The treatise says that nirodha-samāpatti is also the same,' gives an example to illustrate that it is the same as asaṃjñā-samāpatti. 'What is the meaning of this 'also the same' as an example?' This is a question. 'Example of asaṃjñā-samāpatti to the name nirodha-samāpatti,' the answer is, this is precisely explaining its essence. Like this, there is also another non-associated dharma that can cause the mind and mental factors to cease, called nirodha-samāpatti. Also, the 152nd volume of the Vibhāṣā (commentary) says, question: How many things are the essence of this nirodha-samāpatti? Some say that this samādhi has one thing as its essence. If cessation is present, it is called no-mind. Question: How...?

一滅。剎那現前即名無心。答一受剎那現前即名有受。一想剎那現前即名有想。一識剎那現前即名有識。如是一滅。剎那現前即名無心。斯有何過。有說此定十一物為體。以十大地法及心滅故。有說此定二十一物為體。以十大地法．十大善地法．及心滅盡故。如是說者。隨滅爾所心．心所法。即有爾所物現前。為此定體　解云。評家意更有欣．厭心所。隨其所應與心相應而非並起。故與前家不同。無想定體準此應知。又婆沙一百五十三云。問入滅定時滅何等心．心所法。為過去。為未來。為現在。若過去者。過去已滅復何所滅。若未來者。未來未至云何可滅。若現在者。現在不住復云何滅。設非定力亦自滅故。答應作是說。滅于未來。問未來未至云何可滅。答住現在世。遮于未來心．心所法令不相續。故說為滅。如斷城路閉門豎幢。不令人入出說名除寇。此亦如是。有說通滅未來．現在。問現在必不住。復云何滅。設非定力亦自然滅故。答先現在世心．心所法。令有緣法續起而滅。今現在世心心所法。不令有緣法續起而滅。此由誰力。所謂定滅　前解為正。不言有說故。又準婆沙一百五十二。入滅盡定心。有頂善有漏心。若出滅定心通有漏．無漏　問入出心俱緣何法　答如婆沙一百五十三云。評曰應說。此入定心緣未

來定。而不可說緣何剎那不緣何剎那。以未來定有多剎那。未有先後雜亂住故。又云評曰應說。此出定心緣過去定。而不可說緣何剎那不緣何剎那。以過去定有多剎那相雜住故。

如是二定至作意為先者。作意不同對簡差別。前無想定。為求無想異熟解脫厭壞於想。以出離心想作意為先。即無想定能出離生死　又解能出離想也。此滅盡定。為求寂靜而住厭壞散動。以止息心想作意為先。止息即止息心．心所法　又解止息想雖亦止息受等。以想近強故別標也。

前無想定至非非想處者。依地不同。又婆沙一百五十二云。問何故下地無此定耶。一解云又滅盡定滅極細心．心所故得。下地不順極細心．心所滅　又一解云。又下地皆名有想。行相粗動難可止息。此地名非想非非想處。行相微細易可止息。故下地無滅盡定廣如彼記。

此同前定至善等起故者。此滅盡定同前無想定。性唯是善非無記．染。四種善中等起善故。又染．無記非寂靜故。

前無想定至四蘊異熟者。明招果。前無想定唯順生受。此滅盡定通生．后．不定。約異熟果有順生受。有順后受。不定中有二。或不定受是不定中異熟定時不定。或全不受。謂若於下地起此定已不生上地。斷余煩惱即于下地得般涅槃。是不定中異熟及時俱不定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：來決定。而不能說緣何剎那不緣何剎那。因為未來決定有很多剎那。沒有先後雜亂地存在。又有人評論說應該說。此出定心緣過去決定。而不能說緣何剎那不緣何剎那。因為過去決定有很多剎那相互雜亂地存在。像這樣兩種禪定，至於以作意為先的原因是：作意不同，用來區分差別。前面的無想定，是爲了求得無想的異熟解脫，厭惡和破壞於想。以出離心想的作意為先。即無想定能夠出離生死。又解釋為能夠出離想。此滅盡定，爲了求得寂靜而住，厭惡和破壞散動。以止息心想的作意為先。止息即止息心、心所法。又解釋為止息想，雖然也止息受等，因為想接近且強烈，所以特別標明。前面的無想定，至於非非想處（既不是有想也不是無想的境界）的原因是：依據的禪定之地不同。又《婆沙》第一百五十二卷說：問：為什麼下地沒有此定呢？一種解釋說：又滅盡定滅除極細的心、心所，所以能夠得到。下地不順應極細的心、心所的滅除。又一種解釋說：又下地都名為有想，行相粗動難以止息。此地名為非想非非想處，行相微細容易止息。所以下地沒有滅盡定，詳細情況如彼處記載。此滅盡定和前面的禪定一樣，至於善等起的原因是：此滅盡定和前面的無想定一樣，性質唯是善，不是無記、染污。四種善中是等起善。又染污、無記不是寂靜的緣故。前面的無想定，至於四蘊異熟（色受想行識四蘊成熟的結果）的原因是：說明招感的果報。前面的無想定唯有順生受（當生就感受果報）。此滅盡定通於生、后、不定。約異熟果有順生受，有順后受（來生感受果報）。不定中有兩種。或者不定受是不定中異熟定時不定。或者完全不受。如果於下地起此定以後不生上地，斷除其餘煩惱，就在下地得到般涅槃（涅槃，佛教用語，指熄滅生死輪迴的狀態），是不定中異熟及時俱不定。

【English Translation】 English version: It is determined. And it cannot be said why one moment is conditioned and another is not. Because the future determination has many moments. There is no order of precedence and they do not dwell in a mixed-up manner. Furthermore, it is commented that it should be said. This mind emerging from Samadhi (Samadhi, a state of meditative consciousness) is conditioned by the past determination. And it cannot be said why one moment is conditioned and another is not. Because the past determination has many moments dwelling in a mixed-up manner. Like these two Samadhis, as for the reason of taking 'attention' (作意, Zuòyì) as primary: the attention is different, used to distinguish the differences. The preceding 'non-perceptual Samadhi' (無想定, Wúxiǎngdìng), is for seeking the 'unconscious Vipaka' (異熟, Yìshú) liberation, disliking and destroying perception. Taking the attention of 'renunciation mind' (出離心想, Chūlixīnxiǎng) as primary. That is, the non-perceptual Samadhi can liberate from birth and death. It is also explained as being able to liberate from perception. This 'cessation Samadhi' (滅盡定, Mièjìndìng), is for seeking tranquility and dwelling, disliking and destroying agitation. Taking the attention of 'cessation mind' (止息心想, Zhǐxīxīnxiǎng) as primary. Cessation is the cessation of mind and mental factors. It is also explained as the cessation of perception, although it also ceases sensation etc., because perception is close and strong, it is specifically marked. The preceding non-perceptual Samadhi, as for the 'Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception Realm' (非非想處, Fēifēixiǎngchù): it depends on different grounds. Furthermore, the one hundred and fifty-second volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Póshā) says: Question: Why is there no such Samadhi in the lower realms? One explanation says: Furthermore, the cessation Samadhi extinguishes extremely subtle mind and mental factors, so it can be obtained. The lower realms do not accord with the extinction of extremely subtle mind and mental factors. Another explanation says: Furthermore, the lower realms are all named as having perception, the characteristics are coarse and agitated, difficult to stop. This realm is named 'Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception Realm', the characteristics are subtle and easy to stop. Therefore, there is no cessation Samadhi in the lower realms, detailed information is as recorded there. This is the same as the preceding Samadhi, as for the reason of 'wholesome arising' (善等起, Shànděngqǐ): this cessation Samadhi is the same as the preceding non-perceptual Samadhi, its nature is only wholesome, not indeterminate or defiled. Among the four types of wholesome, it is 'equally arising wholesome'. Furthermore, defiled and indeterminate are not tranquil. The preceding non-perceptual Samadhi, as for the 'four aggregates Vipaka' (四蘊異熟, Sìyùnyìshú): it clarifies the fruits of karmic actions. The preceding non-perceptual Samadhi only has 'immediately ripening sensation' (順生受, Shùnshēngshòu). This cessation Samadhi is connected to 'immediately ripening', 'subsequently ripening' (順後受, Shùnhòushòu), and 'indefinite'. Regarding Vipaka fruits, there is 'immediately ripening sensation', and there is 'subsequently ripening sensation'. There are two types of indefinite. Either the indefinite sensation is indefinite in the time of Vipaka among the indefinite. Or there is no sensation at all. If one arises this Samadhi in the lower realms and does not arise in the upper realms, cuts off the remaining afflictions, and attains 'Parinirvana' (般涅槃, Bānnièpán, complete Nirvana) in the lower realms, it is indefinite in both the time and the occurrence of Vipaka among the indefinite.

。唯招有頂四蘊異熟。婆沙九十云。問滅盡定受何異熟果耶。答受非想非非想處四蘊異熟果。除命根．眾同分。彼唯是業果故。又正理云。前無想定能順生受及不定受。余文同此。

前無想定至勝解入故者。凡．聖分別。唯聖人得此　無想定在第四靜慮。彼處有色。修無想者作如是念。我雖滅心而猶有色。不怖斷滅異生能起　此滅盡定在於有頂。彼無有色。復欲滅心恐成斷滅。而生怖畏故不能起　又此滅盡定。唯聖道力所起故。唯聖非凡。又聖人將入此定。以此定為現法涅槃勝解想入。由作涅槃心想故。異生不能入。恐畏斷滅。故又勝解用強故別標也。又正理云。非諸異生能起滅定。彼有自地起滅定障猶未斷故。未超有頂見所斷惑。于起滅定畢竟無能　又破此論云。彼說非理。于無想定與此同故。彼此心斷。涅槃勝解無差別故　俱舍師救云。據此義邊雖無差別。而所依地色．無色異。怖畏不同。不可為例。

此亦如前非離染得者。明此滅定。如前無想非離染得　由何而得者。問。由加行得至亦成過去者。答。是加行得。初唯現成不得過去。亦不修未來。以無心故。要由心力方修未來。第二念等乃至未舍。亦成過去。

世尊亦以加行得耶者。此下釋成佛得。此即問也。

不爾者。答。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：只有招感有頂天的四蘊異熟果報。《婆沙論》第九十卷說：『問：滅盡定感受什麼樣的異熟果報呢？答：感受非想非非想處天的四蘊異熟果報，除了命根和眾同分。因為它們僅僅是業的果報。』又《正理》說：『之前的無想定能夠順次產生受和不定受。』其餘的文句與此相同。

『前無想定至勝解入故』，這是凡夫和聖人的區別。只有聖人才能獲得此無想定，它在第四禪定中。那個地方有色。修習無想的人這樣想：『我雖然滅除了心識，但仍然有色身。』不害怕斷滅。異生能夠生起此定。此滅盡定在有頂天，那裡沒有色。又想滅除心識，又恐怕成為斷滅，因此產生怖畏，所以不能生起。又此滅盡定，只有聖道的威力才能生起，所以只有聖人才能入定，不是凡夫。而且聖人將要進入此定時，以此定作為現法涅槃的殊勝理解而入定。由於作涅槃的心想，所以異生不能進入，因為恐怕畏懼斷滅。所以又特別標明勝解的作用強大。又《正理》說：『不是所有的異生都能生起滅盡定，因為他們有自身所處境界生起滅盡定的障礙還沒有斷除，沒有超越有頂天見所斷的迷惑，對於生起滅盡定，終究沒有能力。』又有人反駁此論說：『他的說法沒有道理。因為無想定與此滅盡定相同。』彼此斷除心識，對於涅槃的殊勝理解沒有差別。』

俱舍宗的論師辯解說：『根據這個意義來說，雖然沒有差別，但是所依賴的處所，色界和無色界不同，怖畏也不同，不可以作為例子。』

『此亦如前非離染得者』，說明此滅盡定，如同之前的無想定，不是離開染污才能獲得。『由何而得者』，問：『由加行而得，乃至也成為過去』，答：是加行而得。最初只有現成，不能得到過去，也不修未來，因為沒有心識的緣故。一定要由心識的力量才能修未來。第二念等乃至沒有捨棄，也成為過去。

『世尊亦以加行得耶者』，這以下解釋成就佛果。這即是問。

『不爾者』，答。

【English Translation】 English version: Only the Vipaka (ripening) of the four Skandhas (aggregates) of Akanistha (the highest heaven in the Realm of Form) is drawn. The 90th fascicle of the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya says: 'Question: What kind of Vipaka does Nirodha-samapatti (the attainment of cessation) receive? Answer: It receives the Vipaka of the four Skandhas of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, except for Jivitendriya (life faculty) and Nikayasabhaga (community of beings). Because they are only the result of Karma.' Also, the Nyayanusara says: 'The previous Asanjnika-samapatti (attainment of non-perception) can sequentially produce reception and indefinite reception.' The rest of the text is the same as this.

'The previous Asanjnika-samapatti to the understanding of entering,' this is the difference between ordinary beings and sages. Only sages can attain this Asanjnika-samapatti, which is in the Fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption). There is Rupa (form) there. Those who practice non-perception think like this: 'Although I have extinguished consciousness, I still have form.' They are not afraid of annihilation. Ordinary beings can arise this Samapatti. This Nirodha-samapatti is in Akanistha, where there is no form. Moreover, they want to extinguish consciousness but are afraid of becoming annihilated, so they generate fear and cannot arise it. Furthermore, this Nirodha-samapatti can only be arisen by the power of the holy path, so only sages can enter it, not ordinary beings. Moreover, when sages are about to enter this Samapatti, they enter it with the understanding of this Samapatti as Nirvana (liberation) in the present life. Because they make the thought of Nirvana, ordinary beings cannot enter it, because they are afraid of annihilation. Therefore, it is also specially marked that the function of understanding is strong. Also, the Nyayanusara says: 'Not all ordinary beings can arise Nirodha-samapatti, because they have the obstacles to arising Nirodha-samapatti in their own realm that have not yet been severed, and they have not transcended the delusions severed by seeing in Akanistha, so they ultimately have no ability to arise Nirodha-samapatti.' Furthermore, someone refutes this theory, saying: 'His statement is unreasonable, because Asanjnika-samapatti is the same as this Nirodha-samapatti.' Both extinguish consciousness, and there is no difference in the understanding of Nirvana.'

The Kosa master defends, saying: 'According to this meaning, although there is no difference, the places they rely on, the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, are different, and the fears are different, so it cannot be taken as an example.'

'This is also like the previous one, not obtained by leaving defilement,' indicating that this Nirodha-samapatti, like the previous Asanjnika-samapatti, is not obtained by leaving defilement. 'By what is it obtained?' Question: 'Is it obtained by exertion, and even becomes the past?' Answer: It is obtained by exertion. Initially, it is only present, and cannot obtain the past, nor cultivate the future, because there is no consciousness. It must be by the power of consciousness to cultivate the future. The second thought, etc., until it is not abandoned, also becomes the past.

'Did the World Honored One also obtain it by exertion?' This below explains the attainment of Buddhahood. This is the question.

'Not so,' is the answer.

云何者。徴。

成佛時得至皆離染得者。釋。明佛滅定離染時得。正理彈云。豈不盡智。于成佛時亦不名得。況滅盡定。以諸菩薩住金剛喻三摩地時。名得盡智。得體生時名為得故。又云。隨宜為彼而通釋者。謂于近事而說遠聲。或金剛喻三摩地時。必成佛故亦名成佛。無間剎那定成佛故　解云正理論主為俱舍通。理實說。得在菩薩位。今于近佛成就事說遠菩薩初得聲。故於佛位說得無失。

俱舍師救云。言成佛者。于因立果名。言盡智時得者。謂盡智在生相時。自解足能。無勞彼釋。

世尊曾未至俱分解脫者。問。既言俱分謂得滅定。佛盡智時未起滅定如何名俱。

于起滅定至成俱解脫者。答。佛盡智時雖未起滅定。于滅盡定起自在故。如已起者成俱解脫又婆沙一百五十三云。問云何盡智起已名俱解脫。答已得彼定入出心故名俱解脫。非得定體。則由此理名離染得。后時不由加行起故。

問佛盡智時若未得滅定。云何正理。云永離定障故舍不成就故。于起滅定得自在故。如已起者成俱解脫。若無有得。如何言舍不成就耶。夫得．非得相翻立故　解云滅定非得總有二類。一類依未斷障身。名起定不自在不成就。一類依已斷障身。名起定自在不成就。正理言舍。舍依未斷障身不成就。至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『云何者。徴。』（什麼是『徴』？）

『成佛時得至皆離染得者。釋。明佛滅定離染時得。』（在成佛時獲得，直至完全脫離染污而獲得。解釋：說明佛陀在滅盡定中脫離染污時獲得。）

正理（Samayasiddhi，一種佛教論著）反駁說：『難道不是盡智（ksaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）在成佛時也不能稱為獲得嗎？更何況是滅盡定（nirodha-samapatti，一種禪定狀態）。因為諸位菩薩在住于金剛喻三摩地（vajropama-samadhi，一種堅固如金剛的比喻禪定）時，才稱為獲得盡智。在獲得的體性生起時才稱為獲得。』

又說：『隨順適宜地為他們而通達解釋的人，是指對於近事而說遠聲。或者說，在金剛喻三摩地時，必定成佛，因此也稱為成佛。因為無間剎那（anantara-ksana，緊接著的一剎那）必定成佛。』

解釋說：正理論主是爲了與俱舍（Abhidharmakosa，論藏）相通。實際上說，獲得是在菩薩位。現在對於接近佛陀成就的事說遠菩薩初得之聲。因此在佛位說獲得沒有過失。

俱舍師（Abhidharmakosa的學者）辯護說：『所說的成佛，是以因立果的名稱。所說的盡智時獲得，是指盡智在生相時。』自己解釋就足夠了，不需要他的解釋。

『世尊曾未至俱分解脫者。』（世尊不曾達到俱分解脫嗎？）

問：既然說俱分是指獲得滅定，佛陀在盡智時未生起滅定，如何稱為俱分？

『于起滅定至成俱解脫者。』（在生起滅定直至成就俱分解脫。）

答：佛陀在盡智時雖然未生起滅定，但對於滅盡定的生起是自在的，如同已經生起一樣，成就俱分解脫。又《婆沙》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第一百五十三卷說：問：為什麼盡智生起后稱為俱解脫？答：因為已經獲得那個禪定，對於入定和出定都隨心自在，所以稱為俱解脫。不是獲得禪定的體性，因此由此道理稱為脫離染污而獲得。以後不由加行而生起。

問：佛陀在盡智時如果未獲得滅定，為什麼正理說：『因為永遠脫離了禪定障礙，所以捨棄不成就，對於生起滅定得到自在，如同已經生起一樣，成就俱分解脫。』如果沒有獲得，如何說捨棄不成就呢？因為獲得與非獲得是相反相成的。

解釋說：滅定非獲得總共有兩類。一類是依靠未斷除障礙之身，稱為生起禪定不自在不成就。一類是依靠已斷除障礙之身，稱為生起禪定自在不成就。正理所說的捨棄，是捨棄依靠未斷除障礙之身的不成就。直至……

English version: 『Yun he zhe. Zheng.』 (What is 『Zheng』?)

『Cheng fo shi de zhi jie li ran de zhe. Shi. Ming fo mie ding li ran shi de.』 (Gaining at the time of attaining Buddhahood is to gain through complete detachment from defilements. Explanation: Explains that the Buddha gains when detached from defilements in Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment).)

The Samayasiddhi (a Buddhist treatise) refutes: 『Isn't it that even kshaya-jnana (wisdom of the exhaustion of defilements) is not called attainment at the time of attaining Buddhahood? How much more so Nirodha-samapatti (a state of meditative absorption). Because when Bodhisattvas abide in Vajropama-samadhi (diamond-like samadhi), it is called gaining kshaya-jnana. It is called gaining when the nature of gaining arises.』

It also says: 『Those who thoroughly explain according to suitability refer to speaking of distant sounds for near events. Or, at the time of Vajropama-samadhi, one will certainly attain Buddhahood, so it is also called attaining Buddhahood. Because in the immediately following moment (anantara-ksana) one will certainly attain Buddhahood.』

Explanation: The author of Samayasiddhi is trying to be consistent with the Abhidharmakosa (Treasury of Knowledge). In reality, it says that attainment is at the Bodhisattva stage. Now, regarding the event of approaching Buddhahood, it speaks of the distant sound of the Bodhisattva's initial attainment. Therefore, there is no fault in speaking of attainment at the Buddha stage.

The Abhidharmakosa scholar defends: 『The so-called attaining Buddhahood is establishing the name of the result based on the cause. The so-called gaining at the time of kshaya-jnana refers to when kshaya-jnana is in the phase of arising.』 Self-explanation is sufficient, there is no need for his explanation.

『Shi zun ceng wei zhi ju fen jie tuo zhe.』 (Has the World-Honored One never attained simultaneous liberation?)

Question: Since it is said that simultaneous division refers to gaining Nirodha-samapatti, and the Buddha did not arise in Nirodha-samapatti at the time of kshaya-jnana, how is it called simultaneous division?

『Yu qi mie ding zhi cheng ju fen jie tuo zhe.』 (In arising Nirodha-samapatti until achieving simultaneous liberation.)

Answer: Although the Buddha did not arise in Nirodha-samapatti at the time of kshaya-jnana, he is at ease with the arising of Nirodha-samapatti, just as if it had already arisen, achieving simultaneous liberation. Furthermore, Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), volume 153, says: Question: Why is it called simultaneous liberation after kshaya-jnana has arisen? Answer: Because one has already attained that samadhi and is at ease with entering and exiting samadhi, it is called simultaneous liberation. It is not the nature of gaining samadhi, therefore, for this reason, it is called gaining through detachment from defilements. Later, it does not arise through additional effort.

Question: If the Buddha did not gain Nirodha-samapatti at the time of kshaya-jnana, why does Samayasiddhi say: 『Because one is forever free from the obstacles of samadhi, therefore one abandons non-accomplishment, and one is at ease with the arising of Nirodha-samapatti, just as if it had already arisen, achieving simultaneous liberation.』 If there is no attainment, how can one say abandoning non-accomplishment? Because attainment and non-attainment are mutually opposite and complementary.

Explanation: There are two categories of Nirodha-samapatti non-attainment in total. One category relies on a body with obstacles not yet severed, called arising samadhi not at ease and non-accomplishment. One category relies on a body with obstacles already severed, called arising samadhi at ease and non-accomplishment. The abandonment mentioned in Samayasiddhi is the abandonment of non-accomplishment relying on a body with obstacles not yet severed. Until...

【English Translation】 English version: 『What is 『Zheng』?』

『Gaining at the time of attaining Buddhahood is to gain through complete detachment from defilements.』 Explanation: Explains that the Buddha gains when detached from defilements in Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment).

The Samayasiddhi (a Buddhist treatise) refutes: 『Isn't it that even kshaya-jnana (wisdom of the exhaustion of defilements) is not called attainment at the time of attaining Buddhahood? How much more so Nirodha-samapatti (a state of meditative absorption). Because when Bodhisattvas abide in Vajropama-samadhi (diamond-like samadhi), it is called gaining kshaya-jnana. It is called gaining when the nature of gaining arises.』

It also says: 『Those who thoroughly explain according to suitability refer to speaking of distant sounds for near events. Or, at the time of Vajropama-samadhi, one will certainly attain Buddhahood, so it is also called attaining Buddhahood. Because in the immediately following moment (anantara-ksana) one will certainly attain Buddhahood.』

Explanation: The author of Samayasiddhi is trying to be consistent with the Abhidharmakosa (Treasury of Knowledge). In reality, it says that attainment is at the Bodhisattva stage. Now, regarding the event of approaching Buddhahood, it speaks of the distant sound of the Bodhisattva's initial attainment. Therefore, there is no fault in speaking of attainment at the Buddha stage.

The Abhidharmakosa scholar defends: 『The so-called attaining Buddhahood is establishing the name of the result based on the cause. The so-called gaining at the time of kshaya-jnana refers to when kshaya-jnana is in the phase of arising.』 Self-explanation is sufficient, there is no need for his explanation.

『Has the World-Honored One never attained simultaneous liberation?』

Question: Since it is said that simultaneous division refers to gaining Nirodha-samapatti, and the Buddha did not arise in Nirodha-samapatti at the time of kshaya-jnana, how is it called simultaneous division?

『In arising Nirodha-samapatti until achieving simultaneous liberation.』

Answer: Although the Buddha did not arise in Nirodha-samapatti at the time of kshaya-jnana, he is at ease with the arising of Nirodha-samapatti, just as if it had already arisen, achieving simultaneous liberation. Furthermore, Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), volume 153, says: Question: Why is it called simultaneous liberation after kshaya-jnana has arisen? Answer: Because one has already attained that samadhi and is at ease with entering and exiting samadhi, it is called simultaneous liberation. It is not the nature of gaining samadhi, therefore, for this reason, it is called gaining through detachment from defilements. Later, it does not arise through additional effort.

Question: If the Buddha did not gain Nirodha-samapatti at the time of kshaya-jnana, why does Samayasiddhi say: 『Because one is forever free from the obstacles of samadhi, therefore one abandons non-accomplishment, and one is at ease with the arising of Nirodha-samapatti, just as if it had already arisen, achieving simultaneous liberation.』 If there is no attainment, how can one say abandoning non-accomplishment? Because attainment and non-attainment are mutually opposite and complementary.

Explanation: There are two categories of Nirodha-samapatti non-attainment in total. One category relies on a body with obstacles not yet severed, called arising samadhi not at ease and non-accomplishment. One category relies on a body with obstacles already severed, called arising samadhi at ease and non-accomplishment. The abandonment mentioned in Samayasiddhi is the abandonment of non-accomplishment relying on a body with obstacles not yet severed. Until...

佛身中復有一類依已斷障身不成就如聖道非得總有二類。一依凡身是異生性。一依聖身非異生性　又解未成佛時。于滅盡定應得不得。有未得退。彼不依佛身成佛時舍名不成就。

西方師說至不許彼說者。此下釋非前三十四念故敘異說問。西方師即是迦濕彌羅國西。健馱羅國諸師。此師意說。菩薩學位先起此定。謂彼菩薩。先斷無所有處惑方入見道。從見道出已方入滅盡定。從滅盡定出斷有頂惑。后得菩提。於盡智時成過去滅定。云何此中不許彼西方師說。

若許彼說至後生盡智。論主為釋。若許彼西方師說。便順尊者鄔婆鞠多所造理目足論。彼論說佛先起滅定后得菩提。論主意朋西方師說。故作斯釋。鄔婆鞠多此云近藏。佛涅槃后一百年出。是阿育王門師。舊云優婆鞠多訛也。

迦濕彌羅國至起滅盡定者。迦濕彌羅國意說。非先起滅定後方生盡智。由三十四念得菩提故。於此三十四念中間。無容得起非想地有漏不同類心。故諸菩薩學位不應起滅盡定。

外國諸師至斯有何過者。外國諸師。即是迦濕彌羅外印度國諸師。與西方師所說意同。故今隨舉為問。若於三十四念中間。見道後起非想地不同類有漏心。得滅盡定。斯有何過。

若爾便有至不越期心者。迦濕彌羅為彼出過。若起異類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：佛陀的身體中還有一類，依據已斷除障礙的身，不能成就，就像聖道一樣，總共有兩類。一類依據凡夫之身，是異生性（prthag-jana，指凡夫的性質）。一類依據聖者之身，不是異生性。另外一種解釋是，在未成佛時，對於滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，一種甚深的禪定狀態），應該得到還是不能得到？有未得到而退失的情況。他們不依據佛身，成佛時捨棄，名為不成就。

西方師的說法，直到不認可他們的說法。下面解釋為什麼前面三十四念不成立，所以敘述不同的說法並提出疑問。西方師指的是迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）西部的健馱羅國（Gandhāra）的諸位法師。這些法師認為，菩薩在修學階段先入此定。也就是說，菩薩先斷除無所有處（ākiṃcanyāyatana，四禪定中的一種）的迷惑，然後進入見道（darśana-mārga，證悟的第一階段）。從見道出來后，才進入滅盡定。從滅盡定出來后，斷除有頂惑（bhavāgra，三界中最上層的迷惑）。之後獲得菩提（bodhi，覺悟）。在盡智（ksaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）時，成就過去的滅定。為什麼這裡不認可西方師的說法呢？

如果認可他們的說法，直到後來產生盡智。論主爲了解釋這個問題說，如果認可西方師的說法，就順應了尊者鄔波鞠多（Upagupta）所造的《理目足論》。那部論說，佛陀先入滅定，然後獲得菩提。論主傾向於西方師的說法，所以這樣解釋。鄔波鞠多，翻譯成漢語是近藏。佛陀涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）后一百年出現。是阿育王（Ashoka）的老師。舊譯優婆鞠多是訛傳。

迦濕彌羅國的說法，直到生起滅盡定。迦濕彌羅國的說法是，不是先入滅定，然後才產生盡智。因為通過三十四念（citta-ksana，心念的瞬間）獲得菩提，在這三十四念中間，沒有可能生起非想地（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，四禪定中的一種）的有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）的不同類的心。所以諸位菩薩在修學階段不應該生起滅盡定。

外國諸師的說法，直到這有什麼過失呢？外國諸師，指的是迦濕彌羅國以外的印度國的諸位法師。與西方師所說的意思相同，所以現在隨便舉出來作為提問。如果在三十四念中間，見道後生起非想地的不同類的有漏心，得到滅盡定，這有什麼過失呢？

如果這樣，直到不超過期限的心。迦濕彌羅國為他們指出過失。如果生起異類

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, within the Buddha's body, there is another category that, based on a body with already severed obstacles, cannot be accomplished, just like the Noble Path. In total, there are two categories. One is based on the body of an ordinary being, which is of the nature of a 'prthag-jana' (ordinary person). The other is based on the body of a noble being, which is not of the nature of a 'prthag-jana'. Another explanation is, when not yet a Buddha, regarding the 'nirodha-samāpatti' (cessation attainment), should one attain it or not? There are cases of not attaining it and falling back. They do not rely on the Buddha's body, and upon becoming a Buddha, they abandon it, which is called non-accomplishment.

The Western Teachers' view, up to the point of not accepting their view. The following explains why the previous thirty-four moments of thought are not established, so it narrates different views and raises questions. The Western Teachers refer to the teachers of the Gandhāra region in the west of Kashmir. These teachers believe that Bodhisattvas first enter this samadhi during their training. That is, Bodhisattvas first sever the afflictions of the 'ākiṃcanyāyatana' (sphere of nothingness), then enter the 'darśana-mārga' (path of seeing, the first stage of enlightenment). After emerging from the path of seeing, they then enter the 'nirodha-samāpatti'. After emerging from the 'nirodha-samāpatti', they sever the 'bhavāgra' (peak of existence, the highest realm of existence) afflictions. Afterwards, they attain 'bodhi' (enlightenment). At the time of 'ksaya-jnana' (knowledge of exhaustion), they accomplish the past cessation attainment. Why is the view of the Western Teachers not accepted here?

If their view is accepted, up to the later arising of 'ksaya-jnana'. The author of the treatise explains this by saying that if the view of the Western Teachers is accepted, it would be in accordance with the 'Nyāyamañjarī' composed by the Venerable Upagupta. That treatise says that the Buddha first enters cessation and then attains 'bodhi'. The author of the treatise leans towards the view of the Western Teachers, so he explains it this way. Upagupta, translated into Chinese, means 'Near Treasury'. He appeared one hundred years after the 'nirvana' (passing away) of the Buddha. He was the teacher of King Ashoka. The old translation 'Upagupta' is a corruption.

The view of the Kashmir country, up to the arising of 'nirodha-samāpatti'. The view of the Kashmir country is that one does not first enter cessation and then generate 'ksaya-jnana'. Because 'bodhi' is attained through the thirty-four moments of thought ('citta-ksana'), in the middle of these thirty-four moments, it is not possible to generate a different type of defiled ('sāsrava') mind of the 'naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana' (sphere of neither perception nor non-perception). Therefore, Bodhisattvas in training should not generate 'nirodha-samāpatti'.

The view of the foreign teachers, up to what fault is there in this? The foreign teachers refer to the teachers of the Indian countries outside of Kashmir. Their view is the same as that of the Western Teachers, so it is now randomly cited as a question. If in the middle of the thirty-four moments, after the path of seeing, a different type of defiled mind of the 'naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana' arises, and one attains 'nirodha-samāpatti', what fault is there in this?

If so, up to the mind not exceeding the limit. The Kashmir country points out the fault for them. If a different type arises

便越期心。然諸菩薩不越期心。

理實菩薩至無漏聖道者。外國諸師釋。理實菩薩不越期心。然非不越無漏聖道起余有漏。

若爾期心如何不越者。迦濕彌羅復難。若起有漏即越期心。如何不越。

謂我未得至諸事究竟故者。外國師解。可知。

前說為善我所宗故者。迦濕彌羅不能申難結歸本宗。

雖已說二定至滅定初人中者。此下第三明所依身。

論曰至而得現起者。釋初句。二定俱依欲．色二界而得現起。又婆沙一百五十二云。問此無想定何處能起。有作是說唯欲界起。欲界心猛有說力故。有餘師說通欲界．三靜慮起。由念曾修加行勢力亦能起故。復有說者第四靜慮亦能現起。除無想天。勿果與因極相逼故　解云於三說中后二無違。前一非正。如下別破。又婆沙一百五十三云。問何故生欲．色界能起滅定。非無色界耶。答命根依二法轉。一色。二心。此定無心。斷心起故。生欲．色界起此定時。心雖斷而命根依色轉。生無色界色雖斷。而命依心轉。若生彼起此定者。色．心俱無。命根無依。故亦應斷。是應名死。非謂入定。是故生彼界不起　解云滅定無色故彼別簡。無想在色理在絕言。故不彼說。

若有不許至是名同相者。若有自部諸師。不許亦依色界起無想定。便

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：於是就超越了所期望的時間。然而，諸位菩薩不會超越所期望的時間。

關於實際上已經證得無漏聖道的菩薩，外國的老師們解釋說，實際上已經證得無漏聖道的菩薩不會超越所期望的時間。然而，這並不是說他們不會超越無漏聖道，而生起其他的有漏法。

如果這樣，那麼如何才能不超越所期望的時間呢？迦濕彌羅對此反駁說，如果生起了有漏法，那就是超越了所期望的時間，如何能說不超越呢？

（菩薩回答）這是因為我還沒有達到所有事情的究竟圓滿。外國老師的解釋，可以理解。

之前所說的『認為是好的，所以我才遵從』，迦濕彌羅無法進一步反駁，只能迴歸到自己的宗派。

雖然已經說了二禪定直到滅盡定最初的修行者之中，以下第三部分說明所依靠的身體。

論中說『直到而能夠現起』，這是解釋第一句話。二禪定都依靠欲界和色界而能夠現起。此外，《婆沙論》第一百五十二卷說，有人問：『這個無想定在什麼地方能夠生起？』有人說是隻有在欲界才能生起，因為欲界的心猛利，有力量的緣故。有其他的老師說，通於欲界和三靜慮才能生起，因為曾經修習加行的勢力也能生起的緣故。還有人說，第四靜慮也能現起，除了無想天，因為果和因過於逼近的緣故。』解釋說，在三種說法中，后兩種沒有衝突，前一種是不正確的，如下面會分別破斥。此外，《婆沙論》第一百五十三卷說，有人問：『為什麼生在欲界和色界能夠生起滅盡定，而不是無色界呢？』回答說：『命根依靠兩種法運轉，一是色，二是心。這個禪定沒有心，因為斷滅了心的生起。生在欲界和色界生起這個禪定時，心雖然斷滅了，但是命根依靠色運轉。生在無色界，色雖然斷滅了，但是命依靠心運轉。如果生在那個界生起這個禪定，那麼色和心都沒有，命根沒有依靠，所以也應該斷滅，這應該叫做死亡，而不是進入禪定。所以生在那個界不能生起這個禪定。』解釋說，滅盡定沒有色，所以特別簡擇了無色界。無想定在色界，道理在於斷絕言語，所以沒有在那裡說。

如果有人不承認直到『這叫做同相』，如果有人是自宗的老師，不承認也依靠色界生起無想定，那麼...

【English Translation】 English version: Then, they would exceed the expected time. However, the Bodhisattvas do not exceed the expected time.

Regarding Bodhisattvas who have actually attained the unconditioned holy path, foreign teachers explain that Bodhisattvas who have actually attained the unconditioned holy path do not exceed the expected time. However, this does not mean that they do not transcend the unconditioned holy path and arise in other conditioned states.

If so, how can one not exceed the expected time? The Kashmira school refutes this, saying that if conditioned states arise, then the expected time is exceeded, so how can it be said that it is not exceeded?

(The Bodhisattva replies) It is because I have not yet reached the ultimate completion of all things. The foreign teacher's explanation is understandable.

Regarding what was previously said, 'I consider it good, therefore I follow it,' the Kashmira school could not further refute it and could only return to its own sect.

Although it has been said that the second Dhyana up to the first practitioner of the Cessation Meditation, the third part below explains the body relied upon.

The treatise says 'until and able to manifest,' this explains the first sentence. Both Dhyanas rely on the desire realm and the form realm to be able to manifest. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary) Volume 152 says, someone asks: 'Where can this non-perception meditation arise?' Some say that it can only arise in the desire realm, because the mind of the desire realm is fierce and has power. Other teachers say that it is common to the desire realm and the three Dhyanas, because the power of past practice can also cause it to arise. Still others say that the fourth Dhyana can also manifest, except for the Realm of Non-Perception, because the result and the cause are too close. The explanation is that among the three statements, the latter two do not conflict, and the former is incorrect, as will be refuted separately below. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra Volume 153 says, someone asks: 'Why can the desire realm and the form realm give rise to the Cessation Meditation, but not the formless realm?' The answer is: 'The life force relies on two dharmas to operate, one is form, and the other is mind. This meditation has no mind, because the arising of the mind is cut off. When one is born in the desire realm and the form realm and arises in this meditation, although the mind is cut off, the life force relies on form to operate. When one is born in the formless realm, although form is cut off, the life relies on mind to operate. If one is born in that realm and arises in this meditation, then both form and mind are absent, and the life force has no reliance, so it should also be cut off, and this should be called death, not entering meditation. Therefore, one cannot arise in this meditation when born in that realm.' The explanation is that the Cessation Meditation has no form, so the formless realm is specifically excluded. The Non-Perception Meditation is in the form realm, and the principle lies in cutting off speech, so it is not mentioned there.

If there are those who do not acknowledge until 'this is called the same characteristic,' if there are teachers of one's own school who do not acknowledge that the Non-Perception Meditation also relies on the form realm to arise, then...

違發智本論所說。彼論以色有五行相對　色有謂色界有。五蘊名五行。無常名行。故婆沙一百九十二云。此中諸蘊以行聲說。過去如來應正等覺。說蘊名行。今釋迦牟尼如來應正等覺。說行為蘊。此阿毗達磨中說五行者。欲顯今佛所說五蘊。則是前佛所說五行故(已上論文)　廛謂市廛。三界紛雜如市廛也。謂發智言。或有是色有此色有眾生非具五行。謂色廛有情。或生有想天住異界．及無漏不同類心。或入無想定。或入滅盡定。或生無想天已得入無想異熟。如是等但有色．行二蘊。闕餘三蘊。是謂色有此有非五行。彼論既說色廛有情入無想定。而言不入故自教相違。由此證知。如是二定俱依欲．色而得現起。是名同相。

言異相者至后復修起者。此釋第二句。謂無想定。欲．色二界皆得初起。由無始來數數修習。起時即易。故通二界皆得初起。滅定初起唯在人中。由無始來未曾修習。起時即難。初起之時。要由說力．及強加行方得生故。故正理云。唯人中有說者．釋者。及有強盛加行力故　又解無想定。因天眼通見彼無想有情。謂為涅槃便即修故。於色界中有得初起　又解無想定雖容色界初起。必先欲界初起加行。造欲界中順后受業。方生色界起宿住通。知先不得今復更修。故得初起。此滅盡定。在於人中初

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：違背了《發智論》的根本主張。該論認為色蘊與五行相對，這裡的『色有』指的是『有』。五蘊被稱為五行，無常被稱為行。所以《婆沙論》第一百九十二卷說：『這裡所說的諸蘊，是用「行」這個詞來表達的。過去的如來應正等覺，說蘊為行；現在釋迦牟尼如來應正等覺，說行為蘊。』這裡阿毗達磨中說五行，是爲了表明現在佛所說的五蘊，就是前佛所說的五行（以上是論文原文）。『廛』指的是市廛（chán，市場）。三界紛繁複雜，就像市場一樣。這裡說的是《發智論》的觀點，或者說，有的『色有』，有這種色，有眾生，但不具備五行。指的是色界天（色廛）的有情，或者生於有想天，住在不同的界，以及無漏的不同類心，或者進入無想定，或者進入滅盡定，或者生於無想天，已經得到了無想的異熟果報。像這些情況，只有色蘊和行蘊，缺少其餘三蘊。這就是所謂的『色有此有非五行』。《發智論》既然說了色界天的有情可以進入無想定，又說不能進入，這就與它自己的教義相違背。由此可以證明，無想定和滅盡定都依賴於欲界和色界才能生起，這是它們的相同之處。『異相』指的是後面再次修習生起的情況。這是解釋第二句話。指的是無想定，在欲界和色界都可以初次生起。由於無始以來經常修習，生起時就容易，所以兩個界都可以初次生起。滅盡定初次生起只能在人中。由於無始以來沒有修習過，生起時就困難。初次生起的時候，需要依靠說法的力量以及強大的加行才能生起。所以《正理》中說：『只有人中有說法者、解釋者，以及有強盛的加行力。』又解釋無想定，因為天眼通看到無想天的有情，認為那就是涅槃，於是就去修習，所以在色界中可以初次生起。又解釋無想定，雖然容許在色界初次生起，但必須先在欲界進行初次生起的加行，在欲界造作順后受業，才能生到色界，生起宿住通，知道先前沒有得到，現在又重新修習，所以才能初次生起。而滅盡定，只能在人中初次生起。

【English Translation】 English version: It contradicts the fundamental tenets stated in the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra (發智論, Treatise on the Basis of Consciousness). That treatise posits that the rūpa-skandha (色蘊, form aggregate) corresponds to the five hetu (行, causes/activities). Here, 'rūpa-asti' (色有, existence of form) refers to 'asti' (有, existence). The five skandhas (蘊, aggregates) are called five hetu, and anitya (無常, impermanence) is called hetu. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙論, Great Commentary) in its 192nd fascicle states: 'Here, the skandhas are expressed by the term 'hetu.' The past Tathāgata Arhat Samyaksaṃbuddha (如來應正等覺, Thus-Come One, Worthy One, Perfectly Enlightened One) spoke of skandhas as hetu; now, Śākyamuni Tathāgata Arhat Samyaksaṃbuddha (釋迦牟尼如來應正等覺, Śākyamuni Thus-Come One, Worthy One, Perfectly Enlightened One) speaks of hetu as skandhas.' The Abhidharma (阿毗達磨, Higher Doctrine) here speaks of five hetu to indicate that the five skandhas spoken of by the present Buddha are the same as the five hetu spoken of by the previous Buddha (the above is the original text of the treatise). 'Caṇḍa' (廛, market) refers to the marketplace. The three realms are as chaotic as a marketplace. This refers to the view of the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra, or rather, some 'rūpa-asti' have this form, have sentient beings, but do not possess the five hetu. This refers to sentient beings in the Rūpadhātu (色界天, Form Realm) (rūpa-caṇḍa), or those born in the Saṃjñā-dhātu (有想天, Realm of Perception), residing in different realms, as well as undefiled minds of different kinds, or those who have entered the Asaṃjñā-samāpatti (無想定, Cessation of Perception), or those who have entered the Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, Cessation of Feeling and Perception), or those born in the Asaṃjñā-deva (無想天, Realm of Non-Perception), who have already attained the vipāka (異熟, fruition) of non-perception. In these cases, there are only the rūpa-skandha and saṃskāra-skandha (行蘊, formation aggregate), lacking the other three skandhas. This is what is meant by 'rūpa-asti that exists but is not five hetu.' Since the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra states that sentient beings in the Rūpadhātu can enter the Asaṃjñā-samāpatti, and then says they cannot enter, this contradicts its own teachings. From this, it can be proven that both the Asaṃjñā-samāpatti and the Nirodha-samāpatti rely on the Kāmadhātu (欲界, Desire Realm) and the Rūpadhātu to arise; this is their similarity. 'Viṣama-lakṣaṇa' (異相, different aspect) refers to the situation of cultivating and arising again later. This explains the second sentence. It refers to the Asaṃjñā-samāpatti, which can initially arise in both the Kāmadhātu and the Rūpadhātu. Because it has been repeatedly cultivated since beginningless time, it is easy to arise, so both realms can initially arise. The Nirodha-samāpatti can only initially arise among humans. Because it has not been cultivated since beginningless time, it is difficult to arise. At the time of initial arising, it requires the power of speech and strong effort to arise. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理, Following the Principle) states: 'Only among humans are there speakers, explainers, and those with strong effort.' It also explains the Asaṃjñā-samāpatti: because the divyacakṣus (天眼通, divine eye) sees sentient beings in the Asaṃjñā-deva and considers that to be nirvāṇa (涅槃, cessation), they then cultivate it, so it can initially arise in the Rūpadhātu. It also explains that although the Asaṃjñā-samāpatti may allow initial arising in the Rūpadhātu, it must first have the initial arising prayoga (加行, effort) in the Kāmadhātu, creating karma (業, action) in the Kāmadhātu that will be received later, in order to be born in the Rūpadhātu, arise pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti (宿住通, knowledge of former abodes), know that they had not attained it before, and now cultivate it again, so it can initially arise. As for the Nirodha-samāpatti, it can only initially arise among humans.

修起已。由退為先方生色界。依色界身後復修起。

此滅盡定亦有退耶者。問。

應言亦有至色界受生者。引經證退。大意可知　鄔陀夷。此云出現　尸羅。名戒　三摩地。名等持。即定之異名　般羅若。名慧　現法。謂長病等退緣　滿足。謂無學果　段食天。謂欲六天。資段食故　意成天身。謂色界天。不由精血等生。隨意受生名意成天身　若依婆沙一百五十三具說云。契經說。尊者舍利子。告苾芻眾言。若苾芻戒．定．慧具足者。能數數入出滅受想定。彼于現法。及將死時。若不能辨如來聖旨。命終超段食天處。生在意成身天中。于彼復能數數入出滅想受定。斯有是處。應如實知。時具壽鄔陀夷。在彼會坐。語尊者舍利子言。彼苾芻生意成身天。能數入出滅受想定無有是處。第二．第三亦如是說。問何故具壽鄔陀夷。再三違逆尊者舍利子。答彼之所疑非無處所。彼作是念。得此定者必已離無所有處染。命終應生非想非非想處。于彼必無起此定理。又彼不了舍利子意。是故現前再三違逆。問舍利子有何意趣。彼具壽云何不了。答舍利子說生色界者。鄔陀夷說生無色界者。舍利子說退者。鄔陀夷說不退者。由此不了故再三違之。廣如彼說。

有餘部執至此義亦成者。有餘大眾部等執第四靜慮亦有滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：修習禪定后，從退轉到進步才開始產生。依靠禪定之後再次修習。

『此滅盡定也有退轉嗎？』有人問。

應該說也有退轉，甚至會重新受生。』引用經典來證明退轉。大意可以理解。鄔陀夷（Udayin，人名，意為出現）。尸羅（Śīla，戒）。三摩地（Samādhi，等持），也就是禪定的不同名稱。般羅若（Prajñā，慧）。現法，指長久疾病等退轉的因緣。滿足，指無學果位。段食天，指欲界六天，依靠分段食物為生。意成天身，指色界天，不是由精血等產生，隨心意受生，稱為意成天身。如果依據《婆沙論》第一百五十三卷的詳細說法，經中說：『尊者舍利子（Śāriputra）告訴比丘們，如果比丘戒、定、慧具足，能夠多次入于和出離滅受想定，那麼他在現世，以及將要死亡的時候，如果不能辨別如來的聖旨，命終後會超越段食天處，生在色界的意成身天中。在那裡又能多次入于和出離滅受想定，這種情況是可能發生的，應該如實地知道。』當時具壽鄔陀夷也在那個集會中，他對尊者舍利子說：『那個比丘生在色界的意成身天，還能多次入于和出離滅受想定，這種情況是不可能發生的。』第二次、第三次也這樣說。有人問：『為什麼具壽鄔陀夷再三違逆尊者舍利子？』回答說：『他所懷疑的並非沒有道理。他這樣想，得到這種禪定的人必定已經離開了無所有處的染著，命終后應該生在非想非非想處，在那裡必定不會再起這種禪定。』而且他也不瞭解舍利子的意思，所以當面再三違逆。有人問：『舍利子有什麼意趣？那位具壽為什麼不瞭解？』回答說：『舍利子說生在色界天，鄔陀夷說生在無色界天。舍利子說會退轉，鄔陀夷說不會退轉。』因為這些不瞭解，所以再三違逆他。詳細情況如《婆沙論》所說。

有餘部認為，這種觀點也能成立。有餘部，如大眾部等，認為第四禪也有滅盡。

【English Translation】 English version: Having cultivated meditation, progress arises only after regression. Relying on meditation, one cultivates again after falling back.

'Is there also regression from this cessation attainment?' someone asked.

It should be said that there is also regression, even to the point of rebirth.' Citing scriptures to prove regression. The general meaning can be understood. Udayin (Udayin, a name, meaning 'appearance'). Śīla (Śīla, precepts). Samādhi (Samādhi, concentration), which is another name for meditation. Prajñā (Prajñā, wisdom). 'Present Dharma' refers to conditions for regression such as prolonged illness. 'Fulfillment' refers to the fruit of non-learning (Arhatship). 'Food-consuming heavens' refers to the six heavens of the desire realm, which rely on segmented food for sustenance. 'Mind-made body heavens' refers to the heavens of the form realm, which are not born from sperm and blood, etc., but are born according to intention, called 'mind-made body heavens.' According to the detailed explanation in the Mahāvibhāṣā, volume 153, the sutra says: 'Venerable Śāriputra (Śāriputra) told the monks, 'If a monk is complete in precepts, concentration, and wisdom, and is able to frequently enter and exit the cessation of perception and feeling, then in the present life, and at the time of death, if he cannot discern the Tathāgata's (Tathāgata) holy intention, he will transcend the food-consuming heavens and be born in the mind-made body heavens of the form realm. There, he can again frequently enter and exit the cessation of perception and feeling. This is possible and should be known as it is.' At that time, the venerable Udayin was also in that assembly, and he said to Venerable Śāriputra, 'That monk, born in the mind-made body heavens of the form realm, can still frequently enter and exit the cessation of perception and feeling; this is impossible.' He said the same thing a second and third time. Someone asked, 'Why did the venerable Udayin contradict Venerable Śāriputra three times?' The answer is, 'His doubts were not without reason. He thought, 'One who attains this meditation must have already abandoned attachment to the realm of nothingness, and after death, should be born in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. There, he will certainly not arise in this meditation again.' Moreover, he did not understand Śāriputra's intention, so he contradicted him face to face three times. Someone asked, 'What was Śāriputra's intention? Why did that venerable one not understand?' The answer is, 'Śāriputra said he would be born in the form realm heavens, while Udayin said he would be born in the formless realm heavens. Śāriputra said there would be regression, while Udayin said there would be no regression.' Because of these misunderstandings, he contradicted him three times. The details are as described in the Mahāvibhāṣā.

The Sarvāstivāda school believes that this view can also be established. Some other schools, such as the Mahāsāṃghika, believe that there is also cessation in the fourth dhyāna.

定。生意成天。依彼所執滅定無退。此義亦成。彼謂凡夫得第四定尚能入無想定。況聖人得第四定。而不能入滅盡定耶。

第四靜慮至契經說故者。引經破執。四靜慮．四無色是八有心定后。方說滅定為第九。故知彼非想後方入此定。若說滅定在第四定。彼定後起應名第五。

此若必然至超越定義者。大眾部等難。若如文執者。經言九次第即不令在第四。經言次第應無超越義。經言次第亦通超越。何妨經言第九定而通第四入。

此定次第至隨樂超入者。為外通經。次第之言依初學說。后得自在無妨超越。

如是二定至有頂地故者。此下總以諸門分別二定差別。此即依地不同。如前具釋。

加行有異至異熟果故者。此三門可知。

順受有異順定不定生二受故者。此中兩對　定．不定為一對。無想是定。滅盡是不定　生．二受復為一對。無想順生。滅定順生．后二受。應知為對不定故別立定。理實此定即是生受。

初起有異至最初起故者。無想定欲．色二界初起。滅定人中初起。

二定總以至滅受想耶者。問。於二定中隨滅爾許心．心所法。即有爾許不相應行替處為二定體。何緣但說名為無想．滅受想耶。

二定加行至唯名他心智者。答。雖此二定總以心．心所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：確定。生意自然成功。依照他們所堅持的，滅盡定不會退失，這個道理也是成立的。他們認為凡夫俗子得到第四禪定尚且能夠進入無想定，更何況聖人得到第四禪定，怎麼就不能進入滅盡定呢？

『第四靜慮至契經說故者』：引用經典來破除他們的執著。四靜慮（色界四種禪定）和四無色定（四種無色界的禪定）是八種有心定之後，才說滅盡定是第九種定。所以知道滅盡定是在非想非非想處定之後才能進入的。如果說滅盡定在第四禪定之後，那麼從那個禪定之後生起，就應該叫做第五種定。

『此若必然至超越定義者』：大眾部等提出疑問。如果按照字面意思理解，經典說九次第定就不應該包括第四禪定。經典說次第就應該沒有超越的含義。經典說次第也包含超越，為什麼經典說第九定就不能從第四禪定進入呢？

『此定次第至隨樂超入者』：這是爲了對外解釋經典。次第的說法是針對初學者說的，後來得到自在，超越也沒有妨礙。

『如是二定至有頂地故者』：下面總的用各種角度來分別兩種定的差別。這裡是依據所處的境界不同，如前面詳細解釋的。

『加行有異至異熟果故者』：這三方面可以自己理解。

『順受有異順定不定生二受故者』：這裡面有兩對概念。『定』和『不定』是一對，無想定是定，滅盡定是不定。『生』和『二受』又是一對，無想定順於生，滅盡定順於生和后兩種感受。應該知道爲了對應不定，所以特別設立了定。實際上這個定就是生受。

『初起有異至最初起故者』：無想定在欲界和色界最初生起，滅盡定在人中最初生起。

『二定總以至滅受想耶者』：問。在兩種定中，隨著滅除那麼多心和心所法，就有那麼多不相應行來代替，作為兩種定的本體。為什麼只說叫做無想和滅受想呢？

『二定加行至唯名他心智者』：答。雖然這兩種定總的來說滅除了心和心所

【English Translation】 English version: Confirmed. Business will naturally succeed. According to their insistence, the cessation attainment (滅定, mie ding) will not regress, and this reasoning also holds. They argue that if ordinary people can enter the non-perception attainment (無想定, wu xiang ding) upon attaining the fourth dhyana (第四定, di si ding), how could a sage who has attained the fourth dhyana not be able to enter the cessation attainment?

'The fourth dhyana to the sutra says so' means: Quoting the sutras to refute their attachment. The four dhyanas (四靜慮, si jing lv) and the four formless attainments (四無色定, si wu se ding) are the eight attainments with mind, after which the cessation attainment is said to be the ninth. Therefore, it is known that the cessation attainment can only be entered after the state of neither perception nor non-perception (非想非非想處定, fei xiang fei fei xiang chu ding). If it is said that the cessation attainment is after the fourth dhyana, then arising after that dhyana should be called the fifth attainment.

'If this is necessary to transcend the definition' means: The Mahasamghika school and others raise questions. If understood literally, the sutra's statement of nine successive attainments should not include the fourth dhyana. The sutra's statement of succession should not have the meaning of transcendence. The sutra's statement of succession also includes transcendence, so why can't the sutra's statement of the ninth attainment also include entering from the fourth dhyana?

'This attainment succession to freely enter' means: This is to explain the sutra to outsiders. The statement of succession is for beginners. Later, gaining freedom, transcendence is not hindered.

'These two attainments to the peak of existence' means: Below, the differences between the two attainments are distinguished from various perspectives. This is based on the different realms they are in, as explained in detail earlier.

'The preliminary practice is different to the different resultant fruit' means: These three aspects can be understood by oneself.

'The feeling experienced is different, according to whether it accords with fixed or unfixed arising of two feelings' means: There are two pairs of concepts here. 'Fixed' and 'unfixed' are a pair. The non-perception attainment is fixed, and the cessation attainment is unfixed. 'Arising' and 'two feelings' are another pair. The non-perception attainment accords with arising, and the cessation attainment accords with arising and the latter two feelings. It should be known that in order to correspond to the unfixed, the fixed is specially established. In reality, this attainment is the feeling of arising.

'The initial arising is different to the initial arising' means: The non-perception attainment initially arises in the desire realm (欲界, yu jie) and the form realm (色界, se jie), and the cessation attainment initially arises among humans.

'The two attainments in general to the cessation of perception and feeling' means: Question: In the two attainments, as so many mental factors (心所法, xin suo fa) are extinguished, so many non-associated formations (不相應行, bu xiang ying xing) replace them as the substance of the two attainments. Why are they only called non-perception and cessation of perception and feeling?

'The two attainments' preliminary practice to only called the mind of others' knowledge' means: Answer: Although these two attainments generally extinguish mind and mental factors

滅為其自性。但言無想．滅受想者。從加行立名。諸外道等計苦．樂為生死。為欲出彼修無想定。將欲界有苦。初．二．三定有喜．樂受。不了第四定舍．及余心．心所法。而作是言。第四定中雖出苦．樂。而猶有想未得涅槃。我今須滅。故加行中但偏厭想名無想定　滅受想定。加行之時亦偏厭受．想。謂聖人為於二界疲勞受。于諸靜慮想。于無色定。厭此受．想暫欲止息。故加行中偏厭受．想。故此二定皆從加行立名。如他心智亦知受等。加行但欲知他心故。從加行立名。二定亦爾。

今二定中至心復得生者。問。毗婆沙師至等無間緣者。此下第一毗婆沙師答。許過去有定前心作等無間緣。能引出定心起。

有餘師言至心有根身者。第二有餘經部師言。如生無色界色久時斷。如何於後色復得生。彼生定應由心中色種子生。非過去色生。此即舉例。如是出定心亦應然。由定內有五根身中有心種子。生出定心。非由過去定前心起。故彼經部中先代諸軌範師咸言。心．身二法互為種子。

尊者世友至故無此失者。經部異師尊者世友所造問論中說。若執滅定如前二說全無有心。可有此無心生有心過。我說滅定猶有細心生出定心。故無此失。

世友梵名云伐蘇蜜多羅。舊雲和須蜜訛也。印度國名世友

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『滅』是這些法各自的自性。但說『無想』、『滅受想』，是從修習的加行而立名。一些外道認為苦和樂是生死的根源，爲了脫離生死而修習無想定。他們認為欲界有苦，初禪、二禪、三禪有喜和樂的感受，卻不瞭解第四禪的舍受以及其他心和心所法，於是說：『第四禪中雖然脫離了苦和樂，但還有想，沒有得到涅槃，我現在需要滅掉它。』所以在加行中，只是偏重厭惡『想』，而名為無想定、滅受想定。在加行的時候，也偏重厭惡受和想。聖人因為對於二界的疲勞感受，對於各種靜慮的『想』，對於無色定，厭惡這些受和想，想要暫時止息，所以在加行中偏重厭惡受和想。所以這兩個定都是從加行而立名。就像他心智也能知道受等等，加行只是想要知道他人的心，所以從加行立名，這兩個定也是這樣。現在這兩個定中，至心還能再次生起。』問：毗婆沙師認為至等無間緣。』下面是第一位毗婆沙師的回答：允許過去有定前心作為等無間緣，能夠引發出定心的生起。有其他師父說至心有根身。』第二位有餘經部師說：就像生無**色，很久斷絕了，如何之後色法又能再次生起？它的生起應該由心中的色法種子而生，不是由過去的色法所生。』這只是舉個例子。這樣看來，出定心也應該是這樣，由定內有五根身中有心種子，生起出定心，不是由過去的定前心生起。所以經部中的先代諸位軌範師都說，心和身兩種法互相作為種子。尊者世友說至故無此失。』經部異師尊者世友所造的問論中說：『如果認為滅定像前面兩種說法一樣，完全沒有心，可能會有這種無心生有心的過失。我說滅定還有細微的心，生起出定心，所以沒有這種過失。』世友，梵文名字是Vasu Mitra（世友），舊譯為和須蜜，是訛誤。印度有個國家叫世友。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Cessation' is the self-nature of these dharmas. But the terms 'non-perception' and 'cessation of perception and feeling' are named based on the practice of application (加行). Some heretics consider suffering and pleasure to be the root of birth and death, and in order to escape birth and death, they practice the Samadhi of Non-Perception (無想定). They believe that the desire realm has suffering, and the first, second, and third Dhyanas have feelings of joy and pleasure, but they do not understand the feeling of equanimity in the fourth Dhyana, as well as other mental and mental-related dharmas. Therefore, they say: 'Although the fourth Dhyana is free from suffering and pleasure, there is still perception, and Nirvana has not been attained. I now need to eliminate it.' Therefore, in the practice of application, they only focus on disliking 'perception,' and it is named the Samadhi of Non-Perception, the Samadhi of Cessation of Perception and Feeling (滅受想定). During the practice of application, they also focus on disliking feeling and perception. The sages, because of the fatigue of feeling in the two realms, the 'perception' of various meditative states, and the formless realms, dislike these feelings and perceptions and want to temporarily stop them. Therefore, in the practice of application, they focus on disliking feeling and perception. Therefore, these two Samadhis are named based on the practice of application. Just like the knowledge of others' minds can also know feelings, etc., the practice of application only wants to know the minds of others, so it is named based on the practice of application, and these two Samadhis are the same. 'Now, in these two Samadhis, the mind can still arise again.' Question: The Vibhasha masters consider the immediate condition of equality (至等無間緣).' Below is the answer from the first Vibhasha master: 'It is permissible for the past mind before entering Samadhi to serve as the immediate condition of equality, which can lead to the arising of the mind emerging from Samadhi.' 'Other teachers say that the mind has root-body (根身).' The second remaining Sutra master says: 'Just like the color that is born without ** (無**色), and has been cut off for a long time, how can color arise again later? Its arising should be born from the seed of color in the mind, not from the past color.' This is just an example. In this way, the mind emerging from Samadhi should also be like this, arising from the seed of mind in the five root-bodies within Samadhi, not from the past mind before entering Samadhi. Therefore, the former masters of the Sutra school all said that the two dharmas of mind and body serve as seeds for each other. Venerable Vasumitra (世友) said, 'Therefore, there is no such fault.' The question-and-answer treatise created by Venerable Vasumitra, a different Sutra master, says: 'If it is believed that the Samadhi of Cessation is completely without mind, as in the previous two statements, there may be the fault of a mind arising from no mind. I say that the Samadhi of Cessation still has a subtle mind, giving rise to the mind emerging from Samadhi, so there is no such fault.' Vasumitra (世友), the Sanskrit name is Vasu Mitra, the old translation of 'He Xu Mi' (和須蜜) is a corruption. There is a country in India called Vasumitra.

者非一。非是婆沙會中世友。又正理第十三云。譬喻論者作如是言。滅盡定中唯滅受．想。以定無有無心有情　解云此敘鳩摩羅多門徒釋。彼宗所執。唯一心王。隨用差別立種種名。無別心所。但心緣境第一剎那初了名識。第二剎那取像名想。第三剎那領納名受。第四已去造作名思。諸餘心所皆思差別。識．想．受三唯無記性。思心已去方始通三。入滅定者滅想受心。由此二粗是所厭故。識雖非厭。定中亦不得起。是無記故。於行位中思之差別。為滅定體。以實言之即是心。就用言之是心所。故彼定中必有心體。但無受．想之位。何以知然。名稱滅受想定。故知無受．想。必定無有無心有情。既是有情。故知心有。又婆沙一百五十三云。謂譬喻者分別論師執滅盡定細心不滅。彼說無有有情而無色者。亦無有定而無心者。若定無心命根應斷。便名為死。非謂在定　準此論世友同彼譬喻分別論計。

尊者妙音至亦應不滅者。尊者妙音說。此世友非理。若此定中猶有識者。根．境．識三和合故必應有觸。由觸為緣故應有受．想。引證可知。則此滅定中。受．想等法亦應不滅。

若謂如經至諸心皆滅者。妙音牒世友救破。若謂經說受為緣故生愛。自有阿羅漢受而不生愛。觸亦應爾。非一切觸皆受等緣。何妨滅定中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這些觀點並非統一。這裡說的世友不是《婆沙論》會中的世友。而且《正理》第十三卷中說：『譬喻論者這樣說，滅盡定中只是滅除了受（vedanā，感受）和想（saṃjñā，表象）。因為在禪定中，不可能存在沒有心識的有情。』解釋說，這是敘述鳩摩羅多的門徒的解釋。他們的宗派認為只有一個心王（citta，心），根據作用的不同而設立各種名稱，沒有其他的心所（caitta，心理作用）。只是心緣于境的第一個剎那最初了別，稱為識（vijñāna，識別），第二個剎那取境的形象，稱為想，第三個剎那領納，稱為受，第四個剎那之後進行造作，稱為思（cetanā，意志）。其餘的心所都是思的差別。識、想、受三種只有無記性（avyākṛta，非善非惡），思心之後才開始通於善、惡、無記三性。進入滅盡定的人滅除了想和受，因為這兩種比較粗顯，是所厭惡的。識雖然不是厭惡的對象，但在定中也不得生起，因為它也是無記性的。在行位的差別中，思是滅盡定的本體。實際上說，就是心；就作用來說，是心所。因此，滅盡定中必定有心體，只是沒有受和想的作用。為什麼知道是這樣呢？因為名稱是滅受想定，所以知道沒有受和想。必定沒有沒有心識的有情。既然是有情，就知道有心。而且《婆沙論》第一百五十三卷中說：『譬喻論者和分別論師認為滅盡定中細微的心識沒有滅除。他們說沒有有情沒有色（rūpa，物質），也沒有禪定沒有心識。如果禪定沒有心識，命根（jīvitendriya，生命力）應該斷絕，那就叫做死亡，而不是在禪定中。』根據這個理論，世友的觀點和譬喻論者、分別論者的觀點相同。

尊者妙音認為，（滅盡定中的識）也不應該滅除。尊者妙音說：這位世友的說法沒有道理。如果這個禪定中還有識，那麼根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（viṣaya，感覺對像）、識三者和合，必定應該有觸（sparśa，接觸）。由於觸為緣，所以應該有受和想。引用論證就可以知道，那麼這個滅盡定中，受、想等法也不應該滅除。

如果（世友）認為如經中所說，受為緣而生愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛），但是有阿羅漢有受卻不生愛，那麼觸也應該如此。不是一切的觸都是受等的緣。為什麼妨礙滅盡定中（有觸）呢？

【English Translation】 English version: These views are not uniform. The Vasumitra (世友) mentioned here is not the Vasumitra in the council of the Vibhasa (婆沙論). Moreover, the thirteenth volume of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'The Sautrāntikas (譬喻論者) say that in the Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), only vedanā (受, feeling) and saṃjñā (想, perception) are extinguished. Because in samādhi (禪定, concentration), there cannot be sentient beings without mind.' It is explained that this is a narration of the interpretation of Kumāralāta's (鳩摩羅多) disciples. Their school believes that there is only one citta (心王, mind-king), and various names are established according to the difference in function, without other caitta (心所, mental factors). Only the first moment when the mind is aware of the object is called vijñāna (識, consciousness), the second moment of taking the image of the object is called saṃjñā, the third moment of experiencing is called vedanā, and after the fourth moment, it is called cetanā (思, volition). The remaining mental factors are all differences of cetanā. Vijñāna, saṃjñā, and vedanā are only of the indeterminate (avyākṛta, 無記性) nature. Only after cetanā does it begin to be related to the three natures of good, evil, and indeterminate. Those who enter Nirodha-samāpatti extinguish saṃjñā and vedanā because these two are relatively coarse and are what are disliked. Although vijñāna is not disliked, it cannot arise in samādhi because it is also indeterminate. In the difference of the karma (行) position, cetanā is the substance of Nirodha-samāpatti. In reality, it is the mind; in terms of function, it is a mental factor. Therefore, there must be a mind-body in Nirodha-samāpatti, but there is no function of vedanā and saṃjñā. How do we know this is the case? Because the name is Nirodha-saṃjñā-vedayita-samāpatti (滅受想定), we know that there is no vedanā and saṃjñā. There must be no sentient beings without mind. Since they are sentient beings, we know that there is mind. Moreover, the one hundred and fifty-third volume of the Vibhasa says: 'The Sautrāntikas and the Vaibhāṣikas (分別論師) believe that the subtle mind in Nirodha-samāpatti is not extinguished. They say that there are no sentient beings without rūpa (色, form), and there is no samādhi without mind. If samādhi has no mind, the jīvitendriya (命根, life-faculty) should be cut off, which is called death, not being in samādhi.' According to this theory, Vasumitra's view is the same as that of the Sautrāntikas and Vaibhāṣikas.

The Venerable Svara (妙音) believes that (the vijñāna in Nirodha-samāpatti) should also not be extinguished. The Venerable Svara said: This Vasumitra's statement is unreasonable. If there is still vijñāna in this samādhi, then the combination of indriya (根, sense organs), viṣaya (境, sense objects), and vijñāna should necessarily have sparśa (觸, contact). Because sparśa is the condition, there should be vedanā and saṃjñā. Quoting the argument, we can know that in this Nirodha-samāpatti, vedanā, saṃjñā, and other dharmas should also not be extinguished.

If (Vasumitra) believes that, as the sutra says, tṛṣṇā (愛, craving) arises from vedanā, but there are arhats who have vedanā but do not generate tṛṣṇā, then sparśa should also be the same. Not all sparśa are conditions for vedanā, etc. Why hinder (the existence of sparśa) in Nirodha-samāpatti?

觸而不生受者。此例不然。觸．受兩緣有差別故。經自簡言。若異生．學人。無明觸所生諸受為緣生愛。明知非是無明觸所生諸受。即不生愛。曾無有處簡觸生受。故知諸觸皆能生受。故有差別　由此道理。毗婆沙師說滅定中諸心皆滅。

若都無心如何名定者。世友問。

此令大種至故名為定者。答。由得此定在身。令諸大種湛然能平等而住。水火風等所不能損。但大種平等住所造色必亦平等住。故略不說。此即從果立名　或由定前心離於沈．掉平等至此定。由定故此即從因立名。故婆沙云。等至有二。一令心平等。二令大種平等。

如是二定至為是假有者。問二定假．實。

應言實有至令不生故者。說一切有部答。應言二定實有。以能遮礙未來心令不生故。明知有實體性。

有說此證至是有為攝者。有經部師說。此證理不應然。述自解云。彼說滅定全無有心。由前定心能遮礙故。與后余心相違而起。由此定前心起故。唯令後起余心暫時不轉。此定前心。又能引發違心所依身令相續起。故唯心不轉位假立為定。但是心無無別實體。恐伏難言。依無而立。如何滅定是有為攝。為通此難故作是言。此唯不轉分位假立。入定前位無。出定后位無。似有生滅故假說此是有為攝。

或即所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『觸』（Sparsha，感官接觸）而不生『受』（Vedana，感受）的情況，這個例子並不成立。因為『觸』和『受』這兩種緣起有差別。經文中自己簡別說，如果是異生（凡夫）或學人（有學位的修行者），由無明觸所生的諸受為緣而生愛。這明顯說明不是由無明觸所生的諸受，就不會生愛。從來沒有地方簡別說『觸』能生『受』。所以知道諸觸都能生受，因此有差別。由於這個道理，毗婆沙師（Vibhasha masters，論師）說滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）中所有的心都滅盡了。

如果完全沒有心，如何稱之為『定』（Samadhi，禪定）呢？世友（Vasumitra，論師名）問道。

這是因為能令四大種（Mahabhuta，地、水、火、風）調和，所以稱為『定』。答：由於得到這種禪定在身，能令諸大種湛然不動，能夠平等安住，水、火、風等不能損害。但大種平等安住，所造色（Rupa，物質現象）必定也平等安住，所以略而不說。這是從果（結果）上立名。或者由於入定前的心遠離了沉沒和掉舉，平等地達到這種禪定，由於禪定的緣故，這是從因（原因）上立名。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasha，論書名）說，等至（Samapatti，入定）有兩種：一是令心平等，二是令大種平等。

像這樣的兩種禪定，究竟是假有（非真實存在）嗎？問兩種禪定的假實。

應該說是實有，因為能遮礙未來的心，令其不生。說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派）回答說：應該說兩種禪定是實有的，因為能夠遮礙未來的心，使其不生。這明顯說明有實體性。

有人說，這個證據不應該成立，是有為法（Samkhata-dharma，因緣和合而成的法）所攝。有經部師（Sautrantika，佛教部派）說：這個證據的道理不應該這樣。他自己解釋說：他們說滅盡定中完全沒有心，由於之前的定心能夠遮礙的緣故，與後來的其他心相違背而生起。由於入定前的心生起，僅僅令後來生起的其他心暫時不運轉。入定前的心，又能引發與心不相應的所依身，令其相續生起。所以僅僅是心不運轉的位，假立為『定』。但是心沒有別的實體性。恐怕有人反駁說：依靠沒有而建立，如何滅盡定是有為法所攝？爲了通達這個難題，所以這樣說：這僅僅是不運轉的分位假立。入定前沒有，出定后沒有，似乎有生滅，所以假說這是有為法所攝。

或者就是所

【English Translation】 English version The case of 『Sparsha』 (contact) without generating 『Vedana』 (feeling) is not valid. This is because there is a difference between the two conditions of 『Sparsha』 and 『Vedana』. The sutra itself distinguishes, saying that if it is an ordinary being (Puthujjana) or a learner (Sekha), love arises from the feelings generated by ignorant contact. This clearly indicates that love does not arise from feelings not generated by ignorant contact. There is nowhere that distinguishes 『Sparsha』 as generating 『Vedana』. Therefore, it is known that all contacts can generate feelings, hence there is a difference. Due to this reason, the Vibhasha masters (Vibhasha masters) say that all minds are extinguished in Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment).

If there is no mind at all, how can it be called 『Samadhi』 (concentration)? Vasumitra (Vasumitra) asked.

It is called 『Samadhi』 because it harmonizes the four great elements (Mahabhuta). Answer: Because obtaining this Samadhi in the body allows the four great elements to be still and able to abide equally, and cannot be harmed by water, fire, wind, etc. But when the four great elements abide equally, the material phenomena (Rupa) produced must also abide equally, so it is omitted. This is naming from the result. Or because the mind before entering Samadhi is away from sinking and agitation, and equally reaches this Samadhi, it is naming from the cause because of Samadhi. Therefore, the Vibhasha (Vibhasha) says that there are two kinds of Samapatti (attainment): one is to equalize the mind, and the other is to equalize the four great elements.

Are these two Samadhis ultimately hypothetical (not really existing)? Question about the hypothetical or real nature of the two Samadhis.

It should be said that they are real, because they can obstruct future minds and prevent them from arising. The Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) answered: It should be said that the two Samadhis are real, because they can obstruct future minds and prevent them from arising. This clearly shows that they have substantiality.

Some say that this evidence should not be established, and is included in conditioned dharmas (Samkhata-dharma). Some Sautrantika (Sautrantika) say: The reasoning of this evidence should not be like this. He himself explained: They say that there is no mind at all in Nirodha-samāpatti, because the previous Samadhi mind can obstruct, and arises in opposition to the subsequent other minds. Because the mind before entering Samadhi arises, it only causes the subsequent other minds to temporarily not function. The mind before entering Samadhi can also induce the body on which the mind does not depend to arise continuously. Therefore, it is only the state where the mind does not function that is hypothetically established as 『Samadhi』. But the mind has no other substantiality. Fearing that someone would refute: How can Nirodha-samāpatti be included in conditioned dharmas if it is established based on nothing? In order to understand this difficulty, it is said: This is only the hypothetical establishment of the non-functioning state. It does not exist before entering Samadhi, and it does not exist after exiting Samadhi. It seems to have arising and ceasing, so it is hypothetically said that it is included in conditioned dharmas.

Or it is the place

依至假立為定者。經部異釋。或即所依身由前定心引。令如是起與心相違。即于所依假立滅定。

應知無想至余說如前者。無想例同滅定。由定前心能遮礙故。與后所餘心相違而起。由此定前心起故唯令后余心暫時不轉。唯心不轉位假立無想定。但是心無。無別實體。余說如前。據此論文於心不轉。或於所依假立二定。有說經部于厭心種子假立二定。然未見文。

此非善說違我宗故者。毗婆沙師言此經部師非為善說。違我宗故。

已辨二定至能持暖及識者。此下大文第五解命根。上句會名。下句用證。命是活義。壽是期限義活即是命。故知此命即壽異名。

論曰至謂三界壽者。就長行中一釋頌本。二問答分別。此釋初句。對法即是發智論說。

此復未了何法名壽者。此下解第二句。此即問也。

謂有別法至說名為壽者。答。能持暖．識。明有別壽。引經證用。經說三法能持于身。若三舍身身便僵仆。仰死名僵。伏死名仆。亦有側死且言僵仆　或從多說　故有別法能持暖．識。相續住因說名為壽。

若爾此壽何法能持者。經部難。

即暖及識還持此壽者。說一切有部答。

若爾三法至應常無謝者。經部難。若爾三法更互相持相續轉故。鼎足而立。何法先滅。由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

關於依靠所依（身體）假立為滅盡定的觀點，經部有不同的解釋。他們認為，或者就是所依（身體），由之前的滅盡定心所引導，使其如此生起，與心識相違背。就在這所依（身體）上假立滅盡定。應該知道，無想定等其餘的說法與前面（滅盡定）相同。無想定類似於滅盡定，因為在入定之前的心識能夠遮蔽、阻礙（後續心識的生起），與之後的其餘心識相違背而生起。因此，由於入定前的心識生起，僅僅使得之後的其餘心識暫時不運轉。僅僅在心識不運轉的狀態下假立為無想定。這僅僅是心識的停止，沒有另外的實體。其餘的說法與前面（滅盡定）相同。根據這段論文，在心識不運轉，或者在所依（身體）上假立這兩種定。有人說，經部在厭惡心識的種子（上）假立這兩種定，但是沒有見到相關的文獻。『這並非善說，因為違背了我的宗義』，這是毗婆沙師的觀點，認為經部師的說法並非善說，因為違背了他們的宗義。已經辨析了兩種定，以下解釋能保持暖（體溫）和識（意識）的內容。下面這段大的章節是第五個部分，解釋命根。上面一句解釋名稱，下面一句用以證明。『命』是活著的含義，『壽』是期限的含義，活著就是命，因此知道這個『命』就是『壽』的別名。論曰：『所謂三界壽者』，在長行文中，一是解釋頌的原本含義，二是問答分別。這裡解釋第一句。對法，也就是發智論所說。『這又沒有了解，什麼法叫做壽呢？』，下面解釋第二句。這是提問。『所謂有別法，至說名為壽者』，這是回答。能夠保持暖（體溫）和識（意識），說明有另外的『壽』。引用經文來證明作用。經文說，三種法能夠保持身體，如果這三種捨棄了身體，身體就會僵硬倒地。仰面朝天死亡叫做『僵』，俯臥死亡叫做『仆』，也有側臥死亡，暫且說成『僵仆』，或者從多數情況來說。因此有另外的法能夠保持暖（體溫）和識（意識），作為相續存在的因，稱作『壽』。『如果這樣，這個壽是什麼法能夠保持呢？』，這是經部的提問。『就是暖（體溫）和識（意識）反過來保持這個壽』，說一切有部的回答。『如果這樣，這三種法更互相保持，相續運轉，像鼎足一樣相互支撐，那麼什麼法先滅呢？』，這是經部的提問。

【English Translation】 English version

Regarding the view that extinction is hypothetically established based on a support (the body), the Sautrāntikas (Jingbu, 經部) have different interpretations. They believe that it is either the support (the body) that is guided by the preceding mind of cessation, causing it to arise in such a way that it contradicts consciousness. It is on this support (the body) that extinction is hypothetically established. It should be known that the other explanations, such as the non-perceptual concentration (asaṃjñā-samāpatti, 無想定), are the same as the previous (extinction concentration). The non-perceptual concentration is similar to the extinction concentration because the mind before entering the concentration can obscure and hinder (the arising of subsequent consciousness), arising in contradiction to the subsequent remaining consciousness. Therefore, because the mind before entering the concentration arises, it only causes the subsequent remaining consciousness to temporarily cease functioning. It is only in the state where consciousness does not function that the non-perceptual concentration is hypothetically established. This is merely the cessation of consciousness, without a separate entity. The other explanations are the same as the previous (extinction concentration). According to this text, these two concentrations are hypothetically established in the non-functioning of consciousness or on the support (the body). Some say that the Sautrāntikas hypothetically establish these two concentrations on the seeds of aversion to consciousness, but no relevant literature has been found. 'This is not a good explanation because it contradicts my doctrine,' this is the view of the Vaibhāṣikas (Pípóshā shī, 毗婆沙師), who believe that the Sautrāntika's explanation is not good because it contradicts their doctrine. Having distinguished the two concentrations, the following explains the content of being able to maintain warmth (body temperature) and consciousness (awareness). The following large section is the fifth part, explaining the root of life (jīvitendriya, 命根). The sentence above explains the name, and the sentence below is used for proof. 'Life' (mìng, 命) means being alive, and 'lifespan' (shòu, 壽) means the duration of life. Being alive is life, so it is known that this 'life' is another name for 'lifespan'. The treatise says: 'What is meant by the lifespan of the three realms?' In the prose section, one is to explain the original meaning of the verse, and two is to distinguish through questions and answers. This explains the first sentence. 'Dharma' (duìfǎ, 對法) is what is said in the Jñānaprasthāna (Fāzhì lùn, 發智論). 'This is still not understood, what dharma is called lifespan?' The following explains the second sentence. This is the question. 'What is meant by a separate dharma, to be called lifespan?' This is the answer. Being able to maintain warmth (body temperature) and consciousness (awareness) indicates that there is another 'lifespan'. Quoting the sutra to prove the function. The sutra says that three dharmas can maintain the body. If these three abandon the body, the body will become stiff and fall to the ground. Dying face up is called 'stiff' (jiāng, 僵), dying face down is called 'fall' (pū, 仆), and there are also deaths on the side, temporarily called 'stiff and fall', or speaking from the majority of cases. Therefore, there is another dharma that can maintain warmth (body temperature) and consciousness (awareness), as the cause of continuous existence, called 'lifespan'. 'If so, what dharma can maintain this lifespan?' This is the question from the Sautrāntikas. 'It is warmth (body temperature) and consciousness (awareness) that in turn maintain this lifespan,' is the answer from the Sarvāstivādins (Shuō yīqiè yǒu bù, 說一切有部). 'If so, these three dharmas further maintain each other, continuously functioning, supporting each other like the legs of a tripod, then which dharma will perish first?' This is the question from the Sautrāntikas.

此一法滅故餘二法隨滅。若無一法先滅者。是則此三應常無謝。

既爾此壽至相續轉故者。說一切有部釋。為難所逼今復轉救。既爾此壽應業能持。從業所引或長或短相續轉故。論主意朋經部。故。今轉計前後相違　又解說一切有部復為好解。顯前非正。

若爾何緣至而須壽耶者。經部復難。業力足持暖．識何須壽耶。

理不應然至恒異熟故者。說一切有部反責出過。理不應然。勿一切識從始至終恒異熟故。以三性識相間起故。

既爾應言至何須此壽者。經部解。既爾應言業能持暖暖復持識。何須此壽。

如是識在至彼無暖故者。說一切有部難。欲．色有暖可暖持識。無色無暖應無能持。

應言彼識業為能持者。經部解。應言彼識業為能持。為難所逼故復轉計。

豈得隨情至又前已說者。說一切有部。責彼轉計業持識過。又前已說。

前說者何者。經部徴。

謂前說言至說名為壽者。說一切有部。引前文答結定本宗。

今亦不言至非別實物者。經部自述己宗　若爾何法說名壽體者。說一切有部問。

謂三界業至住時勢分者。經部答。謂三界業所引眾同分。住時勢分不斷。於此勢分說為壽體　由三界下。別顯同分住時勢分長短。由三界業力所引。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『此一法滅故餘二法隨滅。若無一法先滅者。是則此三應常無謝。』如果這一個法滅，那麼其餘兩個法也隨之滅。如果沒有一個法先滅，那麼這三個法應該永遠不會消逝。

『既爾此壽至相續轉故者。』說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一）解釋說，因為受到詰難，現在又轉而辯護。既然如此，這個『壽』應該由『業』（karma，行為及其結果）來維持，因為由『業』所引導的或長或短的相續在流轉。論主的意圖是支援經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）。因此，現在轉變計較，認為前後自相矛盾。又解釋說，一切有部是爲了更好地解釋，顯示之前的說法是不正確的。

『若爾何緣至而須壽耶者。』經部反駁說，如果這樣，業力足以維持暖（ūṣman，體溫）和識（vijñāna，意識），為什麼需要『壽』呢？

『理不應然至恒異熟故者。』說一切有部反過來責備，指出其中的過失。道理不應該是這樣，不要讓一切識從始至終都是恒常的異熟（vipāka，果報），因為三性的識（善、惡、無記）是交替生起的。

『既爾應言至何須此壽者。』經部解釋說，既然這樣，應該說『業』能維持『暖』，『暖』又維持『識』，為什麼需要這個『壽』呢？

『如是識在至彼無暖故者。』說一切有部詰難說，欲界（kāmadhātu，眾生有情慾的世界）和色界（rūpadhātu，色界天人的世界）有『暖』，可以用『暖』來維持『識』。無色界（arūpadhātu，沒有物質的禪定世界）沒有『暖』，應該沒有能維持『識』的東西。

『應言彼識業為能持者。』經部解釋說，應該說那個『識』由『業』來維持。因為受到詰難，所以又轉變計較。

『豈得隨情至又前已說者。』說一切有部責備他們轉變計較，認為『業』維持『識』是錯誤的。而且之前已經說過了。

『前說者何者。』經部詢問說，之前說過什麼？

『謂前說言至說名為壽者。』說一切有部引用之前的文句回答，總結並確定本宗的觀點。

『今亦不言至非別實物者。』經部陳述自己的宗派觀點。『若爾何法說名壽體者。』說一切有部問道，如果這樣，那麼什麼法可以稱為『壽體』呢？

『謂三界業至住時勢分者。』經部回答說，所謂三界（tridhātu，欲界、色界、無色界）的『業』所引導的眾同分（nikāya-sabhāgatā，同類眾生的共性），在住留期間的勢分（avasthā-viśeṣa，狀態的差別）不斷，對於這個勢分，就說它是『壽體』。由三界以下，分別顯示同分住留期間勢分的長短，由三界『業』力所引導。

【English Translation】 English version: 『When this one dharma ceases, the other two dharmas also cease accordingly. If no dharma ceases first, then these three should never cease.』 If this one dharma ceases, then the other two dharmas cease along with it. If no dharma ceases first, then these three dharmas should never come to an end.

『Since this life… until the continuous transformation.』 The Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) explains that, being pressed by objections, they now turn to defend their position. Since this is the case, this 『life』 (āyuḥ, lifespan) should be maintained by 『karma』 (action and its result), because the continuous flow, whether long or short, guided by 『karma』, is transforming. The intention of the master is to support the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school). Therefore, now they change their argument, considering it self-contradictory. Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda explains that it is for a better explanation, showing that the previous statement was incorrect.

『If so, why… is life needed?』 The Sautrāntika refutes, saying that if karmic force is sufficient to maintain warmth (ūṣman, body temperature) and consciousness (vijñāna, awareness), why is 『life』 needed?

『It should not be so… because it is always of different maturation.』 The Sarvāstivāda retorts, pointing out the fault. It should not be so, lest all consciousness from beginning to end is always of constant different maturation (vipāka, result), because the consciousness of the three natures (good, evil, and neutral) arises alternately.

『Since this is the case, it should be said… why is this life needed?』 The Sautrāntika explains, saying that since this is the case, it should be said that 『karma』 can maintain 『warmth』, and 『warmth』 in turn maintains 『consciousness』, so why is this 『life』 needed?

『Thus, consciousness exists… because there is no warmth there.』 The Sarvāstivāda challenges, saying that the desire realm (kāmadhātu, the world of beings with desires) and the form realm (rūpadhātu, the world of form gods) have 『warmth』, which can be used to maintain 『consciousness』. The formless realm (arūpadhātu, the world of formless meditation) has no 『warmth』, so there should be nothing to maintain 『consciousness』.

『It should be said that consciousness is maintained by karma.』 The Sautrāntika explains, saying that it should be said that that 『consciousness』 is maintained by 『karma』. Because they are pressed by objections, they change their argument again.

『How can it be according to one's feelings… and it has already been said before.』 The Sarvāstivāda blames them for changing their argument, considering it wrong that 『karma』 maintains 『consciousness』. Moreover, it has already been said before.

『What was said before?』 The Sautrāntika asks, what was said before?

『That is, it was said before… called life.』 The Sarvāstivāda quotes the previous text to answer, summarizing and confirming the view of their own school.

『Now, we also do not say… not a separate real entity.』 The Sautrāntika states the view of their own school. 『If so, what dharma is called the life-entity?』 The Sarvāstivāda asks, if so, then what dharma can be called the 『life-entity』?

『That is, the karma of the three realms… the division of potential during the duration.』 The Sautrāntika answers, saying that the commonality of beings (nikāya-sabhāgatā, the common nature of beings of the same kind) guided by the 『karma』 of the three realms (tridhātu, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), the division of potential (avasthā-viśeṣa, the difference in state) during the duration of stay is continuous, and this division of potential is called the 『life-entity』. From the three realms below, the length of the division of potential during the duration of stay of the commonality is shown separately, guided by the karmic force of the three realms.

同分住時勢分相續。決定從應住時。爾所時住。或經十年或百年等。即此勢分假說為壽。如谷種等所引。乃至熟時勢分於此勢分不斷。假說功能。又如放箭所引。乃至住時勢分。於此勢分假說為行。經部復重虛．累假．故。于假同分上覆假立命根　問若於同分假立命根。何故正理十三敘經部義云。由業所引。六處．並依。住時勢分相續決定。隨應住時爾所時住。故此勢分說為壽體　準彼論文。於六處．及依上假立命根。豈不相違。依謂扶根　解云同分無體。還依六處．及依上立。此論據假依假。正理據假依實。故不相違。又正理難經部云。若處無業所引異熟內五色處。于彼或時無業所引第六意處。謂于長時起染污識．或善有漏．及無漏識。相續位中。無業所引異熟勢分。說何為壽　正理難意。于無色界無內五處。或起余心。又無異熟意處。異熟勢分于彼既無。說何為壽。

俱舍師解云。若依異熟立者。是異熟。若依余立者。非是異熟。雖依彼立非隨彼法判性。如名．句等依善．惡聲。

有謂有行至恒行不息者。義便兼破勝論。此即敘也。彼計德句義有二十四種。行是第二十一。故言是德差別。彼計諸法從此至彼速疾迴轉等。皆由行力有。勝論外道謂執有行是德句差別。依箭等生。由彼行力故。彼箭等乃至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本同類眾生共住，其壽命的長短由各自的業力所決定的勢分相續決定。根據應住的時長，或十年，或百年等等，就此勢分假立為壽命。如同穀物的種子等所引發的，乃至成熟時的勢分，於此勢分不斷絕，假立為功能。又如射出的箭所引發的，乃至停止時的勢分，於此勢分假立為執行。經部宗重複虛構、累積假立，所以在假立的同分上又假立命根。問：如果於同分上假立命根，為何正理十三中敘述經部宗的觀點說，由業力所引發的六處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）以及所依（扶根，即支援感覺器官的物質基礎），其住時的勢分相續決定，根據應住的時長而住，因此此勢分被稱為壽命的本體？按照那篇論文，在六處以及所依上假立命根，豈不是互相矛盾？依，指的是扶根。答：同分沒有實體，還是依靠六處以及所依而建立。此論根據假立的所依是假，而《正理》根據假立的所依是實，所以不互相矛盾。另外，《正理》反駁經部宗說，如果某處沒有業力所引發的異熟內五色處（色、聲、香、味、觸五種感覺），在那裡有時沒有業力所引發的第六意處（意識），即在長時間生起染污識，或者善的有漏識以及無漏識的相續位中，沒有業力所引發的異熟勢分，那麼說什麼才是壽命呢？《正理》反駁的意圖是，在沒有異熟、沒有內五處的情況下，或者生起其他心識，又沒有異熟的意處，異熟的勢分在那裡既然沒有，那麼說什麼才是壽命。俱舍師解釋說：如果依靠異熟而建立的，就是異熟；如果依靠其他而建立的，就不是異熟。雖然依靠它而建立，但並非隨著它的法性來判斷性質，如同名、句等依靠善、惡的聲音。有人說有行至恒行不息者，這個意思便兼破了勝論宗。這只是敘述而已。他們認為德句義有二十四種，行是第二十一種，所以說行是德的差別。他們認為諸法從此至彼快速回轉等，都是由行的力量所致。勝論外道認為執著有行是德句的差別，依靠箭等產生，由於那行的力量，所以箭等乃至...

【English Translation】 English version The duration of life for beings living together in the same category is determined by the momentum of continuity resulting from their respective karma. Based on the duration they are meant to live, whether it be ten years, a hundred years, etc., this momentum is hypothetically established as life. It is like the momentum that arises from seeds of grain, continuing until they ripen, and this uninterrupted momentum is hypothetically established as function. Similarly, the momentum that arises from a released arrow, continuing until it stops, is hypothetically established as motion. The Sautrāntika school repeatedly fabricates and accumulates hypothetical constructs, so they further hypothetically establish a life-force on the hypothetically established commonality. Question: If a life-force is hypothetically established on a commonality, why does the Nyāyānusāra (正理) thirteen, in describing the Sautrāntika view, say that the six sense bases (眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意 - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind sense organs) and their supports (扶根, the material basis supporting the sense organs), which are produced by karma, have a determined momentum of continuity during their existence, and they exist for the duration they are meant to exist, and therefore this momentum is said to be the substance of life? According to that treatise, a life-force is hypothetically established on the six sense bases and their supports. Isn't that contradictory? 'Support' refers to the supporting basis. Answer: A commonality has no substance; it still relies on the six sense bases and their supports for its establishment. This argument is based on a hypothetical reliance on a hypothetical entity, while the Nyāyānusāra is based on a hypothetical reliance on a real entity, so there is no contradiction. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra refutes the Sautrāntika school by saying, 'If there is no internally produced five sense objects (色、聲、香、味、觸 - form, sound, smell, taste, and touch) that are the result of karma in a certain place, then sometimes there is no sixth mental sense object (意識 - consciousness) that is the result of karma there, i.e., in the continuous state of arising defiled consciousness, or wholesome contaminated consciousness, or uncontaminated consciousness for a long time, there is no momentum of resultant maturation produced by karma. Then what is said to be life?' The intention of the Nyāyānusāra's refutation is that in the absence of resultant maturation and the internal five sense objects, or when other mental states arise, and there is no mental sense object of resultant maturation, since the momentum of resultant maturation is absent there, then what is said to be life? The Abhidharmakośa master explains: 'If something is established based on resultant maturation, then it is resultant maturation; if it is established based on something else, then it is not resultant maturation. Although it is established based on it, its nature is not judged according to its dharma, just like names and sentences rely on wholesome and unwholesome sounds.' Some say that 'motion continues until it is constant and unceasing,' which implicitly refutes the Vaiśeṣika school. This is just a narration. They believe that there are twenty-four categories of qualities, and motion is the twenty-first, so they say that motion is a difference in quality. They believe that phenomena moving quickly from here to there, etc., are all due to the power of motion. The Vaiśeṣika heretics believe that clinging to motion as a difference in quality arises based on arrows, etc., and due to the power of that motion, the arrows, etc., until...

未隨。恒行不息。如鳥銜果。

彼體一故至無差別故者。論主作比量破。先舉兩因。后舉宗．喻。彼行體一故。是一因。無障礙故。是第二因。放箭之時往趣余方。初急．中緩．后至。三時分位差別應不得有。初位之時應當非急。行體一故。如中．后位。中位之時應當非緩。行體一故。如初．后位。后位之時應當不至。行體一故。如初．中位。

又破云。后位之時應無墮落。無障礙故。猶如初位。勝論救作不成過。后位墮落由風障礙。若謂由風所障礙故。又破云此箭初位應當即墮。能障礙風無差別故。猶如后位。此箭后位應無墮落。能障礙風無差別故。猶如初位　有別實物至是說為善者。論主印取說一切有部。

為壽盡故死為更有餘因者。此第二問答分別。此即問也。

施設論說至枉橫緣故者。答。引施設足論四句差別。其文可知。

又亦應言舍壽行故者。論主解云。此第四句中。又亦應言諸佛．羅漢舍壽行故。而不言者非枉橫緣故。以作論者據枉橫緣故。婆沙二十俱非句中言。彼作論者。顯有橫死故作是說。佛雖財．壽俱未盡故而般涅槃。然非橫死。邊際定力所成辨故　正理破此論云。不應復言舍壽行故。義已攝在初句中故　正理意說。舍壽行者引感壽業令感富樂。即是感壽業盡故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：未隨。恒常執行而不停止。就像鳥銜著果實一樣。

『彼體一故至無差別故者』。論主通過比量來破斥。先提出兩個原因，然後提出宗和比喻。『彼行體一故』，這是一個原因。『無障礙故』，是第二個原因。放箭的時候，箭往其他方向飛去，開始時快，中間慢，最後到達。這三個階段的速度差別不應該存在。開始的時候應該不快，因為執行的本體是一樣的，就像中間和最後階段一樣。中間階段的時候應該不慢，因為執行的本體是一樣的，就像開始和最後階段一樣。最後階段的時候應該不能到達，因為執行的本體是一樣的，就像開始和中間階段一樣。

又反駁說，最後階段的時候應該不會墜落，因為沒有障礙，就像開始階段一樣。勝論派辯解說這是不成過，因為最後階段的墜落是因為風的阻礙。如果說是因為風的阻礙，那麼又反駁說，這支箭在開始階段就應該墜落，因為能阻礙的風沒有差別，就像最後階段一樣。這支箭在最後階段應該不會墜落，因為能阻礙的風沒有差別，就像開始階段一樣。『有別實物至是說為善者』。論主認可了說一切有部的觀點。

『為壽盡故死為更有餘因者』。這是第二個問答的分別。這就是提問。

『施設論說至枉橫緣故者』。回答。引用施設足論的四句差別，其中的文句可以理解。

『又亦應言舍壽行故者』。論主解釋說，在第四句中，『又亦應言諸佛（Buddha，覺悟者）.羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢）舍壽行故』，但是沒有這樣說，是因為不是枉橫的緣故。因為作論者是根據枉橫的緣故。婆沙二十俱非句中說，那位作論者，是爲了說明有橫死的情況才這樣說的。佛（Buddha，覺悟者）雖然財富和壽命都沒有窮盡，但是卻般涅槃（Parinirvana，圓寂），這不是橫死，而是邊際定力所成就的。正理派反駁這個觀點說，不應該再說『舍壽行故』，因為這個意思已經包含在第一句中了。正理派的意思是說，舍壽行的人引導感得壽命的業力，從而感得富樂，也就是感得壽命的業力已經窮盡了。

【English Translation】 English version: Not following. Constantly moving without ceasing. Like a bird carrying fruit in its beak.

'彼體一故至無差別故者 (pǐ tǐ yī gù zhì wú chābié gù zhě)' (Because its substance is one, therefore there is no difference). The author of the treatise refutes by means of inference. First, he presents two reasons, then he presents the proposition and the analogy. '彼行體一故 (bǐ xíng tǐ yī gù)' (Because its movement's substance is one), this is one reason. '無障礙故 (wú zhàng'ài gù)' (Because there is no obstruction), is the second reason. When an arrow is shot, it travels in other directions, initially fast, then slow in the middle, and finally arriving. These three stages of speed difference should not exist. The initial stage should not be fast, because the substance of the movement is the same, like the middle and final stages. The middle stage should not be slow, because the substance of the movement is the same, like the initial and final stages. The final stage should not arrive, because the substance of the movement is the same, like the initial and middle stages.

Furthermore, it is refuted that the final stage should not fall, because there is no obstruction, like the initial stage. The Vaisheshika school defends by saying that this is not an unestablished reason, because the fall in the final stage is due to the obstruction of the wind. If it is said that it is due to the obstruction of the wind, then it is further refuted that this arrow should fall immediately in the initial stage, because the wind that can obstruct is no different, like the final stage. This arrow should not fall in the final stage, because the wind that can obstruct is no different, like the initial stage. '有別實物至是說為善者 (yǒu bié shíwù zhì shì shuō wèi shàn zhě)' (Having separate real entities is said to be good). The author of the treatise approves the view of the Sarvastivada school.

'為壽盡故死為更有餘因者 (wèi shòu jìn gù sǐ wèi gèng yǒu yú yīn zhě)' (Is death due to the exhaustion of lifespan or are there other causes?). This is the distinction of the second question and answer. This is the question.

'施設論說至枉橫緣故者 (shīshè lùn shuō zhì wǎnghéng yuán gù zhě)' (The Abhidharma states that it is due to wrongful causes). The answer. Quoting the four-fold distinction of the Abhidharma-pada-sastra, the sentences therein can be understood.

'又亦應言舍壽行故者 (yòu yì yīng yán shě shòu xíng gù zhě)' (Also, it should be said that it is due to abandoning the life-sustaining actions). The author of the treatise explains that in the fourth sentence, 'Also, it should be said that the Buddhas (Buddha, the awakened one) and Arhats (Arhat, worthy ones) abandon the life-sustaining actions', but it is not said, because it is not due to wrongful causes. Because the author of the treatise is based on wrongful causes. The Vibhasa says in the sentence of twenty non-concurrent conditions, that the author of that treatise said this to explain the situation of accidental death. Although the Buddha's (Buddha, the awakened one) wealth and lifespan were not exhausted, he entered Parinirvana (Parinirvana, complete nirvana), but this was not an accidental death, but was accomplished by the power of the ultimate concentration. The Nyaya school refutes this view, saying that it should not be said 'abandoning the life-sustaining actions', because this meaning is already included in the first sentence. The meaning of the Nyaya school is that those who abandon the life-sustaining actions guide the karma that brings about lifespan, thereby experiencing wealth and happiness, which means that the karma that brings about lifespan has been exhausted.

應名壽盡故死。非福盡故死　俱舍師救云。故促壽死非為壽盡。如何可在初句攝。又違婆沙說佛財．壽俱未盡故第四句攝。意違俱舍何斯反害自宗。

壽盡位中至俱盡故死者。重釋第三句。二業中感壽業勝。于第三句壽盡死中。福盡于死雖復無能。以壽盡時自然死故。然說為俱盡故死者。為壽盡時福亦盡故。故俱盡時有死說為俱盡故死　又解通伏難。伏難意云。福盡壽未盡容有受苦而活。壽盡福未盡必無更活。故知俱盡之時。福盡于死無能。應言壽盡故死。不應言福盡故死。為通斯難故有此文。福盡于死實無功能。但為于俱盡位有死。說為俱盡故死。

發智論說至彼言何義者。此舉發智文責其說意　問如下俱非害中欲界說有多種。一起便住義與彼同。何故但說無想．滅定　解云二定攝無心全。是故別說。余各有心少分。是故不說　又解二定不損壽命。是故別說。如人應受百年命根。至年五十入彼二定。設經千年方始出定。不食段食還更受餘五十年命。余即損命故不別說　問入二定經多時命。是何業果耶　解云準前延命。或是入定前遠加行。欲界善思現業果。或是殘業果。或是不定業果　又解由定力資過去業令引命長。然更勘文。又婆沙一百五十一云。問欲界不入二無心定。亦有不隨緣轉。何故不說。答應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『應名壽盡故死。非福盡故死』，俱舍論師救釋說：『所以說是壽命將盡而死，並非因為福報耗盡而死。』如何能包含在第一句中呢？又與《婆沙論》所說『佛的財富和壽命都未耗盡』相違背，所以包含在第四句中。這與《俱舍論》的觀點相悖，為何要這樣損害自己的宗派呢？

『壽盡位中至俱盡故死者』，這是對第三句的重新解釋。在兩種業力中，感得壽命的業力更為殊勝。在第三句『壽盡死』中，福報耗盡對於死亡雖然沒有作用，但因為壽命將盡時自然會死。然而，說『俱盡故死』，是因為壽命將盡時福報也耗盡了。所以，在俱盡之時有死亡，才說為『俱盡故死』。又解釋是爲了消除疑問。疑問是說，福報耗盡而壽命未盡，可能還有受苦而活的機會；壽命耗盡而福報未盡，必定沒有再活的機會。所以知道在俱盡之時，福報耗盡對於死亡沒有作用，應該說『壽盡故死』，不應該說『福盡故死』。爲了消除這個疑問，所以有這段文字。福報耗盡對於死亡確實沒有作用，但因為在俱盡的狀態下有死亡，所以才說為『俱盡故死』。

『發智論說至彼言何義者』，這是引用《發智論》的文字來責問其說法的含義。問：如下文中『俱非害』中，欲界說有多種情況。『一起便住』的含義與此相同，為何只說無想定（Asamjna-samapatti，無所有想的禪定）和滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，斷滅一切感受和思想的禪定）呢？解釋說：這兩種禪定涵蓋了全部無心狀態，所以特別說明。其餘的禪定各自都有部分有心狀態，所以沒有說明。又解釋說：這兩種禪定不損害壽命，所以特別說明。比如一個人應該有百年的壽命，到五十歲時進入這兩種禪定，即使經過一千年才出定，不食用段食（kavala，即通常的食物），還能再活五十年。其餘的情況會損害壽命，所以不特別說明。問：進入這兩種禪定經過很長時間，壽命是何種業的果報呢？解釋說：按照之前的說法，是延長壽命的業。或者是入定前長期修習欲界善思的現行業果報，或者是殘餘的業果，或者是不定業的果報。又解釋說：由禪定的力量資助過去的業力，使之延長壽命。然而，還需要進一步考證原文。又《婆沙論》第一百五十一卷說：問：欲界不進入兩種無心定，也有不隨因緣轉變的情況，為何不說呢？回答應……

【English Translation】 English version:

'It should be named death due to the exhaustion of lifespan. Not death due to the exhaustion of merit.' The Kosa master rescues and explains: 'Therefore, it is said to die because lifespan is about to end, not because merit is exhausted.' How can it be included in the first sentence? Furthermore, it contradicts the Sarvastivada's statement that 'the Buddha's wealth and lifespan were not exhausted,' so it is included in the fourth sentence. This contradicts the view of the Abhidharmakosa; why harm one's own school in this way?

'In the state of lifespan exhaustion, up to death due to the exhaustion of both,' this is a re-explanation of the third sentence. Among the two karmas, the karma that causes lifespan is more superior. In the third sentence, 'death due to lifespan exhaustion,' although the exhaustion of merit has no effect on death, it is because one naturally dies when lifespan is about to end. However, it is said 'death due to the exhaustion of both' because merit is also exhausted when lifespan is about to end. Therefore, there is death at the time of the exhaustion of both, so it is said to be 'death due to the exhaustion of both.' Another explanation is to eliminate doubts. The doubt is that if merit is exhausted but lifespan is not, there may still be a chance to live while suffering; if lifespan is exhausted but merit is not, there is certainly no chance to live again. Therefore, it is known that at the time of the exhaustion of both, the exhaustion of merit has no effect on death, and it should be said 'death due to lifespan exhaustion,' not 'death due to merit exhaustion.' To eliminate this doubt, there is this passage. The exhaustion of merit indeed has no effect on death, but because there is death in the state of the exhaustion of both, it is said to be 'death due to the exhaustion of both.'

'The Abhidharma-jnana-prasthana-sastra says, up to 'what is the meaning of that statement?'' This is quoting the text of the Abhidharma-jnana-prasthana-sastra to question the meaning of its statement. Question: In the following text, in 'neither harmful,' the desire realm is said to have various situations. The meaning of 'arising and then abiding' is the same as this; why only mention Asamjna-samapatti (the meditative attainment of non-perception) and Nirodha-samapatti (the meditative attainment of cessation)? The explanation is that these two samapattis cover the entire state of no-mind, so they are specifically mentioned. The remaining samapattis each have a partial state of mind, so they are not mentioned. Another explanation is that these two samapattis do not harm lifespan, so they are specifically mentioned. For example, if a person should have a lifespan of one hundred years, and enters these two samapattis at the age of fifty, even if they emerge from the samapattis after a thousand years, without consuming kavala (ordinary food), they can still live for another fifty years. The remaining situations harm lifespan, so they are not specifically mentioned. Question: Entering these two samapattis for a long time, what kind of karma is the result of lifespan? The explanation is that, according to the previous statement, it is the karma of prolonging lifespan. Or it is the present karma result of practicing good thoughts in the desire realm for a long time before entering samapatti, or it is the result of residual karma, or the result of indeterminate karma. Another explanation is that the power of samapatti supports past karma, causing it to prolong lifespan. However, the original text needs to be further examined. Furthermore, the 151st volume of the Sarvastivada says: Question: In the desire realm, without entering the two mindlessness samapattis, there are also situations that do not change according to conditions; why not mention them? The answer should be...

說。而不說者。當知此義有餘。有說。此中說決定者。謂若住二無心定。壽行決定不隨緣轉。余或隨緣是故不說。有說欲界雖復更有不隨緣轉。然為顯示二定威力故偏說之。

若所依身至一起便住者。論主答。所依色身名相續也。故婆沙云。有說色身名為相續。謂生欲界不住無想滅盡等至。壽隨色身相續而轉。所以者何。若身平和壽則無夭。若身損壞壽則中夭。

迦濕彌羅國至有非時死者。第二毗婆沙師解。初隨相續轉顯壽有障。后一起便住顯壽無障。由此決定有非時死。

故契經說至自般涅槃故者。引經證成。就四句中前三句顯隨相續轉。第四句顯一起便住。此釋第一句　戲忘念天。謂耽著嬉戲。身心疲勞意念忘失。由喜增上故於彼殞歿　意憤恚天。謂意發起增上憤恚。以怨恨心角眼相視。久憤不息于彼殞歿。此二。或是四天王天。或是三十三天。故婆沙一百九十九問此二天云。問如是諸天住在何處。有說住妙高層級。有說彼是三十三天　此初句中又應說諸佛。促壽自般涅槃故。此且略標。非皆遍舉。故婆沙一百五十一于初句中又云。復有一類或龍．妙翅或鬼．及人．或復所餘可為自害非他害者。

唯可他害至諸有情類者。釋第二句。此是略標。非皆遍舉。故婆沙第二句中又云。復有一類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：說與不說之間，應當明白，此中含義有所保留。若論及其中決定不變的情況，指的是安住在二無心定（指無想定和滅盡定）中的眾生，他們的壽命和業行是決定不變的，不隨因緣而轉移。其餘情況或許會隨因緣而變，所以不作討論。也有說法認為，即使在欲界，也存在不隨因緣而轉移的情況，但爲了彰顯二無心定的強大力量，所以特別提出來。

如果所依之身一旦形成便能保持住，那麼壽命是否也是如此？論主回答說，所依的色身被稱為相續。所以《大毗婆沙論》中說，有人認為色身就叫做相續，指的是生在欲界的眾生，他們不能安住在無想定和滅盡等至中，壽命隨著色身的相續而轉移。這是為什麼呢？如果身體平和，壽命就不會夭折；如果身體損壞，壽命就會中途夭折。

迦濕彌羅國的論師認為，存在非時死亡的情況。第二位毗婆沙師解釋說，最初的『隨相續轉』顯示壽命存在障礙，後來的『一起便住』顯示壽命沒有障礙。由此可以確定存在非時死亡。

因此，契經中說，（有些眾生）因自身原因而般涅槃。這裡引用經文來證明。在四句偈中，前三句顯示了隨相續轉的情況，第四句顯示了一起便住的情況。這裡解釋第一句：『戲忘念天』，指的是沉迷於嬉戲，身心疲勞，意念忘失的天人。由於喜樂過度，所以在那裡殞歿。『意憤恚天』，指的是心中生起強烈的憤恨，以怨恨的眼神互相瞪視，長久憤恨不息，最終在那裡殞歿。這兩種天，或許是四天王天，或許是三十三天。所以《大毗婆沙論》第一百九十九問中問及這兩種天時說：『這些天人住在哪裡？』有人說住在妙高山的層級上，也有人說他們是三十三天。在第一句中，還應該提到諸佛，因為他們會縮短壽命而自行般涅槃。這裡只是簡略地提一下，並非全部列舉。所以《大毗婆沙論》第一百五十一條在第一句中又說：『還有一類，或許是龍、妙翅鳥、鬼、人，或者其他可以自害而非他害的眾生。』

『只能被他人所害』，指的是各類有情眾生。這裡解釋第二句。這也是簡略地提一下，並非全部列舉。所以《大毗婆沙論》第二句中又說：『還有一類……』

【English Translation】 English version: When something is said and something is not said, one should understand that there is something left unsaid in this meaning. Regarding what is definitively stated, it refers to beings dwelling in the two non-mind Samadhis (Asamjñāsamāpatti and Nirodhasamāpatti), whose lifespan and actions are fixed and do not change according to conditions. Other situations may change according to conditions, so they are not discussed. Some also say that even in the Desire Realm, there are situations that do not change according to conditions, but to highlight the power of the two non-mind Samadhis, they are specifically mentioned.

If the physical body upon which one relies remains stable once formed, does the lifespan also remain stable? The master responds that the physical body upon which one relies is called continuity (saṃtāna). Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says that some consider the physical body to be continuity, referring to beings born in the Desire Realm who cannot dwell in the non-perception Samadhi (Asamjñāsamāpatti) and cessation attainment (Nirodhasamāpatti). Their lifespan changes with the continuity of the physical body. Why is this? If the body is peaceful, the lifespan will not be cut short. If the body is damaged, the lifespan will be cut short prematurely.

The scholars of Kashmir believe that there are cases of untimely death. The second Vibhāṣā master explains that the initial 'changes with continuity' shows that lifespan has obstacles, while the later 'remains stable once formed' shows that lifespan has no obstacles. From this, it can be determined that there are cases of untimely death.

Therefore, the sutras say that (some beings) attain Parinirvana due to their own causes. This quotes the sutras to prove it. In the four-line verse, the first three lines show the situation of changing with continuity, and the fourth line shows the situation of remaining stable once formed. Here, the first line is explained: 'The gods of play and forgetfulness' (krīḍāpramatta), refers to the gods who are addicted to play, whose bodies and minds are exhausted, and whose thoughts are lost. Due to excessive joy, they perish there. 'The gods of anger and resentment' (manopadoṣika), refers to the gods who generate strong anger in their minds, glare at each other with resentment, and perish there after prolonged anger. These two types of gods may be from the Heaven of the Four Kings (Cāturmahārājika) or the Heaven of the Thirty-three (Trāyastriṃśa). Therefore, question 199 of the Mahāvibhāṣā asks about these two types of gods: 'Where do these gods dwell?' Some say they dwell on the levels of Mount Meru, and others say they are the Thirty-three Heavens. In the first line, the Buddhas should also be mentioned, because they shorten their lifespan and attain Parinirvana themselves. This is just a brief mention, not an exhaustive list. Therefore, question 151 of the Mahāvibhāṣā also says in the first line: 'There are also those who are dragons, Garudas, ghosts, humans, or others who can harm themselves but not others.'

'Can only be harmed by others,' refers to all sentient beings (sarvasattvāḥ). This explains the second line. This is also a brief mention, not an exhaustive list. Therefore, the second line of the Mahāvibhāṣā also says: 'There are also...'

或龍．妙翅．或鬼．及人．或復所餘。可為他害非自害者俱。

可害者至欲界有情者。釋第三句。隨其所應思之可解。此且略舉。非皆遍舉。故婆沙第三句中又云。謂諸禽獸．或龍．妙翅．或鬼．及人．或復所餘。可為自害亦他害者。

俱非害者至輪王胎時者。釋第四句。中有必須待緣受生。故非害也。色．無色無殺業也　又解中有．色界身殊妙故。俱不可害。于無色界無色身故。亦不可害　那落迦惡業所繫非害能死　北俱盧洲定受千年。又無殺業　見道十五剎那必無中夭。出慈定為欲利樂勝故　滅定．無想由定力故。並非俱害　王仙謂轉輪王舍家修道。具足五通名曰王仙　又解謂輪王太子。既灌頂已。先應學習故晉仙王所行梵行。故謂王仙。以彼當紹輪王位故。亦非俱害　佛使。謂佛所使人。由佛使力故作事未終亦非俱害。如時縛迦此云活命。善療眾病能活命故。舊云耆婆。或云耆域訛也。佛遣入火抱取殊底穡迦。此云有明。舊曰樹提迦訛也。彼之父母其家巨富年老無子。忽因懷孕問諸外道。咸言是女而不長命。及其問佛佛記是男長年具德。外道無識方便藥中。母喪焚軀子安無損。佛遣活命入火抱取。有明由佛記力故不死。活命由佛使故不死。委說如經　準婆沙一百五十一。達弭羅等五人。皆是佛所記

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本或者龍（Nāga，一種蛇神），或者妙翅（Garuda，一種金翅鳥），或者鬼（Preta，一種餓鬼），以及人，或者其他眾生。這些都是可以被其他眾生傷害，但不是自己會去傷害其他眾生的。

『可害者』指的是欲界有情眾生。這是對第三句的解釋。根據他們各自的情況思考，就可以理解。這裡只是簡略地舉例，並非全部列舉。所以《婆沙論》在第三句中又說：『指的是各種禽獸，或者龍，妙翅，或者鬼，以及人，或者其他眾生。』這些眾生既可以自己傷害自己，也可以傷害其他眾生。

『俱非害者』指的是到轉輪王（Chakravartin，統治世界的理想君主）投胎的時候。這是對第四句的解釋。因為中有（Antarābhava，死亡到再生的過渡期）必須等待因緣才能受生，所以不會被傷害。色界（Rūpadhātu，有物質存在的境界）和無色界（Arūpadhātu，沒有物質存在的境界）沒有殺業。

另一種解釋是，中有之身非常殊妙，所以不會被傷害。在無想（Asañjñā，沒有思想的狀態）和無色界，因為沒有色身，所以也不會被傷害。那落迦（Naraka，地獄）的眾生被惡業束縛，不是被傷害致死。北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以幸福長壽著稱）的眾生註定要活一千年，而且沒有殺業。見道（Darśanamārga，證悟的第一階段）的十五個剎那（Kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）中，必定不會中途夭折。出慈定（Maitrī-samādhi，慈悲禪定）是爲了利益眾生而殊勝的緣故。

滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti，一種高級禪定狀態）和無想定（Asamjñā-samāpatti，一種禪定狀態）由於禪定的力量，所以並非『俱害』。王仙指的是轉輪王捨棄王位出家修道，具足五神通，被稱為王仙。另一種解釋是指轉輪王的太子，既然已經舉行了灌頂儀式，就應該先學習晉仙王所修行的梵行（Brahmacarya，清凈的行為），所以被稱為王仙。因為他將要繼承轉輪王的位置，所以也不是『俱害』。

佛使指的是被佛陀派遣的人。由於佛陀的加持力，所以事情沒有完成也不會被傷害。例如時縛迦（Śivaka），這裡翻譯為『活命』，因為他善於治療各種疾病，能夠活命。舊譯為耆婆（Jīvaka），或者耆域，是訛傳。佛陀派遣他進入火中抱取殊底穡迦（Śrutika），這裡翻譯為『有明』，舊譯為樹提迦，是訛傳。他的父母是巨富，年老沒有兒子，忽然懷孕，詢問各種外道，都說是個女孩，而且不會長命。等到他們問佛陀，佛陀預言是個男孩，會長壽而且具有德行。外道沒有見識，在藥中做了手腳，母親死了，焚燒屍體，孩子卻安然無恙。佛陀派遣活命進入火中抱取有明，有明因為佛陀的預言而沒有死，活命因為佛陀的派遣而沒有死。詳細的敘述在經中。根據《婆沙論》第一百五十一卷，達弭羅（Dāmila）等五個人，都是佛陀所預言的。

【English Translation】 English version Or Nāgas (Nāga, serpent deities), or Garudas (Garuda, mythical bird-like creatures), or Pretas (Preta, hungry ghosts), and humans, or other beings. These are all those who can be harmed by other beings, but do not harm others themselves.

'Those who can be harmed' refers to sentient beings in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu). This is an explanation of the third sentence. Understanding can be achieved by contemplating their respective situations. This is just a brief example, not an exhaustive list. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) also states in the third sentence: 'Refers to various birds and beasts, or Nāgas, Garudas, or Pretas, and humans, or other beings.' These beings can harm themselves as well as harm others.

'Those who are not harmed' refers to the time of rebirth as a Chakravartin (Chakravartin, an ideal universal ruler). This is an explanation of the fourth sentence. Because the Antarābhava (Antarābhava, the intermediate state between death and rebirth) must await conditions to be reborn, it is not harmed. The form realm (Rūpadhātu, the realm of material existence) and the formless realm (Arūpadhātu, the realm of immaterial existence) have no karma of killing.

Another explanation is that the body of the Antarābhava is very special, so it cannot be harmed. In the non-perception (Asañjñā, state of non-perception) and formless realms, because there is no material body, it also cannot be harmed. Beings in Naraka (Naraka, hell) are bound by evil karma and do not die from being harmed. Beings in Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru, one of the four continents, known for happiness and longevity) are destined to live for a thousand years and have no karma of killing. In the fifteen Kṣaṇas (Kṣaṇa, extremely short unit of time) of the path of seeing (Darśanamārga, the first stage of enlightenment), there will definitely be no premature death. Emerging from the Maitrī-samādhi (Maitrī-samādhi, loving-kindness meditation) is for the sake of benefiting sentient beings.

Cessation meditation (Nirodha-samāpatti, an advanced state of meditation) and non-perception meditation (Asamjñā-samāpatti, a state of meditation) are not 'harmed' due to the power of meditation. 'King Immortal' refers to a Chakravartin who renounces the throne and practices the Dharma, possessing the five supernormal powers, and is called 'King Immortal'. Another explanation refers to the crown prince of a Chakravartin. Since he has already undergone the coronation ceremony, he should first learn the pure conduct (Brahmacarya, pure conduct) practiced by the previous King Immortal, so he is called 'King Immortal'. Because he will inherit the position of Chakravartin, he is also not 'harmed'.

'Buddha's messenger' refers to someone sent by the Buddha. Because of the Buddha's power, they will not be harmed before the task is completed. For example, Śivaka (Śivaka), here translated as 'Lifesaver', because he is good at treating various diseases and can save lives. The old translation is Jīvaka (Jīvaka), or Jīvaka, which is a corruption. The Buddha sent him into the fire to retrieve Śrutika (Śrutika), here translated as 'Enlightened', the old translation is Tree-Tika, which is a corruption. His parents were very wealthy, old and had no children. Suddenly, they became pregnant and asked various heretics, who all said it was a girl and would not live long. When they asked the Buddha, the Buddha predicted it was a boy, who would be long-lived and virtuous. The heretics, lacking knowledge, tampered with the medicine, the mother died, and the body was cremated, but the child was unharmed. The Buddha sent Lifesaver into the fire to retrieve Enlightened. Enlightened did not die because of the Buddha's prediction, and Lifesaver did not die because of the Buddha's mission. The detailed account is in the sutra. According to the Vibhāṣā, volume 151, Dāmila (Dāmila) and the other five people were all predicted by the Buddha.

別。達弭。此云有法。羅。此云取。于有法神邊乞取從所乞神為名故名有法取。是長者子　嗢怛羅。此云上勝。亦是長者子。

殑耆。是河神名。羅名攝受。父母憐子從神立名。我子為殑耆神之所攝受。余惡鬼神不能害也。若女聲中呼名殑耆。若男聲中呼名殑伽。舊曰恒河訛也　長者子耶舍。耶舍此云名稱。投佛出家。夜度深流安然無損　鳩摩羅時婆。鳩摩羅此言童子。時婆此云活命。名活命童子。

最後身菩薩。謂王宮所生身也。必定成佛。所作未辦故。及此菩薩母懷菩薩胎時。菩薩福力故令母無損。一切轉輪王勝業持故　及此輪王母懷輪王時。輪王福力故令母無損　此且略標非皆遍舉。故婆沙第四句中。于佛所記中更說有殊底穡迦　又云。住最後有補特迦羅所作未辦。劫初時人。哀羅伐拏龍王．善住龍王琰摩王等。及餘一類俱不害者。

若爾何故至受生有情者。論主引經難。毗婆沙師若說俱非害中。色．無色界一切有情並非俱害。何故經中唯說有頂。

傳說所餘至俱非可害者。答。毗婆沙師傳說。所餘三無色．四靜慮所得自體。可為自．上二道所害。有頂自．上二害俱無。約此說為俱非可害。

豈不有頂至應名他害者。論主難殺。

如是應說至樂生天者。論主釋經經言有頂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：別。達弭（Bie. Da Mi）：這裡的意思是『有法』。羅（Luo）：這裡的意思是『取』。在有法神那裡乞取，因為所乞的神而得名，所以叫做有法取。這是長者子。

嗢怛羅（Wu Da Luo）：這裡的意思是『上勝』。也是長者子。

殑耆（Qing Qi）：是河神的名字。羅（Luo）的意思是攝受。父母憐愛孩子，所以從神的名字來命名。我的孩子被殑耆神所攝受，其他的惡鬼神不能夠加害。如果在女聲中呼喚，名字是殑耆（Qing Qi），如果在男聲中呼喚，名字是殑伽（Qing Qie）。舊時所說的恒河是訛傳。

長者子耶舍（Ye She）：耶舍（Ye She）這裡的意思是『名稱』。投奔佛陀出家，夜晚渡過深流，安然無損。

鳩摩羅時婆（Jiu Mo Luo Shi Po）：鳩摩羅（Jiu Mo Luo）這裡的意思是『童子』。時婆（Shi Po）這裡的意思是『活命』。名字是活命童子。

最後身菩薩：指的是在王宮出生的菩薩。必定成佛。因為所作的事情還沒有完成。以及這位菩薩的母親懷菩薩胎的時候，因為菩薩的福力，使得母親沒有損傷。一切轉輪王都具有殊勝的行業。

以及這位輪王的母親懷輪王的時候，因為輪王的福力，使得母親沒有損傷。這裡只是簡略地標出，並非全部列舉。所以在《婆沙論》第四句中，在佛陀所記述的事情中，還說了有殊底穡迦（Shu Di Se Jia）。

又說，住在最後有（Bhavāgra）的補特伽羅（Pudgala），所作的事情還沒有完成。劫初時候的人，哀羅伐拏（Airāvaṇa）龍王、善住龍王、琰摩（Yama）王等，以及其他一類不會加害眾生的。

如果這樣，為什麼會到受生的有情呢？論主引用經文來發難。毗婆沙師如果說都是非加害的，那麼色界、無色界一切有情並非都是加害的。為什麼經文中只說有頂（Bhavāgra）呢？

傳說其餘的直到都是非可害的。回答：毗婆沙師傳說，其餘的三無色、四靜慮所得到的自體，可以被自道、上道這二道所害。有頂（Bhavāgra）自道、上道這二害都沒有，根據這個來說都是非可害的。

難道有頂（Bhavāgra）直到應該叫做他害者嗎？論主責難殺害。

應該這樣說直到樂生天的人。論主解釋經文，經文說有頂（Bhavāgra）。

【English Translation】 English version: Bie. Da Mi: Here it means 'possessing Dharma'. Luo: Here it means 'to take'. Begging from the Dharma-possessing deity, named after the deity from whom it was begged, hence called Dharma-possessing Take. This is a son of a householder.

Wu Da Luo: Here it means 'supreme victory'. Also a son of a householder.

Qing Qi: This is the name of a river deity. Luo means to embrace and protect. Parents love their child, so they name him after the deity. My child is embraced and protected by the Qing Qi deity, and other evil spirits cannot harm him. If called in a female voice, the name is Qing Qi; if called in a male voice, the name is Qing Qie. The old saying 'Heng He' (恒河) is a corruption.

Householder's son Ye She: Ye She here means 'name' or 'reputation'. He joined the Buddha's order and crossed the deep river at night unharmed.

Jiu Mo Luo Shi Po: Jiu Mo Luo here means 'child'. Shi Po here means 'living'. The name is Living Child.

The Bodhisattva in his last life: Refers to the body born in the royal palace. He will definitely become a Buddha because the work to be done is not yet finished. And when this Bodhisattva's mother was pregnant with the Bodhisattva, due to the Bodhisattva's blessings, the mother suffered no harm. All Chakravartin kings possess superior karma.

And when this Chakravartin king's mother was pregnant with the Chakravartin king, due to the Chakravartin king's blessings, the mother suffered no harm. This is just a brief indication, not an exhaustive list. Therefore, in the fourth sentence of the Vibhasa, it is further said in the Buddha's records that there is Shu Di Se Jia.

It is also said that the Pudgala (individual) who dwells in the Bhavāgra (the peak of existence), the work to be done is not yet finished. People from the beginning of the kalpa, the Airāvaṇa Dragon King, the Good Dwelling Dragon King, Yama King, etc., and other beings who do not harm others.

If so, why do they come to sentient beings who are subject to rebirth? The master of the treatise raises a difficulty by quoting the sutra. If the Vibhasa master says that all are non-harmful, then all sentient beings in the Form Realm and Formless Realm are not all harmful. Why does the sutra only mention Bhavāgra (the peak of existence)?

It is said that the rest are until all are non-harmful. Answer: The Vibhasa master says that the remaining three Formless Realms and the self obtained from the four Dhyanas can be harmed by the self-path and the upper path. Bhavāgra (the peak of existence) has neither self-harm nor upper-harm. Based on this, it is said that all are non-harmful.

Isn't Bhavāgra (the peak of existence) until it should be called a harmer of others? The master of the treatise challenges the killing.

It should be said in this way until those who are happy to be born in the heavens. The master of the treatise explains the sutra, and the sutra says Bhavāgra (the peak of existence).

俱非害者。如是應說。舉後有頂顯初三無色．及四靜慮　如或已下引例可知。

彼經如聲至不可例彼者。外難。所引經中。有其如聲可顯喻義。舉一顯余。此舍利子經無有如聲。不可例彼梵眾經等。

若顯喻義至亦有如聲者。論主反難。七識住經中。第一識住雖非顯喻亦有如聲。故知如聲非定顯喻。

傍論且止者。論主止諍。

已辨命根至生住異滅性者。此下大文第六明四相。就中。一明相體。二通外難　就明相體中。一明本相。二明隨相。此即明本相也　相是牒章　謂已下正釋　因緣造作名為。色．心等法從因緣生。有彼為故名曰有為　有為非一名諸　此諸有為是相所託。相是標相。即能表示諸有為法體是有為各有別體名性。相不孤起必托於法　具足應言諸有為之生性。乃至諸有為之滅性。

論曰至性是體義者。就長行中。初釋頌本。后問答分別。此釋頌也。由此四種是有為法之標相故。法若有此相應是有為攝。與此相違是無為法。此宗諸法體皆本有。四相於法但望用說。非據體論　此中於法能起彼用令入現在。說名為生。若無生相。諸有為法。如虛空等應本不生　至現在已。住令彼用暫時安住各引自果。故名為住。若無住相諸法暫住。應更不能引于自果　若任住力數令引果。由異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本並非兩者都沒有損害。應該這樣說。舉出後有頂天（Bhavagra，色界最高的禪定境界）是爲了顯示初禪到第三禪的無色界，以及四種靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）。至於『如或已下』，可以引用例子來理解。

『彼經如聲至不可例彼者』，這是外人的詰難。所引用的經文中，有『如』這個詞可以顯示比喻的意義，舉出一個就可以顯示其餘的。而這部《舍利子經》中沒有『如』這個詞，所以不能像梵眾天經等那樣類比。

『若顯喻義至亦有如聲者』，論主反駁。在《七識住經》中，第一識住雖然不是顯喻，但也有『如』這個詞，因此可知『如』這個詞並非一定是顯喻。

『傍論且止者』，論主停止爭論。

『已辨命根至生住異滅性者』，這以下是正文的第六部分，闡明四相（四種有為法的特性）。其中，第一部分闡明相的本體，第二部分解釋對外來的詰難。在闡明相的本體中，第一部分闡明根本的相，第二部分闡明隨順的相。這裡闡明的是根本的相。『相是牒章』，相是重複章節的標題。『謂已下正釋』，以下是正式的解釋。『因緣造作名為』，色法、心法等從因緣而生，因為它們的存在而被稱為『有為』。『有為非一名諸』，這些有為法是相所依託的。相是標示相，也就是能夠表示諸有為法的本體是有為的，各有不同的本體，這叫做『性』。相不是孤立產生的，必定依託於法。『具足應言諸有為之生性』，應該完整地說，諸有為法的生性，乃至諸有為法的滅性。

『論曰至性是體義者』，在長行文中，首先解釋頌文的根本含義，然後通過問答進行分別。這裡是解釋頌文。由於這四種是有為法的標相，所以如果法具有這些相，就屬於有為法。與此相反的就是無為法。這個宗派認為諸法的本體都是本來就存在的，四相對於法而言，只是從作用上來說，而不是從本體上來說。這裡，對於法而言，能夠引發那個作用，使其進入現在的狀態，這叫做『生』。如果沒有生相，那麼諸有為法，就像虛空一樣，應該本來就不會產生。到達現在的狀態之後，『住』使那個作用暫時安住，各自引出自己的結果，所以叫做『住』。如果沒有住相，諸法暫時安住，應該不能再引出自己的結果。如果憑藉住的力量，不斷地引出結果，由於『異』

【English Translation】 English version Neither is harmed. Thus it should be said. The mention of Bhavagra (the peak of existence, the highest realm of form) highlights the first three formless realms and the four Dhyanas (meditative absorptions). As for 'as or below', examples can be cited for understanding.

'The sutra with 'as' cannot be compared to that one' - this is an external objection. In the cited sutra, there is the word 'as' which can show the meaning of metaphor, and mentioning one can reveal the rest. But this Shariputra Sutra does not have the word 'as', so it cannot be compared to the Brahma Net Sutra and others.

'If the meaning of metaphor even has the word 'as'' - the treatise master refutes. In the Sutra on the Seven Stations of Consciousness, the first station of consciousness, although not a metaphor, also has the word 'as', so it is known that the word 'as' is not necessarily a metaphor.

'Let the side discussion stop' - the treatise master stops the argument.

'Having distinguished the life faculty to the nature of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing' - below this is the sixth major section, clarifying the four characteristics (of conditioned phenomena). Among them, the first part clarifies the substance of the characteristics, and the second part explains the responses to external objections. In clarifying the substance of the characteristics, the first part clarifies the fundamental characteristics, and the second part clarifies the accompanying characteristics. Here, the fundamental characteristics are clarified. 'Characteristics are chapter headings' - characteristics are repetitions of chapter titles. 'Meaning below is the correct explanation' - below is the formal explanation. 'Causation and creation are called' - form, mind, and other dharmas arise from causes and conditions, and are called 'conditioned' because of their existence. 'Conditioned is not one name for all' - these conditioned dharmas are what the characteristics rely on. Characteristics are marking characteristics, that is, they can indicate that the substance of all conditioned dharmas is conditioned, and each has a different substance, which is called 'nature'. Characteristics do not arise in isolation, but must rely on dharmas. 'Fully it should be said the arising nature of all conditioned things' - it should be said completely, the arising nature of all conditioned dharmas, and even the ceasing nature of all conditioned dharmas.

'The treatise says that nature is the meaning of substance' - in the prose section, first the fundamental meaning of the verse is explained, and then distinctions are made through questions and answers. Here, the verse is explained. Because these four are the marking characteristics of conditioned dharmas, if a dharma has these characteristics, it belongs to conditioned dharmas. The opposite of this is unconditioned dharma. This school believes that the substance of all dharmas is originally existent, and the four characteristics are only spoken of in terms of function, not in terms of substance. Here, for a dharma, being able to initiate that function, causing it to enter the present state, is called 'arising'. If there is no arising characteristic, then all conditioned dharmas, like space, should not arise in the first place. After reaching the present state, 'abiding' causes that function to temporarily abide, each drawing out its own result, so it is called 'abiding'. If there is no abiding characteristic, the dharmas temporarily abide, and should not be able to draw out their own results again. If relying on the power of abiding, results are continuously drawn out, due to 'change'

能衰彼引果用。令其不能重引自果。故名為異。若無異相。衰彼功能。何緣不能數引自果　或異相者。是行相續後異前因。若任住力。令諸行法后漸勝前。由異衰故令后劣前。雖復有法后勝於前。由別緣助摧異相能。引后勝也　異於現用既衰損已。滅復能壞彼現法用。滅入過去故名為滅。若無滅相用應不滅。用若不滅應是其常。應知此宗生相未來起用。住．異．滅三于現在世同時起用。雖復俱依一法上立。所望不同作用各別　問時之極促名一剎那。用既別世何名剎那　答婆沙三十九有二說。一說云。體雖同時用有先後。一法生滅作用究竟名一剎那。又一說云。或生滅位非一剎那。然一剎那具有三體。故說三相同一剎那。前家約用。后家約同時具有三體。各據一義。然無評家　又足一解。生用起時名一剎那。現在三相用時複名一剎那。此約用起時極促解也。

豈不經說至之有為相者。此下問答分別。此即問也。經但說三。論寧說四相。

於此經中應說有四者。答。於此經中理應說四。

不說者何者。徴。

所謂住相至有為相中者。初釋經中不說所謂住相。此師釋。經不說住者。三相過患有情易厭。故經別說。住相安住眾生難厭。故經不說　然經說住異是此異別名。約住辨異。住之異故名為住異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『異』的作用是削弱先前生起之法（引果用），使其不能再次產生自身的結果（重引自果），因此稱為『異』。如果沒有『異』的特性（異相），如何削弱其功能，使其不能多次產生自身的結果呢？或者說，『異相』是指行蘊（行）相續變化，后一刻不同於前一刻的原因。如果任由『住』的力量，使得諸行法後來的狀態逐漸勝過之前的狀態，由於『異』的衰減作用，導致後來的狀態不如之前的狀態。即使有法後來的狀態勝過之前的狀態，也是由於其他因緣的幫助，摧毀了『異相』的功能，才引發了後來的殊勝狀態。『滅』在現有的作用已經衰減之後，還能破壞那現有的法的作用。『滅』進入過去，所以稱為『滅』。如果沒有『滅』的特性，作用就不應該消失。作用如果不消失，就應該是常恒不變的。應該知道，這個宗派認為，『生相』在未來產生作用，『住』、『異』、『滅』這三種相在現在同時產生作用。雖然都依附於同一個法上而成立，但所期望的不同，作用也各自不同。問：時間極短的稱為一剎那（Kshana，極短的時間單位），作用既然有先後，為什麼稱為剎那？答：在《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）第三十九卷中有兩種說法。一種說法是：體性雖然同時，作用有先後。一個法的生滅作用完成稱為一剎那。又一種說法是：或者生滅的位置不是一剎那，然而一剎那具有三種體性，所以說三種相是同一個剎那。前一種說法側重於作用，后一種說法側重於同時具有三種體性，各自依據一個方面來解釋。然而沒有評判者。又有一種解釋：『生』的作用生起時稱為一剎那，現在三相（住、異、滅）作用時又稱為一剎那。這是從作用生起時極其短暫的角度來解釋的。難道經典不是說『有為相』嗎？以下是問答的分別。這是提問。經典只說了三種相，論為什麼說四種相？答：在這部經典中，理應說四種相。為什麼不說呢？這是征問。所謂『住相』到『有為相』中。這是最初解釋經典中沒有說『住相』。這位論師解釋說，經典不說『住相』，是因為三種相的過患容易讓有情厭惡，所以經典特別說明。『住相』安住，眾生難以厭惡，所以經典沒有說。然而經典所說的『住異』，是這個『異』的別名。通過『住』來辨別『異』，『住』的變化就稱為『住異』。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Change' (異, Yi) functions to weaken the previous arising dharma (引果用, yin guo yong), preventing it from repeatedly producing its own results (重引自果, chong yin zi guo). Therefore, it is called 'change'. If there were no characteristic of 'change' (異相, yi xiang), how could its function be weakened, preventing it from repeatedly producing its own results? Alternatively, 'change' refers to the continuous transformation of the aggregates (行, xing), where each subsequent moment differs from the previous cause. If the power of 'duration' (住, zhu) were allowed to prevail, the states of dharmas would gradually surpass their previous states. However, due to the weakening effect of 'change', the later states become inferior to the previous ones. Even if a dharma's later state surpasses its previous state, it is due to the assistance of other conditions that destroy the function of 'change', thus causing the later state to be superior. 'Cessation' (滅, Mie) can destroy the function of the present dharma after its existing function has already diminished. 'Cessation' enters the past, hence it is called 'cessation'. If there were no characteristic of 'cessation', the function should not cease. If the function does not cease, it should be permanent. It should be known that this school believes that 'birth' (生, Sheng) functions in the future, while 'duration', 'change', and 'cessation' function simultaneously in the present. Although they are all established based on the same dharma, their expectations differ, and their functions are distinct. Question: The extremely short duration is called a 'Kshana' (剎那, ji duan de shijian danwei, extremely short unit of time). Since the functions have a sequence, why is it called a Kshana? Answer: In the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙論, pōshālùn) , volume 39, there are two explanations. One explanation is: Although the nature is simultaneous, the functions have a sequence. The completion of a dharma's arising and ceasing is called a Kshana. Another explanation is: Or, the position of arising and ceasing is not a Kshana. However, a Kshana possesses three natures, so it is said that the three characteristics are the same Kshana. The former explanation emphasizes function, while the latter emphasizes the simultaneous possession of three natures, each based on one aspect. However, there is no commentator. Another explanation is: The moment when the function of 'birth' arises is called a Kshana, and the moment when the three characteristics (duration, change, and cessation) function in the present is also called a Kshana. This is explained from the perspective of the extreme brevity of the moment when the function arises. Doesn't the sutra speak of 'conditioned characteristics' (有為相, you wei xiang)? The following is a distinction between questions and answers. This is the question. The sutra only speaks of three characteristics, why does the treatise speak of four characteristics? Answer: In this sutra, it is reasonable to speak of four characteristics. Why not speak of them? This is an inquiry. So-called 'duration' to 'conditioned characteristics'. This is the initial explanation of why 'duration' is not mentioned in the sutra. This master explains that the sutra does not speak of 'duration' because the faults of the three characteristics are easily disliked by sentient beings, so the sutra specifically explains them. 'Duration' abides, and sentient beings are difficult to dislike, so the sutra does not speak of it. However, the 'change in duration' (住異, zhu yi) mentioned in the sutra is another name for this 'change'. 'Change' is distinguished through 'duration', and the change in 'duration' is called 'change in duration'.

。如生名起滅名為盡。眼目異名。如是應知。異名住異恐三相中住異之名濫彼住相。故別釋也。生力遷法令用入現。異．滅遷用令入過去。正令過去但是滅力。而言異相以助滅故。由斯過重故經說三。喻說可知。住非遷迫常樂安住為令生厭故經不說有為相中。

又無為法至故經不說者。第二釋。住濫無為故經不說。

有謂此經至名住異相者。第三釋。住．異合說故經說三。

何用如是總合說為者。問。

住是有情至四有為相者。答。為令厭住與異合說。如示黑耳與吉祥俱。為厭吉祥先示黑耳。黑耳．吉祥姊．妹二人常相隨逐。姊名吉祥。所至之處能為利益。妹為黑耳。由耳黑故故以名焉。所至之處能為衰損。愚人貪染吉祥。智者欲令厭舍先示黑耳。既見黑耳吉祥亦舍。舊云功德天．黑闇女。譯家謬矣。住．異亦爾。為令厭住與異合說。是故定有四有為相。

此生等相至生等相故者。此下明隨相問起。本相有為。應有生等。若更有相便成無窮。

應言更有至於八一有能者。上句答初問。下句通難答第二問。

論曰至由四隨相者。就長行中。初釋頌本。后廣抉擇。就釋頌本中。此釋初句。此四本相。由有隨相作標相故。故名有為。此中正明本相有為由四隨相。而言諸行有為由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：例如，『生』這個名稱的生起和『滅』這個名稱的消滅，可以被認為是不同的名稱。眼睛和目標也是不同的名稱。應該這樣理解。在『住』、『異』、『恐』這三種狀態中，『住』和『異』的名稱容易混淆，因此需要分別解釋。『生』的力量使事物進入現在的狀態，『異』的力量使事物進入過去的狀態。只有『滅』的力量才能使事物完全進入過去。但經文中提到『異』相是爲了輔助『滅』相。因為這樣有過多的重複，所以經文中只說了三種（有為相）。比喻說明了這一點。『住』不是遷變和逼迫，而是常樂安住，爲了使人厭離，所以經文中沒有說有為相。

又，因為無為法也具有『住』的性質，所以經文中沒有說『住』。（這是）第二種解釋。『住』容易與無為法混淆，所以經文中沒有說。

有人說，這部經文只說了三種有為相，而沒有說『住』和『異』，是因為『住』和『異』可以合在一起說。（這是）第三種解釋。『住』和『異』合在一起說，所以經文中只說了三種。

為什麼要這樣總合起來說呢？（這是）提問。

『住』是有情眾生所執著的，爲了使人厭離『住』，所以將『住』和『異』合在一起說。就像展示黑耳朵和吉祥同時出現一樣。爲了厭惡吉祥，先展示黑耳朵。黑耳朵和吉祥是姐妹兩人，經常在一起。姐姐名叫吉祥，她所到的地方能帶來利益。妹妹名叫黑耳朵，因為耳朵是黑色的，所以這樣稱呼她。她所到的地方會帶來衰敗和損害。愚蠢的人貪戀吉祥，聰明的人想要讓人厭惡捨棄吉祥，所以先展示黑耳朵。既然看到了黑耳朵，吉祥也會被捨棄。過去有人說這是功德天和黑暗女，翻譯錯了。『住』和『異』也是這樣。爲了使人厭離『住』，所以將『住』和『異』合在一起說。因此，一定有四種有為相。

這裡所說的『生』等相，是因為有為法本身具有『生』等相。如果還有其他的相，就會變成無窮無盡。

應該說還有其他的相，直到八一有能。（這是）上一句回答第一個問題，下一句回答第二個問題。

論中說，從長行中，先解釋頌文的根本含義，然後廣泛地進行抉擇。在解釋頌文的根本含義中，這是解釋第一句。這四種根本相，因為有隨相作為標示，所以稱為有為。這裡明確說明了根本相是有為的，因為有四種隨相。經文中說諸行是有為的，因為...

【English Translation】 English version: For example, the arising of the name 'birth' and the ceasing of the name 'decay' can be considered different names. Eyes and objects are also different names. It should be understood in this way. Among the three states of 'duration', 'change', and 'fear', the names 'duration' and 'change' are easily confused, so they need to be explained separately. The power of 'birth' causes things to enter the present state, and the power of 'change' causes things to enter the past state. Only the power of 'decay' can cause things to completely enter the past. However, the sutra mentions the characteristic of 'change' to assist the characteristic of 'decay'. Because there is too much repetition in this way, the sutra only mentions three (conditioned characteristics). The analogy explains this. 'Duration' is not shifting or pressing, but rather constant joy and peaceful abiding. In order to make people disgusted with it, the sutra does not mention the conditioned characteristic.

Furthermore, because unconditioned dharmas also have the nature of 'duration', the sutra does not mention 'duration'. (This is) the second explanation. 'Duration' is easily confused with unconditioned dharmas, so the sutra does not mention it.

Some say that this sutra only mentions three conditioned characteristics and does not mention 'duration' and 'change' because 'duration' and 'change' can be spoken of together. (This is) the third explanation. 'Duration' and 'change' are spoken of together, so the sutra only mentions three.

Why should they be spoken of together in this way? (This is) the question.

'Duration' is what sentient beings are attached to. In order to make people disgusted with 'duration', 'duration' and 'change' are spoken of together. It's like showing black ears and auspiciousness appearing at the same time. In order to dislike auspiciousness, first show black ears. Black Ears and Auspiciousness are two sisters who are often together. The older sister is named Auspiciousness, and she brings benefits wherever she goes. The younger sister is named Black Ears because her ears are black. She brings decline and harm wherever she goes. Foolish people are greedy for auspiciousness, and wise people want to make people disgusted with and abandon auspiciousness, so they first show Black Ears. Once Black Ears is seen, Auspiciousness will also be abandoned. In the past, some people said that this was the Goddess of Merit and the Dark Woman, which is a wrong translation. 'Duration' and 'change' are also like this. In order to make people disgusted with 'duration', 'duration' and 'change' are spoken of together. Therefore, there must be four conditioned characteristics.

The 'birth' and other characteristics mentioned here are because conditioned dharmas themselves have 'birth' and other characteristics. If there are other characteristics, it will become endless.

It should be said that there are other characteristics, up to eighty-one abilities. (This is) the previous sentence answers the first question, and the next sentence answers the second question.

The treatise says that from the long passage, first explain the fundamental meaning of the verse, and then make extensive choices. In explaining the fundamental meaning of the verse, this explains the first sentence. These four fundamental characteristics are called conditioned because they have accompanying characteristics as markers. Here, it is clearly stated that the fundamental characteristics are conditioned because they have four accompanying characteristics. The sutra says that all phenomena are conditioned because...

四本相者。相乘故說。雖複本相亦由本相。此中且對隨相以論　應知大少四相各有三名。大相三名者。一名本相。對隨相故。或是本法上相故言本相。二名大相。對小相故。或相八法故。名為大相。三單名生等對生生等故　小相三名者。一名隨相。隨本相故。或相隨本故。二名小相。形大相故。或相一法故。名為小相。三名生生等。對生等故。上生字是小生。下生字是大生。能生生故　又解上生字是大生。下生字是小生。生之生故名為生生　如釋生生餘三亦爾。

豈不本相至展轉無窮者。此下釋第二句。問．豈不本相如所相法。一一應有四種隨相。此四隨相。復各有四展轉無窮。

無斯過失至功能別故者。答。本．隨能別。非有無窮。

何謂功能者。徴。

謂法作用至一法有用者。釋功能。即是八法作用。或名士用。士謂士夫。如士夫用也。從喻為名。本相於八。隨相於一。各有用也　其義云何者。復徴。

謂法生時至無無窮失者。釋文可解。

經部師說至證體實有者。此下廣抉擇。此即經部約三量破。經部師說生等四相本無實體。如今分別猶如分析虛空相似　色等等餘四境．及五根等。謂此諸相。非如五境現量證實。非如五根比量證實。非至教量證體實有。至極之教故名至教

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本四本相（catvāri lakṣaṇāni）：因為相續相乘的緣故這樣說。即使是本相，也是由本相而來。這裡且針對隨相來討論。應當知道大小四相各有三個名稱。大相的三個名稱是：第一名為本相，這是相對於隨相而言；或者因為是本法上的相，所以稱為本相。第二名為大相，這是相對於小相而言；或者因為相於八法，所以名為大相。第三個單獨稱為生等，這是相對於生生等而言。小相的三個名稱是：第一名為隨相，跟隨本相的緣故；或者因為相隨於本，所以稱為隨相。第二名為小相，形對於大相的緣故；或者因為相於一法，所以名為小相。第三名為生生等，相對於生等而言。上面的『生』字是小生，下面的『生』字是大生，能夠生出生的緣故。又解釋上面的『生』字是大生，下面的『生』字是小生，生的生，所以名為生生。如解釋生生一樣，其餘三相也是如此。難道本相會展轉無窮嗎？這是解釋第二句話。問：難道本相如所相之法，一一都應有四種隨相，這四種隨相，又各自有四種，這樣展轉無窮嗎？沒有這種過失，因為本相和隨相的功能不同。答：本相和隨相的功能有區別，所以不會有無窮的過失。什麼是功能呢？征問。所謂法的作用，乃至一法有用。解釋功能。這就是八法的作用，或者名為士用。士指士夫（puruṣa），如士夫的作用一樣。從比喻而得名。本相對於八法，隨相對於一法，各自有用處。其意義是什麼呢？再次征問。所謂法產生時，乃至沒有無窮的過失。解釋文句，可以理解。經部師說，乃至證明體是真實存在的。以下廣泛地進行抉擇。這是經部（Sautrāntika）依據三種量來破斥。經部師說，生等四相本來沒有實體，如今的分別就像分析虛空一樣。色等其餘四境，以及五根等。意思是這些相，不像五境那樣通過現量證實，不像五根那樣通過比量證實，也不是通過至教量證明體是真實存在的。最極的教法，所以名為至教。

【English Translation】 English version The four characteristics of characteristics (catvāri lakṣaṇāni): They are spoken of as multiplying each other. Even the original characteristic arises from the original characteristic. Here, we discuss them in relation to the secondary characteristics. It should be known that the four major and minor characteristics each have three names. The three names of the major characteristic are: first, the original characteristic, in contrast to the secondary characteristic; or because it is a characteristic on the original dharma, it is called the original characteristic. Second, the major characteristic, in contrast to the minor characteristic; or because it characterizes the eight dharmas, it is called the major characteristic. Third, it is simply called arising, etc., in contrast to arising-arising, etc. The three names of the minor characteristic are: first, the secondary characteristic, because it follows the original characteristic; or because it characterizes following the original, it is called the secondary characteristic. Second, the minor characteristic, because it shapes the major characteristic; or because it characterizes one dharma, it is called the minor characteristic. Third, it is called arising-arising, etc., in contrast to arising, etc. The 'arising' above is minor arising, and the 'arising' below is major arising, because it can give rise to arising. Another explanation is that the 'arising' above is major arising, and the 'arising' below is minor arising, the arising of arising, hence it is called arising-arising. Just as arising-arising is explained, so are the other three characteristics. Wouldn't the original characteristic lead to endless transformations? This explains the second sentence. Question: Shouldn't the original characteristic, like the dharma it characterizes, have four kinds of secondary characteristics, and each of these four secondary characteristics have four more, leading to endless transformations? There is no such fault, because the functions of the original and secondary characteristics are different. Answer: The functions of the original and secondary characteristics are distinct, so there will be no endless fault. What is function? Inquiry. The so-called function of a dharma, even one dharma has a use. Explanation of function. This is the function of the eight dharmas, or it is called the function of a person (puruṣa). A person refers to a human being (puruṣa), like the function of a human being. The name is derived from a metaphor. The original characteristic is related to the eight dharmas, and the secondary characteristic is related to one dharma, each having its own use. What is its meaning? Further inquiry. The so-called time when a dharma arises, even without endless faults. The explanation of the text is understandable. The Sautrāntika (經部) masters say, even to prove that the entity is truly existent. The following is a broad determination. This is the Sautrāntika refuting based on the three means of valid cognition. The Sautrāntika masters say that the four characteristics of arising, etc., originally have no substance, and the current distinctions are like analyzing empty space. Form, etc., the other four objects, and the five roots, etc. This means that these characteristics are not proven to be truly existent by direct perception like the five objects, nor are they proven to be truly existent by inference like the five roots, nor are they proven to be truly existent by the ultimate teachings. The most ultimate teaching is called the ultimate teaching.

。亦名聖教量。是即三量俱無。如何知有。

若爾何故至亦可了知者。說一切有部責彼經部。雖無現比證知而有聖教。經中既說有為之起等。第六轉聲。復言了知。明知有體。

天愛汝等至義是所依者。經部相調。但須依義不應執文。

何謂此經所說實義者。徴。

謂愚夫類至亦可了知者。經部釋經顯無實體。謂愚夫類。無明所盲而無慧眼。于有為行前後相續。不知無常謂一謂常。執之為我。或執我所。長夜于中而生耽著。世尊為斷彼執見破彼耽著故。顯行相續。體是有為及緣生性。假立三相。故彼契經作如是說。有三有為之有為相。非顯諸行。一剎那中具有三相實體。由一剎那。起等三相。以慧觀察不可知故。非不可知應立為相。故彼契經復作是說。有為之起亦可了知。盡．及住．異亦可了知。既一剎那起等三相不可了知。經中復言了知。明知定約相續假立。非據剎那。以約相續方了知故。引彼經意證剎那無三相。顯相續立　難中但引彼經一文。解中具引彼經二文。

然經重說至表善非善者。經部釋經。然前經文。說有三有為之有為相。經應但言有三有為之相。然經重說後有為言者。令知此能相。表所相法體是有為。若但言有為之相。即不知此相定表所相法體是有為。或疑此相表有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：也叫做聖教量（āryāgama-pramāṇa，聖者的教導作為衡量真理的標準）。這樣一來，現量（pratyakṣa-pramāṇa，直接感知）、比量（anumāna-pramāṇa，推論）和聖教量三種量都無法成立，那又如何得知它們的存在呢？如果這樣，為什麼經文中又說『也可以了知』呢？這是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）責難經部（Sautrāntika）。即使沒有現量和比量來證明，仍然有聖教量。經中既然說了『有為』（saṃskṛta，因緣和合而成的法）的生起等等，第六轉聲又說『了知』，明顯可知『有為』是有實體的。『天愛，你們』直到『義是所依』，這是經部互相調和的說法，認為只需要依據經義，不應該執著于文字。什麼是這部經所說的真實含義呢？（這是）提問。『所謂愚夫類』直到『也可以了知』，這是經部解釋經典，顯示沒有實體。所謂的愚夫類，被無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）所矇蔽而沒有智慧之眼，對於有為之行的前後相續，不知道無常（anitya，事物變化無常的性質），認為是一，認為是常，執著於它為『我』（ātman，個體），或者執著為『我所』（ātmīya，屬於我的），長夜于其中而生起貪戀執著。世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）爲了斷除他們的執見，破除他們的貪戀執著，所以顯示諸行相續，其體是有為以及緣生性（pratītyasamutpāda，事物依靠因緣而生起的性質），假立三相。所以那部契經（sūtra，佛經）這樣說：『有為有三種有為相』，並非顯示諸行在一剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）中具有三相的實體，因為在一剎那中，生起等三相，用智慧觀察是無法了知的，所以不應該把不可知的立為相。所以那部契經又這樣說：『有為的生起也可以了知，滅盡、以及住異也可以了知。』既然一剎那的生起等三相無法了知，經中又說『了知』，明顯可知一定是依相續假立的，不是依據剎那。因為依相續才能了知。引用那部經的含義來證明剎那沒有三相，顯示是依相續而立。難中只引用了那部經的一段文字，解釋中則完整地引用了那部經的兩段文字。『然而經文重複說』直到『表善非善』，這是經部解釋經典。然而前面的經文說『有三種有為的有為相』，經文應該只說『有三種有為之相』。然而經文重複說後面的『有為』，是爲了讓人知道這個能相，表明所相法的本體是有為。如果只說『有為之相』，就不知道這個相一定表明所相法的本體是有為，或者懷疑這個相表明有

【English Translation】 English version: It is also called Āryāgama-pramāṇa (the teachings of the noble ones as a standard for measuring truth). In this case, if direct perception (pratyakṣa-pramāṇa), inference (anumāna-pramāṇa), and scriptural authority are all invalid, how can we know of their existence? If so, why does the scripture say 'can also be known'? This is the Sarvāstivāda school criticizing the Sautrāntika school. Even without direct perception and inference to prove it, there is still scriptural authority. Since the scripture speaks of the arising of 'conditioned phenomena' (saṃskṛta), and the sixth inflection says 'knowable,' it is clear that 'conditioned phenomena' have substance. 'Beloved of the gods, you,' up to 'meaning is the basis,' this is the Sautrāntika school harmonizing with each other, believing that one only needs to rely on the meaning of the scriptures and should not cling to the words. What is the true meaning of this scripture? (This is) a question. 'So-called ignorant people' up to 'can also be known,' this is the Sautrāntika school explaining the scriptures, showing that there is no substance. The so-called ignorant people, blinded by ignorance (avidyā) and without the eye of wisdom, regarding the continuous succession of conditioned phenomena, not knowing impermanence (anitya), consider it as one, consider it as permanent, clinging to it as 'self' (ātman), or clinging to it as 'belonging to self' (ātmīya), and for a long night, they arise attachment and clinging within it. The World-Honored One (Śākyamuni) in order to cut off their clinging views and break their attachment, therefore reveals the continuous succession of phenomena, whose essence is conditioned phenomena and the nature of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), falsely establishing three characteristics. Therefore, that sūtra (scripture) says: 'Conditioned phenomena have three characteristics of conditioned phenomena,' not showing that all phenomena have the substance of three characteristics in one instant (kṣaṇa), because in one instant, the three characteristics of arising, etc., cannot be known by observing with wisdom, so the unknowable should not be established as a characteristic. Therefore, that sūtra also says: 'The arising of conditioned phenomena can also be known, cessation, and duration and change can also be known.' Since the three characteristics of arising, etc., in one instant cannot be known, and the scripture says 'knowable,' it is clear that it must be falsely established based on continuity, not based on an instant. Because it is only through continuity that it can be known. Quoting the meaning of that scripture to prove that there are no three characteristics in an instant, showing that it is established based on continuity. The question only quotes one passage from that scripture, while the explanation fully quotes two passages from that scripture. 'However, the scripture repeats' up to 'represents good and not good,' this is the Sautrāntika school explaining the scriptures. However, the previous scripture said 'there are three characteristics of conditioned phenomena of conditioned phenomena,' the scripture should have only said 'there are three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.' However, the scripture repeats the latter 'conditioned phenomena' in order to let people know that this able characteristic indicates that the substance of the characterized dharma is conditioned phenomena. If it only says 'characteristics of conditioned phenomena,' then one would not know that this characteristic definitely indicates that the substance of the characterized dharma is conditioned phenomena, or suspect that this characteristic represents having

為是有。及善．惡等。故著後有為言。令知此相表所相法定是有為。故言勿謂此相表有為法是有。如白鷺所居表水非無。亦勿謂此相。表有為法是善．惡。如童女相能表男．女善．非善事。若性貞潔腳膝纖團。面板細軟齒白唇薄。必生善子。此相表善。若性不貞潔腳膝笨大。面板粗澀齒黑唇厚。生不善子。此相表非善。此有為相。不同白鷺表有水。不同童女相表善．非善。但表所相法體是有為。

諸行相續至衰異壞滅者。論主述經部宗。約諸行相續假立四相。非據剎那。言相續者謂一期相續。或一運相續。隨其所應初生起位名生。終盡滅位名滅。中間相續隨轉不斷名住。即此住時前後剎那差別名住．異。約住明異故名住　異　故佛世尊。依此相續顯四相義。於一時間對大眾中說難陀言。是難陀善男子善知彼受生．住．異．滅。難陀未得道時多起貪慾。欲因受生。為離貪慾。常觀諸受生．住．異．滅。故后得道猶觀彼受。佛約難陀顯斯義也。若約相續可能善知。若說剎那善知受生．住．異．滅者。受未來生可容現知。受住．異．滅必居現在。能知之智理非過．未。既俱現在不可同一相應品中慧能知受。理相違故。既言知受生．住．異．滅。明知生等非一剎那。應知現智剎那別起。知受相續生等四相。義即無違　又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為有有為法，以及善、惡等等，所以才說『後有為』，是爲了讓人知道這些相狀所代表的法，其體性決定是有為法。因此說，不要認為這些相狀所代表的有為法就是『有』。就像白鷺棲息的地方表明有水一樣，但也不要認為這些相狀所代表的有為法就是善或惡。就像童女的相貌可以表明她生的是男孩還是女孩，以及是善事還是非善事一樣。如果一個女子天性貞潔，腳和膝蓋纖細圓潤，面板細膩柔滑，牙齒潔白，嘴唇薄，那麼她一定會生養善良的兒子，這種相貌就代表著『善』。如果一個女子天性不貞潔，腳和膝蓋粗大笨拙，面板粗糙乾澀，牙齒髮黑，嘴唇厚，那麼她就會生養不善良的兒子，這種相貌就代表著『非善』。這些有為法的相狀，不同於白鷺表明有水，也不同於童女的相貌表明善或非善，而僅僅是表明這些相狀所代表的法體是有為法。諸行相續以至衰老、變異、壞滅，論主根據經部宗的觀點，認為四相是就諸行相續而假立的，而不是就剎那而言的。所謂『相續』，指的是一個時期內的相續，或者是一個執行過程的相續。根據具體情況，最初生起的位置叫做『生』（birth），最終消亡的位置叫做『滅』（cessation）。中間相續不斷流轉叫做『住』（duration），而在這個『住』的過程中，前後剎那的差別叫做『住異』（change）。因為是根據『住』來闡明『異』，所以叫做『住異』。因此，佛世尊依據這種相續來顯示四相的含義。在某個時候，佛陀在大眾面前對難陀（Nanda，佛陀的堂弟）說：『難陀善男子，你很善於瞭解感受的生、住、異、滅。』難陀在沒有得道的時候，經常生起貪慾，貪慾的因緣導致感受的產生。爲了遠離貪慾，他經常觀察諸感受的生、住、異、滅。所以，後來他得道了，仍然在觀察這些感受。佛陀是借難陀的例子來闡明這個道理。如果就相續而言，是可以很好地瞭解的。如果說剎那，那麼要很好地瞭解感受的生、住、異、滅，感受的未來生是可以容許現在就知道的，感受的住、異、滅必定存在於現在。能知曉這些的智慧，按道理不應該涉及過去和未來。既然都在現在，那麼不可能同一個相應的品類中的智慧能夠知曉感受，這在道理上是相違背的。既然說知曉感受的生、住、異、滅，就說明生等等不是一個剎那。應該知道現在的智慧是剎那分別生起的，知曉感受相續的生等四相，這樣在意義上就沒有矛盾了。又

【English Translation】 English version: Because there is conditioned existence (有為, yǒu wéi), as well as good and evil, etc., therefore it is said 'subsequent conditioned existence.' This is to let people know that the characteristics represent the dharma, and its nature is definitely conditioned. Therefore, do not think that the conditioned existence represented by these characteristics is 'existence' itself. Just as the place where egrets dwell indicates the presence of water, do not think that the conditioned existence represented by these characteristics is good or evil. Just as the appearance of a maiden can indicate whether she will give birth to a boy or a girl, and whether it is a good or bad thing. If a woman is virtuous by nature, with slender and rounded legs and knees, delicate and smooth skin, white teeth, and thin lips, then she will surely give birth to good sons; this appearance represents 'good.' If a woman is unchaste by nature, with large and clumsy legs and knees, rough and dry skin, black teeth, and thick lips, then she will give birth to bad sons; this appearance represents 'non-good.' These characteristics of conditioned existence are different from egrets indicating the presence of water, and different from the appearance of a maiden indicating good or non-good, but merely indicate that the nature of the dharma represented by these characteristics is conditioned existence. The continuity of all phenomena leading to aging, change, decay, and destruction. The author, based on the Sautrantika (經部宗, Jīng bù zōng) school's view, believes that the four characteristics are hypothetically established based on the continuity of all phenomena, rather than based on a single moment. 'Continuity' refers to the continuity within a period or the continuity of a process. Depending on the specific situation, the initial arising position is called 'birth' (生, shēng), and the final extinction position is called 'cessation' (滅, miè). The continuous flow in between is called 'duration' (住, zhù), and the difference between the preceding and following moments during this 'duration' is called 'change during duration' (住異, zhù yì). Because 'change' is explained based on 'duration,' it is called 'change during duration.' Therefore, the World Honored One Buddha, based on this continuity, reveals the meaning of the four characteristics. At one time, the Buddha said to Nanda (難陀, Nánduó, Buddha's cousin) in front of the assembly: 'Good man Nanda, you are good at understanding the birth, duration, change, and cessation of feelings.' When Nanda had not yet attained enlightenment, he often generated greed, and the cause of greed led to the arising of feelings. In order to be free from greed, he often observed the birth, duration, change, and cessation of all feelings. Therefore, later he attained enlightenment and still observed these feelings. The Buddha used Nanda's example to illustrate this principle. If it is about continuity, it can be well understood. If it is about a single moment, then to understand the birth, duration, change, and cessation of feelings well, the future birth of feelings can be allowed to be known now, and the duration, change, and cessation of feelings must exist in the present. The wisdom that can know these should not involve the past and the future in principle. Since they are all in the present, it is impossible for the wisdom in the same corresponding category to know the feelings, which is contradictory in principle. Since it is said to know the birth, duration, change, and cessation of feelings, it shows that birth, etc., are not a single moment. It should be known that the present wisdom arises separately in each moment, and knowing the four characteristics of the continuity of feelings, such as birth, etc., there is no contradiction in meaning. Furthermore

解若生等有實體。如何約受觀生．住等。若生．住等剎那具有。云何可得並觀。既約受次第別觀故。知生等無別實體。非一剎那。

故說頌言至相續說住者。引頌證。此三行頌。並是經部諸師說頌。前兩行顯于相續立生等相。文異義同。后一頌破說一切有部剎那實住。由諸法剎那無有實住而有假滅。彼法生已不待外緣。剎那剎那自然滅故。于剎那中執有實住是為非理。是故唯于相續說住非約剎那。

由斯對法至名剎那法性者。論主復言。由斯相續立住義故。說一切有部阿毗達磨所說理成。故彼論言。云何名住。謂一切行已生未滅。相續說住。非生已經停不滅。名剎那法性。以時極促名一剎那。若更經停便非極促。論主雖複意朋經部。于本論文不多非撥。故引為證。

雖發智論至非一剎那者。論主會發智文。彼論雖說於一心中生等相。彼依一生眾同分相續心。說總名一心。非一剎那說名一心。故不相違　又解三性心各別起時。一運相續名為一心　或約十位　或約一類說。眾同分隨其所應。

又一一剎那至四相亦成者。經部師言。何但約相續假立四相。若據剎那假立亦得。

云何得成者。徴。

謂一一念至非無差別者。釋。本無今有體起名生。有已還無無時名滅。能引後後剎那嗣前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果生等（生、住、異、滅四相）有實體，如何能通過觀待『受』（感受）來觀察生等？如果生、住等剎那具有，又如何能夠同時觀察？既然是通過觀待『受』的次第來分別觀察，就知道生等沒有獨立的實體，並非存在於同一剎那。

因此，經中偈頌說『相續說住』。這是引用偈頌來證明。這三行偈頌都是經部諸師所說。前兩行顯示在相續上建立生等相，文字不同但意義相同。后一頌破斥說一切有部所主張的剎那實住。因為諸法剎那生滅，沒有真實的住而只有假立的滅。這些法產生后不依賴外緣，剎那剎那自然消滅，所以在剎那中執著有真實的住是不合理的。所以只能在相續上說住，而不是在剎那上說。

論主又說，因為相續上建立住的意義，所以說一切有部的阿毗達磨所說的道理成立。所以他們的論中說：『什麼叫做住？就是一切行（一切有為法）已經產生但尚未消滅，在相續上說住。』而不是說生已經停止而不滅，叫做剎那法性。因為時間極其短暫，所以叫做一剎那。如果再經過停頓，就不是極其短暫了。論主雖然意在支援經部，但在本論文中沒有過多地否定和駁斥，所以引用作為證據。

論主會通《發智論》的文句。《發智論》雖然說在一個心中有生等相，但那是依據一生中眾同分相續的心，總合起來稱為一心，而不是在一個剎那上說叫做一心，所以並不矛盾。又或者解釋為三性心（善、惡、無記）各自生起時，一類相續稱為一心。或者根據十位（十個心位），或者根據一類來說。眾同分隨其所應。

經部師說：『為什麼只能在相續上假立四相（生、住、異、滅）？如果根據剎那假立也可以。』

這是提問。

解釋：本來沒有現在有，本體生起叫做生。有了之後又歸於無，沒有時間間隔叫做滅。能夠引導後後剎那繼承前前剎那。

【English Translation】 English version: If origination, etc. (the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing) have substance, how can one observe origination, etc., by relying on 'sensation' (vedana)? If origination, abiding, etc., are momentary, how can they be observed simultaneously? Since observation is done separately by relying on the sequence of 'sensation,' it is known that origination, etc., do not have independent substance and do not exist in the same moment.

Therefore, the verse in the sutra says, 'Abiding is spoken of in continuity.' This is quoting the verse to prove it. These three lines of verses are all spoken by the masters of the Sautrantika school. The first two lines show that the characteristics of origination, etc., are established on continuity, with different words but the same meaning. The last verse refutes the Sarvastivada school's assertion of momentary real abiding. Because all dharmas arise and cease momentarily, there is no real abiding but only a provisional cessation. These dharmas, once produced, do not depend on external conditions and naturally cease moment by moment. Therefore, it is unreasonable to cling to real abiding in a moment. Therefore, abiding can only be spoken of in continuity, not in a moment.

The author of the treatise further says that because the meaning of abiding is established on continuity, the reasoning stated in the Sarvastivada Abhidharma is established. Therefore, their treatise says, 'What is called abiding? It is that all activities (all conditioned dharmas) have already arisen but have not yet ceased, and abiding is spoken of in continuity.' It is not that origination has stopped and does not cease, which is called momentary dharma-nature. Because time is extremely short, it is called a moment. If it pauses further, it is not extremely short. Although the author of the treatise intends to support the Sautrantika school, he does not negate or refute too much in this treatise, so he quotes it as evidence.

The author of the treatise reconciles the sentences of the Jnanaprasthana. Although that treatise says that there are characteristics of origination, etc., in one mind, it is based on the continuous mind of the commonality of life in one life, which is collectively called one mind, not that it is called one mind in one moment, so there is no contradiction. Or it is explained that when the three natures of mind (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral) arise separately, a continuous category is called one mind. Or it is based on the ten positions (ten mind-moments), or it is based on one category. The commonality of life is as it should be.

The Sautrantika master says, 'Why can only the four characteristics (origination, abiding, change, and cessation) be provisionally established on continuity? If they are provisionally established according to a moment, it is also possible.'

This is a question.

Explanation: Originally non-existent and now existent, the arising of the substance is called origination. Having existed and then returning to non-existence, with no time interval, is called cessation. Being able to lead the later moment to inherit the previous moment.

前起。或即此念後後剎那。嗣前前起名住。即假住相。或與前念或與后念。有差別故名住異。約住辨異故名住異　伏難言。如金剛等堅硬之物。前後無別云何名異。為通此難故言。此金剛等。於前后念相似生時。前後相望非無差別。

彼差別相云何應知者。徴。

謂金剛等至而見相似者。釋。謂金剛等。有擲．未擲時差別故。故亦有異。就擲之中復有差別。若強力擲即速墮。若弱力擲即遲墮　又解若強力擲遠故遲墮。若弱力擲近故速墮。時差別故而有異相。由斯道理。大種轉變差別義成。從強言大。造色不說自成。諸行相似。剎那剎那相續生時。前後相望。粗相而觀。雖復無多差別。細而言之非無有異。

若爾最後至應不遍有為者。此難異相。若言前後有差別故名為住．異。最後念聲。最後念光。及臨入無餘涅槃時最後六處。此等諸法並無后念可別。應無住．異。若此後念無有異相。是則所立相應不遍有為　又解難住．異二相。既無後念可嗣。應無有住。既無後念可別。應無有異。

此不說住至無不遍失者。經部答。此通異相難。經文說異名住異者。意但說異為有為相。此不說住為有為相。故經言有三有為之有為相　問其義云何　答謂住之異故名住異。故若有住之處亦必定有異。后念聲等。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：先前生起。或者就在這個念頭之後，后一個剎那生起。繼承前一個念頭生起，名為『住』（sthiti，停留）。這只是假立的『住』相。或者與前一個念頭，或者與后一個念頭，有差別，所以名為『住異』（sthityathatā，住的變異）。依據『住』來辨別『異』，所以名為『住異』。有人反駁說：『如同金剛等堅硬之物，前後沒有差別，如何稱作『異』呢？』爲了解釋這個疑問，所以說：『這些金剛等，在前後念頭相似生起時，前後相互比較，並非沒有差別。』『那麼，這些差別的相狀應該如何理解呢？』這是提問。『所謂金剛等，看起來相似。』這是解釋。意思是說，金剛等，有拋擲和未拋擲時的差別。所以也有『異』。就在拋擲之中，又有差別。如果用力拋擲，就迅速墜落；如果用弱力拋擲，就遲緩墜落。』又一種解釋是，如果用力拋擲，因為遠，所以遲緩墜落；如果用弱力拋擲，因為近，所以迅速墜落。因為時間的差別，所以有『異』相。由於這個道理，大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）轉變的差別之義成立。從『強』來說『大』，造色（rūpa，色法）不說也自然成立。諸行（saṃskāra，行蘊）相似，剎那剎那相續生起時，前後相互比較，粗略地觀察，雖然沒有太多差別，但仔細來說，並非沒有差異。『如果這樣，那麼最後念頭應該不普遍存在於有為法中？』這是質疑『異』相。如果說前後有差別，所以名為『住』、『異』。那麼最後念頭的聲音，最後念頭的光，以及臨近進入無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，無餘依涅槃）時的最後六處（ṣaḍāyatana，六根），這些法都沒有後一個念頭可以區分，應該沒有『住』、『異』。如果這些后一個念頭沒有『異』相，那麼所建立的『相應』就不普遍存在於有為法中。』又一種解釋是質疑『住』、『異』二相。既然沒有後一個念頭可以繼承，應該沒有『住』；既然沒有後一個念頭可以區分，應該沒有『異』。『這裡不說『住』，以至於沒有不普遍存在的缺失。』這是經部（Sautrāntika，說經部）的回答。這是爲了解釋『異』相的質疑。經文說『異』名為『住異』，意思是隻說『異』是有為相。這裡不說『住』是有為相。所以經上說有三種有為法的有為相。』『請問它的意義是什麼？』『回答說，所謂『住』的『異』，所以名為『住異』。所以如果有『住』的地方，也必定有『異』。后唸的聲音等。

【English Translation】 English version: Previously arising. Or just after this thought, the next moment arises. Succeeding the previous thought arising is called 'sthiti' (住, abiding). This is merely a provisional 'abiding' aspect. Or, with the previous thought or with the subsequent thought, there is a difference, so it is called 'sthityathatā' (住異, change of abiding). Differentiating 'change' based on 'abiding' is called 'sthityathatā'. Someone objects: 'Like diamond and other hard objects, there is no difference between before and after, how can it be called 'change'?' To explain this difficulty, it is said: 'These diamonds, etc., when similar thoughts arise before and after, comparing before and after, it is not without difference.' 'Then, how should these different aspects be understood?' This is a question. 'So-called diamonds, etc., appear similar.' This is an explanation. It means that diamonds, etc., have differences between when they are thrown and not thrown. So there is also 'change'. Within the throwing, there are further differences. If thrown with strong force, it falls quickly; if thrown with weak force, it falls slowly.' Another explanation is that if thrown with strong force, because it is far, it falls slowly; if thrown with weak force, because it is near, it falls quickly. Because of the difference in time, there is a 'change' aspect. Due to this reason, the meaning of the difference in the transformation of the 'mahābhūta' (大種, great elements) is established. From 'strong' it is said 'great', and 'rūpa' (造色, form) is established without saying. When 'saṃskāra' (諸行, formations) are similar, arising moment after moment in succession, comparing before and after, observing roughly, although there is not much difference, speaking carefully, it is not without difference. 'If so, then the last thought should not universally exist in conditioned dharmas?' This is questioning the aspect of 'change'. If it is said that there is a difference between before and after, so it is called 'abiding' and 'change'. Then the last thought of sound, the last thought of light, and the last six 'ṣaḍāyatana' (六處, sense bases) when approaching 'nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa' (無餘涅槃, nirvana without remainder), these dharmas have no subsequent thought to distinguish, so there should be no 'abiding' and 'change'. If these subsequent thoughts have no aspect of 'change', then the established 'correspondence' does not universally exist in conditioned dharmas.' Another explanation is questioning the two aspects of 'abiding' and 'change'. Since there is no subsequent thought to succeed, there should be no 'abiding'; since there is no subsequent thought to distinguish, there should be no 'change'. 'Here, not speaking of 'abiding' leads to the fault of not being universal.' This is the answer of the 'Sautrāntika' (經部, Sutra School). This is to explain the question of the aspect of 'change'. The sutra says 'change' is called 'sthityathatā', meaning it only says 'change' is a conditioned aspect. Here it does not say 'abiding' is a conditioned aspect. Therefore, the sutra says there are three conditioned aspects of conditioned dharmas.' 'Please, what is its meaning?' 'The answer is, so-called 'change' of 'abiding' is called 'sthityathatā'. Therefore, if there is a place of 'abiding', there must also be 'change'. The subsequent thought of sound, etc.'

雖無後念嗣現剎那。而能嗣前過去剎那。亦名為住。雖無後念可異。與前念異故亦有異。此正釋異。而言住者約住明異。由此立相無不遍失　又解此通住．異二相難。顯二相中意立異相為有為相。此不說住為有為相。為欲約住辨異故。前解住也。不得我意浪難住相。此即且撥住相難。卻問其義云何。答謂住之異。故名住異。故若有住之處亦必有異。最後聲等雖無後念可嗣可異。而有前念可嗣可異。得有住異。此正明異是有為相。而言住者約住明異。由此立相無不遍失　若準文勢前解為勝。若準答文后解亦通。應知住．異若最後念。雖無念可嗣可異。而能嗣前異前。若最初念。雖無前念可嗣可異。而有後嗣．后異。若中間剎那具有前．後嗣．異。設一剎那嗣．異流類。亦名住異　問答之中雖論最後。此乃略舉一隅。

然此經中至生等別物者。經部略標經意。然此四相經中。世尊所說有為之相。略顯示者。謂有為法本無今有名生。有已還無名滅。相續隨轉名住。即此住相前後差別名異。此中何用生等別物。

云何所相法即立為能相者。說一切有部難。若無別能相。云何所相法即立為能相。

如何大士相至有生等實物者。經部反難順成已義。如何世尊大士三十二相非異於大士。角等三難準此可知。此有為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：即使沒有後續的念頭來繼承現在的剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位），但能夠繼承之前的過去剎那，這也叫做『住』（sthiti，持續）。即使沒有後續的念頭可以產生差異，但因為與之前的念頭不同，所以也有差異。這正是解釋『異』（anyathatva，變異）。而說『住』，是就『住』來闡明『異』。如果這樣建立相（laksana，事物特徵），沒有哪個不會完全喪失。另一種解釋是，這可以通用於『住』和『異』這兩個相的難題。顯明在兩個相中，意在建立『異』相作為有為相（samskrta-laksana，有為法的特徵）。這裡不說『住』是有為相，是爲了要就『住』來辨別『異』的緣故。前面的解釋是關於『住』的。不要不理解我的意思而隨意質疑『住』相。這實際上是先否定『住』相的難題，然後問它的意義是什麼。回答說，『住』的變異，所以叫做『住異』。因此，如果存在『住』的地方，也必定存在『異』。最後的聲等，即使沒有後續的念頭可以繼承可以產生差異，但有之前的念頭可以繼承可以產生差異，所以可以有『住異』。這正是闡明『異』是有為相，而說『住』，是就『住』來闡明『異』。如果這樣建立相，沒有哪個不會完全喪失。如果按照文句的趨勢，前面的解釋更好。如果按照回答的文句，後面的解釋也說得通。應該知道，『住』和『異』如果是最後的念頭，即使沒有念頭可以繼承可以產生差異，但能夠繼承之前的、異於之前的。如果是最初的念頭，即使沒有之前的念頭可以繼承可以產生差異，但有後續的繼承和後續的差異。如果是中間的剎那，則具有之前的和後續的繼承和差異。假設一個剎那的繼承和差異流動延續，也叫做『住異』。問答之中雖然討論的是最後，這只是簡略地舉出一個方面。然而，這部經中說到『生』（jati，出生）等是不同的事物，經部（sautrantika）簡略地標明了經的意旨。然而，這部經中，世尊（bhagavan）所說的有為之相，簡略地顯示的是：所謂有為法本來沒有，現在有名為『生』；有了之後又消失，名為『滅』（vyaya，消滅）；相續隨順流轉，名為『住』；就是這『住』相前後差別，名為『異』。這裡為什麼還要用『生』等不同的事物呢？『為什麼所相法（laksana，被表徵的事物）立即被立為能相（laksana，能表徵的事物）呢？』說一切有部（sarvastivada）提出質疑。如果沒有其他的能相，為什麼所相法立即被立為能相呢？『如何大士（mahapurusa，偉人）的相（laksana，特徵）……直到有生等實物呢？』經部反駁，順勢成就自己的觀點。如何世尊大士的三十二相（dvātrimśadvara-mahāpurusa-laksana）不是異於大士的呢？角等三種責難可以參照這個來理解。這有為（samskrta，有為法）……

【English Translation】 English version: Even though there is no subsequent thought to succeed the present moment (ksana), being able to succeed the preceding past moment is also called 'duration' (sthiti). Even though there is no subsequent thought that can differ, because it is different from the preceding thought, there is also difference. This is precisely explaining 'difference' (anyathatva). And speaking of 'duration', it is using 'duration' to clarify 'difference'. If characteristics (laksana) are established in this way, none will not be completely lost. Another explanation is that this can be applied to the difficulty of the two characteristics of 'duration' and 'difference'. It is shown that among the two characteristics, the intention is to establish the characteristic of 'difference' as a conditioned characteristic (samskrta-laksana). Here, 'duration' is not said to be a conditioned characteristic, because it is to distinguish 'difference' by means of 'duration'. The previous explanation was about 'duration'. Do not misunderstand my meaning and arbitrarily question the characteristic of 'duration'. This is actually first negating the difficulty of the characteristic of 'duration', and then asking what its meaning is. The answer is that the variation of 'duration' is called 'duration-difference'. Therefore, if there is a place of 'duration', there must also be 'difference'. The final sounds, etc., even though there is no subsequent thought that can be succeeded or differentiated, there are preceding thoughts that can be succeeded or differentiated, so there can be 'duration-difference'. This is precisely clarifying that 'difference' is a conditioned characteristic, and speaking of 'duration', it is using 'duration' to clarify 'difference'. If characteristics are established in this way, none will not be completely lost. If according to the trend of the sentences, the previous explanation is better. If according to the sentences of the answer, the latter explanation also makes sense. It should be known that if 'duration' and 'difference' are the final thought, even though there is no thought that can be succeeded or differentiated, it can succeed the previous and be different from the previous. If it is the initial thought, even though there is no previous thought that can be succeeded or differentiated, there is subsequent succession and subsequent difference. If it is the middle moment, then it has both previous and subsequent succession and difference. Suppose the succession and difference of one moment flow and continue, it is also called 'duration-difference'. Although the discussion in the question and answer is about the final, this is only a brief example of one aspect. However, in this sutra, when 'birth' (jati) etc. are said to be different things, the Sautrantika briefly indicates the meaning of the sutra. However, in this sutra, the conditioned characteristics spoken of by the Bhagavan are briefly shown as: what is called conditioned dharma originally does not exist, and now has the name 'birth'; after it exists, it disappears again, and is called 'cessation' (vyaya); continuous following and flowing is called 'duration'; it is this difference before and after the 'duration' characteristic that is called 'difference'. Why is it necessary to use different things such as 'birth' here? Why is the characterized dharma (laksana) immediately established as the characterizing dharma (laksana)?' The Sarvastivada raises a question. If there is no other characterizing dharma, why is the characterized dharma immediately established as the characterizing dharma? 'How are the characteristics (laksana) of a great man (mahapurusa)... until there are real things such as birth?' The Sautrantika refutes, taking advantage of the situation to achieve their own point of view. How are the thirty-two characteristics of a great man (dvātrimśadvara-mahāpurusa-laksana) of the Bhagavan not different from the great man? The three kinds of accusations such as horns can be understood by referring to this. This conditioned (samskrta)...

相理亦應然。非異所相別有能相。雖了有為色等自性。乃至未了先無今有生。有已后無滅。相續隨轉住。前後差別異。仍未知彼體是有為。故非彼色等性即是有為相。然非離彼色等性有生等實物　能相．所相解各別故。不得言即　離色等外無別性故。不得言離。此是不即不離義也。

若離有為至復何非理者。說一切有部反徴。

一法一時至許俱有故者。經部反難出過。一有為法有四別相。於一時中。應即生．住．異．滅許俱有故。

此難不然至而不相違者。說一切有部解。生用未來。三用現在。用時各別故。雖俱有而不相違。

且應思擇至有用無用者。此下經部廣破。此即勸思。未來法體為有。為無。然後可論有用．無用。體尚未定。何須說用。

設許未來至應說現在相者。縱破。設許未來生有作用。既起作用應名現在。如何成未來。應說未來相。法現在時。生用已謝應名過去。如何成現在。應說現在相。正理十四救意。生相未來但起功能非是作用。現在起取果用方是作用。作用必功能。功能非必有作用。由約作用立現在。未來唯起功能而非現在　俱舍師破云。汝立功能．作用。眼目異名。何故生用名功能。餘三名作用。又與毗婆沙評家相違故。彼說云。無有等無間緣。異時取果異時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：相的道理也應該如此。不是不同的所相（lakṣaṇa，相的自性）之外，另有一個能相（anutpāda，不生）。雖然瞭解有為法（saṃskṛta，因緣和合而成的法）的色等自性，乃至還未了解先無今有的生，有已后無的滅，相續隨轉的住，前後差別的異，仍然未知它們的本體是有為法。所以不是那些色等的自性就是有為相。然而不是離開那些色等自性，另有生等實物。能相和所相的理解各自不同，所以不能說『就是』。離開色等之外沒有別的自性，所以不能說『離開』。這就是不即不離的意義。

如果離開有為法，又有什麼不是非理的呢？這是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的反駁。

一法一時，乃至允許同時存在，這是經部（Sautrāntika）的反駁，指出過失。一個有為法有四個差別相（生、住、異、滅），在同一時間中，應該允許生、住、異、滅同時存在。

這個反駁不對，乃至不相違背，這是說一切有部的解釋。生是未來的作用，住、異、滅是現在的用。作用的時間各自不同，所以雖然同時存在，也不相違背。

且應該思考，乃至有用無用，這是經部廣泛地破斥。這即是勸人思考。未來法的本體是有，還是無？然後可以討論有用、無用。本體尚未確定，何須說用？

假設允許未來，乃至應該說現在相，這是縱容的破斥。假設允許未來生有作用，既然起了作用，應該名為現在，如何成為未來？應該說未來相。法在現在時，生的作用已經過去，應該名為過去，如何成為現在？應該說現在相。正理十四的救意是：生相在未來，但起功能，不是作用。現在起取果的作用才是作用。作用必定有功能，功能不一定有作用。由於約定作用而立為現在，未來唯起功能，而非現在。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośa）破斥說：你立功能、作用，只是眼目不同的名稱。為什麼生的作用名為功能，其餘三個名為作用？又與毗婆沙（Vibhāṣā）評家相違背。他們說：沒有等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya），異時取果異時。

【English Translation】 English version: The principle of characteristics (lakṣaṇa) should also be like this. It is not that apart from the different characterized (lakṣaṇa, the self-nature of characteristics), there is another characterizing (anutpāda, non-arising). Although one understands the self-nature of conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta, dharmas arising from causes and conditions) such as form, and even before understanding the arising of 'previously non-existent, now existent,' the cessation of 'existent then non-existent,' the abiding of 'continuous transformation,' and the difference of 'before and after,' one still does not know that their substance is conditioned dharma. Therefore, it is not that the self-nature of those forms, etc., is the characteristic of conditioned dharma. However, it is not that apart from those self-natures of form, etc., there are real entities such as arising. The understanding of the characterizing and the characterized are each different, so one cannot say 'is identical.' Apart from form, etc., there is no other self-nature, so one cannot say 'is separate.' This is the meaning of neither identical nor separate.

If one separates from conditioned dharma, what is not unreasonable? This is the counter-argument of the Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部).

'One dharma at one time,' up to 'allowing simultaneous existence,' this is the counter-objection of the Sautrāntika (經部), pointing out the fault. One conditioned dharma has four distinct characteristics (arising, abiding, changing, ceasing). At the same time, it should be allowed that arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing exist simultaneously.

This objection is not correct, up to 'not contradicting each other,' this is the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda. Arising is the function of the future, abiding, changing, and ceasing are the uses of the present. The time of the functions is different, so although they exist simultaneously, they do not contradict each other.

'And one should contemplate,' up to 'useful or useless,' this is the extensive refutation of the Sautrāntika. This is to encourage contemplation. Is the substance of future dharma existent or non-existent? Then one can discuss useful or useless. The substance is not yet determined, why discuss use?

'Suppose one allows the future,' up to 'one should speak of the present characteristic,' this is a permissive refutation. Suppose one allows future arising to have function, since it has arisen, it should be called present, how can it be future? One should speak of the future characteristic. When a dharma is in the present, the function of arising has passed, it should be called past, how can it be present? One should speak of the present characteristic. The saving intention of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理十四) is: the characteristic of arising is in the future, but it initiates function, not use. The use of taking the result in the present is use. Use necessarily has function, function does not necessarily have use. Because of the agreement of use, it is established as present, the future only initiates function, not the present. The Abhidharmakośa (俱舍師) refutes: You establish function and use, they are just different names. Why is the function of arising called function, and the other three called use? Also, it contradicts the commentators of the Vibhāṣā (毗婆沙). They say: There is no immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya), taking the result at a different time is at a different time.

與果。準彼論意。入二無心定。即過去取．與。既過去取應名現在。若正理師言等無間緣。現在頓取過去漸與者。此即還違毗婆沙評家義也。

又住等三至為名壞滅者。此下破住等三相。三相現用俱依一法。爾時此法為名安住。為名衰異。為名壞滅。正理救云。今當爲決。已生位中。住．異．滅三起用各別。令所相法。於一時中所望不同。具有三義。如斯通釋何理相違。

俱舍師破云。雖用各別。終是同於一所相法。如何住令安住令取勝果。異即衰損令取劣果。滅即滅壞令入過去。還理相違。

諸說住等至剎那滅義者。敘計總非破住等三相。諸說一切有部師。說住等三相雖俱現在。用不同時前後別起。彼說便違剎那滅義。時之極促謂一剎那。既說三相現在前後別起作用。是即經停便違剎那滅義。

若言我說至名一剎那者。牒救。汝說一切有部師。若言我說一法四相。作用究竟名一剎那者。

汝今應說至何不于先用者。此別破住。三相俱現。何故住先起用。非異非滅。若言力強。后何成劣俱遭異滅耶。若言住相非再用起如生相者。生應可然。引入現在不應重引。住不應然。已住可令永安住故。用應常起。不可例生令無再用。又誰障住用令暫有還無。若異．滅障者。異．滅力應強。何不于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：與果：根據他們的論點，進入二無心定（指無想定和滅盡定）。即過去取，與。既然是過去取，就應該稱為現在。如果正理師說，等無間緣（指心識生起的一種因緣關係），現在頓取，過去漸與，這就違背了毗婆沙評家的觀點。又，住等三至為名壞滅者：下面破斥住、異、滅三相。這三個相的現行作用都依賴於同一個法。這時，這個法被稱為安住，被稱為衰異，被稱為壞滅。正理師辯解說，現在應當作出決斷。在已生位中，住、異、滅三種作用各自不同，使得所相之法，在同一時間中所期望的不同，具有三種意義。像這樣通達解釋，有什麼道理相違背呢？俱舍師破斥說：雖然作用各自不同，終究是同一個所相之法。如何住令安住，令取勝果；異即衰損，令取劣果；滅即滅壞，令入過去。這在道理上是相違背的。諸說住等至剎那滅義者：敘述計總非破住等三相。諸說一切有部師說，住等三相雖然都是現在，但作用不同時，前後分別生起。他們的說法就違背了剎那滅義。時間極短的叫做一剎那。既然說三相現在前後分別生起作用，那就是經過了停留，便違背了剎那滅義。若言我說至名一剎那者：牒救。你說一切有部師，如果說我說一法四相（生、住、異、滅），作用究竟叫做一剎那。汝今應說至何不于先用者：這是分別破斥住相。三相同時顯現，為什麼住相先起作用，而不是異相或滅相？如果說住相力量強，那後來為什麼會變得衰弱，一同遭受異滅呢？如果說住相不會再次起作用，就像生相一樣，生相或許可以這樣說，引入現在不應該重複引入。住相不應該這樣說，已經安住可以令其永遠安住，所以作用應該經常生起，不可以像生相一樣沒有再次作用。又有什麼阻礙住相的作用，使其暫時存在又消失呢？如果是異相、滅相阻礙，那麼異相、滅相的力量應該更強，為什麼不先起作用呢？

【English Translation】 English version: 'With result': According to their argument, entering the two 'no-mind' samadhis (referring to Asaṃjñika-samāpatti and Nirodha-samāpatti). That is, past taking, with. Since it is past taking, it should be called present. If the Sautrāntikas say that the homogenous cause (referring to a type of causal relationship in consciousness), takes immediately in the present, and gives gradually in the past, then this contradicts the view of the Vaibhāṣika critics. Furthermore, 'the three phases of duration, etc., to be named destruction': Below, refuting the three characteristics of duration (sthiti), change (anyathātva), and cessation (nirodha). The manifest functions of these three characteristics all rely on the same dharma. At this time, this dharma is called duration, called change, called destruction. The Sautrāntikas defend, saying, 'Now we should make a decision. In the state of having arisen, the three functions of duration, change, and cessation are each different, causing the dharma being characterized to have different expectations at the same time, possessing three meanings. How does such a thorough explanation contradict any principle?' The Abhidharmakośa master refutes, saying, 'Although the functions are each different, they are ultimately the same dharma being characterized. How does duration cause abiding, causing the taking of superior results; change being decay, causing the taking of inferior results; cessation being destruction, causing entry into the past? This is contradictory in principle.' Those who say that duration, etc., mean momentary cessation: Narrating the general calculation, not refuting the three characteristics of duration, etc. Those who say that the Sarvāstivāda masters say that although the three characteristics of duration, etc., are all present, their functions are not at the same time, arising separately before and after. Their saying then contradicts the meaning of momentary cessation. The extreme brevity of time is called a moment (kṣaṇa). Since it is said that the three characteristics arise separately before and after in the present, that is, it has passed through a stay, then it contradicts the meaning of momentary cessation. If you say, 'I say to be named a moment': Quoting the defense. You say, Sarvāstivāda master, if you say that I say that the ultimate function of one dharma's four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and cessation) is called a moment. You should now say why it does not function first: This is separately refuting the characteristic of duration. The three characteristics appear simultaneously, why does the characteristic of duration function first, and not the characteristic of change or cessation? If you say that the power of the characteristic of duration is strong, then why does it later become weak, suffering change and cessation together? If you say that the characteristic of duration does not function again, like the characteristic of birth, birth may be said in this way, introducing the present should not be repeatedly introduced. The characteristic of duration should not be said in this way, having already abided can cause it to abide forever, so the function should arise constantly, it cannot be like birth having no further function. Also, what obstructs the function of duration, causing it to exist temporarily and then disappear? If it is the characteristics of change and cessation that obstruct, then the power of the characteristics of change and cessation should be stronger, why do they not function first?

先起。

又住用息至更無所為者。此即雙破異．滅二相。又住用息。異．滅．本法。自然不住落謝過去。異．滅二相何處起用　復有何事須二用耶。由住攝持。諸法生已暫時不滅。可須此住。住用既舍法定不住。即自然滅落謝過去。故異．滅用更無所為。既無所用何須彼二。此責無用。

又應一法至立異終不成者。此即別破異相。又應一法生已未壞名住。住已壞時名滅。理且可然。縱許住．滅也　異於一法進退推徴理不應有。凡言異者前後性別。非即是此法可言異此法。故說頌言。異相時法即是前住相時法。異不成。此即進責　若異相時法異前住相時法即非一法。若住．異別法。有違宗過此即退徴。是故說一切有部。於一法上立異終不成。

雖餘部說至不應正理者。此即經部破正量部滅相。正量部計。薪等經多時住。薪等滅時由二緣滅。一內滅相。二外火等。住．滅別時。若心．心所等。唯由內滅相非由外緣。

故今破言。雖余正量部。說薪等遇外火等能滅因緣。內滅相方能滅所滅薪等。而彼所說。應如有言服瀉藥時天來令利。即火等滅因緣應滅所滅薪等。何須別執有滅相為。又薪等法待外緣滅。汝宗可說先住后滅二不同時。心．心所法。依汝宗中許剎那滅。更不須待餘外滅緣。應住用時即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：再說，如果安住于作用止息，以至於無所作為，這就是同時破斥了『變異』（異，指事物變化）和『滅壞』（滅，指事物消滅）這兩種相狀。又說安住于作用止息，那麼『變異』、『滅壞』這些原本的法則，自然不會停留在過去的狀態。『變異』、『滅壞』這兩種相狀又從何處產生作用呢？又有什麼事情需要這兩種作用呢？由於『安住』的攝持，諸法產生后暫時不會消滅，或許需要這個『安住』。既然『安住』的作用已經捨棄，法則必定不會停留，就會自然消滅，落入過去。所以『變異』、『滅壞』的作用就無所作為。既然沒有作用，又何必需要它們呢？這是責備它們沒有用處。

再說，如果一個法產生后沒有壞滅，就叫做『安住』；安住之後壞滅時，就叫做『滅壞』，道理或許可以這樣說。縱然允許有『安住』、『滅壞』，但相對於一個法來說，推究其進退變化，道理上是不應該有的。凡是說『變異』，都是指前後有差別，不是說這個法可以被稱為『異於此法』。所以偈頌說：『變異相時的法，就是之前的安住相時的法，變異是不成立的。』這是從正面責難。如果變異相時的法不同於之前的安住相時的法，那就不是同一個法。如果『安住』、『變異』是不同的法，就違背了宗義。這是從反面責難。因此，一切有部宗認為，在一個法上建立『變異』，最終是不能成立的。

雖然其他部派說，薪柴等經過很長時間的安住，薪柴等壞滅時，由兩個因緣導致壞滅：一是內在的滅壞相，二是外在的火等。『安住』和『滅壞』是不同的時間。如果是心、心所等，僅僅由內在的滅壞相，而不是由外在的因緣導致壞滅。

所以現在破斥說，雖然其他的正量部說，薪柴等遇到外在的火等能夠導致壞滅的因緣，內在的滅壞相才能使所要壞滅的薪柴等壞滅。但是他們所說的，應該像說服用瀉藥的時候，上天來使其瀉利一樣。那麼火等壞滅的因緣，就應該能使所要壞滅的薪柴等壞滅，何必另外執著有滅壞相呢？又薪柴等法等待外在的因緣而壞滅，你們宗派可以說先安住后壞滅，二者不同時。心、心所法，按照你們宗派的觀點，是剎那壞滅的，更不需要等待其他外在的壞滅因緣，應該在安住作用的時候就立即壞滅。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, if one dwells in the cessation of activity to the point of inaction, this simultaneously refutes the aspects of 'change' (異, yi, referring to the alteration of things) and 'destruction' (滅, mie, referring to the annihilation of things). Moreover, dwelling in the cessation of activity, these original principles of 'change' and 'destruction' naturally do not remain in the past state. From where do these two aspects of 'change' and 'destruction' arise? And what affairs require these two functions? Due to the sustenance of 'dwelling,' phenomena, once produced, do not perish temporarily, perhaps requiring this 'dwelling.' Since the function of 'dwelling' has been abandoned, the principle will certainly not remain and will naturally perish, falling into the past. Therefore, the functions of 'change' and 'destruction' are of no use. Since there is no function, why are they needed? This is a rebuke of their uselessness.

Furthermore, if a phenomenon, once produced, is not destroyed, it is called 'dwelling'; when it is destroyed after dwelling, it is called 'destruction,' the principle may be said in this way. Even if 'dwelling' and 'destruction' are allowed, in relation to a phenomenon, examining its progress and regress, it should not exist in principle. Whenever 'change' is mentioned, it refers to differences between before and after, not that this phenomenon can be called 'different from this phenomenon.' Therefore, the verse says: 'The phenomenon at the time of the aspect of change is the phenomenon at the time of the previous aspect of dwelling; change is not established.' This is a direct challenge. If the phenomenon at the time of the aspect of change is different from the phenomenon at the time of the previous aspect of dwelling, then it is not the same phenomenon. If 'dwelling' and 'change' are different phenomena, it violates the tenets of the school. This is a challenge from the opposite side. Therefore, the Sarvastivada school believes that establishing 'change' on one phenomenon cannot be established in the end.

Although other schools say that firewood, etc., after a long period of dwelling, when the firewood, etc., is destroyed, it is destroyed by two causes: one is the internal aspect of destruction, and the other is the external fire, etc. 'Dwelling' and 'destruction' are different times. If it is mind, mental factors, etc., it is only caused by the internal aspect of destruction, not by external causes.

Therefore, now refuting, although other Sautrantika schools say that firewood, etc., encountering external fire, etc., can cause the cause of destruction, the internal aspect of destruction can cause the firewood, etc., to be destroyed. But what they say should be like saying that when taking a laxative, heaven comes to make it laxative. Then the cause of destruction of fire, etc., should be able to destroy the firewood, etc., to be destroyed, why bother to cling to the aspect of destruction? Also, the laws of firewood, etc., wait for external causes to be destroyed, your school can say that first dwelling and then destruction, the two are not at the same time. Mind, mental factors, according to your school's point of view, are destroyed in an instant, and there is no need to wait for other external causes of destruction, it should be destroyed immediately when dwelling is in effect.

起滅用。如何彼執諸相起用前後別時。若住相時亦起滅用。是則一法於一時中亦住。亦滅。不應正理。

故依相續至善順契經者。經部破訖結歸本宗。故依相續理說有為四相。一不違正理。二善順契經。

若生在未來至何不俱生者。此下大文第二通外難。此即外問。若生相在未來生所生法。未來一切法皆有生相何不頓生。

頌曰至非離因緣合者。頌答。

論曰至非皆頓起者。就長行中初釋頌。后抉擇。此即釋頌。雖有生相要藉因緣故非頓起。

若爾我等至因緣力起者。此下抉擇經部難也。文顯可知。

豈諸有法至隨其所應者。說一切有部釋。豈諸有體性法皆汝經部所知。法性幽微甚難知故。微細之法雖現有體。汝等經部而不可知。此即嘆法深也。生相若無應無生覺。既有生覺明知有生。第六轉聲異體相屬。如王之臣。若有生體第六轉成。若無生相此第六轉言不應成。謂色之生等。若言生即是色。如不應說色之色言。既說色之生言。明知離色別有生也。如責無生有斯過失。乃至無滅準之可知。

若爾為成至空無我性者。此下經部難。先約內法為難。若爾為成空．無我覺。諸法之外應執空．無我性　雖離法外無別空．無我性。而起空．無我覺。何妨離色等無別有生等。而起生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生起和滅壞的作用。如果像你這樣執著于諸相，認為生起作用有先後之別，那麼當住相存在時，也應該有生起和滅壞的作用。這樣一來，一個法在同一時間裡既存在又滅亡，這在道理上是不成立的。

因此，依據相續至善順契經的說法，經部宗破斥對方的觀點，最終歸結到本宗的觀點。所以，依據相續的道理來說，有為法的四相（生、住、異、滅）有以下優點：一是沒有違背正理，二是完全符合契經的教義。

如果生相存在於未來，為什麼不一起產生呢？這是下面大段文字的第二部分，用來駁斥外道的詰難。這實際上是外道的提問：如果生相存在於未來，那麼由生相所生的法，未來的一切法都具有生相，為什麼不一下子全部產生呢？

頌曰（省略）非離因緣合者。這是用偈頌來回答。

論曰（省略）非皆頓起者。在長行文中，首先解釋偈頌，然後進行抉擇。這裡是解釋偈頌：即使有生相，也需要憑藉因緣，所以不會一下子全部產生。

如果這樣，我們（省略）因緣力起者。這是下面抉擇經部宗的詰難。文意顯而易見。

難道所有的有法（省略）隨其所應者。這是說一切有部的解釋：難道所有的具有體性的法，都是你們經部宗所能瞭解的嗎？法性幽深微妙，很難了解。微細的法即使實際存在，你們經部宗也無法瞭解。這是讚歎佛法的深奧。如果生相不存在，就不應該有生起的覺知。既然有生起的覺知，就明確知道有生相。第六轉聲表示異體相屬關係，就像國王的臣子。如果有生相的實體，第六轉聲就能成立。如果沒有生相，這種第六轉聲的說法就不應該成立，例如『色的生』等。如果說生就是色，就不應該說『色的色』。既然說了『色的生』，就明確知道離開色之外，另有生相存在。就像責難沒有生相會有這樣的過失一樣，乃至沒有滅相，可以依此類推。

如果這樣是爲了成就（省略）空無我性者。這是下面經部宗的詰難。首先從內在的法進行詰難：如果這樣是爲了成就空和無我的覺悟，那麼在諸法之外，應該執著于空和無我的體性。即使離開法之外沒有其他的空和無我的體性，也能產生空和無我的覺悟。為什麼妨礙離開色等之外，沒有其他的生等，也能產生生起的覺悟呢？

【English Translation】 English version: The function of arising and ceasing. If, like you, you cling to characteristics, thinking that the arising function has a before and after distinction, then when the abiding characteristic exists, there should also be the function of arising and ceasing. In this case, one dharma would both abide and cease at the same time, which is not logically sound.

Therefore, according to the Sutra of Continuous Excellent Accordance, the Sautrāntika school refutes the opponent's view and ultimately returns to its own view. Thus, according to the principle of continuity, the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas (arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing) have the following advantages: first, they do not contradict correct reasoning; second, they are in complete accordance with the teachings of the sutras.

If the arising characteristic exists in the future, why doesn't it arise all at once? This is the second part of the following long passage, used to refute the objections of externalists. This is actually the externalist's question: If the arising characteristic exists in the future, then the dharmas produced by the arising characteristic, all future dharmas, have the arising characteristic. Why don't they all arise at once?

The verse says (omitted) 'not apart from the combination of causes and conditions'. This is answering with a verse.

The treatise says (omitted) 'not all arise at once'. In the prose section, first explain the verse, and then make a determination. This is explaining the verse: Even if there is an arising characteristic, it still needs to rely on causes and conditions, so it will not all arise at once.

If that's the case, we (omitted) 'arise from the power of causes and conditions'. This is below, determining the Sautrāntika school's objection. The meaning of the text is clear and understandable.

Could it be that all existing dharmas (omitted) 'according to what is appropriate'? This is the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda school: Could it be that all dharmas with inherent existence are known by your Sautrāntika school? The nature of dharmas is profound and subtle, very difficult to understand. Subtle dharmas, even if they actually exist, cannot be understood by your Sautrāntika school. This is praising the profundity of the Dharma. If the arising characteristic did not exist, there should be no awareness of arising. Since there is awareness of arising, it is clear that there is an arising characteristic. The sixth case ending indicates a relationship of belonging between different entities, like a king's minister. If there is a real arising characteristic, the sixth case ending can be established. If there is no arising characteristic, this kind of sixth case ending should not be established, such as 'the arising of form' etc. If you say that arising is form, then you should not say 'the form of form'. Since it is said 'the arising of form', it is clear that apart from form, there is another arising characteristic. Just like criticizing that there would be such a fault if there were no arising, and so on until there is no ceasing, it can be understood by analogy.

If that is the case, in order to accomplish (omitted) 'the nature of emptiness and selflessness'? This is below, the Sautrāntika school's objection. First, the objection is made from the perspective of internal dharmas: If that is the case, in order to accomplish the realization of emptiness and selflessness, then apart from all dharmas, one should cling to the nature of emptiness and selflessness. Even if there is no other nature of emptiness and selflessness apart from dharmas, one can still generate the realization of emptiness and selflessness. Why does it prevent that apart from form etc., there is no other arising etc., and one can still generate the awareness of arising?

等覺。

為成一二至有等別性者。經部約外法為難。若依佛法。離法體外無別一數等體。汝說一切有部。為成一二數覺。大小量覺。各別覺。合覺。離覺。彼覺。此覺。有性覺。等者等取同異等覺。應如勝論外道。離法之外別執有數性。量性。各別性。合性。離性。彼性。此性。有性。等者等取同異性等。勝論外道有六句義。一實。二德。三業。四有。五同異。六和合。或有說十句義。並如前說。若諸法體實句義收。若德句中總有二十四德。亦如前說。於二十四種中。此中數是第五。量是第六。各別是第七合是第八。離是第九。彼是第十。此是第十一。有性是六句中有句義。是十句中同句義。同異性等是同異句義等。彼宗離實法外別有德句中數等別體。及離法外別有有句．同異句等別體。故引彼為難　雖起數等覺。離法之外無別數等。何妨雖起生等覺。離色等外無別生等。

又為成立至言何得成者。上來破生覺。此破第六轉。又為成立第六轉言。應執別有色之聚性。然離色外無別聚性。又如說言色之自性。離色之外無別自性。此第六轉言何得成　準此文難。第六轉聲義說相屬。非要異體相系屬也。

是故生等至此亦應爾者。上來經部破訖歸宗自釋。是故四相唯假建立無別實物　如是本無今有生相。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：等覺（Sameness of perception）。

爲了成立一二等差別性質，經部（Sautrantika）依據外道法提出詰難。如果依照佛法，在法的本體之外，沒有另外的一數等實體。你們一切有部（Sarvastivada），爲了成立一二數之覺、大小量之覺、各別之覺、合之覺、離之覺、彼之覺、此之覺、有性之覺，等等（等字包括同異等覺），應該像勝論外道（Vaisheshika）那樣，在法之外另外執著有數性、量性、各別性、合性、離性、彼性、此性、有性，等等（等字包括同異性等）。勝論外道有六句義：一、實（Dravya），二、德（Guna），三、業（Karma），四、有（Samanya），五、同異（Vishesha），六、和合（Samavaya）。或者有人說有十句義，也如前面所說。如果諸法體被實句義所包含，那麼德句中總共有二十四德，也如前面所說。在這二十四種德中，數是第五，量是第六，各別是第七，合是第八，離是第九，彼是第十，此是第十一，有性是六句義中的有句義，是十句義中的同句義，同異性等是同異句義等。他們的宗義是在實法之外，另外有德句中的數等別體，以及在法之外，另外有有句、同異句等別體。所以引用他們來作為詰難。

雖然生起數等覺，但在法之外沒有另外的數等。那麼，即使生起生等覺，離開色等之外，也沒有另外的生等，這又有什麼妨礙呢？

又爲了成立（第六）轉言，應執著有色的聚集性。然而離開色之外，沒有另外的聚集性。又如說『色的自性』，離開色之外，沒有另外的自性。這第六轉言怎麼能夠成立呢？依照這個文句來詰難，第六轉聲的意義是說相屬，不是一定要異體互相系屬。

因此，生等（四相）也應該如此。上面經部破斥完畢，歸結到本宗，自己解釋說：因此，四相只是假立，沒有另外的實體。如同本無今有的生相。

【English Translation】 English version: Sameness of perception (等覺).

To establish the distinct nature of 'one,' 'two,' etc., the Sautrantika (經部) school raises objections based on externalist doctrines. According to Buddhist teachings, there is no separate entity of 'one,' 'two,' etc., apart from the essence of phenomena (法). You, the Sarvastivada (一切有部) school, in order to establish the perception of 'one' or 'two' in number, the perception of large or small quantity, individual perception, combined perception, separated perception, 'that' perception, 'this' perception, perception of existence, etc. (where 'etc.' includes perceptions of similarity and difference), should be like the Vaisheshika (勝論外道) school, which posits separate entities of number-ness, quantity-ness, individuality-ness, combination-ness, separation-ness, 'that'-ness, 'this'-ness, existence-ness, etc. (where 'etc.' includes similarity-difference-ness), apart from phenomena. The Vaisheshika school has six categories: substance (Dravya, 實), quality (Guna, 德), action (Karma, 業), generality (Samanya, 有), particularity (Vishesha, 同異), and inherence (Samavaya, 和合). Some say there are ten categories, as mentioned before. If the essence of phenomena is included in the category of substance, then the category of quality has twenty-four qualities in total, as mentioned before. Among these twenty-four qualities, number is the fifth, quantity is the sixth, individuality is the seventh, combination is the eighth, separation is the ninth, 'that'-ness is the tenth, 'this'-ness is the eleventh, existence-ness is the category of generality among the six categories, and the category of similarity among the ten categories. Similarity-difference-ness, etc., are the categories of similarity and difference, etc. Their doctrine posits separate entities such as number in the category of quality, apart from real phenomena, and separate entities such as existence and similarity-difference in the categories of generality and particularity, apart from phenomena. Therefore, they are cited as a basis for objection.

Although perceptions of number, etc., arise, there are no separate entities of number, etc., apart from phenomena. Then, what prevents the arising of perceptions of arising, etc., even though there are no separate arising, etc., apart from form (色), etc.?

Furthermore, to establish the (sixth) genitive case, one should insist on the aggregate-ness of form. However, there is no separate aggregate-ness apart from form. Also, as it is said, 'the self-nature of form,' there is no separate self-nature apart from form. How can this sixth genitive case be established? According to this passage, the meaning of the sixth genitive case is said to be related, but it is not necessarily the case that different entities are mutually related.

Therefore, arising, etc. (the four characteristics), should also be like this. Having refuted the opponent, the Sautrantika school returns to its own position and explains: Therefore, the four characteristics are merely provisional designations and have no separate reality. Just like the characteristic of arising, which is the coming into being of something that was not previously existent.

依五蘊法種類眾多。為簡所餘諸蘊恐濫彼故。說第六轉言色之生等。為令他知此生唯色非余受等。言色之生。說餘四蘊例此亦然　如世間說旃檀之香簡沉香等。石子之體簡瓦體等　又解旃檀之香。離旃檀外無別有香。石子之體。離石子外無別有體。此色之生等應知亦爾。

如是住等隨應當知者。如生既爾住等例同。

若行離生相至何故不生者。說一切有部難。若諸行法離實生相而得生者。三無為法亦離生相何故不生。

諸行名生至一無生用者。經部解。諸行名生由本無今有。無為體常有何得言生　又如汝宗法爾不說一切法有生。有為有生無為無生。如是應許我非一切法皆可生。有為可生無為不可生　又如汝宗諸有為法同有生相。而許因緣望有為法。或於一類有生功能應令生故。或於一類無生功能不令生故。以諸因緣相望各別。如是應許我一切有為．及無為法。同無生相。而諸因緣望彼二法。于有為有生用。于無為無生用　正理救意。眼等雖從業生。而別有四大生何妨有為雖從因緣生。而別有生相。

俱舍師破云。經部。生無體可藉因緣生。汝宗生有體應不藉因緣。

毗婆沙師至應順修行者。論主為毗婆沙師結歸本宗。毗婆沙師說。生等相別有實物。其理亦得成立。余文可知。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本根據五蘊法（Panca-skandha-dharma，構成個體經驗的五種聚合：色、受、想、行、識）的種類繁多，爲了避免剩餘的蘊（skandha）與色蘊（Rūpa-skandha，物質之蘊）混淆，所以特別說明第六能變——色（Rūpa，物質）的生（Jāti，產生）等。爲了讓人們知道這種產生僅僅是色的產生，而不是受（Vedanā，感受）等其他蘊的產生，所以說『色之生』。其餘四蘊（受、想、行、識）可以依此類推。就像世間用旃檀（Candana，檀香）的香味來區分沉香（Aguru，沉香木）等，用石子的質地來區分瓦片的質地一樣。另一種解釋是，旃檀的香味，除了旃檀之外沒有其他的香味；石子的質地，除了石子之外沒有其他的質地。這色的產生等，應該知道也是如此。像這樣，住（Sthiti，持續）等也應該根據情況來理解。既然生是這樣，那麼住等也同樣可以類推。如果行（Saṃskāra，意志）離開了生相（Jāti-lakṣaṇa，產生的特徵）而存在，那麼為什麼不會產生呢？』這是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教哲學學派）提出的疑問。如果諸行法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有為法）離開了真實的生相而能夠產生，那麼三種無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma，無為法，即虛空、擇滅、非擇滅）也離開了生相，為什麼不會產生呢？『諸行被稱為生，是因為原本沒有現在有了，而無為法的體性是恒常存在的，怎麼能說是生呢？』這是經部（Sautrāntika，一個佛教哲學學派）的解釋。又如你們宗派自然而然地認為不是一切法都有生。有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有為法）有生，無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma，無為法）沒有生。應該像這樣允許我的觀點，即不是一切法都可以產生，有為法可以產生，無為法不可以產生。又如你們宗派認為諸有為法都有相同的生相，但又允許因緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件）對於有為法來說，或者對某一類有產生的功能，所以令其產生；或者對某一類沒有產生的功能，所以不令其產生，因為諸因緣相互之間的作用是各不相同的。應該像這樣允許我的觀點，即一切有為法和無為法，都同樣沒有生相，但是諸因緣對於這兩種法來說，對於有為法有產生的作用，對於無為法沒有產生的作用。』正理（Nyāya，正理學派）是爲了挽救這種觀點。眼等雖然是從業（karma，行為）而生，但是另外有四大（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）的產生，這不妨礙有為法雖然從因緣而生，但是另外有生相。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośa-kāra，俱舍論的作者）反駁說：『經部認為，生沒有實體，可以憑藉因緣而生；你們宗派認為生有實體，應該不需要憑藉因緣。』毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，毗婆沙宗的學者）……應該順應修行。』論主（論的作者）為毗婆沙師總結歸納到本宗。毗婆沙師說，生等相（jāty-ādi-lakṣaṇa，生等特徵）分別有真實的物體，這個道理也是可以成立的。其餘的文字可以理解。 English version According to the numerous types of the five skandhas (Panca-skandha-dharma, the five aggregates that constitute individual experience: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), to avoid confusion between the remaining skandhas and the Rūpa-skandha (the skandha of form, or matter), it is specifically explained that the sixth transformation—Rūpa (form, or matter)—has Jāti (arising), etc. To let people know that this arising is only the arising of form, and not the arising of Vedanā (feeling) or other skandhas, it is said 'the arising of form.' The other four skandhas (feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) can be inferred in the same way. Just as in the world, the fragrance of Candana (sandalwood) is used to distinguish it from Aguru (agarwood), and the texture of a pebble is used to distinguish it from the texture of a tile. Another explanation is that the fragrance of Candana, apart from Candana, there is no other fragrance; the texture of a pebble, apart from a pebble, there is no other texture. The arising of this form, etc., should be understood in the same way. In this way, Sthiti (duration), etc., should be understood accordingly. Since arising is like this, duration, etc., can also be inferred similarly. 'If Saṃskāra (volition) exists apart from Jāti-lakṣaṇa (the characteristic of arising), then why does it not arise?' This is the question posed by the Sarvāstivāda (a school of Buddhist philosophy). If the saṃskṛta-dharmas (conditioned dharmas) can arise apart from the real characteristic of arising, then why do the three asaṃskṛta-dharmas (unconditioned dharmas, namely space, cessation by discrimination, and cessation without discrimination) also exist apart from the characteristic of arising, and yet do not arise? 'The saṃskṛta-dharmas are called arising because they were originally non-existent and are now existent, while the nature of the asaṃskṛta-dharmas is constant, so how can they be said to arise?' This is the explanation of the Sautrāntika (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Furthermore, just as your school naturally believes that not all dharmas have arising. Conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharmas) have arising, and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharmas) do not have arising. You should allow my view in this way, that is, not all dharmas can arise, conditioned dharmas can arise, and unconditioned dharmas cannot arise. Furthermore, just as your school believes that all conditioned dharmas have the same characteristic of arising, but also allows that hetu-pratyaya (causes and conditions) for conditioned dharmas, either have the function of arising for a certain category, so they cause it to arise; or do not have the function of arising for a certain category, so they do not cause it to arise, because the interactions between the causes and conditions are different from each other. You should allow my view in this way, that is, all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas equally do not have the characteristic of arising, but the causes and conditions for these two types of dharmas, have the function of arising for conditioned dharmas, and do not have the function of arising for unconditioned dharmas.' The Nyāya (school of logic) is to salvage this view. Although the eye, etc., arise from karma (action), there is also the arising of the four mahābhūtas (great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), which does not prevent conditioned dharmas from arising from causes and conditions, but also having the characteristic of arising. The Abhidharmakośa-kāra (author of the Abhidharmakośa) refutes: 'The Sautrāntika believes that arising has no substance and can arise by relying on causes and conditions; your school believes that arising has substance and should not need to rely on causes and conditions.' The Vaibhāṣika (scholar of the Vaibhāṣika school) ... should accord with practice.' The author of the treatise (the author of the text) summarizes and concludes for the Vaibhāṣika to return to their own school. The Vaibhāṣika says that the jāty-ādi-lakṣaṇas (characteristics of arising, etc.) each have real objects, and this principle can also be established. The remaining text can be understood.

【English Translation】 English version According to the numerous types of the five skandhas (Panca-skandha-dharma, the five aggregates that constitute individual experience: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), to avoid confusion between the remaining skandhas and the Rūpa-skandha (the skandha of form, or matter), it is specifically explained that the sixth transformation—Rūpa (form, or matter)—has Jāti (arising), etc. To let people know that this arising is only the arising of form, and not the arising of Vedanā (feeling) or other skandhas, it is said 'the arising of form.' The other four skandhas (feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) can be inferred in the same way. Just as in the world, the fragrance of Candana (sandalwood) is used to distinguish it from Aguru (agarwood), and the texture of a pebble is used to distinguish it from the texture of a tile. Another explanation is that the fragrance of Candana, apart from Candana, there is no other fragrance; the texture of a pebble, apart from a pebble, there is no other texture. The arising of this form, etc., should be understood in the same way. In this way, Sthiti (duration), etc., should be understood accordingly. Since arising is like this, duration, etc., can also be inferred similarly. 'If Saṃskāra (volition) exists apart from Jāti-lakṣaṇa (the characteristic of arising), then why does it not arise?' This is the question posed by the Sarvāstivāda (a school of Buddhist philosophy). If the saṃskṛta-dharmas (conditioned dharmas) can arise apart from the real characteristic of arising, then why do the three asaṃskṛta-dharmas (unconditioned dharmas, namely space, cessation by discrimination, and cessation without discrimination) also exist apart from the characteristic of arising, and yet do not arise? 'The saṃskṛta-dharmas are called arising because they were originally non-existent and are now existent, while the nature of the asaṃskṛta-dharmas is constant, so how can they be said to arise?' This is the explanation of the Sautrāntika (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Furthermore, just as your school naturally believes that not all dharmas have arising. Conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharmas) have arising, and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharmas) do not have arising. You should allow my view in this way, that is, not all dharmas can arise, conditioned dharmas can arise, and unconditioned dharmas cannot arise. Furthermore, just as your school believes that all conditioned dharmas have the same characteristic of arising, but also allows that hetu-pratyaya (causes and conditions) for conditioned dharmas, either have the function of arising for a certain category, so they cause it to arise; or do not have the function of arising for a certain category, so they do not cause it to arise, because the interactions between the causes and conditions are different from each other. You should allow my view in this way, that is, all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas equally do not have the characteristic of arising, but the causes and conditions for these two types of dharmas, have the function of arising for conditioned dharmas, and do not have the function of arising for unconditioned dharmas.' The Nyāya (school of logic) is to salvage this view. Although the eye, etc., arise from karma (action), there is also the arising of the four mahābhūtas (great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), which does not prevent conditioned dharmas from arising from causes and conditions, but also having the characteristic of arising. The Abhidharmakośa-kāra (author of the Abhidharmakośa) refutes: 'The Sautrāntika believes that arising has no substance and can arise by relying on causes and conditions; your school believes that arising has substance and should not need to rely on causes and conditions.' The Vaibhāṣika (scholar of the Vaibhāṣika school) ... should accord with practice.' The author of the treatise (the author of the text) summarizes and concludes for the Vaibhāṣika to return to their own school. The Vaibhāṣika says that the jāty-ādi-lakṣaṇas (characteristics of arising, etc.) each have real objects, and this principle can also be established. The remaining text can be understood.

如是已辨至想章字總說者。此下大文第七明名身等　名身等。牒章　所謂下。正釋　名．句．文．身。是其本稱　如其次第以想．章．字．總說異目釋之。

論曰至文身者。就長行中。一釋頌。二問答　此下釋頌。即釋等字。

應知此中至香味等想者。此別釋名。即以想釋名。梵云那(去聲)摩唐言名。是隨義。歸義。赴義。召義。謂隨音聲歸赴于境。呼召色等。名能詮義。然非義合。聲非能詮義。亦非義合。故入阿毗達摩第二云。非即語音親能詮義。勿說火時便燒于口。要依語故火等名生。由火等名詮火等義。詮者謂能于所顯義生他覺慧。非與義合(已上論文)　梵云僧若(日何反)唐言想。是能取像專執之義。或是共立契約之義。言作想者作謂造作。由心所中想取像已建立造作此名。是想所作名為作想。言名是想從因為稱　又解謂緣于名能起于想。能作想故。故名作想　又解作之言發。由天人等名發天人等想。故名作想　言名是想從果為名　又解此言想者即是名之別名。以名皆是立能詮之要契。即由此想能有詮表故名為作。即作是想名為作想。

句者至等章者。此別釋句。即以章釋句。梵云缽陀唐言跡。如一象身有四足跡。亦如一頌總四句成故。今就義翻之為句。句能詮義究竟。梵云薄迦(吉

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『如是已辨至想章字總說者』，此下是本文的第七部分，闡明名身等（nāma-kāya，名稱的集合）——名身等。這是對章節的提要。『所謂下』，這是正式的解釋。名（nāma，名稱）、句（pada，詞組）、文（vyañjana，音節）、身（kāya，集合）是它們原本的稱謂。按照順序，用想（saṃjñā，認知）、章（uddeśa，章節）、字（akṣara，字母）、總說（samudāya，總結）這些不同的名稱來解釋它們。

論曰至文身者，在長行文中，分為兩部分：一是解釋頌文，二是問答。『此下釋頌』，這是解釋『等』字。

『應知此中至香味等想者』，這是分別解釋『名』，即用『想』來解釋『名』。梵語是那摩（nāma），漢譯為『名』，意思是隨義、歸義、赴義、召義，即隨著聲音歸向于境，呼召色等。『名』能夠詮釋意義，但並非意義的結合。聲音並非能夠詮釋意義，也不是意義的結合。因此，《阿毗達摩》（Abhidharma，論藏）第二卷中說：『並非語音直接詮釋意義，否則說火時嘴巴就會被燒傷。』而是因為有了語音，才產生了火等名稱。通過火等名稱來詮釋火等意義。詮釋是指能夠對所顯的意義產生他人的覺慧，並非與意義結合（以上是論文內容）。梵語是僧若（saṃjñā），漢譯為『想』，是能夠取像、專一執取的意義，或者是共同建立契約的意義。『言作想者』，『作』是指造作。由於心所中的『想』取像之後，建立造作此『名』，是『想』所造作，所以稱為『作想』。『言名是想』，是從因為稱。

又一種解釋是，緣于『名』能夠生起『想』，因為能夠產生『想』，所以稱為『作想』。又一種解釋是，『作』的意思是『發』，由於天人等『名』，而生髮天人等『想』，所以稱為『作想』。『言名是想』，是從結果來命名。又一種解釋是，這裡的『想』就是『名』的別名。因為『名』都是建立能夠詮釋意義的重要契約，即由此『想』能夠有詮表，所以稱為『作』。即『作』就是『想』，稱為『作想』。

『句者至等章者』，這是分別解釋『句』，即用『章』來解釋『句』。梵語是缽陀（pada），漢譯為『跡』。就像一頭象的身軀有四個足跡，也像一首頌總共有四句組成。現在就意義來翻譯為『句』。『句』能夠完整地詮釋意義。梵語是薄迦（吉

【English Translation】 English version: 『As has been explained regarding the chapter on the totality of saṃjñā, uddeśa, and akṣara,』 this below is the seventh major section of the text, clarifying nāma-kāya (aggregate of names) – nāma-kāya etc. This is a summary of the chapter. 『The so-called below』 is the formal explanation. Nāma (name), pada (phrase), vyañjana (syllable), and kāya (aggregate) are their original designations. In order, they are explained using the different terms saṃjñā (cognition), uddeśa (chapter), akṣara (letter), and samudāya (summary).

『The treatise says to the kāya of vyañjana,』 within the prose section, it is divided into two parts: first, explaining the verses; second, questions and answers. 『This below explains the verses,』 which is explaining the word 『etc.』

『It should be known that within this, regarding saṃjñā of rūpa, gandha, etc.,』 this is separately explaining 『nāma,』 that is, using 『saṃjñā』 to explain 『nāma.』 In Sanskrit, it is nāma, translated into Chinese as 『名』 (name), meaning following the meaning, returning to the meaning, going to the meaning, summoning the meaning, that is, following the sound and returning to the object, summoning rūpa (form) etc. 『Nāma』 can express meaning, but it is not a combination of meanings. Sound is not capable of expressing meaning, nor is it a combination of meanings. Therefore, the second volume of the Abhidharma says: 『It is not that speech directly expresses meaning, otherwise, when saying 'fire,' the mouth would be burned.』 Rather, it is because of speech that names such as 'fire' arise. Through names such as 'fire,' the meanings of 'fire' etc. are expressed. Expression refers to the ability to generate awareness of the manifested meaning in others, not a combination with meaning (the above is the content of the treatise). In Sanskrit, it is saṃjñā, translated into Chinese as 『想』 (thought), which is the meaning of being able to grasp images and single-mindedly adhere to them, or the meaning of jointly establishing a contract. 『Speaking of making saṃjñā,』『making』 refers to creating. Because the 『saṃjñā』 in the mental factors grasps the image and then establishes and creates this 『nāma,』 it is created by 『saṃjñā,』 so it is called 『making saṃjñā.』『Speaking of nāma being saṃjñā,』 it is named from the cause.

Another explanation is that arising from 『nāma』 is the ability to generate 『saṃjñā,』 because it can generate 『saṃjñā,』 it is called 『making saṃjñā.』 Another explanation is that 『making』 means 『arising,』 because of names such as devas (gods) and humans, the 『saṃjñā』 of devas and humans arises, so it is called 『making saṃjñā.』『Speaking of nāma being saṃjñā,』 it is named from the result. Another explanation is that 『saṃjñā』 here is another name for 『nāma.』 Because 『nāma』 is all about establishing an important contract that can express meaning, that is, because this 『saṃjñā』 can have expression, it is called 『making.』 That is, 『making』 is 『saṃjñā,』 called 『making saṃjñā.』

『The pada to the uddeśa etc.,』 this is separately explaining 『pada,』 that is, using 『uddeśa』 to explain 『pada.』 In Sanskrit, it is pada, translated into Chinese as 『跡』 (trace). Just like an elephant's body has four footprints, and like a verse is composed of four lines in total. Now, it is translated as 『句』 (phrase) according to the meaning. 『Pada』 can completely express meaning. In Sanskrit, it is bhaga (gi

何反)唐言章。還是詮義究竟。如說諸行無常等章。由此義同故以章釋句。章即句之異目　問若依外典章．句義別。如何以章釋句　解云方俗不同。此間章．句句少章多。印度國法。章．句二種俱是詮義究竟。故得以章釋句。

或能辨了至此章稱句者。又約聲明解句　業用謂所作業用　德謂諸法道德。隨其所應皆有德用　時是助句。謂能辨了業用．德時　相應是鉤戀義。謂能辨了業用．德時。于中所有名義鉤戀不斷　差別謂隨何法有此業用．德。與余法不同故名差別如言提婆達多將黑牛來。構取乳與親教飲。于中運動名業用。黑牛乳冷能療熱病名德。所有名義不絕名相應。此有如是業用．德。與余法不同名差別。若能辨了業用．德時相應．差別。此章稱句　又解業是所作業　用是能作用　德是諸法道德　時是三世時　若此法。與此所作業合名相應　不與彼法相應名差別　若此法。與此能作用合名相應。不與彼法相應名差別。若法與此德合名相應。不與彼法相應名差別。若法與此時合名相應。不與彼相應名差別。應知相應．差別通業。四等謂隨能辨了業．用．德．時相應．差別。此章稱句　又解如一色處極微自相。有是所見業。或舉．下業。有能發識用或取果用青．黃等德　過．未等時　與無量共相合名相應　簡

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：何反（梵語：Katama，意為『什麼』）唐言（梵語翻譯成漢語）為『章』。還是詮釋意義究竟之處。例如說『諸行無常』等章。由此意義相同，所以用章來解釋句。章就是句的別稱。問：如果按照外道的經典，章和句的意義不同，如何用章來解釋句呢？答：因為各地的風俗不同。這裡章和句，句少而章多。在印度，章和句兩種都是詮釋意義究竟之處。所以可以用章來解釋句。

或者能夠辨別瞭解，到此章就稱為句。又從聲明（梵語：Śabda-vidyā，古印度的一種語言學和語法學）的角度來解釋句：業用，是指所作的業的作用；德，是指諸法的道德。根據情況，都有德用；時，是輔助句子的，指能夠辨別瞭解業用、德和時間；相應，是鉤連的意思，指能夠辨別瞭解業用、德和時間，其中所有名義鉤連不斷；差別，是指任何法有此業用、德，與其他的法不同，所以叫做差別。例如說『提婆達多（梵語：Devadatta，人名，意為『天授』）將黑牛帶來，榨取乳汁給親教師飲用』。其中運動叫做業用，黑牛乳冷能治療熱病叫做德。所有名義不絕叫做相應。此有如此業用、德，與其他法不同叫做差別。如果能夠辨別瞭解業用、德、時間、相應、差別，此章就稱為句。又解釋說，業是所作之業，用是能起作用，德是諸法的道德，時是過去、現在、未來三世的時間。如果此法與此所作業結合叫做相應，不與彼法相應叫做差別。如果此法與此能起作用結合叫做相應，不與彼法相應叫做差別。如果法與此德結合叫做相應，不與彼法相應叫做差別。如果法與此時結合叫做相應，不與彼相應叫做差別。應當知道相應、差別貫通於業、用、德、時四者。所謂能夠辨別瞭解業、用、德、時、相應、差別，此章就稱為句。又解釋說，如一色處極微自相，有是所見之業，或者舉起、放下之業，有能引發識的作用，或者取果的作用，青色、黃色等的德，過去、未來等的時間，與無量共相合叫做相應，簡擇...

【English Translation】 English version: Katama (Sanskrit: Katama, meaning 'what'), translated into Chinese, is '章' (zhāng, chapter). It still refers to the ultimate meaning. For example, the chapter saying 'all things are impermanent' and so on. Because the meaning is the same, the chapter is used to explain the sentence. 章 (zhāng) is another name for 句 (jù, sentence). Question: If, according to external classics, the meanings of 章 (zhāng) and 句 (jù) are different, how can 章 (zhāng) be used to explain 句 (jù)? Answer: Because the customs of different places are different. Here, 章 (zhāng) and 句 (jù), there are fewer 句 (jù) and more 章 (zhāng). In India, both 章 (zhāng) and 句 (jù) are places where the ultimate meaning is explained. Therefore, 章 (zhāng) can be used to explain 句 (jù).

Or, being able to discern and understand, this chapter is called a sentence. Also, explaining the sentence from the perspective of Śabda-vidyā (Sanskrit: Śabda-vidyā, an ancient Indian linguistics and grammar): Karma-function refers to the function of the karma performed; Virtue refers to the morality of all dharmas. Depending on the situation, there are virtues and functions; Time is auxiliary to the sentence, referring to being able to discern and understand karma-function, virtue, and time; Correspondence means hooking and linking, referring to being able to discern and understand karma-function, virtue, and time, in which all names and meanings are hooked and linked continuously; Difference refers to any dharma that has this karma-function and virtue, which is different from other dharmas, so it is called difference. For example, saying 'Devadatta (Sanskrit: Devadatta, a name, meaning 'God-given') brought the black cow and extracted milk for the teacher to drink'. Among them, movement is called karma-function, and the cold black cow's milk can treat fever is called virtue. All names and meanings are continuous is called correspondence. This has such karma-function and virtue, which is different from other dharmas is called difference. If one can discern and understand karma-function, virtue, time, correspondence, and difference, this chapter is called a sentence. It is also explained that karma is the karma performed, function is the ability to function, virtue is the morality of all dharmas, and time is the time of the past, present, and future three times. If this dharma combines with this karma performed, it is called correspondence, and not corresponding with that dharma is called difference. If this dharma combines with this ability to function, it is called correspondence, and not corresponding with that dharma is called difference. If dharma combines with this virtue, it is called correspondence, and not corresponding with that dharma is called difference. If dharma combines with this time, it is called correspondence, and not corresponding with that is called difference. It should be known that correspondence and difference are common to karma, function, virtue, and time. The so-called being able to discern and understand karma, function, virtue, time, correspondence, and difference, this chapter is called a sentence. It is also explained that, like the self-nature of extremely small particles in a single color realm, there is the karma of what is seen, or the karma of lifting up or putting down, there is the function of being able to generate consciousness, or the function of taking fruit, the virtue of blue, yellow, etc., the time of past, future, etc., combining with immeasurable common characteristics is called correspondence, selection...

不相應名差別。或不相應即名差別。謂能辨了色是所見等。此章稱句。

文者謂字至壹伊等字者。此別釋文。即以字釋文　梵云便膳那唐言文。是能彰顯義。近顯名．句。遠顯于義　西國風俗呼扇．鹽．酢等亦名便膳那。亦是能顯義。扇能顯風。鹽．酢等能顯食中味也。舊譯為味譯者謬也　梵云惡剎羅唐言字。是不流轉義。謂不隨方流轉改易。亦是能彰顯義。能彰名．句遠顯義也。故今以字用釋其文。字即文異稱也。即哀．阿等字是不相應行攝。非同此方墨書字也　又字無詮表。有詮表者即是名句。但是名句所依。能顯彼二。體無詮表。

豈不此字亦書分名者。問。豈不此阿哀等字。亦能詮彼紙上墨書分。亦是紙上墨書分名。是即亦有詮表應亦是名。如何言無詮表。

非為顯書分至非書分名者。答。非為顯紙上書分製造阿．𧙃等字。但為顯阿．𧙃等字製造紙上書分。寄喻來況。非為顯假像製造真容。但為顯真容製造假像。古昔諸賢共相議論。云何當令遠處他人。雖不聞我所說語言。而亦得解。故相共造紙上書分。傳令遠寄以顯諸字。字復能顯名句二種彼方得解。是故諸字非是書分之名。此顯製造書分所以。以此準知。雖不聞聲。色亦能顯字．名．句三。或有雖不發言以身表語。亦色顯名等。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『不相應名差別』，或者說『不相應』即是『名差別』。這是指能夠辨別顏色是所見之物等等。這一章稱為『句』。

『文』指的是『字』，例如『壹』、『伊』等字。這是對『文』的特別解釋，即用『字』來解釋『文』。梵語稱『便膳那』（vyঞ্জন，vyañjana），漢語翻譯為『文』，是能夠彰顯意義的。近處彰顯『名』、『句』，遠處彰顯意義。在西方的風俗中，稱扇子、鹽、醋等也為『便膳那』，也是能夠彰顯意義的。扇子能夠彰顯風，鹽、醋等能夠彰顯食物中的味道。舊的翻譯為『味』，是翻譯者的錯誤。梵語稱『惡剎羅』（akṣara），漢語翻譯為『字』，是不流轉的意思，指不隨著地域的改變而流轉改易。也是能夠彰顯意義的，能夠彰顯『名』、『句』，遠處彰顯意義。所以現在用『字』來解釋『文』，『字』是『文』的另一種稱呼。即『哀』、『阿』等字是不相應行所包含的，不同於此地的墨書字。而且字沒有詮釋表達的功能，有詮釋表達功能的就是『名』、『句』。字只是『名』、『句』所依賴的基礎，能夠彰顯它們二者，其本體沒有詮釋表達的功能。

『難道這個字也是書寫部分的名稱嗎？』這是提問。難道這個『阿』、『哀』等字，也能詮釋表達紙上的墨書部分，也是紙上墨書部分的名稱嗎？如果是這樣，那麼它也應該有詮釋表達的功能，也應該是『名』，為什麼說它沒有詮釋表達的功能呢？

『不是爲了彰顯書寫部分，而是爲了彰顯非書寫部分的名稱。』這是回答。不是爲了彰顯紙上的書寫部分而製造『阿』、『𧙃』等字，而是爲了彰顯『阿』、『𧙃』等字而製造紙上的書寫部分。這可以用比喻來說明：不是爲了彰顯假像而製造真容，而是爲了彰顯真容而製造假像。古代的賢者們共同商議，怎樣才能讓遠處的其他人，即使聽不到我所說的語言，也能理解我的意思呢？所以共同製造紙上的書寫部分，傳遞到遠處來彰顯這些字，字又能彰顯『名』、『句』兩種，對方就能理解。因此，這些字不是書寫部分的名稱。這說明了製造書寫部分的原因。由此可以推知，即使聽不到聲音，顏色也能彰顯『字』、『名』、『句』三種。或者有人雖然不說話，但用身體來表達語言，也是用顏色來彰顯『名』等。

【English Translation】 English version 'Non-corresponding name difference,' or 'non-corresponding' is 'name difference.' This refers to the ability to distinguish that color is what is seen, etc. This chapter is called 'sentence'.

'Text' refers to 'words,' such as 'one,' 'I,' etc. This is a special explanation of 'text,' that is, using 'words' to explain 'text.' The Sanskrit term is 'vyañjana' (便膳那), which is translated into Chinese as 'text,' and it is capable of manifesting meaning. It manifests 'name' and 'sentence' nearby, and meaning far away. In Western customs, fans, salt, vinegar, etc., are also called 'vyañjana,' which are also capable of manifesting meaning. Fans can manifest wind, and salt, vinegar, etc., can manifest the taste in food. The old translation as 'taste' is a mistake by the translator. The Sanskrit term is 'akṣara' (惡剎羅), which is translated into Chinese as 'word,' meaning non-flowing, referring to not flowing and changing with regional changes. It is also capable of manifesting meaning, capable of manifesting 'name' and 'sentence,' and meaning far away. Therefore, 'word' is now used to explain 'text,' and 'word' is another name for 'text.' That is, words such as 'ai' and 'a' are included in non-corresponding formations, which are different from the ink-written words here. Moreover, words do not have the function of interpreting and expressing; what has the function of interpreting and expressing is 'name' and 'sentence.' Words are only the basis on which 'name' and 'sentence' depend, and can manifest the two, but their essence does not have the function of interpreting and expressing.

'Isn't this word also the name of the written part?' This is a question. Can these words 'a,' 'ai,' etc., also interpret and express the ink-written part on the paper, and are they also the names of the ink-written part on the paper? If so, then it should also have the function of interpreting and expressing, and it should also be a 'name,' so why is it said that it does not have the function of interpreting and expressing?

'It is not to manifest the written part, but to manifest the name of the non-written part.' This is the answer. It is not to create words such as 'a' and '𧙃' to manifest the written part on the paper, but to create the written part on the paper to manifest words such as 'a' and '𧙃.' This can be illustrated by analogy: it is not to create a true image to manifest a false image, but to create a false image to manifest a true image. The ancient sages discussed together, how can others in the distance, even if they cannot hear what I say, understand what I mean? Therefore, they jointly created the written part on the paper and transmitted it to the distance to manifest these words, and the words can manifest the two types of 'name' and 'sentence,' so that the other party can understand. Therefore, these words are not the names of the written part. This explains the reason for creating the written part. From this, it can be inferred that even if the sound cannot be heard, the color can also manifest the three types of 'word,' 'name,' and 'sentence.' Or someone may not speak, but use the body to express language, which is also using color to manifest 'name,' etc.

云何名等身者。問。此下別解身。

謂想等總說至迦佉伽等者。答。以總說釋身。梵云迦耶唐言身。是聚集義。謂眾多名等聚集是身義也。梵云三木訖底唐言總說。是和集義。即合集總說眾多名等故。以總說釋其身也。言于合集義中說嗢遮界故者。于聲明中。依三摩婆曳(唐言合集)義立嗢遮為字界。界是本義。是故字本中。嗢遮宜以合集義釋。復以種種字緣。加嗢遮界。轉成三木訖底。唐言總說。總說之語既起自嗢遮。嗢遮是合集義。即知總說亦是合集。故以合集義中說嗢遮界。以證總說是合集義。即以總說解身。故知必以多名等合集。為名身等義　問何故婆沙云問名身者是何義。答是二名聚集義。是故一名不名身　解云婆沙據二名聚名身。此論據多名聚名身。各據一義亦不相違　問何故前文舉𧙃．阿等。後文舉迦．佉等　解云𧙃．阿等是字音。迦．佉等是字型。為顯字音．字型皆是字攝。故各舉初以攝於后　又解字中有散字。謂𧙃．阿等。有連字謂迦．佉等。字一即是。故約散說。字身約多故說連帶。

豈不此三至心不相應行者。此下問答。此即經部問。豈不名等語聲為體。五法之中色法以攝。如何乃言心不相應。名．句．文三應色蘊攝。語為性故。猶如妄語。

此三非以至即令了義者。說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『云何名等身者（什麼是名為等身）？』問：此下別解身（以下分別解釋『身』）。『謂想等總說至迦佉伽等者（所謂的想等總說，乃至迦佉伽等）』答：以總說釋身（用總說來解釋『身』）。梵語『迦耶』，漢語說『身』，是聚集的意思。意思是說眾多名等聚集就是『身』的意思。梵語『三木訖底』，漢語說『總說』，是和集的意思。即合集總說眾多名等，所以用總說來解釋『身』。『言于合集義中說嗢遮界故者（說在合集的意思中說『嗢遮界』的原因是）』，在聲明中，依據『三摩婆曳』（唐言合集，漢語說是合集）的意義，立『嗢遮』為字界。『界』是本義。因此在字本中，『嗢遮』應該用合集的意思來解釋。再用種種字緣，加上『嗢遮界』，轉成『三木訖底』，漢語說『總說』。『總說』這個詞既然起源於『嗢遮』，而『嗢遮』是合集的意思，那麼就知道『總說』也是合集。所以說在合集的意思中說『嗢遮界』，以此來證明『總說』是合集的意思。即用『總說』來解釋『身』，所以知道必須用多個名等合集，作為名身等的意義。問：『何故婆沙云問名身者是何義（為什麼《婆沙論》說，問『名身』是什麼意思）？』答：『是二名聚集義（是兩個名字聚集的意思）』。『是故一名不名身（所以一個名字不能稱為『身』）』。解說：婆沙論根據二名聚集為名身，此論根據多名聚集為名身，各自根據一種意義，也不互相違背。問：『何故前文舉𧙃．阿等（為什麼前文舉𧙃、阿等），後文舉迦．佉等（後文舉迦、佉等）？』解說：𧙃、阿等是字音，迦、佉等是字型。爲了顯示字音、字型都是字所包含的，所以各自舉出開頭來概括後面的。又解釋說，字中有散字，比如𧙃、阿等；有連字，比如迦、佉等。字一個是整體，所以就散字來說；字身是多個，所以就連帶字來說。

『豈不此三至心不相應行者（難道這三者不是以語聲為體，屬於心不相應行嗎）？』此下問答（以下是問答）。此即經部問（這是經部的提問）。『豈不名等語聲為體（難道名等是以語聲為體），五法之中色法以攝（在五法中屬於色法所攝）？如何乃言心不相應（為什麼說與心不相應）？』名、句、文三者應該屬於色蘊所攝，因為是以語為體性的，就像妄語一樣。

『此三非以至即令了義者（這三者不是以...就能讓人瞭解意義的）』說

【English Translation】 English version: 『What is meant by 'name-body' (等身)?』 Question: The following separately explains 'body'. 『Referring to the general statement of thought, etc., up to ka, kha, ga, etc.』 Answer: Explain 'body' with a general statement. The Sanskrit word 'Kāya' (迦耶), translated into Chinese as '身' (shēn, body), means 'gathering'. It means that the gathering of many names, etc., is the meaning of 'body'. The Sanskrit word 'Saṃkīrti' (三木訖底), translated into Chinese as '總說' (zǒng shuō, general statement), means 'harmonious gathering'. That is, it combines and gathers many names, etc., so it uses a general statement to explain 'body'. 『The reason for saying 'Udgāra-pada' (嗢遮界) in the meaning of harmonious gathering』 is that in grammar, based on the meaning of 'Samavāya' (三摩婆曳) (translated into Chinese as '合集' hé jí, harmonious gathering), 'Udgāra' is established as the boundary of words. 'Boundary' is the original meaning. Therefore, in the origin of words, 'Udgāra' should be explained with the meaning of harmonious gathering. Furthermore, with various word conditions, adding 'Udgāra-pada', it transforms into 'Saṃkīrti', translated into Chinese as '總說' (general statement). Since the term 'general statement' originates from 'Udgāra', and 'Udgāra' means harmonious gathering, then it is known that 'general statement' is also harmonious gathering. Therefore, saying 'Udgāra-pada' in the meaning of harmonious gathering is to prove that 'general statement' means harmonious gathering. That is, using 'general statement' to explain 'body', so it is known that it must use the harmonious gathering of many names, etc., as the meaning of name-body, etc. Question: 'Why does the Vibhāṣā (婆沙) say, 'What is the meaning of asking about name-body?' Answer: 'It is the meaning of the gathering of two names.' 'Therefore, one name is not called a 'body'.' Explanation: The Vibhāṣā considers the gathering of two names as a name-body, while this treatise considers the gathering of many names as a name-body. Each is based on one meaning, and they do not contradict each other. Question: 'Why does the previous text mention a, ā, etc. (𧙃．阿等), and the later text mention ka, kha, etc. (迦．佉等)?' Explanation: a, ā, etc., are the sounds of letters, while ka, kha, etc., are the forms of letters. To show that both the sounds and forms of letters are included in letters, each mentions the beginning to encompass the following. Another explanation is that there are scattered letters in letters, such as a, ā, etc.; and there are connected letters, such as ka, kha, etc. One letter is a whole, so it is discussed in terms of scattered letters; the body of letters is many, so it is discussed in terms of connected letters.

『Isn't it that these three are not associated with the mind?』 The following is a question and answer. This is a question from the Sautrāntika (經部). 『Isn't it that names, etc., have speech-sound as their substance, and are included in the form aggregate among the five dharmas? How can it be said that they are not associated with the mind?』 The three, name, sentence, and phrase, should be included in the form aggregate, because they have speech as their nature, just like false speech.

『These three are not such that they immediately make the meaning clear』 says

一切有部答。顯因不成過。

云何令了者。經部徴。

謂語發名至乃能令了者。說一切有部釋。由名能了。非由彼語。

非但音聲至方稱語故者。經部復自解云。我宗亦說。非但一切音聲皆稱為語。要由此聲有所詮表。義可了知方稱為語。

何等音聲令義可了者。徴。

謂能說者至別有實名者。經部釋。劫初已來諸能說者。于諸義中。已共立聲為能詮定量。且如古者諸有智人。於九義中共立一瞿聲。為能詮定量。此即引證　九義者。一方。二獸。三地。四光。五言。六金剛寶。七眼。八天。九水。此之共許能詮定量何但我立。諸有毗婆沙師。執有實名能顯義者。亦定應許如是諸義之名。相共立為能詮定量　又解如是九義瞿名余解如前。

又解應言如是九義瞿聲。而言名者名即聲故。若言此頌句中九義由名能顯。但由音聲顯能詮用已辨。何須橫計聲外別有實名。

又未了此名至何待別名者。經部復作二門進退徴責。若言此名聲能生顯。應一切聲皆能生顯。生即如種生芽等。顯即如燈照瓶等。若謂生顯聲有差別。此足顯義。何待別名。

又諸念聲至可由語發者。此下經部別破生名。如多念聲生一名時。前聲至現后聲未來。后聲若至前聲已謝。不可聚集云何生名。亦無一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一切有部回答說：『顯現的原因不成立。』（顯因不成過：指所提出的理由無法充分證明所要論證的觀點。）

經部提問：『如何才能使人理解？』

說一切有部解釋說：『通過語言發出名稱才能使人理解。』（謂語發名至乃能令了者：強調名稱的重要性，認為理解依賴於名稱的傳達。）因為是通過名稱才能理解，而不是通過那些語言。

經部再次解釋說：『並非僅僅是聲音才能被稱為語言。』（非但音聲至方稱語故者：反駁一切有部，認為語言不僅僅是聲音。）我宗也認為，並非所有的聲音都可以稱為語言，只有那些能夠表達意義，並且意義可以被理解的聲音才能被稱為語言。

提問：『什麼樣的聲音才能使意義可以被理解？』

經部解釋說：『那些能夠說話的人，對於各種意義，已經共同確立了聲音作為能夠表達意義的標準。』（謂能說者至別有實名者：強調約定俗成的語言規則。）例如，古代的智者們，對於九種意義，共同確立了一個『瞿』（G瞿：梵文，指牛）的聲音，作為能夠表達意義的標準。這可以作為引證。這九種意義是：一、方向（一方）；二、獸（二獸）；三、地（三地）；四、光（四光）；五、言語（五言）；六、金剛寶（六金剛寶）；七、眼睛（七眼）；八、天（八天）；九、水（九水）。這種共同認可的能夠表達意義的標準，難道只是我（經部）建立的嗎？那些毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika：佛教部派之一，即一切有部），認為存在能夠顯現意義的實在的名稱，也一定應該認可像這樣各種意義的名稱，是共同確立的能夠表達意義的標準。

又解釋說，應該說像這樣九種意義的『瞿』聲，而說成『名』，是因為『名』就是聲音。如果說這首偈頌中九種意義是由名稱來顯現的，僅僅由聲音來顯現能夠表達意義的作用就已經很清楚了，為什麼還要憑空設想聲音之外還存在實在的名稱呢？

經部再次從兩個方面提出質疑：『如果說這個名稱的聲音能夠產生顯現，那麼所有的聲音都應該能夠產生顯現。』（又未了此名至何待別名者：質疑一切有部關於名稱的觀點。）產生就像種子產生芽等，顯現就像燈照亮瓶子等。如果說產生顯現的聲音有差別，這就足以顯現意義，為什麼還要等待別的名稱呢？

以下經部單獨破斥產生名稱的觀點：『如果多個念頭的聲音同時產生一個名稱，那麼前一個聲音已經過去，后一個聲音還沒有到來。』（又諸念聲至可由語發者：反駁名稱是由多個聲音同時產生的觀點。）后一個聲音如果到來，前一個聲音已經消失，不可能聚集在一起，怎麼能產生名稱呢？也沒有一個

【English Translation】 English version: The Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivadins: a major Buddhist school of thought) respond: 'The reason for manifestation is not established.' (顯因不成過: The reason for manifestation is not established. This refers to the argument that the stated reason is insufficient to prove the point being made.)

The Sautrantikas (Sautrantikas: a Buddhist school of thought) inquire: 'How does one cause understanding?'

The Sarvastivadins explain: 'It is through the utterance of a name that one is able to cause understanding.' (謂語發名至乃能令了者: This emphasizes the importance of names, asserting that understanding depends on the communication of names.) Understanding comes through names, not through those utterances.

The Sautrantikas further explain: 'It is not merely sound that is called language.' (非但音聲至方稱語故者: This refutes the Sarvastivadins, arguing that language is more than just sound.) Our school also says that not all sounds are called language; only those sounds that express meaning and whose meaning can be understood are called language.

Inquiry: 'What kind of sound causes meaning to be understood?'

The Sautrantikas explain: 'Those who are able to speak have already collectively established sounds as the standard for expressing meaning in various meanings.' (謂能說者至別有實名者: This emphasizes the conventional nature of language.) For example, in ancient times, wise people collectively established the sound 'go' (瞿: Sanskrit for 'cow') for nine meanings as the standard for expressing meaning. This can be cited as evidence. These nine meanings are: one, direction (一方); two, animal (二獸); three, earth (三地); four, light (四光); five, speech (五言); six, vajra jewel (六金剛寶); seven, eye (七眼); eight, heaven (八天); nine, water (九水). Is this collectively recognized standard for expressing meaning established only by me (the Sautrantikas)? Those Vaibhashikas (Vaibhashika: a sub-school of Sarvastivada), who hold that there are real names that can manifest meaning, must also acknowledge that names for such meanings are collectively established as the standard for expressing meaning.

Furthermore, it should be said that the 'go' sound for these nine meanings, and it is called 'name' because 'name' is sound. If it is said that the nine meanings in this verse are manifested by name, then the function of sound manifesting meaning is already clear. Why unnecessarily posit a real name separate from sound?

The Sautrantikas again raise two-pronged questions: 'If the sound of this name can produce manifestation, then all sounds should be able to produce manifestation.' (又未了此名至何待別名者: This questions the Sarvastivadins' view on names.) Production is like a seed producing a sprout, and manifestation is like a lamp illuminating a pot. If there is a difference in the sound that produces manifestation, then this is sufficient to manifest meaning. Why wait for another name?

The following is where the Sautrantikas separately refute the view of producing names: 'If multiple thought-sounds simultaneously produce a name, then the previous sound has already passed, and the subsequent sound has not yet arrived.' (又諸念聲至可由語發者: This refutes the view that names are produced by multiple sounds simultaneously.) If the subsequent sound arrives, the previous sound has already disappeared. It is impossible to gather them together. How can a name be produced? There is also no single

名分分漸生。如何名生可由語發。

云何待過去諸表至能生無表者。說一切有部救。如受戒時。最後念表。待前表力方生無表。最後念聲。生名亦爾。

若爾最後位至應能了義者。經部難。既最後位聲乃生名。是即此名唯居后念。前位未來。但聞最後聲應能了義。

若作是執至不可集故者。經部牒破。若作是執。我不說語能生名。謂語能生文。文復生名。名方顯義。此中過難。應同前說語生名失。以諸念文不可聚集云何生名。亦無一名分分漸生。如何此名可由文生。

語顯名過應例如生者。此別破語顯名過。不能具述。應例如生。又諸念聲不可聚集。亦無一法分分漸顯。如何名顯可由語發　云何　若爾　及若作是執等。翻前可知。以顯替生釋即可解。

又異語文至皆不應理者。上別破名。此別破文。一即顯體莫知。二即例同名破。但以文替名為異。余義皆同。準釋可解。

又若有執至而不應許者。敘異執破。又若有執名如四相與義俱生。破云。現在世名。目去．來義不應得有。以不俱故。子等漸大父等立名。即顯初生非名俱也。若初名俱如何后立。有為有生容許名俱。無為無生應無有名。執名如生等相而不應許。

然世尊說至及心次第者。經部會釋經文。經言頌依于名．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：名和分的區分逐漸產生。那麼，名是如何產生的呢？可以通過語言表達產生嗎？

如何依靠過去諸多的表業（表業：通過身語意表現出來的行為）才能產生無表業（無表業：不會被他人察覺的行為）呢？說一切有部（Sarvastivadins）解釋說，比如受戒的時候，最後那一念的表業，依靠前面諸表業的力量才能產生無表業。最後那一念的聲音，產生名也是如此。

如果這樣，那麼最後那個位置的聲音就應該能夠理解意義了？經部（Sautrantika）提出疑問。既然最後位置的聲音才產生名，那就是說這個名只存在於最後那一念。前面的位置還是未來，但聽到最後的聲音就應該能夠理解意義了。

如果有人這樣認為，那麼就不能聚集了。經部駁斥說，如果有人這樣認為，我不說語言能直接產生名，而是說語言能產生文字，文字再產生名，名才能顯現意義。這種說法存在問題，應該和前面說的語言直接產生名一樣存在過失，因為諸多念頭的文字無法聚集，怎麼能產生名呢？也沒有一個名是分部分分逐漸產生的。那麼，這個名怎麼能通過文字產生呢？

語言顯現名，這個過失應該像產生一樣嗎？這是分別駁斥語言顯現名的過失，不能完全敘述，應該像產生一樣。而且，諸多念頭的聲音無法聚集，也沒有一種法是分部分分逐漸顯現的。那麼，名怎麼能通過語言表達顯現呢？『云何』、『若爾』以及『若作是執』等等，反過來推導就可以知道。用『顯』代替『生』來解釋就可以理解了。

還有，不同的語言文字，都不應該合理。上面是分別駁斥名，這裡是分別駁斥文字。一是顯現的本體無法得知，二是類比像名一樣被駁斥。只是用文字代替名，作為不同之處，其餘意義都相同。參照解釋就可以理解。

還有，如果有人認為，名就像四相（四相：生、住、異、滅）一樣，與意義同時產生。駁斥說，現在的名，指稱過去、未來的意義是不應該存在的，因為不同時。兒子等逐漸長大，父親等為他們取名，就說明最初產生的時候不是名同時產生。如果最初名是同時產生的，那麼後來為什麼還要取名呢？有為法（有為法：由因緣和合而生的事物）有產生，可以容許名同時產生。無為法（無為法：不依賴因緣而存在的真理）沒有產生，就不應該有名。認為名像生等四相一樣，是不應該允許的。

然而，世尊說，頌依賴於名以及心的次第。經部會通解釋經文。經中說頌依賴於名...

【English Translation】 English version: The distinction between name and division gradually arises. How does a name arise? Can it be generated through language?

How can one rely on past expressions (表業, biao ye: actions manifested through body, speech, and mind) to generate non-manifest expressions (無表業, wu biao ye: actions not perceived by others)? The Sarvastivadins (說一切有部) explain that, for example, during the ordination ceremony, the last thought of expression relies on the power of the preceding expressions to generate non-manifest expressions. The last sound, in the same way, generates the name.

If that's the case, then the sound at the final position should be able to understand the meaning? The Sautrantika (經部) questions. Since the name is generated only by the sound at the final position, it means that this name exists only in the last thought. The preceding positions are still in the future, but upon hearing the last sound, one should be able to understand the meaning.

If someone holds this view, then it cannot be assembled. The Sautrantika refutes, 'If someone holds this view, I don't say that language can directly generate the name. Rather, language can generate letters, and letters then generate the name, and the name then reveals the meaning.' This statement has a problem. It should have the same fault as the previous statement that language directly generates the name, because the letters of numerous thoughts cannot be assembled. How can they generate a name? Nor is there a name that is gradually generated part by part. Then, how can this name be generated through letters?

Is the fault of language revealing the name similar to that of generation? This separately refutes the fault of language revealing the name. It cannot be fully described; it should be like generation. Moreover, the sounds of numerous thoughts cannot be assembled, and there is no dharma that is gradually revealed part by part. Then, how can the name be revealed through language? 'How,' 'If so,' and 'If someone holds this view,' etc., can be understood by reversing the reasoning. It can be understood by interpreting 'reveal' in place of 'generate'.

Furthermore, different languages and writings should not be reasonable. The above separately refutes the name; this separately refutes the writing. First, the essence of what is revealed cannot be known. Second, it is refuted by analogy like the name. Only writing is used in place of name as the difference; the remaining meanings are the same. It can be understood by referring to the explanation.

Furthermore, if someone believes that the name, like the four characteristics (四相, si xiang: birth, duration, change, and extinction), arises simultaneously with the meaning. It is refuted by saying that the current name, referring to past and future meanings, should not exist, because they are not simultaneous. When sons, etc., gradually grow up, fathers, etc., give them names, which shows that the initial birth is not simultaneous with the name. If the initial name is simultaneous, then why give a name later? Conditioned dharmas (有為法, you wei fa: things arising from causes and conditions) have generation, so it can be allowed that the name arises simultaneously. Unconditioned dharmas (無為法, wu wei fa: truths existing independently of causes and conditions) have no generation, so there should be no name. It should not be allowed to believe that the name is like the four characteristics of birth, etc.

However, the World Honored One said that verses rely on names and the sequence of mind. The Sautrantika explains the sutra. The sutra says that verses rely on names...

及造頌文士。不言依聲者。此于諸義。古昔諸賢。于其聲上共立份量。能詮彼義聲即是名。名于聲上假建立故。名即以聲為體。此名安布差別為頌。由如是義說頌依名。非言名有別體。此頌是名安布差別。執頌實有不應正理。如眾樹成行離樹無行。多心次第離心無次第。此頌亦爾。離名之外無別體也。

或唯應執至便為無用者。經部縱許有文復破名．句。集文即成名．句。更執有餘名．句便為無用。

毗婆沙師至所能了故者。毗婆沙師歸本宗。嘆法甚深非皆能了　因斯義便略依說一切有部辨名．句．文三。一明三位。二問答分別　言明三位者。正理論云。毗婆沙說。名．句．文三各有三種。名三種者。謂名．名身．多名身。句．文亦爾。名有多位。謂一字生。或二字生。或多字生。一字生者。說一字時但可有名。說二字時即謂名身。或作是說。說三字時。即謂多名身。或作是說。說四字時方謂多名身。二字生者。說二字時但可有名。說四字時即謂名身。或作是說。說六字時即謂多名身。或作是說。說八字時方謂多名身。多字生中三字生者。說三字時但可有名。說六字時即謂名身。或作是說。說九字時即謂多名身。或作是說。說十二字時方謂多名身。此為門故。余多字生名身．多名身。如理應說。句亦多位

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本以及創作頌文的人士，不應說頌文依賴於聲音。因為對於這些意義，古代的賢哲們，在聲音之上共同設立了份量。能夠詮釋那些意義的聲音就是名（nāma，名稱）。名是在聲音之上假立的，所以名以聲音為本體。這名安立的差別就是頌文。由於這樣的意義，所以說頌文依賴於名，而不是說名有別的本體。這頌文是名安立的差別，認為頌文真實存在是不合理的。就像眾多樹木排列成行，離開樹木就沒有行；眾多心識次第生起，離開心識就沒有次第。這頌文也是這樣，在名之外沒有別的本體。

或者僅僅應該認為頌文的存在是沒有用的。經部（Sautrāntika）即使允許有文，也反駁名、句。集合文就成為名、句，再認為有名、句之外的東西就是沒有用的。

毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）認為頌文能夠被理解。毗婆沙師迴歸本宗，讚歎佛法甚深，不是所有人都能夠理解的。因此，就簡略地依據說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）來辨別名、句、文三者。一是說明三者的位置，二是問答分別。說明三者的位置，正理論說，毗婆沙宗說，名、句、文三者各有三種。名有三種，即名、名身、多名身。句、文也是這樣。名有多種位置，即一個字產生，或者兩個字產生，或者多個字產生。一個字產生時，說一個字時只能有名。說兩個字時就稱為名身。或者這樣說，說三個字時就稱為多名身。或者這樣說，說四個字時才稱為多名身。兩個字產生時，說兩個字時只能有名。說四個字時就稱為名身。或者這樣說，說六個字時就稱為多名身。或者這樣說，說八個字時才稱為多名身。多個字產生中，三個字產生時，說三個字時只能有名。說六個字時就稱為名身。或者這樣說，說九個字時就稱為多名身。或者這樣說，說十二個字時才稱為多名身。這是爲了開個頭，其餘多個字產生的名身、多名身，應該按照這個道理來說。句也有多種位置。

【English Translation】 English version And those who compose verses should not say that verses depend on sound. Because for these meanings, ancient sages have jointly established measures upon sound. The sound that can express those meanings is nāma (name). Since nāma is provisionally established upon sound, nāma has sound as its essence. This arrangement of nāma is the verse. Because of this meaning, it is said that the verse depends on nāma, not that nāma has a separate essence. This verse is a difference in the arrangement of nāma; it is unreasonable to hold that the verse truly exists. Just as many trees form a row, and there is no row apart from the trees; many consciousnesses arise in sequence, and there is no sequence apart from the consciousnesses. This verse is also like that; there is no separate entity apart from nāma.

Or it should only be held that the existence of verses is useless. Even if the Sautrāntika school allows for texts, it refutes nāma and sentences. Collecting texts becomes nāma and sentences, and to further hold that there is something beyond nāma and sentences is useless.

The Vaibhāṣika masters consider that verses can be understood. The Vaibhāṣika masters return to their own school, praising the profoundness of the Dharma, which not everyone can understand. Therefore, based on the Sarvāstivāda school, we briefly distinguish between nāma, sentences, and texts. First, we clarify the three positions; second, we differentiate through questions and answers. To clarify the three positions, the Nyāyānusāra says that the Vaibhāṣika school says that nāma, sentences, and texts each have three types. Nāma has three types: nāma, nāma-kāya (name-body), and bahu-nāma-kāya (many-name-body). Sentences and texts are also like this. Nāma has multiple positions, that is, one syllable arises, or two syllables arise, or multiple syllables arise. When one syllable arises, only nāma can be said when one syllable is spoken. When two syllables are spoken, it is called nāma-kāya. Or it is said that when three syllables are spoken, it is called bahu-nāma-kāya. Or it is said that only when four syllables are spoken is it called bahu-nāma-kāya. When two syllables arise, only nāma can be said when two syllables are spoken. When four syllables are spoken, it is called nāma-kāya. Or it is said that when six syllables are spoken, it is called bahu-nāma-kāya. Or it is said that only when eight syllables are spoken is it called bahu-nāma-kāya. Among the arising of multiple syllables, when three syllables arise, only nāma can be said when three syllables are spoken. When six syllables are spoken, it is called nāma-kāya. Or it is said that when nine syllables are spoken, it is called bahu-nāma-kāya. Or it is said that only when twelve syllables are spoken is it called bahu-nāma-kāya. This is to start things off; the nāma-kāya and bahu-nāma-kāya arising from the remaining multiple syllables should be explained according to this principle. Sentences also have multiple positions.

謂處中句。初句。后句。短句。長句。若八字生名處中句。不長不短故謂處中。三十二字生於四句。如是四句成室路迦。經論文章多依此數。若六字以上生名初句。二十六字以下生名后句。若減六字生名短句。過二十六字生名長句。且依處中句辨三種。說八字時但可有句。說十六字時即謂句身。或作是說。說二十四字時即謂多句身。或作是說。說三十二字時方謂多句身。文即字故唯有一位。說一字時但可有文。說二字時即謂文身。或作是說。說三字時即謂多文身。或作是說。說四字時方謂多文身。由此理故應作是說。說一字時有名。無名身。無多名身。無句。無句身。無多句身。有文。無文身。無多文身。說二字時有名。有名身。無多名身。無句等三。有文。有文身。無多文身。說四字時有名等三。無句等三。有文等三。說八字時有名等三。有句。無句身。無多句身。有文等三。說十六字時有名等三。有句。有句身。無多句身。有文等三。說三十二字時。名．句．文三各具三種。由此為門余如理說。婆沙十四云。然六字者為初句。二十六字者名為后句。此與正理亦不相違。言六字為初句者。舉初顯后。言二十六字為后句者。舉后顯前　二問答分別者　問如多名身中．一云說三字時名多名身。一云說四字時名多名身。其

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所謂的『處中句』，指的是初句、后句、短句和長句之間的一種狀態。如果八個字構成一個名稱，則稱為『處中句』，因為它既不長也不短。三十二個字由四個句子組成，像這樣的四個句子構成一個『室路迦』（Sloka，梵語詩節）。經文和文章大多依據這個字數。如果六個字以上構成一個名稱，則稱為『初句』；二十六個字以下構成一個名稱，則稱為『后句』。如果少於六個字，則稱為『短句』；超過二十六個字，則稱為『長句』。暫且依據『處中句』來辨別三種情況：說八個字時，只能說有『句』；說十六個字時，就稱為『句身』；或者有人這樣說，說二十四個字時，就稱為『多句身』；或者有人這樣說，說三十二個字時，才稱為『多句身』。『文』就是『字』，所以只有一個位置。說一個字時，只能說有『文』；說兩個字時，就稱為『文身』；或者有人這樣說，說三個字時，就稱為『多文身』；或者有人這樣說，說四個字時，才稱為『多文身』。由於這個道理，應該這樣說：說一個字時，有名（Nama，名稱），無名身，無多名身，無句（Vakya，句子），無句身，無多句身，有文（Akshara，文字），無文身，無多文身。說兩個字時，有名，有名身，無多名身，無句等三種情況，有文，有文身，無多文身。說四個字時，有名等三種情況，無句等三種情況，有文等三種情況。說八個字時，有名等三種情況，有句，無句身，無多句身，有文等三種情況。說十六個字時，有名等三種情況，有句，有句身，無多句身，有文等三種情況。說三十二個字時，名、句、文三種情況各自具備三種狀態。由此作為入門，其餘的可以按照這個道理來說明。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，阿毗達摩大毗婆沙論）第十四卷說：『六個字的是初句，二十六個字的是后句。』這與《正理》（Nyaya，正理經）也不相違背。說六個字是初句，是舉初以顯示后；說二十六個字是后句，是舉后以顯示前。二、問答分別：問：關於『多名身』，一種說法是說三個字時是『多名身』，一種說法是說四個字時是『多名身』，那麼...

【English Translation】 English version: The so-called 'middle sentence' refers to a state between the initial sentence, the final sentence, the short sentence, and the long sentence. If eight letters form a name, it is called a 'middle sentence' because it is neither long nor short. Thirty-two letters are composed of four sentences, and four such sentences constitute a 'Sloka' (Sanskrit verse). Sutras and articles mostly follow this number of letters. If six or more letters form a name, it is called the 'initial sentence'; if twenty-six or fewer letters form a name, it is called the 'final sentence'. If there are fewer than six letters, it is called a 'short sentence'; if there are more than twenty-six letters, it is called a 'long sentence'. Let's temporarily distinguish three situations based on the 'middle sentence': when saying eight letters, we can only say there is a 'Vakya' (sentence); when saying sixteen letters, it is called 'sentence body'; or some say that when saying twenty-four letters, it is called 'multiple sentence body'; or some say that when saying thirty-two letters, it is called 'multiple sentence body'. 'Akshara' (letter) is 'letter', so there is only one position. When saying one letter, we can only say there is 'Akshara'; when saying two letters, it is called 'letter body'; or some say that when saying three letters, it is called 'multiple letter body'; or some say that when saying four letters, it is called 'multiple letter body'. Due to this principle, it should be said that: when saying one letter, there is Nama (name), no name body, no multiple name body, no Vakya, no sentence body, no multiple sentence body, there is Akshara, no letter body, no multiple letter body. When saying two letters, there is Nama, there is name body, no multiple name body, no Vakya and the other two, there is Akshara, there is letter body, no multiple letter body. When saying four letters, there is Nama and the other two, no Vakya and the other two, there is Akshara and the other two. When saying eight letters, there is Nama and the other two, there is Vakya, no sentence body, no multiple sentence body, there is Akshara and the other two. When saying sixteen letters, there is Nama and the other two, there is Vakya, there is sentence body, no multiple sentence body, there is Akshara and the other two. When saying thirty-two letters, Nama, Vakya, and Akshara each have three states. Using this as an introduction, the rest can be explained according to this principle. The fourteenth volume of 'Vibhasa' (Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra) says: 'Six letters are the initial sentence, and twenty-six letters are the final sentence.' This is not contradictory to 'Nyaya' (Nyaya Sutras). Saying that six letters are the initial sentence is to use the beginning to show the end; saying that twenty-six letters are the final sentence is to use the end to show the beginning. 2. Question and Answer Distinctions: Question: Regarding 'multiple name body', one view is that three letters are 'multiple name body', and another view is that four letters are 'multiple name body', then...

義云何　解云三字生名名多名身者。第一．第二字為一身。第一．第三字復為一身。第二．第三字復為一身。依聲明法言三已去方說為多。若四字生名名多名身者鄰次相合。即為三身名多名身　又解但約名多故名多名身。不約多身　又解身上加身名多名身　問語．字．名．句相成云何　解云如來。一心起一語。一語說一字。心用猛利．其言輕疾。各一剎那。聲聞。一心起一語。一語不能說一字。異生。多心起一語。發一聲時必有多念。語聲相續一相續聲唯說一字。應知或有一語說一字。或有多語說一字。或有一字生一名。或有多字生一名。或有一名成一句。或有多名成一句　問此名有一字生。有多字生。雖有依多字名體唯一。何故論云名之至小極於一字。多字亦應成極小名　解云極於一字者。此據依一字名說一字時名為極小。若說二字已上。雖有多字生一名者。若望一字名。即有名身．多名身。非極小故　又解名依極小故。名極於一字。從依名小。多所依者名多。又解名．義二門。名．句．文三皆名所攝。于中名．句或依多。文之一種更無多位。于中取一謂之極小。若不爾者。應言一名。而言一字即一文也　問依字依名別有句體。依句成頌。何故無別頌體　解云字顯名．句。名詮諸法自相。句詮諸法差別離此無別所詮

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：什麼是『解云三字生名名多名身』？答：第一個字和第二個字結合爲一個身，第一個字和第三個字結合爲一個身，第二個字和第三個字結合爲一個身。按照聲明法（vyākaraṇa，古印度的一種語法學）的說法，三個以上才能稱為『多』。如果是四個字組成的名字，相鄰的字兩兩結合，就形成了三個身，稱為『多名身』。又解釋說，只是因為名字多，所以稱為『多名身』，而不是指多個身。又解釋說，身上加身，稱為『多名身』。問：語、字、名、句是如何相互形成的？答：如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號之一）一心生起一語，一語說出一個字。心力猛利，言語輕快，都在一剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）完成。聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的弟子）一心生起一語，但一語不能說出一個字。凡夫異生，多心生起一語，發一個聲音時必定有多個念頭。語聲相續，一個相續的聲音只能說出一個字。應該知道，或者有一語說一字，或者有多語說一字，或者有一字生一名，或者有多字生一名，或者有一名成一句，或者有多名成一句。問：名字有由一個字產生的，也有由多個字產生的。雖然依靠多個字，名字的本體只有一個。為什麼經論中說『名字的最小單位是單個字』？多個字也應該能構成最小的名字。答：『最小單位是單個字』，這是指依靠單個字的名字來說，說一個字的時候，這個名字就是最小的。如果說兩個字以上，即使有多個字產生一個名字，如果和單個字的名字相比，就有了名身、多名身，不是最小的了。又解釋說，名字依靠最小的單位，所以說名字的最小單位是單個字。從小處依靠，多個所依靠的就稱為『多』。又解釋說，從名和義兩個方面來看，名、句、文三種都屬於名字的範疇。其中名和句可以依靠多個字，而文這一種則沒有多個位置。在其中取一個，就稱為最小。如果不是這樣，就應該說『一個名字』，但實際上說的是『一個字』，也就是一個文。問：字、名各自有句的本體，依靠句子構成頌。為什麼沒有單獨的頌的本體？答：字顯示名和句，名詮釋諸法的自相（svalakṣaṇa，事物自身獨有的性質），句詮釋諸法的差別相。除了這些，沒有其他所詮釋的內容。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is meant by 'explaining that a three-character-generated name is a multiple-name-body'? Answer: The first and second characters combine to form one body, the first and third characters combine to form one body, and the second and third characters combine to form one body. According to the science of grammar (vyākaraṇa), only three or more can be called 'multiple'. If a name is composed of four characters, adjacent characters combine in pairs to form three bodies, which are called 'multiple-name-body'. Another explanation is that it is called 'multiple-name-body' simply because there are multiple names, not because there are multiple bodies. Another explanation is that body upon body is called 'multiple-name-body'. Question: How are speech, characters, names, and sentences formed in relation to each other? Answer: A Tathāgata (Tathāgata, one of the titles of the Buddha) generates one speech with one mind, and one speech expresses one character. The mind is vigorous and the speech is swift, all completed in an instant (kṣaṇa, an extremely short unit of time). A Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka, a disciple who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) generates one speech with one mind, but one speech cannot express one character. Ordinary beings generate one speech with multiple minds, and when a sound is uttered, there must be multiple thoughts. Speech sounds continue, and one continuous sound can only express one character. It should be understood that sometimes one speech expresses one character, sometimes multiple speeches express one character, sometimes one character generates one name, sometimes multiple characters generate one name, sometimes one name forms one sentence, and sometimes multiple names form one sentence. Question: Names are generated from one character or from multiple characters. Although relying on multiple characters, the substance of the name is only one. Why does the treatise say that 'the smallest unit of a name is a single character'? Multiple characters should also be able to form the smallest name. Answer: 'The smallest unit is a single character' refers to the name that relies on a single character. When one character is spoken, this name is the smallest. If two or more characters are spoken, even if multiple characters generate one name, when compared to a single-character name, there is a name-body and a multiple-name-body, so it is not the smallest. Another explanation is that the name relies on the smallest unit, so it is said that the smallest unit of a name is a single character. Relying on the small, multiple things relied upon are called 'multiple'. Another explanation is that from the perspective of name and meaning, name, sentence, and syllable are all included in the category of name. Among them, name and sentence can rely on multiple characters, but the syllable does not have multiple positions. Taking one from among them is called the smallest. If it were not so, it should be said 'one name', but in reality, it is said 'one character', which is one syllable. Question: Characters and names each have the substance of a sentence, and verses are formed relying on sentences. Why is there no separate substance of a verse? Answer: Characters reveal names and sentences, names explain the self-characteristics (svalakṣaṇa, the unique qualities of things) of all dharmas, and sentences explain the differential characteristics of all dharmas. Apart from these, there is nothing else to be explained.

。故無別頌體　又空法師云。眾字成名．句。言勢相及相續不斷。故別有名．句。四句成頌。言勢不相及中為隔絕。所以更無別頌體　問如出一言有其名起。於一時中。對異方俗隨異方域。各詮別事。為有一名為多名起　解云但有一名。名雖體一由各共許能詮定量。故隨方俗各詮異事。

此名身等至此皆應辨者。此下大文第三諸門分別　就中。一辨名等三。二辨同分等　此即第一辨名等三。總有四門。一問系界。二問情．非情。三問五類。四問三性。以實唯無為。剎那唯苦忍。故於五類不別標問。

頌曰至等流無記性者。頌答。

論曰至然不可說者。此論二說。后說非正。故婆沙破云。評曰彼不應作是說。寧說無不應說。有而不可說以無用故。就前說中復有二說。一說名隨語二地系。一說名隨身五地系　婆沙．正理俱有二說。並無評文。故正理云。此名等三。唯是欲．色二界所繫。就色界中。有說唯在初靜慮地。有說亦通上三靜慮。隨語．隨身所繫別故。若說此三隨語系者。設生欲界作欲界語時。語．名等．身皆是欲界系。彼所說義或三界系。或通不繫。即彼復作初定語時。語．及名等初定地系。身欲界系。義如前說。如是若生初靜慮地作二地語。如理應思。若生二．三．四靜慮地作二地語。亦如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此沒有其他的頌體。又空法師說：『眾』字構成『名』和『句』，言語的勢頭相互關聯，相續不斷，因此分別有『名』和『句』。四句構成『頌』，言語的勢頭不相互關聯，中間有隔斷，所以沒有其他的頌體。』問：如果說出一個詞，就有一個名稱產生，在同一時間，針對不同的地方風俗，隨著不同的地域，各自表達不同的事情，是隻有一個名稱還是有多個名稱產生？解答說：『只有一個名稱。名稱雖然本體是一個，但由於各自共同認可它能表達一定的含義，所以隨著地方風俗各自表達不同的事情。』

『此名身等至此皆應辨者』，這以下是文章的第三大部分，分別討論各個方面。其中，一是辨別『名』等三種，二是辨別『同分』等。這裡是第一部分，辨別『名』等三種，總共有四個方面：一是問系屬的界，二是問有情和非有情，三是問五類，四是問三性。因為『實』唯有無為法，『剎那』唯有苦忍，所以在五類中不特別標出提問。

『頌曰至等流無記性者』，這是用頌文來回答。

『論曰至然不可說者』，這段論述有兩種說法，后一種說法不正確。所以《婆沙論》駁斥說：『評論說，他不應該這樣說。寧可說沒有，也不應該說有而不可說，因為沒有用處。』在前一種說法中又有兩種說法：一種說法是『名』隨著語言屬於二界所繫，一種說法是『名』隨著身體屬於五地所繫。《婆沙論》和《正理論》都有這兩種說法，並且沒有評論性的文字。所以《正理論》說：『這『名』等三種，只是欲界和色界所繫。』在色界中，有說只在初禪地，有說也通於上面的三禪地，因為隨著語言和隨著身體所繫屬的不同。如果說這三種隨著語言所繫屬，假設生在欲界，說欲界的語言時，語言、『名』等、身體都是欲界所繫。他所說的意義或者三界所繫，或者通於不繫。如果他又說初禪的語言時，語言以及『名』等是初禪地所繫，身體是欲界所繫，意義如前面所說。像這樣，如果生在初靜慮地，說二地的語言，應該像這樣思考。如果生在二禪、三禪、四禪地，說二地的語言，也像這樣。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, there is no other form of 'gatha' (verse). Furthermore, the Dharma master Kong (Empty) said: 'The character 'multitude' constitutes 'name' and 'sentence'. The momentum of speech is interconnected and continuous, hence there are separate 'name' and 'sentence'. Four sentences constitute a 'gatha'. The momentum of speech is not interconnected, with interruptions in between, so there is no other form of 'gatha'.' Question: If a word is uttered, a name arises. At the same time, in response to different local customs, according to different regions, each expresses different things. Is there only one name or do multiple names arise? The answer is: 'There is only one name. Although the essence of the name is one, because each commonly acknowledges that it can express a certain meaning, it expresses different things according to local customs.'

'This 'name', 'body', etc., should all be distinguished here.' The following is the third major section of the text, discussing various aspects separately. Among them, one is to distinguish the three types of 'name' etc., and the other is to distinguish 'sameness of kind' (同分) etc. This is the first part, distinguishing the three types of 'name' etc., with a total of four aspects: one is to ask about the realm to which it belongs, two is to ask about sentient and non-sentient beings, three is to ask about the five categories, and four is to ask about the three natures. Because 'reality' (實) exists only in the unconditioned (無為), and 'kshana' (剎那, moment) exists only in the 'suffering endurance' (苦忍), so in the five categories, no special questions are marked out.

'The verse says, 'To the equiflow unrecordable nature' (等流無記性者).' This is answering with a verse.

'The treatise says, 'But it cannot be said' (然不可說者).' This treatise has two explanations. The latter explanation is incorrect. Therefore, the Vibhasha refutes it, saying: 'The commentary says, he should not say this. It is better to say that it does not exist than to say that it exists but cannot be said, because it is useless.' In the former explanation, there are two explanations: one explanation is that 'name' follows language and belongs to the two realms, and one explanation is that 'name' follows the body and belongs to the five grounds. Both the Vibhasha and the Nyayanusara have these two explanations, and there is no commentary text. Therefore, the Nyayanusara says: 'These three, 'name' etc., are only related to the desire realm (欲界) and the form realm (色界).' In the form realm, some say that it is only in the first dhyana (初禪) ground, and some say that it also extends to the upper three dhyana grounds, because the affiliation with language and the affiliation with the body are different. If it is said that these three are affiliated with language, suppose one is born in the desire realm and speaks the language of the desire realm, then the language, 'name' etc., and body are all affiliated with the desire realm. The meaning he speaks of is either affiliated with the three realms or extends to the unaffiliated. If he then speaks the language of the first dhyana, then the language and 'name' etc. are affiliated with the first dhyana ground, and the body is affiliated with the desire realm, the meaning is as said before. In this way, if one is born in the first dhyana ground and speaks the language of the two grounds, one should think in this way. If one is born in the second, third, or fourth dhyana ground and speaks the language of the two grounds, it is also like this.

理思。若說此三隨身繫者。設生欲界．或四靜慮。名等及身各自地系。語或自地。或他地系。義如前說　問二說之中何者為正　解云隨語應正。以語親能發名等義故。又經部師。說名身等即是語故　問何故此論下文言法無礙解通五地耶　解云。據能緣心通於五地。理實名等隨語二地　難若爾詞無礙解約能緣心。何不亦通五地唯說二地　解云以緣言詞難故。要自地心緣　又解下文言法無礙解通五地者。此是隨身繫家。無勞會釋　又解即準彼下文。隨身繫者應可為正　問化心緣名等不　解云化心不緣。是通果心緣。應知通果心有二。一化心通果心。二發業通果心。但是第二通果心。能緣化人發語名等。法分別行亦容此故　問若爾何故不緣心等　解云既得緣名。亦緣心等。然諸論說緣四境者。據化心說也　又解不緣名等。若化心但緣四境。若發業通果心但緣身．語二業。而言通法分別行者。據總緣說故名緣法。非緣七種法故名緣法　問發語通果心不緣三界。如何名等能詮三界　解云雖發語通果心不緣三界。然通果加行。遠能發心能緣三界。故所發名能詮三界。

又名身等至非所顯義者。此名身等。情．非情分別。是有情數攝。謂能說者成就名等。故是有情數攝。非山．河等所顯義成就名等。所以不通非情。以名等三不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：理思。如果說這三種隨身繫（指名身、句身、文身），假設生在欲界或者四靜慮（色界四禪天），名身等和身體各自屬於自己的地界。語言或者屬於自己的地界，或者屬於其他的地界。意義如同前面所說。問：兩種說法中哪一種是正確的？答：應該以語言為準。因為語言能夠直接引發名身等的意義。而且經部師認為，名身等就是語言。問：為什麼這部論的下文說，法無礙解（對佛法的通達無礙的智慧）通於五地（欲界、色界四禪天）呢？答：根據能緣之心通於五地。實際上，名身等隨著語言屬於二地（欲界和色界初禪）。難：如果這樣，詞無礙解（對語言文字的通達無礙的智慧）根據能緣之心，為什麼不也通於五地，而只說二地呢？答：因為緣語言文字比較困難。需要用自己的地界的心去緣。又解釋說，下文說法無礙解通於五地，這是隨身繫家的觀點，不需要特別解釋。又解釋說，就按照下文，隨身繫的說法應該是正確的。問：化心（佛或菩薩以神通力變現的心）能緣名身等嗎？答：化心不能緣。是通果心（證得神通果報的心）才能緣。應該知道通果心有兩種：一是化心通果心，二是發業通果心。但是第二種通果心，能夠緣化人發出的語言名身等。法分別行（對佛法的分別和理解）也容許這種情況。問：如果這樣，為什麼不緣心等呢？答：既然能夠緣名身，也能緣心等。然而各種論典所說的緣四境（色、聲、香、味）的說法，是根據化心說的。又解釋說，不緣名身等。如果化心只緣四境，如果發業通果心只緣身業和語業。而說通法分別行，是根據總的緣來說的，所以叫做緣法。不是緣七種法（名、句、文、生、異、滅、義）所以叫做緣法。問：發語通果心不緣三界（欲界、色界、無色界），如何名身等能夠詮釋三界呢？答：雖然發語通果心不緣三界，但是通果加行（爲了獲得神通果報而進行的修行），能夠間接地引發能緣三界的心。所以所發出的名身能夠詮釋三界。又，名身等乃至不是所顯的意義。這些名身等，情（有情）和非情（無情）的分別，屬於有情數所攝。就是說，能夠說話的人成就名身等，所以是有情數所攝。不是山河等所顯的意義成就名身等。所以不通於非情。因為名身等三不...

【English Translation】 English version: Li Si. If it is said that these three 'following-body' connections (referring to name-body, sentence-body, and word-body), assuming they are born in the desire realm or the four Dhyanas (the four meditative states of the form realm), the name-body, etc., and the body each belong to their own realm. Language either belongs to its own realm or to other realms. The meaning is as previously stated. Question: Which of the two explanations is correct? Answer: It should be based on language. Because language can directly elicit the meaning of name-body, etc. Moreover, the Sautrantika masters believe that name-body, etc., are language. Question: Why does the following text of this treatise say that the unobstructed understanding of Dharma (unobstructed wisdom in understanding the Buddha's teachings) pervades the five realms (desire realm, the four Dhyanas of the form realm)? Answer: According to the mind that can cognize, it pervades the five realms. In reality, name-body, etc., follow language and belong to two realms (the desire realm and the first Dhyana of the form realm). Objection: If so, why doesn't the unobstructed understanding of words (unobstructed wisdom in understanding language) also pervade the five realms based on the mind that can cognize, but only say two realms? Answer: Because it is difficult to cognize language. It requires using the mind of one's own realm to cognize. Another explanation is that the following text saying that the unobstructed understanding of Dharma pervades the five realms is the view of the 'following-body' school, and does not require special explanation. Another explanation is that, according to the following text, the 'following-body' explanation should be correct. Question: Can the transformation-mind (a mind manifested by Buddhas or Bodhisattvas through supernatural power) cognize name-body, etc.? Answer: The transformation-mind cannot cognize. Only the mind of attained fruition of supernormal power can cognize. It should be known that there are two types of minds of attained fruition of supernormal power: one is the transformation-mind of attained fruition of supernormal power, and the other is the karma-generating mind of attained fruition of supernormal power. But the second type of mind of attained fruition of supernormal power can cognize the language, name-body, etc., spoken by the transformed person. The practice of discriminating Dharma (discriminating and understanding the Buddha's teachings) also allows for this situation. Question: If so, why doesn't it cognize mind, etc.? Answer: Since it can cognize name-body, it can also cognize mind, etc. However, the various treatises that say it cognizes the four objects (form, sound, smell, taste) are based on the transformation-mind. Another explanation is that it does not cognize name-body, etc. If the transformation-mind only cognizes the four objects, if the karma-generating mind of attained fruition of supernormal power only cognizes the body karma and speech karma. And saying that it pervades the practice of discriminating Dharma is based on the overall cognition, so it is called cognizing Dharma. It is not called cognizing Dharma because it cognizes the seven dharmas (name, sentence, word, birth, difference, cessation, meaning). Question: The speech-generating mind of attained fruition of supernormal power does not cognize the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), how can name-body, etc., explain the three realms? Answer: Although the speech-generating mind of attained fruition of supernormal power does not cognize the three realms, the practice of attained fruition of supernormal power can indirectly elicit the mind that can cognize the three realms. Therefore, the emitted name-body can explain the three realms. Also, name-body, etc., are not the meanings that are manifested. These name-body, etc., the distinction between sentient (sentient beings) and non-sentient (non-sentient things), are included in the category of sentient beings. That is to say, the person who can speak achieves name-body, etc., so it is included in the category of sentient beings. It is not that the meanings manifested by mountains, rivers, etc., achieve name-body, etc. Therefore, it does not extend to non-sentient things. Because the three of name-body, etc., do not...

在所顯義中故。婆沙十五云。問誰成就名等。為能說者。為所說耶。設爾何失。若能說者。則阿羅漢應成就染污法。離欲染者。應成就不善法。異生。應成就聖法。斷善根者。應成就善法。以阿羅漢等亦說染污等法故。若所說者。則外事．及無為亦應成就名等。以彼亦是所說法故。答唯能說者成就名等。問若爾後難善通。前難云何通。答阿羅漢等。雖成就染污等名。而不成就染污等法。以染污等名皆是無覆無記法故。

又名身等唯是等流者。第三門五類分別中。唯是等流從同類因生故。非極微故非所長養。隨欲生故非異熟生。故正理言。而言名等從業生者。是業所生增上果故。體非無為故非是實。從同類因生故非是剎那　又唯無覆無記性攝者。第四三性分別。唯是無記。此是自性無記非四無記攝。非據所顯判性成就。故唯無記。

問何故名等。不隨音聲通三性耶　解云作意故欲發彼語業。所以音聲隨發語心通於三性。非正作意引彼名等。故唯無記。故婆沙十五云。問名等為善。為不善。為無記耶。答無記。非造業者故思起故。如四大種　問準下論文。虛妄語等緣名身等處起。是即緣名起語　解云緣名之心。據遠因等起。非據近因等起。若近因等起。但緣音聲不緣名等。

如上所說至非得定等流者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在所顯的意義中是這樣的。《婆沙論》第十五卷說：『問：誰成就名等（nama-ādi，名稱等）？是能說者，還是所說者？如果這樣設定，會有什麼過失？如果說是能說者，那麼阿羅漢（arhat，已證悟者）應該成就染污法，離欲染者應該成就不善法，異生（prthag-jana，凡夫）應該成就聖法，斷善根者應該成就善法，因為阿羅漢等也會說染污等法。如果說是所說者，那麼外事以及無為法也應該成就名等，因為它們也是所說法。』答：只有能說者成就名等。問：如果這樣，後面的難點容易理解，前面的難點如何解釋？答：阿羅漢等雖然成就染污等名，但不成就染污等法，因為染污等名都是無覆無記法（anivrta-avyakrta-dharma，非善非惡，不覆蓋真如本性的法）。又，名身等只是等流（nisyanda，同類相續）者，第三門五類分別中，只是等流從同類因生起。不是極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位），所以不是所長養的；隨欲而生，所以不是異熟生（vipaka-ja，果報所生）。所以《正理》說，說名等從業生，是業所生的增上果（adhipati-phala，增上力果），體不是無為法，所以不是實；從同類因生起，所以不是剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位）。又，只是無覆無記性所攝者，第四三性分別，只是無記。這是自性無記，不是四無記所攝。不是根據所顯的意義來判斷性質成就，所以只是無記。問：為什麼名等不隨音聲通於三性（善、惡、無記）呢？解釋說：因為作意（manaskara，心理活動）想要發出那個語業（vak-karman，語言行為），所以音聲隨著發語的心通於三性。不是正作意引導那些名等，所以只是無記。所以《婆沙論》第十五卷說：『問：名等是善、不善還是無記？』答：無記。不是造業者，因為是思（cetanā，意志）生起的，如同四大種（maha-bhuta，地、水、火、風）。問：按照下面的論文，虛妄語等緣名身等處生起，這就是緣名起語。解釋說：緣名的心，是根據遠因等生起，不是根據近因等生起。如果是近因等生起，就只是緣音聲，不緣名等。如上所說，到非得定等流者。

【English Translation】 English version: It is so in the meaning that is manifested. The fifteenth volume of the Vibhasa states: 'Question: Who accomplishes names, etc. (nama-ādi)? Is it the speaker or the spoken? What is the fault if it is so posited? If it is the speaker, then an Arhat (arhat, one who has attained enlightenment) should accomplish defiled dharmas, one who is free from desire should accomplish unwholesome dharmas, an ordinary being (prthag-jana, a common person) should accomplish holy dharmas, and one who has severed roots of goodness should accomplish wholesome dharmas, because Arhats, etc., also speak of defiled dharmas, etc. If it is the spoken, then external matters and unconditioned dharmas should also accomplish names, etc., because they are also spoken dharmas.' Answer: Only the speaker accomplishes names, etc. Question: If so, the later difficulty is easily understood, how is the former difficulty explained? Answer: Although Arhats, etc., accomplish defiled names, etc., they do not accomplish defiled dharmas, etc., because defiled names, etc., are all un覆無記法 (anivrta-avyakrta-dharma, neither good nor evil, dharmas that do not cover the true nature of reality). Moreover, name-body, etc., are only 等流 (nisyanda, homogenous flow), in the third gate, the five-category distinction, only 等流 arises from causes of the same kind. It is not 極微 (paramanu, the smallest unit of matter), so it is not what is nourished; it arises according to desire, so it is not 異熟生 (vipaka-ja, born of retribution). Therefore, the 正理 (Nyaya) says that saying names, etc., arise from karma is because they are the 增上果 (adhipati-phala, dominant result) produced by karma; the substance is not unconditioned, so it is not real; it arises from causes of the same kind, so it is not 剎那 (ksana, an extremely short unit of time). Moreover, only those included in the nature of un覆無記性, in the fourth, the distinction of the three natures, are only 無記. This is self-natured 無記, not included in the four 無記. It is not based on the meaning that is manifested to judge the accomplishment of nature, so it is only 無記. Question: Why do names, etc., not accord with sound and pervade the three natures (good, evil, neutral)? The explanation is: because 作意 (manaskara, mental activity) intends to utter that verbal karma (vak-karman, verbal action), so sound, along with the mind that utters speech, pervades the three natures. It is not correct 作意 that guides those names, etc., so it is only 無記. Therefore, the fifteenth volume of the Vibhasa states: 'Question: Are names, etc., good, unwholesome, or neutral?' Answer: Neutral. It is not the creator of karma, because it arises from 思 (cetanā, volition), like the four great elements (maha-bhuta, earth, water, fire, wind). Question: According to the following thesis, false speech, etc., arise from the place of name-body, etc., that is, speech arises from names. The explanation is: the mind that is related to names arises according to distant causes, etc., not according to proximate causes, etc. If it arises according to proximate causes, etc., it is only related to sound, not related to names, etc. As mentioned above, up to 'not 得定等流'.

此即第二明同分等。

論曰至類通二義者。釋同分。文意可知。此顯同分通三界。唯有情。唯無覆無記。通異熟．等流。與三界相似法為因。故通三界。唯是有情不通非情。如前已釋　無覆無記者。若異熟攝者是異熟。余是自性無記。五類中非極微故非所長養。從同類因生故非剎那。非無為故非實。若從業感者是異熟。余是等流。故正理云。云何異熟。謂地獄等．及卵生等。趣．生同分。云何等流。謂界．地．處．種姓．族類．沙門．梵志．學．無學等所有同分。有餘師說。諸同分中。先業所引生是異熟同分。現在加行起是等流同分　問此文既言異熟同分是五趣．四生。若論五趣．及胎．卵．濕生。皆不攝中有。下論復言。一業引一生。生謂眾同分。未知中有為是趣同分。為是生同分　解云。正理據五趣．四生異熟同分。橫望以論。此論據引一生總同分。豎望以說。故通中生二有。非是四生中生也。

得及諸相至等流異熟者。別解得．及四相。五類分別。通剎那．等流．異熟。苦法忍俱故有剎那。同類因生故是等流。不善．善有漏生故是異熟。非極微故非所長養。非無為故非實。

非得．二定至非異熟等者。非得．二定。於五類中唯是等流從同類因生故。非業感故非異熟。非極微故。非所長養。非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此即第二明同分等。

論曰至類通二義者。釋同分。文意可知。此顯同分通三界（欲界、色界、無色界）。唯有情。唯無覆無記。通異熟（由業力所感的果報）．等流（與因相似的果報）。與三界相似法為因。故通三界。唯是有情不通非情。如前已釋　無覆無記者。若異熟攝者是異熟。余是自性無記。五類中非極微故非所長養。從同類因生故非剎那。非無為故非實。若從業感者是異熟。余是等流。故正理云。云何異熟。謂地獄等．及卵生等。趣．生同分。云何等流。謂界．地．處．種姓．族類．沙門（出家修道者）．梵志（婆羅門）．學．無學等所有同分。有餘師說。諸同分中。先業所引生是異熟同分。現在加行起是等流同分　問此文既言異熟同分是五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）．四生（卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）。若論五趣．及胎．卵．濕生。皆不攝中有（中陰身）。下論復言。一業引一生。生謂眾同分。未知中有為是趣同分。為是生同分　解云。正理據五趣．四生異熟同分。橫望以論。此論據引一生總同分。豎望以說。故通中生二有。非是四生中生也。

得及諸相至等流異熟者。別解得．及四相。五類分別。通剎那（極短的時間單位）．等流．異熟。苦法忍俱故有剎那。同類因生故是等流。不善．善有漏生故是異熟。非極微故非所長養。非無為故非實。

非得．二定至非異熟等者。非得．二定。於五類中唯是等流從同類因生故。非業感故非異熟。非極微故。非所長養。非

【English Translation】 English version This is the second explanation of 'samānajāti' (commonality of kind) and so on.

The treatise says, 'Reaching the category that encompasses two meanings' explains 'samānajāti'. The meaning of the text is understandable. This shows that 'samānajāti' pervades the three realms (Kāmadhātu - desire realm, Rūpadhātu - form realm, Arūpadhātu - formless realm), exists only in sentient beings, and is only 'anivṛtāvyākṛta' (unspecified and morally neutral). It encompasses 'vipāka' (result of karma) and 'niṣyanda' (outflow, resemblance to the cause). It takes laws similar to the three realms as its cause, therefore pervading the three realms. It exists only in sentient beings and not in non-sentient beings, as explained before. 'Anivṛtāvyākṛta' means that if it is included in 'vipāka', it is 'vipāka'; the rest is 'svabhāva-avyākṛta' (nature-unspecified). Among the five categories, it is not 'paramāṇu' (ultimate particle), so it is not 'poṣaṇa' (nourished). It arises from a cause of the same kind, so it is not 'kṣaṇa' (instantaneous). It is not 'asaṃskṛta' (unconditioned), so it is not 'sat' (real). If it is felt from karma, it is 'vipāka'; the rest is 'niṣyanda'. Therefore, the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' (Treatise Following the Principles) says, 'What is 'vipāka'? It refers to hells, etc., and egg-born beings, etc., the 'gati' (course of rebirth) and 'janma' (birth) 'samānajāti'. What is 'niṣyanda'? It refers to the 'dhātu' (realm), 'bhūmi' (level), 'āyatana' (sense base), 'jāti' (caste), 'gotra' (lineage), 'śramaṇa' (ascetic), 'brāhmaṇa' (Brahmin), 'śaikṣa' (one under training), 'aśaikṣa' (one beyond training), and all 'samānajāti'. Some teachers say that among all 'samānajāti', that which is brought about by past karma is 'vipāka-samānajāti'. That which arises from present effort is 'niṣyanda-samānajāti'. Question: This text says that 'vipāka-samānajāti' is the five 'gati' (hell, hungry ghost, animal, human, deva) and four 'yoni' (egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, transformation-born). If we discuss the five 'gati' and the womb-born, egg-born, and moisture-born, none of them include 'antarābhava' (intermediate state). The following treatise says, 'One karma leads to one birth. Birth refers to the 'pudgala-samānajāti' (commonality of individuals)'. It is not known whether 'antarābhava' is 'gati-samānajāti' or 'janma-samānajāti'. Explanation: The 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' bases its discussion of 'vipāka-samānajāti' of the five 'gati' and four 'yoni' on a horizontal perspective. This treatise bases its discussion on the total 'samānajāti' that leads to one birth, from a vertical perspective. Therefore, it encompasses the two 'bhava' (existence) of intermediate birth, which is not birth within the four 'yoni'.

'Prāpti' (attainment) and all 'lakṣaṇa' (characteristics) up to 'niṣyanda-vipāka': Separately explain 'prāpti' and the four 'lakṣaṇa', distinguishing them among the five categories. They encompass 'kṣaṇa', 'niṣyanda', and 'vipāka'. Because they occur together with 'kṣānti' (forbearance) towards suffering and 'dharma' (law), there is 'kṣaṇa'. Because they arise from a cause of the same kind, they are 'niṣyanda'. Because they arise from unwholesome and wholesome contaminated states, they are 'vipāka'. Because they are not 'paramāṇu', they are not 'poṣaṇa'. Because they are not 'asaṃskṛta', they are not 'sat'.

'Aprāpti' (non-attainment) and the two 'samāpatti' (attainments): 'Aprāpti' and the two 'samāpatti' are only 'niṣyanda' among the five categories because they arise from a cause of the same kind. Because they are not felt from karma, they are not 'vipāka'. Because they are not 'paramāṇu', they are not 'poṣaṇa'. Because they are not

苦忍俱故。非剎那。非無為故非實。

已說如是所未說義者。結。

無想命根如前已辨者。無想唯色界。命通三界。此二並唯有情。唯異熟。唯無記。如前已辨。

何緣不說至有情數攝者。問何緣不說得．非得．二定。唯是有情數攝。

已說有情所成等故者。答。等者等取不成就。已說有情所成就故。已說有情不成就故。謂前分別得．非得中。于有情法有得．非得於非情法無得．非得。既于得．非得．二定有成就。有不成就。明知唯是有情數攝。

何緣不說至非有情攝者。問。

已說一切有為俱故者。答。前已說四相一切有為俱故。明知通情．非情故。故亦不說。

余所未說隨應準知者。謂得．四相．非得．二定。此八約界約性分別。若得．四相通三界系．及不繫。通三性。若非得通三界系。唯無記。若無想定色界系。滅盡定無色界系。二定俱善。故言余所未說隨應準知。如前具釋故今不辨。

俱舍論記卷第五

久安三年四月十五日于石山寺塔本房一見了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第六

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之四

如是已說至說為因緣者。此下當品大文第三明因緣。就中。一結前問

起。二正辨體性。此即結前問起。

且因六種者。此下第二正辨體性　就中。一明六因。二明四緣。

就明六因中。一正明因體。二明因得果。三明法從因生　就正明因體中。一總標名。二別顯體。三世分別。此下第一總標名也　故先答言且因六種。

何等為六者徴　頌曰至如是六種者。答。許因唯六。簡異諸宗。能作果故名為能作因。因是能作。果是所作。能作即因名能作因。持業釋。或能作之因名能作因。依主釋。謂能作是親因。余不相障者是疏因。此疏因是能作之因名能作因。傳傳為因能生果故。故正理十九云。或此是彼能作之因名能作因。是此與彼傳為因義(已上論文)　俱有作用故名俱有。俱有即因名俱有因。持業釋。或因與果俱故名俱有。俱有之因名俱有因。依主釋　因果相似名為同類。若同類即因名同類因。持業釋。若同類之因名同類因。依主釋　心．心所法五義平等故曰相應。若相應即因名相應因。持業釋。若相應之因名相應因。依主釋　遍與五部染法為因故名遍行。遍行即因名遍行因。持業釋。不得言遍行之因。以亦通與非遍為因故　異熟之因名異熟因。依主釋。若言異熟即因名異熟因。持業釋　此六因並不得作有財釋。若言用能作等為因名能作因等。即顯此六體非是因用他為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：起。二、正辨體性。這是總結前面的問題而引發的。

『且因六種者』。下面第二部分正式辨析體性。其中分為：一、闡明六因；二、闡明四緣。

在闡明六因中，又分為：一、正式闡明因的體性；二、闡明因如何產生果；三、闡明法從因產生。下面是第一部分，總的標明名稱。所以首先回答說：『且因六種』。

『何等為六者』，這是提問。頌文說：『至如是六種者』，這是回答。確認只有六因，區別于其他宗派的觀點。能夠產生果，所以稱為能作因。因是能作，果是所作。『能作』就是『因』，名為能作因（持業釋）。或者，『能作』的『因』，名為能作因（依主釋）。意思是說，『能作』是親因，其餘不障礙的是疏因。這疏因是『能作』的『因』，名為能作因，輾轉為因才能產生果。所以《正理十九》中說：『或者，這是那個能作的因，名為能作因。』這是指此與彼輾轉為因的意思（以上是論文）。

『俱有作用故名俱有』。『俱有』就是『因』，名為俱有因（持業釋）。或者，『因』與『果』俱生，所以名為『俱有』，『俱有』的『因』，名為俱有因（依主釋）。『因』與『果』相似，名為『同類』。如果是『同類』就是『因』，名為同類因（持業釋）。如果是『同類』的『因』，名為同類因（依主釋）。心、心所法五義平等，所以稱為『相應』。如果是『相應』就是『因』，名為相應因（持業釋）。如果是『相應』的『因』，名為相應因（依主釋）。普遍與五部染法為因，所以名為『遍行』。『遍行』就是『因』，名為遍行因（持業釋）。不能說『遍行』的『因』，因為它也通於與非遍行為因。『異熟』的『因』，名為異熟因（依主釋）。如果說『異熟』就是『因』，名為異熟因（持業釋）。這六因都不能用有財釋來解釋。如果說用能作等作為因，名為能作因等，就表明這六者的體性不是用其他作為因。

【English Translation】 English version: Beginning. Second, Correctly Discriminating the Essence. This summarizes the previous question and initiates the following discussion.

'Moreover, regarding the six causes.' The second part below formally distinguishes the essence, which includes: First, clarifying the six causes; Second, clarifying the four conditions (緣, pratyaya).

In clarifying the six causes, it is further divided into: First, formally clarifying the nature of the cause; Second, clarifying how the cause produces the effect; Third, clarifying that phenomena arise from causes. Below is the first part, generally stating the names. Therefore, it is first answered: 'Moreover, regarding the six causes.'

'What are the six?' This is the question. The verse says: 'Up to these six types.' This is the answer. It confirms that there are only six causes, distinguishing them from the views of other schools. Because it can produce an effect, it is called the 'Causality of Agency' (能作因, kāraṇa-hetu). The cause is the agent, and the effect is what is acted upon. 'Agency' is 'cause', named 'Causality of Agency' (appositional determinative compound). Or, the 'cause' of 'agency' is named 'Causality of Agency' (dependent determinative compound). It means that 'agency' is the direct cause, and those that do not obstruct are indirect causes. This indirect cause is the 'cause' of 'agency', named 'Causality of Agency', which is a cause through transmission to produce an effect. Therefore, Nyāyapraveśa 19 says: 'Or, this is the cause of that agency, named Causality of Agency.' This refers to the meaning of this and that being causes through transmission (the above is from the treatise).

'Having co-existent functions is called Co-existence.' 'Co-existence' is 'cause', named 'Co-existent Cause' (俱有因, sahabhū-hetu) (appositional determinative compound). Or, 'cause' and 'effect' arise together, so it is called 'Co-existence'; the 'cause' of 'Co-existence' is named 'Co-existent Cause' (dependent determinative compound). 'Cause' and 'effect' are similar, called 'Homogeneity'. If 'Homogeneity' is 'cause', it is named 'Homogeneous Cause' (同類因, sabhāga-hetu) (appositional determinative compound). If it is the 'cause' of 'Homogeneity', it is named 'Homogeneous Cause' (dependent determinative compound). Mind and mental factors are equal in five meanings, so it is called 'Association'. If 'Association' is 'cause', it is named 'Associative Cause' (相應因, samprayuktaka-hetu) (appositional determinative compound). If it is the 'cause' of 'Association', it is named 'Associative Cause' (dependent determinative compound). Universally being the cause for the defiled dharmas of the five aggregates, it is called 'Pervasiveness'. 'Pervasiveness' is 'cause', named 'Pervasive Cause' (遍行因, sarvatraga-hetu) (appositional determinative compound). One cannot say the 'cause' of 'Pervasiveness', because it also applies to being the cause for non-pervasive factors. The 'cause' of 'Ripening' is named 'Ripening Cause' (異熟因, vipāka-hetu) (dependent determinative compound). If it is said that 'Ripening' is 'cause', it is named 'Ripening Cause' (appositional determinative compound). These six causes cannot be explained using possessive compounds. If it is said that using agency, etc., as causes is named Causality of Agency, etc., it indicates that the nature of these six is not using others as causes.

因。然此六種體是因故。

且初能作至除自余能作者。此下第二別顯體。六因不同。文即為六。此即初文。問起頌答。

論曰至無障住故者。就長行中。初釋頌。后問答。就釋頌中。一出體。二釋名。此即出體。總而言之。一切有為中唯除自體。以一切有為．無為法為能作因體。由彼果生時因無障住故。自於自體恒為障礙。故自望自非能作因。廣如正理釋　問亦與不生能為因不　岳法師解云。不與為因。今解不然。亦與為因。然論說與生為因者。且據顯說。

雖余因性至總即別名者。此即釋名。於六因內。雖餘五因據無障住。亦得名能作因。各有別稱從別立名。然能作因更無別稱。如色處等。總即別名。

豈不未知至為能作因者。此下問答分別。問。豈不未知四諦理故諸漏當起。由已知彼四諦理故諸漏不生。智于漏生能為障礙。

又日光能障眼。現睹眾星光于眼用生能為障礙。如何有為唯除自體。以一切法為能作因。

應知此生時至是能作因者。答。智起。光生。于彼漏．眼實能為障。應知此漏生時。及睹眾星生時。彼智．日光皆無障住。故智．日光。於此漏．眼是能作因。

若於此生至無能障用者。難。若於此法生。彼法應障不障可得名因。全無障用設不為障何得為因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因。然此六種體是因的緣故。

且從最初的『能作』到『除去自身以外的能作者』。這以下第二部分分別顯示體的不同。六因不同，文字就分為六段。這即是最初的文段。提問並開始頌文的解答。

論曰：到『沒有障礙停留的緣故』。就長行文中，先解釋頌文，後進行問答。在解釋頌文中，一是說明體的性質，二是解釋名稱。這即是說明體的性質。總而言之，一切有為法中唯獨除去自體，以一切有為、無為法作為能作因的體。由於這些法產生果時，作為因沒有障礙停留的緣故。自身對於自身總是構成障礙。因此自身對於自身不是能作因。詳細情況如《正理》的解釋。問：也與不生之法作為因嗎？岳法師解釋說：不作為因。現在我解釋不是這樣。也作為因。然而論中說與生法作為因，且根據顯說。

雖然其餘因的性質到『總稱即是別名』。這即是解釋名稱。在六因之內，雖然其餘五因根據沒有障礙停留，也可以稱為能作因。各有不同的名稱，根據不同的名稱來建立名稱。然而能作因沒有其他的名稱，如色處等，總稱即是別名。

難道不知道到『作為能作因』。這以下是問答分別。問：難道不知道因為未知四諦的道理，所以各種煩惱應當生起。因為已經知道四諦的道理，所以各種煩惱不會生起。智慧對於煩惱的生起能夠構成障礙。

又如日光能夠遮蔽眼睛，現在看見眾星的光芒對於眼睛的作用生起能夠構成障礙。為什麼說有為法唯獨除去自體，以一切法作為能作因？

應當知道此生起時到『是能作因』。答：智慧生起，光明生起，對於那些煩惱、眼睛確實能夠構成障礙。應當知道此煩惱生起時，以及看見眾星生起時，那些智慧、日光都沒有障礙停留。因此智慧、日光，對於此煩惱、眼睛是能作因。

如果對於此生起到『沒有能夠障礙的作用』。難：如果對於此法生起，彼法應當障礙或者不障礙可以稱為因。完全沒有障礙的作用，即使不構成障礙，怎麼能作為因？

【English Translation】 English version Cause. These six entities are causes because they are causes.

And from the initial 'capable of acting' to 'excluding those capable of acting other than oneself.' The second part below separately shows the differences in entities. The six causes are different, so the text is divided into six sections. This is the initial section. Questions are raised and answers to the verses begin.

The treatise says: to 'because there is no obstruction or dwelling.' In the prose section, first the verses are explained, then questions and answers are given. In the explanation of the verses, first the nature of the entity is stated, and second the name is explained. This is the statement of the nature of the entity. In general, among all conditioned dharmas, only the self-entity is excluded, with all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas serving as the entity of the capable-of-acting cause (能作因). Because when these dharmas produce results, as causes, there is no obstruction or dwelling. The self always constitutes an obstruction to itself. Therefore, the self is not a capable-of-acting cause in relation to itself. Details are as explained in the Nyāyasūtra (正理). Question: Does it also serve as a cause for non-arising dharmas? Master Yue (岳法師) explains: It does not serve as a cause. My explanation is not so. It also serves as a cause. However, the treatise says that it serves as a cause for arising dharmas, and this is according to the explicit teaching.

Although the nature of the other causes to 'the general name is the specific name.' This is the explanation of the name. Within the six causes, although the other five causes, based on having no obstruction or dwelling, can also be called capable-of-acting causes. Each has a different name, and names are established based on the different names. However, the capable-of-acting cause has no other name, such as color-sphere (色處) etc.; the general name is the specific name.

Is it not unknown to 'serve as a capable-of-acting cause.' The following is a distinction between questions and answers. Question: Is it not unknown that because the truths of the Four Noble Truths (四諦) are not known, various afflictions (漏) should arise? Because the truths of the Four Noble Truths are already known, various afflictions will not arise. Wisdom (智) can constitute an obstruction to the arising of afflictions.

Also, just as sunlight can obscure the eyes, now seeing the light of the stars can constitute an obstruction to the arising of the function of the eyes. Why is it said that among conditioned dharmas, only the self-entity is excluded, with all dharmas serving as the capable-of-acting cause?

It should be known that at the time of this arising to 'is the capable-of-acting cause.' Answer: Wisdom arises, light arises, and they can indeed constitute an obstruction to those afflictions and eyes. It should be known that at the time of the arising of these afflictions, and at the time of seeing the stars arising, those wisdom and sunlight have no obstruction or dwelling. Therefore, wisdom and sunlight are capable-of-acting causes for these afflictions and eyes.

If for this arising to 'has no obstructing function.' Objection: If for the arising of this dharma, that dharma should obstruct or not obstruct, it can be called a cause. If there is completely no obstructing function, even if it does not constitute an obstruction, how can it serve as a cause?

。喻況可知。

雖無障用至種等於芽等者。通。如涅槃等。望彼法生雖無能障令不起用。而亦為因。以果生時能皆無障故。所以名因。如無力國王雖無能損。亦得如前說我因國主而得安樂　此即通說一切無障諸能作因。若於能作因中就勝為言。非無生力　如眼等下。舉親勝力。

有作是難至皆成殺業者。外難。既無障住應皆頓起。既無障住應皆成殺。

此難不然至有親作力者。釋難。但由無障。許一切法為能作因。非由於果生有餘五因親作力故。所以諸法非皆頓起。非由於殺生有因等起親作力故。所以非如殺者皆成殺業。

有餘師說至有能作力者。前說能作有親。有疏。親有力能。疏但不障。

今此師意。諸能作因。皆于果生有能作力。

且涅槃等至有能作力者。問。等取不生法等。

意識緣彼至有能生力者。答。意識緣彼涅槃等法為境而生。或起善正見等。或起惡邪見等。因此意識后時眼識或善。或惡。隨其所應次第得生。展轉因故。故彼涅槃等。于眼識生有能作力。余法準此有能生力　問體既寬通。諸法相望因果云何　答如正理十五云。過去諸法。與餘二世為能作因。彼二世法。還與過去為增上果。未來諸法。與餘二世由無障故為能作因。彼二世法非俱．后故。不與

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這種情況可以通過比喻來理解。雖然沒有像種子對於萌芽那樣，具有阻礙作用的能作因，但它是普遍存在的。例如，涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）等，對於其他法的生起，雖然沒有能力去阻止它們產生作用，但也作為一種原因存在。因為果產生的時候，一切阻礙都被清除了，所以被稱為因。就像一個無力的國王，雖然沒有能力造成損害，也可以像前面所說的那樣，因為『我』的因是國王，所以得到安樂。這普遍地說明了一切沒有阻礙的能作因。如果在能作因中，就殊勝的方面來說，並非沒有產生力量的能力，就像眼睛等（具有直接產生作用的力量）。下面舉例說明親近而殊勝的力量。有人提出這樣的詰難：既然沒有阻礙和停留，一切法應該同時產生。既然沒有阻礙和停留，一切都應該成為殺業。這是外道的詰難：既然沒有障礙和停留，一切都應該立即產生；既然沒有障礙和停留，一切都應該成為殺業。這種詰難是不成立的。僅僅因為沒有阻礙，就允許一切法作為能作因，並非因為果的產生，還有其餘五因（指俱有因、相應因、同類因、遍行因、異熟因）直接產生作用的緣故，所以諸法並非同時產生。並非因為殺生的行為，就有因等直接產生作用的緣故，所以並非像殺人者一樣，都成為殺業。有些論師說，能作因有親近的和疏遠的。親近的具有產生作用的力量，疏遠的只是沒有阻礙。現在這位論師的觀點是，所有的能作因，對於果的產生都具有產生作用的力量。暫且問一下，涅槃等（不生之法）是否具有產生作用的力量？這裡『等』字包括不生之法等。回答：意識以涅槃等法為所緣境而生起，或者生起善良正確的見解等，或者生起邪惡不正的見解等。因此，意識之後，眼識或者善良，或者邪惡，根據情況依次產生，輾轉相因的緣故。所以，涅槃等對於眼識的產生具有能作的力量。其餘的法可以類推，具有能生之力。問：體性既然寬泛而普遍，諸法相互之間的因果關係是怎樣的？答：如《正理經》第十五卷所說：過去的諸法，對於其餘兩世（現在和未來）來說是能作因。那兩世的法，反過來對於過去來說是增上果。未來的諸法，對於其餘兩世來說，因為沒有阻礙的緣故，是能作因。那兩世的法，因為不是同時和後來的緣故，不與（未來法）……

【English Translation】 English version: The situation can be understood through analogy. Although there isn't a 'causal efficient cause' (能作因, néng zuò yīn) that acts as a hindrance, like a seed to a sprout, it is universally present. For example, Nirvana (涅槃, Niè pán, extinction) etc., although they don't have the ability to prevent other dharmas from arising and functioning, they still exist as a cause. Because when the result arises, all hindrances are cleared, it is called a cause. Just like a powerless king, although he doesn't have the ability to cause harm, one can still say, as mentioned before, that because 'my' cause is the king, I obtain peace and happiness. This universally explains all 'causal efficient causes' without hindrances. If, within the 'causal efficient causes', we speak from the perspective of superiority, it's not that there's no ability to generate power, like the eyes etc. (which have the power to directly generate action). Below, an example is given to illustrate the close and superior power. Someone raises this difficulty: Since there is no obstruction or dwelling, all dharmas should arise simultaneously. Since there is no obstruction or dwelling, everything should become an act of killing. This is an external challenge: Since there is no obstruction or dwelling, everything should arise immediately; since there is no obstruction or dwelling, everything should become an act of killing. This challenge is not valid. It is only because there is no obstruction that all dharmas are allowed to be 'causal efficient causes' (能作因, néng zuò yīn), not because, for the arising of a result, there are other five causes (referring to co-existent cause, corresponding cause, similar cause, pervasive cause, and resultant cause) that directly generate action. Therefore, all dharmas do not arise simultaneously. It is not because of the act of killing that there are causes etc. that directly generate action, so it is not like those who kill all become acts of killing. Some teachers say that 'causal efficient causes' (能作因, néng zuò yīn) are close and distant. The close ones have the power to generate action, the distant ones simply have no obstruction. Now, this teacher's view is that all 'causal efficient causes' (能作因, néng zuò yīn) have the power to generate action for the arising of the result. Let's ask for now, do Nirvana (涅槃, Niè pán) etc. (non-arising dharmas) have the power to generate action? Here, 'etc.' includes non-arising dharmas etc. Answer: Consciousness arises with Nirvana (涅槃, Niè pán) etc. as its object, either generating good and correct views etc., or generating evil and incorrect views etc. Therefore, after this consciousness, eye-consciousness is either good or evil, arising in sequence according to the situation, due to the cause of transformation. Therefore, Nirvana (涅槃, Niè pán) etc. have the power to act as 'causal efficient causes' (能作因, néng zuò yīn) for the arising of eye-consciousness. The remaining dharmas can be inferred by analogy, having the power to generate. Question: Since the nature is broad and universal, what is the causal relationship between the dharmas? Answer: As stated in the fifteenth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理經, Zhèng lǐ jīng): past dharmas are 'causal efficient causes' (能作因, néng zuò yīn) for the other two times (present and future). The dharmas of those two times, in turn, are the 'dominant result' (增上果, zēng shàng guǒ) for the past. Future dharmas are 'causal efficient causes' (能作因, néng zuò yīn) for the other two times because there is no obstruction. The dharmas of those two times, because they are not simultaneous and later, do not give to (future dharmas)...

未來為增上果。果必由因取故唯有二(解云果法若俱。若在後。故言有二)　因唯據無障故許通三。現在諸法。與餘二世為能作因。彼二世中唯未來法為現在果。有為有為是因是果。有為無為非因非果。無為無為非因非果。無為有為是因非果。由此義故說如是言。能作因多非增上果。以一切法皆能作因唯諸有為是增上果。

如是已說至心於心隨轉者。此下第二明俱有因。一正辨俱有。二辨心隨轉。此即正辨俱有。初一句釋俱有義。后兩句指體。

論曰至為俱有因者。此總釋互為果義名俱有因。

其相云何者。問體。

如四大種至為俱有因者。此下答。四大種相望為俱有因。欲婆沙評家云。四大種體若有偏增。若無偏增。地為三俱有因。三為地俱有因。所以者何。地不觀地生所造色。以一切法。不觀自性．及同類體為他因故。乃至風大種亦爾。

如是諸相至亦更互為因者。問。何故不說諸相及隨轉各互為因。答正理云。為欲顯示但說異類為俱有因。同類互為因不說而成故。

是即俱有因至如其所應者。總結。或大相望。或相望所相。或相相望。或心望心隨轉。或心隨轉相望。故言如其所應。

法與隨相至此中應辨者。論主出說一切有部師過。若以互為果釋俱有因。法與隨相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『未來』是增上果（Adhipati-phala，起主導作用的結果）。果一定由因產生，所以只有兩種（解釋說，果法要麼同時存在，要麼在後產生，所以說只有兩種）。『因』只就無障礙而言，所以允許有三種。現在的諸法，對於其餘兩世（過去和未來）來說是能作因（Karana-hetu，能起作用的因）。在那兩世中，只有未來的法是現在的果。有為法（Samskrta-dharma，有生滅變化的法）與有為法互為因果。有為法與無為法（Asamskrta-dharma，無生滅變化的法）非因非果。無為法與無為法非因非果。無為法與有為法是因而非果。因為這個道理，所以這樣說：能作因多，但增上果少。因為一切法都能作為能作因，只有諸有為法是增上果。

像這樣已經說了『至心於心隨轉』。下面第二部分說明俱有因（Sahabhu-hetu，共同存在的因）。一是正式辨析俱有因，二是辨析心隨轉。這裡是正式辨析俱有因。第一句解釋俱有因的意義，后兩句指出它的體性。

論曰：『至為俱有因者』。這裡總的解釋了互相為果的意義，叫做俱有因。

『其相云何者』。這是在問俱有因的體性。

『如四大種至為俱有因者』。下面是回答。四大種（四大元素：地、水、火、風）相互之間是俱有因。欲婆沙評家說：四大種的體性如果有所偏增，或者沒有偏增，地大對於其餘三種是俱有因，其餘三種對於地大也是俱有因。為什麼呢？因為地大不觀察地大所生的所造色（Rupa，物質現象），因為一切法不觀察自性以及同類體作為他因的緣故。乃至風大種也是這樣。

『如是諸相至亦更互為因者』。問：為什麼不說諸相（Laksana，事物所具有的性質）以及隨轉（Anuvrtti，相續）各自互相為因？答：正理說：爲了顯示只說異類（Vilaksana，不同種類）是俱有因，同類（Sajatiya，相同種類）互相為因，不說也成立。

『是即俱有因至如其所應者』。總結。或者大種相互觀望，或者相觀望所相，或者相相互觀望，或者心觀望心隨轉，或者心隨轉相互觀望，所以說『如其所應』。

『法與隨相至此中應辨者』。論主指出說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）師的過失。如果用互相為果來解釋俱有因，那麼法與隨相

【English Translation】 English version 『Future』 is the Adhipati-phala (dominant result). A result must arise from a cause, so there are only two (the explanation says that the result-dharma either exists simultaneously or arises later, so it is said there are only two). 『Cause』 is only considered in terms of non-obstruction, so three are allowed. The dharmas of the present, with respect to the other two times (past and future), are Karana-hetu (operative cause). Among those two times, only the future dharma is the result of the present. Samskrta-dharma (conditioned dharma) and Samskrta-dharma are mutually cause and effect. Samskrta-dharma and Asamskrta-dharma (unconditioned dharma) are neither cause nor effect. Asamskrta-dharma and Asamskrta-dharma are neither cause nor effect. Asamskrta-dharma and Samskrta-dharma are cause but not effect. Because of this principle, it is said: there are many Karana-hetu, but few Adhipati-phala. Because all dharmas can be Karana-hetu, only all Samskrta-dharma are Adhipati-phala.

Having thus spoken of 『to the mind, according to the mind it turns』. The second part below explains Sahabhu-hetu (co-existent cause). First, formally analyze the co-existent cause, and second, analyze the mind's turning. This is the formal analysis of the co-existent cause. The first sentence explains the meaning of the co-existent cause, and the last two sentences point out its nature.

The treatise says: 『To be a co-existent cause』. This generally explains the meaning of mutually being results, called co-existent cause.

『What is its characteristic?』 This is asking about the nature of the co-existent cause.

『Like the four great elements to be co-existent causes』. Below is the answer. The four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) are mutually co-existent causes. The commentator of the Vibhasa says: If the nature of the four great elements is somewhat increased, or not increased, the earth element is a co-existent cause for the other three, and the other three are also co-existent causes for the earth element. Why? Because the earth element does not observe the created Rupa (material phenomena) produced by the earth element, because all dharmas do not observe their own nature and similar entities as the cause of others. Even the wind element is the same.

『Like these characteristics also mutually cause』. Question: Why not say that the Laksana (characteristics) and Anuvrtti (continuity) each mutually cause? Answer: The Hetu-vidya says: In order to show that only dissimilar kinds are co-existent causes, similar kinds mutually cause, and it is established without saying.

『This is the co-existent cause as it should be』. Summary. Either the great elements observe each other, or the characteristics observe what is characterized, or the characteristics observe each other, or the mind observes the mind's turning, or the mind's turning observes each other, so it is said 『as it should be』.

『Dharma and its characteristics should be distinguished here』. The author of the treatise points out the fault of the Sarvastivada (one of the Buddhist schools). If the co-existent cause is explained by mutually being results, then dharma and its characteristics

非互為果。雖隨相是法果。法非隨相果故。言非互為果。然法與隨相為俱有因。非隨相於法為俱有因。

此中應辨若依婆沙十六評家云。同一果義是俱有因義。又正理十五云。有為法一果可為俱有因。二論意同。正理論意。以互為果名俱有因。有過失故。更釋言。有為法中展轉有力同得一果者名俱有因　若作俱舍師救汝言同一果名俱有因。為據同時。為據異時。若據同時同一果者。如心．心所等自體望自體不同一果。應非俱有因。若言除自體與余法同一果。是即隨相。若望本法同得一大相果。應望本法互為俱有因。若言有同一果名俱有因。如心．心所等。有同一果非俱有因。如隨相望本法。我但言同一果中得為俱有因。不言但是同一果者皆是俱有因若作此救。是即同一果言非為定證。若據異時同一果者。如本法與大相同得后一果。隨相與大相亦同得后一果。是即本法與相．隨相。展轉相望皆同得后一果。既爾。隨相望于本法應名俱有因。進退徴責俱多過失。以理尋思。互為果證過失乃少。但是互為果者定是俱有因。不言是俱有因者皆互為果。雖互為果不遍俱有因。亦得釋俱有因如變礙以解色。無表非變礙亦得名色。何故不能釋通互為果難。乃就過失眾多。若依入阿毗達磨論中。具有兩解。故彼論云。諸有為法更

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：並非互為果。雖然隨相是法的果，但法不是隨相的果，所以說不是互為果。然而，法與隨相是俱有因，但隨相不是法之俱有因。

在此應辨明，如果依照《婆沙論》十六評家的說法，『同一果』就是『俱有因』的意思。又《正理論》第十五卷說，有為法的一個果可以作為俱有因。兩論的觀點相同。《正理論》的觀點認為，以互為果作為俱有因，會有過失。所以進一步解釋說，有為法中輾轉有力，共同得到一個果的，稱為俱有因。如果按照俱舍師的說法來反駁，說『同一果』就是『俱有因』，那麼是根據同時，還是根據異時？如果是根據同時的『同一果』，比如心、心所等自體望自體，不是同一個果，就不應是俱有因。如果說排除自體，與其餘法是同一個果，那就是隨相。如果期望本法共同得到一個大相果，就應該期望本法互為俱有因。如果說有同一個果就是俱有因，比如心、心所等，有同一個果，但不是俱有因，比如隨相望本法。我只是說同一個果中可以作為俱有因，不是說凡是同一個果的都是俱有因。如果這樣辯解，那麼『同一果』就不是確定的證據。如果是根據異時的『同一果』，比如本法與大相共同得到后一個果，隨相與大相也共同得到后一個果，那麼本法與相、隨相，輾轉相望都共同得到后一個果。既然這樣，隨相望于本法就應該稱為俱有因。進退質問都會有很多過失。以理尋思，互為果的證據過失較少。但是互為果的一定是俱有因，不能說俱有因都是互為果。雖然互為果不普遍適用於俱有因，也可以解釋俱有因，比如變礙可以解釋色，無表不是變礙也可以稱為色。為什麼不能解釋通互為果的難題，反而就過失眾多呢？如果依照《入阿毗達磨論》中，具有兩種解釋，所以該論說：諸有為法更

【English Translation】 English version: They are not mutually causative. Although the characteristic mark (隨相) is the result of the dharma (法), the dharma is not the result of the characteristic mark, hence they are not mutually causative. However, the dharma and the characteristic mark are co-existent causes (俱有因), but the characteristic mark is not a co-existent cause of the dharma.

Here, it should be clarified that if we follow the sixteen commentators of the Vibhasha (婆沙), 'same result' means 'co-existent cause'. Also, the fifteenth volume of the Nyaya-anusara (正理論) states that one result of conditioned dharmas can be a co-existent cause. The views of the two treatises are the same. The view of the Nyaya-anusara is that taking mutual results as co-existent causes has faults. Therefore, it further explains that among conditioned dharmas, those that exert influence on each other and jointly obtain one result are called co-existent causes. If you refute according to the Kosa masters (俱舍師), saying that 'same result' means 'co-existent cause', is it based on simultaneity or different times? If it is based on 'same result' at the same time, such as the self-nature of mind (心) and mental factors (心所) looking at itself, it is not the same result, so it should not be a co-existent cause. If you say that excluding the self-nature, it is the same result with other dharmas, then that is the characteristic mark. If you expect the original dharma to jointly obtain a major characteristic mark result, then you should expect the original dharmas to be mutually co-existent causes. If you say that having the same result is a co-existent cause, such as mind and mental factors, having the same result but not being co-existent causes, such as the characteristic mark looking at the original dharma. I only say that in the same result, it can be a co-existent cause, not that all those with the same result are co-existent causes. If you argue in this way, then 'same result' is not a definite proof. If it is based on 'same result' at different times, such as the original dharma and the major characteristic mark jointly obtaining a later result, and the characteristic mark and the major characteristic mark also jointly obtaining a later result, then the original dharma and the characteristic mark, and the subsequent characteristic mark, all jointly obtain a later result when viewed from each other. Since this is the case, the characteristic mark looking at the original dharma should be called a co-existent cause. There will be many faults in advancing and retreating questions. Thinking with reason, the evidence of mutual results has fewer faults. However, what is mutually causative is definitely a co-existent cause, but it cannot be said that all co-existent causes are mutually causative. Although mutual results do not universally apply to co-existent causes, co-existent causes can also be explained, such as resistance to change (變礙) can explain form (色), and non-revealing karma (無表) is not resistance to change but can also be called form. Why can't the difficult problem of mutual results be explained, but instead focus on numerous faults? If according to the Abhidharmavatara (入阿毗達磨論), there are two explanations, so that treatise says: All conditioned dharmas further

互為果。或同一果名俱有因　俱舍師云。彼論后造。言互為果學我世親阿阇梨也　問相應．俱有因。皆取同時士用果。各有何意趣　解云相應因取同時士用果。意欲同緣一境。俱有因取同時士用果。意欲傍資同時諸法令各起用。或起能作因用。或起同類因．遍行因用。或起異熟因用各取自果。由此二因所作不同。所以意趣各別　問如五事論中解心所法名相應中。有一解云。複次同一時分。同一所依。同一行相。同一所緣。同一果。同一等流。同一異熟。是相應義　望彼論文相應心所法亦同一果等。如何乃云相應因意欲同緣一境。非資令取一果等耶　解云相應心所法通相應因．俱有因。若言一時。一依。一行。一緣義邊是相應因。若說一果等邊是俱有因　又解彼論言相應者。非欲正辨相應俱有因。

何等名為心隨轉法者。此下第二明心隨轉　就中。一出心隨轉體。二釋心隨轉義。此即初問起。

頌曰至心隨轉法者。上兩句出體。下一句結名。謂一切心所有法道．定律儀．彼法謂彼心所法．二律儀法．及心上所有生等本相。如是皆謂心隨轉法。以法與心互為果故。既言生等不言生生等。即顯隨相非心隨轉。如后別釋。

如何此法至由時果善等者。此下第二釋心隨轉義(問及頌答)。

論曰至名心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：互為果。或同一果名俱有因。《俱舍論》的作者說，那部論是後來造的，說互為果是學習我世親（Vasubandhu）阿阇梨（Acharya，導師）的。問：相應因、俱有因，都取同時士用果，各有何意趣？解答說：相應因取同時士用果，意在共同緣於一個境。俱有因取同時士用果，意在輔助同時的諸法，令各自起作用，或起能作因用，或起同類因、遍行因用，或起異熟因用，各自取自己的果。由此二因所作不同，所以意趣各別。問：如《五事論》中解釋心所法名為相應中，有一種解釋說：複次，同一時分，同一所依，同一行相，同一所緣，同一果，同一等流，同一異熟，是相應的意義。望彼論文，相應心所法也同一果等，如何乃說相應因意欲同緣一境，非資令取一果等呢？解答說：相應心所法通相應因、俱有因。若言一時、一依、一行、一緣義邊是相應因。若說一果等邊是俱有因。又解釋那部論說相應者，並非想要正辨相應俱有因。何等名為心隨轉法者？此下第二明心隨轉。就中，一出心隨轉體。二釋心隨轉義。此即初問起。頌曰至心隨轉法者。上兩句出體。下一句結名。謂一切心所有法道、定律儀、彼法謂彼心所法、二律儀法、及心上所有生等本相。如是皆謂心隨轉法。以法與心互為果故。既言生等不言生生等。即顯隨相非心隨轉。如后別釋。如何此法至由時果善等者。此下第二釋心隨轉義(問及頌答)。論曰至名心

【English Translation】 English version: Mutual as effects. Or the same effect's name has co-existent causes. The author of the Abhidharmakośa says that treatise was created later, saying that mutual effects are learning from my teacher, Āchārya Vasubandhu (世親). Question: The associated cause (saṃprayukta-hetu), the co-existent cause (sahabhū-hetu), both take simultaneous energetic effects (puruṣakāra-phala), what are their respective intentions? The answer is: The associated cause takes simultaneous energetic effects, intending to jointly focus on one object. The co-existent cause takes simultaneous energetic effects, intending to assist simultaneous dharmas, enabling each to function, either as an efficient cause (karaṇa-hetu), or as a homogenous cause (sabhāga-hetu), pervasive cause (sarvatraga-hetu), or as a ripening cause (vipāka-hetu), each taking its own effect. Because the actions of these two causes are different, their intentions are therefore distinct. Question: As in the Pañcavastu (五事論), in explaining mental factors (citta-caitta) as associated, there is an explanation that says: Furthermore, the same time, the same basis, the same aspect, the same object, the same effect, the same outflow, the same maturation, is the meaning of association. Looking at that text, associated mental factors are also the same effect, etc., how can it be said that the associated cause intends to jointly focus on one object, and not assist in taking one effect, etc.? The answer is: Associated mental factors encompass both associated causes and co-existent causes. If speaking of the meaning of the same time, the same basis, the same aspect, the same object, it is the associated cause. If speaking of the same effect, etc., it is the co-existent cause. Furthermore, explaining association in that treatise does not intend to precisely distinguish between associated and co-existent causes. What are called mental concomitants (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra)? Below, the second section explains mental concomitants. Among them, first, it presents the substance of mental concomitants; second, it explains the meaning of mental concomitants. This is the beginning of the first question. The verse says, 'To mental concomitant dharmas.' The first two lines present the substance. The last line concludes the name. It refers to all mental factors (caitasika dharmas), paths (mārga), fixed rules (niyama), vows (saṃvara), those dharmas referring to those mental factors, the two sets of vows, and the inherent nature of arising, etc., that exist on the mind. All of these are called mental concomitant dharmas, because dharmas and the mind are mutually effects. Since it says 'arising, etc.,' and not 'arising of arising, etc.,' it clearly shows that characteristics are not mental concomitants, as explained separately later. How do these dharmas, through time, effects, goodness, etc.,? Below, the second section explains the meaning of mental concomitants (question and verse answer). The treatise says, 'Called mind.'

隨轉者。就長行初釋頌。后約法明俱有。此下釋頌　果等。等取異熟．等流　善等。等取不善．無記。生等四種總名為時。故此等言不通於時。但在果．善。

且由時者至及墮一世者。此下別釋時。時中有四。一生。一滅。一住。墮一世。此顯與心同一時方名隨轉　問四相之內。何故不說異相　解云生在未來令法入現。住在現在令法安住。滅謂滅入過去。各有勝能是故別說。異相助滅令法過去。無別勝能是故不說　又解此文言住即異之別名。約住明異。故婆沙一百五十五云。此中起者謂生。住者謂老。滅者謂無常　又正理論難云。豈不但言一生．住．滅。即知亦是墮一世中(解云一生．住．滅已顯墮未來等。更言墮一世豈不重耶)正理解云雖亦即知墮於一世。而猶未了此法與心．過去．未來亦不相離。或為顯示諸不生法故。復說言及墮一世(解云但言一生等。雖亦即知生墮未來世。住．滅墮現在世。而猶未了此法與心。落謝過去．及未至生相余未來世亦不相離故。說墮一世顯不相離也。或有生疑。過未已生未來當生。可不相離名心隨轉。未來不生。應可相離非心隨轉。又為顯示諸不生法亦不相離故。一生．住．滅外。更說墮一世)。又正理論難云。若爾但應言墮一世(解云世寬。相狹。可相外別立世。既世攝相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『隨轉者』，就長行（散文形式的經文）首先解釋了頌文，然後依據法理說明了『俱有』（同時存在）。以下解釋頌文：『果等』，『等』字包括了異熟（Vipāka，果報）和等流（Nisyanda，同類相續）。『善等』，『等』字包括了不善和無記。生等四種總稱為『時』（時間），因此這裡的『等』字不包括時間，只在果、善等概念中有效。

『且由時者至及墮一世者』，以下分別解釋『時』。時中有四種：生、滅、住、墮一世。這顯示了與心同一時間才可稱為『隨轉』（相隨轉變）。

問：在四相（四種狀態）之內，為什麼不說『異相』（變化之相）？答：解釋說，生在未來，使法進入現在；住在現在，使法安住；滅是指滅入過去。各有殊勝的功能，所以分別說明。異相幫助滅，使法過去，沒有特別殊勝的功能，所以不說。又解釋說，此文中的『住』就是『異』的別名，通過『住』來說明『異』。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十五卷說：『此中起者謂生，住者謂老，滅者謂無常』。

又《正理論》提出疑問：難道不是隻說一生、住、滅，就知道也是墮一世中嗎？（解答說，一生、住、滅已經顯示了墮入未來等，再說墮一世豈不是重複了嗎？）《正理論》的正確理解是：雖然也知道墮於一世，但還不瞭解此法與心、過去、未來也不相分離。或者爲了顯示諸不生法，所以又說『及墮一世』（解答說，只說一生等，雖然也知道生墮未來世，住、滅墮現在世，但還不瞭解此法與心，落謝過去以及未至生相的其餘未來世也不相分離，所以說墮一世，顯示不相分離。或者有人懷疑，過去未來已生，未來當生，可以不相離，名為心隨轉。未來不生，應該可以相離，不是心隨轉。又爲了顯示諸不生法也不相離，所以在一生、住、滅外，再說墮一世）。又《正理論》提出疑問：如果這樣，只應該說墮一世（解答說，世寬，相狹，可以在相外別立世，既然世攝相）。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Accompanied transformation' refers to the initial explanation of the verses in the prose section, followed by a clarification of 'co-existence' (俱有) based on the Dharma. The following explains the verses: 'Fruits, etc.,' where 'etc.' includes Vipāka (異熟, retribution) and Nisyanda (等流, continuous flow of the same kind). 'Good, etc.,' where 'etc.' includes unwholesome and neutral. The four types, namely arising, etc., are collectively called 'time' (時). Therefore, 'etc.' here does not extend to time but is valid only in concepts like fruits and good.

'Moreover, from time to falling into one period,' the following separately explains 'time.' There are four types of time: arising, ceasing, abiding, and falling into one period. This shows that only when it is in the same time as the mind can it be called 'accompanied transformation' (隨轉).

Question: Within the four characteristics (四相), why is the 'characteristic of change' (異相) not mentioned? Answer: It is explained that arising is in the future, causing the Dharma to enter the present; abiding is in the present, causing the Dharma to remain; ceasing refers to ceasing and entering the past. Each has a distinct function, so they are explained separately. The characteristic of change assists ceasing, causing the Dharma to pass, and it does not have a particularly distinct function, so it is not mentioned. It is also explained that 'abiding' in this text is another name for 'change,' and 'change' is explained through 'abiding.' Therefore, the 155th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) says: 'Here, arising means birth, abiding means aging, and ceasing means impermanence.'

Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) raises the question: Isn't it the case that by simply saying arising, abiding, and ceasing, it is known that it also falls into one period? (The answer is that arising, abiding, and ceasing have already shown falling into the future, etc., so isn't it redundant to say falling into one period again?) The correct understanding of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is: Although it is also known to fall into one period, it is not yet understood that this Dharma is also inseparable from the mind, the past, and the future. Or, to show the non-arising Dharmas, it is said again 'and falling into one period' (The answer is that by simply saying arising, etc., although it is also known that arising falls into the future period, and abiding and ceasing fall into the present period, it is not yet understood that this Dharma is also inseparable from the mind, the past that has declined, and the remaining future periods that have not yet reached the arising characteristic. Therefore, saying falling into one period shows that they are inseparable. Or, some may doubt that the past and future have already arisen, and the future will arise, so they can be inseparable, and it is called accompanied transformation of the mind. The future that does not arise should be separable and not accompanied transformation of the mind. Furthermore, to show that the non-arising Dharmas are also inseparable, so in addition to arising, abiding, and ceasing, it is said again falling into one period). Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra raises the question: If so, then only falling into one period should be said (The answer is that the period is broad, and the characteristic is narrow, so a period can be established separately outside the characteristic, since the period encompasses the characteristic).

。何須離世別說生等)。正理解云。不爾。應不令知定墮一世(解云世即不定。生等即定。如過去法有多剎那。今時雖復同墮一世。于中隨何等法。昔在現．未有別世時。未來諸法有多剎那。未至現在。雖同一世。隨何等法。若流至現在。與未來法即不同世。是即非定還非隨轉。為欲令知定墮一世。是故離墮一世。復言一生．住．滅。生定墮未來世。住．滅定墮現在世。若無生等應不令知定墮一世)。

由果等者至及一等流者。果中有三。一果。一異熟。一等流。此顯與心同一果等方名隨轉。正理論云。豈不等流．異熟亦是一果攝。如何一果外說等流．異熟耶(解云果言是通應攝餘二。果外說二。有何意耶)。正理解云。實爾。此中言一果者。但攝士用．及離系果(解云若據通說果名實爾。亦攝餘二。此十隨轉中言一果者。據別而論。唯攝士用．及離系果)。又正理難云。豈不此言通故亦攝等流異熟(解云豈不此一果言。通亦攝餘二)。正理解云。雖言亦攝非此所明。然士用果總有四種。俱生．無間．隔越．不生。此顯與因非俱有果。為遮唯執與因俱生和合聚中有士用果。此和合聚互為果故。自非自體士用果故。即顯非彼俱起和合士用果中有一果義。是故別舉等流．異熟　解云雖一果名通亦攝等流．異熟。然非

【現代漢語翻譯】何必需要離開『世』（lì shì，指世界）而另外說明『生』（shēng，指生起）等等呢？』（何須離世別說生等）。正確的理解是，如果不這樣，就無法讓人知道是必定落入一個『世』（shì，指時段）中。（解釋說，『世』是不確定的，而『生』等等是確定的。例如，過去的法有多個剎那，現在即使同樣落入一個『世』中，其中任何一個法，過去在現在和未來有不同的『世』時，未來的諸法有多個剎那，未到達現在，即使在同一個『世』中，任何一個法，如果流到現在，就與未來的法不同『世』。這就是不確定的，也不是隨之轉變的。爲了讓人知道必定落入一個『世』中，所以離開落入一個『世』，又說一生、住、滅。生必定落入未來世，住、滅必定落入現在世。如果沒有生等等，就無法讓人知道必定落入一個『世』中。）

從『由果等者』到『及一等流者』。『果』（guǒ，指結果）中有三種：一、『果』（guǒ，指直接結果），二、『異熟』（yì shú，指不同性質的成熟結果），三、『等流』（děng liú，指同類相續的結果）。這顯示了與心同一『果』等等才能稱為隨之轉變。正理論中說：『難道『等流』、『異熟』不也是一個『果』所包含的嗎？為什麼在一個『果』之外還要說『等流』、『異熟』呢？』（解說：『果』這個詞是通用的，應該包含其餘二者，在『果』之外說這二者，有什麼意義呢？）。正確的理解是：『確實如此。這裡說的一個『果』，只是包含『士用果』（shì yòng guǒ，指由作用產生的直接結果）和『離系果』（lí xì guǒ，指脫離束縛的結果）。』（解說：如果按照通用的說法，『果』這個名稱確實也包含其餘二者。這十種隨轉中所說的一個『果』，是按照特別的意義來說的，只包含『士用果』和『離系果』）。又，正理反駁說：『難道這個『果』不是通用的，也包含『等流』、『異熟』嗎？』（解說：難道這一個『果』的說法，不是通用的，也包含其餘二者嗎？）。正確的理解是：『雖然說也包含，但不是這裡所要說明的。』然而，『士用果』總共有四種：俱生、無間、隔越、不生。這顯示了與因不是同時存在的『果』。爲了遮止只執著與因同時產生的和合聚集中有『士用果』，因為這個和合聚集互相為『果』，自身不是自身的『士用果』，就顯示了不是那個同時產生的和合『士用果』中有一個『果』的意義。所以另外舉出『等流』、『異熟』。（解說：雖然一個『果』的名稱也包含『等流』、『異熟』，但不是

【English Translation】 Why is it necessary to separately discuss 『birth』 (sheng, arising) etc., apart from 『world』 (shi, referring to the world)?' (He xu li shi bie shuo sheng deng). The correct understanding is that, otherwise, it would not be possible to know that one is definitely falling into one 『world』 (shi, referring to a period of time). (Explanation: 『World』 is uncertain, while 『birth』 etc. are certain. For example, past dharmas have multiple kshanas (moments), and even if they now fall into the same 『world』, any one of those dharmas, in the past when there were different 『worlds』 in the present and future, future dharmas have multiple kshanas, not yet arrived at the present, even if they are in the same 『world』, any dharma, if it flows to the present, is different from future dharmas in 『world』. This is uncertain and not transformed accordingly. In order to make people know that they are definitely falling into one 『world』, therefore, apart from falling into one 『world』, it is also said that there is birth, abiding, and cessation. Birth definitely falls into the future world, abiding and cessation definitely fall into the present world. If there were no birth etc., it would not be possible to know that one is definitely falling into one 『world』.)

From 『by result etc.』 to 『and one isodipa-result』. There are three types of 『result』 (guǒ): first, 『result』 (guǒ, direct result), second, 『vipaka』 (yì shú, a mature result of a different nature), and third, 『isodipa』 (děng liú, a result of the same kind of continuity). This shows that only when the 『result』 etc. are the same as the mind can they be called transformed accordingly. The Zhengli theory says: 『Isn』t 『isodipa』 and 『vipaka』 also included in one 『result』? Why are 『isodipa』 and 『vipaka』 mentioned outside of one 『result』?』 (Explanation: The word 『result』 is general and should include the other two. What is the meaning of mentioning these two outside of 『result』?). The correct understanding is: 『Indeed. The one 『result』 mentioned here only includes 『purusakara-phala』 (shì yòng guǒ, the direct result produced by action) and 『visamyoga-phala』 (lí xì guǒ, the result of liberation from bondage).』 (Explanation: If according to the general saying, the name 『result』 does include the other two. The one 『result』 mentioned in these ten transformations is according to a special meaning, only including 『purusakara-phala』 and 『visamyoga-phala』). Also, the Zhengli refutes: 『Isn』t this 『result』 general and also includes 『isodipa』 and 『vipaka』?』 (Explanation: Isn』t this one 『result』 general and also includes the other two?). The correct understanding is: 『Although it is said to include, it is not what is to be explained here.』 However, there are four types of 『purusakara-phala』 in total: co-arising, immediate, separated, and non-arising. This shows that the 『result』 is not co-existent with the cause. In order to prevent the clinging to only the co-arising aggregate of cause and effect having 『purusakara-phala』, because this aggregate is mutually the 『result』, and itself is not its own 『purusakara-phala』, it shows that there is no meaning of one 『result』 in that co-arising aggregate 『purusakara-phala』. Therefore, 『isodipa』 and 『vipaka』 are mentioned separately. (Explanation: Although the name of one 『result』 also includes 『isodipa』 and 『vipaka』, it is not

此隨轉中所明。此中一果。唯攝士用．及離系果　外伏難云。此中解隨轉義。但言一果足明隨轉。何須別說異熟．等流。故今釋言。為遣疑妨須說彼二。所以者何。夫士用果總有四種。一俱生士用果。謂俱有相應因同時展轉果。及余同時造作得者。二無間士用果。謂等無間緣．及余鄰次造作得者。三隔越士用果。謂如異熟果。及如田夫春種秋收等。四不生士用果。謂是擇滅體不生也。此即泛明諸士用果總有四種。今此十隨轉中言一果者。不說俱生展轉士用果。以自非自體士用果故。非一果義。取余同時造作得者。于無間中除同性無間。取余異性無間。于隔越中除異熟果取余隔越遠士用果。及取不生擇滅果。恐諸未解者。聞一果言謂攝俱生展轉士用果。及執唯有俱生士用果。故於今時。更別顯示等流．異熟決定與因不俱時果。為欲遮遣唯執與因俱生和合聚中有士用果。此俱生言遮無間等。和合聚等遮余俱生造作得者。和合聚言。顯彼更互為因義故。所以須遮此士用者非一果故。謂互為果。即顯己亦是他果。自非自體果。支顯非己果。由不與他同己果故。無一果義也。何但為遮唯執俱生展轉士用果。亦乃兼顯無一果義。由遣斯妨故。一果外別說等流．異熟　問若依婆沙十六。及一百五十五。並云。一果者謂離系果。正理復

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這裡所說明的是隨轉中的『一果』（ekaphala，單一結果）。這個『一果』，僅僅包括士用果（purusakara-phala，由作用產生的果）和離系果（visamyoga-phala，解脫之果）。有人反駁說：『這裡解釋隨轉的意義，只要說『一果』就足以說明隨轉，為什麼還要另外說異熟果（vipaka-phala，異時成熟的果報）和等流果（nisyanda-phala，同類相續的果報）呢？』現在解釋說，爲了消除這些疑問和妨礙，所以需要說明異熟果和等流果。為什麼呢？士用果總共有四種：第一種是俱生士用果（sahabhu-purusakara-phala，同時產生的果），指的是俱有相應因同時輾轉產生的果，以及其他同時造作而得到的果。第二種是無間士用果（anantara-purusakara-phala，無間斷產生的果），指的是等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，緊接著的因緣），以及其他緊鄰造作而得到的果。第三種是隔越士用果（vyavahita-purusakara-phala，間隔產生的果），指的是像異熟果，以及像農夫春天播種秋天收穫等。第四種是不生士用果（anutpada-purusakara-phala，不產生的果），指的是擇滅（pratisamkhya-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）的本體，它是不生的。這裡泛泛地說明了各種士用果總共有四種。現在這十種隨轉中說的『一果』，不包括俱生輾轉士用果，因為它不是自體士用果，所以不是『一果』的意義。選取其餘同時造作得到的果。在無間士用果中，排除同性無間果，選取其餘異性無間果。在隔越士用果中，排除異熟果，選取其餘隔越遙遠的士用果，以及選取不生的擇滅果。恐怕那些不理解的人，聽到『一果』，就認為是包括俱生輾轉士用果，並且認為只有俱生士用果。所以在現在這個時候，特別顯示等流果和異熟果，它們決定與因不同時產生果。爲了遮遣那些認為只有與因俱生、和合聚集之中才有士用果的觀點。這裡說的『俱生』，是爲了遮止無間等。『和合聚』等，是爲了遮止其餘俱生造作得到的果。『和合聚』，是爲了顯示它們相互為因的意義。所以需要遮止這種士用果，因為它不是『一果』。因為相互為果，就顯示自己也是他果，自己不是自己的果。分支顯示不是自己的果，因為它不與他人同爲自己的果，所以沒有『一果』的意義。為什麼不僅要遮止那些認為只有俱生輾轉士用果的觀點，而且還要兼帶顯示沒有『一果』的意義呢？因為要消除這種妨礙，所以在『一果』之外，另外說明等流果和異熟果。有人問：如果依照《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）的十六種說法，以及一百五十五種說法，都說『一果』指的是離系果。正理論（Nyayaprakarana，論理之書）又...

【English Translation】 English version: Here is explained what is meant by 'one result' (ekaphala) in the context of concomitance (anuvrtti). This 'one result' includes only the result of effort (purusakara-phala) and the result of separation (visamyoga-phala). An objection is raised: 'In explaining the meaning of concomitance here, it is sufficient to say 'one result' to clarify concomitance. Why is it necessary to separately mention the result of maturation (vipaka-phala) and the result of outflow (nisyanda-phala)?' Now, the explanation is given that it is necessary to explain the result of maturation and the result of outflow in order to dispel these doubts and obstacles. Why? There are four types of results of effort in general: The first is the co-arisen result of effort (sahabhu-purusakara-phala), which refers to the result produced simultaneously by co-existent corresponding causes, as well as those obtained by simultaneous actions. The second is the immediately contiguous result of effort (anantara-purusakara-phala), which refers to the immediately contiguous condition (samanantara-pratyaya), as well as those obtained by immediately adjacent actions. The third is the distantly separated result of effort (vyavahita-purusakara-phala), which refers to results like the result of maturation, as well as like the farmer sowing in spring and harvesting in autumn. The fourth is the non-arising result of effort (anutpada-purusakara-phala), which refers to the nature of cessation through discernment (pratisamkhya-nirodha), which does not arise. Here, it is generally explained that there are four types of results of effort in general. Now, the 'one result' mentioned in these ten types of concomitance does not include the co-arisen, mutually dependent result of effort, because it is not a self-natured result of effort, and therefore it is not the meaning of 'one result'. It selects the remaining results obtained by simultaneous actions. Among the immediately contiguous results of effort, it excludes the homogeneous immediately contiguous result and selects the remaining heterogeneous immediately contiguous result. Among the distantly separated results of effort, it excludes the result of maturation and selects the remaining distantly separated results of effort, as well as selecting the non-arising result of cessation through discernment. It is feared that those who do not understand, upon hearing 'one result', will think that it includes the co-arisen, mutually dependent result of effort, and will assume that there is only the co-arisen result of effort. Therefore, at this time, the result of outflow and the result of maturation are specifically shown, as they definitely produce results that are not simultaneous with the cause. It is in order to refute those views that believe that the result of effort exists only in the co-arisen, combined aggregation with the cause. The term 'co-arisen' here is to prevent the immediately contiguous, etc. The term 'combined aggregation', etc., is to prevent the remaining results obtained by co-arisen actions. 'Combined aggregation' is to show the meaning of their mutual causality. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent this result of effort, because it is not 'one result'. Because they are mutually results, it shows that oneself is also the result of another, and oneself is not the result of oneself. The branch shows that it is not one's own result, because it is not the same as another as one's own result, so there is no meaning of 'one result'. Why is it not only necessary to prevent those views that believe that there is only the co-arisen, mutually dependent result of effort, but also to show that there is no meaning of 'one result'? Because it is to eliminate this obstacle, the result of outflow and the result of maturation are explained separately from 'one result'. Someone asks: If according to the sixteen statements of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Buddhist treatise), and the one hundred and fifty-five statements, they all say that 'one result' refers to the result of separation. The Nyayaprakarana (Nyayaprakarana, treatise on logic) also...

云。一果謂士用．離系。豈不相違　解云。婆沙唯說離系果者。於此果中。且據決定無濫者說。其士用果名寬不定。或是俱生．或無間等。婆沙亦應說士用果。而不說者。恐濫俱生展轉士用果。以自體望自體非一果故。正理所以說士用者。為攝一果中士用果盡。是故別說。各據一義並不相違　問此論一果為同何者　解云或同婆沙。或同正理。皆無有妨　問準下論文。五果中士用果。但說相應．俱有因得。何故正理說士用果。乃有多種。通余因得　解云士用果有二。一別士用果。此唯相應．俱有因得。二通士用果。但用功得者皆名士用果。正理據此通士用說。隨其所應。四果全．增上少分。通六因得各據一義並不相違　應知此中至其義不同者。應知此中。前一謂時顯俱時也。后一謂果顯共果也。顯俱顯共故言其義不同。

由善等者至無記性故者。此即顯性與心同也。于中有三。一善。二不善。三無記。

由此十因名心隨轉者。總結。

此中心王至為心俱有因者。此下約法明俱有因。此前說中心王對心所等為因通局云。且約二定已上無覆無記心中說。唯有心王及大地法十。此十一種各有大少四相合有九十九法。心王望九十八法。極少猶與五十八法為俱有因。謂十大地法及彼四十本相。心八本．隨相。名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果說『一果』（Eka-phala，單一結果）是指『士用』（Puruṣakāra，人的作用）和『離系』（Visamyoga，解脫），這豈不是相互矛盾？答：在《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）中，只說『離系果』，是因為在這個果中，只根據決定性的、沒有混淆的情況來說。而『士用果』這個名稱範圍較寬泛，不確定，可能是『俱生』（Sahabhū，同時產生），也可能是『無間』（Anantara，無間斷）等。《婆沙論》也應該說『士用果』，但之所以沒說，是恐怕與『俱生展轉士用果』（Sahabhū-pariṇāma-puruṣakāra-phala，同時產生轉變的人的作用果）相混淆，因為自體相對於自體來說，並非一個果。而《正理》（Nyāya，正理學）之所以說『士用』，是爲了涵蓋一個果中所有的『士用果』，所以才特別說明。各自根據一個含義，並不矛盾。問：此論中的『一果』與哪一個相同？答：或者與《婆沙論》相同，或者與《正理》相同，都沒有妨礙。問：按照下面的論文，五果（Pañca-phala，五種結果）中的『士用果』，只說是相應（Samprayukta，相應）、俱有因（Sahabhū-hetu，俱生因）所得。為什麼《正理》說『士用果』有多種，可以通過其他因獲得？答：『士用果』有兩種。一種是『別士用果』（Viśeṣa-puruṣakāra-phala，特殊的士用果），這隻能通過相應、俱有因獲得。另一種是『通士用果』（Sāmānya-puruṣakāra-phala，普遍的士用果），只要是用功獲得的，都可以稱為『士用果』。《正理》是根據這種普遍的『士用』來說的，根據其相應的，四果全部，增上果（Adhipati-phala，增上果）少部分，可以通過六因（Ṣaṭ-hetu，六因）獲得。各自根據一個含義，並不矛盾。應該知道，這裡所說的『至其義不同者』，應該知道，前一個『謂時』（Vādi-kāla，說話的時間）是指顯現俱時（Sahabhūta，同時存在）的；后一個『謂果』（Vādi-phala，說話的結果）是指顯現共同結果（Sādhāraṇa-phala，共同的結果）的。顯現俱時和顯現共同結果，所以說它們的含義不同。『由善等者至無記性故者』，這說明了顯性（Prakṛti，自性）與心（Citta，心）相同。其中有三種：一是善（Kuśala，善），二是不善（Akuśala，不善），三是無記（Avyākṛta，無記）。『由此十因名心隨轉者』，這是總結。『此中心王至為心俱有因者』，下面是根據法（Dharma，法）來說明俱有因。此前說中心王（Citta-rāja，心王）對於心所（Caitasika，心所）等為因的通局，是就二定（Dhyāna，禪定）以上的無覆無記（Anivṛtāvyākṛta，無覆無記）心中來說的。只有心王及大地法（Mahābhumika，大地法）十種。這十一種各有大少四相（Lakṣaṇa，相）合起來有九十九法。心王對於九十八法，極少也與五十八法為俱有因。即十大地法及彼四十本相（Prakṛti，自性）。心八本（Prakṛti，自性）、隨相（Anulakṣaṇa，隨相）。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If 'Eka-phala' (single result) refers to 'Puruṣakāra' (human action) and 'Visamyoga' (liberation), aren't these contradictory? Answer: In the 'Vibhāṣā' (Buddhist treatise), only 'Visamyoga-phala' (result of liberation) is mentioned because, within this result, it is based solely on definitive and unambiguous cases. The term 'Puruṣakāra-phala' (result of human action) has a broader and less definite scope, possibly referring to 'Sahabhū' (simultaneous arising) or 'Anantara' (uninterrupted sequence), etc. The 'Vibhāṣā' should also mention 'Puruṣakāra-phala,' but it doesn't to avoid confusion with 'Sahabhū-pariṇāma-puruṣakāra-phala' (result of human action transforming simultaneously arising phenomena), as the self in relation to itself is not a single result. The reason 'Nyāya' (Logic) mentions 'Puruṣakāra' is to encompass all 'Puruṣakāra-phala' within a single result, hence the specific explanation. Each is based on a single meaning and is not contradictory. Question: Which does the 'Eka-phala' in this treatise align with? Answer: It may align with either the 'Vibhāṣā' or the 'Nyāya'; there is no contradiction. Question: According to the following text, 'Puruṣakāra-phala' among the five results (Pañca-phala) is said to be obtained only through 'Samprayukta' (association) and 'Sahabhū-hetu' (co-existent cause). Why does 'Nyāya' say that 'Puruṣakāra-phala' is diverse and can be obtained through other causes? Answer: There are two types of 'Puruṣakāra-phala.' One is 'Viśeṣa-puruṣakāra-phala' (specific result of human action), which can only be obtained through association and co-existent cause. The other is 'Sāmānya-puruṣakāra-phala' (general result of human action), where anything obtained through effort can be called 'Puruṣakāra-phala.' 'Nyāya' speaks based on this general 'Puruṣakāra,' where, according to its relevance, all four results and a small part of the 'Adhipati-phala' (dominant result) can be obtained through the six causes (Ṣaṭ-hetu). Each is based on a single meaning and is not contradictory. It should be known that regarding 'to the difference in meaning,' it should be known that the former 'Vādi-kāla' (time of speaking) refers to the manifestation of simultaneity (Sahabhūta); the latter 'Vādi-phala' (result of speaking) refers to the manifestation of a common result (Sādhāraṇa-phala). Manifesting simultaneity and manifesting a common result, hence the difference in their meanings. 'From good, etc., to the nature of indifference,' this illustrates that nature (Prakṛti) is the same as mind (Citta). Among them, there are three: one is good (Kuśala), two is bad (Akuśala), and three is indifferent (Avyākṛta). 'These ten causes are called mind-following,' this is a summary. 'Here, the mind-king to the co-existent cause of the mind,' below, the co-existent cause is explained based on Dharma. Previously, the scope of the mind-king (Citta-rāja) as a cause for mental factors (Caitasika) etc., was discussed in the context of non-obscured and indifferent (Anivṛtāvyākṛta) minds above the second Dhyāna. There are only the mind-king and the ten universal mental factors (Mahābhumika). These eleven each have four major and minor characteristics (Lakṣaṇa), totaling ninety-nine dharmas. The mind-king, in relation to the ninety-eight dharmas, is at least a co-existent cause with fifty-eight dharmas, namely the ten universal mental factors and their forty inherent natures (Prakṛti). The mind's eight inherent natures (Prakṛti) and subsequent characteristics (Anulakṣaṇa).

五十八法。除大地上四十隨相。以隔遠故力不及彼非俱有因。若以五十八法。卻望心王除心四隨相。以劣弱故力不及彼。餘五十四為心俱有因。如心王對九十八法展轉作法。大地法十。一一作法準此應知　若心上大生望九十八法。與五十八法為俱有因。謂大地法十．並四十本相。及心王．並心王上三大．四少相。除大地法上四十隨相。五十八法望心大生。五十五為俱有因。除心上小住．異．滅　又解心王上大生。與十八法為俱有因。謂大地法十。及心王．並心上大住．異．滅．並四少相。此十八法卻望心上大生。十五法為俱有因。除心上少住．異滅　兩解各有一意。前解意以大生與所相心其力均等故。望彼大地法上四十大相。亦得為俱有因。后解意如彼心王。但與背上大相．及小相為因。若向前但與相應法．及相應法上大四相為因。向後向前各取第二重。不能與相應法上小四相為因。以彼遠故力不及第三重。此大生亦爾。能與心王．及相應法為因。但至第二重。亦不能與相應上大四相為因。以隔遠故力不及第三重。如心王上大生作此兩解。應知。心王上大住．異．滅。及大地法上四十大相。皆作兩解。準此應知。若心王上少生望九十八法。唯與大生為俱有因。九十八法卻望小生。即有五法為因。謂心．及心上大四相如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本五十八法。除去大地法中的四十個隨相（suixiang，secondary characteristics），因為間隔遙遠，力量無法觸及它們，所以不是俱有因（ju you yin，co-existent cause）。如果以五十八法，反過來觀察心王（xin wang，mind-king），除去心王上的四個隨相，因為它們微弱，力量無法觸及它們。剩餘的五十四法作為心的俱有因。如同心王對於九十八法輾轉施作一樣，大地法十（dadi fa shi，ten universal mental factors）中的每一個施作也應依此理解。如果心上的大生（da sheng，great arising）觀察九十八法，與五十八法作為俱有因。這指的是大地法十，以及四十個本相（ben xiang，primary characteristics），以及心王，以及心王上的三大（da san，three great characteristics），四個少相（shao xiang，four minor characteristics）。除去大地法上的四十個隨相。五十八法觀察心的大生，五十五個作為俱有因。除去心上的小住（xiao zhu，minor abiding）、異（yi，difference）、滅（mie，cessation）。又有一種解釋是，心王上的大生，與十八法作為俱有因。這指的是大地法十，以及心王，以及心上的大住（da zhu，great abiding）、異、滅，以及四個少相。這十八法反過來觀察心上的大生，十五法作為俱有因。除去心上的少住、異、滅。兩種解釋各有其含義。前一種解釋認為，大生與所相關的心的力量均等，因此，對於大地法上的四十個大相（da xiang，great characteristics），也可以作為俱有因。后一種解釋如同心王，只與背後的（背上）大相和小相作為因。如果向前，只與相應的法（xiang ying fa，associated mental factors），以及相應法上的四大相作為因。向後向前都取第二重，不能與相應法上的小四相作為因，因為它們遙遠，力量無法觸及第三重。這個大生也是如此，能夠與心王以及相應法作為因，但只到第二重，也不能與相應法上的四大相作為因，因為間隔遙遠，力量無法觸及第三重。如同心王上的大生作出這兩種解釋，應當知道，心王上的大住、異、滅，以及大地法上的四十個大相，都作出兩種解釋，依此理解。如果心王上的少生（shao sheng，minor arising）觀察九十八法，只與大生作為俱有因。九十八法反過來觀察小生，就有五法作為因，指的是心，以及心上的四大相，如同...

【English Translation】 English version Fifty-eight dharmas. Excluding the forty secondary characteristics (suixiang) of the earth element dharmas (dadi fa), because they are distant and the power cannot reach them, they are not co-existent causes (ju you yin). If with the fifty-eight dharmas, one looks back at the mind-king (xin wang), excluding the four secondary characteristics on the mind, because they are inferior and weak, the power cannot reach them. The remaining fifty-four dharmas are co-existent causes of the mind. Just as the mind-king acts on the ninety-eight dharmas in turn, it should be understood that each of the ten universal mental factors (dadi fa shi) acts in this way. If the great arising (da sheng) on the mind observes the ninety-eight dharmas, it is a co-existent cause with the fifty-eight dharmas. This refers to the ten universal mental factors, and the forty primary characteristics (ben xiang), as well as the mind-king, and the three great characteristics (da san) on the mind-king, and the four minor characteristics (shao xiang). Excluding the forty secondary characteristics on the earth element dharmas. When the fifty-eight dharmas observe the great arising of the mind, fifty-five are co-existent causes. Excluding the minor abiding (xiao zhu), difference (yi), and cessation (mie) on the mind. Another explanation is that the great arising on the mind-king is a co-existent cause with eighteen dharmas. This refers to the ten universal mental factors, and the mind-king, and the great abiding (da zhu), difference, and cessation on the mind, and the four minor characteristics. When these eighteen dharmas look back at the great arising on the mind, fifteen dharmas are co-existent causes. Excluding the minor abiding, difference, and cessation on the mind. Each of the two explanations has its own meaning. The former explanation considers that the power of the great arising and the mind it relates to are equal, therefore, it can also be a co-existent cause for the forty great characteristics (da xiang) on the earth element dharmas. The latter explanation is like the mind-king, which only takes the great and minor characteristics behind it (on its back) as causes. If it goes forward, it only takes the associated mental factors (xiang ying fa), and the four great characteristics on the associated mental factors as causes. Both backward and forward take the second layer, and cannot take the four minor characteristics on the associated mental factors as causes, because they are distant and the power cannot reach the third layer. This great arising is also like this, it can be a cause with the mind-king and the associated mental factors, but only up to the second layer, and cannot be a cause with the four great characteristics on the associated mental factors, because the distance is too far and the power cannot reach the third layer. Just as the great arising on the mind-king makes these two explanations, it should be known that the great abiding, difference, and cessation on the mind-king, and the forty great characteristics on the earth element dharmas, all make two explanations, and should be understood accordingly. If the minor arising (shao sheng) on the mind-king observes the ninety-eight dharmas, it is only a co-existent cause with the great arising. When the ninety-eight dharmas look back at the minor arising, there are five dharmas as causes, referring to the mind, and the four great characteristics on the mind, like...

心上小生。應知心王上小住．異．滅。及大地法上四十小相。準此應知　問心上小相不相心王。與大地法上大相相似。何故大地法上大相與心為因。心上小相非心因耶　念法師已前諸德解云。大地法望心王。具相應．俱有二因。故大地法上大相望心王為俱有因。心王上大相。望心王但為俱有因。故大相上小相。望心王非俱有因　破云。如心隨轉戒上大相是心隨轉法。即望心為俱有因。此所相戒望心。但有俱有因無相應因。如何彼能相望心。得為俱有因。故說非理　今解云大地法上四十大相。生法力強與所相法等。故望心王為因。心王小相。生法力劣非等所相法。故望心王非因。故顯宗第九云。本相與法其力等故　又正理云。何緣心隨相非心俱有因。不由彼力心得生故。非心與彼互為果故。彼於一法有功能故。又與心王非一果故。聚中多分非彼果故。即由如是所說多因。隨相不名心隨轉法。若爾云何心能與彼為俱有因。由隨心王生等諸位彼得轉故(已上論文)　有說為心因至並心本相者。此第二師解。以五十八法望心王。唯十四法為俱有因。謂十大地法。並心四本相。不取大地法上四十大相。與前師異。此師意說。心上隨相隔本相故．望心非俱有因。故知大地法上大相隔大地法故。望心非俱有因。

此說非善至知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心識之上短暫的生、異、滅。以及大地法之上的四十種小相。由此可知：問：心識之上的小相是否與心王（心識的主體）相關聯？它是否與大地法之上的大相類似？為什麼大地法之上的大相可以作為心識的因，而心識之上的小相卻不是心識的因呢？念法師以及之前的諸位大德解釋說：大地法相對於心王，具備相應因和俱有因兩種因。因此，大地法之上的大相相對於心王來說，是俱有因。而心王之上的大相，相對於心王來說，也只是俱有因。所以，大相之上的小相，相對於心王來說，就不是俱有因了。駁斥說：如果心隨轉戒之上的大相是心隨轉法，那麼它相對於心來說，就是俱有因。但是，這個被相的心隨轉戒相對於心來說，只有俱有因，而沒有相應因。那麼，它如何能相對於心，成為俱有因呢？所以這種說法是不合理的。現在的解釋是：大地法之上的四十種大相，其生法之力強大，與所相之法相等。因此，它相對於心王來說，可以作為因。而心王的小相，其生法之力弱小，與所相之法不相等。因此，它相對於心王來說，就不能作為因。所以，《顯宗論》第九卷說：根本相與法，它們的力是相等的。另外，《正理經》說：為什麼心隨相不是心的俱有因呢？因為它不是心生起的力量來源。也不是心與它互為結果。它對於一個法有功能。又與心王不是同一個結果。在聚合中，大部分不是它的結果。就是因為以上所說的多種原因，心隨相不能稱為心隨轉法。如果這樣，心如何能與它成為俱有因呢？因為隨著心王生起等各種狀態，它才能轉變（以上是論文）。有人說是心因，乃至並心本相的，這是第二位論師的解釋。以五十八法相對於心王，只有十四法是俱有因，即十大地法，以及心的四種根本相。不取大地法之上的四十種大相。這與前一位論師的觀點不同。這位論師的意思是說，心之上的隨相，因為隔著根本相，所以相對於心來說，不是俱有因。由此可知，大地法之上的大相，因為隔著大地法，所以相對於心來說，也不是俱有因。這種說法並不完善，需要進一步瞭解。

【English Translation】 English version: The momentary arising, change, and cessation on the mind. And the forty minor characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma. From this, it should be known: Question: Are the minor characteristics on the mind related to the Mind-King (the subject of consciousness)? Is it similar to the major characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma? Why can the major characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma be a cause of the mind, while the minor characteristics on the mind are not a cause of the mind? 'Nian' Dharma Master and previous virtuous ones explained: The Great Earth Dharma, in relation to the Mind-King, possesses both the corresponding cause and the co-existent cause. Therefore, the major characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma are co-existent causes in relation to the Mind-King. And the major characteristics on the Mind-King are also only co-existent causes in relation to the Mind-King. Therefore, the minor characteristics on the major characteristics are not co-existent causes in relation to the Mind-King. Refutation: If the major characteristic on the mind-following precept is a mind-following dharma, then it is a co-existent cause in relation to the mind. However, this precept being characterized only has a co-existent cause and no corresponding cause in relation to the mind. Then, how can it be a co-existent cause in relation to the mind? Therefore, this statement is unreasonable. The current explanation is: The forty major characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma have strong arising power and are equal to the dharma being characterized. Therefore, it can be a cause in relation to the Mind-King. The minor characteristics of the Mind-King have weak arising power and are not equal to the dharma being characterized. Therefore, it cannot be a cause in relation to the Mind-King. Therefore, the ninth volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: The fundamental characteristic and the dharma have equal power. Furthermore, the Nyayasutra says: Why is the mind-following characteristic not a co-existent cause of the mind? Because it is not the source of the mind's arising power. Nor is the mind and it mutually results. It has a function for one dharma. And it is not the same result as the Mind-King. In the aggregate, most are not its results. It is because of the many reasons mentioned above that the mind-following characteristic cannot be called a mind-following dharma. If so, how can the mind be a co-existent cause with it? Because it can transform with the Mind-King's arising and other states (the above is the thesis). Some say it is the cause of the mind, even including the fundamental characteristics of the mind. This is the explanation of the second teacher. With the fifty-eight dharmas in relation to the Mind-King, only fourteen dharmas are co-existent causes, namely the ten Great Earth Dharmas and the four fundamental characteristics of the mind. The forty major characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma are not taken. This is different from the view of the previous teacher. The meaning of this teacher is that the mind-following characteristic on the mind is not a co-existent cause in relation to the mind because it is separated by the fundamental characteristic. From this, it can be known that the major characteristics on the Great Earth Dharma are not co-existent causes in relation to the mind because they are separated by the Great Earth Dharma. This statement is not perfect and needs further understanding.

說有餘者。論主破第二師。此說非善。所以者何。若言唯十四法望心為俱有因。便違品類足論所說故。此中文略證稍難知。若依品類足論第十三千問品中雲。幾有身見為因非有身見因等者。二。非有身見為因非有身見因(解云。二。謂滅。道二諦)二應分別。謂苦聖諦。或有身見為因非有身見因。或有身見為因亦有身見因。或非有身見為因非有身見因　有身見為因非有身見因者。謂除過去．現在見苦所斷隨眠。及彼相應．俱有等苦諦　亦除過去．現在見集所斷遍行隨眠。及彼相應．俱有苦諦　亦除未來有身見相應苦諦　亦除未來有身見。及彼相應法生老住無常。諸餘染污苦諦　有身見為因亦有身見因者。謂前所除法　非有身見為因非有身見因者。謂不染污苦諦　集聖諦亦爾(已上論文)　解云彼文以四諦體望有身見為因通局。因者謂四緣中因緣。以五因為性。除能作。于中相望。隨有多少皆得為因。非要具五。滅．道二諦是無漏故。非有身見為因。非有身見因。苦集．二諦應當分別。先以苦諦對有身見得成三句。以必無有不從有身見為因生。與有身見為因者。所以。無與有身見為因。非以有身見為因一單句也。又凡諸論作法。若取多即除少。若取少即標名。省言論也。第一句中即是取多除少。以一切染污苦諦皆從有身

見生。卻望有身見。為因者少不為因者多。今欲取多故先除少。就除中文有四節　第一節除過去．現在見苦所斷隨眠。及彼相應．俱有等苦諦。相應謂相應法。俱有謂四相。等謂等取得也。若隨眠．及相應法望有身見。有同類．遍行．相應．俱有四因。無異熟因。若四相望有身見。有同類．遍行．俱有因。無相應．異熟因。若得望有身見。唯有同類因。無餘四因　第二節亦除過去．現在見集所斷遍行隨眠。及彼相應．俱有苦諦。此隨眠等望有身見。唯是遍行因無餘四因。得非遍行因故不言等　第三節亦除未來有身見上相應苦諦。不除有身見。以未來有身見。用過．現有身見為因。未來無前後故．不得與有身見為因故。彼有身見是單句攝。相應法望有身見。得有相應．俱有因。無同類．遍行．異熟因　第四節亦除未來有身見上生．老．住．無常。及相應法上生．老．住．無常。此第四節文不除有身見。以單句攝故。亦不除相應法。以第三節除故。但除彼法上大四相。既但言生．老．住．無常。明知是大四相。若小四相應言生生等。此有身見上。及相應法上。大四相望有身見。未來無前後故不得言同類．遍行因。非是相應法故不得言相應因。其異熟因是不善善有漏。感無覆無記異熟果。彼四相體是有覆。有身見又染污。復

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本觀察『生』（utpada, 產生）。反過來觀察『有身見』（satkayadristi, 認為五蘊和合的身體為我所有的邪見）。作為『因』（hetu, 原因）的情況少，不作為『因』的情況多。現在想要去除多的，所以先去除少的。就去除（『有身見』的）『因』來說，其中有四個部分：第一部分：去除過去、現在見苦所斷的隨眠（anusaya, 煩惱的潛在形式），以及與它們相應的法（dharma, 現象）、俱有（sahabhu, 同時存在）等苦諦（duhkha satya, 苦的真理）。相應指的是相應的法。俱有指的是四相（lakshana, 事物的四種狀態，即生、老、住、滅）。等指的是等同取得的（法）。如果隨眠以及相應的法，相對於『有身見』，有同類因（sabhaga-hetu, 同一類別的因）、遍行因（sarvatraga-hetu, 普遍存在的因）、相應因（samprayuktaka-hetu, 共同運作的因）、俱有因。沒有異熟因（vipaka-hetu, 導致不同結果的因）。如果四相相對於『有身見』，有同類因、遍行因、俱有因。沒有相應因、異熟因。如果『得』（prapti, 獲得）相對於『有身見』，只有同類因。沒有其餘四因。第二部分：也去除過去、現在見集所斷的遍行隨眠，以及與它們相應的法、俱有苦諦。這些隨眠等相對於『有身見』，只是遍行因，沒有其餘四因。『得』不是遍行因，所以沒有說『等』。第三部分：也去除未來『有身見』上的相應苦諦。不去除『有身見』，因為未來『有身見』，用過去、現在『有身見』作為因。未來沒有前後，所以不能與『有身見』作為因。那個『有身見』是單句所攝（ekavakyaparigrhita, 包含在一個單獨的陳述中）。相應法相對於『有身見』，『得』有相應因、俱有因。沒有同類因、遍行因、異熟因。第四部分：也去除未來『有身見』上的生、老、住、無常，以及相應法上的生、老、住、無常。這第四部分文字不去除『有身見』，因為是單句所攝的緣故。也不去除相應法，因為第三部分已經去除了。只是去除那些法上的大四相。既然只說生、老、住、無常，明顯知道是大四相。如果小四相，應該說生生等。這個『有身見』上，以及相應法上，大四相相對於『有身見』，未來沒有前後，所以不能說同類因、遍行因。不是相應法，所以不能說相應因。其異熟因是不善（akusala, 不道德的）、善（kusala, 道德的）有漏（sasrava, 帶有煩惱的），感得無覆無記（avyakrta, 非善非惡）的異熟果。那四相的體是有覆（avrta, 被覆蓋的），『有身見』又是染污（klista, 被污染的）。

【English Translation】 English version Observing 『utpada』 (生, arising). Conversely, observing 『satkayadristi』 (有身見, the view of self in the five aggregates). Cases where it is a 『hetu』 (因, cause) are few; cases where it is not a 『hetu』 are many. Now, wanting to remove the many, first remove the few. Regarding the removal of the 『cause』 of 『satkayadristi』, there are four sections: First section: Removing past and present anusaya (隨眠, latent tendencies) severed by seeing the truth of suffering, as well as the dharma (法, phenomena) corresponding to them, sahabhu (俱有, co-existent) and so on, of the duhkha satya (苦諦, truth of suffering). 『Corresponding』 refers to the corresponding dharmas. 『Co-existent』 refers to the four lakshanas (相, characteristics, i.e., arising, abiding, decaying, ceasing). 『And so on』 refers to equally obtained (dharmas). If the anusayas and corresponding dharmas, relative to 『satkayadristi』, have a sabhaga-hetu (同類因, cause of the same type), sarvatraga-hetu (遍行因, pervasive cause), samprayuktaka-hetu (相應因, associated cause), and sahabhu-hetu. There is no vipaka-hetu (異熟因, result cause). If the four lakshanas relative to 『satkayadristi』, have a sabhaga-hetu, sarvatraga-hetu, and sahabhu-hetu. There is no samprayuktaka-hetu or vipaka-hetu. If 『prapti』 (得, attainment) relative to 『satkayadristi』, only has a sabhaga-hetu. There are no other four causes. Second section: Also removing past and present sarvatraga anusayas severed by seeing the truth of origin, as well as the dharmas corresponding to them, and sahabhu of the truth of suffering. These anusayas and so on, relative to 『satkayadristi』, are only sarvatraga-hetu; there are no other four causes. 『Attainment』 is not a sarvatraga-hetu, so 『and so on』 is not mentioned. Third section: Also removing future suffering corresponding to 『satkayadristi』. Not removing 『satkayadristi』, because future 『satkayadristi』 uses past and present 『satkayadristi』 as a cause. The future has no before and after, so it cannot be a cause with 『satkayadristi』. That 『satkayadristi』 is ekavakyaparigrhita (單句所攝, included in a single statement). Corresponding dharmas relative to 『satkayadristi』, 『attainment』 has samprayuktaka-hetu and sahabhu-hetu. There is no sabhaga-hetu, sarvatraga-hetu, or vipaka-hetu. Fourth section: Also removing future arising, abiding, decaying, and ceasing on 『satkayadristi』, as well as arising, abiding, decaying, and ceasing on corresponding dharmas. This fourth section of text does not remove 『satkayadristi』, because it is ekavakyaparigrhita. It also does not remove corresponding dharmas, because the third section has already removed them. It only removes the great four lakshanas on those dharmas. Since it only says arising, abiding, decaying, and ceasing, it is clearly known that they are the great four lakshanas. If they were the small four lakshanas, it should say arising of arising, and so on. On this 『satkayadristi』, and on the corresponding dharmas, the great four lakshanas relative to 『satkayadristi』, the future has no before and after, so it cannot be said to be sabhaga-hetu or sarvatraga-hetu. It is not a corresponding dharma, so it cannot be said to be a samprayuktaka-hetu. Its vipaka-hetu is akusala (不善, unwholesome) and kusala (善, wholesome) sasrava (有漏, with outflows), which result in avyakrta (無記, neutral) vipaka fruits. The substance of those four lakshanas is avrta (有覆, obscured), and 『satkayadristi』 is also klista (染污, defiled).

不可言是異熟因。既入所除。即是有身見為因。亦有身見因俱句攝。既言有因。不是俱有因更是何因。相應法上大相。望有身見既得俱有因。準知。大地法上四十大相。望心王亦得為俱有因。以此故知。唯十四法。與心為俱有因者。定為非理。應知。俱舍但引品類足第四節文證也　諸餘染污苦諦者。應知。即是三世見滅．見道．修道所斷染污法。及過．現見集所斷。不遍隨眠相應．俱有等。及遍行隨眠相應．俱有法上得。及未來見苦所斷有身見。有身見上小四相．並得。及身見相應法上小四相。並得。及見苦所斷餘九隨眠相應．俱有等。及未來見集所斷法。此等並是以有身見為因。非與有身見為因。是名諸餘染污苦諦　第二句。以有身見為因。亦與有身見為因者。謂即是前所除諸法　第三句。非以有身見為因。非與有身見為因者。謂修所斷不染污苦諦　如苦聖諦。集聖諦望有身見應知亦爾。但以集名替于苦處。余義皆同。以苦集諦是一物故。此約諦體作法故無寬狹。近代諸師言。集諦非無有異。謂除有身見。彼謂迷諦起惑。此說不然。謬之甚也。引品類足但取第一．第二句為證。餘者同文故來。品類足當舊眾事分。彼文稍錯。以過去第一節文。但云除過去．現在見苦所斷使。彼相應苦諦。不言俱有等。即不除俱有．及

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不可言說是異熟因（Vipākahetu，指導致異熟果報的因）。既然已經排除，那就是以有身見（Satkāyadṛṣṭi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的錯誤見解）為因。也有有身見因俱句所包含的。既然說有因，不是俱有因（Sahabhūhetu，同時存在的因）又是什麼因呢？在相應的法上，大的表相，相對於有身見來說，既然得到了俱有因，那麼可以推知，大地法上的四十個大的表相，相對於心王（Cittarāja，指心識的主要部分）也可以作為俱有因。因此可知，只有十四種法與心作為俱有因的說法，一定是錯誤的。應該知道，《俱舍論》只是引用了《品類足論》第四節的文句來證明這一點。其他的染污苦諦，應該知道，就是三世（過去、現在、未來）的見滅（Darśananirvāṇa，通過見道斷除煩惱后獲得的涅槃）、見道（Darśanamārga，初次證悟四聖諦的修行道路）、修道（Bhāvanāmārga，在見道之後，繼續修行的道路）所斷的染污法，以及過去、現在見集（Darśanasamudaya，通過見道斷除的集諦煩惱）所斷的，不普遍隨眠（Ananuśaya，不常起的煩惱）相應的、俱有的等等，以及普遍隨眠（Anuśaya，常起的煩惱）相應的、俱有的法上得到的。以及未來見苦（Darśanaduḥkha，未來將要通過見道斷除的苦諦煩惱）所斷的有身見。有身見上的小的四種表相，並且得到。以及與身見相應的法上的小的四種表相，並且得到。以及見苦所斷的其餘九種隨眠相應的、俱有的等等。以及未來見集所斷的法。這些都是以有身見為因，而不是與有身見為因。這叫做其他的染污苦諦。第二句，以有身見為因，也與有身見為因，指的是前面所排除的各種法。第三句，不是以有身見為因，也不是與有身見為因，指的是修所斷的不染污苦諦。如同苦聖諦，集聖諦相對於有身見也應該知道是這樣的。只是用集（Samudaya，指集諦）這個名稱代替苦（Duḥkha，指苦諦）的位置，其餘的意義都相同。因為苦集諦是一回事。這是從諦的本體上來說的，所以沒有寬窄之分。近代的諸位法師說，集諦並非沒有不同，就是排除了有身見。他們認為迷惑于諦而生起惑。這種說法不對，非常荒謬。引用《品類足論》只是取第一、第二句作為證明，其餘的因為文句相同所以省略了。《品類足論》相當於舊的《眾事分》。那裡的文句稍微有些錯誤，因為過去的第一節文，只是說排除了過去、現在見苦所斷的使（Anuśaya，煩惱的異名），以及與它們相應的苦諦，沒有說俱有的等等，也就是不排除俱有的，以及...

【English Translation】 English version: The inexpressible is a Vipākahetu (cause of resultant effects). Since it has been excluded, it is caused by Satkāyadṛṣṭi (the view of self in the aggregates). It is also included in the phrase 'caused by and co-existent with Satkāyadṛṣṭi'. Since it is said to have a cause, what other cause could it be if not a Sahabhūhetu (co-existent cause)? Regarding the great characteristics on corresponding dharmas, since Satkāyadṛṣṭi obtains a co-existent cause, it can be inferred that the forty great characteristics on Mahābhūta-dharmas (earth element dharmas) can also be a co-existent cause in relation to Citta-rāja (the king of mind). Therefore, it is known that the statement that only fourteen dharmas are co-existent causes with the mind is definitely unreasonable. It should be understood that the Abhidharmakośa only cites the fourth section of the Prakaraṇapāda to prove this point. The remaining defiled truths of suffering should be understood as the defiled dharmas severed by Darśananirvāṇa (cessation through seeing), Darśanamārga (the path of seeing), and Bhāvanāmārga (the path of cultivation) of the three times (past, present, future), as well as those severed by Darśanasamudaya (the arising of seeing) in the past and present, which are associated with non-pervasive Anuśaya (latent tendencies), co-existent dharmas, etc., and those obtained on dharmas associated with pervasive Anuśaya and co-existent dharmas. Also, Satkāyadṛṣṭi severed by future Darśanaduḥkha (suffering through seeing), the four minor characteristics on Satkāyadṛṣṭi, and what is obtained. Also, the four minor characteristics on dharmas associated with Satkāyadṛṣṭi, and what is obtained. Also, the co-existent dharmas, etc., associated with the remaining nine Anuśaya severed by Darśanaduḥkha. And the dharmas severed by future Darśanasamudaya. All of these are caused by Satkāyadṛṣṭi, and not co-existent with Satkāyadṛṣṭi. These are called the remaining defiled truths of suffering. The second phrase, 'caused by Satkāyadṛṣṭi, and also co-existent with Satkāyadṛṣṭi,' refers to the various dharmas excluded earlier. The third phrase, 'not caused by Satkāyadṛṣṭi, and not co-existent with Satkāyadṛṣṭi,' refers to the undefiled truths of suffering severed by cultivation. Just as with the noble truth of suffering, it should be understood that the noble truth of arising is also the same in relation to Satkāyadṛṣṭi. Only the name 'arising' (Samudaya) is substituted for the place of 'suffering' (Duḥkha), and the remaining meanings are the same. Because the truths of suffering and arising are one and the same. This is spoken from the perspective of the essence of the truths, so there is no difference in scope. The modern teachers say that the truth of arising is not without difference, namely, excluding Satkāyadṛṣṭi. They believe that delusion about the truths gives rise to afflictions. This statement is incorrect and extremely absurd. Citing the Prakaraṇapāda only takes the first and second phrases as proof, and the rest is omitted because the sentences are the same. The Prakaraṇapāda is equivalent to the old Vastusaṃgraha. The sentences there are slightly incorrect, because the first section of the past only says that it excludes the Anuśaya (latent tendencies) severed by Darśanaduḥkha in the past and present, and the corresponding truths of suffering, without mentioning co-existent dharmas, etc., that is, it does not exclude co-existent dharmas, and...

得。第二節文但言除過去．現在見集所斷一切遍行使。彼相應苦諦。復不除俱有法。余文同品類足。有餘師。為欲成立唯十四法為心俱有因。故不誦及彼相應法。但言除未來有身見生．老．住．無常。有身見相應法上大四相。既不入所除中。以此故知。大地法上四十大相。亦不與心為俱有因。迦濕彌羅國毗婆沙師言。彼品類足必應作如是誦。除未來有身見。及彼相應法生．老．住．無常。假設彼論。無及彼相應法。或應準俱有因義知說有餘。以諸論皆說相應法上大四相。是心隨轉法。即是與心互為俱有因。義。

諸由俱有至或俱生故者。此因解俱有因。復明俱有法是因非因。諸由俱有因故成因。彼法必定俱有。或有俱有。非由俱有因故成因。總有八對。一謂諸隨相各于本法。二此諸隨相各互相對。三隨心轉法隨相於心。四此諸隨相展轉相對。五一切俱生有對造色展轉相對。六少分散無表俱生無對造色。七支展轉相對。七一切俱生造色．大種。展轉相對。八一切俱生得與所得　如是等諸法。雖名俱有而非由俱有因故成因。所以者何。彼隨相等望本法等。橫望而言。非能同取一果．一異熟．及一等流故。恐有難言。得與所得。如生等相。與法俱起應名俱有因故。今釋言得與所得法非定俱行。或在法前。或在法后。或

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本得。第二節文字只說除去了過去、現在見所斷的一切遍行使（Sarva-yoga，所有煩惱）。與彼相應的苦諦（Dukkha-satya，痛苦的真諦）。又不除去俱有法（Sahabhu-dharma，同時存在的法）。其餘文字與《品類足論》（Prakaranapada-shastra）相同。有些論師，爲了成立只有十四法是心俱有因（Citta-sahabhu-hetu，與心同時存在的因），所以不誦讀與彼相應的法。只說除去未來有身見（Satkayadristi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的見解）的生、老、住、無常。有身見相應的法上的四大相（Mahabhuta-laksana，地、水、火、風的特性）。既然不包括在所除去的之中，因此可知，大地法上的四大相，也不與心作為俱有因。迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教部派之一）說，那部《品類足論》必定應當這樣誦讀：除去未來有身見，以及與彼相應的法的生、老、住、無常。假設那部論，沒有『以及與彼相應的法』，或許應當按照俱有因的意義，知道說有剩餘。因為各種論都說相應法上的四大相，是心隨轉法（Citta-anuparivartin-dharma，隨心而轉的法），也就是與心互為俱有因的意義。

『諸由俱有至或俱生故者』。這個因解釋了俱有因。又說明俱有法是因非因。諸由俱有因的緣故成為因，那些法必定是俱有的。或者有俱有，不是由俱有因的緣故成為因。總共有八對。一，是說各種隨相（Anulaksana，事物的特性）各自對於本法（Svabhava，自身）。二，這些隨相各自互相相對。三，隨心轉法（Citta-anuparivartin-dharma，隨心而轉的法）的隨相對於心。四，這些隨相輾轉相對。五，一切俱生有對造色（Sahabhu-sapratigha-rupa，同時產生的有對礙的色法）輾轉相對。六，少分散無表（Vijnapti，表色）俱生無對造色（Sahabhu-apratigha-rupa，同時產生的無對礙的色法）。七，支輾轉相對。七，一切俱生造色、大種（Mahabhuta，組成物質世界的四大元素）。輾轉相對。八，一切俱生得（Prapti，獲得）與所得。像這樣等等的各種法，雖然名叫俱有，但不是由俱有因的緣故成為因。為什麼呢？那些隨相等等望向本法等等，橫向望去而言，不能共同取得一個果、一個異熟（Vipaka，果報）、以及一個等流（Nisyanda，相似的流出）。恐怕有人會提出疑問說，得與所得，如生等等相，與法同時生起，應當名叫俱有因的緣故。現在解釋說，得與所得法不是一定同時執行的，或者在法之前，或者在法之後，或者

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the second section only speaks of removing all pervasive afflictions (Sarva-yoga) severed by the views of the past and present. It also refers to the corresponding Truth of Suffering (Dukkha-satya). It does not remove co-existent dharmas (Sahabhu-dharma). The remaining text is the same as in the Prakaranapada-shastra (Prakaranapada-shastra). Some teachers, wishing to establish that only fourteen dharmas are co-existent causes with the mind (Citta-sahabhu-hetu), therefore do not recite the corresponding dharmas. They only speak of removing the arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence of the future view of self (Satkayadristi). The four great characteristics (Mahabhuta-laksana) on the dharmas corresponding to the view of self. Since they are not included in what is removed, it is known that the four great characteristics on the earth dharma are also not co-existent causes with the mind. The Vaibhashika (Vaibhashika) masters of Kashmir (Kashmir) say that the Prakaranapada-shastra must be recited as follows: remove the future view of self, and the arising, aging, abiding, and impermanence of the dharmas corresponding to it. Supposing that the treatise does not have 'and the dharmas corresponding to it,' perhaps it should be understood according to the meaning of co-existent cause that there is something remaining. Because all treatises say that the four great characteristics on the corresponding dharmas are dharmas that follow the mind (Citta-anuparivartin-dharma), which is the meaning of being mutually co-existent causes with the mind.

'Those that are due to co-existence to or co-arising.' This cause explains the co-existent cause. It also clarifies that co-existent dharmas are causes and non-causes. Those that become causes due to co-existent causes, those dharmas must be co-existent. Or there are co-existents that do not become causes due to co-existent causes. There are a total of eight pairs. One, is that the various characteristics (Anulaksana) are each in relation to their own nature (Svabhava). Two, these various characteristics are each mutually relative. Three, the characteristics of the dharmas that follow the mind (Citta-anuparivartin-dharma) are in relation to the mind. Four, these various characteristics are mutually relative in turn. Five, all co-arising visible matter with resistance (Sahabhu-sapratigha-rupa) are mutually relative in turn. Six, a few scattered non-revealing (Vijnapti) co-arising visible matter without resistance (Sahabhu-apratigha-rupa). Seven, the limbs are mutually relative in turn. Seven, all co-arising visible matter and great elements (Mahabhuta). are mutually relative in turn. Eight, all co-arising attainment (Prapti) and what is attained. Such as these various dharmas, although named co-existent, are not causes due to co-existent causes. Why? Those characteristics, etc., looking towards the original dharmas, etc., looking horizontally, cannot jointly take one result, one maturation (Vipaka), and one outflow (Nisyanda). Perhaps someone will raise the question that attainment and what is attained, such as the characteristics of arising, etc., arise simultaneously with the dharma, and should be named co-existent causes. Now it is explained that the dharmas of attainment and what is attained do not necessarily operate simultaneously, or before the dharma, or after the dharma, or

法俱生．不同生等定與法俱。故得望法非俱有因　如是一切至有因果義者。經部問。上來所立因果。如是一切理且可然。此即縱許。而諸世間前種等為因。生后芽等果。一切世間極成因果相生事中。未見如斯同時因果。故今應說。云何世間俱起諸法聚中。有同時因果義。

豈不現見至亦為因果者。說一切有部答。豈不現見明從焰生。影從芽生同時因果。

此應詳辨至影用芽為因者。經部反徴。此應詳辨。為如汝宗。即用燈焰與明為因。同時因果。為如我經部宗。由前念人功．燈器．油炷因緣和合。后念焰．明俱起。所以經部作此徴者。若焰生明。汝許。我不許。以經部不許同時因果。若前因緣和合生后焰明。即彼此同許故。引極成證前因後果。如日初出照芽東面。此東面有餘物障光明芽西面自有影現芽東面極微。雖障光明而不現影芽西面極微。雖現影。而不障光明。若言此影由東邊生者。中間既隔無量極微。如何得生。若言由西邊生者。日既不照。如何現影。又無日時亦應現影。故知。此影非由同念芽為因生。但由前念芽生后念芽影自俱時起。如何說此影用芽為因。

理不應然至理成因果者。說一切有部救義。汝今非我同時因果。理不應然。說果體有無隨因有無故。善因明論者。心無朋黨。說因果

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『法俱生』（dharmasahaja，與法同時生起）。不同於『生等定』（utpādādhisthāna，生住異滅的規律）與法同時。因此可以認為『望法』（apekṣā-dharma，觀待法）不是『俱有因』（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因）。如上所述，一切都涉及到因果的意義。

經部（Sautrāntika）提問：以上所建立的因果關係，從道理上來說或許可以成立。這就算是暫且認可。但是，在世間普遍認可的因果關係中，例如前一刻的種子等作為因，產生后一刻的芽等作為果，從未見過這種同時的因果關係。所以現在應該說明，在世間同時生起的諸法聚合中，如何存在同時因果的意義？

說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）回答：難道沒有看到火焰產生光明，樹芽產生陰影，這些都是同時的因果嗎？

經部反駁：這應該詳細辨析。是像你們說一切有部那樣，用燈焰作為光明的因，是同時的因果呢？還是像我們經部宗那樣，由前一念的人的努力、燈具、燈油燈芯等因緣和合，后一念火焰和光明同時生起？經部這樣反駁的原因是，如果火焰生光明，你們說一切有部認可，我們經部不認可，因為經部不認可同時因果。如果是前一念的因緣和合生后一念的火焰和光明，那就是彼此都認可的。所以引用世間普遍認可的前因後果來證明。例如，太陽剛出來照到樹芽的東面，如果這東面有其他東西遮擋，光明照不到，樹芽的西面自然就有陰影出現。樹芽東面的極微細的物質，雖然遮擋了光明，但是不會產生陰影；樹芽西面的極微細的物質，雖然產生了陰影，但是不會遮擋光明。如果說這陰影是由東邊產生的，中間隔著無數極微細的物質，怎麼可能產生？如果說是從西邊產生的，太陽又沒有照到，怎麼會產生陰影？而且沒有太陽的時候也應該有陰影。所以要知道，這陰影不是由同一念頭的樹芽作為因產生的，只是由前一念的樹芽生起后一念的樹芽和陰影同時生起。怎麼能說這陰影是用樹芽作為因呢？

說一切有部辯護：你現在否定我們的同時因果，這在道理上是不應該的。果體的存在與否取決於因的存在與否。善於因明理論的人，心中沒有偏袒，會認為因果關係成立。

【English Translation】 English version 'Dharmasahaja' (法俱生, that which arises simultaneously with dharma). It is different from 'utpādādhisthāna' (生等定, the law of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing) which is simultaneous with dharma. Therefore, it can be considered that 'apekṣā-dharma' (望法, dependent dharma) is not 'sahabhū-hetu' (俱有因, co-existent cause). As mentioned above, everything relates to the meaning of cause and effect.

The Sautrāntika (經部) asks: The cause-and-effect relationship established above may be reasonable in theory. Let's grant that for now. However, in the commonly accepted cause-and-effect relationships in the world, such as the seed of the previous moment being the cause and the sprout of the next moment being the effect, such simultaneous cause and effect have never been seen. So now it should be explained, how can there be a simultaneous cause-and-effect meaning in the aggregation of dharmas that arise simultaneously in the world?

The Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部) replies: Don't you see that light arises from flame, and shadow arises from a sprout? These are simultaneous causes and effects.

The Sautrāntika refutes: This should be analyzed in detail. Is it like your Sarvāstivāda school, using the flame of a lamp as the cause of light, which is a simultaneous cause and effect? Or is it like our Sautrāntika school, where the efforts of a person in the previous moment, the lamp, the oil, and the wick combine as conditions, and in the next moment, the flame and light arise simultaneously? The reason why the Sautrāntika makes this refutation is that if the flame produces light, your Sarvāstivāda school accepts it, but our Sautrāntika school does not accept it, because the Sautrāntika school does not accept simultaneous cause and effect. If the conditions of the previous moment combine to produce the flame and light of the next moment, then that is something that both sides accept. Therefore, use the commonly accepted cause and effect of the previous cause and subsequent effect to prove it. For example, when the sun first comes out and shines on the east side of a sprout, if there is something blocking the light on this east side, the west side of the sprout will naturally have a shadow. The extremely subtle matter on the east side of the sprout, although it blocks the light, does not produce a shadow; the extremely subtle matter on the west side of the sprout, although it produces a shadow, does not block the light. If you say that this shadow is produced from the east side, there are countless extremely subtle substances in between, how can it be produced? If you say that it is produced from the west side, the sun is not shining there, how can there be a shadow? Moreover, there should be a shadow even when there is no sun. So you should know that this shadow is not produced by the sprout of the same thought as the cause, but only by the sprout of the previous thought giving rise to the sprout and shadow of the next thought simultaneously. How can you say that this shadow uses the sprout as the cause?

The Sarvāstivāda defends: It is unreasonable for you to deny our simultaneous cause and effect now. The existence or non-existence of the effect depends on the existence or non-existence of the cause. Those who are skilled in the theory of Hetu-vidya (因明), without any bias in their hearts, will consider the cause-and-effect relationship to be established.

相。言若此因有．無。彼果隨有．無者。此法定是因。彼法定是果。我說亦爾。俱有法中同有。同無。理成因果。

俱起因果至互為因果者。經部難。同時因果理且可然。如何可言互為因果。

即由前說此亦無違者。說一切有部答。即由前說一有一切有。一無一切無。互為因果理亦無違。

若爾如前至連持令住者。經部難。若爾如前所說。色．聲．香．味．觸造色。隨其所應互不相離。如是造色。與四大種。心隨相等與心等法。皆不相離。齊有．齊無。應互為因　若謂如三杖互相依住展轉有力。如是同時俱有諸法。展轉相望有力用者。因果義成是俱有因。此所造等。雖復同時相望無力。非俱有因。經部牒。

救訖破云　此應思惟。如是三杖。為由俱起相依力住　如汝所說　為由前生人功聚集因緣力故。令后三杖俱起住耶。

如我所說　經部意說。此三杖住。但由前念因緣力住。非由同時。彼計前因後果。

又于彼中。豈唯三杖相依而住。亦有別物繩鉤能連。地復能持。令得安住。如何但言三杖相依。西方外道。持三杖行。繩連鉤繼。交差置地上安隨身等物。故引彼三杖為喻。

此亦有餘至因義得成者。說一切有部救言。俱有法生時。不但同時互相有力。成俱有因。此中亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『相』（Lakshana，特徵）。如果這樣說，因為有和無，那個結果隨著有和無而產生。這個法則是因，那個法則是果。我說也是這樣。在俱有法（simultaneous dharmas，同時存在的法）中，同有同無，道理上可以成立因果關係。

俱起因果到互為因果，經部（Sautrantika，佛教的一個學派）提出疑問：同時的因果關係在道理上或許可以成立，但怎麼能說是互為因果呢？

『即由前說此亦無違』，說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教的一個學派）回答：就像前面所說，一有一切有，一無一切無，互為因果的道理也沒有違背。

『若爾如前至連持令住』，經部提出疑問：如果像前面所說，色（rupa，形態）、聲（shabda，聲音）、香（gandha，氣味）、味（rasa，味道）、觸（sprashtavya，觸感）這些造色（matter created，由四大種產生的物質），根據它們各自的情況互不分離。這樣，造色與四大種（the four great elements，地、水、火、風），心隨（mental concomitants，與心相關的心理現象）等與心等法（mental dharmas，與心相關的法），都不互相分離，同時存在，同時消失，應該互為因。如果說像三根木杖互相依靠而立，輾轉產生力量，像這樣同時存在的諸法，輾轉相望而產生力量，因果的意義就成立了，這就是俱有因（simultaneous cause，同時存在的因）。這些所造之物等，即使是同時存在，互相之間沒有力量，也不是俱有因。經部重複了這一觀點。

駁斥之後又進行反駁：這應該仔細思考。像這三根木杖，是因為同時產生互相依靠的力量而立住，就像你所說的，還是因為先前產生的人工聚集的因緣力量，才使得後來的三根木杖同時立住呢？

『如我所說』，經部的意思是說，這三根木杖的立住，只是由於前一念的因緣力量而立住，不是由於同時。他們認為這是前因後果。

而且在那其中，難道僅僅是三根木杖互相依靠而立住嗎？也有其他的物品，比如繩子和鉤子能夠連線，地面也能夠支撐，使得它們能夠安穩地立住。為什麼只說三根木杖互相依靠呢？西方的外道，拿著三根木杖行走，用繩子連線，用鉤子相連，交錯地放置在地上，用來安放隨身的物品。所以引用那三根木杖作為比喻。

『此亦有餘至因義得成』，說一切有部辯護說：俱有法產生的時候，不僅僅是同時互相產生力量，從而成就俱有因。這裡也...

【English Translation】 English version: 『Lakshana』 (相, characteristic). If it is said that because of existence and non-existence, that result arises with existence and non-existence. This dharma is the cause, and that dharma is the effect. I say it is also like this. Among simultaneous dharmas (俱有法), co-existence and co-non-existence establish the principle of cause and effect.

Regarding simultaneous cause and effect leading to mutual cause and effect, the Sautrantika (經部, a Buddhist school) raises a question: Simultaneous cause and effect may be reasonable in principle, but how can it be said to be mutual cause and effect?

『That there is no contradiction based on what was said earlier,』 the Sarvastivada (說一切有部, a Buddhist school) replies: Just as it was said earlier, when one exists, all exist; when one does not exist, all do not exist. The principle of mutual cause and effect is also not contradictory.

『If so, like before, up to holding and maintaining,』 the Sautrantika raises a question: If it is as said before, form (色, rupa), sound (聲, shabda), smell (香, gandha), taste (味, rasa), and touch (觸, sprashtavya), these created matter (造色, matter created from the four great elements), according to their respective situations, do not separate from each other. Thus, created matter and the four great elements (四大種, the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind), mental concomitants (心隨, mental phenomena associated with the mind), and other mental dharmas (心等法, dharmas associated with the mind), do not separate from each other, existing and ceasing simultaneously, they should be mutual causes. If it is said that like three staffs leaning on each other, mutually supporting and generating strength, in this way, simultaneously existing dharmas mutually looking to each other and generating strength, the meaning of cause and effect is established, and this is a simultaneous cause (俱有因, simultaneous cause). These created things, etc., even if they exist simultaneously, do not have power in relation to each other, and are not simultaneous causes. The Sautrantika repeats this view.

After refuting, they counter-argue: This should be carefully considered. Are these three staffs standing because of the simultaneous arising of mutually dependent strength, as you say, or is it because of the power of previously generated human effort and accumulated conditions that the later three staffs stand simultaneously?

『As I said,』 the Sautrantika means that the standing of these three staffs is only due to the power of the conditions of the previous moment, not due to simultaneity. They consider this to be a prior cause and subsequent effect.

Moreover, in that situation, are only the three staffs relying on each other to stand? There are also other things, such as ropes and hooks, that can connect them, and the ground can also support them, allowing them to stand stably. Why only say that the three staffs rely on each other? Western heretics carry three staffs, connected by ropes and hooks, placed crisscross on the ground to place personal belongings. Therefore, they cite those three staffs as a metaphor.

『This also has remaining... the meaning of cause is established,』 the Sarvastivada defends, saying: When simultaneous dharmas arise, it is not only that they simultaneously generate strength in each other, thereby achieving simultaneous cause. Here also...

有餘同類因等。是故俱有因義得成。如彼三杖非但相依有力令住。亦有繩．鉤．地等連持令住。

如是已說至聞思所成等者。此下第三明同類因。

論曰至皆不為因者。此釋初句。善．染五蘊展轉為因。更無異說　無記五蘊四說不同　第一說展轉為因。性類等故　第二說五是色果。顯色為五因。四非色因。顯四不生色。此師意說四蘊勝故非色因。色蘊劣故與四為因　第三說五是四果。顯四為五因。色非四因。顯色不生四。此師意說四蘊勢力強故能為色因。色蘊勢力劣故非與四為因　第四師說色與四蘊互不為因。俱是無記劣異類故。諸論皆有四說並無評家　今解且以後師為正。故婆沙一百三十一云。大種與意處為幾緣。答所緣．增上。意處與大種為幾緣。答因．增上。因者一因謂異熟因。增上者如前說　解云。無記四大。既望意處。展轉相望不言有同類因。以此準知。無記色蘊。望無記四蘊。展轉相望非同類因者為正　問若言無記色蘊。望無記行蘊無同類因。何故婆沙一百三十一云。大種與法處為幾緣。答因．所緣．增上。因者七因。謂生等．及俱有．同類。所緣。謂與身識相應法．及意識相應法。為所緣。增上者如前說　準彼論文。大種望法處中四相為俱有因。言同類因者。凡同時相望為俱有因。異時相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有餘同類因等。因此，俱有因（Hetu-samprayuktaka-hetu，共同存在的因）的意義得以成立。就像那三根杖子，不僅僅是互相依靠才能站立，還有繩子、鉤子、地面等連線支撐才能站立。

如是已說至聞思所成等者。接下來第三部分闡明同類因（Sabhāga-hetu，同類因）。

論曰至皆不為因者。這是解釋第一句話。善（Kuśala，善）和染（Akuśala，不善）的五蘊（Pañca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）輾轉相因為因，沒有其他不同的說法。無記（Avyākṛta，非善非惡）五蘊有四種不同的說法：第一種說法是輾轉相因為因，因為性質種類相同。第二種說法是五蘊是色的果，顯色（Rūpa，顏色、形狀）是五蘊的因，四蘊（受、想、行、識）不是色的因，因為四蘊不能產生色。這位論師認為四蘊殊勝，所以不是色的因；色蘊低劣，所以與四蘊互為因。第三種說法是五蘊是四蘊的果，顯色四蘊是五蘊的因，色不是四蘊的因，因為色不能產生四蘊。這位論師認為四蘊勢力強大，所以能作為色的因；色蘊勢力低劣，所以不能與四蘊互為因。第四位論師說色與四蘊互不為因，因為都是無記的、低劣的、不同類的。各種論典都有這四種說法，但沒有評論家進行評判。現在我解釋，暫且以後一位論師的說法為正確。所以《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百三十一卷說：『大種（Mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）與意處（Manāyatana，意識的領域）有幾種緣？』回答是所緣緣（Ālambana-pratyaya，對像緣）和增上緣（Adhipati-pratyaya，增上緣）。『意處與大種有幾種緣？』回答是因緣（Hetu-pratyaya，因緣）和增上緣。因緣指一種因，即異熟因（Vipāka-hetu，果報因）。增上緣如前所述。解釋說，無記四大（地、水、火、風），既然對於意處，輾轉相望不說是同類因，以此推知，無記色蘊，對於無記四蘊，輾轉相望不是同類因的說法是正確的。問：如果說無記色蘊，對於無記行蘊沒有同類因，為什麼《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷說：『大種與法處（Dharmāyatana，法的領域）有幾種緣？』回答是因緣、所緣緣、增上緣。因緣指七因（Sapta-hetu，七種因），即生等因（Janaka-hetu，生因）、及俱有因（Sahabhū-hetu，俱生因）、同類因（Sabhāga-hetu，同類因）。所緣緣，指與身識（Kāya-vijñāna，身體的意識）相應的法，以及與意識（Mano-vijñāna，心理的意識）相應的法，作為所緣。增上緣如前所述。』按照那篇論文，大種對於法處中的四相是俱有因。說同類因，凡是同時相望的是俱有因，不同時相

【English Translation】 English version: There are remaining similar causes, etc. Therefore, the meaning of co-existent cause (Hetu-samprayuktaka-hetu) is established. Just like those three staffs, not only do they rely on each other to stand, but also ropes, hooks, the ground, etc., connect and support them to stand.

As has been said, 'to what is accomplished by hearing and thinking,' etc. The third part below clarifies the similar cause (Sabhāga-hetu).

The treatise says, 'to all that are not causes.' This explains the first sentence. Good (Kuśala) and defiled (Akuśala) five aggregates (Pañca-skandha: form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) are mutually causes, without any other different explanations. Non-specified (Avyākṛta) five aggregates have four different explanations: The first explanation is that they are mutually causes because they are of the same nature and kind. The second explanation is that the five are the result of form; manifest form (Rūpa) is the cause of the five, and the four aggregates (feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) are not the cause of form because the four cannot produce form. This teacher believes that the four aggregates are superior, so they are not the cause of form; the form aggregate is inferior, so it is the cause of the four. The third explanation is that the five are the result of the four; manifest four aggregates are the cause of the five, and form is not the cause of the four because form cannot produce the four. This teacher believes that the four aggregates have strong power, so they can be the cause of form; the form aggregate has weak power, so it cannot be the cause of the four. The fourth teacher says that form and the four aggregates are not mutually causes because they are all non-specified, inferior, and of different kinds. All treatises have these four explanations, but no commentators have judged them. Now I explain, and for the time being, I consider the last teacher's explanation to be correct. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 131, says: 'What are the conditions for the great elements (Mahābhūta: earth, water, fire, wind) and the sense base of mind (Manāyatana)?' The answer is object condition (Ālambana-pratyaya) and dominant condition (Adhipati-pratyaya). 'What are the conditions for the sense base of mind and the great elements?' The answer is causal condition (Hetu-pratyaya) and dominant condition. Causal condition refers to one cause, which is the result cause (Vipāka-hetu). Dominant condition is as previously stated. The explanation is that the non-specified four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), since they are in relation to the sense base of mind, do not say that they are similar causes in mutual relation. From this, it can be inferred that the non-specified form aggregate, in relation to the non-specified four aggregates, is not a similar cause in mutual relation, which is the correct explanation. Question: If it is said that the non-specified form aggregate has no similar cause in relation to the non-specified volitional aggregate, why does the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 131, say: 'What are the conditions for the great elements and the sense base of dharma (Dharmāyatana)?' The answer is causal condition, object condition, and dominant condition. Causal condition refers to the seven causes (Sapta-hetu), namely, the generating cause (Janaka-hetu), the co-existent cause (Sahabhū-hetu), and the similar cause (Sabhāga-hetu). Object condition refers to the dharmas corresponding to body consciousness (Kāya-vijñāna) and the dharmas corresponding to mind consciousness (Mano-vijñāna) as objects. Dominant condition is as previously stated.' According to that text, the four aspects of the great elements in relation to the sense base of dharma are co-existent causes. Speaking of similar causes, all that are simultaneously related are co-existent causes, and those that are not simultaneous are

望亦得為同類因。故四大望法處中四相。得為同類因。四大是色蘊。四相是行蘊。是即無記色蘊。望無記行蘊得為同類因。何故乃言無記色蘊。望無記四蘊非同類因者。為正　解云。此論中言無記色蘊。望無記四蘊。展轉相望非同類因者。望心心所說。非望四相。以色蘊。望行蘊中四相。展轉相望定為同類因。此在不疑　又解。從多分說。雖無記色蘊。望無記行蘊中四相得作同類因。若望無記受．想．識三。及行蘊中除四相。余法。即非同類因從多分說故。言無記色蘊。望無記四蘊。非同類因。此中總望四蘊作法。

又一身中至因增上等者　十位。謂胎內有五。一羯剌藍。二阿部曇。三閉尸。四揭南。五缽羅奢佉　胎外有五。一嬰孩。二童子。三少年。四盛年。五老年　現身十位后皆除前。若對余未來身同類十位。一一皆與十位為因。婆沙十八。大有諸師解十位同類因。不能廣述。此論當一師不正義。故婆沙評家云。評曰應作是說。余身十位。一一皆與余身十位。及此身十位為同類因。此身十位。一一皆與此身十位。及余身十位為同類因。后位已生法．與前位不生法亦為同類因故　又解。此論亦同婆沙評家。此論現身十位據現起說。故后位非前位因。若對余未來身同類十位。一一皆與十位為因。若婆沙評家。現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本望亦得為同類因。故四大（地、水、火、風四種元素）望法處中四相（生、住、異、滅四相）。得為同類因。四大是色蘊（物質的聚集）。四相是行蘊（心理活動的聚集）。是即無記色蘊（非善非惡的物質聚集）。望無記行蘊（非善非惡的心理活動聚集）得為同類因。何故乃言無記色蘊。望無記四蘊（受、想、行、識四種精神現象的聚集）非同類因者。為正解云。此論中言無記色蘊。望無記四蘊。展轉相望非同類因者。望心心所（心和與心相關的精神現象）說。非望四相。以色蘊。望行蘊中四相。展轉相望定為同類因。此在不疑。又解。從多分說。雖無記色蘊。望無記行蘊中四相得作同類因。若望無記受（感受）．想（表象）．識（識別）三。及行蘊中除四相。余法。即非同類因從多分說故。言無記色蘊。望無記四蘊。非同類因。此中總望四蘊作法。又一身中至因增上等者。十位。謂胎內有五。一羯剌藍（受精卵）。二阿部曇（胚胎）。三閉尸（肉團）。四揭南（凝結）。五缽羅奢佉（肢體）。胎外有五。一嬰孩。二童子。三少年。四盛年。五老年。現身十位后皆除前。若對余未來身同類十位。一一皆與十位為因。婆沙十八。大有諸師解十位同類因。不能廣述。此論當一師不正義。故婆沙評家云。評曰應作是說。余身十位。一一皆與余身十位。及此身十位為同類因。此身十位。一一皆與此身十位。及余身十位為同類因。后位已生法．與前位不生法亦為同類因故。又解。此論亦同婆沙評家。此論現身十位據現起說。故后位非前位因。若對余未來身同類十位。一一皆與十位為因。若婆沙評家。現

【English Translation】 English version It is also possible to be a cause of the same kind. Therefore, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) in relation to the four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and extinction) in the realm of phenomena can be a cause of the same kind. The four great elements are the 'rupa-skandha' (aggregate of matter). The four characteristics are the 'samskara-skandha' (aggregate of mental formations). That is, the indeterminate 'rupa-skandha' (non-virtuous, non-non-virtuous material aggregate) in relation to the indeterminate 'samskara-skandha' (non-virtuous, non-non-virtuous mental formation aggregate) can be a cause of the same kind. Why then is it said that the indeterminate 'rupa-skandha' in relation to the indeterminate four 'skandhas' (aggregates of form, feeling, perception, and mental formations) is not a cause of the same kind? To correct this, it is explained that in this treatise, when it is said that the indeterminate 'rupa-skandha' in relation to the indeterminate four 'skandhas' are not causes of the same kind in mutual relation, it refers to the mind and mental factors, not to the four characteristics. Because the 'rupa-skandha' in relation to the four characteristics within the 'samskara-skandha' are definitely causes of the same kind in mutual relation. There is no doubt about this. Another explanation: speaking from the majority perspective, although the indeterminate 'rupa-skandha' in relation to the four characteristics within the indeterminate 'samskara-skandha' can be a cause of the same kind, if it is in relation to the indeterminate 'vedana' (feeling), 'samjna' (perception), 'vijnana' (consciousness) three, and the remaining phenomena in the 'samskara-skandha' excluding the four characteristics, then it is not a cause of the same kind. Therefore, speaking from the majority perspective, it is said that the indeterminate 'rupa-skandha' in relation to the indeterminate four 'skandhas' is not a cause of the same kind. Here, it generally considers the four 'skandhas' as phenomena. Furthermore, regarding the ten stages within one's own body as causes, conditions, and so on: These ten stages are divided into five within the womb: 1. 'Kalala' (the first stage of embryonic development), 2. 'Arbuda' (embryo), 3. 'Pesi' (fleshly mass), 4. 'Ghana' (solidified mass), 5. 'Prasakha' (limbs). And five outside the womb: 1. Infant, 2. Child, 3. Youth, 4. Adulthood, 5. Old age. In the present life, each of the ten stages excludes the preceding ones. If compared to the ten stages of the same kind in a future life, each of them is a cause for the ten stages. The 'Vibhasa' (commentary) mentions eighteen. Many teachers have explained the cause of the same kind in the ten stages, but I cannot elaborate on them extensively. This treatise adopts the incorrect view of one teacher. Therefore, the 'Vibhasa' commentator says: 'The commentary should say that each of the ten stages of another life is a cause of the same kind for the ten stages of another life and the ten stages of this life. Each of the ten stages of this life is a cause of the same kind for the ten stages of this life and the ten stages of another life. Because the phenomena that have already arisen in the later stages are also causes of the same kind for the phenomena that have not yet arisen in the earlier stages.' Another explanation: This treatise also agrees with the 'Vibhasa' commentator. This treatise considers the ten stages of the present life as currently arising. Therefore, the later stages are not the cause of the earlier stages. If compared to the ten stages of the same kind in a future life, each of them is a cause for the ten stages. According to the 'Vibhasa' commentator, the present

身十位。通據現起．不現起說。故此身十位。望此身十位。亦得為同類因等。應知十位但望同地．同趣而說。故婆沙一百三十一云。問同趣．同地。處所差別。展轉相望為有因不。有說無因。此不應理。應有大種是剎那故。謂五凈居所有大種。無始生死曾未起故。

問準婆沙一百三十一。于同趣．同地中。左眼與左眼為同類因。右眼．及長養．異熟等。一一自類相望為同類因。此俱舍等論。云羯剌藍等。一一能與十位為同類因。是即亦與非相似法為因。且如羯剌藍。唯有身根．及大種。如何得與六處中眼等四根。為同類因　解云。一一皆與十位為同類因者。據總相說。非言一一皆遍為因。如六處位中眼等四根。以前眼等為同類因　問若眼等同趣自類為因。應五趣善．惡等還與當趣為因　解云善惡力強。得與同地異趣為因　由此方隅。外麥．稻等自類自類。應廣思擇　若譬喻者。不許色法與色法為同類因。彼執。便違本論文所說。故本論說。過去大種。望未來大種因．增上等　因謂因緣即同類因。非餘四因。增上謂增上緣。以此明知。色望色法為同類因。

為諸相似至為同類因者。問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

自部自地至皆無因義者。釋自部地　部謂五部　地謂九地五九四十五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『身十位』（身體的十個階段）。通常根據現起（已經生起）和不現起（尚未生起）來說明。因此，這個身體的十個階段，相對於另一個身體的十個階段，也可以是同類因等。應該知道，這十個階段只是相對於同一地（同一界）和同一趣（同一道）來說的。所以，《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷說：『問：同一趣、同一地，處所差別，輾轉相望是否有因？』有人說沒有因，這不應道理。應該有大種（四大元素）是剎那（極短的時間）生滅的緣故。比如五凈居天（色界天的第五層）所有的大種，無始生死以來從未生起過。

問：按照《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷，在同一趣、同一地中，左眼與左眼是同類因，右眼以及長養、異熟等，各自的類別相互之間是同類因。而《俱舍論》等論典說，羯剌藍（受精卵）等，每一個都能與十個階段作為同類因。這就是說，也與非相似法作為因。比如羯剌藍，只有身根（身體的感覺器官）和大種，如何能與六處（六種感覺器官）中的眼等四根作為同類因？』解答說：『每一個都與十個階段作為同類因，這是根據總相來說的，不是說每一個都普遍作為因。比如六處階段中的眼等四根，以前面的眼等作為同類因。』問：『如果眼等在同一趣中以自身類別作為因，那麼五趣（五道）中的善、惡等，是否也以當趣作為因？』解答說：『善惡的力量強大，可以與同一地但不同趣作為因。』由此推論，外面的麥、稻等，各自的類別之間，應該廣泛思考。如果用譬喻來說明，不承認色法（物質現象）與色法作為同類因，那麼他們的觀點就違背了本論文所說。所以本論說，過去的大種，對於未來大種是因、增上等因。』因是指因緣，也就是同類因，不是其餘四因。增上是指增上緣。由此可以明確知道，色法對於色法是同類因。

『為諸相似』（對於各種相似的事物）到『為同類因』（作為同類因），問。

『不爾者』（如果不是這樣），答。

『云何者』（為什麼這樣說），征。

『自部自地』（自身所屬的部和地）到『皆無因義者』（都沒有因的意義），解釋自身所屬的部和地。部是指五部（五蘊），地是指九地（九個禪定層次），五九四十五（五乘以九等於四十五）。

【English Translation】 English version: 『The ten stages of the body』 (身十位). Generally, it is explained based on what has arisen (現起) and what has not yet arisen (不現起). Therefore, these ten stages of the body, in relation to the ten stages of another body, can also be similar causes, etc. (同類因等). It should be known that these ten stages are only spoken of in relation to the same realm (同地) and the same destiny (同趣). Therefore, the 131st fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) says: 『Question: In the same destiny and the same realm, with differences in location, is there a cause in relation to each other?』 Some say there is no cause, which is unreasonable. There should be great elements (大種, the four primary elements) because they arise and cease in an instant (剎那). For example, the great elements of all the Pure Abodes (五凈居天, the fifth layer of the Form Realm), have never arisen since beginningless samsara.

Question: According to the 131st fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in the same destiny and the same realm, the left eye and the left eye are similar causes, and the right eye, as well as nourishment, maturation, etc., each of their own categories are similar causes in relation to each other. However, the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) and other treatises say that the kalala (羯剌藍, the first stage of embryonic development) etc., each can be a similar cause for the ten stages. This means that it is also a cause for dissimilar dharmas. For example, the kalala only has the body sense (身根) and the great elements, how can it be a similar cause for the four senses such as the eye in the six sense bases (六處)?』 The answer is: 『Each is a similar cause for the ten stages, which is based on the general aspect, not that each is universally a cause. For example, the four senses such as the eye in the stage of the six sense bases, take the previous eye etc. as similar causes.』 Question: 『If the eye etc. in the same destiny take their own category as a cause, then the good and evil etc. in the five destinies (五趣) also take their own destiny as a cause?』 The answer is: 『The power of good and evil is strong, and it can be a cause for the same realm but different destinies.』 From this inference, the categories of wheat, rice, etc. outside should be widely considered. If using metaphors, not admitting that form (色法, material phenomena) and form are similar causes, then their view violates what is said in the original treatise. Therefore, the original treatise says that the past great elements are causes, conditioning causes, etc. for the future great elements.』 Cause refers to the causal condition, which is the similar cause, not the other four causes. Conditioning cause refers to the dominant condition. From this, it can be clearly known that form is a similar cause for form.

『For all similarities』 (為諸相似) to 『as a similar cause』 (為同類因), question.

『If not so』 (不爾者), answer.

『Why is that』 (云何者), inquiry.

『One's own division and realm』 (自部自地) to 『all have no meaning of cause』 (皆無因義者), explains one's own division and realm. Division refers to the five divisions (五部, the five aggregates), realm refers to the nine realms (九地, the nine levels of meditative absorption), five times nine is forty-five (五九四十五).

類各別為因。故婆沙十七評家云。同地異處所起煩惱。展轉相縛。隨類展轉為同類因。然除異部五部。隨眠繫縛分齊有差別故。

又此非一切者。謂此自部自地。非一切與一切為因。

何者者。問。

謂前生至為同類因者。答。正釋前生。謂唯諸前生。與后相似生未生法。為同類因。

云何知然者。徴本論說故至皆應廣說者。引本論證。自類前生。與后為因　問未來生相。如何非是前生攝耶　解云雖至生相未越未來。約世定前後。是故非前攝。

然即彼論至非因者者。此下明未來若無同類因有六難。一無時非因難。二染污苦諦難。三因果決定難。四本無今有難。五非心因法難。六染污眼識難　就通六難中。一依文通前四難。二通文外后二難。就依文通前四難中。此下第一通無時非因難。此即引發智為難。因者是四緣中因緣。以發智論。次第約四緣為問答故。引彼。難意。若言未來無同類因。過．現方有者。是則此法與彼法有時非因。如何乃答無時非因。

此依俱有至故無有過者。論主答。言無時非因者。此依俱有．相應．異熟三因。以親辨果通三世故。故無有過。故婆沙通云。有說彼依俱有因作論。以俱有因。遍有為法親能辨果通三世故。有說彼依相應．俱有二因作論。以此二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：類各別為因。因此，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）的十七位評家說：『同一地但不同處所生起的煩惱，互相束縛，隨其類別展轉相生，作為同類因。』然而，除了異部（不同部派）的五部（五種）隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式）的繫縛分齊有所差別之外，其餘都是如此。又『此非一切』是指：此自部（自身部派）、自地（自身所處禪定層次）的法，並非一切法都與一切法互為因。『何者』是提問。『謂前生至為同類因者』是回答。正確地解釋『前生』，是指只有那些前生的法，與後生的相似的已生或未生之法，互為同類因。『云何知然者』是徵引本論的說法，『故至皆應廣說者』是引用本論來證明：自類的前生法，與後生法互為因。有人問：『未來的生相，如何不屬於前生所攝呢？』解釋說：『雖然生相尚未超出未來，但從時間上確定前後，因此不屬於前生所攝。』『然即彼論至非因者者』，以下說明未來法如果沒有同類因，會有六種困難：一、無時非因的困難；二、染污苦諦的困難；三、因果決定性的困難；四、本無今有的困難；五、非心因法的困難；六、染污眼識的困難。在通解這六種困難中，首先依據經文通解前四種困難，然後通解經文外的后兩種困難。在依據經文通解前四種困難中，以下是第一種，通解無時非因的困難。這實際上是引發智（Prajna）來提出質疑。『因』是指四緣（四種因緣）中的因緣。因為《發智論》（Jnanaprasthana）依次按照四緣進行問答。引用《發智論》的目的是：如果說未來法沒有同類因，只有過去和現在才有，那麼此法與彼法有時不是因，如何回答『無時非因』呢？『此依俱有至故無有過者』，論主回答說：『說無時非因，是依據俱有因（共同存在的因）、相應因（心理活動同時發生的因）、異熟因（導致不同結果的因）這三種因，因為它們能夠清楚地辨別果，並且貫通三世（過去、現在、未來），所以沒有過失。』因此，《婆沙論》通解說：『有人說，那是依據俱有因來作論，因為俱有因普遍存在於有為法中，能夠清楚地辨別果，並且貫通三世。』也有人說，那是依據相應因和俱有因這兩種因來作論，因為這兩種因。

【English Translation】 English version: The causes are distinct for each category. Therefore, the seventeen commentators of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary) say: 'Afflictions arising in the same realm but in different locations, mutually bind each other, and propagate according to their category, serving as homogeneous causes.' However, this is the case except for the five categories of latent tendencies (anusaya) of different schools (different Buddhist schools), where the limits of their binding differ. Furthermore, 'this is not all' means that, within one's own school and realm, not all phenomena are causes for all other phenomena. 'What' refers to a question. 'That the preceding arising serves as a homogeneous cause' is the answer. Correctly explaining 'preceding arising,' it refers only to those preceding phenomena that serve as homogeneous causes for subsequent similar arisen or unarisen phenomena. 『How is this known?』 refers to citing the statement in the original treatise; 『therefore, it should all be explained extensively』 refers to quoting the original treatise to prove that preceding phenomena of the same category serve as causes for subsequent phenomena. Someone asks: 『How is it that the characteristic of future arising is not included in the preceding arising?』 The explanation is: 『Although the characteristic of arising has not yet transcended the future, determining the order of before and after in terms of time means that it is not included in the preceding.』『However, that very treatise to non-cause』 means that the following explains that if future phenomena do not have homogeneous causes, there will be six difficulties: 1. The difficulty of non-cause at a certain time; 2. The difficulty of defiled suffering truth; 3. The difficulty of the determination of cause and effect; 4. The difficulty of something non-existent now existing; 5. The difficulty of non-mind as a cause of phenomena; 6. The difficulty of defiled eye-consciousness. Among the general explanations of these six difficulties, first, the first four difficulties are explained according to the text, and then the latter two difficulties outside the text are explained. Among the explanations of the first four difficulties according to the text, the following is the first, explaining the difficulty of non-cause at a certain time. This is actually provoking Prajna (Prajna, wisdom) to raise questions. 'Cause' refers to the causal condition among the four conditions (four types of conditions). This is because the Jnanaprasthana (Jnanaprasthana, treatise on the basis of knowledge) asks and answers sequentially according to the four conditions. Quoting the Jnanaprasthana, the intention of the difficulty is: If it is said that future phenomena do not have homogeneous causes, and only the past and present do, then this phenomenon is sometimes not a cause for that phenomenon. How can one answer 'non-cause at a certain time'? 『This relies on co-existent to therefore there is no fault』 is the treatise master's answer, saying: 『Saying non-cause at a certain time relies on the three causes of co-existent cause (cause existing together), associated cause (cause arising simultaneously), and resultant cause (cause leading to different results), because they can clearly distinguish the result and penetrate the three times (past, present, and future), so there is no fault.』 Therefore, the Vibhasa explains generally: 『Some say that it relies on the co-existent cause to make the argument, because the co-existent cause is universally present in conditioned phenomena, can clearly distinguish the result, and penetrates the three times.』 Others say that it relies on the two causes of associated cause and co-existent cause, because these two causes.

因俱遍三性。親能辨果通三世故。有說彼依相應．俱有．異熟．三因作論。以此三因親能辨果通三世故。有說彼依相應．俱有．異熟能作四因作論。以此四因通三世故。有說彼依五因作論。除能作因。遍一切法皆不遮故。此中有說除遍行因。體用狹故。應說彼依六因作論。因名所表通六因故　準彼婆沙總有七說。此論當第三不正義。彼論第七說為正。隨作論者意樂說故。又婆沙正義家能作因中有因緣。即是生等五因　問未來既無同類因。婆沙正義云何依六因作論　解云未來雖無。而彼意說。能為因后無時非因。或約正生位定能為因。依此密說無時非因。

有謂未來至無時非因者。第二通難。當婆沙后三師。或當正義家六因作論有毗婆沙師。謂未來正生位法。必入現在。定能與彼生相前法為同類因。是故彼發智文。依未來最後生相位。密作是答無時非因。就三世說無時非因。意顯更無第四時。故未來正生位名最後位。未來無窮生死名前。若有流至生相者名未來最後位。此據法行世前後也。若據因果明前後。即前法名因。后法名果。

彼于所難至未至已生者。論主非第二師解。彼于所難非為善釋。以未來法正生位前非同類因。后至生相方成因故。還是有時非因。何得答言無時非因。又引發智為難。如同類因與

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為具有周遍三種自性的緣故，它能夠親自分辨果，並且貫通過去、現在、未來三世。有人說，應該依據相應因（samprayuktuka-hetu，指心所法與心王相應而為因）、俱有因（sahabhu-hetu，指互相俱時存在的法互為因）、異熟因（vipaka-hetu，指能招感異熟果的善惡業）這三種因來立論，因為這三種因能夠親自分辨果，並且貫通三世。有人說，應該依據相應因、俱有因、異熟因、能作因（kartr-hetu，指對於果的產生有幫助作用的因）這四種因來立論，因為這四種因貫通三世。有人說，應該依據五種因來立論，除去能作因，因為能作因對於一切法都不遮止。這裡有人說，應該除去遍行因（sarvatraga-hetu，指能引起一切煩惱的因），因為它的體和作用狹窄。所以應該說，應該依據六種因來立論，因為『因』這個名稱所表示的含義貫通六種因。按照《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）的說法，總共有七種說法。這個論典的說法是第三種，是不正確的。而《大毗婆沙論》的第七種說法是正確的。這是隨著立論者的意樂而說的緣故。而且，《大毗婆沙論》的正義家認為，能作因中包含因緣（hetu-pratyaya，根本原因），也就是生等五因。問：未來既然沒有同類因（sabhaga-hetu，指與果法同類的因），《大毗婆沙論》的正義家如何依據六因來立論？解答說：未來雖然沒有同類因，但是他們的意思是說，能夠作為因的法，在後來沒有時間不是因。或者就正生位（指法正在生起的狀態）來確定能夠作為因。依據這個秘密的說法，沒有時間不是因。有人認為，『未來至無時非因』這句話，是第二個通用的難題。相當於《大毗婆沙論》后三師，或者相當於正義家六因立論中的毗婆沙師。他們認為，未來正生位的法，必定進入現在，一定能夠與那個生相（指法的生起相）之前的法作為同類因。所以，那篇《發智論》（Jnanaprasthana）的文章，依據未來最後生相位的法，秘密地作了這樣的回答：沒有時間不是因。就三世來說，沒有時間不是因，意思是顯示沒有第四個時間。所以未來正生位被稱為最後位。未來無窮生死的名字前。如果有流至生相的法，就叫做未來最後位。這是根據法在世間執行的前後來說的。如果根據因果來明確前後，那麼前面的法叫做因，後面的法叫做果。論主對於所提出的難題，並非是第二位論師的解釋。他認為，對於所提出的難題，這樣的解釋並不好。因為未來法在正生位之前不是同類因，後來到了生相才成為因。還是有時間不是因。怎麼能回答說沒有時間不是因呢？而且引發智力作為難題，如同同類因與

【English Translation】 English version: Because it possesses the pervasive three natures, it can personally discern the result and penetrate the three times of past, present, and future. Some say that one should establish the theory based on the three causes of samprayuktuka-hetu (association cause, referring to mental factors being causes by associating with the mind), sahabhu-hetu (co-existent cause, referring to mutually co-existing dharmas being causes to each other), and vipaka-hetu (resultant cause, referring to good and evil karma that can bring about resultant effects), because these three causes can personally discern the result and penetrate the three times. Some say that one should establish the theory based on the four causes of association cause, co-existent cause, resultant cause, and kartr-hetu (efficient cause, referring to the cause that helps the production of the result), because these four causes penetrate the three times. Some say that one should establish the theory based on five causes, excluding the efficient cause, because the efficient cause does not prevent all dharmas. Here, some say that the sarvatraga-hetu (pervasive cause, referring to the cause that can arouse all afflictions) should be excluded because its substance and function are narrow. Therefore, it should be said that one should establish the theory based on six causes, because the meaning expressed by the name 'cause' penetrates the six causes. According to the Mahavibhasa, there are a total of seven views. The view of this treatise is the third, which is incorrect. And the seventh view of the Mahavibhasa is correct. This is because it is said according to the inclination of the theorist. Moreover, the orthodox scholars of the Mahavibhasa believe that the efficient cause contains hetu-pratyaya (root cause), which is the five causes such as origination. Question: Since the future does not have sabhaga-hetu (homogeneous cause, referring to the cause that is of the same kind as the result), how can the orthodox scholars of the Mahavibhasa establish the theory based on six causes? The explanation says: Although the future does not have a homogeneous cause, their intention is to say that the dharma that can be a cause is not a non-cause at a later time. Or, it is determined that it can be a cause based on the state of actual origination (referring to the state in which the dharma is actually arising). According to this secret statement, there is no time that is not a cause. Some believe that the phrase 'the future to no time is not a cause' is the second common difficulty. It is equivalent to the last three masters of the Mahavibhasa, or the Vibhasa masters in the six-cause theory of the orthodox scholars. They believe that the dharma in the future state of actual origination will definitely enter the present, and it will definitely be able to serve as a homogeneous cause with the dharma before that origination phase (referring to the phase of the dharma's arising). Therefore, that article in the Jnanaprasthana secretly made this answer based on the dharma in the last origination phase of the future: there is no time that is not a cause. In terms of the three times, there is no time that is not a cause, meaning that there is no fourth time. Therefore, the future state of actual origination is called the last state. Before the name of the future infinite birth and death. If there is a dharma that flows to the origination phase, it is called the last state of the future. This is based on the order of the dharma's operation in the world. If the order is clarified according to cause and effect, then the previous dharma is called the cause, and the later dharma is called the effect. The master of the treatise is not the interpretation of the second master regarding the difficulty raised. He believes that this explanation is not good for the difficulty raised. Because the future dharma is not a homogeneous cause before the state of actual origination, and it only becomes a cause after reaching the origination phase. There is still a time that is not a cause. How can one answer that there is no time that is not a cause? Moreover, inducing intelligence as a difficulty is like the homogeneous cause and

等無間緣。俱至現在方成。何故緣答未至已生。因答無時非因。亦應齊等何乃不同。

然彼復釋至彼亦應爾者。第二師通難。然彼師復釋。為現影略二門。如彼等無間緣處答未至已生。此因緣中亦應答未至已生。如此因緣處答無時非因。彼等無間緣中亦應答無時非緣。

如是作文至前釋為善者。論主評取前解。如是作文獲何功德。唯顯發智論主非善於文。是故應知。前三因釋于理為善。由斯理故。因答無時非因。緣答未至已生。論主若作此解。非以婆沙評家為正。

若爾何故至即所除法者。此下通第二染污苦諦難。此引品類足所除中第三節文為難。未來有身見既入所除。即俱句攝。是即從過．現有身見生。能生未來有身見。既生未來有身見。明知未來有同類因。有身見望有身見。非是相應．俱有．異熟因。既言有因。明知定是同類因也。

彼文應說至由義應知非者。論主正通。彼品類足第三節中文。應說除未來有身見相應苦諦。此文不欲除有身見。但除有身見上相應法。無及彼二字。外難意欲除有身見。故於第三節文中加及彼二字。品類足文。設有如彼說及彼二字。由義應知非。以未來世無前後故。何況浪加有身見。既非入所除。明知未來無同類因。應知俱有因中。外人引品類足所除中第四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：等無間緣（指心理現象之間連續不斷的因果關係）。只有當所有條件都達到現在的狀態時，才能最終完成。為什麼緣的回答是『未至已生』（尚未到來但已經產生）？因為因的回答是『無時非因』（任何時候都不是因）。如果這樣，那麼所有因都應該相同，為什麼會有不同呢？

然而，對方又解釋說，『彼亦應爾』（那裡也應該這樣）。這是第二位論師提出的普遍難題。然而，那位論師又解釋說，這可以分為『現影』和『略』兩種情況。就像在等無間緣的情況下，回答是『未至已生』一樣，在這個因緣中也應該回答『未至已生』。像在這個因緣的情況下，回答是『無時非因』一樣，在等無間緣中也應該回答『無時非緣』。

像這樣寫作，前一種解釋是最好的。論主（指作者或權威）評價並採納了前一種解釋。像這樣寫作有什麼功德呢？只是爲了顯示《發智論》的作者不擅長寫作。因此應該知道，前三種對『因』的解釋在道理上是最好的。因為這個道理，所以因的回答是『無時非因』，緣的回答是『未至已生』。如果論主這樣解釋，就不是以《婆沙論》的評論家為正確。

如果這樣，為什麼會這樣呢？這以下是爲了駁斥第二種染污苦諦的難題。這裡引用《品類足論》所排除的內容中的第三節經文來提出難題。未來的有身見（認為身體是真實存在的錯誤觀念）既然被納入所排除的範圍，就屬於『俱句』所包含的。也就是說，它從過去和現在的有身見產生，能夠產生未來的有身見。既然產生了未來的有身見，就明確地表明未來有同類的因。有身見對於有身見來說，不是相應因、俱有因或異熟因。既然說有因，就明確地表明一定是同類因。

那段經文應該說排除與未來有身見相應的苦諦。論主正在解釋。那段《品類足論》第三節中的經文，應該說排除與未來有身見相應的苦諦。這段經文不想排除有身見，只是排除與有身見相應的法。沒有『無』和『及彼』這兩個字。外人的意思是想排除有身見，所以在第三節經文中加上了『及彼』這兩個字。《品類足論》的經文，即使像他們所說的那樣加上『及彼』這兩個字，從意義上來說也是不應該的。因為未來世沒有前後之分。更何況隨意加上有身見。既然沒有被納入所排除的範圍，就明確地表明未來沒有同類的因。應該知道在俱有因中，外人引用《品類足論》所排除的內容中的第四節。

【English Translation】 English version: The immediately preceding condition (Skt. samanantarapratyaya, referring to the continuous causal relationship between mental phenomena). Only when all conditions reach the present state can it be finally completed. Why is the answer for 'condition' 'not yet arrived but already arisen'? Because the answer for 'cause' is 'no time is not a cause'. If so, then all causes should be the same, why are they different?

However, the other party further explains, 'it should also be like that there'. This is a common difficulty raised by the second teacher. However, that teacher further explains that this can be divided into two situations: 'manifestation of shadow' and 'abbreviation'. Just as in the case of the immediately preceding condition, the answer is 'not yet arrived but already arisen', in this causal condition, the answer should also be 'not yet arrived but already arisen'. Just as in the case of this causal condition, the answer is 'no time is not a cause', in the immediately preceding condition, the answer should also be 'no time is not a condition'.

Writing like this, the previous explanation is the best. The author (or authority) evaluates and adopts the previous explanation. What merit is gained by writing like this? It only shows that the author of the Jnanaprasthana (Treatise on the Establishment of Knowledge) is not good at writing. Therefore, it should be known that the first three explanations of 'cause' are the best in terms of reason. Because of this reason, the answer for 'cause' is 'no time is not a cause', and the answer for 'condition' is 'not yet arrived but already arisen'. If the author explains it this way, it is not considering the commentators of the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) to be correct.

If so, why is it like this? The following is to refute the difficulty of the second defiled truth of suffering. Here, the third section of the content excluded in the Prakaranapada (Treatise on Categories) is cited to raise a difficulty. Since the future satkayadrishti (view of a real self in the body, a false notion that the body is truly existent) is included in the scope of what is excluded, it belongs to what is contained in the 'co-occurring phrase'. That is to say, it arises from the past and present satkayadrishti, and can generate the future satkayadrishti. Since the future satkayadrishti is generated, it clearly shows that there is a similar cause in the future. Satkayadrishti in relation to satkayadrishti is not a concomitant cause, a co-existent cause, or a result cause. Since it is said that there is a cause, it clearly shows that it must be a similar cause.

That passage should say to exclude the truth of suffering that is concomitant with the future satkayadrishti. The author is explaining. That passage in the third section of the Prakaranapada should say to exclude the truth of suffering that is concomitant with the future satkayadrishti. This passage does not want to exclude satkayadrishti, but only excludes the dharmas that are concomitant with satkayadrishti. There are no words 'no' and 'and that'. The outsider's intention is to exclude satkayadrishti, so they added the words 'and that' in the third section. The passage of the Prakaranapada, even if the words 'and that' are added as they said, it should not be so in terms of meaning. Because there is no before and after in the future world. Moreover, adding satkayadrishti arbitrarily. Since it is not included in the scope of what is excluded, it clearly shows that there is no similar cause in the future. It should be known that in the co-existent cause, the outsider cites the fourth section of the content excluded in the Prakaranapada.

節文為難。即不誦及彼相應法五字。若同類因中。引所除中第三節文為難。即加及彼二字。前後各別引文。人多不悟應善思之。

復云何通至所依所緣者。此下通第三因果決定難。此即敘難。若未來世無同類因。至已生位方名同類因者。云何決定。既言決定。明知未來有同類因。

應知彼文至色等六境者。此即通難。言因決定據能作等四因。非同類．遍行。言果決定據增上等三果。非等流果。

若爾同類因應本無而有者。此下通第四本無今有難。此即敘難。婆沙云則應無因而有因。亦應無果而有果。便壞自宗。

許故無過至非體果者。此即通難。許同類因本無今有故無過。同類因約過．現作用位建立。非約體立。體雖無有。無前後故而不建立。由至過．現位和合作用名同類因。能生后等流果。是后等流果。是前位果非是體果　上來依文通四難。此下通文外后二難。即是第五非心因法難。第六染污眼識難　通第五非心因法難者。婆沙云。又若無者。品類足論復云何通。如說云何非心為因法。答已入正性離生。補特伽羅初無漏心。及余異生。決定當入正性離生者初無漏心。然彼異生未來所有諸無漏心。皆非心為因。何故但說初無漏心耶。答彼唯說畢竟非心為因法。雖彼未入正性離生者。諸無漏心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果用節文來為難，即不誦讀包含『及彼相應法』這五個字的節文。如果在同類因中，引用所刪除的第三節經文來為難，即加上『及彼』二字。前後分別引用經文，很多人不明白，應該好好思考。

又如何通達『至所依所緣』呢？這以下是爲了通達第三個因果決定的難題。這即是敘述難題。如果未來世沒有同類因，直到已生起的位置才稱為同類因，那麼如何決定呢？既然說是決定，就明確知道未來有同類因。

『應知彼文至色等六境』，這是爲了通達難題。所說的『因決定』是根據能作等四因，不是同類因和遍行因。所說的『果決定』是根據增上等三果，不是等流果。

如果這樣，同類因應該是本來沒有而現在有的嗎？這以下是爲了通達第四個本來沒有現在有的難題。這即是敘述難題。《婆沙論》說，那麼就應該沒有因而有因，也應該沒有果而有果，這樣就破壞了自己的宗義。

允許本來沒有也沒有過失，直到不是體果。這是爲了通達難題。允許同類因本來沒有而現在有，所以沒有過失。同類因是就過去和現在的起作用的位置來建立的，不是就本體來建立的。本體雖然沒有，因為沒有前後，所以不建立。由於到達過去和現在的位和合起作用，稱為同類因，能生起後面的等流果。是後面的等流果，是前位的果，不是本體果。上面是依據經文來通達四個難題。這以下是爲了通達經文之外的後面兩個難題，即是第五個非心因法難，第六個染污眼識難。通達第五個非心因法難，《婆沙論》說，又如果說沒有，那麼《品類足論》又如何通達呢？如所說，什麼是非心為因的法？回答說，已經進入正性離生的補特伽羅（pudgala，人）最初的無漏心，以及其餘的異生（prthag-jana，凡夫），決定應當進入正性離生者的最初的無漏心。然而那些異生未來所有的諸無漏心，都不是以心為因。為什麼只說最初的無漏心呢？回答說，他們只是說畢竟不是以心為因的法。即使那些沒有進入正性離生者，諸無漏心

【English Translation】 English version: If using excerpts to create difficulties, then do not recite the section containing the five words 'and their corresponding dharmas'. If, within the context of homogeneous cause, one cites the third omitted section to create difficulties, then add the two words 'and their'. Citing the text separately before and after, many do not understand; one should contemplate this well.

Furthermore, how to understand 'reaching the support and object'? The following is to clarify the third difficulty of the determination of cause and effect. This is to describe the difficulty. If in the future there is no homogeneous cause, and only when it has arisen is it called a homogeneous cause, then how can it be determined? Since it is said to be determined, it clearly indicates that there will be a homogeneous cause in the future.

'One should know that the text reaches the six objects such as form', this is to clarify the difficulty. The 'determination of cause' refers to the four causes such as the efficient cause, not the homogeneous cause and the pervasive cause. The 'determination of effect' refers to the three effects such as the dominant effect, not the equipotential effect.

If that is the case, should the homogeneous cause be something that originally did not exist but now exists? The following is to clarify the fourth difficulty of something that originally did not exist but now exists. This is to describe the difficulty. The Vibhasa says, then there should be a cause without a cause, and there should also be an effect without an effect, which would destroy one's own doctrine.

Allowing that it originally did not exist is not a fault, until it is not a substantial effect. This is to clarify the difficulty. Allowing that the homogeneous cause originally did not exist but now exists is not a fault. The homogeneous cause is established in terms of its function in the past and present, not in terms of its substance. Although the substance does not exist, because there is no before and after, it is not established. Because it reaches the past and present positions and functions together, it is called a homogeneous cause, which can generate the subsequent equipotential effect. The subsequent equipotential effect is the effect of the previous position, not the substantial effect. The above is based on the text to clarify the four difficulties. The following is to clarify the latter two difficulties outside the text, namely the fifth difficulty of non-mind-as-cause dharma, and the sixth difficulty of defiled eye-consciousness. To clarify the fifth difficulty of non-mind-as-cause dharma, the Vibhasa says, and if it is said that there is none, then how does the Sangitiparyaya explain it? As it is said, what is the dharma that has non-mind as its cause? The answer is, the first unconditioned mind of the pudgala (person) who has entered the correctness of the fixed course, and the first unconditioned mind of the other prthag-jana (ordinary beings) who are determined to enter the correctness of the fixed course. However, all the future unconditioned minds of those ordinary beings are not caused by mind. Why only mention the first unconditioned mind? The answer is, they only speak of the dharma that is definitely not caused by mind. Even those who have not entered the correctness of the fixed course, all the unconditioned minds

皆非心為因。然彼若入正性離生。唯有初無漏心。是非心為因法。余心無不以心為因。有餘師說。彼文不辨同類因義。何者唯辨二種異生。謂有般涅槃法。及無般涅槃法。文雖不舉無般涅槃法。義準理門顯示知有。謂彼既說有餘異生決定當入正性離生由此義準。亦有異生決定不入正性離生。此即名為無般涅槃法。即無涅槃法名非心為因(解云有般涅槃法。有初無漏心。與涅槃為證得了因。名心為因。若無涅槃法。無初無漏心。非與涅槃為證得了因。名非心為因。余文可解。前解心因因是因緣。即同類因。無餘四因)　通第六染污眼識難者。婆沙云。又若無者。識身足論復云何通。如說於過去染污眼識所有隨眠。彼於此心或能為因非所隨增。或所隨增不能為因。或能為因亦所隨增。或不能為因亦非所隨增　且能為因非所隨增者。謂諸隨眠在此心前同類．遍行。即彼隨眠若不緣此．設緣已斷。及此相應隨眠已斷　為所隨增不能為因者。謂諸隨眠在此心后同類．遍行。即彼隨眠緣此未斷　能為其因亦所隨增者。謂諸隨眠在此心前同類．遍行。即彼隨眠緣此未斷。及此相應隨眠未斷　不能為因亦非所隨增者。謂諸隨眠在此心后同類．遍行。即彼隨眠若。不緣此．設緣已斷。若所餘緣。若他隨眠。若不同界遍行隨眠　如彼過去染

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：都不是以心為因。然而，如果他們進入正性離生（ariyā okkanti，聖道之生），只有最初的無漏心（anāsava citta，沒有煩惱的心）不是以心為因的法。其餘的心沒有不是以心為因的。有其他老師說，那段經文沒有辨別同類因的意義。那段經文只是辨別兩種不同的眾生，即有般涅槃法（parinibbāna dhamma，有完全涅槃之法的眾生）和無般涅槃法（aparinibbāna dhamma，沒有完全涅槃之法的眾生）。經文雖然沒有提到無般涅槃法，但根據義理可以推知是存在的。也就是說，既然經文說有其他眾生必定會進入正性離生，由此義理可以推知，也有眾生必定不會進入正性離生。這就叫做無般涅槃法。即無涅槃法被稱為非心為因。（解釋說，有般涅槃法的眾生，有最初的無漏心，與涅槃為證得了因，稱為心為因。如果沒有涅槃法的眾生，沒有最初的無漏心，不是與涅槃為證得了因，稱為非心為因。其餘的經文可以理解。前面的解釋中心因因是因緣，即同類因，沒有其餘四因。）爲了解決第六染污眼識的難題，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『如果不是這樣，那麼《識身足論》（Vijñānakāya）又該如何解釋呢？』例如，關於過去染污眼識的所有隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱），它們對於這個心，或者能為因但不是所隨增，或者為所隨增但不能為因，或者能為因也是所隨增，或者不能為因也不是所隨增。能為因但不是所隨增的情況，是指那些隨眠在這個心之前，是同類、遍行的。即那些隨眠如果不緣于這個心，或者即使緣了也已經斷除，以及與這個心相應的隨眠已經斷除。為所隨增但不能為因的情況，是指那些隨眠在這個心之後，是同類、遍行的。即那些隨眠緣于這個心但尚未斷除。能為其因也是所隨增的情況，是指那些隨眠在這個心之前，是同類、遍行的。即那些隨眠緣于這個心尚未斷除，以及與這個心相應的隨眠尚未斷除。不能為因也不是所隨增的情況，是指那些隨眠在這個心之後，是同類、遍行的。即那些隨眠如果不緣于這個心，或者即使緣了也已經斷除，或者所緣是其他的，或者其他的隨眠，或者不同界的遍行隨眠。就像那過去染污的眼識一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: None of them have mind as their cause. However, if they enter into rightness, the arising of detachment (ariyā okkanti), only the initial undefiled mind (anāsava citta) is a dharma that does not have mind as its cause. The remaining minds all have mind as their cause. Some other teachers say that passage does not distinguish the meaning of homogeneous cause. What it does distinguish are two kinds of different beings: those who have the dharma of complete Nirvana (parinibbāna dhamma) and those who do not have the dharma of complete Nirvana (aparinibbāna dhamma). Although the passage does not mention those who do not have the dharma of complete Nirvana, it can be inferred from the principle that they exist. That is to say, since the passage says that there are other beings who will definitely enter into rightness, it can be inferred from this principle that there are also beings who will definitely not enter into rightness. This is called not having the dharma of complete Nirvana. That is, not having the dharma of Nirvana is called 'not having mind as its cause.' (It is explained that those who have the dharma of complete Nirvana have the initial undefiled mind, and Nirvana is the object of their attainment, so it is called 'mind as its cause.' If one does not have the dharma of Nirvana, one does not have the initial undefiled mind, and Nirvana is not the object of their attainment, so it is called 'not having mind as its cause.' The remaining passages can be understood. In the previous explanation, the mind-cause is a condition, which is a homogeneous cause, without the other four causes.) To resolve the difficulty of the sixth defiled eye-consciousness, the Vibhasa says: 'If it were not so, how would the Vijñānakāya be explained?' For example, regarding all the latent defilements (anusaya) of past defiled eye-consciousness, they, in relation to this mind, either can be a cause but are not increased, or are increased but cannot be a cause, or can be a cause and are also increased, or cannot be a cause and are not increased. The case of being able to be a cause but not being increased refers to those latent defilements that are homogeneous and pervasive before this mind. That is, those latent defilements do not relate to this mind, or even if they did relate, they have already been cut off, and the latent defilements corresponding to this mind have been cut off. The case of being increased but not being able to be a cause refers to those latent defilements that are homogeneous and pervasive after this mind. That is, those latent defilements relate to this mind but have not yet been cut off. The case of being able to be its cause and also being increased refers to those latent defilements that are homogeneous and pervasive before this mind. That is, those latent defilements relate to this mind and have not yet been cut off, and the latent defilements corresponding to this mind have not yet been cut off. The case of not being able to be a cause and also not being increased refers to those latent defilements that are homogeneous and pervasive after this mind. That is, those latent defilements do not relate to this mind, or even if they did relate, they have already been cut off, or the object is something else, or other latent defilements, or pervasive latent defilements of a different realm. Just like that past defiled eye-consciousness.

污眼識。未來染污眼識亦爾　過去四句其理可然。未來如何可作四句。若有前後如何無因。答彼于未來應作三句。除所隨增不能為因。彼無後故。然說未來如過去者。有別意趣。謂正生時必入現在。定為同類．或遍行因。望余未起可說為前。對此可說餘名后故　有餘師說。彼未來亦有四句。不說未來有心前後同於過去。且能為因非所隨增者。謂此相應隨眠已斷。為所隨增不能為因者。謂有同類．遍行隨眠在未來世。于未來世染污眼識。緣而未斷。能為其因亦所隨增者。謂此相應隨眠未斷。不能為因亦非所隨增者。謂有同類．遍行隨眠在未來世。若不緣此。設緣已斷。若所餘緣。若他隨眠。若不同界遍行隨眠(解云。因謂因緣。隨其所應是相應．俱有．同類．遍行因。無異熟因。染污眼識是修所斷。所隨增者。謂此隨眠是彼眼識所隨順所增長心。前修所斷為同類因。苦．集一切遍行為遍行因。心俱隨眠為相應．俱有因。此並能為因。于中心前不緣。設緣已斷。及彼相應隨眠已斷。是非所隨增。第一句攝。若心前緣．及相應不斷是所隨增。第三句攝。自余隨眠皆不為因於中心后同類．遍行緣而不斷。是所隨增。第二句攝。若余心后同類．遍行不緣．及已斷。此等已攝同類．遍行因盡。若所餘緣謂滅．道所斷苦．集不遍。以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『污眼識』（被污染的眼識）。未來的被污染的眼識也是如此。過去的四句道理是成立的，但未來如何能構成四句呢？如果存在前後關係，為何又說沒有因呢？回答：對於未來，應該構成三句，除去『所隨增』（伴隨增長）不能作為因的情況，因為它沒有後來的結果。然而，說未來像過去一樣，有其特別的意義，即正在產生時必然進入現在，必定是同類因或遍行因。相對於尚未產生的，可以說它是前面的。對於這個，可以說其餘的是後面的。有其他學派認為，未來也有四句。說未來有心識的前後關係，與過去相同，並且能夠作為因，但不是『所隨增』的情況，指的是與此相應的隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）已經斷除。作為『所隨增』但不能作為因的情況，指的是有同類或遍行的隨眠存在於未來世，對於未來世的被污染的眼識，作為所緣但尚未斷除，能夠作為它的因，也是『所隨增』。既能作為因也是『所隨增』的情況，指的是與此相應的隨眠尚未斷除。不能作為因也不是『所隨增』的情況，指的是有同類或遍行的隨眠存在於未來世，如果不緣於此，或者即使緣於此但已經斷除，或者所緣是其他的緣，或者其他的隨眠，或者不同界的遍行隨眠。（解釋說：因指的是因緣，隨其所應是相應因、俱有因、同類因、遍行因，而不是異熟因。被污染的眼識是修所斷的。『所隨增』指的是此隨眠是彼眼識所隨順、所增長的心。先前修所斷的是同類因，苦、集的一切遍行是遍行因，心俱的隨眠是相應因、俱有因。這些都能作為因。對於心中先前不緣的情況，或者即使緣了但已經斷除，以及與此相應的隨眠已經斷除，這些都不是『所隨增』，屬於第一句所攝。如果心中先前緣了，並且相應的隨眠沒有斷除，這就是『所隨增』，屬於第三句所攝。其餘的隨眠都不能作為因。對於心中後來的同類、遍行緣而沒有斷除，這就是『所隨增』，屬於第二句所攝。如果其餘心中後來的同類、遍行不緣，以及已經斷除，這些已經包括了同類、遍行因的全部。如果所緣是其他的緣，指的是滅、道所斷的苦、集不遍，因為……）

【English Translation】 English version 'Defiled eye-consciousness'. Future defiled eye-consciousness is also the same. The reasoning of the fourfold proposition regarding the past is valid, but how can the fourfold proposition be applied to the future? If there is a sequential relationship, why is it said that there is no cause? Answer: For the future, a threefold proposition should be constructed, excluding the case where 'what is increased along with' cannot be a cause, because it has no subsequent result. However, saying that the future is like the past has a special meaning, namely, that when it is being produced, it necessarily enters the present, and it is certainly a cause of the same type or a pervasive cause. Relative to what has not yet arisen, it can be said to be prior. With respect to this, it can be said that the rest is subsequent. Some other schools say that the future also has a fourfold proposition. Saying that the future has a sequential relationship of consciousness, similar to the past, and can be a cause, but is not 'what is increased along with', refers to the latent tendencies (Skt: anusaya) corresponding to it that have already been severed. The case of being 'what is increased along with' but not being able to be a cause refers to the latent tendencies of the same type or pervasive latent tendencies existing in the future, which, with respect to the defiled eye-consciousness in the future, are taken as objects but have not yet been severed, and can be its cause, and are also 'what is increased along with'. The case of being both able to be a cause and 'what is increased along with' refers to the latent tendencies corresponding to it that have not yet been severed. The case of not being able to be a cause and also not being 'what is increased along with' refers to the latent tendencies of the same type or pervasive latent tendencies existing in the future, which, if not taken as objects, or even if taken as objects but have already been severed, or the object is another condition, or other latent tendencies, or pervasive latent tendencies of a different realm. (Explanation: 'Cause' refers to the causal condition, which, as appropriate, is a corresponding cause, a coexistent cause, a cause of the same type, a pervasive cause, but not a resultant cause. Defiled eye-consciousness is what is severed by cultivation. 'What is increased along with' refers to the mind that this latent tendency follows and increases. What is severed by prior cultivation is a cause of the same type; all pervasive [afflictions] of suffering and origination are pervasive causes; latent tendencies that are co-arisen with the mind are corresponding causes and coexistent causes. These can all be causes. With respect to the case where the mind does not take it as an object beforehand, or even if it takes it as an object but has already been severed, and the latent tendencies corresponding to it have already been severed, these are not 'what is increased along with', and are included in the first proposition. If the mind takes it as an object beforehand, and the corresponding latent tendencies have not been severed, this is 'what is increased along with', and is included in the third proposition. The remaining latent tendencies cannot be causes. With respect to the case where the mind subsequently takes as an object the same type or pervasive [afflictions] and has not severed them, this is 'what is increased along with', and is included in the second proposition. If the remaining minds subsequently do not take as objects the same type or pervasive [afflictions], and have already severed them, these have already included all of the causes of the same type and pervasive [afflictions]. If the object is another condition, it refers to the non-pervasive [afflictions] of suffering and origination that are severed by the path of cessation, because...)

彼決定所餘緣故。若他隨眠。謂他地一切隨眠。若不同界遍行隨眠。謂自地九上緣隨眠。此等並是第四句攝。余文思之可解)。

若同類因至當有何過者。此下明未來若有同類因即有二難。一本論不說難。二互為因果難。此下第一通本論不說難。將明問起。若同類因未來世有如異熟因當有何過。

未來若有本論應說者。答。未來若有本論應說。本論但說過去與現．未為同類因現在與未來為同類因。不說未來為同類因。明知未來無同類因。此即是本論不說過。

本論唯說至故無有失者。通本論。本論唯說能取果．與果諸同類因言在過．現。不說未來非取果．與果諸同類因故無有失。

無如是義至無同類因者。論主破。無如是義。以同類因引等流果。此同類因若未來有理必不然。以未來無前後故。如何未來同類因能引等流果。未來既無等流果。不應過．現諸已生法為未生等流果。不言正生略而不說。或從多分說。或舉后顯前　又解不應過．現諸已生法為未來生法等流。正生未生。生言攝故。如過去法非現在果。勿有果先因後過失。故未來世無同類因。

若爾異熟因至無前後故者。此下義當第二互為因果難。將明問起。若爾異熟因應未來非有。不應異熟果因前及俱故。以未來世法無前後故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：彼決定所餘緣故。如果存在其他的隨眠（suímián，煩惱的潛在狀態），即指其他地的一切隨眠。如果存在不同界的遍行隨眠（biànxíng suímián，在不同界中普遍存在的煩惱潛在狀態），即指自地九個上緣隨眠（shàng yuán suímián，導致更高層次存在的煩惱潛在狀態）。這些都屬於第四句所包含的內容。其餘的文字可以思考理解。

若同類因至當有何過者。下面說明如果未來有同類因（tónglèi yīn，同類原因）就會有兩個難點：一是本論（指《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）沒有說明的難點，二是互為因果的難點。下面首先解釋本論沒有說明的難點。將要說明提問：如果同類因在未來世存在，如同異熟因（yìshú yīn，導致不同性質結果的原因）一樣，會有什麼過失？

未來若有本論應說者。回答：如果未來有同類因，本論應該說明。本論只說了過去與現在、未來為同類因，現在與未來為同類因，沒有說未來為同類因。這表明未來沒有同類因。這就是本論沒有說明的過失。

本論唯說至故無有失者。解釋本論。本論只說了能產生果、與果相關的同類因，並且說這些同類因存在於過去和現在。沒有說未來非產生果、與果相關的同類因，所以沒有過失。

無如是義至無同類因者。論主反駁。沒有這樣的道理。因為同類因會引發等流果（děngliú guǒ，與原因相似的結果）。如果這個同類因在未來存在，道理上一定不成立。因為未來沒有前後順序，未來的同類因如何能引發等流果？未來既然沒有等流果，就不應該讓過去、現在已經產生的法成為未產生的等流果。這裡省略了『正生』沒有說，或者從大部分情況來說，或者舉出後面的來顯示前面的。又一種解釋是不應該讓過去、現在已經產生的法成為未來產生的法的等流，包括正生和未生。『生』這個詞已經包含了所有情況。如同過去的法不是現在的果，不要出現果先於因的過失。所以未來世沒有同類因。

若爾異熟因至無前後故者。下面從道理上說明第二個互為因果的難點。將要說明提問：如果這樣，異熟因在未來就不應該存在。不應該異熟果在因之前或者同時存在，因為未來世的法沒有前後順序。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Because of the remaining conditions being determined.' If there are other sui眠 (suímián, latent states of affliction), referring to all sui眠 of other realms. If there are pervasive sui眠 (biànxíng suímián, pervasive latent states of affliction in different realms) of different realms, referring to the nine superior condition sui眠 (shàng yuán suímián, latent states of affliction leading to higher realms) of one's own realm. These are all included in the fourth statement. The remaining text can be understood through contemplation.

'If there is a homogenous cause, what fault would there be?' Below, it is explained that if there is a homogenous cause (tónglèi yīn, cause of the same kind) in the future, there will be two difficulties: first, the difficulty of not being mentioned in the treatise (referring to the Abhidharmakośa), and second, the difficulty of mutual cause and effect. Below, the first difficulty of not being mentioned in the treatise is explained. The question will be raised: If a homogenous cause exists in the future, like a maturation cause (yìshú yīn, cause leading to results of a different nature), what fault would there be?

'If it exists in the future, the treatise should have mentioned it.' The answer: If a homogenous cause exists in the future, the treatise should have mentioned it. The treatise only mentions the past and present, and the future as a homogenous cause; the present and future as a homogenous cause; it does not mention the future as a homogenous cause. This indicates that there is no homogenous cause in the future. This is the fault of not being mentioned in the treatise.

'The treatise only speaks of... therefore there is no fault.' Explaining the treatise. The treatise only speaks of the homogenous causes that can produce results and are related to the results, and says that these homogenous causes exist in the past and present. It does not speak of the homogenous causes that do not produce results and are not related to the results in the future, therefore there is no fault.

'There is no such meaning... therefore there is no homogenous cause.' The author refutes. There is no such reasoning. Because a homogenous cause leads to a flowing-on result (děngliú guǒ, result similar to the cause). If this homogenous cause exists in the future, it is certainly not logically valid. Because the future has no before and after, how can a future homogenous cause lead to a flowing-on result? Since the future has no flowing-on result, the past and present already arisen dharmas should not become the flowing-on results of the unarisen. The 'directly arising' is omitted, or it is spoken from the majority of cases, or the latter is mentioned to reveal the former. Another explanation is that the past and present already arisen dharmas should not become the flowing-on results of the future arisen dharmas, including directly arising and unarisen. The word 'arising' includes all situations. Just as a past dharma is not a present result, do not have the fault of the result preceding the cause. Therefore, there is no homogenous cause in the future.

'If so, the maturation cause... because there is no before and after.' Below, the second difficulty of mutual cause and effect is explained logically. The question will be raised: If so, the maturation cause should not exist in the future. The maturation result should not exist before or simultaneously with the cause, because dharmas in the future have no before and after.

無如是失至未來非無者。論主答。正出互為因果失。無如是失。未來世中雖無前後。以異熟因與異熟果不相似故。故未來有。謂同類因與等流果相似故未來無。未來世中若無前後應互為因。既互為因應互為果。若互為因果即與理相違。以同類因引後果故。非異熟因與異熟果同性相似。未來雖離前後。而無次上互為因果過。故同類因就現作用位前後建立。未來非有。若異熟因就體相建立。未來非無。又婆沙云。問若未來世有同類因。應有二心互為因果。答如四行相各有系屬。余法亦然。故無斯過。謂未來世無常行相。有四行相應無間生彼是所修系屬於此。無常行相與彼為因。彼非此因系屬此故。無常行相起必居前。苦．空．無我行相亦爾。余有為法類此應知。故無二心互為因果。若作是說。有依第四靜慮得阿羅漢果。能修未來九地無漏。所修無漏皆系屬此。后依餘地聖道現前。更不能修未來無漏。無餘地聖道系屬此故。應在過．現非同類因。是則違害。此中所說。前生善根與後生者為同類因。乃至廣說。勿有此失。故未來世無同類因。于理為善。

言同類因至定依何說者。此下明道展轉九地為因。顯與前義別故舉前為問。

定依有漏至由同類故者。答。前言自地定依有漏。若無漏道九地展轉相望為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果未來不存在，就不會有失去而導致未來不存在的情況。論主回答：這正好指出了互為因果的錯誤。不會有這樣的錯誤。即使未來世中沒有前後順序，因為異熟因和異熟果不相似。所以說未來是存在的。如果說同類因和等流果相似，所以未來不存在。如果未來世中沒有前後順序，就應該互為因。既然互為因，就應該互為果。如果互為因果，就與道理相違背。因為同類因會引發後果。而不是異熟因和異熟果同性相似。未來即使沒有前後順序，也沒有依次向上互為因果的過失。所以同類因就現在的作用位置建立前後關係，未來是不存在的。如果異熟因就體相建立，未來就不是不存在的。另外，《婆沙論》中說：問：如果未來世有同類因，應該有二心互為因果。答：如同四行相各有系屬，其餘法也是這樣。所以沒有這個過失。說的是未來世的無常行相，有四行相應無間產生，那個是所修的，系屬於這個。無常行相與那個作為因，那個不是這個的因，因為系屬於這個。無常行相生起必定在前。苦、空、無我行相也是這樣。其餘有為法可以依此類推。所以沒有二心互為因果。如果這樣說，有人依靠第四靜慮得到阿羅漢果（Arhat fruit），能夠修未來九地的無漏法。所修的無漏法都系屬於這個。後來依靠其餘地的聖道現前，就不能再修未來無漏法了。因為沒有其餘地的聖道系屬於這個。應該在過去、現在而不是同類因。這就違背了這裡所說的。前生善根與後生者為同類因，乃至廣說。不要有這個錯誤。所以未來世沒有同類因，在道理上是好的。說到同類因到定依何說，這下面說明道輾轉九地為因。顯示與前面的意思不同，所以舉出前面作為提問。定依有漏到由同類故，回答。前面說自地定依靠有漏，如果無漏道九地輾轉相望為因。

【English Translation】 English version: If the future did not exist, there would be no loss leading to the non-existence of the future. The master of the treatise replies: This precisely points out the error of mutual cause and effect. There is no such error. Even if there is no sequence in the future, because the Vipaka-hetu (異熟因, cause of different maturation) and Vipakaphala (異熟果, fruit of different maturation) are not similar. Therefore, it is said that the future exists. If it is said that the Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) and the Nisyanda-phala (等流果, outflowing fruit) are similar, then the future does not exist. If there is no sequence in the future, they should be mutual causes. Since they are mutual causes, they should be mutual effects. If they are mutual causes and effects, it contradicts the principle. Because the Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) will lead to subsequent effects. It is not that the Vipaka-hetu (異熟因, cause of different maturation) and Vipakaphala (異熟果, fruit of different maturation) are of the same nature and similar. Even if the future is without sequence, there is no fault of mutual cause and effect in sequence. Therefore, the Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) establishes the sequence based on the current position of action, and the future does not exist. If the Vipaka-hetu (異熟因, cause of different maturation) is established based on the nature of the entity, then the future is not non-existent. Furthermore, the Vibhasa (婆沙) says: Question: If there is a Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) in the future, there should be two minds that are mutual causes and effects. Answer: Just as the four aspects of practice each have their own affiliations, so do other dharmas. Therefore, there is no such fault. It is said that the impermanent aspect of practice in the future, there are four aspects of practice that arise without interruption, that is what is cultivated, affiliated to this. The impermanent aspect of practice is the cause of that, that is not the cause of this, because it is affiliated to this. The arising of the impermanent aspect of practice must be in the front. The aspects of suffering, emptiness, and non-self are also like this. Other conditioned dharmas should be understood in this way. Therefore, there are no two minds that are mutual causes and effects. If it is said that someone relies on the fourth Dhyana (靜慮, meditative absorption) to attain the Arhat fruit (阿羅漢果, fruit of Arhat), and is able to cultivate the future non-outflow of the nine grounds. The non-outflow cultivated is all affiliated to this. Later, relying on the holy path of other grounds to manifest, one can no longer cultivate the future non-outflow. Because there is no holy path of other grounds affiliated to this. It should be in the past, present, not the Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind). This contradicts what is said here. The good roots of the previous life are the Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) for those of the later life, and so on. Do not have this error. Therefore, there is no Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) in the future, which is good in principle. Speaking of Samanajatiya-hetu (同類因, cause of the same kind) to what is the basis of the fixed reliance, this below explains that the path revolves through the nine grounds as the cause. Showing that it is different from the previous meaning, so the previous is raised as a question. The fixed reliance depends on the outflow to the reason of the same kind, the answer. The previous said that the fixed reliance of one's own ground depends on the outflow, if the non-outflow path revolves through the nine grounds as the cause.

因。欲界無定。有頂昧劣。皆不能發無漏聖道。故唯依九　問若九地聖道展轉為因者。何故正理十六云。于依自．上有。于依下地無　彼論說九地各能修九地聖道。隨其所應。與依自地所修。與依上地所修者。為同類因。故言于依自．上有上地所修者。不與依下地所修者為同類因故言于依下地無。如依未至定所修九地聖道。與依九地所修八十一種聖道為同類因。如是乃至。依無所有處所修九地聖道。唯與依無所有處所修九種聖道為同類因。準正理文。依上所修者。非與依下地所修者為同類因。如何乃言九地聖道展轉為因　解云言九地聖道展轉為因。據依一地能修九地聖道。由同一地修故。所以展轉相望為同類因非據通依九地所修聖道展轉皆得為因。言九地者。未是盡理之言。若言盡理。豈得依上地利道與依下地鈍道為因。準正理師意。雖等是同姓同品。依上地者勝。依下地者劣。故依上地者不與依下地者為因。與依自．上地者為因。若依德光論師解。九地各能修九地聖道。九九八十一種聖道展轉相望皆得為因。此亦據同性同品應依九地修者說故得展轉為因。

問如他心智依下地起者不知上地心。如何九地展轉為因　解云緣境義別。為因義別。不可為難。上來雖有兩解不同。於此論文並無違害　又解正理且據一相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：欲界（Kāmadhātu，指眾生因慾望而輪迴的世界）沒有禪定，有頂天（Bhavāgra，色界最高的境界）昏昧遲鈍，都不能生髮無漏的聖道（Anāsrava-mārga，超越輪迴的解脫之道）。所以只能依靠九地（Navabhūmi，指欲界、色界和無色界的九個禪定層次）。問：如果說九地的聖道可以輾轉作為因，為什麼《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，佛教論書）第十六卷說：『依于自地和上地所修的聖道可以為因，依于下地所修的聖道則不能為因』？答：該論說九地各自能夠修習九地的聖道，隨其所應，與依于自地所修的聖道，以及依于上地所修的聖道，是同類因。所以說依于自地和上地所修的聖道可以為因。不與依于下地所修的聖道作為同類因，所以說依于下地所修的聖道不能為因。例如，依于未至定（Anāgamya-samādhi，色界初禪前的預備階段）所修的九地聖道，與依於九地所修的八十一種聖道是同類因。像這樣乃至，依于無所有處定（Ākiṃcanyāyatana，無色界第三禪定）所修的九地聖道，僅僅與依于無所有處所修的九種聖道是同類因。按照《阿毗達磨順正理論》的文義，依于上地所修的聖道，不與依于下地所修的聖道作為同類因。怎麼能說九地的聖道可以輾轉為因呢？答：解釋說，九地的聖道可以輾轉為因，是指依于同一地能夠修習九地的聖道。由於在同一地修習，所以輾轉相望可以作為同類因。不是說通依九地所修的聖道輾轉都可以作為因。說九地，還不是完全徹底的說法。如果說完全徹底的說法，怎麼能讓依于上地的銳利道，與依于下地的遲鈍道作為因呢？按照《阿毗達磨順正理論》作者的意圖，即使是同姓同品，依于上地的聖道殊勝，依于下地的聖道低劣。所以依于上地的聖道不與依于下地的聖道作為因，而與依于自地和上地的聖道作為因。如果按照德光論師（Guṇaprabha，印度佛教論師）的解釋，九地各自能夠修習九地的聖道，九九八十一種聖道輾轉相望都可以作為因。這也是根據同性同品，應該依於九地修習的聖道來說，所以可以輾轉作為因。問：如果他心智（Paracitta-jñāna，一種能夠知曉他人內心的神通）依于下地生起，就不能夠知曉上地的心。那麼九地怎麼能夠輾轉為因呢？答：解釋說，緣境的意義不同，作為因的意義也不同，不可以用來作為詰難。以上雖然有兩種不同的解釋，對於此處的論文並沒有衝突。又一種解釋是，《阿毗達磨順正理論》只是根據一種情況來說。

【English Translation】 English version Question: The Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), lacking fixed concentration, and the Summit of Existence (Bhavāgra), being dull and inferior, are both incapable of generating the undefiled Noble Path (Anāsrava-mārga). Therefore, one can only rely on the Nine Grounds (Navabhūmi). Question: If the Noble Paths of the Nine Grounds can serve as mutual causes, why does the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma) state in its sixteenth fascicle: 'That which is based on one's own ground and the higher grounds can be a cause, but that which is based on the lower ground cannot be a cause'? Answer: That treatise states that each of the Nine Grounds is capable of cultivating the Noble Path of the Nine Grounds. As appropriate, that which is cultivated based on one's own ground, and that which is cultivated based on the higher grounds, are causes of the same kind. Therefore, it is said that what is based on one's own ground and the higher grounds can be a cause. That which is not cultivated based on the lower ground is not a cause of the same kind, so it is said that what is based on the lower ground cannot be a cause. For example, the Noble Path of the Nine Grounds cultivated based on the Unreached Concentration (Anāgamya-samādhi) is a cause of the same kind as the eighty-one kinds of Noble Paths cultivated based on the Nine Grounds. Likewise, even up to the Noble Path of the Nine Grounds cultivated based on the Realm of No-Thingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana), it is only a cause of the same kind as the nine kinds of Noble Paths cultivated based on the Realm of No-Thingness. According to the meaning of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, that which is cultivated based on the higher grounds is not a cause of the same kind as that which is cultivated based on the lower grounds. How can it be said that the Noble Paths of the Nine Grounds can serve as mutual causes? Answer: The explanation is that the Noble Paths of the Nine Grounds can serve as mutual causes in the sense that one can cultivate the Noble Path of the Nine Grounds based on the same ground. Because they are cultivated on the same ground, they can mutually serve as causes of the same kind. It is not that the Noble Paths cultivated based on all Nine Grounds can all serve as mutual causes. Saying 'Nine Grounds' is not yet a completely thorough statement. If we were to speak completely thoroughly, how could we allow the sharp path based on the higher grounds to serve as a cause for the dull path based on the lower grounds? According to the intention of the author of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, even if they are of the same class and category, the Noble Path based on the higher grounds is superior, and the Noble Path based on the lower grounds is inferior. Therefore, the Noble Path based on the higher grounds does not serve as a cause for the Noble Path based on the lower grounds, but serves as a cause for the Noble Path based on one's own ground and the higher grounds. If we follow the explanation of Master Guṇaprabha (Indian Buddhist philosopher), each of the Nine Grounds is capable of cultivating the Noble Path of the Nine Grounds, and the eighty-one kinds of Noble Paths can all mutually serve as causes. This is also based on the idea that they are of the same nature and category, and should be cultivated based on the Nine Grounds, so they can mutually serve as causes. Question: If the Mind-Reading Knowledge (Paracitta-jñāna) arises based on the lower ground, it cannot know the mind of the higher ground. How then can the Nine Grounds serve as mutual causes? Answer: The explanation is that the meaning of the object cognized is different, and the meaning of being a cause is different. They cannot be used as objections. Although there are two different explanations above, there is no conflict with the text here. Another explanation is that the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is only speaking from one perspective.

漸次進修諸地勝法故。言上非下因。以實而言亦同德光。

然唯得與至更無勝故者。簡差別。釋唯等勝為果等。與等．勝為因。非劣為因加行生故。指法可知。

又諸已生至為同類因者。約三道明等勝為因。見道為三因。修道為二因。無學道為一因若依正理論意。三道展轉為因。如前生鈍修道。亦與未來不生利見道為同類因。前生鈍無學道。亦與未來不生利見．修道為同類因或從無學退至學位轉根。亦與已起利修道為因　言與三．二．一為同類因者。且據現起次第而說　問此論為同彼不　解云同　又解論意各別。論既言見道與三為因。修道與二為因。無學道與一為因。明知后道非前道因。若為前因何故不說　又於此中至為同類因者。又約鈍．利等．勝為因。如文可知。若依正理。信解與五為因。時解脫與四為因。準前可知。此論或同或異。亦準前解。

諸上地道至或等或勝者。問。依上地道與依下地道為因。是即勝與劣為因。云何名為或等．或勝。

由因增長至為未來因者。答。由因漸漸增長。及由鈍．利根故等．勝為因。非由地有上．下令道勝劣。謂見道等三道。下下品等九品。於後后位中因轉增長。此釋由因增長。鈍．利為因次前具明。故不別釋　及由根故。但釋妨難。修道．無學道時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為逐漸進修各地的殊勝之法，所以說上面的（道）不是下面的（道）的原因。如果從實際情況來說，也和德光（Deguang，菩薩名）的觀點相同。

然而，只有達到至境，不再有超越，這是爲了區分差別。解釋『唯等勝為果等』，是指『與等、勝』作為原因。不是低劣的（道）作為原因，因為是加行所生。這些道理可以根據經文來理解。

此外，對於已經產生的（道）到『作為同類因』，這是從三道（見道、修道、無學道）來說明相等或殊勝的（道）作為原因。見道（Jiandao，佛教修行中的第一個階段）是三因（三種原因），修道（Xiudao，佛教修行中的第二個階段）是二因（兩種原因），無學道（Wuxuedao，佛教修行的最高階段）是一因（一種原因）。如果按照《正理論》（Zheng Lilun，佛教論著）的觀點，三道輾轉相因為因。例如，先前產生的遲鈍的修道，也與未來不產生敏銳的見道作為同類因。先前產生的遲鈍的無學道，也與未來不產生敏銳的見道、修道作為同類因。或者從無學退回到有學位，轉變根器，也與已經生起的敏銳的修道作為原因。說『與三、二、一作為同類因』，暫且根據現在生起的次第來說。問：這個論點和他們的觀點相同嗎？回答說：相同。又解釋論點的意義各有不同。論點既然說見道與三（種原因）作為原因，修道與二（種原因）作為原因，無學道與一（種原因）作為原因，明確知道後面的道不是前面道的原因。如果作為前面的原因，為什麼不說呢？此外，在這裡到『作為同類因』，又是從遲鈍、敏銳、相等、殊勝（的根器）作為原因。如經文所說。如果按照《正理論》，信解（Xinjie，對佛法的堅定信念和理解）與五（種原因）作為原因，時解脫（Shijietuo，在特定條件下獲得的解脫）與四（種原因）作為原因，可以參照前面的解釋。這個論點或者相同或者不同，也可以參照前面的解釋。

對於上面的地道到『或者相等或者殊勝』。問：依靠上面的地道與依靠下面的地道作為原因，這就是殊勝的與低劣的作為原因，為什麼稱為或者相等、或者殊勝？

因為原因增長到『作為未來因』。答：因為原因漸漸增長，以及因為遲鈍、敏銳的根器，所以相等、殊勝作為原因。不是因為地有上面、下面，使得道有殊勝、低劣。所謂見道等三道，下下品等九品，在後后的位置中，原因逐漸增長。這解釋了因為原因增長。遲鈍、敏銳作為原因，前面已經詳細說明，所以不另外解釋。以及因為根器的緣故。只是解釋妨礙和困難。修道、無學道時。

【English Translation】 English version: Because of gradually cultivating the superior Dharmas of various stages, it is said that the above (path) is not the cause of the below (path). In reality, it is the same as Deguang's (a Bodhisattva's name) view.

However, only reaching the ultimate state, with no further surpassing, is to distinguish the differences. Explaining 'only equal and superior as the result, etc.,' means 'equal and superior' are the causes. Not the inferior (path) as the cause, because it is produced by preparatory practices. These principles can be understood according to the scriptures.

Furthermore, regarding the already arisen (path) to 'as the cause of the same kind,' this is to explain from the Three Paths (Path of Seeing, Path of Cultivation, Path of No More Learning) that equal or superior (paths) are the causes. The Path of Seeing (Jiandao, the first stage in Buddhist practice) is the three causes, the Path of Cultivation (Xiudao, the second stage in Buddhist practice) is the two causes, and the Path of No More Learning (Wuxuedao, the highest stage in Buddhist practice) is the one cause. If according to the view of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Zheng Lilun, a Buddhist treatise), the Three Paths are mutually causes. For example, the previously produced dull Path of Cultivation is also the cause of the same kind as the future non-arising sharp Path of Seeing. The previously produced dull Path of No More Learning is also the cause of the same kind as the future non-arising sharp Path of Seeing and Path of Cultivation. Or, retreating from the Path of No More Learning to the Path of Learning, transforming the faculties, is also the cause of the already arisen sharp Path of Cultivation. Saying 'with three, two, one as the cause of the same kind' is temporarily based on the order of present arising. Question: Is this argument the same as their view? Answer: The same. Also, the meaning of the arguments is different. Since the argument says that the Path of Seeing is the cause with three (causes), the Path of Cultivation is the cause with two (causes), and the Path of No More Learning is the cause with one (cause), it is clear that the later path is not the cause of the former path. If it is the former cause, why not say so? Furthermore, here to 'as the cause of the same kind' is again from dull, sharp, equal, superior (faculties) as the cause. As the scripture says. If according to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, faith and understanding (Xinjie, firm belief and understanding of the Dharma) is the cause with five (causes), liberation in due time (Shijietuo, liberation obtained under specific conditions) is the cause with four (causes), which can be referred to the previous explanation. This argument is either the same or different, which can also be referred to the previous explanation.

Regarding the paths of the upper stages to 'either equal or superior.' Question: Relying on the paths of the upper stages as the cause of relying on the paths of the lower stages, this is the superior as the cause of the inferior, why is it called either equal or superior?

Because the cause increases to 'as the future cause.' Answer: Because the cause gradually increases, and because of dull and sharp faculties, therefore equal and superior are the causes. It is not because the stages have upper and lower that the paths have superior and inferior. The so-called Three Paths such as the Path of Seeing, the nine grades such as the lowest grade, in the later positions, the cause gradually increases. This explains that because the cause increases. Dull and sharp as the cause, has been explained in detail before, so it is not explained separately. And because of the faculties. It only explains the obstacles and difficulties. During the Path of Cultivation and the Path of No More Learning.

長相顯不別釋妨。見道時速相隱故別釋妨。于見道位。雖一相續中。無容可得隨信．隨法二道俱起而已生隨信行。為未來隨法行因。

為唯聖道至為同類因者。此下釋后兩句。此即發問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

余世間法至為因非劣者。總釋。

加行生法其體云何者。問體。

謂聞所成至除前劣故者。正舉頌釋。明加行所成功德與等勝為因。由聞所成功德。此所成言通相應．俱有等。若言聞所成慧但目于慧思．修準釋可知。無色界以聞．思無故。設有復劣修非彼因。余文可知。

生得善法至染污亦爾者。此下便明生得等。生得善與加行善為同類因。非加行善與生得善為因。以彼劣故。就生得善九品相望展轉為因。故正理解云。容一一后皆現前故。有餘師說定一心中得一切故。染污九品展轉為因。準生得說。

無覆無記至而無所獲者。明無記　異熟生。起時任運最為微劣　威儀路。作意而起。力用少強勝前異熟。

工巧處。強想生故力用更強。又勝威儀　化心。是通果。其力最勝　俱品。謂相應．俱有法等　欲界四定果化心下。與勝為因。

因如是義至無漏法因者。此下問答分別。此即問也。

有謂已生至於一切劣者。答。有謂過．現已

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『長相顯不別釋妨』（Chang Xiang Xian Bu Bie Shi Fang）：如果從外在表相上無法區分，該如何解釋這種妨礙呢？『見道時速相隱故別釋妨』（Jian Dao Shi Su Xiang Yin Gu Bie Shi Fang）：在見道位（Jian Dao Wei）時，由於證悟的速度和表相隱藏，所以需要特別解釋這種妨礙。『于見道位。雖一相續中。無容可得隨信．隨法二道俱起而已生隨信行。為未來隨法行因』（Yu Jian Dao Wei. Sui Yi Xiang Xu Zhong. Wu Rong Ke De Sui Xin. Sui Fa Er Dao Ju Qi Er Yi Sheng Sui Xin Xing. Wei Wei Lai Sui Fa Xing Yin）：在見道位中，即使在一個相續（Xiang Xu）中，也不可能同時生起隨信行（Sui Xin Xing）和隨法行（Sui Fa Xing）兩種道，只能先生起隨信行，作為未來隨法行的因。

『為唯聖道至為同類因者』（Wei Wei Sheng Dao Zhi Wei Tong Lei Yin Zhe）：只有聖道（Sheng Dao）才能成為同類因嗎？『此下釋后兩句』（Ci Xia Shi Hou Liang Ju）：以下解釋後面的兩句話。『此即發問』（Ci Ji Fa Wen）：這是提問。

『不爾者』（Bu Er Zhe）：不是這樣的。『答』（Da）：回答。

『云何者』（Yun He Zhe）：為什麼呢？『徴』（Zheng）：追問。

『余世間法至為因非劣者』（Yu Shi Jian Fa Zhi Wei Yin Fei Lie Zhe）：其餘的世間法（Shi Jian Fa）作為因，不是因為它們低劣。『總釋』（Zong Shi）：總的解釋。

『加行生法其體云何者』（Jia Xing Sheng Fa Qi Ti Yun He Zhe）：加行（Jia Xing）所生的法的體性是什麼呢？『問體』（Wen Ti）：詢問體性。

『謂聞所成至除前劣故者』（Wei Wen Suo Cheng Zhi Chu Qian Lie Gu Zhe）：通過聽聞而成就的功德，可以作為同等或更殊勝功德的因，從而排除之前的低劣。『正舉頌釋』（Zheng Ju Song Shi）：正確地引用頌文來解釋。『明加行所成功德與等勝為因。由聞所成功德。此所成言通相應．俱有等。若言聞所成慧但目于慧思．修準釋可知。無以聞．思無故。設有復劣修非彼因。余文可知』（Ming Jia Xing Suo Cheng Gong De Yu Deng Sheng Wei Yin. You Wen Suo Cheng Gong De. Ci Suo Cheng Yan Tong Xiang Ying. Ju You Deng. Ruo Yan Wen Suo Cheng Hui Dan Mu Yu Hui Si. Xiu Zhun Shi Ke Zhi. Wu ** Yi Wen. Si Wu Gu. She You Fu Lie Xiu Fei Bi Yin. Yu Wen Ke Zhi）：闡明加行所成就的功德，可以作為同等或更殊勝功德的因。通過聽聞所成就的功德，『所成』一詞涵蓋了相應、俱有等。如果說聽聞所成的慧，只是指慧思、修，那麼按照這個標準來解釋就可以理解了。因為沒有聽聞、思，所以沒有。即使有低劣的修，也不是它的因。其餘的文句可以理解。

『生得善法至染污亦爾者』（Sheng De Shan Fa Zhi Ran Wu Yi Er Zhe）：生得的善法（Sheng De Shan Fa）和加行善法（Jia Xing Shan Fa）是同類因，而不是加行善法和生得善法互為因，因為後者低劣。『此下便明生得等』（Ci Xia Bian Ming Sheng De Deng）：下面就闡明生得等。『生得善與加行善為同類因。非加行善與生得善為因。以彼劣故。就生得善九品相望展轉為因。故正理解云。容一一后皆現前故。有餘師說定一心中得一切故。染污九品展轉為因。準生得說』（Sheng De Shan Yu Jia Xing Shan Wei Tong Lei Yin. Fei Jia Xing Shan Yu Sheng De Shan Wei Yin. Yi Bi Lie Gu. Jiu Sheng De Shan Jiu Pin Xiang Wang Zhan Zhuan Wei Yin. Gu Zheng Li Jie Yun. Rong Yi Yi Hou Jie Xian Qian Gu. You Yu Shi Shuo Ding Yi Xin Zhong De Yi Qie Gu. Ran Wu Jiu Pin Zhan Zhuan Wei Yin. Zhun Sheng De Shuo）：生得的善和加行的善是同類因，而不是加行的善和生得的善互為因，因為後者低劣。就生得的善的九品而言，互相之間可以輾轉為因。所以正確的理解是，容許一個一個地先後顯現。有其他老師說，在禪定的一心中可以獲得一切。染污的九品也可以輾轉為因，參照生得的善來說。

『無覆無記至而無所獲者』（Wu Fu Wu Ji Zhi Er Wu Suo Huo Zhe）：無覆無記（Wu Fu Wu Ji）的異熟生（Yi Shu Sheng），在生起時任運而行，最為微弱。『明無記　異熟生。起時任運最為微劣　威儀路。作意而起。力用少強勝前異熟』（Ming Wu Ji. Yi Shu Sheng. Qi Shi Ren Yun Zui Wei Wei Lie. Wei Yi Lu. Zuo Yi Er Qi. Li Yong Shao Qiang Sheng Qian Yi Shu）：闡明無記的異熟生，生起時任運而行，最為微弱。威儀路（Wei Yi Lu）是作意而起，力量稍微強一些，勝過之前的異熟。

『工巧處。強想生故力用更強。又勝威儀　化心。是通果。其力最勝　俱品。謂相應．俱有法等　欲界四定果化心下。與勝為因』（Gong Qiao Chu. Qiang Xiang Sheng Gu Li Yong Geng Qiang. You Sheng Wei Yi. Hua Xin. Shi Tong Guo. Qi Li Zui Sheng. Ju Pin. Wei Xiang Ying. Ju You Fa Deng. Yu Jie Si Ding Guo Hua Xin Xia. Yu Sheng Wei Yin）：工巧處（Gong Qiao Chu）是由於強烈的想像而生起，力量更加強大，又勝過威儀。化心（Hua Xin）是神通的果報，它的力量最為殊勝。俱品（Ju Pin），指的是相應、俱有法等。欲界四禪定果的化心，可以作為殊勝的因。

『因如是義至無漏法因者』（Yin Ru Shi Yi Zhi Wu Lou Fa Yin Zhe）：像這樣的因，直到無漏法（Wu Lou Fa）的因？『此下問答分別』（Ci Xia Wen Da Fen Bie）：下面是問答的分別。『此即問也』（Ci Ji Wen Ye）：這是提問。

『有謂已生至於一切劣者』（You Wei Yi Sheng Zhi Yu Yi Qie Lie Zhe）：有人說已經生起的，直到一切低劣的？『答』（Da）：回答。

【English Translation】 English version 『Chang Xiang Xian Bu Bie Shi Fang』: If there is no distinction in external appearance, how to explain this obstacle? 『Jian Dao Shi Su Xiang Yin Gu Bie Shi Fang』: At the stage of the Path of Seeing (Jian Dao Wei), due to the speed of realization and the concealment of appearances, a special explanation of this obstacle is needed. 『Yu Jian Dao Wei. Sui Yi Xiang Xu Zhong. Wu Rong Ke De Sui Xin. Sui Fa Er Dao Ju Qi Er Yi Sheng Sui Xin Xing. Wei Wei Lai Sui Fa Xing Yin』: At the stage of the Path of Seeing, even within a single continuum (Xiang Xu), it is impossible for both the Path of Faith (Sui Xin Xing) and the Path of Dharma (Sui Fa Xing) to arise simultaneously; only the Path of Faith can arise first, serving as the cause for the future Path of Dharma.

『Wei Wei Sheng Dao Zhi Wei Tong Lei Yin Zhe』: Is it only the Noble Path (Sheng Dao) that can be the cause of the same kind? 『Ci Xia Shi Hou Liang Ju』: The following explains the latter two sentences. 『Ci Ji Fa Wen』: This is a question.

『Bu Er Zhe』: It is not so. 『Da』: Answer.

『Yun He Zhe』: Why? 『Zheng』: Inquiry.

『Yu Shi Jian Fa Zhi Wei Yin Fei Lie Zhe』: The remaining mundane dharmas (Shi Jian Fa) are not causes because they are inferior. 『Zong Shi』: General explanation.

『Jia Xing Sheng Fa Qi Ti Yun He Zhe』: What is the nature of the dharma produced by effort (Jia Xing)? 『Wen Ti』: Asking about the nature.

『Wei Wen Suo Cheng Zhi Chu Qian Lie Gu Zhe』: The merit achieved through hearing can be the cause of equal or superior merit, thereby eliminating the previous inferiority. 『Zheng Ju Song Shi』: Correctly quoting the verse to explain. 『Ming Jia Xing Suo Cheng Gong De Yu Deng Sheng Wei Yin. You Wen Suo Cheng Gong De. Ci Suo Cheng Yan Tong Xiang Ying. Ju You Deng. Ruo Yan Wen Suo Cheng Hui Dan Mu Yu Hui Si. Xiu Zhun Shi Ke Zhi. Wu ** Yi Wen. Si Wu Gu. She You Fu Lie Xiu Fei Bi Yin. Yu Wen Ke Zhi』: Clarifying that the merit achieved through effort can be the cause of equal or superior merit. The term 『achieved』 through hearing encompasses correspondence, co-existence, etc. If the wisdom achieved through hearing only refers to wisdom through thought and cultivation, then it can be understood according to this standard. Because there is no hearing or thought, there is no **. Even if there is inferior cultivation, it is not its cause. The remaining sentences can be understood.

『Sheng De Shan Fa Zhi Ran Wu Yi Er Zhe』: Innately acquired virtuous dharmas (Sheng De Shan Fa) and virtuous dharmas from effort (Jia Xing Shan Fa) are causes of the same kind, rather than virtuous dharmas from effort and innately acquired virtuous dharmas being mutual causes, because the latter is inferior. 『Ci Xia Bian Ming Sheng De Deng』: The following clarifies innate acquisition, etc. 『Sheng De Shan Yu Jia Xing Shan Wei Tong Lei Yin. Fei Jia Xing Shan Yu Sheng De Shan Wei Yin. Yi Bi Lie Gu. Jiu Sheng De Shan Jiu Pin Xiang Wang Zhan Zhuan Wei Yin. Gu Zheng Li Jie Yun. Rong Yi Yi Hou Jie Xian Qian Gu. You Yu Shi Shuo Ding Yi Xin Zhong De Yi Qie Gu. Ran Wu Jiu Pin Zhan Zhuan Wei Yin. Zhun Sheng De Shuo』: Innate virtue and virtue from effort are causes of the same kind, rather than virtue from effort and innate virtue being mutual causes, because the latter is inferior. In terms of the nine grades of innate virtue, they can be causes for each other. Therefore, the correct understanding is that it allows each one to appear sequentially. Other teachers say that everything can be obtained in the samadhi of one mind. The nine grades of defilement can also be causes for each other, referring to innate acquisition.

『Wu Fu Wu Ji Zhi Er Wu Suo Huo Zhe』: The indeterminate (Wu Fu Wu Ji) resultant of maturation (Yi Shu Sheng), arises spontaneously and is the weakest. 『Ming Wu Ji. Yi Shu Sheng. Qi Shi Ren Yun Zui Wei Wei Lie. Wei Yi Lu. Zuo Yi Er Qi. Li Yong Shao Qiang Sheng Qian Yi Shu』: Clarifying that the indeterminate resultant of maturation arises spontaneously and is the weakest. Conduct (Wei Yi Lu) arises intentionally, with slightly stronger power, surpassing the previous resultant of maturation.

『Gong Qiao Chu. Qiang Xiang Sheng Gu Li Yong Geng Qiang. You Sheng Wei Yi. Hua Xin. Shi Tong Guo. Qi Li Zui Sheng. Ju Pin. Wei Xiang Ying. Ju You Fa Deng. Yu Jie Si Ding Guo Hua Xin Xia. Yu Sheng Wei Yin』: Skillful actions (Gong Qiao Chu) arise from strong imagination, with even stronger power, surpassing conduct. Transformation mind (Hua Xin) is the result of supernatural powers, its power is the most supreme. Co-existent factors (Ju Pin) refer to corresponding, co-existing dharmas, etc. The transformation mind of the four dhyanas of the desire realm can be the cause of superiority.

『Yin Ru Shi Yi Zhi Wu Lou Fa Yin Zhe』: Causes like these, up to the cause of unconditioned dharma (Wu Lou Fa)? 『Ci Xia Wen Da Fen Bie』: The following is the distinction between questions and answers. 『Ci Ji Wen Ye』: This is a question.

『You Wei Yi Sheng Zhi Yu Yi Qie Lie Zhe』: Someone says that what has already arisen, up to all that is inferior? 『Da』: Answer.

生苦法智品。于未來未生位苦法忍品。又已生一切勝。于未生一切劣。

頗有一身至非後生因者。第二問。頗有一身諸無漏法前所定得者。非后已生因耶。

有謂未來至未來無故者。答。有。謂前所定得未來苦法忍品。於後過．現已生苦法智品。以果必無在因前故。或同類因未來無故。

頗有前生至無漏法因者。第三問。頗有前已生諸無漏法。非后已起無漏法因耶。

有謂前生至以彼劣故者。答。有。謂前生勝無漏法。於後已起劣無漏法。如退上無學等果。下不還等果現前。又前已生苦法智上得。於後已生苦法忍上得。非同類因。以彼劣故。前明已生一切勝。望于未生一切劣非因。今明已生一切勝。望于已生一切劣非因。故前後別。

如是已說至心心所同依者。此下第四明相應因。

論曰至是相應因者。此總出體。

若爾所緣至為相應因者。問。若心．心所是相應因。所緣．行相別者。亦應更互為相應因。

不爾所緣至為相應因者。答。必須所緣．行相同者。

若爾異時至為相應因者。難。若爾前．后異時所緣．行相同者名相應因。

不爾要須至乃相應故者。解。要須三同乃名相應。

若爾異身至初月等事者。難。異身心等三種既同。應名相應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本生苦法智品。于未來未生位苦法忍品。又已生一切勝。于未生一切劣。

頗有一身至非後生因者。第二問。頗有一身諸無漏法前所定得者。非后已生因耶？

有謂未來至未來無故者。答。有。謂前所定得未來苦法忍品（Kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-utpāda）。於後過．現已生苦法智品（Jñāna-dharma-utpāda）。以果必無在因前故。或同類因未來無故。

頗有前生至無漏法因者。第三問。頗有前已生諸無漏法。非后已起無漏法因耶？

有謂前生至以彼劣故者。答。有。謂前生勝無漏法。於後已起劣無漏法。如退上無學等果。下不還等果現前。又前已生苦法智上得。於後已生苦法忍上得。非同類因。以彼劣故。前明已生一切勝。望于未生一切劣非因。今明已生一切勝。望于已生一切劣非因。故前後別。

如是已說至心心所同依者。此下第四明相應因。

論曰至是相應因者。此總出體。

若爾所緣至為相應因者。問。若心．心所是相應因。所緣．行相別者。亦應更互為相應因。

不爾所緣至為相應因者。答。必須所緣．行相同者。

若爾異時至為相應因者。難。若爾前．后異時所緣．行相同者名相應因。

不爾要須至乃相應故者。解。要須三同乃名相應。

若爾異身至初月等事者。難。異身心等三種既同。應名相應

【English Translation】 English version Chapter on the Jñāna-dharma-utpāda of Suffering. Chapter on the Kṣānti-dharma-utpāda of Suffering in the future unarisen state. Furthermore, all that is already arisen is superior, while all that is unarisen is inferior.

First question: Is there a single body that is the cause of non-rebirth? Second question: Is there a single body in which the undefiled dharmas (anāsrava-dharmas) previously attained are not the cause of subsequent arising?

Answer: Yes, there is. Namely, the Kṣānti-dharma-utpāda of Suffering (Kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-utpāda) previously attained in the future, in relation to the Jñāna-dharma-utpāda of Suffering (Jñāna-dharma-utpāda) that has already arisen in the past and present. Because the effect can never precede the cause. Or because the cause of the same kind does not exist in the future.

Third question: Is there a single body in which the undefiled dharmas (anāsrava-dharmas) that have already arisen are not the cause of subsequent undefiled dharmas (anāsrava-dharmas) that have arisen?

Answer: Yes, there is. Namely, the superior undefiled dharma (anāsrava-dharma) that has already arisen, in relation to the inferior undefiled dharma (anāsrava-dharma) that has subsequently arisen. For example, the result of a non-learner regressing from a higher state, or the result of a non-returner from a lower state manifesting. Also, the attainment of the Jñāna-dharma-utpāda of Suffering (Jñāna-dharma-utpāda) that has already arisen previously, in relation to the attainment of the Kṣānti-dharma-utpāda of Suffering (Kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-utpāda) that has subsequently arisen. It is not a cause of the same kind because it is inferior. Previously, it was stated that all that has already arisen is superior, and in relation to all that is unarisen, it is not a cause. Now, it is stated that all that has already arisen is superior, and in relation to all that has already arisen but is inferior, it is not a cause. Therefore, there is a difference between the previous and the subsequent.

Having thus spoken of that which has the same basis as the mind and mental factors, the fourth section below explains the associated cause.

The treatise says that this is the associated cause. This is a general statement of its nature.

Question: If the mind and mental factors are associated causes, and the object and appearance are different, should they also be mutually associated causes?

Answer: No. It is necessary for the object and appearance to be the same to be an associated cause.

Objection: If the object and appearance are the same at different times, is that called an associated cause?

Explanation: It is necessary for three things to be the same to be called associated.

Objection: If the three things, such as the mind in a different body, are the same, should they be called associated?

。

為以一言至應知亦爾者。解。雖復所緣．行相．時同。又須同依方名相應。釋同所依如文可知。應知五識雖亦依意。據別所依。意識更無別依。雖標總稱即受別名。

相應因體至義何差別者。問二因別。相應因狹唯心．心所。若俱有因寬通諸有為。若是相應因定是俱有因。有是俱有因非相應因。除心．心所餘有為法。此中以狹問寬。若相應因體即俱有因。如是二因義何差別。

由互為果義至互為因義者。由互為果義立俱有因。猶如遠行商侶相依。共遊險道更互相依。喻俱有因　依．緣．行．時．事五種平等。共相應義。立相應因。即如商侶相依於一時中。同受用飲食．衣服等。同作行．住等事業。望前相依共遊險道。稍親故喻相應　其中闕一者。謂于所依．所緣．行相．時．事中。若闕一種皆不相應　又解於心．心所法中。隨其所應若有闕一。皆不相應　是故極成互為因義是相應因。

如是已說至為同地染因者。此下第五明遍行因。

論曰至當廣分別者　遍行因者。謂前過．現已生遍行諸法。即是十一遍行隨眠相應．俱有法。與后同地染污諸法。為遍行因。得非遍行因。或前．或后性疏遠故。非一果故　遍行諸法。指同下釋。

此與染法至亦生長故者。此明離同類因外別立

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

關於『以一言至應知亦爾者』的解釋：即使所緣（ālambana，對像）、行相（ākāra，形態）、時間相同，也必須在依處和名稱上相互對應。『釋同所依如文可知』，如同文中所述可以理解。應該知道五識（pañca-vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）雖然也依賴於意（manas，意識），但根據各自不同的所依。意識（vijñāna，了別作用）沒有其他的所依。雖然標明總稱，但接受不同的名稱。

關於『相應因體至義何差別者』的提問：這是在詢問相應因（samprayuktuka-hetu，俱生因）和俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因）的區別。相應因範圍較窄，僅限於心（citta，意識）和心所（caitta，心理活動）。而俱有因範圍較寬，通於一切有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，因緣和合而成的法）。如果是相應因，一定是俱有因；但有的是俱有因，卻不是相應因，例如心和心所以外的有為法。這裡是用範圍較窄的相應因來詢問範圍較寬的俱有因。如果相應因的本體就是俱有因，那麼這兩種因在意義上有什麼差別？

關於『由互為果義至互為因義者』的解釋：由於相互為果的關係而建立俱有因，就像遠行的商人互相依靠，一同在危險的道路上行走，互相依賴。這比喻俱有因。在所依、所緣、行相、時間、事這五種平等的基礎上，共同相應的意義，建立相應因。就像商人互相依靠，在同一時間裡，共同享用飲食、衣服等，共同進行行走、居住等事業。相對於之前的互相依靠、共同在危險的道路上行走，這種關係更加親密，所以比喻相應因。如果其中缺少一種，指的是在所依、所緣、行相、時間、事中，如果缺少一種，就不能相應。另一種解釋是在心和心所法中，根據具體情況，如果缺少一種，就不能相應。因此，極其明確的互為因的關係就是相應因。

如上已經說明了，接下來第五部分說明遍行因（sarvatraga-hetu，隨處生起之因）。

論曰至當廣分別者：遍行因，指的是過去和現在已經生起的遍行諸法，也就是十一遍行隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式）相應的、俱有的法，與之後同地的染污諸法，作為遍行因。不能作為非遍行因，因為或者在前，或者在後，性質疏遠，不是同一個果。遍行諸法，在下面的解釋中會詳細說明。

此與染法至亦生長故者：這裡說明了除了同類因（sabhāga-hetu，同類相續之因）之外，單獨建立遍行因的原因。

【English Translation】 English version:

Regarding 'To understand that one word is sufficient to respond accordingly': Explanation: Even if the object (ālambana), form (ākāra), and time are the same, there must also be correspondence in terms of the basis and name. 'Explaining the same basis is understandable as per the text,' as can be understood from the text. It should be known that although the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) also rely on the mind (manas), according to their respective bases. The consciousness (vijñāna, the function of discernment) has no other basis. Although a general term is indicated, it receives different names.

Regarding the question 'What is the difference in meaning between the nature of the associated cause and the coexistent cause?': This is asking about the difference between the associated cause (samprayuktuka-hetu) and the coexistent cause (sahabhū-hetu). The scope of the associated cause is narrow, limited only to the mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta). The scope of the coexistent cause is broad, encompassing all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, phenomena arising from conditions). If it is an associated cause, it must be a coexistent cause; but some are coexistent causes that are not associated causes, such as conditioned dharmas other than the mind and mental factors. Here, the narrower associated cause is used to inquire about the broader coexistent cause. If the nature of the associated cause is the same as the coexistent cause, then what is the difference in meaning between these two causes?

Regarding 'Because of the meaning of being mutual effects to the meaning of being mutual causes': Explanation: The coexistent cause is established because of the relationship of being mutual effects, just like traveling merchants relying on each other, walking together on dangerous roads, depending on each other. This is a metaphor for the coexistent cause. Based on the five equalities of basis, object, form, time, and matter, the meaning of common association establishes the associated cause. Just like merchants relying on each other, at the same time, commonly enjoying food, clothing, etc., commonly engaging in activities such as walking and dwelling. Compared to the previous mutual reliance and walking together on dangerous roads, this relationship is closer, so it is a metaphor for the associated cause. If one of them is missing, it refers to the fact that if one of the basis, object, form, time, and matter is missing, they cannot be associated. Another explanation is that in the mind and mental factors, depending on the specific situation, if one is missing, they cannot be associated. Therefore, the extremely clear relationship of being mutual causes is the associated cause.

As explained above, the fifth part below explains the pervasive cause (sarvatraga-hetu).

The treatise says, 'To be widely distinguished': The pervasive cause refers to the pervasive dharmas that have already arisen in the past and present, that is, the associated and coexistent dharmas of the eleven pervasive latent tendencies (anuśaya, latent forms of afflictions), which, together with the defiled dharmas of the same ground that follow, serve as the pervasive cause. They cannot serve as non-pervasive causes because they are either before or after, distant in nature, and not the same result. The pervasive dharmas will be explained in detail in the explanation below.

This, with defiled dharmas, also grows: This explains the reason for establishing the pervasive cause separately from the homogenous cause (sabhāga-hetu).

遍行因。若同類因非與染污為通因。此遍行因與染污法為通因故。所以同類因外更別建立。此約通局以明。若同類因唯與自部為因。此遍行因。不但與自部染法為因。亦為餘部染法為因故。所以同類因外別立遍行因。此約自．他部說。由斯遍行因勢力。餘部煩惱．及彼相應．俱有等法亦生長故。故正理云。唯生自部二因何別。無遍行因唯生自部。謂遍行法正現前時。俱時有力取五部果。

聖者身中至為遍行因者。問。學人身中修斷染法。豈亦用此為遍行因。

迦濕彌羅至見所斷為因者。答。一標宗。二引證。此即標宗。

故品類足至所感異熟者。此下引證。總引品類足三處文為證。此即初文。彼論既言云何見所斷為因法。謂諸染污法。聖者自身中修斷染法。既是染污法攝。明知見斷法。通與一切染污為因。及見所斷法所感異熟果。亦以見斷為因。此即同文故來。

云何無記至及不善法者。第二文證。一切無記有為。及不善。以無記為因。聖者身中修斷染污法。若上界者。無記有為攝。以上界無記為因。若欲界者不善攝。以見所斷無記身．邊二見為因。故知見所斷法。通與一切染法為因。

或有苦諦至染污苦諦者。引第三文證。諸餘染污苦諦。以有身見為因。聖人身中修斷染污法。是諸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，隨處生起之因）。如果同類因（Sabhāga-hetu，同類之因）不是與染污法作為通因（Sādhāraṇa-hetu，共同之因），那麼這個遍行因就與染污法作為通因，因此在同類因之外另外建立。這是從普遍性和侷限性來說明的。如果同類因僅僅與自身所屬的部類作為因，那麼這個遍行因，不僅與自身部類的染污法作為因，也與其他部類的染污法作為因，因此在同類因之外單獨建立遍行因。這是從自身部類和他者部類來說的。由於這個遍行因的力量，其他部類的煩惱以及與它們相應的、俱有的等法也能生長。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā）中說：『僅僅產生自身部類的兩種因有什麼區別？』因為沒有遍行因就只能產生自身部類的果。當遍行法真正顯現的時候，同時有力地取五部的果。聖者（Ārya，已證悟之人）身中乃至作為遍行因的情況是：問：學人（Śaikṣa，仍在學習的人）身中修斷的染污法，難道也用這個遍行因嗎？迦濕彌羅（Kashmir，古印度地名）乃至見所斷（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的）作為因的情況是：答：一、標明宗旨；二、引用證據。這裡就是標明宗旨。『故品類足論』（Prakaraṇapāda，論書名）乃至所感異熟（Vipāka，果報）的情況是：下面引用證據。總共引用《品類足論》三處經文作為證據。這裡是第一處經文。那部論既然說『什麼是見所斷作為因的法？』，就是指那些染污法。聖者自身中修斷的染污法，既然是染污法所包含的，就明確知道見斷法，普遍地與一切染污法作為因，以及見所斷法所感得的異熟果，也以見斷法作為因。這就是相同經文的緣故。『什麼是無記』（Avyākṛta，非善非惡）乃至『以及不善法』的情況是：這是第二處經文的證據。一切無記有為法，以及不善法，以無記法作為因。聖者身中修斷的染污法，如果是上界的，就屬於無記有為法所包含的，以上界的無記法作為因；如果是欲界的，就屬於不善法所包含的，以見所斷的無記身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，有身見）、邊見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi，邊執見）二見作為因。因此知道見所斷法，普遍地與一切染污法作為因。『或者有苦諦』（Duḥkha-satya，苦諦）乃至『染污苦諦』的情況是：引用第三處經文作為證據。其餘的染污苦諦，以有身見作為因。聖人身中修斷的染污法，是諸

【English Translation】 English version: Sarvatraga-hetu (Pervasive Cause). If Sabhāga-hetu (Cause of the Same Kind) is not a common cause with defiled dharmas, then this Sarvatraga-hetu is a common cause with defiled dharmas, therefore it is established separately from Sabhāga-hetu. This is explained from the perspective of universality and limitation. If Sabhāga-hetu only acts as a cause for its own category, then this Sarvatraga-hetu not only acts as a cause for the defiled dharmas of its own category, but also acts as a cause for the defiled dharmas of other categories, therefore Sarvatraga-hetu is established separately from Sabhāga-hetu. This is discussed from the perspective of one's own category and others' categories. Due to the power of this Sarvatraga-hetu, the afflictions of other categories, as well as their corresponding and co-existent dharmas, can also grow. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā says: 'What is the difference between the two causes that only produce their own category?' Because without Sarvatraga-hetu, it can only produce the result of its own category. When the Sarvatraga-dharma truly manifests, it simultaneously has the power to take the results of the five categories. Regarding the case of an Ārya (Noble One) as a Sarvatraga-hetu: Question: Are the defiled dharmas that a Śaikṣa (Trainee) cultivates and eliminates also using this as a Sarvatraga-hetu? Regarding Kashmir and Darśana-heya (to be eliminated by seeing) as a cause: Answer: First, state the principle; second, cite evidence. This is stating the principle. Regarding 'Prakaraṇapāda' and Vipāka (resultant effect): The following cites evidence. It cites three passages from the Prakaraṇapāda as evidence. This is the first passage. Since that treatise says, 'What is the dharma that is eliminated by seeing as a cause?', it refers to those defiled dharmas. Since the defiled dharmas that an Ārya cultivates and eliminates are included in defiled dharmas, it is clear that the dharma to be eliminated by seeing universally acts as a cause for all defiled dharmas, and the Vipāka resulting from the dharma to be eliminated by seeing also takes the dharma to be eliminated by seeing as a cause. This is because of the same text. Regarding 'What is Avyākṛta (unspecified)' and 'and unwholesome dharmas': This is the evidence from the second passage. All Avyākṛta conditioned dharmas, and unwholesome dharmas, take Avyākṛta as a cause. If the defiled dharmas that an Ārya cultivates and eliminates are from the upper realms, they are included in Avyākṛta conditioned dharmas, taking the Avyākṛta of the upper realms as a cause; if they are from the desire realm, they are included in unwholesome dharmas, taking the Darśana-heya Avyākṛta Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (belief in a self) and Antagrahadṛṣṭi (belief in extremes) as a cause. Therefore, it is known that the dharma to be eliminated by seeing universally acts as a cause for all defiled dharmas. Regarding 'Or there is Duḥkha-satya (truth of suffering)' and 'defiled Duḥkha-satya': Citing the third passage as evidence. The remaining defiled Duḥkha-satya takes belief in a self as a cause. The defiled dharmas that a Saint cultivates and eliminates are all

余染污苦諦攝。明知見所斷法。通與一切染法為因。以此故知。遍行因通生一切染污法。

若爾云何通至染污思者。難。彼文既說。聖人初退起染污思。唯用不善為因。明知聖者修斷染污法。非以見斷為因。若以見斷為因。不應言唯不善為因。以身．邊二見是無記故。

依未斷因至故廢不說者。通因有二種。一未斷因。二已斷因。彼論依修所斷未斷因蜜作是說。非是盡理之言。見所斷法。雖亦是此染污為因。而由已斷故廢不說。

如是已說至及善唯有漏者。此下第六明異熟因。

論曰至異熟法故者。就長行中。一釋頌。二抉擇。此即釋頌　異熟法者。法之言持即目于因。此因能持異熟果故名異熟法。依主釋也。若言異熟即法。持業釋也。余文可知。

何緣無記不招異熟者。此下抉擇。問也。

由力劣故如朽敗種者。答。

何緣無漏不招異熟者。問。

無愛潤故至系地異熟者。答可知。

余法具二至水所沃潤者。余不善．善有漏法。一體貞實。二為愛潤。

異熟因義至名異熟因者。此下釋異熟名問。為異熟之因據依主釋。為異熟即因據持業釋。

義兼兩釋斯有何過者。答。

若異熟之因至業之異熟者。難。若異熟之因據依主釋。聖教不應言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：餘下的染污是苦諦所包含的。明確知道見道所斷的法，普遍與一切染污法作為因。因此可知，遍行因能夠產生一切染污法。

如果這樣，為什麼說遍行因通向染污的思呢？這是個疑問。那段經文既然說了，聖人最初退轉產生染污的思，只用不善作為因。這明確說明聖者修斷染污法，不是以見道所斷的法作為因。如果以見道所斷的法作為因，就不應該說只有不善作為因，因為身見和邊見是無記的。

依據未斷的因導致結果，所以廢而不說：通因有兩種，一是未斷的因，二是已斷的因。那部論典依據修道所斷的未斷因秘密地這樣說，並非是完全正確的說法。見道所斷的法，雖然也是這種染污的因，但是由於已經斷除，所以廢而不說。

像這樣已經說了，以及善法只有有漏：下面第六個部分說明異熟因。

論曰：乃至異熟法的緣故：就長行文（散文形式的經文）中，一是解釋頌文，二是進行抉擇。這裡就是解釋頌文。異熟法：法這個詞有保持的意思，就是指因。這個因能夠保持異熟果，所以叫做異熟法。這是依主釋（所有格結構）。如果說異熟就是法，這是持業釋（同位結構）。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

為什麼無記法不招感異熟果呢？下面進行抉擇。這是提問。

因為力量弱小，就像朽爛的種子一樣：這是回答。

為什麼無漏法不招感異熟果呢？這是提問。

因為沒有愛的滋潤，乃至系屬於不同地的異熟果：這是回答，可以自己理解。

其餘的法具備兩種條件，乃至被水所滋潤：其餘的不善和善的有漏法，一是體性真實，二是為愛所滋潤。

異熟因的含義，乃至名為異熟因：下面解釋異熟這個名稱。是異熟的因，根據依主釋來解釋；是異熟就是因，根據持業釋來解釋。

含義兼顧兩種解釋，這有什麼過失呢？這是回答。

如果異熟的因，根據依主釋來解釋，聖教不應該說……業的異熟。

【English Translation】 English version: The remaining defilements are included in the Dukkha Satya (Truth of Suffering). Clearly knowing the dharmas (phenomena, teachings) to be severed by Darshana-marga (Path of Seeing), universally serve as the cause for all defiled dharmas. Therefore, it is known that the Sarvatraga-hetu (all-pervading cause) can produce all defiled dharmas.

If so, how does the Sarvatraga-hetu (all-pervading cause) lead to defiled thought? This is a question. Since that passage states that when a noble being initially regresses and generates defiled thought, they only use unwholesome (akushala) as the cause. This clearly indicates that noble beings cultivate and sever defiled dharmas, not using the dharmas severed by Darshana-marga (Path of Seeing) as the cause. If the dharmas severed by Darshana-marga (Path of Seeing) were the cause, it should not be said that only unwholesome (akushala) is the cause, because Satkaya-drishti (view of self) and Antagraha-drishti (view of extremes) are indeterminate (avyakrita).

Relying on the unsevered cause leading to the result, therefore it is omitted: There are two types of common causes: unsevered causes and severed causes. That treatise relies on the unsevered cause of Bhavana-marga (Path of Cultivation) to secretly make this statement, which is not entirely accurate. Although the dharmas severed by Darshana-marga (Path of Seeing) are also the cause of this defilement, they are omitted because they have already been severed.

As has been said, and wholesome (kushala) dharmas are only with outflows (sāsrava): The sixth section below explains Vipaka-hetu (resultant cause).

The treatise says: '...because of Vipaka-dharma (resultant dharma)': In the prose section, first, the verse is explained, and second, a determination is made. This is the explanation of the verse. Vipaka-dharma (resultant dharma): The word 'dharma' means 'to hold,' which refers to the cause. This cause can hold the Vipaka-phala (resultant effect), so it is called Vipaka-dharma (resultant dharma). This is a Tatpurusha compound (possessive compound). If it is said that Vipaka (resultant) is dharma, this is a Karmadharaya compound (appositional compound). The remaining text can be understood on your own.

Why do indeterminate (avyakrita) dharmas not generate Vipaka (resultant)? The following is a determination. This is a question.

Because of weak strength, like rotten seeds: This is the answer.

Why do Anāsrava (without outflows) dharmas not generate Vipaka (resultant)? This is a question.

Because there is no moisture of attachment, up to the Vipaka (resultant) of different realms: This is the answer, which can be understood on your own.

The remaining dharmas possess two conditions, up to being moistened by water: The remaining unwholesome (akushala) and wholesome (kushala) dharmas with outflows (sāsrava), first, their nature is real, and second, they are moistened by attachment.

The meaning of Vipaka-hetu (resultant cause), up to being named Vipaka-hetu (resultant cause): The following explains the name Vipaka (resultant). 'The cause of Vipaka (resultant)' is explained according to the Tatpurusha compound (possessive compound); 'Vipaka (resultant) is the cause' is explained according to the Karmadharaya compound (appositional compound).

What fault is there in the meaning encompassing both explanations? This is the answer.

If 'the cause of Vipaka (resultant)' is explained according to the Tatpurusha compound (possessive compound), the sacred teachings should not say... the Vipaka (resultant) of karma.

異熟生眼。是則因名異熟。若異熟即因據持業釋。聖教不應言業之異熟。是則果名異熟。

兩釋俱通已如前釋者。解兩釋俱通。已如前界品五類分別十八界中辨。汝不應以持業難依主。依主難持業。故正理十六云。然異熟因或持業釋。故契經說異熟生眼。或依主釋。故契經云業之異熟。

所言異熟其義云何者。別問異熟義。

毗婆沙師至名異熟因者。答。毗婆沙師因是善惡．果是無記。異類而熟是異熟義。謂異熟因唯異類熟。俱有．相應．同類．遍行因唯同類熟。能作一因兼同．異熟。故唯此一名異熟因。

熟果不應至簡別余因者。論主敘經部宗義。熟果不應餘五因所得。果具二義方得熟名。一由造業非即感果。要待相續將欲感果名轉變。正感果時名差別。由斯果體方乃得生。二由異熟果隨因勢力勝劣。時有分限。或經十年或百年等　俱有．相應所生果體。雖有後義而闕前義。能作．同類．遍行．三因所生果體。雖有前義而闕后義　由此但應作如是釋。由因變異而果方熟。是異熟義　汝毗婆沙師。不應但異簡別余因。攝義不盡。若言變異攝義周盡。論主非異熟果非餘五因得。但異攝義不周盡。

于欲界中至及彼生等者。此下約三界五蘊多少同時相望為俱有因顯異熟因同感一果。于欲界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由異熟所生的眼（Ipsita vipāka cakṣus），如果是『異熟即因』的持業釋（karmadhāraya），聖教就不應該說『業之異熟』，那麼『異熟』就是果的名稱了。

兩種解釋都可行，就像前面解釋的那樣。這是解釋兩種解釋都可行。就像前面在界品中五類分別十八界時辨析的那樣。你不應該用持業釋來為難依主釋（tatpuruṣa），用依主釋來為難持業釋。所以《正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）第十六卷說：『然而，異熟因或者可以持業釋，所以契經說異熟生眼；或者可以依主釋，所以契經說業之異熟。』

所說的『異熟』，它的含義是什麼呢？這是單獨提問異熟的含義。

毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）認為，因是善或惡，果是無記（avyākṛta），不同類別而成熟就是異熟的含義。也就是說，異熟因只能是不同類別成熟的。俱有因（sahabhū-hetu）、相應因（samprayuktaka-hetu）、同類因（sabhāga-hetu）、遍行因（sarvatraga-hetu）只能是同類別成熟的。能作因（kāraṇa-hetu）兼有同類和異熟。所以只有這一個叫做異熟因。

論主認為，成熟的果不應該由其餘五因所得。果具有兩種含義才能稱為成熟。一是造業並非立即感果，需要等待相續，將要感果時叫做轉變，真正感果時叫做差別，由此果體才能產生。二是異熟果隨著因的勢力大小，時間有長短，或者十年或者百年等。俱有因、相應因所生的果體，雖然有後面的含義，但缺少前面的含義。能作因、同類因、遍行因這三種因所生的果體，雖然有前面的含義，但缺少後面的含義。因此只能這樣解釋：由於因的變異，果才能成熟，這就是異熟的含義。你們毗婆沙師，不應該只用『異』來區分其餘的因，這樣概括的意義不全面。如果說『變異』，那麼概括的意義就全面了。論主認為異熟果不是其餘五因所得，只用『異』來概括意義不全面。

在欲界（kāmadhātu）中，以及與彼同時產生的等等。下面從三界（trayo dhātava）五蘊（pañca skandha）多少同時相互比較，來顯示異熟因共同感受一個果。

【English Translation】 English version: The eye born of vipāka (Ipsita vipāka cakṣus), if it is a karmadhāraya where 'vipāka is the cause,' the holy teachings should not say 'vipāka of karma,' then 'vipāka' is the name of the fruit.

Both explanations are valid, as explained earlier. This explains that both explanations are valid, as analyzed earlier in the chapter on realms when distinguishing the eighteen realms into five categories. You should not use karmadhāraya to challenge tatpuruṣa, or use tatpuruṣa to challenge karmadhāraya. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, volume sixteen, says: 'However, the cause of vipāka can be explained as karmadhāraya, hence the sutras say 'eye born of vipāka'; or it can be explained as tatpuruṣa, hence the sutras say 'vipāka of karma.'

What is the meaning of 'vipāka' that is spoken of? This is a separate question asking about the meaning of vipāka.

The Vaibhāṣika believes that the cause is good or evil, and the fruit is avyākṛta (undetermined), maturation of a different kind is the meaning of vipāka. That is to say, the cause of vipāka can only mature into a different kind. Sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause), samprayuktaka-hetu (associated cause), sabhāga-hetu (homogeneous cause), and sarvatraga-hetu (universal cause) can only mature into the same kind. Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause) includes both homogeneous and vipāka. Therefore, only this one is called the cause of vipāka.

The master of the treatise believes that the matured fruit should not be obtained from the other five causes. The fruit must have two meanings to be called matured. First, creating karma does not immediately result in fruit; it needs to wait for the continuation, and when it is about to result in fruit, it is called transformation, and when it truly results in fruit, it is called differentiation, and only then can the fruit body be produced. Second, the vipāka fruit varies in time depending on the strength of the cause, either ten years or a hundred years, etc. The fruit body produced by sahabhū-hetu and samprayuktaka-hetu, although it has the latter meaning, lacks the former meaning. The fruit body produced by kāraṇa-hetu, sabhāga-hetu, and sarvatraga-hetu, although it has the former meaning, lacks the latter meaning. Therefore, it should only be explained as follows: because of the transformation of the cause, the fruit can mature, and this is the meaning of vipāka. You Vaibhāṣikas should not only use 'different' to distinguish the other causes, as this does not fully encompass the meaning. If you say 'transformation,' then the meaning is fully encompassed. The master of the treatise believes that the vipāka fruit is not obtained from the other five causes, and using only 'different' to encompass the meaning is not comprehensive.

In the kāmadhātu (desire realm), and those that arise simultaneously with it, etc. Below, from the comparison of the three dhātava (realms) and the pañca skandha (five aggregates) in terms of quantity and simultaneity, it is shown that the vipāka cause jointly experiences a single fruit.

中。有時一蘊為異熟因共感一果。謂行蘊中有記得。及彼得上四相。

有時二蘊至及彼生等者。身．語業是色蘊。四相是行蘊　問欲界身．語業。能感命根．眾同分不　答不能感。故正理十六云。此異熟因總說有二。一能牽引。二能圓滿。且眾同分及與命根。非不相應行獨所能牽引。云何知然。契經說故。如契經說業為生因等　又云非心隨轉身．語二業。定不能引命．眾同分。不爾便違契經正理。經言劣界思所引故。此說欲有命眾同分。唯意業感非身．語業身語表業眾多極微一心所起。于中唯一引眾同分．及與命根。余無此能不應理故。若許同時共感一果。則應更互為俱有因。有對造色為俱有因非宗所許。此非展轉力所生故。又非次第一一極微牽引命根．及眾同分。一心起故。非一心起無異功能。別引生．后而無過失。非為滿業亦有斯過。於一生中。各別能取色．香．味等圓滿果故。依此無表亦同此釋。多遠離體一心起故。不許互為俱有因故。若無對造色有非俱有因。說有對言便為無用。顯有對造色皆非俱有因。故作是說有無對造色得為俱有因不可同彼。若欲界系身．語二業不能牽引便違契經。如說殺生若修。若習。若多修習。生那落迦。乃至廣說。又違本論。如說於此三惡行中何罪最大。謂能隨順僧破妄語。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有時一個蘊（skandha，構成要素）作為異熟因（vipāka-hetu，果報之因）共同感受一個果報。例如，行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha，意志）中有憶念（smṛti，記憶）以及與此相關的『得』（prāpti，獲得）的四種相（lakṣaṇa，特徵）。

有時兩個蘊乃至與此相關的『生』（jāti，出生）等。身業（kāya-karman，身體行為）和語業（vāc-karman，語言行為）屬於色蘊（rūpa-skandha，色法）。四種相屬於行蘊。問：欲界（kāma-dhātu，慾望界）的身業和語業，能夠感受命根（jīvitendriya，生命力）和眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga，同類相）嗎？答：不能感受。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）第十六卷說：『這種異熟因總的來說有兩種作用：一是能牽引（ākarṣaṇa，引導），二是能圓滿（paripūraṇa，完成）。而且眾同分以及命根，不是不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，不與心相應的行法）單獨能夠牽引的。』怎麼知道是這樣呢？因為契經（sūtra，佛經）這樣說。如契經說，業是生因等。

又說，不是隨心轉身業和語業這兩種業，一定不能牽引命根和眾同分。否則就違背了契經的正理。經上說，下劣界的思（cetanā，意志）所引導的緣故。這裡說的是欲有的命根和眾同分，只有意業（manas-karman，意念行為）才能感受，不是身業和語業。身語表業（kāya-vijñapti-karman，身體表示業）眾多極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）由一心所生起。其中只有一種能夠牽引眾同分以及命根。其餘的沒有這種能力是不合道理的。如果允許同時共同感受一個果報，那麼就應該互相作為俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因）。有對造色（sa-pratigha-rūpa，有對礙的色法）作為俱有因，不是宗義所允許的。因為這不是輾轉力量所產生的緣故。又不是次第一個一個極微牽引命根以及眾同分。因為是一心生起的。不是一心生起沒有不同的功能，分別引導生起，之後沒有過失。不是作為滿業（paripūraṇa-karman，圓滿業）也有這種過失。在一生中，各自能夠取得色、香、味等圓滿的果報的緣故。依據這個，無表（avijñapti，無表色）也同樣這樣解釋。因為多個遠離體一心生起的緣故。不允許互相作為俱有因的緣故。如果沒有對造色有非俱有因，說有對的話就變得沒有用了。顯示有對造色都不是俱有因。所以這樣說，無對造色（anidarśana-rūpa，無對礙的色法）可以作為俱有因，不能和有對造色一樣。

如果欲界系的身業和語業不能牽引，就違背了契經。如說，殺生如果修習、如果串習、如果多次修習，就會生到那落迦（naraka，地獄），乃至廣說。又違背了本論。如說，在這三種惡行中，什麼罪最大？說是能夠隨順僧破（saṃgha-bheda，僧團分裂）的妄語（mṛṣā-vāda，虛妄語）。

【English Translation】 English version: Sometimes, a single skandha (aggregate) acts as a vipāka-hetu (result-producing cause), jointly experiencing a single result. For example, in the saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of mental formations), there is smṛti (memory) and the four lakṣaṇas (characteristics) of 'prāpti' (attainment) associated with it.

Sometimes, two skandhas, up to and including 'jāti' (birth) related to it. Kāya-karman (bodily action) and vāc-karman (verbal action) belong to the rūpa-skandha (aggregate of form). The four characteristics belong to the saṃskāra-skandha. Question: Can kāma-dhātu (desire realm) bodily and verbal actions experience jīvitendriya (life faculty) and nikāya-sabhāga (community of kind)? Answer: They cannot. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, volume sixteen, states: 'This vipāka-hetu generally has two functions: one is to ākarṣaṇa (attract), and the other is to paripūraṇa (complete). Moreover, the community of kind and the life faculty cannot be attracted solely by citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (formations not associated with mind).』 How is this known? Because the sūtra (scripture) says so. As the sūtra says, karma is the cause of birth, etc.

It is also said that the two karmas, bodily and verbal, that do not follow the mind cannot necessarily attract the life faculty and the community of kind. Otherwise, it would contradict the correct principle of the sūtra. The scripture says that it is because of the cetanā (volition) of the inferior realm that leads to it. This refers to the life faculty and the community of kind in the desire realm, which can only be experienced by manas-karman (mental action), not by bodily and verbal actions. The kāya-vijñapti-karman (manifest bodily action) consists of numerous paramāṇus (ultimate particles) arising from a single mind. Among them, only one can attract the community of kind and the life faculty. It is unreasonable for the others not to have this ability. If it is allowed to jointly experience a single result simultaneously, then they should mutually act as a sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause). Sa-pratigha-rūpa (resistant form) as a co-existent cause is not allowed by the doctrine. This is because it is not produced by the power of sequential transformation. Furthermore, it is not that each paramāṇu sequentially attracts the life faculty and the community of kind. Because it arises from a single mind. It is not that arising from a single mind does not have different functions, separately guiding the arising, and then there is no fault. It is not that there is also this fault as paripūraṇa-karman (completing karma). In one lifetime, each can obtain the complete results of form, smell, taste, etc. Based on this, avijñapti (non-manifest form) is also explained in the same way. Because multiple separated entities arise from a single mind. It is not allowed to mutually act as a co-existent cause. If there is no non-co-existent cause for resistant form, then saying 'resistant' becomes useless. It shows that resistant forms are not co-existent causes. Therefore, it is said that anidarśana-rūpa (non-resistant form) can act as a co-existent cause, and cannot be the same as resistant form.

If the bodily and verbal actions of the desire realm cannot attract, it would contradict the sūtra. As it says, if killing is practiced, if it is cultivated, if it is repeatedly cultivated, one will be born in naraka (hell), and so on. It also contradicts the original treatise. As it says, among these three evil actions, what is the greatest sin? It is said to be mṛṣā-vāda (false speech) that can lead to saṃgha-bheda (schism in the sangha).

此業能取無間獄中劫壽異熟。壽定說為所牽引果。此說所起顯能起思。粗易了故。無相違失(已上論文)　以此故知。身．語二業不能感命．眾同分　問此論同正理不　解云此論文無別說。意同正理。

問若言唯意業能感命．眾同分。何故業品云四善。容俱作。引同分唯三。準彼論文。俱時能感生．后．不定眾同分三。不可說言一剎那意業。能感三生眾同分。復不可言剎那中起三意業感三眾同分。復不可言過去三因等起思感三眾同分。以異熟因必現取果　解云彼文但顯四業中生．后．不定。容感同分現不能感。不言一剎那一時能感三種同分。故下論云。幾業能引眾同分耶。能引唯三。除順現受。現身同分先業引故　又問若言欲身．語業不能感命．眾同分。何故此論下文言二無心定．得不能引余通。既言余通。明知欲界身．語二業亦能感命．同分　解云言通感者容通感彼。不言一切皆悉能感。若隨轉身．語業即能感。若欲界身．語業即不能感　又解此論不同正理。欲界身．語業亦能感命．眾同分。于其業中眾多極微隨其所應。或有唯感引果。或有唯感滿果。或有一分感引一分感滿。若言同一心起。不許感引果滿果。同一心起。何者感色．何者感香等。雖同一心起即有感色等不同。何妨同一心起感引．滿前．后別。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此業能夠導致在地獄中經歷漫長劫數的異熟果報。壽命的確定被認為是業力牽引的結果。這裡所說的『所起』，顯示了『能起』的思的作用，因為這種作用比較粗顯易懂，所以沒有相違背的過失。（以上是論文內容）因此可知，身業和語業不能感生壽命和眾同分（所有生命形式共有的特徵）。問：這個論點與《正理經》的觀點相同嗎？答：這個論文沒有特別說明，但其意思與《正理經》相同。問：如果說只有意業才能感生壽命和眾同分，為什麼在《業品》中說四種善業有可能同時進行，但只能牽引三種同分？按照那篇論文的說法，同時能夠感生順現受、順后受和不定受三種眾同分。不能說一個剎那的意業能夠感生三種眾同分，也不能說在一個剎那中生起三種意業來感生三種眾同分，更不能說過去的三種因同時生起思來感生三種眾同分，因為異熟因必定在當下取得果報。答：那篇文章只是說明四種業中，順現受、順后受和不定受有可能感生同分，但不是現在就能感生。並沒有說一個剎那或一個時間能夠感生三種同分。所以後面的論述說，幾種業能夠牽引眾同分呢？能夠牽引的只有三種，除去順現受，因為現身的同分是由先前的業力牽引的。又問：如果說欲界的身業和語業不能感生壽命和眾同分，為什麼這篇論文的下文說二種無心定（無想定和滅盡定）的獲得不能牽引其餘的通果？既然說『其餘的通果』，就說明欲界的身業和語業也能感生壽命和同分。答：說『通感』是指有可能普遍地感生那些果報，並不是說一切都能感生。如果隨順於轉身，身業和語業就能感生；如果是欲界的身業和語業，就不能感生。又一種解釋是，這個論點與《正理經》不同。欲界的身業和語業也能感生壽命和眾同分。在這些業中，眾多的極微隨其所應，或者只有感生牽引果的，或者只有感生圓滿果的，或者一部分感生牽引果，一部分感生圓滿果。如果說同一個心念生起，不允許感生牽引果和圓滿果。同一個心念生起，哪一部分感生色，哪一部分感生香等？雖然同一個心念生起，但有感生色等不同的作用。為什麼妨礙同一個心念生起，而感生牽引果和圓滿果有先後差別呢？

【English Translation】 English version: This karma can lead to the maturation of experiencing kalpas of lifespan in the Avici hell. The determination of lifespan is said to be the result of karmic pull. The 'what arises' here shows the function of 'what can arise' thought, because this function is relatively coarse and easy to understand, so there is no contradiction. (The above is the content of the thesis) Therefore, it can be known that physical and verbal karma cannot generate lifespan and commonality of beings (characteristics shared by all life forms). Question: Is this argument the same as the view in the Nyaya Sutra? Answer: This paper does not specifically state, but its meaning is the same as the Nyaya Sutra. Question: If it is said that only mental karma can generate lifespan and commonality of beings, why does the 'Karma Chapter' say that four good karmas may occur simultaneously, but can only attract three types of commonality? According to that paper, it can simultaneously generate three types of commonality: agreeable to present experience, agreeable to subsequent experience, and indeterminate experience. It cannot be said that a moment of mental karma can generate three types of commonality, nor can it be said that three mental karmas arise in a moment to generate three types of commonality, nor can it be said that three past causes simultaneously arise thought to generate three types of commonality, because the maturation cause must obtain the result in the present. Answer: That article only explains that among the four types of karma, agreeable to present experience, agreeable to subsequent experience, and indeterminate experience may generate commonality, but not that it can be generated now. It does not say that one moment or one time can generate three types of commonality. Therefore, the following discussion says, how many karmas can attract the commonality of beings? Only three can attract, excluding agreeable to present experience, because the commonality of the present body is attracted by previous karma. Also asked: If it is said that physical and verbal karma of the desire realm cannot generate lifespan and commonality of beings, why does the following text of this paper say that the attainment of two mindless samadhis (non-thought samadhi and extinction samadhi) cannot attract the remaining general results? Since it says 'the remaining general results', it shows that physical and verbal karma of the desire realm can also generate lifespan and commonality. Answer: Saying 'general feeling' means that it is possible to universally generate those results, not that everything can be generated. If it follows the turning of the body, physical and verbal karma can generate; if it is physical and verbal karma of the desire realm, it cannot generate. Another explanation is that this argument is different from the Nyaya Sutra. Physical and verbal karma of the desire realm can also generate lifespan and commonality of beings. Among these karmas, many extremely small particles, as appropriate, either only generate attractive results, or only generate complete results, or a part generates attractive results and a part generates complete results. If it is said that the same thought arises, it is not allowed to generate attractive results and complete results. With the same thought arising, which part generates color, which part generates fragrance, etc.? Although the same thought arises, there are different functions such as generating color, etc. Why hinder the same thought from arising, while the generation of attractive results and complete results has a difference in time?

若作此解與正理論異。

有時四蘊至及彼生等者。可知。

於色界中至及彼生等者。此約色．無色界辨。思之可知　問此中言等至．等引。余文復言等持。如是三種有何差別　解云梵名三摩地此云等持。通定．散。通三性。唯有心。平等持心令趣于境。故名等持　梵名三摩缽底此云等至。通有心．無心定。唯在定不通散。若有心定名等至。謂由定前心離於沈．掉平等至此定。此從加行立名　又解即定離於沈．掉名等。能至平等身心名至。若無心定名等至還作二解。準有心定可知。唯無心為異　梵名三摩呬多此云等引。通有心．無心定。多分有心定中說不通散。若有心定名等引。謂定前心離於沈．掉名等。能引起此定名引。此從加行立名　又解即定離於沈．掉名等。能引起平等身．心名引。若無心定名等引還作兩解。準有心定釋。可知。唯無心為異。

有業唯感至即命根等者。此下約感處多．少顯業差別。於十二處中除聲。非異熟故。於十一中若決定同性業感。體必俱有。具此二義者隨感此處。極少定感一。乃至極多定感四。若容別性業感。體不必俱。隨有闕者即不定。或能感五乃至十一。若業唯感一處異熟。謂感法處即命根等。等謂等取眾同分。故婆沙云。複次有業唯受一處異熟。謂得命根．眾同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果這樣解釋，就與正理論有所不同。

『有時四蘊至及彼生等者』，可以理解。

『于中至及彼生等者』，這是就色蘊和無（此處原文有缺失）進行辨析。思考一下就可以理解。問題：這裡說的『等至』、『等引』，以及其他地方說的『等持』，這三種有什麼區別？解答：梵語『Samādhi』（三摩地）在這裡翻譯成『等持』。它既可以指禪定，也可以指散亂狀態，可以屬於三種性質（善、惡、無記）。它只與心有關，指的是平等地保持心念，使之專注于所緣境，所以叫做『等持』。梵語『Samāpatti』（三摩缽底）在這裡翻譯成『等至』。它既可以指有心定的狀態，也可以指無心定的狀態，只存在於禪定中，不包括散亂狀態。如果是有心定，就叫做『等至』，意思是說在入定之前，心已經離開了昏沉和掉舉，平等地進入這種禪定狀態。這是從加行的角度來立名的。另一種解釋是，這種禪定本身就離開了昏沉和掉舉，稱為『等』，能夠達到平等的身心狀態，稱為『至』。如果是無心定，『等至』還有兩種解釋，可以參照有心定的解釋來理解。唯一的區別在於它是無心的。梵語『Samāhita』（三摩呬多）在這裡翻譯成『等引』。它既可以指有心定的狀態，也可以指無心定的狀態，但多半是在有心定的狀態下使用，不包括散亂狀態。如果是有心定，就叫做『等引』，意思是說在入定之前，心已經離開了昏沉和掉舉，稱為『等』，能夠引起這種禪定狀態，稱為『引』。這是從加行的角度來立名的。另一種解釋是，這種禪定本身就離開了昏沉和掉舉，稱為『等』，能夠引起平等的身心狀態，稱為『引』。如果是無心定，『等引』還有兩種解釋，可以參照有心定的解釋來理解。唯一的區別在於它是無心的。

『有業唯感至即命根等者』，下面是從感受處的多和少來顯示業的差別。在十二處（ayatana）中，除了聲處（sound base），因為聲處不是異熟果（vipāka-phala）。在剩下的十一處中，如果是由決定性的同類業所感，那麼其自體必定同時存在。具備這兩種含義的，隨著所感受的處，最少必定感受一個，最多必定感受四個。如果是容許不同性質的業所感，那麼其自體不一定同時存在，隨著有缺失的情況，就不確定，或者能夠感受五個乃至十一個。如果業僅僅感受一個處的異熟果，那就是感受法處（dharma-āyatana），也就是命根（jīvitendriya）等等。『等』字包括了眾同分（nikāya-sabhāgatā）。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）中說：『再次，有業僅僅感受一個處的異熟果，那就是獲得命根、眾同分。』

【English Translation】 English version: If this explanation is made, it differs from the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論).

'Sometimes the four aggregates (skandha) reach, and those born from them, etc.' can be understood.

'In ** (missing text) reaching and those born from them, etc.' This is discussed in relation to rūpa (色, form) and arūpa (無色, formless). It can be understood through contemplation. Question: Here, it speaks of samatā (等至, equanimity), samutthāna (等引, arising together). Elsewhere, it speaks of sthiti (等持, maintenance). What are the differences among these three? Answer: The Sanskrit name is Samādhi (三摩地), which is translated here as sthiti (等持). It encompasses both dhyāna (定, meditation) and distraction, and it encompasses the three natures (good, evil, and neutral). It pertains only to the mind. It equally maintains the mind, directing it towards the object. Therefore, it is called sthiti (等持). The Sanskrit name is Samāpatti (三摩缽底), which is translated here as samatā (等至). It encompasses both meditation with mind and meditation without mind. It exists only in meditation, not in distraction. If it is meditation with mind, it is called samatā (等至), meaning that before entering meditation, the mind has departed from torpor and agitation, and equally reaches this state of meditation. This name is established from the perspective of preparatory actions. Another explanation is that the meditation itself is free from torpor and agitation, called sama (等, equal), and the ability to reach an equal body and mind is called tā (至, reaching). If it is meditation without mind, there are two interpretations of samatā (等至), which can be understood by referring to the explanation of meditation with mind. The only difference is that it is without mind. The Sanskrit name is Samāhita (三摩呬多), which is translated here as samutthāna (等引). It encompasses both meditation with mind and meditation without mind, but it is mostly spoken of in the context of meditation with mind, not in distraction. If it is meditation with mind, it is called samutthāna (等引), meaning that before entering meditation, the mind has departed from torpor and agitation, called sama (等, equal), and the ability to cause this meditation to arise is called utthāna (引, arising). This name is established from the perspective of preparatory actions. Another explanation is that the meditation itself is free from torpor and agitation, called sama (等, equal), and the ability to cause an equal body and mind to arise is called utthāna (引, arising). If it is meditation without mind, there are two interpretations of samutthāna (等引), which can be understood by referring to the explanation of meditation with mind. The only difference is that it is without mind.

'Some karma (業) only causes the result of reaching, namely, the jīvitendriya (命根, life faculty), etc.' Below, the differences in karma are shown in terms of the amount of places (āyatana) experienced. Among the twelve āyatana (處, sense bases), except for śabda-āyatana (聲處, sound base), because it is not vipāka-phala (異熟果, result of maturation). Among the remaining eleven, if it is caused by a definitive, homogeneous karma, then its essence must exist simultaneously. Those possessing these two meanings, depending on the place experienced, at least one is definitely experienced, and at most four are definitely experienced. If it is caused by karma that allows for different natures, then its essence does not necessarily exist simultaneously. Depending on what is missing, it is uncertain, or it can experience five up to eleven. If karma only experiences the vipāka (異熟, maturation) of one place, that is, experiencing the dharma-āyatana (法處, dharma base), namely, the jīvitendriya (命根, life faculty), etc. 'Etc.' includes nikāya-sabhāgatā (眾同分, community of kind). Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論) says: 'Furthermore, there is karma that only experiences the vipāka of one place, namely, obtaining the jīvitendriya and nikāya-sabhāgatā.'

分業。彼業唯受法處異熟　又解亦等取生等。定同感故。餘十處不定。若入無心即無意處。若生上界香．味定無。若生無色亦無色．觸。此意色．香．味．觸有時雖與命等俱生。容別業感。如人．天命等是善業感。此五容是不善業招。若眼等五。望彼命等。隨在何趣。雖復定是同性業感。眼等四根。若在欲界。未得．已失即不成故。若生無色。眼等五根總不成故。以五色根．命．眾同分是生處本故。同性業感。由斯不定故此十處非定同感。

若感意處至應知亦爾者。若感意處定感二處。謂意與法。法謂意處俱行心所及生等法。餘九不定。眼等四根若生欲界。未得．已失即不成故。若生色界即無香．味。若生無色餘九總無。此九有時雖與意俱容別業感。故感意處非定感彼。若感觸處定感觸處．法處。謂生等。餘九不定。眼等四根若生欲界。未得．已失即不成故。意處若入無心即非有故。香．味上界即無。此九有時雖與觸俱容別業感。故雖感觸時定身．色俱容別業感。故感觸處非定能感彼九處也。

若感身處至應知亦爾者。若感身處定感三處。謂身．觸．法。觸處謂能造四大。法處謂生等。餘八不定。眼等四處望彼身處雖同一業感。若生欲界未得．已失即不成就。意處若入無心即無。此意有時亦與身俱容別業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本分業。這些業只有在受法處才會有不同的異熟果報。又可以理解為，這些業也平等地包括了生等（Utpāda， उत्पत्ति，產生）的果報。因為它們在感受上是相同的。其餘十處則不一定。如果進入無心定，就沒有意處（Manāyatana， मनायतन，意根）。如果生到上界，就一定沒有香處（Gandhāyatana， गन्दायतन，香塵）和味處（Rasāyatana， रसायतन，味塵）。如果生到無色界，也就沒有色處（Rūpāyatana， रूपायतन，色塵）和觸處（Spraṣṭavyāyatana， स्प्रष्टव्यायतन，觸塵）。這個意處、色處、香處、味處、觸處，有時雖然與命根等同時產生，但可能由不同的業力所感。比如人、天的命根等是由善業所感，而這五處可能是不善業所招。如果眼等五根，相對於命根等，無論在哪個趣（Gati， गति，去處），雖然一定是同性質的業力所感，但眼等四根，如果在欲界，如果未獲得或已失去，就不能成就。如果生到無色界，眼等五根就完全不能成就。因為五色根、命根、眾同分是生處（Upapāduka，उपपादुक，化生）的根本，所以是同性質的業力所感。由於這些不確定性，所以這十處並非一定是同感果報。

如果感受意處，乃至應當知道也是如此。如果感受意處，一定會感受兩個處，即意處和法處。法處指的是與意處同時生起的心所（Caitasika，चैतसिक，心所法）以及生等法。其餘九處則不一定。眼等四根如果生在欲界，如果未獲得或已失去，就不能成就。如果生到**界，就沒有香處和味處。如果生到無色界，其餘九處就完全沒有。這九處有時雖然與意處同時存在，但可能由不同的業力所感。所以感受意處，不一定感受它們。如果感受觸處，一定會感受觸處和法處，法處指的是生等。其餘九處不一定。眼等四根如果生在欲界，如果未獲得或已失去，就不能成就。意處如果進入無心定，就沒有。香處和味處在上界就沒有。這九處有時雖然與觸處同時存在，但可能由不同的業力所感。所以即使感受觸處時，身體和色處同時存在，也可能由不同的業力所感。所以感受觸處，不一定能感受那九處。

如果感受身處，乃至應當知道也是如此。如果感受身處，一定會感受三個處，即身處、觸處、法處。觸處指的是能造的四大（Mahābhūta，महाभूत，四大種）。法處指的是生等。其餘八處不一定。眼等四處相對於身處，雖然是同一業力所感，但如果生在欲界，如果未獲得或已失去，就不能成就。意處如果進入無心定，就沒有。這個意處有時也與身處同時存在，但可能由不同的業力所感。

【English Translation】 English version Separate Karma. These karmas only have different Vipāka (विपाक, result) at the Dharma-āyatana (धर्मायतन, sphere of ideas). It can also be understood that these karmas equally include the results of Utpāda (उत्पाद, arising) and so on, because they are the same in feeling. The remaining ten āyatanas (आयतन, sense-fields) are not certain. If one enters a state of no-mind, there is no Manāyatana (मनायतन, mind-sphere). If one is born in the upper realms, there is definitely no Gandhāyatana (गन्दायतन, sphere of smell) and Rasāyatana (रसायतन, sphere of taste). If one is born in the Arūpadhātu (अरूपधातु, formless realm), there is also no Rūpāyatana (रूपायतन, sphere of form) and Spraṣṭavyāyatana (स्प्रष्टव्यायतन, sphere of touch). These Manāyatana, Rūpāyatana, Gandhāyatana, Rasāyatana, and Spraṣṭavyāyatana, although sometimes arising simultaneously with the Jīvitindriya (जीवितेन्द्रिय, life faculty) and so on, may be felt due to different karmic forces. For example, the Jīvitindriya of humans and Devas (देव, gods) is felt due to good karma, while these five āyatanas may be summoned by unwholesome karma. If the five sense organs such as the eye, relative to the Jīvitindriya and so on, although in whatever Gati (गति, destination), they are certainly felt by the same kind of karma, but the four sense organs such as the eye, if in the Kāmadhātu (कामधातु, desire realm), if not obtained or already lost, cannot be accomplished. If born in the Arūpadhātu, the five sense organs such as the eye cannot be accomplished at all. Because the five Rūpa (रूप, form) sense organs, Jīvitindriya, and Nikāyasabhāga (निकायसभाग, community of beings) are the root of Upapāduka (उपपादुक, spontaneous birth), they are felt by the same kind of karma. Due to these uncertainties, these ten āyatanas are not necessarily felt by the same karma.

If one feels the Manāyatana, and so on, it should also be known to be the same. If one feels the Manāyatana, one will definitely feel two āyatanas, namely the Manāyatana and the Dharma-āyatana. Dharma-āyatana refers to the Citta (चित्त, mind) that arises simultaneously with the Manāyatana, as well as the Dharma (धर्म, phenomena) of Utpāda and so on. The remaining nine āyatanas are not certain. If the four sense organs such as the eye are born in the Kāmadhātu, if not obtained or already lost, they cannot be accomplished. If born in the ** realm, there is no Gandhāyatana and Rasāyatana. If born in the Arūpadhātu, the remaining nine āyatanas are completely absent. These nine āyatanas, although sometimes existing simultaneously with the Manāyatana, may be felt by different karmic forces. Therefore, feeling the Manāyatana does not necessarily mean feeling them. If one feels the Spraṣṭavyāyatana, one will definitely feel the Spraṣṭavyāyatana and the Dharma-āyatana. Dharma-āyatana refers to Utpāda and so on. The remaining nine āyatanas are not certain. If the four sense organs such as the eye are born in the Kāmadhātu, if not obtained or already lost, they cannot be accomplished. If the Manāyatana enters a state of no-mind, it does not exist. The Gandhāyatana and Rasāyatana are absent in the upper realms. These nine āyatanas, although sometimes existing simultaneously with the Spraṣṭavyāyatana, may be felt by different karmic forces. Therefore, even when feeling the Spraṣṭavyāyatana, the body and Rūpāyatana may exist simultaneously, but may be felt by different karmic forces. Therefore, feeling the Spraṣṭavyāyatana does not necessarily mean feeling those nine āyatanas.

If one feels the Kāyāyatana (कायायतन, body sphere), and so on, it should also be known to be the same. If one feels the Kāyāyatana, one will definitely feel three āyatanas, namely the Kāyāyatana, the Spraṣṭavyāyatana, and the Dharma-āyatana. Spraṣṭavyāyatana refers to the four Mahābhūta (महाभूत, great elements) that can be created. Dharma-āyatana refers to Utpāda and so on. The remaining eight āyatanas are not certain. Although the four āyatanas such as the eye, relative to the Kāyāyatana, are felt by the same karma, if born in the Kāmadhātu, if not obtained or already lost, they cannot be accomplished. If the Manāyatana enters a state of no-mind, it does not exist. This Manāyatana sometimes also exists simultaneously with the Kāyāyatana, but may be felt by different karmic forces.

感。香．味上界即無。在欲感身。雖香．味俱容別業感。能感身處。雖定色俱容別業感故。感身處非定感彼八　問如正理十六云。若感身處定感四處。謂身色處．觸處．法處。彼論何故感身。亦感色耶　解云此論據感身所造。亦感觸中能造四大。以親近故必同業感。色望身根雖必俱起。非親近故容別業感。故非定感。正理據感身定感色者。以色定與身俱通欲．色界故。故感身時亦定感色　若爾感色應亦感身　不爾。身處是生本故感身亦感色。同業感故。色非生本。故感色非定感身。容別業感故。此即兩論各據一義　又解俱舍為正。同婆沙初師說故。餘論又無此說。若不相離即感彼者。感色之時應亦感身。明知非正。若感色．香．味應知亦爾。各定感三。自名為一。各加觸．法。言別說者。若感色處定感色．觸．法處。餘八不定。眼等四處若生欲界未得．已失即不成故。意處。入無心定即無有故。香．味上界無故。此七有時雖與色俱容別業感。雖感色處定與身俱容別業感。故感色處但定感三。餘八不定。若感香處定感香．觸．法處。餘八不定。眼等四處．及意處如前釋。此五在欲。雖亦有時與香處俱容別業感。雖感香時定與身．色．味俱容別業感。故感香處定感三處。餘八不定。若感味處定感味．觸．法處。餘八不定。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本感（Vedanā）。香、味在上界（指色界和無色界）即沒有。在欲界感受身觸，雖然香、味都可能因個別的業力而感受，但能感受身觸的地方，雖然定境和色界都可能因個別的業力而感受，所以感受身觸的地方，並非一定感受那八處（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、意、色、香、味）。問：如《正理經》（Nyāyakośa）第十六說，如果感受身觸，一定感受四處，即身處、色處、觸處、法處。該論為何感受身觸，也感受色處呢？答：解釋說，此論是根據感受身觸所造的色，也感受觸中能造的四大（地、水、火、風），因為親近的緣故必定是同業所感。色相對於身根，雖然必定同時生起，但因為不是親近的緣故，可能因個別的業力而感受，所以不是一定感受。而《正理經》認為感受身觸一定感受色處，是因為色處一定與身觸共同存在於欲界，所以感受身觸時也一定感受色處。問：如果這樣，感受色處也應該感受身觸？答：不是這樣。身處是生命的根本，所以感受身觸也感受色處，因為是同業所感。色處不是生命的根本，所以感受色處並非一定感受身觸，可能因個別的業力而感受。這即是兩部論典各自根據一個義理。又解釋說，《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa）是正確的，因為它與《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）初期的說法一致。其他論典沒有這種說法。如果不是互相分離就感受對方，那麼感受色處的時候也應該感受身觸，明顯知道這種說法是不正確的。如果感受色、香、味，應該知道也是這樣，各自一定感受三種（即自身、觸、法），自身名為一，各自加上觸、法。說『分別說』是指，如果感受色處，一定感受色、觸、法處，其餘八處不一定。眼等四處，如果生在欲界，未獲得或已失去，就不能成立。意處，進入無心定（Asamjñāsamāpatti）就沒有。香、味在上界沒有。這七處有時雖然與色處共同存在，但可能因個別的業力而感受。雖然感受色處，一定與身處共同存在，但可能因個別的業力而感受。所以感受色處，只一定感受三種，其餘八處不一定。如果感受香處，一定感受香、觸、法處，其餘八處不一定。眼等四處以及意處的解釋如前。這五處在欲界，雖然有時也與香處共同存在，但可能因個別的業力而感受。雖然感受香處，一定與身、色、味共同存在，但可能因個別的業力而感受。所以感受香處，一定感受三種，其餘八處不一定。如果感受味處，一定感受味、觸、法處，其餘八處不一定。

【English Translation】 English version Feeling (Vedanā). Scents and tastes do not exist in the upper realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm). In the Desire Realm, when experiencing bodily sensations, although scents and tastes may be experienced due to individual karma, the place where bodily sensations are experienced, although both meditative states and the Form Realm may be experienced due to individual karma, therefore, the place where bodily sensations are experienced does not necessarily involve those eight places (referring to eye, ear, nose, tongue, mind, form, scent, taste). Question: As stated in the Nyāyakośa, sixteenth section, if bodily sensations are experienced, four places are necessarily experienced, namely the body place, form place, touch place, and dharma place. Why does that treatise state that when bodily sensations are experienced, the form place is also experienced? Answer: The explanation is that this treatise is based on the form created by experiencing bodily sensations, and also experiences the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) that can create touch, because of their proximity, they must be experienced due to the same karma. Although form arises simultaneously with the body faculty, it may be experienced due to individual karma because it is not proximate, so it is not necessarily experienced. The Nyāyakośa considers that experiencing bodily sensations necessarily involves experiencing the form place because the form place necessarily coexists with bodily sensations in the Desire Realm, so when bodily sensations are experienced, the form place is also necessarily experienced. Question: If that's the case, should experiencing the form place also involve experiencing bodily sensations? Answer: It is not so. The body place is the root of life, so experiencing bodily sensations also involves experiencing the form place, because they are experienced due to the same karma. The form place is not the root of life, so experiencing the form place does not necessarily involve experiencing bodily sensations, it may be experienced due to individual karma. This is because the two treatises are each based on a different principle. Another explanation is that the Abhidharmakośa is correct because it aligns with the early teachings of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Other treatises do not have this statement. If one experiences the other when they are not separate, then experiencing the form place should also involve experiencing bodily sensations, it is clear that this statement is incorrect. If one experiences form, scent, and taste, it should be understood that it is the same, each necessarily experiences three (namely itself, touch, and dharma), itself is named as one, and each is added with touch and dharma. 'Separate explanation' refers to, if one experiences the form place, one necessarily experiences the form, touch, and dharma places, the remaining eight places are not necessarily experienced. The four places of eye, etc., if born in the Desire Realm, and have not obtained or have already lost them, then they cannot be established. The mind place, when entering the Asamjñāsamāpatti (unconscious attainment), does not exist. Scents and tastes do not exist in the upper realms. These seven places sometimes coexist with the form place, but may be experienced due to individual karma. Although one experiences the form place, one necessarily coexists with the body place, but may be experienced due to individual karma. Therefore, experiencing the form place only necessarily involves experiencing three, the remaining eight are not necessarily experienced. If one experiences the scent place, one necessarily experiences the scent, touch, and dharma places, the remaining eight are not necessarily experienced. The explanation for the four places of eye, etc., and the mind place is as before. These five places in the Desire Realm, although sometimes coexist with the scent place, may be experienced due to individual karma. Although one experiences the scent place, one necessarily coexists with body, form, and taste, but may be experienced due to individual karma. Therefore, experiencing the scent place necessarily involves experiencing three, the remaining eight are not necessarily experienced. If one experiences the taste place, one necessarily experiences the taste, touch, and dharma places, the remaining eight are not necessarily experienced.

準香應釋。

若感眼處至應知亦爾者。若感眼處定感眼處．身處．觸處．法處。如前釋。餘七不定。耳．鼻．舌三雖同業感若生欲界未得．已失即不成故。香．味二處上界即無。意處若入無心即無。此香．味．意。有時雖與眼處俱生容別業感。色雖定與眼俱容別業感。故感眼處定感四處。餘七不定。耳．鼻．舌三準眼應釋　問若依正理論。感眼等四處各定感五處加色處。何故此論不定感色　解云此論不說色。彼論說感色。各據一義。如身處中釋　又解俱舍為正。同婆沙初說。撿尋婆沙全無此說。當知是彼正理論師自所分別。若不相離即感彼者。彼說感色應亦感身。既不感身故說非理。

有業能感至諾瞿陀等者。感五處乃至十一。隨其所應。任業勢力所感之果多少不定。所以者何。業或少果。或多果故。如外種果或少．或多　種所生果少者。如谷．麥等一種一年收。又根．莖等少。又一房唯一子。名種．果少　種所生果多者。如蓮．石榴．諾瞿陀樹等。一種多年收。又根．莖等多。又一房有多子。名種果多　又解於十一處若展轉相望。親強勝者。隨感此處亦定感余。故定感一乃至定感四。若展轉相望非親強者。雖有俱時而非定感　問何故蘊約因明。處約果顯　解云五蘊皆能為因故約因辨。十二處多分不能為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：準香應釋。

若感眼處至應知亦爾者。若感眼處定感眼處（視覺器官）．身處（身體）．觸處（觸覺）．法處（意識對像）。如前釋。餘七不定。耳（聽覺器官）．鼻（嗅覺器官）．舌（味覺器官）三雖同業感若生欲界未得．已失即不成故。香（氣味）．味（味道）二處上界即無。意處（意識）若入無心即無。此香．味．意。有時雖與眼處俱生容別業感。色（顏色）雖定與眼俱容別業感。故感眼處定感四處。餘七不定。耳．鼻．舌三準眼應釋　問若依正理論。感眼等四處各定感五處加色處。何故此論不定感色　解云此論不說色。彼論說感色。各據一義。如身處中釋　又解俱舍為正。同婆沙初說。撿尋婆沙全無此說。當知是彼正理論師自所分別。若不相離即感彼者。彼說感色應亦感身。既不感身故說非理。

有業能感至諾瞿陀等者。感五處乃至十一。隨其所應。任業勢力所感之果多少不定。所以者何。業或少果。或多果故。如外種果或少．或多　種所生果少者。如谷．麥等一種一年收。又根．莖等少。又一房唯一子。名種．果少　種所生果多者。如蓮．石榴．諾瞿陀樹等。一種多年收。又根．莖等多。又一房有多子。名種果多　又解於十一處若展轉相望。親強勝者。隨感此處亦定感余。故定感一乃至定感四。若展轉相望非親強者。雖有俱時而非定感　問何故蘊約因明。處約果顯　解云五蘊皆能為因故約因辨。十二處多分不能為

【English Translation】 English version: Explanation of 'Fragrance' accordingly.

If the sense-sphere of eye is felt, then it should be known that it is also the same. If the sense-sphere of eye is felt, then the sense-sphere of eye (visual organ), the sense-sphere of body (body), the sense-sphere of touch (tactile sensation), and the sense-sphere of dharma (objects of consciousness) are definitely felt. As explained before, the remaining seven are uncertain. The three, ear (auditory organ), nose (olfactory organ), and tongue (gustatory organ), although felt by the same karma, if born in the desire realm and not yet attained or already lost, then it will not be formed. The two sense-spheres of fragrance (smell) and taste (flavor) do not exist in the upper realms. The sense-sphere of mind (consciousness) does not exist if entering a state of no-mind. These fragrance, taste, and mind, although sometimes arising together with the sense-sphere of eye, may be felt by separate karma. Color (appearance), although definitely together with the eye, may be felt by separate karma. Therefore, feeling the sense-sphere of eye definitely feels four sense-spheres. The remaining seven are uncertain. The three, ear, nose, and tongue, should be explained according to the eye. Question: If according to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, feeling the four sense-spheres of eye, etc., definitely feels five sense-spheres plus the sense-sphere of color, why does this treatise not definitely feel color? Explanation: This treatise does not speak of color. That treatise speaks of feeling color, each based on one meaning, as explained in the sense-sphere of body. Another explanation: the Abhidharmakośa is correct, the same as the initial explanation in the Mahāvibhāṣā. Examining the Mahāvibhāṣā, there is no such explanation at all. It should be known that this is the distinction made by the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra masters themselves. If not separate, then feeling that also feels this, then that says feeling color should also feel body. Since it does not feel body, therefore the statement is unreasonable.

Some karma can feel up to the Nyagrodha tree, etc. Feeling five sense-spheres up to eleven, as appropriate. Depending on the power of karma, the amount of fruit felt is uncertain. Why is this so? Because karma may have few fruits or many fruits, like external seeds producing few or many fruits. Seeds producing few fruits are like grains and wheat, etc., one planting yields one harvest per year, and the roots and stems are few, and one pod has only one seed, called seed with few fruits. Seeds producing many fruits are like lotus, pomegranate, Nyagrodha tree, etc., one planting yields harvests for many years, and the roots and stems are many, and one pod has many seeds, called seed with many fruits. Another explanation: among the eleven sense-spheres, if looking at each other, those that are closely related and strong, then feeling this sense-sphere definitely feels the others. Therefore, definitely feeling one up to definitely feeling four. If looking at each other, those that are not closely related and strong, although they exist at the same time, are not definitely felt. Question: Why are the aggregates explained in terms of cause, and the sense-spheres explained in terms of effect? Explanation: Because the five aggregates can all be causes, therefore they are explained in terms of cause. The twelve sense-spheres mostly cannot be causes.

因。故約果明。以十一處皆容為果故　問如婆沙十九云。複次有業唯受一處異熟。謂得命根．眾同分業。彼業唯受法處異熟。有業唯受二處異熟。謂得意處業。彼業唯受意處．法處異熟。得觸處業亦受二處異熟。謂觸處．法處。得身處業受三處異熟。謂身處．觸處．法處。得色．香．味處業亦爾。各受自處．觸處．法處．異熟。得眼處業受四處異熟。謂眼處．身處．觸處．法處。得耳．鼻．舌．處業亦爾。謂各受自處．身處．觸處．法處異熟。有餘師說。一切大種皆生色．聲。欲界諸色不離香．味。彼作是說。得眼處業受七處異熟。眼處．身處及色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得耳．鼻．舌處業亦爾。謂各受自處．身處．及色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得身處業受六處異熟。謂身處．及色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得色處業受五處異熟。謂色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得香．味．觸．處業亦爾。謂各受色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。如是所說是定得者。不定得者。其數不定。然有業能受八處異熟。有業能受九處異熟。有業能受十處異熟。有業能受十一處異熟。皆除聲處。

準婆沙文更有餘師說。定感五．六．七不同如何會釋。何者為正　解云此論及婆沙前師意。定感一．二．三．四。感不定中言感五．六．七．八．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因。因此，通過結果來闡明原因。因為十一個處（ayatana）都可能成為結果。問：如《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第十九卷所說：『複次，有業（karma）只在一個處（ayatana）接受異熟（vipaka），即獲得命根（jivitendriya）、眾同分（nikayasabhaga）之業。此業只在法處（dhammayatana）接受異熟。有業只在兩個處接受異熟，即獲得意處（manayatana）之業。此業只在意處、法處接受異熟。獲得觸處（sprastavyayatana）之業也在兩個處接受異熟，即觸處、法處。獲得身處（kayayatana）之業在三個處接受異熟，即身處、觸處、法處。獲得色處（rupayatana）、香處（gandhayatana）、味處（rasayatana）之業也是如此，各自在自處、觸處、法處接受異熟。獲得眼處（caksuayatana）之業在四個處接受異熟，即眼處、身處、觸處、法處。獲得耳處（srotayatana）、鼻處（ghranayatana）、舌處（jihvayatana）之業也是如此，各自在自處、身處、觸處、法處接受異熟。』有其他論師說：『一切大種（mahabhuta）都產生色（rupa）、聲（sabda）。欲界（kamadhatu）的諸色（rupa）不離香（gandha）、味（rasa）。』他們這樣說：『獲得眼處之業在七個處接受異熟，即眼處、身處以及色、香、味、觸（sprastavya）、法處。獲得耳、鼻、舌處之業也是如此，各自在自處、身處以及色、香、味、觸、法處接受異熟。獲得身處之業在六個處接受異熟，即身處以及色、香、味、觸、法處。獲得色處之業在五個處接受異熟，即色、香、味、觸、法處。獲得香、味、觸處之業也是如此，各自在色、香、味、觸、法處接受異熟。』如此所說是確定獲得的。不確定獲得的，其數量不確定。然而有業能夠接受八個處的異熟，有業能夠接受九個處的異熟，有業能夠接受十個處的異熟，有業能夠接受十一個處的異熟，都除去聲處。根據《婆沙論》的說法，還有其他論師說，確定感受五、六、七種異熟的不同，應該如何解釋？哪種說法是正確的？解答：此論以及《婆沙論》中前一位論師的觀點是，確定感受一、二、三、四種異熟。在不確定的感受中，說感受五、六、七、八種異熟。

【English Translation】 English version: Cause. Therefore, the cause is clarified through the result. Because all eleven ayatanas (spheres of sense) can be the result. Question: As stated in the Vibhasa, volume 19: 'Furthermore, there is karma that receives its vipaka (result) in only one ayatana, namely the karma that obtains jivitendriya (faculty of life), nikayasabhaga (community of beings). This karma receives its vipaka only in the dharmayatana (sphere of ideas). There is karma that receives its vipaka in only two ayatanas, namely the karma that obtains manayatana (sphere of mind). This karma receives its vipaka only in the manayatana and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains sprastavyayatana (sphere of touch) also receives its vipaka in two ayatanas, namely the sprastavyayatana and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains kayayatana (sphere of body) receives its vipaka in three ayatanas, namely the kayayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains rupayatana (sphere of form), gandhayatana (sphere of smell), rasayatana (sphere of taste) is also the same, each receiving its vipaka in its own ayatana, the sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains caksuayatana (sphere of eye) receives its vipaka in four ayatanas, namely the caksuayatana, kayayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains srotayatana (sphere of ear), ghranayatana (sphere of nose), jihvayatana (sphere of tongue) is also the same, each receiving its vipaka in its own ayatana, the kayayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana.' Other teachers say: 'All mahabhutas (great elements) produce rupa (form), sabda (sound). The rupas (forms) of the kamadhatu (desire realm) are inseparable from gandha (smell), rasa (taste).' They say this: 'The karma that obtains caksuayatana receives its vipaka in seven ayatanas, namely the caksuayatana, kayayatana, and the rupayatana, gandhayatana, rasayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains the srotayatana, ghranayatana, jihvayatana is also the same, each receiving its vipaka in its own ayatana, the kayayatana, and the rupayatana, gandhayatana, rasayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains kayayatana receives its vipaka in six ayatanas, namely the kayayatana, and the rupayatana, gandhayatana, rasayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains rupayatana receives its vipaka in five ayatanas, namely the rupayatana, gandhayatana, rasayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana. The karma that obtains gandhayatana, rasayatana, sprastavyayatana is also the same, each receiving its vipaka in the rupayatana, gandhayatana, rasayatana, sprastavyayatana, and dharmayatana.' What is said in this way is what is definitely obtained. For what is not definitely obtained, the number is uncertain. However, there is karma that can receive the vipaka of eight ayatanas, there is karma that can receive the vipaka of nine ayatanas, there is karma that can receive the vipaka of ten ayatanas, there is karma that can receive the vipaka of eleven ayatanas, all excluding the sabdayatana (sphere of sound). According to the Vibhasa, there are other teachers who say that the difference in definitely experiencing five, six, or seven vipakas, how should it be explained? Which statement is correct? Answer: The view of this treatise and the previous teacher in the Vibhasa is that one definitely experiences one, two, three, or four vipakas. In uncertain experiences, it is said that one experiences five, six, seven, or eight vipakas.

九．十．十一。婆沙余師說感五．六．七亦是定感為異。彼師意說以色．香．味．觸．法定不相離故。感眼等四各定感七。感身定感六。感色．香．味．觸各定感五。於二說中。此論．及婆沙初說為正。余師非正。其義云何。一即定感一．二．三．四處。婆沙與俱舍同。又雜心行品亦同此論。並無異說。二即婆沙言感五．六．七者。是余師不正義。既言一切大種皆生色．聲。明知非是正義。三即理破。若言定不相離即感。彼者應無感五。以感色．香．味．觸時身必俱故。定不相離。應亦感身。若言身望色等不同業感者。感彼身時寧感色等。以此故知。此論．及婆沙初師為正　問若五．六．七是不定。何故婆沙前師不別說耶　解云理應說在不定。而不別標者以余師說在定中。異說不同略不別顯。準俱舍文不定攝故　泰法師解俱舍云。感觸處感二處及感三處．四處。並是不正義。余感一處感二處及感五處已去。此是正義。法師大意同婆沙余師義。約不相離以解。如前徴破　又解婆沙前．后兩師各據一義。前家據定同性業感體必俱有者說。后師據不相離者說。而言感色等不說感身等者。以五色根是生處本故。感彼兼感色等。以色等非是生處本故。感彼色等不必感身等。若作此解。俱舍意或感五．六．七。亦分同婆沙余師。以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本九．十．十一。婆沙余師說，感受五、六、七種法也是確定的感受，因為它們是不同的。那位老師的意思是說，因為色（rūpa，顏色、形狀）、香（gandha，氣味）、味（rasa，味道）、觸（sparśa，觸覺）四種法是不能互相分離的。所以，眼等四根各自確定地感受七種法。感受身根確定地感受六種法。感受色、香、味、觸各自確定地感受五種法。在這兩種說法中，此論（指《阿毗達摩俱舍論》）以及《婆沙論》最初的說法是正確的，其他老師的說法是不正確的。其道理是什麼呢？第一，確定地感受一、二、三、四處，這方面《婆沙論》與《俱舍論》相同。而且《雜心論》的行品也與此論相同，並沒有不同的說法。第二，就是《婆沙論》所說的感受五、六、七種法，是其他老師不正確的觀點。既然說一切大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）都產生色、聲，就明顯知道這不是正確的觀點。第三，就是用道理來破斥。如果說因為確定不能分離所以就感受，那麼應該沒有感受五種法的情況，因為在感受色、香、味、觸的時候，身根必定同時存在，確定不能分離，就應該也感受身根。如果說身根與色等不同，是因為業感不同，那麼在感受那個身根的時候，難道會感受色等嗎？因為這個緣故，就知道此論以及《婆沙論》最初的老師是正確的。問：如果五、六、七種法是不確定的，為什麼《婆沙論》之前的老師不另外說明呢？答：道理上應該說是不確定的，但是沒有另外標明，是因為其他老師說是在確定的情況中，不同的說法略有不同，所以沒有特別顯示。按照《俱舍論》的文義，包含在不確定的情況中。泰法師解釋《俱舍論》說，感受觸處、感受二處以及感受三處、四處，這些都是不正確的觀點。其餘的感受一處、感受二處以及感受五處以上，這些是正確的觀點。法師的大意與《婆沙論》其他老師的觀點相同，都是根據不能分離來解釋。如同前面所徵詢和破斥的。又解釋《婆沙論》前後兩位老師各自根據一個道理。前一位老師根據確定、同性、業感、本體必定同時存在的情況來說。后一位老師根據不能分離的情況來說。說感受色等，而不說感受身等，是因為五色根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）是產生之處的根本。感受它們就兼帶感受色等。因為色等不是產生之處的根本，感受那些色等，不一定感受身等。如果這樣解釋，《俱舍論》的意思或許感受五、六、七種法，也部分地與《婆沙論》其他老師相同。因為

【English Translation】 English version 9. 10. 11. The remaining teachers of the Vibhāṣā (commentary on Abhidharma) say that the sensation of five, six, or seven dharmas is also a definite sensation because they are different. The meaning of that teacher is that because rūpa (form, color, shape), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), and sparśa (touch) are inseparable, the four faculties of eye, etc., each definitely sense seven dharmas. The sensation of the body faculty definitely senses six dharmas. The sensation of rūpa, gandha, rasa, and sparśa each definitely senses five dharmas. Among these two views, this treatise (referring to the Abhidharmakośa) and the initial view of the Vibhāṣā are correct, while the views of other teachers are incorrect. What is the reason? First, the definite sensation of one, two, three, or four places is the same in the Vibhāṣā and the Kośa (Abhidharmakośa). Moreover, the 'Action' chapter of the Tattvasaṃgraha (Compendium of Categories) is also the same as this treatise, with no different views. Second, the Vibhāṣā's statement about sensing five, six, or seven dharmas is the incorrect view of other teachers. Since it is said that all mahābhūta (great elements: earth, water, fire, wind) produce rūpa and sound, it is clear that this is not the correct view. Third, it is refuted by reason. If it is said that because they are definitely inseparable, they are sensed, then there should be no sensation of five dharmas, because when sensing rūpa, gandha, rasa, and sparśa, the body faculty must be present simultaneously, definitely inseparable, and the body faculty should also be sensed. If it is said that the body faculty is different from rūpa, etc., because the karmic sensation is different, then when sensing that body faculty, would rūpa, etc., be sensed? For this reason, it is known that this treatise and the initial teacher of the Vibhāṣā are correct. Question: If five, six, or seven dharmas are indefinite, why didn't the previous teacher of the Vibhāṣā explain it separately? Answer: In principle, it should be said that it is indefinite, but it was not specifically indicated because other teachers said it was in the definite situation. The different views are slightly different, so it was not specifically shown. According to the meaning of the Kośa, it is included in the indefinite situation. Master Tai explained the Kośa by saying that sensing the touch place, sensing two places, and sensing three or four places are all incorrect views. The remaining sensing of one place, sensing two places, and sensing five or more places are correct views. The main idea of the master is the same as the view of other teachers of the Vibhāṣā, which is explained based on inseparability, as inquired and refuted earlier. Another explanation is that the former and latter teachers of the Vibhāṣā each based their views on a principle. The former teacher based it on the situation where definiteness, homogeneity, karmic sensation, and the essence must be present simultaneously. The latter teacher based it on the situation of inseparability. Saying that sensing rūpa, etc., but not sensing the body, etc., is because the five sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are the root of the place of production. Sensing them also includes sensing rūpa, etc. Because rūpa, etc., are not the root of the place of production, sensing those rūpa, etc., does not necessarily include sensing the body, etc. If explained in this way, the meaning of the Kośa may be that sensing five, six, or seven dharmas is also partially the same as other teachers of the Vibhāṣā. Because

五．六．七異說不同。故此論文不別顯說。

有一世業至如上應知者。此即約世．念明果多．因少　有一世業三世異熟。此約小三世。如現在一念造現受業名一世業。業所感果若已落謝名過去異熟。若續現前名現在異熟。若未起者名未來異熟。無三世業共感一世異熟　勿設劬勞果減因故。有一念造業感多念異熟果。無多念造業感一念異熟果。勿設劬勞果減因故。前約世顯。后約念明。大意雖同門差別說　又解世約大三世。念約剎那　問多剎那造業。同感一剎那中各別果。是即有多剎那感一剎那中果。云何乃言無多念業一念受耶　解云此顯無有多念造業同受一念中一果。明果不減因。不遮多念造業一剎那中受各別果　問如菩薩百劫修相好異熟業。同一身受。豈不因多．果少　解云感佛身相用最勝業。多時修習引起最後勝業現前能感佛身殊勝異熟。前劣非感。于義何違。若不爾者定有因多．果少　又解雖百劫造同一身受。然所感相異熟極微。剎那前．后各各不同。非百劫業共感一果。非俱有因故。

然異熟果至方能辨故者。顯果與因非俱．無間要因相續　然異熟果無與業俱。非此念造時即此念受果。故不但與因俱　亦非無間生。由次剎那在生相法。是現等無間緣力所引故。非是異熟因力　又解亦非無間。第一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本五．六．七異說不同。因此，本文不單獨詳細說明。

有一種『一世業』，其道理如上所述應該知曉。這是從『世』（時間段）的角度來說，說明果報多，因少。有一種『一世業』，產生『三世異熟』（果報在過去、現在、未來三世顯現）。這是從小三世的角度來說。比如，現在一念造作，立即感受果報的業，稱為『一世業』。業所感得的果報，如果已經過去，稱為『過去異熟』；如果繼續顯現，稱為『現在異熟』；如果尚未產生，稱為『未來異熟』。不存在多個『三世業』共同感得一個『一世異熟』的情況。不要認為努力付出，果報反而減少，因為果報不會少於因。

有一種『一念』造業，感得多『念』的異熟果報。沒有多『念』造業，感得一『念』的異熟果報的情況。不要認為努力付出，果報反而減少，因為果報不會少於因。前面是從『世』的角度來說明，後面是從『念』的角度來說明。大意相同，只是說法不同。

另一種解釋是，『世』指的是大三世，『念』指的是剎那（極短的時間）。有人問：多個剎那造業，共同感得一個剎那中各自不同的果報，這就是多個剎那感得一個剎那中的果報。為什麼說沒有多個『念』的業感得一個『念』的果報呢？解釋說：這是說明沒有多個『念』造業，共同感受一個『念』中的一個果報。說明果報不會少於因。但不排除多個『念』造業，在一個剎那中感受各自不同的果報。有人問：比如菩薩用百劫的時間修習相好（殊勝的容貌和特徵）的異熟業，在同一個身體上感受果報，難道不是因多果少嗎？解釋說：感得佛身相好的最殊勝的業，需要長時間修習，才能引起最後殊勝的業顯現，從而感得佛身殊勝的異熟果報。之前的劣業不能感果。在道理上沒有違背。如果不是這樣，就一定存在因多果少的情況。

另一種解釋是，雖然用百劫的時間造業，在同一個身體上感受果報，但是所感得的相好異熟的極微細之處，在剎那前後各不相同。不是百劫的業共同感得一個果報，因為不是俱有因（同時存在的因）。

『然異熟果至方能辨故』，意思是說，果報與因不是同時產生，也不是無間斷產生，需要因相續不斷。異熟果不會與業同時產生。不是在這個念頭造業時，就在這個念頭感受果報。所以，果報不僅僅與因同時存在。也不是無間斷產生。因為下一個剎那處於生相法（正在產生的狀態），是由現等無間緣（立即相續的條件）的力量所引導，而不是異熟因的力量。另一種解釋是，也不是無間斷產生。第一

【English Translation】 English version V.6.7 Different Interpretations. Therefore, this treatise does not separately and explicitly explain this.

There is a 'one-lifetime karma' (eka-janmika-karma), as should be understood from the above. This refers to the perspective of 'lifetime' (world), clarifying that the result is more, and the cause is less. There is a 'one-lifetime karma' that matures into 'three-lifetime results' (tri-kāla-vipāka). This refers to the small three periods of time (past, present, future). For example, a karma created in a single moment in the present, which is immediately experienced, is called 'one-lifetime karma'. The result of the karma, if it has already passed, is called 'past maturation' (atīta-vipāka); if it continues to manifest, it is called 'present maturation' (pratyutpanna-vipāka); if it has not yet arisen, it is called 'future maturation' (anāgata-vipāka). There is no situation where multiple 'three-lifetime karmas' jointly produce one 'one-lifetime maturation'. Do not assume that effort is reduced, and the result is less, because the result will not be less than the cause.

There is a 'one-moment' (eka-kṣaṇa) of karma creation that produces the maturation results of many 'moments' (bahu-kṣaṇa). There is no situation where many 'moments' of karma creation produce the maturation result of one 'moment'. Do not assume that effort is reduced, and the result is less, because the result will not be less than the cause. The former explains from the perspective of 'lifetime', and the latter explains from the perspective of 'moment'. The general meaning is the same, but the explanations differ.

Another explanation is that 'lifetime' refers to the great three periods of time, and 'moment' refers to an instant (kṣaṇa). Someone asks: If multiple instants create karma, jointly producing different results in one instant, then this means that multiple instants produce results in one instant. Why do you say that there is no situation where the karma of multiple 'moments' experiences the result of one 'moment'? The explanation is: This clarifies that there is no situation where multiple 'moments' of karma creation jointly experience one result in one 'moment'. It clarifies that the result will not be less than the cause. But it does not exclude the possibility that multiple 'moments' of karma creation experience different results in one instant. Someone asks: For example, if a Bodhisattva cultivates the karma of the marks and characteristics (lakṣaṇa-vyañjana) of excellence for hundreds of kalpas (aeons), and experiences the results in the same body, isn't this a case of more cause and less result? The explanation is: To produce the most excellent karma of the marks and characteristics of a Buddha's body, it requires a long period of cultivation to bring forth the final excellent karma, which can then produce the excellent maturation result of a Buddha's body. The previous inferior karma cannot produce the result. There is no contradiction in meaning. If it were not so, there would definitely be a case of more cause and less result.

Another explanation is that although karma is created for hundreds of kalpas and experienced in the same body, the extremely subtle aspects of the maturation of the marks and characteristics are different in each moment before and after. It is not that the karma of hundreds of kalpas jointly produces one result, because they are not co-existent causes (sahabhū-hetu).

'The maturation result can only be distinguished when it arrives' means that the result and the cause are neither simultaneous nor uninterrupted; the cause needs to be continuous. The maturation result does not arise simultaneously with the karma. It is not that when karma is created in this moment, the result is experienced in this moment. Therefore, the result is not only simultaneous with the cause. It is also not produced without interruption. Because the next moment is in the state of arising (utpāda-dharma), it is guided by the power of the immediately contiguous condition (samanantara-pratyaya), not by the power of the maturation cause. Another explanation is that it is also not without interruption. The first

剎那造業已。由第二剎那為等無間緣力所引故。第三剎那其果方起。此文且約心．心所說。理實色等亦非無間　又解異熟果中。有是利者謂心．心所法。有是鈍者謂色．不相應行。若利者由次第二剎那等無間緣力所引故。第三剎那果起。若鈍者極疾猶須第三剎那力所引。第四剎那方現在前。此中且約極速疾者說故不言色等　又解此文亦顯色等。由次剎那力所引故。顯色等非無間。由次剎那等無間緣力所引故。顯心等非無間。又異熟因感異熟果難。必待相續方能辨果。非俱．無間。若依宗輪論。大眾部等末宗異義。業與異熟有俱時轉。

如是六因至非世者。此即第三約世分別。頌既不說能作因所居。義準應知通三世．非世。正理云不可說彼定時分故　頌中不說。

已說六因至對彼成因者。此下大文第二明因得果　就中。一總標果體。二對因配果。三別顯果相。四因取．與時　此下第一總標果體。已說六因體相差別約三世定　何等為果對彼成因。結前問起。

頌曰至無為無因果者。上句顯體。下句釋疑。果有二種。一有為果。謂異熟等流．士用．增上。二無為果。謂即離系。果有二義。一是所引。即有為果。為彼六因所引生故。二是所證。即離系果為道所證。道是證因非生因也。故六因不攝。餘二無為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：剎那間造作的業，由於第二個剎那作為等無間緣（anantarika-pratyaya，直接且無間隔的條件）的力量牽引，第三個剎那其果報才產生。這段話是就心（citta，意識）和心所（caitta，心理活動）而言的。實際上，色（rupa，物質）等也並非沒有間隔。另一種解釋是，在異熟果（vipaka-phala，成熟的果報）中，有些是敏銳的，比如心和心所法；有些是遲鈍的，比如色和不相應行（citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非物質也非心理的抽像概念）。如果是敏銳的，由於第二個剎那等無間緣的力量牽引，第三個剎那果報產生。如果是遲鈍的，即使是最快的速度，也需要第三個剎那的力量牽引，第四個剎那才顯現。這裡是就最快速的情況而言，所以沒有提到色等。還有一種解釋是，這段話也顯示了色等，由於下一個剎那的力量牽引，顯示了色等並非沒有間隔。由於下一個剎那等無間緣的力量牽引，顯示了心等並非沒有間隔。此外，異熟因（vipaka-hetu，導致異熟果的因）感生異熟果是困難的，必須等待相續（santana，連續性）才能辨別果報，不是同時或無間隔的。如果依照《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra）的說法，大眾部（Mahasanghika）等末宗的異義認為，業（karma，行為）與異熟（vipaka，果報）有同時運轉的情況。像這樣，六因（sad-hetu，六種原因）直到『非世』（lokottara，超世間）者。這第三點是關於世（loka，世界）的分別。頌（偈頌）既然沒有說能作因（karana-hetu，作用因）所處的位置，按照文義推斷，應該知道它貫通三世（過去、現在、未來）和非世。正理（Nyaya）說，不可說那個定時分（特定時間段），所以頌中沒有說。已經說了六因，直到『對彼成因者』。這以下的大段文字第二部分闡明因（hetu，原因）如何獲得果（phala，結果）。其中，一是總標果體（總體標示果的性質），二是對因配果（將因與果對應），三是別顯果相（分別顯示果的相狀），四是因取與時（因的獲取和時間）。這以下是第一部分，總體標示果的性質。已經說了六因的體相差別，並按照三世來確定。什麼才是果，才能對應於它成為因呢？這是總結前面的內容，提出疑問。頌說，直到『無為無因果者』。上句顯示果的體性，下句解釋疑問。果有兩種：一是有為果（samskrta-phala，有為的果），包括異熟、等流（nisyanda，相似的延續）、士用（purusakara，人的作用）、增上（adhipati，增上緣）。二是無為果（asamskrta-phala，無為的果），也就是離系（visamyoga，解脫）。果有兩種含義：一是所引（所牽引），即有為果，因為它們是被六因牽引而產生的。二是所證（所證得），即離系果，是被道（magga，道路）所證得的。道是證因（證明的原因），不是生因（產生的原因），所以六因不包括它。其餘兩種無為法（虛空和非擇滅）也不是果。

【English Translation】 English version: A karma created in a kshana (moment), due to the force of the second kshana as an anantarika-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition), its result arises only in the third kshana. This statement is made with respect to citta (mind, consciousness) and caitta (mental factors). In reality, rupa (form, matter) and other things are also not without interval. Another explanation is that, among vipaka-phala (result of maturation), some are sharp, such as citta and caitta dharmas; some are dull, such as rupa and citta-viprayukta-samskara (non-associated formations). If they are sharp, the result arises in the third kshana due to the force of the second kshana as an anantarika-pratyaya. If they are dull, even at the fastest speed, it still requires the force of the third kshana, and the fourth kshana manifests. Here, it is discussed in terms of the fastest speed, so rupa and other things are not mentioned. Another explanation is that this statement also shows that rupa and other things, due to the force of the next kshana, shows that rupa and other things are not without interval. Due to the force of the next kshana as an anantarika-pratyaya, it shows that citta and other things are not without interval. Furthermore, it is difficult for vipaka-hetu (cause of maturation) to produce vipaka-phala (result of maturation), and it must wait for santana (continuity) to discern the result, not simultaneously or without interval. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the dissenting views of the Mahasanghika and other later schools hold that karma (action) and vipaka (result) operate simultaneously. Like this, the six hetus (six causes) up to 'those who are lokottara (transcendental)'. This third point is about the distinction of loka (world). Since the sutra (verse) does not mention the location of karana-hetu (efficient cause), it should be understood that it pervades the three times (past, present, future) and the lokottara. The Nyaya (logic) says that the specific time period cannot be stated, so it is not mentioned in the sutra. Having spoken of the six hetus, up to 'those who become causes for them'. The second major section below explains how hetu (cause) obtains phala (result). Among them, first is the general indication of the nature of the result, second is the matching of causes to results, third is the separate manifestation of the characteristics of the result, and fourth is the obtaining of causes and time. The following is the first part, the general indication of the nature of the result. The differences in the nature and characteristics of the six hetus have been discussed, and they are determined according to the three times. What is the phala that can correspond to it to become a hetu? This is summarizing the previous content and raising a question. The sutra says, up to 'asamskrta (unconditioned) has no cause or result'. The first sentence shows the nature of the result, and the second sentence explains the doubt. There are two types of phala: first, samskrta-phala (conditioned result), including vipaka, nisyanda (resemblance, outflow), purusakara (human effort), and adhipati (dominance). Second, asamskrta-phala (unconditioned result), which is visamyoga (cessation, detachment). There are two meanings of phala: first, what is drawn, that is, samskrta-phala, because they are drawn and produced by the six hetus. Second, what is attained, that is, visamyoga-phala, which is attained by magga (path). The path is the cause of attainment, not the cause of production, so the six hetus do not include it. The other two asamskrta dharmas (space and nirodha-asamskrta) are also not results.

。不行世故非是所引果。無記性故非是所證果。恐疑無為是果應從因生。無為是因應能生果。故今釋言。無為雖是果證故名為果。非六因所生。不行世故。無為雖是因不障礙故名因。不得五果。非能證故不得無為果。無取．與故不得有為果。由此故言無為無因無果。舊翻云無為非因果。此大謬矣。

論曰至及與擇滅者。就長行中。一釋頌。二抉擇。此下釋頌。引本論釋上句。離系．擇滅一體二名。除縛所顯名為離系。由道得邊名為擇滅。故以擇滅釋離系也。

若爾無為至此為因故者。此下釋第二句。兩關徴責。于無為中唯擇滅名果。三無為俱名能作因。故顯宗第九云。是故擇滅是因無果。是果無因。餘二無為是因非果。無因無果理極成立　又正理十八云。有法能為一因性者。謂無為法。無法非因有法非果。所謂虛空．及非擇滅。

唯有為法至無五果故者。答。唯有為法。有六因有五果。非諸無為。所以者何。無為體常無六因生故。無得五果故。

何緣不許至為能作因者。問。無間道應名能作因。

于生不障至道何所作者。答。無為常故。道非能作。

若爾誰果果義如何者。一問誰果。二問果義。

謂是道果道力得故者。答　謂是道果。答初問　道力得故者。答第二問。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不行世故，並非是六因所引之果。無記性故，並非是所證之果。恐怕有人懷疑無為法是果，應該從因產生；或者無為法是因，應該能產生果。所以現在解釋說，無為法雖然是果，因為是證得的緣故，所以名為果，但不是六因所生，所以說『不行世故』。無為法雖然是因，因為不障礙的緣故，所以名為因，但不得五果，因為不能證得的緣故，所以不得無為果；因為沒有取和與的緣故，所以不得有為果。因此說無為法無因無果。舊譯本說無為法非因非果，這是大錯特錯的。

論中說『及與擇滅者』，就長行文中，一是解釋頌文，二是抉擇。下面是解釋頌文，引用本論解釋上句。離系（Vimoksha，解脫）和擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅）是一體二名。去除束縛所顯現的，名為離系；由道（marga，道路，方法）所得的邊際，名為擇滅。所以用擇滅來解釋離系。

如果這樣，在無為法中，只有擇滅名為果，三種無為法都名為能作因。所以《顯宗論》第九卷說：『因此，擇滅是因無果，是果無因。其餘兩種無為法是因非果，無因無果的道理非常成立。』又《正理經》第十八卷說：『有法能夠作為一種因性的，就是無為法。沒有法不是因，有法不是果，所說的就是虛空（akasa，空間）和非擇滅（apratisankhya-nirodha，非由智慧抉擇而達到的滅）。』

只有有為法有六因有五果，不是所有的無為法都有。為什麼呢？因為無為法的體性是常恒的，沒有六因產生，所以沒有五果。

為什麼不允許無間道（anantarya-marga，無間道，直接證悟真諦的道路）作為能作因呢？

回答：無為法是常恒的，道不能對它起作用。

如果是這樣，那麼是誰的果？果的意義是什麼呢？一問是誰的果，二問果的意義。

回答：是道的果，因為是道力所得到的。回答第一個問題。因為是道力所得到的，回答第二個問題。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not acting according to worldly affairs' means it is not a result derived from the six causes. 'Because of its indeterminate nature' means it is not a result that is realized. Fearing the doubt that unconditioned (asamskrta, not produced by causes and conditions) is a result and should arise from a cause, or that unconditioned is a cause and should be able to produce a result, therefore, it is now explained that although unconditioned is a result, it is named a result because it is realized, but it is not produced by the six causes, hence 'not acting according to worldly affairs.' Although unconditioned is a cause, it is named a cause because it does not obstruct, but it does not obtain the five results, because it cannot be realized, hence it does not obtain the unconditioned result; because there is no taking or giving, it does not obtain the conditioned result. Therefore, it is said that unconditioned has no cause and no result. The old translation saying that unconditioned is neither cause nor result is a great error.

The treatise says, 'And with cessation through discrimination,' referring to the long passage, first explaining the verse, and second, making a determination. Below is the explanation of the verse, citing the treatise to explain the previous sentence. Separation from bonds (Vimoksha) and cessation through discrimination (Pratisankhya-nirodha) are one entity with two names. What is revealed by removing the bonds is called separation from bonds; the boundary obtained by the path (marga) is called cessation through discrimination. Therefore, cessation through discrimination is used to explain separation from bonds.

If so, within the unconditioned, only cessation through discrimination is named a result, and the three unconditioned are all named efficient causes. Therefore, the ninth volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Therefore, cessation through discrimination is a cause without a result, and a result without a cause. The other two unconditioned are causes but not results, and the principle of no cause and no result is extremely well-established.' Furthermore, the eighteenth volume of the Nyayasutra says: 'There is a dharma that can be a single causal nature, which is the unconditioned dharma. There is no dharma that is not a cause, and there is no dharma that is not a result, which are said to be space (akasa) and non-cessation through discrimination (apratisankhya-nirodha).'

Only conditioned dharmas have six causes and five results, not all unconditioned dharmas. Why? Because the nature of unconditioned dharmas is constant and does not arise from six causes, therefore it does not have five results.

Why is the immediate path (anantarya-marga) not allowed to be an efficient cause?

Answer: Because the unconditioned is constant, the path cannot act upon it.

If so, whose result is it? What is the meaning of result? First, whose result is it? Second, what is the meaning of result?

Answer: It is the result of the path, because it is obtained by the power of the path. Answering the first question. Because it is obtained by the power of the path, answering the second question.

若爾道果至非於擇滅者。問。若爾道果應唯是彼擇滅上得。道于彼得有能引生。非於擇滅以體常故。

不爾于得至有差別故者。答。于得於滅道能別故。

云何于得道有功能者。問。

謂能生故者。答。謂為因生故。

云何于滅道有功能者。問。

謂能證故至擇滅為道果者。答。由道力能證得滅。由此理故。道雖非滅六種生因。而可得說擇滅為道證得因果。

既諸無為至為能作因者。問。

以諸無為至與果用故者。答。于生不障可名能作。無取．與用故無有果。應知能作因中有二。一有生用。謂過．現法。二無生用。謂未來法。及諸無為。唯無障故名能作因。

經部師說至唯有為故者。此下抉擇。經部標宗。無為非因。總引教證。

何處經說者。說一切有部問。

如有經說至識亦如是者。經部答。既言因緣能生色等皆是無常。明知無為非因所攝　無常因緣下。同文故來。

若爾無為至作所緣緣者。說一切有部問。經說諸緣皆是無常。無為既是常。應不與識等作所緣緣。

唯說能生故至故不成難者。經部答。謂經說諸因諸緣能生識者。此諸因緣皆是無常。不說一切為識所緣境者。皆無常。故不成難。由此無為。可得與識作所緣緣　又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果道之果不是證得涅槃（擇滅，Nirvana），那麼道之果應該僅僅是在涅槃上獲得的嗎？問題：如果這樣，道之果應該僅僅是在那個涅槃（擇滅）上獲得的。道對於獲得涅槃有引發產生的作用，但對於涅槃本身則沒有，因為涅槃的體性是恒常的。回答：不是這樣的，因為獲得和涅槃之間存在差別。回答：對於獲得和涅槃，道能夠區分它們。道如何對獲得具有作用呢？問題：回答：因為它能夠產生獲得。回答：因為道是產生獲得的原因。道如何對涅槃具有作用呢？問題：回答：因為它能夠證得涅槃，因此涅槃是道之果。回答：通過道的力量能夠證得涅槃。由於這個道理，道雖然不是涅槃的六種生因，但可以說涅槃是道證得的因果。既然所有的無為法（Asamskrta dharma）都不能作為能作因（Kāraṇa-hetu），那麼問題：回答：因為所有的無為法都不能產生結果。回答：對於產生不構成障礙，可以稱為能作因。因為沒有取和給予的作用，所以沒有結果。應該知道能作因中有兩種：一種是有生用，指的是過去和現在的法；另一種是無生用，指的是未來的法和所有的無為法。僅僅因為沒有障礙，所以被稱為能作因。經部師（Sautrāntika）說，無為法不是原因，因為它僅僅是有為法（Samskrta dharma）。以下進行抉擇。經部宗表明立場：無為法不是原因。總的來說，引用教證。什麼地方的經典這樣說？說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）提問：回答：如同經典所說，因緣能夠產生色等，這些都是無常的。這表明無為法不屬於因的範疇。無常因緣下，因為文義相同所以引用。如果這樣，無為法不能作為所緣緣（Alambana-pratyaya）嗎？說一切有部提問：經典說所有的緣都是無常的，無為法既然是常，應該不能作為識等的所緣緣。回答：僅僅說能夠產生，所以不能構成難題。經部回答：經典說諸因諸緣能夠產生識，這些因緣都是無常的。沒有說一切作為識所緣境的都是無常的，所以不能構成難題。因此，無為法可以作為識的所緣緣。此外

【English Translation】 English version If the fruit of the path is not the attainment of Nirvana (Cessation, Nirvana), then should the fruit of the path only be obtained on that Nirvana? Question: If so, the fruit of the path should only be obtained on that Nirvana (Nirvana). The path has the function of inducing the arising of attainment on that, but not on Nirvana itself, because the nature of Nirvana is constant. Answer: It is not so, because there is a difference between attainment and cessation. Answer: For attainment and cessation, the path can distinguish them. How does the path have a function on attainment? Question: Answer: Because it can produce attainment. Answer: Because the path is the cause of producing attainment. How does the path have a function on cessation? Question: Answer: Because it can realize Nirvana, therefore Nirvana is the fruit of the path. Answer: Through the power of the path, one can realize Nirvana. Because of this reason, although the path is not the six causes of arising of Nirvana, it can be said that Nirvana is the cause and effect attained by the path. Since all unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta dharma) cannot be the efficient cause (Kāraṇa-hetu), then question: Answer: Because all unconditioned dharmas cannot produce results. Answer: Not obstructing arising can be called an efficient cause. Because there is no taking and giving function, there is no result. It should be known that there are two types of efficient causes: one has the function of arising, referring to past and present dharmas; the other has no function of arising, referring to future dharmas and all unconditioned dharmas. It is called an efficient cause merely because it does not obstruct. The Sautrāntika (Sautrāntika) says that unconditioned dharmas are not causes because they are only conditioned dharmas (Samskrta dharma). The following is a determination. The Sautrāntika school states its position: unconditioned dharmas are not causes. In general, citing scriptural evidence. Where does the scripture say this? The Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda) asks: Answer: As the scripture says, causes and conditions can produce form, etc., and these are all impermanent. This shows that unconditioned dharmas do not belong to the category of causes. Below 'impermanent causes and conditions', it is quoted because the meaning is the same. If so, can unconditioned dharmas not be the object-condition (Alambana-pratyaya)? The Sarvāstivāda asks: The scripture says that all conditions are impermanent, and since unconditioned dharmas are permanent, they should not be the object-condition for consciousness, etc. Answer: It only says that it can produce, so it does not constitute a difficulty. The Sautrāntika answers: The scripture says that the causes and conditions can produce consciousness, and these causes and conditions are all impermanent. It does not say that everything that is the object of consciousness is impermanent, so it does not constitute a difficulty. Therefore, unconditioned dharmas can be the object-condition for consciousness. Furthermore

解不說一切為識四緣者皆是無常。

豈不亦說至為能作因者。說一切有部問。以因例緣。豈不經說唯能取果．與果生因是無常故。不撥無為雖非生因。唯不障故為能作因。

有契經中至唯不障因性者。經部答。引經證。無為是緣非因。

雖無經說至無經說耶者。說一切有部言。雖現無經說無為能作因。亦無處遮。又多隱沒。云何定判無經說耶。

若爾何法名為離系者。經部問。無為既得名能作因。未知何法名離系。

即本論中所說擇滅者。說一切有部答。

豈不先問至開顯自性者。經部復責。二名互答自性難知。故應別門開顯自性。

此法自性至亦名離系者。說一切有部答。常住之法不墮三世。非是言依。故言實有離言唯聖內證。但可總說是善．是常。別有實物。

經部師說至此所無故者。述經部宗。三種無為。非皆實有如色等五別有實物。此無為所無故。

若爾何故名虛空等者。說一切有部問。既無實體何名空等。

唯無所觸至中夭者余蘊者。經部答。唯無所觸對假說名虛空。謂于闇中無所觸對。便作是說此是虛空。以實而言。明中無對亦是虛空。但以闇中眼不見故。空相易顯。擇滅但以惑苦不生。為其體性。謂過去已起煩惱熏種在身名已起隨眠。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本解說：如果說一切作為『識』（Vijnana，意識）的四種『緣』（Pratyaya，條件）都是無常的，難道不是也說了『至為能作因』（hetu，原因）嗎？』這是『說一切有部』（Sarvastivada，一個佛教哲學學派）的提問。以『因』（hetu，原因）來類比『緣』（Pratyaya，條件），難道經典不是說只有能夠取得結果、給予結果產生的『因』（hetu，原因）才是無常的嗎？不否定『無為』（Asamskrta，未被創造的）雖然不是產生的原因，但因為不阻礙，所以是『能作因』（karana-hetu，能起作用的原因）。『有契經中』到『唯不障因性者』，這是『經部』（Sautrantika，一個佛教哲學學派）的回答。引用經典來證明，『無為』（Asamskrta，未被創造的）是『緣』（Pratyaya，條件）而不是『因』（hetu，原因）。『雖無經說』到『無經說耶者』，這是『說一切有部』（Sarvastivada，一個佛教哲學學派）的觀點。雖然現在沒有經典說『無為』（Asamskrta，未被創造的）是『能作因』（karana-hetu，能起作用的原因），也沒有任何地方禁止這樣說。而且很多（經典）都隱晦不明，怎麼能斷定沒有經典這樣說呢？『若爾何法名為離系者』，這是『經部』（Sautrantika，一個佛教哲學學派）的提問。既然『無為』（Asamskrta，未被創造的）可以被稱為『能作因』（karana-hetu，能起作用的原因），那麼什麼法可以被稱為『離系』（Visamyoga，解脫）呢？『即本論中所說擇滅者』，這是『說一切有部』（Sarvastivada，一個佛教哲學學派）的回答。『豈不先問』到『開顯自性者』，這是『經部』（Sautrantika，一個佛教哲學學派）的反駁。用兩個名稱互相回答，自性難以理解。所以應該用別的方法來開顯自性。『此法自性』到『亦名離系者』，這是『說一切有部』（Sarvastivada，一個佛教哲學學派）的回答。常住不變的法不屬於過去、現在、未來三世，不是語言可以依賴的。所以說真實存在的，超越語言，只有聖人才能內心證悟。只能總的說它是善的、常住的。有實在的物體。『經部師說』到『此所無故者』，這是敘述『經部』（Sautrantika，一個佛教哲學學派）的宗義。三種『無為』（Asamskrta，未被創造的）並非都是真實存在的，不像色等五蘊那樣有實在的物體。這是因為『無為』（Asamskrta，未被創造的）沒有這些。『若爾何故名虛空等者』，這是『說一切有部』（Sarvastivada，一個佛教哲學學派）的提問。既然沒有實體，為什麼叫做『虛空』（Akasa，空間）等呢？『唯無所觸』到『中夭者余蘊者』，這是『經部』（Sautrantika，一個佛教哲學學派）的回答。僅僅因為沒有觸碰的對立面，就假說名為『虛空』（Akasa，空間）。比如在黑暗中沒有觸碰的對立面，就說這是『虛空』（Akasa，空間）。實際上，在光明中沒有對立面也是『虛空』（Akasa，空間）。但因為在黑暗中眼睛看不見，所以『空』（Sunyata，空性）的相容易顯現。『擇滅』（Pratisamkhyanirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）只是以煩惱和痛苦不產生作為它的體性。過去已經生起的煩惱，薰染的種子留在身上，叫做『已起隨眠』（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）。

【English Translation】 English version Explanation: If it is said that all four 『conditions』 (Pratyaya) for 『consciousness』 (Vijnana) are impermanent, Isn't it also said that 『the ultimate efficient cause』 (hetu) exists?』 This is a question from the 『Sarvastivada』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). If we use 『cause』 (hetu) to analogize 『condition』 (Pratyaya), doesn't the scripture say that only the 『cause』 (hetu) that can obtain a result and give rise to a result is impermanent? It does not deny that 『unconditioned』 (Asamskrta) is not a cause of arising, but because it does not obstruct, it is an 『efficient cause』 (karana-hetu). 『In some sutras』 to 『only the non-obstructing causal nature,』 this is the answer from the 『Sautrantika』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Quoting the scripture to prove that 『unconditioned』 (Asamskrta) is a 『condition』 (Pratyaya) and not a 『cause』 (hetu). 『Although no sutra says』 to 『is there no sutra saying,』 this is the view of the 『Sarvastivada』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Although there is currently no sutra saying that 『unconditioned』 (Asamskrta) is an 『efficient cause』 (karana-hetu), there is no place that prohibits saying so. Moreover, many (scriptures) are obscure. How can it be determined that no sutra says so? 『If so, what dharma is called liberation』 this is a question from the 『Sautrantika』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Since 『unconditioned』 (Asamskrta) can be called an 『efficient cause』 (karana-hetu), then what dharma can be called 『liberation』 (Visamyoga)? 『That is, the cessation by discrimination mentioned in this treatise,』 this is the answer from the 『Sarvastivada』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). 『Didn't you ask first』 to 『reveal its own nature,』 this is the rebuttal from the 『Sautrantika』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Using two names to answer each other makes it difficult to understand the self-nature. Therefore, the self-nature should be revealed by other means. 『The self-nature of this dharma』 to 『is also called liberation,』 this is the answer from the 『Sarvastivada』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). The permanent and unchanging dharma does not belong to the three times of past, present, and future, and is not something that language can rely on. Therefore, it is said that it truly exists, transcends language, and only a sage can realize it internally. It can only be generally said that it is good and permanent. There is a real object. 『The Sautrantika master says』 to 『because this is not there,』 this is a description of the doctrine of the 『Sautrantika』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). The three types of 『unconditioned』 (Asamskrta) are not all real, unlike the five aggregates such as form, which have real objects. This is because 『unconditioned』 (Asamskrta) does not have these. 『If so, why are they called space, etc.,』 this is a question from the 『Sarvastivada』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Since there is no substance, why is it called 『space』 (Akasa), etc.? 『Only without touch』 to 『the remaining aggregates in the middle,』 this is the answer from the 『Sautrantika』 (a school of Buddhist philosophy). Only because there is no opposite of touch is it hypothetically called 『space』 (Akasa). For example, in the dark, there is no opposite of touch, so it is said that this is 『space』 (Akasa). In fact, there is no opposite in the light, and it is also 『space』 (Akasa). But because the eyes cannot see in the dark, the appearance of 『emptiness』 (Sunyata) is easily revealed. 『Cessation by discrimination』 (Pratisamkhyanirodha) only takes the non-arising of afflictions and suffering as its nature. The afflictions that have already arisen in the past, the seeds of defilement that are left on the body, are called 『latent defilements』 (anuśaya).

即此隨眠。能引後後煩惱．後有名為生種　又解過去種子名已起隨眠。現在種子名為生種。謂過去已起隨眠所生現在種子。文略但言生種　又解現在煩惱種子名已起隨眠。此能生后名為生種　言滅位者。即此惑種。無有功能生后煩惱．及與後有。故名滅位　又解經部三相現在。滅相過去。現在生種之時。即當過去滅相。如稱兩頭低升．停等故言滅位　又解於此時中證得擇滅故名滅位。種若未由能簡擇力。能生後後煩惱．後有。由簡擇力余不更生。謂無間道猶與種俱。與種俱滅。然由無間道簡擇力故。令余后位煩惱種子．及當現行煩惱．後有永不更生。生之永無名之為滅。滅由擇力名為擇滅。若離簡擇力。但由闕眾緣。余后更不生名之為滅。滅不由擇名非擇滅。如人應受百年。五十便死。餘五十年名殘眾同分。中夭者余蘊闕緣不生。

餘部師說至名非擇滅者。述上座部等計釋二無為。約隨眠不生邊名擇滅。約苦果不生邊名非擇滅。

離簡擇力至即擇滅攝者。經部破。彼非擇滅離簡擇力此苦果滅不成。由簡擇力令隨眠不生。隨眠不生后苦不起。因亡果喪皆由慧力。故此苦果不生即擇滅攝。

有說諸法至名非擇滅者。有大眾部說。諸法現在生已后必定無。自然滅入過去。此滅名非擇滅。

如是所執

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本這個隨眠（Sui Mian，煩惱的潛在狀態），能夠引發接連不斷的煩惱，之後的（煩惱）又被稱為『生種』（Sheng Zhong，產生煩惱的種子）。另一種解釋是，過去的種子被稱為『已起隨眠』（Yi Qi Sui Mian，已經生起的隨眠），現在的種子被稱為『生種』。也就是說，過去已生起的隨眠所產生的現在的種子。這裡省略了部分文字，只說了『生種』。還有一種解釋是，現在的煩惱種子被稱為『已起隨眠』，這種（已起隨眠）能夠產生之後的（煩惱），所以被稱為『生種』。說到『滅位』（Mie Wei，滅的狀態），就是指這些惑種（Huo Zhong，迷惑的種子）不再具有產生後續煩惱和後有的功能，因此稱為『滅位』。還有一種解釋，經部（Jing Bu，佛教部派之一）認為存在三相（San Xiang，三種狀態）：現在相、滅相和過去相。當現在生種之時，就相當於過去的滅相。就像天平的兩端，一端降低，另一端升高，保持平衡。所以稱為『滅位』。還有一種解釋，在此時證得了擇滅（Ze Mie，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅），所以稱為『滅位』。如果種子沒有通過能簡擇的力量，就能不斷地產生後續的煩惱和後有。通過簡擇力，其餘的（煩惱）不再產生。也就是說，無間道（Wu Jian Dao，修行道路上的一個階段）與種子同時存在，並與種子一同消滅。然而，由於無間道的簡擇力，使得其餘後續的煩惱種子以及將要顯現的煩惱和後有永遠不再產生。生的永遠消失，就叫做滅。這種滅是通過選擇的力量實現的，所以稱為擇滅。如果脫離了簡擇力，僅僅由於缺少各種因緣，其餘的（煩惱）不再產生，這種滅就叫做滅。這種滅不是通過選擇的力量實現的，所以稱為非擇滅（Fei Ze Mie，非通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）。比如，一個人應該活到一百歲，五十歲就死了，剩餘的五十年叫做殘餘的眾同分（Zhong Tong Fen，眾生的共同命運）。中途夭折的人，其餘的蘊（Yun，構成個體的要素）由於缺少因緣而不再產生。其他部派的論師說到『非擇滅』時，是引述上座部（Shang Zuo Bu，佛教部派之一）等的觀點來解釋兩種無為（Wu Wei，無為法）。從隨眠不生的一面來說，叫做擇滅；從苦果不生的一面來說，叫做非擇滅。脫離簡擇力就達到寂滅，這屬於擇滅的範疇嗎？經部反駁說，那種脫離簡擇力的非擇滅，苦果的寂滅是不能成立的。由於簡擇力的作用，使得隨眠不再產生。隨眠不再產生，後續的苦果就不會產生。因為原因消失了，結果也就不存在了，這都是智慧的力量。因此，這種苦果的不產生，就屬於擇滅的範疇。有人說，諸法（Zhu Fa，一切事物）現在產生之後，必定會消失，自然地滅入過去，這種滅叫做非擇滅。這是大眾部（Da Zhong Bu，佛教部派之一）的觀點。以上就是他們所堅持的觀點。

【English Translation】 English version This Sui Mian (latent tendencies of afflictions), can lead to successive afflictions, and the subsequent ones are called 'Sheng Zhong' (seeds of arising). Another explanation is that past seeds are called 'Yi Qi Sui Mian' (already arisen latent tendencies), and present seeds are called 'Sheng Zhong'. That is, the present seeds produced by the past already arisen latent tendencies. The text is abbreviated, only mentioning 'Sheng Zhong'. Yet another explanation is that present seeds of afflictions are called 'Yi Qi Sui Mian', which can produce subsequent (afflictions), so they are called 'Sheng Zhong'. Speaking of 'Mie Wei' (state of cessation), it refers to these Huo Zhong (seeds of delusion) no longer having the function of producing subsequent afflictions and future existence, hence it is called 'Mie Wei'. Another explanation is that the Jing Bu (Sautrantika, a Buddhist school) believes in the existence of three aspects (San Xiang): the present aspect, the cessation aspect, and the past aspect. When the present Sheng Zhong arises, it is equivalent to the past cessation aspect. Like the two ends of a scale, one end lowers and the other rises, maintaining balance. Therefore, it is called 'Mie Wei'. Another explanation is that at this time, Ze Mie (cessation through discernment) is attained, so it is called 'Mie Wei'. If the seeds do not have the power of discernment, they can continuously produce subsequent afflictions and future existence. Through the power of discernment, the remaining (afflictions) no longer arise. That is, the Wu Jian Dao (path of immediate consequence) exists simultaneously with the seeds and disappears with the seeds. However, due to the power of discernment of the Wu Jian Dao, the remaining subsequent seeds of afflictions, as well as the afflictions and future existence that are about to manifest, will never arise again. The eternal disappearance of arising is called cessation. This cessation is achieved through the power of choice, so it is called Ze Mie. If it is separated from the power of discernment, and only due to the lack of various conditions, the remaining (afflictions) no longer arise, this cessation is called cessation. This cessation is not achieved through the power of choice, so it is called Fei Ze Mie (cessation not through discernment). For example, if a person should live to be a hundred years old, but dies at fifty, the remaining fifty years are called the remaining common destiny of beings (Zhong Tong Fen). Those who die prematurely, the remaining Skandhas (Yun, aggregates constituting an individual) no longer arise due to the lack of conditions. Other schools of teachers, when speaking of 'Fei Ze Mie', are quoting the views of the Shang Zuo Bu (Sthavira school, an early Buddhist school) and others to explain the two unconditioned (Wu Wei). From the side of the non-arising of latent tendencies, it is called Ze Mie; from the side of the non-arising of suffering results, it is called Fei Ze Mie. Is reaching cessation by separating from the power of discernment within the scope of Ze Mie? The Jing Bu refutes that the cessation of suffering results in that Fei Ze Mie separated from the power of discernment cannot be established. Due to the effect of the power of discernment, latent tendencies no longer arise. When latent tendencies no longer arise, subsequent suffering results will not arise. Because the cause disappears, the result also does not exist, and this is all due to the power of wisdom. Therefore, this non-arising of suffering results is within the scope of Ze Mie. Some say that after all Dharmas (Zhu Fa, all phenomena) arise in the present, they will definitely disappear and naturally enter the past. This cessation is called Fei Ze Mie. This is the view of the Da Zhong Bu (Mahasamghika, an early Buddhist school). The above are the views they hold.

至未滅無故者。經部破。如是所執非擇滅體應是無常。法未滅時其體無故。后法滅時其體方有。

豈不擇滅至應亦無常者。大眾部難。豈不擇滅擇為先故。此滅先無後有。應亦無常。

非擇為先至方有不生者。經部答。非擇為先方有擇滅。如何責我擇滅體性亦是無常。所以者何。非先有擇。后未來未生法方不生。不生即擇滅也。

何者者。問。

不生至非造不生者。經部答。不生之理本來自有。若無聖道慧簡擇。諸法應生。聖慧簡擇生時。因亡果喪法永不起。於此不起之理擇有功能。謂于先時諸法未有生障。今聖慧起為法生障顯不生理。非新造不生。

若唯不生至豈不相違者。說一切有部引經難。若唯于未來法不生是涅槃者。何故經言信等五根。若見道修。若修道習。若無學道多修習。或初修。中習。后多所作。或修謂得修。習謂習修。多所作謂所治更遠。故顯宗云若習。若修。若多所作。義差別者為欲顯示習修。得修。所治更遠。如其次第(已上論文)　能令過未現世眾苦永斷。此永斷體即是涅槃。準此經文通斷過．現唯于未來有不生義。非於過現豈不相違。

雖有此文至為令其滅者。經部通經。經言能令過．現眾苦斷者。此經意說。能令未來緣過．現苦煩惱斷故。能緣斷時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於未滅之法說沒有原因，這是經部的觀點。如果這樣認為，那麼你們所主張的『非擇滅』（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅）的本體應該是無常的。因為法未滅時，它的本體不存在；法滅時，它的本體才存在。難道『擇滅』（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅）不也是無常的嗎？這是大眾部的質疑。難道『擇滅』不是以『擇』（智慧抉擇）為先決條件嗎？這種滅是先無後有，也應該是無常的。經部回答說：不是以『擇』為先決條件，才會有『擇滅』嗎？怎麼能責怪我所說的『擇滅』的體性也是無常的呢？為什麼這麼說呢？因為不是先有『擇』，後來的、未來未生的法才不會生起。不生起就是『擇滅』。什麼是『擇滅』呢？這是提問。經部回答說：不生起的道理本來就存在。如果沒有聖道的智慧去簡擇，諸法就應該生起。當聖慧簡擇生起時，因為生起的原因消失，導致結果喪失，法就永遠不會生起。對於這種不起的道理，『擇』具有作用。也就是說，在先前，諸法沒有生起的障礙；現在，聖慧生起，成為法生起的障礙，從而顯現出不生起的道理。這並不是新創造出不生起。說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）引用經典來反駁：如果僅僅是對於未來法的不生起才是涅槃（Nirvāṇa），那麼為什麼經典中說，信等五根（五種增上的力量，即信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根），或者在見道（Darśana-mārga，見真理的道）中修習，或者在修道（Bhāvanā-mārga，通過修行來培養智慧的道）中練習，或者在無學道（Aśaikṣa-mārga，不再需要學習的道）中多次修習，或者初修、中習、后多所作，或者修是指得到修，習是指練習修，多所作是指所要對治的更加深遠？因此，顯宗說，『若習、若修、若多所作』，意義有所差別，是爲了顯示習修、得修、所治更加深遠，如其次第（以上是論文）。能夠讓過去、現在、未來世的眾苦永遠斷除。這種永遠斷除的本體就是涅槃。按照這個經文，是普遍斷除過去和現在的痛苦，僅僅對於未來有不生起的意義，而不是對於過去和現在，這難道不是相互矛盾嗎？經部解釋經典說：雖然有這樣的經文，但經文說能夠讓過去、現在世的眾苦斷除，這個經文的意思是說，能夠讓未來緣於過去、現在痛苦的煩惱斷除，當能緣斷除時。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the claim that there is no cause for things that have not yet ceased, this is the view of the Sautrāntika school. If this is the case, then the 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' (cessation through discernment) that you uphold should be impermanent. Because when the dharma has not ceased, its entity does not exist; only when the dharma ceases does its entity come into being. Isn't 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' also impermanent? This is the challenge from the Mahāsāṃghika school. Isn't 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' preceded by 'Pratisaṃkhyā' (discernment)? This cessation is first non-existent and then existent; it should also be impermanent. The Sautrāntika school replies: Isn't it because 'Pratisaṃkhyā' comes first that 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' exists? How can you accuse me of saying that the nature of 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha' is also impermanent? Why is that? Because it is not that first there is 'Pratisaṃkhyā', and then future, unarisen dharmas do not arise. Non-arising is 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha'. What is 'Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha'? This is the question. The Sautrāntika school replies: The principle of non-arising is originally inherent. If there were no wisdom of the noble path to discern, all dharmas should arise. When the wisdom of the noble path discerns and arises, because the cause of arising disappears, the result is lost, and the dharma will never arise. Regarding this principle of non-arising, 'Pratisaṃkhyā' has a function. That is to say, previously, dharmas did not have an obstacle to arising; now, the wisdom of the noble path arises and becomes an obstacle to the arising of dharmas, thereby revealing the principle of non-arising. This is not newly creating non-arising. The Sarvāstivāda school quotes scriptures to refute: If only the non-arising of future dharmas is Nirvāṇa, then why do the scriptures say that the five roots of faith, etc. (five strengthening powers, namely faith root, diligence root, mindfulness root, concentration root, wisdom root), either practice in the Darśana-mārga (path of seeing the truth), or practice in the Bhāvanā-mārga (path of cultivating wisdom through practice), or repeatedly practice in the Aśaikṣa-mārga (path of no more learning), or initial practice, middle practice, later much work, or practice means obtaining practice, practice means practicing practice, much work means what needs to be treated is even more distant? Therefore, the Vaibhāṣika school says, 'If practice, if cultivation, if much work', the meanings are different, in order to show practicing practice, obtaining practice, what needs to be treated is even more distant, in that order (the above is the thesis). It can cause the suffering of the past, present, and future to be permanently cut off. This entity of permanent cutting off is Nirvāṇa. According to this scripture, it is universally cutting off the suffering of the past and present, only the future has the meaning of non-arising, not the past and present, isn't this contradictory? The Sautrāntika school explains the scriptures: Although there is such a scripture, the scripture says that it can cause the suffering of the past and present to be cut off, the meaning of this scripture is that it can cause the afflictions of the future that are conditioned by the suffering of the past and present to be cut off, when the condition is cut off.

說所緣過．現苦亦名為斷。應言斷貪而言斷色。應言貪遍知而言色遍知。還約所緣色說。斷色是無間道。色遍知是解脫道。廣說乃至。識蘊亦爾。過．現苦斷義亦準此　問過．現苦斷既顯能緣惑斷。未來苦斷為約何說　解云未來苦斷亦顯能緣惑斷。一經說故　又解令未來苦體不生名斷　又解令未來惑苦不生。俱名苦斷。設余經言斷三世惑者。準前理釋。義亦無違。以未來惑。能緣三世煩惱。若斷未來能緣惑時說斷三世。實斷未來。或此經中有別意趣。過去煩惱者謂過去生曾所起惑。現在煩惱者謂現在生所起煩惱。如愛行中十八愛行。據曾．當．現緣六境起名為十八。如是過．現二世所起煩惱。作能薰因。為生未來諸煩惱故。于現相續身中。引起所薰果種子。此所薰果種子斷故。說彼過．現能薰惑因亦名為斷。如異熟果盡時亦說名業因盡。由斷果故說斷彼因。此即是果喪因亡斷也。若未來眾苦．及諸煩惱。由無因種子故畢竟不生說名為斷。由斷因故說斷彼果。此即是因亡果喪斷也。若異我說斷未來體。過去已滅．現在正滅。何勞須斷。此中意顯。過現名斷由果不續。未來名斷由體不生。斷果．斷因如其次第。

若無為法至立為第一者。說一切有部引經為難。經中既言離染第一。明知涅槃別有實體。

我亦不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：說到所緣的過患，現在的苦也稱為斷。應該說斷貪，卻說斷色；應該說貪的遍知，卻說色的遍知。還是就所緣的色來說，斷色是無間道（指證得解脫的直接途徑），色遍知是解脫道（指從煩惱中解脫的途徑），廣泛地說，乃至識蘊也是這樣。過去和現在的苦的斷滅的意義也依此推論。問：過去和現在的苦的斷滅已經顯示了能緣的惑的斷滅，那麼未來的苦的斷滅是就什麼來說的呢？答：未來的苦的斷滅也顯示了能緣的惑的斷滅，因為一部經是這樣說的。另一種解釋是，使未來的苦的本體不生起，就叫做斷。還有一種解釋是，使未來的惑和苦不生起，都叫做苦斷。如果其他經中說斷三世的惑，也按照前面的道理來解釋，意義上也沒有違背。因為未來的惑，能夠緣三世的煩惱。如果斷了未來能緣的惑的時候，說斷了三世，實際上是斷了未來。或者這部經中有別的意趣。過去的煩惱，是指過去生中所產生的惑。現在的煩惱，是指現在生中所產生的煩惱。比如愛行中的十八愛行，根據曾經、將要、現在緣六境而生起，稱為十八。像這樣，過去和現在二世所產生的煩惱，作為能熏的因，爲了生起未來的各種煩惱，在現在的相續身中，引起所熏的果的種子。這個所熏的果的種子斷滅了，所以說那個過去和現在的能熏的惑因也稱為斷滅。就像異熟果（指由業力所感的果報）窮盡的時候，也說名為業因窮盡。由於斷了果，所以說斷了那個因。這就是果喪因亡的斷滅。如果未來的眾苦以及各種煩惱，由於沒有因的種子，所以畢竟不生起，就說名為斷滅。由於斷了因，所以說斷了那個果。這就是因亡果喪的斷滅。如果異我說斷未來的體，過去已經滅了，現在正在滅，何必需要斷呢？這裡的意思是顯示，過去和現在稱為斷，是因為果不相續；未來稱為斷，是因為體不生起。斷果、斷因，如其次第。如果說無為法是第一，那麼說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）引用經文來作為詰難。經文中既然說離染第一，明明知道涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫）別有實體。我也不...

【English Translation】 English version: Speaking of the faults of the object of perception, present suffering is also called cessation. One should say 'cessation of greed,' but instead says 'cessation of form'; one should say 'complete knowledge of greed,' but instead says 'complete knowledge of form.' It still refers to form as the object of perception. Cessation of form is the path of immediate consequence (the direct path to liberation), and complete knowledge of form is the path of liberation (the path to freedom from afflictions). Broadly speaking, it is the same for the aggregate of consciousness. The meaning of the cessation of past and present suffering can be inferred accordingly. Question: Since the cessation of past and present suffering has revealed the cessation of afflictions that can perceive, what does the cessation of future suffering refer to? Answer: The cessation of future suffering also reveals the cessation of afflictions that can perceive, because one sutra says so. Another explanation is that preventing the future suffering from arising in its essence is called cessation. Another explanation is that preventing future afflictions and suffering from arising is both called cessation of suffering. If other sutras say to cease the afflictions of the three times, interpret it according to the previous reasoning, and there is no contradiction in meaning. Because future afflictions can perceive the afflictions of the three times. If one says to cease the three times when ceasing future afflictions that can perceive, it is actually ceasing the future. Or this sutra has a different intention. Past afflictions refer to the afflictions that arose in past lives. Present afflictions refer to the afflictions that arise in the present life. For example, the eighteen kinds of craving in the practice of craving, based on having, will, and now condition the six objects and arise, are called eighteen. Like this, the afflictions that arise in the past and present two times, as the cause that can perfume, in order to generate various future afflictions, in the present continuous body, cause the seed of the perfumed fruit. When this seed of the perfumed fruit ceases, it is said that the cause of the past and present perfumed afflictions is also called cessation. Just like when the fruition of maturation (Vipaka, the result of karma) is exhausted, it is also said that the cause of karma is exhausted. Because the fruit is ceased, it is said that the cause is ceased. This is the cessation of the cause due to the loss of the fruit. If future sufferings and various afflictions do not arise at all because there is no seed of cause, it is said to be cessation. Because the cause is ceased, it is said that the fruit is ceased. This is the cessation of the fruit due to the loss of the cause. If others say that I cease the future essence, the past has already ceased, and the present is ceasing, why is it necessary to cease? The meaning here is to show that the past and present are called cessation because the fruit does not continue; the future is called cessation because the essence does not arise. Ceasing the fruit and ceasing the cause are in that order. If unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta, refers to Nirvana) is said to be the first, then the Sarvastivada (a school of Buddhism) quotes the sutra as a challenge. Since the sutra says that detachment is the first, it clearly knows that Nirvana (liberation) has a separate entity. I also don't...

說至此為第一者。經部答。我亦不說諸無為法。其體都無如兔角等。但應如我所說而有　彼意說言涅槃無體之理必定應有。有無體故名有涅槃　如說此現在聲。有聲先。未來非有。有聲后。過去非有。不可過．未非有。說為有。故有體義得成。以說有言非定目實。亦目無故。說有無為應知亦爾。但言有無為非說有實體。有涅槃法體。雖非有而可稱歎。無有多種。若善法無便可訶毀。若災橫無便可稱歎。故諸煩惱等災橫。畢竟非有名為離染。此涅槃性。於一切有體法．非有體法中。最為殊勝。世尊為令所化有情。深生欣樂故。別稱嘆涅槃第一。

若無為法至名滅聖諦者。說一切有部難。

且言聖諦其義云何者。經部反徴。

豈不此言屬無倒義者。說一切有部答。

聖見有無至義有何違者。經部解。聖見有無皆無顛倒。謂聖見苦名有。見苦非有名無。此于聖諦義有何違　又解聖見苦．集．道有。見滅是無。皆無顛倒。此是總標　謂下別釋。謂聖于苦見唯是苦。于苦非有見唯非有。此于聖諦義有何違。于別釋中。但言苦．滅不言集．道。

如何非有至第三聖諦者。說一切有部難。

第二無間至故成第三者。經部解。第二集諦無間聖見滅諦。及佛經說故成第三。

若無為法至應緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：說到這裡是第一種觀點。經部（Sautrāntika）回答：『我也沒有說所有的無為法，它們的本體都像兔角一樣完全不存在。只是應該像我所說的那樣存在。』他們的意思是說，涅槃沒有本體的道理必定是存在的。因為沒有本體，所以才叫做有涅槃。比如我們說現在的聲音，有聲音先產生，未來（的聲音）是不存在的；有聲音后消失，過去（的聲音）是不存在的。雖然過去和未來不存在，但我們仍然說『有』（聲音）。所以『有』的意義是可以成立的。因為說『有』這個詞，不一定是指真實存在，也可以指不存在。所以說『有無為』也應該這樣理解。只是說『有無為』，並不是說它有實體。涅槃法的本體，雖然不是實有，但可以被稱讚。『無』也有多種，如果是善法不存在，就應該被呵斥；如果是災禍橫行不存在，就應該被稱讚。所以諸如煩惱之類的災禍橫行，徹底地不存在，就叫做離染。這種涅槃的性質，在一切有本體的法和沒有本體的法中，是最為殊勝的。世尊爲了讓所教化的眾生，深深地產生欣樂，所以特別稱讚涅槃是第一。如果無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma）能成為滅聖諦（nirodha-satya），那麼就說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）提出了疑問。經部（Sautrāntika）反問道：『且說聖諦（ārya-satya），它的意義是什麼呢？』說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）回答說：『難道不是說這個詞屬於無顛倒的意義嗎？』經部（Sautrāntika）解釋說：『聖者見到有和無，都沒有顛倒。比如聖者見到苦是『有』，見到苦的『非有』是『無』。這對於聖諦的意義有什麼違背呢？』又解釋說，聖者見到苦、集、道是『有』，見到滅是『無』，都沒有顛倒。這是總的概括。下面是分別解釋。聖者對於苦，見到唯有是苦；對於苦的非有，見到唯有是非有。這對於聖諦的意義有什麼違背呢？』在分別解釋中，只說了苦和滅，沒有說集和道。說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）質疑道：『如果滅是非有，那麼如何成為第三聖諦呢？』經部（Sautrāntika）解釋說：『在第二集諦（samudaya-satya）之後，緊接著聖者見到滅諦（nirodha-satya），並且佛經中也有這樣的說法，所以（滅諦）成為第三聖諦。』如果無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma）應該緣（alambana）...

【English Translation】 English version: Having spoken to this point, this is the first viewpoint. The Sautrāntika (Scripture School) answers: 'I also do not say that all unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) have no substance at all, like rabbit horns. They should exist as I have said.' Their intention is to say that the principle of Nirvāṇa having no substance must necessarily exist. Because it has no substance, it is called having Nirvāṇa. For example, we say of the present sound, there is sound first, the future (sound) does not exist; there is sound later, the past (sound) does not exist. Although the past and future do not exist, we still say 'there is' (sound). Therefore, the meaning of 'there is' can be established. Because saying the word 'there is' does not necessarily refer to actual existence, it can also refer to non-existence. Therefore, saying 'there is unconditioned' should also be understood in this way. It is only saying 'there is unconditioned', not saying that it has a real substance. The substance of Nirvāṇa dharma, although it is not real, can be praised. 'Non-existence' also has many kinds. If good dharma does not exist, it should be rebuked; if calamities and disasters do not exist, they should be praised. Therefore, calamities and disasters such as afflictions, completely not existing, are called liberation from defilements. This nature of Nirvāṇa is the most excellent among all dharmas with substance and dharmas without substance. The World Honored One, in order to make the beings he teaches deeply rejoice, especially praises Nirvāṇa as the first. If unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) can become the cessation truth (nirodha-satya), then the Sarvāstivāda (All-Existing School) raises a question. The Sautrāntika (Scripture School) asks in return: 'Let's talk about the noble truth (ārya-satya), what is its meaning?' The Sarvāstivāda (All-Existing School) answers: 'Isn't it said that this word belongs to the meaning of non-inverted?' The Sautrāntika (Scripture School) explains: 'Sages see existence and non-existence without inversion. For example, sages see suffering as 'existence', and see the 'non-existence' of suffering as 'non-existence'. What contradiction is there to the meaning of the noble truth? ' It also explains that sages see suffering, accumulation, and the path as 'existence', and see cessation as 'non-existence', without inversion. This is a general summary. Below is a separate explanation. Sages, regarding suffering, see only suffering; regarding the non-existence of suffering, see only non-existence. What contradiction is there to the meaning of the noble truth?' In the separate explanation, only suffering and cessation are mentioned, not accumulation and the path. The Sarvāstivāda (All-Existing School) questions: 'If cessation is non-existence, then how can it become the third noble truth?' The Sautrāntika (Scripture School) explains: 'Immediately after the second truth of accumulation (samudaya-satya), sages see the truth of cessation (nirodha-satya), and the Buddhist scriptures also say so, therefore (the truth of cessation) becomes the third noble truth.' If unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) should be objects (alambana)...

無境者。說一切有部難。若無為法其體唯無。虛空．涅槃能緣之識。應緣無境而得生心。

此緣無境至當廣思擇者。經部解。識緣無境亦無有過。如下惑品。辨三世中當廣思擇。

若許無為至當有何失者。說一切有部問。

復有何德者經部反問。

許便擁護至是名為德者。說一切有部答。若許無為別有實體。即便擁護毗婆沙宗。是名為德。

若有可護至是名為失者。經部調言。此無為體。若有可護天神自護。然許實有朋虛妄計。同諸外道。是名為失。

所以者何者。說一切有部徴。

此非有體至名為滅故者。經部答。此無為非實有體可得。如色等五境。五識現量證知如受等心．心所法。他心智現量證知。亦非有用可得。如眼．耳等有見．聞等。比量知有。又此無為。若離貪等別有體者。如何可立彼貪等事之滅。第六轉屬主聲耶。夫聲明中第六轉聲表屬於主。相屬之法必相關涉。貪．瞋等事是有為。擇滅是無為。非互相屬。此．彼相望非因果故。此事望彼滅非因亦非果。若此滅望彼事。雖是能作因。而非取果因亦名非因。事非能證道故滅非證得果。滅是常故復非生因果。故名非果。非因顯非所屬。非果顯非能屬。此．彼相望既非因．果。即不相關涉。何得說言彼事之滅屬主

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無境者（認為沒有實在外境的論者）：一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一，主張一切事物皆實有）提出質疑：如果無為法（Asamskrta dharma，指不依賴因緣和合而存在的法）的本體僅僅是『無』，那麼虛空（Akasa，指空無所有）、涅槃（Nirvana，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）這些無為法，能夠緣取它們的識（Vijnana，指意識），就應該緣取『無境』而生起心識活動。

對於『識緣無境』的說法，應當廣泛深入地思考。經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一，主張實有外境）解釋說：識緣取『無境』並沒有過失。關於這一點，將在後面的惑品（煩惱品）中，辨析三世（過去、現在、未來）時，進行廣泛深入的思考。

一切有部問：如果承認無為法是實有的，會有什麼過失呢？

經部反問：又有什麼功德呢？

一切有部答：承認無為法實有，就能擁護毗婆沙宗（Vibhasa，指《大毗婆沙論》及其所代表的學說），這就是功德。如果承認無為法有獨立的實體，就能擁護毗婆沙宗，這可以算作一種功德。

經部辯駁說：如果無為法有可以被擁護的實體，那這反而是過失。無為法的本體，如果有可以被守護的，天神自然會守護它。然而，如果承認無為法實有，就等同於支援虛妄的計度，與外道（Tirthika，指佛教以外的其他宗教或哲學派別）相同，這就是過失。

一切有部追問：為什麼這麼說呢？

經部回答說：無為法並非可以獲得的實在本體，就像色（Rupa，指物質現象）等五境（五種感官對像），可以通過五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的現量（直接經驗）來證知；又像受（Vedana，指感受）等心（Citta，指心識）、心所法（Caitasika，指心理活動），可以通過他心智（能夠了解他人心識的智慧）的現量來證知。無為法也不是可以利用的，就像眼、耳等根，可以用來見、聞等，通過比量（推理）可以知道它們的存在。而且，如果無為法離開貪（Raga，指貪慾）等煩惱，另有實體，那麼如何才能成立貪等煩惱之事的滅盡呢？第六轉屬主聲嗎？在聲明（Sabdavidya，指語言學）中，第六轉聲表示屬於主語。相屬的法必然相互關聯。貪、瞋（Dvesa，指嗔恨）等事是有為法，擇滅（Pratisamkhyanirodha，指通過智慧選擇而達到的滅盡）是無為法，它們並非互相隸屬。此事與彼滅之間，不是因果關係。此事對於彼滅來說，不是因，也不是果。如果此滅對於彼事來說，雖然是能作因（Karana-hetu，指能夠產生作用的因），但不是取果因（導致結果的因），因此也算不上是因。因為煩惱之事不能作為證得道果的途徑，所以滅不是證得果的因。滅是常法，也不是生起果的因，所以不是果。『非因』表明滅不屬於煩惱之事，『非果』表明滅不能使煩惱之事屬於自己。此與彼之間既然不是因果關係，就不相關聯，怎麼能說彼事的滅屬於主語呢？

【English Translation】 English version: The Niravadhikas (those who believe there are no real external objects): The Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school that asserts the reality of all things) object: If Asamskrta dharmas (unconditioned dharmas, referring to dharmas that do not depend on causes and conditions) are only 'non-existence' in their essence, then the Vijnana (consciousness) that cognizes Akasa (space, referring to emptiness) and Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), which are Asamskrta dharmas, should arise by cognizing 'non-objects'.

The statement that 'consciousness cognizes non-objects' should be considered extensively and deeply. The Sautrantikas (a Buddhist school that asserts the existence of external objects) explain: There is no fault in consciousness cognizing 'non-objects'. This will be extensively and deeply considered in the chapter on afflictions (Klesa-prakarana), when analyzing the three times (past, present, and future).

The Sarvastivadins ask: If one admits that Asamskrta dharmas are real, what faults would there be?

The Sautrantikas retort: What merits would there be?

The Sarvastivadins reply: Admitting that Asamskrta dharmas are real protects the Vibhasa school (referring to the teachings of the Mahavibhasa Sastra), and that is a merit. If one admits that Asamskrta dharmas have independent entities, then one protects the Vibhasa school, and this can be considered a merit.

The Sautrantikas argue: If Asamskrta dharmas have entities that can be protected, that is a fault. If the essence of Asamskrta dharmas can be protected, the gods would naturally protect them. However, if one admits that Asamskrta dharmas are real, it is equivalent to supporting false conceptualizations, which is the same as the Tirthikas (non-Buddhist religious or philosophical schools), and that is a fault.

The Sarvastivadins inquire: Why do you say that?

The Sautrantikas answer: Asamskrta dharmas are not real entities that can be obtained, like Rupa (form, referring to material phenomena) and the five sense objects, which can be known through the direct experience (Pratyaksa) of the five Vijnanas (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness); or like Vedana (feeling) and other Citta (mind) and Caitasikas (mental factors), which can be known through the direct experience of the knowledge of others' minds (Paracitta-jnana). Asamskrta dharmas are also not useful, like the sense organs such as the eyes and ears, which can be used for seeing and hearing, and whose existence can be known through inference (Anumana). Moreover, if Asamskrta dharmas have entities separate from afflictions like Raga (desire), how can the cessation of afflictions like Raga be established? Is it the sixth case ending indicating possession? In Sabdavidya (linguistics), the sixth case ending indicates belonging to the subject. Things that belong to each other must be related. Things like Raga and Dvesa (hatred) are Samskrta dharmas, while Pratisamkhyanirodha (cessation through wisdom) is an Asamskrta dharma, and they are not mutually subordinate. The event and its cessation are not related as cause and effect. The event is neither the cause nor the effect of its cessation. Although the cessation is the efficient cause (Karana-hetu) of the event, it is not the cause that produces the result, so it is not a cause. Because the event cannot be the means to attain the fruit of the path, the cessation is not the cause of attaining the fruit. Since cessation is permanent, it is not the cause of producing the fruit, so it is not a fruit. 'Not a cause' indicates that the cessation does not belong to the event, and 'not a fruit' indicates that the cessation cannot make the event belong to itself. Since they are not related as cause and effect, they are not related, so how can it be said that the cessation of the event belongs to the subject?

聲耶。由此故知。滅無別體。唯遮彼事不生義邊。名為事滅。滅無別體。即事之無名為滅故。可言此滅屬於彼事第六得成。順聲明故。今準此文。第六屬主聲有二。一異體相望。如說一切有部言彼事之滅。亦如郡君之奴。二無異體。如經部言彼事之滅。亦如石子之體。

滅雖別有至屬於彼事者。說一切有部解云。滅雖別有。而由彼有漏事。能緣惑得斷時。彼事解脫方得此滅。可言此滅屬於彼事。此約得說屬。

何因此滅定屬此得者。經部難。若滅體別非即事無。滅體眾多得亦非一。何因此滅定屬此得。而言約得說屬事耶。

如契經言至可言獲得者。說一切有部引經通難。苾芻獲得現法涅槃。現身得故名現法涅槃。既獲得涅槃可言屬得。復責彼言。如何非有可言獲得。

由得對治至名為涅槃者。經部答。由得能對治道。便獲永違煩惱所依身。便獲永違害後有所依身故。煩惱．後有不生義邊。名得涅槃。而無實體。此即理證　復有下教證無體。

謂契經言至此涅槃者。所有苦果皆無餘斷　苦無名斷。斷無別體。或舉果顯因惑苦果無餘惑因皆斷　各別捨棄貪等惑因。或各別捨棄所有苦果。或通因．果　諸惑因盡故。或諸苦果盡故。或通因．果　遠離繫縛名為離染　滅諸惑因。或滅苦果。或通

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是聲音嗎？由此可知，『滅』（Nirvana，涅槃）沒有獨立的實體，只是遮止了那件事不再發生的意義層面，稱之為『事滅』。『滅』沒有獨立的實體，就是那件事的『無』，稱之為『滅』。因此，可以說這個『滅』屬於那件事，第六種『得』（Prāpti，獲得）才能成立，這是順應聲明的說法。現在依照這段文字，第六種『屬主聲』（所有權的聲音）有兩種：一是異體相望，就像一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）所說的『彼事之滅』，也像『郡君之奴』（地方長官的奴隸）；二是無異體，就像經部（Sautrāntika）所說的『彼事之滅』，也像『石子之體』（石頭的本體）。『滅』雖然是別有的，但屬於那件事：一切有部的解釋是，『滅』雖然是別有的，但由於那個有漏的事，能夠緣取煩惱而得到斷除時，那件事解脫了才能得到這個『滅』，可以說這個『滅』屬於那件事。這是就『得』來說『屬』。為什麼這個『滅』一定屬於這個『得』呢？經部反駁說，如果『滅』的本體是獨立的，不是那件事的『無』，『滅』的本體有很多，『得』也不是唯一的，為什麼這個『滅』一定屬於這個『得』，而說是就『得』來說『屬』于那件事呢？就像契經所說，可以稱之為獲得：一切有部引用經典來回應這個難題。比丘獲得現法涅槃（Dṛṣṭadharmanirvāṇa，現世涅槃），因為現身就得到了，所以稱為現法涅槃。既然獲得了涅槃，就可以說是屬於『得』。又反問他們說，如果不是實有的，怎麼能說是獲得呢？由於『得』能對治，所以稱之為涅槃：經部回答說，由於得到能夠對治的道，便獲得了永遠違離煩惱所依的身，便獲得了永遠違離產生後有的所依身，因此，煩惱和後有不再產生的意義層面，稱為『得涅槃』，而沒有實體。這是理證。下面還有教證說明沒有實體。就是契經所說，這個涅槃：所有的苦果都完全斷除了，苦的『無』就叫做『斷』，『斷』沒有獨立的實體。或者舉果來顯示因，苦果完全斷除，煩惱的因也就都斷除了。各自捨棄貪等煩惱的因，或者各自捨棄所有的苦果。或者通指因和果，因為各種煩惱的因都滅盡了，或者各種苦果都滅盡了。或者通指因和果，遠離繫縛稱為離染，滅除各種煩惱的因，或者滅除苦果，或者通指。

【English Translation】 English version: Is it sound? From this, it is known that 『Cessation』 (Nirvana) has no separate entity; it is only the aspect of preventing that event from arising, which is called 『cessation of event』. 『Cessation』 has no separate entity; it is the 『non-existence』 of that event, which is called 『cessation』. Therefore, it can be said that this 『cessation』 belongs to that event, and the sixth 『attainment』 (Prāpti) can be established, which is in accordance with the statement. Now, according to this text, there are two kinds of sixth 『sound of ownership』: one is the mutual relation of different entities, such as the 『cessation of that event』 mentioned by the Sarvāstivāda (the school of 『all exists』), just like 『the slave of the district lord』; the other is the non-difference of entities, such as the 『cessation of that event』 mentioned by the Sautrāntika (the school of 『sutra as authority』), just like 『the substance of a stone』. Although 『cessation』 is separate, it belongs to that event: The Sarvāstivāda explains that although 『cessation』 is separate, when that afflicted event is able to grasp afflictions and attain severance, that event is liberated and then this 『cessation』 can be attained. It can be said that this 『cessation』 belongs to that event. This is speaking of 『belonging』 in terms of 『attainment』. Why does this 『cessation』 necessarily belong to this 『attainment』? The Sautrāntika refutes, if the substance of 『cessation』 is independent and not the 『non-existence』 of that event, and the substance of 『cessation』 is numerous and 『attainment』 is not unique, why does this 『cessation』 necessarily belong to this 『attainment』, and say that it 『belongs』 to that event in terms of 『attainment』? Just as the sutra says, it can be called attainment: The Sarvāstivāda quotes the sutra to respond to this difficulty. A Bhikṣu (Buddhist monk) attains Nirvāṇa in this life (Dṛṣṭadharmanirvāṇa), because it is attained in this very life, it is called Nirvāṇa in this life. Since Nirvāṇa is attained, it can be said to belong to 『attainment』. They then question them, how can it be said to be attained if it is not real? Because 『attainment』 can counteract, it is called Nirvāṇa: The Sautrāntika replies, because one attains the path that can counteract, one then attains the body that is forever separated from the basis of afflictions, and one attains the body that is forever separated from the basis of future existence. Therefore, the aspect of afflictions and future existence no longer arising is called 『attaining Nirvāṇa』, but there is no substance. This is logical proof. Below there is also scriptural proof that there is no substance. That is, as the sutra says, this Nirvāṇa: all the results of suffering are completely severed, the 『non-existence』 of suffering is called 『severance』, and 『severance』 has no separate entity. Or, it shows the cause by citing the result, the results of suffering are completely severed, and the causes of afflictions are also severed. Each abandons the causes of afflictions such as greed, or each abandons all the results of suffering. Or, it refers to both cause and result, because the causes of various afflictions are exhausted, or the results of various sufferings are exhausted. Or, referring to both cause and result, being separated from bondage is called detachment, eliminating the causes of various afflictions, or eliminating the results of suffering, or referring to both.

因．果　或因靜息。或苦果靜息。或通因．果　或因永沒。或苦果永沒。或通因．果　余未來苦果更不相續　更不復取。更不復生。或余苦果不續。或不取果。或更不生　此涅槃極寂靜。此涅槃極美妙。此總贊也　謂舍諸依顯涅槃無諸苦果。舍一切愛顯涅槃無諸惑因。偏言愛者從強別標。舍諸依．愛。盡．離染．滅。名為涅槃。而無別體　又解於前十名略舉前五種釋涅槃。謂舍諸依釋前苦無餘斷。舍一切愛釋前各別捨棄。盡．離染．滅如名。次第是次三種。后之五種略而不論。或可舉前顯后。

云何不許至故言不生者。說一切有部徴。經部云何。不許經言不生者。依此擇滅無生力故。言苦不生　或言不生者此依擇滅力令苦無生。故言苦不生　或依此擇滅苦無生故。言擇滅不生。既言依此擇滅。明知有體。

我等見此至謂無體性者。經部答言。我等見此第七轉所依聲。于證擇滅是有都無功力。汝何意故。說依此無生　若依此言。屬已有涅槃義。諸苦應本不生。涅槃是常本來有故　若依此言。屬已得涅槃義。是則應計依道所引涅槃上得　又復勸言。此苦不生。或唯依道。由道起時苦不生故　或依道所引涅槃上得。由得起時令苦不生。汝應信受　又解若依此言屬已得義。是則應計依道上之得。由得此道苦不生故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因（hetu，原因）和果（phala，結果）：或者因為靜止（śama，平靜），或者苦果（duḥkha-phala，痛苦的結果）靜止。或者通達因和果。或者因為永遠消失，或者苦果永遠消失。或者通達因和果，其餘未來苦果更不再相續，更不再重新獲取，更不再重新產生。或者其餘苦果不再延續，或者不再獲取果報，或者更不再產生。這涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）是極其寂靜的，這涅槃是極其美妙的，這是總體的讚歎。意思是捨棄諸依（āśraya，依賴）來顯示涅槃沒有諸苦果，捨棄一切愛（preman，愛）來顯示涅槃沒有諸惑因（kleśa-hetu，煩惱的原因）。特別提到『愛』，是從強盛方面特別標示。捨棄諸依和愛，窮盡、遠離染污、滅盡，名為涅槃，而沒有別的本體。又解釋說，前面的十個名稱，簡略地舉出前五種來解釋涅槃。意思是捨棄諸依，解釋前面所說的苦完全沒有剩餘地斷除。捨棄一切愛，解釋前面所說的各自捨棄。窮盡、遠離染污、滅盡，如其名稱，依次是後面的三種。後面的五種簡略而不論述。或者可以舉出前面來顯示後面。

『為什麼不允許說「至故言不生」呢？』說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教部派）提出質疑。經部（Sautrāntika，一個佛教部派）又會怎麼說呢？為什麼不允許經部說「不生」呢？因為依靠這種擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅盡）沒有產生的能力，所以說苦不生。或者說『不生』，這是依靠擇滅的力量，使苦沒有產生，所以說苦不生。或者依靠這種擇滅，苦沒有產生，所以說擇滅不生。既然說依靠這種擇滅，就明確知道擇滅是有實體的。

『我們看到這個』，到『說沒有體性』。經部回答說：『我們看到這個第七轉所依聲（saptamī vibhakti，梵文語法中的第七格，表示處所、依據等），對於證得擇滅是完全沒有功用的。你們為什麼說依靠這個而無生呢？』如果說『依靠這個』，屬於已經有涅槃的意義，那麼諸苦應該本來就不產生，因為涅槃是常恒的，本來就有的。如果說『依靠這個』，屬於已經獲得涅槃的意義，那麼就應該認為是在道（mārga，道路，這裡指修行之道）所引導的涅槃上獲得的。又勸導說：『這個苦不生，或者僅僅依靠道，由於道生起的時候苦不生，或者依靠道所引導的涅槃上獲得的，由於獲得生起的時候使苦不生。你們應該信受。』又解釋說，如果說『依靠這個』，屬於已經獲得的意義，那麼就應該認為是在道上的獲得，由於獲得這個道，苦不生。

【English Translation】 English version Cause (hetu) and Effect (phala): Either because of quiescence (śama), or the cessation of painful results (duḥkha-phala). Or understanding cause and effect. Or because of eternal disappearance, or the eternal disappearance of painful results. Or understanding cause and effect, the remaining future painful results will no longer continue, no longer be reacquired, and no longer be reborn. Or the remaining painful results will not continue, or no longer acquire results, or no longer be reborn. This Nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa) is extremely tranquil, this Nirvāṇa is extremely wonderful, this is a general praise. It means abandoning all dependencies (āśraya) to show that Nirvāṇa has no painful results, abandoning all love (preman) to show that Nirvāṇa has no causes of delusion (kleśa-hetu). Specifically mentioning 'love' is a special indication from the strong aspect. Abandoning all dependencies and love, exhaustion, detachment, extinction, is called Nirvāṇa, and there is no other entity. It is also explained that the previous ten names briefly mention the first five to explain Nirvāṇa. It means abandoning all dependencies to explain that the previously mentioned suffering is completely and without remainder eliminated. Abandoning all love explains the previously mentioned individual abandonment. Exhaustion, detachment, extinction, as their names suggest, are the next three in order. The latter five are briefly discussed. Or one can mention the former to reveal the latter.

'Why is it not allowed to say "to the extent that it does not arise"?' The Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) raises a question. What would the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) say? Why is it not allowed for the Sautrāntika to say "does not arise"? Because relying on this discriminative cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) has no power to produce, therefore it is said that suffering does not arise. Or saying 'does not arise' is relying on the power of discriminative cessation to make suffering not arise, therefore it is said that suffering does not arise. Or relying on this discriminative cessation, suffering does not arise, therefore it is said that discriminative cessation does not arise. Since it is said to rely on this discriminative cessation, it is clearly known that discriminative cessation has a real entity.

'We see this,' to 'saying there is no entity.' The Sautrāntika replies: 'We see that this seventh case ending (saptamī vibhakti, the seventh case in Sanskrit grammar, indicating location, basis, etc.) has absolutely no function in realizing discriminative cessation. Why do you say that it does not arise relying on this?' If saying 'relying on this' belongs to the meaning of already having Nirvāṇa, then all sufferings should not arise originally, because Nirvāṇa is constant and originally exists. If saying 'relying on this' belongs to the meaning of already attaining Nirvāṇa, then it should be considered that it is obtained on the Nirvāṇa guided by the path (mārga, the path of practice). It is also advised: 'This suffering does not arise, or only relies on the path, because suffering does not arise when the path arises, or it is obtained on the Nirvāṇa guided by the path, because obtaining it makes suffering not arise. You should believe and accept it.' It is also explained that if saying 'relying on this' belongs to the meaning of already obtaining, then it should be considered as obtaining on the path, because obtaining this path makes suffering not arise.

又復勸言。或唯依道　或依道上得令苦不生。汝應信受　由此善釋下。引經證涅槃無體。涅槃名滅而無有體。如燈。涅槃燈謝無體。心得解脫蘊滅無體。何但經言無體。對法亦言。無事法雲何。謂諸無為法。經部釋云。言無事者。事之言體。謂無體性。

毗婆沙師不許此釋者。不許經部釋。

若爾彼釋事義云何者。經部問。

彼言事者至無因無果者。說一切有部答。彼言事者略有五種。一自性事。謂諸法自體即自體名事。二所緣事。謂心所緣。即所緣名事。三繫縛事。謂愛等所繫縛。即所繫縛名事。四所因事。即所因名事。果是能因。因是所因。果賴所因而生。如子因父而生。父是所因。子是能因。謂諸有為法。皆從因生名有事法。事之言因。五所攝事。謂田．宅等是人所攝。即所攝名事。泛明諸事雖有五種。今於此阿毗達磨中。言事者。依前第四說因名事。顯無為法都無有因。不依第一自性事說無為無事。是故無為雖實有物。常無用故不從因生名無因。不能生果名無果。

總論已竟至俱相應士用者。此下第二對因配果　此中明果從因而生故唯說四。離系果常非六因生。故此不說。

論曰至此因所得者。釋初句。

言前因者至名增上果者。釋第二句。謂能作因有增上力。增上

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本又進一步勸導說，或者僅僅依靠正道（Dharma），或者依靠正道能夠獲得不生起痛苦的境界。你們應當信受奉行，由此來很好地解釋下面的內容。引用經典來證明涅槃（Nirvana）沒有實體。涅槃名為寂滅，但沒有實體，就像燈火熄滅一樣。心得解脫，五蘊（Skandha）寂滅，也沒有實體。不僅僅是經典這樣說沒有實體，《對法藏》（Abhidharma）也說，『什麼叫做無事法呢？』指的是那些無為法（Asamskrta）。經部（Sautrantika）解釋說，『所說的無事，事的意思是實體，指的是沒有實體性。』毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）不認可這種解釋，不認可經部的解釋。如果這樣，他們解釋『事』的含義是什麼呢？經部問道。他們說，『事』大概有五種：第一是自性事，指的是諸法的自體，自體就叫做事。第二是所緣事，指的是心所緣的對象，所緣的對象就叫做事。第三是繫縛事，指的是被愛等煩惱所繫縛，被繫縛的狀態就叫做事。第四是所因事，指的是產生結果的原因，結果是能生的因，因是被生的因，結果依賴於因才能產生，就像兒子依賴父親而生一樣，父親是被生的因，兒子是能生的因。指的是所有有為法（Samskrta），都是從因產生的，叫做有事法，事的意思是因。第五是所攝事，指的是田地、住宅等是人所擁有的，被擁有的狀態就叫做事。』泛泛地說明諸事雖然有五種，現在在這部《阿毗達磨》中，所說的『事』，依據前面第四種，說因叫做事。顯示無為法都沒有原因，不依據第一種自性事來說無為是無事。因此，無為法雖然確實存在，但因為恒常沒有作用，所以不從因產生，叫做無因，不能產生結果，叫做無果。總的討論已經結束，下面是對因果的總體討論。下面第二部分是對因和果的配對，這裡說明結果是從原因產生的，所以只說四種。離系果（Visamyoga-phala）是常，不是六因所生，所以這裡不說。論中說，『從這些因所得的』，解釋第一句。所說的『前因』，解釋第二句。指的是能作因（Karan-hetu）有增上的力量，增上

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, he advises, 'Either rely solely on the Dharma, or rely on the Dharma to attain a state where suffering does not arise. You should believe and accept this, thereby well explaining the following. Citing scriptures to prove that Nirvana has no substance. Nirvana is named extinction, but has no substance, like a lamp that has been extinguished. When the mind attains liberation and the Skandhas are extinguished, there is also no substance. It is not only the scriptures that say there is no substance; the Abhidharma also says, 'What is meant by 'non-event Dharma' (Asamskrta)?' It refers to those unconditioned Dharmas. The Sautrantika explains, 'What is meant by 'non-event' is that 'event' means substance, referring to the absence of substantiality.' The Vaibhashika does not accept this explanation; they do not accept the Sautrantika's explanation. If so, how do they explain the meaning of 'event'?' the Sautrantika asks. They say, 'Events are roughly of five types: first, self-nature event, referring to the self-nature of all Dharmas; the self-nature is called event. Second, object-of-cognition event, referring to the object cognized by the mind; the object of cognition is called event. Third, bondage event, referring to being bound by afflictions such as love; the state of being bound is called event. Fourth, cause event, referring to the cause that produces a result; the result is the active cause, and the cause is the passive cause. The result depends on the cause to arise, just as a son depends on his father to be born; the father is the passive cause, and the son is the active cause. This refers to all conditioned Dharmas (Samskrta), which arise from causes and are called event Dharmas; 'event' means cause. Fifth, possession event, referring to fields, houses, etc., that are possessed by people; the state of being possessed is called event.' Generally speaking, although there are five types of events, in this Abhidharma, the 'event' refers to the fourth type, saying that cause is called event. This shows that unconditioned Dharmas have no cause; it does not rely on the first type, self-nature event, to say that the unconditioned is non-event. Therefore, although unconditioned Dharmas truly exist, because they are constantly without function, they do not arise from causes, and are called without cause; they cannot produce results, and are called without result. The general discussion has ended; the following is a general discussion of cause and effect. The second part below is the pairing of causes and effects, explaining that results arise from causes, so only four are mentioned. Visamyoga-phala is permanent and not produced by the six causes, so it is not mentioned here. The treatise says, 'Obtained from these causes,' explaining the first sentence. What is meant by 'previous cause' explains the second sentence. It refers to the Karan-hetu having an increasing power, increasing

之果名增上果。從因立名。

唯無障住有何增上者。問。

即由無障至如應當思者。答。因若為障果不得生。由因無障果方得起故名增上。此即通能作因　或能作因下別出勝用。

同類遍行至皆似因故者。釋第三句。若同類因唯取自界．自地．自部．自性等流果。若遍行因唯取自界．自地．自性．染污等流果。此二因所得果皆似因故。故因雖二其果唯一　問如邪見生有身見。雖性不同。同是染故。為等流果。善生無覆。雖性不同。同是凈故應是等流果　解云染法易同故得為果。凈法難同故不為果。

俱有相應至名士用果者。釋第四句。此二因同得俱生勝士用果。雖復六因皆取士用。相應．俱有。能取同時勝士用果。此中偏說。為遮勝論於法體外別有業用。故言非越士體有別士用。即此二因士用所得之果名士用果。從喻為名。如士夫用名為士用。士用之果名士用果。

此士用名為目何法者。問。

即目諸法至醉象將軍者。答。即目相應．俱有因。用從喻立名。如士夫用故得士用名。如言鴉足藥草。藥草似鴉足故。名鴉足藥草。將軍似醉象能入陣故。名醉象將軍。以象醉發能入陣故。名為醉象　又解醉像似將軍能入陣故。名醉象將軍。

為唯此二至為余亦然者。問。為唯相應

【現代漢語翻譯】之果名為增上果（Adhipati-phala，增上果：由起主導作用的因產生的果）。這是從因的角度來命名的。

問：如果沒有任何障礙，如何體現增上作用呢？

答：正是因為沒有障礙，果才能如應當地產生。如果因受到障礙，果就無法產生。因為因沒有障礙，果才能生起，所以稱為增上。這指的是普遍的能作因（Karana-hetu，能作因：產生結果的因）。或者說，在能作因之下，特別指出其殊勝的作用。

『同類遍行至皆似因故』，這是解釋第三句。如果同類因（Sabhaga-hetu，同類因：產生與自身相似結果的因）只取自界（Svadhatu，自界：自身所處的界）、自地（Svabhumi，自地：自身所處的地）、自部（Svabhaga，自部：自身所屬的部類）、自性等流果（Nisyanda-phala，等流果：由與自身相似的因而產生的果）。如果遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，遍行因：能普遍引發煩惱的因）只取自界、自地、自性、染污等流果。這兩種因所得到的果都與因相似。所以，雖然有兩種因，但其果只有一個。

問：比如邪見（Mithya-drsti，邪見：錯誤的見解）產生有身見（Satkaya-drsti，有身見：認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的見解），雖然性質不同，但同屬于染污，所以是等流果。善念產生無覆無記（Avyakrta，無覆無記：不屬於善或惡的心理狀態），雖然性質不同，但同屬于清凈，是否也應該是等流果呢？

解釋說：染污法容易相同，所以可以作為果。清凈法難以相同，所以不能作為果。

『俱有相應至名士用果者』，這是解釋第四句。這兩種因共同得到俱生勝士用果（Paurusa-kara-phala，士用果：由行為努力所產生的果）。雖然六因（Sad-hetu，六因：能作因、同類因、俱有因、相應因、遍行因、異熟因）都能產生士用果，但相應因（Samprayuktaka-hetu，相應因：與心所法相應的因）和俱有因（Sahabhuka-hetu，俱有因：同時存在的因）能產生同時的殊勝士用果。這裡特別說明，是爲了遮破勝論派（Vaisesika，勝論派：古印度哲學流派，主張實體和屬性的區分）認為在法體之外另有業用。所以說，並非超越士夫的自體而有別的士用，而是這兩種因的士用所得到的果，名為士用果。這是從比喻的角度來命名的，如同士夫的作用稱為士用，士用的果稱為士用果。

問：這個士用名是指什麼法呢？

答：就是指諸法的相應和俱有因。用從比喻來立名，如同士夫的作用，所以得到士用之名。如同說『鴉足藥草』，因為藥草像鴉足，所以名為鴉足藥草。將軍像醉像一樣能衝入敵陣，所以名為醉象將軍。因為大象醉酒後發狂能衝入敵陣，所以名為醉象。又或者解釋為，醉象像將軍一樣能衝入敵陣，所以名為醉象將軍。

問：難道只有這兩種因能產生士用果，還是其他的因也能產生呢？難道只有相應

【English Translation】 The result of which is called Adhipati-phala (Adhipati-phala: the result produced by a dominant cause). This is named from the perspective of the cause.

Question: If there are no obstacles, how is the dominant function manifested?

Answer: It is precisely because there are no obstacles that the result arises as it should. If the cause is obstructed, the result cannot arise. Because the cause is without obstacles, the result can arise, hence it is called Adhipati. This refers to the universal Karana-hetu (Karana-hetu: the cause that produces a result). Or, under Karana-hetu, its superior function is specifically pointed out.

'Same-type pervasive to all similar causes,' this explains the third sentence. If Sabhaga-hetu (Sabhaga-hetu: the cause that produces a result similar to itself) only takes from its own realm (Svadhatu, Svadhatu: the realm to which it belongs), its own ground (Svabhumi, Svabhumi: the ground to which it belongs), its own category (Svabhaga, Svabhaga: the category to which it belongs), its own nature Nisyanda-phala (Nisyanda-phala: the result flowing from a cause similar to itself). If Sarvatraga-hetu (Sarvatraga-hetu: the cause that universally induces afflictions) only takes from its own realm, its own ground, its own nature, defiled Nisyanda-phala. The results obtained from these two causes are all similar to the cause. Therefore, although there are two causes, there is only one result.

Question: For example, Mithya-drsti (Mithya-drsti: wrong view) produces Satkaya-drsti (Satkaya-drsti: the view that the aggregate of five skandhas is a real self), although their natures are different, they both belong to defilement, so it is a Nisyanda-phala. Good thoughts produce Avyakrta (Avyakrta: a mental state that is neither good nor bad), although their natures are different, they both belong to purity, should it also be a Nisyanda-phala?

The explanation says: Defiled dharmas are easily the same, so they can be the result. Pure dharmas are difficult to be the same, so they cannot be the result.

'Co-existent corresponding to the name Paurusa-kara-phala,' this explains the fourth sentence. These two causes jointly obtain the co-existent superior Paurusa-kara-phala (Paurusa-kara-phala: the result produced by behavioral effort). Although the six causes (Sad-hetu, Sad-hetu: Karana-hetu, Sabhaga-hetu, Sahabhuka-hetu, Samprayuktaka-hetu, Sarvatraga-hetu, Vipaka-hetu) can all produce Paurusa-kara-phala, Samprayuktaka-hetu (Samprayuktaka-hetu: the cause corresponding to mental factors) and Sahabhuka-hetu (Sahabhuka-hetu: the cause existing simultaneously) can produce simultaneous superior Paurusa-kara-phala. The special explanation here is to refute the Vaisesika school (Vaisesika: an ancient Indian philosophical school that advocates the distinction between substance and attribute) which believes that there is karma outside the dharma body. Therefore, it is said that there is no separate Paurusa-kara beyond the self of the Purusa, but the result obtained by the Paurusa-kara of these two causes is called Paurusa-kara-phala. This is named from the perspective of metaphor, just as the function of a Purusa is called Paurusa-kara, and the result of Paurusa-kara is called Paurusa-kara-phala.

Question: What dharma does this name Paurusa-kara refer to?

Answer: It refers to the corresponding and co-existent causes of all dharmas. The name is established from metaphor, just like the function of a Purusa, so it gets the name Paurusa-kara. Just like saying 'crow's foot medicinal herb', because the medicinal herb looks like a crow's foot, it is called crow's foot medicinal herb. A general can rush into the enemy's formation like a drunken elephant, so he is called a drunken elephant general. Because an elephant can rush into the enemy's formation after being drunk and going crazy, it is called a drunken elephant. Or it can be explained that a drunken elephant can rush into the enemy's formation like a general, so it is called a drunken elephant general.

Question: Is it only these two causes that can produce Paurusa-kara-phala, or can other causes also produce it? Is it only corresponding

．俱有有士用果。為餘四因亦有。

有說余因至異熟不爾者。答中有二。此即初師。余同類．遍行．能作三因亦有士用果。唯除異熟因。由士用果總有二種。一與因俱生。二與因無間。相應．俱有能取俱生。同類．遍行。果若相鄰能取無間。能作通取俱生．無間。故此五因得士用果。異熟因不爾。與果性異感果稍難。要因相續果乃現前。非俱．無間。故無士用　又解異熟果不爾。非與因俱．無間故非士用。

有餘師說至所收果實者。第二師解。此異熟因。亦有隔越遠士用果。譬如農夫春時耕種．秋時獲果。若據通名士用六因皆得。今此第二師說約斯說也。頌明士用但取俱生。簡餘四因。故言二得。故顯宗第九云。俱生士用果定有又勝。故說相應．俱有因得。無間．隔越或有。或無。設有非勝。又濫余果。是故不言余因所得　問士用之名總有四種。謂俱生．無間．隔越．不生。即通五果。今言士用豈不濫余　解云餘四從別立名。此一從總立名。雖標總稱即受別名。如色處等。

異熟等果至有為增上果者。此下第三別顯果相。初兩句明異熟果。第三句明等流果。第四句明離系果。次兩句明士用果。后兩句明增上果　言釋五果名者。入阿毗達磨論第二釋云。果不似因故名為異。熟謂成熟堪受用故。果即異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：俱生因具有士用果（由作用力產生的果報）。那麼，其餘四種因是否也具有士用果呢？

有一種說法認為，其餘的因不會產生異熟果（性質不同的果報），對於這種說法，回答中有兩種解釋。這是第一位論師的觀點：同類因（性質相似的因）、遍行因（普遍存在的因）、能作因（能產生作用的因）這三種因也具有士用果，唯獨異熟因沒有。因為士用果總共有兩種：一種是與因同時產生的，另一種是與因無間隔產生的。相應因（互相配合的因）、俱有因（共同存在的因）能夠產生同時產生的士用果；同類因、遍行因，如果果報相鄰近，則能產生無間隔的士用果；能作因既能產生同時產生的，也能產生無間隔的。因此，這五種因能夠得到士用果，而異熟因則不然，因為它與果的性質不同，產生果報比較困難，需要因的相續才能使果報顯現，不是同時或無間隔產生的，所以沒有士用果。另一種解釋是，異熟果不是與因同時或無間隔產生的，所以不是士用果。

有另一位論師說，異熟因也有隔越（時間或空間上的間隔）的士用果，就像農夫春天耕種，秋天收穫果實一樣。如果從通用的名稱來說，六種因都可以產生士用果。現在這位第二位論師的說法是基於這種觀點。頌文說明士用果只取同時產生的，是爲了簡別其餘四種因，所以說『二得』。因此，《顯宗論》第九卷說，同時產生的士用果一定是有的，而且是殊勝的，所以說相應因、俱有因能夠得到士用果。無間隔的、有間隔的，或者有，或者沒有，即使有，也不是殊勝的，而且會混淆其他的果報，所以不說其餘的因能夠得到士用果。有人問，士用這個名稱總共有四種，即同時產生、無間隔、有間隔、不產生，這四種情況都包括在內，豈不是會與其他的果報混淆？解釋說，其餘四種是從個別的角度來立名的，而士用是從總體的角度來立名的，雖然標明的是總稱，但實際上接受的是個別的名稱，就像色處等。

異熟果等是有為的增上果。下面第三部分分別顯示各種果的相狀。前兩句說明異熟果，第三句說明等流果（與因相似的果報），第四句說明離系果（通過修行斷除煩惱而獲得的解脫果），接下來的兩句說明士用果，最後兩句說明增上果（通過增上緣產生的果報）。解釋五種果的名稱，《入阿毗達磨論》第二卷解釋說，果與因不相似，所以稱為『異』，『熟』是指成熟，可以接受和使用，果就是異熟。

【English Translation】 English version: The co-existent cause has a puruṣakāra-phala (fruit of effort). Do the other four causes also have it?

Some say that the other causes do not lead to vipāka (differently matured fruit). The answer has two parts. This is the view of the first teacher: the homogenous cause (cause of similar nature), the all-pervading cause, and the efficient cause also have puruṣakāra-phala, except for the vipāka cause. Because there are two kinds of puruṣakāra-phala: one arises simultaneously with the cause, and the other arises immediately after the cause. The corresponding cause and the co-existent cause can produce simultaneous puruṣakāra-phala; the homogenous cause and the all-pervading cause, if the fruits are adjacent, can produce immediate puruṣakāra-phala; the efficient cause can produce both simultaneous and immediate puruṣakāra-phala. Therefore, these five causes can obtain puruṣakāra-phala, but the vipāka cause is not like this, because it is different in nature from the fruit, and it is more difficult to produce the fruit. It requires the continuity of the cause for the fruit to appear, not simultaneously or immediately, so it does not have puruṣakāra-phala. Another explanation is that the vipāka-phala is not simultaneous or immediate with the cause, so it is not puruṣakāra-phala.

Another teacher says that the vipāka cause also has a remote puruṣakāra-phala, like a farmer who plows in the spring and harvests in the autumn. If we use the general name, all six causes can produce puruṣakāra-phala. Now, this second teacher's statement is based on this view. The verse explains that puruṣakāra-phala only takes the simultaneous, in order to distinguish the other four causes, so it says 'two obtain'. Therefore, the ninth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that the simultaneous puruṣakāra-phala is definitely present and superior, so it is said that the corresponding cause and the co-existent cause can obtain it. The immediate and the remote, either have it or do not have it, and even if they have it, it is not superior, and it is mixed with other fruits, so it is not said that the other causes can obtain it. Someone asks, the name puruṣakāra has four kinds in total, namely simultaneous, immediate, remote, and non-arising, which include all five fruits. Wouldn't this be mixed with other fruits? The explanation is that the other four are named from a specific perspective, while puruṣakāra is named from a general perspective. Although it indicates the general name, it actually accepts the specific name, like rūpa-dhātu (form realm) etc.

Vipāka-phala etc. are conditioned adhipati-phala (dominant fruit). The following third part separately shows the characteristics of each fruit. The first two sentences explain vipāka-phala, the third sentence explains nisyanda-phala (fruit of outflow), the fourth sentence explains visamyoga-phala (fruit of separation), the next two sentences explain puruṣakāra-phala, and the last two sentences explain adhipati-phala. Explaining the names of the five fruits, the second volume of the Abhidharmāvatāra-śāstra explains that the fruit is not similar to the cause, so it is called 'vipāka', 'vipāka' means matured, suitable for receiving and using, the fruit is vipāka.

熟名異熟果。又云果似因故說名為等。從因生故復說為流。果即等流名等流果。又云。擇滅無為名離系果。此由道得非道所生。果即離系名離系果。又云。由此勢力。彼得生故。此名士用彼名為果。又云。由前增上后法得生。增上之果名增上果(已上論文)準彼論釋。前三持業。后二依主　又解異熟之果名異熟果。即因名異熟。果名為果。或等流之果名等流果。因與彼果流類相似故名等流。或離系之果名離系果。謂無漏道離繫縛故亦名離系。或果即士用名士用果。以果亦如士夫用故。或果即增上名增上果。以果眾多體增上故。雖作后解未見論文。義釋無違。然諸論中皆依入阿毗達磨。並不得作有財釋。若作有財釋。即不目果法。

論曰至有異熟果者。於三性中。唯于無覆無記法中有異熟果。非於善．染。

為此亦通非有情數者。問。

唯局有情者。答。

為通等流及所長養者。問。此異熟果。於五類中。為通等流．所長養不。

應知唯是至異熟果相者。答。此異熟果與因不同。唯有記生。不通等流．長養。等流非唯有記生。通三性故。所長養亦非唯有記生。體雖無記通三性生故。前論云飲食．資助．睡眠．等持。勝緣所益名所長養　又解於五類中。若異熟攝不盡者。方立長養等流。若

異熟攝盡者。即不立長養．等流。以異熟果攝體盡故。所以不名長養．等流。

非有情數至何非異熟者。問。非有情數。亦從善．惡業生。何非異熟。

以共有故至受異熟果者。答。夫異熟果非共受用。非情共受故非異熟。

其增上果至何得共受者。問。外增上果亦業所生。何得共受。

共業生故者。答。由共業生故得共受。又正理十八云。豈不大梵所住非情是別業果。亦應說彼名業異熟。何乃言非。有作是言。大梵住處。一切大梵業增上生。有餘復言。大梵住處相續未壞。余可於中有受用理。故非不共。

似自因法至遍行二因者。釋第三句。定似自因名等流果。雖俱生士用亦定似自因。有無間等士用。與因不相似。故此等流非濫士用。雖遍行因亦取異部。為等流果染性同故。若士用果有性不同。

若遍行因至即名同類因者。問。

此果但由至除前諸相者。答。此遍行因果。但由同地故顯通五部。同是染故顯不通凈。與因相似不由五部．三性種類。若由五部．三性種類果亦似因。此果所因乃名同類。相對不同應作四句。第一句者。以非遍行法為同類因。生自同部故名同類因。非通生染故非遍行因。第二句者。以他部遍法為遍行因。通生染故名遍行因。非生自部故非同類因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『異熟攝盡者』（I-shu Shejin Zhe）：即不建立『長養』（Zhangyang）、『等流』（Dengliu），因為『異熟果』（Yishu Guo）已經完全包含了本體。因此，不稱為『長養』、『等流』。

『非有情數至何非異熟者』：問：『非有情數』（Fei Youqing Shu）也從善、惡業產生，為什麼不是『異熟』（Yishu）？

『以共有故至受異熟果者』：答：『異熟果』不是共同受用的，因為不是有情共同受用，所以不是『異熟』。

『其增上果至何得共受者』：問：外在的『增上果』（Zengshang Guo）也是業所生，為什麼可以共同受用？

『共業生故者』：答：因為共同的業所生，所以可以共同受用。而且《正理》（Zhengli）第十八卷說：『難道大梵天（Da Fantian）所居住的非有情之物不是個別業的果報嗎？也應該說它們是業的異熟，為什麼說不是呢？』有人這樣說：『大梵天的住處，是一切大梵天的業增上所生。』還有人說：『大梵天的住處相續沒有壞滅，其餘的人可以在其中有受用的道理，所以不是不共同。』

『似自因法至遍行二因者』：解釋第三句。一定相似於自身因的，稱為『等流果』。雖然『俱生士用』（Jusheng Shiyong）也一定相似於自身因，但是『有無間等士用』（You Wujian Deng Shiyong）與因不相似。因此，這種『等流』不是濫用『士用』。雖然『遍行因』（Bianxing Yin）也取其他部類作為『等流果』，因為染污的性質相同。如果『士用果』的性質不同。

『若遍行因至即名同類因者』：問。

『此果但由至除前諸相者』：答：這種『遍行因』的果，只是因為同地而顯現，貫通五部。因為同是染污，所以不貫通清凈。與因相似，不是因為五部、三性種類。如果因為五部、三性種類，果也相似於因，那麼這種果的所因就稱為『同類因』（Tonglei Yin）。相對不同，應該作四句。第一句：以非『遍行法』（Bianxing Fa）作為『同類因』，生出自同部類，所以稱為『同類因』，不是普遍產生染污，所以不是『遍行因』。第二句：以他部『遍法』作為『遍行因』，普遍產生染污，所以稱為『遍行因』，不是產生自部，所以不是『同類因』。

【English Translation】 English version 『I-shu Shejin Zhe』 (That which is entirely encompassed by Vipaka): That is, 『Zhangyang』 (Nourishment) and 『Dengliu』 (Flowing-forth) are not established, because the 『I-shu Guo』 (Vipaka Fruit) has completely encompassed the substance. Therefore, it is not called 『Zhangyang』 or 『Dengliu』.

『Fei Youqing Shu Zhi He Fei Yishu Zhe』 (Why are non-sentient things not Vipaka?): Question: 『Fei Youqing Shu』 (Non-sentient things) also arise from good and evil karma, why are they not 『I-shu』 (Vipaka)?

『Yi Gongyou Gu Zhi Shou Yishu Guo Zhe』 (Because it is shared, why is it not Vipaka Fruit?): Answer: 『I-shu Guo』 (Vipaka Fruit) is not for shared enjoyment. Because it is not shared by sentient beings, it is not 『I-shu』.

『Qi Zengshang Guo Zhi He De Gong Shou Zhe』 (Why can Augmentation Fruits be shared?): Question: External 『Zengshang Guo』 (Augmentation Fruits) are also produced by karma, why can they be shared?

『Gongye Sheng Gu Zhe』 (Because they arise from shared karma): Answer: Because they arise from shared karma, they can be shared. Moreover, the Zhengli (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) Volume 18 says: 『Isn』t the non-sentient dwelling place of Da Fantian (Mahābrahmā) the result of individual karma? It should also be said that they are the Vipaka of karma, why is it said that they are not?』 Some say: 『The dwelling place of Da Fantian is produced by the augmentation of the karma of all Da Fantian.』 Others say: 『The continuum of the dwelling place of Da Fantian has not been destroyed, and others can have the reason for enjoyment within it, so it is not unshared.』

『Si Zi Yin Fa Zhi Bianxing Er Yin Zhe』 (Similar to the cause of oneself to the two causes of pervasive action): Explaining the third sentence. That which is certainly similar to the cause of oneself is called 『Dengliu Guo』 (Flowing-forth Fruit). Although 『Jusheng Shiyong』 (Co-arisen Puruṣakāra) is also certainly similar to the cause of oneself, 『You Wujian Deng Shiyong』 (Puruṣakāra with no interval) is not similar to the cause. Therefore, this 『Dengliu』 is not an abuse of 『Shiyong』 (Puruṣakāra). Although 『Bianxing Yin』 (Pervasive Cause) also takes other categories as 『Dengliu Guo』, because the nature of defilement is the same. If the nature of 『Shiyong Guo』 is different.

『Ruo Bianxing Yin Zhi Ji Ming Tonglei Yin Zhe』 (If the pervasive cause is called the homogeneous cause): Question.

『Ci Guo Dan You Zhi Chu Qian Zhu Xiang Zhe』 (This fruit is only due to the removal of the previous characteristics): Answer: This fruit of 『Bianxing Yin』 (Pervasive Cause) is manifested only because of the same ground, and it penetrates the five categories. Because it is the same defilement, it does not penetrate purity. Being similar to the cause is not because of the five categories and the three natures. If it is because of the five categories and the three natures, the fruit is also similar to the cause, then the cause of this fruit is called 『Tonglei Yin』 (Homogeneous Cause). Being relatively different, four sentences should be made. The first sentence: Taking non-『Bianxing Fa』 (Pervasive Dharma) as 『Tonglei Yin』 (Homogeneous Cause), it arises from the same category, so it is called 『Tonglei Yin』, it does not universally produce defilement, so it is not 『Bianxing Yin』. The second sentence: Taking other category 『Bian Fa』 (Pervasive Dharma) as 『Bianxing Yin』 (Pervasive Cause), it universally produces defilement, so it is called 『Bianxing Yin』, it does not arise from its own category, so it is not 『Tonglei Yin』.

。第三句者。以自部遍法為遍行因。生自部故名同類因。通生染故名遍行因。第四句應知。

由慧盡法至名離系果者。釋第四句。由慧盡惑。所證無為法名離系果　又解由慧簡擇。滅盡惑法名離系果　又解由慧簡擇為因。離諸繫縛證滅盡法。名離系果。由慧得滅名為擇滅。即此擇滅亦名離系。由離繫縛而證得故。

若法因彼至由道力得者。釋第五．第六句。明士用果。若但有法因彼勢力所生。即說此法名士用果。

如因下地等。指事別顯。應知士用有多。擇滅名不生士用。應言由道力證得故。正理十八解士用果云。此有四種。俱生．無間．隔越．不生。如前已說。言俱生者．謂同一時。更互為因力所生起。言無間者。謂次．后時。由前念因力所生起。如世第一法生苦法智忍。言隔越者。謂隔遠時。展轉為因力所生起。如農夫等於谷．麥等。言不生者所謂涅槃。由無間道力所得故。此既不生。如何可說彼力生故名士用果。現見於得亦說生名。如說我財生是我得財義。若無間道。斷諸隨眠。所證擇滅。如是擇滅名離系果．及士用果。若無間道不斷隨眠。重證本時所證擇滅。如是擇滅非離系果。唯士用果(已上論文)此論前文據別俱生勝士用果。但說相應．俱有因得。後文據通士用果故。說通六因得。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第三句是指，以自身部類的普遍法則作為遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，能普遍產生各種結果的原因），因為產生自身部類的結果，所以稱為同類因（Sabhāga-hetu，產生同類結果的原因）。因為它普遍產生染污，所以稱為遍行因。第四句應該這樣理解。

從『由慧盡法』到『名離系果』，解釋第四句。通過智慧斷盡煩惱，所證得的無為法稱為離系果（Visaṃyoga-phala，解脫繫縛的果報）。

另一種解釋是，通過智慧簡擇，滅盡煩惱之法，稱為離系果。

還有一種解釋是，以智慧簡擇為因，脫離各種繫縛，證得滅盡之法，稱為離系果。通過智慧獲得寂滅，稱為擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）。而這擇滅也稱為離系，因為它通過脫離繫縛而證得。

從『若法因彼』到『由道力得』，解釋第五、第六句，闡明士用果（Puruṣakāra-phala，由人的努力所產生的果報）。如果僅僅有法因某種勢力的作用而產生，就說此法名為士用果。

『如因下地等』，通過舉例來分別顯示。應該知道士用果有很多種。擇滅稱為不生士用。應該說，因為它由道力證得。

《正理》第十八品解釋士用果說，士用果有四種：俱生、無間、隔越、不生。如前所述。所謂俱生，是指同一時間，互相作為原因的力量所產生的。所謂無間，是指在相續的、之後的時間，由前一念的原因力量所產生的，例如世第一法產生苦法智忍（Kṣānti-jñāna，對苦諦的忍耐和智慧）。所謂隔越，是指間隔遙遠的時間，輾轉作為原因的力量所產生的，例如農夫對於穀物、麥子等。所謂不生，就是指涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅），因為它由無間道的力量所獲得。既然它不生，怎麼能說是由那力量產生而稱為士用果呢？現在看到，對於『得』也說成是『生』，例如說『我的財產生了』，就是『我得到了財產』的意思。如果無間道斷除了各種隨眠（Anuśaya，煩惱的潛在狀態），所證得的擇滅，這樣的擇滅稱為離系果以及士用果。如果無間道沒有斷除隨眠，重新證得先前所證得的擇滅，這樣的擇滅不是離系果，只是士用果（以上是論文內容）。這篇論文的前文是根據特別的俱生殊勝的士用果，只說相應因、俱有因才能獲得。後文是根據普遍的士用果，所以說通過六因都能獲得。

【English Translation】 English version: The third sentence refers to using the Sarvatraga-hetu (the cause that universally produces various results) of one's own category as the pervasive cause, because it produces results of its own category, it is called the Sabhāga-hetu (the cause that produces similar results). Because it universally produces defilements, it is called the Sarvatraga-hetu. The fourth sentence should be understood in this way.

From 'by wisdom exhausting the law' to 'named Visaṃyoga-phala', explains the fourth sentence. The unconditioned Dharma attained by exhausting afflictions through wisdom is called Visaṃyoga-phala (the fruit of liberation from bondage).

Another explanation is that the Dharma of exhausting afflictions through the selection of wisdom is called Visaṃyoga-phala.

Yet another explanation is that taking the selection of wisdom as the cause, escaping all bondages, and attaining the Dharma of exhaustion is called Visaṃyoga-phala. Obtaining extinction through wisdom is called Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (extinction through wise discernment). And this Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is also called Visaṃyoga, because it is attained through escaping bondage.

From 'If a Dharma is caused by that' to 'obtained by the power of the path', explains the fifth and sixth sentences, clarifying Puruṣakāra-phala (the fruit of human effort). If there is merely a Dharma produced by the force of some power, then this Dharma is said to be named Puruṣakāra-phala.

'Such as due to the lower ground, etc.', distinguishes and reveals through examples. It should be known that there are many kinds of Puruṣakāra-phala. Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is called non-arising Puruṣakāra. It should be said that it is attained by the power of the path.

The eighteenth chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya explains Puruṣakāra-phala, saying that there are four kinds: co-arising, immediate, separated, and non-arising. As mentioned before. Co-arising refers to arising at the same time, mutually caused by the power of causes. Immediate refers to arising in successive, later times, caused by the power of the previous thought, such as the arising of Kṣānti-jñāna (patience and wisdom towards suffering) of the highest mundane Dharma. Separated refers to arising at distant times, caused by the power of causes through transformation, such as farmers for grains, wheat, etc. Non-arising refers to Nirvāṇa (extinction), because it is obtained by the power of the immediate path. Since it does not arise, how can it be said to be caused by that power and called Puruṣakāra-phala? Now it is seen that 'obtaining' is also spoken of as 'arising', such as saying 'my property arose', which means 'I obtained property'. If the immediate path cuts off all Anuśaya (latent tendencies of afflictions), the attained Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, such Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is called Visaṃyoga-phala and Puruṣakāra-phala. If the immediate path does not cut off Anuśaya, and re-attains the previously attained Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, such Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is not Visaṃyoga-phala, only Puruṣakāra-phala (the above is the content of the treatise). The previous part of this treatise is based on the special co-arising superior Puruṣakāra-phala, only saying that it can be obtained by corresponding cause and coexistent cause. The latter part is based on the universal Puruṣakāra-phala, so it says that it can be obtained through the six causes.

諸有為法至之增上果者。釋后兩句。凡果望因或俱。或后。因法望果或俱。或前。前法定非后法果故。于有為法中除前已生有為法。以前非後果故。是余若俱。若后。有為之增上果　問由因增上。其果得生名增上果。余果亦由因增上故。其果得生。應名增上果　解云余果從別立名。非從總立故。不名增上果。增上更無別稱從總立名。雖標總稱即受別名。如色處等。

士用增上二果何殊者。問。二果既多。體相何殊。

士用果名至唯增上果者。答。士用對有力能增上。據不障礙。引事可知。

于上所說至一與唯過去者。此下第四明因取．與時。問起頌答。

論曰至故此不說者。於六因中除能作因。餘五因取果唯于現在。過去已取。未來無用　亦應如是說能作因現在取果。而不說者以能作因非定有增上果。故此頌中不說。謂無為法．及未來法。雖是能作因。而不能取增上果故。故正理十八云。然能作因。能取果者定唯現在。與通過．現　若依婆沙二十一云。能作因。有作是說。現在取果。過去．現在與果。有餘師說。此能作因。過去．現在取果。過去．現在與果　然無評家。此論．正理同婆沙前師　又解此論同婆沙后師。言能作因同五因現在取果者。從多分說。

俱有相應至必俱時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於諸有為法所產生的增上果，現在解釋後面的兩句。果對於因來說，有的是同時，有的是在後。因法對於果來說，有的是同時，有的是在前。因為先前的法必定不是後來的法的果。所以在有為法中，除去先前已經產生的有為法，因為先前的法不是後來的果。剩下的，如果是同時，或者是在後的有為法，就是增上果。有人問：由於因的增上作用，其果得以產生，所以叫做增上果。其他的果也是由於因的增上作用而產生，那麼其他的果也應該叫做增上果。回答說：其他的果是從別的角度來立名，不是從總體的角度來立名，所以不叫做增上果。增上果沒有其他的別稱，是從總體的角度來立名。雖然標明的是總稱，但實際上接受的是別名，比如色處等。士用果和增上果有什麼區別？這是提問。既然有兩種果，它們的體相有什麼不同？回答說：士用果是針對有力能增上而言的，增上果是不障礙。具體事例可以參考相關內容。對於上面所說的，以下第四點說明因的取和與的時間。這是提問並用頌來回答。在六因中，除去能作因，其餘五因取果都只在現在。過去已經取了，未來沒有用。也應該這樣說，能作因現在取果。但是這裡沒有這樣說，是因為能作因不一定有增上果。所以這個頌中沒有說。指的是無為法和未來的法，雖然是能作因，但是不能取增上果。所以正理十八說：『然而能作因，能取果的必定只是現在，與過去、現在。』如果按照婆沙二十一的說法，能作因，有這樣的說法：現在取果，過去、現在與果。有其他老師說，這個能作因，過去、現在取果，過去、現在與果。但是沒有評判家。這個論和正理與婆沙的前一種說法相同。又解釋說，這個論與婆沙的后一種說法相同。說能作因與五因現在取果相同，是從大部分情況來說的。俱有因、相應因必定是同時的。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result) arising from all conditioned dharmas (有為法), the following explains the latter two phrases. When considering a result in relation to its cause, they can be either simultaneous or subsequent. When considering a cause in relation to its result, they can be either simultaneous or prior. A prior dharma (法) is definitely not the result of a subsequent dharma. Therefore, among conditioned dharmas, excluding the previously arisen conditioned dharmas (because a prior dharma is not a subsequent result), the remaining conditioned dharmas, whether simultaneous or subsequent, are Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result). Someone asks: Because of the dominant influence of the cause, its result is produced, hence it is called Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result). Other results are also produced due to the dominant influence of the cause, so should other results also be called Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result)? The answer is: Other results are named from different perspectives, not from a general perspective, so they are not called Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result). Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result) has no other specific name; it is named from a general perspective. Although it is labeled with a general term, it actually receives a specific name, such as the sense-sphere of color (色處). What is the difference between Purusakara-phala (士用果, result of effort) and Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result)? This is a question. Since there are two kinds of results, what are the differences in their essence and characteristics? The answer is: Purusakara-phala (士用果, result of effort) refers to the dominant influence of effort and ability, while Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result) refers to non-obstruction. Specific examples can be found in relevant materials. Regarding what was said above, the fourth point below explains the time of the cause's 'taking' and 'giving'. This is a question answered with a verse. Among the six causes (因), excluding Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause), the other five causes 'take' the result only in the present. The past has already been taken, and the future is useless. It should also be said that Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause) 'takes' the result in the present. But it is not said here because Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause) does not necessarily have Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result). That's why it is not mentioned in this verse. It refers to unconditioned dharmas (無為法) and future dharmas (未來法), which, although they are Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause), cannot 'take' Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result). Therefore, Nyāyānusāra (正理) 18 says: 'However, the Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause) that can 'take' the result is definitely only in the present, giving through the past and present.' According to Vibhasa (婆沙) 21, Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause) has the saying: 'The present 'takes' the result, the past and present 'give' the result.' Other teachers say that this Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause) 'takes' the result in the past and present, and 'gives' the result in the past and present. But there are no critics. This treatise and Nyāyānusāra (正理) are the same as the former view of Vibhasa (婆沙). Another explanation is that this treatise is the same as the latter view of Vibhasa (婆沙). Saying that Kārana-hetu (能作因, efficient cause) is the same as the five causes in 'taking' the result in the present is from the perspective of the majority of cases. Sahabhū-hetu (俱有因, co-existent cause) and Samprayuktaka-hetu (相應因, associated cause) must be simultaneous.

故者。釋第二句。相應．俱有與果亦現。此二取．與必俱時故。

同類遍行至通於過現者。釋第三句。同類．遍行與通過．現。

過去可然至與等流果者。問。

有等流果至不應更與者。答。因至現在。有等流果無間相續。至生相時即現與果。若果至現。因便過去名已與果。不應更與。

善同類因至謂除前相者。別釋善同類因取．與四句。第一句取而非與。謂斷善根時最後剎那所捨得。能為彼種名取。后不續前非與。第二句與而非取。謂續善根時最初所得。過去最後所捨得。彼得。今時果至生相。正與彼力名與。由昔已取不名取。論主恐取續時過去諸初得故。今釋言應說爾時續者前得。前得。謂前過去最後所捨得。正理十八破云。如何。前位多剎那得為同類因皆取今得。而於今時。但說最後一剎那得。與今得果。是故。應如本文為善　若作俱舍師救。世親論主意說。若法從來未與者此中說之。過去諸得。雖于續時皆悉與果。以前諸念皆曾與果。俱句攝故是故不說。最後所舍一剎那得。今續善時最初與果。故偏說之。又續善時過去余善亦能與果。何獨說得。既別說得。明知唯取最後一念　又解論主。云應言爾時續者前得。謂前過去所有善得。皆名最初所得得。誰言唯取最後所捨得。此所捨得通

【現代漢語翻譯】故者：解釋第二句，『相應、俱有與果亦現』。這兩種（因）的『取』和『與』必定同時發生。同類遍行至通於過現者：解釋第三句，『同類、遍行與通過、現』。過去可然至與等流果者：提問。有等流果至不應更與者：回答。因從過去到現在，有等流果無間斷地相續。到產生果報的時候，就立即顯現並給予果報。如果果報已經顯現，因便成為過去，名為『已與果』，不應該再次給予。善同類因至謂除前相者：分別解釋善同類因的『取』和『與』的四種情況。第一種情況是『取而非與』，指的是斷善根時，最後剎那所捨棄的善法，能夠作為彼種（惡果）的因，名為『取』。後來不再繼續，所以不是『與』。第二種情況是『與而非取』，指的是續善根時，最初獲得的善法，以及過去最後所捨棄的善法。這些善法在現在產生果報的時候，正在給予果報的力量，名為『與』。由於過去已經『取』，所以現在不名為『取』。論主恐怕在善根延續的時候，過去最初獲得的善法也被包括在內，所以現在解釋說，應該說那時延續善根的人先前獲得的善法。先前獲得的善法，指的是先前過去最後所捨棄的善法。《正理》第十八品駁斥說：『為什麼？先前位置的多個剎那獲得的善法，作為同類因，都取了現在的善法，而在現在，只說最後一剎那獲得的善法，給予現在的果報。』因此，應該像本文一樣善巧地解釋。如果按照俱舍師的解釋來挽救，世親（Vasubandhu）論主的意思是說：如果某種法從來沒有給予果報，那麼就在這裡討論它。過去的各種善法，雖然在延續善根的時候都給予了果報，但因為以前的念頭都已經給予過果報，被『俱』句所包含，所以不討論。最後所捨棄的一剎那善法，現在延續善根的時候最初給予果報，所以特別說明它。而且，延續善根的時候，過去其他的善法也能給予果報，為什麼只說『得』？既然特別說了『得』，就明確表明只取最後一念。又有人解釋論主的意思說：『應該說那時延續善根的人先前獲得的善法』，指的是先前過去所有的善法，都名為最初所得的善法。誰說只取最後所捨棄的善法？這個所捨棄的善法是普遍的。

【English Translation】『故者』 (gu zhe): Explains the second phrase, 『corresponding, co-existent, and the result also appears.』 The 『taking』 and 『giving』 of these two (causes) must occur simultaneously. 『同類遍行至通於過現者』 (tong lei bian xing zhi tong yu guo xian zhe): Explains the third phrase, 『homogeneous, pervasive, and connecting to the past and present.』『過去可然至與等流果者』 (guo qu ke ran zhi yu deng liu guo zhe): Question. 『有等流果至不應更與者』 (you deng liu guo zhi bu ying geng yu zhe): Answer. From the past to the present, the outflowing result continues uninterruptedly. When the time of producing the result arrives, it immediately manifests and gives the result. If the result has already manifested, the cause becomes the past, called 『already given the result,』 and should not be given again. 『善同類因至謂除前相者』 (shan tong lei yin zhi wei chu qian xiang zhe): Separately explains the four cases of 『taking』 and 『giving』 of the wholesome homogeneous cause. The first case is 『taking but not giving,』 referring to the wholesome dharma abandoned at the last moment when severing wholesome roots, which can serve as the cause of that kind (of unwholesome result), called 『taking.』 Later it does not continue, so it is not 『giving.』 The second case is 『giving but not taking,』 referring to the wholesome dharma initially obtained when continuing wholesome roots, and the wholesome dharma abandoned at the last moment in the past. When these wholesome dharmas produce results in the present, they are giving the power of the result, called 『giving.』 Because it was 『taken』 in the past, it is not called 『taking』 now. The master of the treatise is afraid that the wholesome dharma initially obtained in the past might be included when wholesome roots continue, so he now explains that it should be said that the wholesome dharma previously obtained by the person continuing wholesome roots at that time. The wholesome dharma previously obtained refers to the wholesome dharma abandoned at the last moment in the past. The eighteenth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra refutes: 『Why? The wholesome dharmas obtained in multiple moments in the previous position, as homogeneous causes, all take the present wholesome dharma, but in the present, only the wholesome dharma obtained in the last moment is said to give the present result.』 Therefore, it should be skillfully explained like this text. If we try to salvage it according to the interpretation of the Kośa masters, the meaning of Master Vasubandhu is: if a certain dharma has never given a result, then it is discussed here. Although the various wholesome dharmas in the past all gave results when wholesome roots continued, because the previous thoughts have already given results, they are included in the 『co-existent』 phrase, so they are not discussed. The wholesome dharma abandoned at the last moment is the first to give a result when wholesome roots continue now, so it is specifically explained. Moreover, other wholesome dharmas in the past can also give results when wholesome roots continue, why only say 『obtained』? Since 『obtained』 is specifically mentioned, it clearly indicates that only the last moment is taken. Someone else explains the meaning of the master of the treatise by saying: 『It should be said that the wholesome dharma previously obtained by the person continuing wholesome roots at that time,』 referring to all the wholesome dharmas in the past, which are all called the wholesome dharma initially obtained. Who said that only the wholesome dharma abandoned at the last moment is taken? This abandoned wholesome dharma is universal.

於三世。非后一切皆能與果。故以前言簡取過去。故婆沙十八云。有時與果非取果。謂後續善根時。即住過去所舍善得(已上論文)　所以偏約得作兩單句。不約善根者。將斷善時。善根已不現行。唯有善得現行。故偏說得。第三句亦取亦與。謂不斷善根于所餘諸位。隨其所應。於一身中所有善法。能取．與者名所餘諸位。第四句非取．與。謂除前相。亦隨所應所有善法非取．與者皆所收。

又于不善至謂除前相者。約不善同類作四句。思之可知。第二句中。正理準前彈。俱舍師還準前通釋。

有覆無記至如理應說者。于阿羅漢果得時最後所捨得。取而非與。從彼退時最初所得得。與而非取。未得無學位。亦取亦與。余無學位非取非與。故言如理應說。

無覆無記至最後諸蘊者。最後諸蘊。謂臨入無餘涅槃時。餘思可知。

約有所緣至準例應說者。前明無所緣。今明有所緣。有所緣言顯心．心所。剎那差別顯前．后念。三性四句思之可知。

取果與果其義云何者。問。

能為彼種至故名與果者。答。種是能生義。因有生果之能故名取果。彼所生果。其因正與彼果力時。故名與果。

異熟與果至及無間故者。釋第四句。異熟因與果唯於過去。由果與因非俱．無間。復有餘師

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於三世（過去、現在、未來）。並非之後的一切都能給予果報。所以前面用簡略的語言選取了過去。因此《婆沙論》第十八卷說：『有時給予果報，並非取得果報。』指的是後續善根的時候，即安住於過去所捨棄的善法所得（以上是論文內容）。之所以偏重於『得』來作兩個單句，而不涉及善根，是因為將要斷滅善根時，善根已經不現行，只有善得現行，所以偏重於說『得』。第三句是亦取亦與，指的是不斷滅善根，在其餘各個位次，隨其所應。在一個身中所有善法，能取、與的，名為其餘各個位次。第四句是非取、與，指的是除去前面所說的情形，也隨其所應，所有善法非取、與的，都包含在內。

又關於不善，直到『除去前面所說的情形』，是就與不善同類的法作四句分析。仔細思考就可以明白。第二句中，《正理》根據前面的內容進行駁斥，《俱舍論》的論師仍然根據前面的內容進行通盤解釋。

關於有覆無記，直到『如理應說』，指的是阿羅漢果（Arhat fruit，佛教修行證得的最高果位）得到時，最後所捨棄的『得』，是取而非與。從阿羅漢果位退轉時，最初所得的『得』，是與而非取。未得到無學位（無學位的果位）時，是亦取亦與。其餘無學位時，是非取非與。所以說『如理應說』。

關於無覆無記，直到『最後諸蘊』，指的是最後諸蘊（蘊是構成個體存在的要素），即臨近進入無餘涅槃（nirvana，佛教修行的最終目標，指從輪迴中解脫）時。其餘的思考就可以明白。

關於有所緣，直到『準例應說』，前面說明了無所緣，現在說明有所緣。『有所緣』指的是心、心所（心理活動和心理作用）。剎那差別顯示了前念、后念。三性（善、惡、無記）四句，仔細思考就可以明白。

『取果與果，其義云何？』這是提問。

『能為彼種，直到故名與果』，這是回答。『種』是能生的意思。因為因有產生果的能力，所以名為取果。彼所生的果，其因正在給予彼果力量的時候，所以名為與果。

『異熟與果，直到及無間故』，這是解釋第四句。異熟因與果，只在過去。因為果與因並非同時、無間。還有其他論師。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the three times (past, present, and future). It is not the case that everything after can give results. Therefore, the previous statement briefly selects the past. Thus, Vasubhasha 18 says: 'Sometimes giving results is not taking results.' This refers to the time of subsequent good roots, that is, abiding in the good attainments abandoned in the past (the above is the content of the treatise). The reason for focusing on 'attainment' to make two simple sentences, rather than involving good roots, is that when about to sever good roots, the good roots are no longer manifest, only the good attainments are manifest, so the emphasis is on saying 'attainment.' The third sentence is both taking and giving, referring to not severing good roots, in all the remaining positions, as appropriate. All good dharmas in one body that can take and give are called the remaining positions. The fourth sentence is neither taking nor giving, referring to excluding the aforementioned situations, and also as appropriate, all good dharmas that are neither taking nor giving are included.

Furthermore, regarding unwholesome, up to 'excluding the aforementioned situations,' this is analyzing the four sentences in terms of dharmas of the same kind as unwholesome. Careful consideration will make it clear. In the second sentence, the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya refutes based on the previous content, and the Kosha masters still provide a comprehensive explanation based on the previous content.

Regarding obscured and indeterminate, up to 'as it should be explained,' this refers to the last 'attainment' abandoned when the Arhat fruit (Arhat fruit, the highest fruit attained in Buddhist practice) is obtained, which is taking but not giving. When regressing from the Arhat fruit, the first 'attainment' obtained is giving but not taking. When not yet attaining the state of no-more-learning (the fruit of no-more-learning), it is both taking and giving. In the remaining states of no-more-learning, it is neither taking nor giving. Therefore, it is said 'as it should be explained.'

Regarding unobscured and indeterminate, up to 'the final aggregates,' this refers to the final aggregates (skandhas, the elements that constitute individual existence), that is, when approaching entering nirvana without remainder (nirvana, the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, referring to liberation from samsara). The rest can be understood through reflection.

Regarding having an object of focus, up to 'as it should be explained by analogy,' the previous explained having no object of focus, and now explains having an object of focus. 'Having an object of focus' refers to mind and mental factors (mental activities and mental functions). The difference in instants shows the previous thought and the subsequent thought. The three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate) and the four sentences can be understood through careful consideration.

'Taking results and giving results, what is their meaning?' This is a question.

'Being able to be its seed, up to therefore called giving results,' this is the answer. 'Seed' means being able to produce. Because the cause has the ability to produce the result, it is called taking results. The result produced by it, when its cause is precisely giving the power of that result, is called giving results.

'Ripening and giving results, up to and without interval,' this is explaining the fourth sentence. The ripening cause and result only exist in the past. Because the result and cause are not simultaneous and without interval. There are other masters.

至為諸靜慮果者。敘異說。婆沙一百二十一云西方諸師。說果有九。謂於前五更加四果(已上論文)　風輪等能安立水輪等。安立之果名安立果。不凈觀等遠為加行生無生智等。加行之果名加行果由根．境等聚集和合眼識等生。和合之果名和合果。修習靜慮得化心等。修習之果名修習果。

如是四果至增上果攝者。迦濕彌羅國諸師通釋。如是四果皆是士用．增上果攝。若望由因勢力得故名士用果。若望由因能作力得故增上果。非善．惡業所感非異熟果。不相似故非等流果非證得故非離系果　又解第一．第三唯增上果。第二．第四通士用。增上果。夫士用果用功得故。論言皆是士用．增上者總相說故。

說因果已至幾因所生者。此下大文第三明法從因生。結前問起。

法略有四至三所餘法者。答。於一切有為法中。略有四種。一染污法。二異熟生法。三初無漏法。四前三所餘法。

余法者何者。問。

謂除異熟至諸餘善法者。答。于無記法中。除異熟取余無記。于善法中。除初無漏取余善法。

如是四法至余及除相應者。正釋法從因生。前五句明相應法。第六句明色．不相應。

論曰至餘三因生者。釋初頌。一切有為總有四種。四種之中各有二種。一相應法。二不相應法。

相應中諸染污法。除異熟因。餘五因生。由異熟因所生諸法非染污故。二異熟生法。除遍行因餘五因生。由遍行因所生諸法唯染污故。三所餘法。雙除異熟．遍行二因餘四因生。由所餘法非異熟性故。及非染污故。初無漏法除前異熟．遍行二因．及同類因餘三因生。由初無漏非異熟故。非染污故。無有前生同類法故。

如是四法為說何等者。問。

謂心心所者。答。釋第五句。

不相應行至復幾因生者。釋第六句。此即問。

如心心所至決定無有者。答。如心．心所除因外及除相應因。應知余色．不相應行法。從四．三．二餘因所生。此中染污色．不相應行法。如心．心所除異熟因。及除相應因餘四因生。若異熟生．色．不相應行。如心．心所除遍行因。及除相應因餘四因生。三所餘色．不相應行。如心．心所雙除異熟．遍行二因。及除相應因餘三因生。初無漏色．不相應行。如心．心所除異熟．遍行．同類三因。及除相應因餘二因生。一因生法決定無有。

俱舍論記卷第六　　　　

一校了

大治三年七月三日朝于光明山切句了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第七

沙門釋光述

分別根品第二之五

廣說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本相應的心所法中，各種染污法（Klesha-dharma，煩惱之法）的生起，除了異熟因（Vipaka-hetu，果報之因）之外，由其餘五種因所生。因為由異熟因所生的諸法不是染污的。二、由異熟所生的法，除了遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，隨處生起之因）之外，由其餘五種因所生。因為由遍行因所生的諸法都是染污的。三、其餘的法，同時排除異熟因和遍行因這兩種因，由其餘四種因所生。因為其餘的法不是異熟的性質，也不是染污的性質。最初的無漏法（Anasrava-dharma，無煩惱之法），排除前面的異熟因、遍行因，以及同類因（Sabhaga-hetu，同類之因），由其餘三種因所生。因為最初的無漏法不是異熟的，也不是染污的，並且沒有前生的同類法。如上所說的四種法是指什麼呢？（問）是指心和心所法（Citta-caitta，心與心所）。（答）解釋第五句。不相應行法（Citta-viprayukta-samskara，非心非色之法）由幾種因所生呢？（問）解釋第六句。這是提問。如心和心所法一樣，除了因之外，以及除了相應因（Samprayuktaka-hetu，相應之因），應當知道其餘的色法（Rupa，物質）和不相應行法，是從四種、三種、兩種其餘的因所生。這裡，染污的色法和不相應行法，如心和心所法一樣，除了異熟因，以及除了相應因，由其餘四種因所生。如果是由異熟所生的色法和不相應行法，如心和心所法一樣，除了遍行因，以及除了相應因，由其餘四種因所生。三、其餘的色法和不相應行法，如心和心所法一樣，同時排除異熟因和遍行因這兩種因，以及除了相應因，由其餘三種因所生。最初的無漏色法和不相應行法，如心和心所法一樣，排除異熟因、遍行因、同類因這三種因，以及除了相應因，由其餘兩種因所生。由一種因所生的法，決定沒有。

【English Translation】 English version Among the corresponding defiled dharmas (Klesha-dharma, defiled phenomena), all are produced by the remaining five causes except for the resultant cause (Vipaka-hetu, cause of fruition). This is because the dharmas produced by the resultant cause are not defiled. Secondly, dharmas produced by the resultant cause are produced by the remaining five causes except for the pervasive cause (Sarvatraga-hetu, the cause that arises everywhere). This is because the dharmas produced by the pervasive cause are only defiled. Thirdly, the remaining dharmas are produced by the remaining four causes, excluding both the resultant cause and the pervasive cause. This is because the remaining dharmas are neither of a resultant nature nor defiled. The initial unconditioned dharmas (Anasrava-dharma, undefiled phenomena) are produced by the remaining three causes, excluding the aforementioned resultant cause, pervasive cause, and homogenous cause (Sabhaga-hetu, cause of similarity). This is because the initial unconditioned dharmas are neither resultant nor defiled, and there are no prior homogenous dharmas. What are these four dharmas that have been spoken of? (Question) They refer to mind and mental factors (Citta-caitta, mind and mental concomitants). (Answer) Explaining the fifth sentence. By how many causes are the non-associated formations (Citta-viprayukta-samskara, formations disassociated from mind) produced? (Question) Explaining the sixth sentence. This is the question. Like mind and mental factors, apart from causes and apart from the conascent cause (Samprayuktaka-hetu, the cause of association), it should be understood that the remaining form (Rupa, matter) and non-associated formations are produced from the remaining four, three, or two causes. Here, defiled form and non-associated formations, like mind and mental factors, are produced by the remaining four causes, excluding the resultant cause and the conascent cause. If form and non-associated formations are produced by the resultant cause, like mind and mental factors, they are produced by the remaining four causes, excluding the pervasive cause and the conascent cause. Thirdly, the remaining form and non-associated formations, like mind and mental factors, are produced by the remaining three causes, excluding both the resultant cause and the pervasive cause, and excluding the conascent cause. The initial unconditioned form and non-associated formations, like mind and mental factors, are produced by the remaining two causes, excluding the three causes of resultant cause, pervasive cause, and homogenous cause, and excluding the conascent cause. Dharmas produced by one cause definitely do not exist.

因已緣復云何者。此下大文第二辨緣。就中。一總明四緣義。二別解等無間。就初門中。一明四緣體。二明緣作用。三明法緣生。此下明四緣體。結前問起。

頌曰至增上即能作者。答。初一句舉數標名。第二句明因體。第三．第四句明等無間。第五句明所緣。第六句明增上　又婆沙一百七云。因者如種子法。等無間者。如開避法。所緣者。如任杖法。增上者。如不障礙法　問如婆沙十六云問為因攝緣緣攝因耶。答互相攝隨其事。謂前五因是因緣。能作因是餘三緣。有作是說緣攝因。非因攝緣。謂前五是因緣。能作因是增上緣。等無間緣．及所緣緣非因所攝　然無評家。此論同婆沙后說　於二說中明其相攝。為約體說為約用說。若約體說。應能作因攝彼四緣。增上一緣攝彼六因。體皆寬故。若約用說。六因．四緣作用各別。如何相攝　解云夫六因．四緣展轉相攝有其二義。一約體以明。二據用相似。婆沙初師約體以明。因緣攝五。能作攝三。若據能作體寬實攝四緣。增上體寬能攝六因。所以但言能作攝三增上攝一者。此師意說。六因．四緣相對明攝。且據一相攝體盡即休。故說因緣攝五。能作攝三。為能作因外有餘五因。增上緣外有餘三緣。明其相攝。故不別說能作攝四。增上攝六　問若據體性明相攝者。體性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『因已緣復云何者』，這句話引出了下文的第二大部分，即辨析各種『緣』。其中，第一部分總括地闡明四種『緣』的含義，第二部分則分別解釋『等無間緣』。在第一部分中，又分為三個小部分：一是闡明四『緣』的本體，二是闡明『緣』的作用，三是闡明諸法由『緣』而生。下面這段文字闡明四『緣』的本體，並承接前面的問題而展開。

『頌曰至增上即能作者』，這是回答。第一句概括地列舉了數量和名稱。第二句闡明『因』的本體。第三、第四句闡明『等無間緣』。第五句闡明『所緣緣』。第六句闡明『增上緣』。此外，《婆沙》第一百零七卷中說：『因』就像種子一樣，『等無間緣』就像開路一樣，『所緣緣』就像拄著枴杖一樣，『增上緣』就像沒有障礙一樣。問題：正如《婆沙》第十六卷所說，是『因』包含『緣』，還是『緣』包含『因』呢？回答是：互相包含，視情況而定。也就是說，前五種『因』是『因緣』，『能作因』是其餘三種『緣』。有人說『緣』包含『因』，而不是『因』包含『緣』。也就是說，前五種是『因緣』，『能作因』是『增上緣』，『等無間緣』和『所緣緣』不被『因』所包含。然而沒有評判家。此論點與《婆沙》後面的說法相同。在兩種說法中，闡明它們之間的相互包含關係，是就本體而言，還是就作用而言？如果就本體而言，那麼『能作因』應該包含這四種『緣』，『增上緣』應該包含這六種『因』，因為它們的本體都更寬泛。如果就作用而言，那麼六『因』和四『緣』的作用各不相同，如何相互包含呢？解釋說，六『因』和四『緣』的相互包含有兩種含義：一是就本體而言，二是就作用的相似性而言。《婆沙》最初的說法是就本體而言，『因緣』包含五種『因』，『能作因』包含三種『緣』。如果按照『能作因』的寬泛本體確實包含四種『緣』，『增上緣』的寬泛本體能夠包含六種『因』的說法，那麼只說『能作因』包含三種『緣』，『增上緣』包含一種『緣』，是因為這位論師的意思是說，六『因』和四『緣』相對而言，闡明相互包含的關係，並且只就一種方面而言，包含完備就停止了。所以說『因緣』包含五種『因』，『能作因』包含三種『緣』，是爲了說明在『能作因』之外還有其餘五種『因』，在『增上緣』之外還有其餘三種『緣』，從而闡明它們之間的相互包含關係，所以沒有分別說『能作因』包含四種『緣』，『增上緣』包含六種『因』。問題：如果按照本體的性質來闡明相互包含關係，那麼本體的性質

【English Translation】 English version: '因已緣復云何者 (yin yi yuan fu yun he zhe)' - 'What about the relationship between cause and condition?' This phrase introduces the second major section below, which is to distinguish the various 'conditions' (緣, yuan). Among them, the first part summarizes and clarifies the meaning of the four types of 'conditions,' and the second part separately explains 'contiguous condition' (等無間緣, deng wu jian yuan). In the first part, it is further divided into three subsections: first, to clarify the substance of the four 'conditions'; second, to clarify the function of the 'conditions'; and third, to clarify that all dharmas arise from 'conditions.' The following text clarifies the substance of the four 'conditions' and expands on the previous question.

'頌曰至增上即能作者 (song yue zhi zeng shang ji neng zuo zhe)' - 'The verse says, up to the augmenting condition is the able maker.' This is the answer. The first sentence generally lists the quantity and names. The second sentence clarifies the substance of 'cause' (因, yin). The third and fourth sentences clarify 'contiguous condition' (等無間緣, deng wu jian yuan). The fifth sentence clarifies 'object-condition' (所緣緣, suo yuan yuan). The sixth sentence clarifies 'augmenting condition' (增上緣, zeng shang yuan). Furthermore, the one hundred and seventh volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Po sha) says: 'Cause' is like a seed, 'contiguous condition' is like opening a path, 'object-condition' is like leaning on a cane, and 'augmenting condition' is like having no obstacles. Question: As the sixteenth volume of the Vibhasa says, does 'cause' include 'condition,' or does 'condition' include 'cause'? The answer is: they include each other, depending on the situation. That is to say, the first five 'causes' are 'causal condition' (因緣, yin yuan), and 'efficient cause' (能作因, neng zuo yin) is the remaining three 'conditions.' Some say that 'condition' includes 'cause,' but not 'cause' includes 'condition.' That is to say, the first five are 'causal condition,' 'efficient cause' is 'augmenting condition,' and 'contiguous condition' and 'object-condition' are not included by 'cause.' However, there is no critic. This argument is the same as the later statement in the Vibhasa. In the two statements, clarifying the relationship of mutual inclusion between them, is it in terms of substance or in terms of function? If in terms of substance, then 'efficient cause' should include these four 'conditions,' and 'augmenting condition' should include these six 'causes,' because their substances are all broader. If in terms of function, then the functions of the six 'causes' and the four 'conditions' are different, how can they include each other? The explanation is that the mutual inclusion of the six 'causes' and the four 'conditions' has two meanings: one is in terms of substance, and the other is in terms of the similarity of function. The initial statement of the Vibhasa is in terms of substance, 'causal condition' includes five 'causes,' and 'efficient cause' includes three 'conditions.' If according to the statement that the broad substance of 'efficient cause' does indeed include four 'conditions,' and the broad substance of 'augmenting condition' can include six 'causes,' then the reason why it is only said that 'efficient cause' includes three 'conditions' and 'augmenting condition' includes one 'condition' is because the intention of this master is to say that the six 'causes' and the four 'conditions' are relative, clarifying the relationship of mutual inclusion, and only in terms of one aspect, inclusion is complete and it stops. Therefore, it is said that 'causal condition' includes five 'causes' and 'efficient cause' includes three 'conditions,' in order to explain that there are five other 'causes' outside of 'efficient cause' and three other 'conditions' outside of 'augmenting condition,' thereby clarifying the relationship of mutual inclusion between them, so it is not separately said that 'efficient cause' includes four 'conditions' and 'augmenting condition' includes six 'causes.' Question: If the relationship of mutual inclusion is clarified according to the nature of the substance, then the nature of the substance

恒有。是即六因．四緣無別。如何相攝。故婆沙云我說作用何為因果。諸法實體恒無轉變。非因果故　解云據體無變因與緣同。以體從用故說差別。若婆沙第二師．及此論。據用相似以辨相攝。若論六因．四緣。作用各別互不相攝。然說因緣攝五因。增上攝能作因者。據用相似以明相攝也。其等無間．及所緣緣不似因故。故因不攝　問能作因中生等五因四緣中因緣攝。為增上緣攝　解云生等五因是因緣攝。故婆沙十七通無時非因難正義家云。應說彼依六因作論。因名所表通六因故。解云彼文據因緣為問答。既正義解因緣具說六因。明知因緣亦攝能作因中生等五因。又婆沙一百三十一云。大種與所造色為幾緣。答因．增上。因謂生因．依因．立因．持因．養因。增上謂不礙生。及唯無障(解云彼文據四緣為問答。因者即是四緣中因緣。以此明知。生等五因。因緣攝也)　問若據此解因緣亦攝能作少分。能作亦攝因緣少分。何故此論．婆沙明相攝中不說　解云理實亦攝。而不說者以非全攝略而不說　又解生等五因是增上緣攝。所以得知。故婆沙一百二十七云。問造是何義。為是因義。為是緣義耶。設爾何失。俱見其過。若是因義。此四大種于所造色五因皆無。如何可言能造諸色。若是緣義。諸所造色各除自體餘一切法。無

不皆是此增上緣。如何但言大種所造。答應作是說。造是因義。問此于造色五因皆無如何因義。答雖同類等五因皆無。而別有餘五種因義。謂生因．依因．立因．持因．養因。由此能造。有餘師言造是緣義。問諸所造色各除自體余法。皆是此增上緣。如何但言大種所造。答增上緣義。有親．有疏。有近．有遠。有合．不合。有在此生。有在餘生。諸親．近．合．在此生者。說名為因。疏．遠．不合．在餘生者。說名為緣。由此義故。說諸大種與所造色為因．增上。亦不違理(已上論文)　五事論亦有此兩說。並無評家。今引彼文意以後師為證。故知生等五因。增上緣攝。而言因者就增上緣中。有親勝用。別立因名。非是四緣中因緣也。若婆沙前師即順前解　問前解生等五因是因緣攝。后解是增上緣攝。何者為正　解云婆沙．五事既無評文。兩說不同誰能輒定　又解前解為正。婆沙釋造色中。前解即言應作是說。后解即云有餘師言。又通無時非因難中。正義家云。應說彼依六因作論。以此故知。前解為正。

論曰於何處說者。此下釋初句問。此四緣於何處說。

謂契經中至是緣種類者。答。舉經文解。此經中言性者。即是四緣種類性別故名為性　言因緣者。即因是緣持業釋。不得言依主釋。以因即緣故　言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本並非所有都是增上緣（Adhipati-paccaya，起主導作用的條件）。為什麼只說是『大種（Mahābhūta，四大元素）所造』呢？應該這樣回答：『造』是『因』的意思。問：這在所造色（Rūpa，色法）的五種因中都不存在，怎麼能說是『因』的意思呢？答：雖然同類因等五種因都不存在，但另外有五種『因』的意義，即生因、依因、立因、持因、養因。通過這些才能造作。有些論師說，『造』是『緣』的意思。問：對於所有所造色，除了它自身之外的其他法，都是它的增上緣。為什麼只說是『大種所造』呢？答：增上緣的意義有親疏、遠近、合不合、在此生或在其他生。那些親近、相合、在此生的，稱為『因』；疏遠、不合、在其他生的，稱為『緣』。因為這個緣故，說諸大種與所造色為『因』和『增上』，也不違背道理。（以上是論文內容）《五事論》（Pañcavastuka）中也有這兩種說法，但沒有評判者。現在引用該論的文意，以後面的論師為證，所以知道生等五因包含在增上緣中。說是『因』，是因為在增上緣中，有親近殊勝的作用，特別設立『因』這個名稱，而不是四緣（Cattāro paccayā）中的因緣（Hetu-paccaya，根源條件）。如果是《婆沙》（Vibhasa）的前面的論師，就順從前面的解釋。問：前面的解釋說生等五因是因緣所攝，後面的解釋說是增上緣所攝，哪個是正確的？解答說：《婆沙》、《五事論》既然沒有評判的文字，兩種說法不同，誰能輕易斷定？又解答說，前面的解釋是正確的。《婆沙》解釋造色時，前面的解釋就說『應該這樣說』，後面的解釋就說『有些論師說』。又在通無時非因的辯論中，正義家說，『應該說他們依據六因（Sadhetu）作論』。因此可知，前面的解釋是正確的。論曰：『於何處說者』。這下面解釋第一句的提問，這四緣在什麼地方說？『謂契經中至是緣種類者』。回答。舉經文解釋。這部經中說的『性』，就是四緣的種類差別，所以稱為『性』。說的『因緣』，就是『因是緣』的持業釋（Karmadhāraya，一種複合詞的構成方式），不能說是依主釋（Tatpurusa，另一種複合詞的構成方式），因為因就是緣的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version Not all are Adhipati-paccaya (dominance condition). Why only say 'made by Mahābhūta (the four great elements)'? The answer should be: 'Making' means 'cause'. Question: This does not exist in the five causes of Rūpa (form), how can it mean 'cause'? Answer: Although the five causes such as homogeneous cause do not exist, there are five other meanings of 'cause', namely, the cause of birth, the cause of dependence, the cause of establishment, the cause of maintenance, and the cause of nourishment. Through these can be created. Some teachers say that 'making' means 'condition'. Question: For all Rūpa, except for itself, all other dharmas are its Adhipati-paccaya. Why only say 'made by Mahābhūta'? Answer: The meaning of Adhipati-paccaya has intimacy and distance, nearness and farness, combination and non-combination, arising in this life or in other lives. Those who are close, near, combined, and arise in this life are called 'cause'; those who are distant, far, non-combined, and arise in other lives are called 'condition'. Because of this, it is not unreasonable to say that the Mahābhūta are the 'cause' and 'Adhipati' of Rūpa. (The above is the content of the paper) The Pañcavastuka also has these two statements, but there are no commentators. Now, quoting the meaning of that treatise, taking the later teachers as evidence, it is known that the five causes such as birth are included in the Adhipati-paccaya. Saying 'cause' is because in the Adhipati-paccaya, there is a close and excellent function, and the name 'cause' is specially established, which is not the Hetu-paccaya (root condition) in the four conditions. If it is the earlier teacher of the Vibhasa, then follow the previous explanation. Question: The previous explanation said that the five causes such as birth are included in the Hetu-paccaya, and the later explanation said that they are included in the Adhipati-paccaya. Which one is correct? The answer is: Since the Vibhasa and Pañcavastuka do not have commentary texts, and the two statements are different, who can easily determine? Another answer is that the previous explanation is correct. When the Vibhasa explains Rūpa, the previous explanation says 'should say this', and the later explanation says 'some teachers say'. Also, in the debate on the non-causality of the absence of time, the orthodox school said, 'It should be said that they are based on the six causes (Sadhetu)'. Therefore, it can be known that the previous explanation is correct. The treatise says: 'Where is it said?' This below explains the question in the first sentence, where are these four conditions said? 'In the Sutra, to the effect that it is the nature of the conditions'. Answer. Cite the Sutra to explain. The 'nature' mentioned in this Sutra is the difference in the types of the four conditions, so it is called 'nature'. The 'Hetu-paccaya' is the Karmadhāraya (a type of compound word formation) of 'cause is condition', and cannot be said to be Tatpurusa (another type of compound word formation), because the cause is the condition.

等無間緣者。前心．心所各一名等。此即緣體名等　又解後心．心所各一名等。此即果體名等　又解前後心．心所各一名等。此即通緣．及果名等　又解前心．心所等與後心．心所為緣。非唯自類　又解後心．心所等用前心．心所為緣。非唯自類　又解等通前後兩處。言無間者或屬於緣。或屬於果。或通緣．果。總而言之。前心．心所生後心．心所中間。無有餘心間起故名無間　又解無有等法于中間起名等無間。若即等無間是緣持業釋。若等無間之緣依主釋　所緣緣者。即所緣是緣持業釋也。不得言依主釋　增上緣者。增上即緣持業釋也　又解能作中既有親．疏。而得說言能作之因。增上之中亦有親．疏。亦可說言增上之緣。然諸論文皆持業釋。此四緣並不得作有財釋　問余之三緣。亦不障果應名增上　解云雖餘三緣亦名增上。從別立名。而增上緣更無別稱。雖標總號即受別名。如色處等。

於六因中至是因緣性者。釋第二句。出因緣體。

除阿羅漢至無間緣性者。此下釋第三．第四句。此即出體。三乘無學總名阿羅漢。謂除阿羅漢臨入無餘涅槃時。最後一剎那心．心所法。諸餘過．現已生心．心所法。是等無間緣性。已生。簡未來．及無為。心．心所。簡色．不相應。

此緣生法至等無間名者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『等無間緣』（Samanantarapratyaya，直接且無間斷的條件）指的是：前一剎那的心（Citta，意識）和心所（Caitasika，心理活動）各自作為一個『名』（Nama，精神現象）等等。這指的是作為條件的『體』（Dravya，實體）的『名』等等。另一種解釋是：后一剎那的心和心所各自作為一個『名』等等。這指的是作為結果的『體』的『名』等等。還有一種解釋是：前一剎那和后一剎那的心和心所各自作為一個『名』等等。這指的是普遍的條件以及結果的『名』等等。另一種解釋是：前一剎那的心和心所等與后一剎那的心和心所作為條件，並非僅僅是同類。還有一種解釋是：后一剎那的心和心所等以後一剎那的心和心所作為條件，並非僅僅是同類。還有一種解釋是：『等』字貫通前後兩個方面。『無間』（無間隔）一詞，或者屬於條件，或者屬於結果，或者貫通條件和結果。總而言之，前一剎那的心和心所生起后一剎那的心和心所的中間，沒有其他的心生起，所以稱為『無間』。另一種解釋是：沒有其他的法在中間生起，稱為『等無間』。如果說『等無間』就是條件，這是『持業釋』（Karmadharaya，同位語式複合詞）。如果說『等無間』的條件，這是『依主釋』（Tatpurusa，屬格複合詞）。『所緣緣』（Alambanapratyaya，對像條件）指的是：作為所緣（Alambana，對像）的就是條件，這是『持業釋』。不能說是『依主釋』。『增上緣』（Adhipatipratyaya，增強條件）指的是：增強就是條件，這是『持業釋』。另一種解釋是：在『能作因』（Karanahetu，能作之因）中，既有親近的，也有疏遠的，所以可以稱為『能作之因』。在『增上』之中，也有親近的，也有疏遠的，也可以稱為『增上之緣』。然而，各種論著都採用『持業釋』。這四種緣都不能作『有財釋』（Bhuvadi，所有格複合詞）。問：其餘的三種緣，也不阻礙結果的產生，應該也稱為『增上』。答：雖然其餘的三種緣也稱為『增上』，但爲了區分而另立名稱，而『增上緣』沒有其他的別稱。雖然標明了總的名稱，但接受了特別的名稱，如『色處』（Rupayatana，色蘊）等。在六因（Hetu，原因）中，到『是因緣性』（Hetupratyaya，因緣的性質）為止。這是解釋第二句，說明因緣的體性。『除阿羅漢』（Arhat，已證阿羅漢果的聖者）到『無間緣性』為止。這以下是解釋第三句和第四句。這是說明『體』。三乘（Triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的無學（Asaiksa，無學道）總稱為阿羅漢。指的是除了阿羅漢臨入無餘涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）時，最後一剎那的心和心所法，其餘過去和現在已經生起的心和心所法，是『等無間緣性』。『已生』，是爲了簡別未來和無為法（Asamskrta，非因緣和合的法）。『心』和『心所』，是爲了簡別色法（Rupa，物質現象）和不相應行法（Cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra，非心不相應的行蘊）。『此緣生法』到『等無間名』為止。

【English Translation】 English version 『Samanantarapratyaya』 (Immediately contiguous condition) refers to: The preceding moment's Citta (consciousness) and Caitasika (mental factors) each as a 『Nama』 (name, mental phenomenon), etc. This refers to the 『Nama』 etc. of the 『Dravya』 (substance, entity) that serves as the condition. Another explanation is: The subsequent moment's Citta and Caitasika each as a 『Nama』 etc. This refers to the 『Nama』 etc. of the 『Dravya』 that serves as the result. Yet another explanation is: The preceding and subsequent moments' Citta and Caitasika each as a 『Nama』 etc. This refers to the universal condition and the 『Nama』 etc. of the result. Another explanation is: The preceding moment's Citta and Caitasika, etc., serve as the condition for the subsequent moment's Citta and Caitasika, not merely of the same kind. Another explanation is: The subsequent moment's Citta and Caitasika, etc., use the preceding moment's Citta and Caitasika as the condition, not merely of the same kind. Another explanation is: The word 『etc.』 connects both the preceding and subsequent aspects. The term 『without interval』 either belongs to the condition, or to the result, or connects both the condition and the result. In summary, the preceding moment's Citta and Caitasika give rise to the subsequent moment's Citta and Caitasika, and in between, no other Citta arises, hence it is called 『without interval』. Another explanation is: No other Dharma (phenomenon) arises in between, hence it is called 『Samanantara』. If 『Samanantara』 itself is the condition, this is 『Karmadharaya』 (appositional compound). If it is the condition of 『Samanantara』, this is 『Tatpurusa』 (genitive compound). 『Alambanapratyaya』 (Object condition) refers to: That which is the Alambana (object) is the condition, this is 『Karmadharaya』. It cannot be said to be 『Tatpurusa』. 『Adhipatipratyaya』 (Dominant condition) refers to: Dominance is the condition, this is 『Karmadharaya』. Another explanation is: Within 『Karanahetu』 (causal cause), there are both close and distant ones, so it can be called 『causal cause』. Within 『Adhipati』 (dominance), there are also close and distant ones, so it can also be called 『Adhipati condition』. However, various treatises all adopt 『Karmadharaya』. These four conditions cannot be interpreted as 『Bhuvadi』 (possessive compound). Question: The remaining three conditions also do not obstruct the production of the result, so they should also be called 『Adhipati』. Answer: Although the remaining three conditions are also called 『Adhipati』, a separate name is established for differentiation, while 『Adhipatipratyaya』 has no other specific name. Although the general name is indicated, it receives a specific name, such as 『Rupayatana』 (sphere of form), etc. Among the six Hetus (causes), up to 『Hetupratyaya』 (nature of the causal condition). This is explaining the second sentence, elucidating the nature of the causal condition. 『Except for Arhats』 (those who have attained Arhatship) up to 『Samanantarapratyaya nature』. Below this is the explanation of the third and fourth sentences. This is elucidating the 『Dravya』 (substance). The Asaiksa (state of no more learning) of the three Yanas (vehicles - Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana) are collectively called Arhats. It refers to, except for the last moment of Citta and Caitasika when Arhats are about to enter Nirupadhisesa Nirvana (Nirvana without remainder), the remaining past and present Citta and Caitasika that have already arisen are of 『Samanantarapratyaya nature』. 『Already arisen』 is to differentiate from the future and Asamskrta Dharma (unconditioned Dharma). 『Citta』 and 『Caitasika』 are to differentiate from Rupa (material phenomena) and Cittaviprayuktasaṃskāra (non-mind associated formations). 『This condition produces Dharma』 up to 『Samanantara name』.

此釋名。此緣所生法。前後相似等而無間。依是義立等無間名　問六識展轉相望。皆得作等無間緣不　答皆得。故五事論云。眼識無間非定起意識。於六識身容隨起一種。若眼識無間定起意識者。則苦根不應為苦等無間。苦根唯在五識身故。若爾便違根蘊所說。如說苦根與苦根為因．等無間．增上。然依眼識了別色已。無間引起分別意識。故作是言眼識先識。眼識受已意識隨識。

由此色等至等無間緣者。明色非等無間。謂前念但有欲界色。或無間生欲界．色界二無表色。此據入有漏定得別解脫戒。或無間生欲界．無漏二無表色。此據入無漏定得別解脫戒。以色雜亂故非等無間緣。若依婆沙。更說有色界色。不繫色俱生。婆沙通依余色說。此論唯據無表說。必無定．道無表俱生。又身生在欲界作色界化已。入無漏定。亦有三色一時俱現。諸論不說。且據一相明色雜亂。

尊者世友至等無間緣者。此約同時長養色非等。故色不立等無間緣。

大德復言至多所蔭映者。此約前後色不等非等無間緣。

豈不心所至三摩地等者。問。豈不心所三性相生。有尋伺等相生。前後多少亦有非等。

此于異類至無非等過者。答。異類相望實有多少。同類相望即無非等。

豈唯自類至等無間緣者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此釋名：此為緣所生之法（hetu-pratyaya-ja dharma），前後相似相續而無間隔。依據此義，立名為等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya）。問：六識（sad-vijnana）輾轉相望，是否都可以作為等無間緣？答：都可以。所以《五事論》中說：眼識（caksu-vijnana）無間之後，並非必定生起意識（mano-vijnana），在六識身中，容許隨之生起任何一種。如果眼識無間之後必定生起意識，那麼苦根（duhkha-indriya）就不應成為苦的等無間緣，因為苦根只存在於五識身中。如果這樣，就違背了《根蘊》中所說。如經中所說，苦根與苦根互為因、等無間緣、增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya）。然而，依據眼識了別色（rupa）之後，無間引起分別意識，所以才說眼識先識，眼識領受之後，意識隨之識別。由此，色等至等無間緣者：說明色（rupa）不是等無間緣。所謂前一念只有欲界色（kama-dhatu-rupa），或者無間生起欲界、二無表色（adrista-rupa）。這是根據進入有漏定（sasrava-samadhi）而獲得別解脫戒（pratimoksa-sila）的情況。或者無間生起欲界、無漏二無表色。這是根據進入無漏定（anasrava-samadhi）而獲得別解脫戒的情況。因為色雜亂，所以不是等無間緣。如果依據《婆沙》（Vibhasa），更說有色，不繫色俱生。《婆沙》通用於其他色來說明，此論只根據無表色來說明。必定沒有定無表色和道無表色同時生起的情況。又，身體生在欲界，作化之後，進入無漏定，也有三種色一時同時顯現的情況。各種論典沒有說到這種情況，暫且根據一種情況來說明色的雜亂。尊者世友（Vasumitra）至等無間緣者：這是指同時長養的色不是等無間緣。所以色不立為等無間緣。大德（Bhadanta）復言至多所蔭映者：這是指前後色不等，不是等無間緣。豈不心所至三摩地等者：問：難道心所（caitta）的三性（tri-svabhava）相互生起，有尋（vitarka）、伺（vicara）等相互生起，前後多少也有不等的情況嗎？此于異類至無非等過者：答：異類相互比較，確實有多少的差別。同類相互比較，就沒有不等的情況。豈唯自類至等無間緣者：

【English Translation】 English version This explains the name: This is a dharma (phenomenon) born of conditions (hetu-pratyaya-ja dharma), similar and continuous without interruption. Based on this meaning, the name 'samanantara-pratyaya' (immediately preceding condition) is established. Question: Can all six consciousnesses (sad-vijnana), in their mutual relation, be considered as the immediately preceding condition? Answer: Yes, they all can. Therefore, the Five Treatises state: After the cessation of eye-consciousness (caksu-vijnana), mind-consciousness (mano-vijnana) does not necessarily arise; among the six consciousnesses, any one of them may arise. If mind-consciousness necessarily arose immediately after eye-consciousness, then the feeling of pain (duhkha-indriya) should not be the immediately preceding condition for pain, because the feeling of pain exists only in the five consciousnesses. If that were the case, it would contradict what is stated in the Skandha Chapter. As it is said in the sutra, the feeling of pain is the cause, immediately preceding condition, and dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya) for the feeling of pain. However, based on the eye-consciousness distinguishing form (rupa), the discriminating mind-consciousness arises immediately, so it is said that eye-consciousness cognizes first, and after eye-consciousness experiences, mind-consciousness cognizes accordingly. Therefore, 'form, etc., up to the immediately preceding condition' means that form (rupa) is not an immediately preceding condition. That is, the previous moment only has form of the desire realm (kama-dhatu-rupa), or the desire realm and two non-revealing forms (adrista-rupa) arise immediately. This is based on the case of entering the contaminated samadhi (sasrava-samadhi) and obtaining the Pratimoksha precepts (pratimoksa-sila). Or the desire realm and two uncontaminated non-revealing forms arise immediately. This is based on the case of entering the uncontaminated samadhi (anasrava-samadhi) and obtaining the Pratimoksha precepts. Because form is mixed and disordered, it is not an immediately preceding condition. According to the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), it is further said that there are ** forms, and unconditioned forms arise simultaneously. The Vibhasa generally uses other forms to explain, while this treatise only explains based on non-revealing forms. There is definitely no case where fixed non-revealing forms and path non-revealing forms arise simultaneously. Also, if a body is born in the desire realm, performs ** transformations, and then enters the uncontaminated samadhi, there are also cases where three types of forms appear simultaneously. The various treatises do not mention this situation; for now, we will explain the disorder of form based on one aspect. Venerable Vasumitra (Vasumitra), 'up to the immediately preceding condition' means that form that grows simultaneously is not an immediately preceding condition. Therefore, form is not established as an immediately preceding condition. The Venerable Bhadanta (Bhadanta) further said, 'up to what is mostly overshadowed' means that the preceding and following forms are unequal and not an immediately preceding condition. Is it not the case that mental factors (caitta), 'up to samadhi, etc.'? Question: Is it not the case that the three natures (tri-svabhava) of mental factors arise mutually, and that initial application (vitarka), sustained application (vicara), etc., arise mutually, and that the preceding and following quantities are also unequal? 'In this case, with respect to different categories, up to the fault of not being equal' Answer: When different categories are compared, there are indeed differences in quantity. When the same categories are compared, there is no inequality. Is it only with respect to its own category, 'up to the immediately preceding condition'?

問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

前心品法至以說等義者。釋。前心品法。總為后品同類．異類等無間緣。非唯自類。前文通釋且於受等自體類中。前後相望。無少生多無多生少。以說等義。

唯執同類至為緣故起者。此述相似沙門義。唯同類相生為等無間緣。彼說非善至而得生故者。論主破。夫心．心所具四緣生。若執同類唯生同類。初無漏心前無此類。應闕此等無間緣而得生故。若闕得生。便有三緣生過。雖無同類因生。而有相應．俱有因生。故有因緣。

不相應行至可俱現前故者。于不相應中。展轉相望三界．不繫可俱現前。雜亂起故非等無間緣。於心．心所法中。尚無二界俱起。何況有多。由無雜亂故立等無間緣　又解得．及四相。容三界．不繫可俱現前。同分三界可俱現前。非得．無想．二定．命根．名．句．文身。隨其所應各一界現前。此上十四。又各隨應。與餘三界．不繫不相應行。俱起雜亂不立。心．心所法即不如是　又解若別分別。得．及四相各有多體。三界．不繫可俱現前。同分亦有多體。於三界中可俱現前。非得體亦有多。隨其所應。於一界中可俱現前。滅盡定亦有多體。於一界中可俱現前。命根體一。隨其所應一界現前。名句文身亦有多體。隨其所應于

【現代漢語翻譯】問：　　如果不這樣，那又如何解釋？答：　　那又是什麼意思呢？問：　　『前心品法至以說等義者』是什麼意思？釋：『前心品法』，總的來說，是為后品提供同類、異類等的無間緣。並非僅僅是自類。前面的經文已經普遍解釋了，在受（vedanā）、想（saṃjñā）等自體類中，前後相互觀望，沒有從少產生多，也沒有從多產生少，這是因為經中已經說明了這些道理。　　『唯執同類至為緣故起者』是什麼意思？這是敘述相似沙門（śrāmaṇa）的觀點，他們認為只有同類相生才能作為等無間緣。『彼說非善至而得生故者』，論主的駁斥是：心（citta）、心所（caitta）是具足四緣而生的。如果執著于同類只能生同類，那麼最初的無漏心（anāsrava-citta）之前沒有同類，就應該缺少這個等無間緣，卻仍然能夠產生。如果缺少等無間緣還能產生，那就犯了只有三緣生的過失。雖然沒有同類因生，但還有相應（samprayukta）、俱有（sahabhū）因生，所以仍然有因緣。　　『不相應行至可俱現前故者』是什麼意思？在不相應行（viprayukta-saṃskāra）中，輾轉相望，三界（trayo dhātava）、不繫（asaṃskṛta）可以同時現前，因為它們是雜亂生起的，所以不是等無間緣。在心、心所法中，尚且沒有二界同時生起的情況，更何況有多界。正因為沒有雜亂，所以才設立等無間緣。又解釋說，『得』（prāpti）以及四相（catvāri lakṣaṇāni），容許三界、不繫可以同時現前。同分（sabhāgatā）在三界中可以同時現前。但『得』、無想（asaṃjñika）、二定（dve samāpattayaḥ）、命根（jīvitendriya）、名（nāma）、句（pada）、文身（vyañjana-kāya），則各自隨其所應，在一界中現前。以上十四種，又各自隨其所應，與其餘三界、不繫不相應行，同時生起，因為雜亂而不成立等無間緣。心、心所法就不是這樣。又解釋說，如果分別來看，『得』以及四相各有多個自體，三界、不繫可以同時現前。同分也有多個自體，在三界中可以同時現前。『得』的自體也有多個，隨其所應，在一界中可以同時現前。滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti）也有多個自體，在一界中可以同時現前。命根的自體只有一個，隨其所應在一界現前。名句文身也有多個自體，隨其所應在

【English Translation】 Question: If not, answer: What does it mean? Inquiry: Explanation of 'The preceding mind-category dharmas to the meaning of saying etc.': 'The preceding mind-category dharmas' generally serve as the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-pratyaya) for the subsequent categories, whether similar or dissimilar. It's not limited to the same category. The previous text provides a general explanation, focusing on the self-nature categories of feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), etc., where there's no increase from few to many or decrease from many to few in the relationship between the preceding and following. This is because the meaning has been explained in the scriptures. Explanation of 'Only adhering to the same category to the arising as a condition': This describes the view of similar śrāmaṇas (沙門), who believe that only the arising of the same category can serve as the immediately preceding condition. 'Their saying is not good, hence arising': The master refutes this by stating that mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta) arise with the complete set of four conditions. If one adheres to the view that the same category can only give rise to the same category, then the initial undefiled mind (anāsrava-citta) would lack this immediately preceding condition because there's no similar category before it, yet it still arises. If it can arise despite lacking the immediately preceding condition, then it would be a fault of arising with only three conditions. Although there's no cause arising from the same category, there are still the associated (samprayukta) and co-existent (sahabhū) causes, so there's still a causal condition. Explanation of 'Non-associated formations to the possibility of simultaneous manifestation': Among non-associated formations (viprayukta-saṃskāra), the three realms (trayo dhātava) and the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) can manifest simultaneously in a reciprocal manner. Because they arise in a mixed and disordered way, they are not immediately preceding conditions. In the case of mind and mental factors, even two realms cannot arise simultaneously, let alone multiple realms. It is precisely because there is no disorder that the immediately preceding condition is established. Another explanation is that 'attainment' (prāpti) and the four characteristics (catvāri lakṣaṇāni) allow the three realms and the unconditioned to manifest simultaneously. Commonality (sabhāgatā) can manifest simultaneously within the three realms. However, 'attainment', non-perception (asaṃjñika), the two attainments (dve samāpattayaḥ), life faculty (jīvitendriya), name (nāma), phrase (pada), and verbal body (vyañjana-kāya) each manifest in one realm as appropriate. The above fourteen, each as appropriate, arise simultaneously with the remaining three realms and the unconditioned non-associated formations, but because of the disorder, the immediately preceding condition is not established. Mind and mental factors are not like this. Another explanation is that if we analyze separately, 'attainment' and the four characteristics each have multiple entities, and the three realms and the unconditioned can manifest simultaneously. Commonality also has multiple entities and can manifest simultaneously within the three realms. The entity of 'attainment' also has multiple entities, and as appropriate, it can manifest simultaneously in one realm. Cessation attainment (nirodha-samāpatti) also has multiple entities and can manifest simultaneously in one realm. The entity of life faculty is only one, and as appropriate, it manifests in one realm. Name, phrase, and verbal body also have multiple entities, and as appropriate, they manifest in

一界中可俱現前。如多化人一時發語。此上十二。各隨所應。與餘三界．不繫不相應行俱起。無想異熟．及無想定亦有多體。於一界中可俱現前。此上二種。各隨所應。與餘三界不相應行俱起。於此十四不相應行中。或有體多。通多界起。唯一界起。與多俱起．與一俱起。或有體一。唯一界起不通多界。與一俱起．與多俱起。皆成雜亂。相望非等。故不可立等無間緣。心．心所法即不如是。又正理十九云。毗婆沙說。心．及心所。所依．所緣．行相有礙。由斯故。立等無間緣。色．不相應無如是事。故彼不立為此緣體。

何緣不許至等無間緣者。問。

以未來法至無前後故者。答。等無間緣約世前後建立次第。未來世法。無前後故非等無間。

如何世尊至此法應生者。徴。

比過現法至故非比智者。就答中總有三師。此即述說一切有部異師解。謂佛世尊。比過．現法便於未來能現了達。是第四定愿智所攝。如願而知故非比智。

若爾世尊至應不能知者。論主破。若爾世尊未見過．現前際。于未來后際應不能知。又婆沙一百七十九云。問云何愿智慧知未來。有說以過去．現在比知未來。譬如田夫下種子已。比知定有如是果生。彼亦如是。有說若爾愿智應是比量智非現量智。應作是說。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在一個界（dhatu，指欲界、色界、無色界）中可以同時顯現。例如，多個化身可以同時說話。以上十二種（指得果沙門等十二種不相應行）。各自根據其相應的界，與其餘三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的不相應行同時生起。無想異熟（asaññasattā，指無想有情天）以及無想定（asaññasamāpatti，指滅盡定）也有多個個體，在一個界中可以同時顯現。以上這兩種，各自根據其相應的界，與其餘三界的不相應行同時生起。在這十四種不相應行中，有些個體數量多，可以跨多個界生起，也可以只在一個界生起；可以與多個（心、心所法）同時生起，也可以與一個同時生起。有些個體數量只有一個，只能在一個界生起，不能跨多個界；可以與一個（心、心所法）同時生起，也可以與多個同時生起。這些都造成了雜亂，相互之間不相等，所以不能成立等無間緣（samanantarapaccaya，指無間緣）。心（citta，指心識）、心所法（cetasika，指心理作用）就不是這樣。此外，《正理》第十九卷說，毗婆沙（Vibhasa，指《大毗婆沙論》）說，心和心所，所依（nissaya，指根）、所緣（arammana，指對像）、行相（akara，指狀態）都有障礙，因此，可以成立等無間緣。色（rupa，指物質）、不相應行沒有這樣的情況，所以它們不能成立為這種緣的本體。

為什麼不允許（色法、不相應行）成為等無間緣呢？（這是）提問。

因為未來法沒有前後次第。（這是）回答。等無間緣是根據時間上的前後次第建立的。未來世的法，沒有前後次第，所以不是等無間緣。

世尊（bhagavan，指佛陀）如何能夠知道未來之事，從而使此法應生呢？（這是）質疑。

通過比較過去和現在的法，（世尊）能夠清楚地瞭解未來，所以不是比智（anumana-ñana，指比量智）。在回答中總共有三位論師。這裡是敘述一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派）異師的解釋。意思是說，佛世尊通過比較過去和現在的法，能夠清楚地瞭解未來，這是第四禪（catuttha-jhana，指第四靜慮）的愿智（pranidhi-jnana，指愿智）所包含的。因為是按照願望而知，所以不是比智。

如果這樣，世尊（bhagavan，指佛陀）如果未曾見過過去和現在的邊際，那麼對於未來的邊際應該不能知曉。（這是）論主的駁斥。如果這樣，世尊未曾見過過去和現在的邊際，那麼對於未來的邊際應該不能知曉。此外，《婆沙》第一百七十九卷說，問：愿智如何能夠知道未來？有人說，通過過去和現在來比較而知未來。譬如農夫播下種子后，比較而知必定會有這樣的果實產生。他們也是這樣。有人說，如果這樣，愿智應該是比量智，而不是現量智（pratyaksa-jnana，指現量智）。應該這樣說，此（愿智）

【English Translation】 English version: They can all be present simultaneously in one realm (dhatu). For example, multiple emanated beings can speak at the same time. The above twelve (referring to the twelve types of non-associated formations such as those of the Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner, and Arhat). Each, according to its corresponding realm, arises simultaneously with the non-associated formations of the other three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). The fruition of non-perception (asaññasattā, referring to the realm of non-percipient beings) and the cessation attainment (asaññasamāpatti, referring to the attainment of cessation) also have multiple entities that can be present simultaneously in one realm. The above two, each according to its corresponding realm, arises simultaneously with the non-associated formations of the other three realms. Among these fourteen non-associated formations, some have multiple entities and can arise across multiple realms, or only in one realm; they can arise simultaneously with multiple (mind, mental factors) or with one. Some have only one entity and can only arise in one realm, not across multiple realms; they can arise simultaneously with one (mind, mental factors) or with multiple. These all cause confusion and are not equal to each other, so the condition of immediate contiguity (samanantarapaccaya) cannot be established. Mind (citta) and mental factors (cetasika) are not like this. Furthermore, the nineteenth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says that the Vibhasa (referring to the Mahavibhasa) says that mind and mental factors, their basis (nissaya), object (arammana), and aspect (akara) all have obstructions, therefore, the condition of immediate contiguity can be established. Form (rupa) and non-associated formations do not have such characteristics, so they cannot be established as the substance of this condition.

Why are (form and non-associated formations) not allowed to be the condition of immediate contiguity? (This is) a question.

Because future dharmas do not have temporal sequence. (This is) an answer. The condition of immediate contiguity is established based on the temporal sequence. Future dharmas do not have temporal sequence, so they are not the condition of immediate contiguity.

How can the World-Honored One (bhagavan) know future events, so that this dharma should arise? (This is) a challenge.

By comparing past and present dharmas, (the World-Honored One) can clearly understand the future, so it is not inferential knowledge (anumana-ñana). In the answer, there are a total of three masters. Here is a narration of the explanation of a different master of the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school). It means that the World-Honored One, by comparing past and present dharmas, can clearly understand the future, which is included in the knowledge of aspiration of the fourth dhyana (catuttha-jhana). Because it is knowing according to aspiration, it is not inferential knowledge.

If so, if the World-Honored One (bhagavan) has not seen the past and present boundaries, then he should not be able to know the future boundary. (This is) the refutation of the author. If so, if the World-Honored One has not seen the past and present boundaries, then he should not be able to know the future boundary. Furthermore, the one hundred and seventy-ninth volume of the Vibhasa says, asking: How can the knowledge of aspiration know the future? Some say that it knows the future by comparing the past and present. For example, after a farmer sows seeds, he compares and knows that there will definitely be such a fruit produced. They are also like this. Some say that if so, the knowledge of aspiration should be inferential knowledge, not direct knowledge (pratyaksa-jnana). It should be said that this (knowledge of aspiration)

愿智不待觀因而能知果。不待觀果而能知因。是故此智是現量智非比量智。

有餘復言至靜慮通慧者。第二述說一切有部異師解。有餘異師言。有情身內。有未來世果。因先兆。是不相應行蘊差別。佛起欲界俗智。觀此先兆便知未來。非要現游根本靜慮起生死通慧。方始能知此因果先兆。西方相傳法同分攝。

若爾諸佛至非為現證者。論主破第二師。

故如經部至不可思議者。第三論主非前二說。即述經部。若依正理十九有三說。一說諸佛德用。諸佛境界。不可思議。第二說如過去世佛于未來現知見轉。謂佛欲知有情因果。然現在世時分短促。故多觀察過去．未來。非佛世尊欲知后際。先觀前際然後能知。乃至廣說(解云彼師意。宿住智慧現知過去。生死智慧現知未來。正理救不破之)第三說有情身內現有未來因果先相。猶如影像。或色．或心不相應行。佛唯觀此便知未來。非要現游靜慮通慧。然非於彼占相故知。以于未來現證見故。乃至廣說(解云此師意說。由知先相未來現證。如因聞聲方始回顧。正理救不破之)　若依婆沙十一亦有三說。初．二說同此論破。第三評家云。應作是說。佛知未來。是現非比。乃至廣說。問此論前二說。婆沙亦同此論破。何故正理救耶　解云正理論師故違此論且作

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：愿智（prana-jnana，希望的智慧）不需要觀察原因就能知道結果，不需要觀察結果就能知道原因。因此，這種智慧是現量智（pratyaksha-jnana，直接認知的智慧），而不是比量智（anumana-jnana，推論的智慧）。

還有其他學派認為，通過至靜慮（samatha-dhyana，止禪）可以獲得通慧（abhijna-jnana，神通智慧）。這是第二種觀點，描述了一切有部（Sarvastivada，一個佛教部派）中不同老師的解釋。其他一些老師認為，在有情（sattva，眾生）的身體內，存在著未來世的果報的因的先兆，這是一種不相應行蘊（viprayukta-samskara-skandha，非色非心的行蘊）的差別。佛陀（Buddha，覺悟者）運用欲界（kama-dhatu，慾望界）的世俗智慧（laukika-jnana，世間智慧），觀察這些先兆就能知道未來。不需要一定要進入根本靜慮（mula-dhyana，根本禪定）並生起生死通慧（cyuty-utpatti-abhijna，生死智）才能知道這些因果的先兆。這種觀點在西方被認為是法同分（dharma-samatva，法的一致性）所攝。

如果這樣，那麼諸佛（Buddhas，諸位佛陀）就不是現證者（pratyaksha-pramana，現量 प्रमाण）了。論主（acharya，論師）駁斥了第二種觀點。

因此，正如經部（Sautrantika，一個佛教部派）所說，諸佛的境界是不可思議的。這是第三種觀點，論主否定了前兩種說法，並闡述了經部的觀點。如果依據正理（nyaya，正理），十九有三種說法。第一種說法是諸佛的功德和作用，諸佛的境界是不可思議的。第二種說法是，如同過去世的佛陀在未來顯現知見（jnana-darshana，智慧和見解）的轉變。也就是說，佛陀想要知道有情的因果，然而現在世的時間短暫，所以更多地觀察過去和未來。並非佛陀想要知道未來的事情，就先觀察過去的事情然後才能知道。乃至廣說（解釋說，那位老師的意思是，宿住智慧（purva-nivasanusmriti-jnana，宿命通）能夠直接知道過去，生死智慧直接知道未來。正理學派（Nyaya，正理學派）的論師進行了辯護，沒有駁斥這種觀點）。第三種說法是，在有情的身體內，現在就存在著未來因果的先兆，猶如影像，或者是一種色（rupa，物質）或者心（citta，心識）的不相應行。佛陀僅僅觀察這些就能知道未來，不需要一定要進入靜慮和通慧。然而，這並非是通過占卜相術來得知，而是因為對未來進行了直接的驗證和觀察。乃至廣說（解釋說，這位老師的意思是，通過知道先兆，就能對未來進行直接的驗證。如同因為聽到聲音才回頭看。正理學派的論師進行了辯護，沒有駁斥這種觀點）。如果依據《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書），十一也有三種說法。最初和第二種說法與此論所駁斥的相同。第三種評論家說，應該這樣說，佛陀知道未來，是現量而不是比量。乃至廣說。問：此論的前兩種說法，《婆沙論》也與此論所駁斥的相同，為什麼正理學派的論師要進行辯護呢？答：因為正理論師故意違背此論，所以這樣做了。

【English Translation】 English version: Wish-wisdom (prana-jnana) knows the result without observing the cause, and knows the cause without observing the result. Therefore, this wisdom is direct perception wisdom (pratyaksha-jnana) and not inferential wisdom (anumana-jnana).

There are other schools that believe that through perfect tranquility (samatha-dhyana), one can attain super-knowledge (abhijna-jnana). This is the second view, describing the explanations of different teachers within the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school). Some other teachers believe that within the body of a sentient being (sattva), there are precursors of the causes of future consequences, which are differentiations of non-associated formations (viprayukta-samskara-skandha). The Buddha (the Awakened One), using mundane wisdom (laukika-jnana) of the desire realm (kama-dhatu), can know the future by observing these precursors. It is not necessary to enter fundamental concentration (mula-dhyana) and generate the wisdom of death and rebirth (cyuty-utpatti-abhijna) to know these precursors of cause and effect. This view is considered to be included in the uniformity of dharma (dharma-samatva) in the West.

If that is the case, then the Buddhas (the enlightened ones) are not direct perceivers (pratyaksha-pramana). The author (acharya) refutes the second view.

Therefore, as the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) says, the realm of the Buddhas is inconceivable. This is the third view, the author denies the first two views and elaborates on the views of the Sautrantika. If based on logic (nyaya), there are three statements in the nineteen categories. The first statement is that the merits and functions of the Buddhas, the realm of the Buddhas, are inconceivable. The second statement is that, like the Buddhas of the past manifesting the transformation of knowledge and vision (jnana-darshana) in the future. That is, if the Buddha wants to know the cause and effect of sentient beings, but the time in the present world is short, so they observe the past and future more. It is not that the Buddha wants to know the future, so they first observe the past and then can know. And so on (explaining that the teacher means that the knowledge of past lives (purva-nivasanusmriti-jnana) can directly know the past, and the knowledge of death and rebirth can directly know the future. The logicians (Nyaya) defended it and did not refute this view). The third statement is that within the body of sentient beings, there are now precursors of future causes and effects, like images, or a non-associated formation of form (rupa) or mind (citta). The Buddha can know the future simply by observing these, without necessarily entering concentration and super-knowledge. However, this is not known through divination, but because of direct verification and observation of the future. And so on (explaining that this teacher means that by knowing the precursors, one can directly verify the future. Just like turning around to look because of hearing a sound. The logicians defended it and did not refute this view). If based on the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), there are also three statements in the eleven categories. The first and second statements are the same as those refuted in this treatise. The third commentator says that it should be said that the Buddha knows the future, which is direct perception and not inference. And so on. Question: The first two statements of this treatise are the same as those refuted in this treatise in the Vibhasa, why did the logicians defend it? Answer: Because the logician deliberately violated this treatise, so they did so.

此救。未可為正　問正理初說．婆沙評家。與此經部有何差別　解云三說俱同　又解正理初說同婆沙評家。不同經部。此即宗別也　問若別。若同。如何解釋　解云此論言舉意遍知者。經部有兩解。一云如來無不定心。舉意遍知者皆由定故。能知。若依說一切有部宗。佛亦有散心。即是散心遍知無謬　問如來散心是現量耶　解云若二乘散心。但是五識無間所生意識名現量。及定心后所引意識亦名現量。以五識緣境．及定心緣境于境分明俱是現量。從彼所引意識。亦于彼所緣境分明亦得名現量。如願智雖體通定．散。據散心中所引愿智知未來法者。此即名散心現量。若如來智非定心所引。及非五識無間所生亦是現量攝。此即經部與說一切有部不同　又解經部亦許如來有散心。若作此說即同說一切有部。故此論不破評家義。

若於未來至不生余法者。問。既法次第而生。明知未來有前後次第。

若此法生至等無間緣者。答。若此果法生系屬彼因法。要彼因無間此果乃得生。如芽等果生要藉種等因。此等諸法雖相系屬義說前後。然此非有等無間緣。未來世第一法等。總相而言。雖相系屬義說前後。而非得有等無間緣。以等無間緣據世前後作用說故。

諸阿羅漢至非等無間緣者。問。

無餘心等續此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此救濟方法是否正確，尚待商榷。問：關於正理的最初說法，婆沙評家（Vibhasa commentators）與此經部（Sutra school）有何差別？答：三種說法相同。又答：正理的最初說法與婆沙評家相同，但與經部不同。這就是宗派的區別。問：如果不同或相同，應如何解釋？答：此論說『舉意遍知』，經部有兩種解釋。一是認為如來沒有不定之心，舉意遍知都是因為禪定的緣故才能知曉。如果按照說一切有部（Sarvastivada）的宗義，佛也有散亂之心，即是散亂之心也能遍知而無謬誤。問：如來的散亂之心是現量（pratyaksa，直接認知）嗎？答：如果二乘（Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas）的散亂之心，只是五識（five consciousnesses）無間所生的意識名為現量，以及定心后所引發的意識也名為現量。因為五識緣境以及定心緣境，對於境界分明都是現量。從它們所引發的意識，對於所緣的境界分明，也可以稱為現量。例如願智（pranidhana-jnana，願力智慧）雖然本體貫通禪定和散亂，但根據散亂心中所引發的愿智來知曉未來法，這就可以稱為散亂心現量。如果如來的智慧不是定心所引發，也不是五識無間所生，也是現量所攝。這就是經部與說一切有部的不同之處。又答：經部也承認如來有散亂之心。如果這樣說，就與說一切有部相同。因此，此論沒有破斥評家的意義。

如果對於未來直到不生其他法，問：既然法是次第而生，明明知道未來有前後次第。

如果此法生直到等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，直接連續的條件），答：如果此果法生系屬於彼因法，要彼因無間斷，此果才能得生。如芽等果的生起，要藉助種子等因。這些法雖然相互系屬，從意義上說有前後，但這不是有等無間緣。未來世的第一法等，總的來說，雖然相互系屬，從意義上說有前後，但不能有等無間緣。因為等無間緣是根據世間前後作用來說的。

諸阿羅漢（Arhats，已證阿羅漢果者）直到非等無間緣，問：

無餘心等續此

【English Translation】 English version: Whether this salvation is correct is still debatable. Question: What is the difference between the Vibhasa commentators and this Sutra school regarding the initial explanation of correct reasoning? Answer: The three explanations are the same. Another answer: The initial explanation of correct reasoning is the same as the Vibhasa commentators but different from the Sutra school. This is the difference in doctrines. Question: If they are different or the same, how should it be explained? Answer: This treatise says 'knowing all by intention,' and the Sutra school has two explanations. One is that the Tathagata (如來，Thus Come One) has no unfixed mind, and knowing all by intention is all due to samadhi (禪定，concentration) that enables knowing. According to the Sarvastivada's doctrine, the Buddha also has a distracted mind, which means that the distracted mind can also know all without error. Question: Is the Tathagata's distracted mind pratyaksa (現量，direct perception)? Answer: If the distracted mind of the two vehicles (二乘，Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas) is only the consciousness arising without interval from the five consciousnesses (五識，five consciousnesses), it is called pratyaksa, and the consciousness induced after the samadhi mind is also called pratyaksa. Because the five consciousnesses perceive objects and the samadhi mind perceives objects, they are clearly pratyaksa in relation to the objects. The consciousness induced from them, which is clear about the perceived object, can also be called pratyaksa. For example, pranidhana-jnana (愿智，wisdom of aspiration), although its essence connects samadhi and distraction, according to the pranidhana-jnana induced in the distracted mind to know future dharmas (法，phenomena), this can be called distracted mind pratyaksa. If the Tathagata's wisdom is not induced by the samadhi mind, nor is it born without interval from the five consciousnesses, it is also included in pratyaksa. This is the difference between the Sutra school and the Sarvastivada. Another answer: The Sutra school also admits that the Tathagata has a distracted mind. If it is said this way, it is the same as the Sarvastivada. Therefore, this treatise does not refute the meaning of the commentators.

If regarding the future until no other dharmas are born, question: Since dharmas arise in sequence, it is clear that the future has a sequence of before and after.

If this dharma arises until the samanantara-pratyaya (等無間緣，immediately preceding condition), answer: If this result dharma arises and is related to that cause dharma, this result can only arise if that cause is uninterrupted. For example, the arising of results such as sprouts requires the help of causes such as seeds. Although these dharmas are related to each other, they are said to have a sequence of before and after in meaning, but this is not having the samanantara-pratyaya. The first dharma of the future world, etc., generally speaking, although they are related to each other, they are said to have a sequence of before and after in meaning, but they cannot have the samanantara-pratyaya. Because the samanantara-pratyaya is based on the worldly function of before and after.

All Arhats (阿羅漢，one who has attained Arhatship) until not the samanantara-pratyaya, question:

No remaining mind, etc., continues this

起故者。答。無餘心等續此後心起。所以最後心非等無間緣。

豈不如是至應不名意者。難。豈不如是無間滅心亦名為意。無學後心無間。識既不生應不名意。

意是依所顯至等無間緣者。釋。意是依所顯非作用所顯。故最後心得名為意。等無間緣作用所顯。若法至生相此緣取為果已定。無諸法。及諸有情能為障礙。令彼生相法不入至現。由無餘心續故。所以最後心非等無間緣。

若法與心至生住異滅者。此下釋兩種四句。此即初四句。以心等無間對心無間四句分別　言心等無間者。若法是心等無間緣所引果故。名等無間。二無心定．及心．心所法。與前等故名等。無有餘心間隔故名無間　言心無間者。謂若有法接心後起。若是心果。若非心果。但接心後起即名心無間　第一句。無心定出心．心所。及第二念等二定剎那。剎那顯定體也。是心果故名等無間。非接心後起故非是心無間　第二句。謂初所起二定剎那上生．住．異．滅。及有心位諸心．心所上生．住．異．滅。接心後起故是心無間。非心果故非是心等無間　第三句。謂初所起二定剎那。及有心位心．心所法。是心果故是心等無間。接心後起故是心無間　第四句。謂第二念等二定剎那上生．住．異．滅。及無心定出心．心所上生．住．異．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：什麼是『起故』（導致生起的原因）？答：是無餘心（沒有剩餘的心）等續於此後心生起。因此，最後的心不是等無間緣（直接且無間斷的緣）。

問：如果像這樣，難道不應該稱之為『意』（manas，意識）嗎？反駁：難道像這樣無間滅的心不也稱為『意』嗎？無學（arhat，阿羅漢）的後心無間，識（consciousness）既然不生起，難道不應該稱為『意』嗎？

解釋：『意』是依所顯（依靠所顯現的）而非作用所顯（依靠作用所顯現的）。因此，最後的心可以稱為『意』。等無間緣是作用所顯。如果法（dharma）生起，此緣（condition）被取為果（result）已是註定的。沒有諸法（all dharmas）以及諸有情（all sentient beings）能夠成為障礙，使彼生相法（the dharma of arising）不進入顯現。由於沒有剩餘的心相續，所以最後的心不是等無間緣。

如果法與心（citta）生、住、異、滅（arising, abiding, changing, ceasing）相關聯：以下解釋兩種四句。這是最初的四句。以心等無間（immediately contiguous mind）對心無間（contiguous mind）進行四句分別。所謂『心等無間』，如果法是心等無間緣所引發的果，就稱為『等無間』。二無心定（two mindlessness samadhi，無心禪定）以及心、心所法（mental factors），與前一個相同，所以稱為『等』。沒有其他心間隔，所以稱為『無間』。所謂『心無間』，是指如果有法在心之後生起，如果是心的果，或者不是心的果，但只要在心之後生起，就稱為『心無間』。第一句：無心定出心（emerging from mindlessness samadhi）的心、心所，以及第二念等二定剎那（two samadhi moments），剎那（moment）顯示定的體性。是心的果，所以稱為『等無間』。不是接在心後生起，所以不是『心無間』。第二句：指最初生起的二定剎那的上生、住、異、滅，以及有心位（mindful state）的諸心、心所的上生、住、異、滅。接在心後生起，所以是『心無間』。不是心的果，所以不是『心等無間』。第三句：指最初生起的二定剎那，以及有心位的心、心所法。是心的果，所以是『心等無間』。接在心後生起，所以是『心無間』。第四句：指第二念等二定剎那的上生、住、異、滅，以及無心定出心的心、心所的上生、住、異、滅。

【English Translation】 English version Question: What is 『hetu』 (cause) for arising? Answer: It is the arising of the subsequent mind that is continuous with the preceding mind without remainder. Therefore, the last mind is not an immediately contiguous condition (samanantarapratyaya).

Question: If it is like this, shouldn't it be called 『manas』 (mind, consciousness)? Objection: Isn't the mind that ceases immediately also called 『manas』? Since consciousness does not arise immediately after the last mind of an Arhat (one who has attained nirvana), shouldn't it be called 『manas』?

Explanation: 『Manas』 is manifested by what it relies on, not by its function. Therefore, the last mind can be called 『manas』. An immediately contiguous condition is manifested by its function. If a dharma arises, this condition is already determined to be taken as the result. No dharmas or sentient beings can be an obstacle to prevent that dharma of arising from entering into manifestation. Because there is no remaining mind continuing, the last mind is not an immediately contiguous condition.

If a dharma is associated with the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the mind (citta): The following explains two sets of fourfold distinctions. This is the first set of fourfold distinctions. The fourfold distinction is made between immediately contiguous mind (samanantaracitta) and contiguous mind (anantaracitta). What is called 『immediately contiguous mind』 is that if a dharma is the result produced by the immediately contiguous condition of the mind, it is called 『immediately contiguous』. The two mindlessness samadhis (two types of meditative absorption without mental activity) and mental factors (citta-caitta dharmas), are the same as the previous one, so they are called 『contiguous』. Because there is no other mind intervening, it is called 『immediately contiguous』. What is called 『contiguous mind』 refers to a dharma that arises after the mind. If it is the result of the mind, or if it is not the result of the mind, but arises after the mind, it is called 『contiguous mind』. First statement: The mind and mental factors emerging from mindlessness samadhi, and the two samadhi moments such as the second thought, the moment reveals the nature of samadhi. It is the result of the mind, so it is called 『immediately contiguous』. It does not arise after the mind, so it is not 『contiguous mind』. Second statement: Refers to the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the two samadhi moments that initially arise, and the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of all minds and mental factors in the mindful state. It arises after the mind, so it is 『contiguous mind』. It is not the result of the mind, so it is not 『immediately contiguous mind』. Third statement: Refers to the two samadhi moments that initially arise, and the mind and mental factors in the mindful state. It is the result of the mind, so it is 『immediately contiguous mind』. It arises after the mind, so it is 『contiguous mind』. Fourth statement: Refers to the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the two samadhi moments such as the second thought, and the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the mind and mental factors emerging from mindlessness samadhi.

滅。非心果故非是心等無間。非接心後起故非是心無間。

若法與心至第四句者。明第二四句　等無間者如前釋　無心定無間者。謂若有法接無心定後起。名無心定無間。以心等無間對無心定無間四句分別　前第三句。謂初所起二定剎那。及有心位心．心所法。為今第一句。是心果故是心等無間。非接無心定後起故非是無心定無間　前第四句。謂第二念等二定剎那上生．住．異．滅。及無心定出心．心所上生．住．異．滅。為今第二句。接無心定後起故是無心定無間。非是心果故非心等無間　前第一句。謂無心定出心．心所。及第二念等二定剎那。為今第三句。是心果故是心等無間。接無心定後起故是無心定無間　前第二句謂初所起二定剎那上生．住．異．滅。及有心位諸心．心所上生．住．異．滅。為今第四句。非心果故非是心等無間。非接無心定後起故非是無心定無間。又婆沙十一云。問彼何故不說無想異熟耶。有說應說。而不說者當知此義有餘。有說二無心定。有加行有勤勞而得。故彼說之。無想異熟與此相違。故彼不說。有說二無心定是善故說。無想異熟無覆無記故不說之。有說若由心力無間引起不雜亂者。可名為心等無間法。無想異熟是異熟因力所引起任運而轉。非入彼心勢力所引。故不名心等無間

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：滅。如果不是心的結果，就不是心的等無間緣；如果不是緊接著心之後生起，就不是心的無間緣。如果法與心有關，直到第四句，說明第二和第四句。等無間緣如前解釋。無心定無間緣，是指如果某個法緊接著無心定之後生起，就叫做無心定無間緣。用心的等無間緣與無心定無間緣分成四句來分別：前面的第三句，是指最初生起的兩個定的剎那，以及有心位的心和心所法，作為現在的第一句。因為是心的結果，所以是心的等無間緣；因為不是緊接著無心定之後生起，所以不是無心定無間緣。前面的第四句，是指第二念等兩個定的剎那的上生、住、異、滅，以及無心定出定的心和心所的上生、住、異、滅，作為現在的第二句。因為緊接著無心定之後生起，所以是無心定無間緣；因為不是心的結果，所以不是心的等無間緣。前面的第一句，是指無心定出定的心和心所，以及第二念等兩個定的剎那，作為現在的第三句。因為是心的結果，所以是心的等無間緣；因為緊接著無心定之後生起，所以是無心定無間緣。前面的第二句，是指最初生起的兩個定的剎那的上生、住、異、滅，以及有心位的各種心和心所的上生、住、異、滅，作為現在的第四句。因為不是心的結果，所以不是心的等無間緣；因為不是緊接著無心定之後生起，所以不是無心定無間緣。此外，《婆沙論》第十一卷說：『問：他們為什麼不說無想異熟呢？』有人說應該說，但是沒有說，應當知道這個意義還有剩餘。有人說兩種無心定，有加行有勤勞才能得到，所以他們說了。無想異熟與此相反，所以他們沒有說。有人說兩種無心定是善的，所以說了；無想異熟是無覆無記的，所以沒有說。有人說如果由心力無間地引起，不雜亂的，可以叫做心的等無間法。無想異熟是異熟因的力量所引起，任運而轉，不是入定的心勢力所引導，所以不叫心的等無間緣。

【English Translation】 English version: Nirodha (滅, cessation). If it is not the result of mind, then it is not 'citta-samanantarapratyaya' (心的等無間緣, immediately contiguous condition of mind); if it does not arise immediately after mind, then it is not 'citta-anantarapratyaya' (心的無間緣, contiguous condition of mind). If a dharma (法, phenomenon) is related to mind up to the fourth statement, it clarifies the second and fourth statements. 'Samanantarapratyaya' (等無間緣, immediately contiguous condition) is as explained before. 'Asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya' (無心定無間緣, contiguous condition of the no-mind absorption) refers to a dharma that arises immediately after 'asamjnika-samapatti' (無心定, no-mind absorption), and is called 'asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya'. Using 'citta-samanantarapratyaya' (心的等無間緣, immediately contiguous condition of mind) and 'asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya' (無心定無間緣, contiguous condition of the no-mind absorption) to distinguish four statements: The previous third statement refers to the initial moment of the two 'samadhi' (定, concentration), and the mind and mental factors in the mind-possessed state, as the current first statement. Because it is the result of mind, it is 'citta-samanantarapratyaya'; because it does not arise immediately after 'asamjnika-samapatti', it is not 'asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya'. The previous fourth statement refers to the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the second thought and subsequent moments of the two 'samadhi', and the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the mind and mental factors emerging from 'asamjnika-samapatti', as the current second statement. Because it arises immediately after 'asamjnika-samapatti', it is 'asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya'; because it is not the result of mind, it is not 'citta-samanantarapratyaya'. The previous first statement refers to the mind and mental factors emerging from 'asamjnika-samapatti', and the second thought and subsequent moments of the two 'samadhi', as the current third statement. Because it is the result of mind, it is 'citta-samanantarapratyaya'; because it arises immediately after 'asamjnika-samapatti', it is 'asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya'. The previous second statement refers to the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of the initial moment of the two 'samadhi', and the arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing of various minds and mental factors in the mind-possessed state, as the current fourth statement. Because it is not the result of mind, it is not 'citta-samanantarapratyaya'; because it does not arise immediately after 'asamjnika-samapatti', it is not 'asamjnika-samapatti-anantarapratyaya'. Furthermore, the eleventh volume of the 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra' (婆沙論) says: 'Question: Why do they not mention 'asañña-vipāka' (無想異熟, fruition of no-perception)?' Some say it should be mentioned, but the fact that it is not mentioned indicates that there is more to this meaning. Some say that the two 'asamjnika-samapatti' require effort and diligence to attain, so they are mentioned. 'Asañña-vipāka' is the opposite of this, so it is not mentioned. Some say that the two 'asamjnika-samapatti' are wholesome, so they are mentioned; 'asañña-vipāka' is morally neutral and indeterminate, so it is not mentioned. Some say that if something is caused by the uninterrupted power of mind and is not mixed up, it can be called 'citta-samanantarapratyaya'. 'Asañña-vipāka' is caused by the power of 'vipāka-hetu' (異熟因, result cause) and operates spontaneously, not guided by the power of the mind entering 'samadhi', so it is not called 'citta-samanantarapratyaya'.

法　問若爾異熟心．心所法。亦異熟因力所引起。任運而轉。應不名心等無間法　答自類相引有勝勢力。不同彼故。俱是相應有所依等說名自類　問何故二無心定是心等無間法。而非心等無間緣耶　答彼由心加行功用勤勞所引得故。名心等無間法。與心相違遮斷心故。非心等無間緣。有說彼由心勢力所引起故。名心等無間法。不相應。無所依。無行相。無警覺。無所緣故。非心等無間緣。有說彼由心勢力得增長有作用故。名心等無間法。損減心令不起作用。非心等無間緣。問何故二無心定。前後相似無亂續生。而前非后等無間緣。答由入定心勢力所引。不由前念力所引生故。前非后等無間緣。問若爾異熟心．心所法。由異熟因勢力引起任運而轉。前應非后等無間緣。答心．心所法是相應。有所依故。有行相。有警覺。有所緣故。前念於後有勝勢力引發開避故。皆是后等無間緣。不相應行與此相違。不可為例(已上論文)　問入二定心。為等無間緣取果．與果。為復同時。為不同時　解云此不決定。故正理十九云。謂入定心居現在位。頓取諸定．及出心果。亦與最初剎那定果。滅入過去。隨後諸定．及出定心一一生時與果。非取先已取故。豈不一切等無間緣無有異時取果．與果。此責非理。取果必頓。與果有漸故無有失

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：如果這樣，異熟心（Vipāka-citta，果報心）和心所法（Caitasika，心所），也是由異熟因的力量所引起，任運（任其自然）而轉，那應該不能稱為心等無間法（Samanantaracitta，等無間心）吧？答：因為自類（Sajātiya，同類）相引有殊勝的勢力，不同於彼（指異熟心）。俱是相應（Samprayukta，相應），有所依（Nissaya，所依）等，所以說名為自類。問：為什麼二無心定（Asaññasamāpatti，無想定； Nirodhasamāpatti，滅盡定）是心等無間法，而不是心等無間緣（Samanantarapaccaya，等無間緣）呢？答：因為它們是由心（指有心位）的加行（Prayoga，加行）、功用（Karana，作用）、勤勞（Viriya，精進）所引導而獲得的，所以名為心等無間法。因為與心相違，遮斷心，所以不是心等無間緣。有人說，它們是由心的勢力所引起，所以名為心等無間法。但是它們不相應，沒有所依，沒有行相（Ākāra，行相），沒有警覺（Manasikara，作意），沒有所緣（Ālambana，所緣），所以不是心等無間緣。有人說，它們是由心的勢力而增長，有作用，所以名為心等無間法。它們損減心，使心不起作用，所以不是心等無間緣。問：為什麼二無心定前後相似，沒有錯亂地持續產生，而前念不是后唸的等無間緣呢？答：因為是由入定心（Samāpatti-citta，入定之心）的勢力所引導，不是由前唸的力量所引導而生起的，所以前念不是后唸的等無間緣。問：如果這樣，異熟心和心所法，由異熟因的勢力引起，任運而轉，那麼前念應該不是后唸的等無間緣吧？答：心和心所法是相應的，有所依的，有行相，有警覺，有所緣的，所以前唸對於後念有殊勝的勢力，引發開闢，所以都是后唸的等無間緣。不相應行（Visamyutta-dharma，不相應行法）與此相反，不可作為例子。（以上是論文）問：入二定心，是等無間緣取果（Phala，果報）、與果，是同時，還是不同時？解說：這不一定。所以《正理》（Abhidharmakośa，阿毗達磨俱舍論）第十九卷說，入定心處於現在位，頓（立即）時取得諸定和出定心的果報，也與最初剎那的定果滅入過去。隨後諸定和出定心一個一個生起時給予果報，不是取得先前已經取得的果報。難道不是一切等無間緣都沒有異時取果、與果的情況嗎？這種責難是不合理的，因為取果一定是頓時的，而與果有漸次的情況，所以沒有過失。

【English Translation】 English version Question: If that's the case, Vipāka-citta (resultant consciousness) and Caitasika (mental factors), which are also caused by the power of Vipāka-hetu (resultant cause) and operate spontaneously, should not be called Samanantaracitta (immediately preceding consciousness), right? Answer: Because the Sajātiya (homogeneous, of the same kind) attraction has superior power, different from those (referring to Vipāka-citta). Both are Samprayukta (associated), have Nissaya (support), etc., therefore they are called Sajātiya. Question: Why are the two Asaññasamāpatti (perception-cessation attainment) and Nirodhasamāpatti (cessation attainment) considered Samanantaracitta, but not Samanantarapaccaya (immediately preceding condition)? Answer: Because they are attained through the Prayoga (application), Karana (function), and Viriya (effort) of the mind (referring to the mind in the conscious state), they are called Samanantaracitta. Because they are contrary to the mind and obstruct the mind, they are not Samanantarapaccaya. Some say that they are caused by the power of the mind, so they are called Samanantaracitta. However, they are not associated, have no support, no Ākāra (appearance), no Manasikara (attention), and no Ālambana (object), so they are not Samanantarapaccaya. Some say that they are increased and have a function due to the power of the mind, so they are called Samanantaracitta. They diminish the mind and prevent it from functioning, so they are not Samanantarapaccaya. Question: Why do the two Asaññasamāpatti and Nirodhasamāpatti arise successively in a similar manner without confusion, but the preceding thought is not the Samanantarapaccaya for the subsequent thought? Answer: Because they are guided by the power of the Samāpatti-citta (attainment consciousness), not caused by the power of the preceding thought, the preceding thought is not the Samanantarapaccaya for the subsequent thought. Question: If that's the case, Vipāka-citta and Caitasika, caused by the power of Vipāka-hetu and operating spontaneously, then the preceding thought should not be the Samanantarapaccaya for the subsequent thought, right? Answer: Citta and Caitasika are associated, have support, have appearance, have attention, and have an object, so the preceding thought has superior power to initiate and open up the subsequent thought, so they are all Samanantarapaccaya for the subsequent thought. Visamyutta-dharma (non-associated phenomena) are contrary to this and cannot be taken as examples. (The above is from the treatise) Question: When entering the two attainments, is the Samanantarapaccaya taking the Phala (result) and giving the result simultaneous or not simultaneous? Explanation: This is not certain. Therefore, the nineteenth volume of the Abhidharmakośa (Treasury of Abhidharma) says that the entering attainment consciousness is in the present state, immediately takes the results of all attainments and the exiting attainment consciousness, and also the result of the first moment of the attainment disappears into the past. Subsequently, each attainment and exiting attainment consciousness gives the result as it arises, not taking the result that has already been taken. Isn't it the case that all Samanantarapaccaya do not have different times for taking and giving the result? This criticism is unreasonable, because taking the result must be immediate, while giving the result is gradual, so there is no fault.

又一說云。諸作是說。入二定心。滅入過去方能漸取第二念等定．及出心。正理破云。彼入定心應非過去。夫取果者是牽果名。諸牽果能是行作用。依行作用立三世別。若有作用非現在者。豈不便壞世別所依。又彼論意。定．及出心。雖俱心果。為求定故。故定先起。于諸定中頓起無用。起一足能遮心　問正理既言頓取果。未知。所取之果定當生不。若言定生。未來法亂。所取既多如何定起。若言取一何理非余。若一先相屬未來成次第。若不定生。便違所說。等無間緣果被取已必定當生。無法為障令不生故　解云果生不定。以所取多。生者少故。諸有說言定當生者。意顯此緣既取果已。于所取內定有果生。而非一切。以實而言。亦有不生。或約有心位而云必生　問于有心位何不頓取．漸與　解云有心。前起後心正生。有心定隔故不總取。無心不爾故頓取也　又解入定心。為等無間緣取．與同時。若初念現在取．與。若第二念已去過去漸取。漸與。故婆沙一百九十六。解等無間緣中雲。此中有說。若前法未至已生位。不與后法作等無間。若至便作。若爾者。有心位可爾。無心位云何可爾。答此中說有心位不說餘位。有說設依無心位說亦無有過。謂入定心現在前時。頓取諸定．及出心果。亦與最初剎那定果。后諸剎那．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：還有一種說法是，一些人認為，進入二禪定（dhyana，禪定）的心，必須先滅入過去，才能逐漸取得第二念等定，以及出定之心。正理（Nyaya，印度教正理論）駁斥說，他們入定的心不應該是過去的。取得果（phala，結果）的行為，是牽引果的名稱。所有牽引果的能力都是行為的作用。根據行為的作用來區分三世（過去、現在、未來）。如果存在不是現在的行為作用，豈不是破壞了三世差別的依據？而且他們的論點是，定和出定之心，雖然都是心的結果，但爲了追求定，所以定先產生。在各種定中，頓然產生是沒有用的，產生一個就足以遮蔽心。

問：正理既然說頓然取得果，不知道所取得的果一定會產生嗎？如果說一定會產生，就會擾亂未來的法則。所取得的果很多，如何確定哪個先產生？如果說只取一個，又有什麼道理不是其他的果？如果一個果先與未來相聯繫，就會形成次第。如果不定產生，就違背了所說的，等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，無間緣，心與心之間的關係）的果已經被取得，就必定會產生，沒有法可以阻礙它不產生。

答：果的產生是不確定的，因為所取得的果很多，而產生的少。那些說一定會產生的人，意思是說這個緣既然已經取得果，在所取得的果中一定有果產生，而不是全部都產生。實際上，也有不產生的。或者可以認為，這是就存在有心位（citta，心）的狀態而言，所以說是必定產生。

問：在有心位的狀態下，為什麼不頓然取得，而要逐漸給予？

答：有心位中，前一個心產生后，后一個心才開始產生，有心位是確定的間隔，所以不能全部取得。無心位不是這樣，所以可以頓然取得。

另一種解釋是，入定之心，作為等無間緣，是同時取得和給予的。如果是最初的念頭，是現在取得和給予。如果是第二個念頭開始，就是過去逐漸取得和給予。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第一百九十六卷解釋等無間緣時說，這裡有人說，如果前一個法沒有達到已生的狀態，就不會給后一個法作為等無間緣。如果達到了，就會給。如果是這樣，有心位可以這樣說，無心位又該怎麼說呢？回答說，這裡說的是有心位，沒有說其他的狀態。有人說，即使依據無心位來說，也沒有過失。意思是說，入定之心現在出現時，頓然取得各種定和出定之心的果，也給予最初剎那的定果，以及後來的各種剎那。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, some say that when entering the two dhyanas (dhyana, meditation), one must first extinguish and enter the past before gradually acquiring the second thought and other samadhis (samadhi, concentration), as well as the mind of emerging from samadhi. The Nyaya (Nyaya, Hindu school of logic) refutes this, saying that their mind entering samadhi should not be in the past. The act of obtaining a phala (phala, result) is the act of drawing the name of the result. All abilities to draw results are the function of action. The distinction of the three times (past, present, future) is established based on the function of action. If there is a function of action that is not present, wouldn't it destroy the basis for the distinction of the three times? Moreover, their argument is that although both samadhi and the mind of emerging from samadhi are results of the mind, samadhi arises first because it is sought. Among the various samadhis, arising suddenly is useless; arising one is sufficient to obscure the mind.

Question: Since the Nyaya says that the result is obtained suddenly, is it known whether the result obtained will definitely arise? If it is said that it will definitely arise, it will disrupt the laws of the future. Since many results are obtained, how can it be determined which one will arise first? If it is said that only one is taken, what reason is there that it is not the others? If one result is first connected to the future, it will form a sequence. If it does not arise definitely, it contradicts what was said, that the result of the samanantarapratyaya (samanantarapratyaya, immediately preceding condition, the relationship between mind and mind) has been obtained and will definitely arise, because there is no dharma (dharma, law, phenomenon) that can prevent it from arising.

Answer: The arising of the result is uncertain, because many results are obtained, but few arise. Those who say that it will definitely arise mean that since this condition has obtained the result, there must be a result arising among the results obtained, but not all of them. In reality, some may not arise. Or it can be thought that this is in the state of having citta (citta, mind), so it is said that it will definitely arise.

Question: In the state of having citta, why not obtain it suddenly, but give it gradually?

Answer: In the state of having citta, after the previous mind arises, the next mind begins to arise, and the state of having citta is a definite interval, so it cannot be obtained all at once. The state of not having citta is not like this, so it can be obtained suddenly.

Another explanation is that the mind entering samadhi, as a samanantarapratyaya, is obtained and given simultaneously. If it is the initial thought, it is obtained and given in the present. If it is from the second thought onwards, it is gradually obtained and given in the past. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Buddhist treatise), volume 196, explains the samanantarapratyaya by saying that some say here that if the previous dharma has not reached the state of being born, it will not give the subsequent dharma as a samanantarapratyaya. If it has reached it, it will give it. If this is the case, it can be said in the state of having citta, but how can it be said in the state of not having citta? The answer is that this speaks of the state of having citta, and does not speak of other states. Some say that even if it is based on the state of not having citta, there is no fault. It means that when the mind entering samadhi appears now, it suddenly obtains the results of various samadhis and the mind of emerging from samadhi, and also gives the result of samadhi in the initial moment, as well as the various moments that follow.

及出定心生時與果。非取先已取故。評曰彼不應作是說。所以者何。無有等無間緣異時取果。異時與果。若此時取果則此時與果故　問何故正理。與婆沙評家義相違　解云此乃正理師過非關俱舍師事。或可論意各別。何必正理皆以婆沙評家為量。正理意約取果作用立現在世。若與果但是功能故。不說過去取果。若婆沙意。過去既得起與果用。何故不得起取果用。初取果者立現在世。后取果者過去亦起。今俱舍論意。同婆沙評家。不同正理　從二定出至等無間耶者。問。既相去遠如何無間　中間不隔心心所故者。答。相去雖遠。中間不隔余心．心所故。名為無間。

如是已釋至為所緣緣者。此下釋第五句。心．心所是能緣。一切法是所緣。以一切法。是心心所。生所攀附故曰所緣。即此所緣有別體性。是心．心所發生緣故名所緣緣。所以心心所名能緣境名所緣者。由心等對境之時帶境相現。名為能緣。境不帶心等相現故不名能緣。但是所緣。餘者如文。

若法與彼法至相無異故者。顯所緣定。若緣．不緣皆名所緣。猶如薪等若燒．不燒皆名所燒。體無異故。

心心所法至如是決定耶者。問。心．心所法。于所緣境有三定。于所依根亦有三定耶　于所緣三定者。一處定。二事定。三剎那定　處定者謂眼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以及從禪定中出來時，心識生起時與果報之間的關係。並非是先取了果報再去取，因為已經取過了。評論說，他不應該這樣說。為什麼呢？因為沒有等無間緣在不同時間取果報，又在不同時間給予果報的情況。如果在這個時候取果報，那麼也應該在這個時候給予果報。問：為什麼正理師的觀點與《婆沙論》評家的觀點相違背？解答說：這只是正理師的過失，與《俱舍論》的作者無關。或許是論述的意圖各有不同。為什麼一定要以《婆沙論》評家的觀點作為衡量正理的標準呢？正理師的意圖在於，取果報的作用發生在現在世。如果給予果報只是功能，所以不說過去取果報。如果按照《婆沙論》的觀點，過去既然已經能夠產生給予果報的作用，為什麼不能產生取果報的作用呢？最初取果報的，發生在現在世。後來取果報的，過去也可以發生。現在《俱舍論》的觀點，與《婆沙論》評家相同，與正理師不同。從二種禪定出來到等無間緣，問：既然相隔很遠，怎麼能說是無間呢？中間沒有間隔心和心所，答：雖然相隔很遠，但是中間沒有間隔其他的心和心所，所以稱為無間。如是已經解釋到所緣緣（Alambana-pratyaya，心和心所生起所攀緣的境）為止。下面解釋第五句。心和心所是能緣，一切法是所緣。因為一切法是心和心所生起時所攀附的，所以叫做所緣。即此所緣有別體的性質，是心和心所發生的緣故，名為所緣緣。所以心和心所名為能緣，境名為所緣的原因是，由於心等對境的時候，帶著境的相狀顯現，名為能緣。境不帶著心等的相狀顯現，所以不名為能緣。只是所緣。其餘的就像原文所說的那樣。如果法與那個法，直到相無異故。顯示所緣的定義。如果緣或者不緣都叫做所緣。猶如柴火等，如果燒或者不燒都叫做所燒。本體沒有差異的緣故。心心所法，直到如是決定耶。問：心和心所法，對於所緣境有三種決定，對於所依根也有三種決定嗎？于所緣的三種決定是：一、處定；二、事定；三、剎那定。處定是指眼。

【English Translation】 English version: And concerning the arising of the mind upon emerging from Samadhi (meditative state) and the relationship with its result. It is not that one first takes the result and then takes the cause, because it has already been taken. The commentary says that he should not say that. Why? Because there is no immediate condition (Samanantara-pratyaya) where the result is taken at a different time and given at a different time. If the result is taken at this time, then it should also be given at this time. Question: Why does the view of the Sautrantika (those who uphold the sutras) contradict the view of the Vaibhashika (those who uphold the commentaries)? The answer is: This is merely the fault of the Sautrantika, and it is not related to the concerns of the author of the Abhidharmakosha (Treasure House of Higher Knowledge). Perhaps the intentions of the treatises are different. Why must the Sautrantika's view be measured by the Vaibhashika's commentary? The Sautrantika's intention is that the action of taking the result occurs in the present. If giving the result is merely a function, then it is not said that the result is taken in the past. If according to the Vaibhashika's view, since the action of giving the result can arise in the past, why can't the action of taking the result arise? The initial taking of the result occurs in the present. The subsequent taking of the result can also arise in the past. Now, the view of the Abhidharmakosha is the same as that of the Vaibhashika commentator, and different from that of the Sautrantika. From emerging from the two Samadhis to the immediate condition, the question is: Since they are far apart, how can it be said to be immediate? The answer is: Because there is no intervening mind or mental factors in between. Although they are far apart, because there are no other intervening minds or mental factors in between, it is called immediate. Thus, it has been explained up to the objective condition (Alambana-pratyaya). Below, the fifth phrase is explained. Mind and mental factors are the 'able to cognize' (Grahaka), and all dharmas (phenomena) are the 'cognized object' (Grahya). Because all dharmas are what the mind and mental factors cling to when they arise, they are called the 'cognized object'. That is, this cognized object has a distinct nature, and it is the condition for the arising of mind and mental factors, so it is called the 'objective condition'. The reason why mind and mental factors are called the 'able to cognize' and the object is called the 'cognized object' is that when the mind, etc., confronts an object, it manifests the appearance of the object, so it is called the 'able to cognize'. The object does not manifest the appearance of the mind, etc., so it is not called the 'able to cognize'. It is only the 'cognized object'. The rest is as stated in the text. If a dharma and that dharma, until there is no difference in their nature. This reveals the definition of the objective condition. Whether it is a condition or not a condition, it is called the objective condition. Just like firewood, whether it is burned or not burned, it is called 'burnable'. Because the substance is not different. The laws of mind and mental factors, until such a determination. Question: Do the laws of mind and mental factors have three certainties regarding the object, and do they also have three certainties regarding the root of dependence? The three certainties regarding the object are: first, certainty of place; second, certainty of object; third, certainty of moment. Certainty of place refers to the eye.

識．及相應法。唯緣色處。定不緣聲處等　事定者就色處中總有二十種。或一事別緣。或二事合緣。乃至二十事合緣。隨其所應於此事定。不于彼事。故名事定　剎那定者。復就事中剎那剎那別緣。剎那意顯相住當義。若應於此剎那起即起。若緣闕即不起。名剎那定。非於余剎那　如眼識．及相應法。于所緣作三定。耳．鼻．舌．身識。及相應法。各于自所緣三定亦爾　意識．及相應法。于所緣三定者。意識所緣通十二處。緣此有法處定。不緣無法處名處定　事定者就十二處有法中。隨其所應。或緣此事定。不緣餘事　剎那定者。復就事中剎那剎那別緣　應言亦有如是決定者。答。應言于所依六根亦有如是三種決定　處定者。謂眼識．及相應法。于眼處定。以依眼故。不依耳等。雖亦依意。今據別依顯法差別　事定者。就處定中復有男．女天．人等眼不同。或異熟．長養等眼別。眼識．及相應法。應依此事定。不依餘事名事定　剎那定者。復就事中剎那．剎那定。謂眼識．及相應法應於此剎那不于余剎那　問如一剎那眼根。唯與一識為依。亦通與多識為依　解云通與多識為依。故此論第三解根增上中雲。于了眾色為通因故。識隨眼根有明昧故。色則不然二相違故。乃至。意根於法亦爾。

又此論第一說。如眼與

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本識（Vijnana，意識）。及相應法（與其相關的心理現象）。唯緣色處（Rupa-ayatana，色界）。定不緣聲處（Shabda-ayatana，聲界）等。事定者就色處中總有二十種。或一事別緣。或二事合緣。乃至二十事合緣。隨其所應於此事定。不于彼事。故名事定。剎那定者。復就事中剎那剎那別緣。剎那意顯相住當義。若應於此剎那起即起。若緣闕即不起。名剎那定。非於余剎那。如眼識（Caksu-vijnana，眼識）。及相應法。于所緣作三定。耳（Srotra，耳）。鼻（Ghrana，鼻）。舌（Jihva，舌）。身識（Kaya-vijnana，身識）。及相應法。各于自所緣三定亦爾。意識（Mano-vijnana，意識）。及相應法。于所緣三定者。意識所緣通十二處。緣此有法處定。不緣無法處名處定。事定者就十二處有法中。隨其所應。或緣此事定。不緣餘事。剎那定者。復就事中剎那剎那別緣。應言亦有如是決定者。答。應言于所依六根亦有如是三種決定。處定者。謂眼識。及相應法。于眼處定。以依眼故。不依耳等。雖亦依意。今據別依顯法差別。事定者。就處定中復有男（Purusha，男）。女（Stri，女）天（Deva，天）。人（Manushya，人）等眼不同。或異熟（Vipaka，異熟）。長養（Ahara，長養）等眼別。眼識。及相應法。應依此事定。不依餘事名事定。剎那定者。復就事中剎那。剎那定。謂眼識。及相應法應於此剎那不于余剎那。問如一剎那眼根。唯與一識為依。亦通與多識為依。解云通與多識為依。故此論第三解根增上中雲。于了眾色為通因故。識隨眼根有明昧故。色則不然二相違故。乃至。意根於法亦爾。又此論第一說。如眼與

【English Translation】 English version Vijnana (consciousness) and its associated mental factors are exclusively related to Rupa-ayatana (sphere of form), definitely not related to Shabda-ayatana (sphere of sound), etc. 'Determination of object' means that within the sphere of form, there are twenty kinds in total. It may be related to one thing separately, or two things together, up to twenty things together. According to what is appropriate, it is determined to this thing, not to that thing, hence it is called 'determination of object'. 'Determination of moment' means that within the object, it is related separately moment by moment. 'Moment' means the meaning of appearance, duration, and occurrence. If it should arise in this moment, it arises; if the condition is lacking, it does not arise. This is called 'determination of moment', not in other moments. Just like Caksu-vijnana (eye-consciousness) and its associated mental factors, it makes three determinations on what is related to. Srotra (ear), Ghrana (nose), Jihva (tongue), Kaya-vijnana (body-consciousness) and their associated mental factors, each makes three determinations on their own related objects as well. Mano-vijnana (mind-consciousness) and its associated mental factors, regarding the three determinations on what is related to, the object of mind-consciousness encompasses the twelve spheres. Being related to this sphere of existing dharmas is called 'determination of sphere', not being related to the sphere of non-existing dharmas. 'Determination of object' means that within the twelve spheres of existing dharmas, according to what is appropriate, it may be determined to be related to this thing, not related to other things. 'Determination of moment' means that within the object, it is related separately moment by moment. Should it be said that there are such determinations as well? The answer is: it should be said that there are also these three kinds of determinations on the six sense faculties on which they rely. 'Determination of sphere' means that Caksu-vijnana and its associated mental factors are determined to be in the eye sphere, because they rely on the eye, not relying on the ear, etc. Although they also rely on the mind, now it is based on the separate reliance to show the difference in dharmas. 'Determination of object' means that within the determination of sphere, there are different eyes such as those of Purusha (male), Stri (female), Deva (god), Manushya (human), etc., or different eyes such as Vipaka (resultant) and Ahara (nutriment). Caksu-vijnana and its associated mental factors should be determined to rely on this thing, not relying on other things, which is called 'determination of object'. 'Determination of moment' means that within the object, there is determination moment by moment. That is, Caksu-vijnana and its associated mental factors should be in this moment, not in other moments. Question: How is it that one moment of the eye faculty only relies on one consciousness, or can it rely on multiple consciousnesses? Explanation: It can rely on multiple consciousnesses. Therefore, in the third section of this treatise, 'Explanation of the Increase of Faculties', it says: 'Because it is a common cause for understanding all forms, consciousness follows the clarity or obscurity of the eye faculty. Form is not like this because the two are contradictory.' And so on. The mind faculty is also like this with regard to dharmas. Furthermore, the first section of this treatise says: 'Like the eye and'

意專一色時。余色．聲．香．味．觸等謝。緣彼境界五識身等。住未來世畢竟不生。由彼不能緣過去境。緣不具故得非擇滅　以此故知。一剎那眼容與多識為依。若言根．境．識三。剎那．剎那一具有現前。眼見色時。於此時中應無眼識得非擇滅。即與前文相違。若說眼根通與多識為依。可得此念隨其所應。或容了此色。或容了彼色。如有一人於此念中見房內色。若於此念在于房外即見房外色。若言眼根唯發一識。有何道理。此念唯應此識現前了於此色。非余識了耶。若言此念房內見色即房內根．識現前。房外根．識得非擇滅。若於此念房外見色即房外根．識現前。房內根．識得非擇滅。但一眼根唯發一識非多識依者。此亦非理。如異熟因感得十年命及十年眼。雖無前後次第。性相已定。如何此異熟眼。或見此色此類眼現前。爾時應見彼色眼得非擇滅。或見彼色彼類眼根現前。爾時應見此色眼得非擇減。又若此處十年緣會。即十年見此色。設於余處十年緣會。復十年見彼色。若爾即有眼長命短過也。以此故知。此一念眼容見彼此多色。容發彼此多識　又解如一念青色或別生一識。或與二色共生一識。乃至二十色共生一識。一念眼根應知亦爾。或別發緣一色識。乃至。或能發緣二十種色識。此即以根分同於境。如眼識．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：當意念專注于單一顏色時，其餘的顏色、聲音、氣味、味道、觸感等都會停止。因為與該境界相關的五識身等，在未來世將永遠不會產生。由於它們無法緣取過去之境，因緣不具足，所以獲得非擇滅（一種通過缺少產生條件而達到的寂滅狀態）。因此可知，一個剎那的眼根可以作為多個識的所依。如果說根、境、識三者，在每個剎那都是一一對應地現前，那麼當眼睛看到顏色時，在這個時刻中，眼識就不應該獲得非擇滅，這與前面的說法相矛盾。如果說眼根可以作為多個識的所依，那麼就可以理解為，隨其所應，或者能夠了知這個顏色，或者能夠了知那個顏色。例如，有個人在這個念頭中看到房間內的顏色，如果在這個念頭中他身處房間外，就能看到房間外的顏色。如果說眼根只產生一個識，那麼有什麼道理，這個念頭只能讓這個識現前了知這個顏色，而不是其他的識來了知呢？如果說在這個念頭中，在房間內看到顏色，那麼房間內的根和識就現前，房間外的根和識就獲得非擇滅。如果在這個念頭中，在房間外看到顏色，那麼房間外的根和識就現前，房間內的根和識就獲得非擇滅。但是，如果說一個眼根只產生一個識，而不是多個識的所依，這也是不合理的。例如，異熟因（過去行為的結果）感得十年的壽命和十年的眼根，雖然沒有前後次第，但其性質和相狀已經確定。那麼，這個異熟眼，或者看到這個顏色，此類眼根現前，那時就應該看到那個顏色的眼根獲得非擇滅；或者看到那個顏色，彼類眼根現前，那時就應該看到這個顏色的眼根獲得非擇滅。又如果此處十年因緣聚合，就十年都看到這個顏色；如果在其他地方十年因緣聚合，就十年都看到那個顏色。如果這樣，就會出現眼根壽命長於生命壽命的過失。因此可知，這一個念頭的眼根可以見到彼此多個顏色，可以引發彼此多個識。又有一種解釋是，例如一個念頭中的青色，或者單獨產生一個識，或者與兩種顏色共同產生一個識，乃至與二十種顏色共同產生一個識。一個念頭的眼根也應該知道是這樣，或者單獨引發緣取一個顏色的識，乃至或者能夠引發緣取二十種顏色的識。這就是以根的劃分等同於境的劃分，例如眼識。

【English Translation】 English version: When the mind is focused on a single color, other colors, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations cease. Because the five consciousness bodies (五識身, wushi shen) associated with that realm will never arise in future lives. Since they cannot cognize past objects, and the conditions are not complete, they attain Nirodha-asamskrta (非擇滅, fei ze mie, cessation through lack of producing conditions). Therefore, it is known that a single moment of the eye-faculty can serve as the basis for multiple consciousnesses. If it is said that the faculty, object, and consciousness are each present in a one-to-one correspondence in every moment, then when the eye sees a color, in that moment, the eye-consciousness should not attain Nirodha-asamskrta, which contradicts the previous statement. If it is said that the eye-faculty can serve as the basis for multiple consciousnesses, then it can be understood that, as appropriate, it can cognize this color or that color. For example, if a person sees a color inside a room in this thought, and if he is outside the room in this thought, he can see the color outside the room. If it is said that the eye-faculty only produces one consciousness, then what is the reason that this thought can only allow this consciousness to cognize this color, and not other consciousnesses? If it is said that in this thought, seeing a color inside the room, then the faculty and consciousness inside the room are present, and the faculty and consciousness outside the room attain Nirodha-asamskrta. If in this thought, seeing a color outside the room, then the faculty and consciousness outside the room are present, and the faculty and consciousness inside the room attain Nirodha-asamskrta. However, if it is said that one eye-faculty only produces one consciousness, and is not the basis for multiple consciousnesses, this is also unreasonable. For example, the Vipaka-hetu (異熟因, yi shu yin, result of past actions) causes ten years of life and ten years of eye-faculty, although there is no temporal sequence, its nature and characteristics are already determined. Then, this Vipaka eye, either sees this color, this type of eye-faculty is present, then the eye-faculty that should see that color should attain Nirodha-asamskrta; or sees that color, that type of eye-faculty is present, then the eye-faculty that should see this color should attain Nirodha-asamskrta. Furthermore, if the conditions for ten years are gathered here, then this color is seen for ten years; if the conditions for ten years are gathered elsewhere, then that color is seen for ten years. If so, there would be the fault of the eye-faculty's lifespan being longer than the life's lifespan. Therefore, it is known that the eye-faculty in this one thought can see multiple colors, and can generate multiple consciousnesses. Another explanation is that, for example, the color blue in one thought, either produces one consciousness separately, or produces one consciousness together with two colors, or even produces one consciousness together with twenty colors. The eye-faculty in one thought should also be understood in this way, either separately generating a consciousness that cognizes one color, or even being able to generate a consciousness that cognizes twenty kinds of colors. This is to equate the division of the faculty with the division of the object, such as eye-consciousness.

及相應法于所依有三定。耳．鼻．舌．身識及相應法。各于自依三定亦爾。意識及相應法。于所依意根三定者。處定謂定依意處非依眼等。事定謂就處定中復有多種。或有漏．無漏意別。或三界．三性．三學等意別。如二十心相生中說。此心后能生爾所心等。或天．人等意別。應依此意不依余意名為事定。剎那定謂復就事定中。若此剎那意識．及相應法。定依此根不依余根。如意識及相應法。定至生相依現在意根名剎那定。若流至現依過去意根。若至過去還以過去為依。如是過去展轉相望皆名剎那定。從生相已去有前後故。可說此剎那識定依此意。生相已前未定前後。諸心相望所依不定故不說之。若出二無心定心．心所。即以過去為依名剎那定。應知此中五識．及相應法。于所依．所緣三定。皆通三世。若意識．及相應法。于所緣三定。及於所依處．事二定。皆通三世。于所依剎那定。至生相已去方名剎那定。

然于現在至親附所依者。別釋五識及相應法。此中兩說。初說以五識．及相應法。以現根俱名親附所依。過．未散住與所依相離。后說以過去曾與根俱亦名親附所依。現．未同前。婆沙更有一說云。有說三世皆與所依俱。此師約性相屬故言俱也。各據一義。

如是已釋至為增上緣故者。釋第六句。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本以及相應的法，對於所依之根有三種決定：耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識以及相應的法，各自對於自己的所依之根也有這三種決定。意識以及相應的法，對於所依的意根的三種決定是：處決定（sthāna-niyama）是指決定所依的是意處，而不是眼等其他處。事決定（vastu-niyama）是指在處決定中，又有多種差別，或者是有漏（sāsrava）、無漏（anāsrava）的意念差別，或者是三界（trayo dhātava）、三性（tisro bhūmayaḥ）、三學（tri-śikṣāḥ）等意念差別，如《二十心相生》中所說：『此心之後能生爾所心』等等，或者是天、人等意念差別。應當依此意念，不依其他意念，這叫做事決定。剎那決定（kṣaṇa-niyama）是指在事決定中，如果是此剎那的意識以及相應的法，決定依此根，不依其他根。例如意識以及相應的法，決定在生起之相時，依現在意根，這叫做剎那決定。如果流至現在，則依過去意根；如果至過去，還以過去為所依。像這樣過去輾轉相望，都叫做剎那決定。從生起之相以後，有前後之分，所以可以說此剎那的識決定依此意根。生起之相以前，未決定前後，諸心相望，所依不定，所以不說它。如果出二無心定（dve asaṃjñika-samāpattī，無想定和滅盡定）的心和心所，就以過去為所依，叫做剎那決定。應當知道，這其中五識以及相應的法，對於所依、所緣的三種決定，都通於三世（過去、現在、未來）。如果是意識以及相應的法，對於所緣的三種決定，以及對於所依的處決定、事決定這兩種決定，都通於三世。對於所依的剎那決定，到生起之相以後，才叫做剎那決定。然而，對於現在至親附所依，特別解釋五識以及相應的法。這裡有兩種說法：第一種說法認為，五識以及相應的法，以現在根俱起，叫做親附所依。過去、未來散亂而住，與所依相離。后一種說法認為，過去曾經與根俱起，也叫做親附所依，現在、未來與前相同。毗婆沙（Vibhāṣā）還有一種說法認為，有的人說三世都與所依俱起。這位論師是約性相屬的緣故，才說俱起。各自根據一種意義。像這樣已經解釋了『至為增上緣故』，這是解釋第六句。

【English Translation】 English version And the corresponding dharmas, with respect to their bases, have three kinds of determination. The ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and their corresponding dharmas, each with respect to their own bases, also have these three kinds of determination. The mind-consciousness and its corresponding dharmas, with respect to the three determinations of the mind-root as their base, are: Determination of location (sthāna-niyama): This refers to the determination that the base is the mind-location, not the eye or other locations. Determination of object (vastu-niyama): This refers to the fact that within the determination of location, there are various differences, such as the difference between defiled (sāsrava) and undefiled (anāsrava) minds, or the difference between minds of the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ), three natures (tisro bhūmayaḥ), three trainings (tri-śikṣāḥ), etc., as stated in the 'Twenty Minds Arising Together': 'This mind can give rise to so many minds afterward,' etc., or the difference between minds of gods, humans, etc. One should rely on this mind, not on other minds; this is called determination of object. Determination of moment (kṣaṇa-niyama): This refers to the fact that within the determination of object, if it is the mind-consciousness and its corresponding dharmas of this moment, they are determined to rely on this root, not on other roots. For example, the mind-consciousness and its corresponding dharmas are determined to rely on the present mind-root at the moment of arising; this is called determination of moment. If it flows to the present, then it relies on the past mind-root; if it reaches the past, it still takes the past as its base. In this way, the past mutually looking at each other are all called determination of moment. From the moment of arising onward, there is a distinction between before and after, so it can be said that the consciousness of this moment is determined to rely on this mind-root. Before the moment of arising, the before and after are not determined, and the bases of the minds looking at each other are not determined, so it is not discussed. If the mind and mental factors emerge from the two unconscious attainments (dve asaṃjñika-samāpattī, the unconscious attainment and the cessation attainment), then the past is taken as the base, called determination of moment. It should be known that among these, the five consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas, with respect to the three determinations of base and object, all pervade the three times (past, present, future). If it is the mind-consciousness and its corresponding dharmas, with respect to the three determinations of object, and with respect to the two determinations of location and object of the base, all pervade the three times. With respect to the determination of moment of the base, it is only called determination of moment after the moment of arising. However, with respect to the present, to the base that is closely attached, the five consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas are specially explained. There are two views here: The first view holds that the five consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas, arising together with the present root, are called the closely attached base. The past and future are scattered and dwell separately, and are separated from the base. The second view holds that the past, having arisen together with the root, is also called the closely attached base; the present and future are the same as before. The Vibhāṣā also has another view, saying that some say that all three times arise together with the base. This master speaks of arising together because of the nature of belonging. Each is based on one meaning. Having explained 'to be the predominant condition,' this explains the sixth sentence.

此出體也。若據法體亦攝前三緣。以體相雜故。據用各別故。離三緣別說增上。

此緣體廣至增上緣故者。此約體釋增上名。

既一切法至何獨體廣者。問。二緣體同。何獨言廣。

俱有諸法至故唯此體廣者。答。總相而論二緣體等。別據剎那即有少．多。俱有諸法未嘗為所緣境然。為增上緣故增上廣。

或所作廣至為增上緣故者。此約用釋增上名。

頗有法於法全非四緣不者。問。

有謂自性至無為于無為者。答。無為是常。不從緣生。

如是諸緣至而興作用者。此下第二明緣作用問如是諸緣。於何位果法而興與果用。此與果用。過．現眾多故別分別。其取果用。若依正理唯在現在。若依婆沙雖亦通過去。唯等無間緣無多差別故此不說。

頌曰至而興于作用者。上兩句明因緣。第三句明等無間所緣。第四句結用。正理論意。取果名作用。與果名功能。而言作用。於此功能上立作用名。

論曰至有作用故者。釋初句。相應．俱有。于果法滅位興與果用。住．異雖亦同時。滅相義當在後。故偏言滅。由此二因滅位興用。令俱生士用果有作用故。或令俱生果有作用故。趣所緣境及一果等。又正理云。如是二因。雖俱一時取果．與果。而今但約與果功能。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這是指它的體性。如果根據法體來說，也包含前面的三種緣，因為體和相是混合在一起的。但根據作用來說，它們各有區別，所以離開前三種緣，單獨說明增上緣。

『此緣體廣至增上緣故者』，這是從體性的角度解釋增上緣的名稱。

『既一切法至何獨體廣者』，這是提問：兩種緣的體性相同，為什麼唯獨說增上緣的體性廣大？

『俱有諸法至故唯此體廣者』，回答：總的來說，兩種緣的體性相等。但具體到剎那，就有多少的差別。俱有諸法不一定是所緣境，但一定是增上緣，所以增上緣的體性廣大。

『或所作廣至為增上緣故者』，這是從作用的角度解釋增上緣的名稱。

『頗有法於法全非四緣不者』，這是提問：有沒有一種法對於另一種法完全不是四種緣的？

『有謂自性至無為于無為者』，回答：無為法是常住的，不從因緣生。

『如是諸緣至而興作用者』，下面第二部分說明諸緣的作用。提問：這些緣在什麼位次的果法上產生作用？這種產生作用，是因為過去和現在的果法眾多，所以要分別說明。它們取得果的作用，如果依據正理，只在現在。如果依據《婆沙論》，也包括過去。只有等無間緣沒有太多差別，所以這裡不說明。

『頌曰至而興于作用者』，上面兩句說明因緣，第三句說明等無間緣和所緣緣，第四句總結作用。正理論的觀點是，取得果稱為作用，給予果稱為功能。這裡說作用，是在功能上建立作用的名稱。

『論曰至有作用故者』，解釋第一句。相應因和俱有因，在果法滅的時候產生給予果的作用。住和異雖然也同時存在，但滅相的意義在後面，所以偏重說滅。由此二因在滅位產生作用，使俱生的士用果產生作用。或者使俱生的果產生作用，趨向所緣境以及單一的果等。另外，《正理論》說，這兩種因，雖然同時取得果和給予果，但現在只說給予果的功能。

【English Translation】 English version: This refers to its substance. If based on the Dharma substance, it also includes the previous three conditions, because substance and characteristics are mixed together. However, according to function, they are different, so apart from the previous three conditions, the Adhipati-paccaya (Dominant condition) is explained separately.

'This condition's substance is broad, reaching the Adhipati-paccaya' means that this explains the name of Adhipati-paccaya from the perspective of substance.

'Since all Dharmas... why is only the substance broad?' This is a question: the substance of the two conditions is the same, why is it only said that the substance of Adhipati-paccaya is vast?

'Co-existent Dharmas... therefore only this substance is broad.' This is the answer: Generally speaking, the substance of the two conditions is equal. But specifically in a moment, there are differences in quantity. Co-existent Dharmas are not necessarily objects of cognition, but they are definitely Adhipati-paccaya, so the substance of Adhipati-paccaya is vast.

'Or the action is broad... therefore it is Adhipati-paccaya.' This explains the name of Adhipati-paccaya from the perspective of function.

'Is there a Dharma that is not any of the four conditions to another Dharma?' This is a question.

'Some say that self-nature... non-conditioned to non-conditioned.' This is the answer: Unconditioned Dharmas are permanent and do not arise from conditions.

'These conditions... and give rise to function.' The second part below explains the function of the conditions. The question is: On what level of resultant Dharma do these conditions produce function? This production of function is because there are many past and present resultant Dharmas, so they must be explained separately. Their attainment of the result's function, if based on the Nyaya-sastra (Treatise on Logic), is only in the present. If based on the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary), it also includes the past. Only the Anantara-paccaya (Contiguity condition) does not have much difference, so it is not explained here.

'The verse says... and give rise to function.' The first two lines explain the Hetu-paccaya (Root condition), the third line explains the Samanantara-paccaya (Contiguity condition) and the Arammana-paccaya (Object condition), and the fourth line summarizes the function. The view of the Nyaya-sastra is that attaining the result is called function, and giving the result is called capability. Here, 'function' is spoken of, establishing the name of function on the capability.

'The treatise says... has function.' This explains the first line. The Sahaja-hetu (Co-existent cause) and the Samprayuktaka-hetu (Association cause) produce the function of giving the result when the resultant Dharma ceases. Although duration and difference also exist simultaneously, the meaning of cessation will be discussed later, so cessation is emphasized. Because of these two causes, function arises in the cessation position, causing the co-born Purusartha-phala (Effort result) to have function. Or causing the co-born result to have function, tending towards the object of cognition and a single result, etc. Furthermore, the Nyaya-sastra says that although these two causes simultaneously attain the result and give the result, now only the function of giving the result is discussed.

所言三因至作用方興者。釋第二句。果法至生相。三因方興與果用也。若同類．遍行因。興與等流果用。若異熟因。興與異熟果用。其異熟因。果至生相。過去與果。必無果至生相現在取果。以此明知。此頌定約與果用說。

已說因緣至方取境故者。釋第三句。前二因作用。于果滅位。今等無間緣。于果生位興與果用。故言相違。以彼果生時。前心．心所與其處故。果謂士用果也。前三因作用。于果生位。即今所緣緣。能緣果法滅位興與果用。故言相違。以心．心所要現在時方取境故。果謂增上果又空法師說。所緣緣。在未來世。望現能緣亦有取．與。若成所緣即能取．與。說所取．與同時。此即自問答云問所緣。亦許果前．緣后得。所緣。得有未來取．與。何故增上緣無。解云所緣緣法。不論自已起作用。說于緣用。他來緣已是即緣用。所緣。未來得有取．與。增上緣。約于自已起作用說緣。是故未來則無取．與　今謂不然。夫言取．與據法起用。不起作用而言取．與。道理相違。又無文證未來取．與。又增上緣寬未來尚無取．與。所緣體狹寧得未來取．與。又諸論皆言果法望因若俱。若后。而言果前．緣后。豈不相違。故說非理　唯增上緣至一切無遮者。四緣之中。唯增上緣。通生滅位興與果用。故言於一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『所言三因至作用方興者』，這是解釋第二句。『果法至生相』，是指三種因在果法產生時發揮作用，產生果的作用。如果是同類因和遍行因，則產生等流果的作用；如果是異熟因，則產生異熟果的作用。這個異熟因，在果法產生時，過去世的因給予果，一定不會出現果法已經產生，現在才去接受果的情況。因此可以明白，這句頌文一定是就給予果的作用而言說的。

『已說因緣至方取境故者』，這是解釋第三句。前兩種因的作用，是在果法滅去的時候。而等無間緣，是在果法產生的時候，發揮給予果的作用。所以說『相違』，因為果法產生的時候，前一剎那的心和心所已經離開了。這裡的果指的是士用果。前三種因的作用，是在果法產生的時候。而所緣緣，是在能緣的心和心所滅去的時候，發揮給予果的作用。所以說『相違』，因為心和心所必須在現在這一刻才能取境。這裡的果指的是增上果。又有空法師說，所緣緣在未來世，對於現在的能緣來說，也有取和與的作用。如果成為所緣，就能取和與。說所取和所與是同時發生的。這就是自問自答，問：所緣緣也允許果在前，緣在後而得到嗎？回答：所緣緣，可以有未來世的取和與。為什麼增上緣沒有呢？解釋說：所緣緣法，不論自己是否已經開始起作用，都是就緣的作用而言說的。其他來緣，已經就是緣的作用。所緣緣，未來世可以有取和與。增上緣，是就自己已經開始起作用而言說的緣，所以未來世就沒有取和與。現在我認為不是這樣。所謂取和與，是根據法起作用而言的。不起作用而言取和與，道理上是相違背的。又沒有文獻可以證明未來世的取和與。而且增上緣的範圍更廣，未來世尚且沒有取和與，所緣緣的體性狹窄，怎麼能有未來世的取和與呢？而且各種論典都說，果法對於因，要麼是同時，要麼是之後。說果在前，緣在後，豈不是相違背？所以說是不合理的。

『唯增上緣至一切無遮者』，四種緣之中，只有增上緣，貫通生滅兩個階段，發揮給予果的作用。所以說『於一』。

【English Translation】 English version 'What is said about the three causes leading to the arising of function' - this explains the second line. 'The fruit-dharma to the arising aspect' refers to the three causes exerting their influence when the fruit-dharma arises, producing the function of the fruit. If it is the cause of the same kind (同類因, tonglei yin) and the pervasive cause (遍行因, bianxing yin), then it produces the function of the outflowing fruit (等流果, dengliu guo); if it is the ripening cause (異熟因, yishu yin), then it produces the function of the ripened fruit (異熟果, yishu guo). This ripening cause, when the fruit-dharma arises, the past cause gives the fruit, and there will definitely not be a situation where the fruit-dharma has already arisen, and only now is the fruit received. Therefore, it can be understood that this verse must be speaking of the function of giving the fruit.

'Having spoken of the cause and condition to the reason for taking the object' - this explains the third line. The function of the first two causes is at the time when the fruit-dharma ceases. However, the immediately preceding condition (等無間緣, dengwu jian yuan) exerts the function of giving the fruit when the fruit-dharma arises. Therefore, it is said to be 'contradictory', because when the fruit-dharma arises, the mind and mental factors of the previous moment have already departed. The fruit here refers to the fruit of effort (士用果, shiyong guo). The function of the first three causes is at the time when the fruit-dharma arises. However, the object-condition (所緣緣, suoyuan yuan) exerts the function of giving the fruit when the mind and mental factors that cognize cease. Therefore, it is said to be 'contradictory', because the mind and mental factors must be in the present moment to grasp the object. The fruit here refers to the dominant fruit (增上果, zengshang guo). Furthermore, the Dharma Master Kong (空法師, Kong fashi) said that the object-condition in the future life also has the function of taking and giving with respect to the present cognizer. If it becomes the object, then it can take and give. It is said that the taking and giving of what is taken occur simultaneously. This is a self-question and answer, asking: Is it also permissible for the object-condition to be obtained with the fruit preceding and the condition following? Answering: The object-condition can have taking and giving in the future life. Why doesn't the dominant condition have it? It is explained that the object-condition, regardless of whether it has already started to function, is spoken of in terms of the function of the condition. Other conditions that come are already the function of the condition. The object-condition can have taking and giving in the future life. The dominant condition is spoken of in terms of the condition that has already started to function, so there is no taking and giving in the future. Now I think this is not the case. The so-called taking and giving is based on the dharma arising and functioning. To speak of taking and giving without functioning is contradictory in principle. Furthermore, there is no textual evidence to prove taking and giving in the future life. Moreover, the scope of the dominant condition is broader, and there is no taking and giving in the future life. The nature of the object-condition is narrow, how can there be taking and giving in the future life? Furthermore, all treatises say that the fruit-dharma is either simultaneous with or after the cause. Isn't it contradictory to say that the fruit precedes and the condition follows? Therefore, it is said to be unreasonable.

'Only the dominant condition to all without obstruction' - among the four conditions, only the dominant condition pervades both the arising and ceasing stages, exerting the function of giving the fruit. Therefore, it is said to be 'in one'.

切位皆無障住故。其增上緣。法生滅位皆無障住。故彼作用。隨無障位一切無遮。

已說諸緣至由幾緣生者。此下第三明法從緣生。就中。一總明諸法。二隨難別解。此即總明諸法。結前問起。

頌曰至非天次等故者。上三句明具緣生。下一句非外道執　天等。等取我等　次等。等取無義利等。

論曰至餘一切法者。釋初句。因緣說五據總相說。若別分別有不具者。非異熟無異熟因。若非染污無遍行因。初生無漏無同類因。相應．俱有可言皆有。謂前無間已生心．心所法是等無間緣。非無學後心．心所法為等無間緣。餘二緣可知。總相而言。具四緣生。若別分別。亦有不具。故婆沙一百三十六意。說心．心所四緣生。此言生者。起未已滅總名生故。謂一緣唯于生時作用。一緣唯于滅時作用。二緣通於二時作用。故合說四　若準此說。據緣作用。果或生時。或於滅時非具四緣。合說方具。若依正理二十。果法生時。所緣．及相應．俱有。亦有功力。故彼論云。豈不一緣．二因作用。非於彼法生時即有。如何心等四緣故生。如何因緣具五因性。雖法滅位作用方成。而法生時非無功力。離此彼法必不生故。以心．心所必杖所緣。及托二因方得生故。若法與彼法為所緣．或因。無暫時非。本論說故。若作俱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為一切（事物）在生滅的各個階段都沒有任何障礙和阻礙。由於這種增上緣（Adhipati-paccaya，起主導作用的條件），法的生滅階段都沒有任何障礙和阻礙，所以它的作用在沒有障礙的階段里不受任何限制。

前面已經討論了各種緣起，現在要討論的是『由幾緣生者』。接下來第三部分闡明法（Dharma，宇宙萬物的組成要素）從各種條件中產生。其中，首先總括地說明諸法，然後根據疑問分別解釋。這裡是總括地說明諸法，總結前面的內容並提出問題。

頌文說：『非天次等故』。上面三句說明具備各種條件才能產生（事物）。最後一句否定了外道所執著的天（Deva，神）等。『等』字包括了我（Atman，靈魂）等。『次等』，『等』字包括了無意義的利益等。

論述說：『餘一切法』，解釋第一句。因緣（Hetu-paccaya，根本原因的條件）說五種，是根據總的方面來說的。如果分別詳細地分析，就會有不具備的情況。例如，非異熟（Vipāka，果報）就沒有異熟因（Vipāka-hetu，導致果報的原因）。如果不是染污的（Klesha，煩惱），就沒有遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，普遍存在的原因）。最初產生的無漏（Anasrava，沒有煩惱）就沒有同類因（Sabhāga-hetu，同類原因）。相應（Samprayuktaka，心理上的相應）和俱有（Sahabhū，同時存在）可以說都具備。也就是說，前一剎那已經生起的心和心所法（Citta-cetasika，心理活動）是等無間緣（Samanantara-paccaya，緊隨其後的條件）。而非無學（Arhat，阿羅漢）之後的心理活動就不是等無間緣。其餘兩種緣可以自己理解。總的來說，具備四種緣才能產生。如果分別詳細地分析，也有不具備的情況。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十六意說，心和心所是從四種緣產生的。這裡說的『生』，包括了未生、已生和已滅，總稱為生。也就是說，一種緣只在生的時候起作用，一種緣只在滅的時候起作用，兩種緣在生和滅的時候都起作用。所以合起來說是四種。如果按照這個說法，根據緣的作用，果可能在生的時候，也可能在滅的時候，並非具備四種緣。合起來說才具備。如果按照《正理》第二十卷，果法在產生的時候，所緣緣（Alambana-paccaya，對像條件）以及相應緣（Samprayutta-paccaya，相應條件）和俱有緣（Sahabhū-paccaya，同時存在條件）也有作用。所以那部論說：『難道不是一種緣、兩種因的作用，不是在那法產生的時候就有的嗎？為什麼心等四緣才能產生？為什麼因緣具備五種因的性質？』雖然法在滅的時候作用才完成，但是法在產生的時候並非沒有作用。如果離開了這些，那法一定不會產生。因為心和心所必須依靠所緣，並且依託兩種因才能產生。如果法與彼法是所緣或者因，沒有暫時不是的情況，本論是這樣說的。如果作為俱有

【English Translation】 English version: Because all (things) have no obstruction or hindrance in each stage of arising and ceasing. Due to this Adhipati-paccaya (the condition of playing a leading role), the stages of arising and ceasing of dharmas (Dharma, the constituent elements of the universe) have no obstruction or hindrance, so its function is unrestricted in the unobstructed stage.

Having discussed the various conditions, we will now discuss 'by how many conditions are things produced'. The third part below clarifies that dharmas (Dharma, the constituent elements of the universe) arise from various conditions. Among them, first, the dharmas are generally explained, and then explained separately according to the questions. Here, the dharmas are generally explained, summarizing the previous content and raising questions.

The verse says: 'Not because of Deva, etc.'. The above three sentences explain that things can only be produced with various conditions. The last sentence negates the Deva (god) etc. adhered to by the heretics. The word 'etc.' includes Atman (soul) etc. 'Next etc.', the word 'etc.' includes meaningless benefits etc.

The treatise says: 'All other dharmas', explaining the first sentence. The Hetu-paccaya (the condition of fundamental cause) says five kinds, which is based on the general aspect. If we analyze in detail separately, there will be cases where they are not complete. For example, non-Vipāka (retribution) has no Vipāka-hetu (the cause that leads to retribution). If it is not Klesha (affliction), there is no Sarvatraga-hetu (the cause that exists universally). The initially produced Anasrava (without affliction) has no Sabhāga-hetu (homogeneous cause). Samprayuktaka (mental association) and Sahabhū (simultaneous existence) can be said to be complete. That is to say, the mind and mental factors (Citta-cetasika, psychological activities) that have arisen in the previous moment are Samanantara-paccaya (the condition that immediately follows). However, the psychological activities after Arhat (one who is free from learning) are not Samanantara-paccaya. The remaining two conditions can be understood by oneself. Generally speaking, it takes four conditions to produce. If we analyze in detail separately, there are also cases where they are not complete. Therefore, the one hundred and thirty-sixth meaning of the Vibhasa-sastra says that the mind and mental factors are produced from four conditions. The 'arising' mentioned here includes unborn, born, and extinguished, which are collectively called arising. That is to say, one condition only functions at the time of arising, one condition only functions at the time of extinction, and two conditions function at both the time of arising and the time of extinction. So it is said to be four in total. According to this statement, according to the function of the conditions, the result may be at the time of arising or at the time of extinction, and it is not complete with four conditions. It is complete when combined. According to the twentieth volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, when the result dharma arises, the Alambana-paccaya (object condition), Samprayutta-paccaya (associated condition), and Sahabhū-paccaya (simultaneous condition) also have functions. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Isn't it the function of one condition and two causes, not existing at the time when that dharma arises? Why can the four conditions of mind, etc. produce? Why does the cause condition have the nature of five causes?' Although the function of the dharma is completed when it is extinguished, it is not without function when the dharma arises. If these are left, that dharma will definitely not arise. Because the mind and mental factors must rely on the object and rely on the two causes to arise. If the dharma and the other dharma are the object or the cause, there is no temporary non-existence, this is what this treatise says. If it acts as a coexistent

舍破言。為所緣或為因者。不言法生時能起功力。設起功能此中辨用不應說故。

滅盡無想至非等無間緣者。釋第二句。如是二定。由心等引生故是心等無間果。由礙心等起故非等無間緣。余文可知。婆沙意說。二定三緣生。此言生者。起未已滅總名生故。謂一緣唯于生時。二緣通於二時作用。故合說三　問何故不說無想異熟　答如正理二十云。豈不無想亦三緣生。是心．心所等無間故。亦應說為心等無間。但非心等加行引生。故於此中廢而不說。或此無想但聲所顯。非如二定相對立。故正理既說無想異熟。同二無心是等無間。準知彼體亦有多物。

余不相應至二緣所生者。釋第三句可知。婆沙意說余不相應。及一切色二緣生。此言生者起未已滅總名生故。謂二緣俱生時．滅時有作用故。

一切世間至一因所起者。此下釋第四句。一切世間諸法。從因緣生。如涂灰外道。執自在天是作者。等能生諸法。如勝論外道。執我是實能為作者。生苦．樂等。如數論。勝性三法為體。謂薩埵．剌阇．答摩。亦名自性。為諸法因。非自在等一因所起。

此有何因者。外道問。此諸法生。復有何因非許一因生耶。

若一切成至一因生論者。總答。若一切成立許由余因者。豈不便舍一因生論。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：舍破言：如果認為所緣或因在法生起時能發揮作用，那麼就不應說『法生時能起功力』。即使能起作用，在此辨析中也不應提及。

滅盡定、無想定乃至非等無間緣：解釋第二句。這兩種禪定，由於心等（citta-ādi，心及心所）的引導而生起，所以是心等無間果（citta-ādi-samanantaraphala，緊隨心等之後產生的果報）。由於會阻礙心等生起，所以不是等無間緣（samanantara-pratyaya，無間緣）。其餘文句可以理解。毗婆沙師（Vibhasa，佛教論師）的觀點認為，這兩種禪定由三種緣生起。這裡說的『生』，包括生起、未滅、已滅，總稱為『生』。也就是說，一種緣只在生起時起作用，兩種緣在兩個時間段都起作用，所以合起來說是三種。問：為什麼不說無想異熟（asaññi-vipāka，無想果報）？答：如《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，佛教論書）第二十卷所說：『難道無想異熟不是由三種緣生起嗎？它是心、心所的等無間緣，也應該說它是心等無間。』但它不是由心等的加行（prayoga，努力）引導生起，所以在此處省略不說。或者這種無想只是聲音所顯現，不像兩種禪定那樣相對而立。所以《順正理論》既然說了無想異熟，與兩種無心定（dve asamanasikāra，兩種無心狀態）一樣是等無間，由此可知它的體性也有多種。

余不相應行乃至二緣所生：解釋第三句，可以理解。毗婆沙師的觀點認為，其餘不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，不與心相應的行法）以及一切色法（rūpa，物質現象）由兩種緣生起。這裡說的『生』，包括生起、未滅、已滅，總稱為『生』。也就是說，兩種緣在俱生時、滅時都有作用。

一切世間諸法乃至一因所起：以下解釋第四句。一切世間的諸法，都是從因緣（hetu-pratyaya，因和緣）生起。例如涂灰外道（Bhasma-kuta，一種印度教派），認為自在天（Īśvara，印度教中的主神）是作者，能夠產生諸法。又如勝論外道（Vaiśeṣika，印度教派），認為『我』是真實能為作者，產生苦、樂等。又如數論外道（Sāṃkhya，印度教派），認為勝性（Prakṛti，自性）的三法為體，即薩埵（Sattva，悅性）、剌阇（Rajas，動性）、答摩（Tamas，惰性），也叫做自性，是諸法的因。而不是由自在天等單一的因所產生。

此有何因：外道問，這些諸法的生起，又有什麼原因不是由一個因所生呢？

若一切成乃至一因生論者：總的回答。如果一切成立都允許由其他的因產生，那豈不是就捨棄了一個因生論的觀點？

【English Translation】 English version: 『Śeṣa』 refutes the statement: If it is considered that the object or cause can exert influence when a dharma arises, then it should not be said that 『when a dharma arises, it can exert power.』 Even if it can exert power, it should not be mentioned in this analysis.

『Cessation attainment, non-perception attainment, up to non-contiguous condition』: Explains the second sentence. These two samādhis (meditative states), because they are produced by the guidance of citta-ādi (mind and mental factors), are therefore citta-ādi-samanantaraphala (the immediate result following citta-ādi). Because they hinder the arising of citta-ādi, they are not samanantara-pratyaya (contiguous condition). The remaining sentences can be understood. The view of the Vibhasa (Buddhist commentator) is that these two samādhis arise from three conditions. The word 『arise』 here includes arising, not yet ceased, and already ceased, collectively called 『arising.』 That is to say, one condition only functions at the time of arising, and two conditions function at two time periods, so it is collectively said to be three. Question: Why not mention asaṃjñi-vipāka (unconscious retribution)? Answer: As stated in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Buddhist treatise), Volume 20: 『Isn't unconscious retribution also produced by three conditions? It is the contiguous condition of mind and mental factors, and it should also be said to be citta-ādi-samanantara.』 But it is not produced by the effort (prayoga) of citta-ādi, so it is omitted here. Or this unconsciousness is only manifested by sound, unlike the two samādhis that stand in opposition. Therefore, since the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya has spoken of unconscious retribution, which is the same as the two states of non-attention (dve asamanasikāra), it can be inferred that its nature also has multiple aspects.

『The remaining non-associated formations up to produced by two conditions』: Explains the third sentence, which can be understood. The view of the Vibhasa is that the remaining citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (formations not associated with mind) and all rūpa (material phenomena) are produced by two conditions. The word 『arise』 here includes arising, not yet ceased, and already ceased, collectively called 『arising.』 That is to say, the two conditions function both at the time of co-arising and at the time of cessation.

『All worldly dharmas up to produced by one cause』: The following explains the fourth sentence. All worldly dharmas arise from hetu-pratyaya (cause and conditions). For example, the Bhasma-kuta (a Hindu sect) believes that Īśvara (a major deity in Hinduism) is the creator, capable of producing all dharmas. Another example is the Vaiśeṣika (a Hindu school), which believes that 『I』 is the real creator, producing suffering, happiness, etc. Another example is the Sāṃkhya (a Hindu school), which believes that the three qualities of Prakṛti (nature) are the essence, namely Sattva (goodness), Rajas (passion), and Tamas (ignorance), also called nature, which is the cause of all dharmas. They are not produced by a single cause such as Īśvara.

『What is the reason for this?』: The heretic asks, what is the reason that the arising of these dharmas is not produced by one cause?

『If all are established up to the theory of arising from one cause』: A general answer. If all establishments are allowed to be produced by other causes, wouldn't that abandon the view of arising from one cause?

又諸世間至一因所起者。此下別破。一約次第破。二約無用破。三約違世破。此下約次第破也。若謂諸法從一因生。應當頓起。因無別故。既現次第生。明非一因起　立量言。前法生位后法應生。以與前法因無別故。猶如前法。

若執自在至此於後時者。外道得難轉計。雖因自在復由欲故。非皆頓起。

是則應成至無差別故者。破。若由欲生便非一因。違宗之過。或前後差別欲應一時頓生　立量云。前法。欲生位后欲應生。以與前欲因無別故。猶如前欲。

若欲差別至不俱起者者。牒外道轉計。生人．天等不同名差別欲。若言此差別欲。非唯自在為因。更待余因。所以不俱起者。

則非一切至因緣正理者。論主破。若差別欲更待余因生者。則非唯用自在為因。違自宗過。或欲所待因。亦應更待余因差別方次第生。若展轉相待。則所待因應無邊際。若欲所待因。更不待余差別因。此欲所待因。應無次第生義一時頓生。若頓生者。則差別欲非次第生一時頓生。汝若許諸因展轉相待差別而生無有邊際。信無始故與佛法同。徒執自在為諸法因。不越釋門因緣正理。彼執自在為諸法始。

若言自在至無差別故者。牒轉計破。若言自在欲雖頓生而諸世間不俱起者。由隨自在希望境時欲即所生故今彼

【現代漢語翻譯】又，如果有人認為世間萬物都由一個根本原因所產生，以下將分別駁斥這種觀點。首先，從次第產生的角度進行駁斥；其次，從無用的角度進行駁斥；再次，從與世間現象相違背的角度進行駁斥。以下是從次第產生的角度進行駁斥。如果認為諸法（dharma）從一個原因產生，那麼它們應當同時產生，因為原因沒有差別。既然現在呈現出次第產生，就說明不是由一個原因產生的。可以立論如下：前一個法（dharma）產生的時候，后一個法也應該產生，因為它們與前一個法的原因沒有差別，就像前一個法一樣。如果有人堅持認為，雖然自在天（Ishvara，印度教中的主神）是原因，但事物會在之後的時間才產生，那麼外道（非佛教的宗教學說）就會提出反駁，並轉而辯解說：雖然原因是自在天，但也需要『欲』（chanda，意願）的參與，所以不是所有事物都同時產生。那麼，就應該得出這樣的結論：如果由『欲』產生，就不是一個原因，這違反了宗義。或者，前後不同的『欲』應該同時產生。可以立論如下：前一個法的『欲』產生的時候，后一個法的『欲』也應該產生，因為它們與前一個『欲』的原因沒有差別，就像前一個『欲』一樣。如果有人認為『欲』有差別，所以事物不會同時產生，這是對外道轉而辯解的重複。例如，產生人、天等不同事物的『欲』是不同的。如果說這種不同的『欲』，不僅僅以自在天為原因，還需要等待其他原因，所以不會同時產生。那麼，就不是一切都以自在天為根本原因，這違背了因緣正理。論主駁斥道：如果不同的『欲』需要等待其他原因才能產生，那麼就不是僅僅以自在天為原因，這違反了你自己的宗義。或者，『欲』所等待的原因，也應該等待其他原因的差別才能次第產生。如果這樣輾轉相待，那麼所等待的原因就應該是沒有邊際的。如果『欲』所等待的原因，不再等待其他差別的原因，那麼這個『欲』所等待的原因，就應該沒有次第產生的意思，而是同時產生。如果同時產生，那麼不同的『欲』就不是次第產生，而是同時產生。如果你承認諸因輾轉相待，差別而生，沒有邊際，這與佛教的無始（anadi，沒有開始）的觀點相同。徒勞地堅持自在天是諸法的原因，也沒有超出釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni，佛教創始人）的因緣正理。他們堅持認為自在天是諸法的開始。如果有人認為，雖然自在天的『欲』同時產生，但世間萬物不會同時產生，因為自在天的希望境和時間不同，所以現在...

【English Translation】 Furthermore, regarding those who claim that all phenomena in the world arise from a single cause, the following is a separate refutation. First, a refutation based on sequential arising; second, a refutation based on uselessness; and third, a refutation based on contradiction with worldly phenomena. The following is a refutation based on sequential arising. If it is asserted that all dharmas (phenomena) arise from a single cause, they should arise simultaneously, because the cause is undifferentiated. Since they now appear to arise sequentially, it is clear that they do not arise from a single cause. A thesis can be established as follows: When the preceding dharma arises, the subsequent dharma should also arise, because their cause is no different from the cause of the preceding dharma, just like the preceding dharma. If someone insists that, although Ishvara (a supreme god in Hinduism) is the cause, things arise at a later time, then non-Buddhists (those holding non-Buddhist doctrines) will raise an objection and retort: Although the cause is Ishvara, it also requires 'chanda' (desire, intention), so not all things arise simultaneously. Then, it should be concluded that if it arises from 'desire', it is not a single cause, which violates the tenet. Or, the different 'desires' before and after should arise simultaneously. A thesis can be established as follows: When the 'desire' for the preceding dharma arises, the 'desire' for the subsequent dharma should also arise, because their cause is no different from the cause of the preceding 'desire', just like the preceding 'desire'. If someone argues that 'desires' are different, so things do not arise simultaneously, this is a repetition of the non-Buddhist's retort. For example, the 'desires' that produce different things like humans and gods are different. If it is said that these different 'desires' are not solely caused by Ishvara, but also need to wait for other causes, so they do not arise simultaneously. Then, not everything has Ishvara as its fundamental cause, which contradicts the principle of causality. The proponent refutes: If different 'desires' need to wait for other causes to arise, then it is not solely caused by Ishvara, which violates your own tenet. Or, the cause that 'desire' waits for should also wait for the differentiation of other causes to arise sequentially. If they depend on each other in this way, then the causes being waited for should be infinite. If the cause that 'desire' waits for no longer waits for other differentiating causes, then this cause that 'desire' waits for should have no meaning of sequential arising, but rather arise simultaneously. If they arise simultaneously, then the different 'desires' do not arise sequentially, but arise simultaneously. If you admit that the causes depend on each other, differentiate and arise, without limit, this is the same as the Buddhist view of anadi (beginningless). It is futile to insist that Ishvara is the cause of all dharmas, and it does not go beyond the principle of causality of Sakyamuni (the founder of Buddhism). They insist that Ishvara is the beginning of all dharmas. If someone argues that, although Ishvara's 'desire' arises simultaneously, the phenomena of the world do not arise simultaneously, because Ishvara's desired object and time are different, so now...

受用。理亦不然。彼自在欲。前後兩位無差別故。應當一時頓生諸法。前位之時應亦能生。無差別故。猶如后位。后位之時應不能生。無差別故。猶如前位　又彼自在至故名魯達羅者。此即第二約無用破。自在生法得何義利。若為發喜生諸世間。待余喜生應非自在。于喜既非自在。于余法中理亦應然。而非自在與生喜。差別因緣不可得故。又生地獄等逼害有情發生自喜。何用此為　依彼外道所說頌言。我亦信為善說。論主調弄彼外道也。外道說此頌意。自在天教化眾生種種變現。應以險利等度者。即現此險利等身而度脫之。能為險惡事名險。割截眾生名利。能燒眾生名能燒。現可畏身名可畏。恒以苦具逼害有情名恒逼害。或時樂食血肉髓。故名魯達羅。此云瀑惡。大自在天異名。大自在天總有千名。今現行世唯有六十。魯達羅即一名也　又解涂灰外道說自在天出過三界有三身。一法身遍充法界。二受用身居住色界上自在天宮。即佛法中說摩醯首羅天。三目八臂身長萬六千逾繕那。三化身隨形六道種種教化。說此頌顯化身天　由險利能燒者。有三阿素洛將三國土。飛行空中於自在天上過。其天不耐以火箭射之。燒三國土一時俱盡。火箭險利能燒三國土也　可畏恒逼害者。以龍貫人髑髏系其頭頂。又以龍縛臂殺象取皮涂血

反披　樂食血肉髓者。顯所食也。今祭祀者還以此祭之故名魯達羅　又若信受至人功等事者。此下第三約違世破。若法唯以自在因生。則撥世間人功等事　若言自在至應非自在者。牒轉計破。若言自在待余因緣人功等事助發功能方成因者。但是朋敬自在天言離余因緣不見自在有別用故。或待因緣　應非大自在　若執初起至猶如自在者。牒轉計破。若言初起不待余因后待因者。即初所起應無始成。不待余因故。猶如自在。我勝性等至唯一因生者。例破總結　奇哉世間至自在等因者。論主傷嘆妄執。

且止破邪應辨正義者。止破辨正。前言余法至互為因緣者。此下第二隨難別解。牒前問起。

頌曰至為大唯一因者。初一句大望大。第二句大望所造。第三句所造望所造。第四句所造望大。

論曰至同類因義者。釋初句。正理云更互相望有俱有因。性類雖別。而同一事更相順故有同類因。

大於所造能為五因者。釋第二句。生等五因名因緣。兩釋如前。或四緣中因緣攝。婆沙亦說十因為因緣　準此文非是增上緣。古德解。大望所造因．增上者。或言因者是俱有因。或說同類因。或說俱有．同類因。並不應理。婆沙．及此論皆說生等五因是因緣。又發智據四緣作論。故因是因緣。舊人不悟生等五因是因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『反披』（Antarvasa，內衣）樂於食用血肉和骨髓的人。這表明了他們所食之物。現在祭祀的人反而用這些來祭祀，所以被稱為『魯達羅』（Rudra，濕婆）。又比如信受至人之功等事的人。下面第三點是關於違背世俗常理的駁斥。如果認為一切法都只是由『自在』（Isvara，自在天）作為唯一原因而生，那麼就否定了世間的人功等事。如果說『自在』需要其他因緣和人的功勞等事來輔助才能發揮作用，但這只是爲了恭敬『自在天』的說法，因為離開了其他因緣，就看不到『自在』有什麼特別的作用。或者說需要等待因緣，那麼『自在』就應該不是大自在了。如果執著于最初的生起不依賴其他因，之後才依賴因，那麼最初的生起就應該是無始而成的，因為不依賴其他因。就像『自在』一樣。我（神我，Atman）、『勝性』（Prakrti，自性）等都是由唯一原因所生。這是舉例駁斥並總結。『奇哉世間』，竟然有人妄執『自在』等為唯一原因。暫且停止駁斥邪說，應該辨明正義。停止駁斥，辨明正義。前面說其他法相互為因緣。下面第二點是隨著提問分別解釋。引用前面的話來引發提問。頌詞說：『為大唯一因』。第一句是大對於大。第二句是大對於所造。第三句是所造對於所造。第四句是所造對於大。論述說：『同類因義』。解釋第一句。《正理經》說，相互觀待有俱有因。性質類別雖然不同，但因為同一件事而相互順應，所以有同類因。『大於所造能為五因』。解釋第二句。生等五因名為因緣。兩種解釋如前。或者四緣中的因緣所攝。『婆沙』（Vibhasa，論藏）也說十因為因緣。按照這段文字，不是增上緣。古德解釋，大對於所造是因、增上緣。或者說因是俱有因。或者說同類因。或者說俱有、同類因。這些都不合理。《婆沙》和此論都說生等五因是因緣。而且《發智論》是根據四緣來作論的，所以因是因緣。舊人不明白生等五因是因緣。

【English Translation】 English version Those who 'wear inside out' (Antarvasa) delight in eating flesh, blood, and marrow. This reveals what they consume. Now, those who perform sacrifices use these very things to offer, hence the name 'Rudra' (Isvara, the Lord). Furthermore, consider those who believe in the merit of perfect beings and such. The third point below refutes those who contradict worldly norms. If one claims that all dharmas arise solely from 'Isvara' (the Self-Existent One) as the single cause, then worldly efforts and such are denied. If it is said that 'Isvara' requires other conditions and human efforts to manifest its function, this is merely a way to venerate 'Isvara', because apart from other conditions, no distinct function of 'Isvara' is seen. Or if it depends on conditions, then 'Isvara' should not be the Great Isvara. If one clings to the idea that the initial arising does not depend on other causes, but later does, then the initial arising should be without beginning, because it does not depend on other causes, just like 'Isvara'. The 'Self' (Atman), 'Nature' (Prakrti), and so on, are all born from a single cause. This is an example of refutation and conclusion. 'How strange is the world' that some falsely cling to 'Isvara' and others as the sole cause. Let us cease refuting the heterodox and clarify the correct meaning. Cease refuting and clarify the correct meaning. Earlier, it was said that other dharmas are mutual causes and conditions. The second point below explains separately according to the question. Quoting the previous words to raise the question. The verse says: 'As the great, the sole cause.' The first line is the great in relation to the great. The second line is the great in relation to the created. The third line is the created in relation to the created. The fourth line is the created in relation to the great. The treatise says: 'The meaning of homogeneous cause.' Explaining the first line. The Nyaya Sutra says that mutual dependence has a co-existent cause. Although the nature and categories are different, because they mutually accord in the same matter, there is a homogeneous cause. 'The great, in relation to the created, can be the five causes.' Explaining the second line. The five causes such as arising are called conditions. The two explanations are as before. Or the condition is included in the four conditions. The Vibhasa also says that the ten causes are conditions. According to this text, it is not the dominant condition. Ancient scholars explained that the great in relation to the created is the cause, the dominant condition. Or it is said that the cause is the co-existent cause. Or it is said to be the homogeneous cause. Or it is said to be the co-existent and homogeneous cause. These are all unreasonable. The Vibhasa and this treatise both say that the five causes such as arising are conditions. Moreover, the Jnanaprasthana is based on the four conditions, so the cause is the condition. The old scholars did not understand that the five causes such as arising are conditions.

緣攝。所以種種異解。

何等為五者。問。

謂生依立至住長因性者。答。此因緣中生等五因。若六因中但是能作因之少分非餘五因。大種望所造色非同一果故。非性定同故。容別世造故。容別成就故。所以非俱有因。非心．心所故非相應因。非染污故非遍行因。是無記故非異熟因。俱時起故非同類因。設後起者非同類故。雖有無記同而種類異故。受等與心種類雖別。而同一果故得為因。非例大造。于以大望所造無餘五因。廣如正理論釋　所造從大種起故。如母生子說為生因　所造生已隨逐大種轉故。如弟子等依止師等說為依因　能任持彼所造色故。如壁持畫說為立因　是所造色不斷因故說為持因　是所造色增長因故說為養因　如是則顯大與所造為起因性即是生因。變因性即是依因。謂大種轉變造色亦隨轉變。持因性即是立因。住因性即是持因。能持所造色相續住故。長因性即是養因　又正理解五因云。或生因者一切大種生所造色。非離諸大種有造色生故。造色生已同類相續不斷位中。火為依因能令乾燥不爛壞故。水為立因能為浸潤令不散故。地為持因能任持彼令不墜故。風為養因能引發彼令增長故(解云生因通四大餘四因各是一大)　諸所造色至眼根等果者。釋第三句。可知。

所造于大至大種

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：緣起攝持。因此有種種不同的解釋。

哪五種呢？問。

即所謂生因、依因、立因、持因、養因。答。這些因緣中，生等五因，若在六因中，只是能作因的一小部分，不是其餘五因。四大種對於所造色來說，不是同一果，因為性質不是絕對相同，容許有不同世的造作，容許有不同的成就，所以不是俱有因。不是心和心所，所以不是相應因。不是染污的，所以不是遍行因。因為是無記性，所以不是異熟因。因為是同時生起，所以不是同類因。假設是後起，也不是同類因，雖然有無記性相同，但種類不同。受等與心，種類雖然不同，但同一果，所以可以作為因，不能以四大種和所造色為例。對於以四大種望所造色，沒有其餘五因。詳細的解釋如《正理論》的解釋。所造色從四大種生起，所以像母親生孩子一樣，說是生因。所造色產生后，隨著四大種運轉，所以像弟子等依靠老師一樣，說是依因。能夠任持那些所造色，所以像墻壁支撐圖畫一樣，說是立因。是所造色不斷的原因，所以說是持因。是所造色增長的原因，所以說是養因。這樣就顯示了四大種與所造色，作為起因的性質就是生因。變因的性質就是依因。所謂四大種轉變，造色也隨著轉變。持因的性質就是立因。住因的性質就是持因。能夠保持所造色相續存在。長因的性質就是養因。又，《正理論》解釋五因說：或者生因，是指一切四大種產生所造色。因為沒有離開諸大種而有造色產生。造色產生后，在同類相續不斷的階段中，火作為依因，能夠使它乾燥而不腐爛。水作為立因，能夠使它浸潤而不散開。地作為持因，能夠任持它而不墜落。風作為養因，能夠引發它而增長。（解釋說，生因通於四大，其餘四因各自是一種大種。）諸所造色到眼根等果，解釋第三句，可知。

所造色對於四大種……

【English Translation】 English version: Conditioned origination encompasses. Therefore, there are various different interpretations.

What are the five? Question.

They are called the cause of arising, the cause of dependence, the cause of establishment, the cause of maintenance, and the cause of nourishment. Answer. Among these causal conditions, the five causes of arising, etc., if within the six causes, are only a small part of the efficient cause, not the other five causes. The great elements, in relation to the derived matter, are not of the same result, because their nature is not absolutely identical, allowing for different worldly creations, allowing for different achievements, therefore they are not coexistent causes. They are not mind and mental factors, therefore not associated causes. They are not defiled, therefore not pervasive causes. Because they are indeterminate, they are not resultant causes. Because they arise simultaneously, they are not homogeneous causes. Even if they arise later, they are not homogeneous causes, although they may have the same indeterminate nature, their types are different. Feeling, etc., and mind, although different in type, have the same result, so they can be considered causes, but the great elements and derived matter cannot be taken as examples. Regarding the great elements in relation to the derived matter, there are no other five causes. Detailed explanations can be found in the commentary of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. Derived matter arises from the great elements, so like a mother giving birth to a child, it is said to be the cause of arising. After derived matter arises, it follows the movement of the great elements, so like disciples relying on teachers, it is said to be the cause of dependence. It can sustain those derived matter, so like a wall supporting a painting, it is said to be the cause of establishment. It is the cause of the continuous existence of derived matter, so it is said to be the cause of maintenance. It is the cause of the growth of derived matter, so it is said to be the cause of nourishment. Thus, it is shown that the nature of the great elements and derived matter as the cause of arising is the cause of arising. The nature of the cause of transformation is the cause of dependence. That is, when the great elements transform, the derived matter also transforms accordingly. The nature of the cause of maintenance is the cause of establishment. The nature of the cause of abiding is the cause of maintenance. It can maintain the continuous existence of derived matter. The nature of the cause of growth is the cause of nourishment. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya explains the five causes as follows: Or, the cause of arising refers to all the great elements producing derived matter. Because there is no derived matter arising apart from the great elements. After derived matter arises, in the stage of continuous homogeneous succession, fire as the cause of dependence can make it dry and not rot. Water as the cause of establishment can make it moist and not disperse. Earth as the cause of maintenance can sustain it and not fall. Wind as the cause of nourishment can stimulate it and grow. (The explanation says that the cause of arising is common to the four great elements, and the other four causes are each one great element.) The derived matter reaching the result of the eye faculty, etc., the explanation of the third sentence, is knowable.

Derived matter in relation to the great elements...

果故者。釋第四句。準此頌文十因名因緣。故前問言。云何大種所造自．他相望互為因緣。與婆沙同據十因作論。◎

◎前已總說至今當定說者。此下大文第二別明等無間　就中。一明諸心相生。二明得心多少　此下明諸心相生。牒前問起　何心無間有幾心生。問能生幾心　復從幾心有何心起。問從幾心生。謂且略說有十二心者。就答中。一明十二心。二明二十心　就十二心中。一列十二心。二正辨相生。此下列十二心。總舉數答。

云何十二者。問。

頌曰至合成十二者。答。數可知。

此十二心至余從五生四者。此下正辨相生。舉頌略述。初四句欲界四心。次六句色界三心。次四句無色界三心。后兩句無漏二。將明諸心相生略依二十心三門分別。十二之與二十開．合為異。體無寬．狹。二十數廣故就彼明。言三門者一定．散相生心。二防定方便心。三命終．受生心　言定．散相生心者。就中。有三相生。一善定相生。二散自相生。三定．散相生　一善定相生者復有其二。一有漏定。二無漏定。言有漏定者。若色界有漏加行定心能生四心。謂自界加行定心。無色界加行定心。及無漏生學．無學心。復從此四心生。若無色界有漏定心能生四心。從四心生。如色界有漏加行定心說。言無漏定者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『果故者』，解釋第四句。依照這個頌文，十因被稱為因緣。因此，前面問到：『云何大種所造自．他相望互為因緣？』這與《婆沙論》相同，都是根據十因來作論。◎ ◎前面已經總的說了，現在應當確定地說。下面這大段文字是第二部分，分別說明等無間（Samantaraniruddha，指心識剎那生滅相續，前念滅后念生，中間沒有間隔）。其中，一是說明諸心相生，二是說明得心多少。下面說明諸心相生，承接前面的問題而提出：『何心無間有幾心生？』問的是能生出多少心。『復從幾心有何心起？』問的是從多少心而生。這裡且略說有十二心。在回答中，一是說明十二心，二是說明二十心。在十二心中，一是列出十二心，二是正式辨析相生。下面列出十二心，總的舉出數量來回答。『云何十二者？』問。『頌曰至合成十二者』。答。數量是可以知道的。『此十二心至余從五生四者』。下面正式辨析相生。舉出頌文來簡略敘述。最初四句是欲界四心，接著六句是（Rūpadhātu，色界）三心，再接著四句是無（Arūpadhātu，無色界）三心，最後兩句是無漏二心。將要說明諸心相生，略微依據二十心，從三個方面分別。十二心與二十心，是開合的差異，本體沒有寬窄。二十心的數量多，所以就用它來說明。所說的三個方面是：一定（Samāhita-citta，禪定心）．散（Vikṣipta-citta，散亂心）相生心，二是防護定方便心，三是命終．受生心。所說的定．散相生心，其中有三種相生：一是善定相生，二是散自相生，三是定．散相生。一是善定相生，又有兩種：一是有漏定，二是無漏定。所說的有漏定，如果（Rūpadhātu，色界）有漏加行定心能生四心，即自界加行定心，無（Arūpadhātu，無色界）加行定心，以及無漏生學．無學心。又從此四心生。如果無（Arūpadhātu，無色界）有漏定心能生四心，從四心生，如（Rūpadhātu，色界）有漏加行定心所說。所說的無漏定。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Guo Gu Zhe (果故者)', explains the fourth line. According to this verse, the ten causes are called Hetupratyaya (因緣, conditions). Therefore, the previous question asked: 'How do the Mahabhutas (大種, great elements) create each other, mutually causing and conditioning each other?' This is the same as the Vibhasa (婆沙論), which bases its arguments on the ten causes. ◎ ◎ Having already spoken generally, now we should speak definitively. The following major section is the second part, separately explaining Samantaraniruddha (等無間, contiguity condition). Among these, one is to explain the arising of all minds, and the other is to explain the amount of mind attained. Below, the arising of all minds is explained, following up on the previous question: 'What mind, without interval, gives rise to how many minds?' This asks how many minds can arise. 'And from how many minds does what mind arise?' This asks from how many minds it arises. Here, let's briefly say there are twelve minds. In the answer, one is to explain the twelve minds, and the other is to explain the twenty minds. Among the twelve minds, one is to list the twelve minds, and the other is to formally distinguish their arising. Below, the twelve minds are listed, generally giving the number as the answer. 'What are the twelve?' (云何十二者？) Question. 'The verse says, up to composing twelve.' (頌曰至合成十二者) Answer. The number can be known. 'These twelve minds, up to the rest arise four from five.' (此十二心至余從五生四者) Below, the arising is formally distinguished. The verse is cited to briefly describe it. The first four lines are the four minds of the Desire Realm (欲界, Kāmadhātu), then the six lines are the three minds of the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu), then the four lines are the three minds of the Formless Realm (無Arūpadhātu), and the last two lines are the two unconditioned minds. To explain the arising of all minds, it is slightly based on the twenty minds, distinguished from three aspects. The twelve minds and the twenty minds are different in terms of opening and closing, but the essence is not wide or narrow. Because the number of twenty minds is broad, it is used to explain. The three aspects are: Samāhita-citta (定, concentration mind) and Vikṣipta-citta (散, scattered mind) arising, second is the mind of guarding concentration, and third is the mind of death and rebirth. The so-called Samāhita-citta (定, concentration mind) and Vikṣipta-citta (散, scattered mind) arising, among them, there are three kinds of arising: one is the arising of wholesome concentration, the second is the self-arising of scattering, and the third is the arising of concentration and scattering. One is the arising of wholesome concentration, and there are two kinds: one is conditioned concentration, and the other is unconditioned concentration. The so-called conditioned concentration, if the conditioned progressive concentration mind of the Rūpadhātu (色界) can give rise to four minds, namely the progressive concentration mind of its own realm, the progressive concentration mind of the Arūpadhātu (無Arūpadhātu), and the unconditioned mind of learning and no-learning. And again, it arises from these four minds. If the conditioned concentration mind of the Arūpadhātu (無Arūpadhātu) can give rise to four minds, and arises from four minds, as the conditioned progressive concentration mind of the Rūpadhātu (色界) is said. The so-called unconditioned concentration.

。若學心能生四心。謂色．無色有漏定心。及學．無學心。從三心生除無學心。若無學心能生三心。於前四內除學心。從四心生並學心　二散自相生者。謂約自界散心相生。若欲界八心中。通果心唯與定心相生。非與餘七心相生。餘三無記心各能生六心。除通果．及加行。各從七心生除通果。若加行善心能生七除通果。從四生除四無記。若生得善．二染污心。各能生七。復從七生除通果。色．無色界散位相生準此應說　三定．散相生者。八心能作入有漏定心。謂欲界加行善心．通果心。色界加行善．生得善．及有覆心並通果心。無色界生得善．及有覆心。所以得知色界生得善能入定者。如無色界生得善既能入定。色界生得亦能入定　又解色界生得善不能入定。無色界生得善無別散加行善可能入定。色界更有散加行聞慧能入定故。生得善不能入定。若作此解唯七心能作入有漏定心。十二心能作出有漏定心。謂欲界加行善．生得善．通果心。色界六心。無色界三心。除加行加行即定故。所以色定不生下染．及余無記者。從無色定尚不生色界生得善。非明利故。況複色定能生地獄染及無記。又所以得知從色界有漏定心生自界異熟．威儀心者。如無色界定心能生自界異熟心。準知色界定心亦能生異熟．威儀心。二心能作入無漏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果修學之心能夠產生四種心，即色界（Rūpadhātu，指色界天）和無色界（Arūpadhātu，指無色界天）的有漏定心，以及有學（Śaikṣa，指還在學習的聖者）和無學（Aśaikṣa，指已完成學習的聖者）之心。從三種心產生，除了無學心。如果無學心能夠產生三種心，在前述四種心中除去有學心。從四種心產生，包括有學心。二、散心各自相生：這是指在各自界內的散心相互產生。如果欲界（Kāmadhātu，指欲界天）的八種心中，通果心（指與果位相應的心）只能與定心相互產生，不能與其餘七種心相互產生。其餘三種無記心（指非善非惡的心）各自能夠產生六種心，除去通果心和加行心（指為達到某種目的而努力的心）。各自從七種心產生，除去通果心。如果加行善心能夠產生七種心，除去通果心，從四種心產生，除去四種無記心。如果生得善心（指自然產生的善心）和兩種染污心（指被煩惱污染的心），各自能夠產生七種心，又從七種心產生，除去通果心。色界和無色界的散心相互產生的情況，可以參照上述進行說明。三、定心和散心相互產生：八種心能夠作為進入有漏定心（指帶有煩惱的禪定之心）的條件，即欲界的加行善心和通果心。色界的加行善心、生得善心以及有覆心（指被無明覆蓋的心）和通果心。無色界的生得善心和有覆心。之所以得知色界的生得善心能夠進入禪定，是因為如果無色界的生得善心能夠進入禪定，那麼色界的生得善心也能夠進入禪定。另一種解釋是，色界的生得善心不能進入禪定。無色界的生得善心沒有其他的散心加行善心，因此可能進入禪定。而色界有散心的加行聞慧（指通過聽聞佛法而產生的智慧）能夠進入禪定，因此生得善心不能進入禪定。如果這樣解釋，那麼只有七種心能夠作為進入有漏定心的條件。十二種心能夠作為產生有漏定心的條件，即欲界的加行善心、生得善心、通果心，色界的六種心，無色界的三種心，除去加行心，因為加行心本身就是禪定。之所以色界的定心不產生地獄的染污心和其餘的無記心，是因為從無色界的定心尚且不產生色界的生得善心，因為不夠明利。更何況色界的定心能夠產生地獄的染污心和無記心。又之所以得知從色界的有漏定心產生自身界的異熟心（指果報心）和威儀心（指行為舉止的心），是因為如同無色界的定心能夠產生自身界的異熟心，可以推知色界的定心也能夠產生異熟心和威儀心。兩種心能夠作為進入無漏（Anāsrava，指沒有煩惱）的條件

【English Translation】 English version: If the learning mind can generate four types of minds, namely the minds of the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu, referring to the heavens of the Form Realm) and the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu, referring to the heavens of the Formless Realm) with outflows, as well as the minds of those still learning (Śaikṣa, referring to the saints who are still learning) and those who have completed learning (Aśaikṣa, referring to the saints who have completed learning). It arises from three types of minds, excluding the mind of one who has completed learning. If the mind of one who has completed learning can generate three types of minds, among the aforementioned four types of minds, exclude the mind of one who is still learning. It arises from four types of minds, including the mind of one who is still learning. Secondly, scattered minds arise from each other: This refers to scattered minds within their respective realms arising from each other. If among the eight minds of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu, referring to the heavens of the Desire Realm), the mind associated with fruition (referring to the mind corresponding to the fruit of practice) can only arise from the mind of concentration, and cannot arise from the remaining seven types of minds. The remaining three types of neutral minds (referring to minds that are neither good nor evil) can each generate six types of minds, excluding the mind associated with fruition and the mind of effort (referring to the mind that strives to achieve a certain goal). Each arises from seven types of minds, excluding the mind associated with fruition. If the wholesome mind of effort can generate seven types of minds, excluding the mind associated with fruition, it arises from four types of minds, excluding the four types of neutral minds. If the naturally arising wholesome mind (referring to the wholesome mind that arises naturally) and the two defiled minds (referring to minds that are contaminated by afflictions) can each generate seven types of minds, and again arise from seven types of minds, excluding the mind associated with fruition. The mutual arising of scattered minds in the Form Realm and the Formless Realm can be explained similarly. Thirdly, concentrated minds and scattered minds arise from each other: Eight types of minds can serve as conditions for entering the mind of concentration with outflows (referring to the mind of meditative absorption with afflictions), namely the wholesome mind of effort and the mind associated with fruition in the Desire Realm. The wholesome mind of effort, the naturally arising wholesome mind, and the mind with obscurations (referring to the mind covered by ignorance) and the mind associated with fruition in the Form Realm. The naturally arising wholesome mind and the mind with obscurations in the Formless Realm. The reason why it is known that the naturally arising wholesome mind in the Form Realm can enter concentration is because if the naturally arising wholesome mind in the Formless Realm can enter concentration, then the naturally arising wholesome mind in the Form Realm can also enter concentration. Another explanation is that the naturally arising wholesome mind in the Form Realm cannot enter concentration. The naturally arising wholesome mind in the Formless Realm does not have other scattered wholesome minds of effort, so it can enter concentration. However, the Form Realm has the scattered mind of effortful learning-wisdom (referring to the wisdom that arises from hearing the Dharma) that can enter concentration, so the naturally arising wholesome mind cannot enter concentration. If explained in this way, then only seven types of minds can serve as conditions for entering the mind of concentration with outflows. Twelve types of minds can serve as conditions for generating the mind of concentration with outflows, namely the wholesome mind of effort, the naturally arising wholesome mind, and the mind associated with fruition in the Desire Realm, the six types of minds in the Form Realm, and the three types of minds in the Formless Realm, excluding the mind of effort, because the mind of effort itself is concentration. The reason why the mind of concentration in the Form Realm does not generate the defiled minds of the lower realms and the remaining neutral minds is because even from the mind of concentration in the Formless Realm, the naturally arising wholesome mind in the Form Realm is not generated, because it is not clear enough. How much more so can the mind of concentration in the Form Realm generate the defiled minds and neutral minds of the lower realms. Also, the reason why it is known that from the mind of concentration with outflows in the Form Realm, the resultant mind (referring to the mind of karmic retribution) and the mind of demeanor (referring to the mind of behavior and conduct) of its own realm are generated is because, just as the mind of concentration in the Formless Realm can generate the resultant mind of its own realm, it can be inferred that the mind of concentration in the Form Realm can also generate the resultant mind and the mind of demeanor. Two types of minds can serve as conditions for entering the outflow-free (Anāsrava, referring to the absence of afflictions)

定心。謂欲界加行善心。色界加行散善心。三心能作出無漏定心。謂欲界加行善．生得善。色界加行散善不生無色散善。以于散位無加行善。雖有生得劣故不生　二防定方便心者。四心能作防定加行心。謂色．無色界二染污心。隨其所應能生下地善心。即欲界加行善．生得善。色界加行善。無色界加行善。應知唯防定心。上染心後生下善心。余必不生　三命終．受生者。十二心能作命終心。謂欲界生得善．不善．有覆．威儀．異熟。色界生得善．有覆．威儀．異熟。無色界生得善．有覆．無覆心。四心。能作受生心。謂三界四染污心。若以命終受生心相生者。此中死有一念名命終心。欲界．色界中有初心。及生有初心。並無色界生有初心。皆名受生心。以此論說中生初念名受生故。受生心不生命終。以隔遠故。故婆沙一百五十四云。頗有處唯二剎那有心。謂結生．及命終時耶。答應言無。尊者妙音說。有。謂即無想天。頗有處結生心為等無間命終心起耶。答應說無。尊者妙音說。有。謂即無想天(已上論文)　前說為正　問若以婆沙前說為正。即與正理二十一相違。故彼論云。謂或容有生有無間死有現前非起本有。必無容有在中有地。死有無間生有現前。故中有名不濫余有。解云正理所說即妙音義也。無勞會釋。若依

【現代漢語翻譯】定心：指欲界加行善心。（加行：爲了達到某種目的而進行的努力或準備；善心：善良的心）加行散善心。三種心能產生無漏定心。（無漏：佛教術語，指沒有煩惱和業障；定心：專注平靜的心）即欲界加行善、生得善。（生得善：與生俱來的善）加行散善不產生無色散善。（無色：佛教術語，指沒有物質形態的境界）因為在散亂的狀態下沒有加行善。即使有生得善，也因為其低劣而不能產生。二、防定方便心：四種心能產生防定加行心。（防定：防止心散亂，保持專注；加行心：爲了達到某種目的而進行努力的心）即色界、無色界的兩種染污心。（染污心：被煩惱污染的心）根據情況，能產生下地的善心。即欲界加行善、生得善。加行善，無色界加行善。應該知道只有防定心。上染心之後產生下善心。其餘的必定不產生。三、命終、受生：十二種心能作為命終心。（命終：死亡；心：精神活動）即欲界生得善、不善、有覆、威儀、異熟。（有覆：被煩惱覆蓋；威儀：行為舉止；異熟：業力的果報）生得善、有覆、威儀、異熟。無色界生得善、有覆、無覆心。（無覆：沒有煩惱覆蓋）四種心能作為受生心。（受生：投胎轉世）即三界四種染污心。（三界：欲界、色界、無色界）如果以命終受生心相生，這裡死有一念名為命終心。（死有：臨終時的精神狀態）欲界、中有初心，以及生有初心。（中有：死亡到投胎之間的過渡狀態；生有：出生時的精神狀態）並無色界生有初心，都名為受生心。因為此論說中陰身初念名為受生。受生心不生命終，因為間隔遙遠。所以《婆沙論》一百五十四說：『有沒有地方只有兩個剎那有心？』（剎那：極短的時間單位）『即結生和命終時嗎？』回答說：『沒有。』尊者妙音說：『有。』即無想天。（無想天：佛教中的一種禪定境界）『有沒有地方結生心為等無間命終心生起？』（等無間：沒有間隔）回答說：『沒有。』尊者妙音說：『有。』即無想天。（以上論文）前一種說法是正確的。問：如果以《婆沙論》前一種說法為正確，就與《正理》二十一相違背。所以彼論說：『或許容許生有無間死有現前，而非起本有。』（本有：生命最初的精神狀態）『必定沒有容許在中陰地，死有無間生有現前。』所以中有名稱不混淆于其他有。解釋說：《正理》所說即妙音的觀點。無需解釋。如果依據...

【English Translation】 Fixed Mind: Refers to the wholesome mind of application in the Desire Realm. (Application: Effort or preparation made to achieve a certain goal; Wholesome Mind: A virtuous mind) Applied scattered wholesome mind. Three types of minds can produce undefiled fixed mind. (Undefiled: A Buddhist term referring to the absence of afflictions and karmic obstacles; Fixed Mind: A focused and calm mind) Namely, the applied wholesome mind of the Desire Realm, and the naturally born wholesome mind. Naturally born wholesome. Applied scattered wholesome mind does not produce formless scattered wholesome mind. (Formless: A Buddhist term referring to realms without material form) Because there is no applied wholesome mind in the scattered state. Even if there is a naturally born wholesome mind, it cannot produce it due to its inferiority. Second, Mind of Expedient Means for Preventing Fixation: Four types of minds can produce the applied mind for preventing fixation. (Preventing Fixation: Preventing the mind from being scattered and maintaining focus; Applied Mind: A mind that makes effort to achieve a certain goal) Namely, the two defiled minds of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm. (Defiled Mind: A mind contaminated by afflictions) Depending on the situation, it can produce wholesome minds of lower realms. Namely, the applied wholesome mind of the Desire Realm, and the naturally born wholesome mind. Applied wholesome mind, applied wholesome mind of the Formless Realm. It should be known that only the mind of preventing fixation. After the upper defiled mind, a lower wholesome mind arises. The rest will definitely not arise. Third, Death and Rebirth: Twelve types of minds can serve as the mind at the time of death. (Death: The end of life; Mind: Mental activity) Namely, the naturally born wholesome, unwholesome, obscured, behavioral, and resultant minds of the Desire Realm. (Obscured: Covered by afflictions; Behavioral: Actions and manners; Resultant: The result of karma) Naturally born wholesome, obscured, behavioral, and resultant minds. The naturally born wholesome, obscured, and unobscured minds of the Formless Realm. (Unobscured: Not covered by afflictions) Four types of minds can serve as the mind at the time of rebirth. (Rebirth: Reincarnation) Namely, the four defiled minds of the three realms. (Three Realms: Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) If the minds of death and rebirth arise in succession, here, one thought of the dying state is called the mind at the time of death. The initial mind of the Desire Realm, the intermediate state, and the birth state. (Intermediate State: The transitional state between death and rebirth; Birth State: The mental state at the time of birth) And the initial mind of the birth state of the Formless Realm are all called the mind at the time of rebirth. Because this treatise says that the initial thought of the intermediate being is called rebirth. The rebirth mind does not cause death, because it is far apart. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa 154 says: 'Is there a place where there is only mind for two kshanas?' (Kshana: An extremely short unit of time) 'Namely, at the time of conception and death?' The answer is: 'No.' Venerable Myrophone says: 'Yes.' Namely, the Realm of Non-Perception. (Realm of Non-Perception: A state of meditation in Buddhism) 'Is there a place where the mind of conception arises as the immediately preceding mind of death?' The answer is: 'No.' Venerable Myrophone says: 'Yes.' Namely, the Realm of Non-Perception. (Above are excerpts from the treatise) The former statement is correct. Question: If the former statement of the Mahavibhasa is taken as correct, it contradicts the Nyayanusara 21. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Perhaps it is permissible for the death state to appear immediately after the birth state, but not to arise from the original state.' (Original State: The initial mental state of life) 'It is definitely not permissible for the birth state to appear immediately after the death state in the intermediate state.' Therefore, the name of the intermediate state is not confused with other states. Explanation: What the Nyayanusara says is the view of Myrophone. No explanation is needed. If based on...

彼說受生心亦容生命終心準釋可知。前說為正。若命終心能生受生心。三界四染污心名受生心。若欲界受生二染污心。通從三界十二命終心生。若色界受生染心。從十命終心生。於十二中除欲界二染心。若無色界受生染心。從九命終心生。於十二除欲界二染心．色界一染心。

論曰至生善染心者。謂欲界善心無間生九。謂自界四。色界二心。于入定時生善心。于續生位生染心。又正理二十云。生何善心。復何地攝。此于初位生加行心。若於后時生離欲得。隨順住故無容起彼生得善心。生在此間不能令彼起現前故。有說彼心未至地攝。有言亦攝在初靜慮。有說亦在靜慮中間。尊者瞿沙作如是說。乃至亦在第二靜慮。如超定時隔地而起。有作是說非等引心無力能牽隔地心起。是故彼說理定不然　準正理文。故知。身在下地不能起上生得善心。

無色界一至謂入觀時者。欲界善心。唯生無色一染心。不生彼善以極遠故。無色于欲有四遠故。所以。欲界善心不能生彼善心。故正理三十六云。所依遠者謂于等至入．出位中。等無間緣為所依體無容有故。行相遠者謂無色心畢竟無能于欲界法作苦．粗等諸行相故。所緣遠義類此應知。由無色心但能以下第四靜慮有漏諸法。為苦．粗等行相所緣。對治遠者謂若未離欲貪時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他說，受生心（指投胎時的心）也容許用生命終結時的心來類比解釋，可以知道前面的說法是正確的。如果命終心（指死亡時的心）能夠產生受生心，那麼三界（指欲界、色界、無色界）的四種染污心（指貪、嗔、癡、慢）可以稱為受生心。如果欲界受生的是兩種染污心，那麼通常是從三界的十二種命終心產生的。如果是色界或無色界的受生染心，是從十種命終心產生的，在十二種命終心中除去欲界的兩種染心。如果沒有受生染心，是從九種命終心產生的，在十二種命終心中除去欲界的兩種染心和色界的一種染心。論中說，到產生善染心的時候，是指欲界的善心無間斷地產生九種心，包括自身所處的欲界的四種心，以及色界的五種心。對於進入禪定的時候產生善心，在持續投胎的位置產生染心。又如《阿毗達磨順正理論》第二十卷所說，產生什麼樣的善心，又屬於哪個地界所攝？這是指在最初的階段產生加行心（指為達到某種目的而努力的心）。如果在之後的時間產生離欲得（指脫離慾望的成就），因為隨順於安住的狀態，所以不可能生起那種生得善心（指自然而生的善心）。生存在此間（指欲界）不能令彼處（指色界或無色界）的善心生起現前。有人說那種心屬於未至地（指色界初禪前的準備階段）所攝，有人說也攝在初靜慮（指色界初禪），有人說也在靜慮中間（指初禪和二禪之間）。尊者瞿沙這樣說，乃至也在第二靜慮（指色界二禪）。如同超越禪定的時候，隔著地界而生起。有人這樣說，非等引心（指非禪定狀態的心）沒有力量牽引隔著地界的心生起。所以那種說法肯定是不對的。根據《阿毗達磨順正理論》的文義，因此可知，身處下地不能生起上地的生得善心。沒有一種情況，到進入觀想的時候，欲界的善心，只能產生無色界的一種染心，不能產生無色界的善心，因為距離極其遙遠。無色界對於欲界有四種遙遠。所以，欲界的善心不能產生無色界的善心。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》第三十六卷說，所依遠（指所依賴的基礎遙遠）是指在等至（指禪定）的進入和出來的時候，等無間緣（指緊接著前一念而生起的因緣）作為所依賴的本體，沒有容納的空間。行相遠（指行相遙遠）是指無色界的心畢竟不能對於欲界的法產生苦、粗等各種行相。所緣遠（指所緣的對象遙遠）的意義可以依此類推得知。由於無色界的心只能以下面的第四靜慮（指色界第四禪）的有漏諸法作為苦、粗等行相的所緣。對治遠（指對治的方法遙遠）是指如果還沒有脫離欲貪的時候。

【English Translation】 English version: He said that the mind at the time of rebirth (受生心) (referring to the mind at the time of reincarnation) can also be explained by analogy to the mind at the end of life (命終心), from which it can be known that the previous statement is correct. If the mind at the end of life can generate the mind at the time of rebirth, then the four defiled minds (染污心) (referring to greed, hatred, delusion, and pride) of the Three Realms (三界) (referring to the Desire Realm (欲界), the Form Realm (色界), and the Formless Realm (無色界)) can be called the mind at the time of rebirth. If the rebirth in the Desire Realm is with two defiled minds, then it usually arises from the twelve minds at the end of life in the Three Realms. If the defiled mind at the time of rebirth is in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm, it arises from ten minds at the end of life, excluding the two defiled minds of the Desire Realm from the twelve minds at the end of life. If there is no defiled mind at the time of rebirth, it arises from nine minds at the end of life, excluding the two defiled minds of the Desire Realm and one defiled mind of the Form Realm from the twelve minds at the end of life. The treatise says that when it comes to generating wholesome and defiled minds, it refers to the wholesome mind of the Desire Realm continuously generating nine kinds of minds, including the four minds of its own Desire Realm and the five minds of the Form Realm. For generating wholesome minds when entering samadhi, defiled minds are generated in the position of continuous rebirth. Furthermore, as stated in the Abhidharmanyayanusara, Volume 20, what kind of wholesome mind is generated, and which realm does it belong to? This refers to generating the preparatory mind (加行心) (referring to the mind that strives to achieve a certain goal) in the initial stage. If the attainment of detachment from desire (離欲得) (referring to the achievement of liberation from desire) is generated later, because it is in accordance with the state of abiding, it is impossible to generate that innate wholesome mind (生得善心) (referring to the wholesome mind that arises naturally). Being born here (referring to the Desire Realm) cannot cause the wholesome mind of that place (referring to the Form Realm or the Formless Realm) to arise in the present. Some say that that mind belongs to the Unreached Realm (未至地) (referring to the preparatory stage before the first dhyana of the Form Realm), some say that it is also included in the First Dhyana (初靜慮) (referring to the first dhyana of the Form Realm), and some say that it is also in the Middle of Dhyana (靜慮中間) (referring to the intermediate state between the first and second dhyanas). Venerable Ghosa said that it is even in the Second Dhyana (第二靜慮) (referring to the second dhyana of the Form Realm). It is like arising across realms when transcending samadhi. Some say that the non-samadhi mind (非等引心) (referring to the mind in a non-meditative state) does not have the power to draw the mind across realms to arise. Therefore, that statement is definitely incorrect. According to the meaning of the text of the Abhidharmanyayanusara, it can be known that being in a lower realm cannot generate the innate wholesome mind of a higher realm. There is no case where, when entering contemplation, the wholesome mind of the Desire Realm can only generate one defiled mind of the Formless Realm, and cannot generate the wholesome mind of the Formless Realm, because the distance is extremely far. The Formless Realm has four distances from the Desire Realm. Therefore, the wholesome mind of the Desire Realm cannot generate the wholesome mind of the Formless Realm. Therefore, the Abhidharmanyayanusara, Volume 36, says that the distance of the basis (所依遠) (referring to the remoteness of the dependent basis) refers to the fact that in the entry and exit of samadhi (等至), the contiguous condition (等無間緣) (referring to the condition that arises immediately after the previous thought) as the dependent entity has no space for accommodation. The distance of the aspect (行相遠) (referring to the remoteness of the aspect) refers to the fact that the mind of the Formless Realm ultimately cannot produce various aspects such as suffering and coarseness for the dharmas of the Desire Realm. The meaning of the distance of the object (所緣遠) (referring to the remoteness of the object) can be known by analogy. Because the mind of the Formless Realm can only take the defiled dharmas of the lower Fourth Dhyana (第四靜慮) (referring to the fourth dhyana of the Form Realm) as the object of aspects such as suffering and coarseness. The distance of the antidote (對治遠) (referring to the remoteness of the antidote) refers to the case where one has not yet detached from desire.

。必定無容起無色定。能為欲界惡戒等法。厭壞．及斷二對治故。非不能緣可能厭壞　解云無色望欲無斷．厭對治。故言對治遠。然得有持對治。能持彼得令不失故。亦有遠分對治。遠防彼惑令不能起故。亦無舍對治。以不能捨欲界法故。若據命終受生心。欲界心亦得與無色界心為依。

即此復從至謂出觀時者。釋第二句　問身在地獄起上染心。復起下善心能防上定。未知身在地獄起上幾惑　答如婆沙五十三云。謂住欲界不死不生。而色．無色界結現在前。而彼通異生．及聖者。若異生。色．無色界六十二隨眠隨一現前。謂愛．見．疑．慢上靜慮者。若聖者。色．無色界修所斷六隨眠隨一現在前。謂愛．慢上靜慮者。彼定后煩惱現在前。煩惱后定現在前。是謂有結在欲界非墮欲界　又言。謂住下二界不生不死。無色界結現在前。彼通異生．及聖者。若異生。無色界三十一隨眠隨一現在前。謂愛．見．疑．慢上靜慮者。若聖者。無色界修所斷三隨眠隨一現在前。愛．慢上靜慮者。彼定后煩惱現在前。煩惱后定現在前。是謂有結非在無色界。彼結非不墮無色界　準彼論文。身在地獄凡．聖皆起上惑。起上惑時皆與定心相出．入。若據從惑防定心。隨其所應從上界惑后入地獄善心。色界三十一皆入欲界善心。無色界三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：必定不可能生起無色定（Arūpa-samāpatti，指四種無色界的禪定）。因為（無色定）能夠對治欲界的惡戒等法，使其厭惡敗壞並斷除，所以說能對治。並非不能緣取可能厭惡敗壞的事物。（有人）解釋說，無色界相對於欲界，沒有斷除和厭惡的對治，所以說對治遙遠。然而，可以有持有對治，能夠持有那種獲得，使其不喪失。也有遠分對治，遠遠地防止那些迷惑，使其不能生起。也沒有捨棄對治，因為不能捨棄欲界的法。如果根據命終受生時的心，欲界的心也可以與無色界的心作為所依。

從『即此復從至謂出觀時者』開始，解釋第二句話。問：身在地獄，生起上界的染污心，又生起地獄的善心，能夠防止上界的定。不知道身在地獄，生起上界的幾種迷惑？答：如《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，即《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第五十三卷所說：住在欲界，不死不生，而色界（Rūpadhātu）和無色界的結（Saṃyojana，煩惱的束縛）現在前。這裡包括凡夫和聖者。如果是凡夫，色界和無色界的六十二種隨眠（Anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）中的任何一種現在前，即愛、見、疑、慢這四種對上靜慮的隨眠。如果是聖者，色界和無色界修所斷的六種隨眠中的任何一種現在前，即愛、慢這兩種對上靜慮的隨眠。他們的定之後，煩惱現在前；煩惱之後，定現在前。這叫做有結在欲界，但沒有墮入欲界。又說：住在下二界（欲界和色界），不生不死，無色界的結現在前。這裡包括凡夫和聖者。如果是凡夫，無色界的三十一種隨眠中的任何一種現在前，即愛、見、疑、慢這四種對上靜慮的隨眠。如果是聖者，無色界修所斷的三種隨眠中的任何一種現在前，即愛、慢這兩種對上靜慮的隨眠。他們的定之後，煩惱現在前；煩惱之後，定現在前。這叫做有結，但不在無色界。那些結並非不墮入無色界。根據《婆沙》的論文，身在地獄的凡夫和聖者都會生起上界的迷惑。生起上界迷惑時，都與定心相出入。如果根據從迷惑防止定心，那麼隨著情況，從上界的迷惑之後進入地獄的善心。色界的三十一種都進入欲界的善心，無色界的三種。

【English Translation】 English version: It is definitely impossible to arise the Arūpa-samāpatti (formless attainments, referring to the four meditative states of the formless realm). Because it (Arūpa-samāpatti) can counteract the evil precepts and other dharmas of the desire realm, causing them to be disgusted, corrupted, and eliminated, therefore it is said to be able to counteract. It is not that it cannot take as its object things that can be disgusted and corrupted. (Someone) explains that, in relation to the desire realm, the formless realm does not have the counteraction of cutting off and disgust, so it is said that the counteraction is distant. However, there can be a holding counteraction, which can hold that attainment, preventing it from being lost. There is also a distant-part counteraction, which far prevents those delusions, preventing them from arising. There is also no abandoning counteraction, because it cannot abandon the dharmas of the desire realm. If based on the mind at the time of death and rebirth, the mind of the desire realm can also take the mind of the formless realm as its basis.

Starting from 'From this again to when exiting contemplation', explaining the second sentence. Question: The body is in the lower realm, arising the defiled mind of the upper realm, and again arising the wholesome mind of the lower realm, can prevent the samādhi of the upper realm. It is not known how many delusions of the upper realm arise when the body is in the lower realm? Answer: As the Vibhāṣā (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says in the fifty-third fascicle: Residing in the desire realm, not dying and not being born, while the Saṃyojana (fetters, bonds of affliction) of the Rūpadhātu (form realm) and the Arūpadhātu (formless realm) are present. This includes both ordinary beings and noble ones. If it is an ordinary being, any one of the sixty-two Anuśaya (latent defilements) of the form and formless realms is present, namely the four: attachment, view, doubt, and pride towards the upper dhyānas. If it is a noble one, any one of the six Saṃyojana cut off by cultivation in the form and formless realms is present, namely the two: attachment and pride towards the upper dhyānas. After their samādhi, affliction is present; after affliction, samādhi is present. This is called having fetters in the desire realm, but not falling into the desire realm. It also says: Residing in the lower two realms (desire and form realms), not being born and not dying, the Saṃyojana of the formless realm is present. This includes both ordinary beings and noble ones. If it is an ordinary being, any one of the thirty-one Anuśaya of the formless realm is present, namely the four: attachment, view, doubt, and pride towards the upper dhyānas. If it is a noble one, any one of the three Saṃyojana cut off by cultivation in the formless realm is present, namely the two: attachment and pride towards the upper dhyānas. After their samādhi, affliction is present; after affliction, samādhi is present. This is called having fetters, but not being in the formless realm. Those fetters are not that they do not fall into the formless realm. According to the Vibhāṣā's text, both ordinary beings and noble ones with bodies in the lower realm will give rise to delusions of the upper realm. When delusions of the upper realm arise, they enter and exit with the mind of samādhi. If based on preventing the mind of samādhi from delusion, then depending on the situation, after the delusion of the upper realm, enter the wholesome mind of the lower realm. The thirty-one of the form realm all enter the wholesome mind of the desire realm, and the three of the formless realm.

十一皆容入色界善心。此文不言無明者。以必有故不說而成。

染謂不善至余無生理者。釋第三句。婆沙云。能障聖道．及聖道加行故名有覆。不招異熟果故名無記。

余謂欲纏至能生彼染者。釋第四句。

色界善心至欲無色染者。此明色界三心。

無色界善至及欲色染者。此明無色三心。

學心從四至及無學一者。明學．無學與諸心相生。非三界染互相違故。非諸無覆無明利故。所以無學不生學者。彼非果故。

說十二心至餘數如前說者。此下第二明二十心相生。此即分十二為二十也。

論曰至生得別故者。就長行中。一正釋頌。二明二十心相生。三約異門相生。此下正釋。即釋第二．第三句。

欲界無覆至四通果心者。釋次三句。

色無覆心至工巧事故者。釋第七句。

如是十二至故成二十者。釋初．后句。正理云。無色界無行等事故無威儀路。無攝受支三摩地故亦無通果。

威儀路等至十二處境者。別明三無記所緣境。異熟生心能緣十二處。此即可知故不別顯。威儀路．工巧通處．果三無記心。皆以色．香．味．觸為所緣境　工巧處等。等取通果心。此二無記亦緣于聲。有語工巧故。工巧心緣聲。化人發語故通果心緣聲。聲非威儀故威儀

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本十一皆容入善心（kusala citta）。此文不言無明（avijjā）者，以必有故不說而成。

染謂不善（akusala）至余無生理者。解釋第三句。婆沙（Vibhāṣā）云：『能障聖道（ariya magga）及聖道加行故名有覆，不招異熟果故名無記（avyākata）。』

余謂欲纏（kāma rāga）至能生彼染者。解釋第四句。

善心至欲（kāma）無色染者。此明三心。

無善至及欲色染者。此明無色三心。

學心從四至及無學一者。明學（sekha）、無學（asekha）與諸心相生。非三界染互相違故，非諸無覆無明利故。所以無學不生學者，彼非果故。

說十二心至餘數如前說者。此下第二明二十心相生。此即分十二為二十也。

論曰至生得別故者。就長行中，一正釋頌，二明二十心相生，三約異門相生。此下正釋，即釋第二、第三句。

欲界無覆至四通果心者。釋次三句。

色無覆心至工巧事故者。釋第七句。

如是十二至故成二十者。釋初、后句。正理（Nyāyānusāra）云：『無無行等事故無威儀路，無攝受支三摩地故亦無通果。』

威儀路等至十二處境者。別明三無記所緣境。異熟生心能緣十二處。此即可知故不別顯。威儀路、工巧通處、果三無記心，皆以色（rūpa）、香（gandha）、味（rasa）、觸（phoṭṭhabba）為所緣境。工巧處等，等取通果心。此二無記亦緣于聲（sadda）。有語工巧故。工巧心緣聲，化人發語故通果心緣聲。聲非威儀故威儀

【English Translation】 English version All eleven are included in wholesome consciousness (kusala citta). This text does not mention ignorance (avijjā) because it is necessarily present and thus understood.

'Tainted' refers to unwholesome (akusala) states that prevent the arising of other wholesome states. This explains the third line. The Vibhāṣā says: 'That which obstructs the Noble Path (ariya magga) and the practices leading to the Noble Path is called 'covered'. That which does not produce different results is called 'indeterminate' (avyākata).'

'The rest' refers to desire-attachment (kāma rāga) up to that which can give rise to that taint. This explains the fourth line.

From wholesome consciousness to desire (kāma) and formless taint. This clarifies the three types of consciousness.

From non-wholesome to desire and form taint. This clarifies the three types of formless consciousness.

The consciousness of a learner from four to the one of a non-learner. This clarifies how the consciousness of a learner (sekha) and a non-learner (asekha) arise in relation to other types of consciousness. They are not mutually contradictory because the taints of the three realms are mutually contradictory, and because the indeterminate states are not as sharp as ignorance. Therefore, the consciousness of a non-learner does not give rise to the consciousness of a learner because it is not a result.

Saying that the twelve types of consciousness and the remaining numbers are as previously stated. Below, the second section clarifies the arising of twenty types of consciousness in relation to each other. This is dividing the twelve into twenty.

The treatise says that the difference is due to being born differently. Within the prose section, first, there is a direct explanation of the verse; second, there is a clarification of the arising of twenty types of consciousness in relation to each other; and third, there is a clarification of the arising in terms of different aspects. Below is the direct explanation, which explains the second and third lines.

The indeterminate consciousness of the desire realm to the four supernormal result consciousnesses. This explains the next three lines.

The indeterminate consciousness of the form realm to the skillful activity. This explains the seventh line.

Thus, the twelve become twenty. This explains the first and last lines. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Because there is no effortless action, there is no deportment. Because there is no samādhi that gathers the limbs, there is also no supernormal result.'

Deportment and so on, up to the twelve sense bases. This separately clarifies the objects of the three indeterminate states. Resultant consciousness can cognize the twelve sense bases. This is knowable and therefore not separately shown. The three indeterminate consciousnesses of deportment, skillful activity, and supernormal result all have form (rūpa), smell (gandha), taste (rasa), and tactile sensation (phoṭṭhabba) as their objects. 'Skillful activity and so on' includes supernormal result consciousness. These two indeterminate states also cognize sound (sadda). Because there is verbal skill. Skillful activity consciousness cognizes sound, and supernormal result consciousness cognizes sound because a created being speaks. Sound is not deportment, therefore deportment

心不緣。如是三心唯是意識。威儀路．工巧處加行。不但意識。亦通四識．五識。夫通果心有二。一五識中通果。即天眼．天耳通。二意識通果。即變化心．及發業通果心。此中且據第二通果心故言唯是意識。若據二通亦在五識　問如何得知二通名通果心　答如婆沙九十五云。此中五識相應慧有三。一善。二染。三無覆無記。善者謂唯生得善。染污者謂唯修所斷貪．嗔．癡相應。無覆無記者謂異熟生。亦有少分威儀路．工巧處．及通果心俱生(已上論文)若威儀路心唯意識者。據起威儀心說。若威儀路加行不但在意。亦通四識緣四境故。以聲非威儀故不緣聲。故一百二十六云。眼．鼻．舌．身四識。是威儀路加行非起威儀路。意識是威儀路加行。亦是起威儀路(已上論文)　若工巧處心唯意識者。據起工巧處心說。若工巧處加行不但在意識。亦通五識緣五境故。故婆沙云。眼等五識是工巧處加行非起工巧處。意識是工巧處加行。亦起工巧處(已上論文)。

若通果心加行。唯是定心意識不通五識。故論不說。有餘師說有二無記所引意識。是彼威儀．工巧類故。能具足緣十二處境。婆沙亦有此說。泛明諸威儀路心略有三種。一起威儀路心。唯是意識。二緣威儀路心。通四識．及意識。三似威儀路心。即通六識。如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心不攀緣（心不緣）。像這樣，前念、后念、中間念這三種心念都只是意識。威儀路（行為舉止）、工巧處（工藝技巧）的加行，不只是意識，也通於前四識、前五識。通果心有二種：一是五識中的通果，即天眼通、天耳通；二是意識的通果，即變化心以及引發業力的通果心。這裡暫且根據第二種通果心，所以說只是意識。如果根據兩種通果，也存在於五識之中。問：如何得知兩種神通名為通果心？答：如《大毗婆沙論》第九十五卷所說：『這其中與五識相應的智慧有三種：一是善，二是染，三是無覆無記。善的是指唯有生得的善；染污的是指唯有修所斷的貪、嗔、癡相應；無覆無記的是指異熟生，也有少部分是威儀路、工巧處以及通果心俱生。』（以上是論文原文）如果說威儀路心只是意識，那是根據發起威儀心來說的。如果威儀路的加行不只是在意，也通於前四識緣取四種境界的緣故。因為聲音不是威儀，所以不緣取聲音。所以第一百二十六卷說：『眼、鼻、舌、身四識，是威儀路的加行，不是發起威儀路；意識是威儀路的加行，也是發起威儀路。』（以上是論文原文）如果說工巧處心只是意識，那是根據發起工巧處心來說的。如果工巧處的加行不只是在意識，也通於前五識緣取五種境界的緣故。所以《大毗婆沙論》說：『眼等五識是工巧處的加行，不是發起工巧處；意識是工巧處的加行，也是發起工巧處。』（以上是論文原文）。如果通果心的加行，只是定心意識，不通於五識，所以論中沒有說。有其他老師說有兩種無記所引發的意識，是那威儀、工巧的同類，能夠具足緣取十二處境。在《大毗婆沙論》中也有這種說法。總的來說，各種威儀路心略有三種：一是發起威儀路心，只是意識；二是緣取威儀路心，通於前四識以及意識；三是相似威儀路心，即通於六識。例如...

【English Translation】 English version: The mind does not cling (心不緣). Thus, these three minds—past, present, and future—are solely consciousness (意識). The preparatory actions (加行) of deportment (威儀路) and skillful activities (工巧處) are not limited to consciousness; they also extend to the first four consciousnesses (四識) and the five consciousnesses (五識). There are two types of minds that achieve supernatural results (通果心): first, the supernatural results within the five consciousnesses, such as the divine eye (天眼通) and the divine ear (天耳通); second, the supernatural results of consciousness, such as the mind of transformation (變化心) and the mind that initiates karmic actions and their supernatural results (發業通果心). Here, we focus on the second type of mind that achieves supernatural results, hence the statement that it is solely consciousness. However, if we consider both types of supernatural results, they also exist within the five consciousnesses. Question: How do we know that these two types of supernatural powers are called minds that achieve supernatural results? Answer: As stated in the ninety-fifth volume of the Mahavibhasa (婆沙): 'Among these, the wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses is of three types: first, wholesome (善); second, defiled (染); and third, indeterminate (無覆無記). Wholesome refers to that which is naturally acquired. Defiled refers to that which is only severed through cultivation, associated with greed (貪), hatred (嗔), and delusion (癡). Indeterminate refers to that which arises from maturation (異熟生), and also a small portion arises simultaneously with deportment, skillful activities, and the mind that achieves supernatural results.' (End of quote from the text) If it is said that the mind of deportment is solely consciousness, it is in reference to the arising of the mind of deportment. If the preparatory actions of deportment are not only in the mind, they also extend to the first four consciousnesses perceiving the four objects of sense, because sound is not deportment, so it does not perceive sound. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-sixth volume states: 'The four consciousnesses of eye, nose, tongue, and body are the preparatory actions of deportment, not the arising of deportment. Consciousness is both the preparatory action of deportment and the arising of deportment.' (End of quote from the text) If it is said that the mind of skillful activities is solely consciousness, it is in reference to the arising of the mind of skillful activities. If the preparatory actions of skillful activities are not only in consciousness, they also extend to the five consciousnesses perceiving the five objects of sense. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa states: 'The five consciousnesses of eye, etc., are the preparatory actions of skillful activities, not the arising of skillful activities. Consciousness is both the preparatory action of skillful activities and the arising of skillful activities.' (End of quote from the text). If the preparatory actions of the mind that achieves supernatural results are solely the consciousness of meditative concentration (定心意識) and do not extend to the five consciousnesses, then the treatise does not discuss it. Some other teachers say that there are two types of indeterminate consciousnesses that are induced, which are of the same kind as deportment and skillful activities, and are able to fully perceive the twelve sense bases (十二處境). There is also this statement in the Mahavibhasa. Generally speaking, there are roughly three types of minds of deportment: first, the mind that arises as deportment, which is solely consciousness; second, the mind that perceives deportment, which extends to the first four consciousnesses and consciousness; and third, the mind that resembles deportment, which extends to the six consciousnesses. For example...

泛爾緣外色．聲等。若言威儀路心唯意識者。據起威儀路心說。若威儀加行不但意識亦通四識者。據緣威儀路心說。若言威儀路心通緣十二處者。據似威儀路心說。泛明工巧處略有三種。一起工巧處心。唯意識。二緣工巧處心。通五識．及意識。三似工巧處心。亦通六識。如泛爾緣外色．聲等。若言工巧處心唯意識者。據起工巧處心說。若言工巧加行不但意識亦通五識者。據緣工巧處心說。若言工巧處心通緣十二處者。據似工巧處心說　問云何名威儀路心　解云行．住．坐．臥名威儀。以長．短等表色為性。路以色．香．味．觸為體。是威儀所依名路。威儀之路。依主釋也。威儀路之心名威儀路心。依主釋也。若作此解眼識是威儀路加行緣威儀。緣威儀路少分。鼻．舌．身三識是威儀路加行。各緣威儀路少分名威儀路心。意識是威儀路加行．及緣威儀。緣威儀路能起威儀路。名威儀路心　又解路即威儀名威儀路。持業釋。以色．香．味．觸為體。故婆沙云。威儀路者。謂色．香．味．觸四處為體(已上論文)　以四威儀不離四境故。以四境為體。心所依託名路。若作此解。四識各緣威儀路少分。名威儀路心。余如前解。問云何名工巧處心　解云工巧處有二。一身工巧處。二語工巧處。身工巧處者刻鏤等名身工巧。以色

業為體。處以色．香．味．觸為體。語工巧處者歌詠等名語工巧。以聲為體。處以五境為體。是工巧所依託處名工巧處。工巧之處。依主釋也。工巧處之心名工巧處心。依主釋也。若作此解。眼識此是身工巧處加行。緣身工巧緣工巧處少分名工巧處心。鼻．舌．身．識是身工巧處加行。各緣身工巧處少分名工巧處心。耳識是語工巧處加行。緣語工巧緣語工巧處少分名工巧處心。眼等四識是語工巧處加行。各緣語工巧處少分名語工巧處心。意識是工巧處加行。能起工巧處緣工巧處名工巧處心　又解處即是工巧名工巧處。持業釋也。若身工巧處以四境為體。以身工巧起時不離四境故以四境為體。若語工巧以五境為體。以語工巧起時不離五境故。以五境為體。是心所緣託名處。故婆沙云。工巧處者謂色．聲．香．味．觸五境為體。若作此解四識．五識。各緣工巧處少分名工巧處心。余如前釋。

如是二十至自色二心者。此下第二明相生。此即欲界八心相生。

次說色界至自界二心者。此明色界六心相生。

次說無色至謂自界四者。此明無色界四心相生　問身在下地能起上界生得善心不　解云準前所引正理論文。定不能起。自古諸德皆云能起。如無學人。身在欲界退起無色界惑。從何心起。既無煩惱非染心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：業以行為作為其本體。處所則以色、香、味、觸作為其本體。語言的精巧之處，如歌詠等，被稱為語工巧，以聲音作為其本體。處所則以五種感官對像作為其本體。這些是工巧所依賴的處所，稱為工巧處。工巧之處，是依主釋（一種梵文複合詞的構成方式）。工巧處的心，稱為工巧處心，也是依主釋。如果這樣解釋，眼識是身工巧處（與身體相關的精巧技藝的處所）的加行（準備階段），緣于身工巧，緣于工巧處的少部分，稱為工巧處心。鼻、舌、身、識是身工巧處的加行，各自緣于身工巧處的少部分，稱為工巧處心。耳識是語工巧處（與語言相關的精巧技藝的處所）的加行，緣于語工巧，緣于語工巧處的少部分，稱為語工巧處心。眼等四識是語工巧處的加行，各自緣于語工巧處的少部分，稱為語工巧處心。意識是工巧處的加行，能夠發起工巧處，緣于工巧處，稱為工巧處心。另一種解釋是，處所本身就是工巧，稱為工巧處，這是持業釋（另一種梵文複合詞的構成方式）。如果身工巧處以四境（色、聲、香、味）為本體，是因為身工巧生起時離不開這四境，所以以四境為本體。如果語工巧以五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）為本體，是因為語工巧生起時離不開這五境。心所緣托的，稱為處所。所以《婆沙論》說，工巧處是指色、聲、香、味、觸這五境為本體。如果這樣解釋，四識、五識各自緣于工巧處的少部分，稱為工巧處心。其餘的解釋與前面相同。像這樣，從二十到自色二心，這以下第二部分說明相生。這裡指的是欲界八種心的相生。接下來所說的到自界二心，這裡說明六種心的相生。接下來所說的無色到謂自界四，這裡說明無四種心的相生。問：身在下地，能夠生起上界的生得善心嗎？解答說，按照前面引用的《正理論》的文句，肯定不能生起。但自古以來的各位德行高尚之人，都說能夠生起。比如無學之人，身在欲界，退失了無的惑，是從什麼心生起的？既然沒有煩惱，就不是染污心。

【English Translation】 English version: Action takes activity as its essence. Places take form, sound, smell, taste, and touch as their essence. Skillful language, such as singing, is called verbal skillfulness, taking sound as its essence. Places take the five sense objects as their essence. These are the places upon which skillfulness relies, called skillful places (karma-sthāna). 'Skillful places' is a possessive compound (şaşţhī-tatpurușa). The mind of skillful places is called the skillful place mind, also a possessive compound. If interpreted this way, eye consciousness is the preliminary action (prayoga) of bodily skillful places (those related to physical skills), arising from bodily skillfulness, arising from a small part of the skillful place, called the skillful place mind. Nose, tongue, body consciousness are the preliminary actions of bodily skillful places, each arising from a small part of the bodily skillful place, called the skillful place mind. Ear consciousness is the preliminary action of verbal skillful places (those related to verbal skills), arising from verbal skillfulness, arising from a small part of the verbal skillful place, called the skillful place mind. The four consciousnesses of eye, etc., are the preliminary actions of verbal skillful places, each arising from a small part of the verbal skillful place, called the verbal skillful place mind. Mind consciousness is the preliminary action of skillful places, capable of initiating skillful places, arising from skillful places, called the skillful place mind. Another interpretation is that the place itself is the skillfulness, called the skillful place, which is a determinative compound (karmadhāraya). If the bodily skillful place takes the four objects (form, sound, smell, taste) as its essence, it is because bodily skillfulness cannot arise without these four objects, so it takes the four objects as its essence. If verbal skillfulness takes the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) as its essence, it is because verbal skillfulness cannot arise without these five objects. What the mind relies upon is called a place. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāşa says that skillful places refer to the five objects of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch as their essence. If interpreted this way, the four consciousnesses and the five consciousnesses each arise from a small part of the skillful place, called the skillful place mind. The rest of the explanation is the same as before. Like this, from twenty to the two minds of one's own realm of form, the second part below explains arising together (sahabhāva). This refers to the arising together of the eight minds of the desire realm (kāmadhātu). Next, what is said from to the two minds of one's own realm, this explains the arising together of the six minds of . Next, what is said from the formless to called the four of one's own realm, this explains the arising together of the four minds of the formless realm (arūpadhātu). Question: Can the body in a lower realm give rise to naturally acquired wholesome minds of a higher realm? Answer: According to the passage from the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra quoted earlier, it definitely cannot. However, virtuous individuals from ancient times have all said that it can. For example, when a non-learner (aśaikşa) whose body is in the desire realm regresses from the **defilements of the formless realm, from what mind does it arise? Since there are no defilements, it is not a defiled mind.

生。彼無威儀．工巧．通果三無記心。異熟生心無起異地。以此故知非無記心生。亦不可說善心能生。唯退分定能生煩惱。得無學時不成就故。余住等三不能生惑。不起上界生得善退更起何心。以此故知。身在下地能起上地生得善心。退起煩惱　又云。身在欲界起天眼通。從天眼通卻入定時。若無生得善心。便不能生加行善心。以諸論說除變化心。不許余無覆無記心生加行善心。若不許起上地生得善者。天眼體是無覆無記。云何能生加行善心。以此準知。身在地獄起上界生得善心　今解不然。身在下地不能起上生得善心。如無學退。雖無退分定。婆沙．正理兩論意說。許住分定亦能生煩惱。古德不悟住分能生。所以種種穿鑿。又從天眼通后亦能生加行善心。以天眼通即是通果心故。若言變化心狹。若言通果心即寬。唯翻作變化心不言通果者。譯家謬耳。古德不悟二通是通果心攝。所以致斯謬解。

次說無漏至及學無學者。此明二無漏心相生。必從學心生無學心故。學心生無學心。必無從無學心退起學心。故無無學心生學心。

復有何緣至生加行善者。此下釋妨問何故加行生三無記非彼生加行。

勢力劣故至可能生彼者。答。異熟生心勢力劣故。非作功用所引發故。樂作功用引發工巧威儀轉故。所以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生。彼無威儀（沒有威嚴的儀態）、工巧（精巧的技藝）、通果（神通的果報）三種無記心。異熟生心（由異熟果報所生的心）不會在不同的地方生起。因此可知，不是無記心生起。也不可說是善心能生起煩惱。只有退分定（從禪定退失的狀態）才能生起煩惱。因為在證得無學果位時，退分定已經不成就了。其餘的住分定（保持在禪定中的狀態）等三種禪定不能生起迷惑。如果不在上界生起生得善心，退失后又會生起什麼心呢？因此可知，身在下地能生起上地生得的善心。退失後生起煩惱。又說，身在欲界能生起天眼通。從天眼通的狀態退入禪定時。如果沒有生得的善心，便不能生起加行善心（通過努力修行而產生的善心）。因為各種論典都說，除了變化心（通過神通變化而產生的心），不允許其餘的無覆無記心（不覆蓋真理的無記心）生起加行善心。如果不允許生起上地生得的善心，那麼天眼通的本體是無覆無記，又怎麼能生起加行善心呢？因此可以推知，身在地獄能生起上界生得的善心。

現在的解釋不是這樣。身在下地不能生起上地生得的善心。如同無學退失的情況。即使沒有退分定，《婆沙論》和《正理論》的意思是說，允許住分定也能生起煩惱。古德沒有領悟到住分定也能生起煩惱，所以才會有各種穿鑿附會的解釋。又從天眼通之後也能生起加行善心。因為天眼通就是通果心。如果說變化心狹隘，那麼通果心就寬廣。只有翻譯成變化心而不說通果心，是譯者的錯誤。古德沒有領悟到二通（天眼通和天耳通）是通果心所攝，所以才導致這種錯誤的理解。

其次說無漏心乃至學無學者的相生。這是說明兩種無漏心（沒有煩惱的心）的相生關係。一定是先從學心（還在學習的心）生起無學心（已經完成學習的心），所以學心能生起無學心。一定不會從無學心退失而生起學心。所以沒有無學心生起學心的情況。

又有什麼緣故乃至生加行善心呢？這下面解釋疑問，為什麼加行生起三種無記心，而不是無記心生起加行。

勢力弱的緣故乃至可能生起彼心。回答說，異熟生心的勢力弱，不是通過功用所引發的。樂於通過功用引發工巧、威儀的轉變，所以。

【English Translation】 English version: Birth. Those lack the three kinds of neutral mind: imposing demeanor, skillful crafts, and the fruition of supernormal powers. The mind born of resultant maturation does not arise in different places. Therefore, it is known that it is not the neutral mind that arises. Nor can it be said that the wholesome mind can give rise to afflictions. Only the declining stage of meditative concentration can give rise to afflictions, because it is not accomplished when one attains the state of no-more-learning. The remaining three stages of meditative concentration, such as the abiding stage, cannot give rise to delusion. If one does not give rise to the innate wholesome mind in the upper realms, what mind will arise after declining? Therefore, it is known that one can give rise to the innate wholesome mind of the upper realms while being in the lower realms. Afflictions arise after declining. Furthermore, it is said that one can develop the divine eye while being in the desire realm. When one retreats from the divine eye into meditative concentration, if there is no innate wholesome mind, then one cannot give rise to the striving wholesome mind (wholesome mind generated through effort). Because various treatises state that, except for the transformation mind (mind arising from magical transformations), other unspecified neutral minds are not allowed to give rise to the striving wholesome mind. If one does not allow the arising of the innate wholesome mind of the upper realms, then the substance of the divine eye is unspecified neutral, how can it give rise to the striving wholesome mind? Therefore, it can be inferred that one can give rise to the innate wholesome mind of the upper realms while being in the lower realms.

The current explanation is not like this. One cannot give rise to the innate wholesome mind of the upper realms while being in the lower realms, as in the case of the decline of a no-more-learner. Even without the declining stage of meditative concentration, the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra) and Nyayanusara (Nyayanusara-sastra) treatises suggest that the abiding stage of meditative concentration can also give rise to afflictions. The ancient masters did not realize that the abiding stage could give rise to afflictions, so they made various far-fetched explanations. Furthermore, one can also give rise to the striving wholesome mind after the divine eye, because the divine eye is the mind of the fruition of supernormal powers. If it is said that the transformation mind is narrow, then the mind of the fruition of supernormal powers is broad. Only translating it as transformation mind and not mentioning the mind of the fruition of supernormal powers is a mistake of the translator. The ancient masters did not realize that the two supernormal powers (divine eye and divine ear) are included in the mind of the fruition of supernormal powers, so they led to this erroneous understanding.

Next, it speaks of the arising of non-outflow minds, up to those who are learners and no-more-learners. This explains the relationship between the two non-outflow minds (minds free from defilements). It must be that the mind of a learner (one who is still learning) gives rise to the mind of a no-more-learner (one who has completed learning), so the mind of a learner can give rise to the mind of a no-more-learner. It is certain that one will not decline from the mind of a no-more-learner and give rise to the mind of a learner. Therefore, there is no case of the mind of a no-more-learner giving rise to the mind of a learner.

What is the reason why the striving wholesome mind arises? This below explains the question of why the striving gives rise to the three kinds of neutral mind, and not the neutral mind giving rise to the striving.

Because of the weakness of the power, it is possible to give rise to that mind. The answer is that the power of the mind born of resultant maturation is weak, and it is not induced by intentional effort. It is happy to induce the transformation of skillful crafts and imposing demeanor through intentional effort, so it does.

此三不能順起加行善心。出心不由功用轉故。所以從加行無間能生彼三。

若爾染污至不相順故者。難。若爾染污無間不應生加行善。染著境界不相順故。

雖爾厭倦至容起加行者。答。雖不相順。厭倦煩惱數現行。為欲了知起過失境。煩惱無間容起加行。

欲界生得至引生彼心者。欲界散地散生得強以明利故。從二無漏色界加行無間而起。非勝功用所引發故。不能從此生彼三心。影知色．無色界是定地故。散生得劣。此以昧劣故非學無學．他界加行。無間而起。非作功用所引發故。不能從此引生彼心。

又欲生得至無間而起者。還顯欲界生得明利。可從色染無間而生能防上定。色界生得不明利故而無此能。

作意有三至相應作意者。此下第三約異門相生　就中。一明三作意入出聖道。二明無學九地出心。三明四慧入出聖道　此下明三作意。就中。一明三作意。二敘異說　此即明三作意。作意用強偏標作意。非無受等。假相觀中。勝解亦強故標勝解。共相作意理實亦通有漏．無漏。此中既明聖道出入。明三作意皆是有漏。不凈．無量．勝處．遍處唯是假想。解脫之中通其假．實。言有色解脫。標前三解脫。唯假想故。無色解脫通於假．實故言有色　問如婆沙十一明勝解作意中。但言解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這三種情況不能緊接著生起加行善心，因為生起善心不是由功用（努力）所能轉變的。所以，從加行（準備階段）之後，才能無間地生起這三種善心。

如果說染污心與不相順的心不能相續，這是個難題。如果這樣，染污心之後就不應該生起加行善心，因為染著境界與善心不相順。

雖然如此，厭倦煩惱時，容許生起加行。回答：雖然不相順，但厭倦煩惱常常現行，爲了想要了解生起過失的境界，在煩惱之後容許生起加行。

欲界生得的善心，能夠引發彼心（指無漏善心）。欲界散地（指非禪定狀態）散生得的善心，因為強盛而明利，所以能從二無漏（指學道和無學道）加行之後無間地生起。但因為不是殊勝功用所引發，所以不能從此生起彼三種心。影知色（指觀想色法），無**（原文如此，可能指無色界），是定地（指禪定狀態）的緣故，散生得的善心較弱。因為這種善心昧劣，所以不能從學道、無學道、他界（指非欲界）的加行之後無間地生起。因為不是作意功用所引發，所以不能從此引發彼心。

又，欲界生得的善心，能夠無間地生起。這再次顯示欲界生得的善心明利，可以從色界染污心之後生起，能夠防止上升到上定。**生得的善心不明利，所以沒有這種能力。

作意有三種，與相應作意相應。下面第三部分是關於異門相生的討論。其中，第一部分闡明三種作意進入和出離聖道；第二部分闡明無學位的九地出心；第三部分闡明四慧進入和出離聖道。下面闡明三種作意。其中，第一部分闡明三種作意；第二部分敘述不同的說法。這裡闡明三種作意。作意的作用強，所以特別標明作意，並非沒有受等。在假相觀中，勝解也很強，所以標明勝解。共相作意在理上實際上也通於有漏和無漏。這裡既然闡明聖道的出入，就說明三種作意都是有漏的。不凈觀、無量觀、勝處觀、遍處觀都只是假想。解脫之中，通於假想和實觀。說到有色解脫，標明前三種解脫，因為只是假想的緣故。無色解脫通於假想和實觀，所以說有色。問：如《婆沙》第十一中闡明勝解作意時，只說了勝解。

【English Translation】 English version: These three conditions cannot give rise to progressive wholesome intention (加行善心, jiāxíng shànxīn) immediately, because the arising of wholesome intention is not transformed by effort (功用, gōngyòng). Therefore, only after the preliminary practice (加行, jiāxíng) can these three wholesome intentions arise without interruption.

If it is argued that defiled mind and incompatible minds cannot continue, this is a difficult point. If so, wholesome preliminary practice should not arise immediately after a defiled mind, because attachment to objects is incompatible with wholesome intention.

Although this is the case, when one is weary of afflictions, it is permissible to generate preliminary practice. Answer: Although they are not compatible, weariness of afflictions often manifests. In order to understand the arising of faulty states, it is permissible to generate preliminary practice immediately after afflictions.

The wholesome intention born in the desire realm can induce that mind (referring to unwholesome intention). The wholesome intention born in the scattered mind (散地, sàn dì) of the desire realm, because it is strong and clear, can arise without interruption after the two unwholesome (學道, xué dào and 無學道, wú xué dào) preliminary practices. However, because it is not induced by superior effort, it cannot give rise to those three minds. Shadowing form (影知色, yǐng zhī sè, referring to contemplating form), non-** (原文如此, yuánwén rúcǐ, original text as is, possibly referring to the formless realm), is because it is in a state of concentration (定地, dìng dì), the wholesome intention born in the scattered mind is weaker. Because this kind of wholesome intention is obscure, it cannot arise without interruption after the preliminary practice of the learning path, the path of no more learning, or other realms (他界, tā jiè, referring to realms other than the desire realm). Because it is not induced by intentional effort, it cannot induce that mind from this.

Moreover, the wholesome intention born in the desire realm can arise without interruption. This again shows that the wholesome intention born in the desire realm is clear and can arise after the defiled mind of the form realm, and can prevent rising to higher concentration. The wholesome intention born in ** is not clear, so it does not have this ability.

There are three types of attention (作意, zuòyì), which are compatible with corresponding attention. The third part below is a discussion of arising from different perspectives. Among them, the first part elucidates the three attentions entering and exiting the holy path; the second part elucidates the mind exiting the nine grounds of the state of no more learning; the third part elucidates the four wisdoms entering and exiting the holy path. Below, the three attentions are elucidated. Among them, the first part elucidates the three attentions; the second part narrates different views. Here, the three attentions are elucidated. The function of attention is strong, so attention is specifically indicated, not that there are no feelings, etc. In the contemplation of false appearances, understanding (勝解, shèng jiě) is also strong, so understanding is indicated. Common characteristic attention is actually common to both defiled and undefiled. Since the entry and exit of the holy path are elucidated here, it is explained that the three attentions are all defiled. Impure contemplation, immeasurable contemplation, overcoming bases, and pervasive contemplations are all just imagination. Among liberations, it is common to both imagination and reality. When speaking of liberation from form, the first three liberations are indicated, because they are only imaginary. Liberation from formlessness is common to both imagination and reality, so it is said to have form. Question: As explained in the eleventh chapter of the Vibhasa, when elucidating the attention of understanding, only understanding is mentioned.

脫。何故不言有色　解云婆沙云解脫者。是解脫中假想解脫。不言解脫皆是假想　或可。婆沙所云解脫。即是此論有色解脫　問婆沙勝解作意中。亦說持息念。此論何故不說。又此論下文說持息念是真實作意。故下論言。色余師說。息出極遠。乃至風輪。或吠嵐婆。此不應理。此念真實作意俱故。論既不同。如何會釋　解云持息念有二。一假相謂加行。二真實謂根本。此論據根本。婆沙據加行。各據一義。並不相違　又解論意各別。此論加行根本皆是真實。婆沙及此論余師。加行通假。根本是實。

如是三種至修念等覺分者。此下第二敘異說。總有三師。此即初說。三入．三出。若說三入。便順經言不凈觀俱行。修念等無漏覺分。此中俱聲顯無間義。前後俱也。此文且證勝解作意能入聖道。若於見道唯共相入。通三種出。若於修道．無學道中通三入．三出。

有餘師說至修念等覺分者。此即第二異說。一入三出。通前引經。言俱行者。展轉遠俱非無間俱也。

有餘復言至共相作意者。此下第三異說共入．共出。

若爾有依至加行道故者。論主破第三師唯共相出。未至等三近故容起欲界共相　問婆沙十一還難此師。何故但言未至一地不言三耶　解云俱舍師應言唯依未至。而言三地者且縱許三。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：脫。為什麼不說有色？解釋說，《婆沙論》中說的解脫，是解脫中的假想解脫。不是說所有的解脫都是假想。或者可以說，《婆沙論》所說的解脫，就是此論中的有色解脫。問：《婆沙論》的勝解作意中，也說了持息念，此論為什麼不說？而且此論下文說持息念是真實作意。所以下文說，色，其他老師說，氣息出去極遠，乃至風輪，或者吠嵐婆。這不應該這樣說。因為此念和真實作意在一起。論述既然不同，如何會通解釋？解釋說，持息念有兩種，一種是假相，指加行；一種是真實，指根本。此論是根據根本來說的，《婆沙論》是根據加行來說的。各自根據一個意義，並不互相違背。又解釋說，論的意義各自不同。此論認為加行和根本都是真實的。《婆沙論》和此論中的其他老師認為，加行是通於假想的，根本是真實的。

如是三種，到修念等覺分。這下面第二段敘述不同的說法。總共有三位老師。這裡是最初的說法。三入、三出。如果說三入，就順應了經文所說的與不凈觀一起修行。修念等無漏覺分。這裡面的『俱』字，顯示了無間斷的意義。前後都是如此。這段文字暫且證明勝解作意能夠進入聖道。如果在見道中，只有共相才能進入。通於三種出。如果在修道、無學道中，通於三入、三出。

有其他老師說，到修念等覺分。這是第二種不同的說法。一入三出。通於前面引用的經文。說『俱行』，是輾轉遙遠地在一起，不是無間斷地在一起。

有其他老師又說，到共相作意。這下面是第三種不同的說法，共入、共出。

如果這樣，有依靠到加行道的原因。論主駁斥第三位老師的唯有共相出。未至等三地很近，容易生起欲界的共相。問：《婆沙論》第十一卷反駁這位老師。為什麼只說未至一地，不說三地呢？解釋說，俱舍師應該說唯有依靠未至地。而說三地，是且縱容允許有三地。

【English Translation】 English version: 'To. Why not speak of form? The explanation in the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary on Abhidharma) says that liberation is a conceptual liberation within liberation. It doesn't mean that all liberations are conceptual. Or perhaps, the liberation mentioned in the Vibhasa is the same as the liberation with form in this treatise. Question: In the Samatha-vipassana (Śamatha-Vipassanā, Calm-abiding and Insight) of the Vibhasa, mindfulness of breathing is also mentioned. Why doesn't this treatise mention it? Moreover, this treatise later says that mindfulness of breathing is a real Samatha-vipassana. Therefore, the following text says, 'Form, according to other teachers, the breath goes out extremely far, even to the wind wheel, or Vairambha (Vāyu-maṇḍala, the circle of wind).' This should not be said. Because this mindfulness is together with real Samatha-vipassana. Since the arguments are different, how can they be reconciled? Explanation: There are two types of mindfulness of breathing: one is the false appearance, referring to the preliminary practice; the other is the real, referring to the fundamental practice. This treatise is based on the fundamental practice, while the Vibhasa is based on the preliminary practice. Each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. Another explanation is that the meanings of the treatises are different. This treatise considers both the preliminary and fundamental practices to be real. The Vibhasa and other teachers in this treatise consider the preliminary practice to be generally conceptual, while the fundamental practice is real.'

'These three kinds, up to cultivating the mindfulness enlightenment factor.' This below is the second section narrating different views. There are a total of three teachers. This is the initial statement. Three entries, three exits. If we speak of three entries, it aligns with the sutra's statement of practicing together with the contemplation of impurity. Cultivating the mindfulness and other undefiled enlightenment factors. The word 'together' here indicates the meaning of without interruption. Both before and after. This passage temporarily proves that Samatha-vipassana of understanding can enter the holy path. If in the path of seeing, only the common characteristic can enter. It applies to the three exits. If in the path of cultivation and the path of no more learning, it applies to the three entries and three exits.

'Some other teachers say, up to cultivating the mindfulness enlightenment factor.' This is the second different view. One entry, three exits. It aligns with the previously cited sutra. Saying 'practicing together' means being together in a roundabout and distant way, not in an uninterrupted way.

'Some other teachers further say, up to the common characteristic Samatha-vipassana.' This below is the third different view, common entry, common exit.

'If so, there is reliance up to the path of preparation.' The author refutes the third teacher's view of only common characteristic exit. The three near states such as 'not yet arrived' are close, making it easy to generate the common characteristic of the desire realm. Question: The eleventh volume of the Vibhasa refutes this teacher. Why only mention the 'not yet arrived' state and not the three states? Explanation: The Kosa (Abhidharmakośa, Treasury of Abhidharma) master should say only relying on the 'not yet arrived' state. Saying three states is just tolerating and allowing for three states.'

此即以三同一。若作此解非但順婆沙。亦順羅漢出心唯依未至起欲界心　問如婆沙七十二。第一說。欲界與未至定無間相生。第二說。欲界與未至．初定無間相生。第三說。欲界與未至．初定．中間定無間相生。第四說。欲界與未至．初定．中間定．及二定無間相生。雖有四說。婆沙評家取第二師。若言但依未至定出見道。及依未至出無學心無間能生欲界心者。即與婆沙評家相違　解云見道．無學道初出異地心難故。所以但依未至能起欲心。鄰次起故。若依餘位。依初靜慮亦能無間起欲界心。故與評家亦不相違　又解以三同一如前解。然是婆沙四說之中第一師義。非是評家　問婆沙評家。以二地心入欲界心者為正。何故出見道心中。即以未至一地為難　解云婆沙正義實。二地為正。言未至者。且以余師為難。俱舍非以婆沙評家為量。不須會釋　又解婆沙應言依未至等三地。但言未至舉初顯后。此即以一同三。是婆沙四說之中第三師義　問何故俱舍。出見道心。即言未至等三地能生欲心。出無學心。但言未至能生欲心　解云見道出心猛利故。三地心能入欲界。無學出心以止息故。故唯未至能入欲心。

問若婆沙評家。以二地心生欲心者為正。何故出見道心中。即以三地不生義為難　解云婆沙正義實二地為正。言三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這就是用三種相同的情況來解釋。如果這樣解釋，不僅符合《大毗婆沙論》，也符合阿羅漢出定時的心境，即僅僅依靠未至定而生起欲界心。問：如《大毗婆沙論》七十二卷中，第一種說法是：欲界與未至定之間可以無間相生。第二種說法是：欲界與未至定、初禪定之間可以無間相生。第三種說法是：欲界與未至定、初禪定、中間定之間可以無間相生。第四種說法是：欲界與未至定、初禪定、中間定以及二禪定之間可以無間相生。雖然有四種說法，《大毗婆沙論》的評家採納了第二種說法。如果說僅僅依靠未至定而出見道，以及依靠未至定而出無學心，無間地能生起欲界心，那就與《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點相違背。答：解釋說，見道、無學道初出定時的心難以控制，所以僅僅依靠未至定才能生起欲心，因為它們鄰近相續。如果依靠其他禪定，依靠初禪定也能無間地生起欲界心，所以與評家的觀點並不相違背。又一種解釋是用三種相同的情況來解釋，如前所述。但這只是《大毗婆沙論》四種說法中的第一種說法，而不是評家的觀點。問：《大毗婆沙論》的評家認為用二地心進入欲界心是正確的，為什麼在出見道心的時候，卻只用未至定一地來提出疑問？答：解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》的正義確實是以二地為正確。說未至定，只是用其他師的觀點來提出疑問。《俱舍論》不是以《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點為標準，所以不需要會通解釋。又一種解釋是，《大毗婆沙論》應該說依靠未至等三地，但只說未至定，是舉初以顯后。這就是用一種相同的情況來解釋三種不同的情況，是《大毗婆沙論》四種說法中的第三種說法。問：為什麼《俱舍論》在出見道心的時候，就說未至等三地能生起欲心，而出無學心的時候，卻只說未至定能生起欲心？答：解釋說，見道出定時的心猛利，所以三地心能進入欲界。無學出定時的心因為止息的緣故，所以只有未至定能進入欲心。問：如果《大毗婆沙論》的評家認為用二地心生起欲心是正確的，為什麼在出見道心的時候，卻用三地不生義來提出疑問？答：解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》的正義確實是以二地為正確。說三地

【English Translation】 English version: This is explained by the three samenesses. If explained in this way, it not only accords with the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary), but also with the state of mind when an arhat emerges from meditation, that is, relying solely on the māitrī-samādhi (未至定, preliminary concentration) to generate the desire realm mind. Question: As in the seventy-second fascicle of the Mahavibhasa, the first statement is: the desire realm and the māitrī-samādhi can arise without interval. The second statement is: the desire realm and the māitrī-samādhi, the first dhyana (初禪定, first meditative absorption) can arise without interval. The third statement is: the desire realm and the māitrī-samādhi, the first dhyana, the intermediate dhyana (中間定, intermediate meditative absorption) can arise without interval. The fourth statement is: the desire realm and the māitrī-samādhi, the first dhyana, the intermediate dhyana, and the second dhyana (二禪定, second meditative absorption) can arise without interval. Although there are four statements, the commentator of the Mahavibhasa adopts the second statement. If it is said that one relies solely on the māitrī-samādhi to emerge from the path of seeing (見道, path of vision), and relies on the māitrī-samādhi to emerge from the mind of no-more-learning (無學心, mind of the Arhat), and can generate the desire realm mind without interval, then it contradicts the view of the Mahavibhasa commentator. Answer: It is explained that the mind is difficult to control when initially emerging from the path of seeing and the path of no-more-learning, so one can only generate the desire realm mind by relying on the māitrī-samādhi, because they are closely connected. If relying on other dhyanas, one can also generate the desire realm mind without interval by relying on the first dhyana, so it does not contradict the commentator's view. Another explanation is to explain it with the three samenesses, as mentioned before. But this is only the meaning of the first statement among the four statements of the Mahavibhasa, not the commentator's view. Question: The commentator of the Mahavibhasa considers it correct to enter the desire realm mind with the mind of two realms, why is only the māitrī-samādhi used to raise questions when emerging from the path of seeing? Answer: It is explained that the correct meaning of the Mahavibhasa is indeed that the two realms are correct. Saying māitrī-samādhi is just using the views of other teachers to raise questions. The Abhidharmakośa (Treasury of Metaphysics) does not take the commentator's view of the Mahavibhasa as the standard, so there is no need for a comprehensive explanation. Another explanation is that the Mahavibhasa should say relying on the three realms such as māitrī-samādhi, but only saying māitrī-samādhi is to show the latter by mentioning the former. This is explaining three different situations with one sameness, which is the meaning of the third statement among the four statements of the Mahavibhasa. Question: Why does the Abhidharmakośa say that the three realms such as māitrī-samādhi can generate the desire realm mind when emerging from the path of seeing, but only say that the māitrī-samādhi can generate the desire realm mind when emerging from the mind of no-more-learning? Answer: It is explained that the mind is vigorous when emerging from the path of seeing, so the mind of the three realms can enter the desire realm. Because the mind is ceased when emerging from the path of no-more-learning, only the māitrī-samādhi can enter the desire realm mind. Question: If the commentator of the Mahavibhasa considers it correct to generate the desire realm mind with the mind of two realms, why is the meaning of the three realms not generating used to raise questions when emerging from the path of seeing? Answer: It is explained that the correct meaning of the Mahavibhasa is indeed that the two realms are correct. Saying three realms

地者且以余師為難　又解一地．三地論意各別。一地當婆沙第一師。三地當婆沙第三師。問答釋妨。如前可知。若依第二．第三．第四。遠故非能起欲共相。如是共相作意。若是定地即是抉擇分收。得聖果已無容起彼抉擇分善。若非定地欲界所收。依二定等既不能起欲界共相。理即起餘二種作意。雖于彼地過去曾修共相作意殊勝善根。經生舍故今生起者抉擇分收　問于彼地中何不能成暖前諸位共相作意　解云今生入聖。此身唯起暖等入聖。不起前位共相作意。設有起者加行攝故亦不能起。

若謂有別至引彼現前者。牒救。汝若言抉擇位中間。得修同類三種共相觀。系屬彼非別緣諦。不名抉擇分。彼位修故是曾得收。是共相觀引起現前。

毗婆沙師至違正理故者。破救。意言。以抉擇分作十六行部分觀。唯修同類十六行相。彼三雖是共相。太總不修故言違理　又解是彼類故系屬彼故理亦不應起故。言違正理。故正理二十云。此救非理。系屬加行所修作意非得果后所引現前。是彼類故。此論三說初師為正。當婆沙十一評家義故。第二師義據見道共入三出。亦可為正。然于修道．無學道中。唯言共入三出。故亦非善。然此論文。但破第三師唯共相出。

若依未至至唯自非餘地者。此明無學九地出心。若身

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：提問者進一步以于余師（Yushi，其他論師）的觀點為難，並且解釋說，一地（Yidi，一個禪定境界）和三地（San di，三個禪定境界）的論點含義各不相同。一地相當於《婆沙論》（Posha lun）中的第一位論師的觀點，三地相當於《婆沙論》中的第三位論師的觀點。之前的問答已經解釋瞭如何消除這些妨礙，可以參考之前的解釋。如果按照第二、第三、第四位論師的觀點，因為距離太遠，所以不能生起欲界（Yujie， desire realm）的共相（Gongxiang， general characteristics）。像這樣的共相作意（Gongxiang zuoyi， attention to general characteristics），如果是屬於定地（Dingdi， meditative state），那就是抉擇分（Jueze fen， stage of decision）所攝。已經證得聖果（Shengguo， fruit of holiness）之後，不可能再產生抉擇分的善法。如果不是定地，而是欲界所攝，依靠二禪等境界，既然不能生起欲界的共相，那麼道理上就應該生起其餘兩種作意。即使在那個禪定境界中，過去曾經修習過共相作意的殊勝善根，因為經過了轉生，已經捨棄了，那麼今生生起的作意就屬於抉擇分所攝。提問：在那個禪定境界中，為什麼不能成就暖位（Nuanwei， stage of warmth）之前的各個階段的共相作意？回答說：因為今生已經進入聖道（Shengdao， path of holiness），此身只能生起暖位等入聖道的作意，不能生起之前階段的共相作意。即使有生起，也是屬於加行（Jiaxing， preparatory practice）所攝，所以也不能生起。如果有人說，有其他的（因緣）能夠引導那些（過去的共相作意）顯現出來，這是對之前觀點的辯駁。如果你說在抉擇位中間，可以修習同類的三種共相觀，但這些觀想是屬於抉擇位本身的，而不是其他的緣于真諦（Zhendi， truth），所以不能稱為抉擇分。因為這些觀想是在抉擇位修習的，所以屬於曾經獲得的（善根）所攝，是共相觀引起了（過去的善根）顯現出來。《毗婆沙論》的論師認為（以上說法）違背了正理。這是爲了駁斥之前的辯駁。意思是說，以抉擇分來作為十六行相（Shiliu xingxiang， sixteen aspects）的部分觀想，只能修習同類的十六行相。那三種（共相）雖然是共相，但過於籠統，沒有具體修習，所以說是違背了正理。另一種解釋是，因為它們是屬於那一類（抉擇分），並且系屬於抉擇分，所以道理上也不應該生起，因此說是違背了正理。所以《正理》（Zhengli）二十中說，這種辯駁是不合理的，系屬於加行所修的作意，不是證得果位之後所引導顯現的，因為它們是屬於那一類（加行）。這個論典三次提到，第一位論師的觀點是正確的，因為它符合《婆沙論》第十一品評家的觀點。第二位論師的觀點，根據見道（Jian dao， path of seeing）的共入三出（Gongru sanchu， entering and exiting three general characteristics）的說法，也可以認為是正確的。但是在修道（Xiu dao， path of cultivation）和無學道（Wuxue dao， path of no more learning）中，只說共入三出，所以也不是很好。然而，這段論文只是駁斥了第三位論師的觀點，即只有共相才能出離。如果按照未至定（Weizhiding， access concentration）的觀點，（無學）只有自地（Zidi， one's own level），而不是其他地（他地，other level）。這裡說明了無學（Wuxue，arhat）的九地（Jiudi， nine levels of existence）出心（Chuxin， exiting from samadhi）。如果是身（Shen，body）...

【English Translation】 English version: The questioner further challenges with the view of Yushi (余師, other teachers), and explains that the arguments of Yidi (一地, one meditative state) and San di (三地, three meditative states) have different meanings. Yidi corresponds to the view of the first teacher in the 'Posha lun' (婆沙論, Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstra), and San di corresponds to the view of the third teacher in the 'Posha lun'. The previous questions and answers have explained how to eliminate these obstacles, which can be referred to. If according to the second, third, and fourth teachers, because the distance is too far, it is impossible to generate the Gongxiang (共相, general characteristics) of the Yujie (欲界, desire realm). Such Gongxiang zuoyi (共相作意, attention to general characteristics), if it belongs to Dingdi (定地, meditative state), then it is included in Jueze fen (抉擇分, stage of decision). After attaining Shengguo (聖果, fruit of holiness), it is impossible to generate the good dharmas of Jueze fen again. If it is not a Dingdi, but is included in the Yujie, relying on the second Dhyana and other states, since it cannot generate the Gongxiang of the Yujie, then in principle it should generate the remaining two kinds of attention. Even if in that meditative state, one has cultivated the superior good roots of Gongxiang zuoyi in the past, because it has been abandoned after rebirth, then the attention generated in this life belongs to Jueze fen. Question: In that meditative state, why can't one achieve the Gongxiang zuoyi of the various stages before the Nuanwei (暖位, stage of warmth)? The answer is: Because in this life one has already entered the Shengdao (聖道, path of holiness), this body can only generate the attention of Nuanwei and other stages of entering the Shengdao, and cannot generate the Gongxiang zuoyi of the previous stages. Even if there is generation, it is included in Jiaxing (加行, preparatory practice), so it cannot be generated. If someone says that there are other (conditions) that can guide those (past Gongxiang zuoyi) to manifest, this is a rebuttal to the previous view. If you say that in the middle of the Jueze position, you can cultivate three kinds of Gongxiang views of the same kind, but these contemplations belong to the Jueze position itself, and are not other causes of Zhendi (真諦, truth), so they cannot be called Jueze fen. Because these contemplations are cultivated in the Jueze position, they belong to the (good roots) that have been obtained, and the Gongxiang view causes (the past good roots) to manifest. The teacher of the 'Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstra' believes that (the above statement) violates the correct principle. This is to refute the previous rebuttal. The meaning is that, using Jueze fen as the partial contemplation of the Shiliu xingxiang (十六行相, sixteen aspects), one can only cultivate the sixteen aspects of the same kind. Although those three (Gongxiang) are Gongxiang, they are too general and have not been specifically cultivated, so it is said to violate the correct principle. Another explanation is that, because they belong to that category (Jueze fen) and are related to Jueze fen, it should not arise in principle, so it is said to violate the correct principle. Therefore, 'Zhengli' (正理, Nyāyānusāra) twenty says that this rebuttal is unreasonable, the attention cultivated belonging to Jiaxing, not guided to manifest after attaining the fruit, because they belong to that category (Jiaxing). This treatise mentions three times that the view of the first teacher is correct, because it conforms to the view of the commentator in the eleventh chapter of the 'Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstra'. The view of the second teacher, according to the statement of Gongru sanchu (共入三出, entering and exiting three general characteristics) of Jian dao (見道, path of seeing), can also be considered correct. However, in Xiu dao (修道, path of cultivation) and Wuxue dao (無學道, path of no more learning), only Gongru sanchu is mentioned, so it is not very good either. However, this paper only refutes the view of the third teacher, that only Gongxiang can lead to liberation. If according to the view of Weizhiding (未至定, access concentration), (the Arhat) only has Zidi (自地, one's own level), not other Di (他地, other level). This explains the Chuxin (出心, exiting from samadhi) of the Jiudi (九地, nine levels of existence) of the Wuxue (無學, arhat). If it is Shen (身, body)...

在欲界依未至定。得阿羅漢果后出觀心。若於彼定得自在者。或即彼地。若於彼定不得自在或起欲界。若身生初地得阿羅漢果　后出觀心唯起自地。若身生有頂依無所有處。得阿羅漢果　后出觀心定是有頂。必不能起下有漏心。所以者何。異熟生心無異地起。下地煩惱已斷不行。又不起下善有漏心故。定起彼有頂地善心。若身生下地。依無所有處。得阿羅漢果。或即彼地出非餘地。以于彼地得自在故。若依中間餘地得羅漢果。后出觀心。唯起自地非餘地心。皆于彼地得自在故。所以即彼地心出。無異地心出　間若依第二定等得阿羅漢果。后出觀心。何故不或即彼地．或起下地　解云若欲界散心是強。眾生無始多生其中數數串習。起時即易。有依未至定不得自在者容起欲界散心。上二界定．及與散心。有情無始不多生彼。初無學后異地相生起時即難。當地即易。故依二定等得無學果。后出觀心。唯依自地不依下地定．及散心　于欲界中至以明利故者。此即第三明四慧入出聖道欲界散地故無修慧。色界無思如文可解。無色無思。如色界釋。彼無耳聞故無聞慧。總而言之。於此八中五入．六出　問如婆沙十一云。欲界有三作意。謂聞．思．生得。色界有三謂聞．修．生得。無色界有二謂修．生得。欲界思入三出。色界修入二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在欲界依靠未至定（指還未到達真正禪定的預備階段）獲得阿羅漢果（斷絕所有煩惱，達到涅槃的聖者）后，從禪定中出來時的心。如果對於那個禪定能夠自在控制，那麼就仍然是那個禪定狀態的心。如果對於那個禪定不能自在控制，那麼就可能生起欲界（充滿慾望的世俗世界）的心。如果身體生於初禪天，獲得阿羅漢果后，從禪定中出來時的心，只會生起自身所處的初禪天的心。如果身體生於有頂天（色界最高的禪定天），依靠無所有處定（一種禪定境界）獲得阿羅漢果，從禪定中出來時的心，一定是處於有頂天的心，絕對不可能生起下方的有漏心（不清凈，受煩惱影響的心）。為什麼呢？因為異熟生心（由業力產生的果報心）不會在不同的境界中生起，下方的煩惱已經被斷除，不會再起作用。而且也不會生起下方的善的有漏心，所以一定會生起那個有頂天的善心。如果身體生於下方的境界，依靠無所有處定獲得阿羅漢果，那麼從禪定中出來時的心，或者仍然是那個禪定狀態的心，不會是其他的境界的心，因為對於那個禪定能夠自在控制。如果依靠中間的其他的禪定獲得阿羅漢果，那麼從禪定中出來時的心，只會生起自身所處的禪定狀態的心，不會是其他的境界的心，都是因為對於那個禪定能夠自在控制。所以是從那個禪定狀態的心出來，不會是從其他的境界的心出來。如果依靠第二禪定等獲得阿羅漢果，從禪定中出來時的心，為什麼不是或者仍然是那個禪定狀態的心，或者生起下方的境界的心呢？解釋說，如果欲界的散亂心（沒有專注力的心）很強，眾生從無始以來多次生存在其中，經常串習，所以生起時就容易。有些依靠未至定但不能自在控制的人，可能會生起欲界的散亂心。而上方的色界和無色界的禪定，以及散亂心，有情從無始以來並沒有多次生存在那裡，最初的無學（指阿羅漢）之後，不同的境界的心相續生起時就困難，在自身所處的境界就容易。所以依靠第二禪定等獲得無學果（阿羅漢果），從禪定中出來時的心，只會依靠自身所處的禪定狀態的心，不會依靠下方的禪定和散亂心。在欲界中，至於『以明利故』，這指的是第三明（宿命明、天眼明、漏盡明）和四慧（法慧、義慧、辭慧、辯慧）進入和出來聖道。欲界的散亂之地沒有修慧（通過修行獲得的智慧）。『無思如文可解』，『無色無思』，如同解釋的那樣。因為那裡沒有耳聞，所以沒有聞慧（通過聽聞獲得的智慧）。總而言之，在這八種情況中，有五種是進入，六種是出來。問：如《婆沙論》第十一卷所說，欲界有三種作意（心理活動）：聞、思、生得。色界有三種：聞、修、生得。無色界有兩種：修、生得。欲界的思入有三種，修入有兩種。

【English Translation】 English version: Having attained the Arhat fruit (a saint who has cut off all defilements and attained Nirvana) in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) by relying on the Unreached Concentration (Maitrī-samādhi, a preliminary stage before true meditation), the mind upon emerging from the meditative state. If one has mastery over that concentration, then it remains the mind of that concentration state. If one does not have mastery over that concentration, then the mind of the Desire Realm (the mundane world full of desires) may arise. If one is born in the First Dhyana Heaven (the first level of meditative absorption in the Form Realm) and attains the Arhat fruit, the mind upon emerging from the meditative state will only arise from the First Dhyana Heaven where one resides. If one is born in the Peak of Existence Heaven (Bhavāgra, the highest meditative heaven in the Formless Realm), and attains the Arhat fruit by relying on the Station of No-thingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana, a state of meditation), the mind upon emerging from the meditative state will definitely be in the Peak of Existence. It is absolutely impossible for a defiled mind (a mind that is impure and influenced by afflictions) from a lower realm to arise. Why? Because the resultant mind (Vipāka-citta, the mind produced by karmic force) does not arise in different realms, and the afflictions of the lower realms have already been cut off and will no longer function. Moreover, a wholesome defiled mind from a lower realm will not arise, so the wholesome mind of that Peak of Existence Heaven will definitely arise. If one is born in a lower realm and attains the Arhat fruit by relying on the Station of No-thingness, then the mind upon emerging from the meditative state will either remain in that concentration state, and will not be from other realms, because one has mastery over that concentration. If one attains the Arhat fruit by relying on other intermediate concentrations, then the mind upon emerging from the meditative state will only arise from the concentration state where one resides, and will not be from other realms, all because one has mastery over that concentration. Therefore, it emerges from that concentration state, and does not emerge from the mind of other realms. If one attains the Arhat fruit by relying on the Second Dhyana (second level of meditative absorption in the Form Realm) etc., why is it not that the mind upon emerging from the meditative state either remains in that concentration state, or arises from a lower realm? The explanation is that if the scattered mind (a mind without focus) of the Desire Realm is strong, beings have been born in it many times since beginningless time, and have frequently habituated to it, so it is easy to arise. Some who rely on the Unreached Concentration but do not have mastery over it may give rise to the scattered mind of the Desire Realm. As for the concentrations of the upper Form and Formless Realms, as well as the scattered mind, sentient beings have not been born there many times since beginningless time, and after the initial state of no-more-learning (Aśaikṣa, referring to an Arhat), it is difficult for the minds of different realms to arise in succession, while it is easy in one's own realm. Therefore, having attained the fruit of no-more-learning (Arhat fruit) by relying on the Second Dhyana etc., the mind upon emerging from the meditative state will only rely on the concentration state where one resides, and will not rely on the lower concentrations and scattered mind. In the Desire Realm, as for 'because of clarity and sharpness', this refers to the three kinds of clear knowing (Tri-vidyā: knowledge of past lives, knowledge of the future, and knowledge of the extinction of defilements) and the four kinds of wisdom (Catuḥ-pratisaṃvidā: wisdom of the Dharma, wisdom of meaning, wisdom of language, and wisdom of eloquence) entering and emerging from the holy path. The scattered ground of the Desire Realm does not have cultivation wisdom (Bhāvanā-prajñā, wisdom gained through practice). 'No thought, as the text can be understood', 'No form, no thought', as explained. Because there is no hearing there, there is no wisdom of hearing (Śruta-prajñā, wisdom gained through hearing). In summary, in these eight cases, five are entering, and six are emerging. Question: As stated in the eleventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, the Desire Realm has three mental activities (Manasikara): hearing, thinking, and innate. The Form Realm has three: hearing, cultivation, and innate. The Formless Realm has two: cultivation and innate. The thinking entry of the Desire Realm has three, and the cultivation entry has two.

出。無色界修入修出。彼論何故不說欲．色界聞慧能入聖道　解云婆沙據鈍根者說。此論等通約利根者說　又解婆沙約初修次第起者說。此論等通約純熟位說故不相違。

於前所說至幾心可得者。此下大文第二明得心多少。牒前問起。

頌曰至余皆自可得者。就答中。一正明得心。二敘說斥非。三總顯頌上義。此下正明得心。上三句明兼成就。下一句明自成就。

論曰至故名得六者。此中意說。於十二心中。先不成就今得成就說名為得。后雖新得自種類心不名為得。先已得故。此中據總相說。顯非總成故言容得。欲染得六總由三位。一疑續善。二界退還。三起惑退。欲界善心由二緣得。一由疑續善。二上界退還。欲二染心由二緣得。一由起惑退。二由上界退還。色有覆心亦二緣得。一由起欲惑退。二由無色退還。無色有覆．及與學心。唯由起惑退故名得六　問界退還時得欲善心。唯得生得。亦得加行　解云唯得生得善　又解加行串習者亦得。婆沙有此兩說。然無評文　色界染心至故名得六者。明色界染心得六。由二位得。一界退還。二起惑退。欲無覆通果心．及色界善無覆心。由無色界退還得。色染二緣得。一由界退得。二由起惑退得。無色有覆．及學心。但由惑退得。故名得六。

無色染

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沒有所謂的『修入』和『修出』。他們（《大毗婆沙論》）的論述為什麼沒有提到『欲界』？解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》是針對根器遲鈍的人說的。而此論（《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）等則是針對根器敏銳的人說的。又解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》是針對初修次第生起的人說的。而此論等則是針對純熟位的人說的，所以並不矛盾。

在前面所說的達到多少心可以獲得成就的問題之後，下面這部分是第二大段，說明獲得成就的心有多少。這是承接前面的問題而提出的。

頌文說：『直到其餘皆可自得。』在回答中，一是正面說明獲得成就的心，二是敘述並駁斥錯誤觀點，三是總結頌文的含義。下面是正面說明獲得成就的心。前面三句說明兼成就，下一句說明自成就。

論述說：『所以名為得六。』這裡的意思是說，在十二心中，先前沒有成就，現在獲得成就，才叫做『得』。後來即使新獲得同類的心，也不能叫做『得』，因為先前已經獲得了。這裡是根據總相來說的，顯示並非總成就，所以說『容得』。欲界的染心得六，總共有三種情況：一是疑惑後繼續行善，二是界退還，三是生起迷惑而退轉。欲界的善心由兩種因緣獲得：一是由於疑惑後繼續行善，二是上界退還。欲界的兩種染心由兩種因緣獲得：一是由於生起迷惑而退轉，二是上界退還。色界的有覆心也由兩種因緣獲得：一是由於生起欲界迷惑而退轉，二是無色界退還。無色界的有覆心以及學心，僅僅由於生起迷惑而退轉，所以名為『得六』。問：界退還時獲得欲界善心，僅僅獲得生得善，還是也獲得加行善？解答說：僅僅獲得生得善。又解答說：加行串習的人也可以獲得。在《大毗婆沙論》中有這兩種說法，但是沒有評判性的文字。染心到『所以名為得六』，說明染心得六。由兩種情況獲得：一是界退還，二是生起迷惑而退轉。欲界的無覆心，包括果心以及善無覆心，由無色界退還而獲得。色界的染心由兩種因緣獲得：一是由於界退得，二是由於生起迷惑而退得。無色界的有覆心以及學心，僅僅由於迷惑退得，所以名為『得六』。

無色染

【English Translation】 English version: There is no such thing as 'entering through cultivation' and 'exiting through cultivation.' Why didn't they (the Mahavibhasa) mention the 'desire realm'? The explanation is that the Mahavibhasa is addressed to those with dull faculties. This treatise (Abhidharmakosa) and others are addressed to those with sharp faculties. Another explanation is that the Mahavibhasa is addressed to those who are just beginning to cultivate in stages. This treatise and others are addressed to those in the stage of maturity, so there is no contradiction.

Following the previous question of how many minds are required to attain accomplishment, the following section is the second major part, explaining how many minds are attained. This is raised in connection with the previous question.

The verse says: 'Until the rest can be attained by themselves.' In the answer, first, it directly explains the minds that are attained; second, it narrates and refutes erroneous views; and third, it summarizes the meaning of the verse. The following is a direct explanation of the minds that are attained. The first three sentences explain concurrent accomplishment, and the last sentence explains self-accomplishment.

The treatise says: 'Therefore, it is called attaining six.' The meaning here is that among the twelve minds, only those that were not previously accomplished but are now accomplished are called 'attained.' Later, even if new minds of the same type are newly acquired, they are not called 'attained' because they were already attained previously. This is based on the general characteristic, showing that it is not a total accomplishment, so it is said 'may be attained.' The defiled minds of the desire realm are attained in three situations: first, continuing to do good after doubt; second, regression from a higher realm; and third, arising of delusion and regression. The wholesome minds of the desire realm are attained by two causes: first, due to continuing to do good after doubt; and second, regression from a higher realm. The two defiled minds of the desire realm are attained by two causes: first, due to the arising of delusion and regression; and second, regression from a higher realm. The obscured mind of the form realm is also attained by two causes: first, due to the arising of desire realm delusion and regression; and second, regression from the formless realm. The obscured mind of the formless realm and the minds of learners are only attained due to the arising of delusion and regression, so it is called 'attaining six.' Question: When regressing from a higher realm and attaining wholesome minds of the desire realm, is only the naturally attained wholesome mind attained, or is the mind attained through effort also attained? Answer: Only the naturally attained wholesome mind is attained. Another answer: Those who are accustomed to effort can also attain it. There are these two views in the Mahavibhasa, but there is no critical commentary. From 'defiled minds' to 'therefore, it is called attaining six,' it explains that defiled minds are attained in six ways. They are attained in two situations: first, regression from a higher realm; and second, the arising of delusion and regression. The unobscured minds of the desire realm, including the resultant mind and the wholesome unobscured mind, are attained by regression from the formless realm. The defiled minds of the form realm are attained by two causes: first, due to regression from a higher realm; and second, due to the arising of delusion and regression. The obscured mind of the formless realm and the minds of learners are only attained due to regression caused by delusion, so it is called 'attaining six.'

Formless defilement

心至故名得二者。明無色染心得二心。謂無色染心．及與學心。但由一位謂起惑退得　問退起三界惑。何心無間起彼惑耶　解云如婆沙六十一云。何等心無間起煩惱現在前者。若畢竟離非想非非想處染。起彼地纏現在前故退者。即彼地善心無間起煩惱現在前。若未畢竟離悲想非非相處染。起彼地纏現在前故退者。即彼地或善心．或染污心無間起煩惱現在前。乃至初靜慮應知亦爾。若畢竟離欲界染起欲界纏故退者。即欲界或善心．或無覆無記心無間。起煩惱現在前。若未畢竟離欲界染起欲界纏故退者。即欲界或善心．或染污心．或無覆無記心無間。起煩惱現在前。此中若未得根本善靜慮無色定現在前者。彼不能起色．無色界纏現在前故退。但能起欲界纏現在前故退。若得根本善靜慮現在前。非無色定者。彼不能起無色界纏現在前故退。但能起欲．色界纏現在前故退。若得根本善靜慮。無色定現在前者。彼能起三界纏現在前故退。婆沙說欲界退時。無記心無間能生染心者。一說三無記心。一說二無記心。除異熟。然無評家。

色界善心至由升進故者。此明色善容得三心。由二位得。一由入定。二由離染。謂諸異生初伏欲界入未至定得色善心。復由離欲染故第九解脫道得根本定。得欲．色二通果心。如是二位從欲入色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『心至故名得二者』。意思是說，由於心的作用，可以獲得兩種結果。『明無色染心得二心』。說明了無色界的染污心可以分為兩種：無色界的染污心以及學心（śaikṣa-citta）。這兩種心只因爲一個原因而產生，即生起煩惱或從禪定中退失。問：退失三界（trayo dhātava）的煩惱時，什麼心會無間地生起這些煩惱呢？答：如《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第六十一卷所說：『什麼心無間地生起煩惱的現行呢？』如果已經徹底斷除了非想非非想處（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana）的染污，因為生起該地的纏縛而退失，那麼就是該地的善心（kuśala-citta）無間地生起煩惱的現行。如果尚未徹底斷除非想非非想處的染污，因為生起該地的纏縛而退失，那麼就是該地的善心或染污心（akuśala-citta）無間地生起煩惱的現行。乃至初禪（prathama-dhyāna）也應如此理解。如果已經徹底斷除了欲界（kāmadhātu）的染污，因為生起欲界的纏縛而退失，那麼就是欲界的善心或無覆無記心（avyākṛta-citta）無間地生起煩惱的現行。如果尚未徹底斷除欲界的染污，因為生起欲界的纏縛而退失，那麼就是欲界的善心、染污心或無覆無記心無間地生起煩惱的現行。這裡，如果未獲得根本善禪定（mūla-kuśala-dhyāna）和無色定（ārūpya-samāpatti）的現行，那麼他就不能生起色界（rūpadhātu）和無色界的纏縛的現行而退失，只能生起欲界的纏縛的現行而退失。如果獲得了根本善禪定的現行，但沒有獲得無色定，那麼他就不能生起無色界的纏縛的現行而退失，只能生起欲界和色界的纏縛的現行而退失。如果獲得了根本善禪定和無色定的現行，那麼他就能生起三界的纏縛的現行而退失。《婆沙論》說，在欲界退失時，無記心（avyākṛta-citta）無間地能生起染污心，一種說法是三種無記心，一種說法是兩種無記心，除了異熟（vipāka）之外。然而沒有評判者。『善心至由升進故者』。這裡說明色界的善心可以獲得三種心，通過兩種途徑獲得：一是通過入定（samāpatti），二是通過離染（virāga）。即諸異生（pṛthagjana）最初降伏欲界，進入未至定（anāgamya-samādhi），獲得色界的善心。又通過斷除欲界的染污，在第九解脫道（vimokṣamārga）獲得根本定（mūla-dhyāna），獲得欲界和色界的兩種神通果心（abhijñā-phala-citta）。如此兩種途徑，從欲界進入色界。

【English Translation】 English version 'Citta-sthiti thus is named to obtain the two.' This means that due to the function of the mind, two results can be obtained. 'Clarifying the formless defiled mind obtains two minds.' This explains that the defiled mind of the formless realm can be divided into two types: the defiled mind of the formless realm and the learning mind (śaikṣa-citta). These two minds arise only due to one reason, that is, arising afflictions or falling back from meditative absorption. Question: When falling back from the afflictions of the three realms (trayo dhātava), what mind arises without interval to these afflictions? Answer: As stated in Volume 61 of the Vibhāṣā: 'What mind arises without interval to the present manifestation of afflictions?' If one has completely abandoned the defilements of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana), and falls back due to the arising of the bonds of that realm, then it is the wholesome mind (kuśala-citta) of that realm that arises without interval to the present manifestation of afflictions. If one has not completely abandoned the defilements of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception, and falls back due to the arising of the bonds of that realm, then it is either the wholesome mind or the defiled mind (akuśala-citta) of that realm that arises without interval to the present manifestation of afflictions. The same should be understood for the First Dhyana (prathama-dhyāna). If one has completely abandoned the defilements of the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu), and falls back due to the arising of the bonds of the Desire Realm, then it is either the wholesome mind or the non-defiled indeterminate mind (avyākṛta-citta) of the Desire Realm that arises without interval to the present manifestation of afflictions. If one has not completely abandoned the defilements of the Desire Realm, and falls back due to the arising of the bonds of the Desire Realm, then it is either the wholesome mind, the defiled mind, or the non-defiled indeterminate mind of the Desire Realm that arises without interval to the present manifestation of afflictions. Here, if one has not attained the present manifestation of the root wholesome dhyana (mūla-kuśala-dhyāna) and the formless samadhi (ārūpya-samāpatti), then they cannot arise the present manifestation of the bonds of the Form Realm (rūpadhātu) and the Formless Realm and fall back; they can only arise the present manifestation of the bonds of the Desire Realm and fall back. If one has attained the present manifestation of the root wholesome dhyana, but not the formless samadhi, then they cannot arise the present manifestation of the bonds of the Formless Realm and fall back; they can only arise the present manifestation of the bonds of the Desire Realm and the Form Realm and fall back. If one has attained the present manifestation of the root wholesome dhyana and the formless samadhi, then they can arise the present manifestation of the bonds of the three realms and fall back. The Vibhāṣā says that when falling back in the Desire Realm, the indeterminate mind (avyākṛta-citta) can give rise to the defiled mind without interval; one explanation is three types of indeterminate mind, and another explanation is two types of indeterminate mind, excluding the result (vipāka). However, there is no commentator. 'The wholesome mind reaches due to advancement.' This explains that the wholesome mind of the Form Realm can obtain three types of mind, obtained through two paths: one is through entering samadhi (samāpatti), and the other is through abandoning defilements (virāga). That is, ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) initially subdue the Desire Realm, enter the Anāgamya-samādhi, and obtain the wholesome mind of the Form Realm. Furthermore, by abandoning the defilements of the Desire Realm, they obtain the root dhyana (mūla-dhyāna) in the ninth path of liberation (vimokṣamārga), and obtain the two supernormal result minds (abhijñā-phala-citta) of the Desire Realm and the Form Realm. Thus, through these two paths, one enters the Form Realm from the Desire Realm.

。從加行入根本皆名升進。所以不名得學心者。如世第一法在現在時未成學心。若苦法忍至現在時復非是色界善心現在前。故色善心非得學心。以此故知。此中得言顯成就也　若有學心至離欲色染者。此明學心得四。由二位得。一由入定得。二由離染。由初證入正性離生苦忍現前得有學心。此由入定。及由聖道離欲界染第九解脫道得根本定。得欲．色界二通果心。若以聖道離色界染得無色界善心　問何時得彼無色善心　解云若以聖道離第四定染第九解脫道時。得無色界善心。空處近分雖有同治有漏之法。系地堅牢未離下染。不能修上。若作此解全離色染名離色染　又解若以聖道離第四定染初無間道時。即得無色空處近分善心。近分善心必同治修故。若作此解分離色染名離色染。顯宗亦有兩解。至下明修中當具引釋。所以不得色界善心者。將得學心必先成故。亦不得無學。學現前時必不成無學故。

余謂前說至唯自可得者。余謂前說染等心餘。謂三界三無覆無記。欲．無色善．及無學心。不說彼六心正現前位得心差別。彼唯自得。非兼得他　問若說欲界染心。但言得六非得自界無覆心者。即與識身論等相違。如識身十三云。若成就不善心亦成就欲界系無覆無記心耶。若成就不善心定成就欲界系無覆無記心。或成就

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從加行道進入根本定都叫做升進。為什麼不稱為獲得學心呢？例如世第一法在現在的時候還沒有成就學心。如果苦法忍到現在的時刻又不是善心現前。所以色界的善心不是獲得學心。因此可知，這裡說的『得』字，是顯示成就的意思。如果學心達到離開欲界色界染污的階段，這說明學心可以獲得四種果位。由兩種情況獲得：一是通過入定獲得，二是通過離開染污獲得。通過最初證入正性離生，苦忍現前而獲得有學心。這是通過入定。以及通過聖道離開欲界染污的第九解脫道而獲得根本定，獲得欲界和色界的兩種通果心。如果通過聖道離開無色界的染污，就能獲得無色界的善心。問：什麼時候獲得彼無色界的善心？答：如果通過聖道離開第四禪定的染污，在第九解脫道的時候，就能獲得無色界的善心。空無邊處近分定雖然有共同修習的有漏之法，但因為所繫的地界堅固，沒有離開地獄的染污，所以不能修習上界的法。如果這樣解釋，完全離開色界的染污才叫做離開色界的染污。又一種解釋是，如果通過聖道離開第四禪定的染污，在最初的無間道的時候，就能獲得無色界的空無邊處近分善心。近分善心必定是共同修習的緣故。如果這樣解釋，分離色界的染污就叫做離開色界的染污。《顯宗論》也有兩種解釋，到下面說明修的時候會詳細引用解釋。為什麼不能獲得無學善心呢？因為將要獲得學心，必定先成就學心。也不能獲得無學心，因為有學心現前的時候，必定不能成就無學心。其餘的觀點認為，前面所說的到『唯自可得』，其餘的觀點認為，前面所說的染污等心以外，指的是三界的三種無覆無記心，欲界、無色界的善心，以及無學心。不說這六種心正在現前的時候獲得心的差別，這些唯有自己可以獲得，不能兼得其他的。問：如果說欲界的染污心，只說獲得六種心，沒有說獲得自己界限的無覆無記心，就與《識身論》等相違背。例如《識身論》第十三卷說：『如果成就了不善心，也成就了欲界系的無覆無記心嗎？』如果成就了不善心，必定成就欲界系的無覆無記心，或者成就……

【English Translation】 English version: Entering the fundamental (定, dhyana) from the preparatory practice (加行, prayoga) is all called advancement (升進, rising). Why is it not called obtaining the learning mind (學心, śaikṣa-citta)? For example, the highest mundane dharma (世第一法, laukikāgradharma) at the present time has not yet accomplished the learning mind. If the forbearance of suffering-dharma (苦法忍, duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti) reaches the present moment, it is also not a wholesome mind (善心, kuśala-citta) manifesting. Therefore, the wholesome mind of the form realm (色界, rūpadhātu) is not the learning mind. From this, it is known that the word 'obtain' (得, āpti) here reveals accomplishment (成就, siddhi). If the learning mind reaches the stage of離欲色染 (virāga-kāmarūpa-rāga, detachment from desire and form realm defilements), this clarifies that the learning mind can obtain four fruits (四果, catvāri phalāni). It is obtained in two ways: first, by entering samadhi (定, dhyana); second, by detaching from defilements. By initially realizing 正性離生 (samyaktva-niyāma-avakrānti, entry into the right path), the forbearance of suffering (苦忍, duḥkha-kṣānti) manifests, and the learning mind is obtained. This is through entering samadhi, and through the holy path (聖道, ārya-mārga) detaching from the desire realm (欲界, kāmadhātu) defilements, the ninth liberation path (第九解脫道, navama-vimukti-mārga), the fundamental samadhi is obtained, and the two common fruition minds (二通果心, dve sādhāraṇa-phala-citte) of the desire and form realms are obtained. If the defilements of the formless realm (無色界, arūpadhātu) are detached through the holy path, then the wholesome mind of the formless realm is obtained. Question: When is that wholesome mind of the formless realm obtained? Answer: If the defilements of the fourth dhyana (第四定, caturtha-dhyāna) are detached through the holy path, at the time of the ninth liberation path, the wholesome mind of the formless realm is obtained. Although the near-attainment of the sphere of infinite space (空處近分, ākāśānantyāyatana-samīpa) has the same co-arising defiled dharmas (有漏之法, sāsrava-dharmas), because the ground to which it is bound is firm and it has not detached from the lower defilements, it cannot cultivate the higher realms. If explained in this way, completely detaching from the defilements of the form realm is called detaching from the defilements of the form realm. Another explanation is that if the defilements of the fourth dhyana are detached through the holy path, at the time of the initial uninterrupted path (初無間道, prathama-ānantarya-mārga), then the wholesome mind of the near-attainment of the sphere of infinite space of the formless realm is obtained. The near-attainment wholesome mind must be cultivated together. If explained in this way, separating from the defilements of the form realm is called detaching from the defilements of the form realm. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (顯宗論, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) also has two explanations, which will be quoted in detail when explaining cultivation below. Why is the non-learning wholesome mind (無學善心, aśaikṣa-kuśala-citta) not obtained? Because in order to obtain the learning mind, the learning mind must first be accomplished. Also, the non-learning mind cannot be obtained, because when the learning mind is present, the non-learning mind cannot be accomplished. The remaining view is that what was said earlier, up to 'only obtainable by oneself,' the remaining view is that apart from the minds of defilement, etc., mentioned earlier, it refers to the three kinds of unconditioned neutral minds (無覆無記心, avyākṛta-citta) of the three realms (三界, triloka), the wholesome minds of the desire realm and the formless realm, and the non-learning mind. It does not speak of the difference in obtaining the mind when these six minds are presently manifesting; these are only obtainable by oneself and cannot be obtained in conjunction with others. Question: If it is said that the defiled mind of the desire realm, it is only said that six minds are obtained, and it is not said that the unconditioned neutral mind of one's own realm is obtained, then this contradicts the Vijñānakāyaśāstra (識身論, Vijñānakāyaśāstra) and others. For example, the thirteenth volume of the Vijñānakāyaśāstra says: 'If one accomplishes an unwholesome mind, does one also accomplish the unconditioned neutral mind bound to the desire realm?' If one accomplishes an unwholesome mind, one necessarily accomplishes the unconditioned neutral mind bound to the desire realm, or accomplishes...

欲界系無覆無記心。非不善心。謂欲界生長已離欲界貪。或色界生長補特伽羅　準彼論文界退還位。起欲染時即定成就不善心。既成不善。即定成就欲無覆無記。然于欲界四無記中。但是威儀．工巧二種。以勢力強有三世得。故成不善亦定成彼。所以不成餘二無記者。既成不善理無通果。異熟生心無前．后得亦非定成。準識身文。欲界威儀．工巧心定有三世得。是即界退還位欲染心中定成欲界無覆無記。于欲染心應言得七。何故言六。又色善心應言得二。學心應言得三。各除欲界無覆無記。初得彼二心身定在欲界。欲界無覆無記先定成故。彼二心中不應言得。顯宗第十一亦同識身。故顯宗改頌云。三界染如次。得七．六．二種。色善二學三。二無餘自得。言二無者。顯宗云。二謂欲．色無覆無記。此二心中都無所得。此亦大意同俱舍。然別摽二無記為異。正理二十雖不改頌。長行意同識身。此論既違識身等文。如何會釋　解云欲界威儀．工巧二無記心以實多分無三世得。但生欲界起自在者說名成就。起不得者名不成就。非要有得方說成就　難云若爾無色異熟無記心不現在前。應名成就。起自在故　又難此既自在說名成就。余復何因知有別物。故說有過　又解云二無記心有三世得。然從上界退還下時。必要現行方始起得

。中有初起既是染心。爾時未名得於無記。后因現起。三世得生已后相續。常名成就。初心未得。不違此論。后復定成初小不說。約此義邊亦不違彼識身論文　難云若爾色善及有學心。不應言得欲界無覆。先定成故故亦有過。今略作三解通釋彼文　第一解云論意各別無勞會釋。豈以本文破我俱舍。論主非以本論為量。若識身論意。以威儀．工巧雖是無記勢力強故定成三世。若此論等意。威儀如佛．馬勝苾芻．及余善習者。工巧如毗濕縛羯磨天．及余善習者。即定成就。若非串習殊勝者即不成就　第二解云彼．此二論亦不相違。多有情中威儀．工巧有串習者。有不串習者。識身等論據串習勝者說故。言定成欲界無覆。此論據不串習者說。或從多分說故言不成就欲界無覆。各據一邊並無違害。若具說者或成．不成。若串習者即成。不串習者不成。若作斯解。以識身文會同俱舍　第三解云二論亦不相違。一一有情各有眾多威儀．工巧。于眾多中若串習者即成就。不串習者不成就。識身足文。據串習者故言定成欲界無覆。此論據不串習者故言不成欲界無覆。盡理而言。若據串習此論亦有定成。若據不串習者。識身足文亦有不成。若作此解以此俱舍會同識身。若作此解顯宗無勞改頌。雖作此解恐聖意難知。仍冀高明詳茲拙見。必

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

其中最初生起的就是染污心。那時還不能稱作是得到了無記性。後來因為（染污心）現行生起，三世（過去、現在、未來）得以產生，之後相續不斷，通常稱為成就。最初的心念沒有得到（成就），不違背這個論點。後來又確定說最初的小（染污心）不算數。從這個意義上來說，也不違背《識身論》的論文。

有人提問：如果這樣，色界的善心和有學之心，不應該說得到了欲界的無覆無記性。因為它們先前已經確定成就了，所以也有過失。

現在我簡略地作三種解釋來貫通解釋那些經文：

第一種解釋說：論的意圖各自不同，不必勉強會合解釋。難道可以用本文來反駁我的《俱舍論》嗎？論主不是以本論作為衡量標準。《識身論》的意思是，威儀、工巧雖然是無記性，但因為勢力強大，所以確定成就三世。如果此論等的意思是，威儀如同佛、馬勝比丘以及其他善於習禪的人，工巧如同毗濕縛羯磨天（Vishvakarman，工藝之神）以及其他善於習藝的人，就確定成就。如果不是串習特別殊勝的人，就不成就。

第二種解釋說：彼論和此論也不相違背。在眾多有情中，威儀、工巧有串習的人，也有不串習的人。《識身論》等論是根據串習殊勝的人說的，所以說確定成就欲界的無覆無記性。此論是根據不串習的人說的，或者從大部分情況來說，所以說不成就欲界的無覆無記性。各自根據一邊來說，並沒有違背。如果全面來說，或者成就，或者不成就。如果串習了，就成就；不串習，就不成就。如果這樣解釋，就用《識身論》的經文會合《俱舍論》。

第三種解釋說：二論也不相違背。每一個有情各有眾多的威儀、工巧。在眾多威儀、工巧中，如果串習了，就成就；不串習，就不成就。《識身論》的經文，是根據串習的人說的，所以說確定成就欲界的無覆無記性。此論是根據不串習的人說的，所以說不成就欲界的無覆無記性。從道理上來說，如果根據串習，此論也有確定成就的情況；如果根據不串習的人，那麼《識身論》的經文也有不成就的情況。如果這樣解釋，就用此《俱舍論》會合《識身論》。如果這樣解釋，顯宗就不必修改頌文了。雖然這樣解釋，恐怕聖人的意思難以理解，仍然希望高明的人詳細考察我這淺陋的見解，一定（會有所收穫）。 English version:

Among them, the very first arising is a defiled mind. At that time, it cannot yet be called 'having attained the indeterminate.' Later, because of its manifestation, the three times (past, present, and future) are able to arise, and thereafter, it continues uninterruptedly, generally called 'accomplishment.' The initial thought has not attained (accomplishment), and this does not contradict this argument. Later, it is determined that the initial small (defiled mind) does not count. From this perspective, it also does not contradict the essays in the Vijnanakaya Shastra (Treatise on the Body of Consciousness).

Objection: If that is the case, then the wholesome mind of the Form Realm and the mind of a learner (Skt: śaikṣa) should not be said to have attained the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. Because they were previously determined to be accomplished, there is also a fault.

Now, I will briefly offer three explanations to reconcile those texts:

The first explanation says: The intentions of the treatises are different, and there is no need to force a reconciliation. How can one use this text to refute my Abhidharmakosha (Treasury of Higher Knowledge)? The author of the treatise does not use this treatise as a standard of measurement. The meaning of the Vijnanakaya Shastra is that deportment (Skt: īryāpatha) and craftsmanship (Skt: śilpakarma), although indeterminate, are determined to accomplish the three times because of their strong power. If the meaning of this treatise and others is that deportment, like that of the Buddha, Bhadraka (Horse-tamed) Bhikshu, and other well-practiced individuals, and craftsmanship, like that of Vishvakarman (the god of crafts) and other well-practiced individuals, are determined to be accomplished. If one is not particularly skilled through practice, then it is not accomplished.

The second explanation says: This treatise and that treatise are also not contradictory. Among many sentient beings, some practice deportment and craftsmanship, and some do not. The Vijnanakaya Shastra and other treatises speak based on those who are highly skilled through practice, so they say that they are determined to accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. This treatise speaks based on those who do not practice, or from the perspective of the majority, so it says that they do not accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. Each is based on one side, and there is no contradiction. If speaking comprehensively, they either accomplish or do not accomplish. If one practices, then they accomplish; if one does not practice, then they do not accomplish. If explained in this way, the text of the Vijnanakaya Shastra is reconciled with the Abhidharmakosha.

The third explanation says: The two treatises are also not contradictory. Each sentient being has many forms of deportment and craftsmanship. Among the many forms of deportment and craftsmanship, if one practices, then they accomplish; if one does not practice, then they do not accomplish. The text of the Vijnanakaya Shastra speaks based on those who practice, so it says that they are determined to accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. This treatise speaks based on those who do not practice, so it says that they do not accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. Logically speaking, if based on practice, this treatise also has cases of determined accomplishment; if based on those who do not practice, then the text of the Vijnanakaya Shastra also has cases of non-accomplishment. If explained in this way, this Abhidharmakosha is reconciled with the Vijnanakaya Shastra. If explained in this way, the Manifestation School (Skt: Vijñānavāda) does not need to revise the verses. Although explained in this way, I fear that the meaning of the sages is difficult to understand, and I still hope that those of high intelligence will carefully examine my shallow views, and surely (there will be some gain).

【English Translation】 English version:

Among them, the very first arising is a defiled mind. At that time, it cannot yet be called 'having attained the indeterminate.' Later, because of its manifestation, the three times (past, present, and future) are able to arise, and thereafter, it continues uninterruptedly, generally called 'accomplishment.' The initial thought has not attained (accomplishment), and this does not contradict this argument. Later, it is determined that the initial small (defiled mind) does not count. From this perspective, it also does not contradict the essays in the Vijnanakaya Shastra (Treatise on the Body of Consciousness).

Objection: If that is the case, then the wholesome mind of the Form Realm and the mind of a learner (Skt: śaikṣa) should not be said to have attained the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. Because they were previously determined to be accomplished, there is also a fault.

Now, I will briefly offer three explanations to reconcile those texts:

The first explanation says: The intentions of the treatises are different, and there is no need to force a reconciliation. How can one use this text to refute my Abhidharmakosha (Treasury of Higher Knowledge)? The author of the treatise does not use this treatise as a standard of measurement. The meaning of the Vijnanakaya Shastra is that deportment (Skt: īryāpatha) and craftsmanship (Skt: śilpakarma), although indeterminate, are determined to accomplish the three times because of their strong power. If the meaning of this treatise and others is that deportment, like that of the Buddha, Bhadraka (Horse-tamed) Bhikshu, and other well-practiced individuals, and craftsmanship, like that of Vishvakarman (the god of crafts) and other well-practiced individuals, are determined to be accomplished. If one is not particularly skilled through practice, then it is not accomplished.

The second explanation says: This treatise and that treatise are also not contradictory. Among many sentient beings, some practice deportment and craftsmanship, and some do not. The Vijnanakaya Shastra and other treatises speak based on those who are highly skilled through practice, so they say that they are determined to accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. This treatise speaks based on those who do not practice, or from the perspective of the majority, so it says that they do not accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. Each is based on one side, and there is no contradiction. If speaking comprehensively, they either accomplish or do not accomplish. If one practices, then they accomplish; if one does not practice, then they do not accomplish. If explained in this way, the text of the Vijnanakaya Shastra is reconciled with the Abhidharmakosha.

The third explanation says: The two treatises are also not contradictory. Each sentient being has many forms of deportment and craftsmanship. Among the many forms of deportment and craftsmanship, if one practices, then they accomplish; if one does not practice, then they do not accomplish. The text of the Vijnanakaya Shastra speaks based on those who practice, so it says that they are determined to accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. This treatise speaks based on those who do not practice, so it says that they do not accomplish the non-defiled indeterminate of the Desire Realm. Logically speaking, if based on practice, this treatise also has cases of determined accomplishment; if based on those who do not practice, then the text of the Vijnanakaya Shastra also has cases of non-accomplishment. If explained in this way, this Abhidharmakosha is reconciled with the Vijnanakaya Shastra. If explained in this way, the Manifestation School (Skt: Vijñānavāda) does not need to revise the verses. Although explained in this way, I fear that the meaning of the sages is difficult to understand, and I still hope that those of high intelligence will carefully examine my shallow views, and surely (there will be some gain).

有異釋幸愿申焉有餘於此至無記唯無記者。此下第二敘說斥非。此即論主。敘雜心師說染心得九。與此論文亦不相違。此論據三界染心兼據重說。謂欲界染心得六。色界染心得六。無色界染心得二。名如前說合得十四。雜心除重據單但言得九。言九心者。謂欲界四心。色界三心。無色染心。及學心。是名為九。於此論十四中除五心重。言五心重者。謂色界染心兩度得。欲界染心時得。色界染心時得。除一種心。無色染心．及與學心各三度得。謂各三界染心時得。各除二心。足前為五。是故此論說十四。雜心說九。各據一義亦無有妨　善心得六者。此論前文兼據重說。總言有七。謂色善三。學四。名如前說。雜心除重據單說有六種。言六種者。謂欲界無覆。色界善無覆無記。無色界善。及學無學。故名得六。於此論七中除二心重。言二心重者。謂欲．色界無覆心各兩度得。謂色善。學心離欲染時。各得欲．色二無覆心。各除一無覆心取餘五心。及取無學心。故名六種　無記唯無記者。三界三種無覆無記現在前時。但成自體不能兼他。勢力劣故。故言無記唯無記　問何故無記不別舉數　解云無記之中亦應言得三。謂三界無覆。應知無記名中已顯　又解善．染之中有兼得他。故別舉數。無記之內唯自非他。不別標數。論主敘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果對異義有解釋，希望能夠補充說明，因為這裡還有未盡之處，直至無記唯有無記的情況。以下第二部分敘述是爲了駁斥錯誤觀點。這裡指的是論主，敘述《雜心論》的觀點，認為染心得九種，與此論文的觀點並不衝突。此論文依據三界染心，並且兼顧重複計算。也就是說，欲界染心得六種，染心得六種，無染心得兩種，名稱如前所述，合起來共十四種。《雜心論》去除重複計算，只依據單一情況，所以說得九種。所說的九心，指的是欲界的四心，三心，無色染心，以及學心，總共是九種。在此論文的十四種心中，去除五種重複的心。所說的五心重複，指的是染心兩次獲得，即在欲界染心時獲得，染心時獲得，去除一種心。無色染心以及學心各自三次獲得，即在各三界染心時獲得，各自去除兩種心，加上之前的，總共是五種。因此，此論文說有十四種，《雜心論》說有九種，各自依據一種意義，所以沒有妨礙。善心得六種，此論文前文兼顧重複計算，總共說有七種，指的是色界善心三種，學心四種，名稱如前所述。《雜心論》去除重複計算，只依據單一情況，所以說有六種。所說的六種，指的是欲界的無覆無記，善無覆無記，無善，以及學心和無學心，所以說得六種。在此論文的七種心中，去除兩種重複的心。所說的兩種心重複，指的是欲界和無覆心各自兩次獲得，即色界善心和學心在離開欲染時，各自獲得欲界和色界的兩種無覆心，各自去除一種無覆心，取其餘五種心，並且取無學心，所以說有六種。無記唯有無記者，三界的三種無覆無記現在前時，只能成就自身，不能兼顧其他，因為勢力弱小，所以說無記唯有無記。問：為什麼無記不單獨列舉數量？答：在無記之中也應該說得三種，指的是三界的無覆無記，應該知道無記的名稱中已經顯明。又解釋說，善心和染心中有兼得其他的情況，所以單獨列舉數量。無記之內只有自身而非其他，所以不單獨標明數量。論主敘述

【English Translation】 English version: If there are different interpretations, it is hoped that they can be further explained, as there is still something incomplete here, up to the point where 'non-recollective is only non-recollective'. The second part below is a narrative to refute incorrect views. This refers to the 論主 (lùn zhǔ) [the author of the treatise], narrating the view of the 雜心論 (Záxīn lùn) [Treatise on Various Thoughts], which holds that defiled mind (染心 (rǎn xīn)) is obtained in nine ways, which does not conflict with the view of this treatise. This treatise is based on the defiled mind of the Three Realms and also takes into account repeated calculations. That is, the defiled mind of the Desire Realm is obtained in six ways, defiled mind is obtained in six ways, non-defiled mind is obtained in two ways, the names are as mentioned before, totaling fourteen ways. The 雜心論 (Záxīn lùn) removes repeated calculations and only considers single instances, so it says nine ways are obtained. The nine minds referred to are the four minds of the Desire Realm, three minds, the defiled mind of the Formless Realm, and the learning mind, totaling nine. In the fourteen minds of this treatise, five repeated minds are removed. The five repeated minds referred to are that the defiled mind is obtained twice, that is, it is obtained when the Desire Realm is defiled, and it is obtained when the defiled mind is present, removing one type of mind. The defiled mind of the Formless Realm and the learning mind are each obtained three times, that is, they are obtained when the defiled mind of each of the Three Realms is present, each removing two minds, adding to the previous one, totaling five. Therefore, this treatise says there are fourteen, and the 雜心論 (Záxīn lùn) says there are nine, each based on one meaning, so there is no conflict. Good mind is obtained in six ways; the previous text of this treatise takes into account repeated calculations, totaling seven, referring to the three good minds of the Form Realm and the four learning minds, the names are as mentioned before. The 雜心論 (Záxīn lùn) removes repeated calculations and only considers single instances, so it says there are six types. The six types referred to are the non-obscured and non-recollective of the Desire Realm, good non-obscured and non-recollective, non-good, and the learning and non-learning minds, so it is said that six are obtained. In the seven minds of this treatise, two repeated minds are removed. The two repeated minds referred to are that the Desire Realm and the non-obscured mind are each obtained twice, that is, the good mind of the Form Realm and the learning mind each obtain the two non-obscured minds of the Desire Realm and the Form Realm when leaving the defilements of desire, each removing one non-obscured mind, taking the remaining five minds, and taking the non-learning mind, so it is said that there are six types. Non-recollective is only non-recollective; when the three types of non-obscured and non-recollective of the Three Realms are present, they can only accomplish themselves and cannot encompass others, because their power is weak, so it is said that non-recollective is only non-recollective. Question: Why are non-recollectives not listed separately in number? Answer: Among the non-recollectives, it should also be said that three are obtained, referring to the non-obscured and non-recollective of the Three Realms, it should be known that it is already evident in the name of non-recollective. Another explanation is that there are cases of obtaining others in good and defiled minds, so the numbers are listed separately. Within the non-recollective, there is only oneself and not others, so the numbers are not listed separately. The 論主 (lùn zhǔ) [the author of the treatise] narrates

訖。

于善心中至應知其相者。此即論主斥非。染心據單但言九種。無記唯自並無有妨。善心據單得六太少。于善心中應言得七。謂由正見續善根時。欲界善心起位名得。此即為一。離欲界染第九解脫道究竟位中。頓得欲．色二無覆心。足前為三。得二界定彼二善心說名為得。足前為五。初入離生位時得學心。得阿羅漢時得無學心。足前為七。雜心論師不說前一正見續善。但言得六。太少過也。余染．無記準前通釋。應知其相義亦無違。正理救云。理亦應得欲界善心。謂以正見續諸善本。雖加欲善除無覆心。經主不應難令得七　解云彼論同識身。離欲染不得欲界無覆。俱舍破云。如前廣釋。假令不得欲無覆心。雜心論主不說欲善終成過失。汝若能救。何不救彼不說善心。

為攝前義至非先所成故者。此即第三重頌前義。為攝前義得心差別。復說頌言。一由託生時。謂界退還。二由入定時。謂色善學心。三由離染時。謂離欲．色界染。四由退時。謂起惑退時。五由續善位。謂疑續善根。於此五中前一后二唯是染心。中間二種入定．離染唯是善心。由此五位得心差別如前具說。此中言得非先所成。今得成故。

俱舍論記卷第七

于大道寺與三弟共讀了

長承四年二月二十二日申時讀了

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於善心中應當知道的相。這是論主駁斥不正確的觀點。染污心根據單獨的情況只說了九種。無記心只有自身，並沒有妨礙。善心根據單獨的情況只能得到六種，太少了。在善心中應該說能得到七種。也就是由正見延續善根的時候，欲界的善心生起，這叫做『得』，這算一種。在遠離欲界染污的第九解脫道究竟位中，一下子得到欲界和色界的兩種無覆無記心，加上前面的，一共是三種。得到兩個界的禪定，那兩個善心被說成是『得』，加上前面的，一共是五種。最初進入離生位的時候，得到有學心。得到阿羅漢果位的時候，得到無學心。加上前面的，一共是七種。《雜心論》的論師不說前面一種正見延續善根的情況，只說能得到六種，這是太少的過失。其餘的染污心和無記心，參照前面的解釋，應當知道它們的相，意義上也沒有違背。《正理》的作者救護說，道理上也應該得到欲界的善心，也就是用正見延續各種善的根本。雖然加上了欲界的善心，排除了無覆無記心，經主不應該責難，使得只能得到七種。解釋說，那個論典和《識身論》相同，遠離欲界染污就不能得到欲界的無覆無記心。《俱舍論》反駁說，如同前面廣泛解釋的那樣，假設不能得到欲界的無覆無記心，《雜心論》的論主不說欲界的善心，最終還是會成為過失。如果你能救護，為什麼不救護他不說善心呢？

爲了概括前面的意義，直到『不是先前成就的』。這是第三次用偈頌概括前面的意義。爲了概括前面的意義，得到心的差別，再次用偈頌說：一是由於託生的時候，比如從某個界退還。二是由進入禪定的時候，比如色界的善心和有學心。三是由遠離染污的時候，比如遠離欲界和有色界的染污。四是由退失的時候，比如生起煩惱退失的時候。五是由延續善根的地位，比如通過懷疑來延續善根。在這五種情況中，前一種和后兩種只是染污心。中間兩種，進入禪定和遠離染污，只是善心。由此五種地位得到心的差別，如同前面詳細所說。這裡說『得到』，不是先前成就的，而是現在才成就的。

《俱舍論記》卷第七

在大道寺與三個弟弟一起閱讀完畢。

長承四年二月二十二日申時閱讀完畢。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the characteristics that should be known in wholesome minds. This is the treatise master refuting incorrect views. Defiled minds, according to individual instances, are only said to be nine types. Non-afflicted minds only have themselves and do not pose any obstacle. Wholesome minds, according to individual instances, can only attain six, which is too few. In wholesome minds, it should be said that seven can be attained. That is, when wholesome roots are continued by right view, the wholesome mind of the desire realm arises, which is called 'attainment,' counting as one. In the ultimate stage of the ninth path of liberation from the defilements of the desire realm, one suddenly attains two non-afflicted minds of the desire and form realms, totaling three with the previous one. Attaining the samadhi of the two realms, those two wholesome minds are said to be 'attainment,' totaling five with the previous ones. When first entering the stage of separation from birth, one attains the mind of a learner (śaikṣa-citta). When attaining Arhatship, one attains the mind of a non-learner (aśaikṣa-citta), totaling seven with the previous ones. The 雜心論(Za Xin Lun) master does not mention the first instance of continuing wholesome roots with right view, only saying that six can be attained, which is the fault of being too few. The remaining defiled and non-afflicted minds should be understood by referring to the previous explanations, and there is no contradiction in meaning. The author of 正理(Zheng Li) defends by saying that it is reasonable to also attain the wholesome mind of the desire realm, that is, continuing various wholesome roots with right view. Although the wholesome mind of the desire realm is added, excluding the non-afflicted mind, the sutra master should not criticize, causing only seven to be attained. The explanation is that that treatise is the same as 識身論(Shi Shen Lun). Separating from the defilements of the desire realm does not allow the attainment of the non-afflicted mind of the desire realm. The 俱舍論(Kusha Lun) refutes by saying, as explained extensively before, even if the non-afflicted mind of the desire realm cannot be attained, the 雜心論(Za Xin Lun) master's failure to mention the wholesome mind of the desire realm will ultimately become a fault. If you can defend this, why not defend his failure to mention the wholesome mind?

To summarize the preceding meaning, up to 'not previously accomplished.' This is the third time summarizing the preceding meaning with a verse. To summarize the preceding meaning, the differences in attaining minds, it is again said in verse: One is due to the time of rebirth, such as returning from a realm. Two is due to the time of entering samadhi, such as the wholesome mind and the mind of a learner of the form realm. Three is due to the time of separating from defilements, such as separating from the defilements of the desire and form realms. Four is due to the time of regression, such as the time of arising afflictions and regressing. Five is due to the position of continuing wholesome roots, such as continuing wholesome roots through doubt. Among these five situations, the first and last two are only defiled minds. The middle two, entering samadhi and separating from defilements, are only wholesome minds. The differences in attaining minds in these five positions are as detailed previously. Here, 'attainment' is said, not previously accomplished, but now accomplished.

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論記) Scroll 7

Finished reading together with three younger brothers at Daido Temple (大道寺).

Finished reading at the hour of the Monkey (申時) on the 22nd day of the 2nd month of Chōshō (長承) 4 (1135).

一遍校勘了　本與新互有得失重可正之大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第八

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之一

分別世品者。世謂世間。可毀壞故。有對治故。此品廣明故名分別。所以次明世品者。上來二品總明有漏．無漏。自下六品別明有漏．無漏。總是其本。所以先明。依總釋別所以後明別。就別明六品中。前三品別明有漏法。后三品別明無漏法。有漏粗顯所以先明。無漏微細所以後說。就別明有漏中。世品明有漏果。業品明有漏因。隨眠品明有漏緣。就三品中果相粗顯所以先明。

已依三界至處別有幾者。就世品中。一明有情世間。二明器世間　就明有情世間中。一總辨有情。二判聚差別　就總辨有情中。一明有情生。二明有情住。三明有情沒。就明有情生中。一明三界。二明五趣。三明七識住。四明九有情居。五明四識住。六明四生。七明中有。八明緣起。九明四有　此下第一明三界。結前問起。於前品末已依三界分別諸心。今次應說三界是何。各自界中處別有幾。

頌曰至令心等相續者。此即正辨。初頌明欲界。第二頌明色界。第三頌明無色界。隨次不同答前兩問。

論曰至他化自在天者。就長行中一釋頌文。二問答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一遍校勘了，此版本與新版本互有優缺點，可以互相修正。《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第八

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之一

『分別世品』的意思是，『世』指的是世間（lokadhatu），因為世間是可被毀壞的，並且有對治（pratipaksa）之法。此品廣泛地闡明世間，所以稱為『分別』。之所以接下來闡明世品，是因為前面兩品總括地闡明了有漏（sāsrava，指有煩惱的）和無漏（anāsrava，指沒有煩惱的）。從這品開始的六品分別闡明有漏和無漏。總括是根本，所以先闡明總括；依據總括來解釋分別，所以後闡明分別。在分別闡明六品中，前三品分別闡明有漏法，后三品分別闡明無漏法。有漏粗顯，所以先闡明；無漏微細，所以後闡述。在分別闡明有漏中，世品闡明有漏的果報，業品闡明有漏的因，隨眠品闡明有漏的緣。在三品中，果相粗顯，所以先闡明。

『已依三界至處別有幾者』。在世品中，首先闡明有情世間（sattva-loka），其次闡明器世間（bhajana-loka）。在闡明有情世間中，首先總括地辨析有情，其次判別聚集的差別。在總括地辨析有情中，首先闡明有情的生，其次闡明有情的住，再次闡明有情的滅。在闡明有情的生中，首先闡明三界（trayo dhatavah），其次闡明五趣（panca-gatayah），再次闡明七識住（sapta vijnana-sthitayah），再次闡明九有情居（nava sattvavasah），再次闡明四識住（catasro vijnana-sthitayah），再次闡明四生（catasro yonayah），再次闡明中有（antarabhava），再次闡明緣起（pratitya-samutpada），再次闡明四有（catvaro bhavah）。接下來第一部分闡明三界。總結前面的內容並提出問題：在前面的品末已經依據三界分別了諸心，現在接下來應該說三界是什麼，各自界中處的差別有幾種。

『頌曰至令心等相續者』。這部分是正式的辨析。第一個頌說明欲界（kama-dhatu），第二個頌說明（rupa-dhatu），第三個頌說明無（arupa-dhatu）。隨著次第的不同，回答前面提出的兩個問題。

『論曰至他化自在天者』。在長行文中，首先解釋頌文，其次是問答。

【English Translation】 English version Once collated, this version and the new version each have their own advantages and disadvantages, and can be corrected against each other. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821 Abhidharmakosha-tika (Notes on the Abhidharmakosha)

Abhidharmakosha-tika, Volume 8

Commentary by Shramana Shi Guang

Chapter 3: Analysis of the World, Part 1

『Analysis of the World』 means that 『world』 refers to the loka (lokadhatu), because the world is destructible and has antidotes (pratipaksa). This chapter extensively explains the world, so it is called 『Analysis』. The reason for explaining the chapter on the world next is that the previous two chapters generally explained the sāsrava (contaminated, with afflictions) and anāsrava (uncontaminated, without afflictions). The following six chapters separately explain the sāsrava and anāsrava. The general explanation is the root, so it is explained first; the separate explanation is based on the general, so it is explained later. Among the separate explanations in the six chapters, the first three chapters separately explain the sāsrava dharmas, and the last three chapters separately explain the anāsrava dharmas. The sāsrava is coarse and obvious, so it is explained first; the anāsrava is subtle, so it is explained later. Among the separate explanations of the sāsrava, the chapter on the world explains the results of the sāsrava, the chapter on karma explains the causes of the sāsrava, and the chapter on anusaya (latent afflictions) explains the conditions of the sāsrava. Among the three chapters, the characteristics of the results are coarse and obvious, so they are explained first.

『Having relied on the Three Realms to the differences in locations, how many are there?』 In the chapter on the world, first, the sentient being world (sattva-loka) is explained, and second, the container world (bhajana-loka) is explained. In explaining the sentient being world, first, sentient beings are generally analyzed, and second, the differences in aggregates are distinguished. In generally analyzing sentient beings, first, the birth of sentient beings is explained, second, the dwelling of sentient beings is explained, and third, the death of sentient beings is explained. In explaining the birth of sentient beings, first, the Three Realms (trayo dhatavah) are explained, second, the Five Destinies (panca-gatayah) are explained, third, the Seven Stations of Consciousness (sapta vijnana-sthitayah) are explained, fourth, the Nine Abodes of Sentient Beings (nava sattvavasah) are explained, fifth, the Four Stations of Consciousness (catasro vijnana-sthitayah) are explained, sixth, the Four Births (catasro yonayah) are explained, seventh, the Intermediate Existence (antarabhava) is explained, eighth, Dependent Origination (pratitya-samutpada) is explained, and ninth, the Four Existences (catvaro bhavah) are explained. The first part below explains the Three Realms. It summarizes the previous content and raises a question: At the end of the previous chapter, the various minds have already been distinguished based on the Three Realms. Now, what should be said next is what the Three Realms are, and what are the differences in locations within each realm.

『The verse says, up to causing the mind and so on to continue.』 This part is the formal analysis. The first verse explains the Desire Realm (kama-dhatu), the second verse explains the ** Realm (rupa-dhatu), and the third verse explains the Formless Realm (arupa-dhatu). According to the differences in order, the two questions raised earlier are answered.

『The treatise says, up to the Paranirmitavasavartin Devas.』 In the prose section, first, the verse is explained, and second, there is a question and answer.

分別。此下正釋頌文　六天有欲名六慾天　顯宗十六曰唯六慾天受妙欲境。六慾天者。一四大王眾天。謂彼有四大王及所領眾。或彼天眾事四大王。是四大王之所領故。二三十三天。謂彼天處是三十三部諸天所居。妙高山頂四面各有八部天眾。中央有一即天帝釋。故三十三。三夜摩天。此云時分。謂彼天處時時多分稱快樂哉。四睹史多天。此云喜足。謂彼天處多於自所受生喜足心。五樂變化天。謂彼天處樂數化欲境。于中受樂。六他化自在天。謂彼天處於他所化欲境自在受樂。

如是欲界處別有幾者。問。

地獄洲異至皆欲界攝者。答。正理三十一釋前七地獄云。眾苦逼身數悶如死。尋蘇如本。故名等活。謂彼有情。雖遭種種斫刺磨搗。而彼暫遇涼風所吹。尋蘇如本。等前活故立等活名。先以黑索拼量支體。後方斬鋸故名黑繩。眾多苦具俱來逼身。合黨相殘故名眾合。眾苦所逼異類悲號。怨發叫聲故名號叫。劇苦所逼發大酷聲。悲叫稱怨故名大叫。火隨身轉炎熾周圍。熱苦難任故名炎熱。若內．若外。自身．他身。皆出猛火互相燒害。熱中極故名為極熱　又此論下文釋第八地獄云。受苦無間故名無間。無樂間苦故名無間　言四洲者。南贍部洲。或從林立號。或以果標名　東勝身洲身形勝故。或身勝贍部故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：下面正式解釋頌文：六慾天，因為有情眾生對妙欲的追求，所以稱為六慾天。《顯宗十六》中說：『只有六慾天才能享受美妙的欲境。』六慾天分別是：一、四大王眾天（指有四大天王以及他們所統領的部眾，或者說這些天眾侍奉四大天王，因為他們是被四大天王所統領的）。二、三十三天（指這個天界是三十三個天神所居住的地方。須彌山頂的四面各有八部天眾，中央有一位就是天帝釋，所以稱為三十三）。三、夜摩天（意為『時分』，指這個天界時時都能感受到快樂）。四、兜率天（意為『喜足』，指這個天界的天眾對自己所受的快樂感到滿足）。五、樂變化天（指這個天界的天眾喜歡變化出各種欲境，並在其中享受快樂）。六、他化自在天（指這個天界的天眾對於其他天眾所變化的欲境，能夠自在地享受快樂）。

『像這樣，欲界之處所分別有多少種呢？』（問）

『從地獄到各個洲，都屬於欲界所攝。』（答）《正理三十一》解釋前七種地獄說：『眾苦逼迫身體，數次昏悶如死，隨即又甦醒如初，所以叫做等活。』指那些有情眾生，雖然遭受各種砍刺、磨搗，但是當他們暫時遇到涼風吹拂時，隨即又甦醒如初，和之前一樣活過來，所以稱為等活。先用黑繩測量身體的各個部位，然後才用刀鋸斬割，所以叫做黑繩。眾多苦具一齊來逼迫身體，互相殘殺，所以叫做眾合。被眾苦所逼迫，發出異類的悲號，怨恨地發出叫聲，所以叫做號叫。被劇烈的痛苦所逼迫，發出巨大的酷烈之聲，悲傷地呼叫怨恨，所以叫做大叫。火焰隨著身體轉動，燃燒周圍，熱的痛苦難以忍受，所以叫做炎熱。無論是內部還是外部，自身還是他身，都發出猛烈的火焰互相燒害，因為熱到了極點，所以叫做極熱。』另外，這部論的下文解釋第八種地獄說：『受苦沒有間斷，所以叫做無間。沒有快樂的間隙，只有痛苦，所以叫做無間。』所說的四大洲是：南贍部洲（或者因為樹林茂盛而得名，或者因為果實而得名），東勝身洲（因為身形殊勝而得名，或者因為身體比贍部洲的人殊勝而得名）。

【English Translation】 English version: Here begins the proper explanation of the verses: The Six Desire Realms are named so because sentient beings have desires for sensual pleasures. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states, 'Only the Six Desire Realms experience exquisite sensual pleasures.' The Six Desire Realms are: 1. The Heaven of the Four Great Kings (referring to the Four Great Kings and their retinues, or that these heavenly beings serve the Four Great Kings because they are governed by them). 2. The Heaven of the Thirty-three (referring to this heaven being the dwelling place of the thirty-three classes of gods. On each of the four sides of the summit of Mount Meru are eight classes of heavenly beings, and in the center is Indra, hence the name Thirty-three). 3. The Yama Heaven (meaning 'time division,' referring to this heaven constantly experiencing happiness). 4. The Tusita Heaven (meaning 'contentment,' referring to the heavenly beings in this realm being content with the happiness they receive). 5. The Heaven of Enjoying Transformations (referring to the heavenly beings in this realm enjoying transforming various sensual environments and experiencing pleasure within them). 6. The Heaven of Others' Freedom (referring to the heavenly beings in this realm freely enjoying the sensual environments transformed by other beings).

'In this way, how many different places are there in the Desire Realm?' (Question)

'From the hells to the various continents, all are included within the Desire Realm.' (Answer) Abhidharmakosabhasyam 31 explains the first seven hells, saying, 'Oppressed by numerous sufferings, they repeatedly faint as if dead, and then revive as before, hence the name Samjiva (Equal Revival).' This refers to those sentient beings who, although subjected to various cuttings, piercings, and grindings, revive as before when they are temporarily touched by a cool breeze, living again as before, hence the name Samjiva. First, the body is measured with black cords, and then it is cut and sawed, hence the name Kalasutra (Black Thread). Numerous instruments of suffering come together to oppress the body, and they kill each other, hence the name Samghata (Crushing). Oppressed by numerous sufferings, they emit cries of different kinds, resentfully uttering screams, hence the name Raurava (Screaming). Oppressed by intense suffering, they emit great, fierce sounds, sorrowfully crying out in resentment, hence the name Maharaurava (Great Screaming). Flames follow the body, burning all around, and the pain of heat is unbearable, hence the name Tapana (Burning). Whether internal or external, one's own body or another's body, all emit fierce flames that burn and harm each other, and because the heat is extreme, it is called Pratapana (Great Burning).' Furthermore, the text below explains the eighth hell, saying, 'Suffering without interruption, hence the name Avici (Without Interruption). No interval of happiness, only suffering, hence the name Avici.' The four continents are: Jambudvipa (Southern Jambudvipa, named either for its dense forests or for its fruits), Purvavideha (Eastern Purvavideha, named for its superior body, or because its inhabitants have bodies superior to those of Jambudvipa).

名勝身。梵云毗提河　西牛貨洲以牛貨易故名牛貨。梵云瞿陀尼　北俱盧唐言勝處。於四洲中處最勝故。或云勝生。於四洲中生最勝故　余文可知。

此欲界上至八色究竟天者。此釋色界十七天。正理二十一釋諸天名云。廣善所生故名為梵。此梵即大故名大梵。由彼獲得中間定故。最初生故。最後沒故。威德等勝。故名為大大梵所有所化所領故名梵眾。于大梵前行列．侍衛故名梵輔。自地天內光明最少故名小光。光明轉勝量難測故名無量光。凈光遍照自地處故名極光凈。意地受樂說名為凈。于自地中此凈最劣故名小凈。此凈轉增量難測故名無量凈。此凈周普故名遍凈。意顯更無樂能過此。以下空中天所居地。如雲密合故說名云。此上諸天更無雲地。在無雲首故說無雲。更有異生勝福。方所可往生故說名福生。居在方所。異生果中此最殊勝故名廣果。離欲諸聖。以聖道水濯煩惱垢故名為凈。凈身所止故名凈居。或住於此窮生死邊。如還債盡故名為凈。凈者所住故名凈居。或此天中無異生雜。純聖所止故名凈居。繁謂繁雜。或謂繁廣。無繁雜中此最初故。繁廣天中此最劣故說名無繁。或名無求。不求趣入無色界故。已善伏除雜修靜慮上．中品障。意樂調柔離諸熱惱故名無熱。或令下生煩惱名熱。此初遠離得無熱名。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本名勝身（Nāmasaṃjñā）。梵文稱毗提河（Vitihotra），西牛貨洲（Apara-godānīya）因以牛貨交易而得名。梵文稱瞿陀尼（Godānīya），北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）意為勝處，在四大洲中此地最為殊勝。或稱勝生，在四大洲中此地出生最為殊勝。其餘文字含義顯而易見。

此欲界之上直至八色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha）。這裡解釋了十七天。正理二十一（Nyāyānusāraśāstra）解釋諸天之名說：因廣行善業所生，故名為梵（Brahma）。此梵即大，故名大梵（Mahābrahmā）。由於他們獲得了中間禪定，並且最初出生，最後滅亡，威德等殊勝，所以名為大梵。所有、所化、所領的眷屬故名梵眾天（Brahma-pāriṣadya）。在大梵天前行列侍衛，故名梵輔天（Brahma-purohita）。在自地天內光明最少，故名少光天（Parīttābha）。光明逐漸殊勝，其量難以測度，故名無量光天（Apramāṇābha）。凈光遍照自地處，故名極光凈天（Ābhāsvara）。意地感受快樂，並宣說此樂，名為凈。在自地中此凈最為低劣，故名少凈天（Parīttaśubha）。此凈逐漸增多，其量難以測度，故名無量凈天（Apramāṇaśubha）。此凈周遍，故名遍凈天（Śubhakṛtsna）。意在顯示沒有其他快樂能夠超過此地。

以下空中天所居住的土地，如雲密合，故說名為云。此上諸天更無雲地，在無雲之首，故說無雲天（Anabhraka）。更有異生殊勝的福報，其方所可以前往往生，故說名福生天（Puṇyaprasava）。居住在方所，在異生果報中此地最為殊勝，故名廣果天（Bṛhatphala）。

遠離慾望的諸聖者，以聖道之水洗滌煩惱污垢，故名為凈。清凈之身所止住的地方，故名凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa）。或者居住於此，窮盡生死之邊際，如償還債務完畢，故名為凈。清凈者所居住的地方，故名凈居天。或者此天中沒有異生雜居，純粹是聖者所居住的地方，故名凈居天。

繁，意為繁雜，或者意為繁廣。在無繁雜之中，此天最初，在繁廣天中此天最為低劣，故說名無繁天（Avṛha）。或者名為無求天，不求趣入無**故。已經很好地伏除雜修靜慮的上品和中品障礙，意樂調柔，遠離各種熱惱，故名無熱天（Atapa）。或者使下生煩惱，名為熱，此天最初遠離，得到無熱之名。

【English Translation】 English version Nāmasaṃjñā (名勝身). The Sanskrit name for Vitihotra (毗提河) . Aparagodānīya (西牛貨洲) is named because it trades with cattle. The Sanskrit name for Godānīya (瞿陀尼). Uttarakuru (北俱盧洲) means the most excellent place. Among the four continents, this place is the most excellent. Or it is called 'Superior Birth' because among the four continents, birth here is the most superior. The meaning of the remaining text is self-evident.

This refers to the realm of desire, up to the Akaniṣṭha Heaven (八色究竟天). This explains the seventeen heavens. The Nyāyānusāraśāstra (正理二十一) explains the names of the heavens, saying: 'Because it is born from the accumulation of good deeds, it is called Brahma (梵). This Brahma is great, hence it is called Mahābrahmā (大梵). Because they have attained the intermediate dhyana, and are the first to be born and the last to perish, and their power and virtue are superior, they are called Mahābrahmā. Those who are possessed, transformed, and led by him are called Brahma-pāriṣadya (梵眾天). Those who stand in rows and guard before Mahābrahmā are called Brahma-purohita (梵輔天). Within their own heaven, their light is the least, hence they are called Parīttābha (少光天). Their light gradually becomes superior, and its measure is difficult to fathom, hence they are called Apramāṇābha (無量光天). Pure light shines throughout their own realm, hence they are called Ābhāsvara (極光凈天). The mind experiences joy and proclaims this joy, hence it is called pure. Within their own realm, this purity is the most inferior, hence they are called Parīttaśubha (少凈天). This purity gradually increases, and its measure is difficult to fathom, hence they are called Apramāṇaśubha (無量凈天). This purity is all-pervading, hence they are called Śubhakṛtsna (遍凈天). This is to show that there is no other joy that can surpass this place.'

The land where the heavens below reside in the sky is like clouds closely joined together, hence it is called clouds. The heavens above no longer have cloudy land, and are at the head of the cloudless, hence they are called Anabhraka (無雲天). There are even more extraordinary beings with superior blessings, and their place can be reached and reborn, hence they are called Puṇyaprasava (福生天). Residing in a place, this is the most superior among the fruits of extraordinary beings, hence it is called Bṛhatphala (廣果天).

The noble ones who have abandoned desire, wash away the defilements of afflictions with the water of the noble path, hence they are called pure. The place where the pure body dwells is called Śuddhāvāsa (凈居天). Or residing here, they exhaust the boundaries of birth and death, like repaying debts completely, hence they are called pure. The place where the pure ones reside is called Śuddhāvāsa. Or in this heaven, there are no ordinary beings mixed in, it is purely the place where the noble ones reside, hence it is called Śuddhāvāsa.

Avṛha (無繁) means complex, or it means vast. Among the non-complex, this heaven is the first, and among the vast heavens, this heaven is the most inferior, hence it is called Avṛha. Or it is called Atapa (無求天), because it does not seek to enter without **. Having well subdued the superior and middle-grade obstacles of mixed cultivation of meditative concentration, the mind is gentle and free from various torments, hence it is called Atapa (無熱天). Or causing the lower to be born with afflictions is called heat, this heaven is initially free from it, and obtains the name Atapa.

或復熱者熾盛為義。謂上品修靜慮．及果。此猶未證說名無熱。已得上品雜修靜慮。果德易彰故名善現。雜修定障余品至微見極清徹故名善見。更無有處於有色中能過於此名色究竟。或此已到眾苦所依身最後邊名色究竟。有言色者是積集色。至彼後邊名色究竟。

迦濕彌羅國至四眾圍繞者。論主頌中述西方師義說有十七。故婆沙云西方師說色界十七。彼師意．說。以大梵王壽．量．處等異餘二天故。于初定別立三天。故婆沙云。西方諸師作如是說。初靜慮地處別有三。一梵天處。二梵輔天處。三大梵天處。此處即是靜慮中間　彼師所以不立無想天者。壽．量．地等與廣果天無差別故。又正理云。有餘別說十七處名。初靜慮中總立二處。第四靜慮別說無想　解云彼師意說。別類修故立所招果。不立大梵初定說二。又正理云。上座色界立十八處　解云由二因別故立十八。今此國師二俱不立。由無別地故唯十六。故婆沙云。迦濕彌羅諸論師說初靜慮地唯有二處。

無色界中至勝劣有殊者。此下明無色釋上兩句。顯無色界定無方所。但由同分．命．異熟生有勝劣故差別有四　初修無色定。必先厭色思無邊空故。作空無邊解　次厭外空復思內識故。作識無邊解　次識亦厭復思無所有故。作無所有解　次非下七定粗想

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者說，『熱』是指熾盛的狀態。這裡指的是上品修習靜慮（dhyana，禪定）以及由此獲得的果報。因為尚未證得，所以稱為『無熱』（Atapa）。已經證得上品雜修靜慮，其果德容易顯現，所以稱為『善現』（Sudarsana）。雜修禪定所產生的障礙，相對於其他品級來說極其微小，所見極為清澈，所以稱為『善見』（Sudarsi）。再也沒有任何處於有色界中的存在，能夠超越這個境界，所以稱為『色究竟』（Akanistha）。或者說，到達了眾苦所依之身的最後邊際，所以稱為『色究竟』。有人說，『色』是指積聚的色法，到達了色法的最後邊際，所以稱為『色究竟』。

迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）到四眾圍繞：論主的頌文中敘述了西方老師的觀點，認為有十七處。所以《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）說，西方老師說有十七處。他們的意思是說，由於大梵天王（Mahabrahma）的壽命、量和處所等與其餘二天不同，所以在初禪中單獨設立三天。所以《大毗婆沙論》說，西方的老師們這樣認為，初靜慮地因為處所不同而有三處：一、梵天處（Brahma-parisadya）；二、梵輔天處（Brahma-purohita）；三、大梵天處。這個地方就是靜慮中間（Dhyana-antarika）。那些老師之所以不設立無想天（Asanjnasattva），是因為其壽命、量和地等與廣果天（Vrhatphala）沒有差別。另外，《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmasamayapradipika）說，還有人特別說有十七處名稱，在初靜慮中總共設立兩處，在第四靜慮中單獨說無想天。解釋說，那些老師的意思是說，因為類別不同而修習，所以設立所招感的果報。不設立大梵天，是因為初禪說了兩處。另外，《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，上座設立十八處。解釋說，因為兩種原因的差別，所以設立十八處。現在這個國家的老師兩種都不設立，因為沒有不同的地，所以只有十六處。所以《大毗婆沙論》說，迦濕彌羅的論師們說，初靜慮地只有兩處。

『無所有』中到勝劣有殊：這下面解釋無色界，闡明上面的兩句話。顯示無所有定（akincanyayatana）沒有固定的方所，只是因為同分、命和異熟生有勝劣，所以差別有四種。最初修習無色定時，必定先厭惡色，思惟無邊虛空，所以作空無邊解（akasanantyayatana）。其次厭惡外在的虛空，又思惟內在的識，所以作識無邊解（vijnananantyayatana）。其次對識也感到厭惡，又思惟無所有，所以作無所有解。其次，並非是厭惡下七定的粗想。

【English Translation】 English version: Or, 'heat' means the state of being blazing. This refers to the superior practice of dhyana (meditative absorption) and the resulting fruits. Because it has not yet been attained, it is called 'Atapa' (no heat). Having attained the superior mixed practice of dhyana, its virtuous qualities are easily manifested, so it is called 'Sudarsana' (good appearance). The obstacles produced by mixed practice of dhyana are extremely subtle compared to other levels, and what is seen is extremely clear, so it is called 'Sudarsi' (good vision). There is no being in the realm of form that can surpass this state, so it is called 'Akanistha' (ultimate form). Alternatively, it is called 'Akanistha' because it reaches the final boundary of the body that is the basis of all suffering. Some say that 'form' refers to accumulated form, and reaching the final boundary of form is called 'Akanistha'.

From Kashmir to the surrounding four assemblies: The master's verses describe the views of the Western teachers, who believe there are seventeen places. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says that the Western teachers say there are seventeen places. They mean that because the lifespan, measure, and location of Mahabrahma (Great Brahma King) are different from the other two heavens, three heavens are established separately in the first dhyana. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says that the Western teachers say that the first dhyana ground has three places due to different locations: 1. Brahma-parisadya (Assembly of Brahma); 2. Brahma-purohita (Ministers of Brahma); 3. Mahabrahma (Great Brahma). This place is Dhyana-antarika (Intermediate Dhyana). The reason why those teachers do not establish Asanjnasattva (Non-Perception Heaven) is that its lifespan, measure, and ground are no different from Vrhatphala (Great Fruit Heaven). In addition, the Abhidharmasamayapradipika (Tattvasamgraha) says that some people specifically say there are seventeen place names, establishing two places in the first dhyana and separately mentioning Asanjnasattva in the fourth dhyana. It is explained that those teachers mean that because of different categories of practice, the resulting fruits are established. Mahabrahma is not established because the first dhyana has two places. In addition, the Abhidharmasamayapradipika says that the Sthavira (Elder) establishes eighteen places. It is explained that eighteen places are established because of the difference between two causes. Now the teachers of this country do not establish either of these because there is no different ground, so there are only sixteen places. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says that the Kashmirian masters say that the first dhyana ground has only two places.

From 'nothingness' to differences in superiority and inferiority: The following explains the formless realm, clarifying the two sentences above. It shows that the akincanyayatana (sphere of nothingness) has no fixed location, but there are four kinds of differences because of the superiority and inferiority of commonality, life, and vipaka (resultant). When first practicing the formless samadhi, one must first be disgusted with form and contemplate infinite space, so one makes the interpretation of akasanantyayatana (sphere of infinite space). Secondly, being disgusted with external space, one contemplates internal consciousness, so one makes the interpretation of vijnananantyayatana (sphere of infinite consciousness). Secondly, being disgusted with consciousness, one contemplates nothingness, so one makes the interpretation of akincanyayatana (sphere of nothingness). Secondly, it is not that one is disgusted with the coarse thoughts of the lower seven samadhis.

故名非想。不同無心故名非非想　處是有情生長處故。前三從加行立名。第四當體受稱。故定品云。空無邊等三名從加行立。非想非非想昧劣故立名。如下廣釋。

復如何知彼無方所者。問。

謂於是處至中有起故者。答　言是處者。于欲．色界隨其所應得彼定處。雖於此處得彼定者。亦得余處命終。此中且據此處命終者說　或是處者。隨於何州等處。此顯總處。以於是處得彼定者。亦于余處得命終故。故知處言據總非別。既言是處受生是處中有現前。明知無色無別方所　若有別處應往受生彼處中有現前。此大眾部計。彼執無色界別有方所。若無方所如何可說此處之言　問既言是處生故。既言是處中有現前。此無色界應有方所　解云言是處者。謂得無色定處。非言無色別有方所。如眼識依眼根。根有方所識無方所。由斯理趣可言中有傳識受生　又解言是處生者顯無方所。非言是處別有方所。如言空處。故婆沙六十八云。欲界沒生無色界者。無色界生有不在欲界死處起故(已上論文)復從彼沒生欲．色時。即于應所生處中有起。故婆沙六十八云。問無色沒生欲．色界者。彼二中有何處現在前。有作是說在第四靜慮。評曰彼不應作是說。所以者何。若無色界有方處者可作是說。然無色界無有方處。何緣遠至第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此稱為『非想』。因為不同於無心狀態，所以稱為『非非想』。『處』是指有情眾生生長的地方。前面的三種（空無邊處、識無邊處、無所有處）是從加行（修行）而立名，第四種（非想非非想處）是就其本體而稱呼。所以《定品》中說，『空無邊處』等三種名稱是從加行而立，『非想非非想處』因為其狀態昧劣而立名，如下文將詳細解釋。

又如何知道那（無色界）沒有固定的處所呢？（問）

因為在那個地方（欲界或色界）到中有（中陰身）生起。（答）說『是處』，是指在欲界、色界隨其所應得到彼定（無色定）之處。雖然在此處得到彼定的人，也可能在其他地方命終。這裡暫且就此處命終的人來說。或者說『是處』，是指隨於哪個州等處。這顯示的是總的處所。因為在那個地方得到彼定的人，也可能在其他地方命終。所以知道『處』這個詞指的是總的，而不是特定的。既然說在『是處』受生，在『是處』中有現前，就表明無色界沒有特定的處所。如果有特定的處所，就應該前往彼處受生，彼處的中有現前。這是大眾部的觀點。他們認為無色界有特定的處所。如果無色界沒有特定的處所，怎麼能說『此處』呢？（問）既然說在『是處』生，既然說在『是處』中有現前，那麼無色界應該有處所。（解）解釋說，『是處』是指得到無色定的地方，不是說無色界有特定的處所。就像眼識依靠眼根，眼根有處所，眼識沒有處所。由於這個道理，可以說中有傳識受生。又解釋說，說『是處』生，是爲了顯示沒有處所，不是說『是處』有特定的處所。就像說『空處』。所以《婆沙論》第六十八卷說，欲界死後生到無色界的人，無色界生有不在欲界死的地方生起（以上是論文）。又從那裡死後生到欲界、色界時，就在應該受生的地方中有生起。所以《婆沙論》第六十八卷說，問：無色界死後生到欲界、色界的人，他們的中有在哪裡現前？有人這樣說，在第四禪。評論說：他不應該這樣說。為什麼呢？如果無色界有方處，就可以這樣說。然而無色界沒有方處。為什麼還要遠到第四禪呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is called 'Neither Perception nor Non-Perception'. Because it is different from the state of no-mind, it is called 'Neither Non-Perception nor Non-Non-Perception'. 'Realm' refers to the place where sentient beings grow. The first three (Realm of Infinite Space, Realm of Infinite Consciousness, Realm of Nothingness) are named based on the preparatory practice (cultivation), while the fourth (Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception) is named based on its essence. Therefore, the 'Chapter on Samadhi' says that the three names 'Realm of Infinite Space' etc. are named based on preparatory practice, and 'Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception' is named because its state is obscure, as will be explained in detail below.

Furthermore, how do we know that (the Formless Realm) has no fixed location? (Question)

Because in that place (the Desire Realm or the Form Realm), the intermediate existence (antarabhava) arises. (Answer) Saying 'that place' refers to the place in the Desire Realm or the Form Realm where one attains that samadhi (Formless Realm samadhi), as appropriate. Although those who attain that samadhi in this place may also die in other places, here we are temporarily referring to those who die in this place. Or saying 'that place' refers to any place such as a continent. This indicates the general location. Because those who attain that samadhi in that place may also die in other places. Therefore, we know that the word 'place' refers to the general, not the specific. Since it is said that one is born in 'that place' and the intermediate existence manifests in 'that place', it shows that the Formless Realm has no specific location. If there were a specific location, one should go to that place to be born, and the intermediate existence should manifest in that place. This is the view of the Mahasamghika school. They believe that the Formless Realm has a specific location. If the Formless Realm has no specific location, how can one say 'this place'? (Question) Since it is said that one is born in 'that place', and since it is said that the intermediate existence manifests in 'that place', then the Formless Realm should have a location. (Explanation) It is explained that 'that place' refers to the place where one attains the Formless Realm samadhi, not that the Formless Realm has a specific location. Just as eye consciousness relies on the eye sense organ, the eye sense organ has a location, but eye consciousness has no location. Because of this principle, it can be said that the intermediate existence transmits consciousness to be born. It is also explained that saying 'that place' of birth is to show that there is no location, not that 'that place' has a specific location. Just like saying 'space'. Therefore, the sixty-eighth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that those who die in the Desire Realm and are born in the Formless Realm, the arising of existence in the Formless Realm does not arise in the place where they died in the Desire Realm (the above is the text of the treatise). Furthermore, when dying from there and being born in the Desire Realm or the Form Realm, the intermediate existence arises in the place where one should be born. Therefore, the sixty-eighth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says, Question: For those who die in the Formless Realm and are born in the Desire Realm or the Form Realm, where does their intermediate existence manifest? Some say that it is in the Fourth Dhyana. Comment: He should not say that. Why? If the Formless Realm had a location, it could be said that way. However, the Formless Realm has no location. Why go all the way to the Fourth Dhyana?

四靜慮。有餘師說。若從彼沒生無色界。即在彼方處中有現在前。彼亦不應作如是說。所以者何。若作是說。彼無色界沒生無色者。云何可爾。應作是說。若欲．色界沒生無色界。及無色沒生無色者。彼無色界沒生欲．色時。彼二中有。即當生處而現在前　問若如后解可順婆沙評家。若如前解豈不相違　解云論主以理為宗。非以婆沙評家為量。何勞通釋　問若如前解。可言中有傳識受生。若如后解。當生處現何須中有　答婆沙六十九云。問無色界沒生欲界．色界者。既隨當生處中有現在前。彼無往來何用中有。答彼先已造感中有業。雖無往來亦受中有。業力所引必應起故　又解欲．色四生要由中有而生。方便隨染受生。

如有色界至心等相續者。此下釋后兩句。論主問。欲．色二界俱有色故名有色。有色有情要依色身心等相續。無色有情以何為依心等相續。此即以下二界例問無色。

對法諸師至而得相續者。說一切有部答。無色心等雖無色身。依同分等而得相續。

若爾有色至此二相續者。論主難。有色心等。何不依此同分．命二。

有色界生此二劣故者。說一切有部釋。有色二劣心等不依。

無色此二因何故強者。論主復難。

彼界二從至能伏色想者。說一切有部答。從勝定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本四靜慮（catu dhyana，四種禪定）。有些其他學派的老師說，如果從色界死後投生到無色界，那麼在中陰階段就會在那個方向出現。他們不應該這樣說。為什麼呢？如果這樣說，那麼從無色界死後投生到無色界的人，怎麼能說得通呢？應該這樣說，如果想要從色界或欲界死後投生到無色界，或者從無色界死後投生到無色界，那麼從無色界死後投生到欲界或色界時，這兩個中陰身，就會在即將投生的地方出現。問：如果按照後面的解釋，可以順應《大毗婆沙論》的評判，如果按照前面的解釋，豈不是互相矛盾？答：論主的宗旨是以理為宗，不是以《大毗婆沙論》的評判為標準，何必多作解釋？問：如果按照前面的解釋，可以說中陰身傳遞意識而受生，如果按照後面的解釋，即將投生的地方已經顯現，為什麼還需要中陰身？答：《大毗婆沙論》第六十九卷說：問：從無色界死後投生到欲界或色界的人，既然隨著即將投生的地方中陰身已經顯現，他們沒有往來，為什麼還要中陰身？答：他們先前已經造作了感生中陰身的業，雖然沒有往來，也要承受中陰身。因為業力的牽引，必定會產生中陰身。又解釋說，欲界和色界的四種生，都要通過中陰身而生，方便隨順染污而受生。如有色至心等相續者。這以下解釋后兩句。論主問：欲界和色界都有色，所以叫做有色。有色的有情要依靠色身、心等相續。無色的有情依靠什麼來使心等相續？這以下就是用下兩界來類比提問無色界。對法諸師至而得相續者。說一切有部回答：無色的心等雖然沒有色身，但依靠同分等而得以相續。若爾有色至此二相續者。論主反駁：有色的心等，為什麼不依靠這個同分和命根呢？有色生此二劣故者。說一切有部解釋：有色的同分和命根弱，所以心等不依靠它們。無色此二因何故強者。論主再次反駁。彼界二從至能伏色想者。說一切有部回答：從殊勝的禪定而來。

【English Translation】 English version The Four Dhyanas (catu dhyana, the four meditations). Some other teachers say that if one dies from the Realm of Form and is reborn in the Formless Realm, then in the intermediate state, it appears in that direction. They should not say this. Why? If they say this, then how can it be said that one who dies from the Formless Realm is reborn in the Formless Realm? It should be said that if one wishes to die from the Realm of Desire or the Realm of Form and be reborn in the Formless Realm, or to die from the Formless Realm and be reborn in the Formless Realm, then when one dies from the Formless Realm and is reborn in the Realm of Desire or the Realm of Form, these two intermediate beings will appear in the place where they are about to be born. Question: If we follow the latter explanation, we can comply with the judgment of the Mahavibhasa. If we follow the former explanation, wouldn't it be contradictory? Answer: The Master of the Treatise's principle is based on reason, not on the judgment of the Mahavibhasa. Why bother to explain it further? Question: If we follow the former explanation, we can say that the intermediate being transmits consciousness and is reborn. If we follow the latter explanation, the place where one is about to be born has already appeared, so why is an intermediate being needed? Answer: The sixty-ninth volume of the Mahavibhasa says: Question: When one dies from the Formless Realm and is reborn in the Realm of Desire or the Realm of Form, since the intermediate being has already appeared along with the place where one is about to be born, they do not travel back and forth, so why is an intermediate being needed? Answer: They have previously created the karma that causes the intermediate being, so even though they do not travel back and forth, they must still experience the intermediate being. Because the power of karma compels it, the intermediate being must arise. It is also explained that the four types of birth in the Realm of Desire and the Realm of Form must occur through the intermediate being, and that skillful means follow defilement to be reborn. If there is form, up to the continuity of mind, etc. This below explains the latter two sentences. The Master of the Treatise asks: The Realm of Desire and the Realm of Form both have form, so they are called the Realm of Form. Sentient beings in the Realm of Form must rely on the body, mind, etc., for continuity. What do sentient beings in the Formless Realm rely on for the continuity of mind, etc.? The following uses the lower two realms to analogously question the Formless Realm. The teachers of Abhidharma, up to obtaining continuity. The Sarvastivada answers: Although the mind, etc., in the Formless Realm do not have a body, they rely on commonality, etc., to obtain continuity. If so, why don't beings with form rely on this commonality and life-force for the continuity of mind, etc.? The Master of the Treatise refutes. Beings with form are inferior to these two. The Sarvastivada explains: The commonality and life-force of beings with form are weak, so the mind, etc., do not rely on them. Why are these two stronger in the Formless Realm? The Master of the Treatise refutes again. Those two in that realm come from superior samadhi, which can subdue the thought of form. The Sarvastivada answers: They come from superior samadhi.

生故彼二強。由定伏色故說定勝　或定伏色故不依色但依此二。

若爾于彼至何用別依者。論主難殺。彼定既勝心等應依。何用別同分．命根。

又今應說至以何為依者。論主問。欲．色有情同分．命根必依色轉。無色此二以何為依。以下例上。

此二更互相依而轉者。說一切有部答。同分．命根更互相依。

有色此二何不相依者。論主難。

有色界生此二劣故者。說一切有部答。劣不相依。

無色此二因何故強者。論主復徴。

彼界此二種至能伏色想者。說一切有部答。由因勝故其果亦強。前說彼定能伏色想故說為勝。或伏色想彼不依色。

是則還同心相續難者。論主難殺。指同前破。若言由定勝故二強相依。是則還同前心相續難也。應言若爾于彼同分．命根相續轉者。但依勝定何用相依。

或心心所唯互相依者。論主以理復難。若言無色同分．命根互相依者。或無色界心．心所法。唯互相依非須別依　又解彼因既勝。心．心所法應唯互相依。如是所難方便欲明同分．命根非實有體。

故經部師至不依色轉者。引說同已。故經部說。無色界心．心所法相續但互相依。無別同分．命等為依。謂若有因未離色愛引起心等果。由因未離色愛故。所引心等果

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『生故彼二強』。因為禪定能夠制伏色界，所以說禪定殊勝。或者說，因為禪定能夠制伏色界，所以同分和命根不依賴色界，僅僅依賴禪定和心識。

『若爾于彼至何用別依者』。論主反駁說：如果這樣，那麼對於無色界來說，同分和命根還需要額外的所依做什麼呢？既然禪定已經殊勝，心識等就應該依賴禪定，為什麼還需要不同的同分和命根呢？

『又今應說至以何為依者』。論主追問：現在應該說明，無色界的同分和命根以什麼為所依？欲界和色界的有情，他們的同分和命根必定依賴色界而運轉，那麼無色界的同分和命根又以什麼為所依呢？這是以地獄為例來推論上界。

『此二更互相依而轉者』。說一切有部回答說：同分和命根互相依賴而運轉。

『有色此二何不相依者』。論主反駁說：為什麼有色界的同分和命根不互相依賴呢？

『有生此二劣故者』。說一切有部回答說：因為有色界的同分和命根比較弱，所以不能互相依賴。

『無色此二因何故強者』。論主再次質問：無色界的同分和命根因為什麼緣故而強大呢？

『彼界此二種至能伏色想者』。說一切有部回答說：因為無色界的因殊勝，所以它的果也強大。前面說過，無色界的禪定能夠制伏色想，所以說它殊勝。或者說，因為能夠制伏色想，所以同分和命根不依賴色界。

『是則還同心相續難者』。論主反駁說：如果這樣，那就和之前心識相續的難題一樣了。這指的是和前面破斥心識相續的論證相同。如果說因為禪定殊勝，所以同分和命根強大並互相依賴，那麼就和之前心識相續的難題一樣了。應該說，如果這樣，那麼在無色界，同分和命根的相續運轉，僅僅依賴殊勝的禪定就可以了，為什麼還需要互相依賴呢？

『或心心所唯互相依者』。論主用道理再次反駁說：如果說無色界的同分和命根互相依賴，那麼或者說，無色界的心識和心所法，僅僅互相依賴，不需要其他的所依。或者可以這樣理解，因為無色界的因殊勝，所以心識和心所法應該僅僅互相依賴。這樣反駁是爲了方便說明同分和命根並非真實存在。

『故經部師至不依色轉者』。引用經文來說明。所以經部師說，無色界的心識和心所法相續，僅僅互相依賴，沒有其他的同分、命根等作為所依。意思是說，如果有因沒有脫離對色界的貪愛，從而引起心識等果，因為因沒有脫離對色界的貪愛，所以引起的心識等果。

【English Translation】 English version 'Because of birth, these two are strong.' Because dhyana (meditative absorption) can subdue the rupa-dhatu (realm of form), it is said that dhyana is superior. Or, because dhyana can subdue the rupa-dhatu, samatabhaga (commonality) and jivitendriya (life faculty) do not rely on the rupa-dhatu, but only rely on dhyana and consciousness.

'If so, what is the use of relying on something else in that realm?' The debater refutes: If this is the case, then for the arupa-dhatu (formless realm), what additional support do samatabhaga and jivitendriya need? Since dhyana is already superior, consciousness, etc., should rely on dhyana. Why are different samatabhaga and jivitendriya needed?

'And now it should be said, what do they rely on?' The debater asks: Now it should be explained, what do the samatabhaga and jivitendriya of the arupa-dhatu rely on? The sentient beings of the kama-dhatu (desire realm) and rupa-dhatu, their samatabhaga and jivitendriya must rely on the rupa-dhatu to function. Then what do the samatabhaga and jivitendriya of the arupa-dhatu rely on? This is inferring the upper realm by taking the lower realm as an example.

'These two rely on each other to function.' The Sarvastivada school answers: Samatabhaga and jivitendriya rely on each other.

'Why don't these two rely on each other in the rupa-dhatu?' The debater refutes.

'Because these two are inferior.' The Sarvastivada school answers: Inferior things do not rely on each other.

'Why are these two strong in the arupa-dhatu?' The debater questions again.

'In that realm, these two kinds can subdue the thought of form.' The Sarvastivada school answers: Because the cause in the arupa-dhatu is superior, its effect is also strong. It was said earlier that the dhyana of the arupa-dhatu can subdue the thought of form, so it is said to be superior. Or, because it can subdue the thought of form, samatabhaga and jivitendriya do not rely on the rupa-dhatu.

'Then it is the same as the difficulty of the continuity of consciousness.' The debater refutes: If this is the case, then it is the same as the previous difficulty of the continuity of consciousness. This refers to the same argument as the previous refutation of the continuity of consciousness. If it is said that because dhyana is superior, samatabhaga and jivitendriya are strong and rely on each other, then it is the same as the previous difficulty of the continuity of consciousness. It should be said that if this is the case, then in the arupa-dhatu, the continuity of samatabhaga and jivitendriya only needs to rely on superior dhyana. Why do they need to rely on each other?

'Or citta (mind) and caitta (mental factors) only rely on each other.' The debater refutes again with reason: If it is said that the samatabhaga and jivitendriya of the arupa-dhatu rely on each other, then perhaps the citta and caitta of the arupa-dhatu only rely on each other and do not need other support. Or it can be understood that because the cause in the arupa-dhatu is superior, citta and caitta should only rely on each other. This refutation is to facilitate the explanation that samatabhaga and jivitendriya are not truly existent.

'Therefore, the Sutra school says that they do not rely on the rupa-dhatu to function.' Quoting the sutras to illustrate. Therefore, the Sutra school says that the continuity of citta and caitta in the arupa-dhatu only rely on each other, and there are no other samatabhaga, jivitendriya, etc., as support. It means that if there is a cause that has not detached from the craving for the rupa-dhatu, thereby causing the effect of citta, etc., because the cause has not detached from the craving for the rupa-dhatu, the resulting effect of citta, etc.

。與色俱生依色而轉　若因於色已得離愛。厭背色故。由因離色故。所引心等果非色俱生。不依色轉。顯無色界心．心所法唯互相依。

何故名為欲等三界者。此下問答分別。問三界名。

能持自相至喻如前說者。答　言界者。或是持義。或種族義。兩釋如前　界名是總。欲等是別。別依于總名欲等界。具足應言欲所屬界。略去所屬但言欲界。欲是能屬。界是所屬。能．所合論故名欲界。以欲強故且別言欲。即以別標總界也。如人所屬縣。人是能屬。縣是所屬　色所屬界說名色界應知亦爾。飲中有胡椒名胡椒飲。環上有金剛寶名金剛環。具足應言胡椒所屬飲。金剛所屬環。略去中言故作是說。皆是以別屬總　彼界無色故名無色　所言色者是變礙義。即十種色。或示現義即是色處。恐疑無色以色無為體。故今釋言彼四無色體非是色立無色名。非彼無色但用色無之處無法為體　釋無色界．及與二喻皆準前說。

又欲之界至應知亦然者。第二解約依主釋。此界是欲之界故名欲界。即是欲之任持。以此界能任持欲故。界是能持。欲是所持。能．所合論故名欲界。餘二界亦然。

此中欲言為說何法者。問。

略說段食至妙色故者。答。略說段食．淫所引貪名之為欲。下復引頌證欲是貪。大意可知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：與色蘊（Rupa Skandha）一同產生，依賴色蘊而運轉。如果因為色蘊已經得以遠離貪愛，厭惡背離色蘊的緣故，由於遠離色蘊的緣故，所引發的心等果法不是與色蘊一同產生，也不依賴色蘊運轉。這顯示了沒有心和心所法僅僅是互相依賴的情況。

為什麼稱為欲界（Kama-dhatu）、色界（Rupa-dhatu）、無色界（Arupa-dhatu）這三界呢？以下是問答分別。首先提問三界的名稱。

『能持自相』直到『譬如前面所說』，這是回答。說到『界』，或者有『持』的含義，或者有『種族』的含義。這兩種解釋如前所述。『界』這個名稱是總稱，『欲』等是別稱。別稱依賴於總稱，所以稱為欲界等。完整地說應該是『欲所管轄的界』，省略了『所管轄的』，只說欲界。『欲』是能管轄的，『界』是被管轄的。能管轄的和被管轄的合在一起討論，所以稱為欲界。因為慾望強烈，所以特別說『欲』，也就是用別稱來標示總稱的『界』。如同人所隸屬的縣，人是能隸屬的，縣是被隸屬的。色界也應該這樣理解。飲料中加入了胡椒，稱為胡椒飲料；環上鑲嵌了金剛寶石，稱為金剛環。完整地說應該是『胡椒所加入的飲料』，『金剛所鑲嵌的環』，省略了中間的詞語，所以這樣說。都是用別稱來隸屬總稱。那個界沒有色蘊，所以稱為無色界。所說的『色』是變礙的意思，也就是指十種色。或者是指示現的意思，也就是色處（Rupa-ayatana）。恐怕有人懷疑無色界以色無為體，所以現在解釋說，那四種無色定的本體不是色，所以立名為無色。不是說那無色界僅僅是用色不存在的地方作為本體。解釋無色界以及兩個比喻都依照前面所說。

『又欲之界』直到『應該知道也是這樣』，這是第二種解釋，用依主釋來解釋。這個界是慾望的界，所以稱為欲界。也就是慾望的任持，因為這個界能夠任持慾望。界是能持，欲是被持。能持的和被持的合在一起討論，所以稱為欲界。其餘兩界也是這樣。

這裡所說的『欲』，是指什麼法呢？這是提問。

『略說段食』直到『美妙的顏色』，這是回答。簡略地說，段食（Kabala-ahara，指固體食物）和淫慾所引起的貪愛，就叫做『欲』。下面又引用偈頌來證明欲就是貪愛。大意可以理解。

【English Translation】 English version: That which arises together with Rupa Skandha (form aggregate), and turns relying on Rupa Skandha. If, because of Rupa Skandha, one has attained detachment and aversion, then the resulting mental phenomena, etc., arising from detachment from Rupa Skandha, do not arise together with Rupa Skandha, nor do they turn relying on Rupa Skandha. This shows that there are no mental and mental factors that solely depend on each other.

Why are they called the three realms of Kama-dhatu (desire realm), Rupa-dhatu (form realm), and Arupa-dhatu (formless realm)? The following is a question and answer section. First, a question about the names of the three realms.

『Able to maintain its own characteristics』 up to 『the analogy is as previously stated,』 this is the answer. When speaking of 『dhatu』 (realm), it either has the meaning of 『holding』 or the meaning of 『lineage』. These two explanations are as previously stated. The name 『dhatu』 is a general term, while 『Kama』 (desire), etc., are specific terms. Specific terms rely on general terms, so they are called Kama-dhatu, etc. Fully stated, it should be 『the realm governed by desire,』 but 『governed by』 is omitted, and it is simply called Kama-dhatu. 『Kama』 is the governing aspect, and 『dhatu』 is the governed aspect. When discussing the governing and governed together, it is called Kama-dhatu. Because desire is strong, 『desire』 is specifically mentioned, which is using a specific term to indicate the general term 『dhatu』. Just as a county belongs to a person, the person is the one to whom it belongs, and the county is the one that is belonged to. The Rupa-dhatu should also be understood in this way. A drink with pepper added is called pepper drink; a ring with a diamond jewel is called diamond ring. Fully stated, it should be 『the drink to which pepper belongs』 and 『the ring to which diamond belongs』, omitting the middle words, hence the way it is said. All are using specific terms to belong to general terms. That realm has no Rupa (form), so it is called Arupa-dhatu. What is called 『Rupa』 is the meaning of change and obstruction, which refers to the ten types of Rupa. Or it refers to manifestation, which is the Rupa-ayatana (sense sphere of form). Fearing that one might suspect that the Arupa-dhatu takes the absence of Rupa as its substance, it is now explained that the substance of the four Arupa-dhyanas (formless concentrations) is not Rupa, so it is named Arupa. It is not that the Arupa-dhatu merely uses the place where Rupa does not exist as its substance. The explanation of Arupa-dhatu and the two metaphors all follow what was previously stated.

『Also, the realm of desire』 up to 『should also be known to be so,』 this is the second explanation, using the appositional explanation. This realm is the realm of desire, so it is called Kama-dhatu. That is, it is the sustainer of desire, because this realm can sustain desire. Dhatu is the sustainer, and desire is the sustained. When discussing the sustainer and the sustained together, it is called Kama-dhatu. The other two realms are also like this.

What is the 『desire』 spoken of here referring to? This is the question.

『Briefly speaking, segmented food』 up to 『beautiful colors,』 this is the answer. Briefly speaking, the craving caused by Kabala-ahara (lumps of food) and sexual desire is called 『desire』. Below, a verse is quoted to prove that desire is craving. The general meaning can be understood.

。如法蘊足論第六云。然五妙欲非真欲體。真欲體者是緣彼貪。如世尊說。世諸妙境非真欲。真欲謂人分別貪。妙境如本住世間。智者于中已除欲。此頌意言。可愛妙色．聲．香．味．觸非真欲體。真欲體者謂緣彼生分別貪著。欲境如本。智者于中名離欲。故尊者舍利子。有時為人說如是頌。爾時有一邪命外道不遠而住。以頌難詰舍利子說。若世妙境非真欲。真欲謂人分別貪。苾芻應名受欲人。起惡分別尋思故。時舍利子報外道言。起惡尋思實名受欲。非諸苾芻於世妙境皆起不善分別尋思。故汝不應作斯難詰。以頌反詰彼外道言。若世妙境是真欲。說欲非人分別貪。汝師應名受欲人。恒觀可意妙色故　時彼外道默然不能答。彼師實觀可愛色故。由此知欲是貪非境(已上論文)　問何故境名欲　解云是欲具故名欲。如樂具故名樂　問何故名妙　答如婆沙一百七十三。一解云。複次諸欲下賤而貪慾者分別增益取為凈妙。故說為妙(廣如彼釋)　問何故但言五妙欲境不言法耶　答如婆沙云。意所識法。何故不立妙欲耶。答皆是愛所緣者立妙欲。意所識法。有非愛所緣。故不立妙欲(廣如彼釋)。

若法于彼至三界系不者。問。三界現行法即三界系不。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

于中隨增至是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：《如法蘊足論》第六中說：『然而，五妙欲（指色、聲、香、味、觸五種令人愉悅的感官體驗）並非真正的欲的本體。真正的欲的本體是緣于這些妙欲而產生的貪愛。』正如世尊所說：『世間諸般美妙的境界並非真正的欲，真正的欲是指人們的分別貪著。美妙的境界如其本然地存在於世間，智者在其中已經去除貪慾。』這首偈頌的意思是說，可愛美妙的色、聲、香、味、觸並非真正的欲的本體，真正的欲的本體是指緣于這些而產生的分別貪著。慾望的境界如其本然，智者在其中被稱為遠離貪慾。因此，尊者舍利子有時會為人說這樣的偈頌。當時，有一個邪命外道在不遠處，用偈頌詰難捨利子說：『如果世間美妙的境界不是真正的欲，真正的欲是指人們的分別貪著，那麼比丘（佛教出家人）應該被稱為受欲的人，因為他們會生起惡的分辨尋思。』當時，舍利子回答外道說：『生起惡的尋思確實可以稱為受欲，但並非所有的比丘都會對世間美妙的境界生起不善的分辨尋思。』所以你不應該這樣詰難。舍利子用偈頌反駁那個外道說：『如果世間美妙的境界是真正的欲，那麼就應該說欲不是人的分別貪著。那麼你的老師應該被稱為受欲的人，因為他經常觀看可意的妙色。』當時那個外道沉默不語，無法回答，因為他的老師確實觀看可愛的顏色。由此可知，欲是貪愛，而不是境界（以上是論文內容）。

問：為什麼境界被稱為欲？

答：因為它是產生慾望的工具，所以被稱為欲。就像產生快樂的工具被稱為快樂一樣。

問：為什麼稱為『妙』？

答：如《婆沙論》第一百七十三中解釋說：『其次，諸欲，貪慾者分別增益，認為它是清凈美妙的，所以說它是妙。』（詳細解釋見該論）

問：為什麼只說五妙欲境，而不說法呢？

答：如《婆沙論》中說：『意所識法，為什麼不立為妙欲呢？』答：凡是愛所緣的才立為妙欲，意所識法，有不是愛所緣的，所以不立為妙欲。（詳細解釋見該論）。

如果一個法對於它來說達到三界繫縛嗎？

問：三界現行法就是三界繫縛嗎？

答：不是這樣的。

問：怎麼樣不是這樣的呢？（征問）

答：于其中隨增至是

【English Translation】 English version: In the sixth section of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-pada-sastra, it says: 'However, the five desirable objects (referring to the five pleasant sensory experiences of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch) are not the true essence of desire. The true essence of desire is the craving that arises from these desirable objects.' Just as the World Honored One said: 'The various beautiful realms in the world are not true desire; true desire refers to people's discriminating attachment. Beautiful realms exist in the world as they are, and the wise have removed desire from them.' The meaning of this verse is that lovely and wonderful forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and touches are not the true essence of desire; the true essence of desire refers to the discriminating attachment that arises from them. The realm of desire is as it is, and the wise are called detached from desire within it. Therefore, the Venerable Sariputra (one of the Buddha's chief disciples) sometimes spoke such verses to people. At that time, there was a heretical ascetic not far away, who challenged Sariputra with a verse, saying: 'If the beautiful realms of the world are not true desire, and true desire refers to people's discriminating attachment, then monks (Buddhist renunciates) should be called people who indulge in desire, because they give rise to evil discriminating thoughts.' At that time, Sariputra replied to the ascetic, saying: 'Giving rise to evil thoughts can indeed be called indulging in desire, but not all monks give rise to unwholesome discriminating thoughts about the beautiful realms of the world.' Therefore, you should not make such a challenge. Sariputra refuted that ascetic with a verse, saying: 'If the beautiful realms of the world are true desire, then it should be said that desire is not people's discriminating attachment. Then your teacher should be called a person who indulges in desire, because he constantly looks at pleasing and wonderful forms.' At that time, that ascetic was silent and unable to answer, because his teacher did indeed look at lovely colors. From this, it is known that desire is craving, not the object (the above is the content of the treatise).

Question: Why are objects called desire?

Answer: Because it is the instrument for generating desire, it is called desire, just as the instrument for generating happiness is called happiness.

Question: Why is it called 'wonderful'?

Answer: As explained in Mahavibhasa 173: 'Furthermore, desires, those who are greedy for desire, discriminate and increase it, considering it to be pure and wonderful, so it is said to be wonderful.' (See that treatise for a detailed explanation).

Question: Why are only the five desirable objects mentioned, and not the dharma (teachings)?

Answer: As stated in the Mahavibhasa: 'Why are dharmas cognized by the mind not established as wonderful desires?' Answer: Only those that are objects of love are established as wonderful desires. Dharmas cognized by the mind, some are not objects of love, so they are not established as wonderful desires. (See that treatise for a detailed explanation).

If a dharma reaches the three realms of bondage for it or not?

Question: Are the dharmas currently active in the three realms the same as the three realms of bondage?

Answer: It is not like that.

Question: How is it not like that? (Inquiry)

Answer: Among them, the increase follows to be

三界系者。答。于彼三界現行法中。隨順增長三界貪者是三界系。

此中何法名三界貪者。復問三界貪。

謂三界中各隨增者者。答。謂三界中各別隨順增長有漏法者。名三界貪。

今此所言至皆不令解者。外難。西方解義不分明者。便相調言同縛馬答。論主今此所言同縛馬答　外道殺馬祀天縛馬著柱。有人問言縛馬者誰。答言馬主。馬主是誰。答言縛者。

如是二答皆不令解。不知何人姓名何等故不令解。論主答問應知亦爾　我問論主三界系法。答言于中隨增三界貪者。

復問何法名三界貪。復答我言謂三界中各隨增者　如是二答皆不令解。不知何法是三界系。不知何法是三界貪。答不分明同縛馬答。

今此所言至名無色界系者。論主答。今此所言不同汝引縛馬答也。謂於前說欲界二十處。未離貪者貪名欲界貪。此貪所隨順．增長處。名欲界系法。

於前所說色界十七處。未離貪者貪名色界貪。此貪所隨順．增長處。名色界系法。

於前所說無色界四處。未離貪者貪名無色貪。此貪所隨順．增長處。名無色界系法。貪與系法寬．狹懸殊體性分明。豈同縛馬　第二約不定等解。準前應知。

于欲化心上如何起欲貪者。問。得欲化心欲貪已斷。若貪未斷不得化

心。于欲化心如何貪起。

從他所聞至生貪愛故者。答。或從他聞于未來化心生愛味故。或自退失於過去化心生愛味故。或觀化者自在勢力于現在化心生貪愛故。

若心能化至化作香味故者。義便兼明。

如是三界唯有一耶者。問數。

三界無邊至猶若虛空者。答。三界無邊。所以度生難盡。若依化地部即有始起有情。不從業．惑生。第二身已去方從惑．業生。由數生故佛度難盡。

世界當言云何安住者。問。為傍布。為重疊。

當言傍住至不說上下者。說一切有部答。說有八方世界傍住。經中既說四方不說上．下．明知傍布。經說四方攝四維也　復言雨滴無間無斷。此喻世界無邊無間無斷或壞或成無暫時息。

有說亦有至應知亦爾者。有說亦有上．下二方。余法密部經中說十方故。於此十方欲界中。若有眾生離一欲界貪時。於一切十方欲界貪皆得滅離。以相同故。離色．無色應知亦爾　一日．月所照名一世界。千世界中有一梵王。梵王通為千世界主　然依初靜慮起通慧時。所發神通但能往至自所生千世界中。及能往自生梵世。非能往余世界．及余梵世。以處別故。若依所餘第二靜慮等起通慧時。隨其所應應知亦爾　又解所餘四通慧應知亦爾。此據異生。若據聖人此則不

定。此據五通。若據漏盡亦能通證余界無為。

已說三界至有情非中有者。此下第二明五趣。上兩句正答。下兩句簡法。

論曰至天趣一分者。地下有獄名為地獄。此乃義翻。梵名那落迦。若依正理二十二釋五趣名云。那落名人。迦名為惡。人多造惡顛墜其中。由是故名那落迦趣　或近人故名那落迦。造重罪人速墮彼故　或復迦者是樂異名。那者言無。落是與義。無樂相與名那落迦　或復落迦是救濟義。那名不可。不可救濟名那落迦　或復落迦是愛樂義。不可愛樂名那落迦　婆沙有說名奈落迦。奈是短聲。總談彼趣。那是長聲。是別所有。前總后別。別是總之所有。約茲異義故立別名　言傍生者。彼趣多分身橫住故。或彼趣中容有少分傍行者故。又類多故。多愚癡故。名曰傍生　言餓鬼者。謂餘生中喜盜他物習慳貪等。又復多是所祀祖宗。又多希求以自存濟。又多怯劣其形疲悴。身心輕躁故名餓鬼　人。謂令天緣之起慢。我於此類善趣中尊。或彼自心多增上慢。或多思慮故名為人　天。謂光明威德熾盛。遊戲談論勇悍相凌。或復尊高神用自在。眾所祈告故為天(已上論文)　婆沙亦解五趣名不能具述　婆沙一百七十二說阿素羅。有說是天趣攝。如是說者是鬼趣攝。若依正量部．大眾部。阿素洛是第六趣　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本定。這是根據五神通來說的。如果根據漏盡通，也能通達並證得其他界面的無為法。

已說完三界到有情非中有，下面第二部分說明五趣。上面兩句是正面回答，下面兩句是簡要說明。

論中說到了天趣的一部分。地下有監獄名為地獄，這是意譯。梵文名為 Naraka（地獄）。如果按照《正理》的二十二種解釋來說五趣的名稱，Naraka（地獄）中，Nara（人）的意思是人，ka（迦）的意思是惡。很多人造惡而顛倒墜入其中，因此得名 Naraka（地獄）趣。或者因為接近人的緣故，名為 Naraka（地獄），造重罪的人迅速墮入那裡。或者 ka（迦）是快樂的另一種說法，Na（那）表示沒有，落是給予的意思，沒有快樂給予，名為 Naraka（地獄）。或者落迦是救濟的意思，Na（那）表示不可，不可救濟名為 Naraka（地獄）。或者落迦是愛樂的意思，不可愛樂名為 Naraka（地獄）。《婆沙論》中說名為奈落迦，奈是短聲，總的來說彼趣。那是長聲，是特別所有。前面是總的，後面是特別的。特別的是總的裡面所有。根據這些不同的意義，所以建立不同的名稱。說到傍生，彼趣大部分身體橫著住，或者彼趣中容許有少部分橫著走的，又因為種類多，多愚癡，所以叫做傍生。說到餓鬼，是指其他生命中喜歡盜取他人財物，習慣慳吝貪婪等等。又有很多是被祭祀的祖宗，又多希望通過某種方式來維持生存，又多怯懦弱小，形體疲憊憔悴，身心輕浮躁動，所以叫做餓鬼。人，是指使天上的因緣生起傲慢，『我』在這種善趣中最為尊貴。或者他們內心多有增上慢，或者多思慮，所以叫做人。天，是指光明威德熾盛，遊戲談論勇猛好勝，或者尊貴高尚，神通自在，眾人祈求，所以稱為天（以上是論文）。《婆沙論》也解釋了五趣的名稱，不能全部敘述。《婆沙論》一百七十二說阿修羅，有人說是天趣所攝，這樣說的是鬼趣所攝。如果按照正量部、大眾部的說法，阿修羅是第六趣。

【English Translation】 English version Fixed. This is based on the five supernormal knowledges (Panca-abhijna). If based on the exhaustion of outflows (Asravaksaya-jnana), one can also penetrate and realize the unconditioned (Asamskrta) of other realms.

Having spoken of the three realms up to sentient beings who are not in the intermediate state, the second part below explains the five destinies (Gati). The two sentences above are a direct answer, and the two sentences below are a brief explanation.

The treatise speaks of a portion of the Deva (gods) destiny. Below the earth, there is a prison called Hell, which is a meaning translation. The Sanskrit name is Naraka (地獄). If according to the twenty-two explanations of the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (正理) regarding the names of the five destinies, in Naraka (地獄), Nara (人) means person, and ka (迦) means evil. Many people create evil and fall into it, hence the name Naraka (地獄) destiny. Or because it is close to people, it is called Naraka (地獄), because those who commit serious crimes quickly fall there. Or ka (迦) is another way of saying happiness, Na (那) means without, and 'losing' means giving. Without giving happiness is called Naraka (地獄). Or 'losing' is the meaning of salvation, Na (那) means impossible, impossible to save is called Naraka (地獄). Or 'losing' is the meaning of love, unlovable is called Naraka (地獄). The Vibhasa (婆沙) says the name is Narakas. Nai is a short sound, generally speaking of that destiny. Na is a long sound, which is particularly owned. The former is general, and the latter is special. The special is all that is owned in general. According to these different meanings, different names are established. Speaking of animals (Tiryagyoni), most of them live horizontally, or there may be a small part of them walking sideways, and because there are many kinds and much ignorance, they are called animals. Speaking of hungry ghosts (Preta), it refers to those who like to steal other people's things in other lives, and are accustomed to stinginess and greed, etc. Also, many are ancestors who are worshiped, and many hope to maintain their survival in some way, and many are timid and weak, with tired and haggard bodies, and their bodies and minds are frivolous and impetuous, so they are called hungry ghosts. Human (Manusya), refers to causing the conditions of the heavens to arise arrogance, 'I' am the most honorable in this good destiny. Or they have much increased arrogance in their hearts, or they think too much, so they are called humans. Deva (天), refers to the flourishing of light and majestic virtue, playing and talking bravely and competitively, or being noble and lofty, with supernatural powers and freedom, and being prayed for by all, so they are called Devas (天) (the above is the treatise). The Vibhasa (婆沙) also explains the names of the five destinies, which cannot be fully described. The Vibhasa (婆沙) one hundred and seventy-two says Asura (阿修羅), some say it is included in the Deva (gods) destiny, and those who say this are included in the ghost destiny. According to the Sautantrika (正量部) and Mahasanghika (大眾部), Asura (阿修羅) is the sixth destiny.

問五趣身形．語言如何　解雲天其形上立。皆作聖言。人形現見。劫初皆作聖言。后隨處別作種種語。鬼劫初皆作聖言。后隨處別形．言不定。傍生身形現見。劫初皆作聖言。后隨處別作種種語。地獄有情其形如人。初生皆作聖言。后受苦已出種種苦聲。略以婆沙意解五趣形．言。

為有三界至說有五趣者。此下釋第三句問起。

有謂善染至體非中有者。答。趣唯無記不通善染當婆沙評家義。若異此者言通善．染趣應相雜。於一趣中具成五趣業．煩惱故。五趣唯是有情數．攝不通外器。以此外器亦容五趣共受用故。還成雜亂故非趣體　五趣體非中有。趣是所往。中有非是所往趣故。趣方便故。故非趣攝。

施設足論至所謂中有者。以此故知中有非趣。

法蘊足論至修成中有者。復引證　是眼。簡異耳等。二十二根中是眼根。十二處中是眼處。十八界中是眼界。及五趣眼。修成天眼。及中有眼。既離五趣別說中有。明知中有非五趣攝。

契經亦簡中有異趣者。引經證。

是何契經者。問。

謂七有經至異諸趣故者。答。謂七有經。彼經離趣別說中有。是趣方便。故知中有非五趣攝　此即正證中有非趣乘此義便兼顯趣體唯是無記。彼經離趣別說業有是五趣因。即知五趣是異熟

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：五趣（Gati，眾生輪迴的五種道途，即地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）的身形和語言是怎樣的？答：天人的身形高大挺拔，都說聖潔的語言。人類的身形是現在所見的樣子，劫初（Kalpa，極長的時間單位）時都說聖潔的語言，後來隨著居住地的不同而產生各種不同的語言。餓鬼劫初時也說聖潔的語言，後來隨著居住地的不同，身形和語言都不固定。傍生（動物）的身形是現在所見的樣子，劫初時都說聖潔的語言，後來隨著居住地的不同而產生各種不同的語言。地獄有情的身形像人，剛出生時都說聖潔的語言，後來遭受痛苦后發出各種痛苦的聲音。以上簡略地用《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）的觀點解釋了五趣的身形和語言。

問：為什麼有了三界（Tridhatu，欲界、色界、無色界）還要說有五趣呢？這是爲了解釋第三句問話而提出的問題。

答：有人說善業和染污業（不善業）不包括中有（Antarabhava，死亡到投胎之間的過渡期），這是《婆沙論》評家的觀點。如果不是這樣，語言就包括善和染污，那麼五趣就應該互相混雜，在一個趣中同時具備五趣的業和煩惱。五趣只包括有情眾生，不包括外在的器世界（物質世界），因為外在的器世界可以被五趣眾生共同享用，這樣就又會造成混亂，所以外在的器世界不是五趣的本體。五趣的本體不包括中有，因為趣是所往之處，而中有不是所往的趣，只是前往趣的方便，所以不屬於五趣所攝。

《施設足論》（Prajnapti-pada-sastra，論書名）說：『所謂中有』。由此可知中有不是趣。

《法蘊足論》（Dharmaskandha，論書名）說：『修成中有』。再次引用論證：是眼根，區別于耳根等。在二十二根中是眼根，在十二處中是眼處，在十八界中是眼界，以及五趣的眼根。修成天眼以及中有的眼。既然離開五趣另外說中有，就明確知道中有不屬於五趣所攝。

契經也區分了中有和五趣的不同。引用經文來證明。

問：是哪部契經呢？

答：是《七有經》。這部經離開五趣另外說了中有，是前往五趣的方便。所以知道中有不屬於五趣所攝。這正是證明中有不是趣的證據，並且由此可以兼帶說明五趣的本體只是無記（既非善也非惡）。這部經離開五趣另外說了業有，這是五趣的因，由此可知五趣是異熟果（業報的結果）。

【English Translation】 English version Question: What are the forms and languages of beings in the five Gatis (realms of existence: hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods)? Answer: The forms of Devas (gods) are tall and upright, and they all speak sacred languages. The forms of humans are as they are seen now. In the beginning of the Kalpa (an extremely long period of time), they all spoke sacred languages, but later, different languages arose according to their places of residence. In the beginning of the Kalpa, hungry ghosts also spoke sacred languages, but later, their forms and languages became unfixed according to their places of residence. The forms of animals are as they are seen now. In the beginning of the Kalpa, they all spoke sacred languages, but later, different languages arose according to their places of residence. The forms of beings in hell are like humans. When they are first born, they all speak sacred languages, but later, after suffering, they utter various sounds of pain. The above is a brief explanation of the forms and languages of the five Gatis, according to the perspective of the Vibhasa.

Question: Why is it that after speaking of the three Dhatus (realms of desire, form, and formlessness), we still speak of the five Gatis? This question is raised to explain the third question.

Answer: Some say that wholesome and defiled (unwholesome) karma do not include the Antarabhava (intermediate state between death and rebirth). This is the view of the Vibhasa commentators. If it were not so, language would include both wholesome and defiled, then the five Gatis should be mixed together, and one Gati would simultaneously possess the karma and afflictions of all five Gatis. The five Gatis only include sentient beings and do not include the external world, because the external world can be shared by beings of the five Gatis, which would cause confusion. Therefore, the external world is not the substance of the five Gatis. The substance of the five Gatis does not include the Antarabhava, because a Gati is a destination, while the Antarabhava is not a destination, but only a means to reach a Gati. Therefore, it is not included in the five Gatis.

The Prajnapti-pada-sastra (a treatise) says: 'The so-called Antarabhava.' From this, it is known that the Antarabhava is not a Gati.

The Dharmaskandha (a treatise) says: 'Cultivating and achieving the Antarabhava.' Again, citing evidence: it is the eye-faculty, distinguishing it from the ear-faculty, etc. Among the twenty-two faculties, it is the eye-faculty; among the twelve ayatanas (sense bases), it is the eye-ayatana; among the eighteen dhatus (elements), it is the eye-dhatu, as well as the eye-faculties of the five Gatis. Cultivating and achieving the divine eye and the eye of the Antarabhava. Since the Antarabhava is spoken of separately from the five Gatis, it is clear that the Antarabhava is not included in the five Gatis.

The Sutras also distinguish the Antarabhava from the five Gatis. Citing Sutras to prove this.

Question: Which Sutra is it?

Answer: It is the 'Sutra of the Seven Existences'. This Sutra speaks of the Antarabhava separately from the five Gatis, as a means to reach the five Gatis. Therefore, it is known that the Antarabhava is not included in the five Gatis. This is the very proof that the Antarabhava is not a Gati, and from this, it can also be shown that the substance of the Gatis is only neutral (neither wholesome nor unwholesome). This Sutra speaks of karmic existence separately from the five Gatis, which is the cause of the five Gatis. From this, it is known that the five Gatis are the result of Vipaka (karmic retribution).

果。故趣唯是無覆無記其理極成。經簡業因異諸趣故。

迦濕彌羅國至無覆無記者。復引經證趣唯無記　諸漏。即顯發業煩惱　地獄受業。正顯彼因　曲者。謂謟　穢者。謂瞋　濁者。謂貪　彼身．語．意從謟．瞋．貪生故。名身語意曲穢濁業。此即正顯順地獄受業。由造此惡業故於捺落迦中受五蘊異熟果。異熟起已名那落迦。除五蘊法彼那落迦都不可得。由此經說故趣唯是無覆無記。以異熟果唯無記故。

若如是者至所隨增故者。難。論說五趣一切隨眠所隨增故。明知亦通於染。若唯無記異熟果者。彼論應言五趣修所斷。及遍行隨眠隨增。不應言一切。既言一切明知通染。

彼說五趣至總名村落者。通。五趣續生容起諸惑名趣入心。趣及入心總名為趣無相違失。喻況可知。

有說趣體至是故別說者。有大眾部說趣體亦通善．染。然七有經離五趣外簡業有者非別說業定非趣攝　五濁。謂劫濁．命濁．有情濁．煩惱濁．見濁　如五濁中煩惱與見別說為濁非由別說故彼見定非煩惱所攝。以十隨眠皆煩惱故　業雖是趣顯因別說。

若爾中有亦應是趣者。難。業有雖別說然說是趣攝。中有亦別說。亦應是趣攝。

不爾趣義至即死生故者。異說通難。趣是所往。中有是能往。不可說能往是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，趣（gati，眾生輪迴的去處）的性質僅僅是無覆無記（avyākrta，不善不惡），這個道理是完全成立的。因為經文簡略地說明了業因與諸趣的不同。

迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的論師認為趣是無覆無記的，並進一步引用經文來證明趣僅僅是無記的。『諸漏』，指的是能引發業的煩惱。『地獄受業』，直接說明了地獄果報的起因。『曲』，指的是諂媚。『穢』，指的是嗔恨。『濁』，指的是貪婪。由於身、語、意是從諂媚、嗔恨、貪婪產生的，所以稱為身語意『曲穢濁業』。這直接說明了順應地獄果報的業。由於造作這些惡業，所以在捺落迦（naraka，地獄）中承受五蘊（panca-skandha）的異熟果（vipāka-phala）。異熟果產生后，就稱為那落迦。如果去除五蘊，那落迦就無法存在。因此，經文說趣僅僅是無覆無記的，因為異熟果僅僅是無記的。

如果像上面所說的那樣，那麼，這裡有一個疑問：論中說五趣（panca-gati）是被一切隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）所隨增的。這清楚地表明五趣也通於染污（sasrava，有煩惱的）。如果僅僅是無記的異熟果，那麼論中應該說五趣是被修所斷（bhavana-pahatabba）以及遍行隨眠所隨增的，而不應該說『一切』。既然說『一切』，就清楚地表明五趣也通於染污。

對此，有人說五趣的續生（punarutpatti）容許生起各種迷惑，這被稱為『趣入心』。『趣』和『入心』總稱為『趣』，這並沒有任何矛盾。可以用比喻來說明。

另有一種說法，大眾部（Mahasamghika）認為趣的本體也通於善（kusala）和染。然而，《七有經》在五趣之外簡別了業有（karma-bhava），這並非是說業一定不屬於趣的範疇。五濁（panca-kasaya），指的是劫濁（kalpa-kasaya）、命濁（ayu-kasaya）、有情濁（sattva-kasaya）、煩惱濁（klesa-kasaya）和見濁（drsti-kasaya）。例如，在五濁中，煩惱和見被分別列為濁，但這並非因為分別列出，就認為見一定不屬於煩惱。因為十隨眠（dasa-anusaya）都屬於煩惱。業雖然是趣的顯因，但被分別列出。

如果這樣，那麼中有（antarabhava，中陰身）也應該是趣嗎？這是一個疑問。業有雖然被分別列出，但仍然被認為是趣所包含的。中有也被分別列出，那麼也應該被認為是趣所包含的嗎？

並非如此。趣的含義是所前往之處，而中有是能前往的。不能說能前往的是所前往之處。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the nature of 'gati' (destination of sentient beings in samsara) is only 'avyākrta' (neither good nor bad), and this principle is perfectly established. Because the sutra briefly explains the difference between the karmic cause and the various 'gatis'.

The scholars of Kashmir believe that 'gati' is 'avyākrta' and further cite the sutras to prove that 'gati' is only 'avyākrta'. 'The outflows' refer to the afflictions that can cause karma. 'Karma received in hell' directly explains the cause of the retribution in hell. 'Crooked' refers to flattery. 'Foul' refers to hatred. 'Turbid' refers to greed. Because body, speech, and mind arise from flattery, hatred, and greed, they are called 'crooked, foul, and turbid karma' of body, speech, and mind. This directly explains the karma that accords with the retribution in hell. Because of creating these evil karmas, one suffers the 'vipāka-phala' (result of maturation) of the five 'skandhas' (aggregates) in 'naraka' (hell). After the 'vipāka-phala' arises, it is called 'naraka'. If the five 'skandhas' are removed, 'naraka' cannot exist. Therefore, the sutra says that 'gati' is only 'avyākrta', because the 'vipāka-phala' is only 'avyākrta'.

If it is as stated above, then there is a question: The treatise says that the five 'gatis' are increased by all 'anusayas' (latent forms of afflictions). This clearly shows that the five 'gatis' also pertain to 'sasrava' (contaminated, with afflictions). If it is only the 'avyākrta' 'vipāka-phala', then the treatise should say that the five 'gatis' are increased by what is abandoned by cultivation ('bhavana-pahatabba') and pervasive 'anusayas', and should not say 'all'. Since it says 'all', it clearly shows that the five 'gatis' also pertain to contamination.

In response, some say that the rebirth ('punarutpatti') of the five 'gatis' allows the arising of various confusions, which is called 'gati-entering mind'. 'Gati' and 'entering mind' are collectively called 'gati', and there is no contradiction. It can be illustrated with a metaphor.

Another view is that the 'Mahasamghika' school believes that the essence of 'gati' also pertains to 'kusala' (wholesome) and contamination. However, the 'Saptabhava Sutra' distinguishes 'karma-bhava' (karmic existence) from the five 'gatis', which does not mean that karma is necessarily not included in the category of 'gati'. The five 'kasayas' (turbidities) refer to 'kalpa-kasaya' (turbidity of the eon), 'ayu-kasaya' (turbidity of life), 'sattva-kasaya' (turbidity of beings), 'klesa-kasaya' (turbidity of afflictions), and 'drsti-kasaya' (turbidity of views). For example, among the five turbidities, afflictions and views are listed separately as turbidities, but this does not mean that views are necessarily not included in afflictions because they are listed separately. Because the ten 'anusayas' (latent tendencies) all belong to afflictions. Although karma is the manifest cause of 'gati', it is listed separately.

If so, then 'antarabhava' (intermediate state) should also be a 'gati'? This is a question. Although 'karma-bhava' is listed separately, it is still considered to be included in 'gati'. 'Antarabhava' is also listed separately, so should it also be considered to be included in 'gati'?

Not so. The meaning of 'gati' is the place to go, while 'antarabhava' is the one who goes. It cannot be said that the one who goes is the place to go.

所往趣。即死處生故。

若爾無色至而受生故者。難。中有死處生中有非趣攝。無色死處生亦應非趣攝。

既爾中有至說名中有者。更作好解。名中有故不應名趣。二趣中間而受生故名為中有。此若趣攝不應名中。

然彼尊者至故作是言者。大眾部等復會前經。然彼尊者舍利子言異熟起已方名地獄。非唯異熟故通善．染。彼經復言除五蘊法彼那落伽不可得者。為遮異執實有能往諸趣補特伽羅真實我體故作是說。非遮善．染余蘊故作是言。

毗婆沙師至亦通長養者。結歸本宗。此中兩師前說為正。故婆沙一百七十二云。問已知趣體唯是無覆無記。于中為但是異熟。為通長養。若但是異熟者。品類足說當云何通。如說五趣攝五蘊．十二處．十八界。若通長養者則趣體雜亂。以人趣中亦引起色界長養諸根大種故。答應說趣體唯是異熟　問品類足說當云何通。答彼文應說五趣攝五蘊．十一處．十七界少分。而不作是說者。當知是誦者錯謬。有說彼論通五趣眷屬。感五趣業及能防護。非唯說趣是故無過。然由煩惱界有差別。由異熟蘊趣有差別。是故趣體唯是異熟。

即於三界至識住有七者。此下第三明七識住。即於三界及五趣中從下至上如其次第識住其有七。

其七者何者。問。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所往之處，即是死亡之處而生之處，故稱為趣（Gati，輪迴的去處）。

如果這樣說，無色界眾生死亡后受生，那麼就產生了一個難題。中有（Antarabhava，死亡到投生之間的過渡期）的眾生死處所生之處，中有並非趣所包含。無色界眾生死處所生之處，也應該不是趣所包含。

既然如此，中有被稱為中有，應該有更好的解釋。因為處於二趣（Dve Gati，兩種輪迴的去處）中間而受生，所以稱為中有。如果中有屬於趣，就不應該稱為『中』。

然而，尊者（Venerable，佛教中對有德長老的尊稱）說『因此這樣說』，大眾部（Mahasamghika，早期佛教部派之一）等重新引用之前的經典。尊者舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）說，只有異熟（Vipaka，業的果報成熟）生起后才能稱為地獄（Naraka，惡道之一），並非僅僅是異熟，也包括善（Kusala，善業）和染（Klesha，煩惱）。那部經典又說，如果去除五蘊（Panca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）之法，就無法得到那落迦（Naraka，地獄）。這是爲了遮止其他錯誤的執著，實際上存在能夠前往諸趣的補特伽羅（Pudgala，個體，靈魂），真實的我體（Atman，神我），所以才這樣說。並非爲了遮止善、染等其餘的蘊而這樣說。

毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教經量部的論師）說，也包括長養（Aharaja，增長）。總結歸於本宗。這兩位論師之前的說法是正確的。所以《婆沙》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第一百七十二卷說：『問：已知趣的本體只是無覆無記（Avyakrta，非善非惡），其中只是異熟嗎？還是包括長養？如果只是異熟，那麼《品類足論》（Prakaranapada，佛教論書）所說應該如何解釋？如說五趣（Panca Gati，五種輪迴的去處：地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）包含五蘊、十二處（Dvadasayatana，六根六塵）、十八界（Astadasadhatu，六根六塵六識）。如果包括長養，那麼趣的本體就雜亂了，因為人趣中也引起長養諸根大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素）。』回答應該說，趣的本體只是異熟。問：《品類足論》所說應該如何解釋？答：那段經文應該說五趣包含五蘊、十一處、十七界少分。而不這樣說，應該知道是誦讀者的錯誤。有人說，那部論書通於五趣的眷屬，感受五趣的業以及能夠防護，並非只是說趣，所以沒有過失。然而，由於煩惱界（Kleshadhatu，煩惱的界限）有差別，由於異熟蘊趣有差別，所以趣的本體只是異熟。

即於三界（Tri-dhatu，欲界、色界、無色界）之中，識別停留之處有七種。以下第三部分說明七識住（Sapta-vijnana-sthiti，七種意識停留的境界）。即於三界及五趣（Panca-gati，五種輪迴的去處）中，從下至上，依次有七種識住。

這七種是什麼？問。

【English Translation】 English version: The place to which one goes, that is, the place where one dies and is born, is therefore called Gati (the destination of rebirth).

If that is the case, if beings are born after dying in the Formless Realm, then a difficulty arises. The place of death and birth in the intermediate state (Antarabhava, the transitional period between death and rebirth) is not included in Gati. The place of death and birth in the Formless Realm should also not be included in Gati.

Since the intermediate state is called Antarabhava, there should be a better explanation. Because it is in the middle of two Gatis (Dve Gati, two destinations of rebirth) and undergoes rebirth, it is called Antarabhava. If Antarabhava belongs to Gati, it should not be called 'middle'.

However, the Venerable (Venerable, a respectful title for elders in Buddhism) said 'therefore, it is said this way', the Mahasamghika (one of the early Buddhist schools) and others re-cite the previous sutra. The Venerable Sariputra (Sariputra, one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) said that only when Vipaka (the maturation of karmic retribution) arises can it be called Naraka (hell, one of the evil realms), not only Vipaka, but also Kusala (wholesome deeds) and Klesha (afflictions). That sutra also says that if the five skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are removed, Naraka (hell) cannot be obtained. This is to prevent other wrong attachments, and in reality, there are Pudgalas (Pudgala, individuals, souls) who can go to the various Gatis, the real Atman (Atman, the self), so it is said this way. It is not said this way to prevent Kusala, Klesha, and other remaining skandhas.

The Vaibhashika (Vaibhashika, a teacher of the Buddhist school of Sautrantika) said that it also includes Aharaja (nourishment, growth). Concluding to the original school. The previous statements of these two teachers are correct. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Buddhist treatise), volume 172, says: 'Question: It is known that the essence of Gati is only Avyakrta (neither good nor evil), is it only Vipaka or does it include Aharaja? If it is only Vipaka, then how should the Prakaranapada (Prakaranapada, Buddhist treatise) be explained? As it says that the five Gatis (Panca Gati, the five destinations of rebirth: hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) contain the five skandhas, the twelve ayatanas (Dvadasayatana, the six sense organs and six sense objects), and the eighteen dhatus (Astadasadhatu, the six sense organs, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses). If it includes Aharaja, then the essence of Gati is mixed up, because in the human Gati, it also causes the growth of the Mahabhutas (Mahabhuta, the four great elements).』 The answer should be that the essence of Gati is only Vipaka. Question: How should the Prakaranapada be explained? Answer: That passage should say that the five Gatis contain the five skandhas, eleven ayatanas, and a small part of seventeen dhatus. If it does not say so, it should be known that it is a mistake of the reciter. Some say that that treatise is connected to the retinue of the five Gatis, experiencing the karma of the five Gatis and being able to protect, not just saying Gati, so there is no fault. However, because there is a difference in the Kleshadhatu (the realm of afflictions), and because there is a difference in the Vipaka skandha Gati, the essence of Gati is only Vipaka.

That is, within the three realms (Tri-dhatu, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), there are seven places where consciousness dwells. The third part below explains the seven vijnana-sthitis (Sapta-vijnana-sthiti, the seven abodes of consciousness). That is, within the three realms and the five Gatis (Panca-gati, the five destinations of rebirth), from bottom to top, there are seven abodes of consciousness in order.

What are these seven? Question.

頌曰至余非有損壞者。初句明第一識住。第二句明第二識住。翻此第三識住。謂翻此第二句應身一想異。身想一是第四識住。第四句是后三識住無色下三。第五句結。第六句簡法。

論曰至說名想異者。明初識住。謂彼有情成就色身。故名有色有情。身．想俱異如人趣全．及一分天是初識住。

一分天者。謂欲天全及初定中除劫初起取后余時　問如婆沙一百三十七云一分天謂欲界天不言初定。又婆沙云初識住唯欲界系故但依未至滅。第二識住初定系故依初靜慮未至靜慮中間。第二靜慮近分滅。彼論既言初識住依未至定滅不言初定等滅。明知不通初定一分。又品類足第九云。初識住七智知。除類．滅．道智。若通初定應言類智知　解云一分天言理通初定。以初定天一分初識住攝。一分第二識住攝。以不定故是故不言。欲界六天全初識住以決定故故彼偏說。即彼論解第二識住。但取初定劫初起時不取后時。故不相違。又言初識住未至定滅者。據全分說。初定一分以與第二識住合斷。非全分故故略不言。品類足文初識住亦應言類智知。還據全說不約少分　言身異者。謂彼色身一切皆異　彼由身異。約體以明　或有異身。據成就說。故彼有情說名身異　言想異者。三想不同　言苦想等約相應受分成三種。若在欲界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：頌曰：至於沒有損壞的那些。第一句闡明了第一識住（Sthiti，意識的住所）。第二句闡明了第二識住。翻譯此句為第三識住。意思是翻譯此第二句，應身一想異。身想一是第四識住。第四句是后三識住，即無色界下三處。第五句是總結。第六句是簡要說明法。

論曰：至於說名為想異的那些。闡明了第一識住。意思是那些有情（Sattva，眾生）成就了色身（Rupa-kaya，物質身體），所以名為有色有情。身和想都不同，如人趣全部以及一部分天界，這是第一識住。

一部分天界是指：欲界天全部以及初禪定中，除了劫初開始取後來的時間。問：如《婆沙論》第一百三十七卷所說，一部分天界指欲界天，沒有說初禪定。又《婆沙論》說，第一識住只屬於欲界系，所以只依據未至定滅。第二識住屬於初禪定系，所以依據初靜慮、未至靜慮、中間。第二靜慮近分滅。該論既然說第一識住依據未至定滅，沒有說初禪定等滅。明顯知道不包括初禪定的一部分。又《品類足論》第九卷說，第一識住由七智知，除了類智、滅智、道智。如果包括初禪定，應該說類智知。解答：一部分天界，從道理上講包括初禪定。因為初禪定天的一部分被第一識住所攝，一部分被第二識住所攝。因為不確定，所以不說。欲界六天全部是第一識住，因為是確定的，所以那裡偏重說明。即該論解釋第二識住，只取初禪定劫初開始時，不取後來的時間，所以不相違背。又說第一識住未至定滅，是根據全部分來說。初禪定的一部分因為與第二識住合併斷滅，不是全部分，所以省略不說。《品類足論》的文句中，第一識住也應該說類智知。還是根據全部分說，不涉及少部分。說身異，是指那些色身一切都不同。他們因為身不同，從本體上說明。或者有異身，根據成就來說。所以那些有情被稱為身異。說想異，是三種想不同。說苦想等，是根據相應的受分成三種。如果在欲界。

【English Translation】 English version: Verse: As for those without damage. The first line clarifies the first Consciousness-Abiding (Sthiti, abode of consciousness). The second line clarifies the second Consciousness-Abiding. Translating this as the third Consciousness-Abiding. Meaning, translating this second line, 'body and thought are different'. 'Body and thought are one' is the fourth Consciousness-Abiding. The fourth line is the latter three Consciousness-Abidings, namely the lower three of the Formless Realm. The fifth line is a conclusion. The sixth line is a brief explanation of the Dharma.

Treatise: As for those said to be 'different in thought'. It clarifies the first Consciousness-Abiding. Meaning, those sentient beings (Sattva, beings with consciousness) who have achieved a material body (Rupa-kaya, physical body), are therefore called 'sentient beings with form'. Body and thought are both different, like all of the human realm and a portion of the heavens, this is the first Consciousness-Abiding.

A portion of the heavens refers to: all of the Desire Realm heavens and in the First Dhyana (meditative state), except for the beginning of the kalpa (cosmic cycle), taking the later times. Question: As the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) volume 137 says, a portion of the heavens refers to the Desire Realm heavens, not mentioning the First Dhyana. Also, the Mahavibhasa says that the first Consciousness-Abiding only belongs to the Desire Realm, therefore it only relies on the cessation of the Unattained Concentration. The second Consciousness-Abiding belongs to the First Dhyana, therefore it relies on the First Dhyana, the Unattained Concentration, and the intermediate state between the concentrations. The Second Dhyana's proximate division ceases. Since that treatise says that the first Consciousness-Abiding relies on the cessation of the Unattained Concentration, not mentioning the cessation of the First Dhyana, etc., it is clear that it does not include a portion of the First Dhyana. Also, the Prakaranapada (Treatise on Categories) volume 9 says that the first Consciousness-Abiding is known by seven wisdoms, except for the wisdom of kind, cessation, and the path. If it includes the First Dhyana, it should say 'known by the wisdom of kind'. Answer: 'A portion of the heavens' logically includes the First Dhyana. Because a portion of the First Dhyana heavens is included in the first Consciousness-Abiding, and a portion is included in the second Consciousness-Abiding. Because it is uncertain, therefore it is not mentioned. All six heavens of the Desire Realm are the first Consciousness-Abiding, because it is certain, therefore it is emphasized there. That is, that treatise explains the second Consciousness-Abiding, only taking the beginning of the kalpa in the First Dhyana, not taking the later times, therefore it is not contradictory. Also, saying that the first Consciousness-Abiding ceases in the Unattained Concentration is according to the whole portion. A portion of the First Dhyana is merged and ceases with the second Consciousness-Abiding, it is not the whole portion, therefore it is omitted. In the text of the Prakaranapada, the first Consciousness-Abiding should also say 'known by the wisdom of kind'. It is still according to the whole portion, not concerning the small portion. Saying 'body is different' refers to those material bodies that are all different. They are different because of the body, explaining from the substance. Or there are different bodies, according to achievement. Therefore, those sentient beings are called 'different in body'. Saying 'thought is different' refers to three different thoughts. Saying 'suffering thought' etc., is according to the corresponding feeling, divided into three kinds. If it is in the Desire Realm.

具有三想若在初定除苦有二　彼由想異。約體以明　或有異想。據成就說。故彼有情說名想異。

有色有情至故名身異者。釋第二句。梵眾天言舉初顯后。總攝三天唯取劫初不取后時。以劫初起梵眾起想。我等皆是大梵所生。大梵起想是諸梵眾皆我所生。梵王梵眾同執一因而生想故名想一。故正理二十云。豈不梵眾言我從彼生。而大梵王言我能生彼。想即有異如何言一。此責非理。梵眾．梵王同執一因而生想故。或緣所化想是一故　解云同執一因同緣所化。想無別故與此論意同　又正理云。何緣梵眾同生此想。由見梵王處所．形色．及神通等皆殊勝故。又觀大梵先時已有已．及余天後方生故。彼不能見從上地沒。依初靜慮發宿住通。不能了知上地境故。何緣大梵亦生此想。彼才發心眾便生故謂己所化。非速沒故。或愚業果感起理故。或見己身形狀．勢力．壽．威德等過餘眾故。梵眾．梵王身雖有殊而生一想　言身異者。梵王．梵眾其身各異故名身異。此文且以大梵對梵眾明身異。梵輔．梵眾當處相望身亦有異。故顯宗十二云。言身異者。初靜慮中有表．無表尋．伺。多識為因感身有差別故。

經說梵眾至曾見梵王者。依經起問。

有餘師言至來生此故者。答。有三說。此即初師。昔在二定曾見梵王

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『具有三想若在初定除苦有二，彼由想異。約體以明，或有異想。據成就說。故彼有情說名想異。』如果具有三種想法的有情在初禪定中想要去除兩種痛苦，那是因為他們的想法不同。這是從本體上來說明的，或者說存在不同的想法。這是根據成就來說的。因此，那些有情被稱為想法不同。『有色有情至故名身異者。釋第二句。梵眾天言舉初顯后。總攝三天唯取劫初不取后時。以劫初起梵眾起想。我等皆是大梵（Mahābrahman，偉大的梵天）所生。大梵起想是諸梵眾皆我所生。梵王（Brahmā，梵天）梵眾同執一因而生想故名想一。故正理二十云。豈不梵眾言我從彼生。而大梵王言我能生彼。想即有異如何言一。此責非理。梵眾．梵王同執一因而生想故。或緣所化想是一故』『有色有情，因此稱為身體不同』，這是解釋第二句話。提到梵眾天（Brahmakāyika-deva，梵天眾天）是爲了舉一例而顯示其餘。總括了三天，只取劫初而不取後來的時間。因為在劫初，梵眾天產生這樣的想法：『我們都是大梵（Mahābrahman，偉大的梵天）所生的』。大梵產生這樣的想法：『這些梵眾天都是我所生的』。梵王（Brahmā，梵天）和梵眾天都執著于同一個原因而產生想法，因此稱為想法相同。所以《正理》第二十卷說：『難道不是梵眾天說我從他而生，而大梵王說我能生他們嗎？想法既然不同，怎麼能說相同呢？』這種責難是不合理的。梵眾天和梵王都執著于同一個原因而產生想法。或者因為所化生的對象想法相同。解云同執一因同緣所化。想無別故與此論意同　又正理云。何緣梵眾同生此想。由見梵王處所．形色．及神通等皆殊勝故。又觀大梵先時已有已．及余天後方生故。彼不能見從上地沒。依初靜慮發宿住通。不能了知上地境故。何緣大梵亦生此想。彼才發心眾便生故謂己所化。非速沒故。或愚業果感起理故。或見己身形狀．勢力．壽．威德等過餘眾故。梵眾．梵王身雖有殊而生一想　言身異者。梵王．梵眾其身各異故名身異。此文且以大梵對梵眾明身異。梵輔．梵眾當處相望身亦有異。故顯宗十二云。言身異者。初靜慮中有表．無表尋．伺。多識為因感身有差別故。解釋說，共同執著於一個原因，共同緣于所化生的對象。想法沒有區別，因此與此論的意義相同。另外，《正理》說：『為什麼梵眾天會共同產生這種想法呢？』因為他們看到梵王（Brahmā，梵天）的處所、形色以及神通等都非常殊勝。又觀察到大梵（Mahābrahman，偉大的梵天）先前已經存在，而其餘的天后來才產生。他們不能看到從上地消失的情況。依靠初禪定而生起宿住通，不能瞭解上地的境界。『為什麼大梵也會產生這種想法呢？』因為他才發心，眾天就產生了，所以認為是被自己所化生的。不是快速消失的緣故。或者因為愚昧的業果所感召的道理。或者因為看到自己的形狀、勢力、壽命、威德等超過其餘的眾天。梵眾天和梵王（Brahmā，梵天）的身體雖然有差別，卻產生相同的想法。說到身體不同，梵王和梵眾天的身體各自不同，因此稱為身體不同。這段文字暫且以大梵（Mahābrahman，偉大的梵天）對梵眾天來說明身體不同。梵輔天和梵眾天在各自的地方相互比較，身體也有不同。所以《顯宗》第十二卷說：『說到身體不同，初禪定中有表色、無表色、尋、伺。以多種識為因，感得的身體有差別。』『經說梵眾至曾見梵王者。依經起問。『經文說梵眾天...曾經見過梵王（Brahmā，梵天）』。這是根據經文提出疑問。『有餘師言至來生此故者。答。有三說。此即初師。昔在二定曾見梵王』『有其他老師說...來生到這裡』。回答。有三種說法。這是第一位老師的說法。過去在二禪定中曾經見過梵王（Brahmā，梵天）。

【English Translation】 English version 『Having three thoughts, if in the first Dhyana (Jhāna, meditation) there are two eliminations of suffering, that is because of the difference in their thoughts. This is explained in terms of substance, or there may be different thoughts. This is according to accomplishment. Therefore, those sentient beings are said to have different thoughts.』 If sentient beings with three kinds of thoughts want to eliminate two kinds of suffering in the first Dhyana, it is because their thoughts are different. This is explained in terms of substance, or there may be different thoughts. This is according to accomplishment. Therefore, those sentient beings are said to have different thoughts. 『Sentient beings with form, hence the name difference in body.』 Explaining the second sentence. The term Brahmakāyika-deva (梵眾天, Brahma's host of gods) is used to illustrate the beginning and reveal the rest. It encompasses all three heavens, only taking the beginning of the kalpa (劫, cosmic cycle) and not the later times. Because at the beginning of the kalpa, the Brahmakāyika-devas arise with the thought: 『We are all born from Mahābrahman (大梵, the Great Brahma).』 Mahābrahman arises with the thought: 『These Brahmakāyika-devas are all born from me.』 Brahmā (梵王, Brahma) and the Brahmakāyika-devas both cling to one cause and give rise to the thought, hence the name sameness of thought. Therefore, the twentieth volume of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 『Isn't it that the Brahmakāyika-devas say that I am born from him, while Mahābrahman says that I can give birth to them? Since the thoughts are different, how can they be said to be the same?』 This accusation is unreasonable. The Brahmakāyika-devas and Brahmā both cling to one cause and give rise to the thought. Or because the objects they transform are of the same thought. The explanation says that they both cling to one cause and both rely on the objects they transform. Since the thoughts are not different, it is the same as the meaning of this treatise. Also, the Nyāyānusāra says: 『Why do the Brahmakāyika-devas all give rise to this thought?』 Because they see that Brahmā's (梵王, Brahma) place, form, and supernatural powers are all particularly superior. Also, they observe that Mahābrahman (大梵, the Great Brahma) already existed earlier, and the other gods were born later. They cannot see the disappearance from the upper realm. Relying on the first Dhyana, they develop the power of knowing past lives, but they cannot understand the realm of the upper realm. 『Why does Mahābrahman also give rise to this thought?』 Because as soon as he has the thought, the multitude is born, so he thinks that they are transformed by himself. It is not because of a quick disappearance. Or because of the principle of being influenced by the results of ignorant karma. Or because he sees that his own form, power, lifespan, and majesty exceed the rest of the multitude. Although the bodies of the Brahmakāyika-devas and Brahmā are different, they give rise to the same thought. Speaking of difference in body, the bodies of Brahmā and the Brahmakāyika-devas are different, hence the name difference in body. This passage temporarily uses Mahābrahman to explain the difference in body in relation to the Brahmakāyika-devas. The Brahmapāriṣadya-devas (梵輔天, Brahma's retinue) and the Brahmakāyika-devas also have differences in body when compared to each other in their respective places. Therefore, the twelfth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (顯宗) says: 『Speaking of difference in body, in the first Dhyana, there are manifest and unmanifested forms, initial and sustained thought. Because of the many consciousnesses as the cause, the bodies that are felt have differences.』『The sutra says that the Brahmakāyika-devas... have seen Brahmā (梵王, Brahma).』 Based on the sutra, a question is raised. 『Some other teachers say... to be born here.』 Answer. There are three explanations. This is the first teacher's explanation. In the past, in the second Dhyana, they had seen Brahmā.

。

云何今時至戒禁取者。論主破。生初定時非得二定。如何能憶彼地事耶。得二定時初惑已斷。云何緣大梵猶起戒禁取。

有餘師說住中有中者。第二師解。昔住中有曾見梵王。

彼住中有中至長壽久住者。論主破。欲界中有受胎生等。生緣未合容可經停。色界中有皆受化生受生無礙。既不闕緣無容久住。何得說言曾見梵王長壽久住。

是故梵眾至起如是念者。第三論主正解。初生見已後重見時起如是念。我等曾見如是有情長壽久住。又正理第二十二云。有餘師言。住極光凈從彼天沒來生此故。既從彼沒來生此間。云何未得第二靜慮。而能憶彼諸宿住事。誰言未得第二靜慮。若得應離初靜慮貪。如何彼尚生初定戒禁取。退已方生斯有何失。豈不色界無有退耶。有說初生無妨有退。有餘師說住中有中曾見梵王。此不應理。經言見彼久住世故。彼天中有。于正所受生既不闕緣無容久住世故。應說梵眾即住自天曾見梵王。極光凈沒初受生時曾見彼故。謂諸梵眾初下生時。見大梵王威光赫烈。雖懷敬慕欲往親承。威神所逼未早前詣。于茲荏苒還致多時。后勵專誠預近瞻仰到已皆共作是念言。我等曾見。乃至廣說。謂彼近見大梵王時。便能憶知先所見事。復能了達眾下生前。獨有梵王及心所愿。或彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

什麼是當今的「戒禁取」呢？論主反駁道：剛開始獲得初禪定時，並沒有獲得二禪定，怎麼能夠回憶起彼地的事情呢？獲得二禪定時，最初的迷惑已經斷除，為什麼還會緣于大梵天而生起「戒禁取」呢？

有其他老師說，是住在「中有」中的眾生。第二位老師解釋說：過去住在「中有」時，曾經見過梵王。

對於「他們住在『中有』中，能夠長壽久住」的說法，論主反駁道：欲界的「中有」會經歷受胎、出生等過程，在出生的因緣尚未聚合時，或許可以停留一段時間。但是「中有」都是受化生，接受投生沒有任何阻礙。既然不缺少因緣，就沒有理由長期停留。怎麼能說他們曾經見過梵王，並且長壽久住呢？

因此，對於「梵眾生起這樣的念頭」的說法，第三位論主正確地解釋說：初生時見過梵王，之後再次見到時，生起這樣的念頭：『我們曾經見過這樣的有情，他長壽久住。』又，《正理》第二十二卷中說：『有其他老師說，他們住在極光凈天，從那個天界去世后，來到這裡出生。』既然是從那個天界去世后，來到這裡出生，怎麼能在沒有獲得第二禪定的情況下，回憶起過去所住的事情呢？誰說他們沒有獲得第二禪定？如果獲得了，就應該脫離對初禪定的貪戀，怎麼還會對初禪定生起『戒禁取』呢？退轉之後才生起，這又有什麼過失呢？難道說沒有退轉嗎？』有人說，初生時不妨有退轉。還有其他老師說，住在『中有』中曾經見過梵王，這種說法不合理。經文說，因為見到他長久住在世間。『中有』在接受投生時，既然不缺少因緣，就沒有理由長期住在世間。應該說，梵眾就住在自己的天界，曾經見過梵王。從極光凈天去世，初次受生時，曾經見過他。也就是說，各位梵眾初次下生時，見到大梵王威光顯赫，雖然懷著敬慕之心，想要前去親近，但被他的威神所震懾，不敢貿然前往。因此耽擱了很長時間，之後才努力專心，靠近瞻仰。到達之後，都一起產生這樣的念頭：『我們曾經見過』，乃至廣說。也就是說，當他們靠近見到大梵王時，就能回憶起先前所見的事情，並且能夠了解眾生下生之前，只有梵王獨自存在，以及他心中的願望。或者說，他們...

【English Translation】 English version:

What is 'grasping at precepts and vows' (戒禁取) in the present time? The debater refutes: When one initially attains the first dhyana (初禪定), one has not yet attained the second dhyana (二禪定). How can one recall matters of that realm? When one attains the second dhyana, the initial delusion has already been severed. Why would one still, based on Mahabrahma (大梵天), give rise to 'grasping at precepts and vows'?

Some other teachers say that it is beings dwelling in the 'intermediate existence' (中有). The second teacher explains: In the past, dwelling in the 'intermediate existence,' they had seen Brahma King (梵王).

Regarding the statement that 'they dwell in the 'intermediate existence' and can live long and endure,' the debater refutes: The 'intermediate existence' of the desire realm (欲界) undergoes processes such as conception and birth. When the conditions for birth have not yet come together, it may be possible to remain for a period of time. However, all 'intermediate existences' are born through transformation (化生), and there is no obstruction to accepting rebirth. Since there is no lack of conditions, there is no reason to remain for a long time. How can it be said that they had seen Brahma King and lived long and endured?

Therefore, regarding the statement that 'the Brahma assembly gives rise to such a thought,' the third debater correctly explains: Having seen Brahma King at the initial birth, and then seeing him again later, they give rise to such a thought: 'We have seen such a sentient being who lives long and endures.' Furthermore, the twenty-second chapter of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'Some other teachers say that they dwell in the Abhasvara Heaven (極光凈天), and having passed away from that heaven, they come to be born here.' Since they passed away from that heaven and came to be born here, how can they recall the events of their past dwelling without having attained the second dhyana? Who says they have not attained the second dhyana? If they had attained it, they should have detached from the craving for the first dhyana. How would they still give rise to 'grasping at precepts and vows' regarding the first dhyana? If they only give rise to it after having regressed, what fault is there? Is it not the case that there is no regression?' Some say that there is no harm in having regression at the initial birth. There are other teachers who say that dwelling in the 'intermediate existence,' they had seen Brahma King. This is not reasonable. The sutra says that because they saw him dwelling in the world for a long time. When the 'intermediate existence' accepts rebirth, since there is no lack of conditions, there is no reason to dwell in the world for a long time. It should be said that the Brahma assembly dwells in their own heaven and had seen Brahma King. Having passed away from the Abhasvara Heaven, at the time of initial rebirth, they had seen him. That is to say, when the various Brahma assembly members initially descend, they see Mahabrahma's majestic light shining brightly. Although they harbor reverence and admiration and wish to approach him, they are intimidated by his divine power and do not dare to go forward rashly. Therefore, they delay for a long time, and then strive to concentrate and approach to gaze upon him. Having arrived, they all together give rise to such a thought: 'We have seen,' and so on, extensively. That is to say, when they approach and see Mahabrahma, they can recall what they had seen before, and they can understand that before the descent of the assembly, only Brahma King existed alone, and his heart's desires. Or, they...

先在極光凈天。曾見梵王今見能憶。謂彼昔在極光凈天。曾見梵王獨居下地。亦知願心與眾同居。俯愍便興初靜慮化。令所化眾偶侍梵王。起化須臾自便福盡。命終生下初靜慮中。大梵王身心．及所化事。皆初靜慮通慧所緣。今見便發宿住隨念。故彼梵眾作是念言。我等曾見乃至廣說。有餘師說二靜慮中所起。能緣梵世眼識。是初靜慮地法所收。故今亦能隨念彼法(次前二師皆起宿住隨念緣曾起法故言曾見)有作是說。彼梵眾天不受處胎．斷末磨苦。由斯得有念無忘失。故憶前生所見等事　上來正理總有六解。前三同此。后三不同　又婆沙九十八有五解。初三同此論。第四解云。有餘師說。彼以本性念生智憶上曾見事。問豈不色界無本性念生智耶。答劫初成時。色界亦得有本性念生智。第五解云。或有說者梵王先入中間靜慮住經多時。彼諸梵眾從上地沒生梵世中。見大梵王長壽久住威光赫奕不敢親附。后出定已命諸梵眾共相慰問。時諸梵眾互相謂言我等曾見如是有情長壽久住　又婆沙云問大梵天王。經幾時量獨一而住。經幾時量與眾共住。復與眾別。評曰應作是說。經於半劫獨一而住。經於半劫與眾共住。經於半劫復與眾別。二十中劫是半劫量　有色有情至復受欲樂者。釋翻此即第三識住　極光凈言。舉后攝初二天　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本先在極光凈天（Abhasvara，二禪天）。（梵眾天）曾（經）見（過）梵王（Brahmā，色界初禪天主）今（如）見（到一樣）能（夠）憶（起）。謂（說）彼（梵眾天）昔（日）在極光凈天（Abhasvara）。曾（經）見（過）梵王（Brahmā）獨居下地（較低的梵天）。亦知（道）願心（梵王希望與眾生共住的願望）與眾同居（一起居住）。俯（身）愍（憐），便興（起）初靜慮化（初禪天的化生），令所化眾（使被化生的眾生）偶侍梵王（偶然侍奉梵王）。起化須臾（化生后不久）自便福盡（自己享盡福報）。命終生下（死後投生到）初靜慮中（初禪天中）。大梵王身心（大梵天的身心），及所化事（以及所化生的事物）。皆初靜慮通慧所緣（都是初禪天所能通達和理解的）。今見（現在見到），便發宿住隨念（就引發了宿世的記憶）。故彼梵眾（所以那些梵眾天）作是念言（這樣想）：『我等曾見（我們曾經見過）』乃至廣說（等等）。有餘師說（有些論師說）：二靜慮中所起（在二禪天中所產生的），能緣梵世眼識（能夠緣取梵天世界的眼識），是初靜慮地法所收（是被初禪天的法所攝的）。故今亦能隨念彼法（所以現在也能夠回憶起那些法）。(次前二師（前面兩位論師）皆起宿住隨念（都通過宿住隨念），緣曾起法（緣取曾經生起的法），故言曾見（所以說曾經見過)) 有作是說（有些人這樣說）：彼梵眾天（那些梵眾天）不受處胎（不受受胎），斷末磨苦（斷除臨終的痛苦）。由斯得有念無忘失（因此能夠有記憶而不會忘失）。故憶前生所見等事（所以能夠回憶起前生所見的事情等等）。上來正理（以上這些正確的道理）總有六解（總共有六種解釋）。前三同此（前三種解釋與此相同）。后三不同（后三種解釋不同）。又婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）九十八有五解（第九十八卷有五種解釋）。初三同此論（前三種與此論相同）。第四解云（第四種解釋說）：有餘師說（有些論師說）。彼以本性念生智憶上曾見事（他們以本性所具有的念生智來回憶以前曾經見過的事情）。問（問）：豈不（難道不是）無本性念生智耶（沒有本性所具有的念生智嗎）？答（答）：劫初成時（在劫初形成的時候），亦得有本性念生智（也可以有本性所具有的念生智）。第五解云（第五種解釋說）：或有說者（或者有人說）梵王先入中間靜慮（梵王先進入中間禪定）住經多時（住了很長時間）。彼諸梵眾（那些梵眾天）從上地沒（從更高的天界死去）生梵世中（投生到梵天世界中）。見大梵王長壽久住（見到大梵天王長壽久住），威光赫奕（威光顯赫），不敢親附（不敢親近）。后出定已（後來梵王出定后），命諸梵眾共相慰問（命令梵眾天互相慰問）。時諸梵眾（當時那些梵眾天）互相謂言（互相說）：『我等曾見（我們曾經見過）如是有情（這樣的有情）長壽久住（長壽久住）。』又婆沙云（《大毗婆沙論》說）：問（問）：大梵天王（Mahābrahmā）經幾時量獨一而住（獨自居住多長時間）？經幾時量與眾共住（與大眾共同居住多長時間）？復與眾別（又與大眾分離多長時間）？評曰（評論說）：應作是說（應該這樣說）：經於半劫獨一而住（獨自居住半劫）。經於半劫與眾共住（與大眾共同居住半劫）。經於半劫復與眾別（又與大眾分離半劫）。二十中劫是半劫量（二十個中劫是半劫的時間長度）。有色有情至復受欲樂者（有色界的有情乃至再次感受欲樂的）。釋翻此即第三識住（解釋翻譯這就是第三識住）。極光凈言（極光凈天），舉后攝初二天（舉後面的極光凈天，包括前面的少光天和無量光天）。

【English Translation】 English version First, in Abhasvara (the Heaven of Streaming Radiance, the second Dhyana heaven). The Brahma retinue, having seen Brahma (Brahmā, the lord of the first Dhyana heaven in the Realm of Form) before, now see and can recall. It is said that they, in the past, in Abhasvara, had seen Brahma dwelling alone in the lower realm (the lower Brahma heavens). They also knew the wish (Brahma's wish to dwell with beings) to dwell together with the multitude. Out of compassion, he initiated the transformation of the first Dhyana (the creation of beings in the first Dhyana heaven), causing the transformed beings to occasionally attend upon Brahma. After the transformation, soon their own merit was exhausted, and upon death, they were reborn in the first Dhyana. The body and mind of the Great Brahma, and the affairs of those he transformed, are all objects of the wisdom of the first Dhyana. Now seeing him, they immediately trigger the recollection of past lives. Therefore, those Brahma retinue think thus: 'We have seen before,' and so on. Some teachers say that the eye-consciousness arising in the second Dhyana, which can perceive the Brahma world, is included in the dharmas of the first Dhyana. Therefore, now they can also recall those dharmas. (The previous two teachers both trigger the recollection of past lives, perceiving dharmas that have arisen before, hence the saying 'having seen before') Some say that those Brahma retinue do not experience the suffering of entering the womb or the agony of death. Because of this, they have memory and do not forget. Therefore, they remember the things they saw in previous lives, and so on. The above correct principles have a total of six explanations. The first three are the same as this. The last three are different. Moreover, the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) ninety-eighth has five explanations. The first three are the same as this treatise. The fourth explanation says: Some teachers say that they recall the things they saw before with the innate wisdom of mindfulness. Question: Isn't it that there is no innate wisdom of mindfulness? Answer: At the beginning of the kalpa (aeon), there can also be innate wisdom of mindfulness. The fifth explanation says: Or some say that Brahma first entered the intermediate Dhyana and stayed for a long time. Those Brahma retinue, having died from the higher realms, were born into the Brahma world. Seeing the Great Brahma living long and with majestic radiance, they did not dare to approach him. Later, after Brahma emerged from samadhi, he ordered the Brahma retinue to greet each other. At that time, those Brahma retinue said to each other: 'We have seen such a being living long.' Also, the Mahavibhasa says: Question: For how long does the Great Brahma (Mahābrahmā) dwell alone? For how long does he dwell with the multitude? And for how long is he separated from the multitude? The commentary says: It should be said that he dwells alone for half a kalpa. He dwells with the multitude for half a kalpa. He is separated from the multitude for half a kalpa. Twenty intermediate kalpas are the measure of half a kalpa. Those sentient beings with form, up to those who again experience the pleasure of desire. The explanation translates this as the third abode of consciousness. The term 'Abhasvara' (Heaven of Streaming Radiance) includes the two heavens, the lesser radiance and immeasurable radiance.

言身一者。無異因感其身是同故言身一。若望同地三天上下相望其身亦異。而言身一當處相望。故正理二十二云。彼天中無有表業等為因所感差別身形。故言身一。即形顯等同處諸天相無別義。然彼尊者阿奴律陀契經中言。光凈天等。身有高．下勝．劣。可得此依別處故作是言。非一天中身有差別。

言相異者樂舍別故言想異　三受明義。喜．樂名樂　喻況可知。

豈不遍凈想亦應然者。難。豈不遍凈樂．舍二想亦交參故應名想異。

非遍凈天至擾動心故者。答。三定中樂曾無厭時。喜則不然。擾動心故二差別。

經部師說至得想異名者。經部引經釋第三識住名想異。如文可知。正理難意。第三定天見下水災。新．舊生天有怖．不怖想。應名想異。若俱舍師救。第二定中喜擾動故。見下火災怖．不怖想。第三定中樂凝靜故。雖見水災而不生怖。由不怖想言想一。

有色有情至故名想一者。釋身想一第四識住。有色有情．及與身一併如前釋。此異熟樂曾無厭時故名想一。雖三定中亦起舍受。從多分故。據不厭故。故言想一。

初靜慮中至故言想一者。總明三想差別不同。

下三無色至是名為七者。此釋第四．第五句。四無色中取下三種。謂空無邊處天是第五識住。識無邊處

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『言身一者』，是因為沒有差異，由於感受其身體是相同的，所以說身體是一樣的。如果從不同的地方來看，比如三天上下互相看，他們的身體也是不同的。而說身體一樣，是指在同一個地方互相看。所以《正理》第二十二卷說：『那些天人中沒有由表業等原因所感受到的差別身形，所以說身體是一樣的。』也就是說，形貌顯現等在同一個地方的諸天，相貌沒有差別。然而，尊者阿奴律陀在契經中說，光凈天等，身體有高低勝劣，這是可以得到的，這是依據不同的地方來說的，不是說在同一個天中身體有差別。

關於『言相異者』，是因為快樂和捨棄不同，所以說想法不同。三受說明了這個意思。喜悅和快樂叫做樂，比喻的情況可以知道。

難道遍凈天的想法也應該是這樣嗎？（提出疑問）難道遍凈天快樂和捨棄兩種想法也交織在一起，所以應該叫做想法不同嗎？

『非遍凈天至擾動心故者』（回答）。在三禪定中，快樂從來沒有厭倦的時候，喜悅則不是這樣，因為喜悅會擾動心，這是兩者的差別。

經部師說，引用經典解釋第三識住叫做想法不同，如文字所說的那樣可以知道。《正理》提出的疑問是，第三禪定天的天人看到下面的水災，新生的天人和舊生的天人有害怕和不害怕的想法，應該叫做想法不同。如果俱舍師來救，說第二禪定中喜悅會擾動，看到下面的火災，有害怕和不害怕的想法。第三禪定中快樂凝固安靜，雖然看到水災而不產生害怕，因為沒有害怕的想法，所以說想法是一樣的。

『有色有情至故名想一者』，解釋身體和想法一樣的第四識住。有色有情以及身體一樣，都如前面解釋的那樣。這種異熟的快樂從來沒有厭倦的時候，所以叫做想法一樣。雖然在三禪定中也會產生舍受，但從大部分來說，根據不厭倦的緣故，所以說想法是一樣的。

『初靜慮中至故言想一者』，總的說明三種想法的差別不同。

『下三無色至是名為七者』，這是解釋第四句和第五句。在四無色中取下三種，就是空無邊處天，這是第五識住，識無邊處天。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding '言身一者 (yan shen yi zhe)' [those who say the body is one], it is because there is no difference; since the feeling of their bodies is the same, it is said that the bodies are the same. If viewed from different places, such as looking at the three heavens above and below each other, their bodies are also different. Saying the bodies are the same refers to looking at each other in the same place. Therefore, the twenty-second volume of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Among those gods, there are no differentiated body forms felt due to causes such as expressive karma, so it is said that the bodies are the same.' That is to say, appearances and manifestations, etc., of the gods in the same place have no difference in appearance. However, the Venerable Anuruddha said in the sūtra, 'The Pure Light Heavens, etc., have bodies with high, low, superior, and inferior qualities,' which can be obtained. This is said based on different places; it is not said that there are differences in bodies within the same heaven.

Regarding '言相異者 (yan xiang yi zhe)' [those who say the perceptions are different], it is because pleasure and relinquishment are different, so it is said that the perceptions are different. The three feelings explain this meaning. Joy and happiness are called pleasure; the metaphorical situations can be understood.

Shouldn't the perceptions of the Subhakrtsna heaven also be like this? (Question raised) Shouldn't the two perceptions of pleasure and relinquishment in the Subhakrtsna heaven also be intertwined, so it should be called different perceptions?

'非遍凈天至擾動心故者 (fei bian jing tian zhi rao dong xin gu zhe)' [It is not that the Subhakrtsna heaven... because of the disturbed mind] (Answer). In the third dhyāna, there is never a time when pleasure is厭倦 (yànjuàn, tired of), but joy is not like this, because joy disturbs the mind; this is the difference between the two.

The Sautrāntika masters say, citing the sūtra to explain the third abode of consciousness as having different perceptions, as can be understood from the text. The question raised by the Nyāyānusāra is that the beings of the third dhyāna heaven see the water disaster below, and the newly born beings and the old beings have perceptions of fear and non-fear, which should be called different perceptions. If the Kośa masters come to the rescue, they say that in the second dhyāna, joy is disturbing, and seeing the fire disaster below, there are perceptions of fear and non-fear. In the third dhyāna, pleasure is solidified and quiet, so although they see the water disaster, they do not generate fear. Because there is no perception of fear, it is said that the perceptions are the same.

'有色有情至故名想一者 (you se you qing zhi gu ming xiang yi zhe)' [Those with form and sentient beings... therefore it is called the same perception], explains the fourth abode of consciousness, where the body and perception are the same. 'Those with form and sentient beings' and 'the body is the same' are explained as before. This vipāka pleasure is never厭倦 (yànjuàn, tired of), so it is called the same perception. Although upekṣā (舍受, relinquishment) also arises in the three dhyānas, it is from the majority, based on not being厭倦 (yànjuàn, tired of), so it is said that the perception is the same.

'初靜慮中至故言想一者 (chu jing lv zhong zhi gu yan xiang yi zhe)' [In the first dhyāna... therefore it is said that the perception is the same], generally explains the differences between the three perceptions.

'下三無色至是名為七者 (xia san wu se zhi shi ming wei qi zhe)' [The lower three formless realms... these are called seven], this explains the fourth and fifth sentences. Among the four formless realms, the lower three are taken, which are the Ākāśānantyāyatana heaven, which is the fifth abode of consciousness, and the Vijñānānantyāyatana.

天是第六識住。無所有處天是第七識住。是名為七。

此中何法名為識住者。問識住體。

謂彼所繫至是名識住者。答。若欲．色所繫五蘊為體。若無色所繫四蘊為體。如其所應有情數．法。識于其中樂住著故。是名識住。

所餘何故非識住耶者。釋第六句問起。

于余處皆有損壞識法故者。舉頌正答。

余處者何者。徴。

謂諸惡處至故非識住者。釋。可知。

何等名為損壞識法者。問。

謂諸惡處至故非識住者。答中有二。此即初解。三惡趣中苦受損識第四．有頂。有滅識法故非識住。

復說若處至故非識住者。第二解。具二義者立為識住。余皆不具故非識住。求入無想天。或求入無想定。有頂昧劣故非識住。

如是分別至九有情居者。此下第四明九有情居。

其九者何者。問。

頌曰至余非不樂住者。答。上三句顯體。下一句簡法。

論曰至如識住中釋者。有情是假。居謂所居五蘊實法。假居於實。有情之居名有情居。此中意明所居之法。總而言之。取自有情法不取他身．非情．中有。故正理二十二云。謂諸有情自樂安住所依色等。實物非余。以諸有情是假有故。然諸實物是假所居。故有情居唯有情法。以有情類于自依身愛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：色界第六天的眾生以第六識為住所。無所有處天的眾生以第七識為住所。以上總稱為七識住。

這裡面，什麼法被稱為識住呢？（這是）提問識住的本體。

（回答：）就是那些與（煩惱）相聯繫的（處所），被稱為識住。如果（是）欲界、色界所聯繫的五蘊為識住的本體；如果是無色界所聯繫的四蘊為識住的本體。像這樣，相應的有情和法，識在其中樂於安住和執著，所以稱為識住。

為什麼其餘的（地方）不是識住呢？（這是）解釋第六句，提出疑問。

（回答：）因為在其餘的地方，都有損壞識的法。（這是）用偈頌正面回答。

其餘的地方是指哪些呢？（這是）提問。

（回答：）指那些惡劣的地方，因此不是識住。（這是）解釋。容易理解。

什麼叫做損壞識的法呢？（這是）提問。

（回答：）指那些惡劣的地方，因此不是識住。（這是）回答中有兩種解釋。這是第一種解釋。三惡趣中的苦受會損害識，第四禪和有頂天，有滅識的法，所以不是識住。

又說，如果（在）某個地方，因此不是識住。（這是）第二種解釋。具備兩種意義的才被立為識住，其餘的都不具備，所以不是識住。追求進入無想天，或者追求進入無想定，有頂天（的境界）昏昧低劣，所以不是識住。

像這樣分別（識住），直到九有情居。（這是）下面第四部分，說明九有情居。

這九種是什麼呢？（這是）提問。

（回答：）偈頌說，直到其餘的（地方）不是不樂於安住。（這是）回答。上面三句顯示本體，下面一句簡別法。

論中說，如同在識住中解釋的那樣。有情是假名，居所是指所居住的五蘊等真實法。假名依附於真實，有情的居所稱為有情居。這裡的意思是說明所居住的法。總而言之，取自身所有的有情法，不取他身、非情、中有（的法）。所以《正理》第二十二卷說：『指那些有情自己樂於安住的所依的色等實物，不是其餘的。』因為諸有情是假有的緣故。然而諸實物是假名所居住的。所以有情居只有有情法。因為有情類對於自己所依止的身體愛...

【English Translation】 English version: The beings in the sixth heaven of the Form Realm dwell with the sixth consciousness. The beings in the Heaven of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception dwell with the seventh consciousness. These are collectively called the Seven Stations of Consciousness (Saptavijnanasthiti).

Among these, what dharma is called a Station of Consciousness? (This is) questioning the essence of the Station of Consciousness.

(Answer:) Those (places) that are associated with (afflictions) are called Stations of Consciousness. If (it is) the five aggregates associated with the Desire Realm and the Form Realm that constitute the essence of the Station of Consciousness; if it is the four aggregates associated with the Formless Realm that constitute the essence of the Station of Consciousness. In this way, corresponding sentient beings and dharmas, consciousness delights in dwelling and clinging to them, therefore they are called Stations of Consciousness.

Why are the remaining (places) not Stations of Consciousness? (This is) explaining the sixth sentence, raising a question.

(Answer:) Because in the remaining places, there are dharmas that damage consciousness. (This is) answering directly with a verse.

Which are the remaining places? (This is) questioning.

(Answer:) They refer to those evil places, therefore they are not Stations of Consciousness. (This is) explaining. It is easy to understand.

What is called a dharma that damages consciousness? (This is) questioning.

(Answer:) They refer to those evil places, therefore they are not Stations of Consciousness. (This is) there are two explanations in the answer. This is the first explanation. The suffering in the three evil realms damages consciousness, the fourth Dhyana and the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra), have the dharma of the cessation of consciousness, therefore they are not Stations of Consciousness.

It is also said that if (in) a certain place, therefore it is not a Station of Consciousness. (This is) the second explanation. Only those that possess both meanings are established as Stations of Consciousness, the rest do not possess them, therefore they are not Stations of Consciousness. Seeking to enter the Heaven of Non-Perception (Asanjnasattva), or seeking to enter the Non-Perception Samadhi (Asanjnasamapatti), the (state of) Peak of Existence (Bhavagra) is dim and inferior, therefore it is not a Station of Consciousness.

Like this, distinguishing (the Stations of Consciousness), until the Nine Abodes of Sentient Beings (Nava Sattavasa). (This is) the fourth part below, explaining the Nine Abodes of Sentient Beings.

What are these nine? (This is) questioning.

(Answer:) The verse says, until the remaining (places) are not unwilling to dwell. (This is) answering. The above three sentences reveal the essence, the sentence below distinguishes the dharma.

The treatise says, as explained in the Stations of Consciousness. Sentient beings are nominal, the abode refers to the real dharmas such as the five aggregates that are dwelled in. The nominal relies on the real, the abode of sentient beings is called the Abode of Sentient Beings. The meaning here is to explain the dharmas that are dwelled in. In general, it takes the sentient being's own dharma, and does not take the dharma of other bodies, non-sentient beings, and the intermediate state (Antarabhava). Therefore, the twenty-second volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'It refers to the real objects such as form, etc., on which sentient beings themselves delight in dwelling, not the rest.' Because all sentient beings are nominally existent. However, all real objects are dwelled in by the nominal. Therefore, the Abode of Sentient Beings only has the dharma of sentient beings. Because sentient beings have love for their own dependent body...

住增強非於處所。又于處所立有情居。即有情居應成雜亂。居無雜亂唯有內身。故有情居唯有情法。既言生已名有情居。知有情居不攝中有。又諸中有非久所居故。諸有情不樂安住。又必應爾。由本論說為顯生處立有情居　又正理簡七識住有情居差別云。于生死中為顯諸識由愛住著建立識住。顯諸有情于自依止愛樂安住立有情居。故此二門差別建立(已上論文)　羅剎。具足應言羅剎婆。此云守護。又婆沙一百三十七云七識住。九有情居。為七攝九。九攝七耶。答九攝七非七攝九。何所不攝。謂無想天．及非想處。此中所以如前應知(準此相攝七識住亦唯有情數)。

前所引經至其四者何者。此下第五明四識住。依經起問。

頌曰至有漏四句攝者。上三句。及有漏。明體　四句攝。明寬狹。

論曰至是名四種者。列四識住名。

如是四種其體云何者。問。

謂隨次第至依著于彼者。答　有漏。簡無漏　四蘊。簡識蘊。就有漏四蘊中唯取自地非余他地。就自地中取自身．情數。非取他身非情。故正理二十二云。又自地中唯有情數．唯自相續立為識住。非非情數．他相續中。識隨樂住如自相續(已上論文)此自地．自身有漏四蘊是識所依。是識所著　所依。謂識俱生依。同時助伴令識起故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：住處並非僅限於處所。如果在處所中設立有情居住，那麼有情居住的地方就應該變得雜亂無章。但實際上居住的地方並沒有雜亂的情況，只有內在的身體才是如此。因此，有情居住的地方僅僅是有情的法。既然已經說了『生』，就名為有情居，由此可知有情居不包括中有（bardo，指死亡和再生之間的過渡狀態）。而且，諸多的中有並非長期居住的地方，所以有情並不喜歡安住在那裡。而且，必然應該是這樣，因為本論中說，爲了顯示產生的地方而設立有情居。此外，《正理》簡化了七識住和有情居的差別，說：在生死輪迴中，爲了顯示諸識由於愛而住著，所以建立了識住；爲了顯示諸有情對於自己的依止之處喜愛安住，所以建立了有情居。因此，這兩者的差別是這樣建立的（以上是論文內容）。羅剎（Rakshasa，一種惡鬼），完整地說應該是羅剎婆（Rakshasa-pura），意思是守護。此外，《婆沙論》第一百三十七卷說，七識住和九有情居，是七者包含九者，還是九者包含七者呢？回答是九者包含七者，而不是七者包含九者。什麼沒有包含呢？就是無想天（Asamjnika-deva，無想有情天）以及非想非非想處天（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana，既非有想也非無想處天）。其中的道理應該像前面所說的那樣理解（按照這個相攝關係，七識住也僅僅是有情數）。

前面所引用的經文，說到其中的四種是什麼呢？下面第五點說明四識住，依據經文提出問題。

頌文說到『至有漏四句攝者』。上面的三句以及『有漏』，說明了體性；『四句攝』，說明了寬窄。

論中說到『是名四種者』。列舉了四識住的名稱。

『如是四種其體云何者』。提問。

『謂隨次第至依著于彼者』。回答。『有漏』，簡別于無漏；『四蘊』，簡別于識蘊。在有漏的四蘊中，只取自地的，不取其餘他地的。在自地中，取自身和情數，不取他身和非情。所以《正理》第二十二卷說：『而且在自地中，只有有情數和自己的相續才被立為識住，而不是非情數和他人的相續。識隨著快樂而安住，就像在自己的相續中一樣（以上是論文內容）。』這自地、自身有漏的四蘊是識所依賴的，是識所執著的。所依賴，指的是識俱生的依處，同時幫助和伴隨，使識生起。

【English Translation】 English version: Abiding is not limited to locations. Furthermore, if sentient beings' dwellings are established in locations, then these dwellings should become chaotic. However, dwellings are not chaotic; only the inner body is. Therefore, sentient beings' dwellings are solely the dharmas (laws, teachings) of sentient beings. Since 'birth' has been mentioned, it is called a sentient being's dwelling, indicating that the intermediate state (bardo, the transitional state between death and rebirth) is not included in sentient beings' dwellings. Moreover, these intermediate states are not places where one dwells for long, so sentient beings do not enjoy residing there. And it must be so, because the treatise states that sentient beings' dwellings are established to reveal the place of birth. Furthermore, the Nyayanusara (Following the Path of Reasoning) simplifies the difference between the seven abodes of consciousness (saptavijnanasthiti) and sentient beings' dwellings, saying: 'In the cycle of birth and death, to reveal that consciousness abides due to attachment, the abodes of consciousness are established. To reveal that sentient beings delight in abiding in their own support, sentient beings' dwellings are established.' Therefore, the difference between these two is established in this way (the above is the content of the treatise). Rakshasa (a type of demon), should fully be called Rakshasa-pura, which means guardian. Moreover, the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) in its 137th fascicle says, 'Are the seven abodes of consciousness and the nine abodes of sentient beings such that the seven encompass the nine, or the nine encompass the seven?' The answer is that the nine encompass the seven, not the other way around. What is not encompassed? Namely, the Heaven of Non-Perception (Asamjnika-deva, the heaven of non-conceptual beings) and the Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception). The reason for this should be understood as before (according to this relationship, the seven abodes of consciousness are also only within the realm of sentient beings).

Regarding the sutra quoted earlier, what are the four mentioned therein? The fifth point below explains the four abodes of consciousness, raising a question based on the sutra.

The verse says, 'To the extent that the four aggregates are conditioned.' The three lines above and 'conditioned' explain the nature; 'encompassed by the four lines' explains the scope.

The treatise says, 'These are called the four types.' It lists the names of the four abodes of consciousness.

'What is the nature of these four types?' A question.

'Namely, in order, to the extent that they rely on and are attached to them.' An answer. 'Conditioned' distinguishes from unconditioned; 'four aggregates' distinguishes from the aggregate of consciousness. Among the conditioned four aggregates, only those of one's own realm are taken, not those of other realms. Within one's own realm, one takes one's own body and sentient aspects, not the bodies of others or non-sentient aspects. Therefore, the 22nd fascicle of the Nyayanusara says: 'Moreover, within one's own realm, only the sentient aspects and one's own continuum are established as abodes of consciousness, not non-sentient aspects or the continua of others. Consciousness abides according to pleasure, just as in one's own continuum (the above is the content of the treatise).' These conditioned four aggregates of one's own realm and body are what consciousness relies on and is attached to. Reliance refers to the co-arisen basis of consciousness, simultaneously assisting and accompanying it, causing consciousness to arise.

。最極親近故名為依。非要是識所依根故方名所依。此所依言顯親由藉義　所著。謂識所著境。通俱．不俱引識起故。諸有漏識隨其愛力依著于彼。有斯二義故名識住。于地獄中亦愛自身或貪樂等故於地獄亦有識住。若於非情．他身四蘊雖是所緣可名所著。而非是依非親俱故故非識住。若於異地．及無漏法二義俱闕。非識隨愛力依彼．著彼。以愛不緣無漏．異地法。設起異地法。設起異地心。或無心時現在二蘊亦名識住。同識住相故。諸同分識余緣闕故不生。非此不能生也。

如何不說識為識住者。問。

由離能住至所說如是者。答。凡言識住。由離能住識別立所住四蘊。非能住識可名識住故。不可說識為識住。如非即王可名王座。或若有四蘊法。識所乘御說名識住。喻況如人乘船道理。非識御識故識非識住。

若爾何故至五蘊為體者。難。經言于識有喜．染故識住其中。識所乘御。又說識體為七識住。明知識體亦是所住。

雖有是說至於余可說者。答。于契經中雖有是說而於生處所攝五蘊中不別分拆總生喜．染。緣識義邊名識食。緣五蘊義邊名七識住。轉之言起。故識起時不但四蘊名識住。識蘊亦名識住。非獨說識別生喜．染名為所住。然色等四蘊一一能生種種喜．染。令識著故名識住。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：之所以稱為『依』，是因為它極其親近。並非一定要是意識所依賴的根源才稱為『所依』。這裡說的『所依』，強調的是親近和憑藉的含義。『所著』，指的是意識所執著的境界，包括同時和不同時引發意識生起的境界。所有有漏的意識，都隨著愛慾的力量，依附和執著于這些境界。因為有這兩種含義，所以稱為『識住』。在地獄中，眾生也愛著自身，或者貪戀快樂等，所以地獄中也有識住。如果對於非情之物（無情識的事物）或者他人的色、受、想、行四蘊，雖然是意識所緣的對象，可以稱為『所著』，但因為不是『依』，也不是親近的，所以不是識住。如果對於異地（不同的境界）或者無漏之法，則兩種含義都缺乏，意識不會隨著愛慾的力量依附和執著於它們。因為愛慾不會緣于無漏法和異地法。假設生起異地的心，或者無心的時候，現在的色、受二蘊也可以稱為識住，因為它們與識住的相狀相同。那些與此識住同類的其他意識，因為缺乏其他因緣，所以不生起，並非是此識住不能生起。

問：為什麼不說意識本身是識住呢？

答：因為要區分能住的意識和所住的四蘊，所以才說『識住』。不能把能住的意識稱為識住。就像不能把國王稱為王座一樣。或者說，如果有四蘊法，意識在其中執行和駕馭，就稱為識住，就像人乘坐船隻一樣。意識不能駕馭意識，所以意識不是識住。

問：如果這樣，為什麼經中說對於意識有喜樂和染著，所以意識住在其中，意識在其中執行和駕馭？又說意識的自體是七識住，說明意識的自體也是所住的？

答：雖然經中有這樣的說法，但是在攝屬於生處（輪迴之處）的五蘊中，並沒有特別區分，而是總的對生起喜樂和染著。從緣于意識的角度來說，稱為識食；從緣於五蘊的角度來說，稱為七識住。『轉』的意思是生起。所以意識生起的時候，不僅僅是四蘊稱為識住，意識蘊也稱為識住。並非只有意識才能生起喜樂和染著，才稱為所住。而是色等四蘊，每一個都能生起種種喜樂和染著，使意識執著於它們，所以稱為識住。

【English Translation】 English version: It is called 'support' (依, yi) because it is extremely close. It is not necessarily the case that only the root on which consciousness relies is called 'support' (所依, suo yi). The term 'support' here emphasizes the meaning of closeness and reliance. 'Attachment' (所著, suo zhu) refers to the realm that consciousness clings to, including realms that simultaneously and non-simultaneously give rise to consciousness. All defiled consciousness, according to the power of craving, relies on and clings to these realms. Because of these two meanings, it is called 'consciousness-abiding' (識住, shi zhu). In hell, beings also cherish themselves or crave pleasure, so there is also consciousness-abiding in hell. If, with regard to non-sentient things or the four aggregates (skandha) of others, although they are objects of consciousness and can be called 'attachment,' they are not 'support' and are not close, so they are not consciousness-abiding. If, with regard to different realms or undefiled dharmas, both meanings are lacking; consciousness will not, according to the power of craving, rely on or cling to them, because craving does not arise in relation to undefiled dharmas or different realms. Suppose a mind of a different realm arises, or when there is no mind, the present two aggregates of form and feeling can also be called consciousness-abiding, because they have the same characteristics as consciousness-abiding. Those other consciousnesses of the same category as this consciousness-abiding, because they lack other conditions, do not arise; it is not that this consciousness-abiding cannot arise.

Question: Why is consciousness itself not called consciousness-abiding?

Answer: Because we need to distinguish between the consciousness that can abide and the four aggregates that are abided in, we say 'consciousness-abiding.' The consciousness that can abide cannot be called consciousness-abiding, just as the king cannot be called the throne. Or, if there are four aggregates of dharma in which consciousness operates and rides, it is called consciousness-abiding, just as a person rides a boat. Consciousness cannot ride consciousness, so consciousness is not consciousness-abiding.

Question: If so, why does the sutra say that there is joy and attachment to consciousness, so consciousness abides in it, and consciousness operates and rides in it? And it is said that the self-nature of consciousness is the seven consciousness-abidings, indicating that the self-nature of consciousness is also what is abided in?

Answer: Although there are such statements in the sutras, in the five aggregates included in the place of birth (saṃsāra), there is no special distinction, but rather a general arising of joy and attachment. From the perspective of arising in relation to consciousness, it is called consciousness-food (識食, shi shi); from the perspective of arising in relation to the five aggregates, it is called the seven consciousness-abidings. 'Turning' (轉, zhuan) means arising. So when consciousness arises, it is not only the four aggregates that are called consciousness-abiding, but the consciousness aggregate is also called consciousness-abiding. It is not only consciousness that can give rise to joy and attachment and be called what is abided in. Rather, each of the four aggregates, such as form, can give rise to various joys and attachments, causing consciousness to cling to them, so they are called consciousness-abiding.

獨識不然故非所住。是故於此四識住中識非識住。于餘四食．及七識住中可言識住于識。

又佛意說至教意如是者。又引教證識非所住。

又法與識至故非識住者。四蘊與識可俱時生為識良田可立識住。無識與識俱時而生。故識望識非是識住。故婆沙一百三十七云。謂若有法識所乘御與識俱行親近和合立四識住。識望于識無如是事。故不立在四識住中。若法與識為因為果。展轉相資立七識住。識望于識有如是事。是故立在七識住中。

如是所說至謂除前相者。明七識住四識住。互有寬狹四句差別。七識住體寬處狹。四識住處寬體狹。四句如文可知。第三句中既言七中四蘊。正理又說四識住唯是有情。明知七識住亦唯有情。若以九有情居對四識住。互有寬狹還成四句　第一句有九非四。謂九中識　第二句有四非九。謂三惡趣．及第四定中無想天所不攝余天。色．受．想．行　第三句有九亦四謂九中四蘊　第四句有非九非四。謂除前相。

於前所說至略有四種者。此下第六明四生。於前所說三界．五趣中應知其生略有四種。

何等為四何處有何者。一問數。二別約處問。

頌曰至鬼通胎化二者。前兩句答初問。后四句答后問。

論曰至而生類等者　生。謂四生種類。諸有情中

雖有種種形貌不同余類相雜而由四生種類各等。又婆沙一百二十云。問如是四生以何為自性。答四蘊五蘊以為自性。謂欲．色界五蘊。無色界四蘊。此中有說唯異熟蘊以為自性。有說亦通長養。是名四生自性。

婆沙二說前說為正。以四生．五趣相攝中。云四生攝五趣非五趣攝四生。不攝者何所謂中有。若不爾者。應更說言不攝長養。若言五趣亦通長養無斯過者。此救不然。婆沙正義五趣體性唯是異熟。

云何卵生至故名為化者。此釋四名。

人傍生趣各具四種者。釋第三句。此即總舉。

人卵生者至五百子等者。此明人卵生　世羅唐言山。鄔波世羅唐言小山。大小不同故以小標別。兄弟二人皆阿羅漢。近山生故以山為名。故婆沙一百二十云。人卵生者。昔於此州有商人入海得一雌鶴。形色偉麗奇而悅之。遂生二卵。於後卵開生二童子端正聰慧年長出家。皆得阿羅漢。小者名鄔波世羅。大者名世羅(已上論文)　鹿母者。是毗舍佉夫人。毗舍佉是二月星名從星為名。此云長養。即功德生長也。是彌伽羅長者兒。婦有子名鹿故名鹿母從子為名。生三十二卵。卵出一兒。故婆沙一百二十四云。毗舍佉鹿子母　般遮羅是地名。唐言執五。此王從地為名王妃生五百卵已羞愧恐為災變。以小函盛棄殑伽

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：雖然有種種不同的形貌，其餘各類生命相互混雜，但由於四種不同的出生方式，種類各不相同。又如《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百二十卷所說：『問：這四種出生方式以什麼為自性？』答：以四蘊或五蘊為自性。』也就是說，欲界眾生以五蘊為自性，無色界眾生以四蘊為自性。這裡有人說只有異熟蘊（Vipāka-skandha，果報之蘊）是其自性，也有人說也包括長養蘊（Pushti-skandha，滋養之蘊）。這被稱為四生的自性。

《毗婆沙論》的兩種說法中，前一種說法是正確的。因為在四生和五趣相互包含的關係中，說的是四生包含五趣，而不是五趣包含四生。不包含的是什麼呢？就是中陰（Antarābhava，死後到投生之間的狀態）。如果不是這樣，就應該進一步說不包含長養蘊。如果說五趣也包括長養蘊，就不會有這個過失。這種辯解是不對的。《毗婆沙論》的正確觀點是，五趣的體性只是異熟果報。

『云何卵生至故名為化者』，這是解釋四生的名稱。

『人傍生趣各具四種者』，這是解釋第三句話。這是總括地說明。

『人卵生者至五百子等者』，這是說明人也有卵生的例子。世羅（Śaila）唐言為山，鄔波世羅（Upaśaila）唐言為小山。因為山有大小不同，所以用『小』字來區別。兄弟二人都證得了阿羅漢果（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）。因為靠近山邊出生，所以用山來命名。所以《毗婆沙論》第一百二十卷說：『人卵生者，過去在這個贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，我們所居住的洲）有商人入海，得到一隻雌鶴，形貌美麗奇特，非常喜歡它，於是生了兩個卵。後來卵孵化，生出兩個童子，端正聰慧，長大后出家，都證得了阿羅漢果。小名叫鄔波世羅，大名叫世羅。』（以上是論文內容）鹿母（Migāramātā）是毗舍佉（Viśākhā）夫人。毗舍佉是二月星的名字，從星名而來。這裡的意思是長養，也就是功德增長。她是彌伽羅（Migāra）長者的女兒，因為兒媳婦生了個兒子名叫鹿，所以稱為鹿母，從兒子的名字而來。她生了三十二個卵，每個卵生出一個兒子。所以《毗婆沙論》第一百二十四卷說：『毗舍佉鹿子母』。般遮羅（Pāñcāla）是地名，唐言為執五。這位國王從地名而來，王妃生了五百個卵，因為感到羞愧，害怕是災禍的預兆，用小匣子裝著丟棄在殑伽河（Gaṅgā，恒河）。

【English Translation】 English version: Although there are various different forms and other kinds of beings mixed together, they are distinct in their species due to the four different modes of birth. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 120, states: 'Question: What is the self-nature of these four modes of birth?' Answer: Their self-nature is the four skandhas or the five skandhas.' That is to say, beings in the desire realm have five skandhas as their self-nature, while beings in the formless realm have four skandhas as their self-nature. Here, some say that only the Vipāka-skandha (the aggregate of resultant effects) is their self-nature, while others say that it also includes the Pushti-skandha (the aggregate of nourishment). This is called the self-nature of the four modes of birth.

Among the two statements in the Vibhāṣā, the former is correct. This is because in the relationship of mutual inclusion between the four modes of birth and the five destinies, it is said that the four modes of birth include the five destinies, but not that the five destinies include the four modes of birth. What is not included? It is the Antarābhava (the intermediate state between death and rebirth). If it were not so, it should be further said that the Pushti-skandha is not included. If it is said that the five destinies also include the Pushti-skandha, there would be no such fault. This defense is incorrect. The correct view of the Vibhāṣā is that the nature of the five destinies is only the resultant effect.

'How are beings born from eggs, etc., called transformationally born?' This explains the names of the four modes of birth.

'Humans and beings in the animal realm each possess the four modes of birth.' This explains the third sentence. This is a general summary.

'Humans born from eggs, etc., up to five hundred children, etc.' This illustrates that humans also have instances of being born from eggs. Śaila in Tang language (Chinese) means 'mountain,' and Upaśaila in Tang language means 'small mountain.' Because mountains have different sizes, the word 'small' is used to distinguish them. The two brothers both attained the state of Arhat (a noble one who has extinguished all afflictions). Because they were born near the mountain, they were named after the mountain. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā, volume 120, says: 'Humans born from eggs, in the past, in this Jambudvīpa (the continent we inhabit), there was a merchant who went to sea and obtained a female crane, whose appearance was beautiful and extraordinary, and he was very fond of it. Then it laid two eggs. Later, the eggs hatched, and two boys were born, who were handsome and intelligent. When they grew up, they left home and both attained the state of Arhat. The younger one was named Upaśaila, and the elder one was named Śaila.' (The above is the content of the treatise.) Migāramātā is Lady Viśākhā. Viśākhā is the name of the star in the second month, named after the star. Here, it means nourishment, which is the growth of merit. She was the daughter of the elder Migāra, and because his daughter-in-law gave birth to a son named Miga, she was called Migāramātā, named after her son. She gave birth to thirty-two eggs, and each egg gave birth to a son. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā, volume 124, says: 'Viśākhā Migāramātā.' Pāñcāla is the name of a place, which in Tang language means 'holding five.' This king was named after the place, and the queen gave birth to five hundred eggs. Because she felt ashamed and feared that it was a sign of disaster, she put them in a small box and discarded them in the Gaṅgā (Ganges River).

河。隨流而去。下有鄰國王因觀水遣人接取見卵。將歸經數日間各出一子。養大驍勇所往皆伏無敢敵者。時彼鄰國王與彼父王久來怨仇。欲遣征罰先作書告今欲決戰。尋后兵至圍繞其城即欲摧破。般遮羅王極生忙怖。王妃問委。慰喻王言。王不須愁。此五百子皆是我兒。具陳上事夫子見母噁心必息。妃自登城告五百子說上因緣。如何今者欲造逆罪。若不信者皆應張口。妃按兩乳有五百道乳汁各注一口。應時信伏。因即和好各起慈心。兩國交通永無征伐。

人胎生者至唯劫初人者。此明人胎．濕．化生。

曼馱多。是王名。唐云我養。從布殺陀王頂皰而生顏貌端正。王抱入宮告誰能養。諸宮各言我養也故以標名。舊雲頂生王此義翻也。然非正目。此王長大為金輪王。

遮盧。唐言髀。鄔波遮盧。唐言小髀。於我養王兩髀上各生一皰。皰生一子。顏貌端正。從所生處為名。以小標別。亦為輪王。

鴿鬘者。昔有一王名跋羅哈摩達多。唐言靜授。于王腋下有皰生一女子。名為鴿鬘。從腋下出如鴿出飛。王重如鬘故以名焉。或生已后鴿恒隨逐。王重如鬘。故以名焉　庵羅衛者。有庵羅衛女。從庵羅衛樹濕氣而生。或從子生。或從枝生。余文可知。

正理云。此四生人皆可得聖。得聖無受卵濕二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本河。隨著水流漂走。下游的鄰國國王因為觀看水流，派人去接取，發現了卵。帶回去后，經過幾天，每個卵都生出一個兒子。養大后，這些兒子都驍勇善戰，所到之處，無人敢抵抗。當時，這位鄰國國王與般遮羅（Panchala，印度古國名）國王的父親長期以來有仇怨。想要派兵征討，先寫信告知，說現在要決一死戰。不久之後，軍隊到達，包圍了般遮羅的城池，就要摧毀它。般遮羅國王非常驚慌害怕。王妃詢問情況，安慰國王說：『大王不必憂愁。這五百個兒子都是我的兒子。』於是詳細地陳述了以前的事情，說丈夫見到母親，惡念必定會消除。王妃親自登上城樓，告訴五百個兒子事情的來龍去脈，問他們：『為何現在想要犯下大逆不道的罪行？如果不相信，你們都應該張開嘴巴。』王妃按住自己的雙乳，有五百道乳汁分別注入他們的口中。他們立刻相信並順服了。因此，兩國和好，各自生起慈悲之心。兩國交通往來，永遠沒有徵戰。

人是胎生的，只有劫初的人不是胎生的。這裡說明了人有胎生、濕生、化生。

曼馱多（Mandhata），是國王的名字，唐朝話翻譯為『我養』。他從布殺陀（Bhusatha）國王的頭頂肉皰中出生，容貌端正。國王抱入宮中，問誰能養育他。眾宮妃都說『我養』，因此用這個來命名。舊譯為『頂生王』，這是意譯，並非直譯。這位國王長大后成為金輪王。

遮盧（Charu），唐朝話翻譯為『髀』（大腿）。鄔波遮盧（Upacharu），唐朝話翻譯為『小髀』（小大腿）。在我養王（指曼馱多王）的兩條大腿上，各自生出一個肉皰，肉皰中生出一個兒子，容貌端正。因為從所生之處命名，用『小』字來區別。也成為輪王。

鴿鬘者（Kapota-mala），過去有一位國王名叫跋羅哈摩達多（Brahmadatta），唐朝話翻譯為『靜授』。國王的腋下生出一個肉皰，生出一個女子，名叫鴿鬘。從腋下出來時，像鴿子一樣飛出。國王看重她如同花鬘，因此用這個名字命名。或者說，出生之後，鴿子總是跟隨在她身邊。國王看重她如同花鬘，因此用這個名字命名。庵羅衛者（Amra），有一位庵羅衛女，從庵羅衛樹的濕氣中出生。或者從樹的果實中出生，或者從樹枝中出生。其餘的文字可以類推得知。

正理說，這四種生的人都可以證得聖果。證得聖果與卵生、濕生無關。

【English Translation】 English version A river. Drifting along with the current. A neighboring king downstream, while observing the water, sent people to collect something and they found eggs. They took them back, and after several days, each egg hatched into a son. Raised to be brave and fierce, wherever they went, no one dared to resist. At that time, this neighboring king had a long-standing feud with the father of the Panchala (Panchala, name of an ancient Indian kingdom) king. Wanting to send troops to punish him, he first sent a letter declaring his intention to fight to the death. Soon after, the army arrived, surrounding the city of Panchala, ready to destroy it. The Panchala king was extremely frightened. The queen asked about the situation and comforted the king, saying, 'Your Majesty, do not worry. These five hundred sons are all my sons.' She then recounted the past events in detail, saying that her husband's evil thoughts would surely cease upon seeing their mother. The queen personally ascended the city wall and told the five hundred sons the whole story, asking them, 'Why do you now want to commit such a heinous crime? If you do not believe me, you should all open your mouths.' The queen pressed her breasts, and five hundred streams of milk poured into each of their mouths. They immediately believed and submitted. Therefore, the two countries reconciled, and each developed compassion. The two countries had friendly relations, and there were no more wars.

Humans are born from wombs, except for the first humans at the beginning of the kalpa (aeon). This explains that humans are born from wombs, moisture, and transformation.

Mandhata (Mandhata) is the name of a king, translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'I nurture'. He was born from a fleshy bump on the head of King Bhusatha (Bhusatha), with a handsome appearance. The king held him in the palace and asked who could raise him. All the palace women said, 'I will raise him,' so he was named after this. The old translation was 'Top-born King,' which is a free translation, not a literal one. This king grew up to become a Chakravartin (universal ruler).

Charu (Charu), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'thigh'. Upacharu (Upacharu), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'small thigh'. On the two thighs of King 'I nurture' (referring to King Mandhata), each grew a fleshy bump, and a son was born from each bump, with a handsome appearance. He was named after the place of his birth, with 'small' to distinguish him. He also became a Chakravartin.

Kapota-mala (Kapota-mala): In the past, there was a king named Brahmadatta (Brahmadatta), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'Quiet Bestowal'. A fleshy bump grew under the king's armpit, and a girl was born, named Kapota-mala. When she came out from under the armpit, she flew out like a dove. The king valued her like a garland, so he named her this. Or, after she was born, doves always followed her. The king valued her like a garland, so he named her this. Amra: There was an Amra girl, born from the moisture of the Amra tree. Or born from the fruit of the tree, or born from the branches. The remaining text can be inferred.

The Hetu-vidya (Logic) says that people born from these four types of birth can all attain sainthood. Attaining sainthood has nothing to do with being born from eggs or moisture.

生。以聖皆欣殊勝智見。卵．濕生類性多愚癡。或諸卵生生皆開再。故飛禽等世號再生。聖怖多生故無受義。濕生多分眾聚同生。聖怖雜居故亦不受。

傍生三種至揭路荼等者。明傍生具四。胎．卵．濕三世共現見。化生如龍．及揭路荼等　揭路荼此雲頂癭或名蘇缽剌尼。此云妙翅。翅殊妙也。舊云金翅鳥非正所目。

一切地獄至皆唯化生者。釋第四．第五句。可知。

鬼趣唯通至雖盡而無飽者。釋第六句。鬼化生可知。胎生難知。故引頌證。卵．濕生類性多愚癡。鬼多黠慧。故非卵．濕。

一切生中何生最勝者。此下第二問答。

應言最勝唯是化生者。答。化生最勝。亦有地獄受劣化生據總相說。故正理云。應言最勝唯是化生。支分諸根圓具猛利。身形微妙故勝餘生。

若爾何緣至而受胎生者。難。既化生勝。後身菩薩何不化生。

見受胎生至息諸疑謗者。就答中。一明現益。二明後益。此即現益。略有四種。或引釋種。或引余類。或引同類。或復止謗。故受胎生(曹之言輩)。

有餘師說至即無所見者。此明後益。若受化生死無遺形不能益后。若受胎生得留身界。益後有情故受胎生　身界。梵曰馱都。即佛身界也。亦名室利羅。唐言體佛身體也。舊云舍利訛也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：眾生。由於聖者都欣喜殊勝的智慧見解。卵生和濕生類的眾生大多愚癡。或者一些卵生眾生會經歷再次破殼而出。因此飛禽等在世間被稱為再生。聖者畏懼多次出生，所以不接受這種方式。濕生眾生大多聚集在一起同時出生。聖者畏懼雜居，所以也不接受這種方式。

傍生三種，直到揭路荼（Garuda，一種神鳥）等，說明傍生具備四種（出生方式）。胎生、卵生、濕生這三種在世間共同顯現可見。化生如龍以及揭路荼等。揭路荼，在這裡被稱為頂癭，或者叫做蘇缽剌尼（Suvarnaparṇa，妙翅鳥）。意思是翅膀非常美妙。舊譯為金翅鳥並非正確的指稱。

一切地獄眾生，都是化生，解釋了第四句和第五句。可以理解。

鬼道眾生都是化生，雖然飢餓至極卻無法飽腹，解釋了第六句。鬼道眾生是化生可以理解。胎生難以理解，所以引用頌文來證明。卵生和濕生類的眾生大多愚癡。鬼道眾生大多狡猾聰明，所以不是卵生或濕生。

一切眾生中，哪種出生方式最為殊勝？這是下面的第二個問答。

應該說最殊勝的唯有化生。回答：化生最為殊勝。也有地獄眾生承受惡劣的化生，這是從總體上來說。所以《正理》中說：應該說最殊勝的唯有化生。因為化生眾生的肢體和器官完整具備，並且非常強健有力，身形也微妙，所以勝過其他出生方式。

如果這樣，為什麼菩薩要經歷胎生呢？提問：既然化生殊勝，後身的菩薩為什麼不選擇化生？

看到菩薩經歷胎生，是爲了止息各種疑惑和誹謗。在回答中，一是說明現世的利益，二是說明後世的利益。這裡是現世的利益。大致有四種原因：或者引用釋迦種姓，或者引用其他類別，或者引用同類，或者用來止息誹謗。所以（菩薩）選擇胎生（曹之言輩）。

有其他論師說，如果接受化生，死後不會留下遺體，就無法利益後人。如果接受胎生，可以留下身界，利益後世的有情眾生，所以（菩薩）選擇胎生。身界，梵語叫馱都（dhātu），就是佛身界。也叫室利羅（śarīra），唐朝話叫體佛身體，也就是佛的身體。舊譯為舍利是訛傳。

【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings. Because the sages all rejoice in superior wisdom and insight. Oviparous and moisture-born beings are mostly foolish. Or some oviparous beings experience hatching again. Therefore, birds and the like are called reborn in the world. Sages fear multiple births, so they do not accept this method. Moisture-born beings mostly gather together and are born simultaneously. Sages fear living in mixed company, so they also do not accept this method.

Beings of the animal realm, up to the Garuda (a mythical bird), indicate that animals possess four (modes of birth). Viviparous, oviparous, and moisture-born are all commonly seen in the world. Transformation birth is like dragons and Garudas. Garuda, here called 頂癭 (dǐngyǐng, top goiter), or Suvarnaparṇa (妙翅鳥 miàochìniǎo, wonderful-winged bird). It means the wings are very wonderful. The old translation as 'golden-winged bird' is not the correct designation.

All hell beings are transformation-born, explaining the fourth and fifth sentences. It can be understood.

Beings in the ghost realm are all transformation-born, although extremely hungry, they cannot be satiated, explaining the sixth sentence. That ghosts are transformation-born is understandable. That they are viviparous is difficult to understand, so a verse is quoted to prove it. Oviparous and moisture-born beings are mostly foolish. Ghosts are mostly cunning and intelligent, so they are not oviparous or moisture-born.

Among all beings, which mode of birth is the most superior? This is the second question and answer below.

It should be said that the most superior is only transformation birth. Answer: Transformation birth is the most superior. There are also hell beings who endure inferior transformation birth, but this is speaking in general terms. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: It should be said that the most superior is only transformation birth. Because the limbs and organs of transformation-born beings are complete and fully equipped, and they are very strong and powerful, and their bodies are subtle, so they are superior to other modes of birth.

If so, why do Bodhisattvas experience viviparous birth? Question: Since transformation birth is superior, why don't Bodhisattvas in their later lives choose transformation birth?

Seeing Bodhisattvas experience viviparous birth is to stop all doubts and slanders. In the answer, first, the benefits of the present life are explained, and second, the benefits of future lives are explained. Here are the benefits of the present life. There are roughly four reasons: either citing the Shakya clan, or citing other categories, or citing the same category, or to stop slander. Therefore, (Bodhisattvas) choose viviparous birth (like Cao Zhi's generation).

Other teachers say that if one accepts transformation birth, no remains will be left after death, and future generations cannot be benefited. If one accepts viviparous birth, one can leave behind a dhātu (身界, body realm), benefiting sentient beings in future lives, so (Bodhisattvas) choose viviparous birth. Dhātu (馱都), in Sanskrit, is the Buddha's body realm. It is also called śarīra (室利羅), which in Tang Chinese is called 體佛身體 (tǐ fó shēntǐ), which is the Buddha's body. The old translation as śarīra (舍利) is a corruption.

。

若人信佛至此不成釋者。論主難。意佛有持愿通。謂發勝愿愿留身界。起通持愿令久留身不假胎生故不成釋　通能持愿名持愿通。此即神境智證通。或即以愿持身令住。愿能持故。持愿即通名持愿通。正理二十二救曰。今謂此釋其理必成。通所留身非佛功德力．無畏等所依熏故。不能廣大饒益世間。所以然者。是可留法通愿能留。一切化生如剎那法必無留義。謂諸有為剎那定滅。諸佛神力亦不能留。設欲久留即須別化。此所別化非佛功德力．無畏等之所依熏。故於世間無大饒益　若作俱舍師破佛後身界非力等依如何益物。若言後身接前力等所依身起能益物者。此留化身亦接力等所依身起何不獲益。若謂留化非情攝者供養非益。汝留身界言是豈是情耶。

因論生論至為充所食者。問。化死無遺。如何取食。

以不知故至暫食何咎者。答。或不知取食。或暫充飢　問何故化生死無遺形　答如正理論云。化生何故死無遺形。由彼頓生故應頓滅。如戲水者出沒亦然。毗婆沙師說。化生者造色多故死無遺形。大種多者死非頓滅。即由此義可以證知一四大種生多造色。正理雖作此說非婆沙正義。故婆沙一百二十七云。問一四大種為但造一造色極微。為能造多。若但造一。如何不成因四果一。因多果小理不應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果有人信佛，認為佛陀入滅后不能再示現，論主提出質疑。意思是佛陀具有持愿通（持愿通：通過發殊勝的願力，使身體長久住世的神通），即發殊勝的願力，愿身常住世間，憑藉神通和願力使身體長久住世，不需要通過胎生，所以不能說是真正的入滅。通過神通保持願力，這被稱為持愿通。這實際上是神境智證通。或者就是以願力來保持身體的住世，因為願力能夠保持。持愿即是神通，所以名為持愿通。《正理》第二十二卷中辯駁說，現在我們認為這種解釋必然成立。通過神通所留下的身體，不是佛陀的功德力、無畏力等所依附和薰染的，因此不能夠廣泛地饒益世間。為什麼這樣說呢？因為是可以被留住的法，神通和願力能夠留住它。一切化生之身，如同剎那生滅之法，必定沒有長久住世的道理。也就是說，一切有為法都是剎那生滅的，即使是諸佛的神力也不能使其長久住世。如果想要長久住世，就必須另外化生。這種另外化生的身體，不是佛陀的功德力、無畏力等所依附和薰染的，因此對於世間沒有大的饒益。如果按照俱舍師的觀點，破斥佛陀的後身不是功德力等的所依，又如何能夠利益眾生呢？如果說後身是接續前身的功德力等所依之身而生起，能夠利益眾生，那麼這種留下的化身也是接續功德力等所依之身而生起，為什麼不能獲得利益呢？如果說留下的化身不是有情所攝受的，那麼供養它也沒有利益。你所說的留下的身體，難道是有情嗎？因論而生論，至於化身需要食物來充飢的問題。有人問：化身死後什麼都不留下，如何獲取食物？因為不知道所以暫且食用又有什麼過錯呢？回答：或許是不知道如何獲取食物，或許是暫時充飢。有人問：為什麼化身死後不留下任何形體？回答：正如《正理論》所說，化生之身為什麼死後不留下任何形體？因為它們是頓然產生的，所以也應該頓然消滅，就像戲水的人忽隱忽現一樣。毗婆沙師說：化生之身，因為所造的色法較多，所以死後不留下任何形體。如果四大種較多，那麼死後不會頓然消滅。由此義可以證明，一個四大種能夠產生多種造色。《正理》雖然這樣說，但並非毗婆沙的正義。所以《毗婆沙》第一百二十七卷說：有人問，一個四大種是隻造一個造色極微，還是能夠造多個？如果只造一個，為什麼不會成為因四果一的情況？因多果小的道理是不成立的。

【English Translation】 English version: If someone believes that a Buddha, after passing into Nirvana, cannot manifest again, the debater raises a challenge. The meaning is that the Buddha possesses the 'holding-vow' supernormal power (持愿通: the supernormal power of making a supreme vow to keep the body in the world for a long time), that is, making a supreme vow to keep the body in the world for a long time, relying on supernormal powers and vows to keep the body in the world for a long time, without the need for womb-birth, so it cannot be said to be true Nirvana. Maintaining the vow through supernormal powers is called 'holding-vow' supernormal power. This is actually the supernormal power of divine realm wisdom and realization. Or it is to maintain the body's stay in the world with the power of vows, because the power of vows can maintain it. Holding the vow is the supernormal power, so it is called 'holding-vow' supernormal power. The twenty-second volume of the Nyāyānusāra refutes, 'Now we believe that this explanation must be established. The body left behind by supernormal powers is not relied upon and influenced by the Buddha's power of merit, fearlessness, etc., so it cannot widely benefit the world. Why is this so? Because it is a dharma that can be retained, and supernormal powers and vows can retain it. All manifested bodies, like the dharma of momentary arising and ceasing, certainly have no reason to stay in the world for a long time. That is to say, all conditioned dharmas arise and cease momentarily, and even the supernormal power of the Buddhas cannot make them stay in the world for a long time. If you want to stay in the world for a long time, you must manifest another body. This other manifested body is not relied upon and influenced by the Buddha's power of merit, fearlessness, etc., so it has no great benefit to the world.' If, according to the view of the Kośa masters, the Buddha's later body is not relied upon by the power of merit, etc., how can it benefit sentient beings? If it is said that the later body arises by continuing the body relied upon by the power of merit, etc., and can benefit sentient beings, then this retained manifested body also arises by continuing the body relied upon by the power of merit, etc., why can't it obtain benefits? If it is said that the retained manifested body is not embraced by sentient beings, then offering to it has no benefit. Is the body you speak of as being retained a sentient being? Based on the discussion, regarding the question of whether a manifested body needs food to sustain itself. Someone asks: 'After the manifested body dies, nothing is left behind, how does it obtain food?' 'Because of ignorance, what fault is there in eating temporarily?' The answer is: 'Perhaps one does not know how to obtain food, or perhaps it is to temporarily satisfy hunger.' Someone asks: 'Why does the manifested body not leave any form after death?' The answer is: 'As the Nyāyānusāra says, why does the manifested body not leave any form after death? Because they arise suddenly, they should also perish suddenly, just like people playing in the water, appearing and disappearing.' The Vibhaṣā masters say: 'Manifested bodies, because they create many forms, do not leave any form after death. If the four great elements are many, then death will not be sudden.' From this meaning, it can be proved that one of the four great elements can produce many created forms. Although the Nyāyānusāra says this, it is not the correct meaning of the Vibhaṣā. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-seventh volume of the Vibhaṣā says: 'Someone asks, does one of the four great elements only create one ultimate particle of created form, or can it create many? If it only creates one, why doesn't it become a case of one cause and four results? The principle of many causes and small results is not established.'

然。若能造多。即一四大種所造造色有多極微。云何展轉非俱有因。對法者說有對造色展轉相望無俱有因。許則便違對法宗義。答應作是說一四大種但能造一造色極微。問如何不成因四果一。因多果小理不應然。答果小因多理亦無失。世現見有如是類故。因四果一于理無違。有說造多。問一四大種所造造色有多極微。云何展轉非俱有因。答非一果故非俱有因。以俱有因法必同一果故。此不成因同猶預故。評云如前所說者好　婆沙評家既取前師一四大種但造一色。故知造色多者死無遺形是不正義。

於四生內何者最多者。問。

唯多化生者。答。

何以故者。徴。

三趣少分至皆化生故者。釋。正理兩說。一說同此論。又一說云有說濕生現見多故。設有肉等聚廣無邊。下越三輪上過五凈。容遍其量頓變為蟲。是故濕生多餘三種。然無評家。

此中何法至非即名生者。此下第七明中有。就中。一明中有。二破外道　就明中有中。一正明中有。二證有中有。三諸門分別　此即正明中有。一問中有。二問非生。

頌曰至故中有非生者。上兩句答初問。后兩句答后問。

論曰至故名中有者。釋上兩句。可知。

此身已起何不名生者。問。

生謂當來至故不名生者。答。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『然』。如果能夠造很多，即一個四大種（mahābhūta，組成物質世界的四種基本元素：地、水、火、風）所造的造色（rūpa，由四大種所產生的色法）有很多極微（paramāṇu，物質的最小單位）。為什麼輾轉相望不是俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因）呢？對法者（abhidharmikas，精通阿毗達摩的人）說，有對造色輾轉相望沒有俱有因。如果允許這種說法，就違背了對法宗義。應該這樣回答：一個四大種只能造一個造色極微。問：為什麼不能成為因四果一（一個因產生四個果）呢？因多果小的道理不應該這樣。答：果小因多的道理也沒有過失。世間現見有這樣的例子。因四果一在道理上沒有違背。有人說造很多。問：一個四大種所造的造色有很多極微，為什麼輾轉相望不是俱有因呢？答：因為不是同一個果，所以不是俱有因。因為俱有因法必定是同一個果。這個不成因，因為有猶豫。評：如前面所說的比較好。婆沙評家既然採取前師一個四大種只造一個色，所以知道造色多者死無遺形是不正義。

在四生（caturyoni，四種生命形式：卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）中，哪一種最多？問。

唯獨化生（upapāduka，無所依託，由業力直接化現的眾生）最多。答。

為什麼呢？徴（追問）。

因為三趣（trayo gatayah，三惡道：地獄、餓鬼、畜生）的少部分眾生都是化生。釋。正理有兩說。一說與此論相同。又一說云：有人說濕生（saṃsvedaja，從濕氣中產生的眾生）現在看見的很多。假設有肉等聚集，廣大無邊，下越過三輪（trayacakra，三種輪圍：金輪、水輪、風輪），上超過五凈居天（pañcaśuddhāvāsa，色界天的第五層），容納遍滿其量，頓時間變為蟲。因此濕生比其他三種多。然而沒有評家。

此中什麼法到非即名生（jāti，出生）呢？此下第七明中有（antarābhava，中陰身）。就中，一明中有，二破外道。就明中有中，一正明中有，二證有中有，三諸門分別。此即正明中有。一問中有，二問非生。

頌曰：至故中有非生者。上兩句回答第一個問題，后兩句回答第二個問題。

論曰：至故名中有者。解釋上面兩句。可知。

此身已經生起，為什麼不叫做生呢？問。

生是指當來，所以不叫做生。答。

【English Translation】 English version 'Indeed.' If it is possible to create many, meaning that one mahābhūta (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) creates many rūpas (form, matter) which are composed of numerous paramāṇus (the smallest unit of matter). Why are they not co-existent causes (sahabhū-hetu) in their mutual interaction? The Abhidharmikas (those versed in Abhidharma) say that the conditioned rūpas, in their mutual interaction, do not have co-existent causes. If this is accepted, it would contradict the tenets of Abhidharma. The response should be: one mahābhūta can only create one rūpa paramāṇu. Question: Why can't it be a case of one cause producing four effects? It shouldn't be that many causes produce a small effect. Answer: There is no fault in the principle of many causes producing a small effect. It is commonly seen in the world. There is no contradiction in the principle of one cause producing four effects. Some say that it creates many. Question: If one mahābhūta creates many rūpa paramāṇus, why are they not co-existent causes in their mutual interaction? Answer: Because they are not the same effect, they are not co-existent causes. Because co-existent causes must have the same effect. This is not a valid cause because there is doubt. Comment: What was said earlier is better. Since the Vaibhāṣika commentator adopts the view of the former teacher that one mahābhūta only creates one form, it is known that the idea that those who create many forms die without leaving any remains is incorrect.

Among the four forms of birth (caturyoni: oviparous, viviparous, moisture-born, and metamorphic), which is the most numerous? Question.

Metamorphic (upapāduka: beings that appear spontaneously without relying on anything) are the most numerous. Answer.

Why is that? Inquiry.

Because a small portion of beings in the three realms of woe (trayo gatayah: hell, hungry ghosts, animals) are all metamorphic. Explanation. There are two views in the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra. One view is the same as this treatise. Another view says: Some say that moisture-born (saṃsvedaja: beings born from moisture) are seen to be numerous now. Suppose there is a mass of flesh, etc., vast and boundless, extending below the three wheels (trayacakra: gold, water, and wind wheels) and above the five Pure Abodes (pañcaśuddhāvāsa: the fifth layer of the Form Realm), capable of filling its measure, and suddenly transforms into insects. Therefore, moisture-born are more numerous than the other three. However, there is no commentator.

Among these, what dharma is not immediately called birth (jāti)? Below, the seventh section explains the intermediate existence (antarābhava). Within this, first, the intermediate existence is explained; second, external doctrines are refuted. Within the explanation of the intermediate existence, first, the intermediate existence is directly explained; second, the existence of the intermediate existence is proven; third, various aspects are distinguished. This directly explains the intermediate existence. First, there is a question about the intermediate existence; second, there is a question about non-birth.

Verse: '...therefore the intermediate existence is not birth.' The first two lines answer the first question, and the last two lines answer the second question.

Treatise: '...therefore it is called intermediate existence.' This explains the above two lines. It is knowable.

Since this body has already arisen, why is it not called birth? Question.

Birth refers to the future, therefore it is not called birth. Answer.

亦可知。

何謂當來所應至處者。問。

所引異熟至所應至處者。答。中有昧劣唯天眼見非肉眼觀故不名生。生位分明肉天眼見故得生名。

有餘部說至故無中有者。此下第二證有中有。將明先敘異部無中有計。準宗輪論大眾部等說無中有。

此不應許至依理教故者。論主破。

理教者何者。問。

頌曰至及五七經故者。答。前六句理證。后兩句教證。就前六句中。初兩句正立理。次四句遣外疑。次四句中第三句釋第一句　第四句釋第二句。經之一字通顯多經。於此頌中既破像實。明知論主以經部義破。雖複意破異部無中有。亦兼顯說一切有部像色非實。

論曰至處必無間者。如春下種秋時收果中間必有芽等相續。有情死．生亦應相續中間必有中有剎那續生。立量言死．生中間必有連續。相續生故。喻如種果。

豈不現見至何妨續生者。無中有家救。從質像生中間雖間然得續生。從死至生中間雖間何妨續生。即顯論主因不定過。為如種果。相續生故。死生中間必有連續。為如質像。相續生故。死生中間而無連續。

實有諸像至為喻不成者。論主破　就中。一標章。二略釋。三廣破。此即標章。一即像實不成。二即設成非等。

謂別色生至故不成喻者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：亦可得知。

何謂當來所應至處者？問。

所引異熟至所應至處者。答：中有（antarabhava，中陰身）昧劣，唯天眼見，非肉眼觀，故不名生。生位分明，肉天眼見，故得生名。

有餘部說至故無中有者。此下第二證有中有。將明先敘異部無中有計。準宗輪論大眾部等說無中有。

此不應許至依理教故者。論主破。

理教者何者？問。

頌曰至及五七經故者。答：前六句理證，后兩句教證。就前六句中，初兩句正立理，次四句遣外疑。次四句中第三句釋第一句，第四句釋第二句。經之一字通顯多經。於此頌中既破像實，明知論主以經部義破。雖複意破異部無中有，亦兼顯說一切有部像色非實。

論曰至處必無間者。如春下種秋時收果，中間必有芽等相續。有情死、生亦應相續，中間必有中有剎那續生。立量言死、生中間必有連續，相續生故。喻如種果。

豈不現見至何妨續生者。無中有家救：從質像生，中間雖間，然得續生；從死至生，中間雖間，何妨續生？即顯論主因不定過。為如種果，相續生故，死生中間必有連續；為如質像，相續生故，死生中間而無連續。

實有諸像至為喻不成者。論主破。就中：一標章，二略釋，三廣破。此即標章。一即像實不成，二即設成非等。

謂別色生至故不成喻者。

【English Translation】 English version: It can also be known.

What is meant by the place to which one should go in the future? (Question)

That which is led by different maturation to the place where one should go. (Answer): The antarabhava (intermediate state) is obscure and inferior, seen only by the heavenly eye, not observed by the physical eye, therefore it is not called birth. The state of birth is clear, seen by both physical and heavenly eyes, therefore it is called birth.

Some other schools say that there is no antarabhava. The second proof below is to establish the existence of antarabhava. Before clarifying, first describe the other schools' view that there is no antarabhava. According to the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth) and the Mahasamghika school, there is no antarabhava.

This should not be accepted, because it relies on reason and scripture. (The author refutes).

What are reason and scripture? (Question)

The verse says, '...and the Five and Seven Sutras.' (Answer): The first six lines are reasoning, and the last two lines are scriptural proof. Among the first six lines, the first two lines directly establish the reason, and the next four lines dispel external doubts. Among the next four lines, the third line explains the first line, and the fourth line explains the second line. The word 'Sutra' generally refers to many sutras. Since the reality of images is refuted in this verse, it is clear that the author refutes it with the meaning of the Sutra school. Although he implicitly refutes the other schools' view that there is no antarabhava, he also explicitly states that the form and color of all Sarvastivada school are not real.

The treatise says, '...there must be no interval.' Just as when seeds are sown in the spring and fruits are harvested in the autumn, there must be a continuous sequence of sprouts and so on in between. Similarly, the death and birth of sentient beings should also be continuous, and there must be a continuous moment of antarabhava in between. Establish the argument that there must be a continuous sequence between death and birth, because there is continuous arising. It is like seeds and fruits.

Do we not see that there is continuous arising from matter and images, even though there is an interval in between? Why can't there be continuous arising? (The school that denies the antarabhava defends): Although there is an interval between the arising of matter and images, there is still continuous arising. Although there is an interval between death and birth, why can't there be continuous arising? This shows that the author's reason is inconclusive. Is it like seeds and fruits, where there is continuous arising, so there must be a continuous sequence between death and birth? Or is it like matter and images, where there is continuous arising, but there is no continuous sequence between death and birth?

The reality of images does not hold as an analogy. (The author refutes). Among them: 1. State the topic. 2. Briefly explain. 3. Extensively refute. This is stating the topic. 1. The reality of images does not hold. 2. Even if it were established, it would not be equal.

That is, the arising of separate colors does not make a valid analogy.

此即略釋二章。

言像不成至無二並故者。此下廣破。就中。一破實像。二顯非等　就破實像中。一正破。二明所見。就正破中。一總破。二別破。此即總破。凡言實色於一處所無二並生。像既並生。知非實有。實有不成。所以非喻。此釋頌文第三句．第五句．及第四句小分。

謂於一處至依異大故者。此下別破。就中有四。一約映象同處破。二約二像同處破。三約影光同處破。四約近遠別見破。即此第一約映象同處破。鏡色及像於一處所並見現前。若像是實二色不應同處並有。各別自依異大種故。既同處有。明像是假。

又狹水上至二色並生者。此約二像同處破。於一狹水同處同時。現兩岸像互見分明。曾無一處見二實色。不應謂此二像俱生。此既並見。故知非實。

又影與光至謂二並生者。此約影．光同處破。影．光相違未曾同處。然鏡影中有光像現。不應於此一鏡面上影與光像二色並生。既二並生。知像非實。

或言一處至於理實無者。此約近．遠別見破。觀鏡．月像。見鏡即近。見像即遠。如觀井水。若有實色並生如何別見。既見不同明知像假。即總結言。故知諸像于理實無。

然諸因緣至難可思議者。此明所見。論主上來破無實像。今顯經部所見鏡．水等中實無像色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此即略釋二章。

『言像不成至無二並故者』。此下廣破。就中。一破實像。二顯非等。就破實像中。一正破。二明所見。就正破中。一總破。二別破。此即總破。凡言實色於一處所無二並生。像既並生。知非實有。實有不成。所以非喻。此釋頌文第三句、第五句、及第四句小分。

『謂於一處至依異大故者』。此下別破。就中有四。一約映象同處破。二約二像同處破。三約影光同處破。四約近遠別見破。即此第一約映象同處破。鏡色及像於一處所並見現前。若像是實二色不應同處並有。各別自依異大種故。既同處有。明像是假。

『又狹水上至二色並生者』。此約二像同處破。於一狹水同處同時。現兩岸像互見分明。曾無一處見二實色。不應謂此二像俱生。此既並見。故知非實。

『又影與光至謂二並生者』。此約影、光同處破。影、光相違未曾同處。然鏡影中有光像現。不應於此一鏡面上影與光像二色並生。既二並生。知像非實。

『或言一處至於理實無者』。此約近、遠別見破。觀鏡、月像。見鏡即近。見像即遠。如觀井水。若有實色並生如何別見。既見不同明知像假。即總結言。故知諸像于理實無。

『然諸因緣至難可思議者』。此明所見。論主上來破無實像。今顯經部所見鏡、水等中實無像色。

【English Translation】 English version This is a brief explanation of the second chapter.

Regarding 『The image is not established because there are no two coexisting,』 this section elaborates on the refutation. It includes: 1. Refuting real images; 2. Revealing non-equivalence. Within the refutation of real images: 1. Direct refutation; 2. Clarifying what is seen. Within the direct refutation: 1. General refutation; 2. Specific refutation. This is the general refutation. It is said that real colors do not coexist in one place. Since images do coexist, it is known that they are not real. Real existence is not established, therefore it is not a valid analogy. This explains the third, fifth, and a small part of the fourth lines of the verse.

Regarding 『Being in one place to relying on different great elements,』 this section provides specific refutations. It includes four aspects: 1. Refutation based on the same location of mirror images; 2. Refutation based on the same location of two images; 3. Refutation based on the same location of shadow and light; 4. Refutation based on different views from near and far. This is the first, refuting based on the same location of mirror images. The color of the mirror and the image are seen together in one place. If the image were real, the two colors should not coexist in the same place, as they each rely on different great elements. Since they coexist in the same place, it is clear that the image is false.

Regarding 『Also, on a narrow water surface to two colors coexisting,』 this refutes based on the same location of two images. On a narrow water surface, in the same place and at the same time, images of both banks appear, mutually visible and distinct. Nowhere is it seen that two real colors coexist. It should not be said that these two images arise together. Since they are seen together, it is known that they are not real.

Regarding 『Also, shadow and light to saying two coexist,』 this refutes based on the same location of shadow and light. Shadow and light are contradictory and never coexist. However, in the mirror's reflection, a light image appears. It should not be that on one mirror surface, shadow and light images, two colors, coexist. Since the two coexist, it is known that the image is not real.

Regarding 『Or saying one place to in principle is truly non-existent,』 this refutes based on different views from near and far. Observing the mirror and the moon's image, the mirror is seen as near, and the image is seen as far. Like observing well water. If real colors coexisted, how could they be seen differently? Since the views differ, it is clear that the image is false. This concludes by saying: Therefore, it is known that all images are in principle non-existent.

Regarding 『However, all causes and conditions to difficult to conceive,』 this clarifies what is seen. The author has refuted the existence of real images above. Now, it is shown that the Sautrāntika school (經部) believes that there are truly no image colors in mirrors, water, etc.

然諸本質．鏡等因緣和合勢力。而有像現令如是見。非有似有。實見之時還見本質　爾時觀像如何能見本質　以諸法性功能差別難可思議所以得見。

已辨不成所以非喻者。結。

言非等故至故不成喻者。此下第二顯非等。此釋頌文第四句．第六句。就中。一約非相續破。二約二生破。此即初門。論主言。設許像實非等於法為喻不成。謂質與像非是一物此滅彼生前後相續。唯依鏡等有像現故非於本質。此顯像．質體類各別非一相續　又像．本質俱時有故非一相續前滅後生如死．生有。是一相續前滅後生中無間隔。質．像不然故不成喻。

又所現像至為勝依性者。此約二生破。像由二緣勝者即現。生有唯一死有為緣無別勝依故喻非等法　亦不可說精血等緣為勝依性。胎生可爾。化復如何。

已依正理至決定非無者。結。

次依聖教至業有中有者。此下依教證有中有釋后兩句。此即第一引七有經。既言中有。明知別有。

若此契經至何現在前者。第二健達縛經　健達名香。縛名食。即中有名　謂具三緣方入母胎一母身調適。謂無干．濕二疾。二交愛現前。謂俱起貪。三健達縛現前。謂中有起。意取第三證有中有。

若此契經至固唯中有者。第三掌馬族經。父祖皆執掌馬故名掌

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：然而，諸如本質（事物本來的面貌）、鏡子等因緣和合的勢力，才會有影像顯現，使人如此看見。這並非真實存在，而是看似存在。真正看見的時候，還是看見本質。那時，觀察影像如何能夠看見本質呢？因為諸法的自性、功能差別難以思議，所以才能夠看見。

已經辨明了不成（中有的）原因，所以這個比喻是不成立的。總結。

說『因為不相等，所以不能成立比喻』。下面第二點是顯示不相等。這是解釋頌文的第四句和第六句。其中，一是通過非相續來破斥，二是通過二生來破斥。這裡是第一個方面。論主說，即使允許影像真實存在，用它來比喻（中有）也是不成立的。因為本質和影像不是同一事物，而是此滅彼生，前後相續。影像只是依靠鏡子等條件才顯現，而不是依靠本質。這表明影像和本質的本體類別各不相同，不是同一相續。而且，影像和本質是同時存在的，所以不是同一相續，不是像死亡和出生那樣，前滅後生，中間沒有間隔。本質和影像不是這樣，所以不能成立比喻。

又，所顯現的影像，要由兩個殊勝的因緣才能顯現。生有（活著的狀態）只有死亡這一因緣，沒有其他的殊勝所依，所以這個比喻和（中有）不相等。也不能說精血等因緣是殊勝所依。胎生可以這樣說，化生又該如何解釋呢？

已經依據正理證明了（中有）決定不是沒有的。總結。

其次，依據聖教證明有中有，解釋後面的兩句。這裡是第一點，引用《七有經》。既然說了中有，就明確知道有中有的存在。

如果這部契經（佛經）說……，那麼是什麼現在在前呢？第二部是《健達縛經》。『健達』的意思是香，『縛』的意思是食物，這就是中有的名稱。意思是說，具備三種因緣才能進入母胎：一是母親身體調適，沒有干、濕兩種疾病；二是交愛現前，雙方都生起貪愛；三是健達縛現前，也就是中有出現。這裡取第三點來證明有中有。

如果這部契經（佛經）說……，那麼就只能是中有。第三部是《掌馬族經》。父親和祖父都是執掌馬匹的，所以叫做掌馬族。

【English Translation】 English version: However, it is through the combined power of various conditions, such as the essence (the original appearance of things) and mirrors, that images appear, allowing people to see them in this way. This is not truly existent, but rather appears to be. When one truly sees, one still sees the essence. At that time, how can one see the essence by observing the image? It is because the nature and functional differences of all dharmas are inconceivable that one is able to see it.

It has already been clarified that the reason for non-establishment (of the intermediate being) exists, so this analogy is not valid. Conclusion.

It is said that 'because they are not equal, the analogy cannot be established.' The second point below is to show that they are not equal. This explains the fourth and sixth lines of the verse. Among them, one is to refute through non-continuity, and the other is to refute through two births. This is the first aspect. The proponent says, even if it is allowed that the image is real, it is not valid to use it as an analogy (for the intermediate being). Because the essence and the image are not the same thing, but rather one ceases and the other arises, following each other in succession. The image only appears depending on conditions such as mirrors, not depending on the essence. This shows that the substance categories of the image and the essence are different, not the same continuity. Moreover, the image and the essence exist simultaneously, so they are not the same continuity, not like death and birth, where the former ceases and the latter arises, with no interval in between. The essence and the image are not like this, so the analogy cannot be established.

Also, the image that appears requires two superior conditions to appear. The state of being alive (生有, sheng you) only has the condition of death, without other superior dependencies, so this analogy is not equal to (the intermediate being). It cannot be said that conditions such as sperm and blood are superior dependencies. This may be the case for womb-born beings, but how can transformation-born beings be explained?

It has already been proven through correct reasoning that (the intermediate being) is definitely not non-existent. Conclusion.

Next, based on the sacred teachings, it is proven that there is an intermediate being, explaining the last two lines. Here is the first point, quoting the Seven Existences Sutra. Since the intermediate being is mentioned, it is clearly known that there is an intermediate being.

If this sutra says... then what is present in front? The second is the Gandharva Sutra. 'Gandharva' (健達縛, jiàn dá pó) means fragrance, and '縛' means food, which is the name of the intermediate being. It means that three conditions are required to enter the womb: first, the mother's body is in good condition, without the two diseases of dryness and wetness; second, the love of intercourse is present, with both parties arousing desire; third, the Gandharva is present, which is the appearance of the intermediate being. Here, the third point is taken to prove that there is an intermediate being.

If this sutra says... then it can only be the intermediate being. The third is the Palm Horse Clan Sutra. The father and grandfather were both in charge of horses, so it is called the Palm Horse Clan.

馬族。此人彼族中生故以為名。佛為掌馬族人說此經經言中有正現前者。四姓之中為是何姓。於四方面為何方來。前蘊已壞不可言來。此所言來定唯中有　婆羅門。此云靜志　剎帝利。此云守田種　吠舍。此是興事種　戍達羅。是營田種。

若復不誦至何名中般者。第四五不還經。既言中般明有中有。

有餘師執至故名中般者。敘異執。可知。婆沙六十九稱為分別論者。若依宗輪論。大眾部等說無中有。

是則應許至故執非善者。破異執。聞言有中般即執有中天。既有生般等應許生天等。既不許然故執非善。

又經說有至定非應理者。第五七善士趣經。謂於前五不還內中般分三為七善士　言分三者。欲界沒已受色界中有。往上受生由處．及時各有三種。謂近．中．遠分成三人。未出欲界而般涅槃。處．時俱近是名初人。至二界中間而般涅槃。處．時俱中是第二人。至彼色界而般涅槃處．時俱遠是第三人　言未墮者。喻未受生。非彼所執別有中天有此時．處近．中．遠別。故彼所執定非應理。此即兼破異執。

有餘復說至是名中般者。敘異執。婆沙六十九稱為分別論者。就中有二。一總釋。二別解。就總釋中有二異解。一壽量中間。謂生色界未終彼壽。壽量中間斷余煩惱。成阿羅漢是名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：馬族（Ashva clan）。此人因生於彼族中而得名。佛為掌馬族人宣說此經，經文中有『正現前』的說法。四姓（四大種姓）之中，這是哪一姓？於四方之中，是從何方而來？前一蘊（前一期的生命）已經壞滅，不可說『來』。此處所說的『來』，必定只是指中有（antarabhava，中陰身）。婆羅門（Brahmana），意為『靜志』。剎帝利（Kshatriya），意為『守田種』。吠舍（Vaishya），意為『興事種』。戍達羅（Shudra），意為『營田種』。若再不誦讀，會到何種中般（antaparinnibbāyin，中般涅槃）？第四、第五不還經（Anagami Sutra）。既然說到中般，就表明有中有。有其他師父認為，因此名為中般（antaparinnibbāyin，中般涅槃）。這是在敘述不同的見解，可以理解。在《婆沙論》（Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa）第六十九卷中，稱其為『分別論者』。如果依據《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra），大眾部（Mahasanghika）等宗派認為沒有中有。如果這樣，就應該允許，所以這種執著是不好的。這是在駁斥不同的見解。聽到有中般，就執著認為有中天（antaradeva，中陰天）。既然有生般等，就應該允許生天等。既然不允許這樣，所以這種執著是不好的。又有經文說，必定是不合道理的。第五、第七《善士趣經》（Bhadraka Sutta）。指的是在前五種不還果（Anagami）中，將中般分為三類，成為七種善士。所說的『分三類』，是指在欲界（Kamadhatu）死後，接受中有（antarabhava，中陰身）。往上受生，由於處所和時間各有三種。即近、中、遠，分成三類人。未出欲界就般涅槃（Parinirvana），處所和時間都很近，這稱為第一種人。到二界中間而般涅槃，處所和時間都居中，這是第二種人。到彼（那裡）而般涅槃，處所和時間都很遠，這是第三種人。所說的『未墮者』，比喻尚未受生。並非他們所執著的另有中天，有此時、處所近、中、遠的差別。所以他們的執著必定是不合道理的。這也就是兼帶駁斥了不同的見解。還有人說，這就是中般（antaparinnibbāyin，中般涅槃）。這是在敘述不同的見解。《婆沙論》（Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa）第六十九卷中，稱其為『分別論者』。就中有（antarabhava，中陰身）分為兩種。一是總的解釋，二是分別的解釋。就總的解釋中有兩種不同的解釋。一是壽量中間。指的是在生**（那裡）還沒有結束壽命，在壽量中間斷除剩餘的煩惱，成就阿羅漢（Arhat），這就是

【English Translation】 English version: Ashva clan (horse clan). This person is named because he was born in that clan. The Buddha spoke this sutra for the Ashva clan, and the sutra mentions 'directly present'. Among the four castes (four major castes), which caste is this? From which direction among the four directions does he come? The previous skandha (previous life) has already perished, so it cannot be said to 'come'. The 'coming' mentioned here must only refer to the antarabhava (intermediate state). Brahmana (Brahmin), meaning 'quiet mind'. Kshatriya, meaning 'guardian of the field'. Vaishya, meaning 'business-minded'. Shudra, meaning 'farming'. If one does not recite further, to what kind of antaparinnibbāyin (intermediate parinirvana) will one go? The fourth and fifth Anagami Sutras (Non-Returning Sutras). Since antaparinnibbāyin is mentioned, it indicates that there is an antarabhava. Some other teachers believe that this is why it is called antaparinnibbāyin (intermediate parinirvana). This is a narration of different views, which can be understood. In the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa, volume 69, they are called 'differentiation theorists'. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Mahasanghika and other schools believe that there is no antarabhava. If so, it should be allowed, so this attachment is not good. This is refuting different views. Upon hearing about antaparinnibbāyin, they cling to the idea of an antaradeva (intermediate deva). Since there is birth and parinirvana, etc., it should be allowed that there is birth in the heavens, etc. Since this is not allowed, this attachment is not good. Furthermore, the sutra says that it must be unreasonable. The fifth and seventh Bhadraka Sutta (Auspicious One Sutra). It refers to dividing the antaparinnibbāyin into three categories among the previous five Anagamis (Non-Returners), becoming seven auspicious ones. The 'dividing into three categories' refers to accepting the antarabhava (intermediate state) after death in the Kamadhatu (desire realm). Rebirth upwards depends on the place and time, each having three types. That is, near, middle, and far, divided into three types of people. Those who attain Parinirvana (complete nirvana) without leaving the desire realm, with both place and time being near, are called the first type of person. Those who attain Parinirvana in the middle of the two realms, with both place and time being in the middle, are the second type of person. Those who attain Parinirvana there, with both place and time being far, are the third type of person. The 'not fallen' is a metaphor for not yet being reborn. It is not that they cling to another antaradeva, with differences in time and place, near, middle, and far. Therefore, their attachment must be unreasonable. This also refutes different views. Others say that this is antaparinnibbāyin (intermediate parinirvana). This is a narration of different views. In the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣa, volume 69, they are called 'differentiation theorists'. The antarabhava (intermediate state) is divided into two types. One is a general explanation, and the other is a separate explanation. There are two different explanations for the general explanation. One is the intermediate lifespan. It refers to not yet ending the lifespan there, cutting off the remaining afflictions in the middle of the lifespan, and attaining Arhat (worthy one), which is

中般。二近天中間。謂生色界近根本天中間。稍居邊遠。生已便來趣于天眾。即于中路未至本天中間。即斷惑成阿羅漢是名中般。此即總釋。

田至界位至故有三品者。此下別解。此釋壽量中間有其三種。一由至界位。界謂惑種。二由至想位。想謂染想。三由至尋位。尋謂尋求。而般涅槃故有三品。故正理二十四云。有說諸有壽量中間斷余煩惱皆名中般。由至界位或想或尋而般涅槃故說三品。彼謂煩惱隨眠位中修斷加行名至界位。此中意顯有種未行說名果位。即利根者。創起煩惱便能精勤修斷加行名至想位。此中意顯染想初行說名想位。即中根者。起煩惱久方能精勤修斷加行名至尋位。此中意顯由煩惱力令心於境種種尋求說名尋位。即鈍根者　又解近天中間說有三種還約界．想．尋位分為三種。

或取色界至故名生般者。此別釋近天中間三種差別　或取色界眾同分已初至即般涅槃是名第一　從是次後受天樂已未入法會方般涅槃是名第二　復從此後初入法會未至本天乃般涅槃是名第三。已上三人中般分三。並是近根本天中間般涅槃故　義便釋生般言。入法會已復經多時方般涅槃是名生般　或減已下更解生般　又解此中三種亦通壽量中間　又解此中三種亦如其次第釋前界．想．尋三。

如是所說至無差

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：中般（Antarāparinirvāyin）。二近天中間，指的是生於近根本天（Brahma-pāriṣadya-deva，梵天眾天）中間，稍微居住在邊遠之處。他們出生后便會前往天眾之處，但在中途尚未到達本天（根本天）中間，就斷除迷惑，成就阿羅漢果位，這被稱為中般。以上是總體的解釋。

『田至界位至故有三品者』，以下是分別解釋。這裡解釋壽量中間有三種情況：一是由於到達界位（dhātu），界指的是惑種（煩惱的種子）；二是由於到達想位（saṃjñā），想指的是染想（被污染的念頭）；三是由於到達尋位（vitarka），尋指的是尋求（內心的尋求）。因此般涅槃（parinirvāṇa，完全的涅槃）也有三品。所以《正理》第二十四卷說：『有人說，所有在壽量中間斷除剩餘煩惱的都稱為中般，由於到達界位、或想、或尋而般涅槃，所以說有三品。』他們認為，在煩惱隨眠位中修斷加行，稱為到達界位。這裡的意思是說，有煩惱的種子但尚未發生作用，稱為果位。對於利根者來說，剛產生煩惱就能精勤地修斷加行，稱為到達想位。這裡的意思是說，染想初次發生作用，稱為想位。對於中根者來說，產生煩惱很久才能精勤地修斷加行，稱為到達尋位。這裡的意思是說，由於煩惱的力量，使心對於境界產生種種尋求，稱為尋位。對於鈍根者來說。又解釋說，近天中間有三種，還是按照界、想、尋位分為三種。

『或取眾至故名生般者』，這裡分別解釋近天中間的三種差別。或者說，取得天眾的同分（sabhāga，相似之處）后，剛到達就般涅槃，這稱為第一種。從這之後，享受天樂后，未進入法會就般涅槃，這稱為第二種。又從這之後，剛進入法會，未到達本天就般涅槃，這稱為第三種。以上三人在中般中分為三種，都是在接近根本天中間般涅槃的緣故。義便解釋生般說，進入法會後又經過很長時間才般涅槃，這稱為生般。或者減少以下的內容，進一步解釋生般。又解釋說，這三種情況也適用於壽量中間。又解釋說，這三種情況也依次解釋前面的界、想、尋三種。

如是所說至無差。

【English Translation】 English version: Antarāparinirvāyin (Intermediate Nirvana). The 'two intermediate heavens' refers to those born in the intermediate region near the Brahma-pāriṣadya-deva (Heaven of Brahma's Retinue), residing slightly in remote areas. After birth, they proceed towards the assembly of devas, but on the way, before reaching their original heaven (fundamental heaven), they sever their delusions and attain the state of Arhat. This is called Antarāparinirvāyin (Intermediate Nirvana). The above is a general explanation.

'The reason there are three grades is due to reaching the realm position.' The following is a separate explanation. This explains that there are three types of intermediate lifespan: first, due to reaching the realm position (dhātu), where 'realm' refers to the seed of delusion (the seed of afflictions); second, due to reaching the thought position (saṃjñā), where 'thought' refers to tainted thought (polluted thoughts); third, due to reaching the seeking position (vitarka), where 'seeking' refers to internal seeking (inner searching). Therefore, parinirvāṇa (complete Nirvana) also has three grades. Thus, the twenty-fourth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Some say that all those who sever the remaining afflictions in the middle of their lifespan are called Antarāparinirvāyin, because they attain parinirvāṇa by reaching the realm position, or thought, or seeking, so it is said there are three grades.' They believe that the effort of cultivation and severance in the dormant state of afflictions is called reaching the realm position. The meaning here is that having the seed of affliction but not yet acting is called the fruit position. For those with sharp faculties, being able to diligently cultivate and sever afflictions as soon as they arise is called reaching the thought position. The meaning here is that the initial action of tainted thought is called the thought position. For those with medium faculties, being able to diligently cultivate and sever afflictions after a long time of arising is called reaching the seeking position. The meaning here is that due to the power of afflictions, the mind produces various seekings towards objects, which is called the seeking position. This is for those with dull faculties. It is also explained that there are three types of intermediate heavens, which are still divided into three types according to the realm, thought, and seeking positions.

'Or taking the assembly to be called born Nirvana.' This separately explains the three differences of the intermediate heavens. Or, after obtaining the commonality (sabhāga, similarity) of the assembly of devas, attaining parinirvāṇa immediately upon arrival is called the first type. After this, enjoying heavenly bliss and then attaining parinirvāṇa without entering the Dharma assembly is called the second type. Furthermore, after this, attaining parinirvāṇa upon entering the Dharma assembly but before reaching the original heaven is called the third type. The above three are divided into three types within the intermediate Nirvana, all because they attain parinirvāṇa near the fundamental heaven. The meaning then explains that entering the Dharma assembly and then attaining parinirvāṇa after a long time is called born Nirvana. Or reducing the following content to further explain born Nirvana. It is also explained that these three types also apply to the intermediate lifespan. It is also explained that these three types also explain the previous three types of realm, thought, and seeking in order.

As said above, to no difference.

別故者。此下論主破。約時雖有近．中．遠別。以彼色界約處辨行即無差別。謂欲界沒受色中有。從此至彼近．中．遠處。速往受生行不住故。由處行異可等火星近．中．遠別。于彼處行皆無差別。設近天中分為三種。豈生彼已恒行不住如彼中有。故與火星喻近．中．遠別皆不相應。

又無色界至皆是虛妄者。又破。若言壽量中間般涅槃故名為中般。無色亦有壽量中間般涅槃故應名中般。然不說彼無色界中有中般者。如嗢陀南伽陀中說　嗢陀南此雲集施　伽陀此云頌。佛集要義為頌施諸有情故名集施頌　聖。謂聖人　賢。謂凡夫。謂如有一離欲惡不善法得初靜慮。而於初定生愛樂心不求出世。或造上品因生大梵處。或造中品因生梵輔處。或造下品因生梵眾處。即為三人。或有一人得初定已不以為足而於初定諸有漏法生心厭離。欣樂涅槃所有善根回求菩提。便能種殖解脫分善。足前為四。復有一人得彼定已證不還果。于欲界身能斷諸漏名為現般。足前為五。復有五人得初定已或至中般。或至生般。或有行般。或無行般。或上流般。即五不還。足前為十。如是十種皆依初定如依初定有十。依二．三．四定準此皆十　問第四定中天數既多如何乃言同下唯十　解云五凈居天唯是聖者。應知即是生般等收。無想必是外道所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

關於『別故者』，以下是論主的駁斥。即使在時間上存在近、中、遠的區別，但由於他們（指中有）在處所上的移動沒有差別，所以這種區分沒有意義。也就是說，從欲界死亡後進入色界中有的眾生，無論從這裡到那裡的距離是近、中、遠，他們都會迅速前往受生之處，不會停留在中有狀態。由於處所移動的差異，可以將火星比作近、中、遠的距離。但在中有狀態下，處所移動是沒有差別的。假設在接近天界的過程中分為三種情況，難道他們（指眾生）在生到那裡之後會像中有一樣不停留嗎？因此，用火星來比喻近、中、遠的差別是不恰當的。關於『又無至皆是虛妄者』，這是進一步的駁斥。如果說因為壽命中間就般涅槃（涅槃：佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴）的緣故，稱為中般，那麼無色界也有壽命中間般涅槃的情況，也應該稱為中般。然而，經典中並沒有說無色界中有中般的情況。正如《嗢陀南伽陀》（嗢陀南：此雲集施，意為收集佈施；伽陀：此云頌，意為偈頌）中所說，佛陀收集重要的意義，用偈頌的形式佈施給所有眾生，所以稱為集施頌。聖，指的是聖人；賢，指的是凡夫。例如，有一個人離開了慾望、邪惡和不善之法，獲得了初禪（初靜慮）。但他對初禪產生了愛戀之心，不尋求出世。或者他造了上品因，生到大梵天；或者造了中品因，生到梵輔天；或者造了下品因，生到梵眾天。這就是三種人。或者有一個人，獲得了初禪后，不認為足夠，對初禪中的有漏法生起了厭離之心，欣樂涅槃，將所有的善根迴向菩提（菩提：覺悟）。他就能種下解脫分的善根。加上前面三種，就是四種人。又有一個人，獲得了初禪后，證得了不還果（不還果：佛教修行果位之一），在欲界之身能夠斷除所有的煩惱，稱為現般。加上前面四種，就是五種人。還有五種人，獲得了初禪后，或者證得中般，或者證得生般，或者證得有行般，或者證得無行般，或者證得上流般。這就是五不還。加上前面五種，就是十種人。這十種情況都依賴於初禪。就像依賴初禪有十種情況一樣，依賴二禪、三禪、四禪也以此類推，都有十種。有人問：第四禪中的天眾數量很多，為什麼說和下面的禪定一樣只有十種情況？解答說：五凈居天（五凈居天：色界天中的五種天）只有聖者才能居住，應該知道是被生般等所包含。無想天必定是外道所修。

【English Translation】 English version:

Regarding 'different causes,' the following is the rebuttal from the master of the treatise. Even if there are distinctions of near, middle, and far in terms of time, these distinctions are meaningless because there is no difference in their (referring to the intermediate beings) movement in terms of location. That is, beings who die in the desire realm and enter the intermediate state of the form realm, whether the distance from here to there is near, middle, or far, they will quickly go to the place of rebirth and will not stay in the intermediate state. Due to the difference in location movement, Mars can be compared to near, middle, and far distances. But in the intermediate state, there is no difference in location movement. Suppose there are three types of situations in the process of approaching the heavens, do they (referring to beings) stay there non-stop like the intermediate state after being born there? Therefore, it is inappropriate to use Mars to compare the differences between near, middle, and far. Regarding 'and without...all are false,' this is a further refutation. If it is said that it is called 'intermediate parinirvana' (parinirvana: a Buddhist term, referring to liberation from the cycle of birth and death) because of parinirvana in the middle of the lifespan, then the formless realm also has the situation of parinirvana in the middle of the lifespan, and it should also be called 'intermediate parinirvana.' However, the scriptures do not say that there is an 'intermediate parinirvana' in the formless realm. As stated in the Udanagatha (Udanagatha: meaning 'collection of offerings' and 'verses'), the Buddha collected important meanings and offered them to all beings in the form of verses, so it is called the 'collection of offering verses.' 'Saint' refers to a sage; 'virtuous' refers to an ordinary person. For example, there is a person who leaves behind desires, evils, and unwholesome dharmas and attains the first dhyana (first meditative absorption). But he develops a love for the first dhyana and does not seek to transcend the world. Or he creates superior causes and is born in the Great Brahma Heaven; or he creates middle-grade causes and is born in the Brahma Assistant Heaven; or he creates lower-grade causes and is born in the Brahma Assembly Heaven. These are three types of people. Or there is a person who, after attaining the first dhyana, does not consider it sufficient and develops a sense of disgust for the contaminated dharmas in the first dhyana, rejoices in nirvana, and dedicates all his wholesome roots to bodhi (bodhi: enlightenment). He can then plant the wholesome roots of liberation. Adding the previous three, there are four types of people. There is also a person who, after attaining the first dhyana, attains the anagamin fruit (anagamin fruit: one of the Buddhist stages of attainment), and is able to cut off all defilements in the body of the desire realm, which is called 'present parinirvana.' Adding the previous four, there are five types of people. There are also five types of people who, after attaining the first dhyana, either attain intermediate parinirvana, or attain birth parinirvana, or attain labored parinirvana, or attain unlabored parinirvana, or attain upper stream parinirvana. These are the five anagamins. Adding the previous five, there are ten types of people. These ten situations all depend on the first dhyana. Just as there are ten situations depending on the first dhyana, the same applies to the second, third, and fourth dhyanas, all having ten situations. Someone asks: There are many heavenly beings in the fourth dhyana, why is it said that there are only ten situations like the lower dhyanas? The answer is: The Pure Abodes (Pure Abodes: five heavens in the form realm) are only inhabited by sages, and it should be known that they are included in birth parinirvana, etc. The Non-Thinking Heaven must be practiced by externalists.

生。此明賢．聖唯佛弟子。是故不說。大梵由是無尋定果必應得故。佛弟子故。所以別說。故言四靜慮各十。前三無色於前十中各除中般。得彼定者無中有故。又除二生。彼處一故各有七種。故言三無色各七。非想地中於前七內又除上流。得彼定已無上生故。若橫望而言。非想地中亦有上流般。今據無上地可生言無上流。故言唯六謂非想　又解初定業為一人。得初定已種解脫分善為第二人得彼定已現般為第三。及七善士趣。即中般分三．並生般等四。足前為十。二．三．四定．及無色準除可知。以此證知。于無色界無有中般。故彼所執皆是虛妄。

若復不誦至實有極成者。論主傷嘆無中有家結成　無上法王。所謂如來　諸大法將。舍利子等。已成多部執見不同　於今轉盛。至今造論九百年時。問於何時代分成多部　答異部宗輪論意云。佛涅槃后百有餘年。無憂王時。創分二部。一大眾部。二上座部。次即於此第二百年大眾部中流出三部。一一說部。二說出世部。三雞胤部。次復於此第二百年大眾部中複流出一部名多聞部。次復於此第二百年大眾部中複流出一部名說假部。至第二百年滿復于大眾部中分為三部。一制多山部。二西山住部。三北山住部。如是諸部本．末別說總有九部。一大眾部。二一說部。三說出世

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本生。這種明賢聖者的境界只有佛弟子才能達到。因此這裡不作討論。大梵天由於沒有尋伺，必定能得到無尋定的果報。因為他們是佛弟子，所以特別說明。因此說四禪各有十種情況。前三個無色界在前面的十種情況中，各自去除中般涅槃（Antarāparinirvāyin，指在中有階段入滅），因為得到那些禪定的人沒有中有身。又去除兩種型別的生，因為那些地方只有一種型別的存在，所以各有七種情況。因此說三個無色界各有七種情況。在非想非非想處地中，在前面的七種情況中又去除上流般涅槃（Ūrdhvaṃsrotas，指從上界流向更上界而入滅）。因為得到那個禪定后，不會再有向上生的機會。如果橫向來看，非想非非想處地中也有上流般涅槃的情況。現在根據無上地可以產生的情況來說沒有上流般涅槃。所以說只有六種情況，指的是非想非非想處地。又解釋說，初禪的業力對應一個人。得到初禪后，種下解脫分善根的是第二個人，得到那個禪定后現世入滅的是第三個人。以及七種善士的趣向，即中有般涅槃分為三種，加上生般涅槃等四種，加起來就是前面的十種。二禪、三禪、四禪以及無色界的情況可以類推得知。以此可以證明，在無色界中沒有中有般涅槃。所以他們所執著的都是虛妄的。

如果再不背誦直到真實存在的極成，論主感嘆沒有中有的宗派結成了。無上法王，指的就是如來（Tathāgata，如來）。諸大法將，指舍利子（Śāriputra）等。已經形成許多派別，執持的見解不同，如今越來越盛行。到現在造論已經九百年了。問：在什麼時代分成這麼多派別？答：《異部宗輪論》的意思是說，佛陀涅槃后一百多年，阿育王（Aśoka）時期，開始分成兩個部派：一是大眾部（Mahāsaṃghika），二是上座部（Sthavira）。接著就在這第二個百年中，從大眾部中流出三個部派：一、一說部（Ekavyāvahārika），二、說出世部（Lokottaravāda），三、雞胤部（Kukkuṭika）。接著又在這第二個百年中，從大眾部中流出一個部派，名叫多聞部（Bahusrutiya）。接著又在這第二個百年中，從大眾部中流出一個部派，名叫說假部（Prajñaptivāda）。到第二個百年結束時，又從大眾部中分為三個部派：一、制多山部（Caityaka），二、西山住部（Aparaśaila），三、北山住部（Uttaraśaila）。像這樣各個部派，從根本到末流分別來說，總共有九個部派：一、大眾部，二、一說部，三、說出世部。

【English Translation】 English version Birth. This clear and virtuous sage realm is only attainable by disciples of the Buddha. Therefore, it is not discussed here. The Great Brahmā, being free from discursive thought, will inevitably attain the fruit of non-discursive concentration. Because they are disciples of the Buddha, it is specifically explained. Thus, it is said that each of the four Dhyānas has ten possibilities. In the first three formless realms, each of the preceding ten possibilities excludes intermediate Parinirvāṇa (Antarāparinirvāyin, referring to extinction in the intermediate state), because those who attain those concentrations do not have an intermediate body. It also excludes two types of birth, because there is only one type of existence in those places, so each has seven possibilities. Therefore, it is said that each of the three formless realms has seven possibilities. In the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, among the preceding seven possibilities, it also excludes the upward-flowing Parinirvāṇa (Ūrdhvaṃsrotas, referring to extinction by flowing from a higher realm to an even higher realm). Because after attaining that concentration, there is no further opportunity for upward rebirth. If viewed horizontally, there is also the possibility of upward-flowing Parinirvāṇa in the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. Now, based on the possibilities that can arise in the highest realm, it is said that there is no upward-flowing Parinirvāṇa. Therefore, it is said that there are only six possibilities, referring to the realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception. It is also explained that the karma of the first Dhyāna corresponds to one person. The second person is the one who plants the roots of liberation after attaining the first Dhyāna, and the third person is the one who attains that concentration and enters Parinirvāṇa in this life. And the tendencies of the seven types of virtuous individuals, that is, intermediate Parinirvāṇa is divided into three types, plus four types such as birth Parinirvāṇa, which together make up the preceding ten. The situations of the second, third, and fourth Dhyānas, as well as the formless realms, can be understood by analogy. This proves that there is no intermediate Parinirvāṇa in the formless realms. Therefore, their attachments are all illusory.

If one does not recite up to the truly existing established truths, the author laments that the school that denies the intermediate state has been established. The unsurpassed Dharma King refers to the Tathāgata (Tathāgata, Thus Gone). The great Dharma generals refer to Śāriputra (Śāriputra), etc. Many schools have already formed, holding different views, and are now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has been nine hundred years since the composition of this treatise. Question: In what era did they split into so many schools? Answer: The meaning of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra is that more than one hundred years after the Buddha's Parinirvāṇa, during the reign of King Aśoka (Aśoka), they began to split into two schools: the Mahāsaṃghika (Mahāsaṃghika) and the Sthavira (Sthavira). Then, in this second century, three schools emerged from the Mahāsaṃghika: 1. the Ekavyāvahārika (Ekavyāvahārika), 2. the Lokottaravāda (Lokottaravāda), and 3. the Kukkuṭika (Kukkuṭika). Then, in this second century, a school called the Bahusrutiya (Bahusrutiya) emerged from the Mahāsaṃghika. Then, in this second century, a school called the Prajñaptivāda (Prajñaptivāda) emerged from the Mahāsaṃghika. At the end of the second century, they split into three schools from the Mahāsaṃghika: 1. the Caityaka (Caityaka), 2. the Aparaśaila (Aparaśaila), and 3. the Uttaraśaila (Uttaraśaila). Like this, each school, from its root to its branches, has a total of nine schools: 1. the Mahāsaṃghika, 2. the Ekavyāvahārika, 3. the Lokottaravāda.

部。四雞胤部。五多聞部。六說假部。七制多山部。八西山住部。九北山住部　其上座部經爾所時一味和合。至三百年初上座部中分為二部。一說一切有部亦名說因部。二即本上座部轉名雪山部。復即於此第三百年從說一切有部中複流出一部名犢子部。次復于第三百年從犢子部中複流出四部。一法上部。二賢胄部。三正量部。四蜜林山部。次復於此第三百年從說一切有部中複流出一部名化地部。次復於此第三百年從化地部中流一部名法藏部。至三百年末從說一切有部中複流出一部名飲光部亦名善歲部。至第四百年初從說一切有部中複流出一部名經量部亦名說轉部。如是諸部本．末別說總有十一部。一說一切有部。二雪山部。三犢子部。四法上部。五賢胄部。六正量部。七蜜林山部。八化地部。九法藏部。十飲光部。十一經量部。

若爾云何至無間地獄者。無中有家引經為難。若有中有。何故經言現身顛墮無間地獄　魔羅名度使。度使此言毀壞。魔羅此言殺者。故婆沙一百二十五云。羯落迦孫馱佛訶叱度使魔羅。應時彼魔陷入地獄。曾聞彼佛將一侍者名曰志遠。入婆羅村次第乞食。時魔度使化作小年。擲石遙打。侍者頭破血流被面。隨佛後行。時佛右旋如象王顧。見如是事訶叱魔言。汝何非分造斯惡業。魔時業盡

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：部。四、雞胤部（Kukkuṭika）。五、多聞部（Bahusrutika）。六、說假部（Prajñaptivāda）。七、制多山部（Caitika）。八、西山住部（Apara Saila）。九、北山住部（Uttara Saila）。其上座部（Sthavira）經爾所時一味和合。至三百年初，上座部中分為二部。一、說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda），亦名說因部。二、即本上座部轉名雪山部（Haimavata）。復即於此第三百年，從說一切有部中複流出一部，名犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）。次復于第三百年，從犢子部中複流出四部。一、法上部（Dharmottarīya）。二、賢胄部（Bhadrayānīya）。三、正量部（Sammitīya）。四、蜜林山部（Ṣaṇṇāgarika）。次復於此第三百年，從說一切有部中複流出一部，名化地部（Mahīśāsaka）。次復於此第三百年，從化地部中流一部，名法藏部（Dharmaguptaka）。至三百年末，從說一切有部中複流出一部，名飲光部（Kāśyapīya），亦名善歲部。至第四百年初，從說一切有部中複流出一部，名經量部（Sautrāntika），亦名說轉部。如是諸部本．末別說，總有十一部。一、說一切有部。二、雪山部。三、犢子部。四、法上部。五、賢胄部。六、正量部。七、蜜林山部。八、化地部。九、法藏部。十、飲光部。十一、經量部。

若爾云何至無間地獄者。無中有家引經為難。若有中有，何故經言現身顛墮無間地獄？魔羅（Māra）名度使，度使此言毀壞。魔羅此言殺者。故婆沙（Vibhāṣā）一百二十五云：『羯落迦孫馱佛（Krakucchanda Buddha）訶叱度使魔羅，應時彼魔陷入地獄。』曾聞彼佛將一侍者名曰志遠，入婆羅村次第乞食。時魔度使化作小年，擲石遙打，侍者頭破血流被面，隨佛後行。時佛右旋如象王顧，見如是事訶叱魔言：『汝何非分造斯惡業？』魔時業盡。

【English Translation】 English version: The Fourth was Kukkuṭika (Chicken Lineage School). The Fifth was Bahusrutika (The School of the Great Learning). The Sixth was Prajñaptivāda (The School of Provisional Designations). The Seventh was Caitika (The School of the Chaitya). The Eighth was Apara Saila (The Western Mountain School). The Ninth was Uttara Saila (The Northern Mountain School). The Sthavira (Elders) school remained unified for that period of time. At the beginning of the third hundred years, the Sthavira school split into two schools. The first was Sarvāstivāda (The School that Asserts Everything Exists), also known as the School that Explains Causes. The second was the original Sthavira school, which became known as Haimavata (The Snow Mountain School). Again, in this third hundred years, from the Sarvāstivāda school, another school emerged, named Vātsīputrīya (The School of the Vātsīputrīyas). Then again in the third hundred years, from the Vātsīputrīya school, four schools emerged. The first was Dharmottarīya (The School of Dharmottara). The second was Bhadrayānīya (The School of the Auspicious Vehicle). The third was Sammitīya (The School of the Sammati). The fourth was Ṣaṇṇāgarika (The School of Ṣaṇṇāgara Mountain). Again, in this third hundred years, from the Sarvāstivāda school, another school emerged, named Mahīśāsaka (The School of the Mahīśāsakas). Then again in this third hundred years, from the Mahīśāsaka school, one school emerged, named Dharmaguptaka (The School of the Dharmaguptakas). At the end of the three hundred years, from the Sarvāstivāda school, another school emerged, named Kāśyapīya (The School of Kāśyapīyas), also known as the Good Year School. At the beginning of the fourth hundred years, from the Sarvāstivāda school, another school emerged, named Sautrāntika (The School of the Sutras), also known as the School that Explains Transformations. Thus, these schools, from their origins to their ends, separately stated, total eleven schools. The first is Sarvāstivāda. The second is Haimavata. The third is Vātsīputrīya. The fourth is Dharmottarīya. The fifth is Bhadrayānīya. The sixth is Sammitīya. The seventh is Ṣaṇṇāgarika. The eighth is Mahīśāsaka. The ninth is Dharmaguptaka. The tenth is Kāśyapīya. The eleventh is Sautrāntika.

If so, how does one reach the Avīci hell? Those who deny the intermediate existence use the scriptures to create difficulties. If there is an intermediate existence, why do the scriptures say that one falls directly into the Avīci hell in their present body? Māra (The Evil One) is named 'Envoy of Destruction,' 'Envoy of Destruction' means to destroy. Māra means 'the killer.' Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (Commentary) one hundred and twenty-five says: 'Krakucchanda Buddha (The Buddha Krakucchanda) scolded the Envoy of Destruction, Māra, and immediately that demon fell into hell.' It was once heard that that Buddha took an attendant named Zhiyuan, and entered a Brahmin village to beg for food in order. At that time, the Envoy of Destruction, Māra, transformed into a young boy and threw a stone from afar, hitting the attendant's head, causing blood to flow down his face, and he followed behind the Buddha. At that time, the Buddha turned to the right, like an elephant king looking back, and seeing this, scolded the demon, saying: 'Why do you create such evil karma inappropriately?' At that time, the demon's karma was exhausted.

便墮地獄　解云釋迦佛魔王名波旬。羯洛迦孫馱佛魔王名度使。

此經意說至后受生受者。論主通經。魔由惡業增上力故現受地獄猛焰繞身。苦相已至先受現前。約此前相故言現身顛墮。非即是彼無間地獄。

何故經說至生那落迦者。無中有家復引經難。造五逆已既言無間生那落迦明無中有。若有中有應成有間。

此經意說至即是生有者。論主通經。經言無間定墮地獄。無異趣間。及顯順生無餘業間。若但執文即為定者。應要具五方生地獄非隨闕一。造一．二．三．四應當不生。亦應唯此五無間業能生地獄非餘業因能生地獄。若不生者便成大過　又言無間生那落迦應作業已第二剎那即生地獄不待身壞。然有造無間業已或經十年．二十年等方生無間。不應如文即執。我許中有亦得名生。生方便故。亦名那落迦。那落迦此名不可樂。地獄中有亦不可樂故。經言無間生那落迦。不言爾時即是生。何所相違。

若爾經頌至無有所止者。無中有家復引經難。此頌佛為婆羅門說。以彼學外道法。佛見年老說頌呵嘖　婆羅門名再生。初生名一生。后受婆羅門法複名一生。故受法已名曰再生。如苾芻亦名再生。謂初生及受戒。如卵生亦名再生。謂胎生及卵生　胎外有五位。一嬰孩。二童子。三小年。四盛年。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本便墮地獄——解釋：釋迦佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）的魔王名叫波旬（Pāpīyas），羯洛迦孫馱佛（Krakucchanda Buddha）的魔王名叫度使。

此經的意義在於說明至后受生受者。論主的解釋是：魔由於惡業增長的力量，顯現出正遭受地獄猛烈火焰纏繞身體的景象。痛苦的相狀已經到來，先前的感受呈現在眼前。根據此前的景象，所以說『現身顛墮』，並非立即墮入彼無間地獄。

為什麼經中說『至生那落迦』呢？無中有家再次引用經文來反駁。既然造了五逆罪，就說『無間生那落迦』，這表明沒有中有。如果存在中有，就應該是有間隔的。

此經的意義在於說明至即是生有者。論主的解釋是：經中說『無間』，是指必定墮入地獄，沒有其他趣的間隔，並且顯示順著生世，沒有其餘業的間隔。如果只是執著于字面意思，就應該要具備五種條件才能生地獄，而不是缺少其中任何一種。造作一、二、三、四種罪業，應當不能生地獄。也應該只有這五種無間業才能生地獄，而不是其他的業因能夠生地獄。如果不生，就會造成很大的過失。又說『無間生那落迦』，應該在造作業之後，第二個剎那立即生地獄，不需要等待身體壞滅。然而，有人造了無間業之後，或者經過十年、二十年等時間才生到無間地獄。不應該像字面意思那樣執著。我承認有中有，也可以稱為『生』，因為是生的方便。也可以稱為『那落迦』，那落迦這個名字的意思是不可樂，地獄中有也是不可樂的。經中說『無間生那落迦』，沒有說『爾時即是生』，有什麼相違背的呢？

如果這樣，經中的偈頌說『無有所止』呢？無中有家再次引用經文來反駁。這首偈頌是佛為婆羅門（Brahmin）說的，因為他們學習外道法。佛看到他們年老，就說了這首偈頌來呵斥他們。婆羅門的名字是再生，初次出生名叫一生，後來接受婆羅門法又名叫一生，所以接受法之後名叫再生。如同比丘（bhiksu）也名叫再生，指的是初生和受戒。如同卵生也名叫再生，指的是胎生和卵生。胎外有五個階段：一、嬰孩；二、童子；三、小年；四、盛年。

【English Translation】 English version Then falls into hell—Explanation: The demon king of Sakyamuni Buddha (釋迦佛) is named Pāpīyas (波旬), and the demon king of Krakucchanda Buddha (羯洛迦孫馱佛) is named Dushi (度使).

The meaning of this sutra lies in explaining the recipient of subsequent rebirths. The commentator explains that the demon, due to the increasing power of evil karma, manifests the appearance of being surrounded by fierce flames of hell. The painful state has arrived, and the previous experience is presented before the eyes. Based on this previous appearance, it is said that 'the body falls headlong,' but it does not immediately fall into that Avīci Hell (無間地獄).

Why does the sutra say 'to be born in Naraka (那落迦)'? The advocate of the non-intermediate state (無中有家) again quotes the sutra to refute. Since one has committed the five rebellious acts, it is said 'immediately born in Naraka,' which indicates that there is no intermediate state. If there were an intermediate state, there should be an interval.

The meaning of this sutra lies in explaining 'to be immediately born.' The commentator explains that the sutra says 'immediately' means definitely falling into hell, without an interval of other realms, and it shows that following birth, there is no interval of other karma. If one only clings to the literal meaning, then one should have to possess all five conditions to be born in hell, and not be deficient in any one. Committing one, two, three, or four of the acts should not result in birth in hell. Also, only these five acts of immediate retribution should be able to cause birth in hell, and not other karmic causes. If one is not born in hell, it would be a great fault. Furthermore, saying 'immediately born in Naraka' should mean that after committing the act, one is born in hell in the second instant, without waiting for the body to be destroyed. However, some people, after committing an act of immediate retribution, may be born in Avīci Hell after ten or twenty years. One should not cling to the literal meaning. I admit that there is an intermediate state, which can also be called 'birth' because it is a means to birth. It can also be called 'Naraka,' because the name Naraka means unpleasant, and the intermediate state of hell is also unpleasant. The sutra says 'immediately born in Naraka,' but it does not say 'at that time is immediately born,' so what contradiction is there?

If so, what about the verse in the sutra that says 'without any cessation'? The advocate of the non-intermediate state again quotes the sutra to refute. This verse was spoken by the Buddha to the Brahmins (婆羅門), because they were studying non-Buddhist doctrines. The Buddha, seeing that they were old, spoke this verse to rebuke them. The name of a Brahmin is 'reborn.' The first birth is called 'one birth,' and later, receiving the Brahminical law is again called 'one birth,' so after receiving the law, one is called 'reborn.' Just as a Bhiksu (苾芻) is also called 'reborn,' referring to the initial birth and the receiving of precepts. Just as an egg-born being is also called 'reborn,' referring to both womb-born and egg-born beings. There are five stages outside the womb: 1. Infant; 2. Child; 3. Young age; 4. Prime age.

五老年。佛告彼曰。再生汝今五位之中。已過四盛位至衰老位將近琰魔王　舊云閻羅者訛也。琰魔此云靜息。謂犯罪人不自知過。于苦不忍違拒獄卒更造過非。由王示語便知己罪意分而受。息諍息罪皆由王故故名息諍。汝今欲往前善趣路無有施．戒．修等資糧。往生地獄求住中間復無止。若有中有如何世尊云彼中間無有所止。以此明知無有中有。

此頌意顯至行無礙故者。論主通經。造惡業已速歸磨滅無暫停義。故言中間無止　或據中有速往受生。故言中間無止。

寧知經意如此非餘者。無中有家云。寧知經意如此說有中有非余說無中有。

汝復焉知如余非此者。論主反責。汝復焉知此經意趣如余說無中有。非此說有中有。

二責既等何乃偏徴者。無中有家云二責既等。何乃偏徴中有是無。

二釋于經至為證不成者。論主云彼此二釋理並無違。如何偏證中有是無。凡引證言不通異趣。此有異趣為證不成。

俱舍論記卷第八大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第九

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之二

當往何趣至形狀如何者。此下第三諸門分別。總有十一門。此即第一明其形狀問。隨往何趣所起中有形狀如何。與所趣生為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：五位衰老的人。佛告訴他們說：『你們再生於五種狀態之中，已經過了四個興盛的階段，到達衰老的階段，將要接近琰魔王（Yama-rāja，舊時譯為閻羅，是錯誤的。琰魔的意思是靜息，指犯罪的人不自覺自己的過錯，對於苦難不能忍受，違抗獄卒，更加造作過錯。由於琰魔王的開示，便知曉自己的罪過，心意分明而接受，止息爭論，止息罪過，都是由於琰魔王的緣故，所以名為息諍）。你們現在想要前往善良的去處，卻沒有佈施、持戒、修行等資糧。想要前往地獄，尋求停留在中陰階段，也沒有停留之處。』如果存在中陰，為什麼世尊說那個中陰沒有停留之處呢？由此可以明白，沒有中陰。

這首偈頌的意思是說，到達行為沒有阻礙的緣故。論主的解釋貫通經文，造作惡業之後，迅速歸於磨滅，沒有暫停的意義。所以說中陰沒有停留之處。或者根據中陰迅速前往受生，所以說中陰沒有停留之處。

怎麼知道經文的意思是這樣而不是其他的呢？沒有中陰的學派說：『怎麼知道經文的意思是這樣，說有中陰，而不是說沒有中陰呢？』

你又怎麼知道如其他經文不是這樣呢？論主反駁說：『你又怎麼知道這部經文的意趣如其他經文所說，沒有中陰，而不是這部經文說有中陰呢？』

兩種責問既然相同，為什麼偏偏征問呢？沒有中陰的學派說：『兩種責問既然相同，為什麼偏偏征問中陰是有還是沒有呢？』

兩種解釋對於經文來說，作為證據是不成立的。論主說：『彼此兩種解釋，道理並沒有違背。如何偏偏證明中陰是有還是沒有呢？凡是引用的證據，不能貫通不同的觀點。』這裡有不同的觀點，作為證據是不成立的。

《俱舍論記》卷第八大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第九

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之二

將要前往哪個去處，形狀如何呢？這以下是第三個諸門分別。總共有十一門。這是第一個說明它的形狀，問：『隨著將要前往哪個去處，所產生的中陰的形狀如何？與將要前往的生處是否相同呢？』

【English Translation】 English version: The five old men. The Buddha told them, 'You are reborn in the five states, having passed through the four flourishing stages, reaching the stage of old age, and approaching Yama-rāja (the old translation of Yanluo is incorrect. Yama means quiescence, referring to criminals who are unaware of their faults, unable to endure suffering, resisting prison guards, and further creating faults. Due to Yama-rāja's instruction, they become aware of their sins, their minds become clear, and they accept it, ceasing disputes and ceasing sins, all due to Yama-rāja, hence the name Quiescence of Disputes). Now you want to go to good destinations, but you have no resources such as giving, precepts, and cultivation. You want to go to hell, seeking to stay in the intermediate state, but there is no place to stay.' If there is an intermediate state, why did the World Honored One say that there is no place to stay in that intermediate state? From this, it can be understood that there is no intermediate state.

The meaning of this verse is that reaching the point where actions are unimpeded. The commentator's explanation penetrates the sutras, after creating evil karma, it quickly returns to annihilation, without any pause. Therefore, it is said that there is no place to stay in the intermediate state. Or, according to the intermediate state, one quickly goes to be reborn, so it is said that there is no place to stay in the intermediate state.

How do you know that the meaning of the sutra is this and not something else? The school that denies the intermediate state says, 'How do you know that the meaning of the sutra is this, saying that there is an intermediate state, and not saying that there is no intermediate state?'

How do you know that other sutras are not like this? The commentator refutes, 'How do you know that the meaning of this sutra is like other sutras, saying that there is no intermediate state, and not that this sutra says there is an intermediate state?'

Since the two questions are the same, why do you particularly question? The school that denies the intermediate state says, 'Since the two questions are the same, why do you particularly question whether the intermediate state exists or not?'

The two explanations for the sutra are not valid as evidence. The commentator says, 'The two explanations do not contradict each other in principle. How can you particularly prove whether the intermediate state exists or not? All cited evidence cannot penetrate different viewpoints.' Here there are different viewpoints, so it is not valid as evidence.

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 8 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 9

Commented by the Shramana Shi Guang

Chapter 3, Part 2: Analysis of the World

Which destination will one go to, and what will be the shape? The following is the third analysis of the various aspects. There are a total of eleven aspects. This is the first aspect, explaining its shape, asking: 'Following which destination one will go to, what is the shape of the intermediate being that arises? Is it the same as the place of rebirth that one will go to?'

同。為別　或可。分為兩問。當往何趣。是一問。所起中有形狀如何。是第二問　或可。中有當往何趣用何業感。為一問。所起以下。為第二問。

頌曰至居生剎那後者。上兩句正答。下兩句明所似體　或可。初句。答初問。第二句。答第二問。下兩句如前釋。

論曰至當本有形者。釋初兩句。中生二有雖滿業別牽引業同。業感所往亦招能往名一業引。由業同故。故此中有形似本有。如印．所印文像不殊　或可。中．生由同一業所引起。故所感中有應生天趣等當往天等　或彼中有同生有業感。此釋初句。

即由此義故此中有若往彼趣。即如前趣當本有形。釋第二句。

若爾於一至焚燒母腹者。難。中有若如本有形者。於一狗等腹中。容有五子俱時命終各生一趣。五趣中有一時頓起。既有地獄中有現前。應如本有同受于苦。如何不能焚燒母腹。

彼居本有至業所遮故者。答。地獄本有亦不恒燒。如暫游彼十六增時而不被燒。況在中有。或如等活暫遇涼風。或稱等活暫時歇息亦不恒燒　設許能燒。如母眼不見。亦不可觸。以中有身極微細故。火亦應爾。諸趣中有雖居一腹微細義同。非互觸燒。業所遮故。準此。母腹亦不被燒。業所遮故。

欲中有量至而根明利者。上言似本此言顯總

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『同。為別或可。分為兩問。當往何趣（將往生何處）。是一問。所起中有形狀如何。是第二問或可。中有當往何趣用何業感。為一問。所起以下。為第二問。』

頌曰至居生剎那後者。上兩句正答。下兩句明所似體或可。初句。答初問。第二句。答第二問。下兩句如前釋。

論曰至當本有形者。釋初兩句。中生二有雖滿業別牽引業同。業感所往亦招能往名一業引。由業同故。故此中有形似本有。如印．所印文像不殊或可。中．生由同一業所引起。故所感中有應生天趣等當往天等或彼中有同生有業感。此釋初句。

即由此義故此中有若往彼趣。即如前趣當本有形。釋第二句。

若爾於一至焚燒母腹者。難。中有若如本有形者。於一狗等腹中。容有五子俱時命終各生一趣。五趣中有一時頓起。既有地獄中有現前。應如本有同受于苦。如何不能焚燒母腹。

彼居本有至業所遮故者。答。地獄本有亦不恒燒。如暫游彼十六增時而不被燒。況在中有。或如等活暫遇涼風。或稱等活暫時歇息亦不恒燒設許能燒。如母眼不見。亦不可觸。以中有身極微細故。火亦應爾。諸趣中有雖居一腹微細義同。非互觸燒。業所遮故。準此。母腹亦不被燒。業所遮故。

欲中有量至而根明利者。上言似本此言顯總 English version:

'Likewise. For distinction, perhaps. Divide into two questions. Where will one go? (What realm will one be reborn into?) This is one question. What is the form of the intermediate being that arises? This is the second question. Or perhaps, where will the intermediate being go, and by what karma is it influenced? This is one question. What arises below is the second question.'

The verse says, 'Until residing, being born, in an instant, the latter.' The first two lines are the direct answer. The last two lines explain the similar body. Or perhaps, the first line answers the first question. The second line answers the second question. The last two lines are explained as before.

The treatise says, 'Until having the form of the original existence.' This explains the first two lines. Although the intermediate and birth existences are full, the karma is different, and the pulling karma is the same. The karma that influences where one goes also invites the ability to go, called one karma pulling. Because the karma is the same, therefore this intermediate being has a form similar to the original existence. Like the seal and the sealed, the image is not different. Or perhaps, the intermediate and birth are caused by the same karma. Therefore, the influenced intermediate being should be born in the heavens, etc., and go to the heavens, etc. Or that intermediate being has the same karma as the birth existence. This explains the first line.

'Precisely because of this meaning, if this intermediate being goes to that realm, it will have the form of the original existence of that previous realm.' This explains the second line.

'If so, regarding one... until burning the mother's womb.' This is a difficulty. If the intermediate being is like the form of the original existence, in the womb of a dog, etc., there might be five offspring who die at the same time and are each born in a different realm. Among the five realms, one might arise at once. Since an intermediate being of hell appears, it should suffer the same as the original existence. How can it not burn the mother's womb?

The answer is, 'The original existence in hell does not constantly burn either. Like temporarily wandering in those sixteen increasing times without being burned, let alone in the intermediate state. Or like the reviving one temporarily encountering a cool breeze, or called the reviving one temporarily resting, it does not constantly burn. Even if it is allowed to burn, like the mother's eyes not seeing, it also cannot be touched. Because the body of the intermediate being is extremely subtle, the fire should be the same. Although the intermediate beings of various realms reside in one womb, the subtlety is the same. They do not mutually touch and burn because they are obstructed by karma. According to this, the mother's womb is also not burned because it is obstructed by karma.'

'The intermediate being desiring measure... and the roots are clear and sharp.' The above says 'similar to the original,' this says 'manifesting the totality.'

【English Translation】 English version:

'Likewise. For distinction, perhaps. Divide into two questions. Where will one go? (What realm will one be reborn into?) This is one question. What is the form of the intermediate being that arises? This is the second question. Or perhaps, where will the intermediate being go, and by what karma is it influenced? This is one question. What arises below is the second question.'

The verse says, 'Until residing, being born, in an instant, the latter.' The first two lines are the direct answer. The last two lines explain the similar body. Or perhaps, the first line answers the first question. The second line answers the second question. The last two lines are explained as before.

The treatise says, 'Until having the form of the original existence.' This explains the first two lines. Although the intermediate and birth existences are full, the karma is different, and the pulling karma is the same. The karma that influences where one goes also invites the ability to go, called one karma pulling. Because the karma is the same, therefore this intermediate being has a form similar to the original existence. Like the seal and the sealed, the image is not different. Or perhaps, the intermediate and birth are caused by the same karma. Therefore, the influenced intermediate being should be born in the heavens, etc., and go to the heavens, etc. Or that intermediate being has the same karma as the birth existence. This explains the first line.

'Precisely because of this meaning, if this intermediate being goes to that realm, it will have the form of the original existence of that previous realm.' This explains the second line.

'If so, regarding one... until burning the mother's womb.' This is a difficulty. If the intermediate being is like the form of the original existence, in the womb of a dog, etc., there might be five offspring who die at the same time and are each born in a different realm. Among the five realms, one might arise at once. Since an intermediate being of hell appears, it should suffer the same as the original existence. How can it not burn the mother's womb?

The answer is, 'The original existence in hell does not constantly burn either. Like temporarily wandering in those sixteen increasing times without being burned, let alone in the intermediate state. Or like the reviving one temporarily encountering a cool breeze, or called the reviving one temporarily resting, it does not constantly burn. Even if it is allowed to burn, like the mother's eyes not seeing, it also cannot be touched. Because the body of the intermediate being is extremely subtle, the fire should be the same. Although the intermediate beings of various realms reside in one womb, the subtlety is the same. They do not mutually touch and burn because they are obstructed by karma. According to this, the mother's womb is also not burned because it is obstructed by karma.'

'The intermediate being desiring measure... and the roots are clear and sharp.' The above says 'similar to the original,' this says 'manifesting the totality.'

。今別顯形。欲界中有量雖如小兒年五．六歲而根明利。若應生人趣如五．六歲。余趣準知。恐疑身小何能起惑。而根明利能于父母生其愛．恚。又正理二十四云。有餘師說。欲界中有皆如本有盛年時量。

菩薩中有至四大洲等者。別顯菩薩中有量大　俱𦙁數名。如下當知。

若爾何故至來入已右脅者。難。若如盛年何故母見白象。

此吉瑞相至非如所見者。答。夢見白象此表吉瑞先相。非關中有。菩薩九十一劫以來久舍傍生趣故。復引訖栗枳王夢見十事。皆表先兆　訖栗枳此云作事。是迦葉波佛父。夜夢十事旦白迦葉佛。佛答言。此表當來釋迦遺法弟子之先兆也　王夢見有一大象被閉室中更無門戶唯有小窗。其象方便投身得出。尾猶礙窗不能出者。此表釋迦遺法弟子。能捨父．母．妻．子出家修道。而於其中猶懷名利。不能捨離如尾礙窗　王夢見有一渴人求覓水飲。便有一井具八功德。隨逐其人不敢飲者。此表釋迦遺法弟子。諸道俗等不肯學法。有知法者為名利故隨彼為說而猶不學　王夢見以一升真珠博一升麨者。此喻釋迦遺法弟子為求名利故以佛正法為他人說希彼財物　王夢見栴檀博凡木者。表釋迦遺法弟子。以內正法博外書典　王夢見有妙園林華果茂盛狂賊毀壞無有餘者。此表釋迦遺法弟子

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在特別說明中陰身顯現的形貌。欲界的中陰身，雖然身量如同五六歲的小孩，但根識明利。如果應當投生到人道，就如五六歲小孩的模樣，其餘各道也依此類推。有人可能會疑惑，身體如此弱小，怎麼能生起迷惑？但因為根識明利，能對父母生起愛戀和嗔恚。此外，《正理》第二十四卷中說，有其他論師認為，欲界的中陰身都如同其本有身在盛年時的身量。

菩薩的中陰身，有的能達到四大洲那麼大。這是特別說明菩薩的中陰身量巨大。俱胝（kù zhī）是數量名，下文將會解釋。

如果這樣，為什麼說菩薩入胎時是從母親的右脅進入呢？這是個疑問。如果菩薩的中陰身如盛年時那麼大，為什麼母親會夢見白象入胎呢？

這是吉祥的徵兆，並非如你所見的那樣。回答：夢見白象，這表示吉祥的預兆，與中陰身無關。菩薩從九十一劫以來，早已捨棄了傍生道。接著引用訖栗枳（Qì lì zhī）王夢見十件事的例子，都是表示預兆。訖栗枳，意為『作事』，是迦葉波佛（Kāshèbō Fó）的父親。他夜裡夢見十件事，早晨告訴迦葉佛。佛回答說：『這表示將來釋迦（Shìjiā）遺法弟子的預兆。』國王夢見有一頭大象被關在房間里，沒有門，只有小窗戶。大象設法投身出去，但尾巴還卡在窗戶上。這表示釋迦遺法弟子，能捨棄父母、妻子、兒女出家修道，但心中仍然懷有名利，不能捨棄，就像尾巴卡在窗戶上一樣。國王夢見有一個口渴的人尋找水喝，有一口井具備八功德水，但這個人卻不敢喝。這表示釋迦遺法弟子，各個道俗等不肯學習佛法。有懂佛法的人爲了名利，隨順他們為他們說法，但他們仍然不學。國王夢見用一升真珠換一升粗米。這比喻釋迦遺法弟子爲了求名利，用佛的正法為他人說法，希望得到他們的財物。國王夢見用旃檀（zhāntán）換普通的木頭。這表示釋迦遺法弟子，用內在的正法交換外道的典籍。國王夢見有一個美妙的園林，花果茂盛，但被狂賊摧毀，沒有剩下什麼。這表示釋迦遺法弟子。

【English Translation】 English version: Now, let's specifically explain the manifested form of the intermediate being (Antarabhava). The intermediate being in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), although its size is like that of a five or six-year-old child, has sharp and keen senses. If it is destined to be born in the human realm (Manushya-gati), it will appear as a five or six-year-old child. The same principle applies to other realms. One might doubt how such a small body can give rise to delusion, but because its senses are sharp, it can generate love and hatred towards its parents. Furthermore, the twenty-fourth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states that some teachers say that the intermediate beings in the desire realm all have the size of their original body at its prime.

The intermediate being of a Bodhisattva can be as large as the four continents (Chatur-dvipa). This specifically illustrates the immense size of a Bodhisattva's intermediate being. Koti (俱胝) is a numerical term, which will be explained below.

If that's the case, why is it said that the Bodhisattva enters the womb through the mother's right side? This is a question. If the Bodhisattva's intermediate being is as large as it is in its prime, why would the mother dream of a white elephant entering her womb?

This is an auspicious sign, not as it appears. Answer: Dreaming of a white elephant signifies an auspicious omen, and it is unrelated to the intermediate being. The Bodhisattva has long abandoned the animal realm (Tiryagyoni) since ninety-one kalpas ago. Then, the example of King Krkī (訖栗枳) dreaming of ten things is cited, all of which indicate omens. Krkī, meaning 'one who acts,' was the father of Kashyapa Buddha (迦葉波佛). He dreamed of ten things at night and told Kashyapa Buddha in the morning. The Buddha replied, 'These indicate the omens of the future disciples of Shakyamuni's (釋迦) remnant Dharma.' The king dreamed of a large elephant being confined in a room with no door, only a small window. The elephant managed to squeeze out, but its tail was still stuck in the window. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remnant Dharma, who can renounce parents, wife, and children to become monks and cultivate the Way, but still harbor fame and profit in their hearts, unable to let go, like the tail stuck in the window. The king dreamed of a thirsty person seeking water to drink, and there was a well with eight qualities of water (Ashtaguna), but the person dared not drink. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remnant Dharma, various lay and monastic people who are unwilling to learn the Dharma. Those who know the Dharma, for the sake of fame and profit, follow them and explain the Dharma to them, but they still do not learn. The king dreamed of exchanging a liter of pearls for a liter of coarse rice. This is a metaphor for the disciples of Shakyamuni's remnant Dharma, who, for the sake of fame and profit, explain the Buddha's true Dharma to others, hoping to obtain their wealth. The king dreamed of exchanging sandalwood (旃檀) for ordinary wood. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remnant Dharma, who exchange the inner true Dharma for external non-Buddhist scriptures. The king dreamed of a beautiful garden with lush flowers and fruits, but it was destroyed by mad thieves, leaving nothing behind. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remnant Dharma.

。磨滅如來正法苑也　王夢見有諸小象驅一大象令出羣者。表釋迦遺法弟子。諸惡朋儻破戒苾芻擯斥持戒有德苾芻令出衆外　王夢見有一獼猴身涂糞穢湯突己眾見皆避者。表釋迦遺法弟子。諸破戒人以諸惡事誹謗好人見皆遠避　王夢見有一獼猴實無有德眾共扶捧海水灌頂立為王者。表釋迦遺法弟子。破戒苾芻實無所知為名利故。諸惡朋儻共相扶捧立為眾首　王夢見有廣堅衣有十八人各執少分四面爭挽衣不破者。表釋迦遺法弟子。分佛正法成十八部雖有異執而真法尚存依之修道皆得解脫。此顯所學之法　王夢見多人共集互相征伐死亡略盡者。此表釋迦遺法弟子。既分成十八各有門人部執不同互興斗諍。此顯能學法人。如是所夢但表當來餘事先兆此非如所見。

又諸中有至前少后大者。此文意證從生門入非從右脅。故雙生者前生者小以後入胎故。後生者大以前入胎故。又婆沙七十云問菩薩中有何處入胎。答從右脅入。正知入胎。于母母想無淫愛故。復有說者從生門入。諸卵．胎生法應爾故。問輪王．獨覺先中有位何處入胎。答從右脅入。正知入胎。于母母想無淫愛故。復有說者從生門入。諸卵．胎生法應爾故。有餘師說菩薩福慧極增上故將入胎時無顛倒想不起淫愛。輪王．獨覺雖有福慧非極增上。將入胎時。雖無倒

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：磨滅如來正法之苑啊！國王夢見有許多小象驅趕一頭大象，使其離開象群。這表示釋迦牟尼佛遺教下的弟子，那些邪惡的朋黨、破戒的比丘，排斥持戒有德的比丘，使其離開大眾。國王夢見有一隻猴子，身上塗滿糞便污穢，衝撞人群，人們都躲避它。這表示釋迦牟尼佛遺教下的弟子，那些破戒之人用各種惡事誹謗好人，人們見了都遠遠躲避。國王夢見有一隻猴子，實際上沒有任何德行，卻被眾人扶持捧舉，用海水灌頂，立為王者。這表示釋迦牟尼佛遺教下的弟子，那些破戒的比丘實際上沒有什麼知識，爲了名利，那些邪惡的朋黨互相扶持捧舉，立為大眾之首。國王夢見有一件寬大堅固的衣服，有十八個人各自抓住少許部分，四面爭搶拉扯，衣服卻沒有破裂。這表示釋迦牟尼佛遺教下的弟子，將佛陀的正法分成十八部，雖然有不同的見解和執著，但真正的佛法仍然存在，依靠它修行都能得到解脫。這顯示了所學的法。國王夢見許多人聚集在一起，互相征戰殺伐，死亡殆盡。這表示釋迦牟尼佛遺教下的弟子，既然分成了十八部，各自有自己的門人和執著，互相興起爭鬥。這顯示了能學法的人。像這樣的夢境，只是預示將來的事情，並非如所見到的那樣。

此外，關於中有身（bardo body，指死亡到投胎之間的過渡狀態）呈現前小后大的情況，這段文字的意義在於證明，是從生門進入母胎，而不是從右脅進入。所以雙胞胎中先生出來的那個較小，因為後進入母胎；後生出來的那個較大，因為先進入母胎。另外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第七十卷中說：有人問，菩薩（Bodhisattva，具有高度覺悟，發願救度眾生的修行者）的中有身從何處入胎？回答說，從右脅進入，以正知（correct knowledge）入胎，對母親沒有母親的想念，也沒有淫慾之愛。還有人說，是從生門進入，所有卵生、胎生的生命都應該是這樣。有人問，轉輪王（Chakravartin，以正法統治世界的理想君王）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教，獨自悟道的修行者）先前的中有身從何處入胎？回答說，從右脅進入，以正知入胎，對母親沒有母親的想念，也沒有淫慾之愛。還有人說，是從生門進入，所有卵生、胎生的生命都應該是這樣。還有其他老師說，菩薩的福德和智慧極其增上，所以在將要入胎的時候，沒有顛倒的想念，不生起淫慾之愛。轉輪王、獨覺雖然有福德和智慧，但不是極其增上，所以在將要入胎的時候，雖然沒有顛倒。

【English Translation】 English version: It obliterates the garden of the Tathagata's (Tathagata, one of the titles of a Buddha, meaning 'Thus Gone' or 'Thus Come') true Dharma! The king dreamed of many small elephants driving a large elephant out of the herd. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's (Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha) remaining teachings, those evil companions, the precept-breaking Bhikshus (Bhikshu, a Buddhist monk), rejecting the precept-holding and virtuous Bhikshus, causing them to leave the assembly. The king dreamed of a monkey covered in excrement and filth, rushing into the crowd, and everyone avoiding it. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remaining teachings, those who break the precepts using various evil deeds to slander good people, and everyone avoids them from afar. The king dreamed of a monkey who actually had no virtue, yet was supported and held up by the crowd, crowned with seawater, and established as king. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remaining teachings, those precept-breaking Bhikshus who actually have no knowledge, and for the sake of fame and profit, those evil companions support and hold each other up, establishing themselves as leaders of the assembly. The king dreamed of a wide and sturdy garment, with eighteen people each holding a small part, pulling and tugging from all sides, yet the garment did not tear. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remaining teachings, dividing the Buddha's true Dharma into eighteen schools, although there are different views and attachments, the true Dharma still exists, and relying on it to cultivate, all can attain liberation. This reveals the Dharma being studied. The king dreamed of many people gathering together, fighting and killing each other, with almost all dying. This represents the disciples of Shakyamuni's remaining teachings, having divided into eighteen schools, each with their own followers and attachments, mutually engaging in strife. This reveals the people who are able to study the Dharma. Such dreams only foreshadow future events, and are not as they appear.

Furthermore, regarding the intermediate state body (bardo body, the transitional state between death and rebirth) appearing small in the front and large in the back, the meaning of this passage is to prove that it enters the womb from the birth canal, not from the right side. Therefore, the first-born of twins is smaller because it enters the womb later; the later-born is larger because it enters the womb earlier. Also, in the seventieth volume of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a Buddhist treatise), it says: Someone asked, from where does the intermediate state body of a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, a being who is on the path to Buddhahood) enter the womb? The answer is, it enters from the right side, with correct knowledge, having no thought of 'mother' towards the mother, and no lustful love. Others say that it enters from the birth canal, as should be the case for all oviparous and viviparous beings. Someone asked, from where does the previous intermediate state body of a Chakravartin (Chakravartin, an ideal universal ruler) or a Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary enlightened being) enter the womb? The answer is, it enters from the right side, with correct knowledge, having no thought of 'mother' towards the mother, and no lustful love. Others say that it enters from the birth canal, as should be the case for all oviparous and viviparous beings. Other teachers say that the Bodhisattva's merit and wisdom are extremely increased, so when about to enter the womb, there are no inverted thoughts and no arising of lustful love. Although the Chakravartin and Pratyekabuddha have merit and wisdom, they are not extremely increased, so when about to enter the womb, although there are no inverted thoughts.

想亦起淫愛。故入胎位必從生門入　又正理云。理實中有隨欲入胎。非要生門無障礙故。然由業力胎藏所拘　正理同婆沙前師。此論同婆沙后師。

法善現說至寢如仙隱林者。問。菩薩中有若如盛年。善現說頌復云何通。

不必須通至造頌無失者。就答中。一非三藏教不必須通。二諸諷頌言或過實故。三若必須通如菩薩母所見夢想。善現造頌無失。

色界中有至無慚愧故者。明色界中有量。及明中有有色衣無衣。如文可知。

所似本有其體是何者。此下釋后兩句。此即問也。

謂死有前至中闕具三者。初即正答前問。次總明有體。四位不同。若欲．色二界有色有情具足四有。若無色界唯闕中有具餘三有　言結生者。結謂結續即不斷義。又婆沙一百九十二云。如說四有謂本有．死有．中有．生有。有聲目多義如前廣說。此中有聲說屬眾同分有情數五蘊名有。云何本有。答除生分死分諸蘊中間諸有。此則一期五蘊．四蘊為性。問何故此有說名本有。答此是前時所造業生故名本有。問若爾余有亦本有。皆前時所造業所生故。答若是前時所造業生粗顯易覺。明瞭現見者說名本有。余雖前時所造業生。而微隱難覺非明瞭現見是以不說。云何死有。答死分諸蘊。則命終時五蘊．四蘊為性。云何中有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：也可能因為（眾生）思念淫慾之愛而起（入胎的念頭）。所以，進入胎位必定是從生殖之門進入。另外，《正理》中說，實際上，中有（身）是隨自己的意願進入胎的，不一定要通過生殖之門，因為沒有障礙的緣故。然而，由於業力的緣故，被胎藏所拘禁。《正理》的觀點與《婆沙論》的前輩論師相同，而此論（指《俱舍論》）的觀點與《婆沙論》的後輩論師相同。

法善現所說的（內容）直到『寢如仙隱林』（睡覺時像仙人隱藏在樹林中）這段話。問：菩薩中有（身）如果像盛年（的身體），那麼善現所說的偈頌又該如何解釋呢？

不必須完全通達，直到造頌沒有錯誤。（這是）就回答中的內容而言。一，不是三藏教（的內容）不必須完全通達。二，諸多的諷頌之言，或許有誇張的成分。三，如果必須完全通達，就像菩薩的母親所見的夢境一樣，善現造頌就沒有錯誤。

中有（身）直到沒有慚愧的緣故。 說明中有的量，以及說明中有有色衣或者沒有色衣，如文中所說的那樣可以知道。

所相似的本有，它的本體是什麼？（這是）下面解釋後面兩句話。這即是提問。

所謂死有之前，直到中間缺少（一有）具備三有。（這是）首先是正面回答前面的問題。其次是總的說明有體的四位不同。如果欲界、色界的有色有情，就具備四有。如果無色界（的有情），就唯獨缺少中有，具備其餘三有。說到結生，結就是結續，也就是不斷的意思。另外，《婆沙論》第一百九十二卷中說，如所說四有，就是本有（bhava）（生命最初一刻的蘊）、死有（cyuti-bhava）（死亡時刻的蘊）、中有（antarabhava）（死亡和投胎之間的過渡狀態）、生有（upapatti-bhava）（投生時刻的蘊）。『有』這個聲音包含多種含義，如前面廣泛所說的那樣。此處的『有』是指屬於眾同分（nikayasabhaga）（同一類眾生的共性）的有情，五蘊（skandha）（構成有情的五種要素）名為『有』。什麼是本有？回答是，除了生分、死分之外的諸蘊中間的諸有。這就是一期五蘊、四蘊為體性。問：為什麼此有被稱為本有？回答是，這是前時所造的業所生的，所以名為本有。問：如果這樣，其餘的有也是本有，都是前時所造的業所生的緣故。回答是，如果是前時所造的業所生，粗顯容易覺察，明瞭現見的，就說名為本有。其餘的雖然是前時所造的業所生，但是微隱難以覺察，不是明瞭現見的，因此不說。什麼是死有？回答是，死分的諸蘊。也就是命終時的五蘊、四蘊為體性。什麼是中有

【English Translation】 English version: It is also possible that (beings) think of lustful love and arise (the thought of entering the womb). Therefore, entering the womb must be through the birth gate. In addition, the Nyāyānusāra says that in reality, the antarabhava (intermediate state being) enters the womb according to its own wishes, not necessarily through the birth gate, because there is no obstacle. However, due to the force of karma, it is confined by the womb. The view of the Nyāyānusāra is the same as that of the early masters of the Vibhasa, while the view of this treatise (referring to the Abhidharmakośa) is the same as that of the later masters of the Vibhasa.

What Dharmabhadanta (Dharma-bhadanta) said up to 'sleeping like an immortal hiding in the forest'. Question: If the antarabhava of a Bodhisattva is like that of a prime age (body), then how should the verses said by Dharmabhadanta be explained?

It is not necessary to fully understand until there are no errors in composing the verses. (This is) in terms of the content in the answer. First, it is not necessary to fully understand the teachings that are not in the Tripiṭaka. Second, many of the satirical words may have exaggerated elements. Third, if it is necessary to fully understand, just like the dreams seen by the mother of the Bodhisattva, there are no errors in Dharmabhadanta's verses.

The antarabhava (intermediate state being) until the reason for having no shame. Explains the measure of the antarabhava, and explains whether the antarabhava has colored clothes or no colored clothes, as can be known from the text.

What is the substance of the bhava (being) that it resembles? (This is) explaining the latter two sentences below. This is the question.

The so-called cyuti-bhava (death-being) before, until the middle lacks (one bhava) and possesses three bhavas. (This is) First, it is a direct answer to the previous question. Secondly, it is a general explanation of the four different positions of the substance of bhava. If sentient beings in the desire realm and form realm have color, they possess four bhavas. If (sentient beings) in the formless realm (possess), they only lack the antarabhava, and possess the remaining three bhavas. Speaking of upapatti-bhava (rebirth-being), upapatti means connection, which means continuous. Also, it is said in the 192nd volume of the Vibhasa that, as said, there are four bhavas, namely bhava (the initial moment of life), cyuti-bhava (the moment of death), antarabhava (the intermediate state between death and rebirth), and upapatti-bhava (the moment of rebirth). The sound 'bhava' contains many meanings, as widely explained earlier. The 'bhava' here refers to sentient beings belonging to the nikayasabhaga (commonality of the same kind of beings), and the five skandhas (the five elements that constitute a sentient being) are called 'bhava'. What is bhava? The answer is, the bhavas in the middle of the skandhas except for the birth and death parts. This is the nature of a period of five skandhas or four skandhas. Question: Why is this bhava called bhava? The answer is, this is born from the karma created in the past, so it is called bhava. Question: If so, the remaining bhavas are also bhavas, because they are all born from the karma created in the past. The answer is, if it is born from the karma created in the past, it is rough, easy to perceive, and clearly visible, so it is called bhava. Although the rest are born from the karma created in the past, they are subtle, difficult to perceive, and not clearly visible, so they are not mentioned. What is cyuti-bhava? The answer is, the skandhas of the death part. That is, the five skandhas or four skandhas at the time of death are the nature. What is antarabhava?

。答除死分生分諸蘊中間諸有。則二有中間五蘊為性。問何故此有說名中有。答此於二有中間生故名中有。問若爾余有亦是中有。皆於二有中間生故。答若於二有中間生。非趣所攝者名中有。余雖二有中間生。而是趣攝不名中有。云何生有。答生分諸蘊。則結生時五蘊四蘊為性。廣如彼釋。

已說形量余義當辨者。結前問起。

頌曰至地獄頭歸下者。此兩行頌明次九門。一明眼境。二行遲疾。三明具根。四明無對。五不可轉。六明所食。七明住時。八明結生心。九明行相。

論曰至謂自下除上者。此中有身。五趣同類各別相見。異趣相望即不相見。若有修得極凈天眼。亦能得見異趣中有。諸生得眼皆不能見中有以極細故。第二師上能兼下。所以天中有眼能見五趣。下不及上所以地獄唯見自類。故言自下除上。若依婆沙七十總有三說。兩說同此論。更有一說云。復有說者地獄中有見五中有。乃至天中有亦見五中有　然無評家。此論頌文既云同見。且以此論初師為正。

一切通中至最強盛故者。業之通故依主釋也。此中文意大分可知　問此論中說一切通中業通最疾。是即中有行最疾。何故婆沙第七十云。如是說者神境通力行勢迅速非諸中有　一解云此論言疾者是無礙義。謂無能礙疾往受生故言最

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：除了死亡和出生之間的諸蘊（skandha，構成存在的要素）之外，還有什麼？答：那就是兩個『有』（bhava，存在）之間的『中有』（antarabhava，中陰身），其自性是五蘊。問：為什麼這個『有』被稱為『中有』？答：因為它在兩個『有』之間產生，所以稱為『中有』。問：如果這樣，那麼其他的『有』也是『中有』，因為它們也都在兩個『有』之間產生？答：如果在兩個『有』之間產生，但不是由『趣』（gati，輪迴的道途）所攝取的，就稱為『中有』。其他的雖然在兩個『有』之間產生，但因為是由『趣』所攝取的，所以不稱為『中有』。什麼是『生有』（upapattibhava，生有）？答：出生時的諸蘊。因此，結生時（relinking）的自性是五蘊或四蘊，詳細內容如彼處所釋。

已經說了形體和數量，接下來應當辨析其餘的意義。這是爲了總結前面的內容，並引出新的問題。

頌文說：『到地獄頭歸下』。這兩行頌文闡明了接下來的九個方面：一、闡明眼境；二、闡明行走速度的快慢；三、闡明是否具足諸根；四、闡明是否相互對立；五、闡明是否可以轉變；六、闡明所食之物；七、闡明停留的時間；八、闡明結生心；九、闡明行走的形態。

論述說：『謂自下除上』。這裡所說的『中有』之身，五趣（pañca-gati，五道：地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）眾生各自能見到同類的『中有』，但不同趣的眾生之間則不能互相看見。如果有人修得了極其清凈的天眼（divyacakṣus，天眼），也能看見不同趣的『中有』，但一般的生得眼（生來就有的眼睛）都不能看見『中有』，因為『中有』極其微細。第二種說法是，上面的能兼顧下面的，所以天道的『中有』之眼能看見五趣的『中有』，而下面的不及上面的，所以地獄道的眾生只能看見同類的『中有』。所以說『自下除上』。如果依據《婆沙論》（Vibhasa），七十總共有三種說法，其中兩種與此論相同，還有一種說法是：『還有一種說法是，地獄道的『中有』能看見五種『中有』，乃至天道的『中有』也能看見五種『中有』。』然而沒有評判者。此論的頌文既然說『同見』，那麼就以本論最初的說法為正確。

『一切通中至最強盛故』，『業之通故』是依主釋（tatpuruṣa，梵文複合詞的一種）。這段文字的大意很容易理解。問：此論中說一切神通中業通（karmarddhi，業力所生的神通）最快，也就是說『中有』的行走速度最快。為什麼《婆沙論》第七十卷說：『如此說來，神境通力（rddhibala，神通力）的行走速度迅速，不是諸『中有』。』一種解釋是，此論所說的『疾』是指無礙的意思，意思是說沒有東西能夠阻礙它快速前往受生，所以說是最快。

【English Translation】 English version: Q: Besides the skandhas (aggregates of existence) between death and birth, what else is there? A: That is the 'antarabhava' (intermediate existence, bardo) between the two 'bhavas' (existences), whose nature is the five skandhas. Q: Why is this 'bhava' called 'antarabhava'? A: Because it arises between the two 'bhavas', it is called 'antarabhava'. Q: If so, then other 'bhavas' are also 'antarabhava', because they also arise between two 'bhavas'? A: If it arises between two 'bhavas' but is not taken up by a 'gati' (course of rebirth), it is called 'antarabhava'. Others, although arising between two 'bhavas', are not called 'antarabhava' because they are taken up by a 'gati'. What is 'upapattibhava' (becoming existence)? A: The skandhas at the time of birth. Therefore, the nature at the time of relinking is the five skandhas or four skandhas, as explained in detail there.

Having spoken of form and quantity, the remaining meanings should be distinguished. This is to summarize the previous content and introduce new questions.

The verse says: 'Reaching the head of hell, returning downwards.' These two lines of verse explain the next nine aspects: 1. Explaining the object of the eye; 2. Explaining the speed of movement; 3. Explaining whether the faculties are complete; 4. Explaining whether they are mutually opposed; 5. Explaining whether they can be transformed; 6. Explaining what is eaten; 7. Explaining the duration of stay; 8. Explaining the relinking consciousness; 9. Explaining the manner of movement.

The treatise says: 'Namely, from below excluding above.' Here, the 'antarbhava' bodies of the five 'gatis' (hell, preta, animal, human, deva) can each see those of their own kind, but those of different 'gatis' cannot see each other. If someone has cultivated an extremely pure 'divyacakṣus' (divine eye), they can also see the 'antarbhava' of different 'gatis', but ordinary eyes cannot see the 'antarbhava' because it is extremely subtle. The second explanation is that the above can encompass the below, so the eye of the 'antarbhava' of the deva realm can see the five 'gatis', while the below cannot reach the above, so the beings of the hell realm can only see those of their own kind. Therefore, it is said 'from below excluding above'. According to the 'Vibhasa', there are three explanations in total, two of which are the same as this treatise, and another explanation is: 'There is another explanation that the 'antarbhava' of the hell realm can see the five kinds of 'antarbhava', and even the 'antarbhava' of the deva realm can also see the five kinds of 'antarbhava'.' However, there is no commentator. Since the verse of this treatise says 'see together', then the initial explanation of this treatise is taken as correct.

'Among all 'rddhi' (powers), up to the most powerful reason', 'karmarddhi' (power of karma) is a 'tatpuruṣa' (a type of Sanskrit compound word). The general meaning of this passage is easy to understand. Q: This treatise says that among all 'rddhi', 'karmarddhi' is the fastest, which means that the movement of the 'antarbhava' is the fastest. Why does the 70th volume of the 'Vibhasa' say: 'In this way, the speed of 'rddhibala' (power of magical abilities) is rapid, not that of the 'antarbhava'.' One explanation is that the 'fast' mentioned in this treatise refers to the meaning of unobstructed, meaning that nothing can hinder it from quickly going to rebirth, so it is said to be the fastest.

疾。非謂行疾。婆沙據行疾故言神境通速非諸中有。故婆沙通經云。經說業力勝神通者。依無障礙說業力勝。凡欲受生。上至佛等亦不能遮若依行勢而作論者。應說神通勝於中有。謂獨覺等。除佛能礙。佛不作意不能出三千界。亦有所礙。此中有去無能礙者。若作此說同婆沙　二又解神境通有三種謂意勢．勝解．運身　此論云一切通中業通最疾者。約運身而說。據少分一切。謂此中有望彼運身即疾。婆沙約意勢．勝解。故言神境通疾非諸中有。各據一義亦不相違　三又解或可。俱舍據婆沙初師義說。故言中有行疾。以經說業力勝神通故。

一切中有皆具五根者。以求生有故無不具根。

對謂對礙至有蟲生故者。釋無對義。鐵圍有蟲顯無礙義。余文可知　應往彼趣至定不往餘者。明中有不可轉。

欲中有身資段食不者。問。

雖資段食然細非粗者。答。

其細者何者。徴。

謂唯香氣至好香為食者。健達縛是短音中呼。若長聲中喚應言健達頞縛。其健達名香是字緣。頞縛是字界。或目尋義。或目食義。尋謂尋香。食謂食香。以健達助頞縛。即名健達頞縛。此中依短聲中呼略去頞字但言健達縛。若長聲喚達即亦攝頞。若短聲喚達即不收頞。雖短聲喚達亦無有過　引聲明中體例來證。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本疾。並非指行走速度快。因為《婆沙論》根據行走速度快，才說神通中的神境通比所有中陰身都快。所以《婆沙論》引用經文說：『經中說業力勝過神通』，是依據沒有障礙來說業力勝過神通。凡是想要受生的，上至佛等也無法阻止。如果依據行走的速度來討論，應該說神通勝過中陰身。比如獨覺等，除了佛能阻礙，佛如果不加以干預，也無法超出三千大千世界，也有所阻礙。而這中陰身離去，沒有誰能阻礙。如果這樣說，就和《婆沙論》的觀點相同。二又解釋說，神境通有三種，即意勢、勝解、運身。此論說一切神通中業通最快，是就運身而言。就少部分一切而言，即這中陰身相對於運身來說就快。而《婆沙論》是就意勢、勝解而言，所以說神境通比所有中陰身都快。各自依據一種意義，也不互相違背。三又解釋說，或許《俱舍論》是依據《婆沙論》最初的師義說的，所以說中陰身行走迅速，因為經中說業力勝過神通。

一切中陰身都具有五根嗎？因為是求生之身，所以沒有不具足五根的。

『對』是指『對礙』，直至有蟲子產生，這是解釋『無對』的含義。鐵圍山中有蟲子，顯示了沒有阻礙的含義。其餘的文字可以理解。『應該前往那個去處』，直至『一定不往其他地方』，說明中陰身是不可轉變的。

欲界的中陰身以段食為資糧嗎？這是提問。

雖然以段食為資糧，但是精細而不是粗糙的。這是回答。

所說的精細是指什麼？這是征問。

所說的精細是指唯有香氣，以好的香氣為食物。健達縛（Gandharva，乾闥婆，一種天神）是短音中的稱呼。如果用長音稱呼，應該說健達頞縛（Gandharva）。其中，健達（Gandha，香）是字緣，頞縛（Ahara，食物）是字界。或者著眼於尋香的含義，或者著眼於食物的含義。尋是指尋找香氣，食是指食用香氣。以健達輔助頞縛，就叫做健達頞縛。這裡依據短音稱呼，省略了頞字，只說健達縛。如果用長音稱呼，達字就包含了頞字。如果用短音稱呼，達字就不包含頞字。雖然用短音稱呼達字，也沒有過錯。引用聲明中的體例來證明。

【English Translation】 English version It is fast. It doesn't mean the speed of walking. Because the Vibhasa (婆沙) based on the speed of walking, it is said that the magical power of divine realm surpasses all intermediate existences (中有). Therefore, the Vibhasa quotes the sutra saying: 'The sutra says that the power of karma surpasses magical powers,' which is based on the absence of obstacles to say that the power of karma surpasses magical powers. Anyone who wants to be born, even Buddhas, cannot stop it. If we discuss based on the speed of walking, it should be said that magical powers surpass intermediate existences. For example, Pratyekabuddhas (獨覺), except for the Buddha who can hinder them, even if the Buddha does not intervene, he cannot go beyond the three thousand great thousand worlds, and there are obstacles. But no one can hinder this intermediate existence from leaving. If we say this, it is the same as the view of the Vibhasa. Secondly, it is explained that there are three types of magical power of divine realm, namely, the power of intention, the power of understanding, and the power of moving the body. This treatise says that among all magical powers, the power of karma is the fastest, which refers to the movement of the body. In terms of a small part of everything, that is, this intermediate existence is faster than the movement of the body. The Vibhasa is based on the power of intention and the power of understanding, so it is said that the magical power of divine realm is faster than all intermediate existences. Each is based on one meaning, and they do not contradict each other. Thirdly, it is explained that perhaps the Abhidharmakosa (俱舍論) is based on the initial meaning of the teacher in the Vibhasa, so it is said that the intermediate existence walks quickly, because the sutra says that the power of karma surpasses magical powers.

Do all intermediate existences have five roots? Because it is a body seeking rebirth, there is no one that does not have five roots.

'Opposition' refers to 'opposition to obstacles,' until insects are produced, which explains the meaning of 'no opposition.' The presence of insects in the Iron Enclosure Mountain (鐵圍山) shows the meaning of no obstacles. The rest of the text can be understood. 'One should go to that place,' until 'one will definitely not go to other places,' which indicates that the intermediate existence cannot be changed.

Does the intermediate existence of the desire realm rely on coarse food as sustenance? This is a question.

Although it relies on coarse food as sustenance, it is subtle rather than coarse. This is the answer.

What is meant by subtle? This is an inquiry.

What is meant by subtle refers only to fragrance, taking good fragrance as food. Gandharva (健達縛, a type of celestial being) is a short sound in the call. If called in a long sound, it should be Gandharahara (健達頞縛). Among them, Gandha (健達, fragrance) is the word origin, and Ahara (頞縛, food) is the word boundary. Or focus on the meaning of seeking fragrance, or focus on the meaning of food. Seeking refers to seeking fragrance, and food refers to eating fragrance. Gandha assists Ahara, which is called Gandharahara. Here, based on the short sound call, the word Ahara is omitted, and only Gandharva is said. If called in a long sound, the word 'da' includes the word Ahara. If called in a short sound, the word 'da' does not include the word Ahara. Although the word 'da' is called in a short sound, there is no fault. The example in the statement is cited to prove it.

如設建途．及羯建途。並是短聲。中喚建若以長聲。應言設建頞途．羯建頞途。設建．羯建並是字緣。頞途是字界。長聲．短聲類前應解　依聲明論有字界．字緣。其字界有字緣來助。即有種種義出。如米．面等鹽等助時即有種種味出。余文可知。

如是中有為住幾時者。問。

大德說言至應立死有者。就答中總有四解。此即初師說由中生二有一業引故。故於中有得住多時。若異此者中．生別業所感。中有命根最後滅時應立死有。

設有肉聚至頓來至此者。假設為問。

雖無經論至不可思議者。大德釋通。或有頓生或有漸待。由貪愛故。覺悟先過去感蟲身業。如從睡覺令起作用。余文可知。

尊者世友言至便數死數生者。第二師說。若生緣未合極經七日。數死數生。

有餘師言極七七日者。第三師解。中有極經七七日。

毗婆沙說至余處余類者。第四師正義。若定此處此類父母應生業力。即令此父母緣和合。雖住遠方令其即至雖極持戒亦起染心。若非定托此父母和合緣。如其所應。便即寄生余處．余類。如人中有寄鶴卵生。雖寄彼生還是人攝。余寄受生準此應釋。

有說轉受至后四同類者。此家意說。若緣不定轉受相似類身。如家牛欲增屬夏。狗屬秋。熊屬冬。馬

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如設建途（Sekkha-ntu，有學道），及羯建途（Kekka-ntu，無學道）。這些都是短音。中間的『建』若用長音，應說成設建頞途（Sekkha-ntu，有學道），羯建鞞途（Kekka-ntu，無學道）。設建（Sekkha）和羯建（Kekka）都是字緣，頞途（ntu）是字界。長音和短音的用法，應按照前面的解釋理解。依據聲明論，有字界和字緣。字界有字緣來輔助，就會產生種種意義。例如米、面等，加入鹽等調料，就會產生種種味道。其餘文字可以類推得知。

『像這樣，中陰身會停留多久？』這是提問。

大德說：『直到應被認為是死有。』在回答中總共有四種解釋。這是第一位老師的說法，由於中陰身和生有各自有一業力牽引，所以中陰身可以停留很長時間。如果不是這樣，中陰身和生有被不同的業力所感，中陰身的命根最後滅盡時，就應被認為是死有。

『假設有肉塊，突然來到這裡。』這是假設性的提問。

『雖然沒有經論依據，但這是不可思議的。』大德解釋說，有的眾生是頓生的，有的眾生是漸待的，這是由於貪愛的緣故。覺悟到先前過去所感的蟲身業，就像從睡夢中醒來，開始發揮作用。其餘文字可以類推得知。

尊者世友（Vasumitra）說：『如果生緣沒有聚合，最多經過七天，就會多次死亡，多次出生。』這是第二位老師的說法。

有其他老師說：『最多經過七個七天。』這是第三位老師的解釋，中陰身最多經過七個七天。

《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『如果確定在此處此類父母處受生，業力就會促使這對父母的因緣和合。即使住在遠方，也會讓他們立即來到；即使極力持戒，也會生起染污之心。如果不是確定要投生到這對父母處，因緣不和合，就會按照其所應，寄生到其他地方、其他種類。』例如，人的中陰身寄生到鶴卵中出生，雖然寄生到鶴卵中，仍然屬於人。其餘寄生受生的情況，可以參照這個例子來解釋。

有人說，『如果轉而受生，后四種是同類。』這家認為，如果因緣不確定，就會轉而受生到相似的種類。例如，家牛想要增加，屬於夏天；狗屬於秋天；熊屬於冬天；馬屬於……

【English Translation】 English version: Like Sekkha-ntu (learner's path), and Kekka-ntu (path of no more learning). These are both short sounds. If the 'ka' in the middle is pronounced with a long sound, it should be said as Sekkha-ntu, Kekka-ntu. Sekkha and Kekka are both word-affixes, ntu is the word-boundary. The usage of long and short sounds should be understood according to the previous explanations. According to the science of language, there are word-boundaries and word-affixes. When a word-boundary is assisted by a word-affix, various meanings arise. For example, when rice, flour, etc., are added with salt and other seasonings, various flavors arise. The remaining text can be understood by analogy.

'How long does the intermediate being stay?' This is a question.

The Venerable said, 'Until it should be considered as death-becoming.' In the answer, there are a total of four explanations. This is the first teacher's saying, because the intermediate being and the becoming-being each have a karma pulling them, so the intermediate being can stay for a long time. If it is not like this, the intermediate being and the becoming-being are influenced by different karmas, and when the life-faculty of the intermediate being finally ceases, it should be considered as death-becoming.

'Suppose there is a lump of flesh, suddenly coming here.' This is a hypothetical question.

'Although there is no scriptural basis, it is inconceivable.' The Venerable explained that some beings are born suddenly, and some beings wait gradually, this is due to greed. Awakening to the insect-body karma sensed in the past, like waking up from a dream, and starting to function. The remaining text can be understood by analogy.

Venerable Vasumitra said, 'If the conditions for birth have not come together, after a maximum of seven days, there will be multiple deaths and multiple births.' This is the second teacher's saying.

Some other teachers said, 'At most, after seven sevens of days.' This is the third teacher's explanation, the intermediate being lasts for a maximum of seven sevens of days.

The Vibhasa says, 'If it is determined to be born in this place with these parents, the karmic force will cause the conditions of these parents to come together. Even if they live far away, it will make them come immediately; even if they strictly observe the precepts, they will give rise to defiled thoughts. If it is not determined to be born to these parents, and the conditions do not come together, then according to what is appropriate, it will be born in another place, another kind.' For example, the intermediate being of a human is born in a crane's egg, although it is born in a crane's egg, it still belongs to a human. The remaining situations of parasitic rebirth can be explained by referring to this example.

Some say, 'If it is reborn by transformation, the latter four are of the same kind.' This school believes that if the conditions are not certain, it will be reborn into a similar kind. For example, domestic cattle want to increase, belonging to summer; dogs belong to autumn; bears belong to winter; horses belong to...

屬春。若野牛．野干．羆．驢欲增無定。前四中有若不遇時。如次轉生后四同類。此非正義。

豈不中有至轉受相似者。論主破。豈不中有必無與生有眾同分別。一業引故。何可言轉受相似。

如是中有至或作不男者。此明中有起顛倒心。義便復明住胎。隨前起貪面有向背。右勝左劣。故男右女左。又正理云。女．男串習左．右事故。宿因分別力使然故　言蘊厚者。漸堅厚也。余文可知。

於此義中至依精血住者。此中義便明精血大種。成根依不成根依。總起兩問　根謂身根。以初生時唯身根故　依謂所依大種　問為由業力令中有末後念同時精血大種。即成生有初念根依大種　言即成者。約相續道說。言前念大種成后念根依大種。若橫克而言。后念根依大種。實非用彼前念精血大種所成。以彼落謝故。但為同類因無間引起。故言即成根依。如變乳成酪。變水成蟲。還約相續道說言乳即成酪。水即成蟲。若橫望而言。酪之與蟲非即乳．水。此即敘初問意。第二問意。為業別生中有後念根依家大種。依精血住。能成生有初念根依。不由前念精血大種成后根依。

有言精血至增羯吒私者。答。有二師。此即初師。此師意說精血大種即成根依。謂前念無根精血大種。與中有俱滅。引後生有初念有根大

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於春季。如果野牛（Ya Niu，一種動物）、野干（Ye Gan，一種動物）、羆（Pi，一種熊）和驢想要增加數量，沒有固定的規律。前面四種眾生中，如果沒有遇到合適的時機，就會依次轉生為後面四種同類眾生。這並非正確的道理。

難道不是中有（Zhong You，中陰身）到轉世受生都相似嗎？論主駁斥說：難道不是中有必定沒有與生有眾生相同的分別嗎？因為都是由同一業力牽引的緣故。怎麼能說轉世受生是相似的呢？

像這樣，中有到轉世，或者會變成不男之人。這說明中有生起顛倒之心。這樣就進一步說明了住胎的情況：隨著之前生起的貪愛，面部會有朝向或背離。右邊勝過左邊，所以男子在右邊，女子在左邊。另外，《正理》中說，女子和男子串習左邊和右邊的事情，也是因為宿世因緣分別的力量所致。所說的『蘊厚』，是指逐漸堅固增厚。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

在這個意義中，到依附精血而住。這裡說明了精血四大種，成為根所依和不成根所依。總共提出了兩個問題：根是指身根，因為最初出生的時候只有身根。依是指所依附的四大種。問題是：是由業力讓中有末後一念同時與精血四大種結合，立即成為生有初唸的根依四大種嗎？所說的『立即成為』，是就相續的道理來說的，即前唸的四大種成為后唸的根依四大種。如果從橫向來分析，后唸的根依四大種，實際上不是用前唸的精血四大種形成的，因為前唸的精血四大種已經消散了。只是因為是同類因無間斷地引起，所以說立即成為根依。就像牛奶變成奶酪，水變成蟲子一樣，也是就相續的道理來說，說牛奶立即變成奶酪，水立即變成蟲子。如果從橫向來看，奶酪和蟲子並非就是牛奶和水。這只是敘述了第一個問題的意思。第二個問題的意思是：因為業力的差別，產生中有後唸的根依家四大種，依附精血而住，能夠成為生有初唸的根依，而不是由前唸的精血四大種成為后唸的根依。

有人說精血到增羯吒私（Zeng Jie Zha Si，一種狀態）。回答：有兩種說法。這是第一種說法。這種說法認為精血四大種立即成為根依。即前念無根的精血四大種，與中有一起滅亡，引生後來的生有初念有根的四大種。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding spring. If wild oxen (Ya Niu, an animal), jackals (Ye Gan, an animal), bears (Pi, a bear), and donkeys want to increase in number, there is no fixed rule. Among the first four types of beings, if they do not encounter the right time, they will be reborn in the same order as the latter four types. This is not the correct principle.

Isn't it the case that the intermediate being (Zhong You, the intermediate state) to rebirth are similar? The author refutes: Isn't it the case that the intermediate being certainly does not have the same distinctions as sentient beings in the birth state? Because they are all drawn by the same karma. How can it be said that rebirth is similar?

Like this, the intermediate being to rebirth, or it may become a non-male person. This explains that the intermediate being gives rise to inverted thoughts. This further explains the situation of dwelling in the womb: with the greed that arises before, the face will be facing or away. The right side is superior to the left side, so the male is on the right, and the female is on the left. Also, the Nyayapravesa says that women and men are accustomed to left and right things, which is also due to the power of past karma. The so-called 'thick aggregates' refers to gradually solidifying and thickening. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.

In this meaning, to relying on sperm and blood to dwell. This explains the four great elements of sperm and blood, becoming root-dependent and non-root-dependent. Two questions are raised in total: The root refers to the body root, because only the body root exists at the time of initial birth. The dependent refers to the four great elements on which it depends. The question is: Is it due to the power of karma that the last thought of the intermediate being combines with the four great elements of sperm and blood at the same time, immediately becoming the root-dependent four great elements of the initial thought of the birth state? The so-called 'immediately becomes' is spoken in terms of the principle of continuity, that is, the four great elements of the previous thought become the root-dependent four great elements of the subsequent thought. If analyzed horizontally, the root-dependent four great elements of the subsequent thought are not actually formed by the four great elements of sperm and blood of the previous thought, because the four great elements of sperm and blood of the previous thought have dissipated. It is only because it is caused by the uninterrupted cause of the same kind, so it is said that it immediately becomes the root-dependent. Just like milk turning into cheese, and water turning into insects, it is also said in terms of the principle of continuity that milk immediately becomes cheese, and water immediately becomes insects. If viewed horizontally, cheese and insects are not milk and water. This is just a description of the meaning of the first question. The meaning of the second question is: Because of the difference in karma, the root-dependent four great elements of the intermediate being's subsequent thought are produced, relying on sperm and blood to dwell, and can become the root-dependent of the initial thought of the birth state, rather than the root-dependent of the subsequent thought being formed by the four great elements of sperm and blood of the previous thought.

Some say that sperm and blood reach Zeng Jie Zha Si (Zeng Jie Zha Si, a state). Answer: There are two views. This is the first view. This view holds that the four great elements of sperm and blood immediately become root-dependent. That is, the four great elements of sperm and blood without roots in the previous thought, together with the intermediate being, perish, leading to the four great elements with roots in the initial thought of the subsequent birth state.

種無間續生　彼計生有初念根依大種。用中有後位精血大種為同類因無間引起。如種因滅芽果續生。由攬精血大種成根依故。初位得羯剌藍名。經云不凈生羯剌藍證知精血大種即成根依。又經云初受生時執受血滴成身。故知精血大種即成根依　羯吒私者。此名貪愛。亦名血鑊。

有餘師言至無相違失者。第二師解。由業力故別生根依大種。是中有末身根大種為同類因。引起生有初念根依大種。此中有末身根大種依精血住。精血即是大種同時精血。依彼不凈為緣住故。寄喻來況。如依棄糞別有蟲生。若不依彼不凈為緣。無力能生生有根依。如種生芽必依地等。經云父母不凈生羯剌藍者。不凈聚中根依大種生羯剌藍。故與彼經無相違失。正理論意評取此論后師。破此論前師云。彼執生有色法生時非中有色相續而起。與芽從種道理相違。無情與情為種引起不應道理。相續異故。有情．無情二色俱滅后情色起。無情為因情不為因言非應理。

如是且說至今次當說者。結前生下。

若濕生者至處有凈穢者。明濕．化二生。如文可知。

豈于地獄亦生愛染者。難。化生染處故生。

由心倒故至投身於彼者。答文可知。

先舊諸師至馳往赴彼者。經部先舊諸師。或說一切有部先舊諸師。由見先

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『種無間續生』，他們認為生有的最初念頭，其根本依據是大種（mahābhūta，構成物質世界的基本元素）。在中有（antarābhava，死亡和投生之間的過渡期）的最後階段，精血大種作為同類因，無間斷地引起生有的最初念頭的根本依據。就像種子滅亡后，會相續產生芽和果實一樣。因為攝取精血大種而形成根本依據，所以在最初階段得到『羯剌藍』（kalala，受精卵的最初階段）這個名稱。經文中說『從不凈中產生羯剌藍』，證明精血大種就是形成根本依據的物質。還有經文說『最初受生時，執取血滴形成身體』，因此可知精血大種就是形成根本依據的物質。『羯吒私』（katasi）這個詞，意思是貪愛，也叫做血鑊。

『有其餘師說乃至沒有相違背的缺失』，這是第二位論師的解釋。由於業力的緣故，特別產生根本依據的大種。中有的最後身體的根本大種作為同類因，引起生有的最初念頭的根本依據。這個中有的最後身體的根本大種依附於精血而存在，精血就是大種，同時也是精血。因為依靠不凈作為緣而存在，所以用比喻來說明情況，就像依靠被丟棄的糞便而另外產生蟲子一樣。如果不依靠那個不凈作為緣，就沒有力量產生生有的根本依據，就像種子生芽必須依靠土地等一樣。經文中說『父母的不凈產生羯剌藍』，是指在不凈的聚集物中，根本依據的大種產生羯剌藍。因此與那部經文沒有相違背的缺失。正理論的觀點是採納這位後來的論師的觀點，駁斥前面那位論師的觀點，說：『他們認為生有的色法產生時，不是中有的色相續而產生的，這與芽從種子產生的道理相違背。無情物和有情物作為種子引起結果是不應道理的，因為相續不同。有情和無情兩種色法都滅亡后才產生，說無情是因，有情不是因，這不應道理。』

『像這樣且說至今，接下來應當說的是』，這是總結前面，引出後面的內容。

『如果濕生，乃至處有凈穢』，這是說明濕生和化生兩種情況，如文中所說可以明白。

『難道在地獄也會產生愛染嗎？』這是提問，因為化生在染污的地方產生。

『由於心顛倒的緣故，乃至投身於那裡』，答案在文中可以明白。

『先舊的諸位論師，乃至奔赴那裡』，這是經部的先舊諸位論師，或者說是一切有部的先舊諸位論師，因為見到先

【English Translation】 English version 'Continuously arising without interval', they posit that the root basis of the first thought of becoming (bhava) relies on the great elements (mahābhūta, the fundamental elements constituting the material world). In the final stage of the intermediate state (antarābhava, the transitional period between death and rebirth), the great elements of semen and blood serve as the homogeneous cause, uninterruptedly giving rise to the root basis of the first thought of becoming. It is like how, after a seed perishes, sprouts and fruits continuously arise. Because of grasping the great elements of semen and blood to form the root basis, it receives the name 'kalala' (the initial stage of the fertilized egg) in the initial stage. The sutra says, 'From impurity arises kalala,' proving that the great elements of semen and blood constitute the material that forms the root basis. Furthermore, the sutra says, 'At the time of initial conception, grasping a drop of blood forms the body,' thus it is known that the great elements of semen and blood constitute the root basis. The term 'katasi' means craving and is also called a blood cauldron.

'Other teachers say, up to no contradictory loss', this is the explanation of the second teacher. Due to the force of karma, the great elements of the root basis are specially produced. The root elements of the last body of the intermediate being serve as the homogeneous cause, giving rise to the root basis of the first thought of becoming. The root elements of this last body of the intermediate being rely on semen and blood to exist; semen and blood are the great elements, and simultaneously are semen and blood. Because they rely on impurity as a condition to exist, a metaphor is used to illustrate the situation, just as insects arise separately relying on discarded feces. If not relying on that impurity as a condition, there is no power to produce the root basis of becoming, just as a seed sprouting must rely on earth and so on. The sutra says, 'The impurity of parents produces kalala,' referring to the great elements of the root basis producing kalala in the accumulation of impurity. Therefore, there is no contradictory loss with that sutra. The view of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) is to adopt the view of this later teacher, refuting the view of the former teacher, saying: 'They believe that when the form of becoming arises, it does not arise continuously from the form of the intermediate being, which contradicts the principle of a sprout arising from a seed. It is unreasonable for insentient and sentient things to cause results as seeds, because the continuities are different. After both sentient and insentient forms perish, they arise. It is unreasonable to say that insentient is the cause and sentient is not the cause.'

'Like this, it has been said up to now, what should be said next is', this is summarizing the previous and introducing the following content.

'If born from moisture, up to the place has purity and impurity', this explains the two kinds of birth, moisture-born and transformation-born, as can be understood from the text.

'Could it be that love and attachment also arise in hell?', this is a question, because transformation-born beings arise in defiled places.

'Due to the mind being inverted, up to throwing oneself into that place', the answer can be understood in the text.

'The former old teachers, up to rushing to that place', these are the former old teachers of the Sautrāntika school, or the former old teachers of the Sarvāstivāda school, because seeing the first

造感彼地獄業時。共遊獵等己身伴類馳往赴彼。

又天中有至樂寂修苦行者。此明中有行相。且約人中死者生諸趣說。若約余處中有受生行相不定。且如色究竟天生四天王天中無妨頭下足上。如從下地獄生上地獄無妨頭上足下。故婆沙七十云。且依人中命終者說。若地獄死還生地獄。不必頭下足上而行。若天中死還生天趣。不必足下頭上而行。若地獄死生於人趣應首上升。若天中死生於人趣應頭歸下。鬼及傍生二趣中有。隨所往處如應當知。此是婆沙正義。應知人．鬼．傍生各自往趣中有行相。還如人等傍行馳赴。如鳥飛空如盡飛仙。

前說倒心至皆定爾耶者。此下十一明入胎。牒前問起。

不爾經言入胎有四者。答。

其四者何者。徴。

頌曰至如次四餘生者。答。初頌明四種入胎三時差別。后頌約人釋四。

論曰至故逆說四者。釋前三句。若修福智慧有正知。不修福智不能正知。若依經次第從劣向勝。三時不知應第一說。餘三次第如此論。順結頌法恐有犯聲。故逆說第一為第四。故婆沙一百七十二說三時不知為第一　余如此論次第　又解凡諸頌中作四句法。兩單在初。俱是第三。俱非第四。以三時俱不知義當俱非句。故逆說第一為第四　又解依經次第。一三時不知。二三時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：當他們造作導致地獄的業時，會和一起遊獵的同伴們一同奔赴地獄。

此外，天界中也有享受極樂、寂靜修行的苦行者。這說明了中有的行相。這裡主要針對人道眾生死後往生各道的狀況進行說明。如果討論其他地方，中有的受生行相是不確定的。例如，從色究竟天（Rupa-dhatu Arupaloka，色界無色界天）往生四天王天（Cāturmahārājika-deva，欲界第一天）時，不妨礙頭下腳上的姿勢。又如從下層地獄往生上層地獄，不妨礙頭上腳下的姿勢。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第七十卷說，這裡是依據人道眾生命終的情況來說的。如果地獄眾生死後還生地獄，不一定是頭下腳上地行走。如果天界眾生死後還生天界，不一定是腳下頭上的姿勢。如果地獄眾生死於人道，應該是頭朝上。如果天界眾生死於人道，應該是頭朝下。鬼道和傍生道（畜生道）的中有，應該根據他們所往生的地方來了解。這是《婆沙論》的正義。應該瞭解人、鬼、傍生各自前往之處的中有行相，就像人和傍生一樣橫著奔赴，像鳥在空中飛翔，像具有神通的仙人飛行一樣。

前面說的心識顛倒，是否都是這樣確定的呢？下面用十一句來闡明入胎的情況，承接前面的問題而展開。

不是這樣的，經中說入胎有四種情況。回答。

這四種情況是什麼呢？提問。

頌文說：『至如次四餘生者』。回答。最初的頌文闡明了四種入胎在三個時間上的差別。後面的頌文根據人道來解釋這四種情況。

論述說：『至故逆說四者』。解釋前面的三句話。如果修行福德和智慧，就能有正確的認知。如果不修行福德和智慧，就不能有正確的認知。如果按照經文的順序，從差到好，三個時間都不知道的情況應該放在第一位來說。其餘三種情況按照這樣的順序。論述爲了順應偈頌的規則，恐怕在聲韻上有所冒犯，所以把第一種情況倒過來說成第四種情況。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十二卷說，三個時間都不知道的情況是第一種。其餘的按照論述的順序。又解釋說，凡是在偈頌中採用四句法，兩個單句在最開始，兩個都是第三種情況，兩個都不是第四種情況。因為三個時間都不知道的情況相當於『都不是』的情況，所以把第一種情況倒過來說成第四種情況。又解釋說，按照經文的順序，一是三個時間都不知道，二是三個時間

【English Translation】 English version: When they create the karma that leads to hell, they rush to that hell together with their companions who hunt together.

Furthermore, there are also ascetics in the heavens who enjoy supreme bliss and practice solitary meditation. This explains the characteristics of the intermediate state (antarabhava). This mainly discusses the situation of beings in the human realm being reborn in various realms after death. If we discuss other places, the characteristics of the intermediate state of rebirth are uncertain. For example, when being reborn from the Arupaloka of the Realm of Formlessness (Rupa-dhatu Arupaloka) to the Heaven of the Four Great Kings (Cāturmahārājika-deva), there is no obstacle to being head-down and feet-up. Also, like being reborn from a lower hell to an upper hell, there is no obstacle to being head-up and feet-down. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa) Volume 70 says that this is based on the situation of beings in the human realm at the time of death. If beings in hell die and are reborn in hell, they do not necessarily walk head-down and feet-up. If beings in the heavens die and are reborn in the heavens, they are not necessarily feet-down and head-up. If beings in hell die in the human realm, their heads should rise upwards. If beings in the heavens die in the human realm, their heads should go downwards. The intermediate state of ghosts and animals (tiryak), should be understood according to the place they are going to be reborn. This is the correct meaning of the Vibhasa. It should be understood that the characteristics of the intermediate state of humans, ghosts, and animals going to their respective destinations are like humans and animals rushing horizontally, like birds flying in the sky, like immortals flying with supernatural powers.

Is it the case that the previously mentioned inverted states of mind are all definitely like that? The following eleven lines clarify the situation of entering the womb, continuing from the previous question.

It is not like that. The sutra says that there are four situations of entering the womb. Answer.

What are these four situations? Question.

The verse says: 'To like the order four remaining births'. Answer. The initial verse clarifies the differences in the four types of entering the womb at three times. The later verse explains these four situations based on the human realm.

The treatise says: 'To therefore reverse say four'. Explains the previous three sentences. If one cultivates merit and wisdom, one can have correct knowledge. If one does not cultivate merit and wisdom, one cannot have correct knowledge. If following the order of the sutra, from inferior to superior, the situation of not knowing at three times should be stated first. The remaining three situations follow this order. The treatise, in order to comply with the rules of verses, fearing that there might be an offense in terms of sound, therefore reverses the first situation and makes it the fourth situation. Therefore, the Vibhasa Volume 172 says that the situation of not knowing at three times is the first. The remaining ones follow the order of the treatise. It also explains that whenever the four-line method is used in verses, the two single lines are at the beginning, both are the third situation, and neither is the fourth situation. Because the situation of not knowing at three times is equivalent to the 'neither' situation, therefore the first situation is reversed and made the fourth situation. It also explains that according to the order of the sutra, one is not knowing at three times, and two is three times

知。三二時知。四一時知。恐有犯聲順結頌法故逆說四種。

諸卵生者至皆恒無知者。釋第四句。明卵生三位不知。

如何卵生至言入胎藏者。問。應言入卵如何入胎。

以卵生者至入胎無失者。答。入胎從初名說。卵生據當以論。如言造作有為。造作是現業。有為是當果。現造業時言當果者從當名說。正煮米時言煮飯者從當名說。正磨麥時言磨麨者。亦從者問當說。故說卵生入胎無失。

云何三位正不正知者。問。

且諸有情至不正知者者。此下答。此顯不正知。

若於三位至自知住出者。此明正知。無顛倒想知入．住．出故名正知。顯宗十三云。豈不續有定是染心。何容正知入母胎藏。正知．正念說根律儀。夫根律儀決應是善。無斯過失。一切正知皆善性攝非所許故。異此應無正知妄語。或入胎位。據相續說。非唯正結生有剎那。於此位中善多染少。從多分故說為正知。或令于彼發起恭敬于不迷亂立正知名。謂如實知此是我父此是我母。故名正知。云何第三後有菩薩于感果等皆明瞭知。而入胎時有如是事。無始串習率爾起心斯有何過。或唯發起親愛染心無非法愛(解云第一如境知故。第二從多分說。第三不迷亂故名正知)又婆沙七十云。諸有情類多起如是顛倒想已而入母胎

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本知。在三十二種情況下知。在四一種情況下知。因為恐怕有違犯聲順結頌法的情況，所以反過來說這四種情況。

所有卵生生物，直到所有恒時無知的生物。解釋第四句。說明卵生生物在三個階段是無知的。

為什麼卵生生物，直到說進入胎藏的生物？問題：應該說進入卵，為什麼說進入胎？

因為卵生生物，直到進入胎中沒有錯誤的生物。回答：說進入胎是從最初的名稱來說的。說卵生是根據當時的情況來論述的。例如說造作有為，造作是現在的行為，有為是將來的結果。現在造業的時候說將來的結果，是從將來的名稱來說的。正在煮米的時候說煮飯，是從將來的名稱來說的。正在磨麥的時候說磨面，也是從將來的情況來說的。所以說卵生進入胎中沒有錯誤。

為什麼說三個階段是正知或不正知？問題。

且說所有有情，直到不正知。以下是回答。這裡顯示了不正知。

如果在三個階段，直到自己知道進入、停留、出去。這裡說明了正知。因為沒有顛倒的想法，知道進入、停留、出去，所以叫做正知。《顯宗論》第十三卷說：難道相續不斷的一定是染污心嗎？怎麼能說是正知進入母親的胎藏呢？正知、正念是說根律儀。根律儀一定是善的。沒有這樣的過失。一切正知都是善的性質所包含的，不是所允許的。否則應該沒有正知妄語。或者進入胎位，是根據相續來說的，不僅僅是正結生的一剎那。在這個階段中，善多染少。從多數的情況來說，所以說是正知。或者使他對那個（父母）發起恭敬心，對於不迷惑混亂的情況，立為正知之名。就是如實地知道這是我的父親，這是我的母親，所以叫做正知。為什麼第三後有菩薩在感受果報等等的時候都明瞭知道，而進入胎的時候有這樣的事情呢？因為無始以來的串習，突然生起的心，這有什麼過錯呢？或者只是發起親愛染心，沒有非法的愛。（解釋說，第一，如實地知道境界的緣故。第二，從多數的情況來說。第三，不迷惑混亂的緣故，叫做正知。）又《婆沙論》第七十卷說：所有有情大多生起這樣的顛倒想法后，才進入母親的胎中。

【English Translation】 English version Knowing. Knowing in thirty-two instances. Knowing in forty-one instances. Fearing there might be a violation of the rules of sound, sequence, and concluding verses, these four types are stated in reverse order.

All beings born from eggs, up to all beings who are constantly without knowledge. Explaining the fourth sentence. Clarifying that egg-born beings are without knowledge in three stages.

Why do egg-born beings, up to those said to enter the womb? Question: It should be said 'enter the egg,' why is it said 'enter the womb'?

Because egg-born beings, up to those who enter the womb without error. Answer: Saying 'enter the womb' is speaking from the initial name. Saying 'egg-born' is based on the current situation. For example, saying 'creating conditioned phenomena,' creating is the present action, conditioned phenomena are the future result. When creating karma now, saying the future result is speaking from the future name. When cooking rice, saying 'cooking a meal' is speaking from the future name. When grinding wheat, saying 'grinding flour' is also speaking from the future situation. Therefore, saying that entering the womb for egg-born beings is without error.

Why are the three stages said to be with right knowledge or without right knowledge? Question.

Let's say all sentient beings, up to without right knowledge. The following is the answer. This shows the lack of right knowledge.

If in the three stages, up to knowing oneself entering, abiding, and exiting. This clarifies right knowledge. Because there are no inverted thoughts, knowing entering, abiding, and exiting, it is called right knowledge. The thirteenth volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Isn't it that the continuous mind is necessarily defiled? How can it be said to be right knowledge entering the mother's womb? Right knowledge and right mindfulness are said to be the discipline of the senses (indriya-samvara).' The discipline of the senses must be good. There is no such fault. All right knowledge is included in the nature of goodness, not what is permitted. Otherwise, there should be no false speech with right knowledge. Or, the stage of entering the womb is spoken of in terms of continuity, not just a moment of right rebirth. In this stage, good is more and defilement is less. From the majority of the situation, it is said to be right knowledge. Or, causing him to generate respect for that (parents), establishing the name of right knowledge for the situation of not being confused. That is, truly knowing 'this is my father, this is my mother,' therefore it is called right knowledge. Why do Bodhisattvas in the third existence (after death), when experiencing the results of karma, etc., clearly know everything, but have such things when entering the womb? Because of the habitual tendencies from beginningless time, the sudden arising of the mind, what fault is there in this? Or, only generating affectionate defiled mind, without unlawful love. (Explanation: First, because of truly knowing the object. Second, speaking from the majority of the situation. Third, it is called right knowledge because of not being confused.) Also, the seventieth volume of the Mahavibhasa says: 'All sentient beings mostly generate such inverted thoughts before entering the mother's womb.'

。唯除菩薩將入胎時。于父父想。于母母想。雖能正知而於其母起親附愛。乘斯愛力便入母胎　又婆沙一百七十二說菩薩正知中雲。便於父母等生親愛由此結生　婆沙前文言而於其母起親附愛者。從強多分說。

又別顯示至以當名顯者。釋第五．第六句。將入胎時在中有位非輪王等。言輪王等從當名說。

何緣如是三品不同者。問。

由業智俱至勝福智故者。釋第七句及如次。可知。除前三種至合成第四者。釋四餘生三時不知。又婆沙一百七十二云。有說第四入胎謂菩薩。第三入胎謂獨覺。第二入胎謂輪王。第一入胎謂余有情。有說第四入胎謂菩薩。第三入胎謂獨覺。第二入胎謂波羅蜜多聲聞。第一入胎謂余有情。有說第四入胎謂菩薩。第三入胎謂獨覺。第二入胎謂預流．一來。第一入胎謂余有情。如彼廣說。

又云。複次此四種入胎皆謂菩薩。于中有說第四入胎是第三阿僧祇耶菩薩。第三入胎是第二阿僧祇菩薩。第二入胎是初阿僧企耶菩薩。第一入胎是此前菩薩。更有說非是正義。評家自破如彼廣說。

此中外道至有我義成者。此下大文第二遮外計。此即先敘執我者計。即是勝論．數論等。

今為遮彼至故有輪無初者。此即正遮。前頌明無有我但由惑業而得入胎。后頌顯相續

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：只有菩薩將要入胎的時候，對於父親生起父親的想法，對於母親生起母親的想法，雖然能夠正確了知，但是對於他的母親生起親近愛戀。憑藉這種愛戀的力量，便進入母親的胎中。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百七十二卷說，菩薩在正知中，對於父母等生起親愛，由此而結生。前面《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》說對於他的母親生起親附愛戀，是從強盛的方面來說的。

又特別顯示到『以當名顯』，解釋第五、第六句。將要入胎的時候，是在中有位的，不是轉輪王等。說轉輪王等，是從將來的名稱來說的。

『什麼因緣使得這三種品類不同呢？』這是提問。

『由於業和智慧都達到殊勝的福德和智慧的緣故』，解釋第七句以及『如次』。可以知道。『除了前面三種，到合成為第四種』，解釋其餘四種眾生在三個時間都不知道。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百七十二卷說：『有人說第四種入胎的是菩薩，第三種入胎的是獨覺，第二種入胎的是轉輪王，第一種入胎的是其餘有情。』『有人說第四種入胎的是菩薩，第三種入胎的是獨覺，第二種入胎的是波羅蜜多聲聞（Paramita-sravaka，修習波羅蜜多的聲聞），第一種入胎的是其餘有情。』『有人說第四種入胎的是菩薩，第三種入胎的是獨覺，第二種入胎的是預流（Srotapanna，須陀洹）、一來（Sakrdagamin，斯陀含），第一種入胎的是其餘有情。』像那裡廣泛地說明。

又說：『再者，這四種入胎都說是菩薩。于中有說第四種入胎的是第三阿僧祇耶（Asamkhyeya，無數）菩薩，第三種入胎的是第二阿僧祇菩薩，第二種入胎的是初阿僧祇耶菩薩，第一種入胎的是此前的菩薩。』更有其他的說法，不是正確的意義。』評論家自己破斥，像那裡廣泛地說明。

『這裡外道到有我的意義成立』，這以下是大的段落，第二部分遮破外道的計度。這首先敘述執著有我者的計度，就是勝論派（Vaisesika，印度哲學流派）和數論派（Samkhya，印度哲學流派）等。

『現在爲了遮破他們到所以有輪轉而沒有初始』，這正是遮破。前面的頌說明沒有我，只是由於迷惑和業力而得到入胎。後面的頌顯示相續。

【English Translation】 English version: Only when a Bodhisattva is about to enter the womb, they have the thought of 'father' towards the father and the thought of 'mother' towards the mother. Although they are able to have correct knowledge, they develop a feeling of closeness and love towards their mother. Relying on the power of this love, they enter the mother's womb. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 172, states that a Bodhisattva, in correct knowledge, develops affection for their parents and others, and thus conception occurs. The previous statement in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra that they develop a feeling of closeness and love towards their mother is from the perspective of the dominant aspect.

Furthermore, the phrase 'to be manifested by the future name' explains the fifth and sixth lines. When about to enter the womb, they are in the intermediate state (antarabhava), not like a Chakravartin (wheel-turning king). Saying 'Chakravartin, etc.' is from the perspective of their future name.

'What is the reason that these three categories are different?' This is a question.

'It is because both karma and wisdom have reached superior merit and wisdom.' This explains the seventh line and 'in order'. It can be understood. 'Except for the previous three, up to combining into the fourth,' explains that the remaining four types of beings are unaware at the three times. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 172, states: 'Some say that the fourth type of entering the womb is a Bodhisattva, the third type is a Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha), the second type is a Chakravartin, and the first type is other sentient beings.' 'Some say that the fourth type of entering the womb is a Bodhisattva, the third type is a Pratyekabuddha, the second type is a Paramita-sravaka (a Hearer practicing Paramitas), and the first type is other sentient beings.' 'Some say that the fourth type of entering the womb is a Bodhisattva, the third type is a Pratyekabuddha, the second type is a Srotapanna (Stream-enterer) and a Sakrdagamin (Once-returner), and the first type is other sentient beings.' As explained extensively there.

It also says: 'Furthermore, all four types of entering the womb are said to be Bodhisattvas. Among them, it is said that the fourth type of entering the womb is a Bodhisattva in the third asamkhyeya (incalculable) kalpa, the third type of entering the womb is a Bodhisattva in the second asamkhyeya kalpa, the second type of entering the womb is a Bodhisattva in the first asamkhyeya kalpa, and the first type of entering the womb is the Bodhisattva before this.' Other explanations are not the correct meaning.' The commentator refutes them himself, as explained extensively there.

'Here, the heretics, up to the establishment of the meaning of 'self',' this below is the second major section, refuting the calculations of externalists. This first narrates the calculations of those who cling to a self, namely the Vaisesika (Indian philosophical school) and Samkhya (Indian philosophical school) schools, etc.

'Now, in order to refute them, up to 'therefore there is transmigration but no beginning',' this is the actual refutation. The previous verse explains that there is no self, but only entering the womb due to delusion and karma. The following verse reveals the continuity.

不斷有輪無初。

論曰至我為何相者。論主徴問。

能捨此蘊能續余蘊者。執我者答。我能捨此蘊。我能續余蘊。

內用士夫至唯除法假者。論主破。內用士夫我此定非有。如色等有體現量可知。如眼等有用比量可知。不可得故。于聖教中世尊復云。有業有異熟。作者實我不可得故。謂能捨此前蘊及能續余后蘊。但是法假。此之法假非所遮遣。

法假謂何者。執我者問。

依此有彼至廣說緣起者。答。依此因有彼果有。此因生故彼果生。廣說十二緣起。今明舍此往余即是因果前後相續。即於此法假名作者無別作者。故正理二十五云。為顯因果相續諸行。即是作者故復說言。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。

若爾何等我非所遮者。執我者問。

唯有諸蘊至非所遮遣者。答。于蘊假立我非所遮遣。

若爾應許至轉至余世者。執我者難。應許蘊常從此前世轉至余後世。

蘊剎那滅至入胎義成者。蘊剎那滅于轉無能。由惑．業力中有入胎。

如業所引至次第增長者。如業所引諸蘊相續。復由惑．業轉趣余世　謂非一切已下別顯。諸蘊非皆長短量齊引壽業因有差別故隨能引業增微次第增長。

云何次第者。問。

如聖說言至形相滿位者。答。此明胎內五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不斷有輪無初。

論曰：至於『我』為何種相狀？論主提問。

『能捨棄此蘊，能延續其他蘊者』。執著于『我』的人回答：『我能捨棄此蘊，我能延續其他蘊。』（蘊：skandha，構成個體經驗的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）

內用士夫至唯除法假者。論主駁斥：『內用士夫我』此必定沒有。如同色等有自體的顯現，可以通過現量得知；如同眼等有作用，可以通過比量得知。因為不可得的緣故。在聖教中，世尊又說：『有業有異熟（vipāka，果報），作者實我不可得故。』所謂能捨棄此前蘊及能延續余后蘊，但是法假（prajñapti，假名安立）。此之法假非所遮遣。

『法假謂何？』執著于『我』的人問。

『依此有彼至廣說緣起者』。答：『依此因有彼果有，此因生故彼果生』。廣說十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，佛教關於生命起源和流轉的理論）。現在說明舍此往余，即是因果前後相續。即於此法假名作者，無別作者。故《正理》二十五云：『為顯因果相續諸行，即是作者故復說言，依此有彼有，此生故彼生。』

『若爾何等我非所遮？』執著于『我』的人問。

『唯有諸蘊至非所遮遣者』。答：『于蘊假立我非所遮遣。』

『若爾應許至轉至余世者』。執著于『我』的人反駁：『應許蘊常，從此前世轉至余後世。』

『蘊剎那滅至入胎義成者』。蘊剎那滅，于轉無能。由惑（kleśa，煩惱）、業（karma，行為）力，中有（antarābhava，中陰身）入胎。

『如業所引至次第增長者』。如業所引諸蘊相續，復由惑、業轉趣余世。謂非一切已下別顯。諸蘊非皆長短量齊，引壽業因有差別故，隨能引業增微次第增長。

『云何次第者？』問。

『如聖說言至形相滿位者』。答：此明胎內五位。

【English Translation】 English version: Continuously there is the wheel, without beginning.

Discussion: As for what the characteristic of 'self' is, the debater inquires.

'One who can abandon this skandha (aggregate) and continue other skandhas.' One who clings to 'self' replies: 'I can abandon this skandha, and I can continue other skandhas.' (Skandha: the five aggregates that constitute individual experience, namely form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.)

'Inner-using person' to 'only excluding nominal designation'. The debater refutes: 'Inner-using person, self,' this certainly does not exist. Just as form, etc., has its own manifestation, which can be known through direct perception; just as the eye, etc., has its function, which can be known through inference. Because it is unobtainable. In the sacred teachings, the World-Honored One also said: 'There is karma (action) and there is vipāka (result), but the actual self as the agent is unobtainable.' What is called abandoning the previous skandha and continuing the subsequent skandha is merely a nominal designation (prajñapti). This nominal designation is not what is to be negated.

'What is nominal designation?' One who clings to 'self' asks.

'Based on this, there is that' to 'extensively explaining dependent origination'. The answer is: 'Based on this cause, there is that effect; because this cause arises, that effect arises.' Extensively explaining the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda, the Buddhist theory of the origin and transmigration of life). Now explaining abandoning this and going to that is the continuous succession of cause and effect. That is, in this nominal designation of the agent, there is no separate agent. Therefore, the Nyaya Sutra 25 says: 'To show the continuous succession of cause and effect of all phenomena, that is the agent, therefore it is said again, based on this, there is that; because this arises, that arises.'

'If so, what self is not to be negated?' One who clings to 'self' asks.

'Only the skandhas' to 'not to be negated'. The answer is: 'The nominal establishment of self based on the skandhas is not to be negated.'

'If so, it should be admitted' to 'transferring to other lives'. One who clings to 'self' retorts: 'It should be admitted that the skandhas are permanent, transferring from the previous life to the subsequent life.'

'The skandhas are momentary' to 'the meaning of entering the womb is established'. The skandhas are momentary, without the ability to transfer. Due to the power of kleshas (afflictions) and karma (actions), the antarābhava (intermediate state being) enters the womb.

'As led by karma' to 'gradually increasing in order'. As the skandhas continue as led by karma, they again turn to other lives due to afflictions and karma. It is explained separately below that not all skandhas are the same in length and quantity. Because there are differences in the causes of karma that lead to lifespan, they gradually increase in order according to the increase or decrease of the karma that leads them.

'What is the order?' Question.

'As the Sage said' to 'the stage of complete form'. Answer: This explains the five stages within the womb.

時次第生長　羯剌藍。此雲和合。或云雜穢。或云凝滑　頞部曇。此云皰　閉尸。此云血肉　健南。此云堅肉　缽羅奢佉此云支節后發毛爪等乃至色根形相滿位總名第五位　若依正量部發等已去為第六位。此胎中子處胎之時。如箭入身損害其母故名胎中箭。

由業所起至劇苦難任者。由風力故轉胎中箭。足上頭下令趣產門。如經糞團過量閟澀。從此胎中向下轉隨。由逼迫故劇苦難任　或可。從此產門出後轉墮草等劇苦難任。

其母或時至所趣難了者明未出胎有難而死。其母或時行．住．坐．臥威儀過分。或時飲食冷．熱過分。或時執作事業過分。或由其子宿罪業力死於胎中。乃至分解支節牽出于外。然此胎子乘宿所為順后受業。於三界．五趣所趣難了。準此文中有但能造順現滿業。順生。順后若滿若生皆不能造。故言順后受業　晱末黎。是草名。其汁滑。或是樹名。

或復無難至細粗飲食者。明無難出胎　如刀．如灰粗澀兩手　清蘇。謂醍醐也。余文可知。

次第轉增至旋環無始者。至根熟位復起惑．業中有相續更趣余世。如是今身惑．業為因故後世生。後世生復為因起于惑．業。從此惑．業更復有生。故知有輪旋環無始　或可。如是前身惑．業為因故今世生。今世生復為因起于惑．業。從

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本時次第生長：羯剌藍（Kalala，意為和合、雜穢或凝滑）。頞部曇（Arbuda），意為皰。閉尸（Pesi），意為血肉。健南（Ghana），意為堅肉。缽羅奢佉（Prasakha），意為支節，之後是發毛爪等，乃至色根形相圓滿，總名為第五位。若依正量部，發等已去為第六位。此胎中之子處胎之時，如箭入身損害其母，故名胎中箭。

由業所起至劇苦難任者：由風力之故，轉胎中箭，足上頭下，令趣產門。如經糞團，過量閉澀，從此胎中向下轉隨，由逼迫故，劇苦難任。或可，從此產門出后，轉墮草等，劇苦難任。

其母或時至所趣難了者：明未出胎有難而死。其母或時行、住、坐、臥威儀過分，或時飲食冷、熱過分，或時執作事業過分，或由其子宿罪業力死於胎中，乃至分解支節牽出于外。然此胎子乘宿所為，順后受業，於三界、五趣所趣難了。準此文中有但能造順現滿業，順生，順后若滿若生皆不能造，故言順后受業。晱末黎（Shanmali），是草名，其汁滑，或是樹名。

或復無難至細粗飲食者：明無難出胎。如刀、如灰粗澀兩手。清蘇，謂醍醐也。余文可知。

次第轉增至旋環無始者：至根熟位，復起惑、業，中有相續，更趣余世。如是今身惑、業為因故後世生，後世生復為因起于惑、業，從此惑、業更復有生，故知有輪旋環無始。或可，如是前身惑、業為因故今世生，今世生復為因起于惑、業，從

【English Translation】 English version Stages of gradual growth: Kalala (meaning 'mixture,' 'impurity,' or 'coagulation'). Arbuda (meaning 'blister'). Pesi (meaning 'flesh and blood'). Ghana (meaning 'solid flesh'). Prasakha (meaning 'limbs'), followed by hair, nails, etc., up to the complete formation of the sense organs and features, collectively known as the fifth stage. According to the Sautrantika school, the sixth stage begins with the appearance of hair, etc. When the fetus is in the womb, it is like an arrow piercing the mother's body, hence the name 'arrow in the womb'.

From karma arises extreme suffering: Due to the force of wind, the 'arrow in the womb' turns, with feet up and head down, towards the birth canal. Like passing a lump of feces, excessively blocked and astringent, it turns downwards in the womb, causing extreme suffering due to the pressure. Or perhaps, after emerging from the birth canal, it falls onto grass, causing extreme suffering.

The mother may face difficulties leading to an uncertain destination: This indicates death before leaving the womb. The mother may engage in excessive walking, standing, sitting, or lying down; or consume excessively cold or hot food; or engage in excessive labor; or the child may die in the womb due to past karmic debts, even to the point of dismemberment and extraction. However, this fetus rides on its past actions, receiving the subsequent karma, with an uncertain destination in the Three Realms and Five Destinies. According to this text, it can only create karma that ripens in the present, but cannot create karma that ripens in the future, hence the phrase 'receiving subsequent karma.' Shanmali is the name of a grass, its juice is slippery, or it may be the name of a tree.

Or there may be no difficulty, leading to fine and coarse food: This indicates an easy birth. Like a knife, like ash, rough and astringent hands. Clear ghee refers to clarified butter. The rest of the text is understandable.

Gradually increasing and turning, leading to a beginningless cycle: Reaching the stage of ripened roots, afflictions and karma arise again, with an intermediate state continuing, leading to another life. Thus, the afflictions and karma of this life are the cause of the next life, and the next life in turn gives rise to afflictions and karma. From these afflictions and karma, there is further birth, hence the knowledge of a wheel of existence, a beginningless cycle. Or perhaps, the afflictions and karma of the previous life are the cause of this life, and this life in turn gives rise to afflictions and karma, from

此惑．業更復有生。故知有輪旋環無始。

若執有始至芽必不生者。有外道計。或化地部計。初念法不從因生。第二念已去方從因生。彼計有始。后位應不從因生。以是生故猶如初位。初位應從因生。以是生故。猶如后位。若初．后位皆無因生便違現量。現見芽等因種等生。隨其所應由何方處由何時節俱決定故。又由火等為因。熟變等果生。由此定無無因起法常因論如前已遣。是故生死決定無初。然有後邊。由惑．業因盡故。生果必依惑．業因故。若惑．業因滅壞之時生果必亡。理定應爾。如種因滅壞芽等果必不生。

如是蘊相續至中八據圓滿者。此下第八明十二緣起。就中。一廣明十二。二略攝喻顯　就廣明中。一總辨。二別明。就總辨中。一總判支位。二別顯體性。三明本說意。四以略攝廣。五遣通疑難。六會釋經文。此即第一總判支位。牒前標宗。

論曰至及現三生者。明十二三際。

云何十二支於三際建立者。問。

謂前後際至八在中際者。答可知。

此中際八至皆具有不者。問。中八皆具不。

非皆具有者。答不具。

若爾何故說有八支者。難。

據圓滿者至乃至廣說者。釋。說有八支據圓滿者具歷八位。非諸中夭。以或在名色支命終唯歷二位。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這種迷惑和業力還會導致生命的再次產生。因此，我們知道輪迴是無始無終的循環。

如果有人認為萬事萬物都有一個開端，那麼種子就一定無法發芽。有些外道或化地部的修行者認為，最初的念頭不是由因產生的，只有從第二個念頭開始才由因產生。按照他們的說法，一切都有一個開端，那麼後來的念頭就不應該由因產生，因為它和最初的念頭一樣。既然如此，最初的念頭也應該由因產生，因為它和後來的念頭一樣。如果最初和後來的念頭都不是由因產生的，那就違背了我們親眼所見的事實，因為我們明明看到芽是由種子等因產生的，而且在特定的地點、時間和條件下才會產生。此外，火等作為因，會產生煮熟、變化等結果。因此，絕對不存在沒有原因產生的事物，而關於常因的理論，前面已經駁斥過了。所以，生死輪迴絕對沒有開端，但有終結。因為迷惑和業力的因消失了，而生命的果實必須依賴迷惑和業力的因。如果迷惑和業力的因滅亡了，那麼生命的果實也必然會消失。這是理所當然的。就像種子滅亡了，芽等果實就一定不會產生。

像這樣，蘊的相續直到中間的八支圓滿。下面第八部分闡明十二緣起。其中，第一部分廣泛地闡明十二緣起，第二部分用比喻來簡要地概括。在廣泛闡明的部分中，第一部分總的辨析，第二部分分別地闡明。在總的辨析中，第一部分總的判斷各個支的位置，第二部分分別地顯示其體性，第三部分闡明佛陀宣說的意圖，第四部分用簡略的概括廣泛的，第五部分消除普遍的疑問，第六部分解釋經文。這裡是第一部分，總的判斷各個支的位置，重複前面的話來標明宗旨。

論中說：『到及現三生』，闡明了十二緣起的三世。

『如何將十二支安立在三世中呢？』這是提問。

『所謂前際到八在中際』，這是回答，意思很明顯。

『這中間的八支是否都具備呢？』這是提問，中間的八支是否都完全具備？

『並非都具備』，這是回答，並非都具備。

『如果不是都具備，那為什麼說有八支呢？』這是質疑。

『據圓滿者到乃至廣說』，這是解釋。說有八支，是根據圓滿的情況來說的，指的是經歷八個階段的情況，而不是指那些中途夭折的情況。因為有些人可能在名色支（Namarupa）就死亡了，只經歷了兩個階段。

【English Translation】 English version: This delusion and karma further lead to rebirth. Therefore, we know that Samsara (輪旋環, cycle of existence) is a beginningless and endless cycle.

If one insists that everything has a beginning, then a sprout cannot possibly arise from a seed. Some heretics or the Sarvastivadins (化地部) believe that the initial thought does not arise from a cause, and only from the second thought onwards does it arise from a cause. According to their view, everything has a beginning, so later thoughts should not arise from a cause, because they are the same as the initial thought. Since this is the case, the initial thought should also arise from a cause, because it is the same as the later thoughts. If neither the initial nor the later thoughts arise from a cause, then it contradicts what we directly observe, because we clearly see that a sprout arises from a seed and other causes, and only under specific locations, times, and conditions. Furthermore, fire, as a cause, produces results such as cooking and transformation. Therefore, there is absolutely no such thing as something arising without a cause, and the theory of a permanent cause has already been refuted earlier. So, the cycle of birth and death definitely has no beginning, but it has an end. Because the causes of delusion and karma disappear, and the fruit of life must depend on the causes of delusion and karma. If the causes of delusion and karma are destroyed, then the fruit of life will inevitably disappear. This is only logical. Just as when a seed is destroyed, the sprout and other fruits will definitely not arise.

In this way, the continuity of the aggregates (蘊, Skandha) until the eight intermediate links are complete. The eighth section below explains the Twelve Nidanas (十二緣起, twelve links of dependent origination). Among them, the first part extensively explains the twelve links, and the second part briefly summarizes them with metaphors. In the extensive explanation, the first part generally analyzes, and the second part separately explains. In the general analysis, the first part generally judges the positions of each link, the second part separately reveals their nature, the third part explains the Buddha's intention in teaching, the fourth part uses a brief summary to encompass the extensive, the fifth part eliminates common doubts, and the sixth part interprets the scriptures. Here is the first part, generally judging the positions of each link, repeating the previous words to indicate the purpose.

The treatise says: 'To and including the three lives,' clarifying the three periods of time in the Twelve Nidanas.

'How are the twelve links established in the three periods of time?' This is a question.

'The so-called past life to the eight in the intermediate life,' this is the answer, the meaning is clear.

'Are all of these eight intermediate links complete?' This is a question, are the eight intermediate links all fully present?

'Not all are complete,' this is the answer, not all are complete.

'If they are not all complete, then why is it said that there are eight links?' This is a question.

'According to the complete ones to and including extensive explanation,' this is the explanation. Saying that there are eight links is based on the complete situation, referring to the situation of experiencing eight stages, not referring to those who die prematurely. Because some people may die in the link of Name and Form (名色, Namarupa), only experiencing two stages.

乃至或在取支命終但歷七位。及色界無名色支。以彼化生諸根必具。無色界無名色六處支。以無色故。

但據欲界具八支者。引經證欲界具有八支。經言識若不入胎名色得增長廣大不。不也。世尊乃至廣說八支　既言入胎明知據欲。彼經具說。明據圓滿　問若上界不具十二。即與婆沙評家相違。如婆沙二十三云。問此經中說名色緣六處。應不遍說四生有情。謂胎卵生諸根漸起可說名色緣六處。化生有情諸根頓起。云何可說名色緣六處。但應說識緣生六處。有作是說此經但說欲界．三生。不說上界化生。亦無有失。應作是說此經通說三界四生。謂化生者初受生時雖具諸根而未猛利。后漸增長方得猛利。未猛利時初剎那頃名識。第二剎那以後名名色支。至猛利位名六處支。是故此經無不遍失　又婆沙二十四云。問此十二支緣起法幾欲界。幾色界。幾無色界。有作是說欲界具十二支。色界有十一支除名色。無色界有十支除名色六處。色界應作是說識緣六處。彼無未起四根時故。無色界應云識緣觸。彼無有色．及五根故。評曰應作是說。三界皆具十二有支。問色界生時諸根頓起。云何有名色位。無色界無色無五根。云何有名色．六處位。答色界五根雖定頓起。而生未久根不猛利。爾時但是名色支攝。無色界雖無色．及五

【現代漢語翻譯】乃至或者在取支（指十二因緣中的「取」支）命終，但經歷七個位次。以及無名色支（指十二因緣中的「名色」支，意為精神和物質的結合）。因為化生有情諸根必定具足，沒有無名色六處支（指十二因緣中的「六處」支，意為六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。因為無色界沒有色法。

但就欲界具有八支的情況來說，引用經典來證明欲界具有八支。《經》中說，識（指十二因緣中的「識」支，意為最初的意識）如果不入胎，名色（指十二因緣中的「名色」支）能夠增長廣大嗎？回答是：不能。世尊乃至廣泛地說了八支。既然說了入胎，就明確知道是針對欲界。這部經完整地說明了這一點，表明是依據圓滿的情況。

問：如果上界不具備十二支，就與《婆沙論》的評判相違背。如《婆沙論》第二十三卷說：問：這部經中說名色緣六處，是否應該普遍適用於四生有情（指胎生、卵生、濕生、化生）？胎生和卵生有情諸根逐漸產生，可以說名色緣六處。化生有情諸根頓然產生，怎麼能說名色緣六處？應該說識緣生六處。有人這樣說：這部經只說了欲界的三種生，沒有說上界的化生，也沒有什麼過失。應該這樣說：這部經普遍地說了三界四生。所謂化生者，最初受生時雖然具足諸根，但並不猛利。後來逐漸增長才變得猛利。未猛利時，最初剎那頃是識，第二剎那以後是名色支。到猛利位時是六處支。因此這部經沒有不普遍適用的過失。

又《婆沙論》第二十四卷說：問：這十二支緣起法，有多少是欲界的？有多少是色界的？有多少是無色界的？有人這樣說：欲界具足十二支，色界有十一支，除去名色。無色界有十支，除去名色和六處。色界應該說識緣六處，因為那裡沒有未生起的四根的時候。無色界應該說識緣觸（指十二因緣中的「觸」支，意為根、境、識三者的和合），因為那裡沒有色法和五根的緣故。評判說：應該這樣說，三界都具足十二有支。問：色界眾生出生時諸根頓然生起，怎麼有名色位？無色界沒有色法和五根，怎麼有名色和六處位？答：色界的五根雖然必定頓然生起，但出生后不久，根並不猛利。那時只是名色支所攝。無色界雖然沒有色法和五根

【English Translation】 Even if one dies after the 'grasping' (取支) link [of the twelve nidānas], they only experience seven stages. And the 'name and form' (名色支) link, because beings born by transformation (化生) invariably possess all faculties; there is no 'six sense bases' (六處支) link for those without 'name and form', because they are formless.

However, regarding the eight links present in the desire realm (欲界), scriptures are cited to prove that the desire realm has eight links. The scripture says, 'If consciousness (識) does not enter the womb, can 'name and form' (名色) grow and expand?' The answer is, 'No, Venerable One.' And so on, extensively explaining the eight links. Since it mentions entering the womb, it is clear that it refers to the desire realm. The scripture explains it completely, indicating that it is based on the complete situation.

Question: If the upper realms do not have all twelve links, it contradicts the assessment of the Vibhāṣā commentators. As the twenty-third fascicle of the Vibhāṣā states: Question: In this scripture, it says that 'name and form' conditions the 'six sense bases'. Should this not universally apply to sentient beings of the four types of birth (四生) [i.e., womb-born (胎生), egg-born (卵生), moisture-born (濕生), and transformation-born (化生)]? For womb-born and egg-born beings, the faculties gradually arise, so it can be said that 'name and form' conditions the 'six sense bases'. For transformation-born beings, the faculties arise instantaneously. How can it be said that 'name and form' conditions the 'six sense bases'? It should be said that consciousness conditions the arising of the 'six sense bases'. Some say that this scripture only speaks of the three types of birth in the desire realm and does not speak of transformation-born beings in the upper realms, and there is no fault in this. It should be said that this scripture universally speaks of the four types of birth in the three realms. That is, transformation-born beings, although possessing all faculties at the moment of initial birth, are not yet vigorous. They gradually grow later and become vigorous. When not vigorous, the first moment is consciousness, and after the second moment, it is the 'name and form' link. When it reaches the vigorous state, it is the 'six sense bases' link. Therefore, this scripture has no fault of not being universally applicable.

Furthermore, the twenty-fourth fascicle of the Vibhāṣā states: Question: Among these twelve links of dependent origination, how many belong to the desire realm? How many to the form realm (色界)? How many to the formless realm (無色界)? Some say that the desire realm has all twelve links, the form realm has eleven links, excluding 'name and form'. The formless realm has ten links, excluding 'name and form' and the 'six sense bases'. The form realm should say that consciousness conditions the 'six sense bases', because there is no time when the four unarisen roots are not present there. The formless realm should say that consciousness conditions contact (觸支), because there is no form or five sense organs there. The assessment says: It should be said that all three realms possess all twelve links. Question: When beings in the form realm are born, the faculties arise instantaneously. How can there be a 'name and form' stage? The formless realm has no form or five sense organs. How can there be 'name and form' and 'six sense bases' stages? Answer: Although the five sense organs of the form realm beings definitely arise instantaneously, the roots are not vigorous soon after birth. At that time, they are only included in the 'name and form' link. Although the formless realm has no form or five sense organs

根而有名及意根。彼應作是說。識緣名。名緣意處。意處緣觸。是故三界皆具十二　準婆沙前．後文評家。俱說上界皆具十二。云何此論乃言不具。解云此論非以婆沙評家為量。取婆沙前師義。此即論意各別。

有時但說至二分攝故者。因解三際攝十二支復明二分攝十二支。前際七中二因招五果。后際五中三因招二果。此即因果分為二際。

無明等支何法為體者。此下第二別顯體性。此即問也。

頌曰至至當受老死者。答。就四頌中。初一句辨無明。次一句明行。次一句明識。次一句明名色。次二句明六處。次二句明觸。次一句明受。次一句明愛。次二句明取。次二句明有。次一句明生。次一句明老死。

論曰至總謂王行者。釋十二支文有十二。此即初也。于無始宿生中諸發業煩惱位所有五蘊。至今五果熟位總謂無明。彼五蘊與無明俱時行故。由無明力彼五蘊現行故。以無明勝從勝立名。喻況可知。

于宿生中至流至老死者。于無始宿生中福．非福．不動等業位所有五蘊。至今五果熟位總得行名。以業感果勝故別標。初句位言乃至流至老死。

于母胎等至五蘊名識者。胎等等取濕化二生。彼不入胎故。初剎那中識最勝故以識標名。

結生識后至據滿立故者。識后六處前。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『根』是指名和意根（manas）。對此，應該這樣解釋：識緣于名，名緣于意處（manāyatana），意處緣于觸。因此，三界都具備十二緣起支。準婆沙（Vibhasa）前、後文評家都說上界具備十二緣起支，為什麼此論卻說不具備呢？解釋說，此論並非以婆沙評家為標準，而是採用了婆沙前師的觀點。這體現了論著的意旨各有不同。

『有時但說至二分攝故者』，因為在解釋三際包含十二緣起支之後，又闡明二分包含十二緣起支。前際七支中，二因招致五果；后際五支中，三因招致二果。這就是將因果分為前後二際。

『無明等支何法為體者』，以下第二部分分別顯示各個緣起支的體性。這是一個提問。

『頌曰至至當受老死者』，回答。在四句頌中，第一句辨析無明，第二句闡明行，第三句闡明識，第四句闡明名色，第五、六句闡明六處，第七、八句闡明觸，第九句闡明受，第十句闡明愛，第十一、十二句闡明取，第十三、十四句闡明有，第十五句闡明生，第十六句闡明老死。

『論曰至總謂王行者』，解釋十二緣起支的文句共有十二段，這是第一段。在無始以來的宿生中，諸發業煩惱位的所有五蘊（skandha），直到如今五果成熟的階段，總稱為無明（avidyā）。因為這些五蘊與無明同時發生作用，又因為無明的力量，這些五蘊才得以顯現，所以以無明為勝，從而以勝者來命名。比喻的情況可以類推得知。

『于宿生中至流至老死者』，在無始以來的宿生中，福業、非福業、不動業等業位的所有五蘊，直到如今五果成熟的階段，總稱為行（samskara）。因為業感果的力量強大，所以特別標明。第一句的『位』字，乃至『流至老死』。

『于母胎等至五蘊名識者』，『胎等』包括濕生和化生，因為它們不入胎。在最初的剎那中，識（vijñāna）最為殊勝，所以用識來標明。

『結生識后至據滿立故者』，結生識之後，六處（sadāyatana）之前。

【English Translation】 English version 'Root' refers to name (nāma) and mind-root (manas). It should be explained as follows: consciousness (vijñāna) conditions name, name conditions the six sense bases (manāyatana), and the six sense bases condition contact (sparśa). Therefore, all three realms possess the twelve links of dependent origination. According to the commentators of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), both earlier and later, the upper realms possess all twelve links. Why does this treatise say they do not? The explanation is that this treatise does not take the Vibhasa commentators as its standard, but adopts the view of the earlier teachers of the Vibhasa. This reflects that the intentions of the treatises differ.

'Sometimes it is only said to be included in two divisions,' because after explaining that the three times include the twelve links, it is further clarified that the two divisions include the twelve links. In the former time of seven links, two causes bring about five effects; in the latter time of five links, three causes bring about two effects. This is dividing cause and effect into two times.

'What dharma is the substance of the links such as ignorance?' The following second part separately reveals the nature of each link. This is a question.

'The verse says, up to, will be subject to old age and death.' Answer. In the four verses, the first verse distinguishes ignorance (avidyā), the second verse clarifies formations (samskara), the third verse clarifies consciousness (vijñāna), the fourth verse clarifies name and form (nāmarūpa), the fifth and sixth verses clarify the six sense bases (sadāyatana), the seventh and eighth verses clarify contact (sparśa), the ninth verse clarifies feeling (vedanā), the tenth verse clarifies craving (trsna), the eleventh and twelfth verses clarify grasping (upādāna), the thirteenth and fourteenth verses clarify becoming (bhava), the fifteenth verse clarifies birth (jati), and the sixteenth verse clarifies old age and death (jarāmarana).

'The treatise says, up to, generally called the king's action.' There are twelve sections explaining the twelve links, and this is the first section. In beginningless past lives, the five aggregates (skandha) in the state of afflictions that generate karma, up to the stage of the five fruits maturing now, are generally called ignorance (avidyā). Because these five aggregates function simultaneously with ignorance, and because of the power of ignorance, these five aggregates manifest, so ignorance is considered superior, and thus named after the superior one. The analogy can be understood by inference.

'In past lives, up to, flowing to old age and death.' In beginningless past lives, the five aggregates in the state of meritorious karma, non-meritorious karma, and unmoving karma, up to the stage of the five fruits maturing now, are generally called formations (samskara). Because the power of karma causing effects is strong, it is specially marked. The word 'state' in the first sentence, up to 'flowing to old age and death'.

'In the mother's womb, up to, the five aggregates are called consciousness.' 'Womb, etc.' includes moisture-born and transformation-born beings, because they do not enter the womb. In the first moment, consciousness (vijñāna) is the most superior, so it is marked with consciousness.

'After the consciousness of rebirth, up to, established according to completeness.' After the consciousness of rebirth, before the six sense bases (sadāyatana).

中間諸位所有五蘊總稱名色。名色勝故故別標名　言諸位者。婆沙二十三云。中間五位謂羯剌藍。頞部曇。閉尸。健南。缽羅奢佉。是名色位　準婆沙文。羯剌藍通多念。于名色位身．意已生。此中應說四處生前。而言六前據得六處圓滿立故。

眼等已生至得六處名者　眼等已生。簡前名色　至未和合。簡后觸位。中間所有五蘊得六處名。六處創圓勝故別標。即是胎內缽羅奢佉位。故婆沙云云何六處。謂已起四色根六處已滿。即缽羅奢佉位。眼等諸根未能與觸作所依止是六處位。正理二十六云。豈於此位諸識不生。而得說三未具和合。且無一位意識不生。則名色中身識亦起。況六處位言無三和合。所餘識身亦容得起。然非恒勝故未立三和合名。於此位中唯六處勝故約六處以標位別。

已至三和至總名為觸者。出胎已去三兩歲來。已至根．境．識三和合。此即簡前位。未了能生苦．樂．舍受違．順．中庸三因差別　因。即是境　此即簡后。于中間位所有五蘊總名為觸。創觸對境觸用勝故故標觸名。

已了三受至此位名受者。四歲五歲已去。十四十五已來。已了三受生因差別簡前位。雖起衣．食等貪。未起淫貪簡后位。此中間位所有五蘊總名為受。受用勝故別標受名。

貪妙資具至此位名愛者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中間階段所有五蘊（skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）總稱為名色（nāmarūpa，精神和物質）。因為名色在這個階段更為突出，所以特別標明為名。關於『諸位』的說法，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）第二十三卷中說，中間的五個階段是：羯剌藍（kalala，受精卵），頞部曇（arbuda，胚胎），閉尸（peśī，肉團），健南（ghana，凝結），缽羅奢佉（praśākhā，肢節）。這些是名色的階段。按照《婆沙論》的說法，羯剌藍包含多個念頭，在名色階段，身識和意識已經產生。這裡應該說在六處（ṣaḍāyatana，感覺的六個來源：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）產生之前。之所以說六處之前，是因為六處圓滿具足才這樣說。

『眼等已生至得六處名者』，眼等已經產生，是爲了區別之前的名色階段；『至未和合』，是爲了區別之後的觸（sparśa，感覺）的階段。中間階段所有的五蘊被稱為六處。因為六處在這個階段初次圓滿，所以特別標明。這就是胎內的缽羅奢佉階段。所以《婆沙論》說：什麼是六處？就是已經生起四種色根（眼、耳、鼻、舌）並且六處已經完備。這就是缽羅奢佉階段。眼等諸根還不能與觸作為所依止，這就是六處階段。《正理》（Nyāya，印度哲學流派）第二十六卷中說：難道在這個階段諸識（vijñāna，意識）沒有產生嗎？所以說三者（根、境、識）沒有完全和合。即使沒有一個階段沒有意識產生，那麼在名色階段，身識也已經生起。更何況六處階段說沒有三和合。其餘的識身也可能產生。然而，因為不是恒常和突出，所以沒有建立三和合的名稱。在這個階段，只有六處突出，所以根據六處來標明階段的差別。

『已至三和至總名為觸者』，從出生之後三兩歲開始，已經達到根、境（viṣaya，對像）、識三者和合的狀態。這是爲了區別之前的階段。還沒有了知能夠產生苦（duḥkha，痛苦）、樂（sukha，快樂）、舍（upekṣā，不苦不樂）受（vedanā，感受）的違、順、中庸三種原因的差別——原因，就是指境——這是爲了區別之後的階段。在中間階段，所有的五蘊總稱為觸。因為初次接觸對境，觸的作用突出，所以標明觸的名稱。

『已了三受至此位名受者』，從四歲五歲開始，到十四五歲之間，已經了知三種感受產生的原因差別，這是爲了區別之前的階段。雖然產生了對衣服、食物等的貪愛，但是還沒有產生對淫慾的貪愛，這是爲了區別之後的階段。這個中間階段所有的五蘊總稱為受。因為感受的作用突出，所以特別標明受的名稱。

『貪妙資具至此位名愛者』。

【English Translation】 English version The aggregate of all five skandhas (the five aggregates constituting individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) in the intermediate stages is collectively called nāmarūpa (name and form, mind and matter). Because nāmarūpa is more prominent in this stage, it is specifically labeled as 'name'. Regarding the term 'stages', the Vibhāṣā (a Buddhist treatise) in its twenty-third chapter states that the five intermediate stages are: kalala (the fertilized egg), arbuda (the embryo), peśī (the fleshy mass), ghana (the coagulation), and praśākhā (the limbs). These are the stages of nāmarūpa. According to the Vibhāṣā, kalala encompasses multiple thoughts. In the nāmarūpa stage, body consciousness and mind consciousness have already arisen. It should be said here that it is before the arising of the six āyatanas (the six sources of sensation: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). The reason for saying before the six āyatanas is because it is said when the six āyatanas are fully complete.

'Eye and so on have arisen to obtain the name of six āyatanas', the fact that the eyes and so on have already arisen is to distinguish it from the previous nāmarūpa stage; 'to not yet be combined' is to distinguish it from the subsequent stage of sparśa (contact, sensation). All five skandhas in the intermediate stage are called the six āyatanas. Because the six āyatanas are initially complete in this stage, it is specifically labeled. This is the praśākhā stage in the womb. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā says: What are the six āyatanas? They are the four sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue) that have already arisen and the six āyatanas that are complete. This is the praśākhā stage. The sense organs such as the eyes are not yet able to rely on contact, this is the six āyatanas stage. The Nyāya (a school of Indian philosophy) in its twenty-sixth chapter says: Is it that consciousness (vijñāna) has not arisen in this stage? Therefore, it is said that the three (sense organ, object, and consciousness) are not completely combined. Even if there is no stage without consciousness arising, then in the nāmarūpa stage, body consciousness has already arisen. Moreover, in the six āyatanas stage, it is said that there is no combination of the three. The remaining consciousness bodies may also arise. However, because it is not constant and prominent, the name of the combination of the three has not been established. In this stage, only the six āyatanas are prominent, so the difference in stages is marked according to the six āyatanas.

'Having reached the combination of the three to the general name of contact', from two or three years after birth, the state of combination of the sense organ, object (viṣaya), and consciousness has been reached. This is to distinguish it from the previous stage. There is not yet knowledge of the difference between the three causes of suffering (duḥkha), happiness (sukha), and equanimity (upekṣā) feelings (vedanā)—the cause refers to the object—this is to distinguish it from the subsequent stage. In the intermediate stage, all five skandhas are collectively called contact. Because of the initial contact with the object, the function of contact is prominent, so the name of contact is marked.

'Having understood the three feelings to this position named feeling', from the age of four or five, to the age of fourteen or fifteen, there is already knowledge of the difference in the causes of the three feelings, this is to distinguish it from the previous stage. Although greed for clothing, food, etc. has arisen, greed for lust has not yet arisen, this is to distinguish it from the subsequent stage. All five skandhas in this intermediate stage are collectively called feeling. Because the function of feeling is prominent, the name of feeling is specifically marked.

'Greed for wonderful resources to this position named love'.

十六十七已去貪妙資具及淫愛現行簡前位。未廣追求簡后位。此中間位所有五蘊總名為愛此位愛勝故別標名。

為得種種至此位名取者。年漸長大為得種種上妙境界。周遍馳求不辭勞倦。然能未為後有起善．惡業。此中間位所有五蘊總名為取。此位取勝故別標名。故婆沙二十三引施設足論云。云何取謂由三愛四方追求。雖涉多危險而不辭勞倦。然未為後有起善．惡業是取位(已上論文)愛取別者初起名愛。相續熾盛立以取名。故正理二十八云。如何別立愛．取二支。毗婆沙師許初念愛以愛聲說。即此相續增廣熾盛立以取名。相續取境轉堅猛故　又解取謂執取。即是四取。故正理二十六云。為得種種可愛境界周遍馳求。此位名取。取有四種謂欲。及見。戒禁。我語。取差別故。以能取故說名為取　解云論其取支實通四取。而言愛增名為取者。對前愛說。

因馳求故至此位名有者。又漸長大因取馳求勝故。積集能牽當有果業。此業生位所有五蘊總名為有。業名為有是能有故。此位業勝。標以有名。故顯宗云應知此中由此依此能有當果故立有名。有有二種謂業。異熟。今於此中唯取業有(已上論文)準此文有支已前多造滿業未多造牽引業。若於現在不起愛．取．有時。應知還是受支攝也。

由是業力至即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：十六歲和十七歲時，已經捨棄了對美妙資具的貪戀以及淫愛的現行，這可以用來區分之前的階段。還沒有廣泛地追求，這可以用來區分之後的階段。這中間階段所有的五蘊總稱為愛，因為這個階段愛最為強烈，所以特別標明為愛。

爲了獲得種種，所以這個階段稱為取（Upadana）。隨著年齡漸長，爲了獲得種種上妙境界，四處奔波追求，不辭勞苦。然而還沒有為後世的生命（後有）發起善業或惡業。這中間階段所有的五蘊總稱為取。這個階段取最為強烈，所以特別標明為取。所以《婆沙論》第二十三卷引用《施設足論》說：『什麼是取？就是由於三種愛而四處追求，即使遇到很多危險也不辭勞苦，但還沒有為後世的生命發起善業或惡業，這就是取位。』（以上是論文內容）愛和取的區別在於，最初生起叫做愛，相續不斷地熾盛就稱為取。所以《正理》第二十八卷說：『如何分別設立愛和取這兩個支？』《毗婆沙師》認為最初的念頭是愛，用愛的聲音來表達。緊接著相續不斷地增長和熾盛，就設立為取。因為相續不斷地執取境界，變得更加堅固和猛烈。又解釋說，取就是執取，也就是四取。所以《正理》第二十六卷說：『爲了獲得種種可愛的境界而四處奔波追求，這個階段叫做取。取有四種，即欲取、見取、戒禁取、我語取。因為取的差別，因為能夠取，所以稱為取。』解釋說，論述取支實際上貫通四取，而說愛增長就叫做取，是相對於之前的愛來說的。

因為奔波追求，所以這個階段稱為有（Bhava）。又隨著年齡漸長，因為取而奔波追求更加強烈，積累了能夠牽引未來果報的業。這個業產生的位置，所有的五蘊總稱為有。業稱為有，是因為能夠產生未來的果報。這個階段業最為強烈，所以標明為有。所以《顯宗論》說：『應該知道，在這裡，由此依靠此，能夠產生未來的果報，所以設立為有這個名稱。』有有兩種，即業有和異熟有。現在在這裡只取業有。（以上是論文內容）按照這段文字，有支之前大多造作了圓滿業，還沒有多造作牽引業。如果在現在不起愛、取、有時，應該知道還是受支所攝。

由於這些業力，直到...

【English Translation】 English version: At sixteen and seventeen, one has already abandoned the greed for exquisite possessions and the manifest activity of lustful love, which can be used to distinguish the previous stage. Not yet extensively seeking, which can be used to distinguish the subsequent stage. The five aggregates in this intermediate stage are collectively called 'Craving' (Trsna), because craving is most intense in this stage, it is specifically labeled as such.

In order to obtain various things, this stage is called 'Grasping' (Upadana). As one grows older, in order to obtain various exquisite realms, one travels and seeks everywhere, not hesitating to work hard. However, one has not yet initiated good or bad karma for future existence (Bhava). The five aggregates in this intermediate stage are collectively called 'Grasping'. Grasping is most intense in this stage, so it is specifically labeled as such. Therefore, the 23rd volume of the Vibhasa quotes the Establishment of Bases Treatise, saying: 'What is grasping? It is seeking everywhere due to the three cravings, not hesitating to work hard even when encountering many dangers, but not yet initiating good or bad karma for future existence, this is the stage of grasping.' (The above is the content of the treatise) The difference between craving and grasping lies in the fact that the initial arising is called craving, and the continuous and intense flourishing is called grasping. Therefore, the 28th volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'How are the two limbs of craving and grasping separately established?' The Vaibhasika school believes that the initial thought is craving, expressed with the sound of craving. Immediately following, the continuous increase and flourishing is established as grasping. Because the continuous grasping of the realm becomes more firm and intense. It is also explained that grasping is clinging, which is the four graspings. Therefore, the 26th volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'In order to obtain various lovely realms, one travels and seeks everywhere, this stage is called grasping. There are four types of grasping, namely, desire grasping (Kama), view grasping (Drsti), morality and asceticism grasping (Silavata), and self-assertion grasping (Atmavada). Because of the difference in grasping, because one is able to grasp, it is called grasping.' It is explained that the grasping limb actually penetrates the four graspings, and saying that the increase of craving is called grasping is in relation to the previous craving.

Because of traveling and seeking, this stage is called 'Becoming' (Bhava). As one grows older, because traveling and seeking due to grasping becomes more intense, one accumulates karma that can draw future consequences. The position where this karma arises, all five aggregates are collectively called 'Becoming'. Karma is called 'Becoming' because it can produce future consequences. Karma is most intense in this stage, so it is labeled as 'Becoming'. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'It should be known that here, by this, relying on this, one can produce future consequences, so the name 'Becoming' is established.' There are two types of becoming, namely, karma becoming and resultant becoming. Now, here, only karma becoming is taken. (The above is the content of the treatise) According to this text, before the becoming limb, one mostly creates complete karma, and has not yet created much drawing karma. If one does not arise craving, grasping, or becoming in the present, it should be known that it is still included in the feeling limb.

Due to these karmic forces, until...

如今識者。由是現在業力從此捨命正結當有一剎那頃所有五蘊此位名生。當有生支即如今識各一剎那。未來生勝故以標名。現在識強當體受稱。

生剎那后至觸受四支者。從生剎那后乃至當來受支位中間諸位所有五蘊總名老死。如是老死即如今世名色等四老死之名通於四位。約容有說言生為緣。從生支后老死相顯故以標名。

辨十二支體別如是者。總結。

又諸緣起至四者遠續者。此下大文第三明本說意。就中。一明約位說。二明遣愚惑。此即初文。將明總敘四種緣起　剎那。謂同一剎那　連縛。謂前後相次連線　分位。謂前後十二分位　遠續。謂前後障時相續。此總列名。

云何剎那者。問。

謂剎那頃至滅壞名死者。答。謂同一剎那由貪行殺具十二支　癡。謂貪相應無明　貪相應思。是行　貪相應識于諸境事了別。名識　識俱三蘊。謂於五蘊中除識．及受以別立支故取想蘊全．色．行二蘊少分。色蘊少分者。謂於色蘊中除五根．及身．語表．無表業。以別立支故取余識俱色蘊。言行蘊少分者。謂於行蘊中除無明．思．觸．貪．及無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉。並生．異．滅。以別立支故。取余識俱行蘊故。名識俱三蘊總稱名色。名色是總。根是其別。以別住總。故言住名色根　五有色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如今有見識的人認為，由於現在的業力，從此捨棄生命，真正結合的時候，當有一個剎那的時間，所有五蘊在這個位置被稱為『生』（birth）。當有『生支』（the link of birth），就是如今的『識』（consciousness），各自只有一個剎那。因為未來的生更殊勝，所以用它來標明名稱。現在的『識』強大，應當以自體來接受稱謂。

從『生』剎那之後，到『觸』（contact）、『受』（feeling）這四個支，從『生』剎那之後，乃至到未來的『受支』這個位置中間的各個位置，所有五蘊總稱為『老死』（old age and death）。像這樣，『老死』就是如今世間的『名色』（name and form）等四者，『老死』的名稱貫通於四個位置。大約容許有這樣的說法，說『生』是緣。從『生支』之後，『老死』的相狀顯現，所以用它來標明名稱。

辨別十二支的體性差別是這樣的，這是總結。

還有各種緣起，到『四者遠續』（the four that continue distantly），這以下大的段落是第三部分，說明根本的說法意圖。其中，一是說明按照位置來說，二是說明消除愚昧迷惑。這即是第一部分。將要說明總的敘述四種緣起：剎那（moment），指同一個剎那；連縛（connection），指前後相繼連線；分位（division），指前後十二個分位；遠續（distant continuation），指前後間隔時間相續。這總的列出名稱。

『云何剎那者』（What is a moment?），這是提問。

『謂剎那頃至滅壞名死者』（It is said that in a moment, until destruction is called death），這是回答。指同一個剎那，由於貪的行動而殺生，具備十二支：癡（ignorance），指與貪相應的無明（ignorance）；貪相應思（thought associated with greed），是行（action）；貪相應識（consciousness associated with greed），對於各種境事了別，名為識（consciousness）；與識俱生的三蘊（the three aggregates that arise with consciousness），指在五蘊中，除了識和受，因為要分別設立支，所以取想蘊（perception）全部、色蘊（form）和行蘊（volition）少部分。色蘊少部分，指在色蘊中，除了五根（five sense organs）以及身表（bodily expression）、語表（verbal expression）、無表業（non-manifested karma），因為要分別設立支，所以取其餘與識俱生的色蘊。說行蘊少部分，指在行蘊中，除了無明、思、觸、貪，以及無慚（shamelessness）、無愧（lack of remorse）、惛沈（lethargy）、掉舉（restlessness），並且生、異、滅（arising, change, cessation），因為要分別設立支，所以取其餘與識俱生的行蘊，所以名為『識俱三蘊』（the three aggregates associated with consciousness），總稱『名色』（name and form）。『名色』是總稱，根是它的別稱。因為別稱依附於總稱，所以說『住名色根』（abiding in name and form and the sense faculties），五有色（the five material elements）。

【English Translation】 English version Now, those with understanding believe that due to present karma, upon abandoning life and truly uniting, there will be a moment when all five aggregates are in a state called 'birth' (生). When there is the 'link of birth' (生支), it is like the present 'consciousness' (識), each lasting only a moment. Because the future birth is more significant, it is used to denote the name. The present 'consciousness' is strong and should be referred to by its own nature.

From the moment of 'birth' to the four links of 'contact' (觸) and 'feeling' (受), from the moment of 'birth' until the position of the future 'feeling link', all the aggregates in the various positions in between are collectively called 'old age and death' (老死). Thus, 'old age and death' are like the present world's 'name and form' (名色) and the other four. The name 'old age and death' encompasses four positions. It is permissible to say that 'birth' is the condition. After the 'birth link', the appearance of 'old age and death' becomes evident, so it is used to denote the name.

Distinguishing the differences in the nature of the twelve links is like this, which is a summary.

Furthermore, regarding the various arising conditions, up to 'the four that continue distantly' (四者遠續), the following major section is the third part, explaining the intention of the fundamental teaching. Among them, one is to explain according to position, and the other is to eliminate ignorance and confusion. This is the first part. It will explain the general description of the four types of dependent origination: moment (剎那), referring to the same moment; connection (連縛), referring to successive connections; division (分位), referring to the twelve divisions; distant continuation (遠續), referring to continuous intervals of time. This is a general listing of the names.

'What is a moment?' (云何剎那者), this is a question.

'It is said that in a moment, until destruction is called death' (謂剎那頃至滅壞名死者), this is the answer. It refers to the same moment, due to the action of greed, killing occurs, possessing the twelve links: ignorance (癡), referring to the ignorance (無明) associated with greed; thought associated with greed (貪相應思), is action (行); consciousness associated with greed (貪相應識), distinguishing various realms and matters, is called consciousness (識); the three aggregates that arise with consciousness (識俱三蘊), referring to the aggregates among the five aggregates, except for consciousness and feeling, because the links are established separately, so all of perception (想蘊) is taken, and a small part of form (色蘊) and volition (行蘊). The small part of form refers to the form aggregate, except for the five sense organs (五根) and bodily expression (身表), verbal expression (語表), and non-manifested karma (無表業), because the links are established separately, so the remaining form aggregate associated with consciousness is taken. The small part of volition refers to the volition aggregate, except for ignorance, thought, contact, greed, as well as shamelessness (無慚), lack of remorse (無愧), lethargy (惛沈), restlessness (掉舉), and arising, change, cessation (生、異、滅), because the links are established separately, so the remaining volition aggregate associated with consciousness is taken, so it is called 'the three aggregates associated with consciousness' (識俱三蘊), collectively called 'name and form' (名色). 'Name and form' is the general term, and the faculties are the specific terms. Because the specific terms rely on the general term, it is said 'abiding in name and form and the sense faculties' (住名色根), the five material elements (五有色).

根說為六處。雖數有少。如名色釋　或由彼力能滿六故。故正理云有色諸根說為六處　又解意住名根。眼等五根住色根。故云住名色根說為六處。意雖過去五在現在從多分說名為六處。或可。現識望后名意　若爾受蘊望彼名色亦名名色。何故不說　解云名．色二種各有別法充名色體。意于現在更無別法故取識為意　六處對余境．識三和合故有別觸起　領觸名受　貪即是愛　與貪相應無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉諸纏名取　貪同時剎那等起身．語二業表．無表名有　如是諸法未來正起時名生　至現異相熟變時名老。滅相滅壞時名死。住即名色攝也　問生在未來。老死現在。是即時別。云何剎那具有十二　解云此據四相作用究竟名一剎那故具十二支　又解生相不據作用但體現前說有生支　此說剎那緣起唯約有情．有漏。

復有說者至俱遍有為者。此說剎那．連縛。俱遍有為。通情．非情。有漏．無漏。剎那不同故敘異說。連縛意同故不別解。

無間名連。相接為縛　或鄰次名連。相屬名縛。故正理云。連縛緣起謂同異類因果無間相屬而起。

十二支位至皆分位攝者。此約前後十二支位所有五蘊無間相續名為分位。此約生．及不定業．煩惱說。故正理云。分位緣起。謂三生中十二五蘊無間相續。

即此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本根被稱為六處（ayatana，感覺的來源）。雖然數量較少，就像名色（nāmarūpa，身心）的解釋一樣，或者因為它們的力量能夠滿足六處的功能。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）說，有色的諸根被稱為六處。另一種解釋是，意（manas，心）的住所被稱為根，眼等五根住在色根（rūpāyatana，色處）。因此，住所被稱為名色根，被說成是六處。意雖然是過去的，但五根存在於現在，從大多數情況來說，被稱為六處。或者，現在的識（vijñāna，意識）相對於未來被稱為意。如果這樣，受蘊（vedanāskandha，感受蘊）相對於名色，也可以被稱為名色，為什麼不說呢？解釋說，名和色兩種各有不同的法來充實名色的本體。意在現在沒有其他的法，所以取識作為意。六處對余境（viṣaya，對像）、識三者和合，因此有不同的觸（sparśa，接觸）生起。領觸名為受（vedanā，感受）。貪（rāga，貪慾）就是愛（taṇhā，渴愛）。與貪相應的無慚（ahrīka，無慚）、無愧（anapatrāpya，無愧）、惛沈（styāna，昏沉）、掉舉（auddhatya，掉舉）等諸纏（paryavasthāna，纏縛）名為取（upādāna，執取）。貪的同時，剎那等起身（kāya-karman，身業）、語（vāc-karman，語業）二業的表（vijñapti，表業）、無表（avijñapti，無表業）名為有（bhava，有）。像這樣的諸法在未來真正生起時，名為生（jāti，生）。到顯現異相、成熟變化時，名為老（jarā，老）。滅相滅壞時，名為死（maraṇa，死）。住就是名色所攝也。問：生在未來，老死在現在，這是時間上的區別，為什麼剎那具有十二支（aṅga，支分）？解釋說，這是根據四相（lakṣaṇa，相狀）的作用究竟來說的，一個剎那具有十二支。又解釋說，生相不根據作用，但體現於前，所以說有生支。這裡說的剎那緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，緣起）只針對有情（sattva，眾生）、有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）。還有一種說法，到俱遍有為（saṃskṛta，有為法）為止。這是說剎那、連縛（saṃbandha，連縛）、俱遍有為。貫通有情、非情（無情），有漏、無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）。因為剎那不同，所以敘述不同的說法。連縛的意義相同，所以不分別解釋。無間名為連，相接為縛。或者鄰次名為連，相屬名為縛。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，連縛緣起是指同類或異類的因果之間沒有間隔，相互關聯而生起。十二支位到皆分位攝為止。這是指前後十二支位的所有五蘊（pañcaskandha，五蘊）無間相續，名為分位。這是指生以及不定業（aniyata-karman，不定業）、煩惱（kleśa，煩惱）說的。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，分位緣起是指三生（trayo janma，三生）中十二支的五蘊無間相續。即此

【English Translation】 English version The roots are said to be the six āyatanas (sources of sensation). Although the number is small, like the explanation of nāmarūpa (name and form, mind and body), or because their power can fulfill the function of the six āyatanas. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that the colored roots are called the six āyatanas. Another explanation is that the abode of manas (mind) is called the root, and the five roots such as the eye reside in the rūpāyatana (source of form). Therefore, the abode is called the nāmarūpa root and is said to be the six āyatanas. Although the mind is past, the five roots exist in the present, and from the majority of cases, they are called the six āyatanas. Or, the present vijñāna (consciousness) is called manas in relation to the future. If so, the vedanāskandha (aggregate of feeling) in relation to nāmarūpa can also be called nāmarūpa, why not say so? The explanation is that name and form each have different dharmas to fulfill the substance of name and form. The mind has no other dharmas in the present, so it takes consciousness as the mind. The six āyatanas are combined with the remaining viṣayas (objects) and consciousness, so different sparśa (contact) arises. Experiencing contact is called vedanā (feeling). Rāga (greed) is taṇhā (craving). The paryavasthānas (fetters) such as ahrīka (shamelessness), anapatrāpya (lack of embarrassment), styāna (lethargy), and auddhatya (restlessness) that are associated with greed are called upādāna (grasping). At the same time as greed, in an instant, the vijñapti (manifest action) and avijñapti (non-manifest action) of the two karmas of kāya-karman (body karma) and vāc-karman (speech karma) are called bhava (existence). When such dharmas truly arise in the future, they are called jāti (birth). When the different characteristics appear and mature and change, it is called jarā (aging). When the characteristics of extinction are extinguished, it is called maraṇa (death). Abiding is also included in nāmarūpa. Question: Birth is in the future, and aging and death are in the present. This is a difference in time. Why does an instant have twelve aṅgas (limbs)? The explanation is that this is based on the ultimate function of the four lakṣaṇas (characteristics), and one instant has twelve limbs. Another explanation is that the characteristic of birth is not based on function, but it is manifested in front, so it is said that there is a limb of birth. The pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) mentioned here is only for sattvas (sentient beings) and sāsrava (with outflows). There is another saying, up to the saṃskṛta (conditioned phenomena) that pervades all. This refers to the instant, saṃbandha (connection), and conditioned phenomena that pervade all. It penetrates sentient beings, non-sentient beings, āsrava (with outflows), and anāsrava (without outflows). Because the instants are different, different sayings are described. The meaning of connection is the same, so it is not explained separately. Without interval is called connection, and adjacent is called binding. Or, adjacent is called connection, and belonging is called binding. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that dependent origination of connection refers to the arising of causes and effects of the same or different types without interval and in mutual relation. From the position of the twelve limbs to all being included in the divisions. This refers to the uninterrupted continuity of all five skandhas (aggregates) in the twelve positions before and after, which is called division. This refers to birth and aniyata-karman (indefinite karma) and kleśa (afflictions). Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that dependent origination of division refers to the uninterrupted continuity of the five aggregates of the twelve limbs in the three janmas (births). That is

懸遠至說名遠續者。即此分位緣起隔遠相續名為遠續。此約后．及不定說。故正理云遠續緣起。謂前後際有順后受．及不定受業．煩惱故無始輪轉　應知四種緣起差別者。剎那緣起。謂同一剎那相望而說。若據前解唯是有情．有漏。若據后師亦通非情．無漏。餘三緣起皆據前後相望說也。

就中連縛通情．非情。有漏．無漏。分位．遠續唯是有情．有漏　若連縛。前後剎那無間相鄰連縛相續　若分位。據十二分位無間相續生．及不定說也　若遠續。據分位中后．及不定說也。

世尊於此意說者何者。敘說正問。世尊於此四緣起中意說何者。

頌曰至從勝立支名者。上句正答說。下句明立名。

論曰至有十二支者。毗婆沙師相傳共許。世尊於四種緣起中唯約分位說諸緣起十二支。

若支支中至無明等名者。問。

以諸位中至名別無失者。答　無明勝者。諸有本故。獨頭．相應起故。已滅諸惑難可了知似無明故經言破無明谷故　次行勝者。行是造作。造作業性于感果中業最勝故。故見今果言由往業　次識勝者。初受生時識最勝故。經言六界成有情故。雖有餘五非如識強故。一身主故。言心王故　次名色勝者。於此位中名之與色二相勝故　次六處勝者。至此位中六處創圓根相顯故　次

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：懸遠至說名遠續（Paticcasamuppada）者：即此分位緣起隔遠相續名為遠續。此約后及不定說。故正理云遠續緣起，謂前後際有順后受及不定受業、煩惱故無始輪轉。應知四種緣起差別者：剎那緣起，謂同一剎那相望而說。若據前解唯是有情、有漏。若據后師亦通非情、無漏。餘三緣起皆據前後相望說也。就中連縛通情、非情，有漏、無漏。分位、遠續唯是有情、有漏。若連縛，前後剎那無間相鄰連縛相續。若分位，據十二分位無間相續生及不定說也。若遠續，據分位中后及不定說也。世尊於此意說者何者？敘說正問。世尊於此四緣起中意說何者？頌曰至從勝立支名者：上句正答說，下句明立名。論曰至有十二支者：毗婆沙師相傳共許。世尊於四種緣起中唯約分位說諸緣起十二支。若支支中至無明（Avidya）等名者：問。以諸位中至名別無失者：答。無明勝者：諸有本故，獨頭、相應起故，已滅諸惑難可了知似無明故，經言破無明谷故。次行（Samskara）勝者：行是造作，造作業性于感果中業最勝故，故見今果言由往業。次識（Vijnana）勝者：初受生時識最勝故，經言六界成有情故，雖有餘五非如識強故，一身主故，言心王故。次名色（Namarupa）勝者：於此位中名之與色二相勝故。次六處（Sadayatana）勝者：至此位中六處創圓根相顯故。次

【English Translation】 English version: 'Suspended and Distant Continuation' refers to the Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) where the connection is remote and continuous, known as 'distant continuation'. This refers to the later stages and indeterminate aspects. Therefore, the principle states that 'distant continuation' arises because the past and future are linked by karma and afflictions that lead to subsequent or indeterminate rebirths, resulting in endless cycles. It is important to understand the four types of Paticcasamuppada: 'Momentary Origination', which refers to the relationship within a single moment. According to the former interpretation, this applies only to sentient beings with outflows (of defilements). According to the latter interpretation, it also applies to non-sentient beings and those without outflows. The remaining three types of origination refer to relationships between past and future. Among these, 'Continuous Binding' applies to both sentient and non-sentient beings, with and without outflows. 'Divisional' and 'Distant Continuation' apply only to sentient beings with outflows. 'Continuous Binding' refers to the uninterrupted, adjacent, and continuous binding of moments. 'Divisional' refers to the uninterrupted continuous arising of the twelve divisions, as well as indeterminate aspects. 'Distant Continuation' refers to the later stages and indeterminate aspects within the divisions. What did the World Honored One (世尊) intend to convey here? This introduces the main question: What did the World Honored One intend to convey regarding these four types of Paticcasamuppada? The verse says, 'From the superior, names of the limbs are established': The first line is the direct answer, and the second line clarifies the naming. The treatise says, 'Up to having twelve limbs': The Vaibhashika masters traditionally agree that the World Honored One, among the four types of Paticcasamuppada, spoke of the twelve limbs of dependent origination only in terms of the divisions. If within each limb, names such as Avidya (ignorance) are mentioned: Question. Because in each position, there is no loss in naming them differently: Answer. Avidya (ignorance) is superior because it is the root of all things, arises independently and in conjunction, and the extinguished afflictions are difficult to discern, resembling ignorance. Therefore, the sutra speaks of destroying the valley of ignorance. Next, Samskara (volitional formations) is superior because it is the act of creation, and the nature of karma is most superior in causing results. Therefore, seeing the present result, it is said to be due to past karma. Next, Vijnana (consciousness) is superior because consciousness is most superior at the time of initial rebirth. The sutra says that the six elements constitute a sentient being, and although there are five others, they are not as strong as consciousness, because it is the master of the body, referred to as the 'mind-king'. Next, Namarupa (name and form) is superior because in this position, the two aspects of name and form are superior. Next, Sadayatana (six sense bases) is superior because in this position, the six sense bases are initially complete, and the root aspects are manifest. Next,

觸勝者。六根既備根．境．識合創生觸果故。初觸前境觸用勝故　次受勝者。既觸對已受隨領納。故受用勝　次愛勝者。既領受已愛貪資具。愛用勝故。愛相顯故　次取勝者。既貪愛已其或漸增執取前境。取用勝故。過去相隱總說無明。現在相顯別說愛．取　次有勝者。既起取已次即起有。有謂能有未來世果。即是業性。此位業勝故標有名。現業創求當果勝故標以有名。過業非是創求故當體受稱　次生勝者。既現造業已定感當果。當果將生生相顯故。生相勝故。故造業者皆云未來當生何處。現在識勝標以識名。未來生勝從生立稱　次老死勝者。既當生已后必老死。此位老死相顯勝故。現在名色等四用各勝故。相顯現故。各立一支。未來老死雖復相顯。望現四支相稍難知總標老死　所以不立住為支者。經不說在三有為故。濫無為故。非生厭故。

何緣經說至乃至廣說者。問。何緣經說十二分位。論說一切有為。

素怛覽言至是謂差別者。答　等者。等取有漏．無漏等。經別意說唯約分位．遠續．有情．有漏等。論依法相通約剎那。連縛。情．非情。有漏．無漏等。是謂差別。

契經何故唯說有情者。此下第二明遣愚惑。依經起問。

頌曰至唯在有情者。唯說有情斷他愚惑。諸異生等依自內身三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本觸勝者：六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）具備，根、境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）、識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）和合，共同產生觸的果報，所以最初接觸外境時，觸的作用最為顯著。次受勝者：既然已經接觸，就會隨之領納感受，所以感受的作用最為顯著。次愛勝者：既然已經領納感受，就會貪愛所喜愛的資具，所以愛的作用最為顯著，愛的表相也因此顯現。次取勝者：既然已經貪愛，或許會逐漸增長執取之前的境界，所以取的作用最為顯著。過去（無明）的相狀隱沒，總的來說是無明；現在（愛、取）的相狀顯現，分別來說是愛和取。次有勝者：既然已經生起取，接下來就會生起有。有，指的是能夠產生未來世果報的業力，也就是業的性質。這個階段業力最為顯著，所以標名為『有』。現在所造的業，是爲了創造求取未來的果報，所以標以『有』這個名稱。過去的業不是現在新造的，所以只是承受果報，稱為『受』。次生勝者：既然現在造了業，必定會感得未來的果報。未來的果報將要產生，生的相狀顯現，所以生的相狀最為顯著。因此，造業的人都會說未來將要生在何處。現在的識的作用最為顯著，所以標以『識』這個名稱；未來生的作用最為顯著，所以從『生』來立名。次老死勝者：既然已經出生，之後必定會經歷衰老和死亡。這個階段老死的相狀顯現，所以老死的相狀最為顯著。現在名色（色、受、想、行、識）等四種作用各自顯著，所以相狀顯現，各自立為一支。未來的老死雖然也顯現相狀，但相對於現在的四支來說，相狀稍微難以辨認，所以總稱為老死。之所以不設立『住』作為一支，是因為經典沒有說它在三有（欲有、色有、無色有）之中，而且容易與無為法混淆，也不是產生厭離的原因。何緣經說至乃至廣說者：問：為什麼經典要說十二分位，而論典卻說一切有為法？素怛覽言至是謂差別者：答：等，指的是等取有漏、無漏等。經典特別說明，只是針對分位、遠續、有情、有漏等。論典依據法相，普遍適用於剎那、連縛、有情和非有情、有漏和無漏等，這就是差別所在。契經何故唯說有情者：以下第二部分，說明消除愚昧迷惑，依據經典提出問題。頌曰至唯在有情者：只說有情，是爲了斷除他人（異生）的愚昧迷惑。異生等眾生，依據自身的三...

【English Translation】 English version 'Touch' is predominant: When the six roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) are complete, and the roots, objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma), and consciousness (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness) combine, they jointly produce the fruit of 'touch'. Therefore, when initially contacting external objects, the function of 'touch' is most prominent. 'Feeling' is predominant: Since there has been contact, there will be subsequent reception and experience. Therefore, the function of 'feeling' is most prominent. 'Love' is predominant: Since there has been reception and experience, there will be craving for desired resources. Therefore, the function of 'love' is most prominent, and the appearance of 'love' is thus revealed. 'Grasping' is predominant: Since there has been craving, there may be a gradual increase in clinging to previous states. Therefore, the function of 'grasping' is most prominent. The appearance of the past (ignorance) is hidden, and generally speaking, it is 'ignorance'. The appearance of the present (love and grasping) is revealed, and specifically speaking, it is 'love' and 'grasping'. 'Becoming' is predominant: Since 'grasping' has arisen, 'becoming' will arise next. 'Becoming' refers to the karmic force that can produce the fruit of the future life, which is the nature of karma. At this stage, the power of karma is most prominent, so it is labeled as 'becoming'. The karma created in the present is for creating and seeking the fruit of the future, so it is labeled with the name 'becoming'. Past karma is not newly created in the present, so it is simply the reception of the fruit, called 'reception'. 'Birth' is predominant: Since karma has been created in the present, the fruit of the future will definitely be felt. The fruit of the future is about to be produced, and the appearance of 'birth' is revealed, so the appearance of 'birth' is most prominent. Therefore, those who create karma will say where they will be born in the future. The function of present consciousness is most prominent, so it is labeled with the name 'consciousness'; the function of future birth is most prominent, so it is named from 'birth'. 'Old age and death' are predominant: Since there has been birth, there will inevitably be aging and death. At this stage, the appearance of old age and death is revealed, so the appearance of old age and death is most prominent. The four functions of present name and form (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) are each prominent, so their appearances are revealed, and each is established as a branch. Although future old age and death also reveal their appearances, compared to the present four branches, their appearances are slightly more difficult to recognize, so they are collectively called 'old age and death'. The reason why 'duration' is not established as a branch is because the scriptures do not say that it is in the three realms of existence (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), and it is easy to confuse with unconditioned dharma, and it is not a reason for generating aversion. 'Why do the scriptures say...and so on extensively?': Question: Why do the scriptures speak of the twelve divisions, while the treatises speak of all conditioned dharmas? 'The Sutra says...this is the difference': Answer: 'Etc.' refers to including conditioned, unconditioned, etc. The scriptures specifically explain, only targeting divisions, distant continuation, sentient beings, conditioned, etc. The treatises, according to the characteristics of dharmas, universally apply to moments, connections, sentient and non-sentient beings, conditioned and unconditioned, etc. This is the difference. 'Why do the scriptures only speak of sentient beings?': The second part below explains eliminating ignorance and confusion, raising questions based on the scriptures. 'The verse says...only in sentient beings': Only speaking of sentient beings is to eliminate the ignorance and confusion of others (ordinary beings). Ordinary beings, etc., based on their own three...

際愚惑。佛為斷彼依有情說三際緣起。

如何有情前際愚惑者。問。

謂於前際至云何我曾有者。答。此顯前際生疑　我於過去為曾有非有者。此是第一疑我有．無無即絕言　若執有者何等我曾有。為是即蘊。為是離蘊。為色是我。受．想等耶。此是第二疑我自性　若於中隨執一種是我云何我曾有。為常．無常。為男．女等。此是第三疑我差別。

如何有情后際愚惑者。問。

謂於後際至云何我當有者。答。此明後際愚。準過去釋可知。

如何有情中際愚惑者。問。

謂于中際至我當有誰者。答。此明中際愚。以于現在決定知有故不疑無有　何等是我。疑我自性　此我云何。疑我差別。準前際釋。此現在我過去誰因所有。此現在我當來世有誰果。前際不疑因體是因故。不疑果知是現故。未來不疑因知是現故。不疑果體是果故。是故中際有因果二疑。前後際有有．無二疑。

為除如是至有非有等者。此總結。除三際愚惑故經唯說有情緣起。如其次第說過去無明．行除前際愚。說未來生．老死除后際愚。說現在八。識至有除中際愚。三際緣起唯是因果前後相屬不得自在實無有我。經言能以正慧觀見除三際愚。

有餘師說至后際因故者。敘異說。以愛．取．有是未來因以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為愚昧迷惑。佛陀爲了斷除那些執著于『有』的有情眾生，宣說了三際緣起。

什麼是有情眾生對前際的愚昧迷惑呢？（問）

就是對於前際，乃至疑惑『我曾經存在嗎？』（答）這顯示了對於前際的疑惑：『我在過去是存在還是不存在呢？』這是第一種疑惑，疑惑『我』的存在與否。『無』就是斷滅論。如果執著于『有』，那麼『我』曾經是什麼呢？是五蘊本身，還是脫離五蘊？是色蘊是我，還是受、想等蘊是我呢？』這是第二種疑惑，疑惑『我』的自性。『如果對於其中任何一種執著為『我』，那麼『我』曾經是什麼樣的呢？是常還是無常？是男還是女等等？』這是第三種疑惑，疑惑『我』的差別。

什麼是有情眾生對后際的愚昧迷惑呢？（問）

就是對於后際，乃至疑惑『我將來會存在嗎？』（答）這說明了對於后際的愚昧。可以參照過去際的解釋來理解。

什麼是有情眾生對中際的愚昧迷惑呢？（問）

就是對於中際，乃至疑惑『我將來會成為誰呢？』（答）這說明了對於中際的愚昧。因為對於現在已經確定知道『有』，所以不懷疑『無有』。『什麼是『我』呢？』疑惑『我』的自性。『這個『我』是什麼樣的呢？』疑惑『我』的差別。參照前際的解釋。『現在的『我』，過去是由誰的原因而產生的呢？現在的『我』，將來世會成為誰的果呢？』前際不懷疑『因』的本體是『因』的緣故。不懷疑『果』，因為知道現在就是果。未來不懷疑『因』，因為知道現在就是因。不懷疑『果』的本體是『果』的緣故。所以中際有因果兩種疑惑。前後際有『有』、『無』兩種疑惑。

爲了消除像這樣，乃至『有』或『非有』等等的疑惑。（此總結）爲了消除三際的愚昧迷惑，所以經中只說了有情緣起。按照次第，說過去世的無明（Avidyā）、行（Saṃskāra）以消除前際的愚昧。說未來世的生（Jāti）、老死（Jarā-maraṇa）以消除后際的愚昧。說現在世的八支，從識（Vijñāna）乃至有（Bhava），以消除中際的愚昧。三際緣起只是因果前後相互關聯，不得自在，實際上沒有『我』的存在。經中說能夠以正確的智慧觀察，從而消除三際的愚昧。

有其他論師說，乃至后際的『因』的緣故。（敘述不同的說法）因為愛（Tṛṣṇā）、取（Upādāna）、有（Bhava）是未來世的『因』，以...

【English Translation】 English version Due to ignorance and delusion, the Buddha, in order to sever those sentient beings who cling to 'existence', expounded the origination of the three times.

What is the ignorance and delusion of sentient beings regarding the past time? (Question)

It refers to the past time, even to the doubt, 'Did I ever exist?' (Answer) This reveals the doubt about the past: 'In the past, did I exist or not?' This is the first doubt, doubting the existence or non-existence of 'I'. 'Non-existence' is nihilism. If clinging to 'existence', then what was 'I' in the past? Was it the five aggregates themselves, or separate from the five aggregates? Is the form aggregate 'I', or are feeling, perception, etc., 'I'?' This is the second doubt, doubting the nature of 'I'. 'If clinging to any one of these as 'I', then what was 'I' like? Was it permanent or impermanent? Male or female, etc.?' This is the third doubt, doubting the differences of 'I'.

What is the ignorance and delusion of sentient beings regarding the future time? (Question)

It refers to the future time, even to the doubt, 'Will I exist in the future?' (Answer) This explains the ignorance about the future. It can be understood by referring to the explanation of the past time.

What is the ignorance and delusion of sentient beings regarding the present time? (Question)

It refers to the present time, even to the doubt, 'Who will I become in the future?' (Answer) This explains the ignorance about the present. Because it is already certain that 'existence' is known in the present, there is no doubt about 'non-existence'. 'What is 'I'?' Doubting the nature of 'I'. 'What is this 'I' like?' Doubting the differences of 'I'. Refer to the explanation of the past time. 'The present 'I', by whose cause was it produced in the past? The present 'I', whose result will it become in the future?' The past time does not doubt that the substance of the 'cause' is the 'cause'. It does not doubt the 'result' because it knows that the present is the result. The future does not doubt the 'cause' because it knows that the present is the cause. It does not doubt that the substance of the 'result' is the 'result'. Therefore, the present time has two doubts about cause and effect. The past and future times have two doubts about 'existence' and 'non-existence'.

In order to eliminate such doubts, even 'existence' or 'non-existence', etc. (This is a summary) In order to eliminate the ignorance and delusion of the three times, therefore the sutra only speaks of the origination of sentient beings. In order, it speaks of past ignorance (Avidyā), formations (Saṃskāra) to eliminate the ignorance of the past time. It speaks of future birth (Jāti), old age and death (Jarā-maraṇa) to eliminate the ignorance of the future time. It speaks of the eight factors of the present, from consciousness (Vijñāna) to existence (Bhava), to eliminate the ignorance of the present time. The origination of the three times is only the causal relationship of cause and effect, mutually related before and after, not independent, and in reality there is no 'I'. The sutra says that one can observe with correct wisdom and thereby eliminate the ignorance of the three times.

Other teachers say, even because of the 'cause' of the future time. (Narrating different views) Because craving (Tṛṣṇā), grasping (Upādāna), and existence (Bhava) are the 'cause' of the future, with...

因從果除后際愚。正理破云彼亦應說識乃至受。亦為除他前際愚惑。此五皆是前際果故則無中際。便違契經。或彼應申差別所以。然不能說。故前為勝(已上論文)又助一難。若以因從果。過去二因從現在五果應無前際。若以果從因。以未來二果從現三因應無後際。若以現三因從未來二果。以現五果從過去二因應無中際。以此故知前說為善。

又應知此至謂果與因者。此下第四以略攝廣以二．三略攝十二廣。此即總標。

其義云何者。問。

頌曰至由中可比二者。上兩句正明攝。下兩句釋妨。

論曰至為自性故者。煩惱．業．事。及與因果攝十二可知。依託事果而造因故名所依事。或依此事果而起惑．業是彼所依事也。

何緣中際至惑唯一故者。問。

由中際廣至說便無用者。答。中際相顯廣說果因。前．后難知所以略說。由中比二廣義已成。

若緣起支至成無窮失者。此下第五釋通疑難。此即敘疑。若無果因應有終始。若更立支成無窮失。

不應更立至由義已顯者。答。十二支外不應更立。然無前說有始有終及無窮過。此十二中世尊由義已顯。

云何已顯者。徴。

頌曰至有支理唯此者。頌答。

論曰至其理唯此者。釋頌可知。

已顯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果因為從果推除后際的愚昧，那麼按照正理，也應該說識乃至受（Vedanā，感受）也是爲了去除他人對於前際的愚昧迷惑。這五者都是前際的果，這樣就沒有中際了，就違背了契經。或者他們應該闡述其中的差別原因，然而他們不能說出。所以之前的說法是更好的。（以上是論文內容）又輔助一個難題：如果以因從果，過去的二因從現在的五果，應該沒有前際；如果以果從因，以未來的二果從現在的三因，應該沒有後際；如果以現在的三因從未來的二果，以現在的五果從過去的二因，應該沒有中際。因此可知之前的說法是好的。

又應該知道，此（指下文）到『謂果與因者』，這以下第四點是以簡略概括廣博，用二支、三支來簡略概括十二支的廣博。這即是總的標示。

『其義云何者』。問。

『頌曰至由中可比二者』。上面兩句正面說明了概括，下面兩句解釋了疑問。

『論曰至為自性故者』。煩惱（Kleśa，指各種負面情緒）、業（Karma，行為）、事，以及與因果，概括了十二支是可以知道的。依託於事果而造因，所以名為所依事。或者依託於此事果而生起迷惑、業，是他們的所依事。

『何緣中際至惑唯一故者』。問。

『由中際廣至說便無用者』。答。中際的相貌顯現廣博，詳細說明果因。前際、后際難以知道，所以簡略說明。通過中際來比照前際、后際，廣博的意義已經成立。

『若緣起支至成無窮失者』。這以下第五點是解釋並消除疑問。這即是敘述疑問。如果無果因，應該有終始。如果再設立緣起支，就會造成無窮的過失。

『不應更立至由義已顯者』。答。在十二支之外不應該再設立其他支。這樣就沒有之前所說的有始有終以及無窮的過失。這十二支中，世尊（釋迦摩尼佛的尊稱）已經通過意義顯明瞭。

『云何已顯者』。徴（提問）。

『頌曰至有支理唯此者』。頌答。

『論曰至其理唯此者』。解釋頌文，可以知道。

已顯

【English Translation】 English version: If, by removing the ignorance of the posterior limit by inferring from the result, then according to correct reasoning, it should also be said that consciousness (Vijñāna) up to feeling (Vedanā) is also to remove others' ignorance and delusion regarding the prior limit. These five are all results of the prior limit, so there would be no intermediate limit, which would contradict the sutras. Or they should elaborate on the reasons for the difference, but they cannot. Therefore, the previous statement is better. (The above is the content of the thesis.) It also assists with a difficult problem: If the cause is inferred from the result, the two past causes from the five present results should have no prior limit; if the result is inferred from the cause, the two future results from the three present causes should have no posterior limit; if the three present causes are inferred from the two future results, the five present results from the two past causes should have no intermediate limit. Therefore, it can be known that the previous statement is good.

Furthermore, it should be known that this (referring to the following) up to 'that is, result and cause,' the fourth point below is to summarize the extensive with the concise, using the two or three links to concisely summarize the extensive twelve links. This is the general indication.

'What is its meaning?' Question.

'The verse says up to 'the two can be compared by the middle'.' The first two lines directly explain the summarization, and the last two lines explain the doubt.

'The treatise says up to 'because of its nature'.' Afflictions (Kleśa, referring to various negative emotions), actions (Karma, deeds), events, and with cause and effect, summarizing the twelve links can be known. Relying on the event-result to create the cause, so it is called the dependent event. Or relying on this event-result to arise delusion and action, it is their dependent event.

'Why is the intermediate limit up to 'because delusion is unique'?' Question.

'Because the intermediate limit is extensive up to 'saying it would be useless'.' Answer. The appearance of the intermediate limit is extensive, explaining the result and cause in detail. The prior and posterior limits are difficult to know, so they are explained concisely. By comparing the prior and posterior limits through the intermediate limit, the extensive meaning has been established.

'If the dependent origination links up to 'becoming the fault of infinity'.' The fifth point below is to explain and eliminate doubts. This is to state the doubt. If there is no result-cause, there should be a beginning and an end. If more dependent origination links are established, it will cause the fault of infinity.

'One should not establish more up to 'because the meaning has been revealed'.' Answer. One should not establish other links outside the twelve links. In this way, there is no fault of having a beginning and an end or infinity as previously stated. Among these twelve links, the World-Honored One (a respectful title for Shakyamuni Buddha) has already revealed it through meaning.

'How has it been revealed?' Question.

'The verse says up to 'the principle of links is only this'.' Verse answer.

'The treatise says up to 'its principle is only this'.' Explaining the verse, it can be known.

Revealed

老死至此言何用者。若名色生六處。六處生觸。觸生受。已顯老死為事因。若受生愛已顯老死為惑因。若受生愛顯無明為事果。若愛生取已顯無明為惑果。以過去無明則現屬愛．取二惑性故。未來老死則現名色．六處．觸．受四事性故。由此已顯老死為因無明為果。豈假更立余緣起支。故無終始過也。故契經中說十二緣起云如是純大苦蘊集。引經意證無明亦果。老死亦因。十二有支皆通苦．集。諸支果義名為苦蘊。諸支因義說名為集。若不許無明是果。老死是因。此經言何用。

有餘釋言至此契經中者。此下敘異說。古世親解。是後世親祖師。即是雜心初卷子注中言和須槃豆是說一切有部中異師。此中已破故正理不非。無明既從非理作意因生。故知無始非理作意亦取支攝。以此四取攝法寬故。不但攝諸惑亦攝非理作意故。亦說在此十二緣起契經中故更不立余緣起支　或非理作意已下通伏難。伏難意云若非理作意為無明因。十二支緣起經中何故更不別立一支。故今通言不但諸惑是取支攝非理作意亦取支攝。故亦說在緣起經中更不別立。

此非理作意至為緣起支者。論主破。若言由此非理作意與彼四取煩惱相應即取支攝。愛與無明亦四取相應亦應四取攝。應不別立余緣起支。設許取支攝云何能證為無明因。汝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『老死』（衰老和死亡）到此為止，還說什麼『用』呢？如果『名色』（精神和物質現象）產生『六處』（六種感官），『六處』產生『觸』（感覺接觸），『觸』產生『受』（感受），就已經顯示『老死』是『事因』（事物的原因）。如果『受』產生『愛』（渴愛），就已經顯示『老死』是『惑因』（迷惑的原因）。如果『受』產生『愛』，就顯示『無明』（無知）是『事果』（事物的結果）。如果『愛』產生『取』（執取），就已經顯示『無明』是『惑果』（迷惑的結果）。因為過去的『無明』，現在屬於『愛』、『取』這兩種迷惑的性質。未來的『老死』，現在屬於『名色』、『六處』、『觸』、『受』這四種事物的性質。由此已經顯示『老死』是因，『無明』是果。哪裡還需要另外建立其他的緣起支？所以沒有終始的過失。所以契經（佛經）中說十二緣起，說『像這樣純粹的大苦蘊聚集』。引用經文的意思來證明『無明』也是果，『老死』也是因。十二有支都貫通苦、集（苦和集諦）。各個支的果的意義叫做『苦蘊』，各個支的因的意義叫做『集』。如果不允許『無明』是果，『老死』是因，那麼這段經文說什麼用呢？有其他解釋說到『此契經中』的，這下面敘述不同的說法。古代的世親（Vasubandhu）解釋。是後代的世親祖師。就是在《雜心論》初卷的註釋中說和須槃豆（Vasubandhu）是說一切有部（Sarvastivada）中的不同師。這裡已經破斥了，所以正理沒有錯誤。『無明』既然從『非理作意』（不合理的思考）這個因產生，所以知道無始以來的『非理作意』也屬於『取』支所包含的。因為這四種『取』所包含的法很寬泛，不僅僅包含各種迷惑，也包含『非理作意』。所以也說在這十二緣起契經中，所以不再另外建立其他的緣起支。或者『非理作意』以下是通用的反駁。反駁的意思是說，如果『非理作意』是『無明』的因，為什麼在十二支緣起經中不再另外建立一個支？所以現在普遍地說，不僅僅各種迷惑是『取』支所包含的，『非理作意』也是『取』支所包含的。所以也說在緣起經中，不再另外建立。如果這個『非理作意』成為緣起支，論主就進行破斥。如果說因為這個『非理作意』與那四種『取』煩惱相應，所以屬於『取』支所包含的。那麼『愛』和『無明』也與四種『取』相應，也應該被四種『取』所包含。就不應該另外建立其他的緣起支。假設允許『取』支包含，又怎麼能夠證明是『無明』的因呢？你

【English Translation】 English version: What's the point of talking about 'old age and death' (jarā-maraṇa) at this stage? If 'name and form' (nāma-rūpa) give rise to the 'six sense bases' (ṣaḍāyatana), the 'six sense bases' give rise to 'contact' (sparśa), and 'contact' gives rise to 'feeling' (vedanā), then it's already clear that 'old age and death' are the 'causal factors' (hetu) of events. If 'feeling' gives rise to 'craving' (tṛṣṇā), then it's already clear that 'old age and death' are the 'causal factors' of delusion. If 'feeling' gives rise to 'craving', it shows that 'ignorance' (avidyā) is the 'resultant factor' of events. If 'craving' gives rise to 'grasping' (upādāna), it's already clear that 'ignorance' is the 'resultant factor' of delusion. Because past 'ignorance' now belongs to the nature of the two delusions, 'craving' and 'grasping'. Future 'old age and death' now belong to the nature of the four events, 'name and form', 'six sense bases', 'contact', and 'feeling'. From this, it's already clear that 'old age and death' are the cause, and 'ignorance' is the result. Why would we need to establish other links of dependent origination? Therefore, there is no fault of beginning or end. Therefore, the sutra (sūtra) says about the twelve links of dependent origination, 'Thus, the entire mass of suffering arises'. Quoting the meaning of the sutra to prove that 'ignorance' is also a result, and 'old age and death' are also a cause. All twelve links of existence penetrate both suffering and origination (duḥkha and samudāya). The meaning of the result of each link is called the 'mass of suffering', and the meaning of the cause of each link is called 'origination'. If it's not allowed that 'ignorance' is a result and 'old age and death' are a cause, then what's the use of this sutra? There are other explanations that mention 'this sutra'. The following narrates different views. The ancient Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu) explained. He is the later master Vasubandhu. That is, in the commentary of the first volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, it is said that Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu) is a different teacher in the Sarvastivada (Sarvāstivāda) school. This has already been refuted here, so the correct principle is not wrong. Since 'ignorance' arises from the cause of 'irrational attention' (ayoniśo manaskāra), it is known that beginningless 'irrational attention' is also included in the 'grasping' link. Because the dharma included in these four 'graspings' is broad, it not only includes various delusions but also includes 'irrational attention'. Therefore, it is also said in this sutra of the twelve links of dependent origination, so no other links of dependent origination are established. Or 'irrational attention' below is a common refutation. The meaning of the refutation is, if 'irrational attention' is the cause of 'ignorance', why is another link not established separately in the sutra of the twelve links of dependent origination? Therefore, it is now generally said that not only are various delusions included in the 'grasping' link, but 'irrational attention' is also included in the 'grasping' link. Therefore, it is also said in the sutra of dependent origination, and no other is established separately. If this 'irrational attention' becomes a link of dependent origination, the author refutes it. If it is said that because this 'irrational attention' is associated with those four 'grasping' afflictions, it belongs to the 'grasping' link. Then 'craving' and 'ignorance' are also associated with the four 'graspings' and should also be included in the four 'graspings'. Other links of dependent origination should not be established separately. Assuming that the 'grasping' link is allowed to include, how can it be proved to be the cause of 'ignorance'? You

若言但取支攝即證因果。愛與無明亦四取攝證成因果。應不別立愛無明支。

余復釋言至染濁作意者。此是經部中室利羅多解。此名執勝。正理呼為上坐。非理作意為無明因在觸支攝。故余經說前六處位眼．色為緣生癡所生染濁作意。前念六處位癡是能生。后念觸位染濁作意是所生。故言生癡所生染濁作意。引此經意證非理作意說在觸時。此觸時非理作意為因。於後受位必引無明。此即正顯無明有因所以得知。故余經言由無明觸顯觸時有非理作意。所生諸受為緣生愛。復顯受位必有無明。引此經意證無明從非理作意生。即總結言。是故前念觸時非理作意與后念受俱轉無明為緣。由此無明無無因過。以從非理作意生故。亦不須立余緣起支。非理作意觸時攝故　又緣起下復顯非理作意從無明生無無窮失。經中既說染濁作意從癡所生。明知非理作意從無明生前引此經證非理作意說在觸時。今引此經證非理作意從無明生。雖同引一經。證意各別。

余經雖有至應更須說者。論主破。余經雖有如是誠言。然此大緣起經中應更須說。

不須更說者。上坐答。

如何證知者。論主復徴。

由理證知者。上坐答。

何等為理者。論主復徴。

非離無明受至為證故知者。上坐答。非離無明相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果說僅僅通過『取』(Upadana，執取)這一支就能證明因果關係，那麼『愛』(Trsna，渴愛)和『無明』(Avidya，無知)也被包含在『四取』之中，也能證明因果關係，就不應該單獨設立『愛』和『無明』這兩個支了。

有人進一步解釋說，關於『染濁作意』(Samklista Manaskara，染污的心理活動)。這是經部宗中室利羅多(Srilata)的解釋。他被稱為『執勝』，正理派稱他為『上座』。『不如理作意』(Ayoniśo Manaskara，不正確的心理活動)是『無明』的因，包含在『觸』(Sparsa，接觸)支中。所以其他經典說，在『六處』(Sadayatana，六根)位，以眼和色為緣而產生愚癡，由愚癡產生『染濁作意』。前一念的『六處』位的愚癡是能生，后一念的『觸』位的『染濁作意』是所生。所以說『生癡所生染濁作意』。引用這部經的意義在於證明『不如理作意』是在『觸』時產生的。這個『觸』時的『不如理作意』是因，在之後的『受』(Vedana，感受)位必定會引發『無明』。這正是爲了明顯地說明『無明』是有原因的，所以其他經典說，由於『無明觸』，顯示在『觸』時存在『不如理作意』，以所產生的各種『受』為緣而產生『愛』。又顯示在『受』位必定有『無明』。引用這部經的意義在於證明『無明』是從『不如理作意』產生的。總結說，因此，前一念『觸』時的『不如理作意』與后一念『受』同時生起的『無明』為緣。由此，『無明』沒有無因的過失，因為它從『不如理作意』產生。也不需要設立其他的緣起支，因為『不如理作意』包含在『觸』時。

此外，在緣起之下，進一步說明『不如理作意』是從『無明』產生的，沒有無窮的過失。經典中既然說了『染濁作意』是從愚癡產生的，就明顯地知道『不如理作意』是從『無明』產生的。之前引用這部經是爲了證明『不如理作意』是在『觸』時產生的，現在引用這部經是爲了證明『不如理作意』是從『無明』產生的。雖然都引用同一部經，但證明的意義各不相同。

其他經典雖然有……應該更須說明。論主反駁：其他經典雖然有這樣的誠實之言，但是在這部《大緣起經》中，應該更須說明。

不需要更須說明。上座回答。

如何證明呢？論主再次征問。

通過道理來證明。上座回答。

什麼是道理呢？論主再次征問。

不是離開『無明』，『受』……作為證明，所以知道。上座回答：不是離開『無明』的相……

【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that merely by taking 'Upadana' (grasping) as a link, one can prove cause and effect, then 'Trsna' (craving) and 'Avidya' (ignorance) are also included in the 'four graspings' and can prove cause and effect. There should be no separate establishment of the links of 'craving' and 'ignorance'.

Someone further explained, regarding 'Samklista Manaskara' (defiled mental activity). This is the explanation of Srilata in the Sautrantika school. He is called 'holding the superior', and the Nyaya school calls him 'Elder'. 'Ayoniśo Manaskara' (irrational attention) is the cause of 'Avidya' and is included in the 'Sparsa' (contact) link. Therefore, other sutras say that in the 'Sadayatana' (six sense bases) position, ignorance arises from the condition of eye and form, and 'defiled mental activity' arises from ignorance. The ignorance in the previous thought of the 'six sense bases' position is the producer, and the 'defiled mental activity' in the subsequent thought of the 'contact' position is the produced. Therefore, it is said 'defiled mental activity produced by ignorance'. Quoting this sutra's meaning is to prove that 'irrational attention' arises at the time of 'contact'. This 'irrational attention' at the time of 'contact' is the cause, and it will inevitably lead to 'Avidya' in the subsequent 'Vedana' (feeling) position. This is precisely to clearly explain that 'Avidya' has a cause, so other sutras say that due to 'Avidya contact', it shows that there is 'irrational attention' at the time of 'contact', and 'craving' arises from the condition of the various 'feelings' produced. It also shows that there must be 'Avidya' in the 'feeling' position. Quoting this sutra's meaning is to prove that 'Avidya' arises from 'irrational attention'. In conclusion, therefore, the 'irrational attention' at the time of 'contact' in the previous thought is conditioned by the 'Avidya' that arises simultaneously with the 'feeling' in the subsequent thought. Therefore, 'Avidya' does not have the fault of being without a cause, because it arises from 'irrational attention'. There is also no need to establish other links of dependent origination, because 'irrational attention' is included in the time of 'contact'.

Furthermore, under dependent origination, it is further explained that 'irrational attention' arises from 'Avidya', and there is no fault of infinity. Since the sutra says that 'defiled mental activity' arises from ignorance, it is clear that 'irrational attention' arises from 'Avidya'. Previously, this sutra was quoted to prove that 'irrational attention' arises at the time of 'contact', and now this sutra is quoted to prove that 'irrational attention' arises from 'Avidya'. Although the same sutra is quoted, the meanings of proof are different.

Although other sutras have... it should be further explained. The author refutes: Although other sutras have such honest words, it should be further explained in this 'Great Dependent Origination Sutra'.

There is no need to further explain. The Elder replied.

How to prove it? The author asked again.

It is proved by reason. The Elder replied.

What is the reason? The author asked again.

Not apart from 'Avidya', 'feeling'... as proof, so it is known. The Elder replied: Not apart from the appearance of 'Avidya'...

應受能為愛緣。以阿羅漢受不生愛故。既受生愛。明知受同時必有無明。又非無倒觸能為染受緣。亦非離無明觸可成顛倒。阿羅漢觸非顛倒故。既顛倒無明觸能為染受緣。明知觸同時必有非理作意。此中意說觸時非理作意為緣能生受位無明。即顯無明從因生。亦顯非理作意觸中攝。由如是理為證故知。

若爾便應至不成釋難者。論主難有大過失。諸由正理可得證知。則一切支皆應不須更說經證。故上坐說不成釋難。

然上所言至為遣他愚惑者。論主牒難復釋經意。世尊為除有情三際愚惑略說十二三世因果。投機說法如前已辨。理則圓滿。非此經中為欲顯示老死有果無明有因。若以理而言。前則無窮生死無始故。后則可盡得道便無故。

如世尊告至此二何異者。此下大文第六會釋經文。依經起問。

且本論文至一切法故者。答。且本論文此二無別。以俱言攝一切有為法故。

如何未來至說緣已生者。外難。過．現已起可名已生。未來未已起如何名已生。

云何未來至說名有為者。反難外人。已有為作名曰有為。云何未來異熟未已作法。得同過．現說名有為。然梵本呼有為聲中含已義。具足應言已有為。

由能作思力已造故者。外人釋。言未來異熟果由現在世善．惡思力已造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：感受之所以能成為愛的緣起，是因為阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）不會產生愛。既然產生了愛，就明顯知道感受的同時必然有無明（Avidyā，對事物真相的無知）。而且，並非沒有顛倒的觸（Sparśa，感官與外境的接觸）能成為染污感受的緣起，也不是離開無明的觸可以形成顛倒。阿羅漢的觸不是顛倒的。既然顛倒的無明觸能成為染污感受的緣起，就明顯知道觸的同時必然有非理作意（Ayoniśo manaskāra，不如理的思維）。這裡的意思是說，觸的時候，非理作意作為緣起，能夠產生感受位的無明。這就顯示了無明是從因產生的，也顯示了非理作意包含在觸中。由於這樣的道理作為證據，所以知道。

如果這樣，就應該導致不成釋難的人。論主的責難有很大的過失。凡是通過正理可以證知的，那麼一切支（Aṅga，佛教教義的組成部分）都應該不需要再說經典證據。所以上座部（Sthavira Nikāya，佛教的一個早期部派）說不成釋難。

然而，上面所說的，是爲了遣除他人的愚惑。論主引用責難，再次解釋經文的意義。世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）爲了去除有情（Sattva，一切有情眾生）對過去、現在、未來三世的愚惑，簡略地說了十二緣起（Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，佛教關於生命輪迴的十二個環節）的三世因果。隨機說法，如前面已經辨析的，道理是圓滿的。不是這部經中想要顯示老死（Jarā-maraṇa，衰老和死亡）有果，無明有因。如果從道理上來說，前者會導致無窮無盡，生死沒有開始；後者會導致可以窮盡，得道就沒有了。

如世尊告訴至此二何異者。下面這段大文是第六次會釋經文。依據經文提出問題。

且本論文至一切法故者。回答。且本論文，這兩個沒有區別。因為都說了包含一切有為法（Saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而成的法）。

如何未來至說緣已生者。外人提出責難。過去、現在已經生起，可以稱為已生。未來還沒有生起，如何稱為已生？

云何未來至說名有為者。反過來責難外人。已經有作為，才叫做有為。為什麼未來的異熟（Vipāka，果報）還沒有作為，可以和過去、現在一樣，稱為有為？然而梵文字中，有為這個詞包含已有的意思。完整地說，應該說已經有作為。

由能作思力已造故者。外人解釋。說未來的異熟果，是由現在世的善、惡思（Cetanā，意志）力已經造作。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Feeling is the condition for love because Arhats (those who have attained Nirvana) do not generate love. Since love is generated, it is clearly known that ignorance (Avidyā, ignorance of the true nature of things) must be present simultaneously with feeling. Moreover, it is not non-inverted contact (Sparśa, the contact between the senses and external objects) that can be the condition for defiled feeling, nor can inversion be formed apart from contact with ignorance. The contact of an Arhat is not inverted. Since inverted contact with ignorance can be the condition for defiled feeling, it is clearly known that irrational attention (Ayoniśo manaskāra, improper thinking) must be present simultaneously with contact. The meaning here is that, at the time of contact, irrational attention, as a condition, can generate ignorance in the state of feeling. This shows that ignorance arises from a cause, and it also shows that irrational attention is included in contact. It is known because of such reason as evidence.'

'If so, it should lead to those who do not establish the difficulty. The proponent's criticism has a great fault. Whatever can be known through correct reasoning, then all the limbs (Aṅga, components of Buddhist teachings) should not need to be further explained with scriptural evidence. Therefore, the Sthavira Nikāya (an early Buddhist school) says that the difficulty is not established.'

'However, what was said above is to dispel the ignorance of others. The proponent quotes the criticism and explains the meaning of the scripture again. The World-Honored One (Śākyamuni, the Buddha) briefly spoke of the three-world cause and effect of the twelve links of dependent origination (Dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda, the twelve links of the cycle of life and death) in order to remove the ignorance of sentient beings (Sattva, all living beings) regarding the past, present, and future three times. Teaching according to the capacity, as has been analyzed before, the reasoning is complete. It is not that this scripture intends to show that old age and death (Jarā-maraṇa, aging and death) have a result, and ignorance has a cause. If speaking from the perspective of reason, the former would lead to endlessness, with no beginning to birth and death; the latter would lead to exhaustion, and there would be no attainment of the path.'

'As the World-Honored One told to what is the difference between these two. The following major section is the sixth time to interpret the scripture. Questions are raised based on the scripture.'

'And the original thesis to all dharmas. Answer. And the original thesis, these two are not different. Because both say that they include all conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta, phenomena that arise from causes and conditions).'

'How can the future be called already arisen when speaking of conditions? The outsider raises a criticism. The past and present have already arisen and can be called already arisen. How can the future, which has not yet arisen, be called already arisen?'

'How can the future be called conditioned? The outsider is countered. Only when there has been action is it called conditioned. Why can the future, whose different maturation (Vipāka, karmic result) has not yet been acted upon, be called conditioned like the past and present? However, in the Sanskrit text, the term conditioned includes the meaning of already. Fully speaking, it should be said that there has already been action.'

'Because the power of volitional thought has already created it. The outsider explains. It is said that the future result of different maturation is created by the power of good and evil volitional thought (Cetanā, volition) in the present world.'

作故說名有為。

若爾無漏如何有為者。論主復難。未來無漏既非異熟。如何有為。

彼亦善思力已造故者。外人釋。彼未來無漏亦為現在無漏善思力已造故名為有為。

若爾就得涅槃應然者。論主復難。名未來無漏法由善思力已造作故起得得彼即名有為。涅槃亦由善思力故起得得涅槃。涅槃應名有為。故言若爾就得涅槃應然。

理實應言至所說無失者。論主正解。未來名緣已生。理實應言依種類說。是過去．現在已生種類故亦名已生。寄喻來況。變壞名色。如未來色雖未變壞。是過．現變壞色種類故亦得色名。未來名已生。由種類同所說無失　又解變壞名色。如未來色雖未變壞亦得色名。由是過．現色種類同。所說未來已生無失。

然今正釋至因果性故者。論主正釋經中二句。

若爾安立應不俱成者。難。因果既無別體。安立緣起．緣已生應不俱成。

不爾所觀至父子等名者。釋。觀待不同。謂若觀此前因名緣已生。非即觀斯前因複名緣起。謂若觀此後果名為緣起。非即觀斯後果複名緣已生。雖於一法所望不同。猶如一物望后名因望前名果。父子亦然。

尊者望滿至諸無為法者。望滿意說若從因已起名緣已生。通攝過．現一切諸法。若與余為因說名緣起。唯除過

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：'作故說名有為'。

『如果這樣，無漏法如何成為有為法呢？』論主進一步提出疑問：『未來的無漏法既然不是異熟果，又如何成為有為法呢？』

『它們也是由善思的力量所造作的。』外人解釋說：『那些未來的無漏法也是由現在的無漏善思的力量所造作的，因此被稱為有為法。』

『如果這樣，那麼證得涅槃也應該如此。』論主再次提出疑問：『如果說未來的無漏法由於善思的力量造作而生起，因此獲得它就被稱為有為法，那麼涅槃也由於善思的力量而生起，因此獲得涅槃也應該被稱為有為法。』所以說，『如果這樣，那麼證得涅槃也應該如此。』

『實際上應該說……所說的並沒有錯誤。』論主正確地解釋說：『未來的法被稱為已生，實際上應該依據種類來說。因為它們是過去和現在已生之法的同類，所以也被稱為已生。』這就像一個比喻：『變壞』指的是色法（rupa, 物質現象）。例如，未來的色法雖然還沒有變壞，但由於它們與過去和現在變壞的色法屬於同一類，因此也可以被稱為色法。未來的法被稱為已生，由於種類相同，所以這樣說並沒有錯誤。』另一種解釋是，『變壞』指的是色法。例如，未來的色法雖然還沒有變壞，但也可以被稱為色法，因為它們與過去和現在的色法種類相同。因此，說未來的法是已生的並沒有錯誤。

『然而，現在正確地解釋……因為因果的性質。』論主正確地解釋經文中的兩句話。

『如果這樣，那麼安立緣起和緣已生就不可能同時成立。』難點在於：如果因果沒有不同的實體，那麼安立緣起（pratityasamutpada, dependent origination）和緣已生（already arisen through conditions）就不可能同時成立。

『不是這樣的……父子等名稱。』解釋說：『這是因為觀待的角度不同。如果觀察此前的因，就稱為緣已生；但不能因此就說觀察這個此前的因也稱為緣起。如果觀察此後的果，就稱為緣起；但不能因此就說觀察這個此後的果也稱為緣已生。』雖然對於同一法，所觀察的角度不同，就像同一事物，相對於後來的事物是因，相對於先前的事物是果。父子關係也是如此。

『尊者望滿……諸無為法（asamskrta dharmas, unconditioned dharmas）。』望滿尊者說，如果從因已經生起的角度來說，就稱為緣已生，這涵蓋了過去和現在的一切諸法。如果從作為其他法的因的角度來說，就稱為緣起，但過去除外。

【English Translation】 English version: 'That which is made, hence it is called conditioned (有為, yuwei).'

'If so, how can unconditioned (無漏, wulou) dharmas be conditioned?' The master debater further questions: 'Since future unconditioned dharmas are not results of maturation (異熟, yishu), how can they be conditioned?'

'They are also made by the power of good thought.' The outsider explains: 'Those future unconditioned dharmas are also made by the power of present unconditioned good thought, hence they are called conditioned.'

'If so, then attaining Nirvana should be the same.' The master debater questions again: 'If future unconditioned dharmas arise because they are made by the power of good thought, and thus attaining them is called conditioned, then Nirvana also arises due to the power of good thought, and thus attaining Nirvana should also be called conditioned.' Therefore, it is said, 'If so, then attaining Nirvana should be the same.'

'In reality, it should be said... what is said is not mistaken.' The master debater correctly explains: 'Future dharmas are called already arisen (已生, yisheng), but in reality, it should be spoken of according to type. Because they are of the same type as past and present arisen dharmas, they are also called already arisen.' This is like a metaphor: 'Decay' refers to form (色, se, rupa). For example, although future form has not yet decayed, because it is of the same type as past and present decayed form, it can also be called form. Future dharmas are called already arisen because they are of the same type, so what is said is not mistaken.' Another explanation is that 'decay' refers to form. For example, although future form has not yet decayed, it can also be called form because it is of the same type as past and present form. Therefore, saying that future dharmas are already arisen is not mistaken.

'However, now to correctly explain... because of the nature of cause and effect.' The master debater correctly explains the two sentences in the sutra.

'If so, then establishing dependent origination (緣起, yuanqi, pratityasamutpada) and already arisen through conditions (緣已生, yisheng) should not be able to be established simultaneously.' The difficulty lies in: If cause and effect do not have different entities, then establishing dependent origination and already arisen through conditions should not be able to be established simultaneously.

'It is not so... names like father and son.' It is explained: 'This is because the perspective of observation is different. If one observes the prior cause, it is called already arisen through conditions; but one cannot therefore say that observing this prior cause is also called dependent origination. If one observes the subsequent effect, it is called dependent origination; but one cannot therefore say that observing this subsequent effect is also called already arisen through conditions.' Although the perspective of observation is different for the same dharma, it is like the same thing, relative to later things it is a cause, relative to earlier things it is an effect. The relationship between father and son is also like this.

'Venerable Wangman... all unconditioned dharmas (無為法, wuwei fa, asamskrta dharmas).' Venerable Wangman said that if one speaks from the perspective of having already arisen from a cause, it is called already arisen through conditions, which encompasses all dharmas of the past and present. If one speaks from the perspective of being a cause for other dharmas, it is called dependent origination, but excluding the past.

．現．無學後心餘三世有為法。若緣起體狹世寬若緣已生體寬世狹故成四句　第一句有是緣起非緣已生。謂未來法能為因故名緣起。未至過．現非緣已生　第二句有緣已生非是緣起。謂阿羅漢最後心位過．現諸法。至過．現故名緣已生不能為因非是緣起　第三句亦是緣起亦緣已生。謂除阿羅漢後心余過．現法。能為因故名緣起。至過．現故名緣已生　第四句非是緣起亦非緣已生。謂諸無為法。不能為因取諸果故非是緣起。體是常故不從因起非緣已生。

經部諸師至經義相違者。此下抉擇。此即述經部難分位緣起五蘊為體。經中既說無明等以三際無智等為體。故知非以五蘊為體。此即違經經了義故。

非一切經至此亦應爾者。說一切有部救。非經皆了義亦有隨勝說。如象跡喻經云何內地界謂發．毛．爪等。雖彼發．毛爪等非無餘色．香．味．觸．及餘三大等法而就勝說。以發．毛．爪等地界強故。故用發．毛等釋內地界。此經所說無明等支理亦應爾。雖彼非無餘色蘊等。而就勝說無明等名。

所引非證至無復有餘者。經部破。所引非證。非像跡喻經中欲以內地界辨發．毛等。成非具足說。謂地界狹。發．毛等寬。具有色．香．味．觸。若彼經言云何發．毛等謂內地界。可如汝說舉勝偏答。以發．毛等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在，無學（Asekha，佛教修行中的最高階段）的最後心念以及過去、現在、未來三世的有為法（conditioned phenomena）。如果緣起（dependent origination）的本體狹窄而世（time）寬廣，如果緣已生（already arisen）的本體寬廣而世狹窄，因此形成四句：第一句：有是緣起而非緣已生。指的是未來法能夠作為因，所以稱為緣起。尚未到達過去、現在，所以不是緣已生。第二句：有緣已生而非是緣起。指的是阿羅漢（Arhat，已證涅槃的聖者）最後心念的過去、現在諸法。到達過去、現在，所以稱為緣已生，但不能作為因，所以不是緣起。第三句：既是緣起也是緣已生。指的是除了阿羅漢最後心念之外的其餘過去、現在法。能夠作為因，所以稱為緣起。到達過去、現在，所以稱為緣已生。第四句：既非緣起也非緣已生。指的是諸無為法（unconditioned phenomena）。不能作為因來獲取諸果，所以不是緣起。本體是常住的，所以不是從因產生的，因此不是緣已生。

經部（Sautrantika，佛教的一個學派）的諸位論師認為與經義相違背。以下進行抉擇。這是敘述經部難以將分位緣起歸納為五蘊（five aggregates）的本體。經中既然說無明（ignorance）等以三際的無智等為本體，所以可知不是以五蘊為本體。這與經典相違背，因為經典是了義（definitive meaning）的。

『並非一切經』至『此亦應爾者』。這是說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教的一個學派）的辯護。並非所有經典都是了義的，也有隨勝說（speaking according to the predominant aspect）。例如《象跡喻經》（Elephant Footprint Sutra）說：『什麼是內在的地界（earth element）？指的是頭髮、毛髮、指甲等。』雖然那些頭髮、毛髮、指甲等並非沒有其餘的色、香、味、觸以及其餘的三大（three great elements）等法，但這是就其主要方面來說的。因為頭髮、毛髮、指甲等地界的力量強。所以用頭髮、毛髮等來解釋內在的地界。這部經所說的無明等支（limbs of dependent origination）的道理也應該如此。雖然它們並非沒有其餘的色蘊等，但這是就其主要方面來說的，所以稱為無明等。

『所引非證』至『無復有餘者』。這是經部的反駁。所引用的例子不能作為證據。因為《象跡喻經》中並非想要用內在的地界來辨別頭髮、毛髮等，從而證明它不是具足地說明。也就是說，地界狹窄，而頭髮、毛髮等寬廣，具有色、香、味、觸。如果那部經說『什麼是頭髮、毛髮等？指的是內在的地界』，還可以像你們所說的那樣，舉出主要方面來片面地回答。因為頭髮、毛髮等

【English Translation】 English version: Now, the last thought of an Asekha (one beyond learning, the highest stage in Buddhist practice) and the conditioned phenomena (Samskrta dharmas) of the past, present, and future three times. If the substance of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) is narrow and the world (time) is broad, and if the substance of 'already arisen' is broad and the world is narrow, thus forming four possibilities: First: There is dependent origination but not 'already arisen'. This refers to future dharmas that can act as a cause, hence called dependent origination. They have not yet reached the past or present, so they are not 'already arisen'. Second: There is 'already arisen' but not dependent origination. This refers to the past and present dharmas of the last thought of an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana). Having reached the past and present, they are called 'already arisen', but they cannot act as a cause, so they are not dependent origination. Third: It is both dependent origination and 'already arisen'. This refers to the remaining past and present dharmas except for the last thought of an Arhat. They can act as a cause, hence called dependent origination. Having reached the past and present, they are called 'already arisen'. Fourth: It is neither dependent origination nor 'already arisen'. This refers to unconditioned phenomena (Asamskrta dharmas). They cannot act as a cause to obtain fruits, so they are not dependent origination. Their substance is permanent, so they do not arise from a cause, hence they are not 'already arisen'.

The teachers of the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) consider it contradictory to the sutra's meaning. The following is a resolution. This describes how the Sautrantika school finds it difficult to categorize the divisions of dependent origination as the substance of the five aggregates (Skandhas). Since the sutra states that ignorance (Avidyā) and so on have the non-wisdom of the three times as their substance, it is known that they are not the substance of the five aggregates. This contradicts the sutra, because the sutra is of definitive meaning (Nitartha).

'Not all sutras' to 'should also be like this'. This is the defense of the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school). Not all sutras are of definitive meaning; some speak according to the predominant aspect (Adhipatyavāda). For example, the Elephant Footprint Sutra (Hastipadopama Sutra) says: 'What is the internal earth element (Prthivī dhātu)? It refers to hair, body hair, nails, and so on.' Although those hairs, body hairs, nails, and so on are not without the remaining color, smell, taste, touch, and the remaining three great elements (Mahābhūta), this is spoken according to the predominant aspect. Because the earth element of hair, body hair, and nails is strong. Therefore, hair, body hair, etc., are used to explain the internal earth element. The principle of the limbs of dependent origination, such as ignorance, spoken in this sutra should also be like this. Although they are not without the remaining form aggregate (Rūpa skandha) and so on, they are called ignorance and so on according to their predominant aspect.

'The cited example is not proof' to 'there is nothing remaining'. This is the refutation of the Sautrantika school. The cited example cannot be used as evidence. Because the Elephant Footprint Sutra does not intend to distinguish hair, body hair, etc., using the internal earth element, thereby proving that it is not a complete explanation. That is, the earth element is narrow, while hair, body hair, etc., are broad, possessing color, smell, taste, and touch. If that sutra said, 'What are hair, body hair, etc.? They refer to the internal earth element,' it could be like what you said, citing the predominant aspect to answer partially. Because hair, body hair, etc.

雖有色等地界強故。然彼經中以發．毛等分別內地果非有地界越發．毛等。故象跡經是具足說。此緣起經說無明等。如象跡經成具足說。故除所說無明等外無有餘法。顯所引經違自順他。

豈不地界至其體亦有者。說一切有部難。豈不內地界越發．毛等洟．淚等中其體亦有。是則發等攝地不盡。非具足說。還是就勝而說。

洟等皆亦至今應顯示者。經部通難。洟．淚等皆亦說在彼象跡喻經。如說復有身中余物。余物即是洟．淚等物　縱許破云。設復同彼離發．毛等洟．淚等中別有地界。離無明支外有餘無明今應顯示。然離無明外無別有無明。

若引異類至此有何益者。經部又責。若引異類五蘊置無明中此有何益。

雖于諸位至即如所說者。經部立理通釋結成已義。雖于諸十二位皆有五蘊。非即用彼五蘊為體。相由藉者方立為支。然隨此因有無彼果定有無者。可立此因法為彼果法支。如阿羅漢雖有五蘊而無有行。隨無福行．非福行．不動行。乃至或有五蘊而無愛等。故知非由五蘊力故立十二支。汝若言無學五蘊由無無明等故不立支者。是即正由無明等力立支。不由五蘊力立而是故緣起經義即如文所說。或如我所說。唯用無明等為體。

所說四句至所立三際者。經部破望滿四句。經說已生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：雖然色等的地界很強，然而彼經中以頭髮、毛髮等分別內地，果然沒有地界超出頭髮、毛髮等。所以《象跡經》（Hastipadopama Sutta，比喻佛法如大象腳印的經文）是具足的說法。此《緣起經》（Paticcasamuppada，關於緣起法的經文）說無明等，如《象跡經》成就具足的說法。所以除了所說的無明等之外，沒有其餘的法，顯示所引用的經文違背自己而順從他人。

難道地界到它的本體也有嗎？這是說一切有部（Sarvastivada，一個早期的佛教部派）的詰難。難道內地界超出頭髮、毛髮等，在鼻涕、眼淚等中，它的本體也有嗎？如果是這樣，那麼頭髮等所包含的地界就不完全，不是具足的說法，還是就殊勝之處而說。

鼻涕等都應該到現在還顯示嗎？這是經部（Sautrantika，一個佛教部派，重視經藏的權威）普遍的詰難。鼻涕、眼淚等都也說在那《象跡喻經》中，如說復有身中余物，余物就是鼻涕、眼淚等物。縱然允許破斥，假設如同彼經，離開頭髮、毛髮等，在鼻涕、眼淚等中，另外有地界，那麼離開無明支外，有其餘的無明，現在應該顯示。然而離開無明外，沒有別的無明。

如果引用異類，到這裡有什麼益處呢？這是經部又一次責難。如果引用異類的五蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）置於無明中，這有什麼益處？

雖然在各位都有五蘊，並非就用那些五蘊為體，互相由藉的才立為支。然而隨此因有或無，彼果必定有或無的，可以立此因法為彼果法的支。如阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）雖然有五蘊，而沒有行。隨著沒有福行、非福行、不動行。乃至或者有五蘊而沒有愛等。所以知道不是由五蘊的力量而立十二支。你如果說無學（Asaiksa，指已證得阿羅漢果位的人）的五蘊，由於沒有無明等，所以不立為支，這就是正由於無明等的力量而立支，不是由五蘊的力量而立。因此緣起經的意義就如文所說，或者如我所說，只用無明等為體。

所說的四句，到所立的三際，這是經部破斥望滿四句。經說已生

【English Translation】 English version: Although the earth element and other elements of the realm of form are strong, the sutra distinguishes the inner earth element by hair, body hair, etc., and indeed there is no earth element that exceeds hair, body hair, etc. Therefore, the Hastipadopama Sutta (the Elephant Footprint Sutta) is a complete explanation. This Paticcasamuppada (the teaching on Dependent Origination) speaks of ignorance, etc., just as the Hastipadopama Sutta achieves a complete explanation. Therefore, apart from the aforementioned ignorance, etc., there are no other dharmas, showing that the cited sutra contradicts itself and conforms to others.

Does the earth element also exist in its essence? This is a challenge from the Sarvastivada (a early Buddhist school). Doesn't the inner earth element exceed hair, body hair, etc., and also exist in its essence in snot, tears, etc.? If so, then the earth element contained in hair, etc., is not complete, and it is not a complete explanation, but rather speaks of the superior aspect.

Should snot, etc., all be shown even now? This is a general challenge from the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school that emphasizes the authority of the sutras). Snot, tears, etc., are also mentioned in that Elephant Footprint Sutta, as it says, 'There are also other things in the body.' These other things are snot, tears, etc. Even if we allow the refutation, suppose that, like that sutra, apart from hair, body hair, etc., there is another earth element in snot, tears, etc., then apart from the branch of ignorance, there is other ignorance that should be shown now. However, apart from ignorance, there is no other ignorance.

If you cite a different category, what benefit is there here? This is another criticism from the Sautrantika. If you cite the different category of the five Skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) and place them in ignorance, what benefit is there?

Although all five aggregates are present in all twelve links, they are not used as the essence. Only those that mutually depend on each other are established as branches. However, if the presence or absence of the cause determines the presence or absence of the effect, then this causal dharma can be established as a branch of that effect dharma. For example, an Arhat (a liberated being who has attained Nirvana) although having the five aggregates, does not have karma. Following the absence of meritorious karma, non-meritorious karma, and unmoving karma. And even there may be five aggregates without craving, etc. Therefore, it is known that the twelve links are not established by the power of the five aggregates. If you say that the five aggregates of a Asaiksa (one who has nothing more to learn, an Arhat) are not established as branches because of the absence of ignorance, etc., then it is precisely by the power of ignorance, etc., that the branches are established, and not by the power of the five aggregates. Therefore, the meaning of the Dependent Origination Sutra is as the text says, or as I say, using only ignorance, etc., as the essence.

The four statements that are spoken of, up to the three times that are established, this is the Sautrantika refuting the four complete statements. The sutra says that what has already arisen

皆通十二支。唯言過．現豈不相違。或生老非在未來。汝說已生唯過．現故。若二非未來便壞前三際。

有說緣起至法性常住者。準宗輪論。是大眾部等計。又婆沙二十三呼為分別論者。此即敘計。經中既說如是緣起法性常住。故知緣起體是無為。

由如是意至理即不然者。論主總破。

云何如是意至及不可然者。大眾部徴問。

謂若意說至無相應理者。論主答。謂若如我意說佛出。不出。行等果法常緣無明等因起。非緣余法起。若無明斷行即無緣故言常住。經言法性常住者。顯因果決定義。如是意說理則可然。若謂如汝意說有別真實法體名為緣起湛然常住。此別意說理則不然。彼部非理。所以者何。正出過言。生之與起眼目異名。俱有為相。非別無為常住法。為無常相可應正理。彼說無為是緣起故。又起果用必應依彼起因者立。此無為常住法。彼無明等無常法。一常。一無常。何相關預。而說此常住法依彼無明等而立。為彼無明等緣起。又無明等名為緣起。汝謂目常。如是緣起句義與常無相違理。

此中緣起是何句義者。大眾部問。

缽剌底至是緣起義者。經部答。或說一切有部答。依聲明論有字緣．字界。其字界。若有字緣來助。即有種種義起缽剌底是至義是字緣。醫底界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本皆通十二支（十二因緣）。唯獨說過去和現在，難道不是互相矛盾嗎？或者說生和老不在未來。你說已生的只是過去和現在。如果過去和現在不是未來，那就破壞了前三際（過去、現在、未來）。

有人說緣起（pratītyasamutpāda）乃至法性（dharmatā）是常住的。根據《宗輪論》，這是大眾部（Mahāsaṃghika）等的主張。另外，《婆沙論》第二十三卷稱他們為分別論者。這只是敘述他們的觀點。既然經中說如是緣起法性常住，所以可知緣起的本體是無為（asaṃskṛta）。

由於這樣的意思乃至道理是不對的。論主總的破斥。

為什麼這樣的意思乃至及不可然呢？大眾部提出疑問。

如果說我的意思是乃至沒有相應道理。論主回答。如果如我的意思說，佛出世、不出世、行等等果法，常緣于無明（avidyā）等因生起，不是緣于其他法生起。如果無明斷了，行就沒有所緣，所以說是常住。經上說『法性常住』，是顯示因果的決定性。像這樣的意思說，道理是可行的。如果說如你的意思說，有另外真實的法體名為緣起，湛然常住，這種另外的意思說，道理就不對了。那個部派的說法沒有道理。為什麼呢？正出過失。生和起，眼和目，是不同的名稱，都是有為（saṃskṛta）的相狀，不是另外的無為常住法。作為無常的相狀，應該是正當的道理。他們說無為是緣起，又，生起果的作用，必定應該依靠生起果的因才能成立。這個無為常住法，和那個無明等無常法，一個是常，一個是無常，有什麼相關聯的？而說這個常住法依靠那個無明等而成立，作為那個無明等的緣起。又，無明等名為緣起，你說它是常。像這樣，緣起的句義和常沒有相違背的道理。

這裡面緣起是什麼句義呢？大眾部問。

缽剌底（prati）是至的意思，是緣起義。經部（Sautrāntika）回答。或者說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）回答。依據聲明論，有字緣和字界。那個字界，如果有字緣來幫助，就有種種意義生起。缽剌底是至義，是字緣。醫底（itya）是界。

【English Translation】 English version All are connected to the twelve nidānas (twelve links of dependent origination). But speaking only of the past and present, isn't that contradictory? Or are birth and old age not in the future? You say that what is already born is only past and present. If the past and present are not the future, then the three times (past, present, future) are destroyed.

Some say that dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and even the nature of reality (dharmatā) are permanent. According to the Śāstra on the Schools (Saṃvaranirdeśa), this is the view of the Mahāsaṃghika school, among others. Furthermore, the twenty-third fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā calls them the 'Distinctionists'. This is merely a narration of their view. Since the sūtras say that such dependent origination and the nature of reality are permanent, it can be known that the essence of dependent origination is unconditioned (asaṃskṛta).

Because of such an idea, the principle is not correct. The author of the treatise refutes it in general.

Why is such an idea unacceptable? The Mahāsaṃghika school raises a question.

If my idea is that there is no corresponding principle... The author of the treatise answers. If, as I mean, the fruition of the Buddha's appearance, non-appearance, actions, etc., always arises from causes such as ignorance (avidyā), and does not arise from other dharmas. If ignorance is cut off, then action has nothing to depend on, so it is said to be permanent. The sūtra says 'the nature of reality is permanent' to show the certainty of cause and effect. Saying it in this way, the principle is acceptable. If, as you mean, there is another real dharma called dependent origination, which is serenely permanent, then this other way of saying it is not correct. That school's statement is unreasonable. Why? It directly reveals a fault. 'Birth' and 'arising', 'eye' and 'sight', are different names, but both are conditioned (saṃskṛta) characteristics, not another unconditioned permanent dharma. As an impermanent characteristic, it should be a proper principle. They say that the unconditioned is dependent origination. Furthermore, the function of arising as a result must rely on the cause that gives rise to the result to be established. This unconditioned permanent dharma and that impermanent dharma of ignorance, one is permanent and one is impermanent, what connection do they have? And to say that this permanent dharma relies on that ignorance to be established, as the dependent origination of that ignorance. Furthermore, ignorance is called dependent origination, and you say it is permanent. In this way, there is no contradiction between the meaning of the phrase 'dependent origination' and 'permanent'.

What is the meaning of 'dependent origination' here? The Mahāsaṃghika school asks.

Prati means 'towards', which is the meaning of dependent origination. The Sautrāntika school answers. Or the Sarvāstivāda school answers. According to the science of language, there is the 'word-cause' and the 'word-boundary'. That word-boundary, if the word-cause comes to help, then various meanings arise. Prati means 'towards', which is the word-cause. Itya is the boundary.

是行義是字界。界是體義。此醫底界由先缽剌底助力。醫底界義轉變成緣。若助訖成緣應言缽剌底(丁履反)帝夜(叐何反)此翻名緣。所以然者。諸緣勢力起果名行。未至之時未成緣義。若緣力至果。或諸緣相至。方得名緣。故造字家於行界上加至助緣行成緣義。參是和合義。嗢是上升義。此二是字緣。缽地界是有義是字界。缽地有界藉前參唱合升字緣助力轉變成起。若助訖成起。應言參牟播陀。此翻名起。所以然者。明諸有法要與緣合便得上升。故名為起。故造字家于有界上加合升緣。有成起義。故總結言由此有行法至於四緣。已和合升起是緣起義。

如是句義至彼應先說故者。聲論師難至緣已起。故言如是句義理不應然。此即總非。所以者何。依一作者實體有二作用前後別起。可得說言於前作用應有已言。彼聲論計諸法有體有用。體即逕留多位名為作者。用即隨位不同名為作用。一切作用必依作者。彼計作用。同勝論師業句義離體別有指事。別顯如有一人名為作者。起二作用。先澡浴已后時方食。於前作用可說已言。若有少行法有在起前。可得說言先至於緣后時方起。既無行法有在起前　先至緣已后時方起。如何得說至緣已起　言起前者。現在名起。前謂未來。依法行世未來名前　或起前者。在起前故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『行』的意義是『字界』。『界』的意義是『體義』。這個『醫底界』（iddhi-界，神通之界）由先前的『缽剌底』（prati，助）助力。『醫底界』的意義轉變成『緣』（hetu，因緣）。如果助力完成成為『緣』，應該說『缽剌底帝夜』（pratītya，緣于），此翻譯名為『緣』。之所以這樣說，是因為諸緣的勢力生起結果名為『行』。在未到達之時，未成就『緣』的意義。如果『緣』的力量到達結果，或者諸『緣』相互到達，才能稱為『緣』。所以造字的人在『行界』上加上『至助緣』，『行』成就『緣』的意義。『參』（sam，和）是和合的意義。『嗢』（ud，向上）是上升的意義。這兩個是『字緣』。『缽地界』（padārtha-界，事物之界）是『有義』是『字界』。『缽地有界』憑藉先前的『參』唱和『合升字緣』的助力，轉變成『起』。如果助力完成成為『起』，應該說『參牟播陀』（samutpāda，生起），此翻譯名為『起』。之所以這樣說，是因為說明諸有法要與『緣』和合便能上升，所以名為『起』。所以造字的人在『有界』上加上『合升緣』，『有』成就『起』的意義。所以總結說，由此有『行法』至於四『緣』，已經和合上升，這就是『緣起』的意義。

像這樣句子的意義，到達彼處應該先說，是因為聲論師（Shabda-vadin，研究語言的學者）質疑到達『緣』已經生起，所以說像這樣句子的意義道理不應該是這樣。這即是總體的否定。為什麼這樣說呢？依據一個作者實體，有兩種作用前後分別生起，可以說在前一個作用應該有『已』這個說法。那個聲論師認為諸法有體有用。『體』就是經過停留多個位置，名為作者。『用』就是隨著位置不同而不同，名為作用。一切作用必定依靠作者。他們認為作用，如同勝論師（Vaisheshika，古印度哲學流派）的『業』，句子的意義離開『體』而另外有所指。另外顯示如有一個人名為作者，生起兩種作用。先洗澡，之後才吃飯。在前一個作用可以說『已』這個說法。如果有少許『行法』在『起』之前，可以說先至於『緣』，之後才生起。既然沒有『行法』在『起』之前，先至於『緣』之後才生起，怎麼能說至於『緣』已經生起呢？說『起』之前，現在名為『起』，『前』是指未來。依法行世，未來名為『前』。或者『起』之前，因為在『起』之前。

【English Translation】 English version The meaning of 『行』 (xing, action) is 『字界』 (zi-jie, word-realm). The meaning of 『界』 (jie, realm) is 『體義』 (ti-yi, essence-meaning). This 『醫底界』 (iddhi-jie, realm of supernatural power) is aided by the previous 『缽剌底』 (prati, aid). The meaning of 『醫底界』 transforms into 『緣』 (hetu, cause). If the aid is completed and becomes 『緣』, it should be said 『缽剌底帝夜』 (pratītya, conditioned by), which is translated as 『緣』. The reason for this is that the power of all causes arising results is called 『行』. When it has not arrived, it has not achieved the meaning of 『緣』. If the power of 『緣』 reaches the result, or the various 『緣』 reach each other, then it can be called 『緣』. Therefore, the creator of words adds 『至助緣』 (zhi-zhu-yuan, reaching-aiding-cause) to 『行界』 (xing-jie, action-realm), 『行』 (action) achieves the meaning of 『緣』 (cause). 『參』 (sam, together) means union. 『嗢』 (ud, upward) means rising. These two are 『字緣』 (zi-yuan, word-causes). 『缽地界』 (padārtha-jie, realm of things) is 『有義』 (you-yi, existence-meaning), which is 『字界』 (zi-jie, word-realm). 『缽地有界』 (padārtha-you-jie, realm of existing things) relies on the previous 『參』 (sam) chanting and the aid of 『合升字緣』 (he-sheng-zi-yuan, uniting-rising-word-causes) to transform into 『起』 (qi, arising). If the aid is completed and becomes 『起』, it should be said 『參牟播陀』 (samutpāda, arising), which is translated as 『起』. The reason for this is that it explains that all existing dharmas must unite with 『緣』 (cause) to rise, so it is called 『起』 (arising). Therefore, the creator of words adds 『合升緣』 (he-sheng-yuan, uniting-rising-cause) to 『有界』 (you-jie, existence-realm), 『有』 (existence) achieves the meaning of 『起』 (arising). Therefore, it is concluded that from this, the 『行法』 (xing-fa, action-dharma) reaches the four 『緣』 (causes), and has already united and risen, which is the meaning of 『緣起』 (pratītyasamutpāda, dependent origination).

The meaning of such sentences, reaching that point, should be said first, because the 聲論師 (Shabda-vadin, grammarians) question that reaching the 『緣』 (cause) has already arisen, so it is said that the meaning of such sentences should not be like this. This is a total negation. Why is this so? According to one author entity, there are two functions arising separately before and after, it can be said that in the previous function there should be the statement 『已』 (yi, already). That 聲論師 (Shabda-vadin) believes that all dharmas have essence and function. 『體』 (ti, essence) is what passes through and stays in multiple positions, called the author. 『用』 (yong, function) is what differs with different positions, called function. All functions must rely on the author. They believe that function, like the 『業』 (karma) of the 勝論師 (Vaisheshika, an ancient Indian philosophical school), the meaning of the sentence is separate from the 『體』 (essence) and has a separate reference. It is further shown that if there is a person called the author, two functions arise. First, take a bath, and then eat later. In the previous function, it can be said that there is the statement 『已』 (already). If there is a little 『行法』 (xing-fa, action-dharma) before 『起』 (arising), it can be said that it first reaches the 『緣』 (cause), and then arises later. Since there is no 『行法』 (xing-fa, action-dharma) before 『起』 (arising), first reaching the 『緣』 (cause) and then arising later, how can it be said that reaching the 『緣』 (cause) has already arisen? Saying 『起』 (arising) before, the present is called 『起』 (arising), 『前』 (qian, before) refers to the future. According to the way of the world, the future is called 『前』 (before). Or 『起』 (arising) before, because it is before 『起』 (arising).

即先已至於緣名為起前。皆表未來。非無作者法體可有作用。以彼作用必依體故。故說頌破言。至緣之行。若在起先。未來法體而非有故。不應道理。若行至緣與起俱時。便壞己于彼應先說至緣後方說起不應說俱。聲論．經部。俱說過．未無體故。以非有故破彼經部。若以此頌破說一切有部。聲論即以己宗義破。

無如是過至為在未來者。經部師釋難。或說一切有部釋難。此且反詰二門徴定。

設爾何失者。聲論師答。

起若現在至即亦至緣者。經部破。或說一切有部破　言經部破者。夫起是未滿足。用在於未來。現在是已生之名而非是起。若已生復起便致無窮。由是故知起非現在。起若未來。依汝所宗。未來無體何成作者。作者尚無何有起用。故不可說起在未來。

破訖述正義云故於起位即亦至緣。此顯起與至緣同時　言說一切有部破者。起若現在起非已生。以起在未來非現在如何成現。余破．及與述正義。並如前說。

起位者何者。聲論問。

謂未來世至亦說至緣者。經部答。或說一切有部答　言經部答者。于未來世法正起位未名為有。無間必有可說為起。即于起位名至緣時。故於爾時無別作者　問曏者難他未來無體而無有起。經部未來亦無有體。如何自說未來有起　解云

以聲論執定有作者方有作用。先至於緣後方正起。如是二用必有所依故。彼未來無容起義。經部意說。本無作者假說作用。故未來位說起至緣。于將有位假建立故　言說一切有部答。釋文可知。無勞異解。

又聲論師至釋緣起義者。經部師破。或說一切有部破。又聲論師妄所安立。真實作者真實作用。各體不同理實不成。汝計有體實法即是作者。離體之起即是作用。作者．作用真實可得。我今觀察。非於此中見有真實作者異起作用。各體不同真實可得。若依佛法。離體之外無別實用。即于體上說有作用。於此諸法義言此是作者。此是作用。於世俗理亦無有謬。此至．緣．起義即是經中所說。依此無明等有。彼行等有。此無明等生故。彼行等生。故應引彼經釋緣起義。破訖正釋　又解此緣起義即是經中所說。依此無明等有彼行等有。此無明等生故彼行等生。故應引彼釋緣起義無別作者。若於相續前因後果。假說作者。假說作用。亦無有妨。故前文云法假謂何。依此有彼有。此生故彼生。廣說緣起。此即舉說同經引經證假。

故說頌言至若后眠應閉者。經部說二頌。或說一切有部說二頌　言經部說二頌者。論主為經部師說二頌言重攝前義。初兩句述經部宗。頌前故於起位亦即至緣等。次兩句結破聲論。后頌引

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以聲論者的觀點，認為確定有作者才能有作用。先有『至』和『緣』，然後才能真正產生『起』。像這樣，兩種作用必定有所依據。因此，他們認為未來沒有產生作用的可能性。經部的意思是說，本來沒有作者，只是假說有作用。所以在未來的狀態，說『起』需要『至』和『緣』，是因為在將要產生的狀態下，假立這些概念。

言說一切有部的回答，解釋的文字已經很清楚，不需要另外的解釋。

另外，聲論師解釋緣起意義時，經部師破斥說，或者說一切有部破斥說，聲論師所妄自安立的，真實的作者和真實的作用，各自本體不同，在道理上實際上是不能成立的。你們認為有本體的實法就是作者，離開本體的『起』就是作用，作者和作用是真實可以得到的。我現在觀察，沒有在此中看到真實的作者和不同的『起』的作用，各自本體不同，真實可以得到。如果依照佛法，離開本體之外沒有別的實用，就在本體上說有作用。對於這些法的意義，說這是作者，這是作用，在世俗的道理上也沒有錯誤。這個『至』、『緣』、『起』的意義就是經中所說的，依靠這個無明（avidyā）等有，才有那個行（saṃskāra）等有。這個無明等生，所以那個行等生。所以應該引用那部經來解釋緣起意義。破斥完畢后，正確地解釋說，又解釋這個緣起意義就是經中所說的，依靠這個無明等有，才有那個行等有。這個無明等生，所以那個行等生。所以應該引用那部經來解釋緣起意義，沒有別的作者。如果在相續的前因後果中，假說作者，假說作用，也沒有妨礙。所以前面的文字說，法假說的是什麼？依靠這個有，那個有；這個生，那個生。廣泛地說緣起。這就是舉出經文，引用經文來證明是假立的。

所以說頌言，如果後來睡著應該關閉等等。經部說了兩個頌，或者說一切有部說了兩個頌。說經部說了兩個頌，論主為經部師說了兩個頌，用頌來重新概括前面的意義。最初兩句陳述經部的宗旨，因為頌在前面，所以在『起』的狀態也即是『至』和『緣』等等。後面兩句總結破斥聲論。後面的頌引用了經文。

【English Translation】 English version: According to the Śabdikas (sound theorists), there must be an agent for there to be an action. 'To' (ati) and 'condition' (pratyaya) must precede before 'arising' (utpāda) can truly occur. As such, these two actions must have a basis. Therefore, they believe that there is no possibility of action arising in the future. The Sautrāntikas (those who uphold the sūtras) mean that there is originally no agent, and action is only nominally spoken of. Therefore, in the future state, it is said that 'arising' requires 'to' and 'condition' because these concepts are nominally established in the state of becoming.

The Sarvāstivādins (those who assert all exists) answer that the explanation is already clear in the text and does not require further interpretation.

Furthermore, when the Śabdikas explain the meaning of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), the Sautrāntikas refute, or the Sarvāstivādins refute, saying that what the Śabdikas arbitrarily establish—a real agent and a real action, each with a different entity—is not logically tenable. You believe that the real dharma (reality) with an entity is the agent, and the 'arising' separate from the entity is the action, and that the agent and action can be truly obtained. I now observe that I do not see a real agent and the action of different 'arising' in this, each with a different entity, that can be truly obtained. According to the Buddha's teachings, there is no other practical use outside of the entity; action is spoken of on the entity itself. Regarding the meaning of these dharmas, it is said that this is the agent, and this is the action, and there is no error in worldly reasoning. The meaning of 'to', 'condition', and 'arising' is what is said in the sūtras: depending on this ignorance (avidyā), there is that action (saṃskāra), etc. Because this ignorance, etc., arises, that action, etc., arises. Therefore, that sūtra should be cited to explain the meaning of dependent origination. After the refutation is complete, the correct explanation is given: again, explaining that the meaning of dependent origination is what is said in the sūtras: depending on this ignorance, etc., there is that action, etc. Because this ignorance, etc., arises, that action, etc., arises. Therefore, that sūtra should be cited to explain the meaning of dependent origination, that there is no other agent. If, in the continuous sequence of cause and effect, an agent and action are nominally spoken of, there is no obstacle. Therefore, the previous text says, what is the nominal dharma? Depending on this, there is that; this arising, that arising. Broadly speaking of dependent origination. This is citing the sūtra to prove that it is nominally established.

Therefore, it is said in the verse, 'If one should close [the eyes] when falling asleep later,' etc. The Sautrāntikas spoke two verses, or the Sarvāstivādins spoke two verses. Saying that the Sautrāntikas spoke two verses, the master of the treatise spoke two verses for the Sautrāntikas, using the verses to re-summarize the previous meaning. The first two lines state the tenets of the Sautrāntikas; because the verse is in front, the state of 'arising' is also 'to' and 'condition', etc. The last two lines summarize the refutation of the Śabdikas. The following verse cites the sūtra.

事證俱言己。或答前難若俱便壞己。如未來法體雖非有無間必有。向現在故而假名起。至緣應亦然例同於起故言亦然。如未來法體雖非有。無間必有。向現在故假名至緣。若言非有不得至緣。亦應非有不得正起。以起必非已生位故非有尚得名起。亦應得說至緣。故雖無體假說無過失　生已起無窮者。頌前起在現在失。已生復起便致無窮　或先有非有者。頌前起在未來失。若言起在未來有二過失。一謂未來體應先有。以未來有起故。二謂起用體應非有。以未來無體故　又解未來先有起用非有作者違自宗過。以彼作用必依作者。由此道理起非已生故不在現未來無體故不在未來。故於將有假說起言假說至緣。假故無過。與聲論師作不定過。俱時之法亦有言己。如至闇現在燈滅落謝。此即別世同時名俱。雖復俱時而得說言闇至已燈滅　又解以闇至與燈滅俱時。而言闇至已燈滅。此言滅者是滅無也。故說與闇俱時。又如開口與眠雖復同時。而言開口已眠。故至緣與起雖復同時說己無過。聲論不救闇至已燈滅。即難開口已眠雲。如有一人先開口已然後方眠。是即先後不俱時也。為通伏難。故言若后眠時此口應閉而不俱時。若謂眠時口亦有閉。雖亦有人眠時閉口。今據眠時開口者說　言說一切有部說二頌者。論主為說一切有部說二頌

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『事證俱言己』。或者回答前面的詰難，如果都這樣說就壞了自己（的觀點）。例如未來的法體雖然並非實有，但無間斷地必定會有，因為它趨向現在，所以假借名義而生起。至於『至緣』也同樣，和『起』的例子相同，所以說『亦然』。例如未來的法體雖然並非實有，但無間斷地必定會有，因為它趨向現在，所以假借名義而『至緣』。如果說它並非實有，就不能『至緣』，也應該說它並非實有，就不能真正生起。因為生起必定不是已生的狀態，所以即使並非實有，尚且可以稱為『起』，也應該可以說『至緣』。因此，即使沒有實體，假借說法也沒有過失。『生已起無窮者』。反駁前面所說的『起』在現在時會產生的過失，即已生的事物再次生起，就會導致無窮。『或先有非有者』。反駁前面所說的『起』在未來時會產生的過失。如果說『起』在未來，會有兩個過失：一是說未來的體應該先存在，因為未來有『起』的緣故；二是說『起』的作用體應該並非實有，因為未來沒有實體的緣故。又一種解釋是，未來先有，『起』的作用並非實有，這是作者違背自己宗派的過失。因為這種作用必定依賴於作者。由此道理，『起』不是已生的，所以不在現在；未來沒有實體，所以不在未來。因此，對於將要有的事物，假借說『起』，假借說『至緣』，因為是假借的，所以沒有過失。這和與聲明論師爭論時出現的不確定性過失相似。同時存在的事物也有這樣說的，例如黑暗到來時，現在的燈熄滅墜落。這就是不同世界的同一時間，稱為『俱』。即使是同時，也可以說『黑暗至已燈滅』。又一種解釋是，因為黑暗的到來和燈的熄滅是同時發生的，所以說『黑暗至已燈滅』。這裡說的『滅』是指滅無。所以說是和黑暗同時發生。又如張口和睡眠雖然是同時發生的，但也可以說『張口已眠』。所以『至緣』和『起』雖然是同時發生的，說『己』也沒有過失。聲明論師無法解決『黑暗至已燈滅』的問題，即反駁『張口已眠』。例如有一個人先張口，然後才睡覺，這就是先後不同時。爲了消除這種反駁，所以說如果後來睡覺時，這個口應該閉上，而不是同時的。如果說睡覺時口也有閉上的情況，雖然也有人睡覺時閉口，但現在是根據睡覺時張口的人來說的。『言說一切有部說二頌者』。論主是爲了說明一切有部說了兩個偈頌。

【English Translation】 English version 『The facts all speak of 『already』.』 Or, to answer the previous difficulty, if everything is said in this way, it ruins one's own (view). For example, although the future dharma-body (future dharma-dhatu) is not truly existent, it will inevitably exist without interruption, because it is directed towards the present, so it arises by means of a borrowed name. As for 『reaching the condition』 (至緣), it is the same; it is the same as the example of 『arising』 (起), so it is said 『also thus』 (亦然). For example, although the future dharma-body is not truly existent, it will inevitably exist without interruption, because it is directed towards the present, so it 『reaches the condition』 (至緣) by means of a borrowed name. If it is said that it is not truly existent, then it cannot 『reach the condition』 (至緣); it should also be said that it is not truly existent, then it cannot truly arise (起). Because arising (起) is certainly not the state of being already born, so even if it is not truly existent, it can still be called 『arising』 (起), and it should also be possible to say 『reaching the condition』 (至緣). Therefore, even if there is no substance, there is no fault in speaking figuratively. 『Having already arisen, arising is endless.』 This refutes the fault mentioned earlier that 『arising』 (起) in the present would lead to endlessness, that is, if something already born arises again, it would lead to infinity. 『Or, existing before, non-existent.』 This refutes the fault mentioned earlier that 『arising』 (起) in the future would lead to. If it is said that 『arising』 (起) is in the future, there would be two faults: one is that the future entity should exist beforehand, because there is 『arising』 (起) in the future; the second is that the functional entity of 『arising』 (起) should be non-existent, because there is no entity in the future. Another explanation is that the future exists first, and the function of 『arising』 (起) is not truly existent, which is a fault of the author violating his own school. Because this function must rely on the author. For this reason, 『arising』 (起) is not already born, so it is not in the present; the future has no entity, so it is not in the future. Therefore, for things that are about to exist, we figuratively say 『arising』 (起), figuratively say 『reaching the condition』 (至緣), because it is figurative, there is no fault. This is similar to the uncertain fault that arises when arguing with the sound theorists. Things that exist simultaneously are also spoken of in this way, for example, when darkness arrives, the present lamp goes out and falls. This is the same time in different worlds, called 『simultaneous』 (俱). Even if it is simultaneous, it can be said 『darkness has arrived, the lamp has gone out』. Another explanation is that because the arrival of darkness and the extinguishing of the lamp occur simultaneously, it is said 『darkness has arrived, the lamp has gone out』. The 『extinguishing』 (滅) mentioned here refers to extinction. So it is said to occur simultaneously with darkness. Also, although opening the mouth and sleeping occur simultaneously, it can be said 『the mouth has opened, then one sleeps』. Therefore, although 『reaching the condition』 (至緣) and 『arising』 (起) occur simultaneously, there is no fault in saying 『already』 (己). The sound theorists cannot solve the problem of 『darkness has arrived, the lamp has gone out』, which is to refute 『the mouth has opened, then one sleeps』. For example, if a person opens his mouth first and then falls asleep, this is not simultaneous. In order to eliminate this refutation, it is said that if one falls asleep later, the mouth should be closed, not simultaneous. If it is said that the mouth is also closed when sleeping, although some people close their mouths when sleeping, we are now speaking of those who open their mouths when sleeping. 『The statement that the Sarvastivadins (一切有部) recited two verses.』 The author is explaining that the Sarvastivadins (一切有部) recited two verses.

言重攝前義。初兩句述說一切有部宗。頌前故於起位即亦至緣等。如未來非有真實作者而得名起。未來雖無真實作者亦名至緣。例同於起故言亦然　釋后六句隨其所應準前可知。

有執更以至是緣起義者。此是經部中上坐解。字界．字緣各含多義。故通異釋。上坐為順己宗。復為一釋通聲論難。謂缽剌底取種種義。醫底界取不住義。言不住者意顯前念法諸為緣。法已從落謝故名不住。此不住法若但一一不能為緣。一無用故。會有眾多方有勢用。故造字者于不住界加種種助。以種種為先不住成緣義。參取聚集義。嗢同前取上升義。缽地界取行義。行即有為遷流義也。行法上升得名為起。故於行界助以上升。然其一一無上升理故言聚集。顯多共生。此文應言。由參嗢為先行變成起。但言嗢者略不言參。字緣之中且舉一助亦無有妨。此顯不住種種含已。能令行法聚集升起是緣起義。此中意者。不住為緣顯是前念。要由種種顯一無能。已結緣成屬前非后。顯非一法先至後生由此已祛聲論所難　又解說一切有部異師釋聲論難　又解上坐釋大眾部難　又解說一切有部異師釋大眾部難。若據此論破即是說一切有部。若據正理不救即是經部。雖有四解前二解為勝。

如是所釋至聚集豈成者。論主破。如是所釋於此十二緣起

【現代漢語翻譯】言重攝前義。初兩句是述說一切有部宗的觀點。因為偈頌在前，所以在『起位』（Utpada-sthāna，生起之位）中，『亦』（api，也）可以通達『緣』（pratyaya，因緣）等含義。例如，未來之法並非有真實的作者，但可以被稱作『起』（utpāda，生起）。未來之法雖然沒有真實的作者，也可以被稱作『至緣』（paticca-samuppāda，緣起）。因為與『起』相似，所以說『亦然』。解釋後面的六句，可以根據它們各自的情況，參照前面的解釋來理解。有人執著認為『至』（paticca，緣于）是緣起的含義。這是經部（Sautrāntika）中上座（長老）的解釋。『字界』（pada-dhātu，詞根）和『字緣』（pada-pratyaya，詞綴）各自包含多種含義，所以可以有不同的解釋。上座爲了順應自己的宗派，又爲了用一種解釋來應對聲明論（Śabda-śāstra）的詰難，認為『缽剌底』（prati，朝向）取種種含義，『醫底界』（itya-dhātu，如此-詞根）取不住的含義。說『不住』，意思是顯示前念之法作為因緣。法已經衰落謝去，所以叫做『不住』。這種不住之法如果只是單獨一個，就不能作為因緣，因為一個沒有作用。必須有眾多聚集在一起，才會有作用。所以造字者在『不住界』（asthita-dhātu，不住-詞根）上加上種種輔助，以『種種』為先，『不住』成為因緣的含義。『參』（sam，共同）取聚集的含義，『嗢』（ud，向上）同前，取上升的含義，『缽地界』（pad-dhātu，行走-詞根）取行走的含義。行走就是有為法的遷流變化。行走之法上升，就叫做『起』。所以在行走之界上輔助以上升。然而它們每一個都沒有上升的道理，所以說是聚集，顯示眾多共同生起。這段文字應該說，由於『參嗢』（samud，共同向上）為先行，變成了『起』。但只說『嗢』，是省略了『參』。在字緣之中，即使只舉出一個輔助，也沒有妨礙。這顯示『不住』包含種種，能夠使行走之法聚集升起，這就是緣起的含義。這裡的意思是，『不住』作為因緣，顯示是前念。必須由種種來顯示一個沒有能力。已經結成因緣，屬於前念而非后念。顯示不是一個法先到，然後才生起，由此已經消除了聲明論的詰難。又解釋說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的異師解釋聲明論的詰難。又解釋上座解釋大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）的詰難。又解釋說一切有部的異師解釋大眾部的詰難。如果根據此論來破斥，那就是在說一切有部。如果根據正理，就無法挽救，那就是經部。雖然有四種解釋，但前兩種解釋更為優勝。『如是所釋』（如是所解釋的）到『聚集豈成』（聚集怎麼能成立）？論主破斥。如是所解釋的，對於這十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，十二支緣起）...

【English Translation】 The words emphasize and encompass the previous meaning. The first two sentences describe the Sarvāstivāda (the doctrine of 'all exists') school. Because the verse is prior, in the 'Utpada-sthāna' (place of arising), 'api' (also) can extend to meanings such as 'pratyaya' (condition). For example, future dharmas do not have a real author but can be called 'utpāda' (arising). Although future dharmas have no real author, they can also be called 'paticca-samuppāda' (dependent origination). Because it is similar to 'utpāda', it is said 'api eva' (also thus). To explain the latter six sentences, one can understand them according to their respective situations, referring to the previous explanations. Some hold that 'paticca' (because of) is the meaning of dependent origination. This is the explanation of the Sthavira (elder) in the Sautrāntika (those who rely on the sutras) school. 'Pada-dhātu' (root of a word) and 'pada-pratyaya' (suffix of a word) each contain multiple meanings, so there can be different interpretations. The Sthavira, in order to comply with his own school and to use one explanation to respond to the challenges of Śabda-śāstra (grammar), believes that 'prati' (towards) takes various meanings, and 'itya-dhātu' (thus-root) takes the meaning of non-abiding. Saying 'non-abiding' means showing that the previous thought-moment is the condition. The dharma has already declined and faded away, so it is called 'non-abiding'. If this non-abiding dharma is only a single one, it cannot be a condition, because one is useless. There must be many gathered together to have power. Therefore, the word-maker adds various auxiliaries to the 'asthita-dhātu' (non-abiding-root), with 'various' first, and 'non-abiding' becomes the meaning of condition. 'Sam' (together) takes the meaning of gathering, 'ud' (upwards) is the same as before, taking the meaning of rising, 'pad-dhātu' (walking-root) takes the meaning of walking. Walking is the changing and flowing of conditioned dharmas. The dharma of walking rising is called 'utpāda' (arising). Therefore, the rising is assisted on the walking-root. However, each of them has no reason to rise, so it is said to be gathering, showing many arising together. This passage should say that because 'samud' (together upwards) is the predecessor, it becomes 'utpāda' (arising). But only saying 'ud' is omitting 'sam'. In the word-condition, even if only one auxiliary is cited, there is no hindrance. This shows that 'non-abiding' contains various, and can make the dharma of walking gather and rise, which is the meaning of dependent origination. The meaning here is that 'non-abiding' as a condition shows that it is the previous thought-moment. It must be shown by various that one is incapable. Having formed a condition, it belongs to the previous thought and not the later thought. It shows that it is not one dharma that arrives first and then arises, thereby eliminating the challenges of Śabda-śāstra. It also explains that the heretics of the Sarvāstivāda explain the challenges of Śabda-śāstra. It also explains that the Sthavira explains the challenges of the Mahāsāṃghika. It also explains that the heretics of the Sarvāstivāda explain the challenges of the Mahāsāṃghika. If according to this treatise to refute, then it is speaking of the Sarvāstivāda. If according to right reason, it cannot be saved, then it is the Sautrāntika. Although there are four explanations, the first two explanations are more superior. 'As it is explained' to 'how can gathering be established'? The author refutes. As it is explained, regarding these twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda)...

可然。以無明等各有五蘊眾多法故。眼．色各為緣起于眼識。等眼．色各為一緣。此中種種聚集豈成　又解眼．色別成緣。即非種種和合。眼識一體復非聚集。

何故世尊至此生故彼生者。此下釋經二句問。何故世尊說前文中二句差別　又解何故世尊于契經中說前二句。

為于緣起至可有諸行者。此下答。此是論主解所以先標。為於十二緣起知決定故。如余經論所說。依無明有諸行得有。是依此有彼有。複審定言。非離無明可有諸行。是此生故彼生。此中意說。生之與有名異義同。不可說言兩文有異。但應說言前文是正述。後文是審定。義別不同。

又為顯示至諸行方生者。準正理二十五。三際傳生．及親傳緣。是上坐弟子大德邏摩解。諸支傳生義準同三際。亦是邏摩解。第一解云又為顯示諸支傳生。謂依此無明支有。彼行支得有。由彼行支生故。余識支得生。即十二支展轉傳生。第二解三際傳生準此應釋。第三解又為顯示親．傳二緣。謂有無明若無間親生行。是依此有彼有。若有無明展轉力故諸行方生。非是親生。如起無明次起無記心及後起行。是此生故彼生。

有餘師釋至諸行得生者。經部異師尊者世曹。正理稱為上坐徒儻。謂非無因諸行可有。故說依此有彼有。此破無因外道　亦非由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果無明等各有五蘊等眾多法，那麼眼（cakṣus，視覺器官）和色（rūpa，可見物）各自作為緣而生起眼識（cakṣur-vijñāna，視覺意識）。如同眼和色各自只是一種緣。在這種種因素聚集的情況下，怎麼能形成眼識呢？或者可以這樣理解，眼和色各自獨立地成為緣，就不是種種因素的和合。眼識作為一個整體，也不是各種因素的聚集。

世尊為何說『此生故彼生』呢？這是解釋經文中的兩句話的提問。世尊為何要在前面的經文中說這兩句不同的內容呢？或者可以這樣理解，世尊為何要在契經（sūtra，佛經）中說前面這兩句話呢？

爲了對於緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，因緣生法）能夠確定地瞭解，才這樣說的。這是論主的解釋，所以先標明。爲了對於十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda，十二因緣）的認識更加確定。如同其他經論所說，依靠無明（avidyā，無知）而有諸行（saṃskāra，意志行為）產生，這是『依此有彼有』。進一步審定說，不是離開無明而能有諸行，這是『此生故彼生』。這裡的意思是說，『生』和『有』，雖然用詞不同，但意義相同。不能說這兩句話有差異，只能說前一句是正面陳述，后一句是審定，意義上有所區別。

又爲了顯示諸支（aṅga，構成要素）的相續產生。這符合《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）第二十五章的說法，即三際（過去、現在、未來）的傳遞產生以及親近的傳遞因緣。這是上座部（Sthavira nikāya）弟子大德邏摩（Loma）的解釋。諸支相續產生的意義與三際相同，也是邏摩的解釋。第一種解釋是，爲了顯示諸支的相續產生，即依靠無明支，才有行支產生；由於行支的產生，其餘的識支（vijñāna，意識）才能產生。這就是十二支輾轉相續產生。第二種解釋是，三際相續產生，應該按照這個來解釋。第三種解釋是，爲了顯示親近和傳遞兩種因緣。即如果有無明，如果無間親近地產生行，這就是『依此有彼有』。如果有了無明，通過輾轉的力量，諸行才產生，就不是親近產生，例如生起無明，接著生起無記心（avyākṛta-citta，非善非惡的心），然後才生起行，這就是『此生故彼生』。

有其他論師解釋說，經部（Sautrāntika）的異師尊者世曹（Vasubandhu），《正理經》稱他為上座徒儻，認為不是沒有原因諸行就能產生，所以說『依此有彼有』。這是爲了破斥無因的外道（tīrthika，佛教以外的宗教修行者）。也不是由於...

【English Translation】 English version: If ignorance (avidyā) and other factors each have numerous dharmas such as the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), then the eye (cakṣus) and form (rūpa) each serve as a condition for the arising of eye-consciousness (cakṣur-vijñāna). It's as if the eye and form are each a single condition. How can eye-consciousness be formed from such a gathering of various factors? Alternatively, one can understand that the eye and form each independently become a condition, which is not a combination of various factors. Eye-consciousness, as a whole, is also not an accumulation of various factors.

Why did the World-Honored One say 'This arising, that arises'? This is a question explaining the two sentences in the sutra. Why did the World-Honored One say these two different sentences in the preceding text? Or, one can understand it as: Why did the World-Honored One say these two sentences in the sutra (sūtra)?

It was said in order to have a definite understanding of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). This is the explanation of the treatise master, so it is stated first. It is to have a more definite understanding of the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda). As said in other sutras and treatises, based on ignorance (avidyā), volitional formations (saṃskāra) arise; this is 'This existing, that exists.' Further, it is definitively stated that volitional formations cannot exist apart from ignorance; this is 'This arising, that arises.' The meaning here is that 'arising' and 'existing' have different words but the same meaning. It cannot be said that there is a difference between the two sentences; it should only be said that the former sentence is a direct statement, and the latter sentence is a confirmation, with a difference in meaning.

Furthermore, it is to show the continuous arising of the limbs (aṅga). This aligns with the statement in Chapter 25 of the Nyāyasūtra, which is the transmission of the three times (past, present, future) and the close transmission of conditions. This is the explanation of the elder Loma, a disciple of the Sthavira nikāya. The meaning of the continuous arising of the limbs is the same as the three times, which is also Loma's explanation. The first explanation is that it is to show the continuous arising of the limbs, that is, based on the limb of ignorance, the limb of volitional formations arises; because of the arising of the limb of volitional formations, the remaining limb of consciousness (vijñāna) can arise. This is the continuous arising of the twelve limbs. The second explanation is that the continuous arising of the three times should be explained according to this. The third explanation is to show the two conditions of closeness and transmission. That is, if there is ignorance, if volitional formations arise closely without interruption, this is 'This existing, that exists.' If, with ignorance, volitional formations arise through the power of transmission, it is not a close arising, such as the arising of ignorance, followed by the arising of non-specified mind (avyākṛta-citta), and then the arising of volitional formations; this is 'This arising, that arises.'

Other teachers explain that Vasubandhu, a different teacher of the Sautrāntika school, whom the Nyāyasūtra calls an elder, believes that volitional formations cannot arise without a cause, so it is said 'This existing, that exists.' This is to refute the non-causal heretics (tīrthika). It is also not due to...

常數論自性．勝論我等無生因故。諸行得生。故說此生故彼生。此破常因外道。

若爾便成至純大苦蘊集者。論主破。顯彼經除執。后句能具破。前句應無用。此即破也。論主破訖顯經意言。然或有勝論執。有我為依行等得有。是依此有彼有。由無明等因分生故。行等得生。是此生故彼生。是故世尊為除彼執。決判行等果有。即由無明等生因。非由於我。若此因生故彼果生。即是依此因有彼果有非謂行等果有別依余我為因。此有．彼有等即是無明緣行等。無別有我生　純大苦蘊集如下文釋。

軌範諸師至皆應廣說者。是論主承習經部軌範諸師。故正理二十五云又經主述自軌範師　言不斷者。顯同一繫縛。謂依無明不斷諸行不斷。故言依此有彼有。即由無明生故諸行得生。故言此生故彼生。展轉廣說十二緣起。

有釋為顯至亦生者。上坐同學解　住。謂相續住。乃至因相續有。果相續亦有。故言依此有彼有。及即由因分生故諸果分亦生。故言此生故彼生。

此欲辨生至而後說生者。論主破。此說緣起意欲辨生。何緣說住。設許說住。四相次第應先說生後方說住。如何非次。

復有釋言至非謂無因者。經部中室利羅多解。此云執勝。正理呼為上坐　滅。謂滅無　余文可知。

經義若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：常數論（認為事物本質不變的理論）和勝論（一種古印度哲學流派）認為『我』是無生的原因，因此諸行（一切事物和現象）才能產生。所以佛經說『此生故彼生』，這是爲了破斥常因外道（認為存在永恒不變的造物主的教派）。

如果這樣，就會變成純粹的大苦蘊集。論主（指本論的作者）對此進行破斥，旨在闡明佛經的真正含義，即去除對『我』的執著。后一句『此生故彼生』能夠完全破斥這種觀點，因此前一句『我等無生因故』就顯得沒有必要了。這就是破斥的過程。論主破斥完畢后，進一步闡釋佛經的含義：或許有些勝論者認為，必須有『我』作為依靠，諸行才能存在，即『依此有彼有』。但實際上，諸行是由於無明等因緣和合而生起的，即『此生故彼生』。因此，世尊爲了去除這種執著，明確指出諸行的果報是由無明等生因造成的，而不是由於『我』。如果說『此因生故彼果生』，那就是說『依此因有彼果有』，而不是說諸行的果報需要依賴於另外的『我』作為原因。『此有彼有』等同於無明緣行等十二緣起，並沒有另外的『我』產生純粹的大苦蘊集，具體解釋如下文所述。

軌範諸師（指遵循某種規範的老師）的觀點，都應該廣泛宣說。論主是繼承了經部（佛教部派之一）軌範諸師的觀點。因此，《正理二十五》中說：『又經主陳述自己的軌範師』。『不斷』意味著同一系列的束縛，即依賴於無明，諸行就不會停止，因此說『依此有彼有』，即由於無明產生，諸行才能產生，因此說『此生故彼生』，從而詳細地闡述了十二緣起。

有一種解釋是爲了闡明相續的道理，上座部的同學這樣理解：『住』意味著相續不斷，乃至因相續存在，果相續也存在，因此說『依此有彼有』，以及由於因緣和合而生起，諸果報也隨之產生，因此說『此生故彼生』。

論主破斥這種觀點，認為這種說法想要辨別生起，為什麼要說住呢？即使允許說住，按照四相（生、住、異、滅）的次第，也應該先說生，后說住，為什麼順序顛倒了呢？

還有一種解釋，經部中的室利羅多這樣解釋，認為『滅』意味著滅無。正理稱之為上座部。其餘的文字可以理解。

佛經的含義如果...

【English Translation】 English version: The Samkhya (a dualistic school of Indian philosophy that posits two distinct realities: Purusha (consciousness or self) and Prakriti (matter or nature)) and Vaisheshika (one of the six classical schools of Hindu philosophy, known for its atomistic naturalism) schools argue that the 『Self』 is the uncaused cause of existence, and therefore actions (all phenomena and events) arise. Thus, the sutra says, 『This arising, that arises,』 which refutes the eternal cause of the heretics (those who believe in an eternal and unchanging creator).

If that were the case, it would result in a purely great accumulation of suffering. The author refutes this, aiming to clarify the true meaning of the sutra, which is to remove attachment to the 『Self』. The latter phrase, 『This arising, that arises,』 completely refutes this view, making the former phrase, 『The Self is the uncaused cause,』 unnecessary. This is the process of refutation. After refuting, the author further explains the meaning of the sutra: Perhaps some Vaisheshika followers believe that there must be a 『Self』 as a basis for actions to exist, that is, 『Because this exists, that exists.』 But in reality, actions arise from the combination of ignorance (Avidya) and other causes, that is, 『This arising, that arises.』 Therefore, the World-Honored One, in order to remove this attachment, clearly pointed out that the consequences of actions are caused by ignorance and other causes, not by the 『Self』. If it is said, 『Because this cause arises, that result arises,』 then it means 『Because this cause exists, that result exists,』 rather than saying that the consequences of actions need to rely on another 『Self』 as the cause. 『Because this exists, that exists』 is equivalent to the twelve links of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda), such as ignorance conditioning volitional actions, and there is no separate 『Self』 that produces a purely great accumulation of suffering, as explained in detail below.

The views of the Acharyas (teachers who follow a certain tradition) should be widely proclaimed. The author inherits the views of the Acharyas of the Sautrāntika (a school of early Buddhism) school. Therefore, in the Nyaya Sutra XXV, it is said: 『Also, the master of the sutras states his own Acharya.』『Unceasing』 means the same series of bondage, that is, relying on ignorance, actions will not cease, therefore it is said 『Because this exists, that exists,』 that is, because ignorance arises, actions can arise, therefore it is said 『This arising, that arises,』 thus elaborating on the twelve links of dependent origination.

One explanation is to clarify the principle of continuity, which is understood by the students of the Sthavira (an early Buddhist school) school: 『Dwelling』 means continuous, even to the extent that if the cause continues to exist, the result also continues to exist, therefore it is said 『Because this exists, that exists,』 and because of the combination of causes, the consequences also arise, therefore it is said 『This arising, that arises.』

The author refutes this view, arguing that this statement wants to distinguish arising, so why talk about dwelling? Even if it is allowed to talk about dwelling, according to the order of the four characteristics (arising, dwelling, change, cessation), arising should be mentioned first, and then dwelling, so why is the order reversed?

There is another explanation, which is explained by Śrīlāta in the Sautrāntika school, who believes that 『cessation』 means cessation without existence. The Nyaya calls it the Sthavira school. The rest of the text can be understood.

If the meaning of the sutra...

然至非此經義者。論主破。經義若然。如汝所說果有因有滅。滅之言無。經中應作是說。依此有彼成無。何故乃言依此有彼有。此即責說異經。經中又應先說因生果生。后說果生因成無。如是次第方名善說。若異此者。欲辨緣起依何次第先說因無。此即責不次第。故彼所釋非此經義。

複次云何至生緣老死者。此下述經部十二緣起。將明問起。

我今略顯至及我慢執者。答。謂諸愚夫于從緣生法。不知唯有五蘊諸行。妄起我見。由我見故復起我慢　不知即是無明支也。

為自受樂至無明緣行者。此出行支體。眾生為自受樂．及非苦樂故。作身．語．意各三種福．非福．不動業。謂為自身受欲界當樂故造諸福業。為受當來色界下三定樂．及四定已上非苦樂。故造不動業。為受欲界現在世中五欲樂故。造作殺等諸非福業。如是名為由無明為緣能起於行。

由引業力至通於六識者。出識支體。既言引業。明知行支是引業非滿業。由彼過去引業力故。六識相續流轉如火焰行。相續不斷住彼．彼趣。此之六識相續不斷。憑附中有馳赴所生處。結生有身名行緣識。此識通於中．生二有。生有雖唯意識于中有位通起六識。若作此釋。善順契經分別識支通於六識。若依說一切有部。識支唯生有一剎那不通中有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：然而，如果不是這部經的意義，論主就會駁斥。如果經的意義是那樣，如你所說，果有因，有滅，而『滅』的意思是『無』，那麼經中應該這樣說：『依此有彼，成無。』為何反而說『依此有彼有』？這實際上是在責備說了不同的經。經中又應該先說因生果生，后說果生因成無。像這樣的次第才可稱為善說。如果不是這樣，想要辨別緣起，依據什麼次第先說因無？這實際上是在責備沒有次第。所以他們的解釋不是這部經的意義。

其次，『云何至生緣老死者』，這以下敘述經部的十二緣起，將要闡明提問的開始。

『我今略顯至及我慢執者』，這是回答。意思是說，那些愚昧的人對於從緣而生的法，不知道只有五蘊諸行，虛妄地生起我見。由於我見的緣故，又生起我慢——這『不知』就是無明支。

『為自受樂至無明緣行者』，這是闡述行支的體性。眾生爲了自己享受快樂以及非苦非樂的感受，造作身、語、意各自三種福業、非福業、不動業。也就是說，爲了自身享受欲界的當來之樂，所以造作各種福業；爲了享受當來下三禪定的快樂，以及四禪定以上的非苦非樂，所以造作不動業；爲了享受欲界現在世中的五欲之樂，所以造作殺生等各種非福業。像這樣就稱為由無明為緣，能夠生起於行。

『由引業力至通於六識者』，這是闡述識支的體性。既然說是『引業』，就明確知道行支是引業而不是滿業。由於過去引業的力量，六識相續流轉，就像火焰的執行一樣，相續不斷地住在各個趣向。這六識相續不斷，憑藉中有身，奔赴所生之處，結生有身，名為行緣識。這個識貫通中有和生有二有。生有雖然只有意識，但在中有位時，可以通起六識。如果這樣解釋，就能夠很好地順應契經，分別識支貫通六識。如果依照說一切有部的觀點，識支只是生有一剎那，不貫通中有。

【English Translation】 English version: However, if it were not the meaning of this sutra, the master of treatises would refute it. If the meaning of the sutra were as you say, that the effect has a cause, and there is cessation, and the meaning of 'cessation' is 'non-existence,' then the sutra should say: 'Dependent on this, that exists, resulting in non-existence.' Why does it instead say 'Dependent on this, that exists'? This is actually criticizing the speaking of a different sutra. The sutra should also first say that the cause gives rise to the effect, and then say that the effect gives rise to the cause resulting in non-existence. Only such a sequence can be called well-spoken. If it is not like this, if one wants to discern dependent origination, according to what sequence does one first speak of the non-existence of the cause? This is actually criticizing the lack of sequence. Therefore, their explanation is not the meaning of this sutra.

Next, regarding 'How does it lead to old age and death arising from birth?', the following describes the twelve links of dependent origination according to the Sautrāntika school, which will clarify the beginning of the question.

Regarding 'I will now briefly reveal up to and including the attachment to self-conceit,' this is the answer. It means that those ignorant people, regarding phenomena arising from conditions, do not know that there are only the five aggregates (skandhas) and various actions (samskaras), and falsely give rise to the view of self (ātma-dṛṣṭi). Due to the view of self, they also give rise to self-conceit (māna)—this 'not knowing' is the link of ignorance (avidyā).

Regarding 'For the sake of experiencing pleasure up to ignorance conditioning action,' this elucidates the nature of the link of action (samskāra). Sentient beings, for the sake of experiencing pleasure and neither pleasure nor pain, create three kinds of meritorious actions (puṇya karma), non-meritorious actions (apuṇya karma), and unwavering actions (āniñja karma) through body, speech, and mind. That is, for the sake of enjoying future pleasure in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), they create various meritorious actions; for the sake of enjoying future pleasure in the lower three dhyānas (lower three concentrations), and neither pleasure nor pain in the four dhyānas and above, they create unwavering actions; for the sake of enjoying the five desires (pañca kāmaguṇāḥ) in the present life of the desire realm, they create various non-meritorious actions such as killing. In this way, it is called ignorance conditioning action.

Regarding 'Due to the power of the propelling karma up to encompassing the six consciousnesses,' this elucidates the nature of the link of consciousness (vijñāna). Since it is said 'propelling karma,' it is clearly known that the link of action is propelling karma and not fulfilling karma. Due to the power of past propelling karma, the six consciousnesses continuously flow, like the movement of a flame, continuously dwelling in various destinies (gati). These six consciousnesses continuously, relying on the intermediate existence (antarābhava), rush to the place of birth, and the arising of a body is called consciousness conditioned by action. This consciousness encompasses both the intermediate existence and the existence at birth. Although only the mind consciousness (manovijñāna) exists at birth, in the intermediate existence, all six consciousnesses can arise. If explained in this way, it can well accord with the sutras, distinguishing the link of consciousness as encompassing the six consciousnesses. If according to the Sarvāstivāda school, the link of consciousness is only a moment at birth and does not encompass the intermediate existence.

。故唯意識。

識為先故至如是說故者。出名色體。由識為先故於此趣中次有名色生具足五蘊。展轉相續遍一期生乃至命終總名名色。此名色位長。於此位中立六處等。即引經證。于大因緣經．辨緣起經等。皆說名色具足五蘊遍一期生。

如是名色至說為六處者。出六處體。于名色位漸有眼等名為六處。

次與境合至順樂等觸者。出觸支體。既六根生次與境合便有識生。根．境．識合有順樂受等三觸。

依此便生樂等三受者。出受支體。依此觸故便生苦．樂．舍三受。

從此三受至生無色愛者。出愛支體。從此三受引生三愛。謂由欲界苦逼惱故。有於樂受發生欲界愛。或有於色界初．二．三定樂。第四非苦樂受。發生色界愛。或有唯于無色界非苦樂受。發生無色界愛。

從欣受愛起欲等取者。此下出取支體。就中。一總標。二別解。此即總標。從前樂．舍欣受愛后。次起欲等四取。經部四取以貪為體。與大乘同。若說一切有部以百八煩惱為體。

此中欲者至依之說我故者。此下第二別解。一明四境。二出取體。此即明四境　一欲者。謂色等五妙欲境　二見者。謂六十二見。如梵網經廣說。至隨眠品當列標釋　三戒禁者。戒謂戒約。即是內道遠離惡戒。禁謂禁斷。即是外道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此只有意識。

『識為先故至如是說故者』，這是爲了說明名色的本體。由於意識是先導，因此在此生命歷程中，依次產生名色，具足五蘊。五蘊輾轉相續，遍及一生，乃至生命終結，總稱為名色。這個名色階段很長，在此階段中建立六處等。這裡引用經文作為證明，如《大因緣經》、《辨緣起經》等，都說名色具足五蘊，遍及一生。

『如是名色至說為六處者』，這是爲了說明六處的本體。在名色階段，逐漸產生眼等，稱為六處。

『次與境合至順樂等觸者』，這是爲了說明觸支的本體。既然六根產生，接著與外境結合，便有識產生。根、境、識三者結合，便有順樂受等三種觸。

『依此便生樂等三受者』，這是爲了說明受支的本體。依靠這觸的緣故，便產生苦、樂、舍三種感受。

『從此三受至生無色愛者』，這是爲了說明愛支的本體。從此三種感受引生三種愛。因為欲界的痛苦逼迫惱亂，所以對樂受產生欲界愛；或者對初禪、二禪、三禪的樂受，以及第四禪的非苦樂受，產生有愛（愛，bhava-trsna）；或者僅僅對於無有（無有，bhava）的非苦樂受，產生無有愛（無有愛，vibhava-trsna）。

『從欣受愛起欲等取者』，這以下說明取支的本體。其中，一是總標，二是別解。這裡是總標。從前面的樂受、舍受、欣受愛之後，接著產生欲取等四種取。經部認為四取的本體是貪，與大乘相同。如果說一切有部，則認為以一百零八種煩惱為本體。

『此中欲者至依之說我故者』，這以下第二是別解。一是說明四種境界，二是說明取的本體。這裡是說明四種境界。一、欲取（欲取，kama-upadana）：指色等五種妙欲境界。二、見取（見取，drsti-upadana）：指六十二種見解，如《梵網經》中廣說。至於隨眠品，將會列出標示和解釋。三、戒禁取（戒禁取，silabbata-upadana）：戒是指戒律，即是內道遠離惡戒。禁是指禁制，即是外道。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is only consciousness.

'Because consciousness comes first, up to the point of saying it as such' - this explains the substance of name and form (nama-rupa). Because consciousness is the precursor, name and form arise in this realm, complete with the five aggregates (skandhas). These aggregates continuously succeed each other, pervading a lifetime, until death, and are collectively called name and form. This stage of name and form is long, and within this stage, the six sense bases (ayatana) etc., are established. Here, scriptures are cited as proof, such as the Maha-nidana Sutta and Pratityasamutpada Sutta, which state that name and form are complete with the five aggregates, pervading a lifetime.

'As such, name and form, up to the point of being called the six sense bases' - this explains the substance of the six sense bases. In the stage of name and form, the eyes etc., gradually arise, and are called the six sense bases.

'Next, the combination with objects, up to the pleasant touch etc.' - this explains the substance of the contact (sparsha) factor. Since the six sense bases have arisen, then in combination with external objects, consciousness arises. The combination of sense base, object, and consciousness results in three types of contact, such as pleasant feeling etc.

'Relying on this, the three feelings of pleasure etc., arise' - this explains the substance of the feeling (vedana) factor. Relying on this contact, the three feelings of suffering, pleasure, and equanimity arise.

'From these three feelings, up to the arising of formless desire' - this explains the substance of the craving (trishna) factor. From these three feelings, three types of craving are induced. Because the desire realm is oppressed and troubled by suffering, desire-realm craving arises for pleasant feelings; or for the pleasant feelings of the first, second, and third dhyanas, and the neither-suffering-nor-pleasant feeling of the fourth dhyana, existence craving (bhava-trsna) arises; or only for the neither-suffering-nor-pleasant feeling of non-existence (bhava), non-existence craving (vibhava-trsna) arises.

'From the delight in feeling and craving, grasping such as desire arises' - the following explains the substance of the grasping (upadana) factor. Among them, first is a general statement, and second is a specific explanation. This is the general statement. Following the preceding pleasant feeling, equanimous feeling, and delight in craving, the four types of grasping, such as desire-grasping, arise. The Sautrantika school considers the substance of the four graspings to be greed, which is the same as the Mahayana school. If the Sarvastivada school is discussed, it considers the substance to be the one hundred and eight afflictions.

'Among these, desire, up to the point of saying 'I' based on it' - the following is the second specific explanation. First, the four objects are explained, and second, the substance of grasping is explained. Here, the four objects are explained. 1. Desire-grasping (kama-upadana): refers to the five desirable sense objects such as form etc. 2. View-grasping (drsti-upadana): refers to the sixty-two views, as explained in detail in the Brahmajala Sutta. As for the chapter on latent tendencies, labels and explanations will be listed. 3. Morality and ritual-grasping (silabbata-upadana): morality refers to precepts, which is the inner path of distancing oneself from evil precepts. Ritual refers to prohibitions, which is the outer path.

狗牛等禁。如諸離系外道受持種種露形．拔髮。遠離衣等所繫縛。故名為離系　婆羅門外道。受持手執杖行被烏鹿皮　播輸缽多外道此云牛主。主謂天主。摩醯首羅天。乘牛而行故名牛主。此外道學彼天法。從彼為名故名牛主。此外道受持頂上持一髻子身體涂灰　般利伐羅勺迦外道此云遍出。即顯出家義。是出家外道。受持執三杖行。擬安衣服．瓶．缽等物。並剪鬢髮無義苦行。等者等取諸餘外道併名為禁　四我語者。謂三界內身依之說我故故名我語。不同說一切有部但約上二界依之說我。

有餘師說至名為我語者。經部異師。

云何此二獨名我語者。問。

由此二種至我及我所者。答。由此二種說有我故名之為我。我非有故但有語言故名我語。經言異生隨假言說起我執。于中實無我及我所。明知我體非有。但有語言。

於前四種至所謂欲貪者。此即第二正出取體。前說四種是所取境。今正出彼能緣取體。所謂欲貪。即貪名欲。貪通於三界。非是欲界貪也。經言欲貪名取。明知不通余法。

由取為緣至說名為有者。出有支體及引經證。能招後有果業說名為有。

有為緣故至說名為生者。出生支體。有為緣故。識相續流轉趣未來生。如前識支所說道理。憑附中有馳赴所生。結生有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『狗牛等禁』：例如各種離系外道（Nigantha，古印度六大外道之一，主張苦行），他們受持各種露形、拔髮的苦行，遠離衣服等束縛，所以稱為離系。婆羅門外道（Brahmana）：他們受持手執杖行，身披烏鹿皮。播輸缽多外道（Pasupata）：意為牛主，這裡的『主』指的是天主，即摩醯首羅天（Mahesvara，印度教濕婆神）。因為他乘牛而行，所以名為牛主。此外道學習他的法，因此得名牛主。此外道受持在頭頂上留一個髮髻，身體涂灰。般利伐羅勺迦外道（Parivrajaka）：意為遍出，即顯現出家之義，是出家外道。他們受持執三杖而行，用來放置衣服、瓶、缽等物，並剪鬢髮，進行無意義的苦行。『等』字包括其餘各種外道，都稱為禁。『四我語者』：指的是三界內的眾生，他們的身見依附於『我』而生，所以稱為我語。這不同於說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一），他們只在上二界（色界和無色界）的身見上說『我』。有其餘的論師說，『名為我語者』，這是經部的異師的觀點。『云何此二獨名我語者』：這是提問。『由此二種至我及我所者』：這是回答。因為這兩種觀點都說有『我』，所以稱為『我』。『我』並非真實存在，只是語言上的表達，所以稱為『我語』。經中說，異生（凡夫）隨順虛假的言說而生起我執，其中實際上沒有『我』和『我所』。這表明『我』的本體並非真實存在，只是語言上的表達。『於前四種至所謂欲貪者』：這正是第二種『取』的本體。前面說的四種是所取之境，現在正式說明能緣取的本體，即所謂的欲貪。這裡的『欲』指的是貪，貪通於三界，並非僅僅是欲界的貪。經中說『欲貪名取』，表明它不包括其他法。『由取為緣至說名為有者』：這是說明『有』支的本體，並引用經文來證明。能夠招感後有果報的業，稱為『有』。『有為緣故至說名為生者』：這是說明『生』支的本體。因為『有』為緣故，識相續流轉，趨向未來生，如前面識支所說的道理，憑附於中有身，馳赴所生之處，結生相續。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Prohibitions such as dogs and cows』: For example, various Niganthas (one of the six major heterodox schools in ancient India, advocating asceticism) adhere to various practices of nudity and hair plucking, staying away from the bondage of clothing, etc., hence they are called Niganthas. Brahmanas (Brahmana): They adhere to carrying a staff and wearing antelope skin. Pasupatas: Meaning 『Lord of Cattle,』 where 『Lord』 refers to the Lord of Gods, namely Mahesvara (Shiva in Hinduism). Because he rides a bull, he is called 『Lord of Cattle.』 This heterodox school learns his teachings, hence the name 『Lord of Cattle.』 This heterodox school adheres to keeping a single topknot on the head and smearing the body with ashes. Parivrajakas: Meaning 『completely gone forth,』 which signifies renunciation, being a renunciate heterodox school. They adhere to carrying three staffs, used to place clothing, bottles, bowls, and other items, and cutting off sideburns, engaging in meaningless ascetic practices. The word 『etc.』 includes other heterodox schools, all called prohibitions. 『The four I-utterances』: Refers to sentient beings within the Three Realms, whose self-view is based on the 『I,』 hence called I-utterances. This differs from the Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school), who only speak of the 『I』 based on the self-view in the upper two realms (the Form Realm and the Formless Realm). Some other teachers say, 『Those named I-utterances,』 which is the view of the Sautrantikas (a Buddhist school). 『Why are these two uniquely named I-utterances?』: This is a question. 『Because these two lead to I and mine』: This is the answer. Because these two views speak of the existence of 『I,』 they are called 『I.』 The 『I』 is not truly existent, but merely a linguistic expression, hence called 『I-utterance.』 The sutra says that ordinary beings follow false speech and give rise to self-grasping, in which there is actually no 『I』 and 『mine.』 This shows that the substance of 『I』 is not truly existent, but merely a linguistic expression. 『Among the previous four, namely desire-craving』: This is precisely the substance of the second 『grasping.』 The four mentioned earlier are the objects to be grasped, and now it is formally explained that the substance of the grasping faculty is so-called desire-craving. Here, 『desire』 refers to greed, which pervades the Three Realms, not just the desire of the Desire Realm. The sutra says 『desire-craving is called grasping,』 indicating that it does not include other dharmas. 『Because grasping is the condition, it is said to be existence』: This explains the substance of the 『existence』 limb and cites sutras to prove it. Karma that can attract the fruition of future existence is called 『existence.』『Because existence is the condition, it is said to be birth』: This explains the substance of the 『birth』 limb. Because 『existence』 is the condition, the stream of consciousness continues to flow, tending towards future birth, as explained in the previous limb of consciousness, relying on the intermediate state, rushing to the place of birth, and connecting to continue life.

身。具足五蘊說名為生。大分雖同識支非無差別。識名是狹唯說六識。生名是寬故通五蘊　又解此生支如前識．名色支。既言識相續流同前識支復言具足五蘊同前名色此言生者。總顯未來生始從中有初念。乃至命終一期生也。於此生位建立老死　又解老死前言生。

以生為緣至廣說如經者。出老死體。于初生后即立老死　又解于生支位中建立老死。其老死相發白面皺等。種種差別廣說如經　又解至發白等已去方名老。后名死。

如是純言至諸苦蘊生者。上來經部出十二支體。復釋經文如是純大苦蘊集。以經言無明緣行。乃至生緣老死。如是純大苦蘊集。所以便釋。

毗婆沙宗如前已說者。上來經部解十二緣起　若毗婆沙宗。解十二緣起如前已說。

俱舍論記卷第九大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之三

無明何義者。此下大文第二別明名義。就中。一別分別四。二餘指別支　就第一別分別四中。一辨無明。二辨名色。三辨觸。四辨受　此下辨無明。就中。一釋義。二立證。此下釋義。此即問也。

謂體非明者。答。體非明故名曰無明。

若爾無明應是眼等者難。眼．耳．鼻等體亦非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『身。具足五蘊說名為生。』意思是說，具備了五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）的狀態就叫做『生』。雖然大的分類上都相同，但識支並非沒有差別。『識』這個名稱是狹義的，僅僅指六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）。而『生』這個名稱是廣義的，因此可以包括五蘊。又有一種解釋，這個『生』支類似於前面的識支和名色支。既然說識是相續流轉的，如同前面的識支；又說具備五蘊，如同前面的名色支；那麼這裡說的『生』，總的顯示了未來生的開始，從中有（中陰身）的最初一念，直到命終的一期生命。在這個『生』的階段，就建立了老和死。還有一種解釋，老死是在前面說的『生』的基礎上產生的。

『以生為緣至廣說如經者。』這句話是用來闡述老死的本體。在最初的生之後，就立即存在老死。還有一種解釋，在『生』支的階段中，就建立了老死。其老死的現象，如頭髮變白、面容起皺等等，種種差別在經中廣泛地說明。還有一種解釋，從頭髮變白等現象開始才叫做『老』，之後才叫做『死』。

『如是純言至諸苦蘊生者。』上面經部闡述了十二支的本體，接下來解釋經文『如是純大苦蘊集』。因為經文說『無明緣行』，乃至『生緣老死』，『如是純大苦蘊集』，所以就進行解釋。

『毗婆沙宗如前已說者。』上面經部解釋了十二緣起。如果是毗婆沙宗，解釋十二緣起就如同前面已經說過的。

《俱舍論記》卷第九大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第十

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之三

『無明何義者。』以下是大的段落，第二部分分別說明名義。其中，第一部分是分別四件事，第二部分是其餘指出的各個支。在第一部分分別四件事中，第一是辨別無明（ignorance），第二是辨別名色（name and form），第三是辨別觸（contact），第四是辨別受（feeling）。以下是辨別無明。其中，第一是解釋含義，第二是建立論證。以下是解釋含義，這也就是提問。

『謂體非明者。』回答說，因為本體不是光明，所以叫做無明。

『若爾無明應是眼等者難。』這是反駁。眼睛、耳朵、鼻子等的本體也不是光明。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The body. The aggregation of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha) is called birth.' This means that the state of possessing the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) is called 'birth' (jāti). Although the broad classifications are the same, the consciousness-skandha (vijñāna-skandha) is not without differences. The term 'consciousness' (vijñāna) is narrow, referring only to the six consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness). The term 'birth' is broad, thus encompassing the five skandhas. Another interpretation is that this 'birth' link is similar to the previous consciousness and name-and-form (nāma-rūpa) links. Since it is said that consciousness is a continuous flow, like the previous consciousness link; and it is also said to possess the five skandhas, like the previous name-and-form link; then this 'birth' generally reveals the beginning of future birth, from the first thought of the intermediate existence (antarābhava) until the end of life. In this stage of 'birth', old age (jarā) and death (maraṇa) are established. Another interpretation is that old age and death arise from the 'birth' mentioned earlier.

'Conditioned by birth, and extensively explained as in the sutras.' This sentence is used to explain the essence of old age and death. Immediately after the initial birth, old age and death exist. Another interpretation is that old age and death are established in the stage of the 'birth' link. The phenomena of old age and death, such as hair turning white, the face wrinkling, and so on, are extensively explained in the sutras. Another interpretation is that the phenomena such as hair turning white are called 'old age', and what follows is called 'death'.

'Thus, purely speaking, until the arising of the aggregates of suffering.' The sutra section above explained the essence of the twelve links (dvādaśāṅga), and next explains the sutra text 'Thus, the entire mass of great suffering arises.' Because the sutra says 'Ignorance conditions volitional formations (saṃskāra),' and so on, 'birth conditions old age and death,' 'Thus, the entire mass of great suffering arises,' therefore, it is explained.

'The Vaibhāṣika school has already explained as before.' The sutra section above explained the twelve links of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). If it is the Vaibhāṣika school, the explanation of the twelve links of dependent origination is as previously explained.

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論記) Scroll 9 Taishō Tripiṭaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論記)

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論記) Scroll 10

Commentary by the Śramaṇa Shi Guang (釋光)

Chapter 3, Section 3: Analysis of the World (分別世品)

'What is the meaning of ignorance (avidyā)?' The following is the second major section, separately explaining the meanings of the terms. Among them, the first part separately analyzes four things, and the second part points out the remaining links. In the first part, which separately analyzes four things, the first is to distinguish ignorance, the second is to distinguish name and form, the third is to distinguish contact (sparśa), and the fourth is to distinguish feeling (vedanā). The following is to distinguish ignorance. Among them, the first is to explain the meaning, and the second is to establish the argument. The following is to explain the meaning, which is also the question.

'That which is not luminous in nature.' The answer is, because its nature is not luminous, it is called ignorance.

'If so, ignorance should be the eyes, etc.' This is a refutation. The nature of the eyes, ears, nose, etc., is also not luminous.

明。應是無明。

既爾此義應謂明無者。釋。得難轉計。明無之處名曰無明。

若爾無明體應非有者。復難。明無之處名曰無明。體應非有。

為顯有體至如非親實等者。前二有過論主正解。為顯無明有體無非有過。義不濫余眼等無眼等失　明所對治名曰無明。如非親等。

論曰至非異非無者。此釋第二句　怨敵名非親　誑語名非實　非法。謂不善法　非義。謂不善義　非事。謂不善事　是親友等所對除法名非親等。非異親友等非親友等無。無明亦爾。無明是明所對除法。非異於明非無明無。

云何知然者。此下立證徴問。

說行緣故者。答。說此無明為行緣故明知有體。

復有誠證至說能染慧故者。上一句正證。下三句破異計。

論曰至說名無明者。經說無明在九結．三縛．十隨眠．三漏．四枙．四瀑流等中。故知別有。非余眼等。及體全無。說為結等。

如惡妻子至應名無明者。此敘異計。如惡妻子無妻子德名無妻子。如是惡慧無有明德。應名無明。

彼非無明至故非無明者。論主舉頌正破。彼諸惡慧非是無明。于惡慧中有五染慧是見性故。見性推求猛利決斷故非無明。

若爾非見慧應許是無明者。外救。若爾貪等非五見。慧既非見性應許

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：明，應是無明（avidyā，指對事物真相的無知）。

既然如此，這個意思應該說是明不存在嗎？解釋：這是通過詰難來轉變對方的觀點。明不存在的地方叫做無明。

如果這樣，無明的本體應該不是實有嗎？反駁：明不存在的地方叫做無明，本體應該不是實有。

爲了顯示無明有本體，就像『非親』、『非實』等一樣。前面兩種說法有過失，論主正確地解釋：爲了顯示無明有本體，沒有過失。意義不會混淆于其他的眼等，沒有眼等缺失。明所對治的法叫做無明，就像『非親』等。

論曰：『非異非無』，這是解釋第二句。怨敵叫做『非親』，謊言叫做『非實』，非法，指不善法，非義，指不善義，非事，指不善事。這些是親友等所對治的法，叫做『非親』等。『非異』于親友等，『非』親友等『無』。無明也是這樣，無明是明所對治的法，『非異』于明，『非』無明『無』。

『云何知然』，這是下面要立論證並提出疑問。

『說行緣故』，回答：因為經中說無明是行的緣，所以明確知道無明有本體。

『復有誠證至說能染慧故』，上一句是直接的證據，下面三句是破斥不同的觀點。

論曰：『至說名無明』，經中說無明存在於九結（navabandhana，九種煩惱的束縛）、三縛（trisaṃyoga，三種束縛）、十隨眠（daśānusaya，十種潛在的煩惱）、三漏（trayasrava，三種煩惱的泄漏）、四軛（caturyoga，四種束縛）、四瀑流（catasrogha，四種煩惱的激流）等之中，因此知道無明是別有的，不是其他的眼等，也不是完全沒有本體，而是被說為結等。

『如惡妻子至應名無明』，這是敘述不同的觀點。就像惡劣的妻子沒有妻子的美德，叫做『無妻子』。這樣，惡劣的智慧沒有明的美德，應該叫做『無明』。

『彼非無明至故非無明』，論主舉出偈頌來正面破斥。那些惡劣的智慧不是無明，在惡劣的智慧中有五種染污的智慧，因為它們具有見性。因為見效能夠推求、猛利地決斷，所以不是無明。

『若爾非見慧應許是無明』，外人辯解：如果這樣，那麼不是見性的智慧應該被認為是無明。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Ming』 (明, illumination) should be 『wuming』 (無明, avidyā, ignorance).

Since this is the case, should this meaning be said to be the non-existence of 『ming』? Explanation: This is to shift the opponent's view through questioning. The place where 『ming』 does not exist is called 『wuming』.

If so, should the substance of 『wuming』 not be real? Refutation: The place where 『ming』 does not exist is called 『wuming』; the substance should not be real.

In order to show that 『wuming』 has a substance, just like 『non-relative』 (非親), 『non-truth』 (非實), etc. The previous two statements have faults; the treatise master correctly explains: In order to show that 『wuming』 has a substance, there is no fault. The meaning will not be confused with other eyes, etc., and there is no loss of eyes, etc. What 『ming』 counteracts is called 『wuming』, just like 『non-relative』, etc.

Treatise says: 『Neither different nor non-existent』 (非異非無), this explains the second sentence. An enemy is called 『non-relative』, a lie is called 『non-truth』, 『illegal』 refers to unwholesome dharma, 『non-righteous』 refers to unwholesome meaning, 『non-affair』 refers to unwholesome affairs. These are the dharmas counteracted by relatives and friends, etc., and are called 『non-relative』, etc. 『Not different』 from relatives and friends, etc., 『not』 relatives and friends 『non-existent』. 『Wuming』 is also like this; 『wuming』 is the dharma counteracted by 『ming』, 『not different』 from 『ming』, 『not』『wuming』『non-existent』.

『How is this known?』 (云何知然), this is to establish an argument and ask a question below.

『Because it is said to be a condition for action』 (說行緣故), answer: Because the sutras say that 『wuming』 is a condition for action, it is clearly known that 『wuming』 has a substance.

『There is also sincere evidence to say that it can taint wisdom』 (復有誠證至說能染慧故), the previous sentence is direct evidence, and the following three sentences refute different views.

Treatise says: 『To say the name 『wuming』』 (至說名無明), the sutras say that 『wuming』 exists in the nine bonds (九結, navabandhana, nine fetters), three ties (三縛, trisaṃyoga, three bonds), ten latent tendencies (十隨眠, daśānusaya, ten latent defilements), three outflows (三漏, trayasrava, three outflows), four yokes (四枙, caturyoga, four yokes), four floods (四瀑流, catasrogha, four floods), etc. Therefore, it is known that 『wuming』 is separate, not other eyes, etc., nor is it completely without substance, but is said to be bonds, etc.

『Like a bad wife to should be named 『wuming』』 (如惡妻子至應名無明), this is to describe different views. Just like a bad wife who does not have the virtues of a wife is called 『non-wife』. In this way, bad wisdom that does not have the virtues of 『ming』 should be called 『wuming』.

『Those are not 『wuming』 to therefore not 『wuming』』 (彼非無明至故非無明), the treatise master cites a verse to directly refute. Those bad wisdoms are not 『wuming』; in bad wisdoms, there are five tainted wisdoms because they have the nature of seeing. Because the nature of seeing can seek and decisively decide, it is not 『wuming』.

『If so, non-seeing wisdom should be considered 『wuming』』 (若爾非見慧應許是無明), an outsider argues: If so, then wisdom that is not the nature of seeing should be considered 『wuming』.

無明。

不爾無明至共相應故者。以第三句釋。無明見俱故知非慧。無二慧體共相應故。

又說無明至異慧能染者。以第四句釋證非是慧。經說無明能染于慧。故知慧體非即無明。豈慧還能染污于慧。

如何不許至何理相違者。經部救意。如何不許染慧種子。間雜善慧說能染慧或現行染慧前後間雜善慧說能染慧。或染慧種子．及前後現行。染慧間雜善慧說能染慧。如貪染心與貪相應。理實被染設不相應。由貪種子間雜於心說貪染心。或由前後現行貪間雜於心說貪染心。或由貪種子．及前後現行貪間雜於心說貪染心。后滅貪種子心便解脫。說無明染慧非慧相應。由無明種子間雜于慧說能染慧。或由前後現行無明。間雜于慧說能染慧。或由無明種子．及前後現行無明。間雜于慧說能染慧。如是分別何理相違。

誰復能遮至此說為善者。論主非經部師評取說一切有部。

有執煩惱至前理遮遣者。有異師執。一切煩惱于境不了。皆謂無明。此亦應同前理遮遣。

若諸煩惱至不說總名者。別顯過非同前理破。九結等中別說無明。明知無明非是總號　又若無明是諸惑者。亦不應與見等相應。非自相應故。經中應說無明染心。不應說言貪慾染心。以無明寬亦攝貪故　汝若謂此經中貪慾染心就差

【現代漢語翻譯】無明（Avidya，指對事物真相的無知）。

『不爾無明至共相應故者』。用第三句解釋。無明與『見』（Dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）同時存在，因此可知它不是智慧。因為沒有兩種智慧可以同時相應。

『又說無明至異慧能染者』。用第四句解釋，證明它不是智慧。經中說無明能夠染污智慧，因此可知智慧的本體不是無明。難道智慧還能染污智慧嗎？

『如何不許至何理相違者』。經部（Sautrāntika，佛教的一個學派）試圖辯解。為什麼不允許無明染污智慧的種子呢？或者說，夾雜在善慧中的染污慧能染污慧，或者現行的染污慧前後夾雜著善慧，所以說能染污慧。或者染污慧的種子，以及前後現行的染污慧夾雜著善慧，所以說能染污慧。如同貪染心與貪相應一樣，實際上是被染污的，即使不相應，也因為貪的種子夾雜在心中，所以說貪染心。或者因為前後現行的貪夾雜在心中，所以說貪染心。或者因為貪的種子以及前後現行的貪夾雜在心中，所以說貪染心。後來貪的種子滅盡，心就解脫了。說無明染污智慧，並非無明與智慧相應，而是因為無明的種子夾雜在智慧中，所以說能染污智慧。或者因為前後現行的無明夾雜在智慧中，所以說能染污智慧。或者因為無明的種子以及前後現行的無明夾雜在智慧中，所以說能染污智慧。這樣分別，有什麼道理相違背呢？

『誰復能遮至此說為善者』。論主（指論典的作者）並非經部師，而是贊同說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教的一個學派）的觀點。

『有執煩惱至前理遮遣者』。有其他老師認為，一切煩惱都是對境的不瞭解，都可以稱為無明。這也應該用前面的道理來駁斥。

『若諸煩惱至不說總名者』。特別指出過失，並非用前面的道理來破斥。在九結（Navabandhana，九種煩惱的結縛）等中，特別提到了無明。這明顯說明無明不是一個總稱。而且，如果無明是諸惑（Kleshas，煩惱）的總稱，就不應該與見等相應，因為自己不能與自己相應。經中應該說無明染心，而不應該說貪慾染心，因為無明範圍更廣，也包括了貪慾。如果你說這部經中說貪慾染心是就差別而言……

【English Translation】 Avidya (Ignorance).

'If not, Avidya is said to be co-existent because of its association.' This is explained by the third sentence. Avidya and 'Dṛṣṭi' (wrong views) exist simultaneously, therefore it is known that it is not wisdom. Because there are no two wisdoms that can be co-existent.

'Also, it is said that Avidya can defile wisdom.' This is explained by the fourth sentence, proving that it is not wisdom. The sutra says that Avidya can defile wisdom, therefore it is known that the essence of wisdom is not Avidya. Can wisdom defile wisdom?

'How can you not allow... what principle contradicts it?' The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) attempts to defend. Why not allow Avidya to defile the seed of wisdom? Or, defiled wisdom mixed with wholesome wisdom can defile wisdom, or the manifest defiled wisdom is interspersed with wholesome wisdom, so it is said to defile wisdom. Or the seed of defiled wisdom, and the manifest defiled wisdom before and after are interspersed with wholesome wisdom, so it is said to defile wisdom. Just as a mind stained by greed is associated with greed, in reality it is defiled, even if it is not associated, it is said to be stained by greed because the seed of greed is mixed in the mind. Or because the manifest greed before and after is mixed in the mind, it is said to be stained by greed. Or because the seed of greed and the manifest greed before and after are mixed in the mind, it is said to be stained by greed. Later, when the seed of greed is extinguished, the mind is liberated. Saying that Avidya defiles wisdom is not that Avidya is associated with wisdom, but because the seed of Avidya is mixed in wisdom, it is said to defile wisdom. Or because the manifest Avidya before and after is mixed in wisdom, it is said to defile wisdom. Or because the seed of Avidya and the manifest Avidya before and after are mixed in wisdom, it is said to defile wisdom. What principle contradicts such distinctions?

'Who can prevent... this is said to be good.' The author of the treatise (referring to the author of the commentary) is not a Sautrāntika teacher, but agrees with the view of the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school).

'Some hold that all afflictions... are rejected by the previous reasoning.' Some other teachers believe that all afflictions are a lack of understanding of the object, and can be called Avidya. This should also be refuted by the previous reasoning.

'If all afflictions... are not called by a general name.' Specifically pointing out the fault, not refuting it with the previous reasoning. In the Navabandhana (nine fetters), Avidya is specifically mentioned. This clearly shows that Avidya is not a general term. Moreover, if Avidya is a general term for all Kleshas (afflictions), it should not be associated with Dṛṣṭi (views) and so on, because one cannot be associated with oneself. The sutra should say that the mind is defiled by Avidya, and should not say that the mind is defiled by greed, because Avidya is broader and includes greed. If you say that in this sutra, saying that the mind is defiled by greed is in terms of differentiation...

別說。應于染慧不說總無明名。亦應就差別說。

既許無明至其相云何者。外問。

謂不了知諦寶業果者。說一切有部答。不了四諦．三寶．善．惡業．異熟果名無明。

未測何相至如無明說者。外人復難。若異了知應是眼等。若了知無應體非有。二過如前。

此謂了知所治別法者。答。此無明者。謂了知慧所治別法。

此復難測其相是何者。外人復徴。

此類法爾至唯可辨用者。答。眼是凈色眼識所依。約用以辨。無明亦然。不了諦等唯可辨用。

大德法救至恃我類性者。此大德意恃我謂恃我起慢。名為恃我。即是我慢。類性是無明。此無明是我慢流類性。故約我慢以顯無明。理亦是余惑流類性。且寄我慢以顯　又此無明通與諸惑相應似余惑故。偏得類名。

異於我慢類體是何者。論主問。類性即是我慢。我慢是我見之類故名類性。故言異於我慢類性是何。

經言我今至異於我慢者。大德引經答。經言我今如是知已是修道。如是見已見道　或如是知已是諸智。如是見已是諸忍。由知見故愛等永斷　或如是知已是盡智。如是見已是無生智。以觀照故亦名為見　或如是知已是盡無生智。如是見已是無學正見智。以盡．無生非是見故　諸所有愛。愛謂貪愛。以愛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本別這樣說。如果因為染污的智慧而說沒有總體的無明（Avidyā，不了知），這是不成立的。也應該就其差別性來解釋。

外人問：既然你承認有無明，那麼它的相狀是什麼樣的呢？

有部回答：所謂不了知四諦（Satya，真理）、三寶（Triratna，佛、法、僧）、善惡業（Karma，行為）及其異熟果（Vipāka-phala，因果報應），就叫做無明。

外人再次詰難：如果無明的相狀不同於了知，那它應該就像眼根等一樣。如果它與了知沒有區別，那麼它的本體就應該不存在。這兩種過失和前面提到的一樣。

答：這裡所說的無明，是指慧（Prajñā，智慧）所要對治的另一種法。

外人再次追問：那麼，這種難以捉摸的相狀到底是什麼呢？

答：這類法本來就是如此，只能通過作用來辨別。眼根是清凈色，是眼識所依賴的。我們通過它的作用來辨別它。無明也是這樣，不了知四諦等，只能通過作用來辨別。

大德法救（Dharmatrāta）說：『恃我』是指依仗『我』而生起的慢心，這叫做『恃我』，也就是我慢（Māna，驕傲）。『類性』是無明。這種無明是我慢的流類性。所以通過我慢來顯示無明。實際上，它也是其他煩惱的流類性。這裡暫且借用我慢來顯示。而且，這種無明普遍與各種煩惱相應，類似於其他煩惱，所以特別被稱為『類』。

論主問：如果無明的類性不同於我慢，那麼它是什麼呢？類性就是我慢，我慢是『我見』（ātma-dṛṣṭi，認為有『我』的錯誤見解）的同類，所以叫做類性。所以才問，如果無明的類性不同於我慢，那麼它是什麼呢？

大德引用經文回答：經中說，『我現在這樣知道了，這是修道（Mārga，修行之道）。這樣見到了，這是見道（Darśana-mārga，見真理之道）。』或者說，『這樣知道了，這是諸智（Jñāna，智慧）。這樣見到了，這是諸忍（Kṣānti，忍耐）。』因為有了知和見，所以愛等煩惱才能永遠斷除。或者說，『這樣知道了，這是盡智（Kṣaya-jñāna，知煩惱已盡的智慧）。這樣見到了，這是無生智（Anutpāda-jñāna，知未來不再生的智慧）。』因為觀照的緣故，也叫做見。或者說，『這樣知道了，這是盡無生智。這樣見到了，這是無學正見智（Aśaikṣa-samyag-dṛṣṭi-jñāna，無須再學的正見智慧）。』因為盡智和無生智不是見，所以這樣說。』所有這些愛，指的是貪愛（Tṛṣṇā，渴愛）。因為愛……

【English Translation】 English version Don't say that. It's not valid to say there's no general ignorance (Avidyā, non-knowing) because of defiled wisdom. It should also be explained in terms of its distinctions.

The outsider asks: Since you admit there is ignorance, what is its characteristic?

The Sarvāstivāda school answers: Not understanding the Four Noble Truths (Satya, truths), the Three Jewels (Triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), good and bad karma (Karma, actions), and their resultant fruits (Vipāka-phala, consequences), is called ignorance.

The outsider further challenges: If the characteristic of ignorance is different from knowing, then it should be like the eye faculty, etc. If it is not different from knowing, then its substance should not exist. These two faults are the same as mentioned before.

The answer: This ignorance refers to a separate dharma (phenomenon) that is to be overcome by wisdom (Prajñā, wisdom).

The outsider asks again: Then, what exactly is this elusive characteristic?

The answer: This kind of dharma is naturally so, and can only be distinguished by its function. The eye faculty is pure matter and is the basis upon which eye consciousness relies. We distinguish it by its function. Ignorance is also like this; not understanding the Truths, etc., can only be distinguished by its function.

The Venerable Dharmatrāta (Dharmatrāta) said: 'Reliance on self' means arrogance arising from relying on 'self'. This is called 'reliance on self', which is self-conceit (Māna, pride). 'Class nature' is ignorance. This ignorance is the flowing class nature of self-conceit. Therefore, ignorance is shown through self-conceit. In reality, it is also the flowing class nature of other afflictions. Here, we temporarily use self-conceit to illustrate it. Moreover, this ignorance is generally associated with various afflictions, similar to other afflictions, so it is particularly called 'class'.

The Abhidharma master asks: If the class nature of ignorance is different from self-conceit, then what is it? Class nature is self-conceit; self-conceit is of the same kind as 'self-view' (ātma-dṛṣṭi, the false view of a 'self'), so it is called class nature. That's why it is asked, if the class nature of ignorance is different from self-conceit, then what is it?

The Venerable one answers by quoting the sutra: The sutra says, 'Now that I have known thus, this is the path of cultivation (Mārga, path of practice). Having seen thus, this is the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga, path of seeing the truth).' Or, 'Having known thus, these are the knowledges (Jñāna, wisdoms). Having seen thus, these are the acceptances (Kṣānti, acceptances).' Because of knowing and seeing, afflictions such as craving are permanently eliminated. Or, 'Having known thus, this is the knowledge of exhaustion (Kṣaya-jñāna, knowledge of the exhaustion of afflictions). Having seen thus, this is the knowledge of non-arising (Anutpāda-jñāna, knowledge of non-arising in the future).' Because of contemplation, it is also called seeing. Or, 'Having known thus, this is the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising. Having seen thus, this is the wisdom of the unconditioned right view (Aśaikṣa-samyag-dṛṣṭi-jñāna, wisdom of right view beyond learning).' Because the knowledge of exhaustion and non-arising is not seeing, it is said thus.' All these cravings refer to craving (Tṛṣṇā, thirst). Because of craving...

是惑足。故別標名　諸所有見。謂五見中除身見是餘四見　諸所有類性。謂無明遍與惑俱。勝故別說無明等。說為別顯彼說類性。故正理云。勝煩惱中無明未說。為別顯彼說類性言。遍與惑俱遍往諸趣故名類性。類是行義。是類之體得類性名　諸我我所執。謂有身見勝故別說。故正理云。我．我所執是諸見根。故於見中別顯二種　我慢執。謂七慢中我慢。用我起故勝故別標　隨眠。謂疑恚。故正理云。為攝疑．恚說隨眠言　斷遍知故。謂斷諸惑盡得斷遍知。即有餘涅槃　無影寂滅。謂無餘涅槃。經既別說類性。故知類性異於我慢。

寧知類性即是無明者。論主徴大德。

不可說為余煩惱故者。大德答云。不可說為余貪等故。

豈不可說為余慢等者。論主復難。此經類性豈不可說為餘六慢。慢等等取過慢等五。若以慢等為類性。余惑類故名為類性。經部諸師不信無明別有實體。論主意朋經部故作斯難。正理論釋意同大德。

若更於此至故應且止者。論主止諍。

名色何義者。此下第二辨名色問。

色如先辨至名無色四蘊者。答　色如先辨。謂前界品色蘊中辨。今唯辨名。前文雖亦辨餘四蘊。未說為名。故今分別。

論曰至何故稱名者。問。名是不相應中名。四無色蘊何故稱

【現代漢語翻譯】是惑的根本原因。因此特別標明『諸所有見』（Sarva dṛṣṭi）。指的是五見（Pañca dṛṣṭi）中除了身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi）之外的其餘四見。『諸所有類性』（Sarva prakṛti）指的是無明（Avidyā）普遍與煩惱相伴。因為無明更為突出，所以特別說明無明等。說為類性是爲了特別顯示它們具有類別的性質。因此《正理》中說：『在突出的煩惱中，無明沒有被提及，爲了特別顯示它，所以說類性。』普遍與煩惱相伴，普遍前往各種趣，因此名為類性。類是行為的意義，是類別的本體，因此得名類性。『諸我我所執』（Ātmātmīyagrāha）指的是有身見，因為它更為突出，所以特別說明。因此《正理》中說：『我、我所執是各種見的根本，因此在見中特別顯示這兩種。』『我慢執』（Māna）指的是七慢（Sapta māna）中的我慢，因為它以我為基礎產生，所以特別標明。『隨眠』（Anuśaya）指的是疑（Vicikicchā）和恚（Dveṣa）。因此《正理》中說：『爲了涵蓋疑和恚，所以說隨眠。』『斷遍知故』（Parijñā），指的是斷除所有煩惱，完全獲得斷的遍知，即是有餘涅槃（Sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa）。『無影寂滅』指的是無餘涅槃（Nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa）。經文既然分別說明了類性，因此可知類性不同於我慢。寧知類性即是無明者。論主提出疑問。『不可說為余煩惱故』。大德回答說：『不可說為其餘貪等煩惱。』『豈不可說為余慢等者』。論主再次提出疑問。此經中的類性難道不能說是其餘六慢嗎？慢等等包括過慢等五種。如果以慢等作為類性，因為其餘煩惱也屬於此類，所以名為類性。經部（Sautrāntika）的諸位論師不相信無明有單獨的實體。論主傾向於經部的觀點，所以提出這樣的疑問。《正理論》的解釋與大德的觀點相同。『若更於此至故應且止者』。論主停止爭論。『名色何義者』。以下第二部分辨析名色（Nāmarūpa）的含義。『色如先辨至名無色四蘊者』。回答：色如先前所辨析的。指的是前面界品色蘊（Rūpa-skandha）中的辨析。現在只辨析名。前面的文章雖然也辨析了其餘四蘊，但沒有說是名，所以現在分別說明。論曰至何故稱名者。問：名是不相應行法中的名，那麼四無色蘊（Arūpaskandha）為什麼稱

【English Translation】 The root of delusion. Therefore, 'Sarva dṛṣṭi' (all views) is specifically indicated. It refers to the four views other than Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self) among the five views (Pañca dṛṣṭi). 'Sarva prakṛti' (all natures) refers to Avidyā (ignorance) universally accompanying afflictions. Because ignorance is more prominent, ignorance and others are specifically mentioned. Saying 'natures' is to specifically show that they have the nature of categories. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'Among the prominent afflictions, ignorance has not been mentioned; to specifically show it, the term 'natures' is used.' Universally accompanying afflictions and universally going to various destinies, therefore it is called 'natures'. 'Nature' is the meaning of action, it is the substance of the category, therefore it is named 'natures'. 'Ātmātmīyagrāha' (grasping of self and what belongs to self) refers to Satkāya-dṛṣṭi, because it is more prominent, it is specifically mentioned. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'Grasping of self and what belongs to self is the root of all views, therefore these two are specifically shown among the views.' 'Māna' (conceit) refers to self-conceit among the seven conceits (Sapta māna), because it arises based on self, it is specifically indicated. 'Anuśaya' (latent tendencies) refers to Vicikicchā (doubt) and Dveṣa (hatred). Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'To include doubt and hatred, the term 'latent tendencies' is used.' 'Parijñā' (complete understanding of abandonment) refers to abandoning all afflictions and completely obtaining the complete understanding of abandonment, which is Sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (Nirvana with remainder). 'Without shadow and extinction' refers to Nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (Nirvana without remainder). Since the sutra separately explains 'natures', it can be known that 'natures' is different from conceit. Why is it known that 'natures' is Avidyā? The master of the treatise raises a question. 'It cannot be said to be other afflictions.' The venerable answers: 'It cannot be said to be other afflictions such as greed.' 'Could it not be said to be other conceits?' The master of the treatise raises the question again. Could the 'natures' in this sutra not be said to be the other six conceits? 'Conceit and others' includes the five such as excessive conceit. If conceit and others are taken as 'natures', because other afflictions also belong to this category, it is called 'natures'. The teachers of the Sautrāntika school do not believe that ignorance has a separate entity. The master of the treatise leans towards the view of the Sautrāntika school, so he raises this question. The explanation of the Nyāyasūtra is the same as the venerable's view. 'If further on this, then it should be stopped.' The master of the treatise stops the debate. 'What is the meaning of Nāmarūpa?' The following is the second part analyzing the meaning of Nāmarūpa (name and form). 'Form is as previously explained, and name is the four formless aggregates.' Answer: Form is as previously analyzed. It refers to the analysis in the Rūpa-skandha (aggregate of form) in the previous chapter. Now only name is analyzed. Although the previous text also analyzed the other four aggregates, it did not say they were name, so now they are explained separately. The treatise says, 'Why is it called name?' Question: Name is the name in non-associated formations, so why are the four Arūpaskandha (formless aggregates) called

名。

隨所立名至故說為名者。答。若名隨上古來所共立名勢力。于義轉變。故說為名。若無色四蘊隨根．境勢力于義轉變。轉變同名。故說為名。以此四蘊必依根緣境故。言隨根．境勢力。

云何隨名勢力轉變者。問。名云何隨名勢力轉變。

謂隨種種至色味等名者。答。謂劫初時。隨種種法世共立名。由勢力故。后名方得於彼彼義轉變詮表。如牛等名。此復何緣標以名稱者。問。此四蘊復以何緣標以名稱。

于彼彼境轉變而緣者。答。無色蘊于彼彼境轉變而緣。轉變如名。故標稱　余不相應雖無轉變。同無色中有轉變故。名攝無失　如變礙名色。雖無表等而無變礙。同於色中有變礙故。色攝無失。

又類似名者。第二解。四蘊與名。同無色法流類。似名故標名稱。故婆沙十五解四蘊名名所以云。答佛于有為總分二分。謂色．非色。色是色蘊。非色即是受等四蘊。非色聚中有能顯了一切法名。故非色聚總說為名。

隨名顯故者。第三解。無色四蘊相隱難知。隨名顯故故標名稱。故婆沙云。有說色法粗顯即說為色。非色微隱。由名顯故說之為名。

有餘師說至故標名稱者。第四解。無色四蘊舍此身已轉趣未來余受生處。轉變如名。故標名稱　無漏四蘊雖不受生。是此類故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『名』（Nāma，名稱）的含義是根據所建立的名稱而說的。回答：如果名稱是根據上古以來共同建立的名稱的勢力，在意義上發生轉變，所以說是『名』。如果無色的四蘊（受、想、行、識）隨著根、境的勢力在意義上發生轉變，這種轉變與名稱相似，所以說是『名』。因為這四蘊必定依靠根和境的緣故，所以說是隨著根和境的勢力。什麼是隨著名稱的勢力而轉變？問：名稱如何隨著名稱的勢力而轉變？意思是隨著種種法而有色味等名稱。回答：在劫初的時候，隨著種種法，世間共同建立名稱，由於名稱的勢力，後來的名稱才得以在各種意義上轉變和詮釋，例如『牛』等名稱。為什麼用名稱來標示呢？問：這四蘊又因為什麼緣故用名稱來標示呢？因為在各種境界中轉變而緣。回答：無色蘊在各種境界中轉變而緣，這種轉變就像名稱一樣，所以用名稱來標示。其餘不相應的，雖然沒有轉變，但因為在無色中有轉變的緣故，用名稱來統攝也沒有過失。例如『變礙名色』，雖然沒有表等作用，但因為有變礙，如同在色中有變礙一樣，用色來統攝也沒有過失。又因為類似名稱。第二種解釋：四蘊與名稱，同屬于無色法的流類，類似名稱，所以用名稱來標示。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第十五卷解釋四蘊被稱為『名』的原因時說：佛將有為法總分為兩部分，即色和非色。色就是色蘊，非色就是受等四蘊。在非色聚中有能夠顯示一切法的名稱，所以將非色聚總稱為『名』。因為隨著名稱而顯現。第三種解釋：無色四蘊的相狀隱晦難以知曉，隨著名稱而顯現，所以用名稱來標示。所以《婆沙論》說：有人說色法粗顯，所以稱為『色』，非色微隱，因為名稱而顯現，所以稱為『名』。有其他論師說，因為標示名稱。第四種解釋：無色四蘊捨棄此身之後，轉而趣向未來其餘受生之處，這種轉變如同名稱一樣，所以用名稱來標示。無漏四蘊雖然不受生，但因為是同類，所以也用名稱來標示。

【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'Nāma' (name) is spoken of because of the name that has been established. Answer: If the name follows the power of a name that has been commonly established since ancient times, and its meaning changes, then it is said to be 'name'. If the four formless aggregates (feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) change in meaning according to the power of the faculties and objects, this change is similar to a name, so it is said to be 'name'. Because these four aggregates must rely on the faculties and conditions of the objects, it is said to be according to the power of the faculties and objects. How does it change according to the power of the name? Question: How does the name change according to the power of the name? It means that there are names such as color and taste according to various dharmas. Answer: At the beginning of the kalpa (aeon), names were commonly established in the world according to various dharmas. Because of the power of the names, later names were able to change and express various meanings, such as the name 'cow'. Why is it marked with a name? Question: For what reason are these four aggregates marked with a name? Because it changes and conditions in various realms. Answer: The formless aggregates change and condition in various realms. This change is like a name, so it is marked with a name. The rest that are not corresponding, although there is no change, because there is change in the formless, there is no fault in including it under the name. For example, 'change and obstruction are called form', although there is no expression, etc., but because there is change and obstruction, just as there is change and obstruction in form, there is no fault in including it under form. Also, because it is similar to a name. Second explanation: The four aggregates and the name belong to the same stream of formless dharmas. It is similar to a name, so it is marked with a name. Therefore, the fifteenth volume of the Vibhasa explains the reason why the four aggregates are called 'name': The Buddha divides conditioned dharmas into two parts, namely form and non-form. Form is the aggregate of form, and non-form is the four aggregates such as feeling. In the non-form aggregate, there is a name that can manifest all dharmas, so the non-form aggregate is generally called 'name'. Because it is revealed along with the name. Third explanation: The characteristics of the four formless aggregates are obscure and difficult to know. It is revealed along with the name, so it is marked with a name. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: Some say that form dharmas are coarse and manifest, so they are called 'form'. Non-form is subtle and hidden, and it is revealed by the name, so it is called 'name'. Some other teachers say that it is because of marking the name. Fourth explanation: After the four formless aggregates abandon this body, they turn to other places of rebirth in the future. This change is like a name, so it is marked with a name. Although the unconditioned four aggregates are not subject to rebirth, they are of the same kind, so they are also marked with a name.

名攝無失　初解約易境名轉變。后解約易生名轉變。雖義差別俱約轉變釋名　又正理二十九云。佛說無色四蘊名名。何故名名。能表召故。謂能表召種種所緣。若爾不應全攝無色。不相應法無所緣故。不爾表召唯在無色。如釋色名所說無過。佛說變礙故名為色。去來．無表．及諸極微。雖無變礙而得名色。以無色中無變礙故。變礙名色非不極成。如是無色中容有表召。非色中有故理亦無違。故不相應名攝無失　更有三解不能具述。

觸何為義者。此下第三辨觸。就中。一明六觸。二明二觸。三明八觸。此下明六觸問起。

頌曰至觸六三和生者。答　觸。即標體　六。就依分　三和生言。舉因顯體。

論曰至乃至意觸者。就長行中。初釋頌。后抉擇。此下釋頌即釋六觸。

此復是何者。問。此觸體復是何。

三和所生至有別觸生者。答。釋三和生。三和合故有別觸生說名為觸。

且五觸生至如何和合者。此下抉擇。問五識相應觸生。可三和合。許根．境．識同現在故。意識相應觸生。根．境．識三種容各在一世。如何和合　以法亦容在過．現故。是故言或。

此即名和合至同順生觸故者。答。非以同世名和合。根．境．識三。雖復各居一世此即名和合。謂因果義成。意法為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『名攝無失』：首先解釋『約易境名轉變』，然後解釋『約易生名轉變』。雖然意義有所差別，但都通過『轉變』來解釋名稱。此外，《正理》第二十九卷說：『佛說無色界的四蘊稱為名。』為什麼稱為『名』？因為它能夠表述和召示。也就是說，它能夠表述和召示種種所緣（alambana，對像）。如果這樣，就不應該完全包含無色界，因為不相應法沒有所緣。並非如此，表述和召示只存在於無色界。就像解釋『色』這個名稱時所說的那樣，沒有過失。佛說因為『變礙』（viparinama，變化和阻礙）的緣故，稱為『色』。過去、未來、無表色以及各種極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位），雖然沒有變礙，但也可以稱為『色』，因為在無色界中沒有變礙。『變礙』稱為『色』並非不成立。同樣，無色界中可以有表述和召示，因為色界中沒有，所以道理上也沒有衝突。因此，不相應法包含在『名』中沒有錯誤。還有三種解釋，這裡不能一一詳述。

『觸何為義者』：下面第三部分辨析『觸』（sparsha，感覺）。其中，第一部分說明六觸，第二部分說明二觸，第三部分說明八觸。下面說明六觸的提問開始。

『頌曰至觸六三和生者』：回答。『觸』，即標明本體。『六』，就所依而分。『三和生』，舉出原因來顯示本體。

『論曰至乃至意觸者』：在長行文中，首先解釋頌文，然後進行抉擇。下面解釋頌文，也就是解釋六觸。

『此復是何者』：提問。這個『觸』的本體又是什麼？

『三和所生至有別觸生者』：回答。解釋『三和生』。因為三種因素和合，所以產生不同的『觸』，這被稱為『觸』。

『且五觸生至如何和合者』：下面進行抉擇。提問。與五識相應的『觸』的產生，可以說是三種因素和合，因為允許根（indriya，感官）、境（vishaya，對像）、識（vijnana，意識）同時存在。與意識相應的『觸』的產生，根、境、識三種因素可能各自存在於不同的時世，如何和合？因為法（dharma，事物）也可能存在於過去或現在，所以說是『或』。

『此即名和合至同順生觸故者』：回答。不是因為存在於同一時世才稱為和合。根、境、識三者，即使各自存在於不同的時世，也可以稱為和合。也就是說，因為因果關係成立，意和法作為...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Nama Sangraha Avipralopa': First, it explains 'Yoga-yukta artha-nama-parinama' (transformation of name related to easily understood objects), then it explains 'Yoga-yukta janma-nama-parinama' (transformation of name related to easily understood birth). Although the meanings are different, both explain the name through 'transformation'. Furthermore, the twenty-ninth volume of the Nyaya-sutra says: 'The Buddha said that the four skandhas (aggregates) of the arupa-dhatu (formless realm) are called nama (name).' Why are they called nama? Because they can express and summon. That is to say, they can express and summon various alambanas (objects of cognition). If so, it should not completely include the arupa-dhatu, because viprayukta dharmas (non-associated formations) have no alambana. It is not so; expression and summoning only exist in the arupa-dhatu. Just as it was said when explaining the name 'rupa' (form), there is no fault. The Buddha said that because of viparinama (change and obstruction), it is called rupa. Past, future, avijnapti-rupa (non-manifest form), and various paramanus (ultimate particles), although they have no viparinama, can also be called rupa, because there is no viparinama in the arupa-dhatu. 'Viparinama' being called 'rupa' is not unestablished. Similarly, there can be expression and summoning in the arupa-dhatu, because there is none in the rupa-dhatu, so there is no contradiction in principle. Therefore, there is no error in including viprayukta dharmas in nama. There are three more explanations, which cannot be fully described here.

'What is the meaning of sparsha (contact)?': The third part below distinguishes sparsha. Among them, the first part explains the six sparshas, the second part explains the two sparshas, and the third part explains the eight sparshas. The question about explaining the six sparshas begins below.

'The gatha says, up to sparsha shat traya samutpada (contact, six, arising from three conditions)': Answer. 'Sparsha', that is, marking the substance. 'Shat (six)', dividing according to the basis. 'Traya samutpada (arising from three conditions)', citing the cause to reveal the substance.

'The sutra says, up to api ca manas-sparsha (and also mental contact)': In the prose, first explain the gatha, then make a determination. Below, explain the gatha, which is to explain the six sparshas.

'What is this again?': Question. What is the substance of this sparsha again?

'Tri-samutpadah...sparsha-vishesha-utpadyate': Answer. Explain 'tri-samutpada (arising from three conditions)'. Because the three conditions combine, different sparshas arise, which are called sparsha.

'First, the five sparshas arise...how do they combine?': Below, make a determination. Question. The arising of sparsha corresponding to the five vijnanas (consciousnesses) can be said to be the combination of three conditions, because it is allowed that indriya (sense organ), vishaya (object), and vijnana (consciousness) exist simultaneously. The arising of sparsha corresponding to mano-vijnana (mental consciousness), the three conditions of indriya, vishaya, and vijnana may each exist in different times, how do they combine? Because dharma (phenomena) may also exist in the past or present, so it is said 'or'.

'This is called combination...because sparsha arises in accordance': Answer. It is not called combination because they exist in the same time. The three, indriya, vishaya, and vijnana, even if they each exist in different times, can be called combination. That is to say, because the cause-and-effect relationship is established, manas (mind) and dharma as...

因意識為果。又根．境．識三。同順生一觸果故名和合。和合有二。一俱起名和合。二相順生果名和合。於六之中前五具二和合。后一相順生果名和合。故婆沙一百九十七云。答此問云。和合有二種。一俱起不相離名和合。二不相違同辨一事名為和合。五識相。應觸。由二和合故名和合。意識相應觸。由辨一事和合故名和合　問凡因果相望。若因望果或俱或在前。若果望因或俱或在後。如過去意根生現意識果。或過去意根現在意識生現觸果其理可然。未來法境。如何生現識．及現觸果　解云泛明得果名略有三種。一取果．與果名為果。此果望因。若俱若后。即是有為四果。二證故名為果。即是無為擇滅果。三相隨順故。相由藉故名為果。此果望因通前．后．俱。通有為．無為。如現意識名果。於三果中望過意因有初．後果。望未法因但有後果。如現觸果於三果中。望過意根現意識因有初．後果。望未法因但有後果。此果前因后名為果者。據相隨順故相由藉故假名為果。非是五果中果　又解現在意識．及現觸果。望未來法境亦是增上果。凡增上果有二。一取果．與果增上果。此果必無在因前也。二非是取果．與果增上果。此果容在因前。我今據此說也。

諸師於此至說名為觸者。此下敘說不同。諸師於此觸覺慧不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『因』是作為『果』的條件而存在。此外，根（感官）、境（對像）、識（意識）三者，共同順應產生一個『觸』（感覺）的結果，因此稱為『和合』（結合）。『和合』有兩種：一是同時生起，名為『俱起和合』；二是相互順應產生結果，名為『相順生果和合』。在六種意識中，前五種具備兩種『和合』，后一種（意識）是『相順生果和合』。所以《婆沙論》第一百九十七卷說，回答這個問題時說：『和合』有兩種，一是同時生起不相分離，名為『和合』；二是不相違背，共同辨識一件事物，名為『和合』。前五識相應的『觸』，由於兩種『和合』的緣故，稱為『和合』。意識相應的『觸』，由於辨識同一件事物的『和合』，稱為『和合』。問：一般來說，因果相互對應，如果從『因』的角度看『果』，或者同時，或者在後；如果從『果』的角度看『因』，或者同時，或者在後。例如，過去的意根（manas, 意）產生現在的意識果，或者過去的意根，現在的意識產生現在的『觸』果，這個道理是可以理解的。但是，未來的法境（dharma-visaya, 法的境界），如何產生現在的識和現在的『觸』果呢？解：總的來說，獲得『果』的名稱，大致有三種：一是『取果』（獲取結果）、『與果』（給予結果），這稱為『果』。這種『果』相對於『因』來說，或者同時，或者在後。這就是有為法的四種果報。二是『證』（證悟）的緣故，稱為『果』，這就是無為法的擇滅果（nirodha-phala, 滅盡的果報）。三是相互隨順的緣故，相互依賴的緣故，稱為『果』。這種『果』相對於『因』來說，貫通前、后、同時，貫通有為法、無為法。例如，現在的意識稱為『果』，在三種『果』中，相對於過去的意根『因』，有最初的『果』和隨後的『果』；相對於未來的法『因』，只有隨後的『果』。例如，現在的『觸』果在三種『果』中，相對於過去的意根和現在的意識『因』，有最初的『果』和隨後的『果』；相對於未來的法『因』，只有隨後的『果』。這種『果』在『因』之後被稱為『果』，是根據相互隨順、相互依賴的緣故，假名為『果』，不是五種『果』中的『果』。又解釋說，現在的意識和現在的『觸』果，相對於未來的法境來說，也是增上果（adhipati-phala, 增上果）。一般來說，增上果有兩種：一是『取果』、『與果』的增上果，這種『果』一定不會在『因』之前。二是非『取果』、『與果』的增上果，這種『果』可以出現在『因』之前。我現在就是根據這種情況說的。各家論師對於此處的『說名為觸』，以下敘述各不相同。各家論師對於此處的觸覺慧不...

【English Translation】 English version 『Cause』 exists as the condition for 『Effect』. Furthermore, the three – Root (sense organ), Object (domain), and Consciousness – together accord to produce a single 『Contact』 (sensation) as a result, hence it is called 『Combination』 (union). There are two types of 『Combination』: one is arising simultaneously, called 『Simultaneous Arising Combination』; the other is mutually according to produce a result, called 『Mutually Accordant Result-producing Combination』. Among the six consciousnesses, the first five possess both types of 『Combination』, while the last one (consciousness) is 『Mutually Accordant Result-producing Combination』. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Volume 197, says in response to this question: 『Combination』 is of two types, one is arising simultaneously and inseparable, called 『Combination』; the other is not contradictory, jointly discerning one matter, called 『Combination』. The 『Contact』 corresponding to the first five consciousnesses is called 『Combination』 because of the two types of 『Combination』. The 『Contact』 corresponding to consciousness is called 『Combination』 because of discerning the same matter』s 『Combination』. Question: Generally speaking, causes and effects correspond to each other. If viewed from the perspective of 『Cause』 towards 『Effect』, they are either simultaneous or subsequent; if viewed from the perspective of 『Effect』 towards 『Cause』, they are either simultaneous or subsequent. For example, the past manas (意, mind-organ) produces the present consciousness effect, or the past manas, the present consciousness produces the present 『Contact』 effect, this principle is understandable. However, how can the future dharma-visaya (法的境界, object of mind) produce the present consciousness and the present 『Contact』 effect? Explanation: Generally speaking, obtaining the name of 『Effect』 roughly has three types: one is 『Obtaining Effect』 (acquiring result), 『Giving Effect』 (granting result), this is called 『Effect』. This 『Effect』 relative to 『Cause』 is either simultaneous or subsequent. This is the four results of conditioned phenomena. Two is because of 『Realization』 (證悟), it is called 『Effect』, this is the nirodha-phala (滅盡的果報, cessation result) of unconditioned phenomena. Three is because of mutual accordance, because of mutual dependence, it is called 『Effect』. This 『Effect』 relative to 『Cause』 connects the past, future, and simultaneous, connects conditioned and unconditioned phenomena. For example, the present consciousness is called 『Effect』. Among the three types of 『Effect』, relative to the past manas 『Cause』, there is the initial 『Effect』 and the subsequent 『Effect』; relative to the future dharma 『Cause』, there is only the subsequent 『Effect』. For example, the present 『Contact』 effect, among the three types of 『Effect』, relative to the past manas and the present consciousness 『Cause』, there is the initial 『Effect』 and the subsequent 『Effect』; relative to the future dharma 『Cause』, there is only the subsequent 『Effect』. This 『Effect』 being called 『Effect』 after the 『Cause』 is based on mutual accordance, mutual dependence, falsely named 『Effect』, it is not the 『Effect』 among the five types of 『Effect』. Furthermore, it is explained that the present consciousness and the present 『Contact』 effect, relative to the future dharma-visaya, are also adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result). Generally speaking, there are two types of dominant result: one is the dominant result of 『Obtaining Effect』, 『Giving Effect』, this 『Effect』 will definitely not be before the 『Cause』. Two is the dominant result of non-『Obtaining Effect』, non-『Giving Effect』, this 『Effect』 can appear before the 『Cause』. I am now speaking based on this situation. The various masters' statements regarding 'saying it is called Contact' differ below. The various masters' wisdom of tactile sensation here does not...

同。有經部師說根．境．識三和合即名為觸。經證可知。

有說別法至故觸別有者。說一切有部師言。根．境．識外別有觸體。經證可知　經言身者。所謂體也　又解多念識等積集名身。故婆沙解六愛身云。問何故名身。答多愛積集故名為身。謂非一剎那。

說即三和至非法處攝者。經部師通六六經。受．愛別說然法處攝。觸雖別說即三所攝。

無如是失至差別而說者。說一切有部救義返難經部。如我所宗。離愛．受．觸有餘法處可得差別而說。汝宗離觸既無別三。如何可言觸．及彼三差別而說。

雖有根境至便成無用者。牒外救破。外救意云亦有根．境不能發識。是故經中別說根．境。如何難我離觸之外無別有三　故牒破云雖有根．境不發於識。而無有識不託根．境。言三可以攝觸。更別說觸便成無用。

有餘救言至總立為觸者。經部師救。據彼同分根．境．識故別說為三。若據同分根．境．識三因果所收總立為觸。

說離三和至出現樂等者。說一切有部釋前經部引經。一釋我誦文異。二釋設有此文。於三因上假說觸果之名。故言三法聚集和合名觸。如說諸佛出現樂等。于因立果。

如是展轉至故應且止者。論主止諍。

然對法者說有別觸者。說一切有部結歸本

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有經部師說，根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（viṣaya，感覺對像）、識（vijñāna，意識）三者和合，就叫做觸（sparśa，接觸）。這有經文可以證明。

有人說，因為有別法生起，所以觸是獨立的。說一切有部師說，在根、境、識之外，另外存在觸的自體。這有經文可以證明。經文說，『身』，指的就是自體。還有一種解釋，多個念頭的識等積聚起來叫做身。所以《婆沙論》解釋六愛身時說：『問：為什麼叫做身？答：因為多種愛積聚，所以叫做身。』這裡指的是非一剎那。

經部師認為，貫通六六經，受（vedanā，感受）、愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）雖然單獨說明，但屬於法處所攝。觸雖然單獨說明，實際上是被根、境、識三者所包含。

說一切有部爲了維護自己的觀點，反駁經部說：『就像我所宗主張的，離開愛、受、觸，還有其他的法處可以獲得，並且可以加以區分說明。你們宗派認為，離開觸就沒有獨立的根、境、識三者，又怎麼能說觸以及根、境、識三者可以區分說明呢？』

經部師反駁說，即使有根、境，也不能引發識，所以經典中單獨說明根、境。怎麼能以此來反駁我方『離開觸之外，沒有獨立的根、境、識三者』的觀點呢？因此，反駁說，即使有根、境，不一定能引發識，但是沒有不依賴根、境而產生的識。根、境、識三者可以包含觸，再單獨說明觸就變得沒有意義了。

經部師辯解說，根據它們共同的部分，根、境、識可以單獨說明為三者。如果根據它們共同的部分，根、境、識三者是因果所包含的，總合起來就稱為觸。

說一切有部解釋之前經部引用的經文。第一種解釋是，我們背誦的經文不同。第二種解釋是，即使有這段經文，也是在根、境、識三因上假立觸果的名稱。所以說，三種法聚集和合叫做觸。就像說諸佛出現帶來快樂等等，這是在因上假立果的名稱。

像這樣爭論不休，所以應該暫時停止爭論。

然而，對法藏部的人來說，認為存在獨立的觸。說一切有部總結歸於本宗。

【English Translation】 English version: The Sautrāntika masters say that the combination of indriya (sense organs), viṣaya (sense objects), and vijñāna (consciousness) is called sparśa (contact). This can be known from the scriptures.

Some say that because separate dharmas arise, sparśa is distinct. The Sarvāstivāda masters say that apart from indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna, there is a separate entity of sparśa. This can be known from the scriptures. The scripture says, 'Body' refers to the entity itself. Another explanation is that the accumulation of multiple moments of consciousness is called body. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā explains the six aggregates of craving by saying: 'Question: Why is it called body? Answer: Because multiple cravings accumulate, it is called body.' This refers to more than one moment.

The Sautrāntika masters, understanding the six-six sutras, say that vedanā (feeling) and tṛṣṇā (craving) are separately explained but are included in the dharma-āyatana (sphere of dharmas). Although sparśa is separately explained, it is actually included in the three: indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna.

The Sarvāstivāda, in order to defend their view, refute the Sautrāntika by saying: 'As my school asserts, apart from craving, feeling, and contact, there are other dharma-āyatanas that can be obtained and distinguished. Your school believes that apart from contact, there are no independent indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna. How can you say that contact and the three, indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna, can be distinguished and explained?'

The Sautrāntika masters refute by saying that even if there are indriya and viṣaya, they may not give rise to vijñāna. Therefore, the scriptures separately explain indriya and viṣaya. How can this be used to refute our view that 'apart from contact, there are no independent indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna'? Therefore, the refutation says that even if there are indriya and viṣaya, they may not give rise to vijñāna, but there is no vijñāna that does not rely on indriya and viṣaya. The three, indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna, can include contact, and separately explaining contact becomes meaningless.

The Sautrāntika masters defend by saying that according to their common aspect, indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna can be separately explained as three. If according to their common aspect, the three, indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna, are included in cause and effect, then collectively they are called contact.

The Sarvāstivāda explains the sutra quoted by the previous Sautrāntika. The first explanation is that the sutra we recite is different. The second explanation is that even if there is this sutra, it is falsely establishing the name of the fruit of contact on the three causes: indriya, viṣaya, and vijñāna. Therefore, it is said that the gathering and combination of the three dharmas is called contact. Just as it is said that the appearance of the Buddhas brings happiness, etc., this is falsely establishing the name of the fruit on the cause.

Since the arguments are endless, the author should stop the dispute for now.

However, for those of the Abhidharma school, they believe that there is a separate contact. The Sarvāstivāda concludes by returning to its own school.

宗。

即前六觸至第六俱增語者。此下第二明二觸。約所依等分為二種。

論曰至為所依故者。釋初句。眼等五識相應觸說名有對。以有對根為所依故從所依為名。有對之觸依主釋也。若依正理兼約境界。故彼論云。以有對根為所依故。唯有對法為境界故。

第六意觸至故名為長者。釋第二句。第六意識相應觸說名增語。所以稱名為增語者。語是音聲而為無詮表。名有詮表增勝於語故名增語　又解此名以語為增上方能詮表故名增語　又解增謂增長。由緣名故增長語言　又解謂由名力令語增勝故名增語。此名是意識所緣長境。故就所緣名增語觸。增語之觸依主釋也。所以名為長境者。如眼識但能了青不了青名。意識了青亦了青名。意識與五識同緣境已。更緣其名故名為長。

故有對觸至就所緣立者。結二觸名。

有說意識至就相應立者。敘異說。此說意識以差別語言為增上故方于境轉。五識不然。此且從多分說。亦有意識非由語故而能緣境。是故意識獨名增語。以語為增上。有財釋也。與此相應名增語觸。從相應立名鄰近釋也。又正理二十九更有解增語云。有說意識名為增語。于發語中為增上故　此解為語增上故名增語。依主釋也　又婆沙一百二十九更有兩解云。問何故此觸名增語。答

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：宗。

即前六觸至第六俱增語者。此下第二明二觸。約所依等分為二種。

論曰至為所依故者。釋初句。眼等五識相應觸說名有對（sapratiha，有障礙的）。以有對根為所依故從所依為名。有對之觸依主釋也。若依正理兼約境界。故彼論云。以有對根為所依故。唯有對法為境界故。

第六意觸至故名為長者。釋第二句。第六意識相應觸說名增語（adhivacana，表達）。所以稱名為增語者。語是音聲而為無詮表。名有詮表增勝於語故名增語。又解此名以語為增上方能詮表故名增語。又解增謂增長。由緣名故增長語言。又解謂由名力令語增勝故名增語。此名是意識所緣長境。故就所緣名增語觸。增語之觸依主釋也。所以名為長境者。如眼識但能了青不了青名。意識了青亦了青名。意識與五識同緣境已。更緣其名故名為長。

故有對觸至就所緣立者。結二觸名。

有說意識至就相應立者。敘異說。此說意識以差別語言為增上故方于境轉。五識不然。此且從多分說。亦有意識非由語故而能緣境。是故意識獨名增語。以語為增上。有財釋也。與此相應名增語觸。從相應立名鄰近釋也。又正理二十九更有解增語云。有說意識名為增語。于發語中為增上故。此解為語增上故名增語。依主釋也。又婆沙一百二十九更有兩解云。問何故此觸名增語。答

【English Translation】 English version: Doctrine.

That is, the preceding six contacts up to the sixth are all 'increased speech'. The second part below explains the two types of contact, divided into two categories based on their support, etc.

The treatise says, '...because it is the support.' This explains the first sentence. Contact associated with the five senses such as the eye is called 'obstructed' (sapratiha, having obstruction). Because it relies on obstructed roots, it is named after its support. 'Obstructed contact' is explained as dependent on its subject. According to the principle of reasoning, it also relates to the object. Therefore, that treatise says, 'Because it relies on obstructed roots, it only has obstructed dharmas as its object.'

The sixth mental contact ... is called 'increased speech' (adhivacana, expression). The reason it is called 'increased speech' is that speech is sound but without explicit meaning, while names have explicit meaning and are superior to speech, hence the name 'increased speech'. Another explanation is that this name is called 'increased speech' because speech is increased to be able to express meaning. Another explanation is that 'increase' means growth. Because of the connection with names, language grows. Another explanation is that the power of names makes speech superior, hence the name 'increased speech'. This name is a long object of the mind's perception. Therefore, 'increased speech contact' is named based on what is perceived. 'Increased speech contact' is explained as dependent on its subject. The reason it is called a 'long object' is that, for example, eye consciousness can only perceive 'blue' but not the name 'blue'. Mind consciousness perceives both 'blue' and the name 'blue'. After mind consciousness perceives the same object as the five senses, it further perceives its name, hence it is called 'long'.

Therefore, 'obstructed contact' ... is named based on what is perceived. This concludes the names of the two contacts.

Some say that mind consciousness ... is named based on association. This narrates a different view. This view says that mind consciousness can only turn towards an object because it is enhanced by differentiated language. The five senses are not like this. This is said from the majority perspective. There is also mind consciousness that can perceive objects without language. Therefore, only mind consciousness is called 'increased speech'. Language is the enhancement. This is an explanation with possession. Contact associated with this is called 'increased speech contact'. Naming from association is a nearby explanation. Furthermore, Zhengli 29 has another explanation of 'increased speech', saying, 'Some say that mind consciousness is called 'increased speech' because it is an enhancement in the utterance of speech.' This explanation is that it is called 'increased speech' because speech is enhanced. This is an explanation dependent on its subject. Furthermore, Vibhasa 129 has two more explanations, saying, 'Question: Why is this contact called 'increased speech'?' Answer:

由此觸自性語增故名增語。問云何此觸自性語增。答有對觸唯欲．色系。此觸通三界系及不繫(廣如彼釋)有說此觸所緣增語故名增語。問云何此觸所緣增語。答有對觸唯以有色法為所緣。此觸通緣有色．無色(廣如彼釋)。

即前六觸至樂等順三受者。此下第三明八觸。約相應不同分成八種。

論曰至無覆無記者。釋初兩句。

無明觸中至共相應故者。釋第三句。

總攝一切至名為順受者。釋第四句。列名可知。解順受觸言此三觸因能引樂等受果故。此即能引順所引也。此觸或是樂等三受所領納故受領于觸。廣如前釋。雖諸心所皆從觸生。受領強故此即所領順能領也。或觸能為受行相所依故。以受行相必依觸起。此即所依順能依也。由斯順故名為順受。

如何觸為受所領行相依者。問。如何同時觸為受所領。如何同時觸為受行相依前三解中初解可知。故不別問。后二稍隱故今別徴。

行相極似觸依觸而生故者。答。受之行相極似觸故。所以觸為受所領。如子似父領父媚好。答前問。此受行相依觸而生故。所以觸為受行相依。答后問。

如是合成十六種觸者。總結。

受何為義者。此下第四明受。就中。一總。二別。此即總也。頌前問起。

頌曰至但依心故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由此，因為『觸』的自性語言有所增長，所以稱為『增語』（Adhivacanasaṃphassa）。問：這個『觸』的自性語言如何增長？答：有對觸（Sappaṭighasaṃphassa）只屬於欲界和色界。而這個『觸』通於三界以及不繫（超出三界）（詳細解釋如彼處所說）。有人說，因為這個『觸』的所緣（Arammana）增語，所以稱為『增語』。問：這個『觸』的所緣如何增語？答：有對觸只以有色法為所緣。而這個『觸』通於緣有色法和無色法（詳細解釋如彼處所說）。

即前述的六觸，至於樂等順三受的觸。下面第三部分說明八觸。根據相應（Sampayutta）的不同，分為八種。

論曰：至於無覆無記者。解釋最初的兩句。

無明觸中，至於共同相應故者。解釋第三句。

總攝一切，至於名為順受者。解釋第四句。列出名稱可知。解釋『順受觸』，說這三種觸因為能夠引生樂等受的果報。這即是能引生順於所引生的。這個『觸』或者是由樂等三種受所領納，所以說受領于觸。詳細解釋如前所述。雖然各種心所（Cittasikara）都從觸產生，但因為受的領納作用強，所以這即是所領納順於能領納的。或者觸能夠作為受的行相（Akara）所依，因為受的行相必定依觸而生起。這即是所依順於能依的。由於這些順的緣故，所以稱為『順受』。

如何觸為受所領行相依者？問：如何同時觸為受所領？如何同時觸為受行相所依？前三種解釋中，第一種解釋可知，所以不另外提問。后兩種稍隱晦，所以現在特別提問。

行相極似觸依觸而生故者。答：受的行相極其相似於觸，所以觸為受所領。如同兒子像父親，領受父親的美好。回答前一個問題。這個受的行相依觸而生，所以觸為受行相所依。回答后一個問題。

如是合成十六種觸者。總結。

受何為義者？下面第四部分說明受。其中，一總說，二別說。這裡是總說。承接前面的問題而起。

頌曰：至於但依心故。

【English Translation】 English version: Hence, because the language of the nature of 『contact』 (Sparśa) increases, it is called 『increased language contact』 (Adhivacanasaṃphassa). Question: How does this 『contact』s』 language of nature increase? Answer: Reactive contact (Sappaṭighasaṃphassa) belongs only to the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) and the form realm (Rūpadhātu). This 『contact,』 however, pervades the three realms (Tridhātu) and the unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta) (explained in detail as mentioned there). Some say that because the object of this 『contact』 (Ārammaṇa) is increased language, it is called 『increased language.』 Question: How does this 『contact』s』 object increase language? Answer: Reactive contact only takes form (Rūpa) as its object. This 『contact,』 however, pervades the objects of both form and formlessness (Arūpa) (explained in detail as mentioned there).

That is, the aforementioned six contacts, as for the contacts that accord with the three feelings (Vedanā) such as pleasure. The third part below explains the eight contacts, which are divided into eight types according to their association (Sampayutta).

Treatise says: As for the unwholesome-indeterminate (Anivṛtāvyākṛta). Explains the first two sentences.

In ignorant contact, as for the reason of common association. Explains the third sentence.

Comprehensively gathering everything, as for being called accordant feeling. Explains the fourth sentence. Listing the names is self-explanatory. Explaining 『accordant feeling contact,』 it says that these three contacts are able to bring about the result of feelings such as pleasure. This is the ability to bring about that which accords with what is brought about. This 『contact』 is either received by the three feelings such as pleasure, so it is said that feeling receives contact. Explained in detail as mentioned before. Although all mental factors (Cittasikara) arise from contact, because the reception of feeling is strong, this is what is received accords with what is able to receive. Or contact can be the basis for the aspect (Ākāra) of feeling, because the aspect of feeling must arise dependent on contact. This is the basis accords with what is able to depend on. Because of these accordances, it is called 『accordant feeling.』

How is contact received by feeling and dependent on the aspect? Question: How can contact be received by feeling at the same time? How can contact be dependent on the aspect of feeling at the same time? Among the first three explanations, the first explanation is self-explanatory, so it is not asked separately. The latter two are slightly obscure, so they are specifically asked now.

The aspect is extremely similar to contact and arises dependent on contact. Answer: The aspect of feeling is extremely similar to contact, so contact is received by feeling. Just as a son resembles his father, receiving the father's beauty. Answers the previous question. This aspect of feeling arises dependent on contact, so contact is dependent on the aspect of feeling. Answers the latter question.

Thus, combining to form sixteen types of contact. Conclusion.

What is the meaning of feeling? The fourth part below explains feeling. Among them, one is general, and two are specific. This is the general explanation. Arising from the previous question.

Verse says: As for only depending on the mind.

者。答。據觸因別分成六種。約所依異復總為二。皆依主釋。

受生與觸為后為俱者。經部師問。

毗婆沙師至俱有因故者。答。觸．受俱起。俱有因故。

云何二法至義可成立者。經部復難。云何觸．受二法俱時而生觸為能生。受為所生。義可成立。

如何不立者。毗婆沙師反徴經部。

無功能故至余法無能者。經部復出理破。于已生受法余觸法無能。如牛兩角俱時而生。彼此相望誰為能．所。

此與立宗至重說何用者。毗婆沙師復非經部。前後二難文異義同。重說何用。

若爾便有互相生失者。經部復難。既二俱時觸．受便有互相生失。

許故非失至亦互為果者。毗婆沙師答。許觸．受二互為因果。

仁雖許爾至先意后識等者。經部復破同時因果。經但言觸生受。不言受生觸。故知前因後果非據同時互為因果。言互相生。即有違教過也。又此同時互為因果義非應道理。越能生法故此觸．受二俱至現在已生同時。如何可言互為能生。故義非理越能生法。凡言因果必前望后。若此因法世間極成能生彼果法。此因法與彼果時別極成。如先種后芽等。

先後因果至有所造色者。毗婆沙師許先因後果。復許同時因果。如眼識等果與眼．色等因俱。四大因俱有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：什麼是觸？答：根據所觸的因，可以分為六種。根據所依賴的不同，又可以總分為兩種。這些都是依主釋（一種梵文複合詞的解釋方法）。經部師問：受的產生與觸是先後關係還是同時關係？毗婆沙師回答：因為是俱有因的緣故，觸和受同時生起，因為它們是俱有因。經部師進一步質疑：如果觸和受這兩種法同時產生，那麼觸如何作為能生者，受如何作為所生者，這個道理如何成立？毗婆沙師反過來質問經部：為什麼不能這樣認為呢？經部師進一步提出理由反駁：對於已經產生的受法來說，其餘的觸法沒有能力（產生受）。就像牛的兩隻角同時產生，彼此相望，誰是能生者，誰是所生者呢？毗婆沙師反駁經部：前後兩次提問，文字不同，意思相同，重複提問有什麼用呢？經部師進一步質疑：如果這樣，就會有互相生起的過失。毗婆沙師回答：允許觸和受互相作為因果。經部師進一步反駁同時因果的觀點：雖然你允許這樣，但經典只說觸生受，沒有說受生觸。所以知道是前因後果，而不是根據同時互相作為因果。說互相生起，就有了違背教義的過失。而且，同時互相作為因果的道理是不應成立的。因為超越了能生之法，所以觸和受這二者同時產生，如何能說互相作為能生呢？所以道理不成立，超越了能生之法。凡是說因果，必定是先前指向後來的。如果這個因法在世間是極度成立的，能夠生起那個果法，那麼這個因法和那個果法的時間差別是極度成立的，比如先有種子後有芽等。毗婆沙師允許先因後果，也允許同時因果。比如眼識等果與眼、色等因同時，四大因同時存在，以及有所造色。

【English Translation】 English version: Q: What is Sparśa (Touch)? A: According to the cause of contact, it can be divided into six types. According to the difference in what it relies on, it can be generally divided into two types. All of these are Tatpuruṣa compound (a method of explaining Sanskrit compound words). The Sautrāntika (Sūtra School) asks: Is the arising of Vedanā (Feeling) prior to or simultaneous with Sparśa (Touch)? The Vaibhāṣika (Exegesis School) answers: Because of the Hetu-sahabhū (co-existent cause), Sparśa and Vedanā arise simultaneously, because they are co-existent causes. The Sautrāntika further questions: If Sparśa and Vedanā, these two dharmas, arise simultaneously, how can Sparśa be established as the producer and Vedanā as the produced? How can this principle be established? The Vaibhāṣika retorts by questioning the Sautrāntika: Why can't it be considered that way? The Sautrāntika further presents reasons for refutation: For the Vedanā that has already arisen, the remaining Sparśa has no ability (to produce Vedanā). It's like the two horns of a cow arising simultaneously, looking at each other; who is the producer and who is the produced? The Vaibhāṣika refutes the Sautrāntika: The two questions, before and after, have different words but the same meaning. What is the use of repeating the question? The Sautrāntika further questions: If so, there would be the fault of mutual arising. The Vaibhāṣika answers: It is accepted that Sparśa and Vedanā mutually act as cause and effect. The Sautrāntika further refutes the view of simultaneous cause and effect: Although you allow this, the scriptures only say that Sparśa gives rise to Vedanā, and do not say that Vedanā gives rise to Sparśa. Therefore, it is known that it is a prior cause and subsequent effect, not based on simultaneous mutual cause and effect. Saying mutual arising has the fault of violating the teachings. Moreover, the principle of simultaneous mutual cause and effect should not be established. Because it transcends the dharma of the producer, how can it be said that Sparśa and Vedanā, these two, arise simultaneously and mutually act as producers? Therefore, the principle is not established, transcending the dharma of the producer. Whenever cause and effect are mentioned, it must be that the former points to the latter. If this cause dharma is extremely established in the world and can produce that effect dharma, then the time difference between this cause dharma and that effect is extremely established, such as first the seed and then the sprout, etc. The Vaibhāṣika allows prior cause and subsequent effect, and also allows simultaneous cause and effect. For example, the result of Vijñāna (Consciousness) and the causes of eye and object are simultaneous, the four great elements are co-existent, and the matter that is created.

造色果。

此中亦許至何理能遮者。經部釋通。此亦前後因果非是同時。謂前根．境緣能發后識果。前念能造四大種因。能生后念所造色果何能遮。

如影與芽豈非俱有者。毗婆沙師出同時因果。經部此中所以不破者。俱有因中前已破故。

有說觸后至緣觸生受者。經部中上坐解。觸前為因后受果生。如第一剎那根．境為先。第二剎那次有識起。識起之時必依根緣境。此三和合即名為觸。無有別體。或前根．境．及與后識。此三和合假名為觸。第三剎那以前念觸因為緣生此念受果。

若爾應識至非皆是觸者。毗婆沙師難。若前後相生者。應第二念觸時識非皆有受。以此念觸生后念受故。第三念受同時諸識。亦應非皆是觸。以此念受從前念觸生故。

無如是失至無非是觸者。經部通難。無如是失。因前第一念根．境同時觸故。后第二念觸位受生。故諸觸起時必皆悉有受。此釋初難。第三念受同時所有識體無非是觸。以識起時必依于根緣境起故此三名觸。此觸雖不能生同時受。而能生后第四念受。此釋后難。

此不應理者。毗婆沙師非。

何理相違者。經部反問。

謂或有時至同緣一境者。毗婆沙師出過。如一觸緣色一觸緣聲。故言或有二觸境別。因前念緣色受位觸。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『造色果』（由先前心念所創造的物質結果）。

如果有人問，用什麼理由來否定這種說法呢？經部宗解釋說，這是前後因果關係，而不是同時發生的。也就是說，先前的根（感官）、境（對像）的因緣能夠引發後來的識（意識）果。先前的念頭能夠創造四大種（地、水、火、風）的因，從而產生後來的念頭所創造的色（物質）果，這有什麼可以否定的呢？

如果有人問，那麼像影子和嫩芽，難道不是同時存在的嗎？毗婆沙師提出了同時因果的觀點。經部宗在這裡沒有駁斥這種觀點，是因為在討論俱有因（同時存在的因）時，已經駁斥過了。

有人說，觸（感官接觸）之後，才會因為觸的緣故而產生受（感受）。經部宗的上座部這樣解釋：觸在前，作為因；受在後，作為果而產生。比如，在第一個剎那，根和境是先決條件；在第二個剎那，隨後產生識。識產生的時候，必然依賴於根和境。這三者和合在一起，就叫做觸，沒有其他的實體。或者說，先前的根、境，以及後來的識，這三者和合在一起，只是假名為觸。在第三個剎那，以前一個念頭的觸作為因緣，產生這個念頭的受果。

如果這樣，那麼識不應該都是觸吧？毗婆沙師提出質疑：如果說是前後相生，那麼在第二個念頭產生觸的時候，識不應該都伴隨著受，因為這個念頭的觸產生的是後面的念頭的受。在第三個念頭產生受的同時，所有的識，也不應該都是觸，因為這個念頭的受是從前一個念頭的觸產生的。

經部宗解釋說，沒有這樣的過失。因為在第一個念頭，根和境是同時產生觸的。所以在第二個念頭，在觸的階段，受就產生了。因此，當觸產生的時候，必然都伴隨著受。這是對第一個質疑的解釋。在第三個念頭產生受的同時，所有的識的本體，沒有不是觸的。因為識產生的時候，必然依賴於根和境而產生，這三者就叫做觸。這個觸雖然不能產生同時的受，但是能夠產生後面的第四個念頭的受。這是對後面一個質疑的解釋。

毗婆沙師反駁說，這種說法不合理。

經部宗反問道，有什麼道理相違背呢？

毗婆沙師指出其中的過失：比如，一個觸緣於色（顏色），一個觸緣于聲（聲音）。所以說，有時會有兩個觸所緣的境是不同的。因為前一個念頭緣於色，所以在受的階段產生了觸。 English version:

'Material-form result'.

If someone asks, by what reasoning can this be refuted? The Sautrāntika school explains, this is a cause-and-effect relationship that occurs sequentially, not simultaneously. That is, the prior causes and conditions of the root (sense organ) and object can give rise to the subsequent result of consciousness. The prior thought can create the cause of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), which can then produce the material-form result created by the subsequent thought. What can be refuted about this?

If someone asks, aren't things like shadows and sprouts co-existent? The Vaibhāṣika masters put forth the idea of simultaneous cause and effect. The Sautrāntikas do not refute this here because they have already refuted it in the discussion of co-existent causes.

Some say that after contact (sensory contact), feeling (sensation) arises due to the condition of contact. The Sthavira (elder) of the Sautrāntika school explains it this way: contact comes first, as the cause; feeling comes later, arising as the result. For example, in the first moment, the root and object are the prerequisites; in the second moment, consciousness arises subsequently. When consciousness arises, it necessarily depends on the root and the object. The combination of these three is called contact; there is no separate entity. Or, the prior root and object, together with the subsequent consciousness, are merely nominally called contact. In the third moment, the contact of the previous thought serves as the cause and condition for the arising of the feeling result in this thought.

If that's the case, shouldn't consciousness not always be contact? The Vaibhāṣika masters question: if they arise sequentially, then when contact arises in the second thought, consciousness should not always be accompanied by feeling, because the contact of this thought gives rise to the feeling of the subsequent thought. At the same time that feeling arises in the third thought, all consciousnesses should also not be contact, because the feeling of this thought arises from the contact of the previous thought.

The Sautrāntika school explains that there is no such fault. Because in the first thought, the root and object simultaneously produce contact. Therefore, in the second thought, feeling arises in the stage of contact. Thus, when contact arises, it is necessarily accompanied by feeling. This is the explanation for the first objection. At the same time that feeling arises in the third thought, all entities of consciousness are not without being contact. Because when consciousness arises, it necessarily depends on the root and object, these three are called contact. Although this contact cannot produce simultaneous feeling, it can produce the feeling of the subsequent fourth thought. This is the explanation for the latter objection.

The Vaibhāṣika masters refute, saying that this explanation is not reasonable.

The Sautrāntika school asks in return, what reasoning contradicts it?

The Vaibhāṣika masters point out the fault: for example, one contact is conditioned by form (color), and another contact is conditioned by sound. Therefore, it is said that sometimes there are two contacts whose objects are different. Because the previous thought was conditioned by form, contact arises in the stage of feeling.

【English Translation】 "Material-form result."

If someone asks, 'By what reasoning can this be refuted?' The Sautrantika school explains, 'This is a cause-and-effect relationship that occurs sequentially, not simultaneously. That is, the prior causes and conditions of the root (sense organ), and object can give rise to the subsequent result of consciousness. The prior thought can create the cause of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), which can then produce the material-form result created by the subsequent thought. What can be refuted about this?'

If someone asks, 'Aren't things like shadows and sprouts co-existent?' The Vaibhasika masters put forth the idea of simultaneous cause and effect. The Sautrantikas do not refute this here because they have already refuted it in the discussion of co-existent causes.

Some say that after 'contact' (sensory contact), 'feeling' (sensation) arises due to the condition of contact. The Sthavira (elder) of the Sautrantika school explains it this way: contact comes first, as the cause; feeling comes later, arising as the result. For example, in the first moment, the root and object are the prerequisites; in the second moment, consciousness arises subsequently. When consciousness arises, it necessarily depends on the root and the object. The combination of these three is called contact; there is no separate entity. Or, the prior root and object, together with the subsequent consciousness, are merely nominally called contact. In the third moment, the contact of the previous thought serves as the cause and condition for the arising of the feeling result in this thought.

If that's the case, shouldn't consciousness not always be contact? The Vaibhasika masters question: if they arise sequentially, then when contact arises in the second thought, consciousness should not always be accompanied by feeling, because the contact of this thought gives rise to the feeling of the subsequent thought. At the same time that feeling arises in the third thought, all consciousnesses should also not be contact, because the feeling of this thought arises from the contact of the previous thought.

The Sautrantika school explains that there is no such fault. Because in the first thought, the root and object simultaneously produce contact. Therefore, in the second thought, feeling arises in the stage of contact. Thus, when contact arises, it is necessarily accompanied by feeling. This is the explanation for the first objection. At the same time that feeling arises in the third thought, all entities of consciousness are not without being contact. Because when consciousness arises, it necessarily depends on the root and object, these three are called contact. Although this contact cannot produce simultaneous feeling, it can produce the feeling of the subsequent fourth thought. This is the explanation for the latter objection.

The Vaibhasika masters refute, saying that this explanation is not reasonable.

The Sautrantika school asks in return, what reasoning contradicts it?

The Vaibhasika masters point out the fault: for example, one contact is conditioned by 'form' (color), and another contact is conditioned by 'sound'. Therefore, it is said that sometimes there are two contacts whose objects are different. Because the previous thought was conditioned by form, contact arises in the stage of feeling.

生后念緣聲觸位受。如何異境受。從異境觸生。或應許受與此緣聲心相應。非與此心同緣一聲境。以從異境觸生故。應與前念緣色之觸同緣色境。

既爾若許至斯有何過者。經部轉計。既有前過我今復解。若許有成觸識。是觸無受。如緣聲初念觸能生后念自類受故。此識名觸故言是觸。從異境觸後起故。所以無受。於此緣聲初位前。如緣色末後念。有識有受而體非觸。以了境故有識。從前念自類觸生故有受。前念不能生後緣聲初念受故。而體非觸。緣差故然。斯有何過。若緣聲已后更緣色。前最後念緣色識等得名為觸。以能生后同境受故。

若爾便壞至心品恒俱者。毗婆沙師難。若言觸．受有時不俱。便壞大地法。必心俱故。

彼定恒俱依何教立者。經部徴。

依本論立者。毗婆沙師答。依六足本論。

我等但以至非要遍諸心者。經部非當依經量論證不成。又復釋言。大地法義。非要須遍一切諸心俱時而起。

若爾何名大地法義者。毗婆沙師問。

謂有三地至非本所誦者。經部答。若法於前有尋伺等諸地皆有名大地法。非要與心同一剎那俱時而生名大地法。義便兼解大善地法等　所以不釋大不善地法者。有餘師說。如是大不善地法。但是後代毗婆沙師。因誦大善故引不善

來。是今所增益。非本論所誦。故不別釋。所以不釋少煩惱者。以非遍故。

若於觸后至俱起受想思者。毗婆沙師引經為難。經言觸與受．想．思俱。如何言乃觸後生受。

但言俱起至故彼非證者。經部釋通。經中但言俱起受．想．思。不說受等與彼觸俱。此於我宗何違須釋。復更釋言。又於前后無間生中亦有俱聲。如契經說與慈定俱行修念覺支。此言俱者無間俱也。說觸．受俱應知亦爾。無間說俱故彼非證。

若爾何故至離於受等者。毗婆沙師引經為難證俱時起經言受等異體相雜定不相離。故無有識離於受等。證成受等是大地法。既識起時必有受等。即亦顯受與觸俱生。以識起時三和合故必生於觸。設經部宗說觸是假。亦定應許受等俱起。識即觸故。故正理云。執觸是假宗。亦應許受等與觸俱起。由此經說識雜受等故。識是觸分故。

今應審思至作如是說者。經部復引經文為不定問。今應審思。相雜何義。此經復說諸所受即所思等。未了于經中前後二文。為約同一所緣前緣前後而起名為相雜。為約同一剎那俱時而起名為相雜作如是言。

于壽與暖至定約剎那者。毗婆沙師釋。如契經中於壽與暖俱時起中有相雜言。例知此經說定約剎那。故正理釋云。前約剎那。后約所緣。其理決定。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：來。這是現在所增加的內容，不是原本論著中所誦讀的，所以不另外解釋。之所以不解釋『少煩惱』，是因為它不是普遍存在的（法）。如果對於觸之後到同時生起受、想、思的情況，毗婆沙師引用經文來提出質疑。經文說，觸與受、想、思同時。怎麼能說受在觸之後產生呢？但說『同時生起』，直到『所以那個不是證據』。經部對此解釋說，經中只說了受、想、思同時生起，沒有說受等等與那個觸同時。這對於我宗派有什麼違背需要解釋的呢？又進一步解釋說，又在前後沒有間隔的生起中，也有『俱』這個說法。如契經所說，與慈定同時修行念覺支。這裡說的『俱』是指沒有間隔的同時。說觸、受同時，應該知道也是這樣，沒有間隔地說同時，所以那個不是證據。如果這樣，為什麼直到『離開受等』呢？毗婆沙師引用經文來提出質疑，證明同時生起。經文說，受等異體相雜，必定不相分離。所以沒有識離開受等的情況。證明受等是大地法（Mahabhumi Dharma）。既然識生起時必定有受等，也就顯示了受與觸同時生起。因為識生起時，三和合（Trisamgati）的緣故，必定產生觸。假設經部宗派說觸是假有的，也必定應該允許受等同時生起，因為識就是觸。所以正理（Nyaya）說，執著觸是假有的宗派，也應該允許受等與觸同時生起。由此經說識與受等相雜的緣故，識是觸的一部分的緣故。現在應該審慎思考，直到『作這樣的說法』。經部又引用經文作為不確定的提問。現在應該審慎思考，『相雜』是什麼意思？這部經又說，所有受的也就是所思等等。不明白經中前後兩段文字，是就同一所緣（Alambana），前緣（Purva Hetu）後緣（Apara Hetu）前後生起，名為相雜呢？還是就同一剎那（Ksana），同時生起，名為相雜呢？作這樣的說法。對於壽與暖，直到『一定是指剎那』。毗婆沙師解釋說，如契經中，對於壽與暖同時生起中有『相雜』的說法。例如知道這部經說的一定是指剎那。所以正理釋說，前面是指剎那，後面是指所緣，這個道理是確定的。

【English Translation】 English version: Come. This is what is now added, not what is recited in the original treatise, so it is not explained separately. The reason why 'minor afflictions' are not explained is because they are not universal (dharmas). If, regarding the case of feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), and volition (samskara) arising after contact (sparsa) and simultaneously, the Vaibhashika masters cite the sutras to raise a difficulty. The sutra says that contact and feeling, perception, and volition are simultaneous. How can it be said that feeling arises after contact? But saying 'arising simultaneously,' until 'therefore that is not evidence.' The Sautrantika school explains this by saying that the sutra only says that feeling, perception, and volition arise simultaneously, and does not say that feeling, etc., are simultaneous with that contact. What contradiction to our school needs to be explained here? Furthermore, it is explained that there is also the term 'simultaneous' in the arising of things in immediate succession. As the sutra says, practicing the mindfulness enlightenment factor (smrti-bodhyanga) simultaneously with the loving-kindness concentration (maitri-samadhi). The 'simultaneous' here refers to immediate simultaneity. Saying that contact and feeling are simultaneous should be understood in the same way. Saying simultaneous without interval, therefore that is not evidence. If so, why until 'separate from feeling, etc.?' The Vaibhashika masters cite the sutras to raise a difficulty, proving simultaneous arising. The sutra says that feeling, etc., are of different entities, intermingled, and certainly not separate. Therefore, there is no consciousness (vijnana) separate from feeling, etc. Proving that feeling, etc., are Great Earth Dharmas (Mahabhumi Dharmas). Since feeling, etc., are certainly present when consciousness arises, it also shows that feeling arises simultaneously with contact. Because when consciousness arises, due to the aggregation of the three (Trisamgati), contact is certainly produced. Even if the Sautrantika school says that contact is hypothetical, it should certainly allow feeling, etc., to arise simultaneously, because consciousness is contact. Therefore, the Nyaya says that the school that holds contact to be hypothetical should also allow feeling, etc., to arise simultaneously with contact. Because this sutra says that consciousness is intermingled with feeling, etc., and because consciousness is a part of contact. Now we should carefully consider, until 'making such a statement.' The Sautrantika school again cites the sutra as an uncertain question. Now we should carefully consider, what does 'intermingled' mean? This sutra also says that all that is felt is also what is thought, etc. Not understanding the two passages in the sutra, is 'intermingled' named as arising before and after, with the former cause (Purva Hetu) and the latter cause (Apara Hetu) arising before and after, with respect to the same object (Alambana)? Or is 'intermingled' named as arising simultaneously in the same moment (Ksana)? Making such a statement. Regarding life and warmth, until 'certainly refers to a moment.' The Vaibhashika masters explain that, as in the sutra, there is the statement 'intermingled' in the simultaneous arising of life and warmth. For example, knowing that this sutra says certainly refers to a moment. Therefore, the Nyaya explanation says that the former refers to a moment, and the latter refers to the object, this principle is certain.

又契經言至受等俱生者。毗婆沙師引經為難。顯約剎那俱時生也。又前經言根．境．識三和合名觸。如何有識而非三和觸。或是根．境．識三和合而不名觸　故應定許一切識俱悉皆有觸。諸所有觸無不皆與受等俱生。

傍論已終至由意近行異者。此下第二別分別。就中。一開定數。二義分別。此即初文。結問頌答。

論曰至乘前起後者。身受相顯故不更釋。心受義隱所以重明。於前略說一心受中分成十八。應知頌初說此復聲。顯乘前受起後文也。

此意近行十八云何者。問。

謂喜憂舍各六近行者。答。三．六即成十八。

此復何緣至為所緣故者。復以三問徴定十八。

此成十八具足由三者。答。具由三緣故成十八。故婆沙一百三十九云。總以三緣故立十八。謂一意識相應近行。有喜．憂．舍三種自性。各緣色等六種境起。故有十八。

于中十五至皆通二種者。明雜緣．不雜緣于中十五名不雜緣。謂色等五喜．憂．舍三各別緣故。三法近行通雜．不雜。若唯緣法及六內處。或總或別皆名不雜。或於此七隨緣多少。兼於五外隨緣多少。或唯於五外隨緣多少皆名雜緣。此中言法通名法也。非唯法處。

意近行名為目何義者。問。

傳說喜等至數遊行故者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本　　又有契經說到受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，認知）等同時生起。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，佛教經量部論師）引用經文來反駁，顯然是說剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）同時生起。又前面的經文說根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（viṣaya，感覺對像）、識（vijñāna，意識）三者和合稱為觸（sparśa，接觸）。怎麼會有識而不是三者和合的觸呢？或者根、境、識三者和合卻不稱為觸呢？所以應該確定地承認一切識都同時具有觸。所有一切觸都無不與受等同時生起。

旁論已經結束，到由意近行不同為止。下面第二部分是分別解釋。其中，一是確定數量，二是解釋意義。這裡是第一部分。總結提問並回答。

論曰到乘前起後者。身受（kāya-vedanā，身體的感受）的相狀明顯，所以不再解釋。心受（citta-vedanā，心理的感受）的意義隱晦，所以重新說明。在前面略說一心受中分成十八種。應該知道頌文開頭說『此復』，表明是承接前面的受而引出後面的內容。

此意近行十八云何者。問：這意近行（mano-parikarma，與意識相關的心理活動）的十八種是什麼？

謂喜憂舍各六近行者。答：就是喜（prīti，喜悅）、憂（daurmanasya，憂愁）、舍（upekṣā，捨棄）各有六種近行。

此復何緣至為所緣故者。再次用三個問題來確定這十八種。

此成十八具足由三者。答：完全由三種因緣構成十八種。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhaṣa，全稱《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》，佛教論書）第一百三十九卷說，總的來說由三種因緣而建立十八種。一是意識（manovijñāna，意識）相應的近行，有喜、憂、舍三種自性，各自緣於色（rūpa，顏色、形狀）等六種境而生起，所以有十八種。

于中十五至皆通二種者。說明雜緣（saṃsṛṣṭa-ālambana，混合的所緣）和不雜緣（asaṃsṛṣṭa-ālambana，不混合的所緣）。其中十五種名為不雜緣，就是色等五種，喜、憂、舍三種各自單獨緣於一種境的緣故。三種法（dharma，事物、現象）的近行可以通於雜緣和不雜緣。如果僅僅緣於法（dharma，事物、現象）以及六內處（āyatana，感覺器官），或者總的或者分別的，都稱為不雜緣。或者對於這七種，隨著所緣的多少，兼緣於五外境（viṣaya，感覺對像）的多少，或者僅僅緣於五外境的多少，都稱為雜緣。這裡說的法，是通指一切法，並非僅僅指法處（dharmāyatana，意識的對象）。

意近行名為目何義者。問：意近行這個名稱是什麼意思？

傳說喜等至數**故者

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the sutra states that feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), and other mental factors arise simultaneously. The Vaibhāṣika masters cite this sutra to argue against the idea, asserting that it clearly indicates they arise at the same instant (kṣaṇa). Moreover, the previous sutra mentions that the combination of sense faculty (indriya), sense object (viṣaya), and consciousness (vijñāna) is called contact (sparśa). How can there be consciousness without the three factors combining to form contact? Or how can the three factors combine without being called contact? Therefore, it should be definitively acknowledged that all consciousnesses invariably possess contact. All contacts arise simultaneously with feeling and other mental factors.

The digression has ended, up to 'due to the difference in the mind's preliminary activity.' The following is the second part, which is a separate explanation. Among these, the first is to determine the number, and the second is to explain the meaning. This is the first part, which summarizes the questions and answers.

The treatise states, 'The latter arises following the former.' Because the characteristics of bodily feeling (kāya-vedanā) are obvious, they are not explained further. Because the meaning of mental feeling (citta-vedanā) is obscure, it is explained again. The eighteen types are divided from the previously briefly mentioned single mental feeling. It should be known that the phrase 'furthermore' at the beginning of the verse indicates that the following content arises following the previous feeling.

'What are these eighteen mental preliminary activities?' (mano-parikarma) Question.

'They are the six preliminary activities each of joy, sorrow, and equanimity.' Answer. Three times six equals eighteen.

'What is the reason that these are determined to be eighteen?' Again, three questions are used to determine the eighteen.

'These eighteen are fully constituted by three factors.' Answer. They are fully constituted by three conditions, hence the eighteen. Therefore, the Vibhaṣa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) volume 139 states that, in general, eighteen are established due to three conditions. The first is that the preliminary activities associated with consciousness (manovijñāna) have three natures: joy (prīti), sorrow (daurmanasya), and equanimity (upekṣā). Each arises in relation to the six sense objects (rūpa) such as form, hence there are eighteen.

'Among these fifteen... all are connected to two types.' Explaining mixed object (saṃsṛṣṭa-ālambana) and unmixed object (asaṃsṛṣṭa-ālambana). Among these, fifteen are called unmixed objects, which means that the five sense objects such as form, and the three of joy, sorrow, and equanimity, each individually relate to one object. The preliminary activities of the three dharmas (dharma) are connected to both mixed and unmixed objects. If they only relate to dharma (dharma) and the six internal sense bases (āyatana), either generally or separately, they are called unmixed objects. Or, regarding these seven, depending on the amount of objects related to, they also relate to the five external sense objects (viṣaya) to some extent, or only relate to the five external sense objects to some extent, all of which are called mixed objects. Here, 'dharma' generally refers to all dharmas, not just the dharma base (dharmāyatana).

'What is the meaning of the name 'mental preliminary activity'?' Question.

'It is said that joy, etc., are counted as...'

。答。前解喜等以意為近緣。于諸境中數遊行故。故名意近行　后解喜等與意為近緣。令意于境數行故。故名意近行。

如何身受非意近行者。問。

非唯依意至故亦非行者。答。謂此身受非依是唯意識故不名近。復無分別故亦非行。故正理云以意近行唯依意識故名為近。分別三世等自相．共相境故名為行。一切身受與此相違。故非意近。亦不名行。

第三靜慮至何故不攝者。問。第三靜慮意地樂根亦唯依意。意近行中何故不攝。

傳說初界至意近行故者。答。毗婆沙師傳說。於三界中若欲界有者上界亦立。以初欲界意識相應無樂根故。所以上界亦不別立。又無樂根所對苦根意近行故。所以不立樂意近行。正理二十九難此解云。若爾應無舍意近行。無所對故。不爾。憂．喜即舍對故。第三靜慮意地樂根無自根本地舍根為對故。然無近分等無舍等近行失。以于初界中有同地所對故。或復容有．不容有故。謂意舍等容有同地所敵對法。意樂定無同地敵對。故無有失(解云意地憂喜即為舍對。若爾即舍名為樂對。以于同地無舍對故。謂於三定自根本地無所對舍。若爾近分唯有舍根。自地無對應非近行。及初．二定所有喜根白地無對。應非近行。不爾。欲界舍及喜根。皆有同地所對法故。或舍與喜容

【現代漢語翻譯】答：前一種解釋認為，喜等情緒以意識（意，manas）作為近緣（近因，close cause），因為它們在各種境界中頻繁生起。因此，被稱為『意近行』（manas-dependent activity）。后一種解釋認為，喜等情緒與意識作為近緣，使得意識在境界中頻繁活動。因此，被稱為『意近行』。

問：為什麼身受（bodily sensation）不是意近行？

答：因為它不僅僅依賴於意識，而且也不是『行』（activity）。也就是說，這種身受不是僅僅依賴於意識，因此不能稱為『近』（close）。而且，它沒有分別作用，因此也不是『行』。所以，《正理》（Abhidharmakosha）中說，『意近行』僅僅依賴於意識，因此稱為『近』。因為它能分別三世（過去、現在、未來）等自相（self-characteristic）、共相（common characteristic）的境界，所以稱為『行』。一切身受與此相反，因此不是意近行，也不是『行』。

問：為什麼第三禪（third dhyana）等沒有被包括在內？第三禪的意地（mind-realm）樂根（sukha-indriya，sense of pleasure）也僅僅依賴於意識，為什麼沒有被包括在『意近行』中？

答：傳說，毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika masters）說，在三界（欲界、色界、無色界，three realms of existence）中，如果欲界（desire realm）有某種事物，那麼上界（色界和無色界，form and formless realms）也會設立。因為最初的欲界意識相應沒有樂根，所以上界也不單獨設立。而且，因為沒有樂根所對應的苦根（duhkha-indriya，sense of suffering）意近行，所以不設立樂意近行。《正理》第二十九品反駁這種解釋說，『如果這樣，那麼應該沒有舍意近行（upeksha-manas-dependent activity），因為它沒有所對應的法。』不是這樣的，憂（dvesha，sorrow）、喜（priti，joy）就是舍（upeksha，equanimity）的對應。第三禪意地的樂根沒有自己根本地的舍根作為對應。然而，沒有近分（upacāra，access concentration）等沒有舍等近行的過失，因為在初界（first realm，欲界）中有同地所對應的法。或者，因為容許有和不容許有。也就是說，意舍等容許有同地的敵對法，意樂（manas-sukha，mental pleasure）一定沒有同地的敵對法，所以沒有過失。（解釋說，意地的憂喜就是舍的對應。如果這樣，那麼舍就名為樂的對應。因為在同地沒有舍的對應。也就是說，在三禪的自己根本地沒有所對應的舍。如果這樣，那麼近分只有舍根，自己地沒有對應，就不是近行。以及初禪、二禪所有的喜根在自己地沒有對應，就不應該是近行。不是這樣的，欲界的舍和喜根，都有同地所對應的法。或者舍與喜容

【English Translation】 Answer: The former explanation considers that joy and other emotions take consciousness (manas) as their close cause (hetu), because they frequently arise in various realms. Therefore, they are called 'manas-dependent activity' (意近行). The latter explanation considers that joy and other emotions, with consciousness as their close cause, cause consciousness to frequently act in realms. Therefore, they are called 'manas-dependent activity'.

Question: Why is bodily sensation (身受, kāya-vedanā) not a manas-dependent activity?

Answer: Because it does not solely rely on consciousness, and it is also not an 'activity' (行, gati). That is, this bodily sensation does not solely rely on consciousness, therefore it cannot be called 'close' (近, near). Moreover, it has no discriminating function, therefore it is also not an 'activity'. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha (正理) says that 'manas-dependent activity' solely relies on consciousness, therefore it is called 'close'. Because it can discriminate the realms of the three times (past, present, future) and other self-characteristics (自相, svalakṣaṇa) and common characteristics (共相, sāmānyalakṣaṇa), it is called 'activity'. All bodily sensations are contrary to this, therefore they are not manas-dependent activities, nor are they 'activities'.

Question: Why are the third dhyana (第三靜慮) and others not included? The mental pleasure (樂根, sukha-indriya) of the mind-realm (意地) of the third dhyana also solely relies on consciousness, why is it not included in 'manas-dependent activity'?

Answer: It is said that the Vaibhashika masters (毗婆沙師) say that in the three realms of existence (三界, triloka: desire realm, form realm, formless realm), if the desire realm (欲界, kāmadhātu) has something, then the upper realms (色界 and 無色界, rūpadhātu and arūpadhātu) will also establish it. Because the initial desire realm's consciousness-corresponding does not have the pleasure sense, the upper realms also do not separately establish it. Moreover, because there is no suffering sense (苦根, duhkha-indriya) manas-dependent activity corresponding to the pleasure sense, the pleasure manas-dependent activity is not established. The twenty-ninth chapter of the Abhidharmakosha refutes this explanation, saying, 'If so, then there should be no equanimity manas-dependent activity (舍意近行, upekṣā-manas-dependent activity), because it has no corresponding dharma.' It is not like this; sorrow (憂, dvesha) and joy (喜, priti) are the correspondence of equanimity (舍, upeksha). The mental pleasure of the third dhyana does not have the equanimity sense of its own fundamental realm as a correspondence. However, there is no fault of the access concentration (近分, upacāra) and others not having equanimity and other close activities, because in the initial realm (first realm, desire realm) there is a dharma corresponding to the same realm. Or, because it is permissible to have and not permissible to have. That is, mental equanimity and others are permissible to have opposing dharmas in the same realm, mental pleasure (意樂, manas-sukha) certainly does not have opposing dharmas in the same realm, so there is no fault. (It is explained that mental sorrow and joy are the correspondence of equanimity. If so, then equanimity is named the correspondence of pleasure. Because there is no correspondence of equanimity in the same realm. That is, in the fundamental realm of the three dhyanas, there is no corresponding equanimity. If so, then the access concentration only has the equanimity sense, and there is no correspondence in its own realm, so it is not a close activity. And the joy sense of the first and second dhyanas does not have a correspondence in its own realm, so it should not be a close activity. It is not like this; the equanimity and joy senses of the desire realm both have corresponding dharmas in the same realm. Or equanimity and joy allow

有自地所敵對法。謂欲界中曾無樂有自地所對故。彼不可意近行收)　又正理解云。又彼地樂凝滯于境。近行於境數有推移不滯一緣方名行故。

若唯意地至廣說如經者。引經為難。經中既言眼見色已。于順喜色起喜近行。于順憂色起憂近行。于順舍色起舍近行。如是乃至意知法已起三近行。以此明知亦通五識。云何乃言唯意相應。

依五識身至故不應難者。會釋經文。依五識身所引意近行。如依眼識引意地不凈觀。既有已言。顯非五識。不應為難。

若雖非見至隨明瞭說者。恐執經文見色已等。便謂直緣色等非近行收。為明總攝故有此文。色等近行非必要從五識後起有。雖非見已乃至非觸已。於色等五起喜．憂．舍亦是意近行。若異此者要須五引。身在欲界未離欲染。應無緣色界色．聲．觸意近行。以欲三識非緣上故。又身在色界應無緣欲界香．味．觸三諸意近行。彼界無有鼻．舌．識故。雖有身識不緣下故。以實而論。非五識引亦是近行。契經中說見色已等言。且據一相隨明瞭說。

見色等已至根境定故者。恐執經文眼見色已於順喜色起喜近行等。便謂見色已於順喜聲起喜近行等非近行攝。為明總攝故有此文。見色等已於聲等中起喜．憂．舍。亦是意近行。恐難違經逆為通釋。隨無雜亂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有自地所敵對法（指與自身所處層級相對立的法）。這是因為在欲界中，從來沒有快樂是與自身所處層級相對的。因此，那些不令人愉悅的感受會被『近行』所包含。又，『正理解』認為，某個層級的快樂會凝滯于所緣境。而『近行』則是在所緣境上不斷推移，不滯留于單一的緣，這才能稱之為『行』。如果說只有意識才能達到，像經文里廣泛描述的那樣，這是引用經文來提出疑問。經文中說，眼睛看到顏色后，對於順應喜好的顏色會產生喜的『近行』，對於順應憂愁的顏色會產生憂的『近行』，對於順應舍（不喜不憂）的顏色會產生舍的『近行』。像這樣，乃至意識知曉法后，也會產生三種『近行』。這清楚地表明，『近行』也貫通於前五識。怎麼能說『近行』只與意識相應呢？依據五識身所引發的意識『近行』，就像依據眼識引發意識層面的不凈觀。既然已經有了『已』這個字，就表明不是五識本身，所以不應該以此來提出疑問。如果說雖然不是通過見等五識，但只要是隨順明瞭的說法，這是爲了避免執著于經文中『見色已』等等的說法，就認為直接緣於色等的感受不被『近行』所包含。爲了表明總括一切，所以有這段文字。緣於色等的『近行』，不一定非要從五識之後產生。即使不是『見已』，乃至不是『觸已』，對於色等五境產生喜、憂、舍，也是意識的『近行』。如果不是這樣，必須要五識的引導，那麼身在欲界，還沒有脫離慾望的染污，就應該沒有緣于色、聲、觸的意識『近行』，因為欲界的三識不能緣于上界。而且身在界，就應該沒有緣于欲界的香、味、觸這三種意識『近行』，因為那個界沒有鼻、舌、識。即使有身識，也不能緣于地獄。實際上，即使不是五識引導，也是『近行』。契經中說『見色已』等等，只是根據一種情況，隨順明瞭地來說。看到顏色等等之後，乃至根和境是確定的，這是爲了避免執著于經文中『眼見色已，對於順應喜好的顏色產生喜的近行』等等的說法，就認為『見色已，對於順應喜好的聲音產生喜的近行』等等不被『近行』所包含。爲了表明總括一切，所以有這段文字。看到顏色等等之後，對於聲音等等產生喜、憂、舍，也是意識的『近行』。恐怕有人會提出與經文相違背的疑問，所以反過來進行解釋。只要沒有雜亂就可以了。

【English Translation】 English version There are opposing dharmas from one's own realm (referring to dharmas that are in opposition to the realm one is in). This is because in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), there is never happiness that is relative to one's own realm. Therefore, those unpleasant feelings are included in 『near-conduct』 (upacāra). Furthermore, 『correct understanding』 (samyag-dṛṣṭi) believes that the happiness of a certain realm stagnates in the object of perception. 『Near-conduct,』 however, constantly shifts on the object of perception, not dwelling on a single condition, and only this can be called 『conduct.』 If it is said that only consciousness (manas) can attain it, as described extensively in the scriptures, this is quoting the scriptures to raise a question. The scriptures say that after the eye sees a color (rūpa), it produces 『near-conduct』 of joy (prīti) for colors that accord with joy, 『near-conduct』 of sorrow (daurmanasya) for colors that accord with sorrow, and 『near-conduct』 of equanimity (upekṣā) for colors that accord with equanimity. Like this, even after consciousness knows a dharma, it also produces three kinds of 『near-conduct.』 This clearly shows that 『near-conduct』 also pervades the five senses (pañca vijñāna-kāyāḥ). How can it be said that 『near-conduct』 only corresponds to consciousness? Based on the consciousness 『near-conduct』 that is induced by the five sense bodies, it is like the impure contemplation (aśubha-bhāvanā) at the level of consciousness that is induced based on eye-consciousness. Since the word 『already』 (已) is already there, it indicates that it is not the five senses themselves, so it should not be questioned on this basis. If it is said that although it is not through seeing (darśana) etc., but as long as it is a clear statement, this is to avoid clinging to the statement 『having seen a color』 etc. in the scriptures, and then thinking that the feelings that directly arise from color etc. are not included in 『near-conduct.』 To show that it encompasses everything, this passage is included. 『Near-conduct』 that arises from color etc. does not necessarily have to arise after the five senses. Even if it is not 『having seen,』 or even 『having not touched,』 producing joy, sorrow, and equanimity for the five objects of sense (rūpa, śabda, gandha, rasa, sparśa) is also consciousness 『near-conduct.』 If it were not like this, it would be necessary for the five senses to guide it, then those who are in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) and have not yet detached from the defilements of desire should not have consciousness 『near-conduct』 that arises from **colors, sounds, and touch, because the three consciousnesses of the desire realm cannot arise from the upper realm. Moreover, those who are in the ** realm should not have the three consciousness 『near-conduct』 that arises from the smells, tastes, and touch of the desire realm, because that realm does not have nose, tongue, and consciousness. Even if there is body-consciousness, it cannot arise from the lower realm. In reality, even if it is not guided by the five senses, it is also 『near-conduct.』 The scriptures say 『having seen a color』 etc. are just based on one situation, and are stated clearly accordingly. After seeing colors etc., even to the point where the root (indriya) and object (viṣaya) are determined, this is to avoid clinging to the statement 『having seen a color with the eye, producing 『near-conduct』 of joy for colors that accord with joy』 etc. in the scriptures, and then thinking that 『having seen a color, producing 『near-conduct』 of joy for sounds that accord with joy』 etc. are not included in 『near-conduct.』 To show that it encompasses everything, this passage is included. After seeing colors etc., producing joy, sorrow, and equanimity for sounds etc. is also consciousness 『near-conduct.』 Fearing that someone would raise a question that contradicts the scriptures, it is explained in reverse. As long as there is no confusion, it is fine.

。是故經中作如是說見已等言。于中建立根．境定故。謂色等境。眼根見等．及意了故。

為有色等至一近行不者。問。色等唯起一近行不。

有就相續非約所緣者。答有謂就一人相續身。說于喜等三唯能順生一近行故不起餘二。非約所緣。以于所緣容有多緣故。故婆沙一百三十九云。問頗有色等決定順喜乃至決定順舍耶。答依所緣故無。依相續故有。謂色等或時可意。或不可意。或於彼可意。於此不可意。于余非可意非不可意。有說色等於親品順喜。于怨品順憂。于中品順舍。

諸意近行中至為問亦爾者。此下第二義分別。就中。一分別系緣。二明有漏．無漏。此即初門。一問諸意近行中幾欲界系。二問欲界意近行幾何所緣。色．無色界二問亦爾。

頌曰至唯一緣自境者。初兩句明欲界。次四句明色界。后四句明無色界。

論曰至五所緣故者。此明欲界。欲界系十八俱能緣欲。十二緣色。三緣無色。

說欲界系已至謂法近行者。此明色界。初．二靜慮唯有十二俱緣欲界。八緣色界。除緣香．味二喜二舍。二緣無色。三．四靜慮有六舍俱緣欲界。四緣色界。一緣無色。

說色界系已至如后當辨者。明無色界。空處近分有四近行俱得緣色。一緣無色。四無色本．及上三邊唯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，經文中這樣說『見已』等等，這是因為在其中建立了根和境的確定性。所謂的色等境，是眼根所見等等，以及意識所了知的緣故。

為有色等至一近行不者。問：色等是否只生起一個近行？

有就相續非約所緣者。答：有的。這是就一個人的相續身來說，對於喜等三種感受，只能順次生起一個近行，而不能生起其餘兩種。這不是就所緣來說的，因為對於所緣，可以有多種緣。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十九卷說：『問：頗有色等決定順喜，乃至決定順舍耶？答：依所緣故無，依相續故有。』意思是說，色等有時是可意的，有時是不可意的，或者對於彼是可意的，對於此是不可意的，對於其餘是非可意非不可意的。有人說，色等對於親品順喜，對於怨品順憂，對於中品順舍。

諸意近行中至為問亦爾者。此下是第二義的分別，就其中，一是分別系緣，二是明有漏和無漏。這裡是第一個方面。一問：諸意近行中，有多少是欲界系？二問：欲界意近行，有多少所緣？色界和無色界的兩個問題也是這樣。

頌曰至唯一緣自境者。最初兩句說明欲界，接著四句說明色界，最後四句說明無色界。

論曰至五所緣故者。這裡說明欲界。欲界系十八種近行都能緣欲界，十二種緣色界，三種緣無色界。

說欲界系已至謂法近行者。這裡說明色界。初禪和二禪只有十二種近行能緣欲界，八種緣色界（除去緣香、味二者的喜和舍），兩種緣無色界。三禪和四禪有六種舍俱能緣欲界，四種緣色界，一種緣無色界。

說色界系已至如后當辨者。說明無色界。空無邊處近分有四種近行都能緣色界，一種緣無色界。四無色界根本定，以及上面的三邊，都只緣無色界。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the sutras say 'having seen' and so on, because the establishment of the root (根) and the object (境) is determined within them. The so-called objects such as form (色) are what the eye-root (眼根) sees, and what the consciousness (意識) understands.

'Is there only one proximate cause (近行) arising from form etc.?' Question: Does form etc. only give rise to one proximate cause?

'There are those who focus on the continuity (相續) and not on the object (所緣).' Answer: Yes, there are. This refers to the continuity of one person's body. With regard to feelings such as joy (喜) etc., only one proximate cause can arise sequentially, and not the other two. This is not with regard to the object, because there can be multiple objects. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論), volume 139, says: 'Question: Are there forms etc. that definitely accord with joy, or even definitely accord with equanimity (舍)? Answer: Based on the object, no. Based on the continuity, yes.' This means that forms etc. are sometimes agreeable, sometimes disagreeable, or agreeable to one but disagreeable to another, or neither agreeable nor disagreeable to others. Some say that forms etc. accord with joy for friendly things, with sorrow (憂) for hostile things, and with equanimity for neutral things.

'Among all mental proximate causes, the question is also the same.' This below is the second meaning's distinction. Among them, one is distinguishing the realm of attachment (系緣), and two is clarifying defiled (有漏) and undefiled (無漏). This is the first aspect. One question: Among all mental proximate causes, how many are of the desire realm (欲界)? Two question: How many objects are cognized by the desire realm's mental proximate causes? The two questions for the form realm (色界) and formless realm (無色界) are also the same.

The verse says '...only one object cognizes its own realm.' The first two lines clarify the desire realm, the next four lines clarify the form realm, and the last four lines clarify the formless realm.

The treatise says '...therefore, five objects are cognized.' This clarifies the desire realm. The eighteen proximate causes of the desire realm can all cognize the desire realm, twelve can cognize the form realm, and three can cognize the formless realm.

'Having spoken of the desire realm's attachments...namely, the proximate cause of dharma (法).' This clarifies the form realm. The first and second dhyānas (靜慮) only have twelve proximate causes that can cognize the desire realm, eight that can cognize the form realm (excluding joy and equanimity that cognize smell and taste), and two that can cognize the formless realm. The third and fourth dhyānas have six equanimities that can cognize the desire realm, four that can cognize the form realm, and one that can cognize the formless realm.

'Having spoken of the form realm's attachments...as will be explained later.' This clarifies the formless realm. The proximate access (近分) of the sphere of infinite space (空無邊處) has four proximate causes that can all cognize the form realm, and one that can cognize the formless realm. The four formless realm's fundamental samādhis (本), and the three realms above, only cognize the formless realm.

一法舍。唯緣無色。空處近分二說不同。前說為正。故婆沙一百三十九云。若許別緣下者則有四意近行。謂色．聲．觸．法。若許總緣下者則唯有一法舍意近行如是說者應說有四　問此意近行通三性不　解云準下成就通於三性　問此意近行自．上．下地通能緣不　解云容緣三種。若善通緣自．上．下地。若染污緣自．上地不緣下。已離故。若無記緣自．下非緣上。力劣故。故婆沙七十二解三分別中雲。善分別意識能緣一切自．上．下地。染污分別意識唯緣自．上地。無覆無記分別意識唯能緣自．下地。

問若無記能緣下者。何故正理二十九解近行中。別標色善能緣欲界。不言無記　解云以善近行身在下地。身在上地。俱能起彼地善緣下欲界。是故別說。無記近行身在下地。即不能起上地緣下。故不別說　問身生何地能起何地意近行耶　解云若善．染容起自．上。非能起下善．染。以喜劣故。染已離故。若無記容起自．上．下地。起自可知。言起上者如身在下地起上通果心。言起下者如身在上起下通果心　問若無記心通起上．下。何故婆沙解三分別中雲。無覆無記分別意識唯生自地容現在前。由此必定系屬生故。又正理第八云。非生餘地能起餘地無覆無記分別現前。此亦必定系屬生故　解云婆沙。正理意說五識引

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一法舍（Ekadhamma-upeksha，單一法舍）。唯緣無色（arupa，非物質）。空處近分（akasanancayatana-upacara，空無邊處近分定）二說不同。前者說法為正確。故《大毗婆沙論》第一百三十九卷說：『如果允許分別緣下地，則有四種意近行（mano-upacara，意識的近行定），即色（rupa，物質）、聲（shabda，聲音）、觸（sparsha，觸覺）、法（dharma，法）。如果允許總緣下地，則只有一種法舍意近行。』如此說者應說有四。問：此意近行通三性（tri-svabhava，三種自性：善、惡、無記）嗎？答：根據下文成就，通於三性。問：此意近行，自地（svabhumi，自身所處之禪定層次）、上地（upari-bhumi，更高層次的禪定）、下地（adha-bhumi，更低層次的禪定），都能緣嗎？答：容許緣三種。如果善（kusala，善）通緣自、上、下地。如果染污（klista，染污）緣自、上地，不緣下地，因為已經離欲故。如果無記（avyakrta，非善非惡）緣自、下地，非緣上地，因為力量弱。故《大毗婆沙論》第七十二卷解釋三分別中說：『善分別意識能緣一切自、上、下地。染污分別意識唯緣自、上地。無覆無記分別意識唯能緣自、下地。』問：如果無記能緣下地，為何《阿毗達磨順正理論》第二十九卷解釋近行中，特別標明色善能緣欲界（kama-dhatu，慾望界），不言無記？答：因為善近行身在下地，身在上地，都能起彼地善緣下欲界，所以特別說明。無記近行身在下地，就不能起上地緣下，故不特別說明。問：身生何地能起何地意近行呢？答：如果善、染容許起自、上地，不能起下地善、染，因為喜悅減弱，染污已經離欲。如果無記容許起自、上、下地。起自可知。說起上地，如身在下地起上通果心（phalacitta，果報心）。說起下地，如身在上地起下通果心。問：如果無記心通起上、下地，為何《大毗婆沙論》解釋三分別中說：『無覆無記分別意識唯生自地容現在前，由此必定系屬生故。』又《阿毗達磨順正理論》第八卷說：『非生餘地能起餘地無覆無記分別現前，此亦必定系屬生故。』答：毗婆沙論、《阿毗達磨順正理論》意在說明五識（panca-vijnana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺意識）的引導。

【English Translation】 English version Ekadhamma-upeksha (One-dharma equanimity). It exclusively cognizes the Arūpa (formless realms). There are two different interpretations regarding Ākāsānañcāyatana-upacāra (access concentration of the sphere of infinite space). The former interpretation is considered correct. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in its 139th fascicle, states: 'If it is allowed to separately cognize the lower realms, then there are four types of Mano-upacāra (access concentration of the mind), namely Rūpa (form), Śabda (sound), Sparśa (touch), and Dharma (mental objects). If it is allowed to collectively cognize the lower realms, then there is only one type of Dharma-upeksha Mano-upacāra.' Those who say so should say there are four. Question: Does this Mano-upacāra encompass the three Svabhāvas (three natures: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral)? Answer: According to the subsequent attainment, it encompasses the three natures. Question: Can this Mano-upacāra cognize its own Bhūmi (level of meditative attainment), the higher Bhūmi, and the lower Bhūmi? Answer: It is permissible to cognize the three. If it is wholesome (Kuśala), it can cognize its own, the higher, and the lower Bhūmis. If it is defiled (Kliṣṭa), it cognizes its own and the higher Bhūmis, but not the lower, because it has already abandoned desire for it. If it is neutral (Avyākṛta), it cognizes its own and the lower Bhūmis, but not the higher, because its power is weak. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in its 72nd fascicle, explains the three distinctions by saying: 'Wholesome discriminating consciousness can cognize all of its own, the higher, and the lower Bhūmis. Defiled discriminating consciousness only cognizes its own and the higher Bhūmis. Indeterminate (neither wholesome nor unwholesome) discriminating consciousness can only cognize its own and the lower Bhūmis.' Question: If the indeterminate can cognize the lower Bhūmi, why does the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, in its 29th fascicle, specifically state that wholesome Rūpa can cognize the Kāma-dhātu (desire realm), without mentioning the indeterminate? Answer: Because the wholesome access concentration, whether the body is in the lower or higher Bhūmi, can give rise to the wholesome cognition of the lower Kāma-dhātu, it is specifically mentioned. The indeterminate access concentration, when the body is in the lower Bhūmi, cannot give rise to the cognition of the lower realm from the higher Bhūmi, so it is not specifically mentioned. Question: In which Bhūmi is the body born, and which Bhūmi's Mano-upacāra can it give rise to? Answer: If it is wholesome or defiled, it can give rise to its own and the higher Bhūmi, but it cannot give rise to the wholesome or defiled of the lower Bhūmi, because the joy is diminished, and defilement has already been abandoned. If it is indeterminate, it can give rise to its own, the higher, and the lower Bhūmis. Giving rise to its own is understandable. Giving rise to the higher is like the body being in the lower Bhūmi and giving rise to the higher Phala-citta (resultant consciousness). Giving rise to the lower is like the body being in the higher Bhūmi and giving rise to the lower Phala-citta. Question: If the indeterminate mind can give rise to both the higher and lower Bhūmis, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in its explanation of the three distinctions, say: 'Indeterminate discriminating consciousness only arises in its own Bhūmi and can be present, because it is necessarily bound to its birth.' And the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, in its 8th fascicle, says: 'Not being born in another Bhūmi can give rise to the indeterminate discriminating consciousness of another Bhūmi, because it is also necessarily bound to its birth.' Answer: The intention of the Vibhāṣā-śāstra and the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is to explain the guidance of the five Vijñānas (five sense consciousnesses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body).

起意識地中三種分別。緣前過去五識所緣色等五境。夫生餘地起餘地無覆無記。所謂變化心．三識身．及發業心。若化心唯緣現事。若三識性非分別。又唯緣現若發業心緣所發業。此等非是緣過去五識曾所緣境分別意識。所以婆沙．正理說無記分別唯自地能起不能起餘地　今言無覆無記近行通起上．下。據意識中所有無覆無記諸近行說。故不相違　問若依正理。又說近行欲界緣不繫境有三。色界中初．二緣不繫有二．三．四緣不繫有一。無色緣不繫亦一。此論何故不說　解云此論且據緣系。所以不言不繫。正理兼論故說二種。

此意近行通無漏耶者。此下第二明有漏．無漏。此即問起。

頌曰十八唯有漏者。答。

論曰至唯是有漏者。就長行中。一釋頌。二明成就。三敘異說。四會師句經。此即釋頌。又正理二十九云。無有近行通無漏者。所以者何。增長有故。無漏諸法與此相違。有說近行有情皆有。無漏不然。故非近行。

誰成就幾意近行耶者。此下明成就。此即問。

謂生欲界至唯染污故者。答。謂生欲界未得色善。成欲十八初．二定各八。謂四染喜四染舍。三．四定四染舍。無色界一染舍。成上唯染故不緣下。

若已獲得至香味境故者。已獲色善未離欲貪。成欲十八．初

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生起意識時，會產生三種分別作用。這是因為意識會緣於過去五識所緣的色等五境（指視覺、聽覺、嗅覺、味覺、觸覺的對象）。如果生於其他界，則會生起其他界的無覆無記心（指非善非惡，不產生業報的心）。例如變化心、三識身（指眼識、耳識、鼻舌身識）、以及發起業的心。如果變化心只緣于現在的事物，三識的性質並非分別，也只緣于現在。如果發起業的心緣于所發起的業，這些都不是緣於過去五識曾經所緣的境的分別意識。因此，《婆沙論》和《正理》說，無記的分別只有自地才能生起，不能生起其他地的。現在說無覆無記的近行可以通於上下地，這是根據意識中所有無覆無記的近行來說的，所以並不矛盾。問：如果依據《正理》，又說欲界的近行緣于不繫境有三種，中間的初定和二定緣于不繫境有二、三、四種，無色界緣于不繫境也有一種。此論為什麼不說這些？解答說，此論且根據緣于繫縛的境來說，所以不說不繫縛的境。《正理》兼論兩種情況，所以說了兩種。

『此意近行通無漏耶』，這是下面第二部分，說明有漏和無漏。這是提問。

『頌曰十八唯有漏』，這是回答。

『論曰至唯是有漏者』，在長行中，一是解釋頌文，二是說明成就，三是敘述不同的說法，四是會通師句經。這是解釋頌文。另外，《正理》第二十九卷說，沒有近行可以通於無漏的，為什麼呢？因為近行會增長有漏法，而無漏法與此相反。有人說，近行有情都有，無漏則不然，所以不是近行。

『誰成就幾意近行耶』，這是下面說明成就。這是提問。

『謂生欲界至唯染污故者』，這是回答。說的是，生於欲界而未獲得色界善法的人，成就欲界的十八種近行，以及初禪和二禪的各八種近行，即四種染污的喜受和四種染污的舍受。三禪和四禪有四種染污的舍受，無想天有一種染污的舍受。成就上界的近行，因為唯有染污，所以不緣于地獄。

『若已獲得至香味境故者』，如果已經獲得色界善法，但未離開欲界的貪慾，則成就欲界的十八種近行，以及初禪的...

【English Translation】 English version: When consciousness arises, three kinds of discrimination occur. This is because consciousness is conditioned by the five objects (referring to the objects of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch) cognized by the past five consciousnesses. If born in another realm, non-defiled and neutral (neither good nor evil, not producing karmic results) minds of that realm arise. For example, transformation minds, the three consciousness-bodies (eye, ear, nose-tongue-body consciousnesses), and the mind that initiates karma. If a transformation mind only cognizes present things, the nature of the three consciousnesses is non-discriminating and only cognizes the present. If the mind that initiates karma is conditioned by the karma it initiates, these are not discriminating consciousnesses conditioned by objects previously cognized by the past five consciousnesses. Therefore, the Vibhasa and Abhidharmakosha say that neutral discrimination can only arise in its own realm and cannot arise in other realms. Now, saying that non-defiled and neutral nikata-citta (approaching consciousness) can extend to higher and lower realms is based on all non-defiled and neutral nikata-citta in consciousness, so there is no contradiction. Question: If according to the Abhidharmakosha, it also says that the nikata-citta of the desire realm is conditioned by the unconditioned realm in three ways, the first and second dhyanas (meditative states) in between are conditioned by the unconditioned realm in two, three, and four ways, and the formless realm is also conditioned by the unconditioned realm in one way. Why doesn't this treatise mention these? The answer is that this treatise is based on being conditioned by the bound realm, so it does not mention the unbound realm. The Abhidharmakosha discusses both situations, so it mentions both.

'Does this mean that nikata-citta is common to the unconditioned?', this is the second part below, explaining the conditioned and the unconditioned. This is a question.

'The verse says eighteen are only conditioned', this is the answer.

'The treatise says to only be conditioned', in the prose, first is to explain the verse, second is to explain accomplishment, third is to narrate different views, and fourth is to reconcile the teacher's verse sutra. This is explaining the verse. In addition, Abhidharmakosha volume 29 says that there is no nikata-citta that can be common to the unconditioned, why? Because nikata-citta increases conditioned dharmas, while unconditioned dharmas are the opposite. Some say that sentient beings all have nikata-citta, but the unconditioned is not like this, so it is not nikata-citta.

'Who accomplishes how many nikata-citta?', this is below explaining accomplishment. This is a question.

'It is said that those born in the desire realm to only be defiled', this is the answer. It says that those born in the desire realm who have not obtained the good of the form realm accomplish eighteen nikata-citta of the desire realm, and eight nikata-citta each of the first and second dhyanas, namely four defiled sukha (pleasant feeling) and four defiled upeksa (equanimity). The third and fourth dhyanas have four defiled upeksa, and the Asamjnisattva (non-percipient heaven) has one defiled upeksa. Accomplishing the nikata-citta of the upper realms, because it is only defiled, it is not conditioned by the lower realms.

'If one has already obtained to the objects of smell and taste', if one has already obtained the good of the form realm but has not left the desire realm's greed, then one accomplishes eighteen nikata-citta of the desire realm, and the first...

靜慮十。餘二定說皆如前．言初定十者。謂初定中成四染喜。染喜不緣下香．味故。善．染合論舍具成六。未至善舍緣下香．味故。

余隨此理如應當知者。例釋所餘離欲貪等。又正理二十九云。已離欲貪若未獲得二定善心。彼成欲界．初定十二。謂除六憂。二靜慮等皆如前說。若已獲得二定善心。于初定貪未得離者成二定十。謂喜但四。唯染污故。舍具六種。已獲得彼近分善故。余如前說。由此道理余準應知。

若生色界至謂通果心俱者。此簡差別準此通果唯舍相應。舍受中庸順通果故。憂離欲舍。喜非中庸。故不說成。又婆沙一百三十九云若生初靜慮成就欲界一法舍意近行。即通果心俱。總緣色等為境起故。有說成就三。謂色．聲．法舍意近行。此心若緣所起身表。即有緣色舍意近行。此心若緣所起語表。即有緣聲舍意近行。此心若緣所變化事以總緣法故。即有緣法舍意近行。有說成就六。謂六舍意近行。即通果心俱。此心容有總．別緣故(解云於三說中初說為正。一同此論正理。二不言有說。此初師意說縱緣身．語業亦兼緣能造觸。或緣身業兼緣香．味．觸。緣語業兼緣色．香．味．觸。故但名法舍意近行)　又婆沙云。生第二靜慮成就初靜慮一。謂法舍意近行。以總緣故。有說成就三。謂色．聲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：靜慮十：其餘兩種定的說法都和前面一樣。說到初禪十種成就，是指在初禪中成就四種染污的喜受。因為染污的喜受不緣于地獄的香、味。善和染污合起來討論，舍受總共有六種成就。未至定的善舍受緣于地獄的香、味。

其餘的，根據這個道理應當知道，例如解釋其餘的離欲貪等。另外，《正理》第二十九卷說，如果已經離開了欲界的貪慾，但還沒有獲得二禪的善心，那麼他就成就欲界和初禪的十二種。也就是除去六種憂受。二禪等都和前面說的一樣。如果已經獲得了二禪的善心，對於初禪的貪慾還沒有離開，那麼他就成就二禪的十種，也就是喜受只有四種，因為只有染污的緣故。舍受總共有六種，因為已經獲得了那個近分善。其餘的都和前面說的一樣。根據這個道理，其餘的應該類推知道。

如果生起通果心，是指和通果心同時生起的。這裡是爲了簡化差別，根據這個，通果心只有舍受相應。因為舍受是中庸的，順應通果。憂受離開了欲界，舍受是中庸的。喜受不是中庸的，所以不說成就。另外，《婆沙》第一百三十九卷說，如果生起初禪，成就欲界的一種法，即舍意近行，也就是和通果心同時生起。因為總緣色等為境界而生起。有人說成就三種，即色、聲、法舍意近行。這個心如果緣所起身表，就有緣色舍意近行。這個心如果緣所起語表，就有緣聲舍意近行。這個心如果緣所變化的事，因為總緣法，就有緣法舍意近行。有人說成就六種，即六種舍意近行，也就是和通果心同時生起。這個心容許有總緣和別緣的緣故（解釋說，在三種說法中，第一種說法是正確的。和《正理》的觀點相同。第二種沒有說「有人說」，這是第一位老師的觀點，即使緣身、語業，也兼緣能造的觸，或者緣身業兼緣香、味、觸，緣語業兼緣色、香、味、觸，所以只名為法舍意近行）。另外，《婆沙》說，生起二禪，成就初禪的一種，即法舍意近行，因為總緣的緣故。有人說成就三種，即色、聲。

【English Translation】 English version: Dhyana Ten: The remaining two dhyanas are described as before. Speaking of the ten accomplishments in the first dhyana, it refers to the four defiled joys accomplished in the first dhyana. Because defiled joy does not arise from the lower realms of smell and taste. When good and defiled are discussed together, equanimity has a total of six accomplishments. The good equanimity of the preliminary stage arises from the lower realms of smell and taste.

The rest, according to this principle, should be understood, such as explaining the remaining detachment from desire, etc. Furthermore, the twenty-ninth volume of the Nyayanusara-sastra states that if one has already detached from desire in the desire realm but has not yet attained the good mind of the second dhyana, then they accomplish twelve in the desire realm and the first dhyana, which is excluding the six kinds of sorrow. The second dhyana, etc., are all as described before. If one has already attained the good mind of the second dhyana but has not yet detached from the desire for the first dhyana, then they accomplish ten in the second dhyana, which is only four kinds of joy because it is only defiled. Equanimity has a total of six kinds because one has already attained that preliminary good. The rest is as described before. According to this principle, the rest should be inferred accordingly.

If the resultant mind of abhijna arises, it refers to arising simultaneously with the resultant mind of abhijna. This is to simplify the difference. According to this, the resultant mind of abhijna only corresponds to equanimity. Because equanimity is neutral and conforms to the resultant mind of abhijna. Sorrow has left the desire realm, and equanimity is neutral. Joy is not neutral, so it is not said to be accomplished. Furthermore, the one hundred and thirty-ninth volume of the Vibhasa states that if one arises in the first dhyana and accomplishes one dharma of the desire realm, which is the equanimity-inclined mind, that is, arising simultaneously with the resultant mind of abhijna, because it arises by generally taking form, etc., as its object. Some say that three are accomplished, namely, the equanimity-inclined minds of form, sound, and dharma. If this mind arises from the physical expression, then there is the equanimity-inclined mind of form. If this mind arises from the verbal expression, then there is the equanimity-inclined mind of sound. If this mind arises from the transformed matter, because it generally takes dharma as its object, then there is the equanimity-inclined mind of dharma. Some say that six are accomplished, namely, the six equanimity-inclined minds, which is arising simultaneously with the resultant mind of abhijna. This mind allows for both general and specific objects (the explanation says that among the three statements, the first statement is correct, which is the same as the view of the Nyayanusara-sastra. The second statement does not say 'some say,' which is the view of the first teacher, that even if it arises from physical and verbal karma, it also includes the touch that can be created, or arising from physical karma also includes smell, taste, and touch, and arising from verbal karma also includes form, smell, taste, and touch, so it is only called the equanimity-inclined mind of dharma). Furthermore, the Vibhasa says that arising in the second dhyana accomplishes one of the first dhyana, which is the equanimity-inclined mind of dharma, because it is generally taken as the object. Some say that three are accomplished, namely, form, sound.

．法。若緣所起身表即有緣色。若緣所起語表即有緣聲。若緣所變事以總緣故即有緣法。有說彼成就四。謂色．聲．觸．法。以生第二靜慮起初靜慮三識身時。容有彼眷屬別緣色．聲．觸初靜慮地無覆無記意識現在前故。或通果心總別緣故。

解云初說為正。如前解應知緣身．語業兼緣能造觸。或緣身業兼緣觸。緣語業兼緣色．觸故。但名法舍意近行。第三師說從三識身後所引眷屬威儀意識容有別緣。或通果心總別緣故成初定四。

有說如是至是意近行者。此下敘異說。或是經部師說。近行唯染。與意相牽數行所緣。若已離染此地近行必不現行。故唯是染非善．無記。

云何與意相牽數行者。問。

或愛或憎至故作是說者。異說答　愛謂貪　憎謂瞋　不擇舍謂癡。此癡於法不擇而舍。由喜與愛俱。憂與憎俱。舍與癡俱。舍言與癡俱。從強多分。此三與意相牽數行所緣名意近行。此文且據三毒。余惑亦與喜．憂．舍俱。與意相牽數行所緣。為對治彼雜染近行。于契經中說六恒住。謂於六境見色等已。不喜不憂心恒住舍具念．正知。非阿羅漢．無善法喜。但遮雜染故作是言說六恒住。故知近行唯是雜染。阿羅漢染無。故知非近行　心恒住舍。舍謂行舍。故集異門足論十五解六恒住中雲。問此舍何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：法。如果緣所引起的起身表，那就是有緣色（rupa，物質）。如果緣所引起的語表，那就是有緣聲（shabda，聲音）。如果緣所變化的事物，以總緣的緣故，那就是有緣法（dharma，法）。有一種說法是，彼成就四種，即色、聲、觸（sparsha，觸覺）、法。因為在生起第二靜慮（dhyana，禪定）時，引發初靜慮的三識身時，容許有彼眷屬的別緣，即色、聲、觸，初靜慮地的無覆無記意識現在前之故。或者通果心總別緣之故。

解釋說，最初的說法是正確的。如前解釋應知，緣身、語業兼緣能造觸。或者緣身業兼緣觸，緣語業兼緣色、觸之故。但名為法舍意近行。第三師說，從三識身後所引發的眷屬威儀意識，容許有別緣。或者通果心總別緣之故，成就初禪四種。

有一種說法是，如是至是意近行者。這以下敘述不同的說法。或者是經部師的說法。近行唯染（klesha，煩惱），與意相牽，數行所緣。如果已經離染，此地的近行必定不現行。所以唯是染，非善、無記。

『云何與意相牽數行者？』問。

『或愛或憎至故作是說者。』異說答：愛謂貪（lobha，貪婪），憎謂瞋（dvesha，嗔恨），不擇舍謂癡（moha，愚癡）。此癡於法不擇而舍。由於喜與愛俱，憂與憎俱，舍與癡俱。舍言與癡俱，從強多分。此三與意相牽，數行所緣，名意近行。此文且據三毒（毒：貪嗔癡），其餘惑也與喜、憂、舍俱，與意相牽，數行所緣。爲了對治彼雜染近行，在契經中說六恒住，謂於六境見色等已，不喜不憂，心恒住舍，具念、正知。非阿羅漢、無善法喜，但遮雜染，故作是言說六恒住。故知近行唯是雜染。阿羅漢染無，故知非近行，心恒住舍。舍謂行舍。故集異門足論十五解六恒住中雲：問此舍何？

【English Translation】 English version: Law (dharma). If the physical expression arising from conditions is a conditioned form (rupa), then it is a conditioned form. If the verbal expression arising from conditions is a conditioned sound (shabda), then it is a conditioned sound. If the things transformed by conditions, due to the general condition, are conditioned dharmas. Some say that it accomplishes four, namely form, sound, touch (sparsha), and dharma. Because when arising from the second dhyana (meditative absorption), when initiating the three aggregates of consciousness of the first dhyana, it is permissible to have separate conditions of those retinues, namely form, sound, and touch, because the non-obscured and indeterminate consciousness of the first dhyana realm is present. Or because of the general and specific conditions of the resultant mind.

The explanation says that the initial statement is correct. As explained before, it should be known that conditioning physical and verbal karma also conditions the touch that can be created. Or conditioning physical karma also conditions touch, because conditioning verbal karma also conditions form and touch. It is only called dharma-equanimity-mind-near-conduct. The third teacher says that the retinue of dignified consciousness led from the three aggregates of consciousness afterwards may have separate conditions. Or because of the general and specific conditions of the resultant mind, it accomplishes the four of the first dhyana.

Some say, 'As it is, it is mind-near-conduct.' The following narrates different views. Or it is the view of the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) masters. Near-conduct is only defiled (klesha), connected with the mind, and repeatedly engages with the object. If one has already abandoned defilement, the near-conduct of this realm will certainly not manifest. Therefore, it is only defiled, not wholesome or indeterminate.

'How does it connect with the mind and repeatedly engage?' Question.

'Either love or hate, hence this statement.' Different views answer: Love means greed (lobha), hate means anger (dvesha), non-discrimination and abandonment means delusion (moha). This delusion abandons dharma without discrimination. Because joy is together with love, sorrow is together with hate, equanimity is together with delusion. The word 'equanimity' is together with delusion, from the stronger and greater part. These three connect with the mind and repeatedly engage with the object, and are called mind-near-conduct. This text is based on the three poisons (greed, hatred, and delusion), and other afflictions are also together with joy, sorrow, and equanimity, connecting with the mind and repeatedly engaging with the object. In order to counteract those defiled near-conducts, the sutras speak of six constant abidings, namely, having seen form and so on in the six objects, not being joyful or sorrowful, the mind constantly abiding in equanimity, possessing mindfulness and correct knowledge. Not an Arhat (enlightened being) or having wholesome joy, but only preventing defilement, hence the statement of six constant abidings. Therefore, it is known that near-conduct is only defiled. An Arhat has no defilement, therefore it is known that it is not near-conduct, the mind constantly abiding in equanimity. Equanimity means conduct-equanimity. Therefore, the Jiji Yi Men Zu Lun (a Buddhist text) explains the six constant abidings in fifteen sections, saying: Question, what is this equanimity?

所謂耶。答心平等性。心正直性。心無驚覺性。任運住性。應知此中說名為舍。複次有說六識相應緣色．聲．香．味．觸法境舍受名舍。今此義中應知意說。心平等性。心正直性。心無驚覺性。任運住性行舍名舍(已上論文)　具念正知。六恒住體。故婆沙三十六云。問六恒住法以何為自性。答以念．慧為自性。若兼取相應俱有四蘊．五蘊為自性。

又即喜等至謂諸善受者。復證近行唯是雜染。又即喜．憂．舍。世尊說為三十六師句。謂為耽嗜依別有十八。此是近行此所對治。出離依有十八。此非近行是能對治。二種不同成三十六。既二別說。故知唯染是意近行。此句差別是佛大師所說法。故名為師句　耽嗜依者。謂諸染受。受與耽嗜煩惱為依故　出離依者。謂諸善受。受與出離善法為依故。故婆沙一百九十云。此中耽嗜謂愛耽嗜性故。若受與彼為安足處名耽嗜依受。有說耽嗜者名一切煩惱。執著性故。若受與彼為安足處。名耽嗜依受。若受不為愛或一切煩惱為安足處名出離依受　又婆沙一百三十九云。問何故不說無覆無記。答彼亦說在此二中故。謂無覆無記受有順染品。有順善品。順染品者耽嗜依攝。順善品者出離依攝。

如是所說至無量差別者。略說受支如上分別。若約惑等諸餘義門無量差別。如理

應說。

何緣不說所餘有支者。此下大文第二餘指別文。問十二支中上來說四。何緣不說所餘八支。

頌曰至隨眠品當說者。答。識．及六處。前界品已說。行．有．愛．取。業．隨眠品當說　問生．及老死前不別說。此復不指。有何所以　解云生．老死支即識等五。於此五中。識與六處已指前文。名色．觸．受。如前別釋。故不別說　問若爾愛．取是無明。應不別指　解云無明異說不同。或說惡慧或說非明。或說明無。由此愛．取不指。無明別指下說。

此諸緣起至如成熟飲食者。此下大文第二略攝喻顯。初一頌喻煩惱。次兩句喻業。后二句喻事。

論曰至種等相似者。問。

如從種子至應如是知者。釋初頌。總有五喻言惑得裹業者。謂惑及惑得俱能裹業。然惑親裹。得是疏裹。故正理云。煩惱裹業能感後有非獨能感　余文可知。

如米有糠至應如是知者。釋次二句。總有三喻。如草藥為因果熟為後邊其果熟已不能生果。其業亦爾。既果熟已更不招異熟。余文可知。

如熟飲食至應如是知者。釋后兩句。一喻可知。

如是緣起至今當略辨者。此下大文第九明四有。牒前起后。四有如前辨中有中已釋名義。今於此中辨性．及系。

頌曰至餘三無色三者。初句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：應如是說。

為何不說其餘的有支呢？以下是第二大段，分別解釋其餘的有支。問：在十二有支中，前面已經說了四個，為何不說其餘的八個呢？

頌文說：『識及六處已說，行、有、愛、取、業、隨眠品當說。』答：識（Vijnana，了別作用）、及六處（Sadayatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官）在前面的界品中已經說過。行（Samskara，造作）、有（Bhava，存在）、愛（Trsna，渴愛）、取（Upadana，執取）、業（Karma，行為），將在隨眠品中說明。問：生（Jati，出生）及老死（Jaramarana，衰老和死亡）之前沒有分別說明，這裡又不提及，是什麼原因呢？解釋說：生、老死有支就是識等五蘊。在這五蘊中，識與六處已經在前面的經文中提及。名色（Namarupa，精神和物質）、觸（Sparsa，接觸）、受（Vedana，感受），如前文分別解釋過，所以不分別說明。問：如果這樣，愛、取是無明（Avidya，無知），應該不分別提及。解釋說：對無明的不同說法不同，或者說是惡慧，或者說不是明，或者說明沒有。因此，愛、取不提及，無明在下面分別說明。

這些緣起，就像成熟的飲食一樣。以下是第二大段，簡略地用比喻來顯示。第一首頌比喻煩惱，接著兩句比喻業，最後兩句比喻事物。

論中說：『如從種子生』等，與種類相似。問：

『如從種子』到『應該這樣理解』。解釋第一首頌。總共有五個比喻，說迷惑能包裹業，是指迷惑及迷惑所得的都能包裹業。然而迷惑是直接包裹，所得是間接包裹。所以正理中說：煩惱包裹業，能感得後有，但不是唯一能感得後有的原因。其餘的經文可以理解。

『如米有糠』到『應該這樣理解』。解釋接下來的兩句。總共有三個比喻。如草藥為因，果實成熟為後邊，其果實成熟后不能再生果。其業也是這樣，既然果實成熟后，不再招感異熟果報。其餘的經文可以理解。

『如熟飲食』到『應該這樣理解』。解釋後面的兩句。一個比喻就可以理解。

像這樣緣起，現在應當簡略辨析。以下是第九大段，說明四有（Caturvidhabhava，四種存在狀態）。承接前面的內容，開啟後面的內容。四有如前面辨析中有（Antarabhava，中陰身）時已經解釋過名義，現在在這裡辨析其性質和繫縛。

頌文說：『餘三無色三』。

【English Translation】 English version: It should be said.

For what reason are the remaining limbs of existence not discussed? The following is the second major section, separately explaining the remaining limbs. Question: Among the twelve limbs of dependent origination, four have been discussed above. Why are the remaining eight not discussed?

The verse says: 'Consciousness and the six sense bases have already been discussed; action, existence, craving, grasping, and karma will be discussed in the section on latent tendencies.' Answer: Consciousness (Vijnana, the function of distinguishing) and the six sense bases (Sadayatana, the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) have already been discussed in the previous section on realms. Action (Samskara, formations), existence (Bhava, being), craving (Trsna, thirst), grasping (Upadana, clinging), and karma (Karma, action) will be explained in the section on latent tendencies. Question: Birth (Jati, birth) and old age and death (Jaramarana, aging and death) were not separately explained before, and are not mentioned here again. What is the reason for this? Explanation: The limbs of birth, old age, and death are the same as the five aggregates, such as consciousness. Among these five aggregates, consciousness and the six sense bases have already been mentioned in the previous text. Name and form (Namarupa, mind and matter), contact (Sparsa, touch), and feeling (Vedana, sensation) have been separately explained as before, so they are not separately discussed. Question: If that is the case, craving and grasping are ignorance (Avidya, ignorance), and should not be separately mentioned. Explanation: There are different ways of speaking about ignorance, either as evil wisdom, or as non-illumination, or as the absence of illumination. Therefore, craving and grasping are not mentioned, and ignorance is separately explained below.

These dependent origination, are like ripened food. The following is the second major section, briefly illustrating with metaphors. The first verse is a metaphor for afflictions, the next two lines are a metaphor for karma, and the last two lines are a metaphor for things.

The treatise says: 'Like arising from a seed,' etc., similar to the species. Question:

'Like from a seed' to 'should be understood in this way.' Explaining the first verse. There are a total of five metaphors, saying that delusion can wrap karma, which means that delusion and what is obtained from delusion can both wrap karma. However, delusion wraps directly, and what is obtained is an indirect wrapping. Therefore, the principle says: Afflictions wrap karma and can cause future existence, but are not the only cause. The rest of the text can be understood.

'Like rice with husk' to 'should be understood in this way.' Explaining the next two lines. There are a total of three metaphors. Like herbs as the cause, and the ripening of fruit as the end, once the fruit has ripened, it cannot produce more fruit. The same is true of karma. Once the fruit has ripened, it no longer attracts different ripening results. The rest of the text can be understood.

'Like cooked food' to 'should be understood in this way.' Explaining the last two lines. One metaphor is enough to understand.

Like this dependent origination, now should be briefly analyzed. The following is the ninth major section, explaining the four existences (Caturvidhabhava, four states of existence). Connecting the previous content and opening up the following content. The four existences, as explained earlier when analyzing the intermediate existence (Antarabhava, intermediate state), have already explained the names and meanings. Now, in this section, analyze their nature and bondage.

The verse says: 'The remaining three are formless three.'

總標。次二句及餘三。辨性。后無色三。辨系。

論曰至生有唯染者。釋初二句。

由何煩惱者。此下釋第三句。此即問。

自地諸惑至猶如生有者。答　自地。顯非他地　諸惑。顯是本惑。謂此地生。此地本惑皆容現起染污生有。引說可知　又解不現起者有染能故亦名能染。論文既言此地一切煩惱染污此地生有。明知皆有染能　然諸結生唯本惑力。並無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉。以是本惑相應纏故亦能助潤。非由自力纏．垢可能現起。性羸劣故。要由思擇方現在前。初結生位身心昧劣故非現起　自力纏者。謂慳．嫉．忿．覆．悔　自力垢者。謂六垢　問纏中睡眠為是自力。為是隨從　解云是隨從。理實此位亦無睡眠。而不別簡者。若自力纏．垢初結生位定非現起故此別簡。其隨從纏則非決定。若無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉此位相應。若睡眠不相應。以結生位非睡眠。故。以隨從纏性不定故。文不別簡　又解睡眠是自力纏。若作此解即自力纏中已簡。故婆沙五十簡纏非結中有一複次。睡眠．惡作雖亦獨立而不離二(已上論文)或說自力。或說隨從。兩釋無違。並會婆沙如心所中已具分別。雖生有位心身昧劣。而由過去數起煩惱。或由過去近現行。或由二勝因引發力故。此位煩惱任運現起。應知中有初續

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本總標。次二句及餘三。辨性。后無色三。辨系。

論曰至生有唯染者。釋初二句。

由何煩惱者。此下釋第三句。此即問。

自地諸惑至猶如生有者。答自地（指同一界或同一地的煩惱）。顯非他地諸惑。顯是本惑（根本煩惱）。謂此地生。此地本惑皆容現起染污生有。引說可知又解不現起者有染能故亦名能染。論文既言此地一切煩惱染污此地生有。明知皆有染能然諸結生唯本惑力。並無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉。以是本惑相應纏故亦能助潤。非由自力纏．垢可能現起。性羸劣故。要由思擇方現在前。初結生位身心昧劣故非現起自力纏者。謂慳．嫉．忿．覆．悔自力垢者。謂六垢問纏中睡眠為是自力。為是隨從解云是隨從。理實此位亦無睡眠。而不別簡者。若自力纏．垢初結生位定非現起故此別簡。其隨從纏則非決定。若無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉此位相應。若睡眠不相應。以結生位非睡眠。故。以隨從纏性不定故。文不別簡又解睡眠是自力纏。若作此解即自力纏中已簡。故婆沙五十簡纏非結中有一複次。睡眠．惡作雖亦獨立而不離二(已上論文)或說自力。或說隨從。兩釋無違。並會婆沙如心所中已具分別。雖生有位心身昧劣。而由過去數起煩惱。或由過去近現行。或由二勝因引發力故。此位煩惱任運現起。應知中有初續

【English Translation】 English version General summary. The next two sentences and the remaining three. Discern nature. The last three of the formless realm. Discern affiliation.

The treatise says 'to the existence of birth, only defilement': Explains the first two sentences.

'By what afflictions?': This below explains the third sentence. This is a question.

'The afflictions of one's own realm to like the existence of birth': Answer. 'One's own realm' (Svabhumi) indicates not other realms. 'Afflictions' indicates fundamental afflictions (Mula Klesha). Meaning, birth in this realm. The fundamental afflictions of this realm can all potentially arise and defile the existence of birth. The cited explanation is understandable. Furthermore, it explains that those not arising are also called 'capable of defiling' because they have the ability to defile. The text states that all afflictions of this realm defile the existence of birth in this realm. It is clear that all have the ability to defile. However, all rebirths are solely due to the power of fundamental afflictions. There is no absence of shame (Ahrikya), no absence of embarrassment (Anapatrapya), torpor (Styana), or excitement (Auddhatya). Because these are associated with the entanglements (Paryavasthana) of fundamental afflictions, they can also assist in moistening. It is not possible for entanglements or stains (Mala) to arise through their own power. Because their nature is weak. They must be considered before they can manifest. In the initial moment of rebirth, the body and mind are weak, so they do not arise. 'Entanglements by one's own power' are greed (Matsarya), jealousy (Irsya), anger (Krodha), concealment (Mraksha), and regret (Kaukutya). 'Stains by one's own power' are the six stains (Sad-mala). Question: Among the entanglements, is sleep (Middha) by its own power or following others? Explanation: It follows others. In reality, there is no sleep in this moment either. The reason for not distinguishing it is that if entanglements or stains by their own power definitely do not arise in the initial moment of rebirth, then this is distinguished. The entanglements that follow others are not definite. If there is no absence of shame, no absence of embarrassment, torpor, or excitement, they are associated with this moment. If sleep is not associated, it is because there is no sleep in the moment of rebirth. Because the nature of entanglements that follow others is not fixed, the text does not distinguish it. Another explanation is that sleep is an entanglement by its own power. If this explanation is made, then it is already distinguished among the entanglements by its own power. Therefore, in the fiftieth chapter of the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa), the distinction of entanglements is not repeated in the section on rebirth. Furthermore, although sleep and regret are also independent, they are not separate from the two (above text). Some say by one's own power, others say following others. The two explanations are not contradictory. The Vibhasa is reconciled as the mind and its functions have already been fully distinguished. Although the body and mind are weak in the existence of birth, due to the frequent arising of afflictions in the past, or due to the recent activity in the past, or due to the power of the two superior causes, afflictions arise spontaneously in this moment. It should be known that the intermediate state (Antarabhava) initially continues.

剎那亦必染污與生有同。此即義便兼明。

然餘三有至各善染無記者。釋頌餘三。餘本．死．中各通三性。

于無色界至許具四有者。約界分別釋頌無色三。

有情緣起至由何而住者。此下大文第二辨有情住。結前問起。

頌曰至引及起如次者。就頌答中。初句總示。次五句別釋。次二句通經。后一頌明勝用。

論曰至由食而住者。此下釋初句。

何等為食者。問。

食有四種至四識者。答。食總有四。

段有二種至翻此為粗者。此下別釋段食。此顯段食或細或粗。一以無穢為細。有穢為粗　劫初食者。謂劫初時人食地味．地皮餅．林藤無變穢故。食香稻以去方有便穢。二少軟名細。多[車*更]名粗　細汗蟲。即是蟣虱。其體細小從汗而生。或人身中有蟲食汗名細汗蟲。

如是段食至分分受之者。唯欲界系香．味．觸三。一切皆是段食自體。饑．渴二觸名為食者。消宿食故。希新食故。顯無病故。所以名食。可成段別而飲啖故。謂口能飲啖。鼻能飲。如象等鼻分分受之故名段食。此即釋名　又解謂口飲啖。舌根即分分受味。由鼻飲故鼻根即分分受香。口．鼻中觸身根分分受觸。

光影炎涼如何成食者。問。如日光．樹影．火炎．風涼。於此四中香．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位）亦必有染污，與生命的存在有相同之處。這即是意義的方便兼明。

然而其餘三有（bhava，存在）至於各自的善、染、無記性。解釋頌文的其餘三有。餘本有（bhava，存在）、死有（cyuti-bhava，死亡時刻的存在）、中有（antarabhava，中陰身）各自通於三種性質。

于無色界（arupa-dhatu，沒有物質的禪定境界）至於允許具有四有（bhava，存在）者。約界限分別解釋頌文的無色界三有。

有情（sattva，眾生）的緣起（pratitya-samutpada，因緣生起）至於由什麼而住者。這以下是大的科判第二部分，辨別有情所住之處。總結前文而提出問題。

頌文說至於引及起如次第者。就頌文的回答中。初句總括地指示。其次五句分別解釋。再其次二句貫通經文。最後一頌說明殊勝的作用。

論述說至於由食而住者。這以下解釋初句。

什麼叫做食（ahara，食物）呢？問。

食有四種至於四識者。答。食總共有四種。

段食（kabalikahara，粗細食物）有兩種至於翻譯此為粗者。這以下分別解釋段食。這顯示段食或者細或者粗。一是以沒有污穢為細，有污穢為粗。劫初食者。說的是劫初時人食用地味、地皮餅、林藤沒有變壞污穢的緣故。食用香稻以後才有了便利的污穢。二是少而柔軟的叫做細，多而堅硬的叫做粗。細汗蟲。就是蟣虱。它的身體細小從汗液而生。或者人身體中有蟲食用汗液叫做細汗蟲。

如是段食至於分分接受它者。只有欲界（kama-dhatu，有情眾生有情慾的世界）所繫的香、味、觸三種。一切都是段食的自體。饑、渴二觸名為食者。因為能消化宿食的緣故。希望新食的緣故。顯示沒有疾病的緣故。所以叫做食。可以成為段食的差別而飲用啖食的緣故。說的是口能夠飲用啖食。鼻能夠飲。如大象等用鼻子分分接受它的緣故叫做段食。這即是解釋名稱。又解釋說口飲啖，舌根就分分接受味道。由鼻子飲用，所以鼻根就分分接受香氣。口、鼻中的觸，身根分分接受觸覺。

光影炎涼如何成為食呢？問。如日光、樹影、火炎、風涼。於此四中香、

【English Translation】 English version A ksana (an extremely short unit of time) must also be defiled, being similar to the existence of life. This is the convenient and clear meaning.

However, the remaining three bhavas (existences) pertain to their respective good, defiled, and neutral natures. Explaining the remaining three bhavas of the verse. The remaining bhava, cyuti-bhava (the existence at the moment of death), and antarabhava (intermediate existence) each correspond to the three natures.

Regarding those who allow the possession of four bhavas in the Arupa-dhatu (realm of formlessness). Explaining the three bhavas of the Arupa-dhatu in the verse, based on the distinction of realms.

The pratitya-samutpada (dependent origination) of sentient beings, as to what they abide by. The following is the second major section, distinguishing where sentient beings abide. Summarizing the previous text and raising a question.

The verse says, 'Leading and arising in sequence.' In the answer of the verse. The first sentence indicates generally. The next five sentences explain separately. The next two sentences connect the sutras. The last verse explains the superior function.

The treatise says, 'Abiding by food.' The following explains the first sentence.

What is called ahara (food)? Question.

There are four kinds of food, up to the four consciousnesses. Answer. There are four kinds of food in total.

Kabalikahara (coarse and fine food) has two kinds, up to translating this as coarse. The following explains kabalikahara separately. This shows that kabalikahara can be either fine or coarse. One is that the absence of impurity is fine, and the presence of impurity is coarse. 'Food at the beginning of the kalpa (aeon).' It refers to the fact that people at the beginning of the kalpa ate earth essence, earth skin cakes, and forest vines without any corruption or impurity. Only after eating fragrant rice did convenient impurity arise. Second, little and soft is called fine, much and hard is called coarse. 'Fine sweat insects.' These are lice. Their bodies are small and born from sweat. Or, if there are insects in the human body that eat sweat, they are called fine sweat insects.

Thus, kabalikahara, up to receiving it in parts. Only the three of smell, taste, and touch belonging to the Kama-dhatu (desire realm) are the self-nature of kabalikahara. Hunger and thirst are called food because they digest old food. Because they hope for new food. Because they show the absence of disease. Therefore, they are called food. They can become the difference of kabalikahara and are drunk and eaten. It means that the mouth can drink and eat. The nose can drink. For example, elephants use their noses to receive it in parts, so it is called kabalikahara. This is the explanation of the name. It is also explained that the mouth drinks and eats, and the tongue root receives the taste in parts. Because the nose drinks, the nose root receives the smell in parts. The touch in the mouth and nose, the body root receives the touch in parts.

How do light, shadow, heat, and coolness become food? Question. Such as sunlight, tree shadows, fire heat, and cool breeze. Among these four, smell,

味．觸三非可飲啖如何名食。

傳說此語至如涂洗等者。答。如人患寒。忽遇日光．及火炎觸即便有益。如人患熱。得遇樹影及涼風觸即便有益。此亦名食　言段食者。毗婆沙師傳說。此飲啖言從多為論。如藥涂身及洗浴等。雖非飲啖。而能持身。亦細食攝。色界雖有能攝益觸。以畢竟無分段飲啖故非段食。

色亦可成至何緣非食者。問。此不能益至而無益故者。答。色不能益自對眼根。色不能益解脫者故。夫名食者必先資益自所對根。及所依大。后乃及余根所依大。飲啖色時。于自眼根及所依大尚不能益。況能及余耳等四根並所依大。由諸色根境各別故。飲啖色時鼻．舌．身根不能取色益根．及大。未離欲者有時見色生喜樂者。由緣色故觸生喜．樂。此是觸食。非色是食。又后二果由離欲故解脫食貪。雖見種種好飲食色無益身故。若飲啖彼香．味．觸時能益身故。色．香．味．觸雖俱離貪。見色無益。餘三有益。以此故知色非是食　又解偏舉后二果者非但正顯見色非食而無有益。兼顯見色不生喜樂而無有益　又解色非食者。不至境故不離飢渴食事不成。雖見不能解除饑．渴　問于非段食何故唯簡色耶　解云聲非相續。意法無有分段。眼等五根雖含二義。食中無故。體凈妙故。非飲啖故。此之八種非食義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『味』（rasa，味道）、『觸』（sprastavya，觸覺）三者並非可以飲用或吞食之物，為何稱之為『食』（ahara，食物）？

傳說有人說，此處的『食』，類似於塗抹或洗浴等行為。回答：比如有人患了寒病，突然遇到陽光或火焰的接觸，立即就能獲得益處；又如有人患了熱病，得到樹蔭或涼風的吹拂，立即就能獲得益處。這些也可以稱為『食』。至於說『段食』（kabalikara-ahara，粗 खाद्य），毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，分別說者）傳說，此處的『飲啖』之說，是從多數情況而言的。比如藥物塗抹身體或洗浴等，雖然不是飲用或吞食，但能維持身體，也屬於細微的『食』所攝。雖然有能攝取益處的『觸』，但畢竟沒有分段飲用或吞食，所以不是『段食』。

『色』（rupa，顏色、形狀）也可以成就，為何不是『食』呢？問：這是因為『色』不能帶來益處，所以沒有益處嗎？答：『色』不能給它所對應的眼根帶來益處，『色』也不能給解脫者帶來益處。所謂『食』，必須先資助和益處它所對應的根，以及所依附的『大』（mahabhuta，四大元素），然後才能及於其餘的根和所依附的『大』。在『飲啖』『色』的時候，對於它自身的眼根和所依附的『大』尚且不能帶來益處，更何況能及於其餘的耳等四根以及所依附的『大』呢？由於諸『色』根和境各不相同，所以在『飲啖』『色』的時候，鼻、舌、身根不能攝取『色』來益處根和大。未離欲者有時見到『色』而生喜樂，這是由於緣于『色』的緣故，『觸』生喜樂，這是『觸食』，不是『色食』。又后二果（指阿那含、阿羅漢）由於遠離慾望的緣故，解脫了對『食』的貪慾，即使見到種種美好的飲食之『色』，也對身體沒有益處。如果『飲啖』那些香、味、觸的時候，就能益處身體。『色』、『香』、『味』、『觸』雖然都已遠離貪慾，但見到『色』沒有益處，其餘三者有益處。因此可知『色』不是『食』。又解釋說，偏舉后二果，不僅僅是正顯見到『色』不是『食』而沒有益處，還兼顯見到『色』不生喜樂而沒有益處。又解釋說，『色』不是『食』，是因為不至境的緣故，不能解除飢渴，『食』事不成。即使見到『色』也不能解除飢渴。問：在非『段食』中，為何唯獨簡擇『色』呢？解釋說，聲音不是相續的，意和法沒有分段，眼等五根雖然包含兩種含義，但在『食』中沒有，體性清凈微妙，不是飲用或吞食的緣故。這八種不是『食』的含義。

【English Translation】 English version 『Taste』 (rasa, flavor), 『touch』 (spṛṣṭavya, tactile sensation) are not things that can be drunk or swallowed, so why are they called 『food』 (ahara, nourishment)?

It is said that some argue this 『food』 is similar to acts like smearing or bathing. Answer: For example, if someone suffers from a cold disease and suddenly encounters sunlight or the touch of fire, they immediately benefit. Or if someone suffers from a heat disease and obtains the shade of a tree or the touch of a cool breeze, they immediately benefit. These can also be called 『food』. As for 『coarse food』 (kabalikara-ahara, gross material food), the Vaibhashikas (the differing speakers) say that this talk of 『drinking and swallowing』 is discussed from the perspective of the majority of cases. For example, medicine smeared on the body or bathing, although not drinking or swallowing, can sustain the body and are also included in subtle 『food』. Although there is 『touch』 that can gather benefits, it is ultimately not divided into segments for drinking or swallowing, so it is not 『coarse food』.

『Form』 (rupa, color, shape) can also be achieved, so why is it not 『food』? Question: Is it because 『form』 cannot bring benefit, so it is not beneficial? Answer: 『Form』 cannot benefit its corresponding eye-sense base, and 『form』 cannot benefit those who are liberated. What is called 『food』 must first nourish and benefit its corresponding sense base and the 『great elements』 (mahabhuta, the four great elements) on which it relies, and then it can extend to the remaining sense bases and the 『great elements』 on which they rely. When 『drinking and swallowing』『form』, it cannot even benefit its own eye-sense base and the 『great elements』 on which it relies, let alone extend to the remaining four sense bases such as the ear and the 『great elements』 on which they rely. Because the 『form』 sense base and object are different, when 『drinking and swallowing』『form』, the nose, tongue, and body sense bases cannot take 『form』 to benefit the sense base and the 『great elements』. Those who have not left desire sometimes see 『form』 and generate joy and pleasure because 『touch』 arises from the condition of 『form』, this is 『touch food』, not 『form food』. Furthermore, the latter two fruits (referring to Anagami and Arhat) are liberated from greed for 『food』 because they have abandoned desire, so even if they see various beautiful food 『forms』, it does not benefit the body. If they 『drink and swallow』 those smells, tastes, and touches, it can benefit the body. Although 『form』, 『smell』, 『taste』, and 『touch』 have all been abandoned from greed, seeing 『form』 is not beneficial, while the other three are beneficial. Therefore, it can be known that 『form』 is not 『food』. Another explanation is that singling out the latter two fruits not only directly shows that seeing 『form』 is not 『food』 and is not beneficial, but also shows that seeing 『form』 does not generate joy and pleasure and is not beneficial. Another explanation is that 『form』 is not 『food』 because it does not reach the object, it cannot relieve hunger and thirst, and the matter of 『food』 is not accomplished. Even seeing 『form』 cannot relieve hunger and thirst. Question: Why is 『form』 the only one selected among non-『coarse foods』? The explanation is that sound is not continuous, thought and dharma are not segmented, and although the five sense bases such as the eye contain two meanings, they are not in 『food』, their nature is pure and subtle, and they are not drunk or swallowed. These eight kinds are not the meaning of 『food』.

顯故不別簡。唯色一種相續分段。段食中有可飲啖。故恐濫段食是故別簡。

觸謂三和至通三界皆有者。釋餘三食。體唯有漏。界即通三界於前分別十八界中。說十五界唯是有漏。已顯段食唯是有漏故不別說。

如何食體不通無漏者。問。

毗婆沙師至為滅諸有者。答。

又契經說至皆謂已生者。又引經顯食唯有漏　部多．求生。皆三有身。四食既能安住資益。明知有漏。無漏不然。為滅諸有故非食體。

復說求生為何所目者。此下通經釋第七．第八句。此即依經起問。

此目中有至暫時起故者。答。經說中有異名五種。求生是即五中一稱。明知前經所說求生即目中有。余文可知。

如契經說至起謂中有者。引經轉證起是中有如契經說。有無常可破壞自體起。有無常可破壞世間生。起謂中有。生謂生有。自體．世間是其通稱。為明中有實有故以自體標名。生有恐執為常故以世間顯過　又解影略互顯　又解中有相隱自體標名。生有相顯世間為稱。

又經說有至為第四句者。又引經證起名中有。此經言斷。斷有二種。一得永對治斷。得擇滅不退名斷。二得永不行斷。得非擇滅不行名斷。故正理三十一云。我今於此審諦思求。見彼契經有如是意。謂依二斷說如是言。二斷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『顯故不別簡』，因為已經顯明，所以不再特別區分。只有色蘊是一種相續不斷、分段存在的物質。段食（Kabalikara，維持生命的營養）中有可以飲用和食用的東西，所以恐怕會和段食混淆，因此特別加以區分。

『觸謂三和至通三界皆有者』，解釋其餘三種食。它們的本體只有有漏（Sasrava，與煩惱相關的）法。界（Dhatu，構成要素）即通於三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）。在前面分別十八界（Dhatus，十八界）中，說十五界唯是有漏，已經顯明段食唯是有漏，所以不再特別說明。

『如何食體不通無漏者』，問：為什麼食的本體不能通於無漏（Anasrava，沒有煩惱的）法？

『毗婆沙師至為滅諸有者』，答：毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教論師）說，四食（Cattaro Ahara，四種食）的作用是安住和資益有漏之身，而不是爲了滅除諸有（Bhava，存在）。

『又契經說至皆謂已生者』，又引用契經（Sutra，佛經）來顯明食唯有有漏。部多（Bhuta，已存在的事物）、求生（Sambhavin，尋求生存的事物），都是三有（Tribhava，欲有、色有、無色有）之身。四食既然能夠安住和資益，明顯可知是有漏的。無漏則不然，因為是爲了滅除諸有，所以不是食的本體。

『復說求生為何所目者』，下面通過經文來解釋第七句和第八句。這是依據經文提出的問題。

『此目中有至暫時起故者』，答：這裡指的是中有（Antarabhava，中陰身），因為是暫時生起的。經中說中有有五種不同的名稱，求生就是這五種名稱之一。明確可知前面經文所說的求生，指的就是中有。其餘文句可以類推得知。

『如契經說至起謂中有者』，引用經文來進一步證明『起』就是中有，如契經所說：『有無常可破壞自體起，有無常可破壞世間生』。『起』指的是中有，『生』指的是生有（Upapattibhava，結生相續的有）。『自體』和『世間』是它們的通稱。爲了說明中有是真實存在的，所以用『自體』來標明。生有恐怕被執著為常，所以用『世間』來顯示其過患。又可以解釋為互相簡略地顯示。又可以解釋為中有相狀隱晦，所以用『自體』來標明；生有相狀明顯，所以用『世間』來稱呼。

『又經說有至為第四句者』，又引用經文來證明『起』名為中有。此經中說『斷』，斷有兩種：一是通過獲得永恒的對治法而斷除，獲得擇滅（Pratisamkhyanirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的寂滅）而不退轉，稱為斷；二是通過獲得永不生起的狀態而斷除，獲得非擇滅（Apratisamkhyanirodha，非通過智慧抉擇而達到的寂滅）而不生起，稱為斷。所以正理（Nyayanusara，論書名）第三十一卷中說：『我現在對此仔細思考，發現那部契經有這樣的意思，即是依據這兩種斷來說這樣的話。』這兩種斷。

【English Translation】 English version 『顯故不別簡 (Xian gu bu bie jian)』: Because it is already evident, there is no need for further distinction. Only the form aggregate (Rupa Skandha) is a continuous and segmented substance. Among the nutriment of segments (Kabalikara Ahara, nutriment that sustains life), there are things that can be drunk and eaten, so there is a concern that it might be confused with the nutriment of segments, hence the special distinction.

『觸謂三和至通三界皆有者 (Chu wei san he zhi tong san jie jie you zhe)』: Explaining the remaining three kinds of nutriment. Their substance is only defiled (Sasrava, associated with afflictions) dharmas. The realm (Dhatu, element) encompasses the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm). In the previous distinction of the eighteen realms (Dhatus, eighteen elements), it was said that fifteen realms are only defiled, which has already made it clear that the nutriment of segments is only defiled, so there is no need to specify it separately.

『如何食體不通無漏者 (Ru he shi ti bu tong wu lou zhe)』: Question: Why can't the substance of nutriment extend to undefiled (Anasrava, without afflictions) dharmas?

『毗婆沙師至為滅諸有者 (Pi po sha shi zhi wei mie zhu you zhe)』: Answer: The Vaibhashika masters (Vaibhashika, Buddhist scholars) say that the function of the four nutriments (Cattaro Ahara, four kinds of nutriment) is to sustain and nourish the defiled body, not to eliminate all existences (Bhava, existence).

『又契經說至皆謂已生者 (You qie jing shuo zhi jie wei yi sheng zhe)』: Furthermore, the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) is quoted to show that nutriment is only defiled. Bhuta (Bhuta, already existing things) and Sambhavin (Sambhavin, things seeking existence) are both bodies of the three existences (Tribhava, the desire existence, the form existence, and the formless existence). Since the four nutriments can sustain and nourish, it is clear that they are defiled. The undefiled is not like this, because it is for the purpose of eliminating all existences, so it is not the substance of nutriment.

『復說求生為何所目者 (Fu shuo qiu sheng wei he suo mu zhe)』: Below, the seventh and eighth sentences are explained through the scriptures. This is a question raised based on the scriptures.

『此目中有至暫時起故者 (Ci mu zhong you zhi zan shi qi gu zhe)』: Answer: This refers to the intermediate existence (Antarabhava, the intermediate state), because it arises temporarily. The scriptures say that the intermediate existence has five different names, and Sambhavin is one of these five names. It is clear that the Sambhavin mentioned in the previous scriptures refers to the intermediate existence. The remaining sentences can be inferred.

『如契經說至起謂中有者 (Ru qie jing shuo zhi qi wei zhong you zhe)』: Quoting the scriptures to further prove that 『arising』 is the intermediate existence, as the scriptures say: 『Existence is impermanent and can be destroyed, the self arises; existence is impermanent and can be destroyed, the world arises.』『Arising』 refers to the intermediate existence, and 『birth』 refers to the existence of birth (Upapattibhava, the existence of rebirth). 『Self』 and 『world』 are their common names. In order to show that the intermediate existence is real, 『self』 is used to mark it. Fearing that the existence of birth might be clung to as permanent, 『world』 is used to show its fault. It can also be interpreted as briefly showing each other. It can also be interpreted as the appearance of the intermediate existence being obscure, so 『self』 is used to mark it; the appearance of the existence of birth being clear, so 『world』 is used to call it.

『又經說有至為第四句者 (You jing shuo you zhi wei di si ju zhe)』: Furthermore, the scriptures are quoted to prove that 『arising』 is named the intermediate existence. This scripture says 『severance』. There are two kinds of severance: one is severance through obtaining a permanent antidote, obtaining cessation through discernment (Pratisamkhyanirodha, cessation attained through wisdom) without regression, called severance; the other is severance through obtaining a state of never arising, obtaining cessation without discernment (Apratisamkhyanirodha, cessation attained without wisdom) without arising, called severance. Therefore, the Nyayanusara (Nyayanusara, name of a treatise), volume thirty-one, says: 『I am now carefully considering this and find that the Sutra has such a meaning, that is, it is based on these two kinds of severance to say such words.』 These two kinds of severance.

者何。一得永對治斷。二得永不行斷(已上論文)於四句中隨其所應說此二斷。潤中有惑名起結。潤生有惑名生結　又解潤中有初念惑名起結。潤生有初念惑名生結　言四句者　第一句已斷起結未斷生結。謂離欲．色二界貪諸無色上流者。離二界貪不受中有故起結已斷。未斷無色貪更受無色生有故生結未斷。此中言斷約永對治斷說。以無起結但得不行。而於生結得有起義。謂欲．色界生結得行。必亦兼得行於起結。若無色界生結現行。必定已得永治起結。故知此斷約永治說　第二句已斷生結未斷起結。謂中般涅槃不受生有故生結已斷。受中有故起結未斷。此中言斷據不現行。以無生結得永治。而於起結未斷之理。謂斷生結即離三界。而彼必無餘起結故。故知此但約永不行　第三句已斷起結已斷生結。謂阿羅漢．斷三界貪不受中有故起結已斷。不受生有故生結已斷。此中言斷據永治說。雖有於此身定成無學者。約不現行生．起二結亦名為斷。此中且據永對治說　第四句不斷起結不斷生結。謂除前相。謂除前現．中般諸餘未永離色界貪者。受中有故起結未斷。受生有故生結未斷。此言未斷亦應通二。

又部多者至說名求生者。第二釋　言部多者。是無生義。謂阿羅漢．不受生故。部多言含多義故存梵音。余凡夫．有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：什麼叫做『斷』？一是通過永久的對治來斷除（煩惱），二是獲得永久的不行（指煩惱不再生起）而斷除。（以上是論文中的內容）在四句中，根據具體情況說明這兩種斷除。『潤中有惑』叫做『起結』，『潤生有惑』叫做『生結』。另一種解釋是，『潤中有』的最初念頭的迷惑叫做『起結』，『潤生有』的最初念頭的迷惑叫做『生結』。所說的四句是：第一句，已經斷除了『起結』，但未斷除『生結』。指的是離開了欲界和色界貪慾，但貪著無色界，向上界流轉的眾生。因為離開了二界的貪慾，不再接受『中有』，所以『起結』已經斷除。但未斷除無色界的貪慾，還要接受無色界的生有，所以『生結』未斷。這裡所說的『斷』，是指通過永久的對治來斷除。因為沒有『起結』，只能獲得『不行』，而對於『生結』，則可能有『起』的含義。也就是說，如果欲界和色界的『生結』現行，必定也同時現行『起結』。如果沒有欲界和色界的『生結』現行，必定已經獲得了永久對治『起結』的方法。因此可知，這裡的『斷』是指通過永久的對治來說的。第二句，已經斷除了『生結』，但未斷除『起結』。指的是『中般涅槃』的眾生，不再接受生有，所以『生結』已經斷除，但還接受『中有』，所以『起結』未斷。這裡所說的『斷』，是指不現行。因為沒有『生結』可以永久對治，而對於『起結』未斷的道理是，斷除『生結』就離開了三界，而他們必定沒有剩餘的『起結』。因此可知，這裡只是指永久的不行。第三句，已經斷除了『起結』，也斷除了『生結』。指的是阿羅漢，斷除了三界的貪慾，不再接受『中有』，所以『起結』已經斷除，不再接受生有，所以『生結』也斷除了。這裡所說的『斷』，是指永久的對治。雖然有在此身必定成就無學位的，從不現行來說，『生結』和『起結』也叫做斷除。這裡暫且是指永久的對治來說的。第四句，沒有斷除『起結』，也沒有斷除『生結』。指的是除了前面所說的那些情況之外，也就是除了前面所說的現行、中般等，其餘沒有永久離開欲界貪慾的眾生。因為接受『中有』，所以『起結』未斷，因為接受生有，所以『生結』未斷。這裡所說的『未斷』，也應該包括這兩種情況。另外，關於『部多』（Bhuta，無生）等，到『說名求生者』，這是第二種解釋。所說的『部多』，是無生的意思。指的是阿羅漢，因為不再接受生有。『部多』這個詞包含多種含義，所以保留梵音。其餘的凡夫，都有生。

【English Translation】 English version: What is meant by 'severance'? Firstly, severance through permanent counteraction. Secondly, severance through permanent non-arising (of afflictions). (The above is from the treatise.) In the four statements, these two types of severance are explained according to their respective applicability. 'Moisture in the intermediate existence' is called 'arising bond' (起結, qǐ jié). 'Moisture in rebirth' is called 'birth bond' (生結, shēng jié). Another explanation is that the initial thought of delusion in 'moisture in the intermediate existence' is called 'arising bond', and the initial thought of delusion in 'moisture in rebirth' is called 'birth bond'. The four statements are: The first statement: 'arising bond' has been severed, but 'birth bond' has not been severed. This refers to those who have departed from desire and form realm greed, but are attached to the formless realm, flowing upwards. Because they have departed from the greed of the two realms and no longer accept the 'intermediate existence', the 'arising bond' has been severed. However, they have not severed the greed for the formless realm and will still accept rebirth in the formless realm, so the 'birth bond' has not been severed. Here, 'severance' refers to severance through permanent counteraction. Because there is no 'arising bond', only 'non-arising' is attained, while for 'birth bond', there can be the meaning of 'arising'. That is, if the 'birth bond' of the desire and form realms is active, the 'arising bond' will also be active. If the 'birth bond' is not active, then the method of permanently counteracting the 'arising bond' has already been attained. Therefore, it is known that this 'severance' refers to severance through permanent counteraction. The second statement: 'birth bond' has been severed, but 'arising bond' has not been severed. This refers to those who attain 'intermediate parinirvana' and no longer accept rebirth, so the 'birth bond' has been severed, but they still accept the 'intermediate existence', so the 'arising bond' has not been severed. Here, 'severance' refers to non-manifestation. Because there is no 'birth bond' that can be permanently counteracted, and the reason why the 'arising bond' has not been severed is that severing the 'birth bond' means departing from the three realms, and they certainly have no remaining 'arising bond'. Therefore, it is known that this only refers to permanent non-arising. The third statement: 'arising bond' has been severed, and 'birth bond' has also been severed. This refers to the Arhats, who have severed the greed for the three realms, no longer accept the 'intermediate existence', so the 'arising bond' has been severed, and no longer accept rebirth, so the 'birth bond' has also been severed. Here, 'severance' refers to permanent counteraction. Although there are those who will certainly attain the state of no-more-learning in this life, from the perspective of non-manifestation, the 'birth bond' and 'arising bond' are also called severance. Here, it temporarily refers to permanent counteraction. The fourth statement: 'arising bond' has not been severed, and 'birth bond' has not been severed. This refers to those other than the aforementioned cases, that is, those other than the aforementioned manifestation, intermediate parinirvana, etc., and the remaining beings who have not permanently departed from the greed of the desire realm. Because they accept the 'intermediate existence', the 'arising bond' has not been severed, and because they accept rebirth, the 'birth bond' has not been severed. The 'not severed' here should also include both cases. Furthermore, regarding 'Bhuta' (部多, bù duō, no birth), etc., up to 'those who are said to seek rebirth', this is the second explanation. The so-called 'Bhuta' means no birth. This refers to the Arhats, because they no longer accept rebirth. The word 'Bhuta' contains multiple meanings, so the Sanskrit sound is retained. The remaining ordinary beings all have birth.

學諸有愛者說名求生。更受生故。

幾食能令至求生有情者。問。

毗婆沙師至卵即敗亡者。答。部多求生皆具四食。諸有愛者段食非但資益現身。亦由段食為緣資益現在惑業令招後有果。以世尊說現在四食。皆為未來眾病根本．癰瘡根本．毒箭根本．老緣死緣。病等並是苦果異名。故知段食亦資當有。思食非但于當有資益。亦見思食安住現身。故知思食于現有益。三證可知。

此不應然至在於觸位者。破第三證復申正解。謂今此卵起念母思先時在於孚暖觸位。故婆沙一百三十引集異門云。謂憶念母先孚暖時所有觸故。

諸有漏法至說食唯四者。此下釋第三頌。此即問也。

雖爾就勝至生未生故者。答。就勝說四故無有過。就四食中雖四皆能益現益當。二益現勝。二益當勝。熏之言寶。思食引已從業所資識種子力故後有得起。識起取果功能名為種子　又解述經部釋。此解似勝。思食引已從業所熏識種子力後有得起。或從業所熏識種子力識得現行後有得起。余文可知。

諸所有段皆是食耶者。此下問答分別。此即問也。

有段非食至皆有四句者。答。第一句可飲啖故名段。損根．大故非食。第二句謂餘三食能資益故名食。非飲啖故非段。第三句可飲啖故名段。益根．大故名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：學習各種有愛（指對存在的執著）的人被稱為『求生者』，因為他們會再次受生。

問：多少食物能夠使有情眾生達到求生的狀態？

答：毗婆沙師認為，生命在卵中即敗亡。所有求生的眾生都具備四種食物（段食、觸食、思食、識食）。對於那些有愛的人來說，段食（粗細食物）不僅滋養現在的身體，也因為段食作為一種緣，滋養現在的迷惑和業力，從而招致未來的果報。正如世尊所說，現在的四種食物，都是未來各種疾病的根本、癰瘡的根本、毒箭的根本、衰老和死亡的緣起。疾病等等都是痛苦果報的不同名稱。因此可知，段食也滋養未來的存在。思食（意念食物）不僅對未來的存在有滋養作用，也可以看到思食安住于現在的身體。因此可知，思食對現在的存在也有益處。這可以通過三個證據來證明。

破斥：這不應該是這樣，而應該在於觸位（接觸的位置）。這是爲了破斥第三個證據，並重新闡述正確的解釋。也就是說，現在這個卵產生念頭，母親的思念，先前在於孵暖的接觸位置。所以《婆沙》第一百三十卷引用《集異門論》說：『這是因為憶念母親先前孵暖時所擁有的接觸。』

問：所有有漏法（有煩惱的法）都說是四種食物嗎？這是提問。

答：雖然如此，就殊勝之處來說，是因為生和未生（的狀態）。回答：就殊勝之處來說四種食物，所以沒有過失。在四種食物中，雖然四種都能利益現在和未來，但有兩種利益現在更殊勝，兩種利益未來更殊勝。熏習的意義在於珍貴。思食引導，是因為從業所滋養的識種子力量，所以未來的存在得以生起。識生起並具有取果的功能，這被稱為種子。另一種解釋是經部的解釋，這種解釋似乎更勝一籌。思食引導，是因為從業所熏習的識種子力量，未來的存在得以生起。或者是因為從業所熏習的識種子力量，識得以顯現，未來的存在得以生起。其餘的文字可以理解。

問：所有可以分段的東西都是食物嗎？這是提問和回答的分別。

答：有些可以分段的東西不是食物，所有這些都有四種情況。第一種情況是可以飲用和吃的東西，所以稱為『段』。但因為損害了根（感官）和增長，所以不是食物。第二種情況是其餘三種食物，因為能夠滋養，所以稱為『食』。但因為不能飲用和吃，所以不是『段』。第三種情況是可以飲用和吃的東西，所以稱為『段』。因為能夠滋養根和增長，所以是食物。

【English Translation】 English version: Those who study the various forms of attachment (referring to clinging to existence) are called 'seekers of life,' because they will be reborn again.

Question: How much food is able to bring sentient beings to the state of seeking life?

Answer: The Vaibhashika masters believe that life perishes in the egg. All beings seeking life possess four kinds of food (coarse food, contact food, volitional food, and consciousness food). For those who have attachment, coarse food (physical food) not only nourishes the present body, but also, because coarse food serves as a condition, it nourishes present delusions and karma, thereby inviting future consequences. Just as the World Honored One said, the present four kinds of food are all the root of future diseases, the root of ulcers, the root of poisonous arrows, and the origin of aging and death. Diseases and so on are different names for painful consequences. Therefore, it can be known that coarse food also nourishes future existence. Volitional food (mental food) not only has a nourishing effect on future existence, but it can also be seen that volitional food abides in the present body. Therefore, it can be known that volitional food is also beneficial to present existence. This can be proven by three pieces of evidence.

Refutation: This should not be so, but should be in the position of contact. This is to refute the third piece of evidence and restate the correct explanation. That is to say, now this egg generates thoughts, the mother's thoughts, previously in the warm contact position of incubation. Therefore, the 130th volume of the Abhidharma-vibhāṣā-śāstra quotes the Saṃgīti-paryāya as saying: 'This is because of remembering the contact that the mother had when she was previously incubating.'

Question: Are all defiled dharmas (dharmas with afflictions) said to be the four kinds of food? This is the question.

Answer: Although that is so, in terms of the superior aspect, it is because of the state of being born and not yet born. Answer: In terms of the superior aspect, there are four kinds of food, so there is no fault. Among the four kinds of food, although all four can benefit the present and the future, two benefit the present more, and two benefit the future more. The meaning of conditioning lies in preciousness. Volitional food guides, because of the power of the seeds of consciousness nourished by karma, so future existence can arise. The arising of consciousness and having the function of taking the fruit is called a seed. Another explanation is the explanation of the Sautrāntika school, and this explanation seems to be superior. Volitional food guides, because of the power of the seeds of consciousness conditioned by karma, future existence can arise. Or because of the power of the seeds of consciousness conditioned by karma, consciousness can manifest, and future existence can arise. The remaining text can be understood.

Question: Are all things that can be divided into sections food? This is the distinction between question and answer.

Answer: Some things that can be divided into sections are not food, and all of these have four cases. The first case is things that can be drunk and eaten, so they are called 'sections.' But because they damage the roots (senses) and growth, they are not food. The second case is the remaining three kinds of food, because they can nourish, so they are called 'food.' But because they cannot be drunk and eaten, they are not 'sections.' The third case is things that can be drunk and eaten, so they are called 'sections.' Because they can nourish the roots and growth, they are food.

食。第四句除前相。觸等三食皆有四句。集異門第一云問諸觸皆是食耶。答應作四句。有觸非食。謂無漏觸．及有漏觸為緣損壞諸根．大種。有食非觸。謂餘三食。有觸亦食。謂有漏觸為緣資益諸根大種。有非觸非食。謂除前相。如觸食四句意思．及識應知亦爾。

頗有觸等至而非食耶者。問　觸等。等取思．識。

有謂異地無漏觸等者。答。正理三十云。何緣無漏觸等非食。食謂能牽能資諸有。可厭可斷愛生長處。無漏雖資他所牽有。而自無有牽有功能。非可厭斷愛生長處。故不建立在四食中。即由此因望他界地。雖有漏法亦非食體。他界地法雖亦為因能資現有。而不能作牽後有因。故不名食。諸無漏法現在前時。雖能為因資根．大種。而不能作牽後有因。雖暫為因資根．大種。而但為欲成已勝依。速趣涅槃永滅諸有。自地有漏現在前時。資現令增能招後有。由此已釋段食為因招後有義。謂觸等食牽後有時。亦牽當來內法香等。現內香等資觸等因令牽當有。亦能自取當來香等為等流果。是故段食與後有因同一果故。亦能牽有故名為食。

諸有食已至資根及大者。泛明段食。初益后損。或初損后益。皆名為食。

何趣何生各具幾食者。問。

五趣四生皆具四食者。答。

如何地

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：食。第四句排除前述情況。觸、思、識三種食都各有四句。《集異門論》第一卷說：『問：所有的觸都是食嗎？』答：『應當作四句分別。』有些觸不是食，指無漏觸以及有漏觸作為因緣損壞諸根、大種的情況。有些食不是觸，指其餘三種食（段食、思食、識食）。有些觸也是食，指有漏觸作為因緣資益諸根大種的情況。有些既不是觸也不是食，指排除前述情況。觸食四句的意思，以及思食和識食也應如此理解。

『是否有觸等達到某種狀態但不是食呢？』問：觸等，『等』字包括思和識。

『有人說在異地存在無漏觸等。』答。《阿毗達磨順正理論》第三十卷說：『為什麼無漏觸等不是食呢？』食是指能夠牽引、資助各種存在的，令人厭惡、可以斷除的愛慾生長的處所。無漏法雖然資助其他所牽引的存在，但自身沒有牽引存在的功能，不是令人厭惡、可以斷除的愛慾生長的處所，所以不被建立在四食之中。也因此原因，對於其他界地來說，即使是有漏法也不是食的本體。其他界地的法雖然也能作為因資助現有，但不能作為牽引後有的因，所以不稱為食。諸無漏法現在前時，雖然能作為因資助根、大種，但不能作為牽引後有的因，雖然暫時作為因資助根、大種，但只是爲了成就已經殊勝的所依，迅速趨向涅槃，永遠滅除各種存在。自地的有漏法現在前時，資助現有使其增長，能招感後有。由此已經解釋了段食作為因招感後有的意義。即觸等食牽引後有時，也牽引當來內法香等。現在內香等資助觸等因，使之牽引當有，也能自己取得當來香等作為等流果。因此，段食與後有因同一果，也能牽引有，所以稱為食。

『凡是有食已經達到資助根及大種的，』泛泛地說明段食，開始有益後來有害，或者開始有害後來有益，都稱為食。

『什麼趣、什麼生各具有幾種食呢？』問。

『五趣（地獄趣、餓鬼趣、畜生趣、人趣、天趣）、四生（卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）都具有四食。』答。

『如何地…』

【English Translation】 English version: Food. The fourth statement excludes the previous cases. The three types of food—contact, volition, and consciousness—each have four statements. The first chapter of the Sangiti Sutta states: 'Question: Are all contacts food?' Answer: 'It should be analyzed into four statements.' Some contacts are not food, referring to non-outflow contacts and outflow contacts that, as conditions, damage the roots and the great elements. Some food is not contact, referring to the other three types of food (physical food, volitional food, and consciousness food). Some contacts are also food, referring to outflow contacts that, as conditions, nourish the roots and the great elements. Some are neither contact nor food, referring to excluding the previous cases. The meaning of the four statements regarding contact-food, as well as volition-food and consciousness-food, should be understood similarly.

'Are there contacts, etc., that reach a certain state but are not food?' Question: 'Contacts, etc.,' where 'etc.' includes volition and consciousness.

'Some say that non-outflow contacts, etc., exist in other realms.' Answer: The thirtieth volume of the Abhidharmakosha states: 'Why are non-outflow contacts, etc., not food?' Food refers to that which can draw and nourish various existences, the place where craving, which is repulsive and can be cut off, grows. Although non-outflow dharmas nourish other drawn existences, they themselves do not have the function of drawing existence, and are not the place where craving, which is repulsive and can be cut off, grows. Therefore, they are not established within the four foods. For this reason, even outflow dharmas are not the substance of food in relation to other realms. Although the dharmas of other realms can also serve as conditions to nourish existing things, they cannot serve as the cause of drawing future existence, so they are not called food. When non-outflow dharmas are present, although they can serve as conditions to nourish the roots and the great elements, they cannot serve as the cause of drawing future existence. Although they temporarily serve as conditions to nourish the roots and the great elements, they only aim to perfect the already superior basis, quickly approach Nirvana, and permanently extinguish all existences. When outflow dharmas of one's own realm are present, they nourish the existing, causing it to increase, and can attract future existence. This has already explained the meaning of physical food as a cause attracting future existence. That is, when contact-food, etc., draw future existence, they also draw future internal dharmas such as odors. The present internal odors, etc., nourish the causes of contact, etc., causing them to draw future existence, and can also themselves take future odors, etc., as the result of equal flow. Therefore, physical food has the same result as the cause of future existence, and can also draw existence, so it is called food.

'All those who have food that has reached the point of nourishing the roots and the great elements,' broadly explains physical food, whether it is initially beneficial and later harmful, or initially harmful and later beneficial, all are called food.

'What realms and what births each possess how many types of food?' Question.

'The five realms (hell realm, hungry ghost realm, animal realm, human realm, and deva realm) and the four births (egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born) all possess the four foods.' Answer.

'How does the ground...'

獄有段食耶者。難。

鐵丸洋銅豈非段食者。釋。

若能為害至識食亦爾者。難。若害名食。一則四句相違。二違品類。

彼說且依至皆有四食者。通。彼前四句及品類說。且依一向能資益者說名為食。以實而言。初益后損。或初損后益。皆名為食故不相違。熱鐵丸等初益后損。又孤地獄段食如人。故通五趣皆有四食。

世尊所說至林中異生者。因釋四食復明校量施食功德。依經起問。

有作是釋至諸有腹者者。總有四釋。此即初師　腹。謂腹肚。

彼釋非理至校量嘆勝者。論主破初師。彼經中說一異生言。故釋非理。又於此中施多勝少理即無疑。何足為寄校量嘆勝。

有言彼是近佛菩薩者。第二師釋。有言異生即是百劫修相好業近佛菩薩。

理亦不然至阿羅漢故者。論主破第二師　俱胝。此云百億。

毗婆沙者至順抉擇分者。第三師釋。當婆沙一百三十評家義。

此名與義至自所分別者。論主破此贍部林中異生名順抉擇分義。亦不相應。又無文證。當知彼唯毗婆沙師自所分別　問論主何故破婆沙評家義　解云論主以理為宗。非以婆沙評家為量。後身菩薩至對預流向者。第四論主自釋。住最後身釋迦菩薩居贍部林名彼異生。此說應理。爾時菩薩同離欲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本獄中有段食（Kabalikarahara，粗糙食物）的眾生嗎？難（提問）：燒紅的鐵丸和熔化的銅，難道不是段食嗎？釋（回答）：如果它們能造成傷害，乃至識食（Vinnanahara，意識食）也是如此。難（提問）：如果傷害被稱為食物，那麼一方面就與四食的定義相矛盾，另一方面也違背了食物的種類。彼（其他論師）的說法且依據于皆有四食的觀點。通（論證）：他們之前的四句以及品類的說法，且依據於一向能夠資益的才被稱為食。但實際上，最初有益後來有害，或者最初有害後來有益，都可以稱為食，所以不相違背。熱鐵丸等最初有益後來有害。而且孤地獄的段食和人類一樣。所以說五趣（Gati，五道）都有四食。世尊所說乃至林中異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）的經文。因（因為）解釋四食，進而闡明校量佈施食物的功德。依據經文提出問題。有人這樣解釋，乃至諸有腹者（所有有腹部的眾生）。總共有四種解釋。這是第一位論師的觀點。腹，指的是腹部。他的解釋不合理，乃至校量嘆勝（通過比較來讚歎殊勝）。論主駁斥第一位論師。經文中說的是『一個』異生，所以這種解釋不合理。而且，在這種情況下，佈施多比佈施少殊勝，這是毫無疑問的道理，何必藉此來校量嘆勝呢？有人說，他是接近佛的菩薩。第二位論師的解釋。有人說，異生就是經過百劫修行相好業，接近佛的菩薩。這個道理也不對，乃至阿羅漢的緣故。論主駁斥第二位論師。俱胝（Koti），這裡指百億。毗婆沙者（Vaibhashika，毗婆沙師）乃至順抉擇分（Anulomiki，隨順抉擇分）。第三位論師的解釋。相當於《婆沙論》一百三十位評家的觀點。這個名稱和意義，乃至自己所分別的。論主駁斥這種贍部林（Jambudvipa，閻浮提）中異生名為順抉擇分的意義。也不相應。而且沒有文獻證明。應當知道這只是毗婆沙師自己所分別的。問：論主為什麼駁斥毗婆沙評家的觀點？解：論主以理為宗旨，不是以毗婆沙評家為標準。後身菩薩（Pascimabhavika Bodhisattva，最後有菩薩）乃至對預流向（Srotapannapratipannaka，入流果向）。第四位論主自己解釋。住在最後身，釋迦菩薩（Sakyamuni Buddha）居住在贍部林，被稱為那個異生。這種說法是合理的。當時菩薩同離欲（Vitaraga，離欲者）。

【English Translation】 English version Are there beings in hell who consume coarse food (Kabalikarahara)? Question: Are red-hot iron balls and molten copper not coarse food? Answer: If they can cause harm, then even consciousness-food (Vinnanahara) is the same. Question: If harm is called food, then on one hand, it contradicts the definition of the four foods, and on the other hand, it violates the categories of food. Their (other teachers') statement is based on the view that all have four foods. Explanation: Their previous four sentences and category statements are based on the idea that only what can always benefit is called food. But in reality, what is initially beneficial and later harmful, or initially harmful and later beneficial, can all be called food, so there is no contradiction. Hot iron balls, etc., are initially beneficial and later harmful. Moreover, the coarse food in solitary hells is like that of humans. Therefore, it is said that all five realms (Gati) have four foods. The sutra spoken by the World Honored One, even about the ordinary being (Prthagjana) in the forest. Because of explaining the four foods, it further clarifies the merits of measuring and comparing the giving of food. Raise questions based on the sutra. Some people explain it this way, even to all those with bellies. There are a total of four explanations. This is the view of the first teacher. Belly refers to the abdomen. His explanation is unreasonable, even to measuring and praising superiority. The commentator refutes the first teacher. The sutra says 'one' ordinary being, so this explanation is unreasonable. Moreover, in this case, giving more is superior to giving less, which is an undoubted principle, so why bother to measure and praise superiority? Some say that he is a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha. The explanation of the second teacher. Some say that the ordinary being is a Bodhisattva who has cultivated the causes of fine marks and characteristics for hundreds of kalpas and is close to the Buddha. This reasoning is also incorrect, even because of the Arhat. The commentator refutes the second teacher. Koti here refers to one hundred billion. The Vaibhashika, even to Anulomiki (conformity to discernment). The explanation of the third teacher. Equivalent to the views of one hundred and thirty commentators of the Vaibhasha. This name and meaning, even to what one distinguishes oneself. The commentator refutes the meaning of calling the ordinary being in Jambudvipa conformity to discernment. It is also not corresponding. Moreover, there is no textual evidence. It should be known that this is only what the Vaibhashika teacher distinguishes himself. Question: Why does the commentator refute the views of the Vaibhasha commentators? Answer: The commentator takes reason as the principle, not the Vaibhasha commentators as the standard. Pascimabhavika Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva in his last life), even to Srotapannapratipannaka (stream-enterer). The fourth commentator explains himself. Living in his last life, Sakyamuni Buddha lived in Jambudvipa and was called that ordinary being. This statement is reasonable. At that time, the Bodhisattva was the same as the one who is free from desire (Vitaraga).

仙居贍部林　又解爾時菩薩雖未離欲。然伏煩惱同離欲仙。故對彼仙校量嘆勝。雖施菩薩福勝無邊。由彼經中乘前校量百倍相對。且言菩薩勝彼百倍。理必應爾。謂彼經中作如是說。有人能施一百婆羅門食。若能施一離欲仙食其果勝彼。又說有人能施一百外道離欲仙食。若能施一贍部林中異生者食其果勝彼。故言乘前校量且言勝百。由後世尊。除彼贍部林中異生。還將外道離欲仙人對預流向校量勝劣。若不爾者。世尊則應將彼贍部林中異生對預流向校量勝劣。彼經應言有人能施一百贍部林中異生者食。若能施一預流向食其果勝彼。然彼經中不作是說。故知乘前且言勝百　問婆沙一百三十引校量經云。此經復言。若以飲食佈施贍部林中異生。復以飲食施一預流果此獲福果大於彼。若以飲食施百預流。有以飲食施一一來果大於彼。不還．羅漢．獨覺．如來造寺施僧展轉相對準此應知。不能具引。準婆沙引經。與此論引經不同。一則異生外道不同。二則向．果差別如何會釋　解云既有兩種不同明知引經各異非是一文　問果．向雖復不同。如何此論引經。言除異生將彼外道對預流向不言異生。婆沙引經。將彼林中異生對預流果不言外道。豈不相違　解云贍部林中有餘修道諸異生類。非唯菩薩名為異生。婆沙引經言異生者。非是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本仙居贍部林（Jambudvipa Grove）：又解釋說，當時的菩薩雖然還沒有斷除慾望，但已經能夠降伏煩惱，如同斷欲的仙人一樣。因此，（佛）才將菩薩與那些仙人進行比較，讚歎菩薩的殊勝。雖然佈施給菩薩的福報勝過無邊，但根據那部經中之前的校量，百倍地相對比，才說菩薩勝過他們百倍，道理必然是這樣的。那部經中是這樣說的：如果有人能夠佈施食物給一百個婆羅門，如果能夠佈施食物給一個斷欲的仙人，那麼他所獲得的果報就勝過前者。又說，如果有人能夠佈施食物給一百個外道的斷欲仙人，如果能夠佈施食物給一個贍部林中的異生者，那麼他所獲得的果報就勝過前者。所以說，根據之前的校量，才說勝過百倍。因為後來的世尊，排除了贍部林中的異生，而是將外道的斷欲仙人與預流向（Srota-apanna-phala-pratipannaka，入流果向）進行比較，衡量其勝劣。如果不是這樣，世尊就應該將贍部林中的異生與預流向進行比較，衡量其勝劣。那部經就應該說，如果有人能夠佈施食物給一百個贍部林中的異生者，如果能夠佈施食物給一個預流向，那麼他所獲得的果報就勝過前者。然而那部經中並沒有這樣說。所以知道，根據之前的校量，才說勝過百倍。問：婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百三十卷引用校量經說，這部經又說，如果用飲食佈施給贍部林中的異生，又用飲食佈施給一個預流果（Srota-apanna，入流果），那麼他所獲得的福報就大於前者。如果用飲食佈施給一百個預流，有人用飲食佈施給一個一來果（Sakrdagamin，一來果），那麼他所獲得的福報就大於前者。不還（Anagamin，不還果）、羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）、如來（Tathagata，如來）建造寺廟佈施給僧眾，輾轉相對，可以依此類推，不能全部引用。根據婆沙引用的經文，與這部論引用的經文不同。一是異生和外道不同，二是向和果的差別，應該如何解釋？答：既然有兩種不同，就說明引用的經文各不相同，不是同一篇文章。問：果和向雖然不同，為什麼這部論引用的經文，說排除了異生，而是將外道與預流向進行比較，沒有說異生。婆沙引用的經文，是將贍部林中的異生與預流果進行比較，沒有說外道。難道不是相互矛盾嗎？答：贍部林中有其餘修道的各種異生之類，不僅僅是菩薩被稱為異生。婆沙引用的經文說異生，不是指...

【English Translation】 English version The Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa, continent where humans reside) Grove: It is also explained that although the Bodhisattva at that time had not yet renounced desires, he had already subdued afflictions, like a desire-free ascetic. Therefore, (the Buddha) compared the Bodhisattva with those ascetics, praising the Bodhisattva's superiority. Although the merit of giving to a Bodhisattva surpasses the boundless, according to the previous comparison in that scripture, comparing them a hundredfold, it is said that the Bodhisattva surpasses them a hundredfold, and the reasoning must be so. That scripture says this: If someone can give food to one hundred Brahmins, if they can give food to one desire-free ascetic, then the fruit they obtain surpasses the former. It also says, if someone can give food to one hundred heretical desire-free ascetics, if they can give food to one sentient being in the Jambudvipa Grove, then the fruit they obtain surpasses the former. Therefore, it is said that according to the previous comparison, it is said to surpass a hundredfold. Because the later World Honored One excluded the sentient beings in the Jambudvipa Grove, and instead compared the heretical desire-free ascetics with those on the path to Stream-entry (Srota-apanna-phala-pratipannaka, one who has entered the stream to enlightenment), measuring their superiority and inferiority. If it were not so, the World Honored One should have compared the sentient beings in the Jambudvipa Grove with those on the path to Stream-entry, measuring their superiority and inferiority. That scripture should say, if someone can give food to one hundred sentient beings in the Jambudvipa Grove, if they can give food to one on the path to Stream-entry, then the fruit they obtain surpasses the former. However, that scripture does not say this. Therefore, it is known that according to the previous comparison, it is said to surpass a hundredfold. Question: The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) volume one hundred and thirty quotes the scripture of comparison, saying that this scripture also says, if one uses food to give to sentient beings in the Jambudvipa Grove, and also uses food to give to one Stream-enterer (Srota-apanna, one who has attained the fruit of stream entry), then the merit they obtain is greater than the former. If one uses food to give to one hundred Stream-enterers, and someone uses food to give to one Once-returner (Sakrdagamin, one who will return to this world only once more), then the merit they obtain is greater than the former. Non-returners (Anagamin, one who will not return to this world), Arhats (Arhat, one who has attained enlightenment), Solitary Buddhas (Pratyekabuddha, one who attains enlightenment on their own), and Tathagatas (Tathagata, the thus-gone one) building temples and giving to the Sangha, relatively speaking, can be inferred in this way, and cannot be fully quoted. According to the scripture quoted by the Vibhasa, it is different from the scripture quoted by this treatise. One is that sentient beings and heretics are different, and the other is the difference between the path and the fruit. How should this be explained? Answer: Since there are two differences, it shows that the quoted scriptures are different and not the same text. Question: Although the fruit and the path are different, why does the scripture quoted by this treatise say that it excludes sentient beings and compares heretics with those on the path to Stream-entry, without mentioning sentient beings. The scripture quoted by the Vibhasa compares the sentient beings in the Jambudvipa Grove with the fruit of Stream-entry, without mentioning heretics. Isn't this contradictory? Answer: In the Jambudvipa Grove, there are other kinds of sentient beings who cultivate the path, not only Bodhisattvas are called sentient beings. The scripture quoted by the Vibhasa says sentient beings, not referring to...

菩薩是余異生。雖復同解一處經文。引校量經即有不同　又解婆沙引經將贍部林中異生。對預流果者。即是林中離欲外道。以彼外道是異生故。非是菩薩異生兩論引經雖復對向對果不同。外道異生而無差別。

已說有情至有死生等者。此下大文第三辨有情沒。從其大分總名為沒。義相應故兼明生等。問中有六。一問何識現前。二問何受相應。三問定心無心得死生不。四問住何性識得入涅槃。五問于命終時識何處滅。六問斷末摩者其體是何　問中等字攝餘四問。

頌曰至斷末摩水等者。答中。初三句答初問。次一句答第二問。次一句答第三問。次一句答第四問。次三句答第五問。后一句答第六問。

論曰至初結中有者。釋初三句。於此六位法爾唯許意識非餘五識無功能故。所說生言不但攝生有初心。應知亦攝中有初心。若言生有即不通中有。若但言生即通中有初念。如上界沒生地獄時中有初念亦名生故。此中本意欲明有情死位何識現起義相應故剩辨餘五。下別明生準此應知。

死生唯許至不順死生者。釋第四句。死．生時心不明利故。其舍受體亦不明利。性相隨順故舍相應。余之二受性明利故不順死．生。故雖意識三受相應。而死生時唯舍非余。又正理云非明利識有死．生義。以死．生時必昧

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：菩薩與其他的凡夫俗子不同。即使他們理解同一段經文，引用校量經時也會有不同的理解。此外，在解讀《婆沙論》時，將贍部洲（Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）林中的凡夫俗子與預流果（Srotapanna，佛教修行中的第一個果位）的修行者進行對比，這裡的凡夫俗子指的是林中那些已經離欲的外道。因為這些外道是凡夫俗子，所以他們與菩薩不同。兩部論典引用經文時，雖然對比的對象（凡夫或聖果）不同，但外道和凡夫俗子之間並沒有差別。

上面已經說了有情眾生從生到死等等。下面是本文的第三大部分，辨析有情眾生的死亡。從大的方面來說，都稱為『沒』（death），因為意義相關，所以也兼帶說明了出生等等。這裡有六個問題：一問，什麼識（consciousness）會最先顯現？二問，與什麼感受相應？三問，處於禪定狀態或無心狀態的人會經歷死亡和出生嗎？四問，以何種性質的識才能進入涅槃（Nirvana，佛教中的最高境界）？五問，在命終時，識在何處滅去？六問，切斷末摩（marma，身體上的要害部位）的人，其身體是什麼樣的？問題中的『等』字包含了其餘四個問題。

頌文說：『...斷末摩水等』。回答問題時，前三句回答第一個問題，接下來一句回答第二個問題，再下一句回答第三個問題，再下一句回答第四個問題，接下來的三句回答第五個問題，最後一句回答第六個問題。

解釋前三句：在這六個階段，按照法爾（Dharmata，事物本來的規律）的規律，只允許意識（consciousness）存在，不允許其他五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）存在，因為它們沒有作用。這裡所說的『生』（birth）字，不僅僅包括生有（bhava，生命存在）的最初一念，也應該包括中有（antarabhava，死亡到投胎之間的過渡期）的最初一念。如果只說『生有』，就不包括中有；如果只說『生』，就包括中有的最初一念。就像上界（更高的天界）的眾生死亡后投生到地獄（較低的天界）時，中有的最初一念也稱為『生』。這裡的主要目的是要說明有情眾生死去時，什麼識會最先顯現，因此也順帶辨析了其餘五識。下面分別說明出生，可以參照死亡的情況來理解。

死亡和出生時只允許舍受（upeksa，不苦不樂的感受）存在，因為死亡和出生時心識不清晰，所以舍受的性質也不清晰，性質和狀態是相順的，所以與舍受相應。其餘的兩種感受（苦受和樂受）性質清晰，所以不順應死亡和出生。因此，即使意識可以與三種感受相應，但在死亡和出生時，只有舍受，沒有其他的感受。此外，《正理》中說，不清晰的識才會有死亡和出生的意義，因為死亡和出生時一定是昏昧的。

【English Translation】 English version: Bodhisattvas are different from ordinary beings. Even if they understand the same passage of scripture, they will have different understandings when quoting the Kalapanaka Sutra. Furthermore, when interpreting the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra, comparing ordinary beings in the Jambudvipa (the world we live in) forest with those who have attained the Srotapanna (the first stage of enlightenment in Buddhism), the ordinary beings refer to the non-Buddhist ascetics in the forest who have already detached themselves from desires. Because these non-Buddhist ascetics are ordinary beings, they are different from Bodhisattvas. Although the two treatises quote scriptures with different objects of comparison (ordinary beings or holy fruits), there is no difference between non-Buddhist ascetics and ordinary beings.

Having already discussed sentient beings from birth to death, etc., the third major section below analyzes the death of sentient beings. Broadly speaking, it is all called 'death' because the meanings are related, so it also includes explanations of birth, etc. There are six questions here: First, which consciousness will manifest first? Second, with which feeling is it associated? Third, do those in meditative states or without mind experience death and birth? Fourth, with what kind of consciousness can one enter Nirvana (the ultimate goal in Buddhism)? Fifth, at the time of death, where does consciousness cease? Sixth, what is the nature of the body of someone who cuts off the marma (vital points on the body)? The word 'etc.' in the questions includes the remaining four questions.

The verse says: '...cutting off marma, water, etc.' In answering the questions, the first three sentences answer the first question, the next sentence answers the second question, the next sentence answers the third question, the next sentence answers the fourth question, the next three sentences answer the fifth question, and the last sentence answers the sixth question.

Explaining the first three sentences: In these six stages, according to Dharmata (the natural law of things), only consciousness is allowed to exist, and the other five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) are not allowed because they have no function. The word 'birth' here not only includes the initial thought of bhava (existence), but should also include the initial thought of antarabhava (the intermediate state between death and rebirth). If only 'bhava' is mentioned, it does not include antarabhava; if only 'birth' is mentioned, it includes the initial thought of antarabhava. Just as when beings from the upper realms (higher heavens) die and are reborn in the lower realms (lower heavens), the initial thought of antarabhava is also called 'birth'. The main purpose here is to explain which consciousness manifests first when sentient beings die, so it also analyzes the remaining five consciousnesses. The following separately explains birth, which can be understood by referring to the situation of death.

Only equanimity (upeksa, neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling) is allowed at the time of death and birth, because the mind is not clear at the time of death and birth, so the nature of equanimity is also not clear. The nature and state are consistent, so it is associated with equanimity. The other two feelings (suffering and pleasure) are clear in nature, so they do not conform to death and birth. Therefore, even though consciousness can be associated with three feelings, only equanimity exists at the time of death and birth, and no other feelings exist. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara says that only unclear consciousness has the meaning of death and birth, because it must be dim at the time of death and birth.

劣故。由此故說下三靜慮唯近分心有死．生理。以根本地無舍受故。又婆沙九十八云。梵輔．梵眾依未至地心命終結生。大梵依靜慮中間心命終結生。所以者何。命終結生心唯舍受相應。舍受唯在初靜慮近分地有。非根本地故。又準正理婆沙。根本地中無有舍受　問二受望舍強。不得有死．生。善．染亦望無記強。應無有死．生　解云二受望舍強不得有死．生。舍體通三性善．染容死．生。

又此二時至必非無心者。此下釋第五句。頌言二者謂死．及生。於此二時唯散非定。要有心位必非無心。此即開章。

非在定心至能攝益故者。此釋初章。非在定心有死．生義。一界地別故。夫死．生心必起當地。若起異界．地有起死．生者。便是他界地死．生非是自界地死．生。二加行生故。夫死．生心任運起故。三能攝益故。夫死．生心是微劣故不能攝益。即由此三因顯異地染心無死．生理。故正理云。異地染心亦攝益故。加行起故無命終理。異地染心必勝地攝。何容樂往劣地受生。故彼亦無能受生理(已上論文)由此三因亦顯異地凈無記心無死生理　又解於三因中但由前二。界．地別故。加行生故。能顯異地凈無記心無死．生理。故正理云。一切異地凈無記心加行起故無命終理。非染污故無受生理(已上論文)

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本原因在於，因此說下三禪（下三靜慮）只有近分定（唯近分心）才有死亡和轉生（死．生理）。因為根本定（根本地）沒有舍受的緣故。另外，《大毗婆沙論》第九十八卷說，梵輔天（梵輔）和梵眾天（梵眾）依據未至定（未至地）的心而死亡和結生，大梵天（大梵）依據靜慮中間定（靜慮中間心）的心而死亡和結生。這是什麼原因呢？因為死亡和結生的心只與舍受相應，而舍受只在初禪的近分定（初靜慮近分地）才有，不在根本定（非根本地）。又根據《阿毗達磨順正理論》和《大毗婆沙論》，根本定（根本地）中沒有舍受。問：苦受和樂受（二受）相對於舍受來說更強，不應該有死亡和轉生。善心和染心（善．染）相對於無記心來說也更強，也應該沒有死亡和轉生。答：苦受和樂受（二受）相對於舍受來說更強，所以不能有死亡和轉生。而舍受的體性貫通善、惡、無記三種性質（三性），所以善心和染心可以有死亡和轉生。另外，死亡和轉生這兩個時刻必定不是沒有心的狀態（至必非無心者）。下面解釋第五句。頌文說，『二者』指的是死亡和轉生（死．及生）。在這兩個時刻只有散亂心（唯散）而沒有禪定心（非定）。一定要有心識的狀態，必定不是沒有心識（要有心位必非無心）。這就是開章明義。『不是在禪定心中發生，因為不能攝益』（非在定心至能攝益故者）。這是解釋第一個章節。不是在禪定心中有死亡和轉生的道理。一是界和地的差別（界地別故）。死亡和轉生的心必定在相應的界和地產生（必起當地）。如果產生於不同的界和地，那麼就是其他界和地的死亡和轉生，而不是自己界和地的死亡和轉生。二是由於加行而生起（加行生故）。死亡和轉生的心是任運而生起的。三是不能攝益（能攝益故）。死亡和轉生的心是微弱的，所以不能攝益。就是由於這三個原因，顯示了異地的染污心沒有死亡和轉生的道理（無死．生理）。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，異地的染污心也能攝益，由於加行而生起，所以沒有命終的道理。異地的染污心必定被更勝的禪定所攝持，怎麼會樂意前往低劣的境地受生呢？所以異地的染污心也沒有能感受轉生的道理（能受生理）。（以上是論文內容）由於這三個原因，也顯示了異地的清凈無記心沒有死亡和轉生的道理。又解釋說，在三個原因中，僅僅由於前兩個原因，即界和地的差別（界．地別故）和由於加行而生起（加行生故），就能顯示異地的清凈無記心沒有死亡和轉生的道理。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，一切異地的清凈無記心，由於加行而生起，所以沒有命終的道理，因為不是染污的，所以沒有感受轉生的道理。（以上是論文內容）

【English Translation】 English version The reason is that, therefore, it is said that only the near-access concentration (唯近分心) of the lower three dhyanas (下三靜慮) has death and rebirth (死．生理). This is because the fundamental concentration (根本地) does not have the feeling of equanimity (舍受). Furthermore, the ninety-eighth volume of the Mahavibhasa (婆沙) states that the Brahmaparisadya (梵輔) and Brahmapurohita (梵眾) deities die and are reborn based on the mind of the unreached concentration (未至地), while the Mahabrahma (大梵) deity dies and is reborn based on the mind of the intermediate dhyana (靜慮中間心). What is the reason for this? It is because the mind of death and rebirth is only associated with the feeling of equanimity (舍受), and the feeling of equanimity only exists in the near-access concentration of the first dhyana (初靜慮近分地), not in the fundamental concentration (非根本地). Moreover, according to the Abhidharmakosabhasyam (阿毗達磨順正理論) and the Mahavibhasa (大毗婆沙論), there is no feeling of equanimity (舍受) in the fundamental concentration (根本地). Question: Painful and pleasant feelings (二受) are stronger than the feeling of equanimity (舍受), so there should be no death and rebirth. Wholesome and defiled minds (善．染) are also stronger than neutral minds (無記), so there should also be no death and rebirth. Answer: Painful and pleasant feelings (二受) are stronger than the feeling of equanimity (舍受), so there cannot be death and rebirth. However, the nature of the feeling of equanimity (舍受) pervades the three natures of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral (三性), so wholesome and defiled minds can have death and rebirth. Furthermore, these two moments of death and rebirth must not be without mind (至必非無心者). The following explains the fifth sentence. The verse says, 'The two' refers to death and rebirth (死．及生). In these two moments, there is only distracted mind (唯散) and no concentrated mind (非定). There must be a state of consciousness, and it must not be without consciousness (要有心位必非無心). This is the opening statement. 'It does not occur in the concentrated mind because it cannot benefit' (非在定心至能攝益故者). This explains the first chapter. There is no reason for death and rebirth to occur in the concentrated mind. First, there is a difference in realm and ground (界地別故). The mind of death and rebirth must arise in the corresponding realm and ground (必起當地). If it arises in a different realm and ground, then it is the death and rebirth of another realm and ground, not the death and rebirth of one's own realm and ground. Second, it arises due to effort (加行生故). The mind of death and rebirth arises spontaneously. Third, it cannot benefit (能攝益故). The mind of death and rebirth is weak, so it cannot benefit. It is due to these three reasons that it is shown that the defiled mind of a different ground has no death and rebirth (無死．生理). Therefore, the Abhidharmakosabhasyam (阿毗達磨順正理論) says that the defiled mind of a different ground can also benefit, and because it arises due to effort, there is no reason for death. The defiled mind of a different ground must be held by a superior concentration, so how could it be willing to go to an inferior realm to be reborn? Therefore, the defiled mind of a different ground also has no ability to experience rebirth (能受生理). (The above is the content of the treatise) Due to these three reasons, it is also shown that the pure neutral mind of a different ground has no death and rebirth. It is also explained that, among the three reasons, only the first two reasons, namely the difference in realm and ground (界．地別故) and arising due to effort (加行生故), can show that the pure neutral mind of a different ground has no death and rebirth. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosabhasyam (阿毗達磨順正理論) says that all pure neutral minds of different grounds arise due to effort, so there is no reason for death, and because they are not defiled, there is no experience of rebirth. (The above is the content of the treatise)

問如起異地通果心及生二定已上。起下初定威儀意識。可由加行起。生二定已上泛爾起下三識威儀心非加行生。如何乃言一切異地凈無記心加行起故　解云正理且據異地通果意識．威儀意識故。言一切加行起故。受生命終唯在意識。在意識者尚非受生命終。在五識者理在絕言。故不別說　又解正理亦簡二通。以彼二通加行起故。雖在五識無。有受生命終道理。以加行言亦遮彼故　又解正理亦簡泛爾起下三識威儀。起異地心難。藉加行起故。文中既言一切不別簡別。應知亦攝下起下三識　雖有三解。然更勘其文。必不能起異地散善故不別簡。或界地別已遮遣故。

亦非無心至無受生故者。釋第二章。亦非無心有死．生義。以無心位由定力持他不能害。亦非自命終必無損。若所依身將欲反壞而命終者。必定還起自地之中屬所依心。然後命終更無餘理。以初生時同地心生。故后死時同地心死。此解無命終心。又無心者不能受生。以無潤生煩惱因故。離起惑因無受生故。此解無受生心。

雖說死有至而無異熟者。此釋第六句。雖說死有通三性心。然入涅槃唯二無記異熟．威儀。無煩惱故必無染心。雖有善心．工巧．通果。以強盛故不入涅槃。故入涅槃唯二無記。若說三定已下有舍異熟。彼說欲界入涅槃心具二無

記。若說三定已下無舍異熟。彼說欲界入涅槃心。但有威儀而無異熟。於二說中初說為正。如二十心相生中。欲界異熟生心。能生上二界染污心。即是欲界異熟生心。舍受相應命終。于上二界染心受生。以受生命終心定舍受故。以此明知。欲界定有舍受異熟。又此論下文云。有說下亦有。由中招異熟。又許此三業非前後熟故。又婆沙異熟因中亦有文。說下地有舍異熟。不能具引。以此故知。三定已下有舍異熟為正。

何故唯無記得入涅槃者。問。無記勢力微順心斷故者。答。此二無記勢力微劣順心斷故。余善．無記勢力稍強非順心斷。餘人死心雖通三性與斷心異不可為例。

于命終位至識最後滅者。此下釋第七．第八第九句。此即問也。

頓命終者至一處都盡者。答。理實意識無有方所。而言與身同處滅者。于身滅位意識隨滅非有方所。故正理云。眼等諸識依止色根尚無方所。況複意識。故約身根辨意識滅(已上論文)余文可知。又婆沙六十九云。生惡趣者識在腳滅。生人中者識在臍滅。生天上者識在頸滅。般涅槃者識在心滅。

又漸命終者至故得斷名者。釋第十句。頓命終者無斷末摩。唯漸命終有斷末摩。末摩是身中死穴。其量極小觸便致死。故正理引頌云身中有別處觸便令命終。如青蓮

華鬢微塵等所觸(已上論文)　又解對法藏中說。眾生身中有百處名末摩。觸便致死。此言斷者。非如斬薪令成二分說名為斷。水等增時斷此末摩。猶如有人被斷頭已無覺知故。故得斷名。非成二分說名為斷。余文可知。

地界何緣無斯斷用者。問。

以無第四至外器三災者。答中兩解。一約內身有三災患。謂風．熱．痰。水增痰病起。火增熱病起。風增風病起。醫方中說身有三分。心已上痰分。心已下臍上熱分。臍已下風分。第二約外器亦有三災。火．水．風三似外三災。地界非災故無斷用。

此斷末摩至必定當死者。顯斷末摩天中非有。然有兩種五衰相現。又正理論云。五小相現非定命終。遇勝善緣猶可轉故。大五相現決定命終。設遇強緣亦不轉故。非此五相諸天皆有。亦非此五一一皆具。總集而說故言有五。又婆沙一百九十云。問何處有斷末摩。答在欲界非色．無色界。于欲界中地獄無斷末摩以恒斷故。傍生．餓鬼有斷末摩。人中三洲非北𤘽盧洲。欲界諸天亦無斷末摩。彼非惱亂業果故。問何等補特伽羅有斷末摩。答異生．聖者皆有。于聖者中預流．一來．不還．阿羅漢．獨覺皆有。唯除世尊。無惱亂業故。諸佛世尊無斷末摩。聲音不壞無漸命終。以佛世尊諸根頓滅故。

世尊於此至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『華鬢微塵等所觸』（以上是論文中的內容）。又解釋說，在《對法藏》中記載，眾生的身體里有一百處叫做『末摩』（致命處）的地方，觸碰到這些地方就會導致死亡。這裡說的『斷』，不是像劈柴一樣分成兩半才叫做『斷』。而是指水等元素增多時，會阻斷這些『末摩』的作用，就像一個人的頭被砍掉后就失去了知覺一樣，所以才叫做『斷』，而不是分成兩半才叫做『斷』。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

問：為什麼地界沒有這種阻斷作用呢？

答：因為沒有第四種災難，以及外器世界的三種災難。這裡有兩種解釋。第一種是就內身而言，有三種災患，即風、熱、痰。水增多會導致痰病，火增多會導致熱病，風增多會導致風病。醫方中說，身體有三個部分：心以上是痰的部分，心以下臍以上是熱的部分，臍以下是風的部分。第二種是就外器世界而言，也有三種災難，即火、水、風，類似於外面的三種災難。地界不是災難，所以沒有阻斷作用。

『此斷末摩至必定當死者』，說明阻斷『末摩』的情況在天界是沒有的。然而，天界有兩種五衰相出現。另外，《正理論》中說，五小衰相出現不一定意味著死亡，如果遇到殊勝的善緣，還可以轉變。而五大衰相出現就必定意味著死亡，即使遇到強大的因緣也無法轉變。並非所有的天界都有這五種衰相，也不是說每一個天界都具備這五種衰相，只是總的來說有這五種衰相。另外，《婆沙論》第一百九十卷中說：問：哪裡有阻斷『末摩』的情況？答：在欲界，不在色界和無色界。在欲界中，地獄沒有阻斷『末摩』的情況，因為地獄是持續不斷的痛苦。傍生和餓鬼有阻斷『末摩』的情況。人中，除了北俱盧洲以外的三大洲有阻斷『末摩』的情況。欲界諸天也沒有阻斷『末摩』的情況，因為他們沒有惱亂的業果。問：什麼樣的補特伽羅（人）有阻斷『末摩』的情況？答：異生（凡夫）和聖者都有。在聖者中，預流果、一來果、不還果、阿羅漢果、獨覺都有。只有世尊沒有，因為世尊沒有惱亂的業。諸佛世尊沒有阻斷『末摩』的情況，聲音不會壞滅，也不會逐漸命終，因為佛世尊的諸根是頓然滅盡的。

世尊於此至

【English Translation】 English version: 'Hua bin wei chen deng suo chu' (The above is from a thesis). It is also explained that in the 'Abhidharma-kośa', it is said that there are one hundred places in the body of sentient beings called 'Marma' (vital spots), and touching these places will lead to death. The 'severance' mentioned here is not like splitting firewood into two halves. Rather, it refers to the obstruction of the function of these 'Marmas' when elements such as water increase, just like a person who loses consciousness after their head is cut off. Therefore, it is called 'severance', not because it is divided into two halves. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.

Question: Why does the earth element not have this kind of severance function?

Answer: Because there is no fourth disaster, and the three disasters of the external world. There are two explanations here. The first is in terms of the inner body, there are three kinds of ailments, namely wind, heat, and phlegm. An increase in water leads to phlegm disease, an increase in fire leads to heat disease, and an increase in wind leads to wind disease. Medical texts say that the body has three parts: above the heart is the phlegm part, below the heart and above the navel is the heat part, and below the navel is the wind part. The second is in terms of the external world, there are also three disasters, namely fire, water, and wind, similar to the three external disasters. The earth element is not a disaster, so it has no severance function.

'This severance of Marma leads to certain death', indicating that the severance of 'Marma' does not exist in the heavens. However, there are two kinds of five signs of decay appearing in the heavens. In addition, the 'Nyāyapraveśa' says that the appearance of the five minor signs of decay does not necessarily mean death; if one encounters excellent good conditions, it can still be transformed. However, the appearance of the five major signs of decay certainly means death, and even if one encounters strong conditions, it cannot be transformed. Not all heavens have these five signs of decay, nor does every heaven possess all five signs of decay; it is only said in general that there are these five signs. Furthermore, the one hundred and ninetieth volume of the 'Vibhasa' says: Question: Where does the severance of 'Marma' exist? Answer: In the desire realm, not in the form realm and the formless realm. In the desire realm, hell does not have the severance of 'Marma' because hell is continuous suffering. Animals and hungry ghosts have the severance of 'Marma'. Among humans, the three continents other than Uttarakuru have the severance of 'Marma'. The gods of the desire realm also do not have the severance of 'Marma' because they do not have the karma of affliction. Question: What kind of pudgala (person) has the severance of 'Marma'? Answer: Ordinary beings and sages all have it. Among the sages, Stream-enterers, Once-returners, Non-returners, Arhats, and Pratyekabuddhas all have it. Only the World Honored One does not have it because the World Honored One does not have the karma of affliction. The Buddhas, the World Honored Ones, do not have the severance of 'Marma'; their voices will not decay, and they will not gradually die because the faculties of the Buddha, the World Honored One, are extinguished suddenly.

The World Honored One in this to

何謂三聚者。此下就有情世間中。大文第二明三聚別　問世尊於此有情世間初生．次住．后沒三時中建立三聚。何謂三聚　又解生謂生有。住謂本有。沒謂死有。中謂中有。於此四種建立三聚。聚顯眾多有情。何謂三聚。

頌曰至三不定性聚者。答。此即列名。

何名正性者。問。

謂契經言至是名正性者。答。此解正性。斷貪．瞋．癡．及慢．疑等一切惑盡名曰無餘。此斷即是涅槃擇滅名為正性。

定者謂聖至故名正定者。此別解定。定者謂聖。聖謂已有無漏道生。能遠離諸惡不善法故名為聖。謂若有人斷見等惑。便能獲得畢竟不退離系得故。定盡煩惱。定得涅槃。于正性中定故名正定。諸有漏道亦證離系。非能定盡惑。故不名正定。

諸已獲得至何非正定者。問。彼后或墮至不名正定者。答。雖已獲得順解脫分。彼人後時或造無間業墮邪定聚故。又得涅槃時未定故。非如預流者極七返有等。又彼得順解脫分人。未能捨三惡趣邪性故不名正定。又解得解脫分人至暖．頂已來容造五逆故。言彼后或墮邪定聚故。至下．中忍雖不墮邪定聚。彼得涅槃時未定故。非如預流者極七返有等。至增上忍．世第一法。雖得涅槃時有定限。以彼未能捨異生邪所依性故不名正定。

何名邪性者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：什麼是三聚？以下就在有情世間中，大文第二說明三聚的差別。問：世尊，在這有情世間初生、次住、后沒這三個階段中建立三聚，什麼是三聚？又解釋說，生指生有（bhava）。住指本有。沒指死有。中指中有（antarabhava）。在這四種狀態中建立三聚。聚，顯示眾多有情。什麼是三聚？

頌曰：至三不定性聚者。答：這只是列出名稱。

何名正性者？問。

謂契經言：至是名正性者。答：這是解釋正性。斷除貪（raga）、嗔（dvesha）、癡（moha）以及慢（mana）、疑（vicikitsa）等一切煩惱，完全斷盡，名為無餘。這種斷除就是涅槃（nirvana），是擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha），名為正性。

定者謂聖至故名正定者。這是分別解釋『定』。『定者謂聖』，聖是指已經生起無漏道（anasrava-marga），能夠遠離各種惡和不善法，所以稱為聖。如果有人斷除了見惑（drsti）等煩惱，就能獲得畢竟不退的離系得（visamyoga-pratilabdha），因此能確定斷盡煩惱，確定證得涅槃，所以在正性中是確定的，所以名為正定。各種有漏道（sasrava-marga）也能證得離系，但不能確定斷盡煩惱，所以不名為正定。

諸已獲得至何非正定者？問。彼后或墮至不名正定者。答：雖然已經獲得了順解脫分（anulomiki-ksanti），但這個人後來可能會造作無間業（anantarya-karmani），墮入邪定聚（mithyatva-niyata-rasi），所以不是正定。而且，得到涅槃的時間還不確定，不像預流果（srota-apanna）最多隻有七次往返生死等。而且，那些得到順解脫分的人，未能捨棄三惡趣（durgati）的邪性，所以不名為正定。又解釋說，得到解脫分的人，從暖位（usmagata）到頂位（murdhan）以來，還可能造作五逆罪（pancanantarya），所以說『彼后或墮邪定聚故』。到下忍（ksanti）、中忍（ksanti），雖然不會墮入邪定聚，但他們得到涅槃的時間還不確定，不像預流果最多隻有七次往返生死等。到增上忍（adhimukti-ksanti）、世第一法（laukikagradharma），雖然得到涅槃的時間有一定的期限，但因為他們未能捨棄異生（prthagjana）的邪所依性，所以不名為正定。

何名邪性者？

【English Translation】 English version: What are the three groups (tri-rasi)? In the following section, within the realm of sentient beings, the second major section explains the distinctions of the three groups. Question: World Honored One, in these three phases of the sentient world—initial birth, subsequent dwelling, and eventual death—you establish the three groups. What are these three groups? It is also explained that 『birth』 refers to the becoming (bhava). 『Dwelling』 refers to the inherent existence. 『Death』 refers to the dying existence. 『Intermediate』 refers to the intermediate existence (antarabhava). Within these four states, the three groups are established. 『Group』 signifies a multitude of sentient beings. What are the three groups?

Verse: 『To the three groups of indeterminate nature.』 Answer: This simply lists the names.

What is meant by 『right nature』 (samyaktva-niyata-rasi)? Question.

As the sutra says: 『This is called right nature.』 Answer: This explains 『right nature.』 The complete cessation of greed (raga), hatred (dvesha), delusion (moha), arrogance (mana), doubt (vicikitsa), and all other afflictions is called 『without remainder.』 This cessation is nirvana (nirvana), which is selective cessation (pratisankhya-nirodha), and is called 『right nature.』

『Determined』 means 『noble,』 hence it is called 『rightly determined.』 This separately explains 『determined.』『Determined』 means 『noble.』『Noble』 refers to one who has already generated the undefiled path (anasrava-marga), capable of distancing oneself from all evil and unwholesome dharmas, hence called 『noble.』 If someone severs afflictions such as wrong views (drsti), they can attain the irreversible attainment of separation (visamyoga-pratilabdha). Therefore, they are determined to exhaust afflictions and determined to attain nirvana. Being determined within the right nature, it is called 『rightly determined.』 Various defiled paths (sasrava-marga) can also attain separation, but they cannot certainly exhaust afflictions, so they are not called 『rightly determined.』

Those who have already attained—why are they not 『rightly determined?』 Question. That they may later fall—hence they are not called 『rightly determined.』 Answer: Although they have already attained the favorable conditions for liberation (anulomiki-ksanti), that person may later commit heinous deeds (anantarya-karmani) and fall into the group of those with wrongly determined nature (mithyatva-niyata-rasi), hence they are not 『rightly determined.』 Moreover, the time of attaining nirvana is not yet certain, unlike a stream-enterer (srota-apanna) who has at most seven more rebirths. Furthermore, those who have attained the favorable conditions for liberation have not yet abandoned the evil nature of the three lower realms (durgati), hence they are not called 『rightly determined.』 It is also explained that those who have attained the conditions for liberation, from the stage of warmth (usmagata) to the peak (murdhan), may still commit the five heinous crimes (pancanantarya), hence it is said, 『That they may later fall into the group of those with wrongly determined nature.』 Even up to the lower endurance (ksanti) and middle endurance (ksanti), although they do not fall into the group of those with wrongly determined nature, the time of their attaining nirvana is not yet certain, unlike a stream-enterer who has at most seven more rebirths. Even up to the supreme endurance (adhimukti-ksanti) and the highest mundane dharma (laukikagradharma), although there is a definite limit to the time of their attaining nirvana, because they have not yet abandoned the nature of being an ordinary being (prthagjana) that relies on wrong views, they are not called 『rightly determined.』

What is meant by 『wrong nature』?

問。

謂諸地獄至是名邪性者。答。三惡趣總名邪性。又正理三十云。何名邪性。謂有三種。一趣邪性。二業邪性。三見邪性。即是惡趣．五無間業．五不正見如次為體。

定謂無間至故名邪定者。別解定。定謂五無間業。造此業者必墮地獄。此五逆業于邪中定故故名邪定。若造餘業。雖亦有墮三惡趣者。而非定故。

正邪定余至可成二故者。釋不定性。正．邪定余所有諸法名不定性。彼待善緣可成正定性。彼待惡緣可成邪定。非定屬一故名不定。諸有情類成就此三差別不同名三聚異。故集異門足論第四云。云何邪性聚答五無間業。云何正性定聚。答學．無學法。云何不定聚。答除五無間業餘有漏法及無為也。

俱舍論記卷第十大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十一

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之四

如是已說至今當說者。此下大文第二明器世間。就中。一明所居器。二明能居量。三明三分齊　就明所居器中。一別明小器。二總明大千　就別明小器中。一明三輪。二明九山。三明八海。四明四洲。五明黑山等。六明地獄。七明日．月。八明天器　此下第一明三輪。結前問起。

頌曰至周圍此三倍者。初句總明。余句別解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：為什麼說諸地獄是名為『邪性』（evil nature）的呢？答：三惡趣（three evil destinies）總稱為『邪性』。又，《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第三十卷說：什麼叫做『邪性』？有三種：一是趣邪性，二是業邪性，三是見邪性。分別以惡趣、五無間業（five acts of immediate retribution）、五不正見（five wrong views）為體。為什麼說『定』是指無間業，所以名為『邪定』（wrong determination）呢？這是特別解釋『定』。『定』是指五無間業。造作這些業的人必定墮入地獄。這五逆業在邪惡之中是確定的，所以叫做『邪定』。如果造作其他的業，雖然也有墮入三惡趣的，但不是確定的。『正邪定余』（the remainder of right and wrong determinations）是指什麼，為什麼說『可成二故』（can become either）呢？這是解釋不定性。『正邪定余』所包含的所有法都叫做『不定性』。它們等待善緣可以成為正定性，等待惡緣可以成為邪定。因為不是固定屬於哪一種，所以叫做『不定』。諸有情眾生所成就的這三種差別不同，叫做『三聚異』（three different groups）。所以，《集異門足論》（Saṃgīti-paryāya）第四卷說：什麼叫做『邪性聚』（group of evil nature）？回答是五無間業。什麼叫做『正性定聚』（group of right determination）？回答是學法（laws of learning）和無學法（laws of no more learning）。什麼叫做『不定聚』（group of undetermined nature）？回答是除了五無間業之外的有漏法（defiled dharmas）以及無為法（unconditioned dharmas）。《俱舍論記》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā）卷第十《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》《俱舍論記》卷第十一沙門釋光述分別世品第三之四像上面這樣已經說完了，現在將要說的是什麼呢？從這裡開始是大的段落，第二部分說明器世間（vessel world）。其中：一、說明所居住的器物；二、說明能居住的量；三、說明三部分的界限。在說明所居住的器物中：一、分別說明小的器物；二、總括說明大千世界（great chiliocosm）。在分別說明小的器物中：一、說明三輪（three wheels）；二、說明九山（nine mountains）；三、說明八海（eight seas）；四、說明四洲（four continents）；五、說明黑山（black mountain）等；六、說明地獄（hells）；七、說明日（sun）、月（moon）；八、說明天器（heavenly vessels）。從這裡開始第一部分說明三輪。總結前面的內容，提出問題。頌曰：……周圍此三倍者。第一句總括說明，其餘的句子分別解釋。

【English Translation】 English version Question: Why are the various hells called 'evil nature' (邪性)? Answer: The three evil destinies (三惡趣) are collectively called 'evil nature'. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理) says in its thirtieth fascicle: What is called 'evil nature'? There are three types: first, the evil nature of destination; second, the evil nature of karma; and third, the evil nature of views. They respectively take the evil destinies, the five acts of immediate retribution (五無間業), and the five wrong views (五不正見) as their substance. Why is it said that 'determination' refers to the five acts of immediate retribution, hence the name 'wrong determination' (邪定)? This is a specific explanation of 'determination'. 'Determination' refers to the five acts of immediate retribution. Those who commit these acts are certain to fall into hell. These five rebellious acts are definite among evils, hence the name 'wrong determination'. If other karmas are committed, although some may also fall into the three evil destinies, it is not certain. What does 'the remainder of right and wrong determinations' (正邪定余) refer to, and why is it said that 'can become either' (可成二故)? This explains the undetermined nature. All dharmas included in 'the remainder of right and wrong determinations' are called 'undetermined nature'. They can become right determination if they encounter good conditions, and they can become wrong determination if they encounter evil conditions. Because they are not fixed to belong to one or the other, they are called 'undetermined'. The three different distinctions achieved by sentient beings are called 'three different groups' (三聚異). Therefore, the Saṃgīti-paryāya (集異門足論) says in its fourth fascicle: What is called the 'group of evil nature' (邪性聚)? The answer is the five acts of immediate retribution. What is called the 'group of right determination' (正性定聚)? The answer is the laws of learning (學法) and the laws of no more learning (無學法). What is called the 'group of undetermined nature' (不定聚)? The answer is the defiled dharmas (有漏法) other than the five acts of immediate retribution, and the unconditioned dharmas (無為法). Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論記), Fascicle 10 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Fascicle 11 Commentary by the Śramaṇa釋光 Chapter 3, Section 4: Analysis of the World Having spoken as above, what will be spoken now? From here begins the second major section, explaining the vessel world (器世間). Among these: 1. Explaining the vessel in which one dwells; 2. Explaining the measure of what can dwell; 3. Explaining the boundaries of the three parts. Within explaining the vessel in which one dwells: 1. Separately explaining the small vessels; 2. Generally explaining the great chiliocosm (大千世界). Within separately explaining the small vessels: 1. Explaining the three wheels (三輪); 2. Explaining the nine mountains (九山); 3. Explaining the eight seas (八海); 4. Explaining the four continents (四洲); 5. Explaining the black mountain (黑山) etc.; 6. Explaining the hells (地獄); 7. Explaining the sun (日) and moon (月); 8. Explaining the heavenly vessels (天器). From here begins the first part, explaining the three wheels. Summarizing the previous content, raising the question. The verse says: ... the circumference is three times this. The first line gives a general explanation, and the remaining lines explain separately.

洛叉。此云億。

論曰至形量不同者。釋初句。毗婆沙師許此安立。

謂諸有情至風輪無損者。此明風輪　傍遍三千故言無數　大諾健那。是人中神名。此云露形　逾繕那。如下別釋。舊云由旬訛也。

又諸有情至逾繕那者。此明水輪　未凝結位。顯未成金。

如何水輪不傍流散者。問。

有餘師說至如篅持谷者。答。有餘師說有情業力持令不散。如所飲食未熟變時在於生藏。終不流移墮于熟藏　餘部師說別業感風持令不散。

有情業力至三億二萬者。此解金輪兼顯凝位水量。

二輪廣量至逾繕那者。此明金．水。徑．圍量同。于大千界各有萬億故徑．圍同。

頌曰至廣皆等高量者。此下第二明九山。前兩行半明九山。次兩句明山體。后一行明山量　蘇迷盧。此云妙高。舊雲鬚彌訛也　逾健達羅。此云持雙。此山頂上有二道猶如車跡。山持二跡故名持雙　伊沙馱羅山。此云持軸。山峰上聳猶如車軸。此山能持故名持軸　朅地洛迦。印度樹名。此方南邊亦有此樹稱為檐木。山上寶樹其形似彼從樹為名。舊云佉陀羅木訛也　蘇達梨舍那。此云善見。莊嚴殊妙見者稱善故名善見　頞濕縛羯拏。此云馬耳。山峰似馬耳也　毗那怛迦此云象鼻。印度神名。山形似彼象鼻故以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本洛叉（Laksha）：此譯為『億』。

論曰：『至形量不同者』。解釋第一句。毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）認可此種安立。

謂諸有情至風輪無損者：此說明風輪傍遍三千大千世界，故言『無數』。大諾健那（Mahanaugana）：是人中神名，此譯為『露形』。逾繕那（Yojana）：如下文分別解釋，舊譯『由旬』是訛誤。

又諸有情至逾繕那者：此說明水輪未凝結時的狀態，顯示尚未成為金輪。

如何水輪不傍流散者？問。

有餘師說至如篅持谷者：答。有餘師說有情業力持令不散，如所飲食未熟變時在於生藏，終不流移墮于熟藏。餘部師說別業感風持令不散。

有情業力至三億二萬者：此解釋金輪，兼顯示凝結時的水量。

二輪廣量至逾繕那者：此說明金輪、水輪的直徑、周長量相同。于大千世界各有萬億，故直徑、周長相同。

頌曰：『至廣皆等高量者』。此下第二部分說明九山。前兩行半說明九山，次兩句說明山體，后一行說明山量。蘇迷盧（Sumeru）：此譯為『妙高』，舊譯『須彌』是訛誤。逾健達羅（Yugamdhara）：此譯為『持雙』，此山頂上有二道猶如車跡，山持二跡故名持雙。伊沙馱羅山（Isadhara）：此譯為『持軸』，山峰上聳猶如車軸，此山能持故名持軸。朅地洛迦（Khadiraka）：印度樹名，此方南邊亦有此樹稱為檐木。山上寶樹其形似彼，從樹為名。舊譯『佉陀羅木』是訛誤。蘇達梨舍那（Sudarsana）：此譯為『善見』，莊嚴殊妙見者稱善故名善見。頞濕縛羯拏（Asvakarna）：此譯為『馬耳』，山峰似馬耳也。毗那怛迦（Vinataka）：此譯為『象鼻』，印度神名，山形似彼象鼻故以

【English Translation】 English version 洛叉 (Laksha): This translates to 'a hundred million'.

The treatise says: 'Regarding the difference in shape and size'. This explains the first sentence. The Vaibhashika masters accept this establishment.

』Concerning all sentient beings up to the wind wheel being undamaged』: This clarifies that the wind wheel extends laterally throughout the three thousand great thousand worlds, hence the term 'countless'. 大諾健那 (Mahanaugana): This is the name of a deity among humans, translated as 'naked form'. 逾繕那 (Yojana): Explained separately below. The old translation 'Yojana' is a corruption.

』Also, concerning all sentient beings up to the 逾繕那 (Yojana)』: This describes the state of the water wheel before it congeals, indicating that it has not yet become a golden wheel.

』How does the water wheel not flow and scatter laterally?』 Question.

』Some teachers say, like a hoop holding grain』: Answer. Some teachers say that the karma of sentient beings holds it together, preventing it from scattering, just as food that is not yet digested transforms in the raw stomach and never flows or falls into the cooked stomach. Other schools say that separate karma causes the wind to hold it together, preventing it from scattering.

』The karma of sentient beings up to three hundred and twenty million』: This explains the golden wheel and also reveals the amount of water at the time of congealing.

』The width of the two wheels up to 逾繕那 (Yojana)』: This clarifies that the diameter and circumference of the golden and water wheels are the same. Each has ten thousand trillion in the great thousand world, so the diameter and circumference are the same.

The verse says: 'The width, equality, and height are all equal'. The second part below explains the nine mountains. The first two and a half lines explain the nine mountains, the next two lines explain the mountain bodies, and the last line explains the mountain measurements. 蘇迷盧 (Sumeru): This translates to 'wonderfully high'. The old translation '須彌' is a corruption. 逾健達羅 (Yugamdhara): This translates to 'holding double'. This mountain has two paths on its summit like chariot tracks. Because the mountain holds two tracks, it is named 'holding double'. 伊沙馱羅山 (Isadhara): This translates to 'holding axis'. The mountain peaks rise up like chariot axles. Because this mountain can hold, it is named 'holding axis'. 朅地洛迦 (Khadiraka): An Indian tree name. This region also has this tree on the southern side, called 'eaves wood'. The precious trees on the mountain resemble it in shape, named after the tree. The old translation '佉陀羅木' is a corruption. 蘇達梨舍那 (Sudarsana): This translates to 'good to see'. Its adornments are exceptionally wonderful, and those who see it praise it as good, hence the name 'good to see'. 頞濕縛羯拏 (Asvakarna): This translates to 'horse ear'. The mountain peaks resemble horse ears. 毗那怛迦 (Vinataka): This translates to 'elephant nose'. An Indian deity name. The mountain shape resembles an elephant nose, hence

名焉　尼民達羅。此是魚名。其魚㭰尖。山峰似彼魚㭰故以名焉。

論曰至似吠琉璃色者。妙高四面北金。東銀。南吠琉璃。西頗𦙁迦。余文可知。

如是寶等從何而生者。問。

亦諸有情至轉變所成者。答。水能生寶名種。水中出寶名藏。水生寶時因滅果生體不俱有。非如數論外道法體常存。轉變成余大等諸法。

數論云何執轉變義者。問數論計。

謂執有法至何理相違者。答。出數論計。謂數論執薩埵。刺阇。答摩。有法自性常存有餘二十三諦生。有餘二十三諦滅　又解有餘我執等生。有餘大等滅。如是前後轉變何理相違。如變金等成環玔等。金體不異環等。生滅自性即名有法。謂自體性有大等法故名有法。如因明論云聲是無常。無常是法。聲是有法。有無常法故名有法。

謂必無容至法滅法生者。難數論云。謂必無容於有法常住上可執別有大等諸諦法滅法生。

誰言法外至名為有法者。數論救。誰言大等法外有別彼自性有法。以大等法即有法故彼宗立即義。此文應言。誰言有法外別有彼法。而言誰言法外別有有法者。義相似故。唯即此大等法于轉變時。大等異相所依自性名為有法。據體以論不得法外別有有法。據相似說可言自性名為有法。彼宗二十五諦中我．及自

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：名為尼民達羅（Nimin-dara）。這是魚的名字。這種魚的背鰭尖銳。山峰因為像這種魚的背鰭而得名。

論述說，至於像吠琉璃（Vaiḍūrya）的顏色，妙高山（Sumeru）四面分別是北面為金色，東面為銀色，南面為吠琉璃色，西面為頗胝迦（Sphatika）色。其餘的文字可以理解。

像這樣的寶物等是從哪裡產生的呢？（問）

也是諸有情（Sattva）的業力轉變所形成的。（答）水能產生名為『種』的寶物，水中出現名為『藏』的寶物。水產生寶物的時候，因滅果生，本體不是同時存在的。不像數論（Samkhya）外道所說的法體常存，轉變成為其餘的大等諸法。

數論是如何執著轉變的意義的呢？（問）數論的計算是：

他們認為存在一種有法（dharmin），其自性常存，並由此產生其餘二十三種諦（tattva），也有其餘二十三種諦滅亡。又解釋說，有其餘的我執（ahamkara）等產生，有其餘的大等滅亡。像這樣前後轉變，有什麼道理相違背呢？就像把金子變成戒指、手鐲等，金子的本體並沒有改變，戒指等的生滅自性就叫做有法。所謂自體具有大等法，所以叫做有法。就像因明論（Hetuvidya）所說，『聲音是無常的，無常是法，聲音是有法。』因為具有無常的法，所以叫做有法。

他們認為必定不可能在有法常住的基礎上，可以執著另外存在大等諸諦的法滅法生。（難數論）

誰說在法之外，另外存在一個自性叫做有法呢？（數論救）誰說在大等法之外，另外存在一個自性叫做有法？因為大等法就是有法，所以他們的宗義是立即的。這段文字應該說：『誰說在有法之外，另外存在一個彼法？』而說『誰說在法之外，另外存在有法？』，意思是相似的。只有這個大等法在轉變的時候，大等異相所依的自性叫做有法。從本體上來說，不能說法之外另外存在有法。從相似性上來說，可以說自性叫做有法。他們的宗義二十五諦中，我及自性等都是如此。

【English Translation】 English version: It is named Nimin-dara. This is the name of a fish. This fish has a sharp dorsal fin. The mountain peak is named after resembling the dorsal fin of this fish.

The treatise says, as for resembling the color of Vaiḍūrya (lapis lazuli), the four sides of Mount Sumeru are gold on the north, silver on the east, Vaiḍūrya on the south, and Sphatika (crystal) on the west. The remaining text can be understood.

From where do such treasures and the like arise? (Question)

They are also formed by the transformation of the karma of sentient beings (Sattva). (Answer) Water can produce treasures called 'seeds' (nāma-gotra), and treasures called 'stores' (nāma-dhātu) emerge from the water. When water produces treasures, the cause ceases and the effect arises; the substance does not exist simultaneously. It is not like the Samkhya (enumeration) heretics who say that the substance of the dharma is permanent and transforms into other great dharmas and the like.

How does Samkhya adhere to the meaning of transformation? (Question) The calculation of Samkhya is:

They believe that there is a dharmin (substratum) whose nature is permanent, and from this arise the remaining twenty-three tattvas (principles), and there are also the remaining twenty-three tattvas that perish. It is also explained that there are remaining ahamkaras (ego) and the like that arise, and there are remaining mahat (great principle) and the like that perish. What principle contradicts such transformations before and after? Just like transforming gold into rings, bracelets, etc., the substance of the gold does not change, and the arising and ceasing nature of the rings, etc., is called dharmin. The so-called self-nature possesses mahat and other dharmas, so it is called dharmin. Just like what is said in Hetuvidya (logic), 'Sound is impermanent, impermanence is a dharma, sound is a dharmin.' Because it possesses the dharma of impermanence, it is called dharmin.

They believe that it is certainly impossible to assert that there are separate dharmas of mahat and other tattvas that perish and arise on the basis of the permanent dharmin. (Challenge to Samkhya)

Who says that there is a separate self-nature called dharmin outside of the dharma? (Samkhya's defense) Who says that there is a separate self-nature called dharmin outside of the mahat and other dharmas? Because mahat and other dharmas are the dharmin, their doctrine is immediate. This passage should say: 'Who says that there is a separate dharma outside of the dharmin?' But saying 'Who says that there is a dharmin outside of the dharma?' has a similar meaning. Only this mahat and other dharmas, when transforming, the self-nature on which the different aspects of mahat and others depend is called dharmin. From the perspective of substance, one cannot say that there is a dharmin separate from the dharma. From the perspective of similarity, one can say that the self-nature is called dharmin. In their doctrine of twenty-five tattvas, the ahamkara and self-nature, etc., are like this.

性是常。大等二十三諦體常即自性故。相無常前生后滅相不定故。

此亦非理者。論主非。

非理者何者。數論徴。

即是此物至曾所未聞者。論主答。自性即是此大等物而不如此大等無常。如是言義曾所未聞　又解大等即是此自性物。而不如此自性是常。如是言義曾未所聞。

如是變生至內海外海者。復由業風簡別寶．水。成山成洲。內海外海。

如是九山至出水量同者。明其九山高．廣二量。入水皆等。出水半半卑。廣與出水同。思之可解。

頌曰至二萬二千者。此即第三明八海。第一海廣八萬。若長約持雙山內邊周量。于其四面對妙高山外邊八萬。數各三倍三八二十四。故成二億四萬逾繕那。余文可知　若依稱讚凈土經。數八功德水云。一者澄凈。二者清凈。三者甘美。四者輕耎。五者潤澤。六者安和。七者飲時除饑．渴等無量過患。八者飲已定能長養諸根．四大。增益種種殊勝善根。

頌曰至邏剎娑居者。此即第四明四洲。就中。一明四洲。二明八中洲。印度國車前狹后闊。故引為喻。菩薩最後所依身。能持此定。及金剛座處能持此定。以無餘依身．及余處所。有堅固力能持此定。此定力大餘依余處不能持也　八中洲者　遮末邏。此云貓牛　筏羅遮末羅。此云勝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『性』（Prakriti）是常。因為『大』（Mahat）等二十三種實體（Tattva）的本體是常，即是自性（Prakriti）的緣故。『相』（Vikriti）是無常，因為前生后滅，相狀不定。

『此亦非理者』：論主的觀點並非如此。

『非理者何者』：數論派（Samkhya）提出疑問。

『即是此物至曾所未聞者』：論主回答說，自性（Prakriti）即是此『大』（Mahat）等物，但並不像此『大』（Mahat）等是無常的。這樣的言論意義是前所未聞的。又或者解釋為，『大』（Mahat）等即是此自性（Prakriti）之物，但並不像此自性（Prakriti）是常的。這樣的言論意義也是前所未聞的。

『如是變生至內海外海者』：又因為業風（Karma-vayu）的簡別，寶物和水形成了山和洲，以及內海和外海。

『如是九山至出水量同者』：說明了九山的高度和廣度兩種量。入水量都相等，出水量則一半一半地減少。廣度與出水量相同。仔細思考便可理解。

『頌曰至二萬二千者』：這是第三部分，說明八海。第一海的寬度是八萬逾繕那（Yojana）。如果長度約等於持雙山（Yugamdhara）內邊的周長，在其四面正對著妙高山（Sumeru）外邊的八萬逾繕那，數量各自是三倍，三八二十四，所以總共是二億四萬逾繕那。其餘文字可以自行理解。如果依據《稱讚凈土經》，八功德水（Asta guna samannagata）的描述是：一者澄凈，二者清凈，三者甘美，四者輕耎，五者潤澤，六者安和，七者飲用時能消除飢渴等無量過患，八者飲用后必定能長養諸根和四大，增益種種殊勝善根。

『頌曰至邏剎娑居者』：這是第四部分，說明四大洲。其中，一是說明四大洲，二是說明八中洲。印度國的地形是車前狹后闊，所以以此作為比喻。菩薩最後所依的身，能夠持有此定（Samadhi）。以及金剛座（Vajrasana）之處能夠持有此定。因為沒有其餘所依的身，以及其餘處所，有堅固的力量能夠持有此定。此定的力量極大，其餘所依和其餘處所不能持有。八中洲是：遮末邏（Camara），意思是貓牛；筏羅遮末邏（Varacamara），意思是勝。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Prakriti' (Nature) is permanent. Because the essence of the twenty-three 'Tattvas' (Realities) such as 'Mahat' (Great Principle) is permanent, that is, it is the nature of Prakriti. The 'Vikriti' (Modifications) are impermanent, because they arise and perish, and their forms are not fixed.

'This is also unreasonable': The proponent's view is not so.

'What is unreasonable?': The Samkhya school raises a question.

'That is, this thing is something never heard before': The proponent answers, Prakriti is the same as these things like Mahat, but it is not like these things like Mahat which are impermanent. Such a statement is something never heard before. Or it can be explained as, Mahat etc. are the same as this Prakriti, but it is not like this Prakriti which is permanent. Such a statement is also something never heard before.

'As such, transformation arises to inner sea and outer sea': Furthermore, due to the differentiation by the Karma-vayu (wind of karma), treasures and water form mountains and continents, as well as inner seas and outer seas.

'As such, the nine mountains to the same amount of water outflow': It explains the two measurements of the height and width of the nine mountains. The amount of water entering is all equal, and the amount of water flowing out is reduced by half. The width is the same as the amount of water flowing out. It can be understood with careful consideration.

'Verse says to twenty-two thousand': This is the third part, explaining the eight seas. The width of the first sea is eighty thousand Yojana. If the length is approximately the circumference of the inner side of Yugamdhara Mountain, facing the eighty thousand Yojana of the outer side of Mount Sumeru on its four sides, the numbers are each three times, three eights are twenty-four, so the total is two hundred and forty thousand Yojana. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself. If based on the 'Praising the Pure Land Sutra', the description of the eight qualities of water (Asta guna samannagata) is: 1. Clear and pure, 2. Clean, 3. Sweet and delicious, 4. Light and soft, 5. Moistening, 6. Peaceful and harmonious, 7. When drinking, it can eliminate countless faults such as hunger and thirst, 8. After drinking, it will definitely nourish the roots and the four elements, and increase all kinds of excellent good roots.

'Verse says to inhabited by Rakshasas': This is the fourth part, explaining the four continents. Among them, one is explaining the four continents, and the other is explaining the eight intermediate continents. The terrain of India is narrow in the front and wide in the back, so it is used as a metaphor. The body that the Bodhisattva ultimately relies on can hold this Samadhi (concentration). And the place of Vajrasana (Diamond Throne) can hold this Samadhi. Because there is no other body to rely on, and other places, there is firm strength to hold this Samadhi. The power of this Samadhi is great, and other dependencies and other places cannot hold it. The eight intermediate continents are: Camara, which means cat-cow; Varacamara, which means victory.

貓牛　提訶。此云身　毗提訶。此云勝身　舍搋。此云諂　嗢怛邏漫怛里拏。此云上議　矩拉婆。此云勝邊　憍拉婆。此云有勝邊。於二說中初說為正。故婆沙一百七十二云。此八洲中人形短小。如此方侏儒。有說七洲是人所住。遮末邏洲唯邏剎娑居。有說此所說八。即是四大洲之異名。以一一洲皆有二異名故。如是說者應如初說。

頌曰至以立洲號者。此即第五明黑山等　香醉山。謂此山中有諸香氣。嗅令人醉故名香醉　一殑伽河。從東面出繞池一匝入東海　二信度河。從南面出繞池一匝入南海　三徙多河。從北面出繞池一匝入北海。即是此方盟津河也　四縛芻河。從西面出繞池一匝入西海。

復於何處至餘八寒地獄者。此下第六明地獄。若言捺落迦顯受罪處。若言那落迦。顯能受罪人。

論曰至在無間傍者。阿名為無。毗旨名間。此論兩釋。正理更有一說云。有說無隙立無間名。雖有情少而身大故　又婆沙一百一十五云。答依異熟果說名無間。以諸有情造大惡業生彼地獄得廣大身。一一身形悉皆廣大。遍彼多處中無間隙。故名無間(解云遍彼多處者。非是一一身形皆遍彼處。隨生多少遍彼處所)　又婆沙一百七十二。一說雖亦有間假說無間。有說彼處恒受苦受無喜樂間故名無間。有說眾多有情

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本貓牛(Mao Niu)：提訶(Ti He)。這裡指身體。毗提訶(Pi Ti He)：這裡指殊勝的身體。舍搋(She Chi)：這裡指諂媚。嗢怛邏漫怛里拏(Wu Da La Man Da Li Nu)：這裡指上等的議論。矩拉婆(Ju La Po)：這裡指殊勝的邊。憍拉婆(Jiao La Po)：這裡指具有殊勝的邊。在兩種說法中，第一種說法是正確的。因此，《婆沙論》第一百七十二卷說，這八個洲中，人的形狀短小，就像這個地方的侏儒。有人說七個洲是人居住的，遮末邏洲(Zhe Mo Luo Zhou)只有邏剎娑(Luo Cha Suo)居住。有人說這裡所說的八個洲，就是四大洲的異名，因為每一個洲都有兩個不同的名字。如果這樣說，應該按照第一種說法。

頌曰：至於用以建立洲的名稱。這指的是第五點，說明黑山等香醉山(Xiang Zui Shan)。指的是這座山中有各種香氣，聞了使人陶醉，所以叫做香醉山。一、殑伽河(Jing Jia He)：從東面流出，環繞水池一週，流入東海。二、信度河(Xin Du He)：從南面流出，環繞水池一週，流入南海。三、徙多河(Xi Duo He)：從北面流出，環繞水池一週，流入北海，就是這個地方的盟津河。四、縛芻河(Fu Chu He)：從西面流出，環繞水池一週，流入西海。

又在什麼地方到其餘八個寒冷地獄呢？這以下第六點說明地獄。如果說捺落迦(Na Luo Jia)，顯示的是受罪的地方。如果說那落迦(Na Luo Jia)，顯示的是能夠受罪的人。

論曰：至於在無間地獄旁邊。《阿毗達磨俱舍論》中，阿(A)的意思是沒有，毗旨(Pi Zhi)的意思是間隙。這個論典有兩種解釋。《正理經》還有一種說法是，有人說沒有空隙，所以叫做無間。雖然眾生很少，但是身體很大。另外，《婆沙論》第一百一十五卷說，回答說，依據異熟果報而說，叫做無間。因為各種眾生造作大的惡業，生到那個地獄，得到廣大的身體。每一個身形都非常廣大，遍佈那個地方，沒有間隙，所以叫做無間（解釋說，遍佈那個地方，不是說一個身形遍佈那個地方，而是隨著所生的多少，遍佈那個地方）。另外，《婆沙論》第一百七十二卷說，一種說法是，雖然也有間隙，但是假說為無間。有人說，那個地方恒常遭受痛苦，沒有喜樂的間隙，所以叫做無間。有人說，眾多的眾生

【English Translation】 English version Mao Niu: Ti He. This refers to the body. Pi Ti He: This refers to the superior body. She Chi: This refers to flattery. Wu Da La Man Da Li Nu: This refers to superior deliberation. Ju La Po: This refers to the superior side. Jiao La Po: This refers to having a superior side. Among the two explanations, the first one is correct. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Volume 172, says that among these eight continents, the shape of humans is short and small, like dwarfs in this place. Some say that seven continents are inhabited by humans, and the Camara continent is only inhabited by Rakshasas. Some say that the eight continents mentioned here are different names for the four great continents, because each continent has two different names. If it is said this way, it should be according to the first explanation.

Verse: As for using it to establish the name of the continent. This refers to the fifth point, explaining the Black Mountain, etc., Xiang Zui Shan (Fragrant Intoxication Mountain). It refers to this mountain having various fragrances, smelling which makes people intoxicated, so it is called Xiang Zui Shan. 1. Ganga River: Flows out from the east, circles the pond once, and flows into the East Sea. 2. Sindhu River: Flows out from the south, circles the pond once, and flows into the South Sea. 3. Sita River: Flows out from the north, circles the pond once, and flows into the North Sea, which is the Mengjin River in this place. 4. Vaksu River: Flows out from the west, circles the pond once, and flows into the West Sea.

Also, where are the remaining eight cold hells? The following sixth point explains hell. If it is said Naraka, it shows the place of suffering. If it is said Naraka, it shows the person who can suffer.

Treatise: As for being next to the Avici hell. In the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, 'A' means 'without', and 'Vijhi' means 'gap'. This treatise has two explanations. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra also has a saying that some say there is no gap, so it is called Avici. Although there are few sentient beings, their bodies are very large. Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Volume 115, says that in response, it is said to be called Avici based on the Vipāka result. Because various sentient beings create great evil karma, are born in that hell, and obtain vast bodies. Each body is very vast, pervading that place without gaps, so it is called Avici (explaining that pervading that place does not mean that one body pervades that place, but rather, depending on how many are born, it pervades that place). Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Volume 172, says that one explanation is that although there are gaps, it is falsely said to be Avici. Some say that that place constantly suffers, without gaps of joy and happiness, so it is called Avici. Some say that many sentient beings

造作惡業相續生彼。滿彼處所故名無間。評曰不應作是說。生餘地獄多生無間者少。所以者何。以造作增長上品身．語．意惡業者乃生彼處。有情造作增長上品惡業。生彼處者少。造作增長中．下品惡業。生餘地獄者多。如造作增長上品善業。生有頂者少。造作增長中．下品善業。生余處者多故。應作是說。由造作增長上品不善業。生彼所得身形廣大。一一有情據多處所中無間隙故名無間　問地獄在何處。答多分在此贍部洲下。云何安立。有說從此洲下四萬逾繕那至無間地獄底。無間地獄縱廣高下二萬逾繕那。次上一萬九千逾繕那中。安立餘七地獄。一一縱廣萬逾繕那。有說從此洲下四萬逾繕那。至無間地獄。此無間地獄縱廣高下各二萬逾繕那。次上有三萬五千逾繕那。安立餘七地獄。一一縱廣高下各五千逾繕那。有說無間地獄在於中央。餘七地獄周匝圍繞。如今聚落圍繞大城(已上論文)釋餘七地獄名如前已述。

八捺落迦至故說為增者。解十六增。門各有四四重圍繞塹最在外　所言增者　第一解云。此是增上被刑害所故說名增　第二解云。本地獄中適被害已。重遭害故故名為增　第三解云有說有情從地獄出已。數更遭此苦故說為增。此約出本地獄已數數受苦名增。故與第二不同。正理更有一解云。或於此中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本造作惡業相續不斷，因此生於彼處。因其充滿整個處所，故名為『無間』。評論說，不應這樣說。因為生於其他地獄的多，而生於無間地獄的少。為什麼呢？因為只有造作並增長上品身、語、意惡業的人才會生於彼處。眾生造作並增長上品惡業，而生於彼處的人很少。造作並增長中品、下品惡業，而生於其他地獄的人多。如同造作並增長上品善業，而生於有頂天（世界的最高處）的人少。造作並增長中品、下品善業，而生於其他處所的人多一樣。所以應該這樣說，由於造作並增長上品不善業，生於彼處所得的身形廣大，每一個眾生佔據多個處所，中間沒有間隙，所以名為『無間』。問：地獄在什麼地方？答：大部分在此贍部洲（Jambudvipa，我們所居住的洲）之下。如何安置呢？有人說，從此洲下四萬逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）到達無間地獄的底部。無間地獄縱廣高下二萬逾繕那。再往上一萬九千逾繕那中，安置其餘七個地獄。每一個縱廣一萬逾繕那。有人說，從此洲下四萬逾繕那，到達無間地獄。此無間地獄縱廣高下各二萬逾繕那。再往上有三萬五千逾繕那，安置其餘七個地獄。每一個縱廣高下各五千逾繕那。有人說，無間地獄在於中央，其餘七個地獄周匝圍繞，如同現在的聚落圍繞大城。（以上是論文內容）其餘七個地獄的名稱如前所述。『八捺落迦（Naraka，地獄）』至『故說為增者』，解釋十六增。每個門各有四個，四重圍繞的塹溝在最外層。所說的『增』，第一種解釋是，這是增上被刑害的地方，所以說名為『增』。第二種解釋是，在本地獄中剛被傷害后，又再次遭受傷害，所以名為『增』。第三種解釋是，有人說眾生從地獄出來后，多次再次遭受此苦，所以說為『增』。這是指從本地獄出來后，多次遭受痛苦名為『增』，所以與第二種解釋不同。正理論中還有一種解釋是，或者於此中...

【English Translation】 English version Those who continuously create evil karma are born there. Because it fills the entire place, it is called 'Avici' (無間, uninterrupted). The commentary says that it should not be said this way, because more beings are born in other hells, and fewer are born in Avici. Why? Because only those who create and increase superior physical, verbal, and mental evil karma are born there. Few sentient beings create and increase superior evil karma and are born there. Many create and increase medium and inferior evil karma and are born in other hells. Just as few who create and increase superior good karma are born in Akanistha (有頂天, the highest heaven), many who create and increase medium and inferior good karma are born in other places. Therefore, it should be said that due to creating and increasing superior unwholesome karma, the body obtained there is vast, and each sentient being occupies multiple places without any gaps in between, hence it is called 'Avici'. Question: Where is hell located? Answer: Mostly below this Jambudvipa (贍部洲, the continent we live on). How is it arranged? Some say that from below this continent, 40,000 Yojana (逾繕那, an ancient Indian unit of length) to the bottom of Avici hell. Avici hell is 20,000 Yojana in length, width, and height. Above that, in 19,000 Yojana, the remaining seven hells are arranged. Each one is 10,000 Yojana in length and width. Some say that from below this continent, 40,000 Yojana to Avici hell. This Avici hell is 20,000 Yojana in length, width, and height. Above that, in 35,000 Yojana, the remaining seven hells are arranged. Each one is 5,000 Yojana in length, width, and height. Some say that Avici hell is in the center, and the remaining seven hells surround it, like villages surrounding a large city. (The above is the content of the thesis.) The names of the remaining seven hells have been mentioned before. 'The eight Naraka (捺落迦, hells)' to 'hence it is said to be augmented,' explains the sixteen augmentations. Each gate has four, and the fourfold surrounding moat is on the outermost layer. The so-called 'augmentation,' the first explanation is that this is a place where one is increasingly harmed by punishment, hence it is called 'augmentation.' The second explanation is that after being harmed in the local hell, one is harmed again, hence it is called 'augmentation.' The third explanation is that some say that after sentient beings come out of hell, they repeatedly suffer this pain again, hence it is called 'augmentation.' This refers to repeatedly suffering after coming out of the local hell, which is called 'augmentation,' so it is different from the second explanation. There is another explanation in the Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya, or in this...

受種種苦。苦具多類故說為增　[廿/縳]伽此云功德。梵此云具。

今於此中至是有情不者。問。

有說非情者。答。

如何動作者。徴。

有情業力如成劫風者。解。

若爾云何至死作琰魔率者。難。既死作率。明知是有情。

琰魔王使至非實有情者。通難可知。

有說有情者敘異說。

若爾此惡業何處受異熟者。問。

即地獄中至此何理遮者。答。獄率惡業果。即地獄中受。以地獄中尚容受彼五無間業所感大果。況此獄率惡業小果而不容受。此何理遮。

若爾何緣火不燒彼者。難。

此定由業力至故不被燒者。兩釋可知。又正理三十一云。無間．大熱．及炎熱三。于中皆無獄率防守。大叫．號叫．及眾合三。少有獄率。琰王使時時往來巡撿彼故。其餘皆為獄率防守。有情．無情．異類獄率。防守治罰罪有情故。

熱捺落迦至寒捺落迦者。此下明八寒。結前生下。

其八者何者。問。

一頞部陀至大地獄傍者。答　頞部陀。此云皰。嚴寒逼身其身皰也　尼剌部陀。此云皰裂。嚴寒逼身身皰裂也。次三寒逼口出異聲　嗢缽羅。此云青蓮花。嚴寒逼切身變拆裂如青蓮花　缽特摩。此云紅蓮花。嚴寒逼切身變拆裂如紅蓮花　摩

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：遭受種種痛苦。因為痛苦的種類繁多，所以說這是『增』。[廿/縳]伽（bandha），這裡的意思是功德。梵語的意思是『具』。

現在在這裡討論，這些獄卒是有情還是非有情？（問）

有人說是非有情。（答）

那麼，它們是如何動作的呢？（徴）

由於有情的業力，就像形成劫末的風一樣。（解）

如果這樣，為什麼說『死後才成為閻魔王的獄卒』呢？（難）既然是死後才成為獄卒，明顯可知是有情。

閻魔王的使者實際上並非有情。（通難，可知其意）

有人說是有情。（敘述不同的觀點）

如果是這樣，那麼這些惡業在哪裡承受異熟果報呢？（問）

就在地獄中承受，有什麼理由阻止呢？（答）獄卒是惡業的果報，就在地獄中承受。因為地獄中尚且能夠容納五無間業所感的大果報，何況這些獄卒惡業的小果報而不能容納呢？有什麼理由阻止呢？

如果這樣，為什麼火焰不能燒傷它們呢？（難）

這一定是由於業力的緣故，所以不會被燒傷。（兩種解釋，可知其意）另外，《正理》第三十一卷說：『無間』、『大熱』和『炎熱』這三種地獄中，都沒有獄卒防守。『大叫』、『號叫』和『眾合』這三種地獄中，只有少量的獄卒。閻魔王的使者時常往來巡視。其餘的地獄都由獄卒防守。有情、無情、異類的獄卒，防守和懲罰有罪的有情。

從熱捺落迦（Naraka，地獄）到寒捺落迦（Naraka，地獄）。（以下說明八寒地獄，總結前文，引出下文）

這八種是什麼呢？（問）

第一是頞部陀（Arbuda，皰地獄）到大地獄的旁邊。（答）頞部陀（Arbuda），這裡的意思是『皰』。嚴寒逼迫身體，身體生皰。尼剌部陀（Nirarbuda），這裡的意思是『皰裂』。嚴寒逼迫身體，身體的皰裂開。接下來三種寒冷逼迫，口中發出不同的聲音。嗢缽羅（Utpala），這裡的意思是『青蓮花』。嚴寒逼切，身體變得拆裂，像青蓮花一樣。缽特摩（Padma），這裡的意思是『紅蓮花』。嚴寒逼切，身體變得拆裂，像紅蓮花一樣。摩

【English Translation】 English version: Suffering various kinds of pain. Because there are many kinds of suffering, it is said to be 'increase'. Bandha (縳伽), here means merit. In Sanskrit, it means 'possessed'.

Now, in this context, are these prison guards sentient or non-sentient beings? (Question)

Some say they are non-sentient beings. (Answer)

Then, how do they act? (Inquiry)

Due to the karma of sentient beings, it is like the wind that forms at the end of a kalpa (aeon). (Explanation)

If so, why is it said that 'one becomes a Yama's (閻魔王) jailer after death'? (Objection) Since one becomes a jailer after death, it is clear that they are sentient beings.

Yama's (閻魔王) messengers are not actually sentient beings. (Clarification of the objection, the meaning is understandable)

Some say they are sentient beings. (Narrating different views)

If so, where do these evil karmas receive their different ripening (vipāka) results? (Question)

They are received in hell, what reason is there to prevent it? (Answer) The prison guards are the result of evil karma, received in hell. Because hell can still accommodate the great results caused by the five unpardonable (anantariya) karmas, how could it not accommodate the small results of these prison guards' evil karma? What reason is there to prevent it?

If so, why doesn't the fire burn them? (Objection)

This must be due to the power of karma, so they are not burned. (Two explanations, the meaning is understandable) Furthermore, the thirty-first volume of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'In the three hells of Avīci (無間), Mahātapa (大熱), and Tapana (炎熱), there are no prison guards. In the three hells of Arbuda (大叫), Nirarbuda (號叫), and Saṃghāta (眾合), there are few prison guards. Yama's (閻魔王) messengers frequently come and go to inspect them. The remaining hells are guarded by prison guards. Sentient, non-sentient, and different kinds of prison guards guard and punish sentient beings who have committed sins.'

From hot Naraka (捺落迦) to cold Naraka (捺落迦). (The following explains the eight cold hells, summarizing the previous text and introducing the following text)

What are these eight? (Question)

The first is Arbuda (頞部陀) to the side of the great hell. (Answer) Arbuda (頞部陀), here means 'blister'. Severe cold oppresses the body, and the body develops blisters. Nirarbuda (尼剌部陀), here means 'blister burst'. Severe cold oppresses the body, and the body's blisters burst. Next, the three cold oppressions cause different sounds to come from the mouth. Utpala (嗢缽羅), here means 'blue lotus'. Severe cold presses, and the body becomes torn apart like a blue lotus. Padma (缽特摩), here means 'red lotus'. Severe cold presses, and the body becomes torn apart like a red lotus. Ma

訶缽特摩。此云大紅蓮花。嚴寒逼切身變拆裂如大紅蓮花。此中有情嚴寒所逼。前二后三隨身變故以立其名。中三隨聲變故以立其名　又解前二隨身立名。中三隨聲立名。后三隨色變立名。又正理云。此中有情嚴寒所逼。隨身．聲．瘡變立差別想名。謂二．三．三如其次第(已上論文)　此八並居贍部洲下。如前所說大地獄傍。又正理一說云。此寒地獄在繞四洲輪圍山外極冥闇所。

此贍部洲至無間等耶者。問。洲量極狹獄量極寬。如何地下容受無間等。

洲如谷聚至漸陜漸深者。答可知。

如上所論至支派不定者。十六大獄增上業招。余孤地獄隨有情類各別業招。或多有情。或二有情。或一有情。于中所止。差別多種處所不定。或近江河等。或在空中。或在海等余處。諸地獄器安布如是。本處地下。后時支派流轉不定。

傍生住處至廣說如經者。義便兼明傍生．鬼處。正理論云此贍部洲南邊直下深過五百逾繕那量有琰魔王都。縱廣亦爾　以此文證明知金剛座近北。諸地獄等在王都下稍近南邊不相妨也。

日月所居至故見月輪缺者。此下第七明日．月。初句明日．月近遠。第二句明日．月體量。次兩句明四時。后兩行明晝夜增減。

論日至依何而住者。問。

依風而住至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『訶缽特摩』(Arabuda) ，意為『大紅蓮花』。嚴寒逼迫，身體變拆裂開，如同大紅蓮花一般。此地獄中的有情眾生，因嚴寒逼迫，身體發生前後兩次、中間三次的變化，以此來立名。中間的三次變化，是根據聲音的變化來立名。另一種解釋是，前兩次變化根據身體立名，中間三次根據聲音立名，后三次根據顏色變化立名。又《正理》中說，此地獄中的有情眾生，因嚴寒逼迫，根據身體、聲音、瘡的變化，建立不同的想法和名稱，分別是二、三、三（以上是論文內容）。這八種地獄都位於贍部洲(Jambudvipa)之下，如前所述，在大地獄的旁邊。另《正理》中一種說法是，這種寒冷地獄位於環繞四大洲的輪圍山(Cakravada)之外，極其黑暗的地方。

『此贍部洲至無間等耶者』，問：贍部洲的面積極其狹小，地獄的面積極其寬廣，如何在地下容納無間地獄(Avici)等？

『洲如谷聚至漸陜漸深者』，答：可知。

『如上所論至支派不定者』，十六大獄是由於增長的業力所招感。其餘孤立地獄，則隨有情眾生的各自業力所招感。或者多個有情，或者兩個有情，或者一個有情，在其中居住。差別多種多樣，處所不定。或者靠近江河等，或者在空中，或者在海洋等其他地方。各種地獄的器物安放佈置就是這樣。根本處所位於地下，後來的支派流轉不定。

『傍生住處至廣說如經者』，文中的含義也包含了傍生(Tiryagyoni)和餓鬼(Preta)的住處。《正理論》中說，此贍部洲南邊直下，深度超過五百逾繕那(Yojana)，有琰魔王(Yama)的都城，縱橫也一樣。以此文證明，可知金剛座(Vajrasana)靠近北方，各種地獄等位於琰魔王都城的下方，稍微靠近南方，互不妨礙。

『日月所居至故見月輪缺者』，此下第七，明日月。第一句說明日月遠近。第二句說明日月體量。接下來兩句說明四季。最後兩行說明晝夜增減。

『論日至依何而住者』，問：『依風而住至』

【English Translation】 English version 『Arabuda』 (訶缽特摩): This means 『Great Red Lotus』. Due to the intense cold, the body breaks and splits open, resembling a great red lotus. The sentient beings in this hell, tormented by the severe cold, undergo two changes at the beginning and end, and three in the middle, hence the name. The three changes in the middle are named according to the changes in sound. Another explanation is that the first two changes are named according to the body, the middle three according to the sound, and the last three according to the changes in color. Furthermore, the Nyayanusara states that the sentient beings in this hell, tormented by the severe cold, establish different thoughts and names based on the changes in body, sound, and sores, namely two, three, and three respectively (the above is the content of the treatise). These eight hells are all located below Jambudvipa (贍部洲), as mentioned earlier, beside the great hells. Another statement in the Nyayanusara is that these cold hells are located outside the Cakravada (輪圍山) mountains surrounding the four continents, in extremely dark places.

『Does this Jambudvipa (贍部洲) extend to Avici (無間)?』 Question: The area of Jambudvipa is extremely small, while the area of the hells is extremely vast. How can Avici and other hells be accommodated underground?

『The continent is like a pile of grain, gradually narrowing and deepening.』 Answer: It is knowable.

『As discussed above, regarding the branches being uncertain,』 the sixteen great hells are the result of accumulated karma. The remaining solitary hells are the result of each sentient being's individual karma. There may be many sentient beings, two sentient beings, or one sentient being residing in them. The differences are diverse, and the locations are uncertain. They may be near rivers, in the air, or in the sea or other places. The arrangement of the various hellish implements is such. The fundamental location is underground, but the subsequent branches are uncertain and flow around.

『The dwelling places of animals, as extensively described in the sutras,』 the meaning also includes the dwelling places of animals (Tiryagyoni 傍生) and hungry ghosts (Preta 餓鬼). The Nyayānusāra states that directly below the southern edge of this Jambudvipa, at a depth of over five hundred Yojanas (逾繕那), is the city of King Yama (琰魔王), with the same extent in length and width. This passage proves that the Vajrasana (金剛座) is near the north, and the various hells are located below the city of King Yama, slightly closer to the south, without interfering with each other.

『The dwelling place of the sun and moon, hence we see the moon's disc waning,』 below this, the seventh, concerns the sun and moon. The first sentence explains the distance of the sun and moon. The second sentence explains the size of the sun and moon. The next two sentences explain the four seasons. The last two lines explain the increase and decrease of day and night.

『Regarding the sun, on what does it rely to dwell?』 Question: 『It relies on the wind to dwell, until』

令不停墜者。答。

彼所住去此至妙高山半者。正釋初句。

日月徑量至為益為損者。釋第二句兼顯星量。日．月二體隨有情業增上所生。能于眼等為益為損。如遇日光眼見諸色。身冷得暖。果熟。花開。稼穡等物皆得成熟。此即為益　或如遇日光不能見色。蝙．蝮等。患熱身損。果壞。花萎。稼穡等物皆悉枯槁。此即為損　如遇月光蝙．蝮等眼能見諸色。身熱得涼。果熟。花開。稼穡等物皆得成熟。此即為益　或遇月光不能遠見色。如人等眼患冷身損。果壞。花萎。稼穡等物皆悉枯槁。此即為損　損．益不同故言如其所應為益為損。

唯一日月至余例應知者。釋第三．第四句。思之可知。

日行此洲至晝則漸增者。言晝夜增減者。印度國法分十二月為三際。一熱際有四月。二雨際有四月。三寒際有四月。隨其方俗立三際不同。又以十六日為月一日。以十五日為月滿日。復分一月為二。前十五日為黑半。后十五日為白半　若依泰法師意解。從二月十六日至六月十五日為熱際四月。從六月十六日至十月十五日為雨際四月。從十月十六日至二月十五日為寒際四月。是即雨際第二月後半第九日夜漸增。當此間八月九日。寒際第四月後半第九日晝漸增。當此間二月九日。從秋分日已去乃至春分日已前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『令不停墜者。』答：『彼所住去此至妙高山（Sumeru）半者。』正釋初句。『日月徑量至為益為損者。』釋第二句兼顯星量。日、月二體隨有情業增上所生。能于眼等為益為損。如遇日光眼見諸色。身冷得暖。果熟。花開。稼穡等物皆得成熟。此即為益。或如遇日光不能見色。蝙、蝮等。患熱身損。果壞。花萎。稼穡等物皆悉枯槁。此即為損。如遇月光蝙、蝮等眼能見諸色。身熱得涼。果熟。花開。稼穡等物皆得成熟。此即為益。或遇月光不能遠見色。如人等眼患冷身損。果壞。花萎。稼穡等物皆悉枯槁。此即為損。損益不同故言如其所應為益為損。『唯一日月至余例應知者。』釋第三、第四句。思之可知。『日行此洲至晝則漸增者。』言晝夜增減者。印度國法分十二月為三際。一熱際有四月。二雨際有四月。三寒際有四月。隨其方俗立三際不同。又以十六日為月一日。以十五日為月滿日。復分一月為二。前十五日為黑半。后十五日為白半。若依泰法師意解。從二月十六日至六月十五日為熱際四月。從六月十六日至十月十五日為雨際四月。從十月十六日至二月十五日為寒際四月。是即雨際第二月後半第九日夜漸增。當此間八月九日。寒際第四月後半第九日晝漸增。當此間二月九日。從秋分日已去乃至春分日已前

【English Translation】 English version: 『That which causes continuous falling.』 Answer: 『That which dwells, going from here to halfway up Mount Sumeru (妙高山).』 This correctly explains the first sentence. 『The diameter of the sun and moon, whether it is beneficial or detrimental.』 This explains the second sentence and also reveals the measurement of the stars. The sun and moon are two entities that arise from the increasing karma of sentient beings. They can be beneficial or detrimental to the eyes, etc. For example, when encountering sunlight, the eyes can see various colors, the body feels warm, fruits ripen, flowers bloom, and crops mature. This is beneficial. Or, when encountering sunlight, one cannot see colors, like bats and vipers. They suffer from heat and their bodies are harmed, fruits spoil, flowers wither, and crops wither and dry up. This is detrimental. When encountering moonlight, bats and vipers can see various colors, the body feels cool, fruits ripen, flowers bloom, and crops mature. This is beneficial. Or, when encountering moonlight, one cannot see colors from afar, like humans, and the eyes suffer from cold and the body is harmed, fruits spoil, flowers wither, and crops wither and dry up. This is detrimental. Because benefit and detriment are different, it is said that it is beneficial or detrimental as appropriate. 『The single sun and moon, and the rest should be known accordingly.』 This explains the third and fourth sentences. It can be understood through contemplation. 『The sun travels in this continent, until the day gradually increases.』 This speaks of the increase and decrease of day and night. The Indian system divides the twelve months into three seasons: the hot season with four months, the rainy season with four months, and the cold season with four months. The three seasons are established differently according to local customs. Furthermore, the 16th day is considered the first day of the month, and the 15th day is considered the full day of the month. The month is divided into two halves: the first fifteen days are the dark half, and the last fifteen days are the white half. According to the interpretation of Dharma Master Tai, the four months of the hot season are from February 16th to June 15th. The four months of the rainy season are from June 16th to October 15th. The four months of the cold season are from October 16th to February 15th. That is, the night gradually increases on the ninth day of the second half of the second month of the rainy season, which corresponds to August 9th here. The day gradually increases on the ninth day of the second half of the fourth month of the cold season, which corresponds to February 9th here, from the autumnal equinox onwards until before the vernal equinox.

說夜增。雖冬至日已去晝漸增。夜仍長晝故說夜增。從春分日已去乃至秋分日已前說晝增。雖夏至日已去夜漸增。晝仍長夜故說晝增　若作此解。即與此論相違。此論云。日行此洲向南向北。如其次第夜增晝增準此論文日向南夜增。如何從冬至日已去日向北說夜增。準此論文日向北晝增。如何從夏至日已去日向南說晝增。又與婆沙一百三十六相違。彼論云至摩伽陀月(當此間十一月)白半之日夜有十八(解云十八牟呼栗多)。晝有十二(解云十二牟呼栗多)。從此以後晝增夜減。又云至室羅筏拏月(當此間五月)白半之日夜有十二。晝有十八。從此以後晝減夜增　以此文證準知夜極長已去說晝增夜減。晝極長已去說夜增晝減。若說秋分已去夜增晝減。春分已去晝增夜減。即與此文相違　又真諦法師立三際云。從此間正月十六日至五月十五日為熱際四月。從五月十六日至九月十五日為雨際四月。從九月十六日至正月十五日為寒際四月。雨際第二月後半第九日夜漸增。當此間七月九日。寒際第四月後半第九日夜漸減。當此間正月九日　難曰此亦非理。若言七月九日說夜漸增為據何時。若言夜極短已去說夜增。即夏至已過。若言晝夜齊等已去說夜增。復秋分日未至。若言正月九日說夜漸減。為據何時。若言夜極長已去說夜減

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本說夜增。即使冬至日已過，白天逐漸增長，夜晚仍然很長，所以說夜晚增長。從春分日已過直到秋分日之前，說白天增長。即使夏至日已過，夜晚逐漸增長，白天仍然很長，所以說白天增長。如果這樣解釋，就與這部論典相違背。這部論典說：『太陽執行於此洲，向南向北，依次是夜晚增長，白天增長。』按照這部論典，太陽向南執行，夜晚增長，那麼從冬至日已過，太陽向北執行，怎麼能說夜晚增長呢？按照這部論典，太陽向北執行，白天增長，那麼從夏至日已過，太陽向南執行，怎麼能說白天增長呢？又與《婆沙論》第一百三十六卷相違背。該論典說：『到摩伽陀月（Magadha month，指印度歷的月份，相當於此地的十一月）白半之日，夜晚有十八（解說為十八牟呼栗多（Muhurta），印度古代的時間單位），白天有十二（解說為十二牟呼栗多）。從此以後，白天增長，夜晚減少。』又說：『到室羅筏拏月（Sravana month，指印度歷的月份，相當於此地的五月）白半之日，夜晚有十二，白天有十八。從此以後，白天減少，夜晚增長。』根據這些文字可以知道，夜晚最長之後，就說白天增長，夜晚減少。白天最長之後，就說夜晚增長，白天減少。如果說秋分已過，夜晚增長，白天減少；春分已過，白天增長，夜晚減少，就與這些文字相違背。另外，真諦法師（Paramārtha）立三際說：從這裡（指中國）正月十六日到五月十五日為熱際四個月，從五月十六日到九月十五日為雨際四個月，從九月十六日到正月十五日為寒際四個月。雨際第二個月後半第九日，夜晚逐漸增長，相當於這裡的七月九日。寒際第四個月後半第九日，夜晚逐漸減少，相當於這裡的正月九日。提問：這種說法也不合理。如果說七月九日說夜晚逐漸增長，是根據什麼時候說的呢？如果說是夜晚最短之後說夜晚增長，那麼夏至已經過了。如果說是晝夜相等之後說夜晚增長，那麼秋分日還沒有到。如果說正月九日說夜晚逐漸減少，是根據什麼時候說的呢？如果說是夜晚最長之後說夜晚減少。

【English Translation】 English version It is said that the night increases. Although the winter solstice has passed and the days are gradually increasing, the nights are still long, so it is said that the night increases. From the vernal equinox onwards until before the autumnal equinox, it is said that the day increases. Although the summer solstice has passed and the nights are gradually increasing, the days are still long, so it is said that the day increases. If this explanation is made, it contradicts this treatise. This treatise says: 'The sun travels in this continent, towards the south and towards the north, and in that order, the night increases and the day increases.' According to this treatise, when the sun travels south, the night increases, so how can it be said that the night increases from the winter solstice onwards when the sun travels north? According to this treatise, when the sun travels north, the day increases, so how can it be said that the day increases from the summer solstice onwards when the sun travels south? Furthermore, it contradicts the one hundred and thirty-sixth fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra). That treatise says: 'On the white half day of the month of Magadha (Magadha month, corresponding to the eleventh month here), the night has eighteen (explained as eighteen Muhurtas (Muhurta), an ancient Indian unit of time), and the day has twelve (explained as twelve Muhurtas). From then on, the day increases and the night decreases.' It also says: 'On the white half day of the month of Sravana (Sravana month, corresponding to the fifth month here), the night has twelve, and the day has eighteen. From then on, the day decreases and the night increases.' According to these texts, it is known that after the night is at its longest, it is said that the day increases and the night decreases. After the day is at its longest, it is said that the night increases and the day decreases. If it is said that after the autumnal equinox, the night increases and the day decreases; and after the vernal equinox, the day increases and the night decreases, it contradicts these texts. Furthermore, the Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha (Paramārtha) establishes the three seasons, saying: From the sixteenth day of the first month to the fifteenth day of the fifth month here (referring to China) is the hot season of four months; from the sixteenth day of the fifth month to the fifteenth day of the ninth month is the rainy season of four months; from the sixteenth day of the ninth month to the fifteenth day of the first month is the cold season of four months. On the ninth day of the second half of the second month of the rainy season, the night gradually increases, corresponding to the ninth day of the seventh month here. On the ninth day of the second half of the fourth month of the cold season, the night gradually decreases, corresponding to the ninth day of the first month here. Objection: This statement is also unreasonable. If it is said that the night gradually increases on the ninth day of the seventh month, according to what time is it said? If it is said that the night increases after the night is at its shortest, then the summer solstice has already passed. If it is said that the night increases after the day and night are equal, then the autumnal equinox has not yet arrived. If it is said that the night gradually decreases on the ninth day of the first month, according to what time is it said? If it is said that the night decreases after the night is at its longest?

。即冬至日已過。若言晝夜齊等已去說夜減。復春分日未至。此即與理相違。又與此論．及婆沙相違。此即與文相違。此真諦立三際約此間節氣以分。乍看似順細尋即違　又有一解云從十二月十六日至四月十五日為熱際四月。從四月十六日至八月十五日為雨際四月從八月十六日至十二月十五日為寒際四月。雨際第二月後半第九日夜漸增。當此間六月九日。寒際第四月後半第九日夜漸減。當此間十二月九日　難云若言六月九日說夜增。夏至日已過秋分未至還同前過。若言十二月九日說夜減。冬至已過春分未至還同前過。故亦非理。又論相違　今解云。西方諸國寒．熱．雨三時節不定。還隨方俗立三際異。世親菩薩造論處立三際。當此間從十一月十六日至三月十五日。為熱際四月。從三月十六日至七月十五日。為雨際四月。從七月十六日至十一月十五日。為寒際四月。其雨際第二月從後半第九日夜漸增。當此間五月九日。與夏至日稍得相當。此即夜極短已去說夜增。其寒際第四月後半第九日夜漸減。當此間十一月九日。與冬至日稍得相當。此即夜極長已去說夜減。說晝增減翻夜應知。此解乍看與此方節氣不同。然順論文。故論云。日行此洲向南向北。如其次第夜增晝增　亦順婆沙文如前說。

晝夜增時一晝夜增幾者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果說冬至日已經過去，再說晝夜齊等之後夜晚開始減少，而且春分日還未到來，這與道理相悖。這又與此論（指《俱舍論》）以及《婆沙論》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的簡稱）相違背，這實際上是與經文的字面意思相違背。如果真諦（Paramārtha，佛教術語，指勝義諦）是根據此地的節氣來劃分三際（指熱際、雨際、寒際）的話，乍一看似乎順理成章，但仔細推敲就會發現存在矛盾。還有一種解釋說，從十二月十六日到四月十五日是熱際四個月，從四月十六日到八月十五日是雨際四個月，從八月十六日到十二月十五日是寒際四個月。雨際的第二個月的後半第九天夜晚開始逐漸增長，相當於此地的六月九日。寒際的第四個月的後半第九天夜晚開始逐漸減少，相當於此地的十二月九日。有人反駁說，如果說六月九日夜晚開始增長，但夏至日已經過去，秋分日還未到來，這和前面的情況一樣存在矛盾。如果說十二月九日夜晚開始減少，但冬至日已經過去，春分日還未到來，這和前面的情況一樣存在矛盾，所以這種說法也不合理，而且與經論相違背。現在的解釋是，西方各國的寒、熱、雨三個季節的時間並不固定，而是根據各地的風俗習慣來確定不同的三際。世親菩薩（Vasubandhu，佛教論師）在造論的地方所確定的三際是：從十一月十六日到三月十五日是熱際四個月，從三月十六日到七月十五日是雨際四個月，從七月十六日到十一月十五日是寒際四個月。雨際的第二個月從後半第九天夜晚開始逐漸增長，相當於此地的五月九日，與夏至日大致相當，這是在夜晚最短之後開始說夜晚增長。寒際的第四個月後半第九天夜晚開始逐漸減少，相當於此地的十一月九日，與冬至日大致相當，這是在夜晚最長之後開始說夜晚減少。說白晝的增長和減少，反過來推算夜晚的變化就知道了。這種解釋乍一看與此地的節氣不同，但符合經論文義。所以經論中說，太陽執行到這個洲，向南或向北，依次是夜晚增長或白晝增長。這也符合《婆沙論》的說法，如前所述。晝夜增長的時間，一個晝夜增長多少呢？

【English Translation】 English version: If we say that the winter solstice has already passed, and then say that after the day and night are equal, the night begins to decrease, and the vernal equinox has not yet arrived, this contradicts reason. This also contradicts this treatise (referring to the Abhidharmakośa) and the Vibhasa (short for Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra), which is actually contrary to the literal meaning of the scriptures. If Paramārtha (ultimate truth) is based on the local solar terms to divide the three seasons (referring to the hot season, rainy season, and cold season), it seems reasonable at first glance, but careful consideration will reveal contradictions. There is another explanation that from December 16th to April 15th is the hot season of four months, from April 16th to August 15th is the rainy season of four months, and from August 16th to December 15th is the cold season of four months. On the ninth day of the second half of the second month of the rainy season, the night begins to gradually increase, which is equivalent to June 9th in this place. On the ninth day of the second half of the fourth month of the cold season, the night begins to gradually decrease, which is equivalent to December 9th in this place. Someone retorted that if it is said that the night begins to increase on June 9th, but the summer solstice has passed and the autumnal equinox has not yet arrived, this is the same contradiction as before. If it is said that the night begins to decrease on December 9th, but the winter solstice has passed and the vernal equinox has not yet arrived, this is the same contradiction as before, so this statement is also unreasonable and contradicts the scriptures. The current explanation is that the timing of the three seasons of cold, heat, and rain in Western countries is not fixed, but different seasons are determined according to local customs. The three seasons determined by Vasubandhu (Buddhist philosopher) in the place where he wrote the treatise are: from November 16th to March 15th is the hot season of four months, from March 16th to July 15th is the rainy season of four months, and from July 16th to November 15th is the cold season of four months. From the ninth day of the second half of the second month of the rainy season, the night begins to gradually increase, which is equivalent to May 9th in this place, which is roughly equivalent to the summer solstice. This is when the night is the shortest and then it is said that the night increases. On the ninth day of the second half of the fourth month of the cold season, the night begins to gradually decrease, which is equivalent to November 9th in this place, which is roughly equivalent to the winter solstice. This is when the night is the longest and then it is said that the night decreases. Knowing the increase and decrease of the day, you can infer the changes of the night. This explanation seems different from the local solar terms at first glance, but it conforms to the meaning of the scriptures. Therefore, the scriptures say that the sun travels to this continent, southward or northward, and the night increases or the day increases accordingly. This also conforms to the statement of the Vibhasa, as mentioned before. How much does the day and night increase in one day and night?

。問。

增一臘縛至夜增晝增者。答。準下論文。剎那百二十為一怛剎那。六十怛剎那為一臘縛。三十臘縛為一牟呼栗多。三十牟呼栗多為一晝夜。于中晝夜若至極長。有十八牟呼栗多。若至極短。有十二牟呼栗多。中間延促有六牟呼栗多。三十臘縛為一牟呼栗多。三六十八成一百八十臘縛故。晝夜增減各一臘縛。從夏至日已去日行此洲。從北向南說夜增時增一臘縛。晝即便減一臘縛也。若從冬至日已去日行此洲。從南向北說晝增時增一臘縛。夜即便減一臘縛也。南北道路有一百八十。日日行一路。以此文證。故知夜極短已去。說夜增晝減。晝極短已去。說晝增夜減。

何故月輪至見有缺耶者。問。黑半漸盡故言末。非是末後也。除第十五日已前十四日皆名白半初。又解于黑白十五日中近后名末近前名初。雖黑半中從十六日已去漸缺。白半中至十四日已來亦有缺。以未及初缺相顯故。

世施設中至見不圓滿者。答。世施設論中作如是釋。月被日照發影自覆。于覆暗處遠見不圓。日體凈妙月體稍粗。故月被照發影自覆如樹發影。照既多少不同影覆多少為異。所以缺．還不定。

先舊師釋至現有圓缺者。經部中先舊師釋。日．月道路行度不同。於此路行應見其圓。於此路行應見其缺　又解日輪速

【現代漢語翻譯】問：如果白天增加一個臘縛（Lava，時間單位），夜晚也增加一個臘縛嗎？答：根據下面的論文，剎那（Ksana，極短的時間單位）的一百二十倍是一個怛剎那（Tatkshana），六十個怛剎那是一個臘縛，三十個臘縛是一個牟呼栗多（Muhurta），三十個牟呼栗多是一個晝夜。其中，如果晝夜達到最長，有十八個牟呼栗多；如果達到最短，有十二個牟呼栗多；中間的延長或縮短有六個牟呼栗多。三十個臘縛是一個牟呼栗多，三六得十八，所以是一百八十個臘縛。因此，晝夜的增減各為一個臘縛。從夏至日之後，太陽執行於此洲（指贍部洲），從北向南，夜晚增加，時間增加一個臘縛，白天就減少一個臘縛。如果從冬至日之後，太陽執行於此洲，從南向北，白天增加，時間增加一個臘縛，夜晚就減少一個臘縛。南北的道路有一百八十條，太陽每天執行一條路。以此文來證明，所以知道夜晚極短之後，就說夜晚增加，白天減少；白天極短之後，就說白天增加，夜晚減少。

問：為什麼月亮看起來會有殘缺呢？答：黑半月（指農曆後半月）逐漸消盡，所以說是『末』，但不是指最後。除了第十五日（指望日）之前，十四日都稱為白半月（指農曆前半月）的開始。另一種解釋是，在黑白半月的十五日中，靠近後面的稱為『末』，靠近前面的稱為『初』。雖然黑半月中從十六日開始逐漸殘缺，白半月中到十四日之前也有殘缺，因為還沒有到開始，所以殘缺的現象不明顯。

問：在《世施設論》（Lokaprajnapti-shastra）中，為什麼月亮看起來不圓滿呢？答：《世施設論》中這樣解釋：月亮被太陽照耀，發出影子自己遮蔽自己。在被遮蔽的黑暗處，從遠處看就不圓滿。太陽的本體清凈美妙，月亮的本體稍微粗糙，所以月亮被照耀，發出影子自己遮蔽自己，就像樹木發出影子一樣。因為照耀的多少不同，影子遮蔽的多少也不同，所以殘缺或圓滿不固定。

先前的舊師解釋說，為什麼月亮會有圓缺呢？經部（Sautrantika）中的先舊師解釋說，太陽和月亮的道路和執行速度不同。在這條路上執行，應該看到它是圓的；在這條路上執行，應該看到它是缺的。另一種解釋是，太陽執行得快

【English Translation】 Question: If one Lava (Lava, a unit of time) is added to the night, is one Lava also added to the day? Answer: According to the following text, one hundred and twenty Ksanas (Ksana, an extremely short unit of time) make one Tatkshana, sixty Tatkshanas make one Lava, thirty Lavas make one Muhurta (Muhurta), and thirty Muhurtas make one day and night. Among these, if the day and night reach their longest, there are eighteen Muhurtas; if they reach their shortest, there are twelve Muhurtas; the intermediate lengthening or shortening is six Muhurtas. Thirty Lavas make one Muhurta, and three sixes are eighteen, so there are one hundred and eighty Lavas. Therefore, the increase or decrease of day and night is one Lava each. From the summer solstice onwards, the sun travels in this continent (referring to Jambudvipa), from north to south, the night increases, and the time increases by one Lava, and the day decreases by one Lava. If from the winter solstice onwards, the sun travels in this continent, from south to north, the day increases, and the time increases by one Lava, and the night decreases by one Lava. There are one hundred and eighty roads from north to south, and the sun travels one road each day. This text proves that after the night is extremely short, it is said that the night increases and the day decreases; after the day is extremely short, it is said that the day increases and the night decreases.

Question: Why does the moon appear to have phases? Answer: The dark half of the month (referring to the latter half of the lunar month) gradually diminishes, so it is called 'end,' but it does not mean the very end. Except for the fifteenth day (referring to the full moon), the fourteen days before are all called the beginning of the white half of the month (referring to the first half of the lunar month). Another explanation is that in the fifteen days of the dark and white halves of the month, the one closer to the back is called 'end,' and the one closer to the front is called 'beginning.' Although the dark half of the month gradually wanes from the sixteenth day onwards, there are also phases in the white half of the month up to the fourteenth day, but because it has not reached the beginning, the phases are not obvious.

Question: In the Lokaprajnapti-shastra (World-Establishment Treatise), why does the moon appear incomplete? Answer: The Lokaprajnapti-shastra explains it this way: the moon is illuminated by the sun, and it casts a shadow that covers itself. In the dark area that is covered, it does not appear complete from a distance. The sun's essence is pure and wonderful, and the moon's essence is slightly rough, so the moon is illuminated and casts a shadow that covers itself, just like a tree casts a shadow. Because the amount of illumination is different, the amount of shadow coverage is also different, so the phases are not fixed.

The former old masters explained why the moon has phases. The old masters in the Sautrantika school explained that the paths and speeds of the sun and moon are different. When traveling on this path, it should be seen as round; when traveling on this path, it should be seen as phased. Another explanation is that the sun travels fast

疾。月輪遲緩。行度不同。日光赫[亦/火]。月明昧劣。日漸近月日照月輪映奪不現。若極相近映奪總不現。若漸相去方得漸現。后不照時彼體全現。映奪不現非由影覆。

日等宮殿何有情居者。此下第八明天器。就中。一明天所居器。二明天器近遠　就明天所居器中。一正明天器。二便顯余義　就正明天器中。一明四天王器。二明三十三天器。三明空居天　此下明四天王天器。將明問起。

四大天王所部天眾者。答。

是諸天眾唯住此耶者。問。

若空層天至諸層級等者。答　日等等取諸星　層級等等取七金山。

有幾層級至住何層級者。正起頌文。一問層級。二問其量。三問住天。

頌曰至亦住餘七山者。初句答初問。次三句答第二問。后一頌答第三問。

論曰至此天最廣者。妙高出水八萬逾繕那。此四層級始從水際盡第四層有四萬逾繕那故言下半。若妙高如鼓。即侵山十六。若如方座。即體外別出。體廣八萬論層更多。餘三層級皆作兩釋。準此應知。第四層級四大天王及諸眷屬共所居止各住一面名四天王。故經依此說四大王眾天。余文可知。婆沙一百三十三有二說。一同此論。更一說云。有說初層下齊水量。次二去下量各十千。其第四層去下二萬。婆沙雖無評家

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：疾病。月亮的執行遲緩，執行速度不一致。太陽光強烈，月光微弱。太陽逐漸接近月亮，太陽的光芒照射在月亮上，使其光輝被遮蔽而不顯現。如果非常接近，光芒完全被遮蔽而不顯現。如果逐漸遠離，才能漸漸顯現。之後太陽不再照射時，月亮的本體完全顯現。光芒被遮蔽而不顯現，不是因為陰影遮蓋。

太陽等宮殿里居住著什麼樣的有情眾生呢？這以下是第八明天的器世界。其中，一是明天的眾生所居住的器世界，二是明天的器世界距離遠近。就明天的眾生所居住的器世界中，一是正明天器，二是順便顯示其餘意義。就正明天器中，一是說明四大天王（Caturlokapala，佛教的護法神）的器世界，二是說明三十三天（Trayastrimsa，佛教欲界六天之一）的器世界，三是說明空居天。這以下說明四大天王天的器世界，將要說明，先提出問題。

四大天王所統領的天眾是哪些呢？回答。

這些天眾只居住在這裡嗎？提問。

如果空層天到各個層級等等呢？回答。太陽等等是指諸星，層級等等是指七金山（Sapta Ratnagiri，佛教宇宙觀中的山脈）。

有幾層層級？居住在哪個層級？正式開始頌文。一問層級，二問層級的量，三問居住的天。

頌文說：到也居住在其餘七座山。第一句回答第一個問題，接下來的三句回答第二個問題，最後一頌回答第三個問題。

論述說：到這個天最廣闊。妙高山（Sumeru，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）超出水面八萬由旬（Yojana，古印度長度單位）。這四個層級從水邊開始到第四層有四萬由旬，所以說下半部分。如果妙高山像鼓一樣，就侵佔山十六由旬。如果像方形的座位，就在本體外另外突出。本體廣闊八萬，論層級就更多。其餘三個層級都作兩種解釋，依此應該知道。第四層級是四大天王及諸眷屬共同居住的地方，各自居住在一面，名叫四天王。所以經書依據這個說法，說四大王眾天。其餘的文字可以知道。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第一百三十三有兩種說法。一種與此論相同。還有一種說法是，有人說第一層下齊水量，第二、三層距離下面各一萬由旬，第四層距離下面二萬由旬。《婆沙論》雖然沒有評論家。

【English Translation】 English version: Disease. The lunar cycle is slow, and its movement is inconsistent. The sunlight is intense, and the moonlight is weak. The sun gradually approaches the moon, and the sun's radiance shines upon the moon, causing its brilliance to be obscured and not visible. If they are very close, the radiance is completely obscured and not visible. If they gradually move apart, it can gradually appear. Afterwards, when the sun no longer shines, the moon's entirety is fully visible. The obscuration of radiance is not due to shadow covering it.

What kind of sentient beings reside in palaces such as the sun? Below this is the eighth 'Clear Heaven' realm. Among them, one is the vessel-world where the beings of the Clear Heaven reside, and two is the distance of the Clear Heaven's vessel-world. Regarding the vessel-world where the beings of the Clear Heaven reside, one is the proper Clear Heaven vessel, and two is the convenient display of other meanings. Regarding the proper Clear Heaven vessel, one is the explanation of the vessel-world of the Four Great Kings (Caturlokapala, the four guardian deities in Buddhism), two is the explanation of the vessel-world of the Thirty-three Heavens (Trayastrimsa, one of the six heavens of desire realm in Buddhism), and three is the explanation of the sky-dwelling heavens. Below this is the explanation of the vessel-world of the Four Great Kings' Heaven. To explain it, a question is first raised.

Who are the heavenly hosts under the command of the Four Great Kings? Answer.

Do these heavenly hosts only reside here? Question.

If it is the sky-layer heavens to the various levels, etc.? Answer. The sun, etc., refers to the various stars; the levels, etc., refers to the Seven Golden Mountains (Sapta Ratnagiri, the mountain ranges in Buddhist cosmology).

How many levels are there? Which level do they reside in? Formally begin the verse. One asks about the levels, two asks about their extent, and three asks about the heavens they reside in.

The verse says: '...also reside on the remaining seven mountains.' The first line answers the first question, the next three lines answer the second question, and the last verse answers the third question.

The treatise says: '...to this heaven is the most vast.' Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, the sacred mountain in Buddhist cosmology) rises eighty thousand yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of distance) above the water. These four levels, starting from the water's edge to the fourth level, are forty thousand yojanas, hence the saying 'lower half'. If Mount Sumeru is like a drum, it encroaches upon the mountain by sixteen yojanas. If it is like a square seat, it protrudes separately outside the body. The body is eighty thousand yojanas wide, and the levels are even more. The remaining three levels are all explained in two ways; this should be understood accordingly. The fourth level is where the Four Great Kings and their retinues reside together, each residing on one side, named the Four Great Kings. Therefore, the sutra relies on this saying, saying the Four Great Kings' Host Heaven. The remaining text can be understood. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a Buddhist treatise), volume one hundred and thirty-three, has two explanations. One is the same as this treatise. Another explanation is, some say that the first level is level with the water level, the second and third levels are each ten thousand yojanas from below, and the fourth level is twenty thousand yojanas from below. Although the Vibhasa has no commentators.

。此論既無異說。即以此論為正。

三十三天至西南善法堂者。此下第二明三十三天器。問及頌答。

論曰至其量無別者。此師意說。既言與下四邊其量無別。準此妙高形如方座外出層級　或如下闊處。何妨亦似鼓。

有餘師說至各唯二萬者。此師意說其四層級漸次卻入侵山體成。如第一層兩邊共有三萬二千。第二層兩邊共有一萬六千。足前成四萬八千。第三層兩邊共有八千。足前成五萬六千。第四層兩邊共有四千。足前成六萬。故說山頂面各二萬。若據周量有八十千。婆沙正理皆有兩說並無評家。

山頂四角至守護諸天者。釋第三．第四句。手執金剛杖名金剛手。

于山頂中至諸可愛事者。釋善見宮及殿。見者稱善故名善見　藥叉。是神名。通天．鬼．傍生。是暴惡義。或云勇健。或云有福祐　一百個一故言百一。如言百味飲食　妒羅綿妒羅是樹名。綿從樹果中出名妒羅綿。如言柳絮。正理論云。城有千門嚴飾壯麗。有五百青衣藥叉勇健端嚴各嚴鎧仗防守城門。

城外四面至莊嚴大城者。釋四苑。婆沙一百三十三云。一眾車苑。謂此苑中隨天福力種種車現。二粗惡苑。天欲戰時隨其所應甲仗等現。三雜林苑。諸天入中所玩皆同俱生勝喜。四喜林苑。極妙欲塵殊類皆集歷觀無厭

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此論既然沒有不同的說法，就以這個論述為正確的。

從三十三天到西南善法堂，這以下第二部分說明三十三天的器物。包括提問和回答。

論中說『其量無別』，這是這位論師的觀點。既然說和下面四邊的量沒有區別，那麼按照這個說法，妙高山（Sumeru）的形狀就像方形的底座，外面有層層階梯，或者像下面寬闊的地方，為什麼不能像鼓一樣呢？

有其他論師說『各唯二萬』，這是這位論師的觀點，認為四層階梯逐漸向內侵入山體形成。例如，第一層兩邊共有三萬二千，第二層兩邊共有一萬六千，加上前面的，總共四萬八千。第三層兩邊共有八千，加上前面的，總共五萬六千。第四層兩邊共有四千，加上前面的，總共六萬。所以說山頂的每個面都是兩萬。如果按照周長計算，有八萬。婆沙（Vibhasa）和正理（Nyaya）都有兩種說法，沒有評論家進行評判。

『山頂四角至守護諸天』，解釋第三句和第四句。手執金剛杖的叫做金剛手（Vajrapani）。

『于山頂中至諸可愛事』，解釋善見宮（Sudarsana Palace）和殿。看到的人都稱讚美好，所以叫做善見。藥叉（Yaksa），是神的名字，包括天、鬼、傍生。意思是暴惡，或者說是勇健，或者說是有福祐。一百個一，所以說百一，就像說百味飲食。妒羅綿（Tula cotton），妒羅（Tula）是樹的名字，綿從樹的果實中產出，叫做妒羅綿，就像說柳絮。《正理論》中說，城有千門，裝飾壯麗，有五百個穿著青衣的藥叉（Yaksa），勇健端莊，各自拿著鎧甲武器，防守城門。

『城外四面至莊嚴大城』，解釋四個苑。婆沙（Vibhasa）第一百三十三卷中說：一是眾車苑，意思是這個苑中隨著天人的福力，出現各種各樣的車。二是粗惡苑，天人想要戰鬥的時候，隨著需要出現鎧甲武器等。三是雜林苑，諸天進入其中游玩，都共同產生殊勝的喜悅。四是喜林苑，極其美妙的慾望塵埃，各種各樣都聚集在這裡，經歷觀看也不會厭倦。

【English Translation】 English version: Since there are no different opinions on this treatise, let this treatise be considered correct.

From Trayastrimsa Heaven (Thirty-three Heavens) to the southwest Sudharma Hall (Good Dharma Hall), the second part below explains the objects of the Trayastrimsa Heaven (Thirty-three Heavens). It includes questions and answers.

The treatise says 'their quantity is no different,' this is the view of this teacher. Since it says that there is no difference in quantity from the four sides below, then according to this statement, the shape of Mount Sumeru (妙高山) is like a square base with layers of steps outside, or like a wide place below, why can't it be like a drum?

Other teachers say 'each only twenty thousand,' this is the view of this teacher, who believes that the four layers of steps gradually intrude inward into the mountain body to form. For example, the first layer has a total of thirty-two thousand on both sides, the second layer has a total of sixteen thousand on both sides, adding up to forty-eight thousand. The third layer has a total of eight thousand on both sides, adding up to fifty-six thousand. The fourth layer has a total of four thousand on both sides, adding up to sixty thousand. Therefore, it is said that each side of the mountain top is twenty thousand. If calculated according to the circumference, there are eighty thousand. Both Vibhasa (婆沙) and Nyaya (正理) have two statements, and no commentators have judged.

'The four corners of the mountain top to the guardian deities,' explain the third and fourth sentences. The one who holds the Vajra staff (金剛杖) in his hand is called Vajrapani (金剛手).

'In the middle of the mountain top to all lovely things,' explain Sudarsana Palace (善見宮) and the hall. Those who see it praise it as good, so it is called Sudarsana (善見). Yaksa (藥叉) is the name of a deity, including Devas (天), ghosts (鬼), and animals (傍生). It means violent, or brave, or blessed. One hundred ones, so it is called one hundred and one, just like saying a hundred flavors of food. Tula cotton (妒羅綿), Tula (妒羅) is the name of a tree, and cotton is produced from the fruit of the tree, called Tula cotton (妒羅綿), just like saying willow catkins. The Nyaya-sutra (正理論) says that the city has a thousand gates, decorated magnificently, and there are five hundred Yaksa (藥叉) wearing blue clothes, brave and dignified, each holding armor and weapons, guarding the city gates.

'The four sides outside the city to the magnificent city,' explain the four gardens. Vibhasa (婆沙), volume one hundred and thirty-three, says: First, the Assembly of Chariots Garden, meaning that in this garden, various chariots appear according to the blessings of the Devas (天). Second, the Coarse and Evil Garden, when the Devas (天) want to fight, armor and weapons appear as needed. Third, the Mixed Forest Garden, when the Devas (天) enter it to play, they all jointly produce supreme joy. Fourth, the Joyful Forest Garden, extremely wonderful desire dust, all kinds of things gather here, and experiencing and watching it will not be tiring.

。如是四苑形皆正方。一一週千逾繕那量。中央各有一如意池。面各五十逾繕那量。八功德水盈滿其中。隨欲妙花．寶舟．妙鳥。一一奇麗種種莊嚴。

四苑四邊至捔勝歡娛者。釋四妙地。

城外東北至猶遍五十者。明圓生樹。

順風可爾云何逆熏者。問。

有餘師言至故說逆熏者。此師意說香無逆熏　言逆熏者。依不越樹界故說逆熏　言不越樹界者。圓生樹身去外枝條面各五十逾繕那量。如在樹下近東邊立。去彼樹身五十逾繕那。若有東風名為逆風。此人雖去樹身五十逾繕那。由在樹界內立而得頭上枝條等香故。言依不越樹界。而言逆風得五十者。望樹身以論。若越樹界即不得香。

理實圓生至如順風熏者。論主正解。天香德勝能逆風熏。越于樹界五十逾繕那。非能遠至如順風熏能越樹界百逾繕那。

如是華香至別生香氣者。問。如是華香為依自碎華中地大隨風相續轉至余方。以欲八極微不相離故有地大。就能造中地強說依。非無餘大等。又解地謂碎花與香為所依故名為地　又解地謂土地。言此花香依此土地相續流轉。為但薰風風中別生香氣轉至余方。

此義無定至俱許無失者。答。軌範師釋通二無失。

若爾何故至遍諸方者。難。若香能逆熏如何頌說花根等香

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：四個苑林都是正方形的，每個苑林的周長都超過一逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）的量。每個苑林的中央都有一個如意池，每個面的長度都是五十逾繕那。池中充滿了八功德水，隨心所欲地出現美妙的花朵、寶船和奇妙的鳥類，每一樣都奇麗無比，用各種方式莊嚴著苑林。

四個苑林的四邊，是捔勝歡娛的地方，這裡闡釋了四妙地（指四種殊勝的境界或狀態）。

從城外東北方向到猶遍五十的地方，說明了圓生樹（Paribhadraka，一種樹名）。

順風可以聞到香味，為什麼逆風也能聞到呢？這是提問。

有些論師說，之所以說逆風也能聞到香味，是因為香氣沒有逆風熏的說法。之所以說逆風熏，是因為香氣沒有超出樹的邊界。所謂沒有超出樹的邊界，是指圓生樹的樹身向外延伸的枝條，每個面的長度都是五十逾繕那。如果有人站在樹下靠近東邊的地方，距離樹身五十逾繕那，如果此時刮的是東風，那麼對於這個人來說就是逆風。這個人雖然距離樹身五十逾繕那，但由於他仍然站在樹的邊界之內，所以能夠聞到頭頂上的枝條等散發出來的香氣。因此說，依據沒有超出樹的邊界，所以說逆風也能聞到五十逾繕那的香氣。這是相對於樹身而言的。如果超出了樹的邊界，就聞不到香氣了。

實際上，圓生樹的天香具有殊勝的功德，能夠逆風燻人，超出樹的邊界五十逾繕那。但不能像順風那樣，超出樹的邊界一百逾繕那。

像這樣，花香是依靠自身破碎的花朵中的地大（Prthivi-dhatu，四大元素之一，代表堅固性）隨風相續不斷地向其他方向傳播，因為慾望和八極微（指極微小的物質）不會相互分離，所以有地大。就所能造作的事物中，地大的力量最強，所以說是依靠地大。並非沒有其他大種等。另一種解釋是，地指的是破碎的花朵和香氣所依靠的處所，所以稱為地。還有一種解釋是，地指的是土地。意思是說，花香依靠土地相續流轉。還是說，只是薰風中另外產生香氣，然後傳播到其他地方呢？

這個意義沒有定論，兩種解釋都允許，沒有過失。軌範師的解釋是，兩種說法都可以，沒有過失。

如果這樣，為什麼頌中說花根等的香氣能夠遍佈各個方向呢？這是責難。如果香氣能夠逆風燻人，為什麼頌中說花根等的香氣……

【English Translation】 English version: These four gardens are all square, each with a circumference exceeding one Yojana (ancient Indian unit of distance). In the center of each garden is a wish-fulfilling pond, each side measuring fifty Yojanas. The ponds are filled with water possessing eight qualities of excellence, and adorned with wondrous flowers, jeweled boats, and exquisite birds, each uniquely beautiful and ornamented in various ways.

The four sides of the four gardens are places for competitive enjoyment, elucidating the four sublime abodes (referring to four superior states or conditions).

From the northeast outside the city to a distance of fifty 'Yojana', it indicates the Paribhadraka tree (a type of tree).

If the fragrance can be carried by the wind, why can it also be smelled against the wind? This is a question.

Some teachers say that the reason it is said that fragrance can be smelled against the wind is because there is no such thing as fragrance not being able to travel against the wind. The reason it is said to travel against the wind is because the fragrance does not exceed the boundary of the tree. The so-called not exceeding the boundary of the tree means that the branches of the Paribhadraka tree extend outward, each side measuring fifty Yojanas. If someone stands under the tree near the east side, fifty Yojanas away from the trunk, and if the wind is blowing from the east, then it is against the wind for that person. Although this person is fifty Yojanas away from the trunk, because he is still standing within the boundary of the tree, he can smell the fragrance emanating from the branches above his head. Therefore, it is said that based on not exceeding the boundary of the tree, it is said that one can smell the fragrance of fifty Yojanas against the wind. This is in relation to the trunk of the tree. If one exceeds the boundary of the tree, one cannot smell the fragrance.

In reality, the heavenly fragrance of the Paribhadraka tree has the superior virtue of being able to carry against the wind, exceeding the boundary of the tree by fifty Yojanas. However, it cannot travel as far as the wind, exceeding the boundary of the tree by one hundred Yojanas.

Like this, is the fragrance of flowers dependent on the earth element (Prthivi-dhatu, one of the four great elements, representing solidity) in the broken flowers, continuously spreading to other directions with the wind, because desire and the eight ultimate particles (referring to extremely small matter) do not separate from each other, so there is the earth element? Among the things that can be created, the power of the earth element is the strongest, so it is said to be dependent on the earth element. It is not that there are no other great elements, etc. Another explanation is that 'earth' refers to the place where the broken flowers and fragrance rely, so it is called 'earth'. Another explanation is that 'earth' refers to the soil. It means that the fragrance of flowers continuously flows and transforms relying on the soil. Or is it that fragrance is separately produced in the wind and then transmitted to other places?

This meaning is not definitive; both explanations are permissible without fault. The explanation of the Acharya (teacher) is that both statements are acceptable without fault.

If so, why does the verse say that the fragrance of flower roots, etc., can pervade all directions? This is a challenge. If the fragrance can travel against the wind, why does the verse say that the fragrance of flower roots, etc....

不能逆熏。但功德香能逆流。

據人間香至無如是能者。論主通釋。人香共了不能逆熏。若據天香能逆熏也。

化地部經至唯遍五十者。敘異部說。彼部說。此圓生樹香順風至百。無風五十。

外西南角至不如法事者。釋善法堂。正理論云。城外西南角有大善法堂。三十三天時集詳辨制伏阿素洛等。如法不如法事。名善法堂。

如是已辨至皆依外器者。此下第三明空居天器。從夜摩天至色究竟所住宮殿皆但依空。依迦濕彌羅故言色界十六。又正理云。有說空中密雲彌布如地為彼宮殿所依。外器世間至色究竟。上無色故不可施設。

如是所說至故使之然者。此下第二便顯余義。就中。一明六天行淫。二明諸天初生。三明欲生樂生。此即第一明六天行淫。

隨彼諸天至同中印度者。此即第二明諸天初生。且六慾天初生如次。四天王天如五歲。三十三天如六歲。夜摩天如七歲。睹史多天如八歲。樂變化天如九歲。他化自在天如十歲。生已身形速得成滿。色界天眾于初生時身量周圓具妙衣服。如梵眾天初生半逾繕那。乃至色究竟天初生萬六千逾繕那。二界諸天皆作聖言。聖言謂中印度語。印度此云月支。月有千名斯其一矣。舊雲天竺。或云賢豆。或云身毒。訛也。又正理云。謂彼言詞同

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不能讓煙逆向熏燒。但是功德之香卻可以逆流而上。

根據人間的香，沒有像功德香這樣有能力的。論主的普遍解釋是，人和香共同作用也不能逆向熏燒。如果根據天上的香，就可以逆向熏燒了。

《化地部經》中說只有遍及五十的地方，這是敘述其他部派的說法。那個部派說，這種圓生樹的香順風可以到達一百，沒有風的時候可以到達五十。

城外西南角到不如法的事情，這是解釋善法堂。正理論中說，城外西南角有一個大的善法堂。三十三天時常聚集在那裡，詳細辨別制伏阿素洛（Asura，非天）等如法不如法的事情，所以叫做善法堂。

像這樣已經辨別到都依靠外在的器物，這以下第三部分說明空居天的器物。從夜摩天（Yama，欲界六天之一）到色究竟天（Akanistha，色界頂層天）所居住的宮殿都只是依靠天空。因為依靠迦濕彌羅（Kashmir），所以說是十六。另外正理論中說，有人說空中濃密的云像大地一樣，作為那些宮殿所依靠的基礎。外在的器世界直到色究竟天，以上的無色界天因為沒有形色，所以無法設施。

像這樣所說的到所以使它這樣，這以下第二部分就顯示其餘的意義。其中，一是說明六慾天的行淫，二是說明諸天的初生，三是說明欲生和樂生。這裡是第一部分，說明六慾天的行淫。

隨著那些天到和中印度相同，這是第二部分，說明諸天的初生。而且六慾天的初生依次是，四天王天（Cāturmahārājakāyikas，欲界第一天）像五歲，三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa，欲界第二天）像六歲，夜摩天（Yāmadeva，欲界第三天）像七歲，睹史多天（Tusita，欲界第四天）像八歲，樂變化天（Nirmanarati，欲界第五天）像九歲，他化自在天（Paranirmita-vasavartin，欲界第六天）像十歲。出生後身體迅速成長圓滿。梵天（Brahma，色界諸天）的眾生在初生的時候，身量周圓，具有美妙的衣服。像梵眾天（Brahma-parisadya，色界第一天）初生時有半逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位），乃至色究竟天初生時有一萬六千逾繕那。二界諸天都說聖言，聖言指的是中印度語。印度這裡叫做月支，月有千個名字，這是其中一個。舊時叫做天竺，或者叫做賢豆，或者叫做身毒，都是訛傳。另外正理論中說，他們的言辭相同。

【English Translation】 English version: It is impossible to make smoke flow backwards. However, the fragrance of merit can flow upstream.

According to the fragrances in the human realm, none have such ability as the fragrance of merit. The master of the treatise explains universally that neither humans nor fragrances together can cause smoke to flow backwards. However, according to celestial fragrances, they can flow backwards.

The Khadika-Vibhanga Sutra states that it only pervades fifty yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance). This narrates the views of other schools. That school says that the fragrance of this round-born tree can reach one hundred yojanas with the wind, and fifty yojanas without wind.

From the southwest corner outside the city to improper matters, this explains the Sudharma Hall. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that there is a large Sudharma Hall in the southwest corner outside the city. The Thirty-three Gods (Trāyastriṃśa, the second heaven of desire realm) often gather there to carefully discern and subdue the Asuras (non-gods), and other proper and improper matters, so it is called Sudharma Hall.

As such, it has been discerned that everything relies on external objects. The third part below explains the objects of the heavens dwelling in space. From the Yama Heaven (Yama, the third heaven of desire realm) to the Akanistha Heaven (Akanistha, the highest heaven of form realm), the palaces they dwell in rely only on the sky. Because they rely on Kashmir, it is said to be sixteen. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that some say that dense clouds in the sky are like the earth, serving as the foundation upon which those palaces rely. The external world of objects extends to the Akanistha Heaven. The heavens above the formless realm cannot be established because they have no form.

As such, what has been said leads to making it so. The second part below reveals the remaining meanings. Among them, one explains the sexual conduct of the six desire heavens, two explains the initial birth of the gods, and three explains the desire for birth and the joy of birth. Here is the first part, explaining the sexual conduct of the six desire heavens.

Following those gods to being the same as Central India, this is the second part, explaining the initial birth of the gods. Moreover, the initial births of the six desire heavens are in order: the Heaven of the Four Great Kings (Cāturmahārājakāyikas, the first heaven of desire realm) is like five years old, the Heaven of the Thirty-three (Trāyastriṃśa, the second heaven of desire realm) is like six years old, the Yama Heaven (Yāmadeva, the third heaven of desire realm) is like seven years old, the Tusita Heaven (Tusita, the fourth heaven of desire realm) is like eight years old, the Nirmanarati Heaven (Nirmanarati, the fifth heaven of desire realm) is like nine years old, and the Paranirmita-vasavartin Heaven (Paranirmita-vasavartin, the sixth heaven of desire realm) is like ten years old. After birth, their bodies quickly grow to completion. The Brahma (form realm gods) beings have perfectly round bodies and wonderful clothes at the time of their initial birth. Like the Brahma-parisadya Heaven (Brahma-parisadya, the first heaven of form realm) beings, who are half a yojana (an ancient Indian unit of distance) at birth, up to the Akanistha Heaven, who are sixteen thousand yojanas at birth. The gods of the two realms all speak the sacred language, which refers to the language of Central India. India is called yue zhi (月支) here, and the moon has a thousand names, this is one of them. In the past, it was called Tianzhu (天竺), or Xiandou (賢豆), or Shendu (身毒), which are all corruptions. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that their language is the same.

中印度。然不由學自解典言。

欲樂生別云何應知者。此下第三明欲生樂生問起。

頌曰至樂生三九處者。答。

論曰至差別三種者。解三欲生如集異門第五廣解三欲生三樂生。不能具引。略述意云。有諸有情謂是假者樂受現前諸妙欲境。謂諸有情恒樂。受用宿業所感隨本所生現前欲境非別化作。彼于如是隨本所生現欲境中。有勢力故自在而轉。謂全人趣．及於欲界取下四天　言妙欲境者。境非是欲貪慾名欲。境能生欲故名欲境。愚夫妄計名之為妙　有諸有情造是類業受用境時。樂自變化自在而轉。謂唯第五樂變化天　有諸有情造是類業受用境時。令劣天子化作種種色．聲．香．味．觸境。于中受用自在而轉。謂第六他化自在天　準集異門。聲亦可化　所以別立三種別者。依彼受用如本所生現前欲境義故立第一欲生。依彼受用如樂自化欲境義故立第二欲生。依彼受用如樂他化欲境義故立第三欲生。于欲界中分別欲生差別三種故言欲生　故集異門云。欲生者謂于欲界生　又解受用五欲境生故名欲生。又婆沙一百七十三云。問何故人．及前四天眾合立欲生。后二天眾各別建立。答人及前四天煩惱粗。后二天煩惱細。有說人及四天同樂受用自然生境故合立一。第五天眾獨樂受用自所化境。第六天眾獨樂受

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：中印度。[然不由學自解典言。]

『欲樂生別云何應知者。』此下第三明欲生樂生問起。

頌曰：『至樂生三九處者。』答。

論曰：『至差別三種者。』解三欲生如《集異門》第五廣解三欲生三樂生。不能具引。略述意云：有諸有情謂是假者樂受現前諸妙欲境。謂諸有情恒樂受用宿業所感隨本所生現前欲境非別化作。彼于如是隨本所生現欲境中，有勢力故自在而轉。謂全人趣（指人類），及於欲界取下四天（指欲界天中的四天王天、忉利天、夜摩天、兜率天）。言妙欲境者，境非是欲，貪慾名欲，境能生欲故名欲境。愚夫妄計名之為妙。有諸有情造是類業受用境時，樂自變化自在而轉。謂唯第五樂變化天（指化樂天）。有諸有情造是類業受用境時，令劣天子化作種種色、聲、香、味、觸境，于中受用自在而轉。謂第六他化自在天（指他化自在天）。準《集異門》，聲亦可化。所以別立三種別者，依彼受用如本所生現前欲境義故立第一欲生。依彼受用如樂自化欲境義故立第二欲生。依彼受用如樂他化欲境義故立第三欲生。于欲界中分別欲生差別三種故言欲生。故《集異門》云：『欲生者謂于欲界生。』又解受用五欲境生故名欲生。又《婆沙》一百七十三云：『問：何故人及前四天眾合立欲生，后二天眾各別建立？答：人及前四天煩惱粗，后二天煩惱細。有說人及四天同樂受用自然生境故合立一。第五天眾獨樂受用自所化境。第六天眾獨樂受』

【English Translation】 English version: Central India. [However, it is said that the scriptures are understood without learning.]

'What should be known about the differences in the pleasures of desire?' The third section below explains the question of the arising of the pleasures of desire.

The verse says: 'Those who reach the three nines of pleasure.' Answer.

The treatise says: 'Up to three kinds of differences.' Explaining the three kinds of desire-born pleasures, as extensively explained in the fifth chapter of the Samgiti-paryaya regarding the three kinds of desire-born pleasures and the three kinds of pleasure-born states. It is not possible to quote everything in detail. Briefly, the meaning is: There are sentient beings who consider the delightful objects of desire that appear before them to be unreal. These sentient beings constantly enjoy the present objects of desire that arise from their past karma and are born with them, not specially created. They have power and freely move within these present objects of desire that arise from their own birth. These include all humans and the lower four heavens (Cāturmahārājakāyikas, Trāyastriṃśa, Yāma, Tuṣita) of the desire realm. The term 'delightful objects of desire' means that the object itself is not desire; greed is called desire. Because the object can give rise to desire, it is called an object of desire. Foolish people mistakenly consider it delightful. There are sentient beings who, when experiencing objects of this kind, enjoy transforming themselves and move freely. These are only the fifth, the Nirmāṇarati heaven (the Heaven of Delight in Transformation). There are sentient beings who, when experiencing objects of this kind, cause inferior deities to transform various forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects, and they freely enjoy them. These are the sixth, the Paranirmita-vaśavartin heaven (the Heaven of Freely Enjoying Things Created by Others). According to the Samgiti-paryaya, sounds can also be transformed. The reason for establishing these three distinctions is that the first kind of desire-born pleasure is established because they enjoy the present objects of desire that arise from their own birth. The second kind of desire-born pleasure is established because they enjoy the objects of desire that they delight in transforming themselves. The third kind of desire-born pleasure is established because they enjoy the objects of desire that they delight in having others transform. These three kinds of differences in desire-born pleasures are distinguished within the desire realm, hence the term 'desire-born'. Therefore, the Samgiti-paryaya says: 'Desire-born means born in the desire realm.' It is also explained that being born from experiencing the five objects of desire is called desire-born. Furthermore, the Vibhasa 173 says: 'Question: Why are humans and the beings of the first four heavens combined to establish desire-born, while the beings of the latter two heavens are established separately? Answer: The afflictions of humans and the first four heavens are coarse, while the afflictions of the latter two heavens are subtle. Some say that humans and the four heavens together enjoy naturally arising objects, so they are combined into one. The beings of the fifth heaven alone enjoy objects that they transform themselves. The beings of the sixth heaven alone enjoy'

用他所化境。故各立一(廣如彼說)。

樂生三者至故名樂生者。解三樂生。初．二．三定名三靜慮。於三靜慮處各有三名九處生受三種樂　言三樂生者。一謂彼初定有情安住離欲惡不善法而生喜．樂。或即定名離。由離勢力生喜．樂故。準法蘊足論第七。喜謂喜受。樂謂輕安。二謂彼二定有情安住從初定生二定喜．樂。或即由彼二定勢力生喜．樂故。喜．樂如前解。三謂彼三定有情安住離二定喜生三定樂。故集異門說離喜之樂。三定言樂所謂樂受。長時安住此三種樂。此三種長時離苦。長時受用此三種樂。故名樂生。準集異門。長時等三皆通三樂。應知此中所言樂者。或喜受名樂或輕安名樂。或樂受名樂。又助一解。初定長時安住樂。二定長時離苦。初定雖亦離苦猶有苦依。二定離苦及離苦依。以相顯故故言離苦。三定長時受樂。

生靜慮中間至亦號樂生天者。論主約中間定勸思。正理論釋云。大梵既有喜．樂現行名樂生天亦無有失。

所說諸天至得究竟名者。此下明天器近遠。就中。一正明器近遠。二明下天升上。此即正明器近遠。欲界六天色界十六。總二十二相去可知。

于下處生至要作下地化者。此即第二明下天升上。下天升見上總由三緣。一自得通能往。二依他得通者往。三上天

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：憑藉他所化生的境界。所以各自建立一個（詳細情況如彼處所說）。

『樂生三者』到『故名樂生者』，解釋三種樂的產生。初禪、二禪、三禪分別被稱為三靜慮（三種禪定）。在三靜慮之處，各有三個名稱，即九處生受三種樂。所說的『三樂生者』，一是說彼初禪的有情安住于遠離慾望、邪惡、不善之法而生起的喜和樂。或者直接將禪定稱為『離』，因為遠離的勢力產生喜和樂。參照《法蘊足論》第七，喜是指喜受，樂是指輕安。二是說彼二禪的有情安住于從初禪生起的二禪喜和樂。或者直接由彼二禪的勢力產生喜和樂。喜和樂的解釋同前。三是說彼三禪的有情安住于遠離二禪的喜而生起的三禪樂。所以《集異門》中說『離喜之樂』。三禪所說的樂，是指樂受。長時間安住于這三種樂，這三種樂長時間遠離痛苦，長時間受用這三種樂，所以稱為『樂生』。參照《集異門》，長時間等三種都通用於三種樂。應該知道這裡所說的樂，或者喜受稱為樂，或者輕安稱為樂，或者樂受稱為樂。又輔助一種解釋，初禪長時間安住於樂，二禪長時間遠離痛苦。初禪雖然也遠離痛苦，但還有痛苦的依靠，二禪遠離痛苦以及遠離痛苦的依靠，爲了彰顯這種區別，所以說遠離痛苦。三禪長時間享受樂。

『生靜慮中間』到『亦號樂生天者』，論主藉由中間定勸勉思考。《正理論》解釋說：『大梵天既然有喜和樂顯現流行，稱為樂生天也沒有什麼過失。』

『所說諸天』到『得究竟名者』，這以下說明天界的遠近。其中，一是正面說明天界的遠近，二是說明下層天界上升到上層天界。這裡是正面說明天界的遠近。欲界六天加上色界十六天，總共二十二天，相互之間的距離可以知道。

『于下處生』到『要作下地化者』，這是第二點說明下層天界上升到上層天界。下層天界上升見到上層天界總共有三種因緣：一是自己獲得神通能夠前往，二是依靠他人獲得神通而前往，三是上層天界……

【English Translation】 English version: Relying on the realm he has transformed. Therefore, each establishes one (as explained in detail there).

'The three who are born in joy' to 'hence named born in joy,' explains the arising of the three joys. The first, second, and third Dhyanas (meditative states) are respectively called the three Samadhi (concentration) realms. In the three Samadhi realms, there are three names each, namely, the nine abodes experiencing the three kinds of joy. The 'three born in joy' refers to, firstly, sentient beings in the first Dhyana abiding in detachment from desire, evil, and unwholesome dharmas, giving rise to joy and happiness. Or the Dhyana itself is called 'detachment,' because the power of detachment generates joy and happiness. According to the seventh chapter of the Dharmaskandha, joy refers to the feeling of joy, and happiness refers to tranquility. Secondly, sentient beings in the second Dhyana abide in the joy and happiness of the second Dhyana arising from the first Dhyana. Or joy and happiness arise directly from the power of the second Dhyana. The explanation of joy and happiness is the same as before. Thirdly, sentient beings in the third Dhyana abide in detachment from the joy of the second Dhyana, giving rise to the happiness of the third Dhyana. Therefore, the Sangitiparyaya says 'happiness apart from joy.' The happiness mentioned in the third Dhyana refers to the feeling of happiness. Abiding in these three kinds of happiness for a long time, these three kinds of happiness are far from suffering for a long time, and these three kinds of happiness are enjoyed for a long time, hence named 'born in joy.' According to the Sangitiparyaya, 'long time' and the other two apply to all three joys. It should be known that the happiness mentioned here, either the feeling of joy is called happiness, or tranquility is called happiness, or the feeling of happiness is called happiness. Another supplementary explanation is that the first Dhyana abides in happiness for a long time, and the second Dhyana is far from suffering for a long time. Although the first Dhyana is also far from suffering, it still has the reliance on suffering. The second Dhyana is far from suffering and far from the reliance on suffering. To highlight this difference, it is said to be far from suffering. The third Dhyana enjoys happiness for a long time.

'Born in the intermediate Dhyana' to 'also called the heaven of born in joy,' the author of the treatise encourages reflection through the intermediate Dhyana. The Nyayanusara explains: 'Since the Great Brahma has joy and happiness manifesting and prevailing, it is not a mistake to call it the heaven of born in joy.'

'The heavens spoken of' to 'obtaining the ultimate name,' below this explains the proximity and distance of the heavenly realms. Among them, firstly, it directly explains the proximity and distance of the realms; secondly, it explains the ascent of the lower heavens to the upper heavens. This is the direct explanation of the proximity and distance of the realms. The six heavens of the desire realm plus the sixteen heavens of the form realm, totaling twenty-two heavens, and the distance between them can be known.

'Born in the lower abode' to 'must perform transformation in the lower realm,' this is the second point explaining the ascent of the lower heavens to the upper heavens. The ascent of the lower heavens to see the upper heavens is due to three conditions: firstly, one obtains supernatural powers to go; secondly, one relies on others to obtain supernatural powers to go; thirdly, the upper heavens...

接往。若上天來下。或下天至上下見上天。然下地地獄眼。不能見上地上界色非其境界故。以上色細故。如下地身不覺上觸。故上來下非自身來。要作下地化方下得見。若自身來下眼不見。

有餘部說至下見上天者。敘大眾部說。彼下地天隨樂。亦能見上地色。如生此欲界下天見上天。正理破云。諸地相望因果別故。要離下地染方得上生。故下地眼根不見上色。是卑下業所感果故。

夜摩等天宮依處量有幾者。此下大文第二總辨大千。此即問也。

有餘師說至量無邊際者。依宗正答。欲界上四天有二師釋。色界四定亦有二釋。如文可知。言第四靜慮量等大千。或說量無邊際者。據積眾多別處量說無總地形。故下論解第四定云。謂彼天處無總地形。但如眾星居處各別。

齊何量說小中大千者。問起頌文。

頌曰至后當廣辨者。可知。今準後文前文初師說。初定如四洲者為正。又正理云此中小千唯舉其梵世故。小光等非小千界攝。積小千等為中大千。故中大千亦不攝彼。又言小者是卑下義。以除上故。如截角牛。積小成余亦非攝彼。

如外器量別身量亦別耶者。此下大文第二明能居量。就中。一明身量。二明壽量。此即第一明身量問起。

亦別者。答。

云何者。徴。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：接上文。如果上天的天人降臨下來，或者下方的天人上升到上方看見上天的天人，然而下方的地界和眼界，不能看見上方地界的顏色，因為不是他們的境界。因為上方的顏色更加精細。如下方地界的天人身體不能感覺到上方的觸覺。所以上方的天人降臨下來不是自身降臨。需要變化成下方的形體才能被看見。如果自身降臨下來，下方的眼睛是看不見的。

有餘部的說法是下方的天人能看見上方的天人。敘述大眾部的說法。他們下方的天人可以隨自己的意願，也能看見上方的顏色。如同生存在這個欲界下方的天人能看見上方的天人。《正理》反駁說，各個地界相互之間的因果是不同的。需要離開下方的染污才能上升。所以下方的眼根不能看見上方的顏色。因為那是卑下的業力所感召的果報。

夜摩天（Yama, 欲界六天之一）等天宮的依處和量有多少？這是下面大段文字第二部分總的辨析大千世界。這是提問。

有其他老師說，量是無邊無際的。依據宗派的觀點回答。欲界上方的四天有兩位老師的解釋。四禪定也有兩種解釋。如同文中所說。說第四禪定的量等同於大千世界。或者說量是無邊無際的，這是根據積累眾多不同地方的量來說的，沒有總的地形。所以下面的論述解釋第四禪定說，那些天人的住處沒有總的地形，只是像眾星一樣居住在不同的地方。

以什麼量來說小千世界、中千世界、大千世界？這是提問，引出下面的頌文。

頌文說，後面會詳細辨析。可以知道。現在根據後面的文，以及前面第一位老師的說法，初禪天如同四大洲是正確的。而且《正理》說，這裡的小千世界只是舉了梵天（Brahma）為例。所以小光天（Abhasvara）等不屬於小千世界的範圍。積累小千世界等成為中千世界和大千世界。所以中千世界和大千世界也不包括它們。又說小的是卑下的意思。用來排除上方的。如同截角的牛。積累小的成為剩餘的，也不是包括它們。

如同外在的器世界的量不同，身體的量也不同嗎？這是下面大段文字第二部分說明能居住的量。其中，一是說明身體的量，二是說明壽命的量。這是第一部分說明身體的量，提出問題。

也不同。回答。

怎麼樣不同？提問。

【English Translation】 English version: Continuing from the previous text. If a Deva (god) from the upper heavens descends, or a Deva from the lower heavens ascends and sees the Deva of the upper heavens, yet the eyes of the lower earth realm cannot see the colors of the upper earth realm, because it is not their realm. Because the colors of the upper realm are more subtle. The body of a Deva in the lower earth realm cannot feel the touch of the upper realm. Therefore, when a Deva from the upper realm descends, it is not their own body that descends. They need to transform into a form of the lower realm to be seen. If their own body descends, the eyes of the lower realm cannot see it.

The Sarvastivada school says that Devas of the lower realm can see Devas of the upper realm. The Mahasamghika school says that the Devas of the lower realm can, according to their wishes, also see the colors of the upper realm, just as Devas born in the lower heavens of this desire realm can see the upper heavens. The Abhidharmakosha refutes this, saying that the causes and effects between different realms are different. One must leave the defilements of the lower realm to be reborn in the upper realm. Therefore, the eye faculties of the lower realm cannot see the colors of the upper realm, because they are the result of base karma.

What are the dimensions and locations of the palaces of the Yamas (Yama, one of the six heavens of desire realm) and other Devas? This is the second part of the following major section, which generally discusses the great chiliocosm (Mahā-sāhasra-loka-dhātu). This is the question.

Some teachers say that the dimensions are boundless. This is the answer based on the Sautrantika school's view. There are two teachers' interpretations of the four heavens above the desire realm. There are also two interpretations of the four Dhyanas (meditative states), as can be seen in the text. Saying that the dimensions of the fourth Dhyana are equal to the great chiliocosm, or saying that the dimensions are boundless, is based on the accumulation of many different places, saying that there is no overall terrain. Therefore, the following discussion explains the fourth Dhyana, saying that the abodes of those Devas have no overall terrain, but are like stars residing in different places.

By what measure are the small chiliocosm (Tri-sāhasra-mahā-sāhasra-loka-dhātu), the medium chiliocosm (Dvi-sāhasra-madhyama-loka-dhātu), and the great chiliocosm defined? This is the question, leading to the following verse.

The verse says that it will be discussed in detail later. It can be understood. Now, according to the following text and the statement of the first teacher, the first Dhyana realm being like the four continents is correct. Moreover, the Abhidharmakosha says that the small chiliocosm here only cites the Brahma (Brahma) realm as an example. Therefore, the Abhasvara (Abhasvara) and other realms are not included in the scope of the small chiliocosm. Accumulating small chiliocosms etc. forms the medium chiliocosm and the great chiliocosm. Therefore, the medium chiliocosm and the great chiliocosm also do not include them. Furthermore, it is said that 'small' means 'base'. It is used to exclude the upper realms, like a cow with a cut horn. Accumulating small things to become the remainder also does not include them.

Are the dimensions of the external world different, and are the dimensions of the body also different? This is the second part of the following major section, explaining the dimensions of what can be inhabited. Among them, one explains the dimensions of the body, and the other explains the duration of life. This is the first part, explaining the dimensions of the body, posing the question.

They are also different. Answer.

How are they different? Inquiry.

頌曰至增滿萬六千者　俱盧舍此云鳴喚　所以無雲減三逾繕那者。從變異受初修不變異受難故減三也　又解為成色究竟天萬六千故所以減三　又解法爾故然。余文可知。

身量既殊壽量別不者。此下第二明壽量。就中。一明人．天壽量。二明惡趣壽量三明中夭．不中夭此下第一明人．天壽量問起。

亦別者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至大全半為劫者。頌答。

論曰至壽量短長者。明人壽量。

要先建立至建立晝夜者。問。

人五十歲至萬六千歲者。答。欲界六天已上五天。望下四天王天。各有二俱增倍。一晝夜增倍。二壽量增倍。故言上五欲天漸俱增倍。余文可知。

持雙以上至依何得成者。問。依華開合至天壽短長者。答。花開為晝。花合為夜。𤘽物陀此云白蓮花。缽特摩此云紅蓮花。鳥鳴為晝。鳥靜為夜。天寤為晝。天寐為夜。自身帶光明成外光明事不假外光。

色界天中至六八萬劫者。明上二界壽量。

上所說劫至為中為大者。問。其劫量為以壞攝空四十劫名為一劫。為二十成劫為一劫。為約住劫中一下一上一中劫為一劫。為約八十中劫為一大劫。以佛經中或說一中劫為一劫。如無間果。或二十中劫為一劫。如成劫等。或四十中劫為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：頌文說，增滿到一萬六千俱盧舍（Krosha，長度單位）的地方，俱盧舍在這裡意為鳴喚。之所以說無雲時減少了三個逾繕那（Yojana，長度單位），是因為從變異感受開始修行，難以忍受不變異的感受，所以減少了三個逾繕那。另一種解釋是，因為成就色究竟天需要一萬六千俱盧舍，所以減少了三個逾繕那。還有一種解釋是，這是法爾如是。其餘文字可以理解。

身量既然不同，壽量是否也不同？下面第二部分說明壽量。其中，第一部分說明人、天的壽量，第二部分說明惡趣的壽量，第三部分說明中夭和不中夭。下面是第一部分，說明人、天的壽量，提出問題。

也不同嗎？回答。

如何不同？提問。

頌文說，到大全半為一個劫。頌文回答。

論述說，到壽量有長有短。說明人的壽量。

要先建立，到建立晝夜。提問。

人活到五十歲，到一萬六千歲。回答。欲界六天中，從已上的五天來看，相對於下面的四天王天，各有兩方面增加一倍：一是晝夜時間增加一倍，二是壽量增加一倍。所以說上面的五欲天逐漸都增加一倍。其餘文字可以理解。

持雙以上，到依據什麼成就？提問。依據花開花合，到天的壽命有長有短。回答。花開是白天，花合是夜晚。𤘽物陀（Utpala）在這裡意為白蓮花，缽特摩（Padma）在這裡意為紅蓮花。鳥鳴是白天，鳥靜是夜晚。天人醒來是白天，天人睡著是夜晚。自身帶有光明，成就外在光明的事務，不需要藉助外面的光。

天中，到六十八萬劫。說明上面二界的壽量。

上面所說的劫，到是中劫還是大劫？提問。這個劫的量，是以壞劫攝空劫的四十劫稱為一劫？還是二十個成劫稱為一劫？還是以住劫中一下一上一個中劫稱為一劫？還是以八十個中劫為一個大劫？因為佛經中，或者說一個中劫為一個劫，比如無間果；或者二十個中劫為一個劫，比如成劫等；或者四十個中劫為

【English Translation】 English version: The verse says, 'Where the increase reaches sixteen thousand Kroshas (Krosha, a unit of length), Krosha here means 'calling out'.' The reason it is said that three Yojanas (Yojana, a unit of length) are reduced when there are no clouds is because, starting from experiencing change, it is difficult to endure the experience of no change, so three Yojanas are reduced. Another explanation is that because achieving Akanistha Heaven requires sixteen thousand Kroshas, three Yojanas are reduced. Yet another explanation is that this is just the way it is. The remaining text can be understood.

Since body sizes are different, are lifespans also different? The second part below explains lifespans. Among them, the first part explains the lifespans of humans and devas (gods), the second part explains the lifespans of evil destinies, and the third part explains premature death and non-premature death. Below is the first part, explaining the lifespans of humans and devas, posing a question.

Are they also different? Answer.

How are they different? Question.

The verse says, 'Up to half of the great totality is a kalpa (aeon).' Verse answer.

The treatise says, 'Lifespans are long and short.' Explains the lifespan of humans.

First, it is necessary to establish, up to establishing day and night. Question.

Humans live to fifty years, up to sixteen thousand years. Answer. Among the six heavens of the desire realm, looking at the five heavens above, compared to the four heavenly kings' heavens below, each has two aspects that increase twofold: first, the duration of day and night increases twofold, and second, the lifespan increases twofold. Therefore, it is said that the five desire heavens above gradually increase twofold. The remaining text can be understood.

Holding double and above, up to what is it based on to achieve? Question. Based on flower opening and closing, up to the lifespan of the devas being long and short. Answer. Flower opening is day, flower closing is night. Utpala (𤘽物陀) here means white lotus, Padma (缽特摩) here means red lotus. Birdsong is day, bird silence is night. Devas waking up is day, devas sleeping is night. One's own body carries light, accomplishing the affairs of external light, not needing to rely on external light.

Among the heavens, up to sixty-eight thousand kalpas. Explains the lifespans of the two realms above.

The kalpa mentioned above, up to is it a medium kalpa or a great kalpa? Question. Is the measure of this kalpa that forty kalpas of destruction and emptiness are called one kalpa? Or are twenty kalpas of formation called one kalpa? Or is one intermediate kalpa, one up and one down in the dwelling kalpa, called one kalpa? Or are eighty intermediate kalpas called one great kalpa? Because in the Buddhist scriptures, it is said that one intermediate kalpa is one kalpa, such as the fruit of uninterrupted karma; or twenty intermediate kalpas are one kalpa, such as the kalpa of formation, etc.; or forty intermediate kalpas are

一劫。如梵輔天。或說八十中劫為一劫。如少光天等。由此不同故為此問　又解以壞攝空四十劫。以成攝住四十劫。中謂一上下。大謂八十中劫。壞．成雖復時等乘前論文壞．成起問故兩種俱說　又解為壞二十中劫。為成二十中劫。為一上一下中劫。為八十大劫。

少光以上至所壽劫量者。答。少光以上八十中劫大全為劫。於四劫中以大為劫。自下諸天大半為劫。於四劫中時等壞劫。即由此四十中劫為一劫。故說大梵王過梵輔天壽一劫半。謂大梵王以成．住．壞各二十中劫總六十中劫為一劫半。故以大半四十中劫為下三天所壽劫量　問大梵王望少光天身量但狹半逾繕那。如何壽量懸格不同　解云身．壽二量不可俱齊。為順火災故大梵王不受大劫。為順水．風災故少光已上大全為劫倍倍漸增。

已說善趣至後後倍二十者。此下第二明惡趣壽量。問及頌答。

論曰至壽一中劫者。明八熱地獄壽量　傍生壽至壽五百歲者。明傍生鬼壽量　難陀。此云喜　言八龍王者。法花經云有八龍王。難陀龍王。跋難陀龍王。娑伽羅龍王。和修吉龍王。德叉迦龍王。阿那婆達多龍王。摩那斯龍王。優缽羅龍王。

寒那落迦云何壽量者。問。

世尊寄喻至地獄壽量者。解八寒地獄　佉梨受一斛　婆訶。此云篅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一劫。例如梵輔天（Brahmakayika Devas，梵天輔臣），或者說八十個中劫為一劫。例如少光天（Parittabha Devas，小光天）等。由於這些不同，所以有此提問。又解釋為以壞劫（Samvartakalpa，世界毀滅時期）包含空劫（Vivartasthayikalpa，世界空無時期）的四十劫，以成劫（Vivartakalpa，世界形成時期）包含住劫（Sthayikalpa，世界持續時期）的四十劫。中劫指一個上下。大劫指八十個中劫。壞劫和成劫雖然時間相等，但根據前面的論文，因為壞劫和成劫引起了提問，所以兩種都說。又解釋為壞劫二十個中劫，成劫二十個中劫，一個上劫一個下劫中劫，以及八十個大劫。

少光天以上到所能活的劫數是多少呢？回答：少光天以上八十個中劫的總和為一個劫。在四劫（成、住、壞、空）中，以大劫為劫。自下而上的諸天，大半都以劫為單位。在四劫中，時間相等的壞劫，就是這四十個中劫為一個劫。所以說大梵天王（Mahabrahma，偉大的梵天）超過梵輔天壽命一劫半。說大梵天王以成劫、住劫、壞劫各二十個中劫，總共六十個中劫為一個劫半。所以用大半的四十個中劫作為下三天所能活的劫數。問：大梵天王和少光天相比，身量只差半個逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位），為什麼壽命差距如此之大？解釋說，身量和壽命不能完全一致。爲了順應火災，大梵天王不受大劫的影響。爲了順應水災和風災，少光天以上全部以大劫為單位，倍數逐漸增加。

已經說了善趣，到後後倍增二十倍。下面第二部分說明惡趣的壽命。有提問和頌文回答。

論曰：到壽命一個中劫。說明八熱地獄的壽命。傍生壽命到五百歲。說明傍生鬼的壽命。難陀（Nanda），這裡的意思是喜悅。所說的八龍王，法華經中說有八個龍王：難陀龍王（Nanda-raja，喜龍王），跋難陀龍王（Upananda-raja，近喜龍王），娑伽羅龍王（Sagara-raja，海龍王），和修吉龍王（Vasuki-raja，九頭龍王），德叉迦龍王（Takshaka-raja，多舌龍王），阿那婆達多龍王（Anavatapta-raja，無熱惱池龍王），摩那斯龍王（Manasvin-raja，大力龍王），優缽羅龍王（Utpala-raja，青蓮龍王）。

寒那落迦（Arbuda，阿部陀地獄）的壽命是多少？提問。

世尊用比喻來說明地獄的壽命。解釋八寒地獄。佉梨（Kharika）容納一斛（斛，古代容量單位）。婆訶（Vaha），這裡的意思是篅（chuan，一種盛糧食的容器）。

【English Translation】 English version: A kalpa. For example, the Brahmakayika Devas (梵天輔臣, Brahma's attendants), or it is said that eighty intermediate kalpas are one kalpa, such as the Parittabha Devas (小光天, Devas of Minor Radiance), and so on. Because of these differences, this question arises. Another explanation is that the kalpa of destruction (Samvartakalpa, 世界毀滅時期) includes the forty kalpas of emptiness (Vivartasthayikalpa, 世界空無時期), and the kalpa of formation (Vivartakalpa, 世界形成時期) includes the forty kalpas of duration (Sthayikalpa, 世界持續時期). An intermediate kalpa refers to one up and down. A great kalpa refers to eighty intermediate kalpas. Although the kalpas of destruction and formation are equal in time, according to the previous treatise, because the kalpas of destruction and formation give rise to the question, both are mentioned. Another explanation is twenty intermediate kalpas for destruction, twenty intermediate kalpas for formation, one up and one down intermediate kalpa, and eighty great kalpas.

What is the lifespan from the Parittabha Devas upwards to the extent of their lifespan? Answer: From the Parittabha Devas upwards, the total of eighty intermediate kalpas is one kalpa. Among the four kalpas (formation, duration, destruction, and emptiness), the great kalpa is considered a kalpa. The devas from below upwards mostly use kalpas as units. Among the four kalpas, the kalpa of destruction, which is equal in time, is these forty intermediate kalpas as one kalpa. Therefore, it is said that Mahabrahma (偉大的梵天, Great Brahma) lives one and a half kalpas longer than the Brahmakayika Devas. It is said that Mahabrahma uses twenty intermediate kalpas each for the kalpa of formation, the kalpa of duration, and the kalpa of destruction, totaling sixty intermediate kalpas as one and a half kalpas. Therefore, the greater half of forty intermediate kalpas is used as the lifespan of the lower three heavens. Question: Compared to the Parittabha Devas, Mahabrahma's body size is only half a Yojana (古印度長度單位, ancient Indian unit of length) smaller. Why is the difference in lifespan so great? It is explained that body size and lifespan cannot be completely consistent. To comply with the fire disaster, Mahabrahma is not affected by the great kalpa. To comply with the water and wind disasters, everything above the Parittabha Devas uses great kalpas as units, with the multiples gradually increasing.

It has already been said about the good realms, that each subsequent one doubles by twenty times. The second part below explains the lifespan of the evil realms. There are questions and verses in response.

The treatise says: Up to the lifespan of one intermediate kalpa. This explains the lifespan of the eight hot hells. The lifespan of animals extends to five hundred years. This explains the lifespan of animals and ghosts. Nanda (難陀), here means joy. The eight dragon kings mentioned in the Lotus Sutra are: Nanda-raja (喜龍王, Joyful Dragon King), Upananda-raja (近喜龍王, Near Joyful Dragon King), Sagara-raja (海龍王, Ocean Dragon King), Vasuki-raja (九頭龍王, Nine-Headed Dragon King), Takshaka-raja (多舌龍王, Multi-Tongued Dragon King), Anavatapta-raja (無熱惱池龍王, Dragon King of Lake Anavatapta), Manasvin-raja (大力龍王, Powerful Dragon King), and Utpala-raja (青蓮龍王, Blue Lotus Dragon King).

What is the lifespan of Arbuda (阿部陀地獄, the Arbuda hell)? Question.

The World Honored One uses metaphors to explain the lifespan of hells. Explaining the eight cold hells. A Kharika (佉梨) holds one Hu (斛, ancient unit of volume). Vaha (婆訶), here means a basket (篅, a container for storing grain).

。受二十佉梨。一摩婆訶量。此顯婆訶量大小不欲取摩如言一谷篅　頌言如一婆訶摩者顯取婆訶中麻。如言一篅谷　摩揭陀。此云無惱害　巨勝胡麻異名。巨勝易盡　壽量難盡。顯壽長也。故起世經第四解寒地獄中雲。諸比丘如憍薩羅國斛量。如是胡麻滿二十斛高盛不概而於其間有一丈夫滿百年已取一胡麻(廣如彼經)以此故知佉梨是斛量。二十佉梨是一婆訶量。真諦廣以彼國計算云。二十佉梨為一婆訶。一婆訶有二百五十六斛者不然。余文可知。

此諸壽量至皆無中夭者。此即第三明中夭．不中夭。諸處壽量皆有中夭。唯北俱盧定壽千歲。此約所居止處說。非別有情。有別有情不中夭故。謂住睹史多天一生所繫菩薩。無始已來為多生死之所繫縛。今唯一生所繫未得成佛。故云一生所繫。此菩薩定壽四千歲必無中夭。最後有。謂依此身定得無學名最後有。若未證果必無中夭。后成無學已亦有中夭　佛記．佛使。謂事未終必無中夭。事已后亦有中夭　隨信行．隨法行。謂在見道十五剎那必無中夭。出見道已亦有中夭　菩薩母懷菩薩時。輪王母懷輪王時。未生已來必無中夭。後生已去亦有中夭。此等如應皆無中夭。故正理云。謂住睹史多天一生所繫菩薩決定盡彼天中壽量。若最後有乃至輪王等有情事未究竟終不中夭

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：受二十佉梨（khari，古代印度容量單位）。一摩婆訶（Mahavaha，更大的容量單位）量。這裡顯示婆訶量的大小，不必像『一谷篅』那樣取摩，如說『一婆訶麻』，就顯示取婆訶中的麻。如同說『一篅谷』。摩揭陀（Magadha），這裡的意思是『無惱害』。巨勝是胡麻的別名。巨勝容易耗盡，壽量難以耗盡，顯示壽命長久。所以《起世經》第四卷解釋寒地獄中說：『諸位比丘，如同憍薩羅國（Kosala）的斛量，這樣胡麻裝滿二十斛，高高地堆起，不刮平，而其中有一個丈夫，每過一百年取一粒胡麻（詳細情況如彼經所述）。』由此可知，佉梨是斛量。二十佉梨是一婆訶量。真諦法師廣泛地用彼國的計算方法說：二十佉梨為一婆訶，一婆訶有二百五十六斛，這是不對的。其餘的經文可以知道。

此諸壽量至皆無中夭者。這裡是第三個說明中夭和不中夭。各處的壽命都有中夭的情況，只有北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）的人壽命固定為一千歲。這是就所居住的地方來說的，不是說別的有情。有別的有情不會中夭，比如住在兜率天（Tushita）的一生補處菩薩。從無始以來，被眾多的生死所束縛，現在只有一生就將成佛，所以稱為一生補處。這位菩薩的壽命固定為四千歲，必定不會中夭。最後有，是指依靠此身必定證得無學果，稱為最後有。如果未證果，必定不會中夭。證得無學果后，也會有中夭。佛記、佛使，是指事情未完成必定不會中夭，事情完成後也會有中夭。隨信行、隨法行，是指在見道的十五個剎那必定不會中夭，出了見道后也會有中夭。菩薩的母親懷菩薩時，輪王的母親懷輪王時，未出生之前必定不會中夭，出生之後也會有中夭。這些情況都應該不會中夭。所以《正理》中說：住在兜率天的一生補處菩薩，必定會盡其在天上的壽命。如果是最後有，乃至輪王等有情，事情未完成，終究不會中夭。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Receiving twenty Kharis (khari, an ancient Indian unit of volume). One Mahavaha (Mahavaha, a larger unit of volume). This shows the size of the Vaha volume, not needing to take 'ma' like in 'one basket of grain'. For example, saying 'one Vaha of sesame' shows taking sesame from within the Vaha. Like saying 'one basket of grain'. Magadha (Magadha), here meaning 'without harm'. 'Jusheng' is another name for sesame. Jusheng is easily exhausted, but lifespan is difficult to exhaust, showing longevity. Therefore, the fourth volume of the 'Agama of the Rise of the World' explains in the Cold Hell, 'Monks, like the Kosala (Kosala) country's 'hu' measure, fill twenty 'hu' with sesame, piled high without leveling, and among them, there is a man who takes one sesame seed every hundred years (as detailed in that sutra).' From this, it is known that a Khari is a 'hu' measure. Twenty Kharis are one Vaha. The Tripitaka Master Paramārtha widely uses the calculations of that country, saying that twenty Kharis are one Vaha, and one Vaha has two hundred and fifty-six 'hu', which is incorrect. The remaining texts can be understood.'

'These lifespans all reach the end without premature death.' This is the third explanation of premature death and non-premature death. Lifespans in all places have premature death, only the people of Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru) have a fixed lifespan of one thousand years. This is in terms of the place of residence, not referring to other sentient beings. There are other sentient beings who do not die prematurely, such as the Bodhisattva destined for one more life residing in Tushita Heaven (Tushita). From beginningless time, they have been bound by numerous births and deaths, and now they only have one more life before becoming a Buddha, so they are called 'destined for one more life'. This Bodhisattva has a fixed lifespan of four thousand years and will definitely not die prematurely. 'Last existence' refers to relying on this body to definitely attain the state of no-more-learning, called 'last existence'. If one has not attained the fruit, they will definitely not die prematurely. After attaining the state of no-more-learning, there can also be premature death. 'Buddha's prediction' and 'Buddha's mission' refer to definitely not dying prematurely if the matter is not completed, and there can be premature death after the matter is completed. 'Followers of faith' and 'followers of Dharma' refer to definitely not dying prematurely in the fifteen moments of the path of seeing, and there can be premature death after leaving the path of seeing. When a Bodhisattva's mother is pregnant with a Bodhisattva, and when a Wheel-Turning King's mother is pregnant with a Wheel-Turning King, there will definitely be no premature death before birth, and there can be premature death after birth. These cases should all be without premature death. Therefore, the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' says: 'The Bodhisattva destined for one more life residing in Tushita Heaven will definitely exhaust their lifespan in that heaven. If it is the last existence, even sentient beings like Wheel-Turning Kings will not die prematurely if the matter is not completed.'

。非謂必盡隨所生處壽量短長　問前俱非害中說慈定等。于不中夭中何故不說。又不中夭中。說一生所繫。俱非害中何故不說　解云于不中夭理亦應說慈定．滅定．無想定。以時不定非如見道隨信．法行。定十五剎那。那落迦．王仙．輪王．色．無色界。雖非俱害然有中夭。故此不說。見道即是隨信．法行。達弭羅等並見佛記。餘者同此後文　又解那落迦．輪王．色．無色界有中夭。余慈定．滅定．無想定．王仙無中夭。此中皆在等字中收　又解隨其所應等字以攝俱非害中不說一生所繫菩薩者。略而不論。非皆舉盡。應知此中非中夭者。定非自他害。有是非自他害而是中夭。謂色界等　問彌勒菩薩何劫上生下生　泰法師云。依立世經彌勒菩薩第九住劫。釋迦如來百歲時。生上睹史多天。至第十劫八萬歲劫減時方下生。(廣勘彼經)　真諦法師亦作此說。然和上云。釋迦牟尼當住劫第一劫出世。於此劫中已有四佛出世。即拘盧孫佛至釋迦佛。若彌勒佛當第二住劫下生。

俱舍論記卷第十一

建保六年(戊寅)十一月十日午時于東大寺西院書了志者為興隆佛法廣作佛事乃至現生當生悉地圓滿出離生死證大菩提法界眾生平等利益也。

雖惡筆極底依志切如鳥跡書了筆師

光　　　慶(二十五)

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本問：並非所有眾生都必定會經歷隨其所生之處壽命的長短。之前在『俱非害』中提到了慈定等，為何在『不中夭』中沒有提及？而且在『不中夭』中提到了『一生所繫』（Ekajatipratibaddha，指一生補處菩薩），為何在『俱非害』中沒有提及？答：在『不中夭』中，按道理也應該提及慈定、滅盡定、無想定。但因為時間不確定，不像見道（Darshana-marga）那樣，隨信行（Shraddhanusarin）和法行（Dharmanusarin）可以確定為十五剎那。那落迦（Naraka，地獄）、王仙（Raja-rishi，國王仙人）、輪王（Chakravartin，轉輪聖王）、色界（Rupadhatu，色界天）、無色界（Arupadhatu，無色界天），雖然並非『俱害』，但有中夭（Antarabhava，中陰身）的可能，所以這裡沒有提及。見道即是隨信行和法行。達弭羅（Dravida）等人都有佛的授記，其餘的人也與此類似（見佛授記）。又解：那落迦、輪王、色界、無色界有中夭，其餘的慈定、滅盡定、無想定、王仙沒有中夭。這些都在『等』字中包含了。又解：隨其所應，『等』字包含了。在『俱非害』中沒有說一生所繫菩薩，是因為省略了，並非全部列舉。應該知道，這裡沒有中夭的，必定不是自他害。有的是非自他害而是中夭，比如無色界等。問：彌勒菩薩（Maitreya Bodhisattva）在哪個劫（Kalpa，時間單位）上升和下生？泰法師說：依據《立世經》，彌勒菩薩在第九住劫，釋迦如來（Shakyamuni Buddha）百歲時，生於上睹史多天（Tushita Heaven，兜率天）。到第十劫八萬歲劫減時才下生。（詳細參考該經）真諦法師也這樣說。然而和上（Upadhyaya，親教師）說：釋迦牟尼佛應當在住劫的第一劫出世，在這個劫中已經有四佛出世，即拘樓孫佛（Krakucchanda Buddha）到釋迦佛。如果彌勒佛在第二個住劫下生。

【English Translation】 English version Question: It is not necessarily the case that all beings will experience the full lifespan of their place of birth. Previously, in 'Neither Harmful,' meditative states like loving-kindness (Metta-samadhi) were mentioned. Why were they not mentioned in 'No Premature Death'? Furthermore, 'One-Life-Bound' (Ekajatipratibaddha, a Bodhisattva who will attain Buddhahood in one more life) is mentioned in 'No Premature Death,' why is it not mentioned in 'Neither Harmful'? Answer: In 'No Premature Death,' it is reasonable to also mention loving-kindness meditation, cessation meditation (Nirodha-samapatti), and non-perception meditation (Asamjna-samapatti). However, because the timing is uncertain, it is not like the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga), where the Faith-follower (Shraddhanusarin) and Dharma-follower (Dharmanusarin) can be determined to be fifteen kshanas (moments). Naraka (hell), Raja-rishi (king-sage), Chakravartin (wheel-turning king), the Realm of Form (Rupadhatu), and the Formless Realm (Arupadhatu), although not 'Both Harmful,' have the possibility of an intermediate existence (Antarabhava), so they are not mentioned here. The Path of Seeing is the Faith-follower and Dharma-follower. Dravida and others have received predictions from the Buddha, and the rest are similar to this (receiving predictions). Another explanation: Naraka, Chakravartin, the Realm of Form, and the Formless Realm have intermediate existence; the remaining loving-kindness meditation, cessation meditation, non-perception meditation, and Raja-rishi do not have intermediate existence. These are all included in the word 'etc.' Another explanation: As appropriate, the word 'etc.' includes. The reason why 'One-Life-Bound' Bodhisattvas are not mentioned in 'Neither Harmful' is because it is omitted, not everything is listed. It should be known that those who do not have premature death here are definitely not harmful to themselves or others. Some are not harmful to themselves or others but have premature death, such as the Formless Realm. Question: In which kalpa (aeon) will Maitreya Bodhisattva ascend and descend? Master Tai said: According to the Lokaprajnapti-shastra (Treatise on the Establishment of the World), Maitreya Bodhisattva was born in the Tushita Heaven when Shakyamuni Buddha was one hundred years old in the ninth dwelling kalpa. He will descend when the tenth kalpa is reduced to eighty thousand years. (Refer to that sutra for details) Master Paramartha also said this. However, the Upadhyaya (preceptor) said: Shakyamuni Buddha should appear in the first kalpa of the dwelling kalpa. In this kalpa, four Buddhas have already appeared, namely Krakucchanda Buddha to Shakyamuni Buddha. If Maitreya Buddha descends in the second dwelling kalpa.

永正第八年(辛未)三面僧房炎上已后自般若寺邊令買得畢一部之內三卷不足也。

英　　　訓

地　藏　院[○@印] 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十二

沙門釋光述

分別世品第三之五

如是已約至三極少量者。此下大文第三明三分齊。一明三極少。二明前二量　此下第一明三極少如是已約逾繕那等辨器世間．身．量差別。此約色明量　約年等辨壽量有殊。此約時明量　色．時二量差別不同。未說應說。此二建立差別不同。無不依名。前二量及名未詳極少。今應先辨三極少量。結前問起　又解二量不同未說應說。此總生下　此二建立下。別起頌文。

頌曰至色名時極少者。頌答。

論曰至為色極少者。明色極少。如是分析至為名時極少者。總釋名．時極少析名至一字為名極少。析時至一剎那為時極少。

一字名者如說瞿名者。此別釋名極少。約字以顯。名有多種。有一字生名。有二字生名。有多字生名　一字生名者如說瞿名。

何等名為一剎那量者。此下別釋時極少。此即問也。

眾緣和合至一剎那量者。現緣和合法得自體頃。即便落謝更不經停名一剎那。或有動法行度一極微名一剎那。諸法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

永正八年（辛未年），三面僧房發生火災之後，從般若寺附近購買了一部《俱舍論》，但其中缺少三卷。英訓地藏院《俱舍論記》卷第十二沙門釋光述分別世品第三之五如上文已經從逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）等角度辨析了器世間、身量上的差別。以上是從色法的角度說明量。從年歲等角度辨析了壽命長短的差別。以上是從時間的角度說明量。色法和時間這兩種量，它們的差別不同，之前沒有說明，現在應該說明。這兩種量的建立差別不同，沒有不依據名稱的。之前的兩種量以及名稱，沒有詳細說明極少量，現在應該先辨析三種極少量。總結前文，提出問題。又解釋兩種量的不同，之前沒有說明，現在應該說明。這是總起下文。『這兩種建立下』，分別引出頌文。頌文說到了色、名、時這三種極少量。以下是頌文的解答。論述說到了色極少。像這樣分析，直到名、時極少。總的解釋名、時極少。分析名稱，直到一個字為名稱的極少。分析時間，直到一剎那為時間的極少。『一個字名』，例如說『瞿』這個名稱。這是分別解釋名稱的極少，從字的角度來顯示。名稱有多種，有一種字構成的名稱，有兩種字構成的名稱，有多種字構成的名稱。一種字構成的名稱，例如說『瞿』這個名稱。『什麼叫做一剎那的量』？這是分別解釋時間的極少，這是提問。各種因緣和合，到一剎那的量。現行的因緣和合，法得到自體的時候，立即衰落消失，不再停留，叫做一剎那。或者說，有運動的法，行進一個極微的距離，叫做一剎那。諸法……

【English Translation】 English version:

In the eighth year of Yongzheng (Xinwei year), after the fire at the three-sided monks' quarters, a complete copy of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (俱舍論) was purchased near Bannya Temple (般若寺), but three volumes were missing. Ying Xun Jizo-in (地藏院) Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Commentary, Volume 12 Commentary by Śramaṇa (沙門) Shi Guang (釋光) Chapter 3, Part 5: Analysis of the World As mentioned above, the differences in the world of vessels, body size, etc., have been analyzed from the perspective of Yojana (逾繕那, ancient Indian unit of length) and other aspects. The above explains the quantity from the perspective of form (色). The differences in the length of life have been analyzed from the perspective of years and other aspects. The above explains the quantity from the perspective of time. The differences between the two quantities of form and time are different, and have not been explained before, but should be explained now. The establishment of these two quantities is different, and there is nothing that does not depend on names. The previous two quantities and names have not been explained in detail about the extremely small quantities, and now the three extremely small quantities should be analyzed first. Summarize the previous text and raise questions. Also explain the difference between the two quantities, which has not been explained before, but should be explained now. This is the general introduction to the following text. 'Under these two establishments', respectively cite the verses. The verses mention the three extremely small quantities of form, name, and time. The following is the answer to the verses. The discussion mentions the extremely small of form. Analyze it like this until the extremely small of name and time. The general explanation of the extremely small of name and time. Analyze the name until one character is the extremely small of the name. Analyze the time until one kshana (剎那) is the extremely small of the time. 'A one-character name', for example, saying the name 'Go (瞿)'. This is a separate explanation of the extremely small of the name, showing it from the perspective of the character. There are many kinds of names, there are names composed of one character, names composed of two characters, and names composed of multiple characters. A name composed of one character, for example, saying the name 'Go (瞿)'. 'What is called the measure of one kshana (剎那)?' This is a separate explanation of the extremely small of time, which is a question. Various causes and conditions come together, up to the measure of one kshana (剎那). When the current causes and conditions come together, when the dharma (法) obtains its own entity, it immediately declines and disappears, and no longer stays, which is called one kshana (剎那). Or, a moving dharma (法) travels a distance of one paramāṇu (極微), which is called one kshana (剎那). All dharmas (法)......

實無行動。相續道中假說動故。對法師說如文可知。廣釋剎那量如婆沙一百三十六。

已知三極少前二量云何者。此下第二明前二量結前問起。

今且辨前至此八逾繕那者。就答中。一明色量。二明時量。此下明色量　逾繕那等。等取俱盧舍等。

論曰至為一逾繕那者。此微即極名曰極微。若依正理三十二云。然許極微略有二種。一實。二假。其相云何。實謂極成色等自相。于和集位現量所得。假由分析比量所知。謂聚色中以慧漸析至最極位。然後于中辨色．聲等極微差別。此析所至名假極微。令慧尋思極生喜故。此微即極故名極微。極謂色中析至究竟。微謂唯是慧眼所行。故極微言顯微極義　準彼論文。有二種微積七極微為一微量。微顯細聚。梵云阿菟此名微。眼見色中最微細也。應知但為天眼．輪王眼．後有菩薩眼所見。積微至七為一金塵。金．銀．銅．鐵總名為金雜心云銅塵。舊俱舍云鐵塵。皆局一偏。塵于金中往來不障故名金塵　又解積微至七方于金上住故名金塵。水塵兩釋亦爾兔毛塵量等兔毛端名兔毛塵　又解積水至七方于兔毛端上住名兔毛塵。羊．牛毛塵兩釋亦爾又婆沙有一說。七微成一水塵。七水塵成一銅塵。七銅塵成一兔毫塵　此師意說水塵細。銅塵粗隙游塵等文顯可知　若依此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：實際上並沒有真實的行動。在相續的道路中，只是假說有行動。關於對法師的說法，如經文所說的那樣可以理解。關於剎那（ksana）的詳細解釋，可以參考《大毗婆沙論》第一百三十六卷。

如果已經知道了三個極少之前的兩個量，那麼它們是什麼呢？這以下第二部分說明了前兩個量，通過總結前面的內容並提出問題來展開。

現在先辨別前面的內容，直到這八逾繕那（yojana）為止。在回答中，一是說明色的量，二是說明時的量。以下說明色的量，逾繕那（yojana）等，『等』字包括俱盧舍（krosa）等。

論中說，直到成為一逾繕那（yojana）。這個『微』就是『極』，所以叫做極微（paramanu）。如果按照正理，三十二個極微。然而，允許極微略微有兩種：一是真實的，二是虛假的。它們的相是什麼呢？真實的是指極成色等自相，在和合的位置上，通過現量所得。虛假的是通過分析，由比量所知。指的是在聚集的色中，用智慧逐漸分析到最極的位置，然後在其中辨別色、聲等極微的差別。這種分析所到達的位置叫做假極微。因為能讓智慧尋思，產生極大的喜悅。這個『微』就是『極』，所以叫做極微（paramanu）。『極』指的是在色中分析到究竟。『微』指的是僅僅是慧眼所能觀察到的。所以『極微』這個詞顯示了微小到極點的意義。按照那篇論文，有兩種微，積累七個極微成為一個微量。『微』顯示了細小的聚集。梵語是阿菟（anu），這裡叫做『微』。是眼睛所能見到的顏色中最微細的。應該知道，只有天眼、輪王眼、後有菩薩眼才能見到。積累微到七個成為一個金塵。金、銀、銅、鐵總稱為金。雜心論中說是銅塵。舊俱舍論中說是鐵塵。都侷限於一個方面。塵在金中往來不障礙，所以叫做金塵。又解釋說，積累微到七個才能在金上停留，所以叫做金塵。水塵的兩種解釋也是這樣。兔毛塵的量等等，兔毛的末端叫做兔毛塵。又解釋說，積累水到七個才能在兔毛的末端停留，叫做兔毛塵。羊毛塵、牛毛塵的兩種解釋也是這樣。另外，《大毗婆沙論》中有一種說法，七個微成為一個水塵，七個水塵成為一個銅塵，七個銅塵成為一個兔毫塵。這位論師的意思是說水塵細，銅塵粗。隙游塵等經文顯示得很清楚。如果按照這個說法

【English Translation】 English version: There is actually no real action. In the continuous path, it is only hypothetically said that there is action. Regarding the Dharma Master's statement, it can be understood as stated in the text. For a detailed explanation of ksana (moment), refer to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 136.

If the two measures before the three extremely small ones are already known, then what are they? The second part below explains the first two measures, unfolding by summarizing the previous content and raising questions.

Now, let's first distinguish the previous content, up to these eight yojanas. In the answer, one is to explain the measure of form (rupa), and the other is to explain the measure of time. Below explains the measure of form, yojana, etc. The 'etc.' includes krosa, etc.

The treatise says, until it becomes one yojana. This 'micro' is 'extreme,' so it is called paramanu (ultimate particle). According to the principle, thirty-two paramanus. However, it is permissible for paramanus to have two types: one is real, and the other is false. What are their characteristics? The real one refers to the self-nature of the ultimately established form, etc., obtained through direct perception in the position of aggregation. The false one is known through analysis by inference. It refers to gradually analyzing with wisdom to the most extreme position in the aggregated form, and then distinguishing the differences between form, sound, and other paramanus within it. The position reached by this analysis is called the false paramanu. Because it allows wisdom to contemplate and generate great joy. This 'micro' is 'extreme,' so it is called paramanu. 'Extreme' refers to analyzing to the ultimate in form. 'Micro' refers to what can only be observed by the eye of wisdom. Therefore, the word 'paramanu' reveals the meaning of being extremely small. According to that treatise, there are two types of micro, accumulating seven paramanus to become one micro-measure. 'Micro' shows a tiny aggregation. The Sanskrit word is anu, here called 'micro.' It is the most subtle of the colors that can be seen by the eye. It should be known that only the divine eye, the eye of the wheel-turning king, and the eye of the bodhisattva in the later existence can see it. Accumulating micro to seven becomes one gold dust. Gold, silver, copper, and iron are collectively called gold. The Miscellaneous Abhidharma-hrdaya-sastra says it is copper dust. The old Abhidharma-kosa-sastra says it is iron dust. They are all limited to one aspect. The dust moves back and forth in the gold without obstruction, so it is called gold dust. It is also explained that accumulating micro to seven can stay on the gold, so it is called gold dust. The two explanations of water dust are also like this. The measure of rabbit hair dust, etc., the end of the rabbit hair is called rabbit hair dust. It is also explained that accumulating water to seven can stay on the end of the rabbit hair, called rabbit hair dust. The two explanations of sheep wool dust and cow wool dust are also like this. In addition, there is a saying in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra that seven micro become one water dust, seven water dust become one copper dust, and seven copper dust become one rabbit hair dust. The meaning of this teacher is that water dust is fine and copper dust is coarse. The texts such as crevice-traveling dust are clearly revealed. If according to this

間計一逾繕那成里數者。謂一肘有一尺六寸。四肘為一弓。一弓有六尺四寸。五百弓為一俱盧舍。計五百弓有三千二百尺。八俱盧舍為一逾繕那。計八俱盧舍有二萬五千六百尺。以五尺為一步計有五千一百二十步。以三百六十步為一里計有一十四里餘八十步為一逾繕那　言阿練若者。阿之言無。練若名喧雜。

如是已說至智者知夜減者。此下第二明時量就中。一明其年量。二明諸劫量　此即明其年量。從夏至至冬至夜增晝減。從冬至至夏至晝增夜減　又解時長名增。時短名減。若作此解從秋分至春分夜增晝減從春分至秋分晝增夜減。春分秋分晝夜停等　牟呼㗚多此雲鬚臾一年之中總減六夜此言減夜。影晝亦六減。顯一年中六月小也。分一年為三際。謂寒．熱．雨各有四月。於此寒．熱．雨際十二月中。一月更半月已度于余半月應知減夜如是。乃至第六度一月更半月已度于余半月復減一夜。以此頌證故減六夜。由此減夜擬作潤月。論主所以不廣明諸歷數者。恐人耽著邪命自活。

如是已辨至今次當辨者。此下第二明諸劫量。就中．一明劫大小。二明劫中人。三明劫中災　此下第一明劫大小結前問起。

頌曰至大劫三無數者。初一句舉四劫數。第二句列四劫名。次兩句釋壞劫。次兩句釋成劫。次六句別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果計算一逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）有多少里，計算方法是：一肘有一尺六寸。四肘為一弓。一弓有六尺四寸。五百弓為一俱盧舍（Krosa，古印度長度單位），計算五百弓有三千二百尺。八俱盧舍為一逾繕那，計算八俱盧舍有二萬五千六百尺。以五尺為一步，計有五千一百二十步。以三百六十步為一里，計有一十四里餘八十步為一逾繕那。說到阿練若（Aranya，意為寂靜處），阿的意思是『無』，練若的意思是『喧雜』（此處應為反諷，指離開喧雜）。

如上已說到智者知道夜晚變短，下面第二部分說明時間計量，其中：一、說明年的計量；二、說明各種劫的計量。這裡是說明年的計量。從夏至到冬至，夜晚增長白天縮短。從冬至到夏至，白天增長夜晚縮短。另一種解釋是，時間長叫做『增』，時間短叫做『減』。如果這樣解釋，從秋分到春分，夜晚增長白天縮短；從春分到秋分，白天增長夜晚縮短。春分和秋分時，晝夜相等。牟呼㗚多（Muhurta，古印度時間單位），這裡翻譯為須臾，一年之中總共減少六個夜晚，這裡說的是減少夜晚，白天也同樣減少六個單位，顯示一年中有六個月是較短的。將一年分為三個階段，即寒冷、炎熱、雨季，各有四個月。在這寒冷、炎熱、雨季的十二個月中，一個月過去一半，剩餘一半時，應該知道夜晚縮短，像這樣，直到第六次，一個月過去一半，剩餘一半時，再次縮短一個夜晚。用這個頌來證明，所以減少六個夜晚。通過減少夜晚來安排閏月。論主之所以不詳細說明各種曆法，是擔心人們沉迷於此，用不正當的手段謀生。

如上已經辨析完畢，接下來應當辨析的是，下面第二部分說明各種劫的計量，其中：一、說明劫的大小；二、說明劫中的人；三、說明劫中的災難。下面第一部分說明劫的大小，總結前面的問題並引出新的問題。

頌曰：到大劫三無數。第一句列出四種劫的數目。第二句列出四種劫的名稱。接下來的兩句解釋壞劫。接下來的兩句解釋成劫。接下來的六句分別解釋。

【English Translation】 English version: If one calculates how many 'li' (Chinese mile) are in one Yojana (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of distance), the calculation is as follows: One 'zhou' (肘, a Chinese unit of length) has one 'chi' (尺, a Chinese unit of length) and six 'cun' (寸, a Chinese unit of length). Four 'zhou' make one 'gong' (弓, a Chinese unit of length). One 'gong' has six 'chi' and four 'cun'. Five hundred 'gong' make one Krosa (Krosa, an ancient Indian unit of distance), calculating five hundred 'gong' gives three thousand two hundred 'chi'. Eight Krosa make one Yojana, calculating eight Krosa gives twenty-five thousand six hundred 'chi'. With five 'chi' as one 'bu' (步, a Chinese unit of length), there are five thousand one hundred and twenty 'bu'. With three hundred and sixty 'bu' as one 'li', there are fourteen 'li' and eighty 'bu' remaining in one Yojana. Speaking of Aranya (Aranya, meaning a quiet place), 'A' means 'without', and 'Aranya' means 'noisy' (here it should be ironic, referring to leaving the noise).

As mentioned above about the wise knowing that the night is getting shorter, the second part below explains the measurement of time, including: 1. Explaining the measurement of years; 2. Explaining the measurement of various kalpas. Here is the explanation of the measurement of years. From the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the night increases and the day decreases. From the winter solstice to the summer solstice, the day increases and the night decreases. Another explanation is that long time is called 'increase', and short time is called 'decrease'. If explained in this way, from the autumnal equinox to the vernal equinox, the night increases and the day decreases; from the vernal equinox to the autumnal equinox, the day increases and the night decreases. At the vernal equinox and the autumnal equinox, day and night are equal. Muhurta (Muhurta, an ancient Indian unit of time), here translated as 'shuyu' (須臾, a short moment), a total of six nights are reduced in a year, here it says that nights are reduced, and days are also reduced by six units, showing that six months in a year are shorter. Divide a year into three stages, namely cold, heat, and rainy season, each with four months. In these twelve months of cold, heat, and rainy season, when half a month has passed, and half remains, it should be known that the night is shortened, like this, until the sixth time, when half a month has passed, and half remains, one night is reduced again. Use this verse to prove it, so six nights are reduced. Arrange leap months by reducing nights. The reason why the commentator does not explain various calendars in detail is that he is afraid that people will indulge in them and make a living by improper means.

As the above has been analyzed, what should be analyzed next is that the second part below explains the measurement of various kalpas, including: 1. Explaining the size of the kalpa; 2. Explaining the people in the kalpa; 3. Explaining the disasters in the kalpa. The first part below explains the size of the kalpa, summarizing the previous questions and introducing new questions.

Verse says: To the great kalpa three countless. The first sentence lists the number of four kalpas. The second sentence lists the names of the four kalpas. The next two sentences explain the destruction kalpa. The next two sentences explain the formation kalpa. The next six sentences explain separately.

釋中劫。次兩句類釋餘三。次一句釋大劫。后一句便釋無數劫。問何故四劫之中不說空．住　解云以壞攝空。約中辨住故不別說　又解約中辨住。空無別體頌中類顯　又解以壞攝空以成攝住。故婆沙一百三十五云。劫有三種。一中間劫。二成壞劫。三大劫。中間劫復有三種。一減劫。二增劫。三增減劫。減者從人壽無量歲減至十歲。增者從人壽十歲增至八萬歲。增減者從人壽十歲增至八萬歲。復從八萬歲減至十歲。此中一減．一增．十八增減。有二十中間劫。經二十中劫世間成。二十中劫成已住。此合名成劫。經二十中劫世間壞。二十中劫壞已空。此合名壞劫。總八十中劫合名大劫。

論曰至總名壞劫者。此釋壞劫。文顯可知。正理論云。由此準知傍生．鬼趣。時人身內無有諸蟲。與佛身同。傍生壞故。有說二趣於人益者壞與人俱。餘者先壞。如是二說前說為善　正理評取前家。此論非以正理為量。同彼后說亦無有失　又正理云。北洲命盡生欲界天。由彼鈍根無離欲故。生欲天已靜慮現前轉得勝依方能離欲。

所言成劫至應知已滿者。此明成劫可知。又正理三十二云。諸大梵王必異生攝。以無聖者還生下故。上二界無入見道故。

此後復有至成已住劫者。此明中劫並顯住劫。準此論文壽漸減時方名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：釋中劫（一個時間單位）。接下來的兩句類似於解釋其餘三個劫。再下一句解釋大劫（一個非常長的時間單位）。最後一句解釋無數劫（無法計算的時間單位）。問：為什麼在四個劫中沒有提到空劫和住劫？解釋：因為壞劫包含了空劫。住劫在中劫中已經說明，所以沒有單獨說明。又解釋：住劫在中劫中說明，空劫在頌文中類似地顯現。又解釋：壞劫包含了空劫，成劫包含了住劫。所以，《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷說：『劫有三種：一、中間劫，二、成壞劫，三、大劫。中間劫又有三種：一、減劫，二、增劫，三、增減劫。減劫是指人的壽命從無量歲減少到十歲。增劫是指人的壽命從十歲增加到八萬歲。增減劫是指人的壽命從十歲增加到八萬歲，又從八萬歲減少到十歲。這其中，一減、一增、十八增減，共有二十個中間劫。經過二十個中間劫，世界形成。經過二十個中間劫，世界形成后存在。這合起來稱為成劫。經過二十個中間劫，世界毀壞。經過二十個中間劫，世界毀壞后空無。這合起來稱為壞劫。總共八十個中間劫合起來稱為大劫。』

論曰至總名壞劫者。這段解釋壞劫。文意顯明，容易理解。《正理論》說：『由此可以推知，傍生（動物）和鬼趣（餓鬼道）眾生的體內沒有蟲子，與佛身相同。因為傍生已經壞滅。』有人說：『對人有益的兩種眾生（指傍生和鬼趣），其壞滅與人同時。其餘的先壞滅。』像這樣的兩種說法，前一種說法更好。《正理論》採納了前一種說法。這部論典並非以《正理論》為標準，即使同意后一種說法也沒有什麼損失。又《正理論》說：『北俱盧洲（四大部洲之一）的眾生壽命終結后，會轉生到欲界天（六慾天）。因為他們根器遲鈍，沒有脫離慾望。生到欲界天后，靜慮（禪定）現前，才能得到更好的依靠，從而脫離慾望。』

所言成劫至應知已滿者。這段說明成劫，容易理解。又《正理論》第三十二卷說：『諸大梵王（色界天的天王）必定屬於異生（凡夫），因為沒有聖者還會轉生到地獄。因為上二界（色界和無色界）沒有進入見道（證得初果）的可能性。』

此後復有至成已住劫者。這段說明中劫，並顯明住劫。根據這段論文，壽命逐漸減少時才稱為減劫。

【English Translation】 English version: Explaining 'intermediate kalpa' (a unit of time). The next two sentences are similar to explaining the remaining three kalpas. The following sentence explains 'great kalpa' (a very long unit of time). The last sentence explains 'countless kalpas' (immeasurable units of time). Question: Why are 'empty kalpa' and 'abiding kalpa' not mentioned among the four kalpas? Explanation: Because the 'destructive kalpa' includes the 'empty kalpa'. The 'abiding kalpa' has already been explained in the 'intermediate kalpa', so it is not explained separately. Another explanation: The 'abiding kalpa' is explained in the 'intermediate kalpa', and the 'empty kalpa' is similarly revealed in the verses. Another explanation: The 'destructive kalpa' includes the 'empty kalpa', and the 'formative kalpa' includes the 'abiding kalpa'. Therefore, the 135th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'There are three types of kalpas: 1. Intermediate kalpa, 2. Formative-destructive kalpa, 3. Great kalpa. There are also three types of intermediate kalpas: 1. Decreasing kalpa, 2. Increasing kalpa, 3. Increasing-decreasing kalpa. The decreasing kalpa refers to the decrease of human lifespan from immeasurable years to ten years. The increasing kalpa refers to the increase of human lifespan from ten years to eighty thousand years. The increasing-decreasing kalpa refers to the increase of human lifespan from ten years to eighty thousand years, and then from eighty thousand years to ten years. Among these, one decreasing, one increasing, and eighteen increasing-decreasing, there are twenty intermediate kalpas. After twenty intermediate kalpas, the world is formed. After twenty intermediate kalpas, the world exists after being formed. This is collectively called the 'formative kalpa'. After twenty intermediate kalpas, the world is destroyed. After twenty intermediate kalpas, the world is empty after being destroyed. This is collectively called the 'destructive kalpa'. A total of eighty intermediate kalpas are collectively called the 'great kalpa'.'

The treatise says, '...collectively called the destructive kalpa.' This section explains the destructive kalpa. The meaning of the text is clear and easy to understand. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'From this, it can be inferred that there are no worms in the bodies of tiryaks (animals) and pretas (hungry ghosts), which is the same as the body of the Buddha. Because the tiryaks have already been destroyed.' Some say: 'The two types of beings that are beneficial to humans (referring to tiryaks and pretas), their destruction occurs simultaneously with humans. The rest are destroyed first.' Among these two statements, the former is better. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra adopts the former statement. This treatise does not take the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra as the standard, and there is no loss even if it agrees with the latter statement. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Beings from Uttarakuru (one of the four continents) are reborn in the desire realm heavens (kāmadhātu). Because they have dull faculties and have not detached from desire. After being born in the desire realm heavens, dhyāna (meditative absorption) manifests, and they can obtain a better reliance, thereby detaching from desire.'

The statement 'the formative kalpa...should be known to be complete.' This section explains the formative kalpa, which is easy to understand. Furthermore, the 32nd fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The Mahābrahmās (kings of the form realm heavens) must belong to pṛthagjana (ordinary beings), because no ārya (noble beings) would be reborn in the lower realms. Because there is no possibility of entering the path of seeing (darśanamārga, attaining the first fruit) in the upper two realms (form realm and formless realm).'

After this, 'there is again...the abiding kalpa after formation.' This section explains the intermediate kalpa and clarifies the abiding kalpa. According to this text, it is only when lifespan gradually decreases that it is called a decreasing kalpa.

住劫。壽未減時是成劫攝　問初劫唯減。后劫唯增。如何時等中間十八　解云二十住劫前後相望。前有情福勝。後有情福劣。住中初劫福最勝故。應合受用上妙境界故下時極遲。從第二劫已去其福漸薄上稍遲下漸疾。以上時境勝由薄福故。不合受用故上時遲。以下時境劣由薄福故應合受用。故下時疾。如是乃至第十九劫福漸漸薄。上時極遲下時極疾。至第二十劫福最薄故上時極遲。故初．后劫等中十八　又解壽未減時是成劫攝。從無量歲初減已去方名住劫。第二十劫上至八萬多時經停。故初．后劫等中十八。

所餘成壞至二十中劫者。因明住劫復顯成．壞．空三時皆準住劫。

成中初劫至有情漸舍者。明成．壞劫二種不同。共業易故一劫成．壞別業難故十九成．壞準此論文梵王但受五十八劫。謂成十九。住二十。壞十九。故大智度論云。梵王壽命五十八劫。前言梵王六十劫者據大數而言　又解初成劫時梵王即住。言十九劫成有情者從多為論。據器成已后壞劫時梵王亦住。火從下壞臨至梵王方生上天。數滿六十非要具受　問若依立世經十劫成器世間。十劫成有情世間。十劫壞有情世間。十劫壞器世間。如何會釋　解云立世經說。梵王十小劫獨住。然後梵輔等生。彼經意說以大梵王獨一少故攝入器中。故說十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：住劫（sthiti-kalpa，宇宙存在期）。壽命尚未減少時，屬於成劫（vivarta-kalpa，宇宙形成期）所包含。問：最初的劫（kalpa）只是減少，之後的劫只是增加，那麼如何解釋中間相等的十八個劫呢？答：二十個住劫前後相互比較，之前的有情（sattva，眾生）福報殊勝，之後的有情福報低劣。住劫中的最初劫福報最為殊勝，應當享用上妙的境界，所以下降的時間極其緩慢。從第二個劫開始，福報逐漸減少，上升稍微緩慢，下降逐漸加快。上升的時間，因為境界殊勝，由於福報減少的緣故，不應當享用，所以上升的時間緩慢。下降的時間，因為境界低劣，由於福報減少的緣故，應當享用，所以下降的時間迅速。像這樣乃至第十九個劫，福報漸漸減少，上升的時間極其緩慢，下降的時間極其迅速。到第二十個劫，福報最為低劣，所以上升的時間極其緩慢。所以最初和最後的劫相等，中間的十八個劫不相等。又解釋說，壽命尚未減少時，屬於成劫所包含。從無量歲開始減少以後，才稱為住劫。第二十個劫上升到八萬歲時，經過的時間停滯。所以最初和最後的劫相等，中間的十八個劫不相等。其餘的成劫、壞劫（samvarta-kalpa，宇宙毀滅期）到二十個中劫（antara-kalpa）的情況是，因為明白住劫，再次顯示成、壞、空（sunyata，空性）三種時間都依照住劫。成劫中的最初劫到有情逐漸捨棄的情況是，說明成劫、壞劫兩種不同。共同的業容易，所以一個劫就成、壞；個別的業困難，所以十九個劫才成、壞。依照這個論文，梵王（brahma，創造神）只承受五十八個劫，即成劫十九個，住劫二十個，壞劫十九個。所以《大智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa）說，梵王的壽命是五十八個劫。前面說梵王六十個劫，是根據大概的數字而言。又解釋說，最初成劫時梵王就存在。說十九個劫成就眾生，是從多數來說。根據器世間（bhajana-loka，物質世界）成就以後，壞劫時梵王也存在。火從下毀滅，臨近梵王時才生到上天。數量滿了六十，並非一定要全部承受。問：如果依照《立世經》（Agamas），十個劫成就器世間，十個劫成就眾生世間，十個劫毀滅眾生世間，十個劫毀滅器世間，如何會通解釋？答：《立世經》說，大梵王（Mahabrahma）十個小劫獨自居住，然後梵輔天（Brahmapurohita）等產生。這部經的意思是說，因為大梵王獨自一個很少，所以攝入器世間中，所以說是十個劫。

【English Translation】 English version: The sthiti-kalpa (abiding kalpa, the period of existence). When the lifespan has not yet decreased, it is included in the vivarta-kalpa (forming kalpa, the period of formation). Question: The initial kalpa only decreases, and the subsequent kalpas only increase. How do you explain the eighteen kalpas in the middle that are equal? Answer: Comparing the twenty sthiti-kalpas before and after, the sentient beings (sattva) in the former have superior merit, and the sentient beings in the latter have inferior merit. The initial kalpa in the sthiti-kalpa has the most superior merit, and they should enjoy the supreme and wonderful realms, so the time of descent is extremely slow. Starting from the second kalpa, the merit gradually decreases, the ascent is slightly slower, and the descent gradually accelerates. The time of ascent is slow because the realm is superior, and because of the reduced merit, they should not enjoy it. The time of descent is fast because the realm is inferior, and because of the reduced merit, they should enjoy it. Thus, up to the nineteenth kalpa, the merit gradually decreases, the time of ascent is extremely slow, and the time of descent is extremely fast. By the twentieth kalpa, the merit is the most inferior, so the time of ascent is extremely slow. Therefore, the initial and final kalpas are equal, and the eighteen kalpas in the middle are not equal. Another explanation is that when the lifespan has not yet decreased, it is included in the vivarta-kalpa. It is called sthiti-kalpa only after it starts decreasing from immeasurable years. When the twentieth kalpa ascends to eighty thousand years, the time spent stagnates. Therefore, the initial and final kalpas are equal, and the eighteen kalpas in the middle are not equal. Regarding the remaining vivarta-kalpas and samvarta-kalpas (destroying kalpa, the period of destruction) up to the twenty antara-kalpas (intermediate kalpas), because the sthiti-kalpa is understood, it further shows that the three times of formation, destruction, and emptiness (sunyata) all follow the sthiti-kalpa. Regarding the initial kalpa in the vivarta-kalpa up to the gradual abandonment of sentient beings, it explains the difference between the two types of vivarta-kalpa and samvarta-kalpa. Common karma is easy, so one kalpa forms and destroys; individual karma is difficult, so nineteen kalpas form and destroy. According to this treatise, Brahma (the creator god) only endures fifty-eight kalpas, namely nineteen vivarta-kalpas, twenty sthiti-kalpas, and nineteen samvarta-kalpas. Therefore, the Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa says that Brahma's lifespan is fifty-eight kalpas. The previous statement that Brahma has sixty kalpas is based on an approximate number. Another explanation is that Brahma exists from the initial vivarta-kalpa. The statement that sentient beings are formed in nineteen kalpas is from the perspective of the majority. According to the establishment of the material world (bhajana-loka), Brahma also exists during the samvarta-kalpa. When the fire destroys from below and approaches Brahma, he is born in the upper heavens. The number is full at sixty, but it is not necessary to endure all of them. Question: If according to the Agamas, ten kalpas form the material world, ten kalpas form the sentient world, ten kalpas destroy the sentient world, and ten kalpas destroy the material world, how can this be reconciled? Answer: The Agamas say that Mahabrahma dwells alone for ten small kalpas, and then the Brahmapurohita and others are born. The meaning of this sutra is that because Mahabrahma is alone and few, he is included in the material world, so it is said to be ten kalpas.

劫成器世間。據梵輔已下從多分說故言十劫成有情世間。此論多．少通論。故說十九劫成有情世間一劫成器世間　又立世經說。初從壞地獄乃至壞梵輔。經十小劫眾生世界壞。然梵王未上生也。彼經意說以大梵王獨一少故攝入器中。又據漸壞故言十劫壞器世間。據梵輔已下從多分說故言十劫壞有情世間。此論多．少通論。故言十九劫壞有情世間一劫壞器世間。前有情世間中引婆沙評家義。梵王二十中劫獨一而住者。通初．后說。初十劫獨一而住。梵眾生已未敢共居。復經十劫然始共居。故知有二十劫。

如是所說至成大劫量者。此明大劫。

劫性是何者。問。

謂唯五蘊者。答。

劫謂時分。時無別體。約法以明。故以五蘊為體。故婆沙一百三十五云。劫體是何。有說是色。引證(云云)。如是說者晝夜等位無不皆是五蘊生滅。以此成劫。劫體亦然。然劫既通三界時分。故用五蘊四蘊為性。

經說三劫至三無數者。依經起問。阿之言無。僧企耶名數。

累前大劫至三無數者。答。累前八十大劫為十百千至三劫無數。

既稱無數何復言三者。難。

非無數言至是其一數者。解。引經證。

云何六十者。問。

如彼經言至三劫無數者。引經答　阿僧企耶第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：器世間的形成需要一個劫（kalpa，時間單位）。根據《梵輔經》等經典，從多數情況來說，有情世間的形成需要十個劫。這部論典對時間的長短進行了綜合論述，因此說有情世間的形成需要十九個劫，器世間的形成需要一個劫。另外，《立世經》中說，最初從地獄壞滅到梵輔天壞滅，經過十個小劫，眾生世界壞滅。然而，梵王（Brahmā，色界天的統治者）還沒有上升到更高的境界。這部經的意思是說，因為大梵王是獨一無二的，所以將其歸入器世間中。又根據逐漸壞滅的情況，說壞滅器世間需要十個劫。根據梵輔天以下的情況，從多數情況來說，壞滅有情世間需要十個劫。這部論典對時間的長短進行了綜合論述，因此說壞滅有情世間需要十九個劫，壞滅器世間需要一個劫。前面關於有情世間的論述中引用了《婆沙論》評家的觀點，梵王在二十個中劫中獨自居住，這是對最初和最後情況的綜合說明。最初的十個劫中，梵王獨自居住，梵眾生還沒有敢於和他共同居住。又經過十個劫，然後才開始共同居住。因此可知有二十個劫。

像這樣所說的達到成大劫的量，這是說明大劫。

『劫的性質是什麼？』問。

『是指五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素）』答。

劫是指時間。時間沒有單獨的實體，是根據法（dharma，佛法）來闡明的。因此以五蘊為體。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷說：『劫的本體是什麼？』有人說是色蘊（rūpa-skandha，物質的集合）。引用證據（省略）。像這樣說，晝夜等時間段沒有不是五蘊生滅的。因此用五蘊來形成劫。劫的本體也是這樣。然而，劫既然貫通三界（trayo dhātavaḥ，欲界、色界、無色界）的時間段，所以用五蘊或四蘊作為其性質。

『經中說三劫到三無數劫』，這是根據經典提出的問題。阿（a）的意思是『無』，僧企耶（saṃkhyeya）的意思是『數』。

『積累前面的大劫到三無數劫』，答。積累前面的八十大劫為十百千，達到三劫無數。

『既然稱為無數，為什麼又說是三？』難。

『不是無數，是說這是其中的一個數』，解。引用經典作為證據。

『什麼是六十？』問。

『如那部經所說，到三劫無數』，引用經典回答。阿僧企耶（asaṃkhyeya）第一

【English Translation】 English version: The formation of the vessel world (bhājana-loka) takes one kalpa (an aeon, a unit of time). According to scriptures such as the Brahma-parṣadya-sūtra, from the majority perspective, the formation of the sentient world (sattva-loka) takes ten kalpas. This treatise discusses the length of time comprehensively, therefore it says that the formation of the sentient world takes nineteen kalpas, and the formation of the vessel world takes one kalpa. Furthermore, the Lokasthiti-abhidhamma says that initially, from the destruction of hells to the destruction of the Brahma-parṣadya heaven, after ten small kalpas, the world of beings is destroyed. However, Brahmā (the ruler of the Form Realm) has not yet ascended to a higher realm. The meaning of this sutra is that because the Great Brahmā is unique and singular, he is included within the vessel world. Also, based on the gradual destruction, it is said that the destruction of the vessel world takes ten kalpas. According to the situation below the Brahma-parṣadya heaven, from the majority perspective, the destruction of the sentient world takes ten kalpas. This treatise discusses the length of time comprehensively, therefore it says that the destruction of the sentient world takes nineteen kalpas, and the destruction of the vessel world takes one kalpa. The previous discussion about the sentient world quoted the views of the Vibhāṣā commentators, that Brahmā dwells alone for twenty intermediate kalpas, which is a comprehensive explanation of the initial and final situations. In the initial ten kalpas, Brahmā dwells alone, and the Brahma beings have not yet dared to live with him. After another ten kalpas, they then begin to live together. Therefore, it is known that there are twenty kalpas.

As such, what has been said to reach the measure of a great kalpa, this explains the great kalpa.

'What is the nature of a kalpa?' Question.

'It refers only to the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates that constitute individual existence).' Answer.

A kalpa refers to time. Time has no separate entity; it is explained in terms of the Dharma (Buddha's teachings). Therefore, the five skandhas are taken as its substance. Thus, the 135th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says: 'What is the substance of a kalpa?' Some say it is the rūpa-skandha (aggregate of matter). Citing evidence (omitted). As such, there is no moment, such as day and night, that is not the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas. Therefore, the kalpa is formed by the five skandhas. The substance of a kalpa is also like this. However, since a kalpa pervades the periods of time in the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), the five skandhas or four skandhas are used as its nature.

'The sutra speaks of three kalpas to three asaṃkhyeya kalpas,' this is a question raised based on the sutras. A (a) means 'no', and saṃkhyeya means 'number'.

'Accumulating the preceding great kalpas to three asaṃkhyeya kalpas,' Answer. Accumulating the preceding eighty great kalpas to ten hundred thousand, reaching three kalpas asaṃkhyeya.

'Since it is called asaṃkhyeya (innumerable), why is it said to be three?' Objection.

'It is not innumerable, it means that it is one of those numbers,' Explanation. Citing sutras as evidence.

'What is sixty?' Question.

'As that sutra says, reaching three kalpas asaṃkhyeya,' Citing sutras as the answer. Asaṃkhyeya the first.

五十二。於此六十數中其一。至論主出世現有前五十二。諸傳誦者忘失后八。若數大劫至此六十數中第五十二阿僧企耶名劫無數。此劫無數復積至三經中說為三劫無數。非諸算計不能數知。故得說為三劫無數。婆沙一百七十七云。總有七說。此論當第三說。廣如彼釋。

何緣菩薩至方期佛果者。問。

如何不許至髮長時愿者。答　波羅此云彼岸。蜜多此云到。

若余方便至久修多苦行者。難。若餘二乘修少方便亦得涅槃。何用為菩提久修多苦行。

為欲利樂至求無上菩提者。答。為益有情長時修愿。故舍二乘涅槃小道。回求無上正等菩提。

濟他有情於己何益者。問。

菩薩濟物至即為己益者。答。

誰信菩薩有如是事者。難。誰信菩薩專欲利他不自益己。

有懷潤己至以他為己故者。答。二乘之人有懷潤己無大慈悲。於此有情稱為濟他即為益己。此事實難信　菩薩行人無心潤己有大慈悲。於此有情稱為濟他即為益己。此事非難信　又引三證。一引無哀愍有慈悲證。二引執我愛無我愛證。三引有情修種性異證。依諸有情種姓差別故　有頌言者。初兩句明異生。下士勤求自身人．天等樂。次兩句明二乘。中士求滅三苦。非求有漏樂。以此樂是當苦依故　又解此樂行苦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：五十二。在這六十個數中取其一。直到論主（指佛經的作者或註釋者）出世時，現存的有前五十二個。各種傳誦者遺忘了後面的八個。如果計算大劫，在這六十個數中，第五十二阿僧祇耶（Asamkhya，無數）名為劫無數。這個劫無數又累積到三經（指三部不同的佛經）中所說的三個劫無數。因為不能用各種算術方法來數清楚，所以才說成是三個劫無數。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百七十七卷說，總共有七種說法。這個論點應當屬於第三種說法。詳細內容見該論的解釋。

什麼原因使得菩薩（Bodhisattva，立志成佛的修行者）要經歷漫長的時間才能證得佛果？問。

為什麼不允許發短暫的願望？答。波羅（Para）在這裡的意思是彼岸，蜜多（Mita）在這裡的意思是到達。

如果用其他方便法門，需要長期修行和經歷許多苦行嗎？難。如果二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）修行較少的方便法門也能證得涅槃（Nirvana，解脫），為什麼還要爲了菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）而長期修行和經歷許多苦行？

爲了利益和快樂，直至尋求無上菩提。答。爲了利益有情（sentient beings，一切有感覺的生命），菩薩長期修行和發願。因此捨棄二乘的涅槃小道，轉而尋求無上正等菩提。

救濟其他有情對自己有什麼好處？問。

菩薩救濟眾生，實際上就是爲了自己的利益。答。

誰會相信菩薩會有這樣的行為？難。誰會相信菩薩專門想要利益他人而不為自己謀利？

有些人懷著滋潤自己的想法，實際上是以他人為自己。答。二乘之人懷著滋潤自己的想法，沒有廣大的慈悲心。對於這些有情來說，幫助他人就是幫助自己，這件事很難讓人相信。菩薩的修行人沒有滋潤自己的想法，有廣大的慈悲心。對於這些有情來說，幫助他人就是幫助自己，這件事不難讓人相信。又引用了三個證據。一是引用沒有哀愍心和有慈悲心來證明。二是引用執著於我愛和沒有我愛來證明。三是引用有情修行種性的不同來證明。依據各種有情種姓的差別。有頌說。前兩句說明異生（指凡夫）。下士勤奮地追求自身、人、天等的快樂。后兩句說明二乘。中士尋求滅除三苦，而不是尋求有漏的快樂。因為這種快樂是未來痛苦的根源。又解釋了這種快樂是行苦。

【English Translation】 English version: Fifty-two. One of these sixty numbers. Until the Lord of the Treatise (referring to the author or commentator of the Buddhist scripture) appeared in the world, the first fifty-two existed. Various reciters forgot the last eight. If counting great kalpas (aeons), the fifty-second Asamkhya (innumerable) in these sixty numbers is called countless kalpas. This countless kalpa accumulates to the three countless kalpas mentioned in the three sutras (referring to three different Buddhist scriptures). Because it cannot be counted by various arithmetic methods, it is said to be three countless kalpas. The Vibhasa (Commentary) Volume 177 says that there are seven theories in total. This argument should belong to the third theory. See the explanation in that treatise for details.

What is the reason that a Bodhisattva (one who aspires to Buddhahood) needs to spend a long time to attain Buddhahood? Question.

Why is it not allowed to make short-term vows? Answer. Para here means the other shore, and Mita here means to arrive.

If using other expedient methods, is it necessary to practice for a long time and endure many ascetic practices? Difficulty. If the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) can attain Nirvana (liberation) by practicing fewer expedient methods, why is it necessary to practice for a long time and endure many ascetic practices for Bodhi (enlightenment)?

For the sake of benefit and happiness, until seeking unsurpassed Bodhi. Answer. For the benefit of sentient beings, Bodhisattvas practice and make vows for a long time. Therefore, they abandon the small path of Nirvana of the Two Vehicles and turn to seek unsurpassed, perfectly complete Bodhi.

What benefit is there to oneself in helping other sentient beings? Question.

Bodhisattvas help sentient beings, which is actually for their own benefit. Answer.

Who would believe that Bodhisattvas would act in this way? Difficulty. Who would believe that Bodhisattvas would specifically want to benefit others without seeking their own benefit?

Some people harbor the idea of nourishing themselves, but in reality, they treat others as themselves. Answer. People of the Two Vehicles harbor the idea of nourishing themselves and do not have great compassion. For these sentient beings, helping others is helping themselves, which is difficult to believe. Bodhisattva practitioners do not have the idea of nourishing themselves and have great compassion. For these sentient beings, helping others is helping themselves, which is not difficult to believe. Three evidences are also cited. The first is to prove it by citing the absence of pity and the presence of compassion. The second is to prove it by citing attachment to self-love and the absence of self-love. The third is to prove it by citing the differences in the nature of sentient beings' practice. Based on the differences in the nature of various sentient beings. There is a verse that says. The first two lines describe ordinary beings (referring to ordinary people). Inferior people diligently seek happiness for themselves, humans, gods, etc. The last two lines describe the Two Vehicles. Mediocre people seek to eliminate the three sufferings, rather than seeking leaky happiness. Because this happiness is the root of future suffering. It also explains that this happiness is the suffering of action.

依故　又解此樂壞時苦故名為苦依。后一頌明菩薩。上士恒時勤求自荷受眾苦令他有情近得人．天善趣安樂。遠令他苦永滅盡故得涅槃樂。所以者何。由姓不同以他苦樂而為己苦．樂故。

如是已辨至麟角喻百劫者。此下第二明劫中人。就中。一明佛．獨覺。二明四輪王。三明小王出興　此即第一明佛．獨覺。上兩句明佛。下兩句明獨覺。

論曰至諸佛出現者。於八十劫中二十成劫．二十壞劫．二十空劫無佛出世。唯於二十住劫中有佛出世。然於二十住劫中十九增位無佛出世。十九減位有佛出世。就劫減位始從八萬乃至百年。於此中間有佛出世。故賢劫經第十說。𤘽留孫佛人壽四萬歲時出世。𤘽那含牟尼佛人壽三萬歲時出世。迦葉佛人壽二萬歲時出世。釋迦牟尼佛人壽百歲時出世。若依西域記第六𤘽留孫佛人壽六萬歲時出世。𤘽那含牟尼佛人壽四萬歲時出世。迦葉波佛人壽二萬歲時出世。釋迦牟尼佛人壽百歲時出世。此應部別不同　問此二十住劫中釋迦牟尼佛於何劫中出世　解云于第九住劫出世故。立世阿毗曇第九說住劫中雲。是二十少劫中世界起成已住者。幾多已過幾多未過。八少劫已過。十一少劫未來。第九一劫現在未盡。準立世文故知釋迦牟尼佛當第九劫出世。彌勒佛即當第十劫出世　又泰法師云

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『依故』，又解釋說，因為這種快樂最終會壞滅，帶來痛苦，所以稱為『苦依』。後面一頌說明菩薩、上士總是勤奮地尋求承擔眾生的痛苦，使其他有情眾生能夠接近並獲得人、天的善趣安樂，長遠來說，使他們的痛苦永遠滅盡，從而獲得涅槃的快樂。這是為什麼呢？因為菩薩的本性不同，他們將他人的苦樂視為自己的苦樂。

『如是已辨至麟角喻百劫者』，以下第二部分說明劫中的眾生。其中，第一部分說明佛和獨覺，第二部分說明四輪王，第三部分說明小王的出現。這裡是第一部分，說明佛和獨覺。上面兩句說明佛，下面兩句說明獨覺。

論中說『至諸佛出現者』，在八十劫中，二十個成劫、二十個壞劫、二十個空劫都沒有佛出世。只有在二十個住劫中才有佛出世。然而，在二十個住劫中，十九個增位劫也沒有佛出世。只有在十九個減位劫才有佛出世。劫的減位開始於人壽八萬歲，直到人壽一百歲。在這期間有佛出世。所以《賢劫經》第十說，拘留孫佛（Kakusandha Buddha）在人壽四萬歲時出世，拘那含牟尼佛（Kanakamuni Buddha）在人壽三萬歲時出世，迦葉佛（Kasyapa Buddha）在人壽二萬歲時出世，釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）在人壽一百歲時出世。如果按照《西域記》第六卷的說法，拘留孫佛在人壽六萬歲時出世，拘那含牟尼佛在人壽四萬歲時出世，迦葉波佛在人壽二萬歲時出世，釋迦牟尼佛在人壽一百歲時出世。這應該是不同部派的說法。問：在這二十個住劫中，釋迦牟尼佛在哪個劫中出世？答：在第九個住劫出世。所以《立世阿毗曇》第九說住劫中說：『在這二十個少劫中，世界生起、形成並安住，已經過去了多少，還有多少沒有過去？』八個少劫已經過去，十一個少劫尚未到來，第九個劫現在還沒有結束。根據《立世阿毗曇》的文句，可知釋迦牟尼佛應當在第九劫出世。彌勒佛（Maitreya Buddha）將在第十劫出世。又泰法師說

【English Translation】 English version: 'I gu', it is also explained that this is called 'suffering-dependent' because this happiness will eventually be destroyed and bring suffering. The following verse explains that Bodhisattvas and superior beings always diligently seek to bear the suffering of all sentient beings, so that other sentient beings can approach and obtain the happiness of good destinies in the realms of humans and gods, and in the long run, their suffering will be completely extinguished, thereby obtaining the happiness of Nirvana. Why is this? Because the nature of Bodhisattvas is different, they regard the suffering and happiness of others as their own suffering and happiness.

'Ru shi yi bian zhi lin jiao yu bai jie zhe', the second part below explains the beings in the kalpa. Among them, the first part explains the Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas), the second part explains the four Chakravartin Kings (Wheel-Turning Kings), and the third part explains the appearance of minor kings. Here is the first part, explaining the Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas. The first two sentences explain the Buddhas, and the last two sentences explain the Pratyekabuddhas.

The treatise says 'zhi zhu fo chu xian zhe', among the eighty kalpas, no Buddhas appear in the twenty formation kalpas, twenty destruction kalpas, and twenty void kalpas. Only in the twenty abiding kalpas do Buddhas appear. However, in the twenty abiding kalpas, no Buddhas appear in the nineteen increasing periods. Only in the nineteen decreasing periods do Buddhas appear. The decreasing period of the kalpa begins with a human lifespan of eighty thousand years and ends with a human lifespan of one hundred years. During this period, Buddhas appear. Therefore, the tenth chapter of the Bhadrakalpika Sutra says that Kakusandha Buddha (拘留孫佛) appeared when the human lifespan was forty thousand years, Kanakamuni Buddha (拘那含牟尼佛) appeared when the human lifespan was thirty thousand years, Kasyapa Buddha (迦葉佛) appeared when the human lifespan was twenty thousand years, and Sakyamuni Buddha (釋迦牟尼佛) appeared when the human lifespan was one hundred years. According to the sixth volume of the Records of the Western Regions, Kakusandha Buddha appeared when the human lifespan was sixty thousand years, Kanakamuni Buddha appeared when the human lifespan was forty thousand years, Kasyapa Buddha appeared when the human lifespan was twenty thousand years, and Sakyamuni Buddha appeared when the human lifespan was one hundred years. This should be a difference in the traditions of different schools. Question: In which of the twenty abiding kalpas did Sakyamuni Buddha appear? Answer: He appeared in the ninth abiding kalpa. Therefore, the ninth chapter of the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya says in the abiding kalpa: 'Among these twenty minor kalpas, the world arises, forms, and abides, how many have passed, and how many have not passed?' Eight minor kalpas have passed, eleven minor kalpas have not yet arrived, and the ninth kalpa is now not yet finished. According to the text of the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, it can be known that Sakyamuni Buddha should appear in the ninth kalpa. Maitreya Buddha (彌勒佛) will appear in the tenth kalpa. Also, Dharma Master Tai said

。若依立世經此二十住劫中后十住劫無佛出世。前時住劫有佛出世。就前十住劫中。前五住劫無佛出世。后五住劫有佛出世。第六住劫減至四萬歲時。𤘽留孫佛出世。第七住劫減至三萬歲時。拘那含牟尼佛出世。第八住劫減至二萬歲時。迦葉波佛出世。第九住劫減至百歲時。釋迦牟尼佛出世。第十住劫初減八萬歲時。彌勒佛出世　撿立世文。但言今時當住劫中第九劫。更無餘說。又撿起世經亦無此說。不知泰法師何處得此文來　此論余文可知。

何緣增位無佛出耶者。問。

有情樂增難教厭故者。答。

何緣減百無佛出耶者。問。

五濁極增至及無病故者。答。義便明五濁　壽濁。以命為體　言劫濁者。劫謂時。時無別體約法以明。以五蘊為體。又解若泛出劫體以五蘊為體。此中劫濁以色為體。故論云資具衰損煩惱濁。以五鈍惑為體　見濁以五見為體　有情濁者。有情離法無有別性以五蘊為體。又解以惡業為體　劫減將末壽等鄙下如滓穢故說名為濁　由前壽濁起故壽命極被衰損。乃至十歲　由前劫濁起故衣食等資具極被衰損。以此故知劫濁以色為體　由次煩惱濁．見濁起故善品衰損。以煩惱濁耽欲樂故起貪損善。以見濁自苦行故。起戒取損善。或煩惱濁損在家善。見濁損出家善　由後有情濁

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果按照《立世經》所說，在這二十個住劫中，后十個住劫沒有佛出世。之前的住劫有佛出世。在前十個住劫中，前五個住劫沒有佛出世，后五個住劫有佛出世。第六個住劫，人的壽命減少到四萬歲時，拘留孫佛（Krakucchanda Buddha）出世。第七個住劫，人的壽命減少到三萬歲時，拘那含牟尼佛（Kanakamuni Buddha）出世。第八個住劫，人的壽命減少到二萬歲時，迦葉波佛（Kasyapa Buddha）出世。第九個住劫，人的壽命減少到一百歲時，釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）出世。第十個住劫，最初人的壽命減少到八萬歲時，彌勒佛（Maitreya Buddha）出世。檢視《立世經》的文字，只說現在是當住劫中的第九劫，沒有其他的說法。又檢視《起世經》，也沒有這樣的說法。不知道泰法師是從哪裡得到這些文字的。這篇論的其他文字可以理解。

為什麼在壽命增加的階段沒有佛出世呢？（問）

因為眾生喜歡增長，難以教化，令人厭煩。（答）

為什麼在壽命減少到一百歲時沒有佛出世呢？（問）

因為五濁（five defilements）極其嚴重，而且沒有疾病。（答）由此可以明白五濁：壽濁（lifespan defilement），以壽命為本體；劫濁（kalpa defilement），劫是指時間，時間沒有單獨的本體，是根據法來說明的，以五蘊（five aggregates）為本體。另一種解釋是，如果泛泛地談論劫的本體，則以五蘊為本體。這裡所說的劫濁以色（form）為本體。所以論中說，資具衰損。煩惱濁（affliction defilement），以五鈍惑（five dull afflictions）為本體；見濁（view defilement），以五見（five views）為本體；有情濁（sentient being defilement），有情離開法就沒有其他的自性，以五蘊為本體。另一種解釋是以惡業為本體。劫減少到末期，壽命等變得鄙陋低下，如同渣滓污穢，所以稱為濁。由於之前的壽濁產生，所以壽命極度衰損，乃至只有十歲。由於之前的劫濁產生，所以衣食等資具極度衰損。因此可知劫濁以色為本體。由於接下來的煩惱濁、見濁產生，所以善品衰損。因為煩惱濁貪圖享樂，所以產生貪慾而損害善。因為見濁進行自我折磨的苦行，所以產生戒禁取見而損害善。或者煩惱濁損害在家人的善，見濁損害出家人的善。由於後面的有情濁

【English Translation】 English version: According to the Li Shi Jing (Likely a reference to a text on cosmology), in these twenty zhujie (dwelling kalpas), there are no Buddhas appearing in the latter ten zhujie. In the previous zhujie, Buddhas appeared. In the former ten zhujie, no Buddhas appeared in the first five zhujie, and Buddhas appeared in the latter five zhujie. In the sixth zhujie, when human lifespan decreased to 40,000 years, Krakucchanda Buddha (拘留孫佛) appeared. In the seventh zhujie, when human lifespan decreased to 30,000 years, Kanakamuni Buddha (拘那含牟尼佛) appeared. In the eighth zhujie, when human lifespan decreased to 20,000 years, Kasyapa Buddha (迦葉波佛) appeared. In the ninth zhujie, when human lifespan decreased to 100 years, Sakyamuni Buddha (釋迦牟尼佛) appeared. In the tenth zhujie, initially when human lifespan decreased to 80,000 years, Maitreya Buddha (彌勒佛) appeared. Examining the text of Li Shi Jing, it only says that the present time is the ninth zhujie within the dwelling kalpa, and there is no other statement. Also, examining the Qi Shi Jing (Likely a reference to a text on cosmology), there is no such statement either. I do not know where Dharma Master Tai obtained these texts from. The remaining text of this treatise is understandable.

Why do no Buddhas appear during the increasing lifespan stage? (Question)

Because sentient beings enjoy increase, are difficult to teach, and are repulsive. (Answer)

Why do no Buddhas appear when lifespan decreases to one hundred years? (Question)

Because the five defilements (五濁) are extremely severe, and there is no illness. (Answer) From this, the five defilements can be understood: Lifespan defilement (壽濁), with lifespan as its essence; Kalpa defilement (劫濁), kalpa refers to time, and time has no separate essence, it is explained based on the Dharma, with the five aggregates (五蘊) as its essence. Another explanation is that if generally discussing the essence of kalpa, it is with the five aggregates as its essence. The kalpa defilement mentioned here has form (色) as its essence. Therefore, the treatise says, 'Resources are declining.' Affliction defilement (煩惱濁), with the five dull afflictions (五鈍惑) as its essence; View defilement (見濁), with the five views (五見) as its essence; Sentient being defilement (有情濁), sentient beings have no other nature apart from the Dharma, with the five aggregates as its essence. Another explanation is that it has evil karma as its essence. When the kalpa decreases to the end, lifespan etc. become base and lowly, like dregs and filth, therefore it is called defilement. Due to the previous lifespan defilement arising, lifespan is extremely diminished, even to only ten years. Due to the previous kalpa defilement arising, resources such as clothing and food are extremely diminished. Therefore, it can be known that kalpa defilement has form as its essence. Due to the subsequent affliction defilement and view defilement arising, virtuous qualities are diminished. Because affliction defilement indulges in pleasure, greed arises and harms virtue. Because view defilement engages in self-mortifying ascetic practices, adherence to precepts and rituals arises and harms virtue. Or affliction defilement harms the virtue of laypeople, and view defilement harms the virtue of renunciants. Due to the later sentient being defilement

起。衰損自身身量短小。色白令黑。力強令劣。正念正智令邪念邪智勤勇令懈怠。無病令有病。以此故知有情濁以五蘊為體　問如婆沙一百一十三云。有情衰損者謂劫初時此贍部洲。廣博嚴凈多諸淳善福德有情。城邑次比人民充滿。至劫末時唯余萬人　準彼婆沙損諸有情令其漸少。何故此論說損自身　解云婆沙據損多令少。此論據損自身。以實而言皆通兩種。俱有情故。

獨覺出現至二麟角喻者。明獨覺出世並顯二種。

部行獨覺至轉名獨勝者。釋部行獨覺。由眾部相隨名為部行。離教自悟名為獨覺。部行獨覺先是聲聞前三果人。后得第四勝果之時。離教獨證勝果轉名獨勝　又解先是聲聞初果。后得后三勝果時。離教獨悟勝果轉名獨勝。前解為勝。

有餘說彼至不應修苦行者敘異說。若先是聖人不應起戒取。而修苦行。以此故知先是異生。余文可知。

麟角喻者謂必獨居者。釋麟角喻。如麟一角無二並生。獨居悟道故喻麟角。故婆沙三十云。麟角喻者根極勝故。樂獨出故。當知如佛必無有二並出世間。如舍利子尚無並出。況麟角喻勝彼多倍。又婆沙九十九云。問佛得緣佛他心智不。有說不得。所以者何。無二如來俱出世故。復有說者得。此說能緣不說現起　問獨覺得緣獨覺他心智不　答麟角

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：使（有情的）自身衰弱減損，使（有情的）身量短小，使（有情的）膚色由白變黑，使（有情的）力氣由強變弱，使（有情的）正念正智變為邪念邪智，使（有情的）勤奮勇猛變為懈怠，使（有情的）無病變為有病。因此可知，有情的污濁是以五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）為本體。問：如《大毗婆沙論》第一百一十三卷所說，『有情衰損』是指劫初之時，此贍部洲（Jambudvipa，人所居住的四大洲之一）廣博嚴凈，有很多淳善福德的有情，城邑相連，人民充滿。到劫末之時，只剩下萬人。按照《大毗婆沙論》的說法，是損減眾多有情，使他們逐漸減少。為什麼此論說的是損減自身？答：解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》是從損減眾多有情，使之減少的角度來說的，此論是從損減自身的角度來說的。實際上，兩種說法都通，因為都是有情。『獨覺出現至二麟角喻者』，說明獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教，自己覺悟的修行者）出世，並顯示兩種獨覺。『部行獨覺至轉名獨勝者』，解釋部行獨覺（Sravakabuddha，聽聞佛法而覺悟的修行者）。由於眾多部眾相隨，所以稱為部行。離開教法，自己覺悟，稱為獨覺。部行獨覺先前是聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的弟子）的前三果人（須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含），後來得到第四勝果（阿羅漢）的時候，離開教法，獨自證得勝果，轉名為獨勝。又一種解釋是，先前是聲聞初果（須陀洹），後來得到后三勝果（斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢）時，離開教法，獨自覺悟勝果，轉名為獨勝。前一種解釋更為殊勝。『有餘說彼至不應修苦行者』，敘述不同的說法。如果先前是聖人，就不應該生起戒禁取見（認為遵守某種戒律或進行某種苦行可以解脫），而修習苦行。因此可知，先前是凡夫俗子。其餘文句可以自己理解。『麟角喻者謂必獨居者』，解釋麟角喻（Rhinoceros horn simile，比喻獨覺的修行方式）。如同麒麟的角，只有一個，沒有兩個並生。獨自居住而悟道，所以用麟角來比喻。所以《大毗婆沙論》第三十卷說，『麟角喻』是因為根器極其殊勝，喜歡獨自出離。應當知道，如同佛陀一樣，絕對沒有兩個同時出現在世間。如同舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一），尚且沒有並出的情況，何況麟角喻比他們殊勝很多倍。又《大毗婆沙論》第九十九卷說，問：佛陀能夠得到緣佛陀的他心智（Paracitta-jnana，瞭解他人內心的智慧）嗎？有人說不能。為什麼呢？因為沒有兩個如來（Tathagata，佛陀的稱號之一）同時出現於世間。還有人說能。這種說法是指能夠緣，而不是指現起。問：獨覺能夠得到緣獨覺的他心智嗎？答：麟角獨覺不能。

【English Translation】 English version: To cause (sentient beings') own decline and diminution, to cause (sentient beings') body size to be short and small, to cause (sentient beings') complexion to change from white to black, to cause (sentient beings') strength to change from strong to weak, to cause (sentient beings') right mindfulness and right wisdom to change into wrong mindfulness and wrong wisdom, to cause (sentient beings') diligence and courage to change into laziness, to cause (sentient beings') health to change into illness. Therefore, it is known that the turbidity of sentient beings takes the five aggregates (skandha) as its substance. Question: As stated in the one hundred and thirteenth volume of the Mahavibhasa, 'The decline of sentient beings' refers to the time at the beginning of the kalpa, when this Jambudvipa (one of the four continents inhabited by humans) was vast, pure, and adorned, with many virtuous and blessed sentient beings, cities lined up one after another, and people filled the land. By the end of the kalpa, only ten thousand people remain. According to the Mahavibhasa, it is the reduction of many sentient beings, causing them to gradually decrease. Why does this treatise speak of diminishing oneself? Answer: The explanation is that the Mahavibhasa speaks from the perspective of diminishing many sentient beings, causing them to decrease, while this treatise speaks from the perspective of diminishing oneself. In reality, both statements are valid, because both involve sentient beings. 'The appearance of a Pratyekabuddha up to the simile of two rhinoceros horns' explains the appearance of a Pratyekabuddha (a practitioner who attains enlightenment independently, without a teacher), and reveals the two types of Pratyekabuddhas. 'The group-traveling Pratyekabuddha up to the transformation of the name into Solitary Victor' explains the group-traveling Pratyekabuddha (Sravakabuddha, a practitioner who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings). Because many followers accompany them, they are called group-traveling. Separating from the teachings and awakening on one's own is called a Pratyekabuddha. The group-traveling Pratyekabuddha was previously a Sravaka (a disciple who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) who had attained the first three fruits (Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin). Later, when they attained the fourth supreme fruit (Arhat), they separated from the teachings, independently realized the supreme fruit, and were renamed Solitary Victor. Another explanation is that they were previously Sravakas who had attained the first fruit (Srotapanna). Later, when they attained the last three supreme fruits (Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat), they separated from the teachings, independently awakened to the supreme fruit, and were renamed Solitary Victor. The former explanation is more superior. 'Some say that they should not practice asceticism' narrates different views. If they were previously sages, they should not give rise to the view of adhering to precepts (believing that adhering to certain precepts or practicing certain asceticism can lead to liberation) and practice asceticism. Therefore, it is known that they were previously ordinary beings. The remaining sentences can be understood on your own. 'The rhinoceros horn simile refers to those who must live alone' explains the rhinoceros horn simile (a metaphor for the solitary practice of a Pratyekabuddha). Like a rhinoceros's horn, there is only one, and no two grow together. Living alone and attaining enlightenment, so the rhinoceros horn is used as a metaphor. Therefore, the thirtieth volume of the Mahavibhasa says, 'The rhinoceros horn simile' is because the root capacity is extremely superior and they enjoy solitary departure. It should be known that, like the Buddha, there are absolutely no two who appear in the world at the same time. Like Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples), there is not even a case of two appearing at the same time, let alone the rhinoceros horn simile, which is many times more superior than them. Furthermore, the ninety-ninth volume of the Mahavibhasa says, Question: Can the Buddha attain the mind-reading wisdom (Paracitta-jnana, the wisdom to understand the minds of others) of another Buddha? Some say no. Why? Because there are no two Tathagatas (one of the titles of the Buddha) appearing in the world at the same time. Others say yes. This statement refers to being able to perceive, but not to manifest. Question: Can a Pratyekabuddha attain the mind-reading wisdom of another Pratyekabuddha? Answer: A rhinoceros horn Pratyekabuddha cannot.

喻者準佛應知　又一說云。有作是說。麟角喻獨覺。亦定得緣麟角喻獨覺他心智。亦說能緣亦說現起。余世界中有麟角喻獨覺出世無理遮故　雖有二說然無評家。前既不言有說且以前說為正。又同婆沙前文。

二獨覺中至麟角喻獨覺者。明麟角喻修行時節。

言獨覺者至不調他故者。釋名。

何緣獨覺至對治道故者。外難。何緣獨覺言不調他。非彼無能演說正法。以彼亦得四無礙解故　論主若謂雖能說法而不能投機說法故不說者。又彼獨覺得宿命智而能憶念過去所聞佛說教理。何故不能投機說法　論主若謂能雖說法．亦知根機。而無慈悲故不說者。又不可說彼獨覺無慈悲。為攝有情現神通故　論主若謂雖能說法．及知根機。亦有慈悲。以無受法機故不調他者。又不可說無受法機。爾時有情亦有能起世間離欲有漏道故。

雖有此理至怖諠雜故者。答。雖有此理由彼獨覺過去久習少欣樂勝解無說法希望故。于少欣樂中勝解強故所以別舉。又知有情難受深法。以順生死流既久難令逆生死流故。又避攝眾不說正法怖諠雜故。

輪王出世至何威何相者。此下第二明四輪王。一問時。二問種。三問俱。四問威。五問相。

頌曰至故與佛非等者。初句答初問。第二句第三句及第四句中逆次兩字

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：比喻來說，應當知道佛也是如此。還有一種說法是：麟角（Rhinoceros horn，指犀牛角，這裡比喻獨覺）比喻獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師友教導，自己悟道的修行者）。也一定能緣于麟角比喻的獨覺的他心智（knowing the minds of others）。也有說能緣，也有說現起。因為其他世界中有麟角比喻的獨覺出世，沒有道理可以遮止。雖然有兩種說法，但沒有評判哪種更好。前面既然沒有說『有說』，就以前面的說法為正確。又與《婆沙論》前面的說法相同。

在二種獨覺中，說到麟角比喻的獨覺，是爲了說明麟角比喻的獨覺修行的時間。

說到『獨覺』，直到『不調伏他人』，這是在解釋名稱。

為什麼說獨覺不調伏他人？這不是因為他們沒有能力演說正法（Dharma，佛法），因為他們也得到了四無礙解（four kinds of unobstructed eloquence）的緣故。論主如果認為，雖然能說法，但不能投合聽眾的根機而說法，所以不說法。那麼，獨覺既然能得到宿命智（knowledge of past lives），能夠憶念過去所聽聞的佛所說的教理，為什麼不能投合聽眾的根機說法呢？論主如果認為，雖然能說法，也知道眾生的根機，但沒有慈悲心所以不說法。又不能說獨覺沒有慈悲心，因為他們爲了攝受有情眾生，會顯現神通。論主如果認為，雖然能說法，也知道眾生的根機，也有慈悲心，但因為沒有接受佛法的機緣，所以不調伏他人。又不能說沒有接受佛法的機緣，因為那時有情眾生也有能生起世間離欲的有漏道（contaminated path of detachment from desires）的緣故。

雖然有這個道理，但回答是：雖然有這個道理，但因為那些獨覺過去長久以來習慣於少欲知足，欣樂於殊勝的解脫，沒有說法的希望。因為在少欲知足中，殊勝的解脫更加強烈，所以特別提出來。又知道有情眾生難以接受甚深的佛法，因為順著生死輪迴已經很久，難以讓他們逆著生死輪迴。又因為害怕攝受大眾說法時會喧鬧雜亂，所以不說正法。

輪王（Chakravartin，轉輪聖王）出世，問：有什麼威德？有什麼相貌？下面第二部分說明四輪王。一問時間，二問種類，三問具備，四問威德，五問相貌。

頌文說：『因此與佛不相等』，這是回答第一個問題。第二句、第三句和第四句中，『逆次』兩個字。

【English Translation】 English version: By way of analogy, it should be known that the Buddha is also like this. Another explanation says: The rhinoceros horn (麟角, Líjiǎo, referring to the horn of a rhinoceros, used here as a metaphor for a solitary enlightened one) is a metaphor for the Pratyekabuddha (獨覺, Dújué, a practitioner who attains enlightenment on their own, without the guidance of a teacher or friend). It is certain that one can focus on the mind-reading abilities of a Pratyekabuddha symbolized by the rhinoceros horn. Some say it can be focused on, and some say it manifests. Because there is no reason to prevent the emergence of Pratyekabuddhas symbolized by the rhinoceros horn in other worlds. Although there are two explanations, there is no judgment on which is better. Since the previous text did not say 'some say,' the previous explanation is taken as correct. It is also the same as the previous text in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論).

Among the two types of Pratyekabuddhas, mentioning the Pratyekabuddha symbolized by the rhinoceros horn is to explain the time of practice of the Pratyekabuddha symbolized by the rhinoceros horn.

Speaking of 'Pratyekabuddha' up to 'does not tame others,' this is explaining the name.

Why is it said that Pratyekabuddhas do not tame others? It is not because they do not have the ability to expound the Dharma (正法, the Buddha's teachings), because they have also attained the four kinds of unobstructed eloquence (四無礙解). If the commentator argues that although they can teach, they cannot teach in accordance with the listener's capacity, so they do not teach. Then, since Pratyekabuddhas can attain the knowledge of past lives (宿命智) and can remember the teachings of the Buddha they heard in the past, why can't they teach in accordance with the listener's capacity? If the commentator argues that although they can teach and know the capacity of beings, they do not have compassion, so they do not teach. It cannot be said that Pratyekabuddhas do not have compassion, because they manifest supernatural powers to embrace sentient beings. If the commentator argues that although they can teach, know the capacity of beings, and have compassion, they do not tame others because there is no opportunity to receive the Dharma. It cannot be said that there is no opportunity to receive the Dharma, because at that time sentient beings also have the contaminated path of detachment from desires (有漏道) that can arise in the world.

Although there is this reason, the answer is: Although there is this reason, those Pratyekabuddhas have long been accustomed to contentment and delight in superior liberation, and have no hope of teaching. Because the superior liberation is stronger in contentment, it is specifically mentioned. Also, they know that it is difficult for sentient beings to accept the profound Dharma, because they have been following the cycle of birth and death for a long time, and it is difficult to make them go against the cycle of birth and death. Also, they do not teach the Dharma because they are afraid of the noise and confusion when embracing the masses.

When a Chakravartin (輪王, Zhǎnlún shèngwáng, Wheel-Turning King) appears, what is his majesty? What are his characteristics? The second part below explains the four types of Chakravartins. First, ask about the time; second, ask about the type; third, ask about the completeness; fourth, ask about the majesty; fifth, ask about the characteristics.

The verse says: 'Therefore, they are not equal to the Buddha,' this is answering the first question. In the second, third, and fourth sentences, the two words 'in reverse order'.

答第二問。第四句中獨如佛三字答第三問。第五．第六句答第四問。第七．第八句答第五問。

論曰至名轉輪王者。釋初句。準此論文四種輪王皆於人壽八萬已上方出世間。

施設足中至應知亦爾者。釋第二．第三．及第四句中逆次兩字。初引論釋四王。鐵輪王一謂贍部。銅輪王二加勝身。銀輪王三更加牛貨。金輪王四更加北洲　契經已下。會釋經文。依論說四輪經就勝說．但說金輪引經。證訖。論主解云金輪既然。轉餘三輪應知亦爾　或可總是經文就勝偏說金輪。餘三例釋。

輪王如佛至輪王亦爾者。釋第四句獨如佛。輪王一界無二並生。如佛無俱。引經可解。處謂方處。位謂時位。

應審思擇至為約一切界者。論主勸思。經言唯一為據一三千。為約一切三千說。

有說余界至唯一如來者。說一切有部解。於十方界唯一如來無二並生。立理引教可知　波羅門。此名梵志　喬答摩。此剎帝利中一姓　氏。謂氏族。

若爾何緣至得自在轉者外人引經難。

彼有蜜意者。答。

蜜意者何者。外人徴。

謂若世尊至例此應知者。通釋經文。梵王經據不作加行。佛眼唯於一三千界觀見自在。若據發起加行。佛眼能于無邊世界觀見自在。天耳通等例此應知。

有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本論中說『乃至名為轉輪王者』，這是解釋第一句。根據這篇論文，四種轉輪王都是在人類壽命達到八萬歲以上時才出現於世間。

『施設足中乃至應知亦爾』，這是解釋第二、第三以及第四句中的『逆次』兩字。首先引用論來解釋四種輪王。鐵輪王統治一個贍部洲（Jambudvipa，南贍部洲），銅輪王統治兩個，加上勝身洲（Purvavideha，東勝身洲），銀輪王統治三個，更加上牛貨洲（Aparagodaniya，西牛貨洲），金輪王統治四個，更加上北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲）。接下來的契經，會合解釋經文。依照論的說法，四輪經就殊勝之處來說，只說了金輪。引用經文來證明完畢。論主解釋說，金輪既然如此，其餘三種輪的道理也應該知道也是這樣。或者也可以說，這總是經文就殊勝之處偏重說了金輪，其餘三種可以類推解釋。

『輪王如佛乃至輪王亦爾』，這是解釋第四句『獨如佛』。輪王在一個世界中不會有兩位並生，如同佛陀一樣，不會有同時出現的。引用經文可以理解。處，指的是方處（空間位置）。位，指的是時位（時間位置）。

『應審思擇乃至為約一切界者』，論主勸勉要仔細思考。經文說『唯一』，是根據一個三千大千世界（Trisahasra-Mahasahasra-lokadhatu）來說的，還是根據一切三千大千世界來說的？

『有說余界乃至唯一如來者』，這是一切有部（Sarvastivada）的解釋。在十方世界中，只有一位如來，不會有兩位同時出現。樹立道理，引用教證，可以理解。波羅門（Brahmana），這是梵志（Brahmacarin）的名稱。喬答摩（Gautama），這是剎帝利（Kshatriya）中的一個姓氏。氏，指的是氏族。

『若爾何緣乃至得自在轉者』，外道之人引用經文來發難。

『彼有蜜意者』，這是回答。

『蜜意者何者』，外道之人追問。

『謂若世尊乃至例此應知者』，這是通盤解釋經文。梵王經是根據不作加行（努力）的情況來說的。佛眼（Buddha-caksu）只是在一個三千大千世界中觀見自在。如果根據發起加行的情況來說，佛眼能夠在無邊世界中觀見自在。天耳通（Divya-srotra）等等，可以依此類推理解。

有

【English Translation】 English version The treatise says, 'Up to being named a Chakravartin King (universal monarch).' This explains the first sentence. According to this treatise, the four types of Chakravartin Kings only appear in the world when human lifespan is above eighty thousand years.

'In the Establishment Chapter, up to 'it should also be known thus',' this explains the words 'in reverse order' in the second, third, and fourth sentences. First, the treatise is cited to explain the four kings. The Iron Wheel King rules one Jambudvipa (Southern Continent). The Copper Wheel King rules two, adding Purvavideha (Eastern Continent). The Silver Wheel King rules three, adding Aparagodaniya (Western Continent). The Gold Wheel King rules four, adding Uttarakuru (Northern Continent). The following sutras combine to explain the scriptural text. According to the treatise, the Sutra of the Four Wheels, in terms of superiority, only speaks of the Gold Wheel. The sutra is cited to prove this. The author of the treatise explains that since the Gold Wheel is like this, the principle of the other three wheels should also be known to be the same. Or it could be said that this is always the sutra emphasizing the Gold Wheel in terms of superiority, and the other three can be explained by analogy.

'A Chakravartin King is like a Buddha, up to 'a Chakravartin King is also like that',' this explains the fourth sentence, 'unique like a Buddha.' In one world, two Chakravartin Kings will not be born together, just as there will not be two Buddhas appearing simultaneously. The sutra can be understood by citing it. 'Place' refers to spatial location. 'Position' refers to temporal location.

'One should carefully consider, up to 'is it about all realms?',' the author of the treatise urges careful consideration. Does the sutra say 'only one' based on one Trisahasra-Mahasahasra-lokadhatu (great trichiliocosm), or is it speaking about all Trisahasra-Mahasahasra-lokadhatu?

'Some say in other realms, up to 'only one Tathagata',' this is the explanation of the Sarvastivada school. In the ten directions, there is only one Tathagata; two will not appear simultaneously. Establishing the principle and citing the teachings can be understood. Brahmana is the name for Brahmacarin. Gautama is a surname among the Kshatriyas. 'Clan' refers to the lineage.

'If so, why, up to 'obtains the ability to turn freely',' an outsider uses the sutra to raise a difficulty.

'There is a hidden meaning there',' this is the answer.

'What is the hidden meaning?',' the outsider asks.

'It means that if the World-Honored One, up to 'this should be known by analogy',' this is a comprehensive explanation of the sutra. The Brahma King Sutra is based on the situation of not making effort (exertion). The Buddha-caksu (Buddha-eye) only sees freely in one Trisahasra-Mahasahasra-lokadhatu. If based on the situation of initiating effort, the Buddha-eye can see freely in boundless worlds. Divya-srotra (divine ear) and so on can be understood by analogy.

There is

餘部師至定有多佛者。有餘部說有十方佛家。可知。

然彼所引至及決定勝道者。立十方佛。家通前舍利子經。此經為約一界。多界。若約多界唯有一佛。則轉輪王余界非有。經說如佛遮俱生故。汝宗既許輪王余界別有。如何不許別界佛耶。俱現益多如何不許令得人天增上生。及得決定無漏勝道。

若爾何故至俱時出現者。說一切有部難。

以無用故至無二佛現者。十方佛家答。一以無用。二由願力。三令敬重。四令速行。

如是所說至主兵臣寶者。釋第五．第六句。

像等五寶至生他有情者。難。於七寶中除輪．珠寶余象等五有情數攝。如何他輪王業生他有情。此約親因為難。

非他有情至乘自業起者。答。非他像等有情從他輪王親因業起。各自從己親因生故。然由先造互相系屬疏增上業于中若一乘自業生。余亦俱時乘自業起。如是所說至大士相殊者。釋后兩句。四種非一名諸。輪王皆具三十二相。金輪具勝。餘三雖有。非如金輪。

若爾輪王與佛何異者。問。

佛大士相至故有差別者。答。正理釋云言處正者。謂于佛身眾相無偏得其所故　言明了者。謂于佛身相極分明能奪意故　言圓滿者。謂于佛身眾相周圓無缺減故。

劫初人眾至為防雇守田者。此下

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果其他部派認為有多個佛陀存在，那麼其他部派會說有十方佛家，這是可以理解的。

然而，他們所引用的關於達到和決定殊勝之道的內容，以及建立十方佛的說法，與之前的《舍利子經》相通。這部經是關於一個世界還是多個世界？如果是關於多個世界，只有一個佛陀，那麼轉輪聖王在其他世界就不存在了。經中說佛陀遮止了俱生的情況。你們宗派既然允許其他世界有轉輪聖王，為什麼不允許其他世界有佛陀呢？同時顯現利益眾多，為什麼不允許使人天得到增上生，以及得到決定無漏的殊勝之道呢？

如果這樣，為什麼說到同時出現呢？這是一切有部的提問。

因為沒有用處，所以沒有兩個佛陀同時顯現。這是十方佛家的回答：一是因為沒有用處，二是因為願力不同，三是爲了令人敬重，四是爲了令人迅速修行。

像這樣所說的，直到『主兵臣寶』，這是解釋第五句和第六句。

象等五寶，直到『生他有情』，這是提問。在七寶中，除了輪寶和珠寶，其餘的象等五種都屬於有情眾生。為什麼其他轉輪聖王的業會產生其他的有情眾生？這是從親因的角度提出的疑問。

不是其他的有情，直到『乘自業起』，這是回答。不是其他的象等有情是從其他轉輪聖王的親因之業產生的，而是各自從自己的親因所生。然而，由於先前造作的互相聯繫的疏遠增上業，如果其中一個乘著自己的業而生，其餘的也會同時乘著自己的業而起。像這樣所說的，直到『大士相殊』，這是解釋後面的兩句。四種輪王並非名稱相同，都具備三十二相，金輪聖王具備更殊勝的相，其餘三種雖然有，但不如金輪聖王。

如果這樣，轉輪聖王和佛陀有什麼區別呢？這是提問。

佛陀的大士之相，直到『故有差別』，這是回答。《正理》解釋說：『言處正者』，是指佛陀身上的眾多相好沒有偏頗，都恰到好處。『言明了者』，是指佛陀身上的相好極其分明，能夠奪人心魄。『言圓滿者』，是指佛陀身上的眾多相好周全圓滿，沒有缺失。

劫初的人眾，直到『為防雇守田者』，這是下面要說的內容。

【English Translation】 English version: If other schools believe that there are multiple Buddhas, then other schools would say that there are Buddhas in the ten directions, which is understandable.

However, what they cite regarding reaching and determining the supreme path, and establishing the existence of Buddhas in the ten directions, is consistent with the previous Shariputra Sutra. Is this sutra about one world or multiple worlds? If it is about multiple worlds and there is only one Buddha, then the Chakravartin (wheel-turning king) would not exist in other worlds. The sutra says that the Buddha prohibits simultaneous arising. Since your school allows the existence of Chakravartins in other worlds, why not allow the existence of Buddhas in other worlds? Simultaneous manifestation benefits many, why not allow it to enable humans and devas to obtain higher rebirth and the supreme path of definitive non-outflow?

If so, why is it said that they appear simultaneously? This is a question from the Sarvastivada school.

Because there is no use, there are not two Buddhas appearing simultaneously. This is the answer from the school of Buddhas in the ten directions: first, because there is no use; second, because of different vows; third, to inspire respect; and fourth, to encourage rapid practice.

What is said in this way, up to 'chief military officer jewel', explains the fifth and sixth sentences.

The five jewels such as elephants, up to 'generating other sentient beings', is a question. Among the seven jewels, except for the wheel jewel and the mani jewel, the remaining five, such as elephants, are included in the category of sentient beings. Why would the karma of other Chakravartins generate other sentient beings? This is a question raised from the perspective of the direct cause.

Not other sentient beings, up to 'arising from their own karma', is the answer. Other sentient beings such as elephants are not produced from the direct causal karma of other Chakravartins, but each arises from their own direct cause. However, due to previously created distant increasing karma that is mutually connected, if one arises riding on their own karma, the others will also arise simultaneously riding on their own karma. What is said in this way, up to 'different marks of great beings', explains the last two sentences. The four types of Chakravartins do not have the same name, and all possess the thirty-two marks. The golden wheel Chakravartin possesses superior marks. Although the other three have them, they are not like those of the golden wheel Chakravartin.

If so, what is the difference between a Chakravartin and a Buddha? This is a question.

The marks of a Buddha as a great being, up to 'therefore there is a difference', is the answer. The Nyaya (Reasoning) explains: 'Saying 'being in the right place' means that the many marks and characteristics on the Buddha's body are not biased and are in the right place. 'Saying 'clear' means that the marks and characteristics on the Buddha's body are extremely clear and can capture the mind. 'Saying 'complete' means that the many marks and characteristics on the Buddha's body are complete and without deficiency.

The people at the beginning of the kalpa, up to 'to prevent hiring guards for the fields', is what will be said below.

第三明小王興。問．及頌答。

論曰至長壽久住者。釋初句。劫初化生名為意成。初未段食以喜樂為飲食。

有如是類至無所貯積者。釋第二句　地味。謂地中出。猶如融餳　地皮餅生者。地味漸幹成餅名地皮餅　林藤。此藤成林故名林藤。食林藤已前身無便穢。食香稻已去方有便穢。余文可知。

后時有人至始於此時者。釋第三句。

為欲遮防至此時為首者。釋第四句　三末多。此云共許。眾人共許為好人也。惡業道中隨重別說。所餘輕者略而不論。余文可知。

于劫減位有小三災者。此下第三明劫中災。就中．一明小三災。二明大三災。此下明小三災。頌前標宗。

其相云何者。問。

頌曰至七日月年止者。頌答。

論曰至饑饉災起者。釋上三句。以此文證小三災。各別于中劫末起　又立世阿毗曇第九亦說小三災別劫中起。如彼廣說　相續。謂身　邪法。謂諸惡法。應知此時亦起余過。從強過重偏說貪．瞋　場是積聚穀麥處。故名場蘊　訶梨怛雞。果名舊云訶梨勒訛也　刀災死疾故日最少。疫災死遲其日稍長。饑災死最遲故時最長。余文可知。

此三災起至北洲總無者。此釋第四句。

前說火災至今當具辨者。此下第二明大三災。牒前問起。前說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第三部分：小王興。問答及頌文。

論述：關於長壽久住者。解釋第一句。劫初的化生眾生名為意成（指最初由意念化生的眾生）。最初他們不以段食為食，而是以喜樂為飲食。

有如是類至無所貯積者。解釋第二句。地味（指大地的滋味），是指從地中生出的，猶如融化的糖漿。地皮餅生者，是指地味逐漸乾燥凝結成餅，名為地皮餅。林藤（指一種藤本植物），這種藤蔓長成林，所以名為林藤。食用林藤之前，身體沒有大小便等穢物。食用香稻之後，才開始有大小便等穢物。其餘文句可以自行理解。

后時有人至始於此時者。解釋第三句。

為欲遮防至此時為首者。解釋第四句。三末多（梵文：samata），意為共許（共同認可）。眾人共同認可他是好人。惡業道中，根據罪業的輕重分別敘述。其餘較輕的罪業則省略不談。其餘文句可以自行理解。

于劫減位有小三災者。以下第三部分說明劫中的災難。其中，第一部分說明小三災，第二部分說明大三災。以下說明小三災。頌文前先標明宗旨。

其相云何者。提問。

頌曰至七日月年止者。頌文回答。

論曰至饑饉災起者。解釋上面三句。用這段文字證明小三災分別在中劫末期發生。又，《立世阿毗曇》第九卷也說小三災在不同的劫中發生，如該經廣說。相續（指身體）。邪法（指各種惡法）。應當知道此時也發生其他的過失。因為貪婪和嗔恨的過失最為嚴重，所以特別說明。場（指堆積穀物的地方），是積聚穀麥之處，所以名為場蘊。訶梨怛雞（梵文：haritaki），是一種果實的名字，舊譯為訶梨勒，是訛誤。刀兵災死的人最多，所以時間最短。瘟疫災死的人較慢，所以時間稍長。饑饉災死的人最慢，所以時間最長。其餘文句可以自行理解。

此三災起至北洲總無者。解釋第四句。

前說火災至今當具辨者。以下第二部分說明大三災。承接前面的提問。前面說到

【English Translation】 English version Third Section: Small Wang Xing. Questions, Answers, and Verses.

Treatise: Regarding those who live long lives. Explaining the first sentence. Beings born at the beginning of a kalpa (aeon) are called Yi Cheng (referring to beings initially born from thought). Initially, they do not consume solid food (dana), but rather take joy and happiness as their nourishment.

『Having such qualities, up to having nothing stored.』 Explaining the second sentence. 『Earth essence』 (referring to the essence of the earth) means that which comes from the earth, like melted molasses. 『Earth skin cakes arise』 means that the earth essence gradually dries and solidifies into cakes, called earth skin cakes. 『Forest vines』 (referring to a type of vine plant) means that these vines grow into forests, hence the name forest vines. Before consuming forest vines, the body has no excrement or impurities. Only after consuming fragrant rice do excrement and impurities arise. The remaining sentences can be understood on their own.

『Later, some people, up to beginning at this time.』 Explaining the third sentence.

『In order to prevent, up to taking this time as the beginning.』 Explaining the fourth sentence. 『San Mo Duo』 (Sanskrit: samata), meaning 『mutually agreed upon』 (collectively acknowledged). Everyone collectively acknowledges him as a good person. Among the paths of evil karma, the descriptions vary according to the severity of the sins. The remaining lighter sins are omitted. The remaining sentences can be understood on their own.

『During the decreasing period of a kalpa, there are the three small calamities.』 The following third section explains the calamities within a kalpa. Among them, the first part explains the three small calamities, and the second part explains the three great calamities. The following explains the three small calamities. The verse first states the purpose.

『What are their characteristics?』 Question.

『Verse: Up to stopping at seven days, months, and years.』 Verse answering.

Treatise: 『Up to the famine calamity arises.』 Explaining the above three sentences. This passage proves that the three small calamities occur separately at the end of the intermediate kalpas. Also, the ninth volume of the Abhidharma of Establishing the World also says that the three small calamities occur in different kalpas, as explained extensively in that scripture. 『Continuity』 (referring to the body). 『Evil dharmas』 (referring to various evil laws). It should be known that other faults also occur at this time. Because the faults of greed and hatred are the most severe, they are specifically mentioned. 『Field』 (referring to a place where grains are piled up) is a place for accumulating grains, hence the name field accumulation. 『Haritaki』 (Sanskrit: haritaki) is the name of a fruit, formerly translated as harile, which is a corruption. The most people die from the calamity of weapons, so the time is the shortest. People die more slowly from the plague calamity, so the time is slightly longer. People die the slowest from the famine calamity, so the time is the longest. The remaining sentences can be understood on their own.

『These three calamities arise, up to the northern continent having none.』 Explaining the fourth sentence.

『The previously mentioned fire calamity will now be fully explained.』 The following second section explains the three great calamities. Continuing from the previous question. Previously mentioned

火災焚燒世界。余水風災亦爾如應當知。何者為余水．風災。今當具辨此大三災。

頌曰至七水火后風者。前三句明三災。次三句明第四定無災。后兩句明災起次第。

論曰至亦無餘在者。釋初句。婆沙一百三十三說云。火災起時。有說七日先隱持雙。先一照耀。后六漸出便壞世間。有說一日分為七日。有說一日成七倍熱。有說七日先藏地下後漸出現。如是說者諸有情類業增上力令世界成。至劫末時業力盡故隨於近處有災火生。乃至梵宮皆被焚燎　水災起時有說三定邊雨熱灰水能壞世間。有說從下水輪涌出。如是說者諸有情類業增上力令世界成。至劫末時業力盡故隨於近處有災水生。由彼因緣世界便壞　風災起時有說從四定邊風起能壞世間。有說從下風輪有猛風起。如是說者諸有情業增上力令世界成。至劫末時業力盡故。隨於近處有災風生。至遍凈天皆被散壞　此論三災並非婆沙正義。此論非以婆沙評家為量。隨樂而說。

一類外道至余極微在者。此下破異執。此即敘計。別有一類勝論外道執極微常。彼謂劫壞但壞粗色。爾時猶有餘常極微。

何緣彼執猶有餘極微者。論主徴問。

勿后粗事果生無種子故者。勝論答。勿后劫成粗事果生無種子故。彼執。劫壞之時壞粗色事不壞常微。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：火災會焚燒整個世界。水災和風災也是如此，應該瞭解。什麼是水災和風災呢？現在詳細說明這三大災難。

頌文說：『直至七水火后風者』。前三句說明了三大災難。接下來的三句說明第四禪定沒有災難。最後兩句說明災難發生的順序。

論述說：『乃至亦無餘在者』。解釋第一句。在《婆沙論》第一百三十三卷中說：火災發生時，有人說七個太陽先隱藏，然後持雙日先照耀，之後六個太陽逐漸出現，便會毀壞世間。有人說一日分為七日。有人說一日的熱度變成七倍。有人說七個太陽先藏在地下，然後逐漸出現。這樣說是因為眾生的業力增強，使得世界形成。到了劫末時，業力耗盡，所以在靠近的地方有災火產生，甚至梵天宮殿都會被焚燒。水災發生時，有人說從三禪定邊的雨熱灰水能夠毀壞世間。有人說從下方的水輪涌出。這樣說是因為眾生的業力增強，使得世界形成。到了劫末時，業力耗盡，所以在靠近的地方有災水產生，由於這個因緣，世界便會毀壞。風災發生時，有人說從四禪定邊的風起能夠毀壞世間。有人說從下方的風輪有猛烈的風颳起。這樣說是因為眾生的業力增強，使得世界形成。到了劫末時，業力耗盡，所以在靠近的地方有災風產生，甚至遍凈天都會被吹散毀壞。此論述的三災並非《婆沙論》的正義。此論述並非以《婆沙論》的評家為標準，而是隨自己的意願而說。

有一類外道說：『余極微在者』。這以下是破斥不同的執著。這是敘述他們的計論。另外有一類勝論外道執著極微是常存的。他們認為劫壞只是毀壞粗糙的色法。那時仍然有剩餘的常存極微。

因為什麼原因他們執著仍然有剩餘的極微呢？論主提出疑問。

『勿后粗事果生無種子故者』。勝論回答說：不要讓后劫形成粗糙事物的結果產生時沒有種子。』他們認為，劫壞的時候，毀壞粗糙的色法事物，但不毀壞常存的極微。這是

【English Translation】 English version: A fire burns the world. Water and wind disasters are also like that, as you should know. What are water and wind disasters? Now I will explain these three great disasters in detail.

The verse says: 'Until seven waters, fire, then wind.' The first three lines explain the three disasters. The next three lines explain that there is no disaster in the fourth Dhyana. The last two lines explain the order in which the disasters arise.

The treatise says: 'Even nothing remains.' Explaining the first sentence. The Vibhasa (Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-bhasya) one hundred and thirty-three says: When a fire disaster arises, some say that seven suns first hide, then the dual sun first shines, and then six suns gradually appear, and then destroy the world. Some say that one day is divided into seven days. Some say that the heat of one day becomes seven times greater. Some say that seven suns first hide underground and then gradually appear. Those who say this say that the sentient beings' karma increases, causing the world to form. At the end of the kalpa, the power of karma is exhausted, so a fire disaster arises near by, and even the Brahma palaces are burned. When a water disaster arises, some say that rain, heat, and ash water from the edge of the third Dhyana can destroy the world. Some say that it gushes out from the lower water wheel. Those who say this say that the sentient beings' karma increases, causing the world to form. At the end of the kalpa, the power of karma is exhausted, so a water disaster arises near by, and the world is destroyed because of this cause. When a wind disaster arises, some say that wind from the edge of the fourth Dhyana can destroy the world. Some say that a strong wind arises from the lower wind wheel. Those who say this say that the sentient beings' karma increases, causing the world to form. At the end of the kalpa, the power of karma is exhausted, so a wind disaster arises near by, and even the Subhakrtsna heaven is scattered and destroyed. The three disasters in this treatise are not the correct meaning of the Vibhasa. This treatise does not take the commentators of the Vibhasa as the standard, but speaks according to one's own wishes.

One type of heretics says: 'Remaining ultimate particles exist.' Below this is refuting different attachments. This is narrating their calculations. Another type of Vaisheshika (Indian school of philosophy) heretics are attached to the ultimate particles being permanent. They believe that the destruction of the kalpa only destroys the coarse form. At that time, there are still remaining permanent ultimate particles.

For what reason do they insist that there are still remaining ultimate particles? The author of the treatise asks.

'Lest the coarse matter of the later result be produced without a seed.' The Vaisheshika replies: 'Lest the coarse matter of the later kalpa be produced without a seed.' They believe that when the kalpa is destroyed, the coarse matter is destroyed, but the permanent ultimate particles are not destroyed. This is

常極微散在空中各各別住。劫將成時眾生業力令常極微兩兩和合生一粗果。量等父母。所生粗果復各兩兩和合共生一粗果。故復量等父母。如是展轉兩兩和合成大地等。從二極微生果已去名為粗事。散常極微名為種子。與彼粗果為種子故。應知劫壞壞彼粗事非壞極微。

豈不前說至風為種子者。述正義。豈不前說世界將成由諸有情于虛空中。業所生風能為世界種子故。故正理云。風中具有種種細物。為同類因引粗物起(已上論文)或此下世界將欲成時。即以前災頂風為緣引生下地風起。此風能為世界種子。如二十空劫后將成劫時。用前壞劫第二定等火災等頂風為緣故。引下地風為其種子生諸世界。壞望后成是其前故名前災頂。

又化地部至飄種來此者。述異部計。由諸世界壞非一時。此界初成風從他方飄諸種子來此世間成諸世界生芽等果。

雖爾不許至親所引起者。述勝論師計。佛法雖爾我宗不許芽等果生是種等因親所引起。

若爾芽等從何而生者。論主徴問。汝不許種親生芽等。未知芽等從何而生。

從自分生至從極微生者。勝論答。粗芽等果各從自分細芽等生。如是芽等自分復隨芽等自分因生。從粗向細展轉乃至最細有分從二父母芽極微生。攬父母成有彼分故名為有分。父母二微

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『常極微』（永遠存在的最小微粒）散佈在空中，各自獨立存在。當『劫』（宇宙時期）將要形成時，眾生的業力使得『常極微』兩兩結合，產生一個粗果（較大的物質）。這個粗果的大小相當於父母（指結合的兩個『常極微』）。所產生的粗果又各自兩兩結合，共同產生一個更大的粗果，因此大小又相當於父母。就這樣輾轉兩兩結合，形成大地等等。從兩個『極微』產生粗果開始，就被稱為『粗事』（粗大的事物）。分散的『常極微』被稱為『種子』，因為它們是那些粗果的種子。應該知道，『劫』壞時，壞的是那些粗大的事物，而不是『極微』。

難道前面不是說風是種子嗎？這是爲了闡述正確的意義。難道前面不是說世界將要形成時，由於有情眾生在虛空中，由業力產生的風能夠成為世界的種子嗎？所以正理中說，風中具有種種細微的物質，作為同類因，引發粗大的物質產生。（以上是論文的內容）或者說，這個下方的世界將要形成時，就以前面的災難頂風作為緣，引發下方的地風產生。這種風能夠成為世界的種子。就像二十個空劫之後，將要形成劫時，用前一個壞劫的第二禪等火災等的頂風作為緣故，引發下方的地風作為其種子，產生各種世界。壞劫相對於後來的成劫來說是其前因，所以被稱為前災頂。

另外，『化地部』（佛教部派之一）認為種子從他方飄來這裡。這是在闡述不同部派的觀點。由於各個世界的壞滅不是同時發生的，這個世界剛開始形成時，風從其他地方飄來各種種子，來到這個世間，形成各種世界，產生芽等果實。

即使這樣，也不允許是種子等直接引起的。這是在闡述『勝論師』（印度正理論師）的觀點。即使佛法是這樣，我的宗派也不允許芽等果實的產生是種子等因直接引起的。

如果這樣，芽等是從哪裡產生的呢？論主提出疑問。你們不允許種子直接產生芽等，那麼芽等是從哪裡產生的呢？

粗芽等果實各自從自身細微的芽等產生。像這樣，芽等自身又隨著芽等自身的因產生。從粗到細，輾轉乃至最細微的有分，是從父母兩個芽『極微』產生的。包含父母的成分，所以被稱為『有分』。父母兩個微粒

【English Translation】 English version: 『Paramāṇu』 (the ultimate indivisible particle) are scattered in space, each existing independently. When a 『kalpa』 (cosmic epoch) is about to form, the karma of sentient beings causes the 『Paramāṇu』 to combine in pairs, producing a 『gross effect』 (a larger material). This gross effect is equal in size to its parents (referring to the two combined 『Paramāṇu』). The resulting gross effects then combine in pairs again, jointly producing an even larger gross effect, thus again being equal in size to its parents. In this way, they combine in pairs successively, forming the earth and so on. From the point when two 『Paramāṇu』 produce a gross effect, it is called a 『gross matter』 (a coarse thing). The scattered 『Paramāṇu』 are called 『seeds』, because they are the seeds of those gross effects. It should be known that when a 『kalpa』 is destroyed, it is the gross matters that are destroyed, not the 『Paramāṇu』.

Wasn't it said earlier that wind is the seed? This is to explain the correct meaning. Wasn't it said earlier that when the world is about to form, due to sentient beings in empty space, the wind generated by karma can become the seed of the world? Therefore, it is said in the Nyaya, 'Wind contains various subtle substances, which, as a cause of the same kind, induce the arising of gross substances.' (The above is the content of the treatise.) Or, when this lower world is about to form, it uses the top wind of the previous disaster as a condition to induce the arising of the lower earth wind. This wind can become the seed of the world. Just like after twenty empty kalpas, when a kalpa is about to form, the top wind of the fire disaster of the second Dhyana (meditative state) of the previous destructive kalpa is used as a condition, inducing the lower earth wind as its seed, producing various worlds. The destructive kalpa is the cause of the subsequent formative kalpa, so it is called the top of the previous disaster.

Furthermore, the 『Dārṣṭāntika』 (a Buddhist school) believes that seeds drift here from other places. This is to describe the views of different schools. Because the destruction of each world does not happen simultaneously, when this world is just beginning to form, wind drifts various seeds from other places, coming to this world, forming various worlds, producing sprouts and other fruits.

Even so, it is not allowed to be directly caused by seeds, etc. This is to describe the views of the 『Vaiśeṣika』 (an Indian philosophical school). Even if Buddhism is like this, my school does not allow the production of sprouts and other fruits to be directly caused by seeds, etc.

If so, where do sprouts, etc., come from? The author raises a question. You do not allow seeds to directly produce sprouts, etc., so where do sprouts, etc., come from?

Gross sprouts and other fruits each come from their own subtle sprouts, etc. Like this, the sprouts themselves arise following the cause of the sprouts themselves. From coarse to fine, successively even to the finest part, it is produced from the two 『Paramāṇu』 of the parent sprouts. Containing the components of the parents, it is therefore called 『having parts』. The two particles of the parents

但名為分。二分別故不名有分。彼宗中計種．芽．莖等常微各異。唯自類相生非生異類。

于芽等生中種等有何力者。論主復徴。

除能引集至生芽等力者。勝論答。此種子等除能引集芽等常微。種等更無有別勝力親生芽等。以此芽等各從自分芽等生故。

何緣定作如是執耶者。論主復徴。

從異類生定不應理者。勝論答。芽地大等從其異類種地大等生定不應理。彼計芽種雖復俱以地大為體然類各別。

不應何理者。論主復徴。

應無定故者。勝論反難論主。若從異類能生異類應無定故。應從谷等種生諸麥等芽。

功能定故至從異類定生者。論主釋難。如麥種等定能生彼麥芽等果不能生余谷芽等果。故言功能定故無不定失。如聲定從手．鼓等異類而生。如燒物熟變從薪．火等異類定生。或燒薪時從白生黃從黃生黑等名異類定生　又解引勝論中聲等為喻。彼宗計德句中聲是實句中空家德。從空異類而生。又從德句中合離異類生。如手．鼓合出聲。如破竹離出聲。熟變是色。色是德句攝。此色是實句中火家德。從火異類生亦從薪生。等謂等取余德句義中從異類生法。即顯彼說自教相違。

德法有殊至及縷生衣等者。勝論救義。德句義法而有差別。如聲熟等可有從彼異類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：但名為『分』（avayava，部分）。因為有二種分別，所以不稱為『有分』（avayavin，整體）。他們的宗派中認為種子、芽、莖等恒常微小且各自不同，只有同類才能相生，不同類不能相生。

在芽等生起中，種子等有什麼作用力呢？論主再次質問。

勝論派回答：『除了能夠引集到生芽等的作用力之外。』這種子等除了能夠引集芽等常微，種子等再沒有其他殊勝的作用力能夠直接生起芽等。因為這些芽等各自從自己的同類芽等生起。

因為什麼原因一定要作出這樣的執著呢？論主再次質問。

勝論派回答：『從異類生起一定不合道理。』芽、地大等從其異類的種子、地大等生起一定不合道理。他們認為芽和種子雖然都是以地大為體，但是種類各不相同。

不合什麼道理呢？論主再次質問。

勝論派反駁論主：『如果從異類能夠生起異類，就應該沒有定準了。』應該從谷等種子生起各種麥等芽。

論主解釋困難：『因為功能是確定的，所以從異類生起是確定的。』比如麥種等一定能夠生起麥芽等果，不能生起其他的谷芽等果。所以說功能是確定的，沒有不確定的過失。比如聲音一定是從手、鼓等異類而生。比如燒東西成熟變化一定是從柴、火等異類而生。或者燒柴的時候，從白色變成黃色，從黃色變成黑色等，這叫做異類決定生起。又解釋說，引用勝論中的聲音等作為比喻。他們的宗派認為在德句中的聲音是實句中的空家的德，是從空這種異類而生。又從德句中的合離這種異類生起。比如手和鼓合在一起發出聲音，比如劈竹子分開發出聲音。成熟變化是。是德句所攝。這種顏色是實句中火家的德，是從火這種異類生起，也是從柴生起。』等等，是指等同於取其他的德句義中從異類生起的法。這就顯示了他們自己所說與自己的教義相違背。

勝論派辯解：『德句義的法是有區別的。』比如聲音、成熟等可以有從那些異類生起的。

【English Translation】 English version: It is only named 'avayava' (part). Because there are two kinds of distinctions, it is not called 'avayavin' (whole). In their school, they consider seeds, sprouts, stems, etc., to be constantly minute and different from each other. Only those of the same kind can produce each other; those of different kinds cannot.

In the arising of sprouts, etc., what force do seeds, etc., have? The proponent questions again.

The Vaisheshika (勝論) replies: 'Except for the force that can attract and gather to produce sprouts, etc.' These seeds, etc., besides being able to attract and gather minute sprouts, etc., have no other superior force to directly produce sprouts, etc. Because these sprouts, etc., each arise from their own kind of sprouts, etc.

For what reason must such an adherence be made? The proponent questions again.

The Vaisheshika replies: 'It is certainly unreasonable for something to arise from a different kind.' Sprouts, earth elements, etc., arising from their different kinds of seeds, earth elements, etc., is certainly unreasonable. They believe that although sprouts and seeds both have earth elements as their substance, they are of different kinds.

Unreasonable in what way? The proponent questions again.

The Vaisheshika refutes the proponent: 'If a different kind can produce a different kind, then there should be no certainty.' Sprouts of various wheats, etc., should arise from seeds of grains, etc.

The proponent explains the difficulty: 'Because the function is fixed, arising from a different kind is certain.' For example, wheat seeds, etc., can certainly produce wheat sprouts, etc., as a result, but cannot produce other grain sprouts, etc. Therefore, it is said that the function is fixed, and there is no fault of uncertainty. For example, sound certainly arises from different kinds such as hands, drums, etc. For example, the ripening and transformation of burning things certainly arises from different kinds such as firewood, fire, etc. Or when burning firewood, changing from white to yellow, from yellow to black, etc., this is called the definite arising of different kinds. Furthermore, it is explained that sound, etc., in the Vaisheshika is used as a metaphor. Their school believes that sound in the quality category is a quality of the space element in the substance category, and arises from the different kind of space. It also arises from the different kind of combination and separation in the quality category. For example, hands and drums combining produce sound, and splitting bamboo produces sound. Ripening and transformation is *. * is included in the quality category. This color is a quality of the fire element in the substance category, and arises from the different kind of fire, and also arises from firewood.' And so on, referring to the fact that other qualities in the meaning of the quality category also arise from different kinds. This shows that what they themselves say contradicts their own teachings.

The Vaisheshika defends: 'The qualities in the meaning of the quality category are different.' For example, sound, ripening, etc., can arise from those different kinds.

而生。實句義法而即不爾。種芽地大俱是實句攝。各自分生。又引事證世間現見。實句中法唯從同類生。如從眾藤生一總支。支謂藤圓擬安缽等。彼宗離藤別有支體。體俱地大並實句收故說此藤生同類支　亦如眾縷生一總衣。彼宗離縷別有衣體。俱是地大並實句收。故說此縷生同類衣。此二並是同時生也。又藤與支。縷之與衣。形狀相似。以見藤時亦即見支。見縷之時亦即見衣。故言相似。

此非應理者。論主非救。

非理者何者。勝論反徴論主。

引不極成為能立故者。論主出非理。凡所引喻彼此極成。汝引不極成為能立喻故。

今此所引何不極成者。勝論復徴所以。

非許藤支至如蟻行等者。論主答。如我所宗非許離藤別有支體。非許離縷別有衣體。即眾藤合。即眾縷合。盤屈安布差別不同得支名．衣名。如蟻行等。離蟻之外無別行體。勝論亦許無別行體。故引極成為喻。

云何知爾者。勝論復徴論主。

一縷閤中至應亦得衣者。論主以理徴破。此中且破離縷有衣。離藤有支準衣應破。故不別顯。勝論宗計有一全衣與眾縷合。論主破云。一縷與彼全衣閤中曾不得衣唯得縷故。若言縷上別有全衣。見縷之時有誰為障令不得衣。若言有障見縷之時何不見障。既不見障但見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：然後產生。實際上，『句義法』（Dharmas of Meaningful Sentences）雖然是這樣，但並非完全如此。種子、嫩芽、土地、地大（earth element）都包含在『實句』（True Sentences）中，各自產生。又引用世間常見的例子來證明，『實句』中的法只從同類產生。例如，從許多藤蔓中產生一個總的支撐物（支）。這裡的『支』指的是藤蔓圓形，可以用來比作缽等。他們的宗派認為，離開藤蔓之外，另有支撐物（支）的實體。這些實體都屬於地大（earth element），並被包含在『實句』（True Sentences）中，所以說這些藤蔓產生同類的支撐物（支）。又如，許多線縷產生一件總的衣服。他們的宗派認為，離開線縷之外，另有衣服的實體。這些都屬於地大（earth element），並被包含在『實句』（True Sentences）中，所以說這些線縷產生同類的衣服。這兩種情況都是同時產生的。而且，藤蔓與支撐物（支），線縷與衣服，形狀相似。看到藤蔓時，也就看到了支撐物（支）；看到線縷時，也就看到了衣服。所以說它們相似。這並非合理，論主沒有辯護。什麼是不合理？勝論派（Vaisheshika）反過來質問論主。因為引用不完全成立的例子作為論證，所以論主指出其不合理之處。凡是引用的比喻，都應該是雙方都認可的。你引用不完全成立的例子作為論證的比喻，所以是不合理的。現在我所引用的例子，哪裡不完全成立？勝論派（Vaisheshika）再次質問原因。並非承認藤蔓和支撐物（支）是分離的，就像螞蟻的行走等。論主回答說，按照我的宗派，並不承認離開藤蔓之外另有支撐物（支）的實體，也不承認離開線縷之外另有衣服的實體。而是眾多的藤蔓合在一起，眾多的線縷合在一起，盤繞安放的差別不同，才有了支撐物（支）的名稱和衣服的名稱。就像螞蟻的行走等，離開螞蟻之外沒有別的行走實體。勝論派（Vaisheshika）也承認沒有別的行走實體，所以引用完全成立的例子作為比喻。怎麼知道你說的是真的？勝論派（Vaisheshika）再次質問論主。一根線縷與整體的衣服結合時，也應該能得到衣服。論主用道理來質問駁斥。這裡先駁斥離開線縷之外另有衣服，離開藤蔓之外另有支撐物（支），可以參照衣服的情況來駁斥。所以不單獨說明。勝論派（Vaisheshika）的宗派認為，存在一個完整的衣服與眾多的線縷結合。論主駁斥說，一根線縷與那個完整的衣服結合時，從來沒有得到衣服，只能得到線縷。如果說線縷之上另有一個完整的衣服，那麼看到線縷的時候，有什麼東西阻礙了你不能看到衣服？如果說有阻礙，那麼看到線縷的時候，為什麼看不到阻礙？既然看不到阻礙，只能看到線縷。

【English Translation】 English version: And then arise. In reality, the 『Dharmas of Meaningful Sentences』 (Shi ju yi fa) are like this, but not entirely so. Seeds, sprouts, land, and the earth element (Di da) are all included in 『True Sentences』 (Shi ju), each producing separately. Furthermore, worldly examples are cited to prove that the dharmas in 『True Sentences』 only arise from similar kinds. For example, from many vines arises a general support (Zhi). Here, 『Zhi』 refers to the roundness of the vine, which can be likened to a bowl, etc. Their school believes that apart from the vine, there is another entity of support (Zhi). These entities all belong to the earth element (Di da) and are included in 『True Sentences』 (Shi ju), so it is said that these vines produce similar supports (Zhi). Similarly, many threads produce a general garment. Their school believes that apart from the threads, there is another entity of the garment. These all belong to the earth element (Di da) and are included in 『True Sentences』 (Shi ju), so it is said that these threads produce similar garments. Both of these situations arise simultaneously. Moreover, the vine and the support (Zhi), the threads and the garment, are similar in shape. When seeing the vine, one also sees the support (Zhi); when seeing the threads, one also sees the garment. Therefore, they are said to be similar. This is not reasonable, and the debater did not defend it. What is unreasonable? The Vaisheshika (Sheng lun) school questioned the debater in return. Because citing an incompletely established example as proof, the debater pointed out its unreasonableness. All cited metaphors should be mutually agreed upon by both parties. You are citing an incompletely established example as a metaphor for proof, so it is unreasonable. Now, in what way is the example I cited incompletely established? The Vaisheshika (Sheng lun) school questioned the reason again. It is not admitted that the vine and the support (Zhi) are separate, like the walking of ants, etc. The debater replied, according to my school, it is not admitted that apart from the vine, there is another entity of support (Zhi), nor is it admitted that apart from the threads, there is another entity of the garment. Rather, it is the combination of many vines, the combination of many threads, with different arrangements of coiling and placement, that gives rise to the names of support (Zhi) and garment. Just like the walking of ants, there is no other entity of walking apart from the ants. The Vaisheshika (Sheng lun) school also admits that there is no other entity of walking, so citing a completely established example as a metaphor. How do you know what you say is true? The Vaisheshika (Sheng lun) school questioned the debater again. When a single thread combines with the entire garment, one should also be able to obtain the garment. The debater used reason to question and refute. Here, the refutation is first directed at the idea that there is a garment apart from the threads, and the refutation of the idea that there is a support (Zhi) apart from the vine can be referenced to the situation of the garment. Therefore, it is not explained separately. The Vaisheshika (Sheng lun) school believes that there exists a complete garment that combines with many threads. The debater refuted, saying that when a single thread combines with that complete garment, one never obtains the garment, but only obtains the thread. If it is said that there is another complete garment above the thread, then when seeing the thread, what is obstructing you from not seeing the garment? If it is said that there is an obstruction, then when seeing the thread, why is the obstruction not seen? Since the obstruction is not seen, only the thread is seen.

其縷。故知離縷無別有衣。若有別衣如何不見。勝論計衣雖多縷合此中且以一縷為難。余縷準知。或一縷言顯多縷中一一縷也。若汝救言於一縷中無全衣轉。則應一縷上但有衣家少分無有全衣既爾應許此全衣體集眾縷上諸衣分成衣。是假非實非更別有有分全衣說名實衣　言有分者。謂此全衣有眾縷分。或此全衣有眾衣分名為有分。若許全衣攬眾縷上衣分以成　復轉徴言　又如何知縷上衣分異縷而有。若言縷上別有衣分。見縷之時何不見彼衣分。既不別見衣分明知離縷無別衣分　汝若復謂此全衣體非一縷合能顯。此衣要待多縷為所依合體方顯者。難云于唯多經縷和合未著緯縷時應亦得衣　又解若謂全衣要待多所依縷和合衣體方顯非一縷者。于唯多經和合未著緯縷時應亦得衣　上來約縷以破。

或應畢竟至如旋火輪者。此即約根以破。或應畢竟無得全衣理。猶如一衣眼見身觸此一邊時。中．及余邊不對根故。以中．及外非俱對根。是則非得一段全衣。豈有一衣有對．不對。故知畢竟無得衣理。或對根者可名為衣。不對根者應非衣攝　汝若謂此中及余邊漸次皆可對治眼．身根非頓對者。則應眼身唯得諸衣分。不應說彼眼．身二根得有分無全衣。勝論計衣眼．身能取　既破外訖。示正義言　是故即于諸縷分上眼．身二識

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：其縷（組成布匹的線）。因此可知，離開線，沒有另外的衣物。如果有另外的衣物，為什麼看不見？勝論認為衣物是多條線組合而成，這裡暫且用一條線來發難，其餘的線可以類推得知。或者說，『一條線』是指在多條線中，每一條線的情況。如果你辯解說，在一條線上沒有完整的衣物展現，那麼就應該說，一條線上只有衣物的部分，沒有完整的衣物。既然如此，就應該承認，這完整的衣物是由眾多線上的衣物部分集合而成，是虛假的，不是真實的，沒有另外一個具有各個部分的完整衣物，可以稱之為真實的衣物。

『有分』指的是，這完整的衣物有眾多線的組成部分，或者說，這完整的衣物有眾多衣物部分的組成，所以稱為『有分』。如果承認完整的衣物是由眾多線上的衣物部分組合而成。

進一步追問，又如何知道線上衣物的部分與其他的線不同而存在呢？如果說線上有另外的衣物部分，那麼在看到線的時候，為什麼沒有看到那些衣物部分？既然沒有另外看到衣物部分，就明顯知道離開線，沒有另外的衣物部分。

你如果又說，這完整的衣物不是一條線就能展現的，這衣物需要依靠多條線組合在一起才能顯現。那麼反駁說，只有多條經線結合，還沒有加上緯線的時候，應該也能得到衣物。

另一種解釋是，如果說完整的衣物需要依靠多個作為所依的線組合在一起，衣物的整體才能顯現，而不是一條線。那麼只有多條經線結合，還沒有加上緯線的時候，應該也能得到衣物。

以上是從線的角度來破斥。

或者應該最終導致像旋轉的火輪一樣。這部分是從根（感官）的角度來破斥。或者應該最終無法得到完整的衣物，就像用眼睛看到、身體接觸一件衣物的一邊時，中間和其餘的邊因為沒有對著感官。因為中間和外邊不是同時對著感官，那麼就無法得到一段完整的衣物。難道會有一件衣物有對著感官和沒有對著感官的部分嗎？因此可知，最終無法得到衣物的道理。或者對著感官的部分可以稱為衣物，沒有對著感官的部分應該不屬於衣物。

你如果說，這中間和其餘的邊可以逐漸地被眼睛和身體的感官所感知，不是同時感知的。那麼眼睛和身體應該只能得到衣物的各個部分，不應該說眼睛和身體這兩個感官得到了有各個部分的衣物，而不是完整的衣物。勝論認為衣物是可以被眼睛和身體感知的。

既然已經破斥了外道，下面闡述正確的觀點。因此，就在各個線的組成部分上，眼睛和身體的兩種意識 English version: Its threads (the threads that make up the cloth). Therefore, it can be known that apart from the threads, there is no separate garment. If there were a separate garment, why couldn't it be seen? The Vaisheshika school believes that a garment is composed of many threads, but here we will start with one thread to challenge this view, and the rest of the threads can be inferred accordingly. Or, 'one thread' refers to the situation of each thread among many threads. If you argue that a complete garment cannot be seen in one thread, then it should be said that there is only a part of the garment on one thread, and there is no complete garment. Since this is the case, it should be admitted that this complete garment is formed by the collection of garment parts on many threads, and it is false, not real. There is no other complete garment with all its parts that can be called a real garment.

'Having parts' refers to the fact that this complete garment has many thread components, or that this complete garment has many garment part components, so it is called 'having parts'. If it is admitted that the complete garment is formed by the combination of garment parts on many threads.

Further questioning, how do we know that the garment part on the thread exists differently from other threads? If it is said that there is another garment part on the thread, then why are those garment parts not seen when the thread is seen? Since no other garment parts are seen, it is clear that apart from the thread, there are no other garment parts.

If you say again that this complete garment cannot be shown by one thread, and that this garment needs to rely on the combination of many threads to appear, then it is argued that when only many warp threads are combined and the weft threads have not been added, the garment should also be obtained.

Another explanation is that if it is said that the complete garment needs to rely on the combination of multiple threads as the basis for the garment as a whole to appear, rather than one thread, then when only many warp threads are combined and the weft threads have not been added, the garment should also be obtained.

The above is a refutation from the perspective of threads.

Or it should ultimately lead to something like a rotating fire wheel. This part is a refutation from the perspective of the senses (root). Or it should ultimately be impossible to obtain a complete garment, just like when the eye sees and the body touches one side of a garment, the middle and the rest of the sides are not facing the senses. Because the middle and the outside are not facing the senses at the same time, then a complete section of the garment cannot be obtained. Could there be a garment with parts that are facing the senses and parts that are not facing the senses? Therefore, it can be known that the principle of ultimately not being able to obtain a garment. Or the part facing the senses can be called a garment, and the part not facing the senses should not belong to the garment.

If you say that the middle and the rest of the sides can gradually be perceived by the senses of the eyes and body, not perceived at the same time, then the eyes and body should only be able to obtain the various parts of the garment. It should not be said that the two senses of the eyes and body have obtained a garment with various parts, but not a complete garment. The Vaisheshika school believes that garments can be perceived by the eyes and body.

Now that the heretical views have been refuted, the correct view is explained below. Therefore, on the constituent parts of each thread, the two consciousnesses of the eyes and body

【English Translation】 English version: Its threads (the threads that make up the cloth). Therefore, it can be known that apart from the threads, there is no separate garment. If there were a separate garment, why couldn't it be seen? The Vaisheshika (a school of Indian philosophy) school believes that a garment is composed of many threads, but here we will start with one thread to challenge this view, and the rest of the threads can be inferred accordingly. Or, 'one thread' refers to the situation of each thread among many threads. If you argue that a complete garment cannot be seen in one thread, then it should be said that there is only a part of the garment on one thread, and there is no complete garment. Since this is the case, it should be admitted that this complete garment is formed by the collection of garment parts on many threads, and it is false, not real. There is no other complete garment with all its parts that can be called a real garment.

'Having parts' refers to the fact that this complete garment has many thread components, or that this complete garment has many garment part components, so it is called 'having parts'. If it is admitted that the complete garment is formed by the combination of garment parts on many threads.

Further questioning, how do we know that the garment part on the thread exists differently from other threads? If it is said that there is another garment part on the thread, then why are those garment parts not seen when the thread is seen? Since no other garment parts are seen, it is clear that apart from the thread, there are no other garment parts.

If you say again that this complete garment cannot be shown by one thread, and that this garment needs to rely on the combination of many threads to appear, then it is argued that when only many warp threads are combined and the weft threads have not been added, the garment should also be obtained.

Another explanation is that if it is said that the complete garment needs to rely on the combination of multiple threads as the basis for the garment as a whole to appear, rather than one thread, then when only many warp threads are combined and the weft threads have not been added, the garment should also be obtained.

The above is a refutation from the perspective of threads.

Or it should ultimately lead to something like a rotating fire wheel. This part is a refutation from the perspective of the senses (root). Or it should ultimately be impossible to obtain a complete garment, just like when the eye sees and the body touches one side of a garment, the middle and the rest of the sides are not facing the senses. Because the middle and the outside are not facing the senses at the same time, then a complete section of the garment cannot be obtained. Could there be a garment with parts that are facing the senses and parts that are not facing the senses? Therefore, it can be known that the principle of ultimately not being able to obtain a garment. Or the part facing the senses can be called a garment, and the part not facing the senses should not belong to the garment.

If you say that the middle and the rest of the sides can gradually be perceived by the senses of the eyes and body, not perceived at the same time, then the eyes and body should only be able to obtain the various parts of the garment. It should not be said that the two senses of the eyes and body have obtained a garment with various parts, but not a complete garment. The Vaisheshika (a school of Indian philosophy) school believes that garments can be perceived by the eyes and body.

Now that the heretical views have been refuted, the correct view is explained below. Therefore, on the constituent parts of each thread, the two consciousnesses of the eyes and body

漸次了別。次後意識總起有分段衣覺。故如旋火輪實見火色非見火輪。從眼識后意識謂輪。輪實無體。此衣亦爾。

謂若離縷至甚為靈異者。論主以理釋前離縷無衣　衣異色謂青．黃等色　異類。謂絲．毛等類　異業謂障寒等業用　謂若離此縷上異色。離此縷上異類。離此縷上異業。此衣上異色。此衣上異類。此衣上異業。不可得故　此中釋意縷上見有異色．類．業。衣上即無異色．類．業。若衣上有異色．類．業。可證有衣。衣上既無異色．類．業。明知衣體亦無。約無色．類．業以破彼衣　若汝救言于錦衣上異色．類．業。屬衣非縷。以此錦衣異色．類．業故　汝則應許實句中衣從異類起。所以者何。于錦衣上一一縷色各是青等。無種種異色。一一縷類各是絲等。無種種異類。一一縷業各障寒等業別無種種異業。既無種種色．類．業縷生種種色．類．業衣。是則縷衣相望各異。其縷生衣異類能生。縷．衣二種俱實句攝。是則許實從異類起。如何前說實唯從同類生。此即以縷難衣。約色等三顯縷無異。非欲正聚色等為難　又解即以一一縷上無種種色．等類．業為難。既無種種色．類．業生種種色類業衣。即是此衣從異類起　又解勝論宗衣是實句。色是德句。類是同異句。業是業句。既色．類．業能生此衣是即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：逐漸地、有差別地了知。此後，意識總括地生起，具有分段的衣物感覺。因此，就像旋轉的火輪，實際上看到的是火的顏色，而不是火輪本身。從眼識之後產生的意識，稱之為『輪』。輪實際上沒有實體。這衣物也是如此。

如果說離開線縷，衣物就變得非常奇特。論主用道理來解釋，離開線縷就沒有衣物。『衣異色』指的是青色、黃色等顏色。『異類』指的是絲、毛等種類。『異業』指的是遮擋寒冷等作用。如果說離開這些線縷上的不同顏色，離開這些線縷上的不同種類，離開這些線縷上的不同作用，以及離開這衣物上的不同顏色，離開這衣物上的不同種類，離開這衣物上的不同作用，都是不可能的。這裡解釋的意思是，線上縷上可以看到不同的顏色、種類、作用。在衣物上就沒有不同的顏色、種類、作用。如果衣物上有不同的顏色、種類、作用，就可以證明有衣物存在。衣物上既然沒有不同的顏色、種類、作用，就明顯知道衣物的本體也是不存在的。這是通過沒有顏色、種類、作用來破斥對方的衣物。

如果你們辯解說，在錦衣上的不同顏色、種類、作用，是屬於衣物而不是線縷的。因為這錦衣有不同的顏色、種類、作用。那麼你們就應該承認，在『實句』中，衣物是從不同種類產生的。為什麼呢？因為在錦衣上，每一根線縷的顏色都是青色等，沒有種種不同的顏色。每一根線縷的種類都是絲等，沒有種種不同的種類。每一根線縷的作用都是遮擋寒冷等作用，沒有種種不同的作用。既然沒有種種不同的顏色、種類、作用的線縷，產生種種不同的顏色、種類、作用的衣物。那麼線縷和衣物相互比較，各自不同。線縷產生衣物，是不同種類之間的產生。線縷和衣物兩種都屬於『實句』所包含的。那麼這就是承認『實』是從不同種類產生的。為什麼之前又說『實』只能從相同種類產生呢？這就是用線縷來為難衣物。通過顏色等三種來顯示線縷沒有不同，不是想要真正地聚合顏色等來作為難題。

另一種解釋是，用每一根線縷上沒有種種不同的顏色、種類、作用來作為難題。既然沒有種種不同的顏色、種類、作用，卻產生種種不同的顏色、種類、作用的衣物。這就是這衣物是從不同種類產生的。

還有一種解釋是，勝論宗認為衣物是『實句』，顏色是『德句』，種類是『同異句』，作用是『業句』。既然顏色、種類、作用能夠產生這衣物，那麼這就是

【English Translation】 English version: Gradually and distinctly understanding. Thereafter, consciousness arises comprehensively, possessing segmented sensations of clothing. Therefore, like a rotating fire wheel, one actually sees the color of the fire, not the fire wheel itself. The consciousness that arises after eye-consciousness is called 'wheel'. The wheel has no real substance. This clothing is also like that.

If it is said that if separated from threads, clothing becomes very peculiar. The proponent explains with reason that without threads, there is no clothing. 'Clothing has different colors' refers to colors such as blue and yellow. 'Different kinds' refers to types such as silk and wool. 'Different functions' refers to functions such as blocking cold. If it is said that apart from the different colors on these threads, apart from the different kinds on these threads, apart from the different functions on these threads, and apart from the different colors on this clothing, apart from the different kinds on this clothing, apart from the different functions on this clothing, it is impossible to obtain them. The meaning explained here is that different colors, kinds, and functions can be seen on the threads. On the clothing, there are no different colors, kinds, and functions. If the clothing has different colors, kinds, and functions, it can prove that clothing exists. Since the clothing has no different colors, kinds, and functions, it is clear that the substance of the clothing also does not exist. This is refuting the opponent's clothing by means of the absence of color, kind, and function.

If you argue that the different colors, kinds, and functions on brocade clothing belong to the clothing and not the threads because this brocade clothing has different colors, kinds, and functions, then you should admit that in the 'reality category', clothing arises from different kinds. Why? Because on brocade clothing, the color of each thread is blue, etc., without various different colors. The kind of each thread is silk, etc., without various different kinds. The function of each thread is blocking cold, etc., without various different functions. Since there are no threads with various different colors, kinds, and functions, yet clothing with various different colors, kinds, and functions arises, then the threads and clothing are different from each other. The threads produce clothing, which is a production between different kinds. Both threads and clothing are included in the 'reality category'. Then this is admitting that 'reality' arises from different kinds. Why did you say before that 'reality' can only arise from the same kind? This is using threads to challenge clothing. By means of the three aspects of color, etc., it is shown that threads have no difference; it is not intended to truly gather colors, etc., as a difficulty.

Another explanation is to use the fact that each thread does not have various different colors, kinds, and functions as a difficulty. Since there are no various different colors, kinds, and functions, yet clothing with various different colors, kinds, and functions arises, this clothing arises from different kinds.

Another explanation is that the Vaisheshika school believes that clothing is in the 'reality category' (實句), color is in the 'quality category' (德句), kind is in the 'similarity and difference category' (同異句), and function is in the 'action category' (業句). Since color, kind, and function can produce this clothing, then this is

許實從異類起　于錦衣上或於一分無異色等邊應不見衣。由彼異色等能顯錦衣故。於此一分中無異色等故　汝若固執于錦一分無異色等處亦名衣者。或即于彼無異色等錦一分中應見異色等。以執衣必有異色等相故　復調弄言　彼許有分全衣體唯是一而有種種色．類．業殊一．異相違而得相有。審有如斯甚為靈異。

又於一火至不應得成者。上來破勝論縷衣地大訖。義便復破勝論火大。彼計一火光明界中隨所至處一段光明體唯是一。依多極微上起還以離縷別有衣體。所以次破　于彼一火光明界中隨所至處體若是一。云何于中得有遠燒觸時痛少。近燒觸時痛多。遠照色時昧劣。近照色時明顯。此等不同有異差別應不得成。既有不同有異差別。明非一體。極微眾多即無此過　又解體若是一云何于彼一火界中可得辨有遠近不同。謂此名遠此名為近。燒．照有異。謂同燒多物黃．黑有異。謂同照多物明．昧有異。觸．色差別。謂于其中熱．觸差別。謂于其中色有差別。此等差別皆應不成　又解於一火界遠．近二種不同燒．照二種有異。觸．色二種差別。若是體一此遠．近等皆應不成。

各別極微至理亦應爾者。通伏難。伏難云各別極微既越根境。故知細極微外有粗事一火光等為眼等境。為通此難故作是言　各別極微

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：許實從異類開始，在錦衣上，或者在一分上沒有異色等，應該看不見衣服。因為那些異色等能夠顯現錦衣的緣故。因為在這一個部分中沒有異色等。你如果固執地認為錦衣的一分沒有異色等的地方也叫做衣服，那麼或者就在那沒有異色等的錦衣一分中，應該看見異色等。因為你認為衣服必定有異色等相的緣故。又調侃地說，他們認為一部分完整的衣體只有一個，卻有種種顏色、種類、作用的差別，一和異相互矛盾卻能夠同時存在。如果真有這樣的情況，那就太神奇了。又關於一火至不應得成的問題。上面已經破斥了勝論的縷衣和地大。接下來順便破斥勝論的火大。他們認為一火在光明界中，無論到達哪裡，一段光明的本體只有一個。依靠眾多極微向上升起，仍然像離開縷一樣另外有衣體。所以接下來破斥：在那一火的光明界中，無論到達哪裡，如果本體是一個，為什麼在其中會有遠燒時觸覺疼痛少，近燒時觸覺疼痛多；遠照時顏色暗淡，近照時顏色明顯。這些不同和差異應該不能成立。既然有不同和差異，就說明不是一體。極微眾多就沒有這個過失。又解釋說，如果本體是一個，為什麼在那一火界中可以分辨出遠近不同？說這個叫遠，那個叫近。燒和照有差異，說同樣燒很多東西，有黃色和黑色的差異；說同樣照很多東西，有明亮和暗淡的差異。觸覺和顏色有差別，說在其中熱和觸覺有差別，說在其中顏色有差別。這些差別都應該不能成立。又解釋說，在一火界中，遠和近兩種不同，燒和照兩種有差異，觸覺和顏色兩種差別。如果是本體一個，這遠近等都應該不能成立。各別極微至理亦應爾者。這是通用的駁難。駁難說，各個極微既然超越了根和境，所以知道細微的極微之外有粗大的事物，比如一火光等，作為眼等的對境。爲了駁通這個駁難，所以這樣說：各個極微。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Xu Shi' (hypothetical proponent) starts from dissimilarities; on brocade garments, or on a part without dissimilar colors, the garment should not be visible. This is because those dissimilar colors can reveal the brocade garment. Because in this one part, there are no dissimilar colors. If you stubbornly insist that a part of the brocade garment without dissimilar colors is also called a garment, then perhaps in that part of the brocade garment without dissimilar colors, dissimilar colors should be visible. Because you believe that a garment must have the characteristic of dissimilar colors. Furthermore, they jokingly say that they believe a complete garment body is only one, yet has various differences in color, type, and function; one and different contradict each other but can coexist. If such a situation truly exists, it would be truly miraculous. Regarding the question of 'one fire' not being able to be established. Above, the 'thread garment' and 'earth element' of the 'Vaisheshika' (school of Indian philosophy) have been refuted. Next, the 'fire element' of the 'Vaisheshika' is refuted in passing. They believe that in the realm of light of one fire, wherever it reaches, a segment of the light's essence is only one. Relying on numerous 'paramānus' (atoms) rising upwards, there is still a garment body separate from the threads. Therefore, the following refutation is made: In that realm of light of one fire, wherever it reaches, if the essence is one, why is it that within it, the tactile pain is less when burning from afar, and the tactile pain is more when burning from nearby; the color is dim when illuminating from afar, and the color is clear when illuminating from nearby? These differences and distinctions should not be able to be established. Since there are differences and distinctions, it indicates that it is not one entity. With numerous 'paramānus', there is no such fault. Furthermore, it is explained that if the essence is one, why can one distinguish between far and near in that one fire realm? Saying this is far, and that is near. Burning and illuminating have differences, saying that burning many things has differences in yellow and black; saying that illuminating many things has differences in brightness and dimness. Tactile sensation and color have differences, saying that within it, heat and tactile sensation have differences, saying that within it, color has differences. These differences should all not be able to be established. Furthermore, it is explained that in one fire realm, there are two different kinds of far and near, two different kinds of burning and illuminating, and two different kinds of tactile sensation and color. If it is one essence, these far and near, etc., should all not be able to be established. 'Each separate paramānu, the principle should also be thus.' This is a general refutation. The refutation says that since each separate 'paramānu' transcends the 'indriya' (sense organ) and 'viṣaya' (sense object), it is known that outside of the subtle 'paramānus', there are coarse things, such as one fire light, etc., as the objects of the eye, etc. In order to refute this refutation, it is said: Each separate 'paramānu'.

一一別住雖越根境眾微共聚可現根境證。如彼外道勝論所宗火鉆等合能生火果非獨能生　又解二微等合能生粗果非獨能生。或如眼色明空等緣合能發識非獨能生又如翳目觀散發時相鄰即見別住不見。極微對根理亦應爾。

又即於色等至極微亦壞者。論主又述己宗。約體不異顯壞同時以破勝論。勝論色等與極微異。劫壞之時粗色等壞。極微不壞。為破彼執故有此文　又即於色．聲．香．味．觸立極微名。離色等外無別極微故。色等壞時極微亦壞。由體同故壞必同時。故劫壞時無極微在。

極微實攝至定俱時滅者。勝論救義。六句義中細極微體實句義攝。粗色．聲等德句義收。由體異故壞不俱時。故劫壞時但能壞彼粗色．聲等不能壞彼常細極微。

此二體別至寧異色觸者。論主復破。此實德二體各別者。理必不然。以審觀時即於色等立極微名。非離色．聲．香．味．觸外。有汝所立別實句中。地．水．火．風極微體性。故非實．德二體各別　又勝論宗中自許。實句義中地等眼根所取。寧異德句中色。身根所取寧異德句中觸。此即以理徴破勝論　一說地．水．火．風眼根俱能取四。一說身根能取四種。眼根但取地．水．火三。所以者何。以身能觸冷．暖等風故身非眼。

又燒毛㲲至不記識故者。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一一別住：即使極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）分離，雖然超越了根（indriya，感官）和境（viṣaya，感官對像）的微細集合，但仍然可以顯現根和境的證知。就像勝論外道（Vaiśeṣika，古印度哲學流派）所主張的，火鉆等聚合才能生火，而不是單獨就能產生。又解釋說，兩個極微等聚合才能產生粗大的果，而不是單獨就能產生。或者像眼睛、顏色、光明、空間等因緣聚合才能生起識，而不是單獨就能生起。又像有眼翳的人觀看散亂的頭髮時，相鄰的頭髮看起來是分離的，而不是聚集在一起的。極微對於根的道理也應該如此。

又，即使對於色等，達到極微也會壞滅。論主又闡述自己的宗義，以體性不異來顯示壞滅是同時的，以此來破斥勝論。勝論認為色等與極微是不同的，劫壞的時候，粗大的色等會壞滅，而極微不會壞滅。爲了破斥他們的執著，所以有這段文字。又，對於色、聲、香、味、觸，才安立極微的名稱，離開色等之外，沒有別的極微。所以色等壞滅的時候，極微也會壞滅。因為體性相同，所以壞滅必定是同時的。所以劫壞的時候，沒有極微存在。

極微實際上被攝入到實句義中，並且必定同時滅亡。勝論爲了辯護，認為在六句義（六種範疇）中，細微的極微體性被攝入到實句義中，粗大的色、聲等被歸入到德句義中。因為體性不同，所以壞滅不是同時的。所以劫壞的時候，只能壞滅那些粗大的色、聲等，不能壞滅那些常住的細微極微。

此二者的體性是不同的，難道色和觸沒有區別嗎？論主再次破斥。如果說實句義和德句義這二者的體性是各不相同的，那麼這個道理必定是不成立的。因為仔細觀察的時候，就是對於色等才安立極微的名稱，而不是離開色、聲、香、味、觸之外，有你所安立的在別的實句義中的地、水、火、風的極微體性。所以不是實句義和德句義這二者的體性是各不相同的。而且在勝論宗中，自己也承認，在實句義中的地等，是眼根所取的，難道與德句義中的色沒有區別嗎？身根所取的觸，難道與德句義中的觸沒有區別嗎？這就是用道理來質問和破斥勝論。一種說法是地、水、火、風，眼根都能取四種。一種說法是身根能取四種，眼根只能取地、水、火三種。為什麼呢？因為身體能夠觸到冷、暖等風，所以身體不是眼睛。

又，燒毛氈的時候，直到不能記識的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Ekaika-vibhāga』: Even when atoms (paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter) are separated, although they transcend the subtle aggregation of the senses (indriya) and their objects (viṣaya), the cognition of senses and their objects can still manifest. Just as the Vaiśeṣika (an ancient Indian philosophical school) asserts that the combination of fire drills, etc., can produce fire, but not individually. It is also explained that the combination of two atoms, etc., can produce gross effects, but not individually. Or, like the combination of conditions such as eyes, colors, light, and space can give rise to consciousness, but not individually. Also, like when a person with impaired vision looks at scattered hair, adjacent hairs appear to be separated, not aggregated. The principle of atoms in relation to the senses should also be like this.

Furthermore, even when it comes to form (rūpa), etc., reaching the atomic level, it will also be destroyed. The author of the treatise further elaborates on his own doctrine, showing that destruction occurs simultaneously due to the non-difference in essence, thereby refuting the Vaiśeṣika. The Vaiśeṣika believes that form, etc., are different from atoms. During the destruction of the kalpa (aeon), gross forms, etc., will be destroyed, but atoms will not be destroyed. To refute their attachment, this passage is presented. Moreover, it is for form, sound (śabda), smell (gandha), taste (rasa), and touch (sparśa) that the name 『atom』 is established. Apart from form, etc., there are no separate atoms. Therefore, when form, etc., are destroyed, atoms will also be destroyed. Because the essence is the same, destruction must be simultaneous. Therefore, during the destruction of the kalpa, no atoms exist.

Atoms are actually included in the category of substance (dravya) and must perish simultaneously. The Vaiśeṣika, in defense, argues that in the six categories (ṣaṭ padārtha), the subtle essence of atoms is included in the category of substance, while gross forms, sounds, etc., are classified into the category of quality (guṇa). Because the essence is different, destruction is not simultaneous. Therefore, during the destruction of the kalpa, only those gross forms, sounds, etc., can be destroyed, but not those permanent subtle atoms.

Are the essences of these two different? Is there no difference between form and touch? The author of the treatise refutes again. If the essences of these two, substance and quality, are different, then this principle must not be established. Because upon careful observation, it is for form, etc., that the name 『atom』 is established, and not apart from form, sound, smell, taste, and touch, that you establish the atomic essence of earth (pṛthivī), water (ap), fire (tejas), and wind (vāyu) in a separate category of substance. Therefore, the essences of substance and quality are not different. Moreover, in the Vaiśeṣika school itself, it is admitted that earth, etc., in the category of substance are perceived by the eye sense (cakṣurindriya), so is there no difference from form in the category of quality? Is there no difference from touch in the category of quality, which is perceived by the body sense (kāyendriya)? This is using reason to question and refute the Vaiśeṣika. One view is that earth, water, fire, and wind can all be perceived by the eye sense. Another view is that the body sense can perceive all four, while the eye sense can only perceive earth, water, and fire. Why? Because the body can touch wind, such as cold and warmth, therefore the body is not the eye.

Furthermore, when burning wool felt, until the reason of not being able to remember.

文亦破離色等外實句義中別有地大。勝論宗執毛㲲．紅花等以實句中地大為體。故今復破。毛隨作何色㲲作白色。紅花赤色。等即等取余未說者。毛㲲花等若未燒時知是毛等。若被燒已彼毛等覺則無有故。故毛等覺但緣青．黃．赤．白色等差別而起　或可。等言等香．味．觸。所以者何。毛等被燒熟變生時同作何色。形量等故不知何者是毛是㲲是紅花等。由此故知但緣色等差別不同作毛等解。離色等外無別地大為毛等體　又解毛等被燒熟變生時形量與前未燒時等。雖形量等不識毛等。故知但緣顯色等別作毛等解。離顯色等無別地大為毛等體猶如地上行伍瓦．器相雜而住記識瓶．盆。非由顯色以顯同故。但由形色由形異故。若不觀形差別不同但看顯色等黃等黑不記識故。瓶．盆等物離形等外既無別體。應知毛等離顯色等亦無實句地大為體　又解猶如行伍形色極微為瓶．盆時由形別故記識瓶．盆。若不觀形不記識故。余解如前　又解猶如行伍諸谷．麥等或方或圓。離方色等無別有行。若不觀形不記識故。猶如記識瓶．盆應知亦爾。離圓色等無別瓶．盆若不觀形不記識故。余解如前　彼勝論宗行及瓶．盆皆無有體。故引極成為今所喻。

誰當採錄至廣諍應止者。破訖止諍。

此三災頂為在何處者。此下釋第二句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本勝論派認為，在『實句義』中，除了顏色等之外，還存在獨立的地大（Prthivi-dhatu，地元素）。他們認為毛氈、紅花等是以『實句』中的地大為本體。因此，現在對此進行駁斥。毛氈是什麼顏色？毛氈是白色。紅花是紅色。『等』字包括其他未提及的事物。毛氈、毛氈、紅花等，在未燃燒時，人們知道它們是毛氈等。如果被燒燬，關於毛氈等的認知就不存在了。因此，關於毛氈等的認知僅僅是基於青色、黃色、紅色、白色等差別而產生的。或者，『等』字可以包括香、味、觸。為什麼這麼說呢？毛氈等被燒熟變質時，會呈現什麼顏色？由於形狀和大小相同，無法分辨哪個是毛氈，哪個是毛氈，哪個是紅花等。由此可知，人們只是根據顏色等差別的不同，才理解為毛氈等。離開顏色等之外，沒有獨立的地大作為毛氈等的本體。另一種解釋是，毛氈等被燒熟變質時，形狀和大小與未燒時相同。雖然形狀和大小相同，但無法識別毛氈等。因此可知，人們只是根據顯色等差別來理解為毛氈等。離開顯色等之外，沒有獨立的地大作為毛氈等的本體，就像地上排列的瓦片和器皿混雜在一起，人們通過記住瓶子和盆子的形狀來區分它們，而不是通過顯色，因為它們的顯色可能相同。只有通過形狀的差異才能區分。如果不觀察形狀的差別，只看顯色，比如黃色或黑色，就無法識別。瓶子、盆子等物體，離開形狀等之外，沒有獨立的本體。應該知道，毛氈等離開顯色等之外，也沒有『實句』中的地大作為本體。另一種解釋是，就像排列的形狀和顏色極小的微粒形成瓶子和盆子時，由於形狀的差別，人們才能識別瓶子和盆子。如果不觀察形狀，就無法識別。其餘的解釋與前面相同。另一種解釋是，就像排列的各種穀物、麥子等，有的是方形的，有的是圓形的。離開方形的顏色等之外，沒有獨立的排列。如果不觀察形狀，就無法識別。就像識別瓶子和盆子一樣，應該知道也是如此。離開圓形的顏色等之外，沒有獨立的瓶子和盆子。如果不觀察形狀，就無法識別。其餘的解釋與前面相同。勝論派認為排列以及瓶子和盆子都沒有本體。因此引用極微作為現在的比喻。『誰應當採錄這些廣泛的爭論，應當停止爭論』——駁斥完畢，停止爭論。『此三災頂（Trisanku，三災頂）位於何處？』——以下解釋第二句。

【English Translation】 English version The Vaisheshika school believes that in the category of 'substance, quality, and action' (dravya-guna-karma), there exists a separate earth element (Prthivi-dhatu) apart from color, etc. They consider felt, red flowers, etc., to have the earth element in 'substance' as their essence. Therefore, this is now refuted. What color is felt? Felt is white. Red flowers are red. 'Etc.' includes other unmentioned things. Felt, felt, red flowers, etc., when not burned, people know they are felt, etc. If burned, the perception of felt, etc., no longer exists. Therefore, the perception of felt, etc., arises only based on differences in blue, yellow, red, white, etc. Or, 'etc.' can include smell, taste, and touch. Why is that? When felt, etc., are burned and transformed, what color do they become? Because the shape and size are the same, it is impossible to distinguish which is felt, which is felt, which is a red flower, etc. From this, it is known that people understand them as felt, etc., only based on differences in color, etc. Apart from color, etc., there is no separate earth element as the essence of felt, etc. Another explanation is that when felt, etc., are burned and transformed, the shape and size are the same as when they were not burned. Although the shape and size are the same, felt, etc., cannot be identified. Therefore, it is known that people understand them as felt, etc., only based on differences in visible color, etc. Apart from visible color, etc., there is no separate earth element as the essence of felt, etc., just like tiles and utensils arranged on the ground are mixed together, and people distinguish them by remembering the shapes of bottles and pots, not by visible color, because their visible colors may be the same. Only through differences in shape can they be distinguished. If the differences in shape are not observed, and only the visible color, such as yellow or black, is looked at, they cannot be identified. Objects such as bottles and pots, apart from shape, etc., have no independent essence. It should be known that felt, etc., apart from visible color, etc., also do not have the earth element in 'substance' as their essence. Another explanation is that just as when arranged shapes and extremely small particles of color form bottles and pots, people can identify bottles and pots because of the differences in shape. If the shape is not observed, they cannot be identified. The rest of the explanation is the same as before. Another explanation is that just as arranged grains, wheat, etc., are sometimes square and sometimes round. Apart from the square color, etc., there is no independent arrangement. If the shape is not observed, they cannot be identified. Just like identifying bottles and pots, it should be known that it is the same. Apart from the round color, etc., there are no independent bottles and pots. If the shape is not observed, they cannot be identified. The rest of the explanation is the same as before. The Vaisheshika school believes that arrangement, as well as bottles and pots, have no essence. Therefore, extremely small particles are cited as the current analogy. 『Who should record these extensive disputes, and disputes should cease』—refutation is complete, stop disputing. 『Where is the top of this Trisanku (Trisanku, the top of the three disasters)?』—The following explains the second sentence.

。此即問也。

第二靜慮至名彼災頂者。正釋可解。

何緣下三定遭火水風災者。釋第三句。此即問也。

初二三定中至遭是外災壞者。答。如二定喜受能為內災。與輕安俱潤身如水相似故。欲界苦受不調柔性名為粗重遍在身中。初定喜微。猶如未能滅。二定喜極。遍身粗重由此極喜皆除盡故。故經中說苦根粗重第二定滅。故正理三十二云。第二靜慮喜受為內災。與輕安俱潤澤如水。故遍身粗重由此皆除。故經說苦根第二靜慮滅。以說內心喜得身輕安故。非唯火災．尋．伺止息。亦由滅苦所依識身。故說苦根二靜慮滅。雖生上地識身容現前。隨欲不行自在故無過。然經言滅苦據正入定時。初靜慮中猶有尋．伺無增上喜不言苦滅。又云于初靜慮內具三災。外亦具遭三災所壞。第二靜慮內有二災故外亦遭二災所壞。第三靜慮內唯一災故外但遭一災所壞　余文可知。

何緣不立地亦為災者。問。

以器世間至地還違地者。答。又正理云如先所說三斷末摩。所斷末摩即是地故。不可立地以為能斷。大種類同不相違故。

第四靜慮何為外災者。釋第四句。此即問。

彼無外災至更往余處者。答。以此文證余界無凈居天。故正理云。毗婆沙師說。第四定攝凈居故災不能損。由彼不可生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這就是提問。

第二靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）至名為彼災頂，可以直接解釋理解。

為什麼下三禪定會遭遇火、水、風災？這是解釋第三句，也就是提問。

初禪、二禪、三禪中，會遭遇外在的災難破壞。回答：比如二禪的喜受（Sukha，快樂的感受）能成為內在的災難，因為它與輕安（Prasrabdhi，身心輕快安適）同時滋潤身體，就像水一樣。欲界的苦受（Dukkha，痛苦的感受）不調柔的性質被稱為粗重，遍佈全身。初禪的喜受微弱，就像沒有滅除一樣。二禪的喜受強烈，遍佈全身的粗重由此極大的喜受全部消除。所以經中說苦根（Duhkha-mula，痛苦的根源）和粗重在第二禪滅除。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakoshabhasya）第三十二卷說：『第二靜慮的喜受是內在的災難，因為它與輕安同時滋潤，像水一樣。因此遍佈全身的粗重由此全部消除。所以經中說苦根在第二靜慮滅除。』因為說內心獲得喜悅，身體獲得輕安。不僅僅是火災、尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（Vicara，精細的思考）止息，也因為滅除了苦所依的識身（Vijnanakaya，意識之身）。所以說苦根在二禪滅除。雖然生到上地，識身容許現前，但因為隨自己的意願而行，沒有自在，所以沒有過失。然而經中說滅苦是根據正入定時。初禪中還有尋、伺，沒有增上的喜受，所以不說苦滅。又說在初禪中內在具有三種災難，外在也遭遇三種災難的破壞。第二靜慮內在有兩種災難，所以外在也遭遇兩種災難的破壞。第三靜慮內在只有一種災難，所以外在只遭遇一種災難的破壞。』其餘的文字可以理解。

為什麼不建立地也作為災難？提問。

因為器世間（Bhajana-loka，容納有情眾生的物質世界）的地還違背地。回答：又《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，如先前所說的三種斷末摩（Marman，身體的脆弱處），所斷的末摩就是地，所以不能建立地作為能斷者。因為大種類相同，不互相違背。

第四靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）為什麼沒有外在的災難？這是解釋第四句，也就是提問。

它沒有外在的災難，只能前往其餘的地方。回答：用這段文字證明其餘的界沒有凈居天（Suddhavasa，色界天中的第五層天）。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說：『毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教論師）說，第四禪攝屬於凈居天，所以災難不能損害。因為它們不可能產生。』

【English Translation】 English version: This is the question.

The second Dhyana (meditative absorption) up to the term 'summit of disaster' can be understood directly.

Why do the lower three Dhyanas encounter the disasters of fire, water, and wind? This explains the third sentence, which is the question.

In the first, second, and third Dhyanas, one encounters external disasters that cause destruction. Answer: For example, the Sukha (pleasant feeling) of the second Dhyana can become an internal disaster because it nourishes the body simultaneously with Prasrabdhi (tranquility), similar to water. The Dukkha (suffering) of the desire realm, with its untamed nature, is called 'coarse and heavy' and pervades the entire body. The Sukha of the first Dhyana is weak, as if it hasn't been eliminated. The Sukha of the second Dhyana is intense, and the coarse and heavy feeling pervading the body is completely eliminated by this intense Sukha. Therefore, the Sutras say that the Duhkha-mula (root of suffering) and the coarse and heavy feeling are eliminated in the second Dhyana. Therefore, the Abhidharmakoshabhasya, volume 32, says: 'The Sukha of the second Dhyana is an internal disaster because it nourishes simultaneously with Prasrabdhi, like water. Therefore, the coarse and heavy feeling pervading the body is completely eliminated by this. Therefore, the Sutras say that the root of suffering is eliminated in the second Dhyana.' Because it is said that the mind obtains joy and the body obtains tranquility. It is not only the cessation of fire disasters, Vitarka (initial application of thought), and Vicara (sustained application of thought), but also because the Vijnanakaya (consciousness-body), which is the basis of suffering, is eliminated. Therefore, it is said that the root of suffering is eliminated in the second Dhyana. Although the Vijnanakaya may appear in the higher realms, there is no fault because one acts according to one's own will and is not free. However, the Sutras say that the elimination of suffering is based on the time of proper entry into Samadhi. In the first Dhyana, there are still Vitarka and Vicara, and there is no increased Sukha, so it is not said that suffering is eliminated. It is also said that in the first Dhyana, there are three internal disasters, and externally, one also encounters the destruction of three disasters. The second Dhyana has two internal disasters, so externally, one also encounters the destruction of two disasters. The third Dhyana has only one internal disaster, so externally, one only encounters the destruction of one disaster.' The remaining text can be understood.

Why is earth not established as a disaster as well? Question.

Because the earth of the Bhajana-loka (receptacle world) still contradicts earth. Answer: Furthermore, the Abhidharmakoshabhasya says that, as previously stated, the three types of Marman (vulnerable points of the body) that are severed, the Marman that is severed is earth, so earth cannot be established as the severer. Because the major categories are the same and do not contradict each other.

Why does the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption) not have external disasters? This explains the fourth sentence, which is the question.

It has no external disasters and can only go to other places. Answer: Use this text to prove that the other realms do not have the Suddhavasa (Pure Abodes). Therefore, the Abhidharmakoshabhasya says: 'The Vaibhashika (Buddhist scholar) says that the fourth Dhyana is included in the Suddhavasa, so disasters cannot harm it. Because they cannot arise.'

無色天。亦復不應更往余處。由此證余界無凈居天。若余世界中有凈居者。應如地獄移往他方。寧說不應更往余處。下三天處由凈居天威力攝持故無災壞。無容一地處少不同便有為災壞．不壞別。

若爾彼地器應是常者。釋第五．第六句。此即問。

不爾至體亦非常者。答可解。又婆沙一百三十四云。問第四靜慮地若無邊災所不及。寧非常住。答剎那無常故無此失。有說第四靜慮地中宮殿所依俱無常定。謂彼宮地隨彼諸天生時．死時。俱起．歿故。此說非理。所以者何。應無有情共器業故。由此如前所說者好。婆沙說第四靜慮地無邊者。據積眾多別處量說言地無邊。無總地形。故正理二十一解無雲天云。以下空中天所居地如雲密合故說名云。此上諸天更無雲地。在無雲首故說無雲　問何故此論同婆沙不正義耶。解云俱舍非以婆沙評家為量　問若爾婆沙所難云何釋通。解云器未滅時余天可有共受用故名共業感。

所說三災云何次第者。釋第七．第八句。問。

要先無間至一風災起者。答可知。

何緣如是者。何緣初定數遭火災。二定數遭水災。三定遭一風災。

由彼有情至六十四劫者。答。故正理云。何緣七火方一水災。極光凈天壽勢力故。謂彼壽量極八大劫故至第八方一水災。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無色界的眾生，也不應該再前往其他地方。由此可以證明，在其他世界沒有凈居天（Suddhavasa，指色界最高的五層天）。如果其他世界中有凈居天，就應該像地獄的眾生一樣，可以轉移到其他地方。因此說不應該再前往其他地方。下三禪天由於凈居天的威力攝持，所以沒有災難破壞。不能因為一個地方稍微不同，就出現有災難破壞和沒有災難破壞的區別。

如果這樣，那麼那裡的器世界應該是常住不壞的嗎？這是對第五句和第六句的解釋，是一個提問。

不是這樣的，乃至它的本體也不是常住的。這是回答，容易理解。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）第一百三十四卷中說：『問：第四禪天沒有邊際的災難所能觸及，難道不是常住的嗎？』答：『因為剎那生滅，所以沒有這個過失。』有人說，第四禪天中的宮殿和所依賴的土地都不是常住不變的，因為那些宮殿和土地隨著那些天人的出生和死亡，一起產生和消失。這種說法不合理。為什麼呢？因為這樣就沒有有情眾生共同的器世界業力了。因此，像前面所說的才是好的。《毗婆沙論》說第四禪天沒有邊際，是根據積累眾多不同地方的量來說的，說土地沒有邊際，沒有總的地形。所以《阿毗達磨俱舍論》（Abhidharmakosha-bhasya）第二十一卷解釋無雲天說：下面的空中，天人所居住的土地像云一樣密集結合，所以叫做云。這上面的諸天，不再有云一樣的土地，在無雲天的頂端，所以叫做無雲天。』問：為什麼這部論典和《毗婆沙論》的不正義相同呢？解釋說：《俱舍論》不是以《毗婆沙論》的評判為標準。問：如果這樣，《毗婆沙論》所提出的難題，應該如何解釋呢？解釋說：器世界沒有毀滅的時候，其他天人可以共同受用，所以叫做共同業力所感。

所說的三種災難，是按照什麼順序發生的呢？這是對第七句和第八句的解釋，是一個提問。

一定要先經歷無間地獄，乃至發生一次風災。這是回答，容易理解。

為什麼會這樣呢？為什麼初禪天會多次遭遇火災，二禪天會多次遭遇水災，三禪天會遭遇一次風災？

由於那些有情的業力，乃至六十四劫。這是回答。《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Nyayanusarasastra）中說：『為什麼七次火災之後才發生一次水災呢？』因為極光凈天（Abhasvara，二禪天）的壽命和勢力強大。也就是說，他們的壽命長達八大劫，所以到第八次才發生一次水災。

【English Translation】 English version: The beings in the Formless Realm should also not go to other places. From this, it can be proven that there are no Suddhavasa heavens (Suddhavasa, referring to the highest five heavens of the Form Realm) in other worlds. If there were Suddhavasa heavens in other worlds, they should be able to transfer to other places like the beings in hell. Therefore, it is said that they should not go to other places. The lower three Dhyana heavens are protected by the power of the Suddhavasa heavens, so there is no destruction from disasters. It cannot be that just because a place is slightly different, there would be a distinction between having destruction from disasters and not having destruction from disasters.

If that is the case, then should the vessel world there be permanent and indestructible? This is an explanation of the fifth and sixth sentences, and it is a question.

It is not like that, and even its substance is not permanent. This is the answer, which is easy to understand. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, in its 134th fascicle, says: 'Question: The Fourth Dhyana heaven is not reached by boundless disasters, so is it not permanent?' Answer: 'Because it is momentary and impermanent, there is no such fault.' Some say that the palaces and the land on which they rely in the Fourth Dhyana heaven are not permanent, because those palaces and lands arise and disappear together with the birth and death of those devas. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because then there would be no common karmic force of sentient beings' vessel world. Therefore, what was said earlier is good. The Vibhasa-sastra says that the Fourth Dhyana heaven is boundless, based on the accumulation of many different places, saying that the land is boundless, without a total terrain. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya, in its 21st fascicle, explains the Anabhraka heaven (Anabhraka, one of the heavens in the fourth Dhyana) by saying: Below in the sky, the land where the devas reside is densely combined like clouds, so it is called 'cloud'. The devas above this no longer have land like clouds, and are at the top of the Anabhraka heaven, so it is called 'Anabhraka'. Question: Why is this treatise the same as the incorrect meaning of the Vibhasa-sastra? The explanation is that the Kosha-sastra does not take the judgment of the Vibhasa-sastra as the standard. Question: If so, how should the difficult questions raised by the Vibhasa-sastra be explained? The explanation is that when the vessel world has not been destroyed, other devas can share and enjoy it, so it is called being influenced by common karma.

In what order do the three disasters that are spoken of occur? This is an explanation of the seventh and eighth sentences, and it is a question.

It must first go through the Avici hell, until a wind disaster occurs. This is the answer, which is easy to understand.

Why is it like this? Why does the First Dhyana heaven repeatedly encounter fire disasters, the Second Dhyana heaven repeatedly encounter water disasters, and the Third Dhyana heaven encounter one wind disaster?

Due to the karma of those sentient beings, up to sixty-four kalpas. This is the answer. The Nyayanusarasastra says: 'Why is there a water disaster only after seven fire disasters?' Because the lifespan and power of the Abhasvara (Abhasvara, the second Dhyana heaven) are great. That is to say, their lifespan is as long as eight great kalpas, so a water disaster occurs only at the eighth time.

由此應知。要度七水．八七火后乃一風災。由遍凈天壽勢力故。謂彼壽量六十四劫故第八八方一風災。如諸有情修定漸勝。所感異熟身壽漸長。由是所居亦漸久住。

俱舍論記卷第十二

同日以書本加一交了

弘安九年五月十六日未時許于東大寺三面僧房北室四聖房如形書寫之了

三論兼密宗睿兼(生年二十三夏[萉-巴+(日/(句-口+匕))]九花押) 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十三

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之一

分別業品者。造作名業。此品廣明故名分別。所以次明業者。前品明果。此品明因。果不孤起必藉因生。望果是親故次說業　如前所說至由誰而生者。就此品中。一明業體性。二釋經諸業。三雜明諸業　就明業體性中。一正明業體性。二諸門分別業。三廣明表．無表　就正明業體中。一明所造業。二明能造大　就明所造業中。一明二．三業。二明五種業　此下第一明二．三業。牒前問起。

頌曰至所作謂身語者。初句正答第二句出二業體。下兩句出三業體。又正理云。言世別者。依第六轉。謂世之別。或第七轉謂世中別。解云世是可破壞義。即是其總。別是種種差別。若世之別顯別屬總。若世

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由此應該知道，要度過七次水災、八七（五十六）次火災之後，才會有一次風災。這是由於遍凈天（第三禪天）的壽命勢力所致，因為他們的壽命長達六十四劫，所以在第八個八（六十四）方會發生一次風災。就像眾生修習禪定逐漸精進，所感得的異熟果報和壽命也逐漸增長，因此他們所居住的地方也能更加長久地存在。

《俱舍論記》卷第十二

同日以書本加一交了

弘安九年五月十六日未時許于東大寺三面僧房北室四聖房如形書寫之了

三論兼密宗睿兼(生年二十三夏[萉-巴+(日/(句-口+匕))]九花押) 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第十三

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之一

分別業品，造作稱為業。此品廣泛闡明，所以稱為『分別』。之所以在前面明果之後說明業，是因為前一品說明了果報，這一品說明了因。果報不會憑空產生，必定依賴於因才能產生。相對於果報來說，業是更直接的原因，所以接著說明業。如前面所說『由誰而生』，就此品中，一是闡明業的體性，二是解釋經文中的各種業，三是綜合闡明各種業。在闡明業的體性中，一是正面闡明業的體性，二是各個方面分別業，三是廣泛闡明表業和無表業。在正面闡明業的體性中，一是說明所造作的業，二是說明能造作的。在說明所造作的業中，一是說明二業和三業，二是說明五種業。下面首先說明二業和三業，引用前面的問題來引發討論。

頌文說『所作謂身語』，第一句正面回答，第二句說明身業和語業的體性。下面兩句說明意業、身業和語業的體性。又，《正理》中說，『言世別者』，是依據第六轉釋，意思是『世的差別』，或者第七轉釋，意思是『在世中的差別』。解釋說，『世』是可破壞的意思，指的是總的方面，『別』是種種差別，如果說是『世的差別』，就表明差別屬於總體，如果說是『在世中』

【English Translation】 English version: From this, it should be known that after passing through seven water disasters and eighty-seven (fifty-six) fire disasters, there will be one wind disaster. This is due to the power of the Ābhā-svara heavens (third dhyāna heaven), because their lifespan is as long as sixty-four kalpas, so a wind disaster will occur in the eighth eight (sixty-fourth) direction. Just as sentient beings gradually improve in their practice of meditation, the resultant vipāka (karmic result) and lifespan they experience also gradually increase, so the places where they live can also exist for a longer time.

Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Scroll 12

The book was submitted on the same day.

Copied in the form at the Four Saints Room, north room of the three-sided monks' quarters of Todai-ji Temple around the hour of Wei (1-3 PM) on May 16th, the 9th year of Kōan.

Sanron and Esoteric Buddhism, Eikan (Born in the 23rd summer [萉-巴+(日/(句-口+匕))] Signature) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā

Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Scroll 13

Commented by Śramaṇa Shi Guang

Chapter 4, Section 1: Distinguishing Karma

The chapter on distinguishing karma: 'Making' is called karma. This chapter explains it extensively, so it is called 'distinguishing'. The reason for explaining karma after explaining the result in the previous chapter is that the previous chapter explained the result, and this chapter explains the cause. Results do not arise independently; they must depend on causes to arise. Relative to the result, karma is a more direct cause, so it is explained next. As mentioned earlier, 'from whom does it arise?' In this chapter, first, the nature of karma is explained; second, the various karmas in the sutras are explained; and third, the various karmas are comprehensively explained. In explaining the nature of karma, first, the nature of karma is directly explained; second, karma is distinguished in various aspects; and third, expressed and unexpressed karmas are extensively explained. In directly explaining the nature of karma, first, the karma that is created is explained; and second, the creator is explained. In explaining the karma that is created, first, the two and three karmas are explained; and second, the five types of karma are explained. Below, the two and three karmas are explained first, quoting the previous question to initiate the discussion.

The verse says, 'What is done is called body and speech'. The first line answers directly, and the second line explains the nature of body and speech karma. The following two lines explain the nature of mind, body, and speech karma. Also, the Nyāyānusāra says, 'The term 'world distinction' is based on the sixth case, meaning 'the distinction of the world', or the seventh case, meaning 'the distinction in the world'. The explanation is that 'world' means destructible, referring to the general aspect, and 'distinction' refers to various differences. If it is said 'the distinction of the world', it indicates that the distinction belongs to the whole; if it is said 'in the world'

中別顯別依總。若屬若依俱顯差別。是世家別義。

論曰至業差別起者。釋初句。一主謂一天主。或大梵王。或大自在天等　諸外道等計此天主能造萬物。將欲造時先起是覺。欲受用境然後生諸世間　或數論外道計一我主以思為體。欲受用境時要先起覺我。今欲得受用境界。然後自性漸漸轉變生諸世間　或有勝論外道計我為能作者生於諸法亦以覺為先後生世間　故言一主先覺而生　論主斥言。此諸世間非由一主先覺而生。但由有情業差別故。有此二種世間果起　又解但由有情業故差別果起　又解差別通其業因及與起果。

若爾何故至與彼相違者。問。俱從業生。外鬱金等甚可愛樂。內身形等非可愛耶。

以諸有情至二事俱妙者。答。以諸有情共．不共業種類不同。感果各別　或造共凈業感鬱金等　或造共不凈業感毒刺等　或造不共凈業感內凈身　或造不共不凈業感內穢身　或造雜業感內穢．外凈。或造雜業感內凈．外穢　或造純不凈業感內．外俱穢　或造純凈業感內．外俱凈　此皆由業不同。所以感果差別　由斯理故。若造雜業故所感果內穢．外凈。為對治彼內身不凈。感外色等甚可愛樂。故與鬱金等不可例同　若諸天等造純凈業。故所感果內．外俱妙　言雜業純業者。感凈．穢果名雜。唯感凈果

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中別顯別依總：在總體中，如果屬性或所依賴的事物都顯示出差別，這就是世俗差別的含義。

論曰至業差別起者：解釋第一句。一主謂一天主（Ekādhipatya）：或者指大梵天（Mahābrahmā），或者指大自在天（Maheśvara）等。諸外道等認為這些天主能夠創造萬物。當他們想要創造時，首先產生這樣的覺悟：想要享受境界，然後才產生各種世間。或者數論外道認為存在一個『我』（ātman）作為主宰，以思為本體。當想要享受境界時，必須首先產生『我』的覺悟，現在想要獲得享受的境界，然後自性（Prakṛti）逐漸轉變，產生各種世間。或者有勝論外道認為『我』是能作者，產生各種法，也以覺悟為先後順序產生世間。所以說『一主先覺而生』。

論主駁斥說：這些世間不是由一個主宰先覺悟而產生的，而是由於有情眾生的業的差別，才產生這兩種世間的果報。又解釋說，僅僅由於有情眾生的業，才產生差別的果報。又解釋說，差別包括業的因，以及產生的果報。

若爾何故至與彼相違者：提問。既然都是從業產生的，為什麼外在的鬱金（turmeric）等非常可愛，而內在的身形等卻不可愛呢？

以諸有情至二事俱妙者：回答。因為有情眾生的共業和不共業的種類不同，所感得的果報也各不相同。或者造作共同的清凈業，感得鬱金等；或者造作共同的不清凈業，感得毒刺等；或者造作不共同的清凈業，感得內在清凈的身體；或者造作不共同的不清凈業，感得內在污穢的身體；或者造作雜業，感得內在污穢而外在清凈；或者造作雜業，感得內在清凈而外在污穢；或者造作純粹的不清凈業，感得內外都污穢；或者造作純粹的清凈業，感得內外都清凈。這些都是由於業的不同，所以感得的果報也有差別。由於這個道理，如果造作雜業，所以感得的果報是內在污穢而外在清凈，爲了對治內在身體的不凈，所以感得外在的顏色等非常可愛，因此不能與鬱金等同類比較。如果諸天等造作純粹的清凈業，所以感得的果報是內外都美妙。所說的雜業和純業，是指感得清凈和污穢果報的稱為雜業，只感得清凈果報的稱為純業。

【English Translation】 English version Distinction based on attribute, distinction based on dependence, and comprehensive distinction: If, within a totality, both attributes and that which is depended upon exhibit differences, this constitutes the meaning of worldly distinction (Ś世家別義).

The Treatise says, '...until the arising of the difference of karma': This explains the first sentence. 'One Lord' (Ekādhipatya) refers to either Mahābrahmā (大梵天), Maheśvara (大自在天), or others. Various non-Buddhist schools (諸外道) believe that these lords are capable of creating all things. When they intend to create, they first generate the thought: 'I desire to experience objects,' and then they produce the various worlds. Alternatively, the Sāṃkhya school (數論外道) posits a single 'Self' (ātman) as the lord, whose essence is thought. When desiring to experience objects, it must first generate the awareness of 'I.' Now, desiring to attain the realm of experience, Prakṛti (自性) gradually transforms, producing the various worlds. Or, the Vaiśeṣika school (勝論外道) believes that the 'Self' is the agent, producing all dharmas, also generating the world with awareness as the antecedent. Therefore, it is said, 'One Lord first awakens and then creates.'

The author of the Treatise refutes this, saying: 'These worlds are not produced by one lord first awakening. Rather, it is due to the difference in the karma of sentient beings (有情), that these two kinds of worldly results arise.' It is also explained that it is solely due to the karma of sentient beings that different results arise. It is further explained that 'difference' encompasses both the cause of karma and the resulting effect.

If so, why ... until 'contrary to them'?: This poses the question: Since both arise from karma, why are external things like turmeric (鬱金) so delightful, while internal forms like the body are not delightful?

Because sentient beings ... until 'both things are wonderful'?: This answers: Because the common and uncommon karma of sentient beings are of different kinds, the results they experience are also different. Some create shared pure karma, resulting in things like turmeric. Others create shared impure karma, resulting in things like poisonous thorns. Some create unshared pure karma, resulting in an internally pure body. Others create unshared impure karma, resulting in an internally defiled body. Some create mixed karma, resulting in internal defilement and external purity. Some create mixed karma, resulting in internal purity and external defilement. Some create purely impure karma, resulting in both internal and external defilement. Some create purely pure karma, resulting in both internal and external purity. All these are due to the difference in karma, which leads to the difference in the results experienced. Because of this principle, if one creates mixed karma, the resulting effect is internal defilement and external purity. To counteract the impurity of the internal body, one experiences external colors and forms that are very delightful. Therefore, it cannot be compared to things like turmeric. If beings like the gods (諸天) create purely pure karma, the resulting effect is that both internal and external aspects are wonderful. 'Mixed karma' and 'pure karma' refer to karma that results in both pure and impure effects being called 'mixed,' while karma that results only in pure effects is called 'pure.'

名純　或善．惡業雜名雜。唯是善業名純　或造人等善業微劣煩惱增強數為煩惱所陵雜故名雜。造天善業雖亦起惑。善勝惡劣故得純名。

此所由業其體是何者。釋第二句。此即問。

謂心所思至謂思所作者。答。思業謂心所思。思即是業故名思業　思已業謂思所作。身．語二業思之所作。由思已作名思已業。

如是二業至身語意業者。釋下兩句。開二為三。

如何建立至為就等起者。問。立此三業為約所依身。為據自體性。為就能等起。

縱爾何違者。責外疑情。

若約所依至意等起故者。外申疑意。

毗婆沙師至由上三因者。答。由所依身故立身業　色形聚積總名為身。此業依身故名身業　由自性故立語業。業性即語故名語業由等起故立意業。意謂意識業即謂思　言等起者謂能等起。在意非思　或所等起。在思非意　或通能．所。在意及思　或意等所起等即在意。起即在思。由意等起故名意業　故正理三十三云。謂業依身故名身業。業性即語故名語業。此業依意。復與意俱等起身語故名意業。

然心所思至所等起故者釋下兩句。論主述說一切有部三業故置然言。思是意業。思是能作。能等起。身．語是所作。所等起。

身語二業自性云何者。此下第二明

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『名純』是指只有善業，『或善·惡業雜名雜』是指善業和惡業混雜在一起。只有善業才稱為『純』，或者說，造作人道等善業時，如果微弱的煩惱增強，被煩惱所侵擾，就稱為『雜』。造作天道等善業雖然也會生起迷惑，但善的力量勝過惡的力量，所以可以稱為『純』。

這些業的本體是什麼？這是解釋第二句。這裡是提問。

『謂心所思至謂思所作者』。回答。思業是指心中所思。思本身就是業，所以稱為思業。『思已業』是指由思所作。身業和語業是由思所作的，因為由思而作，所以稱為『思已業』。

『如是二業至身語意業者』。解釋下面的兩句。將二業展開為三業。

『如何建立至為就等起者』。問。建立這三種業，是根據所依的身，還是根據自體的性質，還是根據能等起？

『縱爾何違者』。責備外人的疑問。

『若約所依至意等起故者』。外人提出疑問。

『毗婆沙師至由上三因者』。答。因為有所依的身，所以建立身業。顏色和形狀的聚集總稱為身。這種業依身而立，所以稱為身業。因為有自性，所以建立語業。業的自性就是語言，所以稱為語業。因為有等起，所以建立意業。意是指意識，業是指思。『言等起者』是指能等起。在意不在思。或者指所等起。在思不在意。或者通指能等起和所等起。在意和思。或者意等所起，等就是指意，起就是指思。因為意等起，所以稱為意業。所以《正理》第三十三卷說：『業依身，所以稱為身業。業的自性就是語言，所以稱為語業。這種業依意，又與意一起等起身語，所以稱為意業。』

『然心所思至所等起故者』。解釋下面的兩句。論主陳述說明一切有部的三業，所以用『然』字。思是意業。思是能作，能等起。身業和語業是所作，所等起。

『身語二業自性云何者』。下面第二部分說明。

【English Translation】 English version 'Ming Chun' (名純) means only wholesome karma, 'Or Shan. E Ye Za Ming Za' (或善．惡業雜名雜) means wholesome and unwholesome karma mixed together. Only wholesome karma is called 'Chun' (純), or when creating wholesome karma such as in the human realm, if weak afflictions increase and are disturbed by afflictions, it is called 'Za' (雜). Although creating wholesome karma such as in the heavens also gives rise to delusion, the power of good surpasses the power of evil, so it can be called 'Chun' (純).

What is the substance of these karmas? This is an explanation of the second sentence. This is a question.

'Wei Xin Suo Si Zhi Wei Si Suo Zuo Zhe' (謂心所思至謂思所作者). Answer. 'Si Ye' (思業, karma of thought) refers to what is thought in the mind. Thought itself is karma, so it is called 'Si Ye' (思業). 'Si Yi Ye' (思已業, karma after thought) refers to what is done by thought. Body karma and speech karma are done by thought, because they are done by thought, they are called 'Si Yi Ye' (思已業).

'Ru Shi Er Ye Zhi Shen Yu Yi Ye Zhe' (如是二業至身語意業者). Explains the following two sentences. Expands the two karmas into three karmas.

'Ru He Jian Li Zhi Wei Jiu Deng Qi Zhe' (如何建立至為就等起者). Question. Is the establishment of these three karmas based on the body that is relied upon, or based on the nature of the self, or based on the arising of the cause?

'Zong Er He Wei Zhe' (縱爾何違者). Reproaches the doubts of outsiders.

'Ruo Yue Suo Yi Zhi Yi Deng Qi Gu Zhe' (若約所依至意等起故者). Outsiders raise doubts.

'Pi Po Sha Shi Zhi You Shang San Yin Zhe' (毗婆沙師至由上三因者). Answer. Because there is a body to rely on, body karma is established. The accumulation of color and shape is generally called the body. This karma relies on the body, so it is called body karma. Because there is self-nature, speech karma is established. The self-nature of karma is language, so it is called speech karma. Because there is arising, mind karma is established. Mind refers to consciousness, and karma refers to thought. 'Yan Deng Qi Zhe' (言等起者) refers to the arising of the cause. It is in the mind and not in thought. Or it refers to what arises. It is in thought and not in the mind. Or it refers to both the arising of the cause and what arises. It is in the mind and thought. Or the arising of the mind, etc., 'Deng' (等) refers to the mind, and 'Qi' (起) refers to thought. Because the mind arises, it is called mind karma. Therefore, the thirty-third volume of the Zheng Li (正理) says: 'Karma relies on the body, so it is called body karma. The self-nature of karma is language, so it is called speech karma. This karma relies on the mind and arises with the mind in body and speech, so it is called mind karma.'

'Ran Xin Suo Si Zhi Suo Deng Qi Gu Zhe' (然心所思至所等起故者). Explains the following two sentences. The author states and explains the three karmas of the Sarvastivada school, so the word 'Ran' (然) is used. Thought is mind karma. Thought is the doer, the arising of the cause. Body karma and speech karma are what is done, what arises.

'Shen Yu Er Ye Zi Xing Yun He Zhe' (身語二業自性云何者). The second part below explains.

五業　就中。一總明表．無表。二別明身．語表。三別證有無表　此下第一總明表．無表。意業是思。如前已辨。身．語自性未說今問。

頌曰至俱表無表性者。應知如是所說諸三業中　身．語二業俱表．無表性。同是色業。一能表示自心善等令他知故名錶。一即不能表示自心故名無表。由斯差別立二種名　意業非色。不能表示故不名錶。由無表故無表亦無　以無表名遮同色類身．語表示故。

且身語表其相云何者。此下第二別明身．語表。將明問起。

頌曰至語表許言聲者。頌中十句。前九句明身表。后一句明語表。就前九句中。初一句論主述說一切有部形為身表。次五句論主破正量部動為身表。以此動色經部．及說一切有部俱不許有故先破之。次三句論主破說一切有部形為身表　若依經部宗。身．語二表是色．及聲多體聚集相續分位以說為表。一無表能。一物不能獨表示故。以說善．惡一念無能益．損。要由相續生故。積整合故。假而非實　若依正量部。有為法中許有表長時非剎那滅者。故身．語表皆據極微相續運轉能有表示。即由動故能表益損若依說一切有部。身．語二表有別極微。是實有性　論主此中意朋經部故破彼二宗　語表業中準身表說故不再論。

論曰至名身表業者。釋第一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本五業（pan̄ca-karma）：就這五種業中，首先總的說明表業（vijñapti-karma）和無表業（avijñapti-karma），其次分別說明身表業（kāya-vijñapti-karma）和語表業（vāk-vijñapti-karma），再次分別論證有表業和無表業。

以下首先總的說明表業和無表業。意業（manas-karma）是思（cetanā），如前面已經辨析過。身業和語業的自性還沒有說，現在提問。

頌曰：『身語俱表無表性』，應當知道，如是所說的諸三業（tri-karma）中，身業和語業都具有表業和無表業的性質，它們都是色業（rūpa-karma）。一種能夠表示自身的心善等，使他人知道，所以叫做表業；一種不能表示自身的心，所以叫做無表業。由於這種差別，而立兩種名稱。意業不是色，不能表示，所以不叫做表業；由於沒有表業，所以也沒有無表業。用無表這個名稱來遮止與色類相同的身業和語業的表示。

『且身語表其相云何』？以下第二部分分別說明身表業和語表業，將要說明，所以先提問。

頌曰：『形動及希愿，如是身表業，語表許言聲』。頌中有十句，前九句說明身表業，后一句說明語表業。在前九句中，第一句論主陳述說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）認為形（saṁsthāna）是身表業。接下來的五句，論主破斥正量部（Sāutrāntika）認為動（cestā）是身表業。因為這種動色經部和說一切有部都不承認有，所以先破斥它。接下來的三句，論主破斥說一切有部認為形是身表業。如果依照經部的宗義，身表業和語表業是色和聲的多體聚集相續分位，用來說明表業。單一的無表業沒有能力，單一的事物不能獨自表示，所以說善惡一念沒有能力增益或損害，必須由相續產生，積整合就，是假而不是真實的。如果依照正量部的觀點，有為法（saṅskṛta-dharma）中承認有表業是長時間而不是剎那滅的，所以身表業和語表業都是根據極微（paramāṇu）相續運轉，能夠有所表示，就是因為動才能表示增益或損害。如果依照說一切有部的觀點，身表業和語表業有不同的極微，是真實存在的。論主在這裡意在支援經部，所以破斥他們的兩種觀點。語表業中參照身表業來說明，所以不再論述。

論曰：『形謂』至『名身表業』。解釋第一句。

【English Translation】 English version Pañca-karma (五業): Among these five karmas, first, generally explain vijñapti-karma (表業) and avijñapti-karma (無表業); second, separately explain kāya-vijñapti-karma (身表業) and vāk-vijñapti-karma (語表業); third, separately demonstrate the existence of vijñapti-karma and avijñapti-karma.

Below, first generally explain vijñapti-karma and avijñapti-karma. Manas-karma (意業) is cetanā (思), as previously discussed. The svabhāva (自性) of kāya-karma and vāk-karma has not yet been discussed, so now we ask.

Verse: 'Body and speech both have vijñapti and avijñapti nature.' It should be known that among the three karmas (tri-karma) mentioned, kāya-karma and vāk-karma both have the nature of vijñapti and avijñapti. They are both rūpa-karma (色業). One can express one's own mind's goodness, etc., so that others know, hence it is called vijñapti. One cannot express one's own mind, hence it is called avijñapti. Due to this difference, two names are established. Manas-karma is not rūpa, it cannot express, so it is not called vijñapti. Because there is no vijñapti, there is also no avijñapti. The name avijñapti is used to prevent the similarity of kāya-karma and vāk-karma, which are of the same category as rūpa.

'What is the appearance of kāya and vāk vijñapti?' The second part below separately explains kāya-vijñapti-karma and vāk-vijñapti-karma. About to explain, so first ask.

Verse: 'Shape, movement, and desire, such is kāya-vijñapti-karma; vāk-vijñapti is acknowledged as speech-sound.' There are ten lines in the verse. The first nine lines explain kāya-vijñapti-karma, and the last line explains vāk-vijñapti-karma. Among the first nine lines, the first line states that the Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部) considers saṁsthāna (形) to be kāya-vijñapti-karma. The next five lines refute the Sāutrāntika (正量部), who consider cestā (動) to be kāya-vijñapti-karma. Because this moving rūpa is not acknowledged by the Sautrāntika and the Sarvāstivāda, it is refuted first. The next three lines refute the Sarvāstivāda, who consider saṁsthāna to be kāya-vijñapti-karma. According to the Sautrāntika's doctrine, kāya-vijñapti-karma and vāk-vijñapti-karma are the aggregation of multiple rūpa and sound, a continuous division, used to explain vijñapti. A single avijñapti has no ability; a single thing cannot express itself alone. Therefore, a single thought of good or evil has no ability to increase or decrease, it must be produced continuously, accumulated and achieved, it is false and not real. According to the view of the Sāutrāntika, among saṅskṛta-dharma (有為法), it is acknowledged that vijñapti-karma is long-lasting and not momentary. Therefore, kāya-vijñapti-karma and vāk-vijñapti-karma are based on the continuous movement of paramāṇu (極微), which can express something, because movement can express increase or decrease. According to the view of the Sarvāstivāda, kāya-vijñapti-karma and vāk-vijñapti-karma have different paramāṇu, which are truly existent. The author here intends to support the Sautrāntika, so he refutes their two views. Vāk-vijñapti-karma is explained with reference to kāya-vijñapti-karma, so it will not be discussed again.

Commentary: 'Shape means...' to 'is called kāya-vijñapti-karma.' Explains the first line.

句。述說一切有部顯自師宗。故前頌說身表許別形。毛．發等聚總名為身。身形非一故言如是如是。於此身中由思力故。別起如是如是身形。能表示心名身表業。

有餘師說至說非行動者。釋第二句。有餘正量部說。別有動色從此至彼名身表業。以聚色身動轉之時由此業色能動彼故　正量部計。有為法中心．心所法．及聲．光等剎那滅故必無行動　不相應行．身表業色．身．山．薪等非剎那滅多時久住。隨其所應初時有生。后時有滅。中有住異。不經生．滅。可容從此轉至余方有行動義　為破此執是故頌中說非行動　以一切有為皆有剎那故者。此下釋第三句及第四句中有剎那故。立理。正破。證無行動　比量云身表業色定無行動。有剎那故。如聲．光等。

剎那何謂者。正量部。問。

得體無間滅至動名身表者論主答。本無今有法創生時名為得體。此體無間必滅歸無。有此剎那諸有為法名有剎那。寄喻來況。如有杖人人名為有杖諸有為法至現在世才得自體。從此現在無間必滅歸無。若此處才生。即此處謝滅。無容從此生轉至余方滅。故正量部不可說言動名身表。

若有為法至義可成立者。正量部救。若諸有為法皆有剎那。因不至余方義可成立。自有有為無有剎那。如身表等　此剎那因有不成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這一段經文講述了一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一，主張一切事物皆實有）顯明自身宗義。因此，前面的頌文說，身體的表達允許有不同的形態。毛髮等聚集在一起，總稱為『身』。身體的形態並非單一，所以說『如是如是』。在這個身體中，由於思念的力量，可以產生這樣那樣的身體形態。能夠表達心意的，稱為身表業（kāya-vijñapti-karma，通過身體表達出來的行為）。

有其他學派的論師說到『說非行動者』，這是解釋第二句。有餘正量部（ Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一，主張經是佛說，是量）說，另外有一種動色（rūpa，物質），從這裡到那裡，稱為身表業。因為聚集的色身在動轉的時候，由於這種業色能夠推動它。正量部認為，有為法（saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而生的事物）中，心、心所法（caitta，心的附屬作用）以及聲音、光等，因為剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）生滅，所以必定沒有行動。不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，既非心也非色的事物）、身表業色、身體、山、柴等，並非剎那生滅，而是長時間存在。根據情況，最初有生，最後有滅，中間有住異。不經過生滅，可以容許從這裡轉移到其他地方，具有行動的意義。爲了破除這種執著，所以頌文中說『非行動』。因為一切有為法都有剎那的緣故。下面解釋第三句和第四句中的『中有剎那故』。這是立論，正面破斥，證明沒有行動。比量（anumāna，推理）說，身表業色必定沒有行動，因為它具有剎那的特性，就像聲音、光等。

『剎那是什麼？』正量部問道。

『得體無間滅，至動名身表』，論主回答。本來沒有而現在產生的法，在剛產生的時候稱為『得體』。這個體在無間之後必定滅亡歸於無。具有這種剎那的諸有為法，稱為『有剎那』。用比喻來說明，就像有手杖的人，被稱為『有杖』。諸有為法只有在現在世才能得到自體。從現在開始，無間必定滅亡歸於無。如果在這裡才產生，就在這裡謝滅，沒有可能從這裡產生轉移到其他地方滅亡。所以正量部不能說『動名身表』。

『如果說有為法…意義可以成立』，正量部辯解。如果諸有為法都有剎那，那麼『因不至余方』的意義就可以成立。但是，自有有為法沒有剎那，比如身表等。這個剎那的『因』是不成立的。

【English Translation】 English version: This passage explains the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school that asserts the reality of all things) doctrine. Therefore, the previous verse states that bodily expression allows for different forms. Hair, and other aggregates are collectively called 'body'. The form of the body is not singular, hence the saying 'such and such'. Within this body, due to the power of thought, such and such bodily forms can arise. That which can express the mind is called kāya-vijñapti-karma (bodily expression karma, actions expressed through the body).

Some other teachers say 'speaking of non-action', which explains the second line. Some Sautrāntikas (a Buddhist school that asserts that the sutras are the words of the Buddha and are authoritative) say that there is another kind of moving rūpa (matter), from here to there, called kāya-vijñapti-karma. Because when the aggregated body moves, this karma-rūpa can move it. The Sautrāntikas believe that among conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta, things that arise from causes and conditions), mind, mental factors (caitta, mental attributes), and sounds, light, etc., because they arise and cease in an instant (kṣaṇa, an extremely short unit of time), they certainly have no action. Non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra, things that are neither mind nor matter), bodily expression karma-rūpa, body, mountains, firewood, etc., do not arise and cease in an instant, but exist for a long time. Depending on the situation, there is arising at the beginning, ceasing at the end, and abiding and changing in the middle. Without undergoing arising and ceasing, it is permissible to move from here to another place, having the meaning of action. To refute this attachment, the verse says 'non-action'. Because all conditioned dharmas have an instant. Below, the third and fourth lines are explained as 'having an instant'. This is establishing a thesis, directly refuting, proving that there is no action. The inference (anumāna, reasoning) says that bodily expression karma-rūpa certainly has no action, because it has the characteristic of an instant, like sounds, light, etc.

'What is an instant?' the Sautrāntikas ask.

'Attaining substance and ceasing without interval, to move is called bodily expression,' the master answers. A dharma that did not exist before but now arises, is called 'attaining substance' when it first arises. This substance must cease and return to nothing without interval. Conditioned dharmas that have this instant are called 'having an instant'. To illustrate with a metaphor, like a person with a staff is called 'having a staff'. Conditioned dharmas can only attain their own substance in the present world. From the present, without interval, they must cease and return to nothing. If it arises here, it ceases here, and it is impossible to arise here and move to another place to cease. Therefore, the Sautrāntikas cannot say 'to move is called bodily expression'.

'If conditioned dharmas... the meaning can be established,' the Sautrāntikas argue. If all conditioned dharmas have an instant, then the meaning of 'the cause does not reach another place' can be established. However, there are conditioned dharmas that do not have an instant, such as bodily expression, etc. This 'cause' of the instant is not established.

過。

諸有為法至才生已即滅者。論主救不成過。釋第四句中盡故二字　色．不相應定有剎那。后必有盡故。如燈光等　論主復顯滅不待因。謂有為法剎那定滅。滅不待因。所以者何。以理而言。待因謂果。滅是無法。無法非果故不待因　比量云。滅不待因。以是無故。猶如兔角　或立量云。滅不待因。以非果故。猶如龜毛　或立量云。滅不待因。無非果故。猶如空花　滅既不待因。才生已即滅　此中言滅。謂有為法起已息故。此滅無體諸部極成　次泛明有為諸法生．滅。有二種因。一是主因。謂生滅相與法恒俱因用強勝故名主因。二是客因。謂余因緣或有或無因用非勝故名客因　若依正量部。諸法生難由主．客二因。諸法滅時通難及易。若心．心所法．及聲．光等但由主因不由客因。若不相應．及余色等．薪等由主．客二因　若依說一切有部。諸法生難由主．客二因。諸法滅易但由主因不由客因　若依經部。諸法生時由客因生。諸法滅時非客因滅。主因無體不可言因。又解經部生滅雖無實體然假說有。諸法生時由主．客因生。諸法滅時不由因滅。如擲物在空。去由人力下即不由。又解經部同說一切有部。諸法生時由主．客因生．諸法滅時由主因滅。非由客因。主因雖無別體。可假說因　復有外道計。諸法生時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

如果所有有為法都是才產生就立即滅亡，論主就無法避免這個過失。解釋第四句中的『盡』和『故』這兩個字：色（Rupa，物質）、不相應行法（Citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非色法也非心法的存在）必定有剎那生滅。因為之後必定會消盡，就像燈光一樣。論主進一步闡明滅不需要因緣，即有為法在剎那間必定會滅亡，滅不需要因緣。為什麼呢？從道理上講，待因才能產生果，而滅是無法，無法不是果，所以不需要因緣。可以這樣比量：滅不需要因緣，因為它是無，就像兔角一樣。或者可以立量說：滅不需要因緣，因為它不是果，就像龜毛一樣。或者可以立量說：滅不需要因緣，因為無不是果，就像空花一樣。滅既然不需要因緣，就是才產生就立即滅亡。

這裡所說的『滅』，是指有為法生起后就止息。這種滅沒有實體，是各個部派都認可的。接下來泛泛地說明有為諸法的生和滅，有兩種因：一是主因，即生滅相與法恒常相伴，因的作用強大而殊勝，所以稱為主因；二是客因，即其他的因緣，或者有或者沒有，因的作用不強，所以稱為客因。如果按照正量部的觀點，諸法產生時，需要主因和客因兩種因緣才能產生；諸法滅亡時，則有容易和困難之分。如果是心（Citta，意識）、心所法（Caitasika，心理作用）、以及聲音、光等，只需要主因，不需要客因；如果是不相應行法、以及其他的色法、柴火等，則需要主因和客因兩種因緣。

如果按照說一切有部的觀點，諸法產生時，需要主因和客因兩種因緣才能產生；諸法滅亡時，則很容易，只需要主因，不需要客因。如果按照經部的觀點，諸法產生時，由客因產生；諸法滅亡時，不是由客因滅亡。主因沒有實體，不能說是因。又有一種解釋，經部和說一切有部相同，認為生滅雖然沒有實體，但可以假說有。諸法產生時，由主因和客因產生；諸法滅亡時，不是由因滅亡，就像拋擲物體在空中，向上是由於人力，向下則不是由於人力。又有一種解釋，經部和說一切有部相同，認為諸法產生時，由主因和客因產生；諸法滅亡時，由主因滅亡，不是由客因滅亡。主因雖然沒有別的實體，但可以假說為因。還有外道認為，諸法產生時

【English Translation】 English version:

If all conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma, phenomena subject to causation) arise and immediately cease, the proponent cannot avoid this fault. Explaining the words 'exhaustion' and 'therefore' in the fourth phrase: Rupa (form, matter), Citta-viprayukta-samskara (non-associated formations, neither material nor mental) necessarily have momentary arising and ceasing. Because they will inevitably be exhausted afterward, like the light of a lamp. The proponent further clarifies that cessation does not depend on causes, meaning that conditioned dharmas inevitably cease in a moment, and cessation does not depend on causes. Why? Logically speaking, a cause is required to produce an effect, but cessation is non-existence, and non-existence is not an effect, so it does not depend on causes. It can be inferred thus: cessation does not depend on causes, because it is non-existent, like a rabbit's horn. Or it can be stated: cessation does not depend on causes, because it is not an effect, like a turtle's hair. Or it can be stated: cessation does not depend on causes, because non-existence is not an effect, like a flower in the sky. Since cessation does not depend on causes, it arises and immediately ceases.

The 'cessation' mentioned here refers to the cessation of conditioned dharmas after they have arisen. This cessation has no substance, which is acknowledged by all schools. Next, a general explanation of the arising and ceasing of conditioned dharmas: there are two kinds of causes. One is the primary cause, which is the constant association of the characteristics of arising and ceasing with the dharma, and the cause's function is strong and superior, so it is called the primary cause. The second is the secondary cause, which is other conditions that may or may not be present, and the cause's function is not strong, so it is called the secondary cause. According to the Sautrantika school, the arising of dharmas requires both primary and secondary causes. The cessation of dharmas can be either easy or difficult. In the case of Citta (consciousness), Caitasika (mental factors), and sounds, light, etc., only the primary cause is needed, not the secondary cause. In the case of non-associated formations, other material forms, firewood, etc., both primary and secondary causes are needed.

According to the Sarvastivada school, the arising of dharmas requires both primary and secondary causes. The cessation of dharmas is easy and requires only the primary cause, not the secondary cause. According to the Sutra school, the arising of dharmas is caused by the secondary cause. The cessation of dharmas is not caused by the secondary cause. The primary cause has no substance and cannot be called a cause. Another explanation is that the Sutra school agrees with the Sarvastivada school that although arising and ceasing have no substance, it can be conventionally said that they do. The arising of dharmas is caused by both primary and secondary causes. The cessation of dharmas is not caused by causes, like throwing an object in the air, going up is due to human force, but going down is not due to human force. Another explanation is that the Sutra school agrees with the Sarvastivada school that the arising of dharmas is caused by both primary and secondary causes. The cessation of dharmas is caused by the primary cause, not by the secondary cause. Although the primary cause has no separate substance, it can be conventionally called a cause. Furthermore, some heretics believe that the arising of dharmas

無因而生。諸法滅時無因而滅　此即略述諸部異計。

若初不滅至理必不然者。牒彼計徴破。若色等法初位不滅。后位之時亦應不滅。以後與初有體性等　立量云。后位之時應當不滅。有性等故。猶如初位　既後有盡知前有滅　立量云。初位之時應亦有滅。有性等故。猶如后位　汝若救云色等后位有體異前方可滅者夫言異者兩法相望后位之時。不應即此前位法體而名有異。即此前法體相有異理必不然。

豈不世間至皆不待因者。正量部救。顯諸法滅有待客因。豈不世間現見薪等由與火合客因力故。故致滅無。於三量中取證諸法。定無餘二比量．教量能過現量。故非諸法滅皆不待客因。

如何知薪等由火合故滅者。論主徴。

以薪等火合後便不見故者。正量部答。

應共審思至應由比量者。論主勸正量部思。為如汝宗此前薪等為由火合客因力滅無故不見。為如我所宗此前薪等生已自滅非由火滅后薪不生無故不見。應知薪等火合．不合。剎那剎那主因自滅。若火未合薪等有力引後果生后火合時。此火但令薪等無力引後果起。復能違后薪等不生非滅薪等。如汝宗中風與燈焰合。手與鈴聲合。亦許焰．聲非由風．手客因能滅。合與不合剎那剎那主因自滅。若未合時焰．聲有力能牽後果後手．風

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無因而生。諸法（dharma）滅時無因而滅——此即簡略敘述各部派的不同見解。

如果最初不滅，這個道理必定不成立。以下是針對他們的觀點進行辯駁：如果色等法（rūpa）最初的階段不滅，那麼之後的階段也應該不滅，因為之後與最初具有相同的體性等。可以立論如下：之後的階段應當不滅，因為具有相同的體性等，就像最初的階段一樣。既然之後有終盡，就知道之前有滅。可以立論如下：最初的階段也應該有滅，因為具有相同的體性等，就像之後的階段一樣。如果你們辯解說，色等法之後的階段有與之前不同的體性，所以可以滅，那麼所謂『不同』，是指兩種法相互比較而言，之後的階段不應該就是之前的法體而稱之為『不同』，認為之前的法體相有不同，這個道理必定不成立。

難道世間不是所有事物的滅亡都不依賴於外在的因緣嗎？——正量部（Sautrāntika）提出反駁，旨在說明諸法（dharma）的滅亡依賴於外在的因緣。難道世間不是親眼見到柴薪等由於與火結合的外在因緣的力量，才導致滅亡的嗎？在現量（pratyakṣa）、比量（anumāna）、教量（āgama）這三種量中，現量可以作為諸法的證據，比量和教量都不能超過現量。所以，並非所有諸法的滅亡都不依賴於外在的因緣。

如何得知柴薪等是由與火結合而滅亡的呢？——論主（指論述的作者）提出質問。

因為柴薪等與火結合后就看不見了。——正量部回答。

應該共同審慎思考，甚至應該通過比量來推斷。——論主勸正量部仔細思考。是像你們宗派所認為的那樣，之前的柴薪等由於與火結合的外在因緣的力量而滅亡，所以看不見了呢？還是像我所宗奉的那樣，之前的柴薪等生起后自然滅亡，不是由於火而滅亡，而是因為之後的柴薪沒有生起，所以看不見了呢？應該知道，柴薪等無論與火結合與否，都在剎那剎那之間由於自身的主因而滅亡。如果火沒有結合，柴薪等還有力量引發後續的結果生起；當火結合時，這火只是讓柴薪等沒有力量引發後續的結果生起，並且能夠阻止後續的柴薪等不再生起，而不是滅亡柴薪等。就像你們宗派中，風與燈焰結合，手與聲音結合，也承認燈焰和聲音不是由於風和手的外在因緣而滅亡的。無論結合與否，都在剎那剎那之間由於自身的主因而滅亡。如果未結合時，燈焰和聲音還有力量牽引後續的結果；之後手和風

【English Translation】 English version: They arise without a cause. When all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) cease, they cease without a cause—this is a brief account of the different views of various schools.

If the initial state does not cease, this principle must be incorrect. Here is a refutation of their view: If rūpa (form, matter) and other dharmas do not cease in their initial state, then they should also not cease in their subsequent states, because the subsequent states have the same nature, etc., as the initial state. One can establish the following argument: The subsequent states should not cease, because they have the same nature, etc., as the initial state. Since there is an end to the subsequent states, it is known that there is cessation in the initial state. One can establish the following argument: The initial state should also have cessation, because it has the same nature, etc., as the subsequent state. If you argue that the subsequent states of rūpa and other dharmas have a different nature from the previous states, so they can cease, then the so-called 'difference' refers to a comparison between two dharmas. The subsequent state should not be the same as the previous dharma-body and be called 'different.' The idea that the previous dharma-body has a different aspect is certainly not valid.

Doesn't the world show that the cessation of all things does not depend on external causes? —The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) raises an objection, aiming to show that the cessation of dharmas depends on external causes. Doesn't the world clearly see that firewood, etc., cease due to the power of external causes, such as combining with fire? Among the three means of valid cognition—pratyakṣa (direct perception), anumāna (inference), and āgama (scriptural authority)—direct perception can be used as evidence for dharmas, and inference and scriptural authority cannot surpass direct perception. Therefore, not all cessation of dharmas is independent of external causes.

How is it known that firewood, etc., cease due to combining with fire? —The author of the treatise asks.

Because firewood, etc., are not seen after combining with fire. —The Sautrāntika answers.

You should carefully consider together, and even infer through inference. —The author of the treatise advises the Sautrāntika to think carefully. Is it as your school believes, that the previous firewood, etc., cease due to the power of external causes, such as combining with fire, and therefore are not seen? Or is it as my school believes, that the previous firewood, etc., naturally cease after arising, not due to fire, but because subsequent firewood does not arise, and therefore are not seen? It should be known that firewood, etc., whether combined with fire or not, cease from moment to moment due to their own primary cause. If fire has not combined, firewood, etc., still have the power to cause subsequent results to arise; when fire combines, this fire only makes firewood, etc., unable to cause subsequent results to arise, and can prevent subsequent firewood, etc., from arising, rather than ceasing the firewood, etc. Just as in your school, when wind combines with a lamp flame, or a hand combines with a sound, you also admit that the lamp flame and sound are not ceased by the external causes of wind and hand. Whether combined or not, they cease from moment to moment due to their own primary cause. If not combined, the lamp flame and sound still have the power to draw subsequent results; later, the hand and wind

合。手．風但令焰．聲無力能牽後果。復能違后焰聲不起。非滅焰聲　故此諸法剎那滅義而成立者應由比量　又解故此法滅不待因義而成立者。

何謂比量者。正量部問。

謂如前說至故不待因者。論主引前文答。立量如前。

又若待因至亦不待因者。釋第五句應無無因故。汝若固執要待客因薪等方滅。應諸有為一切法滅無不皆待客因而滅　立量云。覺．焰等滅應待客因。有為攝故。猶如薪等　以生例滅。如有為法生皆待客因無無因者。有為法滅理亦應然。皆待客因無無因者。若諸法滅必待客因便違現量。然世現見。覺．焰．音聲不待客因。剎那自滅　心．心所法能覺察故總名為覺。即自結言。故薪等滅亦不待客因　立量云。薪等滅時不待客因。有剎那。故。如覺．焰等。

有執覺聲前因后滅者。此下敘異計破。此是勝論異師。前覺聲滅因后念生。以後與前性相違故。猶如后水逼前水流。彼師不立四相。但由後生令前念滅。

彼亦非理至復由誰滅者。論主破。彼亦非理。若二並生可言此滅于彼。前後二覺。前．后二聲不俱起故。前若至現后念未生。無體不應能滅前法。后若至現前念已謝。如何后法能滅於前。如疑．智二法。苦．樂二法。貪．瞋二法等。自相相違理無俱義。如何可說后

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本合掌。火焰和聲音的熄滅，即使沒有外力也能導致後果。並且能夠違背需要外力火焰和聲音才熄滅的觀點。並非火焰和聲音的熄滅。因此，這些法剎那生滅的意義，應該通過比量來成立。另一種解釋是，因此，法滅不需要依靠外因的意義，也應該成立。

什麼是比量呢？正量部問道。

就像前面所說的那樣，直到不需要外因。論主引用前面的話來回答。立量就像前面一樣。

如果一定要依靠外因，直到也不需要外因。解釋第五句，應該沒有無因的情況。如果你們固執地認為一定要依靠外在的因素，比如柴火等才能熄滅，那麼所有的有為法，一切法的熄滅，都應該依靠外在的因素才能熄滅。立量說：覺（Jnana，心和心所）、火焰等的熄滅，應該依靠外在的因素。因為是有為法所攝。就像柴火等一樣。用生來類比滅。如果所有的有為法的產生，都要依靠外在的因素，沒有不需要外在因素的情況，那麼有為法的熄滅，也應該如此。都要依靠外在的因素，沒有不需要外在因素的情況。如果諸法的熄滅，一定要依靠外在的因素，就違背了現量（Pratyaksha，現量，不通過推理的直接認知）。然而世間現見，覺、火焰、聲音不需要依靠外在的因素，剎那間自己就熄滅了。心和心所法能夠覺察，所以總稱為覺。這就是自己總結的觀點。所以柴火等的熄滅，也不需要依靠外在的因素。立量說：柴火等熄滅的時候，不需要依靠外在的因素。因為有剎那性。就像覺、火焰等一樣。

有人認為覺和聲音是前因後果熄滅的。下面敘述不同的觀點並進行駁斥。這是勝論派（Vaisheshika，印度古代哲學流派）不同的老師的觀點。前面的覺和聲音熄滅，是因為後面的念頭產生。因為後面的念頭和前面的念頭性質相反。就像後面的水逼迫前面的水流一樣。那位老師不建立四相（jati，生、住、異、滅四相）。只是因為後面的產生，才讓前面的念頭熄滅。

他們的觀點也是不合理的，直到又是由誰來熄滅呢？論主駁斥說：他們的觀點也是不合理的。如果兩個同時產生，可以說這個熄滅了那個。前後兩個覺，前後兩個聲音不是同時產生的。如果前面的已經到了，後面的念頭還沒有產生，沒有實體，不應該能夠熄滅前面的法。如果後面的已經到了，前面的已經消失，後面的法怎麼能夠熄滅前面的法呢？就像懷疑和智慧兩種法，苦和樂兩種法，貪和嗔兩種法等。自相矛盾，道理上沒有同時存在的意義。怎麼能說後面的

【English Translation】 English version The cessation of hand, fire, and sound can lead to consequences even without external force. Furthermore, it can contradict the view that fire and sound cease only with external force. It is not the cessation of fire and sound. Therefore, the meaning of these dharmas arising and ceasing in an instant should be established through inference. Another explanation is that the meaning of the cessation of dharma not depending on external causes should also be established.

What is inference? The Sautrantika (a school of Buddhism) asked.

As mentioned before, until it does not depend on external causes. The author quotes the previous text to answer. The establishment of the measure is the same as before.

If it must depend on external causes, until it also does not depend on external causes. Explaining the fifth sentence, there should be no causelessness. If you stubbornly insist that it must depend on external factors, such as firewood, to cease, then all conditioned dharmas, the cessation of all dharmas, should depend on external factors to cease. Establishing the measure says: Jnana (consciousness and mental factors), the cessation of fire, etc., should depend on external factors. Because it is included in conditioned dharmas. Just like firewood, etc. Using arising to analogize cessation. If the arising of all conditioned dharmas depends on external factors, and there is no situation where it does not require external factors, then the cessation of conditioned dharmas should also be the same. It must depend on external factors, and there is no situation where it does not require external factors. If the cessation of all dharmas must depend on external factors, it contradicts direct perception (Pratyaksha, immediate cognition without inference). However, it is seen in the world that Jnana, fire, and sound do not depend on external factors and cease by themselves in an instant. Consciousness and mental factors can perceive, so they are collectively called Jnana. This is the author's own concluding view. Therefore, the cessation of firewood, etc., also does not depend on external factors. Establishing the measure says: When firewood, etc., cease, they do not depend on external factors. Because there is instantaneity. Just like Jnana, fire, etc.

Some believe that the cessation of Jnana and sound is due to prior causes and subsequent effects. Below, different views are narrated and refuted. This is the view of a different teacher of the Vaisheshika (an ancient school of Indian philosophy). The cessation of the previous Jnana and sound is because the subsequent thought arises. Because the subsequent thought is opposite in nature to the previous thought. Just like the subsequent water forces the previous water to flow. That teacher does not establish the four characteristics (jati, the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing). It is only because of the subsequent arising that the previous thought ceases.

Their view is also unreasonable, until who then causes the cessation? The author refutes: Their view is also unreasonable. If two arise simultaneously, it can be said that this ceases that. The previous and subsequent two Jnanas, the previous and subsequent two sounds do not arise simultaneously. If the previous has arrived, the subsequent thought has not yet arisen, and there is no substance, it should not be able to cease the previous dharma. If the subsequent has arrived, the previous has already disappeared, how can the subsequent dharma cease the previous dharma? Just like the two dharmas of doubt and wisdom, the two dharmas of suffering and happiness, the two dharmas of greed and aversion, etc. Contradictory in nature, there is no meaning of coexisting in principle. How can it be said that the subsequent

滅於前。設許后念能滅於前。如何后位不明瞭覺．聲。能滅前位明瞭覺．聲。設許后劣能滅前勝。若相續起可后滅前。最後覺．聲復由誰滅。

有執燈焰滅以住無為因者。此是上坐部。正量部計。住謂住相。住相若在法無容滅。以住無故方能滅法。故彼燈焰滅以住無為因。

有執焰滅時由法非法力者。此是勝論異計。法．非法德句義攝。於人有益名法。於人無益名非法。由此二力能生諸法。能滅諸法　如闇室中有一明燈。若望受用者燈在有益。即是法生。燈滅無益。即非法滅。若望盜竊者燈在無益。即非法生。燈滅有益。即是法滅。

彼俱非理至順違相反故者。論主雙非二執　破前執云。夫言住無即無有體。以無體法非成因故。故言無非因故　立量云。住無非因。以無體故。猶如兔角　破后執云。非彼勝論於一念中法與非法俱為生因。法與非法俱為滅因。以剎那剎那。法即是順。非法是違。二相反故。云何二法俱生．滅因　又正理云。法與非法亦非滅因。見空窟中有焰轉故(解云。空窟中焰。即無損益既無所對無法　法。誰為滅因)。

或於一切至皆有剎那故者。重破勝論義。乘彼起故。汝勝論師或於一切有為法中。剎那剎那皆可計度有此法．非法為生．滅因義。雖復汝計法與非法生滅因異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本在前一念已滅盡。假設后一念能夠滅盡前一念，那麼后一念的位置如何能夠清楚地覺知聲音呢？又如何能夠滅盡前一念清楚覺知的聲音呢？假設后一念是劣的，能夠滅盡前一念殊勝的，如果是相續生起，或許后一念可以滅盡前一念。但最後的覺知和聲音又由誰來滅盡呢？

有人認為燈焰的熄滅是以『住』（dhrti，保持）這種無為法為原因。這是上座部（Sthavira）和正量部（Sammitiya）的觀點。他們認為『住』是指『住相』（sthiti-lakshana，存在的相）。如果『住相』存在，那麼法就沒有辦法滅盡，因為沒有『住』，法才能滅盡。所以他們認為燈焰的熄滅是以『住』這種無為法為原因。

有人認為燈焰熄滅時是由法（dharma）和非法（adharma）的力量導致的。這是勝論學派（Vaisheshika）的另一種觀點。法和非法包含在『德句義』（guna-padartha）中。對人有益的叫做『法』，對人沒有益的叫做『非法』。通過這兩種力量能夠產生諸法，也能夠滅盡諸法。比如在黑暗的房間里有一盞明燈，如果從使用者的角度來看，燈亮著是有益的，這就是法生；燈滅了是無益的，這就是非法滅。如果從盜竊者的角度來看，燈亮著是無益的，這就是非法生；燈滅了是有益的，這就是法滅。

論主認為以上兩種觀點都不合理，因為它們之間存在著順和違的相反關係。論主同時否定了這兩種觀點。駁斥前一種觀點說：所謂的『住無』就是沒有自體。因為沒有自體的法不能成為原因。所以說『無』不是原因。可以立一個量式：『住無』不是原因，因為它沒有自體，就像兔角一樣。駁斥后一種觀點說：勝論學派不可能認為在一念之中，法和非法同時是生起的原因，法和非法同時是滅盡的原因。因為每一剎那，法是順的，非法是違的，這兩種是相反的。怎麼能說這兩種法同時是生起和滅盡的原因呢？而且正理也說，法和非法也不是滅盡的原因，因為可以看到空窟中有火焰在燃燒（解釋說：空窟中的火焰，既沒有損害也沒有利益，既然沒有對立的法和非法，誰會是滅盡的原因呢）。

或者對於一切有為法，每一剎那都有法和非法。這是再次駁斥勝論學派的觀點，因為他們這樣認為。你們勝論師或者認為在一切有為法中，每一剎那都可以計算有法和非法作為生起和滅盡的原因。即使你們認為法和非法是不同的生滅原因。

【English Translation】 English version The previous thought has already ceased. If it is assumed that the subsequent thought can extinguish the previous one, then how can the subsequent thought clearly perceive sound? And how can it extinguish the sound clearly perceived by the previous thought? If it is assumed that the subsequent inferior thought can extinguish the previous superior one, then if they arise in succession, perhaps the subsequent thought can extinguish the previous one. But who will extinguish the final awareness and sound?

Some hold that the extinction of a lamp flame is caused by 『dhrti』 (住, holding), a non-conditioned dharma. This is the view of the Sthavira (上座部, Elders School) and the Sammitiya (正量部, Popular School). They believe that 『dhrti』 refers to 『sthiti-lakshana』 (住相, characteristic of existence). If 『sthiti-lakshana』 exists, then the dharma cannot be extinguished, because without 『dhrti』, the dharma can be extinguished. Therefore, they believe that the extinction of a lamp flame is caused by 『dhrti』, a non-conditioned dharma.

Some hold that the extinction of a flame is caused by the power of dharma (法) and adharma (非法). This is another view of the Vaisheshika (勝論, Particularist School). Dharma and adharma are included in 『guna-padartha』 (德句義, category of quality). That which is beneficial to people is called 『dharma』, and that which is not beneficial to people is called 『adharma』. Through these two powers, dharmas can be produced, and dharmas can also be extinguished. For example, in a dark room there is a bright lamp. If viewed from the perspective of the user, the lamp being lit is beneficial, which is the arising of dharma; the lamp being extinguished is not beneficial, which is the extinction of adharma. If viewed from the perspective of a thief, the lamp being lit is not beneficial, which is the arising of adharma; the lamp being extinguished is beneficial, which is the extinction of dharma.

The proponent believes that both of the above views are unreasonable because there is an opposite relationship of accordance and contradiction between them. The proponent simultaneously negates both views. Refuting the former view, it is said: The so-called 『non-existence of holding』 is the absence of self-nature. Because a dharma without self-nature cannot become a cause. Therefore, it is said that 『non-existence』 is not a cause. A syllogism can be established: 『Non-existence of holding』 is not a cause, because it has no self-nature, just like a rabbit's horn. Refuting the latter view, it is said: It is impossible for the Vaisheshika school to believe that in one thought, dharma and adharma are simultaneously the cause of arising, and dharma and adharma are simultaneously the cause of extinction. Because in every moment, dharma is in accordance, and adharma is in contradiction, and these two are opposite. How can it be said that these two dharmas are simultaneously the cause of arising and extinction? Moreover, correct reasoning also says that dharma and adharma are not the cause of extinction, because it can be seen that there is a flame burning in an empty cave (explanation: the flame in the empty cave has neither harm nor benefit, since there are no opposing dharma and adharma, who would be the cause of extinction?).

Or, for all conditioned dharmas, in every moment there are dharma and adharma. This is a further refutation of the Vaisheshika school's view, because they think so. You Vaisheshikas may think that in all conditioned dharmas, in every moment it can be calculated that there are dharma and adharma as the cause of arising and extinction. Even if you think that dharma and adharma are different causes of arising and extinction.

。即許有為剎那生滅。既恒生滅是即本與正量部諍無剎那滅便應止息。由許不待餘火等滅因。皆有剎那故　又解重破二執。或於一切有為法中。剎那剎那皆可計度有此住無滅因義。有此法．非法滅因義。既爾本諍無剎那滅便應止息。同許不待餘火等滅因。皆有剎那故　又解重破正量部。汝正量部或於一切有為法中。剎那剎那皆可計度有此主因滅義。既爾與正量部諍無剎那滅便應止息。以不待餘火等滅因皆有剎那故。

又若薪等滅火合為因者。此下釋第六句生因應能滅。將破牒執。

于熟變生中至下中熟滅者。此即正破。汝若固執薪等滅時火為因者。應生因體即成滅因。如火燒薪于熟變生中有下中上三品不同。初黃名下。次黑名中。后全黑名上。應生因體即成滅因　所以者何　謂由火因與薪等合能令薪等有熟變生三品不同。中熟生下熟滅。上熟生中熟滅。應中熟生因即是下熟滅因。以中熟生時即下熟滅故。應上熟生因即是中熟滅因。以上熟生時即中熟滅故。故言應生因體即成滅因。

或即或似至滅下中熟者。敘計救義。或即生下熟因即能為因滅下熟。非生中熟因能滅下熟。或即生中熟因。即能為因滅中熟。非生上熟因。能滅中熟。故言或即。此是或即計　或復轉計。生下熟因似滅下熟因。生中熟因似

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：既然承認有剎那生滅，既然一切事物都在恒常地生滅，那麼就應該停止與正量部（Sarvastivadins，一個佛教部派，主張一切事物皆實有）關於沒有剎那滅的爭論。因為你們也承認不需要等待其他的火等滅因，一切事物都有剎那生滅的緣故。另一種解釋是，這再次破斥了兩種執著。或許在一切有為法（conditioned phenomena，由因緣和合而生的事物）中，每個剎那都可以計算出有此住而無滅因的意義，有此法和非法作為滅因的意義。既然如此，原本關於沒有剎那滅的爭論就應該停止，因為雙方都承認不需要等待其他的火等滅因，一切事物都有剎那生滅的緣故。還有一種解釋是，這再次破斥了正量部。你們正量部或許在一切有為法中，每個剎那都可以計算出有此主因滅的意義。既然如此，與正量部關於沒有剎那滅的爭論就應該停止，因為不需要等待其他的火等滅因，一切事物都有剎那生滅的緣故。

如果說薪柴等燃燒殆盡，與火焰結合是（導致熄滅的）原因，那麼下面解釋第六句『生因應能滅』，將要破斥這種執著。

『于熟變生中至下中熟滅者』，這正是破斥。如果你們固執地認為薪柴等燃燒殆盡時，火焰是（導致熄滅的）原因，那麼生因的本體就應該成為滅因。例如，火焰燃燒薪柴，在成熟變化產生中，有下品、中品、上品三種不同。最初發黃叫做下品，其次變黑叫做中品，最後全黑叫做上品。那麼生因的本體就應該成為滅因。為什麼這麼說呢？因為火焰作為原因，與薪柴等結合，能使薪柴等有成熟變化產生三種不同的品級。中品成熟產生下品成熟的滅亡，上品成熟產生中品成熟的滅亡。那麼中品成熟的生因就是下品成熟的滅因，因為中品成熟產生的時候，就是下品成熟滅亡的時候。上品成熟的生因就是中品成熟的滅因，因為上品成熟產生的時候，就是中品成熟滅亡的時候。所以說，生因的本體就應該成為滅因。

『或即或似至滅下中熟者』，這是敘述計度救護的意義。或者說，產生下品成熟的原因，就能作為原因滅掉下品成熟，但不能作為原因滅掉中品成熟；或者說，產生中品成熟的原因，就能作為原因滅掉中品成熟，但不能作為原因滅掉上品成熟。所以說『或即』，這是『或即』的計度。或者進一步計度，產生下品成熟的原因，類似於滅掉下品成熟的原因；產生中品成熟的原因，類似於...

【English Translation】 English version: Since you admit that there is momentary arising and ceasing, and since all things are constantly arising and ceasing, then the dispute with the Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school that asserts the reality of all things) about the absence of momentary cessation should cease. This is because you also admit that there is no need to wait for other causes of cessation such as fire, as all things have momentary arising and ceasing. Another explanation is that this again refutes two attachments. Perhaps in all conditioned phenomena (dharmas), at each moment it can be calculated that there is the meaning of this abiding without a cause of cessation, and there is the meaning of this dharma and non-dharma as a cause of cessation. Since this is the case, the original dispute about the absence of momentary cessation should cease, because both sides admit that there is no need to wait for other causes of cessation such as fire, as all things have momentary arising and ceasing. Yet another explanation is that this again refutes the Sarvastivadins. You, the Sarvastivadins, perhaps in all conditioned phenomena, at each moment it can be calculated that there is the meaning of this primary cause of cessation. Since this is the case, the dispute with the Sarvastivadins about the absence of momentary cessation should cease, because there is no need to wait for other causes of cessation such as fire, as all things have momentary arising and ceasing.

If the burning of firewood, etc., combined with fire is the cause (of extinction), then the following explains the sixth sentence 'the cause of arising should be able to extinguish,' which will refute this attachment.

'In the ripening transformation arising, down to the cessation of lower and middle ripening,' this is precisely the refutation. If you stubbornly insist that when firewood, etc., is burned up, fire is the cause (of extinction), then the very substance of the cause of arising should become the cause of cessation. For example, when fire burns firewood, in the ripening transformation arising, there are three different grades: lower, middle, and upper. The initial yellowing is called lower grade, the subsequent blackening is called middle grade, and the final complete blackening is called upper grade. Then the very substance of the cause of arising should become the cause of cessation. Why is this so? Because fire, as a cause, combined with firewood, etc., can cause firewood, etc., to have three different grades of ripening transformation arising. The ripening of the middle grade produces the cessation of the ripening of the lower grade, and the ripening of the upper grade produces the cessation of the ripening of the middle grade. Then the cause of arising of the middle grade ripening is the cause of cessation of the lower grade ripening, because when the middle grade ripening arises, it is the time when the lower grade ripening ceases. The cause of arising of the upper grade ripening is the cause of cessation of the middle grade ripening, because when the upper grade ripening arises, it is the time when the middle grade ripening ceases. Therefore, it is said that the very substance of the cause of arising should become the cause of cessation.

'Either identical or similar, down to the cessation of lower and middle ripening,' this is a description of the meaning of calculation and protection. Either the cause of arising of the lower grade ripening can act as the cause to extinguish the lower grade ripening, but cannot act as the cause to extinguish the middle grade ripening; or the cause of arising of the middle grade ripening can act as the cause to extinguish the middle grade ripening, but cannot act as the cause to extinguish the upper grade ripening. Therefore, it is said 'either identical,' this is the calculation of 'either identical.' Or further calculation, the cause of arising of the lower grade ripening is similar to the cause of extinguishing the lower grade ripening; the cause of arising of the middle grade ripening is similar to...

滅中熟因。火焰生滅二因即雖別。同時交雜故見相似。一為生因。一為滅因。非是一法為生．滅因　或彼計。火焰相續不停前後相似。前為生因。后為滅因。非是一法為生．滅因　或似生下熟因即能為因滅下品熟。非生下熟因即能滅下熟。雖見相似然體各別。或似生中熟因。即能為因滅中品熟。非生中熟因。即能滅中熟。雖見相似然體各別故言或似。此是或似計。

則生因體至或似此非有者。破前二計。則生下．中熟因體。應即是下．中熟滅因。如何生因即為滅因。此破或即計　或下品熟滅因生因。或中品熟滅因生因應體相似相無差別。既體相似如何可說一為生因一為滅因。此破或似計　不應已下雙破兩家　即。是或即計　似。是或似計　有之言。生　非有言。滅　不應由即此火焰彼下．中熟有。彼下．中熟復由即此火焰非有。此破或即計　不應由或似此火焰彼下中熟有。彼下中熟復由或似此火焰非有。此破或似計　此文間雜雙破兩家。論主文巧應善思之。

設於火焰至生滅因異者。縱許徴破。設於火焰。乍起。乍伏。或合。或散。乍長。乍短。或少。或大。差別生中容計能生因異。能滅因異　于灰等六無起伏等相各無差別。與薪等合能令薪等熟變生中。如何計度生滅因異。

若爾現見至為何所作

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本滅中熟因（導致中間成熟狀態毀滅的原因）。火焰的生起和熄滅這兩種原因即使不同，但因為同時交織在一起，所以看起來相似。一個是生起的原因，一個是滅亡的原因，而不是同一種法既是生起的原因，又是滅亡的原因。或者他們認為，火焰相續不斷，前後相似，之前的火焰是生起的原因，之後的火焰是滅亡的原因，也不是同一種法既是生起的原因，又是滅亡的原因。或者類似於生起下品成熟的原因就能導致下品成熟的滅亡，但生起下品成熟的原因不能導致中品成熟的滅亡。雖然看起來相似，但本體各不相同。或者類似於生起中品成熟的原因，就能導致中品成熟的滅亡，但生起中品成熟的原因不能導致中品成熟的滅亡。雖然看起來相似，但本體各不相同，所以說是『或似』。這是一種『或似』的觀點。

『則生因體至或似此非有者』，這是爲了駁斥前兩種觀點。那麼，生起下品、中品成熟的原因的本體，應該就是下品、中品成熟的滅亡的原因。怎麼能說生起的原因就是滅亡的原因呢？這是爲了駁斥『或即』的觀點。或者說，下品成熟的滅亡的原因和生起的原因，或者中品成熟的滅亡的原因和生起的原因，它們的本體應該相似，相貌沒有差別。既然本體相似，怎麼能說一個是生起的原因，一個是滅亡的原因呢？這是爲了駁斥『或似』的觀點。『不應已下雙破兩家』，『即』，指的是『或即』的觀點，『似』，指的是『或似』的觀點。『有』，指的是生起，『非有』，指的是滅亡。不應該因為『或即』這種火焰，導致下品、中品成熟存在，又因為『或即』這種火焰，導致下品、中品成熟不存在。這是爲了駁斥『或即』的觀點。不應該因為『或似』這種火焰，導致下品、中品成熟存在，又因為『或似』這種火焰，導致下品、中品成熟不存在。這是爲了駁斥『或似』的觀點。這段文字交織在一起，同時駁斥了兩種觀點。論主的文筆巧妙，應該仔細思考。

『設於火焰至生滅因異者』，這是縱然允許對方辯論而提出的反駁。假設火焰，時而生起，時而熄滅，時而聚合，時而分散，時而變長，時而變短，時而變少，時而變大，在這些差別生起之中，或許可以認為能生起的原因不同，能滅亡的原因也不同。但是對於灰燼等六種沒有生起、熄滅等相狀，各自沒有差別的事物，與柴火等聚合，能夠使柴火等成熟變化生起，如何推測生起和滅亡的原因不同呢？

『若爾現見至為何所作』，如果這樣的話，那麼現在所見到的現象又是什麼作用呢？

【English Translation】 English version The cause of the destruction of intermediate ripening. Even though the two causes of the arising and ceasing of flames are different, they appear similar because they are intertwined simultaneously. One is the cause of arising, and the other is the cause of ceasing. It is not that the same dharma (law, phenomenon) is both the cause of arising and the cause of ceasing. Or, they might think that the flames continue uninterrupted, and the preceding and following flames are similar. The preceding flame is the cause of arising, and the following flame is the cause of ceasing. It is not that the same dharma is both the cause of arising and the cause of ceasing. Or, it is similar to how the cause of the arising of inferior ripening can lead to the destruction of inferior ripening, but the cause of the arising of inferior ripening cannot lead to the destruction of intermediate ripening. Although they appear similar, their entities are different. Or, it is similar to how the cause of the arising of intermediate ripening can lead to the destruction of intermediate ripening, but the cause of the arising of intermediate ripening cannot lead to the destruction of intermediate ripening. Although they appear similar, their entities are different, so it is said 'or similar'. This is a view of 'or similar'.

'Then the entity of the cause of arising to or similar to this is not existent', this is to refute the previous two views. Then, the entity of the cause of the arising of inferior and intermediate ripening should be the cause of the destruction of inferior and intermediate ripening. How can it be said that the cause of arising is the cause of destruction? This is to refute the view of 'or identical'. Or, the cause of the destruction of inferior ripening and the cause of arising, or the cause of the destruction of intermediate ripening and the cause of arising, their entities should be similar, and their appearances should be indistinguishable. Since their entities are similar, how can it be said that one is the cause of arising and the other is the cause of destruction? This is to refute the view of 'or similar'. 'Not should below doubly refute both schools', 'identical' refers to the view of 'or identical', 'similar' refers to the view of 'or similar'. 'Existent' refers to arising, 'non-existent' refers to destruction. It should not be that because of 'or identical' this flame, inferior and intermediate ripening exist, and because of 'or identical' this flame, inferior and intermediate ripening do not exist. This is to refute the view of 'or identical'. It should not be that because of 'or similar' this flame, inferior and intermediate ripening exist, and because of 'or similar' this flame, inferior and intermediate ripening do not exist. This is to refute the view of 'or similar'. This passage is intertwined, simultaneously refuting both schools. The author's writing is skillful, and it should be carefully considered.

'Suppose in flames to the cause of arising and ceasing are different', this is a refutation proposed even if the other party is allowed to debate. Suppose flames, sometimes arise, sometimes cease, sometimes gather, sometimes scatter, sometimes become long, sometimes become short, sometimes become few, sometimes become many, in these differences of arising, perhaps it can be thought that the cause that can arise is different, and the cause that can cease is also different. But for ashes and the other six things that do not have the appearances of arising and ceasing, and each has no difference, when combined with firewood and the like, they can cause the firewood and the like to ripen and change, how can it be inferred that the causes of arising and ceasing are different?

'If so, what is the function of what is seen now?', If this is the case, then what is the function of the phenomena that are seen now?

者。正量部問。若爾現見煎水減盡。以此明知火為滅因。若不爾者。火合於中為何所作。

由事火合至理得成立者。論主答。由客事火合。主火界力增。由主火界增。能令水聚漸微不續。是名火合於中所．作。火但能令前水無力不引后水。又違后水令不得生。非滅前水故無有客因令諸行滅。有為諸法念念不停自體謝滅。是壞性故。自然滅故。才生即滅。剎那義成。有剎那故定無行動。異方無間假名行動。妄謂行動增上慢也　論主破訖復許傳言。既由斯理正量部執行動定無。說一切有宗身表是形理得成立且敘權許鄰次還破。

然經部說至別類色體者。此下論主述經部義破說一切有部形色實有。此即釋頌第七句形亦非實有。明無實形依顯假立。謂諸顯色安布不同。假立長．短．方．圓形色。如文可知　所餘形色隨應當知者。于其中面凸出生中假立高色。場凹生中假立下色。齊平生中假立正色。參差生中假立不正色。實見顯色意謂長等。寄喻來況。如見火㷮。速運謂長。周旋謂圓。此長．圓假依火㷮立。實見火㷮意謂長等。形依于顯理亦應然。故形無實別類色體。

若謂實有至能取于形者。此即釋頌第八句應二根取故。經部師言。汝常有宗若謂實形別。則應一形色二色根所取。謂於色聚長等差別。眼根能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：正量部問道：『如果像你所說的那樣，那麼我們現在親眼看到煎水減少直至耗盡，這明明可以證明火是導致水滅亡的原因。如果不是這樣，那麼火在其中又起了什麼作用呢？』

論主（指論述的作者）回答說：『由於外來的火的結合，主要在於增強了火界的能量。由於主要火界能量的增強，才能夠使水的聚集逐漸減少以至無法持續。這就是火在其中所起的作用。火只能使之前的水失去力量，無法引來之後的水，並且阻止之後的水產生。但火併沒有消滅之前的水，所以並沒有外在的原因導致諸行（一切事物）滅亡。有為法（受條件影響的事物）唸唸不停，其自身就在謝滅，這是因為它們具有壞滅的本性，是自然滅亡的，剛剛產生就立即滅亡。剎那的意義由此成立。因為有剎那，所以一定沒有行動。在不同的方向上，沒有間隔的，只是假名為行動。錯誤地認為有行動，這是一種增上慢（過分的驕傲）。』

論主駁斥完畢后，又認可了傳言。既然由於這個道理，正量部認為行動是確定的，那麼說一切有部宗派認為身體的表達是形狀，這個道理才能成立。這裡先敘述權宜之計的認可，緊接著就進行反駁。

『然而經部說，直到有別類的色體』，以下論主闡述經部的觀點，駁斥說一切有部認為形狀的顏色是真實存在的。這也就是解釋頌文第七句『形亦非實有』，說明沒有真實的形狀，而是依靠顯色假立的。所謂的各種顯色，因為安排佈置的不同，就假立為長、短、方、圓等形狀的顏色。具體內容可以參考原文。

『其餘的形狀顏色，應當根據情況瞭解』，在其中，從表面凸起的地方假立為高色，從場地凹陷的地方假立為下色，從齊平的地方假立為正色，從參差不齊的地方假立為不正色。實際上看到的是顯色，心裡卻認為是長等形狀。用比喻來說明情況，就像看到火焰迅速運動就認為是長的，看到火焰旋轉就認為是圓的。這種長、圓等形狀是假借火焰而成立的。實際上看到的是火焰，心裡卻認為是長等形狀。形狀依賴於顯色的道理也應該是這樣。所以形狀沒有真實的、別類的色體。

『如果認為形狀是真實存在的，直到能夠獲取形狀』，這也就是解釋頌文第八句『應二根取故』。經部師說：『你們常有宗如果認為真實的形狀是獨立的，那麼就應該一個形狀的顏色被兩種色根所獲取。也就是說，對於顏色聚集體的長等差別，眼根能夠...

【English Translation】 English version: The Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) asks: 'If that's the case, then we now see with our own eyes that boiling water reduces until it's exhausted. This clearly proves that fire is the cause of the water's extinction. If it's not like this, then what role does the fire play in it?'

The author of the treatise answers: 'Due to the combination of external fire, the main thing is to enhance the energy of the fire element. Due to the enhancement of the main fire element's energy, it can cause the water aggregation to gradually decrease until it cannot continue. This is the role that fire plays in it. Fire can only make the previous water lose its strength, unable to attract the subsequent water, and prevent the subsequent water from arising. But fire does not extinguish the previous water, so there is no external cause for the extinction of all phenomena (all things). Conditioned dharmas (things affected by conditions) are constantly ceasing, and their own selves are perishing. This is because they have the nature of decay and extinction, and they are naturally extinguished, immediately extinguished as soon as they arise. The meaning of a kshana (instant) is thus established. Because there is a kshana, there is definitely no action. In different directions, without intervals, it is only nominally called action. Mistakenly thinking that there is action is an adhimana (excessive pride).'

After the author of the treatise refutes, he then acknowledges the transmitted words. Since, due to this reason, the Sautrantika believes that action is definite, then the Sarvastivada (another Buddhist school) sect's view that the body's expression is shape can be established. Here, the expedient acknowledgement is first narrated, and then immediately refuted.

'However, the Sautrantika says, until there is a separate kind of color-entity', below, the author of the treatise elaborates on the Sautrantika's view, refuting the Sarvastivada's view that the color of shape is truly existent. This is also explaining the seventh line of the verse, 'Shape is also not truly existent', explaining that there is no true shape, but it is provisionally established based on manifest color. The so-called various manifest colors, because of the different arrangements and layouts, are provisionally established as long, short, square, round, etc., shapes of color. The specific content can be referred to in the original text.

'The remaining shapes and colors should be understood according to the circumstances', among them, the place protruding from the surface is provisionally established as high color, the place recessed from the field is provisionally established as low color, the place that is level is provisionally established as upright color, and the place that is uneven is provisionally established as non-upright color. In reality, what is seen is manifest color, but in the mind, it is thought to be long, etc., shapes. Use an analogy to illustrate the situation, just like seeing a flame moving quickly and thinking it is long, seeing a flame rotating and thinking it is round. These long, round, etc., shapes are provisionally established by borrowing the flame. In reality, what is seen is the flame, but in the mind, it is thought to be long, etc., shapes. The principle that shape depends on manifest color should also be like this. Therefore, shape does not have a real, separate kind of color-entity.

'If it is thought that shape is truly existent, until it can obtain shape', this is also explaining the eighth line of the verse, 'Should be taken by two roots'. The Sautrantika master says: 'If you, the Sarvastivadins, think that the real shape is independent, then the color of one shape should be taken by two color-roots. That is to say, for the long, etc., differences in the color aggregate, the eye-root can...

見。身根能觸。俱了長等。由此應成二根取過。以理而言。十二處中必無一色處二色根所取　以理破訖示正義言。然如依觸意識。于中取假長等。如是依顯意識。于中能取假形。形依觸．顯假建立故。故言意取。

豈不觸形至能念花色者。說一切有部救　行之言在　豈不觸．形俱在一聚故。身因取觸。意能憶念先見形色。非於觸中身親取形。故無色處二根取過　寄喻來況。如眼見火赤色。意便憶念先觸火暖。非於色中眼親取觸　又如鼻嗅花香。意能憶念先見花色。非於香中鼻親取色。

此中二法至能憶念形者。經部難。此中火赤色與火暖觸。花香氣與彼花色。二法決定不相離故。故因取一可得念余。無如是觸與如是形可得相屬定不相離　以或滑觸有長等故。或時澀等亦有長等　如何取觸能憶念形　又縱破云。若觸．形非定同聚　然取觸憶形。觸亦與顯色非定同聚。顯色亦應因觸定憶。又如顯色無定屬觸。觸時即不能了于顯。非定屬故　或應形色猶如顯色非定屬觸。則取觸位應不可了形　而實道理即不然也。閉目觸時但能了形。非能了顯。以此故知。形假顯實　故汝不應說因取于觸而能憶念先見實形。若憶實形。何不憶顯既不憶顯。明形是假　又解而實形色不然。所以者何。若有實形身亦親取。故不應說因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本見（dṛṣṭa，所見之物）。身根（kāya-indriya，身體的感官能力）能夠感知觸覺（sparśa，接觸）。兩者都能感知長短等性質。因此，應該會造成兩個根同時獲取資訊的過失。從道理上講，十二處（dvādaśa āyatana，十二種感官領域）中，絕對不會出現一個色處（rūpāyatana，視覺對像領域）被兩個色根（rūpa-indriya，視覺感官能力）所獲取的情況。以理破斥完畢，展示正確的意義：然而，就像依賴觸覺意識（sparśa-vijñāna，基於觸覺的意識）從中獲取虛假的長短等性質一樣，這樣依賴顯色意識（varṇa-vijñāna，基於顏色的意識）從中能夠獲取虛假的形狀。形狀是依賴觸覺和顯色而虛假建立的，所以說是意識獲取。難道不是觸覺和形狀一起，甚至能夠憶念花朵的顏色嗎？說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教部派）進行辯護：行為的言論在於，難道不是觸覺和形狀都在一個集合體中嗎？身體通過觸覺獲取資訊，意識能夠回憶起先前見過的形狀和顏色。不是身體在觸覺中親自獲取形狀，所以沒有色處被兩個根獲取的過失。用比喻來類比情況：就像眼睛看到火焰的紅色，意識便回憶起先前接觸火焰的溫暖。不是眼睛在顏色中親自獲取觸覺。又如鼻子聞到花朵的香氣，意識能夠回憶起先前見過的花朵顏色。不是鼻子在香氣中親自獲取顏色。此中兩種法，甚至能夠憶念形狀？經部（Sautrāntika，一個佛教部派）提出質疑：這裡火焰的紅色與火焰的溫暖觸覺，花朵的香氣與那花朵的顏色，這兩種法必定不會互相分離，所以因為獲取其中一個可以憶念其餘的。沒有像觸覺和形狀這樣可以得到相互關聯且必定不分離的情況。因為有時光滑的觸覺會有長短等性質，有時粗糙等觸覺也會有長短等性質。如何獲取觸覺能夠憶念形狀？又縱然反駁說：如果觸覺和形狀不是必定在同一個集合體中，那麼獲取觸覺而憶念形狀，觸覺也與顯色不是必定在同一個集合體中，顯色也應該因為觸覺而必定被憶念。又如顯色沒有必定屬於觸覺，接觸時就不能瞭解顯色，因為不是必定屬於。或者應該形狀和顏色就像顯色一樣，不是必定屬於觸覺，那麼在獲取觸覺的時候應該不能瞭解形狀，但實際道理卻不是這樣。閉上眼睛觸控時，只能瞭解形狀，不能瞭解顯色。因此可知，形狀是虛假的，顯色是真實的。所以你不應該說因為獲取觸覺而能夠憶念先前見過的真實形狀。如果憶念真實形狀，為什麼不憶念顯色？既然不憶念顯色，說明形狀是虛假的。又解釋說，而實際形狀和顏色不是這樣。為什麼呢？如果有真實的形狀，身體也會親自獲取，所以不應該說因為

【English Translation】 English version Seeing (dṛṣṭa, that which is seen). The body-faculty (kāya-indriya, the sensory capacity of the body) is capable of touching (sparśa, contact). Both are able to perceive length, etc. Therefore, it should result in the fault of two faculties simultaneously acquiring information. Logically speaking, among the twelve āyatanas (dvādaśa āyatana, twelve sense fields), there should absolutely not be a rūpāyatana (visual object field) that is acquired by two rūpa-indriyas (visual sensory capacities). Having refuted with reason, the correct meaning is shown: However, just as relying on tactile consciousness (sparśa-vijñāna, consciousness based on touch) to acquire false length, etc., in the same way, relying on color consciousness (varṇa-vijñāna, consciousness based on color) one can acquire false shape. Shape is falsely established based on touch and color, so it is said that consciousness acquires it. Isn't it the case that touch and shape together can even recall the color of a flower? The Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) defends: The statement of action lies in, isn't it the case that touch and shape are both in one aggregate? The body acquires information through touch, and consciousness can recall previously seen shapes and colors. It is not that the body personally acquires shape through touch, so there is no fault of the color field being acquired by two faculties. An analogy is used to illustrate the situation: Just as the eye sees the red color of a flame, the consciousness then recalls the warmth of the flame previously touched. It is not that the eye personally acquires touch in color. Similarly, when the nose smells the fragrance of a flower, the consciousness can recall the color of the flower previously seen. It is not that the nose personally acquires color in fragrance. These two dharmas, can they even recall shape? The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) questions: Here, the red color of the flame and the warm touch of the flame, the fragrance of the flower and the color of that flower, these two dharmas are certainly not separate from each other, so because acquiring one can recall the rest. There is no such case where touch and shape can be obtained as related and certainly not separate. Because sometimes smooth touch has length, etc., and sometimes rough touch also has length, etc. How can acquiring touch recall shape? Furthermore, even if refuted by saying: If touch and shape are not necessarily in the same aggregate, then acquiring touch and recalling shape, touch is also not necessarily in the same aggregate as color, and color should also necessarily be recalled because of touch. Also, just as color does not necessarily belong to touch, one cannot understand color when touching, because it does not necessarily belong. Or shape and color should be like color, not necessarily belonging to touch, then one should not be able to understand shape when acquiring touch, but the actual principle is not like this. When closing the eyes and touching, one can only understand shape, not color. Therefore, it can be known that shape is false and color is real. So you should not say that because acquiring touch one can recall the real shape previously seen. If one recalls the real shape, why not recall color? Since one does not recall color, it shows that shape is false. It is also explained that the actual shape and color are not like this. Why? If there is a real shape, the body will also personally acquire it, so one should not say that because

取于觸。而能憶念先見實形。

或錦等中至非實有體者。經部又破。或錦等中左觀見馬。右望見牛。正睹見人。倒看見鬼。眾多形像異類不同。便應一處有多實形　理不應然。如眾顯色有多實體無有改變。是故形色非實有體。

又諸所有至假立長等者。經部復難。又諸所有五根．五境有對實色。必應有實別類極微。以理窮研。然無極微名為長等。故即眾多顯極微物。如是安布差別相中假立長等　立量云。形非實有。無別微故。如空華等。

若謂即以至聚集安布者。經部牒說一切有部救破。汝若謂即以形微安布名為長等。顯前所說無別微因有不成過。此唯朋黨之心。我不許有非極成故　又解此唯朋黨勝論師宗。彼宗顯．形體性各別非極成故。若形微體彼此極成。可得安布以為長等。非形微體彼此極成猶如顯色。云何安布　正理述說一切有部救云。豈不已說即形極微。如是安布眼識所得積集差別假立長等　準正理救意。立假長等意識所知非五識了　若作俱舍師破。汝宗本意立長等實。為難所逼言長等假。

豈不現見至而形相異者。說一切有部救。豈不現見諸土器等。或青。或黃。有顯相同。而瓶盆等形相各異。故知顯外實有別形。

為不已辨至理亦應然者。經部復破。為不於前已辨此義。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本取于觸（Sparsha，感覺）。而能憶念先見實形。

或錦等中至非實有體者。經部（Sautrantika，經量部）又破。或錦等中左觀見馬。右望見牛。正睹見人。倒看見鬼。眾多形像異類不同。便應一處有多實形　理不應然。如眾顯色有多實體無有改變。是故形色非實有體。

又諸所有至假立長等者。經部復難。又諸所有五根（五種感官）。五境（五種感官對像）有對實色。必應有實別類極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位）。以理窮研。然無極微名為長等。故即眾多顯極微物。如是安布差別相中假立長等　立量云。形非實有。無別微故。如空華等。

若謂即以至聚集安布者。經部牒說一切有部（Sarvastivada，說一切有部）救破。汝若謂即以形微安布名為長等。顯前所說無別微因有不成過。此唯朋黨之心。我不許有非極成故　又解此唯朋黨勝論師宗。彼宗顯．形體性各別非極成故。若形微體彼此極成。可得安布以為長等。非形微體彼此極成猶如顯色。云何安布　正理述說一切有部救云。豈不已說即形極微。如是安布眼識所得積集差別假立長等　準正理救意。立假長等意識所知非五識了　若作俱舍師破。汝宗本意立長等實。為難所逼言長等假。

豈不現見至而形相異者。說一切有部救。豈不現見諸土器等。或青。或黃。有顯相同。而瓶盆等形相各異。故知顯外實有別形。

為不已辨至理亦應然者。經部復破。為不於前已辨此義。

【English Translation】 English version It is derived from Sparsha (touch). And one can recall the previously seen real form.

Regarding 'or in brocade etc. to those without real substance', the Sautrantika (the Sutra School) refutes it again. 'Or in brocade etc., looking from the left, one sees a horse; gazing from the right, one sees a cow; looking straight ahead, one sees a person; looking upside down, one sees a ghost. Numerous shapes and different kinds are present. Then there should be multiple real forms in one place.' This is logically unreasonable. Just as numerous manifest colors have multiple real substances without change, therefore, shape and color are not real substances.

Regarding 'also all that is up to the false establishment of length etc.', the Sautrantika refutes again. 'Also, all the five roots (five sense organs) and five objects (five sense objects) have opposing real colors. There must be real separate kinds of ultimate particles (paramanu, the smallest unit of matter). Through thorough investigation with reason, there is no ultimate particle named length etc. Therefore, it is the numerous manifest ultimate particle objects. In such arrangement and difference, length etc. are falsely established.' Establishing the argument: 'Shape is not real, because there is no separate particle. Like flowers in the sky etc.'

Regarding 'if it is said that it is precisely through the gathering and arrangement of shape particles', the Sarvastivada (the school that asserts everything exists) refutes the Sautrantika's statement. 'If you say that it is precisely through the arrangement of shape particles that length etc. are named, it shows that the previously stated reason of no separate particle has the fault of being unestablished. This is only a partisan view. I do not allow it because it is not fully established.' Also, this is explained as only supporting the Vaisheshika school. In that school, manifestness and shape are separate in nature and not fully established. If shape particles were mutually fully established, they could be arranged to form length etc. If shape particles were not mutually fully established like manifest colors, how could they be arranged? The Nyaya (logic) explanation of the Sarvastivada's rescue says, 'Has it not already been said that it is precisely the shape ultimate particles? Such arrangement, obtained by eye consciousness, accumulation, and difference, falsely establishes length etc.' According to the meaning of the Nyaya rescue, the false length etc. established are known by consciousness, not understood by the five senses. If the Kosa master refutes, 'Your school originally intended to establish length etc. as real, but forced by difficulties, you say length etc. are false.'

Regarding 'is it not directly seen that the shapes are different', the Sarvastivada rescues. 'Is it not directly seen that earthenwares etc., whether blue or yellow, have the same manifestness, but the shapes of pots and basins etc. are different? Therefore, it is known that there is a separate shape outside of manifestness.'

Regarding 'has it not already been distinguished that the principle should also be so', the Sautrantika refutes again. 'Has this meaning not already been distinguished before?'

即多顯物安布差別假立長等瓶盆等異　寄喻來況。如眾蟻等有黑相等而不差殊。然或有時長行．圓輪安布形別。離蟻等相外無別行．輪　形依顯等理亦應然。離顯等外無別有形　顯等。等取于觸。

豈不闇中至安布為形者。說一切有部救。豈不闇中或於遠處眼觀杌等。但了長等形非了青等顯。明知顯外別有實形　寧即顯等安布為形。

以闇遠中至唯知總聚者。經部通釋。以闇．遠中觀眾顯色不多明瞭。非全不緣　是故意識但起長．短．方．圓等分別。非見實形　寄喻來況。如於遠．闇觀眾樹．人。意識但了眾樹假行。眾人假軍不知眾樹。眾人別相　又解意識但了樹行。人軍。眼識不知樹．人別相。行軍喻形。別相喻顯　理必應爾。其理何者　以或有時意識不了顯．形差別。意識唯知總聚假相　又解眼識不了顯．形二種。意識唯知總聚假相　不明瞭故名不了顯。不緣形故名不了形　又解眼識不了顯不分明故名不了顯非全不了。意識不了形。不分別形故名不了形。意識唯知總聚假相。

既已遮遣至立何為身表者。結問。既已遮遣正量部師動名身表。及說一切有部實形為身表。汝等經部宗立何為身表。

立形為身表但假而非實者。經部答。立形為身表不同正量部。但假而非實不同說一切有部　彼經

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：多種顯現的物體，如安布（Anbu，排列），差別假立的長短等，以及瓶子、盆子等不同的形狀，都可以用比喻來說明。例如，眾多的螞蟻等，雖然有黑色的相同顏色，但並非完全沒有差別。然而，有時它們的排列是長行，有時是圓形，安布的形狀各不相同。離開了螞蟻等（的個體）之外，並沒有其他的長行、圓輪等形狀。這些形狀是依附於顯現等而存在的，道理也應該如此。離開了顯現等之外，並沒有其他的形狀，顯現等，這裡『等』字包括了觸覺。

問：難道在黑暗中，安布就是形狀嗎？這是說一切有部的觀點。難道在黑暗中，或者在遠處，眼睛看到樹樁等，只是瞭解長短等形狀，而不是瞭解青色等顯現。這明明知道在顯現之外，另有真實的形狀存在，怎麼能說安布就是形狀呢？

答：在黑暗遠處中，只能知道總體的聚集。這是經部的普遍解釋。在黑暗或遠處觀察物體，顯色的顯現並不十分明了，但並非完全沒有感知。因此，意識只是產生長、短、方、圓等分別，而不是看到真實的形狀。可以用比喻來說明：例如在遠處或黑暗中觀察樹木或人，意識只是瞭解眾樹的排列，眾人的佇列，而不知道眾樹、眾人的個別特徵。另一種解釋是，意識只瞭解樹的排列，人的佇列，而眼識不知道樹、人的個別特徵。排列和佇列比喻形狀，個別特徵比喻顯現。道理必然是這樣。這是什麼道理呢？因為有時意識不能瞭解顯現和形狀的差別，意識只能知道總體的聚集假相。另一種解釋是，眼識不能瞭解顯現和形狀兩種，意識只能知道總體的聚集假相。因為不明顯，所以稱為不瞭解顯現；因為不感知形狀，所以稱為不瞭解形狀。還有一種解釋是，眼識不瞭解顯現，因為不分明，所以稱為不瞭解顯現，但並非完全不瞭解。意識不瞭解形狀，因為不分別形狀，所以稱為不瞭解形狀。意識只能知道總體的聚集假相。

既然已經遮遣了正量部師所說的動作為身表，以及說一切有部所說的實形為身表，那麼你們經部宗派認為什麼是身表呢？

答：經部認為形狀是身表，但只是假立的，不是真實的。經部認為形狀是身表，不同於正量部，只是假立的，不是真實的，不同於說一切有部。彼經（Pitaka，佛教經典）...

【English Translation】 English version: The various manifested objects, such as Anbu (arrangement), the differences in length, etc., established as conceptual constructs, and the different shapes of bottles, pots, etc., can all be illustrated with metaphors. For example, numerous ants, etc., although having the same black color, are not entirely without differences. However, sometimes their arrangement is in a long line, sometimes in a circle, and the shapes of the Anbu are different. Apart from the ants (as individuals), there are no other shapes such as long lines or circles. These shapes exist dependent on manifestations, etc., and the principle should be the same. Apart from manifestations, etc., there are no other shapes. The 'etc.' here includes touch.

Question: Is Anbu the shape in the darkness? This is the view of the Sarvastivadins (Sarvāstivāda). In the darkness or at a distance, the eyes see stumps, etc., and only understand the shapes of length, etc., but not the manifestations of blue, etc. This clearly shows that there are real shapes existing apart from manifestations. How can Anbu be the shape?

Answer: In the darkness or at a distance, one can only know the overall aggregation. This is the general explanation of the Sautrantikas (Sautrāntika). When observing objects in the darkness or at a distance, the manifestation of colors is not very clear, but it is not that there is no perception at all. Therefore, consciousness only generates distinctions such as long, short, square, round, etc., and does not see the real shape. This can be illustrated with a metaphor: for example, when observing trees or people at a distance or in the darkness, consciousness only understands the arrangement of the trees, the formation of the people, and does not know the individual characteristics of the trees or people. Another explanation is that consciousness only understands the arrangement of trees, the formation of people, while the eye-consciousness does not know the individual characteristics of the trees or people. Arrangement and formation are metaphors for shape, and individual characteristics are metaphors for manifestation. The principle must be so. What is the reason for this? Because sometimes consciousness cannot understand the difference between manifestation and shape, and consciousness can only know the overall aggregation as a conceptual construct. Another explanation is that eye-consciousness cannot understand both manifestation and shape, and consciousness can only know the overall aggregation as a conceptual construct. Because it is not clear, it is called not understanding manifestation; because it does not perceive shape, it is called not understanding shape. Another explanation is that eye-consciousness does not understand manifestation, because it is not distinct, it is called not understanding manifestation, but it is not that it does not understand it at all. Consciousness does not understand shape, because it does not distinguish shape, it is called not understanding shape. Consciousness can only know the overall aggregation as a conceptual construct.

Since you have already refuted the Vaibhashikas (Vaibhāṣika) who say that movement is body-expression, and the Sarvastivadins who say that real shape is body-expression, then what do you, the Sautrantikas, establish as body-expression?

Answer: The Sautrantikas believe that shape is body-expression, but it is only a conceptual construct, not real. The Sautrantikas believe that shape is body-expression, which is different from the Vaibhashikas, it is only a conceptual construct, not real, which is different from the Sarvastivadins. The Pitaka (Piṭaka, Buddhist scriptures)...

部宗身．語二表色．聲上假。

既執但用至為身業耶者。問。經部既執但用假形為身表體。復立何法為身業耶。

若業依身至當知亦爾者。經部答　若業依身門行。即緣身表為境而起名身業語業準釋。異此所餘與意俱轉。依意地起故名依意門。依餘二門雖亦依意。但依別義便立別名。此受通名以通為別。如色處等。具足應言依身之業。依語之業。依意之業　經部三業皆思為體。

若爾何故至此二何異者。徴問經部。引教辨違。若其三業體皆是思。經云思已。為何所目。既言思已。明知二業非思。

謂前加行至名思已業者。經部通釋。思惟思是遠因等起。作事思是近因等起　大乘成業論說。一審慮思。二決定思。當此論思惟思攝是思業。三動發思。當此論作事思攝　是思已業不說剎那等起者。此時心性不必是同。罪．福二門非由彼定故。不依彼說業差別。設於彼位起同類思如其所應二思所攝。身．語二業即作事思。名思已業。

若爾表業至便成大過者。難。答作事思名思已業。色．聲表業則為定無。表業既無慾界無表業亦應非有。以欲無表依表起故便成大過。

如是大過至此有何過者。經部答。如是大過有理能遮。謂從如前所說動身發語二表遠．近二因等起殊勝現行思勢力故。熏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：部派宗義認為，身表（身體的表達）、語表（語言的表達）這兩種色法和聲音，都是假立的。

問：既然經部宗認為只是假借形體作為身表（kaya-vijnapti）的本體，那麼又設立什麼法作為身業（kaya-karma）呢？

答：經部宗回答說，如果業是依靠身門（kaya-dvara）而行，也就是緣于身表（kaya-vijnapti）為所緣境而生起的，就叫做身業（kaya-karma），語業（vak-karma）可以參照這個解釋。與此不同，其餘的業都與意（manas）一同運轉，依靠意地（mano-bhumi）而生起，所以叫做依意門（mano-dvara）。雖然依靠其餘二門（身門和語門）的業也依靠意，但是由於所依的意義不同，就設立了不同的名稱。這裡接受通名，以通名作為別名，就像色處（rupa-ayatana）等一樣。完整地說，應該是依身的業（kaya-karma）、依語的業（vak-karma）、依意的業（manas-karma）。經部宗認為，身、語、意三業（tri-karma）都是思（cetana）作為本體。

問：如果這樣，為什麼經中說『思已』（cetayitva）呢？這是指什麼？既然說了『思已』，就明顯知道身業和語業不是思（cetana）。這兩種說法有什麼不同呢？

答：經部宗解釋說，思惟思（cintana-cetana）是遠因（dur-hetu）等起，作事思（karana-cetana）是近因（samipa-hetu）等起。《大乘成業論》說，一是審慮思（pariksa-cetana），二是決定思（niscaya-cetana），相當於這裡所說的思惟思（cintana-cetana），屬於思業（cetana-karma）。三是動發思（pracalana-cetana），相當於這裡所說的作事思（karana-cetana）。之所以說『思已業』（cetayitvā karma）沒有說剎那等起，是因為此時的心性不一定是相同的，罪業和福業不是由此決定的，所以不依據它來說業的差別。假設在這個階段生起同類的思，也如其所應地被這兩種思所包含。身業和語業就是作事思（karana-cetana），叫做『思已業』（cetayitvā karma）。

問：如果這樣，表業（vijnapti-karma）就必定不存在了，這就成了很大的過失。因為如果表業（vijnapti-karma）不存在，那麼欲界的無表業（avijnapti-karma）也應該不存在，因為欲界的無表業是依靠表業而生起的，這就成了很大的過失。

答：經部宗回答說，這樣的大過失可以用道理來遮止。就是說，從如前所說的動身（kaya-pracalana）發語（vak-pracalana）這兩種表業（vijnapti-karma）的遠因（dur-hetu）和近因（samipa-hetu）等起，殊勝的現行思（vartamana-cetana）的勢力所熏習。

【English Translation】 English version: The Sautrantika school holds that both kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression) and vak-vijnapti (verbal expression), which are forms and sounds, are conceptual constructs.

Question: Since the Sautrantika school maintains that only the assumed form is the substance of kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression), what dharma do they establish as kaya-karma (bodily action)?

Answer: The Sautrantika school replies: If an action proceeds through the kaya-dvara (body-door), that is, arises with kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression) as its object, it is called kaya-karma (bodily action). Vak-karma (verbal action) can be explained similarly. Different from this, the remaining actions all operate with the manas (mind), arising from the mano-bhumi (mind-ground), and are therefore called actions through the mano-dvara (mind-door). Although actions through the other two doors (body and speech) also rely on the mind, different meanings are relied upon, and different names are established. Here, the general name is accepted, using the general name as a specific name, like rupa-ayatana (sense-sphere of form) and so on. Fully stated, they should be called kaya-karma (action of body), vak-karma (action of speech), and manas-karma (action of mind). The Sautrantika school considers all three karmas (tri-karma) to have cetana (volition) as their substance.

Question: If that is the case, why does the scripture say 'cetayitva' (having willed)? What does this refer to? Since it says 'cetayitva' (having willed), it is clear that kaya-karma (bodily action) and vak-karma (verbal action) are not cetana (volition). What is the difference between these two statements?

Answer: The Sautrantika school explains: cintana-cetana (deliberative volition) is the arising of a distant cause (dur-hetu), while karana-cetana (operative volition) is the arising of a proximate cause (samipa-hetu). The Mahayana Abhidharmasamuccaya states that one is pariksa-cetana (examining volition), and two is niscaya-cetana (deciding volition), which correspond to what is called cintana-cetana (deliberative volition) here, belonging to cetana-karma (volitional action). Three is pracalana-cetana (motivating volition), which corresponds to what is called karana-cetana (operative volition) here. The reason why 'cetayitvā karma' (action after willing) does not mention momentary arising is that the nature of the mind at this time is not necessarily the same. Sinful and meritorious actions are not determined by this, so the differences in karma are not explained based on it. If a similar volition arises at that stage, it is also included in these two volitions as appropriate. Kaya-karma (bodily action) and vak-karma (verbal action) are karana-cetana (operative volition), called 'cetayitvā karma' (action after willing).

Question: If that is the case, vijnapti-karma (expressive action) would necessarily not exist, which would be a great fault. Because if vijnapti-karma (expressive action) does not exist, then avijnapti-karma (non-expressive action) in the desire realm should also not exist, because avijnapti-karma (non-expressive action) in the desire realm arises based on vijnapti-karma (expressive action), which would be a great fault.

Answer: The Sautrantika school replies: Such a great fault can be prevented by reason. That is to say, from the arising of the distant cause (dur-hetu) and proximate cause (samipa-hetu) of the two vijnapti-karmas (expressive actions) of kaya-pracalana (bodily movement) and vak-pracalana (verbal movement) as previously mentioned, due to the power of the excellent present cetana (vartamana-cetana) that is perfumed.

起身心思差別種種異現思名思差別。或與餘思種子不同名思差別。于思種子假建立故名為無表。此有何過　言釋名者。此思種子不能動身發語表示內心名無表業。依經部宗身．語二表是無記性。思通三性故唯思業能熏成種表不能熏。故正理三十四云。彼許身．語唯無記故。

此應名為至心俱轉故者。復難。若思種子名無表者。其思種子常依附心。此應名為隨心轉無表業。如定共無表隨心俱轉故。

無如是過至以性鈍故者。經部復釋。我無如是隨心轉過。欲界散心思種子無表由前現行審慮．勝思．決定勝思遠因等起。動發勝思近因等起所引生故。無心亦有。不名隨心轉業。若定無表非彼思引。但于定心俱時思上假建立故。入定即有。出定即無。故名隨心轉業。故非成例　我設同汝說一切有部。許有身．語二種表業。亦待如前所說思力引起無表。表自不能生於無表。以身．語表色性鈍故　又解假設許汝別有其表。汝亦待如前所說遠．近二種思力方引無表。表性鈍故　又解非但無表待前思引。我設許有表。亦待如前所說思力。以表性鈍故。

毗婆沙師至形色為體者。毗婆沙師結歸本宗。語表業體謂即言聲者。釋第十句。若依說一切有部釋。身表業發．毛．爪等總名為身。長．短等色表示內心名錶。表有造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本起身、心思的差別，種種不同的顯現，名為思的差別。或者與其他的思的種子不同，名為思的差別。因為在思的種子上假立，所以稱為『無表』。這有什麼過失呢？解釋名稱的人說：這種思的種子不能動身發語來表示內心，所以稱為『無表業』。依照經部宗的觀點，身表和語表都是無記性的。思通於三性，所以只有思業才能熏成種子，表不能熏。所以《正理》第三十四卷說：他們認為身表和語表只是無記性。這應該稱為『至心俱轉』，因為是與至誠之心一同運轉的。又反駁說：如果思的種子名為無表，那麼思的種子常常依附於心，這應該稱為『隨心轉無表業』，就像定共無表隨著心一同運轉一樣。沒有這樣的過失，因為性質遲鈍。經部再次解釋：我沒有這種隨心轉的過失。欲界的散亂心思的種子無表，由之前的現行審慮、殊勝的思、決定的殊勝的思的遠因等引發，由動發殊勝的思的近因等引發產生，即使沒有心也有。不稱為隨心轉業。如果禪定的無表不是由那個思引發，只是在禪定心的同時的思上假立，所以入定就有，出定就沒有，所以稱為隨心轉業。所以不能成為例子。我假設和你們說一切有部一樣，允許有身表和語表兩種表業，也等待像前面所說的思的力量引起無表，表自己不能產生無表，因為身表和語表的色性遲鈍。又解釋說，假設允許你們另外有表，你們也等待像前面所說的遠、近兩種思的力量才能引發無表，表性遲鈍的緣故。又解釋說，不只是無表等待之前的思引發，我假設允許有表，也等待像前面所說的思的力量，因為表性遲鈍的緣故。毗婆沙師總結歸於本宗。語表業的體就是言語的聲音。解釋第十句。如果依照說一切有部的解釋，身表業的發、毛、爪等總稱為身，長、短等顏色表示內心，名為表。表有造作。

【English Translation】 English version The differences in arising, thoughts, and minds, the various different manifestations, are called differences in thought. Or, being different from other seeds of thought, they are called differences in thought. Because they are provisionally established on the seeds of thought, they are called 'non-manifestation' (Avijñapti-karma). What fault is there in this? Those who explain the name say: This seed of thought cannot move the body or utter speech to express the inner mind, so it is called 'non-manifestation karma'. According to the Sautrāntika school, both bodily and verbal expressions are of an indeterminate nature. Thought pervades the three natures, so only thought-karma can ripen into seeds; expressions cannot. Therefore, the thirty-fourth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: They consider bodily and verbal expressions to be only of an indeterminate nature. This should be called 'concurrent with sincere mind' (至心俱轉), because it operates together with a sincere mind. It is further argued: If the seed of thought is called non-manifestation, then the seed of thought always relies on the mind. This should be called 'non-manifestation karma that follows the mind' (隨心轉無表業), just as the non-manifestation associated with meditative absorption (定共無表) operates together with the mind. There is no such fault, because of its dull nature. The Sautrāntika further explains: I do not have this fault of following the mind. The non-manifestation of the seeds of scattered thoughts in the desire realm is caused by the prior existing deliberation, superior thought, and decisive superior thought as distant causes, and by the proximate causes such as the arising of moving and superior thought. It exists even without mind. It is not called karma that follows the mind. If the non-manifestation of meditative absorption is not caused by that thought, but is provisionally established on the thought concurrent with the meditative mind, so it exists upon entering meditation and ceases upon exiting meditation, so it is called karma that follows the mind. Therefore, it cannot be taken as an example. I assume, like you, the Sarvāstivāda school, that there are two kinds of expression-karma, bodily and verbal, which also await the power of thought as mentioned before to cause non-manifestation. Expression itself cannot produce non-manifestation, because the nature of bodily and verbal expressions is dull. It is further explained that, assuming you allow for separate expressions, you also await the power of the two kinds of thought, distant and proximate, as mentioned before, to cause non-manifestation, because the nature of expression is dull. It is further explained that, not only does non-manifestation await the prior thought to cause it, but I assume that even if there is expression, it also awaits the power of thought as mentioned before, because the nature of expression is dull. The Vaibhāṣika masters conclude by returning to their own school. The substance of verbal expression-karma is the sound of speech. This explains the tenth sentence. If explained according to the Sarvāstivāda school, the hair, body hair, nails, etc., of bodily expression-karma are collectively called the body, and colors such as long and short express the inner mind, which is called expression. Expression has creation.

作名業。依身起表。即表名業。故名身表業　言語表業者。語謂言聲。聲能表示內心名錶。表有造作名業。語即是表。表即業故。名語表業　言意業者。意謂意識。業即是思。由意起業故名意業。故正理云。何故語表體即語言。身表意業非即身．意。以離語言無別聲能表。離身及意有色表思業。故立身業名從所依。語業約自性。意業隨等起。由此于中無相違過(已上論文)若依經部釋。身業表。身同前解。表以假形為體。謂形相續能表示內心。此表即於色上假立。業謂運動身思。業依身門能起表故名身表業　言語表業者。語謂音聲。表以音聲為體。謂聲相續能表示內心。此表即于聲上假立。業謂發語思業依語門能起表故名語表業。意業同前。

無表業相如前已說者。此下第三別明無表相指同前解。頌不別明但證實有。

經部亦說至無色相故者。敘經部解。經部亦說。此無表業非實有性。由先誓限不作諸惡　不作之言表離於作。非別有體　又彼無表性亦依過去大種施設。然其過去所依大種已滅體無。能依無表豈現實有　又諸無表無有變礙色自相故。云何可言是色實有。但于思種假立無表。即無妨矣。

毗婆沙說此亦實有者。述毗婆沙師解。

云何知然者。徴問。

頌曰至增非作等故者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本作名業（karma）：依靠身體產生的表達，即表達名為業。因此稱為身表業（bodily expressive karma）。言語表業（verbal expressive karma）：語指言語聲音。聲音能夠表達內心的想法，這稱為『表』。『表』具有造作性，稱為『業』。言語就是『表』，『表』就是『業』，因此稱為語表業。意業（mental karma）：意指意識。業就是思。由意識產生業，因此稱為意業。所以《正理》中說：『為什麼語表（verbal expression）的本體就是語言，而身表（bodily expression）和意業（mental karma）不是身體和意識本身呢？因為離開了語言，就沒有其他聲音能夠表達；而離開了身體和意識，就有色表（form expression）和思業（thought karma）。因此，身業的命名是根據其所依賴的，語業是根據其自性，意業是隨著其等起（simultaneous arising）。由此，其中沒有相違背的過失。』（以上是論文內容）如果依據經部的解釋，身業表（bodily expressive karma），身與前面的解釋相同。『表』以假立的形體為本體，即形相的相續能夠表達內心的想法。這個『表』就是在色法上假立的。業是指運動身體的思。業依靠身門能夠產生『表』，因此稱為身表業。言語表業（verbal expressive karma）：語指音聲。『表』以音聲為本體，即聲音的相續能夠表達內心的想法。這個『表』就是在聲音上假立的。業是指發出言語的思，業依靠語門能夠產生『表』，因此稱為語表業。意業與前面的解釋相同。無表業（non-revealing karma）的相狀如前面已經說過的。這以下第三部分，分別說明無表業的相狀，指的是與前面的解釋相同。頌文沒有分別說明，只是證實它的存在。經部也說到無色相的緣故：敘述經部的解釋。經部也說，這種無表業不是真實存在的。由於先前的誓願限制，不做各種惡行。『不做』的言語表達了遠離造作，並非另外存在一個實體。而且，這種無表業的性質也是依據過去的大種（mahābhūta）施設的。然而，它所依賴的過去大種已經滅亡，本體已經不存在。所依賴的已經不存在，能依賴的無表業怎麼能真實存在呢？而且，各種無表業沒有變礙色（changeable obstructive form）的自相，怎麼能說是真實存在的色法呢？只是在思的種子（seed of thought）上假立無表業，這樣就沒有妨礙了。毗婆沙（Vaibhāṣika）說這種無表業也是真實存在的：陳述毗婆沙師的解釋。怎麼知道是這樣的呢？：提問。頌曰至增非作等故：頌文說到了增長、不是造作等等的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version 'Karma' is named as the action. Expression arising from the body is called 'expression' which is named as 'karma'. Therefore, it is called bodily expressive karma (Śarīra-vijñapti-karma). Verbal expressive karma (Vāg-vijñapti-karma): Speech refers to verbal sounds. Sounds can express inner thoughts, which is called 'expression'. 'Expression' has the nature of creation, which is called 'karma'. Speech is 'expression', and 'expression' is 'karma', hence it is called verbal expressive karma. Mental karma (Mano-karma): Mind refers to consciousness. Karma is thought. Karma arises from the mind, hence it is called mental karma. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Why is the substance of verbal expression language, while bodily expression and mental karma are not the body and mind themselves? Because apart from language, there is no other sound that can express; and apart from the body and mind, there are form expression and thought karma. Therefore, the naming of bodily karma is based on what it relies on, verbal karma is based on its own nature, and mental karma follows its simultaneous arising. Therefore, there is no contradiction in this.' (The above is the content of the treatise) According to the interpretation of the Sautrāntika school, bodily expressive karma, the body is the same as the previous explanation. 'Expression' takes the false form as its substance, that is, the continuity of form can express inner thoughts. This 'expression' is falsely established on form. Karma refers to the thought of moving the body. Karma relies on the body gate to generate 'expression', hence it is called bodily expressive karma. Verbal expressive karma: Speech refers to sound. 'Expression' takes sound as its substance, that is, the continuity of sound can express inner thoughts. This 'expression' is falsely established on sound. Karma refers to the thought of uttering speech. Karma relies on the speech gate to generate 'expression', hence it is called verbal expressive karma. Mental karma is the same as the previous explanation. The characteristics of non-revealing karma (Avijñapti-karma) have been described earlier. The third part below separately explains the characteristics of non-revealing karma, referring to the same explanation as before. The verse does not explain separately, but only confirms its existence. The Sautrāntika school also says that because there is no form: Narrating the interpretation of the Sautrāntika school. The Sautrāntika school also says that this non-revealing karma is not real. Due to previous vows and restrictions, various evil deeds are not committed. The words 'not doing' express being away from creation, and there is no separate entity. Moreover, the nature of this non-revealing karma is also established based on the past great elements (mahābhūta). However, the past great elements on which it relies have perished, and the substance no longer exists. Since what it relies on no longer exists, how can the non-revealing karma that relies on it be real? Moreover, various non-revealing karmas do not have the self-nature of changeable obstructive form (vipariṇāma-pratirūpī-rūpa), how can it be said that they are real forms? It is only falsely establishing non-revealing karma on the seed of thought, so there is no obstacle. The Vaibhāṣika says that this non-revealing karma is also real: Stating the interpretation of the Vaibhāṣika school. How do we know this is the case?: Asking a question. The verse says that it is because of increase, not creation, etc.: The verse says that it is because of increase, not creation, and so on.

答。於此頌中總有八證證有無表。一說三色證。二說無漏色證。三說福增長證。四非作成業證。五法處色證。六八道支證。七別解脫證。八戒為堤塘證。前四頌說后四等收。

論曰至無見無對者。此是第一說三色證。此三為總處攝一切色　有色謂有一類色。有見謂此色處有限見故。有對謂障礙有對　有一類色非眼根境名無見。有對礙故名有對。謂五根四境　有一類色非眼根境名無見。非對礙故名無對。謂無表色。經中既說無見無對。明知別有無表色也。

又契經中說至是名無漏法者。此是第二無漏色證。此經意顯三世五蘊無漏諸法。經中既說有無漏色。明知別有無表色也。

除無表色至及無漏色者。雙顯二經證成無表。除無表色于初經中何法名為無見無對。第二經中何法名為無漏色耶。

又契經說至福業增長者。此是第三福增長證　成就有依七福業事者。一施羈旅客。二施路行人。三施有病人。四施侍病人。五施園林。六施常乞食。七隨時施。如下別明。成就此七福業事者。恒時相續繼前福業漸漸增長福業有後續起　如是七種有所依事故名有依　善故名福　作故名業　思託名事。福．業．事三如下別釋　無依亦爾者。無彼七事為依故名無依　但起深心隨喜恭敬於行等中福亦續起。例同有依故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：答：在此頌中總共有八種證據證明無表色的存在。第一種是三色證，第二種是無漏色證，第三種是福增長證，第四種是非作成業證，第五種是法處色證，第六種是八道支證，第七種是別解脫證，第八種是戒為堤塘證。前面的四頌概括了後面的四頌。

論中說到的『無見無對』，這是第一種三色證。這三種色包含了所有的色。『有色』是指有一類色，『有見』是指這種色處是有限見的，『有對』是指有障礙和對立。有一類色不是眼根的對境，所以稱為『無見』。因為有對礙，所以稱為『有對』，指的是五根和四境。有一類色不是眼根的對境，所以稱為『無見』。因為沒有對礙，所以稱為『無對』，指的是無表色。經文中既然說了『無見無對』，就說明確實存在無表色。

另外，契經中說到的『是名無漏法』，這是第二種無漏色證。這段經文的意思是說三世五蘊都是無漏的法。經文中既然說了有無漏色，就說明確實存在無表色。

『除無表色至及無漏色者』，這兩段經文都證明了無表色的存在。如果除去無表色，那麼在第一段經文中，什麼法可以被稱為『無見無對』呢？在第二段經文中，什麼法可以被稱為『無漏色』呢？

另外，契經中說到的『福業增長者』，這是第三種福增長證。成就具有所依的七種福業事：一是佈施給羈旅客（travelers），二是佈施給路上的行人（passersby），三是佈施給有病人（the sick），四是佈施給侍奉病人的人（those who care for the sick），五是佈施園林（gardens），六是佈施常乞食者（those who regularly beg for food），七是隨時佈施（giving at any time）。下面會分別說明。成就這七種福業事的人，恒常相續地，在之前的福業基礎上，漸漸增長福業，福業會有後續的生起。像這樣七種有所依靠的緣故，所以稱為『有依』。因為是善的，所以稱為『福』。因為是作的，所以稱為『業』。思慮依託，稱為『事』。福、業、事這三者，下面會分別解釋。『無依亦爾者』，因為沒有那七件事作為依靠，所以稱為『無依』。只是生起深深的內心，隨喜恭敬於行等等之中，福也繼續生起。和有依的情況相同。

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: In this verse, there are eight proofs in total to demonstrate the existence of Avijñapti-rūpa (unmanifested form). The first is the proof of three types of Rūpa (form), the second is the proof of Anāsrava-rūpa (untainted form), the third is the proof of the increase of merit, the fourth is the proof of non-intentional karma, the fifth is the proof of Dharma-dhātu-rūpa (form in the realm of Dharma), the sixth is the proof of the eightfold noble path, the seventh is the proof of Prātimokṣa (individual liberation), and the eighth is the proof that precepts are like embankments. The first four verses summarize the latter four.

The 'invisible and non-resistant' mentioned in the treatise is the first proof of the three types of Rūpa. These three types of Rūpa encompass all forms. 'Visible form' refers to a type of form that is visible, 'visible' means that this form-element is limited in visibility, and 'resistant' means that it has obstruction and resistance. There is a type of form that is not the object of the eye-sense, so it is called 'invisible'. Because it has resistance, it is called 'resistant', referring to the five sense organs and the four sense objects. There is a type of form that is not the object of the eye-sense, so it is called 'invisible'. Because it has no resistance, it is called 'non-resistant', referring to Avijñapti-rūpa. Since the Sutra mentions 'invisible and non-resistant', it indicates that Avijñapti-rūpa does indeed exist.

Furthermore, the 'this is called untainted Dharma' mentioned in the Sutra is the second proof of Anāsrava-rūpa. The meaning of this Sutra is that the three times and the five aggregates are all untainted Dharmas. Since the Sutra mentions that there is untainted form, it indicates that Avijñapti-rūpa does indeed exist.

'Except for Avijñapti-rūpa, up to and including Anāsrava-rūpa', both of these Sutras prove the existence of Avijñapti-rūpa. If Avijñapti-rūpa is removed, then in the first Sutra, what Dharma can be called 'invisible and non-resistant'? In the second Sutra, what Dharma can be called 'untainted form'?

Furthermore, the 'increase of meritorious karma' mentioned in the Sutra is the third proof of the increase of merit. To accomplish the seven meritorious deeds with support: first, giving to travelers (k羈旅客); second, giving to passersby (路行人); third, giving to the sick (有病人); fourth, giving to those who care for the sick (侍病人); fifth, giving gardens (園林); sixth, giving to those who regularly beg for food (常乞食); seventh, giving at any time (隨時施). These will be explained separately below. Those who accomplish these seven meritorious deeds constantly and continuously, based on the previous meritorious deeds, gradually increase their meritorious karma, and meritorious karma will continue to arise. Because these seven are supported by something, they are called 'with support'. Because it is good, it is called 'merit'. Because it is done, it is called 'karma'. Thought and reliance are called 'deed'. Merit, karma, and deed will be explained separately below. 'Without support is also the same', because there are no seven deeds to rely on, it is called 'without support'. Only by generating a deep mind, rejoicing and respecting in actions and so on, will merit continue to arise. It is the same as the situation with support.

言亦爾　除無表業若起余染污．無記心。或無心時依何法說福業增長。若作此解唯起於心隨喜恭敬無身表業　又解無依福者。非但起心亦身恭敬福業增長。但無施物故名無依　無表若無何福增。長。

又非自作至此性無異故者。此是第四非自作業證。又非自作身二．語四。但遣他為。若無無表業不應成業道。以遣他表非彼業道攝。由此表業但加行。未能正作所作事故。使作殺等事已。此能教者遣表業性復無異故。既無別類身．語業生。則遣他為應無業道。實成業道。故知爾時更別引生無表業道。

又契經說至便成無用者。此是第五法處色證。又契經說。苾芻當知。十二處中言法處者所謂外處。是十一處所不攝法。非眼見故名無見。無障礙故名無對　於此經中不言無色。明知法處有無表色。若不觀彼法處無表。此經闕減便成無用。具足應更說言無色。正理稱為各別處經。

又若無無表至語等無故者。此是第六八道支證。若有無表可說在定有彼正語．正業．正命具八道支。若無無表應無八道支。但應有五。以在定時正語等三皆無有故。

若爾何故至清凈鮮白者。難。若在無漏定中有道共無表。名正語．業．命。何故契經中雲。彼如是知是智。彼如是見是忍。或彼如是知是見道。彼如是見是修道。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本言亦爾（Yan Yi Er）：如果除去無表業（wu biao ye，指無法通過身語表達的行為所產生的業力），而生起其他的染污心（ran wu xin，指被煩惱污染的心）或無記心（wu ji xin，指非善非惡的中性心），或者處於無心狀態時，依靠什麼法來說明福業（fu ye，指能帶來善果的行為）增長呢？如果這樣解釋，就只能解釋為僅僅生起于內心的隨喜（sui xi，指隨喜他人的功德）和恭敬，而沒有身體和語言的表達。又解釋為沒有依靠的福業，並非僅僅是內心生起，也包括身體的恭敬，這樣福業才能增長。只是因為沒有施捨的物品，所以稱為沒有依靠。如果沒有無表業，那麼什麼能使福業增長呢？

又『非自作至此性無異故者』：這是第四個關於非自己造作的業的證據。又『非自作身二．語四』，只是派遣他人去做。如果沒有無表業，就不應該構成業道（ye dao，指導致輪迴的途徑）。因為派遣他人所表現出來的行為，不屬於他人的業道所包含的。因此，這種表達出來的行為只是加行（jia xing，指輔助行為），未能真正完成所要做的事件。如果使他人做了殺生等事情，那麼這個能教唆的人，他所派遣的行為的性質又沒有什麼不同呢？既然沒有其他類別的身業和語業產生，那麼派遣他人去做，應該不能構成業道。但實際上卻構成了業道。所以可知，那時有另外引發的無表業道。

又『契經說至便成無用者』：這是第五個關於法處色（fa chu se，指法處所包含的色法）的證據。又契經說：『苾芻（bi chu，指比丘，佛教出家男眾）當知，十二處中言法處者，所謂外處，是十一處所不攝法。非眼見故名無見，無障礙故名無對。』在這部經中沒有說無色，明確地表明法處有無表色。如果不觀察那法處的無表，這部經就會有所缺失，變得沒有用處。要完整的話，應該進一步說『無色』。正理稱之為各別處經。

又『若若無無表至語等無故者』：這是第六個關於八道支（ba dao zhi，指八正道，佛教修行的主要內容）的證據。如果存在無表，就可以說在禪定中有正語（zheng yu，指正確的言語）、正業（zheng ye，指正確的行為）、正命（zheng ming，指正確的生活方式），具備八道支。如果沒有無表，就不應該有八道支，而應該只有五道支。因為在禪定時，正語等三種都是沒有的。

『若爾何故至清凈鮮白者』：這是個提問。如果在無漏定（wu lou ding，指沒有煩惱的禪定）中有道共無表（dao gong wu biao，指與道相應的無表業），名為正語、業、命。為什麼契經中說：『彼如是知是智（zhi，指智慧），彼如是見是忍（ren，指忍辱）』，或者『彼如是知是見道（jian dao，指見諦之道），彼如是見是修道（xiu dao，指修習之道）』？

【English Translation】 English version Yan Yi Er: If, apart from non-manifest karma (wu biao ye, karma generated by actions that cannot be expressed through body and speech), other defiled minds (ran wu xin, minds contaminated by afflictions) or neutral minds (wu ji xin, minds that are neither good nor bad) arise, or when one is in a state of no-mind, based on what dharma can it be said that meritorious karma (fu ye, actions that bring about good results) increases? If explained in this way, it can only be interpreted as the arising of rejoicing (sui xi, rejoicing in the merits of others) and reverence in the mind, without any physical or verbal expression. Furthermore, it is explained that unreliant meritorious karma is not just the arising of the mind, but also includes physical reverence, so that meritorious karma can increase. It is only because there are no objects of giving that it is called unreliant. If there is no non-manifest karma, then what can cause meritorious karma to increase?

Furthermore, 'Not self-made, until this nature is no different': This is the fourth evidence regarding karma not created by oneself. Also, 'Not self-made, body two, speech four,' but only sending others to do it. If there is no non-manifest karma, it should not constitute a karmic path (ye dao, the path leading to reincarnation). Because the behavior expressed by sending others does not belong to the karmic path included by others. Therefore, this expressed behavior is only an auxiliary action (jia xing, an assisting action), and has not truly completed the event to be done. If others are made to do things like killing, then what is the nature of the behavior dispatched by the instigator, and is there any difference? Since no other categories of bodily and verbal karma arise, then sending others to do it should not constitute a karmic path. But in reality, it constitutes a karmic path. Therefore, it can be known that at that time, there is another induced non-manifest karmic path.

Furthermore, 'The sutra says, until it becomes useless': This is the fifth evidence regarding the form of the dharma realm (fa chu se, the form included in the dharma realm). Also, the sutra says: 'Bhikkhus (bi chu, monks, Buddhist male renunciants) should know that among the twelve sense bases, the dharma realm is what is called the external realm, which is the dharma not included in the eleven sense bases. It is called invisible because it is not seen by the eye, and it is called unobstructed because it has no obstruction.' In this sutra, it does not say 'formless,' clearly indicating that the dharma realm has non-manifest form. If one does not observe the non-manifest of that dharma realm, this sutra will be lacking and become useless. To be complete, it should further say 'formless.' The Proper Reason calls it a separate realm sutra.

Furthermore, 'If there is no non-manifest, until speech, etc., are absent': This is the sixth evidence regarding the eightfold path (ba dao zhi, the Eightfold Path, the main content of Buddhist practice). If there is non-manifest karma, it can be said that in samadhi (meditative concentration) there is right speech (zheng yu, correct speech), right action (zheng ye, correct action), and right livelihood (zheng ming, correct livelihood), possessing the eightfold path. If there is no non-manifest karma, there should not be the eightfold path, but only five. Because in samadhi, right speech, etc., are all absent.

'If so, why until pure and bright': This is a question. If in the undefiled samadhi (wu lou ding, samadhi without afflictions) there is path-related non-manifest karma (dao gong wu biao, non-manifest karma corresponding to the path), called right speech, action, and livelihood, why does the sutra say: 'He knows thus is wisdom (zhi, wisdom), he sees thus is forbearance (ren, patience),' or 'He knows thus is the path of seeing (jian dao, the path of seeing the truth), he sees thus is the path of cultivation (xiu dao, the path of cultivation)'?

或彼如是知是修道。彼如是見是見道。修習正見等五皆至圓滿。正語等三先時已得。此經既于無漏定中不說正語．業．命。復言正語．業．命先時已得。明知此三在無漏定體即非有。何得證有無表色耶。

此依先時至無相違過者。通經說正語．業．命先時已得。此依先時已得世間離染道說。非據無漏道。由先得彼有漏道已不起三邪故。后無漏觀但說得五。非於無漏定無此正語等三。故與彼經無相違過。

又若撥無至而名苾芻等者。此是第七別解脫證。又若撥無無表色者則無戒體。非受戒後有戒相續雖起惡．無記異緣心而名苾芻等。既受戒後有戒相續。雖起．惡．無記異緣心。而名苾芻等。明知別有無表為其戒體。

又契經說至實有無表色者。此是第八戒為堤塘證。戒為堤塘明知別有無表為體。由此八證知實有無表色。此即總結。

經部師說至與無表同者。此下經部破前八證。此即破第一證。初即總非。后即別釋。且初經言三種色中無見無對者。瑜伽師說。修靜慮時由定力所生是定境界色。即是前八遍處等色。非眼根境故名無見。不障處所故名無對。非是無表。若謂既爾無見無對如何名色。釋如是難與無表同．汝無表色亦無見無對。如何名色　瑜伽此名相應。即觀行者異名。

又經所言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者他像這樣知道這是修道，他像這樣見到這是見道。修習正見等五種（指正見、正思惟、正念、正定、正精進）都達到圓滿。正語（不說謊、不惡語、不兩舌、不綺語）等三種（指正語、正業、正命）先前已經獲得。這部經既然在無漏定（超越世俗煩惱的禪定）中沒有說正語、正業、正命，又說正語、正業、正命先前已經獲得，明顯知道這三種在無漏定的本體中並非存在。怎麼能證明有無表色（無法直接觀察到的色法）呢？

『此依先時至無相違過者』，這是爲了解釋經文說正語、正業、正命先前已經獲得，這是依據先前已經獲得的世間離染道（脫離世俗染污的道路）來說的，不是根據無漏道。因為先前獲得有漏道（仍有煩惱的道路）后，就不會再有三種邪行（邪語、邪業、邪命）了。所以後來的無漏觀只說獲得五種（指正見、正思惟、正念、正定、正精進）。並非在無漏定中沒有這正語等三種。所以和那部經沒有互相違背的過失。

『又若撥無至而名苾芻等者』，這是第七個別解脫戒（比丘、比丘尼等所受的戒律）的證明。如果否定無表色，就沒有戒體（戒律的本體）。不是說受戒後有戒相續，即使生起惡或無記（非善非惡）的異緣心，仍然可以稱為比丘等。既然受戒後有戒相續，即使生起惡或無記的異緣心，仍然可以稱為比丘等，明顯知道另外有無表色作為他們的戒體。

『又契經說至實有無表色者』，這是第八個戒為堤塘（戒律如同堤壩，防止惡行）的證明。戒律如同堤壩，明顯知道另外有無表色作為本體。通過這八個證明，知道確實有無表色。這是總結。

『經部師說至與無表同者』，下面經部（佛教的一個部派）駁斥前面的八個證明。這是駁斥第一個證明。開頭是總體的否定，後面是分別的解釋。首先，經文說三種色中無見無對（不可見，無障礙）的，瑜伽師（修習瑜伽的人）說，修習靜慮（禪定）時，由禪定力所生的是定境界色（禪定境界中的色法），就是前面的八遍處等色（修習禪定的八種境界）。不是眼根的境界，所以稱為無見。不障礙處所，所以稱為無對。不是無表色。如果說既然這樣，無見無對怎麼能稱為色呢？解釋這個疑問，和無表色一樣。你的無表色也是無見無對，怎麼能稱為色呢？瑜伽這裡指的是相應，也就是觀行者的另一個名稱。

『又經所言』

【English Translation】 English version: Or he thus knows this is the path of cultivation. He thus sees this is the path of seeing. Cultivating right view and the other five (referring to right view, right thought, right mindfulness, right concentration, and right diligence) all reach perfection. Right speech (not lying, not speaking harshly, not gossiping, not using frivolous language) and the other three (referring to right speech, right action, and right livelihood) were previously attained. Since this sutra does not mention right speech, right action, and right livelihood in the undefiled concentration (meditation beyond worldly afflictions), and also says that right speech, right action, and right livelihood were previously attained, it is clear that these three do not exist in the essence of undefiled concentration. How can one prove the existence of non-revealing form (rupa) (form that cannot be directly observed)?

'This relies on the prior time to have no contradictory fault,' this is to explain that the sutra says right speech, right action, and right livelihood were previously attained, which is based on the worldly path of detachment (the path of detachment from worldly defilements) that was previously attained, not based on the undefiled path. Because after previously attaining the defiled path (the path with afflictions), there will be no three wrong actions (wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood). Therefore, the later undefiled contemplation only speaks of attaining five (referring to right view, right thought, right mindfulness, right concentration, and right diligence). It is not that these three, right speech, etc., do not exist in the undefiled concentration. Therefore, there is no fault of contradiction with that sutra.

'Also, if one denies to be called Bhikshu etc.,' this is the seventh proof of individual liberation vows (the precepts taken by monks, nuns, etc.). If one denies non-revealing form, there would be no essence of precepts (the substance of precepts). It is not that after taking the precepts, there is a continuation of precepts, even if evil or neutral (neither good nor evil) different conditions arise in the mind, one can still be called a Bhikshu etc. Since there is a continuation of precepts after taking the precepts, even if evil or neutral different conditions arise in the mind, one can still be called a Bhikshu etc., it is clear that there is another non-revealing form as their essence of precepts.

'Also, the sutra says to truly have non-revealing form,' this is the eighth proof that precepts are like embankments (precepts are like embankments, preventing evil deeds). Precepts are like embankments, it is clear that there is another non-revealing form as the essence. Through these eight proofs, it is known that there truly is non-revealing form. This is the conclusion.

'The Sautrantika (a school of Buddhism) says to be the same as non-revealing form,' below, the Sautrantika refutes the previous eight proofs. This is refuting the first proof. The beginning is a general negation, and the following is a separate explanation. First, the sutra says that among the three types of form, there is the unseen and unobstructed (invisible and without obstruction), the Yogacara (practitioners of Yoga) says that during the practice of dhyana (meditation), what is produced by the power of dhyana is the form of the realm of dhyana, which is the previous eight all-encompassing realms etc. It is not the realm of the eye sense, so it is called unseen. It does not obstruct the place, so it is called unobstructed. It is not non-revealing form. If one says that since this is the case, how can the unseen and unobstructed be called form? Explaining this question is the same as non-revealing form. Your non-revealing form is also unseen and unobstructed, how can it be called form? Yoga here refers to corresponding, which is another name for the practitioner.

'Also, the sutra says'

至即說為無漏者。此下破第二證。第二經言無漏色者。瑜伽師說。即由定力所生色中有二種色。若依有漏定所起色者即說為有漏。若依無漏定所起色者即說為無漏色。非說無表名無漏色。有餘師言至得無漏名者。敘異釋。有餘譬喻師言。無學身中所有諸色及外器中所有諸色皆是無漏。非是諸漏所依增故得無漏名。非據緣增。

何故經言至乃至廣說者。說一切有部難。何故經言有漏法者謂十五界。

此非漏對治故得有漏名者。譬喻通經。此十五界非漏對治故得有漏名。

是則此應言有漏亦無漏者。說一切有部難。是則此應言於一法體名為有漏。亦名無漏　若爾何過者。譬喻答。

有相雜失者。說一切有部復徴。若一法體名為有漏亦名無漏有相雜失。

若依此理至聲等亦爾者。譬喻者答。若依此理非漏對治說為有漏。曾不依此說為無漏。無漏亦然。若依此理非漏依故說為無漏。曾不依此說為有漏　一法待對立名不同。猶如父子。有何相雜　若色處等十五界汝宗所說一向有漏。此經何緣差別而說。如說有漏有取諸色是能起彼心栽覆事　栽謂栽蘗。覆謂覆障　栽．覆二種是惑異名　與心為栽。能覆於心。有取諸色是心栽覆所緣事故名心栽覆事　經中既釋六心栽覆事。言有漏有取諸色心栽覆事。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：至於說這是無漏的，以下是駁斥第二種證明。第二部經中說『無漏色』，瑜伽師說，由禪定之力所生的色法中有兩種。如果依據有漏的禪定所產生的色法，就說是『有漏』。如果依據無漏的禪定所產生的色法，就說是『無漏』。並非說無表色名為無漏色。有其他老師說，達到獲得無漏之名，這是敘述不同的解釋。有其他譬喻師說，無學（Asekha，佛教修行的一個階段）身中所有的色法以及外在器世間中所有的色法，都是無漏的。不是因為它們不是諸漏（Kleshas，煩惱）所依附和增長的，所以才得到無漏之名，不是根據因緣增長而得名。『為何經中說…乃至廣說』，這是一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）的提問。為何經中說有漏法是指十五界（Dhatu，構成經驗世界的元素）？『這並非因為是對治煩惱而得有漏之名』，這是譬喻師的解釋。這十五界並非因為是對治煩惱而得有漏之名。『那麼，這應該說有漏也是無漏』，這是一切有部的提問。那麼，這應該說在同一個法的本體上，既可以稱為有漏，也可以稱為無漏。『如果這樣，有什麼過失呢？』，這是譬喻師的回答。『會有混淆的過失』，這是一切有部再次提問。如果一個法的本體既可以稱為有漏，也可以稱為無漏，就會有混淆的過失。『如果依據這個道理…乃至聲音等也是如此』，這是譬喻師的回答。如果依據這個道理，不是因為對治煩惱而說為有漏，那麼從來沒有依據這個道理說為無漏。無漏也是如此。如果依據這個道理，不是因為是煩惱所依附的，所以說為無漏，那麼從來沒有依據這個道理說為有漏。一個法因為待對關係而建立不同的名稱，就像父子一樣，有什麼混淆呢？如果色處（Rupa-ayatana，色界）、聲處（Shabda-ayatana，聲界）等十五界，按照你們宗派的說法，一向是有漏的，那麼這部經為何要加以區分而說呢？例如說，有漏有取的諸色，是能夠引起心的栽覆之事。栽，是指栽蘗（指傷害）。覆，是指覆障（指覆蓋和障礙）。栽和覆兩種是煩惱的異名。與心為栽，能夠覆蓋於心。有取的諸色是心栽覆所緣的事故，所以名為心栽覆事。經中既然解釋了六心栽覆事，說有漏有取的諸色是心栽覆事。

【English Translation】 English version: As for saying that this is unconditioned (Anasrava), the following refutes the second proof. The second sutra says 'unconditioned form (Rupa)'. The Yogacara masters say that among the forms produced by the power of meditation (Dhyana), there are two kinds. If the form arises from conditioned (Sasrava) meditation, it is said to be 'conditioned'. If the form arises from unconditioned meditation, it is said to be 'unconditioned'. It is not that non-revealing form (Avijnapti-rupa) is called unconditioned. Other teachers say, reaching the attainment of the name 'unconditioned', this is narrating different interpretations. Other Sautrantika masters say that all forms in the body of an Arhat (Asekha, one beyond learning) and all forms in the external world are unconditioned. It is not because they are not the basis for the increase of defilements (Kleshas), that they obtain the name 'unconditioned'; it is not named based on the increase of conditions. 'Why does the sutra say... and so on?', this is a question from the Sarvastivadins. Why does the sutra say that conditioned dharmas refer to the fifteen realms (Dhatu, elements)? 'This is not named 'conditioned' because it is the antidote to defilements', this is the explanation of the Sautrantikas. These fifteen realms are not named 'conditioned' because they are the antidote to defilements. 'Then, it should be said that this is both conditioned and unconditioned', this is a question from the Sarvastivadins. Then, it should be said that in the same essence of a dharma, it can be called both conditioned and unconditioned. 'If so, what is the fault?', this is the answer of the Sautrantikas. 'There will be the fault of mixing', this is the Sarvastivadins asking again. If the essence of a dharma can be called both conditioned and unconditioned, there will be the fault of mixing. 'If according to this principle... even sounds are the same', this is the answer of the Sautrantikas. If according to this principle, it is not said to be conditioned because it is the antidote to defilements, then it has never been said to be unconditioned according to this principle. The same is true for unconditioned. If according to this principle, it is not said to be unconditioned because it is the basis of defilements, then it has never been said to be conditioned according to this principle. A dharma establishes different names based on relative relationships, just like father and son, what mixing is there? If the fifteen realms such as the form-sphere (Rupa-ayatana) and sound-sphere (Shabda-ayatana), according to your school's view, are always conditioned, then why does this sutra differentiate and say so? For example, it says that the conditioned and grasping forms are the cause of planting and covering the mind. Planting refers to planting evil. Covering refers to covering and obstructing. Planting and covering are two different names for defilements. Planting with the mind, able to cover the mind. The conditioned and grasping forms are the objects of the mind's planting and covering, therefore they are called the cause of the mind's planting and covering. Since the sutra explains the six causes of the mind's planting and covering, it says that the conditioned and grasping forms are the causes of the mind's planting and covering.

故知別有無漏無取諸色非心栽覆事　不爾何緣差別而說。若經唯有漏但應言諸色心栽覆事　又解即心體性是生死栽。能覆聖道。事如前釋　聲等亦爾。

又經所說至福業續起者。此下破第三證　福增長者。經部先代軌範師釋。由法爾力熏習種子福業增長　施主非一名如如　受者非一。名如是如是　由諸受者受用施物。能修慈等功德攝益身．心。身．心康強有差別故　又解由諸受者受用施物得慈定等種種功德攝益眾生有差別故　於後施主心雖起惡．無記異緣。而前緣施思所熏習種子在施主身中。行相微細。相續不斷。后漸轉變無間生果功力勝前差別而生。此五並是種子異名　由此思種子當來能感富等多果　故密意說思所熏種子。恒時相續。福業漸增。福業續起。非顯說也。

若謂如何至無表法生者。經部牒難徴破。汝若謂如何由余受者相續身中功德．攝益有差別故。令余施者相續身中心雖起惡．無記異緣。而有種子轉變生者　釋此疑難與汝立無表同。

彼復如何由余受者相續身中功德．攝益有差別故。令余施者相續身中別有真實無表法生　若於無依至福業增長者。問。若有依福由彼受者受用物時功德．攝益有差別故。令其施者福業增長此事可然。若於無依諸福業事。但聞他方諸佛出世遠生敬心無物施

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此可知，另有無漏、無取的諸色，並非心所能覆蓋的事物。否則，為何會有差別之說呢？如果經中只有有漏之說，就應該只說諸色是心所覆蓋的事物。另一種解釋是，心體的自性是生死的根源，能夠覆蓋聖道。『事』的解釋如前所述。聲音等也是如此。

又經中所說的『至福業續起』，以下是駁斥第三個證據，即福增長。經部的先代規範師解釋說，由於法爾之力熏習種子，福業增長。施主並非只有一個名字，如『如』；受者也非只有一個名字，如『是如是』。由於諸位受者受用施物，能夠修習慈等功德，攝益身心。身心康強，因此有差別。

另一種解釋是，由於諸位受者受用施物，得到慈定等種種功德，攝益眾生，因此有差別。在之後，施主心中即使生起惡念或無記的異緣，但先前因佈施的思所熏習的種子，在施主身中，行相微細，相續不斷，之後逐漸轉變，無間生果，功力勝過先前，因此產生差別。這五個都是種子的不同名稱。由此，思的種子將來能夠感得富裕等多種果報。所以密意說思所熏的種子，恒時相續，福業漸增，福業續起，並非顯說。

如果說如何導致無表法產生呢？經部提出疑問並進行駁斥。如果你們說，如何由於其他受者相續身中的功德、攝益有差別，而使其他施者相續身中，心中即使生起惡念或無記的異緣，而有種子轉變產生呢？解釋這個疑問，就如同你們建立無表法一樣。

那麼，無表法又是如何由於其他受者相續身中的功德、攝益有差別，而使其他施者相續身中，另外有真實的無表法產生呢？如果對於無依的福業，由於受者受用施物時的功德、攝益有差別，而使其施者福業增長，這件事還說得過去。如果對於無依的諸福業事，只是聽聞他方諸佛出世，遠生敬心，沒有施物。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is known that there are other unconditioned (anāsrava) and unappropriated (anupādāna) forms (rūpa) that are not matters covered by the mind. Otherwise, why would there be different explanations? If the sutra only mentioned conditioned (sāsrava) forms, it should only say that forms are matters covered by the mind. Another explanation is that the nature of the mind-body is the root of birth and death, which can cover the holy path. The explanation of 'matter' (事) is as previously stated. The same applies to sounds and so on.

Furthermore, regarding what the sutra says about 'the continuation of blessed actions' (至福業續起), the following refutes the third proof, which is the increase of merit (福增長). The early teachers (軌範師) of the Sautrāntika school explain that due to the force of nature (法爾力) and the熏習 (xūnxí, influence) of seeds (bīja), blessed actions increase. The donor is not just one name, such as 'thus' (如); the recipients are not just one name, such as 'so and so' (是如是). Because the recipients use the donated objects, they can cultivate merits such as loving-kindness (慈), which benefit the body and mind. The body and mind are healthy and strong, so there is a difference.

Another explanation is that because the recipients use the donated objects, they obtain various merits such as loving-kindness concentration (慈定), which benefit sentient beings, so there is a difference. Afterwards, even if evil or neutral (無記) different conditions arise in the donor's mind, the seeds influenced by the thought (思) of the previous donation are in the donor's body, with subtle characteristics, continuously without interruption. Later, they gradually transform and produce results without interruption, and the power is greater than before, so a difference arises. These five are all different names for seeds. Therefore, the seeds of thought can bring about multiple results such as wealth in the future. Therefore, it is said implicitly that the seeds influenced by thought are constantly continuous, blessed actions gradually increase, and blessed actions continue, not explicitly.

If you ask how unmanifested form (無表法, avijñapti-rūpa) arises, the Sautrāntika school raises a question and refutes it. If you say, how is it that due to the merits and benefits in the continuum of other recipients, the seeds transform and arise in the continuum of other donors, even if evil or neutral different conditions arise in their minds? Explaining this doubt is the same as you establishing unmanifested form.

Then, how does unmanifested form arise in the continuum of other donors due to the merits and benefits in the continuum of other recipients, so that there is a real unmanifested form in the continuum of other donors? If the increase of blessed actions depends on the merits and benefits when the recipients use the donated objects, then it is reasonable for the donor's blessed actions to increase. But if there is no dependence for blessed actions, and one only hears of the appearance of Buddhas in other lands and generates respectful thoughts from afar, without any donated objects.

彼德．益差別。如何可得相續身中福業增長。

亦由數習至亦恒隨轉者。經部答。非但有依由思力故福等增長。此無依福業亦由數習緣彼佛等勝思力故。乃至夢中敬思種子亦恒增長相續隨轉。

無表論者至寧有無表者。經部反難。說常有宗無表論者所立無表依表而生。于無依福但起敬心。既無表業。寧有無表　顯宗十八救云誰言此中無有表業。理應有故。謂聞某處．某方邑中現有如來或弟子住。生歡喜故福常增者。彼必應有增上信心遙向彼方敬申禮讚。起福表業．及福無表。而自莊嚴希親奉覲。故依無表說福業常增。正理意同顯宗　準顯宗等救。無依業必依表生。如何此論言無表業俱舍師破云。汝宗無依不從表生。難所逼故言從表起遙申禮讚。可寄表起但起信心。從何表生　又解經部以已宗難無表論者。于無依福以理而言。既無表業。寧有無表　又解說常有宗無依福業。或有計從表生。或有計不從表起。我今難彼非表生者。非難從表生者。何須救來。

有說有依至相續增長者。敘經部異師。有說有依諸福業事得增長時。非唯由彼所施財物。亦由施主數習緣彼境物勝思故。說恒時相續增長　又解此師意說。不但無依由數修習緣彼境思福恒增長。有依諸福亦由數習緣彼境思相續增長。

若爾經說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本彼德（姓名）．益差別（利益的差別）。如何才能使相續身中的福業增長？

經部回答：也由於數數修習，乃至恒常隨轉。並非只有有依之福，由於思惟的力量，福等才能增長。這種無依之福業，也由於數數修習，緣于佛等殊勝的思惟，乃至在夢中恭敬思惟，種子也恒常增長，相續隨轉。

無表論者（主張無表業的論師）說：常有宗（主張一切法恒常存在的宗派）所立的無表業，是依表業而生的。對於無依之福，僅僅生起敬心，既然沒有表業，怎麼會有無表業呢？

顯宗（《顯揚聖教論》的宗派）十八救云：誰說這裡沒有表業？理應有表業。譬如聽說某處、某方邑中有如來或弟子居住，生起歡喜心，福德恒常增長，那麼他必定應該有增上信心，遙向彼方恭敬地禮讚，生起福德的表業以及福德的無表業，並且自我莊嚴，希望親自奉覲。所以依據無表業說福業恒常增長。正理（《阿毗達磨順正理論》）的意旨與顯宗相同。

準照顯宗等的救護，無依之業必定依表業而生。為何此論說沒有表業？俱舍師（《俱舍論》的論師）破斥說：你們宗派的無依之業不從表業而生，被這個難題所逼迫，才說從表業生起，遙申禮讚。可以寄託表業而生起，但僅僅生起信心，從什麼表業生起呢？

又解釋說，經部以自己的宗義來為難無表論者，對於無依之福，以理而言，既然沒有表業，怎麼會有無表業呢？

又解釋說，常有宗的無依福業，或者有人認為是從表業生起，或者有人認為不從表業生起。我現在為難那些認為不是從表業生起的人，不是為難那些認為是從表業生起的人，何須救護呢？

有的人說，有依的諸福業之事得到增長時，不僅僅由於他所施捨的財物，也由於施主數數修習，緣于彼境物殊勝的思惟，所以說恒時相續增長。

又解釋說，這位師父的意思是說，不僅僅無依之福由於數數修習，緣于彼境的思惟，福德恒常增長，有依的諸福也由於數數修習，緣于彼境的思惟，相續增長。

如果這樣說，經中說……

【English Translation】 English version Peter (name). What is the difference in benefits? How can one increase meritorious actions in the continuous body?

The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) replies: Also, due to repeated practice, even constantly following transformation. It is not only dependent merit that increases due to the power of thought. This independent meritorious action also increases due to repeated practice, contemplating the excellent thoughts of the Buddhas, etc., even respectfully contemplating the seeds in dreams, constantly increasing and continuously transforming.

The Abhidharma theorists (those who advocate non-revealing karma) say: The non-revealing karma established by the Sarvāstivāda (a school that asserts all dharmas exist permanently) arises dependent on revealing karma. For independent merit, only respect arises. Since there is no revealing karma, how can there be non-revealing karma?

The Xianyang Shengjiao Lun school (the school of Asanga's Compendium of Determinations) saves the argument by saying: Who says there is no revealing karma here? There should be revealing karma. For example, hearing that a Tathāgata (Buddha) or disciple resides in a certain place or town, joy arises, and merit constantly increases. Then, one must have increasing faith, respectfully praising that direction from afar, generating revealing karma of merit and non-revealing karma of merit, and adorning oneself, hoping to personally attend. Therefore, based on non-revealing karma, it is said that meritorious actions constantly increase. The meaning of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Vasubandhu's Treasury of Higher Knowledge) is the same as that of the Xianyang Shengjiao Lun.

According to the salvation of the Xianyang Shengjiao Lun, independent karma must arise dependent on revealing karma. Why does this treatise say there is no revealing karma? The Abhidharmakośa master refutes: Your school's independent karma does not arise from revealing karma. Forced by this difficult question, you say it arises from revealing karma, offering praise from afar. It can arise relying on revealing karma, but only faith arises. From what revealing karma does it arise?

Another explanation is that the Sautrāntika school uses its own doctrine to challenge the Abhidharma theorists. Regarding independent merit, logically speaking, since there is no revealing karma, how can there be non-revealing karma?

Another explanation is that the independent meritorious actions of the Sarvāstivāda school, some believe arise from revealing karma, and some believe do not arise from revealing karma. I am now challenging those who believe it does not arise from revealing karma, not challenging those who believe it arises from revealing karma. Why is there a need for salvation?

Some say that when dependent meritorious actions increase, it is not only due to the wealth he donates, but also due to the donor's repeated practice, contemplating the excellent thoughts of that object, so it is said to constantly and continuously increase.

Another explanation is that this teacher means that not only independent merit constantly increases due to repeated practice, contemplating that object, but also dependent merits continuously increase due to repeated practice, contemplating that object.

If that is the case, the sutra says...

至定為應理者。論主引經破異師說。諸有苾芻受他施已入四無量心定。身證此定具足圓滿。由此因緣應知施主無量福增。施主爾時福恒增長。豈定常有緣彼施思方始增長。是故前師所言思所熏習微細相續。漸漸轉變差別而生。定為應理。但由施已思所熏種福常增長。非由施主數緣境思方始增長。又非自作至身語業道者。此下破第四證。牒證釋云應如是說。由能教者本教他時。已能熏成加行思種相續而住。使者依教所作殺等究竟成時。法爾能令教者身中於前加行所熏思種。更復發生根本業道思種。微細相續轉變差別而生。於後后位未遇舍緣。剎那剎那漸漸增長。由此根本業道思種。于當來世能感多果　自作成時理亦如是。應知即此微細等種名為業道　此思種子名業道者。此于果上假立因名。言因果者加行能熏動發身．語業思名因。所熏所引思種名果。彼現行動發思有造作故名業是前審．決二思所游名道。或能通生善．惡諸趣故名道。現行思因是正業道。種子思果名業道者于其果上假立因名　唯識第一亦說動發思名業道。故彼論云起身．語思有所造作說名為業。是審．決思所游履故。通生苦．樂異熟果故。亦名為道。故前七業道亦思為自性(已上論文)　又解思種名道以能通生善．惡道故。而名業者此于果上假立因名。是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：至於確定什麼是符合正理的。論主引用經文來破斥其他老師的觀點。如果有些比丘接受了他人的佈施后，進入四無量心定（慈、悲、喜、舍四種廣大的心境），並且親身證得這種禪定，具足圓滿。由此因緣，應當知道施主因此而獲得無量的福報增長。施主那時福報恒常增長，難道一定是常常因為施主思念佈施這件事，福報才開始增長嗎？所以之前的老師所說的，由思所熏習的微細相續，漸漸轉變差別而生起（福報增長），才是符合正理的。只是因為佈施之後，思所熏習的種子，福報恒常增長，不是因為施主多次緣念佈施這件事才開始增長。又不是自己親自去做，直到身語意業的行為產生。下面破斥第四種證據。引用證據並解釋說，應該這樣說：由於能夠教導的人，在最初教導他人的時候，就已經能夠熏習成加行思（準備行為的思考）的種子相續而住。使者按照教導所做的殺等行為究竟完成時，自然能夠使教導者身中，對於之前加行所熏習的思的種子，再次發生根本業道思（根本行為的思考）的種子，微細相續轉變差別而生起。在之後的位置，如果沒有遇到捨棄的因緣，剎那剎那漸漸增長。由此根本業道思的種子，在當來世能夠感得多果。自己做成時，道理也是這樣。應當知道，就是這些微細的種子，名為業道。這些思的種子名為業道，這是在果上假立因的名字。說到因果，加行能夠熏習，動發身語意的思考，名為因。所熏習所引生的思的種子，名為果。那些現行動發起的思考，有造作，所以名為業，是之前的審思（審慮的思考）、決思（決定的思考）所執行的，名為道。或者能夠通往產生善惡諸趣，所以名為道。現行思因是正業道。種子思果名為業道，這是在果上假立因的名字。《唯識第一》也說動發思名為業道。所以那部論典說，起身語意的思考，有所造作，說名為業。是審思、決思所執行的，能夠通往產生苦樂異熟果，所以也名為道。所以之前的七業道，也是以思為自性（以上是論文）。又解釋思的種子名為道，因為它能夠通往產生善惡道，所以名為業，這是在果上假立因的名字。

【English Translation】 English version: As for determining what is in accordance with reason. The author of the treatise quotes scriptures to refute the views of other teachers. If there are Bhikshus who, having received offerings from others, enter into the Samadhi of the Four Immeasurables (the four boundless states of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity), and personally realize this Samadhi, complete and perfect. Due to this cause and condition, it should be known that the donor thereby obtains immeasurable merit increase. The donor's merit then constantly increases. Is it necessarily the case that the merit only begins to increase when the donor constantly thinks about the act of giving? Therefore, what the previous teacher said, that the subtle continuum of what is cultivated by thought gradually transforms and differentiates to arise (the increase of merit), is in accordance with reason. It is only because after giving, the seed cultivated by thought, the merit constantly increases, not because the donor repeatedly contemplates the act of giving that it begins to increase. Moreover, it is not oneself personally doing it, until the actions of body, speech, and mind arise. Below, the fourth piece of evidence is refuted. Quoting the evidence and explaining it, it should be said like this: Because the one who is able to teach, when initially teaching others, is already able to cultivate and form the seed continuum of preparatory thought (thinking of preparing the action) to abide. When the messenger, according to the teaching, completely accomplishes actions such as killing, it naturally enables the teacher's body, for the seed of thought cultivated by the previous preparatory action, to again generate the seed of fundamental karma-path thought (thinking of the fundamental action), subtly transforming and differentiating to arise in a continuum. In the subsequent positions, if not encountering the condition of abandonment, it gradually increases moment by moment. Due to this seed of fundamental karma-path thought, in the future it is able to sense many fruits. When one accomplishes it oneself, the principle is also like this. It should be known that these subtle seeds are called karma-path. These seeds of thought are called karma-path, this is establishing the name of the cause on the fruit. Speaking of cause and effect, the preparatory action is able to cultivate, activating the thoughts of body, speech, and mind, called the cause. The seed of thought cultivated and induced, called the fruit. Those currently activating thoughts have creation, therefore called karma, it is what the previous deliberative thought (deliberating thought) and decisive thought (deciding thought) operate on, called the path. Or it is able to lead to the generation of good and evil realms, therefore called the path. The current thought-cause is the correct karma-path. The seed-thought-fruit is called karma-path, this is establishing the name of the cause on the fruit. The first chapter of Consciousness-Only also says that activating thought is called karma-path. Therefore, that treatise says, the thoughts of body and speech have creation, said to be karma. It is what deliberative thought and decisive thought operate on, able to lead to the generation of the fruits of suffering and happiness, therefore also called the path. Therefore, the previous seven karma-paths are also with thought as their nature (the above is the treatise). Also explaining the seed of thought is called the path, because it is able to lead to the generation of good and evil paths, therefore called karma, this is establishing the name of the cause on the fruit.

身．語業所引果故。謂前加行現思是因是身．語業。思種是果非身．語業。而名業者于果思上假立因名　又解加行身．語表思所發故假名為業。思所履故亦名業道。表是業道。思種由彼起故彼是因。思種是果。故於果上假立因名　故唯識論第一亦云。或身．語表由思發故假說為業。思所履故說名業道　又解加行現行能發之思名業。所發身．語名道。是彼思業所游託故名道。由道助業令熏成種。此業．及道俱名為因。是正業道。所熏思果名業道者。于其果上假立因名。

如執別有無表論宗無表亦名身．語業道。表正名為身．語業道。無表從身．語業道生故名身．語業道。此亦于果假立因名　又解表正名為身．語業。無表從身．語業生故名身．語業。此亦于果假立因名。以暢思故得名道　又解表正是身．語。無表從身．語生故名為身．語。此亦于果假立因名。造作名業。暢思名道。隨應于果假立因名。若依經部宗得善．惡戒等於加行位熏成加行七思種子。遇勝緣已從此加行思種子上覆更熏成根本思種。與前加行思種並起初念七支種子。第二念二七支種子。第三念三七支種子。乃至未遇舍緣已來念念七支思種增長。若遇舍緣即不增長。名之為舍。根本種子在能招異熟。從根本后別起身．語思故熏成後起思種。或初念名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為身、語業所引發的結果。也就是說，之前的加行和現行思是因，是身、語業。思的種子是果，不是身、語業。而稱之為『業』，是在果的思上假立了因的名稱。另一種解釋是，加行身、語表是由思所發起的，所以假名為業。思所行經的路徑，也稱為業道。表是業道。思的種子由它而起，所以它是因，思的種子是果。所以在果上假立因的名稱。因此，《唯識論》第一卷也說：『或者身、語表由思發起，所以假說為業。思所行經的路徑，稱為業道。』另一種解釋是，加行現行能引發的思稱為業，所引發的身、語稱為道。這是那個思業所遊歷依託的，所以稱為道。由道輔助業，使之熏習成為種子。這個業和道都稱為因，是正業道。所熏習的思果稱為業道，是在它的果上假立了因的名稱。例如，如果按照執著別有無表論的宗派，無表也稱為身、語業道。表正名為身、語業道。無表從身、語業道產生，所以稱為身、語業道。這也是在果上假立因的名稱。另一種解釋是，表正名為身、語業，無表從身、語業產生，所以稱為身、語業。這也是在果上假立因的名稱。因為暢通思慮，所以得名道。另一種解釋是，表正是身、語，無表從身、語產生，所以稱為身、語。這也是在果上假立因的名稱。造作稱為業，暢通思慮稱為道。隨其相應，在果上假立因的名稱。如果依照經部宗，得到善、惡戒等，在加行位熏習成為加行七思的種子。遇到殊勝的因緣后，從此加行思的種子上又熏習成為根本思的種子，與之前的加行思種子一起生起初唸的七支種子。第二念生起二七支種子。第三念生起三七支種子。乃至未遇到捨棄的因緣之前，唸唸七支思的種子都在增長。如果遇到捨棄的因緣，就不再增長，稱之為捨棄。根本種子在於能夠招感異熟果報。從根本之後，另外起身、語思，所以熏習成為後起思的種子。或者初念稱為

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the results brought about by actions of body and speech. That is to say, the preceding preparatory actions (加行, jiaxing) and present thoughts are the cause, being actions of body and speech. The seed of thought is the result, not being actions of body and speech. The term 'action' (業, ye) is a name provisionally established on the thought that is the result, as if it were the cause. Another explanation is that the preparatory actions of body and speech are initiated by thought, so they are provisionally named actions. The path traversed by thought is also called the path of action (業道, yèdào). Expression (表, biao) is the path of action. The seed of thought arises from it, so it is the cause, and the seed of thought is the result. Therefore, the name of the cause is provisionally established on the result. Thus, the first volume of the Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi-sastra (唯識論, Wéishì lùn) also says: 'Or, expressions of body and speech are initiated by thought, so they are provisionally called actions. The path traversed by thought is called the path of action.' Another explanation is that the thought that can initiate preparatory actions and present actions is called action, and the body and speech that are initiated are called the path. This is what that thought-action relies on and travels through, so it is called the path. The path assists the action, causing it to be perfumed and become a seed. This action and path are both called the cause, being the correct path of action. The thought-result that is perfumed is called the path of action, which is the provisional establishment of the name of the cause on its result. For example, according to the school that adheres to the separate existence of non-manifestation (無表, wúbiǎo), non-manifestation is also called the path of action of body and speech. Manifestation is correctly named the path of action of body and speech. Non-manifestation arises from the path of action of body and speech, so it is called the path of action of body and speech. This is also the provisional establishment of the name of the cause on the result. Another explanation is that manifestation is correctly named action of body and speech, and non-manifestation arises from action of body and speech, so it is called action of body and speech. This is also the provisional establishment of the name of the cause on the result. Because of the unimpeded flow of thought, it is named the path. Another explanation is that manifestation is correctly body and speech, and non-manifestation arises from body and speech, so it is called body and speech. This is also the provisional establishment of the name of the cause on the result. Creation is called action, and the unimpeded flow of thought is called the path. Correspondingly, the name of the cause is provisionally established on the result. If according to the Sautrantika (經部, Jīngbù) school, obtaining good and evil precepts, etc., at the stage of preparatory action, perfumes and becomes the seed of the seven thoughts of preparatory action. After encountering superior conditions, from this seed of preparatory thought, it is further perfumed and becomes the seed of fundamental thought, arising together with the previous seed of preparatory thought, the seed of the seven limbs of the initial thought. The second thought arises with the seed of two sets of seven limbs. The third thought arises with the seed of three sets of seven limbs. Until the conditions for abandonment are encountered, the seed of the seven limbs of thought increases in every moment. If the conditions for abandonment are encountered, it no longer increases, and it is called abandonment. The fundamental seed lies in being able to attract the result of different maturation (異熟, yìshú). After the fundamental, separate thoughts of body and speech arise, so they are perfumed and become the seed of subsequent thoughts. Or the initial thought is called

根本。第二念已去名後起　又解於一思種剎那剎那七支功能增長。大乘亦然　然大乘熏第八識。經部熏色心。大乘種子同時相生。經部種子前能生后．大乘熏種子。與能熏相應。經部熏種前念熏后念。

然大德說至正殺殺已者。敘異說。大德謂達磨多羅　取蘊謂所殺眾生。于所殺生三時起思。一我當殺。二起正殺。三起殺已方為罪觸。

非但由此至非不應理者。論主破。非但由此三時起思業道究竟。勿自母等實未被害。于闇室中由謂已害起三時思成無間業。然于自造不誤殺事起三時思殺罪便觸。若依此說非不應理。實未被殺但起三思即不應理。

何于無表至轉變差別者。說一切有部訴何于無表定撥為無。而許經部種子無表。

然此與彼至又先已說者。論主答。評傳兩家。然此說一切有部。與彼經部所說無表。俱難了知。或此經部與彼說一切有部。俱難了知。我于其中心平等性正無所憎嫉。然說一切有部自許業道無表是善．噁心同性種類。以此無表是等起故由心引得是心種類　又解然我許彼思種業道是心種類同是無色故言種類　若說一切有部師言。彼受教者由身加行從此至彼執持刃等作殺生等事究竟時。離於身離於心於能教者身中別有無表法生。如是所宗不令生喜　經部師言。若由此能教者引

【現代漢語翻譯】根本。第二念已逝去名為後起。又解釋說，一個思緒的種子在剎那剎那間有七支功能增長。大乘也是如此。然而，大乘是熏習第八識（Alaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識，藏識）。經部是熏習色和心。大乘的種子是同時相生。經部的種子是前一個能生后一個。大乘是熏習種子，與能熏習的相應。經部是熏習，前念熏習后念。

然而，大德說『至正殺殺已者』，這是敘述不同的說法。大德指的是達磨多羅（Dharmatrāta）。取蘊指的是所殺的眾生。對於所殺的眾生，在三個時間段生起思緒：一，我應當殺；二，開始真正殺；三，殺完之後。這樣才算是觸犯了罪業。

『非但由此至非不應理者』，這是論主的駁斥。不僅僅由此三個時間段生起思緒，業道才算究竟。比如，對於自己的母親等實際上沒有被殺害的人，在黑暗的房間里，因為以為已經殺害而生起三個時間段的思緒，這樣就構成了無間業。然而，對於自己製造的不小心殺人的事情，生起三個時間段的思緒，殺罪就觸犯了。如果按照這種說法，就非常不合理。實際上沒有被殺害，僅僅生起三個思緒，這就不應該合理。

『何于無表至轉變差別者』，這是一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的申訴，為什麼對於無表（aviñapti，無表色）一定否定為沒有，卻允許經部的種子無表存在。

『然此與彼至又先已說者』，這是論主的回答，評論了傳和經兩家。然而，這個說一切有部，與那個經部所說的無表，都難以瞭解。或者這個經部與那個說一切有部，都難以瞭解。我對於其中的中心平等性，正直地沒有憎恨嫉妒。然而，說一切有部自己承認業道的無表是善、噁心同一種類。因為這個無表是等起，所以由心引導得到，是心的種類。又解釋說，然而我承認那個思緒的種子業道是心的種類，同是無色，所以說是種類。如果說一切有部的老師說，那些接受教導的人，通過身體的加行，從這裡到那裡，拿著刀等，做殺生等事情究竟的時候，離開身體，離開心，在能教導的人身體中另外有無表法產生。這樣的宗義不令人喜歡。經部的老師說，如果由此能教導的人引導

【English Translation】 Fundamentally. The second thought that has passed is called 'subsequent arising'. It is also explained that a seed of thought increases in seven functional aspects moment by moment. This is also the case in Mahayana. However, Mahayana cultivates the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijñāna). The Sautrāntika school cultivates form and mind. Mahayana seeds arise simultaneously. Sautrāntika seeds arise sequentially, with the former giving rise to the latter. Mahayana cultivates seeds, corresponding to what is cultivated. Sautrāntika cultivates, with the former thought cultivating the latter thought.

However, when the Venerable says 'to the very act of killing', this is narrating a different view. The Venerable refers to Dharmatrāta. 'Taking aggregates' refers to the beings being killed. Regarding the beings being killed, thoughts arise at three times: first, 'I should kill'; second, 'beginning the actual killing'; third, 'after having killed'. Only then is the offense of the transgression touched.

'Not only from this to not unreasonable' is the refutation of the author. It is not only from these three times of arising thoughts that the path of karma is completed. For example, regarding one's own mother, who has not actually been killed, in a dark room, because of thinking that she has been killed, three times of thoughts arise, thus constituting an uninterrupted karma. However, regarding one's own unintentional killing, if three times of thoughts arise, the transgression of killing is touched. If according to this saying, it is very unreasonable. Actually not being killed, but merely arising three thoughts, this should not be reasonable.

'Why regarding non-manifestation to transformation difference' is the complaint of the Sarvāstivāda school. Why is it that non-manifestation (aviñapti) is definitely denied as non-existent, yet the Sautrāntika school is allowed to have seeds of non-manifestation?

'However, this and that to also already said' is the answer of the author, commenting on both the transmitted and sutra schools. However, this Sarvāstivāda school, and that non-manifestation spoken of by the Sautrāntika school, are both difficult to understand. Or this Sautrāntika school and that Sarvāstivāda school are both difficult to understand. Regarding the central equanimity within them, I am upright and have no hatred or jealousy. However, the Sarvāstivāda school itself admits that the non-manifestation of the path of karma is of the same kind as good and evil minds. Because this non-manifestation is the initial arising, it is guided and obtained by the mind, and is of the mind's kind. It is also explained that, however, I admit that the seed of thought of the path of karma is of the mind's kind, and is the same as non-form, therefore it is said to be of the same kind. If the teacher of the Sarvāstivāda school says that those who receive instruction, through the physical action, from here to there, holding a knife, etc., when doing things like killing, etc., is completed, apart from the body, apart from the mind, in the body of the one who can teach, another non-manifested dharma arises. Such a doctrine does not bring joy. The teacher of the Sautrāntika school says that if by this one who can teach guides

彼所教者從此至彼執持刃等加行生。作殺等事究竟成時。即此能教由彼所教事究竟故。不離身心方有根本業道思種相續轉變差別而生。如是所宗可令生喜　經部但由於心身中有思種子相續轉變差別能生未來果故。非由別有無表能生又先已說。

先說者何者。問。謂表業既無寧有無表等者。答。此是無依福文　等者。等取已前諸文。此文在後故舉后等前。

又說法處至法處攝色者。此破第五證。又說法處無見無對不言無色者。由有如前瑜伽師所說定境無見無對法處攝色故。所以不言無色。

又言道支至求衣等不者。此下破第六證　又言道支應無八者。且汝應說正在無漏道時如何現有正語．正業．正命。為於此位有發正言名為正語。起正作業名為正業　求衣．食等名為正命。不。

不爾者。說一切有部答。

云何者。論主徴。

由彼獲得至語業命名者。說一切有部釋。由彼聖人獲得如是種類道俱無漏無表。故出觀後由前無漏無表勢力。能起三正不起三邪。而言在定有三種者。以于道俱無表因中立語．業．命三果名故。所以于無表立語．業．命名。

若爾云何至八聖道支者。經部師言若爾云何不受我義。依我部宗雖無別無表實體。而正在彼無漏道時獲得如斯意樂依止　意樂以欲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他們所教導的行為，從開始執持刀刃等行為的準備階段，到最終完成殺戮等事情，都是因為這個能教導的行為，由於被教導的事情最終完成，才不會脫離身心，從而產生根本的業道，思想的種子相續不斷地轉變和差別，最終產生結果。像這樣，你們所主張的理論可以讓人感到高興。經部宗認為，僅僅因為身心中有思想的種子相續不斷地轉變和差別，才能產生未來的果報，而不是因為另外存在一種『無表』（看不見的業力）能夠產生果報，這一點之前已經說過了。

之前所說的內容是什麼呢？問：如果表業（外在的行為）都不存在，怎麼會有無表等呢？答：這是沒有依據的福德之文。『等者』，包括之前的所有文句。因為這句話在後面，所以用『等』來包括前面的內容。

『又說法處至法處攝色者』，這是爲了駁斥第五個證據。『又說法處無見無對不言無色者』，因為有像之前瑜伽師所說的，禪定境界中無見無對的法處包含色法，所以不說無色。

『又言道支至求衣等不者』，這以下是駁斥第六個證據。『又言道支應無八者』，首先你應該說明，在處於無漏道（沒有煩惱的修行道路）的時候，如何會有正語（正確的言語）、正業（正確的行為）、正命（正確的生活）存在？難道是在這個階段有發出正確的言語叫做正語，有做出正確的行為叫做正業，尋求衣服、食物等叫做正命嗎？不是的。

『不爾者』，這是一切有部的回答。

『云何者』，這是論主的提問。

『由彼獲得至語業命名者』，這是一切有部的解釋。由於那些聖人獲得了這種與道相應的無漏無表，所以在出定之後，由於之前無漏無表的力量，能夠生起三種正行，不會生起三種邪行。說在禪定中有三種（正語、正業、正命），是因為在與道相應的無表因中，建立了語、業、命三種果報的名稱，所以才在無表上建立語、業、命的名稱。

『若爾云何至八聖道支者』，經部師說，如果這樣，為什麼不接受我的觀點？按照我們經部的觀點，雖然沒有另外的無表實體，但是在處於無漏道的時候，獲得了這樣的意樂（強烈的願望）作為依靠——意樂是指強烈的願望。

【English Translation】 English version: What they teach, from the initial stage of preparing to wield a blade, etc., to the ultimate completion of acts such as killing, arises because this teaching, due to the ultimate completion of the taught act, does not separate from body and mind, thereby generating the root karmic path, the continuous transformation and differentiation of thought seeds, ultimately producing results. As such, your asserted theory can bring joy. The Sautrāntika school believes that it is solely because the seeds of thought in body and mind continuously transform and differentiate that future consequences arise, not because a separate 'unmanifested' (invisible karmic force) can produce consequences, as has been said before.

What was said before? Question: If manifested actions (external behaviors) do not exist, how can there be unmanifested actions, etc.? Answer: This is a statement of merit without basis. 'Etc.' includes all previous statements. Because this statement is later, 'etc.' is used to include the preceding content.

'Furthermore, 'from the sphere of dharma to the sphere of dharma including form,' this refutes the fifth proof. 'Furthermore, 'the sphere of dharma is invisible and without opposition, not saying without form,' because there are, as the yogis previously stated, spheres of dharma in meditative states that are invisible and without opposition, including form, therefore it is not said to be without form.

'Furthermore, 'from the statement of the path factors to not seeking clothing, etc.,' this below refutes the sixth proof. 'Furthermore, 'the statement that the path factors should not be eight,' you should first explain how, when one is on the path of non-outflow (the path of practice without afflictions), right speech, right action, and right livelihood exist. Is it that at this stage, uttering correct speech is called right speech, performing correct actions is called right action, and seeking clothing, food, etc., is called right livelihood? No.

'If not,' this is the response of the Sarvāstivāda school.

'How so?' This is the question of the treatise master.

'Because they obtain to naming speech and action,' this is the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda school. Because those noble ones obtain such a kind of non-outflow unmanifested action that is concurrent with the path, after emerging from meditation, due to the power of the previous non-outflow unmanifested action, they can generate three right actions and will not generate three wrong actions. Saying that there are three (right speech, right action, right livelihood) in meditation is because the names of the three consequences of speech, action, and livelihood are established in the unmanifested cause that is concurrent with the path, therefore the names of speech, action, and livelihood are established on the unmanifested action.

'If so, how to the eightfold noble path?' The Sautrāntika master says, if so, why not accept my view? According to our Sautrāntika view, although there is no separate unmanifested entity, when one is on the path of non-outflow, one obtains such an intention (strong desire) as a reliance—intention refers to a strong desire.

為體。或以勝解為體。或以欲及勝解為體。故攝論云欲以勝解為體。意識相應樂故名意樂。依止以意樂同時思為體性。與彼意樂為依止故。意樂之依止故名意樂依止　又解意樂即以現思為體。與出觀后三正為依止故名依止。意樂即依止故名意樂依止　總而言之。道俱時思即名無表。名道共戒。無別有體。由得彼戒為依止故。故出觀後由前無漏戒勢力。能起三正不起三邪。正在道時雖無發言。起正作業。求衣．食等。以於前因中立後果名故。于彼道位可具安立八聖道支　又解意樂謂所有意趣。依止謂所依止身。彼言定中無三正體。由道勢力獲得意樂及勝依止。此於後時能離三邪。因標果稱。種子立三正名。真諦意同此解。

有餘師言至此亦應然者。敘經部異說。此師意言唯說不作邪語．業．命為三道支。謂正在彼無漏定時。由聖道力便能獲得決定不作邪語等事為正語等。非別有體　若無別體如何名無漏。通此伏難云。此定不作。依無漏道而得安立故名無漏。前師意說依思假立名道俱戒。為三正體。余師意說不作無體仍由道得。非別說依。即說不作為三正體。非一切處要依有體方立名數　即指事云。如八世法中第二不得衣食等事。非別有體方立名數。於八世中不得無體數在其中。於八支中此正語等亦應然也　言世法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以『體』（śarīra）為基礎。或者以『勝解』（adhimokṣa，殊勝的理解）為基礎。或者以『欲』（chanda，願望）及『勝解』為基礎。所以《攝大乘論》說，『欲』以『勝解』為基礎。與意識相應的快樂稱為『意樂』（āśaya，意圖）。依賴於『意樂』，同時產生的『思』（cetanā，意志）為自性。因為與那個『意樂』作為依賴，所以稱為『意樂依止』。另一種解釋是，『意樂』就是以現在的『思』為本體。因為出定觀之後的三種『正』（samyak，正確的）作為依賴，所以稱為『依止』。『意樂』就是『依止』，所以稱為『意樂依止』。總而言之，與『道』（mārga，道路）同時產生的『思』就稱為『無表』（avijñapti，無表色），稱為『道共戒』（mārgasaṃvara，道俱戒）。沒有其他的實體。因為獲得了那個戒律作為依賴。所以出定觀之後，由於之前的無漏戒的勢力，能夠生起三種『正』，不會生起三種『邪』（mithyā，錯誤的）。在『正』的道路上，即使沒有說話，也會產生正確的行為，例如尋求衣服、食物等。因為在之前的因中確立了後果的名稱，所以在那個『道』的位置可以完整地安立八聖道支（āryāṣṭāṅgamārga，八正道）。另一種解釋是，『意樂』是指所有的意趣，『依止』是指所依賴的身體。他們說在禪定中沒有三種『正』的實體。由於『道』的勢力，獲得了『意樂』和殊勝的『依止』。這在之後能夠遠離三種『邪』。因為標明了原因，所以稱呼結果。種子確立了三種『正』的名稱。真諦（Paramārtha）的觀點與這種解釋相同。有其他老師說：『到這裡也應該這樣』。這是敘述經部的不同說法。這位老師的意思是，只說不做邪語、邪業、邪命為三種道支。意思是說，正在那個無漏禪定的時候，由於聖道的威力，便能夠獲得決定不做邪語等事，作為正語等。並非另外有實體。如果沒有另外的實體，如何稱為無漏呢？爲了解釋這個疑問，說：『這個禪定不做』，依賴於無漏道而得以安立，所以稱為無漏。之前的老師的意思是，依賴於『思』假立名稱，稱為『道俱戒』，作為三種『正』的實體。其他老師的意思是，不做沒有實體，仍然由於『道』而獲得。並非另外說明依賴，就是說不做作為三種『正』的實體。並非所有的地方都要依賴於有實體才能確立名稱。就是指這件事說：『如八世法（aṣṭalokadharma，八世間法）中第二種不得衣食等事』，並非另外有實體才能確立名稱。在八世間法中，不得沒有實體，數量也在其中。在八支中，這個正語等也應該這樣。』這裡說的『世法』（lokadharma，世間法）

【English Translation】 English version: Based on 'body' (śarīra). Or based on 'adhimokṣa' (superior understanding). Or based on 'chanda' (desire) and 'adhimokṣa'. Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that 'desire' is based on 'adhimokṣa'. The happiness corresponding to consciousness is called 'āśaya' (intention). Relying on 'āśaya', the 'cetanā' (volition) that arises simultaneously is its nature. Because it relies on that 'āśaya', it is called 'āśaya-niśraya'. Another explanation is that 'āśaya' is based on the present 'cetanā'. Because the three 'samyak' (correct) after emerging from meditation serve as reliance, it is called 'niśraya'. 'Āśaya' is 'niśraya', so it is called 'āśaya-niśraya'. In short, the 'cetanā' that arises simultaneously with the 'mārga' (path) is called 'avijñapti' (non-revealing form), and is called 'mārgasaṃvara' (path-restraint). There is no other entity. Because obtaining that precept serves as reliance. Therefore, after emerging from meditation, due to the power of the previous non-outflow precept, it can generate the three 'correct' ones and will not generate the three 'mithyā' (incorrect) ones. On the 'correct' path, even without speaking, correct actions will arise, such as seeking clothing, food, etc. Because the name of the consequence is established in the previous cause, the eightfold noble path (āryāṣṭāṅgamārga) can be fully established in that 'path' position. Another explanation is that 'āśaya' refers to all intentions, and 'niśraya' refers to the body on which it relies. They say that there is no entity of the three 'correct' ones in meditation. Due to the power of the 'path', 'āśaya' and superior 'niśraya' are obtained. This can later stay away from the three 'incorrect' ones. Because the cause is marked, the result is called. The seed establishes the names of the three 'correct' ones. Paramārtha's view is the same as this explanation. Other teachers say: 'It should be the same here'. This is a narration of the different views of the Sautrāntika school. This teacher means that only not committing wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood are said to be the three path factors. It means that during that non-outflow meditation, due to the power of the noble path, one can obtain the determination not to commit wrong speech, etc., as right speech, etc. It is not a separate entity. If there is no separate entity, how can it be called non-outflow? To explain this question, it is said: 'This meditation does not commit', relying on the non-outflow path to be established, so it is called non-outflow. The previous teacher meant that relying on 'cetanā' to establish a name, it is called 'path-restraint', as the entity of the three 'correct' ones. Other teachers mean that not doing has no entity, but is still obtained due to the 'path'. It does not separately explain reliance, that is, not doing is the entity of the three 'correct' ones. It is not necessary to rely on an entity to establish a name in all places. That is, referring to this matter, it is said: 'Such as the second of the eight worldly dharmas (aṣṭalokadharma), not obtaining clothing and food, etc.', it is not necessary to have a separate entity to establish a name. In the eight worldly dharmas, not obtaining has no entity, and the number is also among them. In the eight factors, this right speech, etc., should also be the same.' The 'lokadharma' (worldly dharma) mentioned here

者。婆沙云。世間有情所隨順故名為世法。廣如婆沙四十四。及一百七十三釋　所言八者　一得。謂得衣．食等。婆沙云利。利謂得衣等利。名異義同　二不得。謂不得衣．食等。婆沙有處云衰。衰謂衰坎不得衣等。婆沙有處云無利。謂不得衣等利。此併名異義同　三毀。謂背面毀呰。婆沙有處言非譽。名異義同　四譽。謂背面稱揚　五稱。謂對面稱揚。婆沙有處云贊。名異義同　六譏。謂對面譏辱。婆沙有處云毀。名異義同　七苦。謂身．心苦受。婆沙有處云苦謂欲界身．心苦。有說唯取五識相應苦　八樂。謂身．心樂受。婆沙有處云樂謂欲界身．心樂。有說唯取五識相應樂。有處亦通輕安樂。

別解脫律儀至別解脫律儀者。此下破第七證。別解脫律儀無別體性亦應準此。謂由近因等起思願力故。先立要期誓不作惡。能定遮防身．語惡業。于加行位熏思種已至第三歸依。或第三羯磨事究竟時。從前思種復更熏成七支思種唸唸增長。由斯故建立別解脫律儀。思種假立而無別體。

若起異緣心至憶便止故者。牒前說一切有部難通釋。汝前難云若戒無別體起惡．無記異緣心應無律儀者。此難非理。由受戒者于身．心中唸唸熏習思種戒力。欲起過時憶便止故。

戒為堤塘至而破戒者者。此破第八證。汝前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：婆沙論中說：『世間眾生所隨順的事物，就叫做世法。』詳細內容見《婆沙論》第四十四卷和第一百七十三卷的解釋。所說的八種世法是：一、得（Lābha）：指獲得衣服、食物等。婆沙論中也稱為『利』（Lābha），『利』是指獲得衣服等利益，只是名稱不同，意義相同。二、不得（Alābha）：指無法獲得衣服、食物等。婆沙論中有時稱為『衰』（Anartha），『衰』是指衰敗困頓，無法獲得衣服等。婆沙論中有時稱為『無利』（Alābha），指無法獲得衣服等利益。這些都是名稱不同，意義相同。三、毀（Ayasas）：指背地裡詆譭。婆沙論中有時稱為『非譽』（Akirti），名稱不同，意義相同。四、譽（Yasas）：指背地裡稱讚。五、稱（Praśaṃsā）：指當面稱讚。婆沙論中有時稱為『贊』（Stuti），名稱不同，意義相同。六、譏（Nindā）：指當面譏諷羞辱。婆沙論中有時稱為『毀』（Avamāna），名稱不同，意義相同。七、苦（Duḥkha）：指身心的痛苦感受。婆沙論中有時說『苦』是指欲界身心的痛苦。有說法認為只包括與五識相應的痛苦。八、樂（Sukha）：指身心的快樂感受。婆沙論中有時說『樂』是指欲界身心的快樂。有說法認為只包括與五識相應的快樂。有時也包括輕安的快樂。

從『別解脫律儀』到『別解脫律儀者』：以下是駁斥第七個論證。別解脫律儀沒有獨立的體性，也應該按照這個道理來理解。也就是說，由於近因等引發的思願力，先確立要約，發誓不做惡事，能夠確定地遮止身語的惡業。在加行位時，熏習思的種子，直到第三次皈依，或者第三次羯磨（Karma）事完成時，從之前的思的種子再次熏習成為七支思的種子，唸唸增長。因此建立別解脫律儀。思的種子是假立的，並沒有獨立的體性。

從『若起異緣心』到『憶便止故者』：這是引用一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的觀點，難以解釋。你之前的提問說，如果戒沒有獨立的體性，那麼生起惡念或無記的念頭時，應該就沒有律儀了。這個提問是不合理的。因為受戒的人在身心中唸唸熏習思的種子，戒的力量，當要犯錯的時候，憶念起戒律就會停止惡行。

從『戒為堤塘』到『而破戒者者』：這是駁斥第八個論證。你之前

【English Translation】 English version: The Vibhasha (Vibhāṣā) says: 'That which sentient beings in the world follow is called worldly dharma (loka-dharma).' See Vibhasha, volume 44 and 173 for detailed explanations. The eight worldly dharmas are: 1. Gain (Lābha): Refers to obtaining clothes, food, etc. The Vibhasha also calls it 'profit' (Lābha). 'Profit' refers to obtaining benefits such as clothes, etc. The names are different, but the meaning is the same. 2. Loss (Alābha): Refers to not being able to obtain clothes, food, etc. The Vibhasha sometimes calls it 'decline' (Anartha). 'Decline' refers to being in a state of decline and unable to obtain clothes, etc. The Vibhasha sometimes calls it 'no profit' (Alābha), referring to not being able to obtain benefits such as clothes, etc. These are all different names with the same meaning. 3. Disrepute (Ayasas): Refers to being slandered behind one's back. The Vibhasha sometimes calls it 'non-praise' (Akirti). The names are different, but the meaning is the same. 4. Fame (Yasas): Refers to being praised behind one's back. 5. Praise (Praśaṃsā): Refers to being praised to one's face. The Vibhasha sometimes calls it 'admiration' (Stuti). The names are different, but the meaning is the same. 6. Censure (Nindā): Refers to being ridiculed and humiliated to one's face. The Vibhasha sometimes calls it 'insult' (Avamāna). The names are different, but the meaning is the same. 7. Suffering (Duḥkha): Refers to the painful sensations of body and mind. The Vibhasha sometimes says that 'suffering' refers to the suffering of body and mind in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu). Some say it only includes suffering associated with the five consciousnesses. 8. Happiness (Sukha): Refers to the pleasant sensations of body and mind. The Vibhasha sometimes says that 'happiness' refers to the happiness of body and mind in the desire realm. Some say it only includes happiness associated with the five consciousnesses. Sometimes it also includes the happiness of pliancy (praśrabdhi).

From 'Prātimokṣa-saṃvara' to 'Prātimokṣa-saṃvara': The following refutes the seventh argument. The Prātimokṣa-saṃvara (individual liberation vows) does not have a separate substance and should be understood according to this principle. That is, due to the power of thought and aspiration arising from proximate causes, a commitment is first established, vowing not to do evil, which can definitely prevent evil deeds of body and speech. During the stage of application (prayoga), the seeds of thought are cultivated until the third refuge (tri-śaraṇa), or when the third Karma (action) is completed, the previous seeds of thought are again cultivated into seeds of seven limbs of thought, which increase moment by moment. Therefore, the Prātimokṣa-saṃvara is established. The seeds of thought are provisionally established and do not have a separate substance.

From 'If different conditions arise' to 'because recollection stops it': This is quoting the Sarvāstivāda's view, which is difficult to explain. Your previous question said that if the precepts do not have a separate substance, then when evil or neutral thoughts arise, there should be no discipline. This question is unreasonable. Because the person who has taken the precepts cultivates the seeds of thought in body and mind moment by moment, the power of the precepts, when about to commit a mistake, the recollection of the precepts will stop the evil action.

From 'Precepts are like dikes' to 'and break the precepts': This refutes the eighth argument. You previously

所說戒為堤塘義。亦應準此別解脫律儀釋。謂先加行思立誓限言定不作惡熏成思種。由思種子增長力故后數憶念慚愧現前能自制持令不犯戒。故堤塘義由心受持而無別體。汝說一切有部若由無表別有實體。唸唸現前能遮犯戒。應無失念而破戒者　若依經部思種名戒而無別體種。若有力能憶不犯。種若無力不能憶念即便犯戒以無別體可容犯戒。

且止此等眾多諍論者。論主止諍。

毗婆沙師至是我所宗者。說一切有部結歸本宗。

前說無表至為有異耶者。此下第二明能造大。就中。一表．無表大異。二大造時同．異。三約地明能造　此下第一表．無表大異。問前說無表大種所造性。為造表大即造無表。為有異大造無表耶　頌曰至不應理故者。答。此之無表能造大種異於表業所依大種。所以者何。從一具和合四大種因。有細無表果。有粗表果。不應理故。

如表與大至為有差別者。此下第二明大造時同異問起。

一切所造色至依過去者者。答。從多分說一切所造多與大俱。然現．未亦有少分造色依過大種。

少分者何者。徴。

頌曰至手地為依者。答。唯欲界系初剎那后第二剎那已去所有無表。從過去大種生。此過大種是其能造具生等五為親所依。后念無表所以得起。第二念

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所說的戒律就像堤壩一樣具有防護的意義，也應該按照這種方式來解釋別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha-samvara）。也就是說，首先通過加行（prayoga）進行思考，立下誓言，限定自己不做惡事，以此來熏習形成思的種子（cetanā-bīja）。由於思的種子增長的力量，之後多次憶念，慚愧心現前，能夠自我控制，使自己不違犯戒律。因此，堤壩的意義在於用心受持，而沒有其他的實體。如果你們一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）認為無表色（aviññatti-rūpa）具有獨立的實體，唸唸現前能夠遮止違犯戒律，那麼就不應該有因為失念而破戒的情況發生。如果按照經部（Sautrāntika）的觀點，思的種子被稱為戒律，但沒有其他的實體，如果有力量能夠憶念而不違犯，如果種子沒有力量，不能憶念，就會違犯戒律，因為沒有其他的實體可以容許違犯。暫且停止這些眾多的爭論吧。論主停止爭論。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）說：『這是我所宗持的觀點。』一切有部總結歸於本宗。前面所說的無表色是大種（mahā-bhūta）所造的性質，是造表色（vijñapti-rūpa）的同時也造了無表色，還是有不同的大種來造無表色呢？』下面第二部分說明能造的『大』。其中，一、表色和無表色有很大的不同；二、造『大』時是同時還是不同時；三、從地（bhūmi）的角度說明能造。下面第一部分說明表色和無表色有很大的不同。問：前面所說的無表色是大種所造的性質，是造表色的同時也造了無表色，還是有不同的大種來造無表色呢？頌曰：『答：這個無表色所能造的大種不同於表業所依賴的大種。』為什麼呢？從一個具有和合的四大種（catvāri mahābhūtāni）因，產生微細的無表果，產生粗大的表果，這是不合道理的。『如同表色與大種，在造作的時候，是有差別嗎？』下面第二部分說明造『大』時是同時還是不同時，問題由此而起。『一切所造的色，多數是依過去的大種嗎？』答：從大多數情況來說，一切所造的色，多數是與大種同時產生的。然而，在現在和未來，也有少部分的造色是依賴過去的大種。『少部分是指什麼呢？』提問。頌曰：『答：只有欲界系（kāma-dhātu）最初剎那之後的第二個剎那開始，所有無表色，是從過去的大種所生。』這個過去的大種是其能造，具生等五種是其親近所依。后唸的無表色之所以能夠生起，是因為第二念。

【English Translation】 English version: What is said about precepts is like a dike or embankment, having the meaning of protection. The Pratimoksha-samvara (individual liberation vows) should also be explained in this way. That is, first, through preparatory actions (prayoga), one contemplates, makes a vow, and limits oneself from doing evil, thereby cultivating the seeds of thought (cetanā-bīja). Due to the increasing power of these seeds of thought, subsequent repeated recollection and the presence of shame enable self-control, preventing violation of the precepts. Therefore, the meaning of a dike or embankment lies in mental adherence, without a separate entity. If you, the Sarvāstivāda (the doctrine that 'everything exists'), claim that unmanifest form (aviññatti-rūpa) has an independent entity, constantly present and able to prevent violations, then there should be no instances of breaking precepts due to forgetfulness. If, according to the Sautrāntika (those who uphold the sutras) view, the seeds of thought are called precepts but have no separate entity, then if there is strength to remember and not violate, one does not violate. If the seeds lack strength and one cannot remember, then one violates the precepts, because there is no separate entity to prevent the violation. Let us cease these numerous disputes for now. The master of the treatise ceases the debate. The Vaibhāṣika (a school of Sarvāstivāda) says, 'This is the view I uphold.' The Sarvāstivāda concludes by returning to its own doctrine. Regarding what was previously said about unmanifest form being produced by the great elements (mahā-bhūta), is the creation of manifest form (vijñapti-rūpa) simultaneous with the creation of unmanifest form, or are different great elements used to create unmanifest form?' The second part below explains the 'great' that can produce. Among these, first, manifest and unmanifest forms are greatly different; second, the creation of the 'great' is either simultaneous or not; third, the ability to produce is explained from the perspective of the ground (bhūmi). The first part below explains the great difference between manifest and unmanifest forms. Question: 'Regarding what was previously said about unmanifest form being produced by the great elements, is the creation of manifest form simultaneous with the creation of unmanifest form, or are different great elements used to create unmanifest form?' The verse says: 'Answer: The great element that can produce this unmanifest form is different from the great element upon which manifest action depends.' Why is that? From one set of combined four great elements (catvāri mahābhūtāni) as the cause, a subtle unmanifest effect arises, and a coarse manifest effect arises, which is unreasonable. 'Are manifest form and the great elements different in their creation?' The second part below explains whether the creation of the 'great' is simultaneous or not, and the question arises from this. 'Are all created forms mostly dependent on past great elements?' Answer: Generally speaking, most created forms arise simultaneously with the great elements. However, in the present and future, there are also some created forms that depend on past great elements. 'What are these few?' The question is posed. The verse says: 'Answer: Only the unmanifest forms in the desire realm (kāma-dhātu) from the second moment onwards after the initial moment are born from past great elements.' These past great elements are what produce it, and the five co-nascent conditions, etc., are its close supports. The reason why the unmanifest form of the subsequent moment can arise is because of the second moment.

已去現身大種望同時無表。非是能造。亦非得有生等五因。但為疏依無表得起。過去大種為親轉因　轉之言起　由彼起故現身大種為疏隨轉因。隨彼無錶轉故。隨轉即因名隨轉因。或無表隨大轉。隨轉之因名隨轉因。如輪行於地。手為能轉依喻過大種。地為隨轉依喻現大種　問何故不言色后念無表而言欲后念無表　解云色界隨心轉戒必同時四大種造。又彼界中無散無表。故婆沙一百二十二云。此中所說決定義者。欲界必無隨轉無表。色界必無依表發無表。問何故爾耶　有一解云　復有說者欲界生得能發業心殷重猛利故。所發表能發無表。色界生得能發業心非殷重猛利故所發表不能發無表　又一解云　復有說者若生欲界無定心故。不定心勝故。所發表能發無表。若生色界有定心故。不定心劣故。所發表不能發無表。廣如彼釋　問后念無表亦有依現大種而生。何故此文言過大生　解云此文略故且約后念現行已去。故言過去大造。若具分別三世不定。故婆沙一百三十二云。諸有對造色及隨心轉色隨在何世。即彼世大種造。若表所起諸無表色復有三類造時不等。謂初剎那如有對等。各為同世大種所造。若第二剎那若在過．現。俱為過去大種所造。若在未來通為現．未大種所造。后諸剎那過．現如前。若在未來通為三世大種所造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：已滅去的現身大種（已經消失的、可以被感知的四大元素）和同時產生的無表色（不可見的業力），不是能造色（產生其他物質的因素），也不是生、住、異、滅等五因（五種因果關係）。它們只是作為無表色產生的間接依靠。過去的大種是親轉因（直接轉變的原因），這裡的『轉』指的是『生起』，因為無表色由它們而生起。現身的大種是疏隨轉因（間接隨同轉變的原因），因為它們隨著無表色的轉變而轉變。『隨轉』即是『因』，所以稱為『隨轉因』。或者說，無表色隨著大種轉變，隨同轉變的因稱為『隨轉因』。就像車輪在地上行駛，手是能轉依（主動的依靠），比喻過去的大種；地是隨轉依（被動的依靠），比喻現在的大種。問：為什麼不說『色』（物質）的后念無表，而說『欲』（慾望）的后念無表？解釋說：因為隨心轉的戒律必定同時由四大種所造。而且在欲界中沒有散亂的無表色。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說：『這裡所說的決定性是指，欲界必定沒有隨轉的無表色。』必定沒有依靠表色（可見的行為）而發起的無表色。問：為什麼會這樣呢？一種解釋是：還有一種說法是，欲界眾生天生具有能引發業力的心，這種心殷重而猛利，所以他們所表達的行為能夠引發無表色。而色界眾生天生不具有能引發業力的心，他們的心不殷重也不猛利，所以他們所表達的行為不能引發無表色。還有一種解釋是：還有一種說法是，如果生在欲界，因為沒有禪定之心，不定心佔優勢，所以他們所表達的行為能夠引發無表色。如果生在色界，因為有禪定之心，不定心處於劣勢，所以他們所表達的行為不能引發無表色。詳細內容見《婆沙論》的解釋。問：后唸的無表色也有依靠現在的大種而產生的，為什麼這裡說是由過去的大種產生的呢？解釋說：這段經文比較簡略，只是就后唸的現行已經過去的情況而言，所以說是過去的大種所造。如果詳細分別，三世（過去、現在、未來）是不定的。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷說：『諸有對造色（有對礙的物質）以及隨心轉色（隨心意轉變的物質）無論存在於哪個世，都是由那個世的大種所造。如果是由表色所產生的無表色，又有三種情況，造作的時間不同。第一剎那，如同有對色一樣，各自由同世的大種所造。第二剎那，如果存在於過去或現在，都是由過去的大種所造。如果存在於未來，則由現在和未來的大種所造。之後的剎那，過去和現在的情況與之前相同。如果存在於未來，則由三世的大種所造。』 English version: The perished manifested great elements (the four elements that have disappeared and can be perceived) and the non-manifested form (unseen karmic force) arising simultaneously are not the productive form (factors that produce other substances), nor are they the five causes such as origination, duration, decay, and extinction (five causal relationships). They are merely indirect supports for the arising of non-manifested form. The past great elements are the direct transforming cause, where 'transforming' means 'arising,' because the non-manifested form arises from them. The manifested great elements are the indirect accompanying transforming cause, because they transform along with the transformation of the non-manifested form. 'Accompanying transformation' is 'cause,' so it is called 'accompanying transforming cause.' Alternatively, the non-manifested form transforms along with the great elements, and the cause of accompanying transformation is called 'accompanying transforming cause.' It is like a wheel moving on the ground; the hand is the active support, analogous to the past great elements; the ground is the passive support, analogous to the present great elements. Question: Why not say the subsequent thought of 'form' (rupa) non-manifested, but say the subsequent thought of 'desire' (kama) non-manifested? The explanation is that the precepts that follow the mind are certainly created simultaneously by the four great elements. Moreover, in the desire realm, there is no scattered non-manifested form. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'What is said here as definitive means that the desire realm certainly does not have accompanying transforming non-manifested form.' There is certainly no non-manifested form arising relying on manifested form (visible actions). Question: Why is that so? One explanation is: Another explanation is that beings in the desire realm are born with a mind capable of initiating karma, and this mind is earnest and vigorous, so their expressed actions can initiate non-manifested form. Beings in the form realm are not born with a mind capable of initiating karma; their mind is neither earnest nor vigorous, so their expressed actions cannot initiate non-manifested form. Another explanation is: Another explanation is that if one is born in the desire realm, because there is no meditative concentration, and the unfixed mind is dominant, their expressed actions can initiate non-manifested form. If one is born in the form realm, because there is meditative concentration, and the unfixed mind is inferior, their expressed actions cannot initiate non-manifested form. See the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra for details. Question: The subsequent thought of non-manifested form also arises relying on the present great elements, so why does this text say it is produced by the past great elements? The explanation is that this text is abbreviated and only refers to the case where the present activity of the subsequent thought has already passed, so it is said to be created by the past great elements. If analyzed in detail, the three times (past, present, future) are uncertain. Therefore, the one hundred and thirty-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'The tangible form (obstructive matter) and the form that follows the mind (matter that changes according to intention), whichever time they exist in, are created by the great elements of that time. If it is the non-manifested form produced by manifested form, there are three types, and the time of creation is different. In the first moment, like tangible form, each is created by the great elements of the same time. In the second moment, if it exists in the past or present, it is created by the past great elements. If it exists in the future, it is created by the present and future great elements. In subsequent moments, the past and present are the same as before. If it exists in the future, it is created by the great elements of the three times.'

【English Translation】 English version: The perished manifested great elements (the four elements that have disappeared and can be perceived) and the non-manifested form (unseen karmic force) arising simultaneously are not the productive form (factors that produce other substances), nor are they the five causes such as origination, duration, decay, and extinction (five causal relationships). They are merely indirect supports for the arising of non-manifested form. The past great elements are the direct transforming cause, where 'transforming' means 'arising,' because the non-manifested form arises from them. The manifested great elements are the indirect accompanying transforming cause, because they transform along with the transformation of the non-manifested form. 'Accompanying transformation' is 'cause,' so it is called 'accompanying transforming cause.' Alternatively, the non-manifested form transforms along with the great elements, and the cause of accompanying transformation is called 'accompanying transforming cause.' It is like a wheel moving on the ground; the hand is the active support, analogous to the past great elements; the ground is the passive support, analogous to the present great elements. Question: Why not say the subsequent thought of 'form' (rupa) non-manifested, but say the subsequent thought of 'desire' (kama) non-manifested? The explanation is that the precepts that follow the mind are certainly created simultaneously by the four great elements. Moreover, in the desire realm, there is no scattered non-manifested form. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'What is said here as definitive means that the desire realm certainly does not have accompanying transforming non-manifested form.' There is certainly no non-manifested form arising relying on manifested form (visible actions). Question: Why is that so? One explanation is: Another explanation is that beings in the desire realm are born with a mind capable of initiating karma, and this mind is earnest and vigorous, so their expressed actions can initiate non-manifested form. Beings in the form realm are not born with a mind capable of initiating karma; their mind is neither earnest nor vigorous, so their expressed actions cannot initiate non-manifested form. Another explanation is: Another explanation is that if one is born in the desire realm, because there is no meditative concentration, and the unfixed mind is dominant, their expressed actions can initiate non-manifested form. If one is born in the form realm, because there is meditative concentration, and the unfixed mind is inferior, their expressed actions cannot initiate non-manifested form. See the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra for details. Question: The subsequent thought of non-manifested form also arises relying on the present great elements, so why does this text say it is produced by the past great elements? The explanation is that this text is abbreviated and only refers to the case where the present activity of the subsequent thought has already passed, so it is said to be created by the past great elements. If analyzed in detail, the three times (past, present, future) are uncertain. Therefore, the one hundred and thirty-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'The tangible form (obstructive matter) and the form that follows the mind (matter that changes according to intention), whichever time they exist in, are created by the great elements of that time. If it is the non-manifested form produced by manifested form, there are three types, and the time of creation is different. In the first moment, like tangible form, each is created by the great elements of the same time. In the second moment, if it exists in the past or present, it is created by the past great elements. If it exists in the future, it is created by the present and future great elements. In subsequent moments, the past and present are the same as before. If it exists in the future, it is created by the great elements of the three times.'

問造未來世別解脫戒。戒既未得云何造耶　解云造諸無表其義不定。或有得而不造。如未來隨心轉戒。或有造而不得。如未來別解脫戒。或有亦得亦造。如初念別解脫戒等。或有不得不造。謂除前相　問初念大種造后諸無表。為即用彼造初念無表大種。為別起大種造后無表　第一解云造后諸無表即用造初念無表大種　若爾豈不一具四大造多色耶　解云一四大種可不能造多有對色。造無礙色多亦無過　問若造多者所造無表同四大造。展轉相望應俱有因　解云以無礙故可言造多。由時別故。非互果故。非俱有因。若作此解現在一四大種造彼現．未無表。以無有現大無現造色故。故婆沙一百三十二云。若成就現在大種彼現在所造色耶。答如是設成就現在所造色彼現在大種耶。答如是。以非現在大種無果故。亦非現在所造色無因故解云以非現在大種無果故。所以必成現所造色。亦非現在所造色無因故。所以必成現在大種。以此。故知現無別大造未來無表　又解云一具四大造初念無表。即於此時別有一具四大造彼后念諸無表色。故正理第二十解大種望所造色非俱有因中雲。謂有成就諸所造色非四大種。或有成就能造大種非所造色(以此文證有成能造非所造色。故知亦有現大無現造色懸造未來)　若作前解通后證云。言有成能造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如何造作未來世的別解脫戒（Pratimoksha，佛教戒律），既然戒體尚未獲得，又如何造作呢？答：造作諸無表色（Avijñapti-rūpa，無表色，指無法通過視覺、聽覺等感官直接感知的色法），其含義並不確定。或者有人獲得戒體而不造作無表色，例如未來隨心轉戒（指未來可以隨自己意願持守的戒律）。或者有人造作無表色而未能獲得戒體，例如未來別解脫戒。或者有人既獲得戒體又造作無表色，例如初念別解脫戒等。或者有人既未獲得戒體也未造作無表色，指的是排除以上情況。問：初唸的大種（Mahābhūta，組成物質世界的地、水、火、風四大元素）造作後來的諸無表色，是用同一個大種造作初唸的無表色大種，還是另外生起大種來造作後來的無表色？第一種解釋是：造作後來的諸無表色，就是用造作初念無表色的大種。如果這樣，豈不是一個四大（指地、水、火、風任何一個元素）造作多種有對色（指有障礙、有對立的色法）嗎？答：一個四大不能造作多種有對色，但造作無礙色（指沒有障礙的色法）多種也沒有過失。問：如果造作多種，那麼所造作的無表色與四大造作一樣，互相觀望，應該都具有俱有因（Sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因果關係）。答：因為是無礙的緣故，可以說造作多種。由於時間不同，不是互相的果，所以不是俱有因。如果這樣解釋，現在的一個四大造作它現在和未來的無表色。因為沒有現在的大種造作現在的色法，所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百三十二卷說：『如果成就現在的大種，那麼它現在所造的色法嗎？』回答：『是的。』假設成就現在所造的色法，那麼它現在的大種嗎？』回答：『是的。』因為不是現在的大種沒有果，也不是現在所造的色法沒有因。解釋說：因為不是現在的大種沒有果，所以必定成就現在所造的色法。也不是現在所造的色法沒有因，所以必定成就現在的大種。因此，可知現在沒有其他的大種造作未來的無表色。另一種解釋是：一具四大（指地、水、火、風四種元素同時存在）造作初唸的無表色，就在此時，另外有一具四大造作它后唸的諸無表色。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第二十卷解釋大種對於所造色不是俱有因時說：『有成就諸所造色而非四大種，或者有成就能造的大種而非所造色。』（用這段文字證明有成就能造而非所造色，所以可知也有現在的大種沒有現在的造色，懸空造作未來。）如果採用前面的解釋，貫通後面的證明說：『說有成就能造』

【English Translation】 English version: Question: How does one create the Avijñapti-śīla (unmanifested precepts) of the future life? Since the precepts have not yet been obtained, how can they be created? Answer: The creation of Avijñapti-rūpa (unmanifested form, referring to form that cannot be directly perceived through the senses) has an uncertain meaning. Some may obtain the precepts without creating Avijñapti-rūpa, such as the future precepts that follow one's will (referring to precepts that can be kept according to one's own volition in the future). Some may create Avijñapti-rūpa without obtaining the precepts, such as the future Pratimoksha (Buddhist monastic code) precepts. Some may both obtain the precepts and create Avijñapti-rūpa, such as the initial thought of Pratimoksha precepts. Some may neither obtain the precepts nor create Avijñapti-rūpa, which refers to excluding the aforementioned cases. Question: When the Mahābhūta (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) of the initial thought creates the subsequent Avijñapti-rūpa, is the same Mahābhūta used to create the Avijñapti-rūpa Mahābhūta of the initial thought, or is another Mahābhūta generated to create the subsequent Avijñapti-rūpa? The first explanation is: The creation of the subsequent Avijñapti-rūpa uses the same Mahābhūta that created the Avijñapti-rūpa of the initial thought. If that's the case, wouldn't one of the four great elements (referring to any one of earth, water, fire, or wind) create multiple Saparigha-rūpa (obstructive form, referring to form that has obstruction and opposition)? Answer: One of the four great elements cannot create multiple Saparigha-rūpa, but there is no fault in creating multiple Anavarana-rupa (unobstructed form, referring to form without obstruction). Question: If multiple are created, then the created Avijñapti-rūpa is the same as the creation by the four great elements. Looking at each other, they should all have Sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause, referring to the causal relationship of simultaneous existence). Answer: Because it is unobstructed, it can be said that multiple are created. Because the time is different, it is not a mutual result, so it is not a co-existent cause. If explained this way, one of the four great elements in the present creates its present and future Avijñapti-rūpa. Because there is no present Mahābhūta creating the present form, therefore, the one hundred and thirty-second volume of the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'If the present Mahābhūta is accomplished, then is the form created by it in the present?' The answer is: 'Yes.' Supposing the form created in the present is accomplished, then is its present Mahābhūta?' The answer is: 'Yes.' Because it is not that the present Mahābhūta has no result, nor is it that the form created in the present has no cause. The explanation is: Because it is not that the present Mahābhūta has no result, therefore, the form created in the present must be accomplished. Nor is it that the form created in the present has no cause, therefore, the present Mahābhūta must be accomplished. Therefore, it can be known that there is no other Mahābhūta in the present creating the future Avijñapti-rūpa. Another explanation is: A complete set of four great elements (referring to the simultaneous existence of earth, water, fire, and wind) creates the Avijñapti-rūpa of the initial thought. At this very moment, there is another complete set of four great elements creating the subsequent Avijñapti-rūpa of the later thought. Therefore, the twentieth volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Tattvasamgraha) explains that the four great elements are not the co-existent cause for the created form, saying: 'There are those who accomplish the created form but not the four great elements, or there are those who accomplish the creating Mahābhūta but not the created form.' (Using this passage to prove that there are those who accomplish the creating but not the created form, so it can be known that there are also present Mahābhūta without present created form, creating the future in suspension.) If the previous explanation is adopted, connecting the subsequent proof says: 'Saying that there are those who accomplish the creating'

非所造色者。此據初念造后無表。初念定成彼能造大故言有成就能造大種。爾時雖造未來無表。由未來故故言非所造色　若作后解通前證云。言以非現在大種無果故亦非現在所造色無因故者。從多分說故。據造有對故。若言通無表者。論說亦非現在所造色無因故。豈有第二念現在所造無表有同時能造大種。以此故知據有對說。若作前解釋此文言言亦非現在所造色無因故者。現因有二。一親因。二疏因。若望現在有對色．及初念無表。同時大種即為親因。若望第二念已去。現行無表身中大種即為疏因　又解云一具四大造初念無表。即於此時復別起眾多四大。懸造未來無表。剎那剎那四大別造　問若於初念起多大種唸唸別造。一期無表其數極多　如何現在一剎那身容彼眾多能造四大種　解云異熟虛疏相容無失。引證釋通如第二家說。不能更述　問現身大種但能為依者。為是造身等大為依。為別起一類大種為依　解云即是造身等大為疏依也。非生等五。問答廣如無表中說　問若過去大種名轉因。現在大種名隨轉因。何故婆沙一百三十三云。有色現在非現在大種所造。謂現在大種。若色現在過去大種所造此復云何。謂現在表所起無表過去大種所造。所以如前　問此無表色亦有現在所依大種。何故不說耶　答彼是轉依非造依故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『非所造色者』（不是被造作的色法），這是根據第一念造作后，沒有無表色（無表色，指無法被感知的色法）的情況來說的。第一念確定成就，是因為它能造作『大種』（地、水、火、風四大元素），所以說有成就，能造作『大種』。那時雖然造作了未來的無表色，但因為是未來，所以說『非所造色』。如果按照後面的解釋，可以貫通前面的論證，說：『因為不是現在的大種，沒有果報，所以也不是現在所造作的色法，沒有原因』。這是從大多數情況來說的，根據造作有對色（有對色，指有障礙、可以被感知的色法）的情況來說的。如果說貫通無表色，論中說『也不是現在所造作的色法，沒有原因』。難道有第二念現在所造作的無表色，有同時能造作的『大種』嗎？因此可知，這是根據有對色來說的。如果按照前面的解釋，這段文字說『也不是現在所造作的色法，沒有原因』，現在的原因有兩種：一是親因，二是疏因。如果從現在的有對色，以及第一念的無表色來看，同時的『大種』就是親因。如果從第二念以後來看，現在執行的無表色，身中的『大種』就是疏因。又有一種解釋說，具備四大造作第一念的無表色，就在這個時候，又另外生起眾多的四大，懸空造作未來的無表色，剎那剎那，四大分別造作。問：如果在第一念生起眾多『大種』，唸唸分別造作，一期的無表色，數量極其多，那麼現在一剎那的身體，如何容納那些眾多的能造作的『四大種』？答：異熟果報是虛空疏鬆的，可以相互容納，沒有過失。引證解釋如同第二家的說法，不能再詳細敘述。問：現在的身體『大種』，只能作為所依嗎？是造作身體等的『大』作為所依，還是另外生起一類『大種』作為所依？答：就是造作身體等的『大』作為疏依。不是生等五種。問答詳細內容如同無表色中說的那樣。問：如果過去『大種』名為『轉因』（轉因，指過去已滅的因），現在『大種』名為『隨轉因』（隨轉因，指隨順轉化的因），為什麼《婆沙論》第一百三十三卷說，有色法現在不是現在『大種』所造作的，是指現在的『大種』。如果色法現在是過去『大種』所造作的，這又是什麼意思呢？是指現在表色（表色，指可以表達意圖的色法）所生起的無表色，是過去『大種』所造作的，所以和前面一樣。問：這個無表色也有現在所依的『大種』，為什麼不說呢？答：那是轉依，不是造依的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not the color produced' refers to the case where, after the initial thought (初念) creates it, there is no avijñapti-rūpa (無表色, unmanifested matter). The initial thought is definitely accomplished because it can create the 'mahābhūtas' (大種, the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind), hence it is said to be accomplished and capable of creating the 'mahābhūtas'. Although it creates future avijñapti-rūpa at that time, it is said to be 'not the color produced' because it is in the future. If interpreted according to the later explanation, it can be connected to the previous argument, saying: 'Because it is not the present mahābhūtas, there is no result, so it is also not the color produced in the present, there is no cause.' This is said from the majority of cases, based on the creation of sa-pratigha-rūpa (有對色, tangible matter). If it is said to encompass avijñapti-rūpa, the treatise says 'it is also not the color produced in the present, there is no cause.' Could there be a second thought creating avijñapti-rūpa in the present, with simultaneous mahābhūtas capable of creating it? Therefore, it can be known that this is based on tangible matter. If interpreted according to the previous explanation, this passage says 'it is also not the color produced in the present, there is no cause,' there are two kinds of present causes: one is the direct cause, and the other is the indirect cause. If viewed from the present tangible matter and the initial thought of avijñapti-rūpa, the simultaneous mahābhūtas are the direct cause. If viewed from the second thought onwards, the currently operating avijñapti-rūpa, the mahābhūtas in the body are the indirect cause. Another explanation says that, possessing the four great elements to create the initial thought of avijñapti-rūpa, at this very moment, many other four great elements arise separately, creating future avijñapti-rūpa in suspense, moment by moment, the four great elements create separately. Question: If many 'mahābhūtas' arise in the initial thought, creating separately moment by moment, and the number of avijñapti-rūpa in one lifetime is extremely large, how can the body in one present moment accommodate those many capable-of-creating 'four great elements'? Answer: The vipāka (異熟, result of karma) is empty and sparse, allowing mutual accommodation without fault. The citation and explanation are like the second school's saying, and cannot be further elaborated. Question: Can the present body's 'mahābhūtas' only serve as a basis? Is it the 'great' elements that create the body etc. that serve as the basis, or is it a separate kind of 'mahābhūtas' that serve as the basis? Answer: It is the 'great' elements that create the body etc. that serve as the indirect basis. It is not the five kinds of arising etc. The detailed questions and answers are as described in the section on avijñapti-rūpa. Question: If the past 'mahābhūtas' are called 'hetu-pariṇāma' (轉因, transforming cause), and the present 'mahābhūtas' are called 'anupariṇāma-hetu' (隨轉因, following-transforming cause), why does the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙論) volume 133 say that there is rūpa (色法, matter) in the present that is not created by the present 'mahābhūtas', referring to the present 'mahābhūtas'. If rūpa in the present is created by the past 'mahābhūtas', what does this mean? It refers to the avijñapti-rūpa arising from the present vijñapti-rūpa (表色, manifested matter), which is created by the past 'mahābhūtas', so it is the same as before. Question: This avijñapti-rūpa also has present mahābhūtas as its basis, why is it not mentioned? Answer: That is a transforming basis, not a creating basis.

此無表色有二種依。一是轉依。謂現在大種由彼力轉故。二是造依。謂過去大種由彼力造故。此中但說造依不說轉依。是故不說能造五因皆過去故　解云此論云過去大種名轉因者。是親轉因。婆沙言現在大種名轉依者。是疏轉依。轉謂相續轉。與此論隨轉名異義同。

何地身語業至無漏隨生處者。此下第三約地明能造。問及頌答。

論曰至大種所造者。釋初句。有漏身．語業由有繫縛故為同地大種所造。又婆沙一百三十四云。問若生欲界色界大種現在前時。何處現前。有說眉間。有說鼻端。有說心邊。有說臍邊。有說足指。有作是說隨先加行安心處所是處現前。有餘師說欲界大種粗。色界大種細。細入粗隙。如油入沙。然根本靜慮現在前時。色界大種遍身內起。若近分定現在前時。色界大種唯心邊起。有說近分定現在前時。色界大種亦遍身起。然長養身不如根本。如有二人俱詣池浴。一在池側掬水浴身。一入池中沒身而浴。二人用水雖俱遍身。然長養身入池者勝。問欲界身中先有間隙。色界大種來入中耶。答不爾。未來欲界身自有二種。一唯欲界大種。二色界大種雜。若時遇入色界定緣。彼唯欲界者便滅。色界雜者便生故。不可言先有間隙後來住中　廣如彼釋。

若身語業至無漏生故者。釋后句。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此無表色有兩種所依。一是轉依（zhuǎn yī，依靠轉變），指現在的大種（dà zhǒng，構成物質世界的基本元素）由於它的力量而轉變的緣故。二是造依（zào yī，依靠創造），指過去的大種由於它的力量而創造的緣故。這裡只說造依而不說轉依，因此不說能造的五因都是過去的緣故。解釋說，此論說過去的大種名為轉因（zhuǎn yīn，轉變之因），是親轉因（qīn zhuǎn yīn，直接轉變之因）。《婆沙》（Póshā，佛教論書名）說現在的大種名為轉依（zhuǎn yī，轉變所依），是疏轉依（shū zhuǎn yī，間接轉變所依）。轉，指相續轉變。與此論的隨轉（suí zhuǎn，伴隨轉變）名稱不同但意義相同。

『何地身語業至無漏隨生處者』，這以下第三部分是關於在哪一個層次上闡明能造（néng zào，能夠創造）的問題。通過提問和頌文來回答。

論中說『至大種所造者』，這是解釋第一句。有漏（yǒu lòu，有煩惱）的身語業由於有繫縛的緣故，為同地的大種所造。又《婆沙》（Póshā，佛教論書名）第一百三十四卷說：『問：若生欲界（yù jiè，佛教六道輪迴之一，指有情慾念強烈的世界）的大種現在前時，在何處現前？』有說在眉間，有說在鼻端，有說在心邊，有說在臍邊，有說在足指。有人這樣說，隨著先前加行（jiā xíng，修行）安心的處所，就在那個處所現前。有其他師父說，欲界的大種粗糙，大種精細，精細的進入粗糙的間隙，如同油進入沙子。然而根本靜慮（gēn běn jìng lǜ，佛教禪定的一種）現在前時，大種遍佈身內生起。如果近分定（jìn fēn dìng，接近禪定的狀態）現在前時，大種只在心邊生起。有人說近分定現在前時，大種也遍佈全身生起。然而長養身體不如根本靜慮。如有二人一同前往池塘洗浴，一人在池塘邊掬水洗身，一人進入池中沒身而浴。二人用水雖然都遍佈全身，然而長養身體進入池中的人更勝一籌。問：欲界身中先前有間隙，大種來進入其中嗎？答：不是這樣。未來欲界身自有兩種，一種只有欲界大種，一種是大種雜。若時遇到進入定緣，那只有欲界大種的便滅，**雜的便生，所以不可說先前有間隙後來住入其中。』詳細內容如彼釋。

『若身語業至無漏生故者』，這是解釋后一句。

【English Translation】 English version: These non-manifesting forms have two kinds of dependence. The first is transformation dependence (zhuǎn yī), which means that the present great elements (dà zhǒng) are transformed by its power. The second is creation dependence (zào yī), which means that the past great elements are created by its power. Here, only creation dependence is discussed, not transformation dependence. Therefore, it is not said that the five causes of creation are all in the past. It is explained that this treatise says that the past great elements are called transformation cause (zhuǎn yīn), which is the direct transformation cause (qīn zhuǎn yīn). The Vibhasha (Póshā, a Buddhist treatise) says that the present great elements are called transformation dependence (zhuǎn yī), which is the indirect transformation dependence (shū zhuǎn yī). Transformation refers to continuous transformation. It has a different name but the same meaning as 'following transformation' (suí zhuǎn) in this treatise.

'In what realm do bodily and verbal actions arise up to the arising of the unconditioned?' The following third part explains the ability to create (néng zào) in terms of the realm. It is answered through questions and verses.

The treatise says 'to that which is created by the great elements', which explains the first sentence. Conditioned (yǒu lòu) bodily and verbal actions are created by the great elements of the same realm because they are bound. Furthermore, Vibhasha (Póshā) volume 134 says: 'Question: When the great elements of the desire realm (yù jiè, one of the six realms of reincarnation in Buddhism, referring to the world where sentient beings have strong desires) arise, where do they manifest?' Some say between the eyebrows, some say at the tip of the nose, some say at the edge of the heart, some say at the edge of the navel, some say at the toes. Some say that wherever one focuses their mind during preliminary practice (jiā xíng), that is where it manifests. Other teachers say that the great elements of the desire realm are coarse, and the ** great elements are fine. The fine enters the gaps of the coarse, like oil entering sand. However, when fundamental meditative absorption (gēn běn jìng lǜ) manifests, the ** great elements arise throughout the body. If near-absorption concentration (jìn fēn dìng) manifests, the ** great elements only arise at the edge of the heart. Some say that when near-absorption concentration manifests, the ** great elements also arise throughout the body. However, nourishing the body is not as good as fundamental meditative absorption. It is like two people going to a pond to bathe. One scoops water at the edge of the pond to bathe, and the other enters the pond and bathes their whole body. Although both use water to cover their whole body, the one who enters the pond is better at nourishing the body. Question: Are there gaps in the body of the desire realm beforehand, and the ** great elements come to enter into them? Answer: It is not like that. The future body of the desire realm has two kinds: one only has the great elements of the desire realm, and the other is mixed with ** great elements. If one encounters the condition of entering ** concentration, then the one that only has the great elements of the desire realm will cease, and the one mixed with ** will arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were gaps beforehand and then they came to reside in them.' The details are as explained there.

'If bodily and verbal actions arise up to the arising of the unconditioned', this explains the latter sentence.

若身．語業是無漏者。隨身生此地應令起現前。即是此地大種所造　所以者何　以無漏法不墮界故。所以不用彼地大造　必無大種是無漏故。所以無有不繫大造　由所依身力無漏界生故。所以用彼隨身大造。

此表無表至大種所造者。此下第二諸門分別業。就中。一約類以明。二明性．界．地　此下第一約類以明　就中。一明執受．無執受類。二明五事類。三明情．非情類。四明同異大類　此即問也。一問此表．無表其類是何。二問復是何類大種所造。

頌曰至屬身有執受者。頌答中初兩句明諸無表。次兩句明散無表所依大種。次兩句明定無表所依大種。后兩句明諸表。

論曰至依內起故者。釋初兩句。明其無表。今此頌中先辨無表。若定若散一切無表無變礙故皆無執受　於五類中亦等流性　頌說亦言。顯此無表有是剎那。謂初無漏苦法忍品俱生無表。不從同類因生故是剎那　所餘無表皆等流性。謂同類因生故。非異熟因生故非異熟生。無極微集故非所長養。是有為故非實　依內起故唯有情數。非依外故不通非情。

于中欲界至大種所造者。釋第三．第四句明散無表所依大種。欲散無表所依大種。於五類中同類因生故是等流性。非異熟因生故非異熟生。無別勝緣故非所長養。同類因生故非剎

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若身、語業是無漏的，那麼隨著身體在此地產生的（業），應當令其在此地顯現。這（業）就是此地的大種（Mahabhuta，地、水、火、風四大元素）所造。為什麼呢？因為無漏法不屬於（欲界、色界、無色界）三界。所以不用彼地的大種所造（的業）。必定沒有大種是無漏的。所以沒有不屬於（欲界、色界、無色界）三界的（業）產生。由於所依之身的力量由無漏界產生，所以用那隨身的大種（造業）。

『此表無表至大種所造者』，這以下第二部分是諸門分別業。其中，一、約類別來闡明；二、闡明（業的）性質、界、地。這以下第一部分是約類別來闡明。其中，一、闡明執受、無執受的類別；二、闡明五事（色、受、想、行、識）的類別；三、闡明有情、非有情的類別；四、闡明同類、異類的類別。這即是提問。一問：這表業、無表業的類別是什麼？二問：又是何類大種所造？

『頌曰至屬身有執受者』，頌文回答中，最初兩句闡明諸無表業，接著兩句闡明散無表業所依的大種，再接著兩句闡明定無表業所依的大種，最後兩句闡明諸表業。

『論曰至依內起故者』，解釋最初兩句，闡明其無表業。現在這頌文中先辨別無表業。無論是定無表還是散無表，一切無表業都沒有變礙，所以都沒有執受。在五類（色、受、想、行、識）中也是等流性。頌文說『亦』字，顯示這無表業有的是剎那生滅的。比如最初無漏的苦法忍品（Ksudraka-dharma-jnana-ksanti）同時產生的無表業，不從同類因產生，所以是剎那生滅的。其餘的無表業都是等流性，是同類因產生的緣故。不是異熟因產生的緣故，所以不是異熟生。沒有極微聚集，所以不是所長養。是有為法，所以不是實法。依靠內在（身）而產生，所以只有有情數，不依靠外在（物），所以不包括非有情。

『于中欲界至大種所造者』，解釋第三、第四句，闡明散無表業所依的大種。欲界的散無表業所依的大種，在五類中，是同類因產生的緣故，是等流性。不是異熟因產生的緣故，所以不是異熟生。沒有特別殊勝的因緣，所以不是所長養。同類因產生的緣故，不是剎那生滅。

【English Translation】 English version If the bodily and verbal karmas are non-outflow (Anasrava), then the (karma) that arises with the body in this realm should be made to manifest in this realm. This (karma) is created by the Mahabhutas (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) of this realm. Why? Because non-outflow dharmas do not belong to the three realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). Therefore, the karma created by the Mahabhutas of that realm is not used. There is definitely no Mahabhuta that is non-outflow. Therefore, there is no (karma) that does not belong to the three realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) arising. Because the power of the body on which it relies arises from the non-outflow realm, the Mahabhutas that accompany the body are used (to create karma).

'This manifested and non-manifested karma, up to that created by the Mahabhutas,' the following second part is the differentiation of karma through various aspects. Among them, first, to clarify by category; second, to clarify the nature, realm, and plane (of existence). The following first part is to clarify by category. Among them, first, to clarify the categories of grasping and non-grasping; second, to clarify the categories of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness); third, to clarify the categories of sentient and non-sentient beings; fourth, to clarify the categories of similar and dissimilar. This is the question. First question: What are the categories of these manifested and non-manifested karmas? Second question: By what kind of Mahabhutas are they created?

'The verse says, up to belonging to the body and being grasped,' in the verse's answer, the first two lines clarify the non-manifested karmas, the next two lines clarify the Mahabhutas on which the scattered non-manifested karmas rely, the next two lines clarify the Mahabhutas on which the fixed non-manifested karmas rely, and the last two lines clarify the manifested karmas.

'The treatise says, up to arising internally,' explains the first two lines, clarifying the non-manifested karmas. Now, this verse first distinguishes the non-manifested karmas. Whether it is fixed non-manifested karma or scattered non-manifested karma, all non-manifested karmas have no obstruction, so they have no grasping. Among the five categories (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness), they are also of the is equal-flowing nature. The verse says 'also,' indicating that some of these non-manifested karmas are momentary. For example, the non-outflow Ksudraka-dharma-jnana-ksanti (momentary endurance of suffering and acceptance of the truth) that arises simultaneously does not arise from a similar cause, so it is momentary. The remaining non-manifested karmas are all of equal-flowing nature because they arise from a similar cause. Because they do not arise from a result-producing cause, they are not result-produced. Because there is no aggregation of extremely small particles, they are not nurtured. Because they are conditioned, they are not real. Because they arise relying on the internal (body), they only belong to sentient beings, and because they do not rely on the external (objects), they do not include non-sentient beings.

'Among them, the Desire Realm, up to that created by the Mahabhutas,' explains the third and fourth lines, clarifying the Mahabhutas on which the scattered non-manifested karmas rely. The Mahabhutas on which the scattered non-manifested karmas of the Desire Realm rely are of equal-flowing nature among the five categories because they arise from a similar cause. Because they do not arise from a result-producing cause, they are not result-produced. Because there are no particularly superior conditions, they are not nurtured. Because they arise from a similar cause, they are not momentary.

那。是有為故非實　是有執受。故正理三十五云。散地無表所依大種有執受者。散心果故以有愛心執為現在內自體故(已上論文)亦可毀壞。外物觸時可生苦．樂　故欲散七支非心隨轉。以無心時亦得戒故。又七相望非俱有因。非同一果故。所以七支各別大造　問何故大種不言情．非情　解云無表已說是有情數。無非情大造有情色義準可知故不別說　又解既言執受顯定有情。無執受言通於非情。恐有所濫故無表中言有情也。

定生無表至無差別故者。釋第五第六句明定無表所依大種。於五類中有所長養遇定勝緣故。故正理云。何緣散地所有無表能造大種唯等流性。定地無表所長養生　以殊勝心現在前位必能長養大種諸根故。定心俱必有殊勝長養大種能作生因造定心俱所有無表。散地無表因等起心不俱時故。在無心位亦有起故。所依大種唯是等流。因等起心不能長養能生無表諸大種故(已上論文)以此故知無長養大種。非異熟因生故非異熟生。凡五類中等流者。異熟長養不攝名等流。造定大種長養攝盡故不別立等流大種。同類因生故非剎那。是有為故非實　是無執受。故正理三十五云。所依大種無執受者。定心果故。必無愛心執此大種以為現在內自體故。又此大種無有其餘執受相故。名無執受(已上論文)身語七

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：那是因為有為法所以不是真實的，因為有執受（對事物或現象的執著和佔有）。《正理三十五》中說：『散亂狀態下無表色所依賴的四大種，是有執受的。』因為是散亂心的結果，以有愛染之心執著為現在的內在自體（以上是論文原文）。也可以被毀壞。外物接觸時可以產生苦、樂的感覺，所以欲界的散亂七支不是隨心而轉的，因為沒有心的時候也可以持戒。而且七支相互之間不是俱有因，也不是同一果。所以七支各自別別由四大種所造。問：為什麼四大種不說是『有情』、『非情』呢？解答說：無表色已經說明是有情數了，沒有非情的大造，根據義理可以推知，所以不另外說明。又解答說：既然說了執受，就明顯地表示一定是有情。沒有執受，就通於非情。恐怕有所混淆，所以在無表色中說了有情。

定生無表到無差別故：解釋第五、第六句，說明定所生的無表色所依賴的四大種，在五類中有所增長滋養，遇到定的殊勝因緣。所以《正理》中說：『什麼緣故散亂狀態下所有的無表色，能造的四大種只是等流性？定地無表色是所長養而生的。』因為殊勝心現在前的時候，必定能夠增長滋養四大種和諸根。定心同時必定有殊勝增長滋養四大種，能作為生因，造作與定心同時存在的所有無表色。散亂狀態下的無表色，因為等起心不俱時，在無心位也有生起，所以所依賴的四大種只是等流。因為等起心不能增長滋養能生無表色的諸大種（以上是論文原文）。因此可知沒有長養的四大種，不是異熟因所生，所以不是異熟生。凡是五類中的等流，異熟和長養所不包括的，就叫做等流。造定的大種，長養已經包括完盡了，所以不另外建立等流大種。因為是同類因所生，所以不是剎那生滅的。因為是有為法，所以不是真實的。是沒有執受的。《正理三十五》中說：『所依賴的四大種是沒有執受的。』因為是定心的結果，必定沒有愛染之心執著這些大種作為現在的內在自體。而且這些大種沒有其他的執受相，所以叫做沒有執受（以上是論文原文）。身語七

【English Translation】 English version: That is because it is conditioned, therefore it is not real, because there is attachment (clinging and possession of things or phenomena). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principles, 正理) thirty-five says: 'The four great elements on which non-manifest form in a scattered state depends are with attachment.' Because it is the result of a scattered mind, with a mind of love and attachment clinging to it as the present inner self (the above is the original text of the thesis). It can also be destroyed. When external objects touch, feelings of suffering and pleasure can arise, so the seven branches of the desire realm are not mind-following, because one can observe precepts even when there is no mind. Moreover, the seven branches are not co-existent causes to each other, nor are they the same result. Therefore, the seven branches are each separately created by the four great elements. Question: Why are the four great elements not referred to as 'sentient' or 'non-sentient'? The answer is: Non-manifest form has already explained that it is a sentient entity, and the non-existence of non-sentient great creations can be inferred from the meaning, so it is not explained separately. Another answer is: Since attachment has been mentioned, it clearly indicates that it is definitely sentient. Without attachment, it applies to non-sentient beings. Fearing confusion, sentient beings are mentioned in non-manifest form.

The non-manifest form born of concentration, up to the point of no difference: Explaining the fifth and sixth sentences, it clarifies that the four great elements on which the non-manifest form born of concentration depends are nourished and grow among the five categories, encountering the superior conditions of concentration. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'For what reason are all the non-manifest forms in a scattered state, the four great elements that can be created are only of the nature of equal flow? The non-manifest form of the concentration ground is born from being nourished.' Because when the superior mind is present, it will definitely be able to nourish the four great elements and the senses. The concentration mind simultaneously definitely has the superior nourishment of the four great elements, which can act as a cause of birth, creating all the non-manifest forms that exist simultaneously with the concentration mind. The non-manifest form in a scattered state, because the arising mind is not simultaneous, and it can arise even in a state of no mind, so the four great elements on which it depends are only of equal flow. Because the arising mind cannot nourish the great elements that can give rise to non-manifest form (the above is the original text of the thesis). Therefore, it can be known that there are no nourished four great elements, and they are not born from the cause of different maturation, so they are not born from different maturation. All those of equal flow among the five categories, which are not included in different maturation and nourishment, are called equal flow. The great elements that create concentration, nourishment has already included completely, so there is no separate establishment of great elements of equal flow. Because it is born from the cause of the same kind, it is not momentary arising and ceasing. Because it is conditioned, it is not real. It is without attachment. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra thirty-five says: 'The four great elements on which it depends are without attachment.' Because it is the result of the concentration mind, there is definitely no mind of love and attachment clinging to these great elements as the present inner self. Moreover, these great elements have no other characteristics of attachment, so they are called without attachment (the above is the original text of the thesis). Body and speech seven

支一四大造所依大種如定心唯一無差別故。所以大種造隨心戒亦一四大造。欲散無表因等起心雖亦是一。非心隨轉各別大種造。又正理云七支相望展轉力生。同一果故唯從一具四大種生。散此相違故依異大(已上論文)　所以不言有情者如前釋。或是長養已顯有情。

應知有表至是有執受者。釋后兩句此明表業。於五類中同類因生故是等流　唯言簡餘四種。非異熟因生故非異熟生。無別勝緣故非所長養。從同類因生故非剎那。是有為故非實　表業有二。謂身及語　表若屬身扶根生故是有執受。表若屬語不扶根故是無執受　問若身表業是有執受。何故品類足論說諸表業是無執受　解云論者意異。難為會釋　又解品類表業據暫起在身。猶如客寄。心．心所法非能執受故云表業是無執受。俱舍等論據多時起相續在身。心．心所法能執受故。故云表業是有執受。各據一義並不相違　所以不言情．非情者依內起表已顯有情故不別說。

余義皆與散無表同者。例。表四大同散無表能造四大。是等流性。是有執受。別異大生　又解是有情數。及能造大同散無表。故正理云。余義皆與散無表同。謂有情數及依。等流。有執受。別異四大種起　問如婆沙一百二十二。說化語有兩說云。有作是說彼是語業由心發故。有餘師說彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：支一四大造所依的大種，如禪定之心一樣，是唯一且無差別的。因此，大種所造之物隨心而定，也是由一四大所造。雖然欲散無表之因等起之心也是唯一的，但並非隨心而轉變的各個不同的大種所造。而且，《正理》中說，七支相互作用，展轉生力，因為果相同，所以只從一個具有四大種的物質產生。散亂則與此相反，所以依賴於不同的大種（以上是論文內容）。因此，不說『有情』，如前文解釋。或者是因為『長養』已經顯示了有情。

應知『有表』到『是有執受者』。解釋后兩句，這說明了表業。在五類中，同類因產生同類果，所以是等流。只說了『簡』，省略了其餘四種。不是異熟因所生，所以不是異熟生。沒有特別殊勝的因緣，所以不是所長養。從同類因所生，所以不是剎那。因為是有為法，所以不是實。表業有兩種，即身表和語表。表業如果屬於身體，扶助根而生，所以是有執受。表業如果屬於語言，不扶助根，所以是無執受。問：如果身表業是有執受，為什麼《品類足論》說諸表業是無執受？解釋說，論者的意思不同，難以會通解釋。又解釋說，《品類足論》中的表業是根據暫時在身上生起的情況，就像客人寄居一樣。心和心所法不能執受，所以說表業是無執受。《俱舍論》等論典是根據長時間生起，相續在身上的情況，心和心所法能夠執受，所以說表業是有執受。各自根據一個含義，並不互相矛盾。因此，不說『有情』和『非情』，是因為依靠內在生起的表業已經顯示了有情，所以不另外說明。

其餘含義都與散無表相同。例如，表四大與散無表一樣，能夠造四大，是等流的性質，是有執受的，由不同的大種所生。又解釋說，是有情數，以及能造的大種與散無表相同。所以《正理》中說，其餘含義都與散無表相同，指的是有情數以及所依賴的，等流，有執受，由不同四大種生起。問：如《婆沙》第一百二十二卷所說，化語有兩種說法，一種說法是，化語是語業，由心所發。另一種說法是

【English Translation】 English version: The great elements (Mahabhuta) on which the supported four great elements (catvāro mahābhūtāḥ) are based, are unique and undifferentiated, just like the mind in meditation (定心). Therefore, what is created by the great elements follows the mind and is also created by one set of four great elements. Although the mind that initiates the cause of scattered non-revealing karma (欲散無表因) is also singular, it is not created by the various different great elements that transform according to the mind. Moreover, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理) states that the seven limbs interact and generate power, and because the result is the same, it arises only from one set of four great elements. Scattering is the opposite of this, so it relies on different great elements (this is the content of the treatise). Therefore, 'sentient beings' (有情) are not mentioned, as explained earlier. Or it is because 'nourishment' (長養) has already indicated sentient beings.

It should be known that 'revealing karma' (有表) up to 'is with appropriation' (是有執受者) explains the latter two sentences, clarifying revealing karma. Among the five categories, similar causes produce similar results, so it is an outflow (等流). Only 'brief' (簡) is mentioned, omitting the other four. It is not produced by the cause of different maturation (異熟因), so it is not a product of different maturation (異熟生). There is no particularly superior condition, so it is not nourished (所長養). It arises from similar causes, so it is not momentary (剎那). Because it is conditioned (有為), it is not real (實). There are two types of revealing karma: bodily and verbal. If revealing karma belongs to the body, it supports the roots and arises, so it is with appropriation. If revealing karma belongs to speech, it does not support the roots, so it is without appropriation. Question: If bodily revealing karma is with appropriation, why does the Prakaraṇapāda (品類足論) say that all revealing karmas are without appropriation? The explanation is that the intention of the commentators differs, making it difficult to reconcile the interpretations. Another explanation is that the revealing karma in the Prakaraṇapāda is based on the temporary arising in the body, like a guest lodging. The mind and mental factors cannot appropriate, so it is said that revealing karma is without appropriation. The Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) and other treatises are based on the long-term arising and continuity in the body, where the mind and mental factors can appropriate, so it is said that revealing karma is with appropriation. Each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. Therefore, 'sentient beings' (有情) and 'non-sentient beings' (非情) are not mentioned because relying on the revealing karma arising internally has already indicated sentient beings, so it is not explained separately.

The remaining meanings are the same as scattered non-revealing karma. For example, revealing four great elements (表四大) and scattered non-revealing karma can both create the four great elements, are of the nature of outflow, are with appropriation, and arise from different great elements. Another explanation is that the number of sentient beings and the great elements that can be created are the same as scattered non-revealing karma. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that the remaining meanings are the same as scattered non-revealing karma, referring to the number of sentient beings and what they rely on, outflow, with appropriation, and arising from different four great elements. Question: As stated in the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙) volume 122, there are two views on transformed speech (化語). One view is that it is verbal karma produced by the mind. Another view is

非語業但名語聲。以所化身無執受故　前師意說雖無執受大種因生。由心發故。化語是業。后師意說化身無執受。即顯化語非從執受四大種生。既非執受四大種生。明知化語非業。但非執受大種生者皆非是業。若是業者執受大生。然無評家　化身是業．非業。雖未見文。準化語亦應有二說。此論為依何說。解云此論義當婆沙后師。以說表業執受大種生故。

表業生時至為不爾耶者。問。表業生時為要破壞本異熟身形量。為不爾耶。

若爾何失者。答。

若破壞者至二形量成者。雙徴。

有別新生至不破本身者。釋。

若爾隨依至如何遍生表者。難。表業異熟二色並生應大於本。若不遍增如何遍生表。

身有孔隙故得相容者。通。異熟虛疏身有孔隙。故得相容等流表色。故婆沙一百二十二云。然表．無表依身而起。有依一分。如彈指。舉足等一分動轉作善．惡業。有依具分。如禮佛逐怨等舉身運動作善．惡業。此中隨所依身極微數量。表業亦爾。如表數量無表亦爾。

已辨業門至差別云何者。此下第二明性．界．地。就中一正明性．界．地。二明三性所由　此下第一正明性．界．地結前問起。已辨業門或有二種謂思．思已業別。或有三種謂身．語．意業別。或有五種謂身．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『非語業但名語聲』。因為所變化出來的身體沒有執受（指對身體的感知和控制），所以（化身所發出的聲音）不是語業，僅僅是聲音。前一位論師的觀點認為，即使沒有執受，（化身）也是由四大種（地、水、火、風）所生，並且由心所發動，所以化語是業。后一位論師的觀點認為，化身沒有執受，這就表明化語不是從執受的四大種所生。既然不是從執受的四大種所生，那麼很明顯化語不是業。凡不是由執受的四大種所生的，都不是業。如果是業，就應該由執受的四大種所生。然而沒有評判家認為化身是業還是非業。雖然沒有看到相關的文獻，但根據化語的情況，應該也有兩種說法。此論依據的是哪種說法呢？解釋說，此論的觀點應當是依據《婆沙論》后一位論師的說法，因為（該論師）認為表業是由執受的四大種所生。

『表業生時至為不爾耶者』，這是提問：表業產生的時候，是要破壞原本異熟身（由業力成熟而產生的身體）的形體和大小，還是不破壞呢？

『若爾何失者』，這是回答：如果破壞，會有什麼過失呢？

『若破壞者至二形量成者』，這是同時提出兩種情況。

『有別新生至不破本身者』，這是解釋。

『若爾隨依至如何遍生表者』，這是責難：如果表業是隨著所依的身體而生，那麼異熟身和表業兩種色法同時產生，表業應該大於原本的身體。如果不普遍增長，如何能普遍產生表業呢？

『身有孔隙故得相容者』，這是解釋：異熟身是虛疏的，身體有孔隙，所以能夠容納等流的表色。因此，《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說：『表業和無表業依身而起，有的依一部分，如彈指、抬腳等一部分的動轉，產生善業或惡業；有的依全部，如禮佛、追逐仇人等全身的運動，產生善業或惡業。』這裡，隨著所依身體的極微（物質的最小單位）的數量，表業也是如此。表業的數量如何，無表業也是如此。

『已辨業門至差別云何者』，下面第二部分說明性、界、地。其中，第一部分是正式說明性、界、地，第二部分是說明三性（善、惡、無記）的由來。下面是第一部分，正式說明性、界、地，總結前面並提出問題：已經辨明了業的種類，或者有兩種，即思業和思已業的區別；或者有三種，即身業、語業和意業的區別；或者有五種，即身...

【English Translation】 English version '非語業但名語聲' (fēi yǔ yè dàn míng yǔ shēng): 'Non-verbal karma is merely called speech sound.' Because the manifested body has no '執受' (zhí shòu) [grasping; attachment; perception and control of the body], therefore (the sound emitted by the manifested body) is not verbal karma, but merely sound. The former teacher's view is that even without '執受' (zhí shòu), (the manifested body) is produced by the four great elements (地, 水, 火, 風) [earth, water, fire, wind], and is initiated by the mind, so manifested speech is karma. The latter teacher's view is that the manifested body has no '執受' (zhí shòu), which indicates that manifested speech is not produced from the '執受' (zhí shòu) of the four great elements. Since it is not produced from the '執受' (zhí shòu) of the four great elements, it is clear that manifested speech is not karma. Whatever is not produced from the '執受' (zhí shòu) of the great elements is not karma. If it were karma, it should be produced from the '執受' (zhí shòu) of the great elements. However, no commentator considers whether the manifested body is karma or non-karma. Although no relevant literature has been seen, based on the situation of manifested speech, there should also be two views. Which view does this treatise rely on? The explanation is that the view of this treatise should be based on the latter teacher of the '婆沙論' (Póshā lùn) [Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra], because (that teacher) believes that '表業' (biǎo yè) [manifest karma] is produced by the '執受' (zhí shòu) of the four great elements.

'表業生時至為不爾耶者' (biǎo yè shēng shí zhì wèi bù ěryé zhě): 'When manifest karma arises, is it necessary to destroy the form and size of the original '異熟身' (yì shú shēn) [Vipāka-kāya; body of fruition], or not?' This is a question.

'若爾何失者' (ruò ěr hé shī zhě): 'If so, what is the fault?' This is an answer.

'若破壞者至二形量成者' (ruò pò huài zhě zhì èr xíng liàng chéng zhě): 'If it is destroyed, until the two forms and sizes are completed.' This is raising two situations simultaneously.

'有別新生至不破本身者' (yǒu bié xīn shēng zhì bù pò běn shēn zhě): 'There is a separate new arising until the original body is not destroyed.' This is an explanation.

'若爾隨依至如何遍生表者' (ruò ěr suí yī zhì rú hé biàn shēng biǎo zhě): 'If so, following what it relies on, how can manifest karma be universally produced?' This is a challenge: If manifest karma arises according to the body it relies on, then the '異熟身' (yì shú shēn) [Vipāka-kāya; body of fruition] and the two forms of manifest karma arise simultaneously, and manifest karma should be larger than the original body. If it does not universally increase, how can manifest karma be universally produced?

'身有孔隙故得相容者' (shēn yǒu kǒng xì gù dé xiāng róng zhě): 'The body has pores, so it can accommodate.' This is an explanation: The '異熟身' (yì shú shēn) [Vipāka-kāya; body of fruition] is sparse, and the body has pores, so it can accommodate the '等流' (děng liú) [equal flow; result similar to the cause] of manifest form. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-second volume of the '婆沙論' (Póshā lùn) [Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra] says: 'Manifest karma and non-manifest karma arise depending on the body, some depending on a part, such as snapping fingers, raising feet, and other partial movements, producing good or bad karma; some depending on the whole, such as bowing to the Buddha, chasing enemies, and other whole-body movements, producing good or bad karma.' Here, according to the number of '極微' (jí wēi) [paramāṇu; ultimate particles] of the body it relies on, manifest karma is also like this. How is the quantity of manifest karma, so is the non-manifest karma.

'已辨業門至差別云何者' (yǐ biàn yè mén zhì chā bié yún hé zhě): 'Having distinguished the types of karma, what are the differences?' The second part below explains nature, realm, and ground. Among them, the first part is the formal explanation of nature, realm, and ground, and the second part is the explanation of the origin of the three natures (good, evil, and neutral). Below is the first part, formally explaining nature, realm, and ground, summarizing the previous and raising questions: Having distinguished the types of karma, there are either two types, namely the difference between '思業' (sī yè) [karma of thought] and '思已業' (sī yǐ yè) [karma after thought]; or there are three types, namely the difference between body karma, speech karma, and mind karma; or there are five types, namely body...

語二各表．無表及思業別　此之五業。三性．三界．九地差別云何。

頌曰至以無等起故者。初一句三性分別。后五句界．地分別。

論曰至善惡無記者。釋初句。無表唯通善．不善性無有無記。所以者何。是強力心所等起故。以無記心勢微劣。不能引發強無表業令得生起。可因滅時于其後后諸心位中及無心時果仍續起　余謂表思皆通三性。

于中不善至不別遮故者。釋第二句。于中不善表．無表思唯在欲界非餘二界。已斷不善根．無慚．無愧故所以上界無有不善　善．及無記隨其所應諸地皆有。頌不遮故。

欲色二界至身語律儀者。釋第三句。無表是色必由大造。欲．色二界有能造大種故皆有所造無表。以無色中無能造大種故亦無所造無表　又隨於何處有身．語轉唯是處有身．語律儀。欲．色二界有身．語轉故皆得身．語律儀。無色界中無身．語轉故彼無有身．語律儀。

若爾身生至有無漏無表者。此即難也。若爾。身生欲．色二界入無色定。雖無無色大種應有無色律儀隨身大造。如生欲．色起無漏心雖無無漏大種而有無漏無表隨身大造。此即難大種　又解若爾。身生欲．色二界入無色定。雖無無色身．語。應有無色律儀隨身大造。如生欲．色起無漏心雖無無漏身．語。而有無漏無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『語表』（通過語言表達的行為），『二各表』（兩種不同的表業），『無表』（無表業），以及『思業別』（思業的差別），這五種業的三性（善、惡、無記）、三界（欲界、色界、無色界）、九地（欲界五趣地、離生喜樂地、定生喜樂地、離喜妙樂地、舍念清凈地、空無邊處地、識無邊處地、無所有處地、非想非非想處地）的差別是什麼？

頌文說『至以無等起故者』，第一句是關於三性的分別，後面的五句是關於界和地的分別。

論述說『至善惡無記者』，這是解釋第一句。無表業只通于善性和不善性，沒有無記性。為什麼呢？因為它是強有力的心所等起而產生的。由於無記心的力量微弱，不能引發強大的無表業使其生起，但可以在（善或不善業）滅時，在其後后的各個心位中以及無心時，其果報仍然持續生起。其餘的表業和思業都通於三性。

『于中不善至不別遮故者』，這是解釋第二句。其中，不善的表業、無表業和思業只存在於欲界，不存在於色界和無色界。因為（上二界眾生）已經斷除了不善的根本，沒有了慚愧心和羞恥心。所以上界沒有不善業。善業和無記業則隨其所應，在各個地都有。因為頌文沒有遮止。

『欲色二界至身語律儀者』，這是解釋第三句。無表業是色法，必定由大種所造。欲界和色界有能造的大種，所以都有所造的無表業。因為無色界中沒有能造的大種，所以也沒有所造的無表業。而且，隨於何處有身語的活動，只有在那個地方才有身語的律儀。欲界和色界有身語的活動，所以都能得到身語的律儀。無色界中沒有身語的活動，所以那裡沒有身語的律儀。

『若爾身生至有無漏無表者』，這是提問。如果這樣，身生於欲界和色界的眾生，入于無色定，雖然沒有無色界的大種，也應該有無色的律儀隨著身體的大種而造作。如同生於欲界和色界的眾生，生起無漏心，雖然沒有無漏的大種，卻有無漏的無表業隨著身體的大種而造作。這是對大種的質疑。另一種解釋是，如果這樣，身生於欲界和色界的眾生，入于無色定，雖然沒有無色界的身語，也應該有無色的律儀隨著身體而造作。如同生於欲界和色界的眾生，生起無漏心，雖然沒有無漏的身語，卻有無漏的無

【English Translation】 English version What are the differences in the three natures (good, evil, and neutral), the three realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm), and the nine grounds (the five realms of the Desire Realm, the ground of joy and pleasure born from detachment, the ground of joy and pleasure born from meditation, the ground of wonderful pleasure born from detachment from joy, the ground of purity of equanimity and mindfulness, the ground of the sphere of infinite space, the ground of the sphere of infinite consciousness, the ground of the sphere of nothingness, and the ground of neither perception nor non-perception) of these five karmas: 『speech expression』 (actions expressed through language), 『two distinct expressions』 (two different types of expressive karma), 『non-expression』 (non-expressive karma), and 『distinction of thought karma』 (the difference in thought karma)?

The verse says 『to because of non-arising,』 the first line distinguishes the three natures, and the following five lines distinguish the realms and grounds.

The treatise says 『to good, evil, and neutral,』 which explains the first line. Non-expressive karma only pertains to good and evil natures, not neutral. Why? Because it arises from powerful mental factors. Because the power of a neutral mind is weak, it cannot cause strong non-expressive karma to arise, but when (good or evil karma) ceases, its result continues to arise in the subsequent mental moments and even when there is no mind. The remaining expressive karma and thought karma pertain to all three natures.

『Among them, non-virtuous to not specifically prohibited,』 which explains the second line. Among them, non-virtuous expressive karma, non-expressive karma, and thought karma only exist in the Desire Realm, not in the Form Realm and Formless Realm. Because (beings in the upper two realms) have already severed the root of non-virtue and have no shame or embarrassment. Therefore, there is no non-virtuous karma in the upper realms. Virtuous and neutral karma exist in all grounds as appropriate, because the verse does not prohibit it.

『Desire and Form Realms to bodily and verbal discipline,』 which explains the third line. Non-expressive karma is form and must be created by the great elements. The Desire and Form Realms have the ability to create the great elements, so they all have created non-expressive karma. Because there are no great elements that can be created in the Formless Realm, there is also no created non-expressive karma. Moreover, wherever there is activity of body and speech, only in that place is there discipline of body and speech. The Desire and Form Realms have activity of body and speech, so they can all obtain discipline of body and speech. There is no activity of body and speech in the Formless Realm, so there is no discipline of body and speech there.

『If so, bodily born to having unconditioned non-expression,』 this is a question. If so, beings born in the Desire and Form Realms, entering the Formless concentration, although there are no great elements of the Formless Realm, there should also be Formless discipline created along with the great elements of the body. Just as beings born in the Desire and Form Realms, generating an unconditioned mind, although there are no unconditioned great elements, there is unconditioned non-expressive karma created along with the great elements of the body. This is a question about the great elements. Another explanation is, if so, beings born in the Desire and Form Realms, entering the Formless concentration, although there is no body and speech of the Formless Realm, there should also be Formless discipline created along with the body. Just as beings born in the Desire and Form Realms, generating an unconditioned mind, although there is no unconditioned body and speech, there is unconditioned non-

表隨身大造。此即難身語　又解通難二種。

不爾以彼至大種為依者。此即解也。不爾。以彼無漏無表不墮界故。雖無無漏大種依身起故隨身大造　又解不爾。以彼無漏無表不墮界故。雖無無漏身．語依身起故隨身大造　又解通釋二種　此即順成反難云。于無色界若有無表。應有無表非大種生謂如彼計無色界地有漏無表系屬界．地。理應從彼界．地大生。于無色界無四大種。若有無表應有無表非大種生。復不可言有漏無表同無漏戒。以別界．地大種為依。故婆沙十七云。問如雖無無漏大種而有無漏戒。如是彼界雖無大種何妨有戒耶　答無漏戒非大種力故成無漏。但由心力隨無漏心所等起故。有漏戒由大種力系屬界．地故不相似。

又背諸色至伏色想故者。又解可知。

毗婆沙師至無無表色者。又敘異解。為除惡戒故起尸羅唯欲界中有諸惡戒故。于欲．色起善尸羅能對治彼。無色于欲具四種遠故。無色中無無表色　四遠如前廣心中釋。

表色唯在至可言有表者。釋第四句。三性表業皆通欲界．初靜慮中。若言有尋不攝中定。為攝中間故言有伺。

有覆無記表至矯自嘆等者。釋第五句。簡差別也。有覆無記表欲界定無。唯在初定　曾聞已下引證。誑諂發言顯有語表。引出眾外顯有身表。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『表隨身大造』。這指的是難成立身語，又解釋了通難的兩種情況。

『不爾以彼至大種為依者』。這是解釋。『不爾』，因為那些無漏無表不屬於界。雖然沒有無漏的大種依身而起，所以隨著身體而產生大的造作。又解釋『不爾』，因為那些無漏無表不屬於界。雖然沒有無漏的身語依身而起，所以隨著身體而產生大的造作。又解釋通釋兩種情況。這指的是順著成立反駁的困難，說：在沒有的情況下，如果存在無表，應該存在非大種所生的無表，比如他們認為在沒有地的情況下，有漏無表隸屬於界地，理應從那些界地的大種所生。在沒有**、沒有四大種的情況下，如果存在無表，應該存在非大種所生的無表。又不能說有漏無表等同於無漏戒，因為有不同的界地大種作為所依。所以《婆沙》第十七卷說：『問：如同雖然沒有無漏的大種，卻有無漏戒，這樣，在那個界雖然沒有大種，為什麼妨礙有戒呢？』答：『無漏戒不是大種的力量，所以成為無漏，只是由於心力，隨著無漏心所等而生起。有漏戒由於大種的力量，隸屬於界地，所以不相似。』

『又背諸色至伏色想故者』。又一種解釋，可以理解。

『毗婆沙師至無無表色者』。又敘述不同的解釋。爲了去除惡戒，所以生起尸羅（śīla，戒律），只有欲界中存在各種惡戒，所以在欲界、色界生起善尸羅，能夠對治那些惡戒。無色界對於欲界具備四種遙遠的條件，所以在無色界中沒有無表色。四種遙遠如同之前在廣心中解釋的那樣。

『表色唯在至可言有表者』。解釋第四句。三性的表業都通於欲界、初禪中。如果說有尋不包括中間禪定，爲了包括中間禪定，所以說有伺。

『有覆無記表至矯自嘆等者』。解釋第五句。簡別差異。有覆無記表在欲界和定中沒有，只在初禪中。『曾聞已下』引用證據。誑騙、諂媚的發言顯示有語表。引誘他人離開大眾顯示有身表。

【English Translation】 English version 『Biao sui shen da zao』. This refers to the difficulty in establishing body and speech, and also explains the two situations of general difficulty.

『Bu er yi bi zhi da zhong wei yi zhe』. This is an explanation. 『Bu er』, because those unwholesome and non-manifested forms do not belong to the realm. Although there are no unwholesome great elements arising from the body, great actions arise along with the body. Another explanation of 『Bu er』 is that those unwholesome and non-manifested forms do not belong to the realm. Although there are no unwholesome body and speech arising from the body, great actions arise along with the body. Another explanation covers both situations. This refers to following the establishment of the difficulty of refutation, saying: In the absence of , if there are non-manifested forms, there should be non-manifested forms that are not born from great elements, such as they believe that in the absence of ** land, the defiled non-manifested forms belong to the realm and land, and should be born from the great elements of those realms and lands. In the absence of , without the four great elements, if there are non-manifested forms, there should be non-manifested forms that are not born from great elements. Furthermore, it cannot be said that defiled non-manifested forms are the same as unwholesome precepts, because there are different realm and land great elements as the basis. Therefore, the seventeenth volume of the Vibhasa says: 『Question: Just as although there are no unwholesome great elements, there are unwholesome precepts, so in that realm, although there are no great elements, why does it hinder having precepts?』 Answer: 『Unwholesome precepts are not the power of great elements, so they become unwholesome, but only due to the power of the mind, arising along with unwholesome mental factors, etc. Defiled precepts are due to the power of great elements, belonging to the realm and land, so they are not similar.』

『You bei zhu se zhi fu se xiang gu zhe』. Another explanation, which can be understood.

『Vibhāṣā masters to no non-manifested form』. Another narration of different explanations. In order to remove evil precepts, Śīla (戒律, moral conduct) arises, only in the desire realm are there various evil precepts, so in the desire realm and form realm, wholesome Śīla arises, which can counteract those evil precepts. The formless realm has four kinds of remoteness from the desire realm, so in the formless realm there are no non-manifested forms. The four kinds of remoteness are as explained earlier in the broad mind.

『Manifested form only exists to can be said to have manifested form』. Explains the fourth sentence. The manifested karma of the three natures all communicate with the desire realm and the first dhyāna (禪那, meditative state). If it is said that 『with investigation』 does not include the intermediate dhyāna, in order to include the intermediate dhyāna, it is said to have 『with discernment』.

『Obscured and unspecified manifested to boastful praise, etc.』 Explains the fifth sentence. Distinguishes the differences. Obscured and unspecified manifested forms do not exist in the desire realm and fixed states, only in the first dhyāna. 『Ceng wen yi xia』 cites evidence. Deceitful and flattering speech shows that there are verbal manifestations. Luring others away from the assembly shows that there are bodily manifestations.

上地既無言何得有聲處者。問。上地既無語言表業。何得有聲。

有外大種為因發聲者。答。有外大種為因發聲故有聲也。雖有內大為因發聲。外顯偏說。或可影顯。

有餘師言至劣故斷故者。敘異說。上三靜慮亦有無覆無記表業。但能起下無覆無記發表業心。無善。無染。非生上地能起下地善及染心發身．語表。下善劣故。下染斷故。所以不起　此家意說身．語表業隨身地系。非隨能發心系　前家意說身語表業隨能發心地系。非隨身地系。

前說為善者。論主評取前家隨心地系。心是親強。身是疏弱。故諸色業隨心判性。若諸色業隨身地系。此色業性應亦隨身。身謂命根眾同分等。體是無記。此諸色業皆應隨身是無記性不通善．染便成大過。由此故知。隨心地系。前說為善。

復以何因至無記表業者。此下釋第六句雙問。可知。以無發業至有覆無記表者。雙答　以無發業。等起心故者此即總答。有尋伺心能發表業。二定已上都無此心。是故表業上三地都無。問何故上地無尋伺心。婆沙云尋伺粗動不寂靜。上地微細寂靜故(已上論文)　又發表心唯修所斷。外門轉故　見所斷惑。內門轉故不能發業。欲界雖有身．邊二見有覆無記見所斷攝。內門轉故不能發業。以欲定無有覆無記修所斷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『上地既然沒有語言，怎麼會有聲音呢？』問：上地既然沒有語言表達行為（表業），怎麼會有聲音呢？答：有外在的四大元素（外大種）作為產生聲音的原因，所以有聲音。雖然內在的四大元素（內大種）也能作為產生聲音的原因，但外在的顯現更為明顯，所以偏重說明外在的，或者可以隱約地顯現。『有些其他學派的老師說，因為低劣所以斷絕。』敘述不同的觀點：上三禪天（上三靜慮）也有無覆無記的表達行為（表業），但只能引發地獄的無覆無記的表達行為心。沒有善，沒有染污。不是上地能引發下地的善和染污的心所引發的身語表達（身．語表），因為地獄的善低劣，地獄的染污已斷絕，所以不能引發。這家（此家）的意思是說，身語表達行為（身．語表業）是隨著自身所處的禪天而系屬的（隨身地系），不是隨著能引發的心而系屬的（非隨能發心系）。前一家（前家）的意思是說，身語表達行為（身語表業）是隨著能引發的心而系屬的（隨能發心地系），不是隨著自身所處的禪天而系屬的（非隨身地系）。『之前的說法是正確的。』論主評論並採納前一家（前家）的觀點，即隨著心而系屬（隨心地系）。心是親近而強大的，身是疏遠而弱小的。所以各種色法行為（色業）隨著心來判斷其性質。如果各種色法行為（色業）隨著自身所處的禪天而系屬（隨身地系），那麼這種色法行為的性質也應該隨著身。身指的是命根、眾生共同擁有的部分等等，其體性是無記的。那麼這些色法行為都應該隨著身是無記的性質，不能通於善和染污，這樣就成了很大的過失。由此可知，隨著心而系屬（隨心地系）是正確的。『又因為什麼原因導致無記的表達行為（無記表業）呢？』這下面解釋第六句，雙重提問，可以理解。『因為沒有引發行為（無發業）到有覆無記的表達行為（有覆無記表）呢？』雙重回答。『因為沒有引發行為（無發業），等起心（等起心）的緣故。』這就是總的回答。有尋伺的心才能引發表達行為（發表業）。二禪天以上都沒有這種心。所以表達行為（表業）在上三禪天都沒有。問：為什麼上地沒有尋伺心呢？《婆沙論》說，尋伺是粗糙動搖不寂靜的，上地是微細寂靜的緣故（以上是論文）。又，引發表達的心（發表心）只有修所斷的煩惱才能做到，因為是從外門運轉的。見所斷的迷惑，因為是從內門運轉的，所以不能引發行為（不能發業）。欲界雖然有身見和邊見這兩種有覆無記的見所斷的煩惱，因為是從內門運轉的，所以不能引發行為（不能發業）。因為欲界禪定沒有有覆無記的修所斷的煩惱。

【English Translation】 English version 『Since the upper realms (上地) have no language, how can there be sound?』 Question: Since the upper realms (上地) have no linguistic expressions (表業 - expressions of action), how can there be sound? Answer: There are external great elements (外大種 - external Mahabhuta) as the cause of sound, therefore there is sound. Although internal great elements (內大種 - internal Mahabhuta) can also be the cause of sound, the external manifestation is more obvious, so the emphasis is on the external, or it can be vaguely manifested. 『Some other teachers say that because of inferiority, it is cut off.』 Narrating different views: The upper three dhyanas (上三靜慮 - the three highest meditative states in the Form Realm) also have non-afflicted and indeterminate expressions of action (無覆無記表業 - avyākrta-karma), but can only trigger the non-afflicted and indeterminate expressions of action mind of the lower realms. There is no good, no defilement. It is not that the upper realms can trigger the good and defiled mind-induced bodily and verbal expressions (身．語表 - kāya-vācī-vijñapti) of the lower realms, because the good of the lower realms is inferior, and the defilement of the lower realms is cut off, so it cannot trigger them. This school (此家) means that bodily and verbal expressions of action (身．語表業 - kāya-vācī-vijñapti-karma) are affiliated with the realm in which the body resides (隨身地系 - following the realm of the body), not affiliated with the mind that can trigger them (非隨能發心系 - not following the mind that can trigger them). The previous school (前家) means that bodily and verbal expressions of action (身語表業 - kāya-vācī-vijñapti-karma) are affiliated with the mind that can trigger them (隨能發心地系 - following the mind that can trigger them), not affiliated with the realm in which the body resides (非隨身地系 - not following the realm of the body). 『The previous statement is correct.』 The commentator comments and adopts the view of the previous school (前家), that is, affiliated with the mind (隨心地系 - following the mind). The mind is close and strong, the body is distant and weak. Therefore, the nature of various form actions (色業 - rūpa-karma) is judged according to the mind. If various form actions (色業 - rūpa-karma) are affiliated with the realm in which the body resides (隨身地系 - following the realm of the body), then the nature of this form action should also follow the body. The body refers to the life force, the commonality of beings, etc., whose nature is indeterminate (無記 - avyākrta). Then these form actions should all follow the body and be of indeterminate nature, not encompassing good and defiled, which would be a great fault. Therefore, it is known that being affiliated with the mind (隨心地系 - following the mind) is correct. 『And for what reason does indeterminate expression of action (無記表業 - avyākrta-vijñapti) occur?』 This below explains the sixth sentence, a double question, which can be understood. 『Because there is no triggering action (無發業 - anabhisaṃskāra) to afflicted and indeterminate expression of action (有覆無記表 - sākliṣṭa-avyākrta-vijñapti)?』 Double answer. 『Because there is no triggering action (無發業 - anabhisaṃskāra), due to the arising of the co-emergent mind (等起心 - samutthāna-citta).』 This is the general answer. A mind with investigation and analysis (尋伺 - vitarka-vicāra) can trigger expression of action (發表業 - abhi-karma). The second dhyana and above do not have this mind. Therefore, expression of action (表業 - vijñapti-karma) does not exist in the upper three dhyanas. Question: Why do the upper realms not have investigation and analysis (尋伺 - vitarka-vicāra)? The Vibhasa says that investigation and analysis (尋伺 - vitarka-vicāra) are coarse, moving, and not tranquil, while the upper realms are subtle and tranquil (the above is the text). Also, the mind that triggers expression (發表心 - abhi-citta) can only be done by afflictions that are abandoned by cultivation (修所斷 - bhāvanā-pahātavya), because it operates from the external gate. The delusions that are abandoned by seeing (見所斷 - darśana-pahātavya), because they operate from the internal gate, cannot trigger action (不能發業 - na abhi-karma). Although the desire realm has the two afflicted and indeterminate delusions of self-view and extreme view (身．邊二見 - satkāya-dṛṣṭi and antagraha-dṛṣṭi) that are abandoned by seeing (見所斷 - darśana-pahātavya), because they operate from the internal gate, they cannot trigger action (不能發業 - na abhi-karma). Because the desire realm's samadhi does not have afflicted and indeterminate afflictions that are abandoned by cultivation (修所斷 - bhāvanā-pahātavya).

惑。是故欲界中無有覆無記表。此即顯別。

為但由等起至善不善性等者。此下第二明三性所由。就中。一正明三性所由。二明二種等起　此下第一正明三性所由問。為但由因等起心令諸法成善不善性等。

不爾者答。

云何者徴。

由四種因至四由等起者。答。由四種因成善等性。

何法何性由何因成者。復作三問。一問于諸法中何法名為勝義等四。二問此勝義等於三性中復是何性。三問此勝義等由何因故得成善等。

頌曰至勝無記二常者。答。就頌中。初四句明四善第五句明不善。第六句明無記。就前四句中。初句明勝義善。第二句明自性善。第三句明相應善。第四句明等起善。翻此四善。不善亦四無記有一。所謂勝義　問何故善．不善各有四種無記唯一　解云於心所中無別心所是自性無記。由無自性不立相應。由不立自性．相應亦不立等起。設立此三攝法亦不盡故。正理三十六云無別自性．相應．等起。無一心所唯無記性與無記心遍相應故。設方便立自性等三亦攝不盡。無記多故。由是無記唯有二種。一者勝義。二者自性。有為無記是自性攝。不待別因成無記故無為無記是勝義攝。以性是常無異門故(已上論文)　此論意同正理亦有二種。不言自性略而不論　問正理若言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本疑惑。因此，在欲界中沒有有覆無記的表色法。這就能明顯地區分。

難道僅僅是由等起而產生善、不善等性質嗎？下面第二部分說明三種性質的來源。其中，第一部分正式說明三種性質的來源，第二部分說明兩種等起。下面是第一部分，正式說明三種性質的來源。問：難道僅僅是由因等起心，才使得諸法成為善、不善等性質嗎？

回答：不是這樣的。

提問：那是怎樣呢？

回答：由四種因至四種等起。由四種因成就善等性質。

什麼法、什麼性質由什麼因成就呢？又提出三個問題：一問在諸法中，什麼法名為勝義等四種？二問這勝義等在三種性質中又是什麼性質？三問這勝義等由什麼原因而成就善等？

回答：頌曰至勝無記二常。就頌文來說，前四句說明四種善，第五句說明不善，第六句說明無記。就前四句來說，第一句說明勝義善（Paramārtha-kuśala，最殊勝的善），第二句說明自性善（Prakṛti-kuśala，本性就是善），第三句說明相應善（Samprayoga-kuśala，與善心所相應的善），第四句說明等起善（Samutthāna-kuśala，由善心所生起的善）。翻轉這四種善，不善也有四種，無記只有一種，就是所謂的勝義。問：為什麼善、不善各有四種，而無記只有一種？解釋說：在心所法中，沒有別的心所是自性無記（Prakṛti-avyākṛta，本性就是無記）。由於沒有自性，所以不建立相應。由於不建立自性、相應，也不建立等起。設立這三種也無法完全涵蓋諸法。正理三十六說，沒有別的自性、相應、等起。沒有一個心所是僅僅無記性的，因為無記心遍與無記心相應。即使方便設立自性等三種，也無法完全涵蓋，因為無記法很多。因此，無記只有兩種：一是勝義（Paramārtha，勝義），二是自性（Prakṛti，自性）。有為無記屬於自性所攝，因為不待其他因緣而成為無記。無為無記屬於勝義所攝，因為其體性是常恒不變的（以上是論文內容）。這篇論的意義與《阿毗達磨順正理論》相同，也有兩種無記，只是沒有說自性無記，省略而不論。問：《阿毗達磨順正理論》如果說

【English Translation】 English version Doubt. Therefore, in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), there are no obscured and indeterminate (avyākṛta) forms. This clearly distinguishes them.

Is it solely due to arising (samutthāna) that qualities such as good (kuśala) and bad (akuśala) arise? The second part below explains the origin of the three natures (tri-svabhāva). Among them, the first part formally explains the origin of the three natures, and the second part explains the two kinds of arising. The following is the first part, formally explaining the origin of the three natures. Question: Is it solely due to the cause of arising in the mind that phenomena become good, bad, etc.?

Answer: It is not so.

Question: How is it then?

Answer: Due to four causes to four kinds of arising. The good, etc., are accomplished by four kinds of causes.

What dharma (phenomenon), what nature, is accomplished by what cause? Three questions are posed again: First, among all dharmas, what dharma is called ultimate meaning (paramārtha), etc., the four? Second, among the three natures, what nature is this ultimate meaning, etc.? Third, by what cause is this ultimate meaning, etc., accomplished as good, etc.?

Answer: The verse says 'to ultimate indeterminate two constants'. Regarding the verse, the first four lines explain the four kinds of good, the fifth line explains bad, and the sixth line explains indeterminate. Regarding the first four lines, the first line explains ultimate good (Paramārtha-kuśala), the second line explains self-nature good (Prakṛti-kuśala), the third line explains associated good (Samprayoga-kuśala), and the fourth line explains arising good (Samutthāna-kuśala). Reversing these four kinds of good, there are also four kinds of bad, and only one kind of indeterminate, which is called ultimate meaning. Question: Why are there four kinds of good and bad, but only one kind of indeterminate? Explanation: Among the mental factors (citta-caitta), there is no separate mental factor that is self-nature indeterminate (Prakṛti-avyākṛta). Because there is no self-nature, association is not established. Because self-nature and association are not established, arising is also not established. Establishing these three also cannot completely encompass all dharmas. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 36 says that there is no separate self-nature, association, or arising. There is no single mental factor that is solely of indeterminate nature, because the indeterminate mind is universally associated with the indeterminate mind. Even if self-nature, etc., the three, are conveniently established, they cannot be completely encompassed, because there are many indeterminate dharmas. Therefore, there are only two kinds of indeterminate: one is ultimate meaning (Paramārtha), and the other is self-nature (Prakṛti). Conditioned (saṃskṛta) indeterminate is included in self-nature, because it does not depend on other causes to become indeterminate. Unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) indeterminate is included in ultimate meaning, because its nature is constant and unchanging (the above is the content of the treatise). The meaning of this treatise is the same as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, which also has two kinds of indeterminate, but it does not mention self-nature indeterminate, omitting it without discussion. Question: If the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says

有為無記皆是自性。何故婆沙八十七于欲界中雲。無記有五。一異熟生法。二威儀路法。三工巧處法四通果無記法。五自性無記法　又於色界中雲。無記有四。除工巧所餘如欲界說　又于無色界中雲。無記有二。一異熟生二自性無記　解云正理論據有為法中體是無記皆名自性。婆沙就有為法中據義差別復開五種。前四不攝方名自性。應知。無記諸論不同。或說一種所謂勝義。或說二種謂勝義。自性。或說四種謂異熟。威儀。工巧。通果。或說五種又加自性。或說六種又加勝義。此乃廣．略不同開．合為異亦無妨矣　問此論若立四種善等。何故婆沙第二云。今應問彼若唯五根是自性善所餘善法自性是何。若謂彼是不善．無記雜五根故亦名善者。如是五根與彼相雜。何故不名不善．無記。然信等五與所餘法。同一所依。同一行相。同一所緣。一起。一住。一滅。一果。同一等流。同一異熟。而言五根是自性善。余相雜故假立善名。但順妄情不應正理勿有此過。故應說言世第一法根非根性　準婆沙破意。諸心所等皆同一依等。如何五根獨名自性是即婆沙總立自性。如善既然不善．無記亦應準此唯說自性。更立相應等三豈不相違　解云婆沙既以一依等破立五根為自性善。明知說四種善者述異師義　又解安慧菩薩俱舍釋中解。據

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有為法和無記法都是自性。為什麼《婆沙論》第八十七卷中說，在欲界中有五種無記法：一是異熟生法，二是威儀路法，三是工巧處法，四是通果無記法，五是自性無記法？又在中說，無記法有四種，除了工巧處法，其餘和欲界所說一樣。又在無中說，無記法有兩種，一是異熟生，二是自性無記。解釋說，《正理論》認為有為法中，體性是無記的都叫做自性。《婆沙論》就在有為法中，根據意義的差別又分出五種，前四種不包括的才叫做自性。應該知道，各論對無記的說法不同，或者說一種，所謂勝義；或者說兩種，所謂勝義、自性；或者說四種，所謂異熟、威儀、工巧、通果；或者說五種，又加上自性；或者說六種，又加上勝義。這只是廣略不同，開合有異，也沒有妨礙。問：此論如果立四種善等，為什麼《婆沙論》第二卷說：現在應該問他們，如果只有五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）是自性善，那麼其餘善法的自性是什麼？如果說那些善法是不善、無記和五根相雜，所以也叫做善，那麼五根和那些不善、無記法相雜，為什麼不叫做不善、無記？然而信等五根和其餘法，同一所依，同一行相，同一所緣，一起生，一起住，一起滅，一果報，同一等流，同一異熟，卻說五根是自性善，其餘法因為相雜而假立善名，只是順從虛妄的情感，不合正理，不要有這種過失。所以應該說世第一法（世間第一的善法）的根不是根的自性。按照《婆沙論》的破斥之意，諸心所等都同一所依等，為什麼五根單獨叫做自性？這就是《婆沙論》總立自性，像善法既然如此，不善、無記也應該按照這個原則只說自性，再立相應等三種，豈不是相違背？解釋說，《婆沙論》既然用同一所依等來破斥，而立五根為自性善，說明說四種善的是述異師的觀點。又解釋說，安慧菩薩在《俱舍釋》中解釋，根據...

【English Translation】 English version: Both conditioned (有為, yǒu wéi) and indeterminate (無記, wú jì) phenomena are self-nature (自性, zì xìng). Why does the Vibhasa (婆沙, Póshā) Volume 87 say that in the desire realm (欲界, yù jiè) there are five types of indeterminate phenomena: 1. Resultant-born phenomena (異熟生法, yì shú shēng fǎ), 2. Behavioral path phenomena (威儀路法, wēi yí lù fǎ), 3. Skillful activity phenomena (工巧處法, gōng qiǎo chù fǎ), 4. Universal result indeterminate phenomena (通果無記法, tōng guǒ wú jì fǎ), and 5. Self-nature indeterminate phenomena (自性無記法, zì xìng wú jì fǎ)? Furthermore, in ** it is said that there are four types of indeterminate phenomena, excluding skillful activity phenomena, the rest being the same as described in the desire realm. Moreover, in non- it is said that there are two types of indeterminate phenomena: 1. Resultant-born, and 2. Self-nature indeterminate. The explanation is that the Jñānaprasthāna (正理論, Zhènglǐlùn) holds that among conditioned phenomena, those whose essence is indeterminate are all called self-nature. The Vibhasa, within conditioned phenomena, distinguishes five types based on differences in meaning, and only those not included in the first four are called self-nature. It should be understood that the various treatises differ in their views on indeterminate phenomena, some speaking of one type, namely ultimate truth (勝義, shèng yì); some speaking of two types, namely ultimate truth and self-nature; some speaking of four types, namely resultant, behavioral, skillful, and universal result; some speaking of five types, adding self-nature; and some speaking of six types, adding ultimate truth. These are merely differences in breadth and conciseness, opening and closing, and there is no contradiction. Question: If this treatise establishes four types of goodness, etc., why does the Vibhasa Volume 2 say: 'Now we should ask them, if only the five roots (五根, wǔ gēn) [faith (信根, xìn gēn), vigor (精進根, jīng jìn gēn), mindfulness (念根, niàn gēn), concentration (定根, dìng gēn), and wisdom (慧根, huì gēn)] are self-nature good, then what is the self-nature of the remaining good dharmas? If it is said that those good dharmas are mixed with unwholesome (不善, bù shàn), indeterminate, and the five roots, and are therefore also called good, then why are the five roots, when mixed with those unwholesome and indeterminate dharmas, not called unwholesome and indeterminate? However, the five roots such as faith, etc., and the remaining dharmas, share the same basis (所依, suǒ yī), the same aspect (行相, xíng xiàng), the same object (所緣, suǒ yuán), arise together, abide together, cease together, have the same result (果, guǒ), the same outflow (等流, děng liú), and the same maturation (異熟, yì shú), yet it is said that the five roots are self-nature good, and the remaining dharmas are falsely established as good due to being mixed. This merely caters to deluded feelings and is not in accordance with right reason; there should be no such fault. Therefore, it should be said that the root of the highest mundane dharma (世第一法, shì dì yī fǎ) is not the nature of a root.' According to the Vibhasa's intention of refutation, all mental factors (心所, xīn suǒ), etc., share the same basis, etc., so why are the five roots uniquely called self-nature? This is the Vibhasa's general establishment of self-nature. Since goodness is like this, unwholesomeness and indeterminacy should also follow this principle and only speak of self-nature. Wouldn't establishing the three types of association, etc., contradict this? The explanation is that since the Vibhasa uses the same basis, etc., to refute and establish the five roots as self-nature good, it shows that those who speak of four types of goodness are stating the views of different teachers. Furthermore, the explanation is that Ācārya Ananda (安慧菩薩, Ānhuì Púsà) explains in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāsya (俱舍釋, Jùshè Shì), according to...

實而言皆是自性善。然世親阿阇梨立四種者。隨義勝劣建立異名。善中最強勝者勝義善。次強者立自性。次劣者立相應。最劣者名等起。不善隨義亦立四種。故婆沙一百四十四三性分別二十二根有一師亦說有四種善．不善。與此論同。然不見破　又解婆沙前文。但破異師立五根為自性善。不破立無貪等為自性善。故彼前．后亦不相違。

論曰至猶如無病者。釋第一句明勝義善　勝義是涅槃。此顯涅槃安穩名善。如人無病無苦安穩。又正理三十六一解云。或真解脫是勝。是義得勝義名。勝謂最尊無與等者。義謂別有真實體性。此顯涅槃無等實有故名勝義。如是勝義安穩名善。如是涅槃是善常故。於一切法其體最尊。是故獨標為勝義善。

自性善者至猶如良藥者。釋第二句明自性善。自性即善名自性善。猶如良藥。藥即良善故名良藥　問何故此五偏名自性。余善等法非自性耶　解云此五強勝名為自性。余非強勝不名自性　又解無貪等三以翻三不善根慚．愧二種以翻大不善地法。由所翻法是強勝故能翻五法名自性善。余善等法非能翻彼是故不名自性善也。

相應善者至如雜藥水者。釋第三句明相應善。如雜藥水。水與藥雜名為藥水。余心．心所與自性善相應方成善性故名相應善。

等起善者至所引

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：實際上，所有這些本質上都是自性善。然而，世親（Vasubandhu）（阿阇梨（Acharya）：老師）設立四種善，是根據意義的殊勝程度來建立不同的名稱。善之中最強大殊勝的稱為勝義善（Paramārtha-kuśala：至高無上的善），其次強大的稱為自性善（Prakṛti-kuśala：本性上的善），再次一等的稱為相應善（Samprayukta-kuśala：伴隨的善），最次一等的稱為等起善（Samutthāna-kuśala：由…而生起的善）。不善也根據意義的不同分為四種。因此，《大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百四十四卷中，關於三性（tri-svabhāva）的分別和二十二根（dvāviṃśati indriya）的討論中，有一位論師也說有四種善和不善，與此論相同。但是沒有看到對此的駁斥。又解釋《大毗婆沙論》前面的內容，只是駁斥了其他論師設立五根（pañcendriyāṇi）為自性善，並沒有駁斥設立無貪（alobha）等為自性善。因此，該論的前後內容並不矛盾。

論曰：至猶如無病者。解釋第一句，說明勝義善。勝義（Paramārtha）是涅槃（Nirvāṇa）。這表明涅槃的安穩狀態稱為善。就像人沒有疾病，沒有痛苦，處於安穩狀態一樣。另外，《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）第三十六卷第一節解釋說：或者真正的解脫是勝，是意義上獲得的勝義之名。勝是指最尊貴，沒有可以與之相比的。義是指具有真實體性。這表明涅槃是無與倫比的真實存在，因此稱為勝義。像這樣，勝義的安穩狀態稱為善。像這樣，涅槃是善且永恒的，因此，在一切法中，它的本體最為尊貴。因此，單獨標明為勝義善。

自性善者：至猶如良藥者。解釋第二句，說明自性善。自性即是善，稱為自性善。就像良藥一樣。藥即是良善的，所以稱為良藥。問：為什麼這五種（無貪、無嗔、無癡、慚、愧）特別稱為自性？其餘的善法不是自性嗎？解釋說：這五種強大殊勝，所以稱為自性。其餘的不是強大殊勝，所以不稱為自性。又解釋說，無貪等三種可以翻轉三種不善根（akuśala-mūla）：貪（lobha）、嗔（dveṣa）、癡（moha），慚（hrī）和愧（apatrāpya）兩種可以翻轉大不善地法（mahā-akuśala-bhūmika-dharmāḥ）。由於所翻轉的法是強大殊勝的，所以能夠翻轉這五種法的稱為自性善。其餘的善法不能翻轉它們，所以不稱為自性善。

相應善者：至如雜藥水者。解釋第三句，說明相應善。就像混合了藥物的水。水與藥物混合稱為藥水。其餘的心（citta）、心所（caitta）與自性善相應，才能成為善性，所以稱為相應善。

等起善者：至所引

【English Translation】 English version: In reality, all of these are intrinsically good by nature. However, Vasubandhu (Acharya: teacher) establishes four types of goodness based on the degree of superiority in meaning, giving them different names. The strongest and most superior among the good is called Paramārtha-kuśala (Ultimate Good), the next strongest is called Prakṛti-kuśala (Intrinsic Good), the next inferior is called Samprayukta-kuśala (Associated Good), and the most inferior is called Samutthāna-kuśala (Arisen Good). Evil is also divided into four types according to its meaning. Therefore, in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 144, regarding the distinction of the three natures (tri-svabhāva) and the discussion of the twenty-two faculties (dvāviṃśati indriya), one teacher also says that there are four types of good and evil, which is the same as this treatise. However, no refutation of this view has been seen. Furthermore, the preceding content of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra is explained, only refuting other teachers' establishment of the five faculties (pañcendriyāṇi) as intrinsic good, without refuting the establishment of non-greed (alobha) and others as intrinsic good. Therefore, the preceding and subsequent content of that treatise are not contradictory.

The Treatise says: '...like one without illness.' This explains the first phrase, clarifying Paramārtha-kuśala (Ultimate Good). Paramārtha (Ultimate Truth) is Nirvāṇa (Liberation). This shows that the state of Nirvāṇa being peaceful and secure is called good. It is like a person being without illness, without suffering, and in a state of peace and security. Furthermore, the Nyāyasūtra, volume 36, section 1, explains: 'Or true liberation is superior, and it is in the sense of obtaining the name Paramārtha.' 'Superior' means the most venerable, with nothing comparable to it. 'Artha' means having a real essence. This shows that Nirvāṇa is an unparalleled real existence, therefore it is called Paramārtha. In this way, the peaceful and secure state of Paramārtha is called good. In this way, Nirvāṇa is good and eternal, therefore, among all dharmas, its essence is the most venerable. Therefore, it is singularly designated as Paramārtha-kuśala.

'Intrinsic Good: ...like good medicine.' This explains the second phrase, clarifying Prakṛti-kuśala (Intrinsic Good). Intrinsic nature itself is good, and is called Intrinsic Good. It is like good medicine. Medicine itself is good, so it is called good medicine. Question: Why are these five (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion, shame, and embarrassment) particularly called intrinsic? Are the other good dharmas not intrinsic? Explanation: These five are strong and superior, so they are called intrinsic. The others are not strong and superior, so they are not called intrinsic. It is also explained that the three, non-greed, etc., can reverse the three unwholesome roots (akuśala-mūla): greed (lobha), hatred (dveṣa), and delusion (moha); the two, shame (hrī) and embarrassment (apatrāpya), can reverse the great unwholesome mental factors (mahā-akuśala-bhūmika-dharmāḥ). Because the dharmas being reversed are strong and superior, the five dharmas that can reverse them are called Intrinsic Good. The other good dharmas cannot reverse them, so they are not called Intrinsic Good.

'Associated Good: ...like mixed medicinal water.' This explains the third phrase, clarifying Samprayukta-kuśala (Associated Good). It is like water mixed with medicine. Water mixed with medicine is called medicinal water. The remaining mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta) become good in nature only when they are associated with Intrinsic Good, so they are called Associated Good.

'Arisen Good: ...what is induced'

生乳者。釋第四句明等起善。謂身．語業不相應行即是四相得及二定。以是自性及相應善所等起故。此等起善如良藥汁所引生乳。謂如牸牛飲甘草汁由此力故所引生乳其味甘美。

若異類心至此義應思者．難等起善。染心異善名異類心。如疑心續善於染心后能引善得及四相起。所起得等云何成善。此義應思。又正理三十六云。因異類心亦起諸得。如因靜慮得通果心。勝無記心現在前故得諸染法。勝染污心現在前故得諸善法。此等如何成善等性。以就彼法俱生得故蜜作是言非異類心不作緣起故無有失。雖異類心亦為緣起而成善等非待彼心。或復因彼諸得等起。即待彼故成善等性。故得由等起成善等性異。(解云問中總有三異類心。一因靜慮得通果心。此即善心異無記得　二勝無記心現在前故得諸染法。據無記心成就染法。此即無記心異染污得　又解退起欲界身邊二見有覆無記心現在前故。得諸染污不善法．此即有覆無記心異不善得　三退勝染心現在前故得諸善法。此即染心異善法得。此等如何成善等性　答中兩解。等起善等。一約法俱得說。謂就同性法俱生得故密作是言。得由等起成善等性非異類心不作緣起。故無有失。雖異類心亦作緣起發異類得而成善等非待彼心　二約法前．法后得說。或復因彼所得諸法法前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『生乳者』（從牛奶中提取精華的人）。解釋第四句，闡明『等起善』（從相同或相似的因緣生起的善）。意思是，身、語、意業不相應的修行，就是四相得（獲得四種殊勝之相）和二定（兩種禪定）。因為這是自性和相應善所引發的。這種『等起善』就像良藥汁所引生的牛奶。比如，母牛飲用甘草汁，由此力量所引生的牛奶，其味道甘甜美好。

『若異類心至此義應思者』（如果不同型別的心達到這個意義，應該思考的是）：『難等起善』（難以從不同型別的因緣生起的善）。染心（被煩惱染污的心）不同於善心，稱為『異類心』。比如，疑心（懷疑的心）在染心之後，能夠引發善的獲得和四相的生起。所生起的獲得等，如何成為善？這個意義應該思考。另外，《正理》第三十六卷說，因為不同型別的心，也能生起各種獲得。比如，因為靜慮（禪定）而獲得神通果心。殊勝的無記心（非善非惡的心）現在前，因此獲得各種染法（被染污的法）。殊勝的染污心現在前，因此獲得各種善法。這些如何成為善的性質？因為就那個法來說，是同時生起的獲得，所以密宗這樣說：不是不同型別的心不作為緣起，所以沒有過失。雖然不同型別的心也作為緣起，而成就善等，但不是等待那個心。或者因為那個所獲得的各種法而生起。就是等待那個，所以成為善等性質。所以獲得由於等起而成為善等性質是不同的。（解釋說，問題中總共有三種不同型別的心：一是因為靜慮而獲得神通果心。這即是善心不同於無記的獲得。二是殊勝的無記心現在前，因此獲得各種染法。根據無記心成就染法。這即是無記心不同於染污的獲得。又解釋說，退失而生起欲界身邊二見，有覆無記心現在前，因此獲得各種染污不善法。這即是有覆無記心不同於不善的獲得。三是退失殊勝的染心現在前，因此獲得各種善法。這即是染心不同於善法的獲得。這些如何成為善的性質？回答中有兩種解釋。等起善等。一是約法同時獲得來說。就是就同性法同時生起獲得來說，密宗這樣說：獲得由於等起而成為善等性質，不是不同型別的心不作為緣起。所以沒有過失。雖然不同型別的心也作為緣起，引發不同型別的獲得，而成就善等，但不是等待那個心。二是約法前、法后獲得來說。或者因為那個所獲得的各種法，法前...）

【English Translation】 English version: 'Those who extract the essence from milk' (生乳者). Explaining the fourth sentence, it clarifies 'arising good' (等起善, good that arises from similar or identical causes and conditions). It means that the practice of body, speech, and mind not acting in accordance with each other is the attainment of the four characteristics (四相得, obtaining four excellent characteristics) and the two samadhis (二定, two kinds of meditative concentration). Because this is what is initiated by self-nature and corresponding good. This 'arising good' is like the milk produced by the juice of good medicine. For example, when a cow drinks licorice juice, the milk produced by this power is sweet and delicious.

'If a different kind of mind reaches this meaning, one should consider' (若異類心至此義應思者): 'Difficult arising good' (難等起善, good that is difficult to arise from different kinds of causes and conditions). A defiled mind (染心, a mind contaminated by afflictions) is different from a good mind and is called a 'different kind of mind' (異類心). For example, a mind of doubt (疑心, a doubting mind) after a defiled mind can lead to the attainment of good and the arising of the four characteristics. How can the arising of attainment, etc., become good? This meaning should be considered. Furthermore, the thirty-sixth volume of the Nyaya Sutra (正理) says that because of different kinds of minds, various attainments can also arise. For example, because of dhyana (靜慮, meditative absorption), one attains the mind of the fruit of supernatural powers (神通果心). Because a superior non-committal mind (無記心, a mind that is neither good nor bad) is present, one attains various defiled dharmas (染法, defiled phenomena). Because a superior defiled mind is present, one attains various good dharmas. How do these become the nature of good? Because, with respect to that dharma, it is an attainment that arises simultaneously, the esoteric school says this: it is not that a different kind of mind does not act as a cause, so there is no fault. Although a different kind of mind also acts as a cause and accomplishes good, etc., it is not waiting for that mind. Or it arises because of the various dharmas attained. It is waiting for that, so it becomes the nature of good, etc. Therefore, attainment becomes the nature of good, etc., due to arising, which is different. (The explanation says that there are three different kinds of minds in the question: first, because of dhyana, one attains the mind of the fruit of supernatural powers. This is a good mind different from non-committal attainment. Second, because a superior non-committal mind is present, one attains various defiled dharmas. According to the non-committal mind accomplishing defiled dharmas, this is a non-committal mind different from defiled attainment. Also, it is explained that when one regresses and the two views of the body and the side in the desire realm arise, a covered non-committal mind is present, and therefore one attains various defiled and unwholesome dharmas. This is a covered non-committal mind different from unwholesome attainment. Third, when one regresses and a superior defiled mind is present, one attains various good dharmas. This is a defiled mind different from the attainment of good dharmas. How do these become the nature of good? There are two explanations in the answer. Arising good, etc. First, it is explained in terms of the simultaneous attainment of dharmas. That is, in terms of the simultaneous arising of attainment of dharmas of the same nature, the esoteric school says this: attainment becomes the nature of good, etc., due to arising, it is not that a different kind of mind does not act as a cause. So there is no fault. Although a different kind of mind also acts as a cause, initiating different kinds of attainment, and accomplishing good, etc., it is not waiting for that mind. Second, it is explained in terms of the attainment of dharmas before and after the dharma. Or because of the various dharmas attained, before the dharma...)

。法后諸得等起。即待彼法成善等性故。得由等起成善等性異)。

如說善性至與此相違者。釋第五句明不善四種與善相違。

云何相違者。問。

勝義不善至猶如痼疾者。答。明勝義不善。謂生死法苦諦為性。極不安穩名勝義不善。如人痼疾恒苦不安　生死翻涅槃。涅槃是勝義善故。生死是勝義不善　問不善翻于善勝義不善通三性。亦可以善翻不善勝義之善通三性　解云勝義不善遍有漏故得通三性。勝義善法但擇滅。唯善不通三性。

自性不善至猶如毒藥者。明自性不善。可知　問于有漏中何唯此五名為自性　解云勝故別立。三不善根具五義勝。謂通五部。遍六識。是隨眠性。斷善根時作牢強加行。能發粗惡身．語二業　無慚．無愧具二義勝。謂唯不善及遍不善　余非具故所以不立。

相應不善至所引生乳者。此明相應．等起。可知。

若爾便無至皆生死攝故者。難勝義不善。有漏生死皆勝義不善於中應無善及無記。

若據勝義至故無有過者。答。若據勝義不善誠如所言無彼二性然於此有漏法中立善無記約異熟果說。諸有漏法中。若不能記異熟果者立無記名。于有漏法中若能記愛異熟果者說名為善。故無有過。

勝義無記至更無異門者。釋第六句。如文可知。引

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『法后諸得等起』，意思是說，要等待那個法成就了善等性質，才能說這個『得』由於等起而成就了不同的善等性質。

『如說善性至與此相違者』，這是解釋第五句話，說明了不善的四種情況與善相對立。

『云何相違者？』這是提問。

『勝義不善至猶如痼疾者』，這是回答。說明了勝義不善（Paramārtha-akuśala，究竟的不善）。所謂的勝義不善，是指以生死法（saṃsāra-dharma，輪迴的法則）和苦諦（duḥkha-satya，苦的真理）為性質的，極其不安穩的狀態，這被稱為勝義不善。就像人得了頑固的疾病一樣，總是痛苦不安。生死對應的是涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅），涅槃是勝義善（Paramārtha-kuśala，究竟的善），所以生死是勝義不善。有人問，不善對應于善，勝義不善通於三性（trisvabhāva，三種自性），也可以用善來對應不善，勝義的善也通於三性。解釋說，勝義不善普遍存在於有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）中，所以可以通於三性。勝義的善法只是擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅），只有善，不通於三性。

『自性不善至猶如毒藥者』，說明了自性不善（Prakṛti-akuśala，本性不善）。可以理解。有人問，在有漏法中，為什麼只有這五種被稱為自性不善？解釋說，因為它們殊勝，所以特別立名。三種不善根（akuśala-mūla，不善的根本）具備五種殊勝的意義，即通於五部（pañca-varga，五類），遍於六識（ṣaṭ-vijñāna，六種意識），是隨眠性（anuśaya-svabhāva，潛在的煩惱），在斷善根（kuśala-mūla-ccheda，斷絕善根）的時候，會產生牢固強大的行為，能夠引發粗暴惡劣的身業（kāya-karma，身體的行為）和語業（vāc-karma，語言的行為）。無慚（āhrīkya，不知羞恥）和無愧（anapatrāpya，不覺羞愧）具備兩種殊勝的意義，即唯獨是不善，並且遍於不善。其餘的法不具備這些殊勝的意義，所以不被立為自性不善。

『相應不善至所引生乳者』，說明了相應不善（saṃprayukta-akuśala，相應的惡）和等起不善（samutthāna-akuśala，由…而生起的不善）。可以理解。

『若爾便無至皆生死攝故者』，這是對勝義不善的質疑。有漏的生死都屬於勝義不善，那麼其中應該沒有善和無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡）。

『若據勝義至故無有過者』，這是回答。如果按照勝義不善來說，確實如你所說，沒有善和無記的性質。但是，在這種有漏法中，建立善和無記是根據異熟果（vipāka-phala，成熟的果報）來說的。在有漏法中，如果不能記錄異熟果的，就稱為無記。在有漏法中，如果能夠記錄可愛異熟果的，就稱為善。所以沒有過失。

『勝義無記至更無異門者』，這是解釋第六句話。如文可知。引用

【English Translation】 English version: '法后諸得等起' (Dharma-anantaram prāptiḥ samutthānaḥ), which means that one must wait for that Dharma to achieve the nature of goodness, etc., before saying that this 'attainment' achieves different natures of goodness, etc., due to its arising.

'如說善性至與此相違者' (yathā uktaṃ kuśala-svabhāvaḥ asya viruddhaḥ), this explains the fifth sentence, clarifying that the four types of unwholesome are opposed to the wholesome.

'云何相違者?' (katham viruddhaḥ), this is a question.

'勝義不善至猶如痼疾者' (Paramārtha-akuśalaḥ yathā ciravyādhiḥ), this is the answer. It explains Paramārtha-akuśala (ultimate unwholesomeness). Paramārtha-akuśala refers to the nature of saṃsāra-dharma (the law of birth and death) and duḥkha-satya (the truth of suffering), which is extremely unstable and is called Paramārtha-akuśala. It is like a chronic disease in a person, always causing pain and unease. Saṃsāra corresponds to nirvāṇa (liberation), and nirvāṇa is Paramārtha-kuśala (ultimate wholesomeness), so saṃsāra is Paramārtha-akuśala. Someone asks, unwholesome corresponds to wholesome, Paramārtha-akuśala encompasses the trisvabhāva (three natures), and wholesome can also be used to correspond to unwholesome, and Paramārtha-kuśala also encompasses the trisvabhāva. It is explained that Paramārtha-akuśala is prevalent in sāsrava-dharma (defiled dharmas), so it can encompass the trisvabhāva. Paramārtha-kuśala is only pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom), only wholesome, and does not encompass the trisvabhāva.

'自性不善至猶如毒藥者' (Prakṛti-akuśalaḥ yathā viṣaḥ), this explains Prakṛti-akuśala (inherently unwholesome). It is understandable. Someone asks, among the sāsrava-dharmas, why are only these five called Prakṛti-akuśala? It is explained that they are named specifically because they are superior. The three akuśala-mūlas (unwholesome roots) possess five superior meanings, namely, they pertain to the pañca-varga (five categories), pervade the ṣaṭ-vijñāna (six consciousnesses), are of the nature of anuśaya-svabhāva (latent afflictions), and when cutting off kuśala-mūla (wholesome roots), they produce firm and strong actions that can trigger coarse and evil kāya-karma (bodily actions) and vāc-karma (verbal actions). Āhrīkya (shamelessness) and anapatrāpya (lack of embarrassment) possess two superior meanings, namely, they are solely unwholesome and pervade unwholesomeness. The remaining dharmas do not possess these superior meanings, so they are not established as Prakṛti-akuśala.

'相應不善至所引生乳者' (saṃprayukta-akuśalaḥ samutthāna-akuśalaḥ), this explains saṃprayukta-akuśala (associated unwholesome) and samutthāna-akuśala (arisen unwholesome). It is understandable.

'若爾便無至皆生死攝故者' (yadi evam na syāt sarve saṃsāra-saṃgrahaḥ), this is a question about Paramārtha-akuśala. All sāsrava-saṃsāra belongs to Paramārtha-akuśala, so there should be no wholesome or avyākṛta (neither wholesome nor unwholesome) within it.

'若據勝義至故無有過者' (yadi Paramārtha-anusāreṇa evam uktam na asti atikramaḥ), this is the answer. If according to Paramārtha-akuśala, it is indeed as you say, there is no nature of wholesome or avyākṛta. However, in this sāsrava-dharma, the establishment of wholesome and avyākṛta is based on vipāka-phala (result of maturation). Among the sāsrava-dharmas, if it cannot record the vipāka-phala, it is called avyākṛta. Among the sāsrava-dharmas, if it can record the desirable vipāka-phala, it is called wholesome. Therefore, there is no fault.

'勝義無記至更無異門者' (Paramārtha-avyākṛtaḥ na asti anyaḥ mārgaḥ), this explains the sixth sentence. It is understandable as written. Citation

正理文。如前已說。

於此應思至例亦應然者。此下問答分別。問。若由等起力身．語成善．惡此身．語業所依大種應成善．不善。俱從一心所等起故。

以作者心至故不成例者。答。如文可知。諸得四相雖非故起依法而立。由法勢力隨法起故可名等起。

若爾定心至應設劬勞者。論主復難。若爾定心隨轉無表非正在定作意引生。亦非散心加行引發。散與隨轉不同類故。或定．散別不同類故。應如大種非故心生。如何成善。正理三十六救云。隨定無表定等力生。理亦應成等起善性。俱舍師破云。若定無表由定等力而得生故名等起善。大種亦有由心力生應名等起善不善性。若言大種非作意生。此定無表豈故意起。或天眼．耳如善身．語應成善性。以是善心所等起故。此難二根或難二通。或根．通俱難。前說為善。難同類色是等起故。進退徴責。理實難通。應設劬勞思求異釋　正理救云。此難非理。以彼二通解脫道心是無記故。彼二與道俱時生故。通斯似難何費劬勞　俱舍師破云。若天眼．耳由與無記道俱生故。無記者既由道力應名等起。若言非由彼道力故成無記者。道俱生言何成解釋。真難未通。劬勞遂費。

如上所言至及邪命等者。此下第二明二等起。邪見即是見所斷惑。經言能起邪語．業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本正理文中如前文已經說過的內容。

在此應該思考，直至舉例也應該如此。以下是問答的分別。問：如果由於等起（動機）的力量，身和語產生了善和惡，那麼這些身語業所依賴的四大種（地、水、火、風）是否也應該成為善或不善？因為它們都是從同一個心所等起（動機）產生的。

答：以作者的心……直至故不成例。答案如文中所述。那些獲得四相（生、住、異、滅）的事物，雖然不是故意生起，但依法而建立。由於法的勢力，隨法而生起，所以可以稱為等起。

論主進一步提出疑問：如果這樣，那麼定心……直至應該費力思考。如果這樣，隨定心而轉的無表色（無表業），不是在入定時的作意直接引發，也不是散亂心通過加行引發。因為散亂心與隨轉不同類，或者說定心和散亂心本質不同。應該像四大種一樣，不是由故意的心產生，那又如何成為善呢？正理三十六救護說：隨定心而生的無表色，是定等的力量所生。從道理上說，也應該成為等起的善性。俱舍師反駁說：如果定心所生的無表色，由於定等的力量而生，所以稱為等起善，那麼四大種也有由心力所生的，也應該稱為等起善或不善性。如果說四大種不是作意所生，那麼這種定心所生的無表色難道是故意生起的嗎？或者說，天眼、天耳應該像善的身語一樣，成為善性，因為它們是善心所等起。這個難題或者針對天眼、天耳兩種神通，或者針對天眼、天耳兩種根，或者根和神通都包括在內。前面說的是善。難題在於同類的色是等起。進退之間互相詰難，實際上難以說通，應該費力思考尋求不同的解釋。正理救護說：這個難題不合理。因為天眼、天耳與解脫道心同時產生，是無記性（非善非惡）的。天眼、天耳與道俱時產生。用神通來類比似乎是難題，何必費力思考呢？俱舍師反駁說：如果天眼、天耳由於與無記性的道同時產生，所以是無記性，那麼無記性既然是由道的力量產生，就應該稱為等起。如果說不是由於那個道的力量而成為無記性，那麼說道同時產生又有什麼解釋作用呢？真正的難題沒有解決，白費力氣。

如上面所說……以及邪命等。以下第二部分說明二種等起。邪見就是見所斷的煩惱。經中說能夠引發邪語、邪業。

【English Translation】 English version The text of Nyaya, as previously stated.

Here, it should be considered that the example should also be the same. The following is a distinction of questions and answers. Question: If good and evil arise from the power of motivation (cetana) in body and speech, should the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) on which these bodily and verbal actions depend also become good or evil? Because they all arise from the same mental motivation.

Answer: With the mind of the author... until it does not become an example. The answer is as stated in the text. Those who have attained the four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and extinction), although not intentionally arising, are established according to the Dharma. Because of the power of the Dharma, they arise following the Dharma, so they can be called motivation.

The author further questions: If so, then the fixed mind... until one should exert effort to think. If so, the unmanifest form (avyakta-rupa) that follows the fixed mind is not directly caused by the attention (manaskara) during meditation, nor is it caused by the effort of a distracted mind. Because distracted mind and following are not of the same kind, or because fixed mind and distracted mind are essentially different. It should be like the four great elements, not produced by an intentional mind, so how can it become good? The thirty-sixth defense of Nyaya says: The unmanifest form that follows the fixed mind is produced by the power of the fixed mind. Logically, it should also become the good nature of motivation. The Kosa master refutes: If the unmanifest form produced by the fixed mind is called motivation good because it is produced by the power of the fixed mind, then the four great elements also have those produced by the power of the mind, and should also be called motivation good or evil. If it is said that the four great elements are not produced by attention, then is this unmanifest form produced by the fixed mind intentionally produced? Or, the divine eye and ear should become good like good body and speech, because they are motivated by good mental factors. This difficulty is either aimed at the two superknowledges of the divine eye and ear, or at the two roots of the divine eye and ear, or both the roots and superknowledges are included. What was said earlier is good. The difficulty lies in the fact that similar forms are motivation. Between advancing and retreating, they question each other, and in reality, it is difficult to explain, and one should exert effort to think and seek different explanations. The Nyaya defense says: This difficulty is unreasonable. Because the divine eye and ear arise simultaneously with the mind of the path of liberation, they are of indeterminate nature (neither good nor evil). The divine eye and ear arise simultaneously with the path. It seems to be a difficult problem to use superknowledges as an analogy, why bother to think hard? The Kosa master refutes: If the divine eye and ear are of indeterminate nature because they arise simultaneously with the path of indeterminate nature, then since the indeterminate nature is produced by the power of the path, it should be called motivation. If it is said that it is not due to the power of that path that it becomes indeterminate, then what explanatory effect does it have to say that it arises simultaneously? The real difficulty has not been resolved, and the effort is wasted.

As mentioned above... as well as wrong livelihood, etc. The following second part explains the two kinds of motivation. Wrong view is the affliction that is severed by view. The sutra says that it can cause wrong speech and wrong action.

．命。如何前言見所斷惑不能發表。

此不相違者。答　何以故者。徴問　頌曰至無記隨或善者。頌答。初一頌總明二種等起。第二頌約六識辨差別。第三頌約三性辨差別。

論曰至名為隨轉者　釋初頌可知。

隨轉于業有何功能者。問　雖有先因至如死業應無者。答。雖有先因為能引發業。若無隨轉心心所者。猶如死人業應無有。

若爾無心如何發戒者。難。

諸有心者至於業有用者。通。非言無心不能發戒。但說諸有心者業起分明故隨轉心於業有用。正理三十六云若無隨轉雖有先因為能引發。如無心位。或如死屍。表應不轉。隨轉于表有轉功能。無表不依隨轉而轉無心亦有無錶轉故　俱舍師難云于無心位得別解脫雖無隨轉表業亦轉。初念必具表．無表故如無心位。表應不轉此言有失。若謂非據初念得表據余無心。言應簡別既不簡別。過失遂成。

見所斷識至此無有故者。釋第五句。見於發表唯能為轉。于能起表尋．伺生中能為資糧。助彼起故作遠因等起。故能為轉不為隨轉。內門轉故不能發業。外門轉心方能發業。于外門心正起業時此見所斷而無有故。故婆沙一百一十七云。複次外門轉心能作剎那等起發身．語業。此心內門轉故不能發。廣如彼釋　又見所斷至是見所斷者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果這樣，為什麼前面說見所斷的煩惱不能引發（業）呢？

答：這並不矛盾。問：為什麼這樣說呢？（這是）提問。頌文說：『乃至無記隨或善』，這是頌文的回答。第一頌總括地說明了兩種等起（善與不善）。第二頌從六識的角度辨別差別。第三頌從三性的角度辨別差別。

論述說：『乃至名為隨轉』，解釋第一頌，內容顯而易見。

問：隨轉對於業有什麼作用呢？問：即使有先前的因，乃至如同死人的業應該不存在一樣。答：即使有先前的因能夠引發業，如果沒有隨轉的心和心所，就像死人一樣，業應該不存在。

難：如果這樣，沒有心如何生起戒體呢？（這是）責難。

通：對於有心的人來說，乃至對於業有用處。解釋：並非說沒有心就不能生起戒體，只是說對於有心的人來說，業的生起非常明顯，所以隨轉的心對於業有用處。《正理論》第三十六卷說：『如果沒有隨轉，即使有先前的因能夠引發，也如同無心位，或者如同死屍，表業應該不轉。』隨轉對於表業有轉的功能，無表業不依賴隨轉而轉，無心也有無表業的轉動。因此，俱舍師責難說：『在無心位獲得別解脫，即使沒有隨轉，表業也轉動。最初一念必定具有表業和無表業，如同無心位，表業應該不轉動。』這種說法有失誤。如果說不是根據最初一念獲得表業，而是根據其餘的無心位，那麼說法應該有所區別，既然沒有區別，過失就形成了。

解釋第五句：見所斷的煩惱對於發表業只能起到轉的作用，對於能夠生起表業的尋和伺，能夠作為資糧，幫助它們生起，作為遠因等起，所以能夠起到轉的作用，而不是隨轉的作用。因為在內門轉動，所以不能引發業。在外門轉動的心才能引發業。在外門的心正在生起業的時候，這種見所斷的煩惱是不存在的。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說：『其次，外門轉動的心能夠作為剎那等起，引發身業和語業。這種心因為在內門轉動，所以不能引發。』詳細內容如同該論的解釋。另外，見所斷的煩惱是見所斷的煩惱。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If that's the case, why was it said earlier that afflictions severed by view (見所斷, Jian suo duan) cannot initiate (karma)?

Answer: This is not contradictory. Question: Why is that? (This is) a question. The verse says: 'Even to the indifferent, following or wholesome,' this is the verse's answer. The first verse generally explains the two kinds of arising (wholesome and unwholesome). The second verse distinguishes the differences from the perspective of the six consciousnesses. The third verse distinguishes the differences from the perspective of the three natures.

The treatise says: 'Even to be called following,' explaining the first verse, the content is obvious.

Question: What function does 'following' (隨轉, Sui zhuan) have on karma? Question: Even if there is a prior cause, even to the point that the karma of a dead person should not exist. Answer: Even if there is a prior cause that can initiate karma, if there is no 'following' mind and mental factors, just like a dead person, karma should not exist.

Objection: If that's the case, how does one generate precepts without a mind? (This is) a challenge.

Explanation: For those with a mind, even to the point that it is useful for karma. Explanation: It's not saying that one cannot generate precepts without a mind, but it's saying that for those with a mind, the arising of karma is very clear, so the 'following' mind is useful for karma. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論, Zheng Li Lun), volume 36, says: 'If there is no 'following', even if there is a prior cause that can initiate, it's like the state of no-mind, or like a dead corpse, the manifest karma (表業, Biao ye) should not turn.' 'Following' has the function of turning for manifest karma, unmanifest karma (無表業, Wu biao ye) does not rely on 'following' to turn, and there is also the turning of unmanifest karma without a mind. Therefore, the Kośa master objects, saying: 'In the state of no-mind, one obtains liberation, even without 'following', manifest karma also turns. The initial thought certainly possesses manifest and unmanifest karma, just like the state of no-mind, manifest karma should not turn.' This statement has errors. If it is said that it is not based on the initial thought to obtain manifest karma, but based on the remaining state of no-mind, then the statement should be differentiated, since there is no differentiation, the error is formed.

Explaining the fifth sentence: Afflictions severed by view can only play a role in turning for manifest karma, and for the seeking and investigation that can generate manifest karma, it can serve as a resource, helping them arise, acting as a distant cause of arising, so it can play a role in turning, but not in following. Because it turns in the inner gate, it cannot initiate karma. Only the mind that turns in the outer gate can initiate karma. When the mind in the outer gate is generating karma, these afflictions severed by view do not exist. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論, Po Sha Lun), volume 117, says: 'Secondly, the mind that turns in the outer gate can act as an instantaneous arising, initiating physical and verbal karma. This mind cannot initiate because it turns in the inner gate.' The detailed content is like the explanation in that treatise. Furthermore, afflictions severed by view are afflictions severed by view.

第二解。又見所斷若發表色。色應見斷。

若許見斷斯有何失者。經部師問。許有漏色亦通見斷。斯有何失。

是則違越至非見所斷者。說一切有部答。若有漏色是見所斷是則違越阿毗達磨　本論說色非見斷故　此即違教　明謂智慧。無明謂癡　癡必惑俱偏說無明。明與無明互相違故必無並起。可有品別而斷。有漏業色與明．無明俱不相違。故非見斷。但可說言緣縛故斷。立量云。有漏業色非見所斷。與明．無明不相違故。如命根等　此即違理。故婆沙云問何故染污心．心所法九品漸斷。色。有漏善。無覆無記心．心所法。要由第九無間道力一時斷耶。答明無明互相違故。謂下下明起斷上上無明。乃至上上明起斷下下無明。色有漏善。無覆無記。與明．無明俱不相違。

如是道理應更成立者。經部師責顯因不定。為如命等與明．無明不相違故非見所斷。為如得四相與明．無明不相違故是見所斷。理既未盡故言如是道理應更成立　或有漏業色非見所斷。屬下責文。或通兩處。義並無違。

若爾大種至力所引故者。說一切有部反難。經部若有漏業是見所斷。彼能造大亦應見所斷。能．所二種俱見斷心力所起故。

無如是過失至理亦無違者。經部答。無有如是見所斷失。如四大種非由心引成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第二種解釋。又見到所應斷的如果是發表（fabiao，表達、顯露），就應該是見斷（jianduan，通過見道斷除的煩惱）。

如果承認是見斷，會有什麼過失呢？經部師問道。如果承認有漏色（youlouse，包含煩惱的色法）也屬於見斷，會有什麼過失？

這樣就違背了『不是見所斷』的說法。說一切有部（Shuo Yi Qie You Bu，Sarvastivada）回答。如果有漏色是見所斷，那就違背了《阿毗達磨》（Abhidamo，Abhidharma）本論所說『色不是見斷』的說法。這即是違背教義。明是指智慧，無明是指愚癡。愚癡必定與迷惑相伴隨，所以偏說無明。明與無明互相違背，必定不能同時生起，可以有品類差別而斷除。有漏業色與明、無明都不相違背，所以不是見斷，但可以說因為緣的束縛而斷除。可以立論說：有漏業色不是見所斷，因為它與明、無明不相違背，就像命根等。這即是違背道理。所以《婆沙》（Posha，Vibhasa）中說：為什麼染污心、心所法（xin suofa，mental factors）是九品漸斷，而色、有漏善、無覆無記心、心所法，要由第九無間道（wujian dao，path of immediate release）的力量一時斷除呢？回答是：明與無明互相違背。當下下的明生起時，就斷除上上的無明，乃至上上的明生起時，就斷除下下的無明。色、有漏善、無覆無記，與明、無明都不相違背。

這樣的道理應該進一步成立。經部師責備說因不定。是因為像命根等與明、無明不相違背所以不是見所斷，還是像得到四相（sixiang，four characteristics）與明、無明不相違背所以是見所斷？道理既然沒有窮盡，所以說這樣的道理應該進一步成立。或者『有漏業色非見所斷』屬於下文的責備，或者通用於兩處，意義並沒有違背。

如果這樣，大種（dazhong，the great elements）乃至力量所引導的緣故。說一切有部反駁說。經部如果認為有漏業是見所斷，那麼它所能造的大種也應該是見所斷，能造和所造兩種都是見斷的心力所生起的緣故。

沒有這樣的過失，乃至道理上也沒有違背。經部回答。沒有像四大種（sidazhong，four great elements）不是由心引導而成的過失。

【English Translation】 English version: The second explanation: Furthermore, if what is to be severed is expressed, it should be what is severed by seeing (the path of seeing).

If it is admitted to be severed by seeing, what fault would there be? The Sautrantika (Jingbu Shi) asked. If it is admitted that defiled form (youlouse, form associated with afflictions) is also severed by seeing, what fault would there be?

Then it would contradict the statement 'not severed by seeing.' The Sarvastivada (Shuo Yi Qie You Bu) replied. If defiled form is severed by seeing, then it would contradict the Abhidharma (Abhidamo) treatise, which states that form is not severed by seeing. This is a contradiction of the teachings. 'Clarity' refers to wisdom. 'Ignorance' refers to delusion. Delusion is necessarily accompanied by confusion, so ignorance is specifically mentioned. Clarity and ignorance contradict each other, so they cannot arise simultaneously, but they can be severed by different categories. Defiled karmic form does not contradict clarity or ignorance, so it is not severed by seeing, but it can be said to be severed by the bondage of conditions. It can be argued that defiled karmic form is not severed by seeing because it does not contradict clarity or ignorance, like life force, etc. This is a contradiction of reason. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Posha) says: Why are defiled mind and mental factors (xin suofa) gradually severed in nine stages, while form, defiled virtue, and neutral mind and mental factors are severed all at once by the power of the ninth path of immediate release (wujian dao)? The answer is: Clarity and ignorance contradict each other. When the lowest clarity arises, it severs the highest ignorance, and when the highest clarity arises, it severs the lowest ignorance. Form, defiled virtue, and neutral states do not contradict clarity or ignorance.

Such reasoning should be further established. The Sautrantika criticized, pointing out that the reason is not definitive. Is it because, like life force, etc., it does not contradict clarity or ignorance, so it is not severed by seeing, or is it because, like obtaining the four characteristics (sixiang), it does not contradict clarity or ignorance, so it is severed by seeing? Since the reasoning is not exhaustive, it is said that such reasoning should be further established. Or 'defiled karmic form is not severed by seeing' belongs to the criticism in the following text, or it applies to both places, and the meaning is not contradictory.

If so, the great elements (dazhong) and even because of being led by power. The Sarvastivada countered. If the Sautrantika believes that defiled karma is severed by seeing, then the great elements that it can create should also be severed by seeing, because both the creator and the created are produced by the power of the mind that is severed by seeing.

There is no such fault, and there is no contradiction in reason. The Sautrantika replied. There is no fault like the four great elements (sidazhong) not being guided by the mind.

善．不善。以非故心起大種故。與能引心性不同故。非是見斷。有漏色業與能引心同染污故是見所斷。作不齊解。或許四大見所斷引即見道斷理亦無違。

不應許然至不相違故者。說一切有部難。以理而言不應許然。以諸大種定非見斷及非所斷唯修所斷。以不染法與明．無明不相違故。所以非見所斷。

彼經但據至故不相違者。說一切有部會釋經文。因等起名前因等起。剎那等起名后等起　經言邪見起邪語等於二等起。彼經但據前因等起非據剎那等起而作是說。故不相違。

若五識身至外門轉故者。釋第六句。五識無分別故不能為轉。外門起故能為隨轉。

修斷意識至外門起故者。釋第七句。修斷意識有分別故能作轉。外門起故能作隨轉。

一切無漏至任運轉故者。釋第八句。諸無漏心非轉．隨轉。唯在定故內門而轉。望業無能　異熟生心非轉．隨轉。不由加行任運轉故其性羸劣。望業無能　正理難云。然說無漏。異熟非者此有大減。及太過失。有漏定心亦俱非故。諸異熟識但可非轉。能為隨轉。何理能遮。又云。異熟生心外門轉故能為隨轉。又云。但應說異熟生心勢微劣故非因等起不應說言不由加行任運轉故。勿生得善亦不為因發有表業。亦非加行任運轉故　俱舍師救云。有漏定心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本善與不善（業）。由於並非以故意之心生起四大種，並且與能引業的心性不同，所以不是見斷。（但）有漏的色業與能引業的心性相同，且被染污，所以是見所斷。如果做出不一致的解釋，或許四大種是見所斷，能引業在見道時斷除，在道理上也沒有違背。

『不應許然，乃至不相違故』，這是一切有部的詰難。從道理上說，不應該允許這樣。因為諸大種必定不是見斷，也不是非所斷，而是唯修所斷。因為不染污法與明、無明不相違背，所以不是見所斷。

『彼經但據，乃至故不相違』，這是一切有部對經文的會釋。因等起名為前因等起，剎那等起名為后等起。經文說邪見生起邪語等，是指兩種等起。那部經只是根據前因等起，而不是根據剎那等起而這樣說的，所以沒有違背。

『若五識身，乃至外門轉故』，這是解釋第六句。五識沒有分別能力，所以不能作為『轉』。由於外門生起，所以能作為『隨轉』。

『修斷意識，乃至外門起故』，這是解釋第七句。修斷的意識有分別能力，所以能作為『轉』。由於外門生起，所以能作為『隨轉』。

『一切無漏，乃至任運轉故』，這是解釋第八句。諸無漏心不是『轉』，也不是『隨轉』，只在禪定中，通過內門而轉，對於業沒有能力。異熟生心不是『轉』，也不是『隨轉』，不通過加行，任由其自身運轉，其性質羸弱，對於業沒有能力。《正理論》提出詰難說：然而說無漏心和異熟生心不是『轉』和『隨轉』，這有很大的減損以及太過失誤。因為有漏的定心也都是既非『轉』也非『隨轉』。諸異熟識只能說不是『轉』，但能作為『隨轉』，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？又說：異熟生心通過外門而轉，所以能作為『隨轉』。又說：應該只說異熟生心勢力微弱，所以不是因等起，不應該說不由加行任運轉故。不要讓生得的善業也不能作為原因而發起有表業，也不是通過加行任運轉故。俱舍師辯解說：有漏的定心...

【English Translation】 English version Good and non-good (karma). Because the four great elements are not arisen from intentional mind, and because they are different in nature from the mind that leads to rebirth, they are not severed by seeing (Darśana-prahātavya). (However,) defiled form karma with outflows, being of the same nature as the mind that leads to rebirth and being defiled, is severed by seeing. If an inconsistent explanation is made, perhaps the four great elements are severed by seeing, and the karma that leads to rebirth is severed on the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga), which would not be contradictory in principle.

'It should not be allowed, up to the reason of non-contradiction,' this is a challenge from the Sarvāstivāda school. From a logical standpoint, it should not be allowed. Because the four great elements are definitely not severed by seeing, nor are they not severed, but are only severed by cultivation (Bhāvanā-prahātavya). Because undefiled dharmas are not contradictory to clarity (Vidya) and ignorance (Avidya), they are not severed by seeing.

'That sutra only relies on, up to the reason of non-contradiction,' this is the Sarvāstivāda school's interpretation of the sutra. The arising of cause is called the prior arising of cause, and the arising of a moment is called the subsequent arising of cause. The sutra says that wrong view arises from wrong speech, etc., referring to the two kinds of arising. That sutra only relies on the prior arising of cause, not on the momentary arising of cause, so there is no contradiction.

'If the five consciousnesses, up to the reason of the external door turning,' this explains the sixth sentence. The five consciousnesses do not have the ability to discriminate, so they cannot act as 'turning'. Because the external door arises, they can act as 'following turning'.

'Cultivation-severed consciousness, up to the reason of the external door arising,' this explains the seventh sentence. The cultivation-severed consciousness has the ability to discriminate, so it can act as 'turning'. Because the external door arises, it can act as 'following turning'.

'All without outflows, up to the reason of allowing turning,' this explains the eighth sentence. All consciousnesses without outflows are neither 'turning' nor 'following turning', but only turn through the internal door in meditation, and have no power over karma. The consciousnesses born from fruition (Vipāka) are neither 'turning' nor 'following turning', they do not go through effort, but are allowed to turn on their own, their nature is weak, and they have no power over karma. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra raises a challenge, saying: However, saying that consciousnesses without outflows and those born from fruition are not 'turning' and 'following turning' is a great reduction and an excessive error. Because defiled meditative consciousnesses are also both not 'turning' and not 'following turning'. The consciousnesses born from fruition can only be said to be not 'turning', but can act as 'following turning', what reason can prevent this? It also says: The consciousnesses born from fruition turn through the external door, so they can act as 'following turning'. It also says: It should only be said that the consciousnesses born from fruition are weak in power, so they are not the arising of cause, and it should not be said that they are allowed to turn on their own without effort. Do not let the good karma born naturally also not be able to act as a cause to initiate manifest karma, nor is it allowed to turn on its own without effort. The Abhidharmakośa master defends, saying: Defiled meditative consciousness...

理同無漏非轉．隨轉。唯在定言已遮顯故。故不別說。異熟生心雖外門轉。善．惡業感不由加行任運而生。性羸劣故。非轉．隨轉生得善心豈同於彼。一即非從業感。二即其性是強。故亦非難。此即違理。又教相違　故婆沙一百十七云。問異熟生心何故不能作二等起發身．語業耶。答強盛心發身．語業。異熟生心其性羸劣故不能發。廣如彼說　又解如異熟心雖外門轉。性羸劣故非轉．隨轉。有漏定心雖內門轉。性強盛故望業有力。何妨能為隨轉。作此通釋。何減。何增。

如是即成至異熟生心者乘前義便作四句。可知。

轉隨轉心定同性不者者。此下釋后一頌。此即問也。

此不決定者。答。

其事云何。徴。

謂前轉心至無萎歇故者。釋文可知　牟尼。此云寂默。

有餘部說至那伽臥在定者。敘大眾部等計。佛常在定。心唯是善無無記心。經說如來四威儀中常在定故　那伽此雲龍顯世尊也。

毗婆沙師至通果心起者。毗婆沙師通彼引頌。佛不樂散。於四威儀能常在定。然于散位非無三無記心　工巧處心佛不多起故略不說。非全不起。故婆沙解威儀．工巧中。有說佛故。如前具引　此論等工巧中不說佛者略而不論　又解說三無記據現行說。工巧佛雖成就不現行故不說　又

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：與無漏心一樣，有漏定心不是『轉』（pravrtti，生起）或『隨轉』（anu-pravrtti，隨生）。因為在關於『定』的討論中，已經通過其他方式遮止和顯明瞭這一點，所以沒有單獨說明。異熟生心（vipāka-ja citta，由業力產生的果報心）雖然在外門（指感官）活動，但由善業或惡業所感生的心，並非通過加行（努力）而是任運（自然而然）產生，其性質羸弱，因此不是『轉』或『隨轉』。生得的善心怎麼能與異熟生心相同呢？一個不是由業力感生，另一個性質強盛，因此這不能構成反駁。這與道理相悖，也與教義相違背。因此，《婆沙論》第一百十七卷說：『問：異熟生心為什麼不能作為二等起（兩種引發）來引發身業和語業呢？答：強盛的心才能引發身業和語業，異熟生心性質羸弱，所以不能引發。』詳細內容如彼論所說。另一種解釋是，雖然異熟心在外門活動，但因為性質羸弱，所以不是『轉』或『隨轉』。有漏定心雖然在內門活動，但因為性質強盛，所以對業力有影響，不妨礙它能作為『隨轉』。作這樣的解釋，有什麼減少？有什麼增加？這樣就形成了關於異熟生心的四句，可以根據前面的意義來理解。『轉』心和『隨轉』心是否一定與『定』同性？』這是下面的解釋后一頌的提問。『這不一定。』這是回答。『事情是怎樣的呢？』這是提問。『所謂前面的『轉』心……直到沒有萎歇的緣故。』解釋文字可以理解。牟尼（Muni），這裡的意思是寂默。『有餘部說……那伽（Nāga）臥在定中。』這是敘述大眾部等的觀點，認為佛陀常在定中，心唯是善，沒有無記心。經典說如來在四威儀（行、住、坐、臥）中常在定中。那伽（Nāga），這裡的意思是龍，用來顯示世尊。『毗婆沙師……通果心起。』毗婆沙師通過引用頌文來解釋他們的觀點，認為佛陀不喜歡散亂，在四威儀中能夠常在定中。然而，在散亂的狀態下，並非沒有三種無記心。工巧處心（與工藝技術相關的心）佛陀不多生起，所以略而不說，並非完全不生起。因此，《婆沙論》解釋威儀和工巧時，有說到佛陀。如前面詳細引用的那樣。此論等在工巧中不說佛陀，是省略而不論。另一種解釋是，說三種無記心是根據現行來說的，工巧佛陀雖然成就，但不現行，所以不說。還有……

【English Translation】 English version: Like the non-defiled mind, the defiled meditative mind is neither 『pravrtti』 (arising) nor 『anu-pravrtti』 (subsequent arising). Because this has already been precluded and clarified in the discussion about 『meditation』 through other means, it is not separately explained. Although the vipāka-ja citta (resultant mind, the mind arising from karmic force) operates in the external realm (referring to the senses), the mind produced by good or bad karma is not produced through effort (application) but arises spontaneously (naturally), and its nature is weak, therefore it is not 『pravrtti』 or 『anu-pravrtti』. How can the naturally born good mind be the same as the vipāka-ja citta? One is not produced by karmic force, and the other's nature is strong, so this cannot constitute a refutation. This is contrary to reason and also contradicts the teachings. Therefore, the Vibhasa Volume 117 says: 『Question: Why can't the vipāka-ja citta be used as two kinds of initiation to initiate bodily and verbal actions? Answer: A strong mind can initiate bodily and verbal actions, but the vipāka-ja citta is weak in nature, so it cannot initiate.』 The details are as described in that treatise. Another explanation is that although the vipāka-ja citta operates in the external realm, because its nature is weak, it is not 『pravrtti』 or 『anu-pravrtti』. Although the defiled meditative mind operates in the internal realm, because its nature is strong, it has an influence on karmic force, and it does not prevent it from being able to act as 『anu-pravrtti』. What is reduced or added by making such an explanation? In this way, the four sentences about the vipāka-ja citta are formed, which can be understood according to the previous meaning. 『Is the 『pravrtti』 mind and the 『anu-pravrtti』 mind necessarily of the same nature as 『meditation』?』 This is the question explaining the last verse below. 『This is not necessarily so.』 This is the answer. 『What is the matter?』 This is the question. 『The so-called previous 『pravrtti』 mind... until there is no withering away.』 The explanation of the text can be understood. Muni, here means silence. 『Some other schools say... the Nāga (Nāga) is lying in meditation.』 This is a description of the views of the Mahāsāṃghika and others, who believe that the Buddha is always in meditation, and the mind is only good, without non-specified mind. The scriptures say that the Tathagata is always in meditation in the four dignities (walking, standing, sitting, lying down). Nāga (Nāga), here means dragon, used to show the World Honored One. 『The Vibhasa master... the mind of the common fruit arises.』 The Vibhasa master explains their views by quoting verses, believing that the Buddha does not like distraction and can always be in meditation in the four dignities. However, in a state of distraction, there are not without three non-specified minds. The mind of skillful means (the mind related to crafts and technology) is not often produced by the Buddha, so it is briefly mentioned, but not completely unproduced. Therefore, when the Vibhasa explains the dignities and skillful means, it mentions the Buddha. As quoted in detail earlier. This treatise and others do not mention the Buddha in skillful means, which is omitted. Another explanation is that the three non-specified minds are said to be based on the present practice, and although the Buddha has achieved skillful means, it is not currently practiced, so it is not mentioned. Also...

解工巧佛亦不成。以多為邪命等故。故此論及正理解成就無記中。威儀即云如佛及馬勝苾芻及余善習者。工巧但云如毗濕縛羯磨天及余善習者。即不言佛　若爾婆沙言佛豈不相違。解云論意各別。雖有三解以初解為正。非但有文證亦與理相應。

諸有表業至為如隨轉者。問答分別。此即問也。

設爾何失者。反責問意。

若如轉者至應設劬勞者。正申問意。兩關徴責。若如轉心表成善等。則欲界中應有有覆無記表業。身．邊二見能為轉故。汝若救云欲界身．邊見無記性故不能為轉。應簡別言身．邊二見不能為轉。余邪見等能為轉。非一切種見所斷心皆能為轉。若如隨轉心表成善等性。惡．無記心俱得別解脫表應非善性。進退徴難。應設劬勞思求異解。

應言如轉心至為間隔故者。論主正釋。應言如轉心表成善等性。然非如彼見斷轉心遠因等起。所以者何。修斷轉心近因等起為間隔故。遠望表疏。近望表親故。隨近轉心表成善等。非隨遠轉心表成善等。

若表不由至無記表業者。論主顯前毗婆沙師通經有過。若表不由隨轉心力成善等者　汝前通邪見發業經即不應言彼經但據前因等起非據剎那。若作此通。一即名中有濫。二即似許剎那。但據前因等起此即名中有濫。謂等起有二。一因等起

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：即使是像佛一樣精通工巧技藝的人，也不能成就一切，因為如果追求過多，就會陷入邪命等不正當的營生。因此，《阿毗達磨論》只在討論正確的理解成就時，才將無記業包含在內。論中提到威儀時，會說『如佛陀、馬勝比丘以及其他善於修習的人』。而提到工巧時，則只說『如毗首羯磨天（Vishvakarman，印度教的工匠神）以及其他善於修習的人』，並沒有提及佛陀。如果這樣說，那麼《大毗婆沙論》中提到佛陀的部分豈不是自相矛盾？解釋說，論的側重點不同。雖然有三種解釋，但以第一種解釋為正確。這不僅有文獻支援，也與道理相符。對於『諸有表業至為如隨轉者』，以下是問答式的分別。這部分是提問。『設爾何失者』，這是反過來責問提問者的意思。『若如轉者至應設劬勞者』，這是正面闡述提問者的意思，包含兩方面的質疑。如果像隨轉心一樣，表業成就善等，那麼在欲界中就應該存在有覆無記的表業，因為身見和邊見能夠作為隨轉。如果你辯解說欲界的身見和邊見是無記性的，所以不能作為隨轉，那麼就應該明確區分，說身見和邊見不能作為隨轉，而其他的邪見等能夠作為隨轉。並非所有種類的見所斷的心都能作為隨轉。如果像隨轉心一樣，表業成就善等性，那麼噁心和無記心所引發的別解脫表業就不應該是善性。這是進退兩難的質疑，應該努力思考尋求不同的解釋。『應言如轉心至為間隔故者』，這是論主的正面解釋。應該說像隨轉心一樣，表業成就善等性，但並非像見所斷的隨轉心那樣，是遙遠的因等所引發的。原因是什麼呢？因為修所斷的隨轉心是更直接的因等，作為一種間隔。從遠處看，表業就顯得疏遠；從近處看，表業就顯得親近。因此，是隨順近處的隨轉心，表業才成就善等；而不是隨順遠處的隨轉心，表業就成就善等。『若表不由至無記表業者』，論主指出之前的毗婆沙師在引用經文時存在過失。如果表業不是通過隨轉心的力量來成就善等，那麼你之前引用邪見發業的經文就不應該說那部經只是根據前因等起，而不是根據剎那。如果這樣解釋，一是名稱中存在混淆，二是似乎承認了剎那。僅僅根據前因等起，這就在名稱中存在混淆。所謂等起有兩種，一是因等起。

【English Translation】 English version: Even a Buddha skilled in crafts cannot accomplish everything, because pursuing too much leads to wrong livelihood and other improper activities. Therefore, the Abhidharma treatises only include indeterminate karma when discussing the accomplishment of correct understanding. When mentioning deportment, it says 'like the Buddha, Ashvajit Bhikshu (one of the first five disciples of the Buddha), and other well-practiced individuals.' But when mentioning crafts, it only says 'like Vishvakarman (the Hindu god of craftsmanship) and other well-practiced individuals,' without mentioning the Buddha. If that's the case, isn't the mention of the Buddha in the Vibhasha contradictory? The explanation is that the treatises have different focuses. Although there are three explanations, the first is considered correct. This is not only supported by texts but also consistent with reason. Regarding 'All expressive actions, up to being like following-transformation,' the following is a question-and-answer analysis. This part is the question. 'If so, what is the fault?' This is a counter-question challenging the questioner's intention. 'If like transformation, up to one should exert effort,' this is a direct statement of the questioner's intention, containing two aspects of questioning. If, like following-transformation of mind, expressive actions accomplish goodness, then there should be covered indeterminate expressive actions in the desire realm, because the views of self and extremes can serve as following-transformation. If you argue that the views of self and extremes in the desire realm are indeterminate and therefore cannot serve as following-transformation, then you should clearly distinguish and say that the views of self and extremes cannot serve as following-transformation, while other wrong views can. Not all types of mind severed by views can serve as following-transformation. If, like following-transformation of mind, expressive actions accomplish suchness, then the separate liberation expressive actions arising from evil and indeterminate minds should not be good in nature. This is a dilemma of advancing and retreating, and one should strive to seek different explanations. 'One should say like transformation of mind, up to because of being an interval,' this is the treatise master's direct explanation. One should say that like following-transformation of mind, expressive actions accomplish goodness, but not like the following-transformation of mind severed by views, which is caused by distant causes. Why? Because the following-transformation of mind severed by cultivation is a more direct cause, serving as an interval. From a distance, expressive actions appear distant; from nearby, expressive actions appear close. Therefore, it is following the nearby following-transformation of mind that expressive actions accomplish goodness; not following the distant following-transformation of mind that expressive actions accomplish goodness. 'If expressive actions are not due to, up to indeterminate expressive actions,' the treatise master points out that the previous Vibhasha master had a fault in quoting the sutras. If expressive actions do not accomplish goodness through the power of following-transformation of mind, then you should not have said earlier when quoting the sutra on karma arising from wrong views that the sutra is only based on prior causes, not based on the moment. If you explain it this way, first, there is confusion in the name; second, it seems to acknowledge the moment. Merely based on prior causes, this is confusion in the name. There are two types of arising: one is arising from causes.

。二剎那等起。因等起望后剎那等起。是前故名前因等起。前因等起復有二種。一近因等起。二遠因等起。近因等起能發表。遠因等起不能發表。既言前因等起不能發表。近．遠二因俱名前因。名中簡法不盡即濫近因等起。非據剎那此即似許剎那表成善等。汝若不許約剎那等起表成善等。何故說言非據剎那　若據剎那亦許說剎那耶。若言亦許有違宗過。此論前文雖無正說非據剎那。今後難中準義加也　或可。前文雖無此說。餘論通經說具有故。故婆沙一百一十七云。答依因等起作如是說非剎那等起。是故無過(已上論文)　故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。準義為結。前無正文。或可是余處文　又解若表不由隨轉心力成善等者。但由轉心於欲界中令有有覆無記表業。以身．邊見能為轉故。則不應言彼經但據前因等起非據剎那。則不應言故欲界中定無有覆無記表業。

但應說言至無記表業者。論主顯前通經過已今復教彼正釋經文。但應說言彼經唯據余近因心為所間隔遠因等起說。見所斷心是遠因等起。為余修斷近因隔故。故見斷心雖能為轉。而於欲界定無有覆無記表業。改但作唯。改前作余心所間。即無妨矣　問表成三性從轉心判。欲無表業從何判耶　解云從前轉心判善．惡性　問隨心無表從何判性　解云從隨轉心以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二、剎那等起（ksanika-samutthana，瞬間生起）。因等起（hetu-samutthana，因緣生起）相對於后一剎那的等起，因為是之前的緣故，所以稱為前因等起。前因等起又分為兩種：一是近因等起，二是遠因等起。近因等起能夠表達，遠因等起不能表達。既然說前因等起不能表達，那麼近因和遠因都稱為前因，這在名稱上就簡化了法則，沒有完全涵蓋，就會混淆近因等起。如果不是根據剎那，這就好像允許剎那表達併成就善等。如果你不允許根據剎那等起來表達併成就善等，為什麼又說不是根據剎那呢？如果根據剎那，也允許說剎那嗎？如果說也允許，那就違背了宗義。此論的前文雖然沒有明確說不是根據剎那，但從後面的辯難中可以推斷出來。或者，前文雖然沒有這樣說，但其他論典和經文中普遍這樣說。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說：『回答說，是依據因等起這樣說的，不是剎那等起，所以沒有過失。』（以上是論文）。因此，欲界中一定沒有有覆無記的表業（vrtakavyakrta-vijnapti-karma，被覆蓋的、無記的表達行為）。這是根據義理作出的結論，前文沒有明確的說法，或者可能是其他地方的文句。另一種解釋是，如果表達不是通過隨轉心（anuvrtti-citta，隨順轉變的心）的力量來成就善等，而是僅僅通過轉變心在欲界中產生有覆無記的表業，因為身見（satkayadrsti，認為身體是我的邪見）能夠轉變，那麼就不應該說那部經只是根據前因等起，而不是根據剎那。那麼就不應該說因此欲界中一定沒有有覆無記的表業。但應該說，至於無記表業，論主已經闡明了之前的經文，現在又教導他們正確地解釋經文。但應該說，那部經只是根據其餘的、被近因心所間隔的遠因等起來說的。見所斷心（darshana-heya-citta，通過見道斷除的煩惱心）是遠因等起，因為它被其餘的修所斷近因（bhavana-heya-hetu，通過修道斷除的煩惱的近因）所間隔。所以，見斷心雖然能夠轉變，但在欲界中一定沒有有覆無記的表業。把『但』改為『唯』，把『前』改為『其餘心所間』，就沒有妨礙了。問：表業成就三種性質，是從轉變心來判斷的，那麼欲界的無表業（avijnapti-karma，無表色業）是從哪裡判斷的呢？回答說：是從之前的轉變心來判斷善惡性質。問：隨心無表（anuvrtti-citta-avijnapti，隨心而生的無表業）是從哪裡判斷性質的呢？回答說：是從隨轉心來判斷，因為...

【English Translation】 English version: Two, ksanika-samutthana (momentary arising). Hetu-samutthana (causal arising) in relation to the subsequent moment's arising, is called the prior causal arising because it is prior. Prior causal arising is further divided into two types: one is near causal arising, and the other is distant causal arising. Near causal arising can express, while distant causal arising cannot express. Since it is said that prior causal arising cannot express, then both near and distant causes are called prior causes. This simplifies the dharma in name, not fully encompassing it, and will confuse near causal arising. If it is not based on the moment, this seems to allow the moment to express and accomplish good, etc. If you do not allow expressing and accomplishing good, etc., based on momentary arising, why do you say it is not based on the moment? If based on the moment, is it also permissible to speak of the moment? If you say it is also permissible, then there is a contradiction to the doctrine. Although the previous text of this treatise does not explicitly say it is not based on the moment, it can be inferred from the subsequent refutations. Or perhaps, although the previous text does not say this, other treatises and sutras generally say so. Therefore, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, volume 117, says: 'The answer is, it is said based on causal arising, not momentary arising, so there is no fault.' (The above is the text of the treatise). Therefore, in the desire realm, there is definitely no obscured and unspecified expressive karma (vrtakavyakrta-vijnapti-karma). This is a conclusion based on the meaning, as there is no explicit statement in the previous text, or it may be a sentence from elsewhere. Another explanation is that if expression does not accomplish good, etc., through the power of the accompanying mind (anuvrtti-citta), but only through the transforming mind causing obscured and unspecified expressive karma in the desire realm, because the view of self (satkayadrsti) can transform, then it should not be said that that sutra is only based on prior causal arising, not based on the moment. Then it should not be said that therefore, in the desire realm, there is definitely no obscured and unspecified expressive karma. But it should be said that, as for unspecified expressive karma, the author has already clarified the previous sutra text and is now teaching them to correctly interpret the sutra text. But it should be said that that sutra only speaks of the remaining distant causal arising, which is separated by the near causal mind. The mind to be abandoned by seeing (darshana-heya-citta) is distant causal arising because it is separated by the remaining near cause to be abandoned by cultivation (bhavana-heya-hetu). Therefore, although the mind to be abandoned by seeing can transform, there is definitely no obscured and unspecified expressive karma in the desire realm. Change 'but' to 'only', and change 'prior' to 'separated by the remaining mind', and there is no obstacle. Question: The accomplishment of expressive karma with three natures is judged from the transforming mind, so from where is the unmanifest karma (avijnapti-karma) of the desire realm judged? Answer: It is judged from the previous transforming mind to determine the nature of good and evil. Question: From where is the nature of the unmanifest karma that follows the mind (anuvrtti-citta-avijnapti) judged? Answer: It is judged from the accompanying mind, because...

判善性。故正理三十六云。然隨定心諸無表業。與俱時起心一果故。由隨轉力善性得成。定屬此心而得生故也。

俱舍論記卷第十三

承久二年(庚辰)四月六日(未)時于東大寺西院書了　　　　　　　　　光慶

意趣無餘所偏是興隆佛法廣作佛事也。

一交畢

愿以書寫力　　世世開惠眼　生生得利根　　臨終生極樂大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十四

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之二

傍論已了至表無表相者。此下第三廣明表．無表。就中。一明三無表。二依三別解　此即明三無表。結前問起。

頌曰至故名律儀者。答　能遮。謂能遮惡戒相續　能滅。謂能滅惡戒相續。故名律儀　又解。能遮未來所引惡戒相續。能滅過去能引惡戒相續　又解。別解脫戒能遮惡戒相續。定道戒能滅惡戒相續。故名律儀　律謂法律　儀謂儀式　表不遍通所以不說。余文可知。

如是律儀差別有幾者。此下依三別解。就中。一別解律儀。二總明成就。三明得因緣。四明舍差別。五約處辨成就　第一別解律儀中。一明三善律儀。二別明初律儀　此即第一明三善律儀。頌前問起。

頌曰至謂無漏戒者。答文可解。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：判斷善的性質。因此，《正理三十六》中說：『然而，隨同禪定之心而生的諸無表業（Avijñapti-karma，無表業指無法通過身體或語言表達的行為所產生的業力），與同時生起的心識具有相同的果報。』由於隨順於禪定的力量，善的性質得以成就，因為禪定屬於此心而得以產生。

《俱舍論記》卷第十三

承久二年（庚辰）四月六日（未）時于東大寺西院書寫完畢光慶

意趣在於毫無保留地偏向興隆佛法，廣泛地進行佛事。

一交畢

愿以此書寫之力，世世代代開啟智慧之眼，生生世世獲得敏銳的根器，臨終之時往生極樂世界。《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第十四

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之二

傍論已經結束，接下來討論表業（Vijñapti-karma，可以通過身體或語言表達的行為所產生的業力）和無表業的相狀。下面第三部分將廣泛闡明表業和無表業。其中，第一部分闡明三種無表業，第二部分依據這三種無表業分別進行解釋。這裡闡明三種無表業，總結前面的內容並提出問題。

頌文說：『乃至名為律儀（Śīla，戒律）』。回答：能夠遮止，即能夠遮止惡戒的相續；能夠滅除，即能夠滅除惡戒的相續。因此名為律儀。又一種解釋是：能夠遮止未來所引生的惡戒相續，能夠滅除過去能夠引生的惡戒相續。又一種解釋是：別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa，又稱波羅提木叉，是佛教中比丘、比丘尼等出家眾所受持的戒律）能夠遮止惡戒相續，禪定之道所生的戒能夠滅除惡戒相續。因此名為律儀。律指法律，儀指儀式。表業並非普遍通行，所以沒有提及。其餘文句可以理解。

『像這樣的律儀差別有幾種？』下面依據三種律儀分別進行解釋。其中，第一部分解釋別解脫律儀，第二部分總的說明成就，第三部分說明獲得的因緣，第四部分說明捨棄的差別，第五部分根據處所辨別成就。第一部分解釋別解脫律儀，其中，第一部分闡明三種善的律儀，第二部分分別闡明最初的律儀。這裡闡明三種善的律儀，總結前面的內容並提出問題。

頌文說：『乃至稱為無漏戒（Anāsrava-śīla，超越世俗煩惱的戒律）』。回答的文句可以理解。

【English Translation】 English version: Judging the nature of goodness. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理三十六) states: 'However, the non-manifest karmas (Avijñapti-karma, karmas that cannot be expressed through body or speech) that arise along with the mind of meditation, have the same result as the mind that arises simultaneously.' Because of the power that follows meditation, the nature of goodness is achieved, because meditation belongs to this mind and is able to arise.

Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (俱舍論記), Volume 13

Completed writing at the West Temple of Todai-ji (東大寺) on the 6th day of the 4th month of the 2nd year of Jōkyū (承久) (corresponding to the year of the Metal Dragon, Gengchen 庚辰) at the hour of Wei (未) (1-3 PM) - Kōkei (光慶)

The intention is to wholeheartedly dedicate oneself to the flourishing of the Buddha-dharma and extensively perform Buddhist activities.

One copy completed.

May the power of this writing open the eyes of wisdom in every lifetime, may I gain sharp faculties in every birth, and may I be reborn in the Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss at the moment of death. Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya

Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Volume 14

Commentary by the Śramaṇa (沙門) Shakukō (釋光)

Chapter Four, Part Two: Analysis of Karma

The side discussion is finished, now to discuss the characteristics of manifest (Vijñapti-karma, karmas that can be expressed through body or speech) and non-manifest karma. The third part below will extensively explain manifest and non-manifest karma. Among them, the first part explains the three non-manifest karmas, and the second part explains them separately based on the three. This explains the three non-manifest karmas, summarizing the previous content and raising a question.

The verse says: '...hence it is called Śīla (律儀, precepts).' Answer: It can prevent, meaning it can prevent the continuation of bad precepts; it can extinguish, meaning it can extinguish the continuation of bad precepts. Therefore, it is called Śīla. Another explanation is: it can prevent the future continuation of bad precepts, and it can extinguish the past continuation of bad precepts. Another explanation is: the Prātimokṣa (別解脫戒, the vows of individual liberation) can prevent the continuation of bad precepts, and the precepts arising from the path of meditation can extinguish the continuation of bad precepts. Therefore, it is called Śīla. Śīla means law, and Śīla means ritual. Manifest karma is not universally applicable, so it is not mentioned. The remaining sentences can be understood.

'How many kinds of differences are there in such Śīla?' The following explains separately based on the three Śīla. Among them, the first part explains the Prātimokṣa Śīla, the second part generally explains accomplishment, the third part explains the causes and conditions for obtaining it, the fourth part explains the differences in abandoning it, and the fifth part distinguishes accomplishment based on location. The first part explains the Prātimokṣa Śīla, among which, the first part explains the three good Śīla, and the second part separately explains the initial Śīla. This explains the three good Śīla, summarizing the previous content and raising a question.

The verse says: '...hence it is called Anāsrava-śīla (無漏戒, precepts free from outflows).' The answering sentences can be understood.

初律儀相差別云何者。此下第二別明初律儀。就中。一明初律儀相。二安立四律儀。三明別解異名　此即第一明初律儀相。問起頌文。

頌曰至各別不相違者。答。初句辨名。下三句辨體。

論曰至別解脫律儀者。釋第一句　苾芻唐言乞士。舊云比丘訛也　苾芻尼。苾芻如前解。尼是女聲　梵云式叉摩那。唐言正學。正謂正學六法。言六法者。謂不淫．不盜．不殺．不虛誑語．不飲諸酒．不非時食　梵雲室羅摩拏洛迦。唐言勤策。謂為苾芻勤加策勵。洛是男聲。舊云沙彌訛也　梵雲室羅摩拏理迦。唐言勤策女。釋名如前。理是女聲。舊云沙彌尼訛也　梵云鄔波索迦。唐言近事。索是男聲。舊云優婆塞訛也。近事者婆沙一百二十三云。問何故名鄔波索迦。答親近修事諸善法故。謂彼身心狎習善法故名鄔波索迦。有餘師說親近承事諸善士故。復有說者。親近承事諸佛法故。廣如彼釋　梵云鄔婆斯迦。唐言近事女。釋名如前。斯是女聲。舊云優婆夷訛　梵云鄔婆婆沙。唐言近住。言近住者。婆沙一百二十四云。近阿羅漢住。以受此律儀隨學彼故。有說此近盡壽戒住故名近住。有說此戒近時而住故名近住　於此八中前五出家戒。后三在家戒。前七盡形戒。后一晝夜戒。此八雖別總名第一別解脫律儀　問何故此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『初律儀相差別云何者』，這是下面第二部分，分別闡明初律儀。其中，一、闡明初律儀的相狀；二、安立四種律儀；三、闡明別解脫的異名。這裡是第一部分，闡明初律儀的相狀。以問頌的方式開始。

『頌曰至各別不相違者』，回答。第一句辨別名稱，下面三句辨別本體。

『論曰至別解脫律儀者』，解釋第一句。『苾芻』（Bhiksu），唐朝話翻譯為『乞士』（beggar）。舊譯『比丘』（bhiksu）是訛誤。『苾芻尼』（Bhiksuni），『苾芻』（Bhiksu）如前解釋，『尼』是女性的稱謂。梵文『式叉摩那』（Siksamana），唐朝話翻譯為『正學』（one under training）。『正』指的是正確地學習六法。所說的六法是：不邪淫、不偷盜、不殺生、不妄語、不飲酒、不過午食。梵文『室羅摩拏洛迦』（Sramanera），唐朝話翻譯為『勤策』（diligent novice）。意思是作為『苾芻』（Bhiksu）要勤奮地自我鞭策。『洛』是男性的稱謂。舊譯『沙彌』（sramanera）是訛誤。梵文『室羅摩拏理迦』（Sramanerika），唐朝話翻譯為『勤策女』（female diligent novice）。解釋名稱如前，『理』是女性的稱謂。舊譯『沙彌尼』（sramanerika）是訛誤。梵文『鄔波索迦』（Upasaka），唐朝話翻譯為『近事』（devotee）。『索』是男性的稱謂。舊譯『優婆塞』（upasaka）是訛誤。『近事』，根據《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第一百二十三卷的說法：問：為什麼叫做『鄔波索迦』（Upasaka）？答：因為親近並修習各種善法。意思是他們的身心習慣於善法，所以叫做『鄔波索迦』（Upasaka）。有其他論師說，因為親近並承事各種善士。還有人說，因為親近並承事諸佛的教法。詳細的解釋見該處。《婆沙》。梵文『鄔婆斯迦』（Upasika），唐朝話翻譯為『近事女』（female devotee）。解釋名稱如前，『斯』是女性的稱謂。舊譯『優婆夷』（upasika）是訛誤。梵文『鄔婆婆沙』（Upavasatha），唐朝話翻譯為『近住』（one who lives nearby）。所說的『近住』，根據《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第一百二十四卷的說法：接近阿羅漢而住，因為受持這種律儀並隨之學習。有人說，這是接近盡壽戒而住，所以叫做『近住』。有人說，這種戒是接近某個時間而住，所以叫做『近住』。

在這八種戒律中，前五種是出家戒，后三種是在家戒。前七種是盡形壽戒，后一種是晝夜戒。這八種戒律雖然不同，總的來說都叫做第一別解脫律儀。問：為什麼這種

【English Translation】 English version: 『What are the differences in the characteristics of the initial precepts?』 This is the second part below, separately clarifying the initial precepts. Among them: 1. Clarifying the characteristics of the initial precepts; 2. Establishing the four types of precepts; 3. Clarifying the different names of Pratimoksha. This is the first part, clarifying the characteristics of the initial precepts. It begins with a question in verse.

『The verse says to each is separate but not contradictory.』 Answer: The first line distinguishes the names, and the following three lines distinguish the substance.

『The treatise says to the Pratimoksha precepts.』 Explaining the first line: 『Bhiksu』 (苾芻), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Qishi』 (乞士, beggar). The old translation 『Bichu』 (比丘, bhiksu) is an error. 『Bhiksuni』 (苾芻尼), 『Bhiksu』 (苾芻) is explained as before, 『ni』 is a feminine term. The Sanskrit term 『Siksamana』 (式叉摩那), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Zhengxue』 (正學, one under training). 『Zheng』 refers to correctly learning the six dharmas. The six dharmas are: no sexual misconduct, no stealing, no killing, no lying, no drinking alcohol, and no eating after noon. The Sanskrit term 『Sramanera』 (室羅摩拏洛迦), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Qince』 (勤策, diligent novice). It means that as a 『Bhiksu』 (苾芻), one should diligently encourage oneself. 『Luo』 is a masculine term. The old translation 『Shami』 (沙彌, sramanera) is an error. The Sanskrit term 『Sramanerika』 (室羅摩拏理迦), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Qincenu』 (勤策女, female diligent novice). Explaining the name as before, 『li』 is a feminine term. The old translation 『Shamini』 (沙彌尼, sramanerika) is an error. The Sanskrit term 『Upasaka』 (鄔波索迦), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Jinshi』 (近事, devotee). 『Suo』 is a masculine term. The old translation 『Youpose』 (優婆塞, upasaka) is an error. 『Jinshi』 (近事), according to the Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 123: Question: Why is it called 『Upasaka』 (鄔波索迦)? Answer: Because they are close to and cultivate various good dharmas. It means that their body and mind are accustomed to good dharmas, so it is called 『Upasaka』 (鄔波索迦). Other teachers say it is because they are close to and serve various virtuous people. Others say it is because they are close to and serve the teachings of all Buddhas. Detailed explanations can be found there in the Vibhasa. The Sanskrit term 『Upasika』 (鄔婆斯迦), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Jinshinu』 (近事女, female devotee). Explaining the name as before, 『si』 is a feminine term. The old translation 『Youpoyi』 (優婆夷, upasika) is an error. The Sanskrit term 『Upavasatha』 (鄔婆婆沙), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 『Jinzhu』 (近住, one who lives nearby). The so-called 『Jinzhu』 (近住), according to the Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 124: Living close to an Arhat, because they uphold these precepts and learn from them. Some say that this is living close to the precepts for the duration of one's life, so it is called 『Jinzhu』 (近住). Some say that these precepts are close to a certain time, so it is called 『Jinzhu』 (近住).

Among these eight precepts, the first five are monastic precepts, and the last three are lay precepts. The first seven are life-long precepts, and the last one is a day-and-night precept. Although these eight precepts are different, they are collectively called the first Pratimoksha precepts. Question: Why is this

八依別解脫律儀立。不依靜慮．無漏律儀立　解云。別解脫律儀漸次得故。漸次安立。可依彼立八種差別。靜慮．無漏七支頓得不可依彼立八差別　又解別解脫戒唯欲人趣八眾。亦唯欲界人趣。故依彼立。靜慮．無漏通依上界天趣亦起故。故不依彼立八差別。

雖有八名至無別近事女律儀者。釋第二句。約人不同雖有八名。論其實體唯有四種　離苾芻律儀無別苾芻尼律儀　離勤策律儀無別正學六法律儀。勤策女十戒律儀。勤策女先受十戒后受六法。雖更得六法即同十戒中六戒故。所以勤策女十戒。及正學六法。不異勤策十法　又解作正學時非更別得六法。但重受教行。約令持先受故此六法即是十戒中六故。說正學．勤策女十戒不異勤策十戒　近住八戒唯一晝夜。以時促故不分男．女故獨為一。

云何知然者。此下釋第三句。此即問也。

由形改轉至非異三體者。舉頌正答。如轉根時。戒無舍．得。但名有異　謂轉根位者。若苾芻轉根為女。令本苾芻律儀名苾芻尼律儀。若苾芻尼轉根為男。令本苾芻尼律儀名苾芻律儀　問苾芻與尼戒多少別。如何轉根名異體同　解云男．女不同。開．遮有異。隨緣別故。或說二百五十。說或五百。論其七支戒體皆等　又解據本七支兩眾戒等。若論遮戒多少有異。雖遮

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：八種戒律的建立，依賴於別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha vows，個人解脫的誓言），而不依賴於靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）和無漏律儀（Anasrava vows，無煩惱的誓言）。解釋是：因為別解脫律儀是逐漸獲得的，所以也是逐漸建立的。可以依賴它來建立八種差別。而靜慮和無漏律儀是頓悟而得的，所以不能依賴它們來建立八種差別。另一種解釋是，別解脫戒只屬於欲界的人類，也就是八眾，也只在欲界的人類中產生，所以依賴它來建立。而靜慮和無漏戒普遍存在於上界的天人中，也會生起，所以不依賴它們來建立八種差別。

雖然有八個名稱，直到沒有區別的近事女律儀（Upasika vows，女居士的誓言）為止。這是解釋第二句話。雖然從人的角度來看有八個名稱，但實際上只有四種。離開比丘（Bhikshu，男出家人）律儀，就沒有單獨的比丘尼（Bhikshuni，女出家人）律儀。離開勤策（Sramanera，沙彌）律儀，就沒有單獨的正學六法律儀（Siksamana vows，式叉摩那的誓言）。勤策女（Sramanerika，沙彌尼）的十戒律儀。勤策女先受持十戒，然後受持六法。雖然之後又得到了六法，但實際上和十戒中的六條戒律相同。所以勤策女的十戒和正學六法，與勤策的十法沒有區別。另一種解釋是，在作為正學女時，並不是另外得到六法，而是重新接受教導和修行。因為要讓她們堅持先前受持的戒律，所以這六法就是十戒中的六條，因此說正學女和勤策女的十戒與勤策的十戒沒有區別。近住八戒（Upavasatha vows，八關齋戒）只有一天一夜，因為時間很短，所以不區分男女，因此只有一種。

『如何得知是這樣呢？』這是解釋第三句話，這是一個提問。

『由於形體的改變和轉化，直到不是不同的三個實體為止。』這是用偈頌來正面回答。就像轉變根器的時候，戒律沒有捨棄和得到，只是名稱不同而已。所謂轉變根器的情況是：如果比丘轉變根器成為女性，就使原本的比丘律儀稱為比丘尼律儀。如果比丘尼轉變根器成為男性，就使原本的比丘尼律儀稱為比丘律儀。有人問：比丘和比丘尼的戒律在數量上有差別，為什麼轉變根器后只是名稱不同而實體相同呢？解釋說：男女不同，開許和遮止有所不同，這是隨因緣而產生的差別。或者說有二百五十條戒，或者說有五百條戒。但實際上，七支戒的戒體都是相同的。另一種解釋是，從根本的七支戒來看，兩眾的戒律是相同的。如果從遮戒的數量來看，則有所不同。雖然遮

【English Translation】 English version: The establishment of the eight kinds of precepts depends on the Pratimoksha vows (personal vows of liberation), and does not depend on Dhyana (meditation) and Anasrava vows (vows free from defilements). The explanation is: because the Pratimoksha vows are gradually obtained, they are also gradually established. Eight kinds of differences can be established based on it. Dhyana and Anasrava vows are attained suddenly, so eight kinds of differences cannot be established based on them. Another explanation is that the Pratimoksha precepts only belong to humans in the desire realm, that is, the eight assemblies, and only arise in humans in the desire realm, so they are established based on it. Dhyana and Anasrava precepts are universally present in the gods of the upper realms and also arise, so eight kinds of differences are not established based on them.

Although there are eight names, up to the point of no different Upasika vows (vows of female lay devotees). This is an explanation of the second sentence. Although there are eight names from the perspective of people, in reality there are only four kinds. Apart from the Bhikshu vows (vows of male monastics), there are no separate Bhikshuni vows (vows of female monastics). Apart from the Sramanera vows (vows of novice monks), there are no separate Siksamana vows (vows of probationer nuns). The ten precepts of Sramanerika (novice nuns). Sramanerika first uphold the ten precepts and then uphold the six dharmas. Although they later obtain the six dharmas, they are actually the same as the six precepts in the ten precepts. Therefore, the ten precepts of Sramanerika and the six dharmas of Siksamana are no different from the ten dharmas of Sramanera. Another explanation is that when acting as a Siksamana, they do not separately obtain the six dharmas, but rather re-accept teachings and practice. Because they are to be made to adhere to the precepts they previously upheld, these six dharmas are the six in the ten precepts, so it is said that the ten precepts of Siksamana and Sramanerika are no different from the ten precepts of Sramanera. The Upavasatha vows (eight precepts) are only for one day and one night, because the time is short, so there is no distinction between male and female, so there is only one kind.

'How is it known to be so?' This is an explanation of the third sentence, which is a question.

'Due to the change and transformation of form, up to the point of not being different three entities.' This is a direct answer using a verse. Just like when transforming the root faculty, the precepts are neither abandoned nor obtained, only the name is different. The so-called situation of transforming the root faculty is: if a Bhikshu transforms the root faculty into a female, then the original Bhikshu vows are called Bhikshuni vows. If a Bhikshuni transforms the root faculty into a male, then the original Bhikshuni vows are called Bhikshu vows. Someone asks: The precepts of Bhikshu and Bhikshuni have differences in number, why are they only different in name and the same in substance after transforming the root faculty? The explanation is: male and female are different, and there are differences in what is allowed and what is prohibited, which are differences arising from conditions. Or it is said that there are two hundred and fifty precepts, or it is said that there are five hundred precepts. But in reality, the seven-branch precepts are all the same. Another explanation is that from the perspective of the fundamental seven-branch precepts, the precepts of the two assemblies are the same. If viewed from the number of prohibited precepts, then there are differences. Although the prohibitions

有異。先受戒時兩眾互得。所以者何。苾芻．及尼俱作誓言諸惡皆斷。由斯願力互得遮戒。雖皆互得由緣別故。持犯不同。制罪各別　又解論遮戒體多少不同。未轉根時。若受此類戒。即得此類戒。于轉根位至彼類中非別得遮。雖無遮戒。由違教故亦結彼罪　若勤策轉根為女。令本勤策律儀名勤策女律儀。以未得六法。或未重受教約六法。所以不名正學　若勤策女．及正學轉根為男。令本勤策女律儀。及正學律儀名勤策律儀。以彼十戒．及與六法俱同勤策十種戒故　若近事轉根為女。令本近事律儀名近事女律儀　若近事女轉根為男。令本近事女律儀名近事律儀　近住日夜。雖有轉根以不別立男．女二名故不別說　非轉根位有舍先得律儀因緣。以無四種舍因緣故。非轉根位有得先未得律儀因緣。以無受戒因緣故。苾芻尼．勤策女．正學．近事女四律儀非異苾芻．勤策．近事三體。

若從近事至具足頓生者。此下釋第四句　問若從近事受勤策戒復從勤策受苾芻戒。此三律儀。

為由增足遠離增足方便　遠離戒之異名。遠離惡故。方便求戒方便。求后戒故。由更增足與前差別。立別別名。五戒上增五為十戒名勤策。十戒上增二百四十為二百五十名苾芻。如只增一名雙金錢。五上增五為十。十上增十為二十　為三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有差別。先受戒時，兩眾（指比丘和比丘尼）互相獲得（戒律）。這是為什麼呢？比丘和比丘尼都發誓斷除一切惡行。由於這種願力，互相獲得遮戒（防止違犯的戒律）。雖然都互相獲得，但由於因緣不同，持戒和犯戒的情況也不同，制定的罪行也各有區別。另一種解釋是，遮戒的體（本質）在數量上有所不同。在沒有轉變性別時，如果受持這類戒律，就得到這類戒律。在轉變性別后，進入另一類（性別）中，並非另外獲得遮戒。雖然沒有遮戒，但由於違背了教規，也會被判處相應的罪行。如果沙彌（Śrāmaṇera）轉變性別為女性，原本的沙彌律儀就稱為沙彌尼（Śrāmaṇerikā）律儀。因為沒有得到六法（六種應學之法），或者沒有重新接受關於六法的教誡，所以不稱為式叉摩那（Śikṣamāṇā，正學女）。如果沙彌尼和式叉摩那轉變性別為男性，原本的沙彌尼律儀和式叉摩那律儀就稱為沙彌律儀。因為她們的十戒和六法都與沙彌的十種戒律相同。如果優婆塞（Upāsaka，近事男）轉變性別為女性，原本的優婆塞律儀就稱為優婆夷（Upāsikā，近事女）律儀。如果優婆夷轉變性別為男性，原本的優婆夷律儀就稱為優婆塞律儀。近住（Upavāsa，八關齋戒）日夜，雖然有轉變性別的情況，但因為沒有另外設立男性和女性的名稱，所以不另外說明。在沒有轉變性別的情況下，沒有捨棄先前獲得的律儀的因緣，因為沒有四種捨棄的因緣。在沒有轉變性別的情況下，沒有獲得先前未獲得的律儀的因緣，因為沒有受戒的因緣。比丘尼、沙彌尼、式叉摩那、優婆夷這四種律儀與比丘、沙彌、優婆塞這三種體（本質）沒有區別。

如果從近事（優婆塞/優婆夷）到具足戒（比丘/比丘尼）頓然產生（戒體），下面解釋第四句（指前文中的一句）。問：如果從近事受沙彌戒，又從沙彌受比丘戒，這三種律儀，

是因為增加（戒條）而遠離（惡行），增加遠離惡行的方法，還是爲了方便求得更高的戒律？因為不斷增加（戒條），與之前的（戒律）有所差別，所以設立不同的名稱。五戒之上增加五條為十戒，稱為沙彌。十戒之上增加二百四十條為二百五十條，稱為比丘。就像只增加一個名字，雙金錢（指價值翻倍）。五之上增加五為十，十之上增加十為二十。還是三種（律儀）？

【English Translation】 English version There are differences. When initially receiving precepts, both assemblies (referring to Bhikṣus and Bhikṣuṇīs) mutually obtain them. Why is this? Both Bhikṣus and Bhikṣuṇīs make vows to sever all evil deeds. Due to this power of aspiration, they mutually obtain prohibitive precepts (precepts that prevent violations). Although they all mutually obtain them, due to different conditions, the upholding and violating of precepts differ, and the prescribed offenses are distinct. Another explanation is that the essence of prohibitive precepts differs in quantity. When not having changed gender, if one receives such precepts, one obtains such precepts. After changing gender, entering into the other category (gender), one does not separately obtain prohibitive precepts. Although there are no prohibitive precepts, due to violating the teachings, one is also judged with the corresponding offense. If a Śrāmaṇera (novice monk) changes gender to female, the original Śrāmaṇera precepts are called Śrāmaṇerikā (novice nun) precepts. Because she has not obtained the six dharmas (six learnable dharmas), or has not re-received the teachings about the six dharmas, she is not called a Śikṣamāṇā (probationary nun). If a Śrāmaṇerikā and a Śikṣamāṇā change gender to male, the original Śrāmaṇerikā precepts and Śikṣamāṇā precepts are called Śrāmaṇera precepts. Because their ten precepts and six dharmas are the same as the ten precepts of a Śrāmaṇera. If an Upāsaka (male lay follower) changes gender to female, the original Upāsaka precepts are called Upāsikā (female lay follower) precepts. If an Upāsikā changes gender to male, the original Upāsikā precepts are called Upāsaka precepts. For Upavāsa (observance of eight precepts) day and night, although there is a change of gender, because there are no separate names established for male and female, it is not separately discussed. In a state of not changing gender, there is no cause to abandon previously obtained precepts, because there are no four causes for abandonment. In a state of not changing gender, there is no cause to obtain previously unobtained precepts, because there is no cause for receiving precepts. The four precepts of Bhikṣuṇī, Śrāmaṇerikā, Śikṣamāṇā, and Upāsikā are not different from the three essences of Bhikṣu, Śrāmaṇera, and Upāsaka.

If, from a layperson (Upāsaka/Upāsikā), full ordination (Bhikṣu/Bhikṣuṇī) arises suddenly (the precept body), the following explains the fourth phrase (referring to a phrase in the previous text). Question: If one receives Śrāmaṇera precepts from a layperson, and then receives Bhikṣu precepts from a Śrāmaṇera, these three precepts,

Is it because of increasing (precepts) to distance oneself (from evil deeds), increasing the means to distance oneself from evil deeds, or to facilitate seeking higher precepts? Because of the continuous increase (of precepts), there is a difference from the previous (precepts), so different names are established. Adding five to the five precepts to make ten precepts is called Śrāmaṇera. Adding two hundred and forty to the ten precepts to make two hundred and fifty is called Bhikṣu. It's like adding just one name, double the gold coins (referring to doubling the value). Adding five to five to make ten, adding ten to ten to make twenty. Or are there three (precepts)?

戒體各別具足而頓生耶。

三種律儀至隨其所應者。答釋頌各別。三種律儀隨其多．少各別頓生。思之可解　八戒亦應此中問答。以時促故略而不論。

既爾相望同類何別者。問。三不殺等同類何別。

由因緣別相望有異者。答。由內因．外緣別故相望有異。

其事云何者。徴。

如如求受至故三各別者。釋　受戒者非一名曰如如　戒體非一名如是如是。如如求受隨其所應多種學處　學處謂戒。如是如是隨其所應。能離多種高廣床座。飲諸酒等憍逸處時。即離眾多殺．盜等緣能起此戒。以諸遠離依內因．外緣發故。因．緣別遠離有異　言因別者。謂求戒心別。或求五戒。或求十戒。或求大戒。故名因別　言緣別者。謂受戒緣別。即和上．阿阇梨等。若受五戒對一人。若受十戒對二人。若受大戒對十人等。故名緣別。由此因．緣別故所以遠離有異　以理反難。若無此事。三不殺生等漸增足者。舍苾芻律儀爾時。則應近事．勤策．苾芻三律儀皆舍。前二近事．勤策攝在後一苾芻中故　既不許然故三各別。由三別故舍苾芻戒猶名勤策。復舍勤策戒猶名近事。

然此三種至便非近事等者。釋不相違。然三不殺等於一心中互不相違。同一剎那俱時而轉。非由受後勤策．苾芻律儀舍前近事．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本戒體是各自具足而頓生的嗎？

三種律儀至於隨其所應的情況。回答是各自不同的。三種律儀隨著其多少而各自頓生。思考一下就可以理解。八戒也應該在此處進行問答，因為時間關係，所以省略而不論述。

既然這樣，相互觀望同類，有什麼區別呢？（問）三種不殺等同類，有什麼區別？

由因緣的差別，相互觀望而有差異。（答）由於內在的因和外在的緣的差別，所以相互觀望而有差異。

這件事是怎樣的呢？（征問）

如如求受，乃至因此三種各有差別。（釋）受戒者並非一個名叫如如的人。戒體並非一個名叫如是如是的東西。如如求受，隨著其所應，有多種學處（學處指戒）。如是如是，隨著其所應，能夠遠離多種高廣的床座，飲用各種酒等放逸之處時，就能遠離眾多殺、盜等緣，能夠生起此戒。因為各種遠離是依靠內在的因和外在的緣而發起的，所以因和緣的差別導致遠離也有差異。（言因別者），指的是求戒的心不同，或者求五戒，或者求十戒，或者求大戒，所以叫做因別。（言緣別者），指的是受戒的緣不同，即和尚（Upadhyaya，親教師）和阿阇梨（Acarya，軌範師）等。如果受五戒，對一人；如果受十戒，對二人；如果受大戒，對十人等，所以叫做緣別。由於這種因和緣的差別，所以遠離也有差異。以理反駁：如果沒有這件事，三種不殺生等逐漸增多，捨棄比丘（Bhikkhu，出家男眾）律儀的時候，就應該近事（Upasaka，在家男眾）、勤策（Sramanera，沙彌）、比丘三種律儀都捨棄，因為前兩種近事和勤策包含在後一種比丘中。既然不允許這樣，所以三種各有差別。由於三種的差別，所以捨棄比丘戒仍然叫做勤策，再次捨棄勤策戒仍然叫做近事。

然而這三種，乃至就不是近事等了。（釋不相違）然而三種不殺等在同一個心中互不相違，在同一個剎那同時運轉，不是因為受了後面的勤策、比丘律儀就捨棄了前面的近事。

【English Translation】 English version Are the precepts each complete and generated instantaneously?

Regarding the three types of vows, it depends on what is appropriate. The answer is that they are distinct. The three types of vows are generated instantaneously, each according to its quantity, whether many or few. This can be understood through reflection. The eight precepts should also be questioned and answered in this context, but they are omitted due to time constraints.

Since they are similar when viewed in relation to each other, what is the difference? (Question) What is the difference between the three abstentions from killing, etc., which are of the same kind?

Differences arise when viewed in relation to each other due to differences in causes and conditions. (Answer) Differences arise when viewed in relation to each other due to differences in internal causes and external conditions.

How is this the case? (Inquiry)

Like 'as it is' seeking to receive, hence the three are distinct. (Explanation) The receiver of the precepts is not a person named 'As It Is'. The precept body is not something called 'Thus Thus'. 'As It Is' seeks to receive various trainings (Siksa, 學處) as appropriate. 'Trainings' refer to precepts. 'Thus Thus', as appropriate, is able to abstain from various high and wide beds, drinking various wines, and indulging in other places of dissipation. It is able to abstain from numerous causes of killing, stealing, etc., and is able to generate these precepts. Because these abstentions arise from internal causes and external conditions, the differences in causes and conditions lead to differences in abstentions. ('Cause' refers to the difference in the mind seeking precepts, whether seeking the five precepts, the ten precepts, or the great precepts, hence it is called 'cause difference'.) ('Condition' refers to the difference in the conditions for receiving precepts, namely the Upadhyaya (和尚, preceptor) and Acarya (阿阇梨, teacher), etc. If one receives the five precepts, it is before one person; if one receives the ten precepts, it is before two people; if one receives the great precepts, it is before ten people, etc., hence it is called 'condition difference'.) Due to these differences in causes and conditions, the abstentions are different. Reasoning in reverse: if this were not the case, if the three abstentions from killing, etc., gradually increased, then upon abandoning the Bhikkhu (比丘, monastic) vows, one should abandon all three vows of Upasaka (近事, layperson), Sramanera (勤策, novice), and Bhikkhu, because the former two, Upasaka and Sramanera, are included in the latter, Bhikkhu. Since this is not allowed, the three are distinct. Due to the distinction of the three, abandoning the Bhikkhu vows still means one is a Sramanera, and abandoning the Sramanera vows again still means one is an Upasaka.

However, these three, up to the point where they are no longer Upasaka, etc. (Explanation of non-contradiction) However, the three abstentions from killing, etc., do not contradict each other in the same mind. They operate simultaneously in the same instant. It is not that by receiving the later Sramanera and Bhikkhu vows, one abandons the former Upasaka vows.

勤策律儀。非舍緣故。勿舍苾芻戒便非勤策。勿舍勤策戒便非近事。以雖舍后可名前故。故知身中具有三戒　雖一身中或具二戒。或具三戒。后戒勝故從勝立名　問不受前戒得后戒不　答如婆沙一百二十四云。問若先不受近事律儀便受勤策律儀。得勤策律儀不。有說不得。以近事律儀與此律儀為門。為依。為加行故。有說不定。若不了知先受近事律儀。後方得勤策律儀。信戒師故。受此律儀彼得律儀。戒師得罪。若彼解了先受近事律儀后受勤策律儀是正儀式。但憍慢故不欲受學近事律儀。作如是言。何用受此近事劣戒。彼憍慢纏心雖受不得。如說不受近事律儀。而受勤策律儀。如是不受勤策律儀而受苾芻律儀。廣說亦爾　問若從后戒卻受前戒為得戒不　答如正理三十六云。若有勤策受近事律儀。或有苾芻受前二種戒為受得不。有作是言此不應責。若先已有無更受得理。先已得故。若先未有則非勤策。亦非苾芻以先不受近事律儀必無受得勤策戒理。若先不受勤策律儀亦無受得苾芻戒理。是即不可立彼二名。以此推尋。受應不得。有餘師說不受前律儀亦有即能受得后戒理。故持律者作是誦言雖于先時不受勤策戒。而今但受具足律儀者亦名善受具足律儀。由此勤策容有受得近事律儀。苾芻容有受得勤策．近事戒理。豈不勤策

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：精進策勵守護戒律（勤策律儀）。因為沒有捨棄（非舍緣故）。不要捨棄苾芻（Bhikkhu，比丘）戒，否則就不是精進策勵者（勤策）。不要捨棄勤策戒，否則就不是近事（Upasaka，優婆塞）。因為即使捨棄了後面的戒律，之前所受的名稱仍然存在（以雖舍后可名前故）。所以知道自身中具有三種戒律（故知身中具有三戒）。即使一個人身上可能具有兩種或三種戒律，因為後面的戒律更為殊勝，所以按照最殊勝的戒律來命名（雖一身中或具二戒。或具三戒。后戒勝故從勝立名）。問：沒有受持前面的戒律，能夠受持後面的戒律嗎？（問不受前戒得后戒不）答：正如《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百二十四卷所說：如果先沒有受持近事律儀，就受持勤策律儀，能夠得到勤策律儀嗎？有人說不能得到。因為近事律儀是此律儀的門徑、依靠和加行（以近事律儀與此律儀為門。為依。為加行故）。有人說不一定。如果不知道先要受持近事律儀，之後才能得到勤策律儀，因為相信戒師的緣故，受持此律儀，他就得到了律儀，但戒師卻因此獲罪（信戒師故。受此律儀彼得律儀。戒師得罪）。如果他明白先要受持近事律儀，之後才能受持勤策律儀才是正確的儀式，但因為驕慢的緣故，不想受學近事律儀，並且說：『為什麼要受持這種低劣的近事戒？』（何用受此近事劣戒）。他被驕慢所纏縛，即使受持也無法得到。正如所說，沒有受持近事律儀，而受持勤策律儀，同樣，沒有受持勤策律儀，而受持苾芻律儀，道理也是一樣的（如說不受近事律儀。而受勤策律儀。如是不受勤策律儀而受苾芻律儀。廣說亦爾）。問：如果從後面的戒律反過來受持前面的戒律，能夠得到戒律嗎？（問若從后戒卻受前戒為得戒不）答：正如《正理》（Nyaya）第三十六卷所說：如果有勤策受持近事律儀，或者有苾芻受持前面兩種戒律，這樣受持能夠得到戒律嗎？有人這樣認為，這個問題不應該責難。如果先前已經有了，就沒有再次受持的道理，因為先前已經得到了（若先已有無更受得理。先已得故）。如果先前沒有，那麼就不是勤策，也不是苾芻，因為先前沒有受持近事律儀，一定沒有受持勤策戒的道理。如果先前沒有受持勤策律儀，也沒有受持苾芻戒的道理。這樣就不能安立他們的名稱。以此推斷，受持應該不能得到（若先未有則非勤策。亦非苾芻以先不受近事律儀必無受得勤策戒理。若先不受勤策律儀亦無受得苾芻戒理。是即不可立彼二名。以此推尋。受應不得）。有其他老師說，沒有受持前面的律儀，也有可能直接受持後面的戒律（有餘師說不受前律儀亦有即能受得后戒理）。所以持律者這樣誦說：即使在先前沒有受持勤策戒，而現在僅僅受持具足律儀的人，也稱為善於受持具足律儀（故持律者作是誦言雖于先時不受勤策戒。而今但受具足律儀者亦名善受具足律儀）。由此，勤策有可能受持近事律儀，苾芻有可能受持勤策和近事戒的道理。難道不是勤策嗎（由此勤策容有受得近事律儀。苾芻容有受得勤策．近事戒理。豈不勤策）？

【English Translation】 English version: Diligently strive to guard the precepts (Khinna-citta-laksana). Because there is no abandonment (non-abandonment cause). Do not abandon the Bhikkhu (monk) precepts, otherwise one is not a diligent striver (Khinna-citta). Do not abandon the Khinna-citta precepts, otherwise one is not an Upasaka (lay follower). Because even if the latter is abandoned, the previous name still exists (because even if abandoned, the name can still be used). Therefore, it is known that one possesses three precepts within oneself (therefore, it is known that one possesses three precepts in the body). Even if one person may possess two or three precepts, because the latter precept is more superior, the name is established according to the most superior precept (even if one person may possess two or three precepts, because the latter precept is more superior, the name is established according to the most superior precept). Question: Without receiving the previous precept, can one receive the latter precept? (Question: Without receiving the previous precept, can one obtain the latter precept?) Answer: As stated in Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa) Volume 124: If one does not first receive the Upasaka precepts and then receives the Khinna-citta precepts, can one obtain the Khinna-citta precepts? Some say no. Because the Upasaka precepts are the gateway, reliance, and preliminary practice for this precept (because the Upasaka precepts are the gateway, reliance, and preliminary practice for this precept). Some say it is uncertain. If one does not know that one must first receive the Upasaka precepts before obtaining the Khinna-citta precepts, because one trusts the precept master, by receiving this precept, he obtains the precept, but the precept master incurs guilt (because one trusts the precept master, by receiving this precept, he obtains the precept, but the precept master incurs guilt). If he understands that receiving the Upasaka precepts first and then receiving the Khinna-citta precepts is the correct ritual, but because of arrogance, he does not want to learn the Upasaka precepts, and says: 'Why should I receive this inferior Upasaka precept?' (Why should I receive this inferior Upasaka precept?). He is bound by arrogance, and even if he receives it, he cannot obtain it. As it is said, without receiving the Upasaka precepts, one receives the Khinna-citta precepts; similarly, without receiving the Khinna-citta precepts, one receives the Bhikkhu precepts, the principle is the same (as it is said, without receiving the Upasaka precepts, one receives the Khinna-citta precepts; similarly, without receiving the Khinna-citta precepts, one receives the Bhikkhu precepts, the principle is the same). Question: If one receives the previous precept after receiving the latter precept, can one obtain the precept? (Question: If one receives the previous precept after receiving the latter precept, can one obtain the precept?) Answer: As stated in Nyaya (Nyaya) Volume 36: If a Khinna-citta receives the Upasaka precepts, or if a Bhikkhu receives the previous two types of precepts, can they obtain the precepts by receiving them in this way? Some think that this question should not be questioned. If one already has it, there is no reason to receive it again, because one has already obtained it (if one already has it, there is no reason to receive it again, because one has already obtained it). If one did not have it before, then one is not a Khinna-citta, nor a Bhikkhu, because if one did not receive the Upasaka precepts before, there is certainly no reason to receive the Khinna-citta precepts. If one did not receive the Khinna-citta precepts before, there is no reason to receive the Bhikkhu precepts. In this way, their names cannot be established. Based on this reasoning, receiving should not be possible (if one did not have it before, then one is not a Khinna-citta, nor a Bhikkhu, because if one did not receive the Upasaka precepts before, there is certainly no reason to receive the Khinna-citta precepts. If one did not receive the Khinna-citta precepts before, there is no reason to receive the Bhikkhu precepts. In this way, their names cannot be established. Based on this reasoning, receiving should not be possible). Other teachers say that without receiving the previous precepts, it is also possible to directly receive the latter precepts (other teachers say that without receiving the previous precepts, it is also possible to directly receive the latter precepts). Therefore, those who uphold the precepts recite: Even if one did not receive the Khinna-citta precepts before, but now only receives the full precepts, he is also called good at receiving the full precepts (therefore, those who uphold the precepts recite: Even if one did not receive the Khinna-citta precepts before, but now only receives the full precepts, he is also called good at receiving the full precepts). Therefore, it is possible for a Khinna-citta to receive the Upasaka precepts, and it is possible for a Bhikkhu to receive the Khinna-citta and Upasaka precepts. Isn't it a Khinna-citta (therefore, it is possible for a Khinna-citta to receive the Upasaka precepts, and it is possible for a Bhikkhu to receive the Khinna-citta and Upasaka precepts. Isn't it a Khinna-citta)?

不應自稱唯愿證知我是近事。苾芻亦爾。不應自稱唯愿證知我是前二。非離如是自稱號言有得近事．勤策戒理。此難非理。俱可稱故。謂可稱言我是勤策亦是近事唯愿證知。苾芻亦應如應而說。然就勝戒顯彼二名亦無有失。若爾勤策及苾芻等。亦應受得近住律儀。如得近事許亦何過。然由下劣無欣受者。

近事近住至苾芻律儀者。此即第二安立四律儀。涂香飾鬘為一。觀舞聽歌為一　又解不得舞不得歌。不得觀。不得聽。故至十中開為二種　問何故八合十開　解云于在家人其過輕故二合為一。于出家眾譏嫌重故開一為二。又婆沙云。謂離塗飾香鬘。與離歌舞倡伎。同於莊嚴處轉故合立一支。又正理三十六云。為引怯怖眾多學處在家有情。顯易受持故。於八戒合二為一　問受畜金等何故不立近住戒中在十戒中　解云在家耽著金．銀等寶未能遠離。故近住戒不制此戒。勤策．出家不應耽著金．銀等寶妨廢修道。故於十戒別立為一。若受離諸所應遠離身．語惡業立第四戒。余文可知。

別解律儀至故名尸羅者。此即第三明別解異名。能平險惡諸不善業故名尸羅。此即初名。持戒能令身心清涼以安樂故　破戒能令身．心熱惱以悔恨故　引頌可知。

智者稱揚故名妙行者。此即第二。又正理云。或修行此得愛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不應該自稱『唯愿證知我是近事』（Upasaka，優婆塞，意為親近事奉三寶的在家男居士）。比丘（Bhiksu，佛教出家男眾）也一樣，不應該自稱『唯愿證知我是前二』（指沙彌戒和近事戒）。如果不是像這樣正確地稱呼自己，就不能說已經獲得了近事戒或勤策（Sramanera，沙彌）的戒律。這種說法是不合理的，因為都可以稱呼。可以這樣說：『我是勤策，也是近事，唯愿證知』。比丘也應該相應地說。然而，就殊勝的戒律而言，突出這兩個名稱也沒有什麼不妥。如果這樣，勤策和比丘等，也應該可以受持近住律儀（Upavasatha，八關齋戒），就像可以受持近事戒一樣，有什麼不可以呢？然而，由於（近住律儀）要求較高，沒有人樂於接受。

『近事、近住至比丘律儀』，這指的是第二種安立四種律儀的方式。涂香飾鬘（涂香和佩戴花鬘）算作一種，觀舞聽歌算作一種。另一種解釋是，不得跳舞，不得唱歌，不得觀看，不得聽聞。因此，在十戒中，將其分為兩種。問：為什麼八戒合併，十戒分開？解釋說：對於在家之人，過失較輕，所以二者合併爲一。對於出家眾，譏嫌較重，所以將一分為二。又《婆沙論》說：離開塗飾香鬘，與離開歌舞倡伎，都是在莊嚴之處活動，所以合併爲一支。又《正理》第三十六卷說：爲了引導怯懦、害怕眾多學處的在家有情，顯示容易受持，所以在八戒中將二者合併爲一。問：為什麼受持、畜積金銀等不設立在近住戒中，而設立在十戒中？解釋說：在家之人貪戀金銀等寶，難以遠離，所以近住戒不制定此戒。勤策、出家之人不應該貪戀金銀等寶，妨礙修道，所以在十戒中特別設立為一條。如果受持遠離所有應該遠離的身語惡業，就設立為第四戒。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『別解律儀至故名尸羅』，這指的是第三種說明別解脫戒的異名。能夠平息險惡的各種不善業，所以叫做尸羅（Sila，戒）。這是第一個名稱。持戒能夠使身心清涼安樂，破戒能夠使身心熱惱悔恨。引用的偈頌可以自己理解。

『智者稱揚故名妙行』，這是第二個名稱。又《正理》說：或者修行此戒，能夠獲得喜愛。

【English Translation】 English version: One should not claim, 'May I be known as an Upasaka (a male lay devotee who closely serves the Three Jewels).' A Bhiksu (Buddhist monk) is the same; one should not claim, 'May I be known as the former two' (referring to the Sramanera vows and Upasaka vows). If one does not correctly identify oneself in this way, one cannot say that one has obtained the vows of an Upasaka or a Sramanera. This statement is unreasonable because both can be claimed. One can say, 'I am a Sramanera and also an Upasaka; may I be known.' A Bhiksu should also say accordingly. However, in terms of superior precepts, highlighting these two names is not inappropriate. If so, Sramaneras and Bhiksus, etc., should also be able to observe the Upavasatha (eight precepts), just as they can observe the Upasaka vows. What is wrong with that? However, due to the higher requirements (of the Upavasatha), no one is willing to accept it.

'Upasaka, Upavasatha to Bhiksu vows,' this refers to the second way of establishing the four types of vows. Applying fragrant paste and wearing garlands are counted as one, and watching dances and listening to songs are counted as one. Another explanation is that one should not dance, should not sing, should not watch, and should not listen. Therefore, in the ten precepts, it is divided into two. Question: Why are the eight precepts combined, and the ten precepts separated? The explanation is: For lay people, the faults are lighter, so the two are combined into one. For monks, the criticism is heavier, so one is divided into two. Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: Leaving aside the application of fragrant paste and wearing garlands, and leaving aside singing, dancing, and performing music, both are activities in places of adornment, so they are combined into one branch. Also, the thirty-sixth volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: In order to guide timid lay beings who are afraid of many precepts, and to show that they are easy to observe, the two are combined into one in the eight precepts. Question: Why is the acceptance and accumulation of gold and silver, etc., not established in the Upavasatha precepts, but established in the ten precepts? The explanation is: Lay people are attached to gold, silver, and other treasures, and it is difficult to abandon them, so the Upavasatha precepts do not establish this precept. Sramaneras and monks should not be attached to gold, silver, and other treasures, hindering their cultivation, so it is specially established as one in the ten precepts. If one observes and abstains from all evil deeds of body and speech that should be avoided, it is established as the fourth precept. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

'Pratimoksha to therefore called Sila,' this refers to the third explanation of the different names of Pratimoksha. It can pacify all kinds of evil deeds, so it is called Sila (precept). This is the first name. Upholding the precepts can make the body and mind cool and peaceful, while breaking the precepts can make the body and mind hot and regretful. The quoted verses can be understood by oneself.

'The wise praise therefore called excellent conduct,' this is the second name. Also, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Or, by practicing this precept, one can obtain love.

果故。

所作自體故名為業者。此即第三。即戒自體是其所作故名為業。

豈不無表至所作自體者。問。表名為業。此義可然。豈不無表契經中說亦名不作。如何今說所作自體。

有慚恥者至得所作名者。答。經言不作。有慚．恥者受無表力。不造眾惡故名不作　論言所作。由身．語表及與意思所造作故。得所作名。

有餘釋言至名作無失者。敘異解。無表是後作果家因故從果立名。是前表思作因家果故從因立名。稱作無失。

能防身語故名律儀者。此即第四。能防身．語令不造過故名律儀。

如是應知至名為後起者。此明第五．第六名。釋下兩句。如是應知別解脫戒通初念位及后諸位無差別名。唯初剎那表及無表。得第五別解脫名。及第六業道名。所以者何。謂受戒時初念表．無表。不殺戒等別別棄捨殺生業等種種惡故　初依別舍義立別解脫名。即初念時所作善事皆悉究竟依因等起暢思義邊立業道名　因等起思造作名業。初表．無表思所游路名道業之道故名為業道　故初剎那初別舍惡。名別解脫　初別遮防。亦名別解脫律儀　暢思義邊。亦得名為根本業道　從第二念乃至未舍。非初別舍惡不名別解脫　能遮防故得名律儀。別解脫之律儀故名別解脫律儀　非暢思故。不名業道　

【現代漢語翻譯】果故（因為果的緣故）。

『所作自體故名為業者』（因為所作的自性，所以稱為業），這是第三種解釋。即戒的自性是其所作，所以名為業。

『豈不無表至所作自體者』（難道無表不是所作的自性嗎）？問：表名為業，這個意義可以成立。難道無表在契經中也說為『不作』，如何現在說它是所作的自性呢？

『有慚恥者至得所作名者』（有慚愧心的人才能得到所作之名）。答：經中說『不作』，是因為有慚愧心的人，依靠無表的力量，不造作各種惡業，所以名為『不作』。論中說『所作』，是因為由身、語的表業以及意念所造作，所以得到『所作』之名。

『有餘釋言至名作無失者』（還有其他的解釋說，稱作無失）。敘述另一種解釋：無表是後來作為果的因，所以從果的角度立名。表業和思是先前作為因的果，所以從因的角度立名，稱作『作』沒有錯誤。

『能防身語故名律儀者』（能夠防止身語的過失，所以稱為律儀），這是第四種解釋。能夠防止身語，使之不造作過失，所以名為律儀。

『如是應知至名為後起者』（應當這樣理解，名為後起）。這說明第五、第六種名稱，解釋下面兩句話。應當這樣理解，別解脫戒（Pratimoksha, 佛教戒律）通於初念位和後來的各個位，沒有差別。只有最初剎那的表業和無表業，得到第五種別解脫名，以及第六種業道名。為什麼這樣說呢？因為受戒時，最初一念的表業和無表業，分別捨棄不殺生等，種種捨棄殺生等惡業。最初依靠分別捨棄的意義，建立別解脫名。即最初一念時所作的善事，都完全依靠因等生起，暢通思慮的意義方面，建立業道名。因等生起的思慮造作稱為業。最初表業和無表業，思慮所遊歷的道路稱為道，業的道路所以稱為業道。所以最初剎那最初分別捨棄惡業，名為別解脫。最初分別遮止防範，也名為別解脫律儀。暢通思慮的意義方面，也可以稱為根本業道。從第二念乃至沒有捨棄之前，不是最初分別捨棄惡業，所以不名別解脫。能夠遮止防範，所以得名律儀。別解脫的律儀，所以名為別解脫律儀。不是暢通思慮的緣故，所以不名業道。

【English Translation】 Because of the result.

'That which is called 'karma' because of its own nature being what is done' - this is the third explanation. That is, the very nature of the precepts is what is done, hence it is called 'karma'.

'Isn't non-manifestation the very nature of what is done?' - Question: 'Manifestation' being called 'karma', this meaning can be established. But doesn't the Agama Sutra (契經) also say that non-manifestation is also called 'non-doing'? How can it now be said that it is the very nature of what is done?

'Those who have shame and embarrassment obtain the name of what is done.' - Answer: The Sutra says 'non-doing' because those who have shame and embarrassment rely on the power of non-manifestation and do not create various evils, hence it is called 'non-doing'. The Treatise says 'what is done' because it is created by the manifestation of body and speech, as well as by thought, hence it obtains the name of 'what is done'.

'Some explain that calling it 'doing' is not a mistake.' - Narrating a different explanation: Non-manifestation is the cause of the family of results that are done later, so it is named from the perspective of the result. Manifestation and thought are the result of the family of causes that are done earlier, so it is named from the perspective of the cause. Calling it 'doing' is not a mistake.

'That which can prevent body and speech is called 'Vinaya' (律儀).' - This is the fourth explanation. That which can prevent body and speech from creating faults is called Vinaya.

'Thus, it should be known that it is called 'arising later'.' - This clarifies the fifth and sixth names, explaining the following two sentences. Thus, it should be known that the Pratimoksha (別解脫戒) precepts are common to the initial moment and all subsequent moments without difference. Only the manifestation and non-manifestation of the initial moment obtain the fifth name of Pratimoksha and the sixth name of Karmapatha (業道). Why is this so? Because when taking the precepts, the manifestation and non-manifestation of the initial thought separately abandon non-killing, etc., and variously abandon the evil karma of killing, etc. Initially, the name Pratimoksha is established based on the meaning of separate abandonment. That is, all the good deeds done in the initial moment completely rely on the arising of causes, etc., and the name Karmapatha is established based on the aspect of unobstructed thought. The thought that arises from causes, etc., and creates is called karma. The path traveled by the thought of the initial manifestation and non-manifestation is called the path, so the path of karma is called Karmapatha. Therefore, the initial separate abandonment of evil in the initial moment is called Pratimoksha. The initial separate prevention and defense is also called Pratimoksha Vinaya. In terms of the meaning of unobstructed thought, it can also be called the fundamental Karmapatha. From the second moment until it is not abandoned, it is not the initial separate abandonment of evil, so it is not called Pratimoksha. That which can prevent and defend is called Vinaya. The Vinaya of Pratimoksha is called Pratimoksha Vinaya. Because it is not unobstructed thought, it is not called Karmapatha.

在根本后名為後起　誰成就何律儀者。此下第二總明成就。就中。一總成三律儀。二約世明成就　就總成三律儀中。一正明總成就。二便明斷律儀。三通經二律儀　此即第一正明總成就。頌前問起。

頌曰至后二隨心轉者。答。初句明成別解脫。次兩句明成定．道戒。下句顯差別。

論曰至乃至近住者。釋初句明八眾成別解脫。

外道無有所受戒耶者。問。

雖有不名至依著有故者。答。外道雖有受不殺戒等。但名處中戒。不名別解脫戒。由彼所受無有功能永別解脫諸惡法故。依著三有異熟果故。所以不名別解脫戒。

靜慮生者至此亦應然者。釋頌第二．第三句中得靜慮者成靜慮。明靜慮律儀　頌中言靜慮生者。謂此律儀從靜慮生。約生因解　或依靜慮。約依因明。故名靜慮生律儀　若得靜慮者定成就此靜慮律儀。諸靜慮近分亦名靜慮。如近村邑有稻田等得村邑名。此諸近分理亦應然。

道生律儀至謂學無學者。釋頌第二．第三句中得聖者成道生明無漏律儀　道謂無漏聖道。能生律儀故名道生律儀。

於前分別至其二者何者。釋第四句。牒前問起。

謂靜慮生至亦恒轉故者。答。定．道生二是隨心轉非別解脫。所以者何。此別解脫于惡．無記異心位中及無心位亦恒

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在根本后名為後起，誰成就何律儀者？此下第二總明成就。就中：一、總成三律儀；二、約世明成就。就總成三律儀中：一、正明總成就；二、便明斷律儀；三、通經二律儀。此即第一正明總成就。頌前問起。

『頌曰至后二隨心轉者』。答：初句明成別解脫（Pratimoksha，一種戒律）。次兩句明成定（Samadhi，禪定）、道戒（Magga-sila，道之戒律）。下句顯差別。

『論曰至乃至近住者』。釋初句明八眾成別解脫。

『外道無有所受戒耶者？』問。

『雖有不名至依著有故者』。答：外道雖有受不殺戒等，但名處中戒，不名別解脫戒。由彼所受無有功能永別解脫諸惡法故，依著三有異熟果故，所以不名別解脫戒。

『靜慮生者至此亦應然者』。釋頌第二、第三句中得靜慮者成靜慮。明靜慮律儀（Dhyana-sila，禪定之戒律）。頌中言『靜慮生者』，謂此律儀從靜慮生，約生因解。或依靜慮，約依因明，故名靜慮生律儀。若得靜慮者定成就此靜慮律儀。諸靜慮近分亦名靜慮，如近村邑有稻田等得村邑名，此諸近分理亦應然。

『道生律儀至謂學無學者』。釋頌第二、第三句中得聖者成道生明無漏律儀（Anasrava-sila，無漏之戒律）。道謂無漏聖道，能生律儀故名道生律儀。

『於前分別至其二者何者？』釋第四句。牒前問起。

『謂靜慮生至亦恒轉故者』。答：定、道生二是隨心轉非別解脫。所以者何？此別解脫于惡、無記異心位中及無心位亦恒

【English Translation】 English version: After the root, it is called 'subsequently arisen'. Who achieves what precepts? The second part below generally explains achievement. Among them: 1. Generally achieving the three precepts; 2. Explaining achievement in terms of the world. Within the general achievement of the three precepts: 1. Directly explaining general achievement; 2. Conveniently explaining the severance of precepts; 3. Generally covering the two precepts. This is the first part, directly explaining general achievement. The verse arises from the previous question.

'The verse says, 'Until the latter two follow the mind's turning'.' Answer: The first line explains the achievement of Pratimoksha (individual liberation). The next two lines explain the achievement of Samadhi (meditative concentration) and Magga-sila (path precepts). The last line reveals the difference.

'The treatise says, 'Until even the Upasaka (close dwelling one)''. Explains that the first line clarifies the eight assemblies achieving Pratimoksha.

'Do non-Buddhists not receive precepts?' Question.

'Although they have, they are not named... because they rely on attachment to existence.' Answer: Although non-Buddhists may receive precepts such as not killing, they are only called intermediate precepts and not Pratimoksha precepts. This is because what they receive does not have the power to permanently separate and liberate from all evil dharmas, and because they rely on attachment to the ripening fruits of the three realms of existence. Therefore, they are not called Pratimoksha precepts.

'Those born from Dhyana (meditative absorption)... should also be like this.' Explains that in the second and third lines of the verse, those who attain Dhyana achieve Dhyana. Clarifies Dhyana-sila (Dhyana precepts). The verse says, 'Those born from Dhyana,' meaning that these precepts arise from Dhyana, explained in terms of the cause of arising. Or, relying on Dhyana, explained in terms of the cause of reliance, hence the name Dhyana-sila. If one attains Dhyana, one will definitely achieve these Dhyana precepts. The proximate states of Dhyana are also called Dhyana, just as villages near rice fields are called villages. These proximate states should also be like this in principle.

'Precepts born from the Path... refer to those in learning and those beyond learning.' Explains that in the second and third lines of the verse, those who attain sainthood achieve the arising of the Path, clarifying Anasrava-sila (undefiled precepts). The Path refers to the undefiled noble path, which can give rise to precepts, hence the name precepts born from the Path.

'Having distinguished before... which of the two?' Explains the fourth line. Repeating the previous question.

'Referring to Dhyana-born... also constantly turning.' Answer: Samadhi-born and Path-born are two that follow the mind's turning, not Pratimoksha. Why is this so? This Pratimoksha is constant even in the states of evil and neutral minds, as well as in the state of no-mind.

轉故。所以不名隨心轉戒。此別解脫戒若名隨心轉者。善心起位可名隨轉。惡．無記心起時。及無心位彼應斷故。

靜慮無漏至名斷律儀者。此即第二便明斷律儀。以在成就文中說故亦判入成就門中。余文可知　斷謂斷對治。故婆沙一百一十九云。問何故唯此名斷律儀。答能與破戒及起破戒煩惱作斷對治故。謂前八無間道中二隨轉戒。唯與起破戒煩惱作斷對治。第九無間道中二隨轉戒。通與破戒及起破戒煩惱作斷對治(已上論文)　準此等文唯未至定九無間道隨轉戒。望欲惡戒及能起惑為斷對治。初定等五望破戒等雖無斷對治。而有厭壞對治故有隨轉戒。無色界望破戒等斷．厭俱無故無隨轉戒。色界類智品道望破戒等雖無斷．厭二種對治。而有持．遠二種對治故有隨轉戒　問無色界望欲破戒等亦有持．遠二種對治。應有隨轉戒　解云雖有持．遠由厭色故名無色界。故無隨轉戒。總而言之。對治有五。一舍。二斷。三持。四遠。五厭。望破戒等未至具五。初定等五無舍．斷有持．遠．厭。無色無舍．斷．厭有持．遠。此五對治準婆沙十七作此說也。廣如彼解。

由此或有至無漏律儀者。靜慮律儀對斷律儀四句可知。

如是或有至如應當知者。無漏律儀對斷律儀四句準前　第一句者除未至定九無間道無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，它不被稱為隨心轉戒。如果別解脫戒被稱為隨心轉，那麼善心生起時可以稱為隨轉。但噁心、無記心生起時，以及無心位時，此戒應該斷滅。

靜慮無漏戒直到被稱為斷律儀：這明確了第二種斷律儀。因為它在成就文中被提及，所以也被判定歸入成就門中。其餘的文字可以自行理解。斷，指的是斷除對治。因此，《婆沙論》第一百一十九卷說：『問：為什麼只有這個被稱為斷律儀？答：因為它能對破戒以及生起破戒的煩惱起到斷除對治的作用。』也就是說，前八個無間道中的兩種隨轉戒，僅僅是對生起破戒的煩惱起到斷除對治的作用。第九個無間道中的兩種隨轉戒，既能對破戒，也能對生起破戒的煩惱起到斷除對治的作用（以上是論文原文）。根據這些文字，只有未至定（Kusala-citta-samādhi，一種禪定境界）的九個無間道（anantariya-magga，無間道，指斷除煩惱的修行道路）的隨轉戒，對於欲界的惡戒以及能夠生起迷惑的煩惱來說，是斷除對治。初禪等五個禪定境界，雖然對於破戒等沒有斷除對治，但是有厭壞對治，所以有隨轉戒。無色界（arūpa-dhātu，佛教三界之一，指沒有物質存在的精神領域）對於破戒等，既沒有斷除對治，也沒有厭壞對治，所以沒有隨轉戒。類智品道（dharmānusāri-jñāna，佛教修行中的一種智慧）對於破戒等，雖然沒有斷除、厭壞兩種對治，但是有持守、遠離兩種對治，所以有隨轉戒。問：無色界對於欲界的破戒等，也有持守、遠離兩種對治，應該有隨轉戒。解釋說：雖然有持守、遠離，但因為厭離色界，所以稱為無色界。因此沒有隨轉戒。總而言之，對治有五種：一、捨棄；二、斷除；三、持守；四、遠離；五、厭離。對於破戒等，未至定具足五種。初禪等五個禪定境界，沒有捨棄、斷除，有持守、遠離、厭離。無色界沒有捨棄、斷除、厭離，有持守、遠離。這五種對治是根據《婆沙論》第十七卷作出的解釋。詳細內容可以參考該論。

由此，或者有靜慮律儀對斷律儀的四句分類，可以自行理解。

像這樣，或者有無漏律儀對斷律儀的四句分類，可以參照前面的內容。第一句是指除了未至定的九個無間道沒有。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is not called 'following-mind-transformation precepts'. If the Prātimokṣa (戒, monastic rules) were called 'following-mind-transformation', then the arising of a wholesome mind could be called 'following-transformation'. However, when unwholesome or neutral minds arise, and in the state of no-mind, these precepts should be terminated.

The Dhyāna (靜慮, meditation) and Anāsrava (無漏, without outflows) precepts, up to being called 'severance-restraint': This clearly defines the second type of severance-restraint. Because it is mentioned in the section on accomplishment, it is also classified into the accomplishment category. The remaining text can be understood on its own. 'Severance' refers to severing the antidote. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) volume 119 states: 'Question: Why is only this called severance-restraint? Answer: Because it can act as a severance-antidote to breaking precepts and arising afflictions that cause precept-breaking.' That is, the two following-transformation precepts in the first eight uninterrupted paths (無間道, anantariya-magga) only act as a severance-antidote to arising afflictions that cause precept-breaking. The two following-transformation precepts in the ninth uninterrupted path act as a severance-antidote to both breaking precepts and arising afflictions that cause precept-breaking (end of quote from the text). According to these texts, only the following-transformation precepts of the nine uninterrupted paths of the preliminary concentration (未至定, Kusala-citta-samādhi) are considered severance-antidotes to the evil precepts of the desire realm (欲界, kāma-dhātu) and the afflictions that can arise. Although the first Dhyāna and the following five Dhyānas do not have severance-antidotes to precept-breaking, they have aversion-destruction antidotes, so they have following-transformation precepts. The formless realm (無色界, arūpa-dhātu) has neither severance nor aversion to precept-breaking, so it has no following-transformation precepts. The path of knowledge of types (類智品道, dharmānusāri-jñāna) has neither severance nor aversion antidotes to precept-breaking, but it has maintenance and distance antidotes, so it has following-transformation precepts. Question: The formless realm also has maintenance and distance antidotes to precept-breaking in the desire realm, so it should have following-transformation precepts. Explanation: Although there are maintenance and distance, it is called the formless realm because of aversion to form. Therefore, there are no following-transformation precepts. In summary, there are five antidotes: 1. Abandonment; 2. Severance; 3. Maintenance; 4. Distance; 5. Aversion. The preliminary concentration has all five for precept-breaking. The first Dhyāna and the following five Dhyānas have no abandonment or severance, but have maintenance, distance, and aversion. The formless realm has no abandonment, severance, or aversion, but has maintenance and distance. These five antidotes are explained according to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra volume 17. See that text for details.

From this, the fourfold classification of Dhyāna precepts versus severance precepts can be understood on its own.

Likewise, the fourfold classification of Anāsrava precepts versus severance precepts can be understood by referring to the previous content. The first case refers to the absence of the nine uninterrupted paths of the preliminary concentration.

漏律儀。所餘無漏律儀　第二句者依未至定九無間道有漏律儀　第三句者依未至定九無間道無漏律儀　第四句者除未至定九無間道有漏律儀所餘一切有漏律儀。

若爾世尊至以何為自性者。此下第三通經二律儀。依經起問。若唯身．語名律儀者。何故世尊所說略戒身．語．意三俱名律儀而嘆善哉。言遍律儀總說三種。又契經中何故復說眼根律儀。此前經說意律儀。此後經說眼根律儀。以何為自性。

此二自性非無表色者。答。

若爾是何者。徴。

頌曰至顯勿如次者。釋　意謂意律儀　根謂眼根律儀　為顯此二俱以正知．正念為體。故於頌中先列正知．正念名已復說合言　謂先略戒說意律儀惠．念為體。即合惠．念為后經中眼根律儀　故先離。后合。言顯勿如次配二律儀所以惠．念名律儀者。惠能簡擇。念能憶念。此二力強防護制意及與眼根。不令于境起諸過患故名律儀非無表色。亦應具說眼等六根。不言耳等略而不言。故正理三十六云。故契經說。眼見色已不喜。不憂。恒安住舍正知．正念。如是乃至意了法已。

今應思擇至齊何時分者。此下第二約世明成就。就中。一問。二答。此即問也。

今應思擇。表及無表誰人成就何表．無表。於三世中齊何時分。

且辨成無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『漏律儀』（具有煩惱的戒律）。其餘的『無漏律儀』（沒有煩惱的戒律）。第二句指的是基於未至定（一種禪定狀態）的九個無間道（修行階段）中的『有漏律儀』。第三句指的是基於未至定的九個無間道中的『無漏律儀』。第四句指的是除了未至定的九個無間道中的『有漏律儀』之外的所有『有漏律儀』。

如果這樣，世尊所說的自性是什麼呢？下面第三部分解釋經文中的兩種律儀。根據經文提出問題。如果只有身和語才能稱為律儀，為什麼世尊所說的簡略戒律中，身、語、意三者都被稱為律儀，並且讚歎『善哉』（太好了）呢？意思是普遍的律儀總共說了三種。另外，為什麼契經（佛經）中又說眼根律儀呢？前面的經文說了意律儀，後面的經文說了眼根律儀，它們的自性是什麼呢？

這兩種律儀的自性不是『無表色』（不可見的色法）。回答。

如果不是無表色，那是什麼呢？提問。

頌文說要『顯勿如次』（顯示不要按順序）。解釋。意思是意律儀，『根』指的是眼根律儀。爲了顯示這兩種律儀都以『正知』（正確的認知）和『正念』（正確的憶念）為本體，所以在頌文中先列出正知和正念，然後又說『合』，指的是先前的簡略戒律中說意律儀以『惠』（智慧）和『念』（憶念）為本體，也就是將惠和念合在一起成為後來的經文中的眼根律儀。所以先是分離，然後是合併。說『顯勿如次』是爲了說明這兩種律儀的配對關係。之所以說惠和念是律儀，是因為惠能夠簡擇，念能夠憶念，這兩種力量強大，能夠防護和控制意和眼根，不讓它們對境界產生各種過患，所以稱為律儀，而不是無表色。也應該完整地說出眼等六根，不說耳等是因為省略了。所以《正理》第三十六卷說：『所以契經說，眼睛看到顏色后不喜悅，不憂愁，始終安住在舍（不執著）的狀態，具有正知和正念。像這樣乃至意了知法后也是如此。』

現在應該思考，乃至到什麼時候為止呢？下面第二部分是關於從世俗角度說明成就。其中，一是提問，二是回答。這裡是提問。

現在應該思考，表色和無表色，誰成就了什麼表色和無表色？在過去、現在、未來三世中，到什麼時候為止？

暫且辨別成就無

【English Translation】 English version: 'Leaked precepts' (precepts with afflictions). The remaining 'non-leaked precepts' (precepts without afflictions). The second phrase refers to 'leaked precepts' in the nine uninterrupted paths (stages of practice) based on the Unto-be-reached Concentration (a state of meditation). The third phrase refers to 'non-leaked precepts' in the nine uninterrupted paths based on the Unto-be-reached Concentration. The fourth phrase refers to all 'leaked precepts' except for the 'leaked precepts' in the nine uninterrupted paths based on the Unto-be-reached Concentration.

If so, what is the nature of what the World-Honored One (世尊) [Shìzūn, Buddha] spoke of? The third part below explains the two types of precepts in the scripture. A question is raised based on the scripture. If only body and speech can be called precepts, why in the concise precepts spoken by the World-Honored One, are body, speech, and mind all called precepts, and praised with 'Sadhu' (善哉) [Shànzāi, well done]? It means that the universal precepts are generally spoken of in three ways. Also, why does the scripture (契經) [Qìjīng, Buddhist scripture] also speak of eye-faculty precepts? The previous scripture spoke of mind precepts, and the subsequent scripture spoke of eye-faculty precepts. What is their nature?

The nature of these two precepts is not 'non-manifested form' (無表色) [Wúbiǎosè, invisible form]. Answer.

If it is not non-manifested form, then what is it? Question.

The verse says to 'reveal without following the order' (顯勿如次) [Xiǎn wù rú cì, reveal without following the order]. Explanation. It means mind precepts, and 'faculty' (根) [Gēn, faculty] refers to eye-faculty precepts. In order to show that both of these precepts take 'right knowledge' (正知) [Zhèngzhī, correct cognition] and 'right mindfulness' (正念) [Zhèngniàn, correct recollection] as their essence, the verse first lists right knowledge and right mindfulness, and then says 'combine', referring to the previous concise precepts saying that mind precepts take 'wisdom' (惠) [Huì, wisdom] and 'mindfulness' (念) [Niàn, recollection] as their essence, that is, combining wisdom and mindfulness to become the eye-faculty precepts in the later scripture. Therefore, it is first separated and then combined. Saying 'reveal without following the order' is to explain the pairing relationship of these two precepts. The reason why wisdom and mindfulness are called precepts is because wisdom can discern, and mindfulness can recollect. These two powers are strong and can protect and control the mind and eye-faculty, preventing them from generating various faults towards objects, so they are called precepts, not non-manifested form. All six faculties, such as the eye, should also be fully stated. Not mentioning the ear, etc., is because they are omitted. Therefore, the thirty-sixth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理) [Zhènglǐ, a commentary on Abhidharma] says: 'Therefore, the scripture says that after the eye sees a color, it does not rejoice or grieve, but always abides in a state of equanimity (舍) [Shě, equanimity], with right knowledge and right mindfulness. It is the same even after the mind knows the Dharma.'

Now we should consider, until what time? The second part below is about explaining accomplishment from a worldly perspective. Among them, one is a question, and the other is an answer. This is the question.

Now we should consider, who accomplishes what manifested form and non-manifested form? In the past, present, and future three times, until what time?

Let's first distinguish the accomplishment of non-

表律儀不律儀者。此下答也。就答中。一明成無表。二明成就表。三明不律儀異名。四成表．無表　就第一明成無表中。一約世成善．惡。二約世成處中。三住善．惡成中　此即第一約世成善．惡。就中。一標宗。二正釋。此即標宗。

頌曰至住定道成中者。此即正釋。就頌。初三句明別解脫律儀。第四句明不律儀。第五．第六句明靜慮律儀。第七句明無漏律儀。第八句雙明定．道。

論曰至勢微劣故者。釋初三句。住別解脫未舍戒來恒成現世　初剎那后第二剎那已去亦成過去　第二句中未舍之言遍流至后不律儀等　無有欲界散地無表有成未來　不隨心色非心一果勢微劣故。即由此理亦不能成前生中戒。

如說安住至亦成過去者。釋第四句。住不律儀至未舍彼惡戒以來恒成現世。初剎那后從第二剎那已去亦成過去。

諸有獲得至必還得彼故者。釋第五．第六句諸有獲得靜慮律儀。至未舍彼戒以來。恒成過．未。前生所失過去定律儀。今初剎那必還得彼故　問如婆沙十七云暖隨轉戒于破戒有舍對治。又正理六十一云。諸有先時未離欲染依思所成惠引暖善根生。又婆沙第七亦說未離欲染者思惠無間能引起暖　準此三文。有從思惠初入暖者。又暖善根唯修同類不修異類。此從思惠初入暖人不修異類

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本表律儀和不律儀的問題，以下是解答。在解答中，一、闡明如何形成無表色；二、闡明如何成就表色；三、闡明不律儀的別名；四、闡明表色和無表色。在第一部分闡明如何形成無表色中，一、從世俗角度闡明善和惡；二、從世俗角度闡明中性；三、安住于善和惡而成就中性。這裡是第一點，從世俗角度闡明善和惡。其中，一、標明宗旨；二、正式解釋。這裡是標明宗旨。

『頌曰至住定道成中者』，這是正式解釋。就頌文而言，前三句闡明別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha-samvara，一種戒律），第四句闡明不律儀，第五、第六句闡明靜慮律儀（Dhyana-samvara，禪定戒律），第七句闡明無漏律儀（Anasrava-samvara，無漏戒律），第八句同時闡明定和道。

『論曰至勢微劣故者』，解釋前三句。安住于別解脫律儀，在未舍戒之前，恒常成就現世。最初剎那之後，從第二個剎那開始，也成就過去。第二句中的『未舍』一詞，普遍適用於後面的不律儀等。欲界散地（Kama-dhatu，散亂之地）沒有成就未來的無表色。不隨心色（Acitta-rupa，非心色）、非心（Acitta，非心）和一果（Eka-phala，單一果報）的勢力微弱。因此，根據這個道理，也不能成就前生的戒。

『如說安住至亦成過去者』，解釋第四句。安住于不律儀，在未捨棄那惡戒之前，恒常成就現世。最初剎那之後，從第二個剎那開始，也成就過去。

『諸有獲得至必還得彼故者』，解釋第五、第六句。凡是獲得靜慮律儀，在未捨棄那戒律之前，恒常成就過去和未來。前生所失去的過去禪定戒律，現在最初剎那必定能夠重新獲得。』問：如《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第十七卷所說，暖隨轉戒（Usma-anuvrittisamvara，暖位隨轉戒）對於破戒有捨棄的對治。又《正理》（Nyayanusara，阿毗達磨順正理論）第六十一卷說，凡是先前沒有離開欲染，依靠思所成的智慧引導暖善根生起。又《婆沙論》第七卷也說，沒有離開欲染的人，思所成的智慧無間斷地能夠引起暖。根據這三段經文，有人是從思所成的智慧最初進入暖位的。而且暖善根只修習同類，不修習異類。那麼，從思所成的智慧最初進入暖位的人，不修習異類。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the expression of Samvara (restraint) and Asamvara (non-restraint), the following is the answer. In the answer: 1. Clarify the formation of Avijnapti-rupa (non-revealing form); 2. Clarify the accomplishment of Vijnapti-rupa (revealing form); 3. Clarify the different names of Asamvara; 4. Clarify Vijnapti-rupa and Avijnapti-rupa. In the first part, clarifying the formation of Avijnapti-rupa: 1. Explain good and evil from a worldly perspective; 2. Explain neutrality from a worldly perspective; 3. Achieving neutrality by abiding in good and evil. This is the first point, explaining good and evil from a worldly perspective. Among them: 1. State the purpose; 2. Officially explain. This is stating the purpose.

'The verse says, 'To abide in Dhyana (meditation) and Marga (path) to achieve the middle way.' This is the official explanation. Regarding the verse, the first three lines clarify Pratimoksha-samvara (discipline of individual liberation), the fourth line clarifies Asamvara, the fifth and sixth lines clarify Dhyana-samvara (discipline of meditation), the seventh line clarifies Anasrava-samvara (discipline of non-outflow), and the eighth line clarifies both Dhyana and Marga.

'The treatise says, 'To the extent that the power is weak.' This explains the first three lines. Abiding in Pratimoksha-samvara, before abandoning the precepts, constantly accomplishes the present life. After the initial moment, from the second moment onwards, it also accomplishes the past. The word 'before abandoning' in the second line universally applies to the subsequent Asamvara, etc. There is no Avijnapti-rupa in the Kama-dhatu (desire realm) of scattered ground that accomplishes the future. Acitta-rupa (non-mind form), Acitta (non-mind), and Eka-phala (single result) have weak power. Therefore, according to this principle, it cannot accomplish the precepts of the previous life either.

'As it is said, 'Abiding until also accomplishing the past.' This explains the fourth line. Abiding in Asamvara, before abandoning that evil precept, constantly accomplishes the present life. After the initial moment, from the second moment onwards, it also accomplishes the past.

'Those who obtain until they must regain it.' This explains the fifth and sixth lines. All those who obtain Dhyana-samvara, before abandoning that precept, constantly accomplish the past and future. The past meditation precepts lost in the previous life must be regained in the initial moment now.' Question: As stated in the 17th volume of Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra), Usma-anuvrittisamvara (warmth-following restraint) has the antidote of abandonment for breaking the precepts. Also, the 61st volume of Nyayanusara (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says that those who have not previously left desire and rely on the wisdom formed by thought to guide the arising of warm roots of goodness. Also, the 7th volume of Vibhasa says that those who have not left desire can uninterruptedly cause warmth with the wisdom formed by thought. According to these three passages, some people initially enter the warmth position from the wisdom formed by thought. Moreover, warm roots of goodness only cultivate the same kind and do not cultivate different kinds. Then, those who initially enter the warmth position from the wisdom formed by thought do not cultivate different kinds.

故。亦應不得無始所失定。即是過去不定。云何初得定定成過．未耶　解云從思惠入暖初一剎那。亦修異類故。亦得彼無始所失定成第二念后唯修同類。從多分說不修異類　又解據福分說。初得定時必成過．未。若約抉擇分初得定時不成過去。故正理三十六云。諸有獲得靜慮律儀。乃至未舍恒成過．未。前生所失過去定律儀。今初剎那必還得彼故。此中應作簡別而說。以順抉擇分所攝定律儀初剎那中不成過去。餘生所得命終時舍。今生無容重得彼故(已上論文)。

一切聖者至先未起故者。釋第七句。可知。

若有現住至有成現在者。釋第八句。定．道律儀若有現住靜慮。成現在靜慮律儀。若有現住無漏道。成現道律儀。非出觀時有成現在。定．道律儀隨心轉故。散心現前必無彼故　問何故靜慮名定。無漏名道　解云定．道兩種雖俱通二。為簡差別各立一名　又解無漏之法眾聖所游出生死路。究竟離苦。雖亦通定偏得道名　有漏不爾。雖亦通道而立定名。

已辨安住至二世無表者。此即第二約世成處中　言住中者。謂非是極善律儀非是極惡不律儀。故名處中。彼所起業未必一切皆有無表。如造善非淳凈為惡非極惱即無無表。若造善淳凈為惡極惱即有無表。善處中無表即是善戒種類所攝。惡處中無表

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，也不應該認為沒有最初失去的禪定。這指的是過去未定的狀態。為什麼最初獲得的禪定，在禪定成就後會變成過去或未來呢？解釋說，從思慧進入暖位最初的一剎那，也修習不同型別的禪定，因此也能獲得先前失去的禪定，成就於第二念之后，只修習同類型的禪定。從大多數情況來說，不修習不同型別的禪定。另一種解釋是，根據福德的差別來說，最初獲得禪定時，必定會成為過去或未來。如果根據抉擇分的角度來說，最初獲得禪定時，不會成為過去。所以《正理》第三十六卷說，凡是獲得靜慮律儀（dhyana-samvara，禪定戒律），乃至沒有捨棄之前，恒常成為過去或未來。前生所失去的過去禪定戒律，今生最初一剎那必定會重新獲得。因此，這裡應該加以區分說明，以順抉擇分所攝的禪定戒律，在最初一剎那中不會成為過去。其餘生所獲得的，在命終時捨棄，今生沒有機會重新獲得（以上是論文內容）。一切聖者至先未起故者。解釋第七句，可以理解。若有現住至有成現在者。解釋第八句。禪定和道的律儀，如果有人現在安住于靜慮（dhyana，禪定），就成為現在的靜慮律儀。如果有人現在安住于無漏道（anasrava-marga，無漏之道），就成為現在的道律儀。不是出觀的時候才成為現在。禪定和道的律儀隨著心念而轉變，因為散亂心現前時必定沒有這些律儀。問：為什麼靜慮稱為『定』，無漏稱為『道』？解釋說，禪定和道兩種都普遍包含二者，爲了區分差別，各自設立一個名稱。另一種解釋是，無漏之法是眾多聖者所行走的道路，能夠出生死之路，究竟脫離痛苦，雖然也普遍包含禪定，但偏重於獲得『道』的名稱。有漏之法不是這樣，雖然也包含『道』，但設立『定』的名稱。已辨安住至二世無表者。這指的是第二種，根據世來成就處中。所說的『住中』，指的是既不是極善的律儀，也不是極惡的不律儀，所以稱為處中。它所產生的業，未必一切都有無表（avijnapti，無表色）。例如，造作的善不是純凈的，作惡不是極度惱人的，就沒有無表。如果造作的善是純凈的，作惡是極度惱人的，就有無表。善的處中無表，就是屬於善戒的種類所攝。惡的處中無表

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it should not be considered that there was no initial loss of dhyana (禪定, meditation). This refers to the past undetermined state. Why does the initially attained dhyana, after its accomplishment, become past or future? The explanation is that from the moment of entering the warmth stage from thought and wisdom, different types of dhyana are also practiced. Therefore, one can also regain the previously lost dhyana, which is accomplished after the second thought, only practicing the same type of dhyana. In most cases, different types of dhyana are not practiced. Another explanation is that, according to the difference in merit, when dhyana is initially attained, it will definitely become past or future. If viewed from the perspective of the decisive division, when dhyana is initially attained, it will not become past. Therefore, the thirty-sixth volume of the Abhidharmakosabhasyam states that all those who have obtained the dhyana-samvara (靜慮律儀, discipline of meditation), until they have not abandoned it, constantly become past or future. The past dhyana-samvara lost in the previous life will definitely be regained in the first moment of this life. Therefore, a distinction should be made here, that the dhyana-samvara included in the decisive division will not become past in the first moment. Those obtained in other lives are abandoned at the time of death, and there is no opportunity to regain them in this life (the above is the content of the thesis). 『一切聖者至先未起故者』 (Everything sacred, until the reason it has not yet arisen): Explains the seventh sentence, which can be understood. 『若有現住至有成現在者』 (If one currently dwells, until it becomes present): Explains the eighth sentence. If someone currently dwells in dhyana (靜慮, meditation), the discipline of dhyana becomes the present dhyana-samvara (靜慮律儀, discipline of meditation). If someone currently dwells in the anasrava-marga (無漏道, path of non-outflow), it becomes the present path discipline. It is not only when emerging from meditation that it becomes present. The discipline of dhyana and the path changes with the mind, because these disciplines are definitely not present when the distracted mind is present. Question: Why is dhyana called 『定』 (samadhi, concentration), and the anasrava-marga called 『道』 (marga, path)? The explanation is that both dhyana and the path universally include both, but to distinguish the difference, each is given a name. Another explanation is that the dharma of non-outflow is the path traveled by many saints, which can give rise to the path of birth and death, ultimately escaping suffering. Although it also universally includes dhyana, it emphasizes obtaining the name 『path』. The dharma of outflow is not like this, although it also includes the 『path』, it establishes the name 『定』 (samadhi, concentration). 『已辨安住至二世無表者』 (Already distinguished dwelling, until the avijnapti of the two worlds): This refers to the second type, according to the world to accomplish the intermediate state. The so-called 『dwelling in the middle』 refers to neither the extremely good discipline nor the extremely evil non-discipline, so it is called the intermediate state. The karma it produces does not necessarily all have avijnapti (無表, unmanifested form). For example, if the good created is not pure, and the evil done is not extremely annoying, there is no avijnapti. If the good created is pure, and the evil done is extremely annoying, there is avijnapti. The intermediate avijnapti of good is included in the category of good precepts. The intermediate avijnapti of evil

即是惡戒種類所攝。無表義同。種類相似。故言種類所攝　處中無表初念成現。第二念以去未舍以來恒成過．現二世無表。

若有安住至為經幾時者。此下第三住善．惡成中　問住律儀人有成處中惡無表不。住不律儀人有成處中善無表不　設成幾時。

頌曰至至染凈勢終者。上兩句答初問。下兩句答后問。

論曰至通成過現者。如苾芻等住律儀人由勝煩惱作殺等業。有不善處中無表　如屠羊等不律儀人由淳凈信作禮等業。有善處中無表　二心未斷來無表恒相續初念成現。后通過．現。

已辨無表至唯成就現在者。此下第二明成就表。上兩句明善．惡表業。下兩句明無記表。

論曰至如無表釋者。釋上兩句。住律．不律．及處中人。正作表業恒成現表。不作不成　初剎那后至未舍來恒成過去。若舍不成　必無成就未來表者。如散無表釋。不隨心色勢微劣故。

有覆無覆至逆追成者者。釋下兩句。二無記表無成過．未。法力既劣得力亦微。是故無能逆成未來。追成過去。

此法力劣誰之所為者。問。

是心所為者。答。

若爾有覆至勿成過未者。難。此無記表既不能成過去．未來。彼能發表。二無記心亦應不能成彼過．未　等謂等取強無記心。即是串習．威儀．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：即是惡戒種類所攝，其『無表』（Avijñapti-rupa，不可知色）的意義與惡戒相同，種類也相似，所以說是惡戒種類所攝。

『處中』（不善不惡）的『無表』，最初一念生起時成為『現在』（Adhvan，時間），從第二念開始，在未捨棄之前，恒常成為『過去』（Atita）和『現在』兩世的『無表』。

『若有安住至為經幾時者』，這以下第三部分說明安住于善或惡的狀態中成就『處中』（不善不惡）的『無表』。

問：安住于律儀（Vinaya，戒律）的人，是否會成就『處中』的惡『無表』？安住于不律儀的人，是否會成就『處中』的善『無表』？如果成就，會持續多久？

『頌曰至至染凈勢終者』，上面兩句回答第一個問題，下面兩句回答第二個問題。

『論曰至通成過現者』，例如，比丘（Bhiksu，出家男眾）等安住于律儀的人，由於強烈的煩惱而造作殺生等惡業，就會有不善的『處中』『無表』；例如，屠夫等安住于不律儀的人，由於純凈的信心而行作禮拜等善業，就會有善的『處中』『無表』。這兩種心的狀態在未斷絕之前，『無表』恒常相續，最初一念成為『現在』，之後則通於『過去』和『現在』。

『已辨無表至唯成就現在者』，這以下第二部分說明『表』（Vijñapti-rupa，表色）的成就。上面兩句說明善和惡的『表』業，下面兩句說明無記的『表』業。

『論曰至如無表釋者』，解釋上面兩句。安住于律儀、不律儀以及『處中』的人，正在造作『表』業時，恒常成就『現在』的『表』，不造作則不成就。最初剎那之後，直到未捨棄之前，恒常成就『過去』，如果捨棄則不成就。必定沒有成就『未來』的『表』，如同散亂的『無表』一樣，因為不隨順心意，色勢微弱的緣故。

『有覆無覆至逆追成者者』，解釋下面兩句。有覆無記和無覆無記的『表』，沒有成就『過去』和『未來』的。因為法的力量既微弱，所得的力量也微小，所以不能逆向成就『未來』，追溯成就『過去』。

『此法力劣誰之所為者』，問。

『是心所為者』，答。

『若爾有覆至勿成過未者』，難。如果這種無記的『表』不能成就『過去』和『未來』，那麼能發表這種『表』的，有覆無記心也應該不能成就『過去』和『未來』。『等』字是指等取強烈的無記心，也就是串習、威儀。

【English Translation】 English version: That is included in the category of evil precepts. The meaning of 'Avijñapti-rupa' (unmanifested form) is the same as that of evil precepts, and the categories are similar, so it is said to be included in the category of evil precepts.

The 'Avijñapti-rupa' of 'neutral' (neither good nor evil) becomes 'present' (Adhvan, time) when the first thought arises. From the second thought onwards, as long as it is not abandoned, it constantly becomes the 'Avijñapti-rupa' of both the 'past' (Atita) and the 'present'.

'If one abides until how long?', the third part below explains the achievement of 'neutral' (neither good nor evil) 'Avijñapti-rupa' while abiding in a state of good or evil.

Question: Does a person abiding in Vinaya (discipline, precepts) achieve neutral evil 'Avijñapti-rupa'? Does a person abiding in non-Vinaya achieve neutral good 'Avijñapti-rupa'? If achieved, how long does it last?

'Verse says to the end of defiled and pure forces', the first two lines answer the first question, and the last two lines answer the second question.

'Treatise says to generally achieve past and present', for example, Bhiksu (ordained male monastic) and others abiding in Vinaya, due to strong afflictions, commit evil deeds such as killing, and thus have unwholesome neutral 'Avijñapti-rupa'; for example, butchers and others abiding in non-Vinaya, due to pure faith, perform good deeds such as prostrations, and thus have wholesome neutral 'Avijñapti-rupa'. Before these two states of mind are severed, the 'Avijñapti-rupa' constantly continues, the first thought becomes 'present', and afterwards it pervades both 'past' and 'present'.

'Already distinguished Avijñapti-rupa to only achieve the present', the second part below explains the achievement of 'Vijñapti-rupa' (manifested form). The first two lines explain good and evil 'Vijñapti-rupa' karma, and the last two lines explain indeterminate 'Vijñapti-rupa'.

'Treatise says to explain like Avijñapti-rupa', explaining the above two lines. People abiding in Vinaya, non-Vinaya, and the 'neutral' state, constantly achieve 'present' 'Vijñapti-rupa' when they are performing 'Vijñapti-rupa' karma, and do not achieve it when they are not performing it. After the initial moment, until it is not abandoned, it constantly achieves the 'past'. If it is abandoned, it is not achieved. There is definitely no achievement of 'future' 'Vijñapti-rupa', just like scattered 'Avijñapti-rupa', because it does not follow the mind and the power of form is weak.

'Covered and uncovered to reverse and achieve', explaining the following two lines. Covered indeterminate and uncovered indeterminate 'Vijñapti-rupa' do not achieve the 'past' and 'future'. Because the power of the Dharma is weak and the power obtained is also small, it cannot achieve the 'future' in reverse or trace back to achieve the 'past'.

'Whose doing is this weak power of Dharma?', question.

'It is the doing of the mind', answer.

'If so, covered to do not achieve past and future', objection. If this indeterminate 'Vijñapti-rupa' cannot achieve the 'past' and 'future', then the covered indeterminate mind that can express this 'Vijñapti-rupa' should also not be able to achieve the 'past' and 'future'. 'Etc.' refers to strongly indeterminate minds, that is, habituation and deportment.

工巧．通果心也。

此責非理至成有差別者。釋。表色昧鈍故依他心起故。心等明利不依他起　等謂等取諸心所法　二無記心望善．不善心成其劣。無記表業從劣心起其力倍劣彼能起心。所以不成過去．未來。故表與心成有差別不可為例。又正理云。此責非理。所起劣於能起心故。所以然者。如無記心能發表業。所發表業不生無表。故知所起劣能起心。

如前所說至立餘四名者。此即第三明不律儀異名。因辨成就文便兼明。可解。

或成表業至應作四句者。此下第四成表．無表。此即標宗。

其事云何者。問。

頌曰至成無表非表者。頌答。

論曰至及成業道者。釋上兩句。即第一句成表非無表。謂處中人以微劣思造善造惡。唯發表業尚無無表。況無記思所發表業能發無表。舉勝況劣　除七有依福．及成善．惡業道。雖處中人微劣思起亦發無表故別簡也。

唯成無表至或生已舍者。釋下兩句。即第二句成無表非表。謂三界易生聖者。若在欲．色定成道．定無表。若生無色成道無表。表有不成。如處胎等表業未生。或表生已遇緣復舍。

俱成非句如應當知者。后之兩句頌不別明。故於長行論主勸學。隨其義釋如應當知。第三俱成句謂俱成彼表．無表二。如住別解脫律

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『工巧』（skillful），指通往結果的心。

這裡駁斥了『非理至成有差別者』（the unreasonable assertion that there is no difference in accomplishment）。解釋：因為表色（manifestation of form）晦暗遲鈍，所以依賴他心而生起。心等（mind, etc.）明亮敏銳，不依賴他心而生起。『等』（etc.）指包括各種心所法（mental factors）。二無記心（two kinds of neutral mind）相對於善心（wholesome mind）和不善心（unwholesome mind）來說是低劣的。無記表業（neutral manifested action）從低劣的心生起，其力量更加低劣，不能生起無表（unmanifested action）。所以不能成就過去和未來。因此，表色和心有差別，不能作為例子。而且，《正理》（Nyaya Sutra）中說：這種責難是不合理的，因為所生起的比能生起的心低劣。為什麼這樣說呢？例如，無記心能發表業，所發表業不能生起無表。所以知道所生起的比能生起的心低劣。

如前所說至立餘四名者（as previously stated, up to establishing the other four names）。這實際上是第三個說明不律儀（non-restraint）的異名。因為辨別成就文，所以兼帶說明，可以理解。

或成表業至應作四句者（or accomplishing manifested action, up to one should make four categories）。下面第四個是成就表和無表。這即是標明宗旨。

其事云何者（what is the matter?）。問。

頌曰至成無表非表者（verse: accomplishing unmanifested, not manifested）。用偈頌回答。

論曰至及成業道者（treatise: up to and accomplishing the path of karma）。解釋上面的兩句。即第一句是成就表而非無表。指處在中等狀態的人，以微弱的心思造作善或惡，僅僅發表業，尚且沒有無表，更何況無記心思所發表的業能引發無表。這是舉勝況劣（using the superior to illustrate the inferior）。除七有依福（seven kinds of meritorious deeds that rely on existence）以及成就善惡業道（wholesome and unwholesome paths of karma）。雖然處在中等狀態的人以微弱的心思生起，也能引發無表，所以特別簡別。

唯成無表至或生已舍者（only accomplishing unmanifested, up to or born and then abandoned）。解釋下面的兩句。即第二句是成就無表而非表。指三界（three realms）中容易證悟的聖者。如果在欲界（desire realm）或色界（form realm）必定成就道和定無表。如果生於無色界（formless realm）成就道無表。表業有不成就的情況。例如在母胎中等，表業尚未產生，或者表業產生后遇到因緣又捨棄。

俱成非句如應當知者（both accomplishing, the non-category should be known accordingly）。後面的兩句偈頌沒有分別說明，所以在長行中，論主勸學，隨著它的意義解釋，應當如實了知。第三句是俱成句，指同時成就表和無表二者。例如住在別解脫律（Pratimoksha vows）中。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Skillful』 refers to the mind that leads to results.

This refutes 『the unreasonable assertion that there is no difference in accomplishment.』 Explanation: Because the manifestation of form is obscure and dull, it arises dependent on other minds. The mind, etc., are bright and sharp, and do not arise dependent on other minds. 『Etc.』 refers to including various mental factors. The two kinds of neutral mind are inferior compared to wholesome and unwholesome minds. Neutral manifested action arises from an inferior mind, and its power is even more inferior, unable to generate unmanifested action. Therefore, it cannot accomplish the past and future. Thus, the manifestation of form and the mind are different and cannot be used as examples. Moreover, the Nyaya Sutra states: This accusation is unreasonable because what arises is inferior to the mind that causes it to arise. Why is this so? For example, a neutral mind can manifest action, but the manifested action cannot generate unmanifested action. Therefore, it is known that what arises is inferior to the mind that causes it to arise.

As previously stated, up to establishing the other four names. This is actually the third explanation of the different names for non-restraint. Because of distinguishing the text on accomplishment, it is explained incidentally and can be understood.

Or accomplishing manifested action, up to one should make four categories. The fourth below is the accomplishment of manifested and unmanifested action. This is to mark the purpose.

What is the matter? Question.

Verse: accomplishing unmanifested, not manifested. Answered in verse.

Treatise: up to and accomplishing the path of karma. Explaining the above two lines. That is, the first line is accomplishing manifested action but not unmanifested action. It refers to people in a neutral state who create good or evil with weak thoughts, only manifesting action, and not even having unmanifested action, let alone the action manifested by neutral thoughts being able to generate unmanifested action. This is using the superior to illustrate the inferior. Except for the seven kinds of meritorious deeds that rely on existence and accomplishing wholesome and unwholesome paths of karma. Although people in a neutral state arise with weak thoughts, they can also generate unmanifested action, so it is specially distinguished.

Only accomplishing unmanifested, up to or born and then abandoned. Explaining the following two lines. That is, the second line is accomplishing unmanifested action but not manifested action. It refers to sages in the three realms who easily attain enlightenment. If in the desire realm or form realm, they will definitely accomplish the path and fixed unmanifested action. If born in the formless realm, they will accomplish the path unmanifested action. Manifested action may not be accomplished. For example, in the womb, manifested action has not yet arisen, or after manifested action has arisen, it is abandoned when encountering conditions.

Both accomplishing, the non-category should be known accordingly. The latter two lines of the verse are not explained separately, so in the long treatise, the author encourages learning, and according to its meaning, it should be known as it is. The third line is the 'both accomplishing' category, referring to simultaneously accomplishing both manifested and unmanifested action. For example, those who abide in the Pratimoksha vows.

儀等。第四俱非句謂俱非成彼表．無表二。如處卵㲉等　正理三十六難第二句云。豈不已得靜慮異生今表未生先生已失。亦成無表非表業耶。何故頌中但標于聖。非易生者理亦可然。何故釋中標易生者。俱舍師通云。第二句中理亦應有。據顯偏明。或復影顯。或隨舉一余略不說。故婆沙一百二十二說云。若成就身表彼成就此無表耶。答應作四句。有成就身表非此無表。謂生欲界住非律儀非不律儀。現有身表不得此無表。或先有身表不失不得此無表。現有身表者。謂不眠。不醉。不悶。不捨加行求起身表。不得此無表者謂非殷重信。非猛利纏。雖發身表不得此無表。或先有身表不失者。謂三緣故不捨表業。一意樂不息故。二不捨加行故。三限勢不過故。不得此無表者義如前說　有成就身無表非此表。謂諸聖者住胎藏中。若生欲界住律儀。不得別解脫律儀。無身表設有而失。若生色界無身表設有而失。若諸聖者生無色界。此中聖者住胎藏時不能起表。前生表業已失。但成就靜慮．無漏無表。住律儀者。謂住靜慮．無漏律儀。無身表者。謂或眠。或醉。或悶。舍諸加行不求起表故。設有而失者。謂由三緣捨身表業。一意樂息故。二舍加行故。三限勢過故。若生色界無身表者。謂舍加行不求起表故。設有而失者如前說。若諸聖

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：儀等。第四俱非句是指俱非成就彼表（行為的表達）和無表（潛在的影響）二者。例如處於卵胎等狀態。《正理》三十六難第二句說：『難道不是已經獲得靜慮（專注的禪定）的異生（凡夫），現在表業（行為的表達）未生，先生（先前）已失，也成就無表非表業嗎？』為什麼頌中只標明聖者（已證悟的人）？非易生者（不容易產生表業的人）在理上也應該可以這樣。為什麼釋文中只標明易生者？俱舍師解釋說：『第二句中，道理上也應該有。只是根據明顯的情況來說明。或者只是稍微暗示。或者只是舉出一個，其餘的省略不說。』所以《婆沙》第一百二十二說：『如果成就了身表（身體的表達），他就成就了此無表（相應的潛在影響）嗎？』回答應該作四句：有成就身表而非此無表。是指生於欲界（充滿慾望的界），處於非律儀（不持戒）非不律儀（非不持戒）的狀態。現在有身表，但不得此無表；或者先前有身表，不失但不得此無表。現在有身表的人，是指不眠、不醉、不悶，不捨棄加行（努力），尋求起身表。不得此無表的人，是指非殷重信（沒有強烈的信心），非猛利纏（沒有強烈的煩惱），即使發出身表，也得不到此無表。或者先前有身表不失的人，是指由於三種原因不捨棄表業：一、意樂不息（意願不停止）；二、不捨加行（不放棄努力）；三、限勢不過（時間沒有超過）。不得此無表的人，道理如前所說。有成就身無表而非此表。是指諸聖者（已證悟的人）處於胎藏中。如果生於欲界，處於律儀（持戒）狀態，不得別解脫律儀（特殊的解脫戒律），沒有身表，即使有也已失去。如果生於（此處原文有缺失，無法確定具體含義），沒有身表，即使有也已失去。如果諸聖者生於無（此處原文有缺失，無法確定具體含義）。此中聖者處於胎藏時，不能起表（產生行為的表達），前生表業已經失去，但成就靜慮（專注的禪定）、無漏無表（沒有煩惱的潛在影響）。處於律儀的人，是指處於靜慮、無漏律儀。沒有身表的人，是指或者睡眠，或者醉酒，或者昏悶，捨棄各種加行，不尋求起表。即使有而失去的人，是指由於三種原因捨棄身表業：一、意樂息（意願停止）；二、舍加行（放棄努力）；三、限勢過（時間超過）。如果生於**（此處原文有缺失，無法確定具體含義），沒有身表的人，是指捨棄加行，不尋求起表。即使有而失去的人，如前所說。如果諸聖

【English Translation】 English version: Etc. The fourth 'neither' category refers to those who do not achieve both the expression of action (表, biǎo) and its unmanifested influence (無表, wú biǎo). For example, those in an egg or womb. The second statement in the thirty-six difficulties of the Zhengli (正理, Zhènglǐ, 'Correct Principle') says: 'Isn't it that a common person (異生, yìshēng) who has already attained dhyana (靜慮, jìnglǜ, meditative absorption), now that the expression of action has not arisen and the previous one has been lost, also achieves unmanifested non-expression? Why does the gatha (頌, sòng, verse) only mark the arya (聖者, shèngzhě, noble being)? It should also be reasonable for those who do not easily generate expression. Why does the commentary only mark those who easily generate expression?' The Kosha master explains: 'In the second statement, the principle should also be present. It is just explained according to the obvious situation. Or it is just slightly implied. Or it is just one example, and the rest are omitted.' Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-second Vibhasha (婆沙, Póshā, commentary) says: 'If one achieves bodily expression, does one achieve this unmanifested influence?' The answer should be made in four sentences: There are those who achieve bodily expression but not this unmanifested influence. This refers to those who are born in the desire realm (欲界, yùjiè), and are in a state of neither vinaya (律儀, lǜyí, discipline) nor non-vinaya. Now there is bodily expression, but this unmanifested influence is not obtained; or previously there was bodily expression, which was not lost but this unmanifested influence was not obtained. Those who now have bodily expression refer to those who are not sleeping, not drunk, not confused, and do not abandon effort (加行, jiāxíng), seeking to arise bodily expression. Those who do not obtain this unmanifested influence refer to those who do not have strong faith (殷重信, yīnzhòng xìn), and do not have strong afflictions (猛利纏, měnglì chán), even if they emit bodily expression, they cannot obtain this unmanifested influence. Or those who previously had bodily expression and did not lose it refer to those who do not abandon the expression of action due to three reasons: 1. The intention (意樂, yìlè) does not cease; 2. The effort is not abandoned; 3. The time limit (限勢, xiànshì) is not exceeded. The meaning of those who do not obtain this unmanifested influence is as previously stated. There are those who achieve bodily unmanifested influence but not this expression. This refers to the aryas in the womb. If born in the desire realm, in a state of vinaya, they do not obtain the Pratimoksha vinaya (別解脫律儀, bié jiětuō lǜyí, individual liberation discipline), there is no bodily expression, even if there is, it has been lost. If born in ** (missing text in original), there is no bodily expression, even if there is, it has been lost. If the aryas are born in no ** (missing text in original). Here, when the arya is in the womb, they cannot arise expression, and the previous expression of action has been lost, but they achieve dhyana and unmanifested influence without outflows (無漏無表, wúlòu wú biǎo). Those who are in vinaya refer to those who are in dhyana and vinaya without outflows. Those who have no bodily expression refer to those who are either sleeping, or drunk, or confused, abandoning all efforts, and not seeking to arise expression. Those who have it and lose it refer to those who abandon bodily expression due to three reasons: 1. The intention ceases; 2. The effort is abandoned; 3. The time limit is exceeded. If born in ** (missing text in original), those who have no bodily expression refer to those who abandon effort and do not seek to arise expression. Those who have it and lose it are as previously stated. If the aryas

者生無色界者。學成就學無表。無學成就無學無表　有成就身表亦此無表。謂生欲界住律儀不得別解脫律儀。現有身表亦得此無表。或先有此表不失亦得此無表。若住別解脫律儀。若住不律儀。若住非律儀非不律儀。現有身表亦得此無表。或先有身表不失亦得此無表。若生色界現有身表。或先有身表不失。此中現有身表亦得此無表。等者。謂以殷重信或猛利纏發表亦得無表。若住別解脫律儀。若住不律儀。彼定成就身表無表。若生色界現有身表者。謂不捨加行求起表業。余如前說　有非成就身表亦非此無表。謂處卵㲉。若諸異生住胎藏中。若生欲界住非律儀非不律儀無有身表。設有而失。若諸異生生無色界。諸異生類住胎卵中已失前生表．無表業現不能起。如前應知。生無色界已舍有漏未得無漏。彼地無色故。余如前說。

說住律儀至由何而得者。此下大文第三明得戒緣別。就中。一明得三律儀。二明得時分齊。三明近住律儀。四明近事律儀。五明三律儀別　此即第一明得三律儀。結前問起。

頌曰至得由他教等者。就頌答中。初句明靜慮。第二句明無漏。下兩句明別解脫。

論曰至與心俱故者。釋初句。靜慮律儀由定生故頌說定生。余文可解。

無漏律儀至如后當辨者。釋第二句。頌說彼

聲顯前靜慮。復說聖言簡取六地諸無漏心。無漏律儀由道生故頌說道生。

別解脫律儀至由他教得者。釋下兩句。可知。

此復二種至餘五種戒者。明二種僧別　四人已上名曰僧伽。於八眾中苾芻等三從此得故　補特伽羅是別人。謂餘五種從此得故。若勤策．勤策女從二人得。若近事．近事女．近住從一人得。

諸毗奈耶至復說等言者。別釋等字。毗奈耶毗婆沙師說。有十種得具戒法。為攝彼故第四句中復說等言。

何者為十者。問。

一由自然至表業而發者。答　一由自然。謂佛．獨覺無師自然盡智心時得具足戒。故正理三十七云。自然謂智。以不從師證此智時得具足戒　二由得入正性離生。謂阿若憍陳那等五苾芻。又正理云由證見道得具足戒　三由佛命善來苾芻爾時得戒。謂耶舍等。耶舍此云譽。正理云。由本願力佛威加故　四由信受佛為大師爾時得戒。謂大迦葉　五由善巧酬答所問。謂蘇陀夷　蘇陀夷。此云善施年始七歲由聰明故善答佛問稱可佛心。雖年未滿二十。佛令眾僧羯磨受具足戒。由聰明故善巧酬答。別開一緣。非酬答時即發戒也　言酬答者。佛問彼言汝家在何。蘇陀夷答言三界無家　六由敬受八尊重法爾時得戒。謂大生主　舊云大愛道者訛。梵云摩訶波阇波提。摩訶

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『聲顯前靜慮』，進一步解釋了聖言，簡要地選取了六地（指欲界、色界、無色界、見道、修道、無學道）的各種無漏心（沒有煩惱的心）。無漏律儀（防止身口意惡行的規範）是由道（修行）產生的，因此用頌詞『道生』來表達。

『別解脫律儀』到『由他教得者』，解釋了下面的兩句話，可以理解。

『此復二種』到『餘五種戒者』，闡明了兩種僧團的區別。四人以上稱為僧伽（僧團）。在八眾（比丘、比丘尼、式叉摩那、沙彌、沙彌尼、優婆塞、優婆夷、近住男、近住女）中，比丘等三種人從僧伽處獲得戒律。補特伽羅（個人）是別人，指其餘五種戒律從個人處獲得。如果勤策（沙彌）、勤策女（沙彌尼）從兩人處獲得戒律，那麼近事（優婆塞）、近事女（優婆夷）、近住（近住男/女）從一人處獲得戒律。

『諸毗奈耶』到『復說等言者』，分別解釋了『等』字。毗奈耶毗婆沙師（律藏論師）說，有十種獲得具足戒（比丘/比丘尼戒）的方法。爲了涵蓋這十種情況，第四句中使用了『復說』等詞。

『何者為十者』，提問。

『一由自然』到『表業而發者』，回答。一是由自然。指佛（Buddha）、獨覺（辟支佛，Pratyekabuddha）沒有老師，在自然生起盡智（斷盡煩惱的智慧）時獲得具足戒。因此，《正理》第三十七卷說：『自然是指智慧。因為不從老師處證得這種智慧時，就獲得了具足戒。』二是由於證入正性離生（聖道）。指阿若憍陳那（Ajnatakaundinya）等五位比丘。另外，《正理》中說，由於證得見道（初果），就獲得了具足戒。三是由於佛陀命令『善來比丘』，當時就獲得了戒律。指耶舍（Yasa）等。耶舍，意思是『名譽』。《正理》中說，由於本願的力量和佛陀的威神加持。四是由於信受佛陀為大師，當時就獲得了戒律。指大迦葉（Mahakasyapa）。五是由於善巧地回答所提出的問題。指蘇陀夷（Sudayi）。蘇陀夷，意思是『善施』，開始時七歲，由於聰明，善於回答佛陀的問題，符合佛陀的心意。雖然年齡未滿二十歲，佛陀命令僧眾羯磨（羯磨，karma，一種僧團的儀式）受具足戒。由於聰明，善巧地回答問題，特別開創了一個因緣。並非回答問題時立即獲得戒律。』所說的『酬答』，是佛陀問他：『你的家在哪裡？』蘇陀夷回答說：『三界（欲界、色界、無色界）無家。』六是由於恭敬地接受八尊重法（比丘尼必須遵守的八條戒律），當時就獲得了戒律。指大生主（Mahaprajapati）。舊譯為『大愛道』是錯誤的。梵文是摩訶波阇波提（Mahaprajapati）。摩訶（maha）

【English Translation】 English version 'Sound reveals prior contemplation (dhyana).' Further explaining the sacred words, it concisely selects the various undefiled minds of the six grounds (referring to the desire realm, form realm, formless realm, the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path of no more learning). The undefiled discipline (rules preventing evil deeds of body, speech, and mind) arises from the path (practice), hence the verse 'arises from the path' is used to express it.

From 'Distinct liberation discipline' to 'obtained from other's teaching,' the following two sentences are explained, and can be understood.

From 'This again is of two kinds' to 'the other five kinds of precepts,' it clarifies the difference between the two kinds of Sangha (community). Four or more people are called Sangha. Among the eight assemblies (bhikshus, bhikshunis, siksamana, sramanera, sramanerika, upasaka, upasika, brahmacarin, brahmacarini), bhikshus and the other three obtain precepts from the Sangha. Pudgala (individual) is another person, referring to the other five kinds of precepts obtained from an individual. If a sramanera (novice monk) or sramanerika (novice nun) obtains precepts from two people, then an upasaka (male lay follower), upasika (female lay follower), or brahmacarin/brahmacarini (one who observes the eight precepts) obtains precepts from one person.

From 'All Vinayas' to 'again saying etc.,' it separately explains the word 'etc.' The Vinaya Vibhasa masters (commentators on the monastic code) say that there are ten ways to obtain full ordination (bhikshu/bhikshuni precepts). To encompass these ten situations, the words 'again saying' etc. are used in the fourth sentence.

'What are the ten?' is the question.

From 'One by nature' to 'manifesting karma and arising,' is the answer. One is by nature. This refers to the Buddha (Buddha) and Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) who, without a teacher, naturally attain the wisdom of exhaustion (wisdom that eradicates afflictions) and obtain full ordination. Therefore, the thirty-seventh volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'Nature refers to wisdom. Because when one attains this wisdom without a teacher, one obtains full ordination.' Second is due to entering the rightness of separation from birth (the noble path). This refers to Ajnatakaundinya (Ajnatakaundinya) and the other five bhikshus. Also, the Nyayanusara says that by attaining the path of seeing (the first fruit), one obtains full ordination. Third is due to the Buddha's command 'Welcome, bhikshu,' at that time one obtains the precepts. This refers to Yasa (Yasa) and others. Yasa means 'fame.' The Nyayanusara says that it is due to the power of the original vow and the Buddha's majestic blessing. Fourth is due to believing and accepting the Buddha as the master, at that time one obtains the precepts. This refers to Mahakasyapa (Mahakasyapa). Fifth is due to skillfully answering the questions asked. This refers to Sudayi (Sudayi). Sudayi means 'good giving,' initially seven years old, due to intelligence, skillfully answering the Buddha's questions, conforming to the Buddha's mind. Although not yet twenty years old, the Buddha commanded the Sangha to perform karma (karma, a monastic ritual) to receive full ordination. Due to intelligence, skillfully answering questions, a special condition was created. It is not that one immediately obtains the precepts when answering questions.' The 'answering' mentioned is when the Buddha asked him: 'Where is your home?' Sudayi answered: 'The three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) have no home.' Sixth is due to respectfully accepting the eight weighty dharmas (eight rules that bhikshunis must follow), at that time one obtains the precepts. This refers to Mahaprajapati (Mahaprajapati). The old translation 'Mahaprajapati Gautami' is incorrect. The Sanskrit is Mahaprajapati (Mahaprajapati). Maha (maha)

此云大。波阇此云生。波提此云主。是大梵王千名中一稱也眾生多故名曰大生。梵王能生一切眾生。與大生為主名大生主。從所乞所天神為名故名大生主。是佛姨母。佛遣阿難為說八尊重法。彼即敬受。爾時得戒。此八是應尊重法故名尊重法。于尼眾中最初出家。廣如律辨。八尊重法舊云八敬　七由遣使得戒。謂法授尼。尼名法授名法授尼。此尼端政欲往僧中恐路有難。受具戒時不對大僧。大僧遣一尼受法轉與受戒。故由遣使得具戒也。由尼端政世尊別開此緣　八由持律為第五人。謂于邊國以無僧故極少猶須五人。以和上不入眾數餘四成眾。減不成眾。於五人中必須一人持律羯摩。故言持律第五。減五不成。多即不遮　九由十眾　謂于中國僧多之處。極少猶須十人。多亦不遮　十由三說歸佛．法．僧。謂六十賢和眾部共集。佛遣阿羅漢為說三歸受具戒　如是上來所得十種別解脫律儀非必定依表業而發。謂初二種不從表生。后八表生　問前說別解脫從他教得。自然。見道非從他教如何得戒　解云前文且據從他教得。後文通據不從他得。故說等言攝此異義　問不從他得此義可然。如何無表非從表起。如下論云。七善業道若從受生必皆具二謂表．無表。受生尸羅必依表故　解云從他受生必依表發。不從他受非依表生何違須釋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此云（註：梵語，意義為『說』）。阇此云生（註：梵語，意義為『出生』）。波提此云主（註：梵語，意義為『主人』）。這是大梵天王千個名字中的一個稱謂。因為眾生眾多，所以名為大生。梵天王能夠化生一切眾生，以大生為主，所以名為大生主。因為從所乞求的天神而得名，所以名為大生主。她是佛陀的姨母。佛陀派遣阿難尊者為她說八尊重法。她隨即恭敬地接受。當時就得到了戒律。這八條是應當尊重的法，所以名為尊重法。在比丘尼眾中，她是最初出家的。詳細情況如律藏所辨。八尊重法舊時稱為八敬。七、通過派遣使者而得到戒律。指的是法授尼（註：比丘尼的名字）。這位比丘尼容貌端莊，想要前往僧團中，但擔心路上有困難。受具足戒時，沒有面對大僧。大僧派遣一位比丘尼傳授戒法，轉而為她授戒。所以是通過派遣使者而得到具足戒。因為這位比丘尼容貌端莊，世尊特別開許了這種因緣。八、通過持律者作為第五人。指的是在邊遠地區，因為沒有僧眾，所以最少也需要五個人。以和尚不計入僧眾人數，其餘四人構成僧團。少於四人則不能構成僧團。在這五人中，必須有一人持律羯磨（註：羯磨是佛教術語，指僧團的議事和決議）。所以說持律者為第五人。少於五人則不能成事。多於五人則不禁止。九、通過十眾。指的是在中國僧眾多的地方，最少也需要十個人。多於十人也不禁止。十、通過三說歸佛、法、僧。指的是六十賢和眾部共同集會。佛陀派遣阿羅漢為他們說三歸依而受具足戒。像這樣，以上所得的十種別解脫律儀，並非必定依靠表業（註：表業指身口所表現的業）而生髮。指的是前兩種不是從表業而生。后八種是從表業而生。問：前面說別解脫是從他教而得。自然、見道不是從他教而得，如何得到戒律？解答說：前面的說法只是根據從他教而得的情況。後面的說法則包括不從他教而得的情況。所以說『等』字，包含了這種不同的意義。問：不從他教而得，這個道理可以理解。但是，如何能說無表業不是從表業而生起呢？如下面的論述所說：七善業道如果從受戒而生，必定都具備表業和無表業兩種。受戒而生的尸羅（註：尸羅是戒律的意思）必定依靠表業。解答說：從他人受戒而生，必定依靠表業而生髮。不從他人受戒，則不是依靠表業而生。這有什麼矛盾需要解釋呢？

【English Translation】 English version It is called this. Dasha is called birth. Pati is called lord. This is one of the thousand names of the Great Brahma King. Because there are many sentient beings, he is called Great Birth. The Brahma King can generate all sentient beings, and as the lord of Great Birth, he is called Great Lord of Birth. Because he is named after the deity he begged from, he is called Great Lord of Birth. She is the Buddha's aunt. The Buddha sent Ananda to explain the Eight Important Dharmas to her. She respectfully accepted them. At that time, she received the precepts. These eight are the Dharmas that should be respected, so they are called Important Dharmas. Among the Bhikkhunis, she was the first to leave home. The details are as explained in the Vinaya. The Eight Important Dharmas were formerly called the Eight Respects. Seven, receiving the precepts through a messenger. This refers to the Dharma-giving Bhikkhuni (note: the name of a Bhikkhuni). This Bhikkhuni was beautiful and wanted to go to the Sangha, but she was afraid of difficulties on the road. When receiving the full precepts, she did not face the great Sangha. The great Sangha sent a Bhikkhuni to transmit the Dharma and then give her the precepts. Therefore, she received the full precepts through a messenger. Because this Bhikkhuni was beautiful, the World Honored One specially opened this condition. Eight, having a Vinaya holder as the fifth person. This refers to remote areas where there are no monks, so at least five people are needed. With the Upadhyaya not counted in the Sangha, the remaining four constitute the Sangha. Less than four cannot constitute the Sangha. Among these five people, one must hold the Vinaya Karma (note: Karma is a Buddhist term referring to the Sangha's deliberations and resolutions). Therefore, it is said that the Vinaya holder is the fifth person. Less than five is not sufficient. More than five is not prohibited. Nine, through the Ten Sanghas. This refers to places in China where there are many monks, where at least ten people are needed. More than ten is not prohibited. Ten, through the three recitations of refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. This refers to the gathering of the sixty wise and harmonious assemblies. The Buddha sent Arhats to recite the three refuges for them to receive the full precepts. Thus, the ten kinds of individual liberation precepts obtained above are not necessarily generated based on expressive karma (note: expressive karma refers to the karma expressed through body and speech). This refers to the first two kinds not arising from expressive karma. The latter eight arise from expressive karma. Question: Earlier it was said that individual liberation is obtained from others' teachings. Naturalness and the path of seeing are not obtained from others' teachings, so how are the precepts obtained? The answer is: The previous statement is based on the situation of obtaining from others' teachings. The latter statement includes the situation of not obtaining from others' teachings. Therefore, the word 'etc.' includes this different meaning. Question: The principle of not obtaining from others' teachings is understandable. However, how can it be said that non-expressive karma does not arise from expressive karma? As the following discussion says: If the seven wholesome karmic paths arise from receiving precepts, they must all have both expressive and non-expressive karma. The Shila (note: Shila means precepts) that arises from receiving precepts must rely on expressive karma. The answer is: Arising from receiving precepts from others must rely on expressive karma to arise. Not receiving precepts from others does not rely on expressive karma to arise. What contradiction needs to be explained?

問若有無表不從表生。何故下文論主設難云欲無無表離表而生　解云下文論主敘余師義難　或可下文通據加行．根本兩位必有表故。故言欲無無表離表而生。若不爾者遣使殺等根本成時有何表耶。非言自然。見道。得戒根本無表必依表生。故不相違　又解如是上來所得十種別解脫律儀。七支無表非必定依七表業發。如羯摩受戒從身三表業亦發語無表。如三歸受戒從語四表業亦發身無表。非必定依自類表發。若作此解十種得戒皆依表發。如自然。見道。亦從表業發得無表　此解意說自然。見道。謂彼先時決定有表相續不斷。乃至聖位從彼表發無表律儀　問如下論云七善業道若從受生必皆具二謂表．無表。受生尸羅必依表故。準此文說。但言受生具二受生依表。何故不言自然。見道。亦具二耶　解云下論據顯且言受生。不遮自然。見道。得戒具二依表　或自然。見道。要期受生故。受生類故。亦名受生。若作此解善順下文欲無無表離表而生又正理論中亦有兩說。如彼論云。有餘師說非於欲界一切無表悉依表生。如得果時。五苾芻等得別解脫戒。

然彼先時決定有表　解云彼論余師意。說欲有無表離表而生　然彼已下是正理論師意。欲無無表離表而生。然彼得果五苾芻等。先時決定有表相續不斷。乃至聖位從彼表發

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果無表不是從表生起的，為什麼下文論主會提出疑問說，想要無表離開表而生起呢？答：下文論主是在敘述其他論師的觀點並進行駁難。或者可以說，下文是總括了加行位和根本位兩種情況，因為這兩種情況必定有表業存在。所以說，想要無表離開表而生起。如果不是這樣，那麼派遣使者殺人等情況，在根本完成時，有什麼表業呢？並非說自然生、見道位、得戒的根本無表，必定依賴表業而生起。所以這並不矛盾。又一種解釋是，像這樣獲得的十種別解脫律儀，七支無表並非必定依賴七種表業而生起。例如，羯磨受戒，從身三表業也能生起語無表；例如，三歸受戒，從語四表業也能生起身無表。並非必定依賴同類的表業而生起。如果這樣解釋，那麼十種得戒都依賴表業而生起，例如自然生、見道位，也從表業生起無表。這種解釋的意思是說，自然生、見道位，是指他們先前已經決定有表業相續不斷，乃至達到聖位，從那些表業生起無表律儀。問：如下面的論述說，七善業道如果從受戒而生，必定都具備表和無表兩種。因為受生尸羅必定依賴表業。按照這個說法，只說了受生具備表和無表，受生依賴表業。為什麼不說自然生、見道位也具備表和無表呢？答：下面的論述是用來顯明，並且只說了受生，並沒有遮止自然生、見道位、得戒具備表和無表，依賴表業。或者說，自然生、見道位，是因為要期受生，所以屬於受生一類，也可以稱為受生。如果這樣解釋，就能夠很好地順應下文所說的，想要無表離開表而生起。而且在《正理論》中也有兩種說法。例如該論中說：『有其他論師說，並非在欲界一切無表都依賴表業而生起，例如證得果位時，五比丘（Panca Bhiksu）等獲得別解脫戒。』然而他們先前已經決定有表業。解釋：該論中其他論師的意思是說，欲界有無表離開表業而生起。『然而他們』以下是《正理論》論師的意思，想要無表離開表業而生起。然而那些證得果位的五比丘等，先前已經決定有表業相續不斷，乃至達到聖位，從那些表業生起。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If avijñapti (unmanifested form) does not arise from vijñapti (manifested form), why does the author of the following text raise the question, 'Wanting avijñapti to arise separately from vijñapti?' Answer: The author of the following text is narrating the views of other teachers and refuting them. Or it could be said that the following text generally covers both the preparatory stage (prayoga) and the fundamental stage (mula), because both of these stages necessarily have vijñapti. Therefore, it is said, 'Wanting avijñapti to arise separately from vijñapti.' If it were not so, then in cases such as sending a messenger to kill someone, what vijñapti is present when the fundamental act is completed? It is not said that naturally arising, the path of seeing (darśana-mārga), or the fundamental precepts (śīla) obtained through ordination necessarily depend on vijñapti to arise. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Another explanation is that the ten types of prātimokṣa (individual liberation) vows obtained in this way, the seven limbs of avijñapti, do not necessarily depend on the seven types of vijñapti karma to arise. For example, in karma ordination, from the three bodily vijñapti karmas, verbal avijñapti can also arise; for example, in taking the three refuges, from the four verbal vijñapti karmas, bodily avijñapti can also arise. It is not necessarily dependent on vijñapti of the same category to arise. If this explanation is made, then all ten types of precepts are obtained depending on vijñapti to arise, such as naturally arising or the path of seeing, also arise avijñapti from vijñapti karma. The meaning of this explanation is that naturally arising and the path of seeing refer to those who have previously determined to have a continuous stream of vijñapti, and even reaching the noble stage, avijñapti precepts arise from those vijñapti. Question: As the following treatise says, 'If the seven wholesome karmic paths arise from receiving precepts, they must all possess both vijñapti and avijñapti, because śīla (moral discipline) arising from receiving precepts necessarily depends on vijñapti.' According to this statement, it only says that what arises from receiving precepts possesses both and depends on vijñapti. Why doesn't it say that naturally arising and the path of seeing also possess both? Answer: The following treatise is used to clarify and only speaks of what arises from receiving precepts, without precluding that naturally arising, the path of seeing, and precepts obtained possess both and depend on vijñapti. Or, naturally arising and the path of seeing are considered as arising from receiving precepts because they aspire to receive precepts, and therefore belong to the category of arising from receiving precepts, and can also be called arising from receiving precepts. If this explanation is made, it can well accord with what is said in the following text, 'Wanting avijñapti to arise separately from vijñapti.' Moreover, there are also two views in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. For example, it says in that treatise: 'Some other teachers say that not all avijñapti in the desire realm arise depending on vijñapti, such as when the five bhikshus (Panca Bhiksu) obtain prātimokṣa vows upon attaining the fruit.' However, they had previously determined to have vijñapti. Explanation: The meaning of the other teachers in that treatise is that avijñapti in the desire realm arises separately from vijñapti. 'However, they' below is the meaning of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya teacher, wanting avijñapti to arise separately from vijñapti. However, those five bhikshus who attained the fruit had previously determined to have a continuous stream of vijñapti, and even reaching the noble stage, they arise from those vijñapti.

無表律儀　前解同正理余師說。后解同正理論意　又婆沙一百二十二明有成就現在身無表非此表中亦有兩解云。若住別解脫律儀及住不律儀現無身表。有作是說此說第二剎那以後。彼初剎那必有表故。有作是說彼初剎那亦是所說。有現無身表受不律儀故。及在定中得具戒故　解彼論云言有現無身表受不律儀故者。謂受事得不律儀現無身表。言及在定中得具戒故者。謂佛。獨覺。及五苾芻。在定得戒亦無身表　前師意說欲無無表離表而生。后師意說欲界亦有無表離表而生。然無評家　前解同婆沙后師。后解同婆沙前師。

又此所說至為半月等者。此下第二明時節分齊。就中。一明別解脫分齊。二明不律儀分齊　此即第一明別解脫分齊。總有二種。如文可知。靜慮．無漏．及處中等時節不定。非如別解二時定故。所以不說　因明戒時顯時非實。非如外道執時實有。會釋經言。重說晝．夜所以經中說半月等無別有體。真諦師云解云此通伏難。伏難云若戒時邊際但有二種何故經中說半月等受八戒耶。為通此難故今釋言。經中雖說半月等戒日日須受戒。以受八戒唯有日夜邊際。重說晝．夜為半月等。非是一受八戒經半月等故不違經。

時名是何法者。問。時能詮名為是何法。因解時便問能詮名　又解此時名何法。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無表律儀：前一種解釋與《正理》的觀點相同，其他學者的說法。后一種解釋與《正理論》的含義一致。此外，《婆沙》第一百二十二卷闡明，存在成就現在身無表的情況，但並非此表中所述，對此也有兩種解釋。如果安住于別解脫律儀或安住于不律儀，現在沒有身表。有人認為，這是指第二剎那之後的情況，因為第一剎那必定有表。也有人認為，第一剎那也是所說的情況，因為現在沒有身表而受不律儀，以及在禪定中獲得具足戒的情況。

解釋《正理論》說：『言有現無身表受不律儀故者』，是指受事得到不律儀，現在沒有身表。『言及在定中得具戒故者』，是指佛（Buddha，覺悟者）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）以及五位比丘（Bhiksu，佛教僧侶），在禪定中得戒也沒有身表。

前一種解釋認為，欲界（Kamadhatu，佛教宇宙觀中的慾望界）沒有無表，而是離表而生。后一種解釋認為，欲界也有無表，是離表而生。然而，沒有評論家對此進行評判。前一種解釋與《婆沙》后一種學者的觀點相同，后一種解釋與《婆沙》前一種學者的觀點相同。

『又此所說至為半月等者』：以下第二部分闡明時節的分際。其中，一是闡明別解脫的分際，二是闡明不律儀的分際。這是第一部分闡明別解脫的分際，總共有兩種，如文中所述。靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）、無漏（Anasrava，無煩惱）以及處中等時節不定，不像別解脫那樣有兩個固定的時節，所以沒有說明。

因為闡明戒時是顯時的，並非實有的，不像外道（Tirthika，非佛教的修行者）所執著的那樣，認為時是實有的。會釋經文說，重複說晝夜，所以經文中說半月等，沒有別的本體。真諦師解釋說，這可以用來消除疑問。疑問是：如果戒時的邊際只有兩種，為什麼經文中說半月等受八戒（Astanga-sila，八關齋戒）呢？爲了消除這個疑問，現在解釋說，經文中雖然說半月等戒，但每天都需要受戒，因為受八戒只有日夜的邊際。重複說晝夜是爲了半月等，不是一次受八戒就經過半月等，所以不違背經文。

『時名是何法者』：提問，時所能詮釋的名稱是什麼法？因為要解釋時，所以先問能詮釋的名稱。又解釋說，此時的名稱是什麼法？ English version 'Avijñapti-rūpa-śīla': The former explanation is the same as the view of 'Nyaya', according to other scholars. The latter explanation is consistent with the meaning of 'Nyayanusara'. Furthermore, Volume 122 of 'Vibhasa' clarifies that there are cases of achieving 'present body avijñapti', but not as described in this table, and there are two explanations for this. If one abides in Pratimoksha-samvara (rules of individual liberation) or abides in non-samvara, there is no bodily expression now. Some believe that this refers to the situation after the second kshana (moment), because there must be an expression in the first kshana. Others believe that the first kshana is also what is being said, because one receives non-samvara without bodily expression, and because one obtains full ordination in dhyana (meditation).

Explaining 'Nyayanusara' says: 'The statement 'because there is present no bodily expression and one receives non-samvara' refers to receiving non-samvara, and there is no bodily expression now. 'The statement 'and because one obtains full ordination in dhyana' refers to Buddha (the awakened one), Pratyekabuddha (solitary awakened one), and the five Bhiksus (Buddhist monks), who obtain ordination in dhyana without bodily expression.

The former explanation believes that in Kamadhatu (the realm of desire in Buddhist cosmology), there is no avijñapti, but it arises apart from expression. The latter explanation believes that in Kamadhatu, there is also avijñapti, which arises apart from expression. However, no commentator has judged this. The former explanation is the same as the latter scholar's view in 'Vibhasa', and the latter explanation is the same as the former scholar's view in 'Vibhasa'.

'Also, what is said here, up to half a month, etc.': The second part below clarifies the boundaries of time. Among them, one is to clarify the boundaries of Pratimoksha, and the other is to clarify the boundaries of non-samvara. This is the first part clarifying the boundaries of Pratimoksha, and there are two types in total, as described in the text. Dhyana (meditation), Anasrava (non-outflow), and the middle state have indefinite times, unlike Pratimoksha, which has two fixed times, so it is not explained.

Because clarifying the time of precepts is a manifest time and not real, unlike what the Tirthikas (non-Buddhist practitioners) cling to, believing that time is real. Explaining the sutra says that repeating day and night, so the sutra says half a month, etc., without a separate entity. Paramartha explains that this can be used to eliminate doubts. The doubt is: if there are only two boundaries for the time of precepts, why does the sutra say half a month, etc., for receiving the Astanga-sila (eight precepts)? To eliminate this doubt, it is now explained that although the sutra says half a month, etc., for precepts, one needs to receive precepts every day, because receiving the eight precepts only has the boundary of day and night. Repeating day and night is for half a month, etc., not that receiving the eight precepts once lasts for half a month, etc., so it does not contradict the sutra.

'What is the dharma that is called time?': Asking, what is the dharma that the name 'time' signifies? Because one wants to explain time, one first asks what the signifying name is. Also explaining, what is the name of this time?

【English Translation】 English version 'Avijñapti-rūpa-śīla': The former explanation is the same as the view of 'Nyaya', according to other scholars. The latter explanation is consistent with the meaning of 'Nyayanusara'. Furthermore, Volume 122 of 'Vibhasa' clarifies that there are cases of achieving 'present body avijñapti', but not as described in this table, and there are two explanations for this. If one abides in Pratimoksha-samvara (rules of individual liberation) or abides in non-samvara, there is no bodily expression now. Some believe that this refers to the situation after the second kshana (moment), because there must be an expression in the first kshana. Others believe that the first kshana is also what is being said, because one receives non-samvara without bodily expression, and because one obtains full ordination in dhyana (meditation).

Explaining 'Nyayanusara' says: 'The statement 'because there is present no bodily expression and one receives non-samvara' refers to receiving non-samvara, and there is no bodily expression now. 'The statement 'and because one obtains full ordination in dhyana' refers to Buddha (the awakened one), Pratyekabuddha (solitary awakened one), and the five Bhiksus (Buddhist monks), who obtain ordination in dhyana without bodily expression.

The former explanation believes that in Kamadhatu (the realm of desire in Buddhist cosmology), there is no avijñapti, but it arises apart from expression. The latter explanation believes that in Kamadhatu, there is also avijñapti, which arises apart from expression. However, no commentator has judged this. The former explanation is the same as the latter scholar's view in 'Vibhasa', and the latter explanation is the same as the former scholar's view in 'Vibhasa'.

'Also, what is said here, up to half a month, etc.': The second part below clarifies the boundaries of time. Among them, one is to clarify the boundaries of Pratimoksha, and the other is to clarify the boundaries of non-samvara. This is the first part clarifying the boundaries of Pratimoksha, and there are two types in total, as described in the text. Dhyana (meditation), Anasrava (non-outflow), and the middle state have indefinite times, unlike Pratimoksha, which has two fixed times, so it is not explained.

Because clarifying the time of precepts is a manifest time and not real, unlike what the Tirthikas (non-Buddhist practitioners) cling to, believing that time is real. Explaining the sutra says that repeating day and night, so the sutra says half a month, etc., without a separate entity. Paramartha explains that this can be used to eliminate doubts. The doubt is: if there are only two boundaries for the time of precepts, why does the sutra say half a month, etc., for receiving the Astanga-sila (eight precepts)? To eliminate this doubt, it is now explained that although the sutra says half a month, etc., for precepts, one needs to receive precepts every day, because receiving the eight precepts only has the boundary of day and night. Repeating day and night is for half a month, etc., not that receiving the eight precepts once lasts for half a month, etc., so it does not contradict the sutra.

'What is the dharma that is called time?': Asking, what is the dharma that the name 'time' signifies? Because one wants to explain time, one first asks what the signifying name is. Also explaining, what is the name of this time?

中明時故問時體。正理三十七亦云。何法名時。婆沙一百三十五亦云。劫名何法　又解所詮時體及能詮名為是何法。此中解時故問時體。因明時義便復問其名　謂諸行增語至立晝夜名者。答　增語。謂名。如前釋能詮諸行增語是名。光位立晝名。闇位立夜名　又解時無別體諸行名時。謂增語所顯諸行名時。應言增語所顯諸行。故婆沙一百三十五云。答此增語所顯半月月時年　又解諸行答所詮時。增語答能詮名。

二邊際中至非亦得起者。經部問。二邊際中盡壽可爾。于命終后雖有要期而不發戒。由命終舍依身別故其戒不生。別依身中無有加行求受戒故其戒不生。凡受戒已須憶念知。別依身中無憶念故可言不發。此許盡受隔生不發　一晝夜后。或五晝夜。或十晝夜等中受近住戒。何法為障令戒不起　經部許近住戒多日受得故作此問。

必應有法至唯一晝夜故者。說一切有部答。至明清旦有日光明。能為障礙令舍戒故。引教可知。

于如是義至一晝夜戒者。經部師言于如是義應共尋思　為佛正觀一晝夜后。理無容起近住律儀。如汝所說故於經中說一晝夜　為觀所化根難調者。經中且據一晝夜戒。根若易調授多亦得。如我所言。

依何理教作如是言者。說一切有部問。

過此戒生不違理故者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中明時，所以才問「時」的本體是什麼。《正理三十七》也說：『什麼法叫做「時」？』《婆沙一百三十五》也說：『劫叫做什麼法？』又解釋所詮釋的「時」的本體以及能詮釋的名稱是什麼法。這裡解釋「時」，所以才問「時」的本體。因為要明白「時」的意義，所以又問它的名稱。所謂諸行的增語，乃至建立晝夜的名稱是什麼？回答：是增語。所謂名稱，如前面解釋的，能詮釋諸行的增語就是名稱。光明的位置建立為晝，黑暗的位置建立為夜。又解釋說，「時」沒有別的本體，諸行的名稱就是「時」。所謂增語所顯示的諸行就是「時」。應該說增語所顯示的諸行。所以《婆沙一百三十五》說：『回答：這增語所顯示的半月、月、時、年。』又解釋說，諸行回答所詮釋的「時」，增語回答能詮釋的名稱。

在兩個邊際中間，乃至並非不能生起。經部（Sautrāntika）提問：在兩個邊際中間，盡其一生可以這樣說。在命終之後，即使有要期，也不發戒。因為命終捨棄了所依之身，所以戒不能生起。在別的所依之身中，沒有加行求受戒，所以戒不能生起。凡是受戒之後，必須憶念知曉。在別的所依之身中，沒有憶念，所以可以說不發戒。這裡允許盡其一生，隔生不發。在一晝夜之後，或者五晝夜，或者十晝夜等之中，受近住戒（Upavāsa）。什麼法作為障礙，使得戒不能生起？經部（Sautrāntika）允許近住戒（Upavāsa）可以多日受持，所以才這樣提問。

必定應該有法，乃至只有一晝夜的緣故。說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）回答：到明天清晨有日光出現，能夠成為障礙，使得舍戒的緣故。引用教證可以知道。

對於這樣的意義，乃至一晝夜戒。經部師（Sautrāntika）說：對於這樣的意義，應該共同尋思。因為佛陀正確觀察到一晝夜之後，道理上不可能生起近住律儀（Upavāsa-śīla）。如你所說，所以在經中說一晝夜。爲了觀察所化之人的根器難以調伏，經中且只說一晝夜戒。根器如果容易調伏，授予多日也可以。如我所說。

依據什麼道理和教證，才說這樣的話？說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）提問。

超過這個期限，戒的生起不違背道理的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version In the middle of clarifying time, therefore, the question is asked, 'What is the substance of time?' The Nyāyapraveśa 37 also says, 'What dharma is called "time"?' The Mahāvibhāṣā 135 also says, 'What dharma is called a kalpa?' Also, explain what dharma is the substance of time that is explained and the name that explains it. Here, time is explained, so the substance of time is asked. Because the meaning of time needs to be understood, its name is asked again. What is the term for the aggregates, up to the establishment of the names of day and night? The answer: It is a term. As explained earlier, the term that explains the aggregates is the name. The position of light is established as day, and the position of darkness is established as night. Also, it is explained that time has no separate substance; the name of the aggregates is time. The aggregates manifested by the term are time. It should be said that the aggregates manifested by the term. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā 135 says, 'The answer: the half-month, month, season, and year manifested by this term.' Also, it is explained that the aggregates answer the time that is explained, and the term answers the name that explains.

In the middle of the two extremes, up to it is not impossible to arise. The Sautrāntika asks: In the middle of the two extremes, it is acceptable to say for the duration of one's life. After death, even if there is a fixed period, the precepts are not generated. Because the body relied upon is abandoned at death, the precepts cannot arise. In another body relied upon, there is no effort to seek and receive the precepts, so the precepts cannot arise. After receiving the precepts, one must remember and know. In another body relied upon, there is no memory, so it can be said that the precepts are not generated. Here, it is allowed that for the duration of one's life, the precepts are not generated in the next life. After one day and night, or five days and nights, or ten days and nights, etc., the Upavāsa (close dwelling) precepts are received. What dharma acts as an obstacle, causing the precepts not to arise? The Sautrāntika allows that the Upavāsa precepts can be held for multiple days, so this question is asked.

There must be a dharma, up to because it is only one day and night. The Sarvāstivāda answers: Until the clear dawn when sunlight appears, it can become an obstacle, causing the abandonment of the precepts. It can be known by quoting the teachings.

Regarding such meaning, up to the one-day-and-night precepts. The Sautrāntika teacher says: Regarding such meaning, we should contemplate together. Because the Buddha correctly observed that after one day and night, it is logically impossible for the Upavāsa-śīla (close dwelling precepts) to arise. As you said, therefore, the scriptures speak of one day and night. In order to observe that the roots of those to be transformed are difficult to tame, the scriptures only speak of the one-day-and-night precepts. If the roots are easy to tame, giving more days is also possible. As I said.

Based on what reason and teaching are such words spoken? The Sarvāstivāda asks.

Beyond this limit, the arising of the precepts does not contradict reason.

。經部答。雖無教說過此晝．夜其戒得生不違理故。

毗婆沙者至不許斯義者。說一切有部復難。凡所立義須依聖教。無教可證理豈獨成。是故我宗不許此義。

依何邊際至所訶厭業故者。此即第二不律儀分齊。唯有盡壽無一晝夜。以無對師受惡戒故。

若爾亦無至得不律儀者。難。惡戒盡形。亦非對師。如何得彼。

雖無對師至故不立有者。答。盡形惡戒雖無對師。壞善過重得不律儀。非暫壞善以無對師故令得惡戒故無晝夜　然近住戒由對師力雖壞惡輕而得律儀　假設有人對師暫受不律儀者亦必應得。然未曾見故不立有。

經部師說至阿世耶故者。述經部宗。經部師說如善律儀思種假立無別實物名為無表。意樂是思。或意樂者所有意趣。或欲為體。或勝解為體。或欲．勝解為體　此不律儀準善律儀亦應非實。熏成即欲造惡不善意樂思種相續不捨名不律儀　又解由彼要期即欲造惡現行思力熏成。不善意樂思種相續不捨名不律儀　此前兩解意樂以思為體　又解熏成即欲造惡不善意樂相應思種相續不捨名不律儀　又解由彼要期即欲造惡現行思力熏成。不善意樂相應思種相續不捨名不律儀　此前兩解意樂非思勝故別標　由此思種后時善心雖復現起。而名成就不律儀人。以不捨此阿世耶故　阿

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本經部回答說：即使沒有教導說明這種晝夜受戒的情況，但戒律的產生並不違背道理。

毗婆沙師不認可這種觀點。一切有部反駁說：凡是所建立的義理都必須依據聖教，如果沒有聖教可以證明，道理又怎麼能獨自成立呢？因此，我們宗派不認可這種說法。

依據什麼界限，會造成被呵責厭惡的惡業呢？這指的是第二種不律儀的界限。只有盡形壽的，沒有隻持續一晝夜的。因為沒有面對面的老師傳授惡戒的緣故。

如果這樣，那麼也就不存在獲得不律儀的情況了？（這是）一個詰難。惡戒是盡形壽的，也不是面對面的老師傳授的，那又如何獲得呢？

即使沒有面對面的老師，但因為破壞善業的過失嚴重，所以可以獲得不律儀。不是暫時破壞善業，因為沒有面對面的老師就能夠獲得惡戒，所以沒有晝夜的說法。然而近住戒由於面對面的老師的力量，即使破壞的惡業輕微，也能獲得律儀。假設有人面對面的老師暫時傳授不律儀，也必定應該獲得。但因為從未見過這種情況，所以不認為存在。

經部師說，如善律儀一樣，思的種子假立，沒有別的實際物體，名為無表。意樂是思，或者意樂是指所有的意趣，或者以慾望為本體，或者以勝解為本體，或者以慾望和勝解為本體。這種不律儀，按照善律儀的說法，也應該不是真實的。熏習成就了想要作惡的不善意樂，思的種子相續不斷，名為不律儀。另一種解釋是，由於他要約定想要作惡的現行思的力量熏習成就，不善意樂的思的種子相續不斷，名為不律儀。前兩種解釋中，意樂以思為本體。另一種解釋是，熏習成就了想要作惡的不善意樂相應的思的種子相續不斷，名為不律儀。另一種解釋是，由於他要約定想要作惡的現行思的力量熏習成就，不善意樂相應的思的種子相續不斷，名為不律儀。前兩種解釋中，意樂不是思，因為勝過思所以特別標明。因此，思的種子即使在之後善心再次生起，仍然被稱為成就了不律儀的人，因為沒有捨棄這種阿世耶（習氣，傾向）的緣故。阿

【English Translation】 English version The Sautrāntikas (Sautrāntikas: a school of Buddhism that emphasizes the importance of the sutras) respond: Although there is no teaching that explicitly states that the precepts can arise during the day or night in this way, the arising of the precepts does not contradict reason.

The Vaibhāṣikas (Vaibhāṣikas: a school of Buddhism that emphasizes the Abhidharma) who do not accept this view, and the Sarvāstivādins (Sarvāstivādins: a major school of early Buddhism) further object: All established doctrines must be based on the sacred teachings. If there is no teaching to prove it, how can reason alone be sufficient? Therefore, our school does not accept this view.

According to what boundary does reprehensible and detestable karma arise? This refers to the boundary of the second type of non-restraint (不律儀, abratya). It only lasts for a lifetime, not just for a day and night, because there is no teacher to receive the evil precepts from.

If that is the case, then there is no obtaining of non-restraint? (This is) a challenge. Evil precepts are for a lifetime and are not received from a teacher, so how are they obtained?

Even without a teacher, one can obtain non-restraint because the fault of destroying good deeds is serious. It is not a temporary destruction of good deeds, because without a teacher, one can obtain evil precepts, so there is no day and night aspect. However, the Upavāsa (近住戒, upavāsa) precepts, due to the power of the teacher, can lead to the acquisition of precepts even if the evil committed is minor. Suppose someone temporarily receives non-restraint from a teacher, they should definitely obtain it. But since this has never been seen, it is not considered to exist.

The Sautrāntika masters say that, like good restraint, the seed of thought is hypothetically established, and there is no separate real object called avijñapti (無表, avijñapti, non-manifestation). Intention (意樂, āśaya) is thought, or intention refers to all inclinations, or it has desire as its essence, or it has adhimoksha (勝解, adhimoksha, firm conviction) as its essence, or it has both desire and adhimoksha as its essence. This non-restraint, according to the explanation of good restraint, should also not be real. The continuous, unabandoned seed of thought of evil intention, cultivated by the desire to do evil, is called non-restraint. Another explanation is that, due to the power of the intention to do evil and the force of the present thought, the continuous, unabandoned seed of thought of evil intention is called non-restraint. In the first two explanations, intention has thought as its essence. Another explanation is that the continuous, unabandoned seed of thought associated with the evil intention to do evil, cultivated by the desire to do evil, is called non-restraint. Another explanation is that, due to the power of the intention to do evil and the force of the present thought, the continuous, unabandoned seed of thought associated with the evil intention is called non-restraint. In the first two explanations, intention is not thought, because it surpasses thought, so it is specifically indicated. Therefore, even if good thoughts arise again later, one is still called a person who has achieved non-restraint, because this āśaya (阿世耶, āśaya, disposition) has not been abandoned. Ā

世耶此云意樂　說一晝夜至離嚴飾晝夜者。此下第三明近住律儀。就中。一明受方法。二明具八支。三明受戒人。

此即第一明受方法。

論曰至近住不成者。釋上三句。如文可知。

受此律儀至深成有用者。釋第四句。由嚴飾故廣造眾罪。故別遮止。名放逸處　妙行。謂處中妙行　盡晝故能制屠獵。盡夜故能制奸盜。且從多分作此解釋。理實晝．夜俱能離二　此晝．夜戒亦能離彼虛誑語等。而不說者過輕不論。或偏約身。或舉初顯后。

言近住者至盡壽戒住者。釋近住名。又正理云有說此戒近時而住。

如是律儀至說此名長養者。敘近住異名　布灑他。唐言長養。舊云布薩訛也　故引頌證名長養也。

何緣受此至失念及憍逸者。此即第二明具八支。問及頌答。

論曰至厭離心故者。釋上兩句。

何緣具受如是三支者。釋下兩句　三支。謂尸羅支．不放逸支．及禁約支。此即問也。

若不具支至心縱逸處故者。舉頌答。應作不作。及不應作反作。依時食者以能遮止恒時食故。一便憶自受近住律儀。二能於世間深生厭離。余文可知。

有餘師說至分為二故者。敘異說。此師意說離非時食是正齋體。西方國俗斷食名齋。余有八種不名為齋非齋義故。但名齋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『世耶』（Śeya，意樂）在此指的是從一晝夜到遠離嚴飾的晝夜。下面第三部分闡明近住律儀。其中，第一部分闡明受持的方法，第二部分闡明具足八支，第三部分闡明受戒之人。

這裡是第一部分，闡明受持的方法。

論曰：『至近住不成者』。解釋上面三句，如文可知。

『受此律儀至深成有用者』。解釋第四句。因為嚴飾的緣故，廣泛造作各種罪業，所以特別遮止。名為放逸之處。『妙行』，指的是處中妙行。盡晝能制止屠殺和狩獵，盡夜能制止姦淫和盜竊。姑且從多分方面作此解釋。實際上，晝夜都能遠離這二者。此晝夜戒也能遠離虛誑語等，而不說的原因是過失輕微而不論，或者偏指身體，或者舉出開始而顯示後面。

『言近住者至盡壽戒住者』。解釋近住的名稱。又，《正理》中說，這種戒是接近時間而安住的。

『如是律儀至說此名長養者』。敘述近住的異名。『布灑他』（Poṣadha），唐言為長養，舊譯為『布薩』是訛誤。所以引用頌文來證明名為長養。

『何緣受此至失念及憍逸者』。這是第二部分，闡明具足八支。提問和頌文回答。

論曰：『至厭離心故者』。解釋上面兩句。

『何緣具受如是三支者』。解釋下面兩句。三支，指的是尸羅支（Śīla，戒律支）、不放逸支和禁約支。這是提問。

『若不具支至心縱逸處故者』。舉出頌文回答。應該做的沒有做，不應該做的反而做了。依時而食，是因為能夠遮止恒時而食的緣故。一是能夠憶念自己受持的近住律儀，二是能夠對世間深深生起厭離。其餘文句可以自己理解。

『有餘師說至分為二故者』。敘述不同的說法。這位法師的意思是說，離開非時食是正齋的本體。西方國家的習俗，斷食名為齋。其餘有八種不名為齋，因為沒有齋的意義，只是名為齋。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Śeya' (意樂, meaning 'intention' or 'delight') here refers to the period from one day and night to the day and night of being free from adornments. The third part below elucidates the Upavāsa (近住) vows. Among them, the first part elucidates the method of receiving them, the second part elucidates possessing the eight branches, and the third part elucidates the person who takes the vows.

This is the first part, elucidating the method of receiving them.

The treatise says: 'To the point where the Upavāsa is not accomplished.' This explains the above three sentences, as can be understood from the text.

'Receiving these vows to the point where they become deeply useful.' This explains the fourth sentence. Because of adornments, various sins are widely committed, so they are specifically prohibited. This is called a place of negligence. 'Wonderful conduct' refers to conduct that is moderate and wonderful. Abstaining during the day can restrain slaughter and hunting, and abstaining during the night can restrain adultery and theft. Let's explain it this way from the majority perspective. In reality, both day and night can be free from these two. These day and night vows can also be free from false speech, etc., but the reason for not mentioning them is that the fault is too minor to discuss, or it refers specifically to the body, or it mentions the beginning to reveal what follows.

'The term Upavāsa (近住) refers to residing in the vows until the end of life.' This explains the name Upavāsa. Also, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says that this vow resides close to the time.

'Such vows, to the point where it is said that this is called growth.' This narrates the different names of Upavāsa. 'Poṣadha' (布灑他) in Tang language means growth, and the old translation '布薩' is a corruption. Therefore, a verse is quoted to prove that it is called growth.

'Why receive this, to the point of losing mindfulness and arrogance?' This is the second part, elucidating possessing the eight branches. Question and answer in verse.

The treatise says: 'To the point of having a mind of aversion.' This explains the above two sentences.

'Why fully receive these three branches?' This explains the following two sentences. The three branches refer to the Śīla (尸羅, moral discipline) branch, the non-negligence branch, and the restraint branch. This is the question.

'If one does not possess the branches, to the point of the mind being unrestrained.' This cites a verse to answer. What should be done is not done, and what should not be done is done instead. Eating at the proper time is because it can prevent eating at all times. First, one can remember that one has received the Upavāsa vows, and second, one can deeply generate aversion to the world. The rest of the text can be understood on your own.

'Some teachers say, to the point of dividing into two.' This narrates different views. This teacher means that abstaining from untimely food is the essence of the true fast. In the customs of Western countries, fasting is called 齋 (zhāi, purification or fast). The other eight are not called 齋 because they do not have the meaning of 齋, they are only called 齋.

支。分二可知。若依此解即有九戒。而言八戒者不據體說但約支論　問齋與近住梵名同不　解云。文既別說明知不同　又解梵名鄔波婆娑。或翻為齋。或翻近住。名異義同。

若作此執至隨行隨作者。經部引經破。我今隨聖阿羅漢學。若阿羅漢所行．所作。我隨彼行。隨彼而作。余文可知。

若爾有何至名齋支者。難。余師問齋名本自離非時食。若不以彼離非時食為齋體者。有何別齋體說八名齋支　準舊論文。鄔波婆娑。亦翻為齋。故舊論云。若爾何別法名優波婆娑。

總標齋號至應知亦爾者。經部答。齋無別體攬八以成。總即是齋。別即名支。如車是總攬眾分成。如軍是總攬象．馬．車．步四支以成。亦如其散攬五支藥以成。車．軍．散等既是其假。齋戒八支應知亦爾。攬八成齋齋亦是假　不同俗說唯不食名齋。

毗婆沙師至非靜慮者。敘毗婆沙師解。夫言齋者。謂離非時食故離非時食是齋齋復是八中一故齋支。所餘七支各是八中一故是齋支。非是離非時食故不名齋　如正見與道體皆是惠故。得說言正見是道。復是八中一故得言道支　餘七支各是八中一故是道支。體非惠故非道。擇法與覺體皆是惠故。得言擇法是覺。復是七中一故得言覺支。餘六支各是七中一故是覺支。體非惠故非覺　如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本支。可以分為兩種情況來理解。如果按照這種解釋，就有了九條戒律。而說八戒，不是根據戒體的性質來說，只是就戒條的分支來討論。問：『齋』和『近住』的梵文名稱相同嗎？答：經文既然有不同的說法，說明它們是不同的。另一種解釋是，梵文名稱為『鄔波婆娑』(Upavasatha)，有時翻譯為『齋』，有時翻譯為『近住』。名稱不同，意義相同。

如果有人這樣執著，直到隨行隨作者，經部就引用經文來駁斥：『我現在跟隨聖阿羅漢(Arhat)學習。阿羅漢(Arhat)所行、所作的，我就跟隨他行，跟隨他作。』其餘的文字可以自己理解。

如果這樣，有什麼（不同）以至於稱為齋支呢？難：其他論師問，『齋』這個名稱本來就是遠離非時食。如果不把遠離非時食作為齋體，那麼有什麼其他的齋體，卻說八條是齋支呢？根據舊的論文，『鄔波婆娑』(Upavasatha)也翻譯為『齋』。所以舊論說：『如果這樣，那麼有什麼不同的法，可以稱為優波婆娑(Upavasatha)呢？』

總標齋號，直到『應知也是這樣』。經部回答：『齋』沒有單獨的戒體，是綜合八條戒律而成的。總體來說就是『齋』，分別來說就稱為『支』。比如車是一個整體，由眾多的部件組成。比如軍隊是一個整體，由象兵、馬兵、車兵、步兵四個部分組成。也像散藥，由五種藥物組成。車、軍隊、散藥等都是假名安立的，『齋』的八支也應該這樣理解。綜合八支成為『齋』，『齋』也是假名安立的。不同於世俗的說法，認為僅僅不吃飯就叫做『齋』。

毗婆沙師，直到『不是靜慮』。敘述毗婆沙師的解釋：所謂『齋』，就是遠離非時食，所以遠離非時食就是『齋』，『齋』又是八支中的一支，所以是『齋支』。其餘的七支，各自是八支中的一支，所以是『齋支』，但它們的本體不是遠離非時食，所以不稱為『齋』。比如正見和道體都是智慧，所以可以說正見是道，又是八支中的一支，所以可以說道支。其餘七支各自是八支中的一支，所以是道支，但它們的本體不是智慧，所以不是道。擇法和覺體都是智慧，所以可以說擇法是覺，又是七支中的一支，所以可以覺支。其餘六支各自是七支中的一支，所以是覺支，但它們的本體不是智慧，所以不是覺。如...

【English Translation】 English version Branch. It can be understood in two ways. If we interpret it this way, there would be nine precepts. However, when we speak of eight precepts, we are not referring to the nature of the precept body, but rather discussing the branches of the precepts. Question: Are the Sanskrit names for 'fasting' and 'near dwelling' the same? Answer: Since the texts have different expressions, it indicates that they are different. Another explanation is that the Sanskrit name is 'Upavasatha', which is sometimes translated as 'fasting' and sometimes as 'near dwelling'. The names are different, but the meanings are the same.

If someone is attached to this view, up to 'acting accordingly', the Sutra school refutes it by quoting scriptures: 'I now follow the holy Arhat (Arhat) to learn. Whatever the Arhat (Arhat) does, I will follow him and act accordingly.' The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.

If so, what (difference) is there that it is called a branch of fasting? Question: Other teachers ask, 'The name 'fasting' originally means abstaining from untimely food. If we do not regard abstaining from untimely food as the body of fasting, then what other body of fasting is there, that we say eight are branches of fasting?' According to the old treatises, 'Upavasatha' is also translated as 'fasting'. Therefore, the old treatise says: 'If so, then what different dharma can be called Upavasatha?'

Generally labeling the name of fasting, up to 'it should also be known to be so'. The Sutra school answers: 'Fasting' has no separate body; it is formed by combining the eight precepts. Generally speaking, it is 'fasting'; separately speaking, it is called a 'branch'. For example, a chariot is a whole, composed of many parts. For example, an army is a whole, composed of four parts: elephant soldiers, horse soldiers, chariot soldiers, and infantry soldiers. It is also like a compound medicine, composed of five kinds of herbs. Chariots, armies, compound medicines, etc., are all nominally established; the eight branches of 'fasting' should also be understood in this way. Combining the eight branches becomes 'fasting', and 'fasting' is also nominally established. It is different from the secular saying that merely not eating is called 'fasting'.

The Vibhasha master, up to 'not meditative concentration'. Narrating the explanation of the Vibhasha master: What is called 'fasting' is abstaining from untimely food, so abstaining from untimely food is 'fasting', and 'fasting' is one of the eight branches, so it is a 'branch of fasting'. The remaining seven branches are each one of the eight branches, so they are 'branches of fasting', but their essence is not abstaining from untimely food, so they are not called 'fasting'. For example, right view and the body of the path are both wisdom, so it can be said that right view is the path, and it is one of the eight branches, so it can be said to be a branch of the path. The remaining seven branches are each one of the eight branches, so they are branches of the path, but their essence is not wisdom, so they are not the path. Discrimination of dharmas and the body of enlightenment are both wisdom, so it can be said that discrimination of dharmas is enlightenment, and it is one of the seven branches, so it can be a branch of enlightenment. The remaining six branches are each one of the seven branches, so they are branches of enlightenment, but their essence is not wisdom, so they are not enlightenment. Like...

靜慮支中三摩地與靜慮體皆是定故。得說言三摩地是靜慮。復是五等中一故是靜慮支。余尋．伺等是五等中一故是靜慮支。體非定故非靜慮。

如是所說至有八支等者。經部難。夫言支者是支分義望他說之不可正見等即自望正見等即為支　等謂等取擇法覺支三摩地支　汝若謂前生正見等為後生正見等支。則初剎那苦法忍聖道等前無正見等。應不具有八支等　經部意說總標道覺靜慮名號別說為支。總有別支即無妨矣。正理救云非毗婆沙說正見等其體即是正見等支。亦非前生正見等為後生正見等支。然于俱生正見等八唯一正見有能尋求諸法相能說名為道。以能尋求是道義故。即此正見覆能隨順正思惟等故名為支。所餘七支望俱生法能隨順故說名為支。非能尋求不名為道。實義如是。若就假名余支皆能長養正見故。思惟等亦得道名。見名道支亦不違理。是則一切亦道亦支。余隨所應皆如是說。由此類釋齋戒八支。經主于中何憑說過　俱舍師破云。若就實義正見但應言是道。是正思惟等支不應言亦道支。既言亦道支還望自．若就假名餘七亦應名為道。何故但言是道支非道。

為唯近事至除不知者者。此即第三明受戒人。不受近事人亦得受近住。若不受三歸不得戒故言則無。若人不知先受三歸方發得戒。或復戒師忘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在靜慮支中，三摩地（Samadhi，定）與靜慮的本體都是禪定，因此可以說三摩地是靜慮。因為它也是五等（五種禪定）中的一種，所以是靜慮支。其餘的尋（Vitarka，粗分別）、伺（Vicara，細分別）等是五等中的一種，所以是靜慮支。但它們的本體不是禪定，所以不是靜慮。

『如是所說至有八支等者』，經部（Sautrantika）對此提出質疑。所謂『支』，是指支分，是相對於其他法而言的。不能說正見（Samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）等本身就是相對於正見等的支。『等』字包括擇法覺支（Dharma-vicaya-saṃbodhyaṅga，選擇法的覺悟支）和三摩地支（Samadhi-sambodhyanga，禪定的覺悟支）。如果你認為前一生的正見等是后一生的正見等的支，那麼最初剎那的苦法忍（Kṣānti，對苦諦的忍耐）聖道等，因為之前沒有正見等，就不應該具有八支等。

經部的意思是，總的來說，將道、覺、靜慮的名號分別說成支，總的來說有分別的支，這並沒有妨礙。正理師（Nyaya）辯護說，毗婆沙（Vibhasa）並沒有說正見等的本體就是正見等的支，也不是說前一生的正見等是后一生的正見等的支。而是在俱生的正見等八支中，只有正見具有尋求諸法相的能力，可以被稱為道，因為它具有尋求的含義，即是道的含義。這個正見又能隨順正思惟（Samyak-saṃkalpa，正確的思考）等，所以被稱為支。其餘七支相對於俱生法，因為能夠隨順，所以被稱為支，不能尋求的就不能稱為道。真實的含義是這樣的。如果就假名來說，其餘的支都能增長正見，所以思惟等也可以得到道的名稱。見被稱為道支也不違背道理。這樣，一切既是道又是支。其餘的都應該根據情況這樣解釋。由此類推解釋齋戒八支。經主（Sutrakara）在這裡有什麼依據來批評呢？俱舍師（Abhidharmakosa）反駁說，如果就真實的含義來說，正見應該只被稱為道，是正思惟等的支，不應該也稱為道支。既然說也稱為道支，還是相對於自身而言。如果就假名來說，其餘七支也應該稱為道，為什麼只說是道支而不是道呢？

『為唯近事至除不知者者』，這說明了第三種受戒人。不受近事戒（Upasaka，優婆塞戒）的人也可以受近住戒（Upavasatha，八關齋戒）。如果不受三歸依（Trisarana，皈依佛、法、僧），就不能得戒，所以說『則無』。如果有人不知道先受三歸依才能發願得戒，或者戒師忘記了。

【English Translation】 English version: Within the limb of Dhyana (meditation), both Samadhi (concentration) and the essence of Dhyana are forms of concentration. Therefore, it can be said that Samadhi is Dhyana. Because it is also one of the five Samapattis (five kinds of meditative attainments), it is a limb of Dhyana. The remaining Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought) are among the five Samapattis, so they are limbs of Dhyana. However, their essence is not concentration, so they are not Dhyana.

Regarding 『As it is said, up to having eight limbs, etc.,』 the Sautrantika school raises a question. The term 『limb』 refers to a component, in relation to other dharmas. It cannot be said that Right View (Samyag-dṛṣṭi, correct understanding) itself is a limb in relation to Right View, etc. 『Etc.』 includes Dharma-vicaya-saṃbodhyaṅga (the enlightenment factor of investigation of dharmas) and Samadhi-sambodhyanga (the enlightenment factor of concentration). If you claim that Right View, etc., in a previous life are limbs of Right View, etc., in a later life, then the Kṣānti (patience) of suffering and the noble path, etc., in the initial moment, should not possess eight limbs, etc., because they did not have Right View, etc., before.

The Sautrantika school means that, generally speaking, the names of the path, enlightenment, and Dhyana are separately stated as limbs. There is no contradiction in having separate limbs in general. The Nyaya school defends by saying that the Vibhasa does not state that the essence of Right View, etc., is the limb of Right View, etc., nor does it state that Right View, etc., in a previous life are limbs of Right View, etc., in a later life. Rather, among the eight co-arisen limbs of Right View, etc., only Right View has the ability to seek the characteristics of all dharmas and can be called the path, because it has the meaning of seeking, which is the meaning of the path. This Right View can also accord with Right Thought (Samyak-saṃkalpa, correct thought), etc., so it is called a limb. The remaining seven limbs, in relation to co-arisen dharmas, are called limbs because they can accord with them. That which cannot seek is not called the path. The true meaning is like this. If speaking nominally, the remaining limbs can all increase Right View, so thought, etc., can also obtain the name of the path. It is not unreasonable for view to be called a path limb. Thus, everything is both the path and a limb. The rest should be explained accordingly. By analogy, explain the eight limbs of fasting. What basis does the Sutrakara (author of the sutra) have to criticize here? The Abhidharmakosa school refutes by saying that, if speaking truly, Right View should only be called the path, and should be a limb of Right Thought, etc., and should not also be called a path limb. Since it is said to also be a path limb, it is still in relation to itself. If speaking nominally, the remaining seven limbs should also be called the path. Why is it only said to be a path limb and not the path?

『For only Upasaka to exclude those who do not know,』 this explains the third type of person receiving precepts. A person who does not receive the Upasaka precepts (layman's precepts) can also receive the Upavasatha precepts (eight precepts observed on special days). If one does not take refuge in the Three Jewels (Trisarana, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), one cannot obtain the precepts, so it is said 『then there is none.』 If someone does not know that they must first take refuge in the Three Jewels before making a vow to obtain the precepts, or if the precept master forgets.

不與授。但為說戒此亦得戒。由意樂力亦發律儀。故婆沙四十四云。有說亦得。謂若不知三歸律儀受之先．后。或復忘誤不授三歸。但受律儀而授者得罪。若有憍慢不受三歸但受律儀彼必不得。

如契經說至即成近事者。此下第四明近事律儀。一明發戒時。二會釋經文。三明三品戒。四明三歸體。五明離邪行。六明娶妻不犯。七明離虛誑。八遮唯離酒　此下第一明發戒時　索迦已上皆是經文　依經問云。為但受三歸未發五戒即成近事不　真諦云。大名是佛從弟阿泥律馱親。兄凈飯王出家以國付之。佛為大名說三歸法。

外國諸師說唯此即成者。敘外國師答　外國是迦濕彌羅國外健馱羅國經部諸師說　唯受此三歸即成三歸鄔波索迦。受三歸時未發五戒。后說戒相方別發戒名五戒鄔婆索迦。彼宗五戒隨受多少皆發得戒。

迦濕彌羅國至則非近事者。敘當國師說。離五近事律儀即非近事。要由五戒方名近事。

若爾應與此經相違者。外國師難。若要鬚髮五戒律儀方名近事。是則應與此大名經相違。彼經說受三歸等已但云齊。是名曰鄔波索迦。不言發戒方名近事。

此不相違已發戒故者。迦濕彌羅答。我今所說與此大名經亦不相違。受三歸等時已發五戒故。

何時發戒者。外國師問。克

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不（為不受三歸戒者）傳授（五戒）。但為（已受三歸戒者）說戒，此（人）亦得戒。由意樂（指受戒者的意願和決心）的力量，也能引發律儀（指五戒）。所以《婆沙論》第四十四卷說：『有人說（不受三歸戒）也能得戒。』這是說如果不知道三歸律儀受持的先後順序，或者忘記錯誤沒有傳授三歸，只是受持律儀，那麼傳授者有罪。如果有人因為驕慢而不受三歸，只是受持律儀，那麼他必定不能得戒。『如契經說至即成近事者』，這以下第四部分說明近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，男居士）律儀。一、說明發戒時；二、會釋經文；三、說明三品戒；四、說明三歸體；五、說明離邪行；六、說明娶妻不犯（戒）；七、說明離虛誑；八、遮止唯獨離酒。（以下）第一部分說明發戒時。（從）『索迦』（Soka）以上都是經文。（有人）依據經文發問：『只是受了三歸，沒有發五戒，就能成為近事嗎？』真諦（Paramārtha）說：『大名（Mahānāma）是佛陀的堂弟，阿泥律陀（Aniruddha）親哥哥凈飯王（Śuddhodana）出家后把國家託付給他。佛陀為大名宣說了三歸法。』『外國諸師說唯此即成者』，這是敘述外國諸師的回答。外國指的是迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）外的健馱羅國（Gandhāra），經部（Sautrāntika）的諸位法師說：『僅僅受持這三歸，就能成為三歸鄔波索迦（Upasaka，男居士）。受三歸時沒有發五戒，之後再說戒相，才分別發戒，名為五戒鄔婆索迦（Upasaka，男居士）。』他們的宗派認為，五戒隨受多少都能得戒。『迦濕彌羅國至則非近事者』，這是敘述當國（迦濕彌羅國）法師的說法。離開五近事律儀，就不是近事。一定要由五戒才能稱為近事。『若爾應與此經相違者』，這是外國法師的詰難。如果一定要發五戒律儀才能稱為近事，那麼就應該與這部《大名經》相違背。那部經說受了三歸等等之後，只說『齊，是名曰鄔波索迦』，沒有說發戒才能稱為近事。『此不相違已發戒故者』，這是迦濕彌羅法師的回答。我現在所說的與這部《大名經》並不相違背，因為受三歸等等的時候已經發了五戒的緣故。『何時發戒者』，這是外國法師的提問。克（梵文：kṛtya，意為「已做」）

【English Translation】 English version: (The five precepts) are not given to those who have not taken refuge. But if the precepts are explained to (those who have taken refuge), they also obtain the precepts. Due to the power of intention (referring to the recipient's intention and determination), the precepts (referring to the five precepts) can also be initiated. Therefore, the forty-fourth volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Some say that (one can obtain the precepts) even without taking refuge.' This means that if one does not know the order of taking refuge and observing the precepts, or if one forgets to transmit the Three Refuges, but only transmits the precepts, then the transmitter is at fault. If someone is arrogant and does not take refuge, but only observes the precepts, then he will certainly not obtain the precepts. 'As the sutra says, '...then one becomes a Upasaka (male lay follower),' the following fourth part explains the Upasaka precepts. First, it explains the time of initiating the precepts; second, it interprets the sutra text; third, it explains the three grades of precepts; fourth, it explains the essence of the Three Refuges; fifth, it explains abstaining from improper conduct; sixth, it explains that marrying a wife is not a violation (of the precepts); seventh, it explains abstaining from false speech; eighth, it prohibits only abstaining from alcohol. The first part (below) explains the time of initiating the precepts. (From) 'Soka' onwards are all sutra texts. (Someone) asks according to the sutra: 'Can one become a Upasaka (male lay follower) simply by taking the Three Refuges without initiating the five precepts?' Paramārtha said: 'Mahānāma was the Buddha's cousin. Aniruddha's elder brother, King Śuddhodana, entrusted the country to him after he renounced the world. The Buddha explained the Three Refuges to Mahānāma.' 'Foreign teachers say that only this is sufficient,' this narrates the answers of foreign teachers. 'Foreign' refers to Gandhāra outside of Kashmir. The teachers of the Sautrāntika school say: 'Merely taking these Three Refuges is sufficient to become a Three Refuges Upasaka (male lay follower). One does not initiate the five precepts when taking the Three Refuges. Only after explaining the characteristics of the precepts and then initiating them separately is one called a Five Precepts Upasaka (male lay follower).' Their school believes that one can obtain the precepts regardless of how many of the five precepts are taken. 'Kashmir says that one is not a Upasaka,' this narrates the saying of the teachers of the local country (Kashmir). Without the five Upasaka precepts, one is not a Upasaka. One must have the five precepts to be called a Upasaka. 'If so, it should contradict this sutra,' this is the challenge from the foreign teachers. If one must initiate the five precepts to be called a Upasaka, then it should contradict this Mahānāma Sutra. That sutra says that after taking the Three Refuges, it only says 'This is called a Upasaka,' and does not say that one must initiate the precepts to be called a Upasaka. 'This does not contradict because the precepts have already been initiated,' this is the answer from the Kashmir teachers. What I am saying now does not contradict this Mahānāma Sutra, because the five precepts have already been initiated when taking the Three Refuges. 'When are the precepts initiated?' This is the question from the foreign teachers. Kritya (Sanskrit: kṛtya, meaning 'done')

定時節。

頌曰至說如苾芻等者。頌答。

論曰至便發律儀故者。釋初句。引大名經明發戒時。至慈悲護念爾時即發近事律儀。此即釋經顯發戒時　稱近事等言便發律儀故者。此即釋頌明發戒時　又解前即引經總顯。后即略結　又解重釋爾時發戒。何理得知爾時發戒。由彼自稱近事等言故知爾時便發五戒。若不發戒彼寧自稱近事等言　又解此文屬下。將欲更引經證故先標宗。準此經文受三歸已猶未發戒。要至慈悲護念方始發戒。

以經復說至已得五戒者。如何得知稱近事等言便發律儀。故以余經中受三歸稱近事等已復自誓言我從今時乃至命終捨生言故　此經意說舍殺生等五種惡業略去殺等二字但說捨生。既三歸等后復自誓言舍殺生等。故於前受三歸等時已得五戒名為近事　非但三歸即名近事。此中引經文略。如婆沙一百二十四引經云。如說我某甲歸佛．法．僧愿尊憶持我。我是近事。我從今日乃至命終。護生歸凈　又雜心擇品云如說我某甲。歸依佛兩足尊。歸依法離欲尊。歸依僧諸眾尊。我是優婆塞。當證知盡壽舍眾殺生受三歸依心清凈。乃至第三口作得優婆塞律儀　解云俱舍引略不說前三歸等及后歸凈。但說中間。應知。我從今者等。是三歸等后。在說戒相前應知前大名經中克發戒時故但說言稱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本定時節。

頌曰：至於說如苾芻（bhiksu，比丘，佛教出家男眾）等，這是頌文的回答。

論曰：至於『便發律儀故』，這是解釋第一句。引用《大名經》說明發戒的時候，直到慈悲護念，那時就發起近事（upasaka，優婆塞，在家男居士）律儀。這即是解釋經文，顯示發戒的時候。稱『近事』等語，『便發律儀故』，這是解釋頌文，說明發戒的時候。又解釋前面是引用經文總的顯示，後面是簡略的總結。又解釋重複解釋『爾時發戒』。憑什麼道理得知『爾時發戒』？由於他們自己稱『近事』等語，所以知道那時就發起五戒。如果不發戒，他們怎麼會自己稱『近事』等語？又解釋這段文字屬於下文，將要再次引用經文來證明，所以先標明宗旨。依照此經文，受了三歸依（皈依佛、法、僧）以後，仍然沒有發戒，要到慈悲護念的時候才開始發戒。

以經復說：至於『已得五戒者』。如何得知稱『近事』等語就發起律儀？所以用其他的經文中，受了三歸依，稱『近事』等以後，又自己發誓說：『我從今時乃至命終，捨生』等語。此經的意思是說，捨棄殺生等五種惡業，省略了殺等二字，只說『捨生』。既然三歸依等以後，又自己發誓說捨棄殺生等，所以在前面受三歸依等的時候，已經得到五戒，名為近事。並非僅僅三歸依就叫做近事。這裡引用的經文簡略。如《婆沙》（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百二十四卷引用經文說：『如說我某甲，歸依佛、法、僧，愿尊憶持我，我是近事。我從今日乃至命終，護生歸凈。』又《雜心》（Samucchaya，雜阿毗曇心論）擇品說：『如說我某甲，歸依佛兩足尊，歸依法離欲尊，歸依僧諸眾尊，我是優婆塞，當證知盡壽舍眾殺生受三歸依心清凈。乃至第三口作得優婆塞律儀。』解釋說，《俱舍》（Abhidharmakosa，阿毗達磨俱舍論）引用的簡略，沒有說前面的三歸依等，以及後面的歸凈，只說了中間的。應當知道，『我從今者』等，是三歸依等以後，在說戒相之前。應當知道前面《大名經》中強調發戒的時候，所以只說稱

【English Translation】 English version Timing the Section.

The verse says: 'As for saying like bhikshus (bhiksu, Buddhist monks) etc.,' this is the answer in verse.

The treatise says: 'As for 'then the precepts are generated',' this explains the first sentence. Quoting the Mahanama Sutra clarifies the time of generating precepts, until compassionate mindfulness, at that time the upasaka (upasaka, lay male devotee) precepts are generated. This explains the sutra, revealing the time of generating precepts. Saying 'upasaka' etc., 'then the precepts are generated,' this explains the verse, clarifying the time of generating precepts. Also, it explains that the former is a general display by quoting the sutra, and the latter is a brief conclusion. Also, it explains repeatedly 'at that time the precepts are generated.' By what reason is it known that 'at that time the precepts are generated'? Because they themselves say 'upasaka' etc., therefore it is known that at that time the five precepts are generated. If the precepts are not generated, how would they call themselves 'upasaka' etc.? Also, it explains that this passage belongs to the following text, intending to quote the sutra again to prove it, so first state the purpose. According to this sutra, after taking the Three Refuges (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), the precepts are still not generated, and it is not until the time of compassionate mindfulness that the precepts begin to be generated.

Using the sutra again, it says: 'As for 'already obtained the five precepts'.' How is it known that saying 'upasaka' etc. generates the precepts? Therefore, in other sutras, after taking the Three Refuges and saying 'upasaka' etc., they vow themselves, saying: 'From this time until the end of my life, I abandon life' etc. The meaning of this sutra is that abandoning the five evil deeds such as killing, omitting the two words 'killing' etc., and only saying 'abandon life'. Since after taking the Three Refuges etc., they vow themselves to abandon killing etc., therefore, at the time of taking the Three Refuges etc., they have already obtained the five precepts and are called upasaka. It is not only taking the Three Refuges that is called upasaka. The sutra quoted here is abbreviated. For example, Vibhasa (Abhidharmakosa-vibhāṣā, Great Commentary on the Abhidharma) volume 124 quotes the sutra saying: 'As it is said, I, so-and-so, take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, may the venerable one remember me, I am an upasaka. From this day until the end of my life, I protect life and return to purity.' Also, the Samucchaya (Samucchaya, Compendium of Abhidharma) says in the chapter on selection: 'As it is said, I, so-and-so, take refuge in the Buddha, the honored one with two feet, take refuge in the Dharma, the honored one free from desire, take refuge in the Sangha, the honored ones of all, I am an upasaka, may it be known that I abandon all killing for the rest of my life, take the Three Refuges with a pure mind. Even the third time, the upasaka precepts are obtained.' The explanation says that the Abhidharmakosa (Abhidharmakosa, Treasury of Abhidharma) quoted it briefly, not mentioning the previous Three Refuges etc., and the subsequent return to purity, only mentioning the middle part. It should be known that 'From this time' etc., is after the Three Refuges etc., before explaining the characteristics of the precepts. It should be known that in the previous Mahanama Sutra, the time of emphasizing the generation of precepts, so it only says saying

近事等。余經復據發戒已后要期自誓故。更復言我從今時等。

彼雖已得至必具律儀者。釋第二句。彼于先時由自誓故。雖已得戒仍未了知戒相差別。為令了知五戒學處故。復為說離殺生等五種戒相令識堅持。如一白三羯磨得彼苾芻具足戒已。復為彼說四重學處令識堅持　勤策亦然。先受三歸。雖已得戒。復為彼說十種戒相令彼堅持　此近事戒于理亦應爾。是故近事必具五戒。非受三歸未發五戒而名近事　問云何名學處　答如法蘊足論第一云。所言學者謂於五處未滿為滿。恒勤堅正修習加行故名為學。所言處者即離殺等是學所依故名學處　又離殺等即名為學。亦即名處故名學處。

頌曰至謂約能持說者。此即第二會釋經文。上兩句經部引經為難。第三句說一切有部通釋。

論曰至四能學滿分者。釋上兩句。經部難言若諸近事皆具律儀。何緣世尊於五戒中言有四種鄔婆索迦。一能學一分。謂學一戒。二能學少分。謂學二戒。三能學多分。謂學三戒．四戒。四能學滿分。謂學五戒。

謂約能持至故名近事者。釋下句。說一切有部通經。學之言持。謂約能持故說四種。先雖具受五支律儀。而後遇緣或便毀缺。其中或有于諸學處能持一分。乃至或有具持五支故作是說。能持先所受故說能學言　若不爾

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：近事（Upasaka，在家男居士）等。之前的經文中已經根據受戒之後要定期自誓的緣故，再次說到『我從今時』等語。

即使他們已經得到了必須具備的律儀。解釋第二句話。他們在之前因為自誓的緣故，即使已經得到了戒律，仍然不瞭解戒相的差別。爲了讓他們瞭解五戒的學處，所以再次為他們宣說遠離殺生等五種戒相，讓他們認識並堅持。就像通過一白三羯磨（Yibaisanjiemo，一種受戒儀式）使比丘（Bichu，出家男眾）得到具足戒之後，再次為他們宣說四重學處，讓他們認識並堅持。勤策（Qince，沙彌）也是這樣，先受三歸（San Gui，皈依佛、法、僧），即使已經得到了戒律，再次為他們宣說十種戒相，讓他們堅持。這近事戒在道理上也應該這樣。所以近事必須具備五戒，不是隻受三歸而未發五戒就可以稱為近事。問：什麼叫做學處？答：如《法蘊足論》（Fayunzulu Lun）第一卷所說：所說的『學』，是指對於五處未滿而使之圓滿，恒常勤奮、堅定正直地修習加行，所以叫做『學』。所說的『處』，就是指遠離殺生等，是學習所依賴的地方，所以叫做『學處』。又，遠離殺生等就叫做『學』，也叫做『處』，所以叫做『學處』。

頌曰至謂約能持說者。這即是第二次會合解釋經文。上面兩句經部（Jing Bu，佛教部派之一）引用經文作為詰難。第三句說一切有部（Shuo Yi Qie You Bu，佛教部派之一）通盤解釋。

論曰至四能學滿分者。解釋上面兩句。經部詰難說，如果各位近事都具備律儀，為什麼世尊在五戒中說有四種鄔婆索迦（Upasaka，在家男居士）：一、能學一分，即學習一戒；二、能學少分，即學習二戒；三、能學多分，即學習三戒、四戒；四、能學滿分，即學習五戒。

謂約能持至故名近事者。解釋下面一句。說一切有部通盤解釋經文。『學』的意思是『持』，是根據能夠堅持的情況來說四種。先前即使已經全部領受五支律儀，之後遇到因緣或許就會毀壞缺失。其中或許有人對於各個學處能夠堅持一部分，乃至或許有人能夠全部堅持五支，所以這樣說。能夠堅持先前所受的戒律，所以說『能學』。如果不是這樣……

【English Translation】 English version: 'Near-attendant' (Upasaka, male lay devotee) and so on. The previous scriptures, based on the vow to regularly reaffirm oneself after receiving the precepts, again mention phrases like 'I, from this time forward,' etc.

Even if they have already obtained the necessary precepts. Explanation of the second sentence. They, in the past, due to their own vows, even though they have already received the precepts, still do not understand the differences in the characteristics of the precepts. In order to make them understand the training rules of the five precepts, the five characteristics of the precepts, such as abstaining from killing, are explained again so that they can recognize and adhere to them. Just as after a Bhikshu (Bichu, ordained male monastic) obtains the full precepts through one white and three Karmas (Yibaisanjiemo, a type of ordination ceremony), the four major training rules are explained again so that they can recognize and adhere to them. The Shramanera (Qince, novice monk) is also like this; after first taking the Three Refuges (San Gui, refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), even though he has already received the precepts, the ten characteristics of the precepts are explained again so that he can adhere to them. This near-attendant precept should also be like this in principle. Therefore, a near-attendant must possess the five precepts; one cannot be called a near-attendant simply by taking the Three Refuges without undertaking the five precepts. Question: What is called a 'training rule'? Answer: As stated in the first volume of the 'Abhidharma-skandha-pada-shastra' (Fayunzulu Lun): What is called 'training' refers to making the five areas that are not yet complete, complete, and constantly diligently, firmly, and uprightly practicing the application, so it is called 'training.' What is called 'area' refers to abstaining from killing, etc., which is the place upon which learning depends, so it is called a 'training rule.' Furthermore, abstaining from killing, etc., is called 'training,' and it is also called 'area,' so it is called a 'training rule.'

The verse says, 'Regarding speaking about the ability to uphold.' This is the second time that the meaning of the scripture is explained. The above two sentences are quoted by the Sautrantika school (Jing Bu, one of the Buddhist schools) as a challenge. The third sentence is a general explanation by the Sarvastivada school (Shuo Yi Qie You Bu, one of the Buddhist schools).

The treatise says, 'The fourth is able to learn the full portion.' This explains the above two sentences. The Sautrantika school challenges, saying that if all near-attendants possess the precepts, why did the World-Honored One say in the five precepts that there are four types of Upasakas (Upasaka, male lay devotee): One, able to learn one portion, that is, learning one precept; two, able to learn a small portion, that is, learning two precepts; three, able to learn a large portion, that is, learning three or four precepts; four, able to learn the full portion, that is, learning five precepts.

Regarding speaking about the ability to uphold, hence the name 'near-attendant.' This explains the following sentence. The Sarvastivada school provides a general explanation of the scripture. The meaning of 'learn' is 'uphold,' which refers to the four types based on the ability to uphold. Even if one has previously received all five precepts, later, due to circumstances, they may be broken or lost. Among them, perhaps some are able to uphold a portion of the various training rules, and perhaps some are able to uphold all five precepts, so it is said in this way. Being able to uphold the precepts previously received is why it is said 'able to learn.' If not...

者此經應言受一分等。何故乃言學一分等。故此四種但據能持　理實而言約受三歸等以具五戒故名近事。

如是所執違越契經者。經部難。

如何違經者。說一切有部徴。

謂無經說至捨生言故者。經部答。謂無經說自稱我是近事等言便發五戒。又此大名經不作是說我從今者乃至命終捨生言故。

經如何說者。說一切有部問。

如大名經至故違越經者。經部答。可知。

然余經說至已發五戒者。經部通前引余經文　捨生。謂寧舍自生命不捨正法　歸。謂歸依三寶　凈。謂凈信三寶　證凈。謂四證凈。今稍具引故加歸．凈。余文可知。

又約持犯戒至名一分等者。經部破前通經。又約持犯戒釋學一分等。彼受戒者尚不應問佛。況佛應為答。所以者何。誰有已解近事律儀必具五支。后持犯時而不能解于所學處持一非餘名一分等。先自解故不應請問。

由彼未解至乃至廣說者。經部自釋經文。由彼欲受戒者未解近事律儀受量少多故請問佛。凡有幾種鄔婆索迦能學學處。佛答有四鄔婆索迦謂能學一分等。彼受戒者猶未能了。復問世尊何名能學一分．少分等。乃至廣說世尊為答。此經意說為受戒者故說四種。非約持犯說一分等。

若闕律儀至此亦應爾者。說一切有部難

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『這部經應該說接受一部分等等。』為什麼卻說『學習一部分等等』呢？因此這四種（近事）只是根據能夠受持的實際情況而言。從道理上說，依據接受三歸（皈依佛、法、僧）等，具備五戒（不殺生、不偷盜、不邪淫、不妄語、不飲酒）的緣故，稱為近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，男居士）。

像這樣所執著的與契經相違背。——經部（Sautrantika）提出異議。

如何與經相違背呢？——說一切有部（Sarvastivada）質問。

『因為沒有經文說到以至於捨棄生命』的說法。——經部回答。因為沒有經文說，自稱『我是近事』等等，就發起五戒。而且這部《大名經》（Mahanama Sutta）沒有這樣說：『我從今以後乃至生命終結，捨棄生命』的說法。

經文如何說的呢？——說一切有部問。

如《大名經》所說，以至於違背經文。——經部回答。可知。

然而其他經文說到以至於已經發起五戒。——經部通過引用其他經文來解釋。捨生，是指寧願捨棄自己的生命也不捨棄正法。歸，是指皈依三寶（佛、法、僧）。凈，是指對三寶的清凈信心。證凈，是指四種證凈。現在稍微詳細地引用，所以加上『歸』、『凈』。其餘的文句可以理解。

又根據持戒和犯戒的情況，稱為一部分等等。——經部駁斥前面解釋經文的說法。又根據持戒和犯戒的情況來解釋學習一部分等等。那些受戒的人尚且不應該問佛，更何況佛應該為他們解答呢？為什麼這樣說呢？誰如果已經理解了近事律儀，必定具備五支（五戒），之後在持戒和犯戒的時候，不可能不理解所學之處，持守一個而不是其餘的，稱為一部分等等。因為他們自己已經理解了，所以不應該請問。

由於他們沒有理解，以至於廣說。——經部自己解釋經文。由於那些想要受戒的人沒有理解近事律儀受持的多少，所以請問佛。『總共有幾種優婆塞能夠學習學處？』佛回答說：『有四種優婆塞，即能夠學習一部分等等。』那些受戒的人仍然不能明白，又問世尊：『什麼叫做能夠學習一部分、少部分等等？』以至於廣說，世尊為他們解答。這部經的意思是說，爲了受戒的人才說這四種（近事），不是根據持戒和犯戒的情況來說一部分等等。

如果缺少律儀，那麼這裡也應該這樣。——說一切有部提出異議。

【English Translation】 English version 『This sutra should say 『accepting one part』 etc. Why does it say 『learning one part』 etc.? Therefore, these four types (of Upasakas) are only based on the actual ability to uphold (the precepts). In reality, based on accepting the three refuges (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) etc., and possessing the five precepts (not killing, not stealing, not committing sexual misconduct, not lying, not consuming intoxicants), they are called Upasakas (lay practitioners).』

Such adherence contradicts the sutras. – The Sautrantika school raises an objection.

How does it contradict the sutras? – The Sarvastivada school questions.

『Because there is no sutra that speaks of even abandoning life.』 – The Sautrantika school answers. Because there is no sutra that says, by claiming 『I am an Upasaka』 etc., one initiates the five precepts. Moreover, this Mahanama Sutta does not say, 『From now until the end of my life, I will abandon life.』

How does the sutra say it? – The Sarvastivada school asks.

As the Mahanama Sutta says, it contradicts the sutras. – The Sautrantika school answers. It is understandable.

However, other sutras say that one has already initiated the five precepts. – The Sautrantika school explains by citing other sutras. 『Abandoning life』 means preferring to abandon one's own life rather than abandoning the Dharma. 『Refuge』 means taking refuge in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). 『Purity』 means pure faith in the Three Jewels. 『Verified purity』 means the four verified purities. Now, citing it in slightly more detail, 『refuge』 and 『purity』 are added. The remaining sentences are understandable.

Furthermore, based on upholding and violating precepts, they are called 『one part』 etc. – The Sautrantika school refutes the previous explanation of the sutra. Furthermore, they explain 『learning one part』 etc. based on upholding and violating precepts. Those who have taken the precepts should not even ask the Buddha, let alone the Buddha answering them. Why is this so? Anyone who has already understood the Upasaka precepts must possess the five branches (five precepts). Later, when upholding or violating the precepts, they cannot fail to understand the places of learning, upholding one and not the others, which is called 『one part』 etc. Because they have already understood it themselves, they should not ask.

Because they have not understood, up to the extensive explanation. – The Sautrantika school explains the sutra themselves. Because those who want to take the precepts have not understood the extent of the Upasaka precepts, they ask the Buddha. 『How many kinds of Upasakas are there who can learn the precepts?』 The Buddha answers, 『There are four kinds of Upasakas, namely those who can learn one part』 etc. Those who have taken the precepts still cannot understand, and they ask the World-Honored One, 『What is called being able to learn one part, a small part』 etc.? Up to the extensive explanation, the World-Honored One answers them. The meaning of this sutra is that these four types (of Upasakas) are spoken for those who are taking the precepts, not based on upholding and violating the precepts to say 『one part』 etc.

If the precepts are lacking, then it should be the same here. – The Sarvastivada school raises an objection.

。以苾芻．勤策例破近事。

何緣近事至支量定爾者。經部反責。

由佛教力施設故然者。說一切有部答。由佛教力故皆具支。

若爾何緣至非苾芻等者。經部例釋。我亦由佛教力雖闕律儀。而名近事。非苾芻等。

迦濕彌羅國至得成近事者。迦濕彌羅結歸本宗。要具五戒方名近事。不許闕戒得成近事。

此近事等至或成上品者。此即第三明三品戒。由心三品戒有三。故有聖人成下凡夫成上。故婆沙一百一十七云。故如是問。頗有新學苾芻成就上品律儀。而阿羅漢成就下品律儀耶。答有。謂有新學苾芻以上品心起有表業受諸律儀。有阿羅漢以下品心起有表業受諸律儀。如是新學苾芻成就上品律儀。而阿羅漢成就下品律儀　準此文羅漢非自然得戒。

為有但受至成近事不者。此下第四明三歸體。問但受近事不受三歸成近事。不。

不成近事除有不知者。答。若人知受三歸而不受者不成近事。若人不知先受三歸。彼受戒師復不為受得成近事。故婆沙一百二十四云。問諸有但受近事律儀不受三歸得律儀不。有說不得。以受三歸與此律儀為門。為依。為加行故。有說不定。謂若不知先受三歸後方受戒。信戒師故便受律儀彼得律儀。戒師得罪。若彼解了者先受三歸后受律儀是正儀式

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教僧侶）和勤策（Sramanera，沙彌）為例，來駁斥近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，在家男居士）。

經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一）反問道：『憑什麼說近事一定要具足所有支分（戒條）呢？』

說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）回答說：『由於佛陀教法的力量所施設，所以必須如此。』因為佛陀教法的力量，近事必須具足所有支分。

經部舉例解釋道：『如果這樣，那為什麼會存在非比丘等的情況呢？我也因為佛陀教法的力量，雖然缺少律儀，卻仍然被稱為近事，而非比丘等。』

迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的論師總結歸於本宗觀點：必須要具足五戒才能稱為近事，不允許缺少戒條而成為近事。

這裡所說的近事等，有的成就上品戒。』這就是第三點，說明戒有三種品級。由於心的三種品級，戒也有三種。所以有聖人成就下品戒，凡夫成就上品戒。因此，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）第一百一十七卷說：『所以這樣問：有沒有新學的比丘成就上品律儀，而阿羅漢（Arhat，證悟者）成就下品律儀呢？』回答是：『有。』所謂有新學的比丘以最上品的心發起有表業（身語的造作）而受持諸律儀，有阿羅漢以下品的心發起有表業而受持諸律儀。這樣，新學的比丘成就上品律儀，而阿羅漢成就下品律儀。』依照這段文字，阿羅漢並非自然獲得戒律。

『有沒有僅僅受持近事戒，而不受三歸依（皈依佛、法、僧）就能成為近事的呢？』這是第四點，說明三歸依的體性。問：僅僅受持近事戒，而不受三歸依，能成為近事嗎？

回答：『不能成為近事，除非是不知道要受三歸依的人。』如果有人知道要受三歸依而不受，就不能成為近事。如果有人不知道自己先前已經受過三歸依，而他的授戒師也沒有為他受三歸依，那麼他受了近事戒也能成為近事。』所以《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十四卷說：『問：諸位僅僅受持近事律儀而不受三歸依，能得到律儀嗎？』有人說不能得到，因為受三歸依是此律儀的門、所依、加行。有人說不一定，如果不知道先前已經受過三歸依，後來才受戒，因為信任戒師而受律儀，那麼他能得到律儀，但戒師有罪。如果他了解先前已經受過三歸依，後來再受律儀，才是正確的儀式。

【English Translation】 English version: Using the Bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) and Sramanera (novice monk) as examples to refute the Upasaka (lay male devotee).

The Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) countered: 'On what basis is it determined that an Upasaka must possess all the components (precepts)?'

The Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school) replied: 'It is due to the power of the Buddha's teachings that it is so.' Because of the power of the Buddha's teachings, an Upasaka must possess all the components.

The Sautrantika explained with an example: 'If that's the case, then why do non-Bhikkhus exist? I am also called an Upasaka, not a Bhikkhu, etc., due to the power of the Buddha's teachings, even though I lack the precepts.'

The scholars of Kashmir concluded and attributed it to their own school's view: One must possess all five precepts to be called an Upasaka; it is not permissible to become an Upasaka while lacking precepts.

'These Upasakas, etc., some achieve superior precepts.' This is the third point, explaining that there are three grades of precepts. Due to the three grades of mind, there are also three grades of precepts. Therefore, there are sages who achieve inferior precepts and ordinary people who achieve superior precepts. Thus, the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) Volume 117 says: 'Therefore, it is asked: Are there newly learning Bhikkhus who achieve superior precepts, while Arhats (enlightened beings) achieve inferior precepts?' The answer is: 'Yes.' It refers to newly learning Bhikkhus who, with the most superior mind, initiate intentional actions (actions of body and speech) and uphold the precepts, and Arhats who, with an inferior mind, initiate intentional actions and uphold the precepts. In this way, newly learning Bhikkhus achieve superior precepts, while Arhats achieve inferior precepts.' According to this passage, Arhats do not naturally obtain precepts.

'Is it possible to become an Upasaka by only receiving the Upasaka precepts without taking the Three Refuges (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha)?' This is the fourth point, explaining the nature of the Three Refuges. Question: Can one become an Upasaka by only receiving the Upasaka precepts without taking the Three Refuges?

Answer: 'One cannot become an Upasaka unless one is unaware of the need to take the Three Refuges.' If someone knows that they should take the Three Refuges but does not, they cannot become an Upasaka. If someone is unaware that they have previously taken the Three Refuges, and their preceptor does not have them take the Three Refuges again, then they can become an Upasaka by receiving the Upasaka precepts.' Therefore, the Mahavibhasa Volume 124 says: 'Question: Can those who only receive the Upasaka precepts without taking the Three Refuges obtain the precepts?' Some say they cannot, because taking the Three Refuges is the gateway, the basis, and the preliminary practice for these precepts. Some say it is not certain; if one is unaware that they have previously taken the Three Refuges and later receives the precepts, trusting the preceptor and receiving the precepts, then they can obtain the precepts, but the preceptor is at fault. If they understand that they have previously taken the Three Refuges and later receive the precepts, that is the correct ceremony.

。但憍慢故不受三歸。作如是言。且應受戒何用歸信佛．法．僧。為彼憍慢纏心。雖受不得。

諸有歸依至是說具三歸者。明所歸依三寶體性。

論曰至佛能覺一切者　歸依佛者。釋頌歸依成佛無學法明佛寶體。謂但歸依能成佛無漏無學法。由彼法勝故身得佛名　或由得彼無學法故佛能覺悟一切諸法故名為佛　覺一切者。謂無漏惠照理明白名覺一切。此即少分一切。以無漏惠唯緣諦故　又解諸有漏惠能覺一切緣法盡故。此即由得無學法故。得有漏惠能覺一切　又解諸有漏．無漏惠。隨其所應名覺一切。由得無學法故此二種慧能學一切。

何等名為佛無學法者。問。

謂盡智等至前後等故者。答。謂佛身中盡無生等。及彼隨行無漏五蘊名無學　非色等身有漏五蘊。未成佛前及成佛后等相似故。

為歸一佛一切佛耶者。問。

理實應言至相無別故者答。理實應言歸依一切三世諸佛。以彼諸佛無漏聖道體相無異故。歸依一時即歸一切。

歸依僧者至不可破故者。釋頌歸依成僧二種法明僧寶體　歸依僧者。謂通歸依諸能成僧學與無學二無漏法由得彼法故僧成四向四果八種補特伽羅。由得證凈理和合僧不可破故。

為歸一佛僧一切佛僧耶者。問。為復歸依一釋迦佛弟子僧耶。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：但因為傲慢的緣故，不接受三歸依。像這樣說：『只需要受戒，為什麼要歸信佛、法、僧？』因為他們被傲慢之心纏繞，即使受了（三歸依）也得不到（利益）。

凡是歸依，直到這裡說具足三歸依的人，是爲了闡明所歸依的三寶的體性。

論中說『佛能覺悟一切』，歸依佛的人，解釋頌文，歸依能成就佛的無學之法，闡明佛寶的體性。意思是說，僅僅歸依能成就佛的無漏無學之法。因為那法殊勝的緣故，（佛）身才得到佛的名稱。或者因為得到那無學之法，所以佛能覺悟一切諸法，因此名為佛。『覺悟一切』，是指無漏的智慧照亮真理，明白顯現，名為覺悟一切。這只是少分的一切，因為無漏的智慧只緣於四諦的緣故。又解釋為，所有的有漏智慧能覺悟一切所緣之法窮盡的緣故。這指的是因為得到無學之法，所以得到有漏的智慧能覺悟一切。又解釋為，所有的有漏、無漏智慧，隨著它們所應（覺悟的），名為覺悟一切。因為得到無學之法，這兩種智慧能學習一切。

『什麼名為佛的無學法？』問。

『所謂盡智等等，直到前後相等』，答。所謂佛身中的盡智、無生智等等，以及它們所隨行的無漏五蘊，名為無學。不是色等等的身的有漏五蘊，（因為）未成佛前和成佛后等等（狀態）相似的緣故。

『是歸依一佛還是一切佛？』問。

『理應說歸依一切，直到體相沒有差別』答。理應說歸依一切三世諸佛。因為那些佛的無漏聖道的體相沒有差異的緣故，歸依一時，就歸依了一切。

歸依僧的人，直到不可破滅的緣故。解釋頌文，歸依成就僧的兩種法，闡明僧寶的體性。歸依僧的人，是普遍歸依那些能成就僧的學與無學兩種無漏之法。因為得到那些法，所以僧成就四向四果八種補特伽羅（pudgalas，人）。因為得到證凈（prasāda，清凈的信心），道理和合，僧是不可破滅的緣故。

『是歸依一佛僧還是一切佛僧？』問。是歸依一個釋迦佛的弟子僧嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: But due to arrogance, they do not accept the Three Refuges. They say, 'We should just take the precepts, why take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha?' Because they are entangled by arrogance, even if they take the refuges, they will not obtain (the benefits).

Those who take refuge, up to the point of saying they possess the Three Refuges, are clarifying the nature of the Three Jewels in which they take refuge.

The treatise says, 'The Buddha is able to awaken to everything.' Taking refuge in the Buddha, explaining the verse, taking refuge in the non-learning Dharma that accomplishes Buddhahood, clarifies the essence of the Buddha Jewel. It means that one only takes refuge in the non-outflow, non-learning Dharma that can accomplish Buddhahood. Because that Dharma is superior, the (Buddha's) body obtains the name of Buddha. Or, because of obtaining that non-learning Dharma, the Buddha is able to awaken to all Dharmas, therefore he is called Buddha. 'Awakening to everything' refers to the non-outflow wisdom illuminating the truth, clearly and manifestly, called awakening to everything. This is only a small part of everything, because non-outflow wisdom only focuses on the Four Noble Truths. Another explanation is that all outflow wisdom is able to awaken to the exhaustion of all conditioned Dharmas. This refers to obtaining outflow wisdom that can awaken to everything because of obtaining the non-learning Dharma. Another explanation is that all outflow and non-outflow wisdom, according to what they should (awaken to), are called awakening to everything. Because of obtaining the non-learning Dharma, these two types of wisdom can learn everything.

'What is called the Buddha's non-learning Dharma?' Question.

'So-called exhaustive knowledge, etc., until before and after are equal,' Answer. So-called exhaustive knowledge (ksaya-jnana), non-arising knowledge (anutpada-jnana), etc., in the Buddha's body, and the non-outflow five aggregates that accompany them, are called non-learning. Not the outflow five aggregates of the body of form, etc., because the states before and after becoming a Buddha are similar.

'Is it taking refuge in one Buddha or all Buddhas?' Question.

'In principle, it should be said to take refuge in all, until the essence and characteristics are not different,' Answer. In principle, it should be said to take refuge in all Buddhas of the three times. Because the essence and characteristics of the non-outflow noble path of those Buddhas are not different, taking refuge at one time is taking refuge in all.

Taking refuge in the Sangha, until the reason of being indestructible. Explaining the verse, taking refuge accomplishes the two Dharmas of the Sangha, clarifying the essence of the Sangha Jewel. Taking refuge in the Sangha is universally taking refuge in the two non-outflow Dharmas of learning and non-learning that can accomplish the Sangha. Because of obtaining those Dharmas, the Sangha accomplishes the eight types of individuals (pudgalas) of the four paths and four fruits. Because of obtaining serene faith (prasāda), the principle is harmonious, and the Sangha is indestructible.

'Is it taking refuge in one Buddha Sangha or all Buddha Sanghas?' Question. Is it taking refuge in the Sangha of disciples of one Shakyamuni Buddha?

為歸一切三世諸佛弟子僧耶　佛之僧故名曰佛僧。

理實通歸至現見僧寶者。答。理實通歸一切三世諸佛僧。以諸佛僧無漏聖道體相無異故。然契經說。佛初成道猶未有僧。商侶遇佛為受三歸。佛告彼言。當來有僧汝應歸依者。彼經但為顯示當來釋迦牟尼現見僧寶。即阿若憍陳那等五苾芻也　問僧有多種此說何僧。佛亦是彼所歸僧不　解云三歸中僧是聲聞僧。佛雖亦是聖僧等非聲聞僧。故顯宗二十云。僧有多種謂有情人．聲聞．福田．及聖僧等。佛於此內非聲聞僧可是餘僧。自然覺故　今所歸者是聲聞僧。

歸依法者至故通歸依者。釋第三句明法寶體　歸依法者。謂歸涅槃即是擇滅。自他相續身煩惱．及苦果。寂滅一相是善是常。故通歸依。此顯有情有漏法滅。理實亦通歸依非情法滅。故婆沙第三十四云。答應作是說歸依自他相續及無情數一切蘊滅。

若唯無學法至成無間罪者。論主難。或述經部難。若唯無學法即是佛體非生身者。如何于佛但損生身成無間罪。

毗婆沙者至彼隨壞故者。答。壞彼無學所依生身彼無學法亦隨壞故。損生身成無間罪。

然尋本論至佛無學法者。論主又難。或申經部難。然尋根本六足等論。不見有言唯無學法即名為佛。但言無學法能成於佛。既不遮佛生身

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爲了皈依一切三世諸佛的弟子僧團（Sangha），因為佛陀的僧團才被稱為佛僧。

問：從道理上說，是否普遍皈依直至親眼見到僧寶的人？答：從道理上說，是普遍皈依一切三世諸佛的僧團。因為諸佛的僧團的無漏聖道，其本體和相狀沒有差異。然而，契經上說，佛陀最初成道時還沒有僧團。商人們遇到佛陀，請求接受三皈依。佛陀告訴他們說：『未來會有僧團，你們應當皈依。』那部經只是爲了顯示未來釋迦牟尼佛親眼見到的僧寶，也就是阿若憍陳那（Ajnatakaundinya）等五位比丘。問：僧團有多種，這裡說的是哪種僧團？佛陀也是他們所皈依的僧團嗎？解釋說：三皈依中的僧團是聲聞僧（Sravaka Sangha）。佛陀雖然也是聖僧等，但不是聲聞僧。所以《顯宗論》第二十卷說：『僧團有多種，包括有情僧、聲聞僧、福田僧以及聖僧等。』佛陀在這些僧團中，不是聲聞僧，但可能是其他的僧團，因為他是自然覺悟者。現在所皈依的是聲聞僧。

皈依法，是指什麼？答：皈依法，是指皈依涅槃（Nirvana），也就是擇滅（Pratisankhyanirodha）。自身和他人的相續身中的煩惱以及苦果，寂滅為一相，是善是常，所以普遍皈依。這顯示了有情眾生的有漏法滅。從道理上說，也普遍皈依非有情法的滅。所以《婆沙論》第三十四卷說：『應當這樣說，皈依自身和他人的相續以及無情數的一切蘊滅。』

如果只有無學法（Asaiksa-dharma）才是佛陀的本體，而不是生身，那麼為什麼僅僅損害佛陀的生身就會構成無間罪（Avici）？

答：因為破壞了無學法所依的生身，那個無學法也隨之壞滅，所以損害生身會構成無間罪。

然而，考察根本六足等論，沒有看到有說只有無學法才被稱為佛陀，只是說無學法能夠成就佛陀。既然不否定佛陀的生身。

【English Translation】 English version: For refuge in the Sangha (community) of disciples of all Buddhas of the three times, because the Sangha of the Buddha is called the Buddha-Sangha.

Question: In principle, does one universally take refuge up to those who directly see the Sangha Jewel? Answer: In principle, one universally takes refuge in the Sangha of all Buddhas of the three times, because the undefiled holy path of the Sangha of the Buddhas has no difference in essence and characteristics. However, the sutras say that when the Buddha first attained enlightenment, there was no Sangha yet. Merchants encountered the Buddha and requested to receive the Three Refuges. The Buddha told them, 'In the future, there will be a Sangha, and you should take refuge in it.' That sutra only serves to show the Sangha Jewel that Shakyamuni Buddha will directly see in the future, which is the five Bhikkhus (monks) such as Ajnatakaundinya. Question: There are many kinds of Sangha, which Sangha is being referred to here? Is the Buddha also the Sangha in whom they take refuge? Explanation: The Sangha in the Three Refuges is the Sravaka Sangha (community of hearers). Although the Buddha is also a Holy Sangha, etc., he is not a Sravaka Sangha. Therefore, the Xian Zong Lun (Treatise on Manifest Teachings) volume 20 says: 'There are many kinds of Sangha, including sentient beings, Sravakas, fields of merit, and Holy Sangha, etc.' Among these Sanghas, the Buddha is not a Sravaka Sangha, but may be other Sanghas, because he is naturally enlightened. The one in whom we now take refuge is the Sravaka Sangha.

What does it mean to take refuge in the Dharma? Answer: To take refuge in the Dharma means to take refuge in Nirvana, which is Pratisankhyanirodha (cessation through wisdom). The afflictions and suffering results in the continuous stream of oneself and others, are extinguished into one aspect, which is good and constant, so one universally takes refuge. This shows the extinction of the defiled dharmas of sentient beings. In principle, one also universally takes refuge in the extinction of non-sentient dharmas. Therefore, the Vibhasa volume 34 says: 'It should be said that one takes refuge in the extinction of all aggregates in the continuous stream of oneself and others, as well as non-sentient things.'

If only the Asaiksa-dharma (Dharma of No More Learning) is the essence of the Buddha, and not the physical body, then why does merely harming the physical body of the Buddha constitute Avici (uninterrupted) karma?

Answer: Because destroying the physical body on which the Asaiksa-dharma relies, that Asaiksa-dharma is also destroyed along with it, therefore harming the physical body constitutes Avici karma.

However, examining the fundamental Six Padas (treatises), etc., one does not see any statement that only the Asaiksa-dharma is called the Buddha, but only that the Asaiksa-dharma can accomplish the Buddha. Since it does not negate the physical body of the Buddha.

體性。應知亦攝所依生身皆名為佛。故於此中不容前難損佛生身成無間罪。以許生身亦是佛故　若異我說所依生身非是佛者。應佛與僧現在生身住於世俗有漏心時。爾時現無無漏五蘊。應非是僧。亦應非佛。雖成過．未墮在法數非有情故　又應唯執成苾芻戒即是苾芻。若言戒即苾芻然如有欲供養苾芻者。彼唯供養成苾芻尸羅。不應四事供養依身。既現供養戒所依身。故知依身亦是苾芻。若言非供養彼戒所依身。是則應與世間相違。以世現供養彼戒所依身故　如是有欲歸依佛者。亦應但歸依成佛無學法。若言唯歸佛無學法。是則還與世間相違。現見歸禮佛生身故。與說一切有部。作世間相違過也　論主意說。佛寶體性以佛身中有為無漏法。及佛身諸有漏法為佛寶體。

有餘師說至十八不共法者。敘異說。此師意說。以佛身中有為無漏功德。及佛身中有漏功德為佛寶體。不取生身。非功德故。不同論主。兼取有漏不同說一切有部。若依宗輪論。大眾部等一切如來無有漏法　上來雖有異說不同。總明所歸三寶體性　問說一切有部。所歸依中何故不說獨覺．菩薩　解云如正理三十八云。所歸依者謂滅諦全。道諦一分。除獨覺乘．菩薩乘學位無漏功德。何緣彼法非所歸依。彼不能救生死怖故。謂諸獨覺不能說法教誡諸有情

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：體性。應當知道，所依（Sraya，依靠處）生身（Sambhogakaya，報身）都可稱為佛。因此，在此處不容許之前的責難，即損害佛的生身，構成無間罪（Anantariya-karma，五逆罪）。因為我們承認生身也是佛。如果有人說，所依生身不是佛，那麼當佛和僧的現在生身處於世俗有漏心時，那時沒有無漏五蘊（Anasrava-panca-skandha，無漏的色、受、想、行、識五蘊），就不應是僧，也不應是佛。即使成了過去或未來，也因為墮在法數（Dharma-samkhya，法的範疇）而非有情（Sattva，眾生）。又應該只執著于成就比丘戒（Bhikkhu-sila，比丘的戒律）就是比丘。如果說戒就是比丘，那麼如果有想供養比丘的人，他們就只能供養成就比丘戒的尸羅（Sila，戒），不應該用四事（Catuh-pratyaya，衣服、飲食、臥具、醫藥）供養依身（Asraya-kaya，依靠的身體）。既然現在供養戒所依身，就知道依身也是比丘。如果說不是供養戒所依身，那就應該與世間相違背，因為世間現在供養戒所依身。如同有人想皈依佛，也應該只皈依成佛的無學法（Asaiksa-dharma，無學位的法）。如果說只皈依佛的無學法，那就還是與世間相違背，因為現在看見人們皈依禮拜佛的生身。這是與說一切有部（Sarvastivada，一個佛教部派）作世間相違的過失。論主的意思是說，佛寶的體性是以佛身中有的有為無漏法（Samskrta-anasrava-dharma，有為的無漏法）以及佛身中諸多的有漏法（Sasrava-dharma，有漏法）作為佛寶的體性。有其他論師說到十八不共法（Astadasa-avenika-dharma，佛的十八種不共于聲聞、緣覺的功德）時，這是在敘述不同的說法。這位論師的意思是說，以佛身中有的有為無漏功德以及佛身中有的有漏功德作為佛寶的體性，不取生身，因為生身不是功德。這與論主的觀點不同，論主兼取有漏，這又不同於說一切有部。如果依據《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra，一部佛教論書），大眾部（Mahasanghika，一個佛教部派）等認為一切如來沒有有漏法。以上雖然有不同的說法，但總的來說是闡明所皈依的三寶（Tri-ratna，佛、法、僧）的體性。問：說一切有部所皈依的對象中，為什麼不說獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，緣覺）和菩薩（Bodhisattva，菩薩）？解答說：如《正理》（Nyayanusara，一部佛教論書）第三十八卷所說：所皈依的對象是指滅諦（Nirodha-satya，四聖諦之一，指涅槃）的全部，以及道諦（Marga-satya，四聖諦之一，指修行的方法）的一部分，除去獨覺乘和菩薩乘的學位無漏功德。為什麼那些法不是所皈依的對象呢？因為它們不能救度生死怖畏。也就是說，諸獨覺不能說法教誡諸有情。

【English Translation】 English version: The nature of the entity. It should be known that the Sraya (support) and Sambhogakaya (enjoyment body) are both called Buddha. Therefore, the previous objection, which harms the Sambhogakaya of the Buddha and constitutes Anantariya-karma (five heinous crimes), is not permissible here. This is because we acknowledge that the Sambhogakaya is also Buddha. If someone says that the Sraya Sambhogakaya is not Buddha, then when the present Sambhogakaya of the Buddha and Sangha are in the mundane mind with outflows, at that time, there are no Anasrava-panca-skandha (five aggregates without outflows), so they should not be Sangha, nor should they be Buddha. Even if they become past or future, they are not sentient beings because they fall into the category of Dharma-samkhya (number of dharmas). Furthermore, one should only adhere to the view that achieving Bhikkhu-sila (monk's precepts) is being a Bhikkhu. If one says that the precepts are the Bhikkhu, then if someone wants to make offerings to a Bhikkhu, they can only offer to the Sila (precepts) that constitute the Bhikkhu's precepts, and should not offer the four requisites (clothing, food, bedding, and medicine) to the Asraya-kaya (supported body). Since the body that supports the precepts is now being offered to, it is known that the supported body is also a Bhikkhu. If one says that it is not the body that supports the precepts that is being offered to, then it should contradict the world, because the world now offers to the body that supports the precepts. Similarly, if someone wants to take refuge in the Buddha, they should only take refuge in the Asaiksa-dharma (dharma of no more learning) of becoming a Buddha. If one says that one only takes refuge in the Buddha's Asaiksa-dharma, then it still contradicts the world, because now people are seen taking refuge in and paying homage to the Buddha's Sambhogakaya. This is the fault of contradicting the world with the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school). The master's intention is that the nature of the Buddha Jewel is the Samskrta-anasrava-dharma (conditioned dharma without outflows) in the Buddha's body, as well as the many Sasrava-dharma (dharma with outflows) in the Buddha's body, as the nature of the Buddha Jewel. When other teachers speak of the Astadasa-avenika-dharma (eighteen unshared qualities of a Buddha), they are narrating different views. This teacher's intention is that the nature of the Buddha Jewel is the Samskrta-anasrava-guna (conditioned merit without outflows) in the Buddha's body, as well as the Sasrava-guna (merit with outflows) in the Buddha's body, not taking the Sambhogakaya, because the Sambhogakaya is not merit. This is different from the master's view, who also takes the Sasrava, which is different from the Sarvastivada. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (a Buddhist treatise), the Mahasanghika (a Buddhist school) and others believe that all Tathagatas have no dharma with outflows. Although there are different views above, they generally clarify the nature of the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) in which one takes refuge. Question: Why are Pratyekabuddha (solitary Buddha) and Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) not mentioned in the objects of refuge of the Sarvastivada? The answer is: As stated in the thirty-eighth volume of the Nyayanusara (a Buddhist treatise): The objects of refuge refer to the entirety of Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation, one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to Nirvana) and a portion of Marga-satya (truth of the path, one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to the method of practice), excluding the Anasrava-guna (merit without outflows) of the stages of learning of the Pratyekabuddha vehicle and the Bodhisattva vehicle. Why are those dharmas not objects of refuge? Because they cannot save from the fear of birth and death. That is to say, the Pratyekabuddhas cannot teach and instruct sentient beings.

令離生死怖。菩薩學位不越期心故。亦無能教誡他義故。彼身中學．無學法不能救護非所歸依　廣如彼說。

此能歸依何法為體者。問能歸體。

語表為體者。答。此據自性語表為體。若並眷屬五蘊為體。故正理三十八云。此中能歸語表為體。自立誓限為自性故。若並眷屬五蘊為體。以能歸依所有言說由心等起非離於心　問若以語表為能歸體。即與婆沙評家相違。如婆沙三十四云。能歸依者。有說名等。有說是語業。有說亦身業。有說是信。應作是說是身．語業。及能起彼心心所法．並諸隨行。皆如是善五蘊是能歸依體　應作是說是婆沙評家義。此俱舍等當婆沙第二師不正義。如何會釋　解云論者意異隨樂說故。非以婆沙評家為量。無勞會釋　又解世親論主故述婆沙不正義誡後學徒為覺不覺。眾賢尊者不覺斯文還依此釋。若依正解同婆沙評家。

如是歸依以何為義者。問歸依義。

救濟為義至一切苦故者。答。救拔濟度。是歸依義。由彼三寶為所歸依能永解脫諸有情類一切苦故。又正理三十八云。他身聖法及善無為如何能為自身救濟。以歸依彼能息無邊生死苦輪大怖畏故。

如世尊言至能解脫眾苦者。引佛經證對邪顯正。初兩頌顯邪歸依。后三頌顯正歸依。世間眾人為怖所逼。多歸依

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本使人遠離生死怖畏。菩薩的學業不會超過預定的期限，因為他們沒有能力教誡他人。他們在自身中所學的有學和無學之法，不能救護那些不以之為歸依的人。這些內容在其他地方有詳細的說明。

那麼，這種能作為歸依的法，以什麼為體呢？（問：能歸依的本體是什麼？）

以語表為體。（答：）這裡說的是以自性語表為體。如果包括眷屬，則以五蘊為體。所以《正理》第三十八卷說：『這裡，能歸依以語表為體，因為自立誓言是其自性。如果包括眷屬，則以五蘊為體，因為能歸依的所有言說都是由心等生起，不會離開心。』（問：）如果以語表為能歸依的本體，就與《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）的評家相違背。如《婆沙論》第三十四卷說：『能歸依者，有人說是名等，有人說是語業，有人說是身業，有人說是信。』應該這樣說，是身、語業，以及能生起這些身語業的心心所法，以及所有隨行，這些善的五蘊是能歸依的本體。應該這樣說才是《婆沙論》評家的意思。而《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakosa）等同於《婆沙論》的第二師，是不正的意義。應該如何解釋呢？（解：）論者的意思不同，可以隨意解說，不必以《婆沙論》評家為標準，所以不必費力解釋。又一種解釋是，世親（Vasubandhu）論主故意闡述《婆沙論》的不正之義，以此告誡後來的學徒，讓他們覺悟或不覺悟。眾賢尊者（Samghabhadra）沒有覺察到這個意思，仍然按照這個來解釋。如果按照正確的理解，就與《婆沙論》評家的意思相同。

像這樣，歸依以什麼為意義呢？（問：歸依的意義是什麼？）

以救濟為意義，直至脫離一切痛苦。（答：）救拔濟度，是歸依的意義。因為三寶（Triratna）是所歸依的對象，能夠永遠解脫一切有情眾生的一切痛苦。而且《正理》第三十八卷說：『他身中的聖法和善的無為法，如何能夠為自身提供救濟呢？』因為歸依它們，能夠止息無邊生死苦輪的大怖畏。

正如世尊（Buddha）所說，直至能夠解脫眾苦。（引佛經來證明，以正對邪。）前面的兩頌顯示了邪歸依，後面的三頌顯示了正歸依。世間眾人被怖畏所逼迫，大多歸依...

【English Translation】 English version It causes one to be free from the fear of birth and death. The bodhisattva's (Bodhisattva) studies do not exceed the predetermined time because they do not have the ability to teach others. The learned and unlearned dharmas (Dharma) within themselves cannot protect those who do not take refuge in them. These contents are explained in detail elsewhere.

Then, what is the substance of this dharma that can be taken as refuge? (Question: What is the essence of taking refuge?)

Speech-expression is the substance. (Answer:) Here it is said that self-nature speech-expression is the substance. If including the retinue, then the five skandhas (Panca-skandha) are the substance. Therefore, the thirty-eighth volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'Here, taking refuge is based on speech-expression, because self-established vows are its nature. If including the retinue, then the five skandhas are the substance, because all the words of taking refuge arise from the mind, etc., and will not leave the mind.' (Question:) If speech-expression is taken as the substance of taking refuge, it contradicts the commentators of the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa). As the thirty-fourth volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Those who take refuge, some say it is name, etc., some say it is verbal karma (Karma), some say it is physical karma, some say it is faith.' It should be said that it is physical and verbal karma, as well as the mental factors (Citta) that can generate these physical and verbal karmas, and all the accompanying factors. These good five skandhas are the substance of taking refuge. It should be said that this is the meaning of the Vibhasa commentators. The Abhidharmakosa, etc., is the second teacher of the Vibhasa, which is an incorrect meaning. How should it be explained? (Explanation:) The intentions of the commentators are different, and they can be explained at will. There is no need to take the Vibhasa commentators as the standard, so there is no need to bother explaining. Another explanation is that the master Vasubandhu deliberately elaborated on the incorrect meaning of the Vibhasa to warn later students, so that they may be enlightened or unenlightened. Venerable Samghabhadra did not realize this meaning and still explained it according to this. If according to the correct understanding, it is the same as the meaning of the Vibhasa commentators.

Like this, what is the meaning of taking refuge? (Question: What is the meaning of taking refuge?)

Salvation is the meaning, until liberation from all suffering. (Answer:) Saving and delivering is the meaning of taking refuge. Because the Three Jewels (Triratna) are the objects of refuge, they can forever liberate all sentient beings from all suffering. Moreover, the thirty-eighth volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'How can the sacred dharma and good unconditioned dharma in the bodies of others provide salvation for oneself?' Because taking refuge in them can stop the great fear of the endless cycle of birth and death.

Just as the Buddha said, until able to liberate from all suffering. (Citing the Buddha's sutras to prove, using the correct to counter the incorrect.) The first two verses show the incorrect taking refuge, and the last three verses show the correct taking refuge. The people of the world are forced by fear, and mostly take refuge in...

彼諸仙神．園苑神．叢林神．孤樹神．及與制多。

制多。即是外道塔廟　等謂等取余邪歸依隨其所應。此所歸依非勝非尊　又解不能解脫三惡趣苦故名非勝。不能解脫人．天趣苦故名非尊。所以者何。不由此歸依而能究竟解脫眾苦　又解或怨賊苦逼為避此苦投竄山谷。或遇愛．別．離．苦情慾散憂游諸園苑。或饑苦所逼採拾活命投諸叢林。或求不得苦欲希果遂求孤樹神。或厭現苦求未來樂供養外道制多塔廟。等。謂等取所未說者隨其所應。余如前釋　諸有歸依佛．法．僧者。於四諦等中恒以惠觀　知苦。謂苦諦　知苦．集。謂知苦之集即是集諦　知永超眾苦。謂是滅諦　知八聖道。謂是道諦　道諦能趣安穩涅槃　此所歸依最勝。最尊　又解能解脫惡趣苦名最勝。能解脫善趣苦名最尊　必因此歸依而能究竟解脫眾苦　故說歸依救濟為義。能脫眾苦。

是故歸依至為方便門者。結。是故歸依普於一切八眾所受諸律儀處。為前方便道引之門。由能發戒永脫眾苦。若不歸依戒不發故。

何緣世尊至易離得不作者。此即第五明離邪行問。於八眾中何緣世尊于餘六眾。或於余苾芻．勤策．近住律儀處。立離非梵行為所學處。唯于近事一律儀中制欲邪行。理亦應問近事女戒　且以近事為問。或可影顯。或近事言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本彼諸仙神（各種神仙）．園苑神（掌管園苑的神）．叢林神（掌管叢林的神）．孤樹神（寄居在孤立樹木中的神）．及與制多（外道塔廟）。

制多（外道塔廟）。即是外道塔廟等。謂等取其餘邪歸依，隨其所應。此所歸依非勝非尊。又解，不能解脫三惡趣苦，故名非勝。不能解脫人．天趣苦，故名非尊。所以者何？不由此歸依而能究竟解脫眾苦。又解，或怨賊苦逼，為避此苦投竄山谷。或遇愛．別．離．苦，情慾散憂游諸園苑。或饑苦所逼，採拾活命投諸叢林。或求不得苦，欲希果遂求孤樹神。或厭現苦求未來樂，供養外道制多塔廟等。謂等取所未說者，隨其所應。余如前釋。諸有歸依佛．法．僧者，於四諦（苦集滅道）等中恒以惠觀。知苦。謂苦諦（苦的真理）。知苦．集。謂知苦之集即是集諦（苦的根源的真理）。知永超眾苦。謂是滅諦（苦的止息的真理）。知八聖道。謂是道諦（通往苦的止息的道路的真理）。道諦能趣安穩涅槃（解脫）。此所歸依最勝。最尊。又解，能解脫惡趣苦名最勝。能解脫善趣苦名最尊。必因此歸依而能究竟解脫眾苦。故說歸依救濟為義。能脫眾苦。

是故歸依至為方便門者。結。是故歸依普於一切八眾所受諸律儀處，為前方便道引之門。由能發戒永脫眾苦。若不歸依戒不發故。

何緣世尊至易離得不作者。此即第五明離邪行問。於八眾中，何緣世尊于餘六眾，或於余苾芻（比丘）．勤策（沙彌）．近住（優婆塞）律儀處，立離非梵行為所學處。唯于近事（優婆塞）一律儀中制欲邪行。理亦應問近事女戒。且以近事為問。或可影顯。或近事言

【English Translation】 English version Those various deities, garden deities (deities who preside over gardens), forest deities (deities who preside over forests), deities of solitary trees (deities residing in isolated trees), and also Caityas (heretical shrines).

Caityas (heretical shrines) are heretical stupas and temples, etc. 'Etc.' includes other heretical refuges, according to what is appropriate. These refuges are neither supreme nor venerable. Furthermore, they are called 'not supreme' because they cannot liberate from the suffering of the three evil destinies. They are called 'not venerable' because they cannot liberate from the suffering of human and heavenly destinies. Why is this so? Because one cannot ultimately be liberated from all suffering by taking refuge in them. Furthermore, one may be oppressed by the suffering of enemies and thieves, and to avoid this suffering, flee into mountains and valleys. Or, encountering the suffering of love, separation, and loss, one's emotions scatter and one wanders in sorrow through gardens. Or, compelled by the suffering of hunger, one gathers food to sustain life and throws oneself into forests. Or, suffering from not obtaining what one seeks, one desires to achieve results and seeks the deities of solitary trees. Or,厭倦厭倦 present suffering and seeking future happiness, one makes offerings to heretical Caityas (heretical shrines) and temples, etc. 'Etc.' includes what has not been said, according to what is appropriate. The rest is as previously explained. Those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha constantly contemplate with wisdom the Four Noble Truths (suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path). 'Knowing suffering' refers to the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha). 'Knowing the origin of suffering' refers to knowing the origin of suffering, which is the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya). 'Knowing the eternal transcendence of all suffering' refers to the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha). 'Knowing the Eightfold Noble Path' refers to the Truth of the Path (Magga). The Truth of the Path leads to the secure Nirvana (liberation). This refuge is the most supreme and the most venerable. Furthermore, it is called 'most supreme' because it can liberate from the suffering of evil destinies. It is called 'most venerable' because it can liberate from the suffering of good destinies. One will certainly be able to ultimately be liberated from all suffering by taking refuge in this. Therefore, it is said that taking refuge is defined as salvation, capable of liberating from all suffering.

Therefore, taking refuge is the most expedient gateway. Conclusion: Therefore, taking refuge is universally the preliminary expedient gateway in all the precepts received by the eight assemblies. Because it can generate precepts and eternally liberate from all suffering. If one does not take refuge, the precepts will not arise.

For what reason did the World Honored One make it easy to abandon and not create? This is the fifth question clarifying abandoning wrong conduct. Among the eight assemblies, for what reason did the World Honored One, in the precepts of the other six assemblies, or in the precepts of other Bhikshus (monks), Sramaneras (novice monks), Upasakas (laymen), establish abandoning non-celibate conduct as a subject of learning? Only in the one precept of Upasakas (laymen) did he prohibit sexual misconduct. It is reasonable to also ask about the precepts for Upasikas (laywomen). Let us take the Upasaka as the question. Perhaps it can be shadowed or revealed. Or the word Upasaka

亦攝近事女戒戒體同故。頌三義答。

論曰至非非梵行者。一釋最可訶。唯欲邪行世極訶責。侵他妻等邪淫業道感惡趣故　等。謂等取妾等　非非梵行。謂非梵行行淫慾時。是身惡行世非極訶。非感惡趣。

又欲邪行至離非梵行者。釋頌易離。邪行易離故佛遮防。離非梵行難故在家不制。

又諸聖者至謂定不作者。釋得不作。謂諸聖人身中成就無漏法故。于欲邪行一切定得不作律儀　不作律儀。謂定不作欲邪行等。非別有體。如世有人性不飲酒非別有體。經生聖者亦不行斯欲邪行故。以諸聖者性不犯彼近事戒故。故說聖人能持性戒　離非梵行則不如是。未離欲聖猶有妻故。故近事戒制離欲邪行。若復固執離非梵行為近事戒。勿經生聖者犯近事律儀。以有妻故。故正理云。若異此者經生有學。應不能持近事性戒。

諸有先受至得律儀不者。此下第六娶妻不犯。此即問也。

理實應得至得別解律儀者。答。于彼受得。

若爾云何后非犯戒者。難。

頌曰至毀犯前戒者。答文可知。又正理三十八云。先娶妻妾后受律儀于自妻等亦發此戒。以近事等別解脫律儀一切有情處所得故。若異此者于自妻．妾．非處．非時．非支．非禮亦應不犯欲邪行戒。于舊所受既有犯者。于新所受應有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：亦攝取近事女戒的戒體，因為它們是相同的。用三個方面的意義來回答。

論曰：乃至『非非梵行』者。第一種解釋是最應該受到訶責的。只有欲邪行（Kama Mithyacara，指不正當的性行為）是世間極度訶責的，因為侵犯他人妻子的邪淫行為會導致惡趣的果報。『等』，是指包括妾等。『非非梵行』，是指不是梵行（Brahmacharya，指清凈的行為）的行為，即行淫慾時，是身惡行，但世間並非極度訶責，也不會導致惡趣的果報。

又，『欲邪行』乃至『離非梵行者』。解釋偈頌很容易理解。欲邪行容易斷離，所以佛陀遮止防範。斷離『非非梵行』很難，所以在家人不禁止。

又，諸聖者乃至『謂定不作者』。解釋『得不作』（prapti，指獲得不做的能力）。意思是說，諸位聖人在身中成就了無漏法（Anasrava-dharma，指沒有煩惱的法），所以對於欲邪行，一切都必定能夠獲得不作的律儀。『不作律儀』，是指必定不作欲邪行等，並非另外有一個實體。就像世間有人天性不喝酒，並非另外有一個實體。經由生育而成為聖者的人，也不行這種欲邪行。因為諸位聖人的天性不會觸犯近事戒（Upasaka Sila，指在家居士所受持的戒律），所以說聖人能夠持守自性戒。斷離『非非梵行』則不是這樣，未斷離慾望的聖者仍然有妻子。所以近事戒禁止斷離欲邪行。如果有人固執地認為斷離『非非梵行』是近事戒，那麼經由生育而成為聖者的人就會觸犯近事律儀，因為他們有妻子。所以正理中說：如果不是這樣，那麼經由生育而成為有學（Saiksa，指還在學習的聖者）的人，就不應該能夠持守近事自性戒。

諸位先受戒者，乃至『得律儀不』？這以下第六個問題是娶妻是否犯戒，這是提問。

理實應得，乃至『得別解律儀者』。回答說，從那裡受得。

如果這樣，為什麼後來不犯戒呢？這是質難。

頌曰，乃至『毀犯前戒者』。答案在文中可以得知。又，《正理》第三十八卷說：先娶妻妾，后受律儀，對於自己的妻子等也發起此戒。因為近事等別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha，指別解脫戒）是一切有情處所得的。如果不是這樣，那麼對於自己的妻子、妾，在非處、非時、非支、非禮的情況下，也不應該觸犯欲邪行戒。對於舊的所受戒律已經有觸犯，那麼對於新的所受戒律應該也有。

【English Translation】 English version: Also, it includes the precepts of a female Upasaka (Upasika, a lay follower), because their precepts are the same. Answered with three meanings in the verse.

Treatise says: Up to 'non-non-Brahmacharya (non-celibacy)'. The first explanation is the most reprehensible. Only Kama Mithyacara (sexual misconduct) is extremely condemned in the world, because the evil karma of sexual misconduct, such as violating another's wife, leads to evil destinies. 'Etc.' means including concubines, etc. 'Non-non-Brahmacharya' means actions that are not Brahmacharya (pure conduct), that is, when engaging in sexual desire, it is an evil bodily action, but it is not extremely condemned in the world, nor does it lead to evil destinies.

Also, 'Kama Mithyacara' up to 'those who are apart from non-Brahmacharya'. Explaining the verse is easy to understand. Kama Mithyacara is easy to abandon, so the Buddha prohibits and prevents it. Abandoning 'non-non-Brahmacharya' is difficult, so it is not prohibited for laypeople.

Also, all the sages up to 'meaning definitely not doing'. Explains 'prapti' (attainment of non-doing). It means that all the sages have achieved Anasrava-dharma (undefiled dharma) in their bodies, so for Kama Mithyacara, they can definitely attain the precepts of non-doing. 'Precepts of non-doing' means definitely not doing Kama Mithyacara, etc., and there is no separate entity. Just like some people in the world are naturally non-drinkers, there is no separate entity. Those who become sages through birth also do not engage in this Kama Mithyacara. Because the nature of all the sages does not violate the Upasaka Sila (lay precepts), it is said that sages can uphold the self-nature precepts. Abandoning 'non-non-Brahmacharya' is not like this, because sages who have not abandoned desire still have wives. Therefore, the Upasaka Sila prohibits abandoning Kama Mithyacara. If someone stubbornly believes that abandoning 'non-non-Brahmacharya' is the Upasaka Sila, then those who become sages through birth will violate the Upasaka precepts, because they have wives. Therefore, the principle says: If it is not like this, then those who become learners (Saiksa, a saint in training) through birth should not be able to uphold the Upasaka self-nature precepts.

All those who have previously taken precepts, up to 'attain the precepts or not'? The sixth question below is whether marrying a wife violates the precepts, this is the question.

In reality, one should attain, up to 'attain separate liberation precepts'. The answer is, attained from there.

If so, why is it not a violation later? This is a challenge.

The verse says, up to 'destroying the previous precepts'. The answer can be known from the text. Also, the thirty-eighth volume of the 'Nyaya Sutra' says: Those who marry wives and concubines before taking the precepts also generate this precept for their own wives, etc. Because the Pratimoksha (individual liberation precepts) such as Upasaka are attained in all sentient beings. If it is not like this, then for one's own wife, concubine, in inappropriate places, times, limbs, and rituals, one should not violate the Kama Mithyacara precept. If there has been a violation of the old precepts, then there should also be a violation of the new precepts.

不犯。

何緣但制至為近事律儀者。此下第七明離虛誑語。問。語有四過何唯制一。

亦由前說至得不作故者。答。由前三因唯制虛誑。第一因如前釋。又婆沙一百二十三釋第二因云。有作是說離虛誑語易可防護。非離餘三。謂處居家御僮僕等。難可遠離離間等三及身業中捶撻等事。又婆沙釋第三因云。有餘復說。若諸聖者經生不犯立近事戒。聖者經生必定遠離虛誑語業非余語業。所以者何。余語有三。謂從貪．嗔．癡生。經生聖者雖不犯從癡所生。癡見品攝故。聖者已斷而犯貪．瞋所生是故不立。

復有別因至能防后犯者。第四因八眾律儀名為一切。余文可知。

復以何緣至近事律儀者。此下第八遮唯離酒。此即問也。

誰言此中不離遮罪者。答。

離何遮罪者。徴。

謂離飲酒者。釋。

何緣于彼至唯遮飲酒者。難。正理云。何緣一切離性罪中。立四種為近事學處。然於一切離遮罪中。于近事律儀唯制離飲酒。

頌曰至令離飲酒者。答文可知。遮中飲酒由過重故近事偏制。余遮不爾。

寧知飲酒遮罪攝耶者。問。

由此中無至能無染心者。答。由飲酒中無性罪相。以諸性罪唯染心行不通余心。療病飲酒能無染心故非性罪。故正理三十八云。

由此中無性罪相故。性罪．遮罪其相云何。未制戒時諸離欲者。決定不起是性罪相。若彼猶行是名遮罪。又若唯托染污心行是性罪相。若有亦托不染心行是名遮罪。

豈不先知至即是染心者。難。

此非染心至故非染心者。答。

諸持律有言至彼飲酒故者。敘持律者言。飲酒是性罪。總引四證。此即第一除飲酒性罪證。佛除性罪余隨供病。有處不開病者飲酒。故知飲酒是性罪攝　鄔波離。此云近取。

又契經說至是性罪攝者。第二極少不飲證。極少不開。明知性罪。

又諸聖者至如殺生等者。第三經生不犯證。此一以理為證。飲酒是性罪。經生聖者亦不犯故。如殺生等。

又契經說是身惡行故者。第四是身惡行證。經說飲酒是身惡行。若有無染心如何名惡行。故知飲酒是性罪攝。故正理三十八云。謂契經言身有四惡行。殺生至飲酒。不應遮罪是惡行攝。

對法諸師至犯性罪故者。此下對法諸師通前四證。此即通第一除飲酒性罪證言。飲諸酒非是性罪。然為病者唯除性罪總開遮戒。此即許飲明非性罪。若是性罪不應佛開。復于異時遮飲酒者。染疾釋種性不能飲。為防因此犯性罪故故佛遮飲。

又令醉亂至茅端所沾量者。通第二極少不飲證。醉亂不定故遮極少如性不便

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本由於其中沒有自性罪的體相，那麼，自性罪（Svabhāva-avadya，本質上的罪過）和遮罪（Pratiṣedha-avadya，因佛陀禁制而產生的罪過）的體相又是什麼樣的呢？在佛陀未制定戒律時，那些已經離欲的人，決定不會生起（殺盜淫等）是自性罪的體相。如果他們仍然做了這些事，這就叫做遮罪。另外，如果僅僅是懷著染污心而做，這是自性罪的體相。如果也懷著不染污心而做，這就叫做遮罪。

難道不是先知道達到（目的）就是染污心嗎？難。

這不是染污心，所以不是染污心。答。

那些持律者說，乃至他們飲酒的緣故。敘述持律者的觀點：飲酒是自性罪。總共引用了四個證據。這是第一個排除飲酒是自性罪的證據。佛陀允許生病的人飲酒，其餘的隨順供養。有些地方不允許生病的人飲酒。所以知道飲酒屬於自性罪。鄔波離（Upāli），這裡的意思是近取。

另外，契經（Sūtra）說，乃至這是自性罪所攝。第二個證據是極少量的飲酒也不允許。極少也不允許，明顯知道是自性罪。

另外，諸聖者，乃至如殺生等。第三個證據是經過轉生也不會犯戒。這一個是以理來證明。飲酒是自性罪，即使經過轉生的聖者也不會犯，如同殺生等。

另外，契經說是身惡行，第四個證據是屬於身體的惡行。經中說飲酒是身體的惡行。如果懷著沒有染污的心，怎麼能稱為惡行呢？所以知道飲酒屬於自性罪。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第三十八卷說，所謂契經說身體有四種惡行，從殺生到飲酒。不應該把遮罪歸為惡行之列。

對法諸師，乃至犯自性罪的緣故。以下是對法諸師貫通前面的四個證據。這是貫通第一個排除飲酒是自性罪的證據來說的。飲各種酒不是自性罪。然而爲了生病的人，僅僅是排除自性罪，總的開許遮戒。這即是允許飲酒，表明不是自性罪。如果是自性罪，佛陀不應該開許。又在其他時候禁止飲酒，是因為染疾的釋迦（Śākya）種姓不能飲酒。爲了防止因此而犯自性罪，所以佛陀禁止飲酒。

另外，爲了防止醉酒昏亂，乃至茅草尖端所沾的量。貫通第二個極少也不允許飲酒的證據。因為醉酒昏亂是不確定的，所以禁止極少量的飲酒，如同自性罪一樣不方便。

【English Translation】 English version Since there is no inherent nature of sin in this, what are the characteristics of Svabhāva-avadya (inherent offense) and Pratiṣedha-avadya (offense by prohibition)? Before the precepts were established, those who had abandoned desire would definitely not commit (killing, stealing, etc.), which is the characteristic of Svabhāva-avadya. If they still do these things, it is called Pratiṣedha-avadya. Furthermore, if it is done only with a defiled mind, it is the characteristic of Svabhāva-avadya. If it is also done with a non-defiled mind, it is called Pratiṣedha-avadya.

Isn't it that knowing beforehand that reaching (the goal) is a defiled mind? Objection.

This is not a defiled mind, therefore it is not a defiled mind. Answer.

Those who uphold the Vinaya say, even to the extent that they drink alcohol. Narrating the view of those who uphold the Vinaya: drinking alcohol is a Svabhāva-avadya. A total of four pieces of evidence are cited. This is the first evidence to exclude drinking alcohol as a Svabhāva-avadya. The Buddha allows the sick to drink alcohol, and the rest is according to the offerings. In some places, the sick are not allowed to drink alcohol. Therefore, it is known that drinking alcohol belongs to Svabhāva-avadya. Upāli (Upāli), here it means 'proximate taking'.

Furthermore, the Sūtra (Sūtra) says, even to the extent that it is included in Svabhāva-avadya. The second evidence is that even the smallest amount of drinking is not allowed. Even the smallest amount is not allowed, clearly indicating it is a Svabhāva-avadya.

Furthermore, the noble ones, even like killing, etc. The third evidence is that even after rebirth, there is no offense. This one is proven by reason. Drinking alcohol is a Svabhāva-avadya, and even noble ones after rebirth do not commit it, like killing, etc.

Furthermore, the Sūtra says it is an evil deed of the body, the fourth evidence is that it belongs to the evil deeds of the body. The Sūtra says that drinking alcohol is an evil deed of the body. If it is with a non-defiled mind, how can it be called an evil deed? Therefore, it is known that drinking alcohol belongs to Svabhāva-avadya. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra), volume thirty-eight, says, 'The Sūtra says that the body has four evil deeds, from killing to drinking alcohol. Pratiṣedha-avadya should not be classified as evil deeds.'

The masters of Abhidharma, even to the extent of committing Svabhāva-avadya. The following is the masters of Abhidharma connecting the previous four pieces of evidence. This is connecting the first evidence to exclude drinking alcohol as a Svabhāva-avadya. Drinking various alcohols is not a Svabhāva-avadya. However, for the sake of the sick, only Svabhāva-avadya is excluded, and the Pratiṣedha-avadya is generally allowed. This is allowing drinking alcohol, indicating it is not a Svabhāva-avadya. If it were a Svabhāva-avadya, the Buddha should not have allowed it. Furthermore, at other times, drinking alcohol is prohibited because the Śākya (Śākya) lineage with diseases cannot drink alcohol. To prevent committing Svabhāva-avadya because of this, the Buddha prohibited drinking alcohol.

Furthermore, to prevent drunkenness and confusion, even to the amount that adheres to the tip of a blade of grass. Connecting the second evidence that even the smallest amount of drinking is not allowed. Because drunkenness and confusion are uncertain, the smallest amount of drinking is prohibited, just like Svabhāva-avadya is inconvenient.

飲少亦醉。經遮不飲意在於茲。非言性罪經遮不飲。如有性便多亦不醉。為病飲少理亦應通。

又一切聖至量無定故者。通第三經生不犯證。以諸聖者具慚羞故。又復自恐失正念故。故諸聖者皆不飲酒。少亦不飲。以如毒藥量無定故。非為性罪聖人不飲。故婆沙一百二十三云。有餘師說聖者經生必不飲酒。雖嬰咳位養母以指強渧口中。不自在故而無有失。才有識別設遇強緣為護身命亦終不飲。故遮罪中獨立酒戒。

又經說是至皆是性罪者。通第四是身惡行證。契經說飲酒是身惡行者。酒是一切放逸惡行。依處故。因飲酒故起身惡行。故說飲酒是身惡行。非由性罪名身惡行。由是獨立飲酒放逸處名。余殺生等四不立放逸處名皆是性罪故。故正理三十八云。或飲諸酒由放逸處故名惡行。非由性罪故此獨立放逸處名。非殺生等是性罪故　又解經據唯染心名為身惡行。飲酒容無染。明知非惡行。

然說數習至轉增盛故者。上來通持律者四證。今又通墮惡趣妨。故正理三十八云。有作是說以契經說數習能令墮惡趣故。如殺生等。故飲諸酒是性罪攝　故今通云經說數習墮惡趣者。顯數飲酒能令身中諸不善法相續轉故墮諸惡趣。又能引發惡趣業故墮諸惡趣。或能令彼已起惡趣業轉增盛。墮諸惡趣因酒起業感諸惡趣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

即使少量飲酒也會醉。經典中禁止飲酒的意義在於此，並非說飲酒本身是罪過，所以經典才禁止飲酒。如果飲酒本身是罪過，那麼即使喝得再多也不會醉。因為生病而少量飲酒，在道理上也應該允許。

此外，關於『一切聖者飲酒的量沒有定數』，這是爲了說明第三種情況，即聖者在特殊情況下飲酒不構成犯罪。因為聖者具有慚愧之心，並且會時刻警惕失去正念，所以聖者通常不飲酒，即使少量也不飲用，因為酒就像毒藥一樣，飲用的量沒有定數。聖人不飲酒並非因為飲酒本身是罪過。因此，《婆沙論》第一百二十三卷說，有些論師認為，聖者即使在特殊情況下也絕不飲酒。即使嬰兒咳嗽，或者爲了贍養母親，用手指強行滴酒入口中，因為不是出於自願，所以沒有過失。即使有辨別能力，假設遇到不得不飲酒的特殊情況，爲了保護生命也終究不會飲酒。因此，在遮罪中，單獨設立了酒戒。

此外，關於『經典中說飲酒是罪過，是因為飲酒本身是罪過』，這是爲了說明第四種情況，即飲酒是身體的惡行。契經中說飲酒是身體的惡行，因為酒是一切放逸和惡行的根源。因為飲酒會導致身體的惡行，所以說飲酒是身體的惡行，並非因為飲酒本身是罪過才被稱為身體的惡行。因此，單獨設立了『飲酒放逸處』這個名稱，而殺生等其他四種罪行沒有設立『放逸處』的名稱，因為它們本身就是罪過。因此，《正理論》第三十八卷說，或者因為飲用各種酒會導致放逸，所以被稱為惡行，並非因為飲酒本身是罪過，所以單獨設立了『放逸處』這個名稱，而殺生等罪行本身就是罪過。或者解釋經典說，只有被染污的心所驅使的行為才被稱為身體的惡行，而飲酒有時可能沒有被染污的心所驅使，這表明飲酒本身並非惡行。

然而，關於『經常飲酒會導致罪過不斷增長』，這既可以用來解釋持戒律者的四種觀點，也可以用來解釋墮入惡趣的原因。因此，《正理論》第三十八卷說，有人這樣認為，因為契經中說經常飲酒會導致墮入惡趣，就像殺生等罪行一樣，所以飲酒屬於罪過。因此，現在可以這樣解釋，經典中說經常飲酒會導致墮入惡趣，是因為經常飲酒會導致身體中的各種不善法相續不斷地增長，從而墮入惡趣。或者能夠引發導致墮入惡趣的業，從而墮入惡趣。或者能夠使已經產生的惡趣業不斷增長，因為飲酒而造作的業會感召墮入惡趣的果報。

【English Translation】 English version:

Even drinking a little can lead to intoxication. The reason why the scriptures prohibit drinking lies in this. It's not that drinking itself is a sin, hence the prohibition. If drinking were inherently sinful, then even drinking a lot wouldn't lead to intoxication. Drinking a small amount for medicinal purposes should also be permissible in principle.

Furthermore, regarding 'the amount of alcohol that all sages consume is not fixed,' this is to explain the third situation, that sages do not commit offenses by drinking under special circumstances. Because sages possess a sense of shame and are constantly vigilant against losing right mindfulness, they generally do not drink alcohol, not even a small amount, because alcohol is like poison, and the amount one can consume is not fixed. Sages do not abstain from alcohol because drinking is inherently sinful. Therefore, the Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 123 states that some teachers believe that sages never drink alcohol, even under special circumstances. Even if an infant has a cough, or to support their mother, they are force-fed alcohol with a finger, there is no fault because it is not voluntary. Even if they have the ability to discern, if they encounter a special situation where they must drink alcohol, they will ultimately not drink it to protect their lives. Therefore, the precept against alcohol is established independently among the prohibitive offenses.

Furthermore, regarding 'the scriptures say that drinking is a sin because drinking itself is a sin,' this is to explain the fourth situation, that drinking is an evil deed of the body. The sutras say that drinking is an evil deed of the body because alcohol is the root of all laxity and evil deeds. Because drinking leads to evil deeds of the body, it is said that drinking is an evil deed of the body, not that it is called an evil deed of the body because drinking itself is a sin. Therefore, the name 'place of laxity due to drinking' is established independently, while the names 'place of laxity' are not established for the other four sins such as killing, because they are inherently sinful. Therefore, the Abhidharmakoshabhasya (正理論) Volume 38 states that drinking various alcohols is called an evil deed because it leads to laxity, not because drinking itself is a sin, so the name 'place of laxity' is established independently. Killing and other sins are inherently sinful. Or, interpreting the scriptures, only actions driven by a defiled mind are called evil deeds of the body, while drinking alcohol may sometimes not be driven by a defiled mind, indicating that drinking itself is not an evil deed.

However, regarding 'frequent drinking leads to a continuous increase in sins,' this can be used to explain the four views of those who uphold the precepts, and also to explain the reason for falling into evil realms. Therefore, the Abhidharmakoshabhasya (正理論) Volume 38 states that some believe that the sutras say that frequent drinking leads to falling into evil realms, just like sins such as killing, so drinking is included among the sins. Therefore, it can now be explained that the scriptures say that frequent drinking leads to falling into evil realms because frequent drinking leads to a continuous increase in various unwholesome dharmas in the body, thereby leading to falling into evil realms. Or it can give rise to karma that leads to falling into evil realms, thereby leading to falling into evil realms. Or it can cause the evil karma that has already arisen to continue to increase, because the karma created by drinking will bring about the result of falling into evil realms.

。理實飲酒非招惡趣。又正理云。亦見有說斷生草等令墮惡趣故。此無能證飲諸酒是性罪攝。廣如彼說。

如契經說至依何義說者。因解飲酒釋酒異名。合飲不合飲經說窣羅等依何義說。依經起問　又解引經證酒是放逸處能造眾惡。因此起問。

醞食成酒至所依處故者。答　醞食成酒。即米．麥等。名為窣羅　醞余物等所成。即根．莖等。名迷麗耶酒。即前二酒或時未熟。或熟已壞不能令醉。此非所遮。不名末陀。若令醉時名末陀酒。簡無用位重立末陀　應有難言此中但應說末陀酒。何謂別說窣羅迷麗耶酒。為通此難故作是言。然以檳榔及稗子等。雖亦能令少時微醉而不放逸。由許食故。不成犯戒。為簡彼故。次說窣羅．迷麗耶酒。極令醉故．又法蘊足論第一云言諸酒者。謂窣羅酒。迷麗耶酒。及末陀酒。言窣羅酒謂米．麥等如法蒸煮。和麹糵汁。投諸藥物。醞釀具成。酒色香味。飲已惛醉名窣羅酒。迷麗耶者謂諸根．莖．葉．花．果汁。不和麹糵。醞釀具成。酒色香味。飲已惛醉名迷麗耶酒。言末陀者謂蒲桃酒。或即窣羅．迷麗耶酒飲已令醉總名末陀。正理三十八釋諸酒名。非無少異。大同法蘊。飲此諸酒雖是遮罪。而令放逸廣造眾惡。世尊為令殷重遮斷飲諸酒。故說此酒是放逸處。諸不善業名為放逸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：真正理解佛理的人飲酒，並不會因此墮入惡趣。而且《正理》中也說，有人因為砍斷生長的草等行為而墮入惡趣。因此，不能以此證明飲用各種酒本身就是一種罪過。更詳細的解釋可以參考原文。

『如契經說』到『依何義說者』，這段經文是爲了解釋飲酒以及各種酒的異名。經文中提到『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）等酒，是根據什麼意義來說的呢？這是根據經文提出的疑問。另外，解釋引用經文是爲了證明酒是放逸的根源，能夠導致各種惡行。因此提出了這個問題。

『醞食成酒』到『所依處故者』，這是對以上問題的回答。用糧食釀造的酒，比如用米、麥等釀造的酒，叫做『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）；用其他東西釀造的酒，比如用根、莖等釀造的酒，叫做『迷麗耶』（Maireya，藥酒）。這兩種酒，有時可能還沒釀熟，或者已經變質，不能使人醉，這種酒不是禁止飲用的，不叫做『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）。如果能使人醉，就叫做『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）。這裡強調『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒），是爲了區分無用的情況，重新確立『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）的概念。可能會有人問，這裡只應該說『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）就可以了，為什麼還要分別說『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）和『迷麗耶』（Maireya，藥酒）呢？爲了解釋這個疑問，所以說，即使是檳榔和稗子等東西，雖然也能讓人稍微有點醉意，但不會導致放逸，因為允許食用這些東西，所以不算犯戒。爲了區分這種情況，所以接下來才說『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）和『迷麗耶』（Maireya，藥酒），因為這兩種酒極容易使人醉。另外，《法蘊足論》第一卷中說，所說的各種酒，指的是『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）、『迷麗耶』（Maireya，藥酒）和『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）。『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）指的是用米、麥等按照一定的方法蒸煮，加入酒麴，再加入各種藥物，釀造而成，具有酒的顏色、香味，飲用後會使人昏醉的酒。『迷麗耶』（Maireya，藥酒）指的是用各種根、莖、葉、花、果的汁液，不加入酒麴，釀造而成，具有酒的顏色、香味，飲用後會使人昏醉的酒。『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）指的是葡萄酒，或者就是指飲用后能使人醉的『窣羅』（Sura，米酒）和『迷麗耶』（Maireya，藥酒），統稱為『末陀』（Madya，能醉人的酒）。《正理》第三十八卷解釋各種酒的名稱，雖然略有不同，但大體上與《法蘊》相同。飲用這些酒雖然是遮罪，但會使人放逸，從而造作各種惡行。世尊爲了讓人們重視並斷除飲用各種酒的行為，所以說這種酒是放逸的根源，各種不善的業都叫做放逸。

【English Translation】 English version: Truly understanding the principles of Buddhism, drinking alcohol will not lead to falling into evil realms. Moreover, the Nyaya Sutra also states that some people fall into evil realms for actions such as cutting growing grass. Therefore, it cannot be proven that drinking various types of alcohol is inherently a sin. A more detailed explanation can be found in the original text.

From 'As the Sutra says' to 'According to what meaning is it said?', this passage is to explain drinking alcohol and the different names of various alcohols. The Sutra mentions alcohols such as Sura (rice wine), according to what meaning is this said? This is a question raised based on the Sutra. In addition, the explanation of quoting the Sutra is to prove that alcohol is the source of negligence and can lead to various evil deeds. Therefore, this question is raised.

From 'Fermenting food becomes alcohol' to 'Therefore, the place of reliance', this is the answer to the above question. Alcohol made from grains, such as rice and wheat, is called Sura (rice wine); alcohol made from other things, such as roots and stems, is called Maireya (medicated wine). These two types of alcohol, sometimes may not be fully fermented, or have deteriorated, and cannot make people drunk. This type of alcohol is not prohibited and is not called Madya (intoxicating liquor). If it can make people drunk, it is called Madya (intoxicating liquor). The emphasis on Madya (intoxicating liquor) here is to distinguish useless situations and re-establish the concept of Madya (intoxicating liquor). Someone might ask, it should only be necessary to say Madya (intoxicating liquor) here, why is it necessary to separately say Sura (rice wine) and Maireya (medicated wine)? To explain this question, it is said that even things like betel nuts and pennisetum glaucum, although they can make people slightly drunk for a short time, do not lead to negligence, because it is permissible to eat these things, so it is not considered a violation of the precepts. To distinguish this situation, Sura (rice wine) and Maireya (medicated wine) are mentioned next, because these two types of alcohol are extremely easy to make people drunk. In addition, the first volume of the Abhidharma-skandha-pada-shastra says that the various alcohols mentioned refer to Sura (rice wine), Maireya (medicated wine), and Madya (intoxicating liquor). Sura (rice wine) refers to alcohol made by steaming rice, wheat, etc. according to a certain method, adding yeast, and then adding various medicines, which has the color and aroma of alcohol, and makes people dizzy after drinking. Maireya (medicated wine) refers to alcohol made from the juice of various roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and fruits, without adding yeast, which has the color and aroma of alcohol, and makes people dizzy after drinking. Madya (intoxicating liquor) refers to grape wine, or Sura (rice wine) and Maireya (medicated wine) that can make people drunk after drinking, collectively called Madya (intoxicating liquor). The thirty-eighth volume of the Nyaya Sutra explains the names of various alcohols, although there are slight differences, they are generally the same as the Abhidharma-skandha. Although drinking these alcohols is a prohibitive offense, it will make people negligent and thus create various evil deeds. The World Honored One, in order to make people pay attention to and eliminate the behavior of drinking various alcohols, said that this alcohol is the source of negligence, and all kinds of unwholesome karma are called negligence.

。酒是放逸所依處故名放逸處。

俱舍論記卷第十四大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十五

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之三

此別解脫至亦餘二不者。此下大文第五得三律儀別。就中一明得處同．異。二明有情支．因。三明得惡．處中　此下明得處同．異。問　此三律儀從彼處得一。亦得餘二不。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至得靜慮無漏者。答。上兩句明別解脫。下兩句明定．道。

論曰至後起而得者。釋從一切得欲別解脫。此從一切發惡根本．加行．後起處得。謂受善戒離惡根本．加行．後起故。于發惡處還發得善戒。

從二得者至性罪遮罪者。釋從二得。謂從二類得。一從情．非情類處得。二從發性罪．遮罪類處得　又解言二類者。有兩種二類。一有情類。二非情類。一性罪類。二遮罪類　又解言二類者。一有情類能發性罪．遮罪。二非情類能發性罪．遮罪　今受善戒能離性罪及與遮罪故。從二類發性罪．遮罪處還發得善戒。故正理三十九云。于情性罪謂殺等業。遮謂女人同室宿等。非情性罪謂盜外財。遮謂掘地斷生草等。

從現得者至有情處故者。釋從現得此別解脫。於三世中謂從現世

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：酒之所以被稱為『放逸處』，是因為它是放縱和過失行為的根源。

《俱舍論記》卷第十四大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第十五

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之三

『此別解脫至亦餘二不者』。這以下是第五大段，講述獲得三種律儀的區別。其中，第一點說明獲得律儀之處的同與異；第二點說明有情支和因；第三點說明獲得惡行之處。這以下說明獲得律儀之處的同與異。問：這三種律儀是從一個地方獲得的，還是也能從其他兩個地方獲得？

『不爾者』。答：並非如此。

『云何者』。征：為什麼？

『頌曰至得靜慮無漏者』。答：上面兩句說明別解脫（Pratimoksha）。下面兩句說明禪定（Dhyana）和道（Marga）。

『論曰至後起而得者』。解釋說，從一切處都能獲得欲界的別解脫（Kama-dhatu Pratimoksha）。這是從一切發起惡行的根本、加行和後起之處獲得的。意思是，通過受持善戒，遠離惡行的根本、加行和後起，因此在發起惡行之處，反而能發起並獲得善戒。

『從二得者至性罪遮罪者』。解釋說，從兩類處獲得。即從有情（sentient beings）和非情（non-sentient things）兩類處獲得；以及從發起性罪（inherently evil deeds）和遮罪（prohibited evil deeds）兩類處獲得。又解釋說，『兩類』是指兩種二類。第一種是：有情類和非情類；第二種是：性罪類和遮罪類。又解釋說，『兩類』是指：一是有情類能發起性罪和遮罪；二是非情類能發起性罪和遮罪。現在受持善戒，能夠遠離性罪以及遮罪，因此從兩類發起性罪和遮罪之處，反而能發起並獲得善戒。所以《正理》第三十九卷說：『對於有情所犯的性罪，是指殺生等業；遮罪，是指與女人同室而宿等。對於非情所犯的性罪，是指偷盜他人財物；遮罪，是指挖掘土地、斬斷生草等。』

『從現得者至有情處故者』。解釋說，從現在獲得此別解脫（Pratimoksha），在三世（過去、現在、未來）中，是指從現在世。

【English Translation】 English version: Wine is called a 'place of negligence' because it is the basis for indulgence and misconduct.

Kosa-bhasya-tika, Volume 14 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Kosa-bhasya-tika

Kosa-bhasya-tika, Volume 15

Commentary by the Sramana Shi Guang

Chapter 4, Section 3: Analysis of Karma

'From this Pratimoksha to also the other two not.' This below is the fifth major section, discussing the distinctions in obtaining the three vows (Samvara). Among them, the first point clarifies the similarities and differences in the places from which the vows are obtained; the second point clarifies sentient supports and causes; the third point clarifies the places from which evil is obtained. This below clarifies the similarities and differences in the places from which the vows are obtained. Question: Are these three vows obtained from one place, or can they also be obtained from the other two places?

'Not so.' Answer: It is not so.

'How so?' Inquiry: Why?

'The verse says to obtain Dhyana and non-outflow.' Answer: The first two lines explain Pratimoksha. The last two lines explain Dhyana and Marga.

'The treatise says to obtain from arising later.' It explains that one can obtain the Pratimoksha of the desire realm (Kama-dhatu) from all places. This is obtained from all places where the root, preparation, and subsequent actions of evil arise. It means that by upholding good precepts, one can stay away from the root, preparation, and subsequent actions of evil. Therefore, in the place where evil arises, one can instead initiate and obtain good precepts.

'From two obtained to inherently evil and prohibited evil.' It explains that it is obtained from two categories of places. That is, it is obtained from the two categories of sentient beings and non-sentient things; and from the two categories of initiating inherently evil deeds and prohibited evil deeds. It is also explained that 'two categories' refers to two types of two categories. The first type is: sentient beings and non-sentient things; the second type is: inherently evil deeds and prohibited evil deeds. It is also explained that 'two categories' refers to: first, sentient beings can initiate inherently evil deeds and prohibited evil deeds; second, non-sentient things can initiate inherently evil deeds and prohibited evil deeds. Now, by upholding good precepts, one can stay away from inherently evil deeds as well as prohibited evil deeds. Therefore, from the two categories of places where inherently evil deeds and prohibited evil deeds arise, one can instead initiate and obtain good precepts. Therefore, the 39th volume of the Nyayanusara says: 'For inherently evil deeds committed by sentient beings, it refers to actions such as killing; prohibited evil deeds, it refers to sleeping in the same room with a woman, etc. For inherently evil deeds committed by non-sentient things, it refers to stealing other people's property; prohibited evil deeds, it refers to digging the ground, cutting off living grass, etc.'

'From the present obtained to the place of sentient beings.' It explains that from the present, one obtains this Pratimoksha. Among the three times (past, present, future), it refers to the present life.

蘊．處．界．發得。非從去．來。所以者何。由此律儀于現有情轉。及於現有情所依止處轉　于現有情轉者。謂從有情邊發戒。如邪欲等從守護有情得罪。若離邪欲等從守護有情發戒隨其所應　于現有情所依止處轉者。有情所依處。謂內身。有情所依止處。謂外器　于現有情所依處者。于現有情內所依身發得此戒。如行殺等從所依處得罪。若離殺等從所依處發戒。隨其所應　于現有情所止處者。于現有情外所止器發得此戒。如掘地等從所止處得罪。若不掘地等從所止處發戒隨其所應　去．來非是有情。亦非是有情所依止處。故不能發別解脫戒。故正理云。有情處者。謂諸有情及諸有情所依止處。現蘊．處．界。內者即是有情所依。外者名為有情所止。非過．未故　問若從現在有情處得如盜現在窣堵波物。婆沙一百一十三評家云。如是說者于佛處得　準彼正義於過去佛邊結罪。如何乃言于現有情處得　解云評家理應望現守護者邊結罪。而言于佛結彼罪者。以施佛故顯物重故推在如來　又解評家意說罪．福二門非皆齊等。若論發戒現有情處得。若論結罪無妨亦有於過去佛處得。

若得靜慮至況從遮罪者。釋從根本得。若得定．道戒應知但從髮根本業道處得。尚不從彼發加行．後起處得道．定戒。況從發遮罪處得此律

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本蘊（skandha，五蘊）、處（ayatana，十二處）、界（dhatu，十八界）所發的戒，不是從過去或未來得來的。為什麼呢？因為這種律儀是針對現有的有情而轉變的，以及針對現有有情所依賴的處所而轉變的。對於現有有情而轉變，是指從有情那裡發起戒律。例如，邪淫等行為，因為守護有情而犯罪；如果遠離邪淫等行為，則因為守護有情而發起戒律，隨其所應。對於現有有情所依賴的處所而轉變，有情所依賴的處所，是指內在的身體；有情所止住的處所，是指外在的器物。對於現有有情所依賴的處所，是指在現有有情內在所依賴的身體上發起此戒。例如，進行殺生等行為，從所依賴的處所得到罪過；如果遠離殺生等行為，則從所依賴的處所發起戒律，隨其所應。對於現有有情所止住的處所，是指在現有有情外在所止住的器物上發起此戒。例如，挖掘土地等行為，從所止住的處所得到罪過；如果不挖掘土地等行為，則從所止住的處所發起戒律，隨其所應。過去和未來不是有情，也不是有情所依賴的處所，所以不能發起別解脫戒。所以《正理》中說：『有情處，是指諸有情以及諸有情所依賴的處所。現在的蘊、處、界，內在的就是有情所依賴的，外在的就稱為有情所止住的，不是過去或未來。』問：如果從現在的有情處得到戒律，例如盜取現在的窣堵波（stupa，佛塔）的物品。《婆沙》（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百一十三卷的評家說：『這樣說，是從佛處得到罪過。』按照他們的正義，是在過去的佛那裡結罪。為什麼說是在現有有情處得到戒律呢？答：評家理應望向現在的守護者那裡結罪。說在佛那裡結罪，是因為施捨給佛的緣故，顯示物品貴重，所以推到如來（Tathagata，如來）那裡。又解釋說，評家的意思是罪和福兩個方面並非完全相同。如果說發起戒律，是從現有有情處得到；如果說結罪，不妨也有在過去的佛那裡得到。如果得到靜慮（dhyana，禪定），乃至何況是從遮罪處得到戒律呢？解釋是從根本業道處得到。如果得到定（samadhi，禪定）、道（marga，道）的戒律，應當知道只是從發起根本業道處得到。尚且不能從發起加行、後起處得到道、定的戒律，何況是從發起遮罪處得到這種律儀呢？

【English Translation】 English version The precepts arising from skandhas (aggregates), ayatanas (sense bases), and dhatus (elements) do not originate from the past or the future. Why is that? Because these ethical disciplines are transformed in relation to existing sentient beings and the places where existing sentient beings dwell. Transformation in relation to existing sentient beings means that precepts are initiated from sentient beings. For example, engaging in improper sexual conduct results in transgression due to the protection of sentient beings; abstaining from improper sexual conduct results in the initiation of precepts due to the protection of sentient beings, as appropriate. Transformation in relation to the places where existing sentient beings dwell means that the place where sentient beings dwell refers to the internal body; the place where sentient beings reside refers to external objects. In relation to the place where existing sentient beings dwell, this precept is initiated in the internal body where existing sentient beings dwell. For example, engaging in killing results in transgression from the place of dwelling; abstaining from killing results in the initiation of precepts from the place of dwelling, as appropriate. In relation to the place where existing sentient beings reside, this precept is initiated in the external objects where existing sentient beings reside. For example, digging the ground results in transgression from the place of residence; not digging the ground results in the initiation of precepts from the place of residence, as appropriate. The past and the future are not sentient beings, nor are they places where sentient beings dwell, so they cannot initiate the Pratimoksha (individual liberation) precepts. Therefore, the Hetu-vidya (Science of Reasoning) says: 'The place of sentient beings refers to all sentient beings and the places where sentient beings dwell. The present skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus, the internal is where sentient beings dwell, the external is called where sentient beings reside, not the past or the future.' Question: If precepts are obtained from the place of existing sentient beings, such as stealing objects from a present stupa (reliquary mound). The commentators in the Vibhasa (Great Commentary) Volume 113 say: 'Saying this, the transgression is obtained from the place of the Buddha.' According to their correct meaning, the transgression is concluded at the past Buddha. How can it be said that it is obtained at the place of existing sentient beings? Answer: The commentators should conclude the transgression in relation to the present protectors. Saying that the transgression is concluded at the Buddha is because it was given to the Buddha, showing that the object is valuable, so it is attributed to the Tathagata (Thus Gone One). Also, the commentators mean that the two aspects of transgression and merit are not completely the same. If we talk about initiating precepts, it is obtained from the place of existing sentient beings; if we talk about concluding transgression, it is possible that it is also obtained at the past Buddha. If one obtains dhyana (meditative absorption), how much more so from the place of prohibited transgressions? The explanation is that it is obtained from the root karmic path. If one obtains the precepts of samadhi (concentration) and marga (path), it should be known that they are only obtained from the place where the root karmic path is initiated. One cannot even obtain the precepts of the path and concentration from the place where the preparatory and subsequent actions are initiated, how much more so from the place where prohibited transgressions are initiated?

儀。此即舉重況輕也　又解別解律儀教制遮罪故。從遮罪處發得遮戒。定．道律儀無教制遮罪故無別遮戒。由無別遮戒不從遮罪處發　問別解脫律儀何故亦從加行．後起處得非定．道律儀　解云別解律儀教制加行．後起罪故。從加行．後起處發。定．道律儀無教制故。所以不于加行．後起處得　又解散位律儀于散位中加行．根本．後起三位。皆容得有別解律儀現行。如受大戒加行等中有勤策戒等故。得戒時通於三種起惡處得。定位律儀于定位中唯在根本起。即根本故不在加行．後起位中。于定前．后無此戒故。故得戒時唯於一種起惡處得。故正理云。若得靜慮．無漏律儀應知但從根本業道。以定中唯有根本業道故。非從前．后近分而得。以在定位唯有根本在不定位中無此律儀故　又解散位律儀于散位中。有加行．根本．後起故。得戒時通於三種起惡處得。定位律儀于定位中。無有加行．後起。起即根本故。得戒時唯於一種起惡處得　又解散戒．定戒俱對除惡。惡與散戒同欲界故。以相去近故。難防護故。故得散戒。通於三種起惡處得。惡與定戒不同界故。相去遠故。易防護故。故得定戒。唯於一種起惡處得。

從恒時者至蘊處．界得者。釋從恒時得。謂從三世蘊．處．界得故。名從恒時得　問何故別解唯于現得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：儀。這就像舉重物比舉輕物更費力一樣。又解釋說，別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha vows）的教制可以遮止罪過，因此從遮止罪過之處可以生起遮戒。而定律儀（Dhyana vows）和道律儀（Path vows）沒有教制遮止罪過，因此沒有特別的遮戒。由於沒有特別的遮戒，所以不能從遮止罪過之處生起。問：為什麼別解脫律儀也能從加行（preparatory actions）、後起（subsequent actions）之處獲得，而定律儀和道律儀卻不能？解釋說，別解脫律儀的教制可以制止加行和後起的罪過，因此可以從加行和後起之處生起。而定律儀和道律儀沒有這樣的教制，所以不能從加行和後起之處獲得。又解釋說，散位律儀（non-meditative state vows）在散位中，加行、根本（fundamental actions）、後起這三種狀態都可能存在別解脫律儀的現行，例如受大戒的加行等中有勤策戒等。因此，得戒時可以從三種生起惡行的處所獲得。定位律儀（meditative state vows）在定位中只存在於根本起，也就是根本，不在加行和後起的狀態中。因為在入定之前和之後沒有這種戒律。因此，得戒時只能從一種生起惡行的處所獲得。所以《正理》中說：『如果獲得靜慮（Dhyana）、無漏律儀（Anasrava vows），應當知道只能從根本業道獲得，因為在定中只有根本業道，而不是從前行和後行獲得。因為在定位中只有根本，在非定位中沒有這種律儀。』又解釋說，散位律儀在散位中，有加行、根本、後起，因此，得戒時可以從三種生起惡行的處所獲得。定位律儀在定位中，沒有加行和後起，生起就是根本，因此，得戒時只能從一種生起惡行的處所獲得。又解釋說，散戒（non-meditative vows）和定戒（meditative vows）都是爲了去除惡行。惡行與散戒同屬于欲界，因為距離相近，難以防護，所以獲得散戒時，可以從三種生起惡行的處所獲得。惡行與定戒不屬於同一個界，距離遙遠，容易防護，所以獲得定戒時，只能從一種生起惡行的處所獲得。從恒時得，到蘊處界得，解釋了從恒時獲得。意思是說，從三世（過去、現在、未來）的蘊（Skandhas，五蘊）、處（Ayatanas，十二處）、界（Dhatus，十八界）獲得，所以叫做從恒時獲得。問：為什麼別解脫律儀只能在現在獲得？

【English Translation】 English version: '儀 (Yi). This is like lifting a heavy object being more strenuous than lifting a light one. It is also explained that the Pratimoksha vows (別解脫律儀) can prevent transgressions because of the teachings and precepts, thus prohibitive precepts arise from where transgressions are prevented. Dhyana vows (定律儀) and Path vows (道律儀) do not have teachings and precepts to prevent transgressions, thus there are no separate prohibitive precepts. Because there are no separate prohibitive precepts, they do not arise from where transgressions are prevented. Question: Why can Pratimoksha vows also be obtained from preparatory actions (加行) and subsequent actions (後起), while Dhyana vows and Path vows cannot? The explanation is that the Pratimoksha vows' teachings and precepts can restrain transgressions in preparatory and subsequent actions, thus they arise from preparatory and subsequent actions. Dhyana vows and Path vows do not have such teachings and precepts, so they cannot be obtained from preparatory and subsequent actions. It is also explained that in non-meditative states (散位), the vows in these states, preparatory actions, fundamental actions (根本), and subsequent actions can all have the present manifestation of Pratimoksha vows, such as the diligent precepts in the preparatory actions of receiving the great precepts. Therefore, when receiving the precepts, one can obtain them from the three places where evil actions arise. In meditative states (定位), the vows in these states only exist in the fundamental arising, which is the fundamental, not in the preparatory and subsequent states. Because these precepts do not exist before and after entering meditation. Therefore, when receiving the precepts, one can only obtain them from one place where evil actions arise. Thus, the Nyayasutra says: 'If one obtains Dhyana (靜慮) and Anasrava vows (無漏律儀), one should know that they can only be obtained from the fundamental karmic path, because only the fundamental karmic path exists in meditation, not from the preceding and following proximate states. Because only the fundamental exists in the meditative state, and these vows do not exist in the non-meditative state.' It is also explained that in non-meditative states, there are preparatory actions, fundamental actions, and subsequent actions, thus when receiving the precepts, one can obtain them from the three places where evil actions arise. In meditative states, there are no preparatory and subsequent actions, the arising is the fundamental, thus when receiving the precepts, one can only obtain them from one place where evil actions arise. It is also explained that both non-meditative vows (散戒) and meditative vows (定戒) are for removing evil. Evil is in the same desire realm as non-meditative vows, because they are close and difficult to protect, thus when obtaining non-meditative vows, one can obtain them from the three places where evil actions arise. Evil is not in the same realm as meditative vows, they are far apart and easy to protect, thus when obtaining meditative vows, one can only obtain them from one place where evil actions arise. From 'constantly' to 'obtained from Skandhas, Ayatanas, and Dhatus' explains obtaining from 'constantly'. It means obtaining from the three times (past, present, and future) of Skandhas (蘊, five aggregates), Ayatanas (處, twelve sense bases), and Dhatus (界, eighteen elements), thus it is called obtaining from 'constantly'. Question: Why can Pratimoksha vows only be obtained in the present?

。定．道二戒通過．未　解云別解律儀依教受得。教意唯防現在故唯現在發。定道二戒不依教受。隨心而生故通三世發　又解隨心轉戒其力是強。通防三世故於三世蘊．處．界得。別解不爾故唯于現得　又解此戒俱心皆成三世故。心俱戒通於三世蘊．處．界得。別解不爾故唯現得。故正理云從恒時者。謂從過去未來現在蘊．處．界得。如與此戒為俱有心　又解謂戒俱心能緣三世故。心俱戒由心勢力能防三世。戒與彼心俱有因故。其力是強故。通三世蘊．處．界得。別解不爾。唯防現在。唯現處得　又解如戒俱心。及心俱戒皆斷三世。以說斷律儀斷欲惡戒及能起惑。以此明知。戒斷三世。由心俱戒能斷三世故。亦通於三世法得。別解脫不爾故唯現得。非能斷故。

由此差別至加行後起者。以別解脫律儀對定．道二律儀發處差別應作四句。有蘊．處．界從彼唯得別解律儀非余定．道二律儀等。此中四句思之可知。第四句中不言遮罪略而不說　又婆沙一百二十。作四句中第一句不言遮罪者亦略不論。

非於正得至防護過現者。論主彈前第一第三句云。非於正得善律儀時可有現在惡業道。及加行．後起。並諸遮罪。何故乃言第一句中。從現在加行．後起。及諸遮罪。第三句從現世根本業道。彈訖正云。是故第一句

應言。從現在加行後起及諸遮罪處。第三句應言從現在根本業道處　此中且正第一．第三句。理實四句皆加處字。第二句應言謂去來根本業道處第四句應言謂從去．來加行．後起。遮罪處。正訖又云。若據發戒有通三世。若論防護理應但說防護未來。定不應言防護過．現。過去已滅。現在已生。不須防故　正理救云。于業道等處置業道等聲。故前四句義亦無失。由如是理亦通防護過．現業道等。非唯防未來。以業道等聲說彼依處故。若異此者則應但說防護未來。律儀但能防未來罪令不起故非防過．現。已滅．已生律儀于彼無防用故　解云于能發不善業道等所依境處。說能依不善業道等聲。從不善業道等所依境處發戒故。說從不善業道等發戒。故前四句義亦無失。由如是不善業道所依境處通三世理。亦通防護過．現不善業道等。以能於過．現不善業道所依境處發律儀時。即防護過．現不善業道。所依境處。不令發不善業等。亦說防護過．現不善業道等。以業道等聲。說彼不善業道等所依境界處故。若異此防護不善業道所依境處。唯說防護能依不善業道體者。即應但說唯未來法發唯防護未來。律儀但能防未來罪令不起故。非防過．現不善業道等體。過去已滅。現在已生。律儀于彼無有防用令不起故　俱舍師破云。唯加處字

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：應該這樣說：『從現在的加行（指為達到某種目的而採取的行動）後起以及各種遮罪之處。』第三句應該說：『從現在的根本業道（根本的惡業途徑）處。』這裡先糾正第一句和第三句。實際上，四句話都應該加上『處』字。第二句應該說：『指過去和未來的根本業道處。』第四句應該說：『指從過去和未來的加行、後起，遮罪處。』糾正完畢后又說：『如果根據發戒（開始持戒）來說，可以通於三世（過去、現在、未來）。如果從防護的角度來說，理應只說防護未來。一定不應該說防護過去和現在。因為過去已經滅，現在已經生，不需要防護。』正理（指《正理經》）解釋說：『在業道等處安立業道等的聲音，所以前面四句話的意義也沒有缺失。』由於這樣的道理，也通於防護過去和現在的業道等，不僅僅是防護未來。因為業道等的聲音是說那些所依賴的處所。如果不是這樣，就應該只說防護未來。因為律儀（戒律）只能防止未來的罪業不再生起，不能防止過去和現在。因為已經滅和已經生的，律儀對它們沒有防護作用。解釋說：『在能夠引發不善業道等的所依境處，說能夠依賴的不善業道等的聲音。』因為從不善業道等的所依境處發起戒律，所以說從不善業道等發起戒律。所以前面四句話的意義也沒有缺失。由於這樣不善業道所依賴的境處通於三世的道理，也通於防護過去和現在的不善業道等。因為能夠在過去和現在的不善業道所依境處發起律儀時，就防護了過去和現在的不善業道所依境處，不讓它發起不善業等。也說防護過去和現在的不善業道等，因為業道等的聲音，是說那些不善業道等所依賴的境界處。如果不是這樣防護不善業道所依境處，只說防護能夠依賴的不善業道體，就應該只說只有未來的法才能發起，只有防護未來。因為律儀只能防止未來的罪業不再生起，不能防止過去和現在的不善業道等體。因為過去已經滅，現在已經生，律儀對它們沒有防護作用，不能讓它們不再生起。俱舍師（《俱舍論》的作者）反駁說：『只需要加上『處』字。』

【English Translation】 English version: It should be said: 'From the present actions of preparation and subsequent actions, as well as all places of prohibited offenses.' The third sentence should be: 'From the present fundamental paths of action (fundamental paths of evil deeds).' Here, let's first correct the first and third sentences. In reality, all four sentences should include the word 'place'. The second sentence should be: 'Referring to the past and future fundamental paths of action place.' The fourth sentence should be: 'Referring to the past and future actions of preparation, subsequent actions, and places of prohibited offenses.' After the correction, it is further said: 'If based on the arising of precepts (beginning to uphold precepts), it can encompass the three times (past, present, and future). If from the perspective of protection, it should only be said to protect the future. It should definitely not be said to protect the past and present. Because the past has already ceased, and the present has already arisen, there is no need for protection.' 'The Treatise on Reasoning (referring to the Nyaya Sutra)' explains: 'Establishing the sound of paths of action, etc., in the places of paths of action, etc., so the meaning of the previous four sentences is not lost.' Due to this reasoning, it also encompasses the protection of past and present paths of action, etc., not just protecting the future. Because the sound of paths of action, etc., refers to those places of reliance. If it were not so, it should only be said to protect the future. Because the precepts (rules of conduct) can only prevent future offenses from arising, not prevent the past and present. Because for what has already ceased and already arisen, the precepts have no protective function. Explanation: 'In the places of reliance that can give rise to unwholesome paths of action, etc., the sound of unwholesome paths of action, etc., which can be relied upon, is spoken.' Because precepts arise from the places of reliance of unwholesome paths of action, etc., it is said that precepts arise from unwholesome paths of action, etc. So the meaning of the previous four sentences is not lost. Due to this reasoning that the places of reliance of unwholesome paths of action encompass the three times, it also encompasses the protection of past and present unwholesome paths of action, etc. Because when precepts can arise in the places of reliance of past and present unwholesome paths of action, then the places of reliance of past and present unwholesome paths of action are protected, preventing them from giving rise to unwholesome actions, etc. It is also said to protect past and present unwholesome paths of action, etc., because the sound of paths of action, etc., refers to those places of reliance of unwholesome paths of action, etc. If it were not so, protecting the places of reliance of unwholesome paths of action, only saying to protect the substance of unwholesome paths of action that can be relied upon, then it should only be said that only future dharmas can arise, only protecting the future. Because the precepts can only prevent future offenses from arising, not prevent the substance of past and present unwholesome paths of action, etc. Because the past has already ceased, and the present has already arisen, the precepts have no protective function for them, preventing them from arising.' The Kosha Master (author of the Abhidharmakosha) refutes: 'Only the word 'place' needs to be added.'

于義無疑何故不加廣勞異釋。豈從彼世法發得律儀。即防彼世惡業道等。發戒雖復通於三世防過無防唯在未來。反難令防未來。此乃誠如所說。

諸有獲得至有異不者。此即第二明有情支．因。問諸有獲得律儀．不律儀。從一切有情從一切身．語七支。從一切上．中．下因有異。不　又解律儀．不律儀從一切有情發。而支因有異不。

此定有異者答。

異相云何者。徴。

頌曰至有情支非因者。就頌答中。上兩句明律儀。下兩句明不律儀。

論曰至后三因說者。釋上兩句。別解律儀定從一切諸有情得。無少分理。若身．語七支此即不定　有從一切身．語七支得。謂苾芻律儀。不言尼者七支同故。或影顯故　有從身三語一四種支得。謂余勤策等六種律儀。此中唯據根本七業道名律儀支故　若上．中．下因此亦不定。因雖兩種頌文且據后三因說。不俱起故可辨差別。

或有一類至勤策戒者。約人正顯。配釋可知　問如雜心及婆沙一百一十七云。若於一切有情得律儀。由一切因非一切支者此類無有。此論與彼豈不相違　解云婆沙偏據盡形故言無也。此論通據晝夜故說有也　又解梵名烏波婆沙。義翻為齋。亦名近住。西方有人一日持齋亦名烏波婆沙。若受八齋戒亦名烏波婆沙。其齋名通

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果對於意義沒有疑問，為什麼不進一步廣泛地解釋不同的含義呢？難道（持戒）是從世俗的法則中生起，從而獲得律儀（śīla，戒律）嗎？難道是爲了防止世俗的惡業道等而發起的戒律嗎？即使發起戒律可以通於過去、現在、未來三世，但防止過失的作用也僅僅在於未來。反過來要求防止未來（的過失），這確實如你所說。

那些獲得（律儀或不律儀）的人，在有情支和因方面是否有不同呢？這是第二個關於有情支和因的說明。問題是：那些獲得律儀（śīla，戒律）或不律儀（aśīla，非戒律）的人，是從一切有情，從一切身語七支，從一切上、中、下因方面有差異嗎？或者說，律儀和不律儀是從一切有情發起，而在支和因方面有差異嗎？

回答是：這一定是有差異的。

提問：差異的相狀是什麼呢？

用偈頌回答說：『至於有情支非因』。在用偈頌回答中，上面兩句說明律儀，下面兩句說明不律儀。

解釋上面兩句：特別地，律儀一定是從一切有情那裡獲得，沒有絲毫例外。至於身語七支，這就不一定了。有的從一切身語七支獲得，比如比丘（bhikṣu，出家男眾）的律儀。這裡沒有說比丘尼（bhikṣuṇī，出家女眾），是因為她們的七支相同，或者是因為（比丘）可以作為比丘尼的影子來顯現。有的從身三語一四種支獲得，比如其餘的勤策（śrāmaṇera，沙彌）等六種律儀。這裡僅僅根據根本的七業道來稱作律儀支。至於上、中、下因，這也不一定。因雖然有兩種，但偈頌的文字僅僅根據后三種因來說明，因為它們不是同時生起的，所以可以分辨差別。

或者有一類（律儀），比如勤策戒（śrāmaṇera-śīla，沙彌戒），是就人來正面顯明的，配合解釋就可以知道。有人問：如《雜心論》和《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷所說，如果從一切有情獲得律儀，由一切因，而非一切支，這種情況是沒有的。這個論點和那個論點難道不是相違背的嗎？解釋說：《婆沙論》偏重於盡形壽（終身）的戒律，所以說沒有。這個論點是通用於晝夜的戒律，所以說有。又解釋說，梵語烏波婆沙（upavasatha），翻譯成漢語是齋，也叫近住。西方有人一天持齋也叫烏波婆沙。如果受持八齋戒也叫烏波婆沙。這個齋戒的名稱是通用的。

【English Translation】 English version: If there is no doubt about the meaning, why not further and extensively explain the different meanings? Is it that (observing precepts) arises from worldly laws, thereby obtaining śīla (precepts)? Is it that the precepts are initiated to prevent worldly evil deeds, etc.? Even if the initiation of precepts can extend to the three times of past, present, and future, the effect of preventing faults is only in the future. Conversely, to require prevention of the future (faults), this is indeed as you say.

Those who obtain (śīla or aśīla), are there differences in terms of sentient being branches and causes? This is the second explanation regarding sentient being branches and causes. The question is: Those who obtain śīla (precepts) or aśīla (non-precepts), are there differences from all sentient beings, from all seven branches of body and speech, from all superior, middle, and inferior causes? Or, are śīla and aśīla initiated from all sentient beings, but are there differences in terms of branches and causes?

The answer is: There are definitely differences.

The question is: What are the characteristics of the differences?

The answer is given in verse: 'As for sentient being branches, not causes.' In answering with the verse, the first two lines explain śīla, and the last two lines explain aśīla.

Explanation of the first two lines: Specifically, śīla must be obtained from all sentient beings, without the slightest exception. As for the seven branches of body and speech, this is not certain. Some obtain it from all seven branches of body and speech, such as the śīla of a bhikṣu (monk). It is not mentioned here for bhikṣuṇī (nun) because their seven branches are the same, or because (bhikṣu) can be used as a shadow to represent bhikṣuṇī. Some obtain it from the four branches of three bodily actions and one verbal action, such as the remaining six types of śīla for śrāmaṇera (novice monks), etc. Here, it is only based on the fundamental seven karmic paths that are called śīla branches. As for the superior, middle, and inferior causes, this is also not certain. Although there are two types of causes, the text of the verse only explains based on the latter three causes, because they do not arise simultaneously, so differences can be distinguished.

Or there is a type (of śīla), such as śrāmaṇera-śīla (novice monk precepts), which is clearly shown in terms of people, and the matching explanation can be understood. Someone asks: As stated in the Tattvasaṃgraha and the 117th fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā, if śīla is obtained from all sentient beings, by all causes, but not all branches, such a situation does not exist. Does this argument contradict that argument? The explanation is: The Mahāvibhāṣā focuses on the precepts that last for a lifetime, so it says there is none. This argument applies to the precepts of day and night, so it says there is. It is also explained that the Sanskrit word upavasatha is translated into Chinese as 'zhai' (fasting), also called 'near dwelling'. In the West, some people observe fasting for one day, which is also called upavasatha. If one observes the eight precepts, it is also called upavasatha. The name of this fasting is common.

于律儀中不定。若盡壽戒于律儀中決定婆沙以不定故不說。此論通據近住戒故說有也。故婆沙云。問若以下．中．上心。如次受近住．近事．勤策戒時。即名於一切有情得律儀。亦一切因非一切支。何以言無。答此中但依盡壽作論不依晝夜。所以者何。彼名為齋。于律儀中非決定故。

無有不遍至不全息故者。釋。于有情必須寬遍。無于少分。

若人不作至相似妙行者。顯斯五定由不遍故不得律儀。但得相似處中妙行　等等取盜等　近住雖於時定亦得律儀。此據盡形故言不得。或一月等言已遮晝夜。五定思之可知　若依經部作此五定亦得律儀。

于非所能境如何得律儀者。問。若於一切有情處得無少分理。如於他方非所能害境如何得律儀。

由普于有情至故得律儀者。答。彼受戒者由於有情善意樂故廣得律儀。故遍有情無少分理。此即義當婆沙正義于諸有情總髮戒家。

毗婆沙師至有得舍過者。第二師答。毗婆沙中有作是說。所得律儀必須遍發。若謂一向于能害境受得別解而不于彼非所能境得別解者。即此律儀應有增．減。從非所能生所能時律儀應增。從所能境生非所能律儀應減。若有增減便有別解離得．舍緣有得．舍過。增時名離得緣有得過。減時名離舍緣有舍過。得緣即是受戒師

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本于律儀（Vinaya，戒律）中不定。如果受持盡壽戒，則在律儀中是決定的，但《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）認為近住戒是不定的，所以沒有提及。此論述是根據近住戒而說的，所以說有這種情況。因此，《婆沙論》說：『問：如果以下、中、上等發心，依次受持近住戒、近事戒、勤策戒時，就稱為對一切有情眾生得到律儀，也是一切因而非一切支。為什麼說沒有呢？』答：『這裡只是依據盡壽戒來討論，不依據晝夜戒。為什麼呢？因為近住戒名為齋，在律儀中不是決定的。』

『無有不遍至不全息故』的意思是說，對於有情眾生必須寬廣普遍，不能只針對少部分。

『若人不作至相似妙行者』，說明這五種定（五種禪定）因為不普遍，所以不能得到律儀，只能得到相似的處中妙行，例如等等取盜等行為。近住戒雖然在時間上是確定的，也能得到律儀，但這裡是根據盡形壽戒來說的，所以說不能得到。或者說，『一月等』已經排除了晝夜戒。五種定可以自己思考理解。如果依據經部宗義，認為這五種定也能得到律儀。

『于非所能境如何得律儀者』，問：如果對於一切有情眾生都得不到少分道理，例如對於他方世界非自己能力所及的眾生，如何得到律儀？

『由普于有情至故得律儀者』，答：受戒者因為對於有情眾生有善良的意樂，所以廣泛地得到律儀。因此，普遍地對待有情眾生，沒有少分道理。這也就是《婆沙論》的正義，即對於一切有情眾生總髮戒家。

『毗婆沙師至有得舍過者』，第二位論師回答說，《毗婆沙論》中有這樣的說法：所得到的律儀必須普遍地發起。如果認為只在能夠加害的境界受持別解脫戒，而不在不能加害的境界得到別解脫戒，那麼這種律儀就會有增加和減少。從不能加害的境界轉變為能夠加害的境界時，律儀應該增加；從能夠加害的境界轉變為不能加害的境界時，律儀應該減少。如果有增加和減少，就會有別解脫的離得和舍過，即有得到和捨棄的過失。增加時稱為離得緣有得過，減少時稱為離舍緣有舍過。得緣就是受戒的師父。

【English Translation】 English version It is not definite in the Vinaya (discipline). If one takes a lifelong vow, it is definite in the Vinaya, but the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a Buddhist treatise) considers the Upavasatha (close dwelling) vow to be indefinite, so it is not mentioned. This discussion is based on the Upavasatha vow, so it is said to exist. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'Question: If with inferior, intermediate, and superior minds, one successively takes the Upavasatha, Upasaka (close attendant), and Sramanera (diligent novice) vows, is it then said that one obtains the Vinaya towards all sentient beings, and is it also the cause of everything but not every branch? Why is it said that it does not exist?' Answer: 'Here, we are only discussing based on the lifelong vow, not based on the day and night vow. Why? Because the Upavasatha vow is called a fast, and it is not definite in the Vinaya.'

'There is no non-pervasiveness to the extent that it is not completely ceased' means that it must be broad and universal towards sentient beings, not just targeting a small portion.

'If a person does not act to the extent of similar wonderful conduct,' it shows that these five Dhyanas (five meditations) cannot obtain the Vinaya because they are not pervasive, but can only obtain similar intermediate wonderful conduct, such as stealing, etc. Although the Upavasatha vow is definite in time, it can also obtain the Vinaya, but here it is said that it cannot be obtained because it is based on the lifelong vow. Or, 'one month, etc.' has already excluded the day and night vow. The five Dhyanas can be understood by thinking about them. If based on the Sautrantika (Scripture School) view, these five Dhyanas can also obtain the Vinaya.

'How can one obtain the Vinaya in a realm where one is incapable?' Question: If one cannot obtain even a small portion of reason towards all sentient beings, such as towards sentient beings in other worlds that are beyond one's ability to harm, how can one obtain the Vinaya?

'Because of the universality towards sentient beings, one obtains the Vinaya,' Answer: The person who takes the vow obtains the Vinaya extensively because of their good intention towards sentient beings. Therefore, one treats sentient beings universally, without a small portion of reason. This is the very meaning of the Vibhasa's correct meaning, that one generally initiates the family of precepts towards all sentient beings.

'The Vibhasa master to the fault of having gain and loss,' the second teacher answers, 'In the Vibhasa, there is such a saying: The Vinaya that is obtained must be initiated universally. If it is thought that one only takes the Pratimoksha (individual liberation) vow in a realm where one is capable of harming, and does not obtain the Pratimoksha vow in a realm where one is incapable of harming, then this Vinaya will have increase and decrease. When one transforms from a realm where one is incapable of harming to a realm where one is capable of harming, the Vinaya should increase; when one transforms from a realm where one is capable of harming to a realm where one is incapable of harming, the Vinaya should decrease. If there is increase and decrease, there will be the faults of separation and gain, and separation and loss of Pratimoksha, that is, the faults of having gain and loss. Increase is called the fault of having gain due to the cause of separation, and decrease is called the fault of having loss due to the cause of separation. The cause of gain is the preceptor who gives the vow.'

等。舍緣即是四．五緣等　此即義當婆沙不正義于諸有情別發戒家。由非正義故下別破。

彼說不然至例亦應爾者。論主難。彼說增．減于理不然。如生草等先無後起彼戒無增。或起已枯彼戒無減。由於生草等總髮一遮戒故無增．減。于彼能境及不能境。所得律儀境轉易時例亦應爾。能生不能應無減。不能生能應無增。所以得知。于生草等總髮一戒是正義者。故婆沙一百二十云。如是說者于外法中亦得律儀　問若爾律儀應有增減　答無增．減。以總得故。謂此律儀總於一切草等上得一無表。而世間無有無生草等時　又解別發家意于諸有情雖復別發於生草等同許總髮。故引同許例破彼說。

彼言不爾至性不同故者。別發家救。彼云。不爾。以諸有情死此生彼前．后性等。有增有減。若能生不能可言能類減。以能類少故。不能類增。以不能類多故。若不能生能。可言不能類減。以不能類少故能類增。以能類多故。草等先．後生．枯性別可總髮戒。無增．減過。不得為例。

若爾有情至於理為善者。論主復難。若隨有情別發得戒未得涅槃。死此生彼可言有情前．后性等戒無增．減。有諸有情般涅槃已。如前性類今時既無。有情少故別發緣闕。于彼律儀如何無減　故此後釋別發律儀于理不然。前所說因普于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：等等。捨棄所緣即是四種或五種所緣等等。這表明義當屬於《婆沙論》中的不正義，即對於各個有情分別發起戒體。因為這是不正義，所以下面會分別進行破斥。

『彼說不然至例亦應爾者』。論主提出疑問：他們所說的增加或減少在道理上是不成立的。例如，對於新生的草等，先前沒有而後來產生，那麼戒體不應增加；或者已經枯萎的草，戒體不應減少。因為對於新生的草等，總體上發起一個遮戒，所以沒有增加或減少。對於那些能作為對像和不能作為對象的，當所得的律儀對像發生轉變時，也應該如此類推。能生長的變為不能生長的，應該沒有減少；不能生長的變為能生長的，應該沒有增加。為什麼會知道呢？因為對於新生的草等，總體上發起一個戒體才是正義。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十卷說：『這樣說來，在外法中也能得到律儀。』問：『如果這樣，律儀應該有增加或減少？』答：『沒有增加或減少，因為是總體上得到的。』意思是說，這個律儀總體上對於一切草等得到一個無表業，而世間沒有沒有新生草等的時候。又解釋說，分別發起戒體的意思是，對於各個有情雖然分別發起，但對於新生的草等，同樣允許總體發起。所以引用同樣允許的例子來破斥他們的說法。

『彼言不爾至性不同故者』。分別發起戒體的人進行辯解：他們說，不是這樣的。因為各個有情死亡后，在此處死亡，在彼處出生，前後的性質等等，有增加有減少。如果能生長的變為不能生長的，可以說能生長的種類減少了，因為能生長的種類少了；不能生長的種類增加了，因為不能生長的種類多了。如果不能生長的變為能生長的，可以說不能生長的種類減少了，因為不能生長的種類少了，能生長的種類增加了，因為能生長的種類多了。草等先前和後來的生長和枯萎的性質可以總體上發起戒體，沒有增加或減少的過失，不能作為例子。

『若爾有情至於理為善者』。論主再次提出疑問：如果隨著各個有情分別發起而得到戒體，還沒有得到涅槃（Nirvana），在此處死亡，在彼處出生，可以說有情前後的性質等等，戒體沒有增加或減少。但是，如果有有情已經般涅槃（Parinirvana）了，像之前的性質種類現在已經沒有了，有情減少了，分別發起的因緣缺失了，那麼對於那個律儀，怎麼會沒有減少呢？所以，後面解釋說，分別發起律儀在道理上是不成立的。先前所說的原因普遍適用於。

【English Translation】 English version: Et cetera. Abandoning the object of thought is the four or five objects of thought, et cetera. This indicates that the meaning belongs to the incorrect meaning in the Vibhasa (Commentary), which is to separately generate precepts for each sentient being. Because this is an incorrect meaning, it will be refuted separately below.

'Their statement is not so, even the example should be so'. The author of the treatise raises a question: Their statement of increase or decrease is not established in reason. For example, for newly grown grass, etc., which did not exist before but arose later, then the precepts should not increase; or for grass that has already withered, the precepts should not decrease. Because a prohibitive precept is generally generated for newly grown grass, etc., there is no increase or decrease. For those that can be objects and those that cannot be objects, when the objects of the precepts obtained change, it should also be inferred in this way. If what can grow becomes what cannot grow, there should be no decrease; if what cannot grow becomes what can grow, there should be no increase. How is it known? Because it is righteous to generally generate a precept for newly grown grass, etc. Therefore, the one hundred and twentieth volume of the Vibhasa says: 'In this way, one can also obtain precepts in external dharmas.' Question: 'If so, should the precepts increase or decrease?' Answer: 'There is no increase or decrease, because it is obtained generally.' It means that this precept generally obtains an unmanifested karma on all grass, etc., and there is no time in the world when there is no newly grown grass, etc. It is also explained that the meaning of separately generating precepts is that although they are generated separately for each sentient being, it is also allowed to generally generate them for newly grown grass, etc. Therefore, the example of the same allowance is cited to refute their statement.

'Their statement is not so, because the natures are different'. Those who separately generate precepts defend themselves: They say, it is not so. Because when sentient beings die, they die here and are born there, the previous and subsequent natures, etc., increase and decrease. If what can grow becomes what cannot grow, it can be said that the kind that can grow decreases, because the kind that can grow is less; the kind that cannot grow increases, because the kind that cannot grow is more. If what cannot grow becomes what can grow, it can be said that the kind that cannot grow decreases, because the kind that cannot grow is less, and the kind that can grow increases, because the kind that can grow is more. The nature of the previous and subsequent growth and withering of grass, etc., can generally generate precepts, and there is no fault of increase or decrease, so it cannot be used as an example.

'If so, sentient beings, as far as reason is concerned, are good'. The author of the treatise raises a question again: If precepts are obtained by separately generating them for each sentient being, and Nirvana (Nirvana) has not yet been obtained, and they die here and are born there, it can be said that the previous and subsequent natures, etc., of sentient beings, the precepts do not increase or decrease. However, if there are sentient beings who have already attained Parinirvana (Parinirvana), and the kind of nature like before no longer exists now, and sentient beings have decreased, and the conditions for separate generation are lacking, then how can there be no decrease for that precept? Therefore, the later explanation says that separately generating precepts is not established in reason. The reasons stated earlier generally apply to.

有情發善意樂。總髮律儀于理為善。雖非正問總髮．別發。初家義當總髮。第二家義當別發。

若爾前佛至無減前過者。難總髮家。若爾前迦葉佛等及所度生已涅槃者。后釋迦佛等於前佛等既不發得別解律儀。如何尸羅無減前佛過。

以一切佛至無減前過者。總髮家答。以三世佛別解律儀從一切有情境處總髮得戒。設彼有情今猶在者。后佛從彼亦得總髮別解律儀。故后尸羅無減前過。境雖有減戒體無虧。故婆沙一百二十。正義家答此問云。應作是說。律儀境界雖有多少。而律儀體前．后無異謂從一切有情境處總髮得故　廣如彼說　問總髮．別發兩說不同。為約七支。為約二十一種。

解云先引婆沙後方辨釋。如婆沙一百二十云若以相續剎那分別有無量律儀。今總說七種。謂離斷生命。乃至離雜語。此中有說。彼七支一一於一切有情處得而所得是一。彼說於一有情所犯一支戒時。於一切有情處。此一支戒斷餘六猶轉。此則善通世尊所說。若犯學處。非苾芻。非沙門。非釋種子。有說此七支戒。一一於一切有情處得。而所得各異。如有情數量。所得戒亦爾。彼說於一有情所。犯一支戒時。即此一有情處一支戒斷餘六猶轉。余有情處七支皆轉。問若爾云何通世尊所說。若犯學處非苾芻等。答依勝義苾芻言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有情發起善良的意樂（動機）。總體發起律儀（戒律）在道理上是好的。雖然不是正式提問，但有總體發起和分別發起兩種情況。第一種觀點認為應當總體發起，第二種觀點認為應當分別發起。

如果這樣，之前的佛陀（指過去的佛）在沒有減少之前功德的情況下超過了之前的佛陀，這對於總體發起的觀點來說是一個難題。如果之前的迦葉佛（Kasyapa Buddha）等以及被他們度化的眾生已經涅槃（Nirvana），那麼後來的釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）等對於之前的佛陀等既然不能分別獲得解脫律儀，那麼如何保證戒律沒有減少之前的佛陀的功德呢？

以一切佛在沒有減少之前功德的情況下超過之前的佛陀，這是總體發起觀點的回答。因為三世諸佛的別解律儀（Pratimoksha）是從一切有情（sentient beings）的境界處總體發起而獲得戒律的。假設那些有情現在仍然存在，後來的佛陀也可以從他們那裡總體發起別解律儀。因此，後來的戒律沒有減少之前的功德。雖然境界有所減少，但戒體（essence of the precepts）沒有虧損。所以，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百二十卷中，正義的觀點回答這個問題說：應該這樣說，律儀的境界雖然有多少的差別，但律儀的本體前後沒有差異，因為是從一切有情的境界處總體發起而獲得的。詳細內容如彼論所說。問題：總體發起和分別發起兩種說法不同，是關於七支（seven branches）的戒律，還是關於二十一種（twenty-one kinds）的戒律？

解釋說，先引用《婆沙論》的觀點，然後辨析解釋。如《婆沙論》第一百二十卷所說：如果以相續剎那（momentary continuity）來分別，有無量的律儀。現在總的說有七種，即遠離斷生命，乃至遠離雜語。其中有一種說法認為，這七支戒律，每一支都是在一切有情處獲得的，而所得的戒體是一樣的。這種說法認為，在一個有情處犯了一支戒時，對於一切有情處，這一支戒就斷了，其餘六支仍然起作用。這就能很好地解釋世尊（Lord Buddha）所說的：如果犯了學處（precepts），就不是比丘（bhikshu），不是沙門（shramana），不是釋迦（Sakya）的後裔。另一種說法認為，這七支戒律，每一支都是在一切有情處獲得的，而所得的戒體是各不相同的。如有情數量有多少，所得的戒律也就有多少。這種說法認為，在一個有情處犯了一支戒時，即在這個有情處，這一支戒就斷了，其餘六支仍然起作用。在其餘有情處，七支都起作用。問題：如果這樣，如何解釋世尊所說的：如果犯了學處，就不是比丘等？回答：這是依據勝義（ultimate meaning）來說的比丘。

【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings generate virtuous intention. Generally initiating the Pratimoksha (code of monastic rules) is good in principle. Although not a formal question, there are two situations: general initiation and individual initiation. The first view holds that one should initiate generally, and the second view holds that one should initiate individually.

If so, the previous Buddhas (referring to past Buddhas) surpassing the previous Buddhas without diminishing previous merits poses a difficulty for the view of general initiation. If the previous Kasyapa Buddha (Kasyapa Buddha) and the beings they liberated have already entered Nirvana (Nirvana), then how can the later Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) and others, since they cannot individually obtain the Pratimoksha, ensure that the precepts have not diminished the merits of the previous Buddhas?

That all Buddhas surpass the previous Buddhas without diminishing previous merits is the answer from the perspective of general initiation. Because the Pratimoksha of the Buddhas of the three times is obtained by generally initiating from the realm of all sentient beings (sentient beings). Assuming that those sentient beings still exist now, later Buddhas can also generally initiate the Pratimoksha from them. Therefore, the later precepts have not diminished the previous merits. Although the realm has decreased, the essence of the precepts (essence of the precepts) has not been diminished. Therefore, in the one hundred and twentieth volume of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), the orthodox view answers this question by saying: It should be said that although there are differences in the realm of the Pratimoksha, the essence of the Pratimoksha is no different before and after, because it is obtained by generally initiating from the realm of all sentient beings. The details are as described in that treatise. Question: The two different views of general initiation and individual initiation, are they about the seven branches (seven branches) of precepts, or about the twenty-one kinds (twenty-one kinds) of precepts?

The explanation is that the view of the Vibhasa is cited first, and then the explanation is analyzed. As the one hundred and twentieth volume of the Vibhasa says: If one distinguishes with momentary continuity (momentary continuity), there are countless Pratimokshas. Now, generally speaking, there are seven types, namely, abstaining from taking life, and so on, up to abstaining from frivolous speech. Among them, one view holds that each of these seven branches of precepts is obtained in the presence of all sentient beings, and the precept body obtained is the same. This view holds that when one branch of precept is violated in the presence of one sentient being, for all sentient beings, this one branch of precept is broken, and the remaining six branches still function. This can well explain what the Lord Buddha (Lord Buddha) said: If one violates the precepts (precepts), one is not a bhikshu (bhikshu), not a shramana (shramana), not a descendant of Sakya (Sakya). Another view holds that each of these seven branches of precepts is obtained in the presence of all sentient beings, and the precept body obtained is different. As many sentient beings as there are, so many precepts are obtained. This view holds that when one branch of precept is violated in the presence of one sentient being, that is, in the presence of this sentient being, this one branch of precept is broken, and the remaining six branches still function. In the presence of the remaining sentient beings, all seven branches function. Question: If so, how can one explain what the Lord Buddha said: If one violates the precepts, one is not a bhikshu, etc.? Answer: This is based on the ultimate meaning (ultimate meaning) of bhikshu.

非苾芻。以不能趣彼故。有餘師說。別解脫律儀隨因差別成二十一。此中有說二十一種一一於一切有情處得而所得不異。彼說由貪煩惱故。總於一有情所犯一支戒時。於一切有情處。無貪所生一支戒斷。餘二十種如先猶轉。此則善通世尊所說。若犯學處非苾芻等。有說此二十一種。一一於一切有情處得。而所得各異。如有情數量。所得戒亦爾。彼說由貪煩惱於一有情所犯一支戒時。即此一有情處。無貪所生一支戒斷。餘二十種如先猶轉。余有情處二十一種具足皆轉。問若爾云何通世尊所說。若犯學處非苾芻等。答依勝義苾芻言非苾芻如前說。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言。雖犯律儀而律儀不斷。如法悔除還名持戒。無有頓受別捨得故。未悔除位具得二名。若已悔除但名持戒(已上論文)解云婆沙總有五說。第一師于諸有情無貪等三總髮七支隨犯別舍。第二師于諸有情各發七支別犯別舍。第三師于諸有情總髮二十一支隨犯別舍。第四師于諸有情各發二十一支別犯別舍第五師雖言頓受不言別發。或同初師。或同第三師說。必無別舍　詳茲五說若論舍戒相。前四師並非正義。皆說犯戒別舍戒故。第五師正義宗。明犯戒不別舍故。若論得戒。第二第四師是不正義。說別發故。第一師說于諸有情總髮七支。此即三善根共發七支。第三師于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本非比丘（非出家眾）。因為不能達到彼岸的緣故。有其他老師說，別解脫律儀（佛教戒律）隨著因緣的差別，可以分為二十一種。其中有人說，這二十一種律儀在一切有情眾生處都能獲得，但所得的戒體並不相同。他們認為，由於貪慾煩惱的緣故，總的來說，如果對一個有情眾生犯了一條戒，那麼在一切有情眾生處，由無貪所生的一條戒就斷了，其餘二十種戒律仍然如先前一樣運轉。這就能很好地解釋世尊所說的，如果觸犯了學處，就不是比丘等等。有人說，這二十一種律儀，每一種都能在一切有情眾生處獲得，但所得的戒體各有不同，就像有情眾生的數量一樣，所得的戒體也如此。他們認為，由於貪慾煩惱，如果對一個有情眾生犯了一條戒，那麼僅僅在這個有情眾生處，由無貪所生的一條戒就斷了，其餘二十種戒律仍然如先前一樣運轉。在其餘有情眾生處，這二十一種戒律都具足並運轉。問：如果這樣，如何解釋世尊所說的，如果觸犯了學處，就不是比丘等等？答：依據勝義諦（究竟真理），比丘說非比丘，如前所說。迦濕彌羅國（古印度地名）的論師們說，即使觸犯了律儀，律儀也不會斷，如果依法懺悔消除，仍然稱為持戒，因為沒有頓舍別得的情況。在未懺悔消除之前，同時具有兩種名稱（持戒與犯戒），如果已經懺悔消除，就只稱為持戒。（以上是論文）解釋說，《婆沙論》總共有五種說法。第一位老師認為，對於所有有情眾生，無貪等三種善根總共引發七支戒，隨著觸犯而分別捨棄。第二位老師認為，對於所有有情眾生，各自引發七支戒，分別觸犯而分別捨棄。第三位老師認為，對於所有有情眾生，總共引發二十一種戒，隨著觸犯而捨棄。第四位老師認為，對於所有有情眾生，各自引發二十一種戒，分別觸犯而分別捨棄。第五位老師雖然說頓受，但不說分別引發，或者與第一位老師相同，或者與第三位老師的說法相同，必定沒有分別捨棄。詳細分析這五種說法，如果從舍戒的相狀來說，前四位老師並非正義，因為都說觸犯戒律會分別捨棄戒體。第五位老師是正義宗，說明觸犯戒律不會分別捨棄戒體。如果從得戒來說，第二位和第四位老師是不正義的，因為說分別引發。第一位老師說，對於所有有情眾生，總共引發七支戒，這也就是三種善根共同引發七支戒。第三位老師于于

【English Translation】 English version Not a Bhikshu (non-ordained person). Because of not being able to reach the other shore. Some other teachers say that the Pratimoksha vows (Buddhist precepts) can be divided into twenty-one types according to the differences in causes. Among them, some say that these twenty-one types of vows can be obtained in the presence of all sentient beings, but the precepts obtained are not the same. They believe that due to the afflictions of greed, generally speaking, if one violates a precept towards one sentient being, then in the presence of all sentient beings, one precept arising from non-greed is broken, and the remaining twenty types of precepts continue to function as before. This can well explain what the World Honored One said, 'If one violates the precepts, one is not a Bhikshu,' and so on. Some say that each of these twenty-one types of vows can be obtained in the presence of all sentient beings, but the precepts obtained are different, just like the number of sentient beings, so are the precepts obtained. They believe that due to the afflictions of greed, if one violates a precept towards one sentient being, then only in the presence of this one sentient being, one precept arising from non-greed is broken, and the remaining twenty types of precepts continue to function as before. In the presence of the remaining sentient beings, all twenty-one types of precepts are complete and functioning. Question: If so, how to explain what the World Honored One said, 'If one violates the precepts, one is not a Bhikshu,' and so on? Answer: According to the ultimate truth (paramārtha), a Bhikshu saying 'not a Bhikshu' is as previously explained. The teachers of Kashmir (an ancient Indian region) say that even if one violates the vows, the vows are not broken. If one repents and eliminates the violation according to the Dharma, one is still called a 'precept holder,' because there is no sudden abandonment and separate attainment. Before repentance and elimination, one simultaneously has two names (precept holder and violator). If one has already repented and eliminated the violation, one is only called a 'precept holder.' (The above is the thesis) It is explained that the Vibhasa has a total of five views. The first teacher believes that for all sentient beings, the three roots of goodness, such as non-greed, collectively generate seven branches of precepts, which are abandoned separately as they are violated. The second teacher believes that for all sentient beings, each generates seven branches of precepts, which are abandoned separately as they are violated. The third teacher believes that for all sentient beings, a total of twenty-one precepts are generated, which are abandoned as they are violated. The fourth teacher believes that for all sentient beings, each generates twenty-one precepts, which are abandoned separately as they are violated. The fifth teacher, although saying 'sudden reception,' does not say 'separate generation,' and is either the same as the first teacher or the same as the third teacher, and there is definitely no separate abandonment. Analyzing these five views in detail, if we talk about the appearance of abandoning precepts, the first four teachers are not the correct meaning, because they all say that violating precepts will separately abandon the precepts. The fifth teacher is the orthodox school, explaining that violating precepts will not separately abandon the precepts. If we talk about obtaining precepts, the second and fourth teachers are not the correct meaning, because they say 'separate generation.' The first teacher says that for all sentient beings, a total of seven branches of precepts are generated, which means that the three roots of goodness jointly generate seven branches of precepts. The third teacher, to

諸有情總髮二十一支。此即由三善根因差別故各發七支故二十一支　問於二說中何者為正　解云初師為正。于婆沙中最初說故。復言有說。第三師即言有餘師說。又心．心所共發七支理亦為勝。有何道理同一聚法說三善根各異發七支。諸論說者敘余師義　又解第三師為正。何必初言有說即是正義。婆沙又有初言有說而非正義。亦有有餘師說而是正義。但說義正何論初．后。有說．余師。又諸論中皆說三善根各發七支故。正理三十九云。謂諸有情隨無貪等為因差別生別類支。二類支各一無表總於一切有情處得。又諸論解四說中。皆說三善根別髮色業。共發七支即無文證。以此故知二十一者為正　又解兩說雖數不同。于諸有情俱言總髮。評家正義並不相違。又諸論中無別立．破隨其所樂皆可為正　或諸論言七支者敘初師義。或諸論云二十一支者。敘第三師義。應知此論舍戒同第五師。若論得戒或同初師。或同第三師。於前三解皆無有妨。

已說從彼至例此應知者。釋下兩句。明不律儀定從一切有情處得無少分境。不律儀者定從一切身三．語四七業道得。無不具支不律儀者。此定無有由一切下．中．上品三因。下品等心無俱起故。所以不言三因　若有已下。釋三品不俱。若有下心得不律儀。復後於異時上心殺生。彼但

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本諸有情總共發起二十一支（指戒律的組成部分）。這是由於三種善根（無貪、無嗔、無癡）的因緣差別，每種善根各自發起七支，所以總共是二十一支。有人問：在兩種說法中，哪一種是正確的？解答說：最初的說法是正確的。因為在《大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）中最初就是這樣說的。而且還說『有說』。第三位論師也說『有其餘論師說』。並且心和心所共同發起七支的道理也更為殊勝。有什麼道理說同一個聚合之法，三種善根各自發起七支呢？各論的作者只是敘述了其餘論師的觀點。又有人解釋說第三位論師的說法是正確的。為什麼一定要說最初的『有說』就是正確的觀點呢？《大毗婆沙論》中也有最初說『有說』但並非是正確的觀點。也有『有其餘論師說』而是正確的觀點。只要說的道理正確，何必論究最初還是最後，『有說』還是『其餘論師』。而且各論中都說三種善根各自發起七支。《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第三十九卷說：『所謂的諸有情，隨著無貪等為因緣的差別，產生不同的類別支。兩類支各自是一種無表色（不可見的業力），總是在一切有情處獲得。』而且各論解釋四種說法中，都說三種善根分別發起色業，共同發起七支是沒有文獻依據的。因此可知二十一種說法是正確的。又有人解釋說，兩種說法雖然數量不同，但對於諸有情都說是總共發起，評論家的正確觀點並不互相違背。而且各論中沒有分別建立或破斥，隨著各自所喜好的都可以認為是正確的。或者各論中說七支，是敘述最初論師的觀點。或者各論中說二十一支，是敘述第三位論師的觀點。應該知道此論中舍戒的觀點與第五位論師相同。如果討論得戒，或者與最初論師相同，或者與第三位論師相同。對於前面三種解釋都沒有妨礙。已經說了『從彼至例此應知』，解釋下面兩句。說明不律儀（違背戒律的行為）一定從一切有情處獲得，沒有少分境界。不律儀一定從一切身三、語四七種業道獲得。沒有不具足支分的不律儀。這一定沒有由下、中、上品三種因緣。因為下品等心沒有同時生起，所以不說三種因緣。『若有已下』，解釋三種品類不俱。如果有人以低下的心得到不律儀，後來在不同的時候以高尚的心殺生，那麼他只是...

【English Translation】 English version All sentient beings collectively generate twenty-one branches (referring to the components of precepts). This is because of the differences in the causes of the three wholesome roots (non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion), each root generates seven branches, hence the total of twenty-one branches. The question is, which of the two views is correct? The answer is that the initial view is correct. Because it is first stated in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (大毗婆沙論). Moreover, it is said 'some say'. The third teacher also says 'other teachers say'. Furthermore, the principle that mind and mental factors jointly generate seven branches is also more superior. What is the reason for saying that the same aggregate of dharmas, the three wholesome roots, each generate seven branches? The authors of various treatises only narrate the views of other teachers. Someone else explains that the view of the third teacher is correct. Why must it be said that the initial 'some say' is the correct view? In the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, there are also instances where the initial 'some say' is not the correct view. There are also instances where 'other teachers say' and it is the correct view. As long as the principle stated is correct, why bother discussing the initial or the final, 'some say' or 'other teachers'. Moreover, all treatises say that the three wholesome roots each generate seven branches. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理) Volume 39 says: 'The so-called sentient beings, due to the differences in the causes of non-greed, etc., generate different categories of branches. Each of the two categories of branches is a non-revealing form (unseen karmic force), which is always obtained in all sentient beings.' Moreover, in the explanations of the four views in various treatises, it is said that the three wholesome roots separately generate form karma, and there is no textual evidence for jointly generating seven branches. Therefore, it can be known that the twenty-one view is correct. Someone else explains that although the two views differ in number, they both say that all sentient beings collectively generate them, and the correct views of the commentators do not contradict each other. Moreover, there is no separate establishment or refutation in various treatises, and whatever one likes can be considered correct. Or the seven branches mentioned in various treatises narrate the view of the initial teacher. Or the twenty-one branches mentioned in various treatises narrate the view of the third teacher. It should be known that the view of abandoning precepts in this treatise is the same as that of the fifth teacher. If discussing obtaining precepts, it is either the same as the initial teacher or the same as the third teacher. There is no hindrance to the previous three explanations. It has been said 'from that to this, it should be known', explaining the following two sentences. It explains that non-restraint (behavior that violates precepts) is certainly obtained from all sentient beings, without any small realm. Non-restraint is certainly obtained from all three bodily actions and four verbal actions, the seven paths of karma. There is no non-restraint that does not have complete branches. This certainly does not have the three causes of inferior, middle, and superior grades. Because the inferior grade of mind, etc., does not arise simultaneously, therefore the three causes are not mentioned. 'If there is below', explains that the three categories are not simultaneous. If someone obtains non-restraint with an inferior mind, and later at a different time kills with a superior mind, then he only...

成就下不律儀。亦成殺生上品表．無表．處中業道。以不律儀無重發故　亦應說中．下品心殺生。略故不說。且據勝論。中品．上品例此應知　問何故律儀有三品有不具七支。不律儀無三品必具七支　答律儀難得。有漸受故有三品。有非具支。不律儀易得頓得故。無三品及不具支。故婆沙一百一十七云。如是說者律儀漸得非不律儀。所以者何。律儀難得。以難得故漸受．漸得。不律儀易得。以易得故頓得．頓受　問此中若說不律儀人支具因不具者。即與婆沙相違如婆沙一百一十七云。有於一切有情得不律儀。非由一切支非由一切因者。謂以下纏斷眾生命。或中．或上非余亦不起余支。有於一切有情得不律儀由一切支非由一切因者。謂以下纏斷眾生命。乃至說雜穢語。或中．或上非余。有於一切有情得不律儀。由一切因非由一切支者。謂以下．中．上纏斷眾生命不起余支。有於一切有情得不律儀。由一切支由一切因者。謂以下．中．上纏斷眾生命乃至說雜穢。

解云婆沙據發不律儀緣說故言支．因或具．不具。此論據得不律儀體說故言支具。因不具也。

此中何名不律儀者者。問不律儀人。

謂諸屠羊至當知亦爾者。答。屠羊謂為自活要期盡壽恒欲害羊得不律儀。若非盡壽暫殺羊者。得處中惡非不律

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：成就下品不律儀，也成就殺生上品表業、無表業、處中業道。因為不律儀沒有重複發起的情況，也應該說有中品、下品心的殺生，因為簡略所以沒有說。暫且根據勝論，中品、上品可以依此類推得知。問：為什麼律儀有三品，有不具足七支的情況，而不律儀沒有三品，必定具足七支？答：律儀難以獲得，有逐漸受持的情況，所以有三品，有不具足支分的情況。不律儀容易獲得，一次性獲得，所以沒有三品以及不具足支分的情況。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說：『像這樣說，律儀是逐漸獲得的，而不是不律儀。為什麼呢？律儀難以獲得。因為難以獲得，所以逐漸受持、逐漸獲得。不律儀容易獲得。因為容易獲得，所以一次性獲得、一次性受持。』問：這裡如果說不律儀的人支分具足，因為不具足，就與《婆沙論》相違背，如《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說：『有的對於一切有情獲得不律儀，不是由一切支分，不是由一切因緣，是指用下品煩惱斷眾生命，或者中品、或者上品，不是其他的，也不生起其他的支分。有的對於一切有情獲得不律儀，由一切支分，不是由一切因緣，是指用下品煩惱斷眾生命，乃至說雜穢語，或者中品、或者上品，不是其他的。有的對於一切有情獲得不律儀，由一切因緣，不是由一切支分，是指用下品、中品、上品煩惱斷眾生命，不生起其他的支分。有的對於一切有情獲得不律儀，由一切支分，由一切因緣，是指用下品、中品、上品煩惱斷眾生命，乃至說雜穢語。』解釋說，《婆沙論》是根據發起不律儀的因緣來說的，所以說支分、因緣或者具足、或者不具足。此論是根據獲得不律儀的本體來說的，所以說支分具足，因緣不具足。這裡什麼叫做不律儀呢？問的是不律儀的人。『所謂那些屠羊者，應當知道也是這樣。』回答說，屠羊者是爲了自己活命，約定終身一直想要殺羊，獲得不律儀。如果不是終身，暫時殺羊，獲得的是處中惡業，不是不律儀。

【English Translation】 English version: Accomplishing inferior non-restraint (下不律儀), one also accomplishes the superior expressed karma (上品表業), non-expressed karma (無表業), and intermediate path of karma (處中業道) of killing. Because non-restraint does not have repeated arising, it should also be said that there is killing with an intermediate or inferior mind. It is not mentioned due to brevity. For now, according to the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (勝論), the intermediate and superior grades should be understood analogously. Question: Why does restraint (律儀) have three grades and sometimes lack the seven branches (七支), while non-restraint does not have three grades and necessarily possesses the seven branches? Answer: Restraint is difficult to obtain, and there is gradual acceptance, so there are three grades and sometimes incomplete branches. Non-restraint is easy to obtain, obtained all at once, so there are no three grades and no incomplete branches. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙) 117 says: 'As it is said, restraint is gradually obtained, not non-restraint. Why? Restraint is difficult to obtain. Because it is difficult to obtain, it is gradually accepted and gradually obtained. Non-restraint is easy to obtain. Because it is easy to obtain, it is obtained and accepted all at once.' Question: If it is said here that a person with non-restraint has complete branches because of incomplete causes, it contradicts the Vibhāṣā, as Vibhāṣā 117 says: 'Some obtain non-restraint towards all sentient beings, not by all branches, not by all causes, meaning they kill living beings with inferior defilements, or intermediate, or superior, not others, and do not arise other branches. Some obtain non-restraint towards all sentient beings, by all branches, not by all causes, meaning they kill living beings with inferior defilements, even to speaking impure words, or intermediate, or superior, not others. Some obtain non-restraint towards all sentient beings, by all causes, not by all branches, meaning they kill living beings with inferior, intermediate, or superior defilements, and do not arise other branches. Some obtain non-restraint towards all sentient beings, by all branches, by all causes, meaning they kill living beings with inferior, intermediate, or superior defilements, even to speaking impure words.' The explanation says that the Vibhāṣā speaks from the perspective of the conditions for arising non-restraint, so it says that branches and causes are either complete or incomplete. This treatise speaks from the perspective of obtaining the substance of non-restraint, so it says that the branches are complete, and the causes are incomplete. Here, what is called non-restraint? This asks about a person with non-restraint. 'Those who slaughter sheep, it should be known, are also like this.' The answer is that those who slaughter sheep do so to make a living, intending to kill sheep for their entire lives, thus obtaining non-restraint. If it is not for their entire lives, but they temporarily kill sheep, they obtain intermediate evil karma, not non-restraint.

儀。余準此釋　言縛龍。謂以咒術繫縛龍．蛇戲樂求物以自存活　言煮狗者。謂旃荼羅等諸猥惡人造諸惡類。西國呼為煮狗人非常煮狗。或可。煮狗以充所食。西方汗狗故以標名　餘名可知　等言以顯王等　王謂惡王非理殺害　典刑罰。謂典刑人罰人　聽察。謂御史等　斷罪。謂大理等　大數而言總有十二。余未說者。等字以收　但恒有害心名不律儀者。非要自手行殺。此即約心以釋。若有慈心無恒害意。雖居此位非不律儀　或由彼一類住不律儀名不律儀者。此即約住以明　或有成就不律儀名不律儀者。此約成就以釋。

遍於有情界至得不律儀者。經部問。遍於有情得善律儀其理可爾。普勝意樂而受得故。非屠羊等人有害至親。如何普於一切有情得不律儀。

由彼至親至有損害心者。說一切有部答。其親命終若為羊等於彼亦可有損害心故遍一切。

既知至親至得不律儀者。經部復難。至親死已為羊可殺。現非羊等何有害心。名遍有情。凡親作羊可有害意。聖人必無作羊等理。如何于彼得不律儀。若言得聖雖不為羊。觀彼未來羊等自體。于現聖者相續身中得不律儀者。是則現羊等於未來世有親．聖體。于彼決定無損害心。是則應觀未來至親及聖自體。不于現在羊．雞．豬等得不律儀。

于羊等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：儀：餘下的內容可以參照這個解釋。『言縛龍』：指的是用咒術束縛龍或蛇，進行表演娛樂，以此乞求財物來維持生計。『言煮狗者』：指的是旃荼羅（Candala，賤民）等卑賤惡劣之人制造各種惡行。西國稱之為煮狗人，但並非經常煮狗。或許是煮狗來充當食物。西方有汗狗，所以用這個來命名。其餘的名稱可以理解。『等』字是爲了包括國王等。『王』指的是不講道理、隨意殺害的惡王。『典刑罰』指的是掌管刑罰之人，對人施加刑罰。『聽察』指的是御史等官員。『斷罪』指的是大理寺等機構。總的來說，大概有十二種。其餘未說的，用『等』字來概括。只要一直懷有有害之心，就屬於不律儀，不一定要親自動手殺人。這是從心念上來解釋的。如果心懷慈悲，沒有一直想害人的念頭，即使身居這些職位，也不屬於不律儀。或者因為某一類人常處於不律儀的狀態，所以被稱為不律儀，這是從狀態上來解釋的。或者因為有人成就了不律儀，所以被稱為不律儀，這是從成就上解釋的。

『遍於有情界至得不律儀者』：經部（Sautrantika）提出疑問：遍及一切有情眾生而獲得善律儀，這個道理說得通，因為有普遍殊勝的意樂而受持。但像屠夫、牧羊人等人，即使是對至親，也可能有損害之心，怎麼能說他們普遍對一切有情眾生獲得不律儀呢？

『由彼至親至有損害心者』：說一切有部（Sarvastivada）回答：他們的親人去世后，如果轉生為羊等，他們也可能對這些羊等產生損害之心，所以說是遍及一切。

『既知至親至得不律儀者』：經部再次提出疑問：至親死後轉生為羊，可以殺。但現在不是羊等，為何會有害心，而說是遍及一切有情？如果親人轉生為羊，可能會有害意。但聖人絕對不會轉生為羊等。如何對他們獲得不律儀？如果說，即使證得聖果，雖然不會轉生為羊，但觀察他們未來可能轉生的羊等自體，在現在聖者的相續身中獲得不律儀。那麼，現在的羊等在未來世可能會成為親人或聖者的身體，對他們絕對不會有損害之心。那麼，應該觀察未來世的至親和聖者的自體，而不是對現在的羊、雞、豬等獲得不律儀。

『于羊等』

【English Translation】 English version: 『I』: The remaining content can be explained accordingly. 『Speaking of binding dragons』: It refers to using spells to bind dragons or snakes, performing for entertainment, and begging for money to make a living. 『Speaking of those who cook dogs』: It refers to Candala (outcastes) and other lowly and evil people who commit various evil deeds. Western countries call them dog cookers, but they don't always cook dogs. Perhaps they cook dogs to eat. The West has sweat dogs, so it is named after this. The remaining names can be understood. The word 『etc.』 is to include kings, etc. 『King』 refers to an evil king who is unreasonable and kills at will. 『Administering punishments』 refers to those who administer punishments and inflict punishments on people. 『Listening and observing』 refers to officials such as censors. 『Sentencing』 refers to institutions such as the Dali Temple. Generally speaking, there are about twelve types. The rest that are not mentioned are summarized by the word 『etc.』. As long as one always harbors harmful intentions, one is considered non-disciplined, and it is not necessary to kill with one's own hands. This is explained from the perspective of the mind. If one has compassion and does not always have the intention to harm others, even if one holds these positions, one is not considered non-disciplined. Or because a certain type of person is often in a state of non-discipline, they are called non-disciplined, which is explained from the perspective of state. Or because someone has achieved non-discipline, they are called non-disciplined, which is explained from the perspective of achievement.

『Extending to all sentient beings to obtain non-discipline』: The Sautrantika school raises the question: It makes sense to obtain good discipline by extending to all sentient beings, because one upholds it with universal and supreme intention. However, how can butchers, shepherds, and others who may have harmful intentions even towards their close relatives be said to universally obtain non-discipline towards all sentient beings?

『From their close relatives to having harmful intentions』: The Sarvastivada school answers: If their relatives die and are reborn as sheep, etc., they may also have harmful intentions towards these sheep, etc., so it is said to extend to all.

『Having known that close relatives obtain non-discipline』: The Sautrantika school raises the question again: After a close relative dies and is reborn as a sheep, it can be killed. But now they are not sheep, etc., so why would they have harmful intentions and be said to extend to all sentient beings? If a relative is reborn as a sheep, there may be harmful intentions. But a sage will never be reborn as a sheep, etc. How can they obtain non-discipline towards them? If it is said that even if one attains sainthood, although one will not be reborn as a sheep, one observes the future possible rebirths of sheep, etc., and obtains non-discipline in the continuous body of the present sage. Then, the present sheep, etc., may become the bodies of relatives or sages in future lives, and there will definitely be no harmful intentions towards them. Then, one should observe the close relatives and the bodies of sages in future lives, rather than obtaining non-discipline towards the present sheep, chickens, pigs, etc.

『Regarding sheep, etc.』

現身至得不律儀者。說一切有部以理徴問。

于母等現身至具支不律儀者。經部反責作等事難。又不律儀人於一生中無身二．語四。如何亦得具有七支。

彼遍損善至故得具支者。說一切有部答。彼遍損善阿世耶故可具支。雖啞不言。身能表語故得具支。

若爾彼人至七支惡戒者。經部復難。若爾彼人或時先受不殺生等二三學處處中善業　又解學處是戒。經部五戒許不具支故復為此問。於二解中意謂前解勝。后但受殺于余不損善阿世耶。如何具發七支惡戒。

毗婆沙者至不律儀人者。毗婆沙師解。必無缺支。要須具七。及余境中一分受理可得名住不律儀人。故正理云。若先要期受善學處。后不全損善阿世耶由遇別緣。唯受殺者得處中罪非不律儀。但得不律儀必應全損善阿世耶故具得七支。

經部諸師至互相遮故者。經部諸師作如是說。隨造惡人心所期限。或具七支。或不具七。就一支中。或於境全分。或於境一分。皆得不律儀。于俗戒中近事律儀準惡亦然。唯除八戒。以時促故。支具境全。若不爾者。善心羸劣即不發戒。由隨彼人期心支量或少或多於一身中善．惡尸羅性相違互相遮故。謂一身中若受一支善戒正遮一支惡戒不起。兼遮余支惡戒不起。若受一支惡戒正遮一支善戒不起。兼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本對於現身而至於獲得不律儀（apratisamvara，非防護）的人，一切有部（Sarvastivada）用道理來質問。

對於在母親等人面前現身而至於具備所有不律儀支分的人，經部（Sautrantika）反過來責難說，這樣做等同於製造困難。而且，不律儀之人在一生中沒有身二、語四，如何也能具有七支？

一切有部回答說，因為他普遍損害了善的阿世耶（asaya，意樂），所以才能具備所有支分。即使是啞巴不能說話，但身體能夠表達語言，所以也能獲得所有支分。

經部再次提出質疑，如果這樣，那麼這個人有時先接受不殺生等二三種學處，處於善業之中，又或者理解學處就是戒。經部認為五戒允許不具足所有支分，所以再次提出這個問題。在兩種理解中，意思是說前一種理解更好。后一種情況只是接受了殺生，對於其餘的沒有損害善的阿世耶，如何能具備引發七支惡戒？

毗婆沙師（Vibhasa）解釋說，一定沒有缺少支分的情況，必須要具備七支。以及在其他境界中一部分接受道理，可以被稱為安住于不律儀之人。所以正理中說，如果先前約定接受善的學處，後來沒有完全損害善的阿世耶，由於遇到其他因緣，只是接受了殺生，那麼就只是處於中間的罪過，而不是不律儀。但是獲得不律儀，必定應該完全損害善的阿世耶，所以才能具備七支。

經部的諸位論師這樣說，隨著造惡之人的內心所設定的期限，或者具備七支，或者不具備七支。就在一支之中，或者對於境界的全部，或者對於境界的一部分，都能獲得不律儀。在世俗戒中，近事律儀（upasaka-samvara，優婆塞戒）也同樣如此，除了八戒，因為時間短暫，支分和境界都是全部。如果不是這樣，善心微弱就不能引發戒。由於隨著那個人所設定的內心期限、支分的數量或少或多，在一個身體中，善和惡的尸羅（sila，戒）的性質相互違背，互相遮止。也就是說，在一個身體中，如果接受一支善戒，就能真正遮止一支惡戒不起，並且兼帶遮止其餘支分的惡戒不起。如果接受一支惡戒，就能真正遮止一支善戒不起，並且兼帶

【English Translation】 English version Regarding those who manifest themselves and attain apratisamvara (non-restraint), the Sarvastivadins question this with reason.

Regarding those who manifest themselves before their mothers, etc., and possess all the limbs of apratisamvara, the Sautrantikas retort by saying that doing so is akin to creating difficulties. Moreover, how can a person without the two bodily and four verbal actions of apratisamvara possess all seven limbs?

The Sarvastivadins reply that it is because they universally damage their good asaya (intention) that they can possess all the limbs. Even if a person is mute and cannot speak, their body can express speech, so they can still attain all the limbs.

The Sautrantikas further question, 'If that is the case, then that person may have initially accepted two or three precepts such as non-killing, being in a state of good karma, or understanding that the precepts are the sila (moral discipline). The Sautrantikas believe that the five precepts allow for not possessing all the limbs, so they raise this question again. Among the two understandings, the meaning is that the former understanding is better. In the latter case, they only accept killing and do not damage their good asaya regarding the rest. How can they possess the seven limbs of evil precepts?'

The Vibhasa masters explain that there must be no missing limbs; all seven must be present. And in other situations, partially accepting the principles can be called abiding in apratisamvara. Therefore, the principle states that if one initially agrees to accept good precepts but later does not completely damage their good asaya due to other circumstances, and only accepts killing, then they are only in an intermediate state of transgression, not apratisamvara. However, to attain apratisamvara, one must completely damage their good asaya, thus possessing all seven limbs.

The Sautrantika masters say that according to the time limit set in the mind of the evildoer, they may or may not possess all seven limbs. Within one limb, whether it is for the entirety of the object or a part of the object, one can attain apratisamvara. In secular precepts, the upasaka-samvara (lay vows) is also the same, except for the eight precepts, because the time is short, and the limbs and objects are all complete. If it were not so, a weak good intention would not generate the precepts. Because according to the time limit set in that person's mind, the number of limbs may be few or many, in one body, the nature of good and evil sila (moral discipline) contradict each other, mutually preventing each other. That is to say, in one body, if one accepts one good precept, it can truly prevent one evil precept from arising, and also prevent the remaining limbs of evil precepts from arising. If one accepts one evil precept, it can truly prevent one good precept from arising, and also

遮余支善戒不起。受二．三等準此應釋。必無一人名不律儀亦名律儀。以善．惡戒互相違故　又解經部既許有不具支及與一分。何妨一人名為律儀亦名不律儀。由隨彼量善．惡多．少。性相相違互相遮故。真諦意作此釋。於二解中意謂前勝。

已說從彼至未說當說者。此下第三明得惡．處中。結前問起。

頌曰至由田受重行者。就頌答中。上兩句明不律儀。下兩句明處中。

論曰至便發惡戒者。諸不律儀由二因得。一者生在不律儀家。由初現行殺等加行作打縛等。當於爾時便發惡戒。二者雖復生在余家。由初要期誓受殺等事。謂我當作殺等事業以求財物養活自身。當於爾時便發惡戒　問何故生在不律儀家不說誓受。生在余家不言作業　解云生不律儀家。自少至長家業常見殺等惡事。不須誓受。設自誓受其心輕慢不發惡戒。要行殺等方得惡戒。不言誓受。生在余家將欲作彼不律儀人。必先誓受。自少至長家業不見殺等惡事。初誓心重故發惡戒。後行殺等不重發故不言作業　問如婆沙一百一十七云。問如諸律儀要受方得。此不律儀亦如是耶。或有說者。亦由受得。謂手執殺具。誓從今日乃至命終常作此業以自活命。爾時便得此不律儀。復有說者雖執殺具自立誓言。然彼不得此不律儀。由二緣得。一由作

業。二由受事。由作業者。謂生不律儀家最初作彼殺生等業。爾時便得此不律儀。由受事者。謂生余家為活命故懷殺害心。往屠羊等不律儀所作是誓言。我從今者乃至命終常作汝等所作事業以自活命。爾時便得此不律儀。復有說者此亦最初作彼業時方乃獲得此不律儀。彼說不律儀唯一緣得　婆沙三說。初說由誓受。后說由作業。第二說由二種。何者為正　解云。雖無評家且以第二師為正。諸論皆說由二緣得　問準婆沙誓受往不律儀所。此論何故不說　解云。此論略而不說。或可。論意各別。二緣雖同誓受意別。正理文同此論。

得余無表至諸福業事者。此下釋后兩句。得余處中無表由三種因。一者由田。田非一故名曰諸田。謂于如是諸福田所施園林等彼善無表初施便生。如說七有依諸福業事。此中且據善處中說。理亦于田有不善．處中。謂于田所作罝網等不善無表初作便生。由愿不同故罝網等與不律儀罝弶等別　所以得知通不善者。故下文舍處中中雲。四由事物斷壞故舍。事物者何。謂所舍施寺．舍．敷具．制多．園林。及所施為罝網等事　應知田名攝法寬故。故下論云田異。由趣．苦．恩．德有差別　又應知彼處中善．惡業道雖心微劣由田力故亦發無表。

二者由受至常施食等者。二者由受。謂自誓言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本業。二者由受事，由作業者。指的是生於不守戒律之家的人，最初做殺生等惡業時，便獲得了這種不守戒律的無表業。由受事者，指的是生於其他人家，爲了活命而懷有殺害之心，前往屠宰牛羊等不守戒律的地方發誓說：『我從今以後乃至生命終結，常常做你們所做的事業來維持生計。』那時便獲得了這種不守戒律的無表業。也有人說，這也是最初做那些惡業時才獲得的這種不守戒律的無表業。他們認為不守戒律的獲得只有一種因緣。《婆沙論》有三種說法：最初的說法是由發誓受持而得；後面的說法是由作業而得；第二種說法是由兩種因緣而得。哪種說法是正確的呢？解釋說：雖然沒有評判家，但暫且以第二位論師的說法為正確。各種論典都說由兩種因緣而得。問：按照《婆沙論》發誓受持前往不守戒律的地方的說法，此論為什麼不說呢？解釋說：此論省略了而不說。或許是論典的意圖各有不同。兩種因緣雖然相同，但發誓受持的意圖不同。《正理》的文句與此論相同。

得余處中無表乃至諸福業事。這以下解釋后兩句。獲得其餘的處中無表業由三種原因：一是由於福田（指可以種福報的場所或對像）。福田不止一種，所以叫做『諸田』。指的是在這些福田處所佈施園林等，那些善的無表業，最初佈施時便產生。如經文所說，七有（指七種存在的狀態）依賴於各種福業之事。這裡暫且就善的處中業來說。道理上，福田也有不善的、處中的業。指的是在福田處所設定羅網等，不善的無表業最初設定時便產生。由於願望不同，所以羅網等與不守戒律的罝網（捕獸的網）、弶（捕鳥獸的機關）等有所區別。憑什麼得知也包括不善業呢？因為下文捨棄處中業中說：『四是由事物斷壞而捨棄。』事物是什麼呢？指的是所捨棄的施捨的寺廟、房舍、敷具、制多（佛塔），園林，以及所施捨的作為羅網等的事物。應當知道福田這個名稱包含的範圍很寬泛。所以下論說福田不同，由於所趣、苦、恩、德有差別。又應當知道那些處中善、惡業道，即使心力微弱，由於福田的力量，也能引發無表業。

二者由受乃至常施食等。二者由受，指的是自己發誓說

【English Translation】 English version Karma. Secondly, by the object of action, and by the agent of action. By the agent of action means that when someone born into a family that does not observe moral precepts initially commits acts such as killing, they then acquire this non-observance of precepts. By the object of action means that someone born into another family, with the intention to kill for a living, goes to places where non-observance of precepts such as butchering sheep is practiced and makes a vow, saying: 'From now until the end of my life, I will always do the work that you do to support myself.' At that time, they acquire this non-observance of precepts. Some also say that this non-observance of precepts is only acquired when they initially perform those actions. They say that the acquisition of non-observance of precepts depends on only one condition. The Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra) has three views: the first says it is acquired by taking a vow; the latter says it is acquired by performing the action; the second says it is acquired by two conditions. Which view is correct? The explanation is: Although there is no judge, let us provisionally take the second teacher's view as correct. All treatises say that it is acquired by two conditions. Question: According to the Vibhasa's statement about taking a vow and going to a place of non-observance of precepts, why does this treatise not mention it? The explanation is: This treatise omits it and does not mention it. Perhaps the intentions of the treatises are different. Although the two conditions are the same, the intention of taking a vow is different. The wording of the Hetu-vidya is the same as this treatise.

Obtaining other neutral unmanifested karmas up to the matter of various meritorious deeds. The following explains the latter two phrases. Obtaining other neutral unmanifested karmas is due to three causes: first, due to the field of merit (referring to places or objects where merit can be cultivated). Because the fields of merit are not singular, they are called 'various fields.' It refers to donating gardens, etc., to such fields of merit; those good unmanifested karmas arise as soon as the donation is made. As the sutra says, the seven existences (referring to seven states of being) rely on various meritorious deeds. Here, we are temporarily discussing good neutral karma. In principle, there are also unwholesome and neutral karmas in the field of merit. It refers to setting up nets, etc., in the field of merit; unwholesome unmanifested karmas arise as soon as they are set up. Because the vows are different, nets, etc., are different from the snares (jya) and traps (kyam) of non-observance of precepts. How do we know that it also includes unwholesome karma? Because the following text on abandoning neutral karma says: 'Fourth, it is abandoned due to the destruction of things.' What are the things? It refers to the donated temples, houses, furnishings, stupas (caitya), gardens, and the things donated as nets, etc. It should be known that the name 'field of merit' has a broad scope. Therefore, the following treatise says that the fields of merit are different due to differences in destination, suffering, kindness, and virtue. Furthermore, it should be known that those neutral wholesome and unwholesome paths of karma, even if the mental effort is weak, can also trigger unmanifested karma due to the power of the field of merit.

Secondly, by receiving up to constantly giving food, etc. Secondly, by receiving, refers to vowing oneself saying

若未禮佛不先食等。或作誓限於齋日等常施食等。雖心微劣由受力故無表續生　齋日謂六齋日。月半謂半月。即十五日及月盡日。月謂一月。年謂一年　又解齋日謂六齋日。齋月謂三齋月。半月謂一月之中取半月也。年謂一年。此中由受且約善說。不善．處中略而不論。理亦應有。謂如有人于怨家所作是誓言。若不打罵不先食等。或作誓限於某日等必須打罵。雖心微劣由受力故無表續生。

三由重行至起余無表者。三由重行。謂起如是殷重作意。若行善時謂淳凈信如禮佛等。若行惡時謂猛利纏如捶打等。由心重故無表續生　釋訖結言。由此三因起余無表。

如是已說至未說當說者。此下大文第四明舍差別。就中。一舍別解脫。二舍定．道戒。三舍不律儀。四舍處中戒。五舍諸非色　此下第一明舍別解。就中一問。二答　就問中。一總問。二別問　此即總問。結前生下。

且云何舍別解律儀者。此即別問。

頌曰至犯二如負財者。此即答也。就答中。初頌述己宗。后頌敘異說。

論曰至由四緣舍者。此下釋初頌。調伏意顯律儀異名。由此能令六根調伏。於八律儀唯除近住。所餘七種於五舍中由四緣舍。

一由意樂至舍學處故者。釋由故舍。謂由故作法舍律儀。本由故心受得。今舍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：若未禮佛不先食等，或發誓限定在齋日等進行施食等。即使心力微弱，由於誓願的加持力，也會產生無表業並持續下去。齋日指的是六齋日。月半指的是半月，即十五日和月末日。月指的是一個月。年指的是一年。另一種解釋是，齋日指的是六齋日，齋月指的是三個齋月，半月指的是一個月中的半個月，年指的是一年。這裡因為是受戒，所以只討論善的情況，不善和中性的情況略過不談，但實際上也應該存在。比如有人對仇家發誓說，如果不打罵就不吃飯等，或者發誓限定在某日等必須打罵，即使心力微弱，由於誓願的加持力，也會產生無表業並持續下去。

三、由於重複行為而產生其他無表業：指的是發起非常殷重的作意。如果進行善行，比如以淳凈的信心禮佛等；如果進行惡行，比如以猛烈的煩惱捶打等。由於心念強烈，會產生無表業並持續下去。解釋完畢，總結說，由於這三個原因，會產生其他的無表業。

如上已經說了，以下要說的是未說和應當說的內容。下面是本文的第四部分，闡明舍戒的差別。其中分為：一、舍別解脫戒；二、舍定和道戒；三、舍不律儀；四、舍處中戒；五、舍諸非色戒。下面首先闡明舍別解脫戒。其中分為：一、提問；二、回答。提問中又分為：一、總問；二、別問。這裡是總問，承上啟下。

且云何舍別解律儀者：這是別問。

頌曰至犯二如負財者：這是回答。回答分為：前一頌陳述自己的宗派觀點，后一頌敘述其他宗派的觀點。

論曰至由四緣舍者：下面解釋第一頌。調伏意是律儀的另一個名稱，因為這種律儀能夠調伏六根。在八種律儀中，除了近住戒，其餘七種可以通過四種因緣捨棄。

一、由意樂至舍學處故者：解釋由故舍。指的是由於故意作法而捨棄律儀。本來是由故意的心受得，現在捨棄。

【English Translation】 English version: If one does not eat before prostrating to the Buddha, or makes a vow to give alms on fast days, etc., even if the mind is weak, due to the power of the vow, unmanifest karma (Avijñapti-karma) will arise and continue. 'Fast days' refer to the six fast days. 'Half-month' refers to half a month, i.e., the fifteenth day and the last day of the month. 'Month' refers to one month. 'Year' refers to one year. Another explanation is that 'fast days' refer to the six fast days, 'fast month' refers to the three months of fasting, 'half-month' refers to half a month within a month, and 'year' refers to one year. Here, because it is about taking vows, only good situations are discussed, while bad and neutral situations are omitted, but they should also exist in reality. For example, if someone vows to an enemy, 'If I don't beat and scold you, I won't eat,' or vows to beat and scold on a certain day, even if the mind is weak, due to the power of the vow, unmanifest karma will arise and continue.

Three, other unmanifest karmas arise from repeated actions: This refers to initiating very earnest intention. If performing good deeds, such as prostrating to the Buddha with pure faith; if performing evil deeds, such as beating with intense afflictions. Due to the strong intention, unmanifest karma will arise and continue. Explanation completed, concluding that due to these three reasons, other unmanifest karmas will arise.

As mentioned above, what has not been said and should be said will be discussed below. The following is the fourth part of this text, clarifying the differences in abandoning precepts. It is divided into: 1. Abandoning Pratimoksha (individual liberation) precepts; 2. Abandoning Samadhi (concentration) and Path precepts; 3. Abandoning non-virtuous precepts; 4. Abandoning neutral precepts; 5. Abandoning all non-form precepts. Below, the abandonment of Pratimoksha precepts will be clarified first. It is divided into: 1. Question; 2. Answer. The question is further divided into: 1. General question; 2. Specific question. Here is the general question, connecting the previous and leading to the next.

And how does one abandon the Pratimoksha precepts?: This is the specific question.

The verse says to commit two like owing money: This is the answer. The answer is divided into: the first verse states one's own sectarian view, and the second verse narrates the views of other sects.

The treatise says to abandon by four conditions: Below explains the first verse. 'Taming intention' is another name for precepts, because these precepts can tame the six senses. Among the eight types of precepts, except for Upavasatha (one-day vows), the remaining seven can be abandoned by four conditions.

One, by intention to abandon the training: Explains 'abandon by intention'. It refers to abandoning the precepts by intentionally performing the act of abandonment. Originally, it was received with intentional mind, and now it is abandoned.

還由故心舍彼。就中有三。一者由意樂不欣戒故。二對有解人相領會故。三發有表業違受表故。具三方成舍學處故。隨有所闕舍即不成。故正理三十九云。一由故舍。謂于律儀由阿世耶不懷忻慕為舍學處對有解人。發起相違表業差別。非但由起舍學處心。如得律儀心無能故。又在夢中舍不成故。非但由起表業差別。忿．癲．狂等舍不成故。非但由二。對傍生等起心發表舍不成故。

二由棄捨眾同分故者。釋由命終。戒依同分增上力得。由命終故舍所依同分能依戒亦舍。故正理云。二由命終。謂眾同分增上勢力得律儀故。

三由二形俱時生故者。正理云。三由依止二形俱生。謂身變時。心隨變故。又二形者非增上故。

四由所因善根斷故者．戒本由善根得。今善根斷故舍彼戒。故正理云。四由斷滅所因善根。謂表．無表業等起心斷故。

舍近住戒至由五緣舍者。舍近住戒由前四緣。又加夜盡故說別解總五緣舍。

何名夜盡。正理云。夜盡者。謂明相出時。

何緣舍戒由此五緣者。問。

與受相違至過期限故者。答　與受相違表業生故。是初故舍　所依舍故。是命終舍　所依變故。是二形舍　所因斷故。是斷善舍　過期限故。是夜盡舍。

有餘部說至苾芻律儀者。釋第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此外，由於故意捨棄（戒律）也會導致（戒體喪失）。這其中有三種情況：第一，由於意樂（Adhyāshaya）不歡喜戒律的緣故；第二，需要對能夠理解的人表達才能領會；第三，發出與所受戒律相違背的身語行為（表業）。必須同時具備這三種條件，才能構成捨棄學處（Śikṣāpada）。缺少任何一個條件，捨棄都不能成立。因此，《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第三十九卷中說：『第一種是由於故意捨棄。即對於律儀（Vinaya），由於內心（阿世耶）不懷有歡喜羨慕之情，從而捨棄學處，並且要對能夠理解的人，發起與戒律相違背的身語行為。不僅僅是生起捨棄學處的心念，因為如果獲得律儀的心念沒有能力（表達），也是不行的。而且在夢中捨棄也是不能成立的。不僅僅是生起身語行為的差別，因為在憤怒、癲狂等狀態下捨棄也是不能成立的。不僅僅是具備以上兩種條件，因為對畜生等生起捨棄的心念並表達出來，捨棄也是不能成立的。』

第二，由於放棄眾同分（Sabhāgatā）的緣故。這是解釋由於命終（死亡）。戒律是依靠眾同分的增上力而獲得的。由於命終，捨棄了所依的眾同分，能依的戒律也隨之捨棄。因此，《正理》中說：『第二種是由於命終。即由於眾同分的增上勢力而獲得律儀。』

第三，由於兩種性器官（ उभयलिङ्ग, Ubhayaliṅga）同時出現。《正理》中說：『第三種是由於依止兩種性器官同時出現。即身體發生變化時，心也隨之變化。而且兩種性器官並非是增上的。』

第四，由於作為原因的善根斷滅的緣故。戒律是通過善根獲得的，現在善根斷滅，因此捨棄了戒律。因此，《正理》中說：『第四種是由於斷滅作為原因的善根。即表業、無表業等生起的心念斷滅的緣故。』

捨棄近住戒（Upavāsa-śīla）直到由五種因緣捨棄的情況。捨棄近住戒由前四種因緣，又加上夜盡（夜晚結束），所以說別解脫戒總共有五種因緣捨棄。

什麼叫做夜盡？《正理》中說：『夜盡，是指明相出現的時候。』

什麼因緣舍戒由此五種因緣？這是提問。

與受戒相違背直到超過期限的緣故。這是回答。與受戒相違背的身語行為產生，這是最初的因緣而舍戒。所依（身體）捨棄的緣故，這是命終而舍戒。所依（身體）變化的緣故，這是兩種性器官而舍戒。作為原因的善根斷滅的緣故，這是斷滅善根而舍戒。超過期限的緣故，這是夜盡而舍戒。

有其餘部派說直到比丘律儀（Bhikṣu-vinaya）。這是解釋第……

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, relinquishing (the precepts) intentionally also leads to (the loss of the precepts). There are three conditions for this: First, due to the mind (Adhyāshaya) not delighting in the precepts; second, it needs to be expressed to someone who can understand; third, emitting bodily and verbal actions (manifest karma, 表業) that contradict the precepts received. All three conditions must be met to constitute the abandonment of a precept (Śikṣāpada). If any condition is missing, the abandonment is not established. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理) states in its thirty-ninth fascicle: 'The first is due to intentional abandonment. That is, regarding the Vinaya (律儀), due to the mind (阿世耶) not harboring joy and admiration, one abandons the precepts, and one must initiate bodily and verbal actions that contradict the precepts to someone who can understand. It is not merely the arising of the thought to abandon the precepts, because if the mind that obtained the precepts has no ability (to express), it will not work. Moreover, abandoning in a dream is also not established. It is not merely the arising of the difference in bodily and verbal actions, because abandoning in a state of anger, madness, etc., is also not established. It is not merely having the above two conditions, because abandoning with the thought of abandoning and expressing it to animals, etc., is also not established.'

Second, due to abandoning the commonality of beings (Sabhāgatā). This explains due to death. Precepts are obtained relying on the increased power of the commonality of beings. Due to death, the commonality of beings on which it relies is abandoned, and the precepts that rely on it are also abandoned. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'The second is due to death. That is, due to the increased power of the commonality of beings, one obtains the precepts.'

Third, due to the simultaneous appearance of two sexual organs ( उभयलिङ्ग, Ubhayaliṅga). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'The third is due to relying on the simultaneous appearance of two sexual organs. That is, when the body changes, the mind also changes accordingly. Moreover, the two sexual organs are not dominant.'

Fourth, due to the destruction of the root of good (善根) that is the cause. Precepts are obtained through the root of good; now that the root of good is destroyed, the precepts are abandoned. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'The fourth is due to the destruction of the root of good that is the cause. That is, the thoughts that arise from manifest karma (表業), non-manifest karma (無表業), etc., are destroyed.'

Abandoning the Upavāsa-śīla (近住戒) up to the case of abandoning due to five conditions. Abandoning the Upavāsa-śīla is due to the previous four conditions, plus the end of the night, so it is said that there are a total of five conditions for abandoning the Prātimokṣa (別解脫戒).

What is called the end of the night? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'The end of the night refers to the time when the signs of dawn appear.'

What causes the abandonment of precepts due to these five conditions? This is a question.

Contradicting the reception of precepts up to the reason of exceeding the time limit. This is the answer. The arising of bodily and verbal actions that contradict the reception of precepts is the initial reason for abandoning the precepts. The abandonment of the basis (body) is the reason for abandoning the precepts due to death. The change of the basis (body) is the reason for abandoning the precepts due to two sexual organs. The destruction of the root of good that is the cause is the reason for abandoning the precepts due to the destruction of the root of good. Exceeding the time limit is the reason for abandoning the precepts due to the end of the night.

Some other schools say up to the Bhikṣu-vinaya (比丘律儀). This explains the...

五句。有餘經部師說。犯重舍戒。於四極重感墮地獄罪中。若隨犯一亦舍勤策及與苾芻出家律儀。

有餘部言至皆止息故者。釋第六句。有餘達磨鞠多部言。此云法蜜部。由正法滅亦能令舍別解律儀。以正法滅時一切學處結界羯磨皆止息故所以舍戒。

迦濕彌羅國至但名富人者。釋后兩句破經部師。犯彼根本四重罪時不捨出家戒。所以然者。以理而言。於四重中非犯一邊一切律儀應遍舍故。此顯犯重非舍戒體。引犯餘罪非舍戒故云非犯所餘僧殘等罪有斷戒體。以犯餘罪可悔除故還作好人。明知戒體犯時不捨。此既不捨戒。犯重亦應然。同犯戒故同名犯戒。一即失戒。一不失戒。理相違故。然犯重人有二種名。一名持戒。二名犯戒。喻況可知。若於所犯發露悔除無覆藏心如禪難提唯名持戒。喻亦可知。故正理云。非犯隨一根本罪時一切律儀有皆舍義。然犯重者有二種名。一名具尸羅。二名犯戒者。若於所犯應可悔除發露悔除唯名具戒如有財者負他債時名為富人及負債者。若還債已但名富人。此亦應然。故非舍戒。又婆沙一百十九云。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言。彼犯律儀時不捨律儀。而得非律儀非不律儀。是故爾時名住非律儀非不律儀。亦名住律儀者。若時發露無覆藏心如法悔除。便舍非律儀非不律儀。但名住律

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：五句。有餘經部師說：『如果犯了極重的舍戒罪，也就是四種根本重罪，會墮入地獄。如果犯了其中任何一種，也會失去勤策（Śrāmaṇera，沙彌）以及苾芻（Bhikṣu，比丘）的出家律儀。』有餘部派說『直至一切止息』，這是解釋第六句。有餘達磨鞠多部（Dharmaguptaka，法藏部）說，此部又名法蜜部，因為正法滅亡也會導致別解脫律儀的喪失。因為正法滅亡時，一切學處、結界、羯磨（Karma，業）都會停止，所以會舍戒。迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir，克什米爾）的論師說『只是名為富人』，這是解釋後面兩句，駁斥經部師的觀點。犯了四種根本重罪時，不會失去出家戒。原因是，從道理上講，並非犯了四重罪中的任何一種，就應該完全失去一切律儀。這表明犯重罪並非失去戒體。引用犯其他罪不會失去戒體，說明並非犯了僧殘等罪就會斷戒體。因為犯了其他罪可以懺悔消除，還可以做個好人。這說明戒體在犯戒時並沒有失去。既然不失去戒體，那麼犯重罪也應該如此。同樣是犯戒，所以都叫犯戒。一種情況是失去戒，一種情況是不失去戒，這在道理上是矛盾的。然而，犯重罪的人有兩種稱呼，一種是持戒，一種是犯戒。比喻可以說明這一點。如果對於所犯的罪行發露懺悔，沒有隱瞞之心，就像禪難提（Zenandi，禪難提）一樣，只能稱為持戒。比喻也可以說明這一點。所以正理說：『並非犯了任何一種根本罪，一切律儀都會失去。』然而，犯重罪的人有兩種稱呼，一種是具有尸羅（Śīla，戒），一種是犯戒者。如果對於所犯的罪行可以懺悔消除，發露懺悔，只能稱為具有戒，就像有錢人欠別人債時，既可以稱為富人，也可以稱為負債者。如果還清了債務，就只能稱為富人。這裡也應該如此，所以並非失去戒。此外，《婆沙》（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百十九卷說，迦濕彌羅國的諸位論師說，犯了律儀時，不會失去律儀，而是得到非律儀非不律儀。所以這時稱為住在非律儀非不律儀中，也可以稱為住在律儀中。如果發露懺悔，沒有隱瞞之心，如法懺悔消除，就會捨棄非律儀非不律儀，只能稱為住在律儀中。

【English Translation】 English version: Five sentences. The Sarvastivada (有餘經部) masters say: 'If one commits a grave offense that leads to abandoning the precepts, that is, the four fundamental grave offenses, one will fall into hell. If one commits any one of these, one will also lose the Śrāmaṇera (勤策, novice monk) and Bhikṣu (苾芻, fully ordained monk) monastic vows.' Some other schools say 'until all ceases,' which explains the sixth sentence. The Dharmaguptaka (達磨鞠多部) school, also known as the 'Dharma-honey' school, says that the extinction of the Proper Dharma (正法) can also cause the loss of the Prātimokṣa (別解脫律儀, individual liberation vows). This is because when the Proper Dharma becomes extinct, all places of learning, boundaries, and Karma (羯磨, actions) cease, thus leading to the abandonment of the precepts. The Kashmir (迦濕彌羅國) masters say 'but only called a rich man,' which explains the last two sentences, refuting the Sarvastivada masters' view. When one commits the four fundamental grave offenses, one does not lose the monastic vows. The reason is that, logically speaking, it is not that committing any one of the four grave offenses should completely lead to the loss of all vows. This shows that committing a grave offense does not mean losing the essence of the precepts. Quoting that committing other offenses does not lead to the loss of the essence of the precepts shows that committing offenses such as Sanghavasesa (僧殘) does not sever the essence of the precepts. Because committing other offenses can be repented and eliminated, one can still be a good person. This shows that the essence of the precepts is not lost when committing offenses. Since the essence of the precepts is not lost, it should be the same when committing grave offenses. Both are offenses, so both are called offenses. One situation is losing the precepts, and the other is not losing the precepts, which is logically contradictory. However, a person who commits a grave offense has two names: one is a precept holder, and the other is an offender. The analogy can illustrate this. If one confesses and repents for the offense committed, without concealing it, like Zenandi (禪難提), one can only be called a precept holder. The analogy can also illustrate this. Therefore, the principle says: 'It is not that committing any one of the fundamental offenses will lead to the loss of all vows.' However, a person who commits a grave offense has two names: one is possessing Śīla (尸羅, precepts), and the other is an offender. If the offense committed can be repented and eliminated, and one confesses and repents, one can only be called possessing precepts, just like a rich man who owes someone money can be called both a rich man and a debtor. If the debt is repaid, one can only be called a rich man. It should be the same here, so the precepts are not lost. Furthermore, the Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 119 says that the Kashmir masters say that when one violates the precepts, one does not lose the precepts, but obtains non-precepts and non-non-precepts. Therefore, at this time, one is called dwelling in non-precepts and non-non-precepts, and can also be called dwelling in precepts. If one confesses and repents, without concealing it, and repents and eliminates the offense according to the Dharma, one will abandon non-precepts and non-non-precepts, and can only be called dwelling in precepts.

儀者。如有富者負他債時名負債者亦名富者。后還債已但名富者。若如是說便為善通。發露悔過還住律儀作法悔除亦非無用(解云此論．正理唯約犯重不捨戒。婆沙通說但犯戒者皆不捨戒)。

若爾何緣至立他勝名者。經部師難。若言犯重非舍戒者。何緣佛說犯四重者不名苾芻等。苾芻以戒為體。不名苾芻。明知舍戒。戒能破惡說名沙門。不名沙門。明知舍戒。戒從釋迦金口所說教法所生名釋迦子。非釋迦子。明知舍戒。以破苾芻戒體故。所以不名苾芻。以害沙門戒體故。所以不名沙門。于持戒中是壞．是滅．是墮．是落故。所以非釋迦子。由犯四重立他勝名。梵名波羅夷。此云他勝。善法名自。惡法名他。若善勝惡法名為自勝。若惡法勝善名為他勝。故犯重人名為他勝　依勝義苾芻蜜意作是說者。說一切有部答。苾芻有二。一世俗苾芻。謂諸異生。二勝義苾芻。謂諸聖者　又解有別解脫戒名世俗苾芻。有道共戒名勝義苾芻。經言犯重非苾芻者依勝義苾芻蜜意作是說。言非苾芻不依世俗言非苾芻。謂犯重人雖有戒體。畢竟無能證諸聖法。不可成彼勝義苾芻名非苾芻。非全舍戒名非苾芻。苾芻之名含於二種。不別顯說勝義苾芻故言蜜意。沙門．釋子準此應知。故不別解。

此言兇勃者。經部徴責。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果有人富有，但欠了別人的債，這時既可以稱他為負債者，也可以稱他為富人。之後他還清了債務，就只能稱他為富人了。如果這樣說，就可以算是善於通達事理。那麼，發露懺悔，重新安住于律儀，通過作法來懺除罪過，也不是沒有用處的。（解釋說，此論和《正理經》只是針對犯了重罪但沒有捨棄戒律的情況。而《婆沙論》則普遍認為，只要犯了戒，就沒有捨棄戒律。）

問：如果這樣，那麼安立『他勝』（Parajika，意為『他勝』，指被惡法戰勝）這個名稱的原因是什麼呢？經部（Sautrantika）的論師提出疑問：如果說犯了重罪不是捨棄戒律，那麼為什麼佛陀說犯了四重罪的人不能稱為比丘（Bhiksu，意為『乞士』）等呢？比丘以戒律為根本，不稱為比丘，明顯是捨棄了戒律。戒律能夠破除惡法，所以稱為沙門（Sramana，意為『勤息』），不稱為沙門，明顯是捨棄了戒律。戒律是從釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni）金口所說的教法所生，稱為釋迦子（Sakya-putra，意為『釋迦之子』），不是釋迦子，明顯是捨棄了戒律。因為破壞了比丘的戒體，所以不稱為比丘；因為損害了沙門的戒體，所以不稱為沙門；在持戒中是破壞、是滅失、是墮落、是喪失，所以不是釋迦子。因為犯了四重罪，所以安立『他勝』這個名稱。梵語是波羅夷（Parajika），這裡翻譯為『他勝』。善法稱為『自』，惡法稱為『他』。如果善法戰勝了惡法，就稱為『自勝』；如果惡法戰勝了善法，就稱為『他勝』。所以犯了重罪的人稱為『他勝』。

一切有部（Sarvastivada）回答說：這是依據勝義（Paramartha，意為『究竟真實』）比丘的密意而說的。比丘有兩種：一種是世俗比丘，指的是各種凡夫；另一種是勝義比丘，指的是各種聖者。另一種解釋是，有別解脫戒（Pratimoksa，意為『隨順解脫』）稱為世俗比丘，有道共戒稱為勝義比丘。經文說犯了重罪不是比丘，是依據勝義比丘的密意而說的。說不是比丘，不是依據世俗來說不是比丘。意思是說，犯了重罪的人雖然有戒體，但畢竟沒有能力證得各種聖法，不能成就那勝義比丘的名稱，不是完全捨棄了戒律而說不是比丘。比丘這個名稱包含兩種含義，沒有分別顯說勝義比丘，所以說是密意。沙門、釋迦子也應該按照這個道理來理解，所以不再分別解釋。

問：這裡所說的『兇勃』是什麼意思？經部提出質問。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If someone is rich but owes debts to others, they can be called both a debtor and a rich person. After they repay the debt, they can only be called a rich person. If it is said this way, it can be considered a good understanding of principles. Then, confessing and repenting, returning to the precepts, and eliminating transgressions through formal procedures are not useless. (Explanation: This treatise and the Tattvasiddhi only address cases of committing grave offenses without abandoning the precepts. The Mahavibhasa generally states that anyone who violates the precepts does not abandon them.)

Question: If that's the case, then what is the reason for establishing the name 'Parajika' (meaning 'defeated by others,' referring to being defeated by evil dharmas)? The Sautrantika (Scripture School) masters raise a question: If it is said that committing a grave offense does not mean abandoning the precepts, then why did the Buddha say that those who commit the four Parajikas are not called Bhiksu (meaning 'mendicant') etc.? A Bhiksu takes the precepts as their essence. Not being called a Bhiksu clearly indicates abandoning the precepts. The precepts can destroy evil dharmas, so they are called Sramana (meaning 'striving one'), but not being called a Sramana clearly indicates abandoning the precepts. The precepts arise from the teachings spoken from Sakyamuni's (the sage of the Sakya clan) golden mouth, so they are called Sakya-putra (meaning 'son of Sakya'), but not being called Sakya-putra clearly indicates abandoning the precepts. Because the Bhiksu's essence of precepts is destroyed, they are not called Bhiksu. Because the Sramana's essence of precepts is harmed, they are not called Sramana. In upholding the precepts, there is destruction, extinction, falling, and loss, so they are not Sakya-putra. Because of committing the four Parajikas, the name 'Parajika' is established. The Sanskrit term is Parajika, which is translated here as 'defeated by others.' Good dharmas are called 'self,' and evil dharmas are called 'other.' If good dharmas overcome evil dharmas, it is called 'self-victory.' If evil dharmas overcome good dharmas, it is called 'defeated by others.' Therefore, those who commit grave offenses are called 'defeated by others.'

The Sarvastivada (School of Everything That Exists) answers: This is said based on the hidden meaning of the Paramartha (ultimate truth) Bhiksu. There are two types of Bhiksus: one is the conventional Bhiksu, referring to various ordinary beings; the other is the Paramartha Bhiksu, referring to various sages. Another explanation is that the Pratimoksa (individual liberation) precepts are called conventional Bhiksu, and the precepts shared with the path are called Paramartha Bhiksu. The scripture says that committing a grave offense is not being a Bhiksu, which is said based on the hidden meaning of the Paramartha Bhiksu. Saying 'not a Bhiksu' is not based on the conventional sense of 'not a Bhiksu.' It means that although those who commit grave offenses have the essence of precepts, they ultimately have no ability to realize various sacred dharmas and cannot achieve the name of that Paramartha Bhiksu. It is not that they have completely abandoned the precepts that they are said to be 'not a Bhiksu.' The name Bhiksu contains two meanings, and the Paramartha Bhiksu is not separately and explicitly stated, so it is said to be a hidden meaning. Sramana and Sakya-putra should also be understood according to this principle, so they are not explained separately.

Question: What is meant by 'fierce and violent' here? The Sautrantika raises a challenge.

兇勃者何者。說一切有部返問。

謂於世尊至為犯重罪緣者。經部答。謂於世尊了義所說犯四重罪不名苾芻。以別勝義釋令成不了義。若說犯重舍戒。彼恐失戒護持不犯。若言犯重不捨戒體。與多煩惱者為犯重罪緣。彼聞不捨數犯重故。而言犯重不捨戒者。此言兇勃。

寧知此言是了義說者。說一切有部徴。寧知此經言非苾芻是了義說。

由律自釋至是了義說者。經部答。身是俗人。名號苾芻。故言名想苾芻　又解。由白四羯磨得名具足戒等。與此人立苾芻名。故云名想苾芻。名從想生。或能生想故言名想。犯重之人實非苾芻。而自稱言我是苾芻　故言自稱苾芻　又解作法事時而自稱言苾芻某甲。故言自稱苾芻。前解為勝。出家之人以乞自活名乞丐苾芻　又解若道．若俗。巡門乞求皆名乞丐苾芻。諸阿羅漢破惑盡故名破惑苾芻　又解一切諸聖得無漏道。真破惑故名破惑苾芻。即是勝義苾芻。律既自釋犯重之人實非苾芻自稱苾芻。明知犯重無有戒體。文雖引四正取第二自稱為證。此即以教證也　此經義中言。或此犯重義中言非苾芻者。由失戒故非是白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻。或非是白四羯磨受具足戒名想苾芻。非約勝義言非苾芻。余解如前。若此犯重苾芻先是勝義苾芻。後由犯重成非勝義苾芻。可得說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本什麼是『兇勃』？這是說一切有部的反問。

經部的回答是：指對於世尊犯下極其嚴重的罪行，導致失去比丘（Bhikkhu，佛教出家男眾）資格的人。如果有人說，對於世尊所說的了義（Nitartha，究竟真實之義）之教，犯了四重罪（Parajika，斷頭罪）就不再稱為比丘，因為用其他的殊勝意義來解釋，使了義變成了不了義（Neyartha，非究竟真實之義）。如果有人說，犯了重罪就應該捨棄戒律，那麼那些害怕失去戒律的人就會努力守護而不去犯戒。如果有人說，犯了重罪也不捨棄戒體，那麼對於那些有很多煩惱的人來說，就成了犯重罪的因緣，因為他們聽了不捨棄戒律，就會多次犯重罪。所以說，認為犯了重罪也不捨棄戒律的說法，就是『兇勃』。

說一切有部提出疑問：憑什麼知道這種說法是了義之說？憑什麼知道這部經里說的『非比丘』是了義之說？

經部的回答是：根據律藏的解釋，可以知道這是了義之說。身體是俗人，名號卻是比丘，所以說是『名想比丘』。另一種解釋是，通過白四羯磨（Caturtha-kamma，受具足戒的儀式）得到具足戒等，才給這個人立了比丘的名字，所以叫做『名想比丘』。『名』從『想』生，或者能生『想』，所以說是『名想』。犯了重罪的人實際上不是比丘，卻自己聲稱『我是比丘』，所以說是『自稱比丘』。另一種解釋是，在作法事的時候，自己聲稱『比丘某甲』，所以說是『自稱比丘』。前一種解釋更為殊勝。出家之人依靠乞食為生，叫做『乞丐比丘』。另一種解釋是，無論是出家還是在家，巡門乞討都叫做『乞丐比丘』。諸阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）因為破除了迷惑，所以叫做『破惑比丘』。另一種解釋是，一切諸聖得到無漏道，真正破除了迷惑，所以叫做『破惑比丘』，這就是勝義比丘（Paramattha-bhikkhu，真實意義上的比丘）。律藏既然自己解釋說，犯了重罪的人實際上不是比丘，卻自稱是比丘，就明確地表明瞭犯重罪的人沒有戒體。經文雖然引用了四種比丘，但主要取第二種『自稱』作為證據，這就是用教證來證明。這部經的意義中說，或者在這個犯重罪的意義中說『非比丘』，是因為失去了戒律，所以不是通過白四羯磨受具足戒的比丘，或者不是通過白四羯磨受具足戒的『名想比丘』，而不是從勝義的角度來說『非比丘』。其他的解釋如前所述。如果這個犯重罪的比丘先前是勝義比丘，後來因為犯了重罪而成為非勝義比丘，這樣說才說得過去。

【English Translation】 English version What is 'fierce arrogance'? This is a counter-question from the Sarvastivada school.

The Sautrantika school answers: It refers to someone who has committed extremely serious offenses against the World-Honored One (世尊, Shìzūn), leading to the loss of the status of a Bhikkhu (比丘, Bǐqiū) [Buddhist monk]. If someone says that, regarding the definitive teachings (了義, liǎoyì) [Nitartha] spoken by the World-Honored One, committing the four major offenses (四重罪, sì chóng zuì) [Parajika] means one is no longer called a Bhikkhu, because other superior meanings are used to interpret it, turning the definitive meaning into a non-definitive meaning (不了義, bùliǎoyì) [Neyartha]. If someone says that committing a major offense means one should abandon the precepts, then those who fear losing the precepts will strive to protect them and not commit offenses. If someone says that committing a major offense does not mean abandoning the precepts, then for those with many afflictions, it becomes a cause for committing major offenses, because upon hearing that one does not abandon the precepts, they will repeatedly commit major offenses. Therefore, the view that committing a major offense does not mean abandoning the precepts is 'fierce arrogance'.

The Sarvastivada school raises a question: How do you know that this statement is a definitive teaching? How do you know that the 'non-Bhikkhu' mentioned in this sutra is a definitive teaching?

The Sautrantika school answers: According to the explanation in the Vinaya (律藏, lǜzàng), it can be known that this is a definitive teaching. The body is that of a layman, but the name is Bhikkhu, so it is called a 'nominal Bhikkhu'. Another explanation is that through the white four karmas (白四羯磨, bái sì jiémó) [Caturtha-kamma], one obtains the full precepts, and then this person is given the name Bhikkhu, so it is called a 'nominal Bhikkhu'. 'Name' arises from 'thought', or can generate 'thought', so it is called 'nominal thought'. Someone who has committed a major offense is actually not a Bhikkhu, but claims 'I am a Bhikkhu', so it is called 'self-proclaimed Bhikkhu'. Another explanation is that during the performance of rituals, one claims 'Bhikkhu so-and-so', so it is called 'self-proclaimed Bhikkhu'. The former explanation is more superior. A renunciate who relies on begging for a living is called a 'begging Bhikkhu'. Another explanation is that whether renunciate or layperson, going door-to-door begging is called a 'begging Bhikkhu'. The Arhats (阿羅漢, āluóhàn) [Arhat] because they have broken through delusion, are called 'delusion-breaking Bhikkhus'. Another explanation is that all the sages who have attained the unconditioned path, truly break through delusion, so they are called 'delusion-breaking Bhikkhus', which is the Bhikkhu in the ultimate sense (勝義比丘, shèngyì bǐqiū) [Paramattha-bhikkhu]. Since the Vinaya itself explains that someone who has committed a major offense is actually not a Bhikkhu, but claims to be a Bhikkhu, it clearly shows that someone who has committed a major offense does not have the precepts. Although the text cites four types of Bhikkhus, it mainly takes the second type, 'self-proclaimed', as evidence, which is using scriptural proof to demonstrate. In the meaning of this sutra, or in the meaning of committing this major offense, saying 'non-Bhikkhu' is because one has lost the precepts, so it is not a Bhikkhu who has received the full precepts through the white four karmas, or it is not a 'nominal Bhikkhu' who has received the full precepts through the white four karmas, and it is not from the ultimate sense that it says 'non-Bhikkhu'. Other explanations are as mentioned before. If this Bhikkhu who has committed a major offense was previously a Bhikkhu in the ultimate sense, and later became a non-Bhikkhu in the ultimate sense due to committing a major offense, then it would be reasonable to say so.

言依勝義苾芻言非苾芻。非此犯重苾芻先是勝義苾芻。後由犯重成非勝義苾芻。何得釋言依勝義苾芻言非苾芻。若勝義苾芻定不犯重。若世俗苾芻犯與不犯皆非勝義。何得說言彼犯重已名非勝義。此即以理證也　由斯教．理故知經言非苾芻者。是了義說。

然彼所說至犯重亦然者。經部牒前說一切有部計徴破。可知　多羅樹。形似此間荾蘆樹。然此間無。

大師此中喻顯何義者。說一切有部問。

意顯于戒至一切律儀者。經部答。文亦可知。

又犯重人至稱苾芻者者。經部師又引經顯犯重舍戒　僧謂僧伽。此云眾。祇謂所有。僧伽所有名曰僧祇。即是眾所有食名僧祇食　毗訶羅。義翻為寺。是所住處義　犯重之人非實苾芻自稱苾芻。以此故知。律中自稱苾芻是犯重人。余文可知。

彼苾芻體其相云何者。經部問。彼犯重苾芻體其相如何。

隨相是何至四污道沙門者。說一切有部答。彼犯重人隨相狀是何。戒體必應有。經中既說有四沙門更無第五。明知犯重身中有戒。即污道沙門所攝。若四不攝。應立第五相似沙門。既不別立。應知即是污道沙門。若無戒體不名沙門。既名沙門知有戒體。意引第四為證。餘者同文故來　準陀此云稚小。舊云純陀訛也　婆沙六十六解云。勝道沙門者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：言依勝義苾芻（擁有真實意義的比丘）言非苾芻（不是比丘）。如果不是因為犯重罪，這個比丘原本是勝義苾芻。後來因為犯了重罪，變成了非勝義苾芻。怎麼能解釋說依據勝義苾芻說他不是比丘呢？如果勝義苾芻一定不會犯重罪。如果世俗比丘，犯與不犯都不是勝義。怎麼能說他犯了重罪之後就叫做非勝義呢？這是用道理來證明的。因為這個教義和道理，所以知道經文里說的『非苾芻』，是了義說（究竟的說法）。然而他們所說的『直到犯重罪也是這樣』，經部（Sautrāntika）引用一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的說法進行辯駁，可以知道。多羅樹（Tāla tree），形狀像這裡的荾蘆樹，但是這裡沒有。『大師在這裡用比喻顯示什麼意義呢？』說一切有部問。『意思是顯示對於戒律直到一切律儀。』經部回答。文中的意思也可以知道。『又犯重罪的人，自稱比丘』，經部師又引用經文顯示犯重罪的人捨棄戒律。僧（Saṃgha）的意思是僧伽（Saṃgha），這裡翻譯成『眾』。祇（Ghi）的意思是所有。僧伽所有叫做僧祇（Saṃghika），就是大眾所有的食物叫做僧祇食。毗訶羅（Vihāra），翻譯成寺廟，是居住的地方的意思。犯重罪的人不是真正的比丘，卻自稱比丘。因此知道，律藏中自稱比丘的是犯重罪的人。其餘的文字可以理解。『那個比丘的本體，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？』經部問。那個犯重罪的比丘的本體，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？『隨著相狀是什麼，直到四污道沙門（four defiled paths of Śrāmaṇa）呢？』說一切有部回答。那個犯重罪的人隨著相狀是什麼？戒體（戒的本體）必定應該有。經文中既然說了有四種沙門，沒有第五種。明顯知道犯重罪的人身體中有戒。就是被污道沙門所包含。如果不是四種沙門所包含，應該設立第五種相似沙門。既然沒有另外設立，應該知道就是污道沙門。如果沒有戒體，就不能叫做沙門。既然叫做沙門，就知道有戒體。意思是引用第四種沙門作為證明。其餘的和文中的意思相同。準陀（Cunda），這裡翻譯成稚小。舊譯純陀是訛誤。婆沙（Vibhāṣā）第六十六卷解釋說，勝道沙門（Śreṣṭhamārga-śrāmaṇa）是...

【English Translation】 English version: 'To say 'he is not a Bhikṣu (monk)' is based on the statement of a Śuddha Bhikṣu (pure monk). He was initially a Śuddha Bhikṣu before committing a grave offense and becoming a non-Śuddha Bhikṣu. How can it be explained that the statement 'he is not a Bhikṣu' is based on the statement of a Śuddha Bhikṣu? If he is a Śuddha Bhikṣu, he would definitely not commit a grave offense. If he is a conventional Bhikṣu, whether he commits an offense or not, he is not a Śuddha Bhikṣu. How can it be said that after committing a grave offense, he is called a non-Śuddha Bhikṣu? This is proven by reason.' 'Therefore, based on this teaching and reasoning, it is known that the statement 'not a Bhikṣu' in the Sutra is a definitive statement (Nītārtha).' 'However, their statement 'it is the same until committing a grave offense' is refuted by the Sautrāntikas (Sūtra School) quoting the Sarvāstivādins (the 'All Exists' School). This can be understood. Tāla tree (Tāla tree) resembles the 荾蘆 tree here, but it does not exist here.' 'What meaning does the Master reveal through this metaphor?' The Sarvāstivādins asked. 'It means to reveal the precepts up to all vows.' The Sautrāntikas replied. The meaning in the text can also be understood.' 'Furthermore, 'a person who has committed a grave offense calls himself a Bhikṣu,' the Sautrāntika master again quotes the Sutra to show that a person who has committed a grave offense abandons the precepts. Saṃgha (Saṃgha) means Saṃgha (Saṃgha), which is translated here as 'community'. Ghi (Ghi) means all. All of the Saṃgha is called Saṃghika (Saṃghika), which means the food belonging to the community is called Saṃghika food. Vihāra (Vihāra) is translated as temple, meaning the place of residence. A person who has committed a grave offense is not a real Bhikṣu but calls himself a Bhikṣu. Therefore, it is known that in the Vinaya (monastic discipline), a person who calls himself a Bhikṣu is a person who has committed a grave offense. The remaining text can be understood.' 'What is the nature of that Bhikṣu, what is its appearance?' The Sautrāntikas asked. What is the nature of that Bhikṣu who has committed a grave offense, what is its appearance?' 'What is the appearance, up to the four defiled paths of Śrāmaṇa (four defiled paths of Śrāmaṇa)?' The Sarvāstivādins replied. What is the appearance of that person who has committed a grave offense? The essence of the precepts (戒體) must exist. Since the Sutra says there are four Śrāmaṇas, and there is no fifth, it is clear that there are precepts in the body of a person who has committed a grave offense. It is included in the defiled path of Śrāmaṇa. If it is not included in the four Śrāmaṇas, a fifth similar Śrāmaṇa should be established. Since it is not established separately, it should be known that it is the defiled path of Śrāmaṇa. If there is no essence of the precepts, it cannot be called a Śrāmaṇa. Since it is called a Śrāmaṇa, it is known that there is an essence of the precepts. It means to cite the fourth Śrāmaṇa as proof. The rest is the same as the meaning in the text. Cunda (Cunda) is translated here as '稚小' (young). The old translation '純陀' is an error. The sixty-sixth volume of Vibhāṣā (Vibhāṣā) explains that Śreṣṭhamārga-śrāmaṇa (Śreṣṭhamārga-śrāmaṇa) is...

。謂佛世尊自能覺故。一切獨覺應知亦爾　示道沙門者。謂尊者舍利子無等雙故。大法將故。常能隨佛轉法輪故。一切無學聲聞應知亦爾　命道沙門者。謂尊者阿難陀。雖居學位而同無學。多聞聞持具凈戒禁。一切有學應知亦爾。污．道沙門者。謂莫喝落迦苾芻。喜盜他物等是　解云。佛及獨覺。自能覺故。其道勝故。名為勝道。舍利子等說法化人名為示道。阿難陀等以戒．定．慧為命故名命道。謂諸犯重人名為污道　莫河落迦。此云老。謂老苾芻　問非犯重戒余凡苾芻。於此四中是何所攝。而言更無第五沙門　解云是命道沙門攝。以戒為命故。婆沙且說有學。凡夫略而不說。或可影顯　又解污．道沙門攝。雖非犯重余輕必犯亦名污．道。婆沙且說犯重。余未說者等字中攝　又解通二所攝。若具凈戒命道沙門攝。若犯余輕污道沙門攝。釋妨如前　又解不攝。世尊一時。隨機說法。且說諸聖及犯重人。故不犯重人非此四攝。若作此解應釋文言　準陀當知沙門有四。此是經文　更無第五有部證言。

雖有此說至火輪死人者。經部通經。經意污道沙門名沙門者。雖有此說。而彼唯有剃髮染衣余沙門相故名沙門。非有戒體說名沙門　寄喻來說　如被燒材實非材木。似材木故假立材名　亦如克木作鸚鵡㭰。實非彼㭰。似彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本謂佛世尊自己能夠覺悟，一切獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依賴他人教導而獨自悟道的修行者）應當知道也是如此。示道沙門（指引道路的僧人）是指尊者舍利子（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱），因為他是無與倫比的，是偉大的法將，常常能夠跟隨佛陀轉法輪（Dharmacakra，佛陀教義的傳播）。一切無學聲聞（Arhat，已證阿羅漢果的弟子）應當知道也是如此。命道沙門（以戒律為生命的僧人）是指尊者阿難陀（Ananda，佛陀十大弟子之一，以記憶力著稱），雖然還處在有學（Saiksha，仍在修學階段的修行者）的地位，但如同無學一樣，博聞強記，具足清凈的戒律。一切有學應當知道也是如此。污道沙門（行為不端的僧人）是指莫喝落迦苾芻（Mokharaka Bhikshu，一位比丘的名字），喜歡偷盜他人的物品等等。解釋說，佛和獨覺，因為自己能夠覺悟，他們的道路殊勝，所以稱為勝道。舍利子等說法教化他人的人稱為示道。阿難陀等以戒、定、慧為生命，所以稱為命道。那些犯重罪的人稱為污道。莫河落迦（Mokharaka）的意思是『老』，指老比丘。問：沒有犯重戒的其他凡夫比丘，在這四種沙門中屬於哪一種？並且說沒有第五種沙門。解釋說：屬於命道沙門。因為以戒律為生命。婆沙（Vibhasa，佛教論書）只是說了有學，而凡夫略而不說，或許是暗示。又解釋說，屬於污道沙門。即使沒有犯重罪，犯其他輕罪也稱為污道。婆沙只是說了犯重罪，其他未說的包含在『等』字中。又解釋說，可以通於兩者。如果具足清凈的戒律，就屬於命道沙門；如果犯其他輕罪，就屬於污道沙門。解釋的妨礙如前所述。又解釋說，不屬於這四種。世尊一時，隨機說法，只是說了諸聖和犯重罪的人，所以沒有犯重罪的人不屬於這四種。如果這樣解釋，應該解釋經文說：準陀（Chunda，一位在家居士的名字）應當知道沙門有四種。這是經文。更無第五種，有部（Sarvastivada，一個佛教部派）以此為證。雖然有這種說法，到『火輪死人』，經部（Sutrantika，一個佛教部派）貫通經義，經部的意思是，污道沙門被稱為沙門，雖然有這種說法，但他們只有剃髮染衣等沙門的外相，所以稱為沙門，並沒有戒體，不能稱為沙門。用比喻來說，如同被燒過的木材，實際上不是木材，因為像木材，所以假立木材之名。也像用木頭雕刻的鸚鵡，實際上不是鸚鵡，只是像鸚鵡。

【English Translation】 English version It is said that the World Honored Buddha is self-enlightened, and all Pratyekabuddhas (those who attain enlightenment independently without relying on the teachings of others) should also know that this is the case. 'Demonstrating the Path Sramana' refers to the venerable Sariputra (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom), because he is unparalleled, a great Dharma general, and is always able to follow the Buddha in turning the Dharma wheel (Dharmacakra, the propagation of the Buddha's teachings). All Arhats (disciples who have attained the state of Arhat) should also know that this is the case. 'Life-Path Sramana' refers to the venerable Ananda (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his memory), although he is still in the position of a Saiksha (a practitioner still in the stage of learning), he is like an Arhat, with great learning and retention, possessing pure precepts. All Saikshas should also know that this is the case. 'Defiled-Path Sramana' refers to the Mokharaka Bhikshu (the name of a Bhikshu), who likes to steal other people's belongings, etc. It is explained that the Buddha and Pratyekabuddhas, because they are able to enlighten themselves, and their path is superior, are called the 'Superior Path'. Those who teach and transform others, such as Sariputra, are called 'Demonstrating the Path'. Those who take precepts, concentration, and wisdom as their life, such as Ananda, are called 'Life-Path'. Those who commit serious offenses are called 'Defiled-Path'. Mokharaka means 'old', referring to an old Bhikshu. Question: To which of these four types of Sramanas do other ordinary Bhikshus who have not committed serious offenses belong? And it is said that there is no fifth type of Sramana. It is explained that they belong to the 'Life-Path Sramana'. Because they take precepts as their life. The Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) only mentions Saikshas, and omits ordinary people, perhaps implying it. It is also explained that they belong to the 'Defiled-Path Sramana'. Even if they have not committed serious offenses, committing other minor offenses is also called 'Defiled-Path'. The Vibhasa only mentions those who have committed serious offenses, and the others not mentioned are included in the word 'etc.'. It is also explained that it can apply to both. If they possess pure precepts, they belong to the 'Life-Path Sramana'; if they commit other minor offenses, they belong to the 'Defiled-Path Sramana'. The explanation of the obstacles is as mentioned before. It is also explained that they do not belong to these four types. The World Honored One, at one time, taught according to the circumstances, only mentioning the saints and those who have committed serious offenses, so those who have not committed serious offenses do not belong to these four types. If explained in this way, the sutra text should be explained as: Chunda (the name of a layperson) should know that there are four types of Sramanas. This is the sutra text. There is no fifth type, which is evidenced by the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school). Although there is this saying, up to 'a person killed by a wheel of fire', the Sutrantika (a Buddhist school) connects the meaning of the sutra. The meaning of the Sutrantika is that the 'Defiled-Path Sramana' is called a Sramana, although there is this saying, they only have the external appearance of a Sramana, such as shaving their heads and wearing dyed robes, so they are called Sramanas, but they do not have the essence of precepts, and cannot be called Sramanas. To use an analogy, like burnt wood, it is actually not wood, but because it resembles wood, it is given the name of wood. It is also like a parrot carved from wood, it is actually not a parrot, but only resembles a parrot.

㭰故。假立㭰名　有水名池。涸池名池似彼池故以假立池名　生芽名種。敗種名種。似彼種故假立種名　周匝名輪。旋火名輪。似彼輪故假立輪名　思慮名人死已名人似彼人故假立人名　污道沙門應知亦爾。戒名沙門。犯重已去名沙門者。似沙門故假名沙門。

若犯重人至授學苾芻者。說一切有部難。若犯重人由無戒故非苾芻者。即無有授犯重苾芻盡形學戒　然律中說。禪難提苾芻。雖復犯重。無覆藏心。世尊遣彼盡形學戒。既遣學戒。明知犯重。不捨戒也。

不說犯重人至制立如是者。經部答。不說一切諸犯重人皆成波羅夷罪。但成波羅夷罪。由覆藏故。定說非苾芻。謂或有人相續身中有殊勝慚愧。雖復犯重。非他勝罪。由彼無有一念覆心如禪難提等。法主世尊制立如是。

若犯他勝至出家受戒者。說一切有部難。若犯他勝罪由無戒故便非苾芻。既無有戒何不重令出家受戒。

由彼相續至如是類苾芻者。經部答。由身已為無慚愧壞。無力發戒。如焦種故不復生芽。設犯重后自謂苾芻。便舍所學。亦不許彼重出家故。釋訖調言。于無戒義苦救何為。若犯重人猶有苾芻律儀體性。汝應自歸禮如是類苾芻。

正法滅時至無有舍義者。此破法蜜部　羯磨。此云業。若依婆沙一百一十七云。持

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

因此，只是假立名稱而已。有水的叫做池（Pond），乾涸的也叫做池（Pond），因為它像有水的池（Pond），所以假立名為池（Pond）。

生芽的叫做種子（Seed），壞掉的也叫做種子（Seed），因為它像能生芽的種子（Seed），所以假立名為種子（Seed）。

周圍環繞的叫做輪（Wheel），旋轉的火也叫做輪（Wheel），因為它像周圍環繞的輪（Wheel），所以假立名為輪（Wheel）。

思考的人叫做人（Person），死去的人也叫做人（Person），因為它像活著的人（Person），所以假立名為人（Person）。

污染正道的沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）應該知道也是這樣。守戒的叫做沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者），犯了重罪離開的也叫做沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者），因為它像真正的沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者），所以假名為沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）。

如果犯了重罪的人去接受學戒的比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子），一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）會提出質疑。如果犯了重罪的人因為沒有戒律就不是比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子），那麼就沒有讓犯了重罪的比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子）盡形壽學戒的說法了。然而律藏中說，禪難提（Zenandī）比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子）即使犯了重罪，沒有覆藏的心，世尊（Buddha，佛陀）也讓他盡形壽學戒。既然讓他學戒，就明顯知道犯了重罪，也沒有舍戒。

不說犯了重罪的人直到制定這樣的規定，經部（Sautrāntika）回答說，不是說所有犯了重罪的人都構成波羅夷罪（Pārājika，斷頭罪），而是構成波羅夷罪（Pārājika，斷頭罪）是因為覆藏的緣故，肯定地說不是比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子）。意思是說，或許有人相續身中有殊勝的慚愧心，即使犯了重罪，也不是他勝罪（Parājika，斷頭罪），因為他沒有一念覆藏的心，就像禪難提（Zenandī）等。法主世尊（Buddha，佛陀）制定了這樣的規定。

如果犯了他勝罪（Parājika，斷頭罪）直到出家受戒，一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）會提出質疑。如果犯了他勝罪（Parājika，斷頭罪）因為沒有戒律就不是比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子），既然沒有戒律，為什麼不重新讓他出家受戒？

經部（Sautrāntika）回答說，因為他的身心已經被無慚愧破壞，沒有力量生起戒律，就像燒焦的種子（Seed）不再發芽一樣。假設犯了重罪后自己還認為是比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子），就捨棄了所學，也不允許他重新出家。解釋完畢后調侃說，對於沒有戒律的意義，何必苦苦辯解？如果犯了重罪的人還有比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子）的律儀體性，你應該自己去歸依禮拜這樣的比丘（Bhikṣu，出家受具足戒的男子）。

正法滅亡的時候直到沒有捨棄的意義，這是爲了破斥法密部（Dharmaguptaka）。羯磨（Karma），這裡叫做業。如果依據《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第一百一十七卷的說法，持有……

【English Translation】 English version:

Therefore, it is merely the establishment of a nominal designation. A place with water is called a 'Pond', and a dried-up place is also called a 'Pond', because it resembles a pond with water, hence the nominal designation 'Pond'.

A sprouting thing is called a 'Seed', and a decayed thing is also called a 'Seed', because it resembles a sprouting seed, hence the nominal designation 'Seed'.

Something that goes around is called a 'Wheel', and a rotating fire is also called a 'Wheel', because it resembles a wheel that goes around, hence the nominal designation 'Wheel'.

A thinking being is called a 'Person', and a dead being is also called a 'Person', because it resembles a living person, hence the nominal designation 'Person'.

A Śrāmaṇa (出家修行者, wandering ascetic) who defiles the right path should also know that it is like this. One who observes the precepts is called a Śrāmaṇa (出家修行者, wandering ascetic), and one who has committed a grave offense and left is also called a Śrāmaṇa (出家修行者, wandering ascetic), because he resembles a true Śrāmaṇa (出家修行者, wandering ascetic), hence the nominal designation Śrāmaṇa (出家修行者, wandering ascetic).

If a person who has committed a grave offense goes to receive the precepts of a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk), the Sarvāstivāda (一切有部, school of early Buddhism) will raise objections. If a person who has committed a grave offense is not a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk) because he has no precepts, then there would be no such thing as allowing a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk) who has committed a grave offense to learn the precepts for the rest of his life. However, the Vinaya (律藏, monastic code) says that the Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk) Zenandī (禪難提), even though he had committed a grave offense, had no intention of concealing it, and the Buddha (世尊, enlightened one) sent him to learn the precepts for the rest of his life. Since he was sent to learn the precepts, it is clear that he had committed a grave offense, but he did not abandon the precepts.

It is not said that a person who has committed a grave offense until the establishment of such a rule, the Sautrāntika (經部, school of early Buddhism) replies, it is not said that all persons who have committed grave offenses have committed a Pārājika (波羅夷罪, defeat, expulsion from the Sangha) offense, but it is because of concealment that a Pārājika (波羅夷罪, defeat, expulsion from the Sangha) offense is committed, and it is definitely said that he is not a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk). It means that perhaps someone in the continuum of his being has outstanding shame and remorse, and even if he has committed a grave offense, it is not a Parājika (波羅夷罪, defeat, expulsion from the Sangha) offense, because he has no thought of concealment, like Zenandī (禪難提) and others. The Dharma Lord Buddha (世尊, enlightened one) established such a rule.

If one commits a Parājika (波羅夷罪, defeat, expulsion from the Sangha) offense until one leaves home and receives the precepts, the Sarvāstivāda (一切有部, school of early Buddhism) will raise objections. If one commits a Parājika (波羅夷罪, defeat, expulsion from the Sangha) offense and is no longer a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk) because he has no precepts, then since he has no precepts, why not allow him to leave home and receive the precepts again?

The Sautrāntika (經部, school of early Buddhism) replies, because his mind has already been destroyed by shamelessness, and he has no power to generate precepts, just like a scorched seed that no longer sprouts. Suppose that after committing a grave offense, he still considers himself a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk), then he abandons what he has learned, and he is not allowed to leave home again. After the explanation, he sarcastically says, why bother to argue about the meaning of having no precepts? If a person who has committed a grave offense still has the nature of a Bhikṣu's (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk) monastic discipline, you should go and take refuge in and pay homage to such a Bhikṣu (出家受具足戒的男子, fully ordained monk).

When the True Dharma is about to perish until there is no meaning of abandonment, this is to refute the Dharmaguptaka (法密部, a school of early Buddhism). Karma (羯磨), here it is called 'action'. If according to the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論, commentary) Volume 117, holding...

律者說。法滅沒時為第五緣。彼作是說。法滅舍戒。正法滅時雖無一切結界羯磨。及毗奈耶。未得律儀無新得理。以別解脫由他教故。而先得戒者其法滅時無有舍義。準下論文。正法有二。一教。二證。聖教總言唯住千載　有餘證法唯住千載。教法住時復過於此　又婆沙一百八十三亦說。正法千年。同前說。若依前說。今時未滿千年。以說戒．羯磨未止息故。若依后說容過千年。佛涅槃來於今久故。

靜慮無漏至云何當舍者。此下第二舍定道戒。等謂等取二律儀外余有漏善。及無漏法。此中文勢正明律儀。以義便故兼明余法。

頌曰至練根及退失者。上兩句明舍有漏戒等。下兩句明舍無漏戒等。

論曰至與色界異者。釋上兩句　殊勝善根。謂暖等四。異生命終舍眾同分。若生欲界。若生上地。定舍彼故。余文可知　總而言之。定生戒等由三緣舍。一易地。二得退。三命終。隨心轉戒隨心而得。以舍心故戒亦隨舍。故舍心有三緣。戒亦三緣舍。故入阿毗達磨論云。靜慮律儀由得色界善心故得。由舍色界善心故舍。屬彼心故　無漏律儀得．舍亦爾。隨無漏心而得舍故(已上論文)無色如色易地．退舍。但無戒異　正理三十九彈云。舍眾同分及離染時亦舍暖等及退分定。為攝此故復說等言。經主釋中應加

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：律宗學者說，『法滅沒時為第五緣』，他們的意思是，佛法衰敗時，戒律也會隨之廢弛。即使正法衰敗時，所有的結界（Sima，佛教寺院的界限）、羯磨（Karma，業，行為）、以及毗奈耶（Vinaya，戒律）都不存在了，也無法新獲得律儀（Śīla，戒律），因為別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa，別解脫戒）需要通過他人的教導才能獲得。而先前已經獲得戒律的人，在正法衰敗時，他們的戒律也不會因此而失去，這可以從下面的論文中推斷出來。正法有兩種，一是教法（教義），二是證法（證悟）。聖教（Ārya-dharma，聖者的教法）總的來說只能住世一千年，剩餘的證法也只能住世一千年。教法住世的時間可能會超過這個期限。另外，《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百八十三卷也說，正法住世一千年，與前面的說法相同。如果按照前面的說法，現在還沒有滿一千年，因為說戒（recitation of precepts）和羯磨（Karma，業，行為）還沒有停止。如果按照後面的說法，可能已經超過一千年了，因為佛陀涅槃（Parinirvana，圓寂）至今已經很久了。

『靜慮無漏至云何當舍者』，這部分是關於捨棄禪定（Dhyana，禪定）和道戒（Mārga-śīla，道戒）的第二種情況。『等』字包括了兩種律儀（戒律）之外的其他有漏善法（Sāsrava-kuśala，有漏善法）和無漏法（Anāsrava-dharma，無漏法）。這裡主要說明的是律儀（戒律），但也順便說明了其他的法。

『頌曰至練根及退失者』，上面的兩句說明了捨棄有漏戒（Sāsrava-śīla，有漏戒）等，下面的兩句說明了捨棄無漏戒（Anāsrava-śīla，無漏戒）等。

『論曰至與異者』，解釋了上面的兩句。殊勝善根（Viśeṣa-kuśala-mūla，殊勝善根）指的是暖位（Uṣmagata，暖位）等四加行位（Catvāri-kramāḥ，四加行位）。與生命終結時捨棄眾同分（Nikāya-sabhāga，眾同分）不同，如果生到欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界），或者生到上界（higher realms），一定會捨棄禪定（Dhyana，禪定）。其餘的內容可以自己理解。總而言之，由禪定（Dhyana，禪定）而生的戒律等，由三種因緣捨棄：一是改變所生之地（易地），二是獲得退失（得退），三是生命終結（命終）。隨心而轉的戒律也隨心而得，因為捨棄了心，戒律也會隨之捨棄。所以，捨棄心有三種因緣，戒律也有三種因緣捨棄。因此，《阿毗達磨論》（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）中說，靜慮律儀（Dhyana-śīla，靜慮律儀）因為獲得善心（kuśala-citta，善心）而獲得，因為捨棄善心（kuśala-citta，**善心）而捨棄，因為它屬於那個心。無漏律儀（Anāsrava-śīla，無漏律儀）的獲得和捨棄也是如此，隨著無漏心（Anāsrava-citta，無漏心）而獲得和捨棄（以上是論文內容）。無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界）就像色界（Rūpadhātu，色界）一樣，會因為改變所生之地（易地）和退失（退舍）而捨棄，只是沒有戒律的差異。正理論（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra，正理論）第三十九卷反駁說，捨棄眾同分（Nikāya-sabhāga，眾同分）以及離開染污時，也會捨棄暖位（Uṣmagata，暖位）等以及退分定（hānabhāgīya-samādhi，退分定）。爲了包含這些情況，所以又說了『等』字。經主（Sūtra-dhara，經主）的解釋中應該加上這些內容。

【English Translation】 English version: The Vinaya masters say, 'The fifth cause is when the Dharma is about to perish.' What they mean is that when the Dharma declines, the precepts will also be abandoned. Even when the Proper Dharma declines, and all the Sima (boundaries of a Buddhist monastery), Karma (actions), and Vinaya (discipline) no longer exist, one cannot newly obtain Śīla (precepts), because Prātimokṣa (individual liberation precepts) can only be obtained through the teachings of others. However, for those who have already obtained the precepts, their precepts will not be lost even when the Proper Dharma declines, as can be inferred from the following text. There are two types of Proper Dharma: the Dharma of teaching (doctrine) and the Dharma of realization (enlightenment). The Ārya-dharma (Dharma of the noble ones) as a whole will only last for a thousand years, and the remaining Dharma of realization will also only last for a thousand years. The Dharma of teaching may last longer than that. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in its 183rd fascicle, also states that the Proper Dharma will last for a thousand years, which is the same as the previous statement. If we follow the previous statement, then a thousand years have not yet passed, because the recitation of precepts and Karma have not stopped. If we follow the latter statement, then it may have already passed a thousand years, because it has been a long time since the Parinirvana (passing away) of the Buddha.

'From Dhyana-Anāsrava to how to abandon them' This section is about the second situation of abandoning Dhyana (meditation) and Mārga-śīla (precepts of the path). The word 'etc.' includes other Sāsrava-kuśala (defiled wholesome dharmas) and Anāsrava-dharma (undefiled dharmas) besides the two types of Śīla (precepts). Here, the main focus is on Śīla (precepts), but other dharmas are also mentioned incidentally.

'The verse says to refining the roots and losing them' The first two lines explain the abandonment of Sāsrava-śīla (defiled precepts) etc., and the last two lines explain the abandonment of Anāsrava-śīla (undefiled precepts) etc.

'The treatise says to being different from ' explains the above two lines. Viśeṣa-kuśala-mūla (superior wholesome roots) refers to the four stages of warming (Uṣmagata) etc. Unlike abandoning Nikāya-sabhāga (commonality of kind) at the end of life, if one is born into the Kāmadhātu (desire realm) or higher realms, one will definitely abandon Dhyana (meditation). The rest of the content can be understood by oneself. In summary, the precepts etc. arising from Dhyana (meditation) are abandoned due to three causes: first, changing the place of birth; second, obtaining loss; and third, the end of life. The precepts that change with the mind are also obtained with the mind, and because the mind is abandoned, the precepts are also abandoned accordingly. Therefore, there are three causes for abandoning the mind, and there are also three causes for abandoning the precepts. Therefore, it is said in the Abhidharma that Dhyana-śīla (meditation precepts) are obtained because of obtaining kuśala-citta (wholesome mind), and are abandoned because of abandoning kuśala-citta (**wholesome mind), because it belongs to that mind. The obtaining and abandoning of Anāsrava-śīla (undefiled precepts) is also the same, obtained and abandoned along with the Anāsrava-citta (undefiled mind) (the above is the content of the treatise). The Arūpadhātu (formless realm) is like the Rūpadhātu (form realm), and will be abandoned due to changing the place of birth and loss, but there is no difference in precepts. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Principles) in its 39th fascicle refutes that when abandoning Nikāya-sabhāga (commonality of kind) and leaving defilement, one will also abandon the warming stage etc. and hānabhāgīya-samādhi (retreating meditation). In order to include these situations, the word 'etc.' is added. These contents should be added to the explanation of the Sūtra-dhara (Sutra master).

離染。如舍色善由易地．退．及離染三。無色亦爾　俱舍師救云。雖離第九品染能捨退分。離前八品即不能捨。離染名總恐有所濫故我不說。異生若成暖等善根命終定舍雖少故說。又解略而不論。今準此論及正理論。唯暖等四順抉擇分名殊勝善根命終舍。余順抉擇分非是殊勝命終不捨。一正理但云暖等。二俱舍以色二緣例同無色。若余抉擇亦命終舍。無色亦有順抉擇分。何故不說命終舍耶。三正理但以色界三緣例同無色不言命終。以此故知余順抉擇非是殊勝非命終舍。唯暖等四名殊勝善根唯說異生命終舍故。雖聖亦舍暖等善根。由易地舍非由命終。若當地死還生當地即不捨也。問若說定戒此論說命終舍舍緣有三。正理又說離染舍舍緣有四。若說三緣．四緣即與五事論相違。彼論云問靜慮律儀何緣故得。何緣故舍。答色界善心若得便得。若舍便舍。此復二種。一由退故。二由界地有轉易故。解云。五事論據全舍故說二種。此論．正理通據少分故。或說三種。或說四種。問別解脫戒與靜慮戒同是有漏。二俱是善。何故舍緣差別不同。解云若以別解五緣對定戒　別解脫戒得由表業故心．受得。還由表業故心舍彼得有故舍　定戒非由故心表得。無有故舍　別解依身有所依變心亦隨變。故有二形舍　定戒依身無所依變心亦隨變。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於離染。就像捨棄色界善法，有易地（改變所處地域）、退（退失）以及離染這三種情況。無色界的情況也類似。《俱舍論》的作者救法師說，雖然離第九品（最高品）的染污能夠捨棄退分，但離開前八品就不能捨棄。因為『離染』這個名稱過於籠統，恐怕有所混淆，所以我沒有說。異生（凡夫）如果成就暖位等善根，命終時必定捨棄，即使數量很少，所以也說了。另一種解釋是，因為內容簡略所以沒有論述。現在根據這部論以及《正理論》，只有暖位等四種順抉擇分才被稱為殊勝善根，命終時會捨棄。其餘的順抉擇分不是殊勝的，命終時不會捨棄。《正理論》只說了暖位等。《俱舍論》用色界和二禪的例子類比無色界。如果其餘的抉擇分也在命終時捨棄，那麼無色界也有順抉擇分，為什麼不說命終時捨棄呢？《正理論》只用三種因緣來類比無色界，沒有說命終。因此可知，其餘的順抉擇分不是殊勝的，不是命終時捨棄的。只有暖位等四種被稱為殊勝善根，只說了異生命終時捨棄。雖然聖者也會捨棄暖位等善根，但那是由於易地而捨棄，不是由於命終。如果在當地死亡，又在當地出生，就不會捨棄。問：如果說定戒，這部論說命終時捨棄，捨棄的因緣有三種。《正理論》又說離染捨棄，捨棄的因緣有四種。如果說三種因緣、四種因緣，就與《五事論》相違背。《五事論》說：『問：靜慮律儀（dhyana-samvara）因什麼緣故得到？因什麼緣故舍棄？答：善心如果得到，就得到；如果捨棄，就捨棄。這又有兩種：一是由於退失的緣故；二是由於界地有轉移的緣故。』解釋說，《五事論》是根據完全捨棄的情況說的，所以說了兩種。這部論和《正理論》是根據少部分捨棄的情況說的，所以或者說三種，或者說四種。問：別解脫戒（pratimoksha-samvara）與靜慮戒（dhyana-samvara）同樣是有漏的，兩者都是善法，為什麼捨棄的因緣差別不同？解釋說，如果用別解脫戒的五種因緣來對比定戒，別解脫戒可以通過表業（行為）的緣故，用心、受（戒）而得到，也可以通過表業的緣故，用心捨棄。因為有得到，所以有捨棄。定戒不是通過故意的行為而得到的，所以沒有因為故意的行為而捨棄。別解脫戒依靠身體，如果所依靠的身體發生變化，心也會隨之變化，所以有二形舍（變成兩種性別的情況）。定戒依靠身體，即使所依靠的身體沒有發生變化，心也會隨之變化。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding detachment. Just like abandoning good qualities in the Form Realm, there are three conditions: change of location (easy ground), regression (retreat), and detachment. The same applies to the Formless Realm. The Kosa master, Savior, said, 'Although abandoning the defilements of the ninth level can relinquish the regressive aspect, abandoning the first eight levels cannot relinquish it. Because the term 'detachment' is too general, fearing confusion, I did not mention it. If an ordinary being achieves roots of goodness such as the stage of warmth, they will definitely abandon them at the end of life, even if it is a small amount, so it is mentioned.' Another explanation is that it was omitted due to brevity. Now, according to this treatise and the Nyayanusara, only the four factors of sequential determination, such as the stage of warmth, are called superior roots of goodness, which are abandoned at the end of life. The remaining factors of sequential determination are not superior and are not abandoned at the end of life. The Nyayanusara only mentions the stage of warmth, etc. The Kosa uses the examples of the Form Realm and the second dhyana to analogize the Formless Realm. If the remaining factors of determination are also abandoned at the end of life, then the Formless Realm also has factors of sequential determination. Why is it not said that they are abandoned at the end of life? The Nyayanusara only uses three conditions to analogize the Formless Realm and does not mention the end of life. Therefore, it can be known that the remaining factors of sequential determination are not superior and are not abandoned at the end of life. Only the four factors such as the stage of warmth are called superior roots of goodness, and it is only said that ordinary beings abandon them at the end of life. Although saints also abandon roots of goodness such as the stage of warmth, it is due to abandoning them by changing location, not due to the end of life. If one dies in the same location and is reborn in the same location, they will not abandon them. Question: If we talk about dhyana-samvara (meditative discipline), this treatise says that it is abandoned at the end of life, and there are three conditions for abandonment. The Nyayanusara also says that detachment is abandoned, and there are four conditions for abandonment. If we talk about three conditions or four conditions, it contradicts the Pancavastuka. The Pancavastuka says: 'Question: For what reason is dhyana-samvara (meditative discipline) obtained? For what reason is it abandoned? Answer: If a good mind is obtained, it is obtained; if it is abandoned, it is abandoned. This is of two types: one is due to regression; the other is due to a change in realm or location.' The explanation is that the Pancavastuka speaks from the perspective of complete abandonment, so it mentions two types. This treatise and the Nyayanusara speak from the perspective of partial abandonment, so they mention either three or four types. Question: Pratimoksha-samvara (discipline of individual liberation) and dhyana-samvara (meditative discipline) are both defiled and both are good. Why are the conditions for abandonment different? The explanation is that if we compare the five conditions of pratimoksha-samvara with dhyana-samvara, pratimoksha-samvara can be obtained through intentional actions, with mind and acceptance (of vows), and it can also be abandoned through intentional actions, with mind. Because there is obtaining, there is abandonment. Dhyana-samvara is not obtained through intentional actions, so there is no abandonment due to intentional actions. Pratimoksha-samvara relies on the body, and if the body it relies on changes, the mind also changes accordingly, so there is abandonment due to becoming of two genders. Dhyana-samvara relies on the body, and even if the body it relies on does not change, the mind still changes accordingly.

故無二形舍　別解得由因等起心。由起邪見斷彼善心。由失彼善即失彼戒。故有斷善舍　定戒由定心得。必無邪見能斷定心。諸論說唯欲邪見斷欲生得故無斷善舍　別解有晝．夜分限。有夜盡舍　定戒無斯分限。無夜盡舍　唯命終舍同彼定戒。然別解命終全舍。定戒命終分舍暖等　總而言之。別解對定戒。四別一同。若以定戒三緣對別解脫戒。定戒有上．下生易地失故有易地舍　別解命終必定舍故但由命終。非由易地失故無易地舍　定戒由退起惑有退彼定。由退定故即退定戒。故有退舍　別解非由退起惑故失求戒心。故無退舍　若依正理更有離染舍緣不同。謂彼定戒由離染時舍退分定。由舍彼定故。即舍彼定俱時戒故。故定戒有離染舍　別解脫戒非由離染舍求戒心。故無離染舍。唯有命終舍。分同別解脫　總而言之。以定俱戒對別解脫。若依此論二別一同。若依正理一同三別。

無漏善法至勝果道故者。釋下兩句。無漏善法由三緣舍　一由得果。謂得果時舍前向道。及舍果道　二由練根。得利舍鈍　三由退失。謂得退時退果道及勝果道　言得退者。先成此法後退不成名為得退　果道。謂果中道　勝果道。謂得果已起余無漏勝前果故名勝果道　或趣勝果名勝果道。若望前果名勝果道。若望後果名為向道　又解勝果

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，『無二形舍』（沒有兩種形式的捨棄）。『別解』（別解脫戒）的獲得是由於『因等起心』（由因緣等生起的心）。由於生起邪見，斷滅了那些善心。由於失去那些善心，就失去了那些戒律。因此，有『斷善舍』（斷善根的捨棄）。『定戒』（由禪定而得的戒律）是由『定心』（禪定之心）而得。必定沒有邪見能夠斷滅定心。諸論典說只有欲界的邪見才能斷滅欲界的生得戒，因此沒有『斷善舍』。『別解』有晝夜的分限，有夜盡舍。『定戒』沒有這樣的分限，沒有夜盡舍。只有命終時才捨棄，與那些『定戒』相同。然而，『別解』在命終時全部捨棄，『定戒』在命終時部分捨棄暖相等（指禪定功德）。總而言之，『別解』相對於『定戒』，有四種不同，一種相同。如果用『定戒』的三種因緣來對比『別解脫戒』，『定戒』有上生、下生，易地而失去，因此有『易地舍』（因轉生而捨棄）。『別解』因為命終必定捨棄，所以只是由於命終，不是由於易地而失去，因此沒有『易地舍』。『定戒』由於退失而生起迷惑，有退失那些禪定，由於退失禪定，就退失了『定戒』，因此有『退舍』（因退失而捨棄）。『別解』不是由於退失而生起迷惑，因此不會失去求戒之心，因此沒有『退舍』。如果依據正理，還有『離染舍』（因離欲染而捨棄）的因緣不同。所謂那些『定戒』，由於離欲染時捨棄退分定，由於捨棄那些禪定，就捨棄了那些與禪定同時的戒律，因此『定戒』有『離染舍』。『別解脫戒』不是由於離欲染而捨棄求戒之心，因此沒有『離染舍』，只有命終舍，與『別解脫』的部分相同。總而言之，用『定俱戒』（與禪定同時生起的戒律）來對比『別解脫』，如果依據此論，有兩種不同，一種相同。如果依據正理，一種相同，三種不同。

『無漏善法至勝果道故』（無漏的善法到達殊勝果位的道路），解釋下面兩句。無漏的善法由三種因緣捨棄：一是由『得果』（獲得果位）。所謂獲得果位時，捨棄之前的向道，以及捨棄果道。二是由『練根』（磨練根器）。獲得利根而捨棄鈍根。三是由『退失』。所謂獲得退失時，退失果道以及勝果道。所說『得退』，是先成就此法，後來退失不成，名為『得退』。『果道』，是指果位中的道路。『勝果道』，是指獲得果位后，生起其餘無漏勝過之前果位的緣故，名為『勝果道』。或者趣向殊勝果位，名為『勝果道』。如果望向之前的果位，名為『勝果道』。如果望向之後的果位，名為『向道』。又解釋『勝果』。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, there is no 'two-form abandonment' (no two kinds of abandonment). The attainment of 'separate liberation' ( Pratimoska ) arises from 'causal arising mind' (the mind arising from causes and conditions). Due to the arising of wrong views, those wholesome minds are severed. Due to the loss of those wholesome minds, those precepts are lost. Therefore, there is 'abandonment by severing wholesome roots'. 'Meditative precepts' (precepts obtained through meditation) are obtained through 'meditative mind' (the mind of meditation). Certainly, no wrong views can sever the meditative mind. The treatises say that only the wrong views of the desire realm can sever the innate precepts of the desire realm, therefore there is no 'abandonment by severing wholesome roots'. 'Separate liberation' has limits of day and night, and there is abandonment at the end of the night. 'Meditative precepts' do not have such limits, and there is no abandonment at the end of the night. Only at the end of life is there abandonment, the same as those 'meditative precepts'. However, 'separate liberation' is completely abandoned at the end of life, while 'meditative precepts' are partially abandoned at the end of life, such as warmth, etc. (referring to the merits of meditative concentration). In summary, 'separate liberation' compared to 'meditative precepts' has four differences and one similarity. If we compare the three conditions of 'meditative precepts' to 'separate liberation precepts', 'meditative precepts' have upper birth, lower birth, and loss due to changing places, therefore there is 'abandonment by changing places' (abandonment due to rebirth). 'Separate liberation' is certainly abandoned at the end of life, so it is only due to the end of life, not due to loss by changing places, therefore there is no 'abandonment by changing places'. 'Meditative precepts' due to regression and the arising of delusion, there is regression of those meditations, and due to the regression of meditation, the 'meditative precepts' are regressed, therefore there is 'abandonment by regression'. 'Separate liberation' is not due to regression and the arising of delusion, therefore the mind seeking precepts is not lost, therefore there is no 'abandonment by regression'. If based on right reasoning, there is also a difference in the condition of 'abandonment by detachment' (abandonment due to detachment from desire). The so-called those 'meditative precepts', due to abandoning the regressed part of meditation at the time of detachment from desire, due to abandoning those meditations, those precepts that arise simultaneously with meditation are abandoned, therefore 'meditative precepts' have 'abandonment by detachment'. 'Separate liberation precepts' are not due to abandoning the mind seeking precepts at the time of detachment from desire, therefore there is no 'abandonment by detachment', only abandonment at the end of life, which is partially the same as 'separate liberation'. In summary, using 'precepts concurrent with meditation' (precepts arising simultaneously with meditation) to compare with 'separate liberation', if based on this treatise, there are two differences and one similarity. If based on right reasoning, there is one similarity and three differences.

'Because unconditioned wholesome dharmas reach the path of superior fruition' explains the following two sentences. Unconditioned wholesome dharmas are abandoned by three conditions: first, by 'attaining fruition' ( Phala ). So-called when attaining fruition, abandoning the previous path of approach, and abandoning the path of fruition. Second, by 'training the roots' ( Indriya ). Attaining sharp faculties and abandoning dull faculties. Third, by 'regression'. So-called when attaining regression, regressing from the path of fruition and the path of superior fruition. The so-called 'attaining regression' is first accomplishing this dharma, and later regressing and not accomplishing it, called 'attaining regression'. 'Path of fruition' refers to the path in the fruition. 'Path of superior fruition' refers to after attaining fruition, arising other unconditioned dharmas that surpass the previous fruition, therefore it is called 'path of superior fruition'. Or approaching superior fruition is called 'path of superior fruition'. If looking towards the previous fruition, it is called 'path of superior fruition'. If looking towards the subsequent fruition, it is called 'path of approach'. Also explaining 'superior fruition'.

道寬依果起道皆名勝果。向道即狹進趣後果名向道故。於二解中前解為勝。得果舍前向道。豈有不捨勝果道耶。總而言之。無漏善法由三緣舍。一由得果。二由練根。三由退失正理三十九彈云。經主於此應說二緣。以得果言攝練根故。謂練根位必還得果。棄捨鈍果勝果道故。又云。我於此中應少分別。若據舍見道及道類智。當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無。所餘無漏容具二種　俱舍師救言。論主別說得果．練根二種舍者。若得果舍據同類舍。如從預流至一來果。若是鈍根舍前鈍道得果鈍道。若是利根舍前利道得果利道。若練根舍據異類舍。如舍鈍道得利道故。雖轉根位必亦得果。非同類舍故不與得果名。論主別說練根意在於此。如五事論亦立三種。故彼論云。問無漏律儀何緣故得。何緣故舍。答與道俱得無全舍者。若隨分舍則由三緣。一由退故。二由得果故。三由練根故　正理論師雖欲故違我說。何斯返破自宗。又雖分別亦非盡理。于修道位有學利根。當知亦由得果非退。何故不說。若善分別應作是言。若舍見道及道類智。並於修位有學利根。當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無。所餘無漏容具二種。意欲分別何斯招過　問別解脫戒。與無漏戒。雖復有漏．無漏不同。二俱是善。何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：道寬認為，依果而起的道都可稱為勝果（殊勝的果報）。趨向于果的道，因為是通往殊勝果報的道路，所以稱為向道。在這兩種解釋中，前一種解釋更為殊勝。得到果位后，就會捨棄之前的向道。難道會有不捨棄殊勝果道的情況嗎？總而言之，無漏善法通過三種因緣捨棄：一是通過獲得果位，二是通過修習根性，三是通過退失。《正理三十九》反駁說，經文作者在此應該說兩種因緣，因為『獲得果位』已經包含了『修習根性』。因為修習根性的階段必然會獲得果位，從而捨棄鈍根的果和殊勝果道。又說，我在此處應該稍作分別。如果根據捨棄見道和道類智的情況來看，應當知道僅僅是因為獲得果位，而不是因為退失。如果是不動法和無學，則兩者都沒有。其餘的無漏法可能具備兩種情況。俱舍師辯護說，論主分別說獲得果位和修習根性這兩種捨棄的原因，是因為如果通過獲得果位而捨棄，那是根據同類捨棄。例如，從預流果到一來果。如果是鈍根，捨棄之前的鈍道，獲得果位的鈍道。如果是利根，捨棄之前的利道，獲得果位的利道。如果是通過修習根性而捨棄，那是根據異類捨棄。例如，捨棄鈍道而獲得利道。雖然轉變根性的階段也必然會獲得果位，但不是同類捨棄，所以不稱為獲得果位。論主分別說修習根性的用意就在於此。例如，《五事論》也建立了三種情況。所以該論說，『請問無漏律儀通過什麼因緣獲得？通過什麼因緣捨棄？』回答說，『與道同時獲得，沒有完全捨棄的情況。如果隨部分捨棄，則通過三種因緣：一是通過退失，二是通過獲得果位，三是通過修習根性。』正理論師即使想要故意違揹我的說法，又為何反而反駁自己的宗派呢？而且即使分別，也沒有窮盡道理。在修道位上的有學利根，應當知道也是因為獲得果位，而不是因為退失。為何不說呢？如果善於分別，應該這樣說：如果捨棄見道和道類智，以及在修道位上的有學利根，應當知道僅僅是因為獲得果位，而不是因為退失。如果是不動法和無學，則兩者都沒有。其餘的無漏法可能具備兩種情況。想要分別什麼，又為何招致過失呢？問：別解脫戒和無漏戒，雖然有有漏和無漏的不同，但兩者都是善法。為何捨棄的因緣差別不同？解答說：如果以...

【English Translation】 English version: Dao Kuan believes that all paths arising from the fruit are called 'Superior Fruit' (supreme result). The path leading to the fruit is called 'Approaching Path' because it is the road to the supreme result. Among these two explanations, the former is more superior. After attaining the fruit, the previous Approaching Path is abandoned. Could there be a situation where the Superior Fruit Path is not abandoned? In summary, unconditioned wholesome dharmas are abandoned through three conditions: first, through attaining the fruit; second, through cultivating the roots; and third, through regression. The Nyaya-anusara (Treatise on Following the Truth) 39 refutes, saying that the author of the sutra should have mentioned two conditions here, because 'attaining the fruit' already includes 'cultivating the roots'. This is because the stage of cultivating the roots inevitably leads to attaining the fruit, thereby abandoning the fruit of dull roots and the Superior Fruit Path. It also says, 'I should make a slight distinction here. If we consider the abandonment of the Path of Seeing (見道, darśana-mārga) and the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths (道類智, mārga-jñāna), it should be known that it is only due to attaining the fruit, not due to regression. If it is the Immovable Dharma (不動法, āniñjya) and the state of No More Learning (無學, aśaikṣa), then both are absent. The remaining unconditioned dharmas may possess both conditions.' The Abhidharmakośa master defends, saying that the treatise master separately mentions the two reasons for abandonment, attaining the fruit and cultivating the roots, because if abandonment occurs through attaining the fruit, it is based on the abandonment of the same category. For example, from the Stream-Enterer Fruit (預流果, srota-āpanna) to the Once-Returner Fruit (一來果, sakṛdāgāmin). If it is a dull root, abandoning the previous dull path and attaining the dull path of the fruit. If it is a sharp root, abandoning the previous sharp path and attaining the sharp path of the fruit. If abandonment occurs through cultivating the roots, it is based on the abandonment of a different category. For example, abandoning the dull path and attaining the sharp path. Although the stage of transforming the roots inevitably leads to attaining the fruit, it is not abandonment of the same category, so it is not called attaining the fruit. The treatise master's intention in separately mentioning cultivating the roots lies here. For example, the Pañcavastuka (Five Topics Treatise) also establishes three conditions. Therefore, that treatise says, 'Question: Through what conditions is unconditioned discipline (律儀, śīla) attained? Through what conditions is it abandoned?' The answer is, 'It is attained simultaneously with the path, and there is no complete abandonment. If it is abandoned partially, then it is through three conditions: first, through regression; second, through attaining the fruit; and third, through cultivating the roots.' Even if the Nyaya-anusara master wants to deliberately contradict my statement, why does he instead refute his own school? Moreover, even if he distinguishes, he does not exhaust the reasons. In the stage of cultivation, the sharp roots of those still learning (有學, śaikṣa), it should be known that it is also due to attaining the fruit, not due to regression. Why not say so? If one is good at distinguishing, one should say this: If one abandons the Path of Seeing and the Knowledge of Kinds of Paths, as well as the sharp roots of those still learning in the stage of cultivation, it should be known that it is only due to attaining the fruit, not due to regression. If it is the Immovable Dharma and the state of No More Learning, then both are absent. The remaining unconditioned dharmas may possess both conditions. What does one want to distinguish, and why does one invite fault? Question: Although the Pratimoksha vows (別解脫戒, prātimokṣa-śīla) and the unconditioned vows differ in being conditioned (有漏, sāsrava) and unconditioned (無漏, anāsrava), both are wholesome dharmas. Why are the conditions for abandonment different? Answer: If based on...

別解五緣對道戒。如對定戒說有差別者。定戒命終分舍。道戒無命終舍。以不繫故　總而言之。別解對道戒五緣皆別　若以道戒三緣對別解脫。道戒由得果故。舍前劣道有得果舍。別解非由得果舍故無得果舍　道戒由心故得。以練根時舍戒俱心。戒亦隨舍有練根舍。別解非由練根舍求戒心無練根舍　道戒有退舍。別解無退舍。如前定戒對別解脫　總而言之。道戒對別解三緣俱不同問別解對道戒定．散不同可舍緣別。定戒與道戒雖有漏．無漏別。二俱隨心戒。何故舍緣差別不等　解云若以定戒三緣對道戒。定戒有漏有易地失故有易地舍。道戒無漏非由易地失故無易地舍　定戒命終分舍暖等有命終舍。道戒命終無別舍故無命終舍　若依正理定戒有離染舍。由離染位舍退分故。以彼退分與彼煩惱相出入故。以舍煩惱亦舍退分。由舍退分亦舍退分俱時戒故有離染舍定．道二戒俱容退故皆有退舍　總而言之。定戒對道戒若依此論二異一同。若依正理一同三異　若以道戒三緣對定戒　道戒由得果．練根得勝舍劣故。有得果．練根舍　定戒非由得果．練根舍故。無得果．練根舍。唯退緣同如前釋　總而言之。道戒對定戒二異一同。

如是已說至得戒二形生者。此即第三舍不律儀。結問頌答。

論曰至舍所依故者。諸不律

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：別解脫戒的五種因緣與道戒不同。例如，如果就定戒而言，存在差別，那麼定戒會在命終時捨棄一部分，而道戒不會在命終時捨棄，因為它不受束縛。總而言之，別解脫戒的五種因緣與道戒都不同。如果以道戒的三種因緣與別解脫戒相比，道戒由於證得果位而捨棄之前的低劣道，因此有得果舍。別解脫戒不是因為證得果位而捨棄，因此沒有得果舍。道戒由於心而獲得，因為在練根時舍戒與心同時發生，戒也隨著捨棄而有練根舍。別解脫戒不是因為練根舍而求戒，因此沒有練根舍。道戒有退舍，別解脫戒沒有退舍，如前述定戒與別解脫戒的比較。總而言之，道戒與別解脫戒的三種因緣都不同。問：別解脫戒與道戒的定、散不同，可以捨棄的因緣不同。定戒與道戒雖然有有漏、無漏的區別，但二者都隨心而戒，為什麼捨棄的因緣差別不等？解答：如果以定戒的三種因緣與道戒相比，定戒有有漏，有易地失，因此有易地舍。道戒無漏，不是因為易地失，因此沒有易地舍。定戒命終時捨棄一部分，暖等有命終舍。道戒命終時沒有特別的捨棄，因此沒有命終舍。如果依據《正理》，定戒有離染舍，因為在離染位捨棄退分。因為那個退分與那個煩惱相互出入。因為捨棄煩惱也捨棄退分，由於捨棄退分也捨棄退分，同時戒因此有離染舍。定戒和道戒都容許退舍，因此都有退舍。總而言之，定戒與道戒如果依據此論，則兩種不同，一種相同。如果依據《正理》，則一種相同，三種不同。如果以道戒的三種因緣與定戒相比，道戒由於得果、練根而得勝舍劣，因此有得果、練根舍。定戒不是因為得果、練根舍，因此沒有得果、練根舍。只有退緣相同，如前所述。總而言之，道戒與定戒兩種不同，一種相同。像這樣已經說到了獲得戒體的二形生者。這便是第三種捨棄不律儀的情況。以下是總結提問和回答的偈頌。論曰至舍所依故者。諸不律儀...

【English Translation】 English version: The five conditions for abandoning Prātimokṣa (individual liberation vows) are different from the five conditions for abandoning the Path Vows (道戒). For example, if there is a difference in terms of Samādhi Vows (定戒), then Samādhi Vows are partially abandoned at the end of life, while Path Vows are not abandoned at the end of life because they are not bound. In summary, all five conditions for abandoning Prātimokṣa are different from those for Path Vows. If we compare the three conditions for Path Vows with Prātimokṣa, Path Vows have 'attainment-of-fruit abandonment' (得果舍) because they abandon the previous inferior path due to attaining the fruit. Prātimokṣa does not have 'attainment-of-fruit abandonment' because it is not abandoned due to attaining the fruit. Path Vows are obtained through the mind, because abandoning the vows and the mind occur simultaneously during the practice of refining the roots (練根). The vows are also abandoned along with the practice of refining the roots, thus there is 'refining-the-roots abandonment' (練根舍). Prātimokṣa is not sought through 'refining-the-roots abandonment', so there is no 'refining-the-roots abandonment'. Path Vows have 'regression abandonment' (退舍), while Prātimokṣa does not have 'regression abandonment', as in the previous comparison between Samādhi Vows and Prātimokṣa. In summary, the three conditions for Path Vows are all different from those for Prātimokṣa. Question: The fixed (定) and scattered (散) states of Prātimokṣa and Path Vows are different, and the conditions for abandonment are different. Although Samādhi Vows and Path Vows have the distinction of being with outflows (有漏) and without outflows (無漏), both are vows that follow the mind. Why are the differences in the conditions for abandonment not equal? Answer: If we compare the three conditions for Samādhi Vows with Path Vows, Samādhi Vows have outflows and can be lost due to changing locations (易地失), so there is 'changing-location abandonment' (易地舍). Path Vows are without outflows and are not lost due to changing locations, so there is no 'changing-location abandonment'. Samādhi Vows are partially abandoned at the end of life, and warmth (暖) and other signs indicate 'end-of-life abandonment' (命終舍). Path Vows do not have a special abandonment at the end of life, so there is no 'end-of-life abandonment'. If we rely on the Abhidharmakośa (正理), Samādhi Vows have 'abandonment through detachment' (離染舍), because they abandon the regressed part (退分) in the state of detachment. This is because that regressed part interacts with that affliction. Because abandoning afflictions also abandons the regressed part, and abandoning the regressed part also abandons the regressed part, the vows at the same time have 'abandonment through detachment'. Both Samādhi Vows and Path Vows allow for regression abandonment, so both have 'regression abandonment'. In summary, if we rely on this treatise, Samādhi Vows and Path Vows have two differences and one similarity. If we rely on the Abhidharmakośa, they have one similarity and three differences. If we compare the three conditions for Path Vows with Samādhi Vows, Path Vows have 'attainment-of-fruit and refining-the-roots abandonment' (得果．練根舍) because they gain superiority and abandon inferiority due to attaining the fruit and refining the roots. Samādhi Vows do not have 'attainment-of-fruit and refining-the-roots abandonment' because they are not abandoned due to attaining the fruit and refining the roots. Only the condition of regression is the same, as explained earlier. In summary, Path Vows and Samādhi Vows have two differences and one similarity. Having spoken thus, we have reached the case of those born with two forms who obtain the vows. This is the third case of abandoning non-virtue. The following is a summary verse of questions and answers. The treatise says, '...to abandoning what is relied upon.' All non-virtues...

儀由三緣舍。一者由死舍所依故。惡戒本依眾同分得。所依同分今時既舍。能依惡戒亦隨舍故。

二由得戒至勢力強故者。第二由得戒舍。謂得別解．靜慮二戒惡戒便舍。由內因．外緣故。得律儀時惡戒便斷。以善．惡戒其性相違必無俱起。善戒于中初起增盛勢力強故能捨惡戒　問三律儀中何故不說無漏律儀能捨惡戒　解云于見道前必得定戒舍彼惡戒。前已舍故。故不說彼道戒能捨。

三由相續至所依變故者。第三二形舍。由相續身二形俱生故。由依身變故。心亦隨變。又二形者非增上故能捨惡戒。又正理云。然二形生舍善．惡戒。二依貪慾極增上故。非成扇搋等舍善．惡律儀。起二依貪非極重故。

住惡戒者至病終難愈者。明惡戒易得有誓受得。惡戒難捨舍事不捨。要得善戒方能捨彼。喻況可知。

不律儀者至為名處中者者。問。

有餘師說至依表得故者。答。前師意說。得不律儀惡阿世耶非永舍故。如停熱鐵赤滅青生。善．惡二戒應知亦爾。善戒滅惡戒生　后師意說。由得善戒舍惡戒故。若不更作無緣令得以不律儀依表生故。但是處中。準婆沙一百十七前師是健馱邏國諸師。后師是迦濕彌羅國諸大論師。彼論雖無評家且以後師為正　然正理論三十九取前師為正。故彼論云。前說應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本儀由三種因緣捨棄（惡戒）。第一種是由於死亡而捨棄所依之身。惡戒的根本是依賴眾生的共同體分而得。現在既然捨棄了所依的共同體分，那麼能依賴的惡戒也隨之捨棄。

第二種是由於獲得戒律而使勢力強大。第二種是由於獲得戒律而捨棄（惡戒），指的是獲得別解脫戒和靜慮戒時，惡戒便會捨棄。這是由於內在的因和外在的緣故。在獲得律儀時，惡戒便會斷除。因為善戒和惡戒的性質相反，必定不能同時產生。善戒在其中最初產生並增盛，勢力強大，因此能夠捨棄惡戒。問：在三種律儀中，為什麼不說無漏律儀能夠捨棄惡戒？解答：在見道之前，必定會得到定戒，從而捨棄那些惡戒。因為之前已經捨棄了，所以不說那種道戒能夠捨棄。

第三種是由於相續之身變為二形而捨棄（惡戒）。第三種是二形人捨棄（惡戒），因為相續之身同時具有兩種性別。由於所依之身發生變化，心也隨之變化。而且，二形人並非由於增上的原因而能夠捨棄惡戒。另外，《正理》中說：然而，二形人生起時會捨棄善戒和惡戒，因為兩種性別所依賴的貪慾極其增上。並非成為扇搋等就會捨棄善戒和惡戒，因為生起兩種性別所依賴的貪慾並非極其嚴重。

安住于惡戒的人，直到疾病纏身難以治癒。說明惡戒容易得到，通過發誓就可以獲得。惡戒難以捨棄，捨棄了行為卻不捨棄（惡戒本身）。只有獲得善戒才能捨棄它。比喻的情況可以類推得知。

不律儀，是爲了名為處中。問：

有其他論師說，依賴於外在的表相而獲得（不律儀）。答：前一位論師的意思是說，獲得不律儀時，惡劣的阿世耶並非永遠捨棄。就像停止加熱的鐵，紅色熄滅後會產生青色。善戒和惡戒也應該這樣理解，善戒熄滅后惡戒產生。后一位論師的意思是說，由於獲得善戒而捨棄惡戒。如果不再次造作，就沒有因緣使不律儀依賴於外在的表相而產生，因此只是處中。根據《婆沙》第一百十七卷，前一位論師是健馱邏國（Gandhāra）的諸位論師，后一位論師是迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的各位大論師。那部論典雖然沒有評判，但暫且以後一位論師的說法為正確。然而，《正理論》第三十九卷採納了前一位論師的說法為正確。所以那部論典說，前一種說法是正確的。

【English Translation】 English version Evil precepts are abandoned due to three conditions. The first is due to abandoning the physical basis because of death. The root of evil precepts is obtained by relying on the commonality of sentient beings. Now that the commonality on which it relies has been abandoned, the evil precepts that depend on it are also abandoned.

The second is due to obtaining precepts and their power becoming strong. The second abandonment is due to obtaining precepts, meaning that upon obtaining the Prātimokṣa (individual liberation vow) and Dhyāna (meditative concentration) precepts, evil precepts are abandoned. This is due to internal causes and external conditions. When the ethical discipline is obtained, evil precepts are cut off. Because good and evil precepts are contradictory in nature, they cannot arise simultaneously. Good precepts initially arise and increase in strength, thus being able to abandon evil precepts. Question: Among the three ethical disciplines, why is it not said that the Anāsrava (untainted) ethical discipline can abandon evil precepts? Answer: Before the path of seeing (Darśanamārga), one will definitely obtain Samādhi (concentration) precepts, thereby abandoning those evil precepts. Because they have already been abandoned before, it is not said that that path's precepts can abandon them.

The third is due to the continuous body changing into two forms. The third is the abandonment by those with two genders. It is because the continuous body simultaneously possesses two genders. Because the physical basis changes, the mind also changes accordingly. Moreover, those with two genders are not able to abandon evil precepts due to an increase. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on the Conformity to Rightness) says: However, the arising of two genders abandons both good and evil precepts, because the desire on which the two genders rely is extremely increased. It is not that becoming a eunuch (paṇḍaka) abandons good and evil ethical disciplines, because the desire on which the arising of two genders relies is not extremely strong.

Those who abide in evil precepts, until they are afflicted with illness that is difficult to cure. This explains that evil precepts are easy to obtain, and can be obtained by making a vow. Evil precepts are difficult to abandon; the actions are abandoned, but the evil precepts themselves are not. Only by obtaining good precepts can one abandon them. The analogy is understandable.

Non-ethical discipline is for the sake of being named as neutral. Question:

Some other teachers say that it is obtained by relying on external appearances. Answer: The former teacher's intention is that when non-ethical discipline is obtained, the evil Āśaya (underlying tendency) is not permanently abandoned. It is like stopping the heating of iron; the red color extinguishes, and blue arises. Good and evil precepts should also be understood in this way: when good precepts extinguish, evil precepts arise. The latter teacher's intention is that evil precepts are abandoned due to obtaining good precepts. If one does not create them again, there is no condition for non-ethical discipline to arise relying on external appearances; therefore, it is merely neutral. According to the Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary) volume 117, the former teachers are the teachers of Gandhāra (健馱邏國), and the latter teachers are the great teachers of Kashmir (迦濕彌羅國). Although that treatise does not have a commentary, the latter teacher's view is temporarily considered correct. However, the Nyāyānusāra (正理論) volume 39 adopts the former teacher's view as correct. Therefore, that treatise says that the former view is correct.

理。先受戒時惡阿世耶非永舍故。依前表業惡戒還起　俱舍師救云。諸師皆說得戒舍。此既得戒。寧容不捨。后不更作。如何更起。故知后說為正。正理意違俱舍。此乃反害本國諸師　問此論惡戒舍有三緣。何故婆沙舍緣有四。故婆沙一百一十七云。諸不律儀由四緣舍。一受別解脫律儀。二得靜慮律儀。三二形生。四舍眾同分　解云別解定戒俱名得戒故。此論合為一種。婆沙據定．散不同故分二開合為異　問別解與惡戒相翻以立。何故舍緣差別不同。解云若以別解五緣對惡戒　別解是善得難。舍易。作法即成得有故舍　惡戒是惡得易。舍難。作法不成。無有故舍　別解由求戒心得。以起邪見斷求戒心。不成彼心戒亦隨舍有斷善舍　惡戒不爾。無斷善舍　問于惡戒中何故無斷惡舍　解云求惡戒心是不善惑斷彼惑時必得定戒。得定戒已必舍惡戒。無有斷彼惑已不得定戒故無斷惡舍　又解得戒義當斷惡舍。得善戒時雖復猶成求惡戒心。以不成彼惡戒體故名為斷惡　斷惡舍雖成求惡戒心由得善戒故能捨惡戒名為斷惡舍．　斷善舍善。非由惡戒能捨善戒。但由邪見故。心與戒二俱不成　別解有日．夜分齊故有夜盡舍　惡戒無有日．夜分齊故無夜盡舍　命終。二形。善．惡俱同。此義可知　總而言之。別解對惡戒三別．二同　若以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：理。先前受戒時，惡阿世耶（Āśaya，習氣、潛在的傾向）並非永遠捨棄，所以依據之前的表業，惡戒還會生起。俱舍師（Kośa）救釋說：『諸位論師都說得戒即舍（惡戒）。既然已經得戒，怎麼能說沒有捨棄呢？之後不再造作，又如何再生起呢？』所以可知后一種說法是正確的。正理的觀點違背了俱舍，這實際上是反駁了本國（迦濕彌羅）的諸位論師。問：此論中惡戒的捨棄有三種因緣，為什麼《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）中捨棄的因緣有四種？《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說：『諸不律儀由四緣舍：一、受別解脫律儀（Prātimokṣa-saṃvara），二、得靜慮律儀（Dhyāna-saṃvara），三、二形生（Ubhayato vyañjanābhinirhāra），四、舍眾同分（Nikāyasabhāgatā-parityāga）。』解：別解脫戒和靜慮戒都可稱為得戒，所以此論中合為一種。而《婆沙論》根據定和散的不同，所以分為兩種，開合不同而已。問：別解脫戒與惡戒相互對立而成立，為什麼捨棄的因緣差別不同？解：如果以別解脫戒的五種因緣對照惡戒，別解脫戒是善，得戒難，舍戒易，作法（karma）即成，容易得到，所以容易捨棄。惡戒是惡，得戒易，舍戒難，作法不成，沒有（善法），所以無法捨棄。別解脫戒由求戒心而得，因為生起邪見，斷了求戒心，不能成就彼心，戒也隨之捨棄，有斷善根而舍戒的情況。惡戒則不然，沒有斷善根而舍戒的情況。問：在惡戒中，為什麼沒有斷惡根而舍戒的情況？解：求惡戒的心是不善的惑，斷除彼惑時必定得到定戒。得到定戒后必定捨棄惡戒，沒有斷除彼惑而不得定戒的情況，所以沒有斷惡根而舍戒的情況。又解：得戒的意義就相當於斷惡舍。得到善戒時，即使仍然有求惡戒的心，因為不能成就彼惡戒的體性，所以名為斷惡。斷惡舍雖然成就了求惡戒的心，但由於得到善戒，所以能夠捨棄惡戒，名為斷惡舍。斷善舍善，不是由惡戒能夠捨棄善戒，只是由於邪見，心與戒二者都不能成就。別解脫戒有日夜的分界，所以有夜盡舍。惡戒沒有日夜的分界，所以沒有夜盡舍。命終、二形，善戒和惡戒都相同，此義可以理解。總而言之，別解脫戒對惡戒有三別、二同。如果以……

【English Translation】 English version: Reasoning: When initially receiving precepts, the evil Āśayas (latent tendencies) are not permanently abandoned. Therefore, based on the previous manifested karma, evil precepts can still arise. The Kośa master refutes this, saying, 'All masters say that obtaining precepts means abandoning (evil precepts). Since one has already obtained precepts, how can it be said that one has not abandoned them? If one does not commit (evil deeds) again, how can they arise again?' Therefore, it is known that the latter statement is correct. The reasoning contradicts the Kośa, which is actually refuting the masters of its own country (Kashmir). Question: In this treatise, there are three conditions for abandoning evil precepts. Why are there four conditions for abandonment in the Vibhāṣā? The 117th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says, 'All non-restraints are abandoned due to four conditions: 1. Receiving the Prātimokṣa-saṃvara (individual liberation precepts), 2. Obtaining the Dhyāna-saṃvara (meditative concentration precepts), 3. The arising of two genders (Ubhayato vyañjanābhinirhāra), 4. Abandoning the commonality of the multitude (Nikāyasabhāgatā-parityāga).' Answer: Both Prātimokṣa precepts and Dhyāna precepts can be called 'obtaining precepts,' so this treatise combines them into one. The Vibhāṣā, based on the difference between concentration and distraction, divides them into two, so the difference is only in combining or separating them. Question: Prātimokṣa precepts and evil precepts are established in opposition to each other. Why are the conditions for abandonment different? Answer: If we compare the five conditions of Prātimokṣa precepts with evil precepts, Prātimokṣa precepts are good, difficult to obtain, and easy to abandon. The karma is accomplished immediately, easy to obtain, so easy to abandon. Evil precepts are evil, easy to obtain, and difficult to abandon. The karma is not accomplished, there is no (good), so they cannot be abandoned. Prātimokṣa precepts are obtained through the mind seeking precepts. Because of arising wrong views, the mind seeking precepts is cut off, and the mind cannot be accomplished, so the precepts are also abandoned, and there is the case of abandoning precepts by cutting off good roots. Evil precepts are not like this; there is no case of abandoning precepts by cutting off good roots. Question: In evil precepts, why is there no case of abandoning evil by cutting off evil roots? Answer: The mind seeking evil precepts is an unwholesome delusion. When that delusion is cut off, one will definitely obtain Dhyāna precepts. After obtaining Dhyāna precepts, one will definitely abandon evil precepts. There is no case of cutting off that delusion without obtaining Dhyāna precepts, so there is no case of abandoning evil by cutting off evil roots. Another explanation: The meaning of 'obtaining precepts' is equivalent to 'abandoning evil.' When obtaining good precepts, even if there is still a mind seeking evil precepts, because the essence of those evil precepts cannot be accomplished, it is called 'abandoning evil.' Although 'abandoning evil' accomplishes the mind seeking evil precepts, because one obtains good precepts, one can abandon evil precepts, which is called 'abandoning evil.' Abandoning good abandons good, but evil precepts cannot abandon good precepts. It is only due to wrong views that both the mind and the precepts cannot be accomplished. Prātimokṣa precepts have a distinction between day and night, so there is abandonment at the end of the night. Evil precepts do not have a distinction between day and night, so there is no abandonment at the end of the night. Death and having two genders are the same for both good and evil precepts. This meaning can be understood. In summary, Prātimokṣa precepts have three differences and two similarities compared to evil precepts. If we use...

惡戒三緣對別解脫。惡戒得易舍難。有得戒舍。別解得難捨易。故舍即成。非由惡戒將作不律儀人。必先舍故。若不先舍行屠羊等但是處中。命終。二形。同故無妨　總而言之。惡戒對別解一異．二同　問定戒與惡戒何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以定戒三緣對惡戒。定戒有易地失故有易地舍。惡戒命終定舍非由易地舍故無易地舍　定戒由退起惑失彼定故戒亦隨舍有退舍。惡戒煩惱具成。更無退處故無退舍。唯命終舍分同惡戒　若依正理更有離染不同。定戒于離染位由舍退分有離染舍。惡戒先得定時必已舍故無離染舍　總而言之。定戒對惡戒。若依此論二別．一同。若依正理一同．三別　若以惡戒三緣對定戒。惡戒得善戒故。有得戒舍。定戒必無得惡戒故。得惡戒時定戒先退。退定戒時未得惡戒。故無得惡戒舍　惡戒身中容二形生有二形舍。定戒身中無二形生故無二形舍　惡戒命終全舍。定戒命終分舍。唯命終舍分同　總而言之。惡戒對定戒。二別．一同　問道戒與惡戒何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以道戒三緣對惡戒。道戒有得果．練根．及退失故。可有得果舍．練根舍．退失舍。惡戒三義俱無故無三舍　若以惡戒三緣對道戒。惡戒死時必舍有命終舍。道戒死已猶成無命終舍　惡戒有得善戒有得戒舍。道戒必無得惡戒理無得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本惡戒的三種舍戒因緣，是相對於別解脫戒（Pratimoksha，佛教戒律體系中的一種，旨在幫助個人從煩惱中解脫）而言的。惡戒容易得到，難以捨棄。有因為得到（善戒）而捨棄（惡戒）的情況。別解脫戒難以得到，容易捨棄，所以一旦捨棄就立即生效。並非因為有了惡戒，就會成為不守戒律的人，一定是先捨棄了別解脫戒。如果未先捨棄別解脫戒，而從事屠宰牛羊等行業，那只是處在中間狀態。命終、變為二形（ उभयलिङ्ग，既非男非女）的情況，對別解脫戒沒有妨礙。總的來說，惡戒相對於別解脫戒，在舍戒因緣上，有差異，也有相同之處。問：為什麼定戒（專注的戒律）與惡戒的舍戒因緣差別不同？答：如果用定戒的三種舍戒因緣來對比惡戒，定戒有因為改變居住地而失去（戒體）的情況，所以有易地舍。惡戒必定是命終時才捨棄，不是因為改變居住地而捨棄，所以沒有易地舍。定戒因為退失（禪定）而生起迷惑，失去那種禪定，所以戒體也隨之捨棄，有退舍。惡戒的煩惱已經完全形成，沒有可以退失的地方，所以沒有退舍。只有命終時捨棄這一點與惡戒相同。如果依據正理（正確的道理），還有離染（脫離染污）的不同。定戒在離染的階段，因為捨棄或退失一部分（戒體），所以有離染舍。惡戒在最初得到時，必定已經捨棄了（別解脫戒），所以沒有離染舍。總的來說，定戒相對於惡戒，如果依據此論（指所依據的論典），則有兩點差異，一點相同。如果依據正理，則有一點相同，三點差異。如果用惡戒的三種舍戒因緣來對比定戒，惡戒因為得到善戒，所以有得戒舍。定戒絕對不會得到惡戒，因為得到惡戒時，定戒會先退失。退失定戒時，還沒有得到惡戒，所以沒有得惡戒舍。惡戒之身可能出現二形人，所以有二形舍。定戒之身不會出現二形人，所以沒有二形舍。惡戒是命終時完全捨棄，定戒是命終時部分捨棄。只有命終時捨棄這一點相同。總的來說，惡戒相對於定戒，有兩點差異，一點相同。問：道戒（通往解脫之道的戒律）與惡戒的舍戒因緣為什麼差別不同？答：如果用道戒的三種舍戒因緣來對比惡戒，道戒有因為證得果位、修習根性以及退失（道果）的情況，所以可能有得果舍、練根舍、退失舍。惡戒這三種情況都沒有，所以沒有這三種舍。如果用惡戒的三種舍戒因緣來對比道戒，惡戒死亡時必定捨棄，所以有命終舍。道戒死亡后仍然存在，所以沒有命終舍。惡戒有得到善戒的情況，所以有得戒舍。道戒絕對不會得到惡戒，沒有得到惡戒的道理，所以沒有得戒舍。

【English Translation】 English version The three conditions for abandoning evil precepts are in relation to Pratimoksha (a type of Buddhist vows aimed at helping individuals liberate themselves from afflictions). Evil precepts are easy to obtain but difficult to abandon. There are cases where one abandons evil precepts by obtaining (virtuous precepts). Pratimoksha is difficult to obtain but easy to abandon, so once abandoned, it takes effect immediately. It is not because one has evil precepts that one will become an unprincipled person; one must first abandon Pratimoksha. If one does not abandon Pratimoksha first and engages in activities such as slaughtering cattle and sheep, then one is merely in an intermediate state. Death and becoming of two genders ( उभयलिङ्ग, neither male nor female) do not hinder Pratimoksha. In summary, evil precepts, in relation to Pratimoksha, have both differences and similarities in the conditions for abandoning precepts. Question: Why are the conditions for abandoning precepts different between Samadhi precepts (precepts of concentration) and evil precepts? Answer: If we compare the three conditions for abandoning Samadhi precepts with evil precepts, Samadhi precepts can be lost due to a change of location, so there is abandonment due to change of location. Evil precepts are definitely abandoned at the time of death, not due to a change of location, so there is no abandonment due to change of location. Samadhi precepts can give rise to delusion due to regression (from meditation), losing that Samadhi, so the precepts are also abandoned accordingly, there is abandonment due to regression. The afflictions of evil precepts have already fully formed, there is no place to regress, so there is no abandonment due to regression. Only abandonment at the time of death is the same as evil precepts. If based on correct reasoning, there is also a difference in detachment from defilements. In the stage of detachment from defilements, Samadhi precepts have abandonment due to abandoning or regressing from a portion (of the precepts), so there is abandonment due to detachment from defilements. Evil precepts must have already abandoned (Pratimoksha) when they were first obtained, so there is no abandonment due to detachment from defilements. In summary, Samadhi precepts in relation to evil precepts, if based on this treatise (referring to the scripture being relied upon), then there are two differences and one similarity. If based on correct reasoning, then there is one similarity and three differences. If we compare the three conditions for abandoning evil precepts with Samadhi precepts, evil precepts have abandonment due to obtaining virtuous precepts, so there is abandonment due to obtaining precepts. Samadhi precepts will absolutely not obtain evil precepts, because when evil precepts are obtained, Samadhi precepts will regress first. When Samadhi precepts regress, evil precepts have not yet been obtained, so there is no abandonment due to obtaining evil precepts. The body with evil precepts may have intersex people, so there is abandonment due to intersex. The body with Samadhi precepts will not have intersex people, so there is no abandonment due to intersex. Evil precepts are completely abandoned at the time of death, Samadhi precepts are partially abandoned at the time of death. Only abandonment at the time of death is the same. In summary, evil precepts in relation to Samadhi precepts have two differences and one similarity. Question: Why are the conditions for abandoning precepts different between the precepts of the Path (precepts leading to liberation) and evil precepts? Answer: If we compare the three conditions for abandoning the precepts of the Path with evil precepts, the precepts of the Path have the conditions of attaining fruition, cultivating roots, and regressing (from the path), so there may be abandonment due to attaining fruition, abandonment due to cultivating roots, and abandonment due to regression. Evil precepts do not have these three conditions, so there are no these three abandonments. If we compare the three conditions for abandoning evil precepts with the precepts of the Path, evil precepts are definitely abandoned at the time of death, so there is abandonment at the time of death. The precepts of the Path still exist after death, so there is no abandonment at the time of death. Evil precepts have the condition of obtaining virtuous precepts, so there is abandonment due to obtaining precepts. The precepts of the Path will absolutely not obtain evil precepts, there is no reason to obtain evil precepts, so there is no abandonment due to obtaining precepts.

惡戒舍　惡戒身中容二形生有二形舍。道戒身中無二形生故無二形舍　總而言之。道戒．惡戒展轉相望三緣各別。

處中無表舍復云何者。此下第四舍處中無表。非律儀非不律儀故名處中。

頌曰至作事壽根斷者。處中無表由六緣舍。一由受心斷舍。二由勢力斷舍。三由作業斷舍。四由事物斷舍。五由壽命斷舍。六由依根斷舍。前由。后斷。通中間六。

論曰至舍由六緣者。標名．舉數　問如婆沙舍處中善．惡中雲。是謂所說表．無表業略毗婆沙。準彼論文亦說表業。何故此論唯言無表　解云此論偏明無表不說表。婆沙兩種通明故俱說二　又解但舍無表必亦舍表。影顯可知。故不說表　又解此論據舍現行故唯說無表。婆沙通舍成就．現行故具說二。

一由受心至棄先所受者。一由受心斷壞故舍。以此無表由受心得。謂先誓。受善心．噁心作是愿言。恒于某時作善作惡。善如禮讚等。惡如捶打等。無表隨轉。要期未滿本願當虧忽在中途而懷追悔。捨本所受善．惡誓心作是念言。我從今時棄先所受無表便舍。本由受心得此無表。今舍受心無表亦舍。若舍受心舍離名舍。非將不成。若舍無表將不成就說名為舍。又正理三十九云。一由受心斷壞故舍。謂先誓受恒于某時敬禮制多。及讚頌等。今作是念

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本惡戒舍：惡戒之身中，容許二形（雌雄同體）之人產生，因此有二形舍（失去惡戒）。道戒（正道之戒）之身中，不會產生二形之人，因此沒有二形舍。總而言之，道戒和惡戒相互比較，舍戒的三種因緣各有不同。

處中無表舍（非善非惡的無表業之舍）又是如何產生的呢？以下第四種是舍處中無表。既非律儀（善戒）也非不律儀（惡戒），所以稱為處中。

頌文說：『乃至作事壽根斷者』，處中無表由六種因緣捨棄。一是由受心斷舍（因發願之心斷滅而捨棄）。二是由勢力斷舍（因外力影響而捨棄）。三是由作業斷舍（因行為造作而捨棄）。四是由事物斷舍（因事物變化而捨棄）。五是由壽命斷舍（因壽命終結而捨棄）。六是由依根斷舍（因所依賴的根身斷滅而捨棄）。前一種是『由』，后一種是『斷』，貫通中間六種情況。

論述說：『乃至舍由六緣者』，這是標明名稱、列舉數量。問：如《婆沙論》所說，舍處中善、惡中雲：『這就是所說的表業（身口行為）和無表業（潛在力量）的簡略毗婆沙。』按照那裡的論文，也說了表業，為什麼此論只說無表呢？解釋說：此論偏重說明無表，沒有說表業。《婆沙論》兩種都說明，所以都說了。又解釋說：只是捨棄無表，必定也捨棄表業，如同影子顯現一樣可以知道，所以不說表業。又解釋說：此論是根據捨棄現行（正在發生）的業來說的，所以只說無表。《婆沙論》貫通捨棄成就（潛在）和現行的業，所以都說了。

一是由受心斷，乃至捨棄先前所受的：一是由受心斷壞的緣故而捨棄。這種無表是由受心而得到的。就是先發誓，以善心或噁心發願說：『經常在某個時候做善事或惡事。』善事如禮讚等，惡事如捶打等，無表隨之運轉。如果約定的期限未滿，本來的願望將要虧損，忽然在中途後悔，捨棄本來所受的善或惡的誓心，心想：『我從現在開始捨棄先前所受的。』無表便捨棄了。本來由受心得到這種無表，現在捨棄受心，無表也捨棄了。如果捨棄受心，舍離稱為捨棄，並非將要不成就。如果捨棄無表，將要不成就，說名為捨棄。又《正理》第三十九卷說：一是由受心斷壞的緣故而捨棄。就是先發誓經常在某個時候恭敬禮拜佛塔，以及讚頌等，現在這樣想。

【English Translation】 English version Abandoning Evil Precepts: In the body of one who holds evil precepts, those with two forms (hermaphrodites) are accommodated, hence there is abandonment of the two forms (loss of evil precepts). In the body of one who holds the precepts of the Path (righteous precepts), those with two forms do not arise, hence there is no abandonment of the two forms. In summary, when comparing the precepts of the Path and evil precepts, the three conditions for abandoning precepts are distinct.

How does the abandonment of neutral non-revealing karma (avyākṛta-anabhisaṃskāra) arise? The fourth type of abandonment below concerns neutral non-revealing karma. It is neither moral discipline (śīla) nor lack of moral discipline (aśīla), hence it is called neutral.

The verse says: 'Even until the act is done, the root of life is severed,' the neutral non-revealing karma is abandoned due to six conditions. First, abandonment due to the severance of the mind of acceptance (saṃjñā-citta). Second, abandonment due to the severance of power (bala). Third, abandonment due to the severance of action (karma). Fourth, abandonment due to the severance of things (vastu). Fifth, abandonment due to the severance of life (āyu). Sixth, abandonment due to the severance of the dependent root (āśraya-indriya). The first is 'due to,' the latter is 'severance,' encompassing the six conditions in between.

The treatise says: 'Even until abandonment is due to six conditions,' this marks the name and enumerates the number. Question: As the Vibhasa says, in the abandonment of neutral good and evil, 'This is what is said about the brief Vibhasa of revealing karma (vijñapti-karma) and non-revealing karma (avijñapti-karma).' According to that text, revealing karma is also mentioned. Why does this treatise only speak of non-revealing karma? Explanation: This treatise focuses on clarifying non-revealing karma and does not speak of revealing karma. The Vibhasa clarifies both, so it speaks of both. Another explanation: By abandoning non-revealing karma, revealing karma is necessarily also abandoned. It is knowable like the manifestation of a shadow, so revealing karma is not mentioned. Another explanation: This treatise is based on abandoning currently active karma, so it only speaks of non-revealing karma. The Vibhasa encompasses abandoning both potential and currently active karma, so it speaks of both.

First, abandonment due to the severance of the mind of acceptance, even until abandoning what was previously accepted: First, abandonment is due to the severance and destruction of the mind of acceptance. This non-revealing karma is obtained through the mind of acceptance. That is, first making a vow, with a good or evil mind, making a wish saying: 'Always at a certain time, I will do good or evil.' Good deeds such as praising, evil deeds such as beating, etc., the non-revealing karma follows accordingly. If the agreed-upon time is not yet fulfilled, the original wish will be deficient, and suddenly in the middle of the path, one feels regret, abandoning the originally accepted vow of good or evil, thinking: 'From this time on, I abandon what I previously accepted.' The non-revealing karma is then abandoned. Originally, this non-revealing karma was obtained through the mind of acceptance, now abandoning the mind of acceptance, the non-revealing karma is also abandoned. If the mind of acceptance is abandoned, separation is called abandonment, not that it will not be accomplished. If non-revealing karma is abandoned, it will not be accomplished, and this is called abandonment. Furthermore, the thirty-ninth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says: First, abandonment is due to the severance and destruction of the mind of acceptance. That is, first making a vow to always at a certain time respectfully prostrate to the stupa, and praise, etc., now thinking this.

后更不為。彼阿世耶從茲便息。由彼棄捨本意樂故。或復別作勢用增強與先現行相違事業。本意樂息無表便斷　準正理文受心中亦有作業不說惡者略而不論　或等字攝　然彼又說別作勢用增強事業。與先常行事業相違。本劣意樂爾時止息無表便斷。得勝舍劣與此論別。此中受心斷壞故舍義當故舍。婆沙名意樂息。雜心名悕望止。名異．義同。

二由勢力至盡時便止者。二由勢力斷壞故舍。謂由凈信猛利煩惱二勢力故引起無表。彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便舍。喻況可知　問如正理云。二由勢力斷壞故舍。謂由凈信．煩惱勢力所引無表。彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便舍。如所放箭及陶家輪。故軌範師作如是說。由等起力所引發故。雖舍加行及阿世耶。無表或容盡壽隨轉。乃至發起極猛利纏。捶擊禽獸。應知亦爾。或先立限齊爾所時。今限勢過無表便斷。又婆沙一百二十二云。限勢未過。謂淳凈心。及猛利纏。所作善．惡。隨彼勢力無表不斷。如猛利纏殺捃多蟻(此云折腳蟻。或云卵蟻。名含二義。是故不翻。彼非為害顯殺無慚)所發無表盡形相續。淳凈信心所作亦爾。謂如有人起殷重信修營供具奉施眾僧燒香．散花種種供養。或於佛說如是日．月．五年會等。請諸眾僧種種供養。起淳凈心發身．語業。乃至意樂未息。或加

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本之後便不再造作。那阿世耶（增長、習慣）從此便停止。由於他捨棄了原本的意樂的緣故。或者又另外作出增強的勢力，與先前現行的事業相違背。原本的意樂停止，無表業也就斷絕了。依照《正理》的文義，受心（感受和心）中也有作業，這裡不說惡的，是略而不論。或者用『等』字來包括。然而，他們又說另外作出增強的勢力事業，與先前常常進行的事業相違背，原本微弱的意樂那時停止，無表業也就斷絕了。得到殊勝的而捨棄低劣的，與此論有所區別。這裡因為受心斷壞的緣故而捨棄，所以說是『舍』。婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）中名為『意樂息』，雜心（《雜阿毗曇心論》）中名為『悕望止』，名稱不同，意義相同。二、由勢力至盡時便止的情況是：二是由勢力斷壞的緣故而捨棄。這是說由清凈的信心和猛利的煩惱兩種勢力所引起的無表業，這兩種勢力的限度斷壞時，無表業便捨棄。比喻的情況可以知道。問：如《正理》所說：『二由勢力斷壞故舍，謂由凈信、煩惱勢力所引無表，彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便舍，如所放箭及陶家輪。』所以軌範師這樣說：由等起力所引發的緣故，即使捨棄了加行和阿世耶（增長、習慣），無表業或許能夠盡壽命隨轉，乃至發起極猛利的纏縛，捶打禽獸，應該知道也是這樣。或者先立下期限，到那個時候為止，現在期限的勢力已過，無表業便斷絕。又《婆沙》第一百二十二卷說：期限的勢力未過，是指淳凈的心和猛利的纏縛所作的善和惡，隨著那勢力，無表業不斷。如猛利的纏縛殺死捃多蟻（此云折腳蟻，或云卵蟻，名稱包含兩種意義，所以不翻譯。它並非爲了加害而只是顯示殺戮的無慚），所發的無表業盡形相續。淳凈的信心所作的也是這樣。比如有人發起殷重的信心，修營供具，奉獻給眾僧，燒香、散花，種種供養。或者對於佛所說的如是日、月、五年會等，請諸眾僧種種供養，發起淳凈的心，發出身、語業，乃至意樂沒有停止，或者加...

【English Translation】 English version And will not do so again. That Āśaya (growth, habit) will cease from then on, because he has abandoned his original intention. Or he may create another, stronger force, contrary to the previously existing action. When the original intention ceases, the non-revealing karma will also be cut off. According to the meaning of the text of the Nyāyānusāraśāstra, there is also action in the mind of reception (feeling and mind), but here we do not speak of evil, it is omitted. Or the word 'etc.' is used to include. However, they also say that another, stronger force is created, which is contrary to the previously existing action. The original weak intention then ceases, and the non-revealing karma is cut off. Gaining the superior and abandoning the inferior is different from this treatise. Here, because the mind of reception is broken, it is abandoned, so it is called 'abandonment'. In the Mahāvibhāṣā, it is called 'cessation of intention', and in the Abhidharmahrdaya, it is called 'cessation of hope'. The names are different, but the meanings are the same. 2. The case where it ceases when the power reaches its end: 2. It is abandoned because the power is broken. This means that the non-revealing karma is caused by the two forces of pure faith and fierce afflictions. When the limit of these two forces is broken, the non-revealing karma is abandoned. The analogy can be known. Question: As the Nyāyānusāraśāstra says: '2. It is abandoned because the power is broken, that is, the non-revealing karma caused by the power of pure faith and afflictions. When the limit of these two forces is broken, the non-revealing karma is abandoned, like an arrow shot and a potter's wheel.' Therefore, the teacher says: Because it is caused by the force of the initial motivation, even if the preliminary actions and Āśaya (growth, habit) are abandoned, the non-revealing karma may continue to turn for the rest of one's life, even to the point of initiating extremely fierce entanglements, beating birds and animals, it should be known that it is also like this. Or a limit is set in advance, up to that time, now the power of the limit has passed, and the non-revealing karma is cut off. Also, the 122nd volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: The power of the limit has not passed, which refers to the good and evil done by the pure mind and fierce entanglements. According to that power, the non-revealing karma is not cut off. For example, the non-revealing karma caused by the fierce entanglements killing kṛntānta ants (this means 'broken-legged ants', or 'egg ants', the name contains two meanings, so it is not translated. It is not for harm but only shows the shamelessness of killing) continues for the rest of one's life. The same is true of what is done by pure faith. For example, someone initiates sincere faith, cultivates and manages offerings, offers them to the Sangha, burns incense, scatters flowers, and makes various offerings. Or for the Buddha's said such as the day, month, five-year meeting, etc., invites the Sangha to make various offerings, initiates a pure mind, emits body and speech karma, until the intention has not stopped, or adds...

行未舍。無表不斷。若意樂息。及舍加行。無表便斷。余處中行廣說亦爾。正理即云雖舍加行及阿世耶無表或容盡壽隨轉。婆沙即云若意樂息及舍加行無表便斷。俱釋勢力斷舍。何故兩論不同。俱舍復同何說　解云凈信．猛纏各有三品。謂上上．上中．上下。若起上上凈信．猛纏。于其中間雖意樂息及舍加行。無表不斷。若起上中．上下凈信猛纏。于其中間意樂息舍加行。無表即斷。正理通據三品說。若起上上品盡壽隨轉若起上中．上下即非盡壽。故說或容。顯彼不定。婆沙此文若據上中．上下二品凈信．猛纏故。言意樂息舍加行無表便斷　或作論者意各別故。俱舍既無明文。或同正理。或同婆沙。或謂同兩論。皆無妨矣。婆沙．雜心名限勢過名異．義同。

三由作業至后更不作者。三由作業斷壞故舍。以此無表由作業得。謂作善業。或作惡業。善如禮讚等。惡如捶打等。無表隨轉如先所受善業．惡業。今作是念后更不作無表便舍。本由作業得此無表。今舍作業無表亦舍。故正理云。三由作業斷壞故舍。謂雖不捨根本受心然更不為所受作業。唯除忘念而不作者。以此無表期加行生絕加行時無表便舍　問受心亦要期。作業亦有期心。此二何別　解云受心據意以論。作業據身．語以說　又解受心誓受即得。作業作乃

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：行未舍：指行為尚未停止。無表不斷：指無表業（Avijñapti-karma，一種不可見的業力）不會中斷。如果意樂（Adhyāśaya，強烈的意願）停止，以及舍加行（放棄行為的努力），無表業就會中斷。其他情況下的中等行為，可以參考更廣泛的解釋，也是如此。

《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說，即使放棄了行為的努力和阿世耶（Āśaya，潛在的傾向），無表業也可能持續一生。《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，即《大毗婆沙論》）說，如果意樂停止，以及舍加行，無表業就會中斷。兩部論典都解釋了斷舍（放棄）的力量，為什麼說法不同？《俱舍》（Abhidharmakośa，即《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）又贊同哪種說法？

解釋：凈信（Prasāda，純凈的信心）和猛纏（Tīvra-kleśa，強烈的煩惱）各有三種品級，即上上、上中、上下。如果生起上上品的凈信或猛纏，即使意樂停止以及舍加行，無表業也不會中斷。如果生起上中或上下品的凈信或猛纏，意樂停止以及舍加行，無表業就會中斷。《正理》的說法涵蓋了這三種品級：如果生起上上品，無表業會持續一生；如果生起上中或上下品，則不會持續一生，所以說『或容』，表明其不確定性。《婆沙》的說法是基於上中和上下這兩種品級的凈信或猛纏，所以說意樂停止以及舍加行，無表業就會中斷。

或者，各論作者的意圖不同。《俱舍》沒有明確的說法，可能贊同《正理》，也可能贊同《婆沙》，或者認為同時贊同兩部論典，都沒有妨礙。《婆沙》和《雜心》（Abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra）只是名稱不同，意義相同，都是指『限勢過』。

三由作業至后更不作者：指通過三種方式的作業，直到之後不再做。三由作業斷壞故舍：指通過三種方式的作業，因為斷絕和破壞而捨棄。這種無表業是通過作業獲得的，即做善業或做惡業。善業如禮讚等，惡業如捶打等。無表業隨著先前所受的善業或惡業而運轉。現在如果產生『之後不再做』的想法，無表業就會捨棄。原本通過作業獲得這種無表業，現在捨棄作業，無表業也會捨棄。所以《正理》說，通過三種方式的作業，因為斷絕和破壞而捨棄。即使沒有捨棄根本的受心（Saṃjñā-citta，感受之心），但不再進行所受的作業，除非是忘記而不做。這種無表業是預期加行（Prayoga，努力）而產生的，當斷絕加行時，無表業就會捨棄。

問：受心也要預期，作業也有期心，這兩者有什麼區別？

解：受心是根據意（Manas，心意）來論述的，作業是根據身（Kāya，身體）和語（Vāc，語言）來說明的。又解：受心是發誓接受就得到，作業是做了才

【English Translation】 English version: ' 行未舍 (Haṅga-viśeṣa):' Refers to the action not yet ceased. '無表不斷 (Avijñapti-karma na nirudhyate):' Means that the 'unmanifested karma' (Avijñapti-karma, a kind of invisible karmic force) will not be interrupted. If the 'intention' (Adhyāśaya, strong will) ceases, and the 'abandonment of effort' (relinquishing the effort of action), the unmanifested karma will be interrupted. The same applies to moderate actions in other situations, which can be referred to in broader explanations.

The 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' states that even if the effort of action and 'Āśaya' (latent tendencies) are abandoned, the unmanifested karma may continue for a lifetime. The 'Vibhāṣā' (i.e., the 'Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra') states that if the intention ceases and the effort of abandonment is made, the unmanifested karma will be interrupted. Both treatises explain the power of 'abandonment' (relinquishing), so why are their statements different? Which statement does the 'Abhidharmakośa' (i.e., the 'Abhidharma-kośa-bhāṣya') agree with?

Explanation: 'Pure faith' (Prasāda, pure confidence) and 'intense affliction' (Tīvra-kleśa, strong defilements) each have three grades: superior-superior, superior-middle, and superior-inferior. If superior-superior grade of pure faith or intense affliction arises, even if the intention ceases and the effort of abandonment is made, the unmanifested karma will not be interrupted. If superior-middle or superior-inferior grade of pure faith or intense affliction arises, and the intention ceases and the effort of abandonment is made, the unmanifested karma will be interrupted. The statement of the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' covers these three grades: if the superior-superior grade arises, the unmanifested karma will last a lifetime; if the superior-middle or superior-inferior grade arises, it will not last a lifetime, so it says 'may,' indicating its uncertainty. The statement of the 'Vibhāṣā' is based on the two grades of superior-middle and superior-inferior pure faith or intense affliction, so it says that if the intention ceases and the effort of abandonment is made, the unmanifested karma will be interrupted.

Alternatively, the intentions of the authors of each treatise are different. The 'Abhidharmakośa' does not have a clear statement, it may agree with the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra,' or it may agree with the 'Vibhāṣā,' or it may think that it agrees with both treatises at the same time, which does not hinder. The 'Vibhāṣā' and the 'Abhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra' are only different in name, but the meaning is the same, both referring to 'limited power'.

'三由作業至后更不作者 (Tri-hetu karma yāvat paścāt punar na karoti):' Refers to the karma through three means, until one no longer does it afterward. '三由作業斷壞故舍 (Tri-hetu karma viccheda-vināśāt tyāga):' Refers to the abandonment through the karma of three means, because of cessation and destruction. This unmanifested karma is obtained through action, that is, doing good deeds or doing evil deeds. Good deeds are like praise, etc., and evil deeds are like beating, etc. The unmanifested karma revolves with the previously received good or evil karma. Now, if the thought 'I will not do it again afterward' arises, the unmanifested karma will be abandoned. Originally, this unmanifested karma was obtained through action, and now that the action is abandoned, the unmanifested karma will also be abandoned. Therefore, the 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' says that through the karma of three means, it is abandoned because of cessation and destruction. Even if the fundamental 'perception-mind' (Saṃjñā-citta, mind of perception) is not abandoned, the received action is no longer performed, unless it is forgotten and not done. This unmanifested karma is produced by expecting effort (Prayoga, effort), and when the effort is cut off, the unmanifested karma will be abandoned.

Question: The 'perception-mind' also needs expectation, and the action also has an expected mind, what is the difference between the two?

Answer: The 'perception-mind' is discussed according to the 'mind' (Manas, mind), and the action is explained according to the 'body' (Kāya, body) and 'speech' (Vāc, language). Another explanation: the 'perception-mind' is obtained by vowing to accept it, and the action is only

方成　又解受心雖亦有彼作業。受心強勝。無表但從受心得故。但名受心不名作業。作業雖亦有彼期心。作業強勝。無表但從作業得故。但名作業不名受心。婆沙名加行舍。雜心名舍方便。名異義同。

四由事物至罝網等事者。正理釋云。本由彼事引無表生。彼事壞時無表便斷。婆沙名事物。雜心名若事。名皆相似。

五由壽命至有轉易故者．五由壽命斷壞故舍。本得處中善．惡無表由所依身。以捨命故。彼所依止眾同分身有轉易故。無表便斷。婆沙名由所依。雜心名若身。義皆無違。

六由善根至所引無表者。六由善根斷壞故舍。謂起加行斷善根時。于加行位便舍處中善根所引無表。正理難云。六由依根斷壞故舍。謂起加行斷善．惡時。各舍彼根所引無表。非至斷善得靜慮時方舍處中善惡無表。以羸劣故。起加行時便舍處中善．惡無表。如何經主於此義中說第六緣名為斷善。若作是說斷善加行亦名斷善。為第六緣。是則應言靜慮加行亦名靜慮便成七緣。靜慮加行中舍惡無表故。應言根者通善．惡根。所說斷言是斷加行。由依根斷為第六緣。此釋頌文于理無失　正理意說。處中六緣一一皆能通舍善．惡。所言根斷。根通善惡。斷是斷加行。若處中善斷善加行舍。若處中惡斷惡加行舍。即是靜慮加行

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本方成（Bhadda）又解釋說，雖然受心（vedanā-citta，感受的心）也有作業（karma，行為）的參與，但受心更為強盛，所以無表色（aviññatti-rūpa，無表業）只是從受心生起，因此只稱為受心，不稱為作業。作業雖然也有期心（意圖），但作業更為強盛，所以無表色只是從作業生起，因此只稱為作業，不稱為受心。《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）稱之為加行舍（prayoga-parityāga，行為的捨棄），《雜心論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）稱之為舍方便（parityāga-upāya，捨棄的方法），名稱不同，意義相同。

關於『四由事物至罝網等事者』，正理（Nyāyānusāra）解釋說，最初由彼事物引發無表色產生，當彼事物壞滅時，無表色便斷滅。《婆沙論》稱之為事物（vastu，事物），《雜心論》稱之為若事（yad-vastu，任何事物），名稱相似。

關於『五由壽命至有轉易故者』，五是由壽命斷壞而捨棄。原本獲得的處中（不善不惡）的善、惡無表色，依賴於所依之身（āśraya-kāya，所依賴的身體）。因為捨棄了壽命，所以彼所依止的眾同分身（nikāya-sabhāga-kāya，具有相同性質的身體）發生了轉變，無表色便斷滅。《婆沙論》稱之為由所依（āśraya-hetu，所依賴的原因），《雜心論》稱之為若身（yad-kāya，任何身體），意義沒有違背。

關於『六由善根至所引無表者』，六是由善根斷壞而捨棄。意思是說，當發起加行（prayoga，行為）斷除善根時，在加行位（prayoga-avasthā，行為的階段）便捨棄了處中的善根所引發的無表色。正理（Nyāyānusāra）提出疑問說，六是由依根（āśraya-mūla，所依賴的根）斷壞而捨棄。意思是說，當發起加行斷除善、惡時，各自捨棄彼根所引發的無表色，並非到了斷除善根獲得靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）時才捨棄處中的善惡無表色。因為（處中善惡無表色）羸弱，所以在發起加行時便捨棄了處中的善惡無表色。為什麼經主（sūtra-dhara，經的作者）在此義中說第六緣名為斷善（kuśala-ccheda，斷除善）？如果這樣說，斷善的加行也名為斷善，作為第六緣，那麼就應該說靜慮的加行也名為靜慮，便成了七緣，因為靜慮的加行中捨棄了惡的無表色。應該說根（mūla，根）是指通於善、惡根。所說的斷（ccheda，斷除）是指斷除的加行。由依根斷作為第六緣。這樣的解釋頌文在道理上沒有缺失。正理的意思是說，處中的六緣每一個都能通於捨棄善、惡。所說的根斷，根通於善惡。斷是斷加行。如果是處中善，斷除善的加行而捨棄；如果是處中惡，斷除惡的加行而捨棄，也就是靜慮的加行。

【English Translation】 English version Bhadda further explains that although the mind of feeling (vedanā-citta, the mind of sensation) also has the participation of action (karma), the mind of feeling is stronger. Therefore, the non-manifest form (aviññatti-rūpa, non-manifest karma) arises only from the mind of feeling, and thus it is only called the mind of feeling and not called action. Although action also has intention, action is stronger. Therefore, the non-manifest form arises only from action, and thus it is only called action and not called the mind of feeling. The Vibhāṣā calls it the abandonment of effort (prayoga-parityāga), and the Abhidharmasamuccaya calls it the means of abandonment (parityāga-upāya). The names are different, but the meanings are the same.

Regarding 'four, from things to snares and nets,' the Nyāyānusāra explains that initially, the non-manifest form arises from that thing. When that thing is destroyed, the non-manifest form is cut off. The Vibhāṣā calls it thing (vastu), and the Abhidharmasamuccaya calls it whatever thing (yad-vastu). The names are similar.

Regarding 'five, from lifespan to having change,' five is abandonment due to the destruction of lifespan. The originally obtained neutral (neither good nor bad) good and bad non-manifest forms depend on the dependent body (āśraya-kāya). Because of abandoning lifespan, the body of commonality (nikāya-sabhāga-kāya, body of similar nature) on which it depends undergoes change, and the non-manifest form is cut off. The Vibhāṣā calls it by dependence (āśraya-hetu, the cause of dependence), and the Abhidharmasamuccaya calls it whatever body (yad-kāya). The meanings are not contradictory.

Regarding 'six, from the root of good to the non-manifest form that is led,' six is abandonment due to the destruction of the root of good. It means that when initiating effort to cut off the root of good, at the stage of effort (prayoga-avasthā, the stage of action), one abandons the non-manifest form led by the neutral root of good. The Nyāyānusāra raises the question that six is abandonment due to the destruction of the dependent root (āśraya-mūla). It means that when initiating effort to cut off good and bad, one abandons the non-manifest form led by each root, and it is not until cutting off the root of good and attaining dhyāna (meditative absorption) that one abandons the neutral good and bad non-manifest forms. Because (the neutral good and bad non-manifest forms) are weak, one abandons the neutral good and bad non-manifest forms when initiating effort. Why does the sūtra master (sūtra-dhara, author of the sūtra) say in this meaning that the sixth condition is called cutting off good (kuśala-ccheda)? If it is said that the effort of cutting off good is also called cutting off good, as the sixth condition, then it should be said that the effort of dhyāna is also called dhyāna, and it becomes seven conditions, because the effort of dhyāna abandons the bad non-manifest form. It should be said that root (mūla) refers to both good and bad roots. The mentioned cutting off (ccheda) refers to the effort of cutting off. The destruction of the dependent root is the sixth condition. This explanation of the verse is not flawed in reason. The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra is that each of the six neutral conditions can commonly abandon good and bad. The mentioned root cutting refers to both good and bad. Cutting is the effort of cutting off. If it is neutral good, the effort of cutting off good is abandoned; if it is neutral bad, the effort of cutting off bad is abandoned, which is the effort of dhyāna.

俱舍師救云。理實頌中所說根斷如正理說。而於長行偏言斷善。影顯斷惡。或可。論主試後學徒為覺．不覺。應知此中若處中善生得善所起。及加行善所起者。皆于斷善加行時舍。若處中不善斷惡加行時舍。謂于靜慮加行位中間思心舍名斷惡加行舍。加行位中名為斷者。若加行善不成名斷能捨無表。若生得善。及與不善。伏不現行名之為斷。能捨無表。非體不成　問處中善．惡何故唯于加行時舍　解云以彼劣故唯加行舍　難云加行善發別解脫戒彼既是強。如何亦于加行位舍　解云彼雖是強。由於此位舍能發心故亦隨舍　難云生得善發處中善者。及不善心發處中不善加行位既未舍。彼能發之心如何有舍　解云雖未舍彼能發之心性劣故舍　問靜慮加行舍惡處中受戒加行亦能捨不　解云不能捨。論說靜慮加行舍故。又性中庸不違受戒于根本位尚不捨彼況加行耶　難云既性中庸何妨不違靜慮　解云靜慮正斷惡故舍惡處中　難云別解非正能斷惑。如何能捨不律儀　解云與彼惡戒敵對相違。雖非斷惑得戒。名舍　又解能捨。如得靜慮能捨惡戒。于加行位舍惡處中。得別解脫理亦應然。正得戒時既舍惡戒。加行理亦舍惡處中。豈有將受別解脫戒。不捨惡處中而受彼善戒。以將受時必先舍故。而言惡處中不違善戒據得戒已去。若初得

戒即違不起正理不說略而不論　應知諸論說舍處中文多不具。此論．正理具說六種。可謂周備　問別解與處中無表何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以別解五緣對處中。別解善法增勝不依二形。有二形舍。處中中庸不違二形。無二形舍　別解有晝．夜分齊故。有夜盡舍。處中無斯定限。無夜盡舍。故舍義當受心斷。命終斷舍名義俱同。斷善同根斷少分　總而言之。別解對處中二別．三同　若以處中六緣對別解。處中有勢力．作業．事物斷故有此三舍。別解不爾無此三舍。受心斷舍義當故舍。壽命斷舍。名義俱同。根斷分同斷善舍　總而言之。處中對別解三異．三同　問定戒與處中無表何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以定戒三緣對處中。定戒有易地失故。有易地舍。處中由命終舍。或加行舍。非由易地失故。無易地舍　定戒有退失故有退舍。若善處中非由退起惑故舍。若惡處中惑先成故。非由退舍故。說處中無退失舍。唯命終舍同。然定戒分舍。處中全舍　總而言之。定戒對處中二異．一同　若以處中六緣對定戒。唯命終舍同如前解。餘五緣舍唯處中有。定戒無可知　總而言之。處中對定戒五異．一同　問道戒與處中無表何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以道戒三緣對處中。道戒有得果練根．退失故有此三舍。處中不爾無此三舍。故三皆

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『戒即違不起正理不說略而不論』，應知諸論說舍處中文多不具。此論、正理具說六種，可謂周備。問：別解（Pratimoksha，又稱波羅提木叉，一種戒律）與處中（指非善非惡的狀態）無表（Avijñapti，又稱無表色，指一種不可見的業力）何故舍緣差別不同？解：若以別解五緣對處中，別解善法增勝不依二形（指男性和女性的性器官），有二形舍。處中中庸不違二形，無二形舍。別解有晝夜分齊故，有夜盡舍。處中無斯定限，無夜盡舍。故舍義當受心斷，命終斷舍名義俱同，斷善同根斷少分。總而言之，別解對處中二別、三同。若以處中六緣對別解，處中有勢力、作業、事物斷故有此三舍，別解不爾無此三舍。受心斷舍義當故舍，壽命斷舍，名義俱同。根斷分同斷善舍。總而言之，處中對別解三異、三同。問：定戒（指通過禪定獲得的戒律）與處中無表何故舍緣差別不同？解：若以定戒三緣對處中，定戒有易地失故，有易地舍。處中由命終舍，或加行舍，非由易地失故，無易地舍。定戒有退失故有退舍。若善處中非由退起惑故舍，若惡處中惑先成故，非由退舍故，說處中無退失舍。唯命終舍同。然定戒分舍，處中全舍。總而言之，定戒對處中二異、一同。若以處中六緣對定戒，唯命終舍同如前解。餘五緣舍唯處中有，定戒無可知。總而言之，處中對定戒五異、一同。問：道戒（指通過修行獲得的戒律）與處中無表何故舍緣差別不同？解：若以道戒三緣對處中，道戒有得果練根、退失故有此三舍，處中不爾無此三舍。故三皆

【English Translation】 English version: '『Precepts are those that do not arise from violating the right principle, and are not discussed briefly or generally.』 It should be known that many treatises do not fully explain the abandonment of the intermediate state. This treatise and the Nyāyānusāra (正理, a commentary on Abhidharma) fully explain the six types, which can be considered comprehensive. Question: Why are the conditions for abandonment different between Prātimokṣa (別解, a type of precepts) and the indeterminate (avyākṛta, 處中) non-manifestation (avijñapti, 無表, unperceivable karmic force)?' Answer: If we compare the five conditions for abandonment of Prātimokṣa with the indeterminate state, Prātimokṣa has the increase and superiority of wholesome dharmas, not relying on the two genders (二形, male and female), and thus has abandonment due to the two genders. The indeterminate state is neutral and does not violate the two genders, so there is no abandonment due to the two genders. Prātimokṣa has a distinction between day and night, so there is abandonment at the end of the night. The indeterminate state has no such fixed limit, so there is no abandonment at the end of the night. Therefore, the meaning of abandonment is determined by the mind at the time of acceptance. Abandonment at the end of life has the same meaning and name. Severing wholesome roots is like severing a small part. In summary, Prātimokṣa has two differences and three similarities compared to the indeterminate state. If we compare the six conditions for abandonment of the indeterminate state with Prātimokṣa, the indeterminate state has these three abandonments because of the cessation of power, action, and object. Prātimokṣa is not like this and does not have these three abandonments. Abandonment at the time of acceptance is due to the meaning of acceptance. Abandonment at the end of life has the same meaning and name. Severing roots is like severing a part of wholesome dharmas. In summary, the indeterminate state has three differences and three similarities compared to Prātimokṣa. Question: Why are the conditions for abandonment different between meditative precepts (定戒, precepts obtained through meditation) and the indeterminate non-manifestation? Answer: If we compare the three conditions for abandonment of meditative precepts with the indeterminate state, meditative precepts have abandonment due to loss of place because of changing location. The indeterminate state has abandonment due to the end of life or intentional effort, but not due to loss of place, so there is no abandonment due to loss of place. Meditative precepts have abandonment due to regression. If the indeterminate state is wholesome, it is not abandoned due to the arising of afflictions from regression. If the indeterminate state is unwholesome, the afflictions are already established, so it is not abandoned due to regression. Therefore, it is said that the indeterminate state has no abandonment due to regression. Only abandonment at the end of life is the same. However, meditative precepts have partial abandonment, while the indeterminate state has complete abandonment. In summary, meditative precepts have two differences and one similarity compared to the indeterminate state. If we compare the six conditions for abandonment of the indeterminate state with meditative precepts, only abandonment at the end of life is the same as explained before. The other five conditions for abandonment only exist in the indeterminate state, and meditative precepts do not have them. In summary, the indeterminate state has five differences and one similarity compared to meditative precepts. Question: Why are the conditions for abandonment different between precepts of the path (道戒, precepts obtained through practice) and the indeterminate non-manifestation? Answer: If we compare the three conditions for abandonment of the precepts of the path with the indeterminate state, the precepts of the path have these three abandonments because of attaining the fruit, cultivating the roots, and regression. The indeterminate state is not like this and does not have these three abandonments. Therefore, all three are

別。若以處中六緣對道戒。道戒並無故六皆別　問惡戒與處中無表何故舍緣差別不同　解云若以惡戒三緣對處中。惡戒舍難。故舍不成有得戒舍。處中易舍。作法即成。或加行舍故無得戒舍　惡戒惡中增勝不依二形。有二形舍。處中中庸不違二形。無二形舍。唯命終舍同　總而言之。惡戒對處中二別．一同　若以處中六緣對惡戒。處中舍易。作法即成有受心斷舍。惡戒舍難。無受心斷舍　處中有勢力．作業．事物．根斷故有此四舍。惡戒不爾。無此四舍。唯命終舍同　總而言之。處中對惡戒五異．一同　或根斷中斷惡舍義。當惡戒中得戒舍。以得善戒斷惡戒故。若作斯解于根斷中少分同得戒。

欲非色善至舍復云何者。此下第五舍諸非色　問欲界非色善法。及餘一切三界非色染法舍復云何。上來文勢正明舍善．惡．中。復作斯問義便並明　色．無色界非色善法。舍定戒中義便已明故此不問　問何故不問舍無記法　解云余善．染法是善．惡色同流類故所以別問。余無記法非流類故所以不問。

頌曰至舍諸非色染者。上兩句答前問。下兩句答后問。

論曰至二生上界者。釋上兩句。欲界一切非色善法。謂生得．聞．思並彼眷屬。舍由二緣　一斷善根。謂起邪見斷彼善根。若生得善正斷善時舍名斷善舍。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本別。若以處中六緣對道戒（指引向解脫的戒律）。道戒並無，故六皆別。問：惡戒與處中無表（指非善非惡的行為）何故舍緣差別不同？解云：若以惡戒三緣對處中，惡戒舍難，故舍不成有得戒舍。處中易舍，作法即成，或加行舍，故無得戒舍。惡戒惡中增勝，不依二形（指男性和女性的性器官），有二形舍。處中中庸，不違二形，無二形舍。唯命終舍同。總而言之，惡戒對處中二別、一同。若以處中六緣對惡戒，處中舍易，作法即成，有受心斷舍。惡戒舍難，無受心斷舍。處中有勢力、作業、事物、根斷，故有此四舍。惡戒不爾，無此四舍。唯命終舍同。總而言之，處中對惡戒五異、一同。或根斷中斷惡舍義，當惡戒中得戒舍，以得善戒斷惡戒故。若作斯解于根斷中少分同得戒。欲非色善至舍復云何者。此下第五舍諸非色。問：欲界非色善法，及餘一切三界非色染法舍復云何？上來文勢正明舍善、惡、中，復作斯問義便並明。色、無色界非色善法，舍定戒中義便已明，故此不問。問：何故不問舍無記法？解云：余善、染法是善、惡色同流類故所以別問。余無記法非流類故所以不問。頌曰至舍諸非色染者。上兩句答前問，下兩句答后問。論曰至二生上界者。釋上兩句。欲界一切非色善法，謂生得、聞、思並彼眷屬，舍由二緣。一斷善根，謂起邪見斷彼善根。若生得善正斷善時舍名斷善舍。

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, if the six conditions of 'neutral' are compared to the precepts of the Path (道戒, referring to precepts that lead to liberation), since the precepts of the Path do not exist in this context, all six are different. Question: Why are the conditions for abandoning 'evil precepts' and 'neutral non-manifest actions' different? Answer: If the three conditions of 'evil precepts' are compared to 'neutral', abandoning 'evil precepts' is difficult, so abandoning them does not result in acquiring precepts. Abandoning 'neutral' is easy, and the act is immediately accomplished, or it is abandoned through effort, so there is no abandoning that results in acquiring precepts. 'Evil precepts' are superior in evil and do not depend on the two forms (二形, referring to male and female sexual organs), so there is abandonment due to the two forms. 'Neutral' is moderate and does not violate the two forms, so there is no abandonment due to the two forms. Only abandonment at the end of life is the same. In summary, 'evil precepts' are different from 'neutral' in two ways and the same in one way. If the six conditions of 'neutral' are compared to 'evil precepts', abandoning 'neutral' is easy, and the act is immediately accomplished, with abandonment due to receiving the mind and severing. Abandoning 'evil precepts' is difficult, and there is no abandonment due to receiving the mind and severing. 'Neutral' has power, action, object, and root severance, so there are these four abandonments. 'Evil precepts' are not like this, and there are not these four abandonments. Only abandonment at the end of life is the same. In summary, 'neutral' is different from 'evil precepts' in five ways and the same in one way. Or, the meaning of abandoning evil is interrupted by root severance, and the abandonment of precepts is obtained in 'evil precepts', because abandoning evil precepts is due to obtaining good precepts. If this explanation is made, a small part of root severance is the same as obtaining precepts. What about abandoning non-form good up to abandoning? This below is the fifth abandoning of all non-form. Question: What about abandoning non-form good dharmas of the desire realm and all other non-form defiled dharmas of the three realms? The previous text clearly explained abandoning good, evil, and neutral, and asking this question again clarifies the meaning. Abandoning non-form good dharmas of the form and formless realms has already been clarified in the meaning of abandoning fixed precepts, so this is not asked. Question: Why not ask about abandoning non-reactive dharmas? Answer: The remaining good and defiled dharmas are of the same stream as good and evil form, so they are asked separately. The remaining non-reactive dharmas are not of the same stream, so they are not asked. The verse says up to abandoning all non-form defilements. The first two lines answer the previous question, and the last two lines answer the latter question. The treatise says up to being born in the upper realm. This explains the first two lines. All non-form good dharmas of the desire realm, namely, those born from, heard from, and thought about, along with their retinue, are abandoned due to two conditions. First, severing the root of goodness, namely, generating wrong views and severing that root of goodness. If the goodness born from is severed at the time of severing goodness, it is called abandoning by severing goodness.

若加行善斷善加行時舍名斷善舍　二生上界名易地舍。謂轉易地時必舍彼善。正理彈云。應言少分亦離染舍。如憂根等非色善法(解云等謂等取憂根俱生善惡作及彼眷屬)俱舍師救云。斷善．上生全舍別說。離染非全略而不論。

三界一切至非余方便者。釋下兩句。三界一切見．修所斷非色染法。舍由一緣。謂彼但由諸能對治無間道起。隨其所應。若此所斷法品類能斷無間道生。當舍此品類中所有煩惱及彼助伴。唯此道生能捨彼染。非余方便能捨彼染　問上來明舍欲界非色善法。及三界非色染法。何故不對別解脫等　問答分別　解云一一別對相翻廢立理亦應得非正所明故不別說。

善惡律儀至除中定無想者。此即大文第五約處辨成。前兩句明惡戒。后六句明善戒。此善．惡戒。處有差別故約處辨成　處中。處無差別。多通諸處故不別明。

論曰至具二形者者．釋初兩句。于北洲中無殺生等粗重業道無不律儀　扇搋半擇名二黃門。如前已說。余文可知。

律儀亦爾至容有律儀者．釋第三句。律儀亦爾。謂於人中除前所除北洲。扇搋半擇二形。餘人趣有。此即例同惡戒。不但在人三洲。並天亦有。故人．天趣容有律儀。

復以何緣至非律儀依者。問。可知　相續。謂身。

由經律中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果修習善法（加行善）時，斷除了（先前修習的）善法（斷善加行），那麼就會捨棄（先前修習的）善法（舍名斷善舍）。二生上界（指色界和無色界）名為易地舍（指轉生到更高層級的世界時所發生的捨棄）。意思是說，在轉換所生之地時，必定會捨棄那裡的善法。《正理彈》中說：『應該說少分也離染舍。』例如憂根等非色善法（解釋說，『等』字包括憂根俱生善惡作以及它們的眷屬），都會被捨棄。俱舍師解釋說：『斷善和上生是完全捨棄，需要特別說明。而離染並非完全捨棄，所以簡略而不論述。』

『三界一切至非余方便者』，解釋下面兩句。三界一切見所斷和修所斷的非色染法，捨棄的原因只有一個，就是它們只能通過相應的對治無間道生起時才能捨棄。隨著情況的不同，如果能斷除這些法品的無間道生起，就應當捨棄此品類中所有的煩惱以及它們的助伴。只有這種道生起才能捨棄那些染污，沒有其他方法可以捨棄它們。問：上面說明了捨棄欲界的非色善法，以及三界的非色染法，為什麼不對別解脫等進行說明？問答分別：解釋說，一一對應地進行相反的廢立，在道理上也是可以的，但不是這裡要說明的重點，所以不分別說明。

『善惡律儀至除中定無想者』，這實際上是大的章節中第五個關於處所辨別成就的部分。前兩句說明惡戒，后六句說明善戒。這種善戒和惡戒，因為處所不同，所以要根據處所來辨別成就。處所沒有差別，大多通往各個處所，所以不特別說明。

論中說：『于北洲中無殺生等粗重業道無不律儀』，解釋前兩句。在北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）中，沒有殺生等粗重的惡業，也沒有不律儀。扇搋（pandaka，無勢男）、半擇迦（napumsaka，陰陽人）被稱為二黃門。正如前面已經說過的，其餘的文字可以理解。

『律儀亦爾至容有律儀者』，解釋第三句。律儀也是這樣，在人類中，除了前面所排除的北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）、扇搋（pandaka，無勢男）、半擇迦（napumsaka，陰陽人）這兩種人之外，其餘的人都有。這實際上是和惡戒相同的情況。不僅在人中的三個洲，而且在天界也有。所以人界和天界都可能有律儀。

『復以何緣至非律儀依者』，問。可知。相續，指的是身體。

『由經律中』

【English Translation】 English version: If, while practicing virtuous conduct (preparatory virtuous conduct), one abandons (previously practiced) virtuous conduct (abandoning virtuous conduct in the preparatory stage), then one relinquishes (the previously practiced) virtuous conduct (relinquishing called abandoning virtuous conduct). The two realms of the upper spheres (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) are called 'relinquishing by changing location' (referring to the relinquishment that occurs when being reborn into a higher realm). This means that when changing one's place of birth, one will certainly relinquish the virtuous conduct of that place. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'It should be said that a small portion is also relinquished by detachment.' For example, mental distress (udvega) and other non-form virtuous dharmas (it is explained that 'etc.' includes mental distress, the virtuous and unwholesome remorse that arise together with it, and their retinue) are all relinquished. The Kośakāra explains: 'Abandoning virtuous conduct and being born in the upper realms are complete relinquishments, which need to be specifically explained. While detachment is not a complete relinquishment, so it is briefly not discussed.'

'The entirety of the three realms up to not by other means,' explains the following two sentences. All non-form defiled dharmas that are severed by seeing and cultivation in the three realms are relinquished for one reason only: they can only be relinquished when the corresponding antidote's immediate path arises. Depending on the situation, if the immediate path that can sever these categories of dharmas arises, then all afflictions and their associates within this category should be relinquished. Only the arising of this path can relinquish those defilements; no other means can relinquish them. Question: Above, it was explained that non-form virtuous dharmas of the Desire Realm and non-form defiled dharmas of the three realms are relinquished. Why is there no explanation regarding individual liberation vows (prātimokṣa) etc.? Question and answer separately: It is explained that corresponding to each one, establishing and abolishing the opposite is also possible in principle, but it is not the focus of explanation here, so it is not explained separately.

'Virtuous and unwholesome discipline up to excluding those in central concentration and non-perception,' this is actually the fifth part of the large chapter regarding the accomplishment of distinguishing by location. The first two sentences explain unwholesome precepts, and the last six sentences explain wholesome precepts. These wholesome and unwholesome precepts, because the locations are different, need to be distinguished and accomplished according to the location. There is no difference in location, and most lead to various locations, so it is not specifically explained.

The treatise says: 'In Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru) there are no heavy karmic paths such as killing, nor is there non-discipline,' explaining the first two sentences. In Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru), there are no heavy evil deeds such as killing, nor is there non-discipline. Eunuchs (pandaka) and hermaphrodites (napumsaka) are called two eunuchs. As has been said before, the remaining text can be understood.

'Discipline is also like that up to there may be discipline,' explains the third sentence. Discipline is also like that; among humans, except for the previously excluded Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru), eunuchs (pandaka), and hermaphrodites (napumsaka), the rest of the people have it. This is actually the same situation as unwholesome precepts. Not only in the three continents among humans, but also in the heavens. Therefore, there may be discipline in the human and heavenly realms.

'Again, by what reason up to not a basis for discipline,' question. Understandable. Continuity refers to the body.

'From the sutras and vinaya'

至非彼類有者。答。契經中說男根成就　毗奈耶說除棄此類扇搋等人。故知律儀非彼類有。余文可知。

復由何理彼無律儀者。問。雖有教說復由何理彼無律儀。

由二所依至慚愧心故者。答。一依相續非起二貪可發善戒。由二根所依身所起煩惱。於一相續身俱增上故。不發善戒。于正思擇有堪能者。可發善戒。扇搋迦于正思擇聞．思．修等無堪能故。不發善戒。極慚愧心能發善戒。半擇迦無有極重慚愧心故。不發善戒　又解半擇迦于正思擇無堪能故。扇搋迦無有極重慚愧心故　又解俱通二種　又解總通三種。

若爾何故無不律儀者。難。

彼于惡中至相翻立故者。釋。夫于善．噁心決定者得善．惡戒。彼二根等於極惡中心不定故。又善．惡戒於一身中相翻而立。彼身既不能得善戒故亦不能得彼惡戒　問舍善．惡戒唯二形舍。非扇搋．半擇。何故得善．惡戒三俱不得　解云善戒善中增勝。惡戒惡中增勝。初得時難必須勝依身起。故彼三種俱不能得。後起稱易扇搋．半擇過非是重不能捨彼善戒．惡戒。戒依彼身　二形過重以能捨彼善戒．惡戒。戒不依彼。故正理三十九云。然二形生舍善．惡戒。二依貪慾極增上故。非成扇搋等舍善．惡律儀。起二依貪非極重故。

北俱盧人至善戒惡戒者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

問：如果他們不屬於有律儀的那一類，原因是什麼？

答：契經中說，男根具足者才能成就（律儀），而毗奈耶（Vinaya，戒律）中說，像扇搋（pandaka，無勢男）這樣的人應該被排除在外。因此，可以知道律儀不是他們那一類人所能擁有的。其餘的文句可以自行理解。

問：又是什麼道理導致他們沒有律儀呢？

問：即使有教導，又是什麼道理導致他們沒有律儀？

答：因為二種所依（即二根）到沒有慚愧心的緣故。第一，依賴相續（sam்tāna，心相續），無法生起；第二，貪慾會引發善戒。由於二根所依之身所產生的煩惱，在一個相續之身上同時增長，所以無法生起善戒。對於那些能夠正確思考的人來說，可以生起善戒。扇搋迦（pandaka，無勢男）因為沒有能力正確思考，如聽聞、思維、修習等，所以無法生起善戒。極度的慚愧心能夠引發善戒，而半擇迦（napumsaka，陰陽人）沒有極重的慚愧心，所以無法生起善戒。另一種解釋是，半擇迦沒有正確思考的能力，而扇搋迦沒有極重的慚愧心。還有一種解釋是，兩者都包括這兩種情況。還有一種解釋是，總括了這三種情況。

問：如果是這樣，為什麼他們沒有不律儀呢？

難：

釋：因為他們在惡中到相反的立場。一般來說，對於善惡之心堅定的人，可以得到善戒或惡戒。而二根等人，因為在極惡之中，心不定，所以無法得到惡戒。而且，善戒和惡戒在同一個身體中是相反的。既然他們的身體無法得到善戒，也就無法得到惡戒。

問：捨棄善戒和惡戒，只有二形人才能捨棄，而不是扇搋和半擇。為什麼得到善戒和惡戒，這三種人都不能得到？

答：解釋說，善戒在善中更加殊勝，惡戒在惡中更加殊勝。初次獲得時很難，必須依靠殊勝的身體才能生起。因此，這三種人都無法得到。後來生起就比較容易了，扇搋和半擇的過失不是很嚴重，不能捨棄善戒和惡戒。戒律依賴於他們的身體。二形人的過失很嚴重，能夠捨棄善戒和惡戒。戒律不依賴於他們的身體。所以《正理》第三十九卷說，然而，二形人會捨棄善戒和惡戒，因為他們對貪慾的依賴非常強烈。而扇搋等人不能捨棄善惡律儀，因為他們對二種所依的貪慾不是特別強烈。

北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）的人到善戒惡戒。

【English Translation】 English version:

Question: If they do not belong to the category of those who possess vows (律儀), what is the reason?

Answer: The Sutras (契經) state that only those with complete male organs can achieve (vows), while the Vinaya (毗奈耶, discipline) says that individuals like pandakas (扇搋, eunuchs) should be excluded. Therefore, it is known that vows are not something that those in their category can possess. The remaining sentences can be understood on their own.

Question: What is the reason that they do not have vows?

Question: Even if there are teachings, what is the reason that they do not have vows?

Answer: Because of the two bases (二種所依, i.e., two sets of sexual organs) leading to the lack of a sense of shame (慚愧心). First, relying on the continuum (相續, sam்tāna), it cannot arise; second, greed can trigger good vows. Because the afflictions arising from the body with two bases increase simultaneously on one continuum, good vows cannot arise. For those who are capable of correct thinking, good vows can arise. Pandakas (扇搋, eunuchs) cannot generate good vows because they lack the ability to think correctly, such as through hearing, thinking, and practicing. Extreme shame can trigger good vows, but napumsakas (半擇迦, hermaphrodites) do not have extreme shame, so they cannot generate good vows. Another explanation is that napumsakas lack the ability to think correctly, while pandakas lack extreme shame. Another explanation is that both include these two situations. Another explanation is that it encompasses all three situations.

Question: If that is the case, why do they not have non-vows (不律儀)?

Objection:

Explanation: Because they are in evil leading to the opposite position. Generally, those with firm minds regarding good and evil can obtain good or evil vows. However, those with two sets of sexual organs, etc., cannot obtain evil vows because their minds are not fixed in extreme evil. Moreover, good and evil vows are opposite in the same body. Since their bodies cannot obtain good vows, they also cannot obtain evil vows.

Question: Only those with two sets of sexual organs can abandon good and evil vows, not pandakas and napumsakas. Why is it that these three types cannot obtain good and evil vows?

Answer: It is explained that good vows are more excellent in goodness, and evil vows are more excellent in evil. It is difficult to obtain them initially and requires relying on a superior body to arise. Therefore, all three types cannot obtain them. It is easier to arise later, and the faults of pandakas and napumsakas are not severe enough to abandon good and evil vows. The vows depend on their bodies. The faults of those with two sets of sexual organs are severe enough to abandon good and evil vows. The vows do not depend on their bodies. Therefore, the thirty-ninth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says, 'However, those with two sets of sexual organs abandon good and evil vows because their dependence on greed is very strong.' Pandakas, etc., cannot abandon good and evil vows because their greed for the two bases is not particularly strong.

People of Uttarakuru (北俱盧洲) to good and evil vows.

。別顯北洲無善．惡戒。北俱盧人無受戒故。無別解脫律儀。無入定故。無靜慮律儀．無漏律儀。及無造惡勝阿世耶。故無不律儀。是故彼無善戒惡戒。

猛利慚愧至不律儀故者。此顯惡趣無善惡戒。極猛利慚．愧三惡趣中無故。律．不律儀于彼亦非有　與勝慚．愧相應起故方有律儀　與勝慚．愧相違。與勝無慚．無愧相應有不律儀。

又扇搋等至嘉苗穢草者。喻況。可知。

若爾何故至近住齋戒者。難。若說律儀惡趣無有。何故經言龍受八戒　半月。謂十五日　八日。謂月八日　又解半月。謂白半十五日及黑半十五日　八日。謂白半八日及黑半八日　又解半月中八日。謂白半八日及黑半八日。

此得妙行至唯人天有者。答。龍雖受戒唯得處中妙行業道非得律儀。是故律儀唯人．天有非三惡趣　問若不得戒何故為受　解云令生妙行得勝果故。故婆沙百二十四云。扇搋．半擇迦．無形．二形受近住律儀得律儀不。答應言不得。所以者何。彼所依身者志性羸劣非律儀器。亦不能為不律儀器。如堿鹵田嘉苗．穢草俱不生長。然應授彼近住律儀。令生妙行當得勝果　問此論何故不說無形　解云此論不說略而不論。

然唯人具至靜慮無漏者。釋第四句。

若生欲天至彼必非有者。釋第五．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：別顯北洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，位於北方）沒有善戒和惡戒。因為北俱盧洲的人不接受戒律，所以沒有別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha，又稱波羅提木叉，佛教戒律的總稱），沒有入定，所以沒有靜慮律儀（Dhyana，禪定），也沒有無漏律儀（Anasrava，指斷絕煩惱的戒律）。並且沒有造惡的強烈意願（勝阿世耶，Adhyashaya），所以也沒有不律儀（指違反戒律的行為）。因此，那裡沒有善戒和惡戒。

『猛利慚愧至不律儀故者』，這說明惡趣（Durgati，指地獄、餓鬼、畜生三惡道）沒有善戒和惡戒。因為極度強烈的慚（Hri，對自己的過錯感到羞恥）和愧（Apatrapya，害怕因過錯而受到懲罰）在三惡趣中不存在，所以律儀和不律儀在那裡也不存在。只有與強烈的慚和愧相應，才能產生律儀；與強烈的慚和愧相反，與強烈的無慚和無愧相應，才會有不律儀。

『又扇搋（Pandaka，指不能人道的閹人）等至嘉苗穢草者』，這只是一個比喻，容易理解。

『若爾何故至近住齋戒者』，這是一個提問。如果說律儀在惡趣中沒有，為什麼經典中說龍（Naga，印度神話中的蛇神）會受持八戒（Astanga-sila，佛教的一種戒律）？半月，指的是每月十五日；八日，指的是每月的初八。另一種解釋是，半月指的是白半月（上半月）的十五日和黑半月（下半月）的十五日；八日指的是白半月的初八和黑半月的初八。還有一種解釋是，半月中的八日指的是白半月的初八和黑半月的初八。

『此得妙行至唯人天有者』，這是回答。龍雖然受戒，但只能獲得處中的妙行業道，而不能獲得律儀。因此，律儀只有人道和天道才有，三惡趣沒有。問：如果得不到戒律，為什麼要受戒？答：爲了產生妙行，獲得殊勝的果報。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百二十四卷說，扇搋、半擇迦（指性機能不全的人）、無形（沒有性器官的人）、二形（具有雙重性器官的人）受持近住律儀（Upavasatha，八關齋戒）能得到律儀嗎？回答是不能。為什麼呢？因為他們所依的身心志性羸弱，不是受持律儀的器皿，也不能成為不律儀的器皿。就像鹽堿地一樣，好的苗和壞的草都不能生長。然而，應該授予他們近住律儀，使他們產生妙行，將來獲得殊勝的果報。問：這部論為什麼沒有說無形？答：這部論沒有說，是省略了，而不是沒有提到。

『然唯人具至靜慮無漏者』，這是解釋第四句。

『若生欲天至彼必非有者』，這是解釋第五句。

【English Translation】 English version: Uttarakuru (one of the four great continents, located in the north) does not have good or bad precepts. Because the people of Uttarakuru do not receive precepts, there is no Pratimoksha (the comprehensive code of Buddhist precepts), no entering into Samadhi, so there is no Dhyana (meditation) precepts, and no Anasrava (precepts that cut off defilements) precepts. And there is no strong intention (Adhyashaya) to commit evil, so there is no non-precept (behavior that violates precepts). Therefore, there are no good or bad precepts there.

'The phrase 'fierce shame and remorse leading to non-precepts' indicates that the evil realms (Durgati, referring to the three evil paths of hell, hungry ghosts, and animals) do not have good or bad precepts. Because extremely strong shame (Hri, feeling ashamed of one's own mistakes) and remorse (Apatrapya, fearing punishment for mistakes) do not exist in the three evil realms, precepts and non-precepts also do not exist there. Only when corresponding to strong shame and remorse can precepts arise; contrary to strong shame and remorse, corresponding to strong shamelessness and lack of remorse, there will be non-precepts.

'Furthermore, 'eunuchs (Pandaka) etc. to good seedlings and foul weeds' is just a metaphor, which is easy to understand.

'If so, why does it say 'to the observance of the Uposatha precepts'?' This is a question. If it is said that precepts do not exist in the evil realms, why do the scriptures say that Nagas (serpent deities in Indian mythology) observe the eight precepts (Astanga-sila, a type of Buddhist precepts)? 'Half-month' refers to the fifteenth day of each month; 'eighth day' refers to the eighth day of each month. Another explanation is that 'half-month' refers to the fifteenth day of the waxing half-month (first half of the month) and the fifteenth day of the waning half-month (second half of the month); 'eighth day' refers to the eighth day of the waxing half-month and the eighth day of the waning half-month. Another explanation is that 'eighth day in the half-month' refers to the eighth day of the waxing half-month and the eighth day of the waning half-month.

'This obtaining of excellent conduct to only humans and gods having it' is the answer. Although Nagas receive precepts, they can only obtain the middle excellent path of action, but cannot obtain precepts. Therefore, precepts only exist in the human and divine realms, not in the three evil realms. Question: If one cannot obtain precepts, why receive them? Answer: In order to generate excellent conduct and obtain superior rewards. Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume 124, says, 'Can eunuchs, hermaphrodites, those without sexual organs, and those with dual sexual organs obtain precepts by observing the Uposatha precepts?' The answer is no. Why? Because their dependent body and mind are weak and not vessels for receiving precepts, nor can they become vessels for non-precepts. Just like saline-alkali land, neither good seedlings nor foul weeds can grow. However, they should be given the Uposatha precepts so that they can generate excellent conduct and obtain superior rewards in the future. Question: Why does this treatise not mention those without sexual organs? Answer: This treatise does not mention it, it is omitted, not unmentioned.

'However, only humans possess to Dhyana and Anasrava' is an explanation of the fourth sentence.

'If born in the desire heavens to they certainly do not have' is an explanation of the fifth sentence.

第六句。正理云若生欲天及生色界皆容得有靜慮律儀。然無想天但容成就。生無色界彼俱非有。

無漏律儀至必不現起者。釋后兩句。無漏律儀不但在欲．色界。亦在無色。謂若生在欲界天中。及生色界中。除中定梵王。及無想天。以彼二處唯異生故。餘十六處皆容得有無漏律儀。生無色中唯得成就下六地中無漏律儀。以無色故必不現行。

因辨諸業至所標諸業者。此下當品之中大文第二釋經諸業。就中。一牒前總標。二別解釋　此即牒前總標。

且經中說至其相云何者。此下第二別解釋。就中。一明三性業。二明福等三。三明三受業。四明三時業。五明身．心受業。六明曲．穢．濁。七明黑黑等。八明三牟尼清凈。九明三惡行．妙行。十明十業道。十一明三邪行　此下第一明三性業。就中。一問。二答　此即依經起問。

頌曰至名善惡無記者。頌答。

論曰至善不善故者。如是安等業名善等業相。謂安穩業說名為善。能得可愛異熟果者。暫時濟眾苦故。能得可愛涅槃果者永時濟眾苦故　不安穩業名為不善。由此能招非愛異熟。又極遮止趣向涅槃。與前安穩性相違故　非前二業立無記名。無別勝能不可記為善．不善故。

又經中說至業果無動故者。此即第二明福等三。初句列名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：正理論中說，如果眾生投生到欲界天和色界天，通常都可以具有靜慮律儀（Dhyana Samvara，通過禪定獲得的戒律）。然而，無想天（Asanjnasattvas，沒有思想的境界）只能成就這種律儀。如果投生到無色界（Arupa，沒有物質的境界），那麼欲界天和色界天都不具有靜慮律儀。

關於『無漏律儀必定不會顯現』，這是在解釋後面的兩句話。無漏律儀（Anasrava-samvara，沒有煩惱的戒律）不僅存在於欲界和色界，也存在於無色界。也就是說，如果投生在欲界天中，以及投生在色界中，除了中間禪定的梵天（Brahmakayikas in the intermediate Dhyana）和無想天，因為這兩個地方只有凡夫（prthag-jana，未開悟的眾生），其餘十六個地方通常都可以具有無漏律儀。投生在無色界中，只能成就下六地的無漏律儀，因為無色界眾生沒有形色，所以必定不會顯現這種律儀。

因為要辨析各種業，所以要解釋所標示的各種業。下面這一品中，大的段落第二部分是解釋經文中的各種業。其中，一是重複前面的總標，二是分別解釋。這裡是重複前面的總標。

而且經文中說，業的自性是什麼？下面是第二部分，分別解釋。其中，一是說明三性業（業的三種性質），二是說明福等三種業，三是說明三受業（三種感受的業），四是說明三時業（三種時間的業），五是說明身心感受的業，六是說明曲、穢、濁（Kutila, Asuci, Prasrava，彎曲、不凈、混濁），七是說明黑黑等業，八是說明三牟尼清凈（Tri-muni-visuddhi，三位聖者的清凈），九是說明三種惡行和妙行，十是說明十業道，十一是說明三種邪行。下面是第一部分，說明三性業。其中，一是提問，二是回答。這裡是根據經文提出問題。

頌文說，業被稱為善、惡、無記。這是用頌文來回答。

論中說，像這樣安穩等的業，被稱為善等業的相。所謂安穩的業，被稱為善，因為它能得到可愛的異熟果（vipaka-phala，成熟的果報），暫時救濟眾生的痛苦，並且能得到可愛的涅槃果（Nirvana-phala，解脫的果報），永遠救濟眾生的痛苦。不安穩的業被稱為不善，因為它能招致不可愛的異熟果，並且極力阻止眾生趣向涅槃，與前面的安穩性相反。不是前面兩種業的，就立為無記，因為它沒有特別殊勝的功能，無法記為善或不善。

而且經文中說，因為業果是無動的。這是第二部分，說明福等三種業。第一句是列出名稱。

【English Translation】 English version: The Nyaya-anusara states that if beings are born in the desire realm heavens (Kama-dhatu) and the form realm (Rupa-dhatu), they can generally possess Dhyana Samvara (the discipline of meditative absorption). However, the Asanjnasattvas (the realm of non-perception) can only achieve this discipline. If born in the Arupa (formless realm), neither the desire realm heavens nor the form realm possess Dhyana Samvara.

Regarding 'Anasrava-samvara (the discipline free from outflows) will certainly not manifest,' this explains the following two sentences. Anasrava-samvara exists not only in the desire and form realms but also in the formless realm. That is, if born in the desire realm heavens, and in the form realm, except for the Brahmakayikas in the intermediate Dhyana and the Asanjnasattvas, because these two places only have prthag-jana (ordinary beings), the remaining sixteen places can generally possess Anasrava-samvara. Born in the formless realm, one can only achieve Anasrava-samvara in the lower six grounds, because beings in the formless realm have no form, so this discipline will certainly not manifest.

Because various karma are to be distinguished, the various karma indicated are to be explained. In this section, the second major part is the explanation of the various karma in the sutra. Among them, one is to repeat the previous general statement, and the second is to explain separately. This is to repeat the previous general statement.

Moreover, the sutra says, what is the nature of karma? Below is the second part, explaining separately. Among them, one is to explain the three natures of karma (three-fold nature of karma), the second is to explain the three types of merit, etc., the third is to explain the three feelings of karma, the fourth is to explain the three times of karma, the fifth is to explain the karma of bodily and mental feelings, the sixth is to explain Kutila, Asuci, Prasrava (crooked, impure, turbid), the seventh is to explain black-black karma, etc., the eighth is to explain Tri-muni-visuddhi (the purity of the three sages), the ninth is to explain the three evil conducts and excellent conducts, the tenth is to explain the ten paths of karma, and the eleventh is to explain the three wrong conducts. Below is the first part, explaining the three natures of karma. Among them, one is to ask, and the second is to answer. Here, the question is raised according to the sutra.

The verse says that karma is called good, evil, and neutral. This is answering with a verse.

The treatise says that karma such as stability is called the aspect of good karma, etc. So-called stable karma is called good because it can obtain a lovely vipaka-phala (result of maturation), temporarily relieving the suffering of beings, and can obtain a lovely Nirvana-phala (fruit of Nirvana), permanently relieving the suffering of beings. Unstable karma is called unwholesome because it can bring about unlovely vipaka-phala, and it strongly prevents beings from going towards Nirvana, which is contrary to the previous stable nature. What is not the previous two types of karma is established as neutral because it has no particularly superior function and cannot be recorded as good or unwholesome.

Moreover, the sutra says that because the result of karma is immovable. This is the second part, explaining the three types of merit, etc. The first sentence is listing the names.

。次三句別釋。后兩句釋妨。

論曰至說名不動者。此即略釋福等三業。

豈不世尊至皆名有動者。問。豈不世尊說下初．二．三定皆名有動。

聖說此中至說名不動者。答　等。謂等取喜．樂二受。故正理云。聖說。此中有尋．伺。喜。樂受動故。由下初定有尋．伺動。由下二定有喜受動。由下三定有樂受動。以有尋等災患未息故立動名。若不動經中據因能感不動果故說名不動　又解等取喜．樂。出．入息。隨其所應說名為動。

如何有動定招無動異熟者。此下釋后兩句。此即問也。

雖此定中至立不動名者。答。雖下三定中有尋．伺等災患所動。而業對果。非如欲界有動轉故立不動名。謂欲界中有餘異趣．異處滿業。由別緣力資助彼故。令于異趣．異處中受以或有業。能感外財官位。內身形量顏色身。及受樂等。滿業于天等四趣中此業應熟。由別緣力所引轉故。於人等四趣中此業便熟　唯除地獄。以無可愛異熟果故。又解于等字中亦攝地獄。以非愛果通五趣故　色．無色界餘地．余處業。無容轉令異地．異處受異熟果。以業對果對處定故等引地攝。無動轉故立不動名。

又正理云。應知此中由於因果相屬愚故造非福業。以非福業純染污故。要依粗重相續無明。由此無明現在

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『次三句別釋。后兩句釋妨。』——這三句分別解釋了前面的內容，後面的兩句是爲了消除疑問。

『論曰至說名不動者。』——這是對福等三種業的簡要解釋。

『豈不世尊至皆名有動者。』——這是提問。難道不是世尊說初禪、二禪、三禪都名為『有動』嗎？

『聖說此中至說名不動者。』——這是回答。『等』字包括了喜和樂兩種感受。所以《正理》中說：聖人說，此中有尋、伺、喜、樂的動。因為初禪有尋和伺的動，二禪有喜受的動，三禪有樂受的動。因為有尋等災患沒有止息，所以立名為『動』。如果《不動經》中說是不動，那是根據其因能夠感得不動的果報，所以說名為『不動』。又一種解釋，『等』字包括了喜、樂、出息、入息，根據它們各自的情況說名為『動』。

『如何有動定招無動異熟者。』——這是解釋後面的兩句，是提問。

『雖此定中至立不動名者。』——這是回答。雖然下三禪中有尋、伺等災患所動，但是業對於果報來說，不像欲界那樣有動轉，所以立名為『不動』。也就是說，欲界中有其餘趣、其餘處的圓滿業，由於其他因緣的力量資助，使得在其餘趣、其餘處中感受果報。或者有的業能夠感得外在的財富官位，內在的身形、相貌、顏色，以及感受快樂等等。圓滿業在天等四趣中應該成熟，由於其他因緣的力量牽引轉變，所以在人等四趣中這個業就成熟了。只有地獄除外，因為沒有可愛的異熟果報。又一種解釋，在『等』字中也包括了地獄，因為它不是可愛的果報，通於五趣。色界、無色界其餘地、其餘處的業，不能夠轉變到其他地、其他處去感受異熟果報，因為業對於果報、對於處所是決定的，所以被等引地所攝。因為沒有動轉，所以立名為『不動』。

《正理》中又說：應該知道，這是因為對於因果的相互關係愚昧，所以造作非福業。因為非福業是純粹染污的，所以要依靠粗重相續的無明。由於這種無明現在。

【English Translation】 English version: 『The next three sentences explain separately. The last two sentences explain the refutation.』 - These three sentences explain the previous content separately, and the last two sentences are to eliminate doubts.

『The treatise says to the point of being called immovable.』 - This is a brief explanation of the three karmas of merit, etc.

『Why does the World Honored One say that all the lower meditations are called moving?』 - This is a question. Doesn't the World Honored One say that the first, second, and third Dhyanas are all called 'moving'?

『The Sage says that in this to the point of being called immovable.』 - This is the answer. 'Etc.' includes the two feelings of joy and pleasure. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: The Sage says that in this there is the movement of vitarka (initial application of thought), vicāra (sustained application of thought), joy, and pleasure. Because the first Dhyana has the movement of vitarka and vicāra, the second Dhyana has the movement of joy, and the third Dhyana has the movement of pleasure. Because the calamities such as vitarka have not ceased, it is named 'moving'. If the Immovable Sutra says it is immovable, it is based on the fact that its cause can bring about the result of immovability, so it is called 'immovable'. Another explanation is that 'etc.' includes joy, pleasure, exhalation, and inhalation, and they are called 'moving' according to their respective situations.

『How can a moving meditation bring about an immovable vipāka (result of action)?』 - This is to explain the last two sentences, and it is a question.

『Although in this meditation to the point of being called immovable.』 - This is the answer. Although the lower three Dhyanas are moved by calamities such as vitarka, the karma is not as moving as in the desire realm in relation to the result, so it is called 'immovable'. That is to say, in the desire realm, there is the complete karma of other destinies and other places, which is aided by the power of other conditions, so that the result is felt in other destinies and other places. Or some karma can bring about external wealth and official positions, internal body shape, appearance, color, and the feeling of happiness, etc. The complete karma should mature in the four destinies such as the heavens, but due to the traction and transformation of other conditions, this karma matures in the four destinies such as humans. Only hell is excluded, because there is no lovely vipāka. Another explanation is that the word 'etc.' also includes hell, because it is not a lovely result and is common to the five destinies. The karma of other places in the form realm and formless realm cannot be transformed to other places to feel the vipāka, because the karma is determined for the result and for the place, so it is included in the samāpatti (state of evenness). Because there is no movement, it is called 'immovable'.

The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya also says: It should be known that this is because of ignorance of the mutual relationship between cause and effect, so non-meritorious karma is created. Because non-meritorious karma is purely defiled, it must rely on the gross and continuous ignorance. Because of this ignorance now.

前位。不能信解因果相屬。是故發起諸非福行。由真實義愚故造福及不動業。真實義者謂四聖諦。若於彼愚諸異生類。于善心位亦得間起。由此勢力令於三界不如實知其性皆苦。起福．不動行為後有因。若已見諦者則無是事。乘先行力漸離染時。如次得生欲．色．無色(解云異生於世俗因果相屬愚故。造非福業。于真實義愚故。造福及不動業。若已見諦者不愚因果相屬故不造非福業。不愚真實義故不造福．不動業。故言若已見諦者即無是事。然乘先異生時福及不動行力。漸離染時。如次得生欲．色．無色　若準此文。聖人不造感生異熟業)。

又經中說至其相云何者。此下第三明三受業。依經起問。

頌曰至現前差別故者。初一頌正明三受業。第二頌引證。第三頌明順受。

論曰至苦樂受故者。釋初頌。可知。

非此諸業至此中名受者。非此諸三受業唯感受果。應知亦感彼受資糧。除受餘四蘊資助受故名受資糧。受及資糧此中總名為受。唯言受者。從強說故。相從說故。受資糧故。又正理四十云。此業非唯感受異熟。如何總得順受業名。諸業為因所感異熟。皆似於受得受名數。所以者何。彼皆如受為身益．損．及平等故。如水．火等於樹枝等為益。為損。為等義成。

有餘師說至異熟

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前位（指凡夫）。不能相信和理解因果之間的相互關係。因此，他們發起各種非福德的行為。由於對真實意義的愚昧，他們造作福德和不動業。真實意義指的是四聖諦。如果眾生對四聖諦愚昧，即使在善心生起時，也會間斷地造作惡業。由於這種力量，他們不能如實地瞭解三界的本質都是痛苦的。他們造作福德和不動業，作為未來輪迴的原因。如果已經證悟真諦的人，就不會有這種情況。他們憑藉先前行為的力量，在逐漸遠離染污時，依次獲得欲界、色界、無色界的果報。（解釋說，凡夫因為對世俗的因果關係愚昧，所以造作非福業。因為對真實意義愚昧，所以造作福業和不動業。如果已經證悟真諦的人，就不會對因果關係愚昧，所以不造作非福業；也不會對真實意義愚昧，所以不造作福業和不動業。所以說，如果已經證悟真諦的人，就不會有這種情況。然而，憑藉先前異生時期的福德和不動業的力量，在逐漸遠離染污時，依次獲得欲界、色界、無色界的果報。如果按照這段文字，聖人不會造作感受異熟果報的業。）

經文中說『至於它的相狀如何』。下面第三部分闡明三種感受的業。根據經文提出問題。

頌文說『直到現前差別故』。第一頌正面闡明三種感受的業。第二頌引用證據。第三頌闡明順受。

論述說『直到苦樂受故』。解釋第一頌。內容可知。

『非此諸業直到此中名受者』。這些三種感受的業，不僅僅是感受果報，還應該知道它們也感受這些感受的資糧。除了感受之外，其餘四蘊資助感受，所以稱為感受的資糧。感受和資糧在這裡總稱為感受。只說感受，是從強盛的角度來說的。從相隨的角度來說。因為是感受的資糧。另外，《正理》第四十卷說，這種業不僅僅是感受異熟果報。為什麼總能得到順受業的名稱呢？各種業作為原因所感受的異熟果報，都類似於感受，所以得到感受的名稱。為什麼呢？因為它們都像感受一樣，對身體有益處、損害或者平等。就像水、火等對於樹枝等有益處、損害或者平等一樣。

有其他老師說，直到異熟。

【English Translation】 English version: The former position (referring to ordinary beings). They cannot believe and understand the interconnectedness of cause and effect. Therefore, they initiate various non-meritorious actions. Due to ignorance of the true meaning, they create meritorious and unwavering karma. The true meaning refers to the Four Noble Truths. If sentient beings are ignorant of the Four Noble Truths, even when wholesome thoughts arise, they will intermittently create evil karma. Due to this power, they cannot truly understand that the nature of the three realms is all suffering. They create meritorious and unwavering karma as the cause of future rebirths. If one has already realized the truth, this will not happen. Relying on the power of previous actions, as they gradually move away from defilements, they sequentially obtain the fruits of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm. (It is explained that ordinary beings create non-meritorious karma because they are ignorant of the worldly cause-and-effect relationship. Because they are ignorant of the true meaning, they create meritorious and unwavering karma. If one has already realized the truth, they will not be ignorant of the cause-and-effect relationship, so they will not create non-meritorious karma; nor will they be ignorant of the true meaning, so they will not create meritorious and unwavering karma. Therefore, it is said that if one has already realized the truth, this will not happen. However, relying on the power of previous meritorious and unwavering actions from the time of being an ordinary being, as they gradually move away from defilements, they sequentially obtain the fruits of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm. According to this passage, a sage does not create karma that results in experiencing ripened fruits.)

The sutra says, 'As for what its characteristics are.' The third part below elucidates the karma of the three types of feelings. The question is raised based on the sutra.

The verse says, 'Until the difference is present.' The first verse directly elucidates the karma of the three types of feelings. The second verse cites evidence. The third verse elucidates favorable reception.

The treatise says, 'Until the cause of suffering and pleasure.' Explains the first verse. The content is knowable.

'These karmas, until the name 'feeling' in this.' These three types of feeling karma are not only experiencing the results, but it should also be known that they also experience the resources for these feelings. Except for feeling, the other four aggregates assist feeling, so they are called the resources for feeling. Feeling and resources are collectively called feeling here. Only saying feeling is from the perspective of strength. From the perspective of association. Because it is the resource for feeling. Furthermore, the fortieth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says that this karma is not only experiencing the ripened fruit. Why can it generally obtain the name of favorable reception karma? The ripened fruits experienced by various karmas as causes are all similar to feeling, so they obtain the name of feeling. Why? Because they are all like feeling, beneficial, harmful, or equal to the body. Just like water, fire, etc., are beneficial, harmful, or equal to branches, etc.

Some other teachers say, until the ripened fruit.

果故者。釋第五．第六句。有餘師不但上地有順舍業。下諸地中亦有第三順非二業。由中間定無尋唯伺業。能招中定舍異熟故。以生中定唯有舍故。若異此者。中間定業應無異熟果。或應無業。以無苦．樂所感果故。

有餘師說至不感受果者。敘二異解。前師意說。此中定無尋唯伺業。能感初定根本地中樂根異熟。同一縛故　第二師說。此無尋唯伺業不感受果。感余色法．不相應行　又雜心業品云。問下地何故無不苦不樂報耶。答有說下地粗而彼受細故。下地不寂靜而彼受寂靜故　雜心意同二說。

二說俱與至無尋業者。論主破云。二說俱與六足．發智本論相違。故本論言。頗有業唯感心受異熟非身受異熟耶。曰有。謂善無尋業　中定善業既無尋攝。明知但感中定心受不感身受。若說中定善無尋業。能感初定樂根異熟。便有無尋業亦感身受。本論相違。本論說無尋業唯感心受故。又本論說善無尋業能感心受。明知中定善業能感心受異熟。既能感受果。后說此業不感受果。亦違本論。

又本論說至俱時熟故者。釋第七．第八句。又引發智等本論證下地中有舍異熟。以上界中無苦受故。不可說言順三受業一時受果。此中略舉發智初番。第二第三番廣說中顯。如婆沙一百一十五云。頗有順樂受等三業非前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『果故者。釋第五．第六句。』意思是解釋第五句和第六句。有些其他老師認為，不僅上層禪定境界有順舍業（Upeksha Karma，導致不苦不樂感受的業），下層諸地中也有第三種順非二業（既非順樂受業，也非順苦受業）。這是因為中間禪定沒有尋伺，只有伺業（Vitarka-vicara，粗細分別的心理活動），能夠招感中間禪定的舍異熟（Upeksha Vipaka，不苦不樂的果報）。因為只有舍受才能生於中間禪定。如果不是這樣，中間禪定的業就應該沒有異熟果，或者應該沒有業，因為沒有苦、樂所感生的果報。

『有餘師說至不感受果者。』敘述兩種不同的解釋。前一位老師的意思是說，這種中間禪定沒有尋伺的伺業，能夠感受初禪根本地中的樂根異熟（Sukha-indriya Vipaka，快樂感受的果報），因為它們屬於同一類束縛。第二位老師說，這種沒有尋伺的伺業不感受果報，而是感受其餘的色法（Rupa，物質現象）和不相應行（Citta-viprayukta-samskara，非心非色的抽像概念）。此外，《雜心論》的業品中說：『問：下層諸地為什麼沒有不苦不樂的果報呢？』回答說：『有人說，下層諸地粗糙，而那種感受是精細的。』下層諸地不寂靜，而那種感受是寂靜的。《雜心論》的觀點與這兩種說法相同。

『二說俱與至無尋業者。』論主破斥說，這兩種說法都與《六足論》（Shastipada-abhidharma）和《發智論》（Jnanaprasthana-sastra）的根本論典相違背。因此，根本論典說：『有沒有一種業，僅僅感受心受異熟（Citta-vedana Vipaka，心理感受的果報），而不是身受異熟（Kaya-vedana Vipaka，身體感受的果報）呢？』回答說：『有。』這就是善的無尋業（Avitarka Karma，沒有粗略尋伺的業）。中間禪定的善業既然沒有尋伺，明確知道它只感受中間禪定的心受，不感受身受。如果說中間禪定的善無尋業，能夠感受初禪的樂根異熟，那麼就有了無尋業也感受身受的情況，這與根本論典相違背。根本論典說無尋業只感受心受。此外，根本論典說善的無尋業能夠感受心受，明確知道中間禪定的善業能夠感受心受異熟。既然能夠感受果報，後面又說這種業不感受果報，也違背了根本論典。

『又本論說至俱時熟故者。』解釋第七句和第八句。此外，引發智慧等的根本論典證明下層諸地中有舍異熟，因為上界中沒有苦受。不能說順三種感受的業同時感受果報。這裡簡略地舉了《發智論》的初番，第二番和第三番詳細地說明了這一點。例如，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa-sastra）第一百一十五卷說：『有沒有順樂受等三種業不是先前的呢？』

【English Translation】 English version 『果故者。釋第五．第六句。』 means explaining the fifth and sixth sentences. Some other teachers believe that not only do the upper dhyana realms have Upeksha Karma (karma that leads to neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings), but the lower realms also have a third type of karma that is neither Sukha-vedaniya Karma (karma leading to pleasant feeling) nor Dukkha-vedaniya Karma (karma leading to unpleasant feeling). This is because intermediate dhyana lacks Vitarka-vicara (coarse and subtle mental activities), only having Vicara Karma, which can bring about the Upeksha Vipaka (neither pleasant nor unpleasant result) of intermediate dhyana. Because only Upeksha (equanimity) can arise in intermediate dhyana. If it were not so, the karma of intermediate dhyana should have no Vipaka (result), or should have no karma, because there is no result produced by suffering or pleasure.

『有餘師說至不感受果者。』 describes two different interpretations. The former teacher means that this Vicara Karma without Vitarka in intermediate dhyana can experience the Sukha-indriya Vipaka (result of pleasant sensation) in the fundamental realm of the first dhyana, because they belong to the same kind of bondage. The second teacher says that this Vicara Karma without Vitarka does not experience results, but experiences the remaining Rupa (material phenomena) and Citta-viprayukta-samskara (non-mental, non-material abstract concepts). Furthermore, the Karma section of the Samuccaya-abhidharma says: 『Question: Why do the lower realms not have neither-suffering-nor-pleasure results?』 The answer is: 『Some say that the lower realms are coarse, while that feeling is subtle.』 The lower realms are not tranquil, while that feeling is tranquil. The view of the Samuccaya-abhidharma is the same as these two views.

『二說俱與至無尋業者。』 The author refutes, saying that both views contradict the fundamental treatises of the Shastipada-abhidharma and the Jnanaprasthana-sastra. Therefore, the fundamental treatise says: 『Is there any karma that only experiences Citta-vedana Vipaka (result of mental feeling), and not Kaya-vedana Vipaka (result of physical feeling)?』 The answer is: 『Yes.』 This is Avitarka Karma (karma without coarse Vitarka). Since the good karma of intermediate dhyana has no Vitarka, it is clear that it only experiences the mental feeling of intermediate dhyana, and does not experience physical feeling. If it is said that the good Avitarka Karma of intermediate dhyana can experience the Sukha-indriya Vipaka of the first dhyana, then there is a situation where Avitarka Karma also experiences physical feeling, which contradicts the fundamental treatise. The fundamental treatise says that Avitarka Karma only experiences mental feeling. Furthermore, the fundamental treatise says that good Avitarka Karma can experience mental feeling, clearly knowing that the good karma of intermediate dhyana can experience Citta-vedana Vipaka. Since it can experience results, it is also contrary to the fundamental treatise to say later that this karma does not experience results.

『又本論說至俱時熟故者。』 explains the seventh and eighth sentences. Furthermore, the fundamental treatises that elicit wisdom, etc., prove that there is Upeksha Vipaka in the lower realms, because there is no suffering in the upper realms. It cannot be said that karma that accords with the three feelings experiences results simultaneously. Here, the first section of the Jnanaprasthana-sastra is briefly mentioned, and the second and third sections explain this in detail. For example, the Vibhasa-sastra, volume 115, says: 『Is there any karma that accords with the three feelings, such as pleasant feeling, that is not prior?』

非后受異熟果耶。答有　此中非前者遮過去。非後者遮未來。受異熟果者。謂三業同於一剎那頃受異熟果。依此立問。是以答有　謂順樂受業色者。此業能感人天九處。除聲。惡趣四處謂色．香．味．觸。順苦受業心．心所法者。此業能感苦受及彼相應異熟。順不苦不樂受業心不相應行者。此業能感人．天四類異熟。謂命根．眾同分．得．生住老無常。能感惡趣二類異熟。謂得．生住老無常．又順樂受業心不相應行者。此業能感人．天四類異熟。謂命根．眾同分．得．生住老無常。惡趣二類異熟謂得生住老無常。順苦受業色者。此業能感惡趣九處除聲。人．天四處謂色．香．味．觸。順不苦不樂受業心．心所法者。此業能感不苦不樂受及相應異熟又順樂受業心．心所法者。此業能感樂受及彼相應異熟。順苦受業心不相應行者。此業能感惡趣四類異熟。謂命根．眾同分．得．生住老無常。人．天二類異熟。謂得．生住老無常。順不苦不樂受業色者。此業能感人．天九處除聲。惡趣四處謂色．香．味．觸(已上論文)此中引意正取第二番中順不苦不樂受業心．心所法為證。既順不苦不樂受業感心．心所法。故知定感舍受異熟。必同時故非離欲界中有此三業一剎那中俱時熟。故上界即無。由此證知。下地定有舍受異熟。雖有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：是否為非后受異熟果？答：是的。這裡『非前』是爲了排除過去，『非后』是爲了排除未來。『受異熟果』是指身、語、意三業在同一剎那間承受異熟果報。依此而立問，所以回答是『有』。所謂順樂受的業，如果是色法，此業能感得人天九處（除聲）。惡趣四處，即色、香、味、觸。如果是心、心所法，此業能感得苦受以及與之相應的異熟果報。如果是心不相應行法，此業能感得人天四類異熟果報，即命根、眾同分、得、生、住、老、無常。能感得惡趣二類異熟果報，即得、生、住、老、無常。又，如果是順樂受的業，如果是心不相應行法，此業能感得人天四類異熟果報，即命根、眾同分、得、生、住、老、無常。惡趣二類異熟果報，即得、生、住、老、無常。如果是順苦受的業，如果是色法，此業能感得惡趣九處（除聲），人天四處，即色、香、味、觸。如果是順不苦不樂受的業，如果是心、心所法，此業能感得不苦不樂受以及相應的異熟果報。又，如果是順樂受的業，如果是心、心所法，此業能感得樂受以及與之相應的異熟果報。如果是順苦受的業，如果是心不相應行法，此業能感得惡趣四類異熟果報，即命根、眾同分、得、生、住、老、無常。人天二類異熟果報，即得、生、住、老、無常。如果是順不苦不樂受的業，如果是色法，此業能感得人天九處（除聲），惡趣四處，即色、香、味、觸。（以上是論文內容）這裡引用的意思是主要取第二種情況中，順不苦不樂受的業，如果是心、心所法作為證據。既然順不苦不樂受的業能感得心、心所法，因此可知必定感得舍受的異熟果報。因為必定是同時的，所以非離欲界中沒有這三種業在一剎那中同時成熟的情況，因此上界就沒有。由此可以證明，下地必定有舍受的異熟果報，即使有。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is it a non-subsequent ripening result? Answer: Yes. Here, 'non-prior' excludes the past, and 'non-subsequent' excludes the future. 'Experiencing the ripening result' refers to the body, speech, and mind karmas experiencing the ripening result in the same instant. The question is based on this, so the answer is 'yes'. Regarding karma that accords with pleasant feeling, if it is form (rupa), this karma can cause the nine realms of humans and gods (excluding sound). The four realms of the evil destinies are form, smell, taste, and touch. If it is mind and mental factors (citta and caitta), this karma can cause painful feeling and its corresponding ripening result. If it is mind-non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-samskara), this karma can cause four types of ripening results in humans and gods, namely, life faculty (jivitendriya), commonality of species (nikayasabhaga), attainment (prapti), birth (jati), duration (sthiti), decay (jara), and impermanence (anityata). It can cause two types of ripening results in the evil destinies, namely, attainment, birth, duration, decay, and impermanence. Furthermore, if it is karma that accords with pleasant feeling, if it is mind-non-associated formations, this karma can cause four types of ripening results in humans and gods, namely, life faculty, commonality of species, attainment, birth, duration, decay, and impermanence. Two types of ripening results in the evil destinies, namely, attainment, birth, duration, decay, and impermanence. If it is karma that accords with painful feeling, if it is form, this karma can cause the nine realms of the evil destinies (excluding sound), and the four realms of humans and gods, namely, form, smell, taste, and touch. If it is karma that accords with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if it is mind and mental factors, this karma can cause neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling and its corresponding ripening result. Furthermore, if it is karma that accords with pleasant feeling, if it is mind and mental factors, this karma can cause pleasant feeling and its corresponding ripening result. If it is karma that accords with painful feeling, if it is mind-non-associated formations, this karma can cause four types of ripening results in the evil destinies, namely, life faculty, commonality of species, attainment, birth, duration, decay, and impermanence. Two types of ripening results in humans and gods, namely, attainment, birth, duration, decay, and impermanence. If it is karma that accords with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if it is form, this karma can cause the nine realms of humans and gods (excluding sound), and the four realms of the evil destinies, namely, form, smell, taste, and touch. (The above is the content of the thesis) The meaning cited here mainly takes the karma that accords with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if it is mind and mental factors, as evidence. Since karma that accords with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling can cause mind and mental factors, it can be known that it definitely causes the ripening result of neutral feeling (upeksha). Because it is definitely simultaneous, there is no situation in the realm of desire where these three karmas mature simultaneously in one instant, so there is none in the higher realms. From this, it can be proven that there is definitely the ripening result of neutral feeling in the lower realms, even if there is.

順舍受業色．不相應行。非定感舍受故。不以為證。正理三十破云。此亦非證。以本論中說三界業如三受故。然非三界所繫諸業可俱時受。此亦應然。而本論言有三界業俱時熟者。為欲試驗于對法宗解．不解故。或於增上果說受異熟聲。色．無色界資下異熟令其久住故作是言。順三受業文亦容作此釋。故彼所引非定證因　解云正理意說。引順三受業俱時熟非定能證異熟果業俱時熟。彼引三界業俱時受。例破順三受業。一為試驗為解．不解。二約增上果釋三界業。故婆沙一百一十八曰。頗有三界業非前．非后受異熟耶。答有。乃至廣說。此中道理應答言無。以異熟果界地斷故。而言有者有何理耶。有說。此中以問非理是故隨彼作非理答。何故須作非理問耶。欲試驗他故(廣引事云云)復有說者。依增上果為此問．答。亦不違理。以三界業容有一時受此果故(廣引事云云)又云。由此道理今於此中依增上果作此問．答。亦不違理。以增上果一切界地無隔斷故。

若作俱舍師救說三受業。依理問答。非試驗他故。三受業約異熟俱時熟說。說三界業非理問答為試驗他。或約增上果故三界業約增上果說。不約異熟。理必無有三界諸業於一剎那俱受異熟故。三受約異熟。三界約增上果。如何將彼三界增上。例此三受異熟文耶

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：順舍受業色（隨順於舍受而產生的業所帶來的色），不相應行（不與心識相應的行為）。因為不是由固定的舍受所感得，所以不能作為證據。正理（《阿毗達磨順正理論》）第三十品駁斥說，這也不是證據。因為《本論》（指《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）中說三界業就像三種感受一樣。然而，並非三界所繫的所有業都可以同時感受。這裡也應該如此。而《本論》說有三界業同時成熟，是爲了試驗對法宗（阿毗達磨宗）的理解與否。或者，就增上果（增強和支援作用的結果）而言，說受是異熟果（不同類別的果報），色、無**資（沒有能力支援）低下的異熟果，使其能夠長久存在，所以這樣說。順三受業的說法也可以這樣解釋。因此，他們所引用的不是確定的證據。解釋說，正理的意思是說，引用順三受業同時成熟，不能確定地證明異熟果的業同時成熟。他們引用三界業同時感受，來類比駁斥順三受業。一是為試驗是否理解，二是從增上果的角度解釋三界業。所以《婆沙》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第一百一十八卷說，有沒有三界業不是在前也不是在後感受異熟果呢？回答說有。乃至廣說。這裡面的道理應該回答說沒有。因為異熟果有界地之分。而說有，有什麼道理呢？有人說，這裡是以非理性的問題，所以隨著對方作非理性的回答。為什麼要作非理性的問題呢？爲了試驗他人（廣引事例）。又有人說，依據增上果來作此問答，也不違背道理。因為三界業容許一時感受此果（廣引事例）。又說，由此道理，現在在這裡依據增上果作此問答，也不違背道理。因為增上果一切界地沒有隔斷。如果俱舍師（《俱舍論》的學者）認為，關於三受業的問答是依據道理，不是爲了試驗他人。三受業是就異熟果同時成熟而言。說三界業是非理性的問答，是爲了試驗他人，或者就增上果而言。三界業是就增上果而言，不是就異熟果而言。道理上一定沒有三界諸業在一剎那同時感受異熟果。三受是就異熟果而言，三界是就增上果而言。怎麼能將那三界增上果，來類比這三受異熟果的說法呢？

【English Translation】 English version: 'Karma associated with neutral feeling (upeksha-vedana-karma) and form (rupa), non-associated mental formations (viprayukta-samskara)'. It is not considered proof because it is not caused by a fixed neutral feeling. The Thirtieth Chapter of the Nyayanusara refutes this, saying, 'This is also not proof, because the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra states that the karma of the three realms is like the three feelings. However, not all karma associated with the three realms can be experienced simultaneously. This should also be the case here. But the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says that there are karma of the three realms that mature simultaneously, in order to test whether the Abhidharma school understands or not. Or, in terms of the augmenting result (adhipati-phala), it is said that feeling is the vipaka-phala (result of different kind), and form and non- (lacking the ability to support) inferior vipaka-phala, so that it can last longer, so it is said. The statement of karma in accordance with the three feelings can also be explained in this way. Therefore, what they cited is not a definite proof.' The explanation says that the meaning of Nyayanusara is that citing the simultaneous maturation of karma in accordance with the three feelings cannot definitely prove that the karma of vipaka-phala matures simultaneously. They cite the simultaneous experience of karma of the three realms to refute the karma in accordance with the three feelings. One is to test whether they understand or not, and the other is to explain the karma of the three realms from the perspective of the augmenting result. Therefore, the 118th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says, 'Is there any karma of the three realms that does not experience vipaka-phala before or after?' The answer is yes. And so on. The reason here should be answered as no. Because vipaka-phala has realm and ground distinctions. But if it is said that there is, what is the reason? Some say that this is an irrational question, so they follow the other party to make an irrational answer. Why do you need to ask an irrational question? In order to test others (citing many examples). Others say that answering this question based on the augmenting result does not violate the principle. Because the karma of the three realms allows this result to be experienced at one time (citing many examples). It is also said that for this reason, we are now asking and answering this question based on the augmenting result. It does not violate the principle, because the augmenting result has no separation in all realms and grounds.' If the Kosa master (scholar of Abhidharmakosa) believes that the questions and answers about the karma of the three feelings are based on reason, not to test others. The karma of the three feelings is said to mature simultaneously in terms of vipaka-phala. Saying that the questions and answers about the karma of the three realms are irrational is to test others, or in terms of the augmenting result. The karma of the three realms is in terms of the augmenting result, not in terms of vipaka-phala. There is definitely no karma of the three realms that simultaneously experiences vipaka-phala in one moment. The three feelings are in terms of vipaka-phala, and the three realms are in terms of the augmenting result. How can the augmenting result of the three realms be compared to the statement of the vipaka-phala of the three feelings?

。又婆沙第二十。解傍生．鬼趣異熟因中雲。心．心所法者樂．喜．舍受。及相應法　又解欲界人．天異熟因中雲。心．心所法者樂喜舍受。及相應法　準此故知。欲界定有舍受異熟為正。

此業為善為不善耶者。問。感舍受業。為善．為不善。

是善而劣者。答。下地舍受劣善所感　問上地舍受勝善能感。何故三定已下舍受劣善所感　解云上地更無喜．樂可欣故勝善能感。下地更有喜．樂二受。人多欣彼不多求舍。為求喜．樂故勝善感。若不別欣喜．樂二受但願脫苦。即用劣善感彼舍受。又婆沙一百一十五云。問何故舍根唯善業感非不善耶。答舍根行相微細寂靜智者所樂故善業感。諸不善業性是粗動故不能感舍受異熟。

若爾便與至名為善業者。難。若於下地亦有善業能感舍受。便與前文所說相違。謂說善業始從欲界至第三定名順樂受。又與前文所說相違。得可愛果名為善業。舍非可愛。善如何感。

應知彼據多分為言者。答。三定已下非無少善亦感舍受。善多感樂從多分說言善感樂。善感可愛應知亦爾。

此業與受至順樂受等者。此下釋名。問。業因受果。二性既殊。如何說為順樂受等。

業與樂受至利益樂受者。答。總有三。此即初解。此約利益以釋順義。因益樂果故立

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：又《婆沙論》第二十卷解釋傍生、鬼趣的異熟因時說：『心、心所法指的是樂受、喜受、舍受以及與這些感受相應的法。』又解釋欲界人、天的異熟因時說：『心、心所法指的是樂受、喜受、舍受以及與這些感受相應的法。』由此可知，欲界的禪定以舍受的異熟為主要。

『此業為善為不善耶者』，問：感得舍受的業，是善業還是不善業？

『是善而劣者』，答：下地的舍受是由較差的善業所感得。問：上地的舍受由殊勝的善業所感得，為什麼三禪以下的舍受由較差的善業所感得？解釋說：上地沒有喜受、樂受可以欣求，所以殊勝的善業能夠感得舍受。下地還有喜受、樂受兩種感受，人們大多欣求喜受、樂受，不怎麼追求舍受。爲了追求喜受、樂受，所以用殊勝的善業去感得。如果不特別欣求喜受、樂受，只是希望脫離痛苦，就用較差的善業感得舍受。又《婆沙論》第一百一十五卷說：『問：為什麼舍根（Upeksha-indriya，指舍受作為一種根）只能由善業感得，而不能由不善業感得呢？答：舍根的行相微細、寂靜，是智者所喜愛的，所以由善業感得。各種不善業的性質是粗猛、躁動的，所以不能感得舍受的異熟。』

『若爾便與至名為善業者』，難：如果下地也有善業能夠感得舍受，就與前面所說的相違背，前面說善業從欲界到第三禪都名為順樂受。又與前面所說的相違背，得到可愛的果報才名為善業，而舍受並非可愛，善業如何能感得舍受？

『應知彼據多分為言者』，答：三禪以下並非沒有少量的善業也能感得舍受，只是善業大多感得樂受，所以從大多數情況來說，說善業感得樂受。善業感得可愛果報，也應該這樣理解。

『此業與受至順樂受等者』，此下解釋名稱。問：業是因，受是果，二者的性質既然不同，為什麼說為順樂受等？

『業與樂受至利益樂受者』，答：總共有三種解釋，這是第一種解釋。這是從利益的角度來解釋『順』的含義，因為業能利益樂果，所以立名為順。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, the twentieth volume of the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) explains the causes of Vipāka (result of actions) for animals and ghosts, stating: 'Mental and mental properties refer to feelings of pleasure, joy, equanimity, and the corresponding dharmas.' It also explains the causes of Vipāka for humans and Devas (gods) in the desire realm, stating: 'Mental and mental properties refer to feelings of pleasure, joy, equanimity, and the corresponding dharmas.' Based on this, it can be known that Dhyana (meditation) in the desire realm primarily involves the Vipāka of equanimity.

'Is this Karma (action) good or bad?' Question: Is the Karma that results in equanimity a good Karma or a bad Karma?

'It is good but inferior.' Answer: Equanimity in the lower realms is caused by inferior good Karma. Question: Equanimity in the higher realms is caused by superior good Karma, so why is equanimity below the third Dhyana caused by inferior good Karma? Explanation: The higher realms have no pleasure or joy to desire, so superior good Karma can cause equanimity. The lower realms still have pleasure and joy, and people mostly desire pleasure and joy, not equanimity. To seek pleasure and joy, they use superior good Karma. If they do not particularly desire pleasure and joy but only wish to escape suffering, they use inferior good Karma to cause equanimity. Furthermore, the one hundred and fifteenth volume of the Vibhasa states: 'Question: Why can the root of equanimity (Upeksha-indriya) only be caused by good Karma and not by bad Karma? Answer: The characteristics of the root of equanimity are subtle, tranquil, and pleasing to the wise, so it is caused by good Karma. The nature of all bad Karma is coarse and agitated, so it cannot cause the Vipāka of equanimity.'

'If so, it contradicts the statement that it is called good Karma.' Objection: If there is also good Karma in the lower realms that can cause equanimity, it contradicts what was said earlier, which stated that good Karma from the desire realm to the third Dhyana is called conducive to pleasure. It also contradicts what was said earlier, that obtaining a desirable result is called good Karma, but equanimity is not desirable, so how can good Karma cause it?

'It should be understood that this is speaking from the majority perspective.' Answer: It is not that there is no small amount of good Karma below the third Dhyana that can also cause equanimity, but good Karma mostly causes pleasure, so from the majority perspective, it is said that good Karma causes pleasure. It should be understood that good Karma causing desirable results is also the same.

'This Karma and feeling are conducive to pleasure, etc.' This section explains the names. Question: Since Karma is the cause and feeling is the result, and their natures are different, why are they called conducive to pleasure, etc.?

'Karma and pleasure benefit pleasure.' Answer: There are three explanations in total, and this is the first explanation. This explains the meaning of 'conducive' from the perspective of benefit, because Karma benefits the result of pleasure, so it is named conducive.

順名。

或復此業是樂所受者。第二釋。約所受釋順樂。果是能受業因是所受。所受順能受故名順受。

彼樂如何能受于業者。問。彼樂果如何能受于業因。

樂是此業異熟果故者。答。由業感樂。樂果起時果領樂因故名能受。

或復彼樂至應知亦爾者。第三釋。約能受釋順。或說彼樂是業所受。由業感樂。樂果起時業因是能受．樂果是所受。此即能受順所受故名為順受。如順浴散。浴。謂沐浴　散謂豆麵類等　散順浴故名順浴散。此亦應然。業順樂受故名順樂受業。如順樂受業既作三釋。順苦受業。順不苦不樂受業。應知亦爾。

總說順受略有五種者。此下釋后一頌。因釋順受泛明順受總有五種。標名．舉數。

一自性順受至乃至廣說者。謂一切受自體不違名自性順受　如契經說受．樂受時如實了等。同文故來　問受樂受時如何能了受於樂受　答如婆沙一百八十五云。問受．樂受時則不如實知。如實知時則不受樂。所以者何。受．樂受時彼受在現在。非爾時能如實知。不知相應故。無二心品俱行故。如實知時彼受在過去。未來非爾時名受樂受。無作用故。苦受．不苦不樂受說亦爾。佛何故說受樂受時如實了知我受．樂受等耶。有說此中應作是說。受樂受已如實知我已受．樂受

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本順名。

或者這種業是樂所感受的。第二種解釋，根據所感受的來解釋『順樂』。果是能感受的，業因是所感受的。所感受的順應能感受的，所以叫做『順受』。

那種樂如何能感受業呢？問：那種樂果如何能感受業因呢？

樂是這種業的異熟果。答：由於業感得樂，樂果生起的時候，果領受樂因，所以叫做『能受』。

或者那種樂……應該知道也是這樣。第三種解釋，根據能感受的來解釋『順』。或者說那種樂是業所感受的。由於業感得樂，樂果生起的時候，業因是能感受的，樂果是所感受的。這就是能感受的順應所感受的，所以叫做『順受』。如同『順浴散』。『浴』，指沐浴；『散』，指豆麵之類的東西。散順應浴，所以叫做『順浴散』。這裡也應該這樣理解。業順應樂受，所以叫做『順樂受業』。如同『順樂受業』已經做了三種解釋，『順苦受業』，『順不苦不樂受業』，應該知道也是這樣。

總的說來，順受略有五種。下面解釋後面一頌。因為解釋『順受』，泛泛地說明『順受』總共有五種。標出名稱，列舉數目。

第一是自性順受……乃至廣說。指一切受的自體不相違背，叫做『自性順受』。如同契經所說：『感受樂受的時候，如實了知』等等。文義相同，所以引用過來。問：感受樂受的時候，如何能夠了知感受樂受呢？答：如同《婆沙》第一百八十五卷所說：問：感受樂受的時候，就不能如實知。如實知的時候，就不感受樂。為什麼呢？感受樂受的時候，那個受在現在。不是那個時候能夠如實知。因為不知相應，沒有兩個心品同時執行。如實知的時候，那個受在過去，未來，不是那個時候叫做感受樂受。因為沒有作用。苦受、不苦不樂受的說法也是這樣。佛為什麼說感受樂受的時候，如實了知我感受樂受等等呢？有人說這裡應該這樣說：感受樂受之後，如實知我已感受樂受。

【English Translation】 English version Shun Ming (Following Name).

Or perhaps this karma is experienced as pleasure. This is the second explanation, interpreting 'Shun Le (Following Pleasure)' in terms of what is experienced. The result is what is capable of experiencing, and the karmic cause is what is experienced. What is experienced accords with what is capable of experiencing, hence it is called 'Shun Shou (Following Experience)'.

How can that pleasure experience karma? Question: How can that pleasure result experience karmic cause?

Pleasure is the Vipaka (result of maturation) of this karma. Answer: Because karma brings about pleasure. When the pleasure result arises, the result receives the cause of pleasure, hence it is called 'capable of experiencing'.

Or perhaps that pleasure... it should be known to be the same. This is the third explanation, interpreting 'Shun (Following)' in terms of what is capable of experiencing. Or it is said that pleasure is what is experienced by karma. Because karma brings about pleasure, when the pleasure result arises, the karmic cause is what is capable of experiencing, and the pleasure result is what is experienced. This means that what is capable of experiencing accords with what is experienced, hence it is called 'Shun Shou (Following Experience)'. It is like 'Shun Yu San (Following Bath Powder)'. 'Yu (Bath)' refers to bathing; 'San (Powder)' refers to things like bean powder. The powder accords with the bath, hence it is called 'Shun Yu San (Following Bath Powder)'. It should be understood similarly here. Karma accords with the experience of pleasure, hence it is called 'Shun Le Shou Ye (Karma Following Pleasure Experience)'. Just as 'Shun Le Shou Ye (Karma Following Pleasure Experience)' has been explained in three ways, 'Shun Ku Shou Ye (Karma Following Suffering Experience)', 'Shun Bu Ku Bu Le Shou Ye (Karma Following Neither Suffering Nor Pleasure Experience)', it should be known to be the same.

Generally speaking, there are roughly five types of Shun Shou (Following Experience). This is to explain the last verse. Because of explaining 'Shun Shou (Following Experience)', it broadly explains that there are five types of 'Shun Shou (Following Experience)' in total. It labels the names and lists the numbers.

First is Zixing Shun Shou (Self-Nature Following Experience)... and so on, extensively explained. It refers to the fact that the self-nature of all experiences does not contradict, and is called 'Zixing Shun Shou (Self-Nature Following Experience)'. It is like what the Sutra says: 'When experiencing pleasure, truly know' etc. The meaning is the same, so it is quoted here. Question: When experiencing pleasure, how can one know that one is experiencing pleasure? Answer: As the Vibhasa (Great Commentary) Volume 185 says: Question: When experiencing pleasure, one does not truly know. When one truly knows, one does not experience pleasure. Why? When experiencing pleasure, that experience is in the present. It is not possible to truly know at that time. Because there is no corresponding knowledge, and no two mental states occur simultaneously. When one truly knows, that experience is in the past or future, and it is not called experiencing pleasure at that time. Because there is no function. The same is said for suffering and neither suffering nor pleasure. Why did the Buddha say that when experiencing pleasure, one truly knows that one is experiencing pleasure etc.? Some say that it should be said here: After experiencing pleasure, truly know that I have experienced pleasure.

。受苦受．不苦不樂受已如實知我已受苦受．不苦不樂受而不作是說者有何意耶。應知此中說已受名受。於過去說現在聲。如說大王從何方來。此說已來名來　如彼廣說　二相應順受至乃至廣說者一切與受相應觸。于相應中能順受故名相應順受。引經可知。

三所緣順受至受所緣故者。謂一切境是受所緣。此所緣境順能緣受名所緣順受。如契經說。眼見色已意識唯受於色。不受緣色之貪　又解眼見色謂眼眼。見色已。謂意識。余解如前。乃至法境應知亦爾。正取六境。不受色貪同文故來。

四異熟順受至乃至廣說者。謂感一切異熟果業名異熟順受。所以業名異熟者。因異於果名異。或感果時與前不同名異。正感果時能熟故名熟　或從果為名　引經可知。

五現前順受至受於樂受者。謂于現在正現行受現前不違名現前順受。如契經言受．樂受時顯受現在。餘二受便滅　乃至廣說　經言受樂受時者。非此樂受現在前時有餘受能受此樂受。但據樂受自體現前。經中即說受．樂受。

此中但說至順樂受等者。上來雖復泛說五種。於此順三受業中。但說第四異熟順受。由業能招受異熟故。雖業因與受果體性有殊。而得名為順樂受等。

如是三業至其相云何者。此下第四明三時業。就中。一明四種

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『感受苦受、不苦不樂受時，如實知我已經感受了苦受、不苦不樂受』，而不這樣說，是什麼意思呢？應該知道，這裡所說的『已受』是指『受』這個名稱。對於過去的事情，用現在的語氣來說。比如，說『大王從何方來？』，這裡說『已來』，其實就是『來』的意思。就像前面廣泛解釋的那樣。二、相應順受，乃至廣泛解釋，是指一切與『受』相應的『觸』。在相應之中，能夠順應『受』，所以叫做相應順受。可以引用經文來證明。三、所緣順受，乃至『受所緣故』，是指一切境界都是『受』所緣的對象。這些所緣的境界能夠順應能緣的『受』，叫做所緣順受。比如契經上說：『眼見色已，意識唯受於色，不受緣色之貪』。又解釋說，『眼見色』，是指眼根；『見色已』，是指意識。其他的解釋和前面一樣。乃至法境，也應該這樣理解。這裡主要指六種境界。『不受色貪』，是因為經文的文義相同。四、異熟順受，乃至廣泛解釋，是指感受一切異熟果的業，叫做異熟順受。之所以業被稱為異熟，是因為因和果不同，所以叫做『異』；或者感受果報的時候，和之前不同，所以叫做『異』。正在感受果報的時候，能夠成熟，所以叫做『熟』。或者從果報的角度來命名。可以引用經文來證明。五、現前順受，乃至『受於樂受』，是指在現在正在現行的『受』，現前不違背，叫做現前順受。比如契經上說，『感受樂受時』，顯示感受是現在的。其餘兩種感受便滅去了。乃至廣泛解釋。經文說『感受樂受時』，不是指這個樂受現在前的時候，有其他的感受能夠感受這個樂受，只是根據樂受自身的體現是現前的。經文中就說『受樂受』。這裡只是說順應樂受等，是指上面雖然泛泛地說了五種，但是在這順應三種感受的業中，只是說了第四種異熟順受。因為業能夠招感感受的異熟果報。雖然業因和受果的體性不同，但是可以稱為順應樂受等。像這樣三種業，它的相狀是什麼呢？下面第四部分說明三種時期的業。其中，第一部分說明四種。

【English Translation】 English version: 'When experiencing painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one knows in reality, "I have experienced painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling," but does not say it.' What is the meaning of this? It should be understood that 'already experienced' here refers to the name of 'feeling'. The past is spoken of in the present tense. For example, saying, 'From what direction does the Great King come?' Here, 'already come' means simply 'come'. It is as explained extensively before. Second, 'corresponding agreeable feeling,' and so on, extensively explained, refers to all 'contact' that corresponds with 'feeling'. Within the correspondence, being able to accord with 'feeling', it is called 'corresponding agreeable feeling'. This can be proven by quoting scriptures. Third, 'object-related agreeable feeling,' and so on, 'because feeling is related to the object,' refers to all realms being the objects related to 'feeling'. These object-related realms are able to accord with the 'feeling' that is able to relate, and are called 'object-related agreeable feeling'. For example, the sutra says, 'Having seen a form with the eye, consciousness only experiences the form, and does not experience the craving related to the form.' It is also explained that 'eye seeing form' refers to the eye sense; 'having seen form' refers to consciousness. The other explanations are the same as before. And so it should be understood even with the realm of dharma. Here it mainly refers to the six realms. 'Does not experience craving for form' is because the meaning of the sutra text is the same. Fourth, 'vipaka (result of actions) agreeable feeling,' and so on, extensively explained, refers to experiencing all karma that results in vipaka, called 'vipaka agreeable feeling'. The reason why karma is called vipaka is because the cause is different from the effect, so it is called 'different'; or when experiencing the result, it is different from before, so it is called 'different'. When one is experiencing the result, it is able to mature, so it is called 'mature'. Or it is named from the perspective of the result. This can be proven by quoting scriptures. Fifth, 'present agreeable feeling,' and so on, 'experiencing pleasant feeling,' refers to the 'feeling' that is currently manifesting in the present, not contradicting the present, called 'present agreeable feeling'. For example, the sutra says, 'When experiencing pleasant feeling,' it shows that the feeling is present. The other two feelings then cease. And so on, extensively explained. The sutra says 'When experiencing pleasant feeling,' it does not mean that when this pleasant feeling is present, there are other feelings that can experience this pleasant feeling, but only according to the manifestation of the pleasant feeling itself being present. In the sutra, it says 'experiencing pleasant feeling'. Here it only speaks of according with pleasant feeling, etc., referring to although the above generally speaks of five types, in this karma of according with the three feelings, it only speaks of the fourth type, vipaka agreeable feeling. Because karma is able to attract the vipaka result of feeling. Although the nature of the karma cause and the feeling result are different, they can be called according with pleasant feeling, etc. Like these three karmas, what are their characteristics? The fourth part below explains the karma of the three times. Among them, the first part explains the four types.

業。二明四業別。三明中有造業。四明定受業相。五明現法果業。六明業即受果　此即第一明四種業。牒前問起。因明三受業便明四業故不引經。

頌曰至余師說四句者。上兩句正答。下兩句敘異說。

論曰至總成四種者。釋上兩句。說業有四皆約時定．不定以立四業　時定有三。謂現．生．后　時不定為一。應知不定義有多種。或非定受果故。或非定此時受故。或非定此趣受故。或非定此處受故。或非定受此類果故。如轉重受輕．轉輕受重等。如是等類皆名不定　所以約時辨者。凡論造業於時難定。若於時定。異熟亦定。若於時不定。異熟亦不定。以時離熟無別性故。以時是熟位差別故。

或有欲令至合成五種者。釋第三句解五業義。或有欲令不定受業復有二種　一異熟定時不定。于現．生．后三時之中不定有四。或於二時不定。二合有三。或於三時不定三合為一　二異熟。及時俱不定。此亦有四。或於二時異熟．及時俱不定。二合有三。或於三時異熟．及時俱不定。三合為一。夫時難定。若於時定異熟必定。故無時定異熟不定。並定業三合成五種　問四業五業為同爲異　解云有同有異。若三定業。及不定中異熟不定時不定。兩說皆同。若不定中異熟定時不定。五業說有。四業即無。此即異也。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：業。二、闡明四業的區別。三、闡明中有（antarabhava）造業。四、闡明定受業的相狀。五、闡明現法果業。六、闡明業即受果。這即是第一部分，闡明四種業。承接前面的提問而展開。因為闡明三受業，所以闡明四業，因此不引用經文。

頌曰至余師說四句者：上面的兩句是正面回答。下面的兩句是敘述不同的說法。

論曰至總成四種者：解釋上面的兩句。說業有四種，都是根據時間的定與不定來建立四業。時間確定有三種，即現世、來世、後世。時間不確定為一種。應當知道不確定的意義有多種。或者不是一定承受果報的緣故。或者不是一定在這個時候承受的緣故。或者不是一定在這個趣向承受的緣故。或者不是一定在這個地方承受的緣故。或者不是一定承受這一類果報的緣故。例如將重的轉為輕的承受，將輕的轉為重的承受等等。像這些種類都叫做不確定。之所以根據時間來辨別，是因為凡是論造業，時間難以確定。如果時間確定，異熟（vipaka）也確定。如果時間不確定，異熟也不確定。因為時間離開成熟沒有別的自性。因為時間是成熟階段的差別。

或有欲令至合成五種者：解釋第三句，解釋五業的意義。或者有人想要使不確定受業再分為兩種：第一種是異熟（vipaka）時間確定，但時間不確定。在現世、來世、後世這三個時間中不確定，有四種情況。或者在兩個時間不確定，兩種情況合併有三種。或者在三個時間不確定，三種情況合併爲一種。第二種是異熟和時間都不確定。這也有四種情況。或者在兩個時間異熟和時間都不確定，兩種情況合併有三種。或者在三個時間異熟和時間都不確定，三種情況合併爲一種。時間難以確定，如果時間確定，異熟必定確定。所以沒有時間確定而異熟不確定的情況。加上定業三種，合併成五種。問：四業和五業是相同還是不同？解答說：有相同也有不同。如果是三種定業，以及不確定中異熟不確定、時間不確定，兩種說法都相同。如果不確定中異熟時間確定，時間不確定，五業的說法有，四業就沒有。這就是不同之處。

【English Translation】 English version: Karma. Second, clarifying the distinctions of the four karmas. Third, clarifying karma created in the antarabhava (intermediate state). Fourth, clarifying the characteristics of definitely experienced karma. Fifth, clarifying karma with results in the present life. Sixth, clarifying that karma is the experience of results. This is the first part, clarifying the four types of karma. It arises from the previous question. Because the three types of karma to be experienced are clarified, the four karmas are clarified, so no sutras are quoted.

The verse '頌曰至余師說四句者' (The verse says, up to the four lines of other teachers' explanations): The first two lines are the direct answer. The last two lines describe different views.

The treatise '論曰至總成四種者' (The treatise says, up to the total of four types): Explains the above two lines. Saying that there are four types of karma, all are established based on the definiteness or indefiniteness of time. There are three types of definite time: namely, present, future, and subsequent. Indefinite time is one type. It should be known that there are many meanings of indefinite. Perhaps because the result is not necessarily experienced. Or because it is not necessarily experienced at this time. Or because it is not necessarily experienced in this realm. Or because it is not necessarily experienced in this place. Or because it is not necessarily experiencing this type of result. Such as turning heavy to light, turning light to heavy, and so on. Such categories are all called indefinite. The reason for distinguishing based on time is that when discussing the creation of karma, time is difficult to determine. If time is definite, vipaka (result) is also definite. If time is indefinite, vipaka is also indefinite. Because time has no separate nature from maturation. Because time is the difference in the stage of maturation.

或有欲令至合成五種者 (Or some wish to combine into five types): Explains the third line, explaining the meaning of the five karmas. Or some want to divide indefinite karma into two types: The first type is when the vipaka (result) time is definite, but the time is indefinite. Among the three times of present, future, and subsequent, there are four types of indefiniteness. Or indefinite in two times, the two combined have three types. Or indefinite in three times, the three combined are one type. The second type is when both vipaka and time are indefinite. This also has four types. Or indefinite in both vipaka and time in two times, the two combined have three types. Or indefinite in both vipaka and time in three times, the three combined are one type. Time is difficult to determine, if time is definite, vipaka must be definite. Therefore, there is no situation where time is definite but vipaka is indefinite. Adding the three definite karmas, they combine into five types. Question: Are the four karmas and five karmas the same or different? The answer is: There are similarities and differences. If it is the three definite karmas, and in the indefinite, the vipaka is indefinite, and the time is indefinite, both explanations are the same. If in the indefinite, the vipaka time is definite, and the time is indefinite, the five karmas explanation has it, the four karmas do not. This is the difference.

故五業家于不定中開為二種　問何故四業家于不定中無異熟定時不定耶　解云。四業約時辨定不定。時與異熟無別體性。若於熟定亦於時定。即是定攝。故於不定無有異熟定時不定者　又四業家解不定云非定受故立不定名。以此故知。不定中所感異熟或受．不受。五業家言于不定中有異熟定時不定。故知兩說不同。又下文評取四業所說為善。明知與五差別不同。問若四業家無異熟定時不定者。何故正理論師破例八業家云。謂如熟定時不定業。時不定故。既共許為順不定受(云云)彼論既言共許不定。明知亦有異熟定時不定者　解云。彼言共許。五業家共許。或八業家共許　又解云四業．五業義皆相似。開合為異。五業家于不定中開兩種。一異熟定時不定。二異熟不定時不定。雖約異熟開為兩種。若時義邊俱是不定。故於不定雖開二種其義不殊　若作斯解四業家于不定中亦有兩種。凡言造業於時難定。若於時定異熟必定。以時離異熟無別體故。以時依彼異熟果故。自有業于異熟定。時不定。以異熟果自有體故。以異熟果不依時故。由斯理故於時不定中可說兩種　又下文解現業中雲。于異熟定位不定者此業必能招現法果。又正理論正義家破八業家云。謂如熟定．時不定業時不定故。既共許為順不定受(云云)彼論既言共許

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，五業家在不定業中又分出兩種情況。問：為什麼四業家在不定業中沒有異熟果報決定而時間不決定的情況呢？解答說：四業家是根據時間來區分決定和不決定的。時間與異熟果報沒有不同的本體。如果異熟果報是決定的，那麼時間也是決定的，這就屬於決定業的範疇。因此，在不定業中，不存在異熟果報決定而時間不決定的情況。而且，四業家的解釋不定業為『非決定受』，所以才立名為不定。由此可知，不定業所感得的異熟果報，有可能是受報，也有可能是不受報。五業家說在不定業中有異熟果報決定而時間不決定的情況，由此可知兩種說法不同。而且下文評論說四業家的說法更好，明顯知道與五業家的差別不同。問：如果四業家沒有異熟果報決定而時間不決定的情況，為什麼《阿毗達磨順正理論》的論師要駁斥八業家說：『比如異熟果報決定而時間不決定的業，因為時間不決定』，既然共同承認這是順不定受呢？解答說：這裡說的『共同承認』，是五業家共同承認，或者八業家共同承認。又解答說：四業家和五業家的意義其實相似，只是開合不同。五業家在不定業中分出兩種：一是異熟果報決定而時間不決定，二是異熟果報不決定而時間不決定。雖然從異熟果報的角度分出兩種，但從時間的角度來說，都是不決定的。因此，雖然在不定業中分出兩種，但其意義並沒有不同。如果這樣解釋，四業家在不定業中也有兩種情況。凡是造業，時間很難確定。如果時間確定了，異熟果報必定確定，因為時間與異熟果報沒有不同的本體。因為時間依賴於異熟果報。有些業的異熟果報是決定的，而時間是不決定的，因為異熟果報本身有自己的本體，因為異熟果報不依賴於時間。因為這個道理，在時間不決定的情況下，可以說有兩種情況。而且，下文解釋現業時說：『在異熟果報決定的情況下，時間不決定的業，這種業必定能招感現世的果報。』而且，《阿毗達磨順正理論》的正義家駁斥八業家說：『比如異熟果報決定而時間不決定的業，因為時間不決定』，既然共同承認這是順不定受。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the Five-Karma School further divides the indeterminate karma into two types. Question: Why doesn't the Four-Karma School have the situation where the result of maturation (異熟果報, yìshú guǒbào) is determined but the time is undetermined within the indeterminate karma? The answer is: The Four-Karma School distinguishes between determinate and indeterminate based on time. Time and the result of maturation (異熟果報, yìshú guǒbào) do not have different entities. If the result of maturation is determined, then the time is also determined, which belongs to the category of determinate karma. Therefore, in indeterminate karma, there is no situation where the result of maturation is determined but the time is undetermined. Moreover, the Four-Karma School explains indeterminate karma as 'non-definitely received,' hence the name indeterminate. From this, it can be known that the result of maturation (異熟果報, yìshú guǒbào) felt by indeterminate karma may be received or not received. The Five-Karma School says that in indeterminate karma, there is a situation where the result of maturation is determined but the time is undetermined, from which it can be known that the two statements are different. Moreover, the following text comments that the Four-Karma School's statement is better, clearly knowing that the difference from the Five-Karma School is different. Question: If the Four-Karma School does not have the situation where the result of maturation is determined but the time is undetermined, why does the master of Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā refute the Eight-Karma School, saying: 'For example, karma where the result of maturation is determined but the time is undetermined, because the time is undetermined,' since it is commonly acknowledged that this is in accordance with indeterminate reception? The answer is: The 'commonly acknowledged' mentioned here is commonly acknowledged by the Five-Karma School or commonly acknowledged by the Eight-Karma School. Another answer is: The meanings of the Four-Karma School and the Five-Karma School are actually similar, only the opening and closing are different. The Five-Karma School divides indeterminate karma into two types: one is where the result of maturation is determined but the time is undetermined, and the other is where the result of maturation is undetermined but the time is undetermined. Although two types are divided from the perspective of the result of maturation, from the perspective of time, both are undetermined. Therefore, although two types are divided in indeterminate karma, their meanings are not different. If explained in this way, the Four-Karma School also has two situations in indeterminate karma. Whenever karma is created, the time is difficult to determine. If the time is determined, the result of maturation must be determined, because time and the result of maturation do not have different entities. Because time depends on the result of maturation. Some karma has a determined result of maturation, but the time is undetermined, because the result of maturation itself has its own entity, because the result of maturation does not depend on time. Because of this reason, in the case of undetermined time, it can be said that there are two situations. Moreover, the following text explains present karma by saying: 'In the case where the result of maturation is determined, the karma whose time is undetermined, this karma will definitely be able to attract the fruit of the present life.' Moreover, the righteous master of Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā refutes the Eight-Karma School, saying: 'For example, karma where the result of maturation is determined but the time is undetermined, because the time is undetermined,' since it is commonly acknowledged that this is in accordance with indeterminate reception.

。明知正義家同共許也。又正理論但破八業家時定熟不定。不破八業家及五業家熟定時不定。以此故知。四業．五業開合為異　四業家云非定受故立不定名者。或非定受異熟故立不定名。此約異熟或受不受名不定或於三時中非定於此時受異熟故立不定名。此約受異熟時三時不定名不定。故不相違。下文評取四業不言五業者。以義同故。但言四業即是五業故不別說。雖有兩解后解為勝。時依異熟。可言時定異熟亦定。異熟不依時立。不可說言于異熟。定時亦定。又準諸論于不定中皆有兩種更無異說。

順現法受者至后次第熟者。別釋三定名。順現法受者。現法謂現身。受謂異熟。謂此生造業即於此生受異熟果。生謂眾同分　順次生受者。謂此生造業。次第二生受異熟果。生謂生處　順后次受業者。謂此生造業。從第三生已去乃至多生皆名為后。在第二生后故。於此后位果非頓起。次第而熟。

有餘師說至異熟果少者。有餘經部師說。順現法受業。余第二生等亦得受異熟。而名順現法受者。隨初熟位建立業名為順現。等等取生．后。生．后二業應知亦有能感多生。從初立名。準現應釋。勿順現等強勝力業異熟果少　依經部宗許有一業能感多生。若順現法受業其力最強必受生后。若順生受業其力稍劣。不受現受

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：明明知道正義家共同認可這個觀點。而且，《正理論》只是在破斥八業家的時候，才確定成熟與否是不定的，並沒有破斥八業家以及五業家成熟時確定與否是不定的。因此可知，四業和五業的區別在於開合不同。四業家說因為不是確定受報，所以立名為『不定』，或者因為不是確定受異熟果報，所以立名為『不定』。這是從異熟果報是否確定受報的角度來說的。或者說，在過去、現在、未來三時中，不是確定在這個時候受異熟果報，所以立名為『不定』。這是從受異熟果報的時間是否確定的角度來說的，三時不定，所以名稱為『不定』，因此並不矛盾。下文評論選取四業而不說五業，是因為意義相同，只說四業就包含了五業，所以不再分別說明。雖然有兩種解釋，但后一種解釋更為合理。時間取決於異熟果報，可以說時間確定，異熟果報也確定。異熟果報不取決於時間而成立，不能說在異熟果報確定的時候，時間也確定。而且，根據各種論典，在『不定』中都有兩種情況，沒有其他的說法。順現法受者，到後來次第成熟者，分別解釋了三種確定的名稱。順現法受者，『現法』指的是現世，『受』指的是異熟果報，意思是說，這一生造的業，就在這一生中感受異熟果報。『生』指的是眾同分（Sattvabhāga，眾生的種類）。順次生受者，指的是這一生造的業，在下一世感受異熟果報。『生』指的是生處（Upapatti-sthāna，投生之處）。順后次受業者，指的是這一生造的業，從第三生開始，乃至多生都稱為『后』，因為它在第二生之後。在這個『后』位，果報不是立刻產生的，而是次第成熟。有其他經部師說，順現法受業，在第二生等也可以感受異熟果報，而稱為順現法受者，是根據最初成熟的階段來建立業的名稱為『順現』。等等，取『生』、『后』。『生』、『后』二業應該知道也有能感得多生的，從最初的階段來立名，按照『現』來解釋。不要認為順現等強有力的業，其異熟果報就少。根據經部宗的觀點，允許有一種業能感得多生。如果順現法受業的力量最強，必定會在當生之後感受果報。如果順生受業的力量稍弱，就不會在當生感受果報。

【English Translation】 English version: It is clearly known that the proponents of justice commonly acknowledge this view. Moreover, the Nyāyānusāra (正理論) only determines the maturity or non-maturity when refuting the Eight-Karma School, without refuting the fixed or unfixed maturity of the Eight-Karma School and the Five-Karma School. Therefore, it can be known that the difference between the Four Karmas and the Five Karmas lies in their inclusion and exclusion. The Four-Karma School says that because it is not definitely received, it is named 'indefinite,' or because it is not definitely received as a Vipāka (異熟, fruition), it is named 'indefinite.' This is from the perspective of whether the Vipāka is definitely received. Or, in the three times of past, present, and future, it is not certain to receive the Vipāka at this time, so it is named 'indefinite.' This is from the perspective of whether the time of receiving the Vipāka is certain; the three times are uncertain, so the name is 'indefinite,' and therefore there is no contradiction. The commentary below selects the Four Karmas without mentioning the Five Karmas because their meanings are the same; mentioning the Four Karmas includes the Five Karmas, so there is no need to explain them separately. Although there are two explanations, the latter is more reasonable. Time depends on the Vipāka; it can be said that when time is fixed, the Vipāka is also fixed. The Vipāka does not depend on time to be established; it cannot be said that when the Vipāka is fixed, time is also fixed. Moreover, according to various treatises, there are two situations in 'indefinite,' and there are no other explanations. Those who experience the result in the present life (Dṛṣṭadharmavedanīya, 順現法受者) to those who mature in subsequent order, separately explain the names of the three certainties. Those who experience the result in the present life, 'present life' refers to the current existence, and 'experience' refers to the Vipāka. It means that the karma created in this life will be experienced as the Vipāka in this life. 'Life' refers to Sattvabhāga (眾同分, the category of beings). Those who experience the result in the next life (Upapadyavedanīya, 順次生受者), refers to the karma created in this life, which will be experienced as the Vipāka in the next life. 'Life' refers to Upapatti-sthāna (生處, the place of rebirth). Those who experience the result in subsequent lives (Aparāparyāyavedanīya, 順后次受業者), refers to the karma created in this life, from the third life onwards, all are called 'subsequent' because it is after the second life. In this 'subsequent' position, the result does not arise immediately but matures in order. Some other Sautrāntika (經部) masters say that the karma to be experienced in the present life can also experience the Vipāka in the second life, etc., and is called 'to be experienced in the present life' because the name of the karma is established as 'present' according to the initial stage of maturity. And so on, taking 'life' and 'subsequent.' The two karmas of 'life' and 'subsequent' should be known to also have the ability to cause multiple lives, and the name is established from the initial stage, explained according to 'present.' Do not think that the strong and powerful karma such as that to be experienced in the present life has few Vipāka results. According to the Sautrāntika school, it is allowed that one karma can cause multiple lives. If the karma to be experienced in the present life is the strongest, it will definitely experience the result after this life. If the karma to be experienced in the next life is slightly weaker, it will not experience the result in this life.

此即劣現。必受后受此即勝后。若順后次受業其力最劣。不受現．生故劣前二唯受后受。

毗婆沙師至麥方結實者。毗婆沙師不許此經部義。何必果近其業即勝。諸業不定　以或有業果近非勝。或復有業果遠而勝　譬如外種經三半月葵便結實。此即果近非勝　三半月謂一月半。或三月全更半月　要經六月麥方結實。此即果遠而勝。

譬喻者說至亦有二種者。釋第四句。譬喻者說。業有四句　第一句有業於三時定。異熟不定。謂順現等三非定得異熟。此中有三。一于現時定。異熟不定。二于生時定。異熟不定。三於後時定。異熟不定。此家意說。業時定。異熟不定者。謂於三時定。異熟不定。若於此時受即受。若於此時不受畢竟不受　第二句有業于異熟定。三時不定。謂不定業定得異熟。此中唯一。謂于異熟定。時不定　第三句有業於時．異熟俱定。謂順現等定得異熟。此中有三。一于現。時異熟俱定。二于生。時．異熟俱定。三於後。時．異熟俱定　第四句有業於時．異熟俱不定。謂不定業非定得異熟。此中唯一。謂於時異熟俱不定　彼說諸業總有八種。謂現．生．后．不定四種。各有定．不定故成八種。第一句三是定中不定。第二句一是不定中定。第三句三是定中定。第四句一是不定中不定。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本這被稱為『劣現』（Durlabha-pratyutpanna，指力量較弱的現報業）。必定承受后報的業被稱為『勝后』（ श्रेष्ठ-पश्चात्，指力量較強的后報業）。如果順著次序承受后報的業，其力量最弱。不受現報和生報，所以不如前兩種只受后報的業。

毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，佛教論師）認為麥子在成熟時才結實。毗婆沙師不認可經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派）的觀點。為什麼果報接近的業就一定殊勝呢？各種業是不確定的，因為有些業果報接近但不殊勝，有些業果報遙遠卻很殊勝。例如，外道的種子經過一個半月葵花就結實了，這果報接近但不殊勝。一個半月指的是一個月加半個月，或者三個月完整再加上半個月。而麥子要經過六個月才結實，這果報遙遠卻很殊勝。

譬喻者（Dṛṣṭāntavādin，佛教論師）的說法，解釋第四句。譬喻者說，業有四句：第一句，有業在三個時間（現時、生時、后時）是確定的，但異熟果報是不確定的。指的是順現受業等三種不一定得到異熟果報。這其中有三種情況：一是在現時是確定的，異熟果報是不確定的；二是在生時是確定的，異熟果報是不確定的；三是在後時是確定的，異熟果報是不確定的。這家（譬喻者）的意思是說，業的時間是確定的，異熟果報是不確定的，指的是在三個時間是確定的，異熟果報是不確定的。如果在這個時間承受就承受，如果在這個時間不承受就畢竟不承受。第二句，有業在異熟果報是確定的，三個時間是不確定的。指的是不定業一定得到異熟果報。這其中只有一種情況，指的是在異熟果報是確定的，時間是不確定的。第三句，有業在時間和異熟果報都是確定的。指的是順現受業等一定得到異熟果報。這其中有三種情況：一是在現時，時間和異熟果報都是確定的；二是在生時，時間和異熟果報都是確定的；三是在後時，時間和異熟果報都是確定的。第四句，有業在時間和異熟果報都是不確定的。指的是不定業不一定得到異熟果報。這其中只有一種情況，指的是在時間和異熟果報都是不確定的。他們說諸業總共有八種，即現報、生報、后報、不定報四種，每種各有確定和不確定，所以成為八種。第一句的三種是確定中的不確定。第二句的一種是不確定中的確定。第三句的三種是確定中的確定。第四句的一種是不確定中的不確定。

【English Translation】 English version This is called 'Durlabha-pratyutpanna' (दुर्लभ-प्रत्युत्पन्न, referring to weaker immediately ripening karma). Karma that must be experienced in the future is called 'Śreṣṭha-paścāt' (श्रेष्ठ-पश्चात्, referring to stronger later ripening karma). If karma is experienced in sequence in the future, its power is the weakest. It is not experienced in the present or next life, so it is inferior to the previous two, which are only experienced in the future.

The Vaibhāṣikas (वैभाषिक, Buddhist masters of Abhidharma) believe that wheat only bears fruit when it is ripe. The Vaibhāṣikas do not accept the view of the Sautrāntikas (सौत्रान्तिक, a Buddhist school). Why must karma with proximate results be superior? Various karmas are uncertain, because some karmas have proximate results but are not superior, and some karmas have distant results but are superior. For example, an outsider's seed bears fruit after one and a half months, but this is proximate and not superior. One and a half months means one month plus half a month, or three full months plus half a month. Wheat only bears fruit after six months, which is distant and superior.

The Dṛṣṭāntavādins (दृष्टान्तवादिन्, Buddhist masters who use analogies) explain the fourth statement. The Dṛṣṭāntavādins say that there are four categories of karma: The first category is karma that is definite in the three times (present, next life, future) but indefinite in its Vipāka (विपाक, result of karma). This refers to the three types of karma that do not necessarily yield Vipāka results, such as karma experienced in the present. There are three cases within this: one is definite in the present, but indefinite in its Vipāka; two is definite in the next life, but indefinite in its Vipāka; and three is definite in the future, but indefinite in its Vipāka. The meaning of this school (Dṛṣṭāntavādin) is that the time of karma is definite, but the Vipāka is indefinite, referring to being definite in the three times but indefinite in the Vipāka. If it is experienced at this time, it is experienced; if it is not experienced at this time, it is never experienced. The second category is karma that is definite in its Vipāka but indefinite in the three times. This refers to indefinite karma that definitely yields Vipāka. There is only one case within this, referring to being definite in its Vipāka but indefinite in time. The third category is karma that is definite in both time and Vipāka. This refers to karma experienced in the present, etc., that definitely yields Vipāka. There are three cases within this: one is definite in both time and Vipāka in the present; two is definite in both time and Vipāka in the next life; and three is definite in both time and Vipāka in the future. The fourth category is karma that is indefinite in both time and Vipāka. This refers to indefinite karma that does not necessarily yield Vipāka. There is only one case within this, referring to being indefinite in both time and Vipāka. They say that there are eight types of karma in total, namely present, next life, future, and indefinite, each with definite and indefinite, thus forming eight types. The three in the first category are indefinite within definite. The one in the second category is definite within indefinite. The three in the third category are definite within definite. The one in the fourth category is indefinite within indefinite.

於此所說至並欲有頂退者。此即第二明四業差別。於此所說四業差別義中。復辨差別。

論曰至四業相故者。此即標宗。上來說業總有三家。或說四業。或說五業。或說八業。論主評取四業故云是說為善。此四業中唯顯時定．不定。釋經所說四種業相差別不同。故於時定分為前三。於時不定總為第四　正理論師為五業家。雖非正義。以是當部異師義故不別破　又解五業．四業開合為異。但言四業即是五業故不別說。應知五業不定中二異熟定．時不定。異熟．及時俱不定。即是四業中時不定攝。夫於時定異熟必定故時定分三。若於時不定異熟或定．不定。故五業中二不定。即是四業中時不定攝。開合為異。又正理不破五業。但破八業中第一句三種時定．異熟不定。以離異熟無別時故。故正理四十云。理必無有異熟不定．時分定業。時定唯是異熟定中位差別故。非離異熟別有時體。如何時定非異熟耶(已上論文)　雖有兩解后解為勝。

頗有四業俱時作耶者。此下釋初句。問起。

容有者。答。

云何者徴。

遣三使已至俱時究竟者。釋。如遣三使。一殺。一盜。一行誑。己自行邪欲。此四俱時究竟業道。名現等四。

幾業能引眾同分耶者。釋第二句。此即問也。

能引唯三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於這裡所說的，乃至想要從有頂天退下來的情況，這指的是第二種，即四業的差別。在這所說的四業差別的意義中，進一步辨別其差別。論中說『乃至四業的相』，這即是標明宗旨。上面所說的業，總共有三家說法：或者說四業，或者說五業，或者說八業。論主評判並採納四業的說法，所以說這種說法是好的。這四業中，只顯示時間確定和不確定。解釋經文所說的四種業的相，差別不同。所以在時間確定上分為前三種，在時間不確定上總歸為第四種。正理論師是五業的倡導者，雖然不是正義，但因為是本宗派中不同學者的觀點，所以不特別破斥。又解釋說，五業和四業的區別在於開合不同，只是說四業就是五業，所以不特別說明。應該知道，五業中，在不確定中，有兩種：異熟（Vipāka）確定、時間不確定，以及異熟和時間都不確定。這兩種都被四業中的時間不確定所包含。如果時間確定，異熟必定確定，所以時間確定分為三種。如果時間不確定，異熟或者確定，或者不確定。所以五業中有兩種不確定，這兩種都被四業中的時間不確定所包含。開合不同而已。而且，正理論不破斥五業，只是破斥八業中的第一句，即三種時間確定、異熟不確定的說法，因為離開異熟就沒有別的時間。所以《正理論》第四十卷說：『理應沒有異熟不確定、時間確定的業。時間確定只是異熟確定中的位置差別，不是離開異熟還有別的時間體。怎麼能說時間確定不是異熟呢？』（以上是論文內容）雖然有兩種解釋，但后一種解釋更好。『有沒有四業同時產生的呢？』這是下面解釋第一句，提出問題。『可能有。』回答。『怎麼樣呢？』提問。『派遣三個使者之後，乃至同時完成。』解釋。例如派遣三個使者，一個去殺人，一個去偷盜，一個去說謊，自己又去進行邪淫。這四種同時完成的業道，名為現等四。『幾種業能夠引發眾同分（Sabhāgatā）呢？』解釋第二句。這是提問。『能夠引發的只有三種。』

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding what is said here, up to and including the case of those who wish to regress from the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra), this refers to the second distinction, namely the differences in the four types of karma (karma). Within the meaning of the differences in these four types of karma, further distinctions are made. The treatise states, 'Up to the characteristics of the four karmas,' which marks the main point. The previously mentioned karma is generally described in three ways: some speak of four karmas, some of five, and some of eight. The author of the treatise evaluates and adopts the view of four karmas, stating that this is a good explanation. Among these four karmas, only the definiteness and indefiniteness of time are shown. The differences in the characteristics of the four types of karma described in the sutras are explained. Therefore, the first three are divided based on definiteness of time, and the fourth is a general category for indefiniteness of time. The Sautrāntikas advocate for five karmas, which, although not the correct view, is not specifically refuted because it is the view of different scholars within the same school. Furthermore, it is explained that the difference between five karmas and four karmas lies in the opening and closing of categories, simply stating that the four karmas are the same as the five karmas, so it is not specifically explained. It should be understood that among the five karmas, in the indefinite category, there are two types: definitely ripening (Vipāka) but indefinite in time, and indefinite in both ripening and time. These two are included in the indefinite time category of the four karmas. If the time is definite, the ripening is necessarily definite, so the definite time is divided into three. If the time is indefinite, the ripening may be definite or indefinite. Therefore, among the five karmas, there are two indefinite types, which are included in the indefinite time category of the four karmas. The difference lies in the opening and closing of categories. Moreover, the Sautrāntikas do not refute the five karmas, but only refute the first statement in the eight karmas, namely the three types of definite time but indefinite ripening, because there is no separate time apart from ripening. Therefore, the fortieth chapter of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states: 'There cannot be karma that is indefinite in ripening but definite in time. Definite time is only a positional difference within definite ripening, not a separate temporal entity apart from ripening. How can it be said that definite time is not ripening?' (The above is the content of the treatise.) Although there are two explanations, the latter is superior. 'Are there four karmas that arise simultaneously?' This is the question that begins the explanation of the first statement. 'It is possible.' The answer. 'How so?' The question. 'After sending three messengers, up to the simultaneous completion.' The explanation. For example, sending three messengers, one to kill, one to steal, one to lie, and oneself engaging in sexual misconduct. These four simultaneously completed paths of karma are called the four present, etc. 'How many karmas can cause the arising of commonality (Sabhāgatā)?' Explaining the second statement. This is the question. 'Only three can cause it.'

至先業引故者。答。可知。準此文現業非感同分。不遮感命。故前延壽。但延壽根不言同分　又解此文據常途說。現業非感同分。若據延壽由別緣力現業亦感同分。而延壽中但言感命非同分者。略舉一邊。以實而言亦感同分。問如婆沙一百一十四云。問幾業能引眾同分。幾能滿耶。或有說者。二能引眾同分亦能滿。謂順次生受業．順后次受業。二能滿眾同分不能引謂。順現法受業．順不定受業。復有說者。三能引眾同分亦能滿。謂除順現法受。一能滿眾同分不能引。謂順現法受。復有欲令順現法受業亦能引眾同分。若作是說。此四種業皆能引眾同分滿眾同分　於此婆沙三說之中。此論為同何說。何者為正　解云。此論同第二師。即以第二師為正　又解。婆沙既無評家。於三說中第二第三俱可為正。第二師據常途說。故言現業不感同分。第三師亦據別緣。故言現業能感同分。此論若據常途同第二師。若據別緣亦同第三師。

何界何趣能造幾業者。釋第三．第四句此即問。

諸界諸趣至總開如是者。答。謂三界．五趣。或善或惡。隨其所應皆容造四種業。總開如是。

若就別遮至余皆得造者。此下論文皆顯別遮。于中地獄不造善現受業。以地獄中無愛果故。余皆能造。

不退姓至無遮者。釋第五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：至於『先業引故』是什麼意思？答：這是可以理解的。根據這段經文，現世所造的業並非感受眾同分的業，但不妨礙感受命根（壽命）的業，所以能夠延續壽命。但是，延續壽命的根源並沒有說是眾同分。又解釋說，這段經文是按照通常的情況來說的，即現世所造的業並非感受眾同分的業。如果按照延續壽命是由於其他因緣力量的情況來說，現世所造的業也能感受眾同分。而在延續壽命中只說感受命根而非眾同分，這是省略了一方面。實際上，也感受眾同分。問：如《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百一十四卷所說：『問：幾種業能夠引發眾同分？幾種業能夠圓滿眾同分？』有人說：『兩種業能夠引發眾同分，也能圓滿眾同分，即順次生受業（Śūnyatā-svabhāva）和順后次受業。』兩種業能夠圓滿眾同分，但不能引發眾同分，即順現法受業和順不定受業。又有人說：『三種業能夠引發眾同分，也能圓滿眾同分，即除了順現法受業之外。一種業能夠圓滿眾同分，但不能引發眾同分，即順現法受業。』又有人想讓順現法受業也能引發眾同分。如果這樣說，這四種業都能引發眾同分，也能圓滿眾同分。在這《婆沙論》的三種說法之中，此論與哪種說法相同？哪種說法是正確的？解釋說：此論與第二位論師的說法相同，即以第二位論師的說法為正確。又解釋說：《婆沙論》既然沒有評判者，在三種說法中，第二種和第三種都可以認為是正確的。第二位論師是按照通常的情況來說的，所以說現世所造的業不感受眾同分。第三位論師也是按照其他因緣來說的，所以說現世所造的業能夠感受眾同分。此論如果按照通常的情況，就與第二位論師的說法相同；如果按照其他因緣，也與第三位論師的說法相同。『何界何趣能造幾業者』，解釋第三、第四句，這即是提問。『諸界諸趣至總開如是者』，回答說：指三界（Trailokya）、五趣（Pañ गति）。無論是善業還是惡業，根據具體情況，都能夠造作四種業。總的來說就是這樣。『若就別遮至余皆得造者』，以下經文都顯示了分別遮止。其中，地獄（Naraka）不能造作善的現受業，因為地獄中沒有可愛的果報。其餘的都能造作。『不退姓至無遮者』，解釋第五。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: As for 'due to prior karma,' what does it mean? Answer: It can be understood. According to this text, present karma does not cause the feeling of commonality (眾同分, zhòng tóng fēn - commonality of beings), but it does not prevent the feeling of the life force (命根, mìng gēn - life faculty), so it can extend life. However, the root of extending life is not said to be commonality. Another explanation is that this text speaks according to the usual situation, that is, present karma does not cause the feeling of commonality. If we consider that extending life is due to other causal forces, present karma can also cause the feeling of commonality. In extending life, it is only said to feel the life force and not commonality, which is an omission of one aspect. In reality, it also feels commonality. Question: As stated in the Vibhasa (婆沙論, Póshā lùn) Volume 114: 'Question: How many karmas can initiate the commonality of beings? How many can fulfill it?' Some say: 'Two karmas can initiate the commonality of beings and can also fulfill it, namely, karma to be experienced in the next life (順次生受業, Shùn cì shēng shòu yè) and karma to be experienced after the next life.' Two karmas can fulfill the commonality of beings but cannot initiate it, namely, karma to be experienced in the present life and karma to be experienced indefinitely. Others say: 'Three karmas can initiate the commonality of beings and can also fulfill it, except for karma to be experienced in the present life. One karma can fulfill the commonality of beings but cannot initiate it, namely, karma to be experienced in the present life.' Still others want karma to be experienced in the present life to also initiate the commonality of beings. If we say so, all four types of karma can initiate the commonality of beings and can fulfill the commonality of beings. Among these three statements in the Vibhasa, with which statement does this treatise agree? Which statement is correct? The explanation is: This treatise agrees with the second teacher, that is, it considers the second teacher's statement to be correct. Another explanation is: Since the Vibhasa has no evaluator, among the three statements, the second and third can both be considered correct. The second teacher speaks according to the usual situation, so he says that present karma does not cause the feeling of commonality. The third teacher also speaks according to other causes, so he says that present karma can cause the feeling of commonality. If this treatise is based on the usual situation, it agrees with the second teacher; if it is based on other causes, it also agrees with the third teacher. 'Which realm and which destiny can create how many karmas?' Explaining the third and fourth sentences, this is the question. 'All realms and all destinies to the general opening are like this,' the answer is: referring to the Three Realms (三界, Trailokya) and the Five Destinies (五趣, Pañ गति). Whether it is good karma or bad karma, according to the specific situation, all can create four types of karma. The general opening is like this. 'If we specifically prohibit until the rest can all create,' the following scriptures all show separate prohibitions. Among them, hell (地獄, Naraka) cannot create good karma to be experienced in the present, because there is no lovable retribution in hell. The rest can all create. 'Non-regression to no prohibition,' explaining the fifth.

．第六．第七句。于離染地異生不退。無次更生故不造生業。后還生下故造后受業。不退聖者必無受生下諸地故。不造生．后業。若凡若聖。隨所生地容造順現受業。若造不定業一切處無遮　然諸聖者至如后當說者。釋第八句簡差別可知。

住中有位亦造業耶者。此下第三明中有造業。上明生有．本有．死有造業。此下明中有造業。此即問起。

亦造者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至業所引故者。答。于欲界中住中有位。容有能造二十二業。謂中有位。及胎內五位。胎外五位。總有十一。住中有位能造十一種定業。十一種不定業故名二十二。應知如是中有所造十一定皆順現受攝。由一類同分無差別故。謂此中有位與自類生有十位。一眾同分一業引故。故皆名為順現受業。由此不別說順中有受業。以即是彼順生．順后．順不定受業所引故　此中言類同分者。顯同一類。故正理云。類同分者。謂人等類非趣．非生。以約趣．生。中有．生有同分異故　若十一種不定業。或此身十一位受。或余身十一位受。或總不受故。得說為時不定業。以宗不許時定異熟不定業故。故此十一種不定業非唯此身十一位受　問如無學人造不定業既無生．后。若受果時唯于現受。何妨中有不定業若受果時。亦唯現受不通

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第六句和第七句說，在遠離染污之地，異生不會退轉，因為沒有再次出生的機會，所以不造作導致出生的業。之後還會出生在較低的境界，因此會造作未來承受果報的業。不會退轉的聖者必定不會出生在較低的境界，因此不造作導致出生和未來果報的業。無論是凡夫還是聖者，根據所出生的境界，都可能造作順現受業（即當下受報的業）。如果造作了不定業，那麼在任何地方都沒有阻礙。然而，對於那些聖者，至於後面將要說到的情況，解釋第八句可以簡要地瞭解其中的差別。

『住在中陰身階段也會造業嗎？』這是下面第三部分要說明的中陰身造業。上面說明了生有、本有、死有階段的造業，這裡說明中陰身階段的造業。這實際上是一個提問。

『也會造』，這是回答。

『怎麼樣造？』這是提問。

『頌曰至業所引故者』，這是回答。在欲界中，住在中陰身階段，有可能造作二十二種業。所謂中陰身階段，以及胎內的五個階段，胎外的五個階段，總共有十一個階段。住在中陰身階段能夠造作十一種定業，十一種不定業，所以稱為二十二種。應該知道，像這樣中陰身所造作的十一種業都屬於順現受業。因為同一類眾生的同分沒有差別。也就是說，這個中陰身階段與自己同類的生有十個階段，因為一個共同的同分和一個業的牽引。所以都稱為順現受業。因此不另外說順中有受業，因為它就是那些順生、順后、順不定受業所牽引的。這裡所說的『類同分』，顯示是同一類。所以《正理》中說：『類同分，是指人等種類，不是趣，也不是生。』因為就趣和生來說，中陰身和生有的同分是不同的。如果十一種不定業，或者在這個身體的十一個階段承受果報，或者在其他身體的十一個階段承受果報，或者總是不承受果報。所以可以說是不定時業。因為宗義不允許時間確定而異熟不定的業。所以這十一種不定業並非只在這個身體的十一個階段承受果報。問題：如果無學之人造作不定業，既然沒有出生和未來，如果承受果報時只在當下承受，那麼為什麼中陰身的不定業在承受果報時，也只能是當下承受，不能通往未來呢？

【English Translation】 English version: The sixth and seventh sentences state that in a place far from defilement, an ordinary being will not regress because there is no opportunity for rebirth, thus not creating karma that leads to birth. Later, they will still be born in lower realms, thus creating karma to be experienced in the future. A non-regressing saint will certainly not be born in lower realms, thus not creating karma for birth or future consequences. Whether an ordinary person or a saint, depending on the realm of birth, they may create karma to be experienced in the present (i.e., karma that bears fruit in the present life). If indeterminate karma is created, there is no obstruction anywhere. However, regarding those saints, as for what will be said later, the explanation of the eighth sentence can briefly reveal the differences.

'Does one also create karma while dwelling in the intermediate state (antarabhava)?' This is the third part below, explaining karma created in the intermediate state. The above explained karma created in the birth state (janma-bhava), the inherent state (mula-bhava), and the death state (marana-bhava). This explains karma created in the intermediate state. This is actually a question.

'One also creates,' this is the answer.

'How does one create?' This is the question.

'The verse says, '...because of what is led by karma,'' this is the answer. In the desire realm (kama-dhatu), dwelling in the intermediate state, it is possible to create twenty-two types of karma. The so-called intermediate state, as well as the five stages within the womb and the five stages outside the womb, total eleven stages. Dwelling in the intermediate state, one can create eleven types of determinate karma and eleven types of indeterminate karma, hence the name twenty-two. It should be known that the eleven types of karma created in the intermediate state are all included in karma to be experienced in the present. This is because there is no difference in the commonality of beings of the same type. That is to say, this intermediate state and the ten stages of birth state of the same type are due to a common shared element and the influence of one karma. Therefore, they are all called karma to be experienced in the present. Therefore, karma to be experienced in the intermediate state is not mentioned separately, because it is what is led by those karma to be experienced in birth, karma to be experienced in the future, and karma to be experienced indeterminately. The 'commonality of type' mentioned here indicates the same type. Therefore, the Nyayapravesa says: 'Commonality of type refers to the types of humans, etc., not destinies (gati) or births (jati).' Because in terms of destinies and births, the commonality of the intermediate state and the birth state is different. If the eleven types of indeterminate karma are experienced in the eleven stages of this body, or in the eleven stages of another body, or not experienced at all. Therefore, it can be said to be indeterminate karma in terms of time. Because the tenet does not allow karma with a fixed time but an unfixed result. Therefore, these eleven types of indeterminate karma are not only experienced in the eleven stages of this body. Question: If a non-learner (arhat) creates indeterminate karma, since there is no birth or future, if the result is only experienced in the present, then why can't the indeterminate karma of the intermediate state also only be experienced in the present, without extending to the future?

餘位　解云凡言不定望時不定。無學不定業設有生后亦容彼受。由無生．后故唯現受。亦名不定。中有非是無學。更有生．后。故不定業非唯現受。可通餘生。不可為例　問於三定業中何故於中有位唯造現業。不造生．后業耶　解云。中有時促。又身虛薄。現身定業以易造故。故造現定業。異身定業以難造故。不造生．后。難既唯造此身不定。如何通異身受　解云不定易造可余身受。又言不定如何唯局此生　問何故不言色界中有能造業耶　解云而不說者略而不論。

諸定受業至余非定受者。此即第四明定受業相　勝果。謂預流果。斷見惑盡初出見道故。阿羅漢果斷修惑盡初出修道故。一來．不還非斷二惑盡。非是初出不名勝果　勝定。謂滅定等。如次當說。余文可知。

現法果業至定招現法果者。此即第五明現法果業。上一句顯順現受業。下三句顯不定中定。

論曰至事亦非一者。釋初句。可知。初雖心輕而由境重。后雖境輕而由心重。余文可知。

或生此地至不受異熟者。釋下三句。明不定中異熟定時不定受現果。謂阿羅漢及不還果。隨生此地永離此地染。於此地中隨其所應。未離染時造善．不善業。及離染已造諸善業。于異熟定時不定者。由永離染故。於此地中不重生故。此業必能招現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：餘位（指中有位）解云：凡是不定業，其果報顯現的時間是不確定的，所期望的時間也是不確定的。無學（指阿羅漢）的不定業，即使在生后也可能承受果報。由於沒有生和后，所以只能是現受。也稱為不定。中有（指中陰身）不是無學，還有生和后，所以不定業不僅僅是現受，也可以通於其他生。不可作為例子。問：在三種定業中，為什麼在中有的階段只造現業，不造生業和后業呢？解云：因為中有時期短暫，而且身體虛弱，現身定業容易造作，所以造作現定業。異身定業難以造作，所以不造作生業和后業。既然難以造作，那麼僅僅造作此身的不定業，如何能通於異身承受果報呢？解云：不定業容易造作，可以由其他身體承受果報。而且說是不定業，怎麼能只侷限於此生呢？問：為什麼不說中有能夠造業呢？解云：沒有說，是因為省略而不論述。

諸定受業至余非定受者。這說明第四種定受業的相狀——殊勝的果報。殊勝的果報，指的是預流果（Srotapanna-phala），因為斷盡了見惑，初次進入見道。阿羅漢果（Arhat-phala），斷盡了修惑，初次進入修道。一來（Sakrdagamin）和不還（Anagamin）不是斷盡了兩種惑，也不是初次進入，所以不稱為殊勝的果報。殊勝的決定，指的是滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti）等，接下來會依次說明。其餘的文字可以理解。

現法果業至定招現法果者。這說明第五種現法果業。上一句顯示了順現受業，下面三句顯示了不定中的定。

論曰至事亦非一者。解釋第一句，可以理解。開始雖然心輕，但是由於境界重。後來雖然境界輕，但是由於心重。其餘的文字可以理解。

或生此地至不受異熟者。解釋下面三句，說明不定中的異熟定時不定受現果。指的是阿羅漢（Arhat）和不還果（Anagamin）。隨著生於此地而永遠離開此地的染污，在此地中，根據情況，未離開染污時造作善業和不善業，以及離開染污后造作各種善業，對於異熟定時不定的人來說，由於永遠離開了染污，因此在此地中不再重生，此業必定能夠招感現世的果報。

【English Translation】 English version: Yu Wei (referring to the intermediate state) explains: All indeterminate karma has an uncertain time for its fruition to manifest, and the expected time is also uncertain. The indeterminate karma of an Arhat (one who has attained the state of no more learning) may be experienced even after rebirth. Because there is no birth and after, it can only be experienced in the present. It is also called indeterminate. The intermediate being (referring to the intermediate body) is not an Arhat, and there is still birth and after, so indeterminate karma is not only experienced in the present, but can also extend to other lives. It cannot be taken as an example. Question: Among the three types of determinate karma, why does one only create present karma in the intermediate state, and not create karma for future lives? Answer: Because the intermediate state is short and the body is weak, present karma is easy to create, so present determinate karma is created. Karma for other lives is difficult to create, so karma for future lives is not created. Since it is difficult to create, and only indeterminate karma for this body is created, how can it extend to other bodies to experience the result? Answer: Indeterminate karma is easy to create and can be experienced by other bodies. Moreover, since it is called indeterminate karma, how can it be limited to this life only? Question: Why is it not said that the intermediate being can create karma? Answer: It is not mentioned because it is omitted and not discussed.

From 'All determinate karma to be experienced' to 'other indeterminate karma': This explains the fourth aspect of determinate karma to be experienced—superior fruition. Superior fruition refers to the Stream-enterer fruit (Srotapanna-phala), because it has exhausted the delusions of views and initially entered the path of seeing. The Arhat fruit (Arhat-phala) has exhausted the delusions of cultivation and initially entered the path of cultivation. Once-returner (Sakrdagamin) and Non-returner (Anagamin) have not exhausted both delusions, nor have they initially entered, so they are not called superior fruition. Superior determination refers to the cessation attainment (Nirodha-samapatti), etc., which will be explained in order. The remaining text can be understood.

From 'Karma with fruition in the present life' to 'definitely brings fruition in the present life': This explains the fifth type of karma with fruition in the present life. The previous sentence reveals karma to be experienced in the immediate present, and the following three sentences reveal determination within indeterminacy.

The treatise says, 'To the matter is also not one': Explains the first sentence, which can be understood. Although the mind is light at the beginning, the object is heavy. Later, although the object is light, the mind is heavy. The remaining text can be understood.

From 'Or born in this place' to 'does not experience different maturation': Explains the following three sentences, clarifying that in indeterminacy, when the maturation time is fixed, the experience of present fruition is uncertain. This refers to Arhats (Arhat) and Non-returners (Anagamin). As they are born in this place, they permanently leave the defilements of this place. In this place, according to the circumstances, they create good and bad karma before leaving defilement, and create various good karma after leaving defilement. For those whose maturation time is fixed and uncertain, because they have permanently left defilement, they are no longer reborn in this place, and this karma will definitely bring about fruition in the present.

法果。皆於此身受故名現法果　問如未永離染位有現等時。可言容造異熟定時不定業。如永離此地染位有現法既無生等。如何可言亦造異熟定時不定業。應名為時定　解云永離此地染雖無生等。亦名異熟定時不定業。任此業力若有生等亦容更受。由無生等但現身受。故與定業差別不同　又問未離永離造諸善業。于永離染位可言受果。以成就故。于離染位惡業不成。如何感果　解云夫業感果非要須成。如從上沒將生下時。雖不成下諸善．惡業亦感果故。又如同類．遍行因雖有不成亦能為因。若於此地有餘生．后順定受業彼必定無永離染義。必于生．后受異熟故若於時不定於異熟亦不定者。由永離染故必不受異熟。

何田起業至損益業即受者。此即第六明業即受。問及頌答。

論曰至定即受果者。總標頌意。就現業中復明即受。

功德田者謂佛上首僧者。釋初句。佛于僧中而為上首。即此僧眾名佛上首僧　又解于僧田中佛最為勝故名上首。即佛名上首僧。佛雖非是聲聞僧攝。是聖僧等。故正理三十八云。佛若非僧攝。契經何故作如是言。汝等若能以少施物如次供養佛上首僧。則于僧田獲得周遍清凈施福。正理通云。僧有多種。謂有情人．聲聞．福田．及聖僧等。佛於此內非聲聞僧。可是餘僧。自然覺故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：法果（Dharmaphala）。都是在此身承受，所以叫做現法果（dṛṣṭadharmaphala）。問：如果還沒有永遠脫離染污的地位，有現法果等的時候，可以說容許造作異熟（vipāka）定時不定業（niyata-aniyata karma）。如果永遠脫離此地的染污地位，有現法果既然沒有生等，如何可以說也造作異熟定時不定業？應該叫做時定（kālanirṇaya）。答：雖然永遠脫離此地的染污，沒有生等，也叫做異熟定時不定業。任憑此業的力量，如果有生等，也容許再次承受。由於沒有生等，只是現身承受，所以與定業（niyata karma）的差別不同。又問：未脫離和已脫離造作各種善業，對於已脫離染污的地位，可以說承受果報，因為成就的緣故。對於脫離染污的地位，惡業不成，如何感受果報？答：業感受果報，並非一定要成就。如同從上面沒落將要生到下面時，雖然不成就下面的各種善、惡業，也感受果報。又如同同類因（sabhāgahetu）、遍行因（sarvatragahetu），雖然沒有成就，也能作為因。如果在此地有餘生，後來順著定受業（niyata-vedanīya karma），那麼必定沒有永遠脫離染污的意義，必定在生后承受異熟果報。如果對於時間不定，對於異熟也不定，由於永遠脫離染污的緣故，必定不承受異熟果報。

什麼田地生起業，到損益業（hāni-vardhana karma）即承受者？這就是第六個說明業即承受。問和頌回答。

論曰：到定即受果者，總括頌的意義。就在現業中再次說明即承受。

功德田（guṇakṣetra）是指佛（Buddha）和上首僧（agrasaṃgha）者。解釋第一句。佛在僧眾中作為上首。即此僧眾名為佛上首僧。又解釋為在僧田中佛最為殊勝，所以名叫上首。即佛名叫上首僧。佛雖然不是聲聞僧（śrāvakasaṃgha）所攝，是聖僧等。所以正理三十八說：『佛如果不是僧所攝，契經（sūtra）為何作這樣的言語：你們如果能夠用少許施捨之物，依次供養佛和上首僧，那麼在僧田中獲得周遍清凈的施捨福報。』正理通達說：僧有多種，謂有情人（sattva）、聲聞、福田（puṇyakṣetra）以及聖僧等。佛在此內不是聲聞僧，可是其餘的僧，自然覺悟的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: Dharmaphala (法果). All are experienced in this very life, hence the name dṛṣṭadharmaphala (現法果). Question: If one has not yet permanently departed from the state of defilement, and there are present dharmic fruits, etc., can it be said that one may create vipāka (異熟) niyata-aniyata karma (定時不定業)? If one has permanently departed from the state of defilement in this realm, and there are no births, etc., of present dharmic fruits, how can it be said that one also creates vipāka niyata-aniyata karma? It should be called kālanirṇaya (時定). Answer: Although one has permanently departed from the defilement of this realm and there are no births, etc., it is still called vipāka niyata-aniyata karma. Depending on the power of this karma, if there are births, etc., one may still experience them again. Because there are no births, etc., it is only experienced in the present life, so it is different from niyata karma (定業). Question: For those who have not departed and those who have departed, when creating various good karmas, can it be said that they experience the results in the state of having departed from defilement, because of accomplishment? For those who have departed from defilement, evil karma is not accomplished, so how can they experience the results? Answer: The experience of results from karma does not necessarily require accomplishment. Just as when one falls from above and is about to be born below, even though the various good and evil karmas below are not accomplished, one still experiences the results. Also, like sabhāgahetu (同類因) and sarvatragahetu (遍行因), even if they are not accomplished, they can still be causes. If there are remaining births in this realm, and later following niyata-vedanīya karma (順定受業), then there is definitely no meaning of permanently departing from defilement, and one will definitely experience vipāka results in future births. If the time is uncertain, then the vipāka is also uncertain. Because of permanently departing from defilement, one will definitely not experience vipāka results.

From what field does karma arise, to hāni-vardhana karma (損益業), who is the experiencer? This is the sixth explanation of karma as the experiencer. Question and verse answer.

The treatise says: 'To the fixed, one immediately experiences the result,' which summarizes the meaning of the verse. Within the present karma, it further clarifies immediate experience.

Guṇakṣetra (功德田) refers to the Buddha (佛) and the agrasaṃgha (上首僧). This explains the first sentence. The Buddha is the foremost among the sangha. This sangha is called the Buddha's agrasaṃgha. Another explanation is that the Buddha is the most excellent in the field of the sangha, so he is called agrasaṃgha. That is, the Buddha is called agrasaṃgha. Although the Buddha is not included in the śrāvakasaṃgha (聲聞僧), he is among the holy sangha, etc. Therefore, Nyāyānusāra (正理) 38 says: 'If the Buddha is not included in the sangha, why does the sūtra (契經) say: If you can offer a small amount of alms to the Buddha and the agrasaṃgha in order, then you will obtain pervasive and pure alms blessings in the field of the sangha?' Nyāyānusāra explains: There are many kinds of sangha, namely sentient beings (sattva), śrāvakas, puṇyakṣetra (福田), and the holy sangha, etc. The Buddha is not a śrāvaka within this, but he is the remaining sangha, because he is naturally enlightened.

廣如彼說。以此文證故知佛亦名僧。

約補特伽羅至還復出者者。此下釋第二．第三句復約別人以解差別有五　此釋滅定出。謂此滅定中由滅心故得心寂靜。此定寂靜似涅槃故。等皆滅心故言相似。猶成就故后還生故不得言真。若從此定初起心極寂靜。

寄喻來況如入涅槃還復出者。

二從無諍出至相續而轉者。釋無諍出。入此定時防他惑起。名為利益意樂隨逐。出此定時有復為無量勝德熏身。相續而轉。

三從慈定出至相續而轉者釋慈定出。此定為欲安樂有情。余如無諍。

四從見道出至凈身續起者。釋見道出。謂此道中永斷見惑得勝轉依。謂得見道勝所依身　又解斷見惑已得預流果勝所依身。從此見道出時。預流凈身相續而起。雖未能斷修所斷惑。畢竟不與見惑為依名為凈身　超越一來．不還果者。初出見道同預流說。

五從修道出至名功德田者。釋修道出。謂此道中永斷修惑。雖有暫退必還斷故名為永斷。得勝轉依。謂得修道勝所依身　又解由斷修惑已。得阿羅漢勝所依身。從此修道出時羅漢凈身相續而起。以彼不與修惑為依名為凈身。雖有暫退必還斷故名為凈身故說此五名功德田。此五但取初出定位。故正理云。從如是五初出位中。乘前所修勝功德勢。心猶反顧專念

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：正如前面所說的那樣廣泛。根據這段經文可以知道，佛也可以被稱為僧。

關於『從補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）到還復出者』：下面解釋第二、第三句，再次從不同人的角度來解釋差別，共有五種情況。這裡解釋從滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）出定。意思是說，在這種滅盡定中，由於滅盡了心識，所以獲得了心的寂靜。這種定的寂靜類似於涅槃（Nirvana），因此說『等皆滅心故言相似』。就像是成就了某種狀態，但之後還會再次生起，所以不能說是真正的涅槃。如果從這種定中剛開始生起心識時，心識是非常寂靜的。

用比喻來說明，就像進入涅槃后又重新出來一樣。

二、從無諍定（Arana-samāpatti）出定到『相續而轉』：解釋從無諍定出定。進入這種定時，防止他人產生迷惑，這被稱為利益意樂隨逐。從這種定中出來時，又有無數殊勝的功德薰染身心，相續不斷地運轉。

三、從慈定（Maitri-samāpatti）出定到『相續而轉』：解釋從慈定出定。這種定是爲了使有情眾生得到安樂。其餘的與無諍定相似。

四、從見道（Darshana-marga）出定到『凈身續起』：解釋從見道出定。意思是說，在這種道中，永遠斷除了見惑（Darshana-klesha），獲得了殊勝的轉依（Ashraya-paravrtti）。也就是獲得了見道殊勝的所依之身。又解釋說，斷除了見惑之後，獲得了預流果（Srotapanna）殊勝的所依之身。從這種見道出來時，預流果的清凈之身相續不斷地生起。雖然還未能斷除修所斷惑（Bhavana-klesha），但畢竟不再以見惑為所依，所以稱為清凈之身。超越了一來果（Sakrdagamin）和不還果（Anagamin）的情況。初次從見道出定與預流果的情況相同。

五、從修道（Bhavana-marga）出定到『名功德田』：解釋從修道出定。意思是說，在這種道中，永遠斷除了修惑。雖然有時會有退轉，但必定還會斷除，所以稱為永遠斷除。獲得了殊勝的轉依。也就是獲得了修道殊勝的所依之身。又解釋說，由於斷除了修惑，獲得了阿羅漢果（Arhat）殊勝的所依之身。從這種修道出來時，阿羅漢的清凈之身相續不斷地生起。因為他們不再以修惑為所依，所以稱為清凈之身。雖然有時會有退轉，但必定還會斷除，所以稱為清凈之身。因此說這五種情況被稱為功德田。這五種情況只取初次出定的位置。所以《正理》中說：『從這五種初次出定的位置中，憑藉先前所修的殊勝功德的力量，心仍然會回頭專念。』

【English Translation】 English version: As extensively explained previously. Based on this passage, it is known that the Buddha can also be called a Sangha (community).

Regarding 'From Pudgala (person) to returning again': Below explains the second and third sentences, again explaining the differences from the perspective of different people, with five situations in total. This explains exiting from Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment). It means that in this cessation attainment, due to the cessation of consciousness, one obtains the tranquility of the mind. The tranquility of this attainment is similar to Nirvana (liberation), hence the saying 'similar because all cease the mind'. It is like achieving a certain state, but it will arise again later, so it cannot be said to be true Nirvana. If the mind initially arises from this attainment, the mind is extremely tranquil.

Using a metaphor to illustrate, it is like entering Nirvana and then coming out again.

Two, from Arana-samāpatti (non-contention attainment) to 'continuously transforming': Explains exiting from non-contention attainment. Entering this attainment prevents others from generating confusion, which is called beneficial intention following. When exiting this attainment, countless excellent merits薰染 (perfume) the body and mind, continuously revolving.

Three, from Maitri-samāpatti (loving-kindness attainment) to 'continuously transforming': Explains exiting from loving-kindness attainment. This attainment is for the purpose of bringing happiness to sentient beings. The rest is similar to non-contention attainment.

Four, from Darshana-marga (path of seeing) to 'pure body continuously arising': Explains exiting from the path of seeing. It means that in this path, Darshana-klesha (afflictions of seeing) are permanently severed, and Ashraya-paravrtti (a superior transformation of the basis) is obtained. That is, obtaining the superior body that is the basis of the path of seeing. It also explains that after severing the afflictions of seeing, the superior body that is the basis of Srotapanna (stream-enterer) is obtained. When exiting from this path of seeing, the pure body of the stream-enterer continuously arises. Although Bhavana-klesha (afflictions of cultivation) have not yet been severed, it is no longer based on the afflictions of seeing, so it is called a pure body. Transcending the situations of Sakrdagamin (once-returner) and Anagamin (non-returner). The initial exiting from the path of seeing is the same as the situation of the stream-enterer.

Five, from Bhavana-marga (path of cultivation) to 'called a field of merit': Explains exiting from the path of cultivation. It means that in this path, Bhavana-klesha (afflictions of cultivation) are permanently severed. Although there may be regression at times, it will definitely be severed again, so it is called permanently severed. A superior transformation of the basis is obtained. That is, obtaining the superior body that is the basis of the path of cultivation. It also explains that due to severing the afflictions of cultivation, the superior body that is the basis of Arhat (worthy one) is obtained. When exiting from this path of cultivation, the pure body of the Arhat continuously arises. Because they are no longer based on the afflictions of cultivation, they are called pure bodies. Although there may be regression at times, they will definitely be severed again, so they are called pure bodies. Therefore, it is said that these five situations are called fields of merit. These five situations only take the position of initially exiting the attainment. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'From these five positions of initially exiting the attainment, relying on the power of the superior merits previously cultivated, the mind will still turn back and focus intently.'

不捨。諸根寂靜特異於常。世．出世間。定．不定福。無能勝伏映奪彼者。故說此五名功德田。

若有于中至能招即果者。釋第四句。若有於前六種田中為衰損業為利益業。此業必定能招即果。

若從余定至非勝福田者。簡差別　余定。謂除前五定是所餘定　余果。謂四果中除初．後果。是餘次第一來．不還果　若從余定出時。由前所修定非殊勝。若從余果出時。見所斷惑先已斷故。修所斷惑未畢竟盡。故彼相續于初出位非勝福田　為損．益時非受即果。若預流果雖不能斷修惑究竟。以斷見惑究竟盡故。若阿羅漢雖見惑先斷。以斷修惑究竟盡故。所以從彼初出之時損．益業即受。此言預流勝中二者。據初出勝。若據余時四果相望。即二果勝預流也。

異熟果中至非心受耶者。此下第五明二受業。就中。一明二受業。二明心狂業。此即第一明二受業問。異熟五蘊果中受最為勝。今應思擇。

于諸業中頗有唯招心受異熟非身受。或招身受異熟非心受耶。

亦有者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至如前已辨者。身受必與尋．伺俱故。上地無尋故無身受。亦不能感下地身受。故正理云。于彼地中無身受故。身受必定與尋相應。非無尋業感有尋果。諸不善業唯感身受非感心受　如文可

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不捨（不放棄）。諸根寂靜，與平常不同。無論是世間還是出世間，無論是定還是不定之福，都沒有能夠勝過或掩蓋它們的。所以說這五種（指父母、老師、阿羅漢等）被稱為功德田。

如果有人在這些功德田中行事，能夠立即招致果報。這是解釋第四句話。如果有人在前面說的六種田中，造作衰損之業或利益之業，這些業必定能夠立即招致果報。

如果從其他的定中出來，或者從其他的果位出來，就不是殊勝的福田。這是爲了區分差別。其他的定，是指除了前面五種定以外的定。其他的果，是指四果中除了初果（Sotapanna，須陀洹）和阿羅漢果（Arahat）以外的果位，也就是二果（Sakadagami，斯陀含）和三果（Anagami，阿那含）。如果從其他的定中出來，因為之前所修的定不是殊勝的，如果從其他的果位出來，因為見所斷的迷惑先前已經斷了，修所斷的迷惑還沒有完全斷盡，所以他們的相續在最初出來的時候，不是殊勝的福田。為衰損或利益時，不能立即受到果報。如果預流果（Sotapanna，須陀洹）雖然不能斷盡修惑，但因為斷盡了見惑，如果阿羅漢（Arahat）雖然見惑先前已經斷了，但因為斷盡了修惑，所以從他們最初出來的時候，衰損或利益之業會立即受到果報。這裡說預流果（Sotapanna，須陀洹）勝過中間的兩種果位，是就最初出來的時候來說的。如果就其他時候來說，四果相互比較，那麼二果（Sakadagami，斯陀含）就勝過預流果（Sotapanna，須陀洹）。

在異熟果（Vipaka-phala，由業力成熟而產生的果報）中，受最為殊勝，那麼是否只有心受（精神上的感受）的異熟果，而沒有身受（身體上的感受）的異熟果呢？或者只有身受的異熟果，而沒有心受的異熟果呢？這是下面第五個部分，說明二受業。其中，一是說明二受業，二是說明心狂業。這裡是第一部分，說明二受業的提問。在異熟五蘊果中，受最為殊勝，現在應該思考這個問題。

在各種業中，是否有的業只招致心受的異熟果，而不招致身受的異熟果？或者招致身受的異熟果，而不招致心受的異熟果？

也有這樣的情況。這是回答。

是怎樣的呢？這是提問。

頌中說，身受必定與尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的觀察）同時存在。上地（指色界和無色界）沒有尋和伺，所以沒有身受，也不能感受下地的身受。所以《正理》中說，在那個地方沒有身受。身受必定與尋相應，沒有尋的業不能感得有尋的果報。各種不善業只感得身受，不感得心受。如文所說。

【English Translation】 English version: Not abandoning. The faculties are tranquil and different from usual. Whether in the mundane or supramundane realm, whether in fixed or unfixed merit, there is nothing that can overcome or overshadow them. Therefore, these five (referring to parents, teachers, Arhats, etc.) are called fields of merit.

If someone acts within these fields of merit, they can immediately reap the consequences. This explains the fourth sentence. If someone, within the aforementioned six fields, creates deeds of decline or deeds of benefit, these deeds will certainly bring about immediate consequences.

If one emerges from other samadhis (meditative states) or from other fruits, they are not supreme fields of merit. This is to distinguish the differences. Other samadhis refer to samadhis other than the five mentioned earlier. Other fruits refer to fruits other than the first fruit (Sotapanna) and the Arhat fruit, namely the second fruit (Sakadagami) and the third fruit (Anagami). If one emerges from other samadhis, it is because the samadhi previously cultivated was not supreme. If one emerges from other fruits, it is because the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing have already been abandoned, and the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation have not been completely exhausted. Therefore, their continuum is not a supreme field of merit at the initial emergence. When causing decline or benefit, the consequences are not immediately received. Although a Stream-enterer (Sotapanna) cannot completely eradicate the afflictions of cultivation, they have completely eradicated the afflictions of seeing. Although an Arhat has previously eradicated the afflictions of seeing, they have completely eradicated the afflictions of cultivation. Therefore, from their initial emergence, deeds of decline or benefit will be immediately received. Saying that the Stream-enterer (Sotapanna) surpasses the two intermediate fruits refers to the initial emergence. If considering other times, comparing the four fruits, the Once-returner (Sakadagami) surpasses the Stream-enterer (Sotapanna).

Within the results of Vipaka-phala (the fruit of karmic maturation), feeling is the most supreme. Should we consider whether there are only results of mental feeling (spiritual sensations) and no results of physical feeling (bodily sensations)? Or are there only results of physical feeling and no results of mental feeling? This is the fifth section below, explaining the two types of feeling karma. Among them, one is explaining the two types of feeling karma, and the other is explaining the karma of mental derangement. This is the first part, questioning the two types of feeling karma. Among the five aggregates of Vipaka-phala, feeling is the most supreme, and now we should contemplate this question.

Among various karmas, are there karmas that only bring about the result of mental feeling and not physical feeling? Or bring about the result of physical feeling and not mental feeling?

There are such cases. This is the answer.

How so? This is the question.

The verse says that physical feeling must coexist with Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought). The higher realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) do not have Vitarka and Vicara, so there is no physical feeling, and they cannot experience the physical feeling of the lower realms. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says that there is no physical feeling in that place. Physical feeling must correspond with Vitarka, and karma without Vitarka cannot bring about results with Vitarka. Various unwholesome karmas only bring about physical feeling and not mental feeling. As the text says.

知。若善有尋業。即能通感二受。非是所問故此不明。

有情心狂何識因處者。此即第二明心狂業。問有情心狂在何識中。何因所感。依何處起。

頌曰至除北洲在欲者。初句答初問。次兩句答第二問。下一句答第三問。

論曰至無分別故者。釋初句可知。

由五因故至能令心狂者。此下釋第二．第三句。總由五因有情心狂。此即初因。一由惡業感惡異熟。依此異熟能令心狂。余文可知。

二由驚怖至遂致心狂者。釋頌由怖。可知。

三由傷害至遂致心狂者。釋頌由害。

四由乖違至故致心狂者。釋頌由違。

五由愁憂至如婆私等者。釋頌由憂。如婆私等愁憂心狂。故婆沙一百二十六曰。如契經說婆私瑟搋。婆羅門女。喪六子故心發狂亂。露形馳走。見世尊已還得本心。

若在意識至非異熟耶者。問。意可知。

不說心狂至不染污心者。答。謂惡業因感不平等異熟大種。依此大種勢力心便失念故說為狂。體非異熟善．噁心等皆容狂故。故正理云。由此心狂體非異熟。善惡心等皆容狂故(已上論文)如是心狂對於心亂應作四句　第一句狂非亂者。謂狂者不染污心。失念故名狂。不染污故名非亂　第二句亂非狂者。謂不狂者諸染污心。染污故名亂。不失念

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本知。若善有尋業，即能通感二受。非是所問，故此不明。

有情心狂何識因處者。此即第二明心狂業。問有情心狂在何識中。何因所感。依何處起。

頌曰至除北洲在欲者。初句答初問。次兩句答第二問。下一句答第三問。

論曰至無分別故者。釋初句可知。

由五因故至能令心狂者。此下釋第二．第三句。總由五因有情心狂。此即初因。一由惡業感惡異熟。依此異熟能令心狂。余文可知。

二由驚怖至遂致心狂者。釋頌由怖。可知。

三由傷害至遂致心狂者。釋頌由害。

四由乖違至故致心狂者。釋頌由違。

五由愁憂至如婆私等者。釋頌由憂。如婆私等愁憂心狂。故婆沙一百二十六曰。如契經說婆私瑟搋（Vasishtha），婆羅門女。喪六子故心發狂亂。露形馳走。見世尊已還得本心。

若在意識至非異熟耶者。問。意可知。

不說心狂至不染污心者。答。謂惡業因感不平等異熟大種。依此大種勢力心便失念故說為狂。體非異熟善．噁心等皆容狂故。故正理云。由此心狂體非異熟。善惡心等皆容狂故(已上論文)如是心狂對於心亂應作四句　第一句狂非亂者。謂狂者不染污心。失念故名狂。不染污故名非亂　第二句亂非狂者。謂不狂者諸染污心。染污故名亂。不失念

【English Translation】 English version It is known that if wholesome deeds involve seeking, they can connect with two kinds of feelings. This is not what was asked, so it is not explained here.

What consciousness, cause, and location are involved when sentient beings become mentally deranged? This is the second section explaining the karma of mental derangement. It asks in which consciousness mental derangement occurs in sentient beings, what causes it, and where it originates.

The verse says 'Except for those in desire in Uttarakuru (Northern Continent)'. The first line answers the first question. The next two lines answer the second question. The following line answers the third question.

The treatise says '...because there is no discrimination'. The explanation of the first line is self-evident.

Due to five causes, mental derangement can occur. The following explains the second and third lines. In general, mental derangement in sentient beings is due to five causes. This is the first cause: one is that evil karma causes an evil result of maturation (vipāka). Based on this result of maturation, mental derangement can occur. The rest of the text is self-explanatory.

The second is that due to fright, mental derangement can occur. This explains the verse 'due to fright'. It is self-explanatory.

The third is that due to harm, mental derangement can occur. This explains the verse 'due to harm'.

The fourth is that due to discord, mental derangement can occur. This explains the verse 'due to discord'.

The fifth is that due to sorrow, mental derangement can occur, like Vasishtha (婆私瑟搋) and others. This explains the verse 'due to sorrow'. Like Vasishtha and others, mental derangement occurs due to sorrow. Therefore, the Vibhasha (婆沙) in chapter one hundred and twenty-six says: 'As the sutra says, Vasishtha, a Brahmin woman, lost her six children and became mentally deranged. She ran around naked. After seeing the World Honored One (世尊), she regained her original mind.'

If it is in consciousness, is it not a result of maturation? This is a question. The meaning is self-evident.

It is not said that mental derangement is not defiled. The answer is that evil karma causes unequal results of maturation in the great elements (mahābhūta). Based on the power of these great elements, the mind loses its mindfulness, so it is called derangement. Its essence is not a result of maturation because wholesome and unwholesome minds can all be deranged. Therefore, the Treatise on Correct Reasoning (正理) says: 'Because of this, the essence of mental derangement is not a result of maturation. Wholesome and unwholesome minds can all be deranged.' (End of the treatise). Thus, mental derangement and mental confusion should be described with four statements: The first statement is that derangement is not confusion. This means that the deranged mind is not defiled. Loss of mindfulness is called derangement. Because it is not defiled, it is called not confusion. The second statement is that confusion is not derangement. This means that the undefiled mind is confused. Defilement is called confusion. It is not a loss of mindfulness.

故非狂　第三句狂亦亂。謂狂者諸染污心。失念故名狂。染污故名亂　第四句非狂亂者。謂不狂者不染污心。不失念故非狂。不染污故非亂　應知此中染名為亂。失念名狂。

除北俱盧至證法性故者。釋第四句。于欲界中除北俱盧。余欲有情容有心狂。謂欲六天心尚有狂者。況人．三惡趣得離心狂。舉勝況劣　地獄恒狂。如文可知　就欲聖中唯除諸佛。佛無自心狂　余聖者得有第四。大種乖適容有心狂。無前第一。異熟生者若有三時定業及時不定異熟定業。必應先受彼異熟果後方得聖。若時．異熟。俱非定業由得聖故能令無果。全不受故。又婆沙一百二十六云。問此心狂亂於何處有。答于欲界有。非色．無色界。然地獄無。心常亂故。心狂亂者。謂時非恒。鬼．及傍生有心狂亂。人．天亦有。除北俱盧。彼無罪業增上果故。問此心狂亂誰有。誰無。答聖者．異生俱容得有。聖通眾聖。唯除諸佛。佛無心亂。無壞音聲。無斷末摩。無漸捨命(已上論文)　婆沙云狂亂者。亂即是狂。故婆沙以狂亂對散亂作四句。與此論意同文異。亦無第二驚怖以諸聖者超五畏故　五怖畏者。一不活畏。求衣．食等畏不活故。二惡名畏。怖畏世間惡名聞故。三怯眾畏。入大眾時怖畏眾故。四命終畏。臨命終時怯怖畏故。五惡趣畏。畏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『故非狂』，第三句『狂亦亂』。意思是說，所謂的『狂』，是指各種染污的心。因為失去正念，所以稱為『狂』；因為被染污，所以稱為『亂』。第四句『非狂亂者』。意思是說，不『狂』的人，他們的心沒有被染污。因為沒有失去正念，所以不『狂』；因為沒有被染污，所以不『亂』。應該知道，這裡所說的『染』指的是『亂』，而『失念』指的是『狂』。

『除北俱盧至證法性故者』，解釋第四句。在欲界中，除了北俱盧洲，其餘的欲界眾生都可能出現心狂的情況。也就是說，欲界的六慾天的心都可能出現狂亂，更何況是人道和三惡道，怎麼可能沒有心狂的情況呢？這是用好的情況來反襯差的情況。地獄眾生一直處於狂亂的狀態，就像經文里說的那樣。在欲界的聖者中，只有佛陀不會有心狂的情況，因為佛陀沒有自心狂亂。其餘的聖者可能會有第四種情況，也就是四大不調，身體不適，從而導致心狂。沒有前面第一種情況，也就是異熟果報所生的心狂。如果存在三種情況下的定業，也就是有時限的定業，以及時限不定但異熟果報是確定的定業，那麼必定要先承受這些異熟果報，然後才能證得聖果。如果時間和異熟果報都不是定業，那麼因為證得聖果的緣故，能夠使這些業力沒有結果，完全不受報。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百二十六卷中說：『問：這種心狂亂在什麼地方會有呢？』『答：在欲界有，不在色界和無色界。』然而地獄眾生沒有心狂亂，因為他們的心一直處於狂亂的狀態。心狂亂指的是，這種狀態不是恒常的。鬼道和畜生道眾生會有心狂亂，人道和天道眾生也有，除了北俱盧洲，因為他們沒有罪業增長的果報。『問：這種心狂亂誰會有，誰沒有呢？』『答：聖者和凡夫都有可能出現。』這裡的聖者指的是所有的聖者，只有佛陀除外，因為佛陀沒有心亂，沒有損壞音聲，沒有斷末摩，沒有漸捨命（以上是論文內容）。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》中說，狂亂就是亂，所以《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》用狂亂來對散亂作四句分析，和這部論的意義相同，只是文字不同。也沒有第二種驚怖，因為所有的聖者都超越了五種怖畏。五種怖畏是：一、不活畏，因為尋求衣食等而害怕不能活下去；二、惡名畏，害怕世間的惡名聲；三、怯眾畏，進入大眾場合時感到害怕；四、命終畏，臨終時感到怯懦和害怕；五、惡趣畏，害怕墮入惡道。

【English Translation】 English version 'Therefore, not madness,' the third sentence, 'madness is also confusion.' It means that 'madness' refers to various defiled minds. Because of losing mindfulness, it is called 'madness'; because of being defiled, it is called 'confusion.' The fourth sentence, 'not madness and confusion,' means that those who are not 'mad' have minds that are not defiled. Because they do not lose mindfulness, they are not 'mad'; because they are not defiled, they are not 'confused.' It should be understood that 'defilement' here refers to 'confusion,' and 'loss of mindfulness' refers to 'madness.'

'Except for Uttarakuru, up to the attainment of the nature of Dharma,' explains the fourth sentence. In the Desire Realm, except for Uttarakuru (Northern Kurus – one of the four continents surrounding Mount Meru), other sentient beings in the Desire Realm may experience mental madness. That is to say, even the six heavens of the Desire Realm may have mental madness, let alone humans and the three evil realms, how could they be free from mental madness? This uses a superior situation to highlight an inferior one. Hell beings are constantly mad, as the text says. Among the holy beings in the Desire Realm, only the Buddhas are excluded, as Buddhas have no self-mental madness. Other holy beings may have the fourth condition, which is the disharmony of the four great elements, physical discomfort, leading to mental madness. There is no first condition, which is mental madness born from the fruition of karma. If there are fixed karmas in three situations, that is, fixed karmas with time limits, and fixed karmas with uncertain time limits but certain fruition, then one must first receive these fruition results before attaining holiness. If both time and fruition are not fixed karmas, then because of attaining holiness, these karmas can be rendered without result, completely unreceived. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 126, says: 'Question: Where does this mental madness exist?' 'Answer: It exists in the Desire Realm, not in the Form Realm or Formless Realm.' However, hell beings do not have mental madness because their minds are always in a state of madness. Mental madness refers to a state that is not constant. Ghosts and animals may have mental madness, and humans and gods also have it, except for Uttarakuru, because they do not have the increasing results of sinful karma. 'Question: Who has this mental madness, and who does not?' 'Answer: Both holy beings and ordinary beings may have it.' The holy beings here refer to all holy beings, except for the Buddhas, because Buddhas have no mental confusion, no damaged voice, no severed marma (vital points), and no gradual abandonment of life (the above is the content of the treatise). The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that madness is confusion, so the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra uses madness and confusion to make a four-sentence analysis of distraction, which has the same meaning as this treatise, but with different words. There is also no second fear, because all holy beings have transcended the five fears. The five fears are: 1. Fear of not surviving, fearing not being able to survive because of seeking clothing, food, etc.; 2. Fear of bad reputation, fearing the bad reputation in the world; 3. Fear of crowds, feeling afraid when entering a crowd; 4. Fear of death, feeling timid and afraid at the time of death; 5. Fear of evil destinies, fearing falling into evil destinies.

墮地獄．傍生．鬼故。

聖人不畏不活無不活畏。不求名故無惡名畏。不怯眾故無怯眾畏。不戀命終故無命終畏。不墮惡趣故無惡趣畏　言諸聖人無怖畏者。若二乘人無大怖畏。非無小怖。若佛世尊一切皆無。婆沙七十云。問異生．聖者誰有怖耶。有作是說。異生有怖。聖者無怖。所以者何。于聖者已離五怖畏故。五怖畏者。一不活畏。二惡名畏。三怯眾畏。四命終畏。五惡趣畏。評曰應作是說。異生．聖者二皆有怖。問聖者已離五種怖畏如何有怖。答聖者雖無五種大怖。而有所餘暫時小怖。

解云此文言有小怖者。據二乘說。若據如來小怖亦無　故婆沙云。評曰應作是說。學．無學位皆容有怖。無學除佛。佛無恐怖毛豎等事。於一切法如實通達得無畏故　亦無第三傷害。以諸聖者無非人等憎嫌事故不為傷害　亦無第五愁憂。證諸法性真實理故。又經中說至依諂瞋貪生者。此即第六明曲．穢．濁。

論曰至瞋貪所生者。標業配屬身．語．意業。各有三種。謂曲．穢．濁。如其次第應知依諂瞋貪所生。

謂依諂生至諂曲類故者。此下別釋。謂依諂生身．語．意業。故契經中名為曲業。諂之與曲。類相似故。眼．目異名故。以諂釋曲。曲是因。業是果。業果從此曲因為名。故名曲業。故正理云。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：墮地獄、傍生（動物）、鬼道，是凡夫的畏懼。

聖人無所畏懼，因為他們不畏懼無法生存，所以沒有對無法生存的畏懼；不追求名聲，所以沒有惡名的畏懼；不膽怯于大眾，所以沒有對大眾的畏懼；不貪戀生命終結，所以沒有對生命終結的畏懼；不墮落惡趣，所以沒有對惡趣的畏懼。這段話說明了諸位聖人沒有怖畏。如果是二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）之人，沒有大的怖畏，但並非沒有小的怖畏。如果是佛世尊，則一切怖畏都沒有。《婆沙論》第七十卷說：『問：異生（凡夫）和聖者，誰有怖畏呢？』有人這樣說：『異生有怖畏，聖者沒有怖畏。』為什麼呢？因為聖者已經遠離了五種怖畏。五種怖畏是：一、不活畏；二、惡名畏；三、怯眾畏；四、命終畏；五、惡趣畏。評論說：應該這樣說，異生和聖者都有怖畏。問：聖者已經遠離了五種怖畏，為什麼還有怖畏呢？答：聖者雖然沒有五種大的怖畏，但還有一些暫時的小的怖畏。

解釋說，這段文字說有小怖畏，是根據二乘來說的。如果根據如來，小怖畏也沒有。所以《婆沙論》說：『評論說：應該這樣說，有學（還在學習的修行者）和無學（已經完成學習的修行者）都可能還有怖畏，無學中除了佛。佛沒有恐怖、毛髮豎立等事，因為對於一切法如實通達，得到了無畏。』也沒有第三種傷害，因為諸位聖人沒有被非人等憎恨嫌棄的事情，所以不會被傷害。也沒有第五種愁憂，因為證悟了諸法性真實的道理。另外，經中說到依諂（諂媚）、瞋（嗔恨）、貪（貪婪）而生起的，這指的是第六種，說明了曲（不正直）、穢（污穢）、濁（不清凈）。

論中說，由嗔恨和貪婪所生起的，標明了業與身、語、意業的配合關係。各有三種，即曲、穢、濁。應該知道，依諂、嗔、貪所生起的，依次對應。

所謂依諂生起，直到『諂曲類故』，以下分別解釋。所謂依諂生起身、語、意業，所以在契經中稱為曲業。諂媚與曲，種類相似，就像眼睛和目的不同名稱一樣。用諂媚來解釋曲，曲是因，業是果，業果從此曲因而得名，所以名為曲業。所以《正理》中說。

【English Translation】 English version: Falling into hell, becoming a Preta (hungry ghost), or an animal are fears of ordinary beings.

Saints have no fears because they do not fear not being able to live, therefore they have no fear of not being able to live; they do not seek fame, therefore they have no fear of bad reputation; they are not timid in the presence of the crowd, therefore they have no fear of the crowd; they do not cling to the end of life, therefore they have no fear of the end of life; they do not fall into evil realms, therefore they have no fear of evil realms. This passage explains that all saints have no fears. If it is a person of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), they have no great fears, but it is not that they have no small fears. If it is the Buddha, then all fears are absent. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 70, says: 'Question: Who has fear, ordinary beings or saints?' Some say: 'Ordinary beings have fear, saints have no fear.' Why? Because saints have already abandoned the five fears. The five fears are: 1. Fear of not being able to live; 2. Fear of bad reputation; 3. Fear of timidity in the crowd; 4. Fear of the end of life; 5. Fear of evil realms. The commentary says: It should be said that both ordinary beings and saints have fear. Question: Saints have already abandoned the five fears, why do they still have fear? Answer: Although saints do not have the five great fears, they still have some temporary small fears.

The explanation says that this passage speaks of small fears according to the Two Vehicles. According to the Tathāgata, even small fears are absent. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'The commentary says: It should be said that both those in training (Śaikṣa) and those beyond training (Aśaikṣa) may still have fear, except for the Buddha. The Buddha has no fear, hair standing on end, etc., because he has truly understood all dharmas and has attained fearlessness.' There is also no third harm, because the saints have no cause to be hated or disliked by non-humans, etc., so they will not be harmed. There is also no fifth sorrow, because they have realized the true principle of the nature of all dharmas. In addition, the sutra speaks of arising from deceit (chāna), hatred (krodha), and greed (lobha), which refers to the sixth, explaining crookedness (kuṭila), impurity (medhya), and turbidity (avila).

The treatise says that what arises from hatred and greed indicates the relationship between karma and body, speech, and mind karma. Each has three types, namely crookedness, impurity, and turbidity. It should be known that what arises from deceit, hatred, and greed corresponds in order.

What arises from deceit, up to 'because of the nature of deceitful crookedness,' is explained separately below. What arises from deceit is body, speech, and mind karma, so it is called crooked karma in the sutras. Deceit and crookedness are similar in kind, just as eye and sight are different names. Using deceit to explain crookedness, crookedness is the cause, karma is the result, and the result of karma is named after this crooked cause, so it is called crooked karma. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says.

實曲謂見。故契經言。實曲者何。謂諸惡見。諂是彼類故得曲名。從諂所生身．語．意業。曲為因故。果受因名。是故世尊說彼為曲　所以得知諂發業者。如婆沙一百一十二廢立三不善根中雲。六煩惱垢有時能發粗惡身．語二業無餘四義。

若依瞋生至瞋穢類故者。若依瞋生身．語．意業故契經中名為穢業。瞋之與穢類相似故。眼．目異名故。以瞋釋穢。諸煩惱皆名為穢。瞋穢中極重立穢名。穢是因。業是果。業果從彼穢因為名故名穢業。故正理云。瞋名穢者謂瞋現前如熱鐵丸隨所投處。便能燒害自．他身．心。諸煩惱中為過最重故。薄伽梵重立穢名。是諸穢中之極穢故。從瞋所生身．語．意業。穢為因故。果受因名。是故世尊說彼為穢。

若依貪生至貪濁類故者。若依貪生身．語．意業。故契經中名為濁業。貪之與濁。類相似故。眼目異名故。以貪釋濁。濁是因。業是果。業從彼濁因為名故名濁業。故正理云。貪名濁者謂貪現前染著所緣是染性故。從彼生等準前應釋。又婆沙云。問何故貪名濁。答能染污故。如世間染色說名為濁。正理。及婆沙一百一十四更有多解。不能具述。

俱舍論記卷第十五

一校了

保延元年六月十七日于大道寺點了

披此業品深思因果破戒之身惡業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於『實曲謂見』，正如契經所說：什麼是『實曲』呢？指的是各種錯誤的見解（諸惡見）。諂媚（諂）是與這些惡見同類的，因此被稱為『曲』。從諂媚所產生的身、語、意業，因為『曲』是其原因，所以結果也以原因來命名。因此，世尊說這些（身、語、意業）是『曲』。如何得知諂媚能引發業呢？如《大毗婆沙論》第一百一十二卷關於廢立三不善根中說：六種煩惱垢有時能引發粗惡的身、語二業，沒有其餘四種含義。

關於『若依瞋生至瞋穢類故者』，如果依著嗔恨（瞋）產生身、語、意業，所以在契經中被稱為『穢業』。嗔恨與污穢（穢）是相似的，就像眼睛和目的不同名稱一樣，所以用嗔恨來解釋污穢。各種煩惱都可以被稱為污穢，而嗔恨在污穢中最嚴重，因此被立為『穢』這個名稱。『穢』是原因，『業』是結果，業果因為這個污穢的原因而得名，所以稱為『穢業』。因此，《阿毗達磨俱舍論》中說：嗔恨被稱為污穢，是因為嗔恨出現時，就像燒紅的鐵丸，無論投向哪裡，都能燒傷自己和他人的身心。在各種煩惱中，嗔恨的過失最為嚴重，所以薄伽梵（世尊的尊稱）特別立了『穢』這個名稱，因為它是所有污穢中最污穢的。從嗔恨所產生的身、語、意業，因為『穢』是其原因，所以結果也以原因來命名。因此，世尊說這些（身、語、意業）是『穢』。

關於『若依貪生至貪濁類故者』，如果依著貪慾（貪）產生身、語、意業，所以在契經中被稱為『濁業』。貪慾與污濁（濁）是相似的，就像眼睛和目的不同名稱一樣，所以用貪慾來解釋污濁。污濁是原因，業是結果，業因為這個污濁的原因而得名，所以稱為『濁業』。因此，《阿毗達磨俱舍論》中說：貪慾被稱為污濁，是因為貪慾出現時，會染著所緣境，因為它具有染污的性質。從貪慾所生等等，可以參照前面的解釋。另外，《大毗婆沙論》中說：問：為什麼貪慾被稱為污濁？答：因為它能染污。就像世間染色被稱為污濁一樣。《阿毗達磨順正理論》和《大毗婆沙論》第一百一十四卷還有更多的解釋，不能全部敘述。

《俱舍論記》卷第十五

一校了

保延元年六月十七日于大道寺點了

披此業品深思因果破戒之身惡業

【English Translation】 English version Regarding 'Śaṭhya means false views.' As the sutras say: What is 'Śaṭhya'? It refers to various wrong views (evil views). Flattery (Śaṭhya) is of the same category as these evil views, hence it is called 'crooked'. The actions of body, speech, and mind arising from flattery, because 'crookedness' is their cause, the result is also named after the cause. Therefore, the World Honored One said that these (actions of body, speech, and mind) are 'crooked'. How do we know that flattery can generate karma? As stated in the 112th fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā, regarding the establishment and abolition of the three unwholesome roots: The six defilements sometimes can generate coarse actions of body and speech, without the remaining four meanings.

Regarding 'If arising from anger, it is of the nature of impurity of anger': If actions of body, speech, and mind arise from anger (krodha), they are called 'impure karma' (asrava karma) in the sutras. Anger and impurity (asrava) are similar, just as 'eye' and 'sight' are different names, so anger is used to explain impurity. All defilements are called impurities, and anger is the most serious among impurities, hence it is established as the name 'impurity'. 'Impurity' is the cause, and 'karma' is the result. The karmic result is named after the cause of impurity, hence it is called 'impure karma'. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa says: Anger is called impurity because when anger arises, it is like a red-hot iron ball, wherever it is thrown, it can burn and harm the body and mind of oneself and others. Among all defilements, the fault of anger is the most serious, so the Bhagavan (an honorific title for the World Honored One) specifically established the name 'impurity', because it is the most impure of all impurities. The actions of body, speech, and mind arising from anger, because 'impurity' is their cause, the result is also named after the cause. Therefore, the World Honored One said that these (actions of body, speech, and mind) are 'impure'.

Regarding 'If arising from greed, it is of the nature of turbidity of greed': If actions of body, speech, and mind arise from greed (lobha), they are called 'turbid karma' (mala karma) in the sutras. Greed and turbidity (mala) are similar, just as 'eye' and 'sight' are different names, so greed is used to explain turbidity. Turbidity is the cause, and karma is the result. The karma is named after the cause of turbidity, hence it is called 'turbid karma'. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa says: Greed is called turbidity because when greed arises, it clings to the object of attachment, because it has the nature of defilement. The arising from greed, etc., should be explained according to the previous explanation. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says: Question: Why is greed called turbidity? Answer: Because it can defile. Just as dyeing in the world is called turbidity. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya and the 114th fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā have more explanations, which cannot all be described.

Kośa Commentary, Volume 15

Proofread once

Proofread at Daidoji Temple on June 17th, Baoyan 1st year

Studying this chapter on karma, deeply contemplating cause and effect, the evil karma of a body that has broken the precepts.

之報何為何為可悲可悲唯愿大士必垂哀愍。　　　　　權少僧都覺樹記大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十六

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之四

又經中說至其相云何者。此下第七明黑黑等。就中。一明四業名體。二明無漏斷別。三敘異說不同　此即第一明四業名體。依經起問。

頌曰至名黑白俱非者。初兩句總標。后四句別釋。惡名黑。色善名白。欲善名俱　能盡彼無漏名非故。言如次。

論曰至說黑黑等四者。釋初兩句。佛依業不同．果不同．所治殊．能治殊。隨其所應說黑黑等四　又解佛依異熟因．異熟果性類不同說前三業。依有漏所治．無漏能治殊說后一業　又解依業不同通立四種。依果不同說前三種。依所治殊說前三種。依能治殊說后一種。

諸不善業至不可意故者。釋惡名黑。不善名惡。黑謂黑黑。諸不善業一向名黑。染污性故。異熟亦黑。不可意故。諸不善業亦應名不可意。影顯可知。略而不說。故婆沙一百一十四云。黑有二種。一染污黑。二不可意黑。此中業由二黑故說名為黑。異熟但由不可意黑故亦名黑。

色界善業至是可意故者。釋色善名白。白謂白白。色界善業一向名白。不雜不善惡業．惑故。故正理

【現代漢語翻譯】之報何為何為可悲可悲唯愿大士必垂哀愍。（譯者註：表達了對菩薩的祈求，希望得到憐憫。）權少僧都覺樹記

大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十六

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之四

又經中說至其相云何者。此下第七明黑黑等。（譯者註：解釋《俱舍論》中關於業的分類，從黑黑業開始。）就中。一明四業名體。二明無漏斷別。三敘異說不同此即第一明四業名體。依經起問。

頌曰至名黑白俱非者。初兩句總標。后四句別釋。惡名黑。色善名白。欲善名俱能盡彼無漏名非故。言如次。

論曰至說黑黑等四者。釋初兩句。佛依業不同．果不同．所治殊．能治殊。隨其所應說黑黑等四又解佛依異熟因．異熟果性類不同說前三業。依有漏所治．無漏能治殊說后一業又解依業不同通立四種。依果不同說前三種。依所治殊說前三種。依能治殊說后一種。

諸不善業至不可意故者。釋惡名黑。不善名惡。黑謂黑黑。諸不善業一向名黑。染污性故。異熟亦黑。不可意故。諸不善業亦應名不可意。影顯可知。略而不說。故婆沙一百一十四云。黑有二種。一染污黑。二不可意黑。此中業由二黑故說名為黑。異熟但由不可意黑故亦名黑。

善業至是可意故者。釋色善名白。白謂白白。善業一向名白。不雜不善惡業．惑故。故正理

【English Translation】 May the great being have compassion on us for the sake of what is reported, what is done, what is pitiable, what is pitiable. (Translator's note: Expresses a prayer to the Bodhisattva, hoping to receive compassion.) Recorded by the junior monk Jue Shu.

Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma)

Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika, Volume 16

Commentary by the Shramana Shi Guang

Chapter 4, Part 4: Analysis of Karma

Furthermore, in the sutra, it says, 'What is its nature?' The following seventh section explains black-black karma, etc. Among these: 1. Explaining the names and entities of the four karmas. 2. Explaining the distinctions of severance by the unconditioned. 3. Narrating different interpretations. This is the first, explaining the names and entities of the four karmas. Based on the sutra, a question is raised.

The verse says, 'Until the name is neither black nor white.' The first two lines are a general statement. The last four lines are a separate explanation. Evil is called 'black'. Colored good is called 'white'. Desire good is called 'both'. That which can exhaust the unconditioned is called 'not so'. The words are in order.

The treatise says, 'Explaining the four, such as black-black.' Explaining the first two lines. The Buddha, based on the differences in karma, differences in results, differences in what is to be subdued, and differences in what can subdue, appropriately speaks of the four, such as black-black. Also explaining that the Buddha speaks of the first three karmas based on the differences in the nature and categories of the ripening cause and the ripening result. Based on the differences between what is subdued by the conditioned and what can subdue by the unconditioned, the last karma is spoken of. Also explaining that based on the differences in karma, four types are generally established. Based on the differences in results, the first three types are spoken of. Based on the differences in what is to be subdued, the first three types are spoken of. Based on the differences in what can subdue, the last type is spoken of.

All unwholesome karmas, until 'because it is undesirable.' Explaining that evil is called 'black'. Unwholesome is called 'evil'. 'Black' means black-black. All unwholesome karmas are always called 'black' because of their defiled nature. The ripening is also black because it is undesirable. All unwholesome karmas should also be called 'undesirable'. The implication is clear and can be understood. It is omitted and not spoken of. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) 114 says, 'There are two types of black: one is defiled black, and the other is undesirable black.' In this case, karma is called 'black' because of the two blacks. The ripening is also called 'black' only because of the undesirable black.

Good karma, until 'because it is desirable.' Explaining that colored good is called 'white'. 'White' means white-white. Good karma is always called 'white' because it is not mixed with unwholesome evil karma and delusion. Therefore, the Zhengli (Nyayanusara-sastra)

云。色界善業一向名白。不為一切不善煩惱．及不善業所凌雜故。異熟亦白。是可意故。

何故不言無色界善者。問。

傳說若處至有處亦說者。答。毗婆沙師傳說。若處有二異熟謂中有．生有。具身．語．意．業。則說。非余　于無色界有生．無中。有意無身．語。是故不說　然契經中有處亦說。無色善業名白白異熟業。彼據善業可意果故。故正理云。而契經中有說靜慮．無量．無色皆名白白異熟業者。彼據純凈可意異熟通立白名。

欲界善業至互相違故者。釋欲界善名俱。俱。謂黑白黑白。欲界善業名為黑白。造善業時為惡業惑所凌雜故。異熟亦黑白。受果之時有非愛果相雜受故。此黑白名依業．異熟前．后相續間起而立。理雖復亦有善．惡異熟俱時雜受。且據前．后以釋　又解相續謂身。依一相續身立　又解相續有二。一前後相續。二謂身相續。業據前．后相續。果據身相續　又解業據前後相續。果據前後相續及身相續。以容此身俱時受故。非據因果自性而說　所以者何以無一業．及一異熟。是黑亦白。善．惡業果性類不同互相違故。

豈不惡業果至名為白黑者。問。豈不欲界惡業．及果。亦為善業及果間雜相續起故。是則亦應名為白黑。此即以惡業果例善業果。

不善業果至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云：善業一向被稱為『白』，因為它不被一切不善的煩惱和不善的業所混雜。它的異熟果也是『白』的，因為它是可意的。

為什麼不說沒有『俱』（黑白）的善業呢？（問）

傳說如果某個地方對『有』進行說明，那麼也會對『至有』進行說明。（答）毗婆沙師們傳說，如果某個地方有二種異熟果，比如中有（bardo，中陰身）和生有（bhava，生命的延續），具備身、語、意、業，那麼就會進行說明。其他情況則不然。因為在無色界沒有生有，沒有中有，只有意而沒有身和語，所以不說『俱』。然而，契經中有些地方也說，無色界的善業被稱為『白白異熟業』，那是根據善業的可意果而言的。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，契經中有些地方說靜慮（dhyana，禪定）、無量（apramana，四無量心）、無色（arupadhatu，無色界）都稱為『白白異熟業』，那是根據純凈可意的異熟果，普遍地安立『白』這個名稱。

欲界的善業被稱為『俱』，是因為互相違背的緣故。『俱』，指的是黑白黑白。欲界的善業被稱為『黑白』，因為造善業的時候，會被惡業和煩惱所混雜。異熟果也是黑白的，因為在接受果報的時候，會有非可意的果報摻雜其中。這個『黑白』的名稱，是根據業和異熟果前後相續之間產生而安立的。雖然實際上也有善惡異熟果同時混雜接受的情況，但這裡是根據前後相續來解釋。又有一種解釋，相續指的是身體，是依據一個相續的身體來安立的。還有一種解釋，相續有兩種，一種是前後相續，一種是身體相續。業是根據前後相續，果是根據身體相續。還有一種解釋，業是根據前後相續，果是根據前後相續和身體相續，因為這個身體可以同時接受果報。這些都不是根據因果的自性而說的。為什麼呢？因為沒有一個業或一個異熟果，既是黑的又是白的。善業和惡業的果報，其性質和種類不同，是互相違背的。

難道惡業的果報也應該被稱為『白黑』嗎？（問）難道欲界的惡業和果報，也會因為善業和果報的間雜相續而產生，所以也應該被稱為『白黑』嗎？這是用惡業的果報來類比善業的果報。

不善業的果報……

【English Translation】 English version: It is said: Virtuous karma is always called 'white' because it is not mixed with any unwholesome afflictions or unwholesome karma. Its Vipaka (result, maturation) is also 'white' because it is desirable.

Why is it not said that there is no 'both' (black and white) virtuous karma? (Question)

It is said that if something is explained in terms of 'existence', then 'ultimate existence' is also explained. (Answer) The Vaibhashika masters say that if there are two kinds of Vipaka, such as Bardo (intermediate state) and Bhava (existence), possessing body, speech, mind, and karma, then it is explained. Otherwise, it is not. Because in the Arupadhatu (formless realm) there is no Bhava, no Bardo, only mind without body and speech, therefore 'both' is not mentioned. However, in some Sutras, it is also said that virtuous karma in the Arupadhatu is called 'white-white Vipaka karma', which is based on the desirable result of virtuous karma. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha-bhashya says that in some Sutras, Dhyana (meditation), Apramana (immeasurables), and Arupadhatu are all called 'white-white Vipaka karma', which is based on the pure and desirable Vipaka, universally establishing the name 'white'.

Virtuous karma in the Kamadhatu (desire realm) is called 'both' because they are mutually contradictory. 'Both' refers to black and white, black and white. Virtuous karma in the Kamadhatu is called 'black and white' because when creating virtuous karma, it is mixed with unwholesome karma and afflictions. The Vipaka is also black and white because when receiving the result, undesirable results are mixed in. The name 'black and white' is established based on the arising between the continuous sequence of karma and Vipaka. Although there are actually cases where wholesome and unwholesome Vipaka are received simultaneously, here it is explained based on the continuous sequence. Another explanation is that continuity refers to the body, and it is established based on one continuous body. Another explanation is that there are two kinds of continuity: one is the continuous sequence, and the other is the continuous body. Karma is based on the continuous sequence, and the result is based on the continuous body. Another explanation is that karma is based on the continuous sequence, and the result is based on both the continuous sequence and the continuous body, because this body can receive results simultaneously. These are not based on the nature of cause and effect. Why? Because there is no karma or Vipaka that is both black and white. The nature and kind of the results of wholesome and unwholesome karma are different and mutually contradictory.

Shouldn't the result of unwholesome karma also be called 'white-black'? (Question) Shouldn't unwholesome karma and its result in the Kamadhatu also be called 'white-black' because they arise from the mixed continuous sequence of wholesome karma and its result? This is using the result of unwholesome karma to analogize the result of wholesome karma.

The result of unwholesome karma...

惡勝善故者。答。于欲界中不善業果非必應為善業果雜。如斷善人造諸惡業及地獄中受黑異熟果。欲界善業果必定應為惡業果雜。如五趣中造善業。及四趣中受異熟　問未離欲者造欲善業可為惡雜已離欲者造欲善業定無惡雜應名白白。何故欲善皆名雜業　解云欲善業果名為雜者。據未斷說。若細分別。已離欲者作欲善業非惡業雜。雖為因時非惡業雜。受果之時必惡果雜。以因從果總名為雜　或相雜類故名為相雜。以欲界中惡勝善故。惡名黑黑不名白黑。善名黑白不名白白。故婆沙一百一十四云。如是說者。一切不善業皆名黑黑異熟業。由欲界中不善強盛不為善法之所陵雜。以不善法能斷自地善故。善業羸劣而為不善之所陵雜。以欲界善不能斷不善故。

諸無漏業至性相違故者。釋第四句。諸無漏業能斷前三名為非黑。不染污故。亦名非白。以不能招白異熟故　此非白言據不能招白異熟果。且據一相。是佛蜜意說非真了義　若據顯說亦名為白。經說無學法名白。論說不染污法名白。以此故知。諸無漏法亦名為白。而言無漏無異熟者。不墮三界故。與墮三界流轉生死法性相違故。所以不能感異熟果。

諸無漏業至前三業不者。此下第二明無漏斷別。此即問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：惡勝善故是什麼意思？答：在欲界中，不善業的果報不一定與善業的果報混雜。例如，斷滅善根的人造作各種惡業，以及在地獄中承受黑色的異熟果報。而欲界的善業果報必定會與惡業的果報混雜。例如，在五趣中造作善業，以及在四趣中承受異熟果報。問：未脫離慾望的人造作欲界善業，可能會與惡業混雜；已經脫離慾望的人造作欲界善業，一定不會與惡業混雜，應該稱為純粹的善業（白白）。為什麼欲界的善業都稱為雜業（黑白）呢？解釋說：欲界善業的果報被稱為雜業，是根據未斷除慾望的人來說的。如果仔細分別，已經脫離慾望的人所作的欲界善業，並非與惡業混雜。雖然作為因的時候，不是與惡業混雜，但承受果報的時候，必定與惡果混雜。因為從因到果總的來說名為雜業。或者因為（善惡）互相混雜的性質，所以名為相雜。因為在欲界中，惡的力量勝過善的力量，所以惡業稱為黑黑，不稱為白黑；善業稱為黑白，不稱為白白。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十四卷說：『這樣說來，一切不善業都稱為黑黑異熟業。因為在欲界中，不善業強盛，不會被善法所侵凌混雜。因為不善法能夠斷滅自地的善法。善業衰弱，反而被不善業所侵凌混雜。因為欲界的善業不能斷滅不善業。』

諸無漏業至性相違故是什麼意思？這是解釋第四句。各種無漏業能夠斷滅前三種有漏業，所以稱為非黑。因為不染污，所以也稱為非白。因為不能招感白色的異熟果報。這裡說『非白』，是根據不能招感白色的異熟果報來說的，而且是根據一個方面來說的。這是佛的隱秘之意，不是真正的了義之說。如果根據顯說，也可以稱為白。經中說無學法名為白，論中說不染污法名為白。因此可知，各種無漏法也稱為白。之所以說無漏法沒有異熟果報，是因為不墮落於三界之中，與墮落於三界、流轉生死的法的性質相反。

諸無漏業至前三業不是什麼意思？這是下面第二點，說明無漏業斷滅的差別。這是提問。

不爾者，是回答。

云何者，是征問。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What does 'evil prevails over good' mean? Answer: In the desire realm (欲界), the result of unwholesome karma (不善業) does not necessarily mix with the result of wholesome karma. For example, those who sever their roots of goodness create various evil deeds, and in hell, they experience the black (黑) fruition (異熟果). However, the result of wholesome karma in the desire realm is certain to mix with the result of evil karma. For example, creating wholesome karma in the five realms (五趣), and experiencing fruition in the four realms. Question: Those who have not detached from desire (未離欲者) may have their wholesome karma in the desire realm mixed with evil. Those who have detached from desire will certainly not have their wholesome karma in the desire realm mixed with evil; it should be called purely wholesome (白白). Why is wholesome karma in the desire realm called mixed karma (黑白)? Explanation: The result of wholesome karma in the desire realm is called mixed karma based on those who have not severed desire. If we differentiate carefully, the wholesome karma in the desire realm created by those who have detached from desire is not mixed with evil karma. Although it is not mixed with evil karma as a cause, when experiencing the result, it is certain to be mixed with evil results. Because from cause to effect, it is generally called mixed karma. Or it is called mixed because of the nature of mutual mixing. Because in the desire realm, the power of evil prevails over the power of good, evil karma is called black-black (黑黑), not white-black (白黑); wholesome karma is called black-white (黑白), not white-white (白白). Therefore, the Vibhasa (婆沙論), volume 114, says: 'In this way, all unwholesome karma is called black-black fruition karma. Because in the desire realm, unwholesome karma is strong and is not infringed upon and mixed by wholesome dharma. Because unwholesome dharma can sever the wholesome dharma of its own realm. Wholesome karma is weak and is instead infringed upon and mixed by unwholesome karma. Because wholesome karma in the desire realm cannot sever unwholesome karma.'

What does 'all unconditioned karma is contrary to nature' mean? This explains the fourth sentence. All unconditioned karma (無漏業) can sever the first three conditioned karmas (有漏業), so it is called non-black (非黑). Because it is not defiled, it is also called non-white (非白). Because it cannot attract white fruition. The term 'non-white' here is based on the inability to attract white fruition, and it is based on one aspect. This is the Buddha's secret intention, not the true definitive meaning. If based on the explicit meaning, it can also be called white. The sutras say that the dharma of the non-learner (無學) is called white, and the treatises say that undefiled dharma is called white. Therefore, it can be known that all unconditioned dharmas are also called white. The reason why unconditioned dharmas have no fruition is because they do not fall into the three realms (三界), and their nature is contrary to the dharma of falling into the three realms and transmigrating in samsara (生死).

What does 'all unconditioned karma does not reach the first three karmas' mean? This is the second point below, explaining the difference in severance by unconditioned karma. This is a question.

'Not so' is the answer.

'How?' is the inquiry.

頌曰至四令純白盡者。頌答。

論曰至唯盡純黑者。釋初頌。法智家忍從果為名名法智忍。不善別斷故見道四．修道八。十二能斷。

離欲界染至純白業盡者。釋第二頌。欲不善色緣縛斷故。理同欲善。然於此時更斷欲界余不善業。據與餘業同盡處說。是故總名第九不善。余文可知。

何緣諸地至能斷非餘者。問。

以諸善法至未離系故者。答。若煩惱斷是自性斷。斷已無容現在前故　以有漏善非自性斷是緣縳斷。斷已有容現在前故。于斷善中非皆並起故說容言　如善憂根。若被斷已即不現行。離欲舍故。欲界余善斷已猶行。以成就故　釋緣縛斷如文可知　又婆沙一百九云。問諸無漏思相應．俱有。皆能正斷前三種業。何故唯說無漏學思　答思能發動諸法令斷。是故偏說。復有說者雖皆能斷。此中辨業故唯說思　問若爾亦應說隨轉身．語業。何故唯說思耶　答此學思與無漏惠相應而轉。同一所緣．同一行相．同一所依。相助有力。能斷諸業。非身．語業得有是事。是故不說。

頌曰至故名俱業者。此即第三敘異說。前師約五趣以明。后師約五斷以說。俱非正義。婆沙評家意說。于欲界中惡勝善劣　但是惡業皆名黑黑。以惡勝故。非善陵雜　但是善業皆名黑白。以善劣故。惡所陵雜。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本　頌文『至四令純白盡者』，以下是頌文的解答。

論述『至唯盡純黑者』，解釋第一首頌文。法智（dharmajñāna，對法的智慧）家忍（kṣānti，忍耐）從結果來命名，稱為法智忍。因為不能完全斷除不善，所以在見道位斷除四種，修道位斷除八種，總共十二種能夠斷除。

『離欲界染至純白業盡者』，解釋第二首頌文。因為斷除了欲界的不善和色界的緣縛，道理與欲界的善業相同。然而，在這個時候，進一步斷除了欲界剩餘的不善業。這是根據與剩餘業力一同斷盡的情況來說的。因此，總稱為第九種不善。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

『何緣諸地至能斷非餘者』，這是提問。

『以諸善法至未離系故者』，這是回答。如果煩惱的斷除是自性斷，斷除之後就沒有可能再次出現。因為有漏的善法不是自性斷，而是緣縛斷，斷除之後還有可能再次出現。在斷除善法中，並非全部同時發生，所以說『容』。例如善的憂根，如果被斷除，就不會再出現，因為已經捨棄了對欲界的貪戀。欲界剩餘的善業斷除之後仍然會發生，因為已經成就了。緣縛斷的解釋如原文可知。另外，《婆沙論》第一百零九卷說，有人問：『諸無漏思（asaṃskṛta-citta，無為的心）相應、俱有的，都能正確地斷除前三種業，為什麼只說無漏學思？』回答說：『思能夠發動諸法，使之斷除，所以特別說明。』還有一種說法是：『雖然都能斷除，這裡辨別業力，所以只說思。』問：『如果這樣，也應該說隨轉身、語業，為什麼只說思呢？』答：『這種學思與無漏慧相應而運轉，同一所緣、同一行相、同一所依，互相幫助，力量強大，能夠斷除諸業。身、語業沒有這樣的情況，所以不說。』

頌文『至故名俱業者』，這是第三種敘述不同的說法。前一位老師從五趣（pañca-gatayaḥ，五道輪迴）的角度來說明，后一位老師從五斷的角度來說明，都不是正確的意義。《婆沙論》的評論家的意思是說，在欲界中，惡業勝過善業，但是惡業都稱為黑黑，因為惡業佔優勢。善業不會侵凌雜染，但是善業都稱為黑白，因為善業處於劣勢，被惡業侵凌雜染。

English version The verse 'To the extent that the four cause pure white to be exhausted' is answered by the following verse.

The treatise 'To the extent that only pure black is exhausted' explains the first verse. Dharmajñāna (knowledge of dharma) and kṣānti (patience) of the family of knowledge are named from their result, hence the name dharmajñāna-kṣānti. Because they cannot completely sever unwholesome deeds, four are severed in the path of seeing and eight in the path of cultivation, totaling twelve that can be severed.

『Having departed from the defilements of the desire realm, to the extent that pure white karma is exhausted』 explains the second verse. Because unwholesome deeds of the desire realm and the bonds of the form realm are severed, the principle is the same as wholesome deeds of the desire realm. However, at this time, the remaining unwholesome deeds of the desire realm are further severed. This is stated in terms of the point where they are exhausted together with the remaining karma. Therefore, it is collectively called the ninth unwholesome. The remaining text can be understood on its own.

『For what reason do the various grounds, to the extent that they can sever, and not others?』 This is a question.

『Because all wholesome dharmas, to the extent that they have not departed from attachment』 is the answer. If the severance of afflictions is severance by nature, after severance, there is no possibility of it arising again. Because wholesome deeds with outflows are not severance by nature, but severance by conditions, after severance, there is still the possibility of it arising again. Among the severance of wholesome deeds, not all arise simultaneously, hence the word 『possibility』 is used. For example, the root of wholesome sorrow, once severed, will not manifest again, because attachment to the desire realm has been abandoned. The remaining wholesome deeds of the desire realm, even after severance, still manifest, because they have been accomplished. The explanation of severance by conditions is as can be understood from the text. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 109 says, someone asked: 『All undefiled thoughts (asaṃskṛta-citta) that are associated and co-existent can correctly sever the first three types of karma. Why only speak of undefiled learning thoughts?』 The answer is: 『Thoughts can initiate all dharmas, causing them to be severed, therefore it is specifically mentioned.』 Another explanation is: 『Although all can sever, this discusses karma, therefore only thoughts are mentioned.』 The question is: 『If so, then one should also speak of accompanying bodily and verbal karma. Why only speak of thoughts?』 The answer is: 『These learning thoughts operate in accordance with undefiled wisdom, with the same object, the same aspect, and the same basis. They assist each other with great strength and can sever all karma. Bodily and verbal karma do not have this, therefore they are not mentioned.』

The verse 『To the extent that they are called co-existing karma』 is the third narration of different views. The former teacher explains from the perspective of the five destinies (pañca-gatayaḥ), while the latter teacher explains from the perspective of the five severances, neither of which is the correct meaning. The commentator of the Mahāvibhāṣā means to say that in the desire realm, evil surpasses good, but all evil karma is called black-black, because evil is dominant. Wholesome deeds do not encroach upon defilement, but all wholesome karma is called black-white, because wholesome deeds are inferior and are encroached upon by evil.

【English Translation】 The verse 'To the extent that the four cause pure white to be exhausted' is answered by the following verse.

The treatise 'To the extent that only pure black is exhausted' explains the first verse. Dharmajñāna (knowledge of dharma) and kṣānti (patience) of the family of knowledge are named from their result, hence the name dharmajñāna-kṣānti. Because they cannot completely sever unwholesome deeds, four are severed in the path of seeing and eight in the path of cultivation, totaling twelve that can be severed.

'Having departed from the defilements of the desire realm, to the extent that pure white karma is exhausted' explains the second verse. Because unwholesome deeds of the desire realm and the bonds of the form realm are severed, the principle is the same as wholesome deeds of the desire realm. However, at this time, the remaining unwholesome deeds of the desire realm are further severed. This is stated in terms of the point where they are exhausted together with the remaining karma. Therefore, it is collectively called the ninth unwholesome. The remaining text can be understood on its own.

'For what reason do the various grounds, to the extent that they can sever, and not others?' This is a question.

'Because all wholesome dharmas, to the extent that they have not departed from attachment' is the answer. If the severance of afflictions is severance by nature, after severance, there is no possibility of it arising again. Because wholesome deeds with outflows are not severance by nature, but severance by conditions, after severance, there is still the possibility of it arising again. Among the severance of wholesome deeds, not all arise simultaneously, hence the word 'possibility' is used. For example, the root of wholesome sorrow, once severed, will not manifest again, because attachment to the desire realm has been abandoned. The remaining wholesome deeds of the desire realm, even after severance, still manifest, because they have been accomplished. The explanation of severance by conditions is as can be understood from the text. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 109 says, someone asked: 'All undefiled thoughts (asaṃskṛta-citta) that are associated and co-existent can correctly sever the first three types of karma. Why only speak of undefiled learning thoughts?' The answer is: 'Thoughts can initiate all dharmas, causing them to be severed, therefore it is specifically mentioned.' Another explanation is: 'Although all can sever, this discusses karma, therefore only thoughts are mentioned.' The question is: 'If so, then one should also speak of accompanying bodily and verbal karma. Why only speak of thoughts?' The answer is: 'These learning thoughts operate in accordance with undefiled wisdom, with the same object, the same aspect, and the same basis. They assist each other with great strength and can sever all karma. Bodily and verbal karma do not have this, therefore they are not mentioned.'

The verse 'To the extent that they are called co-existing karma' is the third narration of different views. The former teacher explains from the perspective of the five destinies (pañca-gatayaḥ), while the latter teacher explains from the perspective of the five severances, neither of which is the correct meaning. The commentator of the Mahāvibhāṣā means to say that in the desire realm, evil surpasses good, but all evil karma is called black-black, because evil is dominant. Wholesome deeds do not encroach upon defilement, but all wholesome karma is called black-white, because wholesome deeds are inferior and are encroached upon by evil.

正理意破亦同婆沙。

又經中說至即諸三妙行者。此即第八明牟尼清凈。上兩句明三牟尼。下兩句明三清凈　牟尼。此云寂默。

論曰至故名牟尼者。釋上兩句無學身．語業．及意。名三牟尼。非以意業為牟尼體。所以者何。勝義牟尼唯心為體。其相難顯。由身．語業離眾惡故。可以比知。有比用故。說身．語業亦名牟尼。意思既非勝義。復無比用。不名牟尼　故正理云。此心牟尼。由身．語業離眾惡故。可以比知。意業于中無能比用。唯能．所比合立牟尼(已上論文)又身．語業是遠離戒體。能離眾惡戒名遠離。意業不然。無無表故非遠離體。由遠離惡義。建立牟尼。故即心由身．語業。能有所離故名牟尼。

何故牟尼唯在無學者。問。

以阿羅漢至永寂靜故者。答。以阿羅漢是實牟尼。諸煩惱言永寂靜故。非有學等　煩惱如言喧雜名煩惱言　又解煩惱如言相似。言謂言諍。煩惱謂煩惱諍。名煩惱言　又解煩惱緣言起故名煩惱言。雖有煩惱亦不緣言。此中且據緣言起說。

諸身．語意至邪清凈故者。釋下兩句。三種妙行名三清凈。通有漏．無漏。若有漏善。暫時遠離惡行．煩惱名為清凈。若無漏善。永得遠離惡行．煩惱名為清凈　故正理四十一云。無漏妙行永離惡行．煩惱垢故可名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『正理意破亦同婆沙』：這句話的意思是說，《正理》的觀點和《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，即《大毗婆沙論》，佛教論書）的觀點在這個問題上是一致的。

『又經中說至即諸三妙行者』：經文中說到的『至』，指的就是三種殊勝的妙行。這裡指的是第八明牟尼清凈。上面兩句解釋了三牟尼，下面兩句解釋了三清凈牟尼。牟尼（Muni）的意思是寂默。

『論曰至故名牟尼者』：論中解釋上面兩句，無學（Asaiksa，指已證阿羅漢果位，不再需要學習的人）的身、語、意業，稱為三牟尼。但並不是以意業作為牟尼的本體。為什麼呢？因為勝義（Paramartha，究竟真實之義）的牟尼是以心為本體的，它的相狀難以顯現。由於身、語業遠離各種惡行，所以可以通過它們來推知。因為有比照的作用，所以說身、語業也稱為牟尼。而意業既不是勝義的，又沒有比照的作用，所以不稱為牟尼。因此，《正理》中說：『此心牟尼，由於身、語業遠離各種惡行，所以可以通過它們來推知，意業在其中沒有能比照的作用，只有能比照的和所比照的合在一起才能成立牟尼。』（以上是論文的內容）而且，身、語業是遠離戒體的，能夠遠離各種惡行的戒律稱為遠離。意業不是這樣，因為它沒有無表色（Avijñapti-rupa，一種不可見的色法），所以不是遠離的本體。由於遠離惡的意義，才建立了牟尼。所以說，心通過身、語業，能夠有所遠離，因此稱為牟尼。

『何故牟尼唯在無學者』：這是提問，為什麼牟尼只存在於無學之人中？

『以阿羅漢至永寂靜故者』：這是回答。因為阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）才是真正的牟尼，他們的各種煩惱之言永遠寂靜。而有學（Saiksa，指還在學習，尚未證得阿羅漢果位的人）等不是這樣。煩惱如言喧雜，所以稱為煩惱言。另一種解釋是，煩惱和言相似。言指的是言諍，煩惱指的是煩惱諍，所以稱為煩惱言。還有一種解釋是，煩惱緣于言而生起，所以稱為煩惱言。雖然有煩惱，但不一定緣于言。這裡暫且根據緣于言而生起的情況來說。

『諸身．語意至邪清凈故者』：這是解釋下面兩句。三種妙行稱為三清凈，通於有漏（Sasrava，指有煩惱，會導致輪迴的善行）和無漏（Anasrava，指沒有煩惱，不會導致輪迴的善行）。如果有漏的善行，暫時遠離惡行和煩惱，就稱為清凈。如果是無漏的善行，永遠能夠遠離惡行和煩惱，就稱為清凈。因此，《正理》第四十一卷中說：『無漏的妙行，因為永遠遠離惡行和煩惱垢，所以可以稱為清凈。』

English version: 『正理意破亦同婆沙』：This sentence means that the view of Nyaya (正理，a school of Indian philosophy) is the same as that of Vibhasa (婆沙，referring to the Mahavibhasa, a Buddhist treatise) on this issue.

『又經中說至即諸三妙行者』：The 『至』 mentioned in the sutra refers to the three excellent virtuous conducts. This refers to the eighth, the purity of Muni. The first two sentences explain the three Munis, and the next two sentences explain the three pure Munis. Muni (牟尼) means silence.

『論曰至故名牟尼者』：The treatise explains the above two sentences, stating that the body, speech, and mind actions of an Asaiksa (無學，one who has attained the Arhatship and no longer needs to learn) are called the three Munis. However, the mind action is not the essence of Muni. Why? Because the ultimate (Paramartha, 勝義) Muni has the mind as its essence, and its appearance is difficult to manifest. Because the body and speech actions are free from all evil deeds, they can be inferred. Because there is a comparative function, the body and speech actions are also called Muni. However, the mind action is neither ultimate nor has a comparative function, so it is not called Muni. Therefore, the Nyaya (正理) says: 『This mind is Muni, because the body and speech actions are free from all evil deeds, they can be inferred. The mind action has no comparative function in it. Only the comparable and the compared together can establish Muni.』 (The above is the content of the treatise.) Moreover, the body and speech actions are the essence of abandoning precepts, and the precepts that can abandon all evil deeds are called abandonment. The mind action is not like this, because it has no Avijñapti-rupa (無表色，unmanifested form), so it is not the essence of abandonment. Because of the meaning of abandoning evil, Muni is established. Therefore, it is said that the mind, through the body and speech actions, can abandon something, so it is called Muni.

『何故牟尼唯在無學者』：This is a question, why does Muni only exist in those who are Asaiksa (無學)?

『以阿羅漢至永寂靜故者』：This is the answer. Because Arhats (阿羅漢，saints who have exhausted their afflictions and attained liberation) are the true Munis, their words of all afflictions are forever silent. Those who are Saiksa (有學，those who are still learning and have not yet attained Arhatship) are not like this. Afflictions are like noisy words, so they are called words of affliction. Another explanation is that afflictions are similar to words. Words refer to disputes, and afflictions refer to affliction disputes, so they are called words of affliction. Another explanation is that afflictions arise from words, so they are called words of affliction. Although there are afflictions, they do not necessarily arise from words. Here, we are temporarily speaking according to the situation where they arise from words.

『諸身．語意至邪清凈故者』：This explains the following two sentences. The three virtuous conducts are called the three purities, which apply to both Sasrava (有漏，with outflows, referring to good deeds that have afflictions and lead to reincarnation) and Anasrava (無漏，without outflows, referring to good deeds that have no afflictions and do not lead to reincarnation). If there are Sasrava good deeds, temporarily abandoning evil deeds and afflictions is called purity. If there are Anasrava good deeds, they can forever abandon evil deeds and afflictions, which is called purity. Therefore, the forty-first volume of the Nyaya (正理) says: 『Anasrava virtuous conducts can be called purity because they forever abandon evil deeds and the defilements of afflictions.』

【English Translation】『正理意破亦同婆沙』：This sentence means that the view of Nyaya is the same as that of Vibhasa on this issue.

『又經中說至即諸三妙行者』：The 『至』 mentioned in the sutra refers to the three excellent virtuous conducts. This refers to the eighth, the purity of Muni. The first two sentences explain the three Munis, and the next two sentences explain the three pure Munis. Muni means silence.

『論曰至故名牟尼者』：The treatise explains the above two sentences, stating that the body, speech, and mind actions of an Asaiksa are called the three Munis. However, the mind action is not the essence of Muni. Why? Because the ultimate Muni has the mind as its essence, and its appearance is difficult to manifest. Because the body and speech actions are free from all evil deeds, they can be inferred. Because there is a comparative function, the body and speech actions are also called Muni. However, the mind action is neither ultimate nor has a comparative function, so it is not called Muni. Therefore, the Nyaya says: 『This mind is Muni, because the body and speech actions are free from all evil deeds, they can be inferred. The mind action has no comparative function in it. Only the comparable and the compared together can establish Muni.』 (The above is the content of the treatise.) Moreover, the body and speech actions are the essence of abandoning precepts, and the precepts that can abandon all evil deeds are called abandonment. The mind action is not like this, because it has no Avijñapti-rupa, so it is not the essence of abandonment. Because of the meaning of abandoning evil, Muni is established. Therefore, it is said that the mind, through the body and speech actions, can abandon something, so it is called Muni.

『何故牟尼唯在無學者』：This is a question, why does Muni only exist in those who are Asaiksa?

『以阿羅漢至永寂靜故者』：This is the answer. Because Arhats are the true Munis, their words of all afflictions are forever silent. Those who are Saiksa are not like this. Afflictions are like noisy words, so they are called words of affliction. Another explanation is that afflictions are similar to words. Words refer to disputes, and afflictions refer to affliction disputes, so they are called words of affliction. Another explanation is that afflictions arise from words, so they are called words of affliction. Although there are afflictions, they do not necessarily arise from words. Here, we are temporarily speaking according to the situation where they arise from words.

『諸身．語意至邪清凈故者』：This explains the following two sentences. The three virtuous conducts are called the three purities, which apply to both Sasrava and Anasrava. If there are Sasrava good deeds, temporarily abandoning evil deeds and afflictions is called purity. If there are Anasrava good deeds, they can forever abandon evil deeds and afflictions, which is called purity. Therefore, the forty-first volume of the Nyaya says: 『Anasrava virtuous conducts can be called purity because they forever abandon evil deeds and the defilements of afflictions.』

清凈。有漏妙行猶為惡行煩惱垢污。如何清凈　此亦暫時能離惡行煩惱垢故得清凈名　說此二者息二計故　又婆沙一百一十四云。問為三妙行攝三寂默三寂默攝三妙行耶。答應作四句。有妙行非寂默。謂除無學身．語妙行余身．語妙行。及一切意妙行　有寂默非妙行。謂無學心。有妙行亦寂默。謂無學身．語妙行。

有非妙行非寂默。謂除前相。為三妙行攝三清凈。三清凈攝三妙行耶。答隨其事展轉相攝。為三清凈攝三寂默。三寂默攝三清凈耶。答應作四句。有清凈非寂默。謂除無學身．語清凈。余身．語清凈．及一切意清凈。此復云何。謂學．非學非無學身．語清凈．及三種意清凈。以意寂默唯無學心故。有寂默非清凈。謂無學心非業性故。有清凈亦寂默。謂無學身．語清凈。有非清凈非寂默。謂除前相　解云既言學．非學非無學身．語。清凈非寂默。故知無學人身中有漏善身．語表．無表。但是清凈非寂默攝。以是非學非無學故。身．語寂默但取無漏道共戒。無學身．語。及無漏意識為三寂默體　又解三寂默亦通有漏善。而言非學非無學身．語清凈非寂默者。此據異生身．語清凈說　又經中說至三妙行翻此者。此即第九。明惡行．妙行。上三句明惡行。下一句明妙行。

論曰至別有體故者。釋上三句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本清凈。有漏的殊妙行為仍然是被煩惱所污染的惡行。如何才能清凈？答：這只是暫時能夠脫離惡行和煩惱的染污，所以才得到清凈的名稱。說這二者是爲了止息兩種計度（執著）。又，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百一十四卷中說：問：是三妙行包含三寂默，還是三寂默包含三妙行呢？答：應該作四句分別。有妙行不是寂默，指的是除了無學（aśaikṣa）的身、語妙行之外的其餘身、語妙行，以及一切意的妙行。有寂默不是妙行，指的是無學心。有妙行也是寂默，指的是無學的身、語妙行。有既非妙行也非寂默，指的是除去以上所說的那些情況。問：是三妙行包含三清凈，還是三清凈包含三妙行呢？答：隨其情況，輾轉互相包含。問：是三清凈包含三寂默，還是三寂默包含三清凈呢？答：應該作四句分別。有清凈不是寂默，指的是除了無學身、語清凈之外的其餘身、語清凈，以及一切意清凈。這又是指什麼呢？指的是有學（śaikṣa）、非學非無學（既不是有學也不是無學）的身、語清凈，以及三種意清凈。因為意的寂默只有無學心。有寂默不是清凈，指的是無學心不是業的性質。有清凈也是寂默，指的是無學身、語清凈。有既非清凈也非寂默，指的是除去以上所說的那些情況。解釋說，既然說了有學、非學非無學的身、語清凈不是寂默，那麼就知道無學人身中，有漏的善身、語表（vijñapti）、無表（avijñapti），都只是清凈而不是寂默所包含的。因為它們既不是有學也不是無學。身、語寂默只是指無漏道共戒（anāsrava-mārga-samanvāgata-śīla）、無學身、語，以及無漏意識作為三寂默的本體。又解釋說，三寂默也通於有漏善，而說非學非無學的身、語清凈不是寂默，這是根據異生（pṛthag-jana）的身、語清凈來說的。又經中說到三妙行來翻譯這些，這指的是第九，說明惡行、妙行。上面三句說明惡行，下一句說明妙行。論中說「乃至別有體故」，這是解釋上面的三句。

【English Translation】 English version 'Purity.' Defiled meritorious conduct that is subject to outflows is still considered evil conduct, tainted by afflictions. How can there be purity? Answer: This is only temporarily able to be separated from evil conduct and the defilement of afflictions, therefore it obtains the name of purity. Speaking of these two is to cease the two kinds of conceptualizations (attachments). Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary on the Abhidharma), volume 114, states: Question: Do the three meritorious conducts encompass the three silences, or do the three silences encompass the three meritorious conducts? Answer: Four possibilities should be distinguished. There are meritorious conducts that are not silences, referring to the remaining meritorious conducts of body and speech besides the non-learning (aśaikṣa) meritorious conducts of body and speech, and all meritorious conducts of mind. There are silences that are not meritorious conducts, referring to the non-learning mind. There are meritorious conducts that are also silences, referring to the non-learning meritorious conducts of body and speech. There are those that are neither meritorious conducts nor silences, referring to the exclusion of the aforementioned cases. Question: Do the three meritorious conducts encompass the three purities, or do the three purities encompass the three meritorious conducts? Answer: Depending on the circumstances, they encompass each other reciprocally. Question: Do the three purities encompass the three silences, or do the three silences encompass the three purities? Answer: Four possibilities should be distinguished. There are purities that are not silences, referring to the remaining purities of body and speech besides the non-learning purities of body and speech, and all purities of mind. What does this refer to? It refers to the learning (śaikṣa), non-learning-non-no-more-learning (neither learning nor no-more-learning) purities of body and speech, and the three kinds of purities of mind, because the silence of mind is only the non-learning mind. There are silences that are not purities, referring to the non-learning mind not being of the nature of karma. There are purities that are also silences, referring to the non-learning purities of body and speech. There are those that are neither purities nor silences, referring to the exclusion of the aforementioned cases. The explanation says that since it is stated that the learning, non-learning-non-no-more-learning purities of body and speech are not silences, then it is known that in the body of a non-learning person, the meritorious body and speech expressions (vijñapti) and non-expressions (avijñapti) that are subject to outflows are only encompassed by purity and not silence, because they are neither learning nor no-more-learning. The silences of body and speech only refer to the non-outflow path-concomitant precepts (anāsrava-mārga-samanvāgata-śīla), the non-learning body and speech, and the non-outflow consciousness as the substance of the three silences. Another explanation says that the three silences also extend to meritorious conduct that is subject to outflows, and that the statement that the non-learning-non-no-more-learning purities of body and speech are not silences is based on the purity of body and speech of ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana). Furthermore, the sutras speak of translating these into the three meritorious conducts, which refers to the ninth, explaining evil conduct and meritorious conduct. The above three sentences explain evil conduct, and the following sentence explains meritorious conduct. The treatise says 'even to the extent that there is a separate substance,' which explains the above three sentences.

。貪．瞋．邪見亦名惡行。離思別有故復開三。離身．語業更無別體。故於身．語不可說也　或此三種惡行相應故名惡行。

譬喻者言至為意業故者。經部譬喻者言貪等三種即是意思。離思無體。引證可知。

若爾則應至合成一體者。說一切有部難。若說貪等即是意思。是則應有業與煩惱合成一體。

許有煩惱至斯有何失者。譬喻者答。我許貪等即是意業斯有何失。

毗婆沙師至為門轉故者。毗婆沙師總非。若許便違眾多理教成大過失。故正理論云。由阿笈摩及正理故。阿笈摩者謂契經言貪．瞋．邪見是業緣集。故知貪等非即業性(廣引云云)正理者何。謂若煩惱即是業者。十二緣起．及三障等差別應無。由此證知貪等非業(已上論文)然契經說。貪．瞋．邪見是意業者。顯思以彼貪．瞋．邪見為門轉故。

由此能感至故名惡行者。釋惡行名。感非愛果。惠所訶厭故名為惡　動轉捷利故名為行　此行即惡故名惡行持業釋也。

三妙行者至無瞋正見者。釋第四句。此三妙行翻三惡行。業有其三。非業亦三。言妙行者。正感愛果故。智所贊故名妙。動轉捷利故名為行。此行即妙。故名妙行。

正見　邪見至如何成善惡者。問。如身．語業。若離殺等能利益他可名善行。若殺生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：貪婪（Tan，一種心理狀態），嗔恨（Chen，一種負面情緒），邪見（Xiejian，錯誤的觀點）也被稱為惡行。因為它們與思（Si，思考）不同，所以另外分為三種。離開身（Shen，身體）和語（Yu，語言）的業（Ye，行為）就沒有其他的實體。因此，對於身和語，不能這樣說。或者說，這三種惡行相互關聯，所以被稱為惡行。

譬喻者（Piyuzhe，一種佛教論師）說：『因為是意業（Yiye，心理行為）的緣故。』經部（Jingbu，佛教宗派）的譬喻者說，貪等三種就是意思，離開思就沒有實體，引用證據就可以知道。

如果這樣，那麼就應該成為一體。說一切有部（Shuo Yi Qie You Bu，佛教宗派）反駁說：如果說貪等就是意思，那麼就應該有業與煩惱（Fannao，精神困擾）合成為一體的情況。

允許有煩惱，這有什麼損失呢？譬喻者回答說：我允許貪等就是意業，這有什麼損失呢？

毗婆沙師（P婆shashi，佛教論師）說：『因為是門轉的緣故。』毗婆沙師完全否定。如果允許這樣，就違背了許多道理和教義，造成很大的過失。所以《正理論》（Zheng Lilun，佛教論著）說：『由於阿笈摩（Agama，佛教經典）和正理的緣故。』阿笈摩指的是契經（Qijing，佛教經典）所說的貪、嗔、邪見是業的緣起和集合。因此，可知貪等不是業的性質（廣引云云）。正理是什麼呢？如果煩惱就是業，那麼十二緣起（Shi Er Yuanqi，佛教教義）以及三障（San Zhang，佛教障礙）等的差別就不應該存在。由此可以證明貪等不是業（以上是論文）。』然而，契經說貪、嗔、邪見是意業，這是顯示思以貪、嗔、邪見為門徑而運轉的緣故。

由此能夠感得，所以叫做惡行。解釋惡行的名稱。感得非喜愛的結果，被智慧所呵斥厭惡，所以叫做惡。動轉迅速敏捷，所以叫做行。此行就是惡，所以叫做惡行，這是持業釋。

三種妙行，沒有嗔恨和正見。解釋第四句。這三種妙行是與三種惡行相反的。業有三種，非業也有三種。說到妙行，是因為能夠感得喜愛的結果，被智慧所讚歎，所以叫做妙。動轉迅速敏捷，所以叫做行。此行就是妙，所以叫做妙行。

正見（Zhengjian，正確的見解），邪見，如何成為善惡呢？問：像身、語業，如果離開殺等能夠利益他人，可以叫做善行。如果殺生

【English Translation】 English version: Greed (Tan, a mental state), hatred (Chen, a negative emotion), and wrong views (Xiejian, incorrect perspectives) are also called evil deeds. Because they are different from thought (Si, thinking), they are further divided into three. Apart from the karma (Ye, actions) of body (Shen, physical) and speech (Yu, verbal), there is no other entity. Therefore, this cannot be said of body and speech. Alternatively, these three evil deeds are interconnected, so they are called evil deeds.

The Exemplifiers (Piyuzhe, a type of Buddhist philosopher) say: 'Because it is mental karma (Yiye, mental action).' The Exemplifiers of the Sautrantika school (Jingbu, a Buddhist school) say that greed and the other two are just thought; apart from thought, there is no entity. This can be known by citing evidence.

If that's the case, then they should become one entity. The Sarvastivadins (Shuo Yi Qie You Bu, a Buddhist school) object: If you say that greed and the others are just thought, then there should be cases where karma and afflictions (Fannao, mental distress) combine into one entity.

Allowing afflictions, what loss is there? The Exemplifiers answer: I allow that greed and the others are just mental karma; what loss is there in that?

The Vaibhashikas (P婆shashi, Buddhist philosophers) say: 'Because it is a gateway for transformation.' The Vaibhashikas completely deny this. If you allow this, you violate many principles and teachings, causing great faults. Therefore, the Tattvartha-sastra (Zheng Lilun, a Buddhist treatise) says: 'Due to the Agamas (Agama, Buddhist scriptures) and correct reasoning.' The Agamas refer to the sutras (Qijing, Buddhist scriptures) that say greed, hatred, and wrong views are the origin and collection of karma. Therefore, it can be known that greed and the others are not the nature of karma (extensive citations omitted). What is correct reasoning? If afflictions were karma, then the distinctions of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (Shi Er Yuanqi, Buddhist doctrine) and the Three Obstructions (San Zhang, Buddhist obstacles) should not exist. From this, it can be proven that greed and the others are not karma (the above is the text).' However, the sutras say that greed, hatred, and wrong views are mental karma; this shows that thought operates through greed, hatred, and wrong views as a gateway.

Because it can cause this, it is called an evil deed. Explaining the name of evil deed. It causes undesirable results and is condemned and disliked by wisdom, so it is called evil. Moving quickly and nimbly, it is called a deed. This deed is evil, so it is called an evil deed; this is a karmadharaya compound.

The three excellent deeds, without hatred and with right view. Explaining the fourth phrase. These three excellent deeds are the opposite of the three evil deeds. There are three types of karma, and three types of non-karma. Speaking of excellent deeds, it is because they can cause desirable results and are praised by wisdom, so they are called excellent. Moving quickly and nimbly, it is called a deed. This deed is excellent, so it is called an excellent deed.

Right view (Zhengjian, correct understanding), wrong view, how do they become good and evil? Question: Like the karma of body and speech, if, apart from killing and the like, they can benefit others, they can be called good deeds. If killing

等能損惱他可名惡行。正見．邪見。性是推求唯在意識。既無故思欲於事中益他損他。如何成善．惡。

能與損益為根本故者。答。由起正見不殺生等。由起邪見作殺生等。正見．邪見。雖正起時非損益他。能與身．語損．益諸業為根本故亦成善．惡　問意三種中何故不約餘二問答　解云而不說者略故不論　又解余之二種。容於事中損他不同邪見。容於事中益他不同正見。故不約彼為問　又問意思惡行中慢等亦是惡行。何故但說貪．瞋等三。意善行中信等亦是善行。何故但說無貪等三　解云以此三種粗品攝故十業道攝。是故偏說。

又經中言至如應成善惡者。此下第十明十業道。就中。一明業道體性。二釋業道名義。三義便明斷善。四明業道俱轉。五約處成業道。六明業道三果　就明業道體性中。一正明業道體。二明業道差別。此即正明業道體。

論曰至攝前惡行者。于惡妙行中。粗顯易知為善．惡業道。

不攝何等惡妙行耶者。問。

且不善中至令遠離故者。此下答。且不善中身惡業道。于身惡行不攝加行．後起。及余不善身業。即是飲酒。或執。或打。或縳等事。或行殺等。闕緣不成。以加行等非粗顯故不名業道。若身惡行令他有情或時失命。成殺業道。或時失財成盜業道。或失

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果某些行為能夠損害或惱怒他人，就可以稱之為惡行。正見（Samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）和邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）的本質在於推求，只存在於意識之中。既然沒有故意思考要在事情中利益或損害他人，又如何能構成善或惡呢？

回答：因為正見和邪見是產生損益的根本。由於生起正見，所以不殺生等等；由於生起邪見，所以會造作殺生等等。正見和邪見，雖然在剛生起時並非直接損害或利益他人，但它們能成為身、語產生損益諸業的根本，因此也構成善或惡。問：在意的三種（善、惡、無記）中，為什麼不圍繞其餘兩種（善和無記）進行問答？解釋說：因為省略的緣故，所以沒有討論。又解釋說，其餘兩種（善和無記）可能在行為中損害他人，這不同於邪見；可能在行為中利益他人，這不同於正見。所以沒有圍繞它們進行提問。又問：在意的惡行中，慢（Māna，傲慢）等等也是惡行，為什麼只說貪（Lobha，貪慾）、瞋（Dveṣa，嗔恨）等三種？在意的善行中，信（Śrāddha，信仰）等等也是善行，為什麼只說無貪（alobha，不貪）、無瞋（adveṣa，不嗔）等三種？解釋說：因為這三種（貪、瞋、癡）是粗顯的品類，包含在十業道中，所以特別說明。

經文中說，至於如何成就善惡。下面第十部分闡明十業道。其中，一、闡明業道的體性；二、解釋業道的名義；三、爲了方便而闡明斷善；四、闡明業道共同運作；五、根據處所成就業道；六、闡明業道的三種果報。在闡明業道體性中，一、正面闡明業道的體；二、闡明業道的差別。這裡是正面闡明業道的體。

論中說，包含之前的惡行。在惡妙行中，粗顯易知的行為是善惡業道。

不包含哪些惡妙行呢？這是提問。

回答：暫且說不善中，身體的惡業道，對於身體的惡行，不包含加行（prayoga，預備行為）、後起（prṣṭhalabdha，完成行為后的感受）以及其餘不善的身業，例如飲酒，或者執持，或者毆打，或者捆綁等事，或者進行殺生等，缺少因緣不能成就。因為加行等不是粗顯的，所以不稱為業道。如果身體的惡行使其他有情有時失去生命，就成就殺業道；有時失去財產，就成就盜業道；或者失去...

【English Translation】 English version: If something is able to harm or annoy others, it can be called an evil deed. Right View (Samyag-dṛṣṭi, correct view) and Wrong View (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi, incorrect view) are essentially based on seeking, and exist only in consciousness. Since there is no deliberate thought to benefit or harm others in the matter, how can it constitute good or evil?

Answer: Because Right View and Wrong View are the root of producing benefit and harm. Due to arising Right View, one does not kill, etc.; due to arising Wrong View, one commits killing, etc. Right View and Wrong View, although they do not directly harm or benefit others when they first arise, they can become the root of body and speech producing beneficial and harmful actions, thus also constituting good or evil. Question: Among the three types of intention (good, evil, and neutral), why not ask and answer about the other two (good and neutral)? The explanation is: because of brevity, they are not discussed. Another explanation is that the other two (good and neutral) may harm others in action, which is different from Wrong View; they may benefit others in action, which is different from Right View. Therefore, they are not questioned about.

Also, question: Among the evil actions of intention, pride (Māna, arrogance), etc., are also evil actions, why only mention greed (Lobha, desire), hatred (Dveṣa, aversion), etc., three types? Among the good actions of intention, faith (Śrāddha, belief), etc., are also good actions, why only mention non-greed (alobha, non-attachment), non-hatred (adveṣa, non-aversion), etc., three types? The explanation is: because these three (greed, hatred, delusion) are coarse categories, included in the ten karmic paths, therefore they are specifically mentioned.

The sutra says, as for how good and evil are accomplished. The tenth part below elucidates the ten karmic paths. Among them, 1. elucidate the nature of the karmic paths; 2. explain the meaning of the karmic paths; 3. elucidate the cutting off of good for convenience; 4. elucidate the co-functioning of the karmic paths; 5. accomplish the karmic paths according to location; 6. elucidate the three retributions of the karmic paths. In elucidating the nature of the karmic paths, 1. directly elucidate the substance of the karmic paths; 2. elucidate the differences of the karmic paths. Here is the direct elucidation of the substance of the karmic paths.

The treatise says, including the previous evil actions. Among the evil subtle actions, the coarse and easily known actions are the good and evil karmic paths.

What evil subtle actions are not included? This is the question.

Answer: For the time being, in the unwholesome, the evil karmic path of the body, for the evil actions of the body, does not include the preparatory action (prayoga, preliminary action), the subsequent action (prṣṭhalabdha, feeling after the completion of the action), and other unwholesome bodily actions, such as drinking alcohol, or holding, or beating, or binding, etc., or engaging in killing, etc., lacking conditions cannot be accomplished. Because the preparatory actions, etc., are not coarse, they are not called karmic paths. If the evil action of the body causes other sentient beings to sometimes lose their lives, it accomplishes the karmic path of killing; sometimes lose their property, it accomplishes the karmic path of stealing; or lose...

妻．妾邪淫業道。以失命等是粗顯故。說為業道。世尊為欲令遠離故。

語惡業道至後起及輕者。語惡業道于語惡行。不攝加行．後起。及輪王．北洲。染心歌等綺語是輕。身三業道損他是重。輪王．北洲一向不起。故身業等不說輕也　或飲酒等即是身輕。或行誑等闕緣不成亦名語輕。以加行等非粗顯故不名業道。若語惡粗顯易知方名業道。

意惡業道至及輕貪等者。意惡業道于意惡行不攝惡思。與思為道故名業道。此思不可還自作道故除惡思。及輪王時。北洲人等起輕貪等。非粗顯故不名業道　問何故不言加行．後起　解云粗品現前即成根本。故不別言加行．後起。如下當說。

善業道中至施供養等者。此下明善業道。善業道中身善業道。于身妙行不攝加行．後起。及余善身業即離飲酒。或行佈施。或供養等。非粗顯故不名業道。

語善業道至謂愛語等者。語善業道于語妙行不攝一分。謂愛語．和合語．實語等。非粗顯故而非業道　問善語業道何故不說加行．後起　解云理亦應言加行．後起。而不說者影顯可知　或等中顯　或愛語等以是輕故尚非業道。況前加行．及與後起。此即舉重顯輕。略而不說。

意善業道至謂諸善思者。意善業道于意妙行不攝善思。與思為道名為業道。此思

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於妻、妾的邪淫業道，因為失命等是粗顯的，所以被說為業道。世尊爲了讓人們遠離這些，才這樣說的。

關於語惡業道，直到後起和輕微的方面。語惡業道在語惡行中，不包括加行、後起，以及輪王（Chakravarti，擁有轉輪聖王權力的統治者）、北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，佛教宇宙觀中的北方大洲）的人，以及染心的歌唱等綺語，這些都是輕微的。身三業道中，損害他人是嚴重的。輪王、北俱盧洲的人一向不起（惡業），所以身業等不說輕微的方面。或者飲酒等就是身業的輕微方面。或者進行欺騙等，因為缺少因緣而不能構成（業），也稱為語輕。因為加行等不是粗顯的，所以不稱為業道。如果語惡是粗顯且容易被認識的，才稱為業道。

關於意惡業道，直到輕微的貪婪等。意惡業道在意惡行中，不包括惡思。因為與思一起作為道，所以稱為業道。這種思不能返回來自己作為道，所以排除惡思。以及輪王時代，北俱盧洲的人等，生起輕微的貪婪等，因為不是粗顯的，所以不稱為業道。問：為什麼不說加行、後起？答：粗品現前就成為根本，所以不特別說加行、後起，如下面將要說的。

關於善業道中，直到佈施供養等。下面說明善業道。善業道中，身善業道在身妙行中，不包括加行、後起，以及其餘的善身業，即離開飲酒，或者進行佈施，或者供養等，因為不是粗顯的，所以不稱為業道。

關於語善業道，直到愛語等。語善業道在語妙行中，不包括一部分，即愛語、和合語、實語等，因為不是粗顯的，所以不是業道。問：善語業道為什麼不說加行、後起？答：道理上也應該說加行、後起，但是不說是因為影顯可知。或者在『等』中顯示。或者愛語等因為是輕微的，尚且不是業道，何況是之前的加行以及之後的後起。這就是舉重顯輕，省略而不說。

關於意善業道，直到諸善思。意善業道在意妙行中，不包括善思。與思一起作為道，稱為業道。這種思

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the path of evil deeds related to sexual misconduct with wives and concubines, it is called a path of deeds because loss of life and other consequences are obvious and manifest. The World-Honored One (世尊, Śākyamuni Buddha) spoke in this way to encourage people to stay away from these actions.

Regarding the path of evil speech, up to the subsequent actions and minor aspects. The path of evil speech, within the realm of evil speech actions, does not include preparatory actions (加行, prayoga), subsequent actions (後起, prṣṭhalabdha), nor the speech of a Chakravarti (輪王, a universal monarch) or the people of Uttarakuru (北俱盧洲, the northern continent in Buddhist cosmology), nor frivolous speech such as songs with defiled minds, as these are minor. Among the three paths of bodily action, harming others is serious. Chakravartis and the people of Uttarakuru generally do not engage in (evil) actions, so the minor aspects of bodily actions are not discussed. Or, actions like drinking alcohol are minor aspects of bodily action. Or, actions like engaging in deception, which do not fully materialize due to a lack of conditions, are also considered minor speech. Because preparatory actions and other aspects are not obvious and manifest, they are not called paths of deeds. Only evil speech that is obvious and easily recognized is called a path of deeds.

Regarding the path of evil thought, up to minor greed and other aspects. The path of evil thought, within the realm of evil thought actions, does not include evil thoughts. Because it is together with thought that it forms a path, it is called a path of deeds. These thoughts cannot revert to becoming a path themselves, so evil thoughts are excluded. And during the time of a Chakravarti, the people of Uttarakuru and others may generate minor greed and other aspects, but because these are not obvious and manifest, they are not called paths of deeds. Question: Why are preparatory actions and subsequent actions not mentioned? Answer: When a coarse element manifests, it becomes fundamental, so preparatory actions and subsequent actions are not specifically mentioned, as will be discussed below.

Regarding the path of good deeds, up to acts of giving and offering. The following explains the path of good deeds. Within the path of good deeds, the path of good bodily action, within the realm of good bodily actions, does not include preparatory actions, subsequent actions, nor other good bodily actions such as abstaining from drinking alcohol, or engaging in giving, or making offerings, as these are not obvious and manifest, they are not called paths of deeds.

Regarding the path of good speech, up to loving speech and other aspects. The path of good speech, within the realm of good speech actions, does not include certain aspects, namely loving speech, harmonious speech, truthful speech, and other aspects, as these are not obvious and manifest, they are not paths of deeds. Question: Why are preparatory actions and subsequent actions not mentioned in the path of good speech? Answer: In principle, preparatory actions and subsequent actions should also be mentioned, but they are not mentioned because they are implicitly understood. Or, they are implied within the 'etcetera'. Or, loving speech and other aspects are minor and therefore not paths of deeds, let alone the preceding preparatory actions and the subsequent actions. This is an example of highlighting the significant to reveal the insignificant, omitting it for brevity.

Regarding the path of good thought, up to virtuous thoughts. The path of good thought, within the realm of good thought actions, does not include virtuous thoughts. Together with thought, it forms a path, and is called a path of deeds. This thought

非與思為道故。故不攝思　問何故不言輕無貪等非業道耶　解云準前惡業于善業中。亦應具說輕無貪等。而不說略而不論　或前惡中說輕貪等善中不說。影顯可知　或善法起難。起即成業道。故不言輕。惡法起易。故分二種。重為業道。輕非業道雖有三解前二為勝　問何故不言加行後起　解云粗品現前即根本故無加行．後起。亦如下說。

十業道中至表無表耶者。此下第二明業道差別。就中。一約表．無表明。二約三根以辨。三明業道依處。四問答分別。五明業道相　就約表．無表明中。一約根本明。二約前．后辨　此即第一約根本明。此即問起。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至定生唯無表者。上兩句明不善業道。下兩句明善業道。

論曰至唯無表故者。釋第一句。此六業道無表決定。表即不定。如文可知。唯欲邪行至如自生喜者。釋第二句。邪行業道表．無表定。

七善業道至必依表故者。釋第三句。七善業道若從他受生別解脫戒。必皆具二謂表．無表。受生尸羅必依表故　問若言受生必皆具二何故前文別解律儀非必定依表業而發　解云既言受生明非自然此文據受生尸羅故言具二。前文通據自然．見道得戒。故云非必定依表業而發　問若言無表有離表生。何故下文言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為（這些）不是與『思』（cetanā, 意圖）相應的『道』（mārga, 道路），所以不包括『思』。問：為什麼不說輕微的無貪等不是業道呢？答：依照前面的惡業，在善業中也應該完整地說出輕微的無貪等，但是（這裡）省略了，沒有討論。或者，在前面的惡業中說了輕微的貪等，在善業中沒有說，（這是）暗示可以知道。或者，善法難以生起，一旦生起就成為業道，所以不說輕微的。惡法容易生起，所以分為兩種。重的（行為）是業道，輕的不是業道。雖然有三種解釋，但前兩種更好。問：為什麼不說加行和後起呢？答：粗重的品類現前就是根本，所以沒有加行和後起。也如下面所說。

『十業道』（daśa karmapathāḥ, 十種行為的道路）中，到『表』（vijñapti, 表達）和『無表』（avijñapti, 無表達）是什麼意思？這是下面第二部分，說明業道的差別。其中，第一是根據『表』和『無表』來辨別，第二是根據三種根本煩惱來辨別，第三是說明業道所依賴的處所，第四是問答分別，第五是說明業道的相狀。在根據『表』和『無表』來辨別中，第一是根據根本來闡明，第二是根據前和後來辨別。這裡是第一部分，根據根本來闡明。這是提問。

『不爾者』（naivam, 如果不是這樣），是回答。

『云何者』（katham, 怎麼樣），是征問。

頌曰：到『定生唯無表者』（niyataṃ jāyate kevalam avijñaptiḥ, 決定產生，唯有無表）。上面兩句說明不善業道，下面兩句說明善業道。

論曰：到『唯無表故者』（kevalam avijñaptiḥ hetuḥ, 唯有無表是原因）。解釋第一句。這六種業道（指殺生、偷盜、邪淫、妄語、兩舌、惡口）的『無表』是決定的，『表』是不定的。如文中所說可以知道。『唯欲邪行』（kāmaparicāra, 邪淫）到『如自生喜者』（svayaṃ utpadyate prītiḥ, 如自己產生喜悅）。解釋第二句。邪淫業道的『表』和『無表』是決定的。

『七善業道』（sapta kuśalāḥ karmapathāḥ, 七種善的行為道路）到『必依表故者』（avaśyaṃ vijñaptiṃ niśritya, 必定依賴表達）。解釋第三句。七種善業道如果從他人接受而生起別解脫戒（prātimokṣa, 別解脫戒），必定都具備『表』和『無表』兩種。受生尸羅（śīla, 戒律）必定依賴『表』。問：如果說受生必定都具備兩種，為什麼前面的經文中說別解脫律儀（prātimokṣa-saṃvara, 別解脫律儀）不是必定依賴『表業』而生起？答：既然說是受生，就說明不是自然而然的。這裡的經文是根據受生尸羅來說的，所以說具備兩種。前面的經文是通用於自然和見道（darśanamārga, 見道）而得戒，所以說不是必定依賴『表業』而生起。問：如果說『無表』有離開『表』而生起的，為什麼下面的經文說

【English Translation】 English version: Because these are not 『paths』 (mārga) that correspond to 『thought』 (cetanā), therefore thought is not included. Question: Why is it not said that slight non-greed, etc., are not karma-paths? Answer: According to the previous evil karma, slight non-greed, etc., should also be fully stated in good karma, but it is omitted and not discussed. Or, slight greed, etc., are mentioned in the previous evil karma, but not in the good karma, which is implicitly understood. Or, it is difficult for good dharmas to arise; once they arise, they become karma-paths, so slight ones are not mentioned. Evil dharmas are easy to arise, so they are divided into two types. Heavy actions are karma-paths, while light actions are not. Although there are three explanations, the first two are better. Question: Why are the preliminary and subsequent actions not mentioned? Answer: The gross categories are immediately present as the root, so there are no preliminary or subsequent actions. It is also as stated below.

Among the 『ten karma-paths』 (daśa karmapathāḥ), what is meant by 『expression』 (vijñapti) and 『non-expression』 (avijñapti)? This is the second part below, explaining the differences in karma-paths. Among them, first, distinctions are made based on 『expression』 and 『non-expression』; second, distinctions are made based on the three root afflictions; third, the places where karma-paths rely are explained; fourth, questions and answers are distinguished; and fifth, the characteristics of karma-paths are explained. In distinguishing based on 『expression』 and 『non-expression,』 first, it is explained based on the root; second, distinctions are made based on before and after. This is the first part, explaining based on the root. This is the question arising.

『If not so』 (naivam), is the answer.

『How so』 (katham), is the inquiry.

The verse says: to 『definitely arises, only non-expression』 (niyataṃ jāyate kevalam avijñaptiḥ). The above two lines explain the unwholesome karma-paths, and the below two lines explain the wholesome karma-paths.

The treatise says: to 『only non-expression is the reason』 (kevalam avijñaptiḥ hetuḥ). Explains the first line. The 『non-expression』 of these six karma-paths (referring to killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, and harsh speech) is definite, while the 『expression』 is indefinite. As can be known from the text. 『Only sexual misconduct』 (kāmaparicāra) to 『as joy arises by itself』 (svayaṃ utpadyate prītiḥ). Explains the second line. The 『expression』 and 『non-expression』 of the karma-path of sexual misconduct are definite.

『The seven wholesome karma-paths』 (sapta kuśalāḥ karmapathāḥ) to 『must rely on expression』 (avaśyaṃ vijñaptiṃ niśritya). Explains the third line. If the seven wholesome karma-paths arise from receiving the Prātimokṣa vows (prātimokṣa) from others, they must all have both 『expression』 and 『non-expression.』 Receiving Śīla (śīla) must rely on 『expression.』 Question: If it is said that receiving must have both, why does the previous text say that the Prātimokṣa-saṃvara (prātimokṣa-saṃvara) does not necessarily arise relying on 『expressional karma』? Answer: Since it is said to be received, it indicates that it is not natural. This text is based on received Śīla, so it says it has both. The previous text applies to naturally obtaining vows and obtaining vows through the path of seeing (darśanamārga), so it says it does not necessarily rely on 『expressional karma.』 Question: If it is said that 『non-expression』 can arise apart from 『expression,』 why does the text below say

欲無無表離表而生　解云下文論主敘異師義難　或通據加行．根本故。言欲無無表離表而生。若不爾者遣使殺等根本成時有何表耶　又解佛與獨覺．五苾芻等。要期受故。受生類故。亦名受生。若作此解十種得戒皆依表生　問何故前言非必定依表業而發　解云前文敘余師義。或可。無表非必定依自類表發。顯互發也。如前解釋。若作此解善順下文欲無無表離表而生。略述二解若具分別如前十種得戒中說　問如無表數表數亦然。故言具二。為必有表言具二耶　解云如受大戒依七表業發七無表。止善微細其相難了。雖有語表不令人聞。如鬼語等人不聞故。既言必皆具二。明知表．無表業數皆齊等。大戒既然余戒例爾　又解若羯磨受戒依身三表正發身三無表。兼發語四無表。若有語表如何不聞。既不聞聲。明無語四表。若三歸受具依語四表正發語四無表。兼發身三無表。由隨師語而發戒故。七支無表雖有互發。必定皆依表業而生。故言必皆具二。非言一一各別表生。余近事等三歸受戒。唯一語表發四無表　又解若羯磨受戒如第二解。若三歸受具由發語故有語表四。由身敬故有身表三。七支表發七無表。余近事等三歸受戒。皆具四表．及四無表。

靜慮無漏至而得生故者　釋第四句。定生無表不依表起。依心生故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『欲無無表離表而生』，解釋說下文論主敘述不同老師的觀點，難以理解。或者可以理解為包括加行和根本兩種情況。所以說『欲無無表離表而生』。如果不是這樣，那麼派遣他人殺人等根本行為完成時，會有什麼表業呢？又解釋說，佛和獨覺、五比丘等，因為有要期受，以及受生類，所以也稱為受生。如果這樣解釋，那麼十種得戒方式都依賴於表業而生。問：為什麼前面說不一定依賴表業而發？答：解釋說，前面的內容是敘述其他老師的觀點。或者可以理解為，無表業不一定依賴於同類的表業而生，而是可以互相引發。就像之前的解釋一樣。如果這樣解釋，就順應了下文『欲無無表離表而生』的說法。以上簡要敘述了兩種解釋，如果想要詳細分別，可以參考前面關於十種得戒的說明。問：如果無表業的數量和表業的數量一樣，所以說『具二』，那麼是否必須有表業才能說『具二』呢？答：解釋說，比如受大戒時，依賴於七種表業而生起七種無表業。止善的無表業非常微細，難以察覺。即使有語表，也不會讓人聽到，就像鬼說話一樣，人聽不到。既然說必定都『具二』，就說明表業和無表業的數量是相等的。大戒是這樣，其他的戒也一樣。又解釋說，如果通過羯磨受戒，那麼依靠身的三種表業，正式生起身的三種無表業，同時兼發生語的四種無表業。如果有語表，為什麼聽不到呢？既然聽不到聲音，就說明沒有語的四種表業。如果三歸受戒，依靠語的四種表業，正式生起語的四種無表業，同時兼發生身的三種無表業。因為是隨著老師的語言而生起戒律的緣故。七支無表業雖然有互相引發的情況，但必定都是依賴於表業而生，所以說必定都『具二』，而不是說每一個無表業都是各自的表業所生。其餘的近事等三歸受戒，只有一種語表，卻能生起四種無表業。又解釋說，如果通過羯磨受戒，就像第二種解釋一樣。如果三歸受戒，因為發出了語言，所以有語表四種。因為身體恭敬，所以有身表三種。七支表業生起七種無表業。其餘的近事等三歸受戒，都具有四種表業和四種無表業。

『靜慮無漏至而得生故者』，解釋第四句。定生無表不依表起，依心生故。

【English Translation】 English version 『Desire without non-manifestation arises apart from manifestation,』 it is explained that the following text discusses the difficulty in the views of different teachers. Or it can be understood as including both preparatory actions and fundamental actions. Therefore, it is said, 『Desire without non-manifestation arises apart from manifestation.』 If it were not so, then when fundamental actions such as sending someone to kill are completed, what manifestation would there be? It is also explained that Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas), and the five Bhikshus (monks), etc., are also called 『received births』 because they have a fixed period of acceptance and because they belong to the category of received births. If explained in this way, then all ten methods of obtaining precepts depend on manifestation for their arising. Question: Why was it said earlier that it is not necessarily dependent on manifest karma for its arising? Answer: It is explained that the preceding text describes the views of other teachers. Or it can be understood that non-manifest karma does not necessarily depend on the manifestation of its own kind for its arising, but can mutually trigger each other. Just like the previous explanation. If explained in this way, it aligns with the statement 『Desire without non-manifestation arises apart from manifestation』 in the following text. The above briefly describes two explanations; for detailed distinctions, refer to the previous explanation regarding the ten methods of obtaining precepts. Question: If the number of non-manifest karmas is the same as the number of manifest karmas, hence the term 『possessing both,』 then must there be manifest karma in order to say 『possessing both』? Answer: It is explained that, for example, when receiving the great precepts, seven non-manifest karmas arise depending on seven manifest karmas. The non-manifest karmas of stopping evil are very subtle and difficult to perceive. Even if there is verbal manifestation, it is not heard by people, just like the speech of ghosts is not heard by people. Since it is said that they must all 『possess both,』 it indicates that the number of manifest and non-manifest karmas are equal. What is true for the great precepts is also true for other precepts. It is also explained that if one receives precepts through Karma (formal act of the Sangha), then relying on the three manifest karmas of the body, the three non-manifest karmas of the body formally arise, and simultaneously the four non-manifest karmas of speech also arise. If there is verbal manifestation, why is it not heard? Since no sound is heard, it indicates that there are no four manifest karmas of speech. If one takes refuge in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and receives the precepts, relying on the four manifest karmas of speech, the four non-manifest karmas of speech formally arise, and simultaneously the three non-manifest karmas of the body also arise. This is because the precepts arise following the teacher's words. Although the seven branches of non-manifest karma may mutually trigger each other, they all necessarily depend on manifest karma for their arising. Therefore, it is said that they must all 『possess both,』 rather than saying that each non-manifest karma is born from its own separate manifest karma. For the remaining Upasakas (lay followers) and others who take refuge in the Three Jewels and receive precepts, there is only one verbal manifestation, yet four non-manifest karmas can arise. It is also explained that if one receives precepts through Karma, it is like the second explanation. If one takes refuge in the Three Jewels and receives precepts, because speech is uttered, there are four verbal manifestations. Because the body is respectful, there are three bodily manifestations. The seven branches of manifestation give rise to seven non-manifest karmas. The remaining Upasakas and others who take refuge in the Three Jewels and receive precepts all possess four manifest karmas and four non-manifest karmas.

『Because it is attained through Dhyana (meditation), non-outflow, and then arises,』 explains the fourth sentence. Non-manifest karma born of Samadhi (meditative absorption) does not arise depending on manifestation, but arises depending on the mind.

加行後起如根本耶者。此下第二。約前後辨問加行．後起如根本業道有表．無表耶。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至後起此相違者。上兩句明加行。下一句明後起。

論曰至異此便無者。但起意地不成加行。起身．語後方成加行。故於加行必有于表。余文可知。

於此義中至後起位耶者。問。於此業道義中如何建立三位別耶。

且不善中至殺生後起者。答。明殺三位。加行謂前加行。果滿謂殺究竟。余文可知。

餘六業道至準例應說者。此即類釋。廣如正理說。

貪瞋．邪見至後起差別者。起輕貪等但是獨頭。輕貪瞋等非是業道加行．後起。若於根本起即業道。正理四十一有兩說。初說同此論　更一說云。如是說者。亦具三分。有不善思于貪．瞋等能為前．后助伴事故(解云不共無明．四見．疑．慢等。相應不善思與貪．瞋．邪見為加行後起。正理意存此說)　又婆沙一百一十三云。其餘貪慾．瞋恚．邪見意三業道。起即根本非有加行．後起差別。有說亦有加行．後起。謂不善思。

此論以前師為正。正理以後師為正。婆沙既無評家。隨作論者意所樂故。

此中應說至為死後耶者。問成業道時。

若爾何失者。答。

二俱有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：加行（prayoga，準備行為）和後起（prsthakarma，後續行為）是否與根本業道（mūlakarmapatha，根本行為之道）相同？答：不相同。問：為什麼？頌曰：『加行與根本相符，後起與此相違。』以上兩句說明加行，下一句說明後起。論曰：如果僅僅是起意，不能構成加行；只有通過身語行為之後，才能構成加行。因此，加行必然有表業（vijñapti-karma，顯性行為）。其餘文句可以理解。問：在此業道（karmapatha，行為之道）的意義中，如何建立三種不同的階段？答：就惡業而言，加行指的是之前的準備行為，果滿指的是殺生的最終完成。其餘文句可以理解。其餘六種業道（karmapatha，行為之道）的情況，可以參照以上例子進行說明。詳細內容可以參考《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā）。對於貪（lobha，貪婪）、嗔（dvesa，嗔恨）、邪見（mithyā-drsti，錯誤見解）等，輕微的貪等只是獨頭意識（ekacitta，單一意識），輕微的貪嗔等不是業道的加行或後起。如果從根本上生起，那就是業道。在《阿毗達磨順正理論》第四十一卷中有兩種說法。第一種說法與此論相同。另一種說法是：如果這樣說，也具備三種階段。因為不善的思（akuśala-cetanā，不善的意圖）可以作為貪、嗔等的先前和後續的助伴（解釋為不共無明（asāmānya-avidyā，非共同無明）、四見（catasro drstayah，四種見解）、疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）、慢（māna，傲慢）等。與這些相應的，不善的思可以作為貪、嗔、邪見的加行和後起。正理的意圖在於這種說法）。此外，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第一百一十三卷說：其餘的貪慾、嗔恚、邪見這三種意業道，生起即是根本，沒有加行和後起的區別。也有人說也有加行和後起，指的是不善的思。此論以前面的說法為正確。《阿毗達磨順正理論》以後面的說法為正確。《大毗婆沙論》沒有評判者，可以根據作者的意願來選擇。問：在此處應該說明，業道是在死亡之後才完成嗎？答：如果這樣，會有什麼過失呢？答：兩者都有。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Are the prayoga (preparatory action) and prsthakarma (subsequent action) the same as the mūlakarmapatha (root path of action)? Answer: No, they are not. Question: Why? Verse: 'The prayoga conforms to the root, the prsthakarma contradicts it.' The above two lines explain the prayoga, and the next line explains the prsthakarma. Treatise: If it is merely an intention, it cannot constitute a prayoga; only after physical and verbal actions can it constitute a prayoga. Therefore, the prayoga must have vijñapti-karma (manifest action). The remaining sentences can be understood. Question: In the meaning of this karmapatha (path of action), how are the three different stages established? Answer: In the case of unwholesome actions, the prayoga refers to the preceding preparatory action, and the phala-paripūri (fruition) refers to the final completion of killing. The remaining sentences can be understood. The situation of the remaining six karmapatha (paths of action) can be explained by analogy. Detailed content can be found in the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā (Commentary on the Abhidharma). Regarding lobha (greed), dvesa (hatred), mithyā-drsti (wrong view), etc., slight greed, etc., are merely ekacitta (single moment of consciousness), and slight greed, hatred, etc., are not the prayoga or prsthakarma of the karmapatha. If it arises from the root, then it is the karmapatha. In the forty-first volume of the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā, there are two views. The first view is the same as this treatise. Another view is: If it is said in this way, it also has three stages. Because unwholesome cetanā (intention) can serve as the preceding and subsequent companions of greed, hatred, etc. (explained as asāmānya-avidyā (non-common ignorance), catasro drstayah (four views), vicikitsa (doubt), māna (pride), etc. Corresponding to these, unwholesome cetanā can serve as the prayoga and prsthakarma of greed, hatred, and wrong view. The intention of the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā lies in this view). Furthermore, the 113th volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: The remaining three mental karmapatha of greed, hatred, and wrong view, arising is the root, and there is no distinction between prayoga and prsthakarma. Some say that there are also prayoga and prsthakarma, referring to unwholesome cetanā. This treatise considers the former view to be correct. The Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā considers the latter view to be correct. The Mahāvibhāṣā has no commentator, so it can be chosen according to the author's preference. Question: Should it be explained here that the karmapatha is completed only after death? Answer: If so, what fault would there be? Answer: Both exist.

過至根本業道者。兩關徴責。若所殺生正住現在死有。能殺生者業道爾時即成。即能殺者遇死緣故。與所殺生俱時命終應成業道。然宗不許俱時命終得成業道。故下論云。若能殺者與所殺生俱時命終。或在前死。彼定不得根本業道。若所殺生才命終后。第一剎那能殺生者業道方成。是則不應先解業道作如是說。隨此表業彼正命終。此剎那頃表．無表業是謂殺生根本業道。

又應違害至根本未息故者。若言死後成業道。又應違害毗婆沙師釋本論中加行未息。謂發智本論。頗有已害生殺生未滅耶。曰有。如已斷生命彼加行未息。毗婆沙師釋此文言。此中於彼業道後起以加行聲說。如殺怨已疑猶未死而行打棒。若言死後方成業道。毗婆沙師何故釋言於後起位以加行聲說。應言于根本說加行聲。以許命終后根本未息故。

如無有過此中應說者。論主評言。如無過者此中應說釋本論文。

此中說何名為無過者。問。

謂于根本說加行聲者。論主答。謂于根本說加行聲。釋本論文即無有過。宗許命終後方成業道故。而前文言彼正命終成業道者。於過去事說現在聲。或於加行因中假立業道果號。故正理云。決定死後業道方成。而前所言正命終者。于已往事卻說現聲。如有大王自遠已至而問今者從何所來。或

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

如果（殺生者）已經到了根本業道（karmapatha，行為的道路）的階段，那麼兩關（指身關和語關）就會受到審查和追究責任。如果所殺的眾生正處於現在的死有（bhava，生命狀態），能夠殺生的行為者在那個時候就形成了業道。如果能夠殺生的人遇到了死亡的因緣，與所殺的眾生同時命終，那麼應該形成業道。然而，宗義（佛教的教義）不允許同時命終而成就業道。所以下文的論述說：『如果能夠殺生的人與所殺的眾生同時命終，或者在前先死亡，那麼他一定不能得到根本業道。』如果所殺的眾生剛剛命終之後，在第一個剎那，能夠殺生的人的業道才形成。那麼就不應該先解釋業道，而這樣說：『隨著這個表業（vijnapti-karma，顯現的行為），那個眾生正在命終，在這個剎那之間，表業和無表業（avijnapti-karma，不顯現的行為）就是所謂的殺生根本業道。』

又應該違背『到達根本業道而未停止』的說法。如果說死後才成就業道，又應該違背毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教論師）解釋本論（根本論典）中『加行未停止』的說法。比如發智本論（Jnanaprasthana-sastra，論典名稱）說：『有沒有已經傷害了眾生，但殺生行為還沒有停止的情況呢？』回答是：『有。比如已經斷除了眾生的生命，但他的加行還沒有停止。』毗婆沙師解釋這段經文說：『這裡是用加行的聲音來說明業道後起的情況。』比如殺怨敵後，懷疑他還沒有死，而繼續進行毆打。如果說死後才成就業道，那麼毗婆沙師為什麼解釋說在後起位用加行的聲音來說明呢？應該說在根本位用加行的聲音來說明，因為允許命終后根本業道還沒有停止。

『如果沒有過失，那麼應該在這裡說明』。論主（論典的作者）評論說：『如果沒有過失，那麼應該在這裡說明，來解釋本論的經文。』

『這裡說什麼叫做沒有過失呢？』問。

『在根本位用加行的聲音來說明』。論主回答說：『在根本位用加行的聲音來說明，來解釋本論的經文，就沒有過失。』宗義允許命終后才成就業道。而前面的經文說『正在命終成就業道』，這是用現在的聲音來說過去的事情，或者在加行因中假立業道的果報名稱。所以正理（Nyaya，因明學）說：『決定是死後業道才成就。』而前面所說的『正在命終』，是用已經過去的事情，卻用現在的聲音來說。比如有大王從遙遠的地方已經到達，卻問現在從哪裡來。或者……

【English Translation】 English version

If one has reached the stage of the fundamental karmapatha (path of action), then the two gates (referring to body and speech) will be examined and held accountable. If the being being killed is currently in the dying state (bhava, state of existence), the one capable of killing forms the karmapatha at that time. If the one capable of killing encounters the cause of death and dies simultaneously with the being being killed, then a karmapatha should be formed. However, the tenet (Buddhist doctrine) does not allow the simultaneous death to accomplish a karmapatha. Therefore, the following discussion says: 'If the one capable of killing dies simultaneously with the being being killed, or dies before, then he certainly cannot attain the fundamental karmapatha.' If the being being killed has just died, in the first instant, the karmapatha of the one capable of killing is formed. Then one should not first explain the karmapatha and say: 'As this manifest action (vijnapti-karma, visible action) occurs, that being is dying, and in this instant, the manifest and non-manifest actions (avijnapti-karma, invisible action) are what is called the fundamental karmapatha of killing.'

Furthermore, it should contradict the statement 'reaching the fundamental karmapatha but not ceasing.' If it is said that the karmapatha is accomplished after death, it should also contradict the Vaibhashika (Buddhist commentator) explaining in the original treatise (root text) the statement 'the preparatory action has not ceased.' For example, the Jnanaprasthana-sastra (name of a treatise) says: 'Is there a case where one has already harmed a being, but the act of killing has not ceased?' The answer is: 'Yes. For example, one has already severed the life of a being, but his preparatory action has not ceased.' The Vaibhashika explains this passage by saying: 'Here, the sound of preparatory action is used to describe the subsequent arising of the karmapatha.' For example, after killing an enemy, one suspects that he is not yet dead and continues to beat him. If it is said that the karmapatha is accomplished after death, then why does the Vaibhashika explain that the sound of preparatory action is used to describe the subsequent arising position? It should be said that the sound of preparatory action is used to describe the fundamental position, because it is allowed that the fundamental karmapatha has not ceased after death.

'If there is no fault, then it should be explained here.' The author of the treatise comments: 'If there is no fault, then it should be explained here to explain the text of the original treatise.'

'What is said here to be without fault?' Question.

'Using the sound of preparatory action to describe the fundamental position.' The author of the treatise answers: 'Using the sound of preparatory action to describe the fundamental position to explain the text of the original treatise, there is no fault.' The tenet allows that the karmapatha is accomplished after death. And the previous text says 'dying is accomplishing the karmapatha,' this is using the present tense to speak of past events, or falsely establishing the name of the result of the karmapatha in the cause of preparatory action. Therefore, Nyaya (logic) says: 'It is definitely after death that the karmapatha is accomplished.' And the previous statement 'dying is accomplishing' is using the present tense to speak of past events. For example, a great king has already arrived from a distant place, but asks where he is coming from now. Or...

此于因假說為果(已上論文)　問何故死已方成業道。解云凡論殺生令命不續。故於不續方成業道。現在命猶存。如何成業道。正理意同此釋。然救毗婆沙師釋本論云。豈不根本．及與後起。皆于所殺死有後生俱可名為殺生後起。是故應信毗婆沙師于本論文極為善釋。俱舍師責云。若作斯救義實無違。然後起言不分明故。

若爾於時至根本業道者。外難。于死後方成業道。於時無命。所有表業如何可成根本業道。

何為不成者。反責外人。

以無用故者。外人答。凡言表須有作用。其命既無。表無用故。應非業道。

無表於此至根本業道者。論主反責顯成業道。無表於此根本成時有何用耶。故業道成非由有用。一由加行作殺等事。二由果滿殺究竟時。爾時能暢因等起思。此表．無表俱成業道。故婆沙云。殺生罪由二緣得。一起加行。二果究竟。若起加行果不究竟。或果究竟不起加行。皆不得罪。若起加行果亦究竟方得成殺罪。

又諸業道至如應當知者。此明十業道展轉為加行．後起。如文可知。

貪等不應至未作事故者。論主敘余師計為難。凡論加行。助彼有用執持刀等作殺等事。貪等不應能為加行。非唯心起不起身．語加行即成。唯起心時未作加行事故。故說貪等非是加行。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此段是關於『因假說為果』的討論（以上是論文內容）。

問：為什麼人死後才能形成業道（karma path）？答：一般來說，殺生會導致生命終結。因此，只有在生命終結時才能形成業道。如果生命還在，如何形成業道？正理派（Nyaya）的觀點與此相同。然而，爲了挽救《大毗婆沙論》的解釋，有人說：『難道根本業（根本殺業）以及隨後的行為，不是在所殺之人死後才產生的嗎？都可以稱為殺生後起。』因此，應該相信《大毗婆沙論》對本文的解釋非常精闢。俱舍論師（Abhidharmakosha）批評說：『如果這樣解釋，實際上並沒有矛盾，但「後起」一詞不夠明確。』

問：如果這樣，當根本業道形成時（指死亡發生時），外人提出疑問：在死後才能形成業道，那時已經沒有生命了，所有的表業（manifested karma）如何能成為根本業道？

反問：為什麼不能形成？論主反問外人。

答：因為沒有作用。外人回答說：一般來說，表業必須有作用。既然生命已經沒有了，表業也就沒有作用了，所以不應該是業道。

論主反駁：沒有表業，在這裡（死亡時）也能形成根本業道。論主反駁，以此來表明業道的形成。沒有表業，在根本業形成時有什麼用呢？因此，業道的形成不是因為有用，而是因為：一，通過加行（preparatory action）做了殺生等事；二，當結果圓滿，殺生最終完成時。那時，能夠暢通因等起思（thoughts arising from the cause）。此時，表業和無表業（unmanifested karma）都形成了業道。所以《大毗婆沙論》說：『殺生罪由兩個因緣構成：一是發起加行，二是結果究竟。如果發起加行而結果不究竟，或者結果究竟而沒有發起加行，都不能構成罪。只有發起加行且結果究竟，才能構成殺生罪。』

又，各種業道（直到『如應當知』）：這說明十業道（十種不善業）可以相互作為加行和後起，如經文所說。

貪等不應（直到『未作事故』）：論主敘述其他論師的觀點作為提問。一般來說，加行是輔助性的，比如執持刀等作殺生等事。貪婪等不應該能成為加行，因為僅僅是心中生起貪念，而沒有身語的加行，就不能構成業。僅僅是生起貪念時，還沒有做加行，所以說貪婪等不是加行。

【English Translation】 English version This section discusses the 'hypothesis of cause as result' (the above is the content of the paper).

Question: Why is it that the path of karma (karma path) is formed only after death? Answer: Generally speaking, killing leads to the termination of life. Therefore, the path of karma can only be formed when life ends. If life still exists, how can the path of karma be formed? The view of the Nyaya school is the same. However, in order to salvage the explanation of the Mahavibhasa, some say: 'Isn't it that the fundamental karma (fundamental act of killing) and subsequent actions are produced only after the killed person dies? All can be called subsequent arising of killing.' Therefore, one should believe that the Mahavibhasa provides a very insightful explanation of this text. The Abhidharmakosha master criticizes: 'If explained in this way, there is actually no contradiction, but the term 'subsequent arising' is not clear enough.'

Question: If so, when the fundamental path of karma is formed (referring to when death occurs), an outsider raises the question: The path of karma can only be formed after death. At that time, there is no life, so how can all manifested karma become the fundamental path of karma?

Counter-question: Why can't it be formed? The author questions the outsider.

Answer: Because it has no function. The outsider replies: Generally speaking, manifested karma must have a function. Since life is gone, manifested karma has no function, so it should not be the path of karma.

The author refutes: Without manifested karma, the fundamental path of karma can still be formed here (at the time of death). The author refutes to show the formation of the path of karma. Without manifested karma, what is the use when the fundamental karma is formed? Therefore, the formation of the path of karma is not because it is useful, but because: one, preparatory actions (preparatory action) such as killing are done; two, when the result is complete and the killing is finally completed. At that time, it can facilitate thoughts arising from the cause. At this time, both manifested and unmanifested karma form the path of karma. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says: 'The sin of killing is composed of two causes: one is initiating preparatory actions, and the other is the ultimate result. If preparatory actions are initiated but the result is not ultimate, or if the result is ultimate but preparatory actions are not initiated, no sin is constituted. Only when preparatory actions are initiated and the result is ultimate can the sin of killing be constituted.'

Also, various paths of karma (up to 'as should be known'): This explains that the ten paths of karma (ten unwholesome karmas) can act as preparatory actions and subsequent actions to each other, as the text says.

Greed, etc., should not (up to 'not yet done'): The author narrates the views of other teachers as a question. Generally speaking, preparatory actions are auxiliary, such as holding a knife to kill. Greed, etc., should not be able to become preparatory actions, because merely generating greed in the mind, without physical or verbal actions, cannot constitute karma. Only when greed arises in the mind, without yet doing preparatory actions, it is said that greed, etc., are not preparatory actions.

故正理四十一云。有餘師說。貪等不應能為加行。非唯心起加行即成。未作事故。如是說者。貪等雖非所作事性。而彼貪等緣境生時非無力用。由有力用得加行名。方便引生諸業道故　正理以後說為正。此論以前師為難。即以前師為正。作論意異。不為加行據親無力。能為加行據疏有力。

又經中說至問余亦爾者。此下第二約三根以辨。就中。一明為惡加行。二明生善三位。三明究竟業道　此即名為惡加行。依經起問　此中應說何相殺生名從貪生問余亦爾。此即總問。

非諸業道至不與彼同者。答。非諸業道根本成時一切皆由三根究竟。然其前加行不與根本同。

云何不同者。徴　問加行三根不同未問根本。

頌曰至貪等三根生者。頌答。

論曰至故作是說者。此釋初句。七不善業道加行生時。一一由三不善根起。依先因等起故。佛經中作如是說。從三根生　殺生加行至皆從癡起者。此明殺加行從三根生　波剌私。謂波剌私國。舊云波斯訛也　邪見與癡相應。但因邪見殺害眾生。此殺加行即名癡起。余文可知。

偷盜加行至起盜加行者。此明盜加行從三根起。謂隨所須起盜加行。或為別利慾盜彼物以少呼多　又解受他財物名為別利。或覓他恭敬　又解欲盜他物分與他人希他恭敬

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

因此，《正理》第四十一卷說：『有其他老師說，貪等不應該能成為加行（prayoga，預備行為）。並非僅僅心念一動，加行就完成了，因為事情還沒有做。』這樣說的人認為，貪等雖然不是所作之事的性質，但當這些貪等緣于外境生起時，並非沒有作用。由於具有作用，才得到加行的名稱，因為它能方便地引導產生各種業道（karmapatha，行為的道路）。《正理》後面的說法是正確的。此論以前面老師的觀點為難點，即以前面老師的觀點為正確。作論的意圖不同，不認為加行就其直接作用而言是有力的，而認為加行就其間接作用而言是有力的。

此外，經文中說『至問余亦爾者』，這以下第二部分是關於用三種根本煩惱（三根，tri-mūla）來辨別。其中，一是說明什麼是惡的加行，二是說明產生善的三種情況，三是說明究竟的業道。這就被稱為惡的加行，依據經文提出問題：『這裡應該說什麼樣的殺生叫做從貪生起？』問：『其餘的也是這樣嗎？』這是總的提問。

『非諸業道至不與彼同者』，回答說：『並非所有業道在根本完成時，一切都由三種根本煩惱究竟。然而，它們之前的加行與根本不同。』

『云何不同者』，這是提問，問的是加行中的三種根本煩惱的不同，沒有問根本。

『頌曰至貪等三根生者』，用偈頌回答。

『論曰至故作是說者』，這是解釋第一句。七種不善業道的加行生起時，每一個都由三種不善根（akuśala-mūla）生起，依據先前的因等而生起，所以佛經中這樣說，是從三種根本煩惱生起的。『殺生加行至皆從癡起者』，這是說明殺生的加行是從三種根本煩惱生起的。『波剌私』，指的是波剌私國，舊時稱為波斯，是訛傳。邪見與愚癡相應，僅僅因為邪見而殺害眾生，這種殺生的加行就叫做從愚癡生起。其餘的文字可以類推得知。

『偷盜加行至起盜加行者』，這是說明偷盜的加行是從三種根本煩惱生起的。意思是說，爲了滿足所需而生起偷盜的加行，或者爲了特殊的利益而偷盜他人的財物，用少的換取多的。另一種解釋是，接受他人的財物叫做特殊的利益。或者爲了尋求他人的恭敬。又一種解釋是，想要偷盜他人的財物，然後分給其他人，希望得到他人的恭敬。

【English Translation】 English version:

Therefore, the forty-first volume of the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Some other teachers say that greed and the like should not be able to be prayoga (加行, preparatory action). It is not the case that prayoga is accomplished merely by a thought arising in the mind, because the action has not yet been done.' Those who say this believe that although greed and the like are not the nature of the action done, when these greed and the like arise in relation to an object, they are not without function. It is because they have function that they obtain the name prayoga, because they conveniently lead to the production of various karmapatha (業道, paths of action). The later statement in the Nyāyānusāra is correct. This treatise uses the view of the previous teachers as a difficulty, that is, it takes the view of the previous teachers as correct. The intention in writing the treatise is different; it does not consider prayoga to be powerful in terms of its direct effect, but considers prayoga to be powerful in terms of its indirect effect.

Furthermore, the sutra says 'to the question yu api etat (余亦爾者)', the second part below is about distinguishing by means of the three roots (三根, tri-mūla). Among these, one is to explain what is an evil prayoga, two is to explain the three situations of generating good, and three is to explain the ultimate karmapatha. This is called an evil prayoga, and the question is raised based on the sutra: 'Here, what kind of killing should be said to arise from greed?' Question: 'Are the others also like this?' This is a general question.

'Na sarva karmapatha... na saha tena (非諸業道至不與彼同者)', the answer is: 'It is not the case that when all karmapatha are fundamentally completed, everything is ultimately due to the three roots. However, the prayoga before them is not the same as the fundamental.'

'Katham na saha (云何不同者)', this is a question, asking about the difference in the three roots in prayoga, not asking about the fundamental.

'Lobha-dvesa-moha-jam... tri-mula-jam (頌曰至貪等三根生者)', answering with a verse.

'Uktam idam... tri-mula-jam (論曰至故作是說者)', this explains the first sentence. When the prayoga of the seven unwholesome karmapatha arise, each one arises from the three unwholesome roots (不善根, akuśala-mūla), based on the previous causes and the like, so the Buddha said in the sutra that it arises from the three roots. 'Pranati-vadha... moha-jam (殺生加行至皆從癡起者)', this explains that the prayoga of killing arises from the three roots. 'Parasika (波剌私)' refers to the country of Parasika, formerly called Persia, which is a corruption. Wrong views are associated with ignorance, and merely because of wrong views, living beings are killed; this prayoga of killing is called arising from ignorance. The remaining text can be understood by analogy.

'Steya-prayoga... steya-prayoga (偷盜加行至起盜加行者)', this explains that the prayoga of stealing arises from the three roots. It means that the prayoga of stealing arises according to what is needed, or for special benefits, stealing the property of others, exchanging little for much. Another explanation is that receiving the property of others is called a special benefit. Or seeking the respect of others. Another explanation is wanting to steal the property of others and then distribute it to others, hoping to gain the respect of others.

。或為勇健名譽　又解欲盜他物分與他人希他讚我。如是名為從貪引．起偷盜加行　邪見名癡生準前殺生釋。余文可知。

邪淫加行至從癡所生者。此明邪淫加行從三根生。或為求財。或為名聞。或為官位。或為恭敬。或為拔濟自身。或為拔濟他身。於他有．力．尊．勝妻．子等欲行邪淫。從貪著心起淫加行。余文可知。

虛誑語等至加行從癡生者。此明語四業道加行從三根生。語四業道所有加行從貪．嗔生類前應說。正理云。虛誑語等從貪生者。如為財利．恭敬．名譽。濟己．及親起四加行。從嗔生者。如為除怨發憤恚心起四加行(已上論文)　別解語四從癡生者。然虛誑語所有加行從癡生者。如外道論作如是言。若人。或因戲笑。或因嫁女。或因娶婦。或對淫女。或對國王。或為救命。或為救財。作虛誑語皆無有罪　又因邪見。起虛誑語。起離間語。起粗惡語。起雜穢語。諸如是等所有加行當知一切從癡所生　釋邪見名癡生亦準前解　又諸吠陀。此云明。舊云韋陀訛也。即是四吠陀論。及餘外道所有邪論習學．傳授。謂言無罪。此等皆是雜穢語攝所有加行。從癡所生　上來明七不善業道所有加行從三根生　貪瞋等三至從貪等生者。此下釋后兩句　問。前七業道有加行故。可得說言所有加行從三根生。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本或者爲了勇健的名聲，又或者因為想要盜取他人的財物分給別人，以此希望他人讚美自己。這些都叫做由貪慾引起的偷盜加行。邪見，也就是愚癡產生的行為，可以參照之前對殺生的解釋。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

邪淫加行到由愚癡所生：這裡說明邪淫的加行由三種煩惱（貪、嗔、癡）產生。或者爲了求財，或者爲了名聞，或者爲了官位，或者爲了恭敬，或者爲了救濟自身，或者爲了救濟他人，對於他人的有權勢、有能力、尊貴、殊勝的妻子、子女等，想要行邪淫。從貪著的心生起邪淫的加行。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

虛誑語等到加行由愚癡所生：這裡說明語的四種業道（虛誑語、離間語、粗惡語、雜穢語）的加行由三種煩惱產生。語的四種業道的所有加行，由貪慾、嗔恨產生的，可以參照之前的說明。《正理》中說：虛誑語等由貪慾產生，比如爲了財利、恭敬、名譽，救濟自己和親人而產生的四種加行。由嗔恨產生，比如爲了消除怨恨，發怒而產生的四種加行（以上是論文中的內容）。特別解釋語的四種業道由愚癡產生的情況：虛誑語的所有加行由愚癡產生，比如外道理論這樣說：如果有人，或者因為戲笑，或者因為嫁女兒，或者因為娶媳婦，或者對**，或者對國王，或者爲了救命，或者爲了救財，說虛誑語都沒有罪過。又因為邪見，產生虛誑語，產生離間語，產生粗惡語，產生雜穢語，所有這些加行，應當知道一切都是由愚癡所生。解釋邪見，也就是愚癡產生的行為，也可以參照之前的解釋。還有那些吠陀（Veda，意為明，舊譯為韋陀，是錯誤的），也就是四吠陀論，以及其他外道的所有邪論，學習、傳授這些理論，認為沒有罪過，這些都是雜穢語所包含的內容，所有這些加行，都是由愚癡所生。上面說明了七種不善業道的所有加行由三種煩惱產生。貪嗔等三到由貪等生：下面解釋后兩句。問：前面七種業道有加行，所以可以說所有加行由三種煩惱產生。

【English Translation】 English version Or it is for the sake of courageous fame, or it is to steal other people's belongings and distribute them to others, hoping that others will praise oneself. These are called stealing actions arising from greed. False views, which are actions arising from ignorance, can be explained by referring to the previous explanation of killing. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.

The preparatory actions of sexual misconduct, up to those arising from ignorance: This explains that the preparatory actions of sexual misconduct arise from the three roots of affliction (greed, hatred, and ignorance). Or it is for the sake of seeking wealth, or for the sake of fame, or for the sake of official position, or for the sake of respect, or for the sake of saving oneself, or for the sake of saving others. Towards the powerful, capable, respected, and superior wives and children of others, one desires to engage in sexual misconduct. From the mind of attachment arises the preparatory action of sexual misconduct. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.

False speech, etc., up to the preparatory actions arising from ignorance: This explains that the preparatory actions of the four verbal karmic paths (false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter) arise from the three roots of affliction. All the preparatory actions of the four verbal karmic paths, those arising from greed and hatred, can be explained by referring to the previous explanations. The Nyaya Sutra says: False speech, etc., arising from greed, such as the four preparatory actions arising for the sake of wealth, respect, fame, and saving oneself and relatives. Arising from hatred, such as the four preparatory actions arising from the intention to eliminate resentment (the above is the content of the treatise). Specifically explaining the situation where the four verbal karmic paths arise from ignorance: All the preparatory actions of false speech arise from ignorance, such as the heretical theories that say: If a person, either because of joking, or because of marrying off a daughter, or because of marrying a wife, or towards a **, or towards a king, or for the sake of saving life, or for the sake of saving wealth, speaks false speech, there is no sin. Also, because of false views, false speech arises, divisive speech arises, harsh speech arises, and idle chatter arises. All these preparatory actions, it should be known that all arise from ignorance. Explaining false views, which are actions arising from ignorance, can also be explained by referring to the previous explanations. Also, those Vedas (Veda, meaning 'knowledge,' formerly translated as 'Weituo,' which is incorrect), which are the four Vedas, and all the heretical theories of other heretics, learning and transmitting these theories, thinking that there is no sin, these are all included in idle chatter, and all these preparatory actions arise from ignorance. The above explains that all the preparatory actions of the seven unwholesome karmic paths arise from the three roots of affliction. Greed, hatred, and ignorance, up to arising from greed, etc.: The following explains the last two sentences. Question: The previous seven karmic paths have preparatory actions, so it can be said that all preparatory actions arise from the three roots of affliction.

貪．瞋．邪見既無加行。如何可說從三根生。

以從三根至從三亦爾者。答。貪．瞋．邪見以從三根無間生故。可說加行貪．瞋．癡三。從三根生。或無間生。或相應生　又解可說貪．瞋．邪見加行從三根生。加行即是貪．瞋．癡三。謂或已下別釋三根生三業道。如文可知。故正理四十一云。貪等加行如何從三。以從三根無間生故。謂從貪等三不善根無間各容生三業道。由此已顯從貪．瞋．癡無間相應生三加行。依無間義亦生業道(已上論文)　問癡不善根與后三業道別可為加行。貪．瞋不善根與貪．瞋業道同如何為加行　解雲根．道義別。隱顯互彰。前念顯根。隱道。后念顯道。隱根。故得說根為道加行。

已說不善至共相應故者。此即第二明善三位。此明善業三位皆三善根所等起故。善法相順故三法並生。惡多相違故貪．瞋不併。

此善三位其相云何者。問。

謂遠離前至皆名後起者。答。善業道是止善。離前不善三位。即是善業道三位　且如已下指事別明三位　親教。梵雲和上　從此以後至說四依。謂常乞食。樹下坐。著糞掃衣。食塵棄藥　及余依前。根本業道第二念已去。相續隨轉作諸表業。相續隨轉起無表業。皆名後起。余文可知。

如先所說至何業道耶者。此下第二明究

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：貪（Tanha，渴愛）、瞋（Dosa，嗔恨）、邪見（Micchā diṭṭhi，錯誤的見解）既然沒有加行（payoga，準備行為），如何能說它們是從三種不善根（貪、瞋、癡）所生起的呢？答：從三種不善根到『從三亦爾』的意思是說，貪、瞋、邪見因為是從三種不善根無間（anantara，立即地）生起的，所以可以說加行貪、瞋、癡三者是從三種不善根生起的，或者說是無間生起，或者說是相應生起。又一種解釋是，可以說貪、瞋、邪見的加行是從三種不善根生起的。加行就是貪、瞋、癡三者。下面分別解釋三種不善根如何生起三種業道（kamma-patha，行為的道路），如文中所述。所以《阿毗達摩正理》（Abhidharma-nyaya-anusara-sastra）第四十一卷說：『貪等的加行如何從三（不善根生起）？』因為它們是從三種不善根無間生起的。也就是說，從貪等三種不善根無間地各自能夠生起三種業道。由此已經顯示出從貪、瞋、癡無間地、相應地生起三種加行。依據無間義，也生起業道（以上是論文內容）。』問：癡（Moha，愚癡）不善根與後面的三種業道不同，可以作為加行。但是貪、瞋不善根與貪、瞋業道相同，如何作為加行呢？解釋說：根（hetu，原因）和道（magga，道路）的意義不同，隱和顯相互彰顯。前一念顯現根，隱藏道；后一念顯現道，隱藏根。所以可以說根是道的加行。已經說了不善到『共相應故』。這裡是第二部分，說明善的三種狀態。這裡說明善業的三種狀態都是由三種善根（無貪、無瞋、無癡）所引發的。因為善法相互順應，所以三種法同時生起。惡法大多相互違背，所以貪和瞋不會同時並生。這善的三種狀態是什麼樣的呢？』這是提問。答：所謂遠離前面不善的三種狀態，都叫做『後起』。善業道是止善。遠離前面不善的三種狀態，就是善業道的三種狀態。下面具體地指出並說明這三種狀態。親教師，梵語叫做和上（Upadhyaya）。從這以後到『說四依』，指的是常乞食、樹下坐、著糞掃衣、食陳棄藥。以及其餘依靠前面根本業道的第二念以后，相續隨轉，作出各種表業（vinnatti-kamma，有表業），相續隨轉，生起無表業（avinnatti-kamma，無表業），都叫做後起。其餘的文字可以自己理解。如下面所說，到『什麼業道呢？』。這是下面第二部分，說明究竟。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Since Tanha (craving), Dosa (hatred), and Micchā diṭṭhi (wrong view) have no payoga (preparatory action), how can it be said that they arise from the three unwholesome roots (greed, hatred, delusion)? Answer: From the three roots to 'from the three also is so' means that because Tanha, Dosa, and Micchā diṭṭhi arise immediately (anantara) from the three unwholesome roots, it can be said that the preparatory actions of Tanha, Dosa, and Moha (delusion) arise from the three roots, or arise immediately, or arise in association. Another explanation is that it can be said that the preparatory actions of Tanha, Dosa, and Micchā diṭṭhi arise from the three unwholesome roots. The preparatory actions are Tanha, Dosa, and Moha. The following separately explains how the three unwholesome roots give rise to the three kamma-patha (paths of action), as described in the text. Therefore, the Abhidharma-nyaya-anusara-sastra, Volume 41, says: 'How do the preparatory actions of Tanha, etc., arise from the three (unwholesome roots)?' Because they arise immediately from the three unwholesome roots. That is, from the three unwholesome roots of Tanha, etc., each can immediately give rise to the three paths of action. From this, it has been shown that the three preparatory actions arise immediately and in association from Tanha, Dosa, and Moha. According to the meaning of immediacy, the paths of action also arise (the above is the content of the treatise).' Question: The Moha (delusion) unwholesome root is different from the latter three paths of action and can be regarded as a preparatory action. But the Tanha and Dosa unwholesome roots are the same as the Tanha and Dosa paths of action, so how can they be regarded as preparatory actions? The explanation is: The meanings of hetu (root, cause) and magga (path) are different, and the hidden and manifest mutually reveal each other. The previous moment manifests the root and hides the path; the subsequent moment manifests the path and hides the root. Therefore, it can be said that the root is the preparatory action of the path. It has been said about unwholesome to 'because of mutual association'. This is the second part, explaining the three states of wholesome. This explains that the three states of wholesome action are all initiated by the three wholesome roots (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion). Because wholesome dharmas are mutually compliant, the three dharmas arise simultaneously. Most unwholesome dharmas are mutually contradictory, so greed and hatred do not arise simultaneously. What are these three states of wholesome like?' This is a question. Answer: What is called 'subsequent arising' is the abandoning of the previous three states of unwholesome. The wholesome path of action is the cessation of unwholesome. Abandoning the previous three states of unwholesome is the three states of wholesome action. The following specifically points out and explains these three states. The preceptor, in Sanskrit, is called Upadhyaya. From this point onwards to 'speaking of the four supports', refers to constantly begging for food, sitting under a tree, wearing discarded rags, and eating discarded medicine. And the rest, relying on the second thought after the previous fundamental path of action, continuously following and transforming, performing various vinnatti-kamma (representative actions), continuously following and transforming, giving rise to avinnatti-kamma (non-representative actions), are all called subsequent arising. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself. As stated below, to 'what path of action?'. This is the second part below, explaining the ultimate.

竟業．道。問。如先所說非諸業道一切皆由三根究竟。成其業道何根究竟何業道耶。

頌曰至許所餘由三者。頌文總有四節究竟業道。初兩句為一節。次兩句為第二節。次一句為第三節。后一句為第四節　言所餘者。謂前七業道余。即是虛誑語．離間語．雜穢語　言究竟者。是成辨義。是終了義。謂惡業道由彼三根成辨．終了故。與加行三根不同　問此言究竟。為據因等起說。為據剎那等起　解云此據近因等起以決定故。非剎那等起以不定故。如遣使殺等剎那等起。即通三性心不定故非彼究竟。若因等起心性即決定。以決定故從彼究竟　又解此中據剎那等起非因等起。如貪．瞋等必是剎那等起。余準應知。亦約剎那等起。貪．瞋不善根與貪．嗔業道同一剎那。雖無別體。根．道義別故得說根究竟業道。遣使殺等六惡業道。或時自殺後方死等剎那等起。亦通余心所作究竟。此文且據自作者說　又解通據因等起．及剎那等起。若遣使殺等六惡業道。或時自作後方死等。唯由近因等起三根究竟。非剎那等起。以剎那等起心不定故容起余心。非由余心究竟此故　若貪．嗔．邪見唯由剎那等起三根究竟非因等起　若自行殺等七惡業具由二種。或因等起。或剎那等起　於三解中初解非理。貪等定由剎那等起。后之二解俱可為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本竟業。道。問：如先前所說，並非所有業道都完全由三種根本煩惱（三根：貪、嗔、癡）究竟完成。那麼，哪些根本煩惱究竟完成哪些業道呢？

頌曰：至許所餘由三者。頌文總共有四節，說明究竟的業道。最初兩句為一節，其次兩句為第二節，再一句為第三節，最後一句為第四節。所說的『所餘』，是指前七種業道之外剩餘的，也就是虛誑語（妄語）、離間語（兩舌）、雜穢語（惡口）。『究竟』是成就、完成的意思。意思是說，這些惡業道是由那三種根本煩惱成就、完成的，因此與加行時的三種根本煩惱不同。

問：這裡所說的『究竟』，是根據因等起（最初發起的原因）來說的，還是根據剎那等起（每一剎那的生起）來說的？

解：這是根據近因等起來說的，因為它是決定的；不是根據剎那等起，因為剎那等起是不定的。比如派遣他人去殺人等，剎那等起時，心可能通於三性（善、惡、無記），是不定的，因此不是由它究竟完成。如果是因等起，心性就是決定的，因為是決定的，所以是從它究竟完成。

又解：這裡是根據剎那等起來說的，不是根據因等起。比如貪、嗔等，一定是剎那等起。其餘的可以類推，也是約剎那等起來說的。貪、嗔不善根與貪、嗔業道在同一剎那，雖然沒有不同的實體，但根本煩惱和業道的意義不同，所以可以說根本煩惱究竟完成業道。派遣他人去殺人等六種惡業道，或者有時自己動手殺人，之後才死亡等，剎那等起時，也通於其他心所（心理活動）所作，最終完成。這段文字只是根據自己動手殺人者來說的。

又解：可以通用於因等起和剎那等起。如果派遣他人去殺人等六種惡業道，或者有時自己動手殺人，之後才死亡等，只是由近因等起的三種根本煩惱究竟完成，不是剎那等起，因為剎那等起的心是不定的，可能生起其他心，不是由其他心究竟完成這件事。

如果貪、嗔、邪見，只是由剎那等起的三種根本煩惱究竟完成，不是因等起。

如果自己動手殺人等七種惡業，完全由兩種情況：或者因等起，或者剎那等起。

在這三種解釋中，第一種解釋不合理。貪等一定是剎那等起。後面的兩種解釋都可以成立。

【English Translation】 English version Jingye. Dao. Question: As previously stated, not all karma paths are entirely and ultimately completed by the three roots (three roots: greed, hatred, delusion). Then, which fundamental afflictions ultimately complete which karma paths?

Verse: 『To allow the remainder by the three.』 The verse has four sections in total, explaining the ultimate karma paths. The first two lines form one section, the next two lines form the second section, the next line forms the third section, and the last line forms the fourth section. The 『remainder』 refers to what remains after the first seven karma paths, which are false speech (lying), divisive speech (sowing discord), and harsh speech (abusive language). 『Ultimately』 means to accomplish or complete. It means that these evil karma paths are accomplished and completed by those three roots, and therefore are different from the three roots at the time of application.

Question: Does 『ultimately』 here refer to the cause of origination (the initial cause), or does it refer to the moment of origination (each moment of arising)?

Explanation: It refers to the proximate cause of origination, because it is definite; it does not refer to the moment of origination, because the moment of origination is indefinite. For example, sending someone to kill, at the moment of origination, the mind may be connected to the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral), which is indefinite, so it is not ultimately completed by it. If it is the cause of origination, the nature of the mind is definite, and because it is definite, it is ultimately completed from it.

Another explanation: Here it refers to the moment of origination, not the cause of origination. For example, greed, hatred, etc., must be the moment of origination. The rest can be inferred by analogy, also referring to the moment of origination. The roots of greed and hatred, and the karma paths of greed and hatred, are in the same moment. Although there is no different entity, the meanings of the root and the path are different, so it can be said that the root ultimately completes the karma path. Sending someone to kill and the other six evil karma paths, or sometimes killing oneself and then dying, etc., at the moment of origination, are also connected to other mental activities, ultimately completing it. This passage only refers to those who kill themselves.

Another explanation: It can be applied to both the cause of origination and the moment of origination. If sending someone to kill and the other six evil karma paths, or sometimes killing oneself and then dying, etc., are only ultimately completed by the three roots of the proximate cause of origination, not the moment of origination, because the mind at the moment of origination is indefinite, and other minds may arise, and it is not ultimately completed by other minds.

If greed, hatred, and wrong views are only ultimately completed by the three roots of the moment of origination, not the cause of origination.

If one kills oneself and the other seven evil karmas, they are completely caused by two situations: either the cause of origination or the moment of origination.

Among these three explanations, the first explanation is unreasonable. Greed, etc., must be the moment of origination. The latter two explanations can both be established.

正。

論曰至此三成故者。如頌四節釋文亦四。如文可知。又正理四十一云。貪．嗔業道即貪．嗔根。如何說由貪．嗔究竟。如欲邪行業道生時。定有貪根能為究竟。非貪．嗔二業道生時別有貪．瞋能為究竟。是故應說貪．瞋等三一．一皆由癡根究竟。非無癡者此三起故。有餘於此作是釋言。即說此法由此究竟。自體生時即業道故。彼理窮故作如是釋。然實貪等正現前時。幸有癡根能為究竟。何緣不許執自體耶。餘業道中他究竟故。雖有此義而不許者勿諸業道皆癡究竟。諸業道成時定有癡俱故。無如是失。以殺．盜等雖皆有癡而嗔．貪強故。若爾邪見應不由癡。以邪見俱癡不強故。不爾。邪見俱起癡強。爾時無餘不善根故。非邪見體是不善根故。此俱癡根義而勝。若爾貪等應不由癡。以貪．及嗔是根是勝。俱行癡劣。應不可言貪．嗔業道由癡究竟。約能究竟。爾時癡強更無餘根究竟。貪等自體于自無助力能。寧可說言自究竟自。故癡究竟於理無失。有餘於此復作釋言。與貪．嗔俱一果諸法。皆可隨勝立貪．嗔名。彼與貪．嗔俱時生故。亦可說彼究竟貪．嗔。於此釋中亦容徴難。恐文煩雜故應且止　解云。正理總有三師。第一師說貪．嗔業道由彼相應癡究竟。第二師說貪由貪究竟。嗔由嗔究竟。第三師說貪．嗔業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

正。

論曰：『至此三成故者』。如頌四節釋文亦四，如文可知。又《正理》第四十一卷云：『貪（Lobha，貪慾）.嗔（Dosa，嗔恨）業道即貪.嗔根。如何說由貪.嗔究竟？』如欲邪行（Kama-micchacara，邪淫）業道生時，定有貪根能為究竟。非貪.嗔二業道生時別有貪.嗔能為究竟。是故應說貪.嗔等三，一一皆由癡根（Moha，愚癡）究竟。非無癡者此三起故。有餘於此作是釋言：『即說此法由此究竟，自體生時即業道故。』彼理窮故作如是釋。然實貪等正現前時，幸有癡根能為究竟。何緣不許執自體耶？餘業道中他究竟故。雖有此義而不許者，勿諸業道皆癡究竟。諸業道成時定有癡俱故，無如是失。以殺.盜等雖皆有癡，而嗔.貪強故。若爾邪見（Micchaditthi，邪見）應不由癡？以邪見俱癡不強故。不爾。邪見俱起癡強，爾時無餘不善根故。非邪見體是不善根故。此俱癡根義而勝。若爾貪等應不由癡？以貪及嗔是根是勝，俱行癡劣，應不可言貪.嗔業道由癡究竟。約能究竟，爾時癡強更無餘根究竟。貪等自體于自無助力能，寧可說言自究竟自？故癡究竟於理無失。有餘於此復作是釋言：『與貪.嗔俱一果諸法，皆可隨勝立貪.嗔名。』彼與貪.嗔俱時生故，亦可說彼究竟貪.嗔。於此釋中亦容徴難，恐文煩雜故應且止。

解云：正理總有三師。第一師說貪.嗔業道由彼相應癡究竟。第二師說貪由貪究竟，嗔由嗔究竟。第三師說貪.嗔業

【English Translation】 English version:

Correct.

The treatise says: 'The reason for the three accomplishments up to this point.' Just as the explanation of the four sections of the verse also has four parts, as can be understood from the text. Furthermore, the forty-first chapter of the Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reasoning) states: 'Greed (Lobha), hatred (Dosa) as paths of action are the roots of greed and hatred. How can it be said that they are ultimately caused by greed and hatred?' For example, when the path of action of sexual misconduct (Kama-micchacara) arises, there must be a root of greed that can be the ultimate cause. It is not that when the two paths of action of greed and hatred arise, there are separate greed and hatred that can be the ultimate cause. Therefore, it should be said that greed, hatred, and the like, each and every one, are ultimately caused by the root of delusion (Moha). It is not that these three arise without delusion. Some others explain this by saying: 'It is said that this dharma is ultimately caused by this, because when its own nature arises, it is the path of action.' Because that reasoning is exhausted, they make such an explanation. But in reality, when greed and the like are truly present, fortunately there is a root of delusion that can be the ultimate cause. Why is it not allowed to hold onto its own nature? Because in other paths of action, it is ultimately caused by others. Although there is this meaning, it is not allowed lest all paths of action are ultimately caused by delusion. Because when all paths of action are accomplished, there is definitely delusion accompanying them, there is no such fault. Although killing, stealing, and the like all have delusion, hatred and greed are stronger. If that is the case, should wrong view (Micchaditthi) not be caused by delusion? Because the delusion accompanying wrong view is not strong. Not so. When wrong view arises, delusion is strong, because at that time there are no other unwholesome roots. It is not that the substance of wrong view is not an unwholesome root. The meaning of the accompanying root of delusion is superior. If that is the case, should greed and the like not be caused by delusion? Because greed and hatred are roots and are superior, and the accompanying delusion is inferior, it should not be said that the paths of action of greed and hatred are ultimately caused by delusion. Speaking of the ability to ultimately cause, at that time delusion is strong and there are no other roots that ultimately cause. The own nature of greed and the like has no ability to help itself, how can it be said that it ultimately causes itself? Therefore, delusion ultimately causing is without fault in reasoning. Some others explain this again by saying: 'All dharmas that have the same result as greed and hatred can be named after greed and hatred according to what is superior.' Because they arise at the same time as greed and hatred, it can also be said that they ultimately cause greed and hatred. In this explanation, it is also possible to raise difficulties, but fearing that the text would be cumbersome, it should be stopped for now.

Explanation says: There are three masters in the Nyāyānusāra. The first master says that the paths of action of greed and hatred are ultimately caused by the corresponding delusion. The second master says that greed is ultimately caused by greed, and hatred is ultimately caused by hatred. The third master says that greed and hatred

道由彼相應．俱有諸法究竟。以與貪．嗔相應．俱有故亦名貪．嗔。正理意存初說　問若存初說。何故頌曰殺．粗語．嗔恚。究竟皆由嗔。盜．邪行．及貪。皆由貪究竟。準此頌文。嗔由嗔究竟。貪依貪究竟。何故乃言貪．嗔業道由癡究竟　解云。貪．瞋之言亦顯于癡。以相應中必有癡故。若殺．粗語由瞋癡究竟。若瞋由癡究竟。若盜．邪行由貪．癡究竟。若貪由癡究竟。故不相違。應知十業道中貪．嗔．邪見。由癡究竟。殺．粗語由瞋．癡究竟。盜．邪行由貪．癡究竟。虛誑．離間．雜穢。一一皆容三根究竟　又解正理別為一解。頌文意同第二師說。若作此解不須會釋　問善業道究竟何故不說　解云前說善於三位中皆三善根起。已顯三根皆能究竟故復而不說　又解雖復皆由三根究竟。于中非無勢用偏強。翻惡應知。

諸惡業道至四處而生者。此即第三明業道依處。如前所說一行半頌四節業道三．三．一．三。隨其次第于有情等四處而生。此即總標頌意。

謂殺等三有情處起者。釋有情處起。是第一節。謂殺生．粗語．嗔恚三種于有情處起。雖粗語．嗔恚亦于非情處起。以過輕故不成業道　問何故殺等三種言有情處起。不言眾具．名色．名等處起　解云爲殺有情。為罵有情。為嗔有情。唯情過重故有情處

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本道由彼相應，俱有諸法究竟。意思是說，（惡）道是由與（煩惱）相應而產生的，並且包含了所有法的最終結果。因為（惡道）與貪、嗔（煩惱）相應，並且包含了它們，所以也被稱為貪、嗔。（《正理》的）意思是傾向於最初的說法。問：如果傾向於最初的說法，為什麼頌詞說『殺、粗語、嗔恚，究竟皆由嗔；盜、邪行、及貪，皆由貪究竟』？按照這頌詞的文義，嗔由嗔究竟，貪依貪究竟，為什麼又說貪、嗔（等）業道由癡究竟呢？答：貪、嗔的說法也顯示了癡的存在，因為在相應中必然有癡。如果殺、粗語由嗔、癡究竟，嗔由癡究竟；如果盜、邪行由貪、癡究竟，貪由癡究竟，所以並不矛盾。應該知道十業道中，貪、嗔、邪見由癡究竟，殺、粗語由嗔、癡究竟，盜、邪行由貪、癡究竟，虛誑、離間、雜穢，每一種都可能由三根（貪、嗔、癡）究竟。又有一種解釋，《正理》另外作一種解釋，頌詞的意思與第二位論師的說法相同。如果這樣解釋，就不需要會通解釋了。問：善業道的究竟為什麼不說呢？答：前面已經說過，善在三位中都是由三善根生起，已經顯示了三善根都能究竟，所以重複說就沒有必要了。另一種解釋是，雖然都是由三根究竟，但其中並非沒有勢力偏強的。與惡業道相反，就應該知道了。

諸惡業道至四處而生者。這部分是第三個方面，說明業道的所依之處。如前所述，一行半頌的四節業道，分別是三、三、一、三，按照次序在有情等四處產生。這是總的標明頌的意思。

謂殺等三有情處起者。解釋有情處生起，這是第一節。意思是說，殺生、粗語、嗔恚這三種是在有情處生起的。雖然粗語、嗔恚也可以在非有情處生起，但因為過失較輕，所以不能構成業道。問：為什麼殺等三種說在有情處生起，而不說在眾具（物品）、名色（精神和物質）、名（精神）等處生起呢？答：因為殺害有情，謾罵有情，嗔恨有情，只有對有情的過失最重，所以說在有情處生起。

【English Translation】 English version 'The path arises from that association, encompassing the ultimate of all dharmas.' This means that the (evil) path arises from association with (afflictions), and includes the final result of all dharmas. Because (the evil path) is associated with greed and hatred (afflictions) and includes them, it is also called greed and hatred. The meaning of (the Nyāyānusāra) tends towards the initial statement. Question: If it tends towards the initial statement, why does the verse say, 'Killing, harsh speech, and anger are ultimately caused by hatred; stealing, sexual misconduct, and greed are all ultimately caused by greed'? According to the meaning of this verse, hatred is ultimately caused by hatred, and greed is based on greed. Why then is it said that the paths of karma of greed and hatred are ultimately caused by ignorance (moha)? Answer: The terms greed and hatred also reveal the existence of ignorance, because there must be ignorance in association. If killing and harsh speech are ultimately caused by hatred and ignorance, and hatred is ultimately caused by ignorance; if stealing and sexual misconduct are ultimately caused by greed and ignorance, and greed is ultimately caused by ignorance, then there is no contradiction. It should be known that among the ten paths of karma, greed, hatred, and wrong views are ultimately caused by ignorance; killing and harsh speech are ultimately caused by hatred and ignorance; stealing and sexual misconduct are ultimately caused by greed and ignorance; false speech, divisive speech, and frivolous speech, each may be ultimately caused by the three roots (greed, hatred, and ignorance). There is another explanation, the Nyāyānusāra offers another interpretation, the meaning of the verse is the same as the second teacher's statement. If interpreted this way, there is no need for reconciliation. Question: Why is the ultimate nature of the paths of good karma not mentioned? Answer: It has already been said that good arises from the three good roots in all three states, which has already shown that the three good roots can all be ultimate, so there is no need to repeat it. Another explanation is that although all are ultimately caused by the three roots, there are indeed stronger influences among them. The opposite of evil paths should be known.

'The evil paths of karma arise in four places.' This part is the third aspect, explaining the places on which the paths of karma rely. As mentioned earlier, the four sections of the verse of one and a half lines are three, three, one, and three respectively, arising in the four places of sentient beings, etc., in order. This is a general indication of the meaning of the verse.

'That is, the three, such as killing, arise in the place of sentient beings.' Explaining the arising in the place of sentient beings, this is the first section. It means that the three, killing, harsh speech, and anger, arise in the place of sentient beings. Although harsh speech and anger can also arise in the place of non-sentient beings, they do not constitute a path of karma because the fault is relatively minor. Question: Why is it said that the three, such as killing, arise in the place of sentient beings, and not in the place of implements (sambhāra), name and form (nāmarūpa), name (nāma), etc.? Answer: Because killing sentient beings, scolding sentient beings, and hating sentient beings, only the fault towards sentient beings is the most serious, so it is said to arise in the place of sentient beings.

起。殺等三種唯于有情。眾具．名色亦通非情。不言眾具．名色處起。殺等於總有情。名等三種雖有情攝。非總有情故。亦不言名等處起　又解名等非可殺。故為他侵陵。意欲罵彼故。語罵有情非罵名等。意嗔有情非嗔名等。設復有人嗔罵名等。是有情攝故。不說言名等處起。雖粗語起亦依名等。同誑等三托境勝依。故就境說不約依論　又解粗語起時雖依名等。恐謂依外故說有情。又發粗語不假巧言。故顯宗二十二云。粗語雖依名身等起。恐謂唯依外此業道亦成。故說唯依有情處起。又發粗語不假飾詞。故不說依名身等起　又解誑語等起必依名等。有粗語起不依名等。如叱吒等。故正理第一云。此語表業復有二種。謂依名起。及不待名起　準此論文。故知有粗惡語不依名等。由不定故不說粗語依名等起。

偷盜等三眾具處起者。釋眾具處起。是第二節。偷盜．邪行．貪。于眾具處起。若情．非情俱是他人受用具者皆名眾具。若偷盜通情．非情處起。如盜畜等於情處起。如盜金等非情處起。若邪行唯于有情處起。若貪通情．非情處起。過俱重故皆名業道。而下論言惡欲他財貪者。且據非情以說。理實亦通有情。不同瞋恚唯有情起名為業道　問何故偷盜等三言眾具處起不言有情．名色等處起　解云盜他物等。淫他妻

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『起』（Klesha，煩惱）。殺生等三種（殺生、偷盜、邪淫）只針對有情眾生。『眾具』（Upakarana，資具）、『名色』（Namarupa，精神與物質的結合）也通於非有情之物。經中不說眾具、名色是殺生等行為的『處起』（Adhisthana，所依處），因為殺生等是針對所有有情眾生的總稱。名等三種（名、色、識）雖然屬於有情眾生，但並非所有有情眾生的總稱，因此也不說名等是行為的『處起』。另一種解釋是，名等不是可以被殺害的對象，因此會受到他人的侵凌。想要辱罵他人，所以用語言辱罵有情眾生，而不是辱罵名等。心中嗔恨有情眾生，而不是嗔恨名等。即使有人嗔恨辱罵名等，那也是因為名等屬於有情眾生。所以不說名等是行為的『處起』。雖然粗惡語的產生也依賴於名等，但它與誑語等三種行為一樣，都依託于殊勝的境界而產生，所以著重從境界的角度來說，而不是從所依賴的對象來討論。還有一種解釋是，誑語等行為的產生必定依賴於名等，而粗惡語的產生則不一定依賴於名等，例如叱吒等。因此，《正理》（Nyaya）第一卷中說：『這種語言的表業有兩種，一種是依名而起，另一種是不依賴於名而起。』根據這段論文，可知有些粗惡語不依賴於名等。由於這種不確定性，所以不說粗惡語依賴於名等而產生。『偷盜等三眾具處起』，這是解釋眾具是行為的『處起』，是第二節。偷盜、邪淫、貪慾，都是在眾具處產生的。凡是情與非情，只要是他人受用的資具，都稱為眾具。偷盜行為既可以在有情處產生，也可以在非情處產生。例如，偷盜牲畜等是在有情處產生，偷盜金銀等是在非情處產生。邪淫行為只在有情處產生。貪慾行為既可以在有情處產生，也可以在非情處產生。因為這些行為的過失都很嚴重，所以都稱為業道。而下文說『惡欲他財貪』，只是根據非情之物來說明，實際上也通於有情之物。這與嗔恚只在有情處產生而成為業道不同。問：為什麼偷盜等三種行為說是『眾具處起』，而不說『有情、名色等處起』？答：因為偷盜他人的財物，姦淫他人的妻子。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Arising' (Klesha, afflictions). Killing and the other two (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct) are only directed at sentient beings. 'Possessions' (Upakarana, requisites), 'Name and Form' (Namarupa, the combination of mind and matter) also apply to non-sentient things. The sutra does not say that possessions and name and form are the 'basis of arising' (Adhisthana, the support) for killing and other actions, because killing etc. are directed at the totality of sentient beings. Although the three, name etc. (name, form, consciousness), are included within sentient beings, they are not the totality of sentient beings, therefore it is not said that name etc. are the 'basis of arising'. Another explanation is that name etc. are not objects that can be killed, and therefore are subject to the aggression of others. Wanting to scold others, one uses language to scold sentient beings, not to scold name etc. In one's heart, one is angry with sentient beings, not angry with name etc. Even if someone is angry and scolds name etc., it is because name etc. are included within sentient beings. Therefore, it is not said that name etc. are the 'basis of arising'. Although harsh speech also relies on name etc. to arise, it, like lying and the other two, relies on a superior object to arise, so the focus is on discussing it from the perspective of the object, not from the perspective of what it relies on. Another explanation is that the arising of lying etc. necessarily relies on name etc., while the arising of harsh speech does not necessarily rely on name etc., such as scolding. Therefore, the first volume of the 'Nyaya' says: 'This verbal action has two types, one that arises based on name, and another that does not depend on name to arise.' According to this treatise, it is known that some harsh speech does not rely on name etc. Because of this uncertainty, it is not said that harsh speech arises relying on name etc. 'Stealing and the other three arise from possessions', this is explaining that possessions are the 'basis of arising' for actions, it is the second section. Stealing, sexual misconduct, and greed all arise in relation to possessions. Anything, sentient or non-sentient, that is used by others is called a possession. Stealing can arise in relation to sentient or non-sentient things. For example, stealing livestock etc. arises in relation to sentient things, stealing gold and silver etc. arises in relation to non-sentient things. Sexual misconduct only arises in relation to sentient things. Greed can arise in relation to sentient or non-sentient things. Because the faults of these actions are very serious, they are all called paths of action. The following text says 'evil desire for the wealth of others', it is only explaining it based on non-sentient things, but in reality it also applies to sentient things. This is different from anger, which only arises in relation to sentient beings and becomes a path of action. Question: Why are stealing and the other three said to 'arise from possessions', and not said to 'arise from sentient beings, name and form, etc.'? Answer: Because stealing is about stealing the property of others, and sexual misconduct is about committing adultery with the wives of others.

等。貪他財等。皆是他人受用具故。故於眾具處起。盜．貪亦通非情處起。不言有情處起。邪行雖復唯于有情。眾具勝故存眾具名　又盜等三制罪義邊皆待有情。眾具勝故立眾具名。盜等唯眾具處起。名色通非眾具。不言名色處起。盜等眾具處起。名身等三體非具故。亦不言名等處起。

唯邪見一名色處起者。釋名色處起。是第三節。色蘊是色。餘四蘊是名。邪見雖亦能緣擇滅。此中且據緣有為說　又解色蘊是色。餘四蘊．及擇滅是名。邪見不緣虛空．非擇滅。此中不說是名所攝　言非色法皆名名者。婆沙云。諸法有二分。謂色．非色　名在非色分中故。總說非色分為名　問何故邪見言名色處起。不言有情．眾具．名等處起　解云邪見撥諸因果。名色通諸因果。因果即是四諦所攝。名色言通故。言名色處起。邪見亦撥非情。不言有情處起。邪見亦撥非眾具。不言眾具處起。邪見亦撥非名等。不言名等處起。又撥名色亦撥有情．眾具．名等。故不別說依此三種。

虛誑語等三名身等處起者。釋名身等處起。是第四節。謂虛誑語．離間語．雜穢語。于名身．句身．文身處起　問何故虛誑等三言名等處起。不言于有情．眾具．名色處起　解云誑語等三為行誑等。巧作言詞必依名等。名等是語親正所依。以是勝故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：等等。貪圖他人的財物等。因為這些都是他人使用的物品。因此，盜取和貪婪會在物品處產生。盜取和貪婪也可能在非生物處產生。沒有說在有情眾生處產生。邪淫雖然只發生在有情眾生身上，但因為物品更為重要，所以保留了『物品』這個名稱。此外，盜取等三種行為的制罪意義都依賴於有情眾生。因為物品更為重要，所以建立了『物品』這個名稱。盜取等行為只在物品處產生。『名』（Nāma，精神）和『色』（Rūpa，物質）涵蓋非物品。沒有說在『名色』處產生。盜取等行為在物品處產生。『名身』（Nāmakāya，名稱的集合），『句身』（Padakāya，句子的集合）等三種是實體而非物品，因此也沒有說在『名』等處產生。

只有邪見在『名色』處產生，這是解釋『名色』處產生，是第三節。色蘊（Rūpaskandha，物質蘊）是色，其餘四蘊（蘊，Skandha，構成要素）是名。邪見雖然也能緣擇滅（Nirodha，寂滅），但這裡僅就緣有為法（Saṃskṛta，有條件的事物）來說。另一種解釋是，色蘊是色，其餘四蘊以及擇滅是名。邪見不緣虛空（Ākāśa，空間）和非擇滅（Asaṃskṛta，無條件的事物）。這裡沒有說這是『名』所包含的。說『凡不是色法的都是名』，婆沙（Vibhāṣā，論釋）中說，一切法有兩部分，即色和非色。『名』在非色部分中，所以總說非色部分為『名』。問：為什麼邪見說在『名色』處產生，而不說在有情眾生、物品、『名』等處產生？解釋說，邪見否定一切因果，而『名色』涵蓋一切因果。因果即是四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，四聖諦）所包含的。『名色』的說法是通用的，所以說在『名色』處產生。邪見也否定非生物，所以沒有說在有情眾生處產生。邪見也否定非物品，所以沒有說在物品處產生。邪見也否定非『名』等，所以沒有說在『名』等處產生。而且，否定『名色』也就是否定有情眾生、物品、『名』等，所以沒有分別說依賴這三種。

虛誑語等三種在『名身』等處產生，這是解釋『名身』等處產生，是第四節。即虛誑語（Mṛṣāvāda，妄語）、離間語（Paiśunya，離間語）、雜穢語（Sāmbhinnapralāpa，雜穢語），在名身、句身、文身（Vyañjanakāya，文字的集合）處產生。問：為什麼虛誑語等三種說在『名』等處產生，而不說在有情眾生、物品、『名色』處產生？解釋說，虛誑語等三種是爲了進行欺騙等行為。巧妙地運用言辭必定依賴於『名』等。『名』等是語言最直接和正確的所依。因為這個原因，所以說『名』等更為重要。

【English Translation】 English version: Etc. Coveting others' wealth, etc. Because these are all items for others' use. Therefore, stealing and greed arise in relation to objects. Stealing and greed can also arise in relation to non-sentient things. It is not said to arise in relation to sentient beings. Although wrong conduct only occurs with sentient beings, the term 'objects' is retained because objects are more significant. Furthermore, the meaning of prohibiting the three offenses of stealing, etc., all depends on sentient beings. The name 'objects' is established because objects are more important. Stealing, etc., only arise in relation to objects. 'Nāma' (name, mental phenomena) and 'Rūpa' (form, material phenomena) encompass non-objects. It is not said to arise in relation to 'Nāma-Rūpa'. Stealing, etc., arise in relation to objects. 'Nāmakāya' (collection of names), 'Padakāya' (collection of phrases), etc., are entities and not objects, so it is not said to arise in relation to 'Nāma', etc.

Only wrong view arises in relation to 'Nāma-Rūpa'. This explains arising in relation to 'Nāma-Rūpa', which is the third section. The Rūpaskandha (aggregate of form) is Rūpa, and the remaining four Skandhas (aggregates, constituents) are Nāma. Although wrong view can also be related to Nirodha (cessation), here it is discussed only in relation to Saṃskṛta (conditioned things). Another explanation is that the Rūpaskandha is Rūpa, and the remaining four Skandhas and Nirodha are Nāma. Wrong view does not relate to Ākāśa (space) and Asaṃskṛta (unconditioned things). It is not said here that it is included in 'Nāma'. Saying 'whatever is not form is Nāma', the Vibhāṣā (commentary) says that all dharmas have two parts, namely form and non-form. 'Nāma' is in the non-form part, so the non-form part is generally called 'Nāma'. Question: Why does wrong view say it arises in relation to 'Nāma-Rūpa', and not say it arises in relation to sentient beings, objects, 'Nāma', etc.? The explanation is that wrong view denies all causes and effects, and 'Nāma-Rūpa' encompasses all causes and effects. Cause and effect are included in the catvāri āryasatyāni (Four Noble Truths). The term 'Nāma-Rūpa' is universal, so it is said to arise in relation to 'Nāma-Rūpa'. Wrong view also denies non-sentient things, so it is not said to arise in relation to sentient beings. Wrong view also denies non-objects, so it is not said to arise in relation to objects. Wrong view also denies non-'Nāma', etc., so it is not said to arise in relation to 'Nāma', etc. Moreover, denying 'Nāma-Rūpa' is also denying sentient beings, objects, 'Nāma', etc., so it is not separately said to depend on these three.

The three of false speech, etc., arise in relation to 'Nāmakāya', etc. This explains arising in relation to 'Nāmakāya', etc., which is the fourth section. Namely, Mṛṣāvāda (false speech), Paiśunya (divisive speech), Sāmbhinnapralāpa (idle chatter), arise in relation to Nāmakāya, Padakāya, Vyañjanakāya (collection of letters). Question: Why do the three of false speech, etc., say they arise in relation to 'Nāma', etc., and not say they arise in relation to sentient beings, objects, 'Nāma-Rūpa'? The explanation is that the three of false speech, etc., are for engaging in deception, etc. Skillfully using words necessarily depends on 'Nāma', etc. 'Nāma', etc., are the most direct and correct basis of language. For this reason, it is said that 'Nāma', etc., are more important.

。故言名等處起。誑語等三雖亦托有情．眾具．名色處起。非親正依。非是勝故。不言有情．眾具．名色處起。故顯宗云。虛誑語等三。名身等處起。語體必依名等起故。語雖亦托有情等生。而正親依名身等起。又雜穢語不待有情。無有不託名身等者。

有起加行至無根依別故者。此下第四。問答分別。就中。一殺已非根本。二他殺成業道　此即殺已非根本。問及頌答。

論曰至俱死前死者。釋頌上句及下無根。並引證可知。

何緣如是者。此下釋依別故問。何緣俱死．前死不成業道。

以所殺生至理不應然者。答。以所殺生現命猶存。不可令彼俱死．前死能殺生者成殺生罪。以所殺生命未斷故。夫成業道命斷方成。非俱死．前死能殺生者其命已終至第二念可得殺罪。所以者何。至第二念雖所殺生其命不續。彼能殺者以受後有身別依生故。謂殺加行所依止身。今已斷滅落謝過去。至第二念雖有別類身同分生。非是殺罪所依止身。此身曾未起殺生加行。成殺業道理不應然。

若有多人至故無殺罪者。此即第二他．殺成業道。如文可知。

今次應辨至名為邪見者。此下第五明惡業道相。就中。一問。二答。此即問也。

且先分別至他想不誤殺者。此下答。就中。一明殺業道相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此說（虛）妄語等從名等處生起。（虛）妄語等三者，雖然也依託有情（Satva，指有感覺的生命）、眾具（物品）和名色（Namarupa，精神和物質現象），但並非直接和主要的所依，也不是殊勝的緣故，所以不說從有情、眾具、名色處生起。因此《顯宗》說，虛妄語等三者，從名身等處生起。語的本體必定依賴名等生起，所以說語雖然也依託有情等產生，但真正直接依賴的是名身等生起。而且雜穢語不等待有情，沒有不依託名身等的。

有『起加行』到『無根依別故』者：以下是第四個問答分別。其中，一、殺已非根本；二、他殺成業道。這即是說殺已非根本的問答。

論曰至俱死前死者：解釋頌的上句和下句的『無根』，並引用論證，可以理解。

何緣如是者：以下解釋『依別故』的提問。為什麼俱死、前死不能構成業道？

以所殺生至理不應然者：回答。因為被殺的生命現在還活著，不可能讓其俱死、前死就能構成殺生罪。因為被殺的生命還沒有斷絕。構成業道必須是生命斷絕才能成立。不是俱死、前死能殺生者，其生命已經終結到第二念才能構成殺罪。為什麼呢？到第二念，即使被殺的生命沒有延續，但能殺者因為接受後有，身體已經不同，所依已經不同。所謂殺加行所依止的身體，現在已經斷滅，衰落過去。到第二念，即使有不同類別的身體同分產生，也不是殺罪所依止的身體。這個身體從未發起殺生的加行，構成殺業的道理是不應該這樣的。

若有多人至故無殺罪者：這是第二，他殺構成業道。如文可知。

今次應辨至名為邪見者：以下第五，闡明惡業道相。其中，一、問；二、答。這是提問。

且先分別至他想不誤殺者：以下是回答。其中，一、闡明殺業道相。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that (false) speech and the like arise from names and so on. Although false speech and the other two also rely on sentient beings (Satva, beings with consciousness), aggregates (material possessions), and name and form (Namarupa, mental and material phenomena), they are not directly and primarily dependent on them, nor are they superior causes. Therefore, it is not said that they arise from sentient beings, aggregates, and name and form. Thus, the Manifestation of the Doctrine says that false speech and the other two arise from name, body, and so on. The essence of speech necessarily relies on names and so on to arise. Therefore, although speech also relies on sentient beings and the like to arise, it truly and directly relies on name, body, and so on to arise. Moreover, coarse language does not wait for sentient beings; there is none that does not rely on name, body, and so on.

From 'arising effort' to 'different root dependence': The following is the fourth question-and-answer analysis. Among them, 1. killing after is not fundamental; 2. killing by another constitutes a path of action. This is the question and answer regarding killing after not being fundamental.

The treatise says, 'Until simultaneous death, prior death': This explains the upper line of the verse and the 'rootless' of the lower line, and the citation of evidence is understandable.

What is the reason for this?: The following explains the question of 'different dependence'. Why do simultaneous death and prior death not constitute a path of action?

Because the being killed... the principle should not be so: Answer. Because the life of the being killed still exists, it is impossible for simultaneous death or prior death to constitute the sin of killing. Because the life of the being killed has not yet been severed. The path of action is constituted only when life is severed. It is not that simultaneous death or prior death can kill the being, whose life has already ended, to constitute the sin of killing in the second thought. Why is this? Even if the life of the being killed does not continue until the second thought, the killer, because of receiving a subsequent existence, has a different body, and the dependence is different. The body on which the effort of killing relies has now been severed, decayed, and passed. Even if a different kind of body and its parts arise in the second thought, it is not the body on which the sin of killing relies. This body has never initiated the effort of killing, and the principle of constituting the karma of killing should not be so.

If there are many people... therefore there is no sin of killing: This is the second, killing by another constitutes a path of action. As the text shows.

Now we should next distinguish... called wrong view: The following is the fifth, clarifying the characteristics of evil paths of action. Among them, 1. question; 2. answer. This is the question.

And first distinguish... mistaken killing with other thought: The following is the answer. Among them, 1. clarifying the characteristics of the path of killing.

。二明盜業道相。三明欲邪行相。四明虛誑語相。五明離間語等相。六明意業道相。此即明殺業道相。

論曰至殺生業道者。一要由先發欲殺故思。簡無殺心。釋頌殺生由故思　二於他有情他言簡自。自殺不成業道。有情簡非情殺非情亦不成業道。釋頌他字　三他有情想。簡自想．非有情想。若他作自想不成業道。若有情作非情想不成業道。釋頌想字　四作殺加行。簡無加行。謂執刀等從此至彼。釋頌下句殺字　五不誤而殺。不誤。簡誤。殺。顯果滿。謂唯殺彼所應殺者　不漫殺余。此即簡誤。誤殺不成業道。釋頌不誤殺。此之殺字通加行不誤具此五緣名殺業道。

有猶預殺至亦成業道者。簡差別。此顯猶預殺亦成業道　又解此猶預殺是不誤殺攝。于不誤中顯有此類。

于剎那滅蘊如何成殺生者。問。于現在世剎那滅蘊自然不住。如何成殺生　又解于剎那剎那滅蘊。過去已滅。現在不住。未來未至。如何成殺生。

息風名生至鈴聲名殺者。答中兩解。此即初師。出入息風名之為生。依身心轉若有能令以刀杖等。斷現在息。無有勢力引同類息至其生相。不續至生爾時名殺。既言不續。明知殺未來蘊　如滅燈光。如滅鈴聲。以風．手業吹執現在燈光．鈴聲。無有勢力引后自類至其生相。不續至生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二、闡明盜竊行為的特徵。三、闡明不正當性行為的特徵。四、闡明虛假欺騙性語言的特徵。五、闡明離間他人關係的語言等等的特徵。六、闡明意念行為的特徵。這些都是在闡明殺生行為的特徵。

論述說：關於殺生行為，需要具備以下條件：一、首先要有想要殺生的想法（故思）。這裡是爲了區分沒有殺心的行為。解釋頌文中的『殺生由故思』。二、對象是其他的有情眾生（他有情）。『他』字是爲了區分自己。自殺不能構成殺生行為。『有情』是爲了區分無情之物。殺無情之物也不能構成殺生行為。解釋頌文中的『他』字。三、要有『是其他有情眾生』的想法（他有情想）。區分『是自己』的想法和『不是有情眾生』的想法。如果把他人當作自己，不能構成殺生行為。如果把有情眾生當作無情之物，也不能構成殺生行為。解釋頌文中的『想』字。四、實施殺生的行為（作殺加行）。區分沒有實施殺生的行為。例如，拿著刀等工具從這裡到那裡。解釋頌文下句中的『殺』字。五、不是誤殺（不誤而殺）。『不誤』是爲了區分誤殺。『殺』字表明結果已經完成。意思是隻殺了那些應該殺的人，而不是隨意殺害其他人。這裡是爲了區分誤殺。誤殺不能構成殺生行為。解釋頌文中的『不誤殺』。這個『殺』字包括了實施殺生的行為。具備這五個條件才能稱為殺生行為。

如果有猶豫不決的殺生行為，也構成殺生行為（有猶預殺至亦成業道者）。這裡是爲了區分不同的情況。這表明猶豫不決的殺生行為也構成殺生行為。另一種解釋是，這種猶豫不決的殺生行為也屬於『不是誤殺』的範疇。在『不是誤殺』中，也存在這種情況。

對於剎那間消滅的蘊，如何構成殺生行為（于剎那滅蘊如何成殺生者）？這是提問。在現在的世界中，剎那間消滅的蘊自然不會停留，如何構成殺生行為？另一種解釋是，對於剎那間剎那間消滅的蘊，過去已經消滅，現在不會停留，未來還沒有到來，如何構成殺生行為？

呼吸稱為生，停止呼吸稱為殺（息風名生至名殺者）？這是回答中的兩種解釋。這是第一種觀點：呼入和呼出的氣息稱為生命。依靠身心運轉，如果有能力用刀杖等工具切斷現在的呼吸，沒有力量引導同類的氣息繼續產生，直到生命結束，這時就稱為殺生。既然說是『不續』，就表明殺害的是未來的蘊。就像熄滅燈光，就像熄滅。用風或手的動作吹滅或熄滅現在的燈光或**，沒有力量引導後來的同類繼續產生，直到熄滅。

【English Translation】 English version: Two, explaining the characteristics of the act of stealing (盜業道相, dào yè dào xiāng). Three, explaining the characteristics of improper sexual conduct (欲邪行相, yù xié xíng xiāng). Four, explaining the characteristics of false and deceptive speech (虛誑語相, xū kuáng yǔ xiāng). Five, explaining the characteristics of divisive speech, etc. (離間語等相, lí jiàn yǔ děng xiāng). Six, explaining the characteristics of mental actions (意業道相, yì yè dào xiāng). These are all explanations of the characteristics of the act of killing (殺業道相, shā yè dào xiāng).

The treatise says: Regarding the act of killing, the following conditions must be met: One, there must first be the thought of wanting to kill (故思, gù sī). This is to distinguish it from actions without the intention to kill. Explaining the verse 'killing arises from intentional thought (殺生由故思, shā shēng yóu gù sī)'. Two, the object must be another sentient being (他有情, tā yǒu qíng). 'Other' (他, tā) is to distinguish it from oneself. Suicide does not constitute the act of killing. 'Sentient being' (有情, yǒu qíng) is to distinguish it from non-sentient things. Killing non-sentient things does not constitute the act of killing. Explaining the word 'other' (他, tā) in the verse. Three, there must be the thought of 'this is another sentient being' (他有情想, tā yǒu qíng xiǎng). Distinguishing it from the thought of 'this is oneself' and 'this is not a sentient being'. If one mistakes another for oneself, it does not constitute the act of killing. If one mistakes a sentient being for a non-sentient thing, it does not constitute the act of killing. Explaining the word 'thought' (想, xiǎng) in the verse. Four, the act of killing must be carried out (作殺加行, zuò shā jiā xíng). Distinguishing it from not carrying out the act of killing. For example, taking a knife, etc., from here to there. Explaining the word 'killing' (殺, shā) in the lower sentence of the verse. Five, it must not be accidental killing (不誤而殺, bù wù ér shā). 'Not accidental' (不誤, bù wù) is to distinguish it from accidental killing. 'Killing' (殺, shā) indicates that the result has been achieved. It means only killing those who should be killed, and not randomly killing others. This is to distinguish it from accidental killing. Accidental killing does not constitute the act of killing. Explaining 'not accidental killing' (不誤殺, bù wù shā) in the verse. This word 'killing' (殺, shā) includes the act of carrying out the killing. Having these five conditions is called the act of killing.

If there is hesitant killing, it also constitutes the act of killing (有猶預殺至亦成業道者, yǒu yóu yù shā zhì yì chéng yè dào zhě). This is to distinguish different situations. This shows that hesitant killing also constitutes the act of killing. Another explanation is that this hesitant killing also falls under the category of 'not accidental killing'. Within 'not accidental killing', there is also this type of situation.

How can the momentary cessation of aggregates constitute the act of killing (于剎那滅蘊如何成殺生者, yú chà nà miè yùn rú hé chéng shā shēng zhě)? This is a question. In the present world, the momentary cessation of aggregates naturally does not remain, so how can it constitute the act of killing? Another explanation is that for the momentary cessation of aggregates, the past has already ceased, the present does not remain, and the future has not yet arrived, so how can it constitute the act of killing?

Breathing is called life, and stopping breathing is called killing (息風名生至名殺者, xī fēng míng shēng zhì ** míng shā zhě)? This is two explanations in the answer. This is the first view: inhaling and exhaling breath is called life. Relying on the functioning of body and mind, if one has the ability to cut off the present breath with knives, sticks, etc., there is no power to guide similar breaths to continue to arise until life ends, then this is called killing. Since it is said 'does not continue' (不續, bù xù), it indicates that what is killed is the future aggregate. It is like extinguishing a lamp, like extinguishing . Using wind or hand movements to blow out or extinguish the present light of the lamp or **, there is no power to guide later similar ones to continue to arise until it is extinguished.

。爾時名滅。

或復生者至殺罪所觸者。第二師答。生是命根。若有能令以刀杖等斷現在命無有勢力引同類命相續至生相。不續至生相。爾時名殺謂以噁心隔斷他命。乃至一念應至生相闕緣不生　唯此應知殺罪所觸。不隔當命名曰非余。即非殺罪所觸應知此中現蘊自滅不可言殺。但可言衰。當蘊不續可言殺也　既言不續名殺。明知殺未來蘊。兩家釋生義雖有異。若論殺義皆殺未來　又解若據體斷唯殺未來。若據衰用亦殺現在。義皆無妨。故婆沙一百一十八云。問殺何蘊名殺生。過去耶。未來耶。現在耶。過去已滅。未來未至。現在不住。悉無殺義。云何名殺耶。答殺未來蘊。非過去．現在。問未來未至云何可殺。答彼住現在。遮未來世諸蘊和合說名為殺。由遮他蘊和合生緣故得殺罪　有說殺現在．未來蘊。但非過去。問未來可爾。現在不住。設彼不殺亦自然滅。云何殺耶。答斷彼勢用說名為殺。所以者何。先現在蘊雖不住而滅。然不能令后蘊不續。今現在蘊不住而滅。則能令后蘊不續。故於現蘊亦得殺罪(然無評家。前據體斷名殺。后兼斷用亦殺現在。義並無違。此論意同前師。若據衰亦同后說)又婆沙云。問諸蘊中何蘊可殺于彼得罪。有說。色蘊。所以者何。唯色可為杖等所觸故。有說。五蘊。問四蘊無觸云

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爾時，（生命的）名稱消滅。

或者，如果（有情）的生命延續到會被殺害的境地，第二位論師回答說：『生命』是命根。如果有人能夠用刀杖等物斷絕（有情）現在的生命，使其沒有力量引導同類的生命相續，以至於無法延續到下一個生命階段，（使其）不延續到下一個生命階段，那時就叫做『殺』，意思是懷著噁心隔斷他人的生命，乃至僅僅一念之間，本應延續到下一個生命階段，卻因為缺少因緣而無法產生。只有這種情況應被理解為觸犯了殺罪。如果不隔斷（生命），就應當命名為『非殺』，即沒有觸犯殺罪。應當知道，這裡（指已經死亡的）現在的蘊已經自行消滅，不能說是『殺』，只能說是『衰』。而未來的蘊無法延續，才可以稱為『殺』。

既然說『不延續』叫做『殺』，就明確地表明瞭殺害的是未來的蘊。兩家對『生』的解釋雖然有所不同，但如果討論『殺』的意義，都是殺害未來。（的生命）

又有解釋說，如果根據實體斷滅來說，只是殺害未來；如果根據衰敗的作用來說，也是殺害現在。這兩種說法都沒有妨礙。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十八卷說：『問：殺害哪個蘊叫做殺生？是過去（的蘊）嗎？是未來（的蘊）嗎？是現在（的蘊）嗎？過去（的蘊）已經滅亡，未來（的蘊）尚未到來，現在（的蘊）無法停留，都沒有殺害的意義，怎麼能叫做殺呢？』答：『殺害的是未來的蘊，不是過去和現在的（蘊）。』問：『未來（的蘊）尚未到來，怎麼能夠殺害呢？』答：『當它處於現在時，遮斷未來世諸蘊的和合，就說這是殺害。』因為遮斷了他蘊和合產生的因緣，所以得到了殺罪。』

有人說，殺害的是現在和未來的蘊，但不是過去（的蘊）。問：『未來（的蘊）可以這樣說，現在（的蘊）無法停留，即使不殺害它，也會自然消滅，怎麼能說是殺害呢？』答：『斷絕它的勢用，就叫做殺害。』為什麼這樣說呢？因為先前的現在蘊雖然無法停留而滅亡，但不能使後來的蘊無法延續。現在（的）蘊無法停留而滅亡，就能使後來的蘊無法延續。所以在現在的蘊上也能得到殺罪。（然而沒有評判家。前面根據實體斷滅來說是殺，後面兼顧斷絕作用也是殺現在，這兩種說法並沒有衝突。此論的意義與前一位論師相同，如果根據衰敗來說，也與後面的說法相同。）又《婆沙論》說：『問：諸蘊中哪個蘊可以被殺害，並且因此得到罪過？』有人說：『是色蘊（rupa-skandha），為什麼這樣說呢？因為只有色蘊可以被刀杖等物觸及。』有人說：『是五蘊（panca-skandha）。』問：『四蘊沒有觸及……』

【English Translation】 English version: At that time, the name (of life) ceases.

Or, if the life of a being extends to the point where it is subject to being killed, the second teacher answers: 'Life' is the root of existence. If someone is able to sever the present life (of a being) with knives, sticks, etc., so that it has no power to lead similar lives to continue, to the point that it cannot continue to the next stage of life, (so that) it does not continue to the next stage of life, then it is called 'killing,' meaning to sever the life of another with evil intent, even in a single thought, when it should continue to the next stage of life, but cannot arise due to lack of conditions. Only this situation should be understood as violating the sin of killing. If (life) is not severed, it should be called 'non-killing,' that is, not violating the sin of killing. It should be known that here (referring to the already deceased) the present skandha (khandha) has extinguished itself, and cannot be said to be 'killed,' but only 'decayed.' But the future skandha cannot continue, and can be called 'killed.'

Since it is said that 'non-continuation' is called 'killing,' it clearly shows that what is killed is the future skandha. Although the two schools have different explanations of 'birth,' if we discuss the meaning of 'killing,' it is all about killing the future (life).

Another explanation is that if we speak in terms of the destruction of the entity, it is only killing the future; if we speak in terms of the function of decay, it is also killing the present. These two statements do not contradict each other. Therefore, the 118th volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: Which skandha is killed when it is called killing a living being? Is it the past (skandha)? Is it the future (skandha)? Is it the present (skandha)? The past (skandha) has already perished, the future (skandha) has not yet arrived, and the present (skandha) cannot stay, none of them have the meaning of killing, so how can it be called killing?' Answer: 'What is killed is the future skandha, not the past and present (skandhas).' Question: 'The future (skandha) has not yet arrived, how can it be killed?' Answer: 'When it is in the present, blocking the combination of the future skandhas, it is said to be killing.' Because the conditions for the combination and arising of other skandhas are blocked, the sin of killing is obtained.'

Some say that what is killed is the present and future skandhas, but not the past (skandha). Question: 'The future (skandha) can be said in this way, the present (skandha) cannot stay, even if it is not killed, it will naturally perish, how can it be said to be killing?' Answer: 'Cutting off its potential is called killing.' Why is it said this way? Because the previous present skandha, although it cannot stay and perishes, cannot prevent the later skandha from continuing. The present (skandha) cannot stay and perishes, it can prevent the later skandha from continuing. Therefore, the sin of killing can also be obtained on the present skandha. (However, there is no commentator. The former says that killing is based on the destruction of the entity, and the latter also takes into account the function of cutting off, which is also killing the present. These two statements do not conflict. The meaning of this theory is the same as the previous teacher, and if it is based on decay, it is also the same as the later statement.) Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: Which of the skandhas can be killed, and thus obtain sin?' Some say: 'It is the rupa-skandha (form skandha), why is it said this way? Because only the rupa-skandha can be touched by knives, sticks, etc.' Some say: 'It is the panca-skandha (five skandhas).' Question: 'The four skandhas have no touch...'

何可殺。答彼依色轉。色蘊壞時彼便不轉故亦名殺。如瓶破時乳等亦失。又都於五蘊起噁心而殺故於彼得殺罪。又婆沙云。問殺壽盡者得殺罪不。答若此剎那壽應盡即爾時加害者不得殺罪。若由加害乃至一剎那壽住不生法皆得殺罪。況多剎那。

此所斷命為屬於誰者。執我者問。

謂命若無彼便死者者。答。此所斷命屬死者。命若無彼便死者。死者是身。故正理云。謂命若無彼名死者。即是此命所依附身。

既標第六非我而誰者。執我者言。命屬死者。是第六轉屬主聲。故今難言。既標第六轉屬主死者聲。非屬我而更屬誰。

破我論中至其理決然者。答。執有實我指同下破。引頌意證身是命者。言三舍身故有命根。身名有命者。無命根名死其理決然。非別有我命屬於彼。故正理云。如伽陀說壽暖等言。故有命身名身命者。非實有我。其理決然。

離系者言至亦被燒害者。敘外計。離系者云。不思而殺亦得殺罪。以殺同故猶如觸火。設不先思亦被燒故。以燒等故。顯無故思亦成殺罪。不同佛法　離系梵云尼乾陀。彼謂內離煩惱繫縛。外離衣服繫縛。即露形外道也。

若爾汝等至立義可成者。論主廣破。若謂殺同亦得殺罪。汝等離系。不先作意遇見他妻。或誤觸身。亦應有罪。故見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

什麼可以被殺？回答說，那是依附於色蘊而轉的。當色蘊壞滅時，它便不再轉動，因此也稱為『殺』。就像瓶子破裂時，牛奶等也會失去一樣。此外，對五蘊整體生起噁心而殺害，因此對這種行為會得到殺罪。另外，《婆沙論》中說：『問：殺害壽命將盡的人，會得到殺罪嗎？』回答說：『如果此人在那一剎那壽命就應該完結，那麼在那時加以傷害的人，不會得到殺罪。如果因為加害，乃至使壽命多住一剎那，不生之法都會得到殺罪，更何況是多剎那呢？』這被斷絕的命屬於誰呢？這是執著于『我』的人提出的問題。所謂『命若不存在，那個人就會死亡』，這是什麼意思？回答說：這被斷絕的命屬於死者。命若不存在，那個人就會死亡。死者就是身體。所以《正理》中說：『所謂命若不存在，那被稱為死者，就是這命所依附的身體。』既然標明了第六格，不是『我的』，那又是誰的呢？這是執著于『我』的人說的。命屬於死者，是第六格的屬主之聲，所以現在難以辯駁說，既然標明了第六格的屬主之聲，不是屬於『我』的，那又是屬於誰的呢？在破『我』論中，直到那個道理明確為止。回答說：執著于有實在的『我』，指向下文一同破斥。引用偈頌的意義來證明身體就是命，說『三舍身』，所以有命根。身體被稱為『有命者』，沒有命根就稱為『死』，這個道理是明確的。不是另外有一個『我』，命屬於那個『我』。所以《正理》中說：『如伽陀所說，壽命、暖氣等。』所以有命的身體被稱為『身命者』，不是實在有一個『我』，這個道理是明確的。離系者（Nigantha，耆那教的苦行僧）說，即使不思考而殺，也會得到殺罪。敘述外道的觀點。離系者說：『不思考而殺，也會得到殺罪，因為殺害是相同的，就像接觸火焰一樣。即使不事先思考，也會被燒傷。』因為燒傷等同於殺害，所以即使沒有故意思考，也會構成殺罪，這與佛法不同。離系，梵文是Nigantha。他們認為內在脫離煩惱的束縛，外在脫離衣服的束縛，也就是裸形外道。如果這樣，你們離系者，論主廣泛地破斥。如果說殺害相同也會得到殺罪，那麼你們離系者，如果不事先作意，遇見他人的妻子，或者錯誤地觸碰到身體，也應該有罪。所以看到

【English Translation】 English version:

What can be killed? The answer is that which relies on and revolves around the Skandha of Form (rupa-skandha). When the Skandha of Form is destroyed, it no longer revolves, and therefore it is also called 'killing'. Just as when a bottle is broken, milk and other things are also lost. Furthermore, generating an evil mind towards the entirety of the five skandhas and killing, therefore one incurs the sin of killing for this action. Moreover, the Vibhasha (Mahavibhasa, a major commentary in Abhidharma) says: 'Question: Does one incur the sin of killing if one kills someone whose lifespan is about to end?' The answer is: 'If this person's lifespan should end at that very moment, then the one who inflicts harm at that time does not incur the sin of killing. If, due to the harm inflicted, the lifespan is extended even for a single moment, all non-arising dharmas (laws/phenomena) incur the sin of killing, let alone multiple moments.' To whom does this severed life belong? This is a question posed by someone who clings to 'self' (Atman). What is meant by 'if life does not exist, that person will die'? The answer is: This severed life belongs to the deceased. If life does not exist, that person will die. The deceased is the body. Therefore, the Nyaya (Nyaya Sutra, a foundational text of the Nyaya school of Hindu philosophy) says: 'That which, if life does not exist, is called the deceased, is precisely the body on which this life depends.' Since the sixth case (genitive case) is marked, not 'mine', then whose is it? This is what someone who clings to 'self' says. Life belongs to the deceased; it is the genitive case indicating possession. Therefore, it is now difficult to argue that since the genitive case indicating possession is marked, not belonging to 'me', then to whom else does it belong? In the discussion of refuting 'self', until that principle is clear. The answer is: Clinging to a real 'self' is pointed to and refuted together below. Quoting the meaning of the verse to prove that the body is life, saying 'three abandon the body', therefore there is a life-root. The body is called 'one who has life'; without a life-root, it is called 'death'; this principle is clear. There is not another 'self' to whom life belongs. Therefore, the Nyaya says: 'As the Gatha (verse) says, lifespan, warmth, etc.' Therefore, a body with life is called 'body-life'; there is not a real 'self'; this principle is clear. The Nigantha (Jain ascetic) says that even killing without thinking incurs the sin of killing. Narrating the view of external paths. The Nigantha says: 'Even killing without thinking incurs the sin of killing, because killing is the same, just like touching fire. Even if one does not think beforehand, one will be burned.' Because burning is equivalent to killing, therefore even without intentional thought, it constitutes the sin of killing, which is different from Buddhism. Nigantha, in Sanskrit, is Nigantha. They believe in internally detaching from the bonds of afflictions and externally detaching from the bonds of clothing, that is, the naked external path. If that is the case, you Niganthas, the author of the treatise broadly refutes. If you say that killing is the same and also incurs the sin of killing, then you Niganthas, if you do not intentionally encounter another person's wife, or mistakenly touch the body, you should also have sin. Therefore, seeing

．遇見。見妻同故。故觸誤觸。觸身同故。然彼宗中故見．故觸成罪。遇見．誤觸．不成罪　或善心者為求福故拔離系發。或師慈心勸諸離系令修苦行　或因施主施好飲食宿食不消　此等皆應獲苦他罪。雖無噁心故令他苦。以與噁心拔髮。嗔心令修苦行。噁心與。食受苦同故　然彼宗中善心等獲福。噁心等得罪　或胎中子與彼母身。更相逼迫互為苦因。應母與胎有苦他罪。雖無故意令他受苦。與故意受苦同故。然胎與母彼宗中。胎．母互苦皆無有罪　又汝若言思與不思俱與殺合即得殺罪。能殺與殺合。能殺得殺罪。所殺既殺合。所殺得殺罪。亦應如火不但能燒余觸火者。亦復能燒自所依木。不應但令能殺得罪。火喻殺。燒喻罪。所依木喻所殺人。余觸火者喻能殺人　又思．不思但與殺合即得殺罪。自行殺時與殺合故可得殺罪。若遣他殺殺罪應無。以能教者非殺合故。如火不燒教觸火者。

又思．不思但與殺合即得殺罪。諸木．石等應為罪觸。如舍等崩。亦害生命故。既此殺合。應得殺罪　又非但喻立義可成。與理相符義方成故。

已分別殺生至力竊取屬已者。此即第二明盜業道相。

論曰至不與取罪者。此明具五緣成盜。於前殺緣。不誤。及想。並彼故思。如其所應流至後門業道相中。故盜等頌不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本遇見（偶然相遇）。看見妻子和以前一樣。因為以前的接觸而導致現在的錯誤接觸。身體的接觸和以前一樣。然而在他們的宗派中，因為以前的看見和接觸而構成罪過。偶然相遇和錯誤接觸，不構成罪過。或者有善心的人爲了求福的緣故，拔掉離系（外道修行者）的頭髮。或者師父慈悲勸告那些離系修行者去修苦行。或者因為施主施捨好的飲食，導致宿食不消化。這些都應該獲得使他人受苦的罪過。雖然沒有惡意使他人受苦，但和帶有惡意拔頭髮、帶有嗔恨心讓人修苦行、帶有惡意給予食物而導致受苦是一樣的。然而在他們的宗派中，善心等會獲得福報，噁心等會得到罪過。或者胎中的孩子和母親的身體，互相逼迫，互相成為痛苦的原因。應該母親和胎兒都有使他人受苦的罪過。雖然沒有故意讓對方受苦，但和故意受苦是一樣的。然而胎兒和母親在他們的宗派中，胎兒和母親互相造成的痛苦都沒有罪過。又如果你們說，思考和不思考，只要和殺戮結合就得到殺罪。能殺的人和殺戮結合，能殺的人就得到殺罪。被殺的人和殺戮結合，被殺的人也得到殺罪。也應該像火一樣，不僅僅能燒其他接觸火的東西，也能燒自己所依附的木頭。不應該只讓能殺的人得到罪過。火比喻殺戮，燃燒比喻罪過，所依附的木頭比喻被殺的人，其他接觸火的人比喻能殺的人。又思考和不思考，只要和殺戮結合就得到殺罪。自己殺人的時候和殺戮結合，可以得到殺罪。如果派遣他人去殺人，殺罪應該沒有，因為能教唆的人沒有和殺戮結合。就像火不燒教唆別人接觸火的人一樣。又思考和不思考，只要和殺戮結合就得到殺罪。那麼木頭、石頭等應該因為罪的接觸而有罪。就像房屋倒塌，也會傷害生命。既然和殺戮結合，就應該得到殺罪。又不能僅僅用比喻來確立道理，只有和道理相符才能成立。已經分別了殺生，接下來到用暴力竊取屬於他人的東西。這就是第二部分，說明盜取這種業道的相狀。論曰（論述說）到不與取罪者（未經允許拿取東西的罪過）。這裡說明具備五種因緣構成盜竊。在前面的殺生因緣中，不誤（沒有認錯對像），以及想（正確的認知），並且以前的思考，都應該按照相應的道理，流向後面的業道相中。所以盜竊等的頌文不...

【English Translation】 English version Encountering (accidental meeting). Seeing one's wife as before. Because of past contact, a mistaken touch occurs. Bodily contact is the same as before. However, in their sect, past seeing and touching constitute a sin. Accidental encounters and mistaken touches do not constitute a sin. Or, a person with good intentions, seeking merit, plucks the hair of a li xi (外道修行者, a non-Buddhist ascetic). Or, a compassionate teacher advises those li xi ascetics to practice asceticism. Or, because a donor provides good food and drink, undigested food remains overnight. All of these should incur the sin of causing suffering to others. Although there is no malicious intent to cause suffering to others, it is the same as maliciously plucking hair, causing suffering through anger, or giving food with malicious intent that leads to suffering. However, in their sect, good intentions and the like bring merit, while evil intentions and the like bring sin. Or, a fetus in the womb and the mother's body mutually press against each other, each causing suffering to the other. The mother and the fetus should both have the sin of causing suffering to others. Although there is no intention to cause suffering to the other, it is the same as intentionally causing suffering. However, in their sect, the suffering caused mutually by the fetus and the mother is not considered a sin. Furthermore, if you say that thought and non-thought, as long as they are combined with killing, result in the sin of killing, then the one who can kill, combined with killing, incurs the sin of killing. The one who is killed, combined with killing, also incurs the sin of killing. It should also be like fire, which not only burns other things that touch it but also burns the wood it relies on. One should not only allow the one who can kill to incur sin. Fire is a metaphor for killing, burning is a metaphor for sin, the wood it relies on is a metaphor for the person being killed, and the one who touches the fire is a metaphor for the one who can kill. Furthermore, thought and non-thought, as long as they are combined with killing, result in the sin of killing. When one kills oneself, combined with killing, one can incur the sin of killing. If one sends another to kill, the sin of killing should not exist, because the one who can instigate is not combined with killing, just as fire does not burn the one who teaches others to touch the fire. Furthermore, thought and non-thought, as long as they are combined with killing, result in the sin of killing. Then wood, stones, and the like should be guilty of the touch of sin, just as a collapsing house also harms life. Since it is combined with killing, it should incur the sin of killing. Furthermore, one cannot establish a principle merely with a metaphor; it can only be established if it is consistent with reason. Having distinguished killing, we now move on to forcibly taking what belongs to others. This is the second part, explaining the characteristics of the path of stealing as a karma (業道, action leading to future consequences). The lun yue (論曰, treatise says) to the sin of taking what is not given. This explains that having five conditions constitutes theft. In the previous conditions for killing, not mistaking (not mistaking the object), as well as xiang (想, correct perception), and previous thought, should all, according to the corresponding principle, flow into the subsequent characteristics of the path of karma. Therefore, the verses on theft and the like do not...

重顯說　一謂要先發欲盜故思。簡無故思從前流來　二於他物。簡自物。自盜不成業道。是頌中他物　三起他物想。簡自物想。若於他物作自物想不成業道。他物頌有。想前流來　又解若想為一緣。后頌全無　四或強力劫。或復私竊起盜加行。從此至彼簡無加行。是頌力竊　五不誤而取令屬己身。不誤簡誤。誤取不成業道。取屬己身。取顯離處。取屬己身頌文自有。不誤二字從前流來　齊此五緣方說名為不與取罪。

若有盜取至望守護者者。此下明盜結罪處別　率堵波。是高勝義。舊云藪斗波訛也。或云塔更是邊國胡語。彌更訛也。若言制多是積聚義。與率都波相似　此中兩說。前說為正。正理亦有兩說還前師為正。破后師云。則彼自盜應無有罪。是故前說于理為勝。又婆沙一百一十三評取此論前師為正。故彼論云。有說亦於國王處得。有說于施主處得。有說于守護人處得。有說于能護彼天．龍．藥叉．非人處得。如是說者于佛處得。

若有掘取至得偷盜罪者。大地所有皆屬王故　又婆沙一百一十三云。取兩國中間伏藏。若輪王出現世時輪王處得。若無輪王都無處得。

若有盜取至余例應思者。亡苾芻物名迴轉物。可令迴轉屬余苾芻故名迴轉。

已辨不與取至行所不應行者。此即第三明欲邪

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本重顯說：一、需要先發起想要盜竊的意念（欲盜故思）。這裡簡別的是沒有經過思考的盜竊，因為沒有經過思考的盜竊是從之前的行為自然流露出來的。二、盜竊的對象是別人的東西（他物）。這裡簡別的是自己的東西，盜竊自己的東西不能構成業道。『他物』在頌文中有所體現。三、產生認為那是別人東西的想法（起他物想）。這裡簡別的是認為是自己東西的想法。如果對別人的東西產生認為是自己東西的想法，也不能構成業道。『他物』在頌文中有所體現，『想』是從之前的行為自然流露出來的。又有一種解釋，如果把『想』作為一個緣起條件，那麼後面的頌文就完全沒有意義了。四、或者通過強力搶劫，或者通過秘密偷竊，開始盜竊的行為（起盜加行）。從開始到完成，這裡簡別的是沒有開始盜竊的行為。『力竊』在頌文中有所體現。五、沒有錯誤地拿走，並且使那個東西歸屬於自己（不誤而取令屬己身）。『不誤』簡別的是錯誤地拿走，錯誤地拿走不能構成業道。『取屬己身』，『取』顯示了離開原處，『取屬己身』在頌文中自有體現。『不誤』這兩個字是從之前的行為自然流露出來的。具備這五個條件，才能被稱為不與取罪。

如果有盜取（率堵波，是高勝義，舊云藪斗波訛也。或云塔更是邊國胡語。彌更訛也。若言制多是積聚義，與率都波相似）至希望守護者的情況。這下面說明盜竊結罪之處的區別。『率堵波』是高勝義，舊譯『藪斗波』是訛誤的。或者說『塔更』是邊國胡語，『彌更』是訛誤的。如果說『制多』是積聚的意思，與『率都波』相似。這裡有兩種說法。前面的說法是正確的。《正理》中也有兩種說法，認為之前的說法是正確的。駁斥後面的說法認為，如果這樣，那麼自己盜竊自己應該沒有罪過。所以前面的說法在道理上是更勝一籌的。而且《婆沙》第一百一十三卷也評判認為此論中之前的說法是正確的。所以該論說，有人說從國王處獲得，有人說從施主處獲得，有人說從守護人處獲得，有人說從能夠守護他們的天、龍、藥叉（Yaksa）、非人處獲得。這樣說的人認為從佛處獲得。

如果有挖掘（大地所有皆屬王故）至得到偷盜罪的情況。因為大地上所有的一切都屬於國王。

又《婆沙》第一百一十三卷說，拿取兩國中間的伏藏，如果轉輪王出現於世時，從轉輪王處獲得。如果沒有轉輪王，那就沒有地方可以獲得。

如果有盜取（亡苾芻物名迴轉物。可令迴轉屬余苾芻故名迴轉）至其餘情況應該類推思考的情況。死去比丘（Bhiksu）的物品叫做迴轉物，可以令其迴轉歸屬於其他比丘，所以叫做迴轉物。

已經辨析了不與取，至行為所不應該做的情況。這即是第三部分，說明欲邪行。

【English Translation】 English version Chongxian says: First, it is necessary to first generate the intention to steal (yu dao gu si). This distinguishes theft without prior thought, because theft without prior thought flows naturally from previous actions. Second, the object of theft is someone else's property (ta wu). This distinguishes one's own property; stealing one's own property does not constitute a karmic path. 'Ta wu' is reflected in the verse. Third, generate the thought that it is someone else's property (qi ta wu xiang). This distinguishes the thought that it is one's own property. If one thinks that someone else's property is one's own, it does not constitute a karmic path. 'Ta wu' is reflected in the verse, and 'xiang' flows naturally from previous actions. Another explanation is that if 'xiang' is taken as a causal condition, then the subsequent verses would be completely meaningless. Fourth, either through forceful robbery or secret theft, initiate the act of stealing (qi dao jia xing). From beginning to end, this distinguishes the absence of initiating the act of stealing. 'Li qie' is reflected in the verse. Fifth, take it without mistake and make that thing belong to oneself (bu wu er qu ling shu ji shen). 'Bu wu' distinguishes taking by mistake; taking by mistake does not constitute a karmic path. 'Qu shu ji shen', 'qu' indicates leaving the original place, and 'qu shu ji shen' is inherently reflected in the verse. The words 'bu wu' flow naturally from previous actions. Only when these five conditions are met can it be called the sin of not giving.

If there is theft (Sutupa, meaning 'high victory', formerly mistranslated as 'Sou Dou Po'. Or 'Ta Geng' is a foreign word from a border country, and 'Mi Geng' is a mistranslation. If 'Zhidu' means accumulation, it is similar to 'Sutupa') to those who hope to guard it. The following explains the differences in where the sin of theft is concluded. 'Sutupa' means 'high victory', and the old translation 'Sou Dou Po' is a mistranslation. Or it is said that 'Ta Geng' is a foreign word from a border country, and 'Mi Geng' is a mistranslation. If 'Zhidu' means accumulation, it is similar to 'Sutupa'. There are two explanations here. The former explanation is correct. There are also two explanations in the Nyaya, which consider the previous explanation to be correct. Refuting the latter explanation, it is argued that if this were the case, then stealing from oneself should not be a sin. Therefore, the former explanation is more reasonable. Moreover, the 113th volume of the Vibhasa also judges that the previous explanation in this treatise is correct. Therefore, the treatise says that some say it is obtained from the king, some say it is obtained from the donor, some say it is obtained from the guardian, and some say it is obtained from the Devas, Nagas, Yakshas, and non-humans who can protect them. Those who say this believe it is obtained from the Buddha.

If there is digging (everything on earth belongs to the king) to the situation of obtaining the sin of theft. Because everything on earth belongs to the king.

Furthermore, the 113th volume of the Vibhasa says that taking the hidden treasures between two countries, if a Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King) appears in the world, it is obtained from the Chakravartin. If there is no Chakravartin, then there is no place to obtain it.

If there is theft (the property of a deceased Bhiksu (monk) is called 'hui zhuan wu' (returned property). It can be returned to other Bhiksus, so it is called 'hui zhuan wu') to other situations that should be considered by analogy. The belongings of a deceased Bhiksu are called 'returned property' because they can be returned to other Bhiksus.

Having already distinguished not giving, to the situation of actions that should not be done. This is the third part, explaining sexual misconduct.

行相。邪行義準亦有五緣　一起淫故思。簡無故思。準前應有　二所不應行。簡異自所應行。頌中有此　三所不應行想。簡異應行想。若於所不應行作應行想不成業道。想亦準前必應有故　四起邪淫加行。簡無加行。準前應有　五不誤而淫。不誤簡誤。從前流來。如長行說。淫顯事成。準前應有。

論曰至方謂非時者。一于非境。故懷侵犯惱他深故　二于非道。雖不侵他縱逸重故　三于非處。鄙穢之事無慚重故　四于非時。懷胎。及兒。並破戒故。由斯過重皆成業道　有說若夫許受齋戒。有犯。非時。若不許受而輒自受。夫后若犯。不成業道　前師意說。許與不許若有所犯。皆成業道。

既不誤言至而非業道者。此下料簡。顯有誤心不成業道。

若於此他婦至成業道耶者。問。意可知。

有說亦成至於余究竟故者。答中兩說。后說為勝。是誤攝故　故受用者。謂果究竟　余文可知。

于苾芻尼至得業道耶者。問。尼不屬他望誰結罪。

此從國王至況出家者者。答。有兩解　一云此從國王得罪。行非法事不忍許故　第二說云。于自妻．妾受八戒時尚不應行。況出家者。以輕況重。但有侵陵即成業道。犯罪雖同。妻等非時。尼是非境。雖有兩解后解為勝。故正理云。苾芻尼等如有戒

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『行相』（行為的特徵）。『邪行義準』（不正當行為的定義）也有五個條件：

一、因為生起淫慾的念頭。排除沒有生起淫慾念頭的情況。按照前面的推斷，應該有這個條件。

二、對於不應該行淫的對象。排除不同於自己應該行淫的對象的情況。頌文中有這個條件。

三、認為不應該行淫的對象是應該行淫的對象。排除認為應該行淫的對象的情況。如果對於不應該行淫的對象，認為是應該行淫的對象，就不能構成業道（karma path）。這種想法也應該像前面一樣，是必須存在的。

四、生起邪淫的加行（實際行動）。排除沒有加行的情況。按照前面的推斷，應該有這個條件。

五、沒有錯誤地進行淫慾行為。『不誤』排除錯誤的情況。這是從前面推導出來的，就像長行文所說的那樣。『淫』顯示事情已經完成。按照前面的推斷，應該有這個條件。

論中說，『方謂非時者』（所謂非時，指的是）：一、對於不是自己行淫的對象。因為懷有侵犯、惱害他人的深刻意圖。二、對於不是正當的行淫方式。雖然沒有侵犯他人，但放縱自己的慾望也很嚴重。三、對於不是適當的地點。因為在鄙陋、污穢的地方行淫，沒有羞恥心也很嚴重。四、對於不是適當的時間。因為在婦女懷孕或哺乳期間，以及婦女受持戒律期間行淫。因為這些過失很嚴重，所以都構成業道。

有人說，如果丈夫允許妻子受持齋戒，丈夫違犯了，屬於非時。如果丈夫不允許妻子受持齋戒，而妻子自己受持了，丈夫之後違犯了，不構成業道。前面的說法認為，允許或不允許，只要有所違犯，都構成業道。

既然沒有錯誤地說到，但卻不是業道，這是下面的分析，顯示有錯誤的想法，不能構成業道。

如果對於這個或那個婦女，以至於構成業道嗎？這是提問，意思可以理解。

有人說也構成業道，因為到了最後完成的階段。回答中有兩種說法，後面的說法更勝一籌，因為屬於誤解的情況。所以『受用者』，指的是果報已經完成。其餘的文字可以理解。

對於比丘尼（bhikshuni，佛教女出家人），以至於得到業道嗎？這是提問。比丘尼不屬於他人，向誰結罪呢？

這裡從國王以至於何況出家的人呢？這是回答。有兩種解釋。一種解釋是，這裡是從國王那裡得到罪過，因為國王做不合法的事情，不能容忍。第二種解釋是，對於自己的妻子、妾，在她們受持八關齋戒的時候尚且不應該行淫，何況是出家的人呢？這是用輕的情況來比況重的情況。只要有侵犯的行為，就構成業道。犯罪雖然相同，妻子等屬於非時，比丘尼屬於非對象。雖然有兩種解釋，但後面的解釋更勝一籌。所以《正理》中說，比丘尼等如果受戒。

【English Translation】 English version:

『Characteristics of Action』. 『Definition of Wrong Conduct』 also has five conditions:

Because of arising thoughts of lust. Excludes the case of not arising thoughts of lust. According to the previous inference, this condition should exist.
Towards an object with whom one should not engage in sexual activity. Excludes cases different from objects with whom one should engage in sexual activity. This condition is in the verse.
Thinking that an object with whom one should not engage in sexual activity is an object with whom one should engage in sexual activity. Excludes thinking that it is an object with whom one should engage in sexual activity. If one thinks that an object with whom one should not engage in sexual activity is an object with whom one should engage in sexual activity, it does not constitute a karma path. This thought should also be present, as before.
Arising the preparatory action of wrong sexual conduct. Excludes cases without preparatory action. According to the previous inference, this condition should exist.
Engaging in sexual activity without mistake. 『Without mistake』 excludes cases of mistake. This is derived from the previous discussion, as stated in the prose. 『Sexual activity』 shows that the matter is completed. According to the previous inference, this condition should exist.

The treatise says, 『What is meant by non-time』 refers to: 1. Towards an object that is not one's own sexual partner. Because of harboring a deep intention to violate and harm others. 2. Towards an improper way of engaging in sexual activity. Although not violating others, indulging one's desires is also serious. 3. Towards an improper place. Because engaging in sexual activity in a vulgar and filthy place, without shame, is also serious. 4. Towards an improper time. Because engaging in sexual activity during a woman's pregnancy or breastfeeding, or during a woman's observance of precepts. Because these faults are serious, they all constitute karma paths.

Some say that if a husband allows his wife to observe a fast, and the husband violates it, it is considered non-time. If the husband does not allow his wife to observe a fast, but the wife observes it herself, and the husband violates it afterward, it does not constitute a karma path. The previous statement believes that whether allowed or not, any violation constitutes a karma path.

Since it is said without mistake, but it is not a karma path, this is the following analysis, showing that having a mistaken thought does not constitute a karma path.

If towards this or that woman, does it constitute a karma path? This is a question, the meaning is understandable.

Some say it also constitutes a karma path, because it reaches the final stage of completion. There are two views in the answer, the latter view is superior, because it belongs to the case of misunderstanding. Therefore, 『the one who enjoys』 refers to the fruition being completed. The remaining text is understandable.

Towards a bhikshuni (Buddhist nun), does one obtain a karma path? This is a question. A bhikshuni does not belong to another, to whom is the offense attributed?

Here, from the king to how much more so for those who have left home? This is the answer. There are two explanations. One explanation is that the offense is obtained from the king, because the king does illegal things and cannot tolerate it. The second explanation is that even for one's own wife or concubine, one should not engage in sexual activity when they are observing the eight precepts, how much more so for those who have left home? This is using a light situation to compare to a heavy situation. As long as there is an act of violation, it constitutes a karma path. Although the offense is the same, wives etc. belong to non-time, bhikshunis belong to non-object. Although there are two explanations, the latter explanation is superior. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says, bhikshunis etc. if they have precepts.

妻。若有侵陵亦成業道。有說此罪于所住王。以能護持及不許故。若王自犯業道亦成。故前所說于理為勝　又解。此師亦可為正。若王自犯于聽察等邊得罪。彼執法故。

若於童女至得業道耶者。問。

若已許他至皆于王得者。答。文可知。於此童女及余女邊行欲邪行。皆王處得罪。設正理師作如是難。若王犯時望誰結罪。如前通釋。

已辨欲邪行至解義虛誑語者。此下第四明虛誑語相。就中。一正明虛誑語。二約見聞等辨。此即正明虛誑語。

論曰至成虛誑語者。明虛誑語。具四緣成業道　一于所說境異想發言。見言不見等　二謂所誑者解所說義相領會也　三起染心四不誤。前三頌有。不誤流來。若具四緣成虛誑語。

若所誑者至此言是何者。問。

是雜穢語者。答。

既虛誑語至何時成業道者。問成業道時。

與最後字至皆此加行者。答。雖虛誑語有多字成。與最後字俱生表．及無表業成此業道。或所誑者性聰惠故。聞少誑語懸解后義。如是之人隨於何時。所誑解義表．無表業即成業道。前字俱行表無表業皆此加行。后字俱行表．無表業皆此後起。

所言解義至能解名解者。徴問。彼所誑者所言解義定據何時。為據已聞意識正解名解。為據耳根正聞耳識

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於妻子。如果有人侵犯或凌辱，也會構成業道（karma path）。有人說，這種罪行應該告知國王，因為國王有能力保護並且不允許這種行為發生。如果國王自己犯下這種業道，也會構成。因此，之前所說的（不應告知國王）在道理上更為合理。另一種解釋是，這位論師的觀點也可以認為是正確的。如果國王自己犯錯，例如在聽取和審查案件等方面犯錯，他會因為他所執行的法律而獲罪。

如果對童女（未婚少女）做出某種行為，會構成業道嗎？這是個問題。

如果已經許配給他人，那麼所有的罪責都由國王承擔嗎？這是個回答。文中的意思很明顯。如果對童女或其他女子做出邪淫行為，所有的罪責都由國王承擔。如果一位講求正理的論師提出這樣的質疑：如果國王犯錯，應該由誰來定罪？就像之前所解釋的那樣來理解。

已經辨析了邪淫行為，接下來解釋虛誑語（妄語）的含義。下面第四部分闡明虛誑語的相狀。其中，一是正面闡明虛誑語，二是結合見聞等方面進行辨析。這裡是正面闡明虛誑語。

論述說，構成虛誑語需要具備四個條件才能形成業道：一是對所說的事情有不同的想法，例如，明明看見卻說沒看見；二是所欺騙的人理解了所說的話的含義並領會了；三是生起染污心；四是沒有說錯。前三點在之前的頌文中已經提到，不誤是補充說明。如果具備這四個條件，就構成了虛誑語。

如果被欺騙的人理解了所說的話，那麼這個『此言』指的是什麼？這是個問題。

指的是雜穢語（不乾淨的語言）。這是個回答。

既然是虛誑語，那麼什麼時候構成業道呢？這是在問構成業道的時間。

是與最後一個字同時，還是都屬於加行（準備階段）？這是個回答。雖然虛誑語可能由多個字組成，但與最後一個字同時產生的表業（manifest karma）和無表業（unmanifest karma）才構成這個業道。或者，如果被欺騙的人非常聰明，聽到少許謊言就能理解後面的意思。對於這樣的人，無論何時，只要被欺騙的人理解了含義，表業和無表業就立即構成業道。與前面的字同時產生的表業和無表業都屬於加行，與後面的字同時產生的表業和無表業都屬於後起（完成階段）。

所說的理解含義，是指能夠理解才叫做理解嗎？這是個提問。被欺騙的人所說的理解含義，到底是指什麼時候？是指已經聽聞之後，意識正確理解才叫做理解，還是指耳根正確聽聞，耳識 English version: Regarding a wife. If there is any violation or abuse, it also constitutes a karma path. Some say that this crime should be reported to the king because the king has the power to protect and does not allow such behavior to occur. If the king himself commits this karma path, it will also be constituted. Therefore, what was said earlier (that it should not be reported to the king) is more reasonable. Another explanation is that this teacher's view can also be considered correct. If the king himself makes a mistake, such as in listening to and reviewing cases, he will be guilty because of the law he enforces.

If certain actions are taken against a virgin (unmarried girl), will it constitute a karma path? This is a question.

If she has already been betrothed to someone else, does the king bear all the guilt? This is an answer. The meaning in the text is clear. If acts of sexual misconduct are committed against a virgin or other woman, the king bears all the guilt. If a logician raises such a question: if the king commits a crime, who should convict him? Understand it as explained before.

Having discussed sexual misconduct, the meaning of false speech (lying) will be explained next. The fourth part below clarifies the characteristics of false speech. Among them, one is to explain false speech directly, and the other is to analyze it in conjunction with what is seen and heard. Here, false speech is explained directly.

The treatise states that four conditions must be met to constitute false speech and form a karma path: first, having a different thought about what is said, for example, saying 'not seen' when it is seen; second, the person being deceived understands and comprehends the meaning of what is said; third, arising of defiled mind; fourth, not mistaken. The first three points have been mentioned in the previous verses, and 'not mistaken' is a supplementary explanation. If these four conditions are met, false speech is constituted.

If the person being deceived understands what is said, then what does 'this speech' refer to? This is a question.

It refers to impure speech (unclean language). This is an answer.

Since it is false speech, when does it constitute a karma path? This is asking about the time when a karma path is constituted.

Is it at the same time as the last word, or does it all belong to the preparatory stage (preparatory stage)? This is an answer. Although false speech may be composed of multiple words, the manifest karma (manifest karma) and unmanifest karma (unmanifest karma) that arise simultaneously with the last word constitute this karma path. Or, if the person being deceived is very intelligent, they can understand the meaning behind it after hearing a few lies. For such people, whenever the person being deceived understands the meaning, the manifest and unmanifest karma immediately constitute a karma path. The manifest and unmanifest karma that arise simultaneously with the previous words belong to the preparatory stage, and the manifest and unmanifest karma that arise simultaneously with the following words belong to the subsequent stage (completion stage).

The so-called understanding of meaning, does it mean that being able to understand is called understanding? This is a question. When does the so-called understanding of meaning by the person being deceived actually refer to? Does it mean that after hearing, the consciousness correctly understands, or does it mean that the ear root correctly hears, and the ear consciousness

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding a wife. If there is any violation or abuse, it also constitutes a karma path (業道). Some say that this crime should be reported to the king because the king has the power to protect and does not allow such behavior to occur. If the king himself commits this karma path, it will also be constituted. Therefore, what was said earlier (that it should not be reported to the king) is more reasonable. Another explanation is that this teacher's view can also be considered correct. If the king himself makes a mistake, such as in listening to and reviewing cases, he will be guilty because of the law he enforces.

If certain actions are taken against a virgin (童女, unmarried girl), will it constitute a karma path? This is a question.

If she has already been betrothed to someone else, does the king bear all the guilt? This is an answer. The meaning in the text is clear. If acts of sexual misconduct are committed against a virgin or other woman, the king bears all the guilt. If a logician raises such a question: if the king commits a crime, who should convict him? Understand it as explained before.

Having discussed sexual misconduct (欲邪行), the meaning of false speech (虛誑語, lying) will be explained next. The fourth part below clarifies the characteristics of false speech. Among them, one is to explain false speech directly, and the other is to analyze it in conjunction with what is seen and heard. Here, false speech is explained directly.

The treatise states that four conditions must be met to constitute false speech and form a karma path: first, having a different thought about what is said, for example, saying 'not seen' when it is seen; second, the person being deceived understands and comprehends the meaning of what is said; third, arising of defiled mind (染心); fourth, not mistaken. The first three points have been mentioned in the previous verses, and 'not mistaken' is a supplementary explanation. If these four conditions are met, false speech is constituted.

If the person being deceived understands what is said, then what does 'this speech' refer to? This is a question.

It refers to impure speech (雜穢語, unclean language). This is an answer.

Since it is false speech, when does it constitute a karma path? This is asking about the time when a karma path is constituted.

Is it at the same time as the last word, or does it all belong to the preparatory stage (加行, preparatory stage)? This is an answer. Although false speech may be composed of multiple words, the manifest karma (表業, manifest karma) and unmanifest karma (無表業, unmanifest karma) that arise simultaneously with the last word constitute this karma path. Or, if the person being deceived is very intelligent, they can understand the meaning behind it after hearing a few lies. For such people, whenever the person being deceived understands the meaning, the manifest and unmanifest karma immediately constitute a karma path. The manifest and unmanifest karma that arise simultaneously with the previous words belong to the preparatory stage, and the manifest and unmanifest karma that arise simultaneously with the following words belong to the subsequent stage (後起, completion stage).

The so-called understanding of meaning, does it mean that being able to understand is called understanding? This is a question. When does the so-called understanding of meaning by the person being deceived actually refer to? Does it mean that after hearing, the consciousness correctly understands, or does it mean that the ear root correctly hears, and the ear consciousness

能解名解。

若爾何失者。答。

若據已聞至可名能解者。復徴問。若據所誑已聞意識正解名解。言所詮義意識所知。能誑語表所誑耳識俱時謝滅。所誑意識正解之時。彼能誑者現無有表。應此業道唯無表成　若據所誑耳根正聞耳識能解名解。雖復無有唯無表業成業道失。然未了知。如何耳根正聞可名耳識能解。

善言義者至名為能解者。答。善言義者耳識至現已生位中。無迷亂緣故即名為能解　又解耳識非解。能生意識解故名為能解。雖有兩解意謂前勝。

如無失者應取為宗者。此即論主印前兩責內無失者為宗。即取正聞能解名解以于爾時具有表業．及無表故　言無失者。即印斯言　又解論主以理總相評言如無失者應取為宗。解成業道此亦何定。若有耳識無迷亂緣。即據正聞能解名解。表．無表二皆成業道。若有耳識迷亂緣時不名能解。后意思審方能正解。即據已聞正解名解。唯無表一亦成業道。由斯不定故論主言如無失者應取為宗。又正理云。若正對眾背想發言。不見等中誑言見等。所誑領解此剎那中表．無表業名本業道。有說所誑印可方成。若爾應無誑賢聖理。然誑賢聖為過既深。由此應知前說為善(解云相領解即成業道。非要被誑印可方成)　問如殺業道殺已方成。誑語業道領解即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能解的定義是什麼？

如果這樣定義會有什麼問題？回答：

如果根據『已聽聞』來定義『能解』，那麼可以進一步追問。如果根據被欺騙者已聽聞的意識正確理解來定義『能解』，即所表達的意義是被意識所知的，而欺騙性的語言表達和被欺騙者的耳識同時消失。當被欺騙者的意識正確理解時，那個欺騙者已經沒有語言表達了。那麼，這種業道就只能由無表業構成。如果根據被欺騙者的耳根正確聽聞，耳識能夠理解來定義『能解』，即使沒有表業，也能通過無表業成就業道，這雖然沒有問題。但是，如何能說耳根正確聽聞就可以稱為耳識能夠理解呢？

善於理解言語意義的人，如何定義『能解』？回答：善於理解言語意義的人，其耳識在產生時，沒有迷惑顛倒的因緣，因此就可以稱為『能解』。或者說，耳識本身並非『解』，而是能夠產生意識的『解』，因此稱為『能解』。雖然有兩種解釋，但后一種解釋更勝一籌。

如果像沒有過失那樣，應該採納哪種觀點作為宗義？這表明論主認可前面兩種責難中沒有過失的觀點作為宗義。即採納『正確聽聞能夠理解』來定義『能解』，因為在那個時候，既有表業，也有無表業。『沒有過失』，就是認可這種說法。另一種解釋是，論主用道理總的評價說，如果像沒有過失那樣，應該採納哪種觀點作為宗義。如何成就業道，這也沒有定論。如果有耳識沒有迷惑顛倒的因緣，就根據『正確聽聞能夠理解』來定義『能解』，表業和無表業都能成就業道。如果有耳識有迷惑顛倒的因緣，就不能稱為『能解』，需要經過後來的意思審察才能正確理解。就根據『已聽聞正確理解』來定義『能解』，只有無表業才能成就業道。由於這種不確定性，所以論主說，如果像沒有過失那樣，應該採納哪種觀點作為宗義。又如正理所說，如果當面欺騙大眾，背地裡想其他的事情，在不見等情況下謊稱見到等，被欺騙者領會理解的那個剎那，表業和無表業就稱為根本業道。有人說，被欺騙者認可才能成就。如果這樣，就無法欺騙賢聖了。然而，欺騙賢聖的過失非常深重。由此應該知道，前面的說法是正確的（解釋說，相互領會理解就成就業道，不一定要被欺騙者認可才能成就）。問：如殺業道，殺完成之後才能成就。欺騙的業道，領會理解就成就了嗎？

English version: What is the definition of 'being able to understand' (能解, néng jiě)?

If defined in that way, what problems would arise? Answer:

If 'being able to understand' is defined based on 'what has already been heard,' then further inquiry is possible. If 'being able to understand' is defined based on the correct understanding of the consciousness of the deceived person who has already heard, meaning that the expressed meaning is known by the consciousness, and the deceptive verbal expression and the ear-consciousness of the deceived person simultaneously cease, then when the consciousness of the deceived person correctly understands, the deceiver no longer has verbal expression. In that case, this path of action (業道, yè dào) can only be constituted by non-manifest action (無表業, wú biǎo yè). If 'being able to understand' is defined based on the correct hearing of the ear-faculty (耳根, ěr gēn) of the deceived person, and the ear-consciousness is able to understand, even if there is no manifest action (表業, biǎo yè), the path of action can still be accomplished through non-manifest action, which is not a problem. However, how can it be said that correct hearing by the ear-faculty can be called ear-consciousness being able to understand?

For those who are good at understanding the meaning of words, how is 'being able to understand' defined? Answer: For those who are good at understanding the meaning of words, their ear-consciousness, when it arises, does not have the causes of confusion and delusion, therefore it can be called 'being able to understand.' Alternatively, ear-consciousness itself is not 'understanding,' but it is able to generate the 'understanding' of consciousness, therefore it is called 'being able to understand.' Although there are two explanations, the latter is superior.

If, like without fault, which view should be adopted as the tenet (宗義, zōng yì)? This indicates that the proponent (論主, lùn zhǔ) approves of the view without fault among the previous two criticisms as the tenet. That is, adopting 'correct hearing being able to understand' to define 'being able to understand,' because at that time, there is both manifest action and non-manifest action. 'Without fault' is to approve of this statement. Another explanation is that the proponent generally evaluates with reason, saying that if, like without fault, which view should be adopted as the tenet. How to accomplish the path of action, this is also not conclusive. If there is ear-consciousness without the causes of confusion and delusion, then 'being able to understand' is defined based on 'correct hearing being able to understand,' and both manifest action and non-manifest action can accomplish the path of action. If there is ear-consciousness with the causes of confusion and delusion, then it cannot be called 'being able to understand,' and it needs to be correctly understood after later deliberation. Then 'being able to understand' is defined based on 'already heard and correctly understood,' and only non-manifest action can accomplish the path of action. Due to this uncertainty, the proponent says that if, like without fault, which view should be adopted as the tenet. Furthermore, as the principle (正理, zhèng lǐ) says, if one deceives the public face-to-face, and thinks of other things behind their backs, and falsely claims to have seen in situations of not seeing, etc., then in the moment when the deceived person comprehends and understands, the manifest action and non-manifest action are called the fundamental path of action. Some say that it can only be accomplished if the deceived person approves. If so, then it would be impossible to deceive the virtuous and sages (賢聖, xián shèng). However, the fault of deceiving the virtuous and sages is very serious. From this, it should be known that the previous statement is correct (explaining that mutual comprehension and understanding accomplishes the path of action, it is not necessary for the deceived person to approve in order to accomplish it). Question: Like the path of action of killing, it can only be accomplished after the killing is completed. Is the path of action of deception accomplished upon comprehension and understanding?

【English Translation】 English version: What is the definition of 'being able to understand' (能解, néng jiě)?

If defined in that way, what problems would arise? Answer:

If 'being able to understand' is defined based on 'what has already been heard,' then further inquiry is possible. If 'being able to understand' is defined based on the correct understanding of the consciousness of the deceived person who has already heard, meaning that the expressed meaning is known by the consciousness, and the deceptive verbal expression and the ear-consciousness of the deceived person simultaneously cease, then when the consciousness of the deceived person correctly understands, the deceiver no longer has verbal expression. In that case, this path of action (業道, yè dào) can only be constituted by non-manifest action (無表業, wú biǎo yè). If 'being able to understand' is defined based on the correct hearing of the ear-faculty (耳根, ěr gēn) of the deceived person, and the ear-consciousness is able to understand, even if there is no manifest action (表業, biǎo yè), the path of action can still be accomplished through non-manifest action, which is not a problem. However, how can it be said that correct hearing by the ear-faculty can be called ear-consciousness being able to understand?

For those who are good at understanding the meaning of words, how is 'being able to understand' defined? Answer: For those who are good at understanding the meaning of words, their ear-consciousness, when it arises, does not have the causes of confusion and delusion, therefore it can be called 'being able to understand.' Alternatively, ear-consciousness itself is not 'understanding,' but it is able to generate the 'understanding' of consciousness, therefore it is called 'being able to understand.' Although there are two explanations, the latter is superior.

If, like without fault, which view should be adopted as the tenet (宗義, zōng yì)? This indicates that the proponent (論主, lùn zhǔ) approves of the view without fault among the previous two criticisms as the tenet. That is, adopting 'correct hearing being able to understand' to define 'being able to understand,' because at that time, there is both manifest action and non-manifest action. 'Without fault' is to approve of this statement. Another explanation is that the proponent generally evaluates with reason, saying that if, like without fault, which view should be adopted as the tenet. How to accomplish the path of action, this is also not conclusive. If there is ear-consciousness without the causes of confusion and delusion, then 'being able to understand' is defined based on 'correct hearing being able to understand,' and both manifest action and non-manifest action can accomplish the path of action. If there is ear-consciousness with the causes of confusion and delusion, then it cannot be called 'being able to understand,' and it needs to be correctly understood after later deliberation. Then 'being able to understand' is defined based on 'already heard and correctly understood,' and only non-manifest action can accomplish the path of action. Due to this uncertainty, the proponent says that if, like without fault, which view should be adopted as the tenet. Furthermore, as the principle (正理, zhèng lǐ) says, if one deceives the public face-to-face, and thinks of other things behind their backs, and falsely claims to have seen in situations of not seeing, etc., then in the moment when the deceived person comprehends and understands, the manifest action and non-manifest action are called the fundamental path of action. Some say that it can only be accomplished if the deceived person approves. If so, then it would be impossible to deceive the virtuous and sages (賢聖, xián shèng). However, the fault of deceiving the virtuous and sages is very serious. From this, it should be known that the previous statement is correct (explaining that mutual comprehension and understanding accomplishes the path of action, it is not necessary for the deceived person to approve in order to accomplish it). Question: Like the path of action of killing, it can only be accomplished after the killing is completed. Is the path of action of deception accomplished upon comprehension and understanding?

成。何故不言解已方成　解云殺據命斷。現命不續方名業道。故言殺已　誑據領解。現領解時即成業道。不言解已。

經說諸言至所見等相者。此下第二。明所見等。依經問起。經中十六。如文可知。若細分別。或有見言見等。不見言不見等名非聖言。或有見言不見等。不見言見等名為聖言。故集異門足論第十意云。有實已見等起不見等想言我已見等。如是雖名非聖言。而不名不見言見等。彼實已見等故　又云。有實不見等而起見等想言我不見等。如是雖名非聖言。而不名見言不見等。彼實不見等故　又云。有實已見等起不見等想言我不見等。如是雖名聖言。而不名不見言不見等。彼實已見等故　又云。有實不見等起見等想言我已見等。如是雖名聖言。而不名見言見等。彼實不見等故(已上論文)。應知但是違想發語皆非聖言。若順想發語皆是聖言。又婆沙一百七十一釋名云。問何故此語名非聖耶。答以不善故名非聖。複次于非聖相續中現前故名非聖。複次非聖所成故名非聖。複次非聖所說故名非聖。複次非聖由此得非聖名故名非聖　又云。問何故此語名聖耶。答以善故名聖。複次于聖者相續中現前故名聖。複次聖者所成就故名聖。複次聖者所說故名聖。複次聖者由此得聖者名故名聖　彼論更引集異門足論解。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『成。』為什麼不說理解之後才算完成呢？理解是指殺害是根據于命根的斷絕。現在命根斷絕不延續才叫做業道。所以說殺害之後。『誑』是根據于領解。現在領解的時候就成為業道。不說理解之後。

經文說『諸言至所見等相者』。下面第二點，說明所見等等。依據經文提問。經中的十六種，如經文所說的那樣可以知道。如果仔細分別，或者有『見』說『見』等等，『不見』說『不見』等等，這叫做非聖言。或者有『見』說『不見』等等，『不見』說『見』等等，這叫做聖言。所以《集異門足論》第十意說，『有真實已經見等等，卻生起不見等等的想法，說我已經見等等。』像這樣雖然叫做非聖言，但不叫做『不見』說『見』等等，因為他真實已經見等等。又說，『有真實不見等等，卻生起見等等的想法，說我沒有見等等。』像這樣雖然叫做非聖言，但不叫做『見』說『不見』等等，因為他真實沒有見等等。又說，『有真實已經見等等，卻生起不見等等的想法，說我沒有見等等。』像這樣雖然叫做聖言，但不叫做『不見』說『不見』等等，因為他真實已經見等等。又說，『有真實不見等等，卻生起見等等的想法，說我已經見等等。』像這樣雖然叫做聖言，但不叫做『見』說『見』等等，因為他真實沒有見等等。（以上是論文）。』應該知道只是違背想法而說的話都不是聖言。如果順應想法而說的話都是聖言。還有《婆沙》一百七十一解釋名稱說，『問：為什麼這種話叫做非聖呢？答：因為不善的緣故叫做非聖。其次，在非聖的相續中顯現的緣故叫做非聖。其次，不是聖者所成就的緣故叫做非聖。其次，不是聖者所說的緣故叫做非聖。其次，不是聖者由此得到非聖的名字的緣故叫做非聖。』又說，『問：為什麼這種話叫做聖呢？答：因為善良的緣故叫做聖。其次，在聖者的相續中顯現的緣故叫做聖。其次，是聖者所成就的緣故叫做聖。其次，是聖者所說的緣故叫做聖。其次，是聖者由此得到聖者的名字的緣故叫做聖。』那部論典又引用《集異門足論》來解釋。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Accomplished.' Why not say it is accomplished after understanding? Understanding means that killing is based on the severance of the life-root (jīva). Only when the life-root is severed and does not continue is it called the path of karma (karma-patha). Therefore, it is said after killing. 'Deceit' is based on comprehension. When comprehending, it becomes the path of karma. It is not said after understanding.

The sutra says, 'All words up to the aspects of what is seen, etc.' The second point below explains what is seen, etc. It arises from questions based on the sutra. The sixteen in the sutra, as stated in the text, can be known. If distinguished in detail, there may be 'seeing' saying 'seeing,' etc., 'not seeing' saying 'not seeing,' etc., which are called non-holy words. Or there may be 'seeing' saying 'not seeing,' etc., 'not seeing' saying 'seeing,' etc., which are called holy words. Therefore, the tenth meaning in the Sangitiparyaya-pada-sastra (Compilation of Different Meanings) says, 'There are those who have actually seen, etc., but generate thoughts of not seeing, etc., saying, 'I have seen, etc.' Although this is called non-holy speech, it is not called 'not seeing' saying 'seeing,' etc., because they have actually seen, etc. It also says, 'There are those who have actually not seen, etc., but generate thoughts of seeing, etc., saying, 'I have not seen, etc.' Although this is called non-holy speech, it is not called 'seeing' saying 'not seeing,' etc., because they have actually not seen, etc. It also says, 'There are those who have actually seen, etc., but generate thoughts of not seeing, etc., saying, 'I have not seen, etc.' Although this is called holy speech, it is not called 'not seeing' saying 'not seeing,' etc., because they have actually seen, etc. It also says, 'There are those who have actually not seen, etc., but generate thoughts of seeing, etc., saying, 'I have seen, etc.' Although this is called holy speech, it is not called 'seeing' saying 'seeing,' etc., because they have actually not seen, etc. (The above is from the treatise).' It should be known that only words that contradict thoughts are non-holy words. If words accord with thoughts, they are all holy words. Furthermore, the Vibhasa (Great Commentary) one hundred and seventy-one explains the name, saying, 'Question: Why is this word called non-holy? Answer: Because of unwholesomeness, it is called non-holy. Secondly, because it appears in the continuum of the non-holy, it is called non-holy. Thirdly, because it is not accomplished by the holy, it is called non-holy. Fourthly, because it is not spoken by the holy, it is called non-holy. Fifthly, because the non-holy obtains the name non-holy from this, it is called non-holy.' It also says, 'Question: Why is this word called holy? Answer: Because of goodness, it is called holy. Secondly, because it appears in the continuum of the holy, it is called holy. Thirdly, because it is accomplished by the holy, it is called holy. Fourthly, because it is spoken by the holy, it is called holy. Fifthly, because the holy obtains the name holy from this, it is called holy.' That treatise further quotes the Sangitiparyaya-pada-sastra for explanation.

不能具述。

頌曰至所見聞知覺者。頌答。

論曰至名所覺者。述毗婆沙師解。見．聞．覺．知是根非識。此中言識舉能依識顯所依根。故婆沙百二十一云。見．聞．覺．知是根非識。然舉識者。顯眼等根必由識助方能取境。以同分根能有作用非彼同分故。

所以然者至偏立覺名者。別釋三境同名所覺所以。三境同名所覺者。以此三境同無記故。其性昧鈍。猶如死人無所覺知。故能證根偏立覺名。故婆沙一百二十一云。問何故眼等三識所受各立一種。而鼻舌身三識所受合立一種名為覺耶。尊者世友說曰。三識所緣皆唯無記境無記故根立覺名　又以三根唯取至境與境合故立以覺名。大德說言。唯此三根境界鈍昧猶如死屍。故能發識說名為覺　廣如彼釋。

何證知然者。問。

由經理證者。總答。一即由經。二即由理。

言由經者至何名所覺者。此顯由經。鬘謂花鬘。女名鬘。母從女為名。故名鬘母。佛告鬘母汝意云何。諸所有色非汝眼現見。非汝過去曾見。非汝未來當見。非汝希求見。汝為因此色境起欲．貪．親．愛．阿賴耶．尼延底．耽著不　此欲等七皆貪異名。阿賴耶此云執藏。尼延底此云執取。或云趣入。或云沉滯　鬘母答言不爾大德。廣說乃至。不爾大德。世尊復告鬘母

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不能完全詳盡地描述。

頌文說到所見、所聞、所知覺的事物。這是頌文的回答。

論述說到名為所覺的事物。這是毗婆沙師的解釋。見、聞、覺、知是根而不是識。這裡說識，是用能依的識來顯示所依的根。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十一卷說，見、聞、覺、知是根而不是識。然而提到識，是爲了顯示眼等根必須依靠識的幫助才能取境，因為同分根才能有作用，而不是不同分根。

為什麼這樣說呢？這是爲了分別解釋三種境界都名為所覺的原因。三種境界都名為所覺，是因為這三種境界都是無記性的緣故。它們的性質昏昧遲鈍，就像死人一樣沒有知覺。所以能證的根偏立覺名。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十一卷說：『問：為什麼眼等三種識所感受的境界各立一種名稱，而鼻、舌、身三種識所感受的境界合立一種名稱，名為覺呢？』尊者世友（Vasumitra）說：『三種識所緣的都是無記境，因為是無記的緣故，根立覺名。』又因為三種根只是取境界，境界與根相合，所以立以覺名。大德說：『只有這三種根的境界遲鈍昏昧，猶如死屍。』所以能發識，說名為覺。詳細的解釋如彼論所述。

憑什麼知道是這樣呢？這是提問。

由經文和道理來證明。這是總的回答。一是通過經文，二是通過道理。

說到通過經文，經文說的是什麼名為所覺呢？這是顯示通過經文。《鬘》（Mala）是指花鬘。女人的名字叫鬘（Mala）。母親因女兒而得名，所以叫鬘母（Malamatr）。佛告訴鬘母（Malamatr）：『你認為怎麼樣？所有你眼睛現在看見的色，你過去曾經見過的色，你未來將要見到的色，你希望見到的色，你會因此對這些色境生起欲、貪、親、愛、阿賴耶（ālaya，執藏）、尼延底（nikanti，執取）、耽著嗎？』這欲等七種都是貪的不同名稱。阿賴耶（ālaya）這裡的意思是執藏。尼延底（nikanti）這裡的意思是執取，或者說是趣入，或者說是沉滯。鬘母（Malamatr）回答說：『不是這樣，大德。』廣泛地說乃至，『不是這樣，大德。』世尊又告訴鬘母（Malamatr）：

【English Translation】 English version: Cannot be fully described.

The verse speaks of what is seen, heard, known, and felt. This is the answer of the verse.

The treatise speaks of what is called 'perceived'. This is the explanation of the Vibhasha masters. Seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are roots, not consciousnesses. Here, when 'consciousness' is mentioned, it uses the dependent consciousness to reveal the supporting root. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-first chapter of the Vibhasha says, 'Seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are roots, not consciousnesses.' However, mentioning consciousness is to show that the eye and other roots must rely on the assistance of consciousness to grasp objects, because only the similar-category root can have an effect, not the dissimilar-category root.

Why is this so? This is to separately explain why the three realms are all called 'perceived'. The reason why the three realms are all called 'perceived' is that these three realms are all of an unspecified nature. Their nature is dim and dull, like a dead person who has no perception. Therefore, the proving root specifically establishes the name 'feeling'. Therefore, the one hundred and twenty-first chapter of the Vibhasha says: 'Question: Why do the objects received by the three consciousnesses of the eye, etc., each have a separate name, while the objects received by the three consciousnesses of the nose, tongue, and body are combined into one name called 'feeling'?' Venerable Vasumitra (世友) said: 'The objects of the three consciousnesses are all unspecified realms, and because they are unspecified, the root establishes the name 'feeling'.' Also, because the three roots only grasp the realm, and the realm and root combine, the name 'feeling' is established. A great master said: 'Only the realms of these three roots are dull and dim, like a corpse.' Therefore, they can generate consciousness and are called 'feeling'. The detailed explanation is as described in that treatise.

How do we know this is so? This is a question.

It is proven by scripture and reason. This is the general answer. One is through scripture, and the other is through reason.

Speaking of through scripture, what does the scripture say is called 'perceived'? This shows it is through scripture. Mala (鬘) refers to a flower garland. A woman's name is Mala (鬘). The mother is named after the daughter, so she is called Malamatr (鬘母). The Buddha told Malamatr (鬘母): 'What do you think? All the forms that your eyes now see, that you have seen in the past, that you will see in the future, that you desire to see, will you therefore give rise to desire, greed, affection, love, ālaya (阿賴耶, clinging), nikanti (尼延底, attachment), and indulgence towards these forms?' These seven, such as desire, are all different names for greed. Ālaya (阿賴耶) here means clinging. Nikanti (尼延底) here means attachment, or entering, or sinking. Malamatr (鬘母) replied: 'Not so, Great Virtue.' Speaking broadly, even to, 'Not so, Great Virtue.' The World Honored One again told Malamatr (鬘母):

。汝於此所見等中。應知所見色等唯有所見色等更無餘法　前經別配三境。后經復具說四種。互相影顯。故知所覺是香等三。前經既於色．聲．法．境說為所見．所聞．所知。雖不別說香等三境名為所覺。后經于見．聞．知外別說所覺。準此定於香等三境。總建立一所覺名。若不許然。經中何名所覺。

又香味觸至是名為理者。此顯由理。又香．味．觸在所見．所聞所知外。于彼三境經應不起所覺言說。然起言說名為所覺。故知彼三是所覺也。是名為理。此即約經以顯正理。

此證不成至愛非愛相者。經部總非。釋經意別。非此前．后兩經之中世尊為欲決判見等四。所見言相。所聞言相。所覺言相。所知言相。相之言體　然我見此經所說義者。謂佛勸彼。於六境中。及於見等四。所見言事。所聞言事。所覺言事。所知言事。事謂體事。應知若六。若四。或緣．不緣。但有所見等言。于中不應增益愛．非愛相起貪．嗔等　問若不爾者。何故經中。眼見色。耳聞聲。意知法耶　解云經文但言色非眼見。聲非耳聞。法．非意知。不即決判唯眼能見。唯耳能聞。意唯知法。或經且據一相以論。

若爾何相名所見等者。毗婆沙問。

有餘師說至亦為非理者。經部答。有餘經部師說。若是五根現量所證五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於你在此所見等等之中，應當知道所見之色等等唯有所見之色等等，更沒有其他的法。前面的經文分別對應三種境界，後面的經文又詳細地說了四種，互相映襯顯明。因此可知所覺是香等三種境界。前面的經文既然在色、聲、法三種境界上說了所見、所聞、所知，雖然沒有分別地說香等三種境界名為所覺，但後面的經文在見、聞、知之外又特別說了所覺，根據這個推斷，一定是在香等三種境界上，總共建立一個所覺的名稱。如果不允許這樣，那麼經文中什麼叫做所覺呢？又，香味觸達到，這叫做理，這是顯示由理而生。又，香、味、觸在所見、所聞、所知之外，對於那三種境界，經中不應該生起所覺的言說。然而生起了言說，就叫做所覺。所以知道那三種境界是所覺。這叫做理。這正是依據經文來顯示正理。這個證明不能成立，直到愛與非愛之相。經部宗總體上否定，解釋經文的意義有所不同。不是在此前後的兩部經文中，世尊爲了決斷見等四種，所見之言相，所聞之言相，所覺之言相，所知之言相，相的言語本體。然而我看到這部經文所說的意義是，佛勸導他們，在六種境界中，以及在見等四種，所見之言事，所聞之言事，所覺之言事，所知之言事，事指的是本體事，應當知道無論是六種境界還是四種，或者緣、不緣，只要有所見等等的言語，在其中不應該增加愛與非愛之相，生起貪、嗔等等。問：如果不是這樣，為什麼經文中說，眼見色，耳聞聲，意知法呢？解釋說，經文只是說色不是眼見，聲不是耳聞，法不是意知，不立即決斷只有眼能見，只有耳能聞，意只能知法。或者經文只是根據一種相來論述。如果這樣，什麼相叫做所見等等呢？這是《毗婆沙論》的提問。有其他論師說，直到這也是不合理的。這是經部的回答。有其他經部論師說，如果是五根現量所證的五...

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding what you see here, etc., you should know that what is seen, such as form (色, se), is only what is seen, such as form, and there are no other dharmas (法, fa). The previous sutra (經, jing) separately corresponds to three realms, while the later sutra elaborates on four kinds, mutually reflecting and clarifying. Therefore, it can be known that what is sensed (所覺, suo jue) are the three realms of smell, etc. Since the previous sutra spoke of seeing (所見, suo jian), hearing (所聞, suo wen), and knowing (所知, suo zhi) in relation to the realms of form, sound, and dharma, although it did not separately name the three realms of smell, etc., as what is sensed, the later sutra specifically spoke of what is sensed in addition to seeing, hearing, and knowing. Based on this inference, it is certain that a single name of what is sensed is established in total for the three realms of smell, etc. If this is not allowed, then what is called what is sensed in the sutra? Furthermore, the attainment of smell, taste, and touch is called reason (理, li), which shows that it arises from reason. Also, smell, taste, and touch are outside of what is seen, heard, and known. For those three realms, the sutra should not give rise to the expression of what is sensed. However, the arising of expression is called what is sensed. Therefore, it is known that those three are what is sensed. This is called reason. This is precisely relying on the sutra to reveal the correct reason. This proof is not established, up to the aspect of love and non-love. The Sautrantika (經部, jing bu) school generally denies it, and the interpretation of the sutra's meaning differs. It is not that in these previous and subsequent two sutras, the World-Honored One (世尊, Shi Zun) intended to decide on the four kinds of seeing, etc., the verbal aspect of what is seen, the verbal aspect of what is heard, the verbal aspect of what is sensed, the verbal aspect of what is known, the verbal essence of the aspect. However, what I see as the meaning of this sutra is that the Buddha (佛, Fo) advises them, in the six realms and in the four kinds of seeing, etc., the verbal matter of what is seen, the verbal matter of what is heard, the verbal matter of what is sensed, the verbal matter of what is known, matter referring to the essence of matter, it should be known that whether it is the six realms or the four kinds, or conditioned or unconditioned, as long as there are words such as what is seen, etc., one should not increase the aspects of love and non-love within them, giving rise to greed, anger, etc. Question: If that is not the case, why does the sutra say that the eye sees form, the ear hears sound, and the mind knows dharma? The explanation is that the sutra only says that form is not seen by the eye, sound is not heard by the ear, and dharma is not known by the mind, without immediately deciding that only the eye can see, only the ear can hear, and the mind can only know dharma. Or the sutra is only discussing based on one aspect. If so, what aspect is called what is seen, etc.? This is a question from the Vibhasa (毗婆沙, Pi Po Sha). Some other teachers say, up to this is also unreasonable. This is the answer from the Sautrantika school. Some other Sautrantika teachers say that if it is the five...

境。以分明故名所見。若依教量從他傳說六境名為所聞。若依比量運自己心以種種理比度所許六境名為所覺。若意識依現量證六境名為所知。若意識親從五識後起。現量證五境。若在定意識現量證法。或在定意現量。亦能通證六境。於五境中。一一容起見等四言。于第六境四種之內。除五根所見。有餘所聞等三。由此覺名非無所目。謂目所覺六境。香等三境既通四種言說非無。或名所見。或名所聞。或名所覺。或名所知。故彼理言亦為非理。

先軌範師至名為所知者。學瑜伽論者名先軌範師。作如是說。眼現量所現見色名為所見。所以唯見名為見者。色境顯現最分明故。故眼唯見　若依教量從他傳聞六境名為所聞。若依比量自運己心諸所思構六境名所覺　又依現量耳．鼻．舌．身自內所受四境。及意根現量自內所證六境俱名所知。若依此釋見唯在眼。聞．覺唯意。知通耳．鼻．舌．身．意。於六境中色境容起四種。聲等五境容起聞．覺．知三。此中六根．六識．法境攝故故不可別說。

且止傍言應申正論者。論主止諍。

頗有由身至成虛誑語耶者。此下問答分別。此即問也。

曰有至及布灑他時者。引發智文答。有三問答。正取第二答前所問。前後問答同文故來。故發智論云。頗有不動身殺

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：境。因為分明清楚的緣故，稱為『所見』。如果依據教理衡量，從他人處聽聞而來的六境，稱為『所聞』。如果依據比量，運用自己的心，以種種道理來比度所認可的六境，稱為『所覺』。如果意識依靠現量來證得六境，稱為『所知』。如果意識直接從前五識之後生起，以現量證得五境。如果在禪定中的意識以現量證得法，或者在禪定中的意以現量，也能普遍地證得六境。在五境中，每一個都可能生起見、聞、覺、知四種言說。在第六境中，四種之內，除了五根所見，還有其餘的所聞等三種。因此，『覺』這個名稱並非沒有所指，是指所覺的六境。香等三種境既然可以通用四種言說，並非沒有，或者稱為『所見』，或者稱為『所聞』，或者稱為『所覺』，或者稱為『所知』。所以他們的理論也是不合理的。先前的軌範師到『名為所知者』。學習《瑜伽師地論》的人稱為先前的軌範師。他們這樣說：眼睛以現量所顯現見到的色，稱為『所見』。所以只有『見』才被稱為『見』的原因是，色境的顯現最為分明清楚。所以眼睛只能見。如果依據教理衡量，從他人處傳聞而來的六境，稱為『所聞』。如果依據比量，自己運用自己的心，所思考構想的六境，稱為『所覺』。又依據現量，耳、鼻、舌、身自己內在所感受的四境，以及意根以現量自己內在所證得的六境，都稱為『所知』。如果依據這種解釋，『見』只存在於眼睛，『聞』、『覺』只存在於意，『知』貫通耳、鼻、舌、身、意。在六境中，色境可以生起四種，聲等五境可以生起聞、覺、知三種。這裡因為包含了六根、六識、法境，所以不可以分別說明。暫且停止旁枝末節的言論，應該闡述正論。論主停止爭論。『有沒有由身體到構成虛誑語呢？』以下是問答分別。這是提問。『有到以及布灑他時』。引發智慧的經文回答。有三個問答。主要取第二個回答之前所問的問題。前後問答的文句相同，所以引用過來。所以《發智論》說：『有沒有不移動身體而殺

【English Translation】 English version: Realm. Because of its distinctness, it is called 'what is seen' (所見). If measured according to teachings, the six realms heard from others are called 'what is heard' (所聞). If based on inference, using one's own mind to compare and consider the six realms that are accepted, they are called 'what is felt' (所覺). If consciousness relies on direct perception to realize the six realms, it is called 'what is known' (所知). If consciousness arises directly after the first five consciousnesses, directly perceiving the five realms. If the consciousness in meditation directly perceives the Dharma, or the mind in meditation directly, it can also universally perceive the six realms. In the five realms, each one can give rise to the four expressions of seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing. In the sixth realm, within the four types, except for what is seen by the five senses, there are the remaining three, such as what is heard. Therefore, the name 'feeling' is not without a referent, referring to the six realms that are felt. Since the three realms of smell, etc., can be used in all four expressions, they are not without, or called 'what is seen,' or called 'what is heard,' or called 'what is felt,' or called 'what is known.' Therefore, their theory is also unreasonable. The former teachers, up to 'called what is known.' Those who study the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (瑜伽師地論) are called former teachers. They say this: The form seen by the eye through direct perception is called 'what is seen.' The reason why only 'seeing' is called 'seeing' is that the appearance of the form realm is the most distinct. Therefore, the eye can only see. If measured according to teachings, the six realms heard from others are called 'what is heard.' If based on inference, using one's own mind to think and conceive the six realms, they are called 'what is felt.' Also, based on direct perception, the four realms felt internally by the ear, nose, tongue, and body, and the six realms realized internally by the mind-root through direct perception, are all called 'what is known.' According to this explanation, 'seeing' exists only in the eye, 'hearing' and 'feeling' exist only in the mind, and 'knowing' permeates the ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. In the six realms, the form realm can give rise to four types, and the five realms of sound, etc., can give rise to three types: hearing, feeling, and knowing. Here, because it includes the six senses, the six consciousnesses, and the Dharma realm, it cannot be explained separately. Let us stop digressing and discuss the main topic. The author stops the argument. 'Is there such a thing as constructing false speech through the body?' The following is a question and answer analysis. This is the question. 'There is, up to the time of posadha (布灑他)'. The text that elicits wisdom answers. There are three questions and answers. The second answer is mainly taken to answer the previous question. The sentences of the previous and subsequent questions and answers are the same, so they are quoted here. Therefore, the Jnanaprasthana-sastra (發智論) says: 'Is there such a thing as killing without moving the body'

生罪觸耶。答曰有。謂發語遣使殺。問頗有不發動語誑語罪觸耶。答曰有。謂動身指書。問頗有不動身亦不發語而為殺生．誑語二罪所觸耶。答曰有。謂仙人意憤殺諸眾生。而不動身亦不發語成殺生罪　布灑他時有所違越。戒師問彼默答表凈。而不動身亦不發語成誑語罪　布灑他。此云長養　謂聞說戒長養善根。舊云布薩訛也。

若不動身至應設劬勞者。論主難。若彼仙人。及布灑他時。而不動身亦不發語。于欲界中無有無表離表而生。此殺．誑語如何成業道。于如是難應設劬勞思求解釋。正理四十二救云。然我旦釋布灑他時。如由動身能表語義生語業道。若身不動能表語義業道亦生。然說戒時彼有所犯默然表凈令眾咸知。如何不生妄語業道　仙人意憤義等教他。彼于有情心無所顧。非人敬彼知有噁心。動身為殺彼生業道。仙以何表令鬼知心。彼由意憤身．語必變。或由咒詛必動身．語。有餘師說。非於欲界一切無表悉依表生。如得果時五苾芻等得別解脫戒。不善亦應然。然彼先時決定有表。余亦應爾。仙如前說。布灑他時得妄語者。謂不清凈詐入僧中。坐現威儀。或有所說。此謂先表。余例應知　解云然我已下至必動身語。眾賢釋布灑他時。及仙意憤成二業道　二敘異說。有餘師說。非於欲界一切無表悉依表

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果造作殺生和妄語的罪業，是否一定需要通過身體的觸犯？答：是的，比如通過說話命令或者派遣他人去殺生。問：有沒有不通過說話，但仍然觸犯妄語罪的情況？答：有的，比如通過身體動作，如手勢或者書寫來表達虛假資訊。問：有沒有既不通過身體動作，也不通過說話，但仍然觸犯殺生和妄語兩種罪的情況？答：有的，比如仙人心懷憤怒，意念殺害眾生，雖然沒有身體動作和言語，也構成了殺生罪。在舉行布薩（Uposatha，一種佛教儀式，懺悔和重申戒律）時，如果有人違犯戒律，戒師詢問他，他保持沉默表示清凈，雖然沒有身體動作和言語，也構成了妄語罪。布薩（Uposatha），意思是『增長』，指聽聞戒律能增長善根。舊譯『布薩』是訛傳。

如果說不通過身體動作也能構成業，論主提出疑問：如果那位仙人，以及在布薩時的人，沒有身體動作也沒有言語，而在欲界中沒有無表業（Avijñapti-karma，一種無意識的業力）是獨立產生的，必須依賴於表業（Vijñapti-karma，有意識的業力），那麼這種殺生和妄語是如何構成業道的呢？對於這樣的疑問，應該努力思考尋求解釋。《正理》第四十二救中說：然而我解釋布薩時，就像通過身體動作能夠表達語義，從而產生語業道一樣，即使身體沒有動作，如果能夠表達語義，業道也會產生。在說戒時，如果有人犯戒，卻保持沉默表示清凈，讓大眾都以為他清凈，怎麼會不產生妄語的業道呢？仙人心懷憤怒，相當於教唆他人，他對有情眾生毫不顧惜。非人（指鬼神等）敬畏他，知道他心懷惡意，他的身體動作會引發殺生的業道。仙人通過什麼方式讓鬼神知道他的心意呢？因為他心懷憤怒，身體和語言必然會發生變化，或者通過咒詛，必然會引發身體和語言的動作。有其他論師說，並非在欲界中所有的無表業都依賴於表業而產生，比如證得果位時，五比丘等人獲得別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa，一種戒律），不善業也應該如此。然而他們先前一定有表業。其他的也應該如此。仙人的情況如前所述。在布薩時犯妄語的人，是指不清凈的人假裝進入僧團，坐在那裡裝模作樣，或者說些什麼。這是指先前的表業。其他的可以以此類推。解釋說：『然而我已下至必動身語』，眾賢解釋布薩時，以及仙人心懷憤怒，都能構成兩種業道。下面敘述不同的說法。有其他論師說，並非在欲界中所有的無表業都依賴於表業。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If one commits the sins of killing and lying, is it necessary to involve physical action? Answer: Yes, such as issuing a verbal command or sending someone to kill. Question: Is it possible to commit the sin of lying without speaking? Answer: Yes, such as using physical gestures like hand signals or writing to convey false information. Question: Is it possible to commit the sins of killing and lying without either physical action or speech? Answer: Yes, such as a hermit who, filled with anger, mentally kills living beings; even without physical action or speech, he commits the sin of killing. During the Uposatha (布薩, a Buddhist ceremony of repentance and reaffirmation of precepts), if someone violates the precepts and, when questioned by the preceptor, remains silent to indicate purity, even without physical action or speech, he commits the sin of lying. Uposatha (布薩) means 'growth,' referring to the growth of good roots through hearing the precepts. The old translation '布薩' is a corruption.

If it is said that karma can be created without physical action, the commentator raises a question: If that hermit, and the person during the Uposatha, have no physical action or speech, and in the desire realm, no unmanifested karma (Avijñapti-karma, a type of unconscious karmic force) arises independently but must rely on manifested karma (Vijñapti-karma, conscious karmic force), how can this killing and lying constitute karmic paths? Regarding such a question, one should diligently contemplate and seek an explanation. The forty-second rescue in the Nyāyānusāra states: However, I explain that during the Uposatha, just as physical action can express meaning and generate verbal karmic paths, even if the body does not move, if it can express meaning, karmic paths will also arise. During the recitation of precepts, if someone violates a precept but remains silent to indicate purity, leading the assembly to believe he is pure, how can this not generate the karmic path of lying? The hermit filled with anger is equivalent to instigating others; he has no regard for sentient beings. Non-humans (非人, referring to spirits, etc.) fear him, knowing he harbors malicious intent; his physical actions will trigger the karmic path of killing. How does the hermit convey his intention to the spirits? Because he is filled with anger, his body and speech will inevitably change, or through curses, he will inevitably initiate physical and verbal actions. Other teachers say that not all unmanifested karma in the desire realm arises dependent on manifested karma; for example, when the five Bhikshus attain the fruit, they obtain the Prātimokṣa (別解脫戒, a set of precepts), and unwholesome karma should be similar. However, they certainly had manifested karma previously. Others should be similar. The hermit's situation is as described earlier. The person who commits lying during the Uposatha is one who, being impure, pretends to enter the Sangha, sits there feigning dignity, or says something. This refers to prior manifested karma. Others can be inferred similarly. The explanation says: 'However, I, from below, must move body and speech,' the assembly of sages explains that during the Uposatha, and when the hermit is filled with anger, both can constitute two karmic paths. The following narrates different views. Other teachers say that not all unmanifested karma in the desire realm depends on manifested karma.

生。於前所說十種得戒中。如佛．獨覺得果時。及五苾芻等得別解脫戒。不依表生。不善業道理亦應然雖不動身亦不發語。而無有表。但有無表業道亦成。此有何違。如何經主乃作難言欲無無表離表而生　三述正解。眾賢論主不許斯解。故作是言。然彼得果。五苾芻等。先加行時必定有表。相續乃至得果．入道。依此表業發別解脫。余仙意憤．布灑他時不善業道。依表而起理亦應爾。仙如前說義等教他。于加行時。或由意憤身．語必變。或由咒詛必動身．語。若有身表從身表生。若有語表從語表起。此據加行必有表業。非據根本。故前論說義等教他　布灑他時得誑語者。謂不清凈詐入僧中坐現威儀。從身表業發語無表。或有所說。從語表業發語無表。此謂先表。余例應思　言先表者。或由先時有表相續不斷乃至發得無表。如得善戒及布灑他等。或雖根本無有表業。先加行位必有表故。如仙意憤。及遣殺等。正理論意欲界無表必依表生。或於根本必有表業。或於加行必有表業。隨其所應于兩位中必有表故。故說無表必依表生。非要根本言定有表。若不爾者遣使殺等根本成時即有何表耶。若作斯解善順難詞。欲無無表離表而生。我意本然。難詞虛設。若謂根本必有表故而作難云欲無無表離表而生者。遣使殺等根本成時即有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於前面所說的十種得戒方式，例如佛陀（Buddha，覺悟者）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）證得果位時，以及五比丘（Pañcavargika，佛陀最初的五位弟子）等獲得別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa，防止惡行的戒律）時，並非依賴於表業（vijñapti-karma，有表現的行為）而生起。不善業的道理也應如此，即使沒有身體的動作，也沒有語言的表達，但沒有表業，只有無表業道（avijñapti-karma-patha，無表現的行為途徑）也能成立。這有什麼矛盾呢？為什麼經主（sūtra-master，佛經的作者或註釋者）要提出疑問說，想要沒有無表業，脫離表業而生起呢？三、闡述正確的解釋。眾賢論主（Saṃghabhadra，一位論師）不認可這種解釋，所以這樣說：然而，他們證得果位，五比丘等，在最初的加行（prayoga，準備階段）時，必定有表業。相續不斷，乃至證得果位、進入聖道，都是依賴於這種表業而生起別解脫戒。其餘仙人因為憤怒、或者布灑他（Puṣpadanta，人名）時不善業道，依賴於表業而生起的道理也應該如此。仙人如前面所說，義等教他（Yi Deng Jiao Ta，人名），在加行時，或者因為憤怒，身體、語言必定會變化；或者因為詛咒，必定會動身、動語。如果有身體的表業，就從身體的表業生起；如果有語言的表業，就從語言的表業生起。這是根據加行必定有表業來說的，不是根據根本（mūla，行為的完成階段）來說的。所以前面的論述說義等教他，布灑他時獲得誑語（mṛṣā-vāda，妄語）者，是指不清凈的人詐入僧團中，坐著裝出威儀，從身體的表業發出語言的無表業；或者有所說，從語言的表業發出語言的無表業。這是指先前的表業，其餘的例子應該這樣思考。所說的『先表』，或者是因為先前有表業相續不斷，乃至生起獲得無表業，如獲得善戒以及布灑他等；或者雖然根本沒有表業，但先前的加行位必定有表業，如仙人因為憤怒，以及派遣殺手等。正理論（Abhidharmakośa，一部論典）的觀點是，欲界（kāma-dhātu，眾生有情慾的世界）的無表業必定依賴於表業而生起，或者在根本必定有表業，或者在加行必定有表業。根據情況，在這兩個階段中必定有表業。所以說無表業必定依賴於表業而生起，不是說根本一定有表業。如果不是這樣，派遣使者殺人等，根本完成時，又有什麼表業呢？如果這樣解釋，就能很好地順應難詞（objection，反對意見），想要沒有無表業，脫離表業而生起，我的意思本來就是這樣，難詞是虛設的。如果認為根本必定有表業，因此提出疑問說，想要沒有無表業，脫離表業而生起，那麼派遣使者殺人等，根本完成時，又有什麼表業呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the ten ways of receiving precepts mentioned earlier, such as when the Buddha (Buddha, the Awakened One), a Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary awakened one), attains the fruit, and when the five Bhikshus (Pañcavargika, the Buddha's first five disciples) and others obtain the Prātimokṣa (Prātimokṣa, precepts that prevent evil deeds), it does not arise dependent on vijñapti-karma (vijñapti-karma, expressive actions). The principle of unwholesome karma should also be like this, even if there is no bodily action and no verbal expression, but there is no expressive action, the avijñapti-karma-patha (avijñapti-karma-patha, non-expressive paths of action) can still be established. What contradiction is there in this? Why does the sūtra-master (sūtra-master, the author or commentator of a Buddhist scripture) raise the question, wanting no non-expressive action, arising apart from expressive action? Three, elucidating the correct explanation. The master of the Abhidharmakośa (Saṃghabhadra, a commentator) does not approve of this explanation, so he says this: However, when they attain the fruit, the five Bhikshus and others, in the initial prayoga (prayoga, preparatory stage), there must be expressive action. Continuously, until attaining the fruit and entering the path, they rely on this expressive action to give rise to the Prātimokṣa. The principle that the unwholesome karma of other immortals due to anger, or Puṣpadanta (Puṣpadanta, a person's name), arises dependent on expressive action should also be like this. The immortal, as mentioned earlier, Yi Deng Jiao Ta (Yi Deng Jiao Ta, a person's name), in the preparatory stage, either because of anger, the body and speech will definitely change; or because of a curse, the body and speech will definitely move. If there is expressive action of the body, it arises from the expressive action of the body; if there is expressive action of speech, it arises from the expressive action of speech. This is based on the fact that there must be expressive action in the preparatory stage, not based on the mūla (mūla, the completion stage of the action). Therefore, the previous discussion said that Yi Deng Jiao Ta, when Puṣpadanta obtains mṛṣā-vāda (mṛṣā-vāda, false speech), refers to an impure person who fraudulently enters the Sangha, sits and pretends to be dignified, and emits non-expressive action of speech from the expressive action of the body; or something is said, and non-expressive action of speech is emitted from the expressive action of speech. This refers to the previous expressive action, and other examples should be considered in this way. The so-called 'previous expressive action' is either because there was previous expressive action that continued until the arising and obtaining of non-expressive action, such as obtaining good precepts and Puṣpadanta, etc.; or although there is no expressive action in the fundamental stage, there must be expressive action in the previous preparatory stage, such as the immortal because of anger, and dispatching assassins, etc. The view of the Abhidharmakośa (Abhidharmakośa, a treatise) is that the non-expressive action of the kāma-dhātu (kāma-dhātu, the world of beings with sensual desires) must arise dependent on expressive action, or there must be expressive action in the fundamental stage, or there must be expressive action in the preparatory stage. Depending on the situation, there must be expressive action in these two stages. Therefore, it is said that non-expressive action must arise dependent on expressive action, not that there must be expressive action in the fundamental stage. If this is not the case, when dispatching messengers to kill, what expressive action is there when the fundamental stage is completed? If explained in this way, it can well accord with the objection, wanting no non-expressive action, arising apart from expressive action, my intention was originally like this, the objection is fictitious. If it is thought that there must be expressive action in the fundamental stage, and therefore the question is raised, wanting no non-expressive action, arising apart from expressive action, then when dispatching messengers to kill, what expressive action is there when the fundamental stage is completed?

何表耶　俱舍師破云。于汝宗中有餘師意。有欲無表離表而生。如得果時。五苾芻等。及仙意憤。布灑他等。以不動身。不發語故。我難彼師故作是說。欲無無表離表而生。以理而言隨於加行．根本兩位必有表業。能生無表。正理論師不能為彼釋通妨難順我難詞　又解汝宗本計仙人意憤。及布灑他無表業。以不動身。不發語故。正理論師為難所逼推作余師反符我難　問論主若以此文欲無無表離表而生為其正者。何前文十種得戒中雲別解律儀非必定依表業而發　解云前文敘余師義。後文依宗正述　又解亦不相違。彼言非必定依表業發者。非必定依自類表發。顯互發也　問若言欲無無表離表而生。何故前文言七善業道若從受生必皆具二。謂表．無表。受生尸羅必依表故。既言受生明知得果。五苾芻等。不從受生。非依表發。與此相違　解云前文敘余師義。後文據正義難　又解亦不相違。佛及獨覺。並及五苾芻得別解脫。要期受故。受生類故。亦名受生　又解此後文言欲無無表離表而生者。通據加行．根本兩位必有表業能生無表。若據根本亦有無表離表而生。若不爾者遣使殺等根本成時有何表耶。若作此解善順前文十種得戒中非必定依表業而發。亦順七善業道非受生者不從表起。總而言之。於十種得戒中及七善業道中並此後

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：什麼是『何表耶』？答：俱舍師反駁說：『在你們的宗派中，有其他老師認為，存在一種『欲無表』（chanda-avijñapti，意願產生的無表業），它不依賴於『表』（vijñapti，表業）而產生。例如，當證得果位時，五位比丘等人，以及仙人的意憤（仙人因憤怒而產生的力量），布灑他（puṣpa，獻花者）等人，因為他們沒有動身，也沒有說話。』我反駁那些老師，所以這樣說：『意願產生的無表業，不依賴於表業而產生。』從道理上講，無論是在加行位（修行準備階段）還是根本位（修行根本階段），必定有表業能夠產生無表業。』正理論師無法為他們解釋通順，反駁不了我的詰難。又解釋說：『你們宗派本來認為仙人的意憤，以及布灑他的無表業，是因為他們沒有動身，也沒有說話。』正理論師被詰難所迫，推說是其他老師的觀點，反而符合我的詰難。問：如果論主認為這段文字『意願產生的無表業，不依賴於表業而生』是正確的，那麼為什麼前面的文章在『十種得戒』中說『別解律儀（prātimokṣa-saṃvara，戒律）並非必定依賴表業而生起』？答：解釋說：『前面的文章敘述的是其他老師的觀點，後面的文章依據宗派的正確觀點進行闡述。』又解釋說：『這也不矛盾。前面說『並非必定依賴表業而發』，是指並非必定依賴同類表業而發，顯示的是相互引發。』問：如果說『意願產生的無表業，不依賴於表業而生』，那麼為什麼前面的文章說『七善業道（sapta kuśala-karma-pathāḥ，七種善的行為方式）如果從受戒而生，必定都具備表業和無表業。受戒而生的尸羅（śīla，戒律）必定依賴表業。』既然說是『受生』，就明確知道證得果位的五位比丘等人，不是從受戒而生，不是依賴表業而發，這與此相違背。答：解釋說：『前面的文章敘述的是其他老師的觀點，後面的文章依據正確的觀點進行詰難。』又解釋說：『這也不矛盾。佛陀和獨覺（pratyekabuddha，辟支佛），以及五位比丘獲得別解脫，是因為有要期受（發願受持），屬於受生之類，也可以稱為受生。』又解釋說：『後面的文章說『意願產生的無表業，不依賴於表業而生』，是通指加行位和根本位，必定有表業能夠產生無表業。如果就根本位而言，也有無表業不依賴於表業而生。如果不這樣解釋，那麼派遣使者殺人等，在根本行為完成時，有什麼表業呢？』如果這樣解釋，就能夠很好地順應前面文章『十種得戒』中『並非必定依賴表業而發』的說法，也順應『七善業道』中『非受生者不從表業生起』的說法。總而言之，在『十種得戒』中以及『七善業道』中，還有後面的文章中。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is 'what manifestation' (he biǎo yé)? Answer: The Kośa master refutes, saying: 'In your school, there are other teachers who believe that there is a 'volitional non-manifestation' (chanda-avijñapti, non-manifestation arising from intention) that arises independently of 'manifestation' (vijñapti, manifest action). For example, when attaining the fruit, the five bhikshus (pañcavargika-bhikṣu, five monks) and others, as well as the indignation of the immortals (power arising from the anger of immortals), Puṣpa (puṣpa, flower offerer) and others, because they did not move their bodies or speak.' I refuted those teachers, so I said: 'Volitional non-manifestation arises independently of manifestation.' Logically speaking, whether in the preparatory stage (stage of preparatory practice) or the fundamental stage (fundamental stage of practice), there must be manifest action that can generate non-manifest action.' The master of the Nyāyānusāra (正理論師) could not explain it smoothly for them and could not refute my challenge. It is also explained: 'Your school originally believed that the indignation of the immortals and the non-manifest action of Puṣpa were because they did not move their bodies or speak.' The master of the Nyāyānusāra, forced by the challenge, attributed it to the views of other teachers, which instead conforms to my challenge. Question: If the author of the treatise believes that this passage 'volitional non-manifestation arises independently of manifestation' is correct, then why does the previous article in the 'Ten Ways of Obtaining Precepts' say that 'the Prātimokṣa-saṃvara (別解律儀, precepts) does not necessarily depend on manifest action to arise'? Answer: It is explained: 'The previous article describes the views of other teachers, and the subsequent article elaborates according to the correct view of the school.' It is also explained: 'This is not contradictory. The previous statement 'does not necessarily depend on manifest action to arise' means that it does not necessarily depend on manifest action of the same kind to arise, showing mutual causation.' Question: If it is said that 'volitional non-manifestation arises independently of manifestation,' then why does the previous article say that 'the seven wholesome paths of action (sapta kuśala-karma-pathāḥ, 七善業道) if arising from receiving precepts, must all have both manifest and non-manifest action. Śīla (śīla, precepts) arising from receiving precepts must depend on manifest action.' Since it is said 'arising from receiving precepts,' it is clear that the five bhikshus and others who attained the fruit did not arise from receiving precepts and did not arise depending on manifest action, which contradicts this. Answer: It is explained: 'The previous article describes the views of other teachers, and the subsequent article challenges according to the correct view.' It is also explained: 'This is not contradictory. The Buddha and Pratyekabuddha (pratyekabuddha, 辟支佛), as well as the five bhikshus, obtained individual liberation because they had a vow to receive and uphold, belonging to the category of arising from receiving precepts, and can also be called arising from receiving precepts.' It is also explained: 'The later article says 'volitional non-manifestation arises independently of manifestation,' which refers generally to the preparatory stage and the fundamental stage, where there must be manifest action that can generate non-manifest action. If we consider the fundamental stage, there is also non-manifest action that arises independently of manifest action. If it is not explained in this way, then what manifest action is there when the fundamental act of sending a messenger to kill someone is completed?' If explained in this way, it can well accord with the previous statement in the 'Ten Ways of Obtaining Precepts' that 'it does not necessarily depend on manifest action to arise,' and also accords with the statement in the 'Seven Wholesome Paths of Action' that 'those not arising from receiving precepts do not arise from manifest action.' In summary, in the 'Ten Ways of Obtaining Precepts' and in the 'Seven Wholesome Paths of Action,' as well as in the later articles.

文皆作兩解。或說欲界無表有非表生。或說欲界無表皆依表起。

已辨虛誑語至佞歌邪論等者。此即第五明餘三語相。初兩句明離間語。次一句明粗惡語。后三句明雜穢語。

論曰至流至此中者。釋初兩句。明離間語具四種緣方成業道。一染污心．二發壞他語。若他壞．不壞但領解時即成離間語。故正理四十一云。發離間語他領剎那表．無表業名本業道。有餘師說他壞方成。若爾聖者深固難壞。應無壞聖離間語罪。然壞聖者獲罪既深。由此應知。前說為善。婆沙亦同正理。三解義。四不誤。於四緣中前之二緣頌文俱有。后之二緣從前流來。

若以染心至業道方成者。釋第三句。明粗惡語亦具四緣方成業道。一染污心。二發非愛語毀呰於他名粗惡語。前離間第一句中染心語三字流至粗惡語第三句中。應言染心非愛語說名粗惡語。三解義。四不誤。此後兩緣應知亦與前離間同從前流來。謂本期心所欲罵者解所說義業道方成。非要生惱。若他惱．不惱俱成粗惡語。故正理云。正發粗惡語他領解剎那表．無表業名本業道。有餘師說他惱方成。若爾聖人具忍力者既不可惱。罵應無過。然罵賢聖獲罪既深。由此應知前說為善。婆沙亦同正理。

一切染心至流至此中者。釋第四句。準此文中。雜穢語有二緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『文皆作兩解。或說欲界無表有非表生。或說欲界無表皆依表起』的討論：這裡有兩種解釋。一種觀點認為，欲界（Kāmadhātu）的無表業（avijñapti-karma，指無法通過外在行為表現出來的業力）可能並非由表業（vijñapti-karma，指可以通過外在行為表現出來的業力）所生。另一種觀點認為，欲界的無表業都依賴於表業而產生。

關於『已辨虛誑語至佞歌邪論等者。此即第五明餘三語相。初兩句明離間語。次一句明粗惡語。后三句明雜穢語』的討論：這部分已經辨析了虛妄語，現在討論的是諂媚的歌頌和邪惡的言論等，這是第五部分，闡明剩餘三種語業（vāc-karma）的相狀。前兩句說明離間語（paiśunya）。下一句說明粗惡語（phāruṣya）。後面的三句說明雜穢語（saṃbhinna-pralāpa）。

關於『論曰至流至此中者。釋初兩句。明離間語具四種緣方成業道。一染污心．二發壞他語。若他壞．不壞但領解時即成離間語。故正理四十一云。發離間語他領剎那表．無表業名本業道。有餘師說他壞方成。若爾聖者深固難壞。應無壞聖離間語罪。然壞聖者獲罪既深。由此應知。前說為善。婆沙亦同正理。三解義。四不誤。於四緣中前之二緣頌文俱有。后之二緣從前流來』的討論：這是對前兩句的解釋，說明離間語需要具備四種因緣才能構成業道（karma-patha，指導致特定果報的行為途徑）。第一，染污心（kliṣṭa-citta，指被煩惱染污的心）。第二，發出破壞他人關係的言語。如果他人被破壞關係，或者沒有被破壞關係，只要領會了所說的話，就構成了離間語。因此，《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）第四十一卷說：『發出離間語，他人領會的那一剎那，表業和無表業就構成了根本業道。』有些論師認為，必須他人關係被破壞才構成離間語。如果這樣，聖者（ārya，指證悟者）的（關係）非常穩固難以破壞，那麼破壞聖者的離間語就沒有罪過。然而，破壞聖者的關係所獲得的罪過非常深重。由此應該知道，前面的說法是正確的。《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）也與《阿毗達磨順正理論》的觀點相同。第三，理解意義。第四，沒有誤解。在這四種因緣中，前兩種因緣在頌文中都有體現，后兩種因緣是從前面推導出來的。

關於『若以染心至業道方成者。釋第三句。明粗惡語亦具四緣方成業道。一染污心。二發非愛語毀呰於他名粗惡語。前離間第一句中染心語三字流至粗惡語第三句中。應言染心非愛語說名粗惡語。三解義。四不誤。此後兩緣應知亦與前離間同從前流來。謂本期心所欲罵者解所說義業道方成。非要生惱。若他惱．不惱俱成粗惡語。故正理云。正發粗惡語他領解剎那表．無表業名本業道。有餘師說他惱方成。若爾聖人具忍力者既不可惱。罵應無過。然罵賢聖獲罪既深。由此應知前說為善。婆沙亦同正理』的討論：這是對第三句的解釋，說明粗惡語也需要具備四種因緣才能構成業道。第一，染污心。第二，發出不友善的言語，詆譭他人，這被稱為粗惡語。前面關於離間語的第一句中的『染心』二字，可以沿用到粗惡語的第三句中。應該說，『以染污心說不友善的言語』，就稱為粗惡語。第三，理解意義。第四，沒有誤解。此後的兩種因緣，應該知道也與前面的離間語相同，是從前面推導出來的。也就是說，原本期望的心，想要辱罵的人，理解了所說的話的意義，業道才能構成。不一定要使對方惱怒。如果他人惱怒或者沒有惱怒，都構成了粗惡語。因此，《阿毗達磨順正理論》說：『正確地發出粗惡語，他人領會的那一剎那，表業和無表業就構成了根本業道。』有些論師認為，必須他人惱怒才構成粗惡語。如果這樣，聖人具有忍耐力，既然不可能被惱怒，那麼辱罵聖人就沒有過錯。然而，辱罵賢聖所獲得的罪過非常深重。由此應該知道，前面的說法是正確的。《大毗婆沙論》也與《阿毗達磨順正理論》的觀點相同。

關於『一切染心至流至此中者。釋第四句。準此文中。雜穢語有二緣』的討論：這是對第四句的解釋。根據這段文字，雜穢語有兩種因緣。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding '文皆作兩解。或說欲界無表有非表生。或說欲界無表皆依表起': There are two interpretations here. One view is that avijñapti-karma (unmanifested karma, referring to karmic force that cannot be expressed through external actions) in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm) may not be produced by vijñapti-karma (manifested karma, referring to karmic force that can be expressed through external actions). The other view is that all avijñapti-karma in the desire realm depends on vijñapti-karma for its arising.

Regarding '已辨虛誑語至佞歌邪論等者。此即第五明餘三語相。初兩句明離間語。次一句明粗惡語。后三句明雜穢語': This part has already analyzed false speech, and now discusses flattering songs and evil arguments, etc. This is the fifth part, clarifying the characteristics of the remaining three types of verbal karma (vāc-karma). The first two sentences explain divisive speech (paiśunya). The next sentence explains harsh speech (phāruṣya). The last three sentences explain frivolous speech (saṃbhinna-pralāpa).

Regarding '論曰至流至此中者。釋初兩句。明離間語具四種緣方成業道。一染污心．二發壞他語。若他壞．不壞但領解時即成離間語。故正理四十一云。發離間語他領剎那表．無表業名本業道。有餘師說他壞方成。若爾聖者深固難壞。應無壞聖離間語罪。然壞聖者獲罪既深。由此應知。前說為善。婆沙亦同正理。三解義。四不誤。於四緣中前之二緣頌文俱有。后之二緣從前流來': This is an explanation of the first two sentences, stating that divisive speech requires four conditions to constitute a karma-patha (path of action leading to specific consequences). First, a defiled mind (kliṣṭa-citta, referring to a mind tainted by afflictions). Second, uttering words that damage the relationships of others. If the relationships of others are damaged, or not damaged, as long as they understand what was said, it constitutes divisive speech. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, volume 41, says: 'Uttering divisive speech, at the moment others understand it, the manifested and unmanifested karma constitute the fundamental karma-patha.' Some teachers believe that it is only divisive speech if the relationships of others are damaged. If that were the case, the (relationships) of the āryas (noble ones, referring to enlightened beings) are very stable and difficult to damage, then there would be no fault in divisive speech that damages the āryas. However, the fault gained from damaging the relationships of the āryas is very severe. Therefore, it should be known that the previous statement is correct. The Mahāvibhāṣā also agrees with the view of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya. Third, understanding the meaning. Fourth, no misunderstanding. Among these four conditions, the first two conditions are reflected in the verses, and the last two conditions are derived from the previous ones.

Regarding '若以染心至業道方成者。釋第三句。明粗惡語亦具四緣方成業道。一染污心。二發非愛語毀呰於他名粗惡語。前離間第一句中染心語三字流至粗惡語第三句中。應言染心非愛語說名粗惡語。三解義。四不誤。此後兩緣應知亦與前離間同從前流來。謂本期心所欲罵者解所說義業道方成。非要生惱。若他惱．不惱俱成粗惡語。故正理云。正發粗惡語他領解剎那表．無表業名本業道。有餘師說他惱方成。若爾聖人具忍力者既不可惱。罵應無過。然罵賢聖獲罪既深。由此應知前說為善。婆沙亦同正理': This is an explanation of the third sentence, stating that harsh speech also requires four conditions to constitute a karma-patha. First, a defiled mind. Second, uttering unfriendly words, denigrating others, which is called harsh speech. The words 'defiled mind' from the first sentence regarding divisive speech can be applied to the third sentence regarding harsh speech. It should be said that 'uttering unfriendly words with a defiled mind' is called harsh speech. Third, understanding the meaning. Fourth, no misunderstanding. The subsequent two conditions, it should be known, are also the same as the previous divisive speech, and are derived from the previous ones. That is to say, the original expected mind, the person who wants to insult, understands the meaning of what is said, and the karma-patha can be constituted. It is not necessary to make the other person angry. If the other person is angry or not angry, it constitutes harsh speech. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: 'Correctly uttering harsh speech, at the moment others understand it, the manifested and unmanifested karma constitute the fundamental karma-patha.' Some teachers believe that it is only harsh speech if the other person is angry. If that were the case, the āryas, who have the power of endurance, since they cannot be angered, then there would be no fault in insulting the āryas. However, the fault gained from insulting the virtuous and noble is very severe. Therefore, it should be known that the previous statement is correct. The Mahāvibhāṣā also agrees with the view of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya.

Regarding '一切染心至流至此中者。釋第四句。準此文中。雜穢語有二緣': This is an explanation of the fourth sentence. According to this text, frivolous speech has two conditions.

。一一切染心。二所發諸語。所以者何。染所發言皆雜穢語故。準前第一句中語字流至第四句中。應言諸染污心語說名雜穢語。此師意說雖有獨起雜穢語。若前三語起時必兼雜穢。然雜穢語他不領解。非四語業道收。故婆沙一百七云。謂如有一。獨空閑處作如是說。無惠施。無親愛。無祀祠。如是等語惡行。世間有情不生領解非四所攝　準彼論說。更加一緣。所謂解義。

有餘師說至雜穢語收者。釋第五．第六句。此師意說。異前三語染心所發方名雜穢。皆是獨起雜穢語也。前三語起時不兼雜穢。有此不同故敘異說。文顯可知。或可。雜穢亦有不誤如欲期心諂佞于彼誤諂餘人。亦可不成業道。若據斯義。或具四緣。然前解為勝。

輪王現時至雜穢語收者。問。

由彼語從至非預染心者。答。染心所發名為雜穢。由彼語從出離善心發。讚歎諸善。毀呰諸惡。能引出離善故。非預染心不名雜穢。

有餘師言至不成業道者。敘異說。爾時亦有染心發言。由過輕故不成業道。故前文言語惡業道于語惡行不攝加行．後起．及輕。是此師義。彼輪王時輕雜穢語雖他領解非業道攝。不發無表。故正理云。有說彼有嫁娶等言雜穢語收非業道攝。薄塵類故不引無表。非無無表可業道攝。

已說三語至名邪

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

一、一切染污的心。二、所發出的各種言語。為什麼這樣說呢？因為由染污心所發出的言語都夾雜著污穢之語。參照前面第一句中的『語』字，流轉到第四句中，應該說諸染污心語，稱作雜穢語。這位論師的意思是說，即使有單獨產生的雜穢語，如果前三種語（妄語、離間語、惡語）生起時，必定兼帶雜穢語。然而，雜穢語他人不理解，不被四種語業道所攝。所以《婆沙論》第一百零七卷說：『比如有的人，獨自在空閑之處說這樣的話：沒有惠施，沒有親愛，沒有祭祀等惡行。世間的有情眾生不理解，不被四所攝（四種語業道）。』根據那部論的說法，可以增加一個緣，那就是理解意義。有其他論師說，乃至被雜穢語所攝，解釋第五、第六句。這位論師的意思是說，與前三種語不同，由染污心所發出的才稱為雜穢語，都是單獨產生的雜穢語。前三種語生起時，不兼帶雜穢語。因為有這種不同，所以敘述不同的說法。文義顯而易見。或者，雜穢語也有不錯誤的，比如想要欺騙某人，卻諂媚了其他人，也可以不構成業道。如果根據這個意思，或許具備四種緣。然而，之前的解釋更為殊勝。『輪王現時乃至被雜穢語所攝』，這是提問。『由於那些話語從乃至不預先染污心』，這是回答。由染污心所發出的稱為雜穢語。由於那些話語從出離善心發出，讚歎各種善行，毀斥各種惡行，能夠引發出離的善，所以不預先染污心，不稱為雜穢語。『有其他論師說乃至不構成業道』，這是敘述不同的說法。那時也有染污心發出言語，由於過失輕微，所以不構成業道。所以前面的文章說，語惡業道不攝加行、後起以及輕微的語惡行，這是這位論師的意思。那位輪王時的輕微雜穢語，即使他人理解，也不被業道所攝，不引發無表。所以《正理》說：『有人說，那時的嫁娶等言語，被雜穢語所攝，但不被業道所攝，因為像薄塵一樣，不能引發無表。』並非沒有無表就可以被業道所攝。已經說了三種語，乃至名為邪...

【English Translation】 English version

All defiled minds. 2. All kinds of speech uttered. Why is this so? Because the speech uttered from a defiled mind is mixed with impure words. Referring to the word 'speech' in the first sentence, flowing to the fourth sentence, it should be said that all defiled mind speech is called 'mixed impure speech'. This teacher means that even if there is independently arising mixed impure speech, if the first three types of speech (false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech) arise, they must also include mixed impure speech. However, mixed impure speech is not understood by others and is not included in the four speech karmic paths. Therefore, the one hundred and seventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'For example, there is someone who, alone in a secluded place, says such things as: there is no charity, no affection, no sacrifice, and other evil deeds. Sentient beings in the world do not understand, and it is not included in the four (four speech karmic paths).' According to that treatise, one more condition can be added, which is understanding the meaning. Other teachers say that being included in mixed impure speech explains the fifth and sixth sentences. This teacher means that, unlike the first three types of speech, only what is uttered from a defiled mind is called mixed impure speech, and all of it is independently arising mixed impure speech. The first three types of speech do not include mixed impure speech when they arise. Because of this difference, different views are narrated. The meaning of the text is obvious. Or, mixed impure speech may also be without error, such as wanting to deceive someone but flattering others, which may also not constitute a karmic path. According to this meaning, it may have four conditions. However, the previous explanation is more superior. 'When a Wheel-Turning King appears, even being included in mixed impure speech' - this is a question. 'Because those words come from, even not previously defiling the mind' - this is the answer. What is uttered from a defiled mind is called mixed impure speech. Because those words come from a mind of renunciation and goodness, praising various good deeds and denouncing various evil deeds, and can lead to renunciation and goodness, not previously defiling the mind, it is not called mixed impure speech. 'Other teachers say that even not constituting a karmic path' - this is narrating different views. At that time, there is also speech uttered from a defiled mind, but because the fault is slight, it does not constitute a karmic path. Therefore, the previous text says that the evil speech karmic path does not include preliminary actions, subsequent actions, and slight evil speech, which is the meaning of this teacher. The slight mixed impure speech at the time of the Wheel-Turning King, even if others understand it, is not included in the karmic path and does not give rise to non-manifestation. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Some say that the words of marriage and so on at that time are included in mixed impure speech but are not included in the karmic path because they are like thin dust and cannot give rise to non-manifestation.' It is not that there is no non-manifestation that can be included in the karmic path. Having already spoken of the three types of speech, even called evil...

見業道者。此即第六明意業道相。

論曰至名貪業道者釋初句。明貪業道。他物簡自。自貪不成　理亦應說于情起貪。而不說者影顯可知。或舉輕顯重。非情起貪尚名業道。況復于情。或可。他言亦攝於情　或唯非情起貪偏重名貪業道論不說情。前解為勝　謂於他物非理惡欲屬己非他　力謂強力　竊謂私竊起力．竊心貪求他物。如是惡欲名貪業道　此貪唯是修所斷貪。于修斷中貪著已物亦非業道。故正理云。唯於他物起惡欲貪名貪業道。若異此者貪著己物業道應成。輪王．北洲為難亦爾。

有餘師言至總說欲愛者。此師意說。于欲界中五部諸愛皆貪業道。依五蓋經依貪慾蓋佛說應斷此世間貪。故知貪名總說欲界五部諸愛。

有說欲愛至成貪業道者。此師意說。于欲界中五部諸愛雖盡名貪非皆業道。此貪業道于惡行中攝粗品故。勿輪王世。及北俱盧。並貪己物所起欲貪成貪業道。以過輕故。故前論云意惡業道于意惡行不攝惡思及輕貪等。即是此師義也。前文已同此說。於二說中后師為正。以見斷貪不緣財故。

于有情類至名瞋業道者。釋第二句。於他有情慾為傷害。以過重故名瞋業道。若瞋自身及與非情。以過輕故非瞋業道。

于善惡等至邪見業道者。釋下兩句。明邪見業道　善．惡。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『見業道者。此即第六明意業道相。』——這是關於第六種意業道（意業道：指思想上的行為，是構成業力的因素之一）的闡釋。

『論曰至名貪業道者釋初句。明貪業道。他物簡自。自貪不成。』——論述中解釋了第一句，闡明了貪業道（貪業道：指貪婪的行為，是導致惡果的業力）。『他物』是爲了區別于『自物』，因為貪戀自己的東西不能構成（貪業道）。

『理亦應說于情起貪。而不說者影顯可知。或舉輕顯重。非情起貪尚名業道。況復于情。或可。他言亦攝於情。』——按理說，對有情眾生（有情：指有情感和意識的生命）產生貪念也應該被提及。但這裡沒有直接說明，而是通過暗示來表達。或者說，這是舉輕以明重，對無情之物（非情：指沒有情感和意識的物體）的貪念尚且構成業道，更何況是對有情眾生的貪念。或許，『他物』一詞也包含了有情眾生。』

『或唯非情起貪偏重名貪業道論不說情。前解為勝。』——或者說，只有對無情之物的貪念才被特別強調為貪業道，論中沒有提及有情眾生。前一種解釋更為合理。

『謂於他物非理惡欲屬己非他。』——指的是對於他人的財物，產生不合理的、邪惡的慾望，想要據爲己有，而不是歸屬於他人。

『力謂強力。竊謂私竊起力．竊心貪求他物。如是惡欲名貪業道。』——『力』指的是使用強力，『竊』指的是暗中偷竊。產生使用強力或偷竊的心，貪求他人的財物。像這樣的邪惡慾望，就叫做貪業道。

『此貪唯是修所斷貪。于修斷中貪著已物亦非業道。故正理云。唯於他物起惡欲貪名貪業道。若異此者貪著己物業道應成。輪王．北洲為難亦爾。』——這種貪念僅僅是需要通過修行才能斷除的貪念。在修斷（修斷：通過修行斷除煩惱）的過程中，貪戀自己的東西並不構成業道。所以《正理》（正理：指佛教的正確道理）中說，只有對別人的財物產生邪惡的慾望，才叫做貪業道。如果不是這樣，那麼貪戀自己的東西也應該構成業道。轉輪王（輪王：擁有統治世界的輪寶的國王）和北俱盧洲（北俱盧洲：佛教傳說中的四大部洲之一，以享樂著稱）的情況也是如此，難以解釋。

『有餘師言至總說欲愛者。此師意說。于欲界中五部諸愛皆貪業道。依五蓋經依貪慾蓋佛說應斷此世間貪。故知貪名總說欲界五部諸愛。』——有其他論師說，在欲界（欲界：佛教三界之一，眾生有情慾和物質欲）中，五種型別的愛（五部諸愛：指欲界的五種煩惱，包括貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑）都屬於貪業道。根據《五蓋經》（五蓋經：佛教經典，講述了五種覆蓋心性的煩惱），佛陀說應該斷除貪慾蓋（貪慾蓋：五蓋之一，指貪婪的慾望），由此可知，『貪』這個詞可以概括欲界的五種型別的愛。

『有說欲愛至成貪業道者。此師意說。于欲界中五部諸愛雖盡名貪非皆業道。此貪業道于惡行中攝粗品故。勿輪王世。及北俱盧。並貪己物所起欲貪成貪業道。以過輕故。故前論云意惡業道于意惡行不攝惡思及輕貪等。即是此師義也。前文已同此說。於二說中后師為正。以見斷貪不緣財故。』——有人說，欲界的五種型別的愛都可以被稱為『貪』，但並非所有都構成業道。這種貪業道，是因為它在惡行中屬於粗重的行為。因此，轉輪王時代和北俱盧洲，以及貪戀自己東西所產生的慾望，不構成貪業道，因為過失較輕。所以之前的論述說，意惡業道（意惡業道：指思想上的惡行）在思想上的惡行中，不包括惡思（惡思：邪惡的思想）和輕微的貪念等等。這就是這位論師的觀點。之前的文章也表達了相同的觀點。在這兩種說法中，后一種說法是正確的，因為見斷貪（見斷貪：通過見道斷除的貪念）不涉及財物。

『于有情類至名瞋業道者。釋第二句。於他有情慾為傷害。以過重故名瞋業道。若瞋自身及與非情。以過輕故非瞋業道。』——解釋第二句。對於其他的有情眾生，想要傷害他們，因為這種行為的過失嚴重，所以叫做瞋業道（瞋業道：指嗔恨的行為，是導致惡果的業力）。如果嗔恨自己或者無情之物，因為過失較輕，所以不屬於瞋業道。

『于善惡等至邪見業道者。釋下兩句。明邪見業道。善．惡。』——解釋下面的兩句。闡明邪見業道（邪見業道：指錯誤的見解，是導致惡果的業力）。『善』和『惡』。

【English Translation】 English version 『Seeing the path of karma. This is the sixth aspect of the mental path of karma.』 – This explains the sixth mental path of karma (mental path of karma: refers to actions in thought, which are factors constituting karma).

『The treatise says, 「To the name of the path of greedy karma」 explains the first sentence. Clarifying the path of greedy karma. 『Others』 objects』 distinguishes from 『self』. Greed for oneself does not constitute (karma).』 – The discussion explains the first sentence, clarifying the path of greedy karma (greedy karma: refers to greedy actions, which are karma leading to bad consequences). 『Others』 objects』 is to distinguish it from 『self』s objects』, because greed for one』s own things does not constitute (greedy karma).

『In principle, it should also be said that greed arises for sentient beings (sentient beings: refers to beings with emotions and consciousness). The reason for not saying it is implicitly revealed. Or it is to illustrate the heavy by mentioning the light. Greed arising for non-sentient beings (non-sentient: refers to objects without emotions and consciousness) is still called the path of karma, let alone for sentient beings. Perhaps, the word 『others』 also includes sentient beings.』

『Or only greed arising for non-sentient beings is particularly emphasized as the path of greedy karma, and the treatise does not mention sentient beings. The former explanation is better.』 – Or it is said that only greed arising for non-sentient beings is particularly emphasized as the path of greedy karma, and the treatise does not mention sentient beings. The former explanation is more reasonable.

『It means having unreasonable and evil desires for others』 possessions, wanting to possess them as one』s own, rather than belonging to others.』

『『Force』 means using force. 『Stealing』 means secretly stealing. Having the intention to use force or steal, greedily seeking others』 possessions. Such evil desires are called the path of greedy karma.』

『This greed is only the greed that needs to be eliminated through cultivation. In the process of cultivation and elimination (cultivation and elimination: eliminating afflictions through practice), greed for one』s own things does not constitute the path of karma. Therefore, the 『Treatise on Correct Reasoning』 (Correct Reasoning: refers to the correct principles of Buddhism) says that only having evil desires for others』 possessions is called the path of greedy karma. If it were not so, then greed for one』s own things should also constitute the path of karma. The cases of the Wheel-Turning King (Wheel-Turning King: a king who possesses the wheel treasure to rule the world) and Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru: one of the four continents in Buddhist legends, known for its enjoyment) would also be difficult to explain.』

『Some teachers say that all five types of love (five types of love: refers to the five afflictions of the desire realm, including greed, hatred, delusion, pride, and doubt) in the desire realm (desire realm: one of the three realms in Buddhism, where beings have emotional and material desires) belong to the path of greedy karma. According to the 『Sutra on the Five Coverings』 (Sutra on the Five Coverings: a Buddhist scripture that discusses the five afflictions that cover the mind), the Buddha said that one should eliminate the covering of greed (covering of greed: one of the five coverings, referring to greedy desires). From this, it can be known that the word 『greed』 can summarize the five types of love in the desire realm.』

『Some say that although all five types of love in the desire realm can be called 『greed』, not all of them constitute the path of karma. This path of greedy karma is because it belongs to the gross actions among evil deeds. Therefore, the era of the Wheel-Turning King and Uttarakuru, as well as the desires arising from greed for one』s own things, do not constitute the path of greedy karma, because the fault is minor. Therefore, the previous discussion said that mental evil karma (mental evil karma: refers to evil actions in thought) does not include evil thoughts (evil thoughts: evil thoughts) and slight greed, etc., among evil actions in thought. This is the view of this teacher. The previous article also expressed the same view. Among these two views, the latter is correct, because the greed eliminated by seeing the truth (greed eliminated by seeing the truth: greed eliminated through the path of seeing) does not involve wealth.』

『Regarding sentient beings, to the name of the path of anger karma, explains the second sentence. Wanting to harm other sentient beings, because the fault of this action is serious, it is called the path of anger karma (anger karma: refers to actions of hatred, which are karma leading to bad consequences). If one is angry with oneself or non-sentient beings, because the fault is minor, it does not belong to the path of anger karma.』

『Regarding good and evil, to the path of wrong view karma, explains the following two sentences. Clarifying the path of wrong view karma (wrong view karma: refers to wrong views, which are karma leading to bad consequences). 『Good』 and 『evil』.

謂善惡業　等謂等取果及聖等。於此善等現見撥無此見名為邪見業道。

如經說至等言攝後者。引經顯彼邪見撥無。經中總有十一不同。言一無施與。二無愛樂。三無祠祀者。此三皆是謗因邪見．見集所斷。如婆沙九十八解此三云。一解無差別同顯一義故　又解名即差別　外論者言。無施與者。謂無施三類福。無愛樂者。謂無施別婆羅門福。無祠祀者。謂無施眾婆羅門福　外論更有多解如彼廣說　內論者言。無施與者謂無過去福。無愛樂者。謂無未來福。無祠祀者。謂無現在福。複次無施與者。謂無身業福。無愛樂者。謂無語業福。無祠祀者。謂無意業福。複次無施與者。謂無施性福。無愛樂者。謂無戒性福。無祠祀者。謂無修性福。複次無施與者。謂無施悲田福。無愛樂者。謂無施恩田福。無祠祀者。謂無施福田福　更有多解。如彼廣說　四無妙行無惡行者。此總撥妙行．惡行。亦是謗因邪見見集所斷　五無妙行惡行業所感果異熟。此是總撥業所感果。謗果邪見見苦所斷　六無此世間　七無彼世間　此二通謗因果。若謗因見集所斷。若謗果見苦所斷。故婆沙釋云。問他世是不現見說無可爾。此世現見何故言無。答彼諸外道無明所盲。于現見事亦復非撥。不應責無明者愚盲者墮坑故。復有說者。彼諸外道但謗因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所謂的善惡業，『等』字指的是等同地獲取果報以及聖道等等。對於這些善行等等，直接否定，這種見解被稱為邪見業道。

正如經文所說，『至等』一詞涵蓋了後者。引用經文是爲了揭示那些邪見和否定。經文中總共有十一種不同的說法。第一，『沒有施與』；第二，『沒有愛樂』；第三，『沒有祠祀者』。這三種都是誹謗因果的邪見，屬於見集所斷（Dṛṣṭi-samuccaya-prahātavya，通過見道斷除的）。正如《婆沙論》（Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra）第九十八卷解釋這三種說法時說，一種解釋認為它們沒有差別，共同顯示一個意義。另一種解釋認為名稱即是差別。外道論者說，『沒有施與』指的是沒有佈施三種福報；『沒有愛樂』指的是沒有佈施給婆羅門的特殊福報；『沒有祠祀者』指的是沒有佈施給眾多婆羅門的福報。外道論者還有更多解釋，如彼處廣說。內道論者說，『沒有施與』指的是沒有過去的福報；『沒有愛樂』指的是沒有未來的福報；『沒有祠祀者』指的是沒有現在的福報。其次，『沒有施與』指的是沒有身業的福報；『沒有愛樂』指的是沒有語業的福報；『沒有祠祀者』指的是沒有意業的福報。再次，『沒有施與』指的是沒有佈施的性質的福報；『沒有愛樂』指的是沒有持戒的性質的福報；『沒有祠祀者』指的是沒有修行的性質的福報。再次，『沒有施與』指的是沒有佈施悲田的福報；『沒有愛樂』指的是沒有佈施恩田的福報；『沒有祠祀者』指的是沒有佈施福田的福報。還有更多解釋，如彼處廣說。第四，『沒有妙行，沒有惡行』，這總括地否定了妙行和惡行，也是誹謗因果的邪見，屬於見集所斷。第五，『沒有妙行惡行業所感果異熟』，這是總括地否定了業所感得的果報，是誹謗果報的邪見，屬於見苦所斷（Dṛṣṭi-duḥkha-prahātavya，通過苦諦斷除的）。第六，『沒有此世間』；第七，『沒有彼世間』，這兩種說法都通用於誹謗因果。如果誹謗因，屬於見集所斷；如果誹謗果，屬於見苦所斷。因此，《婆沙論》解釋說：『問：他世是不現見的，說沒有還可以。此世是現見的，為什麼說沒有呢？』回答說：『那些外道被無明所矇蔽，對於現見的事物也加以否定。不應該責怪無明者，因為愚昧者會墮入坑中。』還有一種說法是，那些外道只是誹謗因。

【English Translation】 English version: The so-called good and evil karma, the word 'etc.' refers to equally obtaining the results, as well as the holy path, etc. Directly denying these good deeds, etc., this view is called the path of wrong views (Mithyā dṛṣṭi).

As the sutra says, the phrase 'to etc.' encompasses the latter. Quoting the sutra is to reveal those wrong views and denials. There are a total of eleven different statements in the sutra. First, 'there is no giving'; second, 'there is no offering'; third, 'there are no sacrificers'. These three are all wrong views that slander cause and effect, and belong to what is severed by the view of accumulation (Dṛṣṭi-samuccaya-prahātavya). As the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra explains these three statements in its ninety-eighth fascicle, one explanation believes that they have no difference and jointly show one meaning. Another explanation believes that names are differences. Externalist theorists say that 'there is no giving' refers to not giving three types of blessings; 'there is no offering' refers to not giving special blessings to Brahmins; 'there are no sacrificers' refers to not giving blessings to many Brahmins. Externalist theorists have more explanations, as explained extensively there. Internalist theorists say that 'there is no giving' refers to no past blessings; 'there is no offering' refers to no future blessings; 'there are no sacrificers' refers to no present blessings. Secondly, 'there is no giving' refers to no blessings from bodily karma; 'there is no offering' refers to no blessings from verbal karma; 'there are no sacrificers' refers to no blessings from mental karma. Again, 'there is no giving' refers to no blessings from the nature of giving; 'there is no offering' refers to no blessings from the nature of precepts; 'there are no sacrificers' refers to no blessings from the nature of cultivation. Again, 'there is no giving' refers to no blessings from giving to the field of compassion; 'there is no offering' refers to no blessings from giving to the field of gratitude; 'there are no sacrificers' refers to no blessings from giving to the field of merit. There are more explanations, as explained extensively there. Fourth, 'there is no excellent conduct, no evil conduct', which comprehensively denies excellent and evil conduct, and is also a wrong view that slanders cause and effect, belonging to what is severed by the view of accumulation. Fifth, 'there is no different maturation of results felt from excellent and evil karma', which comprehensively denies the results felt from karma, and is a wrong view that slanders results, belonging to what is severed by the view of suffering (Dṛṣṭi-duḥkha-prahātavya). Sixth, 'there is no this world'; seventh, 'there is no other world', both of which are commonly used to slander cause and effect. If it slanders cause, it belongs to what is severed by the view of accumulation; if it slanders result, it belongs to what is severed by the view of suffering. Therefore, the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra explains: 'Question: The other world is not directly seen, so saying there is none is acceptable. This world is directly seen, so why say there is none?' The answer is: 'Those externalists are blinded by ignorance, and they also deny things that are directly seen. One should not blame the ignorant, because the foolish will fall into a pit.' Another explanation is that those externalists only slander cause.

．果不謗法體。無此世者謂無此世為他世因。或無此世為他世果。無他世者謂無他世為此世因。或無彼世為此世果　八無母　九無父　此二是謗因邪見．見集所斷。故婆沙云。問世間父母皆所現見。彼以何見謗言無耶。答彼諸外道無明所盲乃至廣說。有說彼諸外道謗無父母感子之業不謗其體。或有說者。彼諸外道謗父母義不謗其體。廣如彼說　十無化生有情者。此通謗因．果。若謗因見集所斷。若謗果見苦所斷。婆沙釋云。有諸外道作如是說。諸有情生皆因現在精血等事。無有無緣忽然生者。譬如芽生必因種子．水．火．時節。無有無緣而得生者。故定無有化生有情。此或撥無感化生業。或復撥無所感化生。或有說者。化生有情所謂中有。無此世他世者。謗無生有。無化生有情者。謗無中有。有諸外道言中有無。彼說但應從此世間至彼世間。更無第三世間可得。此或撥無感中有業。或復撥無所感中有。或撥中有為生有因。或撥中有為死有果　此通謗因．果。見苦集所斷　十一世間無有沙門或婆羅門及阿羅漢。此是謗聖邪見。見道所斷。隨其所應說彼經具顯謗業．謗果．謗聖邪見。此頌舉初撥善．惡業。等言攝后謗果．謗聖。若依婆沙等文。更說謗滅邪見。如彼論云無正至。此謗滅邪見。見滅所斷。正至謂涅槃等。是無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不誹謗法的本體。認為『沒有此世』，即認為此世不是他世的原因，或者此世不是他世的結果。認為『沒有他世』，即認為沒有他世是此世的原因，或者沒有他世是此世的結果。八、沒有母親；九、沒有父親：這兩種是誹謗因果的邪見，是見惑（見集所斷）所斷除的。所以《婆沙論》中說：『有人問，世間的父母都是人們親眼所見的，他們憑什麼邪見誹謗說沒有呢？』回答說：『那些外道被無明所矇蔽……』等等，廣泛地解釋。有人說，那些外道誹謗的是父母所感的業，而不是誹謗父母的本體。或者有人說，那些外道誹謗的是父母的意義，而不是誹謗父母的本體。詳細的解釋如《婆沙論》所說。十、沒有化生有情：這包括誹謗因和果。如果是誹謗因，是見惑（見集所斷）所斷除的；如果是誹謗果，是見惑（見苦所斷）所斷除的。《婆沙論》解釋說：『有些外道這樣說，一切有情的產生都是因為現在的精血等事物，沒有無緣無故突然產生的。譬如芽的生長必定是因為種子、水、火、時節，沒有無緣無故就能生長的。所以一定沒有化生有情。』這或者是否定了能感化生的業，或者是否定了所感的化生。或者有人說，化生有情就是指中有（antabhava）。認為『沒有此世他世』，就是誹謗沒有生有（upapattibhava）。認為『沒有化生有情』，就是誹謗沒有中有。有些外道說沒有中有，他們說只能從此世間到彼世間，沒有第三個世間可以得到。這或者是否定了能感中有的業，或者是否定了所感的中有。或者否定了中有是生有的原因，或者否定了中有是死有的結果。這包括誹謗因和果，是見惑（見苦集所斷）所斷除的。十一、世間沒有沙門（sramana）或婆羅門（brahmana）以及阿羅漢（arhat）：這是誹謗聖者的邪見，是見惑（見道所斷）所斷除的。根據情況，那些經文詳細地顯示了誹謗業、誹謗果、誹謗聖者的邪見。這首偈頌舉出了最初的否定善惡業，『等』字包括了後面的誹謗果、誹謗聖者。如果依據《婆沙論》等文獻，還應該說誹謗滅諦的邪見，如那些論典所說『沒有正至』。這是誹謗滅諦的邪見，是見惑（見滅所斷）所斷除的。正至指的是涅槃（nirvana）等，是沒有的。

【English Translation】 English version Not slandering the substance of the Dharma. To say 'there is no this world' means to claim that this world is not the cause of the other world, or that this world is not the result of the other world. To say 'there is no other world' means to claim that there is no other world as the cause of this world, or no other world as the result of this world. 8. No mother; 9. No father: These two are wrong views that slander cause and effect, which are severed by the view of attachment (Drishti-samucchaya-prahana). Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'Someone asks, the parents in the world are all seen by people, what wrong view do they rely on to slander and say there are none?' The answer is: 'Those heretics are blinded by ignorance...' etc., explaining extensively. Some say that those heretics slander the karma that parents cause, not slandering the substance of parents. Or some say that those heretics slander the meaning of parents, not slandering the substance of parents. Detailed explanations are as in the Vibhasa. 10. No sentient beings born by transformation (upapaduka): This includes slandering cause and effect. If it is slandering the cause, it is severed by the view of attachment (Drishti-samucchaya-prahana); if it is slandering the result, it is severed by the view of suffering (Drishti-duhkha-prahana). The Vibhasa explains: 'Some heretics say that the birth of all sentient beings is due to present sperm, blood, and other things; there is no sudden birth without a cause. For example, the growth of a sprout must be due to seed, water, fire, and season; there is no growth without a cause. Therefore, there are definitely no sentient beings born by transformation.' This either denies the karma that can cause transformation birth, or denies the transformation birth that is caused. Or some say that sentient beings born by transformation refer to the intermediate state (antabhava). To say 'there is no this world or other world' is to slander that there is no arising existence (upapattibhava). To say 'there are no sentient beings born by transformation' is to slander that there is no intermediate state. Some heretics say there is no intermediate state, they say that one can only go from this world to the other world, and there is no third world to be obtained. This either denies the karma that can cause the intermediate state, or denies the intermediate state that is caused. Or it denies that the intermediate state is the cause of arising existence, or denies that the intermediate state is the result of dying existence. This includes slandering cause and effect, which is severed by the view of attachment (Drishti-duhkha-samucchaya-prahana). 11. There are no sramanas (ascetics) or brahmanas (priests) and arhats (worthy ones) in the world: This is a wrong view that slanders the saints, which is severed by the view of the path (Drishti-marga-prahana). According to the situation, those sutras clearly show the wrong views of slandering karma, slandering result, and slandering saints. This verse mentions the initial denial of good and evil karma, and the word 'etc.' includes the later slandering of result and slandering of saints. If based on the Vibhasa and other documents, one should also say the wrong view of slandering cessation, as those treatises say 'there is no right attainment'. This is a wrong view that slanders cessation, which is severed by the view of cessation (Drishti-nirodha-prahana). Right attainment refers to nirvana (liberation) etc., which is non-existent.

漏道所應至故。廣如彼說。

俱舍論記卷第十六

保延元年六月二十三日于田原里大道寺點了

權少僧都覺樹

今年饑饉古來未有(云云)餓死之倫道路難去可悲哉末世為之如何予獨嘗法味之間續惠命而法身肥了可笑可笑。

（別筆）

天養二年二月二十四日辰時于石山寺一見了因果之道深悟了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十七

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之五

如是已辨至七業亦道故者。此即大文第二釋業道名。上句明意三。下句明身．語七。

論曰至而造作故者。釋上句。於十不善業道之中。后三貪．嗔．邪見唯道。思業之道故立業道名。彼貪等相應思說名為業。彼貪等轉故。思轉。彼貪等行故。思行。如彼貪等勢力。而思有造作故。貪等是思依託處故名業之道。

前七是業至立業道名者。釋下句。於十不善業道之中。前七體是業。身．語業性故。亦業之道。為彼思業所游履故。由因等起身．語業思。託身．語業為境轉故名業之道。上業是身．語業。下業是思業。業．及業之道總立業道名。

故於此中至俱極成故者。此顯名同攝諸異類。故於此釋業道名中。言業道者具顯后三業道。前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『漏道所應至故。廣如彼說。』（此處省略，意為應如其他地方所說的那樣廣泛理解。）

『俱舍論記卷第十六』

『保延元年六月二十三日于田原里大道寺點了』

『權少僧都覺樹』

『今年饑饉古來未有(云云)餓死之倫道路難去可悲哉末世為之如何予獨嘗法味之間續惠命而法身肥了可笑可笑。』（今年發生前所未有的饑荒，餓死的人們在道路上難以行走，真是可悲啊！末世要如何度過呢？我獨自品嚐佛法的滋味，得以延續生命，法身也變得肥胖，真是可笑啊可笑。）

（別筆）

『天養二年二月二十四日辰時于石山寺一見了因果之道深悟了』（天養二年二月二十四日辰時，在石山寺一見了因果之道，深深領悟了。）大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

『俱舍論記卷第十七』

『沙門釋光述』

『分別業品第四之五』

『如是已辨至七業亦道故者。』（如是已經辨明，乃至七業也是道的原因。）『此即大文第二釋業道名。上句明意三。下句明身．語七。』（這是大段文字中第二部分解釋業道名稱。上句說明意業三種，下句說明身業和語業七種。）

『論曰至而造作故者。』（論中說，乃至造作的原因。）『釋上句。於十不善業道之中。后三貪．嗔．邪見唯道。思業之道故立業道名。』（解釋上句。在十不善業道中，后三種貪(tanha，貪慾) 、嗔(dosa，嗔恚) 、邪見(micchaditthi，錯誤的見解) 僅僅是道。因為是思業之道，所以建立業道之名。）『彼貪等相應思說名為業。彼貪等轉故。思轉。彼貪等行故。思行。如彼貪等勢力。而思有造作故。貪等是思依託處故名業之道。』（與貪等相應的思，被稱為業。因為貪等轉動，所以思也轉動。因為貪等執行，所以思也執行。如同貪等的勢力，而思有造作。貪等是思所依託之處，所以名為業之道。）

『前七是業至立業道名者。』（前七種是業，乃至建立業道之名。）『釋下句。於十不善業道之中。前七體是業。身．語業性故。亦業之道。為彼思業所游履故。由因等起身．語業思。託身．語業為境轉故名業之道。』（解釋下句。在十不善業道中，前七種本體是業，因為是身業和語業的性質，所以也是業之道。因為是思業所遊歷的地方。由因等起身業和語業的思，依託身業和語業為境界而轉動，所以名為業之道。）『上業是身．語業。下業是思業。業．及業之道總立業道名。』（上面的業是身業和語業，下面的業是思業。業以及業之道，總共建立業道之名。）

『故於此中至俱極成故者。』（所以在此之中，乃至都完全成立的原因。）『此顯名同攝諸異類。故於此釋業道名中。言業道者具顯后三業道。前』（這顯示名稱相同，卻包含各種不同的類別。所以在此解釋業道名稱中，說到業道，就完全顯示了后三種業道。前）

【English Translation】 English version 『The path of leakage should be reached, hence. It is extensively explained elsewhere.』 (Omitted here, meaning it should be understood extensively as explained elsewhere.)

『Kosa-lun-ki (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā) , Volume 16』

『Pointed out at Daido-ji Temple in Tawarari on June 23rd, in the first year of Hoen.』

『Gon no Shosozu Kakuju』

『This year's famine is unprecedented (etc.), the starving people can hardly walk on the roads, how sad! How can we survive in this degenerate age? I alone taste the flavor of the Dharma, which sustains my life and fattens my Dharma body, how ridiculous, how ridiculous!』 (This year's famine is unprecedented, the starving people can hardly walk on the roads, how sad! How can we survive in this degenerate age? I alone taste the flavor of the Dharma, which sustains my life and fattens my Dharma body, how ridiculous, how ridiculous!)

(Written separately)

『On February 24th, in the second year of Ten'yo, at the hour of the dragon, I saw the path of cause and effect at Ishiyama-dera Temple and deeply understood it.』 (On February 24th, in the second year of Ten'yo, at the hour of the dragon, I saw the path of cause and effect at Ishiyama-dera Temple and deeply understood it.) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1821 Kosa-lun-ki

『Kosa-lun-ki (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā), Volume 17』

『Commentary by Shramana Shakukou』

『Chapter 4, Section 5: Analysis of Karma』

『As has been explained, up to the seven karmas are also called paths.』 (As has been explained, up to the seven karmas are also called paths.) 『This is the second part of the main text explaining the name of the path of karma. The first sentence clarifies the three of mental karma. The second sentence clarifies the seven of bodily and verbal karma.』 (This is the second part of the main text explaining the name of the path of karma. The first sentence clarifies the three of mental karma. The second sentence clarifies the seven of bodily and verbal karma.)

『The treatise says, 『up to the cause of creation.』 (The treatise says, 『up to the cause of creation.』) 『Explaining the first sentence. Among the ten non-virtuous paths of karma, the latter three, greed (tanha), hatred (dosa), and wrong view (micchaditthi), are only paths. Because they are the path of mental karma, the name 『path of karma』 is established.』 (Explaining the first sentence. Among the ten non-virtuous paths of karma, the latter three, greed (tanha), hatred (dosa), and wrong view (micchaditthi), are only paths. Because they are the path of mental karma, the name 『path of karma』 is established.) 『The thought associated with greed, etc., is called karma. Because greed, etc., move, thought moves. Because greed, etc., act, thought acts. Like the power of greed, etc., thought creates. Greed, etc., are the place where thought relies, hence the name 『path of karma.』 (The thought associated with greed, etc., is called karma. Because greed, etc., move, thought moves. Because greed, etc., act, thought acts. Like the power of greed, etc., thought creates. Greed, etc., are the place where thought relies, hence the name 『path of karma.』)

『The first seven are karma, up to the establishment of the name 『path of karma.』 (The first seven are karma, up to the establishment of the name 『path of karma.』) 『Explaining the second sentence. Among the ten non-virtuous paths of karma, the first seven are essentially karma. Because they are the nature of bodily and verbal karma, they are also the path of karma. Because they are traversed by the thought karma. From causes, etc., arise thoughts of bodily and verbal karma. Relying on bodily and verbal karma as the object, they move, hence the name 『path of karma.』 (Explaining the second sentence. Among the ten non-virtuous paths of karma, the first seven are essentially karma. Because they are the nature of bodily and verbal karma, they are also the path of karma. Because they are traversed by the thought karma. From causes, etc., arise thoughts of bodily and verbal karma. Relying on bodily and verbal karma as the object, they move, hence the name 『path of karma.』) 『The upper karma is bodily and verbal karma. The lower karma is mental karma. Karma and the path of karma together establish the name 『path of karma.』 (The upper karma is bodily and verbal karma. The lower karma is mental karma. Karma and the path of karma together establish the name 『path of karma.』)

『Therefore, in this, up to the reason why both are completely established.』 (Therefore, in this, up to the reason why both are completely established.) 『This shows that the name is the same but includes different categories. Therefore, in this explanation of the name 『path of karma,』 when 『path of karma』 is mentioned, it fully reveals the latter three paths of karma. The former』 (This shows that the name is the same but includes different categories. Therefore, in this explanation of the name 『path of karma,』 when 『path of karma』 is mentioned, it fully reveals the latter three paths of karma. The former)

七業．業道義。若言業道業是貪相應思。道是思相應貪等。若言業業道。上業是身．語。下業是因等起思。道是身．語。此中意說。一業顯多業。一道顯多道。雖復業道性類不同。業名同故。而一業名為餘業故。道名同故。而一道名為余道故。如斯之類於世間中。于典籍中。俱極成故　世極成者。如言車牛。雖多車牛性類不同。車牛名同。而一車。牛名為余車牛故　典極成者。如言識住。雖四識住性類不同。識住名同而一識住名為余識住故。

離殺等七至余類此應釋者。此即類釋善業道也。

此加行後起何緣非業道者。問。加行．後起應名業道。思亦緣彼為境轉故。何緣說彼非業道耶。

為此依此至異此不然者。答中有三。一為此根本彼加行方轉故。依此根本彼後起方轉故。故加．行後起非是根本　二又前說此根本業道攝粗品故。加行．後起非粗品故非業道攝　三又若由此惡業道有減。令內．外惡物有減。由惡業道有增。令內．外惡物有增。若由此善業道有減。令內．外好物有減。由善業道有增。令內．外好物有增。有斯用者立為業道。異此根本前．后不然故非業道　又解若由此惡業道有減。令內．外好物有增。由惡業道有增。令內．外好物有減。若由此善業道有減。令內．外惡物有增。由善業道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：七業·業道義。如果說業道，業是與貪相應的思（cetanā，意圖）。道是與思相應的貪等（klesha，煩惱）。如果說業業道，上業是身（kāya，身體）、語（vāc，語言）。下業是因等生起的思。道是身、語。這裡的意思是說，一個業可以顯示多個業，一條道可以顯示多條道。雖然業和道的性質種類不同，但因為業的名稱相同，所以一個業的名稱可以代表其餘的業；道的名稱相同，所以一條道的名稱可以代表其餘的道。像這樣的例子，在世間中，在典籍中，都是極其成立的。世間極其成立的例子，比如說到車牛，雖然很多車牛的性質種類不同，但車牛的名稱相同，所以一輛車、一頭牛的名稱可以代表其餘的車牛。典籍極其成立的例子，比如說到識住（vijñāna-sthiti，意識的住所），雖然四識住的性質種類不同，但識住的名稱相同，所以一個識住的名稱可以代表其餘的識住。遠離殺生等七種（不善）業，到其餘的種類，應該這樣解釋。這實際上是用來類比解釋善業道的。為什麼加行（prayoga，準備行為）和後起（prstha-labdha，完成行為）不是業道呢？問：加行和後起應該被稱為業道，因為思也是以它們為對像而轉動的。為什麼說它們不是業道呢？爲了這個，依靠這個，到與此不同就不是這樣。答覆中有三個方面：一是，爲了這個根本，加行才得以發生；依靠這個根本，後起才得以發生。所以加行和後起不是根本。二是，前面說過，這個根本業道包含粗顯的部分，而加行和後起不是粗顯的部分，所以不屬於業道。三是，如果由於這個惡業道減少，使得內在和外在的惡的事物減少；由於惡業道增加，使得內在和外在的惡的事物增加；如果由於這個善業道減少，使得內在和外在好的事物減少；由於善業道增加，使得內在和外在好的事物增加。有這種作用的才被立為業道。與此根本的前後不同，所以不是業道。又一種解釋是，如果由於這個惡業道減少，使得內在和外在好的事物增加；由於惡業道增加，使得內在和外在好的事物減少；如果由於這個善業道減少，使得內在和外在惡的事物增加。

【English Translation】 English version: Seven Karmas. The meaning of Karma-path. If we speak of Karma-path, 'Karma' is the thought (cetanā) associated with greed. 'Path' is greed, etc. (klesha) associated with thought. If we speak of Karma-Karma-path, the upper 'Karma' is body (kāya) and speech (vāc). The lower 'Karma' is the thought arising from causes, etc. 'Path' is body and speech. The meaning here is that one Karma reveals many Karmas, and one Path reveals many Paths. Although the nature and types of Karmas and Paths are different, because the name 'Karma' is the same, one 'Karma' name represents the remaining Karmas; because the name 'Path' is the same, one 'Path' name represents the remaining Paths. Such examples are extremely established in the world and in the scriptures. An example of extreme establishment in the world is when we speak of carts and oxen. Although the nature and types of many carts and oxen are different, the name 'carts and oxen' is the same, so the name of one cart or ox represents the remaining carts and oxen. An example of extreme establishment in the scriptures is when we speak of abodes of consciousness (vijñāna-sthiti). Although the nature and types of the four abodes of consciousness are different, the name 'abode of consciousness' is the same, so the name of one abode of consciousness represents the remaining abodes of consciousness. The seven (unwholesome) karmas, such as abstaining from killing, etc., to the remaining categories, should be explained in this way. This is actually used to explain the wholesome Karma-path by analogy. Why are the preparatory action (prayoga) and the subsequent action (prstha-labdha) not Karma-paths? Question: The preparatory action and the subsequent action should be called Karma-paths, because thought also turns with them as its object. Why are they said not to be Karma-paths? For this reason, relying on this, to being different from this is not so. There are three aspects in the answer: First, for this root, the preparatory action can occur; relying on this root, the subsequent action can occur. Therefore, the preparatory action and the subsequent action are not the root. Second, it was said earlier that this root Karma-path includes the coarse aspects, while the preparatory action and the subsequent action are not coarse aspects, so they are not included in the Karma-path. Third, if the decrease of this evil Karma-path causes the decrease of internal and external evil things; if the increase of the evil Karma-path causes the increase of internal and external evil things; if the decrease of this good Karma-path causes the decrease of internal and external good things; if the increase of the good Karma-path causes the increase of internal and external good things. Only that which has this function is established as a Karma-path. Being different from this root in terms of before and after is not so, so it is not a Karma-path. Another explanation is that if the decrease of this evil Karma-path causes the increase of internal and external good things; if the increase of the evil Karma-path causes the decrease of internal and external good things; if the decrease of this good Karma-path causes the increase of internal and external evil things.

有增。令內．外惡物有減立業道名。異此不然　又解若由此惡業道有減。令內．外惡物減好物增。由惡業道有增。令內．外惡物增好物減。若由此善業道有減。令內．外好物減惡物增。由善業道有增。令內外．好物增惡物減立業道名。異此不然　言內．外物者。婆沙一百一十三云。所居名外。壽等名內。

譬喻論師至彼名業道者。問。毗婆沙師。貪等非思各別有體。別釋業道。譬喻論師。執貪．嗔等即是意思無有別體。依何義釋彼貪．嗔等名為業道。

應問彼師至皆名業道者。論主答。應問彼師非關我事若為彼釋。然亦可言彼貪．嗔等即是意業。無別體故。復言道者由此貪等墮諸惡趣。與惡趣為道故立業道名。或因貪等次起嗔等。或因嗔等次起貪等。前能生后。后乘前生。與后為道故言。或互相乘皆名業道。

如是所說至差別云何者。此下大文第三義便明斷善。一問惡業皆與現善相違。諸斷善根由何業道。二問斷善．續善相別云何。

頌曰至頓現除逆者者。初句答初問。后七句答后問。

論曰至能斷善根者。釋初句。於十惡業道中。唯有上品圓滿邪見能斷善根。

若爾何緣至最初所除者。問。若言邪見能斷善根。如何本論言不善根能斷善根。或離欲位最初所除。亦是上品諸不善

根。

由不善根至被賊燒村者。答。由不善因引邪見果。故果作事推在彼因。喻況可知。

何等善根為此所斷者。此下釋第二句。此即問也。

謂唯欲界至先不成故者。答。謂唯欲界生得善根是其所斷。色．無色善未斷善時。先不成故故非所斷。

施設足論至三界善根者。難。若唯斷欲善。論何故說斷三界善。

依上善根至非彼器故者。通。論說能斷三界善者。依上界善得更遠說。漸令欲身非彼善得所依器故。故說斷上界。理實唯斷欲。

何緣唯斷生得善根者。徴。于欲界中。何緣唯斷生得善根。非加行善。

加行善根先已退故者。釋。加行善根聞．思二惠。至斷善時。先加行位已退舍故。至正斷善。唯斷生得非斷加行　問加行善心能發戒不　空法師有三解　一云加行善心不能發戒。戒是斷善舍。邪見但斷生得善故　二云加行善心亦能發戒。然不能斷以強勝故。然諸論說加行善根先不成者。據劣弱者說。若強勝者牢固不捨　三云加行發戒。將斷善時。必先作法舍彼戒故。然後斷善。三解俱與正理相違。故正理四十二云。諸律儀果有從加行。有從生得善心所生。若從加行善心生者。律儀先舍后斷善根。然斷善根加行．根本皆名斷善。依此故說斷善根位舍諸律儀。若從生得善

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：根。

由不善根至被賊燒村者。答：由不善的因導致邪見的果。所以把果報的產生歸咎於那個因。這個比喻可以理解。

何等善根為此所斷者？此下解釋第二句。這是提問。

謂唯欲界至先不成故者。答：指只有欲界眾生生來就有的善根才會被斷。色界、無色界的善根在未斷善之前，本來就不存在，所以不是被斷的對象。

施設足論至三界善根者。難：如果只斷欲界的善根，《施設足論》為什麼說斷三界的善根？

依上善根至非彼器故者。通：《施設足論》說能斷三界善根，是依據上界的善根，從更長遠的角度來說。逐漸使得欲界之身不再是那些善根所能依附的器皿。所以說斷上界的善根，實際上只是斷欲界的善根。

何緣唯斷生得善根者？徴：在欲界中，為什麼只斷生來就有的善根，而不是通過後天努力修行的善根（加行善）？

加行善根先已退故者。釋：通過聞法、思考而獲得的加行善根，在斷善根的時候，已經退失了。所以在真正斷善根的時候，只斷生來就有的善根，不包括加行善根。問：加行善心能否引發戒律？空法師有三種解釋：一說加行善心不能引發戒律，因為戒律是斷除惡行，捨棄邪見，而邪見只能斷除生來就有的善根。二說加行善心也能引發戒律，但不能被斷除，因為它更強大。那些論典說加行善根先已不存在，是針對那些弱小的加行善根來說的。如果加行善根強大而牢固，就不會捨棄。三說加行善心可以引發戒律，但在將要斷善根的時候，必須先通過儀式捨棄那些戒律，然後才能斷善根。這三種解釋都與正理相違背。所以《正理》四十二說，有些律儀的果報是從加行善心產生的，有些是從生來就有的善心產生的。如果是從加行善心產生的，那麼律儀會先被捨棄，然後才斷善根。然而，斷善根的加行和根本都叫做斷善。因此，才說在斷善根的時候，會捨棄所有的律儀。如果是從生來就有的善心產生的。

【English Translation】 English version: Root.

From unwholesome roots to the burning of a village by thieves. Answer: From unwholesome causes arise the fruits of wrong views. Therefore, the consequences are attributed to those causes. The analogy is understandable.

What kind of wholesome roots are severed by this? This explains the second sentence. This is a question.

』Only the desire realm』 to 『because they do not pre-exist.』 Answer: It refers to only the wholesome roots acquired at birth in the desire realm that are severed. The wholesome roots of the form and formless realms, before the severance of wholesome roots, do not pre-exist, therefore they are not severed.

』Śāsana-pada-abhidharma』 to 『wholesome roots of the three realms.』 Objection: If only the wholesome roots of the desire realm are severed, why does the Śāsana-pada-abhidharma say that the wholesome roots of the three realms are severed?

』Relying on the upper wholesome roots』 to 『because they are not vessels for them.』 Explanation: The Śāsana-pada-abhidharma says that one can sever the wholesome roots of the three realms, relying on the wholesome roots of the upper realms, speaking from a more distant perspective, gradually causing the body in the desire realm to no longer be a vessel for those wholesome roots. Therefore, it is said that the wholesome roots of the upper realms are severed, but in reality, only the wholesome roots of the desire realm are severed.

Why only sever the wholesome roots acquired at birth? Question: In the desire realm, why only sever the wholesome roots acquired at birth, and not the wholesome roots acquired through effort (additional practice)?

』Because the wholesome roots acquired through effort have already declined.』 Explanation: The wholesome roots acquired through effort, through hearing and contemplation, have already declined and been abandoned at the time of severing wholesome roots. Therefore, at the time of actually severing wholesome roots, only the wholesome roots acquired at birth are severed, not those acquired through effort. Question: Can the wholesome mind acquired through effort generate precepts? Dharma Master Kong has three explanations: First, the wholesome mind acquired through effort cannot generate precepts, because precepts are the abandonment of evil deeds and the rejection of wrong views, but wrong views only sever the wholesome roots acquired at birth. Second, the wholesome mind acquired through effort can also generate precepts, but it cannot be severed because it is stronger. The treatises that say the wholesome roots acquired through effort do not pre-exist are referring to those that are weak. If the wholesome roots acquired through effort are strong and firm, they will not be abandoned. Third, the wholesome mind acquired through effort can generate precepts, but when about to sever wholesome roots, one must first perform a ritual to abandon those precepts, and then sever wholesome roots. All three explanations contradict the correct principle. Therefore, the forty-second verse of the Nyāyānusāra says that some fruits of vows arise from the wholesome mind acquired through effort, and some arise from the wholesome mind acquired at birth. If they arise from the wholesome mind acquired through effort, then the vows are abandoned first, and then the wholesome roots are severed. However, both the effort and the root of severing wholesome roots are called severing wholesome roots. Therefore, it is said that all vows are abandoned at the time of severing wholesome roots. If they arise from the wholesome mind acquired at birth.

心生者。隨斷何品能生善根。所生律儀爾時便舍。舍能等起彼隨舍故(已上論文)。

緣何邪見能斷善根者。此下釋第三句。此即問也。

謂定撥無至彼果異熟者。答。謂定撥無四諦因果。

有餘師說至解脫道別者。敘異說。此撥因果二種邪見。撥因邪見如無間道。撥果邪見如解脫道。非真彼道故說如言。

有餘師說至勢力劣故者。上解撥因果。此下解一切。一敘異說。二申正義。此即異說　有餘師說。斷善邪見唯取緣苦．集有漏。非取滅．道無漏緣。唯取自界緣。不取他界緣。由彼無漏緣．他界緣。唯作相應隨眠隨增。境不隨增勢力劣故。

如是說者至有強力故者。此即正義。如是說者。通取一切緣。若有漏．無漏緣。自界．他界緣。邪見皆能斷善。無漏緣。他界緣。邪見雖境不隨增。隨同類．遍行因亦增。邪見有強力故亦能斷善　又解雖境不隨增。相應．俱有因亦增。邪見有強力故亦能斷善。

有餘師說至見所斷惑者。此下釋漸斷。一敘異說。二申正義。此即異說。九品善根由一剎那邪見頓斷。如見道斷見所斷惑。一無間道九品頓斷　問邪見有九品何品能斷　解云至第九品上上邪見方頓斷　又解文既不別說。隨起何品邪見皆能頓斷。

如是說者至名斷善根者。此即正

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『心生者。隨斷何品能生善根。所生律儀爾時便舍。舍能等起彼隨舍故』（已上論文）。

『緣何邪見能斷善根者』。此下解釋第三句。這是提問。

『謂定撥無至彼果異熟者』。回答。是指確定否定四諦（satya，真諦）的因果。

『有餘師說至解脫道別者』。敘述不同的說法。這種否定因果的邪見，否定因的邪見就像無間道（anantarya-marga，無間道，直接通往解脫的道路），否定果的邪見就像解脫道（vimukti-marga，解脫道，最終的解脫之路）。因為不是真正的那些道，所以說是『如』。

『有餘師說至勢力劣故者』。上面解釋了否定因果。這裡解釋一切。一、敘述不同的說法。二、闡述正確的意義。這是不同的說法：『有餘師說』。斷善的邪見只取緣苦（duhkha，苦諦）、集（samudaya，集諦）的有漏（sasrava，有煩惱）法，不取滅（nirodha，滅諦）、道（marga，道諦）的無漏（anasrava，無煩惱）法。只取自界（自己的境界）的緣，不取他界（其他的境界）的緣。因為那些無漏的緣、他界的緣，只作為相應的隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱）隨之增長，境界不隨之增長，所以勢力弱。

『如是說者至有強力故者』。這是正確的意義。『如是說者』，普遍取一切緣。無論是有漏的緣、無漏的緣，自界的緣、他界的緣，邪見都能斷善。無漏的緣、他界的緣，邪見雖然境界不隨之增長，但隨著同類因、遍行因也增長。邪見有強大的力量，所以也能斷善。又解釋說，雖然境界不隨之增長，但相應因、俱有因也增長。邪見有強大的力量，所以也能斷善。

『有餘師說至見所斷惑者』。這裡解釋漸斷。一、敘述不同的說法。二、闡述正確的意義。這是不同的說法。九品善根由一個剎那的邪見頓斷。就像見道（darshana-marga，見道，證悟真理的道路）斷見所斷惑（darshana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）。一個無間道九品頓斷。問：邪見有九品，哪一品能斷？解釋說：到第九品上上邪見才能頓斷。又解釋說，經文既然沒有分別說明，那麼隨之生起哪一品邪見都能頓斷。

『如是說者至名斷善根者』。這是正確的意義。

【English Translation】 English version 『When a thought arises, by severing which category can wholesome roots be generated? The precepts generated at that time are then abandoned. Because the arising of abandonment is capable, it follows that they are abandoned.』 (Above is the text of the treatise).

『By what kind of wrong view can wholesome roots be severed?』 The following explains the third sentence. This is a question.

『Namely, definitively denying... to the ripening of those results.』 The answer: It refers to definitively denying the cause and effect of the Four Noble Truths (satya).

『Some other teachers say... different from the path of liberation.』 Narrating a different view. This wrong view denies cause and effect. The wrong view that denies the cause is like the immediate path (anantarya-marga), and the wrong view that denies the effect is like the path of liberation (vimukti-marga). Because they are not the true paths, it is said 『like.』

『Some other teachers say... because their power is weak.』 The above explained denying cause and effect. The following explains everything. 1. Narrating a different view. 2. Stating the correct meaning. This is a different view: 『Some other teachers say.』 The wrong view that severs wholesome roots only takes the afflicted (sasrava) conditioned by suffering (duhkha) and origination (samudaya), and does not take the unconditioned (anasrava) conditioned by cessation (nirodha) and the path (marga). It only takes the conditions of its own realm and does not take the conditions of other realms. Because those unconditioned conditions and conditions of other realms only act as corresponding latent defilements (anusaya) that increase accordingly, and the object does not increase accordingly, their power is weak.

『Those who say thus... because it has strong power.』 This is the correct meaning. 『Those who say thus』 universally take all conditions. Whether they are afflicted or unconditioned conditions, conditions of one's own realm or conditions of other realms, wrong views can sever wholesome roots. Although the object of unconditioned conditions and conditions of other realms does not increase accordingly, it also increases with similar causes and pervasive causes. Wrong views have strong power, so they can also sever wholesome roots. Furthermore, it is explained that although the object does not increase accordingly, the corresponding and co-existent causes also increase. Wrong views have strong power, so they can also sever wholesome roots.

『Some other teachers say... defilements to be severed by seeing.』 The following explains gradual severance. 1. Narrating a different view. 2. Stating the correct meaning. This is a different view. The nine categories of wholesome roots are severed instantly by a single moment of wrong view, just as the path of seeing (darshana-marga) severs the defilements to be severed by seeing (darshana-heya). One immediate path severs the nine categories instantly. Question: Wrong views have nine categories, which category can sever them? It is explained: Only the highest of the ninth category of wrong views can sever them instantly. It is also explained that since the text does not specify separately, whichever category of wrong view arises, it can sever them instantly.

『Those who say thus... called severing wholesome roots.』 This is the correct meaning.

義。漸斷善根。所斷九品善根。從粗至細名逆。能斷九品邪見。從細至粗名順。逆順相對漸次而斷。如修道斷修所斷惑九品漸斷。若作斯釋符本論文。彼論既言。微俱行善是最後舍　明知善根九品漸斷。

若爾彼文至能斷善根者者。引本論文難。本論既說上品不善根能斷善根。明知頓斷。如何乃言九品漸斷。

彼依究竟至名能斷善根者。通。本論云逆順說斷。如前可知。斷前八品雖亦名斷。斷猶未盡。至斷第九方究竟盡。彼依究竟蜜說此言。上品不善根能斷善根。非前八品不能斷善。

有餘師言至通出不出者。斷九品善前師終無中出。如見道中斷八諦惑。此非正義。如是說者通出．不出。如斷修惑。此是正義。

有餘師說至未易舍故者。此釋二俱舍。一敘異說。二申正義。此敘異說。因彼善根發得律儀故善根是本。律儀是末。末易舍故所以先舍。本難捨故所以後斷。

如是說者至品類同故者。此申正義。九品善根能發九品律儀。隨其所應。於九品中。若彼律儀是此品善心所等起果。此品善心斷時即舍律儀。以果律儀與因善心品類同故。若加行善所發律儀。將斷善時加行位舍。以將斷善舍彼善故。斷善加行舍故亦名斷善舍。故正理云。諸律儀果。有從加行。有從生得善心所生。若從加行

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，逐漸斷除善根。所斷的九品善根，從粗到細稱為『逆』。能夠斷除九品邪見，從細到粗稱為『順』。逆順相對，逐漸斷除。例如修道斷除修所斷惑的九品，是逐漸斷除的。如果這樣解釋，就符合本論的論述。因為該論已經說過，微細的俱行善是最後捨棄的，明確知道善根是九品逐漸斷除的。

如果這樣，那麼『至能斷善根者』這句話，是引用本論的論述來提出疑問。本論既然說上品不善根能夠斷除善根，明確知道是頓斷。為什麼又說九品是逐漸斷除的呢？

『彼依究竟至名能斷善根者』，這是爲了融通。本論說逆順的斷除，如前文所知。斷除前八品雖然也稱為斷，但斷除並沒有窮盡。到斷除第九品才究竟窮盡。那是依據究竟的密意來說這句話。上品不善根能夠斷除善根，並非前八品不能斷善。

有其他論師說『至通出不出者』，斷除九品善根，前一位論師始終沒有中出的說法。如同見道中，斷除八諦惑。這不是正確的解釋。像這樣說，就通達出與不出。如同斷除修惑。這是正確的解釋。

有其他論師說『至未易舍故者』，這是解釋二俱舍。一是敘述不同的說法，二是闡述正確的意義。這是敘述不同的說法。因為那些善根能夠引發律儀，所以善根是根本，律儀是末。末容易捨棄，所以先捨棄。根本難以捨棄，所以後斷除。

像這樣說『至品類同故者』，這是闡述正確的意義。九品善根能夠引發九品律儀，隨其所應。在九品中，如果那些律儀是此品善心所等起的果，那麼此品善心斷除時，就捨棄律儀。因為作為果的律儀與作為因的善心品類相同。如果是加行善所引發的律儀，將要斷除善時，在加行位捨棄。因為將要斷除善，所以捨棄那些善。斷除善的加行捨棄，所以也稱為斷善舍。所以正理說，諸律儀果，有的是從加行，有的是從生得善心所生。如果是從加行

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, gradually severing the roots of good. The nine grades of roots of good that are severed, from coarse to fine, are called 'reverse'. Being able to sever the nine grades of wrong views, from fine to coarse, is called 'forward'. Reverse and forward are relative, gradually severing. For example, in the path of cultivation, severing the nine grades of afflictions to be severed by cultivation is a gradual severing. If explained in this way, it conforms to the treatise itself. Because that treatise has already said that subtle co-occurring good is the last to be abandoned, clearly knowing that the roots of good are gradually severed in nine grades.

If so, then the phrase 'to be able to sever the roots of good' is quoting the treatise itself to raise a question. Since the treatise says that the highest grade of unwholesome roots can sever the roots of good, clearly knowing that it is a sudden severing. Why then say that the nine grades are gradually severed?

'Relying on the ultimate to be called able to sever the roots of good', this is to reconcile. The treatise says the reverse and forward severing, as known from the previous text. Although severing the first eight grades is also called severing, the severing is not exhausted. Only when the ninth grade is severed is it ultimately exhausted. That is relying on the ultimate secret meaning to say this. The highest grade of unwholesome roots can sever the roots of good, it is not that the first eight grades cannot sever good.

Some other teachers say 'to penetrate coming out and not coming out', severing the nine grades of good, the previous teacher never had the saying of coming out in the middle. Like in the path of seeing, severing the afflictions of the eight truths. This is not a correct explanation. Saying it like this, it penetrates coming out and not coming out. Like severing the afflictions of cultivation. This is a correct explanation.

Some other teachers say 'to not easily abandon', this is explaining the two Koshas. One is narrating different sayings, and the other is elaborating the correct meaning. This is narrating different sayings. Because those roots of good can give rise to precepts (律儀, lǜyí), therefore the roots of good are the foundation, and the precepts are the end. The end is easy to abandon, so it is abandoned first. The foundation is difficult to abandon, so it is severed later.

Saying it like this 'to the same category', this is elaborating the correct meaning. The nine grades of good roots can give rise to the nine grades of precepts, as appropriate. Among the nine grades, if those precepts are the result of this grade of wholesome mental factors arising, then when this grade of wholesome mind is severed, the precepts are abandoned. Because the precepts as the result are of the same category as the wholesome mind as the cause. If the precepts are generated by the preliminary practice (加行, jiāxíng) good, when about to sever the good, they are abandoned in the preliminary practice stage. Because about to sever the good, those good are abandoned. The preliminary practice of severing good is abandoned, so it is also called abandoning the severing of good. Therefore, the principle says that the results of all precepts, some are from preliminary practice, and some are from wholesome mental factors that are naturally obtained. If it is from preliminary practice

善心生者。律儀先舍后斷善根。然斷善根加行．根本皆名斷善。依此故說斷善根位舍諸律儀。若從生得善心生者。隨斷何品。能生善根所生律儀爾時便舍。舍能等起隨彼舍故。

為在何處能斷善根者。釋人三洲此即問也。

人趣三洲至阿世耶故者。答　唯人三洲。惡趣染惠不堅牢故不能斷善根。不染惠不堅牢故不能入聖　言不染惠義便。兼舉天趣中有生所得智。現見善．惡諸業果故。不撥因果亦無斷善　不在北洲。彼無極惡阿世耶故不能斷善。

有餘師說贍部洲者。敘異說。此師意說。東西二洲亦無極惡阿世耶故不能斷善。善心堅牢不妨入聖。

若爾便違至亦爾者。破異說。本論中說。贍部洲人極少成八根。即是斷善人極少成八。謂身．命．意．及五受根。如根品說。既言東西洲亦爾。明知彼洲亦能斷善。

如是斷善依何類身者。釋男女。此即問也。

唯男女身志意定故者。答。

有餘師說至皆昧鈍故者。敘異說。亦非女身。以起欲勤．惠等皆昧鈍故。邪見明利。

若爾便違至男根亦爾者。破異說。本論中說。若成女根極少定成八根　謂女．身．命．意．四受。除憂　男根亦爾。除女加男　既說成女。不言定成信等五根。明知女身亦容斷善。若女不能斷善。豈得唯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本對於生起善心的人來說，首先會捨棄律儀，然後斷滅善根。斷滅善根的行為（加行）和根本都可稱為『斷善』。因此說，在斷善根的階段會捨棄所有律儀。如果從與生俱來的善心生起，那麼隨著斷滅任何一種（善的）品類，能生起善根的律儀也會在那時捨棄，因為捨棄了能引發（善根）的等起（因）。

在什麼地方能夠斷滅善根呢？這是提問，指的是人間的三個洲。

回答：只有人間的三個洲（才能斷滅善根），因為惡趣的染污和智慧都不夠堅定牢固，所以不能斷滅善根。不染污的智慧不夠堅定牢固，所以不能進入聖道。『不染污的智慧』這個說法，也包括了天趣中通過出生獲得的智慧，因為他們能親眼見到善惡諸業的果報，不會否定因果，因此也不會斷滅善根。北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）不在其中，因為那裡沒有極端的邪惡阿世耶（Āśaya，隨眠），所以不能斷滅善根。

有其他老師說，只有贍部洲（Jambudvīpa）才能斷滅善根。這是敘述不同的觀點。這位老師的意思是說，東勝身洲（Pūrvavideha）和西牛貨洲（Aparagodānīya）也沒有極端的邪惡阿世耶（Āśaya，隨眠），所以不能斷滅善根。善心堅定牢固，不妨礙進入聖道。

如果這樣說，就違背了『也一樣』的說法。這是爲了駁斥不同的觀點。本論中說，贍部洲（Jambudvīpa）的人極少能成就八根，也就是斷滅善根的人極少能成就八根，即身根、命根、意根以及五種受根，如根品所說。既然說東勝身洲（Pūrvavideha）和西牛貨洲（Aparagodānīya）也一樣，就表明這兩個洲也能斷滅善根。

像這樣斷滅善根，是依附於哪一類身體呢？這是解釋男女之別，也是提問。

回答：只有男身和女身，因為他們的意志堅定。

有其他老師說，不是女身，因為生起慾望的勤奮和智慧等都比較遲鈍。邪見卻很明利。

如果這樣說，就違背了『男根也一樣』的說法。這是爲了駁斥不同的觀點。本論中說，如果成就了女根，極少會必定成就八根，即女根、身根、命根、意根和四種受根（除了憂根）。男根也一樣，除了女根，加上男根。既然說成就了女根，卻沒有說必定成就信等五根，就表明女身也可能斷滅善根。如果女身不能斷滅善根，怎麼會只說

【English Translation】 English version For those who generate wholesome thoughts, they first abandon the precepts (Śīla) and then sever the roots of goodness (Kuśalamūla). Both the preparatory action (Prayoga) and the fundamental act of severing the roots of goodness are called 'severing goodness'. Therefore, it is said that in the stage of severing the roots of goodness, all precepts are abandoned. If it arises from an innate wholesome thought, then as any category (of goodness) is severed, the precepts that generate the roots of goodness are abandoned at that time, because the arising (of goodness) is abandoned along with it.

Where can one sever the roots of goodness? This is a question referring to the three continents of the human realm.

Answer: Only in the three continents of the human realm, because the defilements and wisdom of the evil realms are not firm enough to sever the roots of goodness. Undefiled wisdom is not firm enough to enter the path of the saints. The term 'undefiled wisdom' also includes the wisdom acquired through birth in the heavenly realms, because they can directly see the consequences of good and evil deeds, and do not deny cause and effect, therefore they do not sever the roots of goodness. Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru) is not included, because it does not have extreme evil Āśaya (Āśaya, latent tendencies), so it cannot sever the roots of goodness.

Some other teachers say that only Jambudvīpa (Jambudvīpa) can sever the roots of goodness. This is a narration of a different view. This teacher means that Pūrvavideha (Pūrvavideha) and Aparagodānīya (Aparagodānīya) also do not have extreme evil Āśaya (Āśaya, latent tendencies), so they cannot sever the roots of goodness. Firm wholesome thoughts do not hinder entering the path of the saints.

If that is the case, it contradicts the statement 'also the same'. This is to refute the different view. In the original treatise, it is said that people in Jambudvīpa (Jambudvīpa) rarely attain the eight faculties, which means that people who sever the roots of goodness rarely attain the eight faculties, namely the body faculty, life faculty, mind faculty, and the five feeling faculties, as explained in the chapter on faculties. Since it is said that Pūrvavideha (Pūrvavideha) and Aparagodānīya (Aparagodānīya) are also the same, it clearly indicates that these two continents can also sever the roots of goodness.

In this way, severing the roots of goodness relies on what kind of body? This is an explanation of the distinction between male and female, and it is also a question.

Answer: Only male and female bodies, because their will is firm.

Some other teachers say that it is not the female body, because the diligence and wisdom in generating desires are dull. However, wrong views are sharp.

If that is the case, it contradicts the statement 'the male faculty is also the same'. This is to refute the different view. In the original treatise, it is said that if the female faculty is attained, it is rarely certain to attain the eight faculties, namely the female faculty, body faculty, life faculty, mind faculty, and the four feeling faculties (excluding the faculty of sorrow). The male faculty is also the same, except for the female faculty, adding the male faculty. Since it is said that the female faculty is attained, but it is not said that it is certain to attain the five faculties of faith, etc., it indicates that the female body can also sever the roots of goodness. If the female body cannot sever the roots of goodness, how could it only be said

有八根。

為何行者能斷善根者。釋見行斷。此即問也。

唯見行人至如惡趣故者。答。躁動不定。不能堅執。不能深入。名愛行者　堅深不動。若能堅執。若能深入。名見行者　由斯理趣非扇搋等能斷善根。愛行類故。如惡趣故。故正理云。唯見行人非愛行者。諸見行者惡阿世耶極堅深故。彼惡意樂推求相續故名極堅。見遠隨入故名極深。以極堅深故能斷善。諸愛行者惡阿世耶極躁動故。

此善根斷其體是何者。釋非得。或頌中斷唯屬於下。應知釋斷非得。或通上下。此即問也。

善斷應知至非得為體者。答。此善根斷。不相應中非得為體。余文可知。

善根斷已由何復續者。釋續善疑有見。此即問也。

由疑有見至名續善根者。答。由疑有見。謂由疑有二。一疑有。二疑無。疑有能續善根。疑無不能續善。此中據疑有說故。言謂因果中有時生疑此或應有　即續善根　或生正見定有非無　此是正見能續善根　善得初起名續善根言頌疑有見者。有唯在疑。或唯在見。或通上．下。又正理云。由疑有見。謂續善位。或由因力。或依善友。有于因果欻復生疑。所招後世為無。為有。有于因果欻生正見定有後世。先執是邪。爾時善根成就得還起。不成就得滅名續善根。

有餘師

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有八根。

為何行者能斷善根者？（善根：佛教術語，指產生善果的根源）解釋為見行斷。這是提問。

『唯見行人至如惡趣故者』，回答：躁動不定，不能堅執，不能深入，名為愛行者。（愛行者：指以貪愛為主導的修行人）堅深不動，若能堅執，若能深入，名見行者。（見行者：指以知見為主導的修行人）由此理趣，非扇搋等能斷善根，因為他們屬於愛行之類，如同墮入惡趣一樣。所以《正理》中說：只有見行人而非愛行者，因為諸見行者的惡阿世耶（阿世耶：習氣，潛在的傾向）極其堅深。他們惡意樂於推求相續，所以稱為『極堅』。見解深遠隨之深入，所以稱為『極深』。因為極其堅深，所以能斷善根。諸愛行者的惡阿世耶極其躁動。

此善根斷，其體是什麼？解釋為非得。或者頌中斷只屬於下文，應該知道解釋為斷非得，或者貫通上下。這是提問。

『善斷應知至非得為體者』，回答：此善根斷，在不相應中，以非得為體。其餘文句可以理解。

善根斷已，由什麼恢復延續？解釋為續善疑有見。這是提問。

『由疑有見至名續善根者』，回答：由疑有見，就是由懷疑有二種：一是懷疑有，二是懷疑無。懷疑有能延續善根，懷疑無不能延續善根。這裡根據懷疑有來說，所以說，在因果中，有時產生懷疑，認為『這或許應該有』，就能延續善根。或者產生正見，確定有而非無，這是正見能延續善根。善的初次生起，名為延續善根。言頌『疑有見者』，『有』只在『疑』中，或者只在『見』中，或者貫通上下。又《正理》中說：由疑有見，是指延續善位，或者由因的力量，或者依靠善友，對於因果忽然又產生懷疑，所招感的後世是無還是有。對於因果忽然產生正見，確定有後世，先前執著是邪見。這時善根成就，所得的還生起；不成就，所得的滅，名為延續善根。

有其他師說。

【English Translation】 English version: There are eight roots.

Why can a practitioner sever roots of goodness? (善根: Roots of goodness, referring to the source of good results in Buddhism) The explanation is severance through view-practice. This is a question.

『Only those who practice through view reach such evil destinies』 is answered as follows: Being restless and unfixed, unable to firmly grasp, unable to deeply penetrate, are called those who practice through love. (愛行者: Those who practice primarily through attachment and desire) Firm, deep, and unmoving; if able to firmly grasp, if able to deeply penetrate, are called those who practice through view. (見行者: Those who practice primarily through understanding and insight) Due to this principle, those like eunuchs cannot sever roots of goodness, because they belong to the category of love-practitioners, just like falling into evil destinies. Therefore, the Nyaya Sutra says: Only those who practice through view, not those who practice through love, because the evil ashaya (阿世耶: Habitual tendencies, latent inclinations) of those who practice through view is extremely firm and deep. Their evil intention delights in seeking continuity, therefore it is called 『extremely firm』. Insight is far-reaching and penetrates deeply, therefore it is called 『extremely deep』. Because it is extremely firm and deep, it can sever roots of goodness. The evil ashaya of those who practice through love is extremely restless.

What is the substance of this severance of roots of goodness? The explanation is non-attainment. Or the severance in the verse only belongs to the following text; it should be known that the explanation is severance as non-attainment, or it connects both above and below. This is a question.

『Good severance should be known as having non-attainment as its substance』 is answered as follows: This severance of roots of goodness, in non-correspondence, has non-attainment as its substance. The remaining text can be understood.

Having severed the roots of goodness, by what is it restored and continued? The explanation is continuing goodness through doubt and view. This is a question.

『From doubt and view to being named continuing roots of goodness』 is answered as follows: From doubt and view, that is, from doubt there are two kinds: one is doubting existence, and the other is doubting non-existence. Doubting existence can continue roots of goodness; doubting non-existence cannot continue roots of goodness. Here, it is based on doubting existence, therefore it is said that in cause and effect, sometimes doubt arises, thinking 『this perhaps should exist』, then the roots of goodness can be continued. Or correct view arises, determining that there is existence and not non-existence; this is correct view that can continue roots of goodness. The initial arising of goodness is called continuing roots of goodness. The verse 『those who doubt and have view』, 『existence』 is only in 『doubt』, or only in 『view』, or it connects both above and below. Also, the Nyaya Sutra says: From doubt and view, it refers to continuing the position of goodness, or by the power of cause, or relying on good friends, suddenly doubt arises again regarding cause and effect, whether the future life that is summoned is non-existence or existence. Regarding cause and effect, correct view suddenly arises, determining that there is a future life, previously clinging to wrong views. At this time, the roots of goodness are accomplished, and what is attained arises again; if not accomplished, what is attained ceases, which is called continuing roots of goodness.

Some other teachers say.

言九品漸續者。釋頌。一敘異說。二申正義。此敘異說。

如是說者至氣力漸增者。此申正義。頓續善根后漸現前。喻況可知。

于現身中能續善不者。釋現除逆者。此即問也。

亦有能續至非餘位故者。答。亦有現身能續善根。除造逆人彼非現續。引經證彼造逆人斷善非現身續。

言將生位至應知亦爾者。釋經兩位續善不同。若由過去宿習內因邪見力故彼斷善根。將死時續。以因強故。若由現在諸邪教等外緣力故彼斷善根。將生時續。以緣弱故。若由自思量推求力。或由他惡友為說力。應知亦爾。

又意樂壞至應知亦爾者。此釋非造逆人現續．不續。意樂壞．見壞謂起邪見。非加行壞戒不壞。相儀中護。加行壞。戒亦壞。相儀亦不護。故正理云。謂世有人撥無後世名意樂壞。而不隨彼意樂所作非加行壞。見壞．戒不壞。見壞．戒亦壞斷善根者。應知亦爾。非劫將壞及劫初成有斷善根。壞器世間增上力故相續潤故。行妙行者不斷善故。以心堅牢有所樂故。

有斷善根至謂除前相者。此中義便。以斷善根對墮邪定。四句分別。起邪見人名斷善根。造逆人名墮邪定　第一句謂布刺拏。布刺拏此云滿。是滿迦葉。舊云富樓那訛也。起邪見故名斷善根。不造逆故非墮邪定　第二句謂未生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『言九品漸續者』。釋頌。一、敘述不同的說法。二、闡述正確的意義。這裡敘述不同的說法。

『如是說者至氣力漸增者』。這裡闡述正確的意義。頓悟續善根之後，逐漸顯現於前。比喻的情況可以理解。

『于現身中能續善不者』。解釋『現除逆者』。這是提問。

『亦有能續至非餘位故者』。回答。也有現世能夠續善根的，除了造逆之人，他們不是現世續善。引用經文證明那些造逆之人斷了善根，不是現世能續的。

『言將生位至應知亦爾者』。解釋經文所說兩種情況下續善的不同。如果由於過去宿習的內在原因和邪見的勢力，他們斷了善根，將在臨死的時候續上，因為內在原因強大。如果由於現在各種邪教等外在因素的勢力，他們斷了善根，將在投生的時候續上，因為外在因素的力量較弱。如果由於自己思量推求的力量，或者由於惡友的勸說，也應該知道是這樣的。

『又意樂壞至應知亦爾者』。這裡解釋非造逆的人現世續或不續的情況。『意樂壞』、『見壞』是指生起邪見。非『加行壞』，戒律不會壞，相和威儀能夠守護。『加行壞』，戒律也會壞，相和威儀也不能守護。所以《正理》中說：『世間有人否定後世，這叫做意樂壞，但不隨從那種意樂所作，不是加行壞。見壞，戒律不壞。見壞，戒律也壞』，斷善根的人，應該知道也是這樣。不是劫將要壞滅以及劫初形成的時候有斷善根的情況，因為壞器世間的增上力以及相續的滋潤。修行妙行的人不會斷善根，因為內心堅定牢固，有所喜好。

『有斷善根至謂除前相者』。這裡說明其中的意義。用斷善根和墮邪定，四句分別。生起邪見的人叫做斷善根。造逆的人叫做墮邪定。第一句是指布刺拏（Pūraṇa，意為『滿』），布刺拏就是滿迦葉（Pūraṇa Kassapa）。舊譯為富樓那，是訛誤。因為生起邪見，所以叫做斷善根，沒有造逆，所以不是墮邪定。第二句是指未生。

【English Translation】 English version: 『言九品漸續者』(『Yan Jiu Pin Jian Xu Zhe』)。 Explanation of the verse. First, narrating different views. Second, stating the correct meaning. This narrates different views.

『如是說者至氣力漸增者』(『Ru Shi Shuo Zhe Zhi Qi Li Jian Zeng Zhe』)。 This states the correct meaning. After the sudden continuation of good roots, they gradually manifest. The analogy is understandable.

『于現身中能續善不者』(『Yu Xian Shen Zhong Neng Xu Shan Bu Zhe』)。 Explaining 『現除逆者』(『Xian Chu Ni Zhe』)。 This is a question.

『亦有能續至非餘位故者』(『Yi You Neng Xu Zhi Fei Yu Wei Gu Zhe』)。 Answer. There are also those who can continue good roots in this life, except for those who commit heinous crimes; they cannot continue in this life. Quoting scriptures to prove that those who commit heinous crimes have severed their good roots and cannot continue them in this life.

『言將生位至應知亦爾者』(『Yan Jiang Sheng Wei Zhi Ying Zhi Yi Er Zhe』)。 Explaining the difference in continuing good in two situations as mentioned in the scriptures. If, due to past habitual internal causes and the power of wrong views, they sever their good roots, they will continue them at the time of death because the internal cause is strong. If, due to external factors such as various heretical teachings in the present, they sever their good roots, they will continue them at the time of rebirth because the external factor is weak. If due to their own contemplation and seeking, or due to the persuasion of evil friends, it should also be known to be the same.

『又意樂壞至應知亦爾者』(『You Yi Le Huai Zhi Ying Zhi Yi Er Zhe』)。 This explains the situation of those who do not commit heinous crimes continuing or not continuing in this life. 『意樂壞』(『Yi Le Huai』, intention corrupted) and 『見壞』(『Jian Huai』, view corrupted) refer to arising wrong views. If it is not 『加行壞』(『Jia Xing Huai』, action corrupted), the precepts will not be broken, and the appearance and demeanor can be protected. If 『加行壞』(『Jia Xing Huai』, action corrupted), the precepts will also be broken, and the appearance and demeanor cannot be protected. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 『If someone in the world denies the afterlife, this is called intention corrupted, but what is done not following that intention is not action corrupted. View corrupted, precepts not broken. View corrupted, precepts also broken』, it should be known that those who sever good roots are also like this. There is no severing of good roots when a kalpa is about to be destroyed or when a kalpa is newly formed because of the increasing power of destroying the world and the continuation of moisture. Those who practice wonderful conduct do not sever good roots because their minds are firm and they have something to delight in.

『有斷善根至謂除前相者』(『You Duan Shan Gen Zhi Wei Chu Qian Xiang Zhe』)。 This explains the meaning within. Using severing good roots and falling into wrong views, distinguish with four sentences. Those who arise wrong views are called severing good roots. Those who commit heinous crimes are called falling into wrong views. The first sentence refers to Pūraṇa (布刺拏, meaning 『full』), Pūraṇa is Pūraṇa Kassapa (滿迦葉). The old translation as Fúlóunà (富樓那) is a corruption. Because of arising wrong views, it is called severing good roots; because of not committing heinous crimes, it is not falling into wrong views. The second sentence refers to those who are not yet born.

怨等。未生怨即是阿阇世王。造逆故墮邪定。信三寶故非斷善　第三句謂天授等。梵名提婆達多。此雲天授。起邪見故名斷善。造逆故墮邪定　第四句謂除前相　又婆沙三十五云。若斷善者諸無間業．及余破僧。定於無間地獄中受苦。不斷善者餘四無間業。或於無間地獄。或餘地獄中受異熟果　解云以起邪見定墮無間。故起邪見造諸逆者定墮無間　故正理云。斷善邪見．破僧妄語。當知定招無間異熟。余無間業或招無間。或招所餘地獄異熟。

已乘義便至與思俱轉者。此下大文第四明業道思俱轉。結前生下。及問起也。

頌曰至別遮一八五者。上兩句明不善業道與思俱轉。下兩句明善業道與思俱轉。此中言業道思俱轉者。據同一剎那俱時而轉。非據因等起思前後俱說。以受四支及七支戒中不說無心得戒。故知定約剎那以說　問如婆沙一百一十三云。若住染污心。或住無記心。或無心時。由七善業道俱生思究竟轉　雜心亦說無心。彼論既說無心。明知俱轉亦約因等起說。何故乃言定約剎那　解云婆沙．雜心。言無心者。義便兼明無心得戒。非是正解思俱轉也。理實俱轉定約剎那故。於此論七俱轉中不說無心　又解俱有二種。一是並俱。謂同剎那俱時並起。二是有俱。謂前．后俱。由有彼前法故此後法得有。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：怨等等。『未生怨』指的就是阿阇世王（Ajatasattu，人名）。因為造了逆罪，所以墮入邪定。因為相信三寶，所以不是斷善根。第三句說的是天授（Devadatta，人名）。梵文名為提婆達多（Devadatta），翻譯成中文是天授。因為生起邪見，所以叫做斷善根。因為造了逆罪，所以墮入邪定。第四句說的是除去前面的情況。另外，《婆沙論》第三十五卷說，如果斷了善根的人，所有無間業以及其他破僧罪，一定會在無間地獄中受苦。沒有斷善根的人，其餘四種無間業，或者在無間地獄，或者在其他地獄中承受異熟果報。解釋說，因為生起邪見一定會墮入無間地獄。所以生起邪見造作各種逆罪的人，一定會墮入無間地獄。所以《正理》中說，斷善根的邪見、破僧、妄語，應當知道一定會招感無間地獄的異熟果報。其餘的無間業，或者招感無間地獄，或者招感其餘地獄的異熟果報。

已經順著文義方便到了與思俱轉的部分。下面這大段文字第四部分說明業道與思俱轉，總結前文，開啟下文，並且提出問題。

頌文說到分別遮止一、八、五的情況。上面兩句說明不善業道與思俱轉。下面兩句說明善業道與思俱轉。這裡所說的業道與思俱轉，是根據同一剎那同時運轉來說的，不是根據因等起思的前後關係來說的。因為受四支戒和七支戒中沒有說無心也能得戒，所以知道一定是根據剎那來說的。有人問：如果像《婆沙論》第一百一十三卷所說，如果住在染污心、或者住在無記心、或者無心的時候，由七種善業道俱生的思究竟運轉。《雜心論》也說了無心。那個論既然說了無心，明明知道俱轉也是根據因等起來說的。為什麼你說一定是根據剎那來說的呢？解釋說：《婆沙論》、《雜心論》所說的無心，文義上是兼明無心也能得戒，不是正確解釋思俱轉。實際上俱轉一定是根據剎那來說的，所以在這個論的七俱轉中沒有說無心。另外，俱有兩種，一是並俱，指的是同一剎那同時並起。二是有俱，指的是前後俱，因為有前面的法，所以後面的法才能存在。

【English Translation】 English version: Resentment, etc. 'Ajatasattu' (Ajatasattu, a proper noun) refers to King Ajatasattu. Because he committed rebellious acts, he fell into wrong determination. Because he believed in the Three Jewels, he did not sever his roots of goodness. The third sentence refers to Devadatta (Devadatta, a proper noun). The Sanskrit name is Devadatta, which translates to 'Heaven-given'. Because he arose with wrong views, he is said to have severed his roots of goodness. Because he committed rebellious acts, he fell into wrong determination. The fourth sentence refers to excluding the previous situation. Furthermore, the thirty-fifth volume of the 'Vibhasa' says that if one severs their roots of goodness, all the deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering and other acts of destroying the Sangha will certainly cause suffering in the Avici Hell. Those who do not sever their roots of goodness, the remaining four deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering, may experience their ripening results in the Avici Hell or other hells. The explanation says that because arising with wrong views certainly leads to falling into the Avici Hell, those who arise with wrong views and commit various rebellious acts will certainly fall into the Avici Hell. Therefore, the 'Nyayanusara' says that wrong views that sever the roots of goodness, destroying the Sangha, and false speech, should be known to certainly bring about the ripening results of the Avici Hell. The remaining deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering may bring about the Avici Hell or the ripening results of other hells.

Having conveniently reached the part about 'co-arising with thought' according to the meaning of the text. The fourth major section below explains how karmic paths co-arise with thought, summarizing the previous text, opening up the following text, and raising questions.

The verse speaks of separately preventing one, eight, and five situations. The first two lines explain that unwholesome karmic paths co-arise with thought. The last two lines explain that wholesome karmic paths co-arise with thought. The 'co-arising of karmic paths and thought' here refers to their simultaneous operation in the same moment. It does not refer to the antecedent and subsequent relationship of the arising of thought as a cause. Because there is no mention of obtaining precepts without mind in receiving the four or seven branch precepts, it is known that it is definitely spoken in terms of a moment. Someone asks: As the one hundred and thirteenth volume of the 'Vibhasa' says, if one dwells in a defiled mind, or dwells in an indifferent mind, or when there is no mind, the thoughts that co-arise from the seven wholesome karmic paths completely operate. The 'Abhidharmasamuccaya' also speaks of no mind. Since that treatise speaks of no mind, it is clear that co-arising is also spoken in terms of the arising of causes. Why do you say that it is definitely spoken in terms of a moment? The explanation says: The 'Vibhasa' and 'Abhidharmasamuccaya' speaking of no mind, conveniently also clarifies that one can obtain precepts without mind, which is not the correct explanation of the co-arising of thought. In reality, co-arising is definitely spoken in terms of a moment, so there is no mention of no mind in the seven co-arisings in this treatise. Furthermore, there are two types of co-existence. One is simultaneous co-existence, which refers to arising simultaneously in the same moment. The other is consequential co-existence, which refers to antecedent and subsequent co-existence, because there is a preceding dharma, the subsequent dharma can exist.

俱舍據並俱故不說無心。婆沙．雜心通據有俱故兼說無心。各據一義並不相違。

論曰至唯至八者釋上兩句。一總標。二別釋。此即總標。

一俱轉者至隨一究竟者。此下別釋。明一業道與思俱轉。一俱轉者。謂離所餘身．語七種不善業道。貪等三中隨一現起與相應思俱時轉也。若先加行遣使殺等。造六惡色業。不染心時隨一究竟。亦一業道與思俱轉。此約同時思俱轉也。正理破云。若先加行所造惡業。貪等余染。及不染心現在前時隨一究竟。經主唯說不染污心。此有太減。以慢．疑等染心起時。亦有由先加行所起業道成故。又說加行造惡色業。色言太增。無色無容先加行造。不染心起業道方成。須簡別故。復如是類例應彈斥(解云余染。謂慢．疑等。無色。謂貪．瞋．邪見)俱舍師救云。色無太增。說色業故。若不說色即非定顯業是色故。若言加行定是色即不須說色。亦可加行定是業亦不須說業。業亦太增故。但應說言若先加行所造惡。說不染心論主意別。以不染心定一俱轉。若染污心即不決定。雖慢．疑等現在前時與一俱轉。若貪．嗔等現在前時即二俱轉。以染心濫略而不說。又此俱轉隨舉證成。非要遍說。若作此通無勞彈斥。

二俱轉者至或雜穢語者。明二業道與思俱轉　二俱轉者。謂自起

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：《俱舍論》根據『並』（同時）和『俱』（一起）的原則，因此不討論無心的情況。《婆沙論》和《雜心論》則根據『有』（存在）和『俱』（一起）的原則，因此也討論無心的情況。各自依據不同的角度，並不互相矛盾。

論中說『唯至八者』是爲了解釋前面的兩句話。首先是總體的標示，然後是分別的解釋。這裡是總體的標示。

『一俱轉者至隨一究竟者』，以下是分別的解釋，說明一個業道與思緒一同運轉。『一俱轉者』，指的是除了其餘的身、語七種不善業道之外，貪、嗔、癡三種煩惱中任何一種生起時，與相應的思緒同時運轉。如果先前通過加行，派遣他人殺害等，造作六種惡色業，在不染污心的情況下，任何一種惡業完成，也是一個業道與思緒一同運轉。這是指同時的思緒一同運轉。《正理論》反駁說，如果先前通過加行所造作的惡業，貪等其餘染污心，以及不染污心現在生起時，任何一種惡業完成，經主只說了不染污心，這有太少之嫌。因為慢、疑等染污心生起時，也有由先前加行所引起的業道成就的情況。又說加行造作惡色業，『色』這個詞太多餘。因為無色無形的業，也可以通過先前的加行造作，在不染污心生起時，業道才算完成，需要加以區分。像這樣的例子應該加以駁斥（解釋說，其餘染污心指的是慢、疑等。無色指的是貪、嗔、邪見）。《俱舍論》的作者辯解說，『色』這個詞沒有太多餘，因為說的是色業。如果不說『色』，就不能明確地顯示業是色。如果說加行一定是色，就不需要說『色』了。也可以說加行一定是業，也不需要說『業』了，『業』這個詞也太多餘了。但應該說『如果先前通過加行所造作的惡』，說『不染心』是論主的特別用意，因為不染污心一定是一個業道一同運轉。如果是染污心，就不一定了。雖然慢、疑等現在生起時，與一個業道一同運轉，但如果貪、嗔等現在生起時，就是兩個業道一同運轉。因為染污心的情況比較複雜，所以沒有詳細說明。而且這裡說的一同運轉，只是舉例證明，不是要全部都說。如果這樣解釋，就沒有必要駁斥了。

『二俱轉者至或雜穢語者』，說明兩個業道與思緒一同運轉。『二俱轉者』，指的是自己發起

【English Translation】 English version: The Abhidharmakośa (俱舍, Abhidharmakośa) relies on the principles of 'simultaneous' (並) and 'together' (俱), therefore it does not discuss the state of no-mind. The Vibhāṣā (婆沙, Vibhāṣā) and the Samyuktabhidharmahṛdaya (雜心, Samyuktabhidharmahṛdaya) rely on the principles of 'existence' (有) and 'together' (俱), therefore they also discuss the state of no-mind. Each is based on a different perspective and they do not contradict each other.

The statement 'only up to eight' in the treatise is to explain the previous two sentences. First, there is a general indication, and then there is a separate explanation. This is the general indication.

'Those that turn together as one, up to the completion of one', below are separate explanations, illustrating that one karmic path turns together with thought. 'Those that turn together as one' refers to the arising of any one of the three afflictions of greed (貪), hatred (嗔), and delusion (癡), apart from the remaining seven unwholesome karmic paths of body and speech, turning simultaneously with the corresponding thought. If one previously engages in an action, such as sending someone to kill, creating six evil forms of karma, and any one of these evil karmas is completed in a non-defiled mind, it is also one karmic path turning together with thought. This refers to the simultaneous turning together of thought. The Nyāyānusāra (正理論, Nyāyānusāra) refutes this, saying that if the evil karma previously created through action, along with other defiled minds such as greed, and a non-defiled mind arise, and any one of these evil karmas is completed, the sutra master only mentioned the non-defiled mind, which is too little. Because when defiled minds such as pride (慢) and doubt (疑) arise, there are also cases where the karmic path caused by the previous action is accomplished. Furthermore, it is said that the action creates evil forms of karma, and the word 'form' (色) is too much. Because formless karma can also be created through previous action, and the karmic path is only completed when a non-defiled mind arises, which needs to be distinguished. Such examples should be refuted (it is explained that other defiled minds refer to pride and doubt. Formless refers to greed, hatred, and wrong views (邪見)). The author of the Abhidharmakośa defends this, saying that the word 'form' is not too much, because it refers to the karma of form. If 'form' is not mentioned, it cannot be clearly shown that karma is form. If it is said that action is definitely form, then there is no need to say 'form'. It can also be said that action is definitely karma, and there is no need to say 'karma', the word 'karma' is also too much. But it should be said 'if the evil created through previous action', saying 'non-defiled mind' is the special intention of the sutra master, because a non-defiled mind is definitely one karmic path turning together. If it is a defiled mind, it is not necessarily so. Although pride and doubt arise now, they turn together with one karmic path, but if greed and hatred arise now, they turn together with two karmic paths. Because the situation of defiled minds is more complicated, it is not explained in detail. Moreover, the turning together mentioned here is only an example to prove it, not to say everything. If explained in this way, there is no need to refute it.

'Those that turn together as two, up to mixed foul language', explains that two karmic paths turn together with thought. 'Those that turn together as two' refers to initiating oneself

嗔心時究竟殺業　言究竟者。謂由嗔心終此殺事名為究竟。若自起貪位成不與取。或成欲邪行。或成雜穢語。皆二俱轉　問何故不說誑語等三　解云有雜穢語離誑等三。若誑等三由非時故必兼雜穢。此中明二俱轉故但說雜穢不言虛誑等三。正理破云。二俱轉者謂行邪行。若自行殺．盜．雜穢語。或遣他為。隨一成位貪．嗔．邪見隨一現前。若先加行所造惡業。貪等余染及不染心現在前時。隨二究竟。經主於此作如是言。謂嗔心時究竟殺業。若起貪位成不與取。或欲邪行。或雜穢語。此亦非理。若自究竟即應于殺無勞說嗔。此更無容余究竟故。于盜．邪行說貪亦然。說起貪時成雜穢語。此言闕減容成三故。若先加行於究竟時。一一應言貪等隨一　俱舍師救云。自殺究竟理必有嗔。辦二俱轉。若不說嗔言中不顯。正理不說言隱難知。于盜．邪行準此通釋。理實雜穢容三究竟。偏言貪者乘貪便明。后三俱轉中言貪等隨一。影顯前二俱轉中亦有貪等隨一前一俱轉中已說不染心。影顯后二俱轉中亦有不染心。論主文巧前．後影中。不欲繁詞故不別說。

三俱轉者至俱時殺盜者。明三業道與思俱轉　三俱轉者。謂以嗔心於屬他人雞鴨等生。正斷命已亦離本處故。于爾時嗔．盜．殺三與思俱轉。

若爾所說至理應不成者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本嗔心時究竟殺業，所說的『究竟』，是指由嗔恨心最終完成殺戮這件事，就叫做『究竟』。如果自己生起貪心，就構成不與取（未經允許取走財物）的罪業，或者構成欲邪行（不正當的性行為），或者構成雜穢語（不乾淨的言語），這都是兩種罪業同時發生。問：為什麼不說誑語（謊言）等其他三種（惡口、綺語、兩舌）？答：因為有雜穢語可以獨立於誑語等三種之外。如果誑語等三種出現，因為時間不合適，必定會兼帶雜穢語。這裡說明的是兩種罪業同時發生的情況，所以只說雜穢語，而不說虛誑等三種。《正理》反駁說：『兩種罪業同時發生』，是指行邪行。如果自己進行殺生、偷盜、雜穢語，或者指使他人去做，任何一種行為構成罪業時，貪、嗔、邪見中的任何一種都會顯現。如果先前通過努力所造的惡業，在貪等其他煩惱以及不染污心（中性的心理狀態）現在前時，就會有兩種罪業最終完成。經論的作者對此這樣說：『嗔心時究竟殺業，如果生起貪心，就構成不與取，或者欲邪行，或者雜穢語。』這種說法也是不合理的。如果自己完成殺業，那麼在殺生時就不需要說嗔恨心了，因為沒有其他罪業可以同時完成。在偷盜、邪行時說貪心也是同樣的道理。說生起貪心時構成雜穢語，這種說法不夠完整，因為可能構成三種罪業。如果先前通過努力，在最終完成罪業時，應該說貪等任何一種罪業。' 俱舍論師辯解說：『自己殺生最終完成時，一定會有嗔恨心，才能同時完成兩種罪業。如果不說嗔恨心，就無法顯現這一點。』《正理》不說，是因為這種含義比較隱晦難以理解。對於偷盜、邪行，可以參照這個解釋。實際上，雜穢語可能同時完成三種罪業，只說貪心，是爲了通過貪心來明確說明這一點。后三種罪業同時發生的情況中，說貪等任何一種，是爲了暗示前兩種罪業同時發生的情況中也有貪等任何一種。前一種罪業單獨發生的情況中已經說了不染污心，是爲了暗示后兩種罪業同時發生的情況中也有不染污心。論主的文筆巧妙，前後互相呼應，不希望使用過多的詞語，所以沒有分別說明。

『三種罪業同時發生』到『同時進行殺盜』，說明身口意三種行為與思（意志）同時發生。『三種罪業同時發生』，是指以嗔恨心對待屬於他人的雞鴨等生物，在斷其性命的同時也使其離開了原本的地方，所以在那個時候，嗔恨、偷盜、殺生這三種罪業與思同時發生。

如果像你所說的，那麼所說的道理就不應該成立。

【English Translation】 English version 『Ultimate killing karma at the time of anger.』 The term 『ultimate』 refers to the completion of the act of killing due to anger, which is called 『ultimate.』 If one generates greed, it constitutes the karma of 『not giving』 (taking property without permission), or constitutes 『sexual misconduct,』 or constitutes 『defiled speech』 (impure language), all of which are two karmas occurring simultaneously. Question: Why not mention false speech and the other three (harsh speech, frivolous speech, divisive speech)? Answer: Because there is defiled speech that can exist independently of false speech and the other three. If false speech and the other three occur, they will inevitably be accompanied by defiled speech due to the inappropriate timing. This explains the situation where two karmas occur simultaneously, so only defiled speech is mentioned, and not false speech and the other three. The Nyaya Sutra refutes: 『Two karmas occurring simultaneously』 refers to engaging in sexual misconduct. If one commits killing, stealing, or defiled speech oneself, or instructs others to do so, when any of these actions constitutes a karma, any one of greed, anger, or wrong view will manifest. If the evil karma previously created through effort, when other afflictions such as greed, or a non-afflicted mind (a neutral mental state) are present, then two karmas will ultimately be completed. The author of the sutra says: 『Ultimate killing karma at the time of anger; if greed arises, it constitutes not giving, or sexual misconduct, or defiled speech.』 This statement is also unreasonable. If one completes the killing oneself, then there is no need to mention anger in the context of killing, because there is no other karma that can be completed simultaneously. The same reasoning applies to mentioning greed in the context of stealing and sexual misconduct. Saying that defiled speech is constituted when greed arises is incomplete, because it may constitute three karmas. If one has previously made an effort, then when ultimately completing the karma, one should say that any one of greed, etc., is involved. The Kosha master defends: 『When one ultimately completes killing oneself, there must be anger, in order to simultaneously complete two karmas. If anger is not mentioned, this point cannot be made clear.』 The Nyaya Sutra does not mention it because this meaning is relatively obscure and difficult to understand. This explanation can be applied to stealing and sexual misconduct. In reality, defiled speech may simultaneously complete three karmas; only mentioning greed is to clarify this point through greed. In the case of three karmas occurring simultaneously, saying any one of greed, etc., is to imply that in the case of two karmas occurring simultaneously, there is also any one of greed, etc. In the case of one karma occurring alone, the non-afflicted mind has already been mentioned, in order to imply that in the case of two karmas occurring simultaneously, there is also a non-afflicted mind. The author's writing is skillful, with the beginning and end echoing each other, not wanting to use too many words, so they are not explained separately.

『Three karmas occurring simultaneously』 to 『simultaneously committing killing and stealing』 explains that the three karmas of body, speech, and mind occur simultaneously with cetanā (volition). 『Three karmas occurring simultaneously』 refers to treating chickens, ducks, and other beings belonging to others with anger, and at the same time as taking their lives, also causing them to leave their original place. Therefore, at that time, the three karmas of anger, stealing, and killing occur simultaneously with cetanā.

If it is as you say, then the stated principle should not hold.

。問。若說嗔心亦究竟盜。前文所說偷盜業道由貪究竟。理應不成。

依不異心至決判應知者。答。前文中雲偷盜業道貪究竟者。依不異心所作究竟。謂此偷盜有二種貪。一因等起。二剎那等起。后剎那等起貪究竟時。與前因等起貪同是貪故。名依不異心所作究竟。後文言嗔亦究竟盜者。依別異心所作究竟。謂此偷盜嗔究竟。以與彼偷盜因等起貪嗔．貪不同。名依異心所作究竟。前．后各據一義故作如是決判應知　又解後文中言嗔能究竟。殺．盜二種依不異心所作究竟。謂殺。盜二同一嗔心所作究竟故。云依不異心所作究竟。前文中言盜貪究竟。依前異心所作究竟。謂盜以貪究竟。若殺以嗔究竟。各依一心貪與嗔不同。名依異心所作究竟。故作如是決判應知。

若先加行至隨二究竟者。若先加行遣使殺．盜等。造惡色業。貪．嗔．邪見一正起時隨二究竟。亦三業道與思俱轉。三俱轉中且舉兩類。余未說者如理應思。故正理云。三俱轉者。謂先加行所造惡業貪等起時。隨二究竟。若遣一使作殺等一自行淫等。俱時究竟。若自作二如理應思。若先加行所造惡業。貪等余染。及不染心現在前時隨三究竟。若起貪等余染心時自成攝。離間．虛誑語業等使作一等如理應思。

四俱轉者至隨三究竟者。明四業道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果說嗔心也能使偷盜達到究竟，那麼前文所說偷盜業道由貪心達到究竟，這個說法就應該不成立了。

答：前文中說偷盜業道由貪心達到究竟，是指依不異心所作而達到究竟。這裡所說的偷盜有兩種貪心，一是因等起貪（作為起因的貪心），二是剎那等起貪（剎那生起的貪心）。後者的剎那等起貪達到究竟時，與之前的因等起貪同屬于貪心，所以稱為依不異心所作而達到究竟。後文說嗔心也能使偷盜達到究竟，是指依別異心所作而達到究竟。這裡的偷盜由嗔心達到究竟，是因為它與偷盜的因等起貪嗔、貪不同，所以稱為依異心所作而達到究竟。前後兩種說法各自依據一種含義，所以應該這樣進行決判。

又有一種解釋是，後文說嗔心能使殺、盜兩種行為達到究竟，是指殺、盜兩種行為都是同一嗔心所作而達到究竟，所以稱為依不異心所作而達到究竟。前文說偷盜由貪心達到究竟，是指依前異心所作而達到究竟。偷盜以貪心達到究竟，殺生以嗔心達到究竟，各自依據一心，貪與嗔不同，所以稱為依異心所作而達到究竟。因此應該這樣進行決判。

如果先作加行，然後差遣他人去殺、盜等，造作惡色業，那麼貪、嗔、邪見三種心念中，任何兩種同時生起時，這兩種行為就達到究竟。同樣，三種業道與思心所同時運轉，在這三種同時運轉的情況中，這裡只舉出兩類，其餘未說的，應該如理思維。所以《正理》中說：『三種同時運轉，是指先作加行所造的惡業，在貪等心念生起時，其中任何兩種就達到究竟。』如果差遣一個使者去作殺等行為，或者自己去作邪淫等行為，這些行為就同時達到究竟。如果是自己作兩種行為，也應該如理思維。如果先作加行所造的惡業，在貪等其他染污心，以及不染污心現在前時，這三種行為就同時達到究竟。如果生起貪等其他染污心時，自然包括攝受、離間、虛誑語等業，或者差遣他人作一種行為等，都應該如理思維。

四種同時運轉，是指四種業道…

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If it is said that anger (嗔心, chenxin) can also bring theft to its ultimate completion, then the previous statement that the path of stealing is completed by greed (貪, tan) should not hold true.

Answer: The previous statement that the path of stealing is completed by greed refers to completion based on a non-differentiated mind (不異心, bu yi xin). It should be understood that there are two types of greed involved in stealing: one is the greed that initiates the action (因等起, yin deng qi), and the other is the greed that arises momentarily (剎那等起, chana deng qi). When the latter, momentary greed reaches its completion, it is still considered greed, just like the initial greed that initiated the action. Therefore, it is called completion based on a non-differentiated mind. The later statement that anger can also bring theft to its ultimate completion refers to completion based on a differentiated mind (別異心, bie yi xin). This is because the theft is completed by anger, which is different from the greed and anger that initiated the theft. Therefore, it is called completion based on a differentiated mind. The two statements refer to different meanings, and this is how the judgment should be made.

Another explanation is that the later statement that anger can bring killing and stealing to their ultimate completion refers to completion based on a non-differentiated mind. This is because both killing and stealing are completed by the same anger. Therefore, it is called completion based on a non-differentiated mind. The previous statement that stealing is completed by greed refers to completion based on a differentiated mind. Stealing is completed by greed, while killing is completed by anger. Each is based on a single mind, but greed and anger are different. Therefore, it is called completion based on a differentiated mind. Thus, this is how the judgment should be made.

If one first performs preparatory actions (加行, jia xing) and then sends someone to kill or steal, creating evil physical karma (惡色業, e se ye), then when any two of the three mental states—greed, anger, and wrong views (邪見, xie jian)—arise simultaneously, these two actions are completed. Similarly, the three paths of karma (三業道, san ye dao) operate simultaneously with thought (思, si). Among these three simultaneous operations, only two categories are mentioned here. The remaining unmentioned cases should be contemplated accordingly. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says: 'Three simultaneous operations refer to the evil karma created by preparatory actions, where any two are completed when greed, etc., arise.' If one sends a messenger to commit killing, etc., or commits adultery (邪淫, xie yin), etc., oneself, these actions are completed simultaneously. If one commits two actions oneself, it should be contemplated accordingly. If the evil karma created by preparatory actions is accompanied by greed or other defilements (染, ran), or by a non-defiled mind, then all three actions are completed simultaneously. If greed or other defiled minds arise, it naturally includes the karma of sowing discord (離間, lijian), false speech (虛誑語, xu kuang yu), etc., or sending someone to commit one action, etc., should all be contemplated accordingly.

Four simultaneous operations refer to the four paths of karma...

與思俱轉　四俱轉者。謂欲壞他是離間語。恐他不壞說虛誑語。足前為二。非時故必兼雜穢語。足前為三名語業道三意業道一名四俱轉。謂欲壞他是離間語。恐他不壞說粗惡語。足前為二。非時故必兼雜穢語。足前為三名語業道三意業道一名四俱轉。以離間．虛誑．粗惡語三非時故必兼雜穢。不待說成故不別說　問前三語起必兼雜穢表．無表業四各別耶　念法師等解云。雜穢有二。謂即獨雜穢。即前三語義說雜穢名。即雜穢語離前三語。別起佞歌等名獨雜穢　今解不然。即獨之義當成實論。非是此宗。若依此宗。前三語起同時別有雜穢語體。名俱起雜穢語。若離前三語別起佞歌等名不共雜穢語。總而言之。若三語俱起有三表．三無表。若四語俱起有四表．四無表。故眾事分明受五戒人一時俱得五表．五無表。彼善業道既得俱起。不善業道理亦應然。若先加行遣使殺等造惡色業。貪．嗔．邪見正一現前隨三究竟。亦四俱轉。四俱轉中且舉三類。余未說者如理應思。

如是五六七皆如理應知者。此三不說勸學應思。如先加行造惡色業貪等起時隨四究竟名五俱轉。隨五究竟名六俱轉。隨六究竟名七俱轉。余未說者思擇可思。

八俱轉者至故無九十者。明八業道與思俱轉。八俱轉者。謂先加行遣使作餘六惡色業。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『與思俱轉，四俱轉者』，指的是想要破壞他人而說的離間語（挑撥離間的言語，旨在破壞人際關係），擔心不能破壞他人而說的虛誑語（虛假的、欺騙性的言語）。加上之前的兩種，共兩種。因為不是適當的時候說的，所以必然兼有雜穢語（不純潔的、污穢的言語）。加上之前的三種，稱為語業道三種，意業道一種，合稱『四俱轉』。指的是想要破壞他人而說的離間語，擔心不能破壞他人而說的粗惡語（粗魯的、惡毒的言語）。加上之前的兩種，共兩種。因為不是適當的時候說的，所以必然兼有雜穢語。加上之前的三種，稱為語業道三種，意業道一種，合稱『四俱轉』。因為離間語、虛誑語、粗惡語這三種都不是在適當的時候說的，所以必然兼有雜穢語，不需要特別說明就能成立，因此不再單獨說明。問：前面三種言語生起時必然兼有雜穢語，那麼表業（可以通過身體或語言表達出來的行為）和無表業（無法通過身體或語言表達出來的潛在行為）是各自獨立的嗎？念法師等解釋說，雜穢語有兩種，一種是『即獨雜穢』，指的是前面三種言語本身就帶有雜穢的含義，因此說這些言語就是雜穢語。另一種是『獨雜穢』，指的是脫離前面三種言語，單獨產生的如諂媚的歌唱等，稱為『獨雜穢』。現在的解釋不是這樣。『即獨』的含義應該屬於《成實論》的觀點，不是我們這個宗派的觀點。如果按照我們這個宗派的觀點，前面三種言語生起的同時，另外有一種雜穢語的自體，稱為『俱起雜穢語』。如果脫離前面三種言語，單獨產生諂媚的歌唱等，稱為『不共雜穢語』。總而言之，如果三種言語同時生起，就有三種表業和三種無表業。如果四種言語同時生起，就有四種表業和四種無表業。所以各種事情都分得很清楚，受五戒的人一時可以同時得到五種表業和五種無表業。既然善業道可以同時生起，那麼不善業道的道理也應該如此。如果先通過加行（事先的準備行為），派遣他人殺人等，造作惡的色業（可以通過視覺感知的行為），貪、嗔（chēn，憤怒）、邪見（錯誤的見解）只要有一種出現，隨著這三種行為的完成，也是『四俱轉』。『四俱轉』中只舉了三類，其餘沒有說的，應該按照道理去思考。

『如是五六七皆如理應知者』，這三種沒有說，是爲了勸勉學習的人應該自己思考。如先通過加行造作惡的色業，貪等生起時，隨著四種行為的完成，稱為『五俱轉』。隨著五種行為的完成，稱為『六俱轉』。隨著六種行為的完成，稱為『七俱轉』。其餘沒有說的，可以通過思考來理解。

『八俱轉者至故無九十者』，說明八種業道與思（思考、意念）同時發生作用。『八俱轉者』，指的是先通過加行，派遣他人做其餘六種惡的色業。

【English Translation】 English version 'Accompanied by thought, the four accompanied' refers to the divisive speech (speech that sows discord, aimed at damaging relationships) spoken with the intention to harm others, and the false speech (false, deceptive speech) spoken out of fear of not being able to harm others. Adding the previous two, there are two types. Because it is not spoken at an appropriate time, it necessarily includes impure speech (unclean, defiled speech). Adding the previous three, they are called three types of speech karma and one type of mental karma, collectively known as 'four accompanied'. It refers to divisive speech spoken with the intention to harm others, and harsh speech (rude, malicious speech) spoken out of fear of not being able to harm others. Adding the previous two, there are two types. Because it is not spoken at an appropriate time, it necessarily includes impure speech. Adding the previous three, they are called three types of speech karma and one type of mental karma, collectively known as 'four accompanied'. Because divisive speech, false speech, and harsh speech are all spoken at inappropriate times, they necessarily include impure speech. It can be established without special explanation, so it is not explained separately. Question: When the previous three types of speech arise, they necessarily include impure speech. Are the expressed karma (actions that can be expressed through body or language) and unexpressed karma (potential actions that cannot be expressed through body or language) independent of each other? Master Nian and others explain that there are two types of impure speech. One is 'immediately impure', which refers to the fact that the previous three types of speech themselves carry impure meanings, so these speeches are called impure speech. The other is 'solely impure', which refers to the separate production of flattering songs, etc., apart from the previous three types of speech, and is called 'solely impure'. The current explanation is not like this. The meaning of 'immediately sole' should belong to the viewpoint of the Satya-siddhi-sastra (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth), not the viewpoint of our school. According to the viewpoint of our school, when the previous three types of speech arise, there is another entity of impure speech at the same time, called 'concurrently arising impure speech'. If flattering songs, etc., are produced separately from the previous three types of speech, it is called 'non-concurrently impure speech'. In short, if three types of speech arise simultaneously, there are three types of expressed karma and three types of unexpressed karma. If four types of speech arise simultaneously, there are four types of expressed karma and four types of unexpressed karma. Therefore, all matters are clearly distinguished. A person who has taken the five precepts can simultaneously obtain five types of expressed karma and five types of unexpressed karma. Since wholesome karma can arise simultaneously, the principle of unwholesome karma should also be the same. If one first engages in preparatory actions, such as sending others to kill, creating evil physical karma (actions that can be perceived visually), and greed, anger (dvesha), or wrong views (mithya-drishti) arise, as long as one of these three is completed, it is also 'four accompanied'. Only three categories are mentioned in 'four accompanied', and the rest that are not mentioned should be considered according to reason.

'Thus, the five, six, and seven should all be understood according to reason.' These three are not mentioned in order to encourage learners to think for themselves. For example, if one first engages in preparatory actions to create evil physical karma, and greed, etc., arise, as the four actions are completed, it is called 'five accompanied'. As the five actions are completed, it is called 'six accompanied'. As the six actions are completed, it is called 'seven accompanied'. The rest that are not mentioned can be understood through contemplation.

'The eight accompanied until there are no nine or ten' explains that the eight paths of karma operate simultaneously with thought (thinking, intention). 'The eight accompanied' refers to first engaging in preparatory actions, sending others to do the remaining six evil physical karmas.

自行邪欲足前為七。行邪欲時必定有貪。故論不說。足前為八俱時究竟。后三自力必不俱行故無九業道．十業道與思俱轉。

如是已說至遮一八五者。釋下兩句。明善業道與思俱轉。結前標宗。

二俱轉者至無散善七者。此下別釋明二業道與思俱轉。二俱轉者。謂善五識．及依無色盡．無生智現在前時。無前欲界中散善七支。但有無貪．無嗔。五識無分別故。盡．無生智是息求故。皆非是見故無正見。依無色定無律儀故無隨心戒。

三俱轉者至無七色善者。明三業道與思俱轉。三俱轉者。謂若定若散正見相應意識現在前時。無定．散七色善戒。但有無貪．無嗔．正見。

四俱轉者至勤策律儀者。明四業道與思俱轉。四俱轉者。謂惡．無記心現在前位得近住等戒。但有身三．語一業道俱轉。

六俱轉者至得上三戒者。明六業道與思俱轉。六俱轉者。謂善五識現在前時。得上近住．近事．勤策三戒。五識同時有無貪．無嗔。及身三．語一名六業道。

七俱轉者至得苾芻戒者。明七業道與思俱轉。七俱轉者。謂善意識無定道隨心轉色。正見相應現在前時得上三戒。於前六上加正見為七業道俱轉。或惡．無記心現在前時得苾芻七支戒。亦七俱轉。

九俱轉者至現在前時者。明九業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本自行邪淫的慾望滿足之前為七種業道。行邪淫時必定有貪慾，所以論中沒有說。滿足之前為八種業道同時究竟。后三種業道必須依靠自身的力量，不會同時執行，所以沒有九種業道、十種業道，它們都與思（cetanā）俱轉。像這樣已經說過的『至遮一八五者』，解釋下面兩句，說明善業道與思俱轉，總結前面並標明宗旨。『二俱轉者至無散善七者』，這下面分別解釋說明兩種業道與思俱轉。『二俱轉者』，指的是善的五識（pañca-vijñāna），以及依靠無色定（arūpa-samāpatti）的盡智（khaye-ñāṇa）、無生智（anutpāda-ñāṇa）現在前的時候，沒有欲界（kāma-dhātu）中散善的七支，只有無貪（alobha）、無嗔（adosa）。五識沒有分別，盡智、無生智是止息追求，都不是見解，所以沒有正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi）。依靠無色定沒有律儀（saṃvara），所以沒有隨心戒。『三俱轉者至無七色善者』，說明三種業道與思俱轉。『三俱轉者』，指的是如果定中或散亂中的正見相應的意識現在前的時候，沒有定中或散亂中的七種色善戒，只有無貪、無嗔、正見。『四俱轉者至勤策律儀者』，說明四種業道與思俱轉。『四俱轉者』，指的是惡（akuśala）、無記（avyākṛta）心現在前的位置得到近住戒（upavāsa-śīla）等戒，只有身三（kāya-karma）、語一（vak-karma）業道俱轉。『六俱轉者至得上三戒者』，說明六種業道與思俱轉。『六俱轉者』，指的是善的五識現在前的時候，得到近住戒、近事戒（upāsaka-śīla）、勤策戒（śrāmaṇera-śīla）這三種戒。五識同時有無貪、無嗔，以及身三、語一，共六種業道。『七俱轉者至得苾芻戒者』，說明七種業道與思俱轉。『七俱轉者』，指的是善的意識沒有定道，隨心轉色，正見相應現在前的時候，得到上面三種戒。在前面的六種業道上加上正見，為七種業道俱轉。或者惡、無記心現在前的時候，得到苾芻（bhikṣu）七支戒，也是七種業道俱轉。『九俱轉者至現在前時者』，說明九種業道。

【English Translation】 English version Before the desire for self-indulgent sexual misconduct is satisfied, there are seven karmic paths. When engaging in sexual misconduct, there is definitely greed, so it is not discussed in the treatise. Before satisfaction, there are eight karmic paths that are simultaneously complete. The latter three karmic paths must rely on one's own strength and cannot occur simultaneously, so there are no nine or ten karmic paths; they all occur together with thought (cetanā). As has been said, 'to block one, eight, and five,' the following two sentences explain that wholesome karmic paths occur together with thought, summarizing the previous points and stating the principle. 'Those that occur together in two ways, up to the absence of seven scattered wholesome qualities,' below this, there is a separate explanation clarifying that two karmic paths occur together with thought. 'Those that occur together in two ways' refers to when the wholesome five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna), and the knowledge of cessation (khaye-ñāṇa) and non-arising (anutpāda-ñāṇa) based on the formless attainments (arūpa-samāpatti) are present. There are no seven scattered wholesome qualities of the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), only non-greed (alobha) and non-hatred (adosa). The five consciousnesses have no discrimination, and the knowledge of cessation and non-arising are the cessation of seeking, and are not views, so there is no right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi). Based on the formless attainments, there is no restraint (saṃvara), so there is no precept that follows the mind. 'Those that occur together in three ways, up to the absence of seven colored wholesome qualities,' clarifies that three karmic paths occur together with thought. 'Those that occur together in three ways' refers to when the consciousness associated with right view in either meditative or scattered states is present. There are no seven colored wholesome precepts in either meditative or scattered states, only non-greed, non-hatred, and right view. 'Those that occur together in four ways, up to the restraint of the diligent novice,' clarifies that four karmic paths occur together with thought. 'Those that occur together in four ways' refers to when unwholesome (akuśala) or neutral (avyākṛta) minds are present and one obtains precepts such as the close dwelling precepts (upavāsa-śīla). Only the three bodily (kāya-karma) and one verbal (vak-karma) karmic paths occur together. 'Those that occur together in six ways, up to obtaining the three precepts,' clarifies that six karmic paths occur together with thought. 'Those that occur together in six ways' refers to when the wholesome five consciousnesses are present and one obtains the three precepts of close dwelling, lay follower (upāsaka-śīla), and diligent novice (śrāmaṇera-śīla). The five consciousnesses simultaneously have non-greed, non-hatred, and the three bodily and one verbal actions, totaling six karmic paths. 'Those that occur together in seven ways, up to obtaining the Bhikṣu precept,' clarifies that seven karmic paths occur together with thought. 'Those that occur together in seven ways' refers to when the wholesome consciousness, without a fixed path, transforms color according to the mind, and the corresponding right view is present, one obtains the above three precepts. Adding right view to the previous six karmic paths results in seven karmic paths occurring together. Or, when unwholesome or neutral minds are present and one obtains the seven-branch precept of a Bhikṣu (bhikṣu), there are also seven karmic paths occurring together. 'Those that occur together in nine ways, up to when they are present,' clarifies the nine karmic paths.

道與思俱轉言九俱轉者。有三種九俱轉。五識．盡無生。非見性故無正見。若五識．及依無色盡無生智。俱有散善七色。若依靜慮盡無生智定有隨心轉戒。爾時若得大苾芻戒亦得散善色。七善色同故不別分別。

十俱轉者至心正起位者。明十業道與思俱轉。十俱轉者。此有二類。準釋可知。

別據顯相至有一八五者。此下重分別。若別據律儀顯相所遮如上。若通據律儀．處中隱．顯即無所遮。處中業道非是律儀名離律儀。據此隱相有一．八．五業道俱轉。依宗正辨受五戒等必須具足方名律儀。若不具受非是律儀。但是處中業道。如人不能具受五戒等。隨其多少要期且受離殺生等。雖不名為律儀所攝亦得名為處中業道。此中為足善業道中。總有十種俱轉。且於處中說一．八．五。理實處中具有十種。故婆沙一百一十三云。受非律儀非不律儀時。身．語七善業道隨所要期多．少不定。意三善業道。或有。或無。或多。或少。

一俱轉者至一支遠離者。此下別解。謂惡．無記心現在前時。得一支遠離處中業道。

五俱轉者至得二支等者。謂善意識無隨轉色正見相應現在前時。得二支遠離處中業道。並意業道三名五俱轉。等謂等取三支五支。或善五識等現在前時。得三支遠離處中業道亦五俱轉。或惡

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『道與思俱轉言九俱轉』指的是什麼？有三種『九俱轉』的情況。五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）和盡無生智（證得滅盡定后所生的智慧）同時生起。因為五識不是見性的，所以沒有正見。如果五識以及依于無色界的盡無生智同時生起，就具有散善的七種色法（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、法處所攝色，及無表色）。如果依于靜慮（禪定）的盡無生智生起，必定有隨心轉戒（隨著心意而轉變的戒律）。這時如果得到大比丘戒，也能得到散善的色法。因為七種善色法相同，所以不再分別說明。

『十俱轉』指的是至心正起位時的情況。說明十業道與思（思心所）同時生起。『十俱轉』有兩種情況，可以參考解釋來理解。

『別據顯相至有一八五者』，這裡重新分別說明。如果特別依據律儀的顯現之相來遮止，就像上面所說的那樣。如果通盤考慮律儀、處中業道（非律儀非不律儀的業道）的隱顯之相，就沒有什麼可以遮止的。處中業道不是律儀，所以稱為離律儀。依據這種隱相，就有一、八、五種業道同時生起的情況。依據宗義正確辨別，受五戒等必須具足才能稱為律儀。如果不具足受戒，就不是律儀，而是處中業道。例如，有人不能完全受持五戒等，就隨其多少，發願暫時受持離殺生等戒。雖然不屬於律儀所攝，也可以稱為處中業道。這裡是爲了滿足善業道中的內容，總共有十種同時生起的情況。先在處中業道中說一、八、五種。實際上，處中業道具有十種。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十三卷說，受非律儀非不律儀戒時，身語的七種善業道隨著所發願的多少而不確定，意的三種善業道，或者有，或者沒有，或者多，或者少。

『一俱轉者至一支遠離者』，這裡分別解釋。指的是噁心或無記心生起時，得到一支遠離的處中業道。

『五俱轉者至得二支等者』，指的是善意識沒有隨轉色（伴隨色法）的正見相應而生起時，得到二支遠離的處中業道，加上意業道三種，合稱五俱轉。『等』字包括了三支、五支的情況。或者善的五識等生起時，得到三支遠離的處中業道，也屬於五俱轉。或者惡的...

【English Translation】 English version: What is meant by 'the path and thought arise together, and speech arises together with nine'? There are three types of 'arising together with nine'. The five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) and the wisdom of cessation and non-arising (the wisdom arising after attaining the cessation attainment) arise together. Because the five consciousnesses are not of the nature of seeing, they do not have right view. If the five consciousnesses and the wisdom of cessation and non-arising based on the formless realm arise together, they have seven types of scattered wholesome form (form included in the objects of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and dharma, and non-revealing form). If the wisdom of cessation and non-arising based on meditative concentration arises, there must be precepts that change according to the mind. At this time, if one obtains the great Bhikshu precepts, one can also obtain scattered wholesome form. Because the seven wholesome forms are the same, they are not separately explained.

What is meant by 'arising together with ten' refers to the situation when one sincerely and correctly initiates the position. It explains that the ten paths of action arise together with thought. There are two types of 'arising together with ten'. It can be understood by referring to the explanation.

Regarding 'specifically based on the manifest appearance, there are one, eight, and five', this section re-explains separately. If specifically based on the manifest appearance of the precepts to prevent, it is as described above. If considering the hidden and manifest aspects of precepts and neutral karma paths (karma paths that are neither precepts nor non-precepts), there is nothing to prevent. Neutral karma paths are not precepts, so they are called 'separated from precepts'. Based on this hidden aspect, there are cases where one, eight, and five karma paths arise together. According to the correct discernment of the school, receiving the five precepts etc. must be complete to be called precepts. If one does not receive them completely, they are not precepts, but neutral karma paths. For example, if a person cannot fully receive the five precepts etc., they vow to temporarily observe abstaining from killing etc. according to their ability. Although not included in the precepts, they can also be called neutral karma paths. This is to fulfill the content of wholesome karma paths, and there are a total of ten types of arising together. First, we talk about one, eight, and five in the neutral karma paths. In reality, neutral karma paths have ten types. Therefore, the 113th volume of the Vibhasa says that when receiving non-precepts and non-non-precepts, the seven wholesome karma paths of body and speech are uncertain depending on the amount of vows made, and the three wholesome karma paths of mind may or may not exist, or may be many or few.

Regarding 'arising together with one to one branch of separation', this section explains separately. It refers to the time when an evil or neutral mind arises, and one obtains a neutral karma path with one branch of separation.

Regarding 'arising together with five to obtaining two branches etc.', it refers to the time when wholesome consciousness arises without the corresponding right view of accompanying form, and one obtains a neutral karma path with two branches of separation, plus the three karma paths of mind, collectively called arising together with five. 'Etc.' includes the cases of three branches and five branches. Or when the wholesome five consciousnesses etc. arise, one obtains a neutral karma path with three branches of separation, which is also arising together with five. Or evil...

．無記心現在前時。得五支遠離處中業道亦五俱轉。

八俱轉者至得五支等者。謂此正見相應意識現在前時得五支遠離處中業道　等。謂等取六。謂善五識現在前時。得六支遠離處中業道。應知前七不善者。若不律儀初念名為業道。故此論十四明不律儀眾名中雲。根本所攝故名業道。若處中不善。根本成時亦名業道。如殺生等。此論具說　前七善者若律儀初念名為業道。故前文言唯初念表．無表名別解業道。若處中善初念亦名業道。如前處中引婆沙說。又此四類有粗品故是業道攝。又此四類有無表故是業道攝。豈有無表不成業道。不善業道思俱轉中。且據處中業道不據不律儀業道。以處中不善有一．二等別。得差別增數故以明偏約彼說。以不律儀得必具七。無一．二等別得不同故不約彼明　泰法師等解云。處中殺等由具緣故方成業道。不律儀不說具緣。雖是殺等不律儀非是殺等不善業道。故不善思俱轉中。唯約處中。不約不律儀說　今謂不然。不善業道有其二種。一得不律儀名為業道。遍有情故不說具緣。二得處中不善名為業道望別人故故說具緣。又諸論中說不律儀名為業道。文非一故。豈以思俱轉中不別說故證非業道。俱轉之中且約一相差別以論。非遍具說。亦可后念言非業道。何容初念非業道耶。若言雖是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：當無記心（既非善亦非惡的心）生起時，獲得五支遠離（指遠離五種惡行）的處中業道（既非善亦非惡的業道），並且這五種遠離是同時發生的。

『八俱轉者至得五支等者』，指的是當與正見相應的意識生起時，獲得五支遠離的處中業道。『等』字包括了第六支。當善良的五識生起時，獲得六支遠離的處中業道。應該瞭解，前七種不善（指七種不善業道），如果不律儀（指違反戒律的行為）的最初念頭就稱為業道。因此，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第十四卷在說明不律儀的眾名時說：『根本所攝故名業道』，意思是說，由於它屬於根本性的，所以稱為業道。如果是處中的不善，當根本形成時也稱為業道，例如殺生等。這部論典詳細地說明了這一點。前七種善（指七種善業道），如果律儀（指遵守戒律的行為）的最初念頭就稱為業道。因此，前面的經文說，只有最初的念頭，無論是表業還是無表業，才被稱為別解脫業道。如果是處中的善，最初的念頭也稱為業道，如前面在處中業道的討論中引用的《大毗婆沙論》所說。此外，這四類（指四種業）都有粗顯的品類，因此被攝屬於業道。而且，這四類都有無表業（指無形的業力），因此被攝屬於業道。難道有無表業而不成為業道的嗎？在不善業道與思心所（指與思考相關的心理活動）同時生起的情況下，這裡僅就處中業道而言，不包括不律儀業道。因為處中的不善有一、二等差別，可以獲得不同的增數，所以特別針對它來討論。因為獲得不律儀必定具備七支，沒有一、二等差別，所以不針對它來討論。泰法師等解釋說，處中的殺生等行為，由於具備了各種因緣，才能成為業道。不律儀則不強調具備各種因緣，即使是不律儀的殺生等行為，也不是殺生等不善業道。因此，在不善思心所同時生起的情況下，只討論處中業道，不討論不律儀。我認為這種說法是不對的。不善業道有兩種：一種是獲得不律儀，稱為業道，因為它普遍存在於有情眾生中，所以不需要強調具備各種因緣。另一種是獲得處中的不善，稱為業道，因為它針對的是特定的人，所以需要強調具備各種因緣。而且，在各種論典中，都說不律儀稱為業道，這樣的經文不止一處。難道可以因為在思心所同時生起的情況下沒有特別說明，就證明它不是業道嗎？在俱轉（同時生起）的討論中，只是針對一種相狀的差別來討論，而不是要全面地說明。也可以說，後面的念頭不是業道，難道最初的念頭也不是業道嗎？如果說即使是業道

【English Translation】 English version: When an indeterminate mind (neither good nor evil) arises, one obtains the 'neutral karma path' (neither good nor evil karma path) of the five branches of abstention (referring to abstaining from five evil deeds), and these five abstentions occur simultaneously.

'Those with eight co-arising factors, up to obtaining the five branches, etc.,' refers to when the consciousness corresponding to right view arises, one obtains the neutral karma path of the five branches of abstention. The word 'etc.' includes the sixth branch. When the virtuous five consciousnesses arise, one obtains the neutral karma path of the six branches of abstention. It should be understood that the previous seven unwholesome factors (referring to the seven unwholesome karma paths), if the initial thought of non-restraint (referring to actions that violate precepts) is called a karma path. Therefore, the fourteenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra states when explaining the various names of non-restraint: 'Because it is included in the root, it is called a karma path,' meaning that because it belongs to the fundamental nature, it is called a karma path. If it is a neutral unwholesome act, when the root is formed, it is also called a karma path, such as killing, etc. This treatise explains this in detail. The previous seven wholesome factors (referring to the seven wholesome karma paths), if the initial thought of restraint (referring to actions that adhere to precepts) is called a karma path. Therefore, the previous text stated that only the initial thought, whether it is manifest or non-manifest karma, is called the Prātimokṣa karma path. If it is a neutral wholesome act, the initial thought is also called a karma path, as stated in the Mahāvibhāṣā quoted earlier in the discussion of neutral karma paths. Furthermore, these four categories (referring to the four types of karma) all have coarse qualities, so they are included in the karma path. Moreover, these four categories all have non-manifest karma (referring to invisible karmic forces), so they are included in the karma path. Is it possible for non-manifest karma not to become a karma path? In the case of unwholesome karma paths arising simultaneously with cetas (referring to mental activities related to thinking), this only refers to neutral karma paths, not non-restraint karma paths. Because neutral unwholesome acts have differences such as one or two, different increasing numbers can be obtained, so it is specifically discussed in relation to them. Because obtaining non-restraint necessarily involves seven branches, without differences such as one or two, it is not discussed in relation to them. Master Tai and others explain that neutral acts such as killing can only become karma paths if they have various conditions. Non-restraint does not emphasize having various conditions, and even if it is non-restraint killing, it is not an unwholesome karma path such as killing. Therefore, in the case of unwholesome cetas arising simultaneously, only neutral karma paths are discussed, not non-restraint. I believe this statement is incorrect. There are two types of unwholesome karma paths: one is obtaining non-restraint, which is called a karma path because it is universally present in sentient beings, so there is no need to emphasize having various conditions. The other is obtaining neutral unwholesome acts, which is called a karma path because it is directed towards specific people, so it is necessary to emphasize having various conditions. Moreover, in various treatises, it is said that non-restraint is called a karma path, and there are more than one such passage. Can it be proven that it is not a karma path simply because it is not specifically mentioned in the case of cetas arising simultaneously? In the discussion of co-arising (simultaneous arising), the discussion is only directed towards the difference in one aspect, not to explain everything comprehensively. It can also be said that later thoughts are not karma paths, so how can the initial thought not be a karma path? If it is said that even if it is a karma path,

殺等不律儀非是殺等不善業道。亦可善律儀雖是不殺等律儀非是不殺等善業道。此既不然彼云何爾。此中不明殺與不殺。但明業道與思俱轉。既不律儀名為業道。亦可說為與思俱轉。或可。八俱轉中亦攝不律儀業道。誰言不攝。泰法師等若作此解。非但違理亦違論文　復有古德云。處中善業非是業道。彼謂處中非粗品收故。彼亦不然。如殺生等。雖是處中。粗品攝故名為業道。處中善業何妨粗品亦業道攝。迷執處中謂非粗品。深成自誤。婆沙亦說。處中善業名業道故。如前具引　復有古德云。不善中約處中業明思俱轉。不明不律儀。善業道中唯約律儀。不約處中明思俱轉者互顯故。然此亦不然。善業道中說處中故。或惡業道八俱轉中亦攝不律儀故。

善惡業道至亦通現行者。此下第五約處成業道。問善．惡業道於何界。何趣。何處成就現行。

頌曰至除地獄北洲者。前六句明不善。后六句明善。

論曰至無離間語者。釋初三句。那洛迦中粗惡．雜穢．及嗔三種通現及成。為苦所逼由相罵故有粗惡語。為苦所逼由悲叫故有雜穢語。為苦所逼身心粗強𢤱戾不調由互相憎故有嗔恚。貪．及邪見成就不現行。由未離故所以成就。不現行者無可愛境欲貪為己有故。貪業道不現行　雖有涼風觸身起貪。輕非業道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『殺等不律儀』（違反戒律的行為，如殺生）並非『殺等不善業道』（導致惡果的行為途徑，如殺生）。同樣，『善律儀』（遵守戒律的行為，如不殺生）雖然是『不殺等律儀』，但並非『不殺等善業道』。如果前者不成立，那麼後者又怎麼能成立呢？這裡沒有明確區分殺與不殺，只是闡明『業道』與『思』（意念）同時發生。既然『不律儀』被稱為『業道』，也可以說它與『思』同時發生。或者說，在『八俱轉』（八種同時發生的心理活動）中也包括『不律儀業道』。誰說不包括呢？泰法師等如果這樣解釋，不僅不合道理，也違背了經文的本意。還有一些古代德高望重的人認為，處於中間狀態的善業不是『業道』，他們認為處於中間狀態的善業不屬於粗重的行為。這種說法也是不對的。例如殺生等行為，雖然是處於中間狀態，但因為屬於粗重的行為，所以被稱為『業道』。處於中間狀態的善業為什麼不能被包括在粗重的『業道』中呢？執迷於處於中間狀態的善業不是粗重的行為，這是深深地誤導了自己。《婆沙論》也說過，處於中間狀態的善業也叫做『業道』，就像前面詳細引用的那樣。還有一些古代德高望重的人認為，在不善業中，只針對處於中間狀態的行為說明『思』同時發生，而不說明『不律儀』。在善業道中，只針對『律儀』說明『思』同時發生，而不針對處於中間狀態的行為說明『思』同時發生，這是爲了相互彰顯。然而這種說法也是不對的。因為善業道中也說了處於中間狀態的行為。或者說，在惡業道的『八俱轉』中也包括『不律儀』。『善惡業道至亦通現行者』：下面第五部分是關於在何處成就業道的問題。問：善業道和惡業道在哪個界（界域），哪個趣（輪迴的去處），哪個地方成就並顯現出來？『頌曰至除地獄北洲者』：前面的六句說明不善業，後面的六句說明善業。『論曰至無離間語者』：解釋最初的三句。在那洛迦（地獄）中，粗惡語、雜穢語以及嗔恚語這三種情況普遍存在併成就。因為受到痛苦的逼迫，由於互相謾罵，所以有粗惡語。因為受到痛苦的逼迫，由於悲慘的叫喊，所以有雜穢語。因為受到痛苦的逼迫，身心粗暴強硬，乖戾不調順，由於互相憎恨，所以有嗔恚。貪（貪婪）和邪見（錯誤的見解）成就但不顯現，因為沒有脫離。所以成就。不顯現的原因是沒有可愛的境界，想要把一切都據爲己有。所以貪業道不顯現。即使有涼風吹拂身體而產生貪念，這種輕微的貪念也不是業道。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-restraint such as killing' (actions that violate precepts, such as killing) are not 'evil paths of action such as killing' (paths of action that lead to negative consequences, such as killing). Similarly, 'good restraint' (actions that adhere to precepts, such as non-killing), although it is 'restraint such as non-killing,' is not 'good paths of action such as non-killing.' If the former is not valid, how can the latter be valid? Here, there is no clear distinction between killing and non-killing; it only clarifies that 'paths of action' occur simultaneously with 'thought' (intention). Since 'non-restraint' is called 'path of action,' it can also be said that it occurs simultaneously with 'thought.' Or, it can be said that 'non-restraint paths of action' are also included in the 'eight simultaneous occurrences' (eight mental activities that occur simultaneously). Who says they are not included? If Dharma Master Tai and others interpret it this way, it is not only unreasonable but also violates the meaning of the scriptures. There are also some ancient virtuous ones who believe that good actions in the intermediate state are not 'paths of action,' because they believe that good actions in the intermediate state are not considered gross actions. This statement is also incorrect. For example, actions such as killing, although in the intermediate state, are called 'paths of action' because they are considered gross actions. Why can't good actions in the intermediate state be included in gross 'paths of action'? Being obsessed with the idea that good actions in the intermediate state are not gross actions is deeply misleading oneself. The Vibhasa also says that good actions in the intermediate state are also called 'paths of action,' as quoted in detail earlier. There are also some ancient virtuous ones who believe that in evil actions, only actions in the intermediate state are used to explain the simultaneous occurrence of 'thought,' and 'non-restraint' is not explained. In good paths of action, only 'restraint' is used to explain the simultaneous occurrence of 'thought,' and actions in the intermediate state are not used to explain the simultaneous occurrence of 'thought,' in order to highlight each other. However, this statement is also incorrect. Because good paths of action also mention actions in the intermediate state. Or, 'non-restraint' is also included in the 'eight simultaneous occurrences' of evil paths of action. 'Good and evil paths of action to also universally manifest': The fifth part below is about the question of where paths of action are accomplished. Question: In which realm (sphere), which gati (destination of rebirth), and which place are good and evil paths of action accomplished and manifested? 'Verse says to except hell and Uttarakuru': The first six lines explain evil actions, and the last six lines explain good actions. 'Treatise says to without divisive speech': Explains the first three lines. In Naraka (hell), coarse speech, mixed speech, and angry speech are all universally present and accomplished. Because they are forced by suffering, due to mutual cursing, there is coarse speech. Because they are forced by suffering, due to tragic cries, there is mixed speech. Because they are forced by suffering, their bodies and minds are rough and hard, perverse and not harmonious, and due to mutual hatred, there is angry speech. Greed (craving) and wrong views (incorrect beliefs) are accomplished but not manifested, because they have not been abandoned. Therefore, they are accomplished. The reason they are not manifested is that there are no desirable objects, and they want to possess everything for themselves. Therefore, the path of action of greed is not manifested. Even if there is a cool breeze touching the body and causing greed, this slight greed is not a path of action.

。如輪王．北洲貪輕非業道。以惡欲他財貪方名業道。故地獄中有生處得智。知前身造業來生此中。現見業果故。無邪見業道現行　餘五業道既非成就。亦非現行。所以者何。業盡死故無殺業道。無攝受財物故無不與取。無攝受女人故無慾邪行。業鏡現前不可拒諱以無用故無虛誑語。故瑜伽論說。閻羅王變化罪者本身證其所作故無妄語　又解夫人虛誑為求遂意。于彼處所無事別求。以無用故無虛誑語。故婆沙云。無虛誑語者無攝受虛誑語事故　又正理云。或虛誑語令他想倒。彼想常倒故無誑語　又即由此無用故。及地獄中為苦所逼心常離故無離間語。

北俱盧洲至隨其所應者。釋第四．第五句。北洲貪．嗔．邪見業道皆定成就。以未斷故而不現行。不攝我所故貪不現行。雖行欲等亦有貪染。輕非業道。身．心柔懦故無惱害事。故瞋業道不現行。無惡意樂故邪見業道不現行。唯雜穢語通現行．成就。由彼有時染心歌詠故有雜穢。餘六業道俱非成．現　所以者何。無惡意樂故彼無殺生等六。此即通釋。又別釋云。壽量定千歲故無殺業道。無攝受自．他財物故無盜業道。無攝受女人為妻．妾故無邪行業道。身．心懦故無粗惡語。又正理云。言語清美故無粗惡語。以無用故無虛誑語．及離間語。又正理云。無誑心故無虛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如同轉輪聖王。北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以享樂著稱）的人貪慾輕微，沒有惡業之道。因為以邪惡的慾望貪圖他人的財物，才稱為業道。所以在地獄中有眾生出生的地方，他們獲得了智慧，知道自己前世造了什麼業，所以今生來到這裡。因為親眼見到業果，所以沒有邪見業道現行。其餘五種業道既非成就，也非現行。為什麼呢？因為業盡而死，所以沒有殺業道。沒有攝取財物，所以沒有不予取（偷盜）。沒有攝取女人，所以沒有欲邪行。業鏡在眼前顯現，不可拒絕和隱瞞，因為沒有用處，所以沒有虛誑語。所以《瑜伽師地論》說，閻羅王變化成罪人本身的形象，來證明他們所做的事情，所以沒有妄語。另一種解釋是，人們說虛誑之語是爲了滿足自己的意願，但在地獄那個地方，沒有什麼事情需要特別去追求，因為沒有用處，所以沒有虛誑語。所以《婆沙論》說，沒有虛誑語，是指沒有攝取虛誑語的事情。又《正理》說，或者虛誑語會使他人產生顛倒的想法，但地獄中的眾生想法常常是顛倒的，所以沒有誑語。又因為沒有用處，以及地獄中的眾生被痛苦所逼迫，內心常常是分離的，所以沒有離間語。從北俱盧洲到『隨其所應』，解釋了第四句和第五句。北俱盧洲的貪、嗔、邪見業道都必定成就，因為沒有斷除，但並不現行。因為沒有攝取『我所』，所以貪不現行。雖然有行欲等行為，但也有貪染。輕微的非業道，身體和內心都柔弱，所以沒有惱害的事情，因此嗔業道不現行。沒有惡意的快樂，所以邪見業道不現行。只有雜穢語，既有現行，也有成就。因為他們有時會以染污的心歌唱，所以有雜穢語。其餘六種業道都不是成就和現行。為什麼呢？因為沒有惡意的快樂，所以他們沒有殺生等六種惡業。這是通用的解釋。另一種解釋是，壽命固定為一千歲，所以沒有殺業道。沒有攝取自己和他人的財物，所以沒有盜業道。沒有攝取女人作為妻子或妾，所以沒有邪淫業道。身體和內心都柔弱，所以沒有粗惡語。又《正理》說，言語清美，所以沒有粗惡語。因為沒有用處，所以沒有虛誑語和離間語。又《正理》說，沒有誑騙的心，所以沒有虛誑語。

【English Translation】 English version: Like a Wheel-Turning King. The people of Uttarakuru (one of the four continents, known for its enjoyment) have slight greed and no path of evil karma. It is because of greed for others' wealth with evil desires that it is called the path of karma. Therefore, in the hells, there are places where beings are born, and they gain wisdom, knowing what karma they created in their previous lives, so they are born here in this life. Because they see the results of karma with their own eyes, there is no wrong view karma path in action. The remaining five karma paths are neither accomplished nor in action. Why? Because they die when their karma is exhausted, so there is no killing karma path. There is no taking of property, so there is no stealing. There is no taking of women, so there is no sexual misconduct. The mirror of karma appears before them, and they cannot refuse or conceal it, because it is useless, so there is no false speech. Therefore, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that Yama (the King of the Underworld) transforms into the image of the sinners themselves to prove what they have done, so there is no false speech. Another explanation is that people speak falsely to satisfy their desires, but in that place in hell, there is nothing to seek in particular, because it is useless, so there is no false speech. Therefore, the Vibhasa says that not having false speech means not engaging in false speech. Also, the Nyaya says that false speech can cause others to have inverted thoughts, but the thoughts of beings in hell are often inverted, so there is no deceitful speech. Also, because it is useless, and because the beings in hell are constantly separated in their minds due to being forced by suffering, there is no divisive speech. From Uttarakuru to 'according to their respective situations,' explains the fourth and fifth sentences. The paths of karma of greed, hatred, and wrong views in Uttarakuru are all certainly accomplished, because they have not been cut off, but they are not in action. Because there is no grasping of 'what is mine,' greed is not in action. Although there are actions such as desire, there is also greed. The slight non-karma paths, the body and mind are weak, so there is no harming, therefore the hatred karma path is not in action. There is no malicious pleasure, so the wrong view karma path is not in action. Only impure speech is both in action and accomplished. Because they sometimes sing with defiled minds, there is impure speech. The remaining six karma paths are neither accomplished nor in action. Why? Because there is no malicious pleasure, so they do not have the six evil deeds such as killing. This is a general explanation. Another explanation is that the lifespan is fixed at one thousand years, so there is no killing karma path. There is no taking of one's own or others' property, so there is no stealing karma path. There is no taking of women as wives or concubines, so there is no sexual misconduct karma path. The body and mind are weak, so there is no harsh speech. Also, the Nyaya says that speech is pure and beautiful, so there is no harsh speech. Because it is useless, there is no false speech or divisive speech. Also, the Nyaya says that there is no deceitful mind, so there is no false speech.

誑語。常和穆故無離間語　隨義配釋故言隨其所應。

彼人云何行非梵行者。問。

謂彼男女至並愧而別者。答。可知。

除前地獄至殺害余趣者。釋第六句。于欲界中除地獄．北洲。余天．鬼．傍生．及人三洲。十惡業道皆通成就現行二種　然有差別。謂天．鬼．傍生前七業道唯有處中攝。無不律儀。人三洲中處中．不律儀二種俱有　又準此文。不律儀名為業道。言非業道非細尋文　雖諸天眾無有殺天愛自部故。而或有時殺害余阿素洛鬼趣。

有餘師說至其命方斷者。敘異說。天亦害天。知過去世為怨仇故。斬首．截腰其命方斷。故正理云。有餘師說天亦殺天。雖天身支斷已還出。斬首．中截則不更生。

已說不善至謂成就現行者。釋第七．第八句。明後三善業道。可知。

身語七支至皆得成就者。釋第九．第十句。身．語七支生無色界．及無想天。但容成就必不現行。謂聖有情生無色界成就過．未無漏律儀。生無想天有情必成過．未第四靜慮靜慮律儀。然聖有情於過去生。隨依何地所依止身曾起曾滅無漏律儀。今生無色時成彼過去無漏律儀。若無曾起不成過去。若未來世無漏律儀今生無色。應依欲界．四定五地身。無漏律儀皆得成就。故正理云。二處皆無現起義者。無色唯

【現代漢語翻譯】虛妄之語（誑語）。經常和睦相處，沒有離間的話語（常和穆故無離間語），隨著意義來解釋，所以說是隨其所應（隨義配釋故言隨其所應）。

那個人如何行非梵行（彼人云何行非梵行者）？問。

指那些男女到了並感到羞愧而分開的情況（謂彼男女至並愧而別者）。答。可知。

除了地獄（除前地獄）直到殺害其他趣的眾生（至殺害余趣者）。解釋第六句。在欲界中，除了地獄和北俱盧洲（北洲），其餘的天、鬼、傍生以及人三洲，十惡業道都可以成就現行兩種（于欲界中除地獄．北洲。余天．鬼．傍生．及人三洲。十惡業道皆通成就現行二種），然而也有差別。天、鬼、傍生前七種惡業道只有處中攝，沒有不律儀（然有差別。謂天．鬼．傍生前七業道唯有處中攝。無不律儀）。人三洲中，處中和不律儀兩種都有（人三洲中處中．不律儀二種俱有）。又根據這段經文，不律儀被稱為業道（又準此文。不律儀名為業道）。說非業道就不是仔細尋文。雖然諸天眾沒有殺害同類的事情，因為他們愛惜自己的眷屬（雖諸天眾無有殺天愛自部故），但有時會殺害其他的阿修羅或鬼趣。

有其他論師說直到他的生命才斷絕（有餘師說至其命方斷者）。敘述不同的說法。天也會互相殘害，因為知道過去世是怨仇的緣故（天亦害天。知過去世為怨仇故）。斬首、截腰，他的生命才斷絕。所以正理中說，有其他論師說天也會殺天（斬首．截腰其命方斷。故正理云。有餘師說天亦殺天）。雖然天人的身體肢體斷了之後還會恢復，但是斬首或者從中間截斷就不會再生了（雖天身支斷已還出。斬首．中截則不更生）。

已經說了不善業道（已說不善）直到說是成就現行（至謂成就現行者）。解釋第七、第八句。說明后三種善業道。可知。

身語七支（身語七支）直到都能成就（皆得成就者）。解釋第九、第十句。身、語七支，生於無想天和無色界天，只容許成就，必定不會現行（身．語七支生無．及無想天。但容成就必不現行）。指聖者有情生於無想天，成就過去和未來的無漏律儀（謂聖有情生無成就過．未無漏律儀）。生於無想天的有情必定成就過去和未來的第四禪的律儀（生無想天有情必成過．未第四靜慮靜慮律儀）。然而聖者有情在過去生中，無論依靠哪個地所依止的身，曾經生起和滅去的無漏律儀，今生於無色界時，成就那些過去的無漏律儀（然聖有情於過去生。隨依何地所依止身曾起曾滅無漏律儀。今生無色時成彼過去無漏律儀）。如果沒有曾經生起，就不能成就過去。如果未來世的無漏律儀今生於無色界，應該依靠欲界、四禪五地的身體，無漏律儀都能成就（若無曾起不成過去。若未來世無漏律儀今生無色。應依欲界．四定五地身。無漏律儀皆得成就）。所以正理中說，兩個地方都沒有現起的意思（故正理云。二處皆無現起義者）。無色界只有。

【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation: False speech (Kuang yu). Always be in harmony and have no divisive speech (Chang he mu gu wu li jian yu). Explain according to the meaning, so it is said to be as appropriate (Sui yi pei shi gu yan sui qi suo ying).

How does that person practice non-brahmacharya (Pi ren yun he xing fei fan xing zhe)? Question.

Refers to the situation where men and women feel ashamed and separate (Wei bi nan nu zhi bing kui er bie zhe). Answer. Understandable.

Except for hell (Chu qian di yu) until killing other realms of beings (Zhi sha hai yu qu zhe). Explaining the sixth sentence. In the desire realm, except for hell and Uttarakuru (Bei zhou), the remaining heavens, ghosts, animals, and the three continents of humans, all ten evil karmic paths can achieve both manifestation and potential (Yu yu jie zhong chu di yu. Bei zhou. Yu tian. Gui. Pang sheng. Ji ren san zhou. Shi e ye dao jie tong cheng jiu xian xing er zhong). However, there are also differences. The first seven evil karmic paths of heavens, ghosts, and animals only have the intermediate category and do not have non-restraint (Ran you cha bie. Wei tian. Gui. Pang sheng qian qi ye dao wei you chu zhong she. Wu bu lü yi). Among the three continents of humans, both the intermediate and non-restraint categories exist (Ren san zhou zhong chu zhong. Bu lü yi er zhong ju you). Furthermore, according to this scripture, non-restraint is called the karmic path (You zhun ci wen. Bu lü yi ming wei ye dao). Saying it is not a karmic path is not carefully examining the text. Although the heavenly beings do not kill their own kind because they cherish their own retinue (Sui zhu tian zhong wu you sha tian ai zi bu gu), they sometimes kill other Asuras or ghosts.

Some other teachers say until his life is cut off (You yu shi shuo zhi qi ming fang duan zhe). Narrating different views. Heavens also harm each other because they know that in the past lives they were enemies (Tian yi hai tian. Zhi guo qu shi wei yuan chou gu). Beheading, cutting off the waist, and his life is cut off. Therefore, the Zhengli says that other teachers say that heavens also kill heavens (Zhan shou. Jie yao qi ming fang duan. Gu zheng li yun. You yu shi shuo tian yi sha tian). Although the limbs of the heavenly beings will recover after being cut off, they will not be reborn if they are beheaded or cut off from the middle (Sui tian shen zhi duan yi hai chu. Zhan shou. Zhong jie ze bu geng sheng).

Already said the unwholesome karmic path (Yi shuo bu shan) until saying it is achieving manifestation (Zhi wei cheng jiu xian xing zhe). Explaining the seventh and eighth sentences. Explaining the latter three wholesome karmic paths. Understandable.

The seven branches of body and speech (Shen yu qi zhi) until all can be achieved (Jie de cheng jiu zhe). Explaining the ninth and tenth sentences. The seven branches of body and speech, born in the realm of non-perception and the formless realm, only allow achievement and will definitely not manifest (Shen. Yu qi zhi sheng wu **. Ji wu xiang tian. Dan rong cheng jiu bi bu xian xing). Refers to the holy beings born in the realm of non-perception, achieving the past and future non-outflow restraints (Wei sheng you qing sheng wu ** cheng jiu guo. Wei wu lou lü yi). Beings born in the realm of non-perception will definitely achieve the past and future restraints of the fourth Dhyana (Sheng wu xiang tian you qing bi cheng guo. Wei di si jing lü jing lü lü yi). However, the holy beings in the past lives, no matter which ground they relied on, the non-outflow restraints that once arose and ceased, in this life born in the formless realm, achieve those past non-outflow restraints (Ran sheng you qing yu guo qu sheng. Sui yi he di suo yi zhi shen ceng qi ceng mie wu lou lü yi. Jin sheng yu wu se jie shi cheng bi guo qu wu lou lü yi). If it has never arisen, it cannot achieve the past. If the future non-outflow restraints are born in the formless realm in this life, it should rely on the body of the desire realm, the four Dhyanas, and the five grounds, and the non-outflow restraints can all be achieved (Ruo wu ceng qi bu cheng guo qu. Ruo wei lai shi wu lou lü yi jin sheng wu se. Ying yi yu jie. Si ding wu di shen. Wu lou lü yi jie de cheng jiu). Therefore, the Zhengli says that there is no meaning of manifestation in both places (Gu zheng li yun. Er chu jie wu xian qi yi zhe). The formless realm only has.

有四蘊性故。無想有情無定心故。律儀必託大種．定心二處互無故不現起(已上論文)　應知生無色界聖者。未來定成五地。過去不定。故婆沙一百三十四云。世尊弟子生無色界。若阿羅漢唯成就未來五地大種所造無漏色。非現在不起故。非過去已舍故。若不還者亦成就未來五地大種所造無漏色。非現在。不起故。過去不定。依五地身起有多少。或全無故　由此應說。或有學者生無色界。成就未來五地依戒。過去全無。謂先依欲界．四靜慮身。于第三果．及第四向。諸無漏道未起未滅。從彼命終生無色界。或有學者生無色界成就未來五．過去一。謂先欲界四靜慮時。隨依一身。于第三果．或第四向。諸無漏道已起．已滅。從彼命終生無色界。或有學者生無色界成就未來五．過去二。謂先欲界．四靜慮時。隨依二身。于第三果．或第四向。諸無漏道已起．已滅。從彼命終生無色界。或有學者生無色界成就未來五．過去三。謂先欲界．四靜慮時。隨依三身。于第三果．或第四向。諸無漏道已起．已滅。從彼命終生無色界。或有學者生無色界成就未來五．過去四。謂先欲界．四靜慮時。隨依四身。于第三果．或第四向。諸無漏道已起．已滅。從彼命終生無色界。或有學者生無色界成就未來五．過去五。謂具依欲界．四靜慮身

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為有四蘊的性質，並且無想有情沒有固定的心識。律儀必定依託于『大種』（四大元素）和『定心』（禪定之心）這兩個方面，而這兩者互相之間不存在，所以律儀不會顯現。（以上是論文內容）應當知道，生於『無想有情天』的聖者，未來必定成就五地（指色界五禪天）。過去則不一定。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十四卷說，世尊的弟子生於無想有情天，如果是阿羅漢，則只成就未來五地由大種所造的無漏色，不是現在成就，因為現在不起作用；也不是過去成就，因為已經捨棄。如果是不還果，也成就未來五地由大種所造的無漏色，不是現在成就，因為現在不起作用；過去則不一定，根據五地之身所起的多少而定，或者完全沒有。由此應該說，或者有正在修學的聖者生於無想有情天，成就未來五地所依的戒律，過去完全沒有。這是指先前依靠欲界和四靜慮之身，對於第三果（阿那含果）以及第四向（阿羅漢向）的各種無漏道，尚未生起也未滅去，從此命終後生于無想有情天。或者有正在修學的聖者生於無想有情天，成就未來五地，過去有一地。這是指先前在欲界和四靜慮時，隨便依靠一個身體，對於第三果或者第四向的各種無漏道，已經生起並且滅去，從此命終後生于無想有情天。或者有正在修學的聖者生於無想有情天，成就未來五地，過去有二地。這是指先前在欲界和四靜慮時，隨便依靠兩個身體，對於第三果或者第四向的各種無漏道，已經生起並且滅去，從此命終後生于無想有情天。或者有正在修學的聖者生於無想有情天，成就未來五地，過去有三地。這是指先前在欲界和四靜慮時，隨便依靠三個身體，對於第三果或者第四向的各種無漏道，已經生起並且滅去，從此命終後生于無想有情天。或者有正在修學的聖者生於無想有情天，成就未來五地，過去有四地。這是指先前在欲界和四靜慮時，隨便依靠四個身體，對於第三果或者第四向的各種無漏道，已經生起並且滅去，從此命終後生于無想有情天。或者有正在修學的聖者生於無想有情天，成就未來五地，過去有五地。這是指完全依靠欲界和四靜慮之身。

【English Translation】 English version Because it has the nature of the four aggregates, and the sentient beings in the 'Realm of Non-Perception' (Asaññasatta) do not have a fixed mind. The precepts (律儀, lǜyí) must rely on the 'Great Elements' (大種, dàzhǒng, the four great elements) and 'Concentrated Mind' (定心, dìngxīn, meditative mind), but these two do not exist together, so the precepts do not manifest. (The above is from the thesis) It should be known that a noble one born in the 'Realm of Non-Perception' (無想有情天, Wúxiǎng Yǒuqíngtiān) will definitely achieve the five grounds (referring to the five meditative heavens of the Form Realm) in the future. The past is uncertain. Therefore, the Vibhasa (婆沙, Póshā) Volume 134 says that if a disciple of the World Honored One is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, if he is an Arhat, he will only achieve the unconditioned form created by the Great Elements of the future five grounds. It is not achieved in the present because it is not functioning now; it is not achieved in the past because it has been abandoned. If he is a Non-Returner (不還, Bùhuán), he will also achieve the unconditioned form created by the Great Elements of the future five grounds. It is not achieved in the present because it is not functioning now; the past is uncertain, depending on how much is arisen from the bodies of the five grounds, or none at all. Therefore, it should be said that there may be a noble one who is still learning and is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, achieving the precepts based on the future five grounds, with nothing at all in the past. This refers to someone who previously relied on the bodies of the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas, and for whom the various unconditioned paths of the Third Fruit (Anagamin) and the Fourth Path (towards Arhatship) have neither arisen nor ceased, and who, after dying from that, is born in the Realm of Non-Perception. Or there may be a noble one who is still learning and is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, achieving the future five grounds, with one ground in the past. This refers to someone who previously, in the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas, relied on one body, and for whom the various unconditioned paths of the Third Fruit or the Fourth Path have arisen and ceased, and who, after dying from that, is born in the Realm of Non-Perception. Or there may be a noble one who is still learning and is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, achieving the future five grounds, with two grounds in the past. This refers to someone who previously, in the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas, relied on two bodies, and for whom the various unconditioned paths of the Third Fruit or the Fourth Path have arisen and ceased, and who, after dying from that, is born in the Realm of Non-Perception. Or there may be a noble one who is still learning and is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, achieving the future five grounds, with three grounds in the past. This refers to someone who previously, in the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas, relied on three bodies, and for whom the various unconditioned paths of the Third Fruit or the Fourth Path have arisen and ceased, and who, after dying from that, is born in the Realm of Non-Perception. Or there may be a noble one who is still learning and is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, achieving the future five grounds, with four grounds in the past. This refers to someone who previously, in the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas, relied on four bodies, and for whom the various unconditioned paths of the Third Fruit or the Fourth Path have arisen and ceased, and who, after dying from that, is born in the Realm of Non-Perception. Or there may be a noble one who is still learning and is born in the Realm of Non-Perception, achieving the future five grounds, with five grounds in the past. This refers to someone who fully relied on the bodies of the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas.

。于第三果．或第四向。諸無漏道已起．已滅。從彼命終生無色界。有作是說。無有學者生無色界。不成就過去色。以彼先在欲．色界時。于第三果．或第四向必已起．已滅方命終故。是故本論說言。若諸學者生無色界成就過去．未來所造色。若於彼得阿羅漢果成就未來所造色非過去所造色。若謂不爾。本論應說學者生無色界有不成就過去所造色。又婆沙一百三十二亦有兩說云。問亦有學者生無色界不成就過去所造色。謂彼先在欲．色界時。未起未滅諸無漏道。命終生無色界。都不成就過去所造色。如何乃說若諸學者生無色界。成就過去所造色耶答依成就者作如是說。謂有學者先欲．色界已起已滅諸無漏道。彼成就過去所造色故。有說彼在欲色界時。必已起已滅諸無漏道。如勝進．道。必起現前無有住果而命終故。又婆沙一百二十二亦有兩說云。問若諸學者以世俗道得不還果。曾不現起無漏律儀便生無色。彼云何成就過去身無表業。若不成就何故此文作如是說。若諸學者生無色界成就過去身無表耶。有作是說。亦有學者生無色界不成就過去身無表業。然此文中但依成就者說。是以無過。有餘師說。得聖果已必起勝果聖道現前。故諸學者生無色界。必定成就過去身無表業。

余界．趣處至皆具二種者。釋后兩句。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於第三果（Anagami-果位的第三個階段）或第四向（Arahan-通往阿羅漢果位的道路）。那些無漏道（Anasrava-marga-沒有煩惱的道路）已經生起並已滅盡。從那樣的狀態命終后，他們會生於無色界（Arupadhatu-沒有物質的境界）。有人這樣說：沒有還在修學的人會生於無色界，並且不成就過去所造的色（Rupa-物質）。因為他們在欲界（Kamadhatu-慾望的境界）或色界（Rupadhatu-物質的境界）時，對於第三果或第四向必定已經生起並已滅盡，然後才會命終。因此，《本論》說：如果那些還在修學的人，生於無色界，就成就過去和未來所造的色。如果他們在那裡證得阿羅漢果（Arhat-解脫者），就成就未來所造的色，而不是過去所造的色。如果不是這樣，那麼《本論》應該說，還在修學的人，生於無色界，有不成就過去所造的色。此外，《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷也有兩種說法：問：也有還在修學的人，生於無色界，不成就過去所造的色嗎？答：他們先前在欲界或色界時，未生起未滅盡那些無漏道，命終後生于無色界，完全不成就過去所造的色。為什麼說如果那些還在修學的人，生於無色界，就成就過去所造的色呢？答：這是依據成就者而說的。意思是說，有還在修學的人，先前在欲界或色界已經生起並已滅盡那些無漏道，他們成就過去所造的色。有人說，他們在欲界或色界時，必定已經生起並已滅盡那些無漏道，就像勝進道（Visesa-marga-殊勝之道）一樣，必定會生起現前，沒有停留在果位上就命終的。此外，《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷也有兩種說法：問：如果那些還在修學的人，以世俗道（Laukika-marga-世俗的道路）證得不還果（Anagami-不再返回欲界的果位），從未現起無漏律儀（Anasrava-sila-沒有煩惱的戒律）就生於無色界，他們如何成就過去的身無表業（kaya-avijnapti-karma-身體的無表業）？如果不成就，為什麼本文這樣說：如果那些還在修學的人，生於無色界，就成就過去的身無表業？有人這樣說：也有還在修學的人，生於無色界，不成就過去的身無表業。然而，本文中只是依據成就者而說，所以沒有過失。有其他論師說：得到聖果（Arya-phala-聖者的果位）后，必定會生起殊勝果位的聖道（Arya-marga-聖者的道路）現前。所以，還在修學的人，生於無色界，必定成就過去的身無表業。

其餘的界（Dhatu-構成存在的元素）、趣（Gati-輪迴的去處）、處（Ayatana-感覺的來源）都具備兩種情況。這是解釋後面的兩句話。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the third fruit (Anagami - the third stage of the fruit of the path) or the fourth direction (Arahan - the path to the fruit of Arhat). Those Anasrava-marga (paths without outflows) have already arisen and ceased. Having died from that state, they are born in the Arupadhatu (realm of formlessness). Some say that no one still in training is born in the Arupadhatu and does not accomplish the past Rupa (form). Because when they were in the Kamadhatu (realm of desire) or Rupadhatu (realm of form), they must have already arisen and ceased regarding the third fruit or the fourth direction before they die. Therefore, the Shastra says: If those still in training are born in the Arupadhatu, they accomplish the past and future Rupa. If they attain the fruit of Arhat there, they accomplish the future Rupa, but not the past Rupa. If it were not so, then the Shastra should say that those still in training, born in the Arupadhatu, do not accomplish the past Rupa. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume one hundred and thirty-two, also has two statements: Question: Are there also those still in training who are born in the Arupadhatu and do not accomplish the past Rupa? Answer: When they were previously in the Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu, those Anasrava-marga had not arisen or ceased, and upon death, they were born in the Arupadhatu, completely not accomplishing the past Rupa. Why is it said that if those still in training are born in the Arupadhatu, they accomplish the past Rupa? Answer: This is said based on those who accomplish. It means that there are those still in training who have already arisen and ceased those Anasrava-marga in the Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu, and they accomplish the past Rupa. Some say that when they were in the Kamadhatu or Rupadhatu, they must have already arisen and ceased those Anasrava-marga, just like the Vishesha-marga (path of distinction), which must arise in the present, and there is no abiding in the fruit before death. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume one hundred and twenty-two, also has two statements: Question: If those still in training attain the Anagami fruit (fruit of non-returning) through the Laukika-marga (mundane path), and have never manifested Anasrava-sila (precepts without outflows) before being born in the Arupadhatu, how do they accomplish the past kaya-avijnapti-karma (unmanifested karma of the body)? If they do not accomplish it, why does this text say: If those still in training are born in the Arupadhatu, they accomplish the past kaya-avijnapti-karma? Some say that there are also those still in training who are born in the Arupadhatu and do not accomplish the past kaya-avijnapti-karma. However, this text only speaks based on those who accomplish, so there is no fault. Other teachers say that after attaining the Arya-phala (fruit of the noble ones), the Arya-marga (path of the noble ones) of the superior fruit will surely arise in the present. Therefore, those still in training, born in the Arupadhatu, must accomplish the past kaya-avijnapti-karma.

The remaining Dhatu (elements), Gati (destinations), and Ayatana (sources) all possess two conditions. This explains the latter two sentences.

余界．趣．處。除地獄．北洲。彼無前七善業道故。所以別除　于余界等七善皆通現行．及成就　然有差別　謂鬼．傍生有離律儀處中業道。以依彼身無律儀故。但有處中　若於色界唯有律儀無處中業道。于初定中發身表業。但是妙行而非業道　三洲．欲天具有律儀．處中二種。謂三洲人有三律儀。及處中善業道。若欲界天有道．定律儀。及處中業道。無別解脫。

不善善業道至斷命壞威故者。此即第六明業道三果。上兩句明得三果。下兩句明三果因。

論曰至各招三果者。舉數總標。后當具釋故今言且。

其三者何者。問。

異熟等流增上別故者。答中。一總。二別。此即總答。

謂於十種至是異熟果者。此下別答。初起名習。次起名修。後起名所作。此明異熟果不善業道招。總異熟通三惡趣。此文據重但言地獄。

從彼出已至等流果別者。此明等流果。從彼地獄出已乘宿善業。來生人中受等流果　言等流者是相似義。如斷他命令壽短促。今時壽命還短促故　盜等準釋　前生起邪見者今生癡增。所以者何。彼邪見品望余貪．嗔癡增盛故。故昔起邪見能令今增癡是邪見等流果故。故顯宗云。邪見者癡增上。近增上果亦名等流　又解。或彼邪見能令增癡。此即顯邪見增也。起邪見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：余界（其他界）、趣（去處）、處（處所）。除了地獄和北俱盧洲（北洲）。因為那些地方沒有前七種善業道。所以特別排除。在其他界等地方，七種善業道都可以現行和成就。然而存在差別，即鬼道和傍生道有離律儀（沒有戒律約束）的處中業道（非善非惡的業道）。因為依附於他們的身體沒有律儀的緣故，只有處中業道。如果在色界，只有律儀而沒有處中業道。在初禪定中發出的身表業，只是殊勝的行為而不是業道。三洲（東勝神洲、南贍部洲、西牛賀洲）和欲界天具有律儀和處中兩種業道。即三洲的人有三種律儀以及處中善業道。如果欲界天有道共戒、定共戒律儀以及處中業道，沒有別解脫戒。

『不善善業道至斷命壞威故者』，這說明了第六個業道的三種果報。上面兩句說明得到三種果報，下面兩句說明三種果報的原因。

論中說『至各招三果者』，這是舉例總的標明，後面會詳細解釋，所以現在說『且』（暫且）。

『其三者何者』，這是提問。

『異熟等流增上別故者』，這是回答中的總說和別說。這裡是總的回答。

『謂於十種至是異熟果者』，這下面是分別回答。最初生起叫做習，再次生起叫做修，最後生起叫做所作。這裡說明不善業道招感異熟果。總的異熟果通向三惡趣。這裡根據嚴重性只說地獄。

『從彼出已至等流果別者』，這裡說明等流果。從地獄出來后，憑藉宿世的善業，來生到人間，承受等流果。所說的『等流』是相似的意思。例如，斷他人性命導致壽命短促，今生的壽命仍然短促。偷盜等可以參照解釋。前生生起邪見的人，今生愚癡會增加。為什麼呢？因為邪見的品性相比于貪、嗔、癡更加強烈。所以過去生起邪見能夠導致今生愚癡增加，這就是邪見的等流果。所以《顯宗》中說，邪見者愚癡會增加。接近的增上果也叫做等流。另一種解釋，或許邪見能夠導致愚癡增加，這說明邪見在增長。生起邪見

【English Translation】 English version: Other realms, destinies, and places, except for hell and Uttarakuru (North Continent). This is because those places lack the first seven wholesome paths of action. Therefore, they are specifically excluded. In other realms, the seven wholesome paths of action can all be present and accomplished. However, there are differences. Ghosts and animals have neutral paths of action (neither good nor bad) that are separate from moral discipline (lacking vows). Because their bodies lack moral discipline, they only have neutral paths of action. If in the Form Realm, there is only moral discipline and no neutral paths of action. The physical actions arising in the first Dhyana (meditative absorption) are only excellent conduct and not paths of action. The three continents (Purvavideha, Jambudvipa, Aparagodaniya) and the desire realm heavens possess both moral discipline and neutral paths of action. That is, the people of the three continents have three types of moral discipline and neutral wholesome paths of action. If the desire realm heavens have moral discipline arising from the path and from Samadhi (concentration), as well as neutral paths of action, they do not have individual liberation vows.

'The unwholesome and wholesome paths of action leading to the destruction of life and the ruin of authority' refers to the three results of the sixth path of action. The first two sentences explain obtaining the three results, and the last two sentences explain the causes of the three results.

The treatise says, 'Each brings about three results,' which is a general statement. It will be explained in detail later, so now it is said 'for now'.

'What are the three?' This is a question.

'Different due to the ripening result, the outflowing result, and the conditioning result.' This is the general and specific answer. This is the general answer.

'That is, regarding the ten types, up to the ripening result.' This below is the specific answer. Initially arising is called habituation, arising again is called cultivation, and arising lastly is called accomplishment. This explains that unwholesome paths of action bring about the ripening result. The general ripening result leads to the three evil destinies. This passage, based on severity, only mentions hell.

'Having emerged from there, up to the distinction of the outflowing result.' This explains the outflowing result. Having emerged from hell, relying on wholesome karma from previous lives, one is born among humans and experiences the outflowing result. The term 'outflowing' means similarity. For example, taking the life of another leads to a short lifespan, and in this life, the lifespan is still short. Stealing and so on can be explained similarly. One who generated wrong views in a previous life will have increased ignorance in this life. Why? Because the quality of wrong views is stronger than greed, anger, and ignorance. Therefore, generating wrong views in the past can cause ignorance to increase in this life, which is the outflowing result of wrong views. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha says that for those with wrong views, ignorance increases. The proximate conditioning result is also called the outflowing result. Another explanation is that perhaps wrong views can cause ignorance to increase, which shows that wrong views are increasing. Generating wrong views

時癡必增故。余文可知。

人中短壽至是殺等流者。問。

不言人壽至令不久住者。答。不言人壽即是殺生不善業果。但言由殺人壽量短　殺業與命作障礙因令不久住。

此十所得至增上果別者。此明增上果。如文可知。

為一殺業至為更有餘者。問二果因。

有餘師言至後感此等流者。此師意說。一殺根本業道能感二果。若作此說。何故論云令他受苦故受苦異熟果。根本業道其命既無。不可說言令他受苦。故知受苦是加行位。既違論文。故知此說非正　又解。一殺業言。具攝令他受苦．斷命．壞威三業。此三皆能先感異熟。此三者能後感等流。後文說三別感果。從強偏說。如下當辨。今言通感強弱總論。於三業中初．后是加行。中一是根本。加行果亦名業道果者。以是業道加行果故亦名業道果。若作此解還順論文。可亦為正。此中問．答不言增上者。以必感故非在所疑。或略不言。正理具說。故彼論云。有餘師言。即一殺業先受異熟。次近增上。次遠增上故有三果。

有餘復言至根本眷屬者。有餘復言。異熟等流二果因別。先感異熟果謂加行業。令他受苦故於地獄中受苦異熟。後感等流果謂根本業。其命已無非令他受苦。但令他命短。故生人中壽命短促　經雖總說一殺生言。

【現代漢語翻譯】時常愚癡必定會增加。其餘內容可以參考原文理解。

人中短壽是殺生等流果導致的。問：

為什麼不說人壽是因為不久住導致的？答：不說人壽就是殺生不善業的果報。只是說因為殺人，人的壽命會變短，殺業與生命構成障礙，導致不能長久居住。

這十種所得直到增上果的差別。這裡說明增上果，可以參考原文理解。

一個殺業是導致兩種果報，還是有其他的因素？問的是兩種果報的原因。

有其他論師說，之後會感受到這種等流果。這位論師的意思是說，一個殺生的根本業道能夠感得兩種果報。如果這樣說，為什麼論中說『使他受苦所以感受苦異熟果』？根本業道，那個生命已經沒有了，不能說使他受苦。所以知道受苦是在加行位。既然違背了論文，所以知道這種說法是不正確的。又一種解釋，一個殺業，包含了使他受苦、斷命、壞威三種業。這三種都能先感得異熟果，這三種能後感得等流果。後面的文章會說三種分別感果，是從強調的角度說的，下面會辨析。現在說的是普遍感果，總的來說有強弱之分。在三種業中，最初和最後是加行，中間一個是根本。加行果也叫業道果，因為是業道的加行果，所以也叫業道果。如果這樣解釋，就符合論文的說法，也可以認為是正確的。這裡問答沒有說增上果，因為一定會感得，所以不是疑問的地方，或者省略了沒有說。正理中詳細說明了，所以那部論說，有其他論師說，一個殺業先受異熟果，然後是近增上，然後是遠增上，所以有三種果報。

還有其他論師說，異熟果和等流果的因不同。先感得異熟果的是加行業，使他受苦，所以在地獄中感受苦的異熟果。後感得等流果的是根本業，那個生命已經沒有了，不是使他受苦，只是使他壽命變短，所以在人中壽命短促。經文雖然總的說一個殺生。

【English Translation】 Constant ignorance will surely increase. The rest can be understood from the original text.

Short lifespan among humans is caused by the 'equal flow' (等流, dengliu) result of killing. Question:

Why doesn't it say that human lifespan is caused by not living long? Answer: Not mentioning human lifespan means it is the result of the unwholesome karma of killing. It only says that because of killing, a person's lifespan will be shortened; the karma of killing and life constitute an obstacle, causing one not to live long.

These ten attainments up to the difference of the 'increased' (增上, zengshang) result. This explains the 'increased' result, which can be understood from the original text.

Does one act of killing lead to two results, or are there other factors? The question is about the causes of the two results.

Some other teachers say that one will later feel this 'equal flow' result. This teacher means that one fundamental karmic path of killing can bring about two results. If it is said this way, why does the treatise say 'causing him to suffer, therefore experiencing the 'different maturation' (異熟, yishu) result of suffering'? The fundamental karmic path, that life is already gone, so it cannot be said to cause him to suffer. Therefore, it is known that suffering is in the 'application' (加行, jiaxing) stage. Since it contradicts the treatise, it is known that this statement is incorrect. Another explanation: one act of killing includes the three karmas of causing him to suffer, taking life, and destroying power. These three can all first bring about the 'different maturation' result, and these three can later bring about the 'equal flow' result. Later texts will say that the three separately bring about results, which is said from the perspective of emphasis, and will be analyzed below. Now it is said that the universal feeling of results, in general, has strong and weak distinctions. Among the three karmas, the first and last are 'application', and the middle one is fundamental. The 'application' result is also called the karmic path result, because it is the 'application' result of the karmic path, so it is also called the karmic path result. If explained this way, it conforms to the statement of the treatise and can also be considered correct. The question and answer here do not mention the 'increased' result because it will definitely be felt, so it is not a point of doubt, or it is omitted. The 'Principle of Reason' (正理, zhengli) explains it in detail, so that treatise says that some other teachers say that one act of killing first receives the 'different maturation' result, then the near 'increased', then the far 'increased', so there are three results.

Still other teachers say that the causes of the 'different maturation' result and the 'equal flow' result are different. The 'application' karma first brings about the 'different maturation' result, causing him to suffer, so in hell one experiences the 'different maturation' result of suffering. The fundamental karma later brings about the 'equal flow' result, that life is already gone, not causing him to suffer, but only causing his lifespan to be shortened, so in human life, the lifespan is short. Although the sutra generally speaks of one act of killing.

而實通收根本業道．加行眷屬。加行果亦名業道果者。以是業道加行果故。亦名業道果　此師所說善順論文。加行可令他受苦故。根本義當斷他命故。既文理相符可以為正　此中亦應說增上果因別。以不問故亦不別答　此增上果壞威業感。如次當說。一一問答如下具明。

此中所說至假說等流者。等流稍隱故今重釋。此中所說等流果言。非越異熟．及增上果。人中短壽若望善業是異熟果。若望殺業是增上果。其等流果非越此二　於二果上據少相似假說等流　言相似者。謂斷他命令壽短促。于地獄中受異熟已。來生人中壽還短促。壽短促相似故名相似。據此義邊假說等流。非實等流。若實等流自類相生　又解此文通明十種等流。此中所說等流果言。非越異熟及增上果。若殺生等流是異熟果．增上果。餘九等流是增上果。據少相似假說等流。言餘九等流．增上假說者。此且總相從多分說。若別細分別。於此九中身二．語四唯增上假說。若貪．瞋．非遍行邪見望增他部貪．嗔．無明此等皆于增上果上假說等流。若貪．瞋．望增自部貪．嗔。及遍行邪見望增五部無明。即實等流非是假說。

此十何緣各招三果者。此下釋下兩句。此即問也。

且初殺業至如理應思者答。於十不善業道中。且初殺業于殺他位。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：實際上，『實通』包括了根本業道（karmapatha，行為的道路）和加行眷屬（prayoga-parivara，預備行為及其附屬）。加行之果也被稱為業道果，因為它是業道的加行之果，所以也被稱為業道果。這位論師所說的話非常符合經文的邏輯。加行可以使他人受苦，根本義在於斷絕他人的性命，既然文理相符，就可以認為是正確的。這裡也應該說明增上果（adhipati-phala，增上果）的原因差別，因為沒有提問，所以也沒有特別回答。這個增上果會感召破壞威勢的行業，這些將在接下來的問答中詳細說明。

這裡所說的『至假說等流』，是因為等流（nisyanda-phala，等流果）稍微隱晦，所以現在重新解釋。這裡所說的等流果，並非超越異熟果（vipaka-phala，異熟果）和增上果。人在短壽的情況下，如果從善業的角度來看，是異熟果；如果從殺業的角度來看，是增上果。而等流果並沒有超越這兩種果報。在兩種果報之上，根據少許相似之處，假說為等流。所說的『相似』，是指斷絕他人性命會導致壽命短促。在地獄中受異熟果報之後，來生到人間，壽命仍然短促。因為壽命短促的相似性，所以稱為相似。根據這個意義，假說為等流，並非真正的等流，真正的等流是自類相生。另一種解釋是，這段文字貫通說明了十種等流。這裡所說的等流果，並非超越異熟果和增上果。如果殺生的等流是異熟果和增上果，其餘九種等流是增上果。根據少許相似之處，假說為等流。所說的其餘九種等流是增上假說，這只是從總體上，從大部分情況來說的。如果分別細緻地分析，在這九種等流中，身二（兩種身體行為）和語四（四種語言行為）只是增上假說。如果貪、嗔、非遍行邪見（avyapakta-mithyadristi，非普遍存在的邪見）與增長他人部分的貪、嗔、無明相比，這些都是在增上果上假說為等流。如果貪、嗔與增長自身部分的貪、嗔相比，以及遍行邪見（vyapakta-mithyadristi，普遍存在的邪見）與增長五部無明相比，那就是真正的等流，而不是假說。

這十種（不善業）為什麼各自招感三種果報呢？以下解釋下面兩句話，這實際上是提問。

首先，殺業……應該如理思維。這是回答。在十種不善業道中，首先是殺業，在殺害他人的時候。

【English Translation】 English version: In reality, 'truly encompassing' includes the fundamental karmapatha (path of action) and the prayoga-parivara (preparatory actions and their retinue). The fruit of preparatory actions is also called the karmapatha fruit because it is the fruit of the preparatory actions of the karmapatha, hence it is also named karmapatha fruit. The words of this teacher are very much in line with the logic of the scriptures. Preparatory actions can cause suffering to others, and the fundamental meaning lies in severing the lives of others. Since the text and reasoning are consistent, it can be considered correct. Here, the causal differences of the adhipati-phala (dominating result) should also be explained, but because it was not asked, it is not specifically answered. This dominating result will evoke industries that destroy power, which will be explained in detail in the following questions and answers.

What is said here, 'to the hypothetical nisyanda,' is because the nisyanda-phala (result of outflow) is slightly obscure, so it is now re-explained. The nisyanda-phala mentioned here does not transcend the vipaka-phala (result of maturation) and the adhipati-phala. In the case of a person with a short lifespan, if viewed from the perspective of virtuous karma, it is the vipaka-phala; if viewed from the perspective of killing, it is the adhipati-phala. And the nisyanda-phala does not transcend these two results. Upon the two results, based on slight similarities, it is hypothetically called nisyanda. The 'similarity' refers to the fact that severing the lives of others leads to a short lifespan. After experiencing the vipaka-phala in hell, one is reborn into the human realm with a still short lifespan. Because of the similarity of the short lifespan, it is called similarity. According to this meaning, it is hypothetically called nisyanda, not a real nisyanda, as a real nisyanda arises from its own kind. Another explanation is that this passage comprehensively explains the ten types of nisyanda. The nisyanda-phala mentioned here does not transcend the vipaka-phala and the adhipati-phala. If the nisyanda of killing is the vipaka-phala and the adhipati-phala, the remaining nine nisyandas are the adhipati-phala. Based on slight similarities, it is hypothetically called nisyanda. The remaining nine nisyandas being hypothetical adhipati, this is only from a general perspective, from the majority of cases. If analyzed separately and meticulously, among these nine nisyandas, the two bodily actions and the four verbal actions are only hypothetical adhipati. If greed, hatred, and avyapakta-mithyadristi (non-pervasive wrong view) are compared to the increase of greed, hatred, and ignorance in others, these are all hypothetically called nisyanda upon the adhipati-phala. If greed and hatred are compared to the increase of greed and hatred in oneself, and vyapakta-mithyadristi (pervasive wrong view) is compared to the increase of ignorance in the five aggregates, then it is a real nisyanda, not a hypothetical one.

Why do these ten (unwholesome karmas) each evoke three kinds of results? The following explains the next two sentences, which is actually a question.

Firstly, the karma of killing... one should contemplate accordingly. This is the answer. Among the ten unwholesome karmapathas, the first is the karma of killing, when killing others.

一令他受苦。二令他斷命。三令他失威。謂殺生時于加行位令他受苦故。墮于地獄受苦異熟果。非正死時。以正死時無有苦受唯舍受故　于根本位斷他命故。從地獄出來生人中。受命短促為等流果　將行殺時執刀．杖等。于所殺生壞他威故。感諸外物鮮少光澤為增上果　壞威據遠加行。受苦據近加行。或壞威亦通近加行。

泰法師云。後起令他失威者　不然。尚不通根本以無命故。況後起耶。至後起位其命既無。令誰失威。故正理云。理實殺時能令所殺受苦。命斷。壞失威光。令他苦故生於地獄。斷他命故人中壽短。先是加行果。后是根本果。根本．近分俱名殺生。由壞威光感惡外具。是故殺業得三種果。余惡業道如理應思　準此論及正理。三果因別。

問斷命壞威俱是不善應感異熟。何故唯說受苦感耶　解云理亦能感。而不說者。為令他苦相顯偏說　問等流即是增上果攝。受苦．壞威應亦能感。何故唯說斷命能感　解云。據增上邊理亦能感。而不說者。以斷他命業望彼短壽。有別勝用故偏說之　問增上寬通應三並感。何故壞威能感非餘二耶　解云餘二理亦能感增上。而不說者以壞他威相顯別說　由此應準知至如理應說者。釋善三果翻惡應思。余增上果．及余善業道與上相違。如理應說余文可知。故正理

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一、使他遭受痛苦；二、斷絕他的性命；三、使他失去威勢。之所以說殺生時在加行位（指開始行動的階段）使他遭受痛苦，是因為會導致墮入地獄，承受痛苦的異熟果（指成熟的果報）。但並非在真正死亡的那一刻，因為真正死亡時沒有痛苦的感受，只有舍受（一種不苦不樂的感受）。在根本位（指完成殺生行為的階段）斷絕他的性命，所以從地獄出來后，轉生為人，會遭受壽命短促的等流果（指與之前行為相似的果報）。在準備殺生時，拿著刀、棍等兇器，對所要殺害的生命破壞他的威勢，因此感得外在事物缺少光澤，這是增上果（指對生存環境產生影響的果報）。破壞威勢是根據較遠的加行，遭受痛苦是根據較近的加行。或者說，破壞威勢也包括較近的加行。泰法師說，後來才使他失去威勢，這種說法是不對的。因為這甚至不符合根本位，因為那時生命已經沒有了，更何況是後來的階段呢？到了後來的階段，他的生命既然已經沒有了，又讓誰失去威勢呢？所以《正理》中說，實際上在殺生的時候，能夠使被殺者遭受痛苦、斷絕性命、破壞和失去威光。使他痛苦，所以會生於地獄；斷絕他的性命，所以在人中壽命短促。前者是加行果，後者是根本果。根本位和近分位（指接近完成殺生行為的階段）都可以稱為殺生。由於破壞威光，感得惡劣的外在器具。因此，殺生這種惡業會得到三種果報。其餘的惡業道，應該按照這個道理來思考。根據這部論和《正理》，這三種果報的原因是不同的。問：斷命和破壞威勢都是不善的行為，應該感得異熟果，為什麼只說遭受痛苦會感得異熟果呢？答：從道理上來說，斷命和破壞威勢也能感得異熟果，但是這裡不說，是爲了使使他痛苦的相貌顯得更加明顯，所以只說了遭受痛苦感得異熟果。問：等流果實際上已經被包含在增上果之中了，遭受痛苦和破壞威勢也應該能夠感得增上果，為什麼只說斷命能夠感得增上果呢？答：從增上果的角度來說，遭受痛苦和破壞威勢從道理上來說也能感得增上果，但是這裡不說，是因為斷絕他人性命的業，相對於短壽來說，有特別殊勝的作用，所以只說了斷命能夠感得增上果。問：增上果的範圍很寬泛，應該三種果報都能感得，為什麼只有破壞威勢能夠感得，而不是其餘兩種呢？答：其餘兩種從道理上來說也能感得增上果，但是這裡不說，是因為破壞他人威勢的相貌顯得特別，所以只說了破壞威勢能夠感得增上果。由此應該知道，至於按照道理應該說的情況，解釋善的三種果報，反過來思考惡的三種果報。其餘的增上果，以及其餘的善業道，與上面所說的相反，按照道理應該說，其餘的文字可以知道。所以《正理》中說。 English version 1. To cause him to suffer; 2. To cut off his life; 3. To cause him to lose his power. It is said that in the act of killing, during the preparatory stage (加行位, jiā xíng wèi, the stage of initiating action), causing him to suffer leads to falling into hell and experiencing the ripened result (異熟果, yì shú guǒ, the result of maturation) of suffering. However, this is not at the moment of actual death, because at the moment of actual death, there is no experience of suffering, only the feeling of equanimity (舍受, shě shòu, a neutral feeling). In the fundamental stage (根本位, gēn běn wèi, the stage of completing the act of killing), cutting off his life leads to being reborn as a human after emerging from hell, experiencing the result of a short lifespan as a flowing-on result (等流果, děng liú guǒ, a result similar to the previous action). When preparing to kill, holding knives, sticks, and other weapons, damaging the power of the life to be killed leads to sensing that external objects lack luster, which is the augmenting result (增上果, zēng shàng guǒ, a result that affects the environment). Damaging power is based on a more distant preparatory action, while experiencing suffering is based on a closer preparatory action. Alternatively, damaging power can also include a closer preparatory action. Master Tai (泰法師, Tài Fǎ Shī) said that causing him to lose power later is not correct. Because it does not even conform to the fundamental stage, since life is already gone, let alone a later stage? Once the later stage is reached, since his life is already gone, who is there to lose power? Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理, Zhèng lǐ) says that in reality, at the time of killing, one can cause the killed to suffer, have their life cut off, and have their power and radiance destroyed. Causing him to suffer leads to being born in hell; cutting off his life leads to a short lifespan in human life. The former is the result of the preparatory action, and the latter is the result of the fundamental action. Both the fundamental stage and the near-completion stage (近分位, jìn fēn wèi, the stage of nearly completing the act of killing) can be called killing. Due to damaging power, one senses inferior external tools. Therefore, the karma of killing yields three types of results. The remaining evil paths of action should be contemplated according to this principle. According to this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra, the causes of the three results are different. Question: Cutting off life and damaging power are both unwholesome actions that should lead to the ripened result (異熟, yì shú), so why is it only said that experiencing suffering leads to the ripened result? Answer: In principle, cutting off life and damaging power can also lead to the ripened result, but it is not mentioned here in order to make the aspect of causing him to suffer more apparent, so only experiencing suffering leading to the ripened result is mentioned. Question: The flowing-on result (等流果, děng liú guǒ) is actually included within the augmenting result (增上果, zēng shàng guǒ), and experiencing suffering and damaging power should also be able to lead to the augmenting result, so why is it only said that cutting off life can lead to the augmenting result? Answer: From the perspective of the augmenting result, experiencing suffering and damaging power can also lead to the augmenting result in principle, but it is not mentioned here because the karma of cutting off another's life has a particularly superior function in relation to a short lifespan, so only cutting off life leading to the augmenting result is mentioned. Question: The scope of the augmenting result is very broad, so all three results should be able to be sensed, so why is it only damaging power that can be sensed, and not the other two? Answer: The other two can also lead to the augmenting result in principle, but it is not mentioned here because the aspect of damaging another's power is particularly apparent, so only damaging power leading to the augmenting result is mentioned. From this, it should be known that as for the situations that should be spoken of according to reason, explaining the three results of good, one should think conversely about the three results of evil. The remaining augmenting results, as well as the remaining paths of good action, are contrary to what was said above, and should be spoken of according to reason. The remaining text can be understood. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says.

【English Translation】 English version 1. To cause him to suffer; 2. To cut off his life; 3. To cause him to lose his power. It is said that in the act of killing, during the preparatory stage (加行位, jiā xíng wèi, the stage of initiating action), causing him to suffer leads to falling into hell and experiencing the ripened result (異熟果, yì shú guǒ, the result of maturation) of suffering. However, this is not at the moment of actual death, because at the moment of actual death, there is no experience of suffering, only the feeling of equanimity (舍受, shě shòu, a neutral feeling). In the fundamental stage (根本位, gēn běn wèi, the stage of completing the act of killing), cutting off his life leads to being reborn as a human after emerging from hell, experiencing the result of a short lifespan as a flowing-on result (等流果, děng liú guǒ, a result similar to the previous action). When preparing to kill, holding knives, sticks, and other weapons, damaging the power of the life to be killed leads to sensing that external objects lack luster, which is the augmenting result (增上果, zēng shàng guǒ, a result that affects the environment). Damaging power is based on a more distant preparatory action, while experiencing suffering is based on a closer preparatory action. Alternatively, damaging power can also include a closer preparatory action. Master Tai (泰法師, Tài Fǎ Shī) said that causing him to lose power later is not correct. Because it does not even conform to the fundamental stage, since life is already gone, let alone a later stage? Once the later stage is reached, since his life is already gone, who is there to lose power? Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理, Zhèng lǐ) says that in reality, at the time of killing, one can cause the killed to suffer, have their life cut off, and have their power and radiance destroyed. Causing him to suffer leads to being born in hell; cutting off his life leads to a short lifespan in human life. The former is the result of the preparatory action, and the latter is the result of the fundamental action. Both the fundamental stage and the near-completion stage (近分位, jìn fēn wèi, the stage of nearly completing the act of killing) can be called killing. Due to damaging power, one senses inferior external tools. Therefore, the karma of killing yields three types of results. The remaining evil paths of action should be contemplated according to this principle. According to this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra, the causes of the three results are different. Question: Cutting off life and damaging power are both unwholesome actions that should lead to the ripened result (異熟, yì shú), so why is it only said that experiencing suffering leads to the ripened result? Answer: In principle, cutting off life and damaging power can also lead to the ripened result, but it is not mentioned here in order to make the aspect of causing him to suffer more apparent, so only experiencing suffering leading to the ripened result is mentioned. Question: The flowing-on result (等流果, děng liú guǒ) is actually included within the augmenting result (增上果, zēng shàng guǒ), and experiencing suffering and damaging power should also be able to lead to the augmenting result, so why is it only said that cutting off life can lead to the augmenting result? Answer: From the perspective of the augmenting result, experiencing suffering and damaging power can also lead to the augmenting result in principle, but it is not mentioned here because the karma of cutting off another's life has a particularly superior function in relation to a short lifespan, so only cutting off life leading to the augmenting result is mentioned. Question: The scope of the augmenting result is very broad, so all three results should be able to be sensed, so why is it only damaging power that can be sensed, and not the other two? Answer: The other two can also lead to the augmenting result in principle, but it is not mentioned here because the aspect of damaging another's power is particularly apparent, so only damaging power leading to the augmenting result is mentioned. From this, it should be known that as for the situations that should be spoken of according to reason, explaining the three results of good, one should think conversely about the three results of evil. The remaining augmenting results, as well as the remaining paths of good action, are contrary to what was said above, and should be spoken of according to reason. The remaining text can be understood. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says.

云。由此應準知善業道三果。且於離殺若習。若修。若多所作。由此力故生於天中受異熟果。從彼沒已來生人中受極長壽。近增上果。即復由此感諸外具有大威光。遠增上果。余善三果翻惡應說。

又契經說至邪命是何者。此下大文第十一別明邪命。依經起問。

雖離彼無至違經故非理者。答。上兩句正明。下兩句破執。

論曰至由資具屬他者。但從嗔．癡所生語業。各有四支。總名邪語。以語即業故不言業。但從嗔．癡所生身業。各有三種。總名邪業。以身非業故不言身　但從貪所生身．語二業。身三語四。以難除故別立邪命。謂貪微細而能映奪諸有情心。彼所起業難可禁護。佛為于正命令殷重修故。佛離前邪語．邪業別說邪命。引頌可知。取下兩句為證。上兩句同文故來。故正理云。諸在家人邪見難斷。以多妄執吉祥等故。諸出家者邪命難除。所有命緣皆屬他故。

有餘師執至非資命故者。敘異說。有餘師執。緣彼活命諸資生具。貪慾所生身．語二業方名邪命。非余貪生身．語二業是邪命攝所以者何。為自戲樂作歌舞等。非資命故。非是邪命是邪語業。

此違經故至虛延命故者。引經破執邪受外境虛延命故。但是從貪所生身．語皆名邪命。

正語業命翻此應知者。義便兼明

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云：由此應當知道善業道的三種果報。而且，如果遠離殺生，經常練習、修行、並且多做，由此力量的緣故，會生於天界中承受異熟果報。從天界去世后，來生人間，承受極其長壽的近增上果。又因此感得外在事物具有大的威光，這是遠增上果。其餘惡業的三種果報，可以反過來推論。

又《契經》中說，什麼是邪命？以下大段文字，第十一部分，特別闡明邪命。依據經文提出問題。

『雖然離開了它就沒有...』直到『違背經文，所以不合理』。回答：上面兩句是正面闡明，下面兩句是破除執著。

論曰：直到『因為資具屬於他人』。但從嗔恚、愚癡所生的語業，各有四支，總名為邪語。因為語即是業，所以不說業。但從嗔恚、愚癡所生的身業，各有三種，總名為邪業。因為身不是業，所以不說身。但從貪婪所生的身、語二業，身有三種，語有四種。因為難以去除，所以特別立為邪命。意思是貪婪微細，卻能矇蔽奪取所有有情的心。由它所產生的業難以禁止守護。佛爲了讓大家殷重地修習正命，所以佛陀將邪命從前面的邪語、邪業中分別出來說明。引用頌文就可以知道。取下面兩句作為證據，上面兩句與文意相同，所以省略。所以《正理》中說：『諸在家人的邪見難以斷除，因為大多妄自執著吉祥等等。諸出家人的邪命難以去除，所有的生活來源都屬於他人。』

『有其他老師執著...』直到『不是資助生命的東西』。敘述不同的說法。有其他老師執著，緣于那些用來活命的資生用具，貪慾所生的身、語二業才叫做邪命。不是其餘貪婪所生的身、語二業屬於邪命所攝。為什麼呢？因為爲了自己戲樂而作的歌舞等等，不是資助生命的東西，所以不是邪命，而是邪語業。

『這違背經文...』直到『虛假地延續生命』。引用經文破除執著，邪惡地接受外境，虛假地延續生命。但是從貪婪所生的身、語都叫做邪命。

『正語、業、命，反過來就知道』。意思是順便也說明了。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore: From this, one should understand the three fruits of the path of wholesome actions. Moreover, if one practices, cultivates, and frequently engages in abstaining from killing, by this power, one will be born in the heavens and receive the Vipaka (fruition) result. After passing away from there, one will be reborn in the human realm and receive the Adhipati-phala (dominant result) of extremely long life. Furthermore, due to this, one will experience external objects possessing great splendor, which is the Viprayukta-phala (disjoined result). The three fruits of evil actions can be inferred by reversing this.

Moreover, the Sutra says: What is Ajiva (wrong livelihood)? The following major section, the eleventh part, specifically clarifies Ajiva. The question is raised based on the Sutra.

'Although without it there is no...' until 'contradicts the Sutra, therefore it is unreasonable.' Answer: The first two sentences directly clarify, and the last two sentences refute the attachment.

The Treatise says: Until 'because the requisites belong to others.' But the verbal karma arising from anger and ignorance each has four branches, collectively called Mithya-vac (wrong speech). Because speech is karma, karma is not mentioned. But the physical karma arising from anger and ignorance each has three types, collectively called Mithya-karma (wrong action). Because the body is not karma, the body is not mentioned. But the physical and verbal karma arising from greed, the body has three types, and speech has four. Because it is difficult to remove, it is specifically established as Ajiva. It means that greed is subtle but can obscure and seize the minds of all sentient beings. The karma arising from it is difficult to prohibit and protect. The Buddha, in order to encourage diligent practice of right livelihood (Samyag-ajiva), therefore the Buddha separately explained Ajiva from the preceding wrong speech and wrong action. The verse can be understood by quoting it. Take the last two sentences as evidence; the first two sentences have the same meaning, so they are omitted. Therefore, the Shastrartha (Treatise on Logic) says: 'The wrong views of laypeople are difficult to cut off because they mostly cling to auspiciousness, etc. The wrong livelihood of renunciants is difficult to remove because all sources of livelihood belong to others.'

'Some other teachers cling to...' until 'not things that support life.' Narrating different views. Some other teachers cling to the idea that the requisites for living, the physical and verbal karma arising from greed, are called Ajiva. The remaining physical and verbal karma arising from greed are not included in Ajiva. Why? Because singing and dancing performed for one's own amusement are not things that support life, so they are not Ajiva but wrong speech.

'This contradicts the Sutra...' until 'falsely prolonging life.' Quoting the Sutra to refute the attachment, evilly receiving external objects, falsely prolonging life. But the physical and verbal actions arising from greed are all called Ajiva.

'Right speech, action, and livelihood, know this by reversing it.' The meaning also incidentally clarifies.

。正理云。何緣業道中先身後語。於八道支內先語後身。以業道中隨粗．細說。道支次第據順相生故。契經云尋．伺已發語。

如前所言至有幾果耶者。此下當品之中大文第三雜明諸業。就中。一明業得果。二釋本論語。三明引．滿因。四明三重障。五明三時障。六明菩薩相。七明施戒修。八明順三分業九明書等體。十明諸法異名　就第一明業得果中。一總明諸業果。二三性相對果。三三世相對果。四諸地相對果。五三學相對果。六三斷相對果　此即第一總明諸業果。牒前問起。

頌曰至三除前所除者。就頌答中總有四類。初兩句為一類次兩句為第二類。次兩句為第三類。后兩句為第四類。

論曰至謂有漏．無漏者。釋斷道名。道能證無為斷。及能斷有為惑。具此二斷得斷道名。即無間道能引斷得。至生相時說名能證。能斷惑得不至生相說名能斷。此無間道亦證．亦斷。若解脫道證而非斷。雖于斷得無引功能。與斷得俱說名為證。非由彼力令此惑得不至生相不名能斷。斷道不同。總有二種。謂有漏．無漏業差別故。

有漏道業至唯除前生者。異熟．等流．離系三果。如文可知　士用果者。一謂道所牽俱有士用果。即是俱生士用果　二謂道所牽解脫士用果。即是無間士用果　三謂道所修。謂未

來所修功德。或是隔越士用果　四謂道所證。即是不生士用果。故正理云。士用果者謂道所牽俱有．解脫．所修．及斷。言俱有者謂俱生法。言解脫者謂無間生即解脫道。言所修者謂未來修。斷謂擇滅。由道力故彼得方起　增上果亦可知　又正理四十三云。增上果者。有如是說。謂離自性余有為法。唯除前生　有作是言。斷亦應是道增上果。道增上力能證彼故。若爾何故毗婆沙中。唯說欲界十隨眠斷。為苦法智忍離系士用果。曾不說是增上果耶　非由不說便非彼果。以即彼文說苦法智為苦法智忍等流．士用果。曾不說是增上果故。然實苦法智是彼增上果。而不說者義極成故　此亦應然。舉士用果。理即已舉增上果。故非唯可生是增上果。說非擇滅是心果故。離此更無餘果義故　解云正理兩解。前師為正。同此論故。又諸論中皆說擇滅是離系果不言增上果故。又諸論中出增上果體。皆言有為不說無為故　又解。正理既無立．破。據義不同皆無有妨。雖有兩解前解為勝。于未來世非唯可生法是增上果。亦有處說非擇滅法是心果故。以此故知。諸不生法亦是增上果。余文可知。

即斷道中至謂除異熟者。釋第三．第四句。是無漏故除異熟果。有餘四果。準前有漏解釋可知。

余有漏善至例此應釋者。釋第五．第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

關於修行所獲得的功德。或者說是隔越士（指修行者）所使用的果報。四種果報是指通過修行所證得的，也就是不生士所使用的果報。因此，《正理》中說：『士用果，是指由道力所牽引的俱有、解脫、所修以及斷滅。』俱有，指的是俱生法。解脫，指的是無間生，也就是解脫道。所修，指的是未來所修的功德。斷滅，指的是擇滅。由於道的力量，它們才能得以生起。

增上果也可以依此類推得知。《正理》第四十三卷中說：『增上果，有一種說法是，指除了自性之外的其餘有為法，但要排除前生。』有人認為，斷滅也應該是道的增上果，因為道的力量能夠證得它。如果這樣，為什麼《毗婆沙論》中只說欲界的十種隨眠煩惱的斷滅，是苦法智忍（Kufazhiren，一種智慧）離系（Lixi，脫離束縛）士用果，而沒有說是增上果呢？

即使沒有說，也不能因此就說它不是那種果報。因為在那段經文中，也說了苦法智是苦法智忍的等流（Dengliu，同類相續）士用果，也沒有說是增上果。但實際上，苦法智是它的增上果，只是因為意義已經很明顯了，所以沒有說。這裡也應該這樣理解。提到了士用果，實際上也就已經包含了增上果。因此，不僅僅是可生法才是增上果，因為經中也說了非擇滅是心果。除了這些，沒有其他的果報意義了。

解釋說，《正理》有兩種解釋，前一種解釋是正確的，因為它與此論的觀點相同。而且，在各種論典中，都說擇滅是離系果，而沒有說是增上果。此外，在各種論典中列出增上果的體性時，都說是『有為法』，而沒有說『無為法』。

另一種解釋是，《正理》既沒有確立，也沒有駁斥，只是根據意義不同，所以都沒有妨礙。雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更好。在未來世，不僅僅是可生法才是增上果，也有地方說非擇滅法是心果。因此可以知道，諸不生法也是增上果。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『即斷道中至謂除異熟者』，解釋第三、第四句。因為是無漏的，所以要排除異熟果。還有其餘四種果報，可以參照前面有漏的解釋來理解。

『余有漏善至例此應釋者』，解釋第五句。

【English Translation】 English version:

Regarding the merits acquired through practice. Or the fruits used by the 'Ge Yue Shi' (Geyueshi, referring to practitioners). The four fruits refer to those attained through practice, which are the fruits used by the 'Bu Sheng Shi' (Bushengshi, non-arising beings). Therefore, the Hetu-vidya-nyaya-dvara-sastra states: 'The 'Shi Yong Guo' (Shiyongguo, fruits of effort) refers to the co-existent, liberation, cultivated, and cessation drawn by the power of the path.' 'Co-existent' refers to co-arising dharmas. 'Liberation' refers to immediate arising, which is the path of liberation. 'Cultivated' refers to the merits cultivated in the future. 'Cessation' refers to 'Ze Mie' (Zemie, selective cessation). Due to the power of the path, they can arise.

The 'Zeng Shang Guo' (Zengshangguo, dominant fruit) can also be inferred in the same way. Volume 43 of the Hetu-vidya-nyaya-dvara-sastra states: 'The 'Zeng Shang Guo', one explanation is that it refers to the remaining conditioned dharmas other than self-nature, but excluding the previous life.' Some believe that cessation should also be the dominant fruit of the path because the power of the path can attain it. If so, why does the Vibhasa only say that the cessation of the ten 'Sui Mian' (Suimian, latent tendencies) of the desire realm is the 'Ku Fa Zhi Ren' (Kufazhiren, forbearance of the wisdom of suffering) 'Li Xi' (Lixi, detached) 'Shi Yong Guo', and not the dominant fruit?

Even if it is not mentioned, it cannot be said that it is not that kind of fruit. Because in that passage, it also says that 'Ku Fa Zhi' (Kufazhi, wisdom of suffering) is the 'Deng Liu' (Dengliu, homogenous flow) 'Shi Yong Guo' of 'Ku Fa Zhi Ren', and it is not said to be the dominant fruit. But in reality, 'Ku Fa Zhi' is its dominant fruit, but because the meaning is already very clear, it is not mentioned. It should be understood in the same way here. Mentioning the 'Shi Yong Guo' actually already includes the 'Zeng Shang Guo'. Therefore, it is not only the 'Ke Sheng Fa' (Keshengfa, arising dharmas) that are the dominant fruit, because the sutra also says that 'Fei Ze Mie' (Feizemie, non-selective cessation) is the fruit of the mind. Besides these, there is no other meaning of fruit.

The explanation says that there are two explanations in the Hetu-vidya-nyaya-dvara-sastra, the former explanation is correct because it is the same as the view of this treatise. Moreover, in various treatises, it is said that 'Ze Mie' is the 'Li Xi Guo' (Lixiguo, detached fruit), and it is not said to be the dominant fruit. In addition, when listing the nature of the dominant fruit in various treatises, it is said to be 'conditioned dharmas', and not 'unconditioned dharmas'.

Another explanation is that the Hetu-vidya-nyaya-dvara-sastra neither establishes nor refutes, but only according to different meanings, so there is no hindrance. Although there are two explanations, the former explanation is better. In the future, it is not only the 'Ke Sheng Fa' that are the dominant fruit, but there are also places that say that 'Fei Ze Mie Fa' (Feizemiefa, non-selective cessation dharmas) is the fruit of the mind. Therefore, it can be known that the 'Bu Sheng Fa' (Bushengfa, non-arising dharmas) are also the dominant fruit. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

'Ji Duan Dao Zhong Zhi Wei Chu Yi Shu Zhe' (Jiduan Dao Zhong Zhi Wei Chu Yishu Zhe, from the cessation path to excluding the Vipaka fruit), explains the third and fourth sentences. Because it is unconditioned, the 'Yi Shu Guo' (Yishuguo, Vipaka fruit) must be excluded. There are four remaining fruits, which can be understood by referring to the previous explanation of conditioned fruits.

'Yu You Lou Shan Zhi Li Ci Ying Shi Zhe' (Yu You Lou Shan Zhi Li Ci Ying Shi Zhe, the remaining conditioned good should be explained accordingly), explains the fifth sentence.

六句。非斷道故除離系果。有餘四果準前應釋。

謂余無漏至及離系者。釋后兩句。是無漏故。是無記故。除異熟果。非斷道故除離系果。有餘三果亦準前釋。

已總分別至善等三業者。此下第二三性相對果。結前問起。一總問起。二別問起。

頌曰至后二三三果者。頌答。

論曰至遍前門義者。于異門中最後所說。皆如次言。顯隨所應遍前五門義也。

且善不善至及離系者。以三性業各別對三性法明果多．少。若三性業狹。色．行二蘊少分為體。若三性法寬通五蘊．及無為為體。寬．狹不等　若不善業以無記法為等流果者。謂苦。集遍行不善。及見苦所斷余不善業。以有身見．邊執見品諸無記法為等流果故。或遍行因等流果。或是同類因等流果　若無記業以不善法為等流果者。謂有身見．邊執見品諸無記業。以諸五部不善法為等流果。或為遍行因等流果。或為同類因等流果。余文思之可知。

已辨三性至后業果故者。此即第三於三世相對果。以三世業對三世法明果多．少。三世業狹。唯色．行二蘊少分為體。三世法寬。通五蘊為體。餘思可知。

已辨三世至不遮等流者。此即第四諸地相對果。以此文證離系果非地法攝　又解通舉九地業以同地法為四果。若別分別。上八

【現代漢語翻譯】六句：因為不是斷道的原因，所以排除離系果（Visamyoga-phala）。剩餘的四種果，參照前面的解釋。

『謂余無漏至及離系者』：解釋後面兩句。因為是無漏的緣故，因為是無記的緣故，所以排除異熟果（Vipāka-phala）。因為不是斷道的原因，所以排除離系果。剩餘的三種果，也參照前面的解釋。

『已總分別至善等三業者』：下面第二部分是三性相對的果。總結前面的內容，提出問題。一、總的提問。二、分別提問。

『頌曰至后二三三果者』：用偈頌回答。

『論曰至遍前門義者』：在不同的角度中最後所說的，都按照順序來說明，顯示了根據所應遍及前面五種角度的含義。

『且善不善至及離系者』：用三種性質的業，分別對應三種性質的法，來說明果的多和少。如果三種性質的業範圍狹窄，以色蘊（Rūpa-skandha）、行蘊（Saṃskāra-skandha）中少部分為本體。如果三種性質的法範圍寬廣，貫通五蘊（Pañca-skandha）以及無為法（Asaṃskṛta-dharma）為本體。寬廣和狹窄不相等。如果不善業以無記法（Avyākṛta-dharma）作為等流果（Nisyanda-phala）的情況，指的是苦諦（Duḥkha-satya）、集諦（Samudaya-satya）中遍行不善，以及見苦所斷的其餘不善業，以有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi）、邊執見（Antagrahā-dṛṣṭi）品類的各種無記法作為等流果的緣故。或者是遍行因的等流果，或者是同類因的等流果。如果無記業以不善法作為等流果的情況，指的是有身見、邊執見品類的各種無記業，以五部（五種煩惱類別）中的各種不善法作為等流果。或者是遍行因的等流果，或者是同類因的等流果。其餘的文句思考後就可以明白。

『已辨三性至后業果故者』：這是第三部分，關於三世相對的果。用三世的業，對應三世的法，來說明果的多和少。三世的業範圍狹窄，只有色蘊、行蘊中少部分為本體。三世的法範圍寬廣，貫通五蘊為本體。其餘的思考後就可以明白。

『已辨三世至不遮等流者』：這是第四部分，關於諸地相對的果。用這段文字證明離系果不是地法所攝。又解釋說，總的來說，九地的業以同地的法作為四種果。如果分別來說，上面的八地...

【English Translation】 Six sentences: Because it is not the cause of the path of cessation, the Visamyoga-phala (fruit of detachment) is excluded. The remaining four fruits should be explained according to the previous explanations.

'Referring to the remaining unconditioned up to and including detachment': Explains the latter two sentences. Because it is unconditioned, because it is neutral, the Vipāka-phala (resultant fruit) is excluded. Because it is not the cause of the path of cessation, the Visamyoga-phala is excluded. The remaining three fruits should also be explained according to the previous explanations.

'Having generally distinguished up to the three karmas of good, etc.': The second part below concerns the fruits relative to the three natures. Summarizes the previous content and raises questions. First, a general question is raised. Second, questions are raised separately.

'The verse says up to the latter two, three, and three fruits': Answers with a verse.

'The treatise says up to pervading the meaning of the previous doors': What is said last in different perspectives is explained in order, showing that it pervades the meaning of the previous five perspectives as appropriate.

'Moreover, good, non-good, up to and including detachment': Using the three natures of karma, corresponding separately to the three natures of dharma, to explain the quantity of fruits. If the three natures of karma are narrow in scope, they take a small part of the Rūpa-skandha (form aggregate) and Saṃskāra-skandha (volitional formations aggregate) as their substance. If the three natures of dharma are broad in scope, they encompass the Pañca-skandha (five aggregates) and Asaṃskṛta-dharma (unconditioned dharma) as their substance. The broad and narrow are not equal. If non-good karma takes Avyākṛta-dharma (neutral dharma) as its Nisyanda-phala (outflow fruit), it refers to the pervasive non-good in Duḥkha-satya (truth of suffering) and Samudaya-satya (truth of origin), and the remaining non-good karma severed by seeing suffering, taking various neutral dharmas of the Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self) and Antagrahā-dṛṣṭi (view of extremes) categories as the cause of the outflow fruit. Or it is the outflow fruit of the pervasive cause, or it is the outflow fruit of the homogenous cause. If neutral karma takes non-good dharma as its outflow fruit, it refers to various neutral karmas of the Satkāya-dṛṣṭi and Antagrahā-dṛṣṭi categories, taking various non-good dharmas in the five categories (five categories of afflictions) as the outflow fruit. Or it is the outflow fruit of the pervasive cause, or it is the outflow fruit of the homogenous cause. The remaining sentences can be understood after reflection.

'Having distinguished the three natures up to the subsequent karma fruit': This is the third part, concerning the fruits relative to the three times. Using the karma of the three times, corresponding to the dharma of the three times, to explain the quantity of fruits. The karma of the three times is narrow in scope, only taking a small part of the Rūpa-skandha and Saṃskāra-skandha as its substance. The dharma of the three times is broad in scope, encompassing the five aggregates as its substance. The rest can be understood after reflection.

'Having distinguished the three times up to not precluding the outflow': This is the fourth part, concerning the fruits relative to the various grounds. This passage proves that the Visamyoga-phala is not included in the dharma of the grounds. It also explains that, generally speaking, the karma of the nine grounds takes the dharma of the same ground as the four fruits. If explained separately, the upper eight grounds...

地業以同地法為五果故。雜心論云。若正思惟地亦有解脫果　若準雜心文離系果亦地法攝。離系既是無為。不依地起。如何可說地法所攝。故知此論所說為善。餘思可知。

已辨諸地至為五果者。此即第五三學相對果。以三學業對三學法為果差別。若學業以學位色．行二蘊少分為體。若無學業以無學位色．行二蘊少分為體。若非學非無學業以有漏色．行二蘊少分為體　若學法以學位有為無漏法為體。若無學法以無學位有為無漏法為體。若非學非無學法除有為無漏法以餘一切法為體　總而言之。三學業狹。三學法寬。文亦可知　正理論云無學業以學法為一果謂增上。理應言二。謂加等流　解云正理意說。鈍無學道與未來利學道為同類因。此約不現起。或時解脫退已轉根為見至。以過去鈍無學道為同類因。學見至為等流果。此約現起故言加等流。不同俱舍。此即論意各別。難為會釋　又解俱舍據同性相望漸次相生故。學與無學為因。無學非與學為因。

正理據異性相望故說無學亦與學為因　各據一義亦不相違　已辨學等至略法應爾者。此即第六三斷相對果。以三斷業對三斷法為果差別　若見所斷業以四諦所斷行蘊少分為體　若修所斷業以修所斷色．行二蘊少分為體　若非斷業以有為無漏色．行二蘊少分為體　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『地業以同地法為五果故』。《雜心論》說：『如果正確地思惟地，也有解脫果。』如果按照《雜心論》的說法，離系果也屬於地法所攝。離系既然是無為法，不依賴於地而生起，怎麼能說屬於地法所攝呢？所以知道此論所說是正確的。其餘的思考可以類推得知。

『已辨諸地至為五果者』，這指的是第五種三學相對果。以三學業對三學法作為果的差別。學業以學位色蘊、行蘊的少部分為體。無學業以無學位色蘊、行蘊的少部分為體。非學非無學業以有漏色蘊、行蘊的少部分為體。學法以學位有為無漏法為體。無學法以無學位有為無漏法為體。非學非無學法除了有為無漏法以外，以其餘一切法為體。總而言之，三學業範圍狹窄，三學法範圍寬廣。文中的意思也可以理解。正理論說無學業以學法為一果，即增上果。理應說二果，即加上等流果。解釋說，正理的意思是，鈍無學道與未來銳利的學道是同類因。這是就未現起的情況而言。或者有時解脫退失後轉變根器成為見至，以過去的鈍無學道作為同類因，學見至作為等流果。這是就現起的情況而言，所以說加上等流果。這與《俱舍論》不同，這是論著的意義各不相同，難以會通解釋。又解釋說，《俱舍論》是根據同性相望，漸次相生的關係，所以學與無學互為因，無學不能與學互為因。

正理是根據異性相望，所以說無學也能與學互為因。各自根據一種意義，也不互相違背。『已辨學等至略法應爾者』，這指的是第六種三斷相對果。以三斷業對三斷法作為果的差別。見所斷業以四諦所斷行蘊的少部分為體。修所斷業以修所斷色蘊、行蘊的少部分為體。非斷業以有為無漏色蘊、行蘊的少部分為體。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Because the earth karma takes the same-earth dharma as the five fruits.' The 雜心論 (Za Xin Lun) [Treatise on the Summary of the Mind] says: 'If one correctly contemplates the earth, there is also the fruit of liberation.' If according to the 雜心論 (Za Xin Lun), the fruit of separation from bonds is also included in the earth dharma. Since separation from bonds is 無為 (wu wei) [unconditioned], it does not arise dependent on the earth. How can it be said to be included in the earth dharma? Therefore, it is known that what this treatise says is correct. The remaining considerations can be known by analogy.

'Having distinguished the various earths to be the five fruits,' this refers to the fifth, the fruit relative to the three learnings. The difference in fruits is based on the three learning karmas in relation to the three learning dharmas. Learning karma takes a small portion of the form (色蘊 (se yun)) and formation (行蘊 (xing yun)) aggregates of the state of learning as its substance. Non-learning karma takes a small portion of the form and formation aggregates of the state of non-learning as its substance. Neither-learning-nor-non-learning karma takes a small portion of the defiled form and formation aggregates as its substance. Learning dharma takes the conditioned unconditioned dharma of the state of learning as its substance. Non-learning dharma takes the conditioned unconditioned dharma of the state of non-learning as its substance. Neither-learning-nor-non-learning dharma takes all remaining dharmas except for the conditioned unconditioned dharma as its substance. In summary, the three learning karmas are narrow, and the three learning dharmas are broad. The meaning in the text can also be understood. The 正理論 (Zheng Li Lun) [Treatise on Correct Reasoning] says that non-learning karma takes learning dharma as one fruit, namely, the superior fruit. It should be said to be two, namely, adding the outflowing fruit. The explanation says that the meaning of 正理論 (Zheng Li Lun) is that dull non-learning path is the cause of the same kind as the sharp learning path of the future. This is in terms of non-manifestation. Or sometimes, after liberation is lost, the root is transformed into a 見至 (jian zhi) [one who has attained the vision of truth], taking the past dull non-learning path as the cause of the same kind, and the learning 見至 (jian zhi) as the outflowing fruit. This is in terms of manifestation, so it is said to add the outflowing fruit. This is different from the 俱舍論 (Ju She Lun) [Abhidharmakośabhāṣya], the meanings of the treatises are different and difficult to reconcile. Another explanation says that the 俱舍論 (Ju She Lun) is based on the relationship of the same nature looking at each other, gradually arising, so learning and non-learning are causes of each other, and non-learning is not a cause of learning.

正理論 (Zheng Li Lun) is based on the different nature looking at each other, so it says that non-learning can also be a cause of learning. Each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. 'Having distinguished learning and so on, the abbreviated dharma should be so,' this refers to the sixth, the fruit relative to the three severances. The difference in fruits is based on the three severance karmas in relation to the three severance dharmas. Karma to be severed by seeing takes a small portion of the formation aggregate to be severed by the four noble truths as its substance. Karma to be severed by cultivation takes a small portion of the form and formation aggregates to be severed by cultivation as its substance. Non-severance karma takes a small portion of the conditioned unconditioned form and formation aggregates as its substance.

若見所斷法以四諦所斷受．想．行．識蘊為體　若修所斷法以修所斷五蘊為體　若非所斷法以一切無漏法為體　總而言之。三斷業狹。三斷法寬。既知寬．狹思擇可知　第六句言皆如次者。隨其所應遍上諸門。頌后並應言皆如次應知。略法應爾。

因辨諸業至俱相違第三者。此即大文第二釋本論業。問起頌答。

論曰至二說差別者。應作等三各有兩說。初師意說染污三業名不應作　諸善三業名為應作　諸無覆無記三業名為第三　后師意說染污三業。及無覆中諸壞軌則不合禮儀身．語二業。並能等起此二業思。皆名不應作。謂染污全。無覆少分　諸善三業。及無覆中不壞軌則合俗禮儀身．語二業。並能等起此二業思。皆名應作。謂善業全。無覆少分　于無覆中除應作．不應作三業。所餘三業名為第三　於二師中。前約勝義盡理而說。后約世俗而非盡理。故正理云。若依世俗后亦可然。若就勝義前說為善(已上論文)既知寬．狹。釋文可知。

為由一業至為多業引者。此下第三明引．滿因。就中。一明業感多．少。二明引．滿因體　此即第一明業感多．少。總起兩問。頌曰至多業能圓滿者。若言一業引一生。不能引多生。答前問　若言一生一業引。不由多業引。答后問　下句釋妨。論曰至方說名生者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果觀察所應斷除的法，以四聖諦所斷的受蘊（feelings）、想蘊（perceptions）、行蘊（mental formations）、識蘊（consciousness）為本體。如果觀察修所應斷除的法，以修所應斷除的五蘊為本體。如果觀察非所應斷除的法，以一切無漏法（unconditioned dharmas）為本體。總而言之，三斷業（three types of karma to be abandoned）範圍狹窄，三斷法（three types of dharmas to be abandoned）範圍寬廣。既然知道了寬窄，仔細思考就可以明白。第六句說『皆如次者』，是說隨其所應普遍應用於上述各個方面。頌文之後都應該說『皆如次應知』。簡略的法應該如此。

因辨諸業至俱相違第三者：這即是大文第二部分，解釋本論中的業。提出問題並回答。

論曰至二說差別者：應該寫作『等三各有兩說』。第一位論師的意思是說，染污的三業（身、語、意）名為『不應作』；諸善的三業名為『應作』；諸無覆無記（morally neutral）的三業名為『第三』。后一位論師的意思是說，染污的三業，以及無覆無記中那些破壞規矩、不合禮儀的身、語二業，以及能夠引發這兩種業的思（intention），都名為『不應作』。也就是說，染污業全部，無覆無記業少部分。諸善的三業，以及無覆無記中不破壞規矩、符合世俗禮儀的身、語二業，以及能夠引發這兩種業的思，都名為『應作』。也就是說，善業全部，無覆無記業少部分。在無覆無記業中，除去『應作』、『不應作』的三業，剩餘的三業名為『第三』。在兩位論師中，前一位是就勝義諦（ultimate truth）盡理而說，后一位是就世俗諦（conventional truth）而非盡理而說。所以《正理》中說：『如果依據世俗諦，后一種說法也可以成立。如果就勝義諦而言，前一種說法更好。』（以上是論文內容）既然知道了寬窄，解釋文字就可以明白了。

為由一業至為多業引者：這以下第三部分說明引業（projecting karma）和滿業（completing karma）的因。其中，一是說明業所感的多少，二是說明引業和滿業的本體。這即是第一部分，說明業所感的多少。總共提出兩個問題。頌曰至多業能圓滿者：如果說一業只能引發一生，不能引發多生，這是回答前一個問題。如果說一生只能由一業引發，不能由多業引發，這是回答后一個問題。下句解釋妨難。論曰至方說名生者：

【English Translation】 English version: If we observe the dharmas to be abandoned, their substance is the aggregates of feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formations (samskara), and consciousness (vijnana) that are abandoned by the Four Noble Truths. If we observe the dharmas to be abandoned through cultivation, their substance is the five aggregates to be abandoned through cultivation. If we observe the dharmas that are not to be abandoned, their substance is all unconditioned dharmas (asrava). In summary, the three types of karma to be abandoned are narrow in scope, while the three types of dharmas to be abandoned are broad in scope. Having understood the breadth and narrowness, careful consideration will make it clear. The sixth sentence, 'all in accordance with their order,' means that it should be applied universally to all the aspects mentioned above, as appropriate. After the verse, it should also be said, 'all should be understood in accordance with their order.' The abbreviated dharma should be like this.

Because of distinguishing the karmas to the third of mutual contradiction: This is the second part of the main text, explaining the karma in this treatise. A question is raised and answered.

The treatise says to the difference of the two explanations: It should be written as 'the three each have two explanations.' The first teacher's intention is that the defiled three karmas (body, speech, and mind) are called 'should not be done'; the virtuous three karmas are called 'should be done'; the morally neutral (uncovered and unspecified) three karmas are called 'the third'. The second teacher's intention is that the defiled three karmas, and among the morally neutral karmas, those bodily and verbal karmas that violate rules and are not in accordance with etiquette, and the intention (cetanā) that can give rise to these two karmas, are all called 'should not be done.' That is to say, all defiled karma, and a small part of morally neutral karma. The virtuous three karmas, and among the morally neutral karmas, those bodily and verbal karmas that do not violate rules and are in accordance with worldly etiquette, and the intention that can give rise to these two karmas, are all called 'should be done.' That is to say, all virtuous karma, and a small part of morally neutral karma. Among the morally neutral karmas, excluding the three karmas of 'should be done' and 'should not be done,' the remaining three karmas are called 'the third'. Among the two teachers, the former speaks from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), exhausting the principle, while the latter speaks from the perspective of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), not exhausting the principle. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'If based on conventional truth, the latter explanation can also be established. If based on ultimate truth, the former explanation is better.' (The above is the content of the treatise.) Having understood the breadth and narrowness, the explanation of the text can be understood.

Because one karma leads to many karmas: The third part below explains the causes of projecting karma (ākṣepaka-karma) and completing karma (paripūraka-karma). Among them, one is to explain how much is felt by karma, and the other is to explain the substance of projecting karma and completing karma. This is the first part, explaining how much is felt by karma. Two questions are raised in total. The verse says to many karmas can complete: If it is said that one karma can only project one life, and cannot project many lives, this answers the first question. If it is said that one life can only be projected by one karma, and cannot be projected by many karmas, this answers the second question. The following sentence explains the obstacle. The treatise says to then it is said to be born:

依我所宗說一切有部應作是說　但由一業。顯非由多業　唯引一生。顯非引多生　若一生多業引。應數死生。業果別故　若一業引多生。時分定業應成雜亂。

若爾何緣至多受快樂者。難。若言一業唯引一生不引多生。何故無滅。作如是言。昔于獨覺一施食為因。所感異熟果七返生天．人　或一施食為異熟因。感得七生天．人往．返。故立一業能引多生　無滅。梵云阿泥律陀。舊云阿那律。或云阿尼樓豆皆訛也。

彼由一業至獲大富樂者。通中兩釋。此即初釋。彼由一業但感一生。餘六因茲展轉別造。顯由初力故言一施　喻況可知　宿生智者。或由業感。或非業感。此中但取由業感者。

復有說者至分分差別者。此即后釋。由一施食起多思愿。感天．人別。剎那不同。熟有先．后。約所施食依故說一言。據能施食思理實眾多故。非一業能引多生。若引多生還成雜亂　亦無一生多業所引。勿眾同分業果別故分分差別數死．數生。

雖但一業至多缺減者者。釋第二句。引業雖一。滿業許多。一色喻引業。眾采喻滿業　是故下顯多滿業。又正理四十三云。今於此中一色所喻。為一類業。為一剎那。若喻一類違此宗理。以非一業引一生言。可約一類類必多故。多引一生不應理故。若言一色喻一剎那。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本依我所宗，說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）應當這樣說：只是由一個業（karma，行為），表明不是由多個業；只引導一生，表明不是引導多生。如果一生由多個業引導，就應該計算死亡和出生，因為業的果報是不同的。如果一個業引導多生，那麼時分決定的業就會變得雜亂。

如果這樣，為什麼有人會多次享受快樂呢？這是個難題。如果說一個業只引導一生，不引導多生，為什麼沒有滅盡呢？可以這樣說：過去因為對一位獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）的一次施食作為因，所感得的異熟果（vipaka-phala，成熟的果報）是七次往返于天界和人間。或者一次施食作為異熟因，感得七次往返于天界和人間。所以建立了一個業能夠引導多生的說法，沒有滅盡。梵語阿泥律陀（Aniruddha），舊譯為阿那律，或者阿尼樓豆，都是訛誤。

他因為一個業而獲得巨大的財富和快樂，這有兩種解釋。這是第一種解釋：他因為一個業只感得一生，其餘六生的因由這次的業逐漸發展創造。顯示是由最初的力量，所以說一次施食。比喻的情況可以知道。宿生有智慧的人，或者由業感得，或者不是由業感得。這裡只取由業感得的情況。

還有一種說法是，因為一次施食而產生多種思愿，感得天界和人間的差別，剎那不同，成熟有先後。根據所施的食物，所以說一個。根據能施食的思慮，實際上是很多的，所以不是一個業能夠引導多生。如果引導多生，還是會變得雜亂。也沒有一生由多個業所引導的情況，不要因為眾同分（nikayasabhaga，眾生共業）的業果不同，而導致分分差別，計算死亡和出生。

雖然只是一個業，卻有很多缺減，這是解釋第二句話。引業（janaka-karma，能引生果報的業）雖然只有一個，滿業（puraka-karma，能圓滿果報的業）卻有很多。一種顏色比喻引業，多種色彩比喻滿業。所以下面顯示有很多滿業。又，《正理經》（Abhidharmakosabhasya）第四十三卷說，現在在這裡，一種顏色所比喻的是一類業，還是一個剎那？如果比喻一類業，就違背了這個宗派的道理，因為不是一個業引導一生的說法，可以約一類業來說，一類業必定有很多，所以多個業引導一生是不合理的。如果說一種顏色比喻一個剎那，

【English Translation】 English version According to my school, the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivada, one of the Buddhist schools) should say this: it is only by one karma (karma, action) that it is shown not to be by multiple karmas; it only leads to one life, showing that it does not lead to multiple lives. If one life is led by multiple karmas, then death and birth should be counted, because the results of karma are different. If one karma leads to multiple lives, then the karmas determined by time would become chaotic.

If so, why do some people experience happiness multiple times? This is a difficult question. If it is said that one karma only leads to one life and does not lead to multiple lives, why is there no extinction? It can be said that in the past, because of one offering of food to a Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary enlightened one) as a cause, the resulting vipaka-phala (vipaka-phala, mature result) is seven returns between the heavens and the human realm. Or one offering of food as a vipaka-hetu (vipaka-hetu, cause of mature result) results in seven returns between the heavens and the human realm. Therefore, the statement that one karma can lead to multiple lives is established, without extinction. The Sanskrit word is Aniruddha, formerly translated as Anaritsu, or Aniloudu, all of which are corruptions.

He obtains great wealth and happiness from one karma, which has two explanations. This is the first explanation: he only experiences one life from one karma, and the causes of the remaining six lives are gradually created by this karma. It shows that it is due to the initial power, so it is said to be one offering of food. The analogy can be understood. Those who have wisdom from past lives are either caused by karma or not caused by karma. Here, only the case caused by karma is taken.

Another saying is that because of one offering of food, many thoughts and wishes arise, resulting in the differences between the heavens and the human realm, which are different in each moment, and the maturation has a sequence. According to the food offered, it is said to be one. According to the thoughts of the one who offers food, there are actually many, so it is not that one karma can lead to multiple lives. If it leads to multiple lives, it will still become chaotic. There is also no case where one life is led by multiple karmas, lest the results of the karma of the nikayasabhaga (nikayasabhaga, common karma of sentient beings) are different, resulting in differences in each part, and counting death and birth.

Although it is only one karma, there are many deficiencies, which is to explain the second sentence. Although the janaka-karma (janaka-karma, karma that can lead to the result) is only one, there are many puraka-karma (puraka-karma, karma that can complete the result). One color is a metaphor for janaka-karma, and multiple colors are a metaphor for puraka-karma. Therefore, it is shown below that there are many puraka-karma. Also, the Abhidharmakosabhasya (Abhidharmakosabhasya), volume 43, says that now, what is the metaphor of one color here, is it a type of karma, or a moment? If it is a metaphor for a type of karma, it violates the principles of this school, because the statement that one karma does not lead to one life can be said about a type of karma, and a type of karma must have many, so it is unreasonable for multiple karmas to lead to one life. If it is said that one color is a metaphor for one moment,

非一剎那能圖形狀。即所立喻于證無能。今見此中喻一類業。如何引業約類得成。引一趣業有眾多故。此言意顯。一類業中唯一剎那引眾同分。同類．異類．多剎那業能為圓滿故說為多。故如一色先圖形狀。后填眾采。此言應理　非唯業力至勢力劣故者。復重料簡。引．滿二因非唯是業亦通余法。勝．劣不同。如文可解。

如是二類其體是何者。此下第二明引．滿二因體。此即問也。

頌曰至皆通引滿者。答。二無心定以是善故。雖有異熟而無勢力引眾同分。以與諸業非俱有因故。得亦無力引眾同分。以與諸業非同一果故。所餘一切不善．善有漏法。以與諸業為俱有因。有勢力故皆通引．滿　又婆沙十九亦說眾同分是引果。余是滿果　又正理論意。思感引．滿。余唯感滿　問二定．及得。既不感引感何滿果　答如婆沙十九云。評曰應作是說。無想異熟唯是無想定果。彼命根．眾同分．及五色根異熟。唯是第四靜慮有心業果。彼余蘊異熟是共果　問滅盡定受何異熟果耶　答受非想非非想處四蘊異熟果。除命根．眾同分。彼唯是業果故。

問諸得受何異熟果耶　答諸得受色．心．心所法．心不相應行異熟果。色者。謂色．香．味．觸。非五色根。彼業果故。心．心所法者。謂苦受．樂受．不苦不樂受。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『並非一個剎那能夠完成形狀的描繪』。如果所設立的比喻不能證明這一點，那麼現在看到這個比喻中，一類業（karma）是如何通過引導業力而成就的呢？因為引導一個趣向的業力有很多。這句話的意思是說，在一類業中，只有一個剎那能夠引導眾同分（sattvabhāga，眾生的共業果報）。同類、異類、多個剎那的業力能夠使之圓滿，所以說是『多』。因此，就像一種顏色先描繪形狀，然後填充各種色彩，這種說法是合理的。『並非只有業力，還因為勢力弱小』。再次詳細考察，引導和圓滿這兩個原因，不僅僅是業力，也包括其他的法（dharma），只是勝劣不同，如同文中所解釋的。

『那麼這兩類（引導因和圓滿因）的本體是什麼呢？』下面第二部分說明引導因和圓滿因的本體，這就是提問。

『頌曰』到『皆通引滿者』。回答：二無心定（asaṃjñāsamāpatti，無想定和nirodhasamāpatti，滅盡定）因為是善法，雖然有異熟果（vipāka-phala，異熟果報），但是沒有勢力引導眾同分，因為與諸業不是俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因）。得（prāpti，獲得）也沒有力量引導眾同分，因為與諸業不是同一果。其餘一切不善、善的有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法），因為與諸業是俱有因，有勢力，所以都通於引導和圓滿。另外，《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第十九卷也說，眾同分是引導果，其餘是圓滿果。另外，《正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）的意思是，思（cetanā，意志）能感受引導和圓滿，其餘只能感受圓滿。問：二定和得，既然不能感受引導，那麼感受什麼圓滿果？答：如《婆沙論》第十九卷所說：『評論說，應該這樣說，無想異熟只是無想定的果。彼命根（jīvitendriya，生命力）、眾同分、以及五色根（pañca rūpendriyāṇi，五種感覺器官）的異熟，只是第四靜慮（caturtha-dhyāna，第四禪）有心業的果。其餘蘊（skandha，蘊）的異熟是共同的果。』問：滅盡定接受什麼異熟果呢？答：接受非想非非想處（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，既非有想也非無想處）的四蘊異熟果，除了命根、眾同分，它們只是業的果。

問：諸得（prāpti，獲得）接受什麼異熟果呢？答：諸得接受色（rūpa，物質）、心（citta，意識）、心所法（caitta-dharma，心理活動）、心不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，非心非色的抽像概念）的異熟果。色，指的是色、香、味、觸，不是五色根，因為它們是業的果。心、心所法，指的是苦受（duḥkha-vedanā，痛苦的感受）、樂受（sukha-vedanā，快樂的感受）、不苦不樂受（adukha-asukha-vedanā，既非痛苦也非快樂的感受）。

【English Translation】 English version 『It is not possible to depict a shape in a single moment.』 If the established metaphor cannot prove this, then how is it seen in this metaphor that one type of karma (karma) is accomplished through guiding karma? Because there are many karmas that guide towards one destination. The meaning of this statement is that within one type of karma, only one moment can guide the common share of beings (sattvabhāga, the shared karmic result of beings). Similar, dissimilar, and multiple moments of karma can perfect it, so it is said to be 『many.』 Therefore, just as one color first depicts the shape and then fills in various colors, this statement is reasonable. 『It is not only the power of karma, but also because the power is weak.』 Re-examine in detail, the two causes of guiding and perfecting are not only karma but also include other dharmas (dharma), but with different strengths and weaknesses, as explained in the text.

『Then what is the essence of these two types (guiding cause and perfecting cause)?』 The second part below explains the essence of the guiding cause and the perfecting cause, which is the question.

『The verse says』 to 『all are connected to guiding and perfecting.』 Answer: The two mindless samādhis (asaṃjñāsamāpatti, the samādhi of non-perception and nirodhasamāpatti, the samādhi of cessation) because they are wholesome dharmas, although they have resultant effects (vipāka-phala, resultant karmic retribution), they do not have the power to guide the common share of beings, because they are not co-existent causes (sahabhū-hetu, simultaneously existing causes) with the karmas. Attainment (prāpti, acquisition) also does not have the power to guide the common share of beings, because it is not the same result as the karmas. All other unwholesome and wholesome defiled dharmas (sāsrava-dharma, dharmas with afflictions), because they are co-existent causes with the karmas and have power, are connected to both guiding and perfecting. Also, the nineteenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra also says that the common share of beings is the guiding result, and the rest is the perfecting result. Also, the meaning of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is that thought (cetanā, volition) can experience guiding and perfecting, and the rest can only experience perfecting. Question: Since the two samādhis and attainment cannot experience guiding, then what perfecting result do they experience? Answer: As the nineteenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 『The commentary says that it should be said that the resultant effect of non-perception is only the result of the samādhi of non-perception. The life force (jīvitendriya, life faculty), the common share of beings, and the resultant effects of the five sense faculties (pañca rūpendriyāṇi, five sense organs) are only the result of the karma of the fourth dhyāna (caturtha-dhyāna, fourth meditation) with mind. The resultant effects of the remaining aggregates (skandha, aggregates) are the common result.』 Question: What resultant effect does the samādhi of cessation receive? Answer: It receives the resultant effect of the four aggregates of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception), except for the life force and the common share of beings, which are only the result of karma.

Question: What resultant effects do the attainments (prāpti, acquisitions) receive? Answer: The attainments receive the resultant effects of form (rūpa, matter), mind (citta, consciousness), mental factors (caitta-dharma, mental activities), and non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra, abstract concepts that are neither mind nor matter). Form refers to color, smell, taste, and touch, not the five sense faculties, because they are the result of karma. Mind and mental factors refer to painful feeling (duḥkha-vedanā, painful sensation), pleasant feeling (sukha-vedanā, pleasant sensation), and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (adukha-asukha-vedanā, neutral sensation).

及彼相應法。心不相應行者。謂諸得．生老住無常　又云問諸造業者為先造引眾同分業。為先造滿眾同分業耶　如是說者此即不定。或有先造引業后造滿業。或有先造滿業后造引業。隨造業者意樂起故。

薄伽梵說至其體云何者。此下大文第四明三重障。就中。一總明三障。二別明業障　就總明三障中。一出三障體。二約處．趣辨　此即第一齣三障體。依經起問　此品廣明諸業。以三障中業義相關。義便通明三障。

頌曰至北洲無想天者。頌答。

論曰至名為業障者。出業障體。可知。

煩惱有二至名煩惱障者。出煩惱障體。總而言之。煩惱有二。一者數行。謂恒起煩惱。二者猛利。謂上品煩惱。由此相對應作四句　一數行非猛利。謂下品煩惱數數現行　二猛利非數行。謂上品煩惱不數現行　三數行亦猛利。謂上品煩惱數現行　四非數行亦非猛利。謂下品煩惱不數現行　應知此中第一．第三句。唯數行者名煩惱障。如扇搋等煩惱數行難可伏除。故說為障。

上品煩惱雖復猛利。非恒起故易可伏除。不說為障　于下品中數行煩惱雖非猛利而難伏除。由彼恒行難得便故。謂下生中從中生上。令七加行伏道。苦忍等除道。無便得生　故煩惱中隨品上．下。但數數現行者名煩惱障體。總分二品

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以及與此相應的法。『心不相應行』指的是『得』（獲得）、『生』（出生）、『老』（衰老）、『住』（持續）、『無常』（變化）。

又有人問：『造業者是先造『引眾同分業』（引導眾生共同命運的業），還是先造『滿眾同分業』（圓滿眾生共同命運的業）呢？』這樣說是不確定的。有的人先造『引業』后造『滿業』，有的人先造『滿業』后造『引業』，這取決於造業者的意樂（動機和願望）而起。

薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）所說，直到『其體云何者』（它的本體是什麼）？以下是正文的第四部分，闡明三重障礙。其中，第一部分總的說明三種障礙，第二部分分別說明業障。在總的說明三種障礙中，第一點是指出三種障礙的本體，第二點是從處所和趣向來辨別。這裡是第一點，指出三種障礙的本體。依據經文提出問題。這一品廣泛地闡明各種業，因為在三種障礙中，業的意義相互關聯，因此順便一起說明三種障礙。

頌文說：『直到北洲無想天者』，這是用頌文來回答。

論中說：『直到名為業障者』，這是指出業障的本體，可以理解。

煩惱有兩種，『直到名煩惱障者』，這是指出煩惱障的本體。總的來說，煩惱有兩種：一種是『數行』（頻繁發生），指的是持續生起的煩惱；另一種是『猛利』（強烈），指的是上品煩惱。由此相對應，可以作出四句：第一句，『數行非猛利』，指的是下品煩惱頻繁地現行；第二句，『猛利非數行』，指的是上品煩惱不頻繁地現行；第三句，『數行亦猛利』，指的是上品煩惱頻繁地現行；第四句，『非數行亦非猛利』，指的是下品煩惱不頻繁地現行。應該知道，這其中第一句和第三句，只有頻繁發生的才稱為煩惱障。比如扇搋（閹人）等的煩惱，頻繁發生難以制伏消除，所以說是障礙。

上品煩惱雖然強烈，但不是持續生起，所以容易制伏消除，不說是障礙。在下品煩惱中，頻繁發生的煩惱雖然不強烈，但難以制伏消除，因為它持續發生，難以找到機會。比如在下生中，從中生上，使得七加行伏道，苦忍等除道，沒有機會產生。因此，在煩惱中，無論品級是上是下，只要是頻繁現行的，就稱為煩惱障的本體。總共分為兩品。

【English Translation】 English version: And the corresponding dharmas to that. 『Citta-viprayukta-samskaras』 (mind-non-associated formations) refer to 『prapti』 (attainment), 『jati』 (birth), 『jara』 (aging), 『sthiti』 (duration), and 『anitya』 (impermanence).

Furthermore, it is asked: 『Do those who create karma first create 『akarsha-nikaya-sabhaga-karma』 (karma that attracts the shared destiny of beings), or do they first create 『purana-nikaya-sabhaga-karma』 (karma that fulfills the shared destiny of beings)?』 To say so is uncertain. Some first create 『akarsha-karma』 (attracting karma) and then create 『purana-karma』 (fulfilling karma), while others first create 『purana-karma』 and then create 『akarsha-karma』. This arises according to the intention and desire of the karma creator.

What the Bhagavan (Blessed One) said, up to 『what is its essence?』 The following is the fourth major section, elucidating the three hindrances. Among them, the first part generally explains the three hindrances, and the second part separately explains the karma hindrance. In the general explanation of the three hindrances, the first point is to point out the essence of the three hindrances, and the second point is to distinguish them from the perspective of places and destinations. Here is the first point, pointing out the essence of the three hindrances. The question is raised based on the sutra. This chapter extensively elucidates various karmas, because in the three hindrances, the meaning of karma is interconnected, so the three hindrances are explained together incidentally.

The verse says: 『Up to the Asanjnasattvas (non-perceptual beings) of Uttarakuru (North Kurus),』 this is answering with a verse.

The treatise says: 『Up to what is called karma hindrance,』 this is pointing out the essence of karma hindrance, which can be understood.

There are two types of kleshas (afflictions), 『up to what is called klesha hindrance,』 this is pointing out the essence of klesha hindrance. Generally speaking, there are two types of kleshas: one is 『samkhya-carita』 (frequent occurrence), referring to constantly arising kleshas; the other is 『tivra』 (intense), referring to superior-grade kleshas. Correspondingly, four statements can be made: The first statement, 『samkhya-carita but not tivra,』 refers to inferior-grade kleshas that frequently manifest; the second statement, 『tivra but not samkhya-carita,』 refers to superior-grade kleshas that do not frequently manifest; the third statement, 『samkhya-carita and also tivra,』 refers to superior-grade kleshas that frequently manifest; the fourth statement, 『neither samkhya-carita nor tivra,』 refers to inferior-grade kleshas that do not frequently manifest. It should be known that among these, only those that frequently occur in the first and third statements are called klesha hindrance. For example, the kleshas of pandakas (eunuchs) and others frequently occur and are difficult to subdue and eliminate, so they are said to be hindrances.

Although superior-grade kleshas are intense, they do not constantly arise, so they are easy to subdue and eliminate, and are not said to be hindrances. Among inferior-grade kleshas, those that frequently occur, although not intense, are difficult to subdue and eliminate because they constantly occur and it is difficult to find an opportunity. For example, in lower births, from the middle to higher births, the seven preparatory practices to subdue the path, the forbearance of suffering and other paths of elimination, have no opportunity to arise. Therefore, among kleshas, regardless of whether the grade is superior or inferior, those that frequently manifest are called the essence of klesha hindrance. They are generally divided into two grades.

但言上．下。故不言中。或言上．下影中。可知。應知但依現行煩惱為其障體不依成就。故婆沙云。問云何建立此煩惱障。為依成就。為依現行　答此依現行。不依成就。若依成就者即一切有情無有差別等具成就諸煩惱故。

全三惡趣至名異熟障者。出異熟障體。謂三惡趣全。人趣中取北洲。天趣中取無想天。為異熟障。

此障何法者。問。謂障聖道至加行善根者。答。謂障聖道。及障聖道加行善根。或亦能障異生離染。故正理四十三云。能障聖道．及道資糧．並離染故(已上論文)即準此理。異熟障中不說大梵以有漏道能離染故。

又業障中至故此不說者。先明障廢立。于業障中理亦應說余決定業　謂餘一切定感惡趣　以聖不生三惡趣故。聖亦不受卵生．濕生。雖復亦有卵生．濕生得入聖道如世羅等。必無得聖受彼二生　得聖已去不受女身。雖有女人能入聖道。若得聖已必更不受女人之身　得聖已去于欲界中決定不受第八有身．及色．無色一處．二生等　諸未說者皆等以收　有如是等諸決定業。亦能為障令不入聖。亦應說在業障中收　然若有業由五因緣易見易知。此中偏說。謂處等五。于諸業中唯無間業具此五種。易見易知是故別說。餘業不然故此不說　處等五者。正理四十三釋云。毗婆沙說此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：但說了『上』、『下』，所以沒說『中』。或者說『上』、『下』也包含『中』，這是可以理解的。應該知道，煩惱障只是依據現行的煩惱作為它的障礙本體，而不是依據已經成就的煩惱。所以《婆沙論》說：『問：如何建立這個煩惱障？是依據成就的煩惱，還是依據現行的煩惱？答：這是依據現行的煩惱，而不是依據成就的煩惱。如果依據成就的煩惱，那麼一切有情眾生就沒有差別了，因為他們都同樣具有成就的各種煩惱。』

『全三惡趣』到『名為異熟障』，這是說明異熟障的本體。指的是整個三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生），人趣中取北俱盧洲，天趣中取無想天，這些是異熟障。

『此障何法』是提問。『謂障聖道』到『加行善根』是回答。指的是障礙聖道，以及障礙聖道加行位的善根。或者也能障礙異生（凡夫）的離欲染。所以《正理》第四十三卷說：『能障礙聖道、以及聖道的資糧、並且障礙離欲染。』（以上是論文原文）根據這個道理，異熟障中沒有說大梵天，因為有漏道能夠離欲染。

『又業障中』到『故此不說』，首先說明障礙的建立。在業障中，道理上也應該說其餘決定業，指的是其餘一切必定感生惡趣的業，因為聖者不會生到三惡趣。聖者也不會受卵生、濕生。雖然也有卵生、濕生眾生能夠進入聖道，比如世羅等，但絕對沒有證得聖果后還受這兩種生的。證得聖果后，不會再受女身。雖然有女人能夠進入聖道，但如果證得聖果，必定不會再受女人之身。證得聖果后，在欲界中，決定不會再受第八有身，以及色界、無色界的一處、二生等。所有未說的，都可以依此類推。有像這些決定業，也能成為障礙，使人不能進入聖道，也應該在業障中收錄。然而，如果有業因為五種因緣容易被看到、容易被知道，這裡就特別說明。這五種因緣指的是處等五事。在各種業中，只有無間業具備這五種，容易被看到、容易被知道，所以特別說明。其餘的業不是這樣，所以這裡沒有說。處等五事，《正理》第四十三卷解釋說，《毗婆沙論》說了這些。

【English Translation】 English version: It only speaks of 'above' and 'below,' hence not mentioning 'middle.' Or it can be understood that 'above' and 'below' include 'middle.' It should be known that the obstacle of afflictions (煩惱障, Fánnǎo zhàng) relies only on the present afflictions as its obstructing substance, not on those already accomplished. Therefore, the Vibhasha says: 'Question: How is this obstacle of afflictions established? Is it based on accomplished afflictions or present afflictions? Answer: It is based on present afflictions, not accomplished ones. If it were based on accomplished afflictions, then all sentient beings would be no different, as they all equally possess accomplished afflictions.'

From 'entire three evil destinies' to 'named the obstacle of fruition' (異熟障, Yìshú zhàng), this explains the substance of the obstacle of fruition. It refers to the entirety of the three evil destinies (地獄, dìyù - hells; 餓鬼, èguǐ - hungry ghosts; 畜生, chùshēng - animals), the northern continent (北俱盧洲, Běijūlúzhōu) among humans, and the Heaven of Non-Perception (無想天, Wúxiǎng tiān) among the heavens, as these are the obstacles of fruition.

'What dharma does this obstruct?' is the question. 'Obstructing the noble path' to 'roots of practice' is the answer. It refers to obstructing the noble path (聖道, Shèngdào), as well as obstructing the roots of virtue in the stage of practice for the noble path. Or it can also obstruct the separation from desire of ordinary beings (異生, Yìshēng). Therefore, Abhidharmakoshabhashya (正理, Zhènglǐ) 43 says: 'It can obstruct the noble path, as well as the resources for the path, and also the separation from desire.' (The above is the original text of the treatise.) According to this principle, the Great Brahma (大梵天, Dà Fàntiān) is not mentioned in the obstacle of fruition because the path with outflows (有漏道, Yǒulòudào) can separate from desire.

From 'also in the obstacle of karma' to 'therefore this is not mentioned,' it first explains the establishment of obstacles. In the obstacle of karma (業障, Yèzhàng), it should also be said that other determinate karmas, referring to all other karmas that definitely cause rebirth in evil destinies, because sages are not born in the three evil destinies. Sages also do not receive birth from eggs or moisture. Although there are beings born from eggs or moisture who can enter the noble path, such as Sela (世羅, Shìluó), there is absolutely no one who attains sainthood and still receives these two kinds of birth. After attaining sainthood, one will not receive a female body. Although there are women who can enter the noble path, if they attain sainthood, they will definitely not receive a female body again. After attaining sainthood, in the desire realm, one will definitely not receive the eighth existence, as well as one place or two births in the form and formless realms. All that is not mentioned can be inferred by analogy. There are such determinate karmas that can also become obstacles, preventing one from entering the noble path, and should also be included in the obstacle of karma. However, if there is karma that is easily seen and easily known due to five causes, it is specifically mentioned here. These five causes refer to the five things such as place. Among all karmas, only the karma of immediate retribution (無間業, Wújiàn yè) possesses these five, making it easy to see and easy to know, so it is specifically mentioned. Other karmas are not like this, so they are not mentioned here. The five things such as place, Abhidharmakoshabhashya 43 explains, the Vibhasha speaks of these.

五因緣易見易知說為業障。謂處．趣．生．果．及補特伽羅。處謂此五定以母等為所起處。趣謂此五定以地獄為所趣故。生謂此五定無間生感異熟故。果謂此五決定能招非愛果故。補特伽羅謂此五逆依行重惑。補特伽羅共了此人能害母等　餘業不爾不立為障　又婆沙一百一十五。於此五中。不說處。加自性。故彼論云。自性故者。謂此五種性是決定極重惡業。餘四同此論。

余障廢立如應當知者。余煩惱障．及異熟障隨義廢立。如應當知　且以一義立煩惱障。謂數行煩惱。余非數行不立為障　又以一義立異熟障。謂生是處定不入聖。余處不定不立為障。又婆沙一百一十五云。問余洲亦有異熟為障。如扇搋．半擇迦．無形．二形等。此中何故不說。答此中應說。而不說者當知此是有餘之說。是以前說此中三障皆有餘說。復有說者。此中但說決定為障。彼非決定。由彼有情所有異熟。或有為障。或不為障。是以不說(解云如是黃門拔脫諸牛。黃門等事現得男根。亦能入聖故言不定)　又解餘二障廢立。於五因緣中如應當知。於五種中且以二義立煩惱障。處．及補特伽羅。處謂起數行煩惱處。補特伽羅謂起彼煩惱者。余惑不爾故不立障。於五種中亦以二義立異熟障。處．及補特伽羅。處謂受異熟障處。補特伽羅謂受彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本五種因緣容易見到也容易知道，（它們）被稱為業障（Karma Obstruction）。這五種是：處（Place，指造業的處所）、趣（Destination，指所去的目的地）、生（Birth，指產生）、果（Result，指結果）以及補特伽羅（Pudgala，指造業的個體）。處（Place）是指這五種（惡業）必定以母親等（作為所針對的）處所而生起。趣（Destination）是指這五種（惡業）必定以地獄作為所去的目的地。生（Birth）是指這五種（惡業）必定是無間地產生並感受異熟果報。果（Result）是指這五種（惡業）決定能夠招感不悅意的果報。補特伽羅（Pudgala）是指這五逆罪（五種逆罪）依仗著強烈的迷惑而行。補特伽羅共同認知到這個人能夠加害母親等等。（而）其他的業不是這樣，所以不被立為障礙。此外，《婆沙論》第一百一十五卷說，在這五種（因緣）中，沒有說『處』，而是加上了『自性』（Nature）。所以該論說：『自性故者，謂此五種性是決定極重惡業。』其餘四種與此論相同。

其餘障礙的廢立應當如實了知：其餘的煩惱障（Klesha Obstruction）以及異熟障（Vipaka Obstruction）隨著意義的廢立，應當如實了知。首先以一個意義來建立煩惱障，即經常生起的煩惱。其餘不經常生起的煩惱不被立為障礙。又以一個意義來建立異熟障，即所生之處決定不能進入聖道。其餘之處不決定，所以不被立為障礙。此外，《婆沙論》第一百一十五卷說：『問：其餘洲也有異熟作為障礙嗎？如扇搋（Pandaka，指閹人）、半擇迦（Napumsaka，指半陰陽人）、無形（Arupa，指沒有性器官者）、二形（Ubhayavyañjanaka，指具有雙重性器官者）等。這裡為什麼不說呢？』答：『這裡應該說，但是沒有說，應當知道這是有餘之說。』所以前面說這三種障礙都有有餘之說。還有一種說法是，這裡只說決定性的（異熟）作為障礙，那些不是決定性的。由於那些有情所有的異熟，或者作為障礙，或者不作為障礙，因此沒有說。（解釋說，如太監拔脫諸牛，太監等的事情現在得到了男根，也能進入聖道，所以說不決定。）又解釋其餘兩種障礙的廢立，在五種因緣中應當如實了知。在五種（因緣）中，首先以兩種意義來建立煩惱障：處（Place）以及補特伽羅（Pudgala）。處（Place）是指生起經常生起的煩惱的處所。補特伽羅（Pudgala）是指生起那些煩惱的人。其餘的迷惑不是這樣，所以不被立為障礙。在五種（因緣）中，也以兩種意義來建立異熟障：處（Place）以及補特伽羅（Pudgala）。處（Place）是指感受異熟障礙的處所。補特伽羅（Pudgala）是指感受那些（異熟）的（人）。

【English Translation】 English version The five conditions are easy to see and easy to know, and are said to be Karma Obstructions. These five are: Place (the location where karma is created), Destination (the place to which one goes), Birth (the arising), Result (the consequence), and Pudgala (the individual who creates karma). Place refers to the fact that these five (evil deeds) definitely arise with the mother, etc., as the place (targeted). Destination refers to the fact that these five (evil deeds) definitely take hell as the destination to which one goes. Birth refers to the fact that these five (evil deeds) definitely produce and experience the Vipaka (result of actions) without interruption. Result refers to the fact that these five (evil deeds) definitely can bring about undesirable consequences. Pudgala refers to the fact that these five rebellious acts (five rebellious crimes) are carried out relying on strong delusion. The Pudgala commonly recognizes that this person can harm the mother, etc. Other karmas are not like this, so they are not established as obstructions. Furthermore, the one hundred and fifteenth fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that among these five (conditions), 'Place' is not mentioned, but 'Nature' is added. Therefore, that treatise says: 'The reason for 'Nature' is that these five natures are definitely extremely heavy evil karmas.' The other four are the same as this treatise.

The establishment and rejection of other obstructions should be known as they are: The remaining Klesha Obstruction (Obstruction of Afflictions) and Vipaka Obstruction (Obstruction of Retribution) should be known as they are, according to the meaning of their establishment and rejection. First, establish Klesha Obstruction with one meaning, that is, frequently arising afflictions. The remaining infrequently arising afflictions are not established as obstructions. Also, establish Vipaka Obstruction with one meaning, that is, the place of birth is definitely unable to enter the path of the sages. Other places are not definite, so they are not established as obstructions. Furthermore, the one hundred and fifteenth fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: Do other continents also have Vipaka as an obstruction? Such as Pandaka (eunuch), Napumsaka (hermaphrodite), Arupa (one without sexual organs), Ubhayavyañjanaka (one with dual sexual organs), etc. Why are they not mentioned here?' Answer: 'They should be mentioned here, but they are not mentioned, it should be known that this is a partial statement.' Therefore, it was said earlier that these three obstructions all have partial statements. There is another saying that only definite (Vipaka) is said to be an obstruction here, those are not definite. Because the Vipaka of those sentient beings, either acts as an obstruction or does not act as an obstruction, therefore it is not mentioned. (Explanation: For example, eunuchs castrating cattle, the affairs of eunuchs now obtaining male roots, can also enter the path of the sages, so it is said to be indefinite.) Also, explain the establishment and rejection of the remaining two obstructions, which should be known as they are in the five conditions. Among the five (conditions), first establish Klesha Obstruction with two meanings: Place and Pudgala. Place refers to the place where frequently arising afflictions arise. Pudgala refers to the person who gives rise to those afflictions. Other delusions are not like this, so they are not established as obstructions. Among the five (conditions), also establish Vipaka Obstruction with two meanings: Place and Pudgala. Place refers to the place where Vipaka Obstruction is experienced. Pudgala refers to the (person) who experiences those (Vipaka).

異熟者。

此三障中至亦不可治者。此下明三障輕．重。有兩師解。此即初解。於三障中煩惱與業二障皆重。以有此者第二生內亦不可治。造無間者定墮地獄。起惑障者墮惡趣故不得入聖。故言第二生內亦不可治。至第三生方可救療故名為重　若異熟障此生受已至第二生容可入聖。可救療故故名為輕。

毗婆娑師至后輕於前者。此即第二師解。由前煩惱能引后業故。后業障輕前煩惱。由前業障引后異熟故后異熟輕前業障。以前是本后是末故。故婆沙云。問如是三障何者最重　或有說者。異熟障重。所以者何。因時可轉。果時不可轉故　復有說者。業障最重。所以者何。業障能引異熟障故。

如是說者。煩惱障重。以煩惱能引業障。業障復能引異熟障。如是皆以煩惱為本。是故最重。

此無間名為目何義者。此下釋無間名。此即問也。

約異熟果至無間隔義者。答中有二。此即初說。定受彼果無餘業生為間隔故立無間名。此即約法以明。

或造此業至故名沙門者。此即第二說約人以辨。造此業人定墮地獄。中無間隔故名無間　或復彼人有無間故得無間名　或復彼人與無間法合故名無間。如人與彼沙門法合故名沙門。

三障應知至余障通五趣者。此即第二約處．趣辨。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本異熟（Vipāka，果報）障：

在三種障礙中，哪一種是最難治癒的？以下闡明三種障礙的輕重。有兩種解釋。這是第一種解釋。在三種障礙中，煩惱障和業障都屬於重障，因為有這些障礙的人，在第二世也無法治癒。造作五逆罪的人必定墮入地獄。產生惑障的人會墮入惡趣，因此無法進入聖道。所以說在第二世也無法治癒，要到第三世才能救治，因此稱為重障。如果異熟障，此生受報后，到第二世或許可以進入聖道，可以救治，因此稱為輕障。

毗婆娑師（Vaibhāṣika，論師）說：後面的障礙比前面的輕。這是第二種解釋。因為前面的煩惱能引發後面的業，所以業障比前面的煩惱障輕。因為前面的業障能引發後面的異熟，所以後面的異熟障比前面的業障輕。因為前面的是根本，後面的是末端。所以《婆沙論》中說：問：這三種障礙中，哪一種最重？有人說：異熟障最重。為什麼呢？因為在因地時可以轉變，在果地時不可轉變。又有人說：業障最重。為什麼呢？因為業障能引發異熟障。

如果這樣說，煩惱障最重，因為煩惱能引發業障，業障又能引發異熟障。這樣看來，一切都以煩惱為根本，所以煩惱障最重。

『無間』（Ānantarika，無間地獄）這個名稱是什麼意思？以下解釋『無間』的含義。這是提問。

從異熟果報方面來說，是『沒有間隔』的意思。回答中有兩種說法。這是第一種說法。必定承受那樣的果報，沒有其餘的業產生作為間隔，因此立名為『無間』。這是從法理上來說明。

或者造作這種業的人，因此稱為沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）。這是第二種說法，從人的角度來辨析。造作這種業的人必定墮入地獄，中間沒有間隔，所以稱為『無間』。或者這個人有『無間』的性質，所以得到『無間』的名稱。或者這個人與『無間』的法相應，所以稱為『無間』。就像人與沙門的法相應，所以稱為沙門。

應當知道三種障礙中……其餘的障礙通於五趣（pañca-gati，五道輪迴）。這是第二種從處所和趣向來辨析。

【English Translation】 English version Vipāka (異熟, Resultant) Obstruction:

Among these three obstructions, which is the most incurable? The following clarifies the lightness and heaviness of the three obstructions. There are two interpretations. This is the first interpretation. Among the three obstructions, both the Klesha (煩惱, Affliction) obstruction and the Karma (業, Action) obstruction are heavy, because those who have these obstructions cannot be cured even in the second life. Those who commit the five heinous offenses (無間罪) are destined to fall into hell. Those who generate the obstruction of delusion (惑障) will fall into evil realms and therefore cannot enter the path of the sages. Therefore, it is said that they cannot be cured even in the second life, and they can only be saved in the third life, hence they are called heavy obstructions. If it is the Vipāka obstruction, after receiving the retribution in this life, one may be able to enter the path of the sages in the second life and can be saved, hence it is called a light obstruction.

The Vaibhāṣika (毗婆娑師, commentator) says: The later obstruction is lighter than the former. This is the second interpretation. Because the former Klesha can lead to the later Karma, the Karma obstruction is lighter than the former Klesha obstruction. Because the former Karma obstruction can lead to the later Vipāka, the later Vipāka obstruction is lighter than the former Karma obstruction. Because the former is the root and the latter is the branch. Therefore, the Vibhāṣa (婆沙論) says: Question: Among these three obstructions, which is the heaviest? Some say: The Vipāka obstruction is the heaviest. Why? Because it can be transformed at the time of the cause, but it cannot be transformed at the time of the result. Others say: The Karma obstruction is the heaviest. Why? Because the Karma obstruction can lead to the Vipāka obstruction.

If it is said in this way, the Klesha obstruction is the heaviest, because the Klesha can lead to the Karma obstruction, and the Karma obstruction can lead to the Vipāka obstruction. Thus, everything is rooted in Klesha, so the Klesha obstruction is the heaviest.

What is the meaning of the name 『Ānantarika』 (無間, uninterrupted)? The following explains the meaning of 『Ānantarika』. This is the question.

From the perspective of the Vipāka result, it means 『without interruption』. There are two explanations in the answer. This is the first explanation. One is destined to receive that kind of result, and there is no other Karma arising as an interruption, therefore it is named 『Ānantarika』. This is explained from the perspective of Dharma.

Or those who commit this kind of Karma, therefore they are called Śrāmaṇa (沙門, ascetic). This is the second explanation, distinguishing from the perspective of people. Those who commit this kind of Karma are destined to fall into hell, and there is no interruption in between, so it is called 『Ānantarika』. Or this person has the nature of 『Ānantarika』, so they get the name 『Ānantarika』. Or this person is in accordance with the Dharma of 『Ānantarika』, so they are called 『Ānantarika』. Just like a person is in accordance with the Dharma of Śrāmaṇa, so they are called Śrāmaṇa.

It should be known that among the three obstructions... the remaining obstructions are common to the five Gatis (五趣, realms of existence). This is the second distinction from the perspective of place and direction.

論曰至無逆所以者。釋初兩句。於三障中。且無間業唯人三洲非北俱盧。非餘四趣。非餘二界　有無間業於三洲內。唯女及男造無間業。非扇搋等。等謂等取半擇迦．無形．二形。故婆沙一百一十九云。問若扇搋．半擇迦．無形．二形殺害父．母得無間不　答不得。廣如彼釋　所以者何。即前文說彼扇搋等無有斷善．不律儀因緣。即是此中無逆所以。

又彼父母至觸無間罪者。釋第三句。若天生黃門。謂彼父．母于彼少恩。為彼缺身增上緣故。又由於彼少愛念故。若被損黃門以身缺故。父．母于彼少愛念故。扇搋等於彼父．母慚．愧心微。以無現前增上慚．愧可言壞故觸無間罪　問若天生黃門可慚愧微。父．母恩少缺身緣故。被損黃門。父．母于彼非缺身緣。如何于父．母慚．愧心微　解云父．母于彼少愛念故。所以彼于父．母慚．愧心微。

由此已釋至而非無間者。此即類釋。鬼．及傍生。父．母于彼以少恩故。彼于父．母慚．愧心微。雖害父．母而非無間。諸天．地獄一向化生。無父．母故不別料簡。

然大德說至如聰慧馬者。敘異說。故婆沙云。大德說言諸傍生類殺害父．母。于無間罪有得．不得。謂聰慧者得。非聰慧者不得　曾聞。有聰慧馬。人貪其種令與母合。馬後覺知斷勢而死。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：論中說，至於為什麼沒有逆罪的原因。這是解釋最初的兩句。在三種業障中，只有人道的三大洲（東勝身洲Purvavideha，南贍部洲Jambudvipa，西牛貨洲Aparagodaniya）才有無間業，北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）沒有，其餘四種趣（地獄，餓鬼，畜生，天道）也沒有，其餘二界（色界Rupadhatu，無色界Arupadhatu）也沒有。在三大洲內，只有女人和男人才能造無間業，閹人等不能。'等'字包括半擇迦（Pandaka，性功能不全者），無形（沒有性器官者），二形（雌雄同體者）。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十九卷說：'如果閹人、半擇迦、無形、二形殺害父母，是否構成無間罪？'回答是：'不構成。'詳細的解釋見該論。為什麼呢？'就是前面說的那些閹人等沒有斷善根、不守戒律的因緣，這就是這裡所說的沒有逆罪的原因。又，如果天生的黃門（Hermaphrodite，陰陽人），觸犯無間罪。這是解釋第三句。如果是天生的黃門，是因為他們的父母對他們缺少恩情，這是他們身體殘缺的增上緣故。又因為父母對他們缺少愛念的緣故。如果是後天損傷的黃門，因為他們身體殘缺，父母對他們缺少愛念的緣故，閹人等對他們的父母的慚愧心很微弱，因為沒有現前的增上的慚愧可以被破壞，所以觸犯無間罪。問：如果是天生的黃門，可以理解為慚愧心微弱，因為父母恩情少，身體殘缺的緣故。如果是後天損傷的黃門，父母並沒有使他們身體殘缺，為什麼他們對父母的慚愧心也很微弱呢？解釋說：因為父母對他們缺少愛念的緣故，所以他們對父母的慚愧心很微弱。由此已經解釋了鬼和傍生（動物）殺害父母，也不是無間罪的原因。這是類比解釋。鬼和傍生，因為父母對他們缺少恩情，他們對父母的慚愧心很微弱，所以即使殺害父母，也不是無間罪。諸天和地獄眾生都是化生，沒有父母，所以不單獨討論。然而，大德（尊稱有德行的僧人）說，傍生殺害父母，有構成無間罪和不構成無間罪的情況，就像聰明的馬一樣。這是敘述不同的說法。《婆沙論》說：'大德說，各種傍生殺害父母，有構成無間罪和不構成無間罪的情況。所謂聰明的傍生構成無間罪，不聰明的傍生不構成無間罪。'曾經聽說，有一匹聰明的馬，有人貪圖它的品種，讓它和母馬交配。馬後來覺察到這件事，就斷了自己的生殖器而死。

【English Translation】 English version: The treatise says, as for why there is no irreversible offense. This explains the first two sentences. Among the three hindrances, only the three continents of the human realm (Purvavideha, Jambudvipa, Aparagodaniya) have irreversible karma; Uttarakuru does not, nor do the other four destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, and gods), nor do the other two realms (Rupadhatu, Arupadhatu). Within the three continents, only women and men can commit irreversible karma; eunuchs, etc., cannot. 'Etc.' includes Pandaka (those with impaired sexual function), those without sexual organs, and hermaphrodites. Therefore, the Vibhasha, volume 119, says: 'If eunuchs, Pandakas, those without sexual organs, and hermaphrodites kill their parents, do they commit an irreversible offense?' The answer is: 'No.' A detailed explanation can be found in that treatise. Why? That is, the aforementioned eunuchs, etc., do not have the causes and conditions for severing roots of goodness or violating precepts; this is what is meant here by the absence of irreversible offenses. Also, if a hermaphrodite is born, they commit an offense close to irreversible. This explains the third sentence. If a hermaphrodite is born, it is because their parents lacked kindness towards them, which is the augmenting condition for their physical defect. Also, it is because their parents lacked affection for them. If a hermaphrodite is damaged later in life, it is because of their physical defect, and their parents lack affection for them. Eunuchs, etc., have very little shame and remorse towards their parents because there is no present, augmenting shame and remorse that can be destroyed, so they commit an offense close to irreversible. Question: If a hermaphrodite is born, it is understandable that their shame and remorse are weak because their parents lacked kindness and they have a physical defect. If a hermaphrodite is damaged later in life, their parents did not cause their physical defect, so why is their shame and remorse towards their parents also weak? The explanation is: Because their parents lack affection for them, their shame and remorse towards their parents are weak. From this, it has been explained that ghosts and animals killing their parents is also not an irreversible offense. This is an analogy. Ghosts and animals, because their parents lack kindness towards them, their shame and remorse towards their parents are weak, so even if they kill their parents, it is not an irreversible offense. Gods and beings in hell are all born through transformation and do not have parents, so they are not discussed separately. However, the Venerable (a respectful title for virtuous monks) said that there are cases where animals killing their parents constitute an irreversible offense and cases where they do not, like an intelligent horse. This is a narration of a different view. The Vibhasha says: 'The Venerable said that various animals killing their parents have cases of constituting an irreversible offense and cases of not constituting an irreversible offense. So-called intelligent animals constitute an irreversible offense, while unintelligent animals do not.' It was once heard that there was an intelligent horse. Someone coveted its breed and made it mate with its mother. The horse later realized this and severed its own genitals and died.

若有人害至心境劣故者。簡差別。若有人害非人父．母不成逆罪。由心劣故。由境劣故。又正理云。若有人害非人父．母亦不成逆罪。少恩．羞恥故。謂彼于子無如人恩。子于彼無如人慚．愧(已上論文)由此準釋。若有非人害人父．母亦不成逆。人境雖勝由心劣故　又解父．母于彼少恩。彼于父．母慚．愧心微。

已辨業障至唯無想處者。釋第四句。已說業障唯人三洲　其餘二障通於五趣。然異熟障。唯人北洲。唯天無想　又正理云。已辨業障唯人三洲。余障應知五趣皆有。然煩惱障遍一切處。若異熟障全三惡趣。人唯北洲。天唯無想　豈不三洲處扇搋等身非聖道器。故異熟障攝　無如是理。以于彼生引業所牽同分相續可成男等為聖道器。唯三惡趣．無想．北洲。決定無容證聖道義。故唯于彼立異熟障　有說。彼處唯屬異生。余處皆容與聖者共。故不說是異熟障攝(已上論文)梵王雖復無容證聖。不障離染故非異熟障攝。

俱舍論記卷第十七

于尊勝院之東房書寫了僧定範本也今年三十講料也　　　　　一交了

六月二十三日句切了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十八

沙門釋光述

分別業品第四之六

於前所辨至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果有人因為至心（至誠之心）和心境低劣的緣故而加害他人，需要區分情況。如果有人加害非人（非人類眾生）的父母，則不構成逆罪（五逆罪之一），因為他們的心境低劣。這也是因為所害的對象低劣的緣故。《正理》中也說，如果有人加害非人的父母，也不構成逆罪，因為他們之間的恩情和羞恥感較少。這是因為非人的父母對子女的恩情不如人類父母，子女對非人父母的慚愧心也不如對人類父母。（以上是論文原文）由此可以推斷，如果有非人加害人類的父母，也不構成逆罪。雖然人類的境界殊勝，但由於非人的心境低劣。另一種解釋是，人類的父母對非人的恩情較少，非人對人類父母的慚愧心也很微弱。已經辨析了業障，現在討論『唯無想處』的情況。解釋第四句。已經說過業障只存在於人類居住的贍部洲、勝身洲和牛貨洲（即三洲），其餘兩種障礙（煩惱障和異熟障）則通於五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）。然而，異熟障只存在於人類居住的北俱盧洲和天界的無想天。《正理》中也說，已經辨析了業障只存在於人類居住的三洲，其餘兩種障礙應該知道五趣都有。然而，煩惱障遍佈一切地方。如果說異熟障，則完全存在於三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生），人類只存在於北俱盧洲，天界只存在於無想天。難道不是說三洲中存在著處在扇搋（天生的陰陽人）等身體狀態的人，他們不是修習聖道的法器嗎？因此也應該被異熟障所攝嗎？沒有這樣的道理。因為他們所生的引業（牽引轉生的業力）所牽引的同分相續（相似的生命延續）可以成就為男性等，從而成為修習聖道的法器。只有三惡趣、無想天和北俱盧洲，絕對沒有證得聖道的可能性。因此只在這些地方設立異熟障。有人說，這些地方只屬於凡夫，其餘地方都可能與聖者共存。因此不認為這些地方被異熟障所攝。（以上是論文原文）梵天雖然沒有證得聖道的可能性，但不障礙他脫離染污，因此不被異熟障所攝。《俱舍論記》卷第十七在尊勝院的東房書寫完畢，是僧定范的底本。今年是第三十次講解的材料。已經交了一份。六月二十三日，斷句完畢。《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》《俱舍論記》卷第十八沙門釋光述分別業品第四之六在前文所辨析的...

【English Translation】 English version If someone harms another due to a mind of extreme sincerity (至心, zhìxīn) and inferior mental state, distinctions must be made. If someone harms the parents of a non-human being (非人, fēirén), it does not constitute a heinous crime (逆罪, nìzuì, one of the five heinous crimes), because their mental state is inferior. This is also because the object of harm is inferior. The Nyāyānusāra also states that if someone harms the parents of a non-human being, it does not constitute a heinous crime, because the kindness and shame between them are less. This is because the kindness of non-human parents towards their children is not like that of human parents, and the children's sense of shame towards non-human parents is not like that towards human parents. (The above is the original text of the treatise.) From this, it can be inferred that if a non-human being harms the parents of a human being, it does not constitute a heinous crime. Although the realm of humans is superior, it is due to the inferior mental state of the non-human being. Another explanation is that human parents have less kindness towards non-human beings, and the non-human beings have a weak sense of shame towards human parents. Having already distinguished karmic obstacles, we now discuss the case of 'only the Realm of Non-Perception' (唯無想處, wéi wúxiǎng chù). Explaining the fourth sentence. It has already been said that karmic obstacles only exist in the Jambudvipa, Videha, and Godānīya continents (i.e., the three continents) inhabited by humans, while the other two obstacles (affliction obstacles and resultant obstacles) are common to the five realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods). However, resultant obstacles only exist in the Uttarakuru continent inhabited by humans and the Realm of Non-Perception in the heavens. The Nyāyānusāra also states that having already distinguished karmic obstacles as only existing in the three continents inhabited by humans, it should be known that the other two obstacles exist in all five realms. However, affliction obstacles pervade all places. If we speak of resultant obstacles, they exist entirely in the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, and animals), only in the Uttarakuru continent for humans, and only in the Realm of Non-Perception for the heavens. Isn't it said that in the three continents, there are people in the state of paṇḍaka (扇搋, shànchī, hermaphrodites) and other bodies who are not vessels for practicing the holy path? Therefore, should they also be included in the resultant obstacles? There is no such reason. Because the similar continuum (同分相續, tóngfēn xiāngxù) drawn by the karma of attraction (引業, yǐnyè) that they are born with can be accomplished as male, etc., thereby becoming vessels for practicing the holy path. Only the three evil realms, the Realm of Non-Perception, and the Uttarakuru continent have absolutely no possibility of attaining the holy path. Therefore, resultant obstacles are only established in these places. Some say that these places only belong to ordinary beings, while other places can coexist with sages. Therefore, it is not considered that these places are included in the resultant obstacles. (The above is the original text of the treatise.) Although the Brahma King has no possibility of attaining the holy path, it does not obstruct him from separating from defilements, therefore he is not included in the resultant obstacles. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 17 Completed writing in the east room of Zun Sheng Monastery, it is the draft of the monk Ding Fan. This year is the material for the thirtieth lecture. One copy has been submitted. June 23rd, punctuation completed. Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 18 Commentary by the Śrāmaṇa Shi Guang Chapter Four, Section Six on Distinguishing Karma In the previous distinctions...

其體是何者。此下第二別明業障。就中。一出業障體。二別明破僧。三明成逆緣。四明加行定。五罪重．大果。六無間同類　此即第一齣業障體。牒前問起。

頌曰至一殺生加行者。頌答。

論曰至不可害故者。五無間中四是身業。謂殺父．害母．殺阿羅漢．出佛身血　一是語業謂破僧。三是殺生根本業道。謂殺父．害母．殺阿羅漢。一虛誑語根本業道謂破僧。一是殺生業道加行謂出佛身血。以如來身不可害故。

破僧無間至何緣名破僧者。問。破僧無間業既是虛誑語。何緣名破僧。

因受果名或能破故者。答。虛誑語是因。所破僧是果。謂因虛誑語僧方破故。言虛誑語名破僧者因受果名　或能破故。謂僧是所破。虛誑語是能破。能破僧故名曰破僧。從用立名。

若爾僧破至誰所成就者。此下第二別明破僧。就中。一僧破體及成。二能破成時．處。三具緣成破僧。四明破二僧別。五無破法輪時。此即第一僧破體及成。一問所破僧果其體是何。二問能．所破人誰所成就。

頌曰至所破僧所成者。上三句答初問。下一句答后問。

論曰至行蘊所攝者。釋上三句出僧破體。以不相應中不和合為性　問不和合性以何為體。古德空法師解云。不和合性以聖法上非得為體。由此起故不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：其體是何者？此下第二，分別闡明業障。其中，一、指出業障的本體；二、分別說明破僧（Sangha，僧團）；三、說明構成逆緣；四、說明加行決定；五、說明罪業深重，果報巨大；六、說明無間地獄的同類業。此即第一，指出業障的本體。承接前面的提問而展開。

頌曰：至一殺生加行者。用偈頌回答。

論曰：至不可害故者。五無間（Anantarika-karma，五逆罪）中，四種是身業，即殺父、害母、殺阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）、出佛身血。一種是語業，即破僧。三種是殺生根本業道，即殺父、害母、殺阿羅漢。一種是虛誑語根本業道，即破僧。一種是殺生業道加行，即出佛身血。因為如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）之身不可加害的緣故。

破僧無間至何緣名破僧者？提問：破僧的無間業既然是虛誑語，為何稱作破僧？

因受果名或能破故者。回答：虛誑語是因，所破的僧是果。因為虛誑語是僧團破裂的原因。所以說虛誑語名為破僧，這是因承受果的名稱。或者說，因為能破的緣故。僧團是被破的對象，虛誑語是能破的力量。因為能破壞僧團，所以稱作破僧。這是從作用上立名。

若爾僧破至誰所成就者？此下第二，分別說明破僧。其中，一、僧破的本體以及成就；二、能破的成就時間與地點；三、具足因緣才能成就破僧；四、說明破二種僧團的區別；五、說明沒有破壞法輪（Dharma-cakra，佛法之輪）的時候。此即第一，僧破的本體以及成就。一、提問所破僧團的果報，其本體是什麼？二、提問能破之人與所破之人，是誰成就了這種罪業？

頌曰：至所破僧所成者。上面三句回答第一個問題，下面一句回答第二個問題。

論曰：至行蘊所攝者。解釋上面的三句，說明僧破的本體。以不相應行中不和合為自性。提問：不和合的自性以什麼為本體？古德空法師解釋說：不和合的自性以聖法上的非得為本體。由此而生起不和合。

【English Translation】 English version: What is its substance? The following is the second separate explanation of karmic obstacles. Among them: 1. Pointing out the substance of karmic obstacles; 2. Separately explaining the breaking of the Sangha (community of monks); 3. Explaining the formation of adverse conditions; 4. Explaining the determination of preparatory actions; 5. Explaining the severity of the sin and the magnitude of the retribution; 6. Explaining the similar karma of Avici Hell. This is the first, pointing out the substance of karmic obstacles. It arises from the previous question.

Verse: To one who performs the preparatory act of killing. Answering with a verse.

Treatise: To the effect that it cannot be harmed. Among the five Anantarika-karmas (five heinous crimes), four are physical actions, namely killing one's father, harming one's mother, killing an Arhat (one who has extinguished all afflictions), and drawing blood from the body of a Buddha. One is a verbal action, namely breaking the Sangha. Three are fundamental karmic paths of killing, namely killing one's father, harming one's mother, and killing an Arhat. One is a fundamental karmic path of false speech, namely breaking the Sangha. One is a preparatory act of the karmic path of killing, namely drawing blood from the body of a Buddha. Because the body of the Tathagata (Buddha) cannot be harmed.

Breaking the Sangha, the Avici Hell... Why is it called breaking the Sangha? Question: Since the Anantarika-karma of breaking the Sangha is false speech, why is it called breaking the Sangha?

Named after the effect of the cause, or because it can break. Answer: False speech is the cause, and the broken Sangha is the effect. Because the Sangha is broken due to false speech. Therefore, false speech is called breaking the Sangha, which is named after the effect of the cause. Or, because it can break. The Sangha is the object to be broken, and false speech is the power that can break. Because it can break the Sangha, it is called breaking the Sangha. It is named based on its function.

If so, the breaking of the Sangha... By whom is it accomplished? The following is the second separate explanation of breaking the Sangha. Among them: 1. The substance and accomplishment of breaking the Sangha; 2. The time and place of the accomplishment of the breaker; 3. The complete conditions for accomplishing the breaking of the Sangha; 4. Explaining the difference between breaking two types of Sangha; 5. Explaining when there is no breaking of the Dharma-cakra (Wheel of Dharma). This is the first, the substance and accomplishment of breaking the Sangha. 1. Questioning the retribution of the broken Sangha, what is its substance? 2. Questioning who accomplishes this sin, the breaker and the broken?

Verse: To the effect that the broken Sangha is accomplished. The first three lines answer the first question, and the last line answers the second question.

Treatise: To the effect that it is included in the aggregates of formations. Explaining the above three lines, explaining the substance of breaking the Sangha. It takes non-harmony as its nature among non-corresponding formations. Question: What is the substance of the nature of non-harmony? The ancient virtuous master, Dharma Master Kong, explained: The nature of non-harmony takes the non-attainment of the sacred Dharma as its substance. From this, non-harmony arises.

得入聖。雖異生性先於聖法亦有非得容得入聖　空法師意說。無漏八正是和合體。以是聖僧和合德故。若能破此名破法輪僧。而諸論但言破凡僧者。破有近．遠。由近破凡事和合僧故不得入聖。遠破聖僧。是故聖僧是正所破。由破此重獲無間罪　難云諸論但言破凡非聖。而言破聖與論相違。夫論破僧。破和合性。若得聖已即不可破。若未得聖何所破耶。此即違理　今解云。不和合性以和合上非得為體。謂僧未破有和合性。同共和合許有聖道。僧由有此和合性故容得入聖。若僧被破。舍和合性。有不和合性起。由彼破此和合性故不得入聖。故成無間。既不成就彼和合性。即以和合體上非得為不和合性。

問破僧不和合非得以為體。亦可僧和合以彼得為體　解云諸法未必皆相翻立。如異生性以非得為體。聖性非唯以得為體。

問破法輪僧。破羯磨僧。為體同不　古德休法師解云。破僧體有二種。若破法輪僧。以非擇滅為體。若破羯磨僧。以不和合為體。法輪僧上無有和合作羯磨事。唯有緣差不生法故。所以非擇滅為體。羯磨僧有和合作羯磨事。后被破已由舍和合故。以不和合為體　難云若說破羯磨僧以不和合為性。此亦無違。若言破法輪僧以非擇滅為體。此即不然。諸論皆說所破僧體不和合性。言破法輪非擇

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本能夠證入聖果。雖然異生性（prthag-janatva，凡夫的性質）先於聖法，但也有可能在未證得聖果的情況下容許證入聖果。空法師的觀點是，無漏八正道（arya-astangika-marga，八正道，即正見、正思惟、正語、正業、正命、正精進、正念、正定）是一個和合的整體。因為聖僧具有和合的功德，如果有人破壞這種和合，就叫做破壞法輪僧（sangha of the wheel of Dharma，指具有正見的僧團）。但各種論典只說破壞凡僧，這是因為破壞有近和遠的差別。由於直接破壞凡夫僧團的和合，導致他們無法證入聖果，這是近的破壞。而遠的破壞則是破壞聖僧。因此，聖僧才是真正被破壞的對象。由於破壞聖僧的罪業深重，會獲得無間罪（anantara-karma，五逆罪）。有人質疑說，各種論典只說破壞凡僧，沒有說破壞聖僧，因此說破壞聖僧與論典相違背。論典所說的破僧，是破壞僧團的和合性。如果已經證得聖果，就不可被破壞。如果尚未證得聖果，又有什麼可破壞的呢？這不合邏輯。現在的解釋是，不和合性以和合上的『非得』為本體。也就是說，僧團在未被破壞時具有和合性，共同認可和合中存在聖道，僧團因為具有這種和合性，所以有可能證入聖果。如果僧團被破壞，就失去了和合性，不和合性就會產生。由於破壞了這種和合性，導致他們無法證入聖果，因此構成無間罪。既然不能成就那種和合性，就以和合體上的『非得』作為不和合性。問：破壞僧團的不和合性以『非得』為本體，那麼僧團的和合性是否可以以『得』為本體？答：各種法未必都是相對而立的。例如，異生性以『非得』為本體，但聖性並非僅僅以『得』為本體。問：破壞法輪僧（sangha of the wheel of Dharma）和破壞羯磨僧（sangha performing Karma，指正在舉行羯磨儀式的僧團），它們的本體相同嗎？古德休法師解釋說，破僧的本體有兩種。如果破壞法輪僧，以非擇滅（apratisamkhya-nirodha，不通過智慧力而自然止息的狀態）為本體。如果破壞羯磨僧，以不和合為本體。法輪僧上沒有和合進行羯磨的事情，只有因緣差別不生法，所以以非擇滅為本體。羯磨僧有和合進行羯磨的事情，後來被破壞后，由於捨棄了和合，所以以不和合為本體。有人質疑說，如果說破壞羯磨僧以不和合為性質，這沒有問題。但如果說破壞法輪僧以非擇滅為本體，這就錯了。各種論典都說所破壞的僧團本體是不和合性，而不是說破壞法輪僧是非擇滅。

【English Translation】 English version One can attain sainthood. Although the nature of an ordinary being (prthag-janatva) precedes the sacred Dharma, it is also possible to allow entry into sainthood even without having attained it. The view of Dharma Master Kong is that the Noble Eightfold Path (arya-astangika-marga) is a harmonious whole. Because the Sangha of the saints possesses the merit of harmony, if someone destroys this harmony, it is called destroying the Sangha of the wheel of Dharma. However, various treatises only speak of destroying the Sangha of ordinary beings, because destruction has near and far distinctions. Because directly destroying the harmony of the Sangha of ordinary beings prevents them from attaining sainthood, this is a near destruction. A far destruction is the destruction of the Sangha of saints. Therefore, the Sangha of saints is the true object of destruction. Because the sin of destroying the Sangha of saints is severe, one will incur the karma of uninterrupted suffering (anantara-karma). Someone questions, saying that various treatises only speak of destroying the Sangha of ordinary beings and do not mention destroying the Sangha of saints, therefore saying that destroying the Sangha of saints contradicts the treatises. The destruction of the Sangha mentioned in the treatises is the destruction of the harmony of the Sangha. If one has already attained sainthood, one cannot be destroyed. If one has not yet attained sainthood, what is there to destroy? This is illogical. The current explanation is that non-harmony has 'non-attainment' as its essence on harmony. That is to say, the Sangha has harmony before it is destroyed, and it is commonly acknowledged that the sacred path exists in harmony. Because the Sangha possesses this harmony, it is possible to attain sainthood. If the Sangha is destroyed, it loses its harmony, and non-harmony arises. Because this harmony is destroyed, they cannot attain sainthood, thus constituting the karma of uninterrupted suffering. Since that harmony cannot be achieved, 'non-attainment' on the body of harmony is taken as non-harmony. Question: If the non-harmony of destroying the Sangha has 'non-attainment' as its essence, can the harmony of the Sangha have 'attainment' as its essence? Answer: Various dharmas are not necessarily established in opposition to each other. For example, the nature of an ordinary being has 'non-attainment' as its essence, but the nature of a saint does not only have 'attainment' as its essence. Question: Are the essences of destroying the Sangha of the wheel of Dharma and destroying the Sangha performing Karma the same? The ancient worthy Dharma Master Xiu explains that there are two kinds of essences of destroying the Sangha. If one destroys the Sangha of the wheel of Dharma, it has non-discriminating cessation (apratisamkhya-nirodha) as its essence. If one destroys the Sangha performing Karma, it has non-harmony as its essence. There is no harmonious performance of Karma on the Sangha of the wheel of Dharma, only the non-arising of dharmas due to differences in conditions, so it has non-discriminating cessation as its essence. The Sangha performing Karma has the harmonious performance of Karma, and after being destroyed, it abandons harmony, so it has non-harmony as its essence. Someone questions, saying that if it is said that destroying the Sangha performing Karma has non-harmony as its nature, there is no problem with this. But if it is said that destroying the Sangha of the wheel of Dharma has non-discriminating cessation as its essence, this is wrong. Various treatises all say that the essence of the Sangha being destroyed is non-harmony, not that destroying the Sangha of the wheel of Dharma is non-discriminating cessation.

滅性。豈不相違。若言論據羯磨僧說。不爾。論據法輪僧故　又空法師意解。若破法輪僧。以法輪理和合上非得為體。若破羯磨僧。以羯磨事和合上非得為體　難云總言非得義亦不違。若言以彼聖法非得為破法輪僧體。此即不然。準前破故　今解云。兩種破僧不和合性。皆以和合性上非得為體。若破法輪僧。以法輪和合上非得為性。若破羯磨僧。以羯磨和合上非得為性。

豈成無間者。問。僧破體是無覆無記。豈成無間業。如何乃言破僧無間。

如是僧破至是無間果者。答。如是僧破因誑語生。故說破僧是無間果非無間業。因受果名。故說無間名破僧也。

非能破者至僧眾所成者。釋下一句。非是天授能破者成此僧破體。但是所破愚僧所成。休法師云。天授是僧非但能破。亦有所破之義。以此能破亦有成義　今解不然。今破彼得聖法輪之因令不得聖。天授雖是僧。無得聖故非所破也　又論但說所破僧成。

此能破人至何處幾時者。此下第二明能破成時．處。總為三問。

頌曰至隨罪增苦增者。前兩句答初問。無間答第二問。一劫熟下答第三問。

論曰至生於無間者。釋初三句。若破僧罪定墮無間。若造餘四逆不必生彼。或生餘地獄。余文可知。欲界善劣非受一劫。欲界惡強受一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『滅性』（毀滅本性）之說，豈不是自相矛盾？如果說是根據羯磨僧（Karma Sangha，指在戒律儀式上共同行動的出家僧團）的說法，那是不對的。因為論據是法輪僧（Dharma Sangha，指在佛法上達成一致的出家僧團）。另外，空法師的理解是，如果破壞法輪僧，是以法輪之理和合之上的『非得』（不得，指失去證悟）為本體；如果破壞羯磨僧，是以羯磨之事和合之上的『非得』為本體。有人提問說，總而言之，『非得』的意義也不相違背。如果說以那聖法的『非得』作為破壞法輪僧的本體，這是不對的，按照前面的解釋，這是行不通的。現在的解釋是，兩種破壞僧團的不和合性，都是以和合性上的『非得』為本體。如果破壞法輪僧，是以法輪和合上的『非得』為本性；如果破壞羯磨僧，是以羯磨和合上的『非得』為本性。

『豈成無間者』（怎麼會構成無間地獄的業因呢）？問：破壞僧團的本體是無覆無記（既不善也不惡，沒有果報），怎麼會構成無間業？為什麼說破僧是無間（地獄）業？

『如是僧破至是無間果者』（像這樣破壞僧團會導致無間地獄的果報）？答：像這樣破壞僧團的因是誑語（謊言）所生，所以說破壞僧團是無間（地獄）的果報，而不是無間（地獄）業。因為因承受果報的名稱，所以說無間（地獄）之名是破壞僧團。

『非能破者至僧眾所成者』（不是能破壞者，而是由僧眾所成）？解釋下一句。不是天授（指具有神通或特殊能力的人）的能破壞者成就了這破壞僧團的本體，而是由被破壞的愚癡僧人所成就。休法師說，天授是僧人，不僅僅是能破壞者，也有被破壞的意義。因此，能破壞者也有成就（破壞）的意義。現在的理解不是這樣。現在破壞他們獲得聖法輪的因，使他們不能得到聖法。天授雖然是僧人，但沒有得到聖法，所以不是被破壞的對象。而且，論中只說被破壞的僧人成就（破壞）。

『此能破人至何處幾時者』（這個能破壞的人，在何處，何時）？下面第二部分說明能破壞者成就（破壞）的時間和地點。總共有三個問題。

『頌曰至隨罪增苦增者』（偈頌說，隨著罪業增加，痛苦也增加）？前兩句回答第一個問題。『無間』（無間地獄）回答第二個問題。『一劫熟下』（一劫成熟）回答第三個問題。

『論曰至生於無間者』（論中說，生於無間地獄）？解釋前三句。如果破壞僧團的罪業必定墮入無間地獄，如果造作其餘四逆罪（殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧），不一定生於彼處，或者生於其他地獄。其餘的文字可以理解。欲界的善惡不是隻受一劫的果報，欲界的惡業強烈，會受一劫的果報。

【English Translation】 English version 『Extinguishing nature』 (destroying inherent nature), isn't that contradictory? If it's said according to the Karma Sangha (referring to the monastic community acting together in disciplinary rituals), that's not right. Because the argument is based on the Dharma Sangha (referring to the monastic community that has reached consensus on the Dharma). Furthermore, Master Kong's interpretation is that if the Dharma Sangha is destroyed, it is based on the 『non-attainment』 (non-obtainment, referring to the loss of enlightenment) upon the harmony of Dharma principles as its essence; if the Karma Sangha is destroyed, it is based on the 『non-attainment』 upon the harmony of Karma matters as its essence. Someone asks, in general, the meaning of 『non-attainment』 is not contradictory either. If it's said that the 『non-attainment』 of that sacred Dharma is taken as the essence of destroying the Dharma Sangha, that's not right, because it doesn't work according to the previous explanation. The current explanation is that both kinds of destroying the non-harmony of the Sangha take the 『non-attainment』 upon the harmony as their essence. If the Dharma Sangha is destroyed, it takes the 『non-attainment』 upon the harmony of Dharma as its nature; if the Karma Sangha is destroyed, it takes the 『non-attainment』 upon the harmony of Karma as its nature.

『How does it constitute uninterrupted [karma]?』 (How does it constitute the cause of uninterrupted hell?) Question: The essence of destroying the Sangha is neither good nor evil, without retribution, how can it constitute uninterrupted karma? Why is it said that destroying the Sangha is uninterrupted (hell) karma?

『Thus, the destruction of the Sangha leads to the fruit of uninterrupted [hell]』 (Like this, destroying the Sangha will lead to the fruit of uninterrupted hell)? Answer: Like this, the cause of destroying the Sangha is born from false speech (lies), so it is said that destroying the Sangha is the fruit of uninterrupted (hell), not uninterrupted (hell) karma. Because the cause bears the name of the fruit, it is said that the name of uninterrupted (hell) is destroying the Sangha.

『Not the one who can destroy, but accomplished by the Sangha』 (Not the one who can destroy, but accomplished by the Sangha)? Explaining the next sentence. It is not the one who can destroy, who is divinely endowed (referring to someone with supernatural powers or special abilities), who accomplishes this essence of destroying the Sangha, but it is accomplished by the foolish monks who are being destroyed. Master Xiu said that the divinely endowed is a monk, not only the one who can destroy, but also has the meaning of being destroyed. Therefore, the one who can destroy also has the meaning of accomplishing (destruction). The current understanding is not like this. Now destroying the cause of their obtaining the sacred Dharma, causing them not to be able to obtain the sacred Dharma. Although the divinely endowed is a monk, he has not obtained the sacred Dharma, so he is not the object of destruction. Moreover, the treatise only says that the monks who are being destroyed accomplish (destruction).

『Where and when will this destroyer be?』 (Where, when, will this destroyer be)? The second part below explains the time and place when the destroyer accomplishes (destruction). There are three questions in total.

『The verse says, as sins increase, suffering increases』 (The verse says, as sins increase, suffering increases)? The first two sentences answer the first question. 『Uninterrupted』 (Avici Hell) answers the second question. 『One kalpa matures below』 (One kalpa matures) answers the third question.

『The treatise says, born in uninterrupted [hell]』 (The treatise says, born in Avici Hell)? Explaining the first three sentences. If the sin of destroying the Sangha will definitely fall into Avici Hell, if the other four rebellious acts (killing father, killing mother, killing Arhat, destroying the harmony of the Sangha) are committed, one will not necessarily be born there, or be born in other hells. The rest of the text can be understood. The good and evil of the desire realm do not only receive the retribution of one kalpa, the evil karma of the desire realm is strong, and will receive the retribution of one kalpa.

中劫。故婆沙一百一十五云。問此業能取一劫受果。為是何劫。或有說者是成劫。復有說者是壞劫。復有說者是大劫　如是說者此是中劫。由彼亦有不盡中劫而得脫故。如毗奈耶說。提婆達多。當於人壽四萬歲時來生人中。必定當證獨覺菩提。舍利子等所不能及　問如是伽陀當云何通。諸有破僧人破壞和合僧。生無間地獄壽量經劫住。尊者世友作如是說。減一劫住亦名一劫。如世間人于減一日任持所作亦名直日。此亦如是(解云立世經說。釋迦如來於第九住劫出世。天授造無間業入于地獄。至第十盡方一中劫。然天授于第十住劫減至四萬歲時來世人中證獨覺菩提。是故天授中劫不滿)。

若作多逆罪至同感一生者。問。若作二逆能感二劫。乃至五逆能感五劫。皆次生熟。如何多逆同感一生。

隨彼罪增至五倍重苦者。答。正釋第四句。造逆漸多。其身轉大。轉復柔軟。苦具漸加。受苦轉增。造多逆中初是引業。后是滿業。故正理云。造多逆人唯一能引。余助滿故　又正理云。如造多逆先引。后滿。依說一切有部。隨造多．少皆名順生受業同一劫受　若依成實論。若造一逆一劫受果。若造二逆二劫同受。如是乃至若造五逆五劫同受。余后四劫從初為名同名生報業。成實多依經部宗。一業感多身。亦多業感一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：中劫（Antarakalpa）。所以《婆沙論》第一百一十五卷說：『問：此業能取一劫受果，是何劫？』或有人說是成劫（Samvarta-siddhakalpa），又有人說是壞劫（Samvartakalpa），又有人說是大劫（Mahakalpa）。這樣說來，此是中劫。因為他們也有未盡中劫而得脫離的緣故。如《毗奈耶》所說：『提婆達多（Devadatta），當於人壽四萬歲時來生人中，必定當證獨覺菩提（Pratyekabuddha-bodhi），舍利子（Sariputra）等所不能及。』問：這樣的伽陀（Gatha）應當如何解釋？諸有破僧人，破壞和合僧，生無間地獄（Avici）壽量經劫住。尊者世友（Vasumitra）作如是說：『減一劫住也名一劫。』如世間人于減一日任持所作也名直日，此亦如是。（解釋說《立世經》說，釋迦如來（Sakyamuni）于第九住劫出世，提婆達多造無間業入于地獄，至第十盡方一中劫。然而提婆達多於第十住劫減至四萬歲時來世人中證獨覺菩提，是故提婆達多中劫未滿）。

若作多逆罪至同感一生者。問：若作二逆能感二劫，乃至五逆能感五劫，皆次生熟，如何多逆同感一生？

隨彼罪增至五倍重苦者。答：正釋第四句。造逆漸多，其身轉大，轉復柔軟，苦具漸加，受苦轉增。造多逆中初是引業，后是滿業。故《正理》云：『造多逆人唯一能引，余助滿故。』又《正理》云：『如造多逆先引，后滿。』依說一切有部（Sarvastivada），隨造多、少皆名順生受業同一劫受。若依《成實論》，若造一逆一劫受果，若造二逆二劫同受，如是乃至若造五逆五劫同受，余后四劫從初為名同名生報業。《成實論》多依經部宗（Sautrantika），一業感多身，亦多業感一。

【English Translation】 English version: Antarakalpa (中劫). Therefore, the 115th fascicle of the Vibhasa states: 'Question: This karma can take a kalpa to receive its result. Which kalpa is it? Some say it is the Samvarta-siddhakalpa (成劫), others say it is the Samvartakalpa (壞劫), and others say it is the Mahakalpa (大劫).' Thus, it is said that this is an Antarakalpa (中劫). Because they can also be liberated without exhausting the Antarakalpa. As the Vinaya says: 'Devadatta (提婆達多) will be born among humans when the human lifespan is 40,000 years, and he will certainly attain Pratyekabuddha-bodhi (獨覺菩提), which Sariputra (舍利子) and others cannot achieve.' Question: How should such a Gatha (伽陀) be explained? Those who break the Sangha, destroying the harmonious Sangha, will be born in Avici (無間地獄) and dwell there for kalpas. Venerable Vasumitra (世友) said: 'Reducing one kalpa is also called one kalpa.' Just as worldly people call the day they complete their work, even if it is less than a full day, 'the day,' so it is in this case. (Explanation: The Lokaprajnapti says that Sakyamuni (釋迦如來) appeared in the ninth dwelling kalpa, and Devadatta committed the karma of Avici and entered hell, and only after the tenth kalpa was exhausted did one Antarakalpa pass. However, Devadatta will be born among humans and attain Pratyekabuddha-bodhi when the tenth dwelling kalpa is reduced to 40,000 years. Therefore, Devadatta's Antarakalpa is not complete).

If one commits multiple heinous crimes leading to the same lifetime of suffering. Question: If committing two heinous crimes leads to experiencing two kalpas, and even committing five heinous crimes leads to experiencing five kalpas, all maturing in sequence, how can multiple heinous crimes lead to experiencing the same lifetime of suffering?

As the sin increases, the suffering increases fivefold. Answer: This explains the fourth line. As one commits more heinous crimes, the body becomes larger and more supple, the instruments of suffering gradually increase, and the suffering increases. Among the many heinous crimes, the first is the attracting karma, and the latter is the fulfilling karma. Therefore, the Nyayanusara says: 'A person who commits many heinous crimes has only one attracting karma, and the rest are fulfilling.' Also, the Nyayanusara says: 'As one commits many heinous crimes, the first is attracting, and the latter is fulfilling.' According to the Sarvastivada (說一切有部), whether one commits many or few, they are all called karma that is experienced in the next life and received in the same kalpa. According to the Tattvasiddhi Sastra, if one commits one heinous crime, one kalpa is experienced. If one commits two heinous crimes, two kalpas are experienced together. And so on, if one commits five heinous crimes, five kalpas are experienced together. The remaining four kalpas are named after the first and are all called karma that produces rebirth. The Tattvasiddhi Sastra mostly relies on the Sautrantika (經部宗), where one karma can cause many bodies, and many karmas can cause one body.

身　若依正量部。若造一逆一劫受果。如是乃至。若造五逆五劫受果。于中初劫是生報業。余后四劫是后報業。各各別感。

誰於何處至經幾時破者。此下第三具緣成破僧。一問誰能破。二問於何處。三問能破于誰。四問破在何時。五問經幾時破。

頌曰至名破不經宿者。苾芻見凈行破答初問異處答第二問。愚夫答第三問。忍異師道時名破答第四問。不經宿答第五問。

論曰至言無威故者。釋苾芻見凈行破。大僧破與佛敵對。自號佛故非在家等。以彼依身無威德故。唯見行者以惡意樂極堅深故。非愛行人。于染．凈品俱躁動故。住凈行人非犯戒者。以犯戒者言無威故。以此故知。先破僧后斷善根。要具尸羅言威肅故。若斷善根便舍戒故。故婆沙一百一十六云。問何等種類補特伽羅破法輪僧。答補特伽羅有二種。一者愛行。二者見行。諸見行者破法輪僧。非愛行者。以見行者所有意樂堅固猛利。于雜染．清凈品所作決定無有退轉。諸愛行者無如是事。故不能破　又唯男子破法輪僧。非諸女人。亦非扇搋．半擇迦等。所以者何。破法輪時法爾自安立為大師　而諸女人非增上器。于大師非分。故不能破。然能廣作破僧方便。猶如粗喜苾芻尼等　諸扇搋．半擇迦．無形．二形皆是愛行。諸愛行者所有意樂。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果按照正量部的觀點，造作一次逆罪，就要在一個劫（kalpa，時間單位）中承受果報。像這樣，如果造作五次逆罪，就要在五個劫中承受果報。其中第一個劫是現生報業（指今生所受的果報），其餘四個劫是后報業（指來世所受的果報），各自產生不同的感受。

誰在何處，經過多久時間破僧？下面第三部分是關於具備哪些條件才能構成破僧罪。第一問是誰能破僧？第二問是在什麼地方破僧？第三問是能破壞誰的僧團？第四問是在什麼時候破僧？第五問是經過多久時間破僧？

頌文說：『乃至名為破，不經過一夜。』比丘（bhiksu，出家男眾）以邪見破壞僧團，回答了第一個問題。在不同的地方，回答了第二個問題。愚夫（沒有智慧的人）回答了第三個問題。忍可不同的師說，在那個時候破僧，回答了第四個問題。不經過一夜，回答了第五個問題。

論中解釋說：『乃至說沒有威德的緣故。』解釋比丘以邪見破壞僧團。破壞大僧團是與佛陀為敵對。因為他自稱為佛陀，所以不是在家眾等能做到的。因為那些依附於在家眾的人沒有威德。只有持邪見的人，以惡意樂（強烈的惡意）極其堅深的緣故，而不是愛行者（隨順愛慾的人）。因為愛行者在染污和清凈的品類中都容易躁動。安住于清凈修行的人，不是犯戒的人，因為犯戒的人說話沒有威德的緣故。因此可知，先破僧，然後斷善根。要具備戒律，說話才有威懾力。如果斷了善根，就會捨棄戒律。』所以《婆沙論》第一百一十六卷說：『問：哪些種類的補特伽羅（pudgala，人）能破壞法輪僧（指正法的僧團）？答：補特伽羅有兩種：一是愛行者，二是見行者。是見行者破壞法輪僧，不是愛行者。因為見行者所有的意樂堅固猛利，對於雜染和清凈的品類所作的決定沒有退轉。愛行者沒有這樣的情況，所以不能破壞。』又只有男子能破壞法輪僧，不是女人，也不是扇搋（sandha，不能男根者）、半擇迦（pandaka，無能力者）等。為什麼呢？因為破壞法輪僧時，自然會安立自己為大師。而女人不是增上的法器，不具備成為大師的資格，所以不能破壞。然而女人能廣泛地製造破僧的方便，就像粗喜比丘尼等。扇搋、半擇迦、無形、二形都是愛行者，愛行者所有的意樂。

【English Translation】 English version: According to the Sautrantikas, if one commits a single heinous crime, one will receive the karmic result for one kalpa (an aeon). Similarly, if one commits five heinous crimes, one will receive the karmic result for five kalpas. Among these, the first kalpa is the karma of present retribution (the result received in this life), and the remaining four kalpas are the karma of future retribution (the result received in future lives), each producing different experiences.

Who, where, and how long does it take to cause a schism in the Sangha? The third part below concerns the conditions necessary to constitute the offense of causing a schism in the Sangha. The first question is: Who can cause a schism? The second question is: Where does the schism occur? The third question is: Whose Sangha can be disrupted? The fourth question is: When does the schism occur? The fifth question is: How long does it take to cause a schism?

The verse says: 'Even to be called a schism, it does not last overnight.' A bhiksu (monk) who destroys the Sangha with wrong views answers the first question. In different places, it answers the second question. A fool (one without wisdom) answers the third question. Endorsing different teachers' doctrines, at that time, causes a schism, answering the fourth question. Not lasting overnight answers the fifth question.

The treatise explains: 'Even to say, because there is no authority.' It explains the bhiksu destroying the Sangha with wrong views. Destroying the great Sangha is being an enemy of the Buddha. Because he proclaims himself as the Buddha, it cannot be done by laypeople, etc. Because those who rely on laypeople have no authority. Only those who hold wrong views, with extremely deep malicious intent (strong malice), and not those who follow desires (those who comply with desires). Because those who follow desires are easily agitated in both defiled and pure categories. Those who abide in pure practice are not those who violate precepts, because those who violate precepts have no authority in their words. Therefore, it is known that first the Sangha is destroyed, and then the roots of goodness are severed. One must possess precepts for one's words to have authority. If one severs the roots of goodness, one will abandon the precepts.' Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume one hundred and sixteen, says: 'Question: What kinds of pudgalas (persons) can destroy the Dharma-wheel Sangha (the Sangha of the true Dharma)? Answer: There are two kinds of pudgalas: those who follow desires and those who hold wrong views. It is those who hold wrong views who destroy the Dharma-wheel Sangha, not those who follow desires. Because the intentions of those who hold wrong views are firm and fierce, and their decisions regarding defiled and pure categories do not waver. Those who follow desires do not have such qualities, so they cannot destroy it.' Furthermore, only men can destroy the Dharma-wheel Sangha, not women, nor sandhas (eunuchs), pandakas (impotent), etc. Why? Because when destroying the Dharma-wheel Sangha, one naturally establishes oneself as a master. And women are not superior vessels, not qualified to be masters, so they cannot destroy it. However, women can widely create opportunities for causing a schism, like the bhiksuni (nun) Crudhi, etc. Sandhas, pandakas, those without form, and those with two forms are all those who follow desires, and all the intentions of those who follow desires.

不堅不猛。于染．凈品皆不決定。是故彼類不能破僧。

要異處破至對必無能者。釋異處。異處謂羯阇尸利沙山。此云象頭山。山頂如象頭故以名焉。去鷲峰山北可三．四里。同一界內。天授住彼而破僧故非對大師。舊云伽耶山者訛也。以羯阇之與伽耶音相近故。故謬傳爾。然西方別有伽耶山。去鷲峰山一百五十餘里。非同一界。非破僧處。

唯破異生至說愚夫言者。釋愚夫。前說未得聖名愚夫后說未得忍名愚夫。為含此二義說愚夫言。

要所破僧至在如是時者。釋忍異師道時名破。顯破僧時　言有餘聖道者。要所破僧忍彼異師提婆達多異佛世尊。又忍提婆達多異佛所說八支聖道有餘聖道　提婆達多作如是言。我是大師。非沙門喬答摩。五法是道。非喬答摩所說八支聖道。所破僧忍異師．異道。應說僧破在如是時。故婆沙一百一十六云。齊何當言法輪僧破。答施設論說。提婆達多自為第五皆共受籌。齊此當言法輪僧壞。復有說者作表白已。復有說者離所聞處。復有說者離所見處。復有說者離見聞處。如是說者若由意樂誓受余師。謂彼愚癡諸苾芻眾。由定意樂發如是心作如是語。提婆達多是我大師。非佛世尊。齊此當言法輪僧壞　言五法者。正理云。言邪道者。提婆達多妄說五事為出離道。一者不應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不堅定也不勇猛的人，對於染污和清凈的事物都不能做出決斷。因此，這樣的人不能破壞僧團。

要通過在不同的地點破僧，直到面對面（對必）才能成功，下面解釋『異處』（不同的地點）。『異處』指的是羯阇尸利沙山（Kakasirisaka Mountain），這裡稱作象頭山（Elephant Head Mountain）。因為山頂像象頭而得名。它距離鷲峰山（Vulture Peak Mountain）北面大約三四里，在同一個結界內。天授（Devadatta）住在那裡破僧，所以不是與大師（佛陀）面對面。舊時所說的伽耶山（Gaya Mountain）是錯誤的。因為羯阇（Kakasiri）與伽耶（Gaya）的讀音相近，所以錯誤地流傳下來。然而，西方另有一座伽耶山，距離鷲峰山一百五十多里，不在同一個結界內，也不是破僧的地方。

只有破壞異生（未證得聖果者）……直到說愚夫之言，解釋『愚夫』。前面說的未證得聖名的是愚夫，後面說的未證得忍位的是愚夫。爲了包含這兩種含義，所以說『愚夫』之言。

要所破壞的僧團……在這樣的情況下，解釋忍可異師之道的時候叫做破僧，顯示破僧的時間。『言有餘聖道者』，要所破壞的僧團忍可那位異師提婆達多（Devadatta）異於佛世尊（Buddha）。又忍可提婆達多異於佛所說的八支聖道（Eightfold Noble Path），認為有其他的聖道。提婆達多這樣說：『我是大師，不是沙門喬答摩（Gautama）。五法是道，不是喬答摩所說的八支聖道。』所破壞的僧團忍可異師、異道，應該說僧團的破壞就在這樣的情況下。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百一十六卷說：『到什麼時候才能說法輪僧破（Sangha is broken）？』回答說：『《施設論》（Prajnapana-sastra）說，提婆達多自己作為第五人，大家都接受他的籌碼，到這個時候才能說法輪僧壞。』還有人說，作了表白之後；還有人說，離開了所聽聞的地方；還有人說，離開了所見的地方；還有人說，離開了見聞的地方。這樣說的人，如果由於意樂而發誓接受其他的老師，指的是那些愚癡的比丘眾，由於堅定的意樂，發出這樣的心，說這樣的話：『提婆達多是我的大師，不是佛世尊。』到這個時候才能說法輪僧壞。』『言五法者』，《正理》（Nyaya）說：『說邪道的人，提婆達多妄說五件事是出離之道。一者不應該……』

【English Translation】 English version: Those who are neither firm nor vigorous are indecisive regarding both defiled and pure matters. Therefore, such individuals cannot break the Sangha (monastic community).

Breaking the Sangha requires doing so in a different location, and it must be done face-to-face (until 『dui bi』 is achieved) to be successful. Explanation of 『yichu』 (different location): 『Yichu』 refers to Kakasirisaka Mountain, which is called Elephant Head Mountain here. It is named so because the mountain peak resembles an elephant's head. It is located approximately three to four li north of Vulture Peak Mountain, within the same boundary. Devadatta resided there and broke the Sangha, so it was not face-to-face with the Master (Buddha). The old saying of Gaya Mountain is incorrect because the pronunciation of Kakasiri and Gaya are similar, hence the erroneous transmission. However, there is another Gaya Mountain in the west, more than one hundred and fifty li away from Vulture Peak Mountain, not within the same boundary, and not a place for breaking the Sangha.

Only by breaking the Sangha of ordinary beings (those who have not attained sainthood)... until saying the words of a fool. Explanation of 『fool』: The previously mentioned fool is one who has not attained the name of a saint, and the later mentioned fool is one who has not attained the stage of forbearance (ksanti). To encompass both meanings, the words 『fool』 are used.

The Sangha to be broken... at such a time. Explanation: Endorsing the path of a different teacher is called breaking the Sangha, revealing the time of breaking the Sangha. 『Yan you yu sheng dao zhe』 (The words 『there is another noble path』): The Sangha to be broken must endorse that different teacher, Devadatta, who is different from the World Honored Buddha. Also, endorse Devadatta's path, which is different from the Eightfold Noble Path taught by the Buddha, believing that there is another noble path. Devadatta said: 『I am the master, not the Shramana Gautama. The five dharmas are the path, not the Eightfold Noble Path taught by Gautama.』 The Sangha to be broken endorses a different teacher and a different path. It should be said that the breaking of the Sangha occurs under such circumstances. Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume 116, says: 『When can it be said that the Dharma wheel Sangha is broken?』 The answer is: 『The Prajnapana-sastra says that Devadatta himself is the fifth person, and everyone accepts his tokens. At this time, it can be said that the Dharma wheel Sangha is broken.』 Others say that after making a declaration; others say that they have left the place of hearing; others say that they have left the place of seeing; others say that they have left the place of seeing and hearing. Those who say this, if they vow to accept another teacher due to their intention, refer to those foolish Bhikshus (monks) who, with firm intention, utter such thoughts and words: 『Devadatta is my master, not the World Honored Buddha.』 At this time, it can be said that the Dharma wheel Sangha is broken.』『Yan wu fa zhe』 (The words 『five dharmas』): The Nyaya says: 『Those who speak of the wrong path, Devadatta falsely claims that five things are the path of liberation. First, one should not...』

受用乳等。二者斷肉。三者斷鹽。四者應被不截衣服。五者應居聚落邊寺(解云乳等等取酪．生蘇．熟蘇．醍醐。此五名著味。余文可知)　又婆沙一百一十六云。云何五法。一者盡壽著糞掃衣。二者盡壽常乞食。三者盡壽唯一坐食。四者盡壽常居迥露。五者盡壽不食一切魚肉．血味．鹽蘇．乳等(婆沙五法。與正理不同)。

此夜必和至壞僧和合故者。釋不經宿。真諦師云。日將暮時破僧。至夜三更還復和合。故言此夜必和不經宿住。

如是名曰破法輪僧。能障聖道輪壞僧和合故。聖道不轉名破法輪。壞僧和合名為破僧。故正理云。眾若忍許彼所說時名破法輪。亦名破僧。

何洲人幾至何洲人幾者。此下第四明破二僧別。問處及人。一問法輪。二問羯磨。

頌曰至通三洲八等者。前兩句答初問。后兩句答后問。

論曰至過此無限者。釋上兩句。明破法輪。如文可知。又婆沙云。問破僧時佛在眾中不。答佛時住彼界內而不在眾。云何知耶。曾聞。提婆達多欲破僧時。佛以慈愍故呵制之言。提婆達多汝勿破僧。勿起極重惡不善。勿趣非愛大苦果處。佛雖如是慇勤呵制。而彼都無止息之心。爾時世尊起正智見審觀前際。而我昔時破他眷屬。即自觀見。昔我無量無數劫前曾破壞他仙人眷屬。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：受用乳等（指乳、酪、生蘇、熟蘇、醍醐）。二者斷肉。三者斷鹽。四者應被不截衣服。五者應居聚落邊寺（解釋說，乳等等是指酪、生蘇、熟蘇、醍醐這五種味道好的東西。其餘文字可以理解）。又《婆沙論》第一百一十六卷說：什麼是五法？一是盡壽命穿糞掃衣。二是盡壽命常行乞食。三是盡壽命只坐著吃一餐。四是盡壽命常住在空曠的地方。五是盡壽命不吃一切魚肉、血味、鹽、蘇、乳等（《婆沙論》的五法，與《正理》不同）。『此夜必和至壞僧和合故者』，解釋為不過夜。真諦法師說，如果傍晚時分破僧，到半夜三更又恢復和合，所以說『此夜必和』，不會過夜。『如是名曰破法輪僧，能障聖道輪壞僧和合故』，聖道不能運轉叫做破法輪，破壞僧團的和合叫做破僧。所以《正理》說，大眾如果認可他所說的話，就叫做破法輪，也叫做破僧。『何洲人幾至何洲人幾者』，這以下第四部分說明破二僧的區別，詢問地點和人物。一問法輪，二問羯磨（karma，業）。『頌曰至通三洲八等者』，前兩句回答第一個問題，后兩句回答第二個問題。『論曰至過此無限者』，解釋上面兩句，說明破法輪，如文字所說可以理解。又《婆沙論》說，問破僧的時候佛在僧眾中嗎？回答說，佛當時住在那個區域內，但不在僧眾中。怎麼知道的呢？曾經聽說，提婆達多（Devadatta）想要破僧的時候，佛因為慈悲憐憫的緣故呵斥他說：『提婆達多，你不要破僧，不要造極重的惡不善業，不要走向不喜歡的巨大苦果之處。』佛雖然這樣慇勤地呵斥，但他都沒有停止的心。那時世尊用正智觀察前世，想到我過去曾經破壞他人的眷屬，就自己看到，過去在無量無數劫前，我曾經破壞他人的仙人眷屬。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Consuming milk etc.' (referring to milk, cheese, ghee, clarified butter, and cream). Secondly, abstaining from meat. Thirdly, abstaining from salt. Fourthly, wearing uncut clothes. Fifthly, residing in temples near settlements (explaining that 'milk etc.' refers to cheese, fresh ghee, cooked ghee, clarified butter – these five are known as flavors. The rest of the text is understandable). Furthermore, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam, volume 116, states: What are the five practices? First, wearing discarded rags for life. Second, constantly begging for food for life. Third, eating only one meal while seated for life. Fourth, constantly dwelling in open areas for life. Fifth, not consuming any fish, meat, blood flavors, salt, ghee, milk, etc. for life (The five practices in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam differ from those in Nyayanusara). 'This night surely harmonizes, referring to destroying the Sangha's harmony,' is explained as not lasting overnight. Master Paramartha says that if the Sangha is disrupted in the evening, it is restored to harmony by midnight, hence the saying 'this night surely harmonizes,' not lasting overnight. 'Such is called destroying the Dharma wheel Sangha, which obstructs the holy path and destroys the Sangha's harmony,' the inability of the holy path to turn is called destroying the Dharma wheel, and destroying the Sangha's harmony is called destroying the Sangha. Therefore, Nyayanusara says that if the assembly approves of what he says, it is called destroying the Dharma wheel, and also called destroying the Sangha. 'Which continent's people to which continent's people, how many?' The fourth part below explains the distinction between destroying the two Sanghas, inquiring about the location and people. First, inquiring about the Dharma wheel, second, inquiring about karma. 'The verse says, reaching through three continents and eight levels,' the first two lines answer the first question, and the last two lines answer the second question. 'The treatise says, exceeding this limitlessly,' explains the above two lines, clarifying the destruction of the Dharma wheel, as the text says, it can be understood. Furthermore, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam says, asking whether the Buddha was in the Sangha when the Sangha was destroyed? The answer is that the Buddha was residing within that area but not within the Sangha. How is this known? It was once heard that when Devadatta wanted to destroy the Sangha, the Buddha, out of compassion, rebuked him, saying: 'Devadatta, do not destroy the Sangha, do not create extremely heavy evil unwholesome karma, do not go to a place of disliked great suffering.' Although the Buddha rebuked him so earnestly, he had no intention of stopping. At that time, the World-Honored One used correct wisdom to observe past lives, thinking that I had destroyed others' families in the past, and saw for himself that in countless eons ago, I had destroyed the families of others ascetics.

彼業異熟今現在前。觀見是已知此僧眾定當破壞。便入靜室默然宴坐。提婆達多便破壞僧。故知世尊在於界內而不在眾。

唯破羯磨至故亦言等者。釋下兩句　通三洲者。有聖教故。及有出家弟子眾故。余文可知　正理論云。於何時分容有破僧．破羯磨僧　從結界后迄今亦有至法未滅　破法輪僧。除六時分　又婆沙一百一十六云。問破羯磨僧。破法輪僧。有何差別。答破羯磨者。謂一界內有二部僧。各各別住作布灑他羯磨說戒。破法輪者。謂立異師．異道。如提婆達多言我是大師。非沙門喬答摩。五法是道。非喬答摩所說八支聖道。

於何時分至無破法輪僧者。此即第五無破法輪時。

論曰至無破法輪者　皰謂瘡皰。邪戒．邪見名為二皰　邪戒謂說五法是道　邪見謂撥佛八正非道。余文可知　又婆沙一百一十六云。非初．後者。由此二時諸苾芻眾。于聖教中和合一味不可破壞　非於二皰未出時者。謂聖教中未生戒．見二種皰時　非未和合共結界時者。要一界內有二部僧。別住異忍方名破僧故。非未建立第一雙者。謂未建立第一雙時。定無能破法輪僧者。諸佛法爾皆有第一雙賢聖弟子。若有破壞法輪僧已。不經日夜。此第一雙還令和合。非於大師涅槃後者。若於大師般涅槃后。作如是言我是大師非如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他的業報異熟現在顯現。觀看到這些，世尊知道這個僧團必定會被破壞，於是進入靜室默然禪坐。提婆達多（Devadatta，佛陀的堂兄弟，試圖分裂僧團）便破壞了僧團。因此可知，世尊雖然身處結界（界，僧團活動的範圍）之內，但並不在僧眾之中。

'唯破羯磨至故亦言等者'，這是解釋下面兩句話。'通三洲者'，因為有聖教的流傳，以及有出家的弟子僧眾。其餘文字可以理解。《正理論》說：'在什麼時候允許出現破僧（Sangha，僧團）、破羯磨僧（Karma，羯磨，僧團的儀式）的情況？' 從結界之後直到現在，仍然有佛法未滅的情況，破法輪僧（Dharma，佛法）。除了六個特定的時間段。

《婆沙論》第一百一十六卷說：'問：破羯磨僧和破法輪僧有什麼區別？' 答：破羯磨是指在一個結界內有兩部分僧眾，各自獨立居住，進行布薩（Posadha，半月誦戒）和羯磨（Karma，僧團的儀式）。破法輪是指樹立不同的老師和教義，例如提婆達多說：'我是大師，不是沙門喬答摩（Śrāmaṇa Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛）。我的五法才是正道，不是喬答摩所說的八支聖道（Eightfold Path，八正道）。'

'於何時分至無破法輪僧者'，這指的是第五種沒有破法輪僧的情況。

論曰至無破法輪者：皰是指瘡皰。邪戒、邪見被稱為二皰。邪戒是指說五法是正道，邪見是指否定佛陀的八正道不是正道。其餘文字可以理解。《婆沙論》第一百一十六卷說：'不是最初和最後的時候，因為在這兩個時期，所有的比丘（Bhiksu，出家男子）眾在聖教中和合一致，不可破壞。' '不是在二皰未出現時'，指的是聖教中沒有產生戒和見兩種皰的時候。'不是未和合共同結界時'，要在一個結界內有兩部分僧眾，分別居住，持有不同的見解，才能稱為破僧。'不是未建立第一雙時'，指的是沒有建立第一雙（指最初證悟的兩位弟子）的時候，一定沒有能夠破壞法輪僧的人。諸佛的法則都是有第一雙賢聖弟子。如果有破壞法輪僧的人，不用經過日夜，這第一雙弟子就會使其恢復和合。'不是在大師涅槃之後'，如果在大師般涅槃（Parinirvana，圓寂）之後，有人說：'我是大師，不是像...

【English Translation】 English version: His karmic ripening is now manifest. Seeing this, the World Honored One knew that this Sangha (Sangha, monastic community) would surely be destroyed, so he entered a quiet chamber and sat in silent meditation. Devadatta (Devadatta, Buddha's cousin who attempted to split the Sangha) then destroyed the Sangha. Therefore, it is known that the World Honored One, although within the boundary (kṣetra, the area of monastic activity), was not among the assembly.

'Only the breaking of Karma, hence the saying 'etc.'', this explains the following two sentences. 'Extending through the three continents', because there is the propagation of the Holy Teaching, and there are ordained disciples. The remaining text is understandable. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'At what time is it permissible for there to be a breaking of the Sangha (Sangha, monastic community), a breaking of Karma Sangha (Karma, monastic rituals)?' From after the establishment of the boundary until now, there is still the situation of the Dharma (Dharma, the teachings) not being extinguished, the breaking of the Dharma wheel Sangha. Except for six specific time periods.

The Vibhasa Volume 116 says: 'Question: What is the difference between breaking the Karma Sangha and breaking the Dharma wheel Sangha?' Answer: Breaking the Karma refers to having two groups of monks within one boundary, each living independently, performing the Posadha (Posadha, bi-monthly recitation of precepts) and Karma (Karma, monastic rituals). Breaking the Dharma wheel refers to establishing different teachers and doctrines, such as Devadatta saying: 'I am the master, not Śrāmaṇa Gautama (Śrāmaṇa Gautama, Shakyamuni Buddha). My five dharmas are the true path, not the Eightfold Path (Eightfold Path, the path to enlightenment) spoken of by Gautama.'

'At what time is there no breaking of the Dharma wheel Sangha?', this refers to the fifth situation of there being no breaking of the Dharma wheel Sangha.

The treatise says, '...until there is no breaking of the Dharma wheel': A pustule refers to a sore or blister. Evil precepts and evil views are called the two pustules. Evil precepts refer to saying that the five dharmas are the true path, and evil views refer to denying that the Buddha's Eightfold Path is not the true path. The remaining text is understandable. The Vibhasa Volume 116 says: 'Not at the beginning or the end, because during these two times, all the Bhikshus (Bhiksu, ordained monks) are in harmony and unity within the Holy Teaching, and cannot be broken.' 'Not when the two pustules have not yet emerged', refers to when the two kinds of pustules of precepts and views have not yet arisen in the Holy Teaching. 'Not when they have not yet harmoniously established a boundary together', it is necessary to have two groups of monks within one boundary, living separately and holding different views, in order to be called a breaking of the Sangha. 'Not when the first pair has not yet been established', refers to when the first pair (referring to the first two enlightened disciples) has not yet been established, there will definitely be no one who can break the Dharma wheel Sangha. The Dharma of all Buddhas is that there is always a first pair of worthy and holy disciples. If someone breaks the Dharma wheel Sangha, without even a day or night passing, this first pair of disciples will restore it to harmony. 'Not after the Great Master's Nirvana', if after the Great Master's Parinirvana (Parinirvana, complete enlightenment after death), someone says: 'I am the master, not like...

來者。咸共責言。大師在世汝何不言我是大師。今涅槃后乃作是語。是故決定於此六時法輪不壞於所餘時法輪可壞。

非破法輪至有此事故者。顯破法輪由過去業。曾破壞他仙人眷屬。如前已說　又正理云。於此賢劫迦葉波佛時。釋迦牟尼曾破他眾故。婆沙．正理各引一事。所以不同。

且止傍論至害后無學無者。此即第三明成逆緣。

論曰至非餘者。釋第一句。此即問也。

由棄恩田壞德田故者。總答。

謂害父母是棄恩田者別釋恩田。

如何有恩者徴。

身生本故者。答。

如何棄彼者。問。

謂舍彼恩者。答。

德田謂余至故成逆罪者。別釋德田。德田謂余阿羅漢僧。及如來。具諸勝功德。及能生他勝功德故。壞彼勝德所依止身故成逆罪　又正理云。若有父．母子初生時。為殺棄于豺．狼路等。或於胎內方便欲殺。由定業力子不命終。彼有何恩棄之成逆。彼定由有不活等畏。于子事急匆起欲殺心。然棄等時必懷悲愍。數數緣子愛戀纏心。若棄此恩下逆罪觸。為顯逆罪有下．中．上故。說棄恩皆成逆罪。或由母等田器法然。設彼無恩但害其命。必應無間生地獄中。諸聰慧人咸作是說。世尊於法了達根源作如是言但應深信。

父．母形轉殺成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『來者，都一起責備說：「大師在世的時候，你們為什麼不說『我是大師』？現在涅槃之後才這樣說。」所以可以確定，在這六時之中，法輪不會壞滅，在其餘時間，法輪可能會壞滅。』『並非破壞法輪才導致這樣的事情發生』，這是爲了說明破壞法輪是由過去所造的業力導致的，就像之前所說的那樣，曾經破壞過其他仙人的眷屬。又，《正理》中說，在賢劫迦葉波佛（Kasyapa Buddha，過去七佛之一）時期，釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni，佛教創始人）曾經破壞過其他人的團體，所以《婆沙》和《正理》各自引用了一件事，原因就在於此。暫且停止旁論，『乃至殺害后無學者』，這指的是第三種，說明構成逆罪的因緣。論曰：『乃至非其餘者』，解釋第一句話，這實際上是一個提問。『由於捨棄恩田，破壞德田的緣故』，這是總體的回答。『所謂殺害父母是捨棄恩田』，這是分別解釋恩田。『如何有恩？』這是提問。『因為是身體出生的根本』，這是回答。『如何捨棄他們？』這是提問。『所謂捨棄他們的恩情』，這是回答。『德田指的是其餘的阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）、僧眾，以及如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號之一），他們具有各種殊勝的功德，並且能夠產生其他殊勝的功德，因此，破壞他們殊勝功德所依止的身體，就構成了逆罪。』又，《正理》中說，如果父母在孩子剛出生時，爲了殺害而將孩子拋棄在豺狼出沒的路上等等，或者在胎內就想方設法要殺死孩子，由於定業的力量，孩子沒有死成，那麼父母有什麼恩情可以捨棄而構成逆罪呢？他們一定是由於害怕無法生存等等，在緊急情況下才產生了想要殺死孩子的心。然而，在拋棄等等的時候，一定懷有悲憫之心，常常因為愛戀而牽掛孩子。如果捨棄這種恩情，就觸犯了下品的逆罪。爲了說明逆罪有下、中、上三種品級，所以說捨棄恩情都會構成逆罪。或者由於母親等等是田器，自然如此。即使他們沒有恩情，僅僅是殺害了他們的性命，也必定會無間地墮入地獄之中。所有聰明的人都這樣說。世尊對於法的根源徹底通達，所以才這樣說，只需要深信不疑。父母的形體轉變后殺害，也會構成逆罪。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Those who came together all blamed, saying, "When the master was alive, why didn't you say, 'I am the master'? Now you say this after his Nirvana." Therefore, it is certain that during these six periods, the Dharma wheel will not be destroyed; at other times, the Dharma wheel may be destroyed.' 'It is not the destruction of the Dharma wheel that leads to such events,' this is to explain that the destruction of the Dharma wheel is caused by past karma, just as it was said before, having destroyed the retinue of other immortals. Moreover, the Nyayanusara says that during the time of Kasyapa Buddha (one of the past seven Buddhas) in this Bhadrakalpa, Sakyamuni (the founder of Buddhism) once destroyed other people's groups, so the Vibhasa and Nyayanusara each cite one event, and the reason lies in this. Let's stop the digression for now, 'even killing those who are beyond learning', this refers to the third, explaining the conditions that constitute a heinous crime. The treatise says, 'even not the others', explaining the first sentence, which is actually a question. 'Because of abandoning the field of kindness and destroying the field of merit', this is the overall answer. 'So-called killing parents is abandoning the field of kindness', this is a separate explanation of the field of kindness. 'How is there kindness?' This is a question. 'Because it is the root of the body's birth', this is the answer. 'How to abandon them?' This is a question. 'So-called abandoning their kindness', this is the answer. 'The field of merit refers to the remaining Arhats (saints who have exhausted afflictions and attained liberation), the Sangha, and the Tathagata (one of the titles of the Buddha), who possess various supreme merits and can generate other supreme merits. Therefore, destroying the body on which their supreme merits depend constitutes a heinous crime.' Moreover, the Nyayanusara says, if parents abandon a child on the road frequented by jackals and wolves, etc., in order to kill the child when it is first born, or if they try to kill the child by any means while it is in the womb, but the child does not die due to the power of fixed karma, then what kindness do the parents have that can be abandoned to constitute a heinous crime? They must have had the intention to kill the child in an emergency due to fear of not being able to survive, etc. However, when abandoning, etc., they must have had compassion and often been concerned about the child because of love. If this kindness is abandoned, it violates the lowest level of heinous crime. In order to explain that heinous crimes have three levels: low, medium, and high, it is said that abandoning kindness constitutes a heinous crime. Or, because mothers, etc., are naturally like fields and vessels. Even if they have no kindness, merely killing their lives will inevitably lead to immediate rebirth in hell. All wise people say this. The World Honored One thoroughly understood the root of the Dharma, so he said this, and it is only necessary to believe deeply. Killing parents after their form has changed also constitutes a heinous crime.

逆耶者。釋第二句。此即問也。

逆罪亦成至謂父轉形者。答。逆罪亦成。所依止身前後一故。由如是義故毗婆娑有是問言。頗有令男離命根非父非阿羅漢。而為無問罪觸不。答曰有。謂母轉形為男。問頗有令女離命根。非母非阿羅漢。而為無間罪觸不。答曰有。謂父轉形為女。

設有女人至成害母逆者。釋第三句。此即問。

因彼血者至能長成故者。答。因彼血渧以成身者。此是生母殺成逆罪身生本故。第二女人但是養母。諸有所作應往來等事應咨後母。以彼後母能飲．能養．能長成故。故正理云。因彼血生者。識托方增故。第二女人但如養母。雖諸所作皆應咨決。而害但成無間同類。

若於父母至謂余而殺者。此下釋誤等無。此正明誤殺無逆。如文可知。故婆沙云。由二因緣得無間罪。一起加行。二果究竟。雖起加行果不究竟。彼不得無間罪。雖果究竟不起加行。亦不得無間罪。

若一加行至極微成故者。此即等中以收　前師意說。從強表一。若二俱強。如一加行害父害母表及無表各二並生。若二俱劣。如害非親。亦有二表二無表生　后師意說皆有二表二無表生。表微各異。由有表業能斷他命。表業若無他命寧斷。故婆沙云尊者妙音說曰。諸有表業極微所成。害母．及余極微各異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『逆耶者。釋第二句。此即問也。』這是對『逆耶者』的解釋，針對第二句話，這是一個提問。

『逆罪亦成至謂父轉形者。答。逆罪亦成。所依止身前後一故。由如是義故毗婆娑有是問言。頗有令男離命根非父非阿羅漢。而為無問罪觸不。答曰有。謂母轉形為男。問頗有令女離命根。非母非阿羅漢。而為無間罪觸不。答曰有。謂父轉形為女。』『逆罪也會成立，乃至說是父親轉變形態的情況。』回答是：逆罪也會成立，因為所依賴的身體前後是一致的。由於這個原因，《毗婆沙論》中有這樣的提問：『有沒有使男子失去生命，但那個人既不是父親也不是阿羅漢（Arahan，已證得涅槃的聖者），卻觸犯了無間罪？』回答是：『有，就是母親轉變形態成為男子。』又問：『有沒有使女子失去生命，但那個人既不是母親也不是阿羅漢，卻觸犯了無間罪？』回答是：『有，就是父親轉變形態成為女子。』

『設有女人至成害母逆者。釋第三句。此即問。』『假設有女人，乃至構成殺害母親的逆罪。』這是對第三句話的解釋，這是一個提問。

『因彼血者至能長成故者。答。因彼血渧以成身者。此是生母殺成逆罪身生本故。第二女人但是養母。諸有所作應往來等事應咨後母。以彼後母能飲．能養．能長成故。故正理云。因彼血生者。識托方增故。第二女人但如養母。雖諸所作皆應咨決。而害但成無間同類。』『因為那血液，乃至能夠成長。』回答是：因為那滴血液而形成身體，這是親生母親，殺害她構成逆罪，因為她是身體產生的根本。第二個女人只是養母，所有要做的事情，比如往來等事，應該諮詢後母，因為後母能夠哺乳、能夠養育、能夠使之成長。所以《正理》說：『因為那血液而出生，意識才得以寄託增長。』第二個女人只是像養母一樣，雖然所有的事情都應該諮詢她，但殺害她只構成同類的無間罪。

『若於父母至謂余而殺者。此下釋誤等無。此正明誤殺無逆。如文可知。故婆沙云。由二因緣得無間罪。一起加行。二果究竟。雖起加行果不究竟。彼不得無間罪。雖果究竟不起加行。亦不得無間罪。』『如果對於父母，乃至說是殺害其他人。』下面解釋誤殺等情況。這裡明確說明誤殺不構成逆罪，正如文中所說的那樣。所以《婆沙論》說：『由兩個因緣才能得到無間罪，一是發起加行，二是結果究竟。雖然發起加行但結果沒有究竟，那個人得不到無間罪。雖然結果究竟但沒有發起加行，也得不到無間罪。』

『若一加行至極微成故者。此即等中以收　前師意說。從強表一。若二俱強。如一加行害父害母表及無表各二並生。若二俱劣。如害非親。亦有二表二無表生　后師意說皆有二表二無表生。表微各異。由有表業能斷他命。表業若無他命寧斷。故婆沙云尊者妙音說曰。諸有表業極微所成。害母．及余極微各異』『如果一個加行，乃至由極微構成。』這就在『等』中包含了前一位論師的觀點。從強的一方表示一個。如果兩個都很強，比如一個加行同時傷害父親和母親，表業和無表業各自產生兩個。如果兩個都很弱，比如傷害非親屬，也有兩個表業和兩個無表業產生。后一位論師的觀點是都有兩個表業和兩個無表業產生，表業的極微各不相同。因為有表業才能斷絕他人的性命，如果沒有表業，他人的性命怎麼能斷絕呢？所以《婆沙論》中尊者妙音說：『所有表業都是由極微構成的，殺害母親和其他人的極微是不同的。』

【English Translation】 English version: 『Reverse, then. Explaining the second sentence. This is a question.』 This is an explanation of 『reverse, then,』 addressing the second sentence, which is a question.

『The reverse offense is also established, even to say that the father transforms. Answer: The reverse offense is also established because the body relied upon is the same before and after. Because of this meaning, the Vibhasa has this question: Is there anyone who causes a man to lose his life, who is neither a father nor an Arahan (a saint who has attained Nirvana), and yet is touched by the Avici (uninterrupted) offense? The answer is yes, namely, the mother transforms into a man. Question: Is there anyone who causes a woman to lose her life, who is neither a mother nor an Arahan, and yet is touched by the Avici offense? The answer is yes, namely, the father transforms into a woman.』『The reverse offense can also be established, even in the case of a father transforming.』 The answer is: The reverse offense is indeed established because the body relied upon remains the same before and after the transformation. Due to this reasoning, the Vibhasa (commentary) poses the question: 『Is there a situation where someone causes a male to die, who is neither the father nor an Arahan, and yet incurs the Avici (uninterrupted) offense?』 The answer is: 『Yes, when the mother transforms into a male.』 Another question: 『Is there a situation where someone causes a female to die, who is neither the mother nor an Arahan, and yet incurs the Avici offense?』 The answer is: 『Yes, when the father transforms into a female.』

『Suppose there is a woman, even to the point of committing the reverse offense of killing the mother. Explaining the third sentence. This is a question.』『Suppose there is a woman, to the extent of committing the reverse offense of killing the mother.』 This is an explanation of the third sentence, which is a question.

『Because of that blood, even to the point of being able to grow. Answer: Because that drop of blood forms the body, this is the birth mother, and killing her constitutes the reverse offense because she is the origin of the body. The second woman is only a foster mother. All actions, such as coming and going, should be consulted with the stepmother because the stepmother can nurse, nourish, and enable growth. Therefore, the Hetu-vidya-nyaya-pravesa-sutra (Treatise on Logic) says: 『Because of that blood, life is born, and consciousness relies on it to increase.』 The second woman is only like a foster mother. Although all actions should be consulted with her, killing her only constitutes the same kind of Avici offense.』『Because of that blood, even to the point of being able to grow.』 The answer is: Because that drop of blood forms the body, this is the biological mother, and killing her constitutes the reverse offense because she is the origin of the body's existence. The second woman is merely a foster mother. All actions, such as coming and going, should be consulted with the stepmother because the stepmother can provide milk, nourishment, and enable growth. Therefore, the Zhengli (Hetu-vidya-nyaya-pravesa-sutra) says: 『Because of that blood, life is born, and consciousness relies on it to increase.』 The second woman is only like a foster mother. Although all actions should be consulted with her, killing her only constitutes the same kind of Avici offense.

『If towards parents, even to say killing others. Below explains mistakes, etc., are absent. This clearly states that accidental killing is not a reverse offense, as the text shows. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 『The Avici offense is obtained by two causes: first, initiating the action; second, the result is complete. Although the action is initiated, if the result is not complete, that person does not obtain the Avici offense. Although the result is complete, if the action is not initiated, one also does not obtain the Avici offense.』『If towards parents, even to the point of saying killing others.』 The following explains mistakes, etc., are absent. This clearly states that accidental killing does not constitute a reverse offense, as the text indicates. Therefore, the Vibhasa (commentary) says: 『The Avici offense is obtained through two causes: first, initiating the action; second, the result is complete. Although the action is initiated, if the result is not complete, that person does not obtain the Avici offense. Although the result is complete, if the action is not initiated, one also does not obtain the Avici offense.』

『If one action, even to the point of being composed of extremely small particles. This is included in 『etc.』 to incorporate the view of the former teacher. From the strong, one is indicated. If both are strong, such as one action harming both father and mother, two manifested and two unmanifested karmas arise for each. If both are weak, such as harming a non-relative, there are also two manifested and two unmanifested karmas arising. The view of the latter teacher is that there are always two manifested and two unmanifested karmas arising. The extremely small particles of the manifested karmas are different. Because there is manifested karma that can sever another's life, if there is no manifested karma, how can another's life be severed? Therefore, the Vibhasa says that Venerable Myo-on (Wonderful Sound) said: 『All manifested karmas are composed of extremely small particles. The extremely small particles of harming the mother and others are different.』『If one action, even to the point of being composed of extremely small particles.』 This is included in 『etc.』 to incorporate the view of the former teacher. From the strong, one is indicated. If both are strong, such as one action harming both father and mother, two manifested and two unmanifested karmas arise for each. If both are weak, such as harming a non-relative, there are also two manifested and two unmanifested karmas arising. The view of the latter teacher is that there are always two manifested and two unmanifested karmas arising. The extremely small particles of the manifested karmas are different. Because there is manifested karma that can sever another's life, if there is no manifested karma, how can another's life be severed? Therefore, the Vibhasa (commentary) says that Venerable Myo-on (Wonderful Sound) said: 『All manifested karmas are composed of extremely small particles. The extremely small particles of harming the mother and others are different.』

。故有表罪於二人邊得。又眾事分受五戒時有五表五無表一時俱得。故知表．無表業有多並起。

若害阿羅漢至亦成逆罪者。釋或有。可知。

若有害父至以依止一故者。此亦等字以收可知。

若爾喻說至殺阿羅漢者。引經為難。若爾譬喻經說當云何通。佛告始欠持。汝已造二逆所謂．害父殺阿羅漢。昔佛在世南印度國有一國王。以國委付太子始欠持。往室羅筏歸佛出家得阿羅漢果。太子無道專行非法暴亂百姓。有舊老臣至父王所具陳上事。請王還國示誨太子。父王許諾請遂還本國。太子佞臣恐被誅戮。佞太子言。父王欲來奪太子位請遣一使在路而殺。太子納此佞言遂遣使殺。父王知業因緣應合子殺。甘心受死。佛知斯事遣弟子去告彼太子始欠持言。汝已造二逆。所謂害父．殺阿羅漢　始欠持此雲頂髻。

彼顯一逆至訶責彼罪者。答。通彼經言。彼經顯一逆由父．及羅漢二緣所成　言造二逆或以恩田．德田二門訶責始欠持罪　問前三俱轉中言如屬他生。俱時瞋．殺．盜。彼亦依止一故。有三業道俱時而轉。殺父．羅漢依止亦一。何妨得二逆　解云瞋．殺．盜業殊故別結業道。斷命是其一故不結二逆。

若於佛所至無間罪耶者。釋第五句及第六句。下無字通兩處故。此即問也。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，可以從兩個人那裡同時獲得表罪。此外，在同時受持五戒時，可以同時獲得五種表業和五種無表業。由此可知，表業和無表業可以同時產生多種。

如果殺害阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）也構成逆罪，這在解釋上或許是可能的，可以理解。

如果說殺害父親也構成逆罪，因為都是依止於同一個原因，那麼這個『也』字可以包含所有情況，可以理解。

如果這樣，如何解釋譬喻經中關於殺害阿羅漢的說法呢？這是引用經典來提出疑問。如果這樣，譬喻經中說的情況應該如何解釋呢？佛告訴始欠持（Sikhin，意為頂髻）：『你已經造了兩種逆罪，即殺害父親和殺害阿羅漢。』過去佛在世時，南印度國有一位國王，將國家委託給太子始欠持。他前往室羅筏（Sravasti）跟隨佛出家，證得阿羅漢果。太子無道，專行非法，暴亂百姓。有舊老臣到父王那裡，詳細陳述了上述情況，請求國王回國教誨太子。父王答應了，於是回到本國。太子的佞臣恐怕被誅殺，就對太子說：『父王想要來奪取太子之位，請派一個使者在路上殺了他。』太子採納了這個佞臣的建議，於是派使者去殺害父王。父王知道這是業因緣，應該被兒子所殺，甘心受死。佛知道這件事，派弟子去告訴太子始欠持說：『你已經造了兩種逆罪，即殺害父親和殺害阿羅漢。』始欠持，這裡的意思是頂髻。

如果彼經只顯示一種逆罪，卻呵責兩種罪行，該如何解釋？答：可以這樣理解，彼經顯示一種逆罪是由父親和阿羅漢兩種因緣所構成。說『造了兩種逆罪』，或許是從恩田（父母）和德田（阿羅漢）兩個方面來呵責始欠持的罪行。問：前面在『三俱轉』中說，比如屬於他人的生命，同時生起嗔恨、殺害、盜取。這也是依止於同一個原因，有三種業道同時運轉。殺害父親和阿羅漢也是依止於同一個原因，為什麼不能構成兩種逆罪呢？解釋說：嗔恨、殺害、盜取是不同的業，所以分別結成業道。斷命是其中的一個，所以不結成兩種逆罪。

如果在佛所犯戒，是否構成無間罪呢？解釋第五句和第六句。下面的『無』字可以通用在兩處，所以這是一個提問。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is possible to obtain both manifested (表) sins from two individuals simultaneously. Furthermore, when receiving the five precepts simultaneously, one can obtain five manifested (表) and five unmanifested (無表) karmas at the same time. From this, it is known that multiple manifested and unmanifested karmas can arise concurrently.

If harming an Arhat (阿羅漢, a liberated being) also constitutes a heinous crime (逆罪), the explanation might be possible and understandable.

If harming one's father also constitutes a heinous crime, because it relies on the same cause, then the word 'also' encompasses all situations and is understandable.

If so, how should we reconcile the statement in the metaphoric sutra regarding killing an Arhat? This is citing a sutra to raise a difficulty. If so, how should the situation described in the metaphoric sutra be explained? The Buddha told Sikhin (始欠持, meaning topknot): 'You have committed two heinous crimes, namely killing your father and killing an Arhat.' In the past, when the Buddha was in the world, there was a king in South India who entrusted the country to his son, Prince Sikhin. He went to Sravasti (室羅筏) to follow the Buddha and became an Arhat. The prince was immoral, engaged in illegal activities, and caused unrest among the people. An old minister went to the father-king and detailed the above situation, requesting the king to return to the country to teach the prince. The father-king agreed and returned to his country. The prince's sycophant, fearing being punished, said to the prince: 'The father-king wants to seize the prince's position, please send a messenger to kill him on the way.' The prince adopted the sycophant's suggestion and sent a messenger to kill the father-king. The father-king knew that this was due to karmic causes and that he should be killed by his son, so he willingly accepted death. The Buddha knew about this and sent a disciple to tell Prince Sikhin: 'You have committed two heinous crimes, namely killing your father and killing an Arhat.' Sikhin, here means topknot.

If that sutra only shows one heinous crime but rebukes two offenses, how should it be explained? Answer: It can be understood that the sutra shows one heinous crime constituted by the two causes of father and Arhat. Saying 'committed two heinous crimes' may be to rebuke Sikhin's offenses from the two aspects of the field of merit of gratitude (parents) and the field of merit of virtue (Arhat). Question: Earlier, in 'three occurring simultaneously,' it was said that, for example, regarding another's life, hatred, killing, and stealing arise simultaneously. This also relies on the same cause, and three karmic paths operate simultaneously. Killing one's father and an Arhat also rely on the same cause, why can't it constitute two heinous crimes? Explanation: Hatred, killing, and stealing are different karmas, so they separately form karmic paths. Taking life is one of them, so it does not form two heinous crimes.

If one violates precepts in the presence of the Buddha, does it constitute an unpardonable crime (無間罪)? Explaining the fifth and sixth sentences. The word 'un-' below can be used in both places, so this is a question.

要以殺心至無間則無者。答。要以殺心出佛身血方成逆罪。打心出血。以罪輕故無間則無。

若殺加行時至有逆罪耶者。釋第六句。此即問也。

無于無學身無殺加行故者。答可知。

若造無間至定相違故者。此即第四明加行定。無間加行若必定成。中間決無離染．得果。以彼業強次生必受。此離染道．及得果道。不能令彼業道不起。故決定無離染．得果　應知無間加行有二。一可轉。二不可轉。此中據不可轉者為問。故顯宗論二十三云。然我所宗無間加行總說有二。一近。二遠。近不可轉。遠有轉義(解云諸論言可轉據遠說。諸論言不可轉據近說。廣如正理．娑沙論說)。除無間業。若造余惡業道加行中間。若聖道生業道不起。轉至聖位所依止身。與彼惡業道定相違故。以彼業道劣聖道力強。能令此業不得現起。故得入聖。離染道劣不能令彼惡業不起　又解不言離染略而不論。

于諸惡行至世善中大果者。此即第五明罪重．大果。上兩句明罪重。下兩句明大果。

論曰至恩等少故者。釋上兩句。天授雖了八正是法。五是非法。為欲破僧。起虛誑語。顛倒顯示五法是法。八正非法。此無間中為最大罪。由此傷毀佛法身故。障世生天道．及涅槃道。謂僧未合。一切世間應入聖。應得果應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果要有殺心才能墮入無間地獄，那麼沒有殺心就不會墮入無間地獄嗎？回答：必須要以殺心，並且使佛陀流血，才能構成逆罪。如果只是打到出血，因為罪過較輕，所以不會墮入無間地獄。

如果在實施殺害行為的過程中，產生了逆罪嗎？這是對第六句的解釋，這是一個提問。

對於無學（arhat，阿羅漢）之人，因為沒有殺害的加行，所以不會產生逆罪。回答是顯而易見的。

如果造作了無間業，是否一定與解脫相違背呢？這是第四點，闡明加行的確定性。如果無間業的加行必定會完成，那麼中間絕對不可能離染證果。因為這種業力強大，下次轉生必定會承受果報。這種離染之道以及證果之道，不能使那種業道不起作用。所以絕對不可能離染證果。應該知道無間業的加行有兩種：一種是可以轉變的，一種是不可轉變的。這裡是根據不可轉變的情況來提問的。所以《顯宗論》第二十三卷說：『然而我所宗認為無間業的加行總的來說有兩種：近的和遠的。近的不可轉變，遠的可以轉變。』（解釋說，各種論典中說的可以轉變，是指遠的加行；各種論典中說的不可轉變，是指近的加行。詳細情況如《正理》、《娑沙論》所說）。除了無間業，如果造作其他的惡業道加行，中間如果有聖道產生，那麼惡業道就不會起作用，會轉至聖位所依止的身體。因為這與惡業道是完全相違背的。因為惡業道的力量弱，而聖道的力量強，能夠使這個惡業無法顯現。所以能夠進入聖道。離染道的力量弱，不能使那個惡業不起作用。』另外，解釋中沒有說離染，是省略而不論述。

在各種惡行中，乃至在世間善行中獲得大的果報。這是第五點，闡明罪過嚴重，果報巨大。上面兩句說明罪過嚴重，下面兩句說明果報巨大。

論中說乃至恩德等很少的緣故。這是解釋上面兩句。天授（Devadatta，提婆達多）雖然瞭解八正道是正法，五種邪法是非法，但是爲了破壞僧團，說虛妄的語言，顛倒地顯示五種邪法是正法，八正道是非法。這是無間業中最大的罪過。由此傷害了佛法的法身，障礙了世間生天之道以及涅槃之道。如果僧團沒有分裂，一切世間都應該進入聖道，應該證得果位。

【English Translation】 English version: If a killing intent is required to descend into Avici Hell, does the absence of killing intent prevent such descent? Answer: It requires a killing intent and the shedding of a Buddha's blood to constitute a heinous crime. If only blood is drawn from a strike, the sin is lighter, and Avici Hell is not the consequence.

If a heinous crime arises during the act of killing, is there a reverse crime? This is an explanation of the sixth sentence, which is a question.

For a non-learner (arhat), there is no reverse crime because there is no act of killing. The answer is self-evident.

If one commits an action leading to Avici, is it necessarily contrary to liberation? This is the fourth point, clarifying the certainty of the action. If the action leading to Avici is certain to be completed, then there is absolutely no possibility of detachment and attainment of fruition in between. Because this karmic force is strong, the next rebirth will certainly bear the consequences. This path of detachment and the path of attaining fruition cannot prevent that karmic path from arising. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to detach and attain fruition. It should be known that there are two types of actions leading to Avici: one is reversible, and the other is irreversible. This question is based on the irreversible case. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) volume 23 says: 'However, my school believes that there are two types of actions leading to Avici in general: near and far. The near one is irreversible, and the far one is reversible.' (The explanation is that the reversible actions mentioned in various treatises refer to the far ones; the irreversible actions mentioned in various treatises refer to the near ones. Details are as described in the Nyāyānusāra and Śāsanaprapatti). Except for the actions leading to Avici, if one commits other evil actions, and if the holy path arises in between, then the evil action will not arise, and it will be transferred to the body on which the holy position depends. Because this is completely contrary to the evil action. Because the power of the evil action is weak, and the power of the holy path is strong, it can prevent this evil action from manifesting. Therefore, one can enter the holy path. The power of the path of detachment is weak and cannot prevent that evil action from arising.' Furthermore, the explanation does not mention detachment, omitting it without discussion.

Among all evil deeds, even in worldly good deeds, one obtains great retribution. This is the fifth point, clarifying the severity of the crime and the magnitude of the retribution. The above two sentences explain the severity of the crime, and the below two sentences explain the magnitude of the retribution.

The treatise says, 'Even because of little kindness, etc.' This is an explanation of the above two sentences. Devadatta, although he understood that the Eightfold Path is the right Dharma and the five heterodoxies are not, in order to destroy the Sangha, spoke false words, perversely showing that the five heterodoxies are the right Dharma and the Eightfold Path is not. This is the greatest crime among the actions leading to Avici. Because it harms the Dharma body of the Buddha's teachings, it obstructs the path to rebirth in heaven and the path to Nirvana. If the Sangha had not been split, all the world should have entered the holy path and should have attained fruition.

離染應漏盡。皆悉被遮。修習諸定溫誦經典聞思等業。皆悉止息法輪不轉。皆身．心亂故招無間一劫異熟。

由此破僧五無間中罪最為重。餘四無間罪如其次第。第五齣佛身血。第三殺阿羅漢。第一殺母。此三如次後后漸輕。第二殺父最輕。恩等少故。等謂等取德。恩．德二田中德田勝恩田。以彼德田能拔有情生死苦故。故於德田罪重恩田　就德田三中。破僧最重。害法身故。諸佛所師所謂法也。次出佛身血罪重。以佛功德勝阿羅漢故。又是師故。次害阿羅漢輕故。于德田中以後德少故所以罪輕。前德多故罪重。就恩田二種中。父恩少母。母懷長養．慈恩多故。母重父輕。

若爾何故至邪見最大者。難。若虛誑語業為最重罪。何故身．語．意三罰業中。佛說意罰為最大罪。罰謂治罰造惡業者。罰入地獄故業名罰。又經說罪中邪見最大。

據五無間至如次說重者。答。諸法門中各一為重。若據五無間業中說破僧重。若約三罰業中說意罰罪大。就五僻見中說邪見重。或依大果義說破僧罪重。于無間獄一劫受故。依害多有情義說意業罪重。如仙意憤害多有情故。依斷善根義說邪見罪重。故言如次說重。

感第一有至說世善言者。釋下兩句。有頂善思感最大果。約異熟果故說此言。若五果中據離系果

則金剛喻定相應思能得大果。故諸結永斷為此思果故。雖諸無漏無間道思皆得離系。非如此故。為簡此無漏思故說世善言。

為唯無間罪定生地獄者。此下第六明無間同類。此即問。

諸無間同類至非無間生者。答。諸無間業同類亦定生地獄。有餘師說無間同類雖定生地獄。非要無間即生地獄。以通順后．及不定故。故正理云。諸無間同類亦定生彼。非定無間生。非無間業故。

同類者何者。問。

頌曰至是五逆同類者　言同類者是相似義　謂有于母阿羅漢尼。或於母．及阿羅漢尼行極污染。謂非梵行。是名殺母同類業體。同於母所作罪業故名同類業　或有殺害百大劫中住定菩薩。是名害父同類業體。菩薩恩深猶如父故。于彼造業名同類業　或殺學聖者。是殺阿羅漢同類業體。以學．無學同聖福田故。于彼造業名同類業　僧和合緣。謂資具等。若有侵奪僧和合緣令僧離散。是名破僧同類業體。和合資緣與僧義等。于彼作業名同類業　或有破壞佛窣睹波。是名出佛身血同類業體。眾人恭敬此窣都波與佛相似。于彼造業名同類業如是名為五逆同類。

有異熟業至二喻如前者。即比大文第五明三時障。于不定業中亦應除少分。以半為障半不障故所以不說。故正理四十三云。然於此中除順現受

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：那麼，與金剛喻定相應的思擇就能獲得巨大的果報。因此，各種煩惱的永遠斷除是這種思擇的果報。雖然各種無漏無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道：指直接證悟解脫的道路）的思擇都能獲得解脫，但並非因為這個原因（而獲得大果）。爲了區分這種無漏的思擇，所以說世間的善言。

只有無間罪（Anantarya-karma，無間罪：指五種極重的罪行，會導致立即墮入地獄）的同類業才會必定生於地獄嗎？以下第六部分說明無間罪的同類業。這是提問。

各種無間罪的同類業……（才會必定生於地獄）嗎？回答：各種無間罪的同類業也必定會生於地獄。有些論師說，無間罪的同類業雖然必定會生於地獄，但不一定要緊接著無間罪之後就生於地獄，因為它會通順於後面的業，並且是不確定的。所以《正理經》（Nyayasutra）說：『各種無間罪的同類業也必定會生於彼處（地獄），但並非必定緊接著無間罪之後生，因為它不是無間罪。』

什麼是同類業？提問。

頌曰：……是五逆罪（Pancanantarya，五逆罪：指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破和合僧、出佛身血五種重罪）的同類業。所說的同類業是相似的意思。例如，與母親或阿羅漢尼（Arhatni，女性阿羅漢）發生極度染污的行為，即非梵行（Abrahmacarya，非梵行：指違反禁慾戒律的行為）。這被稱為殺母的同類業。因為它與對母親所作的罪業相似，所以稱為同類業。或者，殺害在百大劫中安住于禪定的菩薩（Bodhisattva，菩薩：指發願為利益一切眾生而證悟成佛的人）。這被稱為殺父的同類業。因為菩薩的恩德深重，猶如父親一般。對他們造業，稱為同類業。或者，殺害有學的聖者。這是殺阿羅漢的同類業。因為有學和無學（Arhat，阿羅漢：指已證悟解脫的聖者）都是聖潔的福田。對他們造業，稱為同類業。僧眾和合的資具等。如果有人侵奪僧眾和合的資具，導致僧眾離散。這被稱為破僧的同類業。和合的資具與僧眾的意義相同。對它們造業，稱為同類業。或者，破壞佛塔（Stupa，窣堵波：指佛塔，通常用於存放佛陀或聖者的遺物）。這被稱為出佛身血的同類業。因為眾人恭敬佛塔，認為它與佛陀相似。對它造業，稱為同類業。像這樣被稱為五逆罪的同類業。

有異熟業……這兩個比喻與前面相同。這是比大文第五部分說明三種時障。在不確定的業中，也應該去除少部分，因為一半是障礙，一半不是障礙，所以沒有說。所以《正理經》第四十三篇說：『然而，在這裡面，去除順現受（Drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma，順現受業：指當生受報的業）』

【English Translation】 English version: Then, the reflection corresponding to the Vajropama Samadhi (Vajropama Samadhi, Diamond-like Samadhi: a very powerful samadhi) can obtain great results. Therefore, the permanent cutting off of all defilements is the result of this reflection. Although all non-outflow (Anasrava, free from outflows of desire) uninterrupted path (Anantarya-marga, uninterrupted path: the path that directly leads to enlightenment) reflections can obtain liberation, it is not for this reason (that they obtain great results). In order to distinguish this non-outflow reflection, worldly good words are spoken.

Is it only the similar karma of Anantarya-karma (Anantarya-karma, karma that leads to immediate rebirth in hell: the five heinous crimes) that will definitely be born in hell? The sixth part below explains the similar karma of Anantarya-karma. This is a question.

All similar karma of Anantarya-karma... (will definitely be born in hell)? Answer: All similar karma of Anantarya-karma will also definitely be born in hell. Some teachers say that although similar karma of Anantarya-karma will definitely be born in hell, it is not necessary to be born in hell immediately after Anantarya-karma, because it will conform to the subsequent karma and is uncertain. Therefore, the Nyayasutra (Nyayasutra, The philosophical text of Nyaya school) says: 'All similar karma of Anantarya-karma will also definitely be born there (in hell), but it is not necessarily born immediately after Anantarya-karma, because it is not Anantarya-karma.'

What is similar karma? Question.

Verse says: ...are the similar karma of the five heinous crimes (Pancanantarya, five heinous crimes: killing father, killing mother, killing Arhat, disrupting the Sangha, shedding the blood of the Buddha). The so-called similar karma means similar. For example, having extremely defiled behavior with one's mother or Arhatni (Arhatni, female Arhat), that is, non-celibacy (Abrahmacarya, non-celibacy: behavior that violates the precepts of celibacy). This is called the similar karma of killing the mother. Because it is similar to the karma done to the mother, it is called similar karma. Or, killing a Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, a person who vows to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all beings) who abides in samadhi for hundreds of great kalpas. This is called the similar karma of killing the father. Because the kindness of the Bodhisattva is deep, like a father. Creating karma towards them is called similar karma. Or, killing a learner saint. This is the similar karma of killing an Arhat (Arhat, a saint who has attained liberation). Because learners and non-learners are both sacred fields of merit. Creating karma towards them is called similar karma. The resources, etc., of the Sangha's harmony. If someone seizes the resources of the Sangha's harmony, causing the Sangha to disperse. This is called the similar karma of disrupting the Sangha. The meaning of harmonious resources is the same as that of the Sangha. Creating karma towards them is called similar karma. Or, destroying a Stupa (Stupa, a Buddhist monument, usually used to store relics of the Buddha or saints). This is called the similar karma of shedding the blood of the Buddha. Because people respect the Stupa, considering it similar to the Buddha. Creating karma towards it is called similar karma. Like this, it is called the similar karma of the five heinous crimes.

There is karma with different maturation... These two metaphors are the same as before. This is the fifth part of the great text explaining the three time obstructions. In uncertain karma, a small part should also be removed, because half is an obstruction and half is not, so it is not said. Therefore, the forty-third chapter of the Nyayasutra says: 'However, in this, remove Drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma (Drsta-dharma-vedaniya-karma, karma that ripens in the present life)'

。及順不定受異熟不定業。井異熟定中非異處熟者。以此準知。順生受業．順后受業．及順不定受業中異熟定異處熟者皆能為障　余文可知。

如上所言至說名為定者。此下大文第六明菩薩相。就中。一明住定位。二明修相業。三明供養佛。四明六度圓。此即第一明住定位　如上所言住定菩薩為從何位得住定名。此問菩薩位　又問彼復於何說名為定。此問定名。頌曰至具男念堅固者。上兩句答初問。下兩句答后問　此中言定。謂彼決定生善趣等名之為定。非是得定。菩薩住此名為住定。

論曰至及貴家等者。略釋頌本。如文可知　三十二相。如婆沙一百七十七具釋。

生善趣者至常無退屈者。此即別釋下半頌。一釋善趣。二釋貴家　或生婆羅門家。或生剎帝利家。或生巨富長者家。或生大婆羅門家　婆羅此云豪族。或大婆羅通上三處　三釋具。四釋男。五釋念。六釋堅。即無退屈名為堅也。

謂于利樂至皆能荷負者。別解無退屈　馱婆此云奴。不用錢買名為無價。謂彼菩薩受他驅役利益有情。如不用錢買奴相似　無緣大悲者。謂彼菩薩起此大悲。不由眾生於菩薩所有恩方起。無恩亦起故言無緣大悲。任運恒時系屬他故　以無慢心。皆悉攝同己身相似　須眼等時即便施與名難求事　能代眾生受

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以及順不定受異熟的不定業。至於異熟已定，但並非在異處成熟的業，可以依此推知。順生受業、順后受業，以及順不定受業中，異熟已定且在異處成熟的業，都能成為障礙。其餘文句可以自行理解。

上面所說的到『說名為定』，以下大段文字是第六部分，闡明菩薩的相狀。其中，一、闡明住定的位次；二、闡明修行的相狀和事業；三、闡明供養佛；四、闡明六度圓滿。這裡是第一部分，闡明住定的位次。上面所說的『住定菩薩』，是從哪個位次得到『住定』這個名稱的？這是在詢問菩薩的位次。又問，這個『定』又在什麼情況下被稱為『定』？這是在詢問『定』的名稱。頌文說，『具男念堅固者』，上面兩句回答第一個問題，下面兩句回答第二個問題。這裡所說的『定』，是指他決定會生於善趣等等，這叫做『定』，而不是指獲得禪定。菩薩安住於此，所以稱為『住定』。

論中說，『以及貴家等』，這是簡略地解釋頌文字身，如文句所示即可理解。三十二相，在《婆沙論》第一百七十七卷中有詳細解釋。

『生善趣者』到『常無退屈者』，這是分別解釋下半頌。一、解釋『善趣』；二、解釋『貴家』。或者生於婆羅門（Bāluómén，指印度教的祭司階層）家，或者生於剎帝利（chàdìlì，指印度教的武士階層）家，或者生於巨富長者家，或者生於大婆羅門家。婆羅，這裡的意思是豪族，或者大婆羅通指以上三個地方。三、解釋『具』；四、解釋『男』；五、解釋『念』；六、解釋『堅』，也就是沒有退縮，稱為『堅』。

所謂對於利益和快樂，都能承擔責任，這是分別解釋『無退屈』。馱婆（tuóbō），這裡的意思是奴隸。不用錢買的叫做『無價』。意思是說，這位菩薩接受他人的驅使，利益有情眾生，就像不用錢買來的奴隸一樣。『無緣大悲者』，是指這位菩薩生起這種大悲心，不是因為眾生對菩薩有什麼恩惠才生起，即使沒有恩惠也會生起，所以說是『無緣大悲』。無論何時都自然而然地與他人聯繫在一起。因為沒有傲慢之心，所以都像對待自己一樣。需要眼睛等東西的時候，立刻施捨，這叫做『難求事』。能夠代替眾生承受痛苦。

【English Translation】 English version: And the indeterminate karma that ripens into indeterminate experiences. As for karma with determinate ripening, but not ripening in a different place, this can be inferred from the above. Karma to be experienced in this life, karma to be experienced in a later life, and indeterminate karma to be experienced, in which the ripening is determinate and occurs in a different place, can all become obstacles. The remaining text can be understood on its own.

From what was said above to 'called Determination', the following major section is the sixth, explaining the characteristics of a Bodhisattva. Among them: 1. Explaining the position of abiding in determination; 2. Explaining the aspects and activities of practice; 3. Explaining offering to the Buddha; 4. Explaining the perfection of the Six Perfections. This is the first part, explaining the position of abiding in determination. From which position does the 'Bodhisattva abiding in determination' obtain the name 'abiding in determination'? This is asking about the position of the Bodhisattva. Furthermore, in what context is this 'determination' called 'determination'? This is asking about the name of 'determination'. The verse says, 'Possessing maleness, mindfulness, and firmness', the first two lines answer the first question, and the last two lines answer the second question. Here, 'determination' refers to the determination to be born in good realms, etc., which is called 'determination', not referring to obtaining samadhi. The Bodhisattva abides in this, therefore it is called 'abiding in determination'.

The treatise says, 'And noble families, etc.', this is a brief explanation of the verse itself, which can be understood as the text shows. The Thirty-two Marks are explained in detail in the Vibhasa, volume one hundred and seventy-seven.

'Born in good realms' to 'always without regression', this is a separate explanation of the second half of the verse. 1. Explaining 'good realms'; 2. Explaining 'noble families'. Either born into a Brahmin (Bāluómén, referring to the priestly class in Hinduism) family, or born into a Kshatriya (chàdìlì, referring to the warrior class in Hinduism) family, or born into a wealthy elder's family, or born into a great Brahmin family. 'Brahmin' here means a noble clan, or 'great Brahmin' refers to all three places above. 3. Explaining 'possessing'; 4. Explaining 'maleness'; 5. Explaining 'mindfulness'; 6. Explaining 'firmness', which is without regression, called 'firm'.

So-called being able to bear responsibility for benefits and happiness, this is a separate explanation of 'without regression'. 'Dhava' (tuóbō), here means a slave. Not bought with money is called 'priceless'. It means that this Bodhisattva accepts the service of others, benefiting sentient beings, like a slave not bought with money. 'Unconditioned great compassion' refers to the Bodhisattva arising this great compassion, not because sentient beings have any kindness towards the Bodhisattva, but it arises even without kindness, therefore it is called 'unconditioned great compassion'. Naturally and constantly connected to others at all times. Because there is no arrogance, they are all treated like oneself. When eyes, etc., are needed, they are given immediately, which is called 'difficult to obtain'. Able to bear suffering on behalf of sentient beings.

種種苦名勞迫事。顯無退屈　余文可知　又正理云。何故要修妙相業位。菩薩方受住定位名。爾時人．天方共知故。先時但為諸天所知。或於爾時趣等覺定。先唯等覺位決定非余　解云修相業時趣菩提時定先菩提決定非到決定。

修妙相業至各百福嚴飾者。此即第二明修相業。

論曰至非聞修類者。釋上兩句。一釋贍部。二釋男。三釋對佛。四釋佛思。五釋思所成。故正理云。唯思所成非修所成。不定界故。所感異熟此所繫故。非聞所成彼羸劣故。亦非生得加行起故　又婆沙一百七十七云。問相異熟業以何為自性。為身業。為語業。為意業耶。答三業為自性。然意業增上。有說唯意業為自性非身．語業。所以者何。此業猛利身．語業鈍故。問相異熟業為在意地。為五識身耶。答在意地非五識身。所以者何。意識有分別要觀察已行。五識無分別隨境界力起故。問相異熟業為加行得。為離染得。為生得耶。答唯加行得非離染得。非生得。所以者何。此業必在三無數劫修諸波羅蜜多。圓滿身中加行功用作意而後得故。有說此業加行得亦生得。但非離染。問相異熟業為聞所成．思所成．修所成耶。答唯思所成。非聞。非修。所以者何。此業勝故非聞所成。欲界系故非修所成。有說此業通聞．思所成。但非修所成(

【現代漢語翻譯】種種苦難被稱為勞迫之事。顯現出沒有退縮和屈服，其餘的文義可以自己理解。另外，《正理》中說：『為何要修習妙相業位（指佛菩薩因修行而獲得的殊勝相貌和地位）？因為菩薩才能獲得住定位（指菩薩修行達到一定程度后所證得的果位）的名稱。』那時，人、天才能共同知曉。在此之前，只有諸天才能知曉。或者在那個時候趣入等覺定（指菩薩修行接近成佛時所入的禪定）。之前只有等覺位才能決定，其他果位不能決定。解釋說，修習妙相業的時候，趣向菩提（指覺悟成佛）的時候才能決定，是先決定菩提，而不是先決定到達果位。

『修習妙相業直到各自用百福來莊嚴修飾』，這部分是第二點，說明修習妙相業。

論中說『直到不是聞修類』，這是解釋上面兩句話。第一是解釋贍部（Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）。第二是解釋男。第三是解釋對佛。第四是解釋佛思。第五是解釋思所成。所以《正理》中說：『只有思所成，不是修所成。』因為不定界（指不確定的境界）的緣故。所感得的異熟果（指由業力所感得的果報）是與此相關的緣故。不是聞所成，因為聽聞的力量羸弱的緣故。也不是生得，因為是加行（指通過努力修行）而生起的緣故。另外，《婆沙》第一百七十七卷中說：『問：相異熟業（指由修行相好而產生的果報）以什麼為自性？是身業（指身體的行為）、語業（指語言的行為）、還是意業（指意念的活動）呢？答：三業為自性。然而意業更加重要。』有人說只有意業為自性，不是身業和語業。為什麼呢？因為意業猛利，身業和語業遲鈍的緣故。問：相異熟業是在意地（指意識的層面），還是在五識身（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）呢？答：在意地，不是在五識身。為什麼呢？因為意識有分別，需要觀察之後才能行動。五識沒有分別，隨著境界的力量而生起。問：相異熟業是通過加行獲得，還是通過離染獲得，還是通過生得獲得呢？答：只有通過加行獲得，不是通過離染獲得，也不是通過生得獲得。為什麼呢？因為此業必定要在三大阿僧祇劫（指極長的時間單位）中修習諸波羅蜜多（指菩薩修行的六種主要方法），在圓滿的身中通過加行功用作意（指有意識地努力）之後才能獲得。有人說此業通過加行獲得，也是通過生得獲得，但不是通過離染獲得。問：相異熟業是通過聽聞所成、思所成、還是修所成呢？答：只有通過思所成，不是通過聽聞，也不是通過修所成。為什麼呢？因為此業殊勝，不是通過聽聞所成。因為是欲界系（指屬於欲界的範疇），不是通過修所成。有人說此業貫通聽聞和思所成，但不是通過修所成。

【English Translation】 All kinds of suffering are called laborious and oppressive matters. It shows no retreat or submission, and the rest of the text can be understood by oneself. Furthermore, the Hetuvidya (正理, a treatise on logic) says: 'Why is it necessary to cultivate the karma of wondrous marks and positions (妙相業位, referring to the excellent physical characteristics and status acquired by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas through practice)? Because only Bodhisattvas can receive the name of abiding in a definite position (住定位, referring to the state attained by Bodhisattvas after a certain level of practice).' At that time, humans and gods can jointly know it. Before that, only the gods knew it. Or at that time, they enter the Tathāgata-citta (等覺定, the samadhi entered by Bodhisattvas nearing Buddhahood). Previously, only the Tathāgata-citta position was definite, not others. The explanation is that when cultivating the karma of marks, the time of approaching Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment) is definite; it is deciding on Bodhi first, not deciding on reaching the position first.

'Cultivating the karma of wondrous marks until each is adorned with hundreds of blessings' - this is the second point, explaining the cultivation of the karma of marks.

The treatise says 'until it is not of the hearing and cultivation type' - this explains the two sentences above. First, it explains Jambudvipa (贍部, the world we live in). Second, it explains male. Third, it explains towards the Buddha. Fourth, it explains Buddha's thought. Fifth, it explains thought-accomplished. Therefore, the Hetuvidya says: 'Only thought-accomplished, not cultivation-accomplished.' Because of the indefinite realm. The vipāka (異熟果, the result of karma) felt is related to this. Not hearing-accomplished, because the power of hearing is weak. Also not innate, because it arises from effort (加行, diligent practice). Furthermore, Vibhasa (婆沙, a commentary on Buddhist texts), volume 177, says: 'Question: What is the nature of the karma of marks' vipāka? Is it bodily karma (身業, actions of the body), verbal karma (語業, actions of speech), or mental karma (意業, actions of the mind)? Answer: The three karmas are its nature. However, mental karma is more important.' Some say that only mental karma is its nature, not bodily or verbal karma. Why? Because mental karma is fierce, while bodily and verbal karma are dull. Question: Is the karma of marks' vipāka in the mental realm (意地, the level of consciousness), or in the five consciousnesses (五識身, the five sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body)? Answer: In the mental realm, not in the five consciousnesses. Why? Because consciousness has discrimination and needs to observe before acting. The five consciousnesses have no discrimination and arise according to the power of the object. Question: Is the karma of marks' vipāka obtained through effort, through detachment, or is it innate? Answer: Only through effort, not through detachment, and not innate. Why? Because this karma must be cultivated in the three asamkhya kalpas (三大阿僧祇劫, extremely long periods of time), cultivating the paramitas (波羅蜜多, the six main practices of Bodhisattvas), and obtained after consciously making effort in a complete body. Some say that this karma is obtained through effort and also through being innate, but not through detachment. Question: Is the karma of marks' vipāka accomplished through hearing, thought, or cultivation? Answer: Only through thought, not through hearing, and not through cultivation. Why? Because this karma is superior and not accomplished through hearing. Because it belongs to the desire realm (欲界系, belonging to the realm of desire), it is not accomplished through cultivation. Some say that this karma encompasses hearing and thought, but not cultivation.

婆沙雖無評家。諸論既同前師。即以前師為正)何處起者。在欲界人起。唯贍部洲非余洲。依何身起者。依男身起非女身等。於何時起者佛出世時。非無佛世。緣何境起者。現前緣佛起勝思愿。不緣余境。問三十二大丈夫相為一思所引。為多思耶。評家云。如是說者。三十二思引三十二大丈夫相。一一復以多業圓滿。問菩薩所起三十二思于諸相中先引何相。答有說先引足下平滿善住相。后引余相。先安其足后及余故。有說先引目紺青相。先以慈眼觀世間故。如是說者此則不定。隨此相緣合則引此相。

唯余百劫至九十一劫者。釋第三句。謂三無數劫外唯余．百劫造修非多。諸佛因中法應如是。皆百大劫修相異熟業　唯薄伽梵下。簡差別　聚落主。即是城主邑主。余文可知　依說一切有部。出三無數劫修妙相業已去．方離四過失得二功．德。

病舊師說至得二功德者。敘異說。經部之中宿舊師說。菩薩出初無數劫來。即離四過失得二功德　離四過失。謂離惡趣。離貧家。離缺支。離女等身　得二功德。謂得宿命念。得不退屈。

如前所辨至百福莊嚴者。釋第四句。如前所辨三十二相一一妙相各百福莊嚴　何謂百福　答此中百思名為百福。故婆沙一百七十七云。問如契經說佛一一相百福莊嚴。何謂百福

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：雖然《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）沒有評家，但其中的各種論述都與前代大師相同，因此以前代大師的觀點為準。這些殊勝的思愿從何處生起？在欲界的人中生起，而且只在贍部洲（Jambudvipa）生起，不在其他洲。依何種身生起？依男身生起，不是女身等。於何時生起？在佛出世時生起，不是在沒有佛的時代。緣何種境界生起？現前緣于佛生起殊勝的思愿，不緣于其他境界。問：三十二大丈夫相（thirty-two marks of a great man）是由一個思緒所引發，還是由多個思緒所引發？評家說：如果這樣說，那麼三十二種思緒引發三十二大丈夫相，每一種相又以多種業的圓滿來成就。問：菩薩所生起的三十二種思緒，在諸相中先引發哪一種相？答：有人說先引發足下平滿善住相（level feet），然後引發其餘的相，因為先安立其足，然後才及其餘。有人說先引發目紺青相（dark blue eyes），因為先以慈眼觀察世間。如果這樣說，那麼這就不一定了，隨此相的因緣聚合，就引發此相。

『唯余百劫至九十一劫者』，解釋第三句。意思是說，在三個無數劫（asamkhyeya kalpas）之外，只剩下百劫（kalpa）來造修，不是更多。諸佛在因地中，法則應當是這樣，都用一百大劫（maha kalpa）來修習相好異熟業。『唯薄伽梵（Bhagavan）下』，簡別差別。『聚落主』，就是城主邑主，其餘的文字可以知道。依據說一切有部（Sarvastivada）的觀點，在三個無數劫修習妙相業之後，才離開四種過失，得到兩種功德。

『病舊師說至得二功德者』，敘述不同的說法。經部（Sutrantika）中的老宿舊師說，菩薩從最初無數劫來，就離開了四種過失，得到了兩種功德。離開四種過失，是指離開惡趣、離開貧窮之家、離開殘缺的肢體、離開女身等。得到兩種功德，是指得到宿命念（recollection of past lives），得到不退屈（non-regression）。

『如前所辨至百福莊嚴者』，解釋第四句。如前面所辨析的，三十二相中的每一個妙相，都各自以一百種福德來莊嚴。什麼是百福？答：這裡的一百種思緒，就稱為百福。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十七卷說：問：如契經所說，佛的每一個相都以百福莊嚴，什麼是百福？

【English Translation】 English version: Although the Vibhasa (Vibhasa) has no commentators, its various arguments are the same as those of previous masters, so the views of previous masters are taken as the standard. From where do these excellent thoughts arise? They arise in beings in the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu), and only in Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa), not in other continents. Based on what kind of body do they arise? They arise based on the male body, not the female body, etc. When do they arise? They arise when a Buddha appears in the world, not in times without a Buddha. Based on what kind of object do they arise? They arise based on the present object of the Buddha, giving rise to excellent thoughts, not based on other objects. Question: Are the thirty-two marks of a great man (thirty-two marks of a great man) caused by one thought, or by many thoughts? The commentator says: If it is said in this way, then thirty-two thoughts cause the thirty-two marks of a great man, and each mark is perfected by the fulfillment of many karmas. Question: Which of the thirty-two thoughts that a Bodhisattva generates causes which mark to arise first? Answer: Some say that the level feet (level feet) arise first, and then the remaining marks, because the feet are established first, and then the rest. Some say that the dark blue eyes (dark blue eyes) arise first, because the world is first observed with compassionate eyes. If it is said in this way, then it is not certain; whichever mark's conditions come together, that mark arises.

'Only the remaining hundred kalpas to ninety-one kalpas' explains the third sentence. It means that beyond the three asamkhyeya kalpas (asamkhyeya kalpas), only a hundred kalpas (kalpa) remain for cultivation, not more. The Dharma for all Buddhas in the causal stage should be like this; they all use a hundred maha kalpas (maha kalpa) to cultivate the karma of excellent marks. 'Only Bhagavan (Bhagavan) below' distinguishes the differences. 'Village chief' is the city chief or town chief; the remaining text can be understood. According to the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) school, after cultivating the excellent marks for three asamkhyeya kalpas, one leaves the four faults and obtains two merits.

'The old master's saying of illness to obtaining two merits' narrates different sayings. The old masters of the Sutrantika (Sutrantika) school say that Bodhisattvas, from the first asamkhyeya kalpa, leave the four faults and obtain two merits. Leaving the four faults means leaving the evil realms, leaving poor families, leaving defective limbs, and leaving female bodies, etc. Obtaining two merits means obtaining recollection of past lives (recollection of past lives) and obtaining non-regression (non-regression).

'As explained before, to adorned with a hundred blessings' explains the fourth sentence. As explained before, each of the thirty-two excellent marks is adorned with a hundred blessings. What are the hundred blessings? Answer: The hundred thoughts here are called the hundred blessings. Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume 177, says: Question: As the sutras say, each mark of the Buddha is adorned with a hundred blessings. What are the hundred blessings?

。答此中百思名為百福。何謂百思。謂如菩薩造作增長足善住相業時。先起五十思修治身器令凈調柔。次起一思正牽引彼。后復起五十思令其圓滿。譬如農夫先治畦隴。次下種子。后以糞水而覆溉之。彼亦如是。如足善住相業有如是百思莊嚴。乃至頂上烏瑟膩沙相業亦復如是。由此故說佛一一相百福莊嚴　問何者是五十思耶　答依十業道各有五思。謂依離殺業道有五思。一離殺思。二助導思。三讚美思。四隨喜思。五迴向思。乃至正見亦爾。是名五十思。有說依十業道各起下．中．上．上勝．上極五品善思。如雜修靜慮。有說依十業道各起五思。一加行凈。二根本凈。三後起凈。四非㝵所害。五念攝受。有說緣佛一一相起五十剎那未曾習思相續而轉　又正理云。復有師言。一一相業各為緣佛。未曾習思具百現前而為嚴飾。

何等名為一一福量者。問一一福量。

有說唯除至唯佛乃知者。近佛菩薩即是百劫修福業人。所以須除。此中三說如文可知。且以後師為正。故婆沙一百七十七云。評家曰如是所說者。皆是淳凈意樂方便讚美菩薩福量。然皆未得其實。如實義者。菩薩所起一一福量無量無邊。以菩薩三無數劫積集圓滿諸波羅蜜多已。所引思愿極廣大故。唯佛能知非余所測。

今我大師至七千佛者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：這其中所說的『百思』指的是什麼？答：這其中的『百思』指的是『百福』。什麼是『百思』呢？譬如菩薩在造作、增長足善住相（指佛足安穩平正的相）的業時，先發起五十種思，用來修治身體，使之清凈調柔；然後發起一種思，用來正確地牽引這些思；之後再發起五十種思，使之圓滿。譬如農夫先整治田埂，然後播下種子，最後用糞水來覆蓋澆灌。菩薩也是這樣。如足善住相的業，有這樣一百種思來莊嚴，乃至頂上的烏瑟膩沙相（指佛頂肉髻相）的業也是這樣。因此說佛的每一個相，都是用一百種福來莊嚴的。問：哪五十種思呢？答：依據十業道，各有五種思。比如依據離殺業道，有五種思：一是離殺思，二是助導思，三是讚美思，四是隨喜思，五是迴向思。乃至正見也是這樣。這叫做五十思。有人說，依據十業道，各自生起下品、中品、上品、上勝品、上極品這五品善思，就像雜修靜慮一樣。有人說，依據十業道，各自生起五種思：一是加行清凈，二是根本清凈，三是後起清凈，四是不被損害，五是念攝受。有人說，緣于佛的每一個相，生起五十剎那未曾習思，相續不斷地運轉。又，《正理》中說：還有老師說，每一個相業，都是因為緣于佛，未曾習思完全顯現，用來莊嚴修飾。什麼叫做『一一福量』呢？問：什麼是『一一福量』？有人說，除了『只有佛才能知道』之外，接近佛的菩薩就是百劫修福業的人。所以需要排除。這裡有三種說法，可以按照原文理解。暫且以後面的老師的說法為正確。所以《婆沙》第一百七十七卷說：評論家說，像這樣所說的，都是純凈的意樂方便，讚美菩薩的福量。然而都沒有得到真實的意義。真實的意義是，菩薩所生起的每一個福量都是無量無邊的，因為菩薩在三大阿僧祇劫中積集圓滿了諸波羅蜜多，所引發的思愿極其廣大。只有佛才能知道，不是其他人所能測量的。現在我的大師（指釋迦摩尼佛）乃至七千佛……

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is meant by the 'hundred thoughts' (百思, bǎi sī) mentioned here? Answer: The 'hundred thoughts' here refer to 'hundred blessings' (百福, bǎi fú). What are 'hundred thoughts'? For example, when a Bodhisattva is creating and increasing the karma of the well-established feet (足善住相, zú shàn zhù xiàng) [referring to the Buddha's feet being stable and level], they first generate fifty thoughts to cultivate the body, making it pure and gentle. Then, they generate one thought to correctly guide those thoughts. After that, they generate another fifty thoughts to perfect it. It's like a farmer who first prepares the ridges of the field, then sows the seeds, and finally covers and irrigates them with manure and water. The Bodhisattva is the same. The karma of the well-established feet is adorned with these hundred thoughts, and so is the karma of the Ushnisha (烏瑟膩沙相, wū sè nì shā xiàng) on the top of the head [referring to the fleshy protuberance on the Buddha's head]. Therefore, it is said that each characteristic of the Buddha is adorned with a hundred blessings. Question: What are the fifty thoughts? Answer: Based on the ten wholesome karmic paths (十業道, shí yè dào), there are five thoughts for each. For example, based on the path of abstaining from killing, there are five thoughts: first, the thought of abstaining from killing; second, the thought of assisting and guiding; third, the thought of praising; fourth, the thought of rejoicing; and fifth, the thought of dedicating. And so on, even with right view. This is called fifty thoughts. Some say that based on the ten wholesome karmic paths, one generates five kinds of wholesome thoughts: inferior, medium, superior, superior-excellent, and superior-supreme, like mixed cultivation of meditative concentration. Some say that based on the ten wholesome karmic paths, one generates five thoughts: first, purity of preparation; second, fundamental purity; third, subsequent purity; fourth, non-harm; and fifth, mindfulness. Some say that in relation to each characteristic of the Buddha, fifty moments of unaccustomed thoughts arise, continuously turning. Furthermore, the Nyayanusara (正理, Zhèng lǐ) says: There are also teachers who say that each characteristic karma is due to the Buddha, and the unaccustomed thoughts fully manifest to adorn it. What is meant by 'the measure of each blessing' (一一福量, yī yī fú liàng)? Question: What is 'the measure of each blessing'? Some say that, except for 'only the Buddha knows,' the Bodhisattvas close to the Buddha are those who have cultivated blessings for a hundred kalpas. Therefore, they need to be excluded. There are three explanations here, which can be understood according to the text. For now, let's take the later teacher's explanation as correct. Therefore, the 177th fascicle of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Pó shā) says: The commentators say that what has been said in this way is all pure intention and skillful means, praising the measure of the Bodhisattva's blessings. However, none of them have attained the true meaning. The true meaning is that each measure of blessing generated by the Bodhisattva is immeasurable and boundless, because the Bodhisattva has accumulated and perfected all the Paramitas (波羅蜜多, Bō luó mì duō) over three great Asankhyeya kalpas, and the thoughts and aspirations that arise are extremely vast. Only the Buddha can know, and it cannot be measured by others. Now, my master [referring to Shakyamuni Buddha] and even the seven thousand Buddhas...

此下第三明佛頭數。就中。一明供養佛數。二明逢佛名字　此即第一明佛頭數。於三劫中后位漸勝故供養佛多。前位劣后故供養佛少。余文可知　三無數劫至一一同彼者。此即第二明逢佛名字。如文可知　若依大智度論。正法五百年。此文千年。豈不相違　解云依善見律度尼故減五百年。以行八敬故還得五百年。彼論約初減時故言五百。此論據后故說一千　又真諦云。佛涅槃后經今一千二百六十五年。

我釋迦菩薩至如次修圓滿者。此即第四明六度圓。初頌四句句顯一位。后頌以六配四。

論曰至修習圓滿者。此釋初位。顯佈施一修習圓滿。

勝生差別。謂人．天生。余文可知。

若時菩薩至修習圓滿者。此釋第二位。顯戒．忍二修習圓滿。折身不報凈戒圓滿。心無忿故忍辱圓滿。故正理云。忍圓滿者于彼有情心無忿故。戒圓滿者不起害他身．語業故。無忿故。身．語無惡故。無忿時戒忍圓滿。

若時菩薩至修習圓滿者。釋第三位。顯精進一修習圓滿　底沙此云圓滿。是星名。從星為名。婆沙一百七十七云。問此相異熟業經于幾時修習圓滿。答多分經百大劫。唯除釋迦菩薩。以釋迦菩薩極精進故超九大劫。但經九十一劫修習圓滿便得無上正等菩提。其事云何。如契經說過去有佛號曰底

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：接下來第三部分闡明佛陀的數量。其中，第一部分說明供養佛陀的數量，第二部分說明遇到佛陀的名字。這裡是第一部分，說明佛陀的數量。在三個無數劫中，後面的階段逐漸殊勝，所以供養的佛陀多；前面的階段較差，所以供養的佛陀少。其餘的文字可以理解。『三無數劫至一一同彼者』，這是第二部分，說明遇到佛陀的名字。如文字所說可以理解。如果依據《大智度論》，正法時期是五百年，而此文說是千年，豈不是相違背？解釋說，依據《善見律毗婆沙》，因為比丘尼的緣故減少五百年，因為實行八敬法，所以又得到五百年。那部論是根據最初減少的時候說的五百年，這部論是根據後來的情況說的千年。又真諦法師說，佛陀涅槃後到現在已經一千二百六十五年。『我釋迦菩薩至如次修圓滿者』，這是第四部分，說明六度（Dāna-pāramitā, Śīla-pāramitā, Kṣānti-pāramitā, Vīrya-pāramitā, Dhyāna-pāramitā, Prajñā-pāramitā）的圓滿。最初的偈頌四句，每句顯示一個位次。後面的偈頌用六度來配合四句。論中說『至修習圓滿者』，這是解釋第一個位次，顯示佈施（Dāna）的修習圓滿。殊勝的出生差別，指的是人道和天道。其餘的文字可以理解。『若時菩薩至修習圓滿者』，這是解釋第二個位次，顯示持戒（Śīla）和忍辱（Kṣānti）二者的修習圓滿。捨棄身體也不報復，是凈戒圓滿；心中沒有嗔恨，是忍辱圓滿。所以《正理》中說，忍辱圓滿是指對於那些有情眾生心中沒有嗔恨的緣故。持戒圓滿是指不起傷害他人身語的行為的緣故。沒有嗔恨的緣故，身語沒有惡行，沒有嗔恨的時候，持戒和忍辱就圓滿了。『若時菩薩至修習圓滿者』，這是解釋第三個位次，顯示精進（Vīrya）的修習圓滿。底沙（Tiṣya），這裡翻譯為圓滿，是一個星宿的名字，從星宿而得名。《婆沙》第一百七十七卷說，問：這個相異熟業經過多少時間修習圓滿？答：大部分要經過一百大劫。只有釋迦菩薩（Śākyamuni Bodhisattva），因為釋迦菩薩極其精進的緣故，超越了九大劫，只經過九十一劫修習圓滿，便證得無上正等菩提（Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi）。這件事是怎樣的呢？如契經所說，過去有佛，名為底沙（Tiṣya）。

【English Translation】 English version: Next, the third part elucidates the number of Buddhas. Among them, the first part explains the number of Buddhas offered to, and the second part explains encountering the names of Buddhas. Here is the first part, explaining the number of Buddhas. In the three countless kalpas (asaṃkhya-kalpa), the later stages gradually become more superior, so more Buddhas are offered to; the earlier stages are inferior, so fewer Buddhas are offered to. The remaining text can be understood. 『From three countless kalpas to each being the same as them,』 this is the second part, explaining encountering the names of Buddhas. As the text says, it can be understood. If according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom), the Dharma-Ending Age is five hundred years, while this text says a thousand years, wouldn't that be contradictory? The explanation is that according to the Samantapāsādikā (Good Seeing Vinaya), five hundred years are reduced because of the Bhikṣuṇīs (nuns), and because of practicing the Eight Garudhammas (a set of rules for nuns), five hundred years are regained. That treatise speaks of the initial reduction of five hundred years, while this treatise speaks of the later situation of a thousand years. Furthermore, Paramārtha (Zhen諦) says that it has been one thousand two hundred and sixty-five years since the Buddha's Nirvāṇa. 『I, Śākyamuni Bodhisattva, to successively cultivate to perfection,』 this is the fourth part, explaining the perfection of the Six Pāramitās (Dāna-pāramitā, Śīla-pāramitā, Kṣānti-pāramitā, Vīrya-pāramitā, Dhyāna-pāramitā, Prajñā-pāramitā). The initial verse of four lines, each line reveals a stage. The later verse uses the six pāramitās to match the four lines. The treatise says, 『To cultivate to perfection,』 this explains the first stage, revealing the perfection of the cultivation of giving (Dāna). The difference in superior births refers to births in the human and heavenly realms. The remaining text can be understood. 『When the Bodhisattva cultivates to perfection,』 this explains the second stage, revealing the perfection of the cultivation of morality (Śīla) and patience (Kṣānti). Abandoning the body without retaliation is the perfection of pure morality; the mind being without anger is the perfection of patience. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reasoning) says that the perfection of patience means that there is no anger in the mind towards those sentient beings. The perfection of morality means not arising harmful actions of body and speech towards others. Because there is no anger, the body and speech have no evil actions; when there is no anger, morality and patience are perfected. 『When the Bodhisattva cultivates to perfection,』 this explains the third stage, revealing the perfection of the cultivation of diligence (Vīrya). Tiṣya, here translated as 'perfection,' is the name of a star. The name is derived from the star. The Vibhāṣā (Commentary) volume one hundred and seventy-seven says, 'Question: After how much time is this karma of differing characteristics cultivated to perfection? Answer: Mostly it takes one hundred great kalpas. Only Śākyamuni Bodhisattva, because Śākyamuni Bodhisattva was extremely diligent, surpassed nine great kalpas, and only after ninety-one kalpas of cultivation to perfection did he attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment). How is this so? As the sutra says, in the past there was a Buddha named Tiṣya.'

沙。或曰補沙。彼佛有二菩薩弟子勤修梵行。一名釋迦牟尼(此云能寂能。寂眾惡故)二名梅怛儷藥(梅怛此云慈。儷藥此云氏。菩薩在慈姓中生。從姓立名故名慈氏。舊云彌勒訛也)爾時彼佛觀二弟子誰先根熟。即如實知。慈氏先熟。能寂后熟。復觀二士所化有情誰根先熟。又如實知釋迦所化應先根熟。知已即念。我今云何令彼機感相會遇耶。然令一人速熟即易。非令多人。作是念已便告釋迦。吾當欲遊山汝可隨去。爾時彼佛取尼師檀隨路先往。既至山中入吠琉璃龕。敷尼師檀結跏趺坐入火界定經七晝夜。受妙喜樂威光熾然。釋迦須臾亦往山上。處處尋佛如犢求母。展轉遇至彼龕室前。歘然見佛威儀端肅光明照曜。專誠懇發喜嘆。不堪於行無間忘下一足。瞻仰尊顏目不暫舍經七晝夜。以一伽陀贊彼佛曰　天．地．此界．多聞室。逝宮．天處．十方無。丈夫牛王大沙門。尋地．山．林遍無等　如是贊已便超九劫。于慈氏前得無上覺　問近佛地菩薩必于名．句．文身得未曾得巧妙自在。應以別頌異門贊佛。何故經七晝夜唯以一頌而贊佛耶　答菩薩爾時思愿勝故不重文頌。若改文頌思愿不淳。複次菩薩爾時怖畏散亂。如頌差別心亦異故。云何而得一心流注。複次菩薩顯己心無厭倦。能於一頌新新發起勝思愿故　問何故慈氏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本沙。有人也稱他為補沙佛（Buddha）。那位佛有兩位菩薩弟子，勤奮地修持梵行（Brahmacharya，清凈的行為）。一位名叫釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni，意為能寂能仁，因為他能寂滅一切惡行），另一位名叫梅怛儷藥（Maitreyaka，梅怛意為慈，儷藥意為氏，這位菩薩出生在慈姓家族中，因此以姓氏立名，故名慈氏，舊譯彌勒是訛傳）。當時，補沙佛觀察兩位弟子，誰的根器先成熟。他如實地知道，慈氏的根器先成熟，能寂的根器后成熟。他又觀察兩位弟子所教化的有情眾生，誰的根器先成熟。他又如實地知道，釋迦所教化的眾生應該先成熟。知道后，他心想：『我現在該如何讓他們機緣感應相遇呢？』讓一個人迅速成熟容易，但讓很多人成熟卻不容易。想到這裡，他就告訴釋迦：『我將要遊歷山林，你可以跟隨我一起去。』當時，補沙佛拿著尼師檀（Nisidana，坐具），沿著道路先行前往。到達山中后，他進入吠琉璃（Vaidurya，一種寶石）龕室，鋪開尼師檀，結跏趺坐（Vajrasana，一種坐姿），進入火界定（Tejo-dhatu Samadhi，一種禪定）七個晝夜。他感受著微妙的喜樂，威光熾盛。釋迦牟尼不久也來到山上，到處尋找佛陀，就像小牛尋找母親一樣。輾轉來到那個龕室前，忽然看見佛陀威儀端莊肅穆，光明照耀。他專心誠懇地發出喜悅的讚歎，以至於行走時無法忘記下一步，瞻仰佛陀的尊容，眼睛片刻也不離開，持續了七個晝夜。他用一個伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）讚美佛陀說：『天上、地下、此界、多聞室（講堂），逝宮（逝多林給孤獨園）、天上之處、十方世界，丈夫、牛王、大沙門（Sramana，修行者），尋遍大地、山林，沒有與您相等者。』這樣讚美之後，他就超越了九劫（Kalpa，極長的時間單位），在慈氏菩薩之前獲得了無上正等正覺（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，最高的覺悟）。有人問：『接近佛地的菩薩，必定在名、句、文身（詞句和表達）上獲得前所未有的巧妙自在，應該用不同的頌詞和不同的方式來讚美佛陀，為什麼經過七個晝夜只用一個頌詞來讚美佛陀呢？』回答說：『菩薩當時思念和願力殊勝，因此不重複頌詞。如果改變頌詞，思念和願力就不純粹了。而且，菩薩當時害怕散亂，如果頌詞有差別，心也會不同，怎麼能一心專注呢？此外，菩薩是爲了顯示自己心中沒有厭倦，能夠從一個頌詞中不斷地發起新的殊勝思念和願力。』有人問：『為什麼慈氏（Maitreya）

【English Translation】 English version 沙. Some call him Buddha Pusya. That Buddha had two Bodhisattva disciples who diligently practiced Brahmacharya (pure conduct). One was named Sakyamuni (meaning 'capable of stillness and benevolence,' because he can still all evil deeds), and the other was named Maitreyaka (Maitri means 'compassion,' and yaka means 'lineage.' This Bodhisattva was born into the compassionate lineage, hence the name Maitreyaka. The old translation 'Maitreya' is a corruption). At that time, Buddha Pusya observed which of the two disciples had more mature roots. He truly knew that Maitreyaka's roots were more mature, and Sakyamuni's roots were less mature. He also observed which sentient beings were to be taught by the two disciples, and whose roots were more mature. He truly knew that the beings to be taught by Sakyamuni should mature first. Knowing this, he thought, 'How can I bring about a meeting of their karmic connections?' It is easy to make one person mature quickly, but not so easy to make many people mature. Thinking this, he told Sakyamuni, 'I am going to travel in the mountains; you may follow me.' At that time, Buddha Pusya took his Nisidana (sitting cloth) and went ahead along the road. Arriving in the mountains, he entered a Vaidurya (a type of gemstone) chamber, spread out his Nisidana, sat in Vajrasana (lotus position), and entered the Tejo-dhatu Samadhi (fire element concentration) for seven days and nights. He experienced subtle joy and bliss, and his majestic light blazed. Sakyamuni soon came to the mountain, searching everywhere for the Buddha, like a calf seeking its mother. Eventually, he came to the front of the chamber and suddenly saw the Buddha's dignified and solemn appearance, radiating light. He sincerely and earnestly expressed joyful praise, so much so that he could not forget the next step as he walked, gazing at the Buddha's venerable face without taking his eyes off him for seven days and nights. He praised the Buddha with a Gatha (verse): 'In the heavens, on earth, in this realm, in the hall of much learning, in the Jeta Grove, in the heavenly realms, in the ten directions, the hero, the king of oxen, the great Sramana (ascetic), searching throughout the earth, mountains, and forests, there is no one equal to you.' After praising in this way, he transcended nine Kalpas (an extremely long unit of time) and attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (supreme perfect enlightenment) before Maitreya. Someone asked: 'A Bodhisattva near the Buddha-land must have attained unprecedented skillful mastery in names, phrases, and expressions, and should praise the Buddha with different verses and different methods. Why did he praise the Buddha with only one verse for seven days and nights?' The answer is: 'The Bodhisattva's thoughts and vows were supreme at that time, so he did not repeat the verses. If he changed the verses, his thoughts and vows would not be pure. Moreover, the Bodhisattva was afraid of distraction at that time. If the verses were different, his mind would also be different, how could he be single-mindedly focused? Furthermore, the Bodhisattva wanted to show that he had no weariness in his heart, and that he could constantly generate new and excellent thoughts and vows from one verse.' Someone asked: 'Why did Maitreya'

菩薩自根先熟所化后熟。釋迦菩薩則與此相違耶　答慈氏菩薩多自饒益。少饒益他。釋迦菩薩多饒益他。少饒益自。是故皆與所化不併　解讚頌云。天地總舉。謂天上．地中　此界。謂此三千大千世界　多聞室。謂毗沙門天宮。此天敬信名流十方故曰多聞　逝宮。謂梵王宮。以彼梵王計彼為常。佛為對治彼常計故故名逝宮。逝是無常義。又解逝宮所謂人宮。人宮速歸磨滅故言逝宮　天處。謂除多聞室及逝宮所餘天處　十方無。謂不但此三千大千世界中無。餘十方世界中亦無　遍求無等。乃言丈夫牛王大沙門　我今尋地．尋山．尋林。遍無與我世尊等者　又解多聞室。欲界天中舉初天中一顯餘三天及顯上五天。即六慾天也　逝宮。色界天中舉初一天顯餘二天。及顯已上諸天　天處。謂無色界天處　余解同前。

若時菩薩至修習圓滿者。此釋第四位。顯定．慧二修習圓滿。盡智已去名無上覺。次無上覺前。即是金剛喻定。此時定．慧修習圓滿。此約菩薩行因位中說六圓滿。不約果位。若約果位說六圓滿。得盡智時。故婆沙一百七十八云。總有三說。第三評家云。如是說者。此等所說皆依一時一行增上說為圓滿。如實義者。得盡智時此四波羅蜜多方得圓滿　解云以戒攝忍以慧攝定故但言四。此論同彼第二師說。又正理

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：菩薩是自己修行的根基先成熟，然後教化眾生使他們成熟。釋迦牟尼佛和這種方式相反嗎？回答是：慈氏菩薩（Maitreya Bodhisattva，即彌勒菩薩）更多的是利益自己，較少利益他人。釋迦菩薩更多的是利益他人，較少利益自己。因此，兩者都和被教化者不同步。解釋讚頌文說：『天地總舉』，指的是天上和地中。『此界』，指的是此三千大千世界。『多聞室』，指的是毗沙門天宮（Vaishravana's palace，北方守護神居住的宮殿）。因為這位天神敬信佛法，名聲流傳十方，所以叫做多聞。『逝宮』，指的是梵王宮（Brahma's palace，色界天主的宮殿）。因為梵天認為那裡是永恒的，佛爲了對治他這種常的觀念，所以叫做逝宮。『逝』是無常的意思。又解釋說，逝宮指的是人宮，因為人宮迅速歸於磨滅，所以叫做逝宮。『天處』，指的是除了多聞室和逝宮之外的其餘天界。『十方無』，指的是不單單在此三千大千世界中沒有，其餘十方世界中也沒有。『遍求無等』，然後才說丈夫、牛王、大沙門。『我如今尋找大地、尋找山、尋找森林，遍尋都沒有能與我的世尊相等的人。』又解釋說，多聞室，在欲界天中舉出初天，是爲了顯示其餘三天以及顯示上面的五天，也就是六慾天。逝宮，在色界天中舉出初一天，是爲了顯示其餘二天以及顯示以上的諸天。天處，指的是無色界天處。其餘的解釋和前面相同。如果菩薩達到修習圓滿的階段，這裡解釋的是第四個階段，顯示了禪定和智慧兩種修習的圓滿。盡智（knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements）之後叫做無上覺（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。在無上覺之前，就是金剛喻定（Vajropama-samadhi，如金剛般堅固的禪定）。這個時候，禪定和智慧的修習達到圓滿。這是從菩薩行因位的角度來說的六種圓滿，不是從果位的角度來說的。如果從果位的角度來說六種圓滿，那就是得到盡智的時候。所以《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）第一百七十八卷說，總共有三種說法。第三種評論家說，像這樣說的人，他們所說的都是依據一時一行的增上來說是圓滿。如實的意義是，得到盡智的時候，這四種波羅蜜多（paramita，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進）才能達到圓滿。解釋說，用戒律來攝持忍辱，用智慧來攝持禪定，所以只說四種。這個論點和他們的第二位論師的說法相同。又，《正理經》（Nyayasutra）也是這樣說的。

【English Translation】 English version: A Bodhisattva first matures his own roots and then matures those who are to be transformed. Is Shakyamuni Buddha contrary to this? The answer is: Maitreya Bodhisattva mostly benefits himself and benefits others less. Shakyamuni Buddha mostly benefits others and benefits himself less. Therefore, both are not synchronized with those who are to be transformed. Explaining the eulogy says: 'The heavens and earth are all raised,' referring to the heavens and the middle of the earth. 'This realm' refers to this three thousand great thousand worlds. 'The Chamber of Much Learning' refers to Vaishravana's palace (Vaishravana's palace, the palace where the Northern Guardian King resides). Because this deity reveres and believes in the Dharma, and his name spreads in all directions, he is called 'Much Learning'. 'The Palace of Passing Away' refers to Brahma's palace (Brahma's palace, the palace of the Lord of the Form Realm). Because Brahma considers that place to be eternal, the Buddha, in order to counteract his notion of permanence, calls it the 'Palace of Passing Away'. 'Passing Away' means impermanence. It is also explained that the Palace of Passing Away refers to the human palace, because the human palace quickly returns to annihilation, so it is called the Palace of Passing Away. 'Heavenly abodes' refers to the remaining heavenly realms other than the Chamber of Much Learning and the Palace of Passing Away. 'Nowhere in the ten directions' means that it is not only absent in this three thousand great thousand worlds, but also absent in the remaining worlds in the ten directions. 'Seeking everywhere, there is no equal,' and then it is said that he is a hero, a bull king, and a great Shramana. 'I now search the earth, search the mountains, search the forests, and everywhere I search, there is no one equal to my World-Honored One.' It is also explained that the Chamber of Much Learning, in the Desire Realm heavens, mentioning the first heaven is to show the remaining three heavens and to show the five heavens above, which are the six Desire Realm heavens. The Palace of Passing Away, in the Form Realm heavens, mentioning the first heaven is to show the remaining two heavens and to show the heavens above. Heavenly abodes refers to the Formless Realm heavens. The remaining explanations are the same as before. If a Bodhisattva reaches the stage of perfect cultivation, this explains the fourth stage, showing the perfection of both Samadhi and Wisdom cultivation. After the Knowledge of the Exhaustion of Defilements (knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements), it is called Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, unsurpassed perfect enlightenment). Before Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, there is the Vajropama-samadhi (Vajropama-samadhi, diamond-like firm Samadhi). At this time, the cultivation of Samadhi and Wisdom reaches perfection. This is from the perspective of the Bodhisattva's causal stage of practice, speaking of the six perfections, not from the perspective of the fruition stage. If speaking of the six perfections from the perspective of the fruition stage, it is when one attains the Knowledge of the Exhaustion of Defilements. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra), in its 178th fascicle, says that there are a total of three explanations. The third commentator says that those who say it this way, what they say is based on the increase of one time and one practice, saying it is perfection. The true meaning is that when one attains the Knowledge of the Exhaustion of Defilements, these four Paramitas (paramita, giving, morality, patience, diligence) can attain perfection. It is explained that using precepts to restrain patience, and using wisdom to restrain Samadhi, so only four are mentioned. This argument is the same as that of their second teacher. Also, the Nyayasutra (Nyayasutra) says the same.

云。理應此位無間方圓。得盡智時此方滿故。

能到自所往至波羅蜜多者。釋第五句六波羅。此云彼岸　蜜多。此云到。菩薩能到自乘所往圓滿功德彼岸處故。故此六種名曰波羅蜜多。

契經說有至差別如業道者。此下大文第七明施．戒．修。就中。一略明施．戒．修。二廣明施．戒．修　此即略明施．戒．修。

論曰至非業非事者。此即略釋頌文。善故名福。造作名業。即是身．語．及與意思。思所依託名事。類謂性類。故婆沙一百二十六云。施．戒．修性　故知類性名異．義同。施．戒．修三類是善故皆福。於三類中。或業。或事。隨其所應如業道說。謂如分別十業道中。有業亦道。謂前七種。有道非業。謂后三種。道名通十。業唯前七　應知此中福．業．事三通局亦爾。福即是通。業．事不定。總成四例。

且施類中至唯受福名者。此下約施．戒．修明福．業．事。此約施類以明。且施類中身．語二業具福．業．事三種義名。善故名福。作故名業。思所依託名事。故正理云。且施類中身．語二業具福．業．事三種義名。善故名福。作故亦業。是能等起身．語業思轉所依門故亦名事(已上論文)彼因等起思唯名福業。善故名福。作故名業。思非自依託故不名事。思俱有法唯受福名。善故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云。理應此位無間方圓。得盡智時此方滿故。

能到自所往至波羅蜜多（Paramita，意為到達彼岸）者。解釋第五句六波羅（Paramita）。此云彼岸，蜜多（Paramita）。此云到。菩薩能到自乘所往圓滿功德彼岸處故。故此六種名曰波羅蜜多（Paramita）。

契經說有至差別如業道者。此下大文第七明施（Dana，佈施）.戒（Sila，戒律）.修（Bhavana，修行）。就中。一略明施（Dana）.戒（Sila）.修（Bhavana）。二廣明施（Dana）.戒（Sila）.修（Bhavana）此即略明施（Dana）.戒（Sila）.修（Bhavana）。

論曰至非業非事者。此即略釋頌文。善故名福。造作名業。即是身．語．及與意思。思所依託名事。類謂性類。故婆沙一百二十六云。施（Dana）.戒（Sila）.修（Bhavana）性故知類性名異．義同。施（Dana）.戒（Sila）.修（Bhavana）三類是善故皆福。於三類中。或業。或事。隨其所應如業道說。謂如分別十業道中。有業亦道。謂前七種。有道非業。謂后三種。道名通十。業唯前七應知此中福．業．事三通局亦爾。福即是通。業．事不定。總成四例。

且施（Dana）類中至唯受福名者。此下約施（Dana）.戒（Sila）.修（Bhavana）明福．業．事。此約施（Dana）類以明。且施（Dana）類中身．語二業具福．業．事三種義名。善故名福。作故名業。思所依託名事。故正理云。且施（Dana）類中身．語二業具福．業．事三種義名。善故名福。作故亦業。是能等起身．語業思轉所依門故亦名事(已上論文)彼因等起思唯名福業。善故名福。作故名業。思非自依託故不名事。思俱有法唯受福名。善故

【English Translation】 English version: Cloud. It should be that this position is without interval, both square and round. Because this direction is full when perfect wisdom is attained.

Those who can reach the other shore by their own means are the Paramitas (Paramita, meaning to reach the other shore). Explaining the fifth line, the six Paramitas (Paramita). 'Paramita' means 'the other shore,' and 'mita' (Paramita) means 'to reach.' Because Bodhisattvas can reach the other shore of perfect merit by their own means. Therefore, these six are called Paramitas (Paramita).

The sutras say that there are differences like the paths of karma. The seventh major section below explains Dana (Dana, giving), Sila (Sila, morality), and Bhavana (Bhavana, cultivation). Among them: 1. Briefly explaining Dana (Dana), Sila (Sila), and Bhavana (Bhavana). 2. Elaborately explaining Dana (Dana), Sila (Sila), and Bhavana (Bhavana). This is a brief explanation of Dana (Dana), Sila (Sila), and Bhavana (Bhavana).

The treatise says, 'To be neither karma nor action.' This is a brief explanation of the verse. Goodness is called merit (福, fu). Creation is called karma (業, ye). That is, body, speech, and thought. What thought relies on is called action (事, shi). Category refers to nature. Therefore, the Vibhasa (婆沙) says in one hundred and twenty-six, 'The nature of Dana (Dana), Sila (Sila), and Bhavana (Bhavana).' Therefore, it is known that category and nature have different names but the same meaning. The three categories of Dana (Dana), Sila (Sila), and Bhavana (Bhavana) are all good, so they are all merit. Among the three categories, it may be karma or action, as appropriate, as described in the paths of karma. That is, as in the distinction of the ten paths of karma, some are both karma and path, namely the first seven. Some are path but not karma, namely the last three. 'Path' refers to all ten, while 'karma' only refers to the first seven. It should be known that the scope of merit, karma, and action here is also like this. Merit is the most inclusive. Karma and action are not fixed. There are a total of four cases.

Furthermore, in the category of Dana (Dana), only receiving merit is named. Below, merit, karma, and action are explained in terms of Dana (Dana), Sila (Sila), and Bhavana (Bhavana). This is explained in terms of the category of Dana (Dana). Furthermore, in the category of Dana (Dana), the two karmas of body and speech have the meaning of all three: merit, karma, and action. Goodness is called merit. Creation is called karma. What thought relies on is called action. Therefore, the Nyayasutra (正理) says, 'Furthermore, in the category of Dana (Dana), the two karmas of body and speech have the meaning of all three: merit, karma, and action. Goodness is called merit. Creation is also karma. It is the door by which thoughts arise, such as body, speech, and karma, so it is also called action' (above is the text of the treatise). The thought that arises from that cause is only called merit and karma. Goodness is called merit. Creation is called karma. Thought does not rely on itself, so it is not called action. The co-existent dharmas of thought are only named as receiving merit. Goodness, therefore.'

名福。非作故不名業。非思正依託故不名事。以思正託身．語起故。故俱有法不名為事。

戒類既唯至福業事名者。此約戒類以明。戒類既唯身．語業性。故皆具受福．業．事名。善故名福。作故名業。思依託故名事。

修類中慈至唯受福名者。此約修類以明。修類中慈無瞋為性。唯名福事。善故名福。思所依託故名事　慈名事者。業之事故　慈相應思業以慈為門而造作故。故慈名事。非作故不名業　與慈俱行思與慈俱行戒唯名福業。善故名福。作故名業。思非自托不名事。慈俱有思．戒非思正托起故不名事。以思正托慈門起故。所以但慈名事　問何故戒類中戒名為事。修類中戒不名事耶　解云戒類中戒據別解脫戒。是思依託故得事名。修類中戒是隨心轉戒。非思正托起故不名事　與慈俱行余俱有法唯受福名。善故名福。非作故不名業。非思正托起故不名事。

或福業名至起福加行故者。第二解。或福業名顯作福義。謂福加行是施．戒．修前加行也。加行即福名福加行。謂此加行善故名福。造作名業　或福之加行。福是施．戒．修。業是福前加行故名福加行　事顯所依　謂施．戒．修是彼福業之所依事。為成彼三施．戒．修事。所以於前起福加行　又解或福業名顯作福義。謂福加行此顯能依。事顯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

名為福。如果不是有意造作，則不稱為業。如果不是思慮正確依託而生起，則不稱為事。因為思慮正確依託身語而生起，所以雖然都具有法，但不稱為事。戒的種類既然只是獲得福、業、事這三種名稱，這是根據戒的種類來說明。戒的種類既然只是身語的業的性質，所以都具備獲得福、業、事的名稱。因為是善的，所以稱為福；因為是造作的，所以稱為業；因為是思慮所依託的，所以稱為事。修習的種類中，從慈心（Maitri，對一切眾生無私的愛）開始，只是獲得福的名稱，這是根據修習的種類來說明。修習的種類中，慈心以無瞋恨為自性，只是稱為福事。因為是善的，所以稱為福；因為是思慮所依託的，所以稱為事。慈心稱為事，是因為它是業的事。與慈心相應的思慮，以慈心為門徑而造作，所以慈心稱為事。如果不是造作的，則不稱為業。與慈心俱行的思慮和與慈心俱行的戒律，只是稱為福業。因為是善的，所以稱為福；因為是造作的，所以稱為業。思慮不是自己依託，所以不稱為事。與慈心俱有的思慮和戒律，不是思慮正確依託而生起，所以不稱為事。因為是思慮正確依託慈心之門而生起，所以只有慈心稱為事。問：為什麼戒的種類中，戒稱為事，而修習的種類中，戒不稱為事呢？回答說：戒的種類中的戒，是根據別解脫戒（Pratimoksha，佛教戒律）來說的，是思慮所依託的，所以得到事的名稱。修習的種類中的戒，是隨心轉的戒，不是思慮正確依託而生起，所以不稱為事。與慈心俱行的其他俱有法，只是獲得福的名稱。因為是善的，所以稱為福；如果不是造作的，則不稱為業；如果不是思慮正確依託而生起，則不稱為事。或者福業的名稱，是爲了顯明造作福德的意義。所謂的福加行，是佈施（Dana，慷慨的給予）、持戒（Sila，道德行為）、修習（Bhavana，冥想和培養）之前的準備行為。加行就是福，所以稱為福加行。意思是說，這種加行因為是善的，所以稱為福；因為是造作的，所以稱為業。或者說是福的加行。福是指佈施、持戒、修習。業是指福之前的加行，所以稱為福加行。事是爲了顯明所依。意思是說，佈施、持戒、修習是那福業所依靠的事。爲了成就那三種佈施、持戒、修習的事，所以在之前生起福加行。又一種解釋是，或者福業的名稱是爲了顯明造作福德的意義。所謂的福加行，這是爲了顯明能依靠的。事是爲了顯明...

【English Translation】 English version:

It is called 'blessing' (福, fu). If it is not intentionally created, it is not called 'karma' (業, ye). If it does not arise from correct reliance on thought, it is not called 'action' (事, shi). Because it arises from correct thought relying on body and speech, although all dharmas (法, fa) are present, it is not called 'action'. Since the category of precepts (戒, jie) only receives the names of 'blessing', 'karma', and 'action', this is explained according to the category of precepts. Since the category of precepts is only the nature of bodily and verbal karma, it possesses all three names of 'blessing', 'karma', and 'action'. Because it is good, it is called 'blessing'. Because it is created, it is called 'karma'. Because it is relied upon by thought, it is called 'action'. Among the categories of cultivation (修, xiu), starting with loving-kindness (慈, Maitri, selfless love for all beings), only the name of 'blessing' is received. This is explained according to the category of cultivation. Among the categories of cultivation, loving-kindness has non-anger as its nature and is only called 'blessing-action'. Because it is good, it is called 'blessing'. Because it is relied upon by thought, it is called 'action'. Loving-kindness is called 'action' because it is the 'action' of karma. The thought corresponding to loving-kindness creates with loving-kindness as the gateway, so loving-kindness is called 'action'. If it is not created, it is not called 'karma'. The thought that accompanies loving-kindness and the precepts that accompany loving-kindness are only called 'blessing-karma'. Because it is good, it is called 'blessing'. Because it is created, it is called 'karma'. Thought does not rely on itself, so it is not called 'action'. The thought and precepts that accompany loving-kindness do not arise from correct reliance on thought, so they are not called 'action'. Because it arises from correct thought relying on the gateway of loving-kindness, only loving-kindness is called 'action'. Question: Why is it that in the category of precepts, precepts are called 'action', while in the category of cultivation, precepts are not called 'action'? Answer: The precepts in the category of precepts are based on the Pratimoksha (別解脫戒, individual liberation precepts), which are relied upon by thought, so they receive the name of 'action'. The precepts in the category of cultivation are precepts that follow the mind, and do not arise from correct reliance on thought, so they are not called 'action'. Other co-existent dharmas that accompany loving-kindness only receive the name of 'blessing'. Because it is good, it is called 'blessing'. If it is not created, it is not called 'karma'. If it does not arise from correct reliance on thought, it is not called 'action'. Or the name of 'blessing-karma' is to reveal the meaning of creating blessings. The so-called 'blessing-practice' (福加行, fu jia xing) is the preliminary practice before giving (佈施, Dana, generosity), moral conduct (持戒, Sila, ethical behavior), and cultivation (修習, Bhavana, meditation and development). Practice is blessing, so it is called 'blessing-practice'. It means that this practice is called 'blessing' because it is good; it is called 'karma' because it is created. Or it is the practice of blessing. Blessing refers to giving, moral conduct, and cultivation. Karma refers to the preliminary practice before blessing, so it is called 'blessing-practice'. 'Action' reveals the basis. It means that giving, moral conduct, and cultivation are the actions upon which that blessing-karma relies. In order to accomplish those three actions of giving, moral conduct, and cultivation, one initiates blessing-practice beforehand. Another explanation is that the name of 'blessing-karma' is to reveal the meaning of creating blessings. The so-called 'blessing-practice' reveals what can be relied upon. 'Action' reveals...

所依。謂施．戒．修能依所依合說故名福業事也。

有說唯思至福業轉故者。第三解。或是經部有說。唯思是真福業。善故名福。作故名業。非是所託事故不名事。福業之事謂施．戒．修。以此三種為所依門福業轉故。是所託故此三名事。非真福業故不名福業　又解思真福業。此顯能依。福業之事謂施．戒．修。此顯所依。能依．所依合說故言福業事也。正理十四亦有三釋。同此論。

何法名施施招何果者。此下第二廣明施．戒．修。就中。一明佈施。二明戒．修。三明法施　就第一明佈施中。一明施體及果。二明施益差別。三明施果別因。四明施福最勝。五明施果無量。六明業輕重相。七明造作增長。八明施制多福。九明果由內心　此即第一明施體及果。一問何法名施。二問施招何果。

頌曰至此招大富果者。上三句答初問。下一句答后問。

論曰至是真．施體者。釋初句。雖所舍財物亦得施名。而於此施性中舍財之具名之為施。謂由此身．語業。及能發具舍物得成故。舍物所由身．語。及能發。是真施體　舍謂舍與。具是因義。

或由怖畏至此具名施者。釋第二句。或由八種施中怖畏施．希求施。希求施即是求報施。或是希天施。或希謂希天施。求謂求報施　於此貪故名之為貪　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所依，指的是佈施(Dāna)、持戒(Śīla)、修行(Bhāvanā)這三者能依靠的事物，因為能依和所依合在一起講述，所以稱為福業事(Puṇyakriyāvastu)。

有一種說法認為只有思（Cetanā）才是福業轉變的原因。這是第三種解釋，或者說是經部(Sautrāntika)的說法。只有思才是真正的福業，因為善的緣故稱為福，造作的緣故稱為業。不是所依託的事物，所以不稱為事。福業的事指的是佈施、持戒、修行。因為這三種是福業轉變所依靠的門徑，是所依託的，所以這三種稱為事。不是真正的福業，所以不稱為福業。另一種解釋是，思是真正的福業，這顯示了能依；福業的事指的是佈施、持戒、修行，這顯示了所依。能依和所依合在一起講述，所以稱為福業事。《正理十四》(Nyāyānusāra-śāstra XIV)中也有三種解釋，與此論相同。

什麼法稱為佈施？佈施招感什麼果報？接下來第二部分廣泛闡明佈施、持戒、修行。其中，第一部分闡明佈施，第二部分闡明持戒和修行，第三部分闡明法施(Dharma-dāna)。在第一部分闡明佈施中，第一點闡明佈施的本體和果報，第二點闡明佈施利益的差別，第三點闡明佈施果報的差別原因，第四點闡明佈施的福德最為殊勝，第五點闡明佈施的果報無量，第六點闡明業的輕重之相，第七點闡明造作增長，第八點闡明佈施的限制和多福，第九點闡明果報由內心決定。這裡是第一點，闡明佈施的本體和果報。第一問：什麼法稱為佈施？第二問：佈施招感什麼果報？

頌文說：『舍財及身語，此名為佈施，此招大富果。』上面三句回答第一個問題，下面一句回答第二個問題。

論述說：『舍物所由身語，及能發，是真施體。』這是解釋第一句。雖然所舍的財物也可以稱為佈施，但是在這個佈施的性質中，舍財的工具稱為佈施。也就是說，通過身、語業，以及能夠引發舍物的工具，才能成就舍物。舍物所依靠的身、語，以及能引發的工具，是真正的佈施本體。舍，就是舍與。具，是原因的意思。

或者由於怖畏施、希求施，這些都稱為佈施。希求施就是求報施，或者是希天施。或者說，希是希天施，求是求報施。對於這些貪求的緣故，稱之為貪。

【English Translation】 English version The 'support' refers to Dāna (giving), Śīla (ethics), and Bhāvanā (cultivation), which are the things that can be relied upon. Because the reliant and the supported are discussed together, it is called Puṇyakriyāvastu (bases of meritorious actions).

Some say that only Cetanā (intention) is the cause of the transformation of meritorious actions. This is the third explanation, or rather, the view of the Sautrāntika school. Only intention is the true meritorious action, because it is good, it is called merit (Puṇya); because it is an action, it is called karma (Karma). It is not the thing relied upon, so it is not called 'vastu' (thing). The 'vastu' of meritorious action refers to giving, ethics, and cultivation. Because these three are the gateways upon which meritorious actions rely, and are what is relied upon, these three are called 'vastu'. They are not true meritorious actions, so they are not called Puṇyakriyā.

Another explanation is that intention is the true meritorious action, which shows the reliant. The 'vastu' of meritorious action refers to giving, ethics, and cultivation, which shows the supported. The reliant and the supported are discussed together, so it is called Puṇyakriyāvastu. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra XIV also has three explanations, which are the same as this treatise.

What dharma is called giving (Dāna)? What result does giving bring? Next, the second part extensively elucidates giving, ethics, and cultivation. Among them, the first part elucidates giving, the second part elucidates ethics and cultivation, and the third part elucidates Dharma-dāna (giving of the Dharma). In the first part elucidating giving, the first point elucidates the essence and result of giving, the second point elucidates the differences in the benefits of giving, the third point elucidates the different causes of the results of giving, the fourth point elucidates that the merit of giving is the most excellent, the fifth point elucidates that the results of giving are immeasurable, the sixth point elucidates the characteristics of the lightness and heaviness of karma, the seventh point elucidates creation and increase, the eighth point elucidates the limitations and abundant merit of giving, and the ninth point elucidates that the result is determined by the inner mind. Here is the first point, elucidating the essence and result of giving. First question: What dharma is called giving? Second question: What result does giving bring?

The verse says: 'Giving away wealth, body, and speech, this is called giving; this brings the result of great wealth.' The above three lines answer the first question, and the line below answers the second question.

The treatise says: 'The body and speech by which things are given away, and what can initiate it, is the true essence of giving.' This is an explanation of the first line. Although the things given away can also be called giving, in the nature of this giving, the means of giving away wealth is called giving. That is to say, through the actions of body and speech, and the means that can initiate the giving away of things, the giving away of things can be accomplished. The body and speech upon which the giving away of things relies, and what can initiate it, is the true essence of giving. 'Giving' means giving away. 'Means' means cause.

Or because of fearful giving (giving out of fear), or hopeful giving (giving with hope), these are all called giving. Hopeful giving is giving in exchange for reward, or hopeful heavenly giving. Or rather, 'hope' is hopeful heavenly giving, and 'seeking' is seeking reward giving. Because of greed for these, it is called greed.

等謂等取余未說者。唯除第八取前七施　此前七施捨物事亦成非此意說。為簡彼七施故說供養言　謂為於他尊重供養。貧乏饒益而有所舍。此舍具名施　此即當彼八種施中第八施也。

具名何謂者。此下釋第三句。此即問也。

謂身語業．及此能發者。答。能發謂何者。徴。

謂無貪俱至總立以施名者。答。謂無貪俱時能起此身．語業。心．心所法聚名為能發　又解謂無貪俱時心．心所法。能起此身．語業聚。彼能起者名為能發　前解為勝　引頌證意。剎那善五蘊總立施名。此言剎那非一剎那據怛剎那。取能發因等起心．心所法四蘊。及所發身．語色蘊。前．后善五蘊總名剎那　又解此頌據剎那等起。故言此剎那善五蘊。總立以施名　問如婆沙二十九解財供養體云。評曰應作是說。若所舍財。若能捨者身．語二業。若能發彼心．心所法。若受者受已諸根大種造色增長。皆此自性。如是財供養總用五蘊以為自性　準婆沙文亦取所舍財為施體。何故此論不取財耶　解云婆沙評家通出財施體故。通取捨財．及諸根等。此論偏據真施體。故言舍具名施。

應知如是至草類舍等者。釋第四句。應知如是施類福業事。能招當來．及與現在大財富為果　言施類福者。類之言體。顯福以施為體義　如葉類器。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於那些沒有明確說明如何平等分配或獲取剩餘（未分配）之物的情況，有一種例外：第八種佈施（指為他人的尊重供養、貧乏饒益而有所舍的佈施）會取用前七種佈施的施捨之物。這意味著前七種佈施所施捨的物品，如果不用於其原本的目的，也可以成為第八種佈施的對象。這裡特別提到『供養』一詞，是爲了區別於前七種佈施，指的是爲了尊重他人而進行的供養，或是爲了幫助貧困者而進行的施捨。這種施捨才具備完整的『佈施』之名，也就是八種佈施中的第八種。

什麼是『具名』的含義呢？以下解釋第三句，這是一個提問。

指的是身、語、意（業），以及能引發這些行為的因素。』回答。『能引發』指的是什麼呢？』提問。

指的是與無貪（不貪婪）之心同時生起的，所有這些因素共同構成了『佈施』之名。』回答。指的是與無貪之心同時生起，能夠引發身、語行為的心和心所法（心理活動）的集合，被稱為『能發』。另一種解釋是，與無貪之心同時生起的心和心所法，能夠引發身、語行為的集合，這種能夠引發行為的因素被稱為『能發』。前一種解釋更為優勝。以下引用偈頌來證明這個觀點：『剎那善五蘊總立施名』。這裡的『剎那』並非指單一剎那，而是指『怛剎那』（極短的時間單位）。取能引發佈施的因，即等起的心和心所法四蘊（受、想、行、識），以及所引發的身、語色蘊（物質），前後相續的善五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）總稱為『剎那』。另一種解釋是，這句偈頌是根據剎那等起（剎那間生起）而說的，因此說『此剎那善五蘊，總立以施名』。

有人問：正如《大毗婆沙論》第二十九卷解釋財供養的本質時說：『評論說，應該這樣說，如果所施捨的財物，如果能施捨者的身、語二業，如果能引發這些行為的心和心所法，如果接受者接受后諸根大種（地、水、火、風）造色增長，這些都是財供養的自性。』這樣看來，財供養總共以五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）為自性。按照《大毗婆沙論》的說法，也取所施捨的財物作為佈施的本體，為什麼這部論典不取財物呢？

解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》的評論家是爲了全面地說明財佈施的本體，所以全面地取捨財物以及諸根等。而這部論典偏重於真正的佈施本體，所以說『舍具名施』。

『應知如是至草類舍等者』，解釋第四句。應該知道，像這樣的佈施行為所產生的福德，能夠招感未來和現在的大財富作為果報。『施類福』中的『類』字，指的是本體，表明福德以佈施為本體。就像葉子是器皿的本體一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding cases where it hasn't been explicitly stated how to equally distribute or acquire the remaining (unallocated) items, there's an exception: the eighth type of giving (referring to offerings made out of respect for others, or giving to benefit the poor) takes from the items given in the previous seven types of giving. This means that the items given in the previous seven types of giving, if not used for their original purpose, can also become the object of the eighth type of giving. The specific mention of 'offering' (供養) here is to distinguish it from the previous seven types of giving, referring to offerings made out of respect for others, or giving to help the impoverished. Only this kind of giving fully possesses the name of 'giving' (施), which is the eighth of the eight types of giving.

What is the meaning of 'fully possessing the name'? The following explains the third sentence, which is a question.

It refers to body, speech, and mind (karma), as well as the factors that can trigger these actions.' Answer. 'What does 'can trigger' refer to?' Question.

It refers to all those factors that arise simultaneously with a non-greedy (無貪) mind, and all these factors together constitute the name of 'giving.' Answer. It refers to the collection of mind and mental factors (心所法) that arise simultaneously with a non-greedy mind and are able to trigger actions of body and speech, which is called 'can trigger.' Another explanation is that the mind and mental factors that arise simultaneously with a non-greedy mind and are able to trigger the collection of actions of body and speech, this factor that is able to trigger is called 'can trigger.' The former explanation is superior. The following quotes a verse to prove this point: 'A momentary wholesome five aggregates (五蘊) are collectively established as the name of giving.' The 'momentary' here does not refer to a single moment, but to 'tat-kshana' (怛剎那, an extremely short unit of time). It takes the cause that triggers giving, that is, the four aggregates of mind and mental factors (feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) that arise together, as well as the aggregates of form (matter) of body and speech that are triggered. The successive wholesome five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) are collectively called 'momentary.' Another explanation is that this verse is based on momentary arising, therefore it says 'These momentary wholesome five aggregates are collectively established as the name of giving.'

Someone asks: Just as the 29th fascicle of the Mahavibhasa (大毗婆沙論) explains the essence of wealth offering by saying: 'The commentary says, it should be said like this, if the wealth that is given, if the actions of body and speech of the giver, if the mind and mental factors that can trigger these actions, if the roots and great elements (地、水、火、風) of the recipient increase after receiving, these are all the nature of wealth offering.' In this way, wealth offering in total takes the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) as its nature. According to the Mahavibhasa, it also takes the wealth that is given as the substance of giving, why doesn't this treatise take wealth?

The explanation is that the commentator of the Mahavibhasa comprehensively explains the substance of wealth giving, so it comprehensively takes the wealth given as well as the roots, etc. This treatise focuses on the true substance of giving, therefore it says 'giving fully possesses the name.'

'It should be known that such... up to giving of grass, etc.,' explains the fourth sentence. It should be known that the merit produced by such acts of giving is able to attract great wealth in the future and present as a result. The word 'type' (類) in 'type of merit of giving' refers to the substance, indicating that merit takes giving as its substance. Just as a leaf is the substance of a vessel.

西方以荷葉等為器。顯器以葉為體義　如草類舍。顯舍以草為體義　等謂等余所未說喻　戒．修二類準此應釋。

為何所益至不為二行施者。此即第二明施益差別。

論曰至恭敬報恩者。超果地故。謂離欲聖超于欲界異熟果地　余文可知。

前已總明至果有差別者。此下第三明施果別因。就中。一總明主等異。二別明主財田　此即第一總明主等異。結前問起。前已總明施招大富。今次當辨施果別家因。或施果家別因。或此別字通果及因。余文可知　且由施主至應時難奪果者。此下第二別明主財田。就中。一明主異。二明財異。三明田異　此即第一明主異。

論曰至與果有異者。釋初句。由施主成信．戒．聞等七種聖財差別功德。故名主異。由施主異故施因成差別。由施因差別故。所以施因與果有異　此中言等。謂等取慧．舍．慚．愧　言七聖財者。一信謂深信也。二戒謂凈戒也。三聞謂多聞也。四慧謂智慧也。五舍謂舍施也。六慚。七愧。慚．愧二種如前已釋。故集異門足論第十六說。七財者。一者信財。二者戒財。三者慚財。四者愧財。五者聞財。六者舍財。七者慧財。廣如彼釋。又瓔珞經下捲雲。七財信．施．戒．聞．慧．慚．愧　施之與舍名異義同。諸論雖複次第不同七名皆等。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『西方以荷葉等為器。顯器以葉為體義，如草類舍。顯舍以草為體義，等謂等余所未說喻，戒、修二類準此應釋。』——西方的僧侶們使用荷葉等物作為容器。『顯器』是指以荷葉的特性作為容器的意義，就像用草搭建的簡陋住所一樣，『顯舍』是指以草的特性作為住所的意義。『等』字包括了其他未提及的比喻，戒律和修行這兩類也應參照這種方式來解釋。

『為何所益至不為二行施者。此即第二明施益差別。』——為什麼有些佈施能帶來利益，而有些佈施卻不能帶來雙倍的利益？這部分內容是第二點，闡明佈施利益的差別。

『論曰至恭敬報恩者。超果地故。謂離欲聖超于欲界異熟果地，余文可知。』——論中說，（佈施者）能獲得恭敬和報恩的回報，這是因為他們超越了果報的層次。也就是說，已經脫離慾望的聖者超越了欲界的異熟果報的層次。其餘的文句可以自行理解。

『前已總明至果有差別者。此下第三明施果別因。就中，一總明主等異，二別明主財田。此即第一總明主等異。結前問起。前已總明施招大富，今次當辨施果別家因。或施果家別因。或此別字通果及因。余文可知。且由施主至應時難奪果者。此下第二別明主財田。就中，一明主異，二明財異，三明田異。此即第一明主異。』——前面已經總體說明了佈施能招致大富，現在要辨明佈施果報的差別的原因。這部分是第三點，闡明佈施果報差別的原因。其中，第一點是總的說明佈施的主體等方面的差異，第二點是分別說明佈施的主體、財物和田地的差異。這裡是第一點，總的說明佈施的主體等方面的差異。總結前面的問題並引出新的問題。前面已經總體說明了佈施能招致大富，現在要辨明佈施果報差別的原因，或者說是佈施果報和家庭差別的原因。或者說，這個『別』字可以同時指果報和原因。其餘的文句可以自行理解。接下來，從『由於施主』到『應時難奪果者』，這部分是第二點，分別說明佈施的主體、財物和田地的差異。其中，第一點是說明佈施主體的差異，第二點是說明佈施財物的差異，第三點是說明佈施田地的差異。這裡是第一點，說明佈施主體的差異。

『論曰至與果有異者。釋初句。由施主成信、戒、聞等七種聖財差別功德，故名主異。由施主異故施因成差別。由施因差別故，所以施因與果有異。此中言等，謂等取慧、舍、慚、愧。言七聖財者，一信謂深信也。二戒謂凈戒也。三聞謂多聞也。四慧謂智慧也。五舍謂舍施也。六慚。七愧。慚、愧二種如前已釋。故集異門足論第十六說。七財者，一者信財，二者戒財，三者慚財，四者愧財，五者聞財，六者舍財，七者慧財，廣如彼釋。又瓔珞經下捲雲。七財信、施、戒、聞、慧、慚、愧，施之與舍名異義同。諸論雖複次第不同七名皆等。』——論中說，（由於佈施主體的不同，）佈施的果報也會有所不同。這是解釋第一句話。由於佈施的主體成就了信心（śrāddha，對佛法的堅定信仰）、戒律（śīla，行爲規範）、博聞（śruta，廣博的知識）等七種聖財的差別功德，所以稱為『主異』。由於佈施的主體不同，所以佈施的原因也產生了差別。由於佈施的原因不同，所以佈施的原因和果報也會有所不同。這裡所說的『等』字，包括了智慧（prajñā，辨別是非的能力）、佈施（tyāga，樂於分享）、慚（hrī，對不道德行為的羞恥感）和愧（apatrāpya，對不道德行為的罪惡感）。所說的『七聖財』，第一是信財，指的是深刻的信仰。第二是戒財，指的是清凈的戒律。第三是聞財，指的是廣博的知識。第四是慧財，指的是智慧。第五是舍財，指的是樂於佈施。第六是慚。第七是愧。慚和愧這兩種已經在前面解釋過了。所以在《集異門足論》第十六中說，七種財富是：第一是信財，第二是戒財，第三是慚財，第四是愧財，第五是聞財，第六是舍財，第七是慧財，詳細的解釋可以參考該論。另外，《瓔珞經》下卷說，七種財富是：信心、佈施、戒律、博聞、智慧、慚、愧。佈施和捨棄，名稱不同，意義相同。各種論典雖然次第不同，但這七種名稱都是一樣的。

【English Translation】 English version: 『In the West, lotus leaves and the like are used as containers. 『Manifesting a container』 means taking the characteristic of the leaf as the meaning of the container, like a simple dwelling made of grass. 『Manifesting a dwelling』 means taking the characteristic of the grass as the meaning of the dwelling. 『Etc.』 includes other unmentioned metaphors. The categories of precepts and practice should be explained in this way.』 -- Monks in the West use lotus leaves and the like as containers. 『Manifesting a container』 refers to using the characteristics of lotus leaves as the meaning of the container, just like a simple dwelling built with grass. 『Manifesting a dwelling』 refers to using the characteristics of grass as the meaning of the dwelling. 『Etc.』 includes other unmentioned metaphors. The categories of precepts (śīla) and practice (bhāvanā) should be explained in this way.

『Why do some acts of giving bring benefit, while others do not bring double the benefit? This is the second point, clarifying the differences in the benefits of giving.』 -- Why do some acts of giving bring benefits, while others do not bring double the benefits? This section is the second point, clarifying the differences in the benefits of giving.

『The treatise says that (the giver) can obtain respect and gratitude in return, because they have transcended the level of karmic retribution. That is to say, a saint who has detached from desires has transcended the level of the matured karmic retribution of the desire realm. The rest of the sentences can be understood by oneself.』 -- The treatise says that (the giver) can obtain respect and gratitude in return, because they have transcended the level of karmic retribution. That is to say, a saint who has detached from desires has transcended the level of the matured karmic retribution of the desire realm. The rest of the sentences can be understood by oneself.

『Previously, it was generally explained that giving can lead to great wealth. Now, we will discern the causes of the differences in the results of giving. Among them, the first point is to generally explain the differences in the giver and other factors, and the second point is to separately explain the differences in the giver, the property, and the field. This is the first point, generally explaining the differences in the giver and other factors. Summarize the previous question and introduce a new question. Previously, it was generally explained that giving can lead to great wealth. Now, we will discern the causes of the differences in the results of giving, or the causes of the differences in the results of giving and the family. Or, the word 『difference』 can refer to both the result and the cause. The rest of the sentences can be understood by oneself. Next, from 『Because of the giver』 to 『the result is difficult to seize in due time,』 this part is the second point, separately explaining the differences in the giver, the property, and the field. Among them, the first point is to explain the differences in the giver, the second point is to explain the differences in the property, and the third point is to explain the differences in the field. Here is the first point, explaining the differences in the giver.』 -- Previously, it was generally explained that giving can lead to great wealth. Now, we will discern the causes of the differences in the results of giving. This part is the third point, clarifying the causes of the differences in the results of giving. Among them, the first point is to generally explain the differences in the giver and other factors, and the second point is to separately explain the differences in the giver, the property, and the field. Here is the first point, generally explaining the differences in the giver and other factors. Summarize the previous question and introduce a new question. Previously, it was generally explained that giving can lead to great wealth. Now, we will discern the causes of the differences in the results of giving, or the causes of the differences in the results of giving and the family. Or, the word 『difference』 can refer to both the result and the cause. The rest of the sentences can be understood by oneself. Next, from 『Because of the giver』 to 『the result is difficult to seize in due time,』 this part is the second point, separately explaining the differences in the giver, the property, and the field. Among them, the first point is to explain the differences in the giver, the second point is to explain the differences in the property, and the third point is to explain the differences in the field. Here is the first point, explaining the differences in the giver.

『The treatise says that (due to the differences in the giver,) the results of giving will also be different. This is an explanation of the first sentence. Because the giver has achieved the differential merits of the seven noble treasures such as faith (śrāddha, firm belief in the Dharma), precepts (śīla, code of conduct), learning (śruta, extensive knowledge), etc., it is called 『difference in the giver.』 Because the giver is different, the cause of giving also produces differences. Because the cause of giving is different, the cause and result of giving will also be different. The word 『etc.』 here includes wisdom (prajñā, the ability to distinguish right from wrong), giving (tyāga, willingness to share), shame (hrī, a sense of shame for immoral behavior), and remorse (apatrāpya, a sense of guilt for immoral behavior). The 『seven noble treasures』 are: first, the treasure of faith, which refers to deep faith; second, the treasure of precepts, which refers to pure precepts; third, the treasure of learning, which refers to extensive knowledge; fourth, the treasure of wisdom, which refers to wisdom; fifth, the treasure of giving, which refers to being willing to give; sixth, shame; and seventh, remorse. These two, shame and remorse, have already been explained earlier. Therefore, the sixteenth chapter of the Sangīti-paryāya says that the seven treasures are: first, the treasure of faith; second, the treasure of precepts; third, the treasure of shame; fourth, the treasure of remorse; fifth, the treasure of learning; sixth, the treasure of giving; and seventh, the treasure of wisdom. A detailed explanation can be found in that treatise. In addition, the lower volume of the Yingluo Sutra says that the seven treasures are: faith, giving, precepts, learning, wisdom, shame, and remorse. Giving and relinquishing have different names but the same meaning. Although the order of the various treatises is different, these seven names are all the same.』

諸有施主至及火等壞者。釋下三句。諸有施主具成如是信等功德。能如法行敬重等四施。如次便得尊重等四果。以因配果。如文可知　無損施者。謂行施時不損惱他施事得成。

田所施財至皆有差別者。此則第二明財異。由所施財或闕或具色．香．味．觸。如次便得或闕或具妙色等果。此即總釋。

謂所施財至如女寶等者。釋或具色．香．味．觸。如次便得或具妙色等果　果有減者由因闕故。釋或闕色．香．味．觸。如次便得或闕色等果。應知此中具有二種。或總具妙色．香．味．觸名具。或隨具三．二．一種亦名為具。闕亦有二。或總闕妙色．香．味．觸。或隨闕三．二．一種亦名為闕　有隨時觸者。寒有溫觸。熱有涼觸。故言隨時　如是感果有具．闕者。不但由彼身．語。能發。亦由具足色．香．味等故名財異。由財異故令真施體．及所感果皆有差別　問如集異門第一云財供養云何。答以可意色．聲．香．味．觸．衣服．飲食．臥具．醫藥．及余資具。於他有情能惠．能施．能棄．能捨．能遍盡舍。是謂財供養。何故彼論與此不同　解云此論不說聲以非恒有故。衣服等物色等以收。故不別說。

由所施田至恩德有差別者。此即第三明田異。

論曰至施果有殊者。此即總釋。由所施田

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：　　『諸有施主至及火等壞者』。解釋下面三句。『諸有施主』具足成就如是信心等功德，能如法行敬重等四種佈施，依次便能得到尊重等四種果報。以因對應果，如文中所說可知。　　『無損施者』。是指行佈施時，不損害他人，佈施之事得以成就。　　『田所施財至皆有差別者』。這是第二點說明財物的不同。由於所佈施的財物，或者缺少或者具備色、香、味、觸，依次便得到或者缺少或者具備美妙的色等果報。這是總體的解釋。　　『謂所施財至如女寶等者』。解釋具備色、香、味、觸，依次便得到具備美妙的色等果報。果報有減少，是因為因不具足的緣故。解釋缺少色、香、味、觸，依次便得到缺少色等果報。應當知道這裡面具有兩種情況。或者總的具備美妙的色、香、味、觸，稱為具備。或者隨意的具備三種、兩種、一種，也稱為具備。缺少也有兩種情況。或者總的缺少美妙的色、香、味、觸。或者隨意的缺少三種、兩種、一種，也稱為缺少。　　『有隨時觸者』。寒冷時有溫暖的觸感，炎熱時有涼爽的觸感，所以說隨時。　　『如是感果有具．闕者』。不單單由於身、語所能引發，也由於具足色、香、味等，所以稱為財物不同。由於財物不同，使得真實的佈施本體以及所感得的果報都有差別。　　問：如《集異門》第一所說，財供養是什麼？答：以可意的色、聲、香、味、觸、衣服、飲食、臥具、醫藥以及其他資具，對於其他有情能夠惠予、能夠施捨、能夠捨棄、能夠遍盡舍，這叫做財供養。為什麼那部論典與這裡所說不同？　　解釋說：這部論典沒有說聲音，因為它不是恒常存在的。衣服等物品的顏色等已經被色等所包含，所以不另外說明。　　『由所施田至恩德有差別者』。這是第三點說明福田的不同。　　論曰：至施果有殊者。這是總體的解釋。由於所佈施的福田

【English Translation】 English version: 『Those donors who reach and are destroyed by fire, etc.』 Explaining the following three sentences. 『Those donors』 who fully accomplish such merits as faith, etc., and can perform the four types of giving, such as respect, etc., according to the Dharma, will in turn obtain the four fruits of respect, etc. Matching the cause with the effect, as can be known from the text. 『Non-harming giver.』 It refers to not harming others when giving, so that the act of giving can be accomplished. 『The fields where wealth is given all have differences.』 This is the second point explaining the differences in wealth. Because the wealth given either lacks or possesses color, fragrance, taste, and touch, one will in turn obtain fruits that either lack or possess wonderful color, etc. This is a general explanation. 『That the wealth given is like a woman's treasure, etc.』 Explaining possessing color, fragrance, taste, and touch, one will in turn obtain fruits that possess wonderful color, etc. The fruits are diminished because the cause is incomplete. Explaining lacking color, fragrance, taste, and touch, one will in turn obtain fruits that lack color, etc. It should be known that there are two situations here. Either fully possessing wonderful color, fragrance, taste, and touch is called possessing. Or arbitrarily possessing three, two, or one is also called possessing. Lacking also has two situations. Either totally lacking wonderful color, fragrance, taste, and touch. Or arbitrarily lacking three, two, or one is also called lacking. 『Having touch according to the time.』 Having warm touch in cold weather, and cool touch in hot weather, hence the saying 『according to the time.』『Thus, the fruits felt have possession and lack.』 It is not only due to what the body and speech can initiate, but also due to possessing color, fragrance, taste, etc., hence it is called different wealth. Because of the different wealth, the true essence of giving and the fruits felt all have differences. Question: As stated in the first part of the Sangitisutra (集異門), what is wealth offering? Answer: With agreeable color, sound, fragrance, taste, touch, clothing, food, bedding, medicine, and other necessities, being able to bestow, give, abandon, relinquish, and completely give away to other sentient beings, this is called wealth offering. Why is that treatise different from what is said here? Explanation: This treatise does not mention sound because it is not constant. The colors, etc., of clothing and other items are already included in color, etc., so they are not separately mentioned. 『Because the fields where giving occurs have differences in kindness and virtue.』 This is the third point explaining the differences in fields of merit. Treatise says: 『The fruits of giving are different.』 This is a general explanation. Because the fields where giving occurs

總有四種。一趣。二苦。三恩。四德　各有差別故名田異。由田異故令彼施體．及果有殊。

由趣別者至受千倍果者。此下別釋。此即第一釋趣別。由趣不同施果差別。如文可知。

由苦別者至不可取量者。此即第二釋苦別。由苦不同施果差別。以此七種濟他苦故。依此七種功德增長故名有依。福業事三如前已釋　言七種者。一施客人。謂羈旅他鄉。二施行人。謂在路行人。三施病人。謂染疾者。四施侍病。謂看病人。五施園林。謂以園林施諸寺等。六施常食。謂有檀越佈施錢財或莊田等。白眾僧言。從今已去日別為我設七僧齋此名常食。西國諸寺現有此法　又解西方國俗諸信福人。于諸遠途．聚落絕處恐行侶中路飢渴故。于路側逼近苑林造舍置財多貯飲食。諸來去者所須施與。或有總施一切行人。或有但標諸出家者。常施食故名為常食。七隨時施。謂有或寒或風或熱時。隨其所應施彼隨時飲食．衣等。總名第七隨時施也　經復說言。若有具足凈信男女成七有依。所獲福德不可取量。

由恩別者至諸有恩類者。此即第三釋恩別。父．母．師僧有恩可知　如熊菩薩救濟人命。昔有一人入山採薪遇雪飢寒。熊將收養余命得存。天晴路通。其人下山。遇見獵師示彼熊處。共來加害分取肉時。身著大患受現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：總共有四種田：一是趣田（指佈施對像所處的生命狀態），二是苦田（指佈施對像所遭受的痛苦），三是恩田（指佈施對像對施予者有恩），四是德田（指佈施對像具有高尚的品德）。因為這四種田各有差別，所以稱為『田異』。由於田的不同，使得佈施的主體以及所獲得的果報也有所不同。

由趣別者至受千倍果者。這以下分別解釋。這是第一種解釋，即趣別。由於生命狀態的不同，佈施的果報也有差別，如經文所說。

由苦別者至不可取量者。這是第二種解釋，即苦別。由於痛苦的不同，佈施的果報也有差別。因為用這七種方式救濟他人的痛苦，依靠這七種功德增長，所以稱為『有依』。福業事三種，如前面已經解釋過。所說的七種是：一是施客人，指寄居他鄉的人；二是施行人，指在路上的行人；三是施病人，指患病的人；四是施侍病，指照顧病人的人；五是施園林，指將園林佈施給寺廟等；六是施常食，指有施主佈施錢財或莊田等，告訴眾僧說：『從今以後，每天為我準備七個僧人的齋飯。』這稱為常食。西方的寺廟現在還有這種做法。另一種解釋是，西方國家的風俗，那些信奉福報的人，在偏遠的道路、人煙稀少的地方，擔心行人中途飢渴，所以在路邊靠近園林的地方建造房屋，放置財物，儲存大量的飲食，供給來往的人，或者全部佈施給所有的行人，或者只標明是給修行出家的人。因為經常佈施食物，所以稱為常食。七是隨時施，指在寒冷、颳風或炎熱的時候，根據當時的情況，佈施給他們當時需要的飲食、衣服等。總稱為第七種隨時施。經中又說，如果有人具足清凈的信心，成就這七種有依，所獲得的福德是不可估量的。

由恩別者至諸有恩類者。這是第三種解釋，即恩別。父親、母親、師父、僧人，對我們有恩，這是可以理解的。例如熊菩薩救濟人命的故事。過去有一個人進山砍柴，遇到大雪，飢寒交迫。熊將他收留，他的性命才得以保全。天晴路通后，這個人下山，遇見獵人，告訴獵人熊的住處，一起去加害熊，在分熊肉的時候，這個人身患重病，遭受現世的報應。

【English Translation】 English version: There are four types of fields in total: first, the field of inclination (referring to the state of life of the object of giving); second, the field of suffering (referring to the suffering endured by the object of giving); third, the field of gratitude (referring to the object of giving being kind to the giver); and fourth, the field of virtue (referring to the object of giving possessing noble virtues). Because these four types of fields are different, they are called 'different fields'. Due to the difference in fields, the subject of giving and the resulting rewards are also different.

'By difference in inclination' to 'those who receive a thousandfold reward'. This is explained separately below. This is the first explanation, namely the difference in inclination. Due to the difference in life states, the rewards of giving are also different, as stated in the scriptures.

'By difference in suffering' to 'immeasurable'. This is the second explanation, namely the difference in suffering. Due to the difference in suffering, the rewards of giving are also different. Because these seven methods are used to relieve the suffering of others, and relying on these seven merits increases, it is called 'having reliance'. The three types of meritorious deeds have been explained earlier. The seven types mentioned are: first, giving to guests, referring to those who are living in a foreign land; second, giving to travelers, referring to travelers on the road; third, giving to the sick, referring to those who are ill; fourth, giving to those who care for the sick, referring to those who take care of the sick; fifth, giving gardens and forests, referring to donating gardens and forests to temples, etc.; sixth, giving regular meals, referring to donors donating money or fields, etc., and telling the monks: 'From now on, prepare meals for seven monks for me every day.' This is called regular meals. Temples in the Western countries still have this practice. Another explanation is that in the customs of Western countries, those who believe in blessings, in remote roads and sparsely populated places, worry that travelers may be hungry and thirsty on the way, so they build houses near gardens and forests by the roadside, place wealth, and store a large amount of food and drink to supply those who come and go, or donate all of it to all travelers, or only indicate that it is for those who are practicing monks. Because food is often given, it is called regular meals. Seventh, giving at any time, referring to giving them the food, clothing, etc. they need at that time, depending on whether it is cold, windy, or hot. It is collectively called the seventh type of giving at any time. The sutra also says that if someone has pure faith and achieves these seven types of reliance, the blessings they receive are immeasurable.

'By difference in gratitude' to 'those who are kind'. This is the third explanation, namely the difference in gratitude. Father, mother, teacher, and monks are kind to us, which is understandable. For example, the story of Bear Bodhisattva saving lives. In the past, a person went into the mountains to chop wood and encountered heavy snow, suffering from hunger and cold. The bear took him in, and his life was saved. After the weather cleared and the road was open, this person went down the mountain, met a hunter, told the hunter where the bear lived, and went together to harm the bear. When they were dividing the bear meat, this person suffered from a serious illness and received retribution in this life.

報也。如婆沙一百一十四具引經說　如鹿菩薩角白如雪。其毛九色亦救人命。昔有一人為水漂溺或出或沒。鹿入河救人命得存。王訪此鹿知者重賞。其人示處。將殺鹿時其人著癩。亦受現報。王問知委便不殺鹿。因乃發心。如九色鹿經說。由恩別故令果差別。故正理云。于有恩所起諸惡業果現可知。由此比知。行報恩善其果必定。

由德別者至受億倍果等者。此即第四釋德別。由德別故施果差別。故正理云。由德別者如契經言。施持戒人果百千倍。乃至施佛果最無量。

于諸施福至第八施最勝者。此即第四明施福最勝。有三施福最勝。一脫于脫施最勝。二菩薩施最勝。三第八施最勝。

論曰至此為最勝者。釋脫于脫施最勝。如無學者施無學者。

若諸菩薩至亦為最勝者。釋菩薩施最勝。

除此更有至亦為最勝者。釋第八施最勝。除脫于脫。及菩薩施。更有八施中第八施最勝。

八施者何者。問。

一隨至施至故不別釋者。答。隨至．怖畏．習先三施。如文別釋　昔得他物今還施彼名報恩施　今施彼物希他返報名求報施　希生彼天而行惠施名希天施　要求美名而行惠施名要名施　言第八施者。正理四十四云。為嚴心者。謂為引發信等聖財故行惠施。資助心者。謂欲滅除諸慳

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：報應也是如此。如《婆沙論》第一百一十四卷引用經文說：『如鹿菩薩（Bodhisattva，指以鹿為原型的菩薩）角白如雪，其毛九色，亦能救人命。』過去有一個人被水漂流，時而浮出水面，時而沉入水中。鹿入河中救了此人性命，使其得以存活。國王懸賞尋找此鹿，知情者重賞。此人指出了鹿的所在。當要殺鹿時，此人得了癩病，這也是現世報應。國王詢問緣由，便不殺鹿了，因此發了善心。如《九色鹿經》所說，由於恩情不同，導致果報差別。所以《正理》說：『對於有恩之人所起的惡業，其果報現世可知。』由此可以推知，行報恩之善，其果報必定殊勝。由德行不同以至於獲得億倍果報等等，這是第四種解釋德行不同。由於德行不同，佈施的果報也有差別。所以《正理》說：『由德行不同，如契經所言，佈施給持戒之人，果報百千倍，乃至佈施給佛（Buddha，覺悟者），果報最為無量。』在各種佈施的福報中，乃至第八種佈施最為殊勝，這是第四種說明佈施福報最為殊勝。有三種佈施的福報最為殊勝：一是脫離於脫離的佈施最為殊勝，二是菩薩（Bodhisattva）佈施最為殊勝，三是第八種佈施最為殊勝。論中說乃至這種佈施最為殊勝，這是解釋脫離於脫離的佈施最為殊勝。如無學之人佈施給無學之人。如果諸位菩薩乃至這種佈施也最為殊勝，這是解釋菩薩佈施最為殊勝。除了這些更有乃至這種佈施也最為殊勝，這是解釋第八種佈施最為殊勝。除了脫離於脫離的佈施，以及菩薩佈施，更有八種佈施中第八種佈施最為殊勝。八種佈施是什麼？問。一是隨至施乃至所以不分別解釋，答。隨至、怖畏、習先這三種佈施，如經文分別解釋。過去得到他人的財物，現在又還施給他人，這叫做報恩施。現在佈施給他人財物，希望他人回報，這叫做求報施。希望往生到彼天而行佈施，這叫做希天施。要求得美名而行佈施，這叫做要名施。說到第八種佈施，《正理》第四十四卷說：『爲了莊嚴內心，即爲了引發信心等聖財而行佈施。資助內心，即想要滅除各種慳吝。』

【English Translation】 English version: Retribution is also like this. As the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, volume 114, quotes a sutra saying: 'Like the Deer Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva, a Bodhisattva in the form of a deer) whose horns are as white as snow and whose fur has nine colors, it can also save lives.' In the past, there was a person who was drowning, sometimes surfacing and sometimes sinking. The deer entered the river and saved this person's life, allowing him to survive. The king offered a reward for finding this deer, with a heavy reward for those who knew its whereabouts. This person pointed out the deer's location. When they were about to kill the deer, this person contracted leprosy, which was also a present retribution. The king inquired about the reason and did not kill the deer, thus developing a good intention. As the Jataka of the Nine-Colored Deer says, due to the difference in kindness, the resulting retribution differs. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says: 'Evil deeds committed against those who have been kind have retributions that are knowable in this life.' From this, it can be inferred that performing the good of repaying kindness will surely have excellent results. Due to the difference in virtue, leading to receiving a hundred million times the reward, etc., this is the fourth explanation of the difference in virtue. Due to the difference in virtue, the results of giving also differ. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says: 'Due to the difference in virtue, as the sutra says, giving to those who uphold the precepts results in a hundred thousand times the reward, and even giving to the Buddha (Buddha, the enlightened one) results in immeasurable rewards.' Among the blessings of various kinds of giving, even the eighth kind of giving is the most excellent. This is the fourth explanation that the blessings of giving are the most excellent. There are three kinds of giving whose blessings are the most excellent: first, giving that transcends detachment is the most excellent; second, Bodhisattva (Bodhisattva) giving is the most excellent; and third, the eighth kind of giving is the most excellent. The treatise says that even this kind of giving is the most excellent, which explains that giving that transcends detachment is the most excellent. For example, an Arhat giving to another Arhat. If the Bodhisattvas even this kind of giving is also the most excellent, which explains that Bodhisattva giving is the most excellent. Besides these, even this kind of giving is also the most excellent, which explains that the eighth kind of giving is the most excellent. Besides giving that transcends detachment and Bodhisattva giving, the eighth kind of giving among the eight kinds of giving is the most excellent. What are the eight kinds of giving? Question. First, giving to those who come, and so on, so there is no separate explanation. Answer: Giving to those who come, giving out of fear, and giving based on habit are explained separately in the sutra. In the past, receiving property from others and now giving it back to them is called giving in gratitude. Now giving property to others, hoping for a return, is called giving for reward. Hoping to be reborn in that heaven and giving is called giving with hope for heaven. Seeking fame and giving is called giving for fame. Speaking of the eighth kind of giving, the Nyayasutra, volume 44, says: 'For adorning the mind, that is, giving in order to generate sacred wealth such as faith. Aiding the mind, that is, wanting to eliminate various forms of stinginess.'

吝垢而行惠施。資瑜伽者。謂求定樂展轉生因而行惠施。謂由施故便得無悔。展轉乃至心一境性。得上義者謂得涅槃。由初舍財。乃至展轉一切生死皆能捨故。又行惠施是勝生因。依此能引發證涅槃法故(已上論文)　宿舊師者。謂自部中宿舊諸師　又正理釋怖畏施云。謂睹災厄為令靜息而行惠施　余文可知。

如契經說至名最後生者。此即第五明施果無量。如是五種雖容有聖。設是異生。但施亦能招無量果。住最後有名最後生。即是王宮所生身也　又雜心第八云。施此五種人得大果。何以故父．母長育生身恩故。施者得大果。病者無所依怙增悲心故。施者得大果。說法者增長法身故。示人善．惡故。施者得大果。近佛地者積集功德廣攝眾生故。施者得大果。

法師四田中是何田所攝者。問父．母．菩薩是恩田。病是苦田。準前可知。未審。法師于趣．苦．恩．德四田之中何田所攝。

是恩田攝至便招無量果者。答文可知。

欲知諸業至略由六因者。此下第六明業輕．重相。此即標宗。

其六者何者。問。

頌曰至業成下上品者。頌答。

論曰至如是如是者。釋上兩句略釋六因。一後起者。謂作業已隨作不絕。二田者。謂於四田中作損作益。三根本者。謂根本業道。四加

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『吝垢而行惠施』。對於瑜伽行者（資瑜伽者），是指爲了追求禪定的快樂，從而輾轉產生善因而行佈施。這是說因為佈施的緣故，便能得到無悔的心境，輾轉以至達到心一境性的狀態。對於獲得上義（得上義者）的人來說，是指證得涅槃。因為最初捨棄財物，乃至輾轉到最後，一切生死都能捨棄。而且行佈施是獲得殊勝果報的原因（勝生因），依靠這個能引發證得涅槃之法。（以上是論文內容）『宿舊師者』，是指自己宗派中資歷深厚的老師。又《正理釋》中關於『怖畏施』的解釋是，看到災難發生，爲了使災難平息而行佈施。其餘的文字內容可以自行理解。如契經所說，直到『名最後生者』，這說明了第五點，即佈施的果報是無量的。像這樣五種情況，即使是凡夫俗子，只要行佈施，也能招感無量的果報。『住最後』和『名最後生』，指的是在王宮中出生的身份。又《雜心論》第八卷說，對這五種人行佈施能得到大的果報。為什麼呢？因為對父母行佈施，父母養育了我們的身體，恩情深重，所以施者能得到大的果報。對病人行佈施，病人無所依靠，會增加我們的悲憫之心，所以施者能得到大的果報。對說法者行佈施，說法者能增長我們的法身，教導我們善惡之道，所以施者能得到大的果報。對接近佛地的人行佈施，因為他們能積聚功德，廣泛地攝受眾生，所以施者能得到大的果報。『法師四田中是何田所攝者』，這是提問。父母、菩薩屬於恩田，病人屬於苦田，參照前面的解釋就可以理解。想知道法師在趣田、苦田、恩田、德田這四種田中屬於哪一種田。『是恩田攝至便招無量果者』，答案在原文中可以找到。『欲知諸業至略由六因者』，以下第六點說明業的輕重之相。這裡是標明宗旨。『其六者何者』，這是提問。『頌曰至業成下上品者』，這是用偈頌來回答。『論曰至如是如是者』，這是解釋上面的兩句偈頌，簡略地解釋了六種原因。第一，後起者，是指造業之後，持續不斷地繼續造作。第二，田者，是指在四種田中造作損益。第三，根本者，是指根本的業道。第四，加行者

【English Translation】 English version: 'Being stingy and then giving alms.' For Yogis (資瑜伽者), it refers to giving alms in order to seek the joy of meditation, thereby generating good causes in succession. It means that because of giving, one can obtain a state of mind without regret, gradually reaching a state of one-pointedness of mind. For those who attain the supreme meaning (得上義者), it refers to attaining Nirvana. Because one initially gives up wealth, and eventually, one can give up all of Samsara. Moreover, giving alms is the cause of obtaining superior rebirth (勝生因), and relying on this can lead to the Dharma of attaining Nirvana. (The above is the content of the treatise) 'Old teachers' (宿舊師者) refers to experienced teachers within one's own sect. Furthermore, the explanation of 'fearful giving' in the Nyayapravesa is that seeing a disaster occur, one gives alms in order to quell the disaster. The remaining text can be understood on one's own. As stated in the sutras, up to 'named the last birth' (名最後生者), this explains the fifth point, that the fruit of giving is immeasurable. In these five situations, even if one is an ordinary person, as long as one gives alms, one can attract immeasurable rewards. 'Dwelling in the last' (住最後) and 'named the last birth' refer to the status of being born in the royal palace. Furthermore, the eighth chapter of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says that giving alms to these five types of people yields great rewards. Why? Because giving alms to parents, parents nurture our bodies, their kindness is profound, so the giver obtains great rewards. Giving alms to the sick, the sick have no support, which increases our compassion, so the giver obtains great rewards. Giving alms to those who preach the Dharma, those who preach the Dharma increase our Dharma body, teaching us the path of good and evil, so the giver obtains great rewards. Giving alms to those who are close to the Buddha-land, because they can accumulate merit and widely embrace sentient beings, so the giver obtains great rewards. 'Among the four fields, which field does the Dharma teacher belong to?' (法師四田中是何田所攝者) This is a question. Parents and Bodhisattvas belong to the field of kindness (恩田), and the sick belong to the field of suffering (苦田), which can be understood by referring to the previous explanation. One wants to know which of the four fields—field of interest (趣田), field of suffering (苦田), field of kindness (恩田), and field of virtue (德田)—the Dharma teacher belongs to. 'Being included in the field of kindness leads to attracting immeasurable rewards' (是恩田攝至便招無量果者), the answer can be found in the original text. 'Wanting to know the various karmas, briefly due to six causes' (欲知諸業至略由六因者), the following sixth point explains the characteristics of the lightness and heaviness of karma. This is stating the purpose. 'What are the six?' (其六者何者) This is a question. 'The verse says to the effect that the karma becomes lower, middle, or upper grade' (頌曰至業成下上品者), this is answering with a verse. 'The treatise says to the effect that it is like this, like this' (論曰至如是如是者), this is explaining the above two lines of verse, briefly explaining the six causes. First, subsequent action (後起者) refers to continuously creating karma after the initial action. Second, field (田者) refers to creating benefit or harm in the four fields. Third, root (根本者) refers to the root karmic paths. Fourth, preparatory action (加行者)

行者。謂引彼根本身．語業等。五思者。謂由彼思業道究竟。六意樂者。謂所有意趣等。既言應當明知未即發業據遠加行。思據能發。故二不同。由起意樂方始起思。由起思已方起加行。由起加行已方起根本。此根本起必于田中。於此田中起根本已方必後起。今依義次從後向前。應知此中後起等六皆有多種輕．重不同。故約彼六辨業輕．重。

或有諸業至例此應思者。此下釋後半頌。此即別顯作業重也　或有諸業唯由後起所攝受故。得成重品。以定立彼異熟果故。於後起中後起重者。非余輕品　或有諸業由田成重。如於恩德田等為損為益。非餘人等　或有于田由根本力成重非余。即指事云　如父．母田行殺罪重成無間業。非於父．母作盜等業成無間罪　此即約田顯根本重。略釋三種　由余加行．及思．意樂諸業成重。例此應思。

若有六因至非最輕重者。若有六因皆是上品。此業最重。翻此六種餘業最輕。除此重輕中間諸業非最輕重　如契經說至名增長耶者。此下第七明造作增長。依經起問。造作答中自顯故不別問。

由五種因者。答。

何等為五者。徴。

頌曰至此業名增長者。初由。后故。通中間六。余如長行釋。

論曰至非卒爾思作者。釋由審思故。謂彼所作業。非先全

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：行者，指的是引發根本身（根本的身）語業等的行為。五思，指的是由於這些思慮，業道得以完成。六意樂，指的是所有的意趣等等。既然說應當明知，那麼尚未立即引發業，而是根據較遠的加行。思慮是引發業的原因，所以兩者不同。因為先有產生意樂，然後才開始思慮；因為先有思慮，然後才開始加行；因為先有加行，然後才開始根本。這個根本的產生必定在田中（福田）。在這個田中產生根本之後，必定會隨後產生。現在按照意義的順序，從後向前。應該知道這其中的後起等六種，都有多種輕重不同。因此，根據這六種來辨別業的輕重。

或者有些業，至於例子，應該這樣思考。這以下解釋後半頌。這是特別顯示作業的輕重。或者有些業，僅僅由於後起所攝受，才得以成為重品。因為確定了它們的異熟果。在後起中，後起重的，不是其餘輕品。或者有些業，由於田（福田）而成為重業，比如對於恩德田等，進行損害或利益。而不是對於其他人等。或者有些業，在田（福田）中，由於根本的力量而成為重業，這裡指的是具體的事情，比如在父母田中，進行殺害的罪業，會成為無間業。而不是對父母進行偷盜等業，會成為無間罪。這是根據田（福田）來顯示根本的輕重。簡要解釋了三種情況。由於其餘的加行以及思慮、意樂，這些業成為重業，例子應該這樣思考。

如果有六種原因都是上品，那麼這個業最重。反之，這六種原因都不是上品，那麼其餘的業最輕。除了這些最重和最輕的業，中間的各種業都不是最輕或最重的。如同契經所說，到名為增長嗎？這以下第七點說明造作增長。根據經文提出問題。造作的回答中自然會顯現，所以不另外提問。

由五種原因。回答。

什麼是五種原因？提問。

頌詞說到這個業名為增長。最初由於后，貫通中間六種。其餘的如同長行解釋。

論述到不是突然思考就作者。解釋由於審慎思考的緣故。說的是他們所作的業，不是事先完全

【English Translation】 English version: 'Doer' refers to the actions that initiate the fundamental body (the fundamental body), verbal actions, and so on. 'Five Thoughts' refers to the completion of the path of karma due to these thoughts. 'Six Intentions' refers to all intentions, and so on. Since it is said that one should clearly know, then the karma has not been immediately initiated, but is based on the more distant preliminary practices. Thought is the cause of initiating karma, so the two are different. Because intention arises first, then thought begins; because thought arises first, then preliminary practice begins; because preliminary practice arises first, then the root begins. The arising of this root must be in the field (field of merit). After the root arises in this field, it will definitely arise later. Now, according to the order of meaning, from back to front. It should be known that these six, including the subsequent arising, have various degrees of lightness and heaviness. Therefore, the lightness and heaviness of karma are distinguished according to these six.

Or some karmas, as for the examples, should be thought of in this way. The following explains the second half of the verse. This specifically shows the heaviness of the action. Or some karmas, only because they are embraced by the subsequent arising, can become heavy. Because their different ripening fruit is determined. Among the subsequent arisings, the heavy subsequent arising is not the remaining light ones. Or some karmas become heavy due to the field (field of merit), such as causing harm or benefit to the field of grace, etc., rather than to other people, etc. Or some karmas, in the field (field of merit), become heavy due to the power of the root, which refers to specific things, such as the sin of killing in the field of parents will become uninterrupted karma. Rather than stealing from parents, etc., which will not become uninterrupted sin. This is to show the heaviness of the root according to the field (field of merit). Briefly explained three situations. Due to the remaining preliminary practices, as well as thoughts and intentions, these karmas become heavy, and the examples should be thought of in this way.

If there are six causes that are all of the highest quality, then this karma is the heaviest. Conversely, if none of these six causes are of the highest quality, then the remaining karmas are the lightest. Except for these heaviest and lightest karmas, the various karmas in between are neither the lightest nor the heaviest. As the sutra says, 'to be called growth?' The following seventh point explains the growth of creation. Ask questions based on the sutra. The answer to creation will naturally appear, so no additional questions are asked.

Due to five causes. Answer.

What are the five causes? Question.

The verse says that this karma is called growth. Initially due to the latter, connecting the six in the middle. The rest is like the explanation in the long passage.

The discussion is not suddenly thinking about the author. Explain the reason for careful consideration. It is said that the karma they do is not completely beforehand

不思。非卒爾思作。此名造作。亦名增長。若不審思但名造作不名增長。

由圓滿故者至亦得增長名者。釋由圓滿故。謂諸有情中於三惡行。或由一惡行便墮惡趣。或乃至三　於十不善業道。或由一業道便墮惡趣。或乃至十　此中若有齊此量業應墮惡趣。未圓滿時。但名造作不名增長。若此已圓滿惡趣業成亦得增長名。故婆沙一百一十九云。或有由一惡行墮諸惡趣。或有由三。若由一惡行墮惡趣者。彼加行時但名造作不名增長。若至究竟名為造作亦名增長。若具田三墮惡趣者。造一．二時但名造作不名增長。若具造三名為造作亦名增長　又云或由一不善業道墮諸惡趣。或具由十。若由一者彼加行位但名造作不名增長。若至究竟名為造作亦名增長。若具由十者。造一至九。但名造作不名增長。若具造十。名為造作亦名增長。

由無惡作至無對治業者。釋由無惡作．對治故　由無惡作故者。作惡業已謂無追悔　由無對治故者作惡業者作惡業已。謂無懺悔發露等善能對治業。故婆沙云。複次若業作已不捨．不吐．不依對治者具二種。若業作已能捨．能吐．依對治者唯造作。複次若業作已無變悔者具二種。若業作已有變悔者唯造作。

由有伴故者至為助伴者。釋由有伴故。謂作不善業道時。還以不善業道為

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：不思量，並非突然產生的思緒。這稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』。如果不是審慎的思量，只稱為『造作』，不稱為『增長』。", "", "『由圓滿故』至『亦得增長名者』，解釋『由圓滿故』。意思是說，在各種有情（Sattva）中，因為三種惡行中的一種，或者乃至三種，便會墮入惡趣（Durgati）。或者因為十種不善業道（Akuśala-karmapatha）中的一種，或者乃至十種，便會墮入惡趣。這裡，如果有人所造的業達到這個量，就應該墮入惡趣，在未圓滿的時候，只稱為『造作』，不稱為『增長』。如果這個惡趣的業已經圓滿完成，也就得到了『增長』的名稱。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第一百一十九卷說，『或者因為一種惡行而墮入各種惡趣，或者因為三種。如果因為一種惡行而墮入惡趣，那麼他在加行（Prayoga）的時候，只稱為『造作』，不稱為『增長』。如果到了究竟完成，就稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』。如果具足三種而墮入惡趣，造作一、二種的時候，只稱為『造作』，不稱為『增長』。如果具足造作三種，就稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』。』又說，『或者因為一種不善業道而墮入各種惡趣，或者具足十種。如果因為一種，那麼他在加行位（Prayoga-avastha）的時候，只稱為『造作』，不稱為『增長』。如果到了究竟完成，就稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』。如果具足十種，造作一到九種的時候，只稱為『造作』，不稱為『增長』。如果具足造作十種，就稱為『造作』，也稱為『增長』。", "", "『由無惡作』至『無對治業者』，解釋『由無惡作、對治故』。『由無惡作故』，意思是說，造作了惡業之後，沒有追悔。『由無對治故』，意思是說，造作惡業的人，在造作惡業之後，沒有懺悔發露等能夠對治惡業的善行。所以《婆沙論》說，『再次，如果所造的業沒有捨棄、沒有吐露、不依靠對治，就具足兩種（造作和增長）。如果所造的業能夠捨棄、能夠吐露、依靠對治，就只有造作。』再次，如果所造的業沒有改變悔恨，就具足兩種（造作和增長）。如果所造的業已經有了改變悔恨，就只有造作。", "", "『由有伴故』至『為助伴者』，解釋『由有伴故』。意思是說，在造作不善業道的時候，還以不善業道作為..." ], "english_translations": [ "English version: 'Not pondering, not suddenly arising thoughts. This is called \'fabrication\' (造作, Zuozao), also called \'increase\' (增長, Zēngzhǎng). If it is not careful consideration, it is only called \'fabrication\' and not called \'increase\'.'", "", "'Because of completeness' to 'also obtains the name of increase', explains 'because of completeness'. It means that among all sentient beings (Sattva, 有情), because of one of the three evil deeds, or even all three, they will fall into the evil realms (Durgati, 惡趣). Or because of one of the ten unwholesome paths of action (Akuśala-karmapatha, 不善業道), or even all ten, they will fall into the evil realms. Here, if someone's karma reaches this amount, they should fall into the evil realms. When it is not complete, it is only called \'fabrication\' and not called \'increase\'. If this karma of the evil realms has been completed, it also obtains the name of \'increase\'. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論) Volume 119 says, 'Or some fall into various evil realms because of one evil deed, or some because of three. If they fall into the evil realms because of one evil deed, then during the preliminary practice (Prayoga, 加行), it is only called \'fabrication\' and not called \'increase\'. If it reaches ultimate completion, it is called both \'fabrication\' and \'increase\'. If they possess all three and fall into the evil realms, when fabricating one or two, it is only called \'fabrication\' and not called \'increase\'. If they possess all three fabrications, it is called both \'fabrication\' and \'increase\'.' It also says, 'Or some fall into various evil realms because of one unwholesome path of action, or some possess all ten. If it is because of one, then during the stage of preliminary practice (Prayoga-avastha, 加行位), it is only called \'fabrication\' and not called \'increase\'. If it reaches ultimate completion, it is called both \'fabrication\' and \'increase\'. If they possess all ten, when fabricating one to nine, it is only called \'fabrication\' and not called \'increase\'. If they possess all ten fabrications, it is called both \'fabrication\' and \'increase\'.'", "", "'Because of no remorse' to 'no counteractive karma', explains 'because of no remorse, counteraction'. 'Because of no remorse', it means that after committing evil deeds, there is no regret. 'Because of no counteraction', it means that those who commit evil deeds, after committing evil deeds, have no repentance, confession, or other good deeds that can counteract the evil karma. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā says, 'Again, if the karma that has been committed is not abandoned, not vomited out, and does not rely on counteraction, then it possesses both (fabrication and increase). If the karma that has been committed can be abandoned, can be vomited out, and relies on counteraction, then it is only fabrication.' Again, if the karma that has been committed has no change of regret, then it possesses both (fabrication and increase). If the karma that has been committed already has a change of regret, then it is only fabrication.", "", "'Because of having companions' to 'as an assistant', explains 'because of having companions'. It means that when committing unwholesome paths of action, one also uses unwholesome paths of action as..." ] }

其助伴。故正理云。如盜他財。復污他室。殺他子等　又婆沙二十四云。複次不善業以不善業為眷屬者具二種。以善業為眷屬者唯造作。

由異熟故者謂定與異熟者。釋由異熟故。謂造此業定與異熟。

善翻此至唯名造作者。上來所說諸不善業皆名造作亦名增長。若諸善業造作增長約五種因。翻上應知。異前所說諸善．惡業。由無五因唯名造作不名增長。

如前所明至如慈等無受者此即第八明施制多福。牒前問起並頌答也。

論曰至有舍類福者。此釋上句。如文可知。

彼既不受福由何生者。問。施彼制多既不受用。福因何生。

復以何因至不受不生者。論主反責外人。

不受於他無攝益故者。外人答。

此非定證至由自心生者。論主總非。正釋下句。汝作是執。此非定證　若福要由攝益他成。則修慈等．及正見等應不生福。以慈．正見等於他無益故　是故應許供養制多有多福生。如修慈等　謂如有一修慈定時。于諸有情平等發起與樂意樂。雖無受者．及攝益他。而從自善心生無量福　修悲等定得福亦爾　如是諸有德者雖已滅過去。而今追申恭敬．供養福由自心生。

豈不唐捐此施敬業者。外難。若福但由自心生者。豈不唐捐此所施物．及與身．語敬養業耶

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：他們的同伴。所以正理說：『如同盜取他人財物，又玷污他人房屋，殺害他人子女等。』又《婆沙》第二十四卷說：『再者，不善業以不善業為眷屬的，具有兩種（作用，即造作和增長）；以善業為眷屬的，只有造作。』

『由異熟故』是指決定給予異熟果報。解釋『由異熟故』，是指造作此業必定會給予異熟果報。

『善翻此至唯名造作者』，上面所說的各種不善業都稱為造作，也稱為增長。如果各種善業的造作和增長，是依據五種因緣。與此相反，應當知道，前面所說的各種善、惡業，因為沒有五種因緣，所以只稱為造作，不稱為增長。

『如前所明至如慈等無受者此即第八明施制多(Caitya)福』，這是第八部分，說明供養制多（佛塔）的福德。引述前面的問題，並用頌文回答。

論曰至有舍類福者。這是解釋上句，如文可知。

『彼既不受福由何生者』，問：供養制多（佛塔），既然沒有受用者，福德因何而生？

『復以何因至不受不生者』，論主反駁外人的觀點。

『不受於他無攝益故者』，外人回答。

『此非定證至由自心生者』，論主全面否定。正確地解釋下句。你這樣認為，這並不是確定的證據。如果福德一定要通過利益他人才能成就，那麼修習慈心等，以及正確的見解等，就不應該產生福德。因為慈心、正見等對於他人沒有利益。所以應該承認供養制多（佛塔）會產生很多福德，如同修習慈心等。比如，如果有人修習慈心禪定時，對於所有有情平等地發起給予快樂的意願。即使沒有接受者，也沒有利益他人，也能從自己善良的心中產生無量的福德。修習悲心等禪定獲得福德也是如此。像這樣，那些有德行的人，即使已經滅度過去，而現在追思表達恭敬、供養，福德也是由自己的心產生的。

『豈不唐捐此施敬業者』，外人詰難。如果福德僅僅由自己的心產生，那麼所施捨的物品，以及身語的恭敬供養行為，豈不是白費了嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: Their companions. Therefore, the principle states: 'Like stealing others' property, defiling their houses, killing their children, etc.' Also, Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa) 24 says: 'Furthermore, unwholesome karma with unwholesome karma as its retinue has two aspects (i.e., creation and increase); with wholesome karma as its retinue, it only has creation.'

'Due to Vipaka (異熟)' refers to the determination to give Vipaka (異熟) results. Explaining 'due to Vipaka (異熟)', it means that creating this karma will definitely give Vipaka (異熟) results.

'Good translation of this to only be named creation' - all the unwholesome karmas mentioned above are called creation and also increase. If the creation and increase of various wholesome karmas are based on five causes, then, conversely, it should be known that the various wholesome and unwholesome karmas mentioned earlier, because they do not have the five causes, are only called creation and not increase.

'As previously explained, such as loving-kindness, etc., without a recipient, this is the eighth explanation of the merit of offering to a Caitya (制多)' - This is the eighth section, explaining the merit of offering to a Caitya (佛塔). It cites the previous question and answers with a verse.

The Treatise says, 'To have the merit of giving' - This explains the previous sentence, as can be understood from the text.

'Since they do not receive, how does merit arise?' - Question: Since there is no recipient for the offering to the Caitya (佛塔), how does merit arise?

'What is the reason that not receiving does not give rise to merit?' - The author of the treatise refutes the outsider's view.

'Not receiving means no benefit to others' - The outsider answers.

'This is not definite proof, merit arises from one's own mind' - The author of the treatise completely denies it. Correctly explaining the following sentence. Your assertion is not definite proof. If merit must be achieved through benefiting others, then the practice of loving-kindness, etc., and correct views, etc., should not produce merit, because loving-kindness, correct views, etc., do not benefit others. Therefore, it should be acknowledged that offering to a Caitya (佛塔) produces much merit, just like practicing loving-kindness, etc. For example, if someone practices loving-kindness meditation, they equally generate the intention to give happiness to all sentient beings. Even without a recipient and without benefiting others, limitless merit can arise from one's own wholesome mind. Obtaining merit from practicing compassion meditation, etc., is also the same. In this way, even if those virtuous individuals have passed away, expressing reverence and making offerings now, the merit arises from one's own mind.

'Wouldn't this offering and respectful action be in vain?' - The outsider challenges. If merit arises solely from one's own mind, wouldn't the offered items and the respectful actions of body and speech be in vain?

。

不爾發業至非但起心者。論主釋。不爾。要由發身．語業敬養．佈施心方勝故　謂如已下引喻況法。如文可知。

若於善田至招非愛果者。此下第九明果由內心。問。善田植施可招愛果。以田勝故。惡田雖施應招非愛。以田惡故。此即問起。

此不應爾者。答。

所以者何者。徴。

頌曰至種果無倒故者。頌答。

論曰至種果有倒者。先釋第二句。由種不同果有甘．苦。從甘種子有甘果生。從苦種子有苦果生。故言種果無倒。非由田力種果有倒　末度迦。是果名。其形如棗。樹似皂莢樹　賃波太小如苦練子。

如是施主至或果全無者。釋第一句。如是施主雖于惡田。而益他心殖諸施種。但招愛果不招非愛　此顯施種能招愛果。非由惡田種果有倒　然由田過令所植種或生果少。如施凡人等　或果全無如施極劣諸外道等。

施類福業事至依治滅凈等者。此下大文第二明戒．修。就中。一明戒。二明修。三明戒．修果　此即第一明戒。

論曰至自性差別者。釋上兩句。諸不善色身．語七支名為犯戒。此中性罪立犯戒名　遮謂所遮非時食等。雖非性罪而佛為護法．及有情別意遮止　為護法者。法謂正法。犯遮罪人為他說法。他不信受。因人撥法。佛為護法別意遮

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

不爾發業至非但起心者：論主的解釋是，並非如此。關鍵在於由身體和語言所表達的恭敬供養和佈施行為，以及由此產生的心念，這些才是殊勝的原因。以下將引用比喻來闡明這個道理，具體內容可以參考原文。

若於善田至招非愛果者：接下來第九點闡明了果報源於內心。提問：在良田中種植佈施，可以招來喜愛的果報，這是因為田地殊勝的緣故。那麼在惡田中即使佈施，也應該招來不喜愛的果報，因為田地惡劣的緣故。這裡提出了一個問題。

此不應爾者：回答。

所以者何者：提問。

頌曰至種果無倒故者：用偈頌來回答。

論曰至種果有倒者：首先解釋第二句。由於種子不同，果實有甘甜和苦澀之分。從甘甜的種子中產生甘甜的果實，從苦澀的種子中產生苦澀的果實。所以說種子和果實之間沒有顛倒的關係。果實的性質並非由田地的力量所決定。末度迦（Maduka）：是一種果實的名字，形狀像棗子，樹木類似於皂莢樹。賃波太（Nimba）：小如苦楝子。

如是施主至或果全無者：解釋第一句。像這樣，施主即使在惡田中，也以利益他人的心來種植佈施的種子，只會招來喜愛的果報，不會招來不喜愛的果報。這表明佈施的種子能夠招來喜愛的果報，而不是因為惡田而導致果報顛倒。然而，由於田地的過失，可能導致所種植的種子或者產生的果實很少，比如佈施給普通人等。或者完全沒有果實，比如佈施給極其低劣的外道等。

施類福業事至依治滅凈等者：接下來是大的段落，第二部分闡明戒律和修行。其中，第一點闡明戒律，第二點闡明修行，第三點闡明戒律和修行的果報。這裡是第一點闡明戒律。

論曰至自性差別者：解釋上面兩句話。諸如不善的身語行為，即身體和語言的七種惡行，被稱為犯戒。其中，自性罪被認為是犯戒。遮罪是指佛陀爲了保護正法和有情眾生而特別禁止的行為，比如非時食等。雖然這些行為本身不是自性罪，但佛陀爲了保護正法而特別禁止。所謂爲了保護正法，是指正法。如果犯了遮罪的人為他人說法，他人就不會信受，從而因為這個人而否定正法。佛陀爲了保護正法而特別禁止。 English version:

'Not necessarily that only the intention arises': The commentator explains, 'It is not so. It is because the acts of reverence and offering through body and speech, and the intention arising from them, are superior.' The following will use metaphors to illustrate this principle, as can be understood from the text.

'If in a good field, up to, one reaps an undesirable result': The ninth point below clarifies that the result arises from the inner mind. Question: 'Planting offerings in a good field can bring about desirable results because the field is superior. Then, even if one makes offerings in a bad field, one should reap undesirable results because the field is bad.' This raises a question.

'This should not be so': Answer.

'What is the reason for this?': Inquiry.

'The verse says, up to, because planting and result are not inverted': The answer is given in verse.

'The treatise says, up to, planting and result are inverted': First, explain the second line. 'Due to the difference in seeds, the fruits are either sweet or bitter. From sweet seeds, sweet fruits arise; from bitter seeds, bitter fruits arise.' Therefore, it is said that there is no inversion between planting and result. The nature of the fruit is not determined by the power of the field. Maduka: is the name of a fruit, shaped like a jujube, and the tree is similar to a locust tree. Nimba: is as small as a neem seed.

'Thus, the donor, up to, or there is no result at all': Explains the first line. 'Thus, even if the donor is in a bad field, planting seeds of offering with the intention of benefiting others, they will only reap desirable results and not undesirable results.' This shows that the seeds of offering can bring about desirable results, and it is not because of the bad field that the planting and result are inverted. However, due to the fault of the field, the planted seeds may produce few fruits, such as when giving to ordinary people. Or there may be no result at all, such as when giving to extremely inferior non-Buddhists.

'Offering, meritorious deeds, up to, relying on, curing, extinguishing, purifying, etc.': The next major section, the second part, clarifies precepts and practice. Among them, the first point clarifies precepts, the second point clarifies practice, and the third point clarifies the results of precepts and practice. This is the first point clarifying precepts.

'The treatise says, up to, differences in nature': Explains the above two sentences. 'All unwholesome actions of body and speech, the seven branches of body and speech, are called violations of precepts.' Among these, intrinsic offenses are considered violations of precepts. Prohibitions refer to actions specifically forbidden by the Buddha to protect the Dharma and sentient beings, such as eating at improper times. Although these actions are not intrinsically offenses, the Buddha specifically prohibited them to protect the Dharma. 'So-called protecting the Dharma' refers to the true Dharma. If someone who has violated a prohibitive precept preaches the Dharma to others, others will not believe them, and thus deny the Dharma because of that person. The Buddha specifically prohibited these actions to protect the Dharma.

【English Translation】 'Not necessarily that only the intention arises': The commentator explains, 'It is not so. It is because the acts of reverence and offering through body and speech, and the intention arising from them, are superior.' The following will use metaphors to illustrate this principle, as can be understood from the text. 'If in a good field, up to, one reaps an undesirable result': The ninth point below clarifies that the result arises from the inner mind. Question: 'Planting offerings in a good field can bring about desirable results because the field is superior. Then, even if one makes offerings in a bad field, one should reap undesirable results because the field is bad.' This raises a question. 'This should not be so': Answer. 'What is the reason for this?': Inquiry. 'The verse says, up to, because planting and result are not inverted': The answer is given in verse. 'The treatise says, up to, planting and result are inverted': First, explain the second line. 'Due to the difference in seeds, the fruits are either sweet or bitter. From sweet seeds, sweet fruits arise; from bitter seeds, bitter fruits arise.' Therefore, it is said that there is no inversion between planting and result. The nature of the fruit is not determined by the power of the field. Maduka (末度迦): is the name of a fruit, shaped like a jujube, and the tree is similar to a locust tree. Nimba (賃波太): is as small as a neem seed. 'Thus, the donor, up to, or there is no result at all': Explains the first line. 'Thus, even if the donor is in a bad field, planting seeds of offering with the intention of benefiting others, they will only reap desirable results and not undesirable results.' This shows that the seeds of offering can bring about desirable results, and it is not because of the bad field that the planting and result are inverted. However, due to the fault of the field, the planted seeds may produce few fruits, such as when giving to ordinary people. Or there may be no result at all, such as when giving to extremely inferior non-Buddhists. 'Offering, meritorious deeds, up to, relying on, curing, extinguishing, purifying, etc.': The next major section, the second part, clarifies precepts and practice. Among them, the first point clarifies precepts, the second point clarifies practice, and the third point clarifies the results of precepts and practice. This is the first point clarifying precepts. 'The treatise says, up to, differences in nature': Explains the above two sentences. 'All unwholesome actions of body and speech, the seven branches of body and speech, are called violations of precepts.' Among these, intrinsic offenses are considered violations of precepts. Prohibitions refer to actions specifically forbidden by the Buddha to protect the Dharma and sentient beings, such as eating at improper times. Although these actions are not intrinsically offenses, the Buddha specifically prohibited them to protect the Dharma. 'So-called protecting the Dharma' refers to the true Dharma. If someone who has violated a prohibitive precept preaches the Dharma to others, others will not believe them, and thus deny the Dharma because of that person. The Buddha specifically prohibited these actions to protect the Dharma.'

止　為護有情者。謂護諸有情。若出家人犯此遮罪。一即他見譏謙獲罪重。二即他見輕慢不恭敬。佛意為護彼有情故別意遮止　受戒者犯亦名犯戒。簡性立遮。離性．及遮俱說名戒　此性及遮各有二種。謂表．無表。以身．語業為自性故。以此文證性．遮二戒各別有彼表．無表業　問若以善心為女人說法過五六語。既是善心所發。云何名遮罪　解云善心發邊名為善業。違教義邊名之為罪　應知遮罪總有二種。一者染心所起。謂墮惡趣。二者善．無記心所起。由非染故不墮惡趣　違教義邊雖名遮罪。論體非罪。罪．福二業由心成故　言不善色名犯戒者。據未離欲說。若不爾者。已離欲人為女人說法過五六語。既無慾染。如何犯遮罪耶。以此明知。非染心發亦名遮罪。語遮既然身遮亦爾。

若具四德至非勝生故者。釋下兩句。若具四德得清凈名。此釋凈字。若不具德名不清凈　言四德者。一者不為犯戒所壞。犯戒謂前諸不善色。此釋非犯戒壞　二者不為彼犯戒因所壞。彼因謂貪等。此釋非因壞　三者何依治。謂依四念住．四正斷等。此念住等能對治彼犯戒．及因。此釋依治　四者依滅。謂依涅槃。愿以持戒所生功德迴向涅槃。非求人．天二勝生故。此釋依滅。

等言為顯至五迴向寂者。頌說等言顯二異說。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本止：爲了保護有情眾生，也就是守護所有的有情。如果出家人犯了這些遮罪，一是會被他人看見而譏諷輕視，從而獲得重罪；二是會被他人看見而輕慢不恭敬。佛陀的本意是爲了保護這些有情眾生，所以特別制定戒律來禁止這些行為。受戒者如果違犯了，也叫做犯戒。這是簡擇自性罪而設立的遮罪。離開自性罪和遮罪，都叫做戒律。這種自性罪和遮罪各有兩種，即表業和無表業，以身業和語業為自性。根據這段文字可以證明，自性罪和遮罪各自都有表業和無表業。問：如果以善心為女人說法，超過五六句話，既然是善心所引發的行為，為什麼說是遮罪呢？答：從善心發起的角度來說，這可以稱為善業；但從違背教義的角度來說，這就是罪過。應當知道，遮罪總共有兩種：一是染污心所引起的，會導致墮入惡趣；二是善心或無記心所引起的，因為不是染污心，所以不會墮入惡趣。違背教義的行為雖然被稱為遮罪，但從本質上來說並非真正的罪過。罪和福這兩種業是由心來決定的。說『不善色名為犯戒』，這是針對還沒有斷除慾望的人來說的。如果不是這樣，已經斷除慾望的人為女人說法超過五六句話，既然沒有慾望的染污，怎麼會犯遮罪呢？由此可以明白，即使不是染污心所引發的行為，也叫做遮罪。語言上的遮罪是這樣，身體上的遮罪也是一樣。『若具四德至非勝生故者』，這是解釋下面兩句話。如果具備四種功德，就能得到清凈的名稱，這是解釋『凈』字。如果不具備這些功德，就不能稱為清凈。所說的四種功德是：一是不被犯戒所破壞。犯戒指的是前面所說的各種不善色，這是解釋『非犯戒壞』。二是不被犯戒的原因所破壞，這個原因指的是貪慾等，這是解釋『非因壞』。三是依靠什麼來對治？是依靠四念住（catu-smṛtyupasthāna）、四正斷（catvāri samyakprahāṇāni）等。這些念住等能夠對治犯戒及其原因，這是解釋『依治』。四是依靠滅盡，也就是依靠涅槃（nirvāṇa）。發願將持戒所產生的功德迴向于涅槃，而不是爲了追求人天二道的殊勝果報，這是解釋『依滅』。『等言為顯至五迴向寂者』，頌文中的『等』字是爲了顯示兩種不同的說法。

【English Translation】 English version Stopping: It is for protecting sentient beings, meaning guarding all sentient beings. If a monastic commits these prohibitive offenses, firstly, others will see and ridicule them, incurring heavy offenses; secondly, others will see and disrespect them. The Buddha's intention is to protect these sentient beings, so He specifically established precepts to prohibit these behaviors. If a precept-taker violates them, it is also called a violation of the precepts. This is selecting the nature of the offense to establish the prohibitive offense. Separating from the nature of the offense and the prohibitive offense are both called precepts. These nature offenses and prohibitive offenses each have two types, namely, expressed karma (表業) and unexpressed karma (無表業), with bodily karma and verbal karma as their nature. According to this text, it can be proven that nature offenses and prohibitive offenses each have their expressed and unexpressed karma. Question: If one speaks Dharma to a woman with a good intention, exceeding five or six sentences, since it is an action arising from a good intention, why is it called a prohibitive offense? Answer: From the perspective of arising from a good intention, it can be called good karma; but from the perspective of violating the teachings, it is called an offense. It should be known that there are two types of prohibitive offenses in general: one arises from a defiled mind, which leads to falling into evil realms; the other arises from a wholesome or neutral mind, which does not lead to falling into evil realms because it is not defiled. Although violating the teachings is called a prohibitive offense, its essence is not a true offense. The two karmas of offense and merit are formed by the mind. Saying 'unwholesome sights are called violations of the precepts' refers to those who have not yet abandoned desire. If not, if someone who has already abandoned desire speaks Dharma to a woman exceeding five or six sentences, since there is no defilement of desire, how can they commit a prohibitive offense? From this, it can be understood that even actions not arising from a defiled mind are called prohibitive offenses. What is true for verbal prohibitions is also true for bodily prohibitions. 'If possessing four virtues, up to not seeking superior rebirth' explains the following two sentences. If possessing four virtues, one obtains the name of purity; this explains the word 'pure'. If not possessing these virtues, one cannot be called pure. The four virtues are: firstly, not being destroyed by violations of the precepts. Violations of the precepts refer to the various unwholesome sights mentioned earlier; this explains 'not destroyed by violations of the precepts'. Secondly, not being destroyed by the causes of those violations of the precepts; these causes refer to greed, etc.; this explains 'not destroyed by causes'. Thirdly, what to rely on for treatment? Relying on the four foundations of mindfulness (catu-smṛtyupasthāna), the four right exertions (catvāri samyakprahāṇāni), etc. These foundations of mindfulness, etc., can counteract the violations of the precepts and their causes; this explains 'relying on treatment'. Fourthly, relying on cessation, which is relying on nirvāṇa. Vowing to dedicate the merits arising from upholding the precepts to nirvāṇa, rather than seeking the superior rebirths of humans and gods; this explains 'relying on cessation'. 'The word 'etc.' is to reveal up to the five dedications to tranquility' The word 'etc.' in the verse is to reveal two different explanations.

即初師　有說戒凈由五種因。故雜心第八云。根本凈者離起根本業道。眷屬凈者離殺生等方便。不為覺所壞者。離欲．恚．害三覺惱亂。攝受正念者。攝受佛．法．僧念。以是故亦離諸無記心。正向解脫者為解脫持戒。不為身．財．及余所作。是故亦說隨順覺支。此五因緣戒清凈。

有餘師說至業惑垢故者。此即第二師說。戒有四種　一怖畏戒。于中有四。一怖衣．食不活畏故。二怖世間惡名畏故。三怖大眾治罰畏故。四怖未來惡趣畏故。受護尸羅　二希望戒。于中有五。一貪諸有。二貪勝位。三貪多財。四貪恭敬。五貪稱譽。受持凈戒　三順覺支戒。此戒能順七覺支故名覺支戒。謂為求解脫涅槃及正見等八聖支故受持凈戒。此戒能順覺支　四清凈戒。謂無漏戒彼能永離業惑垢故名清凈戒。

已辨戒類至極能熏心故者。此即第二明修。

論曰至其體是何者。問。

謂三摩地自性俱有者。答。謂三摩地自性及俱有五蘊為體。

脩名何義者。問修義。

謂熏習心至是故獨名修者。答。修是熏習義。謂熏習心。以定地善於心．相續起極能熏習。令成功德體類。故獨名修。喻況可知。

前辨施福至就勝說修者。此下第三明戒．修果。就中。一正明戒修果。二明梵福量果　此即第一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於最初的老師，有人說戒律的清凈源於五種原因。因此，《雜心論》第八卷說：『根本清凈』是指遠離引發根本罪業的行為；『眷屬清凈』是指遠離殺生等助成行為；『不為覺所壞』是指遠離欲、嗔、害三種覺的惱亂；『攝受正念』是指攝受對佛（Buddha，覺悟者）、法（Dharma，佛法）、僧（Sangha，僧團）的憶念，因此也遠離各種無記心（既非善亦非惡的心）；『正向解脫』是指爲了獲得解脫而持戒，不是爲了身體、財富以及其他所作之事。因此，也說是隨順覺支（Bodhyanga，菩提的組成部分）。這五種因緣使戒律清凈。

有其他老師說，『直至業惑垢故』，這是第二位老師的說法。戒律有四種：一、怖畏戒。其中有四種：一、害怕衣食不足以維持生計；二、害怕世間的惡名；三、害怕大眾的懲罰；四、害怕未來墮入惡趣。因此受持保護（護）尸羅（Śīla，戒律）；二、希望戒。其中有五種：一、貪求各種存在形式；二、貪求更高的地位；三、貪求更多的財富；四、貪求恭敬；五、貪求稱讚。因此受持清凈戒律；三、順覺支戒。這種戒律能夠順應七覺支（Saptabodhyanga，七種覺悟的要素），因此被稱為覺支戒。即爲了求解脫、涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）以及正見等八聖道分（Arya Ashtanga Marga，八正道）而受持清凈戒律。這種戒律能夠順應覺支；四、清凈戒。指無漏戒（Anasrava Śīla，沒有煩惱的戒律），它能夠永遠脫離業和煩惱的污垢，因此被稱為清凈戒。

已經辨析了戒律的種類，『直至極能熏心故』，這是第二部分說明修行。

論曰：『其體是何？』問。

『謂三摩地自性俱有者』。答：指三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）的自性以及與之俱生的五蘊（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素）為體。

『脩名何義？』問修行的意義。

『謂熏習心至是故獨名修者』。答：修行是熏習的意思。指熏習心。因為禪定之地的善法在心中持續生起，極能熏習，使之成就功德的體類，所以單獨稱為修行。比喻的情況可以類推得知。

前面辨析了佈施的福報，『就勝說修者』。以下第三部分說明戒律和修行的果報。其中：一、正面說明戒律和修行的果報；二、說明梵福的量和果報。這是第一部分。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the initial teacher, some say that the purity of precepts arises from five causes. Therefore, the eighth chapter of the Zaxinlun says: 'Fundamental purity' means being apart from actions that initiate fundamental karmic paths; 'Purity of retinue' means being apart from means such as killing; 'Not corrupted by awareness' means being apart from the disturbances of the three awarenesses of desire, anger, and harm; 'Embracing right mindfulness' means embracing mindfulness of the Buddha (the Awakened One), the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the monastic community), and therefore also being apart from all neutral (neither good nor bad) states of mind; 'Rightly directed towards liberation' means upholding precepts for the sake of liberation, not for the sake of body, wealth, or other actions. Therefore, it is also said to be in accordance with the Bodhyangas (limbs of enlightenment). These five causes purify the precepts.

Other teachers say, 'Until the defilements of karma and affliction,' this is the statement of the second teacher. There are four types of precepts: First, precepts of fear. Among these, there are four: First, fear of not having enough clothing and food to sustain life; second, fear of worldly bad reputation; third, fear of punishment from the community; fourth, fear of falling into evil realms in the future. Therefore, one upholds protective (護) Śīla (precepts); second, precepts of hope. Among these, there are five: First, greed for various forms of existence; second, greed for higher positions; third, greed for more wealth; fourth, greed for respect; fifth, greed for praise. Therefore, one upholds pure precepts; third, precepts in accordance with the Bodhyangas. These precepts are able to accord with the seven Bodhyangas (Saptabodhyanga, seven factors of enlightenment), therefore they are called Bodhyanga precepts. That is, for the sake of seeking liberation, Nirvana (extinguishment), and the eightfold noble path (Arya Ashtanga Marga, the eightfold path) such as right view, one upholds pure precepts. These precepts are able to accord with the Bodhyangas; fourth, pure precepts. These refer to the Anasrava Śīla (precepts without outflows), which are able to permanently separate from the defilements of karma and affliction, therefore they are called pure precepts.

Having already distinguished the types of precepts, 'until the utmost ability to influence the mind,' this is the second part explaining cultivation.

The treatise says: 'What is its substance?' Question.

'That which is Samadhi (meditative absorption) by nature and co-existent.' Answer: It refers to the nature of Samadhi and the co-existent five Skandhas (aggregates) as its substance.

'What is the meaning of cultivation?' Question about the meaning of cultivation.

'That which cultivates the mind until it is uniquely called cultivation.' Answer: Cultivation means habituation. It refers to habituating the mind. Because the goodness of the meditative state arises continuously in the mind, it is extremely able to habituate, causing it to accomplish the nature of meritorious qualities, therefore it is uniquely called cultivation. The metaphorical situations can be inferred.

Earlier, the merit of giving was distinguished, 'speaking of cultivation in terms of superiority.' The following third part explains the results of precepts and cultivation. Among these: First, directly explaining the results of precepts and cultivation; second, explaining the measure and results of Brahma-merit. This is the first part.

正明戒．修果　戒以離係爲士用果。謂由持戒方證離系故。以離係爲士用果　余文可知　又正理云如是持戒亦感大富。就勝說施。準倒應知。

經說四人至為一梵福量者。此即第二明梵福量果。依經問答　馱都。此云性。如來體性也　四事。謂衣服．飲食．臥具．醫藥　如舍利子等令僧破已還和　余文可知。

論曰至感劫天樂故者。有二師說。此即初師。是經部。或是大眾部師。或是當部異師　此師意說一梵福量。同梵輔天四十中劫為一劫量名一福量　復引餘部頌證　有信正見人．修十善勝行者。便為生梵福。感得一劫生天樂故。引頌意證同梵輔天一劫。生於天中受一劫樂同梵輔天　十勝行即是修四梵福中十善勝行　又解如十善業既感天中一劫受樂。準知四梵福亦能感天一劫受樂。引意類釋　又真諦師解云。十勝行者謂前四梵福上更加六種　一為救母命舍自身命　二為救父命舍自身命　三為救如來命舍自身命　四于正法中出家　五教他出家　六未轉法輪能請轉法輪。若作此解證意可知　應知四梵福后一上界受一劫樂。前三于欲天中死已復生等一劫樂。故正理云。已離欲者修四無量生上界天受劫壽樂。若未離欲建率堵波。造寺。和僧。能勤修習慈等加行。彼亦如修無量根本感劫天樂　豈不前說欲界無有善業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本正明戒·修果：戒以離系（Nihsreyasa，解脫束縛）為士用果（Purusartha-phala，人生目標之果）。意思是說，通過持戒才能證得離系，因此以離系作為人生目標之果。其餘文字可以理解。

《正理經》中說，如此持戒也能感得大富，這是就殊勝的情況而言。反過來說，也應該知道（不持戒的後果）。

經中說四人合起來才相當於一個梵福量，這指的是第二種，說明梵福量的果報。根據經文進行問答。

馱都（Dhatu），這裡的意思是『性』，指如來的體性。

四事，指的是衣服、飲食、臥具、醫藥。如舍利子（Sariputra）等讓僧團分裂后又使其和合。其餘文字可以理解。

論中說，乃至感得劫天之樂，有兩種說法。這是第一種說法，是經部（Sautrantika），或是大眾部（Mahasamghika）的觀點，或是該部派中的不同觀點。

這位論師的意思是說，一個梵福量，相當於梵輔天（Brahma-parisadya）的四十中劫（Antarakalpa）為一個劫量，稱為一個福量。又引用其他部派的頌文來證明：有信仰正見的人，修習十善殊勝之行，便能獲得生於梵天的福報，感得一劫生天的快樂。引用頌文的意思是證明與梵輔天一劫相同，生於天中享受一劫的快樂，與梵輔天相同。十勝行就是修習四梵福中的十善殊勝之行。

又解釋說，如果十善業已經能感得天中一劫的享樂，那麼可以推知四梵福也能感得天中一劫的享樂。引用意思進行類比解釋。又真諦（Paramartha）法師解釋說，十勝行指的是在前面的四梵福上再增加六種：一是為救母親的性命而捨棄自己的性命；二是為救父親的性命而捨棄自己的性命；三是為救如來的性命而捨棄自己的性命；四是在正法中出家；五是教他人出家；六是未轉法輪（Dharmacakra）時能請佛轉法輪。如果這樣解釋，其證明的意義就可以理解。應該知道，修習四梵福后，在上界天中享受一劫的快樂。前三種（梵福）在欲界天中死亡后又復生等，享受一劫的快樂。所以《正理經》中說，已經脫離慾望的人修習四無量心（四梵福），能生到上界天享受劫壽之樂。如果還沒有脫離慾望，建立窣堵波（Stupa，佛塔），建造寺廟，和合僧團，能夠勤奮修習慈等加行，他們也能像修習無量根本一樣，感得劫天之樂。難道不是前面說過欲界沒有善業嗎？

【English Translation】 English version Rightly Clarifying Precepts and Cultivating Results: Precepts have detachment (Nihsreyasa) as their purpose and fruit (Purusartha-phala). This means that only by upholding precepts can one attain detachment; therefore, detachment is considered the fruit of life's goal. The remaining text is understandable.

The Nyayasutra says that upholding precepts in this way can also bring great wealth. This is speaking of exceptional cases. Conversely, one should also understand (the consequences of not upholding precepts).

The sutra says that four people combined equal one Brahma-fortune measure. This refers to the second point, clarifying the result of the Brahma-fortune measure. This is based on questions and answers from the sutra.

Dhatu, here means 'nature,' referring to the essence of the Tathagata (如來).

The four requisites are clothing, food, bedding, and medicine. For example, Sariputra (舍利子) and others caused the Sangha to split and then reconciled it. The remaining text is understandable.

The treatise says, 'even to the point of experiencing the joy of a kalpa in the heavens.' There are two explanations. This is the first explanation, from the Sautrantika (經部) school, or the Mahasanghika (大眾部) school, or a different view within that school.

This teacher means that one Brahma-fortune measure is equivalent to forty intermediate kalpas (Antarakalpa) of the Brahma-parisadya (梵輔天) heaven, which is considered one kalpa measure, called one fortune measure. Furthermore, a verse from another school is cited as proof: 'A person with faith and right view, who cultivates the ten virtuous and excellent practices, will gain the fortune of being born in the Brahma heaven, experiencing the joy of being born in heaven for one kalpa.' The meaning of citing the verse is to prove that it is the same as one kalpa in the Brahma-parisadya heaven, being born in heaven and enjoying the happiness of one kalpa, the same as the Brahma-parisadya heaven. The ten excellent practices are the ten virtuous and excellent practices within the cultivation of the four Brahma-fortunes.

It is also explained that if the ten virtuous deeds can already bring the enjoyment of one kalpa in the heavens, then it can be inferred that the four Brahma-fortunes can also bring the enjoyment of one kalpa in the heavens. This is an explanation by analogy. Furthermore, Master Paramartha (真諦) explains that the ten excellent practices refer to adding six more to the previous four Brahma-fortunes: first, sacrificing one's own life to save one's mother's life; second, sacrificing one's own life to save one's father's life; third, sacrificing one's own life to save the Tathagata's (如來) life; fourth, renouncing the household life in the Right Dharma; fifth, teaching others to renounce the household life; sixth, being able to request the turning of the Dharma wheel (Dharmacakra) when it has not yet been turned. If explained in this way, the meaning of the proof can be understood. It should be known that after cultivating the four Brahma-fortunes, one enjoys the happiness of one kalpa in the upper realm heavens. The first three (Brahma-fortunes) involve dying in the desire realm heavens and being reborn, etc., enjoying the happiness of one kalpa. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says, 'Those who have already detached from desire, cultivate the four immeasurable minds (four Brahma-fortunes), and are born in the upper realm heavens to enjoy the happiness of a kalpa's lifespan. If one has not yet detached from desire, builds stupas (Stupa, 佛塔), constructs temples, and harmonizes the Sangha, and is able to diligently cultivate loving-kindness and other preliminary practices, they can also, like cultivating the immeasurable root, experience the joy of a kalpa in the heavens.' Isn't it said earlier that there are no virtuous deeds in the desire realm?

能招一劫異熟。無一善業猶如不善。唯一剎那能招劫壽　依如是理故作是說。然於一事發起多思次第能招劫量快樂。謂于彼死復于中生。故劫樂言無違前失。

毗婆沙師至如是異說者。此即第二師說。說梵福量指同前解　等言為顯如是異說。

財施已說至自他大福者。此即第三明法施　言體性者。如婆沙二十九出法供養體云。評曰應作是說。若說法者語。若能發語心．心所法。若受者聞已生未曾有善巧覺慧。皆此自性。如是法供養總用五蘊以為自性　解云準財施中出真施體法亦應然。思之可知　言契經等者等取律．論。故集異門足論第二云。法供養云何。答素怛覽。或毗奈耶。或阿毗達磨　又解十二部經中舉初契經等餘十一　言十二者契經．應頌．與記別。諷頌．自說．及因緣。譬喻．本事．並本生。方廣．希法．兼論義　故正理四十四云。契經等者等餘十一。即顯契經乃至論議。

言契經者謂能總攝容納隨順世俗．勝義堅實理言。如是契經是佛所說。或佛弟子佛許故說　言應頌者。謂以勝妙緝句言詞隨述贊前契經所說。有說亦是不了義經　言記別者。謂隨余問酬答辨析。如婆羅衍拏等中辨。或諸所有辨曾．當．現真實義言皆名記別。有說是佛諸了義經　言諷頌者。謂以勝妙緝句言詞。非隨述前而

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能招感一個大劫的異熟果報。沒有一種善業像不善業那樣（能產生如此大的果報）。僅僅一個剎那就能招感一個劫的壽命（的果報）。依照這樣的道理，所以這樣說。然而，對於一件事發起多種思慮，次第能夠招感一個劫量的快樂。意思是說，對於那件事死去，又在那件事中出生。所以說『劫樂』並沒有違背前面的說法。

『毗婆沙師』說到這樣的異說，這是第二位論師的說法。說梵天的福報的量，指向與前面的解釋相同。『等』字是爲了顯示這樣的異說。

『財施已說』到『自他大福』，這是第三個方面，說明法施的體性。關於『體性』，如《婆沙論》第二十九卷所說，關於法供養的體性是：評論說，應該這樣說，如果是說法者的語言，如果是能夠引發語言的心、心所法，如果是聽者聽了之後產生前所未有的善巧覺慧，這些都是法供養的自性。像這樣的法供養，總的來說是用五蘊作為自性。解釋說，按照財施中得出真施的體性，法施也應該是這樣，可以思考得知。『契經等』，『等』包括律、論。所以《集異門足論》第二卷說：『法供養是什麼？』回答說：『是素怛覽（Sutrāntra，經），或者是毗奈耶（Vinaya，律），或者是阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論）。』又解釋說，十二部經中舉出最初的契經等其餘十一部經。關於十二部經：契經（Sūtra，佛經）、應頌（Geya，重頌）、與記別（Vyākarana，授記），諷頌（Gāthā，諷頌）、自說（Udāna，自說）、及因緣（Nidāna，因緣），譬喻（Avadāna，譬喻）、本事（Itivṛttaka，本事）、並本生（Jātaka，本生），方廣（Vaipulya，方廣）、希法（Adbhūta-dharma，未曾有法）、兼論義（Upadeśa，論議）。所以《正理》第四十四卷說：『契經等』，『等』包括其餘十一部經，即顯示契經乃至論議。

『契經』是指能夠總攝、容納、隨順世俗和勝義的堅實道理的言語。這樣的契經是佛所說，或者佛的弟子因為佛的允許而說的。『應頌』是指用勝妙的組織句子的言詞，隨著敘述讚美前面的契經所說。有人說也是不了義經。『記別』是指隨著別人的提問而回答辨析，如在《婆羅衍拏（Brahmana，婆羅門）》等中辨析。或者所有辨析過去、未來、現在真實意義的言語都叫做記別。有人說是佛的所有了義經。『諷頌』是指用勝妙的組織句子的言詞，不是隨著敘述前面的契經，而是...

【English Translation】 English version: It can bring about a Vipāka (異熟) of a Kalpa (劫). No good Karma (業) is like bad Karma. A single Kṣaṇa (剎那) can bring about a Kalpa of life. According to this principle, it is said. However, initiating multiple thoughts on one matter can gradually bring about a Kalpa's worth of happiness. This means dying in that matter and being born in it again. Therefore, the saying 'Kalpa of happiness' does not contradict the previous statement.

When the 'Vaibhāṣika masters (毗婆沙師)' speak of such different views, this is the view of the second teacher. Saying that the measure of Brahma's (梵天) merit refers to the same explanation as before. The word 'etc.' is to show such different views.

'Dāna (財施) has been spoken of' to 'great merit for oneself and others', this is the third aspect, explaining the nature of Dharma-dāna (法施). Regarding 'nature', as stated in the twenty-ninth volume of the Vibhaṣa (婆沙論), concerning the nature of Dharma offering: The commentary says, it should be said that if it is the language of the speaker, if it is the mind and mental factors that can initiate language, if the listener, after hearing, generates unprecedented skillful wisdom, these are all the nature of Dharma offering. Such Dharma offering, in general, uses the five Skandhas (蘊) as its nature. The explanation says that according to the nature of true Dāna derived from material Dāna, Dharma Dāna should also be like this, which can be understood through reflection. 'Sūtra (契經) etc.', 'etc.' includes Vinaya (律) and Abhidharma (論). Therefore, the second volume of the Sangiti-paryaya (集異門足論) says: 'What is Dharma offering?' The answer is: 'It is Sutrāntra (素怛覽), or Vinaya (毗奈耶), or Abhidharma (阿毗達磨).' It also explains that among the twelve divisions of scriptures, the initial Sūtra etc. and the remaining eleven are mentioned. Regarding the twelve divisions: Sūtra (契經), Geya (應頌), Vyākarana (記別), Gāthā (諷頌), Udāna (自說), Nidāna (因緣), Avadāna (譬喻), Itivṛttaka (本事), Jātaka (本生), Vaipulya (方廣), Adbhūta-dharma (希法), and Upadeśa (論議). Therefore, the forty-fourth volume of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'Sūtra etc.', 'etc.' includes the remaining eleven, which shows Sūtra up to Upadeśa.

'Sūtra' refers to words that can comprehensively gather, contain, and accord with the solid principles of conventional and ultimate truth. Such Sūtras are spoken by the Buddha, or by the Buddha's disciples with the Buddha's permission. 'Geya' refers to using excellent and well-organized words to narrate and praise what is said in the preceding Sūtra. Some say it is also an incomplete scripture. 'Vyākarana' refers to answering and analyzing questions, such as analyzing in the Brahmana (婆羅衍拏) etc. Or all words that analyze the true meaning of the past, future, and present are called Vyākarana. Some say they are all the complete scriptures of the Buddha. 'Gāthā' refers to using excellent and well-organized words, not following the narration of the preceding Sūtra, but...

為讚詠。或二．三．四．五．六句等　言自說者。謂不因請世尊欲令正法久住。睹希奇事悅意自說妙辨等流。如說此那伽由彼那伽等　言緣起者。謂說一切起說所由。多是調伏相應論道。彼由緣起。之所顯故　言譬喻者。為令曉悟所說義宗。廣引多門比例開示。如長喻等契經所說。有說此是除諸菩薩。說餘本行能有所證示所作言　言本事者。謂說自昔展轉傳來。不顯說人談所說事　言本生者。謂說菩薩本所行行。或依過去事起諸言論。即由過去事言論究竟是名本事。如曼馱多經。若依現在事起諸言論。要由過去事言論究竟。是名本生。如羅剎私經　言方廣者。謂以正理廣辨諸法。以一切法性相眾多非廣言詞不能辨故　亦名廣破。由此廣言能破極堅無知闇故　或名無比由此廣言理趣幽博余無比故　有說此廣辨大菩提資糧。

言希法者謂于。此中唯說希奇出世間法。由此能正顯三乘希有故　有餘師說。辨三寶言。世所罕聞故名希法　言論議者。謂于上說諸分義中。無倒顯示釋難抉擇　有說于經所說深義。已見真者。或余智人。隨理辨釋亦名論議。即此名曰磨怛理迦。釋余經義時此為本母故　此又名為阿毗達磨。以能現對諸法相故。無倒顯示諸法相故　如是所說十二分教略說應知三藏所攝　言三藏者。一素怛纜藏．二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：為讚詠。或二、三、四、五、六句等。言自說者，謂不因請世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）欲令正法久住，睹希奇事悅意自說妙辨等流。如說此那伽（龍）由彼那伽（龍）等。言緣起者，謂說一切起說所由。多是調伏相應論道。彼由緣起之所顯故。言譬喻者，為令曉悟所說義宗，廣引多門比例開示。如長喻等契經所說。有說此是除諸菩薩，說餘本行能有所證示所作言。言本事者，謂說自昔展轉傳來，不顯說人談所說事。言本生者，謂說菩薩本所行行，或依過去事起諸言論。即由過去事言論究竟是名本事。如曼馱多經。若依現在事起諸言論，要由過去事言論究竟。是名本生。如羅剎私經。言方廣者，謂以正理廣辨諸法，以一切法性相眾多非廣言詞不能辨故。亦名廣破，由此廣言能破極堅無知闇故。或名無比，由此廣言理趣幽博余無比故。有說此廣辨大菩提資糧。言希法者，謂於此中唯說希奇出世間法。由此能正顯三乘希有故。有餘師說，辨三寶言，世所罕聞故名希法。言論議者，謂于上說諸分義中，無倒顯示釋難抉擇。有說于經所說深義，已見真者，或余智人，隨理辨釋亦名論議。即此名曰磨怛理迦（梵文：Matrika，意為「論母」），釋余經義時此為本母故。此又名為阿毗達磨（梵文：Abhidharma，意為「論藏」），以能現對諸法相故，無倒顯示諸法相故。如是所說十二分教略說應知三藏所攝。言三藏者，一素怛纜藏（梵文：Sutrantra，意為「經藏」）、二

【English Translation】 English version: Is praise and verse. Or two, three, four, five, six lines, etc. 'Speaking for oneself' means not because the World Honored One (Shakyamuni Buddha) was requested to make the Proper Dharma long-lasting, but upon seeing rare and wonderful events, one joyfully speaks of wonderful eloquence and the like. For example, saying 'this Naga (dragon) from that Naga (dragon),' etc. 'Arising from conditions' means speaking of the origin of all things and the reasons for speaking. It is mostly discussions corresponding to taming. It is manifested by arising from conditions. 'Metaphors' are used to make the meaning of what is said easily understood, extensively citing many kinds of analogies to reveal it. As the long metaphors and other Sutras say. Some say this excludes all Bodhisattvas, speaking of other fundamental practices that can be proven to demonstrate what has been done. 'Previous events' means speaking of things transmitted from the past, not explicitly mentioning the speaker but talking about the events spoken of. 'Birth stories' means speaking of the practices that Bodhisattvas originally performed, or initiating discussions based on past events. That is, discussions that are ultimately about past events are called 'previous events,' such as the Mandhata Sutra. If discussions are initiated based on present events, they must ultimately be about past events. This is called 'birth stories,' such as the Rakshasi Sutra. 'Extensive' means extensively distinguishing all dharmas with correct reasoning, because the nature and characteristics of all dharmas are numerous and cannot be distinguished without extensive words. It is also called 'extensive refutation,' because these extensive words can break through the extremely firm darkness of ignorance. Or it is called 'incomparable,' because these extensive words have profound and broad principles that are incomparable to others. Some say this extensively distinguishes the resources for great Bodhi (enlightenment). 'Rare dharmas' means that only rare, transcendent dharmas are spoken of in this. This can correctly reveal the rarity of the Three Vehicles. Some other teachers say that speaking of the Three Jewels is called 'rare dharmas' because it is rarely heard in the world. 'Discussions' means displaying, explaining, resolving difficulties, and making decisions without error in the meanings of the divisions mentioned above. Some say that those who have seen the truth or other wise people explain and interpret the profound meanings spoken of in the Sutras according to reason, which is also called 'discussions.' This is called Matrika (Sanskrit: Matrika, meaning 'matrix of treatises'), because it serves as the fundamental matrix when explaining the meanings of other Sutras. This is also called Abhidharma (Sanskrit: Abhidharma, meaning 'collection of treatises'), because it can directly present the characteristics of all dharmas and display the characteristics of all dharmas without error. It should be known that the twelve divisions of teachings mentioned above are briefly included in the Three Baskets. The Three Baskets are: 1. Sutrantra (Sanskrit: Sutrantra, meaning 'Sutra Pitaka'), 2.

毗奈耶藏。三阿毗達磨藏。

前已別釋至聖道善如次者。此即大文第八明順三分善。

論曰至后當廣說者。釋順三分善　分是別義。即福等名分。此即所順三分不同故名為分　或順福等善即名為分。此即能順三分不同。或可分言通能．所順　余文可知。

如世間所說至算文數自體者。此即大文第九明書等體。

論曰至受想等法者。釋上兩句。等取行．識。

余文可知。

此中書印至五蘊為體者。此下釋后兩句。書謂手書。印謂手印。並身工巧。以前身業為自性。及彼能發心．心所法。總而言之。五蘊為體　應知書印以能書．印身業為體。非所書．印。故婆沙一百二十六云。此中書者非所造字。但是所有能造字法。此能成字故說為書(解云書之與字．眼目異名。非是不相應中字也)　又云。此中印者非所造印。但是所有能造印法。此能成印故說為印　又正理云非諸字像即名為書。所雕印文即名為印。然由業造字像．印文。應知名為此中書．印。

次算及文至五蘊為體者。算謂語算如言九九八十一等。文謂文章。如人語言諷詠詩賦。並語工巧。以前語業為自性。及彼能發心．心所法。總而言之。五蘊為體。應知算文以能算文。語業為體。非所算文。故婆沙云此中算者非謂所算

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《毗奈耶藏》（Vinaya-pitaka，戒律藏）。《三阿毗達磨藏》（Tri-Abhidhamma-pitaka，三部阿毗達磨藏）。

前面已經分別解釋了『至聖道善如次』等內容，這裡是大段文字的第八部分，闡明『順三分善』。

論中說『至后當廣說者』，這是解釋『順三分善』。『分』是區別的含義，即福等名稱的區別。這裡是指所順應的三種善不同，所以稱為『分』。或者說，順應福等善就稱為『分』，這是指能順應的三種善不同。或許『分』這個詞可以同時包括能順應和所順應。其餘文字可以自行理解。

如世間所說『至算文數自體者』，這是大段文字的第九部分，闡明書寫等的本體。

論中說『至受想等法者』，這是解釋上面兩句話。『等』字包括了行、識。

其餘文字可以自行理解。

這裡，書寫、印刻『至五蘊為體者』，以下是解釋後面兩句話。『書』指的是手寫，『印』指的是手印，都屬於身工巧，以之前的身業為自性，以及能夠引發它們的心、心所法。總的來說，以五蘊為體。應該知道，書寫和印刻以能夠書寫、印刻的身業為體，而不是所書寫、印刻的內容。所以《婆沙》第一百二十六卷說，『這裡所說的書，不是指所造的字，而是指所有能夠造字的方法。』這種方法能夠成就字，所以稱為書（解釋說，書和字，只是名稱不同，不是不相應的字）。又說，『這裡所說的印，不是指所造的印，而是指所有能夠造印的方法。』這種方法能夠成就印，所以稱為印。又《正理》中說，『不是所有的字形影象就叫做書，所雕刻的印文就叫做印。而是由於業力造就了字形、印文，應該知道這就是這裡所說的書、印。』

其次，算術和文章『至五蘊為體者』，『算』指的是口頭計算，如說『九九八十一』等。『文』指的是文章，如人的語言、諷詠、詩賦，都屬於語工巧，以之前的語業為自性，以及能夠引發它們的心、心所法。總的來說，以五蘊為體。應該知道，算術和文章以能夠進行算術和文章的語業為體，而不是所算的內容和文章。所以《婆沙》中說，『這裡所說的算，不是指所算的結果』。

【English Translation】 English version Vinaya-pitaka (Vinaya-pitaka, the Basket of Discipline). Tri-Abhidhamma-pitaka (Tri-Abhidhamma-pitaka, the Three Abhidhamma Baskets).

Having previously explained 『to the Holy Path Good in Order』 and other contents, this is the eighth part of the large text, clarifying 『Following the Threefold Good』.

The treatise says 『to be discussed in detail later』, which explains 『Following the Threefold Good』. 『Division』 (分) means distinction, that is, the distinction of names such as fortune. Here, it refers to the difference in the threefold good that is followed, hence it is called 『division』. Or, following the good such as fortune is called 『division』, which refers to the difference in the threefold good that can be followed. Perhaps the word 『division』 can include both what can be followed and what is followed. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

As the world says 『to the body of calculation, writing, and numbers』, this is the ninth part of the large text, clarifying the substance of writing and so on.

The treatise says 『to feeling, thought, and other dharmas』, which explains the above two sentences. 『Etc.』 includes formations and consciousness.

The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

Here, writing and printing 『to the five aggregates as the body』, the following explains the latter two sentences. 『Writing』 refers to handwriting, 『printing』 refers to hand seals, both belonging to bodily craftsmanship, with the previous bodily karma as its self-nature, and the mind and mental factors that can generate them. In general, the five aggregates are the body. It should be known that writing and printing take the bodily karma that can write and print as the body, not the content that is written and printed. Therefore, Volume 126 of the Vibhasa says, 『The writing mentioned here does not refer to the characters created, but to all the methods that can create characters.』 This method can accomplish characters, so it is called writing (explaining that writing and characters are just different names, not non-corresponding characters).』 Also, it says, 『The printing mentioned here does not refer to the seals created, but to all the methods that can create seals.』 This method can accomplish seals, so it is called printing.』 Also, the Nyaya-anusara-sastra says, 『Not all character images are called writing, and the engraved seal text is called printing. But because karma creates character images and seal text, it should be known that this is what is meant by writing and printing here.』

Secondly, calculation and writing 『to the five aggregates as the body』, 『calculation』 refers to oral calculation, such as saying 『nine nine eighty-one』 and so on. 『Writing』 refers to articles, such as human language, satire, poetry, and prose, all belonging to verbal craftsmanship, with the previous verbal karma as its self-nature, and the mind and mental factors that can generate them. In general, the five aggregates are the body. It should be known that calculation and writing take the verbal karma that can perform calculation and writing as the body, not the content that is calculated and the articles. Therefore, the Vibhasa says, 『The calculation mentioned here does not refer to the result of the calculation』.

一．十．百．千．萬．億等法。但是所有能算之法。此能演算法故說為算　又云此中詩者非所述詠。但是所有能成詠法。此能成詠法故說為詩(解云詩之與文。名異義同)。

后數應知至能數法故者　數謂意思計數諸法。一．十等數是意業工巧。以前意業為自性。及彼意思同時能發心．心所法。總而言之。四蘊為體。但由意思能數法故。內思計校名數。出語以去名算。故二不同。應知此數以能計數為體。非所計數。故婆沙云。此中數者。非謂所數稻．麻等物百．千等。但是所有能數之法。此能數法說為數。若依勝論。德句義中別有數體。若依大乘。于所數法上假立為數。若依此宗。以能數思為其體也。若據所數法與大乘同。

今應略辨至解脫名無上者。此即大文第十明法異名。論曰至亦名為妙者。釋第一句。善無漏法以有為無漏及與擇滅為。體。此善無漏法亦名為妙。故品類足第六云。妙法雲何。謂無漏有為法及擇滅。又正理釋異名云。勝染．無記及有漏法。故唯此法獨受妙名。

諸染污法至及劣者。釋第二句。諸染污法以不善．有覆無記法為體。此諸染法亦名有罪。亦名有覆。亦名為劣。故品類足云。劣法雲何。謂不善．及有覆無記法　又正理釋異名云。亦名有罪。是諸智者所訶厭故。亦名有覆。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一、十、百、千、萬、億等法，都是能夠計算的方法。因為能夠進行計算，所以稱為『算』。又說，這裡的『詩』不是指吟詠的內容，而是指所有能夠構成吟詠的方法。因為能夠構成吟詠，所以稱為『詩』（解釋說，『詩』和『文』，名稱不同，意義相同）。

『后數應知至能數法故者』，『數』是指意思計數各種事物的方法。一、十等數是意業的技巧，以意業本身為自性，以及與意思同時生起的心、心所法。總的來說，以四蘊為體。但因為意思能夠計數事物，所以在內心思考計算稱為『數』，用語言表達出來稱為『算』，所以兩者不同。應該知道，『數』以能夠計數為體，而不是被計數的事物。所以《婆沙論》說，這裡的『數』，不是指被數的稻、麻等物，百、千等，而是指所有能夠計數的方法。因為能夠計數，所以稱為『數』。如果按照勝論的觀點，在德句義中另外存在『數』的實體。如果按照大乘的觀點，在被數的事物上假立為『數』。如果按照此宗的觀點，以能夠計數的思作為它的本體。如果從被數的事物來說，與大乘相同。

『今應略辨至解脫名無上者』，這即是大文第十，說明法的不同名稱。論中說『至亦名為妙者』，解釋第一句。善良的無漏法，以有為無漏法以及擇滅為體。這種善良的無漏法也稱為『妙』。所以《品類足論》第六說，『妙法』是什麼？是指無漏有為法以及擇滅。又《正理釋》解釋異名說，勝過染污、無記以及有漏法，所以只有這種法才能獲得『妙』的名稱。

『諸染污法至及劣者』，解釋第二句。各種染污法以不善、有覆無記法為體。這些染污法也稱為『有罪』，也稱為『有覆』，也稱為『劣』。所以《品類足論》說，『劣法』是什麼？是指不善以及有覆無記法。又《正理釋》解釋異名說，也稱為『有罪』，是被智者所呵斥厭惡的緣故，也稱為『有覆』。

【English Translation】 English version I. Ten. Hundred. Thousand. Ten thousand. Million. A hundred million, etc. These are all methods of calculation. Because they are methods of calculation, they are called 'calculation'. Furthermore, it is said that the 'poetry' here does not refer to the content being recited, but rather to all methods that can constitute recitation. Because they can constitute recitation, they are called 'poetry' (explaining that 'poetry' and 'literature' have different names but the same meaning).

'The subsequent number should be known to be the method of numbering,' 'number' refers to the method of mentally counting various things. The numbers one, ten, etc., are the skillful means of mental karma, with the nature of mental karma itself, as well as the mind and mental factors that arise simultaneously with the thought. In general, it has the four aggregates as its substance. However, because the thought can count things, internal thinking and calculation are called 'number', and expressing it in language is called 'calculation', so the two are different. It should be known that 'number' takes the ability to count as its substance, not the things being counted. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says, 'The number here does not refer to the rice, hemp, etc., that are counted, such as hundreds, thousands, etc., but rather to all methods that can count. This method of counting is called 'number'.' According to the Vaisheshika school, there is a separate entity of 'number' in the meaning of quality, action, and generality. According to the Mahayana school, 'number' is provisionally established on the things being counted. According to this school, the thought that can count is its substance. If based on the things being counted, it is the same as Mahayana.

'Now, a brief explanation should be given, up to liberation being called unsurpassed,' this is the tenth section of the main text, explaining the different names of the Dharma. The treatise says, 'Up to also being called wonderful,' explaining the first sentence. Virtuous, unconditioned dharmas have conditioned, unconditioned dharmas and nirodha-satya (cessation) as their substance. These virtuous, unconditioned dharmas are also called 'wonderful'. Therefore, the Prakaranapada says in the sixth section, 'What is a 'wonderful dharma'? It refers to unconditioned, conditioned dharmas and nirodha-satya.' Furthermore, the Nyayapravesa explains different names, saying that it surpasses defilement, neutral, and conditioned dharmas, so only this dharma can receive the name 'wonderful'.

'All defiled dharmas, up to and including inferior,' explaining the second sentence. All defiled dharmas have unwholesome, obscured neutral dharmas as their substance. These defiled dharmas are also called 'sinful', also called 'obscured', and also called 'inferior'. Therefore, the Prakaranapada says, 'What is an 'inferior dharma'? It refers to unwholesome and obscured neutral dharmas.' Furthermore, the Nyayapravesa explains different names, saying that it is also called 'sinful' because it is rebuked and disliked by the wise, and it is also called 'obscured'.

以能覆障解脫道故。亦名為劣極鄙穢故。應棄捨故。

準此妙劣至故頌不辨者。此釋中法。準前妙．劣余中已成。即善有漏法．及無覆無記。有為．無為法。故品類足云。中法雲何謂善有漏．及無覆無記法。正理同品類足。

諸有為善至義準已成者。釋第三句。明有為善異名。諸有為善亦名應習。此善在身數數現前。漸漸增進可修習故。又生果故。余不善．無記。及無為法非應修習。義準已成　問何故不善．無記非修習耶　答正理云不善．無記非應習者。以彼體非升進法故。

何故無為不名應習者。問。

不可數習至此無果故者答。謂此無為不可數習令增長故不名應習。又習為果。此無為法無有果故不名應習。又正理云。然勸以涅槃置在心中者。教有情類令趣涅槃。勸令數現起緣涅槃善智。故作是言　非謂應習。

解脫涅槃至義準已成者。釋第四句。明解脫異名　解脫涅槃。亦名無上。以無一法能勝涅槃。是善。是常。超眾法故。尚無有法與涅槃等。況有上者　余法有上。義準已成。即一切有為．虛空．非擇滅。由非具前善．常相故。隨其所應皆名有上。

俱舍論記卷第十八大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第十九

沙門釋光述

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為能夠覆蓋和障礙解脫之道，所以也稱為低劣、極其鄙陋和污穢，因此應當捨棄。

根據『妙』和『劣』直到『故』的頌文沒有辨明的內容，這裡解釋的是中等法。根據前面關於『妙』和『劣』以及剩餘『中』的解釋已經完成，即指有漏的善法以及無覆無記法，有為法和無為法。《品類足論》說：『中法是什麼？』回答說：『指有漏的善法以及無覆無記法。』《正理》與《品類足論》的說法相同。

『諸有為善』直到『義準已成』，解釋第三句，說明有為善法的不同名稱。諸有為善法也稱為『應習』（should be cultivated），因為這種善法在身心中不斷地顯現，逐漸增長，可以修習。又因為它能產生結果。其餘的不善法、無記法以及無為法不是應該修習的，這個道理依據前面的解釋已經成立。問：為什麼不善法和無記法不是應該修習的呢？答：《正理》中說不善法和無記法不是應該修習的，因為它們的體性不是上升和進步的法。

『何故無為不名應習者』，提問。

『不可數習』直到『此無果故者』，回答。意思是說，這種無為法不能通過反覆修習來使其增長，所以不稱為『應習』。而且，修習是爲了產生結果，而這種無為法沒有結果，所以不稱為『應習』。另外，《正理》中說：『然而勸人將涅槃（Nirvana）置於心中』，是教導有情眾生趨向涅槃（Nirvana），勸導他們不斷地生起緣于涅槃（Nirvana）的善妙智慧，所以這樣說，並不是說涅槃（Nirvana）是『應習』的。

『解脫涅槃』直到『義準已成』，解釋第四句，說明解脫的不同名稱。解脫和涅槃（Nirvana）也稱為『無上』，因為沒有一種法能夠勝過涅槃（Nirvana），它是善的，是常住的，超越一切法。甚至沒有一種法能夠與涅槃（Nirvana）相等，更何況有超過它的呢？其餘的法是有上的，這個道理依據前面的解釋已經成立，即一切有為法、虛空（Akasa）、非擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha），因為不具備前面所說的善和常住的特性，所以根據它們各自的情況，都可以稱為『有上』。

《俱舍論記》卷第十八《大正藏》第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第十九

沙門釋光述

【English Translation】 English version: Because it can cover and obstruct the path to liberation, it is also called inferior, extremely base, and impure; therefore, it should be abandoned.

According to the verse from 'sublime' and 'inferior' up to 'therefore' that does not clarify, this explains the intermediate dharmas. Based on the previous explanations of 'sublime,' 'inferior,' and the remaining 'intermediate,' it is already established that it refers to wholesome contaminated dharmas, as well as unconditioned neutral dharmas, conditioned dharmas, and unconditioned dharmas. The Prakaranapada says: 'What are intermediate dharmas?' It answers: 'They refer to wholesome contaminated dharmas and unconditioned neutral dharmas.' The Nyayanusara agrees with the Prakaranapada.

'All conditioned wholesome' up to 'the meaning is already established,' explains the third line, clarifying the different names for conditioned wholesome dharmas. All conditioned wholesome dharmas are also called 'should be cultivated' because these wholesome dharmas constantly manifest in body and mind, gradually increase, and can be cultivated. Also, because they produce results. The remaining unwholesome dharmas, neutral dharmas, and unconditioned dharmas are not to be cultivated; this principle is already established based on the previous explanations. Question: Why are unwholesome and neutral dharmas not to be cultivated? Answer: The Nyayanusara says that unwholesome and neutral dharmas are not to be cultivated because their nature is not of ascending or progressive dharmas.

'Why is the unconditioned not called should be cultivated?' Question.

'Cannot be repeatedly cultivated' up to 'because this has no result,' Answer. It means that this unconditioned dharma cannot be increased through repeated cultivation, so it is not called 'should be cultivated.' Moreover, cultivation is for producing results, but this unconditioned dharma has no result, so it is not called 'should be cultivated.' Furthermore, the Nyayanusara says: 'However, encouraging one to place Nirvana (Nirvana) in the heart' is to teach sentient beings to move towards Nirvana (Nirvana), encouraging them to constantly generate wholesome wisdom related to Nirvana (Nirvana), so it is said in this way, not that Nirvana (Nirvana) is 'should be cultivated'.

'Liberation Nirvana' up to 'the meaning is already established,' explains the fourth line, clarifying the different names for liberation. Liberation and Nirvana (Nirvana) are also called 'supreme' because there is no dharma that can surpass Nirvana (Nirvana); it is wholesome, it is permanent, and it transcends all dharmas. There is not even a dharma that can be equal to Nirvana (Nirvana), let alone surpass it. The remaining dharmas are conditioned; this principle is already established based on the previous explanations, namely all conditioned dharmas, space (Akasa), and cessation through discrimination (Pratisankhya-nirodha), because they do not possess the aforementioned characteristics of being wholesome and permanent, so according to their respective situations, they can all be called 'conditioned'.

Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa, Volume 18 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa

Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa, Volume 19

Commentary by the Shramana Shi Guang

分別隨眠品第五之一

分別隨眠品者。隨逐有情名隨。行相微細名眠。如人睡眠行相難了。此品廣明故名分別。此品雖亦明纏．垢等。隨眠強勝故以標名　又解此品初明隨眠。從初立號故以標名。所以業后次明隨眠者。業因感果不能獨起。必藉惑緣。惑望果疏故隨眠后說。

前言世別至無感有能者。就此品中。一明惑體。二明惑滅　就第一明惑體中。一正明根本惑。一明雜諸煩惱　就正明根本惑中。一辨根本惑。二諸門分別。就辨根本惑中。一增數以明。二明見．修斷。三別明五見。四便明四倒。五明七．九慢　就第一增數明中。一明六隨眠。二明七隨眠。三明十隨眠。四明九十八。此下第一明六隨眠　前品初言世別皆由業生。此業復由隨眠方得生長。離隨眠之業。無感有果功能。此即牒前生起。

所以者何隨眠有幾者。一問所以者何。二問隨眠有幾。

頌曰至無明見及疑者。上一句答初問。下三句答第二問。

論曰至無感有能者。釋第一句　三有非一名為諸有。謂由隨眠能發諸業。復由諸業能感有果。由此隨眠是諸三有根本故業離此隨眠無感有果功能。故十二支初說隨眠。

何故隨眠能為有本者。問。

諸煩惱現起至有感有能者。答。諸煩惱現起。能為十事故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本　　分別隨眠品第五之一

解釋『分別隨眠品』：『隨』指的是隨逐有情（sentient beings），『眠』指的是行相微細難以察覺，就像人睡著了一樣。這一品廣泛地闡明了隨眠，所以稱為『分別』。雖然這一品也闡明了纏（entanglements）、垢（defilements）等，但因為隨眠最為強盛，所以用它來命名。另一種解釋是，這一品最初闡明了隨眠，所以從一開始就用它來命名。為什麼在業（karma）之後接著闡明隨眠呢？因為業作為因，要感生果報，不能單獨發生作用，必須依靠煩惱作為助緣。相對於果報來說，煩惱顯得比較疏遠，所以放在隨眠之後來說。

前面說到『世別皆由業生』，在本品中，一方面闡明煩惱的本體，另一方面闡明煩惱的滅除。在闡明煩惱的本體中，一方面正面闡明根本煩惱，另一方面闡明與各種煩惱的混雜。在正面闡明根本煩惱中，一方面辨別根本煩惱，另一方面從各個方面進行分別。在辨別根本煩惱中，一方面通過增加數量來闡明，另一方面闡明見斷（darśana-mārga-prahātavyāḥ）和修斷（bhāvanā-mārga-prahātavyāḥ），再一方面分別闡明五見（pañca dṛṣṭayaḥ），進而闡明四倒（viparyāsas），最後闡明七慢（sapta mānāḥ）和九慢（nava mānāḥ）。在第一方面，通過增加數量來闡明，一方面闡明六隨眠（anuśaya），另一方面闡明七隨眠，再一方面闡明十隨眠，最後闡明九十八隨眠。下面首先闡明六隨眠。前一品一開始就說世界各異都是由業產生的，而業又必須依靠隨眠才能生長。離開了隨眠的業，就沒有感生果報的功能。這裡是承接前面的內容而引發下面的討論。

『所以者何隨眠有幾者』，一是問『為什麼』，二是問『隨眠有幾種』。

『頌曰至無明見及疑者』，上一句回答第一個問題，下面三句回答第二個問題。

『論曰至無感有能者』，解釋第一句。三有（trayo bhavaḥ）不是一個名稱，而是指諸有。意思是說，由於隨眠能夠引發各種業，又由於各種業能夠感生有果。因此，隨眠是三有的根本，所以離開了隨眠的業，就沒有感生有果的功能。因此，十二因緣（dvādaśāṅga pratītyasamutpāda）一開始就說隨眠。

『何故隨眠能為有本者』，問。

『諸煩惱現起至有感有能者』，答。各種煩惱現起，能夠引發十種事情：

【English Translation】 English version Chapter Five, Part One: Distinguishing the Anusayas (latent tendencies)

Explanation of 'Distinguishing the Anusayas': 'Anu' means following sentient beings, and 'saya' means subtle and difficult to perceive, like a person who is asleep. This chapter extensively elucidates the anusayas, hence it is called 'Distinguishing'. Although this chapter also elucidates entanglements (paryavasthāna), defilements (mala), etc., the anusayas are the most powerful, so it is named after them. Another explanation is that this chapter initially elucidates the anusayas, so it is named from the beginning. Why are the anusayas elucidated after karma (action)? Because karma, as a cause, cannot produce results alone; it must rely on afflictions (kleśa) as auxiliary conditions. Relative to the results, afflictions appear more distant, so they are discussed after the anusayas.

Previously, it was said that 'the differences in the world are all caused by karma'. In this chapter, on the one hand, the substance of afflictions is elucidated, and on the other hand, the cessation of afflictions is elucidated. In elucidating the substance of afflictions, on the one hand, the fundamental afflictions are directly elucidated, and on the other hand, the mixture of various afflictions is elucidated. In directly elucidating the fundamental afflictions, on the one hand, the fundamental afflictions are distinguished, and on the other hand, they are distinguished from various aspects. In distinguishing the fundamental afflictions, on the one hand, it is elucidated by increasing the number, and on the other hand, it elucidates what is abandoned by seeing the truth (darśana-mārga-prahātavyāḥ) and what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga-prahātavyāḥ). Furthermore, the five views (pañca dṛṣṭayaḥ) are separately elucidated, and then the four inversions (viparyāsas) are elucidated, and finally the seven conceits (sapta mānāḥ) and nine conceits (nava mānāḥ) are elucidated. In the first aspect, it is elucidated by increasing the number, on the one hand, the six anusayas (anuśaya) are elucidated, on the other hand, the seven anusayas are elucidated, and on the other hand, the ten anusayas are elucidated, and finally the ninety-eight anusayas are elucidated. Below, the six anusayas are first elucidated. The previous chapter began by saying that the differences in the world are all caused by karma, and karma must rely on the anusayas to grow. Karma without the anusayas has no function to produce results. This is to connect the previous content and lead to the following discussion.

'What is the reason? How many anusayas are there?' The first question asks 'why', and the second question asks 'how many kinds of anusayas are there'.

'The verse says to ignorance, views, and doubt', the first sentence answers the first question, and the following three sentences answer the second question.

'The treatise says to without the ability to produce results', explains the first sentence. The three realms of existence (trayo bhavaḥ) are not one name, but refer to all existences. It means that because the anusayas can cause various karmas, and because various karmas can produce results. Therefore, the anusayas are the root of the three existences, so karma without the anusayas has no function to produce results. Therefore, the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga pratītyasamutpāda) begin with the anusayas.

'Why can the anusayas be the root of existence?' Question.

'When afflictions arise, to have the ability to produce results', answer. When various afflictions arise, they can cause ten things:

一堅根本。正理四十五云。一堅固根本。令得堅牢。對治遠故。煩惱根本謂煩惱得　解云由惑起故對治道不生。惑得轉強名為堅固。要由成惑惑方現前。故煩惱得是煩惱根本也　二立相續。正理云。建立相續。能數令余連續起故　解云能數令余后念諸惑連續起故。或引后餘生連續起故　三治自田。正理云。修治自田令所依止隨彼住故　解云自田謂煩惱現行所依止身。令此依身順生煩惱。謂由煩惱數起現行。令自身．心起善梗澀。若起煩惱任運滑利故名修治自田　四引等流。正理云。引毒等流。能引如自隨煩惱故　解云能引如自諸隨煩惱等流果故　五發業有。正理云。能發業有。發起能招後有業故　解云業即有故。或業．及有。以業．及果皆名有故　六攝自具。正理云。攝自資糧。能數數攝起非理作意故　解云自具。資糧。名異義同　又解此論言自具。謂惑同時心．心所等　七迷所緣。正理云。迷於所緣。能害自身正覺慧故　解云由不了境故。損正慧故　八導識流。正理云將導識流。於後有所緣能引發識故　解云煩惱起時將導染識。於後有能引識支。于所緣能發染識故名導識流　九越善品。正理云。違越善品。令諸善法皆退失故(可知)。

十廣縛義。至自界．地故。正理云廣繫縛義。令不能越自界．自地。以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一、堅固根本。《正理四十五》說：『一、堅固根本，使其堅牢，因為對治遠離的緣故。』煩惱的根本是指煩惱的生起，解釋為由於迷惑而生起，所以對治之道無法產生。迷惑變得更強就叫做堅固。必須要由成就迷惑，迷惑才能顯現。所以煩惱的生起是煩惱的根本。二、建立相續。《正理》說：『建立相續，能夠屢次使其他的煩惱連續生起。』解釋為能夠屢次使其他的后念諸惑連續生起。或者引導後世的其餘煩惱連續生起。三、整治自田。《正理》說：『修治自田，使其所依止的身體順應煩惱而住。』解釋為自田是指煩惱現行所依止的身體。使這個依身順應生起煩惱。就是由煩惱屢次生起現行，使自身、心生起不適和澀滯。如果生起煩惱，就會自然而然地順暢便利，所以叫做修治自田。四、引生等流。《正理》說：『引生毒的等流，能夠引生像自己一樣的隨煩惱。』解釋為能夠引生像自己一樣的諸隨煩惱的等流果。五、引發業有。《正理》說：『能夠引發業有，發起能夠招感後有的業。』解釋為業就是有，或者業和有。因為業和果都叫做有。六、攝取自具。《正理》說：『攝取自己的資糧，能夠屢次攝取生起非理作意。』解釋為自具和資糧，名稱不同意義相同。又解釋此論說自具，是指迷惑同時的心、心所等。七、迷惑所緣。《正理》說：『迷惑于所緣，能夠損害自身正確的覺悟智慧。』解釋為由於不了知境界，所以損害正確的智慧。八、引導識流。《正理》說：『將引導識流，對於後有（bhava）所緣能夠引發識。』解釋為煩惱生起時將引導染污的識，對於後有能夠引生識支，對於所緣能夠引發染污的識，所以叫做引導識流。九、違越善品。《正理》說：『違越善品，使諸善法都退失。』（可知）。十、廣泛繫縛的意義。到達自己的界、地。《正理》說：『廣泛繫縛的意義，使其不能夠超越自己的界、自己的地，因為…』

【English Translation】 English version: 1. Strengthening the Root. The Forty-fifth [section] of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理, Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'One, strengthening the root, making it firm, because the antidote is far away.' The root of afflictions (煩惱, kleśa) refers to the arising of afflictions, explained as arising from delusion (惑, moha), so the path of antidote cannot arise. Delusion becoming stronger is called strengthening. It is necessary for delusion to be accomplished for afflictions to manifest. Therefore, the arising of afflictions is the root of afflictions. 2. Establishing Continuity. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Establishing continuity, able to repeatedly cause other afflictions to arise continuously.' Explained as being able to repeatedly cause other subsequent thoughts of delusions to arise continuously. Or guiding the remaining afflictions of future lives to arise continuously. 3. Cultivating One's Own Field. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Cultivating one's own field, causing the body on which one relies to abide in accordance with afflictions.' Explained as one's own field refers to the body on which afflictions currently rely. Causing this relying body to accord with the arising of afflictions. That is, by afflictions repeatedly arising and manifesting, causing one's own body and mind to give rise to discomfort and astringency. If afflictions arise, they will naturally be smooth and convenient, so it is called cultivating one's own field. 4. Drawing Forth the Resultant Flow. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Drawing forth the resultant flow of poison, able to draw forth sub-afflictions (隨煩惱, upakleśa) like itself.' Explained as being able to draw forth the resultant flow of sub-afflictions like itself. 5. Generating Karmic Existence. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Able to generate karmic existence (業有, karma-bhava), initiating karma that can attract future existence.' Explained as karma is existence, or karma and existence. Because both karma and its result are called existence. 6. Gathering One's Own Provisions. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Gathering one's own provisions, able to repeatedly gather and give rise to irrational attention (非理作意, ayoniśo manaskāra).' Explained as one's own provisions and resources, the names are different but the meaning is the same. Also, this treatise explains that one's own provisions refer to the mind, mental factors (心所, caitasika), etc., that are simultaneous with delusion. 7. Confusing the Object. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Confusing the object, able to harm one's own correct awakening wisdom.' Explained as due to not understanding the realm, therefore harming correct wisdom. 8. Guiding the Stream of Consciousness. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Will guide the stream of consciousness, for future existence (bhava) the object can initiate consciousness.' Explained as when afflictions arise, they will guide the defiled consciousness, for future existence they can generate the limb of consciousness, for the object they can initiate defiled consciousness, so it is called guiding the stream of consciousness. 9. Transgressing Virtuous Qualities. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Transgressing virtuous qualities, causing all virtuous dharmas to be lost.' (Knowable). 10. The Meaning of Extensive Binding. Reaching one's own realm and ground. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'The meaning of extensive binding, causing it to be unable to transcend its own realm and its own ground, because...'

能長養染污界故　解云染污界。謂諸煩惱是界攝故。染界增長。繫縛彌多。故能廣縛有情不越界．地。由此隨眠能為有本。故業因此有感有能。有謂後有。故正理云。雖離染者亦造善業。而無勢力能招後有。

此略應知至體各不同者。釋下三句。隨眠有六。如文可知。

頌說亦言。不但瞋由貪力于境隨增。意顯慢等亦由貪力于境隨增　由貪隨增。義如后辨。指同下文。愛是一切諸煩惱足。是故引余起。余由此生具足應言貪瞋。貪慢．貪無明等。此由貪力義便兼明　及聲顯六體各不同於六釋中相違釋也。

若諸隨眠至有七隨眠者。此下第二明七隨眠。此即問也。

頌曰至為遮解脫想者。上一句正答。下三句立有貪所以。就下三句中　第一句有貪上二界。為異經部等。經部等言有貪亦通欲界　又解別顯有貪名異別標。欲界名欲貪。義準可解故不別說。或自名顯故不別說　第二句于內門轉故。所以不名欲貪　第三句為遮解脫想。所以名有貪。

論曰至故經說七者。釋第一句。

何等為七者。問。

一欲貪隨眠至七疑隨眠者。答。

欲貪隨眠至徴問亦爾者。兩關徴定。為欲貪體即是隨眠據持業釋。為是欲貪之隨眠義據依主釋　于餘六惑義徴問亦爾。

若爾何失者。反

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為能夠增長染污的境界，所以解釋為『染污界』。意思是說，各種煩惱都屬於『界』所包含的範圍。染污的境界增長，束縛也更加繁多，因此能夠廣泛地束縛有情眾生，使他們無法超越這個境界和範圍。由此可知，隨眠是各種煩惱的根本，因此業力才能因此而產生感果的能力。『有』指的是後有。所以《正理》中說，即使是已經脫離染污的人，也會造作善業，但是沒有力量能夠招感後有。

對於以上內容，應該簡略地理解為『體各不同』。這是解釋下面三句話。隨眠有六種，就像經文中所說的那樣，可以知道。

頌文中說，不僅僅是嗔恨會因為貪愛的力量而在對境上增長，這裡的意思是說，我慢等等也會因為貪愛的力量而在對境上增長。因為貪愛而隨之增長，其中的含義在後面會辨析。『指同下文』，指的是和下文相同。愛是一切煩惱的根本，所以能夠引發其他的煩惱產生。其他的煩惱由此而生，應該完整地說成是貪、嗔。貪、慢，貪、無明等等。這些都是因為貪愛的力量，這個含義也兼帶說明了。『及』這個聲音，顯示了六種煩惱的本體各自不同，這六種解釋中是屬於相違的解釋。

如果各種隨眠……直到有七隨眠，這以下第二部分說明七隨眠。這實際上是提問。

頌文說……爲了遮止解脫的想法。上一句是正面回答。下面三句是說明有貪的原因。在下面三句中，第一句『有貪上二界』，是爲了異於經部宗等等。經部宗等等認為有貪也通於欲界。又一種解釋是，爲了特別顯示有貪的名稱不同，所以特別標明。欲界稱為欲貪，按照這個意思可以理解，所以不特別說明。或者是因為自身的名稱已經很明顯，所以不特別說明。第二句『于內門轉故』，所以不稱為欲貪。第三句『為遮解脫想』，所以稱為有貪。

論中說……所以經中說有七種。這是解釋第一句。

哪七種呢？這是提問。

第一是欲貪隨眠（Kāma-rāga-anuśaya，對欲界事物的貪著潛在趨勢）……第七是疑隨眠（Vicikicchā-anuśaya，懷疑的潛在趨勢）。這是回答。

欲貪隨眠……提問也是這樣。這兩處都涉及到確定。是欲貪的本體就是隨眠，按照持業釋來解釋。還是說是屬於欲貪的隨眠，按照依主釋來解釋。對於其餘六種迷惑的含義，提問也是這樣。

如果這樣，會有什麼過失呢？這是反問。

【English Translation】 English version: Because it can nourish the realm of defilement, it is explained as 'defiled realm'. This means that all afflictions are included in the scope of 'realm'. The realm of defilement increases, and the bondage becomes more numerous, thus it can extensively bind sentient beings, preventing them from transcending this realm and scope. From this, it can be known that latent tendencies (anuśaya) are the root of all afflictions, and therefore karma can generate the ability to produce results. 'Bhava' refers to future existence. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says that even those who have detached from defilement will create good karma, but they do not have the power to attract future existence.

Regarding the above content, it should be briefly understood as 'different in nature'. This is to explain the following three sentences. There are six latent tendencies, as stated in the text, which can be understood.

The verse says that not only does anger increase in relation to objects due to the power of greed, but it also means that pride, etc., also increase in relation to objects due to the power of greed. Increasing due to greed, the meaning of which will be analyzed later. 'Refers to the same as the following text', refers to the same as the following text. Love is the root of all afflictions, so it can cause other afflictions to arise. Other afflictions arise from this, and it should be fully stated as greed, hatred. Greed, pride, greed, ignorance, etc. These are all due to the power of greed, and this meaning also includes an explanation. The sound 'and' shows that the six afflictions have different natures, which is a contradictory explanation among the six explanations.

If all latent tendencies... until there are seven latent tendencies, this second part explains the seven latent tendencies. This is actually a question.

The verse says... in order to prevent the thought of liberation. The previous sentence is a positive answer. The following three sentences explain the reason for the existence of attachment to existence (bhava-rāga). In the following three sentences, the first sentence 'attachment to existence in the upper two realms' is to distinguish it from the Sautrāntika school, etc. The Sautrāntika school, etc., believes that attachment to existence also extends to the desire realm (Kāmadhātu). Another explanation is that in order to specifically show that the name of attachment to existence is different, it is specifically marked. The desire realm is called desire-attachment (Kāma-rāga), according to this meaning it can be understood, so it is not specifically explained. Or because its own name is already very obvious, so it is not specifically explained. The second sentence 'because it turns within the inner gate', so it is not called desire-attachment. The third sentence 'in order to prevent the thought of liberation', so it is called attachment to existence.

The treatise says... so the sutra says there are seven. This is an explanation of the first sentence.

What are the seven? This is a question.

The first is the latent tendency of desire-attachment (Kāma-rāga-anuśaya, the underlying tendency of attachment to things in the desire realm)... the seventh is the latent tendency of doubt (Vicikicchā-anuśaya, the underlying tendency of doubt). This is the answer.

Latent tendency of desire-attachment... the question is also like this. These two places involve determination. Is the essence of desire-attachment the latent tendency, according to the Tatpurusha compound (determinative compound)? Or does it belong to the latent tendency of desire-attachment, according to the Bahuvrihi compound (possessive compound)? For the meaning of the remaining six delusions, the question is also like this.

If so, what fault would there be? This is a rhetorical question.

責疑意。

二俱有過至三根相應者。重顯疑意。持業。依主二俱有過。若欲貪體即是隨眠。據持業釋。便違契經。如契經說若有一類有情非於多時。乃至並隨眠斷。欲貪纏遣除。顯斷現行。並隨眠斷。顯斷種子。經中既說于欲貪纏能正遣除。外別說並隨眠斷。明知欲貪體非即是隨眠。引經正取並隨眠斷一句為難。餘者同文故來　若是欲貪之隨眠義。據依主釋。隨眠應是心不相應同大眾部等。彼計隨眠是心不相應。謂諸煩惱于正起位。于自相續引起別法心不相應行蘊所攝。名為隨眠。準宗輪論。大眾部等說隨眠與心不相應　說不相應非但同大眾部等。亦違對法。如本論說欲貪隨眠與喜．樂．舍三根相應。論既言欲貪隨眠三根相應。明知欲貪即是隨眠現行相應。非欲貪外有隨眠名不相應。

毗婆沙師至即是隨眠者。毗婆沙師作如是說。欲貪等體即是隨眠。據持業釋。是心相應非不相應。

豈不違經者。大眾部等徴。

無違經失至是相應法者。毗婆沙師通經。經言並隨眠斷者。不但斷欲貪體。並貪相應．所緣隨縛亦斷故。正理四十五云。又即彼經言並隨眠斷者。顯欲貪纏無餘斷故。謂斷八品修所斷時。一品隨眠猶能隨縛。為顯體斷說正遣除。並隨眠斷言顯隨縛皆盡(已上論文)　或經于得假說隨眠

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本： 責疑意。 對於『二俱有過至三根相應者』，這是爲了再次顯明責難的意義。無論是持業釋還是依主釋，都有過失。如果認為欲貪的本體就是隨眠（Sui Mian，煩惱的潛在狀態），按照持業釋來解釋，就違背了契經（Qie Jing，佛經）。例如契經中說，如果有一類有情不是在很長時間裡，乃至連隨眠都斷除，欲貪纏（Yu Tan Chan，慾望的束縛）也被遣除，這表明斷除了現行，並且連隨眠也斷除了，這表明斷除了種子。經中既然說對於欲貪纏能夠正確地遣除，另外又說連隨眠也斷除，這明顯是說欲貪的本體不是隨眠。引用經文，主要針對『並隨眠斷』這一句進行責難，其餘部分只是爲了保持文意連貫。如果認為隨眠是欲貪的屬性，按照依主釋來解釋，那麼隨眠就應該是不與心相應的，就像大眾部（Da Zhong Bu，佛教部派之一）等所主張的那樣。他們認為隨眠是不與心相應的，也就是說，各種煩惱在生起的時候，在自身的相續中引起一種特別的法，這種法屬於不與心相應的行蘊（Xing Yun，五蘊之一），就叫做隨眠。根據《宗輪論》（Zong Lun Lun，佛教論書），大眾部等認為隨眠與心不相應。說隨眠不與心相應，不僅僅是與大眾部等相同，也違背了對法（Dui Fa，阿毗達摩）。例如本論中說，欲貪隨眠與喜根（Xi Gen，喜受）、樂根（Le Gen，樂受）、舍根（She Gen，不苦不樂受）這三種根相應。論中既然說欲貪隨眠與三種根相應，這明顯是說欲貪就是隨眠的現行，並且是相應的。而不是在欲貪之外，另外存在一個叫做隨眠的不相應法。 毗婆沙師至即是隨眠者。 毗婆沙師（Pi Po Sha Shi，佛教論師）這樣認為，欲貪等的本體就是隨眠。按照持業釋來解釋，它是與心相應的，而不是不相應的。 豈不違經者。 大眾部等提出質疑。 無違經失至是相應法者。 毗婆沙師解釋經文，認為沒有違背經典的過失。經文中說『並隨眠斷』，不僅僅是斷除了欲貪的本體，還斷除了與貪相應的、所緣的隨縛。正如《正理》（Zheng Li，佛教論書）第四十五卷所說：『另外，就是那部經中說「並隨眠斷」，是爲了表明欲貪纏被完全斷除。』也就是說，在斷除八品修所斷（Ba Pin Xiu Suo Duan，修道所斷的八種煩惱）的時候，一品隨眠仍然能夠隨縛。爲了表明本體被斷除，所以說「正遣除」。『並隨眠斷』這句話表明所有的隨縛都斷盡了（以上是論文的內容）。或者，經文中對於獲得（De，佛教術語）假名為隨眠。

【English Translation】 English version: Questioning the Meaning. The phrase 'both have faults up to the three roots being in accordance' is to further clarify the meaning of questioning. Both the Tatpurusha compound (possessive compound) and the Bahuvrihi compound (descriptive compound) have faults. If the essence of desire-attachment (Yu Tan, desire and craving) is considered to be latent affliction (Sui Mian, latent affliction), according to the Tatpurusha interpretation, it contradicts the sutras (Qie Jing, Buddhist scriptures). For example, the sutras say that if there are sentient beings who, not over a long period, even eliminate latent afflictions and dispel the bonds of desire-attachment (Yu Tan Chan, bonds of desire and craving), this shows the cutting off of manifest activity and also the cutting off of latent afflictions, which shows the cutting off of the seeds. Since the sutras say that the bonds of desire-attachment can be correctly dispelled, and separately say that latent afflictions are also cut off, it is clear that the essence of desire-attachment is not the same as latent affliction. The sutra is quoted, focusing on the phrase 'latent afflictions are also cut off' as the point of contention; the rest is included for textual coherence. If the latent affliction is considered to be an attribute of desire-attachment, according to the Bahuvrihi interpretation, then the latent affliction should be non-associated with the mind, as held by the Mahasanghika school (Da Zhong Bu, one of the early Buddhist schools). They believe that latent affliction is non-associated with the mind, meaning that when various afflictions arise, they cause a special dharma (Dharma, law or phenomena) in their own continuum, which is included in the aggregate of mental formations (Xing Yun, one of the five aggregates) that is non-associated with the mind, and this is called latent affliction. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Zong Lun Lun, treatise on the schools of Buddhism), the Mahasanghika school and others say that latent affliction is non-associated with the mind. Saying that it is non-associated with the mind not only aligns with the Mahasanghika school but also contradicts the Abhidharma (Dui Fa, Buddhist philosophical texts). For example, this treatise says that the latent affliction of desire-attachment is associated with the roots of joy (Xi Gen, feeling of joy), pleasure (Le Gen, feeling of pleasure), and equanimity (She Gen, feeling of neither pleasure nor pain). Since the treatise says that the latent affliction of desire-attachment is associated with the three roots, it is clear that desire-attachment is the manifest activity of latent affliction and is associated with it, rather than there being a separate dharma called latent affliction that is non-associated. The Vaibhashika Masters to 'is the latent affliction'. The Vaibhashika masters (Pi Po Sha Shi, Buddhist masters specializing in the Vaibhashika school) say that the essence of desire-attachment, etc., is the latent affliction. According to the Tatpurusha interpretation, it is associated with the mind, not non-associated. 'Does it not contradict the sutras?' The Mahasanghika school and others raise this question. 'There is no contradiction of the sutras to 'is the associated dharma'. The Vaibhashika masters explain the sutras, saying that there is no fault of contradicting the scriptures. The sutra says 'latent afflictions are also cut off', meaning that not only is the essence of desire-attachment cut off, but also the associated and object-related latent bonds of attachment are cut off. As the Abhidharmakoshabhashya (Zheng Li, commentary on the Abhidharmakosha) volume 45 says: 'Also, that very sutra says 'latent afflictions are also cut off' to show that the bonds of desire-attachment are completely cut off.' That is, when cutting off the eight categories of what is to be abandoned by cultivation (Ba Pin Xiu Suo Duan, eight types of afflictions to be abandoned through meditation), one category of latent affliction can still bind. To show that the essence is cut off, it says 'correctly dispelled'. The phrase 'latent afflictions are also cut off' shows that all the latent bonds are exhausted (the above is the content of the treatise). Or, in the sutras, the attainment (De, Buddhist term) is falsely called latent affliction.

。不但斷貪並貪得亦斷。得非隨眠生隨眠故。假說隨眠。猶如火等能生苦等故。於火等中立苦等名。言想者。想能生名故　或名生想故說名為想　阿毗達磨依實相說即諸煩惱說名隨眠。據持業釋。由此隨眠現起相應。是相應法非不相應。

何理為證知定相應者。大眾部等責。

以諸隨眠至是相應法者。毗婆沙師中法勝論師解。故正理云。經主此中先敘法勝所說。以諸隨眠等　所以得知隨眠是相應法者。一以諸隨眠染惱心故。二覆障心故。三能違善故。謂隨眠力染惱心故。能染惱心。覆障心故未生善不生。能違善故。已生善退失。如其次第　又解謂下通釋前三　又解謂下且釋初一。后二略而不論。由此隨眠能為三事。故隨眠體非不相應　返難大眾部等言。若不相應能為此三事。則諸善法應無起時。以汝立不相應唸唸恒現前故　順成已義言既諸善法容有起時。故知隨眠是相應法非不相應法。

此皆非證至是隨眠所為者。大眾部等非。此皆非證。所以者何。我宗若許彼隨眠體非相應者。不許上三事是隨眠所為。皆是現起煩惱所為。大眾部等現起煩惱名纏。熏成種子名隨眠是不相應。

然經部師所說最善者。論主評取經部。

經部於此所說如何者。問。

彼說欲貪至即名纏故者。述經部

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不僅斷除貪慾，連同貪慾的根源也一併斷除。因為貪慾的潛在形式（隨眠，Anusaya）會引發貪慾的現行（生隨眠）。所以，只是假借『隨眠』這個名稱，就像火等能引發痛苦等一樣，在火等事物上安立『苦』等名稱。說到『想』（Samjna），是因為『想』能產生名言概念，或者說名言概念產生於『想』，所以稱之為『想』。阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）依據實相而說，將各種煩惱稱為『隨眠』，這是持業釋的解釋。由此，隨眠的現行與心相應，是相應法，而不是不相應法。

以什麼理由可以證明隨眠一定是相應法呢？大眾部（Mahasamghika）等宗派提出質問。

『因為各種隨眠...是相應法』，這是毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）中的法勝論師的解釋。所以《正理》中說：『經主在此先敘述法勝所說，因為各種隨眠等...』之所以得知隨眠是相應法，一是因為各種隨眠染污惱亂心識；二是因為它們覆蓋障礙心識；三是因為它們能違背善法。也就是說，隨眠的力量染污惱亂心識，因此能染污惱亂心識；覆蓋障礙心識，因此未生起的善法無法生起；違背善法，因此已生起的善法退失。這是按照次第的解釋。又有一種解釋，認為下面是總括解釋前面的三種情況。還有一種解釋，認為下面只是解釋第一種情況，后兩種情況則略而不論。由於隨眠能做到這三件事，所以隨眠的體性不是不相應的。』

反駁大眾部等宗派說：『如果不相應也能做到這三件事，那麼各種善法應該沒有生起的時候了，因為你們認為不相應法念念恒常現前。』順勢成就自己的觀點說：『既然各種善法容許有生起的時候，所以可知隨眠是相應法，而不是不相應法。』

『這些都不能作為證據...是隨眠所為』，大眾部等宗派反駁說：『這些都不能作為證據。為什麼呢？如果我宗承認彼隨眠的體性不是相應的，就不會承認以上三件事是隨眠所為，而是現行的煩惱所為。』大眾部等宗派認為，現行的煩惱名為『纏』（Paryavasthana），熏習成種子名為『隨眠』，是不相應的。

『然而經部師（Sautrantika）所說的最為善妙』，論主評論並採納了經部的觀點。

『經部對此所說的是什麼呢？』提問。

『他們說，欲貪...就叫做纏』，敘述經部的觀點。

【English Translation】 English version: Not only is greed cut off, but also the root of greed is cut off. This is because the latent form of greed (Anusaya) gives rise to the manifest greed (birth of Anusaya). Therefore, the name 'Anusaya' is only a designation, just as fire etc. can give rise to suffering etc., and the name 'suffering' etc. is established in things like fire etc. Speaking of 'perception' (Samjna), it is because 'perception' can generate names, or names arise from 'perception', so it is called 'perception'. Abhidharma, based on reality, calls various afflictions 'Anusaya', which is an explanation of possessive apposition. Therefore, the manifestation of Anusaya is associated with the mind, it is an associated dharma, not a non-associated dharma.

What reason proves that Anusaya must be an associated dharma? The Mahasamghika and other schools questioned.

'Because various Anusayas... are associated dharmas,' this is the explanation of Dharmatrata, a teacher of Vaibhashika. Therefore, the Hetuvidya says: 'The author of the treatise first narrates what Dharmatrata said, because various Anusayas etc...' The reason why it is known that Anusaya is an associated dharma is, firstly, because various Anusayas defile and disturb the mind; secondly, because they cover and obstruct the mind; thirdly, because they can oppose good dharmas. That is to say, the power of Anusaya defiles and disturbs the mind, therefore it can defile and disturb the mind; it covers and obstructs the mind, therefore unarisen good dharmas cannot arise; it opposes good dharmas, therefore arisen good dharmas are lost. This is the explanation in order. There is also an explanation that the following is a general explanation of the previous three situations. There is also an explanation that the following only explains the first situation, and the latter two situations are omitted. Because Anusaya can do these three things, the nature of Anusaya is not non-associated.'

Refuting the Mahasamghika and other schools, saying: 'If non-associated can also do these three things, then various good dharmas should have no time to arise, because you believe that non-associated dharmas are constantly present in every moment.' Taking advantage of the situation to achieve one's own point of view, saying: 'Since various good dharmas are allowed to arise, it can be known that Anusaya is an associated dharma, not a non-associated dharma.'

'These cannot be used as evidence... are the actions of Anusaya,' the Mahasamghika and other schools refuted, saying: 'These cannot be used as evidence. Why? If our school admits that the nature of that Anusaya is not associated, it will not admit that the above three things are the actions of Anusaya, but the actions of manifest afflictions.' The Mahasamghika and other schools believe that manifest afflictions are called 'Paryavasthana', and the seeds that are perfumed are called 'Anusaya', which are non-associated.

'However, what the Sautrantika teacher said is the most excellent,' the author commented and adopted the views of the Sautrantika.

'What did the Sautrantika say about this?' asked.

'They said that desire and greed... are called Paryavasthana,' narrating the views of the Sautrantika.

宗。彼說欲貪之隨眠義據依主釋。然隨眠體非心相應故。不同說一切有部。非不相應不同大眾部等以此隨眠離色．心外。無有別物名心相應。不相應故。所以俱非二種。煩惱睡位熏成種子說名隨眠。于覺位中現起覺境即名纏故。

何名為睡者。問。

謂不現行種子隨逐者。經部答。惑不現行如睡相似故名為睡。

何名為覺者。問。

謂諸煩惱現起纏心者。經部答。惑現行時覺察前境。故名為覺。

何等名為煩惱種子者。問。

謂自體上至不可得故者。經部答。謂於色．心自體之上。煩惱種子異餘種故。名差別功能。即此功能從前現行煩惱生。能生后現行煩惱　言證智者。次五識后意識相應智　又解亦取定心相應智。又解亦取五識相應智俱現量證故　如念種子是前證智俱起念生。能生當念果功能差別名為種子。此文應言如念種子是念生。而言是證智生者。前位智強故標智名。后位念勝故稱念號　又解前心聚中智強故總名證智。後心聚中念強故總名爲念．若作此解從強立名。以實而言各熏成種。又解心．心所法能記前境通名爲念。能證前境通名為智。故言如念種子。是證智生能生當念功能差別　又如芽等中有前麥果等生能生后莖等果。功能差別說名種子。汝大眾部等。若執現行煩惱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：宗：關於『欲貪之隨眠』（kāma-rāga-anuśaya，對感官快樂的潛在傾向）的意義，這是依據主釋（tatpuruṣa，一種梵文複合詞的構成方式）來解釋的。然而，隨眠（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）的本體並非與心相應（citta-samprayukta，與心識同時生起），因此與一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教部派）的觀點不同。它也並非不相應，這與大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika，一個早期佛教部派）等不同。因為這種隨眠存在於色（rūpa，物質）和心（citta，心識）之外，沒有其他事物可以被稱為心相應或不相應。因此，它既非這兩種。煩惱在睡眠狀態熏習而成的種子被稱為隨眠。在覺醒狀態中，顯現並覺察境界的煩惱則被稱為纏（paryavasthāna，煩惱的現行）。

『何名為睡者？』問。

『謂不現行種子隨逐者。』經部（Sautrāntika，一個佛教部派）答。惑（kleśa，煩惱）不現行，如睡眠相似，故名為睡。

『何名為覺者？』問。

『謂諸煩惱現起纏心者。』經部答。惑現行時覺察前境，故名為覺。

『何等名為煩惱種子者？』問。

『謂自體上至不可得故者。』經部答。謂於色．心自體之上。煩惱種子異餘種故。名差別功能。即此功能從前現行煩惱生。能生后現行煩惱。言證智（pratyakṣa-jñāna，現量智）者：次五識（pañca-vijñāna，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感官意識）后意識（manovijñāna，第六意識）相應智。又解亦取定心（samādhi-citta，禪定之心）相應智。又解亦取五識相應智俱現量證故。如念種子是前證智俱起念生。能生當念果功能差別名為種子。此文應言如念種子是念生。而言是證智生者。前位智強故標智名。后位念勝故稱念號。又解前心聚中智強故總名證智。後心聚中念強故總名爲念。若作此解從強立名。以實而言各熏成種。又解心．心所法（citta-caitta-dharma，心與心所法）能記前境通名爲念。能證前境通名為智。故言如念種子。是證智生能生當念功能差別。又如芽等中有前麥果等生能生后莖等果。功能差別說名種子。汝大眾部等。若執現行煩惱

【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of 'kāma-rāga-anuśaya' (latent tendency of sensual craving) is explained according to the tatpuruṣa (a type of Sanskrit compound word formation). However, the substance of anuśaya (latent defilements) is not citta-samprayukta (associated with mind), therefore it differs from the view of the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school). It is also not non-associated, differing from the Mahāsāṃghika (an early Buddhist school) and others. Because this anuśaya exists outside of rūpa (matter) and citta (mind), there is nothing else that can be called mind-associated or non-associated. Therefore, it is neither of the two. The seeds formed by defilements being熏習(perfumed) in a sleeping state are called anuśaya. In the awakened state, the defilements that manifest and perceive the object are called paryavasthāna (manifestation of defilements).

'What is called sleep?' Question.

'It refers to that which is accompanied by seeds that are not manifest.' The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) answers. Kleśa (defilements) are not manifest, similar to sleep, hence it is called sleep.

'What is called awakening?' Question.

'It refers to when all defilements arise and entangle the mind.' The Sautrāntika answers. When defilements are manifest, they perceive the object, hence it is called awakening.

'What is called the seed of defilements?' Question.

'It refers to that which, on its own nature, reaches a state of being unobtainable.' The Sautrāntika answers. It refers to the fact that on the nature of rūpa (matter) and citta (mind), the seeds of defilements are different from other seeds. This is called differentiated function. This function arises from the previously manifest defilements and can generate subsequent manifest defilements. Regarding pratyakṣa-jñāna (direct perception wisdom): it is the wisdom associated with the sixth consciousness (manovijñāna) after the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna, the five sense consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body). Another explanation is that it also includes the wisdom associated with samādhi-citta (the mind in meditation). Another explanation is that it also includes the wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses, all of which are directly perceived. For example, the seed of mindfulness arises together with the previous direct perception wisdom. The functional difference that can generate the subsequent mindfulness result is called a seed. This passage should say that the seed of mindfulness arises from mindfulness. The reason for saying that it arises from direct perception wisdom is that the wisdom in the previous stage is stronger, hence the name of wisdom is emphasized. The mindfulness in the later stage is superior, hence it is called mindfulness. Another explanation is that the wisdom in the previous aggregate of mind is stronger, hence it is generally called direct perception wisdom. The mindfulness in the later aggregate of mind is stronger, hence it is generally called mindfulness. If this explanation is made, the name is established from the stronger aspect. In reality, each perfumed and forms seeds. Another explanation is that the citta (mind) and caitta-dharma (mental factors) that can remember the previous object are generally called mindfulness. That which can directly perceive the previous object is generally called wisdom. Therefore, it is said that the seed of mindfulness is generated by direct perception wisdom and can generate the functional difference of subsequent mindfulness. Furthermore, just as in sprouts, etc., there are previous wheat fruits, etc., that generate subsequent stems, etc. The functional difference is called a seed. You, the Mahāsāṃghika, etc., if you insist on manifest defilements

之外別有隨眠。是心不相應名煩惱種子者。應許念種非但功能生現行念。亦應別有不相應體名念種子。能引生后念。此念既不爾。彼煩惱云何然。念與煩惱流類相似。差別因緣不可得故　立量云。念種應是不相應。以從他生能生他故。猶如隨眠　又立量云。隨眠應無有體。以從他生能生他故。猶如念種　以大眾部等煩惱力強。無始久習熏成種子。別有體性心不相應。若念種子勢力微弱非無始習。雖熏成種。但有功能無別體性　若經部師煩惱種子．及念種子。俱有功能並無別體。由此不同故難大眾部等。

若爾六六至有貪隨眠故者。說一切有部難。經中既說于其樂受有貪隨眠。明知隨眠即是現起。如何乃言隨眠名種。

經但說有至何所違害者。經部通經。經中但說有貪隨眠。不言樂受現行之時即有隨眠。何所違害。

於何時有者。說一切有部問。

于彼睡時至立隨眠想者。經部答。于彼樂受熏種睡時名有貪隨眠。或假于貪因上立隨眠果名。說名為想如前已釋。

傍論且止應辨正論者。此下釋后三句。止諍生下。

言貪分二至以何為體者。牒解問起。

謂色無色二界中貪者。舉第二句答。

此名何因唯于彼立者。問。此有貪名何因唯于彼上界立。

彼貪多托至不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果除了現行之外，還有隨眠（Sui Mian，潛在的煩惱）。那麼，如果心不相應行（Xin Bu Xiang Ying Xing，與心識不相應的行法）被稱為煩惱的種子，就應該承認唸的種子不僅僅是產生現行唸的功能，還應該有另外一個不相應的實體，可以被稱爲念的種子，能夠引發後續的念。既然這個唸的種子不是這樣，那麼煩惱的種子又怎麼會是這樣呢？因爲念和煩惱的流類相似，無法找到它們之間差別的因緣。因此，可以立一個量式：唸的種子應該是不相應的，因為它從其他事物產生，並且能夠產生其他事物，就像隨眠一樣。又可以立一個量式：隨眠應該沒有實體，因為它從其他事物產生，並且能夠產生其他事物，就像唸的種子一樣。因為大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）等宗派認為煩惱的力量強大，經過無始以來的長期熏習，形成了種子，具有獨立的心不相應的體性。如果唸的種子勢力微弱，並非無始熏習，即使熏成了種子，也只有功能而沒有獨立的體性。如果經部師（Sautrāntika）認為煩惱的種子和唸的種子都只有功能而沒有獨立的體性，這樣就和大眾部等宗派不同，難以駁倒他們。如果這樣，那麼『六六至有貪隨眠』這句話是什麼意思呢？這是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）提出的疑問。既然經中說對於樂受（Sukha Vedana，快樂的感受）有貪隨眠，這明明說明隨眠就是現起，怎麼能說隨眠是種子呢？經中只是說『有貪隨眠』，並沒有說樂受現行的時候就有隨眠，這有什麼違背呢？這是經部（Sautrāntika）對經文的解釋。那麼在什麼時候有呢？這是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）提出的問題。在他們睡眠的時候，樂受熏習了種子，這時就叫做有貪隨眠。或者假借貪的因，而安立隨眠的果，這只是一種假想，就像前面已經解釋過的那樣。這是經部（Sautrāntika）的回答。先停止這些旁論，應該辨明正論。這是解釋後面三句話。停止爭論，產生下面的內容。『貪』分為兩種，以什麼為體呢？這是提出現有的解釋，並提出疑問。指的是色界（Rūpadhātu）和無色界（Arūpadhātu）中的貪。這是對第二句話的回答。為什麼只有在彼處安立這個名稱呢？這是提問。為什麼只有在上界安立『有貪』這個名稱呢？因為那裡的貪多依託于...

【English Translation】 English version: If, besides the manifest, there are latent tendencies (Sui Mian, latent afflictions), and if the 'non-associated with mind' (Xin Bu Xiang Ying Xing, entities not associated with consciousness) is called the seed of affliction, then it should be admitted that the seed of thought is not merely the function of producing manifest thoughts. There should also be another non-associated entity called the seed of thought, capable of generating subsequent thoughts. Since this is not the case with the seed of thought, how can it be so with the seed of affliction? Because the streams of thought and affliction are similar, and the causes and conditions of their difference cannot be found. Therefore, a logical proposition can be established: the seed of thought should be non-associated, because it arises from other things and can generate other things, just like latent tendencies. Another logical proposition can be established: latent tendencies should have no substance, because they arise from other things and can generate other things, just like the seed of thought. Because the Mahāsāṃghika school and others believe that the power of afflictions is strong, and through long-term habitual conditioning since beginningless time, seeds are formed with independent non-associated-with-mind nature. If the power of the seed of thought is weak and not conditioned since beginningless time, even if it is conditioned into a seed, it only has function and no independent substance. If the Sautrāntika school believes that both the seed of affliction and the seed of thought only have function and no independent substance, then they differ from the Mahāsāṃghika school and others, making it difficult to refute them. If so, what does the phrase 'six sixes lead to latent attachment' mean? This is a question raised by the Sarvāstivāda school. Since the sutra says that there is latent attachment to pleasant feeling (Sukha Vedana, pleasant sensation), it clearly indicates that latent tendencies are manifest. How can it be said that latent tendencies are seeds? The sutra only says 'latent attachment', and does not say that latent tendencies exist when pleasant feeling is manifest. What contradiction is there? This is the Sautrāntika school's interpretation of the sutra. Then when does it exist? This is a question raised by the Sarvāstivāda school. When they are asleep, the pleasant feeling conditions the seed, and this is called latent attachment. Or, the effect of latent tendencies is established based on the cause of attachment, which is just a supposition, as explained earlier. This is the Sautrāntika school's answer. Let's stop these side discussions and clarify the main argument. This explains the last three sentences. Stop the debate and generate the following content. Attachment is divided into two types, what is its substance? This is presenting the existing explanation and raising a question. It refers to attachment in the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu) and the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu). This is the answer to the second sentence. Why is this name only established there? This is a question. Why is the name 'latent attachment' only established in the upper realms? Because the attachment there relies more on...

別顯示者。舉下兩句答。彼上界貪雖亦緣外。多托內門轉故。謂彼二界多起定貪。一切定貪于內門轉。故唯于彼立有貪名　又由有人于上二界所依止身起解脫想。為遮彼故。謂于上界立有貪名。顯貪所緣非真解脫　若泛論有。有通三界。通內。通外。此中但于上界有漏內自體上立以有名。故名為有。彼界諸有情多於等至定。及所依止身二自體上深生味著故。說彼唯味著內自體。非味著外境。離欲界貪故。以定身勝故偏味著。由此唯彼界立有貪名　既說有貪在上二界。義準欲界貪名五欲境貪。故於頌中不別顯示　于欲界貪雖亦緣內身。多緣外境。從多分說名為欲貪。

即上所說至五疑者。此即第三明十隨眠。如文可知。

又即所說至余等如欲說者。此即第四明九十八。問及頌答。

論曰至無色三界者。此釋初兩句　部是眾義。故婆沙云。問此中部言欲顯何義。答欲顯眾義　余文可知。

且於欲界至及修所斷者。釋次四句。乘十隨眠成三十六。謂見苦所斷有十。是一具十。集滅所斷各七。是二離三見。見道所斷有八。是一離二見。修道所斷有四。是一離見．疑。顯十隨眠五部通局如文可知　習謂修也。數數修道彼方斷故。身．邊二見粗果處起唯在一部。戒禁取果處起者見苦所斷。非果處起。但總

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不再贅述其他情況，以下解釋這兩句經文。上界的貪慾雖然也與外境有關，但更多地依賴於內在的感官。也就是說，上二界（色界和無色界）的貪慾多由禪定而生，一切禪定中的貪慾都依賴於內在的感官。因此，只有在上二界才設立『有貪』（bhava-rāga）這個名稱。此外，由於有人對上二界所依止的身體產生解脫的錯覺，爲了糾正這種錯誤，才在上界設立『有貪』這個名稱，表明貪慾所緣的並非真正的解脫。如果泛泛地討論『有』（bhava），『有』遍及三界（欲界、色界、無色界），既包括內在的，也包括外在的。這裡只在上界的有漏、內在的自體上設立『有』這個名稱。因此，稱之為『有』。因為上界的許多有情對等至定（saṃāpatti）以及所依止的身體這兩個自體深深地執著，所以說他們只執著于內在的自體，而不執著于外在的境界，因為他們已經遠離了欲界的貪慾。由於禪定之身殊勝，所以他們特別執著。因此，只有上界才設立『有貪』這個名稱。既已說明『有貪』存在於上二界，那麼，按照這個意思，欲界的貪慾就稱為『五欲境貪』。因此，在頌文中不再特別說明。對於欲界的貪慾，雖然也與內在的身體有關，但更多地與外在的境界有關。這是從大多數情況來說的，所以稱為『欲貪』（kāma-rāga）。上面所說的直到『五疑』（pañca-vicikicchā），這部分是第三個方面，闡明『十隨眠』（daśa anusaya）。具體內容可以參考原文。還有，上面所說的直到『其餘等同於欲說』，這部分是第四個方面，闡明『九十八』（指九十八隨眠）。包括提問和頌文的回答。論曰：直到『無色三界』，這是解釋最初的兩句經文。『部』（bhāga）是眾多的意思。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中說：『問：這部（bhāga）這個詞想要顯示什麼意義？答：想要顯示眾多的意義。』其餘的文字可以參考原文。暫且在欲界，直到『以及修所斷』，這是解釋接下來的四句經文。十隨眠構成三十六種。也就是說，見苦所斷（darśana-heya）的有十種，這是一個包含十種。見集所斷（darśana-heya）、見滅所斷（darśana-heya）各有七種，這是兩種各去除三種見。見道所斷（darśana-heya）的有八種，這是一個去除兩種見。修道所斷（bhāvanā-heya）的有四種，這是一個去除見和疑。十隨眠五部（五種斷惑的類別）的通局，具體內容可以參考原文。『習』（abhyāsa）就是修。因為數數修道才能斷除。身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi）、邊見（antagrāha-dṛṣṭi）這兩種見在粗果之處生起，只屬於一個部分。戒禁取見（śīlāvrata-parāmarśa）在果之處生起，屬於見苦所斷。不在果之處生起，但總的來說

【English Translation】 English version: Not showing others. Answer the following two sentences. Although the greed of the upper realms is also related to external objects, it mostly relies on internal senses. That is to say, the greed of the upper two realms (Rūpadhātu and Arūpadhātu) mostly arises from meditation, and all greed in meditation relies on internal senses. Therefore, only in the upper two realms is the name 'bhava-rāga' (greed for existence) established. In addition, because some people have the illusion of liberation from the bodies relied upon in the upper two realms, in order to correct this error, the name 'bhava-rāga' is established in the upper realms, indicating that what greed clings to is not true liberation. If we discuss 'bhava' (existence) in general, 'bhava' pervades the three realms (Kāmadhātu, Rūpadhātu, Arūpadhātu), including both internal and external. Here, the name 'bhava' is only established on the contaminated, internal self in the upper realms. Therefore, it is called 'bhava'. Because many sentient beings in the upper realms are deeply attached to both the samāpatti (attainment) and the bodies they rely on, it is said that they only cling to the internal self and not to external objects, because they have already distanced themselves from the greed of the desire realm. Because the body of meditation is superior, they are particularly attached. Therefore, only the upper realms establish the name 'bhava-rāga'. Since it has been stated that 'bhava-rāga' exists in the upper two realms, then, according to this meaning, the greed of the desire realm is called 'kāma-rāga' (greed for sensual pleasures). Therefore, it is not specifically stated in the verse. As for the greed of the desire realm, although it is also related to the internal body, it is more related to external objects. This is from the majority of cases, so it is called 'kāma-rāga'. What was said above up to 'pañca-vicikicchā' (five doubts), this part is the third aspect, explaining 'daśa anusaya' (ten latent tendencies). The specific content can be referred to in the original text. Also, what was said above up to 'the rest are the same as what was said about desire', this part is the fourth aspect, explaining 'ninety-eight' (referring to the ninety-eight anusayas). Including the question and the answer in the verse. The treatise says: up to 'the three realms of Arūpadhātu', this is an explanation of the first two sentences. 'Bhāga' (part) means many. So the Vibhasa says: 'Question: What meaning does this word bhāga want to show? Answer: It wants to show the meaning of many.' The rest of the text can be referred to in the original text. For the time being, in the desire realm, up to 'and what is severed by cultivation', this is an explanation of the next four sentences. The ten latent tendencies constitute thirty-six kinds. That is to say, what is severed by seeing suffering (darśana-heya) has ten kinds, this is one containing ten kinds. What is severed by seeing origination (darśana-heya) and what is severed by seeing cessation (darśana-heya) each have seven kinds, these are two each removing three views. What is severed by seeing the path (darśana-heya) has eight kinds, this is one removing two views. What is severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya) has four kinds, this is one removing view and doubt. The scope of the ten latent tendencies in the five parts (five categories of severing delusions), the specific content can be referred to in the original text. 'Abhyāsa' (practice) is cultivation. Because it can only be severed by repeatedly cultivating the path. The two views of self-view (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) and extreme view (antagrāha-dṛṣṭi) arise at the place of coarse results and belong to only one part. The wrong view of adhering to precepts and rituals (śīlāvrata-parāmarśa) arises at the place of results and belongs to what is severed by seeing suffering. It does not arise at the place of results, but in general

相緣不推因果見道所斷。故通二部。邪見．見取．疑。前一后一緣四諦故。中一見取。若果因處起者。見苦集所斷。若總相緣不推因果。是見滅．道斷。此三並非迷事起。非修道斷。貪．瞋．慢三若緣四諦所斷起者。通四諦斷。若迷事起者。修道所斷。以此貪等行粗非細不推理故。非親迷理。無明若與五見．疑相應及與緣彼四諦所斷貪等相應。並獨頭者。四諦所斷。若與迷事貪等相應修道斷。故貪等四各通五部。

此中何相至是修所斷者。總問五斷相。

若緣見此至名修所斷者。答。如苦．集下五見．疑。及彼相應．不共無明。滅．道下無漏緣惑。隨其所應。是若緣見此諦為境名見此諦所斷。如苦．集下貪．瞋．慢．及彼相應無明。滅．道下有漏緣惑。隨其所應。是若緣見此諦所斷為境名見此諦所斷。余貪．瞋．慢．及彼相應無明。不緣見此諦為境。亦不緣見此諦所斷為境。但迷事生名修所斷　問如他界緣惑。如何可言緣見此諦為境。名見此諦所斷耶　解云此文且約自界緣惑說。以他界緣非是緣見此諦。非是緣見此諦所斷。緣他界法故　又解緣此類故見此所斷　又解此文亦約他界惑說。緣他界時亦緣苦．集故。今此文中通據三界．五斷總說。正理四十六破云。經主於此自問答言。此中何相見苦所斷。乃至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本相緣而不推究因果關係，是見道所斷（見道所斷：通過見道才能斷除的煩惱）。因此，這種情況貫通二部（二部：指見道和修道）。邪見（Samyagdṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）、見取（Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa，執著于錯誤的見解）、疑（Vicikitsā，懷疑），前兩者和後者之一緣於四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，苦、集、滅、道），所以是見道所斷。其中，見取如果在果或因的層面生起，就是見苦（Dukkha，痛苦）、見集（Samudaya，痛苦的根源）所斷。如果總相緣而不推究因果，就是見滅（Nirodha，痛苦的止息）、見道（Mārga，通往止息痛苦的道路）所斷。這三種煩惱並非因迷惑於事相而生起，所以不是修道所斷。貪（Lobha，貪婪）、瞋（Dveṣa，嗔恨）、慢（Māna，傲慢）這三種煩惱，如果緣於四諦所斷而生起，就貫通四諦斷。如果因迷惑於事相而生起，就是修道所斷。因為貪等煩惱的行相粗顯而非細微，不進行推理，所以並非直接迷惑于真理。無明（Avidyā，無知）如果與五見（五見：身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）、疑相應，以及與緣于彼四諦所斷的貪等相應，並且是獨頭無明（獨立生起的無明），就是四諦所斷。如果與迷惑於事相的貪等相應，就是修道所斷。因此，貪等四種煩惱各自貫通五部（五部：見苦所斷、見集所斷、見滅所斷、見道所斷、修道所斷）。這裡面，什麼相是修道所斷呢？（總的提問五種斷的相。）如果緣于見到此諦為境界，乃至名為修道所斷。（回答）例如苦、集之下的五見、疑，以及與它們相應的、不共無明（不與其他煩惱共同生起的無明）；滅、道之下的無漏緣惑（無漏智慧所緣的煩惱），根據它們各自的情況，如果是緣于見到此諦為境界，就名為見此諦所斷。例如苦、集之下的貪、瞋、慢，以及與它們相應的無明；滅、道之下的有漏緣惑（有漏煩惱所緣的煩惱），根據它們各自的情況，如果是緣于見到此諦所斷為境界，就名為見此諦所斷。其餘的貪、瞋、慢，以及與它們相應的無明，不緣于見到此諦為境界，也不緣于見到此諦所斷為境界，只是因迷惑於事相而生起，就名為修道所斷。問：如果緣於他界的煩惱，如何能說緣于見到此諦為境界，名為見此諦所斷呢？解釋說：這段文字只是就自界所緣的煩惱來說。因為緣於他界的煩惱，不是緣于見到此諦，也不是緣于見到此諦所斷，而是緣於他界的法。又解釋說：因為緣於此類，所以是見此所斷。又解釋說：這段文字也包括他界的煩惱。緣於他界時，也緣于苦、集。現在這段文字中，是總的根據三界、五斷來說。正理四十六破斥說：經主在這裡自己提問回答說：這裡面，什麼相是見苦所斷，乃至……

【English Translation】 English version Affection that does not investigate the cause and effect is severed by the Path of Seeing (Darśanamārga). Therefore, it pervades both divisions. Wrong views (Samyagdṛṣṭi), attachment to views (Dṛṣṭiparāmarśa), and doubt (Vicikitsā), the former two and one of the latter are conditioned by the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, suffering, origin, cessation, path), hence they are severed by the Path of Seeing. Among them, attachment to views, if it arises at the level of result or cause, is severed by seeing suffering (Dukkha) and seeing the origin (Samudaya). If it is a general condition that does not investigate cause and effect, it is severed by seeing cessation (Nirodha) and seeing the path (Mārga). These three afflictions do not arise from delusion about phenomena, so they are not severed by the Path of Cultivation. Greed (Lobha), hatred (Dveṣa), and pride (Māna), if these three afflictions arise conditioned by what is severed by the Four Noble Truths, they pervade the severance of the Four Truths. If they arise from delusion about phenomena, they are severed by the Path of Cultivation. Because the characteristics of greed and other afflictions are coarse rather than subtle, and do not involve reasoning, they are not directly deluded about the truth. Ignorance (Avidyā), if it is associated with the five views (five views: view of self, extreme view, wrong view, view of holding wrong views as supreme, view of holding precepts and prohibitions as supreme), and doubt, and is associated with greed and other afflictions severed by those Four Noble Truths, and is independent ignorance (ignorance that arises independently), it is severed by the Four Truths. If it is associated with greed and other afflictions deluded about phenomena, it is severed by the Path of Cultivation. Therefore, greed and the other four afflictions each pervade the five divisions (five divisions: what is severed by seeing suffering, what is severed by seeing the origin, what is severed by seeing cessation, what is severed by seeing the path, what is severed by the Path of Cultivation). Among these, what characteristics are severed by the Path of Cultivation? (A general question about the characteristics of the five severances.) If it is conditioned by seeing this truth as an object, and is called severed by the Path of Cultivation. (Answer) For example, the five views and doubt under suffering and origin, and the unshared ignorance (ignorance that does not arise jointly with other afflictions) associated with them; the unconditioned afflictions conditioned by cessation and path, according to their respective situations, if they are conditioned by seeing this truth as an object, they are called severed by seeing this truth. For example, greed, hatred, and pride under suffering and origin, and the ignorance associated with them; the conditioned afflictions conditioned by cessation and path, according to their respective situations, if they are conditioned by seeing what is severed by this truth as an object, they are called severed by seeing this truth. The remaining greed, hatred, and pride, and the ignorance associated with them, are not conditioned by seeing this truth as an object, nor are they conditioned by seeing what is severed by this truth as an object, but arise only from delusion about phenomena, and are called severed by the Path of Cultivation. Question: If it is an affliction conditioned by another realm, how can it be said to be conditioned by seeing this truth as an object, and called severed by seeing this truth? Explanation: This passage speaks only of afflictions conditioned by one's own realm. Because afflictions conditioned by another realm are not conditioned by seeing this truth, nor are they conditioned by seeing what is severed by this truth, but are conditioned by the dharma of another realm. Another explanation: Because they are conditioned by this type, they are severed by seeing this. Another explanation: This passage also includes afflictions of other realms. When conditioned by another realm, they are also conditioned by suffering and origin. Now in this passage, it is a general statement based on the three realms and the five severances. The forty-sixth chapter of the Treatise on Correct Reasoning refutes, saying: The author of the scripture here asks and answers himself: Among these, what characteristics are severed by seeing suffering, and so on...

何相是修所斷。若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷。餘名修所斷。此不應理。所以者何。遍行隨眠緣五部故。即見苦集所斷隨眠。亦應通是見集．苦等所斷。又見滅．道所斷隨眠緣非所斷法。當言何所斷。故彼非善立所斷相。應言若見緣苦為境名為見苦。即是苦法．苦類智忍。此二所斷總說名為見苦所斷。乃至見道所斷亦然　數習名修。謂見跡者為得上義。于苦等智數數熏習說名為修。此道所除名修所斷。是名為善立所斷相　俱舍師救云。正理論師謬解我文。謂唯緣此諦所斷為境。名見此諦所斷。故以他部緣．及無漏緣為難。應作是言。若緣見此諦為境。若緣見此諦所斷為境。名見此諦所斷。他部緣惑．及無漏緣。應知即是若緣見此諦為境所攝。以緣諦故。又自解釋非異我說。

如是六中至有三十六者。別計六惑。開成三十六。

色無色界至各三十一者。釋第七．第八句。可知　問何緣上界無瞋隨眠　答顯宗云。彼瞋隨眠事非有故。謂于苦受有瞋隨眠。苦受彼無故瞋非有。又彼相續由定潤故。又彼非瞋異熟因故。有說彼無惱害事故。慈等善根所居處故。諸所攝受皆遠離故。

由是本論至說九十八者。引本論文總結記說。由離界貪建立遍知。故約界非地立九十八隨眠。故顯宗云。約界非地建立隨眠。由離

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：什麼是修所斷（bhāvanā-prahātavya，通過修行斷除的煩惱）？如果以見此所斷（darśana-prahātavya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）為境界，就稱為見此所斷。其餘的稱為修所斷。這種說法不合理。為什麼呢？因為遍行隨眠（sarvatraga-anuśaya，能緣五部的煩惱）能緣五部（五類事物）。那麼，見苦集所斷的隨眠，也應該同時是見集、苦等所斷。而且，見滅、道所斷的隨眠，能緣非所斷的法，應當說是什麼所斷呢？所以那種建立所斷相的說法並不完善。應該說，如果見以苦為境界，就稱為見苦（duhkha）——即是苦法智忍（duhkha-dharma-jñāna-ksānti）和苦類智忍（duhkha-anvaya-jñāna-ksānti）。這二者所斷，總合起來稱為見苦所斷。乃至見道所斷也是這樣。數數串習稱為修。意思是說，見道跡的人爲了獲得殊勝的意義，對於苦等智數數熏習，就說名為修。由此道所斷除的，名為修所斷。這才是完善地建立了所斷相。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośa-ācārya）救釋說：『正理論師（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra-ācārya）錯誤地理解了我的文句。他們認為只有緣此諦所斷為境界，才稱為見此諦所斷。所以用他部緣（其他部的因緣）以及無漏緣（無漏的因緣）來作為難點。』應該這樣說：如果緣見此諦為境界，或者緣見此諦所斷為境界，就稱為見此諦所斷。他部緣惑以及無漏緣，應當知道就是緣見此諦為境界所攝。因為緣于諦的緣故。而且，我的自我解釋和你的說法並沒有不同。像這樣六種煩惱擴充套件到有三十六種，是分別計算六種根本煩惱，展開而成為三十六種。『色無**至各三十一』，是解釋第七、第八句。可以知道。問：為什麼上界（上方的世界）沒有瞋隨眠（dvesa-anuśaya，嗔恚的煩惱）？答：顯宗（Abhidharma-samuccaya）說，因為那裡沒有瞋隨眠的事物。意思是說，瞋隨眠是對於苦受（duhkha-vedanā，痛苦的感受）而產生的。上界沒有苦受，所以沒有瞋隨眠。而且，上界的相續是由禪定滋潤的。而且，上界不是瞋恚的異熟因（vipāka-hetu，導致異熟果報的原因）。有人說，上界沒有惱害的事情。因為那裡是慈等善根所居住的地方。一切所攝受的事物都遠離了（瞋恚）。『由是本論至說九十八』，是引用本論的論文來總結記說。由於遠離界貪（dhātu-rāga，對界的貪愛）而建立遍知（parijñā，徹底的瞭解）。所以依據界而不是地來建立九十八隨眠。所以顯宗說，依據界而不是地來建立隨眠。由於遠離

【English Translation】 English version: What is bhāvanā-prahātavya (that which is abandoned by cultivation)? If that which is abandoned by seeing (darśana-prahātavya) is taken as an object, it is called that which is abandoned by seeing. The rest are called that which is abandoned by cultivation. This is not reasonable. Why? Because the pervasive latent tendencies (sarvatraga-anuśaya) take the five aggregates as their objects. Therefore, the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing suffering and origination should also be abandoned by seeing origination, suffering, etc. Moreover, the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing cessation and the path take non-abandoned dharmas as their objects. What should they be called abandoned by? Therefore, that establishment of the characteristics of what is to be abandoned is not well-established. It should be said that if seeing takes suffering as its object, it is called seeing suffering—that is, the forbearance of the knowledge of the dharma of suffering (duhkha-dharma-jñāna-ksānti) and the forbearance of the knowledge of the category of suffering (duhkha-anvaya-jñāna-ksānti). What is abandoned by these two is collectively called that which is abandoned by seeing suffering. And so on, up to that which is abandoned by seeing the path. Repeated practice is called cultivation. This means that those who see the path, in order to attain a superior meaning, repeatedly cultivate the knowledge of suffering, etc., which is called cultivation. That which is eliminated by this path is called that which is abandoned by cultivation. This is called a well-established characteristic of what is to be abandoned. The Abhidharmakośa-ācārya (teacher of the Abhidharmakośa) rescues and says: 'The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra-ācārya (teacher of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) has misunderstood my text. They think that only that which takes as its object what is abandoned by seeing this truth is called that which is abandoned by seeing this truth.' Therefore, they use the conditions of other schools and the conditions of the unconditioned as difficulties. It should be said that if seeing takes this truth as its object, or if it takes what is abandoned by seeing this truth as its object, it is called that which is abandoned by seeing this truth. The afflictions conditioned by other schools and the conditions of the unconditioned should be known to be included in that which takes seeing this truth as its object. Because they are conditioned by the truth. Moreover, my own explanation is not different from your statement. Like this, the six afflictions expand to thirty-six, which is to separately calculate the six root afflictions and expand them into thirty-six. 'Form, non-** to thirty-one each' explains the seventh and eighth sentences. It can be known. Question: Why are there no latent tendencies of anger (dvesa-anuśaya) in the upper realms? Answer: The Abhidharma-samuccaya says that there are no things that cause latent tendencies of anger there. This means that the latent tendencies of anger arise in relation to painful feeling (duhkha-vedanā). There is no painful feeling in the upper realms, so there are no latent tendencies of anger. Moreover, the continuity of the upper realms is nourished by samādhi. Moreover, the upper realms are not the cause of the ripening (vipāka-hetu) of anger. Some say that there is no harm in the upper realms. Because it is the place where good roots such as loving-kindness reside. All that is embraced is far from (anger). 'From this treatise to saying ninety-eight' quotes the text of this treatise to summarize and record. Because of abandoning desire for the realms (dhātu-rāga), perfect knowledge (parijñā) is established. Therefore, the ninety-eight latent tendencies are established according to the realms, not the grounds. Therefore, the Abhidharma-samuccaya says that the latent tendencies are established according to the realms, not the grounds. Because of abandoning

界貪立遍知故。謂四靜慮諸煩惱法性少相似。雖有四地而合說一。於四無色合說亦然。經但說色貪．無色貪等故。

於此所辨至智所害故者。此下第二明見．修斷。此即總標。

如是所說至為決定爾者。問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至智所害唯修者。頌答。

論曰至方能斷故者。釋初兩句。忍聲通說法智忍．類智忍。此中明忍。而言智者從果為名。于忍所害諸隨眠中。有頂地攝唯見所斷。唯類智忍方能斷故。

餘八地攝至智所斷故者。釋第三句。余欲界．四靜慮．三無色八地攝。忍所斷者通見．修斷。謂聖者斷唯見非修。若欲界法智忍斷。若上七地類智忍斷。若異生斷唯修非見。數習世俗智所斷故。

智所害至智所斷故者。釋第四句。智所害諸隨眠。一切九地攝。唯修所斷。以諸聖者．及諸異生如其所應。聖者由數習無漏世俗智所斷故。異生由數習世俗智所斷故。

有餘師說至諸見未斷者。敘異說。外道諸仙不能伏見所斷惑。修所斷惑但能暫伏而得上生。故婆沙五十一云。謂譬喻者作如是說。異生不能斷諸煩惱。又婆沙九十云。或復有執。異生不能斷見所斷隨眠。有餘復執。異生不能斷諸隨眠。唯能制伏　解云。見所斷惑不能伏不能斷。若修所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『界貪立遍知故』（因為對境界的貪戀建立在普遍的認知之上）。指的是四禪定（catuḥ-dhyāna）中，各種煩惱的法性略有相似之處。雖然有四個層次，但合起來說成一個。對於四無色定（catuḥ-ārūpya）的合併說法也是如此。經文中只說了色貪（rūpa-rāga）、無色貪（ārūpya-rāga）等。

『於此所辨至智所害故者』（因此，所辨別的，會被智慧所損害）。下面第二點闡明見斷（darśana-heya）和修斷（bhāvanā-heya）。這即是總的綱要。

『如是所說至為決定爾者』（像這樣所說的，是絕對確定的嗎）？問。

『不爾者』（不是這樣的）。答。

『云何者』（為什麼這樣說）？征問。

『頌曰至智所害唯修者』（偈頌說，會被智慧所損害的，只有修所斷）。偈頌回答。

『論曰至方能斷故者』（論述說，才能斷除的緣故）。解釋最初的兩句。『忍』（kṣānti）這個詞可以普遍地指法智忍（dharma-jñāna-kṣānti）和類智忍（anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti）。這裡闡明的是『忍』，而說成『智』（jñāna），是從結果來命名的。在『忍』所損害的各種隨眠（anuśaya）中，有頂地（bhava-agra）所包含的，只有見所斷，只有類智忍才能斷除。

『餘八地攝至智所斷故者』（其餘八地所包含的，會被智慧所斷除的緣故）。解釋第三句。其餘欲界（kāma-dhātu）、四禪定、三無色定這八地所包含的，『忍』所斷除的，包括見斷和修斷。聖者（ārya）所斷除的，只有見斷，不是修斷。如果是欲界的，由法智忍斷除；如果是上面七地的，由類智忍斷除。如果是異生（pṛthag-jana）所斷除的，只有修斷，不是見斷，因為是通過反覆修習世俗的智慧所斷除的。

『智所害至智所斷故者』（智慧所損害的，會被智慧所斷除的緣故）。解釋第四句。智慧所損害的各種隨眠，一切都包含在九地中，只有修所斷。無論是聖者還是異生，都如其所應地斷除。聖者是通過反覆修習無漏的世俗智慧所斷除的，異生是通過反覆修習世俗的智慧所斷除的。

『有餘師說至諸見未斷者』（有其他老師說，各種見還沒有斷除）。敘述不同的說法。外道（tīrthika）諸仙不能夠降伏見所斷的迷惑，對於修所斷的迷惑，只能暫時地降伏，從而得到上生。所以《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第五十一卷說，譬喻者（dṛṣṭāntika）這樣說，異生不能斷除各種煩惱。另外，《婆沙論》第九十卷說，或者有人認為，異生不能斷除見所斷的隨眠。還有人認為，異生不能斷除各種隨眠，只能制伏。解釋說，見所斷的迷惑，不能降伏，也不能斷除。如果是修所斷的，

【English Translation】 English version 『界貪立遍知故』 (Because attachment to realms is established upon universal knowledge). This refers to the fact that the nature of afflictions in the four dhyānas (catuḥ-dhyāna) are somewhat similar. Although there are four levels, they are collectively referred to as one. The same applies to the combined description of the four formless realms (catuḥ-ārūpya). The scriptures only mention attachment to form (rūpa-rāga), attachment to the formless (ārūpya-rāga), etc.

『於此所辨至智所害故者』 (Therefore, what is distinguished is harmed by wisdom). The second point below clarifies what is abandoned by seeing (darśana-heya) and what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya). This is the general outline.

『如是所說至為決定爾者』 (Is what is said in this way absolutely certain)? Question.

『不爾者』 (It is not so). Answer.

『云何者』 (Why is it said so)? Inquiry.

『頌曰至智所害唯修者』 (The verse says, what is harmed by wisdom is only what is abandoned by cultivation). Verse answer.

『論曰至方能斷故者』 (The treatise says, because it is only then that it can be severed). Explains the first two sentences. The term 『忍』 (kṣānti, forbearance) can generally refer to dharma-jñāna-kṣānti (forbearance with the knowledge of dharma) and anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti (forbearance with the knowledge of consequence). Here, 『忍』 (forbearance) is clarified, but it is called 『智』 (jñāna, knowledge) from the perspective of the result. Among the various latent tendencies (anuśaya) harmed by 『忍』 (forbearance), what is contained in the peak of existence (bhava-agra) is only what is abandoned by seeing, and only anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti can sever it.

『餘八地攝至智所斷故者』 (What is contained in the remaining eight realms is severed by wisdom). Explains the third sentence. What is contained in the remaining eight realms of the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), the four dhyānas, and the three formless realms, what is severed by 『忍』 (forbearance) includes what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation. What is severed by the noble ones (ārya) is only what is abandoned by seeing, not what is abandoned by cultivation. If it is of the desire realm, it is severed by dharma-jñāna-kṣānti; if it is of the upper seven realms, it is severed by anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti. If it is severed by ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana), it is only what is abandoned by cultivation, not what is abandoned by seeing, because it is severed through repeated cultivation of mundane wisdom.

『智所害至智所斷故者』 (What is harmed by wisdom is severed by wisdom). Explains the fourth sentence. The various latent tendencies harmed by wisdom are all contained in the nine realms, and are only what is abandoned by cultivation. Whether it is noble ones or ordinary beings, they sever it as appropriate. Noble ones sever it through repeated cultivation of non-outflow mundane wisdom, and ordinary beings sever it through repeated cultivation of mundane wisdom.

『有餘師說至諸見未斷者』 (Other teachers say that various views have not yet been severed). Narrates different views. Heretics (tīrthika) and immortals cannot subdue the delusions that are abandoned by seeing; they can only temporarily subdue the delusions that are abandoned by cultivation, thereby attaining rebirth in higher realms. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 51, says that the Dṛṣṭāntikas say that ordinary beings cannot sever various afflictions. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 90, says that some hold that ordinary beings cannot sever the latent tendencies that are abandoned by seeing. Still others hold that ordinary beings cannot sever various latent tendencies, but can only restrain them. It is explained that the delusions that are abandoned by seeing cannot be subdued or severed. If it is what is abandoned by cultivation,

斷伏而非斷　如大分別諸業契經說。離欲修所斷貪諸外道類。有緣欲界邪見現行。故知不能伏斷見惑。余見所斷準此邪見皆不能斷　及梵網經亦說。離欲諸外道類。有緣欲界諸見現行。謂於前際分別論者。有執四全常。有執四一分常。有執諸法二無因生等。彼經總說六十二見。以此故知。不能伏斷見所斷惑。非色界惑緣欲界生。于欲界境已離貪故。定是欲界諸見未斷　問六十二見名體云何　解云如婆沙一百九十九．及二百廣明。今略取意標顯。彼論六十二見者。又梵網經說。六十二諸惡見趣皆有身見為本。六十二見趣者。謂前際分別見有十八。后際分別見有四十四　前際分別見有十八者。謂四遍常論。四一分常論。二無因生論。四有邊等論。四不死矯亂論　后際分別見有四十四者。謂十六有想論。八無想論。八非有想非無想論。七斷滅論。五現法涅槃論　此中依過去起分別見名前際分別見。依未來起分別見名后際分別見若依現在起分別見此即不定。或名前際分別見。或名后際分別見。以現在世是未來前．過去後故。或未來因．過去果故　前際分別見中四遍常論者。一由憶劫。謂由能憶一成壞劫．或二．或三．乃至八．十。彼便執我．及世間俱常。二由憶生。謂由能憶一生．或二．或三．乃至百．千生事。彼便執我．及

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本是『伏』而非『斷』。正如《大分別諸業契經》所說，那些離開了對欲界貪慾的修道者（指外道），仍然有緣于欲界的邪見生起。因此可知，他們不能通過壓伏來斷除見惑。其他見所斷的煩惱，可以參照這個邪見的例子，都是不能斷除的。《梵網經》也說，離開了對欲界貪慾的那些外道，仍然有緣于欲界的各種見解生起。也就是說，對於過去的事情進行分別論述的人，有的執著于『四全常』（四種完全恒常的理論），有的執著于『四一分常』（四種一部分恒常的理論），有的執著于諸法是『二無因生』（兩種無因而生的理論）等等。那部經總共說了六十二種見解。因此可知，他們不能通過壓伏來斷除見所斷的煩惱。這些煩惱並非緣于欲界而生，因為他們已經離開了對欲界境界的貪慾。所以，一定是他們欲界的各種見解沒有斷除。問：這六十二種見解的名稱和本體是什麼？答：正如《婆沙論》第一百九十九卷和第二百卷詳細說明的那樣。現在簡略地提取其意旨進行標示。那部論中的六十二種見解，以及《梵網經》所說，六十二種惡見的根本都是有身見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）。這六十二種見解，是指對於過去的事情進行分別的見解有十八種，對於未來的事情進行分別的見解有四十四種。對於過去的事情進行分別的見解有十八種，包括四種遍常論（sassata-vāda，認為一切都是永恒不變的理論），四種一分常論（ekacca-sassata-vāda，認為一部分是永恒不變的理論），兩種無因生論（adhicca-samuppanna-vāda，認為事物是無緣無故產生的理論），四種有邊等論（antānantika-vāda，認為世界有邊或無邊等的理論），四種不死矯亂論（amarāvikkhepa-vāda，以含糊其辭來逃避問題，避免明確表態的理論）。對於未來的事情進行分別的見解有四十四種，包括十六種有想論（saññī-vāda，認為眾生死後有想的理論），八種無想論（asaññī-vāda，認為眾生死後無想的理論），八種非有想非無想論（nevasaññī-nāsaññī-vāda，認為眾生死後非有想非無想的理論），七種斷滅論（uccheda-vāda，認為生命死後徹底斷滅的理論），五種現法涅槃論（diṭṭhadhamma-nibbāna-vāda，認為在現世就能達到涅槃的理論）。其中，依據過去的事情而產生的分別見解，稱為前際分別見。依據未來的事情而產生的分別見解，稱為后際分別見。如果依據現在的事情而產生的分別見解，這就不確定了，或者稱為前際分別見，或者稱為后際分別見。因為現在世是未來的前面，過去的後面。或者因為現在是未來的因，過去的果。在前際分別見中，四種遍常論，第一種是由於憶劫（回憶過去劫數）。也就是說，由於能夠回憶起一個成壞劫，或者兩個、或者三個，乃至八個、十個。他們就執著于『我』以及『世間』都是恒常的。第二種是由於憶生（回憶過去生世）。也就是說，由於能夠回憶起一生、或者兩生、或者三生，乃至百生、千生的事情。他們就執著于『我』以及

【English Translation】 English version It is 'subduing' rather than 'severing'. As the Great Differentiation of Karmas Sutra states, those ascetics (referring to non-Buddhist practitioners) who have detached from desire still have conditions for wrong views pertaining to the desire realm to arise. Therefore, it is known that they cannot sever the afflictions of view through suppression. Other afflictions severed by view can be understood similarly based on this example of wrong view; they cannot be severed. The Brahmajala Sutra also states that those ascetics who have detached from desire still have conditions for various views pertaining to the desire realm to arise. That is to say, those who engage in speculative discussions about the past hold onto theories such as 'fourfold eternalism' (sassata-vāda, the theory that everything is eternally unchanging), 'fourfold partial eternalism' (ekacca-sassata-vāda, the theory that part of something is eternally unchanging), or that phenomena arise from 'two causeless origins' (adhicca-samuppanna-vāda, the theory that things arise without cause), and so on. That sutra collectively speaks of sixty-two views. Therefore, it is known that they cannot sever the afflictions severed by view through suppression. These afflictions do not arise from the desire realm, because they have already detached from desire for the objects of the desire realm. Therefore, it must be that their various views of the desire realm have not been severed. Question: What are the names and entities of these sixty-two views? Answer: As explained in detail in volumes 199 and 200 of the Mahavibhasa, I will now briefly extract and indicate their meaning. The sixty-two views in that treatise, as well as the Brahmajala Sutra, state that the root of the sixty-two evil views is the view of self (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, the belief that the aggregate of the five skandhas is a real self). These sixty-two views refer to eighteen views that speculate about the past and forty-four views that speculate about the future. The eighteen views that speculate about the past include four theories of eternalism (sassata-vāda, the theory that everything is eternally unchanging), four theories of partial eternalism (ekacca-sassata-vāda, the theory that part of something is eternally unchanging), two theories of causeless origination (adhicca-samuppanna-vāda, the theory that things arise without cause), four theories of finitude and infinitude (antānantika-vāda, the theory that the world is finite or infinite, etc.), and four theories of evasive wriggling (amarāvikkhepa-vāda, the theory of evading questions by equivocating and avoiding clear statements). The forty-four views that speculate about the future include sixteen theories of perception (saññī-vāda, the theory that beings have perception after death), eight theories of non-perception (asaññī-vāda, the theory that beings have no perception after death), eight theories of neither perception nor non-perception (nevasaññī-nāsaññī-vāda, the theory that beings have neither perception nor non-perception after death), seven theories of annihilation (uccheda-vāda, the theory that life is completely annihilated after death), and five theories of present-life Nibbana (diṭṭhadhamma-nibbāna-vāda, the theory that Nibbana can be attained in the present life). Among these, views that arise from speculation about the past are called views that speculate about the past. Views that arise from speculation about the future are called views that speculate about the future. If views arise from speculation about the present, it is uncertain whether they are called views that speculate about the past or views that speculate about the future, because the present is the future's past and the past's future, or because the present is the cause of the future and the result of the past. Among the views that speculate about the past, the first of the four theories of eternalism is due to recollection of kalpas (recollection of past eons). That is, because they can recall one kalpa of formation and destruction, or two, or three, up to eight or ten, they cling to the belief that 'self' and 'world' are both eternal. The second is due to recollection of births (recollection of past lives). That is, because they can recall one life, or two lives, or three lives, up to hundreds or thousands of lives, they cling to the belief that 'self' and

世間俱常。前雖憶多。而於能憶諸生無間未得自在。今雖憶少。而於能憶諸生無間已得自在。三由死生。謂由天眼見諸有情死時。生時。諸蘊相續。由斯便執我．及世間俱是常住。四由尋伺。謂由如是虛妄尋伺執我．世間俱是常住。如是四種執遍常故名為遍常。常見為性　四一分常論者。一由大梵。謂從梵世來生此間由得宿住隨念通故。作如是執。我等皆是大梵天王之所化作。梵王能化在彼常住。我等所化故是無常。二由大種．或心。謂聞梵王說大種或心。隨一是常便作是執。我以大梵天王為定量。是故世間一分常住。一分無常。三由戲忘念天謂有先從戲忘大沒來生此間。由得宿住隨念通故便作是執。彼天諸有不極遊戲忘失念者在彼常住。我等先由極遊戲忘念彼處沒故是無常。四由意憤恚天。謂有先從意憤天沒來生此間。由得宿住隨念通故即作是執。彼天諸有不極意憤角眼相視在彼常住。我等先由意極相憤角眼相視。從彼處沒故是無常　有說。彼住妙高層級。有說。彼是三十三天。如是四種執一分常名為一分。以常見為性　二無因生論者。一由無想天。謂從無想有情沒來生此間。由得宿住隨念通故。雖能憶彼出無想心．及后諸位。而不能憶出心已前所有諸位。便作是念。我于彼時本無而起。諸法如我亦應一切本無而生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：世間萬物都是永恒存在的。以前雖然記得很多事情，但對於能夠回憶起這些事情的各種條件，並沒有完全獲得自在。現在雖然記得的事情不多，但對於能夠回憶起這些事情的各種條件，已經獲得了自在。三種是由於生死輪迴：通過天眼看到眾生死去和出生時，諸蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）相續不斷，因此就執著于『我』以及世間都是常住不變的。四種是由於尋伺（Vitarka-vicara，粗細的思考）：由於這樣虛妄的尋伺，執著于『我』和世間都是常住不變的。像這樣四種執著于普遍永恒的觀點，所以稱為『遍常』，以常見（Sassata-ditthi，認為事物永恒存在的錯誤見解）為特性。四種『一分常論』者：一種是由於大梵天（Mahabrahma）：這些人從梵天（Brahma）世界來到人間，由於獲得了宿住隨念通（Pubbenivasanussati-ñana，回憶前世的能力），就產生這樣的執著：『我們都是大梵天王所創造的。梵天王能夠創造，他在那裡是常住的，而我們是被創造的，所以是無常的。』二種是由於大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素）或心（Citta）：這些人聽到梵天王說大種或者心，其中之一是常住的，就產生這樣的執著：『我以大梵天王為標準，所以世間一部分是常住的，一部分是無常的。』三種是由於戲忘念天（Khiddapadosika deva）：這些人先前從戲忘天（Khiddapadosika deva）死亡後來到人間，由於獲得了宿住隨念通，就產生這樣的執著：『那些天上的眾生，如果不極度嬉戲而忘記正念，就能在那裡常住；我們先前由於極度嬉戲而忘記正念，從那個地方死亡，所以是無常的。』四種是由於意憤恚天（Manopadosika deva）：這些人先前從意憤天（Manopadosika deva）死亡後來到人間，由於獲得了宿住隨念通，就產生這樣的執著：『那些天上的眾生，如果不極度憤怒，怒目相視，就能在那裡常住；我們先前由於極度憤怒，怒目相視，從那個地方死亡，所以是無常的。』有人說，他們住在妙高山（Sumeru）的層級上；有人說，他們是三十三天（Tavatimsa）。像這樣四種執著於一部分永恒的觀點，所以稱為『一分常』，以常見為特性。兩種『無因生論』者：一種是由於無想天（Asaññasatta deva）：這些人從無想有情天（Asaññasatta deva）死亡後來到人間，由於獲得了宿住隨念通，雖然能夠回憶起進入無想心（Asaññasamapatti，無想禪定）以及之後的各種狀態，但不能回憶起進入無想心之前的所有狀態，就產生這樣的想法：『我在那個時候本來沒有而突然產生。一切諸法也應該像我一樣，本來沒有而突然產生。』

【English Translation】 English version: The world is entirely permanent. Although one remembers much from the past, one has not yet attained freedom regarding the conditions that enable such remembering. Although one remembers little now, one has already attained freedom regarding the conditions that enable such remembering. Three arise from death and rebirth: seeing beings die and be born through the divine eye, the continuity of the Skandhas (aggregates of existence) leads to the belief that 'I' and the world are permanent. Four arise from investigation: through such false investigation, one believes that 'I' and the world are permanent. These four types of clinging to universal permanence are called 'eternalism' (sassata-ditthi), characterized by the view of permanence. Four types of 'partial eternalists': One arises from Mahabrahma: coming from the Brahma world, they gain the ability to recall past lives and thus believe, 'We are all created by Mahabrahma. Brahma is capable of creating and remains permanent there, while we are created and thus impermanent.' Two arise from the great elements (Mahabhuta) or mind (Citta): hearing Brahma speak of the great elements or mind as permanent, they believe, 'I take Mahabrahma as my measure, therefore the world is partly permanent and partly impermanent.' Three arise from the 'forgetful revelling gods' (Khiddapadosika deva): having previously died from the realm of the forgetful revelling gods, they gain the ability to recall past lives and thus believe, 'Those beings in that realm who do not excessively revel and forget mindfulness remain permanent there; we previously died from that place due to excessive revelling and forgetting mindfulness, and are thus impermanent.' Four arise from the 'wrathful-minded gods' (Manopadosika deva): having previously died from the realm of the wrathful-minded gods, they gain the ability to recall past lives and thus believe, 'Those beings in that realm who do not excessively become angry and glare at each other remain permanent there; we previously died from that place due to excessive anger and glaring at each other, and are thus impermanent.' Some say they dwell on the levels of Mount Sumeru; others say they are the Thirty-three Gods (Tavatimsa). These four types of clinging to partial permanence are called 'partial eternalism', characterized by the view of permanence. Two types of 'causeless arising' theorists: One arises from the 'unconscious beings' (Asaññasatta deva): having died from the realm of unconscious beings, they gain the ability to recall past lives, and although they can remember entering the unconscious state (Asaññasamapatti) and subsequent states, they cannot remember any states prior to entering the unconscious state. They thus think, 'I arose at that time from nothing. All phenomena should also arise from nothing, just as I did.'

。由斯便執我．及世間。皆無有因。自然生起。二虛妄尋伺。謂由尋伺虛妄推求今身所更既皆能憶。前身若有彼所更事。今此身中亦應能憶。既不能憶。故知彼無。由斯便執我．及世間。皆無因生自然而有。如是二種執無因生名無因生論。以邪見為性　四有邊等論者。一有邊。謂由天眼見下。唯至無間地獄。見上唯至初靜慮天。執我于中悉皆遍滿。彼作是念。過此若有我．及世間我亦應見。既不能見故知非有。由斯便執我．及世間。俱是有邊。即是二種有分限義。二無邊。謂由依止勝分靜慮發凈天眼。傍見無邊。執我于中悉皆遍滿。由斯便執我．及世間俱是無邊。即是二種無分限義。三亦有邊亦無邊。謂由天眼．及神境通。由天眼通見下。唯至無間地獄。見上唯至初靜慮天。由神境通運身傍去不得邊際。遂于上．下起有邊想。于傍世界起無邊想。執我于中悉皆遍滿。由斯便執。我．及世間。亦有邊亦無邊。即是二種俱有分限無分限義。四非有邊非無邊。即遮第三為此第四。彼作是念。我．及世間俱不可說定是有邊定是無邊。然皆實有。或有說者。彼見世間橫無邊故。執我．世間俱非有邊。彼見世間豎有邊故。執我．世間俱非無邊。雖無決定而實有我。復有說者。彼執我體或舒．或卷不可定說。舒無邊故說非有邊。卷有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此他們堅持認為『我』（Atman，靈魂）和世界都是沒有原因，自然產生的。第二種是虛妄的尋伺。他們通過虛妄的尋伺來推測，既然能夠回憶起今生所經歷的事情，那麼如果前世存在，也應該能夠回憶起前世所經歷的事情。既然不能回憶，所以知道前世是不存在的。因此他們堅持認為『我』和世界都是沒有原因，自然而然產生的。這兩種執著于沒有原因產生的觀點，被稱為『無因生論』，其本質是邪見。四種『有邊』等論者：第一種是『有邊論』。他們通過天眼（divyacakṣus，超自然視覺）向下看，只能看到無間地獄（Avīci，佛教地獄中最底層）；向上看，只能看到初禪天（prathama-dhyāna，色界的第一層天）。他們認為『我』完全遍佈于這些範圍之內。他們這樣想：如果超過這些範圍還有『我』和世界，我也應該能看到。既然不能看到，所以知道沒有。因此他們堅持認為『我』和世界都是有邊界的。這就是兩種認為有分界限的意義。第二種是『無邊論』。他們依靠殊勝的禪定（dhyāna，冥想）而生起清凈的天眼，向旁邊看，看到無邊無際。他們認為『我』完全遍佈于這些範圍之內。因此他們堅持認為『我』和世界都是無邊無際的。這就是兩種認為沒有分界限的意義。第三種是『亦有邊亦無邊論』。他們通過天眼和神通（abhijñā，超自然能力），用天眼向下看，只能看到無間地獄；向上看，只能看到初禪天。用神通運送身體向旁邊去，卻無法到達邊際。於是他們對上下產生有邊界的想法，對旁邊的世界產生無邊界的想法。他們認為『我』完全遍佈于這些範圍之內。因此他們堅持認為『我』和世界既有邊界又沒有邊界。這就是兩種認為既有分界限又沒有分界限的意義。第四種是『非有邊非無邊論』。這是否定了第三種觀點而產生的第四種觀點。他們這樣想：『我』和世界都不能確定地說是有邊界的，也不能確定地說是沒有邊界的。但它們都是真實存在的。或者有人說，他們看到世界橫向是無邊無際的，所以認為『我』和世界都不是有邊界的。他們看到世界縱向是有邊界的，所以認為『我』和世界都不是沒有邊界的。雖然沒有確定的說法，但『我』是真實存在的。還有人說，他們認為『我』的本體有時舒展，有時捲縮，無法確定地說。舒展時是無邊無際的，所以說不是有邊界的。捲縮時是有

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, they insist that the 'Self' (Atman, soul) and the world are without cause and arise naturally. The second is false investigation. They speculate through false investigation that since they can recall the events experienced in this life, if the previous life existed, they should also be able to recall the events experienced in the previous life. Since they cannot recall, they know that the previous life does not exist. Therefore, they insist that the 'Self' and the world are without cause and arise naturally. These two kinds of attachments to the view of arising without cause are called 'Ahetuvāda' (theory of causelessness), and its essence is wrong view. The four kinds of 'finite' etc. theorists: The first is 'finite theory'. They look down through the divine eye (divyacakṣus, supernatural vision) and can only see Avīci (the lowest level of Buddhist hell); looking up, they can only see the first dhyāna heaven (prathama-dhyāna, the first heaven of the Form Realm). They believe that the 'Self' is completely pervasive within these ranges. They think like this: If there are 'Self' and the world beyond these ranges, I should also be able to see them. Since I cannot see them, I know that they do not exist. Therefore, they insist that the 'Self' and the world are finite. These are two kinds of meanings that consider having boundaries. The second is 'infinite theory'. They rely on superior meditation (dhyāna, contemplation) to generate pure divine eyes, look sideways, and see boundless expanse. They believe that the 'Self' is completely pervasive within these ranges. Therefore, they insist that the 'Self' and the world are infinite. These are two kinds of meanings that consider not having boundaries. The third is 'both finite and infinite theory'. They use the divine eye and supernatural powers (abhijñā, supernormal faculties), use the divine eye to look down and can only see Avīci; looking up, they can only see the first dhyāna heaven. Using supernatural powers to transport the body to the side, but cannot reach the edge. So they have the idea of having boundaries for up and down, and the idea of having no boundaries for the world beside. They believe that the 'Self' is completely pervasive within these ranges. Therefore, they insist that the 'Self' and the world are both finite and infinite. These are two kinds of meanings that consider both having boundaries and not having boundaries. The fourth is 'neither finite nor infinite theory'. This is the fourth view that arises from negating the third view. They think like this: The 'Self' and the world cannot be said to be definitely finite, nor can they be said to be definitely infinite. But they are all real. Or some say that they see the world as horizontally boundless, so they think that the 'Self' and the world are not finite. They see the world as vertically finite, so they think that the 'Self' and the world are not infinite. Although there is no definite statement, the 'Self' is real. Others say that they think that the substance of the 'Self' sometimes stretches and sometimes contracts, and cannot be said definitely. When stretched, it is boundless, so it is said to be not finite. When contracted, it is

邊故說非無邊　問如是四種既緣現在。云何說為前際分別　答彼待未來亦名前際。廣如婆沙　又云。有作是說執有邊者即是斷見。執無邊者即是常見。執亦有邊亦無邊者。即是一分斷見一分常見。執非有邊非無邊者。即是唯起薩伽耶見　解云。前說以我見為性說執我言故。后師以斷常我見為性　四不死矯亂論者。計天常住名為不死。能無亂答得生彼天。不能實答恐不生天。以言矯亂名為矯亂。一怖妄語。我于諸法不如實知。他問我答便為妄語。怖妄語故恐不生天。便矯亂言秘密義等不應皆說。二怖邪見。我于諸法不如實知。他問我撥便為邪見。怖邪見故恐不生天。便矯亂言秘密義等不應皆說。三怖無知。我于諸法不如實知。他問我印慮詰不知。怖無知。故恐不生天。便矯亂言秘密義等不應皆說。四怖愚鈍。若違他意便不生天。諸有問我皆應返問。隨彼所欲我便印之。又性愚癡。若違拒他彼便別我。怖愚癡故恐不生天以言矯亂。此四雖于現在事轉。待未來故立前際名。如是四種計天不死。體皆常見。計答他問為生天因是戒禁取　后際分別見中十六有想論者。謂有色等四有邊等四。一想等四。有樂等四　有色等四者。一我有色死後有想。謂所執我以色為性故名有色。此有色我有彼想故名為有想。彼作是念。此有色我死後有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：邊故說非無邊：因為有邊，所以才說沒有邊。問：如果這四種（有邊、無邊、亦有邊亦無邊、非有邊非無邊）都是緣于現在，為什麼說是對前際的分別呢？答：它們也依賴於未來，所以也稱為前際。詳細內容見《大毗婆沙論》。又說：有人這樣認為，執著于『有邊』就是斷見，執著于『無邊』就是常見，執著于『亦有邊亦無邊』就是一部分斷見一部分常見，執著于『非有邊非無邊』就是僅僅生起薩伽耶見（Sakkāya-ditthi，身見）。解釋：前面說的是以我見（atta-ditthi）為體性，因為執著于『我』的說法。後面的說法是以斷見、常見和我見為體性。四不死矯亂論者：他們認為天是常住的，稱為不死。能夠不混亂地回答問題就能生到那個天界，不能如實回答恐怕就不能生天，所以用言語來攪亂，稱為矯亂。一、怖妄語：我對諸法不如實地瞭解，別人問我，我回答了就是妄語。因為害怕妄語，恐怕不能生天，所以用攪亂的言語，說秘密的意義等等不應該全部說出來。二、怖邪見：我對諸法不如實地瞭解，別人問我，我否定了就是邪見。因為害怕邪見，恐怕不能生天，所以用攪亂的言語，說秘密的意義等等不應該全部說出來。三、怖無知：我對諸法不如實地瞭解，別人問我，我印證、考慮、詰問，卻不知道。因為害怕無知，恐怕不能生天，所以用攪亂的言語，說秘密的意義等等不應該全部說出來。四、怖愚鈍：如果違背別人的意思就不能生天。所有問我的人，我都應該反問。隨著他們所希望的，我就印證他們。又因為本性愚癡，如果違背拒絕他們，他們就會區別對待我。因為害怕愚癡，恐怕不能生天，所以用言語來攪亂。這四種雖然是在現在的事情上轉，但因為依賴於未來，所以立為前際的名字。像這樣四種人認為天是不死的，其體性都是常見。認為回答別人的問題是生天的原因，這是戒禁取見（sīlabbata-parāmāsa）。后際分別見中十六有想論者：他們認為有色等四種，有邊等四種，一想等四種，有樂等四種。有色等四種：一、我有色，死後有想。意思是所執著的『我』以色（rūpa）為體性，所以稱為有色。這個有色的『我』有那樣的想法，所以稱為有想。他們這樣想：這個有色的『我』死後有...

【English Translation】 English version: Because there is a boundary, it is said to be without boundary. Question: If these four (having a boundary, having no boundary, having both a boundary and no boundary, having neither a boundary nor no boundary) are all related to the present, why are they said to be discriminations about the past? Answer: They also depend on the future, so they are also called the past. See the Mahāvibhāṣa for details. It is also said: Some say that clinging to 'having a boundary' is annihilationism, clinging to 'having no boundary' is eternalism, clinging to 'having both a boundary and no boundary' is partly annihilationism and partly eternalism, and clinging to 'having neither a boundary nor no boundary' is merely giving rise to Sakkāya-ditthi (身見, view of self-identity). Explanation: The former says that it is characterized by atta-ditthi (我見, self-view), because it clings to the statement of 'self'. The latter says that it is characterized by annihilationism, eternalism, and self-view. The four 'eel-wriggling' sophists: They believe that the heavens are permanent, called immortal. Being able to answer questions without confusion allows one to be born in that heaven. Being unable to answer truthfully, they fear they will not be born in heaven, so they use language to confuse, called 'eel-wriggling'. 1. Fear of lying: I do not truly know all dharmas. If others ask me, and I answer, it is a lie. Fearing lying, and fearing that I will not be born in heaven, I use confusing language, saying that secret meanings, etc., should not all be spoken. 2. Fear of wrong views: I do not truly know all dharmas. If others ask me, and I deny, it is a wrong view. Fearing wrong views, and fearing that I will not be born in heaven, I use confusing language, saying that secret meanings, etc., should not all be spoken. 3. Fear of ignorance: I do not truly know all dharmas. If others ask me, I confirm, consider, and question, but I do not know. Fearing ignorance, and fearing that I will not be born in heaven, I use confusing language, saying that secret meanings, etc., should not all be spoken. 4. Fear of foolishness: If I go against the meaning of others, I will not be born in heaven. All who ask me, I should ask back. According to what they desire, I will confirm them. Also, because of my inherent foolishness, if I go against and reject them, they will treat me differently. Fearing foolishness, and fearing that I will not be born in heaven, I use language to confuse. Although these four operate in present matters, because they depend on the future, they are established as names of the past. Like this, these four people believe that the heavens are immortal, and their nature is all eternalism. Believing that answering others' questions is the cause of being born in heaven, this is sīlabbata-parāmāsa (戒禁取見, clinging to rites and rituals). Among the views of discrimination about the future, there are sixteen theories of perception: They believe there are four kinds of having form (rūpa), four kinds of having boundaries, four kinds of having one perception, and four kinds of having pleasure. The four kinds of having form: 1. I have form, and after death, there is perception. This means that the 'self' that is clung to has form (rūpa) as its nature, so it is called having form. This 'self' that has form has that kind of thought, so it is called having perception. They think like this: This 'self' that has form, after death, has...

想。二我無色死後有想。謂所執我無色為性故名無色。此無色我或想為性。或有想用說名有想。或有彼想說名有想。彼作是念。此無色我死後有想。三我亦有色亦無色死後有想。謂所執我以色．無色為性。故名亦有色亦無色。我或以想為性。或有想用說名有想。或有彼想說名有想。然作是念。此亦有色亦無色我死後有想。四我非有色非無色死後有想。遮前第三無別依彼作是念。我雖實有而不可說定亦有色亦無色。彼見實我定亦有色亦無色。俱有過失故作是說。此我非有色非無色死後有想　有邊等四者。一我有邊死後有想。彼所執我體有分限名我有邊。此有邊我死後有想。二執我無邊死後有想。彼所執我遍一切處名我無邊。此無邊我死後有想。三執我亦有邊亦無邊死後有想。彼所執我。或時有邊或時無邊。計此我死後有想。四執我非有邊非無邊死後有想。即遮第三為此第四　一想等四者。一我有一想死後有想。緣一境轉名為一想。我與彼合名有一想。此下死後有想皆準前釋。二我有種種想死後有想。緣異境起名種種想。我與彼合名有種種相。三我有小想死後有想。依小身故緣少境故。說為小想。我與彼合名有小想。若執小想蘊為我。有想用故名有少想。下準此釋。四我有無量想死後有想。依無量身故緣無量境故。名無量

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：想。二、我無色死後有想。這是說，他們所執著的『我』以無色為本質，所以稱為『無色』。這個無色的『我』，或者以『想』為本質，或者具有『想』的作用，所以稱為『有想』，或者具有那樣的『想』，所以稱為『有想』。他們這樣認為：這個無色的『我』死後是有『想』的。三、我亦有色亦無色死後有想。這是說，他們所執著的『我』以色和無色為本質，所以稱為『亦有色亦無色』。這個『我』或者以『想』為本質，或者具有『想』的作用，所以稱為『有想』，或者具有那樣的『想』，所以稱為『有想』。然而他們這樣認為：這個『亦有色亦無色』的『我』死後是有『想』的。四、我非有色非無色死後有想。這是對前面第三種觀點的否定，沒有其他的依據。他們這樣認為：『我』雖然真實存在，但不能確定地說它既有色又無色。他們認為，如果說真實的『我』既有色又無色，就會有過失，所以這樣說：這個『我』非有色非無色，死後有『想』。有邊等四者：一、我有邊死後有想。他們所執著的『我』，其形體有分界和限度，稱為『我有邊』。這個『有邊』的『我』死後有『想』。二、執我無邊死後有想。他們所執著的『我』，遍及一切處所，稱為『我無邊』。這個『無邊』的『我』死後有『想』。三、執我亦有邊亦無邊死後有想。他們所執著的『我』，有時有邊，有時無邊。他們認為這個『我』死後有『想』。四、執我非有邊非無邊死後有想。這是否定第三種觀點而提出的第四種觀點。一想等四者：一、我有一想死後有想。緣於一個境界而轉動，稱為『一想』。『我』與那個『一想』結合，稱為『有一想』。以下關於死後有『想』的解釋都與此類似。二、我有種種想死後有想。緣于不同的境界而生起，稱為『種種想』。『我』與那些『種種想』結合，稱為『有種種想』。三、我有小想死後有想。因為依賴於小的身體，並且緣于少的境界，所以稱為『小想』。『我』與那個『小想』結合，稱為『有小想』。如果執著于『小想』蘊為『我』，因為有『想』的作用，所以稱為『有少想』。下面的解釋與此類似。四、我有無量想死後有想。因為依賴於無量的身體，並且緣于無量的境界，所以稱為『無量想』。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Thinking. Second, 'I' (Atman) with no form has thought after death.' This refers to those who believe that the 'I' (Atman) they cling to is formless in nature, hence called 'formless' (Arupa). This formless 'I' (Atman), either has 'thought' (Samjna) as its essence, or has the function of 'thought', hence called 'having thought' (Sanjnin), or possesses such 'thought', hence called 'having thought' (Sanjnin). They think thus: this formless 'I' (Atman) has 'thought' after death. Third, 'I' (Atman) that both has form and is formless has thought after death.' This refers to those who believe that the 'I' (Atman) they cling to has both form and formlessness as its essence, hence called 'both having form and being formless' (Rupa-Arupa). This 'I' (Atman) either has 'thought' (Samjna) as its essence, or has the function of 'thought', hence called 'having thought' (Sanjnin), or possesses such 'thought', hence called 'having thought' (Sanjnin). However, they think thus: this 'I' (Atman) that both has form and is formless has 'thought' after death. Fourth, 'I' (Atman) that neither has form nor is formless has thought after death.' This is a negation of the third view above, without any other basis. They think thus: 'I' (Atman), although truly existing, cannot be definitively said to be both having form and being formless. They believe that if the true 'I' (Atman) is said to be both having form and being formless, there would be fault, so they say thus: this 'I' (Atman) neither has form nor is formless, and has 'thought' after death. The four regarding having boundaries, etc.: First, 'I' (Atman) with boundaries has thought after death.' The 'I' (Atman) they cling to has a limited and finite form, hence called 'I' (Atman) with boundaries' (anta). This 'I' (Atman) with boundaries has 'thought' after death. Second, 'I' (Atman) that is believed to be without boundaries has thought after death.' The 'I' (Atman) they cling to pervades all places, hence called 'I' (Atman) without boundaries' (ananta). This 'I' (Atman) without boundaries has 'thought' after death. Third, 'I' (Atman) that is believed to be both with and without boundaries has thought after death.' The 'I' (Atman) they cling to is sometimes with boundaries and sometimes without boundaries. They believe that this 'I' (Atman) has 'thought' after death. Fourth, 'I' (Atman) that is believed to be neither with nor without boundaries has thought after death.' This is the fourth view, proposed as a negation of the third view. The four regarding one thought, etc.: First, 'I' (Atman) with one thought has thought after death.' Turning towards one object is called 'one thought' (eka-samjna). The 'I' (Atman) combined with that 'one thought' is called 'having one thought' (eka-samjni). The following explanations regarding having 'thought' after death are similar to this. Second, 'I' (Atman) with various thoughts has thought after death.' Arising from different objects is called 'various thoughts' (nana-samjna). The 'I' (Atman) combined with those 'various thoughts' is called 'having various thoughts' (nana-samjni). Third, 'I' (Atman) with small thought has thought after death.' Because it relies on a small body and is related to few objects, it is called 'small thought' (paritta-samjna). The 'I' (Atman) combined with that 'small thought' is called 'having small thought' (paritta-samjni). If one clings to the 'small thought' aggregate as 'I' (Atman), because it has the function of 'thought', it is called 'having little thought'. The following explanations are similar to this. Fourth, 'I' (Atman) with immeasurable thought has thought after death.' Because it relies on immeasurable bodies and is related to immeasurable objects, it is called 'immeasurable thought' (apramana-samjna).

想。我與彼合名有無量想　有樂等四者。一我純有樂死後有想。樂謂樂受。或謂樂具。我與彼合名純有樂。二我純有苦死後有想。苦謂苦受。或謂苦具。我與彼合名純有苦。三我有樂有苦死後有想。或苦樂雜受。或苦樂俱合。便作是念我有苦樂。四我無苦無樂死後有想。不受苦樂名無苦樂。或時暫受如容非有。便作是念我無苦樂。應知十六有想論雖皆有想。然初四色．無色差別。次四邊．無邊差別。次四約想差別。后四約受差別。此十六皆以常見為體　八無想論者。謂有色等四。有邊等四　有色等四者。一執我有色死後無想。執色為我名我有色。或當生無想。或當悶絕等。但有色身想不起故名為死後無想。二執我無色．死後無想。執命為我名我無色。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。伹有命根想不起故名死後無想。或說受．行．識三為我。亦容執我無色．死後無想。三執我亦有色亦無色死後無想。執色．命根名為我．亦有色亦無色。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。但有色．命想不起故名死後無想。或說色．受．行．識四蘊為我。亦容執我亦有色亦無色．死後無想。四執我非有色非無色．死後無想。即遮第三為此第四　有邊等四者。一執我有邊．死後無想。執色．或命為我自體。二俱有量邊名我有邊。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。但

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：想。我與彼合名有無量想（無量想：與某種事物結合后產生無限的想像）有樂等四者。一我純有樂死後有想（純有樂死後有想：認為自己完全擁有快樂，死後仍然存在這種想法）。樂謂樂受（樂受：快樂的感受），或謂樂具（樂具：快樂的工具）。我與彼合名純有樂。二我純有苦死後有想（純有苦死後有想：認為自己完全擁有痛苦，死後仍然存在這種想法）。苦謂苦受（苦受：痛苦的感受），或謂苦具（苦具：痛苦的工具）。我與彼合名純有苦。三我有樂有苦死後有想（有樂有苦死後有想：認為自己既有快樂也有痛苦，死後仍然存在這種想法）。或苦樂雜受（苦樂雜受：痛苦和快樂混合的感受），或苦樂俱合（苦樂俱合：痛苦和快樂同時存在）。便作是念我有苦樂。四我無苦無樂死後有想（無苦無樂死後有想：認為自己沒有痛苦也沒有快樂，死後仍然存在這種想法）。不受苦樂名無苦樂（無苦樂：沒有痛苦和快樂的感受）。或時暫受如容非有（暫受如容非有：有時短暫地感受到，但感覺好像不存在）。便作是念我無苦樂。應知十六有想論雖皆有想（十六有想論：十六種關於存在的想法），然初四色（色：物質）．無色差別（無色：非物質）。次四邊（邊：邊界）．無邊差別（無邊：沒有邊界）。次四約想差別（約想差別：關於想法的差別）。后四約受差別（約受差別：關於感受的差別）。此十六皆以常見為體（常見：永恒存在的觀點）。八無想論者。謂有色等四。有邊等四　有色等四者。一執我有色死後無想（有色死後無想：認為自己擁有物質，死後不再有任何想法）。執色為我名我有色（有色：擁有物質）。或當生無想（無想：沒有想法的狀態），或當悶絕等（悶絕：昏迷）。但有色身想不起故名為死後無想。二執我無色．死後無想（無色死後無想：認為自己沒有物質，死後不再有任何想法）。執命為我名我無色（無色：沒有物質）。當生無想天（無想天：沒有想法的天界）。或當悶絕等。伹有命根想不起故名死後無想。或說受（受：感受）．行（行：行為）．識（識：意識）三為我。亦容執我無色．死後無想。三執我亦有色亦無色死後無想（亦有色亦無色死後無想：認為自己既有物質也沒有物質，死後不再有任何想法）。執色．命根名為我．亦有色亦無色。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。但有色．命想不起故名死後無想。或說色．受．行．識四蘊為我。亦容執我亦有色亦無色．死後無想。四執我非有色非無色．死後無想（非有色非無色死後無想：認為自己既不是有物質也不是沒有物質，死後不再有任何想法）。即遮第三為此第四（遮第三為此第四：否定第三種情況，從而得出第四種情況）。有邊等四者。一執我有邊．死後無想（有邊死後無想：認為自己有邊界，死後不再有任何想法）。執色．或命為我自體。二俱有量邊名我有邊。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。但

【English Translation】 English version: 'Thinking. My union with that is called limitless thinking (無量想: immeasurable thought), and there are four aspects such as pleasure. First, I purely have pleasure and think of it after death (純有樂死後有想: purely having pleasure and thinking of it after death). Pleasure refers to pleasant feelings (樂受: pleasant feelings), or pleasant things (樂具: pleasant things). My union with that is called purely having pleasure. Second, I purely have suffering and think of it after death (純有苦死後有想: purely having suffering and thinking of it after death). Suffering refers to painful feelings (苦受: painful feelings), or painful things (苦具: painful things). My union with that is called purely having suffering. Third, I have pleasure and suffering and think of it after death (有樂有苦死後有想: having both pleasure and suffering and thinking of it after death). Or a mixture of pleasure and suffering (苦樂雜受: mixed feelings of pleasure and suffering), or a combination of pleasure and suffering (苦樂俱合: combination of pleasure and suffering). Then one thinks, 'I have pleasure and suffering.' Fourth, I have neither suffering nor pleasure and think of it after death (無苦無樂死後有想: having neither suffering nor pleasure and thinking of it after death). Not experiencing suffering or pleasure is called neither suffering nor pleasure (無苦樂: neither suffering nor pleasure). Or sometimes briefly experiencing it as if it doesn't exist (暫受如容非有: briefly experiencing it as if it doesn't exist). Then one thinks, 'I have neither suffering nor pleasure.' It should be known that although all sixteen theories of existence involve thinking (十六有想論: sixteen theories of existence), the first four differ in terms of form (色: form) and formlessness (無色: formlessness), the next four differ in terms of boundary (邊: boundary) and boundlessness (無邊: boundlessness), the next four differ in terms of thought (約想差別: difference in thought), and the last four differ in terms of feeling (約受差別: difference in feeling). All sixteen are based on the view of permanence (常見: view of permanence).' The eight theories of non-thinking refer to the four involving form, etc., and the four involving boundary, etc. Among the four involving form, etc., first, one believes that 'I have form and no thought after death' (有色死後無想: having form and no thought after death). Holding form as 'I' is called 'I have form' (有色: having form). Or when one is born into the realm of no-thought (無想: no thought), or when one is in a state of unconsciousness (悶絕: unconsciousness), etc., but the thought of having a physical body does not arise, hence it is called 'no thought after death.' Second, one believes that 'I have no form and no thought after death' (無色死後無想: having no form and no thought after death). Holding life as 'I' is called 'I have no form' (無色: having no form). When one is born into the realm of no-thought heaven (無想天: realm of no-thought heaven), or when one is in a state of unconsciousness, etc., but the thought of having a life-force does not arise, hence it is called 'no thought after death.' Or it is said that feeling (受: feeling), volition (行: volition), and consciousness (識: consciousness) are the 'I.' It is also possible to believe that 'I have no form and no thought after death.' Third, one believes that 'I have both form and no form and no thought after death' (亦有色亦無色死後無想: having both form and no form and no thought after death). Holding form and life-force as 'I' is called 'I have both form and no form.' When one is born into the realm of no-thought heaven, or when one is in a state of unconsciousness, etc., but the thought of having form and life does not arise, hence it is called 'no thought after death.' Or it is said that the four aggregates of form, feeling, volition, and consciousness are the 'I.' It is also possible to believe that 'I have both form and no form and no thought after death.' Fourth, one believes that 'I am neither having form nor not having form and no thought after death' (非有色非無色死後無想: neither having form nor not having form and no thought after death). This negates the third to arrive at the fourth (遮第三為此第四: negates the third to arrive at the fourth). Among the four involving boundary, etc., first, one believes that 'I have a boundary and no thought after death' (有邊死後無想: having a boundary and no thought after death). Holding form or life as the self. Second, both have a measurable boundary, which is called 'I have a boundary.' When one is born into the realm of no-thought heaven, or when one is in a state of unconsciousness, etc., but

有色．命想不起故名死後無想。準前應知。二執我無邊死後無想。執色．或命為我自體。俱遍諸處名我無邊。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。但有色．命想不起故名死後無想。三執我亦有邊亦無邊．死後無想。執色．或命為我自性。隨身卷舒其量不定。名我亦有邊亦無邊。當生無想天。或當悶絕等。但有色．命想不起故名死後無想。四執我非有邊非無邊．死後無想。即遮第三為此第四。如是八種雖俱無想。前四種色．無色差別故。后四種邊．無邊差別故。此八皆以常見為性　八非有想非無想論者。謂有色等四。有邊等四　有色等四者。一執我有色．死後非有想非無想。執色為我名我有色。非有想謂非有粗相。非無想謂非全無想。此顯不明瞭想也。此有色我當有不明瞭想名死後非有想非無想。此而不明瞭想。或是有頂。或通余處。隨其所應下皆準釋。二執我無色死後非有想非無想。執無色為我。死後有不明瞭想。三執我亦有色亦無色．死後非有想非無想。執色．無色為我。死後有不明瞭想也。四執我非有色非無色．死後非有想非無想。即遮第三為此第四　有邊等四者。一執我有邊．死後非有想非無想。或執無色。或亦執色為我自性。俱有邊量。死後當有不明瞭想。二執我無邊．死後非有想非無想。或執無色。或兼色為我自性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一、執著於色蘊（Rupa Skandha，物質）或命蘊（Jivita Skandha，生命力），認為我死後沒有想蘊（Samjna Skandha，知覺），因此稱為『死後無想』。這種情況與之前所說的相似，可以參照理解。二、執著于『我』是無邊無際的，死後沒有想蘊。執著於色蘊或命蘊是『我』的自體，並且遍佈各處，稱為『我無邊』。這種情況會投生到無想天（Asaññasatta），或者處於昏迷狀態等。但因為沒有色蘊或命蘊的想蘊生起，所以稱為『死後無想』。三、執著于『我』既有邊際，又沒有邊際，死後沒有想蘊。執著於色蘊或命蘊是『我』的自性，隨著身體捲曲或舒展，其大小不定，稱為『我亦有邊亦無邊』。這種情況會投生到無想天，或者處於昏迷狀態等。但因為沒有色蘊或命蘊的想蘊生起，所以稱為『死後無想』。四、執著于『我』既非有邊際，也非沒有邊際，死後沒有想蘊。這是否定了第三種情況，而形成的第四種情況。以上這八種情況雖然都沒有想蘊，但前四種是因為色蘊和無色蘊的差別，后四種是因為有邊際和無邊際的差別。這八種都以常見（Sassata-ditthi，常見外道）為特性。八種『非有想非無想』論者：指的是有色蘊等四種，以及有邊際等四種。有色蘊等四種：一、執著于『我』是有色蘊的，死後既非有想，也非無想。執著於色蘊是『我』，稱為『我有色』。『非有想』是指並非有粗顯的想蘊，『非無想』是指並非完全沒有想蘊。這顯示的是一種不明顯的想蘊。這種有色蘊的『我』，死後會有不明顯的想蘊，稱為『死後非有想非無想』。這種不明顯的想蘊，或者存在於有頂天（Bhavagga），或者通於其他地方。以下各種情況都可以參照這種方式來理解。二、執著于『我』是無色蘊的，死後既非有想，也非無想。執著于無色蘊是『我』，死後有不明顯的想蘊。三、執著于『我』既有色蘊，也有無色蘊，死後既非有想，也非無想。執著於色蘊和無色蘊是『我』，死後有不明顯的想蘊。四、執著于『我』既非有色蘊，也非無色蘊，死後既非有想，也非無想。這是否定了第三種情況，而形成的第四種情況。有邊際等四種：一、執著于『我』是有邊際的，死後既非有想，也非無想。或者執著于無色蘊，或者也執著於色蘊是『我』的自性，都具有邊際的量，死後會有不明顯的想蘊。二、執著于『我』是無邊際的，死後既非有想，也非無想。或者執著于無色蘊，或者也兼執色蘊是『我』的自性。

【English Translation】 English version 1. Holding to Rupa Skandha (form aggregate, materiality) or Jivita Skandha (life force), thinking that after death there is no Samjna Skandha (perception aggregate), hence it is called 'no perception after death'. This situation is similar to what was said before and can be understood by referring to it. 2. Holding to 'I' as boundless, after death there is no perception. Holding to Rupa or Jivita as the self of 'I', pervading all places, it is called 'I am boundless'. This situation will be reborn in Asaññasatta (the realm of non-perception), or be in a state of unconsciousness, etc. But because there is no perception of Rupa or Jivita arising, it is called 'no perception after death'. 3. Holding to 'I' as both bounded and unbounded, after death there is no perception. Holding to Rupa or Jivita as the nature of 'I', its size is uncertain as the body curls or stretches, it is called 'I am both bounded and unbounded'. This situation will be reborn in Asaññasatta, or be in a state of unconsciousness, etc. But because there is no perception of Rupa or Jivita arising, it is called 'no perception after death'. 4. Holding to 'I' as neither bounded nor unbounded, after death there is no perception. This is the fourth situation formed by negating the third situation. Although all eight of the above situations have no perception, the first four are due to the difference between Rupa and Arupa (form and formless), and the last four are due to the difference between bounded and unbounded. These eight all have Sassata-ditthi (eternalism) as their characteristic. The eight 'neither perception nor non-perception' theorists: refer to the four kinds of Rupa, etc., and the four kinds of bounded, etc. The four kinds of Rupa, etc.: 1. Holding to 'I' as having Rupa, after death it is neither perception nor non-perception. Holding to Rupa as 'I', it is called 'I have Rupa'. 'Neither perception' means that there is no coarse perception, 'neither non-perception' means that there is no complete absence of perception. This shows an unclear perception. This 'I' with Rupa will have an unclear perception after death, called 'neither perception nor non-perception after death'. This unclear perception may exist in Bhavagga (the peak of existence), or be connected to other places. The following situations can be understood in the same way. 2. Holding to 'I' as having no Rupa, after death it is neither perception nor non-perception. Holding to Arupa as 'I', after death there is an unclear perception. 3. Holding to 'I' as having both Rupa and Arupa, after death it is neither perception nor non-perception. Holding to Rupa and Arupa as 'I', after death there is an unclear perception. 4. Holding to 'I' as neither having Rupa nor Arupa, after death it is neither perception nor non-perception. This is the fourth situation formed by negating the third situation. The four kinds of bounded, etc.: 1. Holding to 'I' as bounded, after death it is neither perception nor non-perception. Either holding to Arupa, or also holding to Rupa as the nature of 'I', both have a bounded quantity, and after death there will be an unclear perception. 2. Holding to 'I' as unbounded, after death it is neither perception nor non-perception. Either holding to Arupa, or also holding to Rupa as the nature of 'I'.

俱無分限。死後當有不明瞭想。三執我亦有邊亦無邊．死後非有想非無想。或執無色。或兼執色為我自性其量不定。死後當有不明瞭想。四執我非有邊非無邊．死後非有想非無想。即遮第三為其第四。此前八種前四約有色．無色差別。后四約有邊無邊差別。此八皆以常見為性。故前文云彼有想論。無想論。非有想非無想論。即此常見　又問何故無想論．及非有想非無想論中不說我有一想等八耶　答若亦說者。一切皆應名有想論。以有想受者非無想等故。如是一切有想等論說死後故。皆是后際分別見攝　七斷滅論者。一作是念此我有色粗四大種所造為性。死後斷滅。彼作是念。我初受胎本無而有。若至死位有已還無名善斷滅。二作是念。此我欲界天死後斷滅。彼作是念。我既不因產門而生。本無而有。有已還無。如彗星等。名善斷滅。三作是念。此我色界天．死後斷滅。彼作是念。我既不因產門而生。本無而有。由等至力有已還無名善斷滅廣如婆沙說。四作是念。此我空無邊處天．死後斷滅。彼執空處為生死頂死後斷滅。五作是念此我識無邊處天。死後斷滅。彼執識處為生死頂。死後斷滅。六作是念。此我無所有處天．死後斷滅。彼執無所有處為生死頂。死後斷滅。七作是念。此我非想非非想處天．死後斷滅。彼執有頂

為生死頂。死後斷滅。如是七種皆說死後是后際分別見攝。此七皆以斷見為性。故前文云。彼斷滅論即此斷見　五現法涅槃論者。一受五欲樂。初作是念。此我清凈解脫出離一切災橫。謂現受用妙五欲樂。爾時名得現法涅槃。二住初靜慮。第二能見諸欲過失。彼作是念。欲所生樂眾苦所隨多諸怨害。定所生樂微妙寂靜無眾苦隨離諸怨害。復作是念。此我清凈解脫出離一切災橫。謂現安住最初靜慮。爾時名得現法涅槃。三住第二靜慮。第三能見諸欲．尋．伺俱有過失。彼作是念。此我清凈解脫出離一切災橫。謂現安住第二靜慮。爾時名得現法涅槃也。四住第三靜慮。第四能見諸欲．尋伺及喜過失。彼作是念。此我清凈解脫出離一切災橫。謂現安住第三靜慮。爾時名得現法涅槃。五住第四靜慮。第五能見諸欲．尋伺．喜．入出息。皆有過失。彼作是念。此我清凈解脫出離一切災橫。謂現安住第四靜慮。爾時名得現法涅槃　問云何此五現法涅槃論。是后際分別見攝　答此五雖緣現在而待過去名后。是故說為后際分別。廣如婆沙說　言釋名者。若於現在我受安樂名得涅槃　言出體者。以見取為體。故前文言。彼現法涅槃論即此見取。

毗婆沙師至如提婆達多者。毗婆沙師意。異生能斷下八地中見．修煩惱。釋彼經云。已

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：為生死之頂峰。認為死後一切斷滅。像這樣的七種觀點都認為死後是后際分別見所包含的。這七種觀點都以斷見為本質。所以前面的經文說，『那些斷滅論就是這種斷見』。五種現法涅槃論：第一種是享受五欲之樂。最初這樣想：『這使我清凈解脫，脫離一切災禍』，指的是現在受用美妙的五欲之樂。那時就認為得到了現法涅槃。第二種是安住在初禪（初靜慮）。能看到各種慾望的過失。他們這樣想：『慾望所生的快樂伴隨著眾多痛苦和怨恨，而禪定所生的快樂微妙寂靜，沒有痛苦，遠離怨恨。』又這樣想：『這使我清凈解脫，脫離一切災禍』，指的是現在安住在最初的禪定中。那時就認為得到了現法涅槃。第三種是安住在第二禪（第二靜慮）。能看到各種慾望、尋（尋思）、伺（伺察）都有過失。他們這樣想：『這使我清凈解脫，脫離一切災禍』，指的是現在安住在第二禪中。那時就認為得到了現法涅槃。第四種是安住在第三禪（第三靜慮）。能看到各種慾望、尋伺以及喜（喜悅）都有過失。他們這樣想：『這使我清凈解脫，脫離一切災禍』，指的是現在安住在第三禪中。那時就認為得到了現法涅槃。第五種是安住在第四禪（第四靜慮）。能看到各種慾望、尋伺、喜、入息（吸氣）和出息（呼氣）都有過失。他們這樣想：『這使我清凈解脫，脫離一切災禍』，指的是現在安住在第四禪中。那時就認為得到了現法涅槃。問：為什麼這五種現法涅槃論是后際分別見所包含的？答：這五種觀點雖然緣于現在，但依賴於過去，所以被稱為后際分別。詳細內容如《婆沙論》所說。解釋名稱：如果認為現在我享受安樂就是得到了涅槃。說明本體：以見取（錯誤的見解）為本體。所以前面的經文說：『那些現法涅槃論就是這種見取』。《毗婆沙師》中提到如提婆達多（Devadatta）的情況。《毗婆沙師》的觀點是，凡夫也能斷除下八地中的見惑和修惑。解釋那部經時說，已經...

【English Translation】 English version: It is the peak of birth and death. The belief that after death, everything is annihilated. These seven types of views are all considered to be included in the 'posterior limit speculative views' (后際分別見). These seven all have annihilationism as their nature. Therefore, the previous text says, 'Those annihilationist theories are precisely these annihilationist views.' The five 'present-life Nirvana' (現法涅槃) theories: The first is enjoying the pleasures of the five desires. Initially, they think, 'This makes me pure and liberated, free from all calamities,' referring to the present enjoyment of the wonderful pleasures of the five desires. At that time, it is considered that one has attained 'present-life Nirvana'. The second is dwelling in the first dhyana (初禪/初靜慮). They can see the faults of various desires. They think, 'The pleasure born of desire is accompanied by many sufferings and resentments, while the pleasure born of meditation is subtle and tranquil, without suffering and far from resentments.' They further think, 'This makes me pure and liberated, free from all calamities,' referring to the present dwelling in the first dhyana. At that time, it is considered that one has attained 'present-life Nirvana'. The third is dwelling in the second dhyana (第二禪/第二靜慮). They can see that various desires, 'vitarka' (尋 - initial application of thought), and 'vicara' (伺 - sustained application of thought) all have faults. They think, 'This makes me pure and liberated, free from all calamities,' referring to the present dwelling in the second dhyana. At that time, it is considered that one has attained 'present-life Nirvana'. The fourth is dwelling in the third dhyana (第三禪/第三靜慮). They can see that various desires, vitarka, vicara, and 'joy' (喜 - rapture) all have faults. They think, 'This makes me pure and liberated, free from all calamities,' referring to the present dwelling in the third dhyana. At that time, it is considered that one has attained 'present-life Nirvana'. The fifth is dwelling in the fourth dhyana (第四禪/第四靜慮). They can see that various desires, vitarka, vicara, joy, 'in-breath' (入息 - inhalation), and 'out-breath' (出息 - exhalation) all have faults. They think, 'This makes me pure and liberated, free from all calamities,' referring to the present dwelling in the fourth dhyana. At that time, it is considered that one has attained 'present-life Nirvana'. Question: Why are these five 'present-life Nirvana' theories included in the 'posterior limit speculative views'? Answer: Although these five views are based on the present, they rely on the past, so they are called 'posterior limit speculative views'. The details are as described in the Vibhasa (《婆沙論》). Explanation of the name: If one thinks that enjoying happiness in the present is attaining Nirvana. Explanation of the substance: It takes 'view-attachment' (見取 - wrong view) as its substance. Therefore, the previous text says, 'Those 'present-life Nirvana' theories are precisely this view-attachment.' The Vibhasa Master (毗婆沙師) mentions the case of Devadatta (提婆達多). The Vibhasa Master's view is that ordinary beings can also cut off the 'views to be abandoned' (見惑) and 'practices to be abandoned' (修惑) in the lower eight realms. Explaining that sutra, it says, already...

離欲染起欲見者。起見時暫退。如提婆達多。故婆沙八十五云。如提婆達多。先得靜慮以神境通力變作小兒著金纓絡衣作五花頂。在未生怨太子膝上。宛轉而戲仍令太子知是尊者提婆達多。時未生怨憐哀抱弄嗚而後以唾置口中。提婆達多貪利益故遂咽其唾。故佛訶曰。汝是死屍。食人唾者。彼嚥唾時便退靜慮。速復還得令所變身在太子膝如故而戲(已上論文)　問如破僧中說天授是見行。既是見行即是利根。如何言退　解云未必見行皆是利根。未必愛行皆是鈍根。如菩薩雖是愛行而是利根。以此準知。見行亦通鈍根。天授雖是見行中利。不可以見行證成利根。總而言之。愛．見兩行俱通鈍．利　問天授利根如何言退。菩薩利根如何先得八定。後於菩提樹下退起三惡覺耶　解云異生位中種性未定。雖有六種似而非真。由似非真。雖是利根亦容有退。若至聖位種性決定。是真非似。故六種性。前五有退。第六不退　又解退略有三。一由處退。如利根異生在於人中。二由姓退。如鈍根聖人。三由位退。如未得忍諸異生類　不退亦三。一由處不退。如鈍根異生在於天中。二由姓不退。如利根聖人。三由位不退。如已得忍諸異生類。應知天授菩薩。雖是利根種姓不退。由在人中又未得忍故有退也　問若言菩薩亦有退者。何故婆沙

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果有人因為貪戀慾望而生起邪見，那麼他在生起邪見的時候會暫時退失（功德），就像提婆達多（Devadatta，佛陀的堂兄弟，後背叛佛教）一樣。所以《婆沙論》第八十五卷說：『就像提婆達多，先前得到了靜慮（Dhyana，禪定），用神通力變作小孩子，穿著金色的瓔珞衣，頭戴五彩花朵，在阿阇世（Ajatasattu，頻婆娑羅王之子）太子的膝蓋上，嬉戲玩耍，並且讓太子知道他是尊者提婆達多。當時阿阇世憐愛地抱弄他，親吻他，然後把唾沫放在口中。提婆達多因為貪圖利益，竟然吞下了他的唾沫。』所以佛陀呵斥他說：『你是死屍，竟然吃人的唾沫！』他吞下唾沫的時候，就退失了靜慮，迅速恢復原狀，使所變的小孩在太子膝上如故嬉戲。（以上是論文內容）問：在破僧（Sanghabheda，分裂僧團）中說，提婆達多是見行（Drishti-carita，以知見為主的修行者）。既然是見行，就是利根（Tikshnendriya，根器敏銳）。為什麼說他會退失呢？答：不一定見行都是利根，也不一定愛行（Raga-carita，以貪愛為主的修行者）都是鈍根（Mrdundriya，根器遲鈍）。比如菩薩雖然是愛行，卻是利根。由此可以推知，見行也包括鈍根。提婆達多雖然是見行中的利根，也不可以用見行來證明他是利根。總而言之，愛行和見行都包括鈍根和利根。問：提婆達多是利根，為什麼說他會退失？菩薩是利根，為什麼先得到八定（Ashta Samapattis，八種禪定），後來在菩提樹下退失而生起三惡覺（不凈覺、苦覺、無常覺）呢？答：在異生位（Prthag-jana，凡夫）中，種性（Gotra，潛在的佛性）未定，雖然有六種相似而非真實的（種性）。因為是相似而非真實的，所以即使是利根也可能退失。如果到了聖位（Arya，聖者），種性就決定了，是真實而非相似的。所以六種種性中，前五種會退失，第六種不會退失。又解釋說，退失略有三種：一是由於處所退失，如利根的異生在人中；二是由於姓退失，如鈍根的聖人；三是由於位退失，如未得到忍（Kshanti，安忍）的各種異生。不退失也有三種：一是由於處所不退失，如鈍根的異生在天中；二是由於姓不退失，如利根的聖人；三是由於位不退失，如已得到忍的各種異生。應該知道，提婆達多和菩薩，雖然是利根，種姓不退失，但由於在人中，又未得到忍，所以會有退失。問：如果說菩薩也有退失，為什麼《婆沙論》（Vibhasha，佛教論書）

【English Translation】 English version: If someone develops wrong views due to attachment to desires, they will temporarily regress when those views arise, like Devadatta (Buddha's cousin who later betrayed Buddhism). Therefore, the eighty-fifth fascicle of the Vibhasha says: 'Like Devadatta, who previously attained Dhyana (meditative absorption), used his supernatural powers to transform into a small child, wearing a golden necklace and a crown of five flowers, playing on the lap of Prince Ajatasattu (son of King Bimbisara), and letting the prince know that he was the venerable Devadatta. At that time, Ajatasattu lovingly embraced and kissed him, then put saliva in his mouth. Devadatta, greedy for gain, actually swallowed his saliva.' Therefore, the Buddha rebuked him, saying: 'You are a corpse, eating people's saliva!' When he swallowed the saliva, he lost his Dhyana and quickly returned to his original state, so that the transformed child continued to play on the prince's lap as before. (The above is from the treatise) Question: In the context of Sanghabheda (division of the Sangha), it is said that Devadatta is a Drishti-carita (one who practices mainly through views). Since he is a Drishti-carita, he is Tikshnendriya (of sharp faculties). Why is it said that he regressed? Answer: It is not necessarily the case that all Drishti-caritas are Tikshnendriya, nor is it necessarily the case that all Raga-caritas (those who practice mainly through attachment) are Mrdundriya (of dull faculties). For example, a Bodhisattva, although a Raga-carita, is Tikshnendriya. From this, it can be inferred that Drishti-caritas also include Mrdundriyas. Although Devadatta is a Tikshnendriya among Drishti-caritas, one cannot use Drishti-carita to prove that he is Tikshnendriya. In short, both Raga-caritas and Drishti-caritas include both Mrdundriyas and Tikshnendriyas. Question: Devadatta is Tikshnendriya, so why is it said that he regressed? The Bodhisattva is Tikshnendriya, so why did he first attain the Ashta Samapattis (eight meditative attainments) and later, under the Bodhi tree, regress and give rise to the three evil perceptions (impurity, suffering, impermanence)? Answer: In the state of Prthag-jana (ordinary being), the Gotra (potential for Buddhahood) is not yet determined. Although there are six types that are similar but not real (Gotras). Because they are similar but not real, even if one is Tikshnendriya, regression is possible. If one reaches the state of Arya (noble being), the Gotra is determined, and it is real and not similar. Therefore, among the six Gotras, the first five can regress, but the sixth does not regress. Another explanation is that there are roughly three types of regression: first, regression due to place, such as a Tikshnendriya Prthag-jana in the human realm; second, regression due to lineage, such as a Mrdundriya Arya; third, regression due to stage, such as various Prthag-janas who have not attained Kshanti (patience). There are also three types of non-regression: first, non-regression due to place, such as a Mrdundriya Prthag-jana in the heavens; second, non-regression due to lineage, such as a Tikshnendriya Arya; third, non-regression due to stage, such as various Prthag-janas who have attained Kshanti. It should be known that Devadatta and the Bodhisattva, although they are Tikshnendriya and their Gotra does not regress, they are in the human realm and have not attained Kshanti, so regression is possible. Question: If it is said that Bodhisattvas also regress, why does the Vibhasha (Buddhist treatise)

第七說解脫．抉擇二位善根皆有六姓。于菩薩種姓定不可退　解云言定不退。不退自乘種姓。非言決定不退起惑　又問若異生位第六種姓容有退者。何故前業品云。堅于離染地異生不造生。長行又云。不退姓名堅。準此利根異生亦不可退。云何乃言天授菩薩雖是利根。由是異生可說退耶　解云但言不退異生於離染地不造生業。非全第六種姓皆定不退。或據天中故言不退。

由行有殊至是五見自體者。此下第三別明五見體。就中。一正明五見體。二別釋戒禁取　此即第一正明五見體。牒名問體。及頌答也。

論曰至是薩迦耶見者。釋我．我所。明有身見。執我．及我所是薩迦耶見。

壞故名薩至方執我故者。經部師釋。壞故名薩。聚謂迦耶。迦耶名身。壞即是非常義。聚即是和合蘊義。迦耶即薩名薩迦耶。持業釋也。此薩迦耶即五取蘊。為遮常想故立薩名。為遮一想故立迦耶名。要此常一想為先。後方執我故。薩迦耶之見名薩迦耶見。依主釋也。

毗婆沙者至五取蘊起者。第二毗婆沙師釋。有故名薩。身義如前。故正理云。有故名薩。聚謂迦耶。即是和合積聚為義。迦耶即薩名薩迦耶。即是實有非一為義(已上論文)勿無所緣計我．我所。不同經部緣無生心。故說此見緣有身不緣無法。緣薩迦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第七說解脫，抉擇二位善根都有六種姓。對於菩薩種姓，確定不會退轉。解釋說，『確定不退轉』是指不退轉自身的種姓，並非說決定不會生起迷惑。又問，如果異生位的第六種姓容許有退轉，為何《前業品》中說：『異生堅固於離染地，不造生業。』長行中又說：『不退姓名堅。』按照這個說法，利根的異生也不可能退轉。為何又說天授菩薩雖然是利根，但因為是異生，所以可以說會退轉呢？解釋說，只是說不退轉的異生在離染地不會造生業，並非所有第六種姓都一定不退轉。或者根據天中的情況，所以說不退轉。

『由行有殊至是五見自體者』，以下第三部分分別說明五見的體性。其中，一是正式說明五見的體性，二是分別解釋戒禁取。這是第一部分，正式說明五見的體性，包括提問名稱、體性以及頌文回答。

論曰：『至是薩迦耶見者』，解釋我、我所，說明有身見。執著我以及我所是薩迦耶見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，有身見）。

『壞故名薩至方執我故者』，經部師的解釋是：壞滅故名為薩（sat，有），聚集稱為迦耶（kāya，身），迦耶名為身。壞滅就是無常的意思，聚集就是和合蘊的意思。迦耶即薩，名為薩迦耶（Sakkāya，有身），這是持業釋。這個薩迦耶就是五取蘊。爲了遮止常想，所以立名為薩；爲了遮止一想，所以立名為迦耶。必須以這種常一想為先，之後才執著我，所以薩迦耶之見名為薩迦耶見，這是依主釋。

毗婆沙師說：『至五取蘊起者』，第二種解釋是毗婆沙師的解釋：有故名為薩，身的含義如前所述。所以《正理》中說：『有故名為薩，聚集稱為迦耶』，就是和合積聚的意思。迦耶即薩，名為薩迦耶，就是實有非一的意思（以上是論文）。不要沒有所緣而計度我、我所，不同於經部緣于無而生心。所以說這種見緣于有身，不緣于無法，緣于薩迦（Sakka，有）。

【English Translation】 English version: Seventh discourse on liberation, determining that both types of wholesome roots have six lineages. For the Bodhisattva lineage, there is definitely no regression. The explanation 'definitely no regression' means no regression from one's own lineage, not that there is a definite non-arising of delusion. Furthermore, if the sixth lineage in the stage of an ordinary being allows for regression, why does the 'Former Karma Chapter' say: 'Ordinary beings firm in the stage of detachment do not create karma for rebirth.' The long passage also says: 'The name of non-regression is firm.' According to this, even ordinary beings with sharp faculties cannot regress. Why then is it said that the Bodhisattva endowed by the heavens, although having sharp faculties, can be said to regress because they are ordinary beings? The explanation is that it is only said that ordinary beings who do not regress do not create karma for rebirth in the stage of detachment, not that all of the sixth lineage are definitely non-regressing. Or, based on the situation in the heavens, it is said that there is no regression.

'Due to the difference in conduct, reaching the self-nature of the five views,' the following third part separately explains the nature of the five views. Among them, one is to formally explain the nature of the five views, and the other is to separately explain Śīlabbataparāmarsa (戒禁取, adherence to rites and rituals). This is the first part, formally explaining the nature of the five views, including asking the name, nature, and answering with verses.

The treatise says: 'Reaching Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (薩迦耶見, view of self),' explains 'self' and 'what belongs to self,' clarifying the view of having a body. Clinging to 'self' and 'what belongs to self' is Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (薩迦耶見, view of self).

'Destruction is called sat (薩, existent), reaching the reason for clinging to self,' the Sautrāntika (經部師) explains: Destruction is called sat (薩, existent), aggregation is called kāya (迦耶, body), kāya is called body. Destruction means impermanence, aggregation means the aggregates in harmony. Kāya is sat, called Sakkāya (薩迦耶, existent body), this is a determinative compound. This Sakkāya is the five aggregates of clinging. To prevent the thought of permanence, the name sat is established; to prevent the thought of oneness, the name kāya is established. This thought of permanence and oneness must come first, and then one clings to self, so the view of Sakkāya is called Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, this is a dependent compound.

The Vaibhāṣika (毗婆沙師) says: 'Reaching the arising of the five aggregates of clinging,' the second explanation is the explanation of the Vaibhāṣika: Existence is called sat, the meaning of body is as mentioned before. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'Existence is called sat, aggregation is called kāya,' which means harmonious accumulation. Kāya is sat, called Sakkāya, which means truly existent and not one (the above is the treatise). Do not measure 'self' and 'what belongs to self' without an object of cognition, unlike the Sautrāntika who generate mind from non-existence. Therefore, it is said that this view is based on the existent body, not based on non-existence, based on Sakka (薩迦, existent).

耶而起此見。從境為名。故標此見名薩迦耶。身即是有故名有身。持業釋也。有身之見名有身見。依主釋也　諸見但緣有漏法者。皆應標以薩迦耶名。以彼皆緣有身起故　然佛但於我．我所執標此名者。令知此見緣有身起非我．我所。以我．我所畢竟無故。如契經說。諸有執我者。佛等隨觀見彼。一切唯於五取蘊起。非於余法。以此故知。唯緣有身非我．我所　又解諸有執我者。自等隨觀見　又解諸有執我等。等取我所。佛隨觀見　又解諸有執我等。彼自隨觀見　又解遍緣名等。別起名隨。初尋名觀。后決名見。謂等隨於何蘊而觀起見　又解等緣彼法名等。將起此見必先觀察。今隨此觀起有身見名隨觀見。

即于所執至斷．常邊故者。釋斷．常明邊執見。即于所執我．我所事。或執為斷。或執為常。乖于中道非斷．常理。以妄執取斷．常邊。故名邊執見　緣邊起執。邊之執故名為邊執。依主釋也　邊執即見。名邊執見。持業釋也。

于實有體至余增益故者。釋撥無明邪見。于實有體苦．集．滅．道四聖諦中。起見撥無名為邪見　又婆沙第九云。問何故邪見不緣虛空。及非擇滅。答若法是蘊．是蘊因．是蘊滅．是蘊對治。邪見即緣。虛空．非擇滅非蘊等故彼不緣。廣如彼釋　又云。問撥無虛空．非擇滅者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此而產生這種見解。從所緣的境界來命名，所以將這種見解標名為薩迦耶見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，有身見）。『身』即是『有』，所以稱為『有身』，這是持業釋。對於『有身』的見解，稱為『有身見』，這是依主釋。所有的見解只要是緣于有漏法的，都應該標上薩迦耶這個名稱，因為它們都是緣于有身而產生的。然而，佛陀只在我、我所的執著上標上這個名稱，是爲了讓人知道這種見解是緣于有身而產生的，而不是緣於我、我所。因為我、我所畢竟是不存在的。正如契經所說：『凡是執著於我的人，佛陀等會隨之觀察，發現他們的一切執著都只是在五取蘊（pañcupādānakkhandha）上產生的，而不是在其他法上。』因此可知，（薩迦耶見）只是緣于有身，而不是我、我所。另一種解釋是，『凡是執著於我的人，自己等會隨之觀察』。還有一種解釋是，『凡是執著於我等』，『等』字包括了我所。佛陀隨之觀察。還有一種解釋是，『凡是執著於我等，他們自己會隨之觀察』。還有一種解釋是，普遍地緣于名等，分別產生名隨，最初的尋思稱為觀，最後的決斷稱為見。意思是，『等』字是指隨於哪個蘊而觀察，從而產生見解。還有一種解釋是，『等』字是指緣于那個法而稱為『等』。將要產生這種見解，必定先要觀察。現在隨著這種觀察而產生有身見，稱為隨觀見。

『即于所執，至於斷、常邊故』，這是解釋斷見、常見，說明邊執見（antaggāhika-diṭṭhi）。對於所執著的我、我所的事物，或者執著為斷滅，或者執著為常恒，這都違背了中道，不符合斷滅、常恒的道理。因為錯誤地執取斷滅、常恒的邊見，所以稱為邊執見。緣于邊見而產生執著，因為執著于邊見，所以稱為邊執，這是依主釋。邊執就是見，稱為邊執見，這是持業釋。

『于實有體，至於余增益故』，這是解釋撥無因果的邪見（micchā-diṭṭhi）。對於真實存在的苦、集、滅、道四聖諦（ariya-sacca）的本體，產生見解而撥無，稱為邪見。又如《婆沙論》第九卷所說：『問：為什麼邪見不緣于虛空和非擇滅？答：如果一個法是蘊、是蘊的因、是蘊的滅、是蘊的對治，邪見就會緣於它。虛空、非擇滅不是蘊等，所以邪見不緣於它們。』詳細的解釋如《婆沙論》所說。又說：『問：撥無虛空、非擇滅的人，……』

【English Translation】 English version: Hence, this view arises. It is named based on the object of perception. Therefore, this view is labeled Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (view of self-identity). 'Body' is 'existence,' hence called 'existing body,' which is a possessive compound. The view of 'existing body' is called 'view of self-identity,' which is a dependent determinative compound. All views that arise from conditioned dharmas should be labeled with the name Sakkāya, because they all arise from the existing body. However, the Buddha only labels this name on the attachment to 'self' and 'what belongs to self' to make it known that this view arises from the existing body, not from 'self' and 'what belongs to self,' because 'self' and 'what belongs to self' ultimately do not exist. As the sutra says: 'Those who are attached to self, the Buddhas and others observe them and see that all their attachments arise only from the five aggregates of clinging (pañcupādānakkhandha), not from other dharmas.' Therefore, it is known that (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi) only arises from the existing body, not from 'self' and 'what belongs to self'. Another explanation is, 'Those who are attached to self, they themselves and others observe.' Another explanation is, 'Those who are attached to self and others,' where 'others' include what belongs to self. The Buddha observes them. Another explanation is, 'Those who are attached to self and others, they themselves observe.' Another explanation is, universally arising from name, etc., separately arising from name following, the initial thought is called contemplation, and the final decision is called view. Meaning, 'etc.' refers to which aggregate is contemplated, thereby giving rise to a view. Another explanation is, 'etc.' refers to the dharma that is the cause of name, etc. To give rise to this view, one must first observe. Now, following this observation, the view of self-identity arises, called following observation.

'Immediately upon what is grasped, reaching the extremes of annihilation and permanence,' this explains the view of extremes (antaggāhika-diṭṭhi). Regarding the things that are grasped as 'self' and 'what belongs to self,' either clinging to annihilation or clinging to permanence, this violates the Middle Way and does not conform to the truth of annihilation or permanence. Because of falsely clinging to the extremes of annihilation and permanence, it is called the view of extremes. Arising from the view of extremes, clinging to the view of extremes, hence called clinging to extremes, which is a dependent determinative compound. Clinging to extremes is a view, called the view of extremes, which is a possessive compound.

'Regarding the truly existing entity, reaching the point of additional increase,' this explains the nihilistic wrong view (micchā-diṭṭhi). Regarding the truly existing essence of the Four Noble Truths (ariya-sacca) of suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path, giving rise to a view that denies them is called wrong view. Furthermore, as the ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: Why does wrong view not arise from space and cessation through non-discrimination? Answer: If a dharma is an aggregate, the cause of an aggregate, the cessation of an aggregate, or the antidote to an aggregate, wrong view will arise from it. Space and cessation through non-discrimination are not aggregates, etc., so wrong view does not arise from them.' The detailed explanation is as described in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. It also says: 'Question: Those who deny space and cessation through non-discrimination, ...'

為緣何法。答即緣虛空．非擇滅名。所以者何。撥無彼者無深重心。如謗雜染．清凈事故。問此是何智。答此是欲界修所斷中無覆無記邪行相智(已上論文)一切五見皆顛倒轉並應名邪。而但撥無名邪見者。以過重故偏立邪名　如說臭蘇凡蘇皆臭。臭中極者名曰臭蘇　諸旃荼羅皆名執惡。于中造惡過極甚者名惡執惡　等。顯舉法未盡。謂此邪見唯損減故。所餘四見有增益故。謂有身見．見取．戒禁取唯增益。邊執見中一分常見。亦增益故。雖有斷見亦是損減。而非唯故　邪即見故。名為邪見。持業釋也。

於劣謂勝至但名見取者。釋劣謂勝。明見取。諸有漏法皆名為劣。聖所斷故。執此劣法為最勝者。總名見取。理不但執見以為勝法。亦執非見　以為勝法。理實應立見等取名。略去等言但名見取。又正理云。或見勝故但舉見名。以見為初取余法故(已上論文)言見取者。緣見起取見之取故。名為見取。依主釋也。

于非因道至但名戒禁取者。釋第三句非因道妄謂。明戒禁取。于非因．非道。妄謂是因．是道。是見一切總說名戒禁取。如諸外道或計大自在天為因。或計生主為因　生主。即是梵王。能生一切世間。是世間主。或主是天主。或餘外道計時．方．我等為因。如是等計非世間因妄起因執。或諸外道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：以什麼為緣？答：即以虛空和非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力而達到的滅盡）為緣。為什麼這樣說呢？因為否定它們的人沒有深刻的重心（深切的信仰和尊重），就像誹謗雜染（Saṃkleśa，煩惱和不凈）和清凈（Śuddha，純潔）的事物一樣。問：這是什麼智？答：這是欲界修所斷（Bhāvanā-pahātavya，通過修行才能斷除的）中無覆無記（Avyākṛta，非善非惡，不記別）的邪行相智（Mithyā-pratipatti-jñāna，對錯誤行為的認知）。（以上是論文內容）一切五見（五種錯誤的見解，即有身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）都顛倒錯亂，都應該稱為邪。但只有撥無（否定）被稱為邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解），是因為其過失最為嚴重，所以特別立名為邪。例如，人們說臭酥和凡酥都是臭的，但臭味最濃烈的被稱為臭酥。所有的旃荼羅（Caṇḍāla，印度社會中的賤民）都被稱為執惡（持有惡行），其中作惡最為極端的人被稱為惡執惡。等等。這裡所說的法還沒有完全說完，意思是說這種邪見僅僅是損減（減少善法），而其餘四見則有增益（增加惡法）的作用。也就是說，有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）、見取（Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，執取惡見為殊勝）、戒禁取（Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa，執取不正戒律為解脫正道）僅僅是增益。邊執見（Antagrāha-dṛṣṭi，執著于斷常二邊的見解）中的一部分常見（Śāśvata-dṛṣṭi，認為事物是永恒不變的）也是增益。雖然有斷見（Uccheda-dṛṣṭi，認為事物是斷滅的），也是損減，但並非僅僅是損減。邪即是見，所以名為邪見，這是持業釋（Karma-dhāraya，一種複合詞的構成方式）。於劣謂勝，乃至但名見取者。解釋了把低劣的當成殊勝的。說明了見取（Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，執取惡見為殊勝）。一切有漏法（Sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）都可以稱為低劣的，因為會被聖者所斷除。執著這些低劣的法為最殊勝的，總稱為見取。道理上不只是執著見解為殊勝的法，也執著非見解為殊勝的法。道理上應該立見等取名，省略了等字，只稱為見取。又《正理》中說，或者因為見解殊勝，所以只舉見名，因為以見為開始而取其餘的法。（以上是論文內容）說見取，是因為緣于見而生起取著的取，所以名為見取，這是依主釋（Tat-puruṣa，一種複合詞的構成方式）。于非因道，乃至但名戒禁取者。解釋了第三句，對於非因非道的錯誤認識。說明了戒禁取（Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa，執取不正戒律為解脫正道）。對於非因（Ahetu，不是原因）、非道（Amārga，不是道路），錯誤地認為是因、是道，這種見解總稱為戒禁取。例如，一些外道或者認為大自在天（Maheśvara，印度教中的主神濕婆）是因，或者認為生主（Prajāpati，創造者）是因。生主，就是梵王（Brahmā，創造神），能夠創造一切世間，是世間的主。或者主是天主（Devādhideva，眾神之主）。或者其餘外道計時（時間）、方（空間）、我（Ātman，靈魂）等為因。像這樣認為不是世間的原因，而錯誤地產生原因的執著。或者一些外道

【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is the condition (hetu) for what? Answer: It is conditioned by space (ākāśa) and cessation through discrimination (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Why is that? Because those who deny them lack profound focus (deep faith and respect), just like slandering defilement (Saṃkleśa) and purity (Śuddha). Question: What kind of wisdom (jñāna) is this? Answer: This is the wisdom of the characteristics of wrong conduct (Mithyā-pratipatti-jñāna), which is unwholesome-indeterminate (Avyākṛta) and abandoned by cultivation (Bhāvanā-pahātavya) in the desire realm (kāma-dhātu). (The above is from the treatise) All five views (the five wrong views, namely, the view of self, extreme views, wrong views, view of holding to views, and view of holding to precepts and vows) are inverted and should all be called wrong. However, only denial (negation) is called wrong view (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi), because its fault is the most serious, so it is specifically established as wrong. For example, people say that both rancid ghee and ordinary ghee are smelly, but the one with the most intense smell is called rancid ghee. All Caṇḍālas (the untouchables in Indian society) are called holders of evil (holding evil deeds), among whom the one who commits the most extreme evil is called the evil holder of evil. And so on. What is said here is not exhaustive, meaning that this wrong view only diminishes (reduces good deeds), while the other four views have the effect of increasing (increasing evil deeds). That is to say, the view of self (Satkāya-dṛṣṭi, the view that the aggregate of the five skandhas is a real self), holding to views (Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, clinging to evil views as superior), and holding to precepts and vows (Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa, clinging to incorrect precepts as the path to liberation) only increase. The extreme view (Antagrāha-dṛṣṭi, clinging to the two extremes of permanence and annihilation), in part, the view of permanence (Śāśvata-dṛṣṭi, the view that things are eternal and unchanging) also increases. Although there is the view of annihilation (Uccheda-dṛṣṭi, the view that things are annihilated), it also diminishes, but not only diminishes. Wrong is view, so it is called wrong view, this is a Karma-dhāraya (a type of compound word formation). Regarding 'considering the inferior as superior, hence only called holding to views'. This explains considering the inferior as superior. It clarifies holding to views (Dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa). All conditioned dharmas (Sāsrava-dharma, dharmas with afflictions) can be called inferior, because they are abandoned by the noble ones. Clinging to these inferior dharmas as the most superior is generally called holding to views. Logically, it is not only clinging to views as superior dharmas, but also clinging to non-views as superior dharmas. Logically, it should be called 'holding to views and so on', but the 'and so on' is omitted, and it is only called 'holding to views'. Also, the Nyāyasūtra says, 'Or because the view is superior, only the name of view is mentioned, because the remaining dharmas are taken starting with the view.' (The above is from the treatise) Saying 'holding to views' is because it is the taking that arises from the view, so it is called 'holding to views', this is a Tat-puruṣa (a type of compound word formation). Regarding 'regarding non-causes and non-paths, hence only called holding to precepts and vows'. This explains the third phrase, the mistaken understanding of non-causes and non-paths. It clarifies holding to precepts and vows (Śīla-vrata-parāmarśa). Regarding non-causes (Ahetu, not a cause) and non-paths (Amārga, not a path), mistakenly considering them as causes and paths, this view is generally called holding to precepts and vows. For example, some non-Buddhists either consider Maheśvara (the great lord, Shiva in Hinduism) as the cause, or consider Prajāpati (the creator) as the cause. Prajāpati is Brahmā (the creator god), who can create all worlds and is the lord of the world. Or the lord is Devādhideva (the lord of the gods). Or other non-Buddhists consider time, space, self (Ātman) etc. as causes. Like this, considering what is not the cause of the world, and mistakenly generating the clinging to causes. Or some non-Buddhists

投水．火等種種邪行非生天因妄起因執　唯受持戒禁。戒謂內道戒即五戒等。禁謂外道禁即狗．牛等禁。或此戒禁俱通內．外　外道尼乾子常計數諸法為解脫道。智與數相應名數相應智　等。謂等余諸外道等　此等所執非真解脫道。妄起真道執。皆名戒禁取。此戒禁取不但執戒禁為因為道。亦執非戒禁為因為道　理實應立戒禁等取名。略去等言但名戒禁取。又正理云。或禁戒勝。是故但立戒禁取名(已上論文)　言戒禁取者。緣戒禁起取。戒禁之取名戒禁取。依主釋也。

是謂五見自體應知者。釋第四句。此即結也。五見中三立見名。二立取名者。如婆沙云。問何故二見但名為取。答由此二見取行相轉故但名取。謂有身見執我．我所。邊執見執斷．常。邪見執無。取此諸見以為最勝故名見取。取諸戒禁能得凈故名戒禁取　複次前之三見推度所緣勢用猛利故名為見。后之二見執受能緣勢用猛利故名為取。

若於非因至非見集斷者。此下第二別釋戒禁取問。若於非因起是因見。此見何故非見集斷。而說見苦斷耶。

頌曰至故唯見苦斷者。頌答。

論曰至因執亦斷者。諸外道等執大自在天．梵王．生主．或余時等。為世間因生世間者。于自在等粗苦果義。必先計度彼體是常。常謂常見　一．我．作

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：投水、火等種種邪行並非生天的原因，這是虛妄產生的因執。只有受持戒律和禁制才是正道。戒律指的是內道的戒律，例如五戒等。禁制指的是外道的禁制，例如模仿狗、牛等行為的禁制。或者說，這裡的戒律和禁制都包括內道和外道。外道尼乾子（Nigantha，耆那教的別稱）常常計數諸法作為解脫的途徑。智慧與計數相應，稱為數相應智。等等，指的是其他外道等。這些外道所執著的並非真正的解脫之道，而是虛妄地認為那是真正的解脫之道，這些都叫做戒禁取。這種戒禁取不僅執著于戒禁是成因或道路，也執著于非戒禁是成因或道路。實際上應該立「戒禁等取」這個名稱，但省略了「等」字，只稱為戒禁取。此外，《正理》中說，或者禁制比戒律更重要，所以隻立戒禁取這個名稱（以上是論文內容）。所謂戒禁取，就是緣于戒禁而產生的執取，這種對戒禁的執取就叫做戒禁取，這是一種依主釋。是說五見自體應該瞭解的。這是解釋第四句，是總結。五見中，有三種立為「見」的名義，有兩種立為「取」的名義。如《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）中說：問：為什麼有兩種見只稱為「取」？答：因為這兩種見以執取的行相運轉，所以只稱為「取」。有身見（Satkayadristi，認為五蘊和合的身體為我）執著於我、我所。邊執見（Antagrahadristi，執著于斷滅或常恒）執著于斷滅或常恒。邪見（Mithyadristi，否定因果的見解）執著于無。取這些見解，認為是最殊勝的，所以叫做見取。取各種戒禁，認為能夠得到清凈，所以叫做戒禁取。再者，前面的三種見，推度所緣的勢用猛利，所以稱為「見」。後面的兩種見，執受能緣的勢用猛利，所以稱為「取」。如果對於非因認為是因，直到非見集斷。這是下面第二部分，分別解釋戒禁取。問：如果對於非因產生是因的見解，這種見解為什麼不是見集斷（Dharmasamuccaya-nirodha，斷除所有錯誤的集合）？而說是見苦斷（Dukkha-nirodha，斷除痛苦）呢？頌曰，直到所以唯見苦斷。這是用頌來回答。論曰，直到因執也斷。諸外道等執著大自在天（Mahesvara，印度教主神濕婆的別稱）、梵王（Brahma，印度教的創造之神）、生主（Prajapati，創造之神）或者其他時間等，是世間的原因，是他們創造了世間。對於自在天等粗糙的苦果的意義，必定先要計度他們的本體是常恒的。常恒，就是常見的錯誤見解。一、我、作者。

【English Translation】 English version: Submerging in water, fire, and other various heretical practices are not the cause of being born in heavens; these are false causes arising from attachment. Only upholding precepts and prohibitions is the right path. 'Precepts' refer to the precepts of the inner path, such as the Five Precepts. 'Prohibitions' refer to the prohibitions of external paths, such as imitating the behavior of dogs and cows. Or, these precepts and prohibitions both encompass inner and outer paths. The Niganthas (another name for Jainas) of external paths often count various dharmas as a means of liberation. Wisdom corresponding to counting is called 'wisdom corresponding to numbers'. 'Etc.' refers to other external paths, etc. These attachments of external paths are not the true path to liberation, but falsely believe them to be the true path; all these are called 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions' (Silabbataparamasa). This attachment to precepts and prohibitions not only clings to precepts and prohibitions as causes or paths, but also clings to non-precepts and non-prohibitions as causes or paths. In reality, the name 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions, etc.' should be established, but the 'etc.' is omitted, and it is simply called 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions'. Furthermore, the Nyaya Sutra says, 'Or prohibitions are superior to precepts,' therefore only the name 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions' is established (the above is from the treatise). The so-called 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions' is the attachment arising from precepts and prohibitions; this attachment to precepts and prohibitions is called 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions', which is a possessive compound. This is to say that the nature of the Five Views should be understood. This explains the fourth sentence, which is a conclusion. Among the Five Views, three are established with the meaning of 'view', and two are established with the meaning of 'attachment'. As the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) says: Question: Why are two views only called 'attachment'? Answer: Because these two views operate with the characteristic of attachment, they are only called 'attachment'. The view of a self (Satkayadristi, considering the body composed of the five aggregates as self) clings to self and what belongs to self. The view of extremes (Antagrahadristi, clinging to annihilation or permanence) clings to annihilation or permanence. The wrong view (Mithyadristi, denying cause and effect) clings to non-existence. Taking these views and considering them to be the most superior is called 'view attachment'. Taking various precepts and prohibitions and considering them to be able to attain purity is called 'attachment to precepts and prohibitions'. Furthermore, the previous three views have a forceful and sharp function of speculating on the object, so they are called 'views'. The latter two views have a forceful and sharp function of grasping and clinging to the object, so they are called 'attachments'. If one considers a non-cause to be a cause, up to the cessation of the collection of non-views. This is the second part below, explaining attachment to precepts and prohibitions separately. Question: If one generates the view that a non-cause is a cause, why is this view not the cessation of the collection of views (Dharmasamuccaya-nirodha)? And why is it said to be the cessation of suffering (Dukkha-nirodha)? The verse says, up to therefore only the cessation of suffering is seen. This is answering with a verse. The treatise says, up to the attachment to the cause is also severed. Those of external paths, etc., cling to Mahesvara (another name for the Hindu god Shiva), Brahma (the Hindu god of creation), Prajapati (the lord of creation), or other times, etc., as the cause of the world, that they created the world. Regarding the meaning of the coarse suffering result of Mahesvara, etc., they must first speculate that their essence is permanent. Permanent is the wrong view of permanence. One, self, creator.

者。我謂我見　即由斯理身．邊二見唯見苦斷。計我．常已方於我．常起世因執　因執。謂戒禁取　才見苦諦時于自在等常執我執永斷無餘。故彼我．常所生戒禁因執亦斷　此顯非因計因。戒禁從常．我生。粗果處起故見苦斷非於集因妄計我．常方起因執　故非因計因。非見集斷。

若爾有執至是見苦斷者。論主難。若爾有執投水．火等種種邪行是生天因。或執但由受持戒禁等便得清凈解脫涅槃。此投水．火。既不從彼常我倒生。不應見苦斷。然本論說是見苦斷。故彼論言。有諸外道受持牛戒等便得清凈解脫涅槃。出離生死永超世間眾苦樂。至超世間眾苦樂處。處即是涅槃。如是等類非因執因。一切應知是戒禁取見苦所斷。如彼本論廣說。應知並非從常．我倒生。此復何因是見苦斷。

迷苦諦故者。毗婆沙師答。雖非從彼常．我倒生。迷苦諦故見苦所斷。應知頌文且據戒禁從常．我生見苦所斷。以實而言。亦有不從常．我生者。婆沙一百九十九云。前來所說諸戒禁取。皆見苦所斷者。依我．常倒起。于果處轉故。雖非因計因。而言見苦所斷。謂戒禁取總有二類。一非因計因。二非道計道。非因計因復有二類。一迷執我．常法起。二迷宿作苦行等起。前依我．常倒。亦于果處轉故。隨二倒見苦所斷。后唯于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『我』的觀念，是由這種認為身體和『邊』（五蘊）是『我』的錯誤觀念產生的。只有在見到苦諦時，才能斷除這種認為『我』是常存的觀念，以及由此產生的對世間因果的執著。這種執著被稱為戒禁取見（認為不正確的戒律和禁令可以導致解脫）。一旦見到苦諦，對於自在天等常存的『我』的執著就會永遠斷除，不會留下任何殘餘。因此，由『我』和『常』的錯誤觀念所產生的戒禁取見也會被斷除。這表明了將非因視為因。戒禁取見是從『常』和『我』的觀念產生的，在粗淺的結果層面產生，因此通過見到苦諦來斷除。並非在對集諦（苦的根源）的錯誤認知中，將非因視為因，因此不是通過見到集諦來斷除。

論主提出疑問：如果有人執著于跳水、跳火等各種邪惡的行為，認為這些是生天的原因；或者執著于僅僅通過遵守戒律和禁令等就能獲得清凈、解脫和涅槃，那麼這些跳水、跳火的行為，既然不是從『常』和『我』的顛倒觀念中產生的，就不應該通過見到苦諦來斷除。然而，《本論》中說這些是通過見到苦諦來斷除的。因此，《本論》說，有些外道受持牛戒等，認為這樣就能獲得清凈、解脫和涅槃，脫離生死，永遠超越世間的眾苦樂，到達超越世間眾苦樂的境界，這個境界就是涅槃。像這樣的情況，是將非因視為因。應該知道，所有這些都是戒禁取見，是通過見到苦諦來斷除的。正如《本論》中廣泛論述的那樣，應該知道這些並非是從『常』和『我』的顛倒觀念中產生的。那麼，這又是什麼原因導致它們通過見到苦諦來斷除呢？

毗婆沙師回答：雖然這些不是從『常』和『我』的顛倒觀念中產生的，但由於迷惑于苦諦，所以通過見到苦諦來斷除。應該知道，頌文只是根據戒禁取見是從『常』和『我』的觀念產生，並通過見到苦諦來斷除的情況來說的。實際上，也有不是從『常』和『我』的觀念產生的情況。《婆沙》第一百九十九卷說，前面所說的各種戒禁取見，都是通過見到苦諦來斷除的，這是因為它們依賴於『我』和『常』的顛倒觀念而產生，並在結果層面運作。因此，雖然不是將非因視為因，但仍然說是通過見到苦諦來斷除的。戒禁取見總共有兩類：一類是將非因視為因，另一類是將非道視為道。將非因視為因又分為兩類：一類是迷惑于執著『我』和『常』的法而產生的，另一類是迷惑於過去所做的苦行等而產生的。前者依賴於『我』和『常』的顛倒觀念，也在結果層面運作，因此隨著這兩種顛倒觀念，通過見到苦諦來斷除。後者僅僅是迷惑于苦諦。

【English Translation】 English version: The notion of 'I' arises from the erroneous view that the body and 'periphery' (the five aggregates) are 'I'. Only upon seeing the Truth of Suffering (苦諦, Dukkha-satya) can one eradicate the view that 'I' is permanent, along with the attachment to worldly causality that arises from it. This attachment is called śīlāvrata-parāmarśa (戒禁取見, clinging to wrong rules and vows, believing incorrect precepts and prohibitions can lead to liberation). Once the Truth of Suffering is seen, the attachment to a permanent 'I' such as Īśvara (自在天, a deity) will be forever eradicated, leaving no residue. Therefore, the śīlāvrata-parāmarśa arising from the erroneous notions of 'I' and 'permanent' will also be eradicated. This indicates considering a non-cause as a cause. Śīlāvrata-parāmarśa arises from the notions of 'permanent' and 'I', originating at the level of superficial results, and is therefore eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. It is not in the erroneous cognition of the Truth of Origin (集諦, Samudaya-satya, the cause of suffering) that a non-cause is considered a cause, and therefore it is not eradicated by seeing the Truth of Origin.

The ācārya (論主, debater) raises a question: If someone clings to various evil practices such as jumping into water or fire, believing these are causes for being born in heaven; or clings to the idea that merely by observing precepts and prohibitions, one can attain purity, liberation, and nirvāṇa (涅槃, cessation of suffering), then these acts of jumping into water or fire, since they do not arise from the inverted notions of 'permanent' and 'I', should not be eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. However, the śāstra (本論, treatise) states that these are eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. Therefore, the śāstra says that some non-Buddhists uphold the cow vow (牛戒, go-vrata) and so on, believing that in this way they can attain purity, liberation, and nirvāṇa, escape from birth and death, and forever transcend the worldly suffering and happiness, reaching the state of transcending worldly suffering and happiness, which is nirvāṇa. In such cases, a non-cause is considered a cause. It should be known that all these are śīlāvrata-parāmarśa, which are eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. As discussed extensively in the śāstra, it should be known that these do not arise from the inverted notions of 'permanent' and 'I'. Then, what is the reason that they are eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering?

The Vaibhāṣika (毗婆沙師, commentator of the Vaibhāṣika school) answers: Although these do not arise from the inverted notions of 'permanent' and 'I', they are eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering because of delusion regarding the Truth of Suffering. It should be known that the verse only speaks of the case where śīlāvrata-parāmarśa arises from the notions of 'permanent' and 'I', and is eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. In reality, there are also cases where it does not arise from the notions of 'permanent' and 'I'. The 199th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā (婆沙) says that all the śīlāvrata-parāmarśa mentioned earlier are eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering, because they rely on the inverted notions of 'I' and 'permanent' and operate at the level of results. Therefore, although it is not considering a non-cause as a cause, it is still said to be eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. There are two types of śīlāvrata-parāmarśa in total: one is considering a non-cause as a cause, and the other is considering a non-path as a path. Considering a non-cause as a cause is further divided into two types: one arises from delusion regarding clinging to the dharmas (法, teachings) of 'I' and 'permanent', and the other arises from delusion regarding past ascetic practices and so on. The former relies on the inverted notions of 'I' and 'permanent', and also operates at the level of results, and therefore, along with these two inverted notions, it is eradicated by seeing the Truth of Suffering. The latter is merely deluded about the Truth of Suffering.

果處轉。果相粗顯易可見故。計苦因為因非全邪故。既迷果相故亦見苦所斷。非道計道亦有二類。一執有漏戒等為道。此迷粗顯果相起故。見苦諦時便永斷。二執謗道諦邪見等為道。此親違道于因果相不別迷執故。見道時方能永斷。謗集．滅時既撥所斷．所證法相。若執為道便為無用。定依所斷．及所證法而立道故。又彼所撥與道相異。必無彼無間執彼為道者。若於后時執彼為道。定於果處而起道執。見苦諦時此見便斷故。無戒禁取見集．滅所斷。

有太過失至皆迷苦故者。此下論主總為四難。一太過失難。二無別相難。三即執見．疑難。四集．滅邪見難　此即第一太過失難。迷苦諦故即見苦斷。有太過失。五部所斷緣有漏惑皆迷苦故。應當皆是見苦所斷　正理救云。唯見苦所斷緣牛戒等故。但計粗果為彼因故。由此已遮經主所難。迷苦諦故有太過失。緣有漏惑皆迷苦故。以非一切緣有漏惑。皆以果苦為所緣故。如何得有太過失耶　俱舍師破云。苦下戒禁緣有漏。即于果處生。余有漏惑亦于緣有漏。寧非果處起。

復有何相至迷苦諦故者。此即第二無別相難。汝宗戒禁通苦道斷。復有何相別戒禁取可說彼為見道所斷。諸緣見道所斷法生。彼亦應名迷苦諦。故應見苦斷。正理救云。然于非道計為道中。若違

【現代漢語翻譯】果的方面轉變。因為果的表相粗略明顯容易看見。執著苦為因，因為並非完全是邪見。既然迷惑于果的表相，因此也看見了苦所斷的（內容）。非道計道也有兩種：一是執著有漏的戒等為道，這是迷惑于粗略明顯的果相而產生的，在見苦諦時便永遠斷除；二是執著誹謗道諦的邪見等為道，這直接違背了道，對於因果的表相沒有分別地迷惑執著，所以在見道時才能永遠斷除。誹謗集諦、滅諦時，既然否定了所斷、所證的法相，如果執著為道，便會變得沒有用處，因為道是必定依據所斷、以及所證的法而建立的。而且，他們所否定的與道的表相不同，必定沒有在否定之後立即執著它為道的情況。如果在之後的時間執著它為道，一定是在果的方面產生道的執著，見苦諦時這種見解便會斷除，因此沒有戒禁取見是集諦、滅諦所斷的。

『有太過失，以至於都迷惑于苦』的原因是。下面論主總共提出了四個責難：一是太過失的責難，二是無差別相的責難，三是即執見、疑的責難，四是集諦、滅諦邪見的責難。這即是第一太過失的責難。因為迷惑于苦諦，所以是見苦所斷，有太過失。五部所斷的緣于有漏的迷惑都迷惑于苦，應當都是見苦所斷。正理師辯護說，只有見苦所斷是緣于牛戒等，因為只是把粗略的果執著為它們的因。由此已經遮止了經主的責難，因為迷惑于苦諦，所以有太過失，緣于有漏的迷惑都迷惑于苦，因為並非一切緣于有漏的迷惑，都以果苦為所緣，怎麼會有太過失呢？俱舍師反駁說，苦下的戒禁緣于有漏，即在果的方面產生，其餘有漏的迷惑也在緣于有漏，難道不是在果的方面產生嗎？

『又有什麼表相』以至於『迷惑于苦諦』的原因是。這即是第二無差別相的責難。你的宗派戒禁通於苦諦、道諦所斷，又有什麼表相可以區別戒禁取見，可以說它是見道所斷？諸緣于見道所斷法而生，它們也應該被稱為迷惑于苦諦，所以應該在見苦時斷除。正理師辯護說，然而在非道計為道中，如果違背...

【English Translation】 It transforms at the aspect of the result (果處). Because the appearance of the result (果相) is rough, obvious, and easy to see. Holding suffering as the cause is not entirely a wrong view. Since one is deluded about the appearance of the result (果相), one also sees what is severed by suffering. There are two types of non-path as path: one is holding defiled precepts etc. as the path. This arises from delusion about the rough and obvious appearance of the result (果相), and it is permanently severed at the sight of the truth of suffering (見苦諦). The second is holding wrong views such as slandering the truth of the path (道諦) as the path. This directly violates the path, and there is no distinction in the delusion and attachment to the appearances of cause and result. Therefore, it can only be permanently severed at the sight of the path (見道). When slandering the truth of accumulation (集諦) and the truth of cessation (滅諦), since the characteristics of what is to be severed and what is to be attained are denied, if one holds it as the path, it becomes useless, because the path is necessarily established based on what is to be severed and what is to be attained. Moreover, what they deny is different from the appearance of the path, and there is definitely no immediate holding of it as the path after denying it. If one holds it as the path at a later time, one will definitely generate the attachment to the path at the aspect of the result (果處). This view will be severed at the sight of the truth of suffering (見苦諦), so there is no holding to precepts and vows (戒禁取見) that is severed by the truth of accumulation (集諦) and the truth of cessation (滅諦).

The reason for 'having the fault of excess, to the point of being completely deluded about suffering' is that the debater below raises a total of four difficulties: first, the difficulty of the fault of excess; second, the difficulty of no distinguishing characteristics; third, the difficulty of immediately holding views and doubts; and fourth, the difficulty of wrong views about the truth of accumulation (集諦) and the truth of cessation (滅諦). This is the first difficulty of the fault of excess. Because one is deluded about the truth of suffering (苦諦), it is severed by the sight of the truth of suffering (見苦所斷), and there is the fault of excess. The defilements severed by the five parts that arise from defiled things are all deluded about suffering, and they should all be severed by the sight of the truth of suffering (見苦所斷). The defender of the principle (正理師) argues that only what is severed by the sight of the truth of suffering (見苦所斷) arises from cow vows etc., because they only hold the rough result as their cause. This has already blocked the debater's difficulty, because one is deluded about the truth of suffering (苦諦), so there is the fault of excess, and the defilements that arise from defiled things are all deluded about suffering, because not all defilements that arise from defiled things take the suffering of the result as their object. How can there be the fault of excess? The master of the Abhidharma-kosa (俱舍師) refutes that the precepts and vows under suffering arise from defiled things, that is, they arise at the aspect of the result (果處), and the remaining defiled defilements also arise from defiled things. Don't they arise at the aspect of the result (果處)?

The reason for 'what characteristics are there' to 'being deluded about the truth of suffering (苦諦)' is that this is the second difficulty of no distinguishing characteristics. Your school's precepts and vows are connected to what is severed by the truth of suffering (苦諦) and the truth of the path (道諦). What characteristics can distinguish the holding to precepts and vows (戒禁取見) that can be said to be severed by the sight of the path (見道所斷)? All that arises from the dharma severed by the sight of the path (見道所斷) should also be called being deluded about the truth of suffering (苦諦), so it should be severed at the sight of the truth of suffering (見苦). The defender of the principle (正理師) argues that, however, in taking the non-path as the path, if it violates...

見強道則見道所斷(解云彼論意說。非道計道諸戒禁取。有兩類故。若果處起者見苦斷。若非果處起緣親迷道為所緣者。違見道強則見道斷)　俱舍師破云。兩種戒禁俱緣有漏俱非道計道。何故一于果處起。一非果處起。義既是齊應俱果起。若俱果起相還無別。違道徒言。

又緣道諦至理亦不成者。此即第三即執見．疑難。又緣道諦邪見．及疑。若撥無解脫道。若疑無解脫道。如何即執此邪見．及疑能得永清凈。若彼撥無如來所說真解脫道。妄執別有無想定等余清凈因。是則執余無想定等能得清凈。非邪見等。此戒禁取緣見道所斷理亦不成。正理救云。此戒禁取體非不成。以計有于謗道邪見執為能證永清凈道。由彼計為如理解故。謂彼先以余解脫道蘊在心中。后執誹謗真道邪見為如理覺。言如理者。彼謂撥疑真解脫道是不顛倒。以如理故執為凈因。由此得成戒禁取體。彼心所蘊余解脫道非見道所斷。戒禁取所緣以彼唯緣自部法故。道有多類于理無失　解云余解脫道。謂無想定等。正理救意言。既撥疑他所說道諦。復執撥疑為如理覺。故即執彼為清凈因。時間迅速于非因果處起故。非見苦集斷是見道斷。復計心所蘊余無想等為解脫道。果處起故見苦所斷。應知道有多類。或見道所斷。或見苦所斷。于理何失　俱舍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『見強道則見道所斷』（解釋說，根據彼論的觀點，並非將非道的誤認為道的那些戒禁取見，因為有兩類。如果是在果位處生起的，那麼是見苦所斷。如果不是在果位處生起，而是緣于對道的錯誤理解作為所緣，違背了見道的強大力量，那麼就是見道所斷）。俱舍師反駁說，兩種戒禁取見都緣于有漏法，都將非道誤認為道。為什麼一個在果位處生起，一個不在果位處生起呢？既然意義相同，就應該都在果位處生起。如果都在果位處生起，那麼它們之間就沒有區別了。這是違背道理的說法。

『又緣道諦至理亦不成者』，這指的是第三種情況，即執著于邪見和疑惑。如果緣于道諦的邪見和疑惑，如果否定沒有解脫道，或者懷疑沒有解脫道，那麼如何能使這種邪見和疑惑得到永久的清凈呢？如果他們否定如來說的真正的解脫道，錯誤地認為有無想定等其他的清凈因，那麼就是執著于其他的無想定等能夠得到清凈，而不是邪見等。因此，這種戒禁取見緣于見道所斷的道理也是不成立的。正理師辯護說，這種戒禁取的本體並非不成立。因為他們認為誹謗道的邪見是能夠證得永久清凈的道。因為他們認為這是如理的理解。也就是說，他們先將其他的解脫道蘊藏在心中，然後認為誹謗真道的邪見是如理的覺悟。所謂『如理』，他們認為否定和懷疑真正的解脫道是不顛倒的。因為是如理的，所以認為這是清凈的原因。由此就形成了戒禁取的本體。他們心中所蘊藏的其他的解脫道不是見道所斷的。戒禁取所緣的，因為它只緣于自己宗派的法。道有很多種類，在道理上沒有錯誤。（解釋說，其他的解脫道，指的是無想定等。）正理師辯護的意思是說，既然否定和懷疑他人所說的道諦，又認為這種否定和懷疑是如理的覺悟，所以就認為這是清凈的原因。因為時間迅速，在非因果處生起，所以不是見苦集所斷，而是見道所斷。又認為心中所蘊藏的其他的無想定等是解脫道，在果位處生起，所以是見苦所斷。應該知道道有很多種類，有的是見道所斷，有的是見苦所斷，在道理上有什麼錯誤呢？（俱舍宗）

【English Translation】 English version 'Seeing the strong path, then what is severed by the Path of Seeing' (Explanation: According to the view of that treatise, it does not refer to those precepts and prohibitions that mistakenly take non-paths as paths, because there are two types. If it arises at the place of fruition, then it is severed by the Path of Seeing of Suffering. If it does not arise at the place of fruition, but arises from a mistaken understanding of the path as its object, violating the strength of the Path of Seeing, then it is severed by the Path of Seeing). The Kosa master refutes, saying, 'Both types of precepts and prohibitions are related to defiled dharmas, and both mistakenly take non-paths as paths. Why does one arise at the place of fruition, and the other does not arise at the place of fruition? Since the meaning is the same, they should both arise at the place of fruition. If they both arise at the place of fruition, then there is no difference between them.' This is a statement that goes against reason.

'Also, the ultimate truth of the Path of Truth is not established,' this refers to the third situation, which is clinging to wrong views and doubts. If one clings to wrong views and doubts about the Path of Truth, if one denies that there is a path to liberation, or doubts that there is a path to liberation, then how can these wrong views and doubts be permanently purified? If they deny the true path to liberation spoken by the Tathagata (如來), and mistakenly believe that there are other causes of purity such as the state of non-perception (無想定), then it is clinging to other states of non-perception that can attain purity, not wrong views, etc. Therefore, the principle that this clinging to precepts and prohibitions is severed by the Path of Seeing is also not established. The master of Just Reason defends, saying, 'The substance of this clinging to precepts and prohibitions is not unestablished. Because they believe that the wrong view of slandering the path is the path that can attain permanent purity. Because they believe that this is a rational understanding. That is to say, they first store other paths to liberation in their hearts, and then believe that the wrong view of slandering the true path is a rational awakening. The so-called 'rational' means that they believe that denying and doubting the true path to liberation is not inverted. Because it is rational, they believe that this is the cause of purity. From this, the substance of clinging to precepts and prohibitions is formed. The other paths to liberation stored in their hearts are not severed by the Path of Seeing. What the clinging to precepts and prohibitions is related to is that it is only related to the dharmas of its own sect. There are many types of paths, and there is no error in principle.' (Explanation: The other paths to liberation refer to the state of non-perception, etc.) The meaning of the master of Just Reason's defense is that since they deny and doubt the Truth of the Path spoken by others, and also believe that this denial and doubt is a rational awakening, they believe that this is the cause of purity. Because time is swift, and it arises at the place of non-cause and non-effect, it is not severed by the Path of Seeing of Suffering and Accumulation, but is severed by the Path of Seeing. Also, they believe that the other states of non-perception, etc., stored in their hearts are the path to liberation, and it arises at the place of fruition, so it is severed by the Path of Seeing of Suffering. It should be known that there are many types of paths, some are severed by the Path of Seeing, and some are severed by the Path of Seeing of Suffering, what error is there in principle? (Kosa)

師破云。亦有戒禁即執凈因見苦所斷。此亦即執何非苦斷。若不即執彼執余為凈因。是即應無見道所斷。

又若有緣至非見彼斷者。此即第四集．滅邪見難。又若有緣見集．滅諦所斷邪見等執為清凈因。此戒禁取復何因緣。非見彼集．滅斷耶。正理救云。若有計彼謗集邪見能得清凈。豈不此見無斷集用。若有計彼謗滅邪見能得清凈。豈不此見無證滅用(解云彼論意說。若撥無集便無所斷。計道無用。若撥無滅便無所證。計道無用)俱舍師破云。如撥無道應無能證。雖撥無道計有餘道能證。何妨雖撥無集．滅。計有餘集．滅為所斷．所證。

故所執義應更思擇者。論主難訖復勸應思　正理思擇如前應知。俱舍復難亦如前說。

如前所說至二種顛倒者。此下第四明四顛倒　問。如前所說戒禁取從常．我倒生。為但有斯二種顛倒。

應知顛倒至執我顛倒者。答。總有四。

如是四倒其體云何者。問。名字既爾。其體云何。

頌曰至想．心隨見力者。上兩句出倒體。第三句廢立。第四句通經。

論曰至以為我倒者。釋初兩句。總有兩說。此是初師。於五見中從於三見立四倒體。謂邊見中唯取常見以為常倒。不取斷見。諸見取中唯取苦下計樂．凈者為樂．凈倒。非余見取。有漏法中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：師（指俱舍師）反駁說：『如果有人認為持戒和禁慾本身就是清凈的原因，那麼這種執著就是見苦所斷的邪見。』那麼，這種執著又是什麼不是苦諦所斷的呢？如果不是直接執著苦諦，而是執著其他法為清凈的原因，那麼這就不應該屬於見道所斷的邪見。此外，如果有人因為某種因緣，執著于不是見諦所斷的法，那麼這就屬於第四集（苦滅道諦）中破除邪見的難題。如果有人因為某種因緣，執著于見集諦、滅諦所斷的邪見等，並認為這些是清凈的原因，那麼這種戒禁取又是因為什麼因緣，不是見集諦、滅諦所斷的呢？正理師（指《正理經》的作者）辯護說：『如果有人認為誹謗集諦的邪見能夠獲得清凈，難道這種見解就沒有斷除集諦的作用嗎？如果有人認為誹謗滅諦的邪見能夠獲得清凈，難道這種見解就沒有證得滅諦的作用嗎？』（解釋說，《正理經》的意思是，如果否定集諦，就沒有什麼可以斷除的，也就認為道諦沒有用處；如果否定滅諦，就沒有什麼可以證得的，也就認為道諦沒有用處。）俱舍師反駁說：『如果否定道諦，就應該沒有什麼可以證得的。』即使否定了道諦，也可以認為有其他的道諦可以證得，為什麼即使否定了集諦、滅諦，就不能認為有其他的集諦、滅諦可以斷除、證得呢？因此，你所執著的道理應該重新思考。』論主（指《俱舍論》的作者）駁斥完畢后，又勸對方應該思考。《正理經》的思考方式應該像前面所說的那樣理解。俱舍師的反駁也像前面所說的那樣。『如前所說』到『二種顛倒』：下面第四部分說明四種顛倒。問：『如前所說，戒禁取是從常顛倒、我顛倒產生的，難道只有這兩種顛倒嗎？』『應知顛倒』到『執我顛倒』：答：總共有四種顛倒。『如是四倒其體云何』：問：名字既然是這樣，那麼它們的本體是什麼呢？頌曰：『于無常謂常，于苦謂為樂，于不凈謂凈，于無我謂我，想、心隨見力。』上面兩句說明顛倒的本體，第三句說明廢立的原因，第四句是通經文。論曰：『于無常謂常，是名常倒，于苦謂樂，是名樂倒，于不凈謂凈，是名凈倒，于無我以為我倒。』解釋最初兩句。總共有兩種說法。這是第一位論師的觀點，在五見（五種邪見）中，從三種見解中建立四種顛倒的本體。也就是說，在邊見（邊執見）中，只取常見的觀點作為常顛倒，不取斷見的觀點。在見取（執取不正見為正見）中，只取在苦諦下認為有快樂、清凈的觀點作為樂顛倒、凈顛倒，而不是其他的見取。在有漏法（有煩惱的法）中，

【English Translation】 English version: The teacher (referring to the Kosa master) refuted: 'If someone believes that adhering to precepts and prohibitions is itself the cause of purity, then this attachment is a wrong view that is severed by seeing suffering (Dukkha).』 Then, what is it that this attachment is not severed by the truth of suffering? If it is not directly attached to the truth of suffering, but attached to other dharmas as the cause of purity, then this should not belong to the wrong views severed by the path of seeing (Darshana-marga). Furthermore, if someone, due to some condition, is attached to a dharma that is not severed by seeing the truth, then this belongs to the difficult problem of refuting wrong views in the fourth collection (the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering). If someone, due to some condition, is attached to the wrong views severed by seeing the truths of origination (Samudaya) and cessation (Nirodha), and considers these to be the cause of purity, then for what reason is this adherence to precepts and prohibitions not severed by seeing the truths of origination and cessation? The author of Nyaya Sutra defended: 'If someone believes that the wrong view of slandering the truth of origination can attain purity, then doesn't this view have the function of severing origination? If someone believes that the wrong view of slandering the truth of cessation can attain purity, then doesn't this view have the function of realizing cessation?' (The explanation is that the meaning of Nyaya Sutra is that if origination is denied, there is nothing to be severed, and the path is considered useless; if cessation is denied, there is nothing to be realized, and the path is considered useless.) The Kosa master refuted: 'If the path is denied, then there should be nothing to be realized.' Even if the path is denied, it can be considered that there are other paths that can be realized. Why can't it be considered that there are other origination and cessation to be severed and realized, even if origination and cessation are denied? Therefore, the principle you adhere to should be reconsidered.' After refuting, the author of Abhidharmakosa encouraged the other party to think. The way of thinking in Nyaya Sutra should be understood as mentioned before. The Kosa master's refutation is also as mentioned before. 'As mentioned before' to 'two kinds of inversions': The fourth part below explains the four inversions (viparyasas). Question: 'As mentioned before, adherence to precepts and prohibitions arises from the inversions of permanence (nitya) and self (atman). Are there only these two kinds of inversions?' 'It should be known that inversions' to 'attachment to the inversion of self': Answer: There are a total of four inversions. 'What are the entities of these four inversions': Question: Since the names are like this, what are their entities? Verse: 'Regarding impermanence as permanence, regarding suffering as happiness, regarding impurity as purity, regarding non-self as self, thought and mind follow the power of view.' The first two lines explain the entity of inversion, the third line explains the reason for establishment and abolition, and the fourth line is a general explanation of the sutras. Treatise: 'Regarding impermanence as permanence is called the inversion of permanence; regarding suffering as happiness is called the inversion of happiness; regarding impurity as purity is called the inversion of purity; regarding non-self as the inversion of self.' Explaining the first two lines. There are two general explanations. This is the view of the first teacher, who establishes the entities of the four inversions from three views among the five views (five wrong views). That is, in the extreme view (antagrāha-dṛṣṭi), only the view of permanence is taken as the inversion of permanence, and the view of annihilation is not taken. In the view of attachment (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), only the view of considering happiness and purity under suffering is taken as the inversion of happiness and the inversion of purity, not other views of attachment. In defiled dharmas (sāsrava-dharma),

非真樂．凈妄計樂．凈故得說為非勝計勝。有身見中唯取我見以為我倒非我所見。應知四倒唯于有漏粗果處起見苦所斷。見取雖亦通餘三諦。非增勝故不立為倒。故婆沙一百四云。有作是說四顛倒於五見中。三見各一分以為自性。謂有身見中我見是我顛倒自性。非我所見。邊執見中常見是常顛倒自性。非斷見。見取中見苦所斷執樂凈見是樂凈顛倒自性。非余見取　又正理四十七一說亦同此論初師。此論．婆沙．正理。皆約五見出體故言三見各一分。有說我倒攝身見全者。此是第二說。常．樂．凈倒同前說。我倒異說故別敘也。故婆沙一百四云。問五見中幾見為自性。答此以見苦所斷二見半為自性。謂有身見。見取全。及邊執見中常見。二見半非顛倒自性。謂邪見。戒禁取全。及邊執見中斷見。又正理四十七云。然毗婆沙決定義者。約部分別十二見中。唯二見半是顛倒體。謂有身見．苦見取全．邊執見中取計常分。斷．常二見行相乖違。故可說言二體各別　此論．婆沙．正理。皆約五部十二見出體。故言身見．見取全．邊見一分。此論兩說雖無評文。婆沙．正理意以此論后師為正。婆沙不言有說。正理復言決定義故。

我倒如何攝我所見者。此即問也。

如何不攝者。有說返責。

由倒經故至是我所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本非真樂，卻錯誤地認為它是快樂的。因為這種快樂是虛妄不實的，所以說它不是真正的快樂。在有身見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，認為五蘊是『我』的錯誤見解）中，只有『我見』（Atta-diṭṭhi，認為存在永恒不變的『我』的錯誤見解）被認為是『我倒』（Attavipallāsa，對無我的顛倒認知），而不是『我所見』（認為『我』所擁有的東西是真實存在的錯誤見解）。應該知道，四種顛倒（常、樂、我、凈）只在有漏（具有煩惱）的粗果（指輪迴的果報）處產生，並且是被見苦所斷（通過觀察苦諦而斷除的煩惱）。雖然見取（Sīlabbataparāmāsa，執取錯誤的戒律和苦行）也通於其餘三諦（集、滅、道），但它不是最主要的，所以不被認為是顛倒。因此，《大毗婆沙論》第一百零四卷說：『有人這樣說，四種顛倒在五見（五種根本的錯誤見解）中，有三種見各佔一部分作為自性。即有身見中的我見是『我顛倒』的自性，而不是我所見；邊執見（Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi，執著于斷見或常見的極端見解）中的常見是『常顛倒』的自性，而不是斷見；見取中被見苦所斷的執樂凈見是『樂顛倒』和『凈顛倒』的自性，而不是其餘的見取。』另外，《正理論》第四十七卷的第一種說法也與此論的最初說法相同。此論、《大毗婆沙論》、《正理論》都是根據五見來分析體性，所以說三種見各佔一部分。有人說，『我倒』包含整個有身見，這是第二種說法。『常倒』、『樂倒』、『凈倒』與前面的說法相同。因為『我倒』的說法不同，所以單獨敘述。因此，《大毗婆沙論》第一百零四卷說：『問：五見中，有幾種見是顛倒的自性？答：以見苦所斷的兩種半見為自性。即有身見、見取全部，以及邊執見中的常見。兩種半見不是顛倒的自性，即邪見（Micchā-diṭṭhi，否認因果的錯誤見解）、戒禁取全部，以及邊執見中的斷見。』另外，《正理論》第四十七卷說：『然而，毗婆沙的決定性意見是，從部分來區分十二見中，只有兩種半見是顛倒的體性。即有身見、苦見取全部，以及邊執見中執取常的部分。斷見和常見的行相相反，所以可以說二者的體性各不相同。』此論、《大毗婆沙論》、《正理論》都是根據五部十二見來分析體性，所以說有身見、見取全部、邊見一部分。此論的兩種說法雖然沒有評論性的文字，但《大毗婆沙論》、《正理論》認為此論后一種說法是正確的。《大毗婆沙論》沒有說『有人說』，而《正理論》又說『決定性意見』，所以可以這樣認為。

『我倒』如何包含『我所見』呢？這是提問。

『如何不包含』呢？有人反駁。

因為經中說，『由倒經故，至是我所』。

【English Translation】 English version It is not true pleasure, yet it is mistakenly regarded as pleasure. Because this pleasure is false and unreal, it is said that it is not true pleasure. In Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (the false view that the five aggregates are 'I'), only Atta-diṭṭhi (the false view that there is an eternal and unchanging 'I') is considered Attavipallāsa (inverted perception of no-self), not the view of 'what belongs to me' (the false view that what 'I' own is real). It should be known that the four inversions (permanence, pleasure, self, purity) only arise in the defiled (with afflictions) coarse results (referring to the results of Saṃsāra), and are severed by what is seen as suffering (afflictions severed by observing the truth of suffering). Although Sīlabbataparāmāsa (grasping at wrong precepts and asceticism) also extends to the other three truths (origin, cessation, path), it is not the most prominent, so it is not considered an inversion. Therefore, the one hundred and fourth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Some say that in the five views (five fundamental wrong views), the four inversions each occupy a part as their nature. That is, the view of self in Sakkāya-diṭṭhi is the nature of the 'inversion of self', not the view of what belongs to me; the view of permanence in Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi (clinging to extreme views of eternalism or annihilationism) is the nature of the 'inversion of permanence', not the view of annihilation; the view of pleasure and purity grasped in Sīlabbataparāmāsa that is severed by seeing suffering is the nature of the 'inversion of pleasure' and the 'inversion of purity', not the remaining grasping at views.' In addition, the first statement in the forty-seventh fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra is the same as the initial statement in this treatise. This treatise, the Mahāvibhāṣā, and the Nyāyānusāra all analyze the nature based on the five views, so it is said that each of the three views occupies a part. Some say that 'the inversion of self' includes the entire Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, which is the second statement. The 'inversion of permanence', 'inversion of pleasure', and 'inversion of purity' are the same as the previous statements. Because the statement about the 'inversion of self' is different, it is described separately. Therefore, the one hundred and fourth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: Among the five views, how many views are the nature of inversion? Answer: Two and a half views severed by seeing suffering are the nature. That is, Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, all of Sīlabbataparāmāsa, and the view of permanence in Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi. Two and a half views are not the nature of inversion, that is, Micchā-diṭṭhi (wrong view denying cause and effect), all of Sīlabbataparāmāsa, and the view of annihilation in Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi.' In addition, the forty-seventh fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'However, the definitive opinion of the Vibhāṣā is that, distinguishing the twelve views from parts, only two and a half views are the nature of inversion. That is, Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, all of the grasping at the view of suffering, and the part of grasping at permanence in Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi. The characteristics of the view of annihilation and the view of permanence are contrary, so it can be said that the natures of the two are different.' This treatise, the Mahāvibhāṣā, and the Nyāyānusāra all analyze the nature based on the five aggregates and twelve views, so it is said that Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, all of Sīlabbataparāmāsa, and a part of Antaggāhika-diṭṭhi. Although there is no commentary text on the two statements in this treatise, the Mahāvibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra consider the latter statement in this treatise to be correct. The Mahāvibhāṣā does not say 'some say', and the Nyāyānusāra says 'definitive opinion', so it can be considered so.

How does 'the inversion of self' include 'what belongs to me'? This is a question.

'How does it not include'? Someone refutes.

Because the sutra says, 'Because of the inverted sutra, it is what belongs to me.'

見者。答。由四倒經作是說故。諸有計我于彼事中有自在力是我所見　既於我外別說我所。明知我所非我倒攝　又解此文有說引經證攝我所。我于彼事自在義邊。是我所見。無有別體。

此即我見至見亦應別者。有說釋經。此我所見即是我見。由我．我所二門轉故所以別說　是我。是我見。第一轉聲　屬我。是我所見。第六轉聲　由我。謂由我如此是第三轉聲　為我。謂為我如此是第四轉聲。於八轉聲中第一．第六。若是別見第三．第四。見亦應別。三．四見既不殊。初．六見寧有異。

何故余惑非顛倒體者。是下釋第三句。此即問也。

要具三因至非顛倒體者答。謂要具三因勝者成倒。言三因者。一向倒故。推度性故。妄增益故。又正理云。增聲亦顯體增勝故(已上論文)　於五見中謂戒禁取。雖推度性．及妄增益。非一向倒。緣少分法得清凈故。如戒禁取計有漏道得凈涅槃。雖非究竟斷惑證滅。而能暫離下八地染證彼滅故婆沙一百四云。戒禁取雖是推度性及妄增益。而非一向倒。亦于少分實處轉故。謂有色界道能凈欲界有。無色道能凈色界有。上地道能凈下地。與無漏道斷染證滅。義相似故　又顯宗云。謂戒禁取非一向倒。所計容離欲染等故。少分暫時得清凈故　問如見取計樂受為樂。計善法

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：見者。答：由於四倒（Skt. viparyāsa，顛倒見）經這樣說，所以諸凡執計『我』（Skt. ātman，靈魂，自我）在那些事物中具有自在的力量，都是『我所見』。既然在我之外分別說了『我所』，就明顯知道『我所』並非『我』的顛倒所攝。又有人解釋這段經文，引用經文來證明『我所』包含在內。『我』在那些事物中具有自在的意義，是『我所見』，沒有別的自體。如果這樣，那麼『我見』和『至見』也應該有所區別。有人解釋經文說，這個『我所見』就是『我見』，由於『我』和『我所』這兩個方面轉變的緣故，所以分別說明。『是』我，是『我見』，是第一轉聲（Skt. prathamā vibhakti，主格）；屬於我，是『我所見』，是第六轉聲（Skt. ṣaṣṭhī vibhakti，屬格）。由於我，說由於我如此，是第三轉聲（Skt. tṛtīyā vibhakti，工具格）；爲了我，說是爲了我如此，是第四轉聲（Skt. caturthī vibhakti，與格）。在八轉聲中，第一和第六如果是不同的見解，那麼第三和第四，見解也應該不同。第三和第四的見解既然沒有差別，第一和第六的見解怎麼會有不同呢？為什麼其餘的迷惑不是顛倒的本體呢？這是下面解釋第三句。這就是提問。必須要具備三種原因才能成為顛倒的本體。回答說，必須要具備三種原因，殊勝的才能成為顛倒。所說的三種原因是一向顛倒的緣故，是推度的性質的緣故，是虛妄增益的緣故。又《正理經》說，增聲也顯示本體的增勝（以上是論文）。在五見（Skt. dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）中，所說的戒禁取（Skt. śīlavrataparāmarśa，執取錯誤的戒律和苦行），雖然具有推度的性質和虛妄增益，但不是一向顛倒的，因為依靠少分法而得到清凈的緣故。例如戒禁取執計有漏道（Skt. sāsrava-mārga，仍然受煩惱影響的修行方法）可以得到清凈的涅槃（Skt. nirvāṇa，解脫）。雖然不能究竟斷惑證滅，但能暫時離開下八地的染污，證得那裡的滅盡。婆沙論第一百零四卷說，戒禁取雖然是推度的性質和虛妄增益，但不是一向顛倒的，也在少分真實之處轉變的緣故。所說的有道能清凈欲界有（Skt. kāmadhātu-bhava，欲界的存在），無色道能清凈有，上地道能清凈下地，與無漏道（Skt. anāsrava-mārga，不受煩惱影響的修行方法）斷染證滅的意義相似。又《顯宗論》說，所說的戒禁取不是一向顛倒的，所執計的容許離開欲染等等的緣故，少分暫時得到清凈的緣故。問：例如見取（Skt. dṛṣṭiparāmarśa，執取錯誤的見解）執計樂受為樂，執計善法

【English Translation】 English version: 'The seer.' Answer: Because the Sutra on the Four Inversions (Skt. viparyāsa) speaks in this way, all those who hold that the 'self' (Skt. ātman, soul, ego) has the power of autonomy in those things are 'what is seen as mine.' Since 'what is mine' is spoken of separately from the self, it is clear that 'what is mine' is not included in the inversion of the self. Furthermore, some explain this passage by citing the Sutra to prove that 'what is mine' is included. The meaning of the self having autonomy in those things is 'what is seen as mine,' without a separate entity. If this is the case, then 'self-view' and 'extreme view' should also be different. Some explain the Sutra by saying that this 'what is seen as mine' is the same as 'self-view,' because it turns on the two aspects of 'self' and 'what is mine,' so it is explained separately. 'Is' self, is 'self-view,' is the first case ending (Skt. prathamā vibhakti, nominative case); belonging to me, is 'what is seen as mine,' is the sixth case ending (Skt. ṣaṣṭhī vibhakti, genitive case). Because of me, saying because of me thus, is the third case ending (Skt. tṛtīyā vibhakti, instrumental case); for me, saying for me thus, is the fourth case ending (Skt. caturthī vibhakti, dative case). Among the eight case endings, if the first and sixth are different views, then the third and fourth, the views should also be different. Since the views of the third and fourth are not different, how can the views of the first and sixth be different? Why are the remaining delusions not the essence of inversion? This is the explanation of the third sentence below. This is the question. It is necessary to have three causes to become the essence of inversion. The answer is that it is necessary to have three causes, and the superior one becomes the inversion. The three causes mentioned are because it is always inverted, because it is of the nature of inference, and because it is falsely additive. Also, the Nyaya Sutra says that the increase in sound also shows the increase in the essence (the above is the thesis). Among the five views (Skt. dṛṣṭi, wrong views), the so-called adherence to precepts and vows (Skt. śīlavrataparāmarśa, clinging to wrong precepts and asceticism), although it has the nature of inference and false addition, it is not always inverted, because it relies on a small part of the Dharma to obtain purity. For example, adherence to precepts and vows holds that the contaminated path (Skt. sāsrava-mārga, practice still affected by afflictions) can obtain pure Nirvana (Skt. nirvāṇa, liberation). Although it cannot ultimately cut off delusions and realize extinction, it can temporarily leave the defilements of the lower eight grounds and realize their extinction. The Vibhasa, volume 104, says that although adherence to precepts and vows is of the nature of inference and false addition, it is not always inverted, because it also turns on a small part of reality. The so-called **path can purify the desire realm existence (Skt. kāmadhātu-bhava, existence in the desire realm), the formless path can purify the ** existence, and the upper ground path can purify the lower ground, which is similar in meaning to the uncontaminated path (Skt. anāsrava-mārga, practice not affected by afflictions) cutting off defilements and realizing extinction. Also, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that the so-called adherence to precepts and vows is not always inverted, because what is adhered to allows for leaving desire defilements, etc., so a small part is temporarily purified. Question: For example, view-clinging (Skt. dṛṣṭiparāmarśa, clinging to wrong views) holds that pleasurable feeling is pleasure, and holds that wholesome dharmas

為凈。亦于少分實處轉故。何故是倒　解云彼執有漏同涅槃樂。同涅槃凈。于有漏中無少樂．凈同彼涅槃一向倒故所以名倒。其戒禁取非道計道。即有分同無漏聖道證凈涅槃故不成倒。斷見．邪見雖一向倒及推度性。非妄增益。無門轉故。所以非倒。所餘貪．瞋．慢．疑等。雖一向倒．及妄增益。不能推度。非見性故。所以非倒。由具三因勝者成倒。是故余惑非顛倒體。集．滅．道下見取亦應別簡。略而不論。故正理云。餘部見取非增勝故(已上論文)　其我所見異執不同故不別簡。若依初師。我所見非倒。應作是言我所見雖推度性及妄增益。非一向倒。亦于少分實處轉故。如計實法是我所有。非無體故。所以非倒。若依第二師。此我所見即是我見。異門說二。既我見攝。亦具三因。所以是倒。

若爾何故至非我亦然者。此下釋第四句難。若唯說見名為倒者。何故經中言諸顛倒總有十二。亦說想心。

理實應知至行相同故者。答。理唯見倒。想．心。隨見亦立倒名。與見相應行相同故。相從說倒。體非推度。非四倒攝。

若爾何故不說受等者。難。若爾受等隨見亦應名受等倒。

彼於世間至故經不說者。答。受等世間不極成故。謂心想倒世間極成。如言此事惱我心想。而不說言惱我受等。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為它是清凈的。而且它也在少許真實之處轉變。為什麼這是顛倒呢？解釋說，他們執著于有漏的快樂等同於涅槃的快樂，有漏的清凈等同於涅槃的清凈。在有漏之中，沒有少許的快樂和清凈能與涅槃相比，完全是顛倒的，所以稱為顛倒。而戒禁取（認為持戒和苦行可以達到解脫）並非將非道視為道，因為它在某種程度上與無漏的聖道證凈涅槃相同，所以不成顛倒。斷見（認為人死後一切皆無）和邪見雖然完全顛倒，並且具有推度性，但並非妄自增益，沒有途徑轉變，所以不是顛倒。其餘的貪、嗔、慢、疑等，雖然完全顛倒，並且妄自增益，但不能推度，不是見性的，所以不是顛倒。由於具備三種原因，殊勝者才成為顛倒。因此，其餘的迷惑不是顛倒的本體。集、滅、道下的見取也應該分別簡擇，這裡略而不論。所以《正理》中說，其餘部的見取不是因為增勝的緣故（以上是論文）。我所見與不同的執著不同，所以不分別簡擇。如果依照第一位論師的觀點，我所見不是顛倒，應該這樣說：我所見雖然具有推度性和妄自增益，但並非完全顛倒，而且在少許真實之處轉變。例如，認為真實法是我所有的，並非沒有本體，所以不是顛倒。如果依照第二位論師的觀點，這種我所見就是我見，只是用不同的方式表達。既然被我見所攝，也具備三種原因，所以是顛倒的。如果這樣，為什麼到『非我亦然』呢？這是解釋第四句的疑問。如果只說見是顛倒，為什麼經中說顛倒總共有十二種，也說了想和心。回答：實際上應該知道只有見是顛倒。想和心，隨著見也立為顛倒之名，因為與見相應的行為相同。相隨而說為顛倒，但本體並非推度，不屬於四顛倒所攝。如果這樣，為什麼不說受等呢？這是疑問。如果這樣，受等隨著見也應該稱為受等顛倒。回答：因為受等在世間不被普遍認可。也就是說，心想顛倒在世間被普遍認可，例如說『這件事惱我心想』，而不會說『惱我受等』，所以經中沒有說。

【English Translation】 English version: Because it is pure. And it also transforms in a small portion of reality. Why is this a viparyāsa (顛倒, delusion)? The explanation is that they cling to the afflicted pleasures as being the same as the bliss of Nirvāṇa (涅槃, extinction), and the afflicted purity as being the same as the purity of Nirvāṇa. Among the afflicted, there is not a small amount of pleasure and purity that can compare to that of Nirvāṇa; it is completely inverted, so it is called viparyāsa. As for śīlavrataparāmarśa (戒禁取, clinging to rites and rituals), it is not considering a non-path as the path, because it is somewhat the same as the undefiled noble path that realizes the purity of Nirvāṇa, so it is not a viparyāsa. Although ucchedadṛṣṭi (斷見, annihilationism) and mithyādṛṣṭi (邪見, false view) are completely inverted and have the nature of inference, they are not falsely additive, and there is no way to transform them, so they are not viparyāsa. The remaining greed, hatred, pride, doubt, etc., although completely inverted and falsely additive, cannot infer and are not of the nature of view, so they are not viparyāsa. Because of possessing three causes, the superior becomes a viparyāsa. Therefore, the remaining afflictions are not the substance of viparyāsa. The dṛṣṭiparāmarśa (見取, clinging to views) under samudaya (集, arising), nirodha (滅, cessation), and mārga (道, path) should also be separately distinguished, but they are omitted here. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says that the dṛṣṭiparāmarśa of other schools is not because of being superior (the above is the treatise). The view of 'I' and 'mine' is different from different attachments, so it is not separately distinguished. If according to the first teacher's view, the view of 'I' and 'mine' is not a viparyāsa, it should be said that although the view of 'I' and 'mine' has the nature of inference and is falsely additive, it is not completely inverted, and it transforms in a small portion of reality. For example, thinking that a real dharma (法, phenomena) is mine, it is not without substance, so it is not a viparyāsa. If according to the second teacher's view, this view of 'I' and 'mine' is the same as the view of 'I', just expressed in a different way. Since it is included in the view of 'I', it also possesses three causes, so it is a viparyāsa. If so, why does it go to 'not-self is also the same'? This is explaining the question of the fourth sentence. If only view is said to be a viparyāsa, why does the sutra say that there are a total of twelve viparyāsa, and also speak of thought and mind? Answer: In reality, it should be known that only view is a viparyāsa. Thought and mind, following view, are also established as the name of viparyāsa, because the actions corresponding to view are the same. They are spoken of as viparyāsa following each other, but the substance is not inference and is not included in the four viparyāsa. If so, why are feeling, etc., not mentioned? This is a question. If so, feeling, etc., following view, should also be called feeling viparyāsa, etc. Answer: Because feeling, etc., are not universally recognized in the world. That is to say, the viparyāsa of thought and mind are universally recognized in the world, for example, saying 'This matter annoys my thought and mind,' but not saying 'annoys my feeling, etc.,' so the sutra does not mention it.

經不說。

如是諸倒至見所斷故者。顯唯見斷。如是諸倒預流已斷。見及相應想．心等法見所斷故。

有餘部說至寧起欲貪者。敘異說。準婆沙．正理。是分別論者。於十二中八唯見斷。常．我各三。謂想。心。見。樂．凈各一。所謂見倒。四通見．修斷。樂．凈各二。所謂想。心。若謂不然。未離欲聖離樂．凈想心。寧起欲貪。以此故知。樂．凈想心亦通修斷。

毗婆沙師至畫藥叉迷亂者。毗婆沙師不許此義。若有樂．凈想．心現行。便許聖者有樂．凈倒。聖者亦起有情想．心。是即亦應許有我見倒。非於婦女等及於自身。離有情想．心有起欲貪故。既起有情想．心。應起我見倒。復引經證。不通修斷。經說諸聖于苦聖諦無間道如實見。解脫道如實知。如是于集．滅．道聖諦如實見．知　正理具引經文。此論略引經文故云乃至。超餘三諦取后經文。當於爾時彼聖弟子非常計常。想．心．見倒皆已永斷。乃至廣說于苦．不凈．非我三種。計樂．凈．我想．心．見倒皆已永斷。故知想．心唯取見倒相應力起是想．心倒。非余想．心。理實四倒見苦所斷。而此經言如實見知集等諦時皆已永斷者。于具見聖諦。說已永斷故。聖雖于境知苦．不凈。然聖有時為貪所逼暫迷亂故。率爾于境欲貪現前起樂凈想．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：經中沒有詳細說明。

『如是諸倒至見所斷故者』，這表明這些顛倒都是見道所斷的。『如是諸倒預流已斷』，意思是說，預流果位的人已經斷除了這些顛倒。想、心等與見惑相應的法，都是見道所斷的。

『有餘部說至寧起欲貪者』，這是敘述不同的觀點。根據《婆沙論》和《正理論》，這是分別論者的觀點，認為十二種顛倒中有八種是唯有見道才能斷除的，即常、我各有三種（想、心、見），樂、凈各有一種。所謂的見倒，四種都通於見道和修道所斷。樂、凈各有兩種（想、心）。如果說不是這樣，那麼未離欲界的聖者，對於樂、凈的想和心，怎麼會生起欲貪呢？因此可知，樂、凈的想和心也通於修道所斷。

『毗婆沙師至畫藥叉迷亂者』，毗婆沙師不認可這種說法。如果樂、凈的想和心現行，就承認聖者有樂、凈的顛倒。聖者也會生起有情想和心，那麼也應該承認有我見倒。因為如果不是對於婦女等以及自身生起有情想和心，就不會生起欲貪。既然生起了有情想和心，就應該生起我見倒。又引用經文來證明，不通於修道所斷。經中說，諸聖者在苦聖諦的無間道中如實地見，在解脫道中如實地知。同樣，對於集、滅、道聖諦也是如實地見和知。《正理論》詳細地引用了經文，這裡因為論述簡略，所以只引用了部分經文，因此說『乃至』。跳過了其餘三諦，只取了後面的經文。當那時，那位聖弟子不會將無常視為常，想、心、見等顛倒都已經永遠斷除了。乃至廣泛地說，對於苦、不凈、非我三種，將它們視為樂、凈、我的想、心、見等顛倒都已經永遠斷除了。所以可知，想和心只是取與見倒相應的力量而生起的想和心顛倒，而不是其餘的想和心。實際上，四種顛倒都是見苦所斷的。而這部經中說，如實地見知集等諦時，這些顛倒都已經永遠斷除了，這是因為在具足見聖諦時，才說這些顛倒已經永遠斷除了。聖者雖然對於境界知道是苦和不凈，但是聖者有時會被貪慾所逼迫，暫時迷亂，因此突然對於境界生起欲貪，現前生起樂凈想。

【English Translation】 English version: The sutra does not elaborate.

'As these inversions are severed by the path of seeing,' indicates that these inversions are only severed by the path of seeing. 'As these inversions are already severed by the Stream-enterer,' means that the Stream-enterer has already severed these inversions. Thoughts, minds, and other phenomena associated with wrong views are severed by the path of seeing.

'Some other schools say, 'How can desire arise?'' This narrates a different view. According to the Vibhasa (Great Commentary) and the Nyayanusara (Following the Correct Principle), this is the view of the Sautrantikas (Those Who Uphold the Sutras), who believe that among the twelve inversions, eight are only severed by the path of seeing: permanence and self each have three (thought, mind, view), and pleasure and purity each have one. The so-called inversions of view are all connected to the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. Pleasure and purity each have two (thought, mind). If it were not so, how could a non-desire realm saint generate desire for pleasure and purity? Therefore, it is known that thoughts and minds of pleasure and purity are also connected to the path of cultivation.

'The Vibhasa master says, 'Like a yaksha (a type of spirit) painted to cause confusion,' the Vibhasa master does not accept this meaning. If thoughts and minds of pleasure and purity are present, then it is admitted that saints have inversions of pleasure and purity. Saints also generate thoughts and minds of sentient beings, so it should also be admitted that there are inversions of self-view. Because if one does not generate thoughts and minds of sentient beings towards women and oneself, one will not generate desire. Since thoughts and minds of sentient beings are generated, inversions of self-view should be generated. Furthermore, the sutra is cited as proof that it is not connected to the path of cultivation. The sutra says that saints truly see the truth of suffering in the path of no outflow, and truly know the path of liberation. Similarly, they truly see and know the truths of accumulation, cessation, and the path. The Nyayanusara cites the sutra in detail. This treatise briefly cites the sutra, so it says 'and so on.' Skipping the other three truths, it takes the later sutra text. At that time, that noble disciple will not regard impermanence as permanence, and the inversions of thought, mind, and view will all be permanently severed. And so on, broadly speaking, regarding suffering, impurity, and non-self, the inversions of thought, mind, and view that regard them as pleasure, purity, and self will all be permanently severed. Therefore, it is known that thoughts and minds only take the power of thoughts and minds that arise in accordance with the inversions of view, not other thoughts and minds. In reality, the four inversions are all severed by seeing suffering. And this sutra says that when one truly sees and knows the truths of accumulation and so on, these inversions are all permanently severed, because it is said that these inversions are permanently severed when one possesses the truth of seeing. Although saints know that the realm is suffering and impure, saints are sometimes forced by greed and temporarily confused, so they suddenly generate desire for the realm, and the thoughts of pleasure and purity arise before them.

心覺已即止。非推度等故不成顛倒。如於旋火輪以迷亂故。非實是輪匆見謂輪。起輪心想。覺已即無。如於畫藥叉以迷亂故。非實藥叉匆見謂是。起彼心想而生怖畏。覺已即無。此既非倒。聖者亦然。

若爾何故至不違彼經者。難毗婆沙師　慶喜。梵云阿難陀辨自在。是初果人。若想．心倒唯見所斷不通修斷。何故慶喜告辨自在。由有想亂倒故汝心焦熱。后得無學果。遠離彼想已貪息心便凈。學位猶起想．心二倒。故知想．心亦通修斷　有餘經部師復作是說。八想．心倒學未全斷。彼宗意說。見唯迷理故唯見斷。想．心通迷理．事起故通見．修斷。復通前經。前經所說於四聖諦如實見知想．心見倒皆永斷者。此經非唯說見斷。亦通修斷　如是八種于修位中終由如實見知聖諦方得永斷。離此諦觀無餘永斷八種方便故。此經部所說八種亦通修斷。不違前經。論主意朋經部。所以此中絕救　十二顛倒。若依毗婆沙師。唯見苦斷粗果起故。于學位中諸染想．心及學．無學位無記想．心有迷亂者容可說倒。而非四倒。具三義就勝名倒如先。若依餘部。八唯見斷。四通見．修。如前應知。若依余經部師。四唯見斷。八通見．修。亦如前說。

為唯見隨眠至為余亦有者。此下第五明七．九慢。就中。一正明七．九慢。二

釋未斷不起　此下第一正明七．九慢問。為唯見隨眠約行不同有多差別。為余隨眠亦有差別。

慢亦有者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至有修斷不行者。上句正答。第二句明見．修斷。下兩句顯未斷不行。

論曰至故分七種者。此下釋七慢。此即總釋。

於劣于等至總說為慢者。此下別釋七慢。文即為七。此釋第一慢。於劣謂勝。于等謂等。令心高舉。總說為慢　于等云何。如有二人精神齊等。一先誦得阿笈摩經。一后誦得。心便高舉。故正理四十七云。於他劣等族明等中。謂己勝等高舉名慢　豈不此二俱于境中如實而轉不應成慢。方劣言勝。方等言等。稱量而知何失名慢　于可愛事心生愛染如實而轉如何成貪。此既耽求諸可意事無有顛倒。應非煩惱。然由此起能染惱心既許成貪。是煩惱性。如是雖實勝劣處生。而能令心高舉染惱。名慢煩惱。于理何失　解云。族。謂種族。明。謂聰明。等言。即顯色．力．財等。于等於勝至總名過慢者。釋第二慢。于等謂勝。于勝謂等。總名過慢。慢太過故妄進一階。或過前慢。或慢過重前。故名過慢。正理論云。於他等勝族。明等中。謂己勝等名為過慢。

于勝謂勝名慢過慢者。釋第三慢　于勝謂勝。勝名過己。慢他過故名慢過慢。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『釋未斷不起』，以下是第一部分，正式闡明七種慢的第九個問題。是爲了僅僅根據隨眠（Sui Mian，煩惱的潛在狀態）和行（Xing，行為）的不同，而有多種差別呢？還是其餘的隨眠也有差別？

『慢亦有者』。回答。

『云何者』。提問。

『頌曰至有修斷不行者』。第一句是正式的回答。第二句闡明見斷（Jian Duan，通過見道斷除的煩惱）和修斷（Xiu Duan，通過修道斷除的煩惱）。下面兩句顯示未斷除則不行。

『論曰至故分七種者』。以下解釋七種慢。這是總體的解釋。

『於劣于等至總說為慢者』。以下分別解釋七種慢。文字分為七部分。這是解釋第一種慢。對於不如自己的人認為勝過自己，對於和自己相等的人認為和自己相等，使內心高傲自大，總的來說叫做慢。『于等云何』？例如有兩個人精神才智相等，一個先背誦了阿笈摩經（A-qi-mo Jing，Agama Sutra，佛教經典），一個後背誦了，內心便高傲自大。所以《正理》第四十七卷說：『在他人不如或等於自己的種族、聰明等方面，認為自己勝過或等於他人，高傲自大，叫做慢。』難道這兩種情況不都是在境（Jing，境界）中如實地運轉，不應該構成慢嗎？面對不如自己的人說勝過，面對和自己相等的人說相等，稱量而知，有什麼過失而叫做慢呢？對於可愛的事物，內心產生愛染，如實地運轉，為什麼會構成貪（Tan，貪婪）呢？這既然是貪求各種可意的事物，沒有顛倒，應該不是煩惱。然而由此產生能夠染污惱亂內心的行為，既然允許構成貪，是煩惱的性質。像這樣，即使在真實的勝劣之處產生，而能夠使內心高傲自大，染污惱亂，叫做慢的煩惱，在道理上有什麼過失呢？解釋說：族，指的是種族。明，指的是聰明。等，指的是顯色、力量、財富等。『于等於勝至總名過慢者』。解釋第二種慢。對於和自己相等的人認為勝過自己，對於勝過自己的人認為和自己相等，總的叫做過慢。慢太過分，虛妄地前進一個階段。或者超過前面的慢，或者慢比前面的慢更嚴重，所以叫做過慢。《正理論》說：『在他人等於或勝過自己的種族、聰明等方面，認為自己勝過或等於他人，叫做過慢。』

『于勝謂勝名慢過慢者』。解釋第三種慢。對於勝過自己的人認為勝過自己，勝過自己叫做過己，輕慢他人的過失，所以叫做慢過慢。

【English Translation】 English version 'Shi Wei Duan Bu Qi' (釋未斷不起), this below is the first part, formally clarifying the ninth question of the seven types of conceit. Is it because there are multiple differences solely based on the differences in Sui Mian (Sui Mian, latent states of afflictions) and Xing (Xing, actions)? Or do the remaining Sui Mian also have differences?

'Man Yi You Zhe' (慢亦有者). Answer.

'Yun He Zhe' (云何者). Question.

'Song Yue Zhi You Xiu Duan Bu Xing Zhe' (頌曰至有修斷不行者). The first sentence is the formal answer. The second sentence clarifies Jian Duan (Jian Duan, afflictions severed through the path of seeing) and Xiu Duan (Xiu Duan, afflictions severed through the path of cultivation). The following two sentences show that without severance, it is not possible.

'Lun Yue Zhi Gu Fen Qi Zhong Zhe' (論曰至故分七種者). Below explains the seven types of conceit. This is the overall explanation.

'Yu Lie Yu Deng Zhi Zong Shuo Wei Man Zhe' (於劣于等至總說為慢者). Below separately explains the seven types of conceit. The text is divided into seven parts. This explains the first type of conceit. Considering oneself superior to those who are inferior, considering oneself equal to those who are equal, causing the mind to be arrogant and conceited, generally called conceit. 'Yu Deng Yun He' (于等云何)? For example, if two people have equal mental capacity, one recites the Agama Sutra (A-qi-mo Jing, Buddhist scriptures) first, and the other recites it later, the mind becomes arrogant and conceited. Therefore, the forty-seventh volume of the Zheng Li (正理) says: 'In terms of others being inferior or equal in race, intelligence, etc., considering oneself superior or equal, being arrogant and conceited is called conceit.' Aren't both of these situations operating truthfully in the Jing (Jing, realm), shouldn't they constitute conceit? Facing those who are inferior, saying superior; facing those who are equal, saying equal; measuring and knowing, what fault is there to be called conceit? For lovable things, the mind generates attachment, operating truthfully, why does it constitute Tan (Tan, greed)? Since this is greedily seeking various desirable things without inversion, it should not be an affliction. However, the behavior arising from this that can defile and disturb the mind, since it is allowed to constitute greed, is the nature of affliction. Like this, even if it arises in real situations of superiority and inferiority, and can cause the mind to be arrogant and defiled, it is called the affliction of conceit, what fault is there in principle? The explanation says: race refers to lineage. Intelligence refers to cleverness. Equal refers to manifest appearance, strength, wealth, etc. 'Yu Deng Yu Sheng Zhi Zong Ming Guo Man Zhe' (于等於勝至總名過慢者). Explains the second type of conceit. Considering oneself superior to those who are equal, considering oneself equal to those who are superior, generally called excessive conceit. Conceit is too excessive, falsely advancing one stage. Or exceeding the previous conceit, or the conceit is more severe than the previous one, so it is called excessive conceit. The Zheng Li Lun (正理論) says: 'In terms of others being equal or superior in race, intelligence, etc., considering oneself superior or equal is called excessive conceit.'

'Yu Sheng Wei Sheng Ming Man Guo Man Zhe' (于勝謂勝名慢過慢者). Explains the third type of conceit. Considering oneself superior to those who are superior, being superior is called exceeding oneself, slighting the faults of others, so it is called conceit over conceit.

或慢謂高舉。高前過慢名慢過慢。正理論云。於他殊勝族。明等中。謂己勝彼名慢過慢。

於五取蘊至名為我慢者。釋第四慢。於五取蘊執我．我所。此是我見　或緣我起慢。或恃我起慢。或由我起慢。故名我慢。

于未證得至名增上慢者。釋第五慢。于未證得殊勝功德中。謂己證得。名增上慢。正理云。有餘師說。于證少德謂己證多。心生高舉名增上慢。

于多分勝至名為卑慢者。釋第六慢。正理論云。諸有在家。或出家者。於他工巧尸羅等德多分勝中。謂己少劣心生高舉名為卑慢。此中於己心高舉者。於他多勝謂己少劣。有增己故亦說為高。

于無德中至名為邪慢者。釋第七慢。于諸惡行無德法中。謂己有德名為邪慢。故正理云。于無德中謂己有德名為邪慢。言無德者謂諸惡行。違功德故立無德名。猶如不善。彼于成此無德法中。謂己有斯殊勝功德。恃惡高舉故名邪慢　若謂無德者是遮有德言。于實無德中謂有名邪慢。彼辨增上．邪慢別中說無種子名增上慢。有種子者名為邪慢。或全增益名增上慢。少分增益名為邪慢。如是差別理應不成。是故應知前說為勝。

然本論說至三中離出者。此下釋九從三。會釋本論。然發智本論說。慢類有九　我勝者。謂我勝彼　我等者。謂我等彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者輕慢地認為自己高人一等。在他人之前表現出高傲輕慢，這被稱為慢過慢（Manatimanah，在他人優越的基礎上，更加高傲自大）。《正理論》中說，在他人具有殊勝的種族、聰明才智等優點的情況下，認為自己勝過他們，這被稱為慢過慢。

對於五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）執著，以至於產生我慢（Asmimana，認為『我』存在），這是解釋第四種慢。對於五取蘊執著于『我』和『我所』（屬於我的），這是我見（認為有『我』的錯誤見解）。或者因為『我』而生起慢心，或者依仗『我』而生起慢心，或者由於『我』而生起慢心，所以稱為我慢。

對於未曾證得的殊勝功德，卻認為自己已經證得，這被稱為增上慢（Adhimana，未證得卻自認為已證得）。這是解釋第五種慢。《正理論》中說，有其他論師認為，對於只證得少許功德，卻認為自己證得了許多功德，心中生起高傲自大，這被稱為增上慢。

在他人具有遠勝于自己的工巧技藝、戒行等功德的情況下，卻認為自己稍微差一點，心中生起高傲自大，這被稱為卑慢（Unamana，自卑感引發的傲慢）。這是解釋第六種慢。《正理論》中說，有些在家居士或者出家修行者，在他人具有工巧技藝、戒行等遠勝于自己的功德時，卻認為自己只是稍微不如他們，心中生起高傲自大，這被稱為卑慢。這裡所說的自己心中高傲自大，是指在他人遠勝于自己的情況下，認為自己只是稍微差一點。因為有抬高自己的成分，所以也說是高傲。

在沒有功德的情況下，卻認為自己有功德，這被稱為邪慢（Micchamana，錯誤的傲慢）。這是解釋第七種慢。對於各種惡行等沒有功德的法，卻認為自己有功德，這被稱為邪慢。所以《正理論》中說，在沒有功德的情況下，認為自己有功德，這被稱為邪慢。所說的沒有功德，是指各種惡行，因為與功德相違背，所以稱為沒有功德，就像不善一樣。那些成就這些沒有功德之法的人，認為自己具有殊勝的功德，依仗惡行而高傲自大，所以稱為邪慢。如果認為沒有功德是指遮止有功德的說法，那麼在實際上沒有功德的情況下，認為自己有名聲，這屬於邪慢。他們在辨別增上慢和邪慢的區別時說，沒有種子的是增上慢，有種子的是邪慢。或者完全增益的是增上慢，少部分增益的是邪慢。這樣的區別理應不能成立。所以應當知道前面所說的解釋更為殊勝。

然而本論說，從三中分離出來，這是下面解釋九種慢從三種慢中分離出來，會合解釋本論。然而《發智論》本論說，慢的種類有九種：『我勝』，是指我勝過他們；『我等』，是指我與他們相等。

【English Translation】 English version: Or, to slightingly consider oneself superior. To display arrogance and contempt before others is called Manatimanah (arrogance beyond arrogance, being even more arrogant on the basis of others' superiority). The Abhidharmakosha states: 'When others possess superior lineage, intelligence, etc., and one considers oneself superior to them, this is called Manatimanah.'

Clinging to the five aggregates (Panca-upadanakkhandha, the five elements constituting individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) to the point of generating Asmimana (the conceit of 'I am'), this explains the fourth type of conceit. Clinging to 'I' and 'mine' (belonging to me) in relation to the five aggregates is the view of self (the mistaken view of having a 'self'). Or, conceit arises because of 'I,' or conceit relies on 'I,' or conceit arises from 'I,' hence it is called Asmimana.

Claiming to have attained superior qualities that have not been attained is called Adhimana (exaggerated conceit, claiming to have attained what has not been attained). This explains the fifth type of conceit. The Abhidharmakosha states: 'Some teachers say that attaining only a few merits but claiming to have attained many, giving rise to arrogance in the mind, is called Adhimana.'

When others possess far superior skills, moral conduct, etc., but one considers oneself only slightly inferior, giving rise to arrogance in the mind, this is called Unamana (humility-induced arrogance). This explains the sixth type of conceit. The Abhidharmakosha states: 'Some lay practitioners or monastic practitioners, when others possess skills, moral conduct, etc., far superior to their own, consider themselves only slightly inferior, giving rise to arrogance in the mind, which is called Unamana.' Here, the arrogance in one's own mind refers to considering oneself only slightly inferior when others are far superior. Because there is an element of elevating oneself, it is also said to be arrogance.

Claiming to have merits when one has no merits is called Micchamana (false conceit, incorrect arrogance). This explains the seventh type of conceit. Regarding various evil deeds and other non-meritorious dharmas, claiming to have merits is called Micchamana. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha states: 'Claiming to have merits when one has no merits is called Micchamana.' The term 'no merits' refers to various evil deeds, because they are contrary to merits, hence they are called 'no merits,' just like unwholesomeness. Those who accomplish these non-meritorious dharmas consider themselves to possess superior merits, relying on evil deeds to be arrogant, hence it is called Micchamana. If it is thought that 'no merits' refers to negating the existence of merits, then claiming to have fame when one actually has no merits belongs to Micchamana. When distinguishing between Adhimana and Micchamana, they say that Adhimana has no seed, while Micchamana has a seed. Or, complete exaggeration is Adhimana, while partial exaggeration is Micchamana. Such distinctions should not be established. Therefore, it should be known that the previous explanation is superior.

However, the present treatise states that separating from the three explains below how the nine conceits are separated from the three conceits, combining and explaining the present treatise. However, the Jnanaprasthana treatise states that there are nine types of conceit: 'I am superior,' which means I am superior to them; 'I am equal,' which means I am equal to them.

我劣者。謂我劣彼　有勝我者。謂有他勝我　有等我者。謂有他等我　有劣我者。謂有他劣我　無勝我者。謂無他勝我與我齊等　無等我者。謂無他與我等我勝於彼　無劣我者。謂無他劣我我居下劣　此九從前七中三出離。

從三者何者。問。

謂從前慢至過慢卑慢者。答。謂從前七慢中第一慢。第二過慢。第六卑慢。如是三慢若依我見生行解。次第有殊。成三三九慢類。九中初三如其次第。我勝慢類謂我勝彼。于等謂己勝即是過慢。我等慢類謂我等彼。于等謂己等即是慢。我劣慢類謂我劣彼。于勝謂己劣即是卑慢　九中中三如其次第。有勝我慢類謂有他勝我。于勝謂己劣即是卑慢。有等我慢類謂有他等我。于等謂己等即是慢。有劣我慢類謂有他劣我。于等謂己勝即是過慢　九中后三如其次第。無勝我慢類謂無他勝我。于等謂已勝即是過慢。無劣我慢類謂無他劣我。于勝謂己劣即是卑慢。

于多分勝至高處是何者。問。如於他人多分勝法。謂己少劣卑慢可成。有高處故。無劣我慢類高處是何而起慢耶。

謂于如是至而自尊重者。答。無劣我慢雖無高處。于自愛樂勝有情聚。反顧己身雖知極劣。而自尊重故能起彼無劣我慢。

如是且依發智論釋者。結。如是九慢類且依發智論釋。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『我不如別人』，就認為我比別人差；『有人勝過我』，就認為別人勝過我；『有人與我相等』，就認為別人與我相等；『有人不如我』，就認為別人不如我；『沒有人勝過我』，就認為沒有人勝過我，我和別人一樣；『沒有人與我相等』，就認為沒有人與我相等，我勝過別人；『沒有人不如我』，就認為沒有人不如我，我處於下劣的地位。這九種慢從前面的七種慢中，由三種慢衍生出來。

是哪三種慢呢？（問）

是從前面的慢到過慢、卑慢。（答）是從前面七種慢中的第一種慢（Māna 慢），第二種過慢（Atimāna），第六種卑慢（avamāna）。這三種慢如果依據我見（ātmadṛṣṭi）產生行為和理解，次第會有差別，形成三種三類共九種慢。九種慢中最初的三種，如其次第：『我勝慢』，認為我勝過別人；對於相等的情況，認為自己勝過別人，這就是過慢；『我等慢』，認為我與別人相等；對於相等的情況，認為自己與別人相等，這就是慢；『我劣慢』，認為我不如別人；對於勝過的情況，認為自己不如別人，這就是卑慢。九種慢中中間的三種，如其次第：『有勝我慢』，認為有人勝過我；對於勝過的情況，認為自己不如別人，這就是卑慢；『有等我慢』，認為有人與我相等；對於相等的情況，認為自己與別人相等，這就是慢；『有劣我慢』，認為有人不如我；對於相等的情況，認為自己勝過別人，這就是過慢。九種慢中最後的三種，如其次第：『無勝我慢』，認為沒有人勝過我；對於相等的情況，認為自己勝過別人，這就是過慢；『無劣我慢』，認為沒有人不如我；對於勝過的情況，認為自己不如別人，這就是卑慢。

在多數方面勝過別人，達到高處的，是什麼慢呢？（問）例如在他人多數勝法方面，認為自己稍微差一點，卑慢就可以成立，因為有高處。『無劣我慢』的高處是什麼而生起慢呢？

是對於像這樣……而自我尊重。（答）『無劣我慢』雖然沒有高處，但對於喜愛勝過有情（sattva）的群體，反觀自身，即使知道自己極其低劣，但因為自我尊重，所以能生起那種『無劣我慢』。

像這樣且依據《發智論》（Jñānaprasthāna）解釋。（結）像這樣九種慢的類別，且依據《發智論》解釋。

【English Translation】 English version 『I am inferior,』 thinking I am worse than others; 『Someone is superior to me,』 thinking others are superior to me; 『Someone is equal to me,』 thinking others are equal to me; 『Someone is inferior to me,』 thinking others are inferior to me; 『No one is superior to me,』 thinking no one is superior to me, I am equal to others; 『No one is equal to me,』 thinking no one is equal to me, I am superior to others; 『No one is inferior to me,』 thinking no one is inferior to me, I am in an inferior position. These nine types of conceit arise from three of the previous seven.

Which three? (Question)

From the previous māna (conceit) to atimāna (excessive conceit), to avamāna (inferiority conceit). (Answer) From the first māna, the second atimāna, and the sixth avamāna among the previous seven types of conceit. If these three types of conceit arise from ātmadṛṣṭi (self-view), their order will differ, forming three groups of three, totaling nine types of conceit. Among the nine, the first three, in order: 『I am superior conceit,』 thinking I am superior to others; regarding equality, thinking oneself superior, which is atimāna; 『I am equal conceit,』 thinking I am equal to others; regarding equality, thinking oneself equal, which is māna; 『I am inferior conceit,』 thinking I am inferior to others; regarding superiority, thinking oneself inferior, which is avamāna. Among the nine, the middle three, in order: 『Someone is superior to me conceit,』 thinking someone is superior to me; regarding superiority, thinking oneself inferior, which is avamāna; 『Someone is equal to me conceit,』 thinking someone is equal to me; regarding equality, thinking oneself equal, which is māna; 『Someone is inferior to me conceit,』 thinking someone is inferior to me; regarding equality, thinking oneself superior, which is atimāna. Among the nine, the last three, in order: 『No one is superior to me conceit,』 thinking no one is superior to me; regarding equality, thinking oneself superior, which is atimāna; 『No one is inferior to me conceit,』 thinking no one is inferior to me; regarding superiority, thinking oneself inferior, which is avamāna.

In most aspects superior to others, reaching a high place, what is that conceit? (Question) For example, in others' many superior qualities, thinking oneself slightly inferior, avamāna can be established because there is a high place. What is the high place of 『No one is inferior to me conceit』 that gives rise to conceit?

It is regarding such... and self-respect. (Answer) Although 『No one is inferior to me conceit』 has no high place, regarding the group of beings (sattva) one loves and surpasses, looking back at oneself, even knowing oneself to be extremely inferior, because of self-respect, one can generate that 『No one is inferior to me conceit.』

Like this, explained based on the Jñānaprasthāna (Treatise on the Foundation of Knowledge). (Conclusion) Like this, the nine types of conceit are explained based on the Jñānaprasthāna.

依品類足至勝境別故者。復依品類釋慢類者。且我勝慢類從三慢出。若觀劣境謂己勝即是慢攝。若觀等境謂己勝即是過慢。若觀勝境謂己勝即是慢過慢。餘八慢類如理應說。

如是七慢何所斷耶者。釋第二句。此即問。

一切皆通見．修所斷者。答。如是七慢一切皆通見．修斷隨其所應。若緣見所斷者見斷。若緣事者修斷。應知七慢皆通三界。故婆沙四十三云。評曰應作是說。非卑慢等要比度他勝．劣而起。無始時來數習力故。雖生上界亦有現行。是故三界皆具七慢。

諸修所斷至為可現行者。問。諸修斷慢聖者未斷時為可現行不。

此不決定至唯修所斷者。答。此不決定。於七慢中或有修所斷于未斷位聖容現行。謂除慢類及與我慢。所餘諸慢於此慢中或有修所斷。于未斷位而聖定不行。謂慢類我慢。此不行因次後當辨。寄喻來況。如殺生纏是修所斷。而諸聖者必不現行。殺生纏者顯由此惑發起故思斷眾生命。頌說等言顯盜．淫．誑纏。無有愛全不起。有愛一分不起　問無有名何法　答謂三界非常滅相名為無有。於此非常貪求名無有愛。若泛說三界非常。諸無有愛通見．修斷　此中意說於三界中。眾同分上非常滅相名為無有。愿我死後斷壞無有。于無有貪名無有愛。聖於此愛全不起故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『依品類足至勝境別故者』，這是根據所緣境的不同來區分慢的種類。『復依品類釋慢類者』，接下來根據品類來解釋慢的種類。首先，『我勝慢』這一類是從三種慢產生的：如果觀察不如自己的境界，認為自己勝過對方，這就是『慢』所攝；如果觀察與自己相等的境界，認為自己勝過對方，這就是『過慢』；如果觀察勝過自己的境界，認為自己勝過對方，這就是『慢過慢』。其餘八種慢的種類，應該按照這個道理來解釋。

『如是七慢何所斷耶者』，這是解釋第二句話，實際上是一個提問。

『一切皆通見．修所斷者』，這是回答。這七種慢，一切都通於見所斷和修所斷，根據具體情況而定。如果所緣的是見所斷的法，那就是見斷；如果所緣的是事，那就是修斷。應該知道，七種慢都通於三界。所以《婆沙》第四十三卷說：評論說，應該這樣說，不是隻有『卑慢』等才需要比較他人勝劣而生起。由於無始以來的串習力量，即使生在上界，也有可能現行。因此，三界都具有七種慢。

『諸修所斷至為可現行者』，提問：那些修所斷的慢，聖者在沒有斷除的時候，是否還會現行？

『此不決定至唯修所斷者』，回答：這不一定。在七種慢中，有些修所斷的慢，在沒有斷除的時候，聖者可能會現行，例如除了『慢類』和『我慢』之外的其餘諸慢。在這些慢中，有些修所斷的慢，在沒有斷除的時候，聖者決定不會現行，例如『慢類』和『我慢』。不現行的原因將在後面解釋。可以用比喻來說明，例如殺生纏（pratighāta-paryavasthāna）是修所斷，而諸位聖者必定不會現行。『殺生纏』顯示了由於這種迷惑的驅使，才會發起斷眾生命的想法。頌中所說的『等』字，顯示了盜、淫、誑纏（steya-mithyācāra-paryavasthāna）。沒有『無有愛』（bhava-rāga）是完全不會生起的，有些『無有愛』是一部分不會生起。問：什麼是『無有』（abhava）？答：指的是三界中非常（anitya）的滅相（nirodha-lakṣaṇa），在這種非常上貪求就叫做『無有愛』。如果泛泛地說三界非常，那麼諸『無有愛』通於見所斷和修所斷。這裡的意思是說，在三界中，眾生共同的體性上，非常的滅相叫做『無有』，希望我死後斷滅，在這種『無有』上貪求就叫做『無有愛』。聖者對於這種愛是完全不會生起的。

【English Translation】 English version 『依品類足至勝境別故者』 (yi pǐn lèi zú zhì shèng jìng bié gù zhě): This is to distinguish the types of pride based on the difference in the objects of focus. 『復依品類釋慢類者』 (fù yī pǐn lèi shì màn lèi zhě): Next, explain the types of pride according to their categories. First, the category of 『I am superior pride』 (我勝慢, wǒ shèng màn) arises from three types of pride: If one observes an inferior state and thinks oneself superior, this is included in 『pride』 (慢,màn); if one observes an equal state and thinks oneself superior, this is 『excessive pride』 (過慢, guò màn); if one observes a superior state and thinks oneself superior, this is 『pride beyond pride』 (慢過慢, màn guò màn). The remaining eight types of pride should be explained according to this principle.

『如是七慢何所斷耶者』 (rú shì qī màn hé suǒ duàn yé zhě): This explains the second sentence, which is actually a question.

『一切皆通見．修所斷者』 (yī qiè jiē tōng jiàn. xiū suǒ duàn zhě): This is the answer. All seven types of pride are connected to both what is severed by seeing (見所斷, jiàn suǒ duàn) and what is severed by cultivation (修所斷, xiū suǒ duàn), depending on the specific situation. If the object of focus is a dharma to be severed by seeing, then it is severed by seeing; if the object of focus is an event, then it is severed by cultivation. It should be known that the seven types of pride are all connected to the Three Realms (三界, sān jiè). Therefore, the forty-third volume of the Vibhāṣā (婆沙, pó shā) says: The commentary says that it should be said that it is not only 『humble pride』 (卑慢, bēi màn) and the like that need to be compared to the superiority or inferiority of others to arise. Due to the power of habitual practice from beginningless time, even if one is born in the upper realms, it is still possible for it to manifest. Therefore, all three realms possess the seven types of pride.

『諸修所斷至為可現行者』 (zhū xiū suǒ duàn zhì wèi kě xiàn xíng zhě): Question: Those prides that are severed by cultivation, when the sages have not yet severed them, will they still manifest?

『此不決定至唯修所斷者』 (cǐ bù jué dìng zhì wéi xiū suǒ duàn zhě): Answer: This is not certain. Among the seven types of pride, some that are severed by cultivation may manifest in the position where they have not been severed by the sages, such as all the prides except for 『pride category』 (慢類, màn lèi) and 『I pride』 (我慢, wǒ màn). Among these prides, some that are severed by cultivation will definitely not manifest by the sages in the position where they have not been severed, such as 『pride category』 and 『I pride』. The reason for not manifesting will be explained later. It can be illustrated with a metaphor, such as the entanglement of killing (殺生纏, pratighāta-paryavasthāna) is severed by cultivation, but the sages will definitely not manifest it. 『The entanglement of killing』 shows that it is due to the driving of this delusion that the idea of cutting off the lives of beings is initiated. The word 『etc.』 (等, děng) in the verse shows the entanglements of stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying (steya-mithyācāra-paryavasthāna). There is no 『love of existence』 (無有愛, bhava-rāga) that will not arise at all, and some 『love of existence』 will not arise in part. Question: What is 『non-existence』 (無有, abhava)? Answer: It refers to the impermanent (非常, anitya) characteristic of cessation (滅相, nirodha-lakṣaṇa) in the Three Realms, and craving for this impermanence is called 『love of non-existence』. If one speaks generally of the impermanence of the Three Realms, then all 『love of non-existence』 is connected to what is severed by seeing and what is severed by cultivation. The meaning here is that in the Three Realms, the impermanent characteristic of cessation on the common nature of beings is called 『non-existence』, and craving for this 『non-existence』 with the hope of being cut off and destroyed after death is called 『love of non-existence』. Sages will not give rise to this love at all.

唯修斷故。所以但取緣眾同分無常貪愛名無有愛。故婆沙二十七云。無有者謂眾同分無常。緣此愛名無有愛。是故此愛唯修所斷。以眾同分唯修所斷故。

又正理四十七云。豈不見所斷亦有無常無有愛。何緣唯修所斷　實亦見斷。且隨經說。謂契經中說有三愛。欲愛．有愛．無有愛三。於此經中說無有愛。取緣眾同分無常為境者。貪愛異熟相續斷故。如契經言一類苦逼作如是念。愿我死後斷壞無有無病樂哉。今且據斯說唯修斷。非見所斷無無有愛(已上論文)　又解三界五陰無常滅相。於此貪求名無有愛。此即總說諸無有愛。然意唯取緣眾同分無常貪求名無有愛。聖於此愛全不起故。唯修斷故。故婆沙云。顯此論者前來成立隨契經義說無有愛唯修所斷。今隨實義顯無有愛通二所斷。三界無常通二斷故。以此故知。三界無常諸無有愛是總說也　于當有身而起愛故名為有愛　言一分者。謂異生時發願當爲藹羅筏拏大龍王等。正理云。等言為顯阿素洛王。北俱盧洲。無想天等(已上論文)　藹羅筏拏。是水名。水中龍象從水為名。即是帝釋所乘龍象王也。故正理七十五說。藹羅筏拏大象王。是三十三天所乘象王(已上論文)　聖人雖于善趣有身起愛。于惡趣龍王等有愛一分未斷不起。以聖不愛惡趣身故。故名有愛一分

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：僅僅因為修習才能斷除。因此，只是取以眾生共業所感的無常為緣的貪愛，名為『無有愛』（Uccheda-rāga，對斷滅的貪愛）。所以《大毗婆沙論》第二十七卷說：『無有，是指眾生共業所感的無常。緣於此的愛，名為無有愛。』因此，這種愛唯有通過修習才能斷除，因為眾生共業所感唯有通過修習才能斷除。

又，《阿毗達磨順正理論》第四十七卷說：『難道沒有見到所斷的也有無常的無有愛嗎？為何唯有修習才能斷除？』實際上，（無常的無有愛）也是見所斷的。這裡只是隨順經文的說法。所謂契經中說有三種愛：欲愛（Kāma-rāga，對慾望的貪愛）、有愛（Bhava-rāga，對存在的貪愛）、無有愛三種。在這部經中說的無有愛，是以眾生共業所感的無常為對象。這是因為貪愛異熟果的相續斷滅的緣故。如契經所說，一類眾生被痛苦逼迫，生起這樣的念頭：『愿我死後斷滅，沒有病痛，快樂啊！』現在且根據這個來說唯有修習才能斷除，並非見所斷沒有無有愛（以上是論文）。又，理解三界五陰的無常滅相，對此產生貪求，名為無有愛。這即是總說各種無有愛。然而，其意只是取以眾生共業所感的無常為緣的貪求，名為無有愛。聖者對此愛完全不起，所以唯有修習才能斷除。所以《大毗婆沙論》說：『顯示此論者先前成立的隨順契經的意義，說無有愛唯有修習才能斷除。現在隨順真實的意義，顯示無有愛通於二種所斷，三界的無常通於二種斷除的緣故。』因此可知，三界的無常，各種無有愛是總說的。

因為對當有的身體生起愛，所以名為有愛。所說的一分，是指異生（凡夫）時發願當成為藹羅筏拏（Airāvaṇa，帝釋天的坐騎）大龍王等。《順正理論》說：『等字是爲了顯示阿素洛（Asura，非天）王、北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲）、無想天（Asañjñika-deva，無想天）等（以上是論文）。』藹羅筏拏，是水名。水中龍象從水得名，即是帝釋（Indra，帝釋天）所乘的龍象王。所以《順正理論》第七十五卷說：『藹羅筏拏大象王，是三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa，三十三天）所乘的象王（以上是論文）。』聖人雖然對善趣的有身生起愛，但對於惡趣龍王等的有愛一分未斷不起，因為聖人不愛惡趣的身體，所以名為有愛一分。

【English Translation】 English version: It is only through cultivation that it can be severed. Therefore, it only takes the impermanence of the common karma of beings as the condition for attachment, which is called 'Uccheda-rāga' (craving for annihilation). Therefore, the twenty-seventh volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Annihilation refers to the impermanence of the common karma of beings. The attachment to this is called Uccheda-rāga.' Therefore, this attachment can only be severed through cultivation, because the common karma of beings can only be severed through cultivation.

Furthermore, the forty-seventh volume of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: 'Have you not seen that what is to be severed also includes the impermanent Uccheda-rāga? Why can it only be severed through cultivation?' In reality, (the impermanent Uccheda-rāga) is also severed by insight. Here, we are merely following the words of the sutras. The sutras say that there are three types of attachment: Kāma-rāga (craving for desire), Bhava-rāga (craving for existence), and Uccheda-rāga. The Uccheda-rāga mentioned in this sutra takes the impermanence of the common karma of beings as its object. This is because the continuity of the maturation of attachment is severed. As the sutra says, a certain type of being, oppressed by suffering, gives rise to the thought: 'May I be annihilated after death, without pain, and happy!' Now, let us say that it can only be severed through cultivation, and that there is no Uccheda-rāga that is not severed by insight (the above is from the treatise). Furthermore, understanding the impermanent and ceasing aspects of the three realms and the five aggregates, and developing craving for this, is called Uccheda-rāga. This is a general explanation of various Uccheda-rāgas. However, the intention is only to take the craving based on the impermanence of the common karma of beings as Uccheda-rāga. The sages do not arise this attachment at all, so it can only be severed through cultivation. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'It shows that the author of this treatise previously established that, according to the meaning of the sutras, Uccheda-rāga can only be severed through cultivation. Now, according to the true meaning, it shows that Uccheda-rāga is common to both types of severance, because the impermanence of the three realms is common to both types of severance.' Therefore, it can be known that the impermanence of the three realms and the various Uccheda-rāgas are general explanations.

Because attachment arises towards the body that will exist, it is called Bhava-rāga (craving for existence). The 'one part' mentioned refers to the aspiration of ordinary beings to become Airāvaṇa (the mount of Indra), the great dragon king, etc. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: 'The word 'etc.' is to show the Asura (demi-god) king, Uttarakuru (the northern continent), Asañjñika-deva (the realm of non-perception), etc. (the above is from the treatise).' Airāvaṇa is the name of water. The dragon-elephant in the water is named after the water, which is the dragon-elephant king ridden by Indra (the lord of the gods). Therefore, the seventy-fifth volume of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: 'The Airāvaṇa great elephant king is the elephant king ridden by the thirty-three gods (the above is from the treatise).' Although the sages arise attachment towards the body in the good realms, they do not arise the one part of Bhava-rāga towards the dragon king of the evil realms, because the sages do not love the body of the evil realms, so it is called one part of Bhava-rāga.

。此殺．盜．淫．誑諸纏。此諸有愛。無有愛。一切皆唯緣修所斷法故唯修所斷。見所斷法雖亦能緣修所斷法。而非唯故非唯修斷。殺．盜．淫纏。緣修所斷身業起。誑纏緣修所斷語業起。無有愛緣修所斷眾同分上無常法起。有愛一分緣修所斷當有身起。

已說慢類等至見．疑所增故者。此即第二釋未斷．不起。

論曰至皆定不起者　等言。為顯殺．盜．淫．誑諸纏。無有愛全。有愛一分　此慢類等。我慢。惡悔。是見及疑親所增長　言親增長。謂親導引連續現前　雖修所斷而由見．疑背已折故。聖雖未斷。定不能起。見．疑有力扶持慢等。斷如背折。有而不行。謂九慢類及七慢中我慢。有身見所增由我起故。應知九慢類。若依發智從慢過慢卑慢中出。即此三慢一分不行。若依品類亦有慢過慢。即有四慢一分不行。殺．盜．淫．誑纏。邪見所增。由邪見故行殺等事。語四過中以虛誑語是五戒中不虛誑語所遠離故。所以別說。諸無有愛斷見所增以緣當有斷滅起愛。有愛一分常見所增。以貪當有大龍等身多時住故。于惡作中不善惡作是疑所增。追悔與疑少相似故。故聖身中雖有未斷。而由背折皆定不起　問修斷貪等亦用見．疑為遍行因。聖斷見．疑如何現起　解云應知修斷起由多因。或有要由親因導起。如慢

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這些殺生、偷盜、邪淫、妄語等煩惱，以及對有和無有的貪愛，一切都僅僅是因為修所斷的法才會被斷除，所以說唯有通過修才能斷除。見所斷的法雖然也能影響修所斷的法，但並非唯一的原因，因此不是僅僅通過修就能斷除。殺生、偷盜、邪淫的煩惱，是緣于修所斷的身業而生起。妄語的煩惱，是緣于修所斷的語業而生起。對無有的貪愛，是緣于修所斷的眾生共同體上無常的法而生起。對有的貪愛的一部分，是緣于修所斷的未來之身而生起。

已經解釋了『慢類等至見、疑所增故』，這實際上是第二種解釋，說明了未斷和不起的原因。

論中說『皆定不起者』，『等』字是爲了表明殺生、偷盜、邪淫、妄語等煩惱，以及全部的無有愛和一部分的有愛。這些慢類等，如我慢、惡悔，是見解和疑惑直接增長的結果。『親增長』是指直接引導並連續不斷地顯現。雖然是修所斷的，但由於見解和疑惑已經背離並折斷了它們的力量，所以即使聖人尚未斷除，也必定不會再生起。見解和疑惑有力地扶持著慢等煩惱，就像背部折斷一樣，雖然存在但無法行動。這裡指的是九種慢類以及七種慢中的我慢，是由有身見所增長的，因為是由『我』而生起的。應該知道九種慢類，如果按照《發智論》的說法，是從慢、過慢、卑慢中產生的，那麼這三種慢的一部分就不會發生作用。如果按照《品類論》的說法，也有慢和過慢，那麼就有四種慢的一部分不會發生作用。殺生、偷盜、邪淫、妄語等煩惱，是由邪見所增長的，因為有了邪見才會做出殺生等事情。在語言的四種過失中，特別提到虛妄語，是因為它是五戒中不妄語所要遠離的。因此特別說明。諸如對無有的貪愛，是由斷見所增長的，因為緣于未來斷滅而生起貪愛。一部分對有的貪愛，是由常見所增長的，因為貪戀未來大龍等身體能夠長時間存在。在惡作（kukkritya）中，不善的惡作是由疑惑所增長的，因為追悔和疑惑有少許相似之處。因此，即使聖人的身中還有未斷的煩惱，但由於已經背離並折斷了它們的力量，所以必定不會再生起。有人問：修所斷的貪等煩惱也需要見解和疑惑作為普遍的原因，那麼聖人斷除了見解和疑惑，這些煩惱怎麼還會生起呢？解釋說：應該知道修所斷的煩惱生起是由多種原因造成的，有些需要由直接的原因來引導，比如慢。

【English Translation】 English version: These afflictions of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, etc., and the craving for existence (bhava-tanha) and non-existence (vibhava-tanha), all are only severed by the dharmas that are severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavyā), therefore it is said that they are only severed by cultivation. The dharmas that are severed by view (darśana-prahātavyā), although they can also influence the dharmas that are severed by cultivation, are not the sole cause, and therefore are not severed solely by cultivation. The afflictions of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct arise from bodily actions that are severed by cultivation. The affliction of lying arises from verbal actions that are severed by cultivation. The craving for non-existence arises from the impermanent dharmas on the commonality of beings that are severed by cultivation. A portion of the craving for existence arises from the future body that is severed by cultivation.

It has already been explained that 『classes of conceit, etc., are increased by view and doubt,』 which is actually the second explanation, clarifying the reasons for not being severed and not arising.

The treatise says, 『All will definitely not arise,』 the word 『etc.』 is to indicate the afflictions of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, etc., and the entirety of the craving for non-existence and a portion of the craving for existence. These classes of conceit, etc., such as pride (māna), and bad remorse (kukkritya), are the direct result of the increase of views and doubts. 『Direct increase』 means directly guiding and continuously manifesting. Although they are severed by cultivation, because views and doubts have turned away and broken their strength, even if the saints have not yet severed them, they will definitely not arise again. Views and doubts powerfully support afflictions like conceit, etc., like a broken back, they exist but cannot act. This refers to the nine classes of conceit and pride among the seven conceits, which are increased by the view of a self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), because they arise from 『self.』 It should be known that the nine classes of conceit, if according to the Jnanaprasthana, arise from conceit, excessive conceit, and inferior conceit, then a portion of these three conceits will not function. If according to the Prakaranapada, there are also conceit and excessive conceit, then a portion of four conceits will not function. The afflictions of killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, etc., are increased by wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi), because with wrong views, one will commit acts of killing, etc. Among the four faults of speech, false speech is specifically mentioned because it is what the precept of not lying among the five precepts aims to avoid. Therefore, it is specifically explained. Craving for non-existence is increased by annihilationist views (uccheda-dṛṣṭi), because craving arises from the idea of future annihilation. A portion of the craving for existence is increased by eternalist views (śāśvata-dṛṣṭi), because one craves for future bodies like great dragons that can exist for a long time. Among bad actions (kukkritya), unwholesome bad actions are increased by doubt, because remorse and doubt have some similarities. Therefore, even if there are still unsevered afflictions in the bodies of the saints, because they have turned away and broken their strength, they will definitely not arise again. Someone asks: The craving, etc., that are severed by cultivation also need views and doubts as universal causes, so how can these afflictions arise in the saints who have severed views and doubts? The explanation is: It should be known that the arising of afflictions severed by cultivation is caused by many factors, and some need to be guided by direct causes, such as conceit.

類等。或有但由疏因亦生。如貪瞋等。或因有二。一未斷因。二已斷因。如慢類等。要由未斷因方能現起。余貪．瞋等由已斷因亦能引起。

九十八隨眠中至亦是遍行攝者。此下大文第二諸門分別。就中。一遍行．非遍行。二漏．無漏緣。三二種隨增。四二性分別。五明根．非根。六明惑能系。七明惑隨增。八明次第起　此即明遍．非遍行。

論曰至立遍行名者。釋初行頌。唯苦．集斷十一隨眠力。能遍行自界地五部。故此十一皆得遍行名。除此十一餘五部惑。無有力能遍行自界地五部。故皆不立遍行名也。如是十一于自界地五部諸法。一遍緣。遍緣五部為境界故。二遍隨眠。遍於五部隨增眠故。三為因。遍生五部染法。依此三義立遍行隨眠名。除此十一餘五部惑．及彼相應俱有諸法三義皆闕。十一遍行諸相應法。有初．后義闕中一義。十一遍行諸俱有法。有後一義闕前二義。故皆不立遍行隨眠。

此中所言至或世間因者。問。此中所言遍緣五部。為漸。為頓　若漸次緣。余貪等惑亦應名遍行。以貪等惑緣五部故　若頓緣者。誰復普于欲界一切諸有漏法。頓計為勝起于見取。能得清凈涅槃。或世間生天因起戒禁取。

不說頓緣至能頓緣五部者。答。不說頓緣自界地中一切有漏。皆為最勝。能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：諸如慢之類的煩惱，有些僅僅由疏遠的原因產生，比如貪婪和嗔恨。有些原因有兩種：一是未斷的原因，二是已斷的原因。比如慢這類煩惱，必須由未斷的原因才能顯現。而其餘的貪婪、嗔恨等，已斷的原因也能引發。在九十八種隨眠中，哪些是遍行所攝？以下是第二大段，對各種門類進行分別。其中包括：一、遍行和非遍行；二、有漏和無漏的緣；三、兩種隨增；四、兩種性質的分別；五、明根和非根；六、明煩惱的繫縛；七、明煩惱的隨增；八、明次第生起。這裡闡明的是遍行和非遍行。論中說：『建立遍行之名』，這是解釋第一行頌文。只有苦諦和集諦所斷的十一種隨眠，有力量普遍地在自身界地的五部中執行。因此這十一種隨眠都可稱為遍行。除了這十一種之外，其餘五部的煩惱，沒有力量普遍地在自身界地的五部中執行，所以都不能稱為遍行。這十一種隨眠對於自身界地五部諸法，一是普遍緣取，因為普遍緣取五部作為境界；二是普遍隨眠，因為普遍地在五部中隨增眠伏；三是作為原因，普遍產生五部的染污法。依據這三種意義，建立遍行隨眠之名。除了這十一種之外，其餘五部的煩惱以及與它們相應的、俱有的諸法，都缺少這三種意義。十一種遍行隨眠的相應法，有初義和后義，缺少中間的意義。十一種遍行隨眠的俱有法，只有后一種意義，缺少前兩種意義。所以都不能建立遍行隨眠之名。這裡所說的『普遍緣取五部』，是漸次緣取還是頓然緣取？如果是漸次緣取，那麼其餘的貪婪等煩惱也應該稱為遍行，因為貪婪等煩惱也緣取五部。如果是頓然緣取，那麼誰又能普遍地對於欲界一切有漏法，頓然計度為最殊勝，從而生起見取，認為能得到清凈涅槃，或者認為世間生天的原因是持守戒律和禁制，從而生起戒禁取呢？不說頓然緣取自身界地中的一切有漏法，都認為是最好的，能夠頓然緣取五部。

【English Translation】 English version: Some afflictions, such as pride (māna), arise solely from remote causes. Others, like greed (lobha) and hatred (dveṣa), may arise from either of two causes: one, an unabandoned cause; two, an abandoned cause. For example, pride can only manifest from an unabandoned cause. However, greed, hatred, and the like can also be triggered by an abandoned cause. Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies (anuśaya), which are included within the pervasive (sarvatraga)? The following is the second major section, which distinguishes various categories. These include: 1. Pervasive and non-pervasive; 2. Conditioned (sāsrava) and unconditioned (anāsrava) conditions; 3. Two kinds of increase; 4. Distinguishing two natures; 5. Clarifying roots (hetu) and non-roots; 6. Clarifying the binding nature of afflictions; 7. Clarifying the increase of afflictions; 8. Clarifying the order of arising. This clarifies the pervasive and non-pervasive. The treatise states: 'Establishing the name 'pervasive'.' This explains the first verse. Only the eleven latent tendencies abandoned through the truths of suffering (duḥkha) and origin (samudaya) have the power to operate pervasively within the five categories (bhāga) of their own realm (dhātu) and plane (bhūmi). Therefore, these eleven are all called pervasive. Apart from these eleven, the afflictions of the remaining five categories do not have the power to operate pervasively within the five categories of their own realm and plane, so they are not called pervasive. These eleven latent tendencies, with respect to the phenomena of the five categories in their own realm and plane, 1. Pervasively apprehend, because they pervasively apprehend the five categories as their object; 2. Pervasively lie dormant, because they pervasively increase and lie dormant in the five categories; 3. Act as a cause, pervasively producing the defiled dharmas of the five categories. Based on these three meanings, the name 'pervasive latent tendency' is established. Apart from these eleven, the afflictions of the remaining five categories, as well as their associated and co-arisen dharmas, all lack these three meanings. The associated dharmas of the eleven pervasive latent tendencies have the first and last meanings, but lack the middle meaning. The co-arisen dharmas of the eleven pervasive latent tendencies only have the last meaning, lacking the first two meanings. Therefore, they cannot be established as pervasive latent tendencies. Here, when it is said 'pervasively apprehending the five categories,' is it a gradual or sudden apprehension? If it is a gradual apprehension, then the remaining afflictions such as greed should also be called pervasive, because greed also apprehends the five categories. If it is a sudden apprehension, then who would suddenly consider all conditioned dharmas in the desire realm (kāmadhātu) as the most excellent, thereby giving rise to views of holding to views (dṛṣṭiparāmarśa), thinking they can attain pure nirvāṇa, or thinking that the cause of being born in the heavens of the world is upholding precepts and prohibitions (śīlavrataparāmarśa), thereby giving rise to views of holding to precepts and vows? It is not said that one suddenly apprehends all conditioned dharmas in one's own realm and plane as the best, but is able to suddenly apprehend the five categories.

得清凈。或世間因。然說有力能頓緣五部各少分法名為遍行。

雖爾遍行至應亦遍行者。經部難。雖爾遍行亦非唯此十一隨眠。以理而言。若於是處有我見行。是處必應起我愛．我慢。若於是處能得清凈。或戒禁取見行。非勝計勝見取見行。是處必應起希求愛起高舉慢。是即愛．慢亦應遍行。

若爾頓緣至何所斷耶者。毗婆沙師反責經部。若說愛．慢頓緣見．修所斷起故。應言愛．慢何所斷耶。

應言修所斷至見力引故者。經部答。應言修所斷。以雜緣境界故。見斷愛．慢部分別緣。或應見所斷。由見力引故　經部意許愛．慢二種亦是遍行。以能遍緣五部法故。

毗婆沙師至不說自成者。述自宗。毗婆沙師作如是說。此愛．慢二是自相惑非共相惑。無頓緣力故非遍行是故遍行唯此十一。余瞋等惑非是遍行。準此愛．慢不說自成。

於十一中至緣下隨眠者。此下釋第五．第六句。緣上勝境不隨增故無失得緣。緣下劣境即隨增故有失不緣。故婆沙云。問何故是欲界煩惱能緣色．無色界。彼二界煩惱不能緣欲界耶。有一複次云。複次若色．無色界煩惱緣欲界者即應隨增。若隨增者界應雜亂。故彼煩惱不緣欲界　問如欲界煩惱雖緣上界而不隨增。上界煩惱何故不爾。答上界蘊勝。欲界煩惱雖緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：得清凈。或者因為世間的因緣。然而，如果說有一種力量能夠同時緣取五部（五種煩惱類別）中各自少許的法，這就被稱為遍行（Sarvatraga，普遍存在的煩惱）。

『即使如此，遍行也應該同樣是遍行』，這是經部的質疑。『即使如此，遍行也不僅僅是這十一種隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）』。從道理上講，如果某個地方有我見（Satkayadristi，認為五蘊為我的邪見）存在，那麼這個地方必然會生起我愛（Atmasneha，對自我的愛）和我慢（Atmamana，對自我的驕傲）。如果某個地方能夠獲得清凈，或者有戒禁取見（Silavrataparamarsa，執著于不正確的戒律和苦行）存在，而不是勝計勝見取見（錯誤的優越感），那麼這個地方必然會生起希求愛（Trsna，渴愛）和高舉慢（Uddhata-mana，高舉的驕傲）。因此，愛和我慢也應該是遍行。

『如果這樣，同時緣取（五部法）的（愛和我慢）在什麼地方斷除呢？』毗婆沙師（Vaibhasika，有部論師）反過來責問經部。如果說愛和我慢同時緣取見所斷（Dristi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）和修所斷（Bhavana-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）而生起，那麼應該說愛和我慢在什麼地方斷除呢？

『應該說是在修所斷，因為它們雜亂地緣取境界；見斷的愛和我慢部分地分別緣取。或者應該說是在見所斷，因為它們是由見的力量所引導。』這是經部的回答。經部的意思是承認愛和我慢這兩種也是遍行，因為它們能夠普遍地緣取五部法。

毗婆沙師陳述自己的宗派觀點：『毗婆沙師這樣說，這愛和我慢二者是自相迷惑，而不是共相迷惑。因為沒有同時緣取的力量，所以不是遍行。因此，遍行只有這十一種。其餘的嗔等煩惱不是遍行。』按照這個標準，愛和我慢不被認為是自明的。

在十一種（遍行）中，這裡解釋第五句和第六句。緣取上界的殊勝境界不會隨之增長，所以沒有失去或得到的緣由。緣取地獄的低劣境界就會隨之增長，所以有失去而不緣取的可能。因此，《婆沙論》中說：『問：為什麼欲界的煩惱能夠緣取色界和無色界，而色界和無色界的煩惱不能緣取欲界呢？』有一種解釋是：『如果色界和無色界的煩惱緣取欲界，就會隨之增長。如果隨之增長，界限就會雜亂。所以那些煩惱不緣取欲界。』問：『像欲界的煩惱雖然緣取上界，但不會隨之增長，為什麼上界的煩惱不能這樣呢？』答：『上界的蘊（Skandha，構成要素）殊勝，欲界的煩惱雖然緣取』

【English Translation】 English version: Obtains purity. Or due to worldly causes. However, if it is said that there is a power that can simultaneously grasp small portions of each of the five categories (of afflictions), it is called Sarvatraga (pervasive afflictions).

'Even so, Sarvatraga should also be Sarvatraga,' the Sautrantikas (Sutra School) question. 'Even so, Sarvatraga is not only these eleven Anusayas (latent afflictions).' Logically speaking, if there is Satkayadristi (the false view of considering the five skandhas as self) in a certain place, then Atmasneha (self-love) and Atmamana (self-conceit) must arise in that place. If purity can be attained in a certain place, or if there is Silavrataparamarsa (attachment to incorrect precepts and asceticism) instead of superior views, then Trsna (craving) and Uddhata-mana (arrogant pride) must arise in that place. Therefore, love and pride should also be Sarvatraga.

'If so, where are (love and pride) that simultaneously grasp (the five categories of dharmas) severed?' The Vaibhasikas (Exponents of the Vibhasa) retort to the Sautrantikas. If it is said that love and pride arise simultaneously grasping what is severed by seeing (Dristi-heya, afflictions severed by the path of seeing) and what is severed by cultivation (Bhavana-heya, afflictions severed by the path of cultivation), then it should be said where are love and pride severed?

'It should be said that they are severed by cultivation because they grasp objects in a mixed way; the love and pride severed by seeing partially grasp separately. Or it should be said that they are severed by seeing because they are guided by the power of seeing.' This is the Sautrantikas' answer. The Sautrantikas mean to acknowledge that these two, love and pride, are also Sarvatraga because they can universally grasp the five categories of dharmas.

The Vaibhasikas state their own school's view: 'The Vaibhasikas say this: these two, love and pride, are self-deluding, not mutually deluding. Because they do not have the power to grasp simultaneously, they are not Sarvatraga. Therefore, there are only these eleven Sarvatragas. The remaining afflictions such as hatred are not Sarvatraga.' According to this standard, love and pride are not considered self-evident.

Among the eleven (Sarvatragas), here explains the fifth and sixth sentences. Grasping the superior objects of the upper realms does not increase accordingly, so there is no reason for loss or gain. Grasping the inferior objects of the lower realms increases accordingly, so there is the possibility of loss and not grasping. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'Question: Why can the afflictions of the desire realm grasp the form and formless realms, while the afflictions of the form and formless realms cannot grasp the desire realm?' One explanation is: 'If the afflictions of the form and formless realms grasp the desire realm, they would increase accordingly. If they increase accordingly, the realms would be mixed up. Therefore, those afflictions do not grasp the desire realm.' Question: 'Like the afflictions of the desire realm, although they grasp the upper realms, they do not increase accordingly, why can't the afflictions of the upper realms do this?' Answer: 'The skandhas (constituent elements) of the upper realms are superior, although the afflictions of the desire realm grasp'

彼起而不隨增。欲界蘊劣。上界煩惱若緣此起即便隨增。如下劣人于尊勝者雖能現見而不為損。若尊勝者見下劣人便能損害。此亦如是。

此九雖能至準界應思者。此九雖能通緣自．上。然理無有自．上頓緣。于緣上中且約界說。或唯緣一界或二界合緣。引證可知。約地分別準界應思。又婆沙十九云。問何故不一剎那頃頓緣三界若苦。若集耶　答彼緣欲界亦隨增。緣色．無色界不隨增故。問彼何故緣欲界亦隨增緣色．無色界不隨增耶。有一複次云。複次欲界有彼等流。異熟果。色．無色界無彼等流。異熟果故。又一複次解非頓緣云。若如緣欲界即隨增。緣色．無色界亦爾者。界應雜亂。若如緣色．無色界不隨增。緣欲界亦爾者。即不應理。以無煩惱緣自界法。而有不具所緣。相應二隨增者。緣自地法必具所緣。相應縛故。若一剎那頓緣三界若苦。若集。于所緣境有隨增。有不隨增者。亦應于相應法有隨增。有不隨增。是即違此因理亦壞相應法。勿有此失。故別時緣自界．他界理善成立　廣如彼釋　又婆沙云。何故遍行隨眠能於他部隨增非他界地　答遍行隨眠於他部法有等流果。或異熟果。故能隨增。於他界地無等流．及異熟果。故不隨增　複次自界他部粗細相似故能隨增。上界地細故不能隨增。

生在欲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：彼（指上界煩惱）生起時，地獄煩惱不會隨之增長。欲界（Kāmadhātu，指眾生因慾望而輪迴的世界）的蘊（skandha，指構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）是低劣的，上界（higher realms）的煩惱如果緣於此而生起，就會隨之增長。就像低劣的人雖然能看見尊貴殊勝的人，卻不能對其造成損害；而尊貴殊勝的人如果看見低劣的人，就能對其造成損害。此處的道理也是如此。

這九種煩惱雖然能夠到達準界（指接近的境界），但應該仔細思考。這九種煩惱雖然能夠普遍緣于自身和上界，但道理上不存在同時緣于自身和上界的情況。在緣于上界的情況中，且按照界（dhātu）來討論。或者只緣於一個界，或者兩個界合起來緣。可以引用論證來了解。按照地（bhūmi，指禪定的層次）來分別，應該仔細思考準界。另外，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第十九卷中說：『問：為什麼不能在一剎那間同時緣於三界（tridhātu，指欲界、色界、無色界）的苦（duḥkha，指痛苦）或集（samudaya，指痛苦的根源）呢？答：因為緣于欲界會隨之增長，而緣於色界（Rūpadhātu，指脫離慾望但仍有物質形態的世界）和無色界（Arūpadhātu，指完全脫離物質形態的世界）不會隨之增長。』問：為什麼緣于欲界會隨之增長，而緣於色界和無色界不會隨之增長呢？有一種解釋是：因為欲界有彼等流果（nisyanda-phala，指與原因相似的結果）和異熟果（vipāka-phala，指與原因不同的結果），而色界和無色界沒有彼等流果和異熟果。』

又有一種解釋，說明不能同時緣於三界的原因是：如果像緣于欲界一樣會隨之增長，緣於色界和無色界也一樣，那麼界就應該雜亂。如果像緣於色界和無色界一樣不會隨之增長，緣于欲界也一樣，那麼就不合理了。因為沒有煩惱緣于自身界的法，而有不具備所緣（ālambana，指對像）和相應（samprayoga，指伴隨）兩種隨增的情況。緣于自身地的法必定具備所緣和相應的束縛。如果一剎那間同時緣於三界的苦或集，對於所緣境有隨之增長和不隨之增長的情況，那麼也應該在相應法上有隨之增長和不隨之增長的情況。這就違背了此因，道理也破壞了相應法。爲了避免這種過失，所以分別在不同時間緣于自身界和他界，這個道理才能很好地成立。詳細內容如彼論的解釋。另外，《大毗婆沙論》中說：『為什麼遍行隨眠（sarvatraga-anuśaya，指普遍存在的潛在煩惱）能在其他部（他部，指不同類別的法）隨之增長，而不能在其他界地（他界地，指不同界和地的法）隨之增長呢？答：因為遍行隨眠對於其他部的法有等流果或異熟果，所以能隨之增長。對於其他界地沒有等流果和異熟果，所以不能隨之增長。』

又一種解釋是：自身界和他部的粗細相似，所以能隨之增長。上界地細微，所以不能隨之增長。

生在欲界（Kāmadhātu）……

【English Translation】 English version: When the latter (referring to afflictions of higher realms) arise, the afflictions of the lower realm do not increase accordingly. The aggregates (skandha) of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) are inferior. If afflictions of higher realms arise based on this, they will increase accordingly. It is like how an inferior person, although able to see a noble and superior person, cannot harm them; but if a noble and superior person sees an inferior person, they can harm them. The principle here is the same.

Although these nine afflictions can reach the 'quasi-realm' (referring to a close proximity), one should contemplate carefully. Although these nine can universally relate to themselves and higher realms, in principle, there is no simultaneous relation to oneself and higher realms. In the case of relating to higher realms, it is discussed in terms of realms (dhātu). Either it relates to only one realm, or two realms combine to relate. Understanding can be gained through citations and proofs. Distinguishing by levels (bhūmi), one should carefully consider the 'quasi-realm'. Furthermore, the 19th fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'Question: Why can't one simultaneously relate to the suffering (duḥkha) or origin (samudaya) of the three realms (tridhātu) in a single moment? Answer: Because relating to the Desire Realm increases accordingly, while relating to the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu) and Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu) does not increase accordingly.' Question: Why does relating to the Desire Realm increase accordingly, while relating to the Form Realm and Formless Realm not increase accordingly? One explanation is: Because the Desire Realm has the result of outflow (nisyanda-phala) and the result of maturation (vipāka-phala), while the Form Realm and Formless Realm do not have the result of outflow and the result of maturation.'

Another explanation, clarifying why one cannot simultaneously relate to the three realms, is: If relating to the Form Realm and Formless Realm increases accordingly, just like relating to the Desire Realm, then the realms should be mixed up. If relating to the Desire Realm does not increase accordingly, just like relating to the Form Realm and Formless Realm, then it would be unreasonable. Because there are no afflictions relating to the dharma of one's own realm, and there are no two increases that lack the object (ālambana) and association (samprayoga). Relating to the dharma of one's own level necessarily involves the bondage of object and association. If one simultaneously relates to the suffering or origin of the three realms in a single moment, and there is increase and non-increase in relation to the object, then there should also be increase and non-increase in relation to the associated dharmas. This would contradict this cause, and the principle would also destroy the associated dharmas. To avoid this fault, the principle of relating to one's own realm and other realms at different times is well established. The detailed content is as explained in that treatise. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'Why can pervasive latent afflictions (sarvatraga-anuśaya) increase accordingly in other categories (other parts), but not in other realm-levels (other realm-levels)? Answer: Because pervasive latent afflictions have the result of outflow or the result of maturation in relation to the dharmas of other categories, so they can increase accordingly. They do not have the result of outflow and the result of maturation in relation to other realm-levels, so they cannot increase accordingly.'

Another explanation is: The coarseness and fineness of one's own realm and other categories are similar, so they can increase accordingly. The upper realm-levels are subtle, so they cannot increase accordingly.

Born in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu)...

界至不緣上界地者。問意可知。

不執彼為至身見起故者。答。身生地獄。必不執彼上界諸法為我．我所。邊見必由身見起故。身見既不起。邊見亦不生　又婆沙十八云。問何故此二不緣他界耶。答唯有爾所緣境力故。複次此二見唯于粗果法轉故。謂此二見唯于粗顯現見諸蘊。執我．我所及計斷．常。若生欲界於色．無色界微細諸蘊不能現見故不執為我．我所等。問若爾生色界者現見欲界粗顯諸蘊。何不執為我．我所等　答已離染故。謂生色界者。于欲界蘊已得離染故。雖現見而不執為我．我所等。複次上地煩惱不緣下故。問因論生論。何故上地煩惱不緣下耶。答已離彼染故。謂要已離下地染者。方起上地煩惱現前。于下地法既已離染。上地煩惱寧復緣彼。問如何得知要離下染。上地煩惱方得現前。答如施設論說。有六種非律儀。謂三界系各有二種。一相應。二不相應。欲界相應非律儀現在前時。六非律儀成就。四非律儀亦現在前。謂欲界二。色．無色界各不相應。色界相應非律儀現在前時。四非律儀成就。三非律儀亦現在前。謂色界二。無色界不相應。無色界相應．非律儀現在前時。二非律儀成就亦現在前。謂無色界二。此中染污法名非律儀。由此故知。要離下染。上地煩惱方現在前(廣如彼釋)　若爾計彼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『界至不緣上界地者。問意可知。』——意思是說，如果（身見和邊見）所緣的『界』達到了，就不會緣上界的『地』。這個問題的意思是可以理解的。

『不執彼為至身見起故者。』——回答。因為身體生於地獄，必定不會執著上界的諸法為『我』或『我所』。邊見必定由身見而生起。既然身見不生起，邊見也不會生起。此外，《婆沙論》第十八卷說：『問：為什麼這兩種見（身見和邊見）不緣他界呢？』答：『因為只有那樣的緣境能力。』再者，這兩種見只在粗果法上轉動。也就是說，這兩種見只在粗顯、現見的諸蘊上，執著『我』、『我所』以及計度斷見、常見。如果生在欲界，對於色界、無色界微細的諸蘊不能現見，所以不執著為『我』、『我所』等。問：『如果這樣，生在色界的人現見欲界粗顯的諸蘊，為什麼不執著為『我』、『我所』等呢？』答：『因為已經離開了染污。』也就是說，生在色界的人，對於欲界的蘊已經得到了離染，所以雖然現見，但不執著為『我』、『我所』等。再者，上地的煩惱不緣下地。問：『順著這個理論來討論，為什麼上地的煩惱不緣下地呢？』答：『因為已經離開了那裡的染污。』也就是說，必須要已經離開了下地的染污，才能生起上地的煩惱現前。對於下地的法既然已經離染，上地的煩惱怎麼還會緣著它們呢？問：『如何得知必須要離開下地的染污，上地的煩惱才能現前呢？』答：『如《施設論》所說，有六種非律儀，也就是三界系各有兩種：一是相應，二是不相應。欲界相應的非律儀現在前時，六種非律儀成就。四種非律儀也現在前，也就是欲界的兩種，色界、無色界各不相應。色界相應的非律儀現在前時，四種非律儀成就。三種非律儀也現在前，也就是色界的兩種，無色界不相應。無色界相應的非律儀現在前時，兩種非律儀成就也現在前，也就是無色界的兩種。』這裡，染污法名為非律儀。由此可知，要離開下地的染污，上地的煩惱才能現在前（詳細的解釋如《施設論》）。如果這樣計度那些...

【English Translation】 English version: 『界至不緣上界地者。問意可知。』— The meaning is, if the 『realm』 (界, jie - realm) that is the object of perception has reached its limit, it will not perceive the 『ground』 (地, di - ground/level of existence) of the upper realms. The meaning of this question is understandable.

『不執彼為至身見起故者。』— Answer: Because the body is born in the lower realm, it will certainly not cling to the dharmas (法, fa - phenomena/teachings) of the upper realms as 『self』 (我, wo - self) or 『what belongs to self』 (我所, wo suo - belonging to self). The extreme view (邊見, bian jian - extreme view) necessarily arises from the view of self (身見, shen jian - self-view). Since the view of self does not arise, the extreme view will also not arise. Furthermore, the eighteenth volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Po Sha - Vibhasa) says: 『Question: Why do these two views (self-view and extreme view) not perceive other realms?』 Answer: 『Because they only have the capacity to perceive such objects.』 Moreover, these two views only operate on coarse result dharmas. That is to say, these two views only cling to the aggregates (蘊, yun - skandha) that are coarse, manifest, and directly perceived, clinging to 『self,』『what belongs to self,』 and calculating annihilationism (斷見, duan jian - annihilationism) and eternalism (常見, chang jian - eternalism). If one is born in the desire realm (欲界, yu jie - desire realm), one cannot directly perceive the subtle aggregates of the form realm (色界, se jie - form realm) and formless realm (無色界, wu se jie - formless realm), so one does not cling to them as 『self,』『what belongs to self,』 etc. Question: 『If that is the case, if those born in the form realm directly perceive the coarse and manifest aggregates of the desire realm, why do they not cling to them as 『self,』『what belongs to self,』 etc.?』 Answer: 『Because they have already separated from defilement (染, ran - defilement).』 That is to say, those born in the form realm have already attained separation from defilement with respect to the aggregates of the desire realm, so although they directly perceive them, they do not cling to them as 『self,』『what belongs to self,』 etc. Furthermore, the afflictions (煩惱, fan nao - affliction) of the upper grounds do not perceive the lower grounds. Question: 『Following this theory, why do the afflictions of the upper grounds not perceive the lower grounds?』 Answer: 『Because they have already separated from the defilement there.』 That is to say, one must have already separated from the defilement of the lower ground in order for the afflictions of the upper ground to arise. Since one has already separated from the dharmas of the lower ground, how could the afflictions of the upper ground still perceive them? Question: 『How can it be known that one must separate from the defilement of the lower ground in order for the afflictions of the upper ground to arise?』 Answer: 『As the Establishment Treatise (施設論, Shi She Lun - Establishment Treatise) says, there are six kinds of non-restraint (非律儀, fei luyi - non-restraint), that is, each of the three realms has two kinds: one corresponding, and one non-corresponding. When the non-restraint corresponding to the desire realm is present, the six kinds of non-restraint are accomplished. Four kinds of non-restraint are also present, that is, the two of the desire realm, and the non-corresponding ones of the form realm and formless realm. When the non-restraint corresponding to the form realm is present, four kinds of non-restraint are accomplished. Three kinds of non-restraint are also present, that is, the two of the form realm, and the non-corresponding one of the formless realm. When the non-restraint corresponding to the formless realm is present, two kinds of non-restraint are accomplished and also present, that is, the two of the formless realm.』 Here, defiled dharmas are called non-restraint. From this it can be known that one must separate from the defilement of the lower ground in order for the afflictions of the upper ground to be present (detailed explanation as in the Establishment Treatise). If so, calculating those...

至是何見攝者。難。若爾計彼上界梵王或為有情。或為常住。是何見攝。

對法者言至是邪智攝者。答。對法者言。此有情常非身．邊見。是邪智攝　言邪智者謂無明相應邪智。于欲界中先起二見執我。執常。次後即起獨頭無明。緣彼大梵謂為我．常。行相朦昧不能決執。所以非見。故正理云。生欲界中若緣大梵起有情．常見。為何見攝耶。理實應言此二非見。是身．邊見所引邪智。現見蘊中執我．常已於不現見比謂如斯　又解疑相應智為邪智。謂隨身．邊次復起疑緣彼大梵。為常．無常。為我．非我。不決執故亦非是見　又解身．邊見后引起欲界無覆無記。但緣欲界說梵王名。謂為我．常名為邪智非緣彼體。無覆無記不緣上故。如緣虛空非擇滅名非緣彼體。非稱理故名之為邪。非是染污。應知此是四無記中威儀．工巧．異熟三心。但非通果。唯緣色故　又解威儀．工巧非餘二種　雖有兩解前解為勝。

何緣所餘至而非見耶者。難。何緣所餘二取邪見緣彼是見。此邪智亦緣彼而非見耶。

以宗為量故作是說者。毗婆沙師答。以宗為量故作是說。

為遍行體唯是隨眠者。釋后兩句問。為遍行因體唯是隨眠。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

並隨行法至如理應辨者。釋。並隨

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『至是何見攝者？』（這是什麼見所包含的？）難。（如果這樣，）若爾計彼上界梵王（Brahmā，色界和無色界諸天之王）或為有情（sentient being，有情識的生命），或為常住（eternal，永恒不變）。是何見攝？（這是什麼見所包含的？）

對法者言：『至是邪智攝者？』（這是邪智所包含的嗎？）答。對法者言：此有情常非身見（Sakkāya-ditthi，認為五蘊和合的身體是『我』的錯誤見解）、邊見（antagāhika-ditthi，斷見或常見）。是邪智攝。（這是邪智所包含的。）言邪智者，謂無明（Avidyā，對事物真相的無知）相應邪智。于欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生有情慾和物質慾望的界）中先起二見，執我（認為有『我』存在），執常（認為事物是永恒不變的）。次後即起獨頭無明（independent ignorance，不依賴於其他煩惱的無明），緣彼大梵（Mahābrahmā，色界初禪天的梵王）謂為我、常。行相朦昧，不能決執。所以非見。故正理云：生欲界中，若緣大梵起有情、常見，為何見攝耶？理實應言此二非見。是身、邊見所引邪智。現見蘊中執我、常已，于不現見比謂如斯。又解疑相應智為邪智。謂隨身、邊見次復起疑，緣彼大梵，為常、無常，為我、非我。不決執故，亦非是見。又解身、邊見后引起欲界無覆無記（anivrtavyākrta，不善不惡，不覆蓋本性的狀態）。但緣欲界說梵王名，謂為我、常，名為邪智，非緣彼體。無覆無記不緣上故。如緣虛空非擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力量達到的滅盡）名，非緣彼體。非稱理故名之為邪，非是染污。應知此是四無記中威儀（iryāpatha，行住坐臥的姿勢）、工巧（silpasthāna，工藝技巧）、異熟（vipāka，業的果報）三心。但非通果。唯緣色故。又解威儀、工巧非餘二種。雖有兩解，前解為勝。

『何緣所餘至而非見耶者？』（為什麼其餘的見是見，而邪智不是見呢？）難。何緣所餘二取邪見緣彼是見，此邪智亦緣彼而非見耶？（為什麼其餘的兩種邪見緣于對象就是見，而這個邪智緣于對像卻不是見呢？）

『以宗為量故作是說者。』（因為以宗義為標準所以這樣說。）毗婆沙師（Vaibhāshika，說一切有部論師）答。以宗為量故作是說。（因為以宗義為標準所以這樣說。）

『為遍行體唯是隨眠者？』（遍行煩惱的自性僅僅是隨眠嗎？）釋后兩句問。為遍行因體唯是隨眠？（遍行煩惱的因僅僅是隨眠嗎？）

不爾者。（不是這樣的。）答。

『云何者？』（為什麼？）徴。

『並隨行法至如理應辨者。』（以及隨行法應該如理辨別。）釋。並隨行

【English Translation】 English version: 『What view is included in this?』 Objection. If so, then considering that Brahmā (king of the heavens in the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm) in the upper realms is either a sentient being (sentient being, a life with consciousness) or eternal (eternal, unchanging), what view is included in this?

The Abhidharma masters say: 『Is this included in wrong knowledge?』 Answer. The Abhidharma masters say: This sentient being, considered as eternal, is not included in the view of self (Sakkāya-ditthi, the mistaken view that the aggregate of the five skandhas is 『self』) or the extreme view (antagāhika-ditthi, the view of annihilation or permanence). It is included in wrong knowledge. By 『wrong knowledge』 is meant wrong knowledge associated with ignorance (Avidyā, ignorance of the true nature of things). In the Realm of Desire (Kāmadhātu, the realm of beings with sensual and material desires), two views arise first, clinging to 『self』 (believing in the existence of 『self』) and clinging to 『permanence』 (believing that things are eternally unchanging). Then, independent ignorance (independent ignorance, ignorance that does not depend on other afflictions) arises, regarding that Mahābrahmā (Brahmā in the first Dhyana heaven of the Form Realm) as 『self』 and 『eternal』. The characteristics are obscure, and there is no firm clinging. Therefore, it is not a view. Therefore, the Hetuvidyā (logic) says: If one is born in the Realm of Desire and regards Mahābrahmā as a sentient being or as eternal, what view is included in this? In truth, it should be said that these two are not views. They are wrong knowledge induced by the view of self and the extreme view. Having clung to 『self』 and 『permanence』 in the directly perceived aggregates, one infers similarly in the non-directly perceived. Also, understanding knowledge associated with doubt as wrong knowledge means that after the view of self and the extreme view, doubt arises again, regarding that Mahābrahmā as permanent or impermanent, as self or non-self. Because there is no firm clinging, it is also not a view. Also, understanding that after the view of self and the extreme view, non-defiled neutral (anivrtavyākrta, a state that is neither good nor bad, and does not cover the original nature) arises in the Realm of Desire. Only relying on the Realm of Desire to speak of the name of Brahmā, regarding it as 『self』 and 『eternal』, is called wrong knowledge, not relying on its substance. Because the non-defiled neutral does not rely on the higher realms. Just as relying on empty space is called non-selective cessation (pratisamkhyā-nirodha, cessation achieved through the power of wisdom), not relying on its substance. Because it is not in accordance with reason, it is called wrong, but it is not defiled. It should be known that this is the mind of the three among the four neutral states: deportment (iryāpatha, the postures of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down), craftsmanship (silpasthāna, technical skills), and fruition (vipāka, the result of karma). But it is not a universal result. It only relies on form. Also, understanding deportment and craftsmanship as not the other two. Although there are two explanations, the former explanation is superior.

『Why are the remaining views views, but this wrong knowledge is not a view?』 Objection. Why is it that the remaining two kinds of wrong views are views because they rely on an object, but this wrong knowledge is not a view even though it also relies on an object?

『Because it is said based on the standard of the doctrine.』 The Vaibhāshika (Vaibhāshika, Sarvastivada master) answers. It is said based on the standard of the doctrine.

『Is the nature of pervasive afflictions only latent tendencies?』 Explanation of the last two sentences. Is the cause of pervasive afflictions only latent tendencies?

『It is not so.』 Answer.

『Why?』 Question.

『And the accompanying dharmas should be distinguished according to reason.』 Explanation. And the accompanying

行法。謂上所說十一隨眠。並彼隨行相應．俱有皆遍行因攝。然除彼得。得與所得非一果故非遍行因　由此故有作是問言。諸遍行隨眠皆遍行因不　答言於此應作四句。第一句者。謂未來世遍行隨眠。十一攝故是遍行隨眠。無前後故非遍行因。第二句者。謂過．現世彼俱有法。有前後故是遍行因。非十一故非遍行隨眠。第三句者。謂過．現世遍行隨眠。十一攝故是遍行隨眠。有前後故是遍行因。第四句者。謂除前相。故言如理應辨。

九十八隨眠中至靜凈勝性故者。此即漏．無漏緣初頌總明。第二頌別釋。第三頌簡法。

論曰至準此自成者。此釋初頌。滅．道下六。此緣無漏除此六種餘五部惑皆緣有漏。準此自成頌不別顯。

於此六中至諸行擇滅者。釋第五．第六句。六中緣滅各以自地諸行上滅為其所緣。諸地擇滅更互相望。非因果故不緣異地善智悟境通緣多地不同染法。故顯宗云。然諸善智悟境。理通容有頓緣多地滅。諸邪見起于境迷謬。固執所隔不能總緣　問九上緣惑于境亦迷。如何得緣多地苦集　解云雖迷境起。諸地苦．集由互相望為能作因．增上果故容緣多地。又正理云。謗滅邪見為見滅耶。不見滅耶。若見滅者。如何見滅謗言無滅。若不見滅者。如何無漏緣。又如何言此物非有。應言見

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：行法。指的是上面所說的十一種隨眠（suimian，潛在的煩惱）。以及與它們相關的、同時存在的，都是遍行因（bianxing yin，普遍原因）所包含的。然而，除了它們的『得』（de，獲得），因為『得』與所『得』不是同一個結果，所以不是遍行因。因此，有人會問：所有的遍行隨眠都是遍行因嗎？回答是：對此應該分為四種情況。第一種情況是：未來的遍行隨眠。因為包含在十一種隨眠中，所以是遍行隨眠。因為沒有前後關係，所以不是遍行因。第二種情況是：過去和現在的與它們同時存在的法。因為有前後關係，所以是遍行因。因為不包含在十一種隨眠中，所以不是遍行隨眠。第三種情況是：過去和現在的遍行隨眠。因為包含在十一種隨眠中，所以是遍行隨眠。因為有前後關係，所以是遍行因。第四種情況是：排除以上情況。所以說，應該如理辨別。關於九十八隨眠（suimian，潛在的煩惱）達到寂靜清凈殊勝的自性，這總括地說明了有漏（lou，煩惱）和無漏（wulou，無煩惱）的因緣。第一頌總括說明，第二頌分別解釋，第三頌簡別法。論中說：『乃至準此自成』，這是解釋第一頌。滅（mie，寂滅）、道（dao，道路）以下六句，這六種是緣于無漏的。除了這六種，其餘五部煩惱都緣于有漏。『準此自成』一句，頌中沒有特別顯示。在這六種中，『乃至諸行擇滅』，這是解釋第五句和第六句。六種緣于滅的，各自以自己所在地的諸行的滅作為所緣。諸地的擇滅（zexie，通過智慧選擇的寂滅）互相觀望。因為不是因果關係，所以不緣于異地的善智所悟的境界，可以普遍緣于多地，這與染法不同。所以《顯宗》中說：『然而，諸善智所悟的境界，道理上可以頓然緣于多地的滅。』諸邪見（xiejian，錯誤的見解）的產生，在於對境界的迷惑顛倒，由於固執的阻礙，不能總括地緣取。有人問：九地上緣于煩惱，對於境界也是迷惑的，為什麼能夠緣于多地的苦（ku，痛苦）、集（ji，聚集）？解釋說：雖然是迷惑顛倒而產生，但諸地的苦、集，由於互相觀望，作為能作因、增上果，所以可以緣于多地。又《正理》中說：『誹謗滅的邪見，是見滅呢？還是不見滅呢？如果見滅，如何見滅而誹謗說沒有滅？如果不見滅，如何是無漏緣？又如何說此物非有？應該說是見。』

【English Translation】 English version: The practice of actions. This refers to the eleven types of latent afflictions (suimian, potential defilements) mentioned above. And those that are associated with them, co-existent with them, are all included within the universally operative cause (bianxing yin, pervasive cause). However, excluding their 'attainment' (de, acquisition), because 'attainment' and what is 'attained' are not the same result, it is not a universally operative cause. Therefore, someone might ask: Are all universally operative latent afflictions universally operative causes? The answer is: In this case, four possibilities should be considered. The first possibility is: future universally operative latent afflictions. Because they are included within the eleven types, they are universally operative latent afflictions. Because there is no before and after, they are not universally operative causes. The second possibility is: past and present phenomena that are co-existent with them. Because there is a before and after, they are universally operative causes. Because they are not included within the eleven types, they are not universally operative latent afflictions. The third possibility is: past and present universally operative latent afflictions. Because they are included within the eleven types, they are universally operative latent afflictions. Because there is a before and after, they are universally operative causes. The fourth possibility is: excluding the above situations. Therefore, it is said that one should discern according to reason. Regarding the ninety-eight latent afflictions (suimian, potential defilements) reaching the nature of tranquility, purity, and excellence, this summarizes the conditions of defiled (lou, afflicted) and undefiled (wulou, unafflicted). The first verse summarizes, the second verse explains separately, and the third verse distinguishes the phenomena. The treatise says: 'Even according to this, it is self-established.' This explains the first verse. 'Cessation' (mie, extinction), 'path' (dao, way) and the following six lines, these six are conditioned by the undefiled. Except for these six, the remaining five categories of afflictions are all conditioned by the defiled. The phrase 'according to this, it is self-established' is not specifically shown in the verse. Among these six, 'even the cessation through wisdom' (zexie, extinction through wisdom), this explains the fifth and sixth lines. The six that are conditioned by cessation, each uses the cessation of the actions in its own realm as the object of conditioning. The cessations through wisdom of the various realms observe each other. Because they are not cause and effect, they are not conditioned by the realm of wisdom attained in different realms, and can universally be conditioned by multiple realms, which is different from defiled phenomena. Therefore, the 'Manifestation of the Doctrine' says: 'However, the realm of wisdom attained, in principle, can suddenly be conditioned by the cessation of multiple realms.' The arising of wrong views (xiejian, incorrect views) lies in the delusion and confusion regarding the realm, and due to the obstruction of clinging, it cannot be conditioned comprehensively. Someone asks: The afflictions conditioned on the ninth ground are also deluded regarding the realm, so how can they be conditioned by the suffering (ku, suffering) and accumulation (ji, accumulation) of multiple realms? The explanation is: Although they arise from delusion and confusion, the suffering and accumulation of the various realms, due to observing each other, act as the operative cause and the augmenting result, so they can be conditioned by multiple realms. Furthermore, the 'Reasoning Treatise' says: 'Is the wrong view that slanders cessation seeing cessation? Or not seeing cessation? If it is seeing cessation, how can it see cessation and slander it by saying there is no cessation? If it is not seeing cessation, how is it conditioned by the undefiled? And how can it say this thing does not exist? It should be said that it sees.'

滅。但尋教見即謗如是所說滅無。豈不此見親能緣滅。如何即撥此滅為無。如有目者于多杌處。遙見人立撥為非人。雖親緣人而非不謗。故有見滅而撥為無。然非所有謗滅道慧。皆是見滅。見道所斷。謂若有慧非審察生聞說滅．道便生誹謗。唯緣名故非彼見所斷。若慧于境因審尋伺推度而生決定。撥無所說滅．道方見彼斷(已上論文)　緣道諦者至以類同故者。釋第七句。謂欲界系邪見．疑．無明。唯緣六地法智品道。不緣類智品道　若治欲界。謂未至定中法智品道能治欲者　若能治余。謂六地中滅．道法智品。于修道位能治余色．無色界者　皆彼邪見．疑．無明所緣。以法智品類同故　若上八地各三隨眠。一一唯能通緣九地類智品道不緣法智品　若治自地。謂九地中類智品道能治自地者　若能治余。謂九地中類智品道能治餘七地者　皆彼邪見．疑．無明所緣。以是類智品類同故。

何故緣滅至六九同類者。釋第八句。此即問也。

以諸地道至非欲三所緣者。答。以諸地中法智品道。類智品道。各互相望同類因故。由相因故。若緣法智即緣六地。若緣類智即緣九地。

雖法智品與類智品。亦互相望為同類因。而類智品不治欲界。由別治故。故類智品道非是欲界三種所緣。

法智品既能至各三

所緣者。難。欲界修位滅．道法智。既能治上色．無色界。應為彼八各三所緣。

非此皆能至非能對治故者。通。非此法智皆能治彼色．無色界。苦．集法智品非彼上界對治道故。九地苦．集下粗上細。緣粗不能斷細。故緣欲界苦．集法智。不能對治上八地。或緣細以可斷粗。故緣欲界滅．道法智。能治上惑　滅道法智。亦非全能治色．無色界。唯斷修惑不能治彼見所斷。故以見所斷惑對治決定。又于見位迅疾急速故。見道中滅道法智品。非能對治上界見惑。以修斷惑對治不定。又于修位稍容預故。故修道中滅道法智。而能對治上界修惑　問先離欲染后入見道。于見位中滅．道法智。既無所斷應稍容預。何故不治上見惑耶　解云非要斷惑起欲法智。為觀諦理起斯法智。又次必起類智品道斷上見惑。故欲法智不能對治上界見惑　其法智品四諦分別闕苦．集初。見．修分別闕見道初　故言二初無故。非彼八地三惑所緣。又類釋言。即由此前緣滅唯一緣道六九諸因緣故。顯遍行惑中有緣苦．集九地無遮境互為緣因故。或二合緣。乃至或八合緣。不同滅諦滅互相望非緣因故　言緣因者。是疏緣因。簡親因緣。即能作因。或增上緣名為緣因　又解緣是增上緣。或是等無間緣。或是所緣緣。或通前二。或總通三因。謂能作因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所緣是什麼？這是個難題。緣于欲界的修道位所滅的法智和道智，既然能夠對治上界的色界和無色界（指上二界），那麼應該成為那八地各自的三種所緣（指苦、集、滅）。

並非這些法智都能對治上界，因為並非都能直接對治。這是通用的解釋。並非這種法智都能對治那些色界和無色界。苦智和集智的法智品不能對治上界的惑，因為它們不是上界的對治道。九地的苦和集，地獄粗糙而上界精細，緣于粗糙的不能斷除精細的。所以緣于欲界的苦智和集智不能對治上八地的惑。或者緣于精細的可以斷除粗糙的。所以緣于欲界的滅智和道智慧夠對治上界的惑。滅智和道智，也不是完全能夠對治色界和無色界，只能斷除修惑，不能對治見所斷的惑。所以用見所斷的惑來對治是決定的。而且在見道位中，迅疾而急速。所以在見道中的滅智和道智品，不能對治上界的見惑。用修所斷的惑來對治是不確定的。而且在修道位中，稍微容許預先準備。所以在修道中的滅智和道智，能夠對治上界的修惑。問：先離開欲界的染污，然後進入見道，在見道位中，滅智和道智既然沒有所斷的惑，應該稍微容許預先準備，為什麼不能對治上界的見惑呢？解釋說：並非一定要斷除惑才生起欲界的法智，而是爲了觀察真諦的道理才生起這種法智。而且接下來必定生起類智品（指無間道）來斷除上界的見惑。所以欲界的法智不能對治上界的見惑。

法智品在四諦的分別中，缺少苦諦和集諦的最初部分，在見道和修道的分別中，缺少見道的最初部分。所以說二者最初都沒有。所以不是那八地的三種惑的所緣。又用類智來解釋說，就是由此前緣于滅諦的唯一，緣于道諦的六種，緣於九地的諸種因緣。顯示遍行惑中有緣于苦諦和集諦的九地，沒有遮境，互相作為緣因。或者二者合起來緣，乃至或者八者合起來緣。不同於滅諦，滅諦互相望不是緣因。所說的緣因，是疏遠的緣因，簡別于親近的因緣，就是能作因，或者增上緣，名為緣因。又解釋說，緣是增上緣，或者是等無間緣，或者是所緣緣，或者通於前二者，或者總通於三種因，就是能作因。

【English Translation】 English version: What is the object of cognition (所緣, suo yuan)? This is difficult. Since the Dharma-wisdom (法智, fa zhi) and Path-wisdom (道智, dao zhi) that extinguish the cultivation-stage afflictions (修位滅, xiu wei mie) in the Desire Realm (欲界, yu jie) can cure the Form Realm (色界, se jie) and Formless Realm (無色界, wu se jie) (referring to the two upper realms), they should be the three objects of cognition (referring to suffering, accumulation, and cessation) for each of those eight grounds.

It is not that all these Dharma-wisdoms can cure the upper realms, because not all can directly cure them. This is a general explanation. It is not that this Dharma-wisdom can cure those Form and Formless Realms. The Dharma-wisdom associated with suffering and accumulation (苦智, ku zhi; 集智, ji zhi) cannot cure the afflictions of the upper realms, because they are not the path of cure for the upper realms. The suffering and accumulation of the nine grounds are coarse in the lower realms and subtle in the upper realms. Cognizing the coarse cannot sever the subtle. Therefore, the Dharma-wisdom associated with suffering and accumulation in the Desire Realm cannot cure the afflictions of the upper eight grounds. Or, cognizing the subtle can sever the coarse. Therefore, the Dharma-wisdom associated with cessation and path (滅智, mie zhi; 道智, dao zhi) in the Desire Realm can cure the afflictions of the upper realms. The cessation-wisdom and path-wisdom are not entirely able to cure the Form and Formless Realms; they can only sever the afflictions severed by cultivation, not those severed by view. Therefore, the cure for afflictions severed by view is definite. Moreover, in the path of seeing (見道, jian dao), it is swift and rapid. Therefore, the cessation-wisdom and path-wisdom in the path of seeing cannot cure the afflictions of the upper realms severed by view. The cure for afflictions severed by cultivation is indefinite. Moreover, in the path of cultivation (修道, xiu dao), there is some allowance for preparation. Therefore, the cessation-wisdom and path-wisdom in the path of cultivation can cure the afflictions of the upper realms severed by cultivation. Question: If one first departs from the defilements of the Desire Realm and then enters the path of seeing, in the path of seeing, since the cessation-wisdom and path-wisdom have no afflictions to sever, and there should be some allowance for preparation, why can't they cure the afflictions of the upper realms severed by view? Explanation: It is not necessary to sever afflictions to generate the Dharma-wisdom of the Desire Realm; rather, this Dharma-wisdom arises to observe the truth of the principles. Moreover, the subsequent wisdom of categories (類智, lei zhi) (referring to the immediate path) will definitely arise to sever the afflictions of the upper realms severed by view. Therefore, the Dharma-wisdom of the Desire Realm cannot cure the afflictions of the upper realms severed by view.

In the Dharma-wisdom associated with the Four Noble Truths, the initial parts of suffering and accumulation are missing; in the distinction between the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, the initial part of the path of seeing is missing. Therefore, it is said that the initial parts of both are absent. Therefore, it is not the object of cognition for the three afflictions of those eight grounds. Furthermore, it is explained using the wisdom of categories that it is precisely because of the previous unique condition of cessation, the six conditions of the path, and the various conditions of the nine grounds. It shows that among the pervasive afflictions, there are those that cognize the nine grounds of suffering and accumulation, without any obstructing realm, mutually acting as causal conditions. Or, two are combined to cognize, or even eight are combined to cognize. This is different from cessation, where cessation does not mutually regard cessation as a causal condition. The so-called causal condition is a distant causal condition, distinguishing it from a close causal condition, which is the efficient cause, or the supporting condition, called the causal condition. Furthermore, it is explained that the condition is the supporting condition, or the immediately preceding condition, or the object-condition, or it encompasses the previous two, or it encompasses all three causes, which is the efficient cause.

非是無漏能對治故。有緣一地非緣六．九。不同道諦以緣道時緣六．九地。

何緣貪瞋慢至非無漏緣者。此下釋后一頌。此即問也。

以貪隨眠至不緣無漏者。答。釋貪．瞋．慢。及與二取。不緣無漏。如文可知。

九十八隨眠中至相應故隨增者。此即第三明二種隨增。前六句明所緣隨增。后兩句明相應隨增　前六句中初四句正明所緣隨增。后兩句簡差別。

論曰至為所緣故者。此釋初頌。如文可知。正理云。言隨增者。謂諸隨眠於此法中隨住增長。即是隨縳增昏滯義　此據總說至及相違故者。此下釋第五．第六句。所緣隨增此據總說。若別分別滅．道諦下六無漏緣惑。及苦．集下九上緣惑。于所緣境無隨增義。所以者何。滅．道無漏．及上地境。一非見愛所攝受故。二與能緣惑相違故。此即標章。

謂若有法至非所緣隨增者。此釋初章。謂若有法為此地中身見。及愛。攝為己有。可有為此身見．愛地中所有隨眠所緣隨增理。如衣潤濕。埃塵隨住　衣即喻法　潤濕喻身．見愛　埃塵隨住喻惑隨增　非諸無漏法為諸身見．愛攝為己有。非諸上地法為諸下身見．愛攝為己有　故緣彼無漏惑。緣彼上地下惑。非所緣隨增。

住下地心至非謂隨眠者。通伏難。伏難意云。貪求上地即此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本並非因為無漏法能夠對治（煩惱），所以（貪等煩惱）就不能緣無漏法。這是因為（貪等煩惱）所緣的（有漏）地是單一的，不是六地或九地。這與道諦不同，道諦在緣道的時候，可以緣六地或九地。

為什麼貪、嗔、慢等煩惱不是無漏法的所緣呢？這是解釋前面偈頌的後半部分。這是一個提問。

因為貪隨眠等不緣無漏法。這是回答。解釋了貪、嗔、慢以及二取（有身見、戒禁取見）不緣無漏法。文中的意思很清楚。

在九十八隨眠中，……與（煩惱）相應，所以隨之增長。這是第三點，說明兩種隨之增長的情況。前面六句說明所緣隨增，後面兩句說明相應隨增。在前面六句中，前四句是正式說明所緣隨增，后兩句是簡別差別。

論中說……成為所緣的緣故。這是解釋最初的偈頌。文中的意思很清楚。《正理》中說：『所說的隨增，是指各種隨眠在這種法中隨之安住增長，也就是隨之束縛，增加昏昧的意義。』這是總的來說……以及因為（無漏法）與（煩惱）相違的緣故。這是解釋第五、第六句。所緣隨增，這是總的來說。如果分別來說，滅諦、道諦下的六種無漏法所緣的煩惱，以及苦諦、集諦下九地以上所緣的煩惱，在所緣的境界上沒有隨之增長的意義。為什麼呢？滅諦、道諦是無漏法，以及上地的境界，一是不能被見愛（見惑和愛惑）所攝受，二是與能緣的煩惱相違背。這是標明綱要。

所謂如果有一種法……不是所緣隨增。這是解釋第一個綱要。所謂如果有一種法，被此地中的身見以及愛所攝取，成為自己所有的，才有可能成為此身見、愛地中所有隨眠所緣隨增的道理。就像衣服潤濕了，灰塵就會隨之附著。衣服比喻法，潤濕比喻身見、愛，灰塵隨住比喻煩惱隨增。不是各種無漏法被各種身見、愛攝取為自己所有的，不是各種上地法被各種下地身見、愛攝取為自己所有的。所以緣彼無漏法，緣彼上地下的煩惱，不是所緣隨增。

安住在下地的心……不是指隨眠。這是通用的伏難。伏難的意思是說，貪求上地，就是這個。

【English Translation】 English version It is not because the unconditioned (Asrava-free) can counteract (afflictions) that (greed, etc.) cannot be conditioned by the unconditioned. This is because the (conditioned) ground that (greed, etc.) conditions is singular, not six or nine grounds. This is different from the Path Truth (Dukkha-nirodha-gamini-patipada-ariya-sacca), which, when conditioning the Path, can condition six or nine grounds.

Why are greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), pride (mana), etc., not conditioned by the unconditioned? This explains the latter half of the previous verse. This is a question.

Because the latent tendencies (anusaya) of greed, etc., do not condition the unconditioned. This is the answer. It explains that greed, hatred, pride, and the two attachments (belief in a self and attachment to rites and rituals) do not condition the unconditioned. The meaning in the text is clear.

Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies, ... they increase accordingly because they are associated (with afflictions). This is the third point, explaining the two types of increase. The first six sentences explain the increase of what is conditioned, and the last two sentences explain the increase of what is associated. In the first six sentences, the first four sentences formally explain the increase of what is conditioned, and the last two sentences distinguish the differences.

The treatise says ... because it becomes the object of conditioning. This explains the initial verse. The meaning in the text is clear. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'What is meant by 'increase' is that the various latent tendencies abide and increase in this dharma, which is to say that they bind and increase the meaning of dullness.' This is a general statement ... and because (the unconditioned) is contrary (to afflictions). This explains the fifth and sixth sentences. The increase of what is conditioned is a general statement. If we analyze separately, the afflictions conditioned by the six unconditioned dharmas under the Cessation Truth (Nirodha-sacca) and Path Truth (Magga-sacca), and the afflictions conditioned by the nine upper grounds under the Suffering Truth (Dukkha-sacca) and Origin Truth (Samudaya-sacca), do not have the meaning of increasing in the conditioned realm. Why? The Cessation Truth (Nirodha-sacca) and Path Truth (Magga-sacca) are unconditioned, and the realms of the upper grounds, firstly, cannot be taken in by views of self (satkayadristi) and craving (trsna), and secondly, are contrary to the afflictions that condition them. This marks the outline.

So-called if there is a dharma ... it is not an increase of what is conditioned. This explains the first outline. So-called if there is a dharma that is taken in by the view of self (satkayadristi) and craving (trsna) in this ground, becoming one's own, then it is possible for it to become the reason for the increase of what is conditioned by all the latent tendencies in this ground of view of self (satkayadristi) and craving (trsna). It is like when clothes are wet, dust will adhere to them. Clothes are a metaphor for dharma, wetness is a metaphor for view of self (satkayadristi) and craving (trsna), and dust adhering is a metaphor for the increase of afflictions. It is not that the various unconditioned dharmas are taken in by the various views of self (satkayadristi) and craving (trsna) as one's own, and it is not that the various dharmas of the upper grounds are taken in by the various views of self (satkayadristi) and craving (trsna) of the lower grounds as one's own. Therefore, conditioning those unconditioned dharmas, conditioning the afflictions under those upper grounds, is not an increase of what is conditioned.

The mind abiding in the lower ground ... does not refer to latent tendencies (anusaya). This is a common refutation. The meaning of the refutation is that craving for the upper ground is this.

下貪能緣上地者。為通此伏難故作是言。住下地心求上地等。是善法欲。非謂隨眠。

聖道涅槃至足不隨住者。此釋后章。若聖道諦。涅槃滅諦。與能緣彼惑相違。若上地法與能緣彼下惑相違故。彼無漏緣。九上緣二。亦無所緣隨增理。如於炎石足不隨住　炎石。喻境　足不隨住。喻能緣惑。

有說隨眠至非所隨增者。敘異說。此約隨順解隨增。有說隨眠是隨順義。非無漏境順諸隨眠。非上地境順諸下隨眠故雖是所緣而無隨增理。如風病人服乾澀藥。病人于藥不相隨順非所隨增。藥于病人無有勢力。非能隨增　病人。喻境　藥。喻能緣惑　此中正取風病人為喻。非取風病　若將風病望乾澀藥。相隨順故有所隨增。

已約所緣至於彼隨增者。釋后兩句。謂隨何遍．不遍緣有漏．無漏緣。自界．他界緣。隨眠一切皆于自相應法由相應故。于彼隨增。

諸說隨增至標未斷言者。上來所言諸所隨增。謂諸隨眠至未斷。故初頌首標未斷言。

頗有隨眠至非所緣不者。問意可知。

有至隨眠者。答。言有　謂緣上地諸遍行隨眠。如初靜慮遍行隨眠緣上三地。亦如空處遍行隨眠緣上三地。非緣上界而彼隨增。唯于相應非所緣。

九十八隨眠中至此余皆不善者。此即第四二性分別。

論曰至至彼定無故者。釋第一句。上界諸惑皆唯無記。以染污法中若是不善有苦異熟果上二界無。他逼惱因緣決定無故　說彼無果。顯因亦無　又正理云。色．無色界一切隨眠。四支．五支定所伏故。無有勢力招異熟果。故彼皆是無記性攝　又婆沙云。若法是無慚．無愧自性與無慚．無愧相應。是無慚．無愧等起等流果者。是不善。色．無色界煩惱不爾故是無記(廣如彼說)。

身邊二見至他有情故者。釋第二．第三句。欲身．邊見。及相應癡。亦無記性　所以者何　與善相違名為不善。此我．常見與彼施等不相違故。執我．常者恐此常．我當來受苦。為此常．我于當來世受人．天樂。現在勤修佈施．持戒及靜慮等　執斷邊見隨順涅槃。能斷滅故。故世尊說于諸外道諸見趣中此斷見最勝　趣。謂趣求　謂我不有。我所亦不有。執我．我所現在已無。以于身中求之不得。謂為已斷　我當不有。我所當不有。執我．我所死後方無　又解前之二句執我．我所與現在身死時俱斷。后之二句執我．我所于未來世畢竟不生。由順涅槃故非不善。

又身．邊二見迷自事故。非欲逼害他有情故。其過是輕故是無記。

若爾貪求至何亦應然者難。若爾貪求天上快樂。及起我慢。此與施等亦不相違。貪．慢二種應亦無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：論中說『直至彼處必定沒有』，這是解釋第一句。上界的各種煩惱都只是無記（既非善也非惡），因為在染污法中，如果是不善的，會有痛苦的異熟果報，但在上二界（色界和無色界）是沒有的。因為沒有其他逼迫惱害的因緣，所以說那裡沒有果報。說明沒有果報，也顯示了沒有因。而且《正理》中說，色界和無色界的一切隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態），都被四禪支或五禪支所制伏，沒有力量招感異熟果報，所以它們都是無記性的。此外，《婆沙論》中說，如果一個法是無慚、無愧的自性，並且與無慚、無愧相應，是無慚、無愧等起（生起的原因）和等流果（相似的果報），那麼它就是不善的。但色界和無色界的煩惱不是這樣，所以是無記（詳細內容見《婆沙論》）。『身見、邊見直至他有情』，這是解釋第二句和第三句。欲界的有身見（薩迦耶見，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）、邊見（常見和斷見），以及與它們相應的愚癡，也是無記性的。為什麼呢？與善相對立的才稱為不善。而這種我見、常見與佈施等善行並不相違背。執著有我、常的人，會擔心這個常、我將來會受苦，爲了讓這個常、我在未來世享受人天之樂，現在會勤奮地修習佈施、持戒以及禪定等。執著斷見則順應涅槃，因為它能夠斷滅煩惱。所以世尊說，在所有外道的各種見解中，這種斷見是最殊勝的。『趣』，指的是趣求。他們認為『我沒有，我所（屬於我的事物）也沒有』，執著我、我所現在已經沒有了，因為在身體中找不到我，所以認為已經斷滅了。『我將來沒有，我所將來也沒有』，執著我、我所死後才沒有。另一種解釋前兩句，是執著我、我所與現在的身體在死亡時一同斷滅；后兩句是執著我、我所于未來世畢竟不生。因為順應涅槃，所以不是不善。而且，有身見、邊見迷惑的是自己的事情，不是想要逼迫、傷害其他有情，所以它的過失是輕微的，因此是無記。如果這樣，那麼貪求直至何處也應該如此，這是提出的疑問。如果這樣，那麼貪求天上快樂，以及生起我慢，這些與佈施等善行也不相違背，那麼貪和慢這兩種也應該是無記的嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: The treatise says, 'Until reaching that place, it is definitely not present,' which explains the first sentence. All afflictions in the upper realms are only indeterminate (neither good nor evil), because among defiled dharmas, if it is unwholesome, it will have the painful result of ripening, but this is not present in the upper two realms (the Form Realm and the Formless Realm). Because there are definitely no causes of oppression and vexation from others, it is said that there is no result there. Explaining that there is no result also shows that there is no cause. Moreover, the Nyayanusara-sastra says that all latent tendencies (anusaya) in the Form and Formless Realms are subdued by the four or five factors of dhyana, and have no power to attract the result of ripening, so they are all included in the category of indeterminate. Furthermore, the Mahavibhasa says that if a dharma is by nature shameless and without regard, and corresponds to shamelessness and lack of regard, and is the cause and similar result of shamelessness and lack of regard, then it is unwholesome. But the afflictions of the Form and Formless Realms are not like this, so they are indeterminate (see the Mahavibhasa for details). 'Self-view and extreme views until other sentient beings,' this explains the second and third sentences. The satkayadristi (view of a real self in the five aggregates), antagrahadristi (extreme views of permanence and annihilation), and the corresponding ignorance in the Desire Realm are also indeterminate. Why? Only that which is opposed to good is called unwholesome. But this self-view and eternalism are not opposed to good deeds such as giving. Those who cling to a self and permanence worry that this permanent self will suffer in the future. In order for this permanent self to enjoy human and heavenly pleasures in the future, they diligently practice giving, morality, and meditation in the present. Clinging to annihilationism accords with Nirvana, because it can extinguish afflictions. Therefore, the World-Honored One said that among all the views of externalists, this annihilationism is the most excellent. 'Pursuit' refers to seeking. They think, 'I do not exist, and what belongs to me (my possessions) also does not exist.' They cling to the idea that the self and what belongs to it are already non-existent now, because they cannot find the self in the body, so they think it is already annihilated. 'I will not exist in the future, and what belongs to me will not exist in the future.' They cling to the idea that the self and what belongs to it will not exist after death. Another explanation of the first two sentences is that they cling to the idea that the self and what belongs to it are annihilated together with the present body at the time of death; the last two sentences are that they cling to the idea that the self and what belongs to it will ultimately not arise in the future. Because it accords with Nirvana, it is not unwholesome. Moreover, self-view and extreme views delude one's own affairs, and do not intend to oppress or harm other sentient beings, so their fault is minor, and therefore they are indeterminate. If that is the case, then craving until where should also be the same, this is the question raised. If that is the case, then craving for heavenly pleasures and arising pride are also not opposed to good deeds such as giving, so should craving and pride also be indeterminate?

記　或貪天樂。及起我慢。亦迷自事。非害有情。應名無記　或貪求天上快樂現修施等。及起我慢。迷自事故非欲害他。應名無記。

先軌範師至是不善性者。敘異說。經部先代軌範諸師作如是說。俱生身見是無記性。如禽獸等身見現行　與身俱生故名俱生。修道所斷　若分別生。依教起者此不善。見道所斷　立二身見同大乘經說　若依說一切有部。身見唯分別。唯見斷無俱生　禽獸等計皆應知但是修道所斷。不染無記邪智所攝。

余欲界系至皆不善性者。釋第四句。於三界中除前所說余欲界系一切隨眠。與上相違皆不善性。

于上所說至貪瞋．不善癡者。此下第五明根．非根。就中。一明不善根。二明無記根　此即第一明不善根。

論曰至故頌不說者。唯欲界系一切五部貪．瞋。及不善癡。不善根攝。引證可知　言不善根者。唯不善煩惱。為不善法根立不善根　余則不爾但說此三。所餘煩惱非不善根義準已成故頌不說。婆沙一百一十二廢立云。又此三種具足五義。謂通五部。遍在六識。是隨眠性。能起粗惡身業．語業。作斷善根牢強加行。是故獨立為不善根　通五部者遮五見．疑。遍六識者遮其諸慢。隨眠性者遮纏垢等。能起粗惡身業．語業。作斷善根牢強加行者示現根義　又此五義遮一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者貪戀天上的快樂（天樂），以及生起我慢（認為自己了不起），也是迷惑于自身的事情，並非要傷害其他有情眾生，應該稱為無記（既非善也非惡）。或者貪求天上快樂而進行佈施等修行，以及生起我慢，迷惑于自身的事情，並非想要加害他人，應該稱為無記。

先前的軌範師（Acharya）認為，至於不善的性質，這是敘述不同的說法。經部（Sautrantika）先代的軌範諸師這樣說：俱生身見（Sahaja-satkayadrishti，與生俱來的我見）是無記的性質，就像禽獸等的身見現行一樣。與身體俱生，所以稱為俱生。是修道（Bhavana-marga）所斷除的。如果是分別生（Parikalpita）的，依教理而生起的，這種是不善的，是見道（Darshana-marga）所斷除的。立二種身見，與大乘經典所說相同。如果依據說一切有部（Sarvastivada），身見唯是分別的，唯是見道所斷，沒有俱生的。禽獸等的計度，都應當知道只是修道所斷，是不染污的無記，為邪智所攝持。

至於其餘欲界系（Kama-dhatu）的一切隨眠（Anushaya），都是不善的性質。這是解釋第四句。在三界（Tri-dhatu）中，除了前面所說的，其餘欲界系的一切隨眠，與上述相反，都是不善的性質。

對於上面所說的，至於貪、嗔、不善癡（Lobha, Dvesha, Moha），以下第五部分說明根（Hetu）、非根。其中，第一部分說明不善根（Akushala-mula），第二部分說明無記根。這裡是第一部分說明不善根。

論曰：至於所以頌中沒有說，只有欲界系的一切五部（五種煩惱類別）的貪、嗔，以及不善癡，屬於不善根所攝。引證可以知道。所說的不善根，唯有不善的煩惱，作為不善法的根，才立為不善根。其餘則不是這樣，只是說了這三種。其餘的煩惱並非不善根，意義已經成立，所以頌中沒有說。《婆沙論》（Vibhasha）第一百一十二卷的廢立篇說：又這三種具足五種意義，即通於五部，遍在六識（六種意識），是隨眠的性質，能引發粗惡的身業、語業，作為斷善根的牢固強烈的加行，所以獨立作為不善根。通於五部，是爲了遮止五見（五種錯誤的見解）、疑（猶豫不決）。遍在六識，是爲了遮止其他的諸慢（各種傲慢）。隨眠的性質，是爲了遮止纏垢等。能引發粗惡的身業、語業，作為斷善根的牢固強烈的加行，是顯示根的意義。又這五種意義遮止一種。

【English Translation】 English version: Or being greedy for heavenly pleasures (Tyaloka), and also giving rise to pride (thinking oneself superior), is also being deluded about one's own affairs, and not intending to harm other sentient beings, should be called indeterminate (neither good nor evil). Or seeking heavenly pleasures and practicing generosity and other practices, and also giving rise to pride, being deluded about one's own affairs, and not intending to harm others, should be called indeterminate.

The former Acharyas (teachers) considered, as for the nature of unwholesome, this is narrating different views. The Acharyas of the Sautrantika (Scripture School) of former times said this: Innate self-view (Sahaja-satkayadrishti, the self-view that arises with birth) is of an indeterminate nature, just like the self-view that manifests in birds and beasts. It arises with the body, so it is called innate. It is severed by the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga). If it is conceptually arisen (Parikalpita), arising based on teachings, this is unwholesome, and is severed by the path of seeing (Darshana-marga). Establishing two kinds of self-view is the same as what is said in the Mahayana sutras. If based on the Sarvastivada (the doctrine that everything exists), self-view is only conceptual, only severed by the path of seeing, and there is no innate self-view. The conceptions of birds and beasts should all be known as only severed by the path of cultivation, and are non-defiled indeterminate, encompassed by wrong wisdom.

As for the remaining latent tendencies (Anushaya) of the desire realm (Kama-dhatu), they are all of an unwholesome nature. This is explaining the fourth sentence. In the three realms (Tri-dhatu), except for what was said earlier, the remaining latent tendencies of the desire realm, contrary to the above, are all of an unwholesome nature.

Regarding what was said above, as for greed, hatred, and unwholesome ignorance (Lobha, Dvesha, Moha), the fifth part below explains roots (Hetu) and non-roots. Among them, the first part explains unwholesome roots (Akushala-mula), and the second part explains indeterminate roots. Here is the first part explaining unwholesome roots.

The treatise says: As for why it is not mentioned in the verse, only the greed, hatred, and unwholesome ignorance of all five categories (five types of afflictions) of the desire realm are included in unwholesome roots. The citation can be known. What is said as unwholesome roots, only unwholesome afflictions, as the root of unwholesome dharmas, are established as unwholesome roots. The rest are not like this, only these three are mentioned. The remaining afflictions are not unwholesome roots, the meaning is already established, so it is not mentioned in the verse. The Establishment and Abolishment chapter of the Vibhasha (Great Commentary) Volume 112 says: Also, these three possess five meanings, namely, they are common to the five categories, pervasive in the six consciousnesses (six types of consciousness), are of the nature of latent tendencies, can cause coarse bodily and verbal actions, and serve as firm and strong efforts to sever wholesome roots, so they are independently established as unwholesome roots. Common to the five categories is to prevent the five views (five wrong views) and doubt (hesitation). Pervasive in the six consciousnesses is to prevent the other prides (various kinds of arrogance). The nature of latent tendencies is to prevent entanglements and defilements. Being able to cause coarse bodily and verbal actions, and serving as firm and strong efforts to sever wholesome roots, is to show the meaning of roots. Also, these five meanings prevent one.

切法成立根義。謂不染污法有遍六識無餘四義。染污色蘊全無五義。染污受蘊．想蘊。及余煩惱纏垢所餘相應染污行蘊。雖通五部亦遍六識。而非隨眠性。雖能起粗惡身．語二業。而非斷善牢強加行有染污不相應行蘊。雖通五部無餘四義。染污識蘊中眼等五識全無五義。意識雖通五部亦能起粗惡身業．語業。而無餘三義。十煩惱中。五見及疑。有隨眠性無餘四義。慢通五部。是隨眠性。能起粗惡身業．語業。無餘二義。於十纏中惛沈．掉舉．無慚．無愧。雖通五部亦遍六識。而非隨眠性。雖起粗惡身業．語業。而非斷善牢強加行。睡眠一種。雖通五部無餘四義。所餘五纏。雖起粗惡身．語二業無餘四義。六煩惱垢。雖亦有時能起粗惡身．語二業。無餘四義。唯貪．瞋．癡具足五義。非所餘法。是故獨立為不善根　準此婆沙文。染污睡眠不發身．語業。準此善眠不發業。無覆睡眠。婆沙．正理各有兩說。一說發業。一說不發業。其下十纏當具引釋　又準此文惡作發身．語業　問惡作與憂根相應法離欲舍。若發得別解脫戒。此戒豈有離欲舍耶　解云惡作．憂根但能發處中善．不善身．語業。不能發別解脫戒。故無有妨。惡作追悔往事。憂根別有所憂。正發戒時無此相故。又準此文六垢發業。

于上所說至三定皆癡故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：切法成立根義，指的是不染污法具有遍及六識和無餘四義。染污色蘊完全沒有五義。染污受蘊、想蘊，以及其餘煩惱纏垢所餘相應的染污行蘊，雖然貫通五部，也遍及六識，但不是隨眠性。雖然能引發粗惡的身、語二業，但不是斷善和牢強加行。有染污不相應行蘊，雖然貫通五部，但沒有其餘四義。染污識蘊中，眼等五識完全沒有五義。意識雖然貫通五部，也能引發粗惡的身業、語業，但沒有其餘三義。十煩惱中，五見及疑，具有隨眠性，沒有其餘四義。慢貫通五部，是隨眠性，能引發粗惡的身業、語業，沒有其餘二義。於十纏中，惛沈、掉舉、無慚、無愧，雖然貫通五部，也遍及六識，但不是隨眠性，雖然能引發粗惡的身業、語業，但不是斷善和牢強加行。睡眠一種，雖然貫通五部，沒有其餘四義。其餘五纏，雖然能引發粗惡的身、語二業，但沒有其餘四義。六煩惱垢，雖然有時也能引發粗惡的身、語二業，但沒有其餘四義。只有貪（greed）、瞋（hatred）、癡（delusion）具足五義，不是其餘法。因此獨立作為不善根。依據此《婆沙論》的文義，染污睡眠不引發身、語業。依據此義，善眠不引發業。無覆睡眠，《婆沙論》和《正理論》各有兩種說法，一種說法是引發業，一種說法是不引發業。其下的十纏應當詳細解釋。又依據此文，惡作（remorse）引發身、語業。問：惡作與憂根（sorrow）相應的法，遠離欲和舍（equanimity），如果獲得別解脫戒（Pratimoksha vows），此戒難道有遠離欲和舍嗎？解答說：惡作、憂根只能引發處中善、不善的身、語業，不能引發別解脫戒，所以沒有妨礙。惡作是追悔往事，憂根是另外有所憂，正發戒時沒有這種現象。又依據此文，六垢引發業。對於上面所說的，直到三定都是癡（delusion）的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: The establishment of the root meaning of 'cutting off' refers to the fact that undefiled dharmas possess the pervasiveness of the six consciousnesses and the four remaining meanings. Defiled form aggregates completely lack the five meanings. Defiled feeling aggregates, thought aggregates, and the remaining defiled volitional aggregates associated with afflictions and defilements, although pervading the five divisions, also pervade the six consciousnesses, but are not of the nature of latent tendencies (Sleeper, Sui Mian). Although they can give rise to coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, they are not the severing of wholesome roots or firm and strong application. Defiled non-associated volitional aggregates, although pervading the five divisions, lack the four remaining meanings. Among the defiled consciousness aggregates, the five consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body completely lack the five meanings. Although the mind consciousness pervades the five divisions, it can also give rise to coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, but lacks the three remaining meanings. Among the ten afflictions, the five views and doubt possess the nature of latent tendencies, lacking the four remaining meanings. Pride (Mana) pervades the five divisions, is of the nature of latent tendencies, and can give rise to coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, lacking the two remaining meanings. Among the ten fetters (Ten Entanglements, Shi Chan), sloth (Stupor, Hun Shen), excitement (Restlessness, Diao Ju), shamelessness (Lack of Shame, Wu Can), and lack of embarrassment (Lack of Embarrassment, Wu Kui), although pervading the five divisions, also pervade the six consciousnesses, but are not of the nature of latent tendencies, and although they can give rise to coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, they are not the severing of wholesome roots or firm and strong application. Sleep (Sleep, Shui Mian) alone, although pervading the five divisions, lacks the four remaining meanings. The remaining five fetters, although they can give rise to coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, lack the four remaining meanings. The six taints (Six Defilements, Liu Gou), although they can sometimes give rise to coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, lack the four remaining meanings. Only greed (Greed, Tan), hatred (Hatred, Chen), and delusion (Delusion, Chi) possess the five meanings completely, and are not other dharmas. Therefore, they are independently regarded as unwholesome roots. According to the meaning of this Vibhasha text, defiled sleep does not give rise to bodily and verbal actions. According to this meaning, wholesome sleep does not give rise to karma. Non-obstructed sleep has two different explanations in the Vibhasha and Nyayanusara treatises, one saying that it gives rise to karma, and the other saying that it does not give rise to karma. The ten fetters below should be explained in detail. Also, according to this text, remorse (Regret, E Zuo) gives rise to bodily and verbal actions. Question: If remorse is associated with sorrow (Sorrow, You Gen), which is associated with detachment from desire and equanimity (Equanimity, She), and one obtains the Pratimoksha vows (Individual Liberation Vows, Bie Jie Tuo Jie), do these vows have detachment from desire and equanimity? The answer is: Remorse and sorrow can only give rise to neutral wholesome and unwholesome bodily and verbal actions, and cannot give rise to the Pratimoksha vows, so there is no contradiction. Remorse is regretting past events, and sorrow is being worried about something else, and this phenomenon does not exist when the vows are being taken. Also, according to this text, the six taints give rise to karma. Regarding what was said above, up to the three concentrations (Three Samadhi, San Ding) are all due to delusion.

者。此下第二明無記根。中一正明無記根。二因論明四無記　此即第一正明無記根。初三句述此國。后三句述外方。

論曰至亦無記根攝者。釋初兩句。此國諸師說。無記根亦有三種。諸無記言通有覆無覆。謂諸有覆愛．癡。及諸有覆無覆慧。于無覆中下至異熟生。亦無記根攝。故婆沙一百五十六云。迦濕彌羅國毗婆沙師說。無記根有三。謂無記愛．慧．無明　無記愛者。謂色．無色界五部愛　無記慧者。謂有覆無記慧。無覆無記慧。有覆無記慧。謂欲界有身見．邊執見。及色．無色界五部染污慧。無覆無記慧。謂威儀路．工巧處．異熟生．變化心俱生慧　無記無明者。謂欲界有身見．邊執見相應無明。及色．無色界五部無明　問于無記中何故此三別立為根　解雲根是因義。此三為因生諸法勝故立為根。愛是諸煩惱足。癡即遍與諸惑相應。慧能簡擇為眾導首。

何緣疑慢非無記根者。釋第三句　問十隨眠中瞋非無記理在絕言。何緣疑．慢非無記根。

疑二趣轉至故彼非根者。答。文可知　余非隨眠。或無勝用。故不立根。

外方諸師至遮善．惡故者。釋第四．第五句。外方即是西方諸師。立無記根總有四種。謂諸有覆無記愛．見．慢．癡四種。頌言中無記名中。遮善．惡故。此唯有覆不通無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本者。接下來第二部分闡明無記根。其中分為兩部分：一是正式闡明無記根，二是根據論述闡明四種無記。

這便是第一部分，正式闡明無記根。最初的三句是敘述此地（迦濕彌羅國）的觀點，後面的三句是敘述其他地方（西方）的觀點。

論曰：乃至也屬於無記根所攝。這是解釋最初的兩句。此地（迦濕彌羅國）的諸位論師說，無記根也有三種。所謂的『無記』，既包括有覆無記，也包括無覆無記。即指那些有覆的愛、癡，以及那些有覆和無覆的慧。在無覆無記中，下至異熟生也屬於無記根所攝。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十六卷說，迦濕彌羅國的毗婆沙師說，無記根有三種，即無記的愛、慧、無明。

無記的愛，指的是色界、無色界的五部愛。

無記的慧，指的是有覆無記的慧和無覆無記的慧。有覆無記的慧，指的是欲界中的有身見、邊執見，以及色界、無色界的五部染污慧。無覆無記的慧，指的是威儀路、工巧處、異熟生、變化心所產生的慧。

無記的無明，指的是欲界中有身見、邊執見相應的無明，以及色界、無色界的五部無明。

問：在無記中，為什麼特別將這三種立為根？

答：根是原因的意思。這三種作為原因，產生諸法的力量強大，所以立為根。愛是諸煩惱的根本，癡是普遍與各種迷惑相應，慧能夠簡擇，是眾生的引導者。

何緣疑慢非無記根者。這是解釋第三句。問：在十隨眠中，嗔不是無記，這是理所當然的。為什麼疑和慢不是無記根？

疑二趣轉至故彼非根者。答：文中的意思可以理解。其餘的不是隨眠，或者沒有強大的作用，所以不立為根。

外方諸師至遮善．惡故者。這是解釋第四、第五句。外方指的是西方諸師。他們認為無記根總共有四種，即有覆無記的愛、見、慢、癡四種。頌文中的『無記』，指的是遮蔽善和惡的，因此這裡只指有覆無記，不包括無覆無記。

【English Translation】 English version Here, the second part explains the indeterminate roots. It is divided into two parts: first, a formal explanation of the indeterminate roots; second, an explanation of the four types of indeterminate based on the discussion.

This is the first part, formally explaining the indeterminate roots. The first three sentences describe the views of this country (Kashmir), and the last three sentences describe the views of other places (the West).

Treatise says: Even these are included in the indeterminate roots. This explains the first two sentences. The teachers of this country (Kashmir) say that there are also three types of indeterminate roots. The so-called 'indeterminate' includes both obscured and unobscured. It refers to those obscured attachments and ignorance, as well as those obscured and unobscured wisdoms. Among the unobscured, even the resultant-born is included in the indeterminate roots. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 156, says that the Vaibhāṣika masters of Kashmir say that there are three indeterminate roots: indeterminate attachment, wisdom, and ignorance.

Indeterminate attachment refers to the attachments of the form realm and the formless realm.

Indeterminate wisdom refers to obscured indeterminate wisdom and unobscured indeterminate wisdom. Obscured indeterminate wisdom refers to the personality view and extreme views in the desire realm, as well as the defiled wisdom of the five categories in the form and formless realms. Unobscured indeterminate wisdom refers to the wisdom arising from deportment, craftsmanship, resultant-born, and transformation mind.

Indeterminate ignorance refers to the ignorance associated with the personality view and extreme views in the desire realm, as well as the ignorance of the five categories in the form and formless realms.

Question: Among the indeterminate, why are these three specifically established as roots?

Answer: 'Root' means cause. These three, as causes, have a strong power to generate dharmas, so they are established as roots. Attachment is the root of all afflictions, ignorance is universally associated with all delusions, and wisdom can discern and is the guide of beings.

Why are doubt and pride not indeterminate roots? This explains the third sentence. Question: Among the ten latent tendencies, anger is not indeterminate, which is reasonable. Why are doubt and pride not indeterminate roots?

'Doubt revolves in two destinies, therefore they are not roots.' Answer: The meaning in the text can be understood. The rest are not latent tendencies, or they do not have strong functions, so they are not established as roots.

'The teachers of other places block good and evil.' This explains the fourth and fifth sentences. 'Other places' refers to the Western teachers. They believe that there are a total of four types of indeterminate roots: obscured indeterminate attachment, view, pride, and ignorance. The 'indeterminate' in the verse refers to blocking good and evil, so it only refers to obscured indeterminate, not including unobscured indeterminate.

覆。故婆沙云。西方諸師說無記根有四。謂無記愛．見．慢．無明。無記愛者。謂色．無色界五部愛。無記見者。謂欲界有身見．邊執見。及色．無色界五見。無記慢者。謂色．無色界五部慢無記無明者。謂欲界有身見．邊執見相應無明。及色．無色界五部無明。

何緣此四立無記根者。釋第六句。此即問也。

以諸愚夫至為無記根者。答。以諸愚夫修上定者。不過依託愛．見．慢三。謂愛上定者。見上定者。慢上定者。有由愛力。有由見力。有由慢力。此三皆由無明轉故。有斯勝用。故立此四為無記根。余非勝故不立為根　問此國。外方。何故不同。於二說中何者為正　解云據義各別故說不同。於二說中前說為正。故婆沙云。問何故西方諸師立慢為無記根。答彼說力堅強義是根義。慢力堅強故立為根。謂瑜伽師所以退失百千善品皆由慢力。問何故此國諸師不立為根耶。答此說下義是根義。慢令心舉。于下不順故不立根。問何故此國諸師立無覆無記慧為無記根。答此說為依因義是根義。無覆無記慧為依因勝故立為根。問何故西方諸師不立為根。答彼說力堅強義是根義。無覆無記慧勢力羸劣故不立根。問何故此彼國師不立疑為無記根。答俱說定住義是根義。疑不定住。二門轉故。不立為根。如是說者善．不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：答：因此，《婆沙論》說，西方諸師認為無記根有四種，即無記愛（指對色界和無色界五部的貪愛）、無記見（指欲界中的有身見、邊執見，以及色界和無色界的五種見）、無記慢（指色界和無色界的五部慢），以及無記無明（指欲界中與有身見、邊執見相應的無明，以及色界和無色界的五部無明）。

為什麼這四種被立為無記根呢？這是解釋第六句，也是一個提問。

答：因為那些愚昧之人修習上定，無非是依賴於愛、見、慢這三種。有因為貪愛而修上定的，有因為邪見而修上定的，有因為傲慢而修上定的。這三種都因為無明的驅動，才會有這種強大的作用。所以，將這四種立為無記根。其餘的因為作用不強，所以不立為根。問：此國（指中土）和外方（指西方）的說法為什麼不同？這兩種說法中哪一種是正確的？解釋說：根據不同的意義，所以說法不同。在這兩種說法中，前一種說法是正確的。所以，《婆沙論》說：問：為什麼西方諸師將慢立為無記根？答：他們認為力量堅強是根的含義，慢的力量堅強，所以立為根。瑜伽師之所以會退失百千種善行，都是因為慢的力量。問：為什麼此國諸師不將慢立為根呢？答：他們認為向下順從是根的含義，慢使人心高舉，對於向下不順從，所以不立為根。問：為什麼此國諸師將無覆無記慧立為無記根？答：他們認為作為依靠和原因才是根的含義，無覆無記慧作為依靠和原因的作用強大，所以立為根。問：為什麼西方諸師不將無覆無記慧立為根？答：他們認為力量堅強是根的含義，無覆無記慧的力量羸弱，所以不立為根。問：為什麼此國和彼國（西方）的諸師都不將疑立為無記根？答：他們都認為安定不動是根的含義，疑不定住，在兩種門徑之間轉換，所以不立為根。這樣說，善與不善...

【English Translation】 English version: Reply: Therefore, the Vibhasa states that Western teachers say there are four types of indeterminate roots: indeterminate attachment (referring to the attachment to the five aggregates of the Form Realm and Formless Realm), indeterminate views (referring to the view of self and extreme views in the Desire Realm, as well as the five views in the Form Realm and Formless Realm), indeterminate pride (referring to the pride in the five aggregates of the Form Realm and Formless Realm), and indeterminate ignorance (referring to the ignorance associated with the view of self and extreme views in the Desire Realm, as well as the ignorance in the five aggregates of the Form Realm and Formless Realm).

Why are these four established as indeterminate roots? This explains the sixth sentence and is also a question.

Answer: Because those foolish people who cultivate higher samadhi rely on nothing more than these three: attachment, views, and pride. Some cultivate higher samadhi because of attachment, some because of views, and some because of pride. All three are driven by ignorance, which is why they have such powerful effects. Therefore, these four are established as indeterminate roots. The others are not established as roots because their effects are not strong enough. Question: Why are the explanations of this country (referring to China) and foreign countries (referring to the West) different? Which of these two explanations is correct? Explanation: Because of the different meanings, the explanations are different. Among these two explanations, the former is correct. Therefore, the Vibhasa states: Question: Why do Western teachers establish pride as an indeterminate root? Answer: They believe that strong power is the meaning of a root, and pride has strong power, so it is established as a root. The reason why Yogacharas lose hundreds of thousands of good deeds is all because of the power of pride. Question: Why do the teachers of this country not establish pride as a root? Answer: They believe that downward compliance is the meaning of a root, and pride makes people arrogant and not compliant with downwardness, so it is not established as a root. Question: Why do the teachers of this country establish undefiled indeterminate wisdom as an indeterminate root? Answer: They believe that being a reliance and a cause is the meaning of a root, and undefiled indeterminate wisdom has a strong effect as a reliance and a cause, so it is established as a root. Question: Why do Western teachers not establish undefiled indeterminate wisdom as a root? Answer: They believe that strong power is the meaning of a root, and the power of undefiled indeterminate wisdom is weak, so it is not established as a root. Question: Why do the teachers of this country and that country (the West) not establish doubt as an indeterminate root? Answer: They both believe that stable abiding is the meaning of a root, and doubt is not stable and switches between two paths, so it is not established as a root. Saying it this way, good and not good...

善根俱有三種。無記亦應爾。又如不善慢不立不善根。無記慢亦應爾。故無記根唯三者善。

諸契經中至無記攝耶者。此下第二因論明四記問。諸契經中說十四無記事。彼亦是此三性之中無記攝耶。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

彼經但約至立無記名者。答。彼經中十四。於四記中但約第四應舍置問立無記名。記之言答。

謂問記門總有四種者。論主因答此問總明四種。記之言答。下皆準此。謂問答門總有四種。

何等為四者。問。

頌曰至我蘊一異等者。上兩句正答。下兩句指事說。

論曰至謂答四問者。就長行中。一毗婆沙師解四記。二本論師解四記　等。謂等取對法諸師等。故正理云。等言為攝有約異門。且問四者。此總舉數。第一問應一向記。第二問應分別記。第三問應反詰記。第四問應舍置記。此之四記如其次第答彼四問。此即釋上半頌　如有問者。一問死。問生。三問勝。四問我一．異等。此即指事別顯四也　所以記有四者。謂答此四問。此即釋下半頌　若作是問至白黑等性者。此下別釋。前三問記。如文可知　第四問記若作是問。蘊與有情為一。為異。得此問時應舍置彼一異之記但作是言。此不應記。以彼有情無實有故。若一。若異。性皆不成故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：善根都具有三種性質（善、惡、無記），無記也應該如此。又比如不善的慢心不能建立為不善的根，無記的慢心也應該如此。所以，無記的根只有三種是善的。

在各種契經（佛經）中，說到歸屬於無記嗎？這是下面第二段因論，闡明四種記（回答）。各種契經中說了十四種無記事，它們也屬於這三種性質中的無記嗎？

不是這樣的。回答。

為什麼呢？提問。

那些經文只是說到建立無記之名。回答。那些經文中的十四種，在四種記中只是說到第四種應舍置的提問，而立為無記之名。記，就是回答的意思。

所謂問答之門總共有四種。論主因此回答這個問題，總共闡明四種。記，就是回答的意思。下面都依此準則。所謂問答之門總共有四種。

哪四種呢？提問。

頌文說：『世間常等想，及我蘊一異等。』上面兩句是正面回答，下面兩句是指示說明。

論中說：所謂回答四種問題。就長行中，一是毗婆沙師（Vibhasha）解釋四記，二是本論師解釋四記等。所謂『等』，是包括對法（Abhidharma）諸師等。所以《正理》中說：『等』字是爲了包括有關於不同方面的。且說四種提問，這是總的舉出數目。第一種提問應該一向記（肯定或否定地回答），第二種提問應該分別記（分別情況回答），第三種提問應該反詰記（反問對方），第四種提問應該舍置記（不予回答）。這四種記依次回答那四種提問。這就是解釋上半頌。如果有人提問，一是問死，二是問生，三是問勝，四是問我（Atman）與蘊（Skandha）是一還是異。這就是指示分別顯示四種。所以記有四種，是爲了回答這四種提問。這就是解釋下半頌。如果這樣提問，問蘊與有情（Sattva）是一還是異。得到這種提問時，應該舍置那一異的記，只這樣說：『這不應該回答。』因為那有情沒有真實的存在，無論是一還是異，其性質都不能成立。

【English Translation】 English version: Good roots all have three natures (good, evil, and neutral), and neutral should also be like that. Furthermore, just as unwholesome pride cannot be established as an unwholesome root, neutral pride should also be like that. Therefore, only three of the neutral roots are good.

In various Sutras (Buddhist scriptures), is it said to be included in the neutral? This is the second section of reasoning, clarifying the four Vyakarana (answers). Various Sutras speak of fourteen neutral matters; do they also belong to the neutral among these three natures?

It is not so. Answer.

Why? Question.

Those scriptures only speak of establishing the name of neutral. Answer. Among the fourteen in those scriptures, only the fourth question that should be set aside is established as the name of neutral among the four Vyakarana. Vyakarana means answer.

The so-called gate of questions and answers has a total of four types. The author of the treatise therefore answers this question, altogether clarifying four types. Vyakarana means answer. The following all follow this principle. The so-called gate of questions and answers has a total of four types.

What are the four? Question.

The verse says: 'The thought of the world being constant, etc., and whether the Atman (self) and Skandhas (aggregates) are one or different, etc.' The first two lines are a direct answer, and the last two lines are an indicative explanation.

The treatise says: The so-called answering of four questions. In the prose section, one is the Vibhasha (Vibhasha) masters explaining the four Vyakarana, and the second is the treatise masters explaining the four Vyakarana, etc. The so-called 'etc.' includes the Abhidharma (Abhidharma) masters, etc. Therefore, the Nyaya-sutra says: 'Etc.' is to include aspects related to different perspectives. And speaking of the four questions, this is a general enumeration. The first question should be answered with a straightforward answer (affirmative or negative), the second question should be answered with a differentiated answer (answering according to the situation), the third question should be answered with a counter-question (asking the other party in return), and the fourth question should be answered with a set-aside answer (not answering). These four Vyakarana answer those four questions in order. This is the explanation of the first half of the verse. If someone asks, one is asking about death, two is asking about birth, three is asking about victory, and four is asking whether the Atman (self) and Skandhas (aggregates) are one or different. This is indicating and separately showing the four. Therefore, there are four Vyakarana, in order to answer these four questions. This is the explanation of the second half of the verse. If one asks in this way, asking whether the Skandhas (aggregates) and Sattva (sentient being) are one or different. When receiving this question, one should set aside that Vyakarana of one or different, and only say this: 'This should not be answered.' Because that Sattva does not have a real existence, whether it is one or different, its nature cannot be established.

言應舍置記。又如問言。石女所生兒為白。為黑等性。若得此問亦應舍置。石女本自無兒。何論白．黑　女不生子名為石女。故婆沙十六云。如女身中不任懷孕。空無子故說名石女。

如何舍置而立記名者。問。如何舍置一．異等問不記一．異等而立記名。

以記彼問言此不應記故者。答。以記彼一．異等問言此不應記故。準此即是發言記問。非是默然不記名舍置記古來諸德皆言第四名為默答。此釋不然．又婆沙十五云。如諸外道問世尊言。世界常耶。佛言此不應答　以此準知。發言名答。

有作是說至非一切當生者。初問無異說。后三問有異說。此即外人設難。有作是說。彼第二問一切死者皆當生不。應分別記。亦應一向記非一切當生。

然問者言至仍未解故者。此即論主釋通。然問者一切死者死當生不。理應分別答彼所問。有煩惱者死已當生。無煩惱者死已不生。直作是言。非一切當生。此總說記不成。雖令總知非一切當生。仍未分明解如何者當生何者不生。

又作是說至如識果因者。此即外人設難。又作是說彼第三問人為勝．劣不。應反詰記。亦應一向記攝。人亦勝．亦劣。所待異故。猶如一識從前意生名果。能生后識名因。故正理云。如有問識為果為因耶。應一向記。亦果．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：言語應當捨棄並置之不理。又比如有人問：『石女（不能生育的女子）所生的孩子是白的還是黑的？』如果遇到這種問題，也應該捨棄不理。石女本來就沒有孩子，還談論什麼白色、黑色呢？女子不生孩子，就叫做石女。所以《婆沙論》第十六卷說：『如同女人的身體不能懷孕，空無子嗣，所以叫做石女。』如何捨棄而建立記名呢？問：如何捨棄『一』、『異』等問題，不記錄『一』、『異』等，而建立記名呢？答：通過記錄那些關於『一』、『異』等的問題，說明這些問題不應該被記錄。因此，這實際上是發言回答問題，而不是默然不記名，並將其捨棄。古來的德行之士都說第四種是默然回答。這種解釋是不對的。而且《婆沙論》第十五卷說：『如果外道問世尊：世界是常住的嗎？』佛說：『這個問題不應該回答。』由此可知，發言就是回答。有人這樣說，直到『並非一切眾生都將轉生』。最初的問題沒有不同的說法，後面的三個問題有不同的說法。這是外人提出的難題。有人這樣說：對於第二個問題『一切死去的眾生都將轉生嗎？』應該分別記錄，也應該直接記錄『並非一切眾生都將轉生』。然而提問者說，直到『仍然沒有理解』。這是論主解釋並疏通。然而提問者問『一切死去的眾生死後都將轉生嗎？』理應分別回答他們所問的問題：有煩惱的眾生死後將會轉生，沒有煩惱的眾生死後不會轉生。直接說『並非一切眾生都將轉生』，這種總括性的記錄是不成立的。即使讓人大致知道並非一切眾生都將轉生，仍然沒有明確地解釋清楚哪些眾生會轉生，哪些眾生不會轉生。又有人這樣說，直到『如同認識果和因』。這是外人提出的難題。又有人這樣說：對於第三個問題『人是殊勝還是低劣？』應該反問並記錄，也應該直接記錄『人既殊勝也低劣』，因為所待的條件不同。猶如一個識從前一個意念產生，叫做果；能夠產生后一個識，叫做因。所以《正理》中說：『如果有人問：識是果還是因呢？』應該直接記錄『既是果也是因』。

【English Translation】 English version: Speech should be abandoned and set aside. Furthermore, if someone asks: 'Is the child born of a barren woman (a woman who cannot bear children) white or black?' If such a question arises, it should also be abandoned. A barren woman inherently has no child, so what is there to discuss about white or black? A woman who does not bear children is called a barren woman. Therefore, the sixteenth volume of the Vibhasa states: 'Like a woman's body that cannot conceive, being empty of offspring, she is called a barren woman.' How does one abandon and establish a record name? Question: How does one abandon questions like 'one' and 'different,' not record 'one' and 'different,' and establish a record name? Answer: By recording those questions about 'one' and 'different,' stating that these questions should not be recorded. Therefore, this is actually answering the question by speaking, rather than silently not recording it and abandoning it. Virtuous individuals of the past have all said that the fourth type is answering in silence. This explanation is incorrect. Moreover, the fifteenth volume of the Vibhasa states: 'If non-Buddhists ask the World Honored One: Is the world permanent?' The Buddha said: 'This question should not be answered.' From this, it is known that speaking is answering. Some say, up to 'not all beings will be reborn.' The initial question has no different interpretations; the latter three questions have different interpretations. This is a difficult question posed by outsiders. Some say that for the second question, 'Will all deceased beings be reborn?' one should record separately, and also directly record 'not all beings will be reborn.' However, the questioner says, up to 'still not understood.' This is the master of the treatise explaining and clarifying. However, the questioner asks, 'Will all deceased beings be reborn after death?' One should answer their question separately: beings with afflictions will be reborn after death; beings without afflictions will not be reborn after death. Directly saying 'not all beings will be reborn' is not a valid general record. Even if it allows people to generally know that not all beings will be reborn, it still does not clearly explain which beings will be reborn and which beings will not be reborn. Furthermore, some say, up to 'like recognizing cause and effect.' This is a difficult question posed by outsiders. Furthermore, some say that for the third question, 'Are humans superior or inferior?' one should counter-question and record, and also directly record 'humans are both superior and inferior,' because the conditions being considered are different. Just as a consciousness arising from a previous thought is called an effect; being able to generate a subsequent consciousness is called a cause. Therefore, the Nyaya Sutra says: 'If someone asks: Is consciousness an effect or a cause?' One should directly record 'it is both an effect and a cause.'

亦因。所待異故。

然彼問者至應反詰記者。此即論主釋通。然彼問者一向為問人為勝．劣汝言亦勝．亦劣。非一向記故應成分別記。何名一向記。既不審知前人問意。但此應詰問意所方。若言方天應記人劣。若言方下惡趣。應記人勝。故此名為應反詰記。

又作是說至云何名記者。此即外人設難。又作是說彼第四問蘊與有情為一為異。既全不記蘊與有情若異若一。云何名記。

然彼所問至如何不名記者。此即論主釋通。然彼所問蘊與有情為一為異。理應舍置。一異之問不應為記。記言應舍置。如何不名記。既發言記。所以名記。

對法諸師至契實義故者。此第二本論諸師解四問記。即是六足．發智諸師。此解第一一向記者　若有問言。世尊是如來應正等覺耶。此問佛寶　所說法要是善說耶。問教法寶　諸弟子眾行妙行耶。此問僧寶　及五蘊無常耶。四諦善施設耶　皆應一向記。是如來應正等覺。是善說。是行妙行。皆無常。善施設。契合實義故。

分別記者至欲說何者者。此釋第二分別記。可知。

反詰記者至無便求非者。此釋第三反詰記。者。若人諂心欲求過非。請言愿尊為我說法。應反詰彼。法有眾多欲說何者。不應分別三世等法。若無所知者。乃至令彼默然而住。若有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本也因為所依賴的條件不同。

然而，提問者應該反過來質問記錄者。這正是論主的解釋和疏通。然而，提問者總是希望提問的人要麼勝出，要麼不如你所說的亦勝亦劣。因為不是一概而論的記錄，所以應該成為分別記。什麼叫做一概而論的記錄呢？既然不審慎地瞭解提問者的問題意圖，但應該詰問提問意圖的方向。如果說是嚮往天道，就應該記錄提問者不如記錄者。如果說是嚮往下方的惡趣，就應該記錄提問者勝過記錄者。所以這叫做應該反過來詰問的記錄。

又有人這樣說，直到『為什麼叫做記錄』。這是外人提出的疑問。又有人這樣說，那第四個問題，蘊（skandha，構成要素）與有情（sentient being）是一還是異？既然完全不記錄蘊與有情是異還是同，為什麼叫做記錄？

然而他所問的，直到『如何不叫做記錄者』。這是論主的解釋和疏通。然而他所問的蘊與有情是一還是異，理應捨棄。一和異的問題不應該作為記錄。記錄的言語應該捨棄。如何不叫做記錄？既然已經發言記錄，所以叫做記錄。

對法諸師，直到『契合真實意義的緣故』。這是第二本論的諸位法師解釋四種記錄，也就是六足（Shastipada，佛教論書名）·發智（Jnanaprasthana，佛教論書名）諸位法師。這裡解釋第一種一概而論的記錄：如果有人問，世尊（Bhagavan，佛的稱號）是如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）應正等覺（Arhat Samyak-sambuddha，佛的稱號）嗎？這是問佛寶。所說的法要是善說嗎？問教法寶。諸位弟子眾修行妙行嗎？這是問僧寶。以及五蘊（Panca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識五種構成要素）是無常的嗎？四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，苦、集、滅、道四聖諦）是善於施設的嗎？都應該一概而論地記錄。是如來應正等覺。是善說。是修行妙行。都是無常的。善於施設。因為契合真實的意義。

分別記者，直到『想要說什麼呢』。這是解釋第二種分別記。可以理解。

反詰記者，直到『沒有機會尋求過失的人』。這是解釋第三種反詰記。如果有人心懷諂媚，想要尋求過失，請求說：『希望尊者為我說法。』應該反過來詰問他：『法有很多種，想要說什麼呢？』不應該分別三世等法。如果沒有所知的人，乃至讓他沉默不語。如果有人

【English Translation】 English version Also because the conditions relied upon are different.

However, the questioner should, in turn, question the recorder. This is precisely the explanation and clarification of the treatise master. However, the questioner always hopes that the questioner either prevails or is inferior to what you say is also superior and also inferior. Because it is not a generally recorded account, it should become a differentiated record. What is called a generally recorded account? Since the questioner's intention is not carefully understood, the direction of the questioning intention should be questioned. If it is said to aspire to the heavenly realm, it should be recorded that the questioner is inferior to the recorder. If it is said to aspire to the lower evil realms, it should be recorded that the questioner is superior to the recorder. Therefore, this is called a record that should be questioned in return.

Someone also says this, until 'Why is it called a record'. This is a question raised by an outsider. Someone also says this, that the fourth question, are the skandhas (constituent elements) and sentient beings one or different? Since it is not recorded at all whether the skandhas and sentient beings are different or the same, why is it called a record?

However, what he asked, until 'How is it not called a recorder'. This is the explanation and clarification of the treatise master. However, what he asked, whether the skandhas and sentient beings are one or different, should be abandoned. The question of one and different should not be used as a record. The words of the record should be abandoned. How is it not called a record? Since a statement has already been made and recorded, it is called a record.

The Dharma masters, until 'Because it is in accordance with the true meaning'. This is the explanation of the four types of records by the Dharma masters of the second treatise, that is, the Shastipada (name of a Buddhist treatise) and Jnanaprasthana (name of a Buddhist treatise) masters. Here, the first type of generally recorded account is explained: If someone asks, is the World Honored One (Bhagavan, title of the Buddha) the Tathagata (title of the Buddha) Arhat Samyak-sambuddha (title of the Buddha)? This is asking about the Buddha Jewel. Is the Dharma spoken well? Asking about the Dharma Jewel. Do the disciples practice the wonderful practice? This is asking about the Sangha Jewel. And are the five skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five constituent elements of form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness) impermanent? Are the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, the four noble truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path) well established? All should be recorded in a generally recorded manner. Is the Tathagata Arhat Samyak-sambuddha. Is well spoken. Is practicing the wonderful practice. All are impermanent. Well established. Because it is in accordance with the true meaning.

Differentiated recorder, until 'What do you want to say'. This is an explanation of the second type of differentiated record. Understandable.

Counter-questioning recorder, until 'A person who has no opportunity to seek faults'. This is an explanation of the third type of counter-questioning record. If someone has a flattering heart and wants to seek faults, and asks: 'I hope the venerable one will preach the Dharma for me.' He should be questioned in return: 'There are many kinds of Dharma, what do you want to say?' The Dharma of the three times should not be distinguished. If there is someone who does not know, even to the point of making him remain silent. If someone

所知。令彼自記無便求非。

豈不二中至成問記耶者。問。豈不分別。反詰。二中都無有問。唯有請說。亦無有記。唯反詰欲說何者　如何分別。反問。二種成問記耶。

如有請言至豈非記道者。答。謂如有人請言為我說其道路。豈非問道。即由反詰。記彼所問。道有眾多。謂洛陽道。益州道。欲說何者。豈非記道　或由反詰記彼所問。道有眾多。欲說何者。豈非記道。

若爾應俱是反詰記者。難。若爾反詰記彼所問。此二應俱是反詰記。

不爾問意至無分別故者。答。不爾。問意直。諂。有殊。此即問意不同。若直心問者記有分別故。若諂曲心問者記無分別。所以前名分別記。后名反詰記。

舍置記者至不應為記者。此釋第四舍置記。外道說世為我。若有問言。世為有邊等。總有十四。此應舍置。不應為說。

今依契經至問記有四者。此下第三依經辨釋。今依契經辨問記相。于大眾部經。問記有四。

何等為四者。此即總問。

謂或有問至但應舍置者。此即總答。

云何有問應一向記者。別問第一。

謂問諸行至應一向記者。答文可知。

云何有問應分別記者。別問第二。

謂若有問至應分別記者。答。謂若有問。諸有故思造作業已為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所知。讓他自己記住，不要去尋求非議。

豈不是二者之中達到成問記嗎？問：難道不是分別嗎？反問。二者之中都沒有提問，只有請求解說。也沒有記住，只有反問想要說什麼。如何分別？反問：兩種都成為問記嗎？

如果有人請求說，乃至難道不是記道嗎？答：比如有人請求說：『請為我說說道路。』難道不是問道嗎？就因為反問，記住他所問的。道路有很多，比如洛陽道、益州道，想要說哪一個？難道不是記道嗎？或者因為反問記住他所問的，道路有很多，想要說哪一個？難道不是記道嗎？

如果這樣，應該都是反詰記嗎？難：如果這樣，反問記住他所問的，這二者應該都是反詰記。

不是這樣，問的意思乃至沒有分別的緣故。答：不是這樣。問的意思正直、諂媚，有區別。這就是提問的意圖不同。如果以正直的心提問，記住是有分別的緣故；如果以諂媚的心提問，記住是沒有分別的。所以前面叫做分別記，後面叫做反詰記。

舍置記乃至不應該回答。這是解釋第四種舍置記。外道說世界是我。如果有人問：『世界是有邊等嗎？』總共有十四種問題，這些應該捨棄，不應該回答。

現在依據契經乃至問記有四種。這以下第三部分依據經典辨別解釋。現在依據契經辨別問記的相狀。在大眾部經中，問記有四種。

哪四種呢？這是總的提問。

所謂或者有問乃至但應該捨棄。這是總的回答。

怎樣提問應該一概回答呢？分別提問第一種。

所謂問諸行乃至應該一概回答。回答的內容可以知道。

怎樣提問應該分別回答呢？分別提問第二種。

所謂如果有人問乃至應該分別回答。答：所謂如果有人問，諸有故意思考造作的行為已經完成。

【English Translation】 English version: What is known. Let him remember it himself, and do not seek fault.

Isn't it that the two reach the stage of being a 'mark of questioning'? Question: Isn't it a distinction? Interrogation. There is no question in either of the two; there is only a request for explanation. There is also no remembering; there is only an interrogation of what one wants to say. How to distinguish? Interrogation: Do both become 'marks of questioning'?

If someone asks, up to, isn't it 'marking the path'? Answer: For example, if someone asks, 'Please tell me about the road.' Isn't that asking about the road? Because of the interrogation, remember what he asked. There are many roads, such as the Luoyang Road and the Yizhou Road. Which one do you want to talk about? Isn't that 'marking the path'? Or because of the interrogation, remember what he asked. There are many roads. Which one do you want to talk about? Isn't that 'marking the path'?

If so, should they all be interrogative marks? Difficulty: If so, the interrogation remembers what he asked. These two should both be interrogative marks.

Not so, the meaning of the question, up to, there is no distinction. Answer: Not so. The meaning of the question is straightforward or flattering, and there is a difference. This is because the intention of the question is different. If the question is asked with a straightforward heart, remembering has a distinction. If the question is asked with a flattering heart, remembering has no distinction. Therefore, the former is called 'distinguishing mark', and the latter is called 'interrogative mark'.

'Abandoned mark', up to, should not be answered. This explains the fourth type of 'abandoned mark'. The heretics say that the world is me. If someone asks, 'Is the world finite, etc.?' There are a total of fourteen questions. These should be abandoned and should not be answered.

Now, according to the sutras, up to, there are four types of 'marks of questioning'. The third part below distinguishes and explains according to the scriptures. Now, according to the sutras, distinguish the characteristics of the 'marks of questioning'. In the Mahasanghika (Great Assembly) Sutra, there are four types of 'marks of questioning'.

What are the four? This is a general question.

So-called, there is a question, up to, but should be abandoned. This is a general answer.

How should a question be answered uniformly? Separate question, the first type.

So-called, asking about all phenomena, up to, should be answered uniformly. The content of the answer can be known.

How should a question be answered separately? Separate question, the second type.

So-called, if someone asks, up to, should be answered separately. Answer: So-called, if someone asks, all intentional actions that have been deliberately created have been completed.

受何果。此問名為應分別記。若造善業受人．天果。若造惡業受三塗果。

云何有問應反詰記者。別問第三。

謂若有問至應反詰記者答　想。謂想蘊　又解想者。謂名。名從想生。或能生想。從想為名。行蘊所攝。若有問云。士夫想。與我。為一。為異耶。應反詰言。汝依何我作如是問。若言依粗五蘊假我。應記與想異。若依汝執別有真實細我。不可言一異　問想即五蘊攝。寧得言異　解云除士夫想計餘五蘊為我。故言想異　又解我有二種。一粗。二細。若言依粗色蘊假我。應記與想異。想非色故。若言依細四蘊假我。還應反詰。依何細我。若言依餘三蘊。應記與想異。若言依想。應答一。粗我與想決定異故。論文偏舉。細我不定略而不說。此問名為應反詰記。

云何有問但應舍置者。別問第四。

謂若有問至但應舍置者。答　世及如來死後命者。皆我異名。外道執此即為我故　世常等四。有邊等四。及有等四。三．四十二　並命者即身。命者異身。足前十四。謂若有問世為常等。此問名為但應舍置。

俱舍論記卷第十九大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十

沙門釋光述

分別隨眠品第五之二

諸有情類至能系何事

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本受何果？此問名為應分別記。若造善業，受人（人類）天（天人）果。若造惡業，受三塗（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）果。

云何有問應反詰記者？別問第三。

謂若有問至應反詰記者答：想（saṃjñā，五蘊之一）。謂想蘊（saṃjñā-skandha）。又解想者，謂名（nāma）。名從想生，或能生想。從想為名，行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha）所攝。若有問云：『士夫（pudgala，補特伽羅）想，與我（ātman，靈魂），為一？為異耶？』應反詰言：『汝依何我作如是問？』若言依粗五蘊（pañca-skandha）假我，應記與想異。若依汝執別有真實細我，不可言一異。問：想即五蘊攝，寧得言異？解云：除士夫想計餘五蘊為我，故言想異。又解我有二種，一粗，二細。若言依粗色蘊（rūpa-skandha）假我，應記與想異。想非色故。若言依細四蘊假我，還應反詰，依何細我？若言依餘三蘊，應記與想異。若言依想，應答一。粗我與想決定異故。論文偏舉，細我不定略而不說。此問名為應反詰記。

云何有問但應舍置者？別問第四。

謂若有問至但應舍置者。答：世（loka，世界）及如來（Tathāgata，佛陀）死後命者，皆我異名。外道執此即為我故。世常等四，有邊等四，及有等四，三四十二。並命者即身，命者異身，足前十四。謂若有問世為常等，此問名為但應舍置。

俱舍論記卷第十九大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十

沙門釋光述

分別隨眠品第五之二

諸有情類至能系何事

【English Translation】 English version What result is received? This question is called 'requiring a discriminating reply'. If one creates good karma, one receives the result of humans (manushya) and gods (deva). If one creates evil karma, one receives the result of the three evil destinies (trayo gati, hell, hungry ghosts, and animals).

What is a question that should be countered with a counter-question? This is the third separate question.

That is, if there is a question that should be countered with a counter-question, the answer is: perception (saṃjñā, one of the five skandhas). This refers to the perception aggregate (saṃjñā-skandha). Another explanation of perception is: name (nāma). Name arises from perception, or can give rise to perception. 'From perception' is 'name', which is included in the formation aggregate (saṃskāra-skandha). If someone asks: 'Is the perception of a person (pudgala, individual) the same as or different from the self (ātman, soul)?' One should counter-question: 'Based on what self do you ask this question?' If they say it is based on the coarse, five aggregates (pañca-skandha) provisional self, it should be noted that it is different from perception. If it is based on your adherence to a separate, real, subtle self, it cannot be said to be the same or different. Question: Perception is included in the five aggregates, how can it be said to be different? Explanation: Except for the perception of a person, the remaining five aggregates are considered as the self, therefore it is said that perception is different. Also, there are two kinds of self, one coarse and one subtle. If it is said to be based on the coarse form aggregate (rūpa-skandha) provisional self, it should be noted that it is different from perception, because perception is not form. If it is said to be based on the subtle four aggregates provisional self, one should still counter-question, based on what subtle self? If it is said to be based on the remaining three aggregates, it should be noted that it is different from perception. If it is said to be based on perception, the answer should be 'the same'. Because the coarse self is definitely different from perception, the treatise emphasizes this and omits the subtle self, which is uncertain. This question is called 'requiring a counter-question reply'.

What is a question that should simply be set aside? This is the fourth separate question.

That is, if there is a question that should simply be set aside, the answer is: the world (loka, universe) and the life of the Tathāgata (Tathāgata, Buddha) after death are all different names for the self. Because non-Buddhists cling to these as being the self. The four views of the world being eternal, etc., the four views of the world being finite, etc., and the four views of the world existing, etc., three times four is twelve. Together with 'life is the same as the body' and 'life is different from the body', this makes fourteen in total. That is, if someone asks whether the world is eternal, etc., this question is called 'should simply be set aside'.

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 19 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 20

Commentary by the Śrāmaṇa Shi Guang

Chapter Five, Part Two: Analysis of Latent Afflictions

All sentient beings... what can be bound?

者。此下第六明惑能系。就中。一約世明系。二約斷明系　就約世明系中。一正約世明系。二明三世有無　此下第一正約世明系。標宗問起　諸有情類於此事中隨眠隨增名系此事。此即標宗　應說三世何等隨眠能系何世事。此即問起。

頌曰至現正緣能系者。答。初句明所繫事。后七句明能系　第二句中未斷。第八句中能系。隨其所應通中間句　遍行有二。一遍系三世。二遍系自境。未來若生．不生意識貪．瞋．慢三。未來不生五識貪．瞋。及余過．未見．疑．無明。隨其所應。皆具二遍。立遍行名　過去意識貪．瞋．慢三。雖亦遍系三世。非遍系自境。故於此中不說遍行。與五合說。現緣共惑。雖亦有具二種遍行。有不具者。以不定故不言遍行。

論曰至流至後門者。此略標釋。緣別法生名為自相。緣多法生名為共相。自相惑中相應無明。以必有故略而不論。事雖有多略有五種。一自性事。二所緣事。三所繫事。四所因事。五所攝事。此說第三所繫事也。第二句中未斷如其所應流至後門。

若此事中至定遍起故者。釋初三句。若於此事中有貪．瞋．慢。於過去世已生未斷。現在已生能系此事。以貪．瞋．慢是自相惑。緣別事生。非諸有情定遍三世諸事。起故。體現在前必無斷義。故於現在不言未

【現代漢語翻譯】者。此下第六明惑能系。就中。一約世明系。二約斷明系就約世明系中。一正約世明系。二明三世有無此下第一正約世明系。標宗問起諸有情類於此事中隨眠隨增名系此事。此即標宗應說三世何等隨眠能系何世事。此即問起。現代漢語譯本：接下來第六部分闡明煩惱如何繫縛眾生。其中分為兩方面：一是根據世（時間）來闡明繫縛，二是根據斷（是否斷除）來闡明繫縛。在根據世來闡明繫縛中，又分為兩點：一是直接根據世來闡明繫縛，二是闡明三世（過去、現在、未來）的有無。接下來是第一點，直接根據世來闡明繫縛。首先標出宗旨，然後提出問題：『一切有情眾生，對於某件事，隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）隨之增長，就稱為被這件事所繫縛。』這就是標出宗旨。『應該說明三世中，哪些隨眠能夠繫縛哪一世的事情？』這就是提出問題。頌曰至現正緣能系者。答。初句明所繫事。后七句明能系第二句中未斷。第八句中能系。隨其所應通中間句遍行有二。一遍系三世。二遍系自境。未來若生．不生意識貪．瞋．慢三。未來不生五識貪．瞋。及余過．未見．疑．無明。隨其所應。皆具二遍。立遍行名過去意識貪．瞋．慢三。雖亦遍系三世。非遍系自境。故於此中不說遍行。與五合說。現緣共惑。雖亦有具二種遍行。有不具者。以不定故不言遍行。現代漢語譯本：頌文說：『到現正緣能系者。』回答說：第一句說明被繫縛的事情。後面七句說明能繫縛的煩惱。第二句中指未斷除的煩惱，第八句中指能繫縛的煩惱。中間的句子根據情況而通用。遍行（普遍生起的煩惱）有兩種：一種是遍系三世，一種是遍系自境（自身所緣的境界）。未來如果生起或不生起意識的貪、瞋、慢三種煩惱，未來不生起五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的貪、瞋，以及其餘的過去、未來見、疑、無明（愚癡）。根據情況，都具有兩種遍行。因此立名為遍行。過去的意識貪、瞋、慢三種煩惱，雖然也遍系三世，但不是遍系自境。因此在這裡不說遍行，而是與五識合起來說。現在所緣的共同煩惱，雖然也有具備兩種遍行的，也有不具備的。因為不確定，所以不說遍行。論曰至流至後門者。此略標釋。緣別法生名為自相。緣多法生名為共相。自相惑中相應無明。以必有故略而不論。事雖有多略有五種。一自性事。二所緣事。三所繫事。四所因事。五所攝事。此說第三所繫事也。第二句中未斷如其所應流至後門。現代漢語譯本：論述說：『到流至後門者。』這是簡略地標出並解釋。緣于個別法而生起的，稱為自相（自身特有的相狀）。緣于多種法而生起的，稱為共相（共同的相狀）。自相煩惱中，相應的無明，因為必定存在，所以簡略而不論述。事情雖然有很多種，但簡略來說有五種：一是自性事，二是所緣事，三是所繫事，四是所因事，五是所攝事。這裡說的是第三種，所繫事。第二句中，未斷除的煩惱，根據情況流至後門（未來的世）。若此事中至定遍起故者。釋初三句。若於此事中中有貪．瞋．慢。於過去世已生未斷。現在已生能系此事。以貪．瞋．慢是自相惑。緣別事生。非諸有情定遍三世諸事。起故。體現在前必無斷義。故於現在不言未現代漢語譯本：『若此事中至定遍起故者。』解釋前面三句。如果對於這件事中有貪、瞋、慢，在過去世已經生起但沒有斷除，現在已經生起，就能繫縛這件事。因為貪、瞋、慢是自相煩惱，緣于個別的事情而生起。不是所有的有情都一定在三世的所有事情中普遍生起這些煩惱。本體現在面前，必定沒有斷除的含義。所以在現在不說是『未斷』。

【English Translation】者。此下第六明惑能系。就中。一約世明系。二約斷明系就約世明系中。一正約世明系。二明三世有無此下第一正約世明系。標宗問起諸有情類於此事中隨眠隨增名系此事。此即標宗應說三世何等隨眠能系何世事。此即問起。 English version: Next, the sixth section elucidates how afflictions bind beings. It is divided into two aspects: first, explaining bondage in terms of time (the three periods of past, present, and future); second, explaining bondage in terms of severance (whether or not afflictions have been eradicated). Within the explanation of bondage in terms of time, there are two points: first, directly explaining bondage in terms of time; second, clarifying the existence or non-existence of the three periods. What follows is the first point, directly explaining bondage in terms of time. First, the principle is stated, and then a question is raised: 'All sentient beings, with respect to a certain matter, if latent tendencies (sleep-like afflictions) increase along with it, this is called being bound by that matter.' This is the statement of the principle. 'It should be explained which latent tendencies in the three periods are capable of binding matters of which period?' This is the raising of the question. 頌曰至現正緣能系者。答。初句明所繫事。后七句明能系第二句中未斷。第八句中能系。隨其所應通中間句遍行有二。一遍系三世。二遍系自境。未來若生．不生意識貪．瞋．慢三。未來不生五識貪．瞋。及余過．未見．疑．無明。隨其所應。皆具二遍。立遍行名過去意識貪．瞋．慢三。雖亦遍系三世。非遍系自境。故於此中不說遍行。與五合說。現緣共惑。雖亦有具二種遍行。有不具者。以不定故不言遍行。 English version: The verse says: '...to the present conditions that bind.' The answer is: The first line clarifies the matter being bound. The following seven lines clarify the afflictions that are capable of binding. In the second line, it refers to afflictions that have not been severed. In the eighth line, it refers to afflictions that are capable of binding. The intermediate lines are applicable as appropriate. Pervasive (universally arising) afflictions are of two types: one, pervasively binding the three periods; two, pervasively binding their own objects. In the future, if greed (trsna), hatred (dvesa), and pride (mana) arise or do not arise in consciousness (manovijnana), and in the future, if greed and hatred do not arise in the five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana) (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness), as well as the remaining past, future views (drsti), doubt (vicikitsa), and ignorance (avidya), all possess both types of pervasiveness as appropriate. Therefore, they are designated as 'pervasive.' The greed, hatred, and pride of past consciousness, although also pervasively bind the three periods, do not pervasively bind their own objects. Therefore, they are not referred to as 'pervasive' here, but are discussed together with the five consciousnesses. The common afflictions conditioned by the present, although some possess both types of pervasiveness, others do not. Because it is uncertain, they are not called 'pervasive.' 論曰至流至後門者。此略標釋。緣別法生名為自相。緣多法生名為共相。自相惑中相應無明。以必有故略而不論。事雖有多略有五種。一自性事。二所緣事。三所繫事。四所因事。五所攝事。此說第三所繫事也。第二句中未斷如其所應流至後門。 English version: The treatise says: '...flowing to the subsequent door.' This briefly indicates and explains. Arising in dependence on individual dharmas is called 'self-characteristic' (svalaksana). Arising in dependence on multiple dharmas is called 'common characteristic' (samanya-laksana). Among self-characteristic afflictions, the corresponding ignorance, because it is necessarily present, is briefly not discussed. Although there are many types of matters, briefly speaking, there are five types: first, matters of self-nature; second, matters of object; third, matters of bondage; fourth, matters of cause; fifth, matters of inclusion. This refers to the third type, matters of bondage. In the second line, the afflictions that have not been severed flow to the subsequent door (future periods) as appropriate. 若此事中至定遍起故者。釋初三句。若於此事中中有貪．瞋．慢。於過去世已生未斷。現在已生能系此事。以貪．瞋．慢是自相惑。緣別事生。非諸有情定遍三世諸事。起故。體現在前必無斷義。故於現在不言未 English version: 'If in this matter...to definitely and universally arise.' This explains the first three lines. If in this matter there are greed (trsna), hatred (dvesa), and pride (mana), which have already arisen in the past but have not been severed, and are now arising, they can bind this matter. Because greed, hatred, and pride are self-characteristic afflictions, arising in dependence on individual matters. It is not the case that all sentient beings definitely and universally arise these afflictions in all matters of the three periods. Since the entity is present, there is definitely no meaning of severance. Therefore, in the present, it is not said 'not yet severed.'

斷。於過去世標未斷言。

若未來世至亦能系三世者。釋次三句。若未來世意識相應貪．瞋．慢三。遍系三世。雖於此事惑生．不生。乃至未斷皆能繫縛。未來五識相應貪．瞋。若未斷可生。境必俱故。唯系未來。故正理云。由此已顯。五識相應可生隨眠。若至過去唯系過去。至現亦爾。義準可知。若與意識相應可生隨眠。若至過．現未斷容系非自世法(已上論文)未來五識相應貪．瞋。若未斷不生種類多故亦能系三世。以所緣境或在未來。或流至現。或入過去。能緣雖復闕緣不生。由未斷故性縛三世。

所餘一切至能系此事者。釋后兩句。除前三種所餘一切見．疑．無明。過去．未來未斷。遍縛三世諸事。由此三種見．疑．無明是共相惑。一切有情俱遍縛彼三世事故．若現在世見．疑．無明。正緣三世境時。隨其所應能系此事。

應辨諸事至及離系耶者。此下第二明三世有無。就中。一述宗。二正破　就述宗中。一教理證有。二敘說定宗　此下教理證有。經部師問應辨諸事過去．未來。為是實有。為是實無。方可說系。若去．來世是實有者。則一切行恒時有故。應說為常。若去．來世實是無者。如何可說有能系．所繫．及離系耶。

毗婆沙師至許說一切有者。答。毗婆沙師定立去．來二世

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『斷。於過去世標未斷言。』如果未來世到來也能繫縛三世，解釋接下來的三句。如果未來世意識相應的貪（tanha，渴愛）、瞋（dosa，嗔恨）、慢（mana，我慢）三種煩惱，普遍繫縛三世。即使對於此事，疑惑產生或不產生，乃至沒有斷除，都能產生繫縛。未來五識相應的貪、瞋，如果未斷可能產生，因為所緣的境界必定同時存在，所以只繫縛未來。因此《正理》中說，由此已經顯示，五識相應的可能產生的隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱），如果到了過去，只繫縛過去，到了現在也是如此。根據意義可以推知，如果與意識相應的可能產生的隨眠，如果到了過去、現在，未斷除，容許繫縛非自身所在時世的法（以上是論文內容）。未來五識相應的貪、瞋，如果未斷除，不生起的種類很多，也能繫縛三世。因為所緣的境界或者在未來，或者流向現在，或者進入過去。能緣雖然缺少因緣不生起，由於沒有斷除的緣故，其自性繫縛三世。『所餘一切至能系此事者。』解釋後面的兩句。除了前面三種，其餘一切見（ditthi，邪見）、疑（vicikiccha，懷疑）、無明（avijja，無知），過去、未來未斷除，普遍繫縛三世諸事。由此三種見、疑、無明是共相的迷惑，一切有情共同普遍地被它們繫縛於三世的事故。如果現在世的見、疑、無明，正確地緣取三世的境界時，根據它們所應的情況，能夠繫縛此事。『應辨諸事至及離系耶者。』下面第二部分說明三世的有無。其中，一、陳述宗義；二、正式破斥。在陳述宗義中，一、用教理證明有；二、敘述並確定宗義。下面用教理證明有。經部師提問：應該辨明諸事，過去、未來，是真實存在，還是真實不存在，才可以談論繫縛。如果過去、未來世是真實存在的，那麼一切行（sankhara，行蘊）恒常存在，應該說是常。如果過去、未來世是真實不存在的，那麼如何可以說有能繫縛、所繫縛以及離繫縛呢？『毗婆沙師至許說一切有者。』回答。毗婆沙師確定地認為過去、未來二世是存在的。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Cut off. In the past, it is marked as not cut off.' If the future can also bind the three times, explain the next three sentences. If the greed (tanha, craving), hatred (dosa, aversion), and pride (mana, conceit) that correspond to consciousness in the future universally bind the three times. Even regarding this matter, whether doubt arises or not, and until it is not cut off, it can produce bondage. The greed and hatred corresponding to the five consciousnesses in the future, if not cut off, may arise, because the object of perception must exist simultaneously, so it only binds the future. Therefore, the Hetu-vidya says, 'From this, it is already shown that the latent defilements (anusaya, latent tendencies) corresponding to the five consciousnesses that may arise, if they reach the past, only bind the past, and it is the same when they reach the present.' According to the meaning, it can be inferred that if the latent defilements that may arise corresponding to consciousness, if they reach the past and present, and are not cut off, they may bind phenomena that are not in their own time (the above is the content of the treatise). The greed and hatred corresponding to the five consciousnesses in the future, if not cut off, many types do not arise, and they can also bind the three times. Because the object of perception is either in the future, or flows to the present, or enters the past. Although the perceiver lacks conditions and does not arise, because it is not cut off, its nature binds the three times. 'All the rest until they can bind this matter.' Explains the following two sentences. Except for the previous three, all the remaining views (ditthi, wrong views), doubt (vicikiccha, uncertainty), and ignorance (avijja, ignorance), if not cut off in the past and future, universally bind all matters of the three times. From this, these three types of views, doubt, and ignorance are common delusions, and all sentient beings are commonly and universally bound by them to the events of the three times. If the views, doubt, and ignorance of the present correctly perceive the realms of the three times, according to what they should be, they can bind this matter. 'Should distinguish matters up to and including liberation?' The second part below explains the existence or non-existence of the three times. Among them, 1. State the doctrine; 2. Formally refute. In stating the doctrine, 1. Prove existence with doctrine and reason; 2. Narrate and determine the doctrine. Below, prove existence with doctrine and reason. The Sautrantika master asks: Should distinguish matters, past and future, whether they are truly existent or truly non-existent, before one can talk about bondage. If the past and future are truly existent, then all activities (sankhara, formations) are constantly existent, and should be said to be permanent. If the past and future are truly non-existent, then how can it be said that there is a binder, something bound, and liberation from bondage? 'The Vaibhashika master up to allowing the saying that all exists.' Answers. The Vaibhashika master firmly believes that the past and future exist.

實有。然行非常四相合故。為此所立去．來實有決定增明。應略標宗顯其理趣。三世實有由佛說故。二緣生故。識有境故。業有果故。下兩句結。

論曰至三世實有者。釋三世有。

所以者何者。此下釋由說故。此即徴也。

由契經中至勤斷欣求者。答。經中既說過去色有勤修厭舍。未來色有勤斷欣求。明知過去．未來實有。觀色無常於過去色能勤修厭舍　又解觀無常故名勤修厭。不顧戀故名勤修舍。觀色無常于未來色能斷欣求。欣求即是緣未來色貪　又解觀無常故名勤斷欣。不希欲故名勤斷求。

又具二緣至識二緣生者。釋二故。經說二緣能生於識。明知去．來二世實有。

其二者何者。問。

謂眼及色至應闕二緣者。答。六根．六境。各生自識名曰二緣　若去．來世非實有者。能緣過去．未來意識應闕二緣。過去無故應闕依．緣。過．未無故應闕境緣。

已依聖教至識亦應無者。釋有境故。以理而言。要必有境識乃得生。無則不生其理決定　若去．來無。是則應有無所緣識。所緣無故識亦應無。

又已謝業至有現因在者。釋有果故。又已落謝過去世業。有當果故。顯有二世。謂若實無過去體者。善．惡二業其體應無。由業無故。未來當果亦應無有。非現在果生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：確實存在。然而，由於行為與非常四相（Anitya，苦，空，無我）相合，因此建立了對過去和未來的真實存在的堅定認知。應該簡要地標明宗旨，以彰顯其理趣。三世（過去，現在，未來）的真實存在是因為佛陀所說，因為二緣（因和緣）所生，因為識有其所緣境，因為業有其果報。下面兩句是總結。

論曰：至三世實有者。這是對三世存在的解釋。

所以者何者？以下解釋『由說故』。這實際上是一個提問。

由契經中至勤斷欣求者。回答：經文中既然說了過去色（Rupa，物質）有勤修厭舍，未來色有勤斷欣求，就明確表明過去和未來是真實存在的。觀察色是無常的，對於過去色能夠勤奮地修行以厭離和捨棄。又解釋說，觀察無常所以稱為勤修厭，不顧戀所以稱為勤修舍。觀察色是無常的，對於未來色能夠勤奮地斷除欣求。欣求就是緣于未來色的貪愛。又解釋說，觀察無常所以稱為勤斷欣，不希望和欲求所以稱為勤斷求。

又具二緣至識二緣生者。解釋『二故』。經中說二緣能夠產生識（Vijnana，意識），明確表明過去和未來二世是真實存在的。

其二者何者？提問。

謂眼及色至應闕二緣者。回答：六根（眼，耳，鼻，舌，身，意）和六境（色，聲，香，味，觸，法），各自產生自己的識，這叫做二緣。如果過去和未來世不是真實存在的，那麼能緣過去和未來的意識應該缺少二緣。過去不存在，應該缺少所依和緣。過去和未來不存在，應該缺少境緣。

已依聖教至識亦應無者。解釋『有境故』。從道理上來說，必須要有境，識才能產生，沒有境就不會產生，這個道理是確定的。如果過去和未來不存在，那麼就應該有無所緣的識。所緣不存在，識也應該不存在。

又已謝業至有現因在者。解釋『有果故』。已經消逝的過去世的業（Karma，行為），有將來的果報，這顯示了有過去和未來二世。如果過去世的本體確實不存在，那麼善和惡兩種業的本體就應該不存在。由於業不存在，未來的果報也應該不存在。並非現在的果報產生。

【English Translation】 English version: It truly exists. However, because actions are in accordance with the impermanent four characteristics (Anitya, suffering, emptiness, non-self), the firm recognition of the real existence of the past and future is established. The principle should be briefly stated to highlight its rational interest. The real existence of the three times (past, present, future) is because it is said by the Buddha, because it arises from two conditions (cause and condition), because consciousness has its object, and because karma has its consequences. The following two sentences are a summary.

Treatise says: To the three times really exist. This is an explanation of the existence of the three times.

What is the reason? The following explains 'because it is said'. This is actually a question.

From the sutras to diligent cessation and seeking. Answer: Since the sutras say that past form (Rupa, matter) has diligent cultivation of aversion and abandonment, and future form has diligent cessation and seeking, it clearly shows that the past and future are real. Observing that form is impermanent, one can diligently cultivate aversion and abandonment towards past form. It is also explained that observing impermanence is called diligent cultivation of aversion, and not being attached is called diligent cultivation of abandonment. Observing that form is impermanent, one can diligently cease and seek future form. Seeking is the craving for future form. It is also explained that observing impermanence is called diligent cessation of seeking, and not desiring is called diligent cessation of seeking.

Also possessing two conditions to consciousness arising from two conditions. Explains 'two reasons'. The sutras say that two conditions can produce consciousness (Vijnana, awareness), clearly showing that the past and future two times are real.

What are the two? Question.

Namely the eye and form to should lack two conditions. Answer: The six roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) and the six objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma), each produce their own consciousness, which is called two conditions. If the past and future times are not real, then the consciousness that can cognize the past and future should lack two conditions. Since the past does not exist, it should lack the basis and condition. Since the past and future do not exist, it should lack the object condition.

Already based on the holy teachings to consciousness should also not exist. Explains 'because there is an object'. Logically speaking, there must be an object for consciousness to arise, and it will not arise without an object. This principle is certain. If the past and future do not exist, then there should be consciousness without an object. Since the object does not exist, consciousness should also not exist.

Also, already passed karma to there is a present cause. Explains 'because there is a result'. The karma (Karma, action) of the past that has already passed has future consequences, which shows that there are past and future times. If the substance of the past truly does not exist, then the substance of good and evil karma should not exist. Since karma does not exist, future consequences should also not exist. It is not that the present consequences arise.

時有現因在。以異熟果非因俱故　又解非未來果生時有現因在。以異熟果非與因無間故　又解非現．未果生時有現因在。以異熟果非與因俱及無間故。

由此教理至二世實有者。結。由前二教及后二理。毗婆沙師立去．來有。

若自謂是至一切有宗者。釋下兩句。若自謂是說一切有宗決定應許實有去．來世。以說三世皆定實有。故許是說一切有宗。

謂若有人至非此部攝者。對簡部別。說非盡理。半是半非。更須分別故名分別說部。梵云毗婆阇縛地。毗婆名分別縛地名說。舊云毗婆阇婆提者訛也。若宗輪論。飲光部。若業果已熟則無。果未熟則有　彼計同此。

今此部中至立世最為善者。此即第二敘說定宗。上兩句答初問。下兩句答第二問。

論曰至非捨得體者。總有四說。此即初師。

能救正法。或正法救彼。或以正法救人。故名法救。或言大德即斯人也　法救說言。由三類不同三世有異。彼謂諸法行於三世時。由三類有殊非體有異。如破金器作余物時。方．圓等形雖復有殊。而顯無異。又如乳變成於酪時。舍乳甘味及乳冷勢。得酪酢味．及酪熱勢。非舍顯色。如是諸法行於世時。從未來至現在。從現在入過去。唯舍類得類。非舍體得體。

尊者妙音至不名離染者。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有時，現世存在因。因為異熟果（Vipāka-phala，指由善惡業產生的果報）並非與因同時存在。另一種解釋是，未來果產生時，現世的因存在。因為異熟果並非與因無間斷。還有一種解釋是，現在和未來的果產生時，現世的因存在。因為異熟果並非與因同時存在，也非無間斷。

由此教理得出二世實有的結論。這是總結。通過前兩種教義和后兩種理論，毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，佛教部派之一）確立了過去和未來是真實存在的。

如果自稱是說一切有宗（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一）的人，那麼解釋下面兩句話。如果自稱是說一切有宗，就應該承認過去和未來世是真實存在的。因為他們說三世都是真實存在的。因此，承認這一點才是說一切有宗。

如果有人自稱不屬於此部派，那麼這是爲了區分部派。他們所說的並非完全合理，一半對一半不對。需要進一步區分，因此被稱為分別說部（Vibhajyavāda，佛教部派之一）。梵文是Vibhajyavāda。Vibhajya的意思是分別，Vāda的意思是說。舊譯為毗婆阇婆提是錯誤的。根據《宗輪論》，飲光部（Kāśyapīya，佛教部派之一）認為，如果業果已經成熟，則不存在；如果果未成熟，則存在。他們的觀點與此相似。

現在這個部派中，確立世間最為完善。這是第二種敘述，確定宗義。上面兩句回答第一個問題，下面兩句回答第二個問題。

論曰：並非捨棄或獲得實體。總共有四種說法。這是第一位論師的觀點。

能夠拯救正法，或者正法拯救他們，或者用正法拯救人，因此被稱為法救（Dharma-trāta，人名）。或者說，大德就是這個人。法救說，由於三類的不同，三世存在差異。他們認為，諸法在三世中流轉時，由於三類的不同而存在差異，而不是實體上的差異。就像打破金器製作成其他物品時，方形、圓形等形狀雖然不同，但顯現的顏色沒有不同。又如牛奶變成酪時，捨棄了牛奶的甘甜味道和牛奶的冷性，獲得了酪的酸味和酪的熱性，但沒有捨棄顯現的顏色。同樣，諸法在世間流轉時，從未來到現在，從現在進入過去，只是捨棄一類而獲得另一類，並非捨棄實體而獲得實體。

尊者妙音（Ghosa，人名）不被稱為離染者。

【English Translation】 English version: Sometimes, there is a present cause existing. Because the Vipāka-phala (result of karma) is not simultaneous with the cause. Another explanation is that when a future result arises, there is a present cause existing. Because the Vipāka-phala is not without interval from the cause. Yet another explanation is that when present and future results arise, there is a present cause existing. Because the Vipāka-phala is neither simultaneous with the cause nor without interval.

From this teaching and reasoning, the conclusion is reached that the two times (past and future) are real. This is a conclusion. Through the first two teachings and the latter two reasonings, the Vaibhāṣikas (a Buddhist school) establish that the past and future exist in reality.

If one claims to be a Sarvāstivādin (a Buddhist school), then explain the following two sentences. If one claims to be a Sarvāstivādin, one should definitely admit that the past and future exist in reality. Because they say that all three times are definitely real. Therefore, admitting this is being a Sarvāstivādin.

If someone claims not to belong to this school, then this is to distinguish the schools. What they say is not entirely reasonable, half right and half wrong. Further distinction is needed, therefore it is called Vibhajyavāda (a Buddhist school). The Sanskrit is Vibhajyavāda. Vibhajya means distinction, and Vāda means saying. The old translation as Vibhajyavāda is incorrect. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, the Kāśyapīyas (a Buddhist school) believe that if the result of karma is already ripe, then it does not exist; if the result is not yet ripe, then it exists. Their view is similar to this.

Now, in this school, establishing the world is the most perfect. This is the second narration, determining the doctrine. The above two sentences answer the first question, and the below two sentences answer the second question.

The treatise says: It is not abandoning or obtaining the substance. There are four views in total. This is the view of the first teacher.

Able to save the true Dharma, or the true Dharma saves them, or using the true Dharma to save people, therefore it is called Dharma-trāta (a person's name). Or it is said that the great virtuous one is this person. Dharma-trāta said that due to the difference in the three categories, there are differences in the three times. They believe that when dharmas flow in the three times, there are differences due to the difference in the three categories, not differences in substance. Just like when breaking a golden vessel to make other objects, although the shapes such as square and round are different, the manifested color is not different. Also, like when milk turns into cheese, it abandons the sweet taste of milk and the cold nature of milk, and obtains the sour taste of cheese and the hot nature of cheese, but does not abandon the manifested color. Similarly, when dharmas flow in the world, from the future to the present, from the present to the past, they only abandon one category and obtain another category, not abandoning the substance and obtaining the substance.

The Venerable Ghosa (a person's name) is not called one who is free from defilements.

即第二師　音聲妙故名曰妙音。梵云懼沙。舊云瞿沙訛也　彼作是說。由不相應中別有一類世相不同。三世有異。諸有為法一一有三。隨在何世。一顯二隱。一正顯者名為正合。餘二雖隱而非體無。故亦名為不離彼相　又解相有用時名合。相雖無用。而隨於法其體非無故言而不名離。如人正染一妻室時一貪有用。于余姬媵雖有貪無用不名離貪。恒隨行故。

尊者世友至置千名千者。此即第三師說　世是天名。與天遂友故名世友。父母憐子恐惡鬼神之所加害。言天遂友。彼不敢損故故以為名焉。梵名筏蘇密呾啰。筏蘇名世。密呾啰名友。舊雲和須密訛也　彼作是說。由位不同三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時。至三世位位中。作三世異異說。由三位有別。非三體有異。如運一籌置一位處名一。置百位處名百。置千位處名千。雖歷位有別。而籌體無異。

尊者覺天至名母名女者　能覺悟天故名覺天。梵云勃陀提婆。勃陀名覺。提婆名天。舊云佛陀提婆訛也　彼作是說。由觀待有別故三世有異。彼謂諸法行於世時。前後觀待立名有異。觀待后故名過去。觀待前故名未來。俱觀待故名現在。如一女人觀待女名母。觀待母名女。體雖無別。由待有異。得母．女名。

此四種說至外道朋中者。此下釋后兩句。將印世

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第二師，因為音聲美妙，所以被稱為妙音（Miaoyin）。梵文是懼沙（Jusha），舊譯瞿沙（Qusha）是訛誤。他們這樣說：由於不相應中，另有一類世相不同，三世（過去、現在、未來）有差異。一切有為法，一一都有三種狀態，無論在哪一世，一種顯現，兩種隱藏。正在顯現的稱為正合，其餘兩種雖然隱藏，但本體並非沒有，所以也稱為不離彼相。又解釋說，相有用的時候稱為合，相雖然沒有用，但跟隨於法，其本體並非沒有，所以說而不稱為離。比如人正在染著一個妻子時，一個貪念有用，對於其他的姬妾，雖然有貪念但沒有用，不稱為離貪，因為貪念恒常隨行。

尊者世友（Shiyou）到達置千名千者，這是第三師的說法。世是天名，與天為友，所以名叫世友。父母憐愛孩子，害怕惡鬼神加以侵害，就說與天為友，惡鬼神就不敢損害他，所以以此為名。梵文名字是筏蘇密呾啰（Vasumitra），筏蘇（Vasu）是世的意思，密呾啰（Mitra）是友的意思。舊譯和須密（Hesumi）是訛誤。他們這樣說：由於位置不同，三世有差異。他們認為諸法在世間執行的時候，到達三世的位置，在位置中，產生三世的差異。由於三個位置有區別，並非三個本體有區別。比如移動一個籌碼，放在個位上叫做一，放在百位上叫做百，放在千位上叫做千，雖然經歷的位置有區別，但是籌碼的本體沒有區別。

尊者覺天（Juetian）到達名母名女者，能夠覺悟天道，所以名叫覺天。梵文名字是勃陀提婆（Buddha-deva），勃陀（Buddha）是覺的意思，提婆（Deva）是天的意思。舊譯佛陀提婆（Fotu-deva）是訛誤。他們這樣說：由於觀待有區別，所以三世有差異。他們認為諸法在世間執行的時候，前後觀待，立名有差異。觀待後來的狀態，所以叫做過去；觀待之前的狀態，所以叫做未來；同時觀待，所以叫做現在。比如一個女人，觀待女兒的身份，叫做母親；觀待母親的身份，叫做女兒。本體雖然沒有區別，由於觀待不同，得到母親、女兒的名稱。

此四種說法到達外道朋中者，這以下解釋后兩句，將印世

【English Translation】 English version: The second teacher, because of the wonderful sound, is called Miaoyin (Wonderful Sound). The Sanskrit is Jusha (feared sand), and the old translation Qusha (Qusha) is a mistake. They say that due to the non-corresponding, there is another type of worldly appearance that is different, and the three times (past, present, and future) are different. All conditioned dharmas have three states each. No matter which time, one manifests and two are hidden. The one that is manifesting is called Zhenghe (right combination), and the other two, although hidden, are not without substance, so they are also called not being separated from that appearance. Another explanation is that when the appearance is useful, it is called He (combination). Although the appearance is not useful, it follows the dharma, and its substance is not without, so it is said but not called Li (separation). For example, when a person is dyeing a wife, one greed is useful. For other concubines, although there is greed, it is not useful, and it is not called leaving greed, because greed always follows.

Venerable Shiyou (Friend of the World) arrived at Zhichi Qianming Qianzhe (placing a thousand names a thousand), which is the saying of the third teacher. Shi (world) is the name of the sky, and being friends with the sky is called Shiyou. Parents love their children and are afraid that evil ghosts and gods will harm them, so they say they are friends with the sky, and evil ghosts and gods dare not harm him, so they are named after this. The Sanskrit name is Vasumitra (Vasu-mitra), Vasu (Vasu) means the world, and Mitra (Mitra) means friend. The old translation Hesumi (Hesumi) is a mistake. They say that due to different positions, the three times are different. They believe that when all dharmas are running in the world, they reach the position of the three times, and in the position, the difference of the three times is produced. Because there are differences in the three positions, it is not that the three entities are different. For example, moving a chip, placing it in the ones place is called one, placing it in the hundreds place is called one hundred, and placing it in the thousands place is called one thousand. Although the positions experienced are different, the body of the chip is not different.

Venerable Juetian (Awakened Heaven) arrived at Mingmu Mingnvzhe (name mother name daughter), able to awaken the way of heaven, so it is called Juetian. The Sanskrit name is Buddha-deva (Buddha-deva), Buddha (Buddha) means awakening, and Deva (Deva) means heaven. The old translation Fotu-deva (Fotu-deva) is a mistake. They say that due to the difference in observation, the three times are different. They believe that when all dharmas are running in the world, the names are different before and after observation. Observing the later state, it is called the past; observing the previous state, it is called the future; observing at the same time, it is called the present. For example, a woman, observing the identity of her daughter, is called a mother; observing the identity of her mother, is called a daughter. Although the body is not different, due to different observations, the names of mother and daughter are obtained.

These four kinds of statements arrive at the heretical friends, this below explains the last two sentences, will print the world

友先破餘三。此即破第一師。此四種說一切有部中。第一執法有轉變故。應置數論外道朋中。同彼計故。又婆沙七十七云。說類異者。離法自性說何為類。故亦非理。諸有為法從未來世至現在時。前類應滅。從現在世至過去時。后類應生。過去有生。未來有滅。豈應正理。

第二所立至何義為同者。破第二師。彼師所立世相雜亂。三世皆有三世相故。復破喻言。人于妻室貪現行時。于余姬媵貪唯有成就現無貪起。何義為同。以三世法同時皆有三世相故。喻不等法。

第四所立至類亦應然者。破第四師。此師所立前後相待。一世法中應有三世。謂過去世前剎那應名過去。后剎那應名未來。中剎那名為現在。未來三世類亦應然。現在世法雖一剎那。待后應名過去。待前應名未來。

俱待應名現在　故此四中至非體有殊者。此即評取第三世友。如文可知。

此已具知至何謂去來者。經部難。去．來實有。應名現在何謂去．來。

豈不前言約作用立者。說一切有部答。指同前說。

若爾現在至有何作用者。經部復難。若爾現在有眼等根不見色等彼同分攝。有何作用名為現在。

彼豈不能取果與果者。說一切有部答。彼同分眼雖無見色發識之用。彼豈不能起取果用。及與果用。名現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：友先破餘三。此即破第一師。此四種說法在一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一，主張一切事物皆實有）中，第一種觀點執著於事物有轉變，應該被歸為數論外道（Samkhya，古印度哲學流派之一），因為它與數論的觀點相同。此外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第七十七卷說，如果說類別不同，離開了法的自性，又該如何定義類別呢？所以這種說法也是不合理的。如果說有為法（conditioned phenomena，由因緣和合而生的事物）從未來世到達現在世，之前的類別就應該滅亡；從現在世到達過去世，之後的類別就應該產生。過去已經存在，未來卻要滅亡，這難道是合理的嗎？

第二種觀點認為世相雜亂，三世（過去、現在、未來）都具有三世的相。這是爲了駁斥第二位論師。進一步駁斥他的比喻說，當一個人對妻子產生貪愛時，他對其他姬妾的貪愛只是存在可能性，並沒有實際發生。這怎麼能說是相同的呢？因為三世法同時都具有三世的相，所以這個比喻是不恰當的。

第四種觀點認為前後相互依賴，一世法中應該有三世。這是爲了駁斥第四位論師。這位論師認為，在過去世的前一剎那應該被稱為過去，后一剎那應該被稱為未來，中間的剎那被稱為現在。未來三世的類別也應該如此。現在世的法雖然只有一個剎那，但相對於后一剎那，它應該被稱為過去；相對於前一剎那，它應該被稱為未來。

相互依賴才能被稱為現在。因此，這四種觀點中，第三位世友的觀點是可以採納的，如文中所述。

通過以上分析，經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一，主張只有現在世是實有的）提出疑問：如果過去和未來是真實存在的，那麼應該如何定義現在？

說一切有部回答說：『難道前面沒有說過，是根據作用來確立的嗎？』這裡指的是與之前的說法相同。

經部再次提出疑問：『如果這樣，那麼現在存在的眼等根（感官）無法看到色等（感官對像），它們屬於同一部分，又有什麼作用可以被稱為現在呢？』

說一切有部回答說：『它們難道不能獲取果報和給予果報嗎？』即使同一部分的眼根沒有見色和產生意識的作用，難道它們不能產生獲取果報和給予果報的作用，從而被稱為現在嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: You first refute the remaining three. This refutes the first teacher. These four views, within the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school asserting the reality of all things), the first clinging to the idea that things have transformation, should be placed among the Samkhya (an ancient Indian philosophical school) heretics, as it shares their views. Furthermore, the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), volume seventy-seven, states that if one speaks of different categories, what is meant by category if it is separated from the self-nature of the dharma? Therefore, this view is also unreasonable. If conditioned phenomena (arising from causes and conditions) move from the future to the present, the previous category should cease; from the present to the past, the subsequent category should arise. The past already exists, and the future is to cease, how can this be reasonable?

The second view posits that the characteristics of the world are mixed up, with all three times (past, present, future) possessing the characteristics of all three times. This is to refute the second teacher. Further refuting his analogy, it is said that when a man has active greed for his wife, his greed for other concubines only exists as a potential, not actively arising. How can this be the same? Because the dharmas of the three times simultaneously possess the characteristics of all three times, this analogy is inappropriate.

The fourth view posits that the past and future are mutually dependent, with one time having all three times within it. This is to refute the fourth teacher. This teacher believes that the previous moment of the past should be called the past, the subsequent moment should be called the future, and the middle moment should be called the present. The categories of the future three times should also be the same. Although the dharma of the present time is only one moment, relative to the subsequent moment, it should be called the past; relative to the previous moment, it should be called the future.

Mutual dependence is required to be called the present. Therefore, among these four views, the view of the third friend (世友) is acceptable, as described in the text.

From the above analysis, the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school asserting the reality of only the present) raises the question: If the past and future are truly existent, then how should the present be defined?

The Sarvastivada replies: 'Did we not say earlier that it is established based on function?' This refers to the same as the previous statement.

The Sautrantika further questions: 'If so, then the present existing sense organs, such as the eyes, cannot see sense objects, such as forms, and they belong to the same category. What function do they have to be called the present?'

The Sarvastivada replies: 'Can they not obtain results and give results?' Even if the eye-faculty of the same category does not have the function of seeing forms and generating consciousness, can they not generate the function of obtaining results and giving results, and thus be called the present?

在耶。

是則過去至世相應雜者。經部復難。過去因等既能與果。應有作用。既有作用亦應名現。有半作用世相應有雜亂之過。

已略推徴至此法性甚深者。此即第二正破。上句用字通於兩處。謂何礙用。用云何。若用與體無有異者。世義便壞。若說去．來法體實有。誰未已生名未來。誰復已滅名過去。毗婆沙師作如是言。此法性甚深。

論曰至許常有故者。釋何礙用。經部難云。應說一切有為諸法於三世中自體恒有。應一切時能起作用。何礙此法用有還無。汝若謂眾緣不和合者。此救非理。汝許因緣亦常有故。

又此作用至法名去．來者。釋用云何。又此作用云何得說為去．來．今。此難意汝說法體由作用故說三世別。作用未起名未來。作用已起名現在。作用已滅名過去。體由作用說三世別。用復由誰說去．來．今三世差別。豈作用中而得更立有餘作用。說此作用為去．來．今。若於用上覆有餘用。用復有用便致無窮。若此作用更無作用。非去．來．今三世所攝。而復說言作用是有。則是無為故應常非無。故不應言作用已滅法名過去。及此未有法名未來。

若許作用至有此過失者。說一切有部救。釋無異。若許作用異法體者。可有用無窮及有用常失。然我說用與體無異。隨體說故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本在嗎？

如果過去世與現在世相互混雜相應，經部宗會進一步反駁：過去的因等既然能夠產生結果，就應該具有作用。既然具有作用，就應該被稱作現在。如果只有部分作用，就會有世（時）相應混雜的過失。

已經簡略地推究到『此法性甚深』之處。這便是第二重正式破斥。上文的『用』字可以用於兩種情況。即，有什麼妨礙使用？以及，如何使用？如果『用』與『體』沒有差別，那麼世（時）的定義就會被破壞。如果說過去、未來的法體是真實存在的，那麼誰還沒有產生可以被稱為未來？誰已經滅亡可以被稱為過去？毗婆沙師這樣說：『此法性甚深』。

論曰：『至於承認常有』是因為什麼妨礙使用？經部宗反駁說：應該說一切有為諸法在三世中自體恒常存在，應該在任何時候都能產生作用。有什麼妨礙此法的『用』存在或消失？如果你認為是因為眾緣不和合，這種辯解是不合理的，因為你承認因緣也是常有的。

『又此作用』是爲了解釋如何使用。又，這種作用如何能被說成是過去、現在、未來？這個詰難的意思是：你們說法的體性因為作用的緣故而有三世的差別，作用未產生叫做未來，作用已產生叫做現在，作用已滅亡叫做過去。體性因為作用而有三世的差別，那麼作用又因為什麼而被說成是過去、現在、未來這三世的差別呢？難道在作用之中還能再建立一個其餘的作用，來說明這個作用是過去、現在、未來嗎？如果在作用之上還有其餘的作用，作用之上又有作用，就會導致無窮無盡。如果這個作用沒有其餘的作用，不被過去、現在、未來三世所包含，卻又說作用是存在的，那麼它就是無為法，因此應該是常有的，而不是沒有的。所以不應該說作用已經滅亡的法叫做過去，以及這種還沒有產生的法叫做未來。

如果承認作用與法體沒有差別，一切有部宗會進行辯解，解釋『沒有差別』。如果承認作用與法體是不同的，可能會有用無窮盡以及有用常有的過失。然而我說作用與體性沒有差別，是隨著體性而說的。

【English Translation】 English version Is it there?

If the past and present are mixed and correspond, the Sautrāntikas further object: Since past causes, etc., can produce effects, they should have function. Since they have function, they should also be called present. If there is only partial function, there will be the fault of confusion in the correspondence of the times.

It has been briefly investigated to the point of 'this Dharma-nature is very profound'. This is the second formal refutation. The word 'use' in the previous sentence can be applied to two situations. That is, what hinders the use? And, how to use it? If there is no difference between 'use' and 'essence', then the definition of time will be destroyed. If it is said that the essence of the past and future is real, then who has not yet arisen can be called the future? Who has already perished can be called the past? The Vaibhāṣikas say: 'This Dharma-nature is very profound'.

The treatise says: 'As for admitting permanence' is because what hinders the use? The Sautrāntikas object: It should be said that all conditioned dharmas exist constantly in their own nature in the three times, and should be able to produce effects at any time. What hinders the 'use' of this dharma from existing or disappearing? If you say it is because the aggregation of conditions is not harmonious, this defense is unreasonable, because you admit that conditions are also permanent.

'Also this function' is to explain how to use it. Also, how can this function be said to be past, present, and future? The meaning of this question is: You say that the nature of dharmas has the difference of the three times because of function, the function not yet produced is called the future, the function already produced is called the present, and the function already perished is called the past. The nature of dharmas has the difference of the three times because of function, then what is the reason for saying that function has the difference of the three times of past, present, and future? Could it be that another function can be established within the function to explain that this function is past, present, and future? If there is another function on top of the function, and there is function on top of function, it will lead to endlessness. If this function has no other function, and is not included in the three times of past, present, and future, but it is said that the function exists, then it is unconditioned dharma, so it should be permanent and not non-existent. Therefore, it should not be said that the dharma whose function has perished is called the past, and the dharma that has not yet arisen is called the future.

If it is admitted that there is no difference between function and the nature of dharmas, the Sarvāstivādins will defend and explain 'no difference'. If it is admitted that function and the nature of dharmas are different, there may be the fault of endless function and permanent function. However, I say that there is no difference between function and essence, and it is said according to the essence.

體無無窮故用亦無無窮。體非常故用亦非常。汝經部師故不應言有此過失。

若爾所立至世義不成者。經部破。釋世便壞。若用即體。體既三世恒有。用亦應如體三世。若恒有用。並應名現。何得有時名為過．未。故彼所立世義不成。

何為不成至名過去者。說一切有部救。何為不成。以有為法未已生名未來。若已生未已滅名現在。若已滅名過去。

彼復應說至皆不成立者。經部破。釋第三句。彼復應說若如現在法體實有去．來亦然。誰未已生名為未來。誰復已滅名為過去。謂有為法體實三世恒有。如何可得成未已生名未來。已滅名過去。先在未來有何所闕。彼未有故名未已生。后在過去復闕何法。彼已無故名為已滅。故不許法體本無今有。有已還無。則三世義皆不成立。若三世義不成立者。應一切種諸有為法皆不成立。

然彼所說至此真自在作者。此下廣破。經部牒前毗婆沙師立義徴破。然彼前文所說。恒與有為諸相合故行非常者。此但有虛言。三世體實有。生滅理無故。汝許體恒三世實有。說性非常。如是義言所未曾有。依如是義故有頌言。許三世法其體恒有。而說三世其性非常。性之與體眼目異名。復無有別。此真是彼自在天作。外道計自在天須作即作。論主調彼。須作即作。同彼自

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：本體沒有窮盡，所以作用也沒有窮盡。本體不是恒常不變的，所以作用也不是恒常不變的。你們經部的老師不應該說有這樣的過失。

如果這樣，你們所建立的『至世義』不能成立。經部駁斥說，解釋『世』的定義就崩潰了。如果作用就是本體，本體既然在過去、現在、未來三世都恒常存在，那麼作用也應該像本體一樣存在於三世。如果作用恒常存在，就應該都稱為『現在』，怎麼會有時候稱為『過去』、『未來』呢？所以他們所建立的『世』的定義不能成立。

什麼叫做不能成立，以至於稱為『過去』呢？說一切有部進行辯護。什麼叫做不能成立？有為法還沒有產生叫做『未來』，已經產生但還沒有滅亡叫做『現在』，已經滅亡叫做『過去』。

他們又應該說，以至於都不能成立。經部駁斥，解釋第三句。他們又應該說，如果像現在法一樣，本體是真實存在的，那麼過去、未來也應該是這樣。誰還沒有產生叫做『未來』？誰已經滅亡叫做『過去』？如果說有為法的本體在三世中都是真實存在的，怎麼能成立還沒有產生叫做『未來』，已經滅亡叫做『過去』呢？先前在未來的時候缺少了什麼？因為那時還沒有產生，所以叫做『未已生』。後來在過去的時候又缺少了什麼？因為那時已經沒有了，所以叫做『已滅』。所以不允許法的本體本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有。如果這樣，那麼三世的定義都不能成立。如果三世的定義不能成立，那麼一切種類的有為法都不能成立。

然而他們所說的，以至於這真是自在天所為。下面廣泛地進行駁斥。經部引用毗婆沙師之前建立的定義進行駁斥。然而他們前面所說的，總是和有為法的各種相狀相合，所以『行』不是恒常的。這只不過是空話。三世的本體是真實存在的，生滅的道理是不存在的。你們承認本體在三世中恒常存在，卻說它的性質不是恒常的，這樣的說法是前所未有的。依據這樣的說法，所以有頌說：『承認三世法，它的本體恒常存在，卻說三世的性質不是恒常的。』性質和本體只是名稱不同，實際上並沒有區別。這真是自在天所為。外道認為自在天想做什麼就做什麼。論主調侃他們，想做什麼就做什麼，和自在天一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: Because the substance (體, tǐ) is without limit, its function (用, yòng) is also without limit. Because the substance is not constant, its function is also not constant. Your teachers of the Sutra Pitaka (經部師, jīng bù shī) should not say there is such a fault.

If that's the case, then the 'meaning of the three times' (至世義, zhì shì yì) that you establish cannot be established. The Sautrāntikas (經部, jīng bù) refute, saying that the explanation of 'time' (世, shì) collapses. If function is identical to substance, and substance exists constantly in the three times (三世, sān shì - past, present, and future), then function should also exist in the three times like substance. If function exists constantly, it should all be called 'present'. How can there be times called 'past' or 'future'? Therefore, their established definition of 'time' cannot be established.

What is meant by 'cannot be established' to the point of being called 'past'? The Sarvāstivādins (說一切有部, shuō yī qiē yǒu bù) defend. What is meant by 'cannot be established'? A conditioned dharma (有為法, yǒu wéi fǎ) that has not yet arisen is called 'future'. If it has already arisen but has not yet ceased, it is called 'present'. If it has already ceased, it is called 'past'.

They should also say, to the point that none of it can be established. The Sautrāntikas refute, explaining the third sentence. They should also say that if, like the present dharma, the substance is truly existent, then the past and future should also be like that. Who has not yet arisen is called 'future'? Who has already ceased is called 'past'? If the substance of conditioned dharmas truly exists in the three times, how can it be established that what has not yet arisen is called 'future', and what has already ceased is called 'past'? What is lacking when it is previously in the future? Because it has not yet arisen, it is called 'not yet arisen'. What is lacking when it is later in the past? Because it is already gone, it is called 'already ceased'. Therefore, it is not permissible for the substance of a dharma to be originally non-existent and then become existent, and then become non-existent again after existing. If so, then the meaning of the three times cannot be established. If the meaning of the three times cannot be established, then all kinds of conditioned dharmas cannot be established.

However, what they say, to the point that this is truly the work of Īśvara (自在天, zì zài tiān). The following is a broad refutation. The Sautrāntikas cite the definition previously established by the Vaibhāṣikas (毗婆沙師, pí pó shā shī) to refute it. However, what they said earlier, that it is always in accordance with the various characteristics of conditioned dharmas, so 'activity' (行, xíng) is not constant, is just empty talk. The substance of the three times is truly existent, and the principle of arising and ceasing does not exist. You admit that the substance exists constantly in the three times, but you say that its nature is not constant. Such a statement is unprecedented. Based on such a statement, there is a verse that says: 'Admitting that the three times dharmas, their substance exists constantly, but saying that the nature of the three times is not constant.' Nature and substance are just different names, and there is actually no difference. This is truly the work of Īśvara. The heretics believe that Īśvara does whatever he wants. The debater mocks them, saying that doing whatever one wants is the same as Īśvara.

在故。言此真自在作。

又彼所言至如現實有者。經部牒前初經通釋。我等亦說有去．來世。謂過去世曾有名有。未來當有故名為有。過去有現果說曾有因。未來有現因說當有果　又解未來當有果。過去曾有因。依曾．當有說有去．來。非謂去．來如現實有。同彼常宗。

誰言彼有如現在世者。說一切有部救。非如現世。

彼有云何者。經部徴。

彼有去．來二世自性者。說一切有部答。謂過去有過去自性。未來有未來自性。

此復應詰至去來性不成者。經部復詰。若去．來世體俱是有。如何可言是去．來性二世差別。故說彼有。據曾有因。據當有果。非體實有。世尊為遮謗因果見。據曾．當義說有去．來。有聲通顯有．無法故。有顯有法。相顯可知不指事說。有顯無法。相隱難知故指事云　如世間說有燈先時無。謂燈未生　有燈后時無。謂燈已滅。

又如有言有燈已滅非我今滅。此雖說有皆顯無法　說有去．來義亦應爾。有顯無法。若不爾者體皆實有去．來性不成。

若爾何緣至重說為有者。說一切有部難。若爾何緣世尊為此枝髻外道。說業過去．盡．滅．變壞。而猶是有。既說有言。明過實有。豈彼外道不許過去業曾有性。佛重說有。即由外道信曾有性不信實有。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，他們這樣說，確實是自在的作為。

此外，他們所說的如同現實存在的事物。經部（Sautrāntika）引用之前的經文來普遍解釋。我們（經部）也說有過去世和未來世。所謂的『有』，是指過去世曾經存在，未來世將要存在。過去世有現在的果報，所以說曾經有因；未來世有現在的因緣，所以說將要有果。又解釋說未來將有果報，過去曾經有因緣。依據曾經有和將要有來說有過去和未來，並不是說過去和未來如同現實存在一樣，和他們的常恒宗（eternalism）相同。

誰說他們所說的『有』如同現在的世界一樣？說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）反駁說：並非如同現在的世界一樣。

他們所說的『有』是什麼樣的呢？經部提問。

他們所說的『有』是過去和未來二世的自性。說一切有部回答說：所謂的過去有過去的自性，未來有未來的自性。

對此應該反駁說，過去和未來的自性不能成立。經部再次反駁說：如果過去世和未來世的體性都是『有』，怎麼能說它們是過去和未來兩種不同的自性呢？所以說他們所說的『有』，是依據曾經有因，依據將有果，而不是體性真實存在。世尊爲了遮止誹謗因果的見解，依據曾經有和將有的意義來說有過去和未來。『有』這個聲音可以普遍顯示『有』和『無』的含義。『有』顯示『有法』，它的相貌顯示出來容易知道，不是直接指事物來說；『有』顯示『無法』，它的相貌隱藏起來難以知道，所以要指明事物來說。例如世間人說，燈在先前沒有，指的是燈還沒有產生；燈在後來沒有，指的是燈已經熄滅。

又比如有人說，燈已經熄滅，不是我現在熄滅。這些雖然都說是『有』，但都是顯示『無法』。說有過去和未來的意義也應該是這樣，『有』是顯示『無法』。如果不是這樣，體性都是真實存在，過去和未來的自性就不能成立。

如果這樣，為什麼世尊要重複說『有』呢？說一切有部質問道：如果這樣，為什麼世尊對枝髻外道（Jaṭila）說，業已經過去、窮盡、滅亡、變壞，但仍然是『有』呢？既然說了『有』，就說明過去確實存在。難道那些外道不承認過去業曾經存在嗎？佛陀重複說『有』，就是因為外道相信曾經存在，但不相信真實存在，所以才這樣說。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, their saying this is truly an act of self-mastery (真自在作).

Furthermore, what they say is like things that exist in reality. The Sautrāntika (經部) school cites previous sutras for a general explanation. We (Sautrāntikas) also say that there are past and future lives. The so-called 'existence' (有) refers to the past life having existed, and the future life being about to exist. The past life has the present result, so it is said that there was a cause; the future life has the present cause, so it is said that there will be a result. It is also explained that the future will have a result, and the past had a cause. Based on having been and being about to be, it is said that there are past and future, but it does not mean that the past and future are like real existence, the same as their eternalism (常宗).

Who says that their 'existence' is like the present world? The Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部) school refutes: It is not like the present world.

What is the 'existence' they speak of? The Sautrāntika school asks.

The 'existence' they speak of is the self-nature of the past and future two times. The Sarvāstivāda school answers: The past has the self-nature of the past, and the future has the self-nature of the future.

To this, it should be refuted that the nature of past and future cannot be established. The Sautrāntika school refutes again: If the substance of the past and future is both 'existence', how can it be said that they are two different self-natures of past and future? Therefore, what they say as 'existence' is based on having had a cause, and based on being about to have a result, but not that the substance is truly existent. The World-Honored One (世尊) , in order to prevent the view of slandering cause and effect, speaks of the past and future based on the meaning of having been and being about to be. The sound 'existence' (有) can universally reveal the meaning of 'existence' and 'non-existence' (無法). 'Existence' reveals 'existent dharma' (有法), its appearance is easily known, and it does not directly refer to things; 'existence' reveals 'non-existent dharma' (無法), its appearance is hidden and difficult to know, so it must be specified. For example, people in the world say that there was no lamp before, referring to the lamp not yet being produced; there is no lamp later, referring to the lamp already being extinguished.

Also, for example, someone says, 'The lamp has been extinguished, not that I am extinguishing it now.' Although these all say 'existence', they all reveal 'non-existence'. The meaning of saying there is past and future should also be like this, 'existence' reveals 'non-existence'. If it is not like this, and the substance is all truly existent, then the self-nature of past and future cannot be established.

If so, why did the World-Honored One repeatedly say 'existence'? The Sarvāstivāda school questions: If so, why did the World-Honored One say to the Jaṭila (枝髻外道) ascetics that karma has passed, been exhausted, perished, and changed, but is still 'existence'? Since 'existence' has been said, it shows that the past truly exists. Could it be that those ascetics do not admit that past karma once existed? The Buddha (佛陀) repeatedly said 'existence' because the ascetics believed in having once existed, but did not believe in truly existing, so he said this.

佛說有　手執杖行頭上作髻故名杖髻　盡滅變壞。過去異名。說業過去。說業盡。說業滅。說業變壞。

依彼所引至義已成立者。經部師釋經說業有。依彼業所引現相續身中與果功能種子有故。蜜說過去能熏業為有。所熏業因能與當果。名與果功能　若不爾者彼過去業今現實有。應是現在。過去豈成　理必應爾。以經中說　眼根生位無所從來。顯無未來　眼根滅時無所造集。顯無過去　本無今有。既言本無明無未來　有已還無。既言還無明無過去　去．來眼根若實有者。經不應說本無等言　牒救破云。若謂經言眼根本無今有。有已還無。依現世說。此救非理。若現世性與彼眼根體別不同。可得說言依現世。說本無今有有已還無。此現世性與彼眼根體無別故。何得說言依現世。說本無今有有已還無。以離有為無別世故。汝若許現世本無今有有已還無。是則眼根去．來無體。義已成立。以世與眼根體無別故。說世應亦說眼根故　又解若謂經言眼根本無今有有已還無。依現在世眼根說者。此救非理。若現在眼根體性。與彼過．未二世眼根。體別不同。可得說言依現在世眼根體。說本無今有有已還無。此現在世眼根體性。與彼過．未二世眼根。體無別故。何得說言依現在世眼根體。說本無今有有已還無。汝若許現世眼根

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：佛說存在這樣的人，他們手持錫杖行走，頭上盤著髮髻，所以被稱為杖髻（手持錫杖，頭上盤發的人）。一切都在消滅、變化和壞滅。過去有不同的名稱，被稱為業的過去，業的消盡，業的滅亡，業的變化和壞滅。

如果依據他們所引用的內容，那麼意義就已經成立了。經部師解釋經典說業是存在的，因為依據那些業所引導的，在相續的身心中，具有產生結果的功能種子。因此，蜜宗說過去能夠熏習的業是存在的，被熏習的業因能夠給予未來的果報，這被稱為給予果報的功能。如果不是這樣，那麼過去的業現在就真實存在，應該屬於現在，怎麼能說是過去呢？道理必然應該是這樣。因為經典中說，眼根產生的時候，無所從來，這表明沒有未來；眼根滅亡的時候，無所造集，這表明沒有過去；本來沒有現在有，既然說本來沒有，就表明沒有未來；有了以後又沒有了，既然說又沒有了，就表明沒有過去。如果過去和未來的眼根真實存在，那麼經典不應該說本來沒有等等的話。

駁斥和辯護說，如果說經典所說的眼根本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了，是依據現世來說的，這種辯護是不合理的。如果現世的性質與那個眼根的本體不同，還可以說依據現世來說本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了。但是這個現世的性質與那個眼根的本體沒有區別，怎麼能說依據現世來說本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了呢？因為離開了有為法就沒有不同的世。你如果允許現世本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了，那麼眼根的過去和未來就沒有本體，這個意義就已經成立了。因為世與眼根的本體沒有區別，說世就應該也說眼根。又解釋說，如果說經典所說的眼根本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了，是依據現在世的眼根來說的，這種辯護是不合理的。如果現在眼根的體性與過去和未來二世的眼根體性不同，還可以說依據現在世的眼根體來說本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了。但是現在世的眼根體性與過去和未來二世的眼根體沒有區別，怎麼能說依據現在世的眼根體來說本來沒有現在有，有了以後又沒有了呢？你如果允許現世眼根...

【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha said there are those who walk holding a staff and wear their hair in a topknot, hence they are called Staff-Knot (those who hold a staff and wear their hair in a topknot). Everything is in the process of annihilation, change, and decay. The past has different names: the past of karma, the exhaustion of karma, the cessation of karma, the change and decay of karma.

If based on what they cite, then the meaning is already established. The Sautrāntika masters explain the scriptures by saying that karma exists because, based on the karma that guides them, in the continuous stream of bodies, there are seeds of potential to produce results. Therefore, the Mantrayana says that past karma that can be imprinted is existent, and the cause of the imprinted karma can give future results, which is called the function of giving results. If it were not so, then the past karma would now truly exist and should belong to the present; how could it be called the past? The principle must be so. Because the scriptures say that when the eye-faculty arises, it comes from nowhere, which shows there is no future; when the eye-faculty ceases, it creates nothing, which shows there is no past; originally there was nothing, now there is something, since it is said that originally there was nothing, it clearly shows there is no future; having existed, it ceases again, since it is said that it ceases again, it clearly shows there is no past. If the past and future eye-faculties truly existed, then the scriptures should not say things like 'originally there was nothing'.

Refuting and defending, if it is said that the scriptures say that the eye-faculty originally did not exist, now it exists, and having existed, it ceases again, is based on the present world, this defense is unreasonable. If the nature of the present world is different from the substance of that eye-faculty, it could be said that based on the present world, it is said that originally there was nothing, now there is something, and having existed, it ceases again. But the nature of this present world is no different from the substance of that eye-faculty, so how can it be said that based on the present world, it is said that originally there was nothing, now there is something, and having existed, it ceases again? Because there is no different world apart from conditioned phenomena. If you allow that the present world originally did not exist, now it exists, and having existed, it ceases again, then the past and future of the eye-faculty have no substance, and this meaning is already established. Because the world and the substance of the eye-faculty are not different, saying the world should also mean saying the eye-faculty. Another explanation is that if it is said that the scriptures say that the eye-faculty originally did not exist, now it exists, and having existed, it ceases again, is based on the eye-faculty of the present world, this defense is unreasonable. If the nature of the eye-faculty of the present world is different from the nature of the eye-faculties of the past and future two worlds, it could be said that based on the nature of the eye-faculty of the present world, it is said that originally there was nothing, now there is something, and having existed, it ceases again. But the nature of the eye-faculty of the present world is no different from the eye-faculties of the past and future two worlds, so how can it be said that based on the nature of the eye-faculty of the present world, it is said that originally there was nothing, now there is something, and having existed, it ceases again? If you allow the eye-faculty of the present world...

。本無今有有已還無。是則眼根去．來無體義已成立。

又彼所說至亦是所緣者。敘第二證破。應共尋思。意根．法境為緣生識。為法如意作能生緣。為法但能作所緣境。若法如意作能生緣。如何未來百千劫后。當有彼法應生現前。或當亦無闕緣不生。為能生緣生今時識。夫生緣者相貌分明。彼相隱昧如何能生　又涅槃性違一切生。立為能生第六意識。不應正理　若法但能為所緣境生意識者。我說過．未亦是所緣　經部許有緣無生心。

若無如何成所緣境者。說一切有部難。

我說彼有如成所緣者。經部答。我說彼有如成所緣。相似擬對而緣。

如何成所緣者。說一切有部徴。過．未無體如何成所緣。

謂曾有至其理自成者。經部答。過去曾有。未來當有。非憶過去色．受等時。如現在分明觀彼為有。但追憶彼曾現有之相。逆觀未來當有亦爾　謂如已下。重釋可知。據曾．當有擬對而緣。故作是言如成所緣。曾．當有故不同龜毛。無實體故不同現在　過．未二境若如現有應成現世。何謂去．來。若體現無則應許有緣無境識。其理自成同我經部。

若謂去來至理亦自成者。經部縱救牒破。汝說一切有部。若謂過去．未來極微散亂名有。非聚集故而非現在。理亦不然。取彼過．未極

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：本來沒有的現在有了，有了之後還會歸於沒有。這樣看來，眼根的過去和未來沒有實體的道理就已經成立了。

『又彼所說至亦是所緣者』，這是敘述第二個證據來駁斥。應該共同思考。意根和法境作為緣而產生意識，是法像意根一樣作為能生的緣，還是法只能作為所緣的境？如果法像意根一樣作為能生的緣，那麼在未來百千劫之後，應當有那個法產生並顯現於眼前。或者也可能因為缺少因緣而不產生。作為能生的緣，會產生現在的意識。能生的緣，其相貌是分明的。那個相貌隱晦，如何能夠產生？而且涅槃的性質與一切生相對立，卻被立為能生第六意識的緣，這不合道理。如果法只能作為所緣的境來產生意識，那麼我說過去和未來也是所緣的境。經部承認有緣而無生心。

『若無如何成所緣境者』，這是一切有部提出的疑問。

『我說彼有如成所緣者』，這是經部的回答。我說過去和未來有，就像它們成為所緣一樣，通過相似的擬對來緣取。

『如何成所緣者』，這是一切有部提出的質問。過去和未來沒有實體，如何成為所緣？

『謂曾有至其理自成者』，這是經部的回答。過去曾經存在，未來將要存在。不是像回憶過去色、受等時，像現在一樣分明地觀察它們為存在。只是追憶它們曾經存在的相貌，反過來觀察未來將要存在的相貌也是這樣。『謂如已下』，重新解釋，可以理解。根據曾經存在和將要存在來擬對而緣取，所以這樣說，就像成為所緣一樣。因為曾經存在和將要存在，所以不同於龜毛。因為沒有實體，所以不同於現在。過去和未來二境如果像現在一樣存在，就應當成為現世。那還說什麼過去和未來？如果實體不存在，那就應當承認有緣而無境識，這個道理自然成立，與我經部的觀點相同。

『若謂去來至理亦自成者』，這是經部進一步駁斥一切有部的辯解。你們一切有部說，如果過去和未來的極微散亂，可以稱為有，因為不是聚集的，所以不是現在。這個道理也是不成立的。取那些過去和未來的極微

【English Translation】 English version: Originally non-existent becomes existent, and after existence, it returns to non-existence. Thus, the principle that the past and future of the eye-faculty have no substance is established.

'又彼所說至亦是所緣者' (Furthermore, what was said regarding being the object of cognition), this narrates the second proof for refutation. It should be contemplated together. The mind-faculty (意根, yi gen) and the object of law (法境, fa jing) arise as conditions for consciousness. Does the law act as a generative condition like the mind-faculty, or does the law only act as the object of cognition (所緣境, suo yuan jing)? If the law acts as a generative condition like the mind-faculty, then in the future hundreds of thousands of kalpas (劫, jie), that law should arise and manifest before us. Or perhaps it will not arise due to lacking conditions. As a generative condition, it produces present consciousness. A generative condition has clear characteristics. How can that obscure characteristic generate? Moreover, the nature of Nirvana (涅槃, nie pan) opposes all arising, yet it is established as the generative condition for the sixth consciousness (第六意識, di liu yi shi). This is not reasonable. If the law only acts as the object of cognition to generate consciousness, then I say that the past and future are also objects of cognition. The Sautrantika school (經部, jing bu) admits that there can be conditions without arising mind.

'若無如何成所緣境者' (If there is nothing, how can it become an object of cognition?), this is a question raised by the Sarvastivada school (說一切有部, shuo yi qie you bu).

'我說彼有如成所緣者' (I say that they exist as they become objects of cognition), this is the answer from the Sautrantika school. I say that the past and future exist, just as they become objects of cognition, through similar analogy and comparison.

'如何成所緣者' (How do they become objects of cognition?), this is a question raised by the Sarvastivada school. The past and future have no substance, how can they become objects of cognition?

'謂曾有至其理自成者' (It is said that having existed in the past, the principle is established), this is the answer from the Sautrantika school. The past once existed, and the future will exist. It is not like recalling past form (色, se), sensation (受, shou), etc., observing them as existing as clearly as in the present. It is only recalling the appearance of their past existence, and conversely observing the appearance of the future existence in the same way. '謂如已下' (It is said that from here on), re-explanation, can be understood. Based on the analogy and comparison of having existed and will exist, it is said that it is like becoming an object of cognition. Because they once existed and will exist, they are different from turtle hair. Because they have no substance, they are different from the present. If the past and future two realms existed like the present, they should become the present world. Then what is the point of saying past and future? If the substance does not exist, then it should be admitted that there are conditions without object-consciousness, this principle is naturally established, the same as my Sautrantika school's view.

'若謂去來至理亦自成者' (If it is said that the principle of past and future is also established), this is the Sautrantika school further refuting the Sarvastivada school's explanation. You, the Sarvastivada school, say that if the past and future extremely small particles (極微, ji wei) are scattered, they can be called existent, because they are not gathered, so they are not the present. This principle is also not established. Taking those past and future extremely small particles

微相時非散亂故應非過．未　又若救言彼過．未色有體同現。唯有極微散亂為異。則極微色三世不改其體應常　又色唯應極微聚集名為現在。極微散亂名為過．未。竟無少分可名生滅。若執微常。是則遵崇邪命者論。即勝論師。棄背善逝所說契經。引經可知　又色微聚散可名過．未。非受．想等極微整合。如何可言去．來散亂　然于受等追憶過去。亦如現在未滅時相。逆觀未來。亦如現在已生時相　過．未二世若如現有。體應是常。若體現無。還應許有緣無境識。理亦自成同我經部。

若體全無至應是所緣者。說一切有部難。汝經部師若體全無是所緣者。第十三處應是所緣。

諸有達無至彼名為無者。極部反徴說一切有部。諸有達無第十三處。此能緣識為何所緣。若謂即緣第十三處名為境者。爾時既作無第十三處解。然名替處。是則應撥彼名為無。若撥名無。便同邪見非是正見。謂彼意計。若撥無第十三處是正見。若立第十三處是邪見。當撥之時彼能緣識。既無第十三處可緣。即緣第十三處名為境。既撥名無。應是邪見非是正見。以有名故而撥為無。然汝計意。撥無第十三處是正見。故言是則應撥彼名為無。是其邪見非是正見。

又若緣聲至有非有境者。經部復約事徴。聲未起時。名．聲。先非有

。望現為先。又若緣聲先時非有者。此能緣識為何所緣。既緣非有。明知緣無生心　若謂緣聲先時非有。即緣彼聲以為境者。求聲無者。應更發聲。緣聲非有。尚聲為境。求聲無者。理應發聲　若謂聲先無時住未來位。汝宗所執未來實有。如何謂無　汝若謂過去．未來世聲。無現在世故名無者。此亦非理。若現在世性與去來聲體別不同。可得說言無現在世。此現在世與去．來聲其體一故。何得說言無現在世　又解汝若謂過去．未來世聲無現世聲故言無者。此亦非理。若三世聲其體各別。可得說言無現世聲。此現在聲與去來聲。雖復經歷三世不同。其體一故。何得說言無現世聲　若未來聲與其現聲。而有少分體差別者。本無今有。其理自成同我經部　破訖結言。故識通緣有．非有境。亦應徴問聲后非有。略而不言。

然菩薩說至是無上者。經部會經引證。然菩薩說世間所無之法。我言知見無是處者。意說他人懷增上慢。亦于非有未證得中現相謂有。我唯于有方觀為有。不于非有現相謂有。非顯緣無不生心也。若異我說。不許通緣有．非有者。則一切覺皆有所緣真實法體。何緣于境得有猶豫有耶。無耶。或有差別有．無差別。既有猶預。既有差別。明知亦有緣無生心　一切覺者。謂心．心所能覺境故　理必應然。復

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果認為在聲音產生之前，它是不存在的，那麼這個能緣識（指能認識事物的意識）所緣的是什麼呢？既然緣的是不存在的東西，那就明顯可知緣無而生心。如果說緣的是聲音產生之前不存在的狀態，即以那個聲音為所緣境，那麼在尋求聲音的『無』的時候，應該會發出聲音。緣聲音的不存在，尚且以聲音為境，那麼在尋求聲音的『無』的時候，理應發出聲音。如果認為聲音在先前沒有出現時，是處於未來狀態，那麼按照你們宗派所執持的未來是真實存在的觀點，怎麼能說是『無』呢？如果你們認為過去、未來世的聲音，因為沒有現在世的聲音，所以稱之為『無』，這也是不合理的。如果現在世的性質與過去、未來聲音的本體不同，還可以說沒有現在世。但現在世與過去、未來聲音的本體是一樣的，怎麼能說沒有現在世呢？又或者，你們認為過去、未來世的聲音沒有現在世的聲音，所以說『無』，這也是不合理的。如果三世的聲音本體各不相同，還可以說沒有現在世的聲音。但現在世的聲音與過去、未來世的聲音，雖然經歷了三世的不同，但它們的本體是一樣的，怎麼能說沒有現在世的聲音呢？如果未來聲音與現在聲音有少許本體上的差別，那麼本來沒有現在才有的道理就成立了，這與我的經部觀點相同。總結以上破斥：所以意識能夠普遍緣有和非有的境界。也應該質問聲音之後的不存在，這裡省略了沒有說。然而，菩薩所說的達到無上境界，經部通過引用經文來會通解釋。菩薩說的是世間沒有的法，我說『知見無是處』，意思是說其他人懷有增上慢（未證得的境界，以為自己已經證得），對於沒有證得的東西，顯現出已經證得的樣子。我只對於『有』才觀察為『有』，不對於『非有』顯現出已經證得的樣子。這並不是說緣『無』不會生心。如果與我的說法不同，不允許普遍緣『有』和『非有』，那麼一切覺知都緣于真實的法體，為什麼對於境界會有猶豫，是有還是沒有呢？或者是有差別還是沒有差別呢？既然有猶豫，既然有差別，明顯可知也有緣『無』而生心。一切覺知，指的是心和心所（心的附屬物），因為它們能夠覺知境界。理應如此。再者。

【English Translation】 English version: If it is thought that before a sound arises, it does not exist, then what does this cognizing consciousness (referring to the consciousness that recognizes things) cognize? Since it cognizes something that does not exist, it is clear that the mind arises from cognizing non-existence. If it is said that it cognizes the state of a sound before it arises, that is, taking that sound as the object of cognition, then in seeking the 'non-existence' of the sound, a sound should be produced. Cognizing the non-existence of sound, and still taking the sound as the object, then in seeking the 'non-existence' of the sound, a sound should logically be produced. If it is thought that when a sound has not yet appeared, it is in a future state, then according to your sect's view that the future is real, how can it be said to be 'non-existent'? If you think that the sounds of the past and future, because there is no sound in the present, are called 'non-existent', this is also unreasonable. If the nature of the present is different from the substance of the past and future sounds, it can be said that there is no present. But the present is the same substance as the past and future sounds, how can it be said that there is no present? Or, if you think that the sounds of the past and future do not have the sound of the present, so you say 'non-existent', this is also unreasonable. If the substances of the three times are different, it can be said that there is no sound of the present. But the present sound and the past and future sounds, although they have experienced the difference of the three times, their substance is the same, how can it be said that there is no present sound? If the future sound has a slight difference in substance from the present sound, then the principle of something that did not exist originally now exists is established, which is the same as the view of my Sautrantika (Sūtra) school. Concluding the above refutations: Therefore, consciousness can universally cognize both existent and non-existent realms. It should also be questioned about the non-existence after the sound, which is omitted here. However, the Bodhisattva's (an enlightened being) statement of reaching the supreme state is explained by the Sautrantika (Sūtra) school by quoting scriptures. The Bodhisattva speaks of the Dharma (teachings) that does not exist in the world, and I say 'knowledge and vision are not in this place', meaning that others harbor adhimāna (false conceit, thinking one has attained what one has not), and for things that have not been attained, they appear as if they have been attained. I only observe 'existence' as 'existence', and do not make 'non-existence' appear as if it has been attained. This does not mean that the mind does not arise from cognizing 'non-existence'. If it is different from my statement, and it is not allowed to universally cognize 'existence' and 'non-existence', then all cognitions are based on the real substance of the Dharma, why would there be hesitation about the realm, whether it exists or not? Or whether there is difference or no difference? Since there is hesitation, since there is difference, it is clear that the mind also arises from cognizing 'non-existence'. All cognitions refer to the mind and mental factors (citta-caitta), because they can cognize the realm. It should be so. Furthermore.

引經證。經中既說知非有言。明知緣無亦生心也　有。謂有法　非有。謂無法　有上。謂更有上法。此法猶劣。即是有為。及虛空．非擇滅　無上。謂更無上法。此法最勝。即是涅槃。

由此彼說至亦不成因者。例破第三證。由此上來所證教理。彼宗所說識有境故有去．來者。亦不成因。

又彼所言至當廣顯示者。此破第四證。牒非不然。非經部師作如是說。即過去業能生當果。然過去業為先能熏。于現身中所引業種。相續．轉變．差別。令當果生　相續等三。破我品中當廣顯示　又正理五十一引經部云。然業為先所引相續．轉變．差別能生當果　業相續者。謂業為先後后剎那心相續起　即此相續後后剎那。異異而生名為轉變　于最後時有勝功能無間生果異余轉變故名差別。

若執實有至能生功能者。復牒計破若執實有過去．未來。則果常有。業于彼果有何功能。若謂業能生果果體新生。則所生果。本無今有。其理自成。若一切法於三世中一切時有。誰因於誰果。有能生功能。

又應顯成至有必不滅者。顯同外道過　雨時生故以雨授名。是雨徒眾故名雨眾。即數論師。汝執所立有無決定。又應顯成雨眾外道所黨邪論。彼說二十五諦有必常有。非諦攝者無必常無。無必不生以無體故。有必不滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：引經據典。經書中既然說了知『非有』之言，就明確知道因『無』也會生起心念。『有』，指的是『有法』（存在的法）。『非有』，指的是『無法』（不存在的法）。『有上』，指的是還有更殊勝的法，此法相對來說就顯得低劣，即是有為法，以及虛空、非擇滅。『無上』，指的是再沒有更殊勝的法，此法最為殊勝，即是涅槃（Nirvana）。

由此彼宗所說乃至亦不成因，這是例證來破斥第三個論證。由於以上所引用的教理，他們宗派所說的『識』因為有『境』的緣故，所以有『去』、『來』的說法，這個論證也是不能成立的。

又他們所說乃至應當廣泛顯示，這是破斥第四個論證。這裡並非是不認可，不是經部師（Sautrantika）這樣說，即過去的業能夠產生未來的果報。而是說過去的業首先能夠熏習，在現在的身心中所引發的業的種子，相續、轉變、差別，從而使未來的果報產生。相續等三種，在破『我』品中將會廣泛地顯示。又《正理經》第五十一卷引用經部宗的觀點說，業作為先導所引發的相續、轉變、差別能夠產生未來的果報。業相續，指的是業作為先導，後後的剎那心相續生起。即此相續後后的剎那，各不相同地生起，名為轉變。在最後的時候有殊勝的功能，無間斷地產生果報，不同於其他的轉變，所以叫做差別。

如果執著實有乃至能夠產生功能，這是再次列舉並破斥他們的觀點。如果執著實有過去、未來，那麼果報就應該是常有的，業對於這些果報有什麼功能呢？如果說業能夠產生果報，果報的體性是新生的，那麼所產生的果報，本來沒有現在有了，這個道理自然成立。如果一切法在三世中一切時都有，那麼誰是因，誰是果？誰有能生的功能呢？

又應當明顯地成就乃至有必定不滅，這是顯示與外道的過失相同。因為下雨的時候產生，所以用『雨』來命名，是『雨』的徒眾，所以叫做『雨眾』，也就是數論師（Samkhya）。你們執著所立的有無是決定的，又應當明顯地成就『雨眾』外道所贊同的邪論。他們說二十五諦（Tattvas）『有』必定是常有，不是『諦』所包含的『無』必定是常無，『無』必定不生，因為沒有體性，『有』必定不滅。

【English Translation】 English version: Citing scriptures as evidence. Since the scriptures state the words of knowing 'non-existence,' it is clear that thoughts also arise from 'non-existence.' 'Existence' refers to 'existing dharmas' (existing phenomena). 'Non-existence' refers to 'non-existing dharmas' (non-existing phenomena). 'Superior existence' refers to even more superior dharmas; this dharma is relatively inferior, namely conditioned dharmas, as well as space and non-selective cessation. 'Supreme existence' refers to no more superior dharmas; this dharma is the most supreme, namely Nirvana.

Therefore, their statement that 'even this does not become a cause' is an example of refuting the third argument. Based on the teachings cited above, their school's claim that 'consciousness' has 'going' and 'coming' because it has an 'object' is also an untenable argument.

Furthermore, their statement that 'should be widely shown' is a refutation of the fourth argument. This is not a disagreement; it is not that the Sautrantikas (Sautrantika) say that past karma can produce future results. Rather, past karma first influences and cultivates the seeds of karma induced in the present body, which continue, transform, and differentiate, causing future results to arise. The three aspects of continuity, transformation, and differentiation will be widely explained in the chapter on refuting 'self.' Furthermore, the 51st volume of the Nyayasutra quotes the Sautrantika view, saying that the continuity, transformation, and differentiation induced by karma as a precursor can produce future results. Karma continuity refers to karma as a precursor, with subsequent moments of mind arising in continuity. These subsequent moments of continuity arise differently, which is called transformation. At the final moment, there is a superior function that produces results without interruption, which is different from other transformations, so it is called differentiation.

If one clings to the real existence, even to the point of being able to produce function, this is a repeated enumeration and refutation of their views. If one clings to the real existence of the past and future, then the results should be permanent. What function does karma have on these results? If it is said that karma can produce results, and the nature of the results is newly born, then the results that are produced, originally did not exist but now do, this principle is naturally established. If all dharmas exist at all times in the three times, then who is the cause and who is the result? Who has the function of being able to produce?

Furthermore, it should be clearly established that 'existence must not perish,' which shows the same fault as the heretics. Because it is produced when it rains, it is named 'rain,' and it is the followers of 'rain,' so it is called 'rain assembly,' which is the Samkhya (Samkhya). You cling to the established existence and non-existence as definite, and it should be clearly established that the heretical theories advocated by the 'rain assembly' heretics. They say that the twenty-five Tattvas (Tattvas), if 'existent,' must be eternally existent; if 'non-existent,' which is not included in the 'Tattvas,' must be eternally non-existent; 'non-existence' must not arise because it has no substance; 'existence' must not perish.

以有體故。

若謂能令至其理自成者。復縱救牒破。若謂往業能令當果成現在者。果體本有。如何令果成現在耶。若謂往業引彼當果。從余方所引至余方。則所引果從此至彼其體應常。色有形段。可從此處引至余方。又無色法既無形段。當如何引。又所引果應體本無今時創得。若謂往業但令當果體有差別不同先時。本無今有其理自成。

是故此說至所說而說者。論主結非。贊述經部。

經如何說者。說一切有部問。

如契經言至而說有言者。經部答。如契經言。梵志當知。一切有者唯十二處。或唯三世。如其所有而說有言　經部意說。若假。若實。若曾。若當。如其所有而說有言。非皆實有。猶如現在。過去曾有。未來當有。現是實有。現十二處八處實有。四處少分實有．少分實無。如色處中顯色實有。形色實無。聲處中無記剎那聲實有。相續語業善．惡等聲實無。觸處中四大實有。余觸實無。法處中定境界色．受．想．思實有。余心所法思上假立實無。及不相應法。三無為法亦是實無。故正理論引經部云。又汝等說現十二處少分實有少分實無。如上坐宗色．聲．觸．法。

若去來無至及離系耶者。說一切有部難。過．未實有。可得說有能系。所繫。及與離系。若去．來無。如何可說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為果的自體存在。

如果你們認為（業）能夠使果實現，從而使道理自然成立，那麼就再次允許用救牒來駁斥。如果你們認為過去的業能夠使未來的果成為現在的果，那麼果的自體本來就存在，如何能使果成為現在呢？如果你們認為過去的業引導那些未來的果，從一個地方引導到另一個地方，那麼被引導的果從這裡到那裡，它的自體應該是不變的。色法有形狀和段落，可以從一個地方引導到另一個地方。然而，無色法既然沒有形狀和段落，又該如何引導呢？而且，被引導的果應該自體本來沒有，現在才產生。如果你們認為過去的業只是使未來的果的自體有差別，不同於先前，本來沒有現在有，這個道理自然成立。

因此，這種『就所說而說』的說法，論主總結了對說一切有部的否定，並讚揚了經部。

經部是如何說的呢？說一切有部問道。

『如契經所說……而說有』，經部回答。如契經所說：『梵志（Brahmacarin，指修行者）應當知道，一切「有」只是十二處（dvadasayatana，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根及其對應的六境），或者只是三世（tryadhva，指過去、現在、未來）。』就像它們所是的那樣而說「有」。經部的意思是說，無論是假設的，還是真實的；無論是過去的，還是未來的，就像它們所是的那樣而說「有」，並非都是真實存在的，就像現在一樣。過去曾經存在，未來將要存在，現在是真實存在的。現在的十二處中，八處是真實存在的，四處少部分是真實存在的，少部分是不存在的。例如，在色處（rupayatana，指視覺對像）中，顯色（varnarupa，指顏色）是真實存在的，形色（samsthanarupa，指形狀）是不存在的。在聲處（sabdayatana，指聽覺對像）中，無記的剎那聲是真實存在的，相續的語業（vacikarman，指語言行為）的善、惡等聲音是不存在的。在觸處（sprstavyayatana，指觸覺對像）中，四大（mahbhuta，指地、水、火、風）是真實存在的，其餘的觸是不存在的。在法處（dharmayatana，指意識對像）中，定境界的色、受、想、思是真實存在的，其餘的心所法（caittasika dharma，指心理現象）在思之上是假立的，實際上是不存在的，以及不相應法（viprayukta-samskara，指既非色法也非心法的存在），三種無為法（asamskrta dharma，指無生、無滅、無住異的涅槃）也是不存在的。』因此，《正理論》引用經部的話說：『而且你們說，現在的十二處少部分是真實存在的，少部分是不存在的。』就像上座部的宗義所說的色、聲、觸、法。

『如果過去和未來沒有……以及離系呢？』說一切有部反駁道。過去和未來是真實存在的，可以說有能系（bandhaka，指束縛者）、所繫（baddhavat，指被束縛者）以及離系（vimoksa，指解脫）。如果過去和未來不存在，又如何能說呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Because the substance of the result exists.

If you claim that (karma) can cause the result to manifest, thereby making the principle self-established, then allow the use of 'rebuttal by rejoinder' again to refute it. If you claim that past karma can cause the future result to become the present result, then the substance of the result inherently exists. How can it be made to become present? If you claim that past karma guides those future results, leading them from one place to another, then the guided result, from here to there, should have a constant substance. Material form has shape and segments and can be guided from one place to another. However, since immaterial phenomena have no shape or segments, how can they be guided? Moreover, the guided result should be something whose substance originally did not exist but is now newly obtained. If you claim that past karma merely causes the substance of the future result to have differences, unlike the previous time, originally non-existent but now existent, then this principle is self-established.

Therefore, this statement of 'speaking according to what is said,' the author concludes the negation of the Sarvastivadins and praises the Sautrantikas.

How does the Sautrantika speak? The Sarvastivadins ask.

'As the sutras say... and speak of existence,' the Sautrantikas reply. As the sutras say: 'Brahmacarin (ascetic), know that all 'existence' is only the twelve ayatanas (sense bases), or only the three times (past, present, future).' Just as they are, one speaks of 'existence.' The Sautrantika means to say that whether it is hypothetical or real, whether it is past or future, one speaks of 'existence' as they are, not all of which are truly existent, just like the present. The past once existed, the future will exist, and the present is truly existent. Among the present twelve ayatanas, eight are truly existent, and four are partially truly existent and partially non-existent. For example, in the rupa-ayatana (sense base of form), visible color is truly existent, while shape is non-existent. In the sabda-ayatana (sense base of sound), the indeterminate momentary sound is truly existent, while the continuous verbal karma (speech acts) of good, evil, etc., are non-existent. In the sprshtavya-ayatana (sense base of touch), the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) are truly existent, while the remaining touches are non-existent. In the dharma-ayatana (sense base of mental objects), the color, feeling, perception, and volition of meditative states are truly existent, while the remaining mental factors (caitasika dharmas) are hypothetically established upon volition and are actually non-existent, as well as non-associated formations (viprayukta-samskaras), and the three unconditioned dharmas (asamskrta dharmas, nirvana) are also non-existent.' Therefore, the Nyayanusara quotes the Sautrantikas, saying: 'Moreover, you say that the present twelve ayatanas are partially truly existent and partially non-existent,' like the doctrines of the Sthaviras (elders) regarding form, sound, touch, and dharma.

'If the past and future do not exist... as well as liberation?' The Sarvastivadins object. The past and future are truly existent, and one can speak of the binder (bandhaka), the bound (baddhavat), and liberation (vimoksa). If the past and future do not exist, how can one speak of them?

有能系。所繫。及離系耶。

彼所生因至得離系名者。經部答。正理釋云。此釋意言。過去煩惱所生隨眠現在有故。說有過去能系煩惱。未來煩惱所因隨眠現在有故。說有未來能系煩惱。緣過．未事煩惱隨眠現在有故。說有去．來所繫縛事(已上論文)若現隨眠種子斷時。彼過．未事得離系名。若斷現果隨眠。即斷過因煩惱。若斷現因隨眠。即斷未果煩惱。應知過．未說能所繫及與離系。並據曾．當。

毗婆沙師至多剎那故者。釋第四句此法性甚深。毗婆沙師作如是說。過去．未來如現實有。論主廣申經部難。我所有于中不能通釋。彼過難者諸自愛者應如是知。法性甚深非是尋求思量境界。豈以我部不能通釋。汝經部師便撥為無　有異門下又更別出法性甚深不應非撥。然諸法理種種不同有異門故。此法生即此法滅。謂色等五蘊各別自生。即色等五蘊各別自滅。有異門故。異法生．異法滅。謂未來世余色等生現在世余受等滅。故婆沙七十六云。問為此法生即此法滅。為余法生余法滅耶。設爾何失。二俱有過。所以者何。若此法生即此法滅者。應未來生即未來滅。若余法生余法滅者。應色等生余受等滅。答應作是說。有因緣故說此法生即此法滅。謂色蘊生即色蘊滅。乃至識蘊生即識蘊滅。有因緣故說余法生余

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有能系（能夠束縛的），所繫（被束縛的），以及離系（脫離束縛的）嗎？

經部回答說，從彼所生之因到獲得離系之名。正理釋中說：『此釋意言，過去的煩惱所生的隨眠現在存在，所以說有過去能繫縛的煩惱；未來煩惱所因的隨眠現在存在，所以說有未來能繫縛的煩惱；緣於過去、未來之事的煩惱隨眠現在存在，所以說有過去、未來所繫縛的事。』（以上是論文原文）如果現在的隨眠種子斷滅時，那些過去、未來的事就得到離系之名。如果斷滅現在的果報隨眠，就斷滅了過去的原因煩惱；如果斷滅現在的因緣隨眠，就斷滅了未來的果報煩惱。應當知道，說過去、未來能繫縛、所繫縛以及離系，都是根據曾經、將來的情況。

毗婆沙師解釋第四句『此法性甚深』時說，過去、未來如同現實存在一樣。論主廣泛地闡述經部的詰難，我所有于中不能通釋。那些珍愛自己的人應該知道，法性甚深，不是尋求思量所能達到的境界。難道因為我部不能通釋，你們經部師就否定它為不存在嗎？『有異門下』又進一步說明法性甚深，不應該輕易否定。然而諸法的道理種種不同，因為有不同的門徑。『此法生即此法滅』，是指色等五蘊各自產生，即色等五蘊各自滅亡，因為有不同的門徑。『異法生、異法滅』，是指未來世其他的色等產生，現在世其他的受等滅亡。所以《婆沙》第七十六卷說：『問：是此法生即此法滅，還是其他法生其他法滅呢？如果這樣問，會有什麼過失？兩種說法都有過失。為什麼呢？如果此法生即此法滅，那麼應該未來生即未來滅；如果其他法生其他法滅，那麼應該色等產生，其他的受等滅亡。』答：應該這樣說，因為有因緣，所以說此法生即此法滅，是指色蘊產生即色蘊滅，乃至識蘊產生即識蘊滅。因為有因緣，所以說其他法生其他

【English Translation】 English version: Are there 'capable of binding' (that which is able to bind), 'bound' (that which is bound), and 'liberated from binding' (that which is liberated from binding)?

The Sautrāntikas (Jingbu) answer that from the cause of that which is produced to obtaining the name of 'liberated from binding'. The Zhengli Shi (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says: 'This explanation means that because the latent tendencies (anusaya) produced by past afflictions (klesha) exist now, it is said that there are past afflictions capable of binding. Because the latent tendencies that are the cause of future afflictions exist now, it is said that there are future afflictions capable of binding. Because the latent tendencies of afflictions related to past and future events exist now, it is said that there are past and future events that are bound.' (The above is the original text of the treatise.) If the seeds of present latent tendencies are cut off, then those past and future events obtain the name of 'liberated from binding'. If the latent tendencies of present retribution are cut off, then the afflictions that are the cause of the past are cut off. If the latent tendencies of present causes are cut off, then the afflictions that are the retribution of the future are cut off. It should be known that the terms 'capable of binding', 'bound', and 'liberated from binding' in relation to the past and future are all based on what was and what will be.

The Vaibhāṣikas, in explaining the fourth sentence, 'This nature of dharma is very profound,' say that the past and future are as real as the present. The author of the treatise extensively elaborates on the Sautrāntikas' difficulties, and I cannot provide a comprehensive explanation within this. Those who cherish themselves should know that the nature of dharma is very profound and is not a realm that can be reached by seeking and thinking. Just because my school cannot provide a comprehensive explanation, should your Sautrāntika teachers then deny its existence? 'Under the heading of different aspects,' it is further explained that the nature of dharma is very profound and should not be easily denied. However, the principles of all dharmas are different because there are different paths. 'This dharma arises and this dharma ceases' refers to the fact that the five aggregates (skandha) such as form (rupa) arise separately and the five aggregates such as form cease separately because there are different paths. 'Different dharmas arise and different dharmas cease' refers to the fact that other forms, etc., of the future world arise, and other feelings, etc., of the present world cease. Therefore, the seventy-sixth volume of the Vibhāṣa says: 'Question: Is it that this dharma arises and this dharma ceases, or that other dharmas arise and other dharmas cease? If this is asked, what fault would there be? Both statements have faults. Why? If this dharma arises and this dharma ceases, then future arising should be future ceasing. If other dharmas arise and other dharmas cease, then form, etc., should arise, and other feelings, etc., should cease.' Answer: It should be said that because there are causes and conditions, it is said that this dharma arises and this dharma ceases, which means that the aggregate of form arises and the aggregate of form ceases, and so on until the aggregate of consciousness arises and the aggregate of consciousness ceases. Because there are causes and conditions, it is said that other dharmas arise and other

法滅。謂未來世生現在世滅(已上論文)有異門故於未來世中即世名生。以正生時未來世所攝故。有異門故說世有生。未來世有多剎那故。于中唯有一剎那生。余未生世法有生相時故。故婆沙云。問諸有為法未來生時。為世體生。為世中生。設爾何失。二俱有過。所以者何。若世體生者。一法生時應未來世一切法生。此既生已應無未來。此復已滅應無現在。便壞三世一切有義。若世中生者。云何說諸行非異世耶。答應作是說。有因緣故說世體生。以一剎那行生時。即是未來世生故。有因緣故說世中生。未來世行有多剎那。于中唯一剎那生故。

傍論已了至彼已斷耶者。此下第二約斷明離系。此即問也。

若事離系至而非離系者。答。若事離系彼必已斷。有事已斷而非離系　已斷。據已斷彼　離系。據離繫縛。

斷非離系其事云何者。問。離系必斷。此事可知。斷非離系。其事云何。

頌曰至余緣此猶系者。頌答。上兩句約見位明。第三句約修位辨。下一句通前兩位。

論曰至如是應知者。且見道位苦智已生集智未生時。見苦所斷隨眠等事體不成故名為已斷　見集所斷。簡餘部所斷　遍行隨眠簡非遍惑　若未永斷。簡已斷者。有先凡位以世俗道斷下八地。集智雖未生彼地名已斷。為簡此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：法滅。指的是未來世生起，現在世滅去（以上是論文的內容）。因為有不同的方面，所以在未來世中，這個『世』就被稱為『生』。因為在真正生起的時候，它屬於未來世所包含的。因為有不同的方面，所以說『世』有生起。未來世有很多剎那，其中只有一個剎那生起。其餘未生起的世，當法有生起之相的時候才會生起。所以《婆沙論》中說：『問：諸有為法在未來生起的時候，是世的本體生起，還是在世中生起？如果這樣問，會有什麼過失？』兩種說法都有過失。為什麼呢？如果說是世的本體生起，那麼一個法生起的時候，應該未來世的一切法都生起。這樣，既然已經生起，就應該沒有未來。這個未來又已經滅去，就應該沒有現在。這樣就破壞了三世一切存在的意義。如果說是在世中生起，那麼怎麼說諸行不是異世呢？』回答應該是這樣說：『因為有因緣，所以說世的本體生起。因為一個剎那的行生起的時候，就是未來世的生起。因為有因緣，所以說在世中生起。未來世的行有很多剎那，其中只有一個剎那生起。』

『傍論已經結束，到『彼已斷耶』這裡。』這是下面第二部分，根據斷來闡明離系（vimoksha 解脫）。這實際上是一個問題。

『如果某件事是離系，到『而非離系者』這裡。』回答：『如果某件事是離系，那麼它必定已經斷除。有些事已經斷除，但並非離系。』『已斷』，指的是已經斷除彼（指煩惱）。『離系』，指的是已經解脫束縛。

『斷非離系，這件事是什麼？』問：離系必定是斷除，這件事可以理解。斷除但並非離系，這件事是什麼？

『頌曰至余緣此猶系者。』頌文回答。上面兩句是就見道位（darshana-marga 見道）來闡明。第三句是就修道位（bhavana-marga 修道）來辨析。下一句是貫通前面兩個階段。

『論曰至如是應知者。』且說見道位，苦智（duhkha-jnana 苦智）已經生起，集智（samudaya-jnana 集智）尚未生起的時候，見苦所斷的隨眠（anusaya 隨眠）等事，因為體性尚未完全成就，所以名為『已斷』。『見集所斷』，是爲了簡別其餘部派所斷的。『遍行隨眠』，是爲了簡別非遍行的迷惑。『若未永斷』，是爲了簡別已經永斷的。有些人在之前的凡夫位，用世俗道斷除了下八地的煩惱。即使集智尚未生起，那個地也名為『已斷』。這是爲了簡別這種情況。

【English Translation】 English version: The cessation of Dharma. This refers to the arising of the future world and the cessation of the present world (the above is the content of the treatise). Because there are different aspects, in the future world, this 'world' is called 'arising'. Because at the time of true arising, it is included in the future world. Because there are different aspects, it is said that 'world' has arising. The future world has many kshanas (moments), of which only one kshana arises. The remaining unarisen worlds will arise when the Dharma has the appearance of arising. Therefore, the Vibhasha says: 'Question: When conditioned dharmas arise in the future, does the substance of the world arise, or does it arise in the world? If asked in this way, what fault would there be?' Both statements have faults. Why? If it is said that the substance of the world arises, then when one dharma arises, all dharmas of the future world should arise. In this way, since it has already arisen, there should be no future. This future has already ceased, so there should be no present. This would destroy the meaning of the existence of all three times. If it is said that it arises in the world, then how can it be said that the skandhas (aggregates) are not different worlds?' The answer should be: 'Because there is a cause and condition, it is said that the substance of the world arises. Because when a kshana of action arises, it is the arising of the future world. Because there is a cause and condition, it is said that it arises in the world. The actions of the future world have many kshanas, of which only one kshana arises.'

'The digression is over, up to 'Has it been severed?' This is the second part below, clarifying vimoksha (liberation) based on severance. This is actually a question.

'If something is vimoksha, up to 'but not vimoksha.' Answer: 'If something is vimoksha, then it must have been severed. Some things have been severed, but are not vimoksha.' 'Severed' refers to having severed that (referring to afflictions). 'Vimoksha' refers to having been liberated from bondage.

'Severed but not vimoksha, what is this?' Question: Vimoksha must be severance, this can be understood. Severance but not vimoksha, what is this?

'The verse says up to 'other conditions still bind this.' The verse answers. The first two lines clarify from the perspective of the darshana-marga (path of seeing). The third line distinguishes from the perspective of the bhavana-marga (path of cultivation). The next line connects the previous two stages.

'The treatise says up to 'should be known as such.' Let's say that in the darshana-marga, duhkha-jnana (knowledge of suffering) has already arisen, and samudaya-jnana (knowledge of the origin) has not yet arisen. The anusaya (latent tendencies) etc. that are severed by seeing suffering are called 'severed' because their nature has not yet been fully accomplished. 'Severed by seeing the origin' is to distinguish what is severed by other schools. 'Pervasive anusaya' is to distinguish non-pervasive delusions. 'If not permanently severed' is to distinguish what has been permanently severed. Some people, in their previous ordinary state, used mundane paths to sever the afflictions of the lower eight dhyanas (meditative absorptions). Even if samudaya-jnana has not yet arisen, that dhyana is called 'severed'. This is to distinguish this situation.

等說未斷言　能緣此者。簡緣餘部及緣余界。于苦所斷猶繫縛故。及修道位隨何九品對治道生。九品事中隨其所應前品已斷　或斷一品乃至八品　余未斷品　或后八品未斷乃至一品未斷　所有隨眠能緣前品者。於前品猶繫縛　緣此之言。簡緣余品及色等善等故。總結言斷非離系如是應知。

何事有幾隨眠隨增者。此下大文第七明惑隨增。就中。一正明惑隨增。二明心有隨眠　此下正明惑隨增。此即問也。

若隨事別答至后三凈識境者。答。法有十六。能緣亦爾。於此審知。能緣所緣隨增可了。

論曰至皆容緣故者。釋初頌。若欲界系苦。集。修斷。十六識內各五識緣。謂自界三即如前說。及色界一即修所斷。無漏第五皆容緣故　於此五中有不緣者故說容緣　且如欲界見苦所斷。容為欲界見苦所斷識緣。然彼見苦所斷識。有緣餘部及他界者即不能緣。然有能緣者故說容緣。就見苦所斷中。亦非一切皆能遍緣。如此貪緣此法不緣彼法等。下皆準此。若別分別。欲三斷法各五識緣者。婆沙八十七云。欲界見苦所斷法五識所緣。一欲界見苦所斷一切隨眠相應識。二欲界見集所斷遍行隨眠相應識。三欲界修所斷善．及無覆無記識。四色修所斷善．及無覆無記識。五法智品無漏識　解云欲界修所斷善．及無覆無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『等說未斷言，能緣此者。』簡擇排除緣于其他部類以及緣于其他界。因為對於苦諦所斷的煩惱仍然是繫縛。以及在修道位中，無論生起哪一品對治道，在九品煩惱的事項中，根據情況，前品已經斷除，或者斷除一品乃至八品，其餘未斷的品，或者后八品未斷乃至一品未斷，所有能夠緣於前品的隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱），對於前品仍然是繫縛。『緣此』的說法，簡擇排除緣于其他品以及色等善法等。總結來說，斷除並非脫離繫縛，應當這樣理解。

『何事有幾隨眠隨增者？』下面這段大的經文是第七部分，闡明煩惱的隨增。其中，一是正式闡明煩惱的隨增，二是闡明心有隨眠。下面正式闡明煩惱的隨增。這也就是提問。

『若隨事別答至后三凈識境者。』回答：法有十六種，能緣的也是如此。於此仔細審察，能緣和所緣的隨增就可以明白了。

『論曰至皆容緣故者。』解釋第一首偈頌。如果欲界系（kāmadhātu）的苦諦（duhkha）、集諦（samudaya）、修道所斷的煩惱，十六識中各有五識能夠緣。所謂自界的三種，就像前面所說的那樣。以及色界（rupa-dhatu）一類，也就是修道所斷的煩惱。無漏（anasrava）的第五種都能夠緣。在這五種中有不能緣的，所以說『容緣』。比如欲界見苦所斷的煩惱，容許被欲界見苦所斷的識所緣。然而，那些見苦所斷的識，有緣于其他部類以及其他界的，就不能緣。然而有能夠緣的，所以說『容緣』。在見苦所斷的煩惱中，也不是一切都能普遍地緣。比如這個貪緣于這個法，不緣于那個法等等。下面都依此準則。如果分別來說，欲界三種所斷的法，各有五識所緣。婆沙（Vibhasa）第八十七卷說，欲界見苦所斷的法，被五識所緣：一是欲界見苦所斷的一切隨眠相應識；二是欲界見集所斷的遍行隨眠相應識；三是欲界修所斷的善以及無覆無記識；四是色界修所斷的善以及無覆無記識；五是法智品（dharmajñāna）的無漏識。解釋說，欲界修所斷的善以及無覆無

【English Translation】 English version: 'The statement 'not yet severed' refers to what can be cognized. This excludes what is cognized by other categories and other realms, because what is severed by the truth of suffering is still a binding. And in the stage of cultivation, whichever of the nine grades of antidotal paths arises, among the nine grades of afflictions, according to the circumstances, the preceding grade has already been severed, or one to eight grades have been severed, the remaining unsevered grades, or the latter eight grades are unsevered down to one grade unsevered, all the anusayas (latent tendencies) that can cognize the preceding grade are still a binding to the preceding grade. The statement 'cognizing this' excludes cognizing other grades and wholesome dharmas such as form. In conclusion, severance is not liberation from bondage; this should be understood thus.

'What things have how many anusayas that increase along with them?' The following major section is the seventh, explaining the increase of afflictions. Among them, first, it explicitly explains the increase of afflictions; second, it explains that the mind has anusayas. The following explicitly explains the increase of afflictions. This is the question.

'If the answer distinguishes according to things, up to the realm of the last three pure consciousnesses...' The answer is: there are sixteen dharmas, and what can be cognized is also like this. By carefully examining this, the increase of what can be cognized and what is cognized can be understood.

'The treatise says, 'because all can be cognized'...' This explains the first verse. If the afflictions of the desire realm (kāmadhātu) severed by the truths of suffering (duhkha), origin (samudaya), and cultivation, each of the sixteen consciousnesses can cognize with five consciousnesses. The three of one's own realm are as previously stated. And the one of the form realm (rupa-dhatu) is what is severed by cultivation. The fifth, the unconditioned (anasrava), can all be cognized. Among these five, there are those that cannot be cognized, so it is said 'can be cognized.' For example, the afflictions severed by seeing the truth of suffering in the desire realm can be cognized by the consciousnesses severed by seeing the truth of suffering in the desire realm. However, those consciousnesses severed by seeing the truth of suffering that cognize other categories and other realms cannot cognize. However, there are those that can cognize, so it is said 'can be cognized.' Among the afflictions severed by seeing the truth of suffering, not all can universally cognize. For example, this greed cognizes this dharma but does not cognize that dharma, and so on. The following should be understood according to this principle. If we distinguish separately, the three dharmas severed in the desire realm are each cognized by five consciousnesses. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) volume eighty-seven says that the dharmas severed by seeing the truth of suffering in the desire realm are cognized by five consciousnesses: first, the consciousnesses associated with all anusayas severed by seeing the truth of suffering in the desire realm; second, the consciousnesses associated with pervasive anusayas severed by seeing the truth of origin in the desire realm; third, the wholesome and neutral consciousnesses severed by cultivation in the desire realm; fourth, the wholesome and neutral consciousnesses severed by cultivation in the form realm; fifth, the unconditioned consciousnesses of the dharma-knowledge category (dharmajñāna). The explanation says that the wholesome and neutral consciousnesses severed by cultivation in the desire realm and the neutral

記識者。善謂生得．加行。無記謂異熟生．威儀路．工巧處。非通果心。唯緣色故　色修所斷善．及無覆無記識者。善謂生得．加行。無記謂異熟生．威儀路。非通果心。雖天眼．耳識亦能緣下。但緣修斷色．聲為境。非緣見苦所斷。法智品言通攝法忍．及俱心等　問以何文證無覆無記能緣異部及下見苦所斷法耶　解云婆沙八十七云。問異熟生無記識能緣何法。答欲界不善果者。唯緣欲界修所斷法。善果者。唯緣欲界五部法。色界者。緣自．下地一切有漏法。有說唯緣自地五部法。無色界者。唯緣自地五部法。問威儀路識能緣何法。答欲界者唯緣欲界五部法。色界者唯緣欲．色界五部法。問工巧處識能緣何法。答唯緣欲界五部法。問通果無記識能緣何法。答欲界者唯緣欲界修所斷法。色界者唯緣欲．色界修所斷法(已上論文)　問若無覆識亦能緣下見苦所斷。何故正理五十三解欲見苦斷五識緣中。但云色修所斷善識非余。準彼論文。不言無記緣下見苦所斷。婆沙言緣。豈不相違　解云婆沙論文極理分明。正理不說有違宗過　又解婆沙言緣據身在上能緣下地。正理不說據身在下不能起上無覆無記緣下見苦所斷。各據一義故不相違。欲見集斷．及修所斷各五識緣。準釋應知。又空法師云色界威儀心雖能緣下。以緣色．聲不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『記識者』（perceivers）。『善』（kusala，指善的）指『生得』（spontaneous，自然而生的）和『加行』（effort-induced，通過努力產生的）。『無記』（avyākrta，非善非惡的）指『異熟生』（vipāka-ja，異熟果報所生）、『威儀路』（iryāpatha，行為舉止）和『工巧處』（śilpasthāna，工藝技巧）。這些都不是『通果心』（sarvatraga-citta，普遍生果之心）。因為它們只緣于『色』（rūpa，物質）。『色』（rūpa，物質）是『修所斷善』（bhāvanā-prahātavya-kuśala，通過修行斷除的善）以及『無覆無記識』（anivṛtāvyākrta-vijñāna，無覆無記的識）的對象。『善』（kusala，指善的）指『生得』（spontaneous，自然而生的）和『加行』（effort-induced，通過努力產生的）。『無記』（avyākrta，非善非惡的）指『異熟生』（vipāka-ja，異熟果報所生）和『威儀路』（iryāpatha，行為舉止）。這些都不是『通果心』（sarvatraga-citta，普遍生果之心）。雖然『天眼』（divyacakṣus，天眼通）和『耳識』（śrotra-vijñāna，耳識）也能緣于地獄，但它們緣于『修斷色』（bhāvanā-prahātavya-rūpa，通過修行斷除的色）和『聲』（śabda，聲音）作為境界，而不是緣于『見苦所斷』（darśana-prahātavya-duḥkha，通過見苦諦斷除的）。『法智品』（dharma-jñāna-prakaraṇa，法智品）說，它普遍包含『法忍』（dharma-kṣānti，對法的忍可）以及與之相應的心等。問：以什麼經文證明『無覆無記』（anivṛtāvyākrta，無覆無記）能夠緣于其他部派以及地獄的『見苦所斷法』（darśana-prahātavya-duḥkha-dharma，通過見苦諦斷除的法）呢？答：根據《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第八十七卷的說法：問：『異熟生無記識』（vipāka-ja-avyākrta-vijñāna，異熟果報所生的無記識）能夠緣于什麼法？答：欲界不善果者，只能緣于欲界修所斷法。善果者，只能緣于欲界五部法。者，緣于自地和下地的一切有漏法。有人說只能緣于自地五部法。無者，只能緣于自地五部法。問：『威儀路識』（iryāpatha-vijñāna，行為舉止的識）能夠緣于什麼法？答：欲界者只能緣于欲界五部法。者只能緣于欲界和五部法。問：『工巧處識』（śilpasthāna-vijñāna，工藝技巧的識）能夠緣于什麼法？答：只能緣于欲界五部法。問：『通果無記識』（sarvatraga-vipāka-ja-avyākrta-vijñāna，普遍生果的無記識）能夠緣于什麼法？答：欲界者只能緣于欲界修所斷法。者只能緣于欲界和修所斷法（以上是論文內容）。問：如果『無覆識』（anivṛta-vijñāna，無覆的識）也能緣于地獄的『見苦所斷』（darśana-prahātavya-duḥkha，通過見苦諦斷除的），為什麼《正理》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）第五十三卷解釋欲界見苦斷的五識緣時，只說『色修所斷善識』（rūpa-bhāvanā-prahātavya-kuśala-vijñāna，色是修所斷的善識），而不是其他的呢？按照那篇論文的說法，沒有說無記緣于地獄的見苦所斷。這與《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）所說的緣豈不是相矛盾？答：解釋說，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）的論文極有道理，非常分明。《正理》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）沒有說，因此沒有違背宗義的過失。又解釋說，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）所說的緣，是根據身在上界能夠緣于地獄的情況。《正理》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）沒有說，是根據身在地獄不能生起上界的無覆無記，緣于地獄的見苦所斷的情況。各自根據一種意義，所以不相矛盾。欲界見集斷以及修所斷的各種五識緣，按照解釋應該知道。另外，空法師說，**威儀心雖然能夠緣于地獄，但因為緣於色和聲，所以不……

【English Translation】 English version 'Perceivers' (記識者). 'Good' (善, kuśala) refers to 'spontaneously born' (生得) and 'effort-induced' (加行). 'Indeterminate' (無記, avyākrta) refers to 'resultant-born' (異熟生, vipāka-ja), 'behavioral paths' (威儀路, iryāpatha), and 'skillful arts' (工巧處, śilpasthāna). These are not 'universally fruiting minds' (通果心, sarvatraga-citta), because they only cognize 'form' (色, rūpa). 'Form' (色, rūpa) is the object of 'goodness abandoned by cultivation' (色修所斷善, bhāvanā-prahātavya-kuśala) and 'unobscured indeterminate consciousness' (無覆無記識, anivṛtāvyākrta-vijñāna). 'Good' (善, kuśala) refers to 'spontaneously born' (生得) and 'effort-induced' (加行). 'Indeterminate' (無記, avyākrta) refers to 'resultant-born' (異熟生, vipāka-ja) and 'behavioral paths' (威儀路). These are not 'universally fruiting minds' (通果心, sarvatraga-citta). Although 'divine eye' (天眼, divyacakṣus) and 'ear consciousness' (耳識, śrotra-vijñāna) can also cognize lower realms, they cognize 'form abandoned by cultivation' (修斷色, bhāvanā-prahātavya-rūpa) and 'sound' (聲, śabda) as objects, not what is 'abandoned by seeing suffering' (見苦所斷, darśana-prahātavya-duḥkha). The 'Chapter on Knowledge of Dharma' (法智品, dharma-jñāna-prakaraṇa) says that it universally includes 'acceptance of dharma' (法忍, dharma-kṣānti) and the corresponding mind, etc. Question: With what text is it proven that 'unobscured indeterminate' (無覆無記, anivṛtāvyākrta) can cognize other schools and the lower realm's 'dharma abandoned by seeing suffering' (見苦所斷法, darśana-prahātavya-duḥkha-dharma)? Answer: According to the eighty-seventh volume of the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra): Question: What dharma can 'resultant-born indeterminate consciousness' (異熟生無記識, vipāka-ja-avyākrta-vijñāna) cognize? Answer: Those with unwholesome results in the desire realm can only cognize dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. Those with wholesome results can only cognize the five categories of dharma in the desire realm. ** cognizes all defiled dharmas of its own and lower realms. Some say it only cognizes the five categories of dharma in its own realm. Those without ** only cognize the five categories of dharma in their own realm. Question: What dharma can 'behavioral path consciousness' (威儀路識, iryāpatha-vijñāna) cognize? Answer: Those in the desire realm can only cognize the five categories of dharma in the desire realm. ** can only cognize the five categories of dharma in the desire and ** realms. Question: What dharma can 'skillful arts consciousness' (工巧處識, śilpasthāna-vijñāna) cognize? Answer: It can only cognize the five categories of dharma in the desire realm. Question: What dharma can 'universally fruiting indeterminate consciousness' (通果無記識, sarvatraga-vipāka-ja-avyākrta-vijñāna) cognize? Answer: Those in the desire realm can only cognize dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. ** can only cognize dharma abandoned by cultivation in the desire and ** realms (the above is the content of the treatise). Question: If 'unobscured consciousness' (無覆識, anivṛta-vijñāna) can also cognize the lower realm's 'abandoned by seeing suffering' (見苦所斷, darśana-prahātavya-duḥkha), why does the fifty-third volume of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (正理, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) only say 'good consciousness abandoned by cultivation of form' (色修所斷善識, rūpa-bhāvanā-prahātavya-kuśala-vijñāna) when explaining the objects of the five consciousnesses abandoned by seeing suffering in the desire realm, and not others? According to that treatise, it does not say that the indeterminate cognizes the lower realm's abandoned by seeing suffering. Isn't this contradictory to what the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says about cognizing? Answer: The explanation is that the Vibhāṣā's (婆沙論, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) treatise is extremely logical and clear. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (正理, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) does not say, so there is no fault of contradicting the doctrine. Another explanation is that the Vibhāṣā's (婆沙論, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) saying about cognizing is based on the situation where being in the upper realm can cognize the lower realm. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (正理, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya) does not say, based on the situation where being in the lower realm cannot generate the unobscured indeterminate of the upper realm, cognizing the abandoned by seeing suffering of the lower realm. Each is based on one meaning, so they are not contradictory. The various objects of the five consciousnesses abandoned by seeing accumulation and abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm should be known according to the explanation. Furthermore, Dharma Master Kong said that although the ** behavioral mind can cognize the lower realm, because it cognizes form and sound, it does not...

能緣見苦所斷身．邊二見隱沒無記心。此解不然。違婆沙故。

若色界系至皆容緣故者。釋第五．第六句。婆沙八十七云。色界見苦所斷法八識所緣。一欲界見苦所斷他界緣遍行隨眠相應識。二欲界見集所斷他界緣遍行隨眠相應識。三欲界修所斷善識。四色界見苦所斷一切隨眠相應識。五色界見集所斷遍行隨眠相應識。六色界修所斷善．及無覆無記識。七無色界修所斷善識。八類智品無漏識　解云欲修所斷善識。謂生得．加行。色修所斷善識。謂生得．加行。色修所斷無覆無記識。謂異熟生．威儀路識。無色修所斷善識。謂加行善識　問何故欲界修斷無覆不緣上界。色界修斷無覆無記能緣地獄　解云無記力劣。下緣上難故不緣上界。上緣下易故能緣地獄　問若下緣上難。初定三識應不緣上　解云雖緣上地由同界故所以得緣。欲．色界別。下不緣上　問上緣下易。無色無覆應緣地獄　解云色無覆勝故能緣地獄。無色無覆劣故不能緣地獄　問若色無覆勝。應能緣上界　解云勝無色故能緣地獄。劣善染故非緣上界　又問如何得知無色修斷善識唯加行善　解云以空處近分加行善心。可能緣色五部所斷。餘生得等不能緣下。故婆沙八十七云。問生得善識能緣何法。答欲．色界者。能緣三界．及無漏一切法。無色界者能緣自

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果說能緣見苦所斷的法，那麼身見、邊見這兩種見解以及隱沒無記的心識就不能被緣取。這種解釋是不正確的，因為它違背了《婆沙論》的觀點。

如果說『系至』（指屬於某個界系，並且到達那個界系）的法都能夠被緣取，那麼接下來解釋第五句和第六句。《婆沙論》第八十七卷中說，見苦所斷的法，能夠被八識所緣取。具體來說：一，欲界見苦所斷，他界緣遍行隨眠相應的識；二，欲界見集所斷，他界緣遍行隨眠相應的識；三，欲界修所斷的善識；四，見苦所斷的一切隨眠相應的識；五，見集所斷的遍行隨眠相應的識；六，修所斷的善識以及無覆無記識；七，無修所斷的善識；八，類智品（指與類智相應的）無漏識。

解釋說，欲界修所斷的善識，指的是生得善和加行善。色界修所斷的善識，指的是生得善和加行善。色界修所斷的無覆無記識，指的是異熟生識和威儀路識。無色界修所斷的善識，指的是加行善識。

問：為什麼欲界修所斷的無覆無記識不能緣取上界（指色界和無色界）的法，而色界修所斷的無覆無記識卻能夠緣取地獄（指欲界）的法？

答：因為無記的力量弱小，地獄緣取上界是困難的，所以不能緣取上界。而上界緣取地獄是容易的，所以能夠緣取地獄。

問：如果地獄緣取上界是困難的，那麼初禪的三種識（眼識、耳識、身識）應該也不能緣取上界的法？

答：雖然緣取上地，但因為是同一個界系，所以能夠緣取。欲界和色界是不同的界系，所以地獄不能緣取上界。

問：如果上界緣取地獄是容易的，那麼無色界的無覆無記識應該也能緣取地獄的法？

答：因為色界的無覆無記識殊勝，所以能夠緣取地獄。而無色界的無覆無記識劣弱，所以不能緣取地獄。

問：如果色界的無覆無記識殊勝，那麼應該也能緣取上界的法？

答：因為勝過無色界，所以能夠緣取地獄。但因為不如善和染污法殊勝，所以不能緣取上界。

又問：如何得知無色界修所斷的善識僅僅是加行善？

答：因為空無邊處近分（指空無邊處定的前行階段）的加行善心，可能緣取色界的五部所斷法。其餘的生得善等不能緣取地獄。所以《婆沙論》第八十七卷中說：問：生得善識能夠緣取什麼法？答：欲界和色界的生得善識，能夠緣取三界以及無漏的一切法。無色界的生得善識，能夠緣取自身。

【English Translation】 English version If it is said that what can be cognized are the dharmas severed by seeing suffering, then the views of self and extremes, as well as obscured and indeterminate minds, cannot be cognized. This explanation is incorrect because it contradicts the views of the Vibhasa.

If it is said that 'belonging to and reaching' (referring to belonging to a certain realm and reaching that realm) dharmas can all be cognized, then the fifth and sixth sentences will be explained. The eighty-seventh volume of the Vibhasa states that the dharmas severed by seeing suffering can be cognized by the eight consciousnesses. Specifically: 1. The consciousness associated with pervasive latent tendencies, cognizing another realm, severed by seeing suffering in the desire realm; 2. The consciousness associated with pervasive latent tendencies, cognizing another realm, severed by seeing accumulation in the desire realm; 3. The wholesome consciousness severed by cultivation in the desire realm; 4. The consciousness associated with all latent tendencies severed by seeing suffering; 5. The consciousness associated with pervasive latent tendencies severed by seeing accumulation; 6. The wholesome consciousness and the neutral indeterminate consciousness severed by cultivation; 7. The wholesome consciousness severed by no cultivation; 8. The unconditioned consciousness of the kind of wisdom.

The explanation says that the wholesome consciousness severed by cultivation in the desire realm refers to the wholesome consciousness born from nature and acquired through effort. The wholesome consciousness severed by cultivation in the form realm refers to the wholesome consciousness born from nature and acquired through effort. The neutral indeterminate consciousness severed by cultivation in the form realm refers to the consciousness born from resultant effects and the consciousness of deportment. The wholesome consciousness severed by cultivation in the formless realm refers to the wholesome consciousness acquired through effort.

Question: Why can't the neutral indeterminate consciousness severed by cultivation in the desire realm cognize the dharmas of the upper realms (referring to the form and formless realms), while the neutral indeterminate consciousness severed by cultivation in the form realm can cognize the dharmas of the lower realm (referring to the desire realm)?

Answer: Because the power of the indeterminate is weak, it is difficult for the lower realm to cognize the upper realm, so it cannot cognize the upper realm. But it is easy for the upper realm to cognize the lower realm, so it can cognize the lower realm.

Question: If it is difficult for the lower realm to cognize the upper realm, then the three consciousnesses of the first dhyana (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, body consciousness) should also not be able to cognize the dharmas of the upper realm?

Answer: Although it cognizes the upper ground, it is able to cognize because it is the same realm. The desire realm and the form realm are different realms, so the lower realm cannot cognize the upper realm.

Question: If it is easy for the upper realm to cognize the lower realm, then the neutral indeterminate consciousness of the formless realm should also be able to cognize the dharmas of the lower realm?

Answer: Because the neutral indeterminate consciousness of the form realm is superior, it can cognize the lower realm. But the neutral indeterminate consciousness of the formless realm is inferior, so it cannot cognize the lower realm.

Question: If the neutral indeterminate consciousness of the form realm is superior, then it should also be able to cognize the dharmas of the upper realm?

Answer: Because it is superior to the formless realm, it can cognize the lower realm. But because it is not as superior as wholesome and defiled dharmas, it cannot cognize the upper realm.

Another question: How do we know that the wholesome consciousness severed by cultivation in the formless realm is only acquired wholesome consciousness?

Answer: Because the acquired wholesome mind of the near attainment of the sphere of infinite space (referring to the preliminary stage of the dhyana of the sphere of infinite space) may cognize the dharmas severed by the five categories of the form realm. The remaining wholesome consciousness born from nature, etc., cannot cognize the lower realm. Therefore, the eighty-seventh volume of the Vibhasa states: Question: What dharmas can the wholesome consciousness born from nature cognize? Answer: The wholesome consciousness born from nature of the desire realm and the form realm can cognize all dharmas of the three realms and the unconditioned. The wholesome consciousness born from nature of the formless realm can cognize itself.

．上地有漏．無漏一切法．及虛空。問加行善識能緣何法。答欲．色界者能緣三界．及無漏一切法。無色界者能緣自．上地有漏．無漏一切法。及虛空。並次下地有漏法　婆沙無色生得善識不言緣下有漏。加行善識即言緣下有漏。以此故知。唯無色界加行善識。能緣色界見苦所斷　問因論生論。婆沙言無色界生得善識。加行善識。俱云能緣自．上地有漏．無漏一切法。及與虛空。緣自．上地有漏法及緣虛空。此義可知。何者是無漏一切法　解云婆沙言無漏一切法者。少分一切隨其所應。謂自．上地有漏法上擇滅．非擇滅　及一切類智品道　並一切類智品上非擇滅　故婆沙八十四云。第四解脫緣四無色及彼因．彼滅一切類智品　若四無色．及類智品非擇滅　並虛空。若謂一物。若謂多物。一切皆緣(第五第六第七解脫準此可知)　準婆沙文。擇滅唯緣自．上地有漏法上擇滅。若非擇滅通緣自上下地．類智品上非擇滅。色界見集所斷。及修所斷。各八識緣。準釋應知。

若無色系至皆容緣故者。無色界系苦集修斷。各十識緣。準色界系如應當知。

見滅見道至增自識緣者釋第九．第十句。

此復云何者。問。

謂欲界系至十一識緣者。答。應知三界見滅．道斷。各增自部有漏緣識。欲界滅．道五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於上地（指色界和無色界）的有漏法、無漏法以及虛空的問題：加行善識（指通過修行努力獲得的善的意識）能夠緣（作為對像）什麼法？回答：有（指有煩惱的狀態）的加行善識能夠緣欲界、色界、無色界這三界，以及一切無漏法。無（指沒有煩惱的狀態）的加行善識能夠緣自身和上地的有漏法、無漏法，以及虛空，並且能夠緣下一地的有漏法。《婆沙論》（佛教論書）中說，無色界眾生生來就具有的善識不能緣下地的有漏法，而加行善識卻能緣下地的有漏法。由此可知，只有無的加行善識才能緣見苦所斷的煩惱。問：關於因論和生論，《婆沙論》中說，無的生得善識和加行善識都能緣自身和上地的有漏法、無漏法以及虛空。緣自身和上地的有漏法以及緣虛空，這些道理容易理解。那麼，什麼是無漏一切法呢？解釋說，《婆沙論》中說的無漏一切法，是指少部分的一切法，隨其所應。指的是自身和上地的有漏法之上的擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）、非擇滅（不通過智慧選擇自然達到的寂滅），以及一切類智品（指屬於一切類智的修行品）的道（指修行道路），以及一切類智品之上的非擇滅。所以，《婆沙論》第八十四卷中說，第四解脫（指四無色定中的解脫）能夠緣四無色定以及它們的因、它們的滅，以及一切類智品。如果四無色定以及類智品的非擇滅，以及虛空，被認為是一個事物，或者被認為是多個事物，都能被緣。（第五、第六、第七解脫可以參照這個來理解）根據《婆沙論》的文義，擇滅只能緣自身和上地的有漏法之上的擇滅。而非擇滅可以普遍地緣自身和上下地，以及類智品之上的非擇滅。見集所斷的煩惱，以及修所斷的煩惱，各有八個識能夠緣。參照這個解釋應該可以理解。如果說無色界的所有法都能夠被緣，那麼無的無色界苦集修斷的煩惱，各有十個識能夠緣。參照的無色界的情況，應該可以理解。『見滅見道至增自識緣者』，解釋的是第九句和第十句。『此復云何者』，是提問。『謂欲界系至十一識緣者』，是回答。應該知道，三界的見滅所斷和見道所斷的煩惱，各自增加了自己所屬的有漏法的緣識。欲界的滅道五蘊。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the question of contaminated (with outflows) and uncontaminated dharmas, and space, of the higher realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm): What dharmas can the progressive wholesome consciousness (referring to wholesome consciousness attained through effort in practice) take as its object? Answer: The progressive wholesome consciousness with ** (referring to the state of having afflictions) can take the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm) and all uncontaminated dharmas as its object. The progressive wholesome consciousness without ** (referring to the state of being without afflictions) can take its own realm and the higher realms' contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas, and space, as its object, and can also take the contaminated dharmas of the lower realm as its object. The Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) states that the wholesome consciousness born in the Formless Realm cannot take the contaminated dharmas of the lower realm as its object, while the progressive wholesome consciousness can take the contaminated dharmas of the lower realm as its object. From this, it can be known that only the progressive wholesome consciousness without ** can take the afflictions severed by ** through the view of suffering as its object. Question: Regarding the theory of cause and the theory of birth, the Vibhasa states that both the innate wholesome consciousness without ** and the progressive wholesome consciousness can take their own realm and the higher realms' contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas, and space, as their object. It is easy to understand taking one's own realm and the higher realms' contaminated dharmas and space as objects. So, what are all the uncontaminated dharmas? The explanation says that all the uncontaminated dharmas mentioned in the Vibhasa refer to a small portion of all dharmas, as appropriate. It refers to the cessation through discrimination (cessation attained through wise choice) and cessation without discrimination (cessation attained naturally without wise choice) above one's own realm and the higher realms' contaminated dharmas, as well as the path (referring to the path of practice) of all categories of knowledge, and the cessation without discrimination above all categories of knowledge. Therefore, the eighty-fourth volume of the Vibhasa states that the fourth liberation (referring to liberation in the Four Formless Dhyanas) can take the Four Formless Dhyanas and their causes, their cessation, and all categories of knowledge as its object. If the Four Formless Dhyanas and the cessation without discrimination of the categories of knowledge, and space, are considered as one thing, or considered as multiple things, all can be taken as objects. (The fifth, sixth, and seventh liberations can be understood in the same way.) According to the meaning of the Vibhasa, cessation through discrimination can only take the cessation through discrimination above one's own realm and the higher realms' contaminated dharmas as its object. Cessation without discrimination can universally take one's own realm and the higher and lower realms, and the cessation without discrimination above the categories of knowledge as its object. The afflictions severed by ** through the view of accumulation, and the afflictions severed through cultivation, each have eight consciousnesses that can take them as objects. This explanation should be understood. If it is said that all dharmas of the Formless Realm can be taken as objects, then the afflictions of suffering, accumulation, and cultivation severed in the Formless Realm without **, each have ten consciousnesses that can take them as objects. The situation of the Formless Realm with ** should be understood accordingly. 『Seeing cessation, seeing the path, to increasing the consciousness that takes itself as an object』 explains the ninth and tenth sentences. 『What is this again?』 is a question. 『That is, the Desire Realm system to eleven consciousnesses taking as objects』 is the answer. It should be known that the afflictions severed by the view of cessation and the view of the path in the Three Realms each increase the consciousness that takes the contaminated dharmas of their own realm as objects. The five aggregates of cessation and path in the Desire Realm.

增至六。色界滅．道八增至九。無色界滅．道十增至十一。思之可知。

若無漏法至皆容緣故者。釋后兩句。無漏法謂三無為及道諦十六識內為十識緣。謂三界中各后三部。即見滅．道．修所斷識。無漏第十。皆容緣故。若別分別。三界見滅所斷無漏緣識唯緣擇滅。即為三種。三界見道所斷無漏緣識唯緣道諦。復為三種。足前成六。三界修所斷善識。通緣三無為及與道諦。復為三種。足前成九。無漏識若法智品緣欲滅．道。若類智品緣上滅．道。復為一種。足前成十。應知修斷無覆無記不緣無漏。故婆沙第十云。應知修所斷心與無漏心展轉相緣者。唯善　彼論既不言無覆心與無漏心展轉相緣。明知無覆心不緣道諦　又婆沙第九說。欲界修所斷無覆無記邪行相智。但緣虛空．非擇滅名。又婆沙八十七云。問虛空．非擇滅何識所緣。答三界修所斷善識所緣　以此故知無覆無記不緣虛空．非擇滅　又婆沙八十七緣無漏法中。但言三界修斷善識不言無覆。明知無覆不緣無漏。又前所引毗婆沙文。說四無覆無記心。隨其所應。但緣五部所斷。不言緣無漏。以此故知。無覆無記心不緣無漏　又空法師云。欲界無覆心能緣無漏心　又云。威儀．工巧心所引意識能緣十二入故知亦緣無漏　此解不然。違婆沙故。言緣十二入者。但

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：增至六：滅（Nirvana, 涅槃）.道（Marga, 八正道）八增至九：無（無為法）.滅（Nirvana, 涅槃）.道（Marga, 八正道）十增至十一。思之可知。

若無漏法至皆容緣故者：解釋后兩句。無漏法指三種無為法以及道諦十六識內的十識所緣。指三界中各后三部，即見滅（見道所斷之煩惱的止息）.道（八正道）.修（修道所斷之煩惱）所斷識。無漏第十，皆容緣故。若分別來說，三界見滅（見道所斷之煩惱的止息）所斷無漏緣識只緣擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha, 智慧抉擇而得的滅），即為三種。三界見道（見道）所斷無漏緣識只緣道諦（Marga-satya, 導向解脫的真理），復為三種。加之前面的三種，共成六種。三界修（修道）所斷善識，通緣三種無為法以及道諦（Marga-satya, 導向解脫的真理），復為三種。加之前面的六種，共成九種。無漏識若法智品緣欲滅（對欲界之滅的智慧）.道（八正道），若類智品緣上滅（對上界之滅的智慧）.道（八正道），復為一種。加之前面的九種，共成十種。應當知道修斷無覆無記不緣無漏。所以《婆沙論》第十卷說：『應當知道修所斷心與無漏心輾轉相緣者，唯有善心。』該論既然沒有說無覆心與無漏心輾轉相緣，明顯可知無覆心不緣道諦（Marga-satya, 導向解脫的真理）。又《婆沙論》第九卷說：欲界修所斷無覆無記邪行相智，但緣虛空（Akasa, 無礙的空間）.非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha, 非由智慧抉擇而得的滅）。又《婆沙論》第八十七卷說：問：虛空（Akasa, 無礙的空間）.非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha, 非由智慧抉擇而得的滅）為何識所緣？答：三界修所斷善識所緣。因此可知無覆無記不緣虛空（Akasa, 無礙的空間）.非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha, 非由智慧抉擇而得的滅）。又《婆沙論》第八十七卷緣無漏法中，只說三界修斷善識，沒有說無覆，明顯可知無覆不緣無漏。又前面所引用的《毗婆沙論》文，說四種無覆無記心，隨其所應，但緣五部所斷，沒有說緣無漏。因此可知，無覆無記心不緣無漏。又空法師說：欲界無覆心能緣無漏心。又說：威儀.工巧心所引意識能緣十二入，可知也緣無漏。這種解釋不對，違背了《婆沙論》。說緣十二入，但

【English Translation】 English version: Adding up to six: Cessation (Nirvana). Path (Marga, the Eightfold Path) eight increases to nine: Non-conditioned (Asamskrta). Cessation (Nirvana). Path (Marga, the Eightfold Path) ten increases to eleven. This can be understood through reflection.

If 'unconditioned dharmas reach and encompass all conditions,' it explains the latter two sentences. Unconditioned dharmas refer to the three unconditioned states and the ten consciousnesses within the sixteen cognitions of the Path Truth, which are conditioned. It refers to the latter three categories in each of the three realms, namely the consciousnesses severed by seeing cessation (the cessation of afflictions severed by the path of seeing), path (the Eightfold Path), and cultivation (the afflictions severed by the path of cultivation). The tenth unconditioned, encompasses all conditions. If we analyze it separately, the unconditioned consciousnesses associated with cessation (the cessation of afflictions severed by the path of seeing) severed by seeing in the three realms only condition selective cessation (Pratisankhya-nirodha, cessation attained through wisdom's discernment), thus forming three types. The unconditioned consciousnesses associated with the path (the Eightfold Path) severed by seeing in the three realms only condition the Path Truth (Marga-satya, the truth leading to liberation), again forming three types. Adding to the previous three, there are six types in total. The wholesome consciousnesses severed by cultivation (the path of cultivation) in the three realms universally condition the three unconditioned states and the Path Truth (Marga-satya, the truth leading to liberation), again forming three types. Adding to the previous six, there are nine types in total. If an unconditioned consciousness of the Dharma-wisdom category conditions the cessation (wisdom regarding the cessation of the desire realm). path (the Eightfold Path) of the desire realm, or if a consciousness of the category-wisdom conditions the cessation (wisdom regarding the cessation of the upper realms). path (the Eightfold Path) of the upper realms, it forms one more type. Adding to the previous nine, there are ten types in total. It should be known that the cultivated-severed, morally neutral and indeterminate does not condition the unconditioned. Therefore, the tenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'It should be known that the cultivated-severed mind and the unconditioned mind reciprocally condition each other, only in the case of wholesome minds.' Since that treatise does not say that the morally neutral mind and the unconditioned mind reciprocally condition each other, it is clear that the morally neutral mind does not condition the Path Truth (Marga-satya, the truth leading to liberation). Furthermore, the ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'The morally neutral and indeterminate wrong conduct knowledge severed by cultivation in the desire realm only conditions space (Akasa, unobstructed space) and non-selective cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha, cessation not attained through wisdom's discernment).' Also, the eighty-seventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: Question: What consciousnesses condition space (Akasa, unobstructed space) and non-selective cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha, cessation not attained through wisdom's discernment)? Answer: The wholesome consciousnesses severed by cultivation in the three realms condition them. From this, it can be known that the morally neutral and indeterminate does not condition space (Akasa, unobstructed space) and non-selective cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha, cessation not attained through wisdom's discernment). Moreover, in the eighty-seventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra regarding conditioning unconditioned dharmas, it only mentions the wholesome consciousnesses severed by cultivation in the three realms, without mentioning the morally neutral, which clearly indicates that the morally neutral does not condition the unconditioned. Furthermore, the previously cited passage from the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra states that the four types of morally neutral and indeterminate minds, as appropriate, only condition what is severed by the five categories, without mentioning conditioning the unconditioned. From this, it can be known that the morally neutral and indeterminate mind does not condition the unconditioned. Furthermore, Dharma Master Kong said: 'The morally neutral mind of the desire realm can condition the unconditioned mind.' He also said: 'The consciousness induced by the deportment and skillful activity mind can condition the twelve entrances, so it is known that it also conditions the unconditioned.' This explanation is incorrect because it contradicts the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra. Saying that it conditions the twelve entrances, but

緣有漏不緣無漏。

為攝前義至所緣境已者。說頌重攝。總結可知。

今應思何事何隨眠隨增者。問。

若別疏條至隨眠隨增者。此下略答。此明樂根隨眠隨增。

若有問言至隨眠隨增者。此明樂根緣識隨眠隨增。色界有為緣者。於色界中有為緣隨眠隨增。簡異見滅所斷無為緣惑。故言色界有為緣隨眠隨增。以無為緣惑非是緣彼樂根識故。無色二部謂道．及修。餘思可知。

若復有問言至隨眠隨增者。此明緣緣樂根識隨眠隨增。思亦可解。

準此方隅余應思擇者。此即勸思。準此樂根。所餘諸法皆應思擇。應知此中隨增有二。或於相應。或於所緣。隨其所應皆名隨增。

若心由彼至定隨增不者。此即第二明心有隨眠。問若心由彼煩惱名有隨眠。彼隨眠於此心定隨增不。

此不決定至無染局隨增者。答。此不決定。或有隨增。謂彼隨眠與心相應而未永斷。是相應隨增。及有隨眠緣此心未斷是所緣隨增。此名有隨眠亦隨增。若相應已斷則不隨增仍名有隨眠。以恒相應故。此約伴性名有隨眠。以此伴性不可斷故。若約所緣已斷。不名有隨眠。亦不名隨增。相應已斷名有隨眠。此中別舉。緣縛已斷不名有隨眠。故不別釋。依此義門應作頌說。

論曰至名有隨眠故者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有漏的法才能作為（其他法的）緣，無漏的法不能作為（其他法的）緣。

爲了概括前面的意義，在『至所緣境已者』之後，用偈頌再次概括。總結一下就明白了。

現在應該思考什麼事，什麼隨眠會隨之增長？（這是）提問。

如果分別詳細地列出，直到『隨眠隨增者』，這下面是簡略的回答。這裡說明樂根（sukha-indriya）隨眠（anuśaya）會隨之增長。

如果有人問，直到『隨眠隨增者』，這裡說明樂根緣識（vijñāna）隨眠會隨之增長。有為緣者，對於有為的緣，隨眠會隨之增長。這與見滅所斷的無為緣惑有所不同。所以說有為緣隨眠隨增，因為無為緣的煩惱不是緣彼樂根識的。無色界的兩個部分指的是道和修。其餘的思考可以自己理解。

如果再有人問，直到『隨眠隨增者』，這裡說明緣緣樂根識隨眠會隨之增長。思考也可以理解。

依照這個方法，其餘的方面也應該思考選擇。這是勸勉思考。依照這個樂根，其餘的諸法都應該思考選擇。應該知道這裡隨增有兩種，或者對於相應的法，或者對於所緣的法，根據它們的情況都叫做隨增。

如果心由於那些煩惱而被稱為有隨眠，那麼那些隨眠對於這個心的定是否會隨之增長？這是第二個問題，說明心有隨眠。問：如果心由於那些煩惱而被稱為有隨眠，那麼那些隨眠對於這個心的定是否會隨之增長？

這不一定，直到無染的區域性隨增。答：這不一定。或者有隨增的情況，指的是那些隨眠與心相應而沒有永遠斷除，這是相應的隨增；以及有隨眠緣于這個心而沒有斷除，這是所緣的隨增。這叫做有隨眠，也隨之增長。如果相應的（隨眠）已經斷除，那麼就不隨之增長，仍然叫做有隨眠，因為恒常相應。這是從伴隨的性質上來說叫做有隨眠，因為這種伴隨的性質不可斷除。如果從所緣的角度來說已經斷除，就不叫做有隨眠，也不叫做隨增。相應的（隨眠）已經斷除叫做有隨眠，這裡特別舉出，緣縛已經斷除不叫做有隨眠，所以不特別解釋。依照這個意義，應該作偈頌說。

論曰，直到名為有隨眠故。

【English Translation】 English version 'Conditioned' (saṃskṛta) exists as a condition, but 'unconditioned' (asaṃskṛta) does not exist as a condition.

To summarize the previous meaning, after 'to the object already,' a verse is recited to summarize again. The conclusion is understandable.

Now, what should be considered, and which latent tendencies (anuśaya) increase accordingly? (This is) a question.

If listed separately and in detail, up to 'latent tendencies increase accordingly,' the following is a brief answer. This explains that the latent tendencies of the pleasure-faculty (sukha-indriya) increase accordingly.

If someone asks, up to 'latent tendencies increase accordingly,' this explains that the latent tendencies of the pleasure-faculty's consciousness (vijñāna) increase accordingly. 'Conditioned' as a condition, for 'conditioned' as a condition, latent tendencies increase accordingly. This is different from the unconditioned afflictions severed by seeing extinction. Therefore, it is said 'conditioned' as a condition, latent tendencies increase accordingly, because the afflictions conditioned by the unconditioned are not conditions for that pleasure-faculty's consciousness. The two parts of the Formless Realm refer to the path and cultivation. The remaining thoughts can be understood on their own.

If someone asks again, up to 'latent tendencies increase accordingly,' this explains that the latent tendencies of the consciousness conditioned by the pleasure-faculty's consciousness increase accordingly. The thought can also be understood.

According to this method, the remaining aspects should also be considered and chosen. This is an exhortation to think. According to this pleasure-faculty, all the remaining dharmas should be considered and chosen. It should be known that there are two types of increase here, either for the corresponding dharma or for the object. According to their circumstances, both are called increase accordingly.

If the mind is called having latent tendencies due to those afflictions, then do those latent tendencies increase accordingly for the concentration of this mind? This is the second question, explaining that the mind has latent tendencies. Question: If the mind is called having latent tendencies due to those afflictions, then do those latent tendencies increase accordingly for the concentration of this mind?

This is not certain, up to the partial increase of the undefiled. Answer: This is not certain. Or there is an increase accordingly, referring to those latent tendencies that correspond to the mind and have not been permanently severed; this is the corresponding increase. And there are latent tendencies that are conditioned by this mind and have not been severed; this is the object's increase. This is called having latent tendencies and also increases accordingly. If the corresponding (latent tendencies) have already been severed, then they do not increase accordingly, but are still called having latent tendencies, because they are constantly corresponding. This is called having latent tendencies from the perspective of the accompanying nature, because this accompanying nature cannot be severed. If, from the perspective of the object, it has already been severed, it is not called having latent tendencies, nor is it called increase accordingly. The corresponding (latent tendencies) that have already been severed are called having latent tendencies. Here, it is specifically mentioned that the bond of conditions that has already been severed is not called having latent tendencies, so it is not specifically explained. According to this meaning, a verse should be composed.

The treatise says, up to the reason for being called having latent tendencies.

有隨眠心總有二種。一五部所斷諸有染心。二修所斷諸無染心　于中有染有二隨增。或有隨增謂于相應隨眠未斷。此是相應隨增。或有隨增謂緣彼心隨眠未斷。此是所緣隨增　若於相應隨眠已斷則不隨增。仍說有隨眠以恒相應有伴性故　若無染心唯局隨增名有隨眠。緣此心隨眠必未永斷故。此心唯據緣縛隨增名有隨眠。若斷緣縛不名有隨眠　以有隨眠心總有二種。一隨增故名有隨眠。二伴性故名有隨眠。此無染心斷緣縛已。既無隨增復無伴性故。不名為有隨眠心。相應親近雖復斷已名有隨眠。所緣疏遠斷已不名有隨眠心。又婆沙二十云。問過去．未來既無作用。云何可說隨眠隨增。有一解云。尊者妙音作如是說。彼雖無有取境作用。而於所緣．及相應法。有如現在繫縛功能。故彼隨眠有隨增義　廣如彼釋。

如上所說至由前引後生者。此下第八明次第起。就中。一正明次第起。二別明起因緣　此即正明次第起。

論曰至前後無定者。且諸煩惱次第生時　先由不共無明於諦不了。不觀四諦　由不了故次引生疑二途猶預　從此猶預次引邪見撥無四諦。由撥無諦次引身見。謂取蘊中撥無苦．無常．空．無我理。便決定執此是我故　從此身見引邊見生。謂依前我執斷．常邊　從此邊見引生戒取。謂由於我隨執斷．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有隨眠的心總體上有兩種。第一種是被五部（五種煩惱：貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑）所斷的，具有染污的心。第二種是被修所斷的，不具有染污的心。在有染污的心中，有兩種隨增（煩惱的增長）。一種是相應隨增，指的是與該心相應的隨眠尚未斷除，這是相應隨增。另一種是所緣隨增，指的是緣於該心的隨眠尚未斷除，這是所緣隨增。如果與心相應的隨眠已經斷除，則不再隨增。仍然說有隨眠，是因為它恒常相應，具有伴隨的性質。如果不具有染污的心，僅僅侷限於所緣隨增，才能稱為有隨眠。因為緣於此心的隨眠必定尚未徹底斷除。這種心僅僅根據緣縛隨增而稱為有隨眠。如果斷除了緣縛，就不能稱為有隨眠。因為有隨眠的心總體上有兩種：一種是由於隨增而稱為有隨眠，另一種是由於伴隨的性質而稱為有隨眠。這種不具有染污的心，斷除了緣縛之後，既沒有隨增，又沒有伴隨的性質，因此不稱為有隨眠的心。相應親近的隨眠即使斷除之後，仍然可以稱為有隨眠。所緣疏遠的隨眠斷除之後，就不能稱為有隨眠的心。另外，《婆沙論》第二十卷說：『問：過去、未來既然沒有作用，為什麼可以說隨眠隨增？』有一種解釋說，尊者妙音這樣認為：『它們雖然沒有取境的作用，但是對於所緣以及相應的法，具有像現在一樣的繫縛功能。因此，這些隨眠具有隨增的意義。』詳細內容如該論的解釋。如上所說，到『由前引後生者』。下面第八部分說明次第生起。其中，一、正式說明次第生起。二、分別說明生起的因緣。這裡是正式說明次第生起。論中說，到『前後無定者』。且說各種煩惱次第生起的時候，首先由於不共無明（對真理的迷惑）對四諦（苦、集、滅、道）不瞭解，不觀察四諦。由於不瞭解的緣故，接著引發產生懷疑，在兩條道路上猶豫不決。從這種猶豫不決，接著引發產生邪見，否定四諦。由於否定四諦，接著引發產生身見，認為在五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）中否定了苦、無常、空、無我的道理，於是就決定執著『這是我』。從這種身見引發產生邊見，指的是依據前面的我執，執著斷見、常見等邊見。從這種邊見引發產生戒禁取見，指的是由於我，隨便執著斷見、

【English Translation】 English version: A mind with latent tendencies (Sui Mian Xin) generally has two types: first, defiled minds severed by the five parts (Wu Bu) [five categories of afflictions: greed (Tan), hatred (Chen), delusion (Chi), pride (Man), and doubt (Yi)]; second, undefiled minds severed by cultivation (Xiu). Among defiled minds, there are two types of augmentations (Sui Zeng) [increase of afflictions]: one is associated augmentation, referring to latent tendencies associated with the mind that have not been severed; this is associated augmentation. The other is object-related augmentation, referring to latent tendencies related to the object of the mind that have not been severed; this is object-related augmentation. If latent tendencies associated with the mind have been severed, they no longer augment. It is still said that there are latent tendencies because they are constantly associated and have a companionate nature. If the mind is undefiled, it is only limited to object-related augmentation that it can be called having latent tendencies, because the latent tendencies related to this mind must not have been completely severed. This mind is only considered to have latent tendencies based on object-related bondage augmentation. If object-related bondage is severed, it is not called having latent tendencies. Because a mind with latent tendencies generally has two types: one is called having latent tendencies due to augmentation, and the other is called having latent tendencies due to a companionate nature. This undefiled mind, after severing object-related bondage, has neither augmentation nor a companionate nature, so it is not called a mind with latent tendencies. Latent tendencies that are closely associated, even after being severed, can still be called having latent tendencies. Latent tendencies that are distantly related to the object, after being severed, are not called a mind with latent tendencies. Furthermore, the twentieth chapter of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: Since the past and future have no function, how can it be said that latent tendencies augment?' One explanation is that Venerable Miaoyin said: 'Although they do not have the function of grasping objects, they have a binding function like the present for the object and associated dharmas. Therefore, these latent tendencies have the meaning of augmentation.' The details are as explained in that treatise. As mentioned above, up to 'those that are born sequentially from the preceding.' The eighth section below explains sequential arising. Among them, 1. formally explains sequential arising; 2. separately explains the causes and conditions of arising. This is the formal explanation of sequential arising. The treatise says, up to 'no fixed order.' When various afflictions arise sequentially, first, due to non-common ignorance (Bu Gong Wu Ming) [delusion about the truth], there is no understanding of the Four Noble Truths (Si Di) [suffering (Ku), origin (Ji), cessation (Mie), and path (Dao)], and the Four Noble Truths are not observed. Due to this lack of understanding, doubt is then induced, hesitating on two paths. From this hesitation, wrong views are then induced, denying the Four Noble Truths. Due to denying the Four Noble Truths, self-view (Shen Jian) is then induced, believing that in the five aggregates (Wu Yun) [form (Se), feeling (Shou), perception (Xiang), mental formations (Xing), and consciousness (Shi)], the principles of suffering, impermanence, emptiness, and non-self are denied, and thus it is definitively held that 'this is me.' From this self-view, extreme views (Bian Jian) are induced, referring to clinging to views of permanence or annihilation based on the preceding self-attachment. From these extreme views, clinging to precepts and vows (Jie Jin Qu Jian) is induced, referring to, due to the self, arbitrarily clinging to views of annihilation,

常一邊。便計此執為能得彼凈涅槃故　從戒禁取引見取生。謂計戒禁能得凈已。必執為勝起見取故　從此見取次引貪生。謂自見中情深愛故　從此貪后次引慢生。謂自見中深愛著已。恃見生高舉。陵蔑他人故　慢次引瞋。謂自見中深愛恃己。於他所起違己見中。情不能忍必憎嫌故　有餘師說。于自見解多種之中。取一舍余。起憎嫌故。以見諦所斷貪等生時。緣自身中見為境故　如是且依一類次第相牽起說。越次起者前後不定。以一一后皆容起彼十隨眠故。

諸煩惱起至阿羅漢等者。此即第二別明起因緣。諸煩惱起由三因緣。因謂六因。緣謂四緣。隨其所應。是因．是緣。且如將起欲貪纏時。一未為無間道斷。未為解脫道遍知欲貪隨眠故。二順欲貪境現在前故。三緣彼非理作意起故。即起惑前邪相俱行非理作意是能引義。由此三力便起欲貪。此三因緣如其次第。初是因力。中是境界力。后是加行力。既言加行。明知前起。如貪既爾。余煩惱起類此應知。謂此且據具因．緣說。或有唯托境界力生。如退法根阿羅漢等。非由因力．加行力生。

即上所說至其體云何者。此下大文第三雜明諸煩惱。就中。一明漏等四門。二明結等六門。三明五蓋差別　就明漏等四門中。一出體。二釋名　此下出體。即上所說十種隨

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：常一邊。便計此執為能得彼凈涅槃（Nirvana，梵文，指解脫）故，從戒禁取引見取生。謂計戒禁能得凈已，必執為勝起見取故。從此見取次引貪生。謂自見中情深愛故。從此貪后次引慢生。謂自見中深愛著已，恃見生高舉，陵蔑他人故。慢次引瞋。謂自見中深愛恃己，於他所起違己見中，情不能忍必憎嫌故。有餘師說。于自見解多種之中。取一舍余。起憎嫌故。以見諦所斷貪等生時，緣自身中見為境故。如是且依一類次第相牽起說。越次起者前後不定。以一一后皆容起彼十隨眠故。諸煩惱起至阿羅漢（Arhat，梵文，指已證得涅槃的聖者）等者。此即第二別明起因緣。諸煩惱起由三因緣。因謂六因。緣謂四緣。隨其所應。是因．是緣。且如將起欲貪纏時。一未為無間道斷。未為解脫道遍知欲貪隨眠故。二順欲貪境現在前故。三緣彼非理作意起故。即起惑前邪相俱行非理作意是能引義。由此三力便起欲貪。此三因緣如其次第。初是因力。中是境界力。后是加行力。既言加行。明知前起。如貪既爾。余煩惱起類此應知。謂此且據具因．緣說。或有唯托境界力生。如退法根阿羅漢等。非由因力．加行力生。即上所說至其體云何者。此下大文第三雜明諸煩惱。就中。一明漏等四門。二明結等六門。三明五蓋差別　就明漏等四門中。一出體。二釋名　此下出體。即上所說十種隨眠。

【English Translation】 English version: Always on one side. Then, considering this attachment as being able to attain that pure Nirvana (Nirvana, Sanskrit, meaning liberation), from adherence to precepts and prohibitions, 'view-attachment' arises. It means that having considered precepts and prohibitions as being able to attain purity, one will certainly cling to them as superior, thus giving rise to 'view-attachment'. From this 'view-attachment', greed arises next. It means that one has deep affection for one's own views. After this greed, pride arises next. It means that having deeply loved and become attached to one's own views, one relies on these views to become arrogant, belittling others. Pride then leads to anger. It means that having deeply loved and relied on oneself in one's own views, one cannot tolerate others' views that contradict one's own, and will inevitably hate and dislike them. Some other teachers say that among the various interpretations of one's own views, one takes one and abandons the others, giving rise to hatred and dislike. Because when greed and other afflictions that are severed by seeing the truth arise, they take the views within oneself as their object. Thus, this is just based on one type of sequential arising. Those that arise out of order are not fixed in sequence. Because after each one, all ten latent tendencies can arise. The arising of afflictions up to Arhats (Arhat, Sanskrit, meaning a saint who has attained Nirvana) and so on. This is the second part, separately explaining the causes and conditions of arising. The arising of afflictions is due to three causes and conditions. 'Cause' refers to the six causes. 'Condition' refers to the four conditions. As appropriate, they are causes and conditions. For example, when about to arise the entanglement of desire-greed, firstly, it has not been severed by the path of immediate consequence, and the latent tendency of desire-greed has not been completely known by the path of liberation. Secondly, an object that accords with desire-greed is present. Thirdly, it arises due to inappropriate attention to it. That is, the inappropriate attention that accompanies the evil signs before the arising of affliction is what leads to it. Due to these three forces, desire-greed arises. These three causes and conditions are, in order, firstly, the force of cause; secondly, the force of object; and thirdly, the force of effort. Since it is called 'effort', it is clear that it arises beforehand. Just as with greed, the arising of other afflictions should be understood similarly. This is just based on speaking of complete causes and conditions. Or there are those who arise solely relying on the force of the object, such as Arhats with declining roots. They do not arise due to the force of cause or the force of effort. Regarding what was said above, as to what its substance is. The third major section below explains the various afflictions in a mixed manner. Among them, firstly, it explains the four gates of outflows and so on; secondly, it explains the six gates of bonds and so on; and thirdly, it explains the differences of the five coverings. Among the four gates of outflows and so on, firstly, it presents the substance; secondly, it explains the names. Below, it presents the substance, which is the ten latent tendencies mentioned above.

眠並下十纏。經說為漏．瀑流．軛．取四門煩惱。如是漏等其體云何。四種總名如下別釋　釋別名者　於三漏中初二依主釋。后一持業釋　四瀑流中。前二依主釋。后二持業釋　應知四軛如四瀑流　於四取中。前一．后二依主釋。第二持業釋　言我語取者內有情法可說我言故。前文言。我語謂內身依之說我故。上界貪等多緣內身緣我語故名我語取。

頌曰至以非能取故者。此即頌答。又婆沙四十八云。問諸煩惱垢。何故不說為漏等耶。有作是說。彼亦說在欲漏等中。品類足說。云何欲漏。謂欲界除無明諸餘結。縛。隨眠。隨煩惱。纏是名欲漏。乃至廣說。隨煩惱者即煩惱垢。應作是說。煩惱垢粗不堅住故不說漏等。不信。懈怠。放逸。亦由過輕微故不說漏等。

論曰至各二十六者。此下釋初二頌明三漏。此則別釋初頌。明欲漏。有漏。可知。

豈不彼有至何故不說者。問。豈不上界亦有惛沈．掉舉二種。又品類足出有漏體。謂除無明余色．無色二界所繫各有五結。謂愛。慢。疑。見取。各有一縛。謂貪各有八隨眠。謂十惑中除瞋。無明。取餘八種。各有八隨煩惱。謂大煩惱地中除無明取餘五種。小煩惱地中取諂．誑．憍足前為八。各有二纏。謂惛沈．掉舉。應合有者皆名有漏。彼亦說纏。今於此中

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：\n眠以及下述的十種纏縛，經文中說它們是『漏』（漏失）、『瀑流』（急流）、『軛』（束縛）、『取』（執取）這四種煩惱的來源。那麼，這些『漏』等等的本體是什麼呢？這四種總的名稱，下面分別解釋。\n\n解釋各個名稱：\n在三種『漏』中，前兩種是依主釋（所有格結構），后一種是持業釋（同位結構）。\n在四種『瀑流』中，前兩種是依主釋，后兩種是持業釋。\n應該知道四種『軛』與四種『瀑流』類似。\n在四種『取』中，第一個和后兩個是依主釋，第二個是持業釋。『言我語取』是指內在有情眾生的法可以被說成『我』。前面的經文說，『我語』是指內在的身體，依賴於它而說『我』。上界的貪愛等，大多緣于內在的身體，緣于『我語』，因此稱為『我語取』。\n\n頌文說：『乃至以非能取故』，這便是頌文的回答。此外，《婆沙論》第四十八卷說：『問：為什麼不把各種煩惱垢說成是『漏』等等呢？』有人這樣解釋：『它們也被包括在欲漏等等之中。』《品類足論》說：『什麼是欲漏？是指欲界中除了無明（avidya, ignorance）之外的所有結（samyojana, fetter）、縛（bandhana, bond）、隨眠（anusaya, latent tendency）、隨煩惱（upaklesa, secondary defilement）、纏（paryavasthana, entanglement），這被稱為欲漏。』乃至廣說。『隨煩惱』就是煩惱垢。應該這樣解釋：煩惱垢粗重而不堅固，因此不被稱為『漏』等等。不信（asaddha, lack of faith）、懈怠（kausidya, laziness）、放逸（pramada, heedlessness），也是因為過失輕微，因此不被稱為『漏』等等。\n\n論中說：『乃至各有二十六』，下面解釋最初的兩頌，闡明三種『漏』。這裡分別解釋第一頌，闡明欲漏、有漏，可以理解。\n\n難道不是也有……為什麼不說呢？』問：難道上界（色界和無色界）不也有惛沈（styana, torpor）和掉舉（auddhatya, excitement）這兩種嗎？此外，《品類足論》列出了有漏的本體，是指除了無明之外，色界和無色界所繫縛的各有五種結，即愛（raga, attachment）、慢（mana, pride）、疑（vicikitsa, doubt）、見取（drstiparమర్శa, adherence to views）。各自有一種縛，即貪（lobha, greed）。各自有八種隨眠，即十惑（dasaklesa, ten defilements）中除了瞋（dvesa, hatred）和無明之外，取其餘八種。各自有八種隨煩惱，即大煩惱地中的五種，除了無明之外，取其餘五種。小煩惱地中取諂（maya, deceit）、誑（satya, dishonesty）、憍（mada, conceit），加起來共八種。各自有兩種纏，即惛沈和掉舉。應該包括在有漏之中的，都稱為有漏。它們也被稱為纏，現在在這裡……", "English version:\nSleep and the following ten entanglements (paryavasthana), the scriptures say they are the source of the four types of afflictions: 'leaks' (asrava, outflows), 'floods' (ogha, floods), 'yokes' (yoga, yokes), and 'graspings' (upadana, attachments). So, what is the substance of these 'leaks' and so on? These four general names are explained separately below.\n\nExplanation of each name:\nAmong the three 'leaks', the first two are possessive compounds, and the last one is appositional compound.\nAmong the four 'floods', the first two are possessive compounds, and the last two are appositional compound.\nIt should be known that the four 'yokes' are similar to the four 'floods'.\nAmong the four 'graspings', the first and the last two are possessive compounds, and the second is appositional compound. 'The grasping of saying \'I\' and \'mine\'' refers to the fact that the dharma of sentient beings can be spoken of as 'I'. The previous text says that 'I' and 'mine' refer to the inner body, upon which the saying of 'I' depends. The attachment to desire in the upper realms mostly arises from the inner body, from 'I' and 'mine', hence it is called 'the grasping of saying \'I\' and \'mine\'.'\n\nThe verse says: '...even to the extent that it is not capable of grasping', this is the answer of the verse. Furthermore, the 48th volume of the Mahavibhasa says: 'Question: Why are the various defilements (klesa, afflictions) not called \'leaks\' and so on?' Some explain it this way: 'They are also included in the leaks of desire and so on.' The Prakaranapada says: 'What is the leak of desire (kama-asrava)? It refers to all the fetters (samyojana), bonds (bandhana), latent tendencies (anusaya), secondary defilements (upaklesa), and entanglements (paryavasthana) in the desire realm (kama-dhatu) except for ignorance (avidya). This is called the leak of desire.' And so on. 'Secondary defilements' are the defilements. It should be explained this way: defilements are coarse and not firm, so they are not called 'leaks' and so on. Lack of faith (asaddha), laziness (kausidya), and heedlessness (pramada) are also not called 'leaks' and so on because their faults are slight.\n\nThe treatise says: '...even to the extent of twenty-six each', below are explanations of the first two verses, clarifying the three 'leaks'. Here, the first verse is explained separately, clarifying the leaks of desire and existence, which can be understood.\n\n'Isn't there also...why not say it?' Question: Aren't there also torpor (styana) and excitement (auddhatya) in the upper realms (rupa-dhatu and arupa-dhatu)? Furthermore, the Prakaranapada lists the substance of the leaks of existence, referring to the five fetters bound to the form realm and formless realm, excluding ignorance, namely attachment (raga), pride (mana), doubt (vicikitsa), and adherence to views (drstiparamarsa). Each has one bond, namely greed (lobha). Each has eight latent tendencies, namely the eight out of the ten defilements (dasaklesa), excluding hatred (dvesa) and ignorance. Each has eight secondary defilements, namely the five in the great defilement ground, excluding ignorance. In the small defilement ground, deceit (maya), dishonesty (satya), and conceit (mada) are taken, totaling eight. Each has two entanglements, namely torpor and excitement. Those that should be included in the leaks of existence are all called leaks of existence. They are also called entanglements, now here..." ] }

何故不說。

迦濕彌羅國至不自在故者。答。一彼界纏少唯有二故。二不自在非自力起故。所以不說。品類足據彼界有體。所以具說。

何緣合說至為一有漏者。此下釋第五．第六句。此即問也。

同無記性至名有漏義者。答。一同無記性。二同於內門轉。正理破云。彼界煩惱亦于外門有緣色．聲．觸境轉故。應更別說第二合因。謂彼隨眠同一對治。設依此義無壞頌文。謂此應言。何緣合說二界煩惱為一有漏。同無記。對治。定地。故合一。

俱舍師救云。雖彼上惑亦外門轉。言內門轉。從多分說。諸法立名種種不同。若不爾者。如言色界。豈無受等。三同依定地生。由三義同故合為一。如前所說名有貪因。因是所以義即是此中名有漏義。有謂有身。貪多緣有故名有貪。漏多緣有故名有漏。

準此三界至為無明漏者。此下釋第七．第八句。辨無明漏。可知。

何緣唯此別立漏名者。問。

無明能為諸有本故者。答。無明能為一切三有生死根本。故十二支無明為初。

瀑流及軛至與瀑流同者。釋第三頌。明四瀑流．軛。如文可知。

四取應知至名戒禁取者。釋第四行頌。如文可知。

何緣別立戒禁取耶者。問。

由此獨為至清凈道故者。答。在家

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：為什麼不說呢？

因為迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的眾生不自在的緣故。回答：一、那個地方的煩惱很微弱，只有兩種。二、不自在並非自身的力量所致。所以不說。但《品類足論》是根據那個地方確實存在這些煩惱的實體，所以全部都說了。

為什麼合起來說，將無色界和有頂天的煩惱作為一種有漏法呢？這是解釋第五、第六句。這是提問。

因為它們都屬於無記性，並且都在內門（內心）中活動，所以合為一種有漏法。回答：一、它們都屬於無記性。二、它們都在內門中活動。《正理》反駁說：那個地方的煩惱也會在外門（外部）中緣於色、聲、觸等境界活動，所以應該另外說明第二個合併的原因，即它們所隨逐的隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式）具有相同的對治方法。如果依據這個意義，就不會破壞頌文。也就是說，這裡應該說：為什麼合起來說無色界和有頂天的煩惱作為一種有漏法呢？因為它們都屬於無記性，具有相同的對治方法，並且都依于定地，所以合為一種。

俱舍論師辯解說：雖然上界的煩惱也會在外門活動，但說在內門活動是從大多數情況來說的。諸法的命名有種種不同。如果不這樣，就像說『有』，難道就沒有受等嗎？三、它們都依于定地而生。由於這三種意義相同，所以合為一種。如前面所說，名為有貪之因。『因』是『所以』的意思，也就是這裡所說的『名有漏義』。『有』是指有身。貪多緣于有，所以名為有貪。漏多緣于有，所以名為有漏。

根據這個，三界都以無明為根本，所以說無明漏。這是解釋第七、第八句。辨別無明漏，可以知道了。

為什麼唯獨將無明單獨設立為一種漏呢？提問。

因為無明能夠作為諸有的根本。回答：無明能夠作為一切三有生死的根本。所以十二因緣中，無明是最初的。

瀑流和軛等同於瀑流。解釋第三頌。說明四瀑流和軛，如文可知。

四取應該知道，名為戒禁取。解釋第四行頌。如文可知。

為什麼單獨設立戒禁取呢？提問。

因為只有它獨自作為清凈道。回答：在家

【English Translation】 English version: Why is it not spoken of?

Because the beings in Kashmir (迦濕彌羅國) are not free. Answer: 1. The afflictions in that realm are few, only two. 2. The lack of freedom is not due to their own power. Therefore, it is not spoken of. However, the Prakaranapada (品類足論) speaks of them in detail because those afflictions do exist there.

Why are the afflictions of the Formless Realm (無色界) and the Peak of Existence (有頂天) combined and spoken of as one asrava (有漏, outflow)? This explains the fifth and sixth lines. This is a question.

Because they are both of indeterminate nature and operate within the internal sphere, they are combined as one asrava. Answer: 1. They are both of indeterminate nature. 2. They both operate within the internal sphere. The Abhidharmakosha (正理) refutes this, saying: The afflictions in that realm also operate in the external sphere, being conditioned by objects of form, sound, and touch. Therefore, a second reason for combining them should be stated, namely that the anusayas (隨眠, latent tendencies) they are associated with have the same antidote. If we rely on this meaning, it would not violate the verse. That is to say, it should be stated here: Why are the afflictions of the Formless Realm and the Peak of Existence combined and spoken of as one asrava? Because they are both of indeterminate nature, have the same antidote, and are based on the meditative states (定地), they are combined as one.

The Kosha master defends this by saying: Although the higher afflictions also operate in the external sphere, saying that they operate in the internal sphere is speaking from the majority perspective. The naming of dharmas varies in many ways. If it were not so, like saying 'existence' (有), would there be no feeling (受) and so on? 3. They are both born from the meditative states. Because these three meanings are the same, they are combined as one. As mentioned before, it is called the cause of attachment to existence (有貪之因). 'Cause' means 'therefore,' which is what is meant here by 'the meaning of asrava (有漏義).' 'Existence' refers to the embodied existence (有身). Attachment is mostly conditioned by existence, so it is called attachment to existence (有貪). Asrava is mostly conditioned by existence, so it is called asrava (有漏).

According to this, the three realms all have ignorance as their root, so it is said to be the avidyasrava (無明漏, outflow of ignorance). This explains the seventh and eighth lines. Discriminating the avidyasrava can be understood.

Why is only ignorance separately established as an asrava? Question.

Because ignorance can be the root of all existences. Answer: Ignorance can be the root of all the births and deaths in the three realms. Therefore, in the twelve links of dependent origination, ignorance is the first.

The four floods (瀑流) and yokes (軛) are the same as the floods. Explains the third verse. Explains the four floods and yokes, as can be understood from the text.

The four attachments (取) should be known as silavrataparamaarsa (戒禁取, attachment to rites and rituals). Explains the fourth line of the verse. As can be understood from the text.

Why is silavrataparamaarsa separately established? Question.

Because it alone serves as the path to purification. Answer: The layperson

樂著生死故愿生天。出家欣樂涅槃故求清凈計舍可愛境。謂別解脫戒等能捨可愛諸境計此為道。

何緣無明不別立取者。問。

能取諸有至合立為取者。答亦可解。

然契經說至應知亦爾者。述經部師引經解軛。然契經說。欲軛云何。謂于諸五欲境中。于欲起貪。于欲起欲。于欲起親戀　于欲起貪愛。于欲起貪樂。于欲起醉悶。于欲起耽著。于欲起貪嗜。于欲起喜樂。于欲起執藏。于欲起隨執。于欲起貪著。貪等十二並貪異名。欲是五欲境。緣欲起貪纏壓於心。是總釋貪。是名欲軛。應知欲軛以貪為體　問何故經中廣說異名　解云或為鈍根隨解一故。或為多忘隨憶一故。或為異國隨方說故。或顯巧言轉變說故。或顯一義有多名故。諸有異名皆準此釋。有軛．見軛。應知亦爾。以貪為體。有謂三有。身緣有起貪故名有軛。見謂六十二見。緣見起貪故名見軛。欲．有．見三俱是境名。緣此三境起貪故名欲軛。有軛。見軛。所以三皆貪為體。不言無明軛者。以無明即軛名無明軛。持業釋。以無明為體。

又余經說至名欲等取者。又述經部引經釋四取以貪為體。又余經說。欲貪名取。即欲名貪。非是欲界貪故名為欲貪。由此故知。于欲等四境所起欲貪名欲等取。緣五欲境起貪名欲取。緣見起貪名見取

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『樂著生死故愿生天』：因為貪戀生死輪迴的快樂，所以希望投生到天界。『出家欣樂涅槃故求清凈計舍可愛境』：出家人欣喜于涅槃的寂靜快樂，所以追求清凈，並認為捨棄可愛的世俗之境是正確的。『謂別解脫戒等能捨可愛諸境計此為道』：他們認為，像別解脫戒這樣的戒律能夠捨棄各種可愛的世俗之境，並認為這就是解脫之道。

『何緣無明不別立取者』：為什麼無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）沒有被單獨列為『取』（upādāna，執取）呢？（問）

『能取諸有至合立為取者』：因為無明能夠導致對各種存在的執取，所以可以將其合併到『取』中。（答，亦可這樣理解）

『然契經說至應知亦爾者』：經部師引用經典來解釋『軛』（yoga，束縛）。『然契經說。欲軛云何。謂于諸五欲境中。于欲起貪。于欲起欲。于欲起親戀　于欲起貪愛。于欲起貪樂。于欲起醉悶。于欲起耽著。于欲起貪嗜。于欲起喜樂。于欲起執藏。于欲起隨執。于欲起貪著。貪等十二並貪異名。欲是五欲境。緣欲起貪纏壓於心。是總釋貪。是名欲軛。應知欲軛以貪為體』：那麼，什麼是『欲軛』呢？就是對於各種五欲（pañca kāmaguṇā，色、聲、香、味、觸）之境，產生貪婪、慾望、親近愛戀、貪愛、貪圖快樂、沉醉昏昧、沉溺執著、貪求嗜好、喜悅快樂、執取收藏、隨順執取、貪戀執著。這十二種貪，都是貪的不同名稱。『欲』指的是五欲之境。因為對『欲』產生貪婪，從而使內心受到束縛，這就是對『貪』的總體解釋。這被稱為『欲軛』。應該知道，『欲軛』的本質是『貪』。『問何故經中廣說異名　解云或為鈍根隨解一故。或為多忘隨憶一故。或為異國隨方說故。或顯巧言轉變說故。或顯一義有多名故。諸有異名皆準此釋』：問：為什麼經典中要廣泛地使用不同的名稱呢？解答說：或許是爲了讓根器遲鈍的人能夠理解其中一種；或許是爲了讓記憶力差的人能夠記住其中一種；或許是因為不同國家有不同的說法；或許是爲了顯示巧妙的言辭變化；或許是爲了顯示同一個意義有多個名稱。所有不同的名稱都可以按照這個原則來解釋。『有軛．見軛。應知亦爾。以貪為體。有謂三有。身緣有起貪故名有軛。見謂六十二見。緣見起貪故名見軛。欲．有．見三俱是境名。緣此三境起貪故名欲軛。有軛。見軛。所以三皆貪為體。不言無明軛者。以無明即軛名無明軛。持業釋。以無明為體』：『有軛』（bhava-yoga，對存在的束縛）和『見軛』（dṛṣṭi-yoga，對錯誤的見解的束縛）也應該這樣理解，它們的本質也是『貪』。『有』指的是三有（trayo bhava，欲有、色有、無色有）。因為身體和因緣對『有』產生貪婪，所以稱為『有軛』。『見』指的是六十二見（ṣaṣṭi-dvā-dṛṣṭi，六十二種錯誤的見解）。因為對『見』產生貪婪，所以稱為『見軛』。『欲』、『有』、『見』三者都是境界的名稱。因為對這三種境界產生貪婪，所以稱為『欲軛』、『有軛』、『見軛』。因此，這三者的本質都是『貪』。沒有說『無明軛』，是因為『無明』本身就是『軛』，所以稱為『無明軛』，這是一種持業釋，即以『無明』為本體。

『又余經說至名欲等取者』：經部師又引用經典來解釋四取（catvāryupādānāni，四種執取），認為它們以『貪』為本質。『又余經說。欲貪名取。即欲名貪。非是欲界貪故名為欲貪。由此故知。于欲等四境所起欲貪名欲等取。緣五欲境起貪名欲取。緣見起貪名見取』：其他經典中說：『對慾望的貪婪稱為取』，也就是說，『慾望』就是『貪婪』。這裡說的『欲貪』，不是指對欲界的貪婪，而是指對慾望的貪婪。由此可知，對於慾望等四種境界所產生的慾望和貪婪，稱為『欲等取』。對五欲之境產生貪婪，稱為『欲取』（kāma-upādāna，欲取）。對錯誤的見解產生貪婪，稱為『見取』（dṛṣṭy-upādāna，見取）。

【English Translation】 English version 『Being attached to the pleasure of birth and death, they wish to be born in the heavens.』: Because they are attached to the pleasure of the cycle of birth and death, they hope to be reborn in the heavens. 『Having joy in renunciation and delight in nirvāṇa, they seek purity and consider abandoning desirable realms.』: Monastics rejoice in the peace and happiness of nirvāṇa, so they pursue purity and consider abandoning desirable worldly realms to be correct. 『They say that precepts such as Prātimokṣa (individual liberation vows) can abandon all desirable realms, and they consider this to be the path.』: They believe that precepts like the Prātimokṣa can abandon all kinds of desirable worldly realms, and they consider this to be the path to liberation.

『Why is ignorance (avidyā) not established as a separate grasping (upādāna)?』 (Question)

『Because it can grasp all existences, it is combined and established as grasping.』 (Answer, it can also be understood this way)

『However, the sūtra says... it should also be known thus.』: The Sautrāntika masters cite the sūtras to explain 『yoke』 (yoga, bondage). 『However, the sūtra says: What is the yoke of desire? It means that in the realm of the five desires (pañca kāmaguṇā, forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects), greed arises for desires, desire arises for desires, intimate attachment arises for desires, craving arises for desires, pleasure arises for desires, intoxication arises for desires, indulgence arises for desires, craving arises for desires, joy arises for desires, clinging arises for desires, attachment arises for desires, and clinging arises for desires. These twelve kinds of greed are different names for greed. 『Desire』 refers to the realm of the five desires. Because greed arises for 『desire,』 the mind is bound. This is the general explanation of greed. This is called the 『yoke of desire.』 It should be known that the essence of the 『yoke of desire』 is greed.』『Question: Why does the sūtra extensively use different names? Answer: Perhaps it is for the sake of those with dull faculties to understand one of them; perhaps it is for the sake of those with poor memory to remember one of them; perhaps it is because different countries have different sayings; perhaps it is to show skillful changes in language; perhaps it is to show that one meaning has many names. All different names can be explained according to this principle.』『The yoke of existence (bhava-yoga) and the yoke of views (dṛṣṭi-yoga) should also be understood in the same way. Their essence is also greed. 『Existence』 refers to the three existences (trayo bhava, desire realm, form realm, formless realm). Because the body and conditions give rise to greed for 『existence,』 it is called the 『yoke of existence.』『Views』 refers to the sixty-two views (ṣaṣṭi-dvā-dṛṣṭi, sixty-two kinds of wrong views). Because greed arises for 『views,』 it is called the 『yoke of views.』『Desire,』『existence,』 and 『views』 are all names of realms. Because greed arises for these three realms, they are called the 『yoke of desire,』 the 『yoke of existence,』 and the 『yoke of views.』 Therefore, the essence of these three is greed. The 『yoke of ignorance』 is not mentioned because 『ignorance』 itself is the 『yoke,』 so it is called the 『yoke of ignorance,』 which is a possessive compound, meaning that 『ignorance』 is the essence.』

『Moreover, another sūtra says... they are called grasping of desire, etc.』: The Sautrāntika masters again cite the sūtras to explain the four graspings (catvāryupādānāni, four kinds of grasping), believing that their essence is greed. 『Moreover, another sūtra says: 『Greed for desire is called grasping,』 that is, 『desire』 is 『greed.』 The 『greed for desire』 here does not refer to greed for the desire realm, but to greed for desires. From this, it can be known that the desire and greed that arise for the four realms of desire, etc., are called 『grasping of desire, etc.』 Greed that arises for the realm of the five desires is called 『grasping of desire』 (kāma-upādāna, grasping of desire). Greed that arises for wrong views is called 『grasping of views』 (dṛṣṭy-upādāna, grasping of views).』

。緣戒禁起貪名戒禁取。緣三界我語起貪名我語取　問何故經部但說軛．取不說四瀑流及與三漏　解云論者略舉對辨差別　又解軛．取體異是故別說。瀑流體同四軛。已說四軛當知亦說瀑流。三漏不異當宗故不說也。

如是已辨至是隨眠等義者。此下第二釋名。如是已辨十種隨眠並彼十纏。經說為漏．瀑流．軛．取。此即結前。此隨眠漏．瀑流．軛．取名有何義。纏后別明故此不問。

頌曰至是隨眠等義者。答。

論曰至故名微細者。此釋眠義。根本十惑現在前時。行相難知故名微細。猶如睡眠行相微細故名為眠。

二隨增者至增惛滯故者。此釋隨義。二隨增者。一能隨於所緣法增惛滯故。二能隨於所相應法增惛滯故　惛滯謂眠。

言隨逐者至常為過患者。此亦釋隨。謂此煩惱能起諸得。恒隨有情常為過患。

不作加行至故名隨縛者。此亦釋隨。不作加行為令彼惑生而數現起。或設劬勞為遮彼惑起而數現起。隨縛有情故名隨縛。

由如是義故名隨眠者。總結。又正理云。何緣隨眠唯貪等十非余忿等。唯此十種習氣堅牢非忿等故。謂唯此十習氣堅牢起便難歇。

稽留有情至故名為漏者。二義釋漏。或住名漏。或流名漏。如文可知。

極標善品故名瀑流者。可知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：緣于對戒律和禁令的執著而產生的貪婪，被稱為戒禁取（Śīlabbata-parāmarsa，執取非因之法為正道）。緣于對三界中『我』的言論而產生的貪婪，被稱為我語取（Ātmavāda-upādāna，執著于自我的言論）。問：為什麼經部只說軛（yoga，束縛）和取（upādāna，執取），而不說四瀑流（ogha，四種煩惱之流）以及三漏（āsava，三種煩惱）呢？答：論者是爲了簡略地舉出，以便於辨別它們之間的差別。又解釋說：軛和取的本體不同，所以分別說明。瀑流的本體與四軛相同，已經說了四軛，就應當知道也說了瀑流。三漏與本宗（指經部自己的宗義）沒有差異，所以不說。如是已經辨明了。『至是隨眠等義者』，這以下第二部分是解釋名稱。如是已經辨明了十種隨眠（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）以及那十種纏（paryavasthāna，纏縛身心的煩惱）。經中說它們是漏、瀑流、軛、取。這即是總結前文。這隨眠、漏、瀑流、軛、取，名稱有什麼意義？纏在後面會分別說明，所以這裡不問。『頌曰至是隨眠等義者』，這是回答。『論曰至故名微細者』，這是解釋『眠』的意義。根本的十惑（十種根本煩惱）現行的時候，它們的行相難以察覺，所以稱為微細。猶如睡眠的行相微細，所以名為眠。『二隨增者至增惛滯故者』，這是解釋『隨』的意義。『二隨增者』：一是能隨著所緣的法而增長惛滯（styāna，精神遲鈍）；二是能隨著所相應的法而增長惛滯。惛滯，就是指睡眠。『言隨逐者至常為過患者』，這也是解釋『隨』。意思是說，這些煩惱能夠生起諸得（各種果報），恒常跟隨著有情，常常成為過患。『不作加行至故名隨縛者』，這也是解釋『隨』。不作加行，是指不需要特別努力，這些惑（煩惱）就會生起並且屢次現行；或者即使努力想要遮止這些惑的生起，它們仍然會屢次現行。隨縛有情，所以名為隨縛。『由如是義故名隨眠者』，這是總結。又《正理經》中說：『為什麼隨眠只有貪等十種，而不是其餘的忿等呢？』因為只有這十種習氣堅固牢靠，而不是忿等。意思是說，只有這十種習氣堅固牢靠，一旦生起就難以停止。『稽留有情至故名為漏者』，用兩種意義來解釋『漏』。或者『住』名為漏，或者『流』名為漏。如文可知。『極標善品故名瀑流者』，可知。

【English Translation】 English version: Greed arising from attachment to rules and prohibitions is called Śīlabbata-parāmarsa (grasping at wrong practices as the right path). Greed arising from the notion of 'I' in the three realms is called Ātmavāda-upādāna (clinging to the doctrine of self). Question: Why does the Sautrāntika school only mention yoga (yoke, bondage) and upādāna (grasping), but not the four ogha (floods, currents of defilements) and the three āsava (influxes, outflows)? Answer: The commentator briefly mentions them to distinguish their differences. Another explanation: The essence of yoga and upādāna are different, so they are explained separately. The essence of ogha is the same as the four yoga. Having explained the four yoga, it should be understood that the ogha are also explained. The three āsava are not different from our school's (Sautrāntika's) own doctrines, so they are not mentioned. Thus, it has been explained. 'To the meaning of anuśaya (latent tendencies) etc.', the second part below explains the names. Thus, the ten anuśaya and the ten paryavasthāna (entanglements) have been explained. The scriptures say that they are leakage, floods, yokes and grasping. This is a summary of the previous text. What is the meaning of the names anuśaya, leakage, floods, yokes and grasping? The entanglements will be explained separately later, so they are not asked here. 'The verse says to the meaning of anuśaya etc.', this is the answer. 'The treatise says to the name subtle', this explains the meaning of 'sleep'. When the ten fundamental delusions (ten fundamental afflictions) manifest, their characteristics are difficult to perceive, so they are called subtle. Just as the characteristics of sleep are subtle, so it is called sleep. 'The two increasing ones to increasing dullness', this explains the meaning of 'following'. 'The two increasing ones': one is able to increase dullness (styāna, mental torpor) with respect to the object of thought; the other is able to increase dullness with respect to the corresponding dharma. Dullness refers to sleep. 'The words following to always being a fault', this also explains 'following'. It means that these afflictions can give rise to various attainments, constantly follow sentient beings, and often become faults. 'Without making effort to being bound', this also explains 'following'. Without making effort means that without special effort, these afflictions will arise and repeatedly manifest; or even if efforts are made to prevent these afflictions from arising, they will still repeatedly manifest. Following and binding sentient beings, so it is called following and binding. 'Because of this meaning, it is called anuśaya', this is a summary. Also, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'Why are there only ten anuśaya such as greed, and not others such as anger?' Because only these ten habits are firm and reliable, not anger and so on. It means that only these ten habits are firm and reliable, and once they arise, they are difficult to stop. 'Detaining sentient beings to being called leakage', the meaning of 'leakage' is explained in two ways. Either 'dwelling' is called leakage, or 'flowing' is called leakage. As the text shows. 'Extremely marking good qualities to being called floods', it is knowable.

。

和合有情故名為軛者。合名為軛。和合有情受生死苦。猶如車軛。故名為軛。

能為依執故名為取者。執名為取。四取煩惱能為有情所依止處。執取諸法故名為取　又解四取煩惱能為諸有漏法依執取諸有漏法　又解四取煩惱能為業依執取當果。

若善釋者至說名為取者。述經部解。

俱舍論記卷第二十

一挍了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十一

沙門釋光述

分別隨眠品第五之三

如是己辨至復說五種者。此下第二明結等六門。就中。一正明結等。二諸門分別　就正明結等中。一明結等五門。二明煩惱六垢　就明結等五門中。一標章。二別釋　此即標章。即諸煩惱。一結。二縛。三隨眠。四隨煩惱。五纏。義差別故復說五種　問漏等四門皆說並纏。結等六門但言煩惱　解云漏等四門皆攝纏盡故說並纏。結等六門初一攝二。第二．第三．第六不攝。第四．第五雖復攝盡。非遍諸門皆攝盡故不說並纏。

且結云何至惱亂二部故者。此下別釋。就中。一明諸結。二明三縛。三明隨眠。四明隨惑。五明諸纏　就明諸結中。一明九結。二明五下分。三明五上分　此即第一明九結。

論曰至當辨其相者。釋結

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『和合有情』因此被稱為『軛』(yoga，束縛)。『合』即是『軛』。和合的有情眾生承受生死之苦，就像被車軛束縛一樣，所以稱為『軛』。

『能作為依靠和執取』因此被稱為『取』(upadana，執取)。『執』即是『取』。四種『取』煩惱能作為有情眾生所依靠的處所，執取諸法，因此稱為『取』。另一種解釋是，四種『取』煩惱能作為各種有漏法所依靠和執取的對象，執取各種有漏法。還有一種解釋是，四種『取』煩惱能作為業的依靠，執取未來的果報。

如果能很好地解釋，就能說明被稱為『取』的原因。以上是經部的解釋。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十

一校了《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第二十一

沙門釋光述

《分別隨眠品》第五之三

如上已經辨析了，接下來要說明五種。下面第二部分闡明『結』(samyojana，結)、『縛』(bandhana，縛)等六個方面。其中，一是正式闡明『結』等，二是分別說明各個方面。在正式闡明『結』等之中，一是說明『結』等五門，二是說明煩惱六垢。在說明『結』等五門中，一是標出綱要，二是分別解釋。這裡就是標出綱要。也就是各種煩惱，一『結』，二『縛』，三『隨眠』(anusaya，隨眠)，四『隨煩惱』(upaklesa，隨煩惱)，五『纏』(paryavasthana，纏)。因為意義上的差別，所以又說了五種。有人問，『漏』(asrava，漏)等四門都說了包括『纏』，為什麼『結』等六門只說煩惱？解釋說，『漏』等四門都包括了所有的『纏』，所以說包括『纏』。『結』等六門中，第一個包括了第二個。第二、第三、第六個不包括。第四、第五個雖然也包括了所有，但不是每個方面都包括所有，所以不說包括『纏』。

且說『結』是什麼，直到惱亂二部的原因。下面分別解釋。其中，一是說明各種『結』，二是說明三種『縛』，三是說明『隨眠』，四是說明『隨煩惱』，五是說明各種『纏』。在說明各種『結』中，一是說明九『結』，二是說明五下分『結』(avadhimuktabandha，下分結)，三是說明五上分『結』(urdhvabhagiya，上分結)。這裡是第一部分，說明九『結』。

論中說，接下來辨析它們的相狀。

【English Translation】 English version 『Being together in harmony with sentient beings』 is why it is called 『yoga』 (yoke, bond). 『Together』 is 『yoke』. Sentient beings together in harmony endure the suffering of birth and death, just like being bound by a cart yoke, hence it is called 『yoke』.

『Being able to be a reliance and grasping』 is why it is called 『upadana』 (grasping). 『Grasping』 is 『upadana』. The four 『upadana』 afflictions can serve as a place of reliance for sentient beings, grasping at all dharmas, hence it is called 『upadana』. Another explanation is that the four 『upadana』 afflictions can serve as the object of reliance and grasping for all contaminated dharmas, grasping at all contaminated dharmas. Yet another explanation is that the four 『upadana』 afflictions can serve as the reliance of karma, grasping at future retributions.

If one can explain it well, one can explain the reason for being called 『upadana』. The above is the explanation of the Sutra School.

《Abhidharmakosa-bhasya-tika》Volume 20

One Proofread 《Taisho Tripitaka》Volume 41 No. 1821 《Abhidharmakosa-bhasya-tika》

《Abhidharmakosa-bhasya-tika》Volume 21

Commentary by the Shramana釋光

《Discrimination of Anusaya》Chapter 5, Part 3

As has been discussed above, next we will explain the five types. Below, the second part elucidates the six aspects of 『samyojana』 (fetter), 『bandhana』 (bond), etc. Among them, one is to formally elucidate 『samyojana』 etc., and two is to separately explain each aspect. Within the formal elucidation of 『samyojana』 etc., one is to explain the five gates of 『samyojana』 etc., and two is to explain the six stains of afflictions. Within the explanation of the five gates of 『samyojana』 etc., one is to state the outline, and two is to separately explain. Here is the statement of the outline. That is, the various afflictions, one 『samyojana』, two 『bandhana』, three 『anusaya』 (latent tendency), four 『upaklesa』 (secondary affliction), five 『paryavasthana』 (entanglement). Because of the difference in meaning, five types are mentioned again. Someone asks, the four gates of 『asrava』 (outflow) etc. all say that they include 『paryavasthana』, why do the six gates of 『samyojana』 etc. only mention afflictions? The explanation is that the four gates of 『asrava』 etc. all include all 『paryavasthana』, so it is said that they include 『paryavasthana』. Among the six gates of 『samyojana』 etc., the first includes the second. The second, third, and sixth do not include. Although the fourth and fifth also include all, they do not include all in every aspect, so it is not said that they include 『paryavasthana』.

Let's say what 『samyojana』 is, until the reason for disturbing the two parts. Below, we will explain separately. Among them, one is to explain the various 『samyojana』, two is to explain the three 『bandhana』, three is to explain 『anusaya』, four is to explain 『upaklesa』, and five is to explain the various 『paryavasthana』. In explaining the various 『samyojana』, one is to explain the nine 『samyojana』, two is to explain the five lower fetters 『avadhimuktabandha』 (lower fetters), and three is to explain the five higher fetters 『urdhvabhagiya』 (higher fetters). Here is the first part, explaining the nine 『samyojana』.

The treatise says, next we will discern their characteristics.

九　結謂結縛。此中愛結謂三界貪。餘八隨應當辨其相。故婆沙五十云。問此九結以何為自性。答以百事為自性。謂愛．慢．無明結。各三界五部為四十五事。恚結唯欲界五部為五事。見結有十八事。謂有身見．邊執見各三界見苦所斷為六。邪見三界各有四部為十二事。取結有十八事。謂見取三界各四部為十二事。戒禁取三界各見苦道所斷為六事。疑結三界各四部為十二事。嫉．慳結各欲界修所斷為二事。由此九結以百事為自性。

見結謂三見至於彼隨增故者。別釋見．取二結。見結以身．邊．邪見三見為性。取結以見取．戒禁取二取為性　依如是理故發智論有如是言。問頗有五見相應法為九結中愛結系。非見結系。非不有五見隨眠隨增耶。答曰有。問云何。答集智已生滅智未生。見滅道所斷見取．戒禁取相應法。彼為自部愛結為所緣系。非見結系。所以者何。苦．集諦下身．邊．邪見遍行見結已永斷故。滅．道諦下非遍見結即是邪見。唯緣無漏。望二取相應法所緣．應相二俱無故。非緣彼故無所緣系。非彼相應故無相應系。然彼二取相應法有見隨眠隨增。二取即是見隨眠故。二取見隨眠。于彼相應法隨其所應。或相應隨增。或所緣隨增。

何緣三見至為取結耶者。問。

三見二取至立為二結者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本九、結謂結縛（jié wèi jié fù）。此中愛結（ài jié）謂三界貪（sān jiè tān）。其餘八結應當根據情況辨別它們的體相。所以《婆沙》（Póshā）第五十卷說：『問：這九結以什麼為自性？答：以一百件事為自性。』謂愛結、慢結、無明結（wú míng jié），各自在三界五部中為四十五件事。恚結（huì jié）只在欲界五部中為五件事。見結（jiàn jié）有十八件事，謂有身見（yǒu shēn jiàn）、邊執見（biān zhí jiàn）各自在三界見苦所斷中為六件。邪見（xié jiàn）在三界各有四部中為十二件事。取結（qǔ jié）有十八件事，謂見取（jiàn qǔ）在三界各有四部中為十二件事。戒禁取（jiè jìn qǔ）在三界見苦道所斷中為六件事。疑結（yí jié）在三界各有四部中為十二件事。嫉結（jí jié）、慳結（qiān jié）各自在欲界修所斷中為二件事。由此九結以一百件事為自性。

見結謂三見至於彼隨增故者。分別解釋見結、取結這二結。見結以有身見、邊執見、邪見這三見為自性。取結以見取、戒禁取這二取為自性。依照這樣的道理，所以《發智論》（Fāzhì lùn）中有這樣的話：『問：有沒有五見（wǔ jiàn）相應法為九結中的愛結所繫縛，而不是見結所繫縛，但並非沒有五見隨眠（wǔ jiàn suímián）隨之增長呢？答：有。』『問：是怎樣的？』『答：集智（jí zhì）已經生起，滅智（miè zhì）尚未生起，見滅道所斷的見取、戒禁取相應法。它們為自部愛結作為所緣而繫縛，而不是見結所繫縛。』為什麼呢？因為苦諦（kǔ dì）、集諦（jí dì）之下的有身見、邊執見、邪見這些遍行見結（biàn xíng jiàn jié）已經被永遠斷除了。滅諦（miè dì）、道諦（dào dì）之下的非遍見結就是邪見，只緣于無漏（wú lòu）。望二取相應法，所緣、應相二者都沒有，所以不是因為緣於它們而有所緣繫縛，也不是因為與它們相應而有相應繫縛。然而這二取相應法有見隨眠隨之增長。二取就是見隨眠的緣故。二取見隨眠，對於它們相應的法，隨著情況，或者相應隨之增長，或者所緣隨之增長。

何緣三見至於為取結耶者。問。

三見二取至於立為二結者。

【English Translation】 English version Nine, fetters are called bonds. Here, the 'love fetter' (ài jié) refers to greed in the Three Realms (sān jiè tān). The remaining eight fetters should be distinguished in their characteristics as appropriate. Therefore, the fiftieth fascicle of the 'Vibhasa' (Póshā) says: 'Question: What is the self-nature of these nine fetters? Answer: Their self-nature consists of one hundred things.' That is, the love fetter, the pride fetter, and the ignorance fetter (wú míng jié) each have forty-five aspects in the five parts of the Three Realms. The hatred fetter (huì jié) has only five aspects in the five parts of the Desire Realm. The view fetter (jiàn jié) has eighteen aspects, namely, the 'belief in a self' (yǒu shēn jiàn) and the ' clinging to extremes' (biān zhí jiàn), each having six aspects in the 'seeing what is to be abandoned through suffering' in the Three Realms. 'Wrong view' (xié jiàn) has twelve aspects, with each of the Three Realms having four parts. The 'grasping fetter' (qǔ jié) has eighteen aspects, namely, 'view grasping' (jiàn qǔ) having twelve aspects in the four parts of each of the Three Realms, and 'precept and ritual grasping' (jiè jìn qǔ) having six aspects in the 'seeing what is to be abandoned through the path of suffering' in the Three Realms. The 'doubt fetter' (yí jié) has twelve aspects, with each of the Three Realms having four parts. The 'jealousy fetter' (jí jié) and the 'stinginess fetter' (qiān jié) each have two aspects in the 'cultivating what is to be abandoned' in the Desire Realm. Therefore, these nine fetters have one hundred aspects as their self-nature.

'The view fetter refers to the three views that increase accordingly.' This separately explains the view fetter and the grasping fetter. The view fetter has the 'belief in a self', 'clinging to extremes', and 'wrong view' as its nature. The grasping fetter has 'view grasping' and 'precept and ritual grasping' as its nature. According to this principle, the 'Jñānaprasthāna' (Fāzhì lùn) has these words: 'Question: Is there a dharma associated with the five views that is bound by the love fetter among the nine fetters, but not bound by the view fetter, and yet the latent tendencies of the five views (wǔ jiàn suímián) do not increase accordingly? Answer: Yes.' 'Question: How so?' 'Answer: When the wisdom of accumulation (jí zhì) has arisen and the wisdom of cessation (miè zhì) has not yet arisen, the dharmas associated with 'view grasping' and 'precept and ritual grasping' that are to be abandoned by seeing the cessation and the path. They are bound by the love fetter of their own category as the object of attachment, but not bound by the view fetter.' Why? Because the 'belief in a self', 'clinging to extremes', and 'wrong view' under the 'truth of suffering' (kǔ dì) and the 'truth of accumulation' (jí dì), these pervasive view fetters (biàn xíng jiàn jié) have been permanently severed. The non-pervasive view fetters under the 'truth of cessation' (miè dì) and the 'truth of the path' (dào dì) are precisely 'wrong view', which only relates to the unconditioned (wú lòu). Regarding the dharmas associated with the two graspings, neither the object of attachment nor the corresponding aspect exists, so there is no binding due to the object of attachment, nor is there binding due to association with them. However, these dharmas associated with the two graspings have latent tendencies of views that increase accordingly. The two graspings are the cause of the latent tendencies of views. The latent tendencies of views of the two graspings, for their corresponding dharmas, either increase accordingly in association, or increase accordingly as the object of attachment.

'What is the reason why the three views become the grasping fetter?' Question.

'The three views and two graspings are established as two fetters.'

答。釋頌物取等及第二句　三見二取。一物等故二取等故　言物等者。謂彼三見有十八物。身．邊二見唯見苦斷。邪見通四諦。總有六種。三界各六故成十八。二取亦然。有十八物。戒禁取唯苦．道。見取通四諦。總有六種。三界各六故成十八。此名物等　言取等者。於五見中三見等是所取。為二取所取故。二取見等是能取。能取三見故名取等。所取。能取。有差別故立為二結。故正理云。謂于諸行計我．斷常。或撥為無。後起二取執見第一。或執為凈(已上論文)　言能所取。且據一相從多分說。理實而言並通能．所。

何故纏中至非余纏耶者。此下釋后八句。此即問也。

二唯不善至故唯立二者。八纏家答。故正理五十四云。若立八纏應作是釋。二唯不善。自在起故。謂唯此二兩義具足。餘六無一具兩義者。無慚．無愧雖唯不善非自在起。悔自在起非唯不善。余兩皆無(解云余隨眠惛沈．掉舉兩義皆無。余文可知)　問若言睡眠非自在起。何故婆沙五十有一複次廢立中雲。複次以嫉與慳。獨立．離二。故立為結。余纏不爾。獨立者謂自現行。離二者謂一向不善。忿．覆二纏雖能獨立亦復離二。而似隨眠為隨眠相之所映奪其相不顯故不立結。由此義故外國諸師說此二種即隨眠性。惛沈．掉舉不能獨立他

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：答：解釋『釋頌物取等及第二句』，即『三見二取』。『一物等故二取等故』，所說的『物等』，是指那三種見有十八種事物。身見（認為五蘊和合的身體為我所有的錯誤觀念）和邊見（執著于斷滅或常恒的極端見解）只見到苦諦和斷滅。邪見則貫通四諦（苦、集、滅、道）。總共有六種。三界（欲界、色界、無色界）每一界各有六種，所以總共十八種。兩種取也是這樣，有十八種事物。戒禁取（錯誤地認為遵守某些戒律和禁令可以達到解脫）只涉及苦諦和道諦。見取（執著于自己錯誤的見解，認為才是正確的）貫通四諦。總共有六種。三界每一界各有六種，所以總共十八種。這叫做『物等』。所說的『取等』，在五種見中，三種見等於是所取，因為被兩種取所取。兩種取和見相等於是能取，因為能夠取三種見，所以叫做『取等』。所取和能取，有差別，所以設立為兩種結。所以《正理》中說：『對於諸行計度為我、斷滅、常恒，或者否定為不存在，之後生起兩種取，執著見解為第一，或者執著為清凈。』（以上是論文內容）所說的能取和所取，姑且根據一種相狀，從多數方面來說。但實際上而言，都貫通能取和所取。為什麼纏中只有兩種是不善且自在生起的，而不是其餘的纏呢？』以下解釋後面八句。這實際上是提問。『二唯不善至故唯立二者』，八纏的回答。所以《正理》第五十四卷說：『如果設立八纏，應該這樣解釋，兩種纏（無慚、無愧）唯獨是不善，而且是自在生起的。』意思是隻有這兩種纏同時具備這兩個條件。其餘六種纏沒有一種同時具備這兩個條件。無慚（不尊重自己所做錯的事）和無愧（不尊重他人所做錯的事）雖然唯獨是不善，但不是自在生起的。悔（對過去所做錯的事感到後悔）是自在生起的，但不是唯獨不善的。其餘兩種纏（睡眠、掉舉）都不具備這兩個條件。（解釋說，其餘隨眠，惛沈（精神萎靡）和掉舉（精神散亂）兩種纏都不具備這兩個條件。其餘文字可以理解）問：如果說睡眠不是自在生起的，為什麼《婆沙》第五十一卷的廢立中又說：『又因為嫉妒和慳吝，獨立、遠離二者，所以設立為結。其餘纏不是這樣。』『獨立』是指自己現行。『遠離二者』是指一向不善。忿（憤怒）和覆（隱藏自己的過失）兩種纏雖然能夠獨立，也遠離二者，但好像隨眠，被隨眠的相所掩蓋，它們的相不明顯，所以不設立為結。因為這個原因，外國的諸位法師說這兩種纏就是隨眠的性質。惛沈和掉舉不能獨立，需要依靠其他。

【English Translation】 English version: Answer: Explaining '釋頌物取等及第二句' (shi song wu qu deng ji di er ju), which is '三見二取' (san jian er qu) [three views and two attachments]. '一物等故二取等故' (yi wu deng gu er qu deng gu), what is meant by '物等' (wu deng) [equality of objects] refers to the eighteen objects of those three views. 身見 (shen jian) [self-view, the mistaken notion of considering the body composed of the five aggregates as oneself] and 邊見 (bian jian) [extreme views, clinging to annihilation or permanence] only see the suffering and cessation of suffering. 邪見 (xie jian) [wrong view] pervades the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path). In total, there are six types. Each of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) has six types, thus totaling eighteen. The two attachments are also like this, having eighteen objects. 戒禁取 (jie jin qu) [attachment to precepts and prohibitions, wrongly believing that adhering to certain rules and regulations can achieve liberation] only involves the suffering and the path to the cessation of suffering. 見取 (jian qu) [attachment to views, clinging to one's own wrong views as correct] pervades the Four Noble Truths. In total, there are six types. Each of the three realms has six types, thus totaling eighteen. This is called '物等' (wu deng) [equality of objects]. What is meant by '取等' (qu deng) [equality of attachments] is that among the five views, the three views are the objects to be taken, because they are taken by the two attachments. The two attachments and views are the takers, because they can take the three views, so it is called '取等' (qu deng) [equality of attachments]. The taken and the taker are different, so they are established as two bonds. Therefore, the 《正理》 (Zhengli) [Nyāyānusāra-śāstra] says: 'Regarding the aggregates as self, annihilation, or permanence, or denying their existence, then the two attachments arise, clinging to views as the foremost, or clinging to purity.' (The above is the content of the treatise) What is meant by the taker and the taken is based on one aspect, speaking from the majority. But in reality, it pervades both the taker and the taken. Why are only two of the fetters unwholesome and arise independently, and not the rest of the fetters?' The following explains the last eight sentences. This is actually a question. '二唯不善至故唯立二者' (er wei bu shan zhi gu wei li er zhe), the answer of the eight fetters. Therefore, the fifty-fourth volume of the 《正理》 (Zhengli) [Nyāyānusāra-śāstra] says: 'If eight fetters are established, it should be explained like this: the two fetters (shamelessness and lack of remorse) are only unwholesome and arise independently.' It means that only these two fetters simultaneously possess these two conditions. None of the other six fetters simultaneously possess these two conditions. Shamelessness (not respecting one's own wrongdoings) and lack of remorse (not respecting others' wrongdoings) are only unwholesome, but do not arise independently. Regret (feeling remorse for past wrongdoings) arises independently, but is not only unwholesome. The remaining two fetters (sloth and agitation) do not possess these two conditions. (The explanation says that the remaining latent tendencies, sloth (mental torpor) and agitation (mental restlessness), do not possess these two conditions. The remaining text can be understood) Question: If it is said that sloth does not arise independently, why does the 《婆沙》 (Póshā) [Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra] in the abolition and establishment of the fifty-first volume say: 'Also because jealousy and stinginess are independent and separate from the two, they are established as fetters. The remaining fetters are not like this.' 'Independent' means that they manifest themselves. 'Separate from the two' means that they are always unwholesome. Anger and concealment, although they can be independent and separate from the two, seem like latent tendencies, covered by the appearance of latent tendencies, their appearance is not obvious, so they are not established as fetters. For this reason, the foreign Dharma masters say that these two fetters are the nature of latent tendencies. Sloth and agitation cannot be independent and need to rely on others.

力起故。亦不離二或是不善或無記故。睡眠．惡作雖亦獨立。而不離二。睡眠通善．不善．無記。惡作通善．不善性故。無慚．無愧雖是離二而非獨立。唯嫉與慳獨立離二。異隨眠相故立為結　準婆沙文。睡眠亦是自在起。何故正理言非自在　解云婆沙余師義。非與正理同。說八。說十。既各不同。明知異說　又解睡眠若與余惑相應非自在起。正理據此說。若與善．無覆心相應是自在起。婆沙據此說。各據一義並不相違。

若纏唯八至亦具兩義故者。論主破。若纏唯八此釋可然。此即縱許　許有十纏此釋非理。以忿．覆二種亦具兩義故。

由此若許至及自部故者。十纏家答　嫉．慳過重。謂此二種數現行故　又嫉為賤因。慳為貧因　又遍顯戚．歡隨煩惱故。隨煩惱中總有二類。一戚。二歡。嫉能顯戚。慳顯歡　又惱亂出家．在家部故。故正理云。又此二能惱二部故。謂在家眾于財位中。由嫉．及慳極為惱亂。若出家眾于教行中。由嫉．及慳極為惱亂　或惱亂天．阿素洛故。天中好美味。阿素洛中好女色。天慳味嫉色。阿素洛慳色嫉味。因此戰諍。阿素洛此云非天。故正理云。或能惱亂天．阿素洛眾。謂因色．味極梠擾惱　或惱人．天二勝趣故。故正理云。或此能惱人．天二趣。如世尊告憍尸迦言。由嫉．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為力而生起。也不離二者，或者是不善，或者是無記。睡眠、惡作雖然也獨立，但不離二者。睡眠通於善、不善、無記。惡作通於善、不善的性質。無慚、無愧雖然是離二者，但並非獨立。只有嫉妒和慳吝獨立且離二者。因為與隨眠的相狀不同，所以立為結。依照《大毗婆沙論》的說法，睡眠也是自在生起的。為什麼《阿毗達磨順正理論》說它不是自在的呢？解釋說，《大毗婆沙論》是其他論師的觀點，與《阿毗達磨順正理論》不同。說八個纏，說十個纏，既然各自不同，明顯可知是不同的說法。又解釋說，睡眠如果與其他的煩惱相應，就不是自在生起。《阿毗達磨順正理論》是根據這種情況說的。如果與善、無覆無記心相應，就是自在生起。《大毗婆沙論》是根據這種情況說的。各自根據一種意義，並不相違背。如果纏只有八個，到也具有兩種意義的原因。論主駁斥說，如果纏只有八個，這種解釋還可以。這即是縱容認可。如果認可有十個纏，這種解釋就不合理。因為忿和覆這兩種也具有兩種意義。由此如果認可，到以及自部的原因。十纏家回答說，嫉妒和慳吝的過失很重。說這兩種常常現行。又嫉妒是卑賤的原因，慳吝是貧窮的原因。又普遍顯示憂戚和歡喜的隨煩惱的原因。隨煩惱中總共有兩類：一是憂戚，二是歡喜。嫉妒能顯示憂戚，慳吝能顯示歡喜。又惱亂出家和在家的僧團的原因。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，又這兩種能惱亂兩個僧團。說在家眾在財物和地位中，因為嫉妒和慳吝而極為惱亂。如果出家眾在教法和修行中，因為嫉妒和慳吝而極為惱亂。或者惱亂天（Deva，天神）和阿修羅（Asura，非天）的原因。天中喜歡美味，阿修羅中喜歡女色。天慳吝美味而嫉妒女色，阿修羅慳吝女色而嫉妒美味。因此發生戰爭。阿修羅在這裡稱為非天。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，或者能惱亂天和阿修羅眾。說因為色和味而極度擾惱。或者惱亂人（Manushya，人類）和天兩種殊勝的趣向的原因。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，或者這能惱亂人和天兩種趣向。如世尊告訴憍尸迦（Kausika，帝釋天名）說，因為嫉妒和慳吝。

【English Translation】 English version: Because of force it arises. Also, it is not separate from the two, either unwholesome or neutral. Sleep and regret, although also independent, are not separate from the two. Sleep is common to wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. Regret is common to wholesome and unwholesome nature. Shamelessness and lack of shame, although separate from the two, are not independent. Only jealousy and stinginess are independent and separate from the two. Because their characteristics are different from the latent tendencies (anusaya), they are established as fetters (bandhana). According to the Mahavibhasa, sleep also arises spontaneously. Why does the Abhidharmanyayanusara say that it is not spontaneous? The explanation is that the Mahavibhasa represents the views of other teachers, which differ from the Abhidharmanyayanusara. The fact that they speak of eight or ten fetters indicates that they are different views. Another explanation is that if sleep is associated with other afflictions, it does not arise spontaneously. The Abhidharmanyayanusara speaks from this perspective. If it is associated with wholesome or neutral minds, it arises spontaneously. The Mahavibhasa speaks from this perspective. Each is based on one meaning and they are not contradictory. If the entanglements (paryavasthana) are only eight, up to the reason that they also have two meanings. The author of the treatise refutes, 'If the entanglements are only eight, this explanation is acceptable. This is to say, it is a concession. If it is accepted that there are ten entanglements, this explanation is unreasonable, because anger and concealment also have two meanings.' From this, if it is accepted, up to the reason of one's own group. The proponents of the ten entanglements respond, 'Jealousy and stinginess have severe faults. It is said that these two often manifest. Also, jealousy is the cause of baseness, and stinginess is the cause of poverty. Also, they universally manifest sorrow and joy as secondary afflictions. Among the secondary afflictions, there are two categories: sorrow and joy. Jealousy can manifest sorrow, and stinginess can manifest joy. Also, they disturb the monastic and lay communities. Therefore, the Abhidharmanyayanusara says, 'Also, these two can disturb the two communities.' It is said that the lay community is extremely disturbed by jealousy and stinginess in wealth and status. If the monastic community is extremely disturbed by jealousy and stinginess in teachings and practice. Or, they disturb the Devas (gods) and Asuras (demigods). The Devas like delicious flavors, and the Asuras like beautiful women. The Devas are stingy with flavors and jealous of women, and the Asuras are stingy with women and jealous of flavors. Because of this, they fight. Asuras are called non-devas here. Therefore, the Abhidharmanyayanusara says, 'Or, they can disturb the Deva and Asura communities.' It is said that they are extremely disturbed by form and flavor. Or, they disturb humans (Manushya) and Devas, the two superior realms. Therefore, the Abhidharmanyayanusara says, 'Or, these can disturb humans and Devas, the two realms.' As the World-Honored One told Kausika (Indra), 'Because of jealousy and stinginess.'

慳結人．天惱亂　或嫉惱亂他部。慳惱亂自部。故正理云。或此二能惱自．他眾。謂由嫉故惱亂他朋。由內懷慳惱亂自侶　由上七種過失尤重故。於十纏別立二結。

佛于余處至故唯說斷三者。此即第二明五下分結。

論曰何等為五者。問。

謂有身見至瞋恚者。答。總三十一事為體。謂身見三界見苦所斷三。戒禁取三界各見苦道為六。疑三界各四諦為十二。欲貪．瞋．恚各欲界五部為十。

何緣此五名順下分者。此下釋第二．第三句。此即問也。

此五順益至防邏人故者。答。此五順益下分欲界欲界三界最下。三界一分故名下分。由后貪．瞋不能超欲。如守獄卒　設有能超乃生有頂。由前身見．戒取．疑三。還令退下置欲界獄。如防邏人。

有餘師說至順下分名者。敘異說。前三能障超下有情不成聖故。后二能令不超地獄不生上故。故五皆得順下分名。

諸得預流至斷三結耶者。釋第四句問。諸得預流五見及疑六煩惱斷。何緣經但說斷身見．戒取．疑三結耶。

理實應言至已說斷六者。答。諸得預流。理實應言斷六煩惱。一攝門故。二攝根故但說斷三　言攝門者。謂所斷中類有三種。身邊二見唯在苦一部。戒取通苦．道二部。見取．邪見．疑通苦．集．滅．道四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：慳吝之人會擾亂他人，或者因嫉妒而擾亂其他團體。慳吝也會擾亂自己的團體。所以《正理》中說：『或者這兩種行為都能擾亂自己或他人的群體。』這是說，由於嫉妒，擾亂其他朋友；由於內心懷有慳吝，擾亂自己的同伴。由於以上七種過失尤其嚴重，所以在十纏之外，特別設立了兩種結。

佛陀在其他地方說，只斷除三種結。這說明了五下分結的第二點。

論曰：什麼是五下分結？（問）

答：包括有身見到瞋恚。總共有三十一種事物作為其本體。即有身見是三界（欲界、色界、無色界）見苦所斷的三種；戒禁取是三界各見苦、道所斷的六種；疑是三界各四諦（苦、集、滅、道）所斷的十二種；欲貪、瞋恚分別是欲界五部所斷的十種。

為什麼這五種結被稱為順下分結？（這是解釋第二、第三句，即提問）

答：這五種結順益於下分，即欲界。欲界是三界中最下的一界，是三界的一部分，所以稱為下分。由於後面的貪和瞋不能超越欲界，就像看守監獄的獄卒一樣。即使有能超越的，也只能生到有頂天。由於前面的有身見、戒取、疑這三種結，還會使人退回到欲界監獄，就像防邏人一樣。

有其他論師說，前三種結能障礙有情超越地獄，不能成就聖果；后兩種結能使有情不能超越地獄，不能生到上界。所以這五種結都可以稱為順下分結。（敘述不同的說法）

諸位證得預流果的人，斷除了五見和疑這六種煩惱。為什麼經典只說斷除了有身見、戒取、疑這三種結呢？（解釋第四句，即提問）

答：證得預流果的人，實際上應該說斷除了六種煩惱。一是由於攝門的原因，二是由於攝根的原因，所以只說斷除了三種結。所謂攝門，是指所斷的煩惱中，類別有三種。身邊二見只在苦諦一部；戒取通於苦諦、道諦二部；見取、邪見、疑通於苦諦、集諦、滅諦、道諦四部。

【English Translation】 English version: A stingy person disturbs others, or disturbs other groups due to jealousy. Stinginess also disturbs one's own group. Therefore, the Zhengli (正理) [a commentary] says: 'Or these two behaviors can disturb one's own or others' groups.' This means that due to jealousy, one disturbs other friends; due to harboring stinginess, one disturbs one's own companions. Because the above seven kinds of faults are particularly serious, two kinds of fetters are specially established in addition to the ten entanglements (shi chan 十纏).

The Buddha said elsewhere that only three fetters are cut off. This illustrates the second point of the five lower fetters (wu xia fen jie 五下分結).

Treatise says: What are the five lower fetters? (Question)

Answer: They include you shen jian (有身見) [belief in a self] to chen hui (瞋恚) [hatred]. There are a total of thirty-one things as their substance. That is, you shen jian (有身見) [belief in a self] is the three types cut off by seeing suffering in the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm); jie jin qu (戒禁取) [attachment to precepts and rituals] is the six types cut off by seeing suffering and the path in each of the three realms; yi (疑) [doubt] is the twelve types cut off by the four noble truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path) in each of the three realms; yu tan (欲貪) [desire realm greed] and chen hui (瞋恚) [hatred] are the ten types cut off by the five parts of the desire realm respectively.

Why are these five fetters called lower fetters (shun xia fen jie 順下分結)? (This is to explain the second and third sentences, i.e., asking a question)

Answer: These five fetters benefit the lower part, which is the desire realm. The desire realm is the lowest of the three realms, and is a part of the three realms, so it is called the lower part. Because the later greed and hatred cannot transcend the desire realm, just like prison guards guarding the prison. Even if there are those who can transcend, they can only be born in the youting tian (有頂天) [the peak of existence]. Because of the previous you shen jian (有身見) [belief in a self], jie jin qu (戒禁取) [attachment to precepts and rituals], and yi (疑) [doubt], they will also cause people to retreat back to the prison of the desire realm, just like patrol guards.

Some other teachers say that the first three fetters can hinder sentient beings from transcending the lower realm and cannot achieve sainthood; the latter two fetters can prevent sentient beings from transcending the lower realm and cannot be born in the upper realm. Therefore, all five fetters can be called lower fetters. (Narrating different views)

Those who attain the yuliu guo (預流果) [stream-enterer fruit] have cut off the five views and the six afflictions of doubt. Why do the scriptures only say that they have cut off the three fetters of you shen jian (有身見) [belief in a self], jie jin qu (戒禁取) [attachment to precepts and rituals], and yi (疑) [doubt]? (Explaining the fourth sentence, i.e., asking a question)

Answer: Those who attain the yuliu guo (預流果) [stream-enterer fruit] should actually be said to have cut off the six afflictions. One is because of the reason of she men (攝門) [collecting the doors], and the other is because of the reason of she gen (攝根) [collecting the roots], so it is only said that they have cut off the three fetters. The so-called she men (攝門) [collecting the doors] means that among the afflictions to be cut off, there are three types. The two views of self and side are only in the part of the suffering truth; jie jin qu (戒禁取) [attachment to precepts and rituals] is common to the two parts of the suffering truth and the path truth; jian qu (見取) [grasping at views], xie jian (邪見) [wrong view], and yi (疑) [doubt] are common to the four parts of the suffering truth, the accumulation truth, the cessation truth, and the path truth.

部說斷三種。攝彼三門皆悉周盡若斷身見攝彼一門。若斷戒取攝彼通二門。若斷疑攝彼通四門　言攝根者。謂所斷中三隨三轉。說斷三種攝彼三根。若斷三根本餘三未亦斷。故說斷三已說斷六　問集．滅見取如何隨戒禁取轉　解云言見取隨戒禁取者。據苦．道下說　又解因苦．道下戒取先起。引彼集．滅見取起故。亦名隨轉。

有作是釋至故說斷三者。釋第二頌敘異說。凡趣異方有三種障。一不欲發趣見此方益余方有損。二雖發趣迷失正道。依邪道故。三由依邪道疑正道故　趣解脫者亦有如斯相似三障。一由身見怖畏解脫。灰身滅智不欲發趣。二雖發趣由戒禁取。依執邪道迷失正路。三由依邪道疑于正道深懷猶預　佛顯預流。永斷如是趣解脫障故說斷三。

佛于余經至名順上分結者。此即第三明五上分結。一色貪。二無色貪。三掉舉。四慢。五無明。若未斷時。能令有情不超上界故名順上分結。此五總以聖者身中上界修斷八事為體。色貪無色貪．掉舉．慢．無明。色．無色界各有四故　問何故貪別立二。餘三合立　解云愛是諸煩惱足多過別立。故婆沙云。複次愛令界別地別部別。愛能增長一切煩惱。愛．有愛處所說多過。故依界別立為二結。掉舉等三無如是事。故上二界合立為一　問隨煩惱中。何故唯說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：經中說斷除三種結縛。這三種結縛涵蓋了所有三個方面（身見、戒禁取見、疑）。如果斷除身見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi），則涵蓋了其中一個方面。如果斷除戒禁取見（Sīlabbata-parāmāsa），則涵蓋了其中兩個方面。如果斷除疑（Vicikicchā），則涵蓋了所有四個方面。關於涵蓋諸根，指的是在所斷除的結縛中，有三種是隨其他三種而轉起的。經中說斷除三種結縛，涵蓋了這三種根。如果斷除了三個根本的結縛，那麼其餘三個未斷的結縛也會被斷除。因此，經中說斷除了三種結縛，實際上已經說斷除了六種結縛。問：集諦（Samudaya，苦之因）、滅諦（Nirodha，苦之滅）的見取（Diṭṭhi-parāmāsa）如何隨戒禁取見而轉起？答：解釋說，見取隨戒禁取見而轉起，是根據苦諦（Dukkha，苦）和道諦（Magga，滅苦之道）來說的。另一種解釋是，在苦諦和道諦之下，戒禁取見首先生起，引導著對集諦和滅諦的見取也隨之生起，因此也稱為隨轉。有人這樣解釋，是爲了解釋第二頌中敘述的不同說法。凡是前往異方，有三種障礙：一是認為此方有利而彼方有害，因此不願前往；二是雖然前往，卻迷失了正道，依賴於邪道；三是由於依賴邪道，而對正道產生懷疑。前往解脫的人也有類似的三種障礙：一是由身見而怖畏解脫，想要灰身滅智，因此不願前往；二是雖然前往，卻由於戒禁取見，依賴於執著邪道而迷失了正路；三是由於依賴邪道，而對正道深懷猶疑。佛陀爲了顯示預流果（Sotāpanna），能夠永遠斷除這些前往解脫的障礙，因此說斷除三種結縛。佛陀在其他經典中說，有五種上分結（uddhambhāgiya-saṃyojana），被稱為順上分結。這五種是：一、色貪（rūpa-rāga）；二、無色貪（arūpa-rāga）；三、掉舉（uddhacca）；四、慢（māna）；五、無明（avijjā）。如果未斷除這些結縛，就能使有情無法超越上界，因此稱為順上分結。這五種結縛總體上是以聖者身中上界修斷的八件事物為本體。色貪、無色貪、掉舉、慢、無明，在色界和無色界各有四種。問：為什麼貪被單獨分為兩種（色貪和無色貪），而其餘三種（掉舉、慢、無明）卻合為一種？答：解釋說，愛是諸煩惱的根本，過患很多，因此單獨列出。正如《婆沙論》所說：『其次，愛能使界別、地別、部別。愛能增長一切煩惱。愛和有愛所說之處，過患很多。』因此，根據界別的不同，將其分為兩種結縛。而掉舉等三種沒有這樣的情況，因此在上二界合為一種。問：在隨煩惱中，為什麼只說掉舉？

【English Translation】 English version: It is said that three bonds are severed. These three encompass all three aspects (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, Sīlabbata-parāmāsa, Vicikicchā). If Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (身見, self-view) is severed, it encompasses one aspect. If Sīlabbata-parāmāsa (戒禁取見, clinging to rites and rituals) is severed, it encompasses two aspects. If Vicikicchā (疑, doubt) is severed, it encompasses all four aspects. Regarding encompassing the roots, it refers to the fact that among the bonds to be severed, there are three that arise following the other three. It is said that severing three bonds encompasses these three roots. If the three fundamental bonds are severed, then the remaining three unsevered bonds will also be severed. Therefore, it is said that severing three bonds actually means severing six bonds. Question: How do Diṭṭhi-parāmāsa (見取, clinging to views) regarding Samudaya (集諦, the origin of suffering) and Nirodha (滅諦, the cessation of suffering) arise following Sīlabbata-parāmāsa? Answer: It is explained that Diṭṭhi-parāmāsa arises following Sīlabbata-parāmāsa based on Dukkha (苦諦, suffering) and Magga (道諦, the path to the cessation of suffering). Another explanation is that under Dukkha and Magga, Sīlabbata-parāmāsa arises first, leading to the arising of Diṭṭhi-parāmāsa regarding Samudaya and Nirodha, hence it is also called 'following'. Some explain it this way to explain the different views narrated in the second verse. Whenever one goes to a different place, there are three obstacles: first, not wanting to go because one thinks this place is beneficial and that place is harmful; second, although going, getting lost on the right path and relying on the wrong path; third, doubting the right path because of relying on the wrong path. Those who go to liberation also have similar three obstacles: first, fearing liberation because of Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, wanting to destroy the body and extinguish wisdom, hence not wanting to go; second, although going, getting lost on the right path and relying on clinging to wrong paths because of Sīlabbata-parāmāsa; third, deeply doubting the right path because of relying on the wrong path. The Buddha, in order to show that the Sotāpanna (預流果, stream-enterer) can forever sever these obstacles to going to liberation, therefore said to sever three bonds. The Buddha said in other scriptures that there are five Urdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana (上分結, higher fetters), called 'fetters binding to the higher realms'. These five are: 1. Rūpa-rāga (色貪, lust for form); 2. Arūpa-rāga (無色貪, lust for the formless); 3. Uddhacca (掉舉, restlessness); 4. Māna (慢, conceit); 5. Avijjā (無明, ignorance). If these fetters are not severed, they can prevent sentient beings from transcending the higher realms, hence they are called 'fetters binding to the higher realms'. These five fetters are generally based on the eight things that are cultivated and severed in the higher realms in the body of a noble one. Rūpa-rāga, Arūpa-rāga, Uddhacca, Māna, and Avijjā each have four in the form and formless realms. Question: Why is lust separately divided into two (Rūpa-rāga and Arūpa-rāga), while the remaining three (Uddhacca, Māna, and Avijjā) are combined into one? Answer: It is explained that craving is the root of all afflictions and has many faults, hence it is listed separately. As the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Furthermore, craving can cause different realms, different lands, and different parts. Craving can increase all afflictions. The places where craving and existence-craving are mentioned have many faults.' Therefore, based on the difference in realms, it is divided into two fetters. The other three, such as Uddhacca, do not have such cases, hence they are combined into one in the upper two realms. Question: Among the secondary afflictions, why is only Uddhacca mentioned?

掉舉為結　解云障定強故。故正理云。掉舉惱亂三摩地故。于順上分建立為結　又婆沙云。問何故唯修所斷立為順上分結　答令趣上生名順上分。見所斷結亦令墮下。故不立為順上分結。複次上人所行名順上分。上人是聖非諸異生。見所斷結唯異生起。故不立為順上分結。于聖者中唯立不還者所起諸結名順上分　問因論生論。何故預流及一來者。所起諸結非順上分　答順上分者。謂趣上生預流．一來所起諸結亦令生下。故不立為順上分結(廣如彼釋)。

已辨結至謂一切癡者。此即第二明三縛。以能繫縛故立縛名。縛體不同有其三種。

何緣唯說此三為縛者。問。諸煩惱中何緣唯說此三為縛。

由隨三受至作此定說者。答。由隨三受勢力所引說縛有三　于自樂受貪多隨增。所緣．相應俱隨增故。于自苦受瞋多隨增。所緣．相應俱隨增故。于自舍受癡多隨增。所緣．相應俱隨增故。故言于苦受瞋。于舍受癡。應知亦爾。

雖于自舍亦有貪．瞋。所緣．相應二俱隨增。非如癡故。於此文中亦應影顯。雖于自樂亦說有癡。所緣．相應二俱隨增。非如貪故。雖于自苦亦說有癡。所緣．相應二俱隨增。非如瞋故　又亦應顯。雖于自苦亦說有貪。所緣．相應隨增。非如瞋故。雖于自樂亦說有瞋。所緣隨增

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本掉舉（uddhacca，心不平靜）是一種結（saṃyojana，束縛），因為它能擾亂禪定，阻礙解脫。因此，《正理經》（Tarka-śāstra）說：『掉舉擾亂三摩地（samādhi，禪定），所以在順上分（uddhambhāgiya，導向上界的）中被建立為結。』《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）中說：『問：為什麼只有修所斷的煩惱才被立為順上分結？答：因為能引導眾生向上界投生，所以稱為順上分。見所斷的煩惱也會使眾生墮落到地獄，所以不被立為順上分結。再者，上人（arya，聖者）所行的道稱為順上分。上人是聖者，不是凡夫。見所斷的煩惱只有凡夫才會生起，所以不被立為順上分結。在聖者中，只有不還果（anāgāmin，不還者）所生起的煩惱才被稱為順上分結。』『問：因論生論，為什麼預流果（srotaāpanna，預流者）和一來果（sakṛdāgāmin，一來者）所生起的煩惱不是順上分結？答：順上分是指導向上界的。預流果和一來果所生起的煩惱也會使他們墮落到地獄，所以不被立為順上分結。』（詳細內容見相關解釋）。已經辨析了結，接下來討論『一切癡』。這部分是第二點，闡明三種縛（bandhana，束縛）。因為能夠繫縛眾生，所以稱為縛。縛的本體不同，共有三種。『為什麼只說這三種是縛呢？』問：在所有煩惱中，為什麼只說這三種是縛？『由於隨著三種感受……才作出這樣的定論。』答：由於隨著三種感受的勢力所引導，所以說縛有三種：對於自己的樂受（sukha vedanā，快樂的感受），貪（rāga，貪慾）會大量增長，所緣（ārammaṇa，對像）和相應（samprayoga，伴隨）都會增長。對於自己的苦受（duḥkha vedanā，痛苦的感受），嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨）會大量增長，所緣和相應都會增長。對於自己的舍受（upekṣā vedanā，不苦不樂的感受），癡（moha，愚癡）會大量增長，所緣和相應都會增長。所以說，對於苦受是嗔，對於舍受是癡，應該知道也是這樣。雖然對於自己的舍受也有貪和嗔，所緣和相應都會增長，但不如癡那樣強烈。在這段文字中也應該暗示，雖然對於自己的樂受也說有癡，所緣和相應都會增長，但不如貪那樣強烈。雖然對於自己的苦受也說有癡，所緣和相應都會增長，但不如嗔那樣強烈。又應該暗示，雖然對於自己的苦受也說有貪，所緣和相應都會增長，但不如嗔那樣強烈。雖然對於自己的樂受也說有嗔，所緣會增長。

【English Translation】 English version Uddhacca (restlessness) is a fetter (saṃyojana) because it disturbs samādhi (concentration) and hinders liberation. Therefore, the Tarka-śāstra (Logic Scripture) says: 'Uddhacca disturbs samādhi, therefore it is established as a fetter in the ūrdhvabhāgīya (leading to the upper realms).' The Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) says: 'Question: Why are only the afflictions that are abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-pahātavvā) established as ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana? Answer: Because they lead beings to be reborn in the upper realms, they are called ūrdhvabhāgīya. The afflictions that are abandoned by seeing (darśana-pahātavvā) also cause beings to fall into the lower realms, so they are not established as ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana. Furthermore, the path practiced by the ārya (noble ones) is called ūrdhvabhāgīya. The ārya are the noble ones, not ordinary beings. The afflictions that are abandoned by seeing only arise in ordinary beings, so they are not established as ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana. Among the noble ones, only the fetters that arise in the anāgāmin (non-returner) are called ūrdhvabhāgīya.' 'Question: Arising from the discussion, why are the fetters that arise in the srotaāpanna (stream-enterer) and sakṛdāgāmin (once-returner) not ūrdhvabhāgīya? Answer: Ūrdhvabhāgīya refers to leading to the upper realms. The fetters that arise in the srotaāpanna and sakṛdāgāmin also cause them to fall into the lower realms, so they are not established as ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojana.' (See the relevant explanations for details). Having discussed the fetters, we now discuss 'all ignorance'. This part is the second point, clarifying the three bonds (bandhana). Because they are able to bind beings, they are called bonds. The nature of the bonds is different, there are three types. 'Why are only these three said to be bonds?' Question: Among all the afflictions, why are only these three said to be bonds? 'Because according to the three feelings... this conclusion is made.' Answer: Because according to the power of the three feelings, it is said that there are three bonds: For one's own sukha vedanā (pleasant feeling), rāga (desire) greatly increases, both the ārammaṇa (object) and samprayoga (association) increase. For one's own duḥkha vedanā (painful feeling), dveṣa (hatred) greatly increases, both the object and association increase. For one's own upekṣā vedanā (neutral feeling), moha (ignorance) greatly increases, both the object and association increase. Therefore, it is said that for painful feeling it is hatred, for neutral feeling it is ignorance, it should be known that it is also like this. Although there is also desire and hatred for one's own neutral feeling, both the object and association increase, but not as strongly as ignorance. In this text, it should also be implied that although it is also said that there is ignorance for one's own pleasant feeling, both the object and association increase, but not as strongly as desire. Although it is also said that there is ignorance for one's own painful feeling, both the object and association increase, but not as strongly as hatred. It should also be implied that although it is also said that there is desire for one's own painful feeling, the object and association increase, but not as strongly as hatred. Although it is also said that there is hatred for one's own pleasant feeling, the object increases.

。非如貪故。約自相續身中樂等三受。從多分說為縛所緣作此定說。貪緣樂增。瞋緣苦增。癡緣舍增。若約他相續身中樂等三受為縛所緣。此即不定。三受皆能為所緣境生三縛故。如緣怨樂瞋亦隨增。如緣怨苦貪亦隨增。緣非怨親苦．樂　癡亦隨增隨其所應。故正理五十四云。有餘師說。由隨三受勢力所引說縛有三。謂貪多分于自樂受。所緣．相應二種隨增。少分亦于不苦不樂。于自．他苦。取他樂．舍。唯有一種所緣隨增。瞋亦多分于自苦受。所緣．相應二種隨增。少分亦于不苦不樂。于自．他樂。及他苦．舍。唯有一種所緣隨增。癡亦多分于自舍受。所緣．相應二種隨增。少分亦於樂受．苦受。於他一切受唯所緣隨增。是故世尊依多分理。說隨三受建立三縛。

己分別縛至如前己說者。此即第三明隨眠。指同前說。

隨眠既己說至煩惱垢攝者者。此即第四明隨煩惱。略釋頌者　蘊。簡無為　行。簡色等四蘊　心所。簡行蘊中不相應行　染。簡心所中善．無記　此余．簡染中本惑。謂此本惑余　隨煩惱。標名。將釋隨惑先解本惑。此諸根本煩惱亦名隨煩惱。以皆隨心為惱亂事故。復有此本惑余。異諸本煩惱染污心所蘊所攝。隨煩惱起故亦名隨煩惱。不名煩惱非根本故。廣列彼隨煩惱相。如法蘊足論第九

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：並非像貪愛那樣。這裡是就自身相續中的樂受等三種感受而言，從大多數情況來說，它們作為束縛的所緣而作此確定之說。貪愛以樂受為緣而增長，嗔恚以苦受為緣而增長，愚癡以舍受為緣而增長。如果就他人相續中的樂受等三種感受作為束縛的所緣，這就不是一定的。因為三種感受都能作為所緣境而產生三種束縛。例如，緣于怨敵的樂受，嗔恚也會隨之增長；例如，緣于怨敵的苦受，貪愛也會隨之增長；緣于非怨非親的苦受、樂受，愚癡也會隨之增長，隨其所應。所以《正理》第五十四卷說：『有其他老師說，由於隨著三種感受的勢力所引導，說束縛有三種。即貪愛大多在自己的樂受上，所緣和相應兩種都隨之增長；少部分也在不苦不樂的感受上；對於自己和他人的苦受，以及他人的樂受、舍受，只有一種所緣隨之增長。嗔恚也大多在自己的苦受上，所緣和相應兩種都隨之增長；少部分也在不苦不樂的感受上；對於自己和他人的樂受，以及他人的苦受、舍受，只有一種所緣隨之增長。愚癡也大多在自己的舍受上，所緣和相應兩種都隨之增長；少部分也在樂受、苦受上；對於他人的一切感受，只有所緣隨之增長。』因此，世尊依據大多數情況的道理，說隨著三種感受而建立三種束縛。

『已經分別了束縛直到如前已經說過的』，這即是第三個說明隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）。指與前面所說的相同。

『隨眠既然已經說過直到煩惱垢所攝』，這即是第四個說明隨煩惱（Upaklesha，次要的煩惱）。簡略解釋頌文：『蘊』，是簡別無為法；『行』，是簡別色蘊等四蘊；『心所』，是簡別行蘊中不相應行；『染』，是簡別心所中善和無記；『此余』，是簡別染污中的根本煩惱。所謂『此』是根本煩惱之外的；『隨煩惱』，是標明名稱。將要解釋隨煩惱，先解釋根本煩惱。這些根本煩惱也名為隨煩惱，因為它們都隨著心而為惱亂事故。又有這些根本煩惱之外的，不同於各種根本煩惱的染污心所蘊所攝，隨煩惱生起，所以也名為隨煩惱。不名為煩惱，因為不是根本的緣故。廣泛列舉那些隨煩惱的相狀，如《法蘊足論》第九卷。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not like greed. This refers to the three feelings of pleasure, etc., in one's own continuum. From the majority of cases, it is said definitively that they are the objects of bondage. Greed increases with pleasure as its condition, hatred increases with suffering as its condition, and delusion increases with equanimity as its condition. If the three feelings of pleasure, etc., in the continuum of others are taken as the objects of bondage, then this is not definite. This is because the three feelings can all be objects that give rise to the three bondages. For example, with pleasure from an enemy as a condition, hatred also increases accordingly; for example, with suffering from an enemy as a condition, greed also increases accordingly; with suffering and pleasure from neither enemy nor friend as conditions, delusion also increases accordingly, as appropriate. Therefore, the fifty-fourth volume of the Nyāyānusāra (Following the Course of Reason) says: 'Some other teachers say that, due to the power of the three feelings, it is said that there are three bondages. That is, greed mostly increases with one's own feeling of pleasure, both as object and in correspondence; a small part also increases with neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings; with one's own and others' suffering, and others' pleasure and equanimity, only one kind of object increases accordingly. Hatred also mostly increases with one's own feeling of suffering, both as object and in correspondence; a small part also increases with neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings; with one's own and others' pleasure, and others' suffering and equanimity, only one kind of object increases accordingly. Delusion also mostly increases with one's own feeling of equanimity, both as object and in correspondence; a small part also increases with feelings of pleasure and suffering; with all feelings of others, only the object increases accordingly.' Therefore, the World-Honored One, based on the principle of the majority of cases, said that three bondages are established according to the three feelings.

'Having distinguished the bondages up to what has been said before,' this is the third explanation of Anusaya (latent defilements). It refers to the same as what was said before.

'Since Anusaya has been spoken of up to being included in the defilements,' this is the fourth explanation of Upaklesha (secondary defilements). Briefly explaining the verse: 'Skandha (aggregate),' distinguishes the unconditioned; 'Samskara (formation),' distinguishes the four aggregates of form, etc.; 'Caitasika (mental factors),' distinguishes the non-associated formations among the aggregate of formations; 'Klista (defiled),' distinguishes the wholesome and neutral among the mental factors; 'This remainder,' distinguishes the root defilements among the defiled. What is called 'this' is outside of the root defilements; 'Upaklesha,' is the naming. About to explain the secondary defilements, first explain the root defilements. These root defilements are also called secondary defilements, because they all follow the mind and are the cause of disturbance. Furthermore, there are these outside of the root defilements, different from the defiled mental factors included in the aggregate of defilements, the secondary defilements arise, so they are also called secondary defilements. They are not called defilements, because they are not fundamental. The characteristics of those secondary defilements are extensively listed, such as in the ninth volume of the Dharmaskandha.

卷雜事品中說　複次當略論十纏攝者。六煩惱垢攝者。

且應先辨至悔從疑覆諍者。此即第五明纏。初一頌明纏。后一頌半明本惑等流果。

論曰至說名為覆者。釋初頌。將釋諸纏先解本惑。根本煩惱亦名為纏。經說欲貪纏為緣故　然品類足。說纏有八不說忿．覆　毗婆沙宗說纏有十　纏縛有情置生死獄故名為纏　此中睡眠唯取染污。若泛明睡眠總有四種。謂善．不善．有覆．無覆。善唯生得不通加行。故正理云。然于加行聞．思善心眠不現行。性相違故。此于加行修所成心亦不現行彼能治故。唯有一類生得善心眠可現行。性羸劣故　不善．有覆皆容現行　無覆無記異說不同。故正理五十四云。無覆無記唯異熟生。起工巧等眠便壞故。有餘師說于眠位中亦有威儀．工巧心起。然非初位彼可即行。於後夢中方可行故。又婆沙三十七云。無覆無記者謂威儀路．工巧處．異熟生非通果。威儀路者。如睡夢中自謂行等。工巧處者。如睡夢中自謂畫等。異熟生者。如睡夢中除前所說余無記轉。有餘師說唯異熟生。是睡眠中無覆無記。以心惛昧。不發身．語故無威儀及工巧性(婆沙。正理。並無評家)略釋睡眠。餘九如文　問余隨煩惱何故非纏　解云隨其所應過重別立過輕不立。大煩惱中惛沈障慧勝。掉舉障定勝故別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：《雜事品》中說：『其次應當簡略地論述十纏所包含的內容，以及六種煩惱垢所包含的內容。』首先應當辨析的是，從『悔』到『疑』、『覆』、『諍』這些。這指的是第五個部分，闡明『纏』。最初一頌說明『纏』，後面一頌半說明根本煩惱的等流果。論中說：『稱為覆』，這是解釋最初的頌文。在解釋各種『纏』之前，先解釋根本煩惱。根本煩惱也稱為『纏』。經中說，『欲貪纏』是（生起煩惱的）緣故。然而，《品類足論》說『纏』有八種，沒有提到『忿』和『覆』。《毗婆沙宗》說『纏』有十種。『纏』束縛有情，將他們置於生死牢獄之中，因此稱為『纏』。這裡所說的『睡眠』，只取染污的睡眠。如果泛泛地說明『睡眠』，總共有四種，即善、不善、有覆、無覆。善的睡眠唯有生得，不包括加行。所以《正理》中說：『然而在加行位的聞、思善心中，睡眠不會現行，因為性質相違背。』這種善的睡眠在加行位的修所成心中也不會現行，因為修所成心能夠對治睡眠。只有一類生得的善心，睡眠才可能現行，因為性質羸弱。不善和有覆的睡眠都可能現行。無覆無記的睡眠，不同的說法不同。所以《正理》第五十四卷中說：『無覆無記的睡眠唯有異熟生，因為起身做工巧等事情時，睡眠就會壞滅。』有其他論師說，在睡眠狀態中，也有威儀路和工巧處的心生起。但不是在最初的睡眠狀態，因為最初的狀態無法立即行動，而是在後來的夢中才可能行動。』此外，《婆沙》第三十七卷中說：『無覆無記指的是威儀路、工巧處、異熟生，但不包括通果。威儀路，比如在睡夢中自認為在行走等。工巧處，比如在睡夢中自認為在繪畫等。異熟生，比如在睡夢中除了前面所說的，其餘的無記轉動。』有其他論師說，只有異熟生才是睡眠中的無覆無記，因為心識昏昧，不引發身語，所以沒有威儀和工巧的性質。（《婆沙》、《正理》都沒有評判）。以上簡略地解釋了睡眠，其餘九種『纏』如同經文所說。問：『其餘的隨煩惱為什麼不是『纏』呢？』解答說：『根據它們所應處的地位，過失嚴重的就特別立為『纏』，過失輕微的就不立為『纏』。在大煩惱中，惛沈（Stiffness of mind）障礙智慧最為嚴重，掉舉（Excitement）障礙禪定最為嚴重，所以特別立為『纏』。

【English Translation】 English version: The Miscellaneous Matters chapter says: 'Furthermore, we should briefly discuss what the ten entanglements (纏) include, and what the six defilements of affliction (煩惱垢) include.' First, it should be distinguished from 'remorse' to 'doubt', 'concealment', and 'contention'. This refers to the fifth section, clarifying the entanglements. The initial verse explains the entanglements, and the subsequent one and a half verses explain the outflowing result of the root afflictions. The treatise says: 'Called concealment', this is an explanation of the initial verse. Before explaining the various entanglements, first explain the root afflictions. Root afflictions are also called entanglements. The sutra says that 'desire and greed entanglement' is the cause (of arising afflictions). However, the Treatise on Categories says that there are eight entanglements, not mentioning 'anger' and 'concealment'. The Vaibhashika School says there are ten entanglements. Entanglements bind sentient beings, placing them in the prison of samsara (生死), therefore they are called entanglements. Here, 'sleep' only refers to defiled sleep. If generally explaining 'sleep', there are four types in total, namely good, unwholesome, obscured, and unobscured. Good sleep is only innate, not including effort. Therefore, the Treatise on Reason says: 'However, in the mind of hearing and thinking that is in the stage of effort, sleep does not manifest, because the nature is contradictory.' This good sleep also does not manifest in the mind accomplished by cultivation in the stage of effort, because the mind accomplished by cultivation can counteract sleep. Only one type of innate good mind can manifest sleep, because the nature is weak. Unwholesome and obscured sleep can both manifest. There are different views on unobscured and unspecified sleep. Therefore, the fifty-fourth volume of the Treatise on Reason says: 'Unobscured and unspecified sleep is only the result of maturation, because when getting up to do skillful activities, sleep will be destroyed.' Other teachers say that in the state of sleep, there are also minds of deportment and skillful activities arising. But not in the initial state of sleep, because the initial state cannot act immediately, but can act in later dreams.' Furthermore, the thirty-seventh volume of the Vaibhasha says: 'Unobscured and unspecified refers to deportment, skillful activities, and the result of maturation, but does not include the general result. Deportment, such as believing oneself to be walking in a dream. Skillful activities, such as believing oneself to be painting in a dream. The result of maturation, such as the remaining unspecified movements in a dream besides what was mentioned earlier.' Other teachers say that only the result of maturation is unobscured and unspecified in sleep, because the mind is dim, and does not trigger body and speech, so there is no deportment and skillful nature. (The Vaibhasha and Treatise on Reason have no commentary). The above briefly explains sleep, and the remaining nine entanglements are as the sutra says. Question: 'Why are the remaining secondary afflictions not entanglements?' The answer is: 'According to their appropriate positions, those with severe faults are specifically established as entanglements, and those with minor faults are not established as entanglements. Among the major afflictions, lethargy (惛沈) obstructs wisdom the most, and excitement (掉舉) obstructs samadhi (禪定) the most, so they are specifically established as entanglements.'

立纏。不信．懈怠．放逸三種障定．慧非勝故不立纏。故入阿毗達摩論云。不信等三不立隨眠．及纏．垢者。過失輕故。易除遣故(已上論文)　無明是本煩惱故不立纏。無慚．無愧唯是不善過重故立纏。小煩惱中嫉．慳．忿．覆過重立纏。餘六過輕故立別垢。餘地法外睡眠障慧勝。惡作障定勝故別立纏。尋．伺非障故。尋立菩提分法。此即順慧。尋．伺立靜慮支。此即順定。故不立纏。貪．瞋．慢．疑並是本惑。亦不立纏。

於此所說至如其次第者。釋后一頌半　言等流者。是彼本惑近等流果。若有知人覆是貪等流。貪著名利而覆藏故。若無知人覆是無明等流。愚癡不解而覆藏故。如其次第　又解有知是初師。無知是第二師。有知無知是第三師。故言如其次第　前解為勝。余文可知　故正理云無慚．慳．掉舉是貪等流。要貪為近因方得生故。無愧眠惛沈是無明等流。此與無明相極相鄰近故。嫉．忿是瞋等流。由此相同瞋故。悔是疑等流。因猶豫生故。覆有說是貪等流。有說是無明等流。有說是俱等流。諸有知者因愛生故。諸無知者因癡生故。

余煩惱垢至諂從諸見生者。此即大文第二明煩惱六垢。初兩句正明六垢。后四句明是本惑近等流果。

論曰至名煩惱垢者。釋初兩句　諂。謂能令心曲為性

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『立纏』（Lichan，一種煩惱的分類）。不信（Bu Xin，缺乏信心）、懈怠（Xiedai，懶惰）、放逸（Fangyi，放縱）這三種障礙禪定（Chan Ding，Dhyana）和智慧（Hui，Prajna），因為它們不是最強的障礙，所以不被列為『纏』。因此，《阿毗達摩論》（Abhidharma）中說：『不信等三種煩惱不被列為隨眠（Suimian，潛在的煩惱）、纏（Chan，束縛）、垢（Gou，污垢），因為它們的過失較輕，容易去除。』（以上是論文原文）無明（Wuming，Avidya，無知）是根本煩惱，所以不被列為『纏』。無慚（Wu Chan，沒有羞恥感）、無愧（Wu Kui，沒有負罪感）僅僅是不善，過失嚴重，所以被列為『纏』。小煩惱中，嫉（Ji，嫉妒）、慳（Qian，吝嗇）、忿（Fen，憤怒）、覆（Fu，隱藏）過失嚴重，所以被列為『纏』。其餘六種過失較輕，所以被列為『別垢』。其餘地法之外，睡眠（Shuimian，睡眠）障礙智慧更甚，惡作（Ezuo，後悔）障礙禪定更甚，所以分別被列為『纏』。尋（Xun，Vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（Si，Vicara，細緻的思考）不是障礙，尋被列為菩提分法（Putifenfa，Bodhipaksadharma，菩提的組成部分），這順應智慧。尋、伺被列為靜慮支（Jinglvzhi，Dhyananga，禪定的組成部分），這順應禪定，所以不被列為『纏』。貪（Tan，Raga，貪婪）、瞋（Chen，Dvesha，嗔恨）、慢（Man，Mana，傲慢）、疑（Yi，Vicikitsa，懷疑）都是根本迷惑，也不被列為『纏』。關於這裡所說的『如其次第』，解釋後面一頌半的內容。『等流』（Dengliu，Nisyanda-phala，等流果）是指這些根本迷惑的近似等流果。如果是有知覺的人，『覆』是貪的等流，因為貪圖名利而進行掩蓋。如果是沒有知覺的人，『覆』是無明的等流，因為愚癡不理解而進行掩蓋。『如其次第』，又解釋為有知是第一位老師的觀點，無知是第二位老師的觀點，有知和無知是第三位老師的觀點。所以說是『如其次第』。前面的解釋更好，其餘內容可以理解。所以《正理》（Nyaya）中說，無慚、慳、掉舉（Diaoju，激動）是貪的等流，必須以貪為近因才能產生。無愧、睡眠、惛沈（Hunchen，昏沉）是無明的等流，因為它們與無明非常接近。嫉、忿是瞋的等流，因為它們與瞋相同。悔（Hui，後悔）是疑的等流，因為因猶豫而產生。『覆』，有人說是貪的等流，有人說是無明的等流，有人說是兩者的等流。有知覺的人是因為愛而產生，沒有知覺的人是因為癡而產生。其餘煩惱垢，到『諂從諸見生』，這即是大文第二部分，說明煩惱六垢。前兩句正面說明六垢，后四句說明是根本迷惑的近似等流果。論中說，到『名煩惱垢』，解釋前兩句。諂（Chan，諂媚），是指能使心彎曲的性質。

【English Translation】 English version 『Lichan』 (a classification of afflictions). Lack of faith (Bu Xin), laziness (Xiedai), and indulgence (Fangyi) are the three that obstruct Dhyana (Chan Ding, meditation) and Prajna (Hui, wisdom). Because they are not the strongest obstructions, they are not classified as 『Chan』 (entanglements). Therefore, the Abhidharma states: 『Lack of faith, etc., are not classified as latent afflictions (Suimian), entanglements (Chan), or defilements (Gou) because their faults are lighter and easier to remove.』 (The above is the original text of the treatise) Ignorance (Wuming, Avidya) is a fundamental affliction, so it is not classified as 『Chan』. Lack of shame (Wu Chan) and lack of remorse (Wu Kui) are merely unwholesome and their faults are severe, so they are classified as 『Chan』. Among the minor afflictions, jealousy (Ji), stinginess (Qian), anger (Fen), and concealment (Fu) have severe faults, so they are classified as 『Chan』. The remaining six have lighter faults, so they are classified as 『separate defilements』. Apart from the remaining mental factors, sleep (Shuimian) obstructs wisdom more, and regret (Ezuo) obstructs Dhyana more, so they are separately classified as 『Chan』. Initial thought (Xun, Vitarka) and sustained thought (Si, Vicara) are not obstructions. Initial thought is classified as a factor of enlightenment (Putifenfa, Bodhipaksadharma), which accords with wisdom. Initial and sustained thought are classified as factors of Dhyana (Jinglvzhi, Dhyananga), which accords with Dhyana, so they are not classified as 『Chan』. Greed (Tan, Raga), hatred (Chen, Dvesha), pride (Man, Mana), and doubt (Yi, Vicikitsa) are all fundamental delusions and are also not classified as 『Chan』. Regarding what is said here as 『in due order』, it explains the content of the latter one and a half verses. 『Equal flow』 (Dengliu, Nisyanda-phala) refers to the approximate equal flow results of these fundamental delusions. If a person is conscious, 『concealment』 is an equal flow of greed because they conceal due to greed for fame and gain. If a person is unconscious, 『concealment』 is an equal flow of ignorance because they conceal due to foolishness and lack of understanding. 『In due order』 is also explained as the view of the first teacher being conscious, the view of the second teacher being unconscious, and the view of the third teacher being both conscious and unconscious. Therefore, it is said 『in due order』. The previous explanation is better, and the remaining content can be understood. Therefore, the Nyaya states that lack of shame, stinginess, and excitement (Diaoju) are equal flows of greed because they can only arise with greed as the proximate cause. Lack of remorse, sleep, and torpor (Hunchen) are equal flows of ignorance because they are very close to ignorance. Jealousy and anger are equal flows of hatred because they are similar to hatred. Regret is an equal flow of doubt because it arises from hesitation. 『Concealment』 is said by some to be an equal flow of greed, and by some to be an equal flow of ignorance, and by some to be an equal flow of both. Conscious people arise from love, and unconscious people arise from delusion. The remaining defilements, up to 『flattery arises from various views』, this is the second part of the main text, explaining the six defilements. The first two sentences directly explain the six defilements, and the last four sentences explain that they are approximate equal flow results of fundamental delusions. The treatise says, up to 『named defilements』, explaining the first two sentences. Flattery (Chan) refers to the nature of being able to make the mind crooked.

。由此不能如實自顯。為諂彼人或矯誹撥彼人怨家令彼歡喜。為諂他人或設方便種種現相令解不明故名為諂　余文可知。

於此六種至隨煩惱名者。釋后四句　言等流者。是彼本惑近等流果　諂。是諸五見等流　如有問言。何法是曲。作是答言謂諸惡見。惡見名曲。與諂相似。故諂定是諸見等流。故入阿毗達摩論第一云。誑．憍二種是貪等流貪種類故。害．恨二種是瞋等流瞋種類故。惱垢即是見取等流。執己見勝者惱亂自他故。諂垢即是諸見等流。諸見增者多諂曲故。如說諂曲謂諸惡見。

此垢及纏至名自在起者。此下大文第二諸門分別。就中。一三斷分別。二三性分別。三三界分別。四六識相應。五五受相應　此即三斷分別。且十纏中無慚．無愧．睡眠．惛沈．掉舉五種通見．修斷。由此通與見．修所斷二部煩惱相應起故。故通二斷。于見斷中隨與見此諦所斷相應。即說名為見此諦所斷。見斷通四部所以別釋。修斷唯一故不別明。余嫉．慳．悔．忿．覆．並六垢。自在起故唯修所斷。唯與修斷他力無明。共相應故名自在起。故唯修斷。故正理云。與自在起纏垢相應。所有無明唯修斷故。

此隨煩惱至無記性攝者。此即三性分別。欲界所繫眠．惛．掉三。若與貪等相應是不善。若與身．邊二見相應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此不能如實地自我顯現。爲了諂媚那個人，或者虛假地誹謗、挑撥那個人的仇家，使那個人歡喜。爲了諂媚其他人，或者設定種種方便的表象，使人產生不正確的理解，所以叫做諂媚。其餘的文字可以自己理解。對於這六種隨煩惱被稱為『名』的解釋，是解釋後面的四句。所說的『等流』，是那些根本煩惱相近的等流果。諂媚，是各種五見（薩迦耶見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）的等流。如果有人問：『什麼法是曲？』可以這樣回答：『所謂的各種惡見。』惡見被稱為曲，與諂媚相似。所以諂媚一定是各種見解的等流。所以在《阿毗達摩論》第一卷中說：『誑和憍兩種是貪的等流，因為是貪的種類。害和恨兩種是瞋的等流，因為是瞋的種類。惱和垢就是見取見的等流，因為執著自己的見解為殊勝，會惱亂自己和他人。諂垢就是各種見解的等流，因為各種見解增長的人多諂媚。』如說諂曲就是各種惡見。這些垢和纏，到『名為自在起』的解釋，這以下是大的科判第二部分，從各個方面進行分別。其中，第一是三斷分別（見斷、修斷、非所斷），第二是三性分別（善、惡、無記），第三是三界分別（欲界、色界、無色界），第四是與六識相應，第五是與五受相應。這裡就是三斷分別。而且十纏中，無慚、無愧、睡眠、惛沉、掉舉這五種是通於見斷和修斷的。因此通於見所斷和修所斷這兩部分的煩惱相應生起。所以在見斷中，隨與見此諦所斷相應，就說名為見此諦所斷。見斷通於四部，所以特別解釋。修斷只有一種，所以不特別說明。其餘的嫉妒、慳吝、追悔、忿怒、覆藏，以及六垢，因為是自在生起的，所以只是修所斷。只是與修斷的他力無明共同相應，所以名為自在生起。所以只是修所斷。所以《正理》中說：『與自在生起的纏和垢相應，所有的無明只是修所斷的緣故。』這些隨煩惱，到『無記性所攝』的解釋，這裡就是三性分別。欲界所繫的睡眠、惛沉、掉舉這三種，如果與貪等相應就是不善的，如果與身見、邊見這兩種見解相應

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it cannot manifest itself truthfully. To flatter that person, or to falsely slander and instigate against that person's enemies, making that person happy. To flatter others, or to set up various convenient appearances, causing people to have incorrect understandings, hence it is called flattery. The remaining text can be understood on your own. Regarding the explanation of these six secondary afflictions being called 'name', it explains the latter four sentences. The so-called 'equal flow' is the nearly equal flow result of those fundamental afflictions. Flattery is the equal flow of various five views (Satkayadristi - view of self, Antagrahadristi - extreme views, Micchadristi - wrong view, Dristiparమర్శdristi - view of holding onto views, Silavrataparamarśa dristi - view of holding onto precepts and vows). If someone asks: 'What dharma is crooked?' One can answer: 'The so-called various evil views.' Evil views are called crooked, similar to flattery. Therefore, flattery must be the equal flow of various views. Therefore, in the first volume of the Abhidharma, it says: 'Deceit and arrogance are both equal flows of greed, because they are types of greed. Harm and hatred are both equal flows of anger, because they are types of anger. Annoyance and defilement are the equal flow of view of holding onto views, because clinging to one's own views as superior will annoy oneself and others. The defilement of flattery is the equal flow of various views, because those whose various views increase are often flattering.' As it is said, crookedness is the various evil views. These defilements and entanglements, up to the explanation of 'called arising independently', the following is the second major division, distinguishing from various aspects. Among them, first is the distinction of the three severances (severance by seeing, severance by cultivation, non-severance), second is the distinction of the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, neutral), third is the distinction of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), fourth is corresponding to the six consciousnesses, fifth is corresponding to the five feelings. Here is the distinction of the three severances. Moreover, among the ten entanglements, lack of shame, lack of embarrassment, sleep, drowsiness, and restlessness are all common to severance by seeing and severance by cultivation. Therefore, they are common to the afflictions arising in correspondence with both the parts of severance by seeing and severance by cultivation. Therefore, in severance by seeing, it is said to be severance by seeing this truth when it corresponds to severance by seeing this truth. Severance by seeing is common to the four parts, so it is specially explained. Severance by cultivation is only one type, so it is not specially explained. The remaining jealousy, stinginess, regret, anger, concealment, and the six defilements, because they arise independently, are only severed by cultivation. They only correspond to the ignorance of others' power in severance by cultivation, so they are called arising independently. Therefore, they are only severed by cultivation. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says: 'Corresponding to the entanglements and defilements arising independently, all ignorance is only severed by cultivation.' These secondary afflictions, up to the explanation of 'included in the neutral nature', here is the distinction of the three natures. The three types of sleep, drowsiness, and restlessness, which are related to the desire realm, are unwholesome if they correspond to greed, etc., and if they correspond to the two views of view of self and extreme views

無記。所餘一切七纏。六垢。皆唯不善。上二界中隨應所有惛沈．掉舉。及諂．誑．憍。一切唯是無記性攝。

此隨煩惱至唯欲界系者此即第三三界分別　匿己情事名諂　現相誑惑名誑　又正理解諂．誑云。傳聞此唯異生所起。非諸聖者亦可現行　余文可知。

已辨隨眠至皆容起故者。此即第四六識相應　略說應知。一切三界見諦所斷．及修所斷。一切慢．眠隨煩惱中。自在起者。即是嫉．慳．忿．覆．悔纏。及與六垢。如是一切皆依意識　依五識身無容起故　所餘一切通依六識。謂修所斷貪．瞋．無明。及彼相應諸隨煩惱。即無慚．愧．惛．掉四纏．及余大煩惱地法所攝隨煩惱。即是放逸．懈怠．不信。依六識身皆容起故。

如先所辨至遍自識諸受者。此下第五五受相應。就中。一明本惑相應。二明隨惑相應　此即第一明本惑相應　就問起中。一總問。二別問及頌答。可知。

論曰至唯意地故者。欲惑中貪。喜．樂相應歡行轉故。非憂．苦相應非戚行故。遍六識故喜．樂相應。若在五識樂根相應。若在意識。喜根相應　瞋憂．苦相應戚行轉故。非喜．樂相應非歡行故。遍六識故憂．苦相應　若在五識苦根相應。若在意識憂根相應　無明遍與前喜．樂．憂．苦四受相應。歡行轉故喜．樂相應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無記（既非善亦非惡的狀態）。其餘一切七纏（七種束縛：欲纏、恚纏、有身纏、見纏、戒禁取纏、疑纏、無明纏）和六垢（六種染污：貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑、不正見），都只是不善的。在上二界（色界和無色界）中，所有相應的惛沈（精神遲鈍）、掉舉（精神散亂），以及諂（虛偽）、誑（欺騙）、憍（驕傲），一切都屬於無記性的範疇。

這裡所說的隨煩惱只與欲界相關，這是第三個關於三界的分別。隱藏自己真實情感叫做諂，用虛假的表象迷惑他人叫做誑。還有一種正確的理解是，諂和誑，據說是只有凡夫才會產生的，聖者不會有這些行為。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

已經辨析了隨眠（潛在的煩惱）到『皆容起故』（都可能生起）的部分。這是第四個關於六識相應的討論。簡要地說，應該知道，一切三界（欲界、色界、無色界）中見諦所斷（通過見道斷除的煩惱）和修所斷（通過修道斷除的煩惱），以及一切慢（傲慢）、隨眠（潛在的煩惱）和隨煩惱中，能夠自在生起的，就是嫉（嫉妒）、慳（吝嗇）、忿（憤怒）、覆（隱藏罪過）、悔纏（後悔），以及六垢。所有這些都依賴於意識。因為五識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）不可能產生這些煩惱。其餘的一切煩惱都通於六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）。也就是說，修所斷的貪（貪婪）、嗔（嗔恨）、無明（愚癡），以及與它們相應的各種隨煩惱，即無慚（不知羞恥）、無愧（沒有羞恥心）、惛沈（精神遲鈍）、掉舉（精神散亂）四纏，以及其餘大煩惱地法所包含的隨煩惱，即放逸（放縱）、懈怠（懶惰）、不信（不相信）。這些都可能依賴於六識身而生起。

如先前所辨析的，到『遍自識諸受者』（普遍存在於自己的各種感受中）。這以下是第五個關於五受相應的討論。其中，一是說明根本煩惱的相應，二是說明隨煩惱的相應。這裡是第一部分，說明根本煩惱的相應。在提問的部分中，一是總的提問，二是分別提問以及頌文回答。可以自己理解。

論中說，到『唯意地故』（只存在於意識層面）。欲界的貪，與喜、樂相應的歡快狀態一起運轉，而不是與憂、苦相應的悲傷狀態一起運轉。因為它普遍存在於六識中，所以與喜、樂相應。如果在五識中，就與樂根相應，如果在意識中，就與喜根相應。嗔與憂、苦相應的悲傷狀態一起運轉，而不是與喜、樂相應的歡快狀態一起運轉。因為它普遍存在於六識中，所以與憂、苦相應。如果在五識中，就與苦根相應，如果在意識中，就與憂根相應。無明普遍與之前的喜、樂、憂、苦四種感受相應。與歡快狀態一起運轉，所以與喜、樂相應。

【English Translation】 English version: Avyākrta (neither good nor bad). All the remaining seven entanglements (seven bonds: kāma-chanda, vyāpāda, satkāya-dṛṣṭi, śīlāvrata-parāmarśa, vicikicchā, avidyā) and six defilements (six stains: greed, hatred, delusion, pride, doubt, wrong views) are only unwholesome. In the upper two realms (Rūpadhātu and Arūpadhātu), all corresponding styāna (lethargy), auddhatya (restlessness), as well as śāṭhya (deceitfulness), mrakṣa (hypocrisy), and mada (arrogance), are all included in the category of avyākrta.

The afflictions mentioned here are only related to the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), which is the third distinction regarding the three realms. Concealing one's true feelings is called śāṭhya, and deceiving others with false appearances is called mrakṣa. Another correct understanding is that śāṭhya and mrakṣa are said to be produced only by ordinary beings, and saints do not exhibit these behaviors. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

The discussion has been made from latent afflictions (anuśaya) to 'all can arise' (succeeding in arising). This is the fourth discussion regarding the correspondence of the six consciousnesses. Briefly, it should be known that all afflictions to be abandoned by seeing the truth (darśana-heya) and to be abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya) in all three realms (Kāmadhātu, Rūpadhātu, Arūpadhātu), as well as all māna (pride), latent afflictions (anuśaya), and afflictions (upakleśa) that can arise freely, are jealousy (īrṣyā), miserliness (mātsarya), anger (krodha), concealment of faults (mrakṣa), remorse (kaukṛtya), and the six defilements. All of these depend on consciousness (manovijñāna). Because the five sense consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) cannot produce these afflictions. All the remaining afflictions are common to the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness). That is, greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), and ignorance (avidyā) to be abandoned by cultivation, as well as the various afflictions corresponding to them, namely, the four entanglements of no shame (āhrīkya), no embarrassment (anapatrāpya), lethargy (styāna), and restlessness (auddhatya), and the afflictions included in the remaining great unwholesome mental factors (mahā-akūśala-bhūmikā), namely, laxity (styāna), laziness (kausīdya), and disbelief (āśraddhya). These can all arise depending on the six consciousnesses.

As previously discussed, to 'pervade one's own various feelings' (vyāpi svasya vividhāsu vedanāsu). Below this is the fifth discussion regarding the correspondence of the five feelings. Among them, one is to explain the correspondence of fundamental afflictions, and the other is to explain the correspondence of secondary afflictions. Here is the first part, explaining the correspondence of fundamental afflictions. In the questioning part, one is a general question, and the other is separate questions and verse answers. It can be understood by oneself.

The treatise says, to 'only exist in the mind ground' (kevalam mano-bhūmau). Greed in the desire realm operates with the joyful state corresponding to joy and pleasure, rather than with the sorrowful state corresponding to sadness and suffering. Because it is prevalent in the six consciousnesses, it corresponds to joy and pleasure. If it is in the five consciousnesses, it corresponds to the pleasure root, and if it is in the mind consciousness, it corresponds to the joy root. Hatred operates with the sorrowful state corresponding to sadness and suffering, rather than with the joyful state corresponding to joy and pleasure. Because it is prevalent in the six consciousnesses, it corresponds to sadness and suffering. If it is in the five consciousnesses, it corresponds to the suffering root, and if it is in the mind consciousness, it corresponds to the sadness root. Ignorance is universally corresponding to the previous four feelings of joy, pleasure, sadness, and suffering. It operates with the joyful state, so it corresponds to joy and pleasure.

。戚行轉故憂．苦相應。遍六識故四受相應。若在五識苦．樂根相應。若在意識喜．憂相應　邪見通與憂．喜相應。歡行轉故喜根相應。戚行轉故憂根相應。唯意地故憂．喜相應。非五識故非苦．樂相應。

何緣邪見歡戚行轉者。問。

如次先造罪福業故者。答。先造罪業後起邪見即歡行轉。雖造罪業無苦果故。先造福業後起邪見即戚行轉。徒設劬勞福無果故。

疑憂相應至必住舍受者。疑憂相應戚行轉故。非喜相應非歡行故。唯意地故憂根相應。非五識故非苦相應。求決定知心愁戚故所以非歡行轉　餘四見。慢。與喜相應歡行轉故。非憂相應非戚行故。唯意地故喜根相應。非五識故非樂相應　已約別相說諸煩惱與受相應。就通相說受相應者。一切煩惱皆舍受相應。以諸隨眠相續斷位勢力衰歇必住舍受。以舍處中不違歡．戚。故遍相應。

欲界既爾上界云何者。此下釋后兩句。此即問也。

皆隨所應至故不別說者。答。欲有憂．苦所以諸惑有戚行轉。上無憂．苦。又定所潤。所以諸惑無戚行轉。隨何地識所有煩惱。各遍自識諸受相應　若初定中具有四識。彼一一識所起煩惱。各遍自識諸受相應。若在三識樂．舍相應。若在意地喜．舍相應　二定已上唯有意識。二定意識所起煩惱。遍與

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，憂愁和痛苦相互關聯。由於遍及六識，所以四種感受相互關聯。如果在前五識中，則與苦、樂的感受相關聯。如果在意識中，則與喜、憂的感受相關聯。邪見普遍與憂愁和喜悅相關聯。歡快的心行轉變，因此與喜悅的感受相關聯。憂愁的心行轉變，因此與憂愁的感受相關聯。只有在意識層面，憂愁和喜悅才相互關聯。不是前五識，因此不與苦、樂的感受相關聯。

為什麼邪見會引起歡快和憂愁的心行轉變呢？（問）

因為先前造作了罪業和福業。（答）先前造作了罪業，之後產生邪見，這就是歡快的心行轉變。雖然造作了罪業，卻沒有痛苦的結果。先前造作了福業，之後產生邪見，這就是憂愁的心行轉變。白白地付出了努力，福報卻沒有結果。

疑惑與憂愁相關聯，直到必定安住于舍受（upeksa-vedana）？疑惑與憂愁相關聯，是憂愁的心行轉變。不與喜悅相關聯，因為不是歡快的心行。只有在意識層面，才與憂愁的感受相關聯。不是前五識，因此不與痛苦相關聯。尋求確定性的知見，內心愁苦，所以不是歡快的心行轉變。其餘四種見（四見：有身見、邊見、邪見、見取見），以及我慢，與喜悅相關聯，是歡快的心行轉變。不與憂愁相關聯，因為不是憂愁的心行。只有在意識層面，才與喜悅的感受相關聯。不是前五識，因此不與快樂相關聯。以上是分別從各個方面說明了各種煩惱與感受的關聯。從普遍的方面來說，一切煩惱都與舍受相關聯。因為各種隨眠（anusaya）相續不斷，斷除的階段，勢力衰弱，必定安住于舍受。因為舍受處於中間狀態，不違背歡快和憂愁，所以普遍相關聯。

欲界（kama-dhatu）既然如此，上界（rupa-dhatu和arupadhatu）又如何呢？這是解釋後面兩句話。這是提問。

都隨著各自相應的狀態……所以不分別說明。（答）欲界有憂愁和痛苦，所以各種迷惑有憂愁的心行轉變。上界沒有憂愁和痛苦，又被禪定所滋潤，所以各種迷惑沒有憂愁的心行轉變。無論哪個地（bhumi）的識（vijnana）所具有的煩惱，各自普遍與自身識的各種感受相關聯。如果在初禪（prathama-dhyana）中具有四識，那麼每一個識所產生的煩惱，各自普遍與自身識的各種感受相關聯。如果在三識中，與快樂和舍受相關聯。如果在意識層面，與喜悅和舍受相關聯。二禪（dvitiya-dhyana）及以上只有意識。二禪意識所產生的煩惱，普遍與

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, sorrow and suffering are mutually related. Because it pervades the six consciousnesses, the four types of feelings are mutually related. If it is in the first five consciousnesses, it is associated with feelings of suffering and pleasure. If it is in consciousness, it is associated with feelings of joy and sorrow. Wrong views are generally associated with sorrow and joy. The transformation of joyful mental activity is therefore associated with the feeling of joy. The transformation of sorrowful mental activity is therefore associated with the feeling of sorrow. Only at the level of consciousness are sorrow and joy mutually related. It is not the first five consciousnesses, therefore it is not associated with feelings of suffering and pleasure.

Why do wrong views cause the transformation of joyful and sorrowful mental activity? (Question)

Because one has previously created sinful and meritorious karma. (Answer) If one first creates sinful karma and then develops wrong views, this is the transformation of joyful mental activity. Although one has created sinful karma, there is no painful result. If one first creates meritorious karma and then develops wrong views, this is the transformation of sorrowful mental activity. One has exerted effort in vain, and the merit has no result.

Doubt is associated with sorrow, until one inevitably abides in equanimity (upeksa-vedana)? Doubt is associated with sorrow, which is the transformation of sorrowful mental activity. It is not associated with joy, because it is not joyful mental activity. Only at the level of consciousness is it associated with the feeling of sorrow. It is not the first five consciousnesses, therefore it is not associated with suffering. Seeking certainty of knowledge, the mind is distressed, so it is not the transformation of joyful mental activity. The remaining four views (four views: belief in a self, extreme views, wrong views, holding to views), and pride, are associated with joy, which is the transformation of joyful mental activity. It is not associated with sorrow, because it is not sorrowful mental activity. Only at the level of consciousness is it associated with the feeling of joy. It is not the first five consciousnesses, therefore it is not associated with pleasure. The above explains the association of various afflictions with feelings from various aspects. From a general perspective, all afflictions are associated with equanimity. Because the various latent tendencies (anusaya) continue uninterrupted, the stage of cutting them off, the power weakens, and one inevitably abides in equanimity. Because equanimity is in a middle state, it does not contradict joy and sorrow, so it is universally associated.

Since the desire realm (kama-dhatu) is like this, what about the upper realms (rupa-dhatu and arupa-dhatu)? This is to explain the following two sentences. This is a question.

Everything follows its corresponding state... therefore it is not explained separately. (Answer) The desire realm has sorrow and suffering, so the various delusions have the transformation of sorrowful mental activity. The upper realms have no sorrow and suffering, and are nourished by samadhi, so the various delusions have no transformation of sorrowful mental activity. Whatever afflictions are possessed by the consciousness (vijnana) of any realm (bhumi), each is universally associated with the various feelings of its own consciousness. If there are four consciousnesses in the first dhyana (prathama-dhyana), then the afflictions arising from each consciousness are universally associated with the various feelings of its own consciousness. If it is in the three consciousnesses, it is associated with pleasure and equanimity. If it is at the level of consciousness, it is associated with joy and equanimity. The second dhyana (dvitiya-dhyana) and above only have consciousness. The afflictions arising from the consciousness of the second dhyana are universally associated with

意識喜．舍相應　三定意識所起煩惱。遍與意識樂．舍相應　四定已上意識所起煩惱。遍與意識舍受相應　上諸地中識．受多少。如前已辨故不別說　又顯宗二十七云。何緣二疑俱不決定。而上得與喜．樂相應非欲界疑喜受俱起。以諸煩惱在離欲地。雖不決定亦不憂戚。雖懷疑網無廢情怡。如在人間求得所愛雖多勞倦而生樂相有。說色界雖復懷疑。而於疑中生善品想。故彼得與喜．樂相應。

已辨煩惱至餘四遍相應者。此即第二明隨惑相應。

論曰至唯意地故者。釋初三句。隨煩惱中嫉．悔．忿．惱．害．恨六種。一切皆與憂根相應。戚行轉故。非喜相應非歡行故。唯意地故憂根相應。非五識故非苦相應　又正理云。有餘師說惱喜相應。見取等流應歡行故。

慳喜相應至極相似故者。釋第四句。慳喜相應歡行轉故。非憂相應非戚行故。唯意地故喜根相應。非五識故非樂相應。

諂誑眠覆至憂戚心行者。釋第五．第六句。諂．誑．眠．覆。憂．喜相應歡戚行故。若歡行轉喜根相應。若戚行轉憂根相應。唯意地故憂．喜相應。非五識故非苦．樂相應。又正理云。有餘師言。既說誑是貪等流故但應歡行。不應說與憂根相應。是歡等流不應戚故。又正誑時不應戚故。或應說誑是癡等流。正理釋云。理

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『意識喜·舍相應』指第三禪定中意識所產生的煩惱。『遍與意識樂·舍相應』指第四禪定及以上境界中意識所產生的煩惱。『遍與意識舍受相應』指更高禪定境界中意識和感受的多少，如前文已辨析，故不再贅述。《顯宗論》第二十七卷說：『為何兩種疑惑都不會導致不確定，而高層禪定可以與喜樂相應，而非欲界的疑惑和喜受同時生起？』因為諸煩惱在脫離慾望的境界中，即使不確定也不會憂愁悲傷。即使被懷疑的網纏繞，也不會失去愉快的心情。就像在人間追求所愛之物，即使勞累也會感到快樂。有人說，即使懷疑，也會在懷疑中產生善良的想法，所以他們可以與喜樂相應。

『已辨煩惱至餘四遍相應者』，這是第二部分，說明隨煩惱的相應關係。

論述：『論曰至唯意地故者』，解釋前三句。隨煩惱中的嫉妒、後悔、憤怒、惱怒、損害、怨恨這六種，都與憂根相應，因為它們是令人悲傷的行為。不與喜相應，因為它們不是令人歡快的行為。只與意識相應，所以與憂根相應，不與五識相應，所以不與苦相應。《正理論》中說：『有其他老師說惱怒與喜相應，因為見取的等流是令人歡快的行為。』

『慳喜相應至極相似故者』，解釋第四句。慳吝與喜相應，因為它是令人歡快的行為。不與憂相應，因為它不是令人悲傷的行為。只與意識相應，所以與喜根相應，不與五識相應，所以不與樂相應。

『諂誑眠覆至憂戚心行者』，解釋第五、第六句。諂媚、欺誑、睡眠、覆藏，與憂、喜相應，因為它們既有令人歡快的行為，也有令人悲傷的行為。如果是令人歡快的行為，就與喜根相應；如果是令人悲傷的行為，就與憂根相應。只與意識相應，所以與憂、喜相應，不與五識相應，所以不與苦、樂相應。《正理論》中說：『有其他老師說，既然說欺誑是貪的等流，就應該是令人歡快的行為，不應該與憂根相應，因為它是歡快的等流，不應該是令人悲傷的。而且，在真正欺誑的時候，不應該是令人悲傷的。』或者應該說欺誑是癡的等流。《正理論》解釋說：『有道理。』

【English Translation】 English version 'Consciousness associated with equanimity and joy' refers to the afflictions arising from consciousness in the third Dhyana (meditative absorption). 'Universally associated with joy and equanimity in consciousness' refers to the afflictions arising from consciousness in the fourth Dhyana and above. 'Universally associated with the feeling of equanimity in consciousness' refers to the extent of consciousness and feelings in the higher realms, as previously discussed, and will not be repeated here. The Xian Zong Lun (Treatise on Manifest Teachings), chapter 27, states: 'Why do two doubts not lead to uncertainty, while higher Dhyanas can be associated with joy and pleasure, unlike the doubts and pleasant feelings that arise simultaneously in the desire realm?' Because afflictions in the realm of detachment from desire, even if uncertain, do not cause sorrow or grief. Even if entangled in the net of doubt, they do not lose their pleasant mood. It is like pursuing a beloved object in the human world, where even if tired, one feels joy. Some say that even when doubting, they generate good thoughts within the doubt, so they can be associated with joy and pleasure.

'Having discussed afflictions and their association with the other four universals,' this is the second part, explaining the corresponding relationships of the secondary afflictions.

Discussion: 'The treatise says, up to 'only in the mind realm',' explains the first three sentences. Among the secondary afflictions, jealousy, regret, anger, annoyance, harm, and resentment are all associated with the root of sorrow, because they are actions that cause sadness. They are not associated with joy, because they are not actions that cause happiness. They are only associated with consciousness, so they are associated with the root of sorrow, not with the five consciousnesses, so they are not associated with suffering. The Zheng Li Lun (Treatise on Correct Reasoning) says: 'Some other teachers say that annoyance is associated with joy, because the outflow of wrong views is an action that causes happiness.'

'Stinginess associated with joy, up to 'extremely similar reason',' explains the fourth sentence. Stinginess is associated with joy, because it is an action that causes happiness. It is not associated with sorrow, because it is not an action that causes sadness. It is only associated with consciousness, so it is associated with the root of joy, not with the five consciousnesses, so it is not associated with pleasure.

'Flattery, deceit, sleepiness, concealment, up to 'sorrowful and afflicted mental actions',' explains the fifth and sixth sentences. Flattery, deceit, sleepiness, and concealment are associated with sorrow and joy, because they have both actions that cause happiness and actions that cause sadness. If it is an action that causes happiness, it is associated with the root of joy; if it is an action that causes sadness, it is associated with the root of sorrow. They are only associated with consciousness, so they are associated with sorrow and joy, not with the five consciousnesses, so they are not associated with suffering and pleasure. The Zheng Li Lun says: 'Some other teachers say that since deceit is said to be an outflow of greed, it should be an action that causes happiness, and should not be associated with the root of sorrow, because it is a joyful outflow, and should not be sad. Moreover, at the time of true deceit, it should not be sad.' Or it should be said that deceit is an outflow of ignorance. The Zheng Li Lun explains: 'It is reasonable.'

應釋言因果相別。如無慚．掉雖貪等流。而與憂．苦有相應義。故知所說與受相應不唯同因。但據相別許有憂戚。而行誑者情有所憂而行誑故。

憍喜．樂相應至與喜相應者。釋第七句中上三字。憍喜．樂相應歡行轉故。非憂相應非戚行故。唯意地故喜．樂相應樂謂三定。非五識故非彼樂相應。

此上所說至遍相應故者。釋第七句中下兩字。此上所說十二種中。憍通行在四定已上唯舍地故。惛沈．掉舉理亦通在唯舍地中。次後別明故今不說。余文可知。

余無慚無愧至地法攝故者。釋后一句。問六識相應中即便明余大煩惱。何故此中不便明耶　解云前文既說六識相應已。顯與彼諸受相應。故今不說。

所說煩惱至障蘊故唯五者。此即大文第三明五蓋　蓋五。標名舉數　唯在欲。界分別　次兩句明蓋合　后一句廢立。

論曰至五疑蓋者。釋蓋五。入阿毗達磨論云。欲界五部貪名初蓋。五部瞋名第二蓋。欲界惛沈．及不善睡眠名第三蓋。欲界掉舉．及不善惡作名第四蓋。欲界四部疑名第五蓋。

此中所說至通三界耶者。此釋唯在欲。此即問也。

應知此三至非色無色者。答。經言不善故唯在欲。又正理云。為顯惛沈．掉舉二種。唯欲界者有立為蓋故。與眠．悔和合而立。眠．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：應解釋說因果的差別。例如，雖然無慚（ahrīkya，不尊重，無恥）和掉舉（auddhatya，興奮，躁動）是貪（lobha，貪婪）的等流果，但它們與憂（daurmanasya，不愉快的心情）和苦（duhkha，痛苦）有相應的意義。因此可知，所說的與感受相應，不只是因為相同的因，而是根據它們各自的差別，允許有憂愁。而施行欺騙的人，心中有所憂慮才施行欺騙。『憍（mada，驕傲）與喜（prīti，喜悅）、樂（sukha，快樂）相應』，這是解釋第七句中的前三個字。憍與喜、樂相應，是因為歡喜的行為在運轉。它不是與憂相應，因為沒有憂愁的行為。它僅僅存在於意地（manodhātu，意識界），所以喜、樂相應，這裡的樂指的是三禪定（dhyāna，禪那）。它不是五識（pañca vijñāna，五種感官意識）的境界，所以不是與那裡的樂相應。『此上所說』到『遍相應故』，這是解釋第七句中的后兩個字。此上所說的十二種法中，憍通行於四禪定以上，僅僅因為是舍地（upekṣā-bhūmi，舍的境界）。惛沈（styāna，昏沉）和掉舉，從道理上講也通於僅僅是舍的境界中。其次後面會分別說明，所以現在不說。其餘的文句可以自己理解。『余無慚無愧』到『地法攝故』，這是解釋後面一句。問：在六識相應中，就應該說明其餘的大煩惱，為什麼在這裡不說明呢？解答說：前面的經文已經說了六識相應，已經顯示了與那些感受相應，所以現在不說。『所說煩惱』到『障蘊故唯五者』，這便是大文的第三部分，說明五蓋（pañca nivarana，五種障礙）——蓋有五種。標明名稱，舉出數量——僅僅在欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）中分別——接下來的兩句說明蓋的組合——最後一句說明廢立。論曰：到『五疑蓋者』，這是解釋蓋有五種。入《阿毗達磨論》（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨）說：欲界的五部貪（lobha，貪婪）名為初蓋。五部瞋（dveṣa，嗔恨）名為第二蓋。欲界的惛沈以及不善睡眠名為第三蓋。欲界的掉舉以及不善惡作（kaukritya，後悔）名為第四蓋。欲界的四部疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）名為第五蓋。『此中所說』到『通三界耶者』，這是解釋『唯在欲』。這是提問。『應知此三』到『非色無色者』，回答說：經中說『不善』，所以僅僅在欲界。而且《正理》（Nyāyānusāra，順正理論）中說：爲了顯示惛沈、掉舉這兩種，只有欲界才立為蓋，所以與睡眠、後悔和合而立。睡眠、

【English Translation】 English version: It should be explained that there is a distinction between cause and effect. For example, although ahrīkya (shamelessness, disrespect) and auddhatya (excitement, restlessness) are outflows of lobha (greed), they have a corresponding meaning with daurmanasya (unpleasant mood) and duhkha (suffering). Therefore, it can be known that what is said to correspond with feeling is not only because of the same cause, but according to their respective differences, it is permissible to have sorrow. And those who practice deception do so because they have worries in their hearts. 'Mada (pride) corresponds with prīti (joy) and sukha (happiness),' this explains the first three words in the seventh sentence. Mada corresponds with prīti and sukha because the activity of joy is in motion. It does not correspond with daurmanasya because there is no activity of sorrow. It exists only in the manodhātu (mind element), so prīti and sukha correspond; here, sukha refers to the three dhyānas (meditative states). It is not the realm of the pañca vijñāna (five sense consciousnesses), so it does not correspond with the sukha there. 'What has been said above' to 'because of pervasive correspondence,' this explains the last two words in the seventh sentence. Among the twelve dharmas mentioned above, mada is common to the four dhyānas and above, only because it is the upekṣā-bhūmi (state of equanimity). Styāna (sloth) and auddhatya, in principle, are also common to only the state of equanimity. Secondly, it will be explained separately later, so it is not discussed now. The rest of the sentences can be understood by oneself. 'The remaining ahrīkya and anapatrāpya' to 'because they are dharmas included in the bhūmi,' this explains the last sentence. Question: In the correspondence of the six consciousnesses, the remaining major afflictions should be explained. Why are they not explained here? The answer is: The previous text has already spoken of the correspondence of the six consciousnesses, and has shown the correspondence with those feelings, so it is not discussed now. 'The afflictions mentioned' to 'only five because they obstruct the skandhas,' this is the third part of the main text, explaining the pañca nivarana (five hindrances) - there are five hindrances. State the names and enumerate the quantities - they are only distinguished in the kāmadhātu (desire realm) - the next two sentences explain the combination of the hindrances - the last sentence explains the establishment and abolition. The Treatise says: to 'the fifth hindrance of doubt,' this explains that there are five hindrances. According to the Abhidharma, the five parts of lobha (greed) in the desire realm are called the first hindrance. The five parts of dveṣa (hatred) are called the second hindrance. Styāna and unwholesome sleep in the desire realm are called the third hindrance. Auddhatya and unwholesome kaukritya (remorse) in the desire realm are called the fourth hindrance. The four parts of vicikitsa (doubt) in the desire realm are called the fifth hindrance. 'What is said here' to 'do they pervade the three realms?' This explains 'only in the desire realm.' This is a question. 'It should be known that these three' to 'not in the form or formless realms,' the answer is: The sutra says 'unwholesome,' so it is only in the desire realm. Moreover, the Nyāyānusāra says: In order to show that only the desire realm establishes styāna and auddhatya as hindrances, they are established in combination with sleep and remorse. Sleep,

悔唯是欲界系故。為顯眠．悔唯染污者有得蓋名。故與惛沈．掉舉二種和合而立。惛．掉唯是染污性故。疑準前四在欲可知。

何故惛．眠至合立一耶者。此下釋第二第三句。此即問也。

食治用同至食．非食同者。答。可知。

何等名為惛眠蓋食者。問。

謂五種法至心昧劣性者。答。食謂能益。此五能益惛．眠故是彼食　又解此五皆是小惑中攝　𧄼瞢者。眠之先兆　不樂者。情不歡也　頻申者。由勞事業。疲倦所生能起頻申。因從果號　食不平等者。由所飲食過於恒度。或香．味．觸隨有偏增。能令食者身心沈昧。此從食不平等生果。從因為名　心昧劣性者。謂由彼力令心王取境不明為昧。能取力微為劣。從用為名。

何等名為此蓋非食者。問。

謂光明相者。答。起光明想心即發悟。惛．眠不生非益彼故名為非食。

如是二種至心性沈昧者。此釋惛．眠用同。

掉悔雖二食非食同者。明掉．悔二種食同。非食同。

何等名為掉悔蓋食者。問。

謂四種法至承奉等事者。答。或時尋思諸親里事。或時尋思諸國土事。或復尋思我不死當來作如是事業。或時隨唸唸往昔過去所更等事。緣親里等由散亂故而增掉舉。有不稱情而生憂悔。

何等名為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『悔』僅僅是欲界（Kāmadhātu）所繫縛的。爲了顯示『眠』（Middha, 睡眠）和『悔』（Kaukṛtya, 後悔）只有染污者才會被稱為『蓋』（Āvaraṇa, 障礙），所以它們與『惛沈』（Styāna, 昏沉）和『掉舉』（Auddhatya, 掉舉）這兩種煩惱結合在一起而成立。『惛沈』和『掉舉』僅僅是染污的性質，所以『疑』（Vicikitsa, 懷疑）可以參照前面四種煩惱在欲界中的情況來理解。

為什麼『惛沈』和『眠』要合併成一個『蓋』呢？（此下解釋第二句和第三句。這是提問。）

它們的『食』（āhāra, 滋養）和『治』（pratipakṣa, 對治）相同，以至於『食』和『非食』（anāhāra, 非滋養）也相同。（回答。容易理解。）

什麼叫做『惛眠蓋』的『食』呢？（提問。）

指的是五種法，直到心的昧劣性。（回答。『食』指的是能夠滋養。這五種法能夠滋養『惛沈』和『眠』，所以是它們的『食』。）又解釋說，這五種法都屬於小的迷惑之中。『𧄼瞢』是睡眠的先兆。『不樂』是情緒不歡快。『頻申』是由勞累事業，疲倦所產生，能夠引起頻申。這是從結果來稱呼原因。『食不平等』是由所飲食超過了通常的限度，或者香、味、觸隨著有偏頗的增加，能夠使進食者身心沉沒昏昧。這是從飲食不平等所產生的後果，從原因來命名。『心昧劣性』是指由於它們的力量，使心王（Citta, 心）取境不明為『昧』，能取的力量微弱為『劣』。這是從作用來命名。

什麼叫做這個『蓋』的『非食』呢？（提問。）

指的是光明相。（回答。生起光明想，心就發悟，『惛沈』和『眠』就不會產生，因為不能滋養它們，所以稱為『非食』。）

像這樣兩種『蓋』，直到心性沉沒昏昧。（這是解釋『惛沈』和『眠』的作用相同。）

『掉舉』和『悔』雖然是兩種『蓋』，但它們的『食』相同，『非食』也相同。（說明『掉舉』和『悔』這兩種『蓋』的『食』相同，『非食』也相同。）

什麼叫做『掉悔蓋』的『食』呢？（提問。）

指的是四種法，直到承奉等事。（回答。有時尋思諸親里的事情，有時尋思諸國土的事情，或者又尋思我不會死，將來要做這樣的事業，有時隨著念頭回憶往昔過去所經歷的事情。緣于親里等事，由於散亂的緣故而增加掉舉，有不合心意的事情而產生憂愁後悔。）

什麼叫做

【English Translation】 English version: 'Regret' (Kaukṛtya) is solely bound to the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu). To show that 'Sloth' (Middha, sleep) and 'Regret' are only called 'Coverings' (Āvaraṇa, hindrances) when they are defiled, they are established in conjunction with 'Torpor' (Styāna, lethargy) and 'Excitement' (Auddhatya, restlessness). 'Torpor' and 'Excitement' are solely of a defiled nature, so 'Doubt' (Vicikitsa, uncertainty) can be understood by referring to the previous four afflictions in the Desire Realm.

Why are 'Torpor' and 'Sloth' combined into one 'Covering'? (The following explains the second and third sentences. This is a question.)

Their 'food' (āhāra, nourishment) and 'antidote' (pratipakṣa, remedy) are the same, to the extent that their 'food' and 'non-food' (anāhāra, non-nourishment) are also the same. (Answer. It is easily understood.)

What is called the 'food' of the 'Torpor-Sloth Covering'? (Question.)

It refers to five kinds of things, up to the dullness of mind. (Answer. 'Food' refers to what can nourish. These five things can nourish 'Torpor' and 'Sloth', so they are their 'food'.) It is also explained that these five things are all included among minor confusions. '𧄼瞢' is the precursor to sleep. 'Displeasure' is emotional unhappiness. 'Frequent yawning' is produced by laborious activities and fatigue, which can cause frequent yawning. This is naming the cause from the result. 'Unequal food' is caused by eating beyond the usual limit, or by an increase in flavors, tastes, or tactile sensations, which can cause the eater to become mentally and physically dull. This is naming the consequence from the cause of unequal food. 'Dullness of mind' refers to the fact that, due to their power, the mind-king (Citta, mind) takes objects unclearly, which is 'dullness', and the power to take is weak, which is 'inferiority'. This is naming from the function.

What is called the 'non-food' of this 'Covering'? (Question.)

It refers to the aspect of light. (Answer. When the thought of light arises, the mind awakens, and 'Torpor' and 'Sloth' will not arise, because they cannot nourish them, so it is called 'non-food'.)

Like these two 'Coverings', up to the dullness of mind. (This explains that the function of 'Torpor' and 'Sloth' is the same.)

Although 'Excitement' and 'Regret' are two 'Coverings', their 'food' is the same, and their 'non-food' is also the same. (It explains that the 'food' of these two 'Coverings' of 'Excitement' and 'Regret' is the same, and their 'non-food' is also the same.)

What is called the 'food' of the 'Excitement-Regret Covering'? (Question.)

It refers to four kinds of things, up to serving and attending to matters. (Answer. Sometimes thinking about the affairs of relatives, sometimes thinking about the affairs of countries, or thinking that I will not die and will do such and such things in the future, or sometimes recalling past experiences with thoughts. Dwelling on relatives and other matters, due to distraction, increases excitement, and unpleasant things cause sorrow and regret.)

What is called

此蓋非食者。問。

謂奢摩他者。答。奢摩他。此云定。由此定故掉舉．及悔而不得生　問何故前言惛．眠非食謂光明想。不言毗缽舍耶。掉．悔非食言奢摩他。不言黑闇　解云非食有多種各隨舉一。或影略互顯。

如是二種至心不寂靜者。釋事用同。由此說食至二合為一者。總結。又正理云。何緣欲貪．瞋．恚．疑蓋。各於一體別立蓋名。而彼惛．眠。掉．悔。二蓋各於二體合立蓋名。欲貪．瞋恚．疑食．治各別。是故一一別立蓋名。由惛與眠。及掉與悔。所食．能治事用皆同。故體雖殊俱合立一。欲貪蓋食謂可愛相。此蓋對治謂不凈相。瞋恚蓋食謂可憎相。此蓋對治謂慈善根。疑蓋食謂三世。如契經說於過去世生如是疑乃至廣說。此蓋對治謂若有能如實觀察緣性緣起　正理論釋惛眠。掉悔。食．非食用與此論同　又云。或貪．瞋．疑是滿煩惱。一一能荷一覆蓋用。惛眠．掉悔非滿煩惱。二合方荷一覆蓋用。

諸煩惱等至唯說此五者。釋下一句。此即問也　等。謂等取隨煩惱。

唯此於五蘊至建立為蓋者。答。煩惱等雖有蓋義。唯此於五蘊能為勝障故。謂貪恚蓋是破戒惑。能障戒蘊。惛沈．睡眠性闇昧故。能障慧蘊。掉舉．惡作心散亂故。能障定蘊。定慧無故於四諦疑。由疑未斷被繫縛故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『此蓋非食者』，這是提問。

『謂奢摩他者』，回答：奢摩他（Śamatha），意為『定』。因為有了這種定，掉舉（audhacca，心神不定）和追悔（kaukritya，因做錯事而後悔）就不會產生。

問：為什麼前面說『昏沉（styāna，精神萎靡）和睡眠（middha，昏睡）的非食』時，說的是光明想，而不是毗缽舍那（Vipaśyanā，觀）？而說『掉舉和追悔的非食』時，說的是奢摩他，而不是黑暗？

解釋說：非食有多種，這裡各自舉出一個。或者爲了互相襯托而省略。

『如是二種至心不寂靜者』，解釋它們的事用相同。因此說『食至二合為一者』，是總結。另外，《正理》中說：『為什麼貪慾（rāga，強烈的慾望）、嗔恚（dveṣa，憤怒）、懷疑（vicikitsa，猶豫不決）這幾個蓋，各自在一個自體上分別設立蓋的名字？而昏沉和睡眠，掉舉和追悔，這兩個蓋卻在兩個自體上合併設立蓋的名字？』貪慾、嗔恚、懷疑的食和對治各不相同，所以一一分別設立蓋的名字。由於昏沉和睡眠，以及掉舉和追悔，它們所食的、能對治的事用都相同，所以雖然本體不同，卻合併設立為一個。貪慾蓋的食是可愛之相，此蓋的對治是不凈之相。嗔恚蓋的食是可憎之相，此蓋的對治是慈悲心。懷疑蓋的食是三世，如契經所說，對於過去世產生這樣的懷疑，乃至廣說。此蓋的對治是如果有人能夠如實觀察緣性緣起。

《正理論》解釋昏沉、睡眠、掉舉、追悔的食和非食，其事用與此論相同。又說：或者貪慾、嗔恚、懷疑是圓滿的煩惱，每一個都能承擔一個覆蓋的作用。昏沉、睡眠、掉舉、追悔不是圓滿的煩惱，兩個合起來才能承擔一個覆蓋的作用。

『諸煩惱等至唯說此五者』，解釋下一句。這也就是提問。『等』，是指等同於隨煩惱。

『唯此於五蘊至建立為蓋者』，回答：煩惱等雖然有蓋的意義，但只有這五種對於五蘊（pañcakkhandha，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）能夠成為殊勝的障礙。貪慾和嗔恚蓋是破戒的迷惑，能夠障礙戒蘊（sīlakkhandha，戒律的集合）。昏沉和睡眠的性質是闇昧的，能夠障礙慧蘊（paññākkhandha，智慧的集合）。掉舉和惡作（kukkucca，因做錯事而後悔）使心散亂，能夠障礙定蘊（samādhikkhandha，禪定的集合）。因為沒有定和慧，所以對於四諦（cattāri ariyasaccāni，四條真理：苦、集、滅、道）產生懷疑。由於懷疑沒有斷除，所以被束縛。

【English Translation】 English version 'This covering is not food.' Question.

'Referring to Śamatha (奢摩他).' Answer: Śamatha (奢摩他), which means 'concentration.' Because of this concentration, agitation (audhacca) and regret (kaukritya) cannot arise.

Question: Why, when previously speaking of 'non-food for sloth (styāna) and torpor (middha),' was the thought of light mentioned, and not Vipaśyanā (毗缽舍那)? And when speaking of 'non-food for agitation and regret,' why was Śamatha (奢摩他) mentioned, and not darkness?

Explanation: There are many kinds of non-food, each mentioning one. Or they are omitted to highlight each other.

'Those whose minds are not tranquil in these two ways.' Explaining that their functions are the same. Therefore, saying 'food until the two are combined into one' is a summary. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Why are desire (rāga), anger (dveṣa), and doubt (vicikitsa) each separately named as coverings on one entity? And why are sloth and torpor, agitation and regret, each named as coverings on two entities combined?' The food and antidotes for desire, anger, and doubt are different, so each is separately named as a covering. Because the food and antidotes for sloth and torpor, and for agitation and regret, are the same, although the entities are different, they are combined into one. The food for the covering of desire is attractive appearances, and its antidote is unattractive appearances. The food for the covering of anger is repulsive appearances, and its antidote is loving-kindness. The food for the covering of doubt is the three times, as the sutra says, 'In the past, such doubts arose,' and so on. The antidote for this covering is the ability to truly observe dependent origination.

The Nyāyānusāra explains the food and non-food for sloth, torpor, agitation, and regret, and its function is the same as this treatise. It also says: 'Or desire, anger, and doubt are complete afflictions, each capable of bearing one covering function. Sloth, torpor, agitation, and regret are not complete afflictions; two combined are needed to bear one covering function.'

'Among all afflictions, why are only these five mentioned?' Explaining the next sentence. This is the question. 'Etc.' refers to taking the secondary afflictions as well.

'Only these five, in relation to the five aggregates, are established as coverings.' Answer: Although afflictions and so on have the meaning of coverings, only these five can be a superior obstacle to the five aggregates (pañcakkhandha). The coverings of desire and anger are defilements that break precepts, and can obstruct the aggregate of morality (sīlakkhandha). Sloth and torpor are dark in nature, and can obstruct the aggregate of wisdom (paññākkhandha). Agitation and regret cause the mind to be scattered, and can obstruct the aggregate of concentration (samādhikkhandha). Because there is no concentration and wisdom, there is doubt about the Four Noble Truths (cattāri ariyasaccāni). Because doubt has not been cut off, one is bound.

。能令乃至解脫．解脫知見二蘊皆不得起。故唯此五建立為蓋　問若為障勝立為蓋者。無明何故不立蓋耶　解云等荷擔者立諸蓋中無明於中所荷偏重。是故不立。若立無明為一蓋者。一切煩惱所荷障。皆合比無明猶不能及。故不立在諸蓋聚中　問若非最勝亦立蓋者。余惑．隨惑何故不立　解云夫蓋義者令心趣下。慢性高舉故不立蓋。蓋性遲鈍。見性捷利。不順蓋義亦不立蓋隨煩惱中惛．眠障慧勝。掉．悔障定勝。故別立蓋。余隨煩惱障定障慧。非強勝故皆不立蓋。

若作如是至怖畏掉悔者。論主破前說一切有部師解。若作如是解釋經意。掉．悔理應在惛．眠前說　以必依定方有慧生故。此顯所障先定后慧　定障亦應先慧障故。此顯能障前後次第　依如是理。經部師言。此五蓋中惛．眠障定。由此惛．眠性沉下故。定不得生。掉．悔障慧。由此掉．悔數散動故慧不得生　由此經言修等持者怖畏惛．眠。故知障定。修擇法者怖畏掉．悔。故知。障慧。

有餘別說唯立五因者。敘經部釋。

彼說云何者。問。

謂在行位至唯有此五者。經部答　謂在行位。即乞食等時。先於色等種種境中。取可愛．憎二種相故　后在住位。即住靜室等時。由先愛．憎二相為因。于可愛境便起欲貪。于可憎境便起瞋恚

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能使人乃至解脫（Nirvana，佛教術語，指從輪迴中解脫）和解脫知見這兩種蘊（Skandha，佛教術語，指構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）都無法生起。因此，只有這五種（貪慾蓋、瞋恚蓋、睡眠蓋、掉舉惡作蓋、疑蓋）被確立為蓋（Āvaraṇa，佛教術語，指覆蓋或障礙真理的事物）。問：如果說因為障礙殊勝才確立為蓋，那麼無明（Avidyā，佛教術語，指對真理的無知）為什麼不被確立為蓋呢？答：因為在承擔重擔方面，在各種蓋中，無明所承擔的（負擔）最為沉重。因此，不將無明確立為蓋。如果將無明確立為一種蓋，那麼一切煩惱所承擔的障礙，全部加起來也比不上無明。因此，不將無明放在各種蓋的集合中。問：如果不是最殊勝的也確立為蓋，那麼其餘的惑（Klesha，佛教術語，指煩惱）和隨惑（Upaklesha，佛教術語，指次要的煩惱）為什麼不確立為蓋呢？答：所謂蓋的意義是使心趨向低劣。慢性（Māna，佛教術語，指傲慢）高舉，所以不確立為蓋。蓋的性質遲鈍，見（Dṛṣṭi，佛教術語，指錯誤的見解）的性質敏捷，不符合蓋的意義，所以也不確立為蓋。隨煩惱中，惛沉（Styāna，佛教術語，指精神萎靡）和睡眠（Middha，佛教術語，指昏睡）障礙智慧最為嚴重，掉舉（Auddhatya，佛教術語，指心神不定）和惡作（Kaukṛtya，佛教術語，指後悔）障礙禪定最為嚴重，所以分別確立為蓋。其餘的隨煩惱障礙禪定和智慧，不是非常強烈，所以都不確立為蓋。

如果像這樣（解釋）乃至怖畏掉悔（Auddhatya-kaukritya，佛教術語，指心神不定和後悔）等，論主（Vasubandhu，佛教論師，著有《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）是爲了駁斥先前說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派）的解釋。如果像這樣解釋經文的意義，掉舉和後悔理應在惛沉和睡眠之前說。因為必定依靠禪定（Samādhi，佛教術語，指精神集中）才能產生智慧，所以這顯示了所障礙的是先禪定后智慧。障礙禪定也應該先於障礙智慧，所以這顯示了能障礙的前後次第。依據這樣的道理，經部師（Sautrāntika，佛教部派）說，這五蓋中，惛沉和睡眠障礙禪定，因為惛沉和睡眠的性質是沉下，所以禪定無法產生。掉舉和後悔障礙智慧，因為掉舉和後悔常常散亂動搖，所以智慧無法產生。因此經文說，修習等持（Samatha，佛教術語，指止觀中的止）的人怖畏惛沉和睡眠，所以知道（惛沉和睡眠）障礙禪定。修習擇法（Dharma-vicaya，佛教術語，指選擇正確的法）的人怖畏掉舉和後悔，所以知道（掉舉和後悔）障礙智慧。

有其餘的（論師）分別說只確立五種原因，這是敘述經部的解釋。

他們所說的（內容）是什麼呢？這是提問。

（經部的）回答是：在行位（指行為的階段），即乞食等的時候，先在色（Rūpa，佛教術語，指物質現象）等各種境界中，選取可愛和可憎兩種相（Nimitta，佛教術語，指事物的外在特徵），然後在住位（指安住的階段），即住在靜室等的時候，由於先前的愛和憎兩種相作為原因，對於可愛的境界便生起欲貪（Kāma-rāga，佛教術語，指對感官享樂的貪戀），對於可憎的境界便生起瞋恚（Dveṣa，佛教術語，指嗔恨）。最終只有這五種（蓋）。

【English Translation】 English version: It can prevent even liberation (Nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to liberation from the cycle of rebirth) and the two aggregates (Skandha, a Buddhist term referring to the five aggregates that constitute individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) of liberation and knowledge from arising. Therefore, only these five (desire-attachment, aversion, sloth-torpor, restlessness-remorse, and doubt) are established as hindrances (Āvaraṇa, a Buddhist term referring to things that cover or obstruct the truth). Question: If it is said that something is established as a hindrance because it supremely obstructs, then why is ignorance (Avidyā, a Buddhist term referring to ignorance of the truth) not established as a hindrance? Answer: Because in terms of bearing burdens, among the various hindrances, ignorance bears the heaviest burden. Therefore, ignorance is not established as a hindrance. If ignorance were established as a hindrance, then the obstruction borne by all afflictions, when added together, would still not equal ignorance. Therefore, it is not placed in the collection of hindrances. Question: If something that is not the most supreme is also established as a hindrance, then why are the remaining afflictions (Klesha, a Buddhist term referring to defilements) and secondary afflictions (Upaklesha, a Buddhist term referring to minor defilements) not established as hindrances? Answer: The meaning of 'hindrance' is to cause the mind to incline downwards. Pride (Māna, a Buddhist term referring to arrogance) is elevated, so it is not established as a hindrance. The nature of hindrance is dull, while the nature of views (Dṛṣṭi, a Buddhist term referring to wrong views) is sharp; it does not accord with the meaning of hindrance, so it is also not established as a hindrance. Among the secondary afflictions, sloth (Styāna, a Buddhist term referring to mental dullness) and torpor (Middha, a Buddhist term referring to drowsiness) obstruct wisdom the most, while restlessness (Auddhatya, a Buddhist term referring to agitation) and remorse (Kaukṛtya, a Buddhist term referring to regret) obstruct concentration the most, so they are separately established as hindrances. The remaining secondary afflictions obstruct concentration and wisdom, but not very strongly, so they are not established as hindrances.

If one explains it in this way, even to fearing restlessness and remorse (Auddhatya-kaukritya, Buddhist terms referring to agitation and regret), the author of the treatise (Vasubandhu, a Buddhist scholar who wrote the Abhidharma-kośa) is refuting the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) school. If one explains the meaning of the sutra in this way, restlessness and remorse should logically be mentioned before sloth and torpor. Because wisdom necessarily arises from concentration (Samādhi, a Buddhist term referring to mental concentration), this shows that what is obstructed is first concentration and then wisdom. Obstructing concentration should also precede obstructing wisdom, so this shows the order of what can obstruct. According to this reasoning, the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) masters say that among these five hindrances, sloth and torpor obstruct concentration, because the nature of sloth and torpor is sinking, so concentration cannot arise. Restlessness and remorse obstruct wisdom, because restlessness and remorse are often scattered and agitated, so wisdom cannot arise. Therefore, the sutra says that those who cultivate tranquility (Samatha, a Buddhist term referring to calming the mind) fear sloth and torpor, so it is known that (sloth and torpor) obstruct concentration. Those who cultivate discrimination of dharmas (Dharma-vicaya, a Buddhist term referring to the investigation of the Dharma) fear restlessness and remorse, so it is known that (restlessness and remorse) obstruct wisdom.

There are other (teachers) who separately say that only five causes are established; this is a narration of the Sautrāntika's explanation.

What is it that they say? This is a question.

The (Sautrāntika's) answer is: In the stage of action, that is, at the time of begging for food, etc., one first takes the two kinds of appearances, lovely and hateful, in various realms such as form (Rūpa, a Buddhist term referring to material phenomena), etc. Then, in the stage of dwelling, that is, when dwelling in a quiet room, etc., due to the previous two appearances of love and hate as causes, desire-attachment (Kāma-rāga, a Buddhist term referring to attachment to sensual pleasures) arises towards the lovely realm, and aversion (Dveṣa, a Buddhist term referring to hatred) arises towards the hateful realm. Ultimately, there are only these five (hindrances).

。此二能障將入定心即定前心也　由此後時正入定位。即在定心也。于止．及觀不能正習故。由此便起惛．眠障定。掉．悔障慧令不得起。設入定已。由此於後出定位中。即散心位也。思擇法時疑復為障為證．不證。

今應思擇至斷由何因者。此下當品之中。大文第二明惑滅。就中。一明斷惑四因。二明四種對治。三明斷煩惱處。四明遠性四種。五明斷惑得滅。六明九種遍知　此下第一明斷惑四因問。今應思擇。欲界苦．集。他界遍行。及與三界見滅．道斷有漏緣惑。于彼斷位不知彼所緣。謂緣欲界苦．集二諦法智忍生斷二諦惑。于彼他界遍行斷位。不知彼他界遍行所緣。以彼唯緣欲苦．集故。謂緣滅．道法智忍生。斷二諦惑。于彼滅．道有漏緣惑斷位。不知彼有漏緣惑所緣。以彼唯緣無漏境故　知彼所緣時而彼不斷。謂緣上界苦．集二諦。類智忍生。知彼他界遍行所緣時。而彼他界遍行不斷。謂緣苦．集法智忍生。知彼滅．道有漏緣惑所緣時。而彼滅．道有漏緣惑不斷。如是諸惑斷由何因　又解知彼所緣時。而彼不斷者。如苦類智忍知彼他界遍行所緣時。而彼他界遍行不斷。欲苦遍行已斷名不斷。欲集遍行未斷名不斷。如集類智忍知彼他界遍行所緣時。而彼欲界他界遍行已斷名不斷。如緣苦．集法智忍生。知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這兩種障礙會進入禪定之心，也就是禪定之前的心。由此之後，才能真正進入禪定之位，也就是在禪定之心。因為不能正確地修習止和觀，所以會產生昏沉和睡眠，這些會障礙禪定，掉舉和後悔會障礙智慧，使智慧無法生起。即使進入禪定，之後在出定的時候，也就是散亂心位，思索法義時，也會疑惑這是障礙還是證悟，或者不是證悟。

現在應該思索到『斷由何因』。下面這一品中，主要闡述第二大點：惑的滅除。其中，一、闡述斷惑的四種原因；二、闡述四種對治方法；三、闡述斷除煩惱的處所；四、闡述遠離煩惱的四種方法；五、闡述斷惑而得滅；六、闡述九種遍知。

下面首先闡述斷惑的四種原因（問）：現在應該思索，對於欲界的苦、集（duhkha-samudaya，苦和集諦），他界的遍行（其他世界的普遍存在），以及三界的見滅、道斷（nirvana-marga，滅和道諦）的有漏緣惑，在斷除它們的時候，是否知道它們所緣的境界？例如，緣于欲界的苦、集二諦，生起法智忍（dharma-jnana-ksanti，對法的智慧的忍可）而斷除二諦的迷惑，在斷除他界遍行的時候，是否知道他界遍行所緣的境界？因為它們僅僅緣于欲界的苦、集。例如，緣于滅、道法智忍而生起，斷除二諦的迷惑，在斷除滅、道有漏緣惑的時候，是否知道有漏緣惑所緣的境界？因為它們僅僅緣于無漏的境界。在知道它們所緣的境界時，它們卻不能被斷除。例如，緣于上界的苦、集二諦，生起類智忍（anvaya-jnana-ksanti，隨順的智慧的忍可），在知道他界遍行所緣的境界時，他界遍行卻不能被斷除。例如，緣于苦、集法智忍而生起，在知道滅、道有漏緣惑所緣的境界時，滅、道有漏緣惑卻不能被斷除。那麼，這些迷惑是通過什麼原因被斷除的呢？

又解釋說，在知道它們所緣的境界時，它們卻不能被斷除的情況：例如，苦類智忍知道他界遍行所緣的境界時，他界遍行卻不能被斷除。欲界的苦遍行已經斷除，所以說不能斷除；欲界的集遍行還沒有斷除，所以說不能斷除。例如，集類智忍知道他界遍行所緣的境界時，欲界和他界的遍行已經斷除，所以說不能斷除。例如，緣于苦、集法智忍而生起，知道……

【English Translation】 English version: These two kinds of hindrances will enter the mind of meditation, which is the mind before meditation. Only after this can one truly enter the state of meditation, which is the mind in meditation. Because one cannot correctly practice cessation and contemplation, dullness and sleep will arise, which hinder meditation, and agitation and regret will hinder wisdom, preventing it from arising. Even if one enters meditation, afterwards, when coming out of meditation, which is the state of scattered mind, when contemplating the Dharma, one will doubt whether this is a hindrance or an enlightenment, or not an enlightenment.

Now we should contemplate 'what causes the severance'. In this chapter below, the second major point is mainly elaborated: the elimination of delusion. Among them, first, the four causes of severing delusion are explained; second, the four antidotes are explained; third, the places for severing afflictions are explained; fourth, the four methods of distancing oneself from afflictions are explained; fifth, severing delusion and attaining cessation are explained; sixth, the nine kinds of pervasive knowledge are explained.

Below, the four causes of severing delusion are first explained (question): Now we should contemplate, regarding the suffering and accumulation (duhkha-samudaya) of the desire realm, the pervasive existence of other realms, and the defiled-origination delusions severed by seeing cessation and the path (nirvana-marga) of the three realms, when severing them, do we know the realms they are related to? For example, arising from the Dharma-knowledge-patience (dharma-jnana-ksanti) related to the suffering and accumulation of the desire realm, severing the delusions of the two truths, when severing the pervasive existence of other realms, do we know the realms that the pervasive existence of other realms is related to? Because they are only related to the suffering and accumulation of the desire realm. For example, arising from the Dharma-knowledge-patience related to cessation and the path, severing the delusions of the two truths, when severing the defiled-origination delusions related to cessation and the path, do we know the realms that the defiled-origination delusions are related to? Because they are only related to the undefiled realm. When knowing the realms they are related to, they cannot be severed. For example, arising from the Anvaya-knowledge-patience related to the suffering and accumulation of the upper realms, when knowing the realms that the pervasive existence of other realms is related to, the pervasive existence of other realms cannot be severed. For example, arising from the Dharma-knowledge-patience related to suffering and accumulation, when knowing the realms that the defiled-origination delusions related to cessation and the path are related to, the defiled-origination delusions related to cessation and the path cannot be severed. So, through what causes are these delusions severed?

Also, it is explained that in the situation where one knows the realms they are related to, but they cannot be severed: for example, when the suffering-Anvaya-knowledge-patience knows the realms that the pervasive existence of other realms is related to, the pervasive existence of other realms cannot be severed. The pervasive existence of suffering in the desire realm has already been severed, so it is said that it cannot be severed; the pervasive existence of accumulation in the desire realm has not yet been severed, so it is said that it cannot be severed. For example, when the accumulation-Anvaya-knowledge-patience knows the realms that the pervasive existence of other realms is related to, the pervasive existence of the desire realm and other realms has already been severed, so it is said that it cannot be severed. For example, arising from the Dharma-knowledge-patience related to suffering and accumulation, knowing...

彼地滅．道有漏緣惑所緣時。而彼滅．道有漏緣惑不斷。未斷名不斷。以有漏緣惑所緣之境苦．集攝故。

又解苦類智忍。知彼欲界見集所斷他界遍行所緣時。而別彼集下他界遍行不斷。此解意說。未斷名不斷。余解如前。

非要遍知所緣故斷者。答。

若爾斷惑總由幾因者。問。由四種因者。答。

何等為四者。問。

頌曰至對治起故斷者。上三句明見道。下一句明修道。

論曰至斷無漏緣者。且斷見斷惑由前三因。一由遍知所緣故斷。謂見苦．集斷自界緣惑。及見滅．道斷無漏緣惑。迷悟相違斷理應爾。亦應說上二界中。他界地緣諸遍行惑。亦由遍知所緣故斷。緣苦．集諦類智忍生。俱能頓觀二界境故。而此文言見苦．集斷自界緣者。且據一相通三界說。

二由斷彼至彼隨斷故者。二由斷彼能緣故斷。謂見苦．集斷他界緣惑是所緣。以自界緣惑能緣于彼他界緣惑。能緣若斷彼所緣惑亦隨斷故。雖緣各異然能為因。故自界緣望彼有力。他界緣惑藉斯力故能緣上界。如羸病者倚柱仰觀。柱若折時彼隨倒故。三由斷彼至彼隨斷故者。三由斷彼所緣故斷。謂見滅．道斷有漏緣惑。以無漏緣惑能為彼有漏緣惑境。所緣無漏緣惑若斷時。能緣有漏惑亦隨斷故。如羸病者非杖不行。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本當某個地方（彼地）的道（dào，path）以有漏（yǒulòu，defiled）的緣（yuán，condition）和惑（huò，delusion）作為所緣（suǒyuán，object of cognition）時，那個地方的道以有漏的緣和惑並不會因此而中斷。未被斷除的就叫做『不斷』，因為以有漏的緣和惑作為所緣之境，是被苦（kǔ，suffering）和集（jí，accumulation）所包含的。

另一種解釋是，苦類智忍（kǔlèizhìrěn，the forbearance with the knowledge of suffering）在認知欲界（yùjiè，desire realm）見集所斷（jiànjísuǒduàn，abandoned by the view of accumulation）的他界（tājiè，other realm）遍行（biànxíng，universal）所緣時，並不會因此而中斷對集下他界遍行的斷除。這種解釋的意思是，未被斷除的就叫做『不斷』，其餘的解釋和前面一樣。

如果不是因為普遍認知所緣而斷除煩惱，那麼斷除煩惱總共有幾種原因呢？（問）由四種原因。（答）

是哪四種呢？（問）

頌文說，『至對治起故斷者』。上面三句說明見道（jiàndào，path of seeing），下面一句說明修道（xiūdào，path of cultivation）。

論述說，『至斷無漏緣者』。首先，斷除見斷惑（jiànduànhuò，delusions abandoned by seeing）是由前三種原因造成的。第一種是由普遍認知所緣而斷除。指的是見苦（jiànkǔ，seeing suffering）和見集（jiànjí，seeing accumulation）斷除自界（zìjiè，own realm）的緣惑，以及見滅（jiànmiè，seeing cessation）和見道（jiàndào，seeing path）斷除無漏（wúlòu，undefiled）的緣惑。迷惑和覺悟是相互對立的，斷除的道理應該是這樣。也應該說，在上二界（shàngèrjiè，the two higher realms）中，他界地的各種遍行惑，也是由普遍認知所緣而斷除的。緣苦諦（yuánkǔdì，condition of suffering）和集諦（jídì，accumulation）的類智忍（lèizhìrěn，knowledge of kind）生起，能夠同時觀察二界的境界。而這段文字說，見苦和見集斷除自界的緣，只是根據一種情況來說明，可以通用於三界（sānjiè，three realms）。

第二種是由斷除能緣而隨之斷除。指的是見苦和見集斷除他界的緣惑是所緣。因為自界的緣惑能夠緣於他界的緣惑。如果能緣被斷除，那麼它所緣的惑也會隨之斷除。雖然所緣各不相同，但能緣可以作為一種原因。因此，自界的緣對於他界的緣來說是有力量的。他界的緣惑藉助這種力量才能緣于上界。就像虛弱的病人依靠柱子仰望，柱子如果倒塌，病人也會隨之倒下。第三種是由斷除所緣而隨之斷除。指的是見滅和見道斷除有漏的緣惑。因為無漏的緣惑能夠作為有漏的緣惑的境界。當所緣的無漏緣惑被斷除時，能緣的有漏惑也會隨之斷除。就像虛弱的病人沒有枴杖就無法行走。

【English Translation】 English version When the path (dào, path) in a certain place (彼地) takes defiled (有漏, yǒulòu) conditions (緣, yuán) and delusions (惑, huò) as its object of cognition (所緣, suǒyuán), the path in that place does not cease to have defiled conditions and delusions as its object. What is not abandoned is called 'not abandoned,' because the object of cognition consisting of defiled conditions and delusions is included within suffering (苦, kǔ) and accumulation (集, jí).

Another explanation is that when the forbearance with the knowledge of suffering (苦類智忍, kǔlèizhìrěn) cognizes the universal (遍行, biànxíng) object of another realm (他界, tājiè) that is abandoned by the view of accumulation (見集所斷, jiànjísuǒduàn) in the desire realm (欲界, yùjiè), it does not thereby cease to abandon the universal object of another realm below accumulation. This explanation means that what is not abandoned is called 'not abandoned,' and the rest of the explanation is the same as before.

If it is not because of universally knowing the object of cognition that afflictions are abandoned, then how many causes are there in total for abandoning afflictions? (Question) There are four causes. (Answer)

What are the four? (Question)

The verse says, 'Until the arising of the antidote, therefore abandoned.' The first three lines explain the path of seeing (見道, jiàndào), and the last line explains the path of cultivation (修道, xiūdào).

The treatise says, 'Until the abandonment of undefiled conditions.' First, the abandonment of afflictions abandoned by seeing (見斷惑, jiànduànhuò) is caused by the first three causes. The first is abandonment through universally knowing the object of cognition. This refers to the abandonment of conditions and delusions of one's own realm (自界, zìjiè) by seeing suffering (見苦, jiànkǔ) and seeing accumulation (見集, jiànjí), and the abandonment of undefiled (無漏, wúlòu) conditions and delusions by seeing cessation (見滅, jiànmiè) and seeing the path (見道, jiàndào). Delusion and enlightenment are mutually opposed, so the principle of abandonment should be like this. It should also be said that in the two higher realms (上二界, shàngèrjiè), the various universal afflictions of other realms are also abandoned through universally knowing the object of cognition. The forbearance with the knowledge of kind (類智忍, lèizhìrěn) of the condition of suffering (緣苦諦, yuánkǔdì) and the accumulation (集諦, jídì) arises and can simultaneously observe the realms of the two realms. However, this passage says that seeing suffering and seeing accumulation abandon the conditions of one's own realm, which is only based on one situation and can be applied to the three realms (三界, sānjiè).

The second is abandonment by abandoning the enabling condition, and thereby abandoning what is conditioned. This refers to the abandonment of the conditions and delusions of other realms as the object of cognition by seeing suffering and seeing accumulation. Because the conditions and delusions of one's own realm can condition the conditions and delusions of other realms. If the enabling condition is abandoned, then the affliction that it conditions will also be abandoned. Although the objects of cognition are different, the enabling condition can serve as a cause. Therefore, the conditions of one's own realm have power over the conditions of other realms. The conditions and delusions of other realms rely on this power to condition the higher realms. It is like a weak patient leaning on a pillar to look up; if the pillar collapses, the patient will also fall. The third is abandonment by abandoning the object of cognition, and thereby abandoning what is conditioned. This refers to the abandonment of defiled conditions and delusions by seeing cessation and seeing the path. Because undefiled conditions and delusions can serve as the object of cognition for defiled conditions and delusions. When the undefiled conditions and delusions that are the object of cognition are abandoned, the defiled afflictions that are the enabling condition will also be abandoned. It is like a weak patient who cannot walk without a cane.

杖若折時彼隨亦倒故。

若修所斷至諸惑頓斷者。明斷修惑。

何品諸惑誰為對治者。問。

謂上上品至后當廣辨者。答。所治。能治。各有九品逆順相對。后當廣辨　又正理云。豈不一切見所斷惑斷時。亦由對治道起。以若此部對治道起。則此部中諸惑斷故。理實應爾。然於此中為顯三界修所斷惑。無不皆由九品道斷對治決定故說此言。見所斷中唯有頂惑對治決定。如前已辨　或見所斷諸惑斷時。方便定三故就別說。修所斷惑能斷方便。不決定故就總而說(已上論文)　問緣四諦理如何能斷修道事惑名對治斷　解云事粗。理細。緣細可以斷粗。故九品道斷九品惑。

所言對治至謂斷持遠．厭者。此即第二明四種對治。

論曰至深生厭患者。一斷對治。謂無間道。此道正能斷彼惑故　二持對治。謂此無間后解脫道。由彼解脫道能持此斷得故　三遠分對治。謂解脫道后所有勝進道。由彼勝進道．能令此無間道所斷惑得更遠故。名遠分對治　有餘師說。遠分對治亦解脫道。以解脫道如彼勝進。令此無間所斷煩惱得更遠故　四厭患對治。謂若有道見此界過失深生厭患。從多分說是加行道。

然此對治至起勝進道者。論主解云。然此對治若欲善說。理實應為如是次第。一厭患對治。謂緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如同枴杖折斷時，依靠它的人也會隨之倒下。

如果修所斷的煩惱，直到所有煩惱都頓斷，這說明已經斷除了修惑。

什麼品類的煩惱，誰是它們的對治者？（問）

指上上品，直到後面將要詳細辨析的。（答）所要對治的煩惱和能對治的道，各有九品，逆順相對，後面將詳細辨析。又《正理》中說：難道不是一切見所斷的煩惱斷除時，也是由對治道生起嗎？因為如果此部的對治道生起，那麼此部中的諸煩惱就會斷除。道理確實應該如此。然而，在這裡是爲了顯明三界修所斷的煩惱，無不由九品道斷的對治所決定，所以這樣說。見所斷中只有有頂惑的對治是決定的，如前面已經辨析過。或者見所斷的諸煩惱斷除時，方便和禪定是確定的，所以就個別來說。修所斷的煩惱能斷的方便是不確定的，所以就總體來說（以上是論文）。問：緣於四諦之理，如何能斷修道的事惑，並稱之為對治斷？解答說：事相是粗顯的，道理是細微的，緣于細微的道理可以斷除粗顯的事相。所以九品道可以斷除九品惑。

所說的對治，是指斷、持、遠、厭。（這）就是第二點，說明四種對治。

論中說：深深地產生厭患。（一）斷對治，指無間道（Anantarya-marga）。此道真正能夠斷除那些煩惱。（二）持對治，指此無間道之後的解脫道（Vimukti-marga）。由於彼解脫道能夠保持此斷除的功德。（三）遠分對治，指解脫道之後所有勝進道（Visesa-marga）。由於彼勝進道能夠使此無間道所斷的煩惱更加遠離，所以稱為遠分對治。有其他論師說，遠分對治也是解脫道。因為解脫道如同彼勝進道，使此無間道所斷的煩惱更加遠離。（四）厭患對治，指如果有道能夠見到此界的過失，深深地產生厭患。從大多數情況來說，這是加行道（Prayoga-marga）。

然而，此對治，直到生起勝進道。論主解釋說：然而，此對治如果想要善巧地解說，道理上應該按照這樣的次第：一、厭患對治，指緣于

【English Translation】 English version: When a staff is broken, the one who relies on it also falls.

If the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation (Bhavana-heyah) are completely and suddenly abandoned, it indicates the severance of afflictions related to cultivation.

Which categories of afflictions, and who are their antidotes? (Question)

Referring to the highest of the high, until it is extensively discussed later. (Answer) The afflictions to be treated and the antidotes each have nine grades, in reverse and direct order, which will be extensively discussed later. Furthermore, the Nyaya-sutra says: 'Isn't it the case that when all afflictions to be abandoned by seeing (Darshana-heyah) are severed, it is also due to the arising of the antidote path? Because if the antidote path of this category arises, then the afflictions in this category are severed.' The principle should indeed be so. However, here it is to clarify that the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation in the three realms are all determined by the nine grades of the path of severance, hence this statement. Among the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, only the afflictions of the peak of existence (Bhavagra) have a determined antidote, as previously discussed. Or, when the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing are severed, the means (Upaya) and concentration (Samadhi) are determined, so it is discussed separately. The means to sever the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation are not determined, so it is discussed generally (end of the treatise). Question: How can the afflictions of practice (Karma) on the path of cultivation be severed by relying on the principles of the Four Noble Truths (Arya-satya), and be called 'antidote severance'? The answer is: Practice is coarse, and principle is subtle. Relying on the subtle can sever the coarse. Therefore, the nine grades of the path can sever the nine grades of afflictions.

The so-called 'antidote' refers to severance, maintenance, distance, and aversion. This is the second point, explaining the four types of antidotes.

The treatise says: Deeply generating aversion. (1) Severance antidote, referring to the immediate path (Anantarya-marga). This path truly severs those afflictions. (2) Maintenance antidote, referring to the liberation path (Vimukti-marga) after this immediate path. Because that liberation path can maintain the merit of this severance. (3) Distance antidote, referring to all the superior progressive paths (Visesa-marga) after the liberation path. Because that superior progressive path can make the afflictions severed by this immediate path even more distant, it is called the distance antidote. Some other teachers say that the distance antidote is also the liberation path. Because the liberation path, like that superior progressive path, makes the afflictions severed by this immediate path even more distant. (4) Aversion antidote, referring to the path that, if there is one, can see the faults of this realm and deeply generate aversion. In most cases, this is the preparatory path (Prayoga-marga).

However, this antidote, until the arising of the superior progressive path. The author explains: However, if one wants to skillfully explain this antidote, the principle should follow this order: First, the aversion antidote, referring to relying on

苦．集起加行道　二斷對治。謂緣一切四諦起無間道　三持對治。謂緣一切四諦起解脫道　四遠分對治。謂緣一切四諦起勝進道　與前次第雖復不同。釋四相似　上來所明厭患等四各在一道。據斷當品約顯以論。若更具說厭患等四四道通局。一厭患對治。通於四道。論言加行從多分說。故正理論解厭患對治云。應知多分是加行道　又云。說多分言。應知為顯無間．解脫．勝進道中緣苦．集諦者亦厭患對治(已上論文)　二斷對治。唯無間道不通餘三　三持對治。若據顯相當品以論唯解脫道。若據前後所斷諸品。隱顯合論即通四道。以皆能持彼斷得故　四遠分對治。若據顯相當品以論唯勝進道。若據前後所斷諸品。隱顯合論亦通四道。以皆能令彼所斷惑得更遠故。若依婆沙十七更說舍對治。隨其所應在何道中。能捨彼法名舍對治。

諸惑永斷為定從何者。此下第三明斷惑處問。諸惑究竟永斷為定從何。

頌曰至不復生故者。答。應知諸惑得究竟永斷時。不可令其離相應法。謂于相應雖斷隨增非斷伴性。仍名有隨眠。以親近故不名永斷。但可令彼遠離所緣。令于所緣不復生故。謂于所緣斷彼隨增不名有隨增眠。以疏遠故故名永斷。此言永斷據有隨眠。故婆沙二十二云。然此中說諸隨眠于所緣可斷。非於相應者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本苦、集（苦的根源）、起加行道（趨向解脫的修行之道）的二斷對治：指的是緣於一切四諦（苦、集、滅、道）生起無間道（直接斷除煩惱的智慧）。三持對治：指的是緣於一切四諦生起解脫道（獲得解脫的道路）。四遠分對治：指的是緣於一切四諦生起勝進道（更進一步的修行之道）。與前面的次第雖然有所不同。解釋四相似：上面所說的厭患等四種對治，各自在一個道中。根據斷除當品煩惱的顯現來論述。如果更詳細地說厭患等四種對治在四道中的通局：一、厭患對治：通於四道。《論》中說加行道是從多分來說的。所以正理論解釋厭患對治說：『應當知道多分是加行道。』又說：『說多分，應當知道是爲了顯示無間道、解脫道、勝進道中緣于苦、集諦的也是厭患對治。』（以上是論文）二、斷對治：唯有無間道，不通於其餘三道。三、持對治：如果根據顯現的當品來論述，唯有解脫道。如果根據前後所斷的各種品類，隱顯結合來論述，就通於四道。因為都能保持斷除煩惱的緣故。四、遠分對治：如果根據顯現的當品來論述，唯有勝進道。如果根據前後所斷的各種品類，隱顯結合來論述，也通於四道。因為都能使所斷的煩惱變得更遠的緣故。如果依照《婆沙論》第十七卷，更說舍對治，隨著它所應在的哪個道中，能夠捨棄那個法，就名為舍對治。諸惑永斷為定從何者？此下第三明斷惑處問：各種煩惱究竟永遠斷除，決定是從哪裡開始的？頌曰：至不復生故者。答：應當知道各種煩惱得到究竟永遠斷除的時候，不可以讓它離開相應的法。說的是對於相應，雖然斷除了隨增，但不是斷除了伴隨的性質，仍然名為有隨眠（煩惱的潛在力量）。因為親近的緣故，不名為永遠斷除。但可以讓它遠離所緣，讓它對於所緣不再生起。說的是對於所緣，斷除了它的隨增，不名為有隨增眠。因為疏遠的緣故，所以名為永遠斷除。這裡說的永遠斷除，是根據有隨眠來說的。所以《婆沙論》第二十二卷說：『然而這裡說各種隨眠對於所緣是可以斷除的，不是對於相應的。』

【English Translation】 English version The two 'duan dui zhi' (antidotes of cutting off) of 'ku' (suffering), 'ji' (the origin of suffering), 'qi jia xing dao' (the path of practice leading to liberation): refers to the arising of 'wu jian dao' (the wisdom that directly cuts off afflictions) based on all four noble truths ('ku', 'ji', 'mie', 'dao'). The three 'chi dui zhi' (antidotes of holding): refers to the arising of 'jie tuo dao' (the path of liberation) based on all four noble truths. The four 'yuan fen dui zhi' (antidotes of distancing): refers to the arising of 'sheng jin dao' (the path of further progress in practice) based on all four noble truths. Although the order is different from the previous one. Explaining the four similarities: The four antidotes mentioned above, such as 'yan huan' (disgust), each reside in one path. They are discussed based on the manifestation of cutting off afflictions of the present category. If we discuss in more detail the scope of the four antidotes such as 'yan huan' in the four paths: 1. 'Yan huan dui zhi' (antidote of disgust): pervades all four paths. The 'Shastra' says that 'jia xing dao' (path of practice) is spoken of from the perspective of the majority. Therefore, the 'Zheng Li Lun' explains 'yan huan dui zhi' as: 'It should be known that the majority is 'jia xing dao'.』 It also says: 『Saying the majority, it should be known that it is to show that those who contemplate 'ku' and 'ji di' (truth of suffering and origin of suffering) in 'wu jian dao', 'jie tuo dao', and 'sheng jin dao' are also 'yan huan dui zhi'.』 (The above is from the Shastra) 2. 'Duan dui zhi' (antidote of cutting off): only exists in 'wu jian dao' and does not pervade the other three paths. 3. 'Chi dui zhi' (antidote of holding): If discussed based on the manifested present category, it only exists in 'jie tuo dao'. If discussed based on the various categories cut off before and after, combining the hidden and manifest, it pervades all four paths. This is because it can maintain the cutting off of afflictions. 4. 'Yuan fen dui zhi' (antidote of distancing): If discussed based on the manifested present category, it only exists in 'sheng jin dao'. If discussed based on the various categories cut off before and after, combining the hidden and manifest, it also pervades all four paths. This is because it can make the afflictions to be cut off become more distant. If according to the seventeenth volume of the 'Vibhasha', 'she dui zhi' (antidote of abandoning) is further discussed, whichever path it should be in, being able to abandon that dharma is called 'she dui zhi'. Where is it determined that all afflictions are permanently cut off? The third question below clarifies the place of cutting off afflictions: Where does the ultimate and permanent cutting off of all afflictions definitely begin? The verse says: 'Until there is no more arising'. Answer: It should be known that when all afflictions are ultimately and permanently cut off, it is not permissible to let them leave the corresponding dharma. It means that although the 'sui zeng' (subsequent increase) is cut off in relation to the corresponding, it is not cutting off the accompanying nature, and it is still called having 'sui mian' (latent tendencies of afflictions). Because of the closeness, it is not called permanent cutting off. But it can be made to be far away from the 'suo yuan' (object of contemplation), so that it no longer arises in relation to the 'suo yuan'. It means that in relation to the 'suo yuan', cutting off its 'sui zeng' is not called having 'sui zeng mian'. Because of the distance, it is called permanent cutting off. The permanent cutting off mentioned here is based on having 'sui mian'. Therefore, the twenty-second volume of the 'Vibhasha' says: 'However, it is said here that all 'sui mian' can be cut off in relation to the 'suo yuan', not in relation to the corresponding.'

。依止名有隨眠義說。不依隨增義說。以隨增義俱可斷故。

斷未來惑至定何所從者。難。斷未來惑理且可然。容令于境不復生故說之為斷。過去諸惑是已生法。不可令其不復生故云何說斷。若謂頌說從所緣言。意顯遍知所緣故斷。非於所緣不復起故名之為斷。但知諸惑所緣之時即名斷者此亦非理。不決定故。以斷苦．集他界遍行。及滅．道斷有漏緣惑。非是遍知所緣故斷。難訖問言。由此應說煩惱等斷定何所從。

自相續中至究竟斷故者。論主復為一釋。夫有漏法斷。一自性斷。二緣縛斷。若自相續身中煩惱等斷。由得斷故。自體不成說名為斷。此據自性斷也。若他相續身中諸煩惱等。及一切色一切不染法斷。由能緣彼在自身中所有諸惑。至第九品究竟斷故說名為斷。此據緣縛斷也。

所言遠分遠性有幾者。此下第四明遠性四種　問。如前所言遠分對治。泛論遠性總有幾種。

頌曰至亦名為遠者。答。隔現在故去．來名遠。余文可知。

望何說遠者。論主問。

望現在世者。說一切有部答。去．來二世離現在故說名為遠。義準應知現在名近。故品類足第六云。遠法雲何。過去．未來法。近法雲何。謂現在．及無為法。

無間已滅至如何名遠者。論主難。過去世中無間已

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：依賴於『名』的說法，是基於隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）的意義來說的，而不是基於隨增（Pariyuṭṭhāna，煩惱的現行）的意義來說的。因為隨增的意義是可以完全斷除的。

『斷未來惑至定何所從者』，這是一個難題。斷除未來的迷惑，這個道理或許還說得過去，可以認為是對某個境界不再生起（煩惱），所以說之為『斷』。但過去的迷惑是已經生起的法，不可能讓它不復生起，所以怎麼能說是『斷』呢？如果說頌文是從所緣（Ālambana，對像）的角度來說的，意思是說因為遍知（Parijñā，完全瞭解）所緣，所以斷除。並不是因為對所緣不再生起（煩惱）才叫做『斷』。如果僅僅是知道諸惑的所緣的時候就叫做『斷』，這也是不合理的，因為不確定。因為斷除苦、集二諦的他界遍行（Paratra-gāmin，在其他界生效）的煩惱，以及滅、道二諦斷除有漏緣（Sāsrava-ārammaṇa，以有漏法為緣）的迷惑，並不是因為遍知所緣才斷除的。難破之後，提問說：由此應該說煩惱等的斷除，究竟是從何而來的？

『自相續中至究竟斷故者』，論主再次解釋。有漏法的斷除，一是自性斷，二是緣縛斷。如果在自己的相續身中，煩惱等的斷除，是因為獲得斷（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）的緣故，自體不成，所以說名為『斷』。這是根據自性斷來說的。如果在他人相續身中的諸煩惱等，以及一切色法、一切不染法（Anāsrava-dharma，無漏法）的斷除，是因為能緣彼等，在自身中所有諸惑，直到第九品究竟斷除的緣故，所以說名為『斷』。這是根據緣縛斷來說的。

『所言遠分遠性有幾者』，以下第四部分說明遠性四種。問：如前面所說的遠分對治，泛泛而論，遠性總共有幾種？

『頌曰至亦名為遠者』，答：因為隔著現在，所以過去、未來叫做遠。其餘文句可以自己理解。

『望何說遠者』，論主提問。

『望現在世者』，說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教部派）回答。過去、未來二世離開現在世的緣故，所以說名為遠。根據這個意思，應該知道現在世叫做近。所以《品類足論》（Prakaraṇapāda，論書名）第六篇說：遠法是什麼？是過去、未來法。近法是什麼？是現在法以及無為法（Asaṃskṛta-dharma，不生不滅之法）。

『無間已滅至如何名遠者』，論主提出疑問。過去世中，無間已

【English Translation】 English version: The dependence on the term 'name' is based on the meaning of Anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements), not on the meaning of Pariyuṭṭhāna (manifestations of defilements). This is because the meaning of Pariyuṭṭhāna can be completely eliminated.

The question 'From what does the cessation of future defilements arise?' is a difficult one. The principle of ceasing future defilements might be acceptable, as it can be understood as no longer giving rise to (defilements) towards an object, and thus is called 'cessation'. However, past defilements are already arisen dharmas (phenomena), and it is impossible to make them un-arisen. So how can they be called 'cessation'? If it is said that the verse speaks from the perspective of Ālambana (object), meaning that because of Parijñā (complete understanding) of the object, there is cessation, and it is not because defilements no longer arise towards the object that it is called 'cessation', then if merely knowing the object of the defilements is called 'cessation', this is also unreasonable, because it is not definitive. This is because the cessation of defilements that pervade other realms (Paratra-gāmin) related to the truths of suffering and origin, and the cessation of defilements that have Sāsrava-ārammaṇa (conditioned by defiled elements) related to the truths of cessation and the path, are not due to completely understanding the object. After refuting, the question is asked: Therefore, from what should it be said that the cessation of defilements, etc., ultimately arises?

Regarding 'From one's own continuum to ultimate cessation', the master of the treatise explains again. The cessation of conditioned dharmas (Sāsrava-dharma) is twofold: one is cessation by nature, and the other is cessation by bondage of conditions. If, in one's own continuum, the cessation of defilements, etc., is due to obtaining Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom), the self-nature is not established, and thus it is called 'cessation'. This is according to cessation by nature. If, in the continuum of others, the cessation of defilements, etc., and all form and all unconditioned dharmas (Anāsrava-dharma), is because one is able to cognize them, and all the defilements in oneself are ultimately ceased by the ninth category, then it is called 'cessation'. This is according to cessation by bondage of conditions.

Regarding 'How many kinds of remoteness and remote nature are there?', the fourth part below explains the four kinds of remoteness. Question: As mentioned earlier regarding the antidote to remoteness, generally speaking, how many kinds of remote nature are there in total?

Regarding 'The verse says to also be called remote', the answer is: Because they are separated from the present, the past and future are called remote. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

Regarding 'In relation to what is it said to be remote?', the master of the treatise asks.

Regarding 'In relation to the present world', the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) answers. Because the past and future two worlds are separated from the present world, they are called remote. According to this meaning, it should be known that the present is called near. Therefore, the sixth chapter of the Prakaraṇapāda (a treatise) says: What is a remote dharma? It is past and future dharmas. What is a near dharma? It is present dharma and Asaṃskṛta-dharma (unconditioned dharma).

Regarding 'Immediately ceased to how is it called remote?', the master of the treatise raises a question. In the past world, immediately ceased

滅。未來世中正生相時。與現相鄰如何名遠。

由世性別至方得名遠者。說一切有部答。由過．未與現在世性別故得遠名。非久曾滅。非久曾當生。方得遠名。

若爾現在至說名為遠者。論主復難現望去．來世性亦別亦應名遠。若謂過去．未來法無作用。離作用故名為遠者。諸無為法既無作用。云何名近。若謂由現在世能起彼得。遍得有漏法上擇滅無為。遍得有為法上非擇滅無為。故說無為名為近者。去．來二世例亦應然。亦由現世起得得彼去．來世法。去．來二世應亦名近。二滅現得可名為近。虛空無為既無有得。如何名近　以說一切有部宗。三無為法皆名為近。二滅有得。虛空無得。故作斯難。故正理云。且虛空體遍一切處。相無礙故說名為近。非擇滅體不由功用。於一切體一切處時。皆可得故說名為近。擇滅無為。諸有精進正修行者斷諸惑時。於一切體無有差別。速證得故說名為近(解云虛空所在法皆有名近。非擇滅現易得故名近。擇滅現速得故名近)若謂過去．未來更互相望。由隔現在名為遠現望過去．未來。二世俱極相鄰中間無隔。三無為法亦無有隔故皆近者。則應去．來鄰現在世故可名近。相望有隔故名遠。故具二名。不應一向說名為遠。

若依正理至正理法自相故者。論主述經部解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『滅（Nirvana）』在未來世中正要生起的時候，與現在相鄰，為什麼說它是『遠（distant）』呢？

說一切有部（Sarvastivada）回答：因為過去世和未來世與現在世的體性不同，所以稱為『遠』。不是已經滅去不久，也不是將要生起不久，才能稱為『遠』。

論主反駁：如果這樣，現在世相對於過去世和未來世，體性也不同，也應該稱為『遠』。如果說過去世和未來世的法沒有作用，因為沒有作用所以稱為『遠』，那麼諸無為法（Asamskrta dharma）既然沒有作用，為什麼稱為『近（near）』？如果說因為現在世能夠生起『得（attainment）』，普遍地在有漏法（Sasrava dharma）上得到『擇滅（Pratisamkhyanirodha）』無為，普遍地在有為法（Samskrta dharma）上得到『非擇滅（Apratisamkhyanirodha）』無為，所以說無為法稱為『近』，那麼過去世和未來世也應該一樣。也因為現在世生起『得』而得到過去世和未來世的法，過去世和未來世也應該稱為『近』。兩種『滅』的『現得（present attainment）』可以稱為『近』，虛空（Akasa）無為既然沒有『得』，如何稱為『近』？

因為說一切有部認為，三種無為法都稱為『近』，兩種『滅』有『得』，虛空沒有『得』，所以這樣發難。所以《正理（Nyaya）》說：而且虛空的本體遍佈一切處，體相沒有阻礙，所以稱為『近』。非擇滅的本體不由功用，在一切本體、一切處所、一切時間，都可以得到，所以稱為『近』。擇滅無為，那些精進修行的人在斷除各種迷惑的時候，在一切本體上沒有差別，迅速證得，所以稱為『近』（解釋說虛空所在之處，法都稱為『近』。非擇滅現在容易得到，所以稱為『近』。擇滅現在迅速得到，所以稱為『近』）。如果說過去世和未來世互相觀望，因為隔著現在世所以稱為『遠』，現在世觀望過去世和未來世，兩世都極其相鄰，中間沒有間隔，三種無為法也沒有間隔，所以都『近』，那麼就應該過去世和未來世與現在世相鄰，所以可以稱為『近』，互相觀望有間隔，所以稱為『遠』。所以具有兩種名稱，不應該一概地說稱為『遠』。

如果依照《正理》所說，是因為正理的法自相的緣故，論主闡述經部（Sautrantika）的解釋。

【English Translation】 English version When 『Cessation (Nirvana)』 is about to arise in the future, it is adjacent to the present. Why is it called 『distant』?

The Sarvastivada (the 『All Exists』 school) answers: Because the nature of the past and future differs from that of the present, it is called 『distant』. It is only when it has not been extinguished for long, nor will it arise for long, that it can be called 『distant』.

The treatise master refutes: If so, the present, in relation to the past and future, also differs in nature and should also be called 『distant』. If it is said that the dharmas of the past and future have no function, and are therefore called 『distant』 because they have no function, then how can the unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta dharmas), since they have no function, be called 『near』? If it is said that because the present can give rise to 『attainment』, universally attaining 『Pratisamkhyanirodha (cessation through wisdom)』 unconditioned dharma on conditioned dharmas (Sasrava dharmas), and universally attaining 『Apratisamkhyanirodha (cessation without wisdom)』 unconditioned dharma on conditioned dharmas (Samskrta dharmas), therefore unconditioned dharmas are called 『near』, then the past and future should be the same. Also, because the present gives rise to 『attainment』 and attains the dharmas of the past and future, the past and future should also be called 『near』. The 『present attainment』 of the two 『cessations』 can be called 『near』, but how can 『space (Akasa)』 unconditioned, since there is no 『attainment』, be called 『near』?

Because the Sarvastivada believes that all three unconditioned dharmas are called 『near』, the two 『cessations』 have 『attainment』, and space has no 『attainment』, so this difficulty is raised. Therefore, the 『Nyaya (Reasoning)』 says: Moreover, the substance of space pervades all places, and its form is unobstructed, so it is called 『near』. The substance of non-selective cessation does not depend on effort, and can be attained in all substances, all places, and all times, so it is called 『near』. Selective cessation unconditioned, those who diligently practice and cultivate, when cutting off various delusions, have no difference in all substances, and quickly attain it, so it is called 『near』 (The explanation says that wherever space is, the dharma is called 『near』. Non-selective cessation is easy to attain now, so it is called 『near』. Selective cessation is quickly attained now, so it is called 『near』). If it is said that the past and future look at each other, and are called 『distant』 because they are separated by the present, and the present looks at the past and future, and the two are extremely adjacent with no separation in between, and the three unconditioned dharmas have no separation, so they are all 『near』, then the past and future should be adjacent to the present, so they can be called 『near』, and looking at each other there is separation, so they are called 『distant』. Therefore, they have two names, and should not be generally called 『distant』.

If according to what is said in the 『Nyaya』, it is because of the self-nature of the dharma of the 『Nyaya』, the treatise master elaborates on the explanation of the Sautrantika (the 『Sutra school』).

遠相。過去．未來無體名遠。準知現在有體名近。

等言為明舉事未盡者。釋頌等字。如相遠中雖舉大種。所造色等猶未說故。治遠雖舉持戒．犯戒。善．不善等猶未說故。處遠雖舉東海．西海。南．北海等猶未說故。時遠一種雖復舉盡。從多分說故說等言。

前言惑斷至練根六時中者。此即第五明斷惑得滅。上句答初問。下三句答后問。

論曰至再斷惑義者。釋初句。諸惑若得彼能斷無間道。即由彼道此惑頓斷。若更不退必無後時再斷惑義。唯有退時方得更斷　若依成實．瑜伽．雜集。許惑再斷。

所得離系至彼勝得義者。釋第二句。所得離系是善常故。雖無隨道漸勝進理。而道勝進時容有重起彼勝得義。故正理五十六云。以離系得道所攝故。捨得道時彼亦捨得。故諸離繫有重得理。若依成實。離系無重得。

所言重得總有幾時者。釋下兩句。此即問也。

總有六時者。答。

何等為六者。徴。

謂治道起得果練根者。答。此即開章。

治道起時謂解脫道者。此釋初章。又正理云。說治生言通目二義。若據住此能證離系。目無間道。若據住此正證離系。目解脫道(已上論文)　此論據正證故言解脫。此從多分。若通少分亦勝進道說為治生。如先離色愛盡后

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

遠相：過去、未來沒有實體，因此被稱為『遠』。由此可知，現在有實體，因此被稱為『近』。『等』字的意思是，爲了明確說明，但有些事情還沒有完全說完。解釋頌文中的『等』字。例如，在『相遠』中，雖然提到了『大種』（四大元素），但『所造色』（由四大產生的色法）等還沒有說。在『治遠』中，雖然提到了『持戒』（遵守戒律）、『犯戒』（違犯戒律），但『善』、『不善』等還沒有說。在『處遠』中，雖然提到了『東海』、『西海』、『南海』、『北海』等，但還有其他處所沒有說。在『時遠』這一種中，雖然已經全部舉出，但因為是從多數方面來說的，所以用了『等』字。前面說的『惑斷』到『練根六時』中：這指的是第五個方面，說明斷除迷惑而獲得寂滅。上句回答第一個問題，下面三句回答後面的問題。論曰：解釋第一句。各種迷惑如果得到了能夠斷除它們的『無間道』（直接斷除煩惱的智慧），就通過那個道頓然斷除這些迷惑。如果不再退轉，必定沒有以後再次斷除迷惑的道理。只有在退轉的時候，才能夠再次斷除。如果按照『成實論』、『瑜伽師地論』、『雜集論』的觀點，是允許迷惑可以再次斷除的。所得離系：解釋第二句。所得的『離系』（解脫繫縛的狀態）是善良且恒常的，雖然沒有隨著道而逐漸勝進的道理，但道勝進的時候，容許有重新生起那個勝妙的獲得的道理。所以『正理』第五十六卷說：『因為離系是被道所攝持的，捨棄得道的時候，那個離系也捨棄了獲得。』所以各種離繫有重新獲得的道理。如果按照『成實論』的觀點，離系沒有重新獲得。所說的『重得』總共有幾次：這是提問。總共有六次：回答。哪六種：提問。所謂的『治道起』、『得果』、『練根』：回答。這是展開章節。『治道起時』指的是『解脫道』（通往解脫的道路）：這是解釋第一個章節。另外，『正理』中說：『說「治生」這個詞，普遍指兩種含義。如果根據安住於此能夠證得離系，指的是「無間道」。如果根據安住於此真正證得離系，指的是「解脫道」。』（以上是論文的內容）這個論述根據真正證得離系，所以說是『解脫』。這是從多數方面來說的。如果包括少部分，也可以把勝進道說成是『治生』。例如，先前的離色愛盡后。

【English Translation】 English version:

Distance in Appearance: The past and future have no substance, hence they are called 'distant'. From this, it is known that the present has substance, hence it is called 'near'. The word 'etc.' means that for the sake of clear explanation, some matters have not been completely stated. Explaining the word 'etc.' in the verses. For example, in 'distance in appearance', although the 'Mahabhutas' (Great Elements) are mentioned, the 'derived matter' (matter derived from the Great Elements) etc. are not yet mentioned. In 'distance in cure', although 'observing precepts' (śīla) and 'violating precepts' are mentioned, 'good' and 'non-good' etc. are not yet mentioned. In 'distance in place', although 'Eastern Sea', 'Western Sea', 'Southern Sea', 'Northern Sea' etc. are mentioned, other places are not yet mentioned. In the case of 'distance in time', although everything has been mentioned, the word 'etc.' is used because it is spoken from the majority perspective. The previously mentioned 'severance of afflictions' to 'six times of root cultivation': This refers to the fifth aspect, explaining the eradication of delusion and the attainment of extinction. The first sentence answers the first question, and the following three sentences answer the subsequent questions. The Treatise says: Explaining the first sentence. If various afflictions obtain the 'uninterrupted path' (anantarya-marga) that can sever them, then these afflictions are suddenly severed by that path. If there is no regression, there will definitely be no subsequent re-severance of afflictions. Only when there is regression can there be re-severance. According to the views of the 'Tattvasiddhi Śāstra', 'Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra', and 'Abhidharmasamuccaya', it is permissible for afflictions to be re-severed. The obtained separation: Explaining the second sentence. The obtained 'separation' (visamyoga, the state of being unbound) is good and constant, although there is no principle of gradual advancement along the path, when the path advances, it is permissible for the principle of re-arising of that excellent attainment. Therefore, the fifty-sixth volume of the 'Nyāyānusāra Śāstra' says: 'Because separation is upheld by the path, when abandoning the attainment of the path, that separation also abandons the attainment.' Therefore, various separations have the principle of re-attainment. According to the view of the 'Tattvasiddhi Śāstra', separation has no re-attainment. How many times in total is the so-called 're-attainment': This is the question. There are six times in total: The answer. What are the six: The question. The so-called 'arising of the curative path', 'obtaining the fruit', 'cultivating the roots': The answer. This is the opening of the chapters. 'The time of arising of the curative path' refers to the 'path of liberation' (vimukti-marga): This is the explanation of the first chapter. Furthermore, the 'Nyāyānusāra Śāstra' says: 'Saying the word 'curative arising' generally refers to two meanings. If based on abiding in this one can realize separation, it refers to the 'uninterrupted path'. If based on abiding in this one truly realizes separation, it refers to the 'path of liberation'.' (The above is the content of the treatise) This treatise is based on truly realizing separation, so it says 'liberation'. This is from the majority perspective. If including a small part, the advancing path can also be said to be 'curative arising'. For example, after previously exhausting desire for form.

入正性離生。勝進道時得斷智故。

得果時者至阿羅漢果者。釋第二章　練根時者謂轉根時者。釋第三章　正理云。說得果言既無差別。如攝四果應攝練根。以轉根時必得果故。何勞長說此練根言　為顯練根異斷惑得果故。得果外說練根無失。

此六時中至重起勝得者。結。

然諸離系至即得果故者。此即約位別釋。見道八諦即為八品。修道九地地地有九品。九九八十一品。見．修合有八十九品。約此離系以明重得。由治生時即得果故。取得果時得果力故。別起勝得得前無為。非由治生不取治生。故正理云。由治生時即得果故。說得果已不說治生　余文可知。

如是且就至預流等故者。總釋上文。如是且就鈍根次第容有理說。故具六時乃至具二。以利根者前諸位中一一皆除練根得故。謂前六時但應說五。乃至具二但應說一　諸有超越入聖道者。隨應有除預流等故。等取一來。若先斷欲界六．七．八品入見道者鈍根除預流。但有五時。利根除預流。又除練根。但有四時。若先離欲入見道者。又除一來。鈍四利三。又正理五十六云。豈不八地容世俗道斷。應分二種對治生時得。不爾。此說漸次得故　或此唯約無漏得故。若依越次通有漏得。則世俗道八地染中。隨離少．多入聖道者。彼得離系。隨

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：進入正性離生（證悟的開始）。在勝進道（修行的更高階段）時，因為獲得斷智（斷除煩惱的智慧）的緣故。

『得果時』（獲得果位時）指的是證得阿羅漢果（佛教修行的最高果位）的時候。解釋第二章。『練根時』（調練根器時）指的是轉變根器的時候。解釋第三章。《正理》中說，如果說『得果』（獲得果位）沒有差別，就像包含四果（預流果、一來果、不還果、阿羅漢果）一樣，也應該包含練根（調練根器）。因為轉變根器時必定獲得果位。何必多說這個『練根』呢？這是爲了顯示練根不同於斷惑得果的緣故。在得果之外說練根沒有過失。

這六個時位中，直到重起勝得（重新生起殊勝的功德）為止。總結。

然而，各種離系（解脫）直到立即獲得果位為止。這指的是按階段來解釋。見道（證悟的第一階段）的八諦（八種真理）即為八品（八個層次）。修道（修行的階段）的九地（九個層次）每一地有九品（九個層次），九九八十一品（八十一個層次）。見道和修道合起來有八十九品（八十九個層次）。根據這些離系來闡明重得（重複獲得）。由於在治生時（產生對治力時）就立即獲得果位，取得果位時獲得果位的力量。另外生起殊勝的功德，獲得先前沒有的無為（涅槃）。不是由於治生而不取治生。所以《正理》中說，由於在治生時就立即獲得果位，所以在說得果之後就不說治生。其餘的文字可以理解。

像這樣且就鈍根（根器遲鈍的人）的次第容許有道理可說。所以具有六個時位，乃至具有兩個時位。因為利根（根器敏銳的人）在前述的各個階段中，一一都除去了練根得（調練根器而獲得）。也就是說，前述的六個時位只應該說五個，乃至具有兩個時位只應該說一個。各種超越而進入聖道（證悟的道路）的人，根據情況有除去預流（預流果）等的情況。『等』字包括一來（一來果）。如果先斷除欲界（慾望界）的六、七、八品（六、七、八個層次）而進入見道的人，鈍根（根器遲鈍的人）除去預流（預流果），只有五個時位。利根（根器敏銳的人）除去預流（預流果），又除去練根（調練根器），只有四個時位。如果先脫離慾望而進入見道的人，又除去一來（一來果），鈍根（根器遲鈍的人）有四個時位，利根（根器敏銳的人）有三個時位。另外，《正理》第五十六卷中說，難道八地（八個層次）容許世俗道（世俗的道路）斷除嗎？應該分為兩種對治生時得（對治產生時獲得）。不是這樣的。這是說漸次獲得。或者這只是關於無漏得（無漏的獲得）。如果依據越次（超越次第）而通於有漏得（有漏的獲得），那麼世俗道（世俗的道路）在八地（八個層次）的染污中，隨著脫離的多少而進入聖道（證悟的道路）的人，他們獲得離系（解脫），隨著脫離的多少而獲得解脫。

【English Translation】 English version: Entering the rightness of separation from existence (the beginning of enlightenment). At the time of superior progress on the path (higher stages of practice), because of obtaining the wisdom of cutting off (wisdom to cut off afflictions).

'The time of attaining the fruit' refers to the time of attaining Arhatship (the highest fruit of Buddhist practice). Explanation of the second chapter. 'The time of training the roots' refers to the time of transforming the roots. Explanation of the third chapter. The Nyāyānusāra says, if saying 'attaining the fruit' has no difference, just as including the four fruits (Srotāpanna, Sakṛdāgāmin, Anāgāmin, Arhat), it should also include training the roots. Because when transforming the roots, one certainly attains the fruit. Why bother saying this 'training the roots'? This is to show that training the roots is different from cutting off afflictions and attaining the fruit. There is no fault in speaking of training the roots outside of attaining the fruit.

Among these six times, up to the re-arising of superior attainment. Conclusion.

However, various separations from bondage, up to immediately attaining the fruit. This refers to explaining by stages. The eight truths of the path of seeing (the first stage of enlightenment) are the eight qualities. The nine grounds of the path of cultivation (the stage of practice) each have nine qualities, nine times nine is eighty-one qualities. The path of seeing and the path of cultivation together have eighty-nine qualities. According to these separations from bondage, to clarify repeated attainment. Because at the time of generating the antidote, one immediately attains the fruit, when attaining the fruit, one obtains the power of the fruit. Separately arising superior merit, obtaining the unconditioned (Nirvana) that was not there before. It is not because of generating the antidote that one does not take the generating of the antidote. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says, because at the time of generating the antidote, one immediately attains the fruit, so after saying attaining the fruit, one does not say generating the antidote. The remaining text can be understood.

Like this, and just in terms of the gradual order of dull faculties, there is reason to say. Therefore, having six times, up to having two. Because those with sharp faculties, in each of the previous stages, all eliminate attaining by training the roots. That is to say, the previous six times should only say five, up to having two should only say one. Various people who transcend and enter the holy path, according to the situation, there is the elimination of Srotāpanna (stream-enterer) and so on. 'And so on' includes Sakṛdāgāmin (once-returner). If one first cuts off the six, seven, and eight qualities of the desire realm and enters the path of seeing, the dull faculties eliminate Srotāpanna, there are only five times. The sharp faculties eliminate Srotāpanna, and also eliminate training the roots, there are only four times. If one first separates from desire and enters the path of seeing, one also eliminates Sakṛdāgāmin, the dull faculties have four times, the sharp faculties have three times. Furthermore, the fifty-sixth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says, how can the eight grounds allow the worldly path to be cut off? It should be divided into two kinds of obtaining at the time of generating the antidote. It is not like this. This is saying gradual attainment. Or this is only about unconditioned attainment. If according to transcending the order and connecting to conditioned attainment, then in the defilements of the eight grounds of the worldly path, as one separates more or less and enters the holy path, they obtain separation from bondage, as they separate more or less, they obtain liberation.

其所應有具六時乃至唯一。以利根故。除練根時　謂欲界中先斷五品。入見諦者彼見所斷五品離系具六時得。謂有二種自治生時。及得果時復四成六　彼修所斷五品離系唯五時得除預流果　先斷六品入見諦者彼見所斷六品離系。亦五時得。除一如前。彼修所斷六品離系。唯世俗道。治生時得必不起。彼無漏對治是一來果．向道攝故。非住果時起彼向道以住勝果不起劣故　先斷八品入見諦者。彼見所斷八品離系亦五時得。除一如前　彼修所斷前六離系唯一時得。如前應知　七．八離系唯四時得。謂二治生及二得果　先斷九品依未至地入見諦者。彼見所斷九品離系亦四時得。如前應知　依根本地入見諦者。彼見所斷九品離系亦一時得。如前應知。根本非欲斷對治故　若依未至。若依根本。彼修所斷九品離系亦一時得。如前應知。必不起彼無漏對治。是不還果．向道攝故　先斷上七地入見諦者。彼見三諦斷七地離系亦四時得。如前應知　見道諦斷七地離系唯三時得。謂一治生及二得果。無漏治生即得果故　彼修所斷七地離系唯三時得。謂二治生及一得果　具離八地入聖道者。見．修位中斷有頂惑。見三諦斷離系三時得。謂一治生及二得果。見道諦斷離系二時。由治生時即得果故　修斷八品離系二時。謂一治生及一得果。第九

離系唯一時得。以治生時即得果故　諸分離染見．修位中。進斷所餘準此應說(已上論文)　解云豈不八地等者。外難。于下八地容世俗斷。如異生位先斷八地所有系已有有漏得。後於聖位自治起時。復起無漏得。亦是重得八地無為。應分二種治生時得。世俗治生時。無漏治生時　不爾等者。釋難。前文不論二治生者約漸次說斷見惑已次斷修惑。隨聖．俗道斷何品惑。皆修二道俱起聖．俗二離系得。非前後故但言一時　或六時言唯約無漏得。以無漏得有得舍故。舍前得后可言重得。有漏得不捨。是故不說　若依已下。顯依越次有漏．無漏二得重得。於越次中總有六時。謂有漏道．無漏道．及四果為六。又準正理。若依越次以利根故除練根時。以此故知。越次起者皆是利根　俱舍師難云。隨信行人入見道有七十三。明知越次亦通鈍根。既通鈍根。明知越次亦有練根。如何乃言越次起者。以利根故除練根時。若言越次皆非練根以利根故。此言虛說。又下論但言經欲界生．及上界生聖無練根不言越次。若言此文但據利根越次。不言一切越次起者皆是利根。鈍根越次何故不說。又如何正理六十一。云依根本地起暖等善根。彼於此生必定得見諦。以利根故厭有深故。準正理後文。故知前文越次起者皆是利根　又準正理。先斷欲界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『離系唯一時得』，是指在『治生』（證得）時同時獲得。因為在修習『治生』時，立即就能證得果位。對於那些分離的染污見解，在修位中，進一步斷除剩餘的，應該按照這個原則來說明。（以上是論文原文）解釋說：『難道不是八地等嗎？』這是外人的提問。在下八地允許有世俗的斷除。例如在異生位（凡夫位）時，先斷除了八地所有的繫縛，已經獲得了有漏的『得』。之後在聖位，當『自治』（無漏智慧生起）時，又生起無漏的『得』。這也是重複獲得八地的無為法。應該分為兩種『治生』時獲得：世俗『治生』時，和無漏『治生』時。『不爾等者』，這是解釋難題。前面的文章沒有區分兩種『治生』，是因為按照漸次的順序來說，斷除了見惑之後，接著斷除修惑。無論用聖道還是俗道斷除哪一品惑，都會同時生起聖道和俗道的兩種『離系得』。不是有先後順序，所以只說『一時』。或者說，『六時』的說法只針對無漏的『得』。因為無漏的『得』有『得』和『舍』。捨棄之前的『得』，獲得之後的『得』，可以說成是重複獲得。有漏的『得』不捨棄，所以不說重複獲得。『若依已下』，顯示依據越次（超越次第）的情況，有漏和無漏的兩種『得』是重複獲得。在越次中總共有六個時段，指的是有漏道、無漏道，以及四果（須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）這六個階段。又根據《正理》（《阿毗達磨俱舍論》），如果依據越次，因為是利根，所以排除練根的時候。因此可知，越次生起的人都是利根。俱舍師（《俱舍論》的論師）提出疑問：隨信行人進入見道時有七十三種情況，明明知道越次也包括鈍根。既然包括鈍根，就說明越次也有練根。為什麼說越次生起的人，因為是利根，所以排除練根的時候？如果說越次都不是練根，因為是利根的緣故，這種說法是虛假的。而且下面的論述只說經歷欲界生和上界生的聖者沒有練根，沒有說越次。如果說這段文字只是根據利根的越次，沒有說一切越次生起的人都是利根，那麼鈍根的越次為什麼不說？而且《正理》六十一中如何解釋？說依據根本地生起暖等善根，他們在此生必定能證得見諦，因為是利根，厭離心很深。根據《正理》後面的文字，可知前面的文字說越次生起的人都是利根。又根據《正理》，先斷除欲界

【English Translation】 English version: 'Lixi Weiyi Shi De' (離系唯一時得, attainment of separation is only at one time) refers to obtaining it simultaneously at the time of 'Zhisheng' (治生, cultivation and attainment). Because one can immediately attain the fruit when practicing 'Zhisheng'. For those separated defiled views, in the stage of cultivation, further eliminating the remaining ones should be explained according to this principle. (The above is the original text of the treatise) The explanation says: 'Isn't it the eighth ground, etc.?' This is an outsider's question. In the lower eight grounds, worldly severance is allowed. For example, in the position of an ordinary being (凡夫位), one first severs all the bonds of the eighth ground and has already obtained the contaminated 'De' (得, attainment). Later, in the holy position, when 'Zizhi' (自治, self-governance, arising of uncontaminated wisdom) arises, uncontaminated 'De' also arises. This is also repeatedly obtaining the unconditioned dharma of the eighth ground. It should be divided into two types of 'Zhisheng' to obtain: worldly 'Zhisheng' time and uncontaminated 'Zhisheng' time. 'Bu Er Deng Zhe' (不爾等者, not so, etc.), this is explaining the difficulty. The previous article did not distinguish between the two 'Zhisheng' because it was said in the order of gradual progress, after severing the views of delusion, then severing the delusions of cultivation. No matter which category of delusion is severed by the holy path or the worldly path, both the holy path and the worldly path will arise simultaneously, and the two types of 'Lixi De' (離系得, attainment of separation) of the holy and worldly will be obtained. There is no sequence, so it is only said 'at one time'. Or, the statement of 'six times' only refers to the uncontaminated 'De'. Because the uncontaminated 'De' has 'obtaining' and 'relinquishing'. Relinquishing the previous 'De' and obtaining the subsequent 'De' can be said to be repeatedly obtaining. The contaminated 'De' is not relinquished, so it is not said to be repeatedly obtained. 'Ruo Yi Yixia' (若依已下, if according to the following), it shows that according to the situation of 'Yueci' (越次, skipping stages), the two types of contaminated and uncontaminated 'De' are repeatedly obtained. In 'Yueci', there are a total of six periods, referring to the contaminated path, the uncontaminated path, and the four fruits (Srotaapanna 果, Sakrdagamin 果, Anagamin 果, Arhat 果) these six stages. Also, according to 'Zhengli' (正理, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya), if according to 'Yueci', because it is a sharp root, the time of 'Lian Gen' (練根, training the roots) is excluded. Therefore, it can be known that those who arise in 'Yueci' are all sharp roots. The Kosa master (the master of Abhidharmakośa) raises the question: When the follower of faith enters the path of seeing, there are seventy-three situations, clearly knowing that 'Yueci' also includes dull roots. Since it includes dull roots, it shows that 'Yueci' also has 'Lian Gen'. Why is it said that those who arise in 'Yueci', because they are sharp roots, exclude the time of 'Lian Gen'? If it is said that 'Yueci' is not 'Lian Gen', because of the sharp roots, this statement is false. Moreover, the following discussion only says that the saints who have experienced birth in the desire realm and the upper realms do not have 'Lian Gen', and does not mention 'Yueci'. If it is said that this passage is only based on the 'Yueci' of sharp roots, and does not say that all those who arise in 'Yueci' are sharp roots, then why not talk about the 'Yueci' of dull roots? And how to explain in 'Zhengli' sixty-one? It says that according to the fundamental ground, warm and other good roots arise, and they will surely attain the path of seeing in this life, because they are sharp roots and have deep aversion. According to the later text of 'Zhengli', it can be known that the previous text says that those who arise in 'Yueci' are all sharp roots. Also, according to 'Zhengli', first sever the desire realm

五品。或七品．八品。及先斷無所有處。后得果已起勝進道。及先離欲后入見道起法忍智。皆非斷對治。所治已斷故隨應是彼遠分厭患對治所攝　問已斷斷治既不現行。如何名為自對治起。前言自治唯是無間．解脫道故　解云似自治故名為自治。或自斷治得現行故名自治生。非斷治起。或此所言自治生者。非要斷治。遠．厭治起亦自治生　問何故前言無間．解脫　解云無間．解脫．理有二種。一有所作。謂斷．及持。二無所作。謂不斷．持無所作中復有二種。一修斷治。二者不修斷治　修斷治者。如先離欲依未至地入見諦者起法忍智。及先離染于修道位依未至地起下八地勝果道。及依餘地起治自．上地勝果道　不修斷治者。如先離欲依根本．中間地入見諦者起法忍智。然於此中。有所作及無所作中修斷治者。現在前時引離系得。不修斷治與此相違　於此義中復有二解。一解俱名自治。但自治生若起若修兼斷治者有離系得。異則不然　問若爾便有雖有自治生。而不得離系　解云許亦何失。但云得離系得有由自治生。不言自治生必得離系得此有何失　二解不修斷治者不與自治名。以自治名從斷治得。唯不共故。要於此起無間．解脫。修斷治者得自治名。極似自治故。自治相隨故。余則不爾　問若有無間．解脫。無所作者何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本五品，或七品、八品，以及先斷除無所有處（ākincanyāyatana，四禪定之一，指既不認為有，也不認為沒有的狀態），后獲得果位後生起殊勝的精進之道，以及先脫離欲界（kāmadhātu，眾生所居三界之一，指有情慾的眾生所住的世界）的染污，後進入見道（darśanamārga，佛教修行道中的一個階段，指初次證悟真理的階段）生起法忍智（dharmajñāna-kṣānti，對佛法的忍可和智慧），都不是斷除煩惱的對治法（pratipakṣa，指能克服煩惱的方法）。因為所要對治的煩惱已經被斷除，所以相應地屬於遠離煩惱的厭患對治法所包含的範疇。問：既然已經斷除煩惱的斷除對治法不再現行，如何稱之為『自對治』生起呢？之前說過『自治』唯有無間道（ānantaryamārga，指直接斷除煩惱的道路）和解脫道（vimuktimārga，指從煩惱中解脫的道路）。答：解釋說，因為類似『自治』，所以稱為『自治』。或者因為斷除煩惱的對治法能夠現行，所以稱為『自治』生起，但並非斷除煩惱的對治法生起。或者這裡所說的『自治』生起，並非一定要是斷除煩惱的對治法，遠離和厭患的對治法生起也屬於『自治』生起。問：為什麼之前說只有無間道和解脫道？答：解釋說，無間道和解脫道，理上有兩種。一種是有所作為，即斷除和保持。另一種是無所作為，即不斷除和保持。無所作為中又有兩種，一是修習斷除對治法，二是不修習斷除對治法。修習斷除對治法的情況，例如先脫離欲界的染污，依靠未至定地（anāgamya，指色界定之前的預備階段）進入見諦（satyadarśana，指證悟四聖諦）的人，生起法忍智；以及先脫離染污，在修道位（bhāvanāmārga，指在見道之後，通過修行來進一步凈化煩惱的階段）依靠未至定地，生起下八地（指色界和無色界的較低層次的禪定）的殊勝果位之道；以及依靠其他禪定地，生起對治自身和更高禪定地的殊勝果位之道。不修習斷除對治法的情況，例如先脫離欲界的染污，依靠根本定（指色界四禪和無色界四空定）或中間定（指未至定和中間禪）進入見諦的人，生起法忍智。然而，在這其中，有所作為和無所作為中修習斷除對治法的人，在（斷除對治法）現在前時，會引發離系得（visaṃyoga-prāpti，指通過斷除煩惱而獲得的解脫）。不修習斷除對治法的情況則與此相反。對於這個意義，還有兩種解釋。一種解釋是都稱為『自治』，但『自治』生起如果生起或修習兼具斷除對治法，則能獲得離系得，否則就不能。問：如果這樣，就會出現雖然有『自治』生起，卻不能獲得離系得的情況。答：解釋說，允許這種情況又有什麼損失呢？只是說獲得離系得有通過『自治』生起的原因，而不是說『自治』生起必定獲得離系得，這有什麼損失呢？另一種解釋是，不修習斷除對治法的人，不給予『自治』的名稱，因為『自治』的名稱是從斷除對治法獲得的，唯有不共的緣故。一定要在此生起無間道和解脫道，修習斷除對治法的人才能獲得『自治』的名稱，因為極其類似『自治』的緣故，『自治』的相隨的緣故，其他情況則不是這樣。問：如果存在無間道和解脫道，卻沒有所作為的情況是什麼？

【English Translation】 English version The fifth grade, or the seventh, eighth grade, and those who first abandon the ākincanyāyatana (the sphere of nothingness, one of the four formless attainments), and then, having attained the fruit, generate a superior path of progress, and those who first detach from desire (kāmadhātu, the desire realm, one of the three realms), and then enter the path of seeing (darśanamārga, the path of insight) and generate dharma-kṣānti (acquiescence to the Dharma) and wisdom, are not antidotes (pratipakṣa) to abandonment. Because what is to be treated has already been abandoned, they are accordingly included in the category of aversion antidotes that are far removed from it. Question: Since the abandonment antidote that has already been abandoned is no longer active, how is it called the arising of 'self-antidote'? It was previously said that 'self-governance' is only the path of immediate succession (ānantaryamārga) and the path of liberation (vimuktimārga). Answer: It is explained that it is called 'self-antidote' because it resembles 'self-antidote'. Or it is called the arising of 'self-antidote' because the antidote to abandonment can be active, but it is not the arising of the antidote to abandonment. Or what is said here to be the arising of 'self-antidote' does not necessarily have to be the antidote to abandonment; the arising of aversion and aversion antidotes is also the arising of 'self-antidote'. Question: Why was it previously said that there are only the paths of immediate succession and liberation? Answer: It is explained that there are two kinds of reason in the paths of immediate succession and liberation. One is what is done, namely abandonment and maintenance. The other is what is not done, namely non-abandonment and maintenance. Among what is not done, there are again two kinds: one is cultivating the abandonment antidote, and the other is not cultivating the abandonment antidote. The situation of cultivating the abandonment antidote is like those who first detach from the defilements of the desire realm and, relying on the anāgamya (the state of nearness to the first dhyana), enter the vision of truth (satyadarśana) and generate dharma-kṣānti; and those who first detach from defilements and, in the stage of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), relying on the anāgamya, generate the superior path of the fruits of the lower eight grounds (referring to the lower levels of meditation in the form and formless realms); and those who, relying on other grounds, generate the superior path of the fruits that treat themselves and the higher grounds. The situation of not cultivating the abandonment antidote is like those who first detach from the defilements of the desire realm and, relying on the fundamental dhyana (referring to the four dhyanas of the form realm and the four formless dhyanas) or the intermediate dhyana (referring to the anāgamya and the intermediate dhyana), enter the vision of truth and generate dharma-kṣānti. However, among these, those who cultivate the abandonment antidote in what is done and what is not done will, when (the abandonment antidote) is present, cause the attainment of detachment (visaṃyoga-prāpti). The situation of not cultivating the abandonment antidote is the opposite of this. Regarding this meaning, there are two more explanations. One explanation is that both are called 'self-antidote', but if the arising of 'self-antidote' arises or cultivates and also has the abandonment antidote, then the attainment of detachment can be obtained; otherwise, it cannot. Question: If that is the case, then there will be cases where, although there is the arising of 'self-antidote', the attainment of detachment cannot be obtained. Answer: It is explained that what is the loss in allowing this situation? It is only said that obtaining the attainment of detachment has a cause through the arising of 'self-antidote', but it is not said that the arising of 'self-antidote' necessarily obtains the attainment of detachment; what is the loss in this? Another explanation is that those who do not cultivate the abandonment antidote are not given the name 'self-antidote', because the name 'self-antidote' is obtained from the abandonment antidote, only because it is uncommon. It is necessary to generate the paths of immediate succession and liberation here in order for those who cultivate the abandonment antidote to obtain the name 'self-antidote', because it is extremely similar to 'self-antidote', because 'self-antidote' accompanies it; otherwise, it is not so. Question: If there are the paths of immediate succession and liberation, but there is nothing done, what is it?

對治收　答正理云。諸先離欲若依未至入見諦者。欲界厭患．遠分對治。見道現前亦修未來欲斷對治。欲斷對治地道正現在前故(已上論文)　準此便是厭．遠治攝　若爾便違辨治處說　解云于辨治處但云斷治謂無間。持治謂解脫。不言無間必斷治。解脫必持治。有何相違。又準正理。先斷欲六品或第九品。彼六．九品修斷離系。唯有漏得。畢竟無無漏得　問俱舍明重得。此離系得為唯無漏。亦通有漏　解云但約次第．唯無漏說。若約越次．及與有漏。應言七時。自治之中開為二故。

即諸離系至立因名故者。此下第六明九遍知。就中。一列九遍知名。二明六對果異三建立遍知緣。四明成就遍知。五明遍知集處。六明得舍遍知　此下第一列九遍知名。將欲列名先出體釋名。即諸離系彼彼見．修．無學位中得遍知名。泛而言之遍知有二。一智遍知。二斷遍知　智遍知者謂無漏智為體。於四諦境周遍而知故名遍知。又婆沙復有一說。亦通有漏智。謂聞．思．修極明瞭者亦名遍知。除勝解作意相應世俗智　二斷遍知者謂諸斷擇滅為體。遍知是智即是斷因。斷是智果體非遍知。而言遍知此于果上假立因名。又婆沙云。問修所斷斷是智果故可說為遍知。見所斷斷既是忍果。云何名遍知。評家云應作是說。忍是智眷屬是智種

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對治收：回答《正理》中說，那些先已離欲的人，如果依據未至定而入于見諦，那麼他們對於欲界的厭患和遠分是對治。見道現前時，也修習未來斷除欲的對治。因為斷除欲的對治之道正在現前。（以上是論文原文）依據這個，便是厭患和遠分對治所攝。如果這樣，就違背了辨治處所說的內容。解釋說，在辨治處只說斷治是指無間道，持治是指解脫道。並沒有說無間道必定是斷治，解脫道必定是持治。有什麼相違背的呢？又依據《正理》，先斷除欲界的六品或者第九品煩惱，這六品或九品煩惱的修斷離系，只有有漏才能得到，畢竟沒有無漏才能得到的。問：在《俱舍論》中說明了重得，這種離系得是隻有無漏才能得到，還是也通於有漏？解答說：只是按照次第來說，只有無漏才能得到。如果按照越次，以及與有漏相應的情況，應該說有七種情況。因為在自治之中分爲了兩種。

『即諸離系至立因名故者』：這以下第六部分說明九遍知。其中：一、列出九遍知的名稱；二、說明六對果的差異；三、建立遍知的緣；四、說明成就遍知；五、說明遍知的集處；六、說明得到和捨棄遍知。這以下第一部分列出九遍知的名稱。在將要列出名稱之前，先給出體性和解釋名稱。『即諸離系』，在彼彼見道、修道、無學道中得到的，稱為遍知。泛泛地說，遍知有兩種：一、智遍知；二、斷遍知。智遍知，是指以無漏智為體性，對於四諦的境界周遍而知，所以稱為遍知。又有《婆沙論》的另一種說法，也通於有漏智，指聞、思、修達到極明瞭的程度，也稱為遍知。除了與勝解作意相應的世俗智。斷遍知，是指以各種斷的擇滅為體性。遍知是智，也就是斷的原因；斷是智的果，體性不是遍知。但卻說成遍知，這是在果上假立了因的名稱。又有《婆沙論》說：問：修所斷的斷是智的果，所以可以說成是遍知。見所斷的斷既然是忍的果，怎麼能稱為遍知呢？評家說：應該這樣說，忍是智的眷屬，是智的種子。

【English Translation】 English version: Counteracting Attachment: The answer in the 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya' says, 'Those who have previously detached from desire, if they enter the stage of seeing the truth (darśanamārga) based on the preliminary concentration (upacāra-samādhi), then their aversion to and distancing from the desire realm are the counteractions. When the path of seeing (darśanamārga) manifests, they also cultivate the counteractions to future severance of desire. Because the path of counteracting the severance of desire is presently manifesting.' (The above is the original text of the treatise) Based on this, it is encompassed by aversion and distancing counteractions. If so, it would contradict what is stated in the section on distinguishing counteractions. The explanation is that in the section on distinguishing counteractions, it only says that severance counteraction (dānatṛtīya) refers to the immediate path (anantaryamārga), and holding counteraction (dhāraṇatṛtīya) refers to the path of liberation (vimuktimārga). It does not say that the immediate path is necessarily severance counteraction, or that the path of liberation is necessarily holding counteraction. What contradiction is there? Furthermore, according to the 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya', one first severs the six categories or the ninth category of desire realm afflictions. The severance of attachment (visamyoga) through cultivation of these six or nine categories is only attainable through defiled (sāsrava) means. Ultimately, it is not attainable through undefiled (anāsrava) means. Question: The 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya' clarifies re-attainment. Is this severance of attachment (visamyoga) only attainable through undefiled means, or is it also accessible through defiled means? Answer: It is only discussed in terms of sequence and only attainable through undefiled means. If considering skipping stages and association with defiled means, one should say there are seven instances. Because within self-governance, it is divided into two.

'That is, all severances of attachment up to the establishment of the name of the cause': The following sixth section explains the nine pervasive knowledges (navaparijñā). Among them: 1. Listing the names of the nine pervasive knowledges; 2. Explaining the differences in the six pairs of results; 3. Establishing the conditions for pervasive knowledge; 4. Explaining the accomplishment of pervasive knowledge; 5. Explaining the location of the collection of pervasive knowledge; 6. Explaining the attainment and abandonment of pervasive knowledge. The following first section lists the names of the nine pervasive knowledges. Before listing the names, it first gives the essence and explanation of the names. 'That is, all severances of attachment', those attained in the paths of seeing (darśanamārga), cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), and no-more-learning (aśaikṣamārga) are called pervasive knowledge (parijñā). Generally speaking, there are two types of pervasive knowledge: 1. Knowledge-based pervasive knowledge (jñānaparijñā); 2. Severance-based pervasive knowledge (prahāṇaparijñā). Knowledge-based pervasive knowledge refers to that which has undefiled wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna) as its essence, and knows the realm of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-āryasatyāni) pervasively, hence it is called pervasive knowledge. Furthermore, there is another explanation in the 'Mahāvibhāṣā', which also applies to defiled wisdom (sāsrava-jñāna), referring to those who have attained extreme clarity through hearing (śruta), thinking (cinta), and meditation (bhāvanā), who are also called pervasive knowledge. Except for worldly wisdom (laukika-jñāna) associated with conviction and mental application (adhimukti-manaskāra). Severance-based pervasive knowledge refers to that which has the cessation through discrimination (pratisamkhyā-nirodha) of various severances as its essence. Pervasive knowledge is wisdom, which is the cause of severance; severance is the result of wisdom, and its essence is not pervasive knowledge. However, it is referred to as pervasive knowledge, which is the false establishment of the name of the cause on the result. Furthermore, the 'Mahāvibhāṣā' says: Question: The severance of what is severed through cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya) is the result of wisdom, so it can be said to be pervasive knowledge. Since the severance of what is severed through seeing (darśana-prahātavya) is the result of forbearance (kṣānti), how can it be called pervasive knowledge? The commentator says: It should be said that forbearance is a relative of wisdom and a seed of wisdom.

類。亦名為智。斷是彼果故名遍知。

為一切斷立一遍知者。問。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至色一切斷三者。頌答。

論曰至立三遍知者。此釋初句。

且三界系至六種遍知者。釋次三句。明見道六遍知。

餘三界系至三種遍知者。釋后兩句。明修道三遍知。謂欲界修斷立一遍知。應知即是五順下分結盡遍知。身見．戒取．疑．雖是見道斷。此中不但取欲界修道九品無為。並前三界見道無為。合立故具立五順下分結盡遍知　色界修斷立一可知　無色修斷立一遍知。即一切結永盡遍知。雖斷無色界結盡時立一遍知。此亦並前三界見道．及欲．色界修道。合立一故。總結可知。

以何因緣至非見所斷者。問。

以修所斷治不同故者。答。以修所斷色．無色界對治不同。是故別立。見斷治同是故合立。

如是所立至類智品果五者。此即第二明六對果。初兩句明忍智果。次兩句明未至．根本果。次兩句明無色近分．根本果。次一句明俗聖道果。次一句明法類智果。后兩句明法類智品果。

論曰至是修道果故者。此明忍智果別。忍果有六。謂三界系見斷法斷六種遍知。智果有三。謂五順下分結盡遍知。色愛盡遍知。一切結盡遍知　問如婆沙六

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『類』，也叫做『智』（jnana，智慧）。因為斷滅是它的結果，所以稱為『遍知』（parijnana，完全的知）。

爲了一切斷滅而設立一個遍知嗎？問。

不是這樣。答。

如何呢？征問。

頌文說：乃至色界一切斷滅這三者。頌文回答。

論述說：乃至設立三種遍知。這是解釋第一句。

且三界系乃至六種遍知。解釋接下來的三句。說明見道的六種遍知。

其餘三界系乃至三種遍知。解釋後面的兩句。說明修道的三種遍知。所謂欲界修斷設立一個遍知。應該知道這就是五順下分結盡遍知（pañcāvarabhāgiyasaṃyojanaprahāṇa-parijñā，斷除五下分結的完全的知）。身見（satkāyadṛṣṭi，認為五蘊的身是真實存在的邪見）、戒禁取（śīlavrataparāmarśa，執取不正確的戒律和苦行）、疑（vicikitsā，懷疑）雖然是見道所斷。這裡不僅僅取欲界修道九品無為（navānupūrva-nirodha，九次第滅），連同前面三界的見道無為，合起來設立，所以完整地設立五順下分結盡遍知。色界修斷設立一個可知。無色界修斷設立一個遍知。就是一切結永盡遍知（sarvasaṃyojanakṣayaparijñā，斷除一切結的完全的知）。雖然斷滅無色結盡時設立一個遍知。這也是連同前面三界的見道以及欲界、色界修道，合起來設立一個。總結可知。

以什麼因緣乃至不是見道所斷的呢？問。

因為修道所斷的對治不同。答。因為修道所斷的色界、無色界的對治不同。因此分別設立。見道所斷的對治相同，因此合併設立。

像這樣所設立的乃至類智品果五種。這也就是第二點，說明六種對治的結果。最初兩句說明忍智（kṣānti-jñāna，忍與智）的果。接下來兩句說明未至定（anāgamya，未至定）和根本定的果。接下來兩句說明無色界近分定（ārūpyasamāpatti，無色定）和根本定的果。接下來一句說明世俗道（laukikamārga，世俗道）和聖道（āryamārga，聖道）的果。接下來一句說明法智（dharmajñāna，法智）和類智（anvayajñāna，類智）的果。最後兩句說明法智和類智品類的果。

論述說：乃至是修道果的緣故。這說明忍智的果不同。忍的果有六種。就是三界系見斷法斷的六種遍知。智的果有三種。就是五順下分結盡遍知，色愛盡遍知（rūparāgakṣayaparijñā，斷除色界貪愛的完全的知），一切結盡遍知。問：如《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）的六……

【English Translation】 English version: 'Class' is also called 'Wisdom' (jnana). Because cessation is its result, it is called 'Complete Knowledge' (parijnana).

Is one complete knowledge established for all cessations? Question.

It is not so. Answer.

How is it? Inquiry.

The verse says: Even the complete cessation of the Realm of Form, these three. The verse answers.

The treatise says: Even establishing three complete knowledges. This explains the first sentence.

Moreover, the three realms bound, even six kinds of complete knowledge. Explains the next three sentences. Clarifies the six complete knowledges of the Path of Seeing.

The remaining three realms bound, even three kinds of complete knowledge. Explains the last two sentences. Clarifies the three complete knowledges of the Path of Cultivation. So-called the Realm of Desire, cultivation cessation establishes one complete knowledge. It should be known that this is the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (pañcāvarabhāgiyasaṃyojanaprahāṇa-parijñā). Self-view (satkāyadṛṣṭi), attachment to precepts and vows (śīlavrataparāmarśa), doubt (vicikitsā), although are severed by the Path of Seeing. Here, not only the nine grades of the unconditioned (navānupūrva-nirodha) of the Path of Cultivation in the Realm of Desire are taken, but also the unconditioned of the Path of Seeing in the previous three realms are combined to establish, so the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters is fully established. The Realm of Form, cultivation cessation establishes one that can be known. The Realm of Formless, cultivation cessation establishes one complete knowledge. That is, the complete knowledge of the complete exhaustion of all fetters (sarvasaṃyojanakṣayaparijñā). Although severing the Realm of Formless, when the exhaustion of fetters is established, one complete knowledge is established. This is also combined with the Path of Seeing of the previous three realms, and the Path of Cultivation of the Realm of Desire and the Realm of Form, to establish one. The summary can be known.

By what cause and condition is it not severed by the Path of Seeing? Question.

Because the antidotes to what is severed by the Path of Cultivation are different. Answer. Because the antidotes to the Realm of Form and the Realm of Formless, which are severed by the Path of Cultivation, are different. Therefore, they are established separately. The antidotes to what is severed by the Path of Seeing are the same, therefore, they are established together.

Like this, what is established, even the five fruits of the class of knowledge. This is the second point, clarifying the results of the six antidotes. The first two sentences clarify the fruit of forbearance and knowledge (kṣānti-jñāna). The next two sentences clarify the fruit of the Unattained Concentration (anāgamya) and the Fundamental Concentration. The next two sentences clarify the fruit of the Borderline Concentration (ārūpyasamāpatti) and the Fundamental Concentration of the Realm of Formless. The next sentence clarifies the fruit of the mundane path (laukikamārga) and the noble path (āryamārga). The next sentence clarifies the fruit of the Knowledge of Dharma (dharmajñāna) and the Knowledge of Kind (anvayajñāna). The last two sentences clarify the fruit of the categories of the Knowledge of Dharma and the Knowledge of Kind.

The treatise says: Even because it is the fruit of the Path of Cultivation. This clarifies the difference in the fruit of forbearance and knowledge. The fruit of forbearance is six kinds. That is, the six kinds of complete knowledge of the severance of the Dharma severed by the Path of Seeing of the three realms. The fruit of knowledge is three kinds. That is, the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters, the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the Realm of Form (rūparāgakṣayaparijñā), the complete knowledge of the complete exhaustion of all fetters. Question: Like the six of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra...

十三云。問幾是見道果。答六謂前六。有說七謂前七。問幾是修道果。答三謂后三。問幾是忍果。答應說如見道果。問幾是智果。答應說如修道果　準婆沙文。見道果與忍果同。各有兩說。或六。或七。並無評家。應知諸論若說六者。同婆沙前說。若說七者。同婆沙后說。兩說之中何者正　解云。六是。七非。婆沙雖無評家一即俱舍．雜心皆說六故。二即婆沙不言有說。以此故知說六為正　問如先離欲超越之人。道類忍時得順下分結盡遍知。何緣此論．雜心說非忍果　解云夫順下分結盡遍知。本以欲界修斷無為為體。兼前而立得下分名。是則此一遍知。以欲界修斷無為為主。兼用三界見斷無為為體。先離欲染超越之人。若依未至入見道者。道類忍時唯成三界見斷無為。若依根本入見道者。道類忍時唯得上界見斷無為。以彼亦是下分體故。亦得名曰下分結盡遍知。由斯二義。次第之人以智取故便得其主。謂成欲界修斷無為。又由智取便具得體。謂但應立下分遍知。皆能得故。由得主故。由具得故。故順下分是彼智果。超越之人以忍取故不成其主。又以忍取得體不具。若依未至具見闕修。若依根本總闕欲界。故忍雖得下分遍知。不得主故。不具得故。故順下分非彼忍果　問如先斷六品入見諦者。得一來果起勝進道。但得修

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本十三問：什麼是見道果？答：六種，指前六種。有人說是七種，指前七種。問：什麼是修道果？答：三種，指后三種。問：什麼是忍果？答：應該像見道果那樣說。問：什麼是智果？答：應該像修道果那樣說。依據《大毗婆沙論》的說法，見道果與忍果相同，各有兩種說法，或者六種，或者七種，但沒有評判者。應該知道，各種論典如果說六種，就與《大毗婆沙論》的前一種說法相同；如果說七種，就與《大毗婆沙論》的后一種說法相同。這兩種說法中哪一種是正確的？解答說：六種是正確的，七種是不正確的。《大毗婆沙論》雖然沒有評判者，但《俱舍論》、《雜心論》都說六種。而且《大毗婆沙論》沒有說有七種的說法，因此可知說六種是正確的。問：如果先離欲界的欲，超越之人，在道類忍（Dào lèi rěn）時得到順下分結盡遍知（Shùn xià fēn jié jìn biàn zhī）。為什麼此論、《雜心論》說它不是忍果？解答說：順下分結盡遍知，本來是以欲界修斷無為（Yù jiè xiū duàn wú wéi）為本體，兼帶前者的作用而立下分之名。那麼，這個遍知，以欲界修斷無為為主，兼用三界見斷無為（Sān jiè jiàn duàn wú wéi）為本體。先離欲染超越之人，如果依據未至定（Wèi zhì dìng）入見道，在道類忍時只成就三界見斷無為；如果依據根本定（Gēn běn dìng）入見道，在道類忍時只得到上界見斷無為。因為它們也是下分的本體，也可以叫做下分結盡遍知。由於這兩種意義，次第修行的人以智（Zhì）來取，便得到它的主要部分，即成就欲界修斷無為。又由於智來取，便完全得到它的本體，即只應立下分遍知，都能得到。由於得到主要部分，由於完全得到，所以順下分是他們的智果。超越之人以忍（Rěn）來取，不能成就它的主要部分。又以忍來取得本體不完全，如果依據未至定，則具足見斷而缺少修斷；如果依據根本定，則完全缺少欲界。所以忍雖然得到下分遍知，但得不到主要部分，不完全得到，所以順下分不是他們的忍果。問：如果先斷六品（Liù pǐn）入見諦（Jiàn dì）的人，得到一來果（Yī lái guǒ）后，生起勝進道（Shèng jìn dào），但得到修

【English Translation】 English version Thirteen. Question: What are the fruits of the Path of Seeing (Jiàn dào guǒ)? Answer: Six, referring to the first six. Some say seven, referring to the first seven. Question: What are the fruits of the Path of Cultivation (Xiū dào guǒ)? Answer: Three, referring to the last three. Question: What are the fruits of forbearance (Rěn guǒ)? Answer: It should be explained like the fruits of the Path of Seeing. Question: What are the fruits of wisdom (Zhì guǒ)? Answer: It should be explained like the fruits of the Path of Cultivation. According to the Mahāvibhāṣā (Dà pípóshā lùn), the fruits of the Path of Seeing are the same as the fruits of forbearance, each having two explanations, either six or seven, but there are no commentators. It should be known that if various treatises say six, it is the same as the first explanation in the Mahāvibhāṣā; if they say seven, it is the same as the second explanation in the Mahāvibhāṣā. Which of these two explanations is correct? The answer is: Six is correct, seven is incorrect. Although the Mahāvibhāṣā has no commentators, both the Abhidharmakośa (Jùshě lùn) and the Samuccaya (Zá xīn lùn) say six. Moreover, the Mahāvibhāṣā does not mention that there is a saying of seven, so it can be known that saying six is correct. Question: If someone first detaches from desire and transcends, obtaining the 'thorough knowledge of the exhaustion of the fetters of the lower realms' (Shùn xià fēn jié jìn biàn zhī) at the moment of 'Path of the Category of Forbearance' (Dào lèi rěn), why do this treatise and the Samuccaya say that it is not a fruit of forbearance? Answer: The 'thorough knowledge of the exhaustion of the fetters of the lower realms' originally takes the 'unconditioned state of cultivation-severance in the desire realm' (Yù jiè xiū duàn wú wéi) as its essence, and establishes the name 'lower realms' by combining it with the previous action. Therefore, this thorough knowledge mainly takes the 'unconditioned state of cultivation-severance in the desire realm' as its essence, and secondarily takes the 'unconditioned state of seeing-severance in the three realms' (Sān jiè jiàn duàn wú wéi) as its essence. If someone first detaches from desire and transcends, and enters the Path of Seeing based on the 'unreached concentration' (Wèi zhì dìng), they only accomplish the 'unconditioned state of seeing-severance in the three realms' at the moment of 'Path of the Category of Forbearance'; if they enter the Path of Seeing based on the 'fundamental concentration' (Gēn běn dìng), they only obtain the 'unconditioned state of seeing-severance in the upper realms' at the moment of 'Path of the Category of Forbearance'. Because they are also the essence of the lower realms, they can also be called 'thorough knowledge of the exhaustion of the fetters of the lower realms'. Due to these two meanings, those who cultivate in sequence obtain its main part by taking it with wisdom (Zhì), that is, accomplishing the 'unconditioned state of cultivation-severance in the desire realm'. Moreover, by taking it with wisdom, they completely obtain its essence, that is, they should only establish the 'thorough knowledge of the lower realms', which they can all obtain. Because they obtain the main part, and because they obtain it completely, the 'thorough knowledge of the lower realms' is their fruit of wisdom. Those who transcend take it with forbearance (Rěn), so they cannot accomplish its main part. Moreover, by taking it with forbearance, they do not completely obtain its essence. If based on the 'unreached concentration', they have complete seeing-severance but lack cultivation-severance; if based on the 'fundamental concentration', they completely lack the desire realm. Therefore, although forbearance obtains the 'thorough knowledge of the lower realms', it does not obtain the main part, and does not obtain it completely, so the 'thorough knowledge of the lower realms' is not their fruit of forbearance. Question: If someone first severs the six categories (Liù pǐn) and enters the Path of Seeing (Jiàn dì), obtaining the fruit of Once-Returner (Yī lái guǒ), and then generates the path of superior progress (Shèng jìn dào), but only obtains the cultivation

斷後三無為。於前六品畢竟不得。是即智取下分遍知。得主不具應非智果　解云此依容有。智有具能。忍無能故作是說。非智皆具得也　問第七遍知超越之人既非忍果。為智果不　解云亦非智果。超越之人必無有智慧證彼故。緣差故然。斯有何失　問於五下分先斷三結。后斷二結即名智果。先斷二結后斷三結。何非忍果　解云先三后二名智果者。由得主故由具得故。先二后三非忍果者闕二義故　又解七是。六非。說七盡理攝超越故。說六不盡理不攝超越故。婆沙既無評家。不可以是有說即非正義　又解說六說七俱可為正。說六據體。縱是超越不還。但得第六體故說六種。以彼第七非具得體。是故不說。說七亦據其名。若次第者據得體說。若超越不還雖非具得。五下分結盡。據得下分名說故。亦說第七。各據一義。並不相違　又解說六說七。俱可為正。說六唯據次第。說七通據超越。雖先離欲超越之人。依未至定入見道者。不得欲界修斷無為。及依根本入見道者。不得欲界見．修無為。而言道類忍時得第七者。以少從多名為忍果。謂超越人若依未至入見道者。得三界見斷無為。雖于欲界修斷無為不別起得。以少從多名為忍果。若依根本入見道者。斷上二界見所斷惑得彼無為。雖于欲界見．修所斷無為不得據總相說。五中

得三。以少從多名為忍果　雖有四解后二為勝。就后二中后解為勝。自古諸德種種異解不能具述。即由舊婆沙云幾是忍果。答曰六。亦幾是見道果。答曰七。所以或有定執六是。七非。或有定執七是。六非。

如何忍果說為遍知者。問。忍非是智如何忍果說為遍知。應名遍忍。

諸忍皆是至同一果故者。答。諸忍皆是智眷屬故。諸忍所作亦名智作。故忍得果。智得其名。如王眷屬左右所作。假立王名亦名王作　或忍與智同一離系果。忍是能證。智是正證。雖是忍果亦名遍知。

今次應辨至果五或八者。釋第三．第四句。未至果九如文可知。根本靜慮。雖復說五．說八不同說五正義。此即開章。

所言五者至未至果故者。此即牒釋。根本地道望于欲界但有遠．厭。非斷對治故。欲四遍知非彼根本果。以欲四種唯未至果。四根本地能斷上二界。故上五遍知能為根本果　問如婆沙六十三云。問幾是根本靜慮果。答五。謂第二第四第六及后二。有說第二第四及后三為五。婆沙既無評家何者為正。此論復同何說　解云前師所以說得第六不說第七。據全得彼第六體故。后師所以言得第七不言第六。據能得彼第七名故。且奪第六與第七名。五下分中雖于欲界見．修所斷不得遍知。能斷上界見斷三結。總相而

【現代漢語翻譯】得三種果報。以少量修行而獲得眾多果報，這被稱為『忍果』。雖然有四種解釋，但后兩種更為殊勝。在後兩種解釋中，后一種解釋更為殊勝。自古以來，諸位大德有種種不同的解釋，無法在此一一詳述。正如舊《婆沙論》所說：『有多少是忍果？』回答說：『六種。』『有多少是見道果？』回答說：『七種。』因此，有些人堅定地認為六種是，七種不是；有些人堅定地認為七種是，六種不是。

如何忍果被稱為遍知？問：忍不是智慧，為什麼忍的果報被稱為遍知？應該稱為遍忍。

諸忍都是爲了達到同一個果報的緣故。答：因為諸忍都是智慧的眷屬，所以諸忍所作也可以稱為智慧所作。因此，忍獲得了果報，而智慧獲得了名稱。如同國王的眷屬左右所做的事情，可以假借國王的名義，也稱為國王所作。或者，忍與智具有相同的離系果（Visesa-phala），忍是能證，智是正證。雖然是忍的果報，也可以稱為遍知。

現在應該辨析達到果位的五種或八種遍知。解釋第三句和第四句。未至果（Avyākrta-phala）的九種遍知，如經文所說可以得知。根本靜慮（Mūla-dhyāna），雖然有五種或八種不同的說法，但以五種說法為正義。這即是開啟章節。

所說的五種遍知，是指未至果的緣故。這是引述解釋。根本地的道，相對於欲界（Kāma-dhātu）來說，只有遠離和厭離，而不是斷除對治，因此，欲界的四種遍知不是根本地的果報。因為欲界的四種遍知只是未至果。四根本地能夠斷除上二界（色界Rūpa-dhātu和無色界Arūpa-dhātu）。因此，上界的五種遍知能夠成為根本地的果報。問：如《婆沙論》第六十三卷所說：『問：有多少是根本靜慮的果報？』回答說：『五種，即第二、第四、第六以及后兩種。』有人說第二、第四以及后三種為五種。既然《婆沙論》沒有評判哪種說法是正確的，那麼此論又與哪種說法相同？解釋說：前一位論師之所以說獲得第六種遍知，而不說第七種，是因為完全獲得了第六種遍知的體性。后一位論師之所以說獲得第七種遍知，而不說第六種，是因為能夠獲得第七種遍知的名稱。且奪取第六種遍知與第七種遍知的名稱。五下分結（Panca-orambhagiya-samyojana）中，雖然對於欲界的見所斷（Darśana-heya）和修所斷（Bhāvanā-heya）不能獲得遍知，但能夠斷除上界的見斷三結（見取戒禁取疑）。總的來說

【English Translation】 Three kinds of results are obtained. Obtaining many results from little practice is called '忍果' (Rěn guǒ, Fruit of Patience). Although there are four explanations, the latter two are more excellent. Among the latter two explanations, the latter one is more excellent. Since ancient times, various virtuous ones have had different explanations, which cannot be fully described here. Just as the old Vibhasa says: 'How many are the fruits of patience?' The answer is: 'Six.' 'How many are the fruits of the path of seeing?' The answer is: 'Seven.' Therefore, some firmly believe that six are, and seven are not; some firmly believe that seven are, and six are not.

How can the fruit of patience be called pervasive knowledge? Question: Patience is not wisdom, so why is the fruit of patience called pervasive knowledge? It should be called pervasive patience.

All patiences are for the sake of reaching the same result. Answer: Because all patiences are the retinue of wisdom, so what all patiences do can also be called what wisdom does. Therefore, patience obtains the fruit, and wisdom obtains the name. Just as what the king's retinue and attendants do can be attributed to the king, and is also called what the king does. Or, patience and wisdom have the same fruit of separation (Visesa-phala), patience is the ability to prove, and wisdom is the correct proof. Although it is the fruit of patience, it can also be called pervasive knowledge.

Now we should distinguish the five or eight pervasive knowledges that reach the fruit. Explain the third and fourth sentences. The nine pervasive knowledges of the 未至果 (Avyākrta-phala, Fruit of Non-return), as the text says, can be known. Although there are different sayings of five or eight for 根本靜慮 (Mūla-dhyāna, Fundamental Dhyana), the saying of five is the correct meaning. This is the opening of the chapter.

The so-called five pervasive knowledges refer to the fruit of 未至果 (Avyākrta-phala, Fruit of Non-return). This is a quotation and explanation. The path of the fundamental ground, in relation to the 欲界 (Kāma-dhātu, Desire Realm), only has distance and aversion, not the elimination of antidotes, therefore, the four pervasive knowledges of the desire realm are not the fruit of the fundamental ground. Because the four pervasive knowledges of the desire realm are only the fruit of 未至果 (Avyākrta-phala, Fruit of Non-return). The four fundamental grounds can eliminate the upper two realms (色界 Rūpa-dhātu, Form Realm and 無色界 Arūpa-dhātu, Formless Realm). Therefore, the five pervasive knowledges of the upper realms can become the fruit of the fundamental ground. Question: As the sixty-third volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: How many are the fruits of fundamental dhyana?' The answer is: 'Five, namely the second, fourth, sixth, and the latter two.' Some say that the second, fourth, and the latter three are five. Since the Vibhasa does not judge which saying is correct, then which saying does this treatise agree with? Explanation: The former teacher said that the sixth pervasive knowledge is obtained, but not the seventh, because the nature of the sixth pervasive knowledge is fully obtained. The latter teacher said that the seventh pervasive knowledge is obtained, but not the sixth, because the name of the seventh pervasive knowledge can be obtained. And seize the name of the sixth pervasive knowledge and the seventh pervasive knowledge. Among the 五下分結 (Panca-orambhagiya-samyojana, Five Lower Fetters), although pervasive knowledge cannot be obtained for the 見所斷 (Darśana-heya, Abandoned by Seeing) and 修所斷 (Bhāvanā-heya, Abandoned by Cultivation) of the desire realm, it can eliminate the three fetters of the 見斷 (Darśana-heya, Abandoned by Seeing) of the upper realms (見取戒禁取疑). In general

言五中得三。以少從多得第七名。若作此解。各據一義並不相違。第二．第四及后二兩說皆同。思之可解。俱舍說五。或同婆沙前師。或同婆沙后師。文不別顯。隨同無失。又正理五十六云。豈不依止根本靜慮入見諦時。亦修未來依未至地欲斷治道。得斷治故。亦應證彼欲見斷法斷無漏離系得。寧說根本唯得五果　此責不然。爾時所修依未至地斷對治者。唯色．無色斷對治故。根本地道既不能為欲斷對治。彼現起位如何能修欲斷治道。由彼所修未至斷治。唯對治上界故果唯五(已上論文)。

所言八者至為斷對治故者。妙音意說。根本望欲有斷對治。諸有先離欲界染者。依根本地入見諦時。于欲界系見斷法斷許別道引無漏得故。欲界見斷三種遍知。由此亦是彼根本地見道果故。除順下分。以彼唯是未至果故。依根本地起見道時。無容修彼未至定中。欲界修惑斷對治故。所以順下分非根本果。

中間靜慮如根本說者。此類釋也。

今次應辨至遍知果故者。釋第五．第六句。可知。

今次應辨至三界法故者。釋第七句可知。

今次應辨至得后二果者。釋第八句。此亦可知。

今次應辨至智及忍故者。釋后兩句。法智法忍同品諸道總得六果。類智類忍同品諸道總得五果。品謂品類。此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本言五中得三。以少從多得第七名。若作此解，各據一義並不相違。第二、第四及后二兩說皆同。思之可解。《俱舍論》說五，或同《婆沙論》前師，或同《婆沙論》后師，文不別顯，隨同無失。又《正理》五十六云：『豈不依止根本靜慮入見諦時，亦修未來依未至地欲斷治道，得斷治故，亦應證彼欲見斷法斷無漏離系得。寧說根本唯得五果？』此責不然。爾時所修依未至地斷對治者，唯色界、無色界斷對治故。根本地道既不能為欲界斷對治，彼現起位如何能修欲界斷治道？由彼所修未至斷治，唯對治上界故果唯五（已上論文）。

所言八者至為斷對治故者。妙音意說，根本望欲界有斷對治。諸有先離欲界染者，依根本地入見諦時，于欲界系見斷法斷許別道引無漏得故。欲界見斷三種遍知。由此亦是彼根本地見道果故。除順下分，以彼唯是未至果故。依根本地起見道時，無容修彼未至定中欲界修惑斷對治故。所以順下分非根本果。

中間靜慮如根本說者。此類釋也。

今次應辨至遍知果故者。釋第五、第六句。可知。

今次應辨至三界法故者。釋第七句可知。

今次應辨至得后二果者。釋第八句。此亦可知。

今次應辨至智及忍故者。釋后兩句。法智法忍同品諸道總得六果。類智類忍同品諸道總得五果。品謂品類。此

【English Translation】 English version 『言五中得三。以少從多得第七名』 (Yan wu zhong de san. Yi shao cong duo de di qi ming.) means obtaining three out of five. Taking the lesser to follow the greater results in the seventh name. If interpreted this way, each explanation holds its own meaning without contradiction. The second, fourth, and the latter two explanations are all the same. Consider it and it can be understood. The Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) says five, either agreeing with the earlier teachers of the Vibhasa (婆沙論), or agreeing with the later teachers of the Vibhasa (婆沙論). The text does not explicitly distinguish, so following either is not a mistake. Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra (正理) fifty-six says: 『Isn't it that when relying on the fundamental dhyāna (靜慮) to enter the seeing of truth, one also cultivates the path of abandoning defilements of the desire realm based on the anāgamya-samādhi (未至地), to obtain the abandonment of defilements? Therefore, one should also realize the anāsrava (無漏) detachment obtained by abandoning the darśana-heya (見斷法) of the desire realm. Why say that the fundamental only obtains five fruits?』 This criticism is not valid. At that time, the abandonment of defilements cultivated based on the anāgamya-samādhi (未至地) is only for abandoning the defilements of the rūpadhātu (色界) and arūpadhātu (無色界). Since the path of the fundamental ground cannot abandon the defilements of the desire realm, how can one cultivate the path of abandoning defilements of the desire realm in the present moment? Because the abandonment of defilements cultivated in the anāgamya-samādhi (未至地) only counteracts the upper realms, the fruit is only five (above is the thesis).

『所言八者至為斷對治故者』 (Suo yan ba zhe zhi wei duan dui zhi gu zhe.) means that the eight refers to the abandonment of defilements. Myo-on (妙音) intends to say that the fundamental has the abandonment of defilements in relation to the desire realm. Those who have previously detached from the defilements of the desire realm, when relying on the fundamental ground to enter the seeing of truth, are allowed to obtain the anāsrava (無漏) by a separate path for abandoning the darśana-heya (見斷法) of the desire realm. The three kinds of parijñā (遍知) of the darśana-heya (見斷法) of the desire realm. Therefore, this is also the fruit of the path of seeing of that fundamental ground. Except for the avanīya-saṃyojana (順下分), because that is only the fruit of the anāgamya-samādhi (未至地). When arising the path of seeing based on the fundamental ground, there is no room to cultivate the abandonment of defilements of the desire realm in that anāgamya-samādhi (未至地). Therefore, the avanīya-saṃyojana (順下分) is not the fruit of the fundamental.

『中間靜慮如根本說者』 (Zhong jian jing lv ru gen ben shuo zhe.) means the intermediate dhyāna (靜慮) is like the fundamental. This is a similar explanation.

『今次應辨至遍知果故者』 (Jin ci ying bian zhi bian zhi guo gu zhe.) means now we should distinguish the fruit of parijñā (遍知). Explains the fifth and sixth sentences. Understandable.

『今次應辨至三界法故者』 (Jin ci ying bian zhi san jie fa gu zhe.) means now we should distinguish the tridhātu (三界) dharma. Explains the seventh sentence. Understandable.

『今次應辨至得后二果者』 (Jin ci ying bian zhi de hou er guo zhe.) means now we should distinguish obtaining the latter two fruits. Explains the eighth sentence. This is also understandable.

『今次應辨至智及忍故者』 (Jin ci ying bian zhi zhi ji ren gu zhe.) means now we should distinguish jñāna (智) and kṣānti (忍). Explains the last two sentences. Dharma-jñāna (法智) and dharma-kṣānti (法忍) together with the paths of the same kind obtain six fruits in total. Anvaya-jñāna (類智) and anvaya-kṣānti (類忍) together with the paths of the same kind obtain five fruits in total. Kind refers to category. This

言通攝智．及忍故。法智品言不但攝法智亦攝法忍。法智．法忍品言所顯。皆是法智同品類故。類智品言不但攝類智亦攝類忍。類智類忍品言所顯。皆是類智同類故　問婆沙六十三云。問幾是類智品果。答五。謂第二．第四．第六．及后二。有說六。謂第二．第四．第六．及后三　此論同婆沙前師。婆沙既無評家何者為正　解云第二．第四．第六．及后二兩說皆同。唯第七有異前師據次第不說第七。后師亦據超越故說第七　又解前師據體。后師亦據名。準前可知。此論總有六對。婆沙更有兩對。一靜慮．無色果。二見道．修道果。初一不異此論未至．根本果．無色眷屬根本果。后一不異此論忍果．智果。是故此論不說。

何故一一斷至故立九遍知者。此即第三建立遍知緣問。何故見．修八十九品一一斷位不別建立遍知。唯就如前九位建立。上三句列四緣。下句總結。

論曰立九遍知者。此即總標　有漏法上諸擇滅斷雖有多體。謂隨有漏法有爾所量。擇滅亦爾　雖有多位。謂見．修所斷八十九位　而四緣故立九遍知。

且由三緣至建立遍知者。由三緣立見道六忍果　問何故見道位不言越界　解云雖斷見惑。猶為修惑之所繫縛未能越界。若於見位立越界緣即不成故。故唯三緣立六忍果。一謂得無漏離系

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：言通攝智（言語智，指通過語言文字獲得的智慧）及忍（忍，指對真理的確認和接受）故。法智品言不但攝法智（對法的智慧）亦攝法忍（對法的忍）。法智、法忍品言所顯，皆是法智同品類故。類智品言不但攝類智（對類別的智慧）亦攝類忍（對類別的忍）。類智類忍品言所顯，皆是類智同類故。問：婆沙（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）六十三云，問：幾是類智品果？答：五，謂第二、第四、第六、及后二。有說六，謂第二、第四、第六、及后三。此論同婆沙前師。婆沙既無評家何者為正？解云：第二、第四、第六、及后二兩說皆同。唯第七有異，前師據次第不說第七，后師亦據超越故說第七。又解前師據體，后師亦據名。準前可知。此論總有六對。婆沙更有兩對，一靜慮（禪定）．無色果，二見道（證悟真理的道路）．修道（修行道路）果。初一不異此論未至．根本果．無色眷屬根本果。后一不異此論忍果．智果。是故此論不說。

何故一一斷至故立九遍知者？此即第三建立遍知緣問。何故見．修八十九品一一斷位不別建立遍知，唯就如前九位建立。上三句列四緣，下句總結。

論曰：立九遍知者，此即總標。有漏法（受煩惱影響的法）上諸擇滅（通過智慧選擇而滅除煩惱）斷雖有多體，謂隨有漏法有爾所量，擇滅亦爾。雖有多位，謂見．修所斷八十九位，而四緣故立九遍知。

且由三緣至建立遍知者。由三緣立見道六忍果。問：何故見道位不言越界？解云：雖斷見惑（見解上的迷惑），猶為修惑（修行上的迷惑）之所繫縛未能越界。若於見位立越界緣即不成故。故唯三緣立六忍果。一謂得無漏（沒有煩惱）離系（解脫束縛）。

【English Translation】 English version: It is through speech that comprehensive wisdom (Jnana, referring to wisdom obtained through language and words) and acceptance (Ksanti, referring to the confirmation and acceptance of truth) are achieved. The chapter on Dharma-jnana (wisdom of Dharma) states that it not only encompasses Dharma-jnana but also Dharma-ksanti (acceptance of Dharma). What is revealed in the chapters on Dharma-jnana and Dharma-ksanti are all of the same category as Dharma-jnana. The chapter on Anvaya-jnana (wisdom of categories) states that it not only encompasses Anvaya-jnana but also Anvaya-ksanti (acceptance of categories). What is revealed in the chapters on Anvaya-jnana and Anvaya-ksanti are all of the same category as Anvaya-jnana. Question: The Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) sixty-third says, 'Question: How many are the fruits of the Anvaya-jnana category?' Answer: Five, namely the second, fourth, sixth, and the last two. Some say six, namely the second, fourth, sixth, and the last three. This treatise agrees with the former teacher of the Vibhasa. Since the Vibhasa has no commentator, which is correct? Explanation: The two statements, 'second, fourth, sixth, and the last two' are the same. Only the seventh is different. The former teacher did not mention the seventh according to the order, while the latter teacher mentioned the seventh because it transcends. Another explanation is that the former teacher based it on substance, while the latter teacher based it on name. According to the above, this treatise has a total of six pairs. The Vibhasa has two more pairs: one is the fruit of Dhyana (meditation) and Arupa (formless realms), and the other is the fruit of Darshana-marga (path of seeing) and Bhavana-marga (path of cultivation). The first one is not different from the fruit of this treatise's Avici (the lowest of the hells), fundamental fruit, and Arupa-related fundamental fruit. The latter one is not different from this treatise's fruit of Ksanti and fruit of Jnana. Therefore, this treatise does not mention them.

Why establish nine kinds of comprehensive knowledge (Parinjas) because of each severance? This is the third question regarding the establishment of the conditions for comprehensive knowledge. Why not separately establish comprehensive knowledge for each severance of the eighty-nine categories of Darshana (seeing) and Bhavana (cultivation), but only establish it based on the previous nine positions? The first three sentences list the four conditions, and the last sentence summarizes.

The treatise says: 'Establishing nine kinds of comprehensive knowledge,' this is the general statement. Although there are many entities of the severances of selective cessation (Pratisankhya-nirodha, cessation through wisdom) on conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta-dharma, phenomena subject to conditions), that is, as much as there are conditioned dharmas, so is the amount of selective cessation. Although there are many positions, namely the eighty-nine positions severed by Darshana and Bhavana, nine kinds of comprehensive knowledge are established because of the four conditions.

Furthermore, from the three conditions to the establishment of comprehensive knowledge. The six acceptances of the Darshana-marga fruit are established by three conditions. Question: Why is there no mention of transcending the realm in the Darshana-marga position? Explanation: Although the delusions of view (Darshana-heya, delusions to be abandoned by seeing the truth) are severed, one is still bound by the delusions of cultivation (Bhavana-heya, delusions to be abandoned by cultivation) and unable to transcend the realm. If the condition of transcending the realm were established in the position of seeing, it would not be valid. Therefore, only three conditions establish the six acceptances fruit. One is obtaining the unconditioned (Asamskrta, free from defilements) detachment (Visamyoga, freedom from bonds).

得故。二缺有頂　缺。謂缺減于有頂地五部煩惱隨不成就彼一部惑名之為缺。由此理故至苦類忍現在前時。雖合惑得不至生相得名為斷。不名為缺。以現猶與惑得俱故。爾時猶成苦下惑故不名為缺。由此故知。不成名缺　非斷名缺。三滅雙因故滅顯不成　或滅名離亦顯不成　或言滅者。顯現惑得不續名滅。亦顯不成。故此文說至集法忍現在前時。衰現惑得令不能引得至生相。得名為斷。或得俱故不名滅雙因。至后法智方名滅雙因。由此故知不成名滅　言雙因者。一自部同類因。二他部遍行因　又解見道約自部．他部為二因。修道約自品．他品為二因。故婆沙六十二意解雙因。若見道四諦自部為一因。他部遍行復為一因。若修道九地地地之中自品為一因。他品復為一因　又解見道自部他部為二因。修道自品為一因。他品他部為一因　古德皆言互為因故名雙因者。不然。后三部惑非互為因。故諸斷要具如是三緣立遍知名。闕則不爾。如異生位離欲染等。有滅雙因無無漏斷得。未缺有頂故雖亦得斷。不名遍知。若聖位中至苦類忍現行以前。雖有已得無漏斷得。即是次前苦法智時無漏斷得。未缺有頂。未滅雙因。至苦類智．集法忍位。雖亦缺有頂。猶未滅雙因前雖已滅見苦所斷自部同類因。未滅集見斷他部遍行因。若望見集所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此（得故）。二、『缺』指有頂天（二缺有頂）：『缺』，指的是在有頂天（色界最高處）減少。意思是說，如果五部煩惱（五種根本煩惱）中的一部分沒有完全斷除，那麼這一部分煩惱就被稱為『缺』。因為這個原因（由此理故），當苦類忍（至苦類忍）現在前時，即使煩惱的『得』（惑得）已經結合，但還沒有達到產生新的相續（至生相），所以可以稱為『斷』，但不能稱為『缺』。因為此時仍然與煩惱的『得』同時存在（以現猶與惑得俱故），所以仍然構成苦諦下的煩惱（爾時猶成苦下惑故），因此不能稱為『缺』。由此可知，沒有完全斷除稱為『缺』（不成名缺），而不是斷除稱為『缺』（非斷名缺）。三、『滅』是因為雙重原因而顯現不成立（三滅雙因故滅顯不成）：或者說，『滅』可以稱為『離』，也顯示不成立（或滅名離亦顯不成）。或者說，『滅』指的是，煩惱的『得』不再相續，這稱為『滅』，也顯示不成立（或言滅者。顯現惑得不續名滅。亦顯不成）。因此，這段文字說，當集法忍（至集法忍）現在前時，衰減煩惱的『得』，使它不能引發新的相續，這可以稱為『斷』。因為仍然與『得』同時存在（或得俱故），所以不能稱為『滅雙因』。要到後來的法智（至后法智）才能稱為『滅雙因』。由此可知，沒有完全斷除稱為『滅』（由此故知不成名滅）。所說的『雙因』（言雙因者），一是自部的同類因，二是其他部的遍行因（一自部同類因。二他部遍行因）。另一種解釋是，見道（見道）是針對自部和他部來說的兩種因，修道（修道）是針對自品和他品來說的兩種因。所以《婆沙論》（婆沙）用六十二種意思來解釋『雙因』。如果見道是四諦（四諦），自部是一個因，他部的遍行又是另一個因。如果修道是九地（九地），每一地中，自品是一個因，他品又是另一個因（若見道四諦自部為一因。他部遍行復為一因。若修道九地地地之中自品為一因。他品復為一因）。還有一種解釋是，見道是自部和他部兩種因，修道是自品一個因，他品是他部一個因（又解見道自部他部為二因。修道自品為一因。他品他部為一因）。古代的德行之士都說，互相作為原因，所以稱為『雙因』，這種說法是不對的（古德皆言互為因故名雙因者。不然）。因為后三部的煩惱不是互相作為原因的（后三部惑非互為因）。因此，各種斷除需要具備這三種條件，才能確立『遍知』的名稱，缺少任何一個條件就不能稱為『遍知』（故諸斷要具如是三緣立遍知名。闕則不爾）。例如，凡夫（異生位）斷除欲界的貪染等等（離欲染等），有『滅雙因』，但沒有無漏的『斷得』（無無漏斷得），也沒有『缺有頂』（未缺有頂），所以雖然也得到了斷除，但不能稱為『遍知』。如果在聖位中，在苦類忍（至苦類忍）現行之前，雖然已經得到了無漏的『斷得』，也就是之前的苦法智（苦法智）時的無漏『斷得』，但還沒有『缺有頂』，也沒有『滅雙因』（未缺有頂。未滅雙因）。到苦類智（苦類智）、集法忍（集法忍）的階段，雖然也『缺有頂』，但仍然沒有『滅雙因』，之前雖然已經滅除了見苦所斷的自部同類因，但還沒有滅除見集所斷的他部遍行因（前雖已滅見苦所斷自部同類因。未滅集見斷他部遍行因）。如果從見集所斷的角度來看（若望見集所）

【English Translation】 English version Therefore (得故). Two, 'Deficiency' regarding the Peak of Existence (二缺有頂): 'Deficiency' (缺) refers to a reduction in the Peak of Existence (the highest realm of the Form Realm). It means that if one part of the five categories of afflictions (五部煩惱, five fundamental afflictions) has not been completely eliminated, then that part of the affliction is called 'Deficiency'. Because of this reason (由此理故), when the Endurance of Suffering Category (苦類忍, Kula-忍) is present, even if the 'attainment' (惑得, Huede) of afflictions has combined, but has not yet reached the stage of generating new continuity (至生相), it can be called 'Severance' (斷), but it cannot be called 'Deficiency'. Because at this time it still exists simultaneously with the 'attainment' of afflictions (以現猶與惑得俱故), it still constitutes the affliction under the Truth of Suffering (爾時猶成苦下惑故), therefore it cannot be called 'Deficiency'. From this, it can be known that not completely eliminating is called 'Deficiency' (不成名缺), rather than severance being called 'Deficiency' (非斷名缺). Three, 'Extinction' is manifested as non-establishment due to dual causes (三滅雙因故滅顯不成): Or, 'Extinction' can be called 'Separation', which also shows non-establishment (或滅名離亦顯不成). Or, 'Extinction' refers to the 'attainment' of afflictions no longer continuing, which is called 'Extinction', and also shows non-establishment (或言滅者。顯現惑得不續名滅。亦顯不成). Therefore, this passage says that when the Endurance of the Truth of Arising (集法忍, Jifa-忍) is present, it diminishes the 'attainment' of afflictions, preventing it from initiating new continuity, which can be called 'Severance'. Because it still exists simultaneously with 'attainment' (或得俱故), it cannot be called 'Extinction due to dual causes' (滅雙因). Only when the subsequent Knowledge of Dharma (法智, Fazhi) arises can it be called 'Extinction due to dual causes'. From this, it can be known that not completely eliminating is called 'Extinction' (由此故知不成名滅). The so-called 'Dual Causes' (言雙因者) are, one, the cause of the same category within one's own division, and two, the pervasive cause of other divisions (一自部同類因。二他部遍行因). Another explanation is that the Path of Seeing (見道, Jiandao) refers to two causes in relation to one's own division and other divisions, and the Path of Cultivation (修道, Xiudao) refers to two causes in relation to one's own category and other categories. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙, Posha) uses sixty-two meanings to explain 'Dual Causes'. If the Path of Seeing is the Four Noble Truths (四諦, S諦), one's own division is one cause, and the pervasive cause of other divisions is another cause. If the Path of Cultivation is the Nine Grounds (九地, Jiudi), in each ground, one's own category is one cause, and other categories are another cause (若見道四諦自部為一因。他部遍行復為一因。若修道九地地地之中自品為一因。他品復為一因). There is also an explanation that the Path of Seeing is two causes of one's own division and other divisions, and the Path of Cultivation is one cause of one's own category, and other categories are one cause of other divisions (又解見道自部他部為二因。修道自品為一因。他品他部為一因). Ancient virtuous individuals all said that mutually acting as causes is why it is called 'Dual Causes', but this statement is incorrect (古德皆言互為因故名雙因者。不然). Because the afflictions of the latter three divisions do not mutually act as causes (后三部惑非互為因). Therefore, various severances need to possess these three conditions in order to establish the name of 'Complete Knowledge' (遍知, Bianzhi), and lacking any one condition cannot be called 'Complete Knowledge' (故諸斷要具如是三緣立遍知名。闕則不爾). For example, ordinary beings (異生位, Yishengwei) severing the defilement of desire in the Desire Realm, etc. (離欲染等), have 'Extinction due to dual causes', but do not have the unconditioned 'attainment of severance' (無無漏斷得), nor do they 'lack the Peak of Existence' (未缺有頂), so although they have also attained severance, it cannot be called 'Complete Knowledge'. If in the stage of a sage, before the Endurance of Suffering Category (至苦類忍, Zhi Kulei-忍) is present, although they have already obtained the unconditioned 'attainment of severance', which is the unconditioned 'attainment of severance' at the previous Knowledge of Dharma of Suffering (苦法智, Kufa-智), they have not yet 'lacked the Peak of Existence', nor have they 'extinguished dual causes' (未缺有頂。未滅雙因). At the stage of the Knowledge of Suffering Category (苦類智, Kulei-智) and the Endurance of the Truth of Arising (集法忍, Jifa-忍), although they also 'lack the Peak of Existence', they still have not 'extinguished dual causes'. Although they have previously extinguished the cause of the same category severed by seeing suffering, they have not yet extinguished the pervasive cause of other divisions severed by seeing arising (前雖已滅見苦所斷自部同類因。未滅集見斷他部遍行因). If viewed from the perspective of what is severed by seeing arising (若望見集所)

斷。爾時雖滅見苦所斷他部遍行因。未滅自部同類因。故至后欲界三法智位。至後上界三類智位。諸所得斷三緣具故。於一一位建立遍知　問若苦類忍現行以前。未名缺有頂。何故婆沙六十二云。苦類智忍滅。苦類智生時。名缺有頂(準彼論文。滅在現在。生在未來。是即苦類忍現在名缺有頂。俱舍云言非缺者。豈不相違)。若集法忍位不名滅雙因。何故婆沙云。集法智忍滅。集法智生時。名滅雙因(準彼論文。滅亦現在。生亦未來。是即集法忍現在名滅雙因。俱舍言不滅者。豈不相違也)　解云滅謂滅入過去。生謂體現在前。非生．滅相。或已滅名滅。已生名生。如言大王今者從何處來。若不爾者便違俱舍　又解論意各別。俱舍據不成名缺不成名滅。婆沙據斷名缺據斷名滅。若作此解生謂生相。滅謂滅相　問已斷之法亦能為因。如何乃言集法忍位。能滅他部苦下遍因　解云因有二種。一未斷因。二已斷因。今言斷者據未斷因。

具由四緣至皆全離故者。具由四緣。于修道中立三智果。謂於前三加越界故。言越界者。謂此界中煩惱等法皆全離故。

有立離俱系至方可建立者。敘雜心師等異說。離俱系者。一自部系。二他部系。故名俱系。離此二系名離俱系。謂自部雖斷未立遍知。要離他部緣此自部境惑方

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本斷。爾時，雖然滅除了見苦所斷的他部遍行因（指其他部派所認為的苦諦下的普遍原因），但並未滅除自部同類因（指本宗派所認為的同類原因）。因此，要到後來的欲界三法智位（指欲界的三種法智的階段），以及後來的上界三類智位（指上界的三種類智的階段），諸所得斷的三種因緣都具備了，才能在每一個階段建立遍知（指對一切法普遍而徹底的瞭解）。問：如果苦類忍（指對苦諦的忍可）現行以前，不稱為缺有頂（指接近有頂天的狀態），為何《婆沙》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第六十二卷說：『苦類智忍滅，苦類智生時，名缺有頂』（按照該論文的說法，滅在現在，生在未來，那就是說苦類忍現在名為缺有頂，這與《俱舍》（《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）所說的『非缺者』豈不是相矛盾）？如果集法忍位（指對集諦之法的忍可的階段）不稱為滅雙因（指滅除兩種原因），為何《婆沙》說：『集法智忍滅，集法智生時，名滅雙因』（按照該論文的說法，滅也是現在，生也是未來，那就是說集法忍現在名為滅雙因，這與《俱舍》所說的『不滅者』豈不是相矛盾）？解：解釋說，『滅』是指滅入過去，『生』是指體現在眼前，並非指生滅的相狀。或者說，已經滅的稱為『滅』，已經生的稱為『生』。如同說『大王您現在從何處來？』如果不是這樣解釋，就違背了《俱舍》。又解釋說，論的意圖各有不同。《俱舍》是根據不成名缺，不成名滅來定義的。《婆沙》是根據斷名缺，根據斷名滅來定義的。如果這樣解釋，『生』是指生相，『滅』是指滅相。問：已經斷除的法也能作為因，為何說集法忍位能滅除他部苦下遍因（指其他部派所認為的苦諦之下的普遍原因）？解：解釋說，因有兩種，一種是未斷因，一種是已斷因。現在所說的『斷』，是指未斷因。

具由四緣至皆全離故者：具備四種因緣，在修道中建立三智果（指三種智慧的果實），即在前三種智慧的基礎上加上越界（指超越界限）。所說的『越界』，是指此界中的煩惱等法都完全脫離。

有立離俱系至方可建立者：敘述《雜心論》的作者等人的不同說法。『離俱系』，一是自部系（指本宗派的束縛），二是他部系（指其他宗派的束縛），所以稱為『俱系』。脫離這兩種束縛稱為『離俱系』。意思是說，即使自部的煩惱已經斷除，也不能立即建立遍知，必須要脫離其他部派緣此自部境界的迷惑，才能建立遍知。

【English Translation】 English version Severed. At that time, although the universally acting cause of other schools severed by seeing suffering (referring to the universal causes under the truth of suffering as perceived by other schools) is extinguished, the similar cause of one's own school is not extinguished. Therefore, it is necessary to reach the position of the three Dharma-knowledges in the Desire Realm later, and the position of the three kinds of knowledges in the Upper Realm later. Because the three conditions for what is to be severed are complete, universal knowledge (referring to a universal and thorough understanding of all dharmas) is established in each position. Question: If it is not called 'lacking the peak of existence' (referring to the state close to the highest heaven) before the manifestation of the forbearance of the category of suffering (referring to the acceptance of the truth of suffering), why does the sixty-second volume of the Vibhasha (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) say: 'When the forbearance of the knowledge of the category of suffering ceases and the knowledge of the category of suffering arises, it is called lacking the peak of existence' (According to the statement in that text, cessation is in the present, and arising is in the future, which means that the forbearance of the category of suffering is now called lacking the peak of existence, isn't this contradictory to what the Kosha (Abhidharmakośa) says, 'not lacking')? If the position of the forbearance of the Dharma of accumulation (referring to the stage of accepting the Dharma of the truth of accumulation) is not called extinguishing the dual cause (referring to extinguishing two causes), why does the Vibhasha say: 'When the forbearance of the knowledge of the Dharma of accumulation ceases and the knowledge of the Dharma of accumulation arises, it is called extinguishing the dual cause' (According to the statement in that text, cessation is also in the present, and arising is in the future, which means that the forbearance of the Dharma of accumulation is now called extinguishing the dual cause, isn't this contradictory to what the Kosha says, 'not extinguishing')? Answer: The explanation is that 'cessation' refers to ceasing and entering the past, and 'arising' refers to manifesting in the present, not referring to the characteristics of arising and ceasing. Or, what has ceased is called 'cessation', and what has arisen is called 'arising'. Just like saying, 'Great King, where have you come from now?' If it is not explained in this way, it would contradict the Kosha. Another explanation is that the intentions of the treatises are different. The Kosha defines it based on not being named lacking, and not being named extinguishing. The Vibhasha defines it based on severing being named lacking, and severing being named extinguishing. If explained in this way, 'arising' refers to the characteristic of arising, and 'cessation' refers to the characteristic of cessation. Question: A Dharma that has already been severed can also be a cause, so why is it said that the position of the forbearance of the Dharma of accumulation can extinguish the universally acting cause under suffering of other schools (referring to the universal causes under the truth of suffering as perceived by other schools)? Answer: The explanation is that there are two kinds of causes, one is the unsevered cause, and the other is the severed cause. The 'severing' mentioned now refers to the unsevered cause.

Having all completely departed due to the four conditions: Having the four conditions complete, the fruit of the three knowledges (referring to the fruits of three kinds of wisdom) is established in the path of cultivation, that is, adding transcendence to the previous three knowledges (referring to transcending boundaries). The so-called 'transcendence' means that the afflictions and other dharmas in this realm have all completely departed.

Some establish that only by departing from both bonds can it be established: Narrating the different views of the author of the Samuccaya-abhidharma and others. 'Departing from both bonds', one is the bond of one's own school (referring to the bondage of one's own school), and the other is the bond of other schools (referring to the bondage of other schools), so it is called 'both bonds'. Departing from these two bonds is called 'departing from both bonds'. It means that even if the afflictions of one's own school have been severed, universal knowledge cannot be established immediately. It is necessary to depart from the delusion of other schools related to the realm of one's own school before universal knowledge can be established.

可建立　又解見道約自部．他部為二系。修道約自品．他品為二系　又解見道約自部．他部為二系。修道約自品為一系。他品他部為一系。故言二系。

此離俱系至未立遍知故者。論主破。此離俱系與滅雙因．及越界緣用無別故。理實而言。用亦有別　言無別者。以用從體故言無別。系體狹唯是隨眠。因體寬界體寬。亦通余法。言因言界亦攝系故雖復能起名因。能持名界。能縛名系。三義有異。系無別體而不別說。伏難云。此滅雙因與越界緣用亦無別。雖義有異。應不別立。而通此伏故作是言。雖諸越界位皆滅雙因。而滅雙因。時非皆越界。故滅雙因外別立越界緣。如四靜慮．及四無色滅下三地雙因之時。以未越界未立遍知故　又解伏難云。於越界位若不滅雙因。可雙因外別立越界緣。於越界位皆滅雙因。何須雙因外別立越界緣　而通此伏故言雖諸越界位皆滅雙因。而有滅雙因時非皆越界。故滅雙因外別立越界緣。於二界中滅下三地雙因未立遍知故　又解雖諸越界位皆滅雙因。應言雙因外不立越界緣。而有滅雙因時非皆越界。故雙因外別立越界緣。上二界中滅下三地雙因未立遍知故。

誰成就至無學唯成一者。此即第四明成就遍知。

論曰至便成就五者。釋上二句。約見位說成。大分可知　問如先

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『可建立』：又解釋說，見道（見道，指修行者初次證悟真理的階段）可以根據自部（自部，指自己所屬的部派）和他部（他部，指其他部派）分為兩個體系。修道（修道，指在見道之後，繼續修行以達到更高的境界）可以根據自品（自品，指自己所屬的品類）和他品（他品，指其他品類）分為兩個體系。又解釋說，見道可以根據自部和他部分為兩個體系。修道可以根據自品為一個體系，他品他部為一個體系。所以說是兩個體系。

『此離俱系至未立遍知故者』：論主（論主，指論典的作者或主要闡述者）駁斥。這種離開俱系（俱系，指同時存在的束縛）與滅雙因（滅雙因，指同時滅除兩種原因）以及越界緣（越界緣，指超越界限的因緣）在作用上沒有區別。但實際上，作用還是有區別的。說沒有區別，是因為作用是從本體而來，所以說沒有區別。系的本體狹窄，僅僅是隨眠（隨眠，指潛在的煩惱）。因的本體寬廣，界的本體也寬廣，也通於其他法。說因說界也包括系，所以即使能生起名為因，能保持名為界，能束縛名為系，這三種含義有所不同，系沒有別的本體，所以不分別說明。反駁說，這種滅雙因與越界緣在作用上也沒有區別，即使意義有所不同，也不應該分別設立。爲了迴應這種反駁，所以說，雖然所有越界位（越界位，指超越界限的階段）都是滅雙因，但滅雙因的時候並非都是越界，所以在滅雙因之外另外設立越界緣。例如，在四靜慮（四靜慮，指色界四禪）以及四無色（四無色，指無色界四空定）滅除下三地（下三地，指欲界和色界初禪、二禪）雙因的時候，因為沒有超越界限，所以沒有設立遍知（遍知，指對一切事物普遍的認知）。

又解釋說，反駁說，如果在越界位不滅雙因，可以在雙因之外另外設立越界緣。在越界位都滅雙因，為什麼要在雙因之外另外設立越界緣？爲了迴應這種反駁，所以說，雖然所有越界位都是滅雙因，但有滅雙因的時候並非都是越界，所以在滅雙因之外另外設立越界緣。在二界（二界，指色界和無色界）中滅除下三地雙因的時候，沒有設立遍知。又解釋說，雖然所有越界位都是滅雙因，應該說在雙因之外不設立越界緣，但有滅雙因的時候並非都是越界，所以在雙因之外另外設立越界緣。在上二界（上二界，指色界三禪、四禪和無色界）中滅除下三地雙因的時候，沒有設立遍知。

『誰成就至無學唯成一者』：這即是第四個方面，說明成就遍知。

『論曰至便成就五者』：解釋上面兩句話。從見位（見位，指見道的階段）來說明成就，大部分內容可以理解。問：如果先……

【English Translation】 English version: 'Can be established': Furthermore, it is explained that the Path of Seeing (Darśanamārga, the stage where a practitioner first realizes the truth) can be divided into two systems based on one's own school (Svaka, referring to one's own school or tradition) and other schools (Paraka, referring to other schools or traditions). The Path of Cultivation (Bhāvanāmārga, the stage of continued practice after the Path of Seeing) can be divided into two systems based on one's own category (Svaka, referring to one's own category) and other categories (Paraka, referring to other categories). It is also explained that the Path of Seeing can be divided into two systems based on one's own school and other schools. The Path of Cultivation can be one system based on one's own category, and other categories and other schools as one system. Therefore, it is said to be two systems.

'This separation from simultaneous bonds to the reason of not establishing pervasive knowledge': The author of the treatise (Śāstrakāra, the author or main expounder of the treatise) refutes. This separation from simultaneous bonds is no different in function from the dual cause of cessation (Nirodhahetudvaya, the dual cause of simultaneous cessation) and the condition of transcending realms (Vyatikrāntadhātupratyaya, the condition of transcending realms). But in reality, there is a difference in function. Saying there is no difference is because the function comes from the essence, so it is said there is no difference. The essence of bonds is narrow, only latent defilements (Anuśaya, latent defilements). The essence of cause is broad, and the essence of realm is also broad, also extending to other dharmas. Saying cause and saying realm also include bonds, so even if it can arise and is named cause, can maintain and is named realm, can bind and is named bond, these three meanings are different, but the bond has no separate essence, so it is not explained separately. The refutation says, this dual cause of cessation is also no different in function from the condition of transcending realms, even if the meanings are different, it should not be established separately. To respond to this refutation, it is said that although all stages of transcending realms (Vyatikrāntabhūmi, stages of transcending realms) are dual causes of cessation, the time of dual cause of cessation is not always transcending realms, so the condition of transcending realms is established separately outside the dual cause of cessation. For example, when the four Dhyānas (Caturbhyāna, the four meditative absorptions of the Form Realm) and the four Formless Realms (Catvāri Ārūpyasamāpattayaḥ, the four formless absorptions of the Formless Realm) cease the dual cause of the lower three realms (Adhastritayabhūmi, the Desire Realm and the first two Dhyānas of the Form Realm), because they have not transcended the realms, pervasive knowledge (Sarvajñāna, pervasive knowledge of all things) is not established.

It is also explained that, the refutation says, if the dual cause of cessation is not ceased in the stage of transcending realms, the condition of transcending realms can be established separately outside the dual cause. In the stage of transcending realms, the dual cause of cessation is ceased, why establish the condition of transcending realms separately outside the dual cause? To respond to this refutation, it is said that although all stages of transcending realms are dual causes of cessation, there are times when the dual cause of cessation is not always transcending realms, so the condition of transcending realms is established separately outside the dual cause of cessation. When the dual cause of the lower three realms is ceased in the two realms (Dvidhātu, the Form Realm and the Formless Realm), pervasive knowledge is not established. It is also explained that although all stages of transcending realms are dual causes of cessation, it should be said that the condition of transcending realms is not established outside the dual cause, but there are times when the dual cause of cessation is not always transcending realms, so the condition of transcending realms is established separately outside the dual cause. When the dual cause of the lower three realms is ceased in the upper two realms (Upari Dvidhātu, the third and fourth Dhyānas of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm), pervasive knowledge is not established.

'Who achieves to the non-learner only achieves one': This is the fourth aspect, explaining the achievement of pervasive knowledge.

'The treatise says to then achieve five': Explaining the above two sentences. Explaining achievement from the stage of seeing (Darśanamārga, the stage of the Path of Seeing), most of the content can be understood. Question: If first...

離欲入見道中。至苦類智．集法忍。何故不立遍知爾時三緣亦皆具故　解云此先離欲至苦類智．集法忍時。雖復已得見苦所斷無漏斷得。見集所斷無漏斷得。猶未成故不立遍知。故先離欲依根本地入見道者。不得欲界見道所斷三種遍知。此文說成依未至定。若依根本入見道者不成欲見三種遍知。但成上見二種遍知。故正理五十六云。依根本定入見諦者。至集類忍亦無遍知。后位隨應如理思擇。

住修道位至名如前說者。釋第三句。約修道說成。住修道位道類智為初至未離欲染。及離欲退。此二種人皆成就六。若次第人至全離欲界色界愛等未盡。或超越人先離欲染。從道類智未起色盡勝果道已前。此二種人唯成一遍知。謂順下分盡。從色愛盡起色纏退。及無學位起色纏退。此二種人亦成一遍知。謂順下分盡　若次第人有色愛者從色愛永盡。及超越人先離色者。從起色盡道至未全離無色愛已前。此二種人成五下分盡．及色愛盡二。從無學退起無色纏成二遍知。名如前說五下分盡．及色愛盡　又正理云。若依根本入正決定道類智起時。彼所有斷亦得順下分斷遍知名者。寧許根本果唯有五遍知　唯色．無色界見斷法斷。得彼遍知名故無有失　何緣唯此亦得彼名　以漸次得不還果者。於此斷上立彼名故。又先俗道所斷下分

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在離欲而進入見道的過程中，到達苦類智（duhkha-anvaya-jnana，對苦諦的類比認知）和集法忍（samudaya-dharma-ksanti，對集諦的法則的忍受）。為什麼不建立遍知（parijnana，完全的理解）呢？因為那時三種因緣也都具備啊？解釋說：這是指先前離欲，到達苦類智、集法忍的時候，即使已經獲得了見苦所斷的無漏斷得（anāsrava-prahāna-prāpti，無煩惱的斷除和獲得），以及見集所斷的無漏斷得，但因為尚未成就，所以不建立遍知。因此，先前離欲，依靠根本地（mūla-bhūmi，禪定的基礎）進入見道的人，無法獲得欲界見道所斷的三種遍知。這段文字說明了成就依賴於未至定（anāgamya-dhyāna，未至禪定）。如果依賴根本地進入見道，就不能成就欲界的三種遍知，只能成就上界的兩種遍知。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā）第五十六卷說：『依靠根本定進入見諦（darśana-satya，對真諦的洞察）的人，到達集類忍（samudaya-anvaya-ksanti，對集諦的類比忍受）時也沒有遍知。』後面的階段應該根據情況如理思擇。

住在修道位，到『名稱如前所說』，這是解釋第三句，是就修道位來說成就。住在修道位，以道類智（marga-anvaya-jnana，對道諦的類比認知）為開始，直到未離欲染，以及離欲退失。這兩種人都成就六種遍知。如果是次第（kramika，漸次修行）的人，直到完全脫離欲界貪愛等煩惱尚未窮盡，或者超越（utplavanā，超越修行）的人，先脫離欲染，從道類智尚未生起色界貪盡的殊勝果道之前，這兩種人只成就一種遍知，就是順下分結（avadhi-bhāgīya-samyojana，導致輪迴于地獄的束縛）的斷盡。從色愛斷盡，生起色界纏退失，以及無學位（asaikṣa-bhūmi，無學果位）生起色界纏退失，這兩種人也成就一種遍知，就是順下分結的斷盡。如果是次第的人，有色愛存在，從色愛永遠斷盡，以及超越的人，先脫離色界貪愛，從生起色界貪盡之道，直到未完全脫離無色界貪愛之前，這兩種人成就五下分結（panca-orambhagiya-samyojana，五種下分結）的斷盡，以及色愛斷盡兩種遍知。從無學退失，生起無色界纏，成就兩種遍知，名稱如前所說，是五下分結的斷盡，以及色愛斷盡。還有《阿毗達磨順正理論》說：『如果依靠根本定進入正決定（samyak-niyama，正確的決定）時，道類智生起的時候，他所有的斷也得到順下分斷的遍知名稱。』為什麼只允許根本地的果位只有五種遍知呢？因為只有色界、無色界的見斷法斷（darśana-prahātavya-dharma-prahāna，通過見道斷除的法）和斷得，得到那些遍知的名稱，所以沒有過失。為什麼只有這些也能得到那些名稱呢？因為漸次獲得不還果（anāgāmin，不還者）的人，在這種斷上建立那些名稱的緣故。還有先前俗道（laukika-marga，世俗之道）所斷的下分。

【English Translation】 English version: In the process of entering the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga) after detachment from desires, upon reaching the Knowledge of Analogy regarding Suffering (duhkha-anvaya-jnana) and the Acceptance of the Dharma regarding Origination (samudaya-dharma-ksanti), why is the Complete Understanding (parijnana) not established? Is it not because all three conditions are also present at that time? The explanation is: This refers to the time when one has previously detached from desires and reached the Knowledge of Analogy regarding Suffering and the Acceptance of the Dharma regarding Origination. Even though one has already obtained the non-outflow attainment of abandonment (anāsrava-prahāna-prāpti) of what is abandoned by seeing Suffering and the non-outflow attainment of abandonment of what is abandoned by seeing Origination, the Complete Understanding is not established because it has not yet been accomplished. Therefore, one who has previously detached from desires and enters the Path of Seeing relying on the Fundamental Ground (mūla-bhūmi) cannot obtain the three Complete Understandings of what is abandoned by the Path of Seeing in the Desire Realm. This passage explains that the accomplishment depends on the Unreached Concentration (anāgamya-dhyāna). If one enters the Path of Seeing relying on the Fundamental Ground, one cannot accomplish the three Complete Understandings of the Desire Realm, but can only accomplish the two Complete Understandings of the Upper Realm. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā, volume 56, says: 'One who enters the Path of Insight (darśana-satya) relying on the Fundamental Concentration does not have Complete Understanding even when reaching the Acceptance of Analogy regarding Origination (samudaya-anvaya-ksanti).' Later stages should be considered appropriately according to the circumstances.

Residing in the Path of Cultivation, up to 'the name is as previously stated,' this explains the third sentence, which speaks of accomplishment in the Path of Cultivation. Residing in the Path of Cultivation, beginning with the Knowledge of Analogy regarding the Path (marga-anvaya-jnana), until one has not yet detached from desire-attachment, and those who regress from detachment from desire. Both of these types of people accomplish six Complete Understandings. If one is a gradual practitioner (kramika), until the complete abandonment of desire-love, etc., in the Desire Realm is not yet exhausted, or a transcendent practitioner (utplavanā) who first detaches from desire-attachment, before the arising of the superior fruition path of the exhaustion of form-desire from the Knowledge of Analogy regarding the Path, these two types of people only accomplish one Complete Understanding, which is the exhaustion of the Lower Fetters (avadhi-bhāgīya-samyojana). From the exhaustion of form-love, the arising of regression from the Form Realm attachments, and the arising of regression from the Form Realm attachments in the state of No-More-Learning (asaikṣa-bhūmi), these two types of people also accomplish one Complete Understanding, which is the exhaustion of the Lower Fetters. If one is a gradual practitioner with form-love, from the permanent exhaustion of form-love, and a transcendent practitioner who first detaches from form-love, from the arising of the path of exhaustion of form-desire until one has not yet completely detached from formless-love, these two types of people accomplish the exhaustion of the Five Lower Fetters (panca-orambhagiya-samyojana) and the exhaustion of form-love, two Complete Understandings. From regression from No-More-Learning, the arising of Formless Realm attachments, accomplishing two Complete Understandings, the names are as previously stated, which are the exhaustion of the Five Lower Fetters and the exhaustion of form-love. Furthermore, the Abhidharmasamayapradīpikā says: 'If one relies on the Fundamental Concentration to enter into Correct Determination (samyak-niyama), when the Knowledge of Analogy regarding the Path arises, all of his abandonments also obtain the name of Complete Understanding of the abandonment of the Lower Fetters.' Why is it only permitted that the fruition of the Fundamental Ground has only five Complete Understandings? Because only the abandonment of what is abandoned by seeing (darśana-prahātavya-dharma-prahāna) in the Form and Formless Realms and the attainment obtain the names of those Complete Understandings, so there is no fault. Why can only these also obtain those names? Because those who gradually obtain the Non-Returning Fruit (anāgāmin) establish those names on this abandonment. Furthermore, the Lower Fetters that are abandoned by the previous mundane path (laukika-marga).

。今聖道力令永不生故。彼所得斷假說為此果。今實不得欲斷遍知　解云若依根本等。此外難也。若依根本得下分者。應言得六。寧許得五。理應兼難忍見道果應七。類智品果應六。義顯不論　唯色．無色界等。此即釋也。于彼遍知唯得少分上界見斷法斷為下分盡遍知。一則不得其主。二則得不具足。故不說也。準此即應通忍果六。類智品果五。謂但以忍取下分盡設依未至亦不得主。不得具足。如前已辨。故不說彼得此遍知。無有失也　何緣準此等。此即嘖也。既非得主。又非具足　何緣亦得彼遍知名　以漸次得等。此即釋也。一解準漸次故。二解余不得者令轉遠故假說為果。亦得彼名實不得故。說根本定得五等也　問先離色染后入見道。色盡遍知何時得耶　解云起勝果道時得。故婆沙六十三云。已離色染入見道。此色愛盡遍知。有說道類智時得。有說離空處時得。有說金剛喻定時得。此等諸說是不得處。應作是說。彼定從果起勝進道現在前時。方乃得此色愛盡遍知。

住無學位至永盡遍知者。釋第四句。約無學道說成。又婆沙六十三云。問菩薩聖位成就幾耶。答且見道中。有作是說。如預流向初五心頃全未成就。后十心頃如其次第。二二剎那成就一二三四五種。復有說者。初七心頃全未成就。從集類智乃至滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：現在聖道的威力使得（煩惱）永遠不再產生，所以（對於已經斷除的煩惱），假說獲得此果。現在實際上並沒有獲得欲界斷遍知。（有人）解釋說，如果依據根本定等，這之外會有困難。如果依據根本定獲得下分結，應該說獲得六種（結），怎麼能允許說獲得五種？理應一併責難忍位見道果應該有七種，類智品果應該有六種。意義明顯，不論唯色界、無色界等。這就是解釋。對於彼遍知，只獲得少分上界見斷法斷為下分結的盡遍知。一是不得其主，二是獲得不具足，所以不說。準此，就應該通於忍位果有六種，類智品果有五種。意思是說，只以忍位取下分結盡，假設依據未至定，也得不到主，得不到具足，如前已經辨明。所以不說彼獲得此遍知，沒有過失。為什麼準此等？這是責問。既然不是得主，又不是具足，為什麼也得到彼遍知的名稱？以漸次獲得等。這是解釋。一種解釋是，因為漸次獲得；另一種解釋是，讓其餘未獲得者轉為遠離，所以假說為果，也得到彼名稱，實際上沒有得到，所以說根本定獲得五種等。問：先離色染，后入見道，色界愛盡遍知何時獲得？答：在生起殊勝果道時獲得。所以《婆沙論》第六十三卷說：『已經離開色界染，進入見道，此色界愛盡遍知，有人說在道類智時獲得，有人說在離開空無邊處時獲得，有人說在金剛喻定時獲得。』這些說法是不正確的。應該這樣說，彼定從果生起殊勝進道現在前時，才獲得此色界愛盡遍知。住在無學位至永盡遍知者。解釋第四句。約無學道來說成就。又《婆沙論》第六十三卷說：『問：菩薩聖位成就幾種？答：且在見道中，有人這樣說，如預流向最初五心頃，完全沒有成就；后十心頃，如其次第，二二剎那成就一二三四五種。』又有人說：『最初七心頃完全沒有成就，從集類智乃至滅。

【English Translation】 English version: Now, the power of the holy path causes (afflictions) to never arise again, so (for the afflictions that have been cut off), it is nominally said that this fruit is obtained. Now, in reality, the complete knowledge of cutting off desires is not obtained. (Someone) explains that if based on the fundamental samadhi, etc., there would be difficulties otherwise. If based on the fundamental samadhi, the lower fetters are obtained, it should be said that six (fetters) are obtained. How can it be allowed to say that five are obtained? It should be questioned together that the fruit of the path of seeing in the stage of forbearance should have seven, and the fruit of the category of knowledge should have six. The meaning is clear, regardless of the realm of form, the formless realm, etc. This is the explanation. For that complete knowledge, only a small part of the cutting off of the laws to be cut off by seeing in the upper realm is obtained as the complete knowledge of the lower fetters being exhausted. First, the master is not obtained, and second, the obtaining is incomplete, so it is not said. According to this, it should be that the fruit of the stage of forbearance has six, and the fruit of the category of knowledge has five. It means that only by taking the exhaustion of the lower fetters in the stage of forbearance, assuming based on the unreached samadhi, the master cannot be obtained, and the obtaining is incomplete, as has been clarified before. Therefore, it is not said that he obtains this complete knowledge, and there is no fault. Why according to this, etc.? This is a question. Since it is neither obtaining the master nor complete, why is the name of that complete knowledge also obtained? By gradual obtaining, etc. This is the explanation. One explanation is because of gradual obtaining; another explanation is to make the rest who have not obtained it turn away, so it is nominally said to be the fruit, and the name is also obtained, but in reality, it is not obtained, so it is said that the fundamental samadhi obtains five, etc. Question: If one first leaves the defilement of the realm of form and then enters the path of seeing, when is the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of love for the realm of form obtained? Answer: It is obtained when the superior fruit path arises. Therefore, the sixty-third volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Having already left the defilement of the realm of form and entered the path of seeing, this complete knowledge of the exhaustion of love for the realm of form, some say it is obtained at the time of the knowledge of the path, some say it is obtained when leaving the realm of nothingness, and some say it is obtained at the time of the vajra-like samadhi.' These statements are incorrect. It should be said that when that samadhi arises from the fruit and the superior progressive path is present, then this complete knowledge of the exhaustion of love for the realm of form is obtained. Those who dwell in the state of no-more-learning until the complete knowledge of eternal exhaustion. Explaining the fourth sentence. Speaking of the accomplishment in the path of no-more-learning. Also, the sixty-third volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: How many kinds of holy positions does a Bodhisattva accomplish? Answer: In the path of seeing, some say that like the first five moments of the stream-enterer, there is no accomplishment at all; in the latter ten moments, in the order, two moments each accomplish one, two, three, four, and five kinds.' Others say: 'In the first seven moments, there is no accomplishment at all, from the knowledge of the category of accumulation to extinction.'

類智忍成就一。謂色．無色界見苦．集所斷法斷遍知。從滅類智乃至道類智忍成就二。謂色．無色界見苦．集滅所斷法斷遍知。第四靜慮非欲界法斷對治故。于集．滅．道三法智時。不得欲界見所斷法斷三遍知。從初道類智乃至金剛喻定皆成就一。謂五順下分結盡遍知　又云。應作是說。菩薩聖位決定不得色．無色界見道所斷法斷遍知。及色愛盡遍知。總集斷故無容修彼斷對治故　解云見道是道諦。總集斷故不得第六。無容修彼斷對治故。不得色愛盡遍知　問獨覺云何　解云應如超越聲聞。依根本者說。

何緣不還至總集為一者。此即第五明遍知集處。如文可解。又正理云。所言集者是合一義。若於無色分離染故得預流果。全離染故得阿羅漢果。若於欲界分離染故得一來果。全離染故得不還果。若於色界分離．全離俱不得果。唯於二處具足二緣。謂得果時亦即越界。故阿羅漢．及不還果。集所得斷立一遍知。爾時總起一味得故。餘二果時得雖一味。而未越界。色愛盡時雖是越界。無一味得。故於彼位不集遍知。要具二緣方總集故　解云言一味得者。謂一類得非是一得。若於向位隨對治道勝劣不同得隨彼道有多勝劣。若至果位起一類勝得。得前所得替彼劣得　有古德說。依雜心論。得果之時法分一得得。類分一得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本類智忍成就一：指的是對於色界、無色界見苦、見集所斷之法，斷除並普遍了知。從滅類智乃至道類智忍成就二：指的是對於色界、無色界見苦、見集、見滅所斷之法，斷除並普遍了知。第四禪定因為不是欲界法的斷除對治，所以在集、滅、道三法智時，不能得到欲界見所斷法斷除的三種普遍了知。從初道類智乃至金剛喻定都成就一：指的是五順下分結（貪慾、嗔恚、身見、戒禁取見、疑）的斷盡和普遍了知。又說，應該這樣說，菩薩在聖位決定不能得到色界、無色界見道所斷之法的斷除和普遍了知，以及色界愛盡的普遍了知。因為總集斷，所以沒有修習那些斷除對治的餘地。解釋：見道是道諦。因為總集斷，所以不能得到第六種。因為沒有修習那些斷除對治的餘地，所以不能得到色界愛盡的普遍了知。問：獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）怎麼樣？解釋：應該像超越聲聞（Śrāvaka）一樣。依據根本禪定來說。為什麼不還果（Anāgāmin）到總集為一呢？這指的是第五明遍知集處。如經文可以理解。又《正理》說：『所說的集，是合一的意思。』如果在無色界分離染污，所以得到預流果（Srotaāpanna）。完全分離染污，所以得到阿羅漢果（Arhat）。如果在欲界分離染污，所以得到一來果（Sakṛdāgāmin）。完全分離染污，所以得到不還果。如果在色界分離、完全分離都不能得到果位。只有在兩個地方具足兩種因緣，指的是得到果位時也超越了界限。所以阿羅漢果和不還果，總集所得的斷除，立為一種普遍了知。那時總起一種味道的得到。其餘兩種果位時，得到雖然是一種味道，但沒有超越界限。色界愛盡時雖然是超越了界限，沒有一種味道的得到。所以在那個位置不總集普遍了知。要具足兩種因緣才總集。解釋：說的一種味道的得到，指的是一類得到，不是一種得到。如果在向位，隨著對治道勝劣不同，得到隨著那個道有多種勝劣。如果到果位，起一類殊勝的得到，得到之前所得，代替那些劣等的得到。有古德說，依據《雜心論》，得到果位的時候，法分一種得到，類分一種得到。

【English Translation】 English version The first achievement of knowledge of forbearance regarding categories (類智忍): refers to the severance and universal knowledge of the dharmas to be severed by the views of suffering and the views of origination in the Realm of Form (色界) and the Formless Realm (無色界). The second achievement from the knowledge of cessation regarding categories (滅類智) up to the knowledge of the path regarding categories (道類智): refers to the severance and universal knowledge of the dharmas to be severed by the views of suffering, the views of origination, and the views of cessation in the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm. Because the fourth dhyana (第四靜慮) is not the counteractive force for severing the dharmas of the Desire Realm (欲界), one cannot obtain the three universal knowledges of severing the dharmas to be severed by the views of the Desire Realm during the three knowledges of origination, cessation, and path. From the initial knowledge of the path regarding categories up to the Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛喻定), all achieve one: refers to the exhaustion and universal knowledge of the five lower fetters (五順下分結) (greed, hatred, self-view, adherence to rites and rituals, and doubt). Furthermore, it is said that it should be stated that Bodhisattvas (菩薩) in the noble state definitely cannot obtain the severance and universal knowledge of the dharmas to be severed by the views of the path in the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm, as well as the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of love for the Realm of Form. Because of the total collection of severance, there is no room to cultivate those counteractive forces for severance. Explanation: The view of the path is the Truth of the Path (道諦). Because of the total collection of severance, one cannot obtain the sixth. Because there is no room to cultivate those counteractive forces for severance, one cannot obtain the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of love for the Realm of Form. Question: What about the Solitary Buddha (獨覺)? Explanation: It should be like surpassing the Hearer (聲聞). It is spoken based on fundamental dhyana. Why does the Non-Returner (不還果) not reach the total collection as one? This refers to the fifth clear universal knowledge of the collection place. As the text can be understood. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'What is said to be 'collection' is the meaning of combining into one.' If one separates from defilement in the Formless Realm, one obtains the Stream-Enterer fruit (預流果). If one completely separates from defilement, one obtains the Arhat fruit (阿羅漢果). If one separates from defilement in the Desire Realm, one obtains the Once-Returner fruit (一來果). If one completely separates from defilement, one obtains the Non-Returner fruit. If one separates or completely separates in the Realm of Form, one cannot obtain the fruit. Only in two places are both conditions fulfilled, referring to also transcending the realm when obtaining the fruit. Therefore, the Arhat fruit and the Non-Returner fruit, the severance obtained by the total collection, are established as one universal knowledge. At that time, a single flavor of attainment arises in total. During the other two fruits, although the attainment is of a single flavor, one has not transcended the realm. Although the exhaustion of love for the Realm of Form is a transcendence of the realm, there is no attainment of a single flavor. Therefore, in that position, the universal knowledge is not totally collected. Both conditions must be fulfilled for total collection. Explanation: The saying 'attainment of a single flavor' refers to a category of attainment, not a single attainment. If one is in the stage of progress, the attainment varies in superiority and inferiority depending on the superiority and inferiority of the counteractive path. If one reaches the fruit stage, a category of superior attainment arises, and the previous attainment is replaced by those inferior attainments. Some ancient worthies say that, according to the Abhidharma-samuccaya (雜心論), when obtaining the fruit, there is one attainment of the dharma division and one attainment of the category division.

得。故四諦無為但一得得　此義不然。言一得者。謂一類得。

誰舍誰得至得亦然除五者。此即第六明得舍遍知。

論曰至全離欲退者。言舍一者。此有三類。一謂從無學退隨起何界惑。舍一切結盡遍知。二從色愛盡退起色染。舍色愛盡遍知。三全離欲退起欲染時。舍五下分結盡遍知。若據菩薩三十四念得菩提時。亦但舍一五順下分結盡遍知。以道類智時但得下分不起勝果道。故不得色愛盡遍知。若二乘人得無學果。即舍二故。

言舍二者至阿羅漢時者。言舍二者此有二類。一謂諸不還從色愛盡起欲纏退。舍色愛盡遍知五下分遍知。二謂諸不還從色愛盡獲得阿羅漢時。亦舍色愛盡遍知五下分遍知。亦應說獨覺得無學果舍二遍知。而言阿羅漢且據聲聞說。故正理五十六云。諸有先離無所有染入聖道者。唯除菩薩。余亦定於二界一切修斷離系得無漏得。彼皆必於二界修斷自勝果道遍現前故。如是理趣以何證知。說聖者生第四靜慮以上諸地定成樂根。及諸聖者生於無色定有色貪盡斷遍知得故。菩薩何緣不亦如是。不由加行一切功德能現前故。如滅定等。謂聲聞．獨覺。無自在功力能超間起諸對治道。欲證后道必籍前道。以為加行方能證故。菩薩亦有超越功力。以于諸法相連線中得殊勝智。加行廣故(已上

【現代漢語翻譯】得（成就）。故四諦（四聖諦，即苦、集、滅、道）無為但一得得（僅僅獲得一種成就）——這種說法是不對的。說『一得』，是指獲得一類成就。

『誰舍誰得至得亦然除五者』——這即是第六，說明了捨棄和獲得的普遍認知。

論曰至全離欲退者（論述到完全脫離慾望而退轉的人）——說到捨棄一種，這裡有三種情況：第一種是從無學（已經修證到最高階段，不再需要學習）退轉，隨之生起任何界（欲界、色界、無色界）的迷惑，捨棄一切結盡遍知（對所有煩惱的徹底斷除的普遍認知）。第二種是從色愛盡（對色界貪愛的斷除）退轉，生起色染（對色界的貪染），捨棄色愛盡遍知。第三種是完全脫離慾望退轉，生起欲染時，捨棄五下分結盡遍知（對欲界五種煩惱的徹底斷除的普遍認知）。如果根據菩薩在三十四個剎那證得菩提（覺悟）時的情況來看，也只是捨棄一種，即五順下分結盡遍知（對順應地獄五種煩惱的徹底斷除的普遍認知）。因為在道類智（對道的種類進行辨別的智慧）時，只是獲得了下分，沒有生起殊勝果位的道，所以沒有獲得色愛盡遍知。如果二乘人（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）證得無學果，就捨棄兩種。

言舍二者至阿羅漢時者（說到捨棄兩種，直到成為阿羅漢的時候）——說到捨棄兩種，這裡有兩種情況：第一種是諸不還（已經斷除欲界煩惱，不再返回欲界受生）從色愛盡生起欲纏退轉，捨棄色愛盡遍知和五下分遍知。第二種是諸不還從色愛盡獲得阿羅漢果時，也捨棄色愛盡遍知和五下分遍知。也應該說獨覺（不依靠他人教導，自己覺悟的人）證得無學果時，捨棄兩種遍知。而只說阿羅漢，是根據聲聞（聽聞佛法而修行的人）來說的。所以《正理》第五十六卷說：『諸有先離無所有染（已經脫離了對無所有處的貪染）進入聖道的人，除了菩薩，其餘的人也一定在二界（色界和無色界）的一切修斷離系（通過修行斷除煩惱的束縛）獲得無漏得（獲得沒有煩惱的功德）。他們都必定在二界的修斷中，自己殊勝的果位之道普遍顯現。』這樣的道理用什麼來證明呢？說聖者生在第四禪以上各地的，一定成就樂根（快樂的根本），以及諸聖者生於無色界，一定有色貪盡斷遍知得（對色界貪愛的徹底斷除的普遍認知）。菩薩為什麼不也是這樣呢？因為不由加行（通過努力修行），一切功德不能顯現。如同滅定等。』所謂聲聞和獨覺，沒有自在的功力能夠超越間斷地生起各種對治道（對治煩惱的方法）。想要證得後面的道，必須依靠前面的道作為加行才能證得。菩薩也有超越的功力，因為在諸法相連線中獲得殊勝的智慧，加行廣大。

【English Translation】 Attainment. Therefore, the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path) are unconditioned, but only one attainment is attained – this statement is incorrect. Saying 'one attainment' means attaining one category of attainment.

'Who abandons, who attains, until attainment is also like that, except for the five' – this is the sixth, explaining the universal knowledge of abandonment and attainment.

The treatise says, 'Until those who retreat from complete detachment from desire' – speaking of abandoning one, there are three categories: first, those who retreat from non-learning (having reached the highest stage of cultivation and no longer needing to learn), and accordingly arise with delusion in any realm (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), abandon the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters (the complete eradication of all afflictions). Second, those who retreat from the exhaustion of desire for form (the eradication of greed for the form realm) and arise with attachment to form (greed for the form realm), abandon the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for form. Third, those who retreat from complete detachment from desire and arise with desire for desire, abandon the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (the complete eradication of the five afflictions of the desire realm). If based on the situation when a Bodhisattva attains Bodhi (enlightenment) in thirty-four moments, they only abandon one, namely the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of the five fetters that accord with the lower realms (the complete eradication of the five afflictions that accord with the lower realms). Because at the time of the knowledge of the types of paths (the wisdom to distinguish the types of paths), only the lower part is attained, and the path of superior fruition does not arise, therefore the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for form is not attained. If those of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) attain the fruit of non-learning, they abandon two.

Speaking of abandoning two, 'until the time of becoming an Arhat' – speaking of abandoning two, there are two categories: first, those Non-returners (who have already cut off the afflictions of the desire realm and will no longer return to be born in the desire realm) who retreat from the exhaustion of desire for form and arise with attachment to desire, abandon the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for form and the universal knowledge of the five lower fetters. Second, those Non-returners who attain Arhatship from the exhaustion of desire for form also abandon the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for form and the universal knowledge of the five lower fetters. It should also be said that a Solitary Buddha (one who awakens on their own without relying on the teachings of others) who attains the fruit of non-learning abandons two types of universal knowledge. But only Arhats are mentioned, based on the Śrāvakas (those who practice by listening to the Buddha's teachings). Therefore, the fifty-sixth volume of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Those who have previously detached from the defilement of the realm of nothingness (having already detached from greed for the realm of nothingness) and entered the holy path, except for Bodhisattvas, the rest will certainly, in the two realms (form realm and formless realm), through all cultivation, severance, and detachment (cutting off the bonds of afflictions through cultivation), attain unconditioned attainment (attaining merit without afflictions). They will all certainly, in the cultivation and severance of the two realms, universally manifest their own superior fruition path.' What is the proof for such a principle? It is said that holy beings born in the fourth dhyāna and above in various realms certainly achieve the root of joy (the root of happiness), and that holy beings born in the formless realm certainly have the universal knowledge of the exhaustion of greed for form (the complete eradication of greed for the form realm). Why aren't Bodhisattvas also like this? Because without effort (through diligent practice), all merits cannot manifest. Like the cessation attainment, etc.' So-called Śrāvakas and Solitary Buddhas do not have the power of freedom to transcend and intermittently arise with various antidotal paths (methods to counteract afflictions). If they want to attain the later path, they must rely on the previous path as effort to attain it. Bodhisattvas also have the power of transcendence, because they obtain superior wisdom in the connection of all dharmas, and their effort is vast.

論文)　解云此明修斷。唯除菩薩。余學位中必於二界修斷離系得無漏得。以彼二乘一切學位。皆定於二界自勝果道遍現前故　自勝果道。顯不起前向道　遍現前故者。謂如先離八地染者。隨依何地得不還已。必於七地一一品中。皆起無間．及解脫道。隨何品道起得彼離系得。以此故知。漸得非頓　案此獨覺成道不唯三十四心。得見諦已具起上八地七十二品無間．解脫．一百四十四心。應言獨覺極速疾者一百六十心取果。一百五十九是向。一心是果。向中唯得不還。不聞更得余果。以此準知。獨覺亦得色愛盡遍知。故言舍二。

言舍五者至舍前五故者。言舍五者。超越之人。謂先離欲后入見諦。道類智時得五下分結盡遍知。舍前見位五遍知故。超越之人於五下分雖非全得。以少從多據名說故言得下分。正理破云。言舍五者。經主釋言。謂先離欲道類智位。此但應說道類忍時。道類智時彼已舍故夫言得．舍據將說故。又應簡言依未至定入見諦者。若依根本入見諦者。于欲界斷不得無漏離系得故。不得欲界見斷法斷三種遍知非先不得可言今舍　俱舍師救云。言道類智時者。謂道類智未來生時。故婆沙六十三云。道類智忍滅。道類智生時。若未離欲染入正性離生者。亦無舍五得一。若已離欲染入正性離生者。舍五得一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：論文中說，『解脫煩惱，需要通過修行來斷除。』這句話指的是，除了菩薩之外，其他聲聞、緣覺等有學位的修行者，必定在色界和無色界中，通過修行斷除煩惱的束縛，從而獲得無漏智。這是因為二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的一切有學位修行者，都必定在色界和無色界中，各自殊勝的果道次第完全顯現。『自勝果道』，指的是不會生起之前的趨向果位的道。『遍現前故』，指的是比如先斷除了八地（色界第四禪天）的染污者，無論依靠哪一地獲得不還果，必定在七地（色界第三禪天）的每一品中，都生起無間道和解脫道。隨著哪一品道的生起，就獲得那一品的離系得。因此可知，證得果位是漸次的，而不是頓悟的。按照這種說法，緣覺成道不只是三十四心。在獲得見諦之後，會具足生起上八地的七十二品無間道和解脫道，總共一百四十四心。應該說，緣覺最快證得果位需要一百六十心，其中一百五十九心是趨向果位的道，一心是果位。在趨向果位的道中，只能獲得不還果，沒有聽說還能獲得其他果位。由此可以推知，緣覺也能證得色愛盡的遍知，所以說『舍二』。

『言舍五者至舍前五故者』，指的是『舍五』。超越之人，指的是先斷除欲界煩惱，然後進入見諦位。在道類智時，獲得五下分結（有身見、戒禁取見、疑、貪慾、嗔恚）的斷盡遍知，捨棄之前見位所獲得的五種遍知。超越之人對於五下分結雖然不是完全獲得，但是因為以少從多，所以稱之為獲得下分結。正理反駁說，『言舍五者』，經文的解釋是，指先斷除欲界煩惱，在道類智位。這裡應該說道類忍時，因為在道類智時，就已經捨棄了五下分結。獲得和捨棄，都是指將要發生的事情。又應該簡化為依靠未至定進入見諦位的人。如果依靠根本定進入見諦位，那麼對於欲界的斷除，就不能獲得無漏的離系得。因此，不能獲得欲界的見斷法斷三種遍知，因為之前沒有獲得，所以不能說現在捨棄。俱舍師辯解說，『言道類智時者』，指的是道類智未來生起的時候。所以《婆沙論》第六十三卷說，道類智忍滅，道類智生時，如果還沒有斷除欲染而進入正性離生，那麼也沒有舍五得一的情況。如果已經斷除欲染而進入正性離生，那麼就會舍五得一。

【English Translation】 English version: The treatise states, 'Liberation from afflictions requires severance through practice.' This refers to the fact that, with the exception of Bodhisattvas, other learners such as Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas, who are in the stages of learning, must sever the bonds of affliction through practice in the Form Realm (Rupadhatu) and Formless Realm (Arupadhatu), thereby attaining the unconditioned wisdom (Anasrava-jnana). This is because all learners in the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) are certain to have the successive manifestation of their respective superior fruition paths in the Form and Formless Realms. 'Superior fruition path' refers to the path that does not give rise to the preceding path towards fruition. 'Successive manifestation' means that, for example, one who has first severed the defilements of the Eighth Ground (Fourth Dhyana of the Form Realm), regardless of which ground they rely on to attain the state of Non-returner (Anagamin), will certainly generate the Path of Immediate Consequence (Anantarya-marga) and the Path of Deliverance (Vimukti-marga) in each of the seventy-two categories of the Seventh Ground (Third Dhyana of the Form Realm). With the arising of whichever category of path, they attain the corresponding Cessation of Bondage (Visamyoga-prapti). Therefore, it is known that the attainment of fruition is gradual, not sudden. According to this explanation, the attainment of Buddhahood by a Pratyekabuddha is not limited to thirty-four moments of thought. After attaining the vision of truth (Darshana-satya), they will fully generate the seventy-two categories of the Path of Immediate Consequence and the Path of Deliverance of the upper eight grounds, totaling one hundred and forty-four moments of thought. It should be said that the fastest attainment of fruition by a Pratyekabuddha requires one hundred and sixty moments of thought, of which one hundred and fifty-nine are the paths towards fruition, and one is the fruition itself. In the paths towards fruition, only the state of Non-returner can be attained; it is not heard that other fruits can be attained. From this, it can be inferred that a Pratyekabuddha can also attain the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of attachment to form (Raga-ksaya-parijna), hence the saying 'abandoning the two'.

'The statement 'abandoning the five' to 'abandoning the previous five' refers to 'abandoning the five'. A transcendent person refers to one who first severs the afflictions of the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu) and then enters the stage of vision of truth. At the moment of Knowledge of Conformity with the Dharma (Dharmanvaya-jnana), they attain the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (five lower fetters: Satkayadrishti (belief in self), Silavrataparamarsa (attachment to rites and rituals), Vicikitsa (doubt), Kamaraga (sensual desire), Vyapada (ill-will)), abandoning the five types of complete knowledge previously attained in the stage of vision. Although a transcendent person does not fully attain the five lower fetters, they are said to have attained the lower fetters because they take the name from the majority. The Nyaya-sutra refutes, 'The statement 'abandoning the five', the explanation of the sutra master is that it refers to the position of Knowledge of Conformity with the Dharma after first severing desire. Here, it should be said that it is the moment of Acceptance of Conformity with the Dharma (Dharmanvaya-kshanti), because at the moment of Knowledge of Conformity with the Dharma, they have already abandoned the five lower fetters. Attainment and abandonment both refer to things that are about to happen. It should also be simplified to those who enter the stage of vision of truth relying on the preliminary concentration (Upacara-samadhi). If one enters the stage of vision of truth relying on the fundamental concentration (Mula-samadhi), then for the severance of the Desire Realm, they cannot attain the unconditioned Cessation of Bondage. Therefore, they cannot attain the three types of complete knowledge of the severance of the afflictions to be abandoned by vision in the Desire Realm, because they have not attained them before, so it cannot be said that they are abandoning them now. The Kosa master defends, 'The statement 'at the moment of Knowledge of Conformity with the Dharma' refers to the time when Knowledge of Conformity with the Dharma is about to arise. Therefore, the sixty-third volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says, when Acceptance of Conformity with the Dharma ceases and Knowledge of Conformity with the Dharma arises, if one has not yet severed the desire and entered the rightness of separation from birth, then there is no situation of abandoning five and attaining one. If one has already severed the desire and entered the rightness of separation from birth, then they will abandon five and attain one.'

。謂舍前五得五順下分結盡遍知。此中有說六地見道舍．得皆爾。有說后五。三法智位不得遍知　婆沙既言道類智生時。明知非在現在。汝若救言已生名生。我即還言已舍名舍　后五。謂六地中后五地。婆沙兩說后師為正。以後五地不修欲界斷治故。故於欲見三種遍智皆不得也　前師非正。同妙音故。后五亦修欲斷對治　又云。應簡言。亦不須簡。言舍前五顯依未至。若依根本即舍二得一。

言舍六者至得離欲時者。言舍六者。謂未離欲所有聖者。得離染時成不還果。舍前六故。

得亦然者至謂退不還者釋第二句　得亦然者。例同於舍。謂有得一得二得得六。唯除得五。理亦應除。得三得四對舍說故。舍中既無三．四。所以得中亦不說也。成通初．后。成中可成一．二．三．四．五．六。得唯據初。但有一．二．六也　言得一者。謂得未得於九遍知。一一漸得皆名得一。及從無學起色纏退。得一五順下分　言得二者。謂從無學起無色界諸纏退時。得色愛盡．及五下分　言得六者。謂退不還起欲纏時。得見斷六　問為或至現在名退為或至生相名退　解云或至生相。彼品善得不至生相將現在前名退。如得舍門據將說故　又解不可皆例齊。文中既言起纏。明知或至現在名退。或至生相現在猶成彼品善法。何得名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：意思是說，捨棄前面的五種（結縛），獲得五種順下分結（Orambhagiya-samyojana，將眾生束縛于欲界的五種結縛）的完全理解。這裡有人說，在六地（指色界和無色界的六個禪定層次）的見道（Darshana-marga，見諦之道）中，捨棄和獲得都是如此。也有人說，是后五地。在三法智位（指苦法智、集法智、滅法智），不能獲得完全理解。毗婆沙（Vibhasha，佛教論書的名稱）既然說在道類智（Dharmânvaya-jñâna，對四諦真理的如實知見）生起時，就明確知道不是在現在。你如果辯解說『已經生起』叫做『生』，我就反過來說『已經捨棄』叫做『捨棄』。后五地，指的是六地中的后五地。毗婆沙的兩種說法以後一種說法為正確。因為后五地不修習欲界的斷除對治法，所以在欲界的見道中，三種完全理解都不能獲得。前一種說法不正確，因為它與妙音（梵語：Svaraghosa，菩薩名）的說法相同，認為后五地也修習欲界的斷除對治法。又有人說，應該簡化語言。也有人說，不需要簡化。說『捨棄前五』，就顯明是依靠未至定（未到地定，指未到達色界根本定的禪定狀態）。如果依靠根本定（指色界四禪），就捨棄兩種，獲得一種。

說到『捨棄六種』，直到獲得離欲時，意思是說，沒有脫離慾望的所有聖者，在脫離染污時成就了不還果（Anagamin，三果阿羅漢）。因為捨棄了前面的六種（結縛）。

說到『獲得也是這樣』，直到說『退轉的不還者』。解釋第二句話：『獲得也是這樣』，與捨棄的情況相同。意思是說，有獲得一種、獲得兩種、獲得六種的情況，唯獨沒有獲得五種的情況。按照道理也應該排除獲得三種、獲得四種的情況，因為這是針對捨棄而說的。捨棄中既然沒有三種、四種，所以在獲得中也不說三種、四種。成就通果的最初和最後。成就通果的過程中，可以成就一種、兩種、三種、四種、五種、六種。獲得只根據最初，只有一種、兩種、六種的情況。說到『獲得一種』，指的是在九種遍知（指九無礙解智）中，獲得未曾獲得的，一一逐漸獲得都叫做『獲得一種』。以及從無學位（指阿羅漢果位）生起色界諸纏縛而退轉時，獲得一種五順下分結。說到『獲得兩種』，指的是從無學位生起無色界諸纏縛而退轉時，獲得色愛盡（對色界的貪愛滅盡）以及五下分結。說到『獲得六種』，指的是退轉的不還者生起欲界諸纏縛時，獲得見斷六種（結縛）。問：是或者直到現在（指退轉的當下）叫做退轉？還是或者直到生相（指下一生的徵兆）叫做退轉？解答說：或者直到生相。那個品類的善法沒有到達生相，將要出現在眼前，叫做退轉。如同捨棄和獲得之門，根據將要發生的情況來說。又解答說，不可以都一概而論。文中既然說『生起纏縛』，就明確知道或者直到現在叫做退轉。或者直到生相，現在仍然成就那個品類的善法，怎麼能叫做退轉呢？

【English Translation】 English version: It means that by abandoning the former five (fetters), one attains complete understanding of the five Orambhagiya-samyojanas (the five fetters that bind beings to the realm of desire). Here, some say that in the Darshana-marga (the path of seeing truth) of the six realms (referring to the six levels of meditation in the form and formless realms), both abandonment and attainment are the same. Others say it is the latter five realms. In the position of the three Dharma-knowledges (referring to the knowledge of suffering, its cause, and its cessation), complete understanding cannot be attained. Since the Vibhasha (name of a Buddhist treatise) says that when Dharmânvaya-jñâna (knowledge that accords with the Dharma) arises, it is clearly known that it is not in the present. If you argue that 'already arisen' is called 'arisen,' I will retort that 'already abandoned' is called 'abandoned'. The latter five realms refer to the latter five of the six realms. The latter of the two statements in the Vibhasha is correct. Because the latter five realms do not cultivate the antidotes to sever desire realm attachments, therefore, in the seeing of the desire realm, the three complete understandings cannot be attained. The former statement is incorrect because it is the same as Svaraghosa's (name of a Bodhisattva) statement, which holds that the latter five realms also cultivate the antidotes to sever desire realm attachments. Furthermore, some say that the language should be simplified. Others say that it is not necessary to simplify. Saying 'abandoning the former five' clearly indicates reliance on the Unattained Concentration (referring to the state of meditation that has not reached the fundamental concentration of the form realm). If relying on the Fundamental Concentration (referring to the four Dhyanas of the form realm), one abandons two and attains one.

Speaking of 'abandoning six,' until the time of attaining freedom from desire, it means that all the saints who have not freed themselves from desire, upon freeing themselves from defilements, attain the fruit of Anagamin (non-returner, the third Arhat fruit). Because they have abandoned the former six (fetters).

Speaking of 'attainment is also like this,' until saying 'the non-returner who has regressed.' Explaining the second sentence: 'Attainment is also like this' is the same as the situation of abandonment. It means that there are cases of attaining one, attaining two, and attaining six, but not attaining five. Logically, attaining three and attaining four should also be excluded, because this is spoken in relation to abandonment. Since there are no three or four in abandonment, therefore, three and four are also not spoken of in attainment. The initial and final stages of achieving the common fruit. In the process of achieving the common fruit, one can achieve one, two, three, four, five, and six. Attainment is only based on the initial stage, and there are only cases of one, two, and six. Speaking of 'attaining one,' it refers to attaining what has not been attained in the nine complete knowledges (referring to the nine unobstructed wisdoms), and each gradual attainment is called 'attaining one.' And when one regresses from the state of no-more-learning (referring to the state of Arhatship) by arising the fetters of the form realm, one attains one of the five lower fetters. Speaking of 'attaining two,' it refers to attaining the exhaustion of love for form (the extinction of craving for the form realm) and the five lower fetters when one regresses from the state of no-more-learning by arising the fetters of the formless realm. Speaking of 'attaining six,' it refers to attaining the six fetters severed by seeing (the fetters severed by the path of seeing) when a regressed non-returner arises the fetters of the desire realm. Question: Is it that until the present (the moment of regression) is called regression? Or is it that until the sign of the next life is called regression? The answer is: Or until the sign of the next life. The wholesome Dharma of that category has not reached the sign of the next life and is about to appear before one's eyes, which is called regression. Just like the gate of abandonment and attainment, it is spoken according to what is about to happen. Another answer is that it cannot all be generalized. Since the text says 'arising fetters,' it is clear that until the present is called regression. Or until the sign of the next life, the wholesome Dharma of that category still achieves in the present, how can it be called regression?

退。后解為勝　又正理云。豈不勝進得聖果時。于諸無為更起勝得。乍可名得。寧舍遍知。約斷實然。恒成就故。但今且據九遍知中。若得異名本名便失。說名為舍。亦無有過(已上論文)　因辨隨眠分別斷竟者。總結也。

俱舍論記卷第二十一

文永七年五月十七日巳時以東南院小經藏御本移點畢

三論宗沙門睿算花押大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十二

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之一

分別賢聖品者。賢謂賢和。聖謂聖正。此品廣明賢聖故名分別賢聖品。所以次明賢聖品者。上三品別明有漏。次下三品別明無漏。欲令厭已生欣故。次明無漏。就明無漏三品中。賢聖明果。智明因。定明緣。果相粗顯。所以先明。

如是已說至修道通二種者。就此品中大文有三。一總明道體性。二明道所證諦。三約聖道辨人　此即第一總明道體性。上兩句結前。下兩句正出道體。

論曰至及修道故者。釋上兩句。

道唯無漏至故通二種者。釋下兩句。問答可知。

如向所言至次第隨現觀者。此下第二明道所證諦。就中。一明四諦。二明二諦　就明四諦中。一明四諦。二別顯苦諦　此即第一明四諦。上兩句顯名。第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『退。后解為勝』，又《正理》說：『難道不是在勝進獲得聖果時，對於諸無為法更生起殊勝的獲得，才可以稱作獲得嗎？寧可捨棄遍知。』就斷滅而言確實如此，因為恒常成就的緣故。但現在且依據九遍知中，如果獲得不同的名稱，原本的名稱便會消失，說成捨棄，也沒有什麼過失（以上是論文）。因為辨析隨眠分別斷滅完畢，這是總結。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十一

文永七年五月十七日巳時以東南院小經藏御本移點完畢

三論宗沙門睿算花押大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第二十二

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之一

『分別賢聖品』，賢，指賢和；聖，指聖正。此品廣泛闡明賢聖，所以名為『分別賢聖品』。之所以在前面幾品之後闡明賢聖品，是因為前面三品分別闡明有漏法，接下來的三品分別闡明無漏法，想要讓人生起厭離之後產生欣喜，所以接著闡明無漏法。在闡明無漏的三品中，賢聖闡明果，智闡明因，定闡明緣。果的相狀粗略而明顯，所以先闡明。

『如是已說至修道通二種者』，在此品中，大的段落有三個：一是總的闡明道的體性，二是闡明道所證的諦，三是依據聖道來辨別人。這裡是第一個總的闡明道的體性。前面的兩句總結前文，後面的兩句正式闡明道的體性。

『論曰至及修道故者』，解釋上面的兩句。

『道唯無漏至故通二種者』，解釋下面的兩句。問答可知。

『如向所言至次第隨現觀者』，這以下是第二部分，闡明道所證的諦。其中，一是闡明四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni），二是闡明二諦（dve satye）。在闡明四諦中，一是闡明四諦，二是分別顯示苦諦（duḥkha satya）。這裡是第一部分，闡明四諦。前面的兩句顯示名稱。

【English Translation】 English version 『Retreat. Understanding later is victory,』 and the Zhengli says: 『Isn't it when advancing to obtain the holy fruit, a superior attainment arises regarding all unconditioned dharmas, that it can be called attainment? Rather abandon the all-knowing.』 In terms of cessation, it is indeed so, because of constant accomplishment. But now, based on the nine all-knowings, if a different name is obtained, the original name will disappear, and saying it is abandoned is not a fault (the above is the treatise). Because the analysis of the severing of latent tendencies is completed, this is the conclusion.

Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Scroll 21

Completed moving and marking the Southeast Hall Small Sutra Treasury manuscript on May 17th, the 7th year of the Bun'ei era, at the hour of the serpent.

Shamon (Buddhist monk) Ruisan, signature Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya

Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Scroll 22

By Shamon Shi Guang

Chapter Six, Part One: Distinguishing the Worthy and the Holy

『Distinguishing the Worthy and the Holy Chapter』: 『Worthy』 (ārya) refers to the virtuous and harmonious; 『Holy』 (ārya) refers to the sacred and correct. This chapter extensively elucidates the worthy and the holy, hence it is named 『Distinguishing the Worthy and the Holy Chapter.』 The reason for elucidating the worthy and the holy chapter after the previous chapters is that the preceding three chapters separately elucidate conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta dharma), and the following three chapters separately elucidate unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta dharma), desiring to generate joy after aversion, therefore, unconditioned dharmas are elucidated next. Among the three chapters elucidating unconditioned dharmas, the worthy and the holy elucidate the fruit, wisdom elucidates the cause, and samadhi elucidates the condition. The characteristics of the fruit are coarse and obvious, therefore, they are elucidated first.

『As has been said, up to the cultivation path encompassing two types』: Within this chapter, there are three major sections: first, a general elucidation of the nature of the path; second, an elucidation of the truths realized by the path; and third, a differentiation of people based on the holy path. This is the first section, a general elucidation of the nature of the path. The preceding two sentences conclude the previous text, and the following two sentences formally elucidate the nature of the path.

『The treatise says, up to and including the cultivation path』: Explains the above two sentences.

『The path is only unconditioned, therefore encompassing two types』: Explains the following two sentences. The question and answer are self-explanatory.

『As previously stated, up to the sequential following of direct perception』: This below is the second part, elucidating the truths realized by the path. Among them, first, elucidating the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni); second, elucidating the Two Truths (dve satye). In elucidating the Four Noble Truths, first, elucidating the Four Noble Truths; second, separately revealing the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha satya). This is the first part, elucidating the Four Noble Truths. The preceding two sentences reveal the name.

三句顯體。下一句明次第。

論曰至名先已說者。釋第一句。

於何處說者。問。

謂初品中至無漏法處者。答。

彼如何說者。徴。

謂彼頌言至此說苦集諦者。釋。引前界品頌答　問界品頌云無漏謂道諦。何故今引乃云聖道　解云聖道道諦名異義同。依義牒文。不相違也。

四諦次第如彼說耶者。釋第二句問。四諦次第如彼界品先說道諦。次滅。次苦。后說集耶。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

如今所列至四道者。釋。

四諦自體亦有異耶者。釋第三句。此即問也。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

如先所辨至說亦然聲者。釋文可知　問虛空．非擇滅何故非諦攝耶　答如婆沙七十七云。答若法是苦。是苦因。是苦盡。是苦對治者。世尊立為諦。虛空．非擇滅非苦。非苦因。非苦盡。非苦對治。是故世尊不立為諦　又云複次虛空．非擇滅無漏故非苦．集諦。無記故非滅諦。無為故非道諦　又云。複次虛空．非擇滅不墮世故非三諦。無記故非滅諦。廣如彼釋。

四諦何緣如是次第者。釋第四句。此即問也。

隨現觀位至先後次第者。答。隨諦現觀先觀先說。若異此者應先說集．道因。后說苦．滅果。　泛明次第略有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三句顯示了四諦的本體。下一句闡明了四諦的次第。

論中『至名先已說者』，這是解釋第一句。

『於何處說者？』這是提問。

『謂初品中至無漏法處者』，這是回答。

『彼如何說者？』這是追問。

『謂彼頌言至此說苦集諦者』，這是解釋。引用前面的界品頌來回答。有人問：界品頌中說『無漏謂道諦（無漏指的是道諦）』，為什麼現在引用卻說是聖道？解釋說：聖道和道諦，名稱不同，意義相同。依照意義來解釋文句，沒有衝突。

『四諦次第如彼說耶者？』這是解釋第二句，並提出問題：四諦的次第是否像界品中那樣，先說道諦，然後是滅諦，然後是苦諦，最後說集諦？

『不爾者』，這是回答。

『云何者？』這是追問。

『如今所列至四道者』，這是解釋。

『四諦自體亦有異耶者？』這是解釋第三句，也就是提問。

『不爾者』，這是回答。

『云何者？』這是追問。

『如先所辨至說亦然聲者』，這是解釋，文意可以理解。有人問：虛空（ākāśa）和非擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）為什麼不被攝入四諦之中？回答說：如《婆沙論》第七十七卷所說：如果一個法是苦，是苦的原因，是苦的止息，是對治苦的方法，世尊就把它立為諦。虛空和非擇滅不是苦，不是苦的原因，不是苦的止息，不是對治苦的方法，所以世尊不把它們立為諦。又說：虛空和非擇滅是無漏法，所以不是苦諦和集諦；是無記法，所以不是滅諦；是無為法，所以不是道諦。又說：虛空和非擇滅不屬於世間法，所以不是三諦；是無記法，所以不是滅諦。詳細的解釋可以參考《婆沙論》。

『四諦何緣如是次第者？』這是解釋第四句，也就是提問。

『隨現觀位至先後次第者』，這是回答。隨著現觀的次第，先觀哪個諦就先說哪個諦。如果不是這樣，就應該先說集諦和道諦（因），后說苦諦和滅諦（果）。

泛泛地說明次第，大致有...

【English Translation】 English version Three sentences reveal the substance of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni). The next sentence clarifies the order of the Four Noble Truths.

The treatise says, 'To the name already spoken,' which explains the first sentence.

'Where is it spoken?' This is a question.

'It refers to the first chapter, up to the place of unconditioned (anāsrava) dharmas,' which is the answer.

'How is it spoken there?' This is an inquiry.

'It refers to the verse that says, up to here, the Truths of Suffering (duḥkha-satya) and Origin (samudaya-satya) are spoken,' which is the explanation. It quotes the verse from the previous chapter on Elements (dhātu-prakaraṇa) to answer. Someone asks: The verse in the chapter on Elements says, 'Unconditioned refers to the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya),' why is it now quoted as the Noble Path (ārya-mārga)? The explanation is: Noble Path and Truth of the Path have different names but the same meaning. Explaining the text according to the meaning, there is no conflict.

'Is the order of the Four Noble Truths as spoken there?' This explains the second sentence and poses a question: Is the order of the Four Noble Truths like in the chapter on Elements, where the Truth of the Path is spoken first, then the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-satya), then the Truth of Suffering, and finally the Truth of Origin?

'It is not so,' which is the answer.

'How is it?' This is an inquiry.

'As listed now, up to the four paths,' which is the explanation.

'Are the substances of the Four Noble Truths also different?' This explains the third sentence, which is a question.

'It is not so,' which is the answer.

'How is it?' This is an inquiry.

'As previously explained, up to saying 'also thus',' which is the explanation, and the meaning of the text is understandable. Someone asks: Why are Space (ākāśa) and Non-deliberate Cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) not included in the Four Noble Truths? The answer is: As the Mahāvibhāṣā (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) volume 77 says: If a dharma is suffering, is the cause of suffering, is the cessation of suffering, and is the method to overcome suffering, the World-Honored One establishes it as a Truth. Space and Non-deliberate Cessation are not suffering, not the cause of suffering, not the cessation of suffering, and not the method to overcome suffering, so the World-Honored One does not establish them as Truths. It also says: Furthermore, Space and Non-deliberate Cessation are unconditioned, so they are not the Truths of Suffering and Origin; they are indeterminate, so they are not the Truth of Cessation; they are unconditioned, so they are not the Truth of the Path. It also says: Furthermore, Space and Non-deliberate Cessation do not belong to the world, so they are not the three Truths; they are indeterminate, so they are not the Truth of Cessation. A detailed explanation can be found in the Mahāvibhāṣā.

'Why is the order of the Four Noble Truths like this?' This explains the fourth sentence, which is a question.

'According to the position of direct realization, up to the order of before and after,' which is the answer. According to the order of direct realization, whichever Truth is directly realized first is spoken first. If it were not so, the Truths of Origin and the Path (cause) should be spoken first, and the Truths of Suffering and Cessation (result) should be spoken later.

Generally explaining the order, there are roughly...

三種　一或有法說次第隨生。如四念住。身念住前生前說。乃至法念住後生后說等。謂等取諸靜慮等　二或有法說次第隨便。如四正勝。謂此中無決定理趣發勤精進起如是欲。第一先斷已生惡法。第二后遮未生惡法。第三先修未生善法。第四后增已生善法。但隨言便說四次第。此中文略且言惡法。或舉前顯后。故婆沙七十八云。雖四正勝俱時而有。而易說故先說斷惡。后說修善。于斷惡中先說斷已生惡。后說遮未生惡。于修善中先說起未生善。后說增已生善。若作是說言辭輕便(已上論文)　等。謂等取四神足等　三或有法隨現觀次第如說說四諦　於三次第中今說四諦。是其第三隨瑜伽師現觀位中先後次第。

何緣現觀次第必然者。問。

加行位中如是觀故者。答。于抉擇分加行位中如是觀故。

何緣加行必如是觀者。徴。

謂若有法至縱馬奔馳者。答。舉法．喻顯。引證。總結。如文可知。

此現觀名為目何義者。問。

應知此目現等覺義者。答。應知此目現前等覺境義。

何緣說此唯是無漏者。問。

對向涅槃至故得正名者。答。此無漏慧對向涅槃果。正覺諦境。故唯無漏。此覺真凈故得正名。

應知此中至物亦有殊者。出四諦體。問四諦若依實體。應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三種情況：一、有些法是按照次第產生和宣說的，例如四念住（catu念住，four foundations of mindfulness）。身念住（kāya-smṛtyupasthāna，mindfulness of the body）先產生先說，乃至法念住（dharma-smṛtyupasthāna，mindfulness of the dharma）后產生后說等等。這裡『等』字包括諸如靜慮（dhyāna，meditative absorption）等。二、有些法是按照宣說者的意願隨意安排次第的，例如四正勝（catvāri samyakprahāṇāni，four right exertions）。這裡沒有決定的道理必須先發起精進，生起這樣的意欲：第一，先斷除已經生起的惡法；第二，之後遮止尚未生起的惡法；第三，先修習尚未生起的善法；第四，之後增長已經生起的善法。只是隨著言語的方便而宣說這四種次第。這裡爲了文字簡潔，只說了惡法，或者舉出前面的來顯示後面的。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第七十八卷說，雖然四正勝同時存在，但爲了容易宣說，先說斷惡，后說修善。在斷惡中，先說斷已生惡，后說遮未生惡；在修善中，先說生起未生善，后說增長已生善。如果這樣說，言辭就輕便了（以上是論文）。『等』字包括四神足（catvāra ṛddhipādāḥ，four bases of spiritual power）等。三、有些法是隨著現觀（abhisamaya，direct realization）的次第而宣說的，例如宣說四諦（catvāri-ārya-satyāni，four noble truths）。在這三種次第中，現在宣說四諦，是第三種，隨著瑜伽師（yogācāra，one who practices yoga）在現觀位中的先後次第。為什麼現觀的次第是必然的呢？問。因為在加行位（prayoga-mārga，path of application）中是這樣觀修的。答。因為在抉擇分（nirvedha-bhāgīya，stage of penetration）的加行位中是這樣觀修的。為什麼加行位必須這樣觀修呢？征。如果有一種法，乃至縱馬奔馳。答。舉出法、比喻來顯示，引證，總結。如文可知。這個現觀的名稱是什麼意思呢？問。應當知道這個名稱是現前等覺（abhisambodhi，perfect enlightenment）的意思。答。應當知道這個名稱是現前等覺境界的意思。為什麼說這個現觀唯是無漏（anāsrava，untainted）的呢？問。因為是對向涅槃（nirvāṇa，cessation）的，所以才得到正確的名稱。答。這個無漏慧（anāsrava-jñāna，untainted wisdom）是對向涅槃果的，是正覺諦境的，所以唯是無漏的。這個覺悟是真實清凈的，所以才得到正確的名稱。應當知道這裡乃至事物也有差別。提出四諦的體性。問：四諦如果依據實體，應當...

【English Translation】 English version There are three kinds [of teachings]: First, some dharmas are taught in the order they arise, such as the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (catu念住, four foundations of mindfulness). Mindfulness of the Body (kāya-smṛtyupasthāna, mindfulness of the body) arises and is taught first, and so on, until Mindfulness of the Dharma (dharma-smṛtyupasthāna, mindfulness of the dharma) arises and is taught last. The 'etc.' here includes things like the Dhyānas (dhyāna, meditative absorption). Second, some dharmas are taught in an order that is convenient for the speaker, such as the Four Right Exertions (catvāri samyakprahāṇāni, four right exertions). Here, there is no fixed principle that one must first generate diligence and arise with the intention: first, to abandon evil dharmas that have already arisen; second, to prevent evil dharmas that have not yet arisen; third, to cultivate good dharmas that have not yet arisen; fourth, to increase good dharmas that have already arisen. The four orders are simply taught according to the convenience of speech. Here, for the sake of brevity, only evil dharmas are mentioned, or the former is mentioned to indicate the latter. Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume 78, says that although the Four Right Exertions exist simultaneously, it is easier to teach by first speaking of abandoning evil and then speaking of cultivating good. In abandoning evil, one first speaks of abandoning evil that has already arisen and then of preventing evil that has not yet arisen; in cultivating good, one first speaks of generating good that has not yet arisen and then of increasing good that has already arisen. If it is said in this way, the language is more convenient (the above is from the treatise). The 'etc.' includes the Four Bases of Spiritual Power (catvāra ṛddhipādāḥ, four bases of spiritual power), etc. Third, some dharmas are taught according to the order of Direct Realization (abhisamaya, direct realization), such as the teaching of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni, four noble truths). Among these three kinds of order, the teaching of the Four Noble Truths is the third kind, following the order of the stages of Direct Realization for a Yogācāra (yogācāra, one who practices yoga). Why is the order of Direct Realization necessarily so? Question. Because it is contemplated in this way in the Path of Application (prayoga-mārga, path of application). Answer. Because it is contemplated in this way in the Path of Application in the Stage of Penetration (nirvedha-bhāgīya, stage of penetration). Why must the Path of Application be contemplated in this way? Inquiry. If there is a dharma, even to the point of a galloping horse. Answer. Citing the dharma, using a metaphor to illustrate, providing evidence, and summarizing. As can be understood from the text. What is the meaning of the name 'Direct Realization'? Question. It should be known that this name means 'Direct Perfect Enlightenment' (abhisambodhi, perfect enlightenment). Answer. It should be known that this name means the realm of Direct Perfect Enlightenment. Why is it said that this Direct Realization is only Untainted (anāsrava, untainted)? Question. Because it is directed towards Nirvāṇa (nirvāṇa, cessation), it receives its correct name. Answer. This Untainted Wisdom (anāsrava-jñāna, untainted wisdom) is directed towards the fruit of Nirvāṇa and is the realm of Right Awakening to the Truths, so it is only Untainted. This awakening is truly pure, so it receives its correct name. It should be known that even things have differences here. Presenting the nature of the Four Noble Truths. Question: If the Four Noble Truths are based on substance, they should...

唯有三。苦．集一物故。若依因果應有五種。于道諦亦有因果。若依現觀應有八種。上下八諦故　答如婆沙云。複次依現觀故建立四諦　問若爾聖諦應八非四　答諦行相同故四非八廣如彼釋。

何義經中說為聖諦者。問。

是聖者諦故得聖名者。答。

于非聖者此豈成妄者。難。

於一切是諦至非聖說是樂者。釋。此四諦理于凡及聖一切皆諦。性無倒故。然唯聖者實見非凡。是故經中但名聖諦。非是非聖諦。凡雖觀諦非是決定。而容后時顛倒見故　如有頌言諸聖者說涅槃是樂。非聖者說涅槃為苦。如外道云我見世間無一目者尚以為苦。況彼涅槃。諸根總滅而得有樂故計為苦　有漏之法聖說為苦。非聖于中妄說樂受。唯是其樂故成顛倒。

有餘師說至聖非聖諦者。敘異說。有餘經部師說。或是上坐部師說。滅．道二種唯是聖諦唯聖成就非凡成故。凡但伏惑不能正斷。故於滅諦不能成就。余苦．集二通是聖諦及非聖諦。以聖及凡俱成就故。此師約得以釋　又解滅．道二諦唯無漏故。唯聖觀故。故唯聖諦。苦．集二諦聖亦觀故故名聖諦。唯有漏故凡亦觀故名非聖諦。

唯受一分至余有漏行法者。此即第二別顯苦諦問。三受之中唯苦受一分是苦自體。所餘有漏並非苦受。如何可言諸有漏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：只有三種。苦諦（duhkha satya，痛苦的真諦）、集諦（samudaya satya，痛苦根源的真諦）是一回事。如果按照因果關係，應該有五種。在道諦（marga satya，通往解脫的道路的真諦）中也有因果關係。如果按照現觀，應該有八種，因為上下各有四諦。回答：正如《大毗婆沙論》所說：『再次，依據現觀而建立四諦。』問：如果這樣，聖諦應該有八種而不是四種。答：因為諦和行相同，所以是四種而不是八種，詳細解釋見該論。

什麼是經中所說的聖諦的含義？問。

因為是聖者的真諦，所以得到聖諦這個名稱。答。

對於非聖者來說，這難道不是虛妄的嗎？難。

對於一切眾生來說，這是真諦，即使對於非聖者來說，說它是快樂的。釋。這四諦的道理對於凡人和聖人來說都是真實的，因為其自性沒有顛倒。然而，只有聖者才能真正見到，凡人不能。因此，經典中只稱其為聖諦，而不是非聖諦。凡人雖然觀察真諦，但並非是確定的，而且容許之後產生顛倒的見解。例如有頌說：『諸聖者說涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）是快樂的，非聖者說涅槃是痛苦的。』就像外道所說：『我看到世間沒有一隻眼睛的人尚且認為是痛苦的，更何況是涅槃。』諸根全部滅盡怎麼會有快樂呢？所以認為它是痛苦的。有漏的法，聖者說是痛苦的，非聖者在其中妄說快樂的感受，唯獨是他們的快樂，所以是顛倒的。

有其他論師說到聖者和非聖諦。敘述不同的觀點。有其他經部師說，或者說是上座部師說，滅諦（nirodha satya，滅除痛苦的真諦）和道諦這兩種只是聖諦，只有聖者才能成就，凡人不能成就。凡人只能降伏煩惱，不能真正斷除，所以在滅諦上不能成就。其餘的苦諦和集諦，既是聖諦也是非聖諦，因為聖人和凡人都能成就。這位論師是約得以解釋。又解釋說，滅諦和道諦這兩種只是無漏的，只有聖者才能觀察，所以只是聖諦。苦諦和集諦，聖者也觀察，所以名為聖諦，只是有漏的，凡人也觀察，所以名為非聖諦。

只有領受一部分，其餘是有漏的行法。這是第二種特別顯示苦諦的提問。在三種感受之中，只有苦受的一部分是苦的自體。其餘有漏的，並非是苦受。怎麼能說所有有漏

【English Translation】 English version: There are only three. The duhkha satya (truth of suffering) and samudaya satya (truth of the origin of suffering) are one thing. If based on cause and effect, there should be five kinds. There is also cause and effect in the marga satya (truth of the path to liberation). If based on direct perception, there should be eight kinds, because there are four truths above and below. Answer: As the Mahavibhasa says, 'Furthermore, the four truths are established based on direct perception.' Question: If so, the arya satyas (noble truths) should be eight, not four. Answer: Because the truths and practices are the same, there are four, not eight, as explained in detail in that treatise.

What is the meaning of what is said in the sutras to be the arya satyas? Question.

Because they are the truths of the aryas (noble ones), they are given the name arya satyas. Answer.

For non-aryas, would this not be false? Objection.

For all beings, this is the truth, even for non-aryas, saying it is happiness. Explanation. The principle of these four truths is true for both ordinary people and sages, because their nature is not inverted. However, only sages can truly see it, not ordinary people. Therefore, the sutras only call them arya satyas, not non-arya satyas. Although ordinary people observe the truths, it is not certain, and they may later have inverted views. For example, there is a verse that says: 'The sages say that nirvana (cessation of suffering) is happiness, while non-sages say that nirvana is suffering.' Like the heretics who say: 'I see that even someone in the world without one eye considers it suffering, let alone nirvana.' How can there be happiness when all the senses are extinguished? Therefore, they consider it suffering. Sages say that defiled dharmas (conditioned phenomena) are suffering, while non-sages falsely say that they experience happiness in them. It is only their happiness, so it is inverted.

Some other teachers talk about aryas and non-arya satyas. Narrating different views. Some Sautrantika teachers say, or perhaps Sthavira teachers say, that the nirodha satya (truth of cessation) and marga satya are only arya satyas, and only sages can achieve them, not ordinary people. Ordinary people can only subdue afflictions, not truly eliminate them, so they cannot achieve the nirodha satya. The remaining duhkha satya and samudaya satya are both arya satyas and non-arya satyas, because both sages and ordinary people can achieve them. This teacher explains it by approximation. It is also explained that the nirodha satya and marga satya are only unconditioned, and only sages can observe them, so they are only arya satyas. The duhkha satya and samudaya satya are also observed by sages, so they are called arya satyas, but they are only conditioned, and ordinary people also observe them, so they are called non-arya satyas.

Only receiving a portion, and the remaining conditioned phenomena. This is the second question specifically revealing the duhkha satya. Among the three feelings, only a portion of painful feeling is the self-nature of suffering. The remaining conditioned feelings are not painful feelings. How can it be said that all conditioned

行皆是苦諦。此即問及頌答。

論曰至亦無有失者。釋上兩句。由三苦合名苦無失。

此中可意至故名為苦者。釋下兩句。此諸有漏法中。若可意有漏行法。由與壞苦合故總名壞苦。諸非可意有漏行法。由與苦苦合故總名苦苦。除此二種余有漏行。由與行苦合故總名行苦。

何謂為可意非可意餘者。問。

謂樂等三受至得可意等名者。答。謂樂等三受如其次第　由樂受力令順樂受相應．俱有等諸有漏行得可意名　由苦受力令順苦受相應．俱有等諸有漏行得不可意名　由舍受力令順舍受相應．俱有等諸有漏行得非可意非不可意名。

所以者何者。徴。

若諸樂受至壞時苦者。此下答。明諸有漏行各由一苦故成苦性。此顯三苦體性。若諸樂受由壞滅位成苦性故。正理五十七釋經云。樂受生時住時樂者。由彼樂受性是樂故。壞時苦者。謂諸有情未離染時心恒求樂。於樂壞位起憂愁等。故說樂受為壞苦性。樂受壞時設無苦受。似苦顯現亦名為苦(已上論文)。

若諸苦受至住時苦者。若諸苦受由體成苦性。經言苦受生時苦。住時苦。故名為苦。壞時樂故。正理釋經云。然薄伽梵契經中言。苦受生時。住時苦者。由彼苦受性是苦故。壞時樂者。苦受壞時設無樂受。由苦受息似樂顯現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『行皆是苦諦』。此即問及頌答。

論曰：『至亦無有失者』。解釋上面兩句。由於三苦合在一起，名為苦，沒有錯失。

『此中可意至故名為苦者』。解釋下面兩句。這些有漏法中，如果是可意的有漏行法，由於與壞苦結合，總稱為壞苦。如果是非可意的有漏行法，由於與苦苦結合，總稱為苦苦。除了這兩種，其餘的有漏行，由於與行苦結合，總稱為行苦。

『何謂為可意非可意餘者？』問。

『謂樂等三受至得可意等名者』。答。所謂的樂受（Sukha-vedanā，快樂的感受）、苦受（Dukkha-vedanā，痛苦的感受）和舍受（Upeksha-vedanā，不苦不樂的感受）這三種感受，按照次序，由於樂受的力量，使得順應樂受、相應、俱有的各種有漏行得到可意的名稱；由於苦受的力量，使得順應苦受、相應、俱有的各種有漏行得到不可意的名稱；由於舍受的力量，使得順應舍受、相應、俱有的各種有漏行得到非可意非不可意的名稱。

『所以者何者？』征問。

『若諸樂受至壞時苦者』。以下是回答。說明各種有漏行各自由於一種苦而成為苦的性質。這顯示了三苦的體性。如果各種樂受由於壞滅的階段而成為苦的性質。正理五十七解釋經文說：『樂受生起時、存在時是快樂的』，因為那樂受的自性是快樂的；『壞滅時是痛苦的』，是指各種有情沒有脫離染污時，內心總是追求快樂，在快樂壞滅的階段產生憂愁等等。所以說樂受是壞苦的性質。樂受壞滅時，即使沒有苦受，類似痛苦的顯現也稱為苦（以上是論文）。

『若諸苦受至住時苦者』。如果各種苦受由於其本體而成為苦的性質。經文說苦受生起時是苦，存在時是苦，所以稱為苦。壞滅時是樂，所以正理釋經文說：『然而薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）的契經中說，苦受生起時、存在時是苦的』，因為那苦受的自性是苦的；『壞滅時是樂的』，苦受壞滅時，即使沒有樂受，由於苦受止息，類似快樂的顯現。

【English Translation】 English version: 'All conditioned things are the truth of suffering.' This is the question and the verse answer.

The treatise says: 'To the extent that there is no loss.' This explains the previous two sentences. Because the three sufferings combine to be called suffering, there is no mistake.

'Among these, the agreeable is called suffering.' This explains the following two sentences. Among these contaminated dharmas, if they are agreeable contaminated conditioned dharmas, they are generally called the suffering of change because they are combined with the suffering of decay. If they are disagreeable contaminated conditioned dharmas, they are generally called the suffering of suffering because they are combined with the suffering of suffering. Apart from these two types, the remaining contaminated conditioned things are generally called the suffering of conditioning because they are combined with the suffering of conditioning.

'What is meant by agreeable, disagreeable, and the remainder?' Question.

'It refers to the three feelings of pleasure, etc., to obtain names such as agreeable.' Answer. The so-called three feelings of pleasure (Sukha-vedanā, feeling of happiness), pain (Dukkha-vedanā, feeling of suffering), and equanimity (Upeksha-vedanā, feeling of neither pleasure nor pain), in that order, due to the power of the feeling of pleasure, cause the various contaminated conditioned things that accord with, correspond to, and coexist with the feeling of pleasure to obtain the name 'agreeable'; due to the power of the feeling of pain, cause the various contaminated conditioned things that accord with, correspond to, and coexist with the feeling of pain to obtain the name 'disagreeable'; due to the power of the feeling of equanimity, cause the various contaminated conditioned things that accord with, correspond to, and coexist with the feeling of equanimity to obtain the name 'neither agreeable nor disagreeable'.

'What is the reason for this?' Inquiry.

'If all feelings of pleasure are suffering when they decay.' The following is the answer. It explains that each contaminated conditioned thing becomes suffering due to one type of suffering. This reveals the nature of the three sufferings. If all feelings of pleasure become suffering due to the stage of decay. The Shastra of Proper Reasoning, fifty-seven, explains the sutra: 'When the feeling of pleasure arises and abides, it is pleasure,' because the nature of that feeling of pleasure is pleasure; 'when it decays, it is suffering,' referring to the fact that when sentient beings have not yet separated from defilements, their minds constantly seek pleasure, and they experience sorrow, etc., at the stage of the decay of pleasure. Therefore, it is said that the feeling of pleasure is the nature of the suffering of change. When the feeling of pleasure decays, even if there is no feeling of pain, the appearance of something similar to pain is also called suffering (the above is from the treatise).

'If all feelings of pain are suffering when they abide.' If all feelings of pain become suffering due to their very nature. The sutra says that when the feeling of pain arises, it is suffering, and when it abides, it is suffering, so it is called suffering. When it decays, it is pleasure, so the Shastra of Proper Reasoning explains the sutra: 'However, in the sutra of the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the World-Honored One), it is said that when the feeling of pain arises and abides, it is suffering,' because the nature of that feeling of pain is suffering; 'when it decays, it is pleasure,' when the feeling of pain decays, even if there is no feeling of pleasure, due to the cessation of the feeling of pain, there is an appearance similar to pleasure.

故亦名樂於相續息位立以壞名。故苦受息時名苦受壞。

不苦不樂受至即是苦者。不苦不樂受由生滅無常行成苦性。眾緣造故其性不安唸唸生滅。如契經言若非常即是苦。故正理云。不苦不樂受生時住時皆非苦非樂。性是彼故。即彼壞時苦．樂隨一容現前故可言俱有。苦．樂壞時無容有二。故佛於此作別異說。

如受順受諸行亦然者。如是三受得三苦名。順受相應．俱有等行。應知亦然說為三苦。故正理云。此三苦性其體是何。應定判言三受為體。由三受故順三受法。如應亦得三苦性名。

有餘師釋至名行苦性者。此釋三苦名。有餘師釋苦即苦性名苦苦性。壞即苦性名壞苦性。行即苦性名行苦性。皆據持業釋也。

應知此中至行苦故苦者。此明三苦寬狹。應知此中說可意為壞苦。非可意為苦苦者。由是別苦不共余故從別立名。理實一切諸有漏行。行苦故苦。若依此文可意有二。謂壞苦．行苦。體非苦受不名苦苦。非可意有二。謂苦苦．行苦。壞時樂故不名壞苦。余有漏行唯名行苦。體非苦受不名苦苦。壞容生樂不名壞苦。

此唯聖者至於有頂蘊者。此顯行苦微細。此行苦性唯諸聖者所能觀見。凡夫雖觀不能深悟。故經部師鳩摩羅多有是頌言。又對凡夫顯聖厭勝。

道諦亦應至有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，也叫做樂受在相續停止時，因其消散而建立『壞』的名稱。所以，苦受停止時，叫做苦受的『壞』。

不苦不樂受的出現，實際上就是苦。不苦不樂受由於生滅無常的執行而形成苦的性質。因為是由眾多因緣造成的，所以它的性質不穩定，唸唸生滅。正如契經所說：『如果不是恒常的，那就是苦。』所以《正理》中說：『不苦不樂受在生起時和存在時，都不是苦也不是樂，因為它的自性就是那樣。』正因為不苦不樂受的『壞』滅之時，苦或樂的其中之一可能會出現，所以可以說它們是同時存在的。苦和樂壞滅時，不可能同時存在兩者。所以佛陀對此作了不同的說明。

正如感受有順受，諸行也是如此。』像這樣，三種感受獲得了三種苦的名稱。與順受相應、同時存在的諸行，應當知道也是如此，被說為三種苦。所以《正理》中說：『這三種苦的性質，它的本體是什麼？』應當確定地說，三種感受是其本體。由於三種感受的緣故，順應三種感受的法，也相應地可以得到三種苦的名稱。

有其他論師解釋說，『行』即是苦性，名為行苦性。』這是解釋三種苦的名稱。有其他論師解釋說，『苦』即是苦性，名為苦苦性；『壞』即是苦性，名為壞苦性；『行』即是苦性，名為行苦性。都是根據持業釋來解釋的。

應當知道，這裡所說的『行苦故苦』。』這是說明三種苦的寬泛和狹窄。應當知道，這裡所說的可意之境是『壞苦』，而不是可意之境是『苦苦』。因為這是單獨的苦，不與其他苦相同，所以從單獨的角度來立名。實際上，一切有漏行，都是因為『行苦』而成為苦。如果按照這段文字，可意之境有兩種，即『壞苦』和『行苦』。本體不是苦受，所以不稱為『苦苦』。非可意之境有兩種，即『苦苦』和『行苦』。壞滅時會產生快樂，所以不稱為『壞苦』。其餘的有漏行，只稱為『行苦』。本體不是苦受，所以不稱為『苦苦』。壞滅時可能會產生快樂，所以不稱為『壞苦』。

『此唯聖者至於有頂蘊者。』這是顯示行苦的微細。這種行苦的性質，只有聖者才能觀察到。凡夫即使觀察，也不能深刻領悟。所以經部師鳩摩羅多有這樣的偈頌說：『又對凡夫顯示聖者的厭離殊勝。』

道諦也應當有...

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is also called the cessation of pleasurable feeling in its continuity, establishing the name 'destruction' due to its dissipation. Hence, when painful feeling ceases, it is called the 'destruction' of painful feeling.

The arising of neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling is actually suffering. Neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling, due to its arising, ceasing, and impermanent operation, forms the nature of suffering. Because it is created by numerous causes and conditions, its nature is unstable, arising and ceasing moment by moment. Just as the sutra says, 'If it is not permanent, then it is suffering.' Therefore, the Prameyaratnamala says, 'Neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling, when arising and when existing, is neither pain nor pleasure, because its nature is such.' Precisely because when the 'destruction' of neither-painful-nor-pleasurable feeling occurs, either pain or pleasure may appear, it can be said that they exist together. When pain and pleasure are destroyed, it is impossible for both to exist simultaneously. Therefore, the Buddha made a different explanation regarding this.

'Just as feelings have agreeable feelings, so do formations.' In this way, the three feelings obtain the names of the three sufferings. Formations that are associated with and co-existent with agreeable feelings should be understood to be similarly spoken of as the three sufferings. Therefore, the Prameyaratnamala says, 'What is the nature of these three sufferings?' It should be definitively stated that the three feelings are their essence. Because of the three feelings, the dharmas that accord with the three feelings can also appropriately obtain the names of the three sufferings.

Some other teachers explain that 'formation' is the nature of suffering, named the suffering of formation (samskara-duhkha).』 This explains the names of the three sufferings. Some other teachers explain that 'pain' is the nature of suffering, named the suffering of suffering (duhkha-duhkha); 'destruction' is the nature of suffering, named the suffering of destruction (viparinama-duhkha); 'formation' is the nature of suffering, named the suffering of formation (samskara-duhkha). All are explained according to the karmadharaya compound.

It should be known that what is said here, 'suffering because of the suffering of formation.' This explains the breadth and narrowness of the three sufferings. It should be known that what is said here is that agreeable states are 'the suffering of destruction', and not that agreeable states are 'the suffering of suffering'. Because this is a separate suffering, not shared with other sufferings, it is named from a separate perspective. In reality, all conditioned phenomena (samskrta) are suffering because of the suffering of formation. If according to this text, agreeable states are of two kinds, namely 'the suffering of destruction' and 'the suffering of formation'. Its essence is not painful feeling, so it is not called 'the suffering of suffering'. Disagreeable states are of two kinds, namely 'the suffering of suffering' and 'the suffering of formation'. Because pleasure arises at the time of destruction, it is not called 'the suffering of destruction'. The remaining conditioned phenomena are only called 'the suffering of formation'. Its essence is not painful feeling, so it is not called 'the suffering of suffering'. Pleasure may arise at the time of destruction, so it is not called 'the suffering of destruction'.

'This is only for the noble ones, up to the realm of the peak of existence (bhavagra).' This reveals the subtlety of the suffering of formation. This nature of the suffering of formation can only be observed by the noble ones. Even if ordinary people observe it, they cannot deeply comprehend it. Therefore, the Sautrantika master Kumaralata has this verse: 'Moreover, it shows the superiority of the noble ones' renunciation to ordinary people.'

The Truth of the Path should also have...

為性故者。問。

道諦非苦至唯顯有漏者。答。道諦非苦。違逆聖心是行苦相。非緣聖道起四行相違逆聖心。由此聖道引眾苦盡。又通經言　若觀諸有為涅槃寂靜者。釋云亦由先見彼有為法是其苦性后觀彼法上滅以為寂靜。故彼經說有為之言唯顯有漏。道諦非苦亦無涅槃故。有為之言不通道諦。

若諸法中至苦為聖諦者。問。

有一類釋至計癰為樂者有一類。說一切有部師釋。如文可知。

有餘於此至說樂亦名苦者。有餘經部鳩摩羅多。而於此中以頌釋言。以此樂受能為未來苦果因故。能集未來眾苦果故。有苦逼迫希彼樂故。故說樂受亦名為苦。

理實應言至為諦非樂者。論主述說一切有部正釋。理實應言聖者觀察諸三有．及三有中樂體皆是苦。以就行苦同一味故。由此立苦為諦非樂。

如何亦觀樂受為苦者。餘部問。

由性非常至一如苦受者。論主答　由性非常。簡異滅諦　違聖心故。簡異道諦。故名為苦　如以行苦相觀色等時。非彼行苦相一如苦受。顯苦受差別。

有謂樂受至行苦何用者。論主牒前經部頌破。苦因是集。豈關於苦。又聖生上緣彼如何有苦名轉。非彼諸蘊為苦受因。若據苦苦名苦諦者。又經復說行苦何用。以彼部計苦名苦諦。樂．捨生苦亦名苦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本為性故者。問：道諦（通往解脫的真理）不是苦，只是爲了顯示有漏法（受煩惱影響的法）嗎？答：道諦不是苦。違背聖者心意的才是行苦之相（變遷之苦），聖道生起四行相（無常、苦、空、無我）不會違背聖者心意。因此，聖道能引導眾苦止息。而且經中也說：『如果觀察諸有為法，涅槃才是寂靜的。』解釋說，也是因為先見到那些有為法是苦的本性，然後觀察那些法滅盡才是寂靜。所以那部經說『有為』只是爲了顯示有漏法。道諦不是苦，也沒有涅槃，所以『有為』不能用來指代道諦。若諸法中至苦為聖諦者。問：有一類解釋乃至認為癰瘡是快樂的。有一類，說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的論師解釋，就像文中所說的那樣可以理解。有其餘人對此乃至說快樂也叫做苦。有其餘人，經部（Sautrāntika）的鳩摩羅多（Kumāralāta）。並且在這裡用偈頌解釋說：因為這種樂受能成為未來苦果的原因，能積聚未來眾多的苦果，因為有苦的逼迫才希望得到快樂，所以說樂受也叫做苦。理實應言乃至苦為諦非樂者。論主闡述說一切有部的正確解釋。理應說聖者觀察諸三有（欲界、色界、無色界）以及三有中的快樂本體都是苦，因為就變遷之苦來說，它們都是一樣的。因此，確立苦為真諦而不是樂。如何也觀察樂受為苦呢？其餘部派問。由其本性不是永恒乃至和苦受一樣。論主回答：因為本性不是永恒，這不同於滅諦（苦的止息）；違背聖者心意，這不同於道諦。所以叫做苦。就像用行苦之相觀察色等的時候，不是那行苦之相就和苦受一樣，而是顯示苦受的差別。有人認為樂受乃至行苦有什麼用呢？論主引用之前的經部偈頌來駁斥。苦因是集諦（苦的根源），怎麼會和苦有關呢？而且聖者生起上緣，怎麼會有苦的名字轉變呢？不是那些蘊（構成要素）是苦受的原因。如果根據苦苦（直接的痛苦）叫做苦諦，那麼經中又說行苦有什麼用呢？因為那個部派認為苦叫做苦諦，快樂、舍受（不苦不樂的感受）生起苦也叫做苦。

【English Translation】 English version 『For the sake of nature.』 Question: Is the Truth of the Path (Mārga-satya) not suffering, but only to reveal conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta-dharma)? Answer: The Truth of the Path is not suffering. That which contradicts the mind of the noble ones is the aspect of suffering of change (saṃskāra-duḥkha). The arising of the four aspects (impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self) of the noble path does not contradict the mind of the noble ones. Therefore, the noble path leads to the cessation of all suffering. Moreover, the sutra also says: 『If one observes all conditioned phenomena, Nirvana is tranquility.』 The explanation says that it is also because one first sees that those conditioned dharmas are of the nature of suffering, and then observes that the cessation of those dharmas is tranquility. Therefore, that sutra says 『conditioned』 only to reveal conditioned dharmas. The Truth of the Path is not suffering, nor is it Nirvana, so 『conditioned』 cannot be used to refer to the Truth of the Path. 『If among all dharmas, suffering is the noble truth.』 Question: One type of explanation even considers a boil to be pleasure. One type, the Sarvāstivāda masters explain, as can be understood from the text. Others, regarding this, even say that pleasure is also called suffering. Others, the Sautrāntika's Kumāralāta. And here, they explain with a verse: Because this feeling of pleasure can be the cause of future suffering, can accumulate many future suffering results, because of the pressure of suffering, one hopes to obtain pleasure, therefore it is said that the feeling of pleasure is also called suffering. In reality, it should be said that suffering is the truth, not pleasure. The master explains the correct explanation of the Sarvāstivāda. In reality, it should be said that the noble ones observe all three realms of existence (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) and the essence of pleasure in the three realms are all suffering, because in terms of the suffering of change, they are all the same. Therefore, establishing suffering as the truth, not pleasure. How is it also observed that the feeling of pleasure is suffering? The other school asks. Because its nature is not permanent, even like the feeling of suffering. The master answers: Because its nature is not permanent, this is different from the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha-satya); contradicting the mind of the noble ones, this is different from the Truth of the Path. Therefore, it is called suffering. Just as when observing form etc. with the aspect of the suffering of change, it is not that the aspect of the suffering of change is the same as the feeling of suffering, but it shows the difference of the feeling of suffering. Some think that the feeling of pleasure, what is the use of the suffering of change? The master quotes the previous Sautrāntika verse to refute it. The cause of suffering is the Truth of Origin (Samudaya-satya), how is it related to suffering? Moreover, the noble ones arise with an upper condition, how can there be a change in the name of suffering? It is not that those aggregates (skandhas) are the cause of the feeling of suffering. If according to direct suffering (duḥkha-duḥkha) it is called the Truth of Suffering (Duḥkha-satya), then the sutra also says what is the use of the suffering of change? Because that school thinks that suffering is called the Truth of Suffering, pleasure, neutral feeling (neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling) arising suffering is also called suffering.

諦。故作此徴。

若由非常至行相何別者。問。

生滅法故至能引苦行相者。答。生滅法故觀為非常。違聖心故觀之為苦。但見有漏非常知違聖心。故非常行相能引苦行相。

有餘部師至受唯是苦者。敘異計。有餘經部大眾部等作如是執。定無實樂一切三受皆唯是苦。此中應言定無樂．舍三受唯苦。為前但問樂受故敘異宗。但言無樂不言無舍。

云何知然者。問。

由教理故者。異部答。

云何由教者。徴。

如世尊言至名為顛倒者。異部引三經答。如文可知。

云何由理者。徴。

以諸樂因至其相方顯者。異部以理答　以諸樂因皆不定故。顯無實樂。謂諸所有衣服等事若依時用。不過量用。諸有情類許為樂因此若非時。過量受用。便能生苦。覆成苦因。如夏被胡裘。冬著生葛。飽飲食已複數飲食。寒天遂冷。熱取暖等。此等皆名非時受用。衣服．飲食．冷．暖等事便能生苦。覆成苦因　其衣服等雖依時用。此若過量受用便能生苦。覆成苦因。不應樂因。于增盛位過量受用。或雖平等不增不減。但由非時便成苦因。能生於苦　故知衣等本是苦因。苦微不覺。苦增盛時其相方顯乃覺苦也。

威儀易脫理亦應然者。此類釋也。行．住．坐．臥威儀易脫。諸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：諦。故作此徴。若由非常至行相何別者。問。生滅法故至能引苦行相者。答。生滅法故觀為非常。違聖心故觀之為苦。但見有漏非常知違聖心。故非常行相能引苦行相。有餘部師至受唯是苦者。敘異計。有餘經部（Sautrantika）大眾部（Mahasanghika）等作如是執。定無實樂一切三受皆唯是苦。此中應言定無樂．舍三受唯苦。為前但問樂受故敘異宗。但言無樂不言無舍。云何知然者。問。由教理故者。異部答。云何由教者。徴。如世尊言至名為顛倒者。異部引三經答。如文可知。云何由理者。徴。以諸樂因至其相方顯者。異部以理答。以諸樂因皆不定故。顯無實樂。謂諸所有衣服等事若依時用。不過量用。諸有情類許為樂因此若非時。過量受用。便能生苦。覆成苦因。如夏被胡裘。冬著生葛。飽飲食已複數飲食。寒天遂冷。熱取暖等。此等皆名非時受用。衣服．飲食．冷．暖等事便能生苦。覆成苦因。其衣服等雖依時用。此若過量受用便能生苦。覆成苦因。不應樂因。于增盛位過量受用。或雖平等不增不減。但由非時便成苦因。能生於苦。故知衣等本是苦因。苦微不覺。苦增盛時其相方顯乃覺苦也。威儀易脫理亦應然者。此類釋也。行．住．坐．臥威儀易脫。諸

【English Translation】 English version: Truth. Therefore, this question is posed. If it arises from impermanence, what is the difference in its characteristics? (Question) Because of the nature of arising and ceasing, it leads to the characteristic of suffering. (Answer) Because of the nature of arising and ceasing, it is viewed as impermanent. Because it goes against the holy mind, it is viewed as suffering. Only seeing the contaminated as impermanent knows that it goes against the holy mind. Therefore, the characteristic of impermanence can lead to the characteristic of suffering. Some teachers of other schools say that all feelings are only suffering. (Narrating different views) Some teachers of the Sautrantika (Sautrantika) and Mahasanghika (Mahasanghika) schools hold such views. They assert that there is definitely no real pleasure, and all three types of feelings are only suffering. Here, it should be said that definitely there is no pleasure, and the feelings of indifference are only suffering. Because the previous question only asked about pleasurable feelings, different views are narrated. It only says there is no pleasure, but does not say there is no indifference. How is this known? (Question) Because of teachings and reasoning. (Answer from other schools) How is it due to teachings? (Inquiry) As the World Honored One said, it is called inverted. (Other schools answer by quoting three sutras. The meaning is clear from the text.) How is it due to reasoning? (Inquiry) Because all causes of pleasure are uncertain, the absence of real pleasure is revealed. (Other schools answer with reasoning) Because all causes of pleasure are uncertain, the absence of real pleasure is revealed. That is, all things like clothes, if used according to the season and not excessively, sentient beings consider them causes of pleasure. However, if they are used out of season or excessively, they can cause suffering and become causes of suffering. For example, wearing a fur coat in summer or coarse linen in winter, eating excessively after being full, feeling cold in warm weather, or seeking warmth in hot weather. These are all called untimely use. Things like clothes, food, cold, and warmth can cause suffering and become causes of suffering. Even if clothes are used according to the season, if they are used excessively, they can cause suffering and become causes of suffering. They should not be causes of pleasure. If they are used excessively in a state of increase, or even if they are equal, neither increasing nor decreasing, but are untimely, they become causes of suffering and can cause suffering. Therefore, it is known that clothes and the like are originally causes of suffering. The suffering is subtle and not felt. When the suffering increases, its characteristic becomes apparent, and then suffering is felt. The principle that demeanor is easily lost should also be the case. (This is a similar explanation.) The demeanor of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down is easily lost. All

有情類計為樂因。此若非時。或復過量。成苦因等。準前應釋。此顯威儀樂因不定。明無實樂。

又治苦時至樂覺乃生者。又開二章顯無實樂。一治苦覺樂。二苦易覺樂。

謂若未遭至能生樂因者。釋初章　疲。謂疲勞。欲。謂淫慾　或疲淫慾　食對治饑　飲對治渴　溫對治寒　涼對治熱停息坐臥對治疲欲。謂若未遭饑等苦逼。不于食等諸樂因中生於樂覺。若遭饑等苦逼迫時。方于食等諸樂因中生於樂覺。故於對治饑等重苦食等因中。愚夫妄計此輕苦因能生於樂。實無決定能生樂因。

苦易脫中至定無實樂者。釋第二章。苦易脫中於其輕苦愚夫謂樂。如荷重擔暫易肩等。于初輕苦妄謂為樂故受唯苦定無實樂。若依經部三受皆具三苦。謂三受實是苦受故皆是苦苦。三受相續斷位變壞故。皆是即壞即苦。三受唸唸生滅故。皆是即行即苦。

對法諸師至此言應理者。論主標顯說一切有宗。于苦受外言樂實有。此言應理。

云何知然者。問　且應反徴至有樂應成者。略作三番徴責經部。顯有實樂。

若謂可愛至非可愛故者。此即牒經部等救。既離染時聖者厭患可愛覆成非愛故。明知樂受無實理成。

不爾可愛至有實樂受者。說一切有部破。如文可知。

然世尊言至非真了義

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有情眾生認為快樂是快樂的原因。但如果這種快樂不是時候，或者過量，就會變成痛苦的原因等等，按照前面的解釋應該理解。這表明威儀（指行為舉止）帶來的快樂原因並不確定，說明沒有真實的快樂。

又，在治療痛苦的時候，才會產生快樂的感覺。這裡又展開兩章來顯示沒有真實的快樂：一是治療痛苦的感覺帶來快樂，二是痛苦容易解除帶來快樂。

如果還沒有遇到能夠產生快樂的原因，這是解釋第一章。『疲』，指的是疲勞。『欲』，指的是淫慾。或者說疲勞和淫慾。食物用來對治飢餓，飲品用來對治口渴，溫暖用來對治寒冷，涼爽用來對治炎熱，停下來休息坐臥用來對治疲勞和淫慾。』如果還沒有遭受飢餓等痛苦的逼迫，就不會在食物等各種快樂的原因中產生快樂的感覺。只有在遭受飢餓等痛苦逼迫的時候，才會在食物等各種快樂的原因中產生快樂的感覺。因此，對於治療飢餓等嚴重痛苦的食物等原因，愚蠢的人錯誤地認為這種輕微的痛苦原因能夠產生快樂。實際上並沒有決定性的能夠產生快樂的原因。

『痛苦容易解除』中，到『必定沒有真實的快樂』，這是解釋第二章。在痛苦容易解除的情況下，對於那些輕微的痛苦，愚蠢的人會認為是快樂。比如，沉重的負擔暫時從肩膀上卸下等等。對於最初的輕微痛苦，錯誤地認為是快樂，所以感受到的只有痛苦，必定沒有真實的快樂。如果按照經部的觀點，三種感受都具備三種痛苦。也就是說，三種感受實際上都是苦受，所以都是苦苦。三種感受相續不斷，位置變動和變壞，所以都是壞苦。三種感受唸唸生滅，所以都是行苦。

『對法』的各位法師，到『這個說法是合理的』，論主標明說一切有宗（Sarvastivada），在苦受之外認為快樂是真實存在的，這個說法是合理的。

『怎麼知道是這樣呢？』這是提問。『暫且應該反過來質問』，到『有快樂應該成立』，簡略地做了三番質問經部（Sautrantika），顯示有真實的快樂。

『如果認為可愛』，到『不是可愛的原因』，這是引用經部等的辯解。既然在離開貪染的時候，聖者厭惡可愛的事物，又變成了不可愛的事物，所以明確地知道快樂的感受沒有真實的道理成立。

『不是這樣，可愛』，到『有真實的樂受』，說一切有部進行駁斥，如文中所說可以知道。

然而世尊說，到『不是真正的了義』。

【English Translation】 English version: Sentient beings consider pleasure to be the cause of pleasure. However, if this pleasure is untimely or excessive, it becomes the cause of suffering, etc., which should be understood according to the previous explanations. This shows that the cause of pleasure from dignified conduct (referring to behavior and demeanor) is uncertain, indicating that there is no real pleasure.

Furthermore, the feeling of pleasure arises when suffering is being treated. Here, two more chapters are unfolded to show that there is no real pleasure: one is that the feeling of pleasure arises from treating suffering, and the other is that pleasure arises from easily relieved suffering.

'If one has not yet encountered the cause that can produce pleasure,' this explains the first chapter. 'Fatigue' refers to weariness. 'Desire' refers to lust. Or rather, fatigue and lust. Food is used to counteract hunger, drink is used to counteract thirst, warmth is used to counteract cold, coolness is used to counteract heat, and stopping to rest, sit, and lie down is used to counteract fatigue and desire. 'If one has not yet suffered the oppression of hunger, etc., one will not generate a feeling of pleasure from food and other causes of pleasure. Only when one suffers the oppression of hunger, etc., will one generate a feeling of pleasure from food and other causes of pleasure. Therefore, regarding food and other causes that treat severe suffering such as hunger, foolish people mistakenly believe that this slight cause of suffering can produce pleasure. In reality, there is no definitive cause that can produce pleasure.

'In easily relieved suffering,' to 'there is definitely no real pleasure,' this explains the second chapter. In the case of easily relieved suffering, foolish people consider slight suffering to be pleasure. For example, temporarily unloading a heavy burden from one's shoulders, etc. Regarding the initial slight suffering, one mistakenly considers it to be pleasure, so what is felt is only suffering, and there is definitely no real pleasure. If according to the view of the Sautrantika (經部), the three feelings all possess the three sufferings. That is to say, the three feelings are actually all suffering feelings, so they are all suffering of suffering (苦苦). The three feelings continue uninterrupted, with changes in position and deterioration, so they are all suffering of change (壞苦). The three feelings arise and cease moment by moment, so they are all suffering of conditioned existence (行苦).

'The Dharma masters of Abhidharma (對法),' to 'this statement is reasonable,' the author highlights that the Sarvastivada (說一切有宗) school believes that pleasure exists in reality apart from suffering feelings, and this statement is reasonable.

'How do we know this is so?' This is a question. 'For the time being, we should question in return,' to 'pleasure should be established,' a brief three-fold questioning of the Sautrantika (經部) school is made, showing that there is real pleasure.

'If it is thought that what is lovely,' to 'not a cause of loveliness,' this is quoting the defense of the Sautrantika (經部) school, etc. Since when leaving defilement, the sages detest lovely things and they become unlovely again, it is clearly known that the feeling of pleasure has no real reason to be established.

'It is not so, what is lovely,' to 'there is a real feeling of pleasure,' the Sarvastivada (說一切有部) school refutes, as can be known from the text.

However, the World Honored One said, to 'not the true definitive meaning.'

者。此下說一切有部通經部等所引三經。此即通初經也。經言諸受無非苦者。佛言我依諸行無常有為變壞。蜜說諸受無非是苦。若依無常說受是苦苦．是行苦。若依變壞說受是苦苦．是壞苦。故知此經但依行苦．壞苦二種說受是苦。不依苦苦作如是說。故正理云。故知此經依二苦說。不依苦苦說皆苦言。又解無常．變壞俱是行苦。以說諸受無非苦故。若說壞苦唯樂受故不通苦舍。正理云。通壞苦者即是行苦中變壞無常行苦。非是三苦中壞苦　若由已下。顯有三受。說受皆苦依蜜意言顯有別意。非真了義說有三受。不言蜜意。明知了義實有三受。

又契經言至觀樂為苦者。通第二經。經言以苦觀樂受者。此苦即是無常行苦．變壞壞苦。樂受有二。一有樂性。二有苦性。觀樂過患。佛不勸觀。觀苦利益。故佛勸觀。非無有樂　又解無常．變壞俱是行苦。

如何知此自相是樂者。經部等問。如何知此樂受自相。體性是樂性非苦受。苦苦攝耶。

如有頌言至故說受皆苦者。說一切有部答。頌中但依非常行苦．變壞壞苦說受皆苦。不依苦苦言受皆苦。明知別有樂受自性。若樂性苦何不亦以苦苦觀耶　又解無常．變壞俱是行苦。

又契經言至故成顛倒者。通第三經。一開三章。二別牒釋。此即開章。經言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這些是以下要說的一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一）和經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）等所引用的三部經。這裡說的是通用的第一部經。經中說『諸受無非苦者』，佛說我依據諸行（saṃskāra，佛教術語，指有為法）的無常、有為、變壞，秘密地說諸受沒有不是苦的。如果依據無常來說，受是苦苦、是行苦。如果依據變壞來說，受是苦苦、是壞苦。因此可知這部經只是依據行苦、壞苦這兩種苦來說受是苦，不是依據苦苦這樣說的。所以《正理》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，佛教論書）中說：『所以知道這部經是依據兩種苦說的，不是依據苦苦來說一切都是苦的。』又解釋說無常、變壞都是行苦，因為說諸受沒有不是苦的。如果說壞苦只是樂受，那麼就不能包括苦受和舍受了。《正理》中說：『通達壞苦的就是行苦中的變壞無常行苦，不是三苦中的壞苦。』如果從以下開始，就顯示有三種受。說受都是苦，依據秘密的意義來說，顯示有別的意思，不是真正了義地說有三種受。如果不說秘密的意義，就明白地知道確實有三種受。

又契經中說『觀樂為苦者』，這是通用的第二部經。經中說『以苦觀樂受者』，這裡的苦就是無常行苦、變壞壞苦。樂受有兩種，一種是有樂的性質，一種是有苦的性質。觀察樂的過患，佛不勸導觀察。觀察苦的利益，所以佛勸導觀察。並非沒有樂。

又解釋說無常、變壞都是行苦。

『如何知道這自相是樂呢？』經部等問道。『如何知道這樂受的自相、體性是樂的性質而不是苦受、苦苦所包含的呢？』

『如有頌言，故說受皆苦者』，說一切有部回答說。頌中只是依據非常行苦、變壞壞苦來說受都是苦，不是依據苦苦來說受都是苦。明白地知道另外有樂受的自性。如果樂的性質是苦的，為什麼不也用苦苦來觀察呢？又解釋說無常、變壞都是行苦。

又契經中說『故成顛倒者』，這是通用的第三部經。一、開三章。二、分別解釋。這裡是開章。經中說

【English Translation】 English version: These are the three sutras cited by the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) and Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) schools, etc., which will be discussed below. This is the first sutra that is common to all. The sutra says, 'All feelings are invariably suffering.' The Buddha said that based on the impermanence, conditioned nature, and change of all saṃskāras (Buddhist term, referring to conditioned phenomena), it is secretly said that no feeling is not suffering. If based on impermanence, feeling is suffering of suffering, and suffering of formation. If based on change, feeling is suffering of suffering, and suffering of dissolution. Therefore, it is known that this sutra only relies on the two kinds of suffering, suffering of formation and suffering of dissolution, to say that feeling is suffering, and does not say it based on suffering of suffering. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (a Buddhist treatise) says: 'Therefore, it is known that this sutra is based on two kinds of suffering, not based on suffering of suffering to say that all is suffering.' It is also explained that impermanence and change are both suffering of formation, because it is said that no feeling is not suffering. If it is said that suffering of dissolution is only pleasant feeling, then it cannot include painful feeling and neutral feeling. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Understanding suffering of dissolution is the impermanent suffering of change in the suffering of formation, not the suffering of dissolution in the three kinds of suffering.' If it starts from below, it shows that there are three kinds of feeling. Saying that all feelings are suffering, based on the secret meaning, shows that there is a different meaning, not truly definitively saying that there are three kinds of feeling. If the secret meaning is not mentioned, it is clearly known that there are indeed three kinds of feeling.

Also, the sutra says, 'Observing pleasure as suffering,' this is the second sutra that is common to all. The sutra says, 'Observing pleasant feeling as suffering,' the suffering here is impermanent suffering of formation, and changing suffering of dissolution. There are two kinds of pleasant feeling, one is having the nature of pleasure, and the other is having the nature of suffering. Observing the faults of pleasure, the Buddha does not encourage observation. Observing the benefits of suffering, so the Buddha encourages observation. It is not that there is no pleasure.

It is also explained that impermanence and change are both suffering of formation.

'How do you know that this self-nature is pleasure?' The Sautrāntika school, etc., asked. 'How do you know that the self-nature and essence of this pleasant feeling is the nature of pleasure and not painful feeling, included in suffering of suffering?'

'As the verse says, therefore it is said that all feelings are suffering,' the Sarvāstivāda school replied. The verse only relies on the impermanent suffering of formation and the changing suffering of dissolution to say that all feelings are suffering, not relying on suffering of suffering to say that all feelings are suffering. It is clearly known that there is another self-nature of pleasant feeling. If the nature of pleasure is suffering, why not also observe it with suffering of suffering? It is also explained that impermanence and change are both suffering of formation.

Also, the sutra says, 'Therefore, it becomes inverted,' this is the third sutra that is common to all. First, open three chapters. Second, explain separately. This is opening the chapter. The sutra says

于苦謂樂倒者此別意說。以諸世間一于諸樂受。二于諸妙欲。三于諸三有一分樂中。一向計樂故成顛倒。非計少樂名為顛倒。

謂諸樂受至故成顛倒者。此釋初章。謂諸樂受依自相門雖性是樂非是苦苦。若依異門亦有壞苦．及行苦性。世唯觀樂不觀為苦故成顛倒。

諸妙欲境至故成顛倒者。此釋第二章。諸妙欲境順樂受少。順行．壞苦多。唯觀為樂不觀為苦故成顛倒。

諸有亦然者。釋第三章。諸三有亦然。順樂受少。順行．壞苦多。唯觀為樂。不觀為苦。故成顛倒。

故不由此至無實理成者。結。故不由此所引三經能證樂受無實理成。

若受自相至有何勝利者。重責經部等。

若謂世尊至無非苦故者。牒救徴破。若謂世尊於一苦受。隨順世俗說三受者不應正理。佛蜜說受無非苦故。若蜜意說受皆是苦。若顯了說受即有三種。既盡理說顯說有三。明知說三非隨世俗。

又于觀五受至乃至廣說者。經觀五受說如實言。明知說三受非隨俗說。以彼三受攝五受故。五受如實三受亦實　三結。謂身見．戒取．疑。永斷此三得預流果　乃至廣說者。又斷薄貪．瞋．癡得一來果。又斷五下分得不還果。又斷一切結得無學果。

又佛如何至上等樂覺者。復重責言。又佛如何於一苦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：將苦視為樂的顛倒，這是另一種解釋。因為世間眾生，一是對於各種樂受，二是對於各種妙欲，三是對於三有（Triloka，欲界、色界、無色界）中的一部分快樂，總是執著于快樂，所以形成顛倒。並非僅僅是認為少量快樂是顛倒。

『認為各種樂受是顛倒』，這是解釋第一章。各種樂受，從其自性來說，雖然本質是樂，不是苦，但如果從另一方面來看，也有壞苦（viparinama-duhkha，變異之苦）和行苦（samskara-duhkha，行蘊之苦）的性質。世間眾生只看到樂，看不到苦，所以形成顛倒。

『認為各種妙欲之境是顛倒』，這是解釋第二章。各種妙欲之境，順應樂受的少，順應行苦和壞苦的多。世間眾生只看到樂，看不到苦，所以形成顛倒。

『各種有也是這樣』，這是解釋第三章。各種三有也是這樣，順應樂受的少，順應行苦和壞苦的多。世間眾生只看到樂，看不到苦，所以形成顛倒。

『所以不由此…無實理成』，這是結論。所以不能由此所引用的三部經來證明樂受沒有真實的道理。

『如果受的自相…有什麼勝利』，這是再次責備經部宗（Sautrantika）等。

『如果說世尊…無非苦故』，這是提出辯護並進行駁斥。如果說世尊對於一種苦受，隨順世俗的說法而說有三種感受，這是不合理的。因為佛陀秘密地說感受沒有不是苦的。如果秘密地說感受都是苦，如果顯明地說感受就有三種。既然已經徹底地說明顯明地說有三種，那就表明說三種不是隨順世俗的說法。

『又于觀五受…乃至廣說』，經中觀察五受（五種感受）說如實的言語，表明說三種感受不是隨順世俗的說法。因為這三種感受涵蓋了五種感受。五受是真實的，那麼三受也是真實的。三結（samyoja，結縛），指的是身見（satkayadristi，有身見）、戒取（silabbataparamasa，戒禁取見）、疑（vicikitsa，疑）。永遠斷除這三結，就能得到預流果（srota-apanna，入流果）。『乃至廣說』，又斷除薄貪（raga，貪慾）、瞋（dvesha，嗔恚）、癡（moha，愚癡），就能得到一來果（sakrdagamin，一來果）。又斷除五下分結（五種使人輪迴于欲界的煩惱），就能得到不還果（anagamin，不還果）。又斷除一切結，就能得到無學果（arhat，阿羅漢果）。

『又佛如何…上等樂覺』，再次責備說，又佛如何對於一種苦

【English Translation】 English version: To regard suffering as pleasure is a reversed view, and this is a different explanation. It is because sentient beings in the world are always attached to pleasure in three ways: first, with regard to various pleasurable feelings; second, with regard to various delightful desires; and third, with regard to a portion of the pleasure in the Three Realms (Triloka). Therefore, they form a reversed view. It is not that merely considering a small amount of pleasure as reversed.

'Regarding various pleasurable feelings as reversed' is the explanation of the first chapter. Various pleasurable feelings, from their own nature, are essentially pleasure and not suffering. However, from another perspective, they also have the nature of the suffering of change (viparinama-duhkha) and the suffering of conditioning (samskara-duhkha). Worldly beings only see the pleasure and do not see the suffering, so they form a reversed view.

'Regarding various objects of delightful desires as reversed' is the explanation of the second chapter. Various objects of delightful desires have little that accords with pleasurable feelings, and much that accords with the suffering of conditioning and the suffering of change. Worldly beings only see the pleasure and do not see the suffering, so they form a reversed view.

'Various existences are also like that' is the explanation of the third chapter. Various existences in the Three Realms are also like that, with little that accords with pleasurable feelings and much that accords with the suffering of conditioning and the suffering of change. Worldly beings only see the pleasure and do not see the suffering, so they form a reversed view.

'Therefore, not by this...no real principle is established' is the conclusion. Therefore, the three sutras cited cannot prove that pleasurable feelings have no real principle.

'If the self-nature of feeling...what victory is there?' is a repeated rebuke to the Sautrantika school and others.

'If it is said that the World-Honored One...because there is nothing but suffering' is to present a defense and then refute it. If it is said that the World-Honored One, with regard to one kind of suffering, in accordance with worldly conventions, speaks of three kinds of feelings, this is not reasonable. Because the Buddha secretly said that feelings are all suffering. If it is secretly said that feelings are all suffering, and if it is explicitly said that there are three kinds of feelings, since it has been thoroughly explained that there are three kinds explicitly, it shows that saying there are three kinds is not in accordance with worldly conventions.

'Also, regarding the observation of the five feelings...and so on extensively,' the sutra observes the five feelings (five kinds of feelings) and speaks truthful words, showing that saying there are three kinds of feelings is not in accordance with worldly conventions. Because these three kinds of feelings encompass the five kinds of feelings. If the five feelings are real, then the three feelings are also real. The three fetters (samyoja) refer to the view of self (satkayadristi), attachment to precepts (silabbataparamasa), and doubt (vicikitsa). Permanently cutting off these three fetters leads to the attainment of the stream-enterer fruit (srota-apanna). 'And so on extensively,' also cutting off thin greed (raga), hatred (dvesha), and delusion (moha) leads to the attainment of the once-returner fruit (sakrdagamin). Also cutting off the five lower fetters (five afflictions that cause rebirth in the desire realm) leads to the attainment of the non-returner fruit (anagamin). Also cutting off all fetters leads to the attainment of the arhat fruit (arhat).

'Also, how does the Buddha...superior pleasure?' is a repeated rebuke, saying, also, how does the Buddha with regard to one kind of suffering

受。隨順世俗分別說三。若謂世間于下．上．中苦。如其次第于下苦起樂覺。于上苦起苦覺。于中苦起舍覺。佛隨順彼說樂等三。理亦不然。何但苦三樂亦三故。應于下等三苦唯起上等樂覺。謂于下苦唯起上樂覺。于中品苦唯起中樂覺。于上品苦唯起下樂覺。不應起舍覺。此中難意苦．樂各三應無舍覺。唯苦．樂覺　又解樂亦三故。應于下等三苦。唯起上等樂覺不起苦覺．舍覺。又正理云。又樂亦有下等三故。不應言樂唯是下苦。

又受殊勝至都無有．故者。復約事難。又受勝境所生樂時。有何下苦而起樂覺。汝許爾時有下苦者。如是下苦過去已滅未來未生也。應爾時有極樂覺。此位眾苦都無有故。

受欲樂時徴問亦爾者。此即類釋。受淫慾樂時徴問亦爾。準前可知。

又下品受至樂等三受者。約品約地為難。下品苦受現在前時。許為樂受明利可取。許中苦受現在前時。名為舍受非明瞭取。如何應理。又於色界下三定中。說有樂故應有下苦。三受明義。喜亦名樂故通三定。第四定等以上五地。說有舍受應有中苦。定勝苦增。豈應正理。結破可知。

又契經說至少分實樂者。復引經證。如婆沙六十云。問亦有是樂法器　如契經說。大名當知。色若一向是苦非樂。非樂所隨。無少分樂．喜所隨逐

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於感受（受，Vedanā），隨順世俗的分別而說有三種。如果說世間對於下品、中品、上品苦，如其次第地，對於下品苦生起樂的感受，對於上品苦生起苦的感受，對於中品苦生起舍的感受，佛隨順他們的說法而說樂等三種感受，這個道理也是不成立的。為什麼呢？因為不只是苦有三種，樂也有三種的緣故。應該對於下品等三種苦，只生起上品等三種樂的感受。也就是說，對於下品苦只生起上品樂的感受，對於中品苦只生起中品樂的感受，對於上品苦只生起下品樂的感受，不應該生起舍的感受。這裡所要質疑的是，苦和樂各有三種，應該沒有舍的感受，只有苦和樂的感受。又有一種解釋是，因為樂也有三種，所以應該對於下品等三種苦，只生起上品等三種樂的感受，不生起苦的感受和舍的感受。而且《正理》中說，樂也有下品等三種，不應該說樂僅僅是下品苦。

又，感受殊勝到完全沒有的緣故。又從事情上進行質疑。又在感受勝妙境界所產生的樂時，有什麼下品苦而生起樂的感受呢？你如果承認那時有下品苦，那麼這種下品苦是過去已經滅盡，未來尚未生起的。那麼那時應該有極樂的感受，因為那個時候所有的苦都沒有了。

感受欲樂的時候，提出同樣的問題也是一樣的。這是一種類比解釋。在感受淫慾之樂的時候，提出同樣的問題也是一樣的，可以參照前面的內容來理解。

又，下品感受直到樂等三種感受。這是從品類和地界上進行質疑。下品苦受現在呈現的時候，允許它是樂受，清晰明瞭可以把握。允許中品苦受現在呈現的時候，名為舍受，不是清晰明瞭可以把握。這怎麼能說得通呢？而且，在下三禪定（下三定，the first three Dhyanas）中，說有樂的緣故，應該有下品苦。三種感受的意義很明顯。喜也叫做樂，所以通於這三個禪定。第四禪定等以上五地，說有舍受，應該有中品苦。禪定殊勝，苦就增加，這怎麼能說得通呢？結論的破斥是可以知道的。

又，《契經》中說，至少有少分真實的樂。這是再次引用經文來證明。如《婆沙》（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第六十卷中說：『問：也有是樂的法器嗎？如《契經》中說：大名（Mahanama，人名）當知，如果色（Rupa，物質、色蘊）完全是苦而不是樂，不是樂所隨順的，就沒有少分的樂和喜所隨逐。』

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding feeling (Vedanā), according to worldly distinctions, there are said to be three types. If it is said that the world, with respect to inferior, middle, and superior suffering, in that order, arises a feeling of pleasure from inferior suffering, a feeling of suffering from superior suffering, and a feeling of equanimity from middle suffering, it is not reasonable for the Buddha to agree with their saying that there are three types of feelings such as pleasure. Why? Because not only are there three types of suffering, but there are also three types of pleasure. One should only have feelings of superior pleasure from inferior suffering, etc. That is, one should only have feelings of superior pleasure from inferior suffering, feelings of middle pleasure from middle suffering, and feelings of inferior pleasure from superior suffering; one should not have feelings of equanimity. The point of contention here is that since there are three types of both suffering and pleasure, there should be no feeling of equanimity, only feelings of suffering and pleasure. Another explanation is that since there are also three types of pleasure, one should only have feelings of superior pleasure from inferior suffering, etc., and not have feelings of suffering or equanimity. Moreover, the Nyayanusara says that since there are also three types of pleasure, inferior, etc., one should not say that pleasure is only inferior suffering.

Furthermore, regarding the reason that feeling is excellent to the point of non-existence. This is another challenge based on events. Moreover, when experiencing pleasure arising from a superior state, what inferior suffering is there from which to arise a feeling of pleasure? If you admit that there is inferior suffering at that time, then that inferior suffering has already ceased in the past and has not yet arisen in the future. Then there should be a feeling of extreme pleasure at that time, because all suffering is non-existent at that moment.

The question is the same when experiencing the pleasure of desire. This is an explanation by analogy. The question is the same when experiencing the pleasure of sexual desire. It can be understood by referring to the previous content.

Furthermore, inferior feeling up to the three feelings of pleasure, etc. This is a challenge based on category and realm. When inferior suffering is present, it is admitted to be a pleasure, clear and easily grasped. When middle suffering is present, it is called equanimity, not clearly grasped. How can this be reasonable? Moreover, in the lower three Dhyanas (下三定), it is said that there is pleasure, so there should be inferior suffering. The meaning of the three feelings is clear. Joy is also called pleasure, so it applies to these three Dhyanas. In the fourth Dhyana and the five realms above, it is said that there is equanimity, so there should be middle suffering. The excellence of Dhyana increases, and suffering increases. How can this be reasonable? The conclusion of the refutation is knowable.

Furthermore, the Sutra says that there is at least a small portion of real pleasure. This is another quote from the scriptures to prove it. As the sixtieth volume of the Vibhasa (阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論) says: 'Question: Are there also vessels of the Dharma that are pleasure? As the Sutra says: Mahanama (大名), know that if form (Rupa) were entirely suffering and not pleasure, not accompanied by pleasure, then there would be no small portion of pleasure and joy accompanying it.'

者。應無有情為求樂故染著於色。大名當知。以色非一向苦。亦是樂。亦是樂所隨。是少分樂．喜所隨逐故。有諸有情為求樂故染著於色。乃至識蘊。廣說亦爾(解云非樂所隨順增長。無少分樂喜所隨順逐者)。

經言樂等有情貪著故知定有少分實樂。

如是且辨至亦不成證者。此下顯理證亦不成。將破彼理結前生下。

且以諸樂因至決定理成者。此下第一破樂因不定。夫苦．樂因。由內．及外。因緣和合前後不同。為因決定非唯外境　所依。謂所依身份位。謂前後分位　差別。謂前後不同　或為違因。謂非美熟因　余文．及喻思之可知。

又三靜慮中至能生苦故者。約上地難。顯樂因定　言三靜慮。謂下三定。余文可知。

又彼所說至準前應說者。此破第二治苦生樂　又彼所說要治苦時起樂覺者。準前下苦生樂文中已破。謂受勝境所生樂時。對治何苦而起樂覺。設許爾時治粗苦者。此能治細苦。過去已滅。未來未生。爾時轉應生極樂覺。又于欲界可容治粗苦計細苦為樂。靜慮中樂治何苦故而得生耶。如是等破。準前下苦生樂中說。

又彼所說至應知亦爾者。第三破苦易脫生樂。又苦易脫樂覺乃生如易肩者。此身份位初易肩時實能生樂。乃至此身如是分位未滅已前必有樂生。滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，不應該有眾生爲了追求快樂而執著於色（rupa，物質現象）。大名（Mahanama，佛陀的弟子）啊，你應該知道，色並非完全是痛苦的，它也包含快樂，也與快樂相伴隨。正因為色蘊伴隨著少許的快樂和喜悅，所以有些眾生爲了追求快樂而執著於色，乃至識蘊（vijnana-skandha，意識之蘊），廣而言之也是如此。（解釋說，如果不是快樂伴隨增長，沒有少許的快樂和喜悅伴隨，就不會有眾生執著於色蘊乃至識蘊）。經文說，眾生因為貪著快樂等，可知必定存在少許真實的快樂。像這樣，暫且辨析到『亦不成證』。下面闡明理證也是不能成立的。承接前面的內容，引出下面的論述。首先從『且以諸樂因』到『決定理成』。下面第一點是破斥快樂的因是不確定的。痛苦和快樂的產生，是由於內在和外在的因緣和合，前後不同。作為原因並不完全依賴於外在的境界，而是依賴於所依之身的分位，也就是前後分位的差別，也就是前後不同，或者成為違背的原因，也就是非美好成熟的原因。其餘的文句和比喻可以思考理解。再者，『又三靜慮中』到『能生苦故』。這是針對上界的提問，顯示快樂的因是確定的。所說的『三靜慮』，指的是下三禪定。其餘的文句可以理解。還有，『又彼所說』到『準前應說』。這是破斥第二點，用治療痛苦來產生快樂。還有他們所說的，一定要在治療痛苦的時候才會產生快樂的感覺。按照前面下文苦生樂的說法已經破斥過了。也就是說，在感受殊勝境界所產生的快樂時，要用什麼痛苦來對治才能產生快樂的感覺呢？假設允許那個時候治療粗重的痛苦，那麼這就能治療細微的痛苦。過去的已經滅亡，未來還沒有產生，那個時候反而應該產生極大的快樂感覺。而且在欲界可以容忍治療粗重的痛苦，把細微的痛苦當作快樂。在靜慮中，用治療什麼痛苦的方法才能產生快樂呢？像這樣的破斥，按照前面下文苦生樂中的說法。還有，『又彼所說』到『應知亦爾』。這是第三點，破斥痛苦容易脫離而產生快樂。還有痛苦容易脫離，快樂的感覺才會產生，就像容易換肩膀的人一樣。這個身體的分位，剛開始換肩膀的時候，確實能夠產生快樂。乃至這個身體像這樣的分位沒有滅亡之前，必定會有快樂產生，滅亡

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, there should be no sentient beings who, for the sake of seeking pleasure, become attached to form (rupa, material phenomena). Mahanama (a disciple of the Buddha), you should know that form is not entirely suffering; it also contains pleasure and is accompanied by pleasure. It is precisely because the aggregate of form is accompanied by a small amount of pleasure and joy that some sentient beings, for the sake of seeking pleasure, become attached to form, and so on, up to the aggregate of consciousness (vijnana-skandha, the aggregate of consciousness), and the same can be said in a broader sense. (The explanation is that if it were not for the pleasure that accompanies growth, and if there were no small amount of pleasure and joy accompanying it, sentient beings would not be attached to the aggregate of form and so on, up to the aggregate of consciousness). The scripture says that sentient beings, because of their attachment to pleasure and so on, can be known to have a small amount of real pleasure. Like this, let's temporarily analyze up to 'also cannot establish proof'. Below, it clarifies that the logical proof also cannot be established. It connects the previous content and introduces the following discussion. First, from 'Moreover, regarding the causes of pleasure' to 'the principle of certainty is established'. The first point below is to refute that the cause of pleasure is uncertain. The arising of suffering and pleasure is due to the combination of internal and external causes and conditions, which differ before and after. As a cause, it does not completely depend on the external realm, but rather on the position of the dependent body, that is, the difference between the previous and subsequent positions, that is, the difference between before and after, or it becomes a contrary cause, that is, a cause that is not beautiful and mature. The remaining sentences and metaphors can be understood through contemplation. Furthermore, 'Moreover, in the three dhyanas' to 'can produce suffering'. This is a question directed at the upper realms, showing that the cause of pleasure is certain. The 'three dhyanas' mentioned refer to the lower three meditative states. The remaining sentences can be understood. Also, 'Moreover, what they said' to 'should be said according to the previous'. This refutes the second point, using the treatment of suffering to generate pleasure. Also, what they said is that one must have a feeling of pleasure when treating suffering. According to the previous statement in the lower text about pleasure arising from suffering, it has already been refuted. That is to say, when experiencing the pleasure generated by a superior state, what suffering must be treated in order to generate a feeling of pleasure? Assuming that it is permissible to treat coarse suffering at that time, then this can treat subtle suffering. The past has already perished, and the future has not yet arisen; at that time, an extreme feeling of pleasure should arise instead. Moreover, in the desire realm, it is tolerable to treat coarse suffering and regard subtle suffering as pleasure. In the dhyanas, what method of treating suffering can generate pleasure? Such refutations are according to the previous statement in the lower text about pleasure arising from suffering. Also, 'Moreover, what they said' to 'should also be known to be the same'. This is the third point, refuting that suffering is easily escaped and pleasure arises. Also, suffering is easily escaped, and the feeling of pleasure arises, just like someone who easily shifts their shoulders. The position of this body, when first shifting the shoulders, can indeed generate pleasure. Even before this position of the body perishes, there will definitely be pleasure arising, perishing

則不爾。若異此者。此初位后時樂應轉增。苦漸微故。然久易時苦雖漸微而不生樂。故知樂受非是下苦　如是易脫身四威儀。于初易位生樂解勞。應知亦爾。

若先無苦至生於苦覺者。經部等問。若先無苦於最後時。何為歘然生於苦覺。良由初位苦微不覺。后漸苦增方能覺苦。

由身變易至甘酢味起者。說一切有部答。由身變易前後分位差別不同。前位樂生后時苦起。如酒等后時分位差別不同。初甘味起。后酢味生。非由先有後方生也。

是故樂受實有理成者。別結。是故樂受我說實有。據理亦成。

由此定知至如應名苦者。總結。由此上來所釋教理。顯受非皆苦亦有少實樂。定知一切諸有漏行三苦合故。如其所應名之為苦。非唯苦受名之為苦。

即苦行體亦名集諦者。此下第二明集諦。說一切有部標宗。即諸有漏苦．行體性亦名集諦能生果故。

此說必定至愛為集故者。經部申難顯說違經。

經就勝故至亦是集諦者。說一切有部通經。經就勝故說愛為集。理實所餘一切有漏亦是集諦　言愛勝者。潤生等勝。

如是理趣由何證知者。經部問諸有漏法皆是集諦。如是理趣由何證知。

余契經中至依法相說者。說一切有部答。余經亦說余法為集。伽陀非唯說愛為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：則不然。如果不是這樣，那麼最初的安樂在之後應該逐漸增加，而痛苦應該逐漸減少。然而，即使經過很長時間，痛苦逐漸減少，也不會產生安樂。因此可知，樂受並非是從下位的痛苦轉變而來。

就像這樣，容易改變身體的四種威儀（行、住、坐、臥），在最初改變姿勢時會產生安樂，解除疲勞。應該知道也是同樣的道理。

如果先前沒有痛苦，到最後才產生痛苦的感覺，經部（Sautrāntika）提出疑問：如果先前沒有痛苦，為什麼在最後的時候突然產生痛苦的感覺？這是因為最初的痛苦很輕微，沒有察覺，後來痛苦逐漸增加，才能感覺到痛苦。

由於身體的變易，乃至產生甘甜或酸澀的味道，說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）回答：由於身體變易，前後分位的差別不同，前一分位產生安樂，后一分位產生痛苦。例如酒等，在不同時間分位的差別不同，最初產生甘甜的味道，後來產生酸澀的味道，不是因為先前存在，後來才產生的。

因此，樂受確實存在，從道理上也是成立的。這是總結。因此，我說樂受是真實存在的，從道理上也是成立的。

由此可以確定，乃至應該稱為苦。這是總結。由此以上所解釋的教理，顯示感受並非都是痛苦，也有少許真實的安樂。可以確定一切有漏的行，因為與三苦（苦苦、壞苦、行苦）結合，所以才如其所應地被稱為苦，並非只有苦受才被稱為苦。

苦行的本體也稱為集諦（Samudaya Satya），這是下面第二部分說明集諦。說一切有部標明宗旨：即一切有漏的苦行本體，也稱為集諦，因為它能產生結果。

這裡說必定，乃至愛為集的原因。經部提出質疑，顯示這種說法違背了經典。

經典就殊勝的方面來說，乃至也是集諦的原因。說一切有部解釋經典：經典就殊勝的方面來說，說愛（Trsna）是集諦，但實際上其餘一切有漏法也是集諦。說愛殊勝，是因為它在潤生等方面殊勝。

像這樣的道理，由什麼來證明呢？經部問：一切有漏法都是集諦，像這樣的道理由什麼來證明？

其餘的契經中，乃至依法相來說。說一切有部回答：其餘的經典也說其餘的法是集諦，伽陀（Gāthā）並非只說愛是集諦。

【English Translation】 English version: It is not so. If it were otherwise, then the pleasure of the initial state should gradually increase later, and the suffering should gradually decrease. However, even after a long time, although the suffering gradually decreases, pleasure does not arise. Therefore, it is known that the feeling of pleasure is not transformed from lower suffering.

Just like this, it is easy to change the four dignities (walking, standing, sitting, lying down) of the body, and pleasure arises when initially changing posture, relieving fatigue. It should be known that it is the same principle.

If there was no suffering before, and the feeling of suffering arises only at the end, the Sautrāntika asks: If there was no suffering before, why does the feeling of suffering suddenly arise at the end? This is because the initial suffering is subtle and not perceived, and later the suffering gradually increases, so that suffering can be felt.

Due to the change of the body, even to the point of producing sweet or sour tastes, the Sarvāstivāda answers: Due to the change of the body, the differences between the previous and subsequent states are different. Pleasure arises in the previous state, and suffering arises in the subsequent state. For example, with wine, the differences in the different time states are different. Initially, a sweet taste arises, and later a sour taste arises. It is not because it existed before that it arises later.

Therefore, the feeling of pleasure truly exists, and it is also established in principle. This is a conclusion. Therefore, I say that the feeling of pleasure is truly existent, and it is also established in principle.

From this, it can be determined, even to the point of being called suffering. This is a summary. From the teachings and principles explained above, it is shown that feelings are not all suffering, and there is also a little real pleasure. It can be determined that all conditioned (āsrava) actions, because they are combined with the three sufferings (suffering of suffering, suffering of change, pervasive suffering of conditioned existence), are called suffering as appropriate, and it is not only the feeling of suffering that is called suffering.

The very nature of painful practices is also called Samudaya Satya (Truth of the Origin of Suffering). This is the second part below explaining Samudaya Satya. The Sarvāstivāda states its purpose: that is, the very nature of all conditioned painful practices is also called Samudaya Satya, because it can produce results.

Here it says definitely, even to the reason why craving (Trsna) is the origin. The Sautrāntika raises a question, showing that this statement contradicts the scriptures.

The scriptures speak of the superior aspect, even to the reason why it is also the origin. The Sarvāstivāda explains the scriptures: The scriptures speak of the superior aspect, saying that craving is the origin, but in reality, all other conditioned dharmas are also Samudaya Satya. Saying that craving is superior is because it is superior in terms of moistening rebirth, etc.

From what is such a principle known? The Sautrāntika asks: All conditioned dharmas are Samudaya Satya, from what is such a principle known?

In other sutras, even to speaking according to the characteristics of the Dharma. The Sarvāstivāda answers: Other sutras also say that other dharmas are the origin, and the Gāthā does not only say that craving is the origin.

因。說業．無明為因招後行。故知集諦非唯是愛。又契經說五種種子。一根。二莖。三支。四節。五子。此即別名喻有取識　取是煩惱。識有取故名有取識。如言有漏識　又彼經中說。以五種種子置地界中。此即別名喻四識住。種子．及田。俱生芽等。並是其因。識．及四識住。並能生果。俱名集諦。故知集諦非唯是愛　又解五種種子即喻五趣識　置地界中。即喻四識住。俱能生果並是集諦。故經所說愛為集諦。是密意言非真了義。阿毗達摩依法相說言諸有漏皆集諦。

然經中說至及彼因因者。此下說一切有部會釋前經。然經蜜說愛為集者偏說起因。伽陀中說業．愛．無明皆為因者。具說業為生因。愛為起因。無明為因因。與業因為因故名因因　或與業．愛因為因故名因因。生之與起雖復俱是所得五蘊。由業體生故名生因。由愛助起故名起因。故婆沙一百七十三引經言。如契經說業為生因。愛為起因。生．起即是所得五蘊。

云何知爾者。經部問。云何知業為生因。愛為起因。無明為因因。

業為生因至有緒故者。說一切有部答。業為生因。愛為起因。經所說故所以得知。又彼大因緣法門經中。次第顯示後行支等皆悉有因。有緣。有緒。此三並是無明等異名。生後行等果。以無明等能為因故。能為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因。說是業和無明作為產生後續行為的原因。因此可知，集諦（Samudaya，苦的根源）不僅僅是愛（Trsna，渴愛）。此外，契經（Sutra，佛經）中說了五種種子：一、根；二、莖；三、支；四、節；五、子。這些不同的名稱比喻為『有取識』（Sopadanavijnana，伴隨執取的識）。『取』（Upadana，執取）是煩惱。識因為伴隨執取，所以稱為『有取識』，就像說『有漏識』（Sasravavijnana，有煩惱的識）一樣。另外，那部經中說，將五種種子放置於地界中，這不同的名稱比喻為四識住（四種能使識安住的境界）。種子和土地，一起產生芽等，都是其原因。識和四識住，都能產生結果，都可稱為集諦。因此可知，集諦不僅僅是愛。又有一種解釋，五種種子比喻五趣識（五道輪迴中的識），放置於地界中，比喻四識住，都能產生結果，都屬於集諦。因此，經文中所說的『愛為集諦』，是密意之言，並非真實了義。阿毗達摩（Abhidharma，論藏）依據法相（Dharma-laksana，法的性質）說，凡是有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱）皆是集諦。然而經中說到『以及彼因因』。以下是一切有部（Sarvastivadins）對前面經文的解釋。經文隱晦地說愛是集諦，只是偏重於說明（苦）產生的近因。伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）中說業（Karma，行為）、愛、無明（Avidya，無知）都是原因，是完整地說明了業是生因，愛是起因，無明是因因。無明與業互為原因，所以稱為因因；或者說，無明與業和愛互為原因，所以稱為因因。生和起雖然都是所得的五蘊（Panca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素），但由於業的本體產生，所以稱為生因；由於愛的幫助而生起，所以稱為起因。因此，《婆沙》（Vibhasa，註釋）第一百七十三卷引用經文說：『如契經所說，業為生因，愛為起因。』生和起就是所得的五蘊。『如何得知呢？』經部（Sautrantika）問道：『如何得知業是生因，愛是起因，無明是因因呢？』一切有部回答：『業是生因，愛是起因，這是經文所說的，所以可以得知。』此外，在那部《大因緣法門經》（Mahapratyaya-dharma-paryaya Sutra）中，依次顯示了後行支（後續行為）等都各有因、有緣、有緒。這三種都是無明等的不同名稱。產生後行等結果，是因為無明等能作為原因，能作為……

【English Translation】 English version Cause. It is said that karma (Karma) and ignorance (Avidya) are the causes that bring about subsequent actions. Therefore, it is known that Samudaya (the origin of suffering) is not only Trsna (craving). Moreover, the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) speaks of five kinds of seeds: first, root; second, stem; third, branch; fourth, node; fifth, seed. These different names are metaphors for 'Sopadanavijnana' (consciousness with attachment). 'Upadana' (attachment) is affliction. Because consciousness is accompanied by attachment, it is called 'Sopadanavijnana', just like saying 'Sasravavijnana' (consciousness with defilements). Furthermore, that Sutra says that placing the five kinds of seeds in the earth element is a different name that is a metaphor for the four abodes of consciousness (four states where consciousness can reside). Seeds and land, together producing sprouts, etc., are all its causes. Consciousness and the four abodes of consciousness can all produce results and can all be called Samudaya. Therefore, it is known that Samudaya is not only Trsna. Another explanation is that the five kinds of seeds are metaphors for the five realms of consciousness (consciousness in the five realms of reincarnation), and placing them in the earth element is a metaphor for the four abodes of consciousness, all of which can produce results and all belong to Samudaya. Therefore, the statement in the scriptures that 'Trsna is Samudaya' is a statement with a hidden meaning and is not a truly definitive meaning. Abhidharma (Abhidharma, philosophical treatises) says, according to Dharma-laksana (the characteristics of phenomena), that all Sasrava (with defilements) are Samudaya. However, the Sutra speaks of 'and the cause of that cause'. The following is the explanation of the Sarvastivadins (the All-Existing School) of the previous Sutra. The Sutra implicitly says that Trsna is Samudaya, only focusing on explaining the immediate cause of (suffering). The Gatha (Gatha, verse) says that karma, Trsna, and Avidya are all causes, fully explaining that karma is the cause of birth, Trsna is the cause of arising, and Avidya is the cause of the cause. Avidya and karma are mutually causal, so it is called the cause of the cause; or it can be said that Avidya is causal with karma and Trsna, so it is called the cause of the cause. Although birth and arising are both the obtained Panca-skandha (the five aggregates that constitute an individual), because the substance of karma produces it, it is called the cause of birth; because it arises with the help of Trsna, it is called the cause of arising. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary) Volume 173 quotes the Sutra saying: 'As the Sutra says, karma is the cause of birth, and Trsna is the cause of arising.' Birth and arising are the obtained Panca-skandha. 'How is it known?' The Sautrantika (Sautrantika, a school of Buddhism) asked: 'How is it known that karma is the cause of birth, Trsna is the cause of arising, and Avidya is the cause of the cause?' The Sarvastivadins replied: 'Karma is the cause of birth, and Trsna is the cause of arising, this is what the Sutra says, so it can be known.' Furthermore, in that Mahapratyaya-dharma-paryaya Sutra (Great Discourse on Dependent Origination), it successively shows that subsequent actions, etc., each have their own cause, condition, and sequence. These three are all different names for Avidya, etc. Producing the results of subsequent actions, etc., is because Avidya, etc., can act as a cause, can act as...

緣故。能為緒故。故婆沙二十三云。如大因緣法門經說。佛告阿難老死有如是因。有如是緣有如是緒。乃至廣說　此論引經從前等后。婆沙引經從后等前。行既有因。因即無明。故知無明名為因因。或亦兼顯業為生因。愛為起因。隨其所應等中以攝。

為別建立至為集諦體者。釋第二經。彼契經中為別建立種子．及田。說有取識．及四識住。明知五蘊皆能為因。故非唯愛為集諦體。

何法名生何法名起者。經部問。何法名生。何法名起。而言業為生因。愛為起因。

界趣生等至應知亦爾者。說一切有部答。三界．五趣．及四生等。種種不同品類差別。自體出現說名為生。若無差別但後有相續皆名為起。業與有愛如其次第為彼二因。業為差別生因。業令界等身形種種差別生故。愛為無差別起因。但後有續不簡彼此愛皆能起　言有愛者。有之愛故名為有愛　譬如種子與谷．麥等別種類芽為能生因。業為差別生因應知亦爾　水與一切無差別芽為能起因。愛為無差別起因應知亦爾。

愛為起因何理為證者。經部問。

離愛後有至愛為起因者。說一切有部答。以三理證愛為起因。一離愛後有必不起故。二由愛力故相續趣后。三執取後身我愛最強。由此三理愛為起因　有愛。謂凡夫學人　離愛。謂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：緣故。能作為緒的緣故。《婆沙論》第二十三卷說，如《大因緣法門經》所說：『佛告訴阿難，老死有這樣的因，有這樣的緣，有這樣的緒。』乃至廣說。此論引用經文，是從前等到后。而《婆沙論》引用經文，是從后等到前。行既然有因，因就是無明。所以知道無明名為因因。或者也兼顯業為生因，愛為起因，隨其所應在『等』中攝取。爲了分別建立種子和田，說明有取識和四識住。明明知道五蘊都能作為因，所以並非只有愛才是集諦的本體。經部宗提問：『什麼法名為生？什麼法名為起？』而言說業為生因，愛為起因。說一切有部宗回答：三界（欲界、色界、無色界）、五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）、以及四生（卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）等，種種不同品類差別，自體出現說名為生。若無差別，但後有相續，都名為起。業與有愛，如其次第為彼二因。業為差別生因，業令界等身形種種差別生故。愛為無差別起因，但後有相續，不簡彼此，愛皆能起。所謂『有愛』，是因為對『有』的愛，所以名為有愛。譬如種子與谷、麥等別種類芽為能生因，業為差別生因，應該知道也是這樣。水與一切無差別芽為能起因，愛為無差別起因，應該知道也是這樣。經部宗提問：『愛為起因，有什麼道理可以證明？』說一切有部宗回答：用三個道理證明愛為起因。一、離開愛，後有必定不起。二、由於愛的力量，相續趨向後有。三、執取後身，我愛最強。由此三個道理，愛為起因。『有愛』，指的是凡夫和學人。『離愛』，指的是...

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the reason. Able to be the cause of the sequence. The twenty-third volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says, as the Mahānidāna Sūtra says: 'The Buddha told Ānanda (the Buddha's attendant), old age and death have such a cause, such a condition, and such a sequence.' And so on. This treatise quotes the sutra from the beginning to the end. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra quotes the sutra from the end to the beginning. Since action has a cause, and the cause is ignorance (avidyā), it is known that ignorance is called the cause of the cause. Or it also shows that karma (action) is the cause of birth, and craving (tṛṣṇā) is the cause of arising, as appropriate, included in 'etc.' In order to separately establish the seed and the field, it is explained that there is grasping consciousness (upādāna-vijñāna) and the four abodes of consciousness (vijñāna-sthiti). It is clearly known that the five aggregates (skandhas) can all be causes, so it is not only craving that is the substance of the truth of arising (samudaya-satya). The Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) asks: 'What dharma (phenomenon) is called birth? What dharma is called arising?' And it is said that karma is the cause of birth, and craving is the cause of arising. The Sarvāstivāda (another Buddhist school) answers: The three realms (trayo dhātava) [desire realm (kāma-dhātu), form realm (rūpa-dhātu), formless realm (arūpa-dhātu)], the five destinies (pañca-gataya) [hell (naraka), hungry ghosts (preta), animals (tiryak), humans (manuṣya), gods (deva)], and the four births (catasro yonaya) [egg-born (aṇḍaja), womb-born (jarāyuja), moisture-born (saṃsvedaja), and spontaneously born (upapāduka)], etc., various different categories, the appearance of the self is called birth. If there is no difference, but only the continuation of subsequent existence, it is all called arising. Karma and craving for existence (bhava-tṛṣṇā) are, in that order, the two causes for them. Karma is the cause of differentiated birth, because karma causes the realms, etc., to have various differentiated forms. Craving is the cause of undifferentiated arising, but the continuation of subsequent existence, regardless of this or that, craving can cause it to arise. The so-called 'craving for existence' is called craving for existence because of the craving for 'existence'. For example, seeds and different kinds of sprouts such as grains and wheat are the causes of birth, and karma is the cause of differentiated birth, it should be known that it is also like this. Water and all undifferentiated sprouts are the causes of arising, and craving is the cause of undifferentiated arising, it should be known that it is also like this. The Sautrāntika asks: 'What reason can prove that craving is the cause of arising?' The Sarvāstivāda answers: Three reasons are used to prove that craving is the cause of arising. First, without craving, subsequent existence will definitely not arise. Second, due to the power of craving, the continuum tends towards subsequent existence. Third, grasping the subsequent body, self-love is the strongest. For these three reasons, craving is the cause of arising. 'Craving for existence' refers to ordinary people and learners. 'Without craving' refers to...

諸無學。余文可解。

如是世尊至異此名勝義者。此即第二明二諦。

論曰至衣等亦爾者。此釋初句及第三句中如瓶世俗。若彼物覺。彼物破時彼覺便無。彼物應知名世俗諦。指事可知。

又若有物至火等亦爾者。釋第二句及第三句中如水世俗。又若有物以慧分析同聚余法。彼覺便無亦是世俗。猶如假水四境為體。被慧析余色．香等時。水覺則無。假火．風等應知亦爾。前界品言假地．水等是顯．形色。彼文且據一顯相說。

即于彼物至名世俗諦者。釋世俗諦。即于彼物瓶未破時。水未析時。以世想名施設瓶．水。假施設有故名為世俗。依世俗理說瓶等是實名世俗諦。

若物異此至受等亦爾者。釋第四句。若有物體異此瓶等名勝義諦。謂彼物覺。彼物破時彼覺不無。及慧析余彼覺仍有。應知彼物名勝義諦　如是色等物碎至極微。一一極微皆名色等。或以勝慧析除味等。一一極微皆名味等。彼色等覺從粗至細恒常有故。受等亦然。無色之法雖不可碎細至極微。然可以慧析至剎那。彼受等覺恒常有故。

此真實有至名勝義諦者。釋勝義諦　問此言二諦通四諦不。及非諦不　解云婆沙七十七評家意說四諦皆通世俗．勝義。苦．集諦中有瓶．衣等。佛說滅諦如園．林．等。佛說道諦如船

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "『諸無學』（無學：指已證得阿羅漢果位，不再需要學習的人）說，剩餘的文句可以解釋。", "", "『如是世尊至異此名勝義者』，這部分是第二點，說明二諦（二諦：佛教中的兩種真理，即世俗諦和勝義諦）。", "", "『論曰至衣等亦爾者』，這是解釋第一句和第三句中『如瓶世俗』（瓶：指瓶子，世俗：指世俗諦）。如果對某個事物產生認知，當這個事物被破壞時，這種認知就不再存在，那麼這個事物就應該被認為是世俗諦。這可以通過具體事例來理解。", "", "『又若有物至火等亦爾者』，這是解釋第二句和第三句中『如水世俗』（水：指水，世俗：指世俗諦）。如果某個事物通過智慧分析，與其他聚集在一起的法（法：佛教術語，指事物、現象）分離，那麼對這個事物的認知就不再存在，這也屬於世俗諦。例如，虛假的水以四大（四大：指地、水、火、風四種基本元素）為體，當用水的智慧分析，分離出顏色、氣味等時，對水的認知就不再存在。虛假的火、風等也應該這樣理解。前面的《界品》中說，虛假的地、水等是顯現、形狀和顏色，那裡的說法只是根據一種顯現的方面來說的。", "", "『即于彼物至名世俗諦者』，這是解釋世俗諦。對於那個事物，在瓶子沒有被破壞時，水沒有被分析時，用世間的想法和名稱來施設瓶子、水，因為是假施設，所以稱為世俗。依據世俗的道理說瓶子等是真實的，這稱為世俗諦。", "", "『若物異此至受等亦爾者』，這是解釋第四句。如果某個物體不同於瓶子等，就稱為勝義諦（勝義諦：佛教中的最高真理）。也就是說，對於那個事物的認知，當這個事物被破壞時，這種認知仍然存在；或者用智慧分析分離出其他部分，這種認知仍然存在，那麼這個事物就應該被認為是勝義諦。例如，顏色等物體粉碎到極微（極微：物質的最小單位）的程度，每一個極微都可以稱為顏色等；或者用殊勝的智慧分析去除味道等，每一個極微都可以稱為味道等。對顏色的認知，從粗到細始終存在，感受等也是這樣。無色的法雖然不能粉碎細微到極微的程度，但是可以用智慧分析到剎那（剎那：極短的時間單位）。對感受等的認知始終存在。", "", "『此真實有至名勝義諦者』，這是解釋勝義諦。有人問：這裡說的二諦是否包括四諦（四諦：佛教的基本教義，即苦、集、滅、道）？或者不屬於四諦？解釋說，《婆沙論》第七十七卷中評家的意思是，四諦都包括世俗諦和勝義諦。苦諦和集諦中有瓶子、衣服等。佛陀所說的滅諦，如園林等。佛陀所說的道諦，如船。", "", "", "english_translations": [ "English version", "『O Non-learners』 (Non-learners: refers to those who have attained the Arhatship and no longer need to learn), the remaining sentences can be explained.", "", "『Thus, the World-Honored One to different from this is called ultimate truth』, this part is the second point, explaining the two truths (two truths: the two truths in Buddhism, namely conventional truth and ultimate truth).", "", "『The treatise says to clothes and so on are also like this』, this explains the first sentence and the third sentence in 『like a pot, conventional』 (pot: refers to a bottle, conventional: refers to conventional truth). If a cognition arises about something, and when that thing is destroyed, that cognition no longer exists, then that thing should be considered conventional truth. This can be understood through specific examples.", "", "『Also, if there is something to fire and so on are also like this』, this explains the second sentence and the third sentence in 『like water, conventional』 (water: refers to water, conventional: refers to conventional truth). If something is analyzed by wisdom and separated from other dharmas (dharmas: Buddhist term, referring to things, phenomena) that are gathered together, then the cognition of that thing no longer exists, this also belongs to conventional truth. For example, false water takes the four elements (four elements: refers to the four basic elements of earth, water, fire, and wind) as its substance. When analyzed with the wisdom of water, separating out color, smell, etc., the cognition of water no longer exists. False fire, wind, etc. should also be understood in this way. The previous 『Chapter on Elements』 said that false earth, water, etc. are manifestation, shape, and color, that statement was only based on one aspect of manifestation.", "", "『That is, regarding that thing to called conventional truth』, this explains conventional truth. Regarding that thing, when the pot has not been broken, when the water has not been analyzed, using worldly thoughts and names to designate the pot, water, because it is a false designation, it is called conventional. According to conventional reasoning, saying that pots, etc. are real is called conventional truth.", "", "『If something is different from this to feeling and so on are also like this』, this explains the fourth sentence. If something is different from pots, etc., it is called ultimate truth (ultimate truth: the highest truth in Buddhism). That is to say, regarding the cognition of that thing, when that thing is destroyed, that cognition still exists; or when wisdom analyzes and separates out other parts, that cognition still exists, then that thing should be considered ultimate truth. For example, objects such as color are crushed to the extent of atoms (atoms: the smallest unit of matter), each atom can be called color, etc.; or using superior wisdom to analyze and remove taste, etc., each atom can be called taste, etc. The cognition of color, etc., exists constantly from coarse to fine, and feeling, etc. are also like this. Although formless dharmas cannot be crushed to the extent of atoms, they can be analyzed by wisdom to a moment (moment: an extremely short unit of time). The cognition of feeling, etc. always exists.", "", "『This is truly existent to called ultimate truth』, this explains ultimate truth. Someone asks: Does the two truths mentioned here include the four noble truths (four noble truths: the basic teachings of Buddhism, namely suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path)? Or does it not belong to the four noble truths? The explanation is that the commentators in the seventy-seventh volume of the 『Vibhasa』 mean that the four noble truths all include conventional truth and ultimate truth. Suffering and its origin contain pots, clothes, etc. The cessation of suffering spoken by the Buddha is like gardens, forests, etc. The path spoken by the Buddha is like a boat." ] }

筏等。皆名世俗諦。佛說四諦各有四理。皆是勝義諦。又云。由說四諦皆有世俗．勝義諦故。世俗．勝義俱攝十八界．十二處．五蘊。虛空．非擇滅亦二諦攝故。

先軌範師至名世俗諦者。經部之中先軌範師作如是說。如出世智即是無漏觀智．及此出世智后得世間正智。所取諸法。名勝義諦。如此余智所取諸法。名世俗諦。

已辨諸諦至謂名俱義境者。此下當品大文第三約聖道辨人。就中。一明聖道加行。二約三道辨人。三明諸道差別　就明聖道加行中。一總標加行門。二廣明七加行　此即第一總標加行門。

論曰至起修所成慧者。釋上三句　順見諦聞。謂聞順見諦教。余文可知。

此三慧相差別云何者。此下釋第四句。明三慧別。此即問也。

毗婆沙師至三慧亦爾者。亦緣句文　唯言緣名。舉初顯后。或影顯也　俱謂緣名．及義。若據三慧成滿位時皆唯緣義。今此文言聞唯緣名思緣名．義。據加行位辨三慧別　余文可知。

有言若爾至聞修所成者。論主述諸師破毗婆沙義。有言若爾思慧不成。若緣名時應是聞慧。若緣義時應是修慧。

今詳三相至食草所成者。論主述已解　聞謂耳聞　思謂思量　修謂等持　此三即是能成三因。說所成言顯三勝慧是聞．思．修三因所成。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：筏等等，都叫做世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）。佛說四諦（catvāri ārya satyāni，四聖諦）各有四種道理，都是勝義諦（paramārtha-satya，絕對真理）。又說，由於說四諦都具有世俗諦和勝義諦，所以世俗諦和勝義諦都包含十八界（aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ，十八界）、十二處（dvādaśa āyatanāni，十二處）、五蘊（pañca skandhāḥ，五蘊）。虛空（ākāśa，虛空）和非擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，非擇滅）也包含在二諦之中。

先軌範師到叫做世俗諦：經部（Sautrāntika，經量部）中的先軌範師這樣說，如出世智（lokottara-jñāna，出世智），也就是無漏觀智（anāsrava-darśana-jñāna，無漏觀智）以及此出世智的后得世間正智（pṛṣṭhalabdha-laukika-samyag-jñāna，后得世間正智）所取的一切法，叫做勝義諦。像這樣，其餘的智慧所取的一切法，叫做世俗諦。

已辨諸諦到叫做俱義境：下面這一品中，大文的第三部分是關於通過聖道（ārya-mārga，聖道）來辨別人。其中，一是闡明聖道的加行（prayoga，加行），二是根據三道（trayo mārgāḥ，三道）來辨別人，三是闡明各種道的差別。在闡明聖道的加行中，一是總標加行門，二是廣泛闡明七加行。這裡就是第一總標加行門。

論曰到生起修所成慧：解釋上面三句話。順見諦聞，是指聽聞順應見諦（darśana-satya，見諦）的教法。其餘的文字可以理解。

這三種慧的相狀差別是什麼：下面解釋第四句話，闡明三種慧的差別。這是提問。

毗婆沙師到三種慧也是這樣：也是緣句文。只說緣名，是舉出開始的，來顯示後面的。或者說是影顯。都是指緣名和義。如果根據三種慧成就圓滿的時候來說，都是隻緣義。現在這篇文章說聽聞只緣名，思惟緣名和義，是根據加行位來辨別三種慧的差別。其餘的文字可以理解。

有人說如果這樣到聞修所成：論主敘述各位論師破斥毗婆沙義。有人說如果這樣，思慧就不能成立。如果緣名的時候，應該是聞慧。如果緣義的時候，應該是修慧。

現在詳細分析三種相狀到食草所成：論主敘述已經解釋過的。聞是指耳聞，思是指思量，修是指等持（samādhi，等持）。這三種就是能成就的三種原因。說所成，是顯示三種殊勝的智慧是由聞、思、修三種原因所成就的。

【English Translation】 English version: Rafts, etc., are all called conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). The Buddha said that the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ārya satyāni) each have four aspects, and all are ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Furthermore, it is said that because the Four Noble Truths are said to have both conventional and ultimate truth, both conventional and ultimate truth encompass the eighteen elements (aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ), twelve sense bases (dvādaśa āyatanāni), and five aggregates (pañca skandhāḥ). Space (ākāśa) and non-selective cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) are also included within the two truths.

From 'The former teachers' to 'called conventional truth': The former teachers within the Sautrāntika school say that the supramundane wisdom (lokottara-jñāna), which is the undefiled wisdom of insight (anāsrava-darśana-jñāna), and the subsequent mundane correct wisdom attained after this supramundane wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdha-laukika-samyag-jñāna), take all dharmas as their objects, and this is called ultimate truth. Likewise, the dharmas taken as objects by other wisdoms are called conventional truth.

From 'Having distinguished the truths' to 'called the realm of both meaning': In this section, the third major division concerns distinguishing people through the noble path (ārya-mārga). Among these, first is clarifying the application (prayoga) of the noble path, second is distinguishing people according to the three paths (trayo mārgāḥ), and third is clarifying the differences between the various paths. Within clarifying the application of the noble path, first is a general statement of the application gate, and second is a detailed explanation of the seven applications. This is the first general statement of the application gate.

The treatise says, 'To generate wisdom arising from cultivation': This explains the above three sentences. 'Hearing that accords with seeing the truth' refers to hearing teachings that accord with seeing the truth (darśana-satya). The remaining text is understandable.

What are the differences in the characteristics of these three wisdoms?: This explains the fourth sentence, clarifying the differences between the three wisdoms. This is a question.

The Vaibhāṣika masters say, 'The three wisdoms are also like this': This also concerns the phrase 'related to words'. Only mentioning 'related to names' is to present the beginning to reveal the end, or to subtly reveal it. Both refer to being related to names and meanings. If based on the time when the three wisdoms are fully accomplished, they are only related to meanings. The text here says that hearing is only related to names, and thinking is related to names and meanings, based on distinguishing the three wisdoms at the stage of application. The remaining text is understandable.

Some say, 'If that is so' to 'arising from hearing and cultivation': The treatise master narrates various teachers refuting the Vaibhāṣika meaning. Some say that if that is so, thinking wisdom cannot be established. If it is related to names, it should be hearing wisdom. If it is related to meanings, it should be cultivation wisdom.

Now, examining the three characteristics in detail to 'arising from eating grass': The treatise master narrates what has already been explained. Hearing refers to hearing with the ears, thinking refers to contemplation, and cultivation refers to samādhi. These three are the three causes that can accomplish. Saying 'arising from' shows that the three superior wisdoms are accomplished by the three causes of hearing, thinking, and cultivation.

從因為名故言聞所成慧等　如言食所成命。草所成牛。食．草是能成。命．牛是所成　界分別者。聞通欲．色有耳聞故。非在無色無耳聞故　就欲．色中婆沙四十二云。地者聞所成慧在五地。謂欲界。四靜慮。有說在六地。謂前五．及靜慮中間。有說在七地。謂前六．及未至地(然無評家)思唯欲界是不定界。若欲修時墮思中故。非色．無色。以是定界。若欲思時墮修中故。修通色．無色是定界故。非在欲界不定界故　三得分別者婆沙四十二云。加行得。離染得。生得者。此三慧皆通加行得．離染得。非生得。聞．思所成離染得者。離有頂染時得故。有說三慧雖加行得而亦可言生得。從上地沒生下地時亦有得故。有餘師說。聞所成慧在欲界者唯加行得。在色界者可言是加行得。可言是生得。可言是加行得者。謂在欲界加行修習聞所成慧。觀察諸法自相．共相。極純熟者從欲界沒生色界時乃可得故。可言是生得者。雖在欲界加行修習聞所成慧。觀察諸法自相．共相若未生彼猶未能得。要生色界方得彼故。思所成慧唯加行得。修所成慧通三得。加行．離染．生時得故。

諸有欲于修至暫息永除故者。此下第二廣明七加行。就中。一明身器清凈　二明五停位。三明四念住。四明四善根　此即第一明身器清凈。就頌文中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從因為名義的緣故，稱作聞所成慧等等，就像說食物所成就的生命，草所成就的牛。食物和草是能成就的原因，生命和牛是被成就的結果。關於界限的分別：聞所成慧能夠通達欲界和色界，因為有耳朵聽聞的緣故。不在無色界，因為無色界沒有耳朵聽聞。在欲界和色界中，《婆沙論》第四十二卷說，聞所成慧存在於五地，即欲界和四禪天。有人說存在於六地，即前五地加上靜慮中間地。有人說存在於七地，即前六地加上未至地（然而沒有評判者）。思所成慧只在欲界，是不定界，如果想要修習的時候，會落入思慮之中。不在色界和無色界，因為它們是定界，如果想要思慮的時候，會落入禪修之中。修所成慧通達色界和無色界，因為它們是定界，不在欲界，因為欲界是不定界。關於三種獲得的分別，《婆沙論》第四十二卷說，加行得、離染得、生得。這三種智慧都通加行得和離染得，不是生得。聞所成慧和思所成慧的離染得，是在離開有頂天的染污時獲得的。有人說，這三種智慧雖然是加行得，但也可以說是生得，因為從上地死亡而生到下地時也有可能獲得。有其他老師說，聞所成慧在欲界只能是加行得，在（此處原文缺失，無法翻譯）可以認為是加行得，也可以認為是生得。可以認為是加行得，是指在欲界通過加行修習聞所成慧，觀察諸法的自相和共相，非常純熟的人，從欲界死亡而生到（此處原文缺失，無法翻譯）時才可能獲得。可以認為是生得，是指雖然在欲界通過加行修習聞所成慧，觀察諸法的自相和共相，如果還沒有生到彼處，仍然不能獲得，一定要生到**（此處原文缺失，無法翻譯）才能獲得。思所成慧只能是加行得。修所成慧通三種獲得，在加行、離染、出生時都可以獲得。

那些想要通過禪修達到暫時止息並永遠去除煩惱的人，以下第二部分詳細說明七種加行。其中，第一是說明身體和器具的清凈，第二是說明五停心觀，第三是說明四念住，第四是說明四善根。這裡是第一部分，說明身體和器具的清凈，從頌文開始。

【English Translation】 English version: From the reason of name, it is called Hearing-originated Wisdom, etc., just like saying life originated from food, and a cow originated from grass. Food and grass are the causes that enable, while life and cow are the results that are enabled. Regarding the distinction of realms: Hearing-originated Wisdom can penetrate the Desire Realm and the Form Realm because there is hearing with the ears. It is not in the Formless Realm because there is no hearing with the ears. Within the Desire Realm and the Form Realm, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha-bhasya, volume 42, says that Hearing-originated Wisdom exists in five planes, namely the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas (meditative states). Some say it exists in six planes, namely the previous five plus the Intermediate Dhyana. Some say it exists in seven planes, namely the previous six plus the Anagamin plane (but there is no commentator). Thought-originated Wisdom is only in the Desire Realm, which is an indeterminate realm. If one wants to cultivate it, one falls into thought. It is not in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm because they are determinate realms. If one wants to think, one falls into meditation. Cultivation-originated Wisdom penetrates the Form Realm and the Formless Realm because they are determinate realms. It is not in the Desire Realm because the Desire Realm is an indeterminate realm. Regarding the distinction of the three attainments, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha-bhasya, volume 42, says: attainment through effort (加行得, jiāxíng dé), attainment through detachment (離染得, lí rǎn dé), and attainment through birth (生得, shēng dé). These three types of wisdom all penetrate attainment through effort and attainment through detachment, but not attainment through birth. The detachment attainment of Hearing-originated Wisdom and Thought-originated Wisdom is attained when one leaves the defilements of the Peak of Existence (有頂天, yǒu dǐng tiān). Some say that although these three types of wisdom are attained through effort, they can also be said to be attained through birth because one may attain them when dying from a higher plane and being born in a lower plane. Other teachers say that Hearing-originated Wisdom in the Desire Realm can only be attained through effort. In ** (原文缺失, yuánwén quēshī - original text missing), it can be said to be attained through effort, and it can also be said to be attained through birth. It can be said to be attained through effort, meaning that in the Desire Realm, one cultivates Hearing-originated Wisdom through effort, observing the self-characteristics (自相, zì xiāng) and common characteristics (共相, gòng xiāng) of all dharmas (法, fǎ). Those who are extremely proficient may attain it when dying from the Desire Realm and being born in ** (原文缺失, yuánwén quēshī - original text missing). It can be said to be attained through birth, meaning that although one cultivates Hearing-originated Wisdom through effort in the Desire Realm, observing the self-characteristics and common characteristics of all dharmas, if one has not yet been born there, one still cannot attain it. One must be born in ** (原文缺失, yuánwén quēshī - original text missing) to attain it. Thought-originated Wisdom can only be attained through effort. Cultivation-originated Wisdom penetrates the three attainments; it can be attained through effort, detachment, and birth.

Those who desire to attain temporary cessation and permanently remove afflictions through meditation, the second part below explains the seven applications in detail. Among them, the first is to clarify the purity of the body and implements, the second is to clarify the five stopping-the-mind contemplations (五停心觀, wǔ tíng xīn guān), the third is to clarify the four foundations of mindfulness (四念住, sì niàn zhù), and the fourth is to clarify the four roots of goodness (四善根, sì shàn gēn). Here is the first part, clarifying the purity of the body and implements, starting from the verse.

。初一句顯初因。次五句顯第二因。后六句顯第三因　第二因中初一句標。后四句釋。就釋中前兩句舉所治。后兩句顯能治　第三因中前兩句顯體。后四句立意。

論曰至三住四聖種者。舉種列名。

身遠離者至離不善尋者。釋初句。

此二易可成至無大欲者。釋第二句。頌文應云無不喜足。略不言喜。

所無二．種差別云何者。此下釋第三．第四句。此即問也。喜足。少欲。所無二種．差別云何。

對法諸師至名大欲者。答　于已得妙衣服等更多求名不喜足。釋已得多求名所無　于未得妙衣服等多希求名大欲。釋未得多求名所無。

豈不更求至便應不成者。難。豈不更求名不喜足亦緣未得。便同大欲。此二差別便應不成。

是故此中至名為大欲者。論主申正解。不喜足望已得。大欲望未得。

喜足少欲至應知差別者。釋治相違。喜足能治不喜足。少欲能治大欲。與此所治二種相違應知差別。于所已得不妙不多。住知足心名為喜足。于所未得衣服等事。不求妙．多名為少欲。

喜足少欲至唯欲界所繫者。釋界三．無漏。喜足少欲。俱通三界．及與無漏。所治二種唯欲界所繫。

喜足少欲至欲貪為性者。釋無貪性。

能生眾聖至亦是無貪者。釋第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：初一句闡明最初的因。接下來的五句闡明第二個因。最後的六句闡明第三個因。在第二個因中，第一句是標示。後面的四句是解釋。在解釋中，前兩句舉出所要對治的。后兩句闡明能對治的。

『論曰至三住四聖種者』，這是舉出種類並列出名稱。

『身遠離者至離不善尋者』，這是解釋第一句。

『此二易可成至無大欲者』，這是解釋第二句。頌文應該說『無不喜足』，這裡省略了『喜』字。

『所無二．種差別云何者』，這以下是解釋第三、第四句。這是提問。喜足、少欲，所無的兩種差別是什麼？

『對法諸師至名大欲者』，這是回答。對於已經得到的妙衣服等，還更多地追求，名為不喜足。這是解釋已經得到還多求名為所無。對於未得到的妙衣服等，多多地希望追求，名為大欲。這是解釋未得到還多求名為所無。

『豈不更求至便應不成者』，這是反駁。難道不是更求名不喜足也緣于未得到嗎？這樣就和大欲相同了。這兩種差別便應該不能成立。

『是故此中至名為大欲者』，論主申明正確的解釋。不喜足是針對已得到的，大欲是針對未得到的。

『喜足少欲至應知差別者』，這是解釋對治的相違之處。喜足能對治不喜足，少欲能對治大欲。與這所要對治的兩種相違之處，應該知道它們的差別。對於已經得到的不妙不多，安住于知足的心，名為喜足。對於未得到的衣服等事物，不追求美妙、眾多，名為少欲。

『喜足少欲至唯欲界所繫者』，這是解釋界三、無漏。喜足、少欲，都通於三界以及無漏。所要對治的兩種，唯獨是欲界所繫。

『喜足少欲至欲貪為性者』，這是解釋無貪的性質。

『能生眾聖至亦是無貪者』，這是解釋第

【English Translation】 English version: The first sentence clarifies the initial cause. The next five sentences clarify the second cause. The last six sentences clarify the third cause. In the second cause, the first sentence is the heading. The following four sentences are the explanation. In the explanation, the first two sentences cite what is to be treated, and the last two sentences clarify what can treat it.

'The treatise says, 'To the three abodes and four noble lineages' is to list the types and names.

'Being physically secluded to being detached from unwholesome thoughts' explains the first sentence.

'These two are easily accomplished to having no great desires' explains the second sentence. The verse should say 'having no non-contentment,' omitting 'contentment'.

'What is the difference between the two kinds of 'what is not'?' This below explains the third and fourth sentences. This is a question. Contentment and few desires, what is the difference between the two kinds of 'what is not'?

'The masters of Abhidharma to being called great desire' is the answer. Seeking more of the wonderful clothes etc. that have already been obtained is called non-contentment. This explains seeking more of what has already been obtained is called 'what is not'. Greatly hoping to seek more of the wonderful clothes etc. that have not yet been obtained is called great desire. This explains seeking more of what has not yet been obtained is called 'what is not'.

'Isn't it that seeking more to being unable to be established?' is a refutation. Isn't it that seeking more called non-contentment is also related to what has not been obtained? Then it is the same as great desire. The difference between these two should not be able to be established.

'Therefore, in this to being called great desire' is the treatise master clarifying the correct explanation. Non-contentment is directed towards what has already been obtained, and great desire is directed towards what has not been obtained.

'Contentment and few desires to the difference should be known' explains the opposing aspects of treatment. Contentment can treat non-contentment, and few desires can treat great desire. The difference between these two opposing aspects of what is to be treated should be known. For what has already been obtained that is not wonderful or much, abiding in a mind of knowing satisfaction is called contentment. For things like clothes that have not yet been obtained, not seeking wonderful or much is called few desires.

'Contentment and few desires to being only bound to the desire realm' explains the realm of the three and the unconditioned. Contentment and few desires both pervade the three realms and the unconditioned. The two kinds of what are to be treated are only bound to the desire realm.

'Contentment and few desires to being of the nature of non-greed' explains the nature of non-greed.

'Being able to generate the multitude of sages to also being non-greed' explains the

七句。此四聖種能生眾聖聖之種故故名聖種。四聖種體顯同前故亦是無貪。

四中前三至謂樂斷修者。釋第八句。四聖種中前三體性唯是喜足。一于衣服隨所得中喜足聖種。二于飲食隨所得中喜足聖種。三于臥具隨所得中喜足聖種。第四聖種于有．無有樂斷．樂修聖種。婆沙一百八十一釋樂斷．樂修云。問樂斷．樂修有何差別。答樂斷煩惱。樂修聖道。複次無間道名樂斷。解脫道名樂修。複次見道名樂斷。修道名樂修。複次樂斷者顯諸忍。樂修者顯諸智。樂斷．樂修是謂差別。

如何亦用無貪為體者。問。第四聖種樂斷．樂修。如何亦用無貪為體。

以能棄捨有欲貪故者。答。以能棄捨有．欲貪故。有貪謂上界貪。欲貪謂欲界貪。此貪即是有．無有愛故。此第四無貪為體。故正理云。由此能治有．無有貪故。此亦以無貪為性。豈不第四亦能治瞋等。則應亦以無瞋等為性。非無此義。然以前三為資糧故。前三唯是無貪性故。此亦自能對治貪故。從強偏說。又解有謂有．無有。欲貪謂即欲是貪。以能棄捨有．無有．欲貪故　問少欲．喜足俱對治貪無貪為性。何故喜足立為聖種。非少欲耶　答正理云。以少欲者容於衣等物有希求故。謂有意樂性下劣者。于未得境不敢多求。設已得多容求不歇。見喜足者少

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本七句：這四種聖種能夠產生眾多聖者，是聖者的種子，因此被稱為聖種。這四種聖種的體性與之前所說相同，因此也是無貪。四中前三至謂樂斷修者：解釋第八句。四聖種中，前三種的體性只是喜足。一是對衣服隨所得而喜足的聖種。二是對飲食隨所得而喜足的聖種。三是對臥具隨所得而喜足的聖種。第四聖種是對有（bhava，存在）和無有（vibhava，不存在）的樂於斷除和樂於修習的聖種。《婆沙論》第一百八十一卷解釋樂斷和樂修說：問：樂斷和樂修有什麼差別？答：樂斷是斷除煩惱，樂修是修習聖道。進一步說，無間道（ānantarya-mārga）名為樂斷，解脫道（vimukti-mārga）名為樂修。進一步說，見道（darśana-mārga）名為樂斷，修道（bhāvanā-mārga）名為樂修。進一步說，樂斷顯示諸忍（kṣānti），樂修顯示諸智（jñāna）。樂斷和樂修的差別就是這樣。如何亦用無貪為體者：問：第四聖種樂於斷除和樂於修習，為什麼也用無貪（alobha，不貪婪）作為體性？以能棄捨有欲貪故者：答：因為能夠棄捨有貪（bhava-tṛṣṇā，對存在的貪婪）和欲貪（kāma-tṛṣṇā，對慾望的貪婪）。有貪是指上界的貪婪，欲貪是指欲界的貪婪。這種貪婪就是對有和無有的愛。因此這第四聖種以無貪為體性。所以《正理》說：因為這能對治有和無有的貪婪，因此也以無貪為體性。難道第四聖種不能對治嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨）等嗎？那也應該以無嗔等為體性。並非沒有這個道理，但因為前三種是資糧，前三種只是無貪的體性，這第四聖種也能自己對治貪婪，所以從強盛的一面來說。又一種解釋是，有指有和無有，欲貪是指對慾望的貪婪。因為能夠棄捨有、無有和欲貪。問：少欲（alpecchatā，少欲知足）和喜足（saṃtuṣṭi，滿足）都能對治貪婪，都是以無貪為體性，為什麼喜足被立為聖種，而不是少欲呢？答：《正理》說：因為少欲的人可能對衣服等物品還有希求。意思是說，意樂（āśaya，意圖）性質下劣的人，對未得到的境界不敢多求，即使已經得到很多，可能還是求之不休。而喜足的人少欲。

【English Translation】 English version Seven sentences: These four noble lineages can produce many saints and are the seeds of saints, hence they are called noble lineages. The nature of these four noble lineages is the same as what was said before, so they are also non-greed (alobha). 『Of the four, the first three...namely, delighting in abandoning and cultivating』: Explaining the eighth sentence. Among the four noble lineages, the nature of the first three is simply contentment (saṃtuṣṭi). First, the noble lineage of being content with whatever clothing is obtained. Second, the noble lineage of being content with whatever food is obtained. Third, the noble lineage of being content with whatever bedding is obtained. The fourth noble lineage is the noble lineage of delighting in abandoning and delighting in cultivating existence (bhava) and non-existence (vibhava). The Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) volume one hundred and eighty-one explains delighting in abandoning and delighting in cultivating, saying: Question: What is the difference between delighting in abandoning and delighting in cultivating? Answer: Delighting in abandoning is abandoning afflictions (kleśa), and delighting in cultivating is cultivating the noble path (ārya-mārga). Furthermore, the immediate path (ānantarya-mārga) is called delighting in abandoning, and the liberation path (vimukti-mārga) is called delighting in cultivating. Furthermore, the path of seeing (darśana-mārga) is called delighting in abandoning, and the path of cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga) is called delighting in cultivating. Furthermore, delighting in abandoning reveals the acceptances (kṣānti), and delighting in cultivating reveals the wisdoms (jñāna). This is the difference between delighting in abandoning and delighting in cultivating. 『How is non-greed also used as its nature?』: Question: The fourth noble lineage delights in abandoning and delights in cultivating. How is non-greed (alobha) also used as its nature? 『Because it can abandon the greed for existence and desire』: Answer: Because it can abandon the greed for existence (bhava-tṛṣṇā) and the greed for desire (kāma-tṛṣṇā). Greed for existence refers to the greed of the upper realms, and greed for desire refers to the greed of the desire realm. This greed is the love for existence and non-existence. Therefore, this fourth noble lineage takes non-greed as its nature. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (Abhidharmanyāyānusāra-śāstra) says: 『Because this can cure the greed for existence and non-existence, it also takes non-greed as its nature.』 Doesn't the fourth also cure anger (dveṣa) and so on? Then it should also take non-anger and so on as its nature. It is not that there is no such reason, but because the first three are resources, and the first three are only the nature of non-greed, this fourth can also cure greed itself, so it is spoken of from the strong side. Another explanation is that existence refers to existence and non-existence, and greed for desire refers to the greed for desire. Because it can abandon existence, non-existence, and greed for desire. Question: Few desires (alpecchatā) and contentment (saṃtuṣṭi) both cure greed and both have non-greed as their nature. Why is contentment established as a noble lineage and not few desires? Answer: The Nyāyānusāra says: 『Because those with few desires may still have desires for clothing and other things.』 This means that those whose intention (āśaya) is inferior do not dare to ask for much in the realm of what has not been obtained, and even if they have obtained a lot, they may still seek without stopping. Those who are content have few desires.

有所得。尚不更求況復多得。故唯喜足建立聖種。廣如彼釋　又婆沙一百八十一云。答少欲之名有過失。有增益。喜足不爾。有過失者。但言少欲不言無慾故。有增益者。于實無慾而名少欲　少欲于未來處未得事轉。喜足於現在處已得事轉。不取現在一迦履沙缽拏為難。非於未來轉輪王位以喜足難。故立為聖種。廣如彼釋(解云缽拏此云錢。一迦履沙當十六貝珠。八十貝珠當一缽拏。十六缽拏名迦履沙缽拏。雜心翻迦履沙缽拏為一錢者謬也)　問於四依中何故不說藥為聖種。但說前三衣。舊大德等皆言。四依中陳棄藥是糞穢者。不然。陳久之藥他人棄之名陳棄藥。出家少欲取而服之　答正理云。于藥喜足何非聖種。不說于彼有愛生故。為治愛生建立聖種。經唯說有四種愛生。是故於藥不立聖種。或即攝在前三中故。謂藥有在衣服中攝。有在飲食中攝。有在臥具中攝故藥喜足不別立聖種。廣如彼釋　問體雖同前約界云何　答如婆沙一百八十一云。界者皆墮三界及不墮界。問色界無飲食。無色界無前三。云何三界皆具四種　答彼雖無食等。而有彼喜足功德。有說由地獄具四種故。展轉引生上界者。亦具四種。尊者世友作如是說。上界雖無食等。而有彼對治。然對治有四種。謂斷對治。厭壞對治。持對治。遠分對治。色界于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有所得，尚且不進一步追求，更何況是獲得更多呢？所以唯有喜足才能建立聖種。詳細的解釋如同彼處所說。又，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百八十一卷說：『稱作『少欲』是有過失的，也有增益。喜足則不然。有過失是因為只說『少欲』，沒有說『無慾』的緣故。有增益是因為實際上沒有慾望，卻稱作『少欲』。少欲是針對未來處尚未得到的事物而言的，喜足是針對現在處已經得到的事物而言的。不能用現在的一『迦履沙缽拏』（Kalikarshapana，古印度貨幣單位）來為難，不能用未來轉輪王的位置來用喜足為難。所以建立為聖種。詳細的解釋如同彼處所說。（解釋說：『缽拏』（Pana）在這裡指錢。一『迦履沙』（Karisha）相當於十六個貝珠。八十個貝珠相當於一個『缽拏』（Pana）。十六個『缽拏』（Pana）叫做『迦履沙缽拏』（Kalikarshapana）。《雜心論》將『迦履沙缽拏』（Kalikarshapana）翻譯成一錢是錯誤的。）問：在四依（Cattāro Nissayā，比丘生活的四個依靠）中，為什麼不說藥物是聖種，只說前三者——衣服、食物、住處？舊的大德們都說，四依中陳舊丟棄的藥物是糞穢。不是這樣的。陳舊很久的藥物，別人丟棄的叫做陳棄藥。出家人少欲，拿來服用。答：《阿毗達磨順正理論》說：『對於藥物喜足，為什麼不是聖種呢？』因為不說對於藥物有愛生起的緣故。爲了對治愛生起，才建立聖種。經中只說了有四種愛生起。所以對於藥物不建立聖種。或者說，藥物已經包含在前三者之中了。比如，藥物有的包含在衣服中，有的包含在飲食中，有的包含在臥具中，所以藥物的喜足不單獨建立為聖種。詳細的解釋如同彼處所說。問：體性雖然與前面相同，但從界（Dhātu，構成要素）的角度來說，又如何呢？答：如《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百八十一卷說：『從界（Dhātu，構成要素）的角度來說，都墮入三界（Tiloka，欲界、色界、無色界）以及不墮入界。』問：如果無飲食，無，無前三者，為什麼三界（Tiloka，欲界、色界、無色界）都具備四種聖種呢？答：他們雖然沒有食物等，但有對食物喜足的功德。有人說，由於地獄具備四種聖種，輾轉引發上界的人，也具備四種聖種。尊者世友這樣說：上界雖然沒有食物等，但有對治。然而對治有四種：斷對治、厭壞對治、持對治、遠分對治。于

【English Translation】 English version Having obtained something, one does not seek further, let alone obtain more? Therefore, only contentment can establish the noble lineage. The detailed explanation is as described there. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume one hundred and eighty-one, states: 'To call it 'few desires' has faults, and also has augmentation. Contentment is not like that. It has faults because it only says 'few desires' and does not say 'no desires'. It has augmentation because in reality there are no desires, but it is called 'few desires'. 'Few desires' is directed towards things not yet obtained in the future, while contentment is directed towards things already obtained in the present. One cannot use one Kalikarshapana (ancient Indian currency unit) in the present to make things difficult, and one cannot use the position of a future Chakravartin king to make things difficult with contentment. Therefore, it is established as a noble lineage. The detailed explanation is as described there. (The explanation says: 'Pana' here refers to money. One Karisha is equivalent to sixteen cowrie shells. Eighty cowrie shells are equivalent to one Pana. Sixteen Pana are called Kalikarshapana. The Tattvasamgraha translating Kalikarshapana as one coin is incorrect.) Question: Among the four supports (Cattāro Nissayā, the four supports of a bhikkhu's life), why is medicine not said to be a noble lineage, but only the first three—clothing, food, and lodging? The old great masters all say that discarded medicine among the four supports is filth. This is not so. Medicine that has been old for a long time and discarded by others is called discarded medicine. A renunciant with few desires takes it and consumes it. Answer: The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Why is contentment with medicine not a noble lineage?' Because it is not said that attachment arises towards medicine. In order to counteract the arising of attachment, the noble lineage is established. The sutras only say that there are four kinds of attachment that arise. Therefore, a noble lineage is not established for medicine. Or, medicine is already included in the first three. For example, some medicine is included in clothing, some is included in food, and some is included in bedding, so contentment with medicine is not separately established as a noble lineage. The detailed explanation is as described there. Question: Although the nature is the same as before, how is it from the perspective of the realm (Dhātu, element)? Answer: As the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume one hundred and eighty-one, says: 'From the perspective of the realm (Dhātu, element), all fall into the three realms (Tiloka, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) and those that do not fall into the realm.' Question: If there is no food, no , and no first three, why do the three realms (Tiloka, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) all possess the four noble lineages? Answer: Although they do not have food, etc., they have the merit of being content with food. Some say that because the lower realm possesses the four noble lineages, those in the upper realm who are gradually induced also possess the four noble lineages. Venerable Vasumitra said this: Although the upper realm does not have food, etc., it has antidotes. However, there are four kinds of antidotes: the antidote of cessation, the antidote of aversion, the antidote of maintenance, and the antidote of distance. in

食等具四對治。欲界有三。除斷對治。無色界有二。謂持．及遠分。廣如彼釋　又正理云。緣衣服等所生喜足如何可說是無漏耶。誰言如是喜足是無漏。若爾聖種寧皆通無漏。由彼增上所生聖道。彼所引故從彼為名。故言聖種皆通無漏。不作是言。緣衣服等所有喜足皆通無漏。少欲無漏準此應釋。謂彼增上所生聖道。彼所引故從彼為名。非聖道生緣衣等境。

為顯何義立四聖種者　釋第九句。此即問也。

以諸弟子至解脫非久者答。如文可知。

何故安立如是二事者。釋第十句。此即問也。

為欲對治至說四聖種者。答。為欲對治四種愛生。經言苾芻愛因衣服應生時生。初獲時也　應住時住。次受用時也　應執時執。后堅執時也　如是有愛或因飲食。或因臥具。或因有．無有。皆如是說　有。謂有愛　無有。謂無有愛。為欲對治此四愛故說四聖種。

即依此義至第四聖種者。釋后兩句。即依此中四聖種義更異門說。謂佛為欲暫息我所事欲永除我事欲故說四聖種　我所事者。謂衣服．飲食．臥具　我事者。謂自身。即有．無有。緣彼四貪名之為欲　為暫止息前三貪故。說前三聖種。為永滅除四種貪故說第四聖種樂斷．樂修。

如是已說至如次第應修者。此下第二明五停位。七加行

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：食物等資具的四種對治方法。欲界有三種，除了斷對治。無色界有兩種，即持和遠分。詳細內容如彼釋所說。又《正理》中說：『緣于衣服等所產生的喜足，如何能說是無漏呢？』誰說這樣的喜足是無漏呢？如果這樣，聖種難道都通於無漏嗎？由於這些增上緣所產生的聖道，以及聖道所引導的緣故，因此以聖道來命名。所以說聖種都通於無漏。但並不是說，緣于衣服等所產生的所有喜足都通於無漏。少欲無漏也應準此解釋，即由於這些增上緣所產生的聖道，以及聖道所引導的緣故，因此以聖道來命名。而不是聖道生起時緣于衣服等外境。『爲了闡明什麼意義而安立四聖種呢？』這是解釋第九句，也就是一個提問。『因為諸位弟子能夠很快解脫』，這是回答。如字面意思可知。『因為什麼安立這樣的兩件事呢？』這是解釋第十句，也就是一個提問。『爲了對治四種愛而宣說四聖種』，這是回答。爲了對治四種愛的生起。《經》中說，比丘對比丘愛因衣服而生時，在初獲得時生起；應安住時安住，在接受享用時生起；應執取時執取，在之後堅固執取時生起。像這樣，有愛或者因為飲食，或者因為臥具，或者因為有（bhava，有愛）、無有（vibhava，無有愛），都像這樣說。有，指有愛；無有，指無有愛。爲了對治這四種愛，所以宣說四聖種。『即依據此義乃至第四聖種』，這是解釋後面的兩句。即依據這四聖種的意義，以不同的方式來說明。佛陀爲了暫時止息我所（mama，屬於我的）的事欲，以及永遠去除我（atman，自我）的事欲，所以宣說四聖種。我所事，指衣服、飲食、臥具；我事，指自身，即有、無有。緣于這四種貪愛，稱之為欲。爲了暫時止息前三種貪愛，所以宣說前三種聖種。爲了永遠滅除四種貪愛，所以宣說第四聖種——樂於斷除、樂於修習。像這樣已經說了，乃至『如次第應修』，這以下第二部分說明五停心觀（pañca sthiticitta，五停心觀）、七加行（sapta prayoga，七加行）。

【English Translation】 English version: The four antidotes for food and other requisites. There are three in the Desire Realm, excluding the antidote of cessation. There are two in the Formless Realm, namely, contentment and detachment. The details are as explained in that commentary. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'How can contentment arising from clothing, etc., be said to be unconditioned?' Who says that such contentment is unconditioned? If so, do the Noble Lineages all pertain to the unconditioned? Because the Noble Path arises from these superior conditions, and because it is led by the Noble Path, it is named after it. Therefore, it is said that the Noble Lineages all pertain to the unconditioned. It is not said that all contentment arising from clothing, etc., pertains to the unconditioned. The unconditioned nature of desiring little should be explained accordingly, namely, because the Noble Path arises from these superior conditions, and because it is led by the Noble Path, it is named after it. It is not that the Noble Path arises from objects such as clothing. 'To reveal what meaning are the Four Noble Lineages established?' This explains the ninth sentence, which is a question. 'Because the disciples will attain liberation soon,' this is the answer. As the text indicates. 'Why are these two things established?' This explains the tenth sentence, which is a question. 'To counteract the four kinds of craving, the Four Noble Lineages are taught,' this is the answer. To counteract the arising of the four kinds of craving. The Sūtra says that when a bhikṣu (monk) develops craving for clothing, it arises when he first obtains it; it abides when he uses it; it is grasped when he possesses it; it is firmly held onto later. Similarly, craving may arise from food, bedding, or from existence (bhava, being) and non-existence (vibhava, non-being). Existence refers to craving for existence; non-existence refers to craving for non-existence. To counteract these four cravings, the Four Noble Lineages are taught. 'That is, based on this meaning, up to the Fourth Noble Lineage,' this explains the last two sentences. That is, based on the meaning of these Four Noble Lineages, it is explained in a different way. The Buddha taught the Four Noble Lineages in order to temporarily cease the desire for things belonging to 'me' (mama, mine), and to permanently remove the desire for things related to 'self' (atman, self). 'Things belonging to me' refer to clothing, food, and bedding; 'things related to self' refer to oneself, that is, existence and non-existence. Craving for these four is called desire. To temporarily cease the first three cravings, the first three Noble Lineages are taught. To permanently eliminate the four cravings, the Fourth Noble Lineage—delighting in abandonment and delighting in cultivation—is taught. Having spoken thus, up to 'should be cultivated in order,' the second part below explains the Five Stoppages of Mind (pañca sthiticitta, five foundations of mindfulness) and the Seven Preparatory Practices (sapta prayoga, seven applications).

中五停心觀也。就中。一總標。二別釋。此即總標。

論曰至二持息念者。釋上兩句。正入修門雖有多種。要者有二。如文可知。

誰於何門能正入修者。釋下兩句。此即問也。

如次應知至能正入修者。答　貪增上名貪行者　尋增上名尋行者　余文可知。

有餘師言至治彼無能者。敘異說。前約緣多。后約緣外。故不凈觀非能止尋。

此中先應至名超作意位者。此下第二別釋。就中。一明不凈觀。二明息念觀　就明不凈觀中。一明不凈相。二諸門分別　此即第一明不凈相。

論曰至令不現行者。釋初兩句。貪略有四。緣青瘀等修不凈觀顯色壞故治顯色貪緣蟲食等修不凈觀。形色壞故治形色貪　緣蟲咀等修不凈觀。妙觸壞故治妙觸貪　緣尸不動修不凈觀。無威儀故治供奉貪　作此四觀各治一貪　若緣骨璅修不凈觀。通治四貪。以骨璅中無四貪境。故應且辨修骨璅觀。於三作意中此唯勝解作意攝故。是假相觀。不能斷惑但伏現行。夫能斷惑遍緣上下。此不凈觀少分緣故。不能斷惑。但伏現行。

然瑜伽師至三超作意者。釋后六句。此即開章。於三位中前二作意方現在前。第三淳熟不須作意　任運現前名超作意。

謂觀行者至初習業位者。此釋初章。釋第三．第四句。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這是關於修習五停心觀的內容。其中分為總標和別釋兩個部分。這裡是總標。

論中說'乃至二持息念者'，這是解釋上面兩句話。雖然進入修行之門有很多種方法，但主要的有兩種，就像文中所說的那樣。

誰通過什麼門徑能夠正確地進入修行呢？這是解釋下面兩句話，也就是提問。

應該依次知道'乃至能正入修者'，這是回答。貪慾特別強烈的人稱為貪行者，思慮特別強烈的人稱為尋行者，其餘的文字可以自己理解。

有其他法師說'乃至治彼無能者'，這是敘述不同的觀點。前者是從因緣眾多的角度來說，後者是從因緣外在的角度來說。所以，不凈觀不能夠止息尋思。

這裡首先應該'乃至名超作意位者'，以下是第二部分別釋，分為明不凈觀和明息念觀。在明不凈觀中，又分為明不凈相和諸門分別。這裡是第一部分明不凈相。

論中說'乃至令不現行者'，這是解釋最初的兩句話。貪慾大致有四種：觀察青瘀等不凈之相，因為顯色敗壞，所以能夠對治對於顯色的貪慾；觀察蟲食等不凈之相，因為形色敗壞，所以能夠對治對於形色的貪慾；觀察蟲咀等不凈之相，因為美妙的觸感敗壞，所以能夠對治對於美妙觸感的貪慾；觀察屍體不動的不凈之相，因為沒有威儀，所以能夠對治對於供奉的貪慾。修習這四種觀想，每一種都能對治一種貪慾。如果觀察白骨鎖鏈的不凈之相，可以普遍地對治四種貪慾，因為白骨鎖鏈中沒有四種貪慾的對象。所以應該首先辨明修習白骨鎖鏈觀。在三種作意中，這僅僅屬於勝解作意所攝，所以是假想觀，不能夠斷除迷惑，只能夠降伏現行的煩惱。能夠斷除迷惑的觀想，需要普遍地緣于上下十方。這種不凈觀只是少部分地緣于所觀對象，所以不能夠斷除迷惑，只能夠降伏現行的煩惱。

然而瑜伽師說'乃至三超作意者'，這是解釋後面的六句話，也就是開啟章節。在三個階段中，前兩個作意才會在面前顯現，第三個階段純熟之後就不需要作意，自然而然地顯現，這叫做超作意。

所謂觀行者'乃至初習業位者'，這是解釋最初的章節，解釋第三句和第四句。

【English Translation】 English version: This concerns the contemplation of the Five Stoppages of Mind (中五停心觀). It is divided into a general introduction (總標) and a detailed explanation (別釋). This is the general introduction.

The treatise says 'up to the second, mindfulness of breathing (二持息念者),' which explains the previous two sentences. Although there are many ways to enter the gate of practice, there are mainly two, as the text indicates.

Who, through what gate, can correctly enter practice? This explains the following two sentences, which is a question.

It should be known in order 'up to being able to correctly enter practice (能正入修者),' which is the answer. Those with particularly strong greed are called 'greedy practitioners' (貪行者), and those with particularly strong thinking are called 'thinking practitioners' (尋行者). The rest of the text can be understood on your own.

Some other teachers say 'up to being unable to cure them (治彼無能者),' which narrates different views. The former is from the perspective of many conditions, and the latter is from the perspective of external conditions. Therefore, the contemplation of impurity (不凈觀) cannot stop thinking (尋).

Here, one should first 'up to being called the stage of surpassing effort (名超作意位者).' The following is the second part, the detailed explanation, which is divided into explaining the contemplation of impurity and explaining the contemplation of mindfulness of breathing. In explaining the contemplation of impurity, it is further divided into explaining the aspects of impurity and distinguishing the various gates. This is the first part, explaining the aspects of impurity.

The treatise says 'up to causing it not to manifest (令不現行者),' which explains the first two sentences. Greed roughly has four types: contemplating the impurity of bluish-purple corpses, etc., because the apparent color is ruined, thus curing greed for apparent color; contemplating the impurity of worm-eaten corpses, etc., because the form and color are ruined, thus curing greed for form and color; contemplating the impurity of worm-chewed corpses, etc., because the wonderful touch is ruined, thus curing greed for wonderful touch; contemplating the impurity of motionless corpses, because there is no dignified manner, thus curing greed for offerings. Practicing these four contemplations, each can cure one type of greed. If one contemplates the impurity of a chain of bones (骨璅), it can universally cure the four types of greed, because there are no objects of the four types of greed in a chain of bones. Therefore, one should first discern the practice of contemplating a chain of bones. Among the three efforts (作意), this is only included in the effort of understanding (勝解作意), so it is a contemplation of imagination, which cannot cut off delusion but can only subdue manifest afflictions. Contemplation that can cut off delusion needs to universally focus on above and below. This contemplation of impurity only focuses on the object of contemplation in a small part, so it cannot cut off delusion but can only subdue manifest afflictions.

However, the Yoga master says 'up to the third, surpassing effort (三超作意者),' which explains the following six sentences, which is opening the chapter. In the three stages, only the first two efforts will appear in front. After the third stage is pure, there is no need for effort, and it will naturally appear, which is called surpassing effort.

The so-called practitioner 'up to the initial stage of practice (初習業位者),' which explains the initial chapter, explaining the third and fourth sentences.

為令略觀至已熟修位者。釋第二章。釋第五．第六句。

為令略觀至超作意位者。釋第三章。釋后兩句。

有不凈觀至有差別故者。明不凈觀。所緣自在少．大不同。相對四句自在之中即有作意已熟．未熟．未熟．已熟四位差別。所緣之中即有自身．至海二種差別　第一句所緣少非自在少。謂作意已熟位數觀自身　第二句自在少非所緣少。謂作意未熟位暫觀至海不能數觀　第三句所緣少亦自在少。謂作意未熟位暫觀自身不能數觀　第四句非自在少非所緣少。謂作意已熟位數觀至海　問如上頌云。除足至半頭名為已熟修。廣至海復略名初習業位。案此即作意已熟所緣唯少。作意未熟通緣少多。如何乃言作意已熟而緣至海　解云頌中所說據觀初成。成重觀時亦容觀廣。故無有失。

此不凈觀至有漏通二得者。此即第二諸門分別　無貪性。答初問　十地。答第二問　緣欲色。答第三問　人生。答第四問　不凈。答第五問　自世緣。答第六問　有漏答第七問　通二得。答第八問。

論曰至無貪為性者。釋無貪性。又婆沙四十云。問不凈觀以何為自性。答以無貪善根為自性。修定者說慧為自性。如契經說眼見色已隨觀不凈。觀是慧故。有餘師說。以厭為自性。厭所緣故。評曰。此不凈觀無貪善

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爲了讓人們簡略地觀察達到已經熟練修習的階段（至已熟修位者），解釋第二章。解釋第五、第六句。爲了讓人們簡略地觀察達到超越作意的階段（至超作意位者），解釋第三章。解釋后兩句。從『有不凈觀』到『有差別故』，闡明不凈觀。所緣（所觀的對象）的自在程度，以及少和多不同。相對而言，四句自在之中，就有了作意已經熟練、未熟練、未熟練、已經熟練這四種階段的差別。所緣之中，就有自身到大海這兩種差別。第一句，所緣少，並非自在少。指的是作意已經熟練的階段，觀自身。第二句，自在少，並非所緣少。指的是作意未熟練的階段，暫時觀大海，不能多次觀。第三句，所緣少，也是自在少。指的是作意未熟練的階段，暫時觀自身，不能多次觀。第四句，並非自在少，也非所緣少。指的是作意已經熟練的階段，多次觀大海。問：如上面的頌文所說：『除去腳到半個頭，名為已熟修』，『廣至大海，又略名初習業位』。按照這個說法，作意已經熟練，所緣只有少。作意未熟練，可以緣少也可以緣多。怎麼說作意已經熟練，卻緣至大海呢？解釋說：頌文中所說的是根據觀想初成的時候。在成就重觀的時候，也容許觀想廣大的境界。所以沒有錯誤。從『此不凈觀』到『有漏通二得者』，這便是第二章的各種門類的分別。『無貪性』，回答第一個問題。『十地』，回答第二個問題。『緣欲色』，回答第三個問題。『人生』，回答第四個問題。『不凈』，回答第五個問題。『自世緣』，回答第六個問題。『有漏』，回答第七個問題。『通二得』，回答第八個問題。論中說『至無貪為性者』，解釋無貪的性質。另外，《婆沙》第四十卷說：『問：不凈觀以什麼為自性？』回答說：『以無貪善根為自性。』修習禪定的人說，以智慧為自性。如契經所說，眼睛看到色之後，隨之觀想不凈。觀想是智慧的緣故。有其他老師說，以厭惡為自性，因為厭惡所緣的境界。』評論說：這個不凈觀以無貪善根

【English Translation】 English version: To enable a brief observation of those who have reached the stage of skilled practice (至已熟修位者), explain the second chapter. Explain the fifth and sixth sentences. To enable a brief observation of those who have reached the stage of transcending conceptualization (至超作意位者), explain the third chapter. Explain the last two sentences. From 'Having the Impure Contemplation' to 'Because there are Differences' (有不凈觀至有差別故者), clarify the Impure Contemplation. The freedom of the object of contemplation (所緣), and the difference between few and many. Relatively speaking, within the four sentences of freedom, there are the four stages of conceptualization being skilled, unskilled, unskilled, and skilled. Within the object of contemplation, there are the two differences of oneself and the sea. The first sentence, the object of contemplation is few, but the freedom is not few. It refers to the stage where conceptualization is already skilled, contemplating oneself. The second sentence, the freedom is few, but the object of contemplation is not few. It refers to the stage where conceptualization is unskilled, temporarily contemplating the sea, unable to contemplate repeatedly. The third sentence, the object of contemplation is few, and the freedom is also few. It refers to the stage where conceptualization is unskilled, temporarily contemplating oneself, unable to contemplate repeatedly. The fourth sentence, the freedom is not few, and the object of contemplation is not few. It refers to the stage where conceptualization is already skilled, contemplating the sea repeatedly. Question: As the verse above says: 'Removing the feet to half the head is called skilled practice', 'Extending to the sea and briefly called the initial practice stage'. According to this statement, conceptualization is already skilled, and the object of contemplation is only few. Conceptualization is unskilled, and can contemplate few or many. How can it be said that conceptualization is already skilled, but contemplates the sea? Explanation: What is said in the verse is based on the initial completion of contemplation. When achieving repeated contemplation, it is also permissible to contemplate a vast realm. Therefore, there is no error. From 'This Impure Contemplation' to 'The Two Attainments are Common' (此不凈觀至有漏通二得者), this is the distinction of the various categories in the second chapter. 'Non-greed nature', answers the first question. 'Ten grounds' (十地), answers the second question. 'Conditioned by desire and form' (緣欲色), answers the third question. 'Human life' (人生), answers the fourth question. 'Impure' (不凈), answers the fifth question. 'Self-world condition' (自世緣), answers the sixth question. 'Defiled' (有漏), answers the seventh question. 'The two attainments are common' (通二得), answers the eighth question. The treatise says 'To the nature of non-greed' (至無貪為性者), explaining the nature of non-greed. Also, the fortieth volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: What is the self-nature of Impure Contemplation?' The answer is: 'The self-nature is the root of non-greed.' Those who practice dhyana say that wisdom is the self-nature. As the sutra says, after the eye sees form, it contemplates impurity. Contemplation is wisdom. Other teachers say that aversion is the self-nature, because it is aversion to the object of contemplation.' Commentary: This Impure Contemplation has the root of non-greed.

根以為自性。非慧非厭。所以者何。對治貪故。若並眷屬四蘊．五蘊為其自性。

通依十地至中間欲界者。釋十地　問何故不依無色界耶　答如婆沙云。以無色界無緣色法不凈觀故。

唯緣欲界所見色境者。釋緣欲．色。

所見者何者。問。

謂顯形色至由此已成者。答。欲界一切顯色。形色。緣義非名。由此已成。又正理五十九云。此不凈觀力能遍緣欲界所攝一切色處。若謂尊者阿泥律陀。不能觀天以為不凈。舍利子等於佛色身。亦不能觀以為不凈。如何此觀遍緣欲色。此難不然。勝無滅者。能觀天色為不凈故。佛能觀佛微妙色身為不凈故。由是此觀定能遍緣欲色為境。由此已顯緣義非名。

唯人趣生至況余界生者。釋人生。又婆沙云。問何處起此不凈觀耶。答唯人三洲能初現起。天中無有青瘀等相故。六慾天唯能後起。有說初后皆唯人趣。六慾天中無青瘀等不凈相故都不現起　俱舍同婆沙后師。若據初起或同婆沙前師。正理同婆沙前師。

既立不凈名唯不凈行相者。釋頌不凈。又正理云。此觀行相唯不凈轉。是善性故體應是凈。約行相故說為不凈。又婆沙云。行相者非十六行相。

隨在何世至通緣三世者。釋自世緣。又婆沙云。過去緣過去。現在緣現在。未來生法緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：認為（貪慾的）自性是不清凈的。這既不是智慧也不是厭離。（問：）為什麼這樣說呢？（答：）因為這是爲了對治貪慾的緣故。如果（貪慾）連同眷屬四蘊（色、受、想、行）、五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）都作為它的自性。

通達依於十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）直至中間的欲界（六道輪迴中的一層）的人。（解釋十地）問：為什麼不依于無色界（佛教三界之一，沒有物質存在的境界）呢？答：如《婆沙論》（佛教論書）所說，因為無色界沒有可作為不凈觀所緣的色法。

僅僅緣于欲界（六道輪迴中的一層）所見到的色境。（解釋緣于欲界和色界）

所見到的（色境）是什麼呢？（問）

（答：）是指顯色和形色，由此已經成立。（答）欲界的一切顯色、形色，緣的是它們的意義而不是名稱，由此已經成立。而且《正理》（佛教論書）第五十九卷說：『這種不凈觀的力量能夠普遍地緣于欲界所攝的一切色處。』如果說尊者阿泥律陀（Aniruddha，佛陀的十大弟子之一）不能觀天（天人）為不凈，舍利子（Sariputta，佛陀的十大弟子之一）等也不能觀佛陀的色身為不凈，那麼這種觀如何能普遍地緣于欲界和色界呢？這種質疑是不成立的，勝無滅者（指佛陀）能夠觀天色為不凈，佛陀能夠觀佛陀微妙的色身為不凈。因此，這種觀必定能夠普遍地緣于欲界和色界作為它的境界。由此已經顯示緣的是意義而不是名稱。

僅僅是人趣（六道之一，人類所處的境界）的眾生，更何況其他界的眾生。（解釋人生）而且《婆沙論》說：『問：在何處生起這種不凈觀呢？答：只有人間的南贍部洲（Jambudvipa，四大部洲之一）能夠最初顯現生起。因為天界沒有青瘀等相。』六慾天（欲界六天）只能在之後生起。有的人說，最初和之後都只有人趣。六慾天中沒有青瘀等不凈的相，所以都不顯現生起。《俱舍論》（佛教論書）的觀點與《婆沙論》後來的說法相同。如果根據最初生起的情況，則與《婆沙論》之前的說法相同。《正理》的觀點與《婆沙論》之前的說法相同。

既然建立了『不凈』這個名稱，就只有不凈的行相。（解釋頌中的『不凈』）而且《正理》說：『這種觀的行相只有不凈的轉變，因為是善的性質，所以本體應該是清凈的，因為是關於行相的，所以說為不凈。』而且《婆沙論》說：『行相不是指十六行相。』

無論在哪個時代，都能夠普遍地緣於過去、現在、未來三世。（解釋自世緣）而且《婆沙論》說：『過去緣過去，現在緣現在，未來生法緣未來。』

【English Translation】 English version: Considering the self-nature (of greed) to be impure. This is neither wisdom nor aversion. (Question:) Why is this so? (Answer:) Because it is to counteract greed. If (greed), together with its retinue, the four aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations), and the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness), are all taken as its self-nature.

Those who have attained the ten Bhumis (the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice) and extend to the intermediate desire realm (one of the realms in the cycle of rebirth). (Explaining the ten Bhumis) Question: Why not rely on the formless realm (one of the three realms in Buddhism, a realm without material existence)? Answer: As the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (a Buddhist treatise) says, because the formless realm has no form that can be the object of contemplation of impurity.

Only focusing on the forms seen in the desire realm (one of the realms in the cycle of rebirth). (Explaining focusing on the desire realm and the form realm)

What are the forms that are seen? (Question)

(Answer:) They refer to visible forms and shapes, which have already been established. (Answer) All visible forms and shapes in the desire realm are related to their meaning, not their names, and this has already been established. Moreover, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (a Buddhist treatise), volume 59, says: 'The power of this contemplation of impurity can universally focus on all form-constituents included in the desire realm.' If it is said that the Venerable Aniruddha (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) cannot contemplate the heavens (devas) as impure, and Sariputta (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) and others cannot contemplate the Buddha's physical body as impure, how can this contemplation universally focus on the desire and form realms? This objection is not valid, because the Victorious One without extinction (referring to the Buddha) can contemplate the form of the heavens as impure, and the Buddha can contemplate the Buddha's subtle physical body as impure. Therefore, this contemplation can definitely universally focus on the desire and form realms as its object. This shows that it focuses on the meaning, not the name.

Only beings in the human realm (one of the six realms, the realm where humans reside), let alone beings in other realms. (Explaining human life) Moreover, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: Where does this contemplation of impurity arise? Answer: Only in Jambudvipa (one of the four continents) in the human world can it initially arise. Because the heavens do not have signs of cyanosis, etc.' The six desire heavens (the six heavens of the desire realm) can only arise later. Some say that both initially and later, it is only in the human realm. Because the six desire heavens do not have impure signs such as cyanosis, they do not arise at all. The Abhidharmakośa (a Buddhist treatise) agrees with the later view of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. If based on the initial arising, it is the same as the earlier view of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. The Nyāyānusāra (a Buddhist treatise) agrees with the earlier view of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra.

Since the name 'impurity' has been established, there is only the aspect of impure practice. (Explaining 'impurity' in the verse) Moreover, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'The aspect of this contemplation only transforms into impurity. Because it is of a virtuous nature, its essence should be pure. Because it is about the aspect, it is said to be impure.' Moreover, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'The aspect does not refer to the sixteen aspects.'

No matter in which age, it can universally focus on the past, present, and future three times. (Explaining self-time condition) Moreover, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'The past focuses on the past, the present focuses on the present, and the future focuses on the future.'

未來。若不生法緣三世。

既唯勝解至唯是有漏者。釋頌有漏。此觀既非十六行攝。但是假想。理唯有漏。

通離染得至未曾得故者。釋通二得。由有曾得故有離染得。由有未曾得故有加行得。此且據一相說。若細分別。曾得．未曾得俱通二種。曾得離染得者。謂離下地染得上地觀。曾得加行得者。謂非離染由加行力修得曾得者。未曾得．離染得者。謂離有頂染時得。未曾得加行得者。謂非由離染。由加行力修得．未曾得者。又婆沙云。加行得．離染得生得者。有加行得有離染得。非生得離染得者。謂離染時而修得故。加行得者謂作加行現在前故。佛無加行。獨覺下加行。聲聞或中加行。或上加行。異生上加行現在前。曾得未曾得者通曾得未曾得。聖者。菩薩後有異生。通曾得。未曾得。余異生唯曾得(解云菩薩即是後有異生)。

說不凈觀至有六謂數等者。此下第二明息念觀。就中。一明念差別相。二明息差別相。此即第一明念差別相。上三句辨差別。第四句辨相。差別有八。一釋名。二辨體。三依地。四所緣。五依身。六二得。七假實。八內外。

論曰至阿波那念者。釋息念。此即釋名　阿那。此云持來　阿波那。此云遣去。應名息慧　而名念者。慧由念助力觀此息為境名持息念。念能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本未來。若不生法緣三世。

既唯勝解至唯是有漏者。解釋頌文中的『有漏』。此觀既不屬於十六行觀所攝，但屬於假想觀，因此從理上來說只有有漏。

通離染得至未曾得故者。解釋『通二得』。因為有曾經獲得的，所以有離染得；因為有未曾獲得的，所以有加行得。這裡只是根據一個方面來說。如果仔細分別，曾經獲得和未曾獲得都包括兩種。曾經獲得的離染得，是指離開下地染污而獲得上地觀。曾經獲得的加行得，是指並非通過離染，而是通過加行之力修得的曾經獲得。未曾獲得的離染得，是指離開有頂染時獲得的。未曾獲得的加行得，是指並非通過離染，而是通過加行之力修得的未曾獲得。另外，《婆沙論》說，加行得、離染得、生得，有加行得，有離染得，不是生得離染得，是指在離染時修得的緣故。加行得是指作加行現在前。佛沒有加行，獨覺是下加行，聲聞或者中加行，或者上加行，異生是上加行現在前。曾經獲得未曾獲得，包括曾經獲得和未曾獲得。聖者、菩薩後有異生，包括曾經獲得和未曾獲得。其餘異生只有曾經獲得（解釋說菩薩就是後有異生）。

說不凈觀至有六謂數等者。下面第二部分說明息念觀。其中，第一部分說明唸的差別相，第二部分說明息的差別相。這裡是第一部分說明唸的差別相。上面三句話辨別差別，第四句話辨別相。差別有八種：一是解釋名稱，二是辨別體性，三是依據的地位，四是所緣的境界，五是依據的身體，六是兩種獲得，七是假還是實，八是內外。

論曰至阿波那念者。解釋息念。這裡是解釋名稱。阿那（Ānāpāna），這裡翻譯為『持來』。阿波那（Apāna），這裡翻譯為『遣去』。應該叫做息慧，而叫做唸的原因是，慧由唸的助力，觀察此息為境界，名為持息念。念能夠……

【English Translation】 English version Future. If the law of dependent origination does not arise in the three times.

『Since it is only the stage of superior understanding up to only being tainted.』 Explaining 『tainted』 in the verse. This contemplation is neither included in the sixteen aspects of contemplation, but is a conceptualization, so in principle it is only tainted.

『Generally, attainment through detachment from defilements up to non-attainment.』 Explaining 『generally two attainments.』 Because there is previous attainment, there is attainment through detachment from defilements; because there is non-attainment, there is attainment through effort. This is just according to one aspect. If distinguished carefully, both previous attainment and non-attainment include two types. Previous attainment of detachment from defilements refers to attaining the contemplation of a higher ground by detaching from the defilements of a lower ground. Previous attainment of effort refers to previous attainment achieved not through detachment from defilements but through the power of effort. Non-attainment of detachment from defilements refers to attainment at the time of detaching from the defilements of the peak of existence. Non-attainment of effort refers to non-attainment achieved not through detachment from defilements but through the power of effort. Furthermore, the Vibhasa says that attainment through effort, attainment through detachment from defilements, and innate attainment include attainment through effort and attainment through detachment from defilements. Non-innate attainment of detachment from defilements refers to attainment through cultivation at the time of detachment from defilements. Attainment through effort refers to the present manifestation of effort. Buddhas have no effort, Pratyekabuddhas have lower effort, Sravakas have either middle effort or higher effort, and ordinary beings have higher effort presently manifested. Previous attainment and non-attainment include both previous attainment and non-attainment. Sages and Bodhisattvas who have subsequent existence as ordinary beings include both previous attainment and non-attainment. Other ordinary beings only have previous attainment (explaining that Bodhisattvas are ordinary beings with subsequent existence).

『Speaking of the contemplation of impurity up to having six, namely counting, etc.』 The second part below explains the contemplation of mindfulness of breathing. Among them, the first part explains the differential characteristics of mindfulness, and the second part explains the differential characteristics of breathing. This is the first part explaining the differential characteristics of mindfulness. The above three sentences distinguish the differences, and the fourth sentence distinguishes the characteristics. There are eight differences: first, explaining the name; second, distinguishing the nature; third, the ground of reliance; fourth, the object of focus; fifth, the body of reliance; sixth, the two attainments; seventh, whether it is false or real; eighth, internal and external.

『The treatise says up to mindfulness of Apana.』 Explaining mindfulness of breathing. This is explaining the name. Ānāpāna (阿那). Here it is translated as 『bringing in.』 Apāna (阿波那). Here it is translated as 『sending out.』 It should be called wisdom of breathing, but it is called mindfulness because wisdom, with the help of mindfulness, observes this breathing as an object, and is called mindfulness of breathing. Mindfulness is able to...

持息名持息念。余文可知。

以慧為性至如念住故者。釋慧。此即出體。此持息念以慧為性。而說念者此品念勝故得念名。由念力記持入出息量故。慧于境分明所作事成故。如四念住以慧為體而言念住。

通依五地至息無有．故者。釋五地。依地門。下三近分．中間．欲界。此念唯與舍相應故不在根本。欲界苦．樂能順引尋。此念治尋故不俱起。三受明義。苦即攝憂。樂即攝喜。色界喜．樂能違專注出入息境。此念唯于出入息境。專注故成。亦由此相違故不俱起。有說．根本下三定中亦有舍受更加三種。彼說依八地。此非正義。第四定等已上諸定現在前時。息無有．故。雖有舍受非起此觀。故但依五。或說依八。

此定緣風者。釋頌緣風。所緣門也。

依欲身起至除北俱盧者。釋依欲身。依身門也。又正理云。此念初唯欲界身起。唯人．天趣。除北俱盧(解云既言初唯欲身。明知色界亦通後起與俱舍不同也)　又婆沙云。所依者。唯欲界非色．無色。有餘師說。依欲．色界非無色界。然初起時必依欲界。俱舍同前師。正理同后師。

通離染得及加行得者。釋頌二得。即二得門也。總而言之通二得也。正理破云。唯加行得非離染得。未離染者定由加行現在前故。非離染得地所攝故。已說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『持息名持息念』，其餘文字可以自行理解。

『以慧為性至如念住故者』，這是解釋慧。這即是指出它的體性。這個持息念以慧為體性。而說為『念』，是因為此品中唸的作用殊勝，所以得到『念』的名稱。由於唸的力量，能夠記住出入息的量。慧對於所緣境能夠分明，所要做的事情能夠成就。如同四念住以慧為體，而稱爲念住。

『通依五地至息無有故者』，這是解釋五地。從所依之地的角度來說，是下三近分地、中間地、欲界地。這個念只與舍受相應，所以不在根本定中。欲界的苦受和樂受能夠順著尋伺而生起。這個念是用來對治尋伺的，所以不會同時生起。三受是爲了說明含義。苦受即是攝取憂受，樂受即是攝取喜受。喜受和樂受能夠違背專注出入息的境界。這個念只對于出入息的境界專注，所以能夠成就。也因為這種相違背的緣故，所以不會同時生起。有人說，根本定的下三定中也有舍受，再加上三種受。他們的說法是依據八地。這不是正確的解釋。因為第四禪等以上的禪定現前的時候，呼吸已經停止了。雖然有舍受，也不會生起這種觀想。所以只依據五地。或者說依據八地。

『此定緣風者』，這是解釋頌文中的『緣風』。這是從所緣境的角度來說的。

『依欲身起至除北俱盧者』，這是解釋『依欲身』。這是從所依之身的角度來說的。又《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，這個念最初只在欲界身中生起，只有人趣和天趣，不包括北俱盧洲（解釋說，既然說『最初只在欲身』，就說明也通於後來生起，與《俱舍論》的觀點不同）。又《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》中說，所依之身，只有欲界身，不是色界身和無色界身。有其他論師說，依據欲界和色界身，不是無色界身。然而最初生起的時候，必定依據欲界身。《俱舍論》的觀點與前一位論師相同，《阿毗達磨順正理論》的觀點與后一位論師相同。

『通離染得及加行得者』，這是解釋頌文中的兩種『得』。即是兩種獲得的方式。總的來說，通於兩種獲得的方式。《阿毗達磨順正理論》駁斥說，只有加行才能獲得，不是通過離染才能獲得。沒有離開染污的人，禪定是通過加行才能夠現前的。不是離染所得地所攝的。以上已經說完了。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Holding breath is called holding breath-mindfulness.' The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

'Taking wisdom as its nature, up to the mindfulness establishments,' this explains wisdom. This points out its essence. This holding breath-mindfulness takes wisdom as its nature. While it's called 'mindfulness,' it's because the function of mindfulness is superior in this section, hence it gets the name 'mindfulness.' Due to the power of mindfulness, one can remember the quantity of incoming and outgoing breaths. Wisdom is clear about the object and the things to be done can be accomplished. Just like the four mindfulness establishments take wisdom as their essence but are called mindfulness establishments.

'Generally relying on the five grounds, up to the cessation of breath,' this explains the five grounds. From the perspective of the grounds relied upon, they are the lower three near-absorption grounds, the intermediate ground, and the desire realm ground. This mindfulness only corresponds to equanimity, so it's not in the fundamental dhyanas. The suffering and pleasure of the desire realm can arise following after seeking. This mindfulness is used to counteract seeking, so they don't arise together. The three feelings are to clarify the meaning. Suffering includes sorrow, and pleasure includes joy. Joy and pleasure can contradict focusing on the object of incoming and outgoing breaths. This mindfulness only focuses on the object of incoming and outgoing breaths, so it can be accomplished. Also, because of this contradiction, they don't arise together. Some say that there is also equanimity in the lower three dhyanas of the fundamental dhyanas, plus the three kinds of feelings. Their statement is based on the eight grounds. This is not the correct explanation. Because when the fourth dhyana and the dhyanas above it are present, breathing has already ceased. Although there is equanimity, this contemplation will not arise. So it only relies on the five grounds. Or it is said to rely on eight.

'This samadhi is conditioned by wind,' this explains 'conditioned by wind' in the verse. This is from the perspective of the object conditioned.

'Arising relying on the desire body, up to excluding Uttarakuru,' this explains 'relying on the desire body.' This is from the perspective of the body relied upon. Also, the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra says that this mindfulness initially only arises in the desire realm body, only in the human and heavenly realms, excluding Uttarakuru (the explanation says that since it says 'initially only in the desire body,' it shows that it also extends to later arising, which is different from the view of the Abhidharmakośa). Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā says that the body relied upon is only the desire realm body, not the form realm and formless realm bodies. Other teachers say that it relies on the desire and form realm bodies, not the formless realm bodies. However, when it initially arises, it must rely on the desire realm body. The view of the Abhidharmakośa is the same as the former teacher, and the view of the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra is the same as the latter teacher.

'Generally through attainment by detachment and attainment by effort,' this explains the two 'attainments' in the verse. That is, the two ways of obtaining. Generally speaking, it is common to both ways of obtaining. The Abhidharmanyāyānusāra refutes that only through effort can one obtain it, not through detachment. Those who have not left defilement, samadhi can only be present through effort. It is not included in the ground obtained by detachment. The above has been said.

皆是近分地攝非根本故。又此念唯是勝加行引故。不應說此有離染得　俱舍師救云。滅盡定中雲佛無一德非離染得。又離非想第九品染三乘之人。盡智初心修九地中有漏功德。又中間定離染地攝。此等豈非離染得耶。

唯與真實作意相應者。釋頌實假實門也。此息念觀唯與真實作意相應。又正理云。此唯真實作意相應。有說亦通勝解．作意。此論同正理前師。雜心．婆沙同正理后說。此即意各別也　又解前師唯據根本故唯真實。后師亦據加行故通勝解。

正法有情至微細法故者。釋頌外無。內外門。正法有情方能修習。外道無有。無說者故。非佛．獨覺雖不藉教自能覺悟。又彼外道自不能覺微細法故。故不能起。又正理云。此與我執極相違故。彼我執有故此念無。

此相圓滿至六凈者。釋第四句。明相差別。此即開章。

數謂繫心至乃至得定者。釋初章。淳熟已去不多用功。任運憶持名不作加行　放捨身心。非全放舍。若未淳熟數修加行謹卓身．心恐心聚故不減十。恐心散。故不增十。從一至十。先從入數。故婆沙云。先數入息后數出息。以生時息入死時息出故。余文可知。

隨謂繫心至念恒隨遂者。釋第二章。如文可解。

有餘師說至或吠嵐婆者。敘異說　吠嵐婆。是鐵圍山

間風。又真諦云。吠嵐婆此云恒起。即是運轉日．月風也。

此不應理至作意俱故者。論主破余師。此念真實作意俱故非是假相。何能遠至風輪等耶。以此故知。真實為正　正理論云。經主於此斥彼師言。此念真實作意俱起。不應念息至風輪等。彼言息念根本雖與實作意俱。中間有餘勝解作意相應起者。為令真實作意速成故於中間起斯假想。雖爾無有出息念失。為息念加行意樂不歇故　俱舍師云。此念加行亦真實故。諸論中言通假想皆非正義。

止謂繫念至方名．凈者。釋后四章。及重頌結。如文可知。

息相差別至等流非下緣者。此即第二明息差別相。總有六門。

論曰至一分攝故者。此釋初句。身心繫門。隨身繫也。

此入．出息轉至息最後出者。釋第二句依身心門。此入出息轉依身差別。依心差別。身心有多種。有依此身心不依余身心故。名依身心差別。要具四緣息方得轉　一入出息所依身。即是謂要身中　二風道通。所謂口鼻或是九孔　三毛孔開。此上二種即是有諸孔隙。孔隙有二。一風道通。二毛孔開。或風道通是孔。毛孔開是隙　四入出息地粗心現前。即是入出息地心正現前。四中前三顯身差別。第四一種顯心差別。於此四緣隨有所闕息皆不轉　生無色界四事皆無故息不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：間風。又真諦（Paramārtha，印度佛教僧侶）說，吠嵐婆（Vārambha）在這裡被翻譯為『恒起』，指的就是運轉太陽和月亮的風。

『此不應理至作意俱故者』，論主（指論典的作者）是爲了駁斥其他學者的觀點。這種念頭和真實的作意同時存在，並非虛假的表象，怎麼可能到達遙遠的風輪等地呢？因此可知，真實才是正確的。《正理論》中說，經主（指經文的作者）在這裡駁斥其他學者的觀點說，這種念頭和真實的作意同時生起，不應該念頭停止就能到達風輪等地。他們說，息唸的根本雖然與真實的作意同時存在，但中間有其他殊勝的勝解作意相應生起，爲了使真實的作意迅速成就，所以在中間產生這種假想。即使如此，也沒有失去出息念，因為息唸的加行意樂沒有停止。俱舍師（Vasubandhu，世親，印度佛教論師）說，這種唸的加行也是真實的，所以各種論典中說的通向假想都不是正確的意義。

『止謂繫念至方名．凈者』，解釋了後面的四章，以及重頌的總結，如經文所說的那樣可以知道。

『息相差別至等流非下緣者』，這部分是第二點，說明氣息的差別相，總共有六個方面。

論中說『論曰至一分攝故者』，這是解釋第一句，身心繫門，是隨身而系的。

『此入．出息轉至息最後出者』，解釋第二句，依靠身心之門。這種入息和出息的運轉，依靠身體的差別，也依靠心的差別。身心有多種，有依靠這個身心而不依靠其他身心的，所以叫做依靠身心的差別。要具備四種因緣，氣息才能運轉：一是入息和出息所依靠的身體，也就是要身體存在；二是風道暢通，也就是口鼻或者其他九個孔竅；三是毛孔張開，以上兩種就是指有各種孔隙。孔隙有兩種，一是風道暢通，二是毛孔張開。或者說風道暢通是孔，毛孔張開是隙；四是入出息的粗大地心現前，也就是入出息的粗大地心正在現前。四種因緣中，前三種顯示身體的差別，第四種顯示心的差別。在這四種因緣中，只要缺少任何一種，氣息都不能運轉。剛出生的嬰兒，四事都不具備，所以沒有氣息。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Intervening wind.' Furthermore, Paramārtha (真諦, Indian Buddhist monk) says, Vārambha (吠嵐婆) is translated here as 'constantly arising,' referring to the wind that moves the sun and moon.

Regarding 'This is unreasonable, up to the simultaneous arising of intention,' the author of the treatise (論主, referring to the author of the commentary) refutes the views of other teachers. This thought and the real intention arise simultaneously, not as a false appearance. How could it reach distant places like the wind wheels? Therefore, it is known that reality is correct. The Nyāyasūtra (正理論) states that the author of the sutra (經主, referring to the author of the scripture) here refutes the views of other teachers, saying that this thought and the real intention arise simultaneously, and it should not be that the thought ceases and reaches the wind wheels and so on. They say that although the root of mindfulness of breathing arises simultaneously with real intention, in between, other superior intentions of conviction arise in correspondence. In order to quickly accomplish the real intention, this false imagination arises in between. Even so, there is no loss of mindfulness of outgoing breath, because the effort and intention of mindfulness of breathing do not cease. Vasubandhu (俱舍師, Indian Buddhist philosopher) says that this effort of thought is also real, so the statements in various treatises that lead to false imagination are not the correct meaning.

Regarding 'Cessation refers to focusing the mind, up to the names of direction and purity,' it explains the latter four chapters, as well as the concluding verses, which can be understood as stated in the text.

Regarding 'Differences in the characteristics of breathing, up to the equal flow, not a lower condition,' this is the second point, explaining the differences in the characteristics of breathing, with a total of six aspects.

The treatise states, 'The treatise says, up to being included in one part,' this explains the first sentence, the gate of body and mind connection, which is connected according to the body.

Regarding 'This turning of incoming and outgoing breath, up to the final outgoing of breath,' it explains the second sentence, relying on the gate of body and mind. This turning of incoming and outgoing breath relies on the differences in the body and also relies on the differences in the mind. There are many kinds of bodies and minds; there are those that rely on this body and mind and do not rely on other bodies and minds, so it is called relying on the differences in body and mind. Four conditions must be met for the breath to turn: first, the body on which the incoming and outgoing breath relies, which means that the body must exist; second, the wind passage must be clear, which means the mouth, nose, or other nine orifices; third, the pores must be open, the above two refer to having various pores. There are two kinds of pores: one is the clear wind passage, and the other is the open pores. Or, the clear wind passage is a hole, and the open pores are a gap; fourth, the coarse earth mind of incoming and outgoing breath is present, which means that the coarse earth mind of incoming and outgoing breath is currently present. Among the four conditions, the first three show the differences in the body, and the fourth shows the differences in the mind. Among these four conditions, as long as any one is missing, the breath cannot turn. A newborn infant does not have the four elements, so there is no breath.

轉　羯剌藍等。等取頞部曇．閉尸．鍵南。於此四位雖有一事粗心現前。闕餘三事。息皆不轉。故婆沙云。問何故羯剌藍位息不轉耶。答彼稀薄故。若息轉者彼應流動。問何故頞部曇．閉尸．鍵南諸根未滿未熟位息不轉耶。答彼身爾時風道未通。毛孔未開。若息轉者身應散壞。然在卵㲉及母胎中。從羯剌藍乃至諸根未滿未熟。爾時未有息所依身。風道未通。毛孔未開。唯有息地粗心現前。雖有一事而闕三事故息不轉。準婆沙文故知缽羅奢佉位諸根滿．熟具四事也。又婆沙云。問于胎．卵中至何分位入出息轉。答具色根六處滿位息風方轉。又以此證故知至缽羅奢佉具四事也　入無心定息不轉者。身在欲界．及初．二．三地入二無心定。雖有前三。闕粗心故息亦不轉。故婆沙云。若入出息但依身轉不依心轉。則在無想定．滅盡定位入出息亦應轉。彼有入出息所依身。風道亦通。毛孔亦開。唯無入出息地粗心現前。以無心故。雖有三事而闕一事故息不轉　第四定息不轉者。謂身在欲界．及初．二．三地入第四定。雖有前二而闕后二息亦不轉。故婆沙云。如是若在下地入第四靜慮。唯有息所依身及風道通。然毛孔不開。亦無息地粗心現前。雖有二事而闕二事故息不轉　又婆沙云。問何故在第四靜慮息不轉耶。答彼心細故。謂入

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本轉：羯剌藍（kalala，受精卵），等等。等等包括頞部曇（arbuda，凝結期）、閉尸（peshi，肉芽期）、鍵南（ghana，硬結期）。在這四個階段，即使有一個粗顯的心識生起，但缺少其餘三個條件，呼吸也不會運轉。所以《大毗婆沙論》說：『問：為什麼羯剌藍階段呼吸不運轉呢？答：因為它太稀薄了。如果呼吸運轉，它應該會流動。』問：為什麼頞部曇、閉尸、鍵南這些階段，諸根未滿未成熟時呼吸不運轉呢？答：因為那時身體的風道未通，毛孔未開。如果呼吸運轉，身體應該會散壞。』然而，在卵生和胎生中，從羯剌藍到諸根未滿未成熟，那時還沒有呼吸所依賴的身體，風道未通，毛孔未開，只有呼吸的粗顯心識生起。雖然有一個條件，但缺少三個條件，所以呼吸不運轉。根據《大毗婆沙論》的文義，可知缽羅奢佉（prashakha，肢節形成期）階段，諸根圓滿成熟，具備四個條件。又，《大毗婆沙論》說：『問：在胎生、卵生中，到哪個階段入出息才運轉呢？答：具備色根六處圓滿的階段，呼吸的風才運轉。』又以此證明，可知到缽羅奢佉階段具備四個條件。入無心定呼吸不運轉，是指身體在欲界以及初禪、二禪、三禪進入二種無心定。雖然有前三個條件，但缺少粗顯的心識，所以呼吸也不運轉。所以《大毗婆沙論》說：『如果入出息只依賴身體運轉，不依賴心運轉，那麼在無想定、滅盡定中，入出息也應該運轉。』因為他們有入出息所依賴的身體，風道也通，毛孔也開，唯獨沒有入出息的粗顯心識生起。因為沒有心識，雖然有三個條件，但缺少一個條件，所以呼吸不運轉。第四禪呼吸不運轉，是指身體在欲界以及初禪、二禪、三禪進入第四禪。雖然有前兩個條件，但缺少后兩個條件，呼吸也不運轉。所以《大毗婆沙論》說：『如此，如果在下地進入第四靜慮，只有呼吸所依賴的身體和風道通暢，然而毛孔不開，也沒有呼吸的粗顯心識生起。』雖然有兩個條件，但缺少兩個條件，所以呼吸不運轉。又，《大毗婆沙論》說：『問：為什麼在第四靜慮中呼吸不運轉呢？答：因為心很細微。』

【English Translation】 English version Trans.: Kalala (fertilized ovum), etc. 'Etc.' includes Arbuda (coagulation stage), Peshi (flesh bud stage), Ghana (solidification stage). In these four stages, even if one coarse mental activity arises, if the other three conditions are lacking, the breath will not function. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says: 'Question: Why does the breath not function in the Kalala stage? Answer: Because it is too thin. If the breath were to function, it should move.' Question: Why do the breaths not function in the Arbuda, Peshi, and Ghana stages when the sense faculties are not yet complete and mature? Answer: Because at that time, the body's wind passages are not open, and the pores are not open. If the breath were to function, the body should disintegrate.' However, in oviparous and viviparous births, from Kalala to the sense faculties not yet complete and mature, at that time there is no body on which the breath depends, the wind passages are not open, and the pores are not open, only the coarse mental activity of the breath arises. Although there is one condition, three conditions are lacking, so the breath does not function. According to the meaning of the Mahavibhasa, it is known that in the Prashakha (limb formation stage), the sense faculties are complete and mature, possessing four conditions. Also, the Mahavibhasa says: 'Question: In viviparous and oviparous births, at what stage does the in-breath and out-breath function? Answer: At the stage when the six sense bases with form are complete, the wind of the breath functions.' Also, based on this evidence, it is known that the Prashakha stage possesses four conditions. Entering mindless samadhi, the breath does not function, refers to the body in the desire realm and the first, second, and third dhyanas entering two kinds of mindless samadhi. Although there are the first three conditions, because the coarse mental activity is lacking, the breath also does not function. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says: 'If the in-breath and out-breath only depend on the body to function, and do not depend on the mind to function, then in the non-perceptual samadhi and cessation samadhi, the in-breath and out-breath should also function.' Because they have the body on which the in-breath and out-breath depend, the wind passages are also open, and the pores are also open, only the coarse mental activity of the in-breath and out-breath does not arise. Because there is no mind, although there are three conditions, one condition is lacking, so the breath does not function. The breath does not function in the fourth dhyana, refers to the body in the desire realm and the first, second, and third dhyanas entering the fourth dhyana. Although there are the first two conditions, because the latter two conditions are lacking, the breath also does not function. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says: 'Thus, if one enters the fourth dhyana in the lower realms, there is only the body on which the breath depends and the wind passages are open, however, the pores are not open, and the coarse mental activity of the breath does not arise.' Although there are two conditions, two conditions are lacking, so the breath does not function. Also, the Mahavibhasa says: 'Question: Why does the breath not function in the fourth dhyana? Answer: Because the mind is very subtle.'

出息依粗心轉。第四靜慮以上諸地。心極微細故息不轉(廣如彼說)又正理六十云。何緣但入第四靜慮身無毛孔。非余定耶。以彼等持極淳厚故。引第四定大種遍身。即由此緣尊者世友說。入彼定身毛孔合　若入世俗第四靜慮。身無毛孔其理可然。以彼定能引彼地攝微蜜大種充滿身故。若入無漏第四定時。此身如何亦無毛孔。以彼但引隨所生地大種現前造無表故　彼無漏定所引大種雖生處攝。而極微蜜與彼相似故無有過　泰法師云。以此文證故知造無漏戒四大。隨身大小遍滿身中。一具四大造七支戒。隨大多小各各別造。道戒既爾定戒亦然　所言等者。等謂等取生第四定。及身在欲．初．二．三定入無色定息皆不轉　生第四定息不轉者。四事俱無。故婆沙二十三云。問第四靜慮亦有風界。以四大種不相離故。何緣生彼無息轉耶。答第四靜慮雖有風界。而不名為入息．出息。以于彼身不入出故。有說生彼雖有風界。而無前說四種事故不名為息。準此婆沙。故知生彼無四事也　又解生第四定有二。闕二。言有二者。一風道通。既有口鼻能發語言。明知有風道通　又正理六十云。若生彼地身無毛孔。如何生彼能發語言　非發語言要由毛孔。但由頷動亦得發聲如機關聲豈由毛孔　準彼論文不遮風道通　二入出息地粗心現前。以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本氣息依粗心而運轉。第四禪定以上的各個地界，因為心極其微細，所以氣息不再運轉（詳細情況如相關論述所說）。另外，《正理論》第六十卷說：『為什麼只有進入第四禪定時身體沒有毛孔，而不是其他的禪定呢？』因為第四禪定的等持極其純厚，能夠引導第四禪定的大種遍佈全身。正因為這個緣故，尊者世友說，進入那個禪定後身體的毛孔會閉合。如果進入世俗的第四禪定，身體沒有毛孔，這個道理是說得通的，因為那個禪定能夠引導那個地界所攝的微密大種充滿身體。如果進入無漏的第四禪定時，這個身體為什麼也沒有毛孔呢？因為那個禪定只是引導隨所生處的大種現前，從而造作無表業。那個無漏禪定所引導的大種雖然屬於所生之處，但是極其微密，與彼相似，所以沒有過失。泰法師說，根據這段經文可以知道，造作無漏戒的四大，隨著身體的大小遍滿全身。每一具四大造作七支戒，隨著大小各自別造。道戒既然如此，定戒也是這樣。』所說的『等』字，是指等同於生在第四禪定，以及身體在欲界、初禪、二禪、三禪而進入無色定，氣息都不運轉。生在第四禪定氣息不運轉，是因為四事（指入、出、長、短四種氣息的現象）都無。所以《婆沙論》第二十三卷說：『問：第四靜慮也有風界，因為四大種不相離的緣故，為什麼生在那裡沒有氣息運轉呢？』答：『第四靜慮雖然有風界，但是不稱為入息、出息，因為在那個身體上沒有入出。』有人說，生在那裡雖然有風界，但是沒有前面所說的四種事故，所以不稱為氣息。根據這段《婆沙論》，可知生在那裡沒有四事。又解釋說，生在第四禪定有兩種情況：缺少兩種。說『有兩種』，一是風道通暢，既然有口鼻能夠發出語言，明顯知道有風道通暢。另外，《正理論》第六十卷說：『如果生在那個地界身體沒有毛孔，如何生在那裡能夠發出語言？』發出語言不一定要通過毛孔，只要通過下巴的動彈也可以發出聲音，就像機關發出的聲音難道是通過毛孔嗎？根據那段論文，並沒有遮止風道通暢。二是入出息的地粗心現前，因為 English version The cessation of breathing depends on a coarse mind. In the realms above the Fourth Dhyana (fourth level of meditative absorption) and beyond, because the mind is extremely subtle, breathing ceases to function (as explained extensively elsewhere). Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Metaphysics) verse 60 states: 'Why is it that only upon entering the Fourth Dhyana does the body lack pores, and not in other states of Samadhi (meditative concentration)?' Because the samadhi of the Fourth Dhyana is extremely pure and profound, it draws the mahābhūta (great elements) of the Fourth Dhyana throughout the entire body. It is precisely for this reason that Venerable Vasumitra (世友) said that upon entering that samadhi, the body's pores close. If one enters the mundane Fourth Dhyana, it is reasonable that the body lacks pores, because that samadhi can draw the subtle and dense mahābhūta belonging to that realm to fill the body. However, if one enters the anāsrava (untainted, free from outflows) Fourth Dhyana, how is it that this body also lacks pores? Because that samadhi only draws the mahābhūta of the place of birth to manifest, thereby creating aviññatti (non-revealing form). Although the mahābhūta drawn by that anāsrava samadhi belongs to the place of birth, it is extremely subtle and similar to it, so there is no fault. Master Tai (泰法師) said, 'Based on this passage, it can be known that the four great elements that create the anāsrava śīla (untainted precepts) pervade the entire body according to the size of the body. Each set of four great elements creates the seven branches of precepts, each created separately according to size. Since the precepts of the path are like this, so are the precepts of samadhi.' The term 'etc.' refers to being born in the Fourth Dhyana, and when the body is in the Desire Realm, First Dhyana, Second Dhyana, or Third Dhyana and enters the Formless Realm, breathing ceases to function. The cessation of breathing when born in the Fourth Dhyana is because the four aspects (referring to the phenomena of inhalation, exhalation, length, and shortness of breath) are all absent. Therefore, Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) verse 23 states: 'Question: The Fourth Dhyana also has the wind element, because the four great elements are inseparable. Why is it that there is no breathing when born there?' Answer: 'Although the Fourth Dhyana has the wind element, it is not called inhalation or exhalation, because there is no inhalation or exhalation in that body.' Some say that although there is a wind element when born there, there are no four aspects mentioned earlier, so it is not called breathing. According to this Mahāvibhāṣā, it can be known that there are no four aspects when born there. Another explanation is that there are two conditions when born in the Fourth Dhyana: lacking two. Saying 'there are two', one is that the wind passage is open. Since there is a mouth and nose that can produce speech, it is clear that the wind passage is open. Furthermore, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya verse 60 states: 'If the body lacks pores when born in that realm, how can one produce speech when born there?' Producing speech does not necessarily require pores; sound can also be produced by the movement of the chin, just like the sound of a machine, which is not through pores. According to that passage, the wind passage is not blocked. Second, the coarse mind of inhalation and exhalation is present, because

【English Translation】 The cessation of breathing depends on a coarse mind. In the realms above the Fourth Dhyana (fourth level of meditative absorption) and beyond, because the mind is extremely subtle, breathing ceases to function (as explained extensively elsewhere). Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Metaphysics) verse 60 states: 'Why is it that only upon entering the Fourth Dhyana does the body lack pores, and not in other states of Samadhi (meditative concentration)?' Because the samadhi of the Fourth Dhyana is extremely pure and profound, it draws the mahābhūta (great elements) of the Fourth Dhyana throughout the entire body. It is precisely for this reason that Venerable Vasumitra (世友) said that upon entering that samadhi, the body's pores close. If one enters the mundane Fourth Dhyana, it is reasonable that the body lacks pores, because that samadhi can draw the subtle and dense mahābhūta belonging to that realm to fill the body. However, if one enters the anāsrava (untainted, free from outflows) Fourth Dhyana, how is it that this body also lacks pores? Because that samadhi only draws the mahābhūta of the place of birth to manifest, thereby creating aviññatti (non-revealing form). Although the mahābhūta drawn by that anāsrava samadhi belongs to the place of birth, it is extremely subtle and similar to it, so there is no fault. Master Tai (泰法師) said, 'Based on this passage, it can be known that the four great elements that create the anāsrava śīla (untainted precepts) pervade the entire body according to the size of the body. Each set of four great elements creates the seven branches of precepts, each created separately according to size. Since the precepts of the path are like this, so are the precepts of samadhi.' The term 'etc.' refers to being born in the Fourth Dhyana, and when the body is in the Desire Realm, First Dhyana, Second Dhyana, or Third Dhyana and enters the Formless Realm, breathing ceases to function. The cessation of breathing when born in the Fourth Dhyana is because the four aspects (referring to the phenomena of inhalation, exhalation, length, and shortness of breath) are all absent. Therefore, Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) verse 23 states: 'Question: The Fourth Dhyana also has the wind element, because the four great elements are inseparable. Why is it that there is no breathing when born there?' Answer: 'Although the Fourth Dhyana has the wind element, it is not called inhalation or exhalation, because there is no inhalation or exhalation in that body.' Some say that although there is a wind element when born there, there are no four aspects mentioned earlier, so it is not called breathing. According to this Mahāvibhāṣā, it can be known that there are no four aspects when born there. Another explanation is that there are two conditions when born in the Fourth Dhyana: lacking two. Saying 'there are two', one is that the wind passage is open. Since there is a mouth and nose that can produce speech, it is clear that the wind passage is open. Furthermore, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya verse 60 states: 'If the body lacks pores when born in that realm, how can one produce speech when born there?' Producing speech does not necessarily require pores; sound can also be produced by the movement of the chin, just like the sound of a machine, which is not through pores. According to that passage, the wind passage is not blocked. Second, the coarse mind of inhalation and exhalation is present, because

能起下威儀．通果　言闕二者。一非入出息所依身．彼息不轉心微細故　二毛孔不開。縱起散心毛孔亦閉。身蜜合故　婆沙有說。無四事者非是正義　言身在欲．初．二．三定入無色定息不轉者。雖有前三事闕后一事粗心現前　出第四定等及初生時息最先入。入第四定等及后死時息最後出。

息有情數攝有情身份故．者。釋頌情數。即第三情．非情門也。有情身份故唯有情數。故正理云。此入．出息有情數收。無覺身中息無有故。是雖從外來。而系屬內義。

非有執受與根相離故者。釋非執受。即第四執受．非執受門。由離根故非有執受。故正理云。此入出息非有執受。以息闕減執受相故。身中雖有有執受風。而此息風唯無執受。

是等流性至無如是故者。釋頌等流即是第五等流門。同類因生故是等流性　非所長養。身肥大時息損減故。身瘦少時息增長故　非異熟生。斷已后時更相續故。余異熟色無有斷已更相續故。故正理云。身中雖有長養異熟風。而此息風唯是等流性。

唯自上地至通果心境故．者。釋非下緣。即是第六觀心緣息門。此顯息觀在自．上地不在下地。生下地時無上息故。生上地時下地余心不成就故。雖起下地威儀．通果。而此二心非息觀攝。又泰法師解云。若生初定唯起欲

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『能起下威儀，通果』，是指缺少兩種情況：一、不是入出息所依賴的身體，因為此時呼吸不流動，心念非常微細；二、毛孔沒有打開。即使生起散亂心，毛孔也是閉合的，因為身體緊密結合。婆沙論中有說法，缺少四種情況的說法並非正義。『身體在欲界、初禪、二禪、三禪，進入無色定時呼吸不流動』，這是因為雖然有前三種情況，但缺少后一種情況，粗大的心念現前。呼氣在出第四禪等以及初生時最先開始，吸氣在入第四禪等以及臨終時最後結束。

『呼吸是有情數所攝，是有情身份』，這是解釋頌文中的『情數』，即第三個情與非情之門。因為是有情身份，所以只有有情數。因此正理論說，這入息和出息被有情數所攝，因為沒有感覺的身體中沒有呼吸。雖然呼吸從外面來，但它系屬於內在的意義。

『不是有執受，與根相分離』，這是解釋『非執受』，即第四個執受與非執受之門。由於離開了根，所以不是有執受。因此正理論說，這入息和出息不是有執受，因為呼吸的缺少會減少執受的相。身體中雖然有有執受的風，但這種呼吸之風只是沒有執受。

『是等流性，乃至沒有如此』，這是解釋頌文中的等流，即第五個等流之門。因為是同類因所生，所以是等流性。不是所長養的，因為身體肥大的時候呼吸會減少，身體瘦小的時候呼吸會增長。不是異熟生，因為斷滅之後還會相續，其餘異熟所生的色法沒有斷滅之後還會相續的。因此正理論說，身體中雖然有長養和異熟的風，但這種呼吸之風只是等流性。

『只有自上地乃至通果的心境』，這是解釋『非下緣』，即第六個觀心緣息之門。這顯示了呼吸的觀想在自身或更高的禪定層次，而不在較低的層次。因為生在較低的層次時沒有更高的呼吸，生在更高的層次時較低層次的其餘心念不成就。即使生起較低層次的威儀和通果，但這兩種心念不被呼吸觀所攝。另外，泰法師解釋說，如果生在初禪，只能生起欲界的心念。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Being able to initiate lower dignified conduct and the fruition of supernormal powers' refers to the absence of two conditions: first, it is not the body upon which inhalation and exhalation rely, because at that time, the breath does not move and the mind is extremely subtle; second, the pores are not open. Even if a distracted mind arises, the pores are closed because the body is tightly integrated. Some say in the Vibhasha that the statement of lacking four conditions is not the correct meaning. 'The body is in the desire realm, the first dhyana, the second dhyana, the third dhyana, and the breath does not move when entering the formless samadhis' is because, although the first three conditions are present, the last condition is lacking, and a coarse mind is present. Exhalation begins first when exiting the fourth dhyana, etc., and at the time of initial birth; inhalation ends last when entering the fourth dhyana, etc., and at the time of final death.

'Breath is included in the category of sentient beings and is a part of the sentient being's body' is an explanation of 'sentient number' in the verse, which is the third gate of sentient and non-sentient. Because it is a part of the sentient being's body, it is only a sentient number. Therefore, the Nyayanusara states that this inhalation and exhalation are included in the sentient number because there is no breath in a body without sensation. Although the breath comes from outside, it is related to the inner meaning.

'It is not possessed and is separated from the roots' is an explanation of 'non-possessed,' which is the fourth gate of possessed and non-possessed. Because it is separated from the roots, it is not possessed. Therefore, the Nyayanusara states that this inhalation and exhalation are not possessed because the lack of breath reduces the aspect of possession. Although there is possessed wind in the body, this breath wind is only non-possessed.

'It is of the nature of equipollent flow, up to not being like this' is an explanation of 'equipollent flow' in the verse, which is the fifth gate of equipollent flow. Because it is produced by a cause of the same kind, it is of the nature of equipollent flow. It is not what is nourished, because breath decreases when the body is fat, and breath increases when the body is thin. It is not the result of different maturation, because it continues to arise after cessation, while other forms produced by different maturation do not continue to arise after cessation. Therefore, the Nyayanusara states that although there is wind of nourishment and different maturation in the body, this breath wind is only of the nature of equipollent flow.

'Only the mental state from one's own higher level up to the fruition of supernormal powers' is an explanation of 'not a lower condition,' which is the sixth gate of observing the mind's connection with breath. This shows that the contemplation of breath is at one's own or a higher level of dhyana, and not at a lower level. Because there is no higher breath when born in a lower level, and the remaining mental states of the lower level are not accomplished when born in a higher level. Even if lower dignified conduct and the fruition of supernormal powers arise, these two mental states are not included in the contemplation of breath. Furthermore, Dharma Master Tai explains that if one is born in the first dhyana, one can only generate thoughts of the desire realm.

界通果心。然通果心唯緣自地所變化事。息隨身繫初定攝故。非下欲界通果心境。生二．三．四地起下地通果心。類同此釋。若生二定以上起初定威儀心發上地威儀業。其威儀表業隨初定系。息雖依初定轉。然隨身上地系故。非下地威儀心所緣。以威儀心唯緣自地身表業故亦不緣上息　說從威儀心后展轉緣十二處者。唯緣自地不緣上地。又正理六十云。唯自上地心之所觀非下地心所緣境故。謂生欲界起欲界心。彼欲界身欲界息依欲界心轉。即彼心所觀。若生欲界起初定心。彼欲界身欲界息依初定心轉。即彼心所觀起二．三定心。皆準前應說。生初靜慮起三地心。生二生三起二起自。準生欲界如理應說。若生上地起下地心。彼上地身上地息依下地心轉。非彼心所觀。如是欲界息四地心所觀。初．二．三定息如其次第為三．二地自地心所觀。有息地四。無息地五。依有息地起無息地心。息必不轉。依無息地起有息地心。息亦不轉。依有息地起有息地心隨其所應有入出息轉。

俱舍論記卷第二十二大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十三

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之二

如是已說至治倒故唯四者。此下第三明四念住。就中。一明別相念住。二明總相

念住。此即明別相念住。七加行中第二加行也。結前問起　如是已說不凈息念。入．修二門。由此二門心便得定。心得定已復何所修　就頌答中。初頌標名總舉。次兩句出體。次一句明次第。后一句明唯四種。

論曰至修四念住者。釋初兩句　奢摩他。此云止　毗缽舍那。此云觀。

如何修習四念住耶者。問。

謂以自共相至除三餘法者。舉第三．第四句答。謂以自相別觀身．受．心．法。謂以共相別觀身．受．心．法　問如何得知。共相別觀身．受．心．法　答如正理六十云。以自．共相於身等境一一別觀　又云。或身念住觀自相者。謂觀于身各別自性。次身念住觀共相者。謂觀身上與余有為俱無常性。與余有漏俱是苦性。與餘一切法俱空．無我性(受等隨應)文法蘊足論第五解身念住中。以無常．苦．空．非我于身．受．心．法一一別觀　以此等論證知。共相別觀身等。除身．受．心三餘一切法名法自性。余文可知。

傳說在定至如應當知者。顯觀成相。毗婆沙師傳說。在定以一極微。以一剎那。各別觀身名身念住滿。

問無表非極微如何說成滿　解云此文且據礙色成滿　或可。此文亦通無表。雖無極微有剎那故。余受．心．法三種滿相如應當知。皆非色故無有極微。以剎那觀。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：念住，這指的是明別相念住。它是七加行中的第二個加行。承接前面的內容，提出問題：像這樣已經講了不凈息唸的入門和修習兩種途徑，通過這兩種途徑心就能安定。心安定之後，還要修習什麼呢？下面就用頌文來回答，第一頌標明名稱，總括地提出；接下來的兩句說明它的本體；再一句說明它的次第；最後一句說明只有四種。

論中說：『修四念住』，這是解釋前面兩句。『奢摩他』，這裡譯為『止』；『毗缽舍那』，這裡譯為『觀』。

『如何修習四念住呢？』這是提問。

『謂以自共相至除三餘法者』，這是舉出第三句和第四句來回答。意思是說，用自相分別觀察身、受、心、法；用共相分別觀察身、受、心、法。問：如何得知用共相分別觀察身、受、心、法呢？答：如《正理六十》所說：『以自相、共相，對於身等境界，一一分別觀察。』又說：『或者身念住觀察自相，指的是觀察身體各自的自性；其次身念住觀察共相，指的是觀察身體上與其餘有為法共同的無常性，與其餘有漏法共同的苦性，與其餘一切法共同的空、無我性（受等隨之相應）。』《文法蘊足論》第五解身念住中，以無常、苦、空、非我，對於身、受、心、法一一分別觀察。通過這些論證可以得知，用共相分別觀察身等。除了身、受、心三種之外，其餘一切法名為法自性。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『傳說在定至如應當知者』，這是顯示觀成的相狀。《毗婆沙師》傳說，在禪定中以一個極微、一個剎那，各自觀察身體，名為身念住圓滿。

問：無表不是極微，如何說是成就圓滿呢？解釋說：這段文字暫且根據有礙之色成就圓滿來說明。或者，這段文字也適用於無表，雖然沒有極微，但有剎那的緣故。其餘受、心、法三種圓滿的相狀，應當如理如實地瞭解，因為它們都不是色法，所以沒有極微，而是以剎那來觀察。

【English Translation】 English version: Mindfulness. This refers to the distinct mindfulness of specific characteristics. It is the second of the seven preparatory practices. Connecting to the previous discussion, a question arises: Having discussed the two approaches of entering and practicing the contemplation of impurity, through which the mind becomes stable, what further practice is there once the mind is stable? The following verses answer this question. The first verse names and summarizes; the next two verses explain its essence; the subsequent verse clarifies the order; and the final verse specifies that there are only four types.

The treatise states: 'Practicing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness,' which explains the preceding two lines. 'Śamatha' (奢摩他) is translated here as 'cessation'; 'Vipaśyanā' (毗缽舍那) is translated as 'insight'.

'How does one practice the Four Foundations of Mindfulness?' This is a question.

'Referring to observing self and common characteristics to exclude the remaining three dharmas,' this cites the third and fourth lines to answer. It means using the self-characteristic to separately observe body, feeling, mind, and dharma; using the common characteristic to separately observe body, feeling, mind, and dharma. Question: How do we know to use the common characteristic to separately observe body, feeling, mind, and dharma? Answer: As stated in the Prajñaptiśāstra (正理六十): 'With self and common characteristics, for the realms of body, etc., observe each separately.' It also says: 'Or, mindfulness of the body observing the self-characteristic refers to observing the individual self-nature of the body; next, mindfulness of the body observing the common characteristic refers to observing the impermanence shared by the body and other conditioned phenomena, the suffering shared by the body and other contaminated phenomena, and the emptiness and selflessness shared by the body and all other phenomena (feeling, etc., accordingly).' In the fifth explanation of mindfulness of the body in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (文法蘊足論), impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self are used to separately observe body, feeling, mind, and dharma. From these treatises, it can be known that the common characteristic is used to separately observe body, etc. Apart from the three—body, feeling, and mind—all other dharmas are called the self-nature of dharma. The remaining text can be understood on one's own.

'It is said that in samadhi to as should be known,' this reveals the appearance of the completion of the observation. The Vaibhāṣika masters (毗婆沙師) say that in meditation, observing the body separately with one atom and one instant is called the completion of mindfulness of the body.

Question: How can non-manifestation, which is not an atom, be said to be complete? The explanation is that this passage temporarily explains completion based on obstructive form. Or, this passage can also apply to non-manifestation, because although there is no atom, there is an instant. The complete appearances of the remaining three—feeling, mind, and dharma—should be understood as they truly are, because they are not form, so there are no atoms, but they are observed with instants.

雖無為法無有剎那。且據有為從多分說　又解若有為以剎那無常別觀。若無為以空．非我別觀。故言如應當知。

何等名為四念住體者。此下釋第五．第六句。此即問也。

此四念住至所緣別故者。開章總答。正理云。何緣故說三種念住。為愚行相．資糧．所緣三種有情故說三種。

自性念住至三種念住者。此釋初章。自性念住以聞．思．修三慧為體。即此三慧亦名三種念住言釋名者。自性是慧名念住者。慧由念住。或令念住故名自性念住。

相雜念住至俱有為體者。釋第二章。相雜念住以慧及慧所餘俱有法為體　言釋名者。慧由念住　或令念住故名念住。念住相應及俱有法與念住相雜名相雜念住　問如何得知相雜念住亦攝慧耶　答如顯宗三十云。三中相雜能斷煩惱。非二能斷。太減增故。然相雜言亦攝慧體。慧與俱有互相雜故　又正理六十云。自性念住非不亦能斷諸煩惱。體是慧故。然名自性謂無所待。斷煩惱時必待余法。故斷煩惱位慧立相雜名。由此所言相雜念住能斷煩惱。理善成立。

所緣念住至諸法為體者。釋第三章。所緣念住以慧所緣諸法為體。以一切法無不皆是慧所緣故　言釋名者。慧由念住　或令念住故名念住。身．受．心．法。是念住所緣名所緣念住。

寧知

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本雖然無為法沒有剎那生滅，但姑且依據有為法從多數情況來說明。又解釋說，如果對於有為法，以剎那無常的觀點來特別觀察；對於無為法，以空、非我的觀點來特別觀察，所以說『如應當知』。

『什麼叫做四念住的體性？』這是解釋第五、第六句。這是提問。

『此四念住乃至所緣別故』，這是開啟章節總的回答。《正理》中說：『因為什麼緣故說三種念住？』因為爲了愚昧於行相、資糧、所緣這三種的有情，所以說三種念住。

『自性念住乃至三種念住』，這是解釋第一個章節。自性念住以聞、思、修三種智慧為體性。這三種智慧也叫做三種念住。解釋名稱時，自性是智慧，名爲念住的原因是，智慧由念而安住，或者使念安住，所以叫做自性念住。

『相雜念住乃至俱有為體』，這是解釋第二個章節。相雜念住以智慧以及智慧所餘的俱有法為體性。解釋名稱時，智慧由念而安住，或者使念安住，所以叫做念住。念住相應以及俱有法與念住相雜，名為相雜念住。問：如何得知相雜念住也包含智慧呢？答：如《顯宗》第三十卷所說：『三種念住中，相雜念住能夠斷除煩惱，不是兩種念住能夠斷除，因為太少或太多的緣故。』然而相雜這個詞也包含智慧的體性，因為智慧與俱有法互相雜合的緣故。又《正理》第六十卷說：『自性念住並非不能斷除各種煩惱，因為它的體性是智慧的緣故。』然而稱為自性，是因為沒有所依賴。斷除煩惱時必定依賴其他法，所以在斷除煩惱的位次上，智慧立為相雜的名稱。由此所說相雜念住能夠斷除煩惱，道理才能很好地成立。

『所緣念住乃至諸法為體』，這是解釋第三個章節。所緣念住以智慧所緣的諸法為體性，因為一切法沒有不是智慧所緣的緣故。解釋名稱時，智慧由念而安住，或者使念安住，所以叫做念住。身、受、心、法，是念住所緣，名為所緣念住。

寧知

【English Translation】 English version Although unconditioned dharmas do not have moments (剎那, kshana), we will discuss conditioned dharmas based on the majority of cases. Furthermore, it is explained that if one specifically observes conditioned dharmas with the view of momentary impermanence, and unconditioned dharmas with the view of emptiness (空, sunyata) and non-self (非我, anatman), hence the saying 'as it should be known'.

'What are the entities of the four foundations of mindfulness (四念住, smrtyupasthana)?' This explains the fifth and sixth sentences. This is a question.

'These four foundations of mindfulness up to the difference in objects (所緣, alambana)' This is the opening chapter's general answer. The Nyayanusara (正理) says: 'For what reason are three foundations of mindfulness taught?' Because three kinds of sentient beings are ignorant of the aspects (行相, akara), resources (資糧, sambhara), and objects, three are taught.

'The self-nature foundation of mindfulness up to the three foundations of mindfulness' This explains the first chapter. The self-nature foundation of mindfulness has the three wisdoms of hearing (聞, sruta), thinking (思, cinta), and meditation (修, bhavana) as its entity. These three wisdoms are also called the three foundations of mindfulness. When explaining the name, the self-nature is wisdom. The reason it is called the foundation of mindfulness is that wisdom abides by mindfulness, or causes mindfulness to abide, hence it is called the self-nature foundation of mindfulness.

'The mixed foundation of mindfulness up to the co-existent as its entity' This explains the second chapter. The mixed foundation of mindfulness has wisdom and the remaining co-existent dharmas of wisdom as its entity. When explaining the name, wisdom abides by mindfulness, or causes mindfulness to abide, hence it is called the foundation of mindfulness. Mindfulness-corresponding and co-existent dharmas mixed with mindfulness are called the mixed foundation of mindfulness. Question: How do we know that the mixed foundation of mindfulness also includes wisdom? Answer: As the Abhidharmasamuccaya (顯宗) says in the thirtieth fascicle: 'Among the three, the mixed one can sever afflictions (煩惱, klesha), not the two, because they are too little or too much.' However, the term 'mixed' also includes the entity of wisdom, because wisdom and co-existent dharmas are mixed with each other. Furthermore, the sixtieth fascicle of the Nyayanusara says: 'The self-nature foundation of mindfulness is not unable to sever all afflictions, because its entity is wisdom.' However, it is called self-nature because it has no dependence. When severing afflictions, it must depend on other dharmas, so in the position of severing afflictions, wisdom is established as the mixed name. Therefore, the statement that the mixed foundation of mindfulness can sever afflictions is well established.

'The object foundation of mindfulness up to all dharmas as its entity' This explains the third chapter. The object foundation of mindfulness has all dharmas that are the object of wisdom as its entity, because all dharmas are the object of wisdom. When explaining the name, wisdom abides by mindfulness, or causes mindfulness to abide, hence it is called the foundation of mindfulness. Body (身, kaya), feeling (受, vedana), mind (心, citta), and dharmas (法, dharma) are the objects of the foundation of mindfulness, called the object foundation of mindfulness.

How is it known

自性是慧非餘者。問。寧知自性念住是慧非余。

經說于身至循觀用故者。引答可知。

何緣于慧立念住名者。問。自性是慧應名慧住。何緣于慧立念住名。

毗婆沙師至由楔力持者。答。斧由楔持能破于木。慧由念持于境得轉。此即從因為名。

理實應言至便住不謬者。論主釋云。理實應言慧令念住。從果為名。是故於慧立念住名。隨慧所觀念能明記。引論及經。皆由慧觀念便得住　無滅梵云阿尼律陀。舊云阿那律。或云阿尼樓豆訛也。

然有經言至各有三種者會釋經文。然有經言問此四念住由何故集　由何故滅。經復答言。食集故令身集。由段食故身得增長。觸集故令受集。由觸因故受果得生。名色集故令心集。由名與心為相應．俱有等。由色與心為依．緣等心果得生　又解約四識住色蘊是色。受．想．行是名。識是能住即是所集。是故除識。作意集故令法集。由作意起故令此法中余心所起。若食．觸．名色．作意四因滅故。如次令身．受．心．法四果滅若依此經念住有四。如何乃言慧為自性。論主釋言。應知彼說三念住中。所緣念住以念于彼得安住故名所緣念住。又四念住別名隨所緣。于所緣中。或緣自相續身。或緣他相續身。或緣自．他相續身。三種異故。俱謂緣自．他。一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本自性是智慧，而不是其他（心所）。問：憑什麼知道自性念住是智慧而不是其他（心所）？

經文說，因為對身體進行至誠的觀察和運用，所以可以從引用的回答中得知（自性念住是智慧）。

問：為什麼在智慧上建立念住的名稱？自性是智慧，應該叫做『慧住』，為什麼在智慧上建立『念住』的名稱？

答：就像斧頭依靠楔子才能劈開木頭一樣，智慧依靠唸的保持才能在所緣境上運轉。這是從原因來命名的。

論主解釋說：實際上應該說智慧使念安住，這是從結果來命名的。因此在智慧上建立念住的名稱。隨著智慧所觀念的對象能夠清晰地記住。引用論和經，都是因為智慧的觀念才能安住。阿尼律陀（Aniruddha），梵語，舊譯為阿那律，或阿尼樓豆，都是訛誤。

會釋經文。經文說：這四念住由什麼原因集起？由什麼原因滅去？經文回答說：食物集起，所以使身體集起。因為段食，身體才能增長。觸集起，所以使感受集起。因為觸的因緣，感受的果報才能產生。名色集起，所以使心集起。因為名與心相互相應、共同存在等，因為色與心相互依存、作為緣等，心的果報才能產生。又解釋說，約四識住而言，色蘊是色，受、想、行是名，識是能住的，也就是所集起的。所以除了識，作意集起，所以使法集起。因為作意生起，所以使這個法中其餘的心所生起。如果食物、觸、名色、作意這四個原因滅去，那麼依次使身體、感受、心、法這四個結果滅去。如果依據這部經，念住有四種，為什麼說智慧是自性呢？論主解釋說：應該知道，那裡所說的三種念住中，所緣念住是因爲念安住在所緣境上，所以叫做所緣念住。又四念住的別名隨著所緣而定。在所緣境中，或者緣自身相續的身體，或者緣他人相續的身體，或者緣自身和他人的相續的身體。因為這三種不同，都稱為緣自身和他人，這是一種。

【English Translation】 English version The self-nature is wisdom (prajna), not other (mental factors). Question: How do we know that the self-nature mindfulness is wisdom and not something else?

The sutra says that because of the thorough observation and application to the body, it can be known from the cited answer (that self-nature mindfulness is wisdom).

Question: Why is the name 'mindfulness-establishment' established on wisdom? The self-nature is wisdom, it should be called 'wisdom-establishment'. Why is the name 'mindfulness-establishment' established on wisdom?

Answer: Just as an axe relies on a wedge to split wood, wisdom relies on the maintenance of mindfulness to operate on the object of focus. This is named from the cause.

The treatise master explains: In reality, it should be said that wisdom causes mindfulness to abide, which is named from the result. Therefore, the name 'mindfulness-establishment' is established on wisdom. As the object contemplated by wisdom can be clearly remembered. Quoting the treatise and the sutra, it is because of the contemplation of wisdom that one can abide. Aniruddha (阿尼律陀), Sanskrit, formerly translated as Anaritsu or Aniloudu, are all corruptions.

Explaining the sutra text. The sutra says: By what cause do these four mindfulness-establishments arise? By what cause do they cease? The sutra answers: Food arises, therefore causing the body to arise. Because of coarse food, the body can grow. Contact arises, therefore causing feeling to arise. Because of the cause of contact, the result of feeling can arise. Name and form arise, therefore causing the mind to arise. Because name and mind are mutually corresponding, co-existing, etc., because form and mind are mutually dependent, as conditions, etc., the result of the mind can arise. Also explaining, in terms of the four abodes of consciousness, the aggregate of form is form, feeling, perception, and volition are name, consciousness is the able to abide, which is what is gathered. Therefore, apart from consciousness, attention arises, therefore causing dharma to arise. Because attention arises, therefore causing the remaining mental factors in this dharma to arise. If these four causes of food, contact, name and form, and attention cease, then in sequence, the four results of body, feeling, mind, and dharma cease. If according to this sutra, there are four mindfulness-establishments, why is it said that wisdom is the self-nature? The treatise master explains: It should be known that among the three mindfulness-establishments mentioned there, the object-mindfulness-establishment is called object-mindfulness-establishment because mindfulness abides on the object. Also, the separate names of the four mindfulness-establishments depend on the object. In the object, either focusing on one's own continuum of body, or focusing on another's continuum of body, or focusing on the continuum of both oneself and others. Because these three are different, they are all called focusing on both oneself and others, which is one kind.

一念住緣自．他．俱各有三種。三四即成十二念住。故彼經說。所緣念住。四念住中雖身．及法。亦通非相續　此中且據相續以論　或從多分說。

此四念住說次隨生者。釋第七句。明四次第生。

生復何緣次第如是者。問。

隨境粗者至如是次第者。答。隨境粗者應先觀故。於四種中色粗先觀。於後三中受粗先觀。如手等痛。於後二中心粗先觀。法最細故所以後觀　法中想等雖復粗心。法中涅槃極微細故。與極細法合施設故。據細以論。故最後說　或諸欲貪于身處轉。故四念住觀身在初　然貪于身由欣樂於受。或由欣樂受故觀受第二　欣樂於受由心不調故第三觀心　心之不調由惑未斷。惑是法攝故第四觀法。

此四念住至不增不減者。釋第八句。明唯有四。四念住中觀身不凈治彼凈倒。觀受是苦治彼樂倒。觀心無常治彼常倒。觀法無我治彼我倒。又正理云。或為對治段．觸．識．思食。如次建立身等四念住。故唯有四不增不減。

四中三種至名為雜緣者。顯四所緣有雜．不雜。四中前三一一別觀唯不雜緣。第四所緣通雜．不雜。若唯觀法名不雜緣。于身等四。或二合觀。或三合觀。或四總觀。二二合觀有六。三三合觀有四。四合觀有一。總有十一名雜緣法通名法故。先不雜緣身．受

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『一念住』的所緣，自身、他人、俱生各有三種。三種乘以四，即成十二種『念住』。因此經文說：『所緣念住』。四念住中，雖然身念住和法念住也通於非相續的所緣，但這裡暫且根據相續的所緣來討論，或者從多數情況來說。

『此四念住說次隨生者』，解釋第七句，說明四種念住次第生起。

『生復何緣次第如是者』，這是提問：為什麼生起的次第是這樣的？

『隨境粗者至如是次第者』，這是回答：因為隨著所觀境界的粗細，應該先觀粗的。在四種念住中，色身最粗，所以先觀身。在後三種念住中，感受最粗，所以先觀感受，比如手等處的疼痛。在後兩種念住中，心念最粗，所以先觀心。法念最細微，所以最後觀法。在法念中，雖然想等也比較粗，但法念中包含涅槃（Nirvana）這種極其微細的法，爲了與這種極細微的法相合，所以將法念放在最後。或者說，因為對欲的貪著主要在身體上發生，所以四念住中觀身念住放在最開始。然而，對身體的貪著，是由於欣樂於感受。或者說，由於欣樂於感受，所以觀受念住放在第二位。欣樂於感受，是由於心不調伏，所以第三觀心念住。心之不調伏，是由於迷惑未斷，迷惑屬於法所攝，所以第四觀法念住。

『此四念住至不增不減者』，解釋第八句，說明只有四種念住。四念住中，觀身不凈，是爲了對治認為身體是清凈的顛倒見；觀受是苦，是爲了對治認為感受是快樂的顛倒見；觀心無常，是爲了對治認為心是常恒的顛倒見；觀法無我，是爲了對治認為法有我的顛倒見。又，《正理》中說：或者爲了對治段食（physical food）、觸食（sense-impression food）、識食（consciousness food）、思食（volitional food），依次建立身念住等四念住。所以只有四種念住，不多也不少。

『四中三種至名為雜緣者』，顯示四種所緣有雜和不雜。四種念住中，前三種念住各自單獨觀察，屬於不雜緣。第四種所緣，通於雜緣和不雜緣。如果只觀察法，名為不雜緣。對於身等四種念住，或者兩種合起來觀察，或者三種合起來觀察，或者四種總合起來觀察。兩種合起來觀察有六種情況，三種合起來觀察有四種情況，四種合起來觀察有一種情況，總共有十一種雜緣。法念普遍包含一切法，所以先說不雜緣的身念住、受念住。

【English Translation】 English version: The objects of 'one mindfulness' (eka-smṛti) are of three kinds each for oneself, others, and both. Three multiplied by four makes twelve 'mindfulnesses'. Therefore, the sutra says: 'objects of mindfulness'. Among the four mindfulnesses, although body and dharma also extend to non-continuous objects, here we will discuss based on continuous objects, or from the majority of cases.

'These four mindfulnesses are said to arise in sequence', explains the seventh phrase, clarifying that the four arise in order.

'Why do they arise in such a sequence?', this is a question.

'According to the grossness of the objects, they arise in such a sequence', this is the answer: Because one should observe the grosser objects first. Among the four mindfulnesses, the physical body (rūpa) is the grossest, so one observes the body first. Among the latter three, feeling (vedanā) is the grossest, so one observes feeling first, such as pain in the hand. Among the latter two, mind (citta) is the grossest, so one observes the mind first. Dharma (dharma) is the most subtle, so one observes dharma last. Among dharmas, although thought (saṃjñā) and the like are also relatively gross, dharma includes Nirvana (Nirvana) which is extremely subtle. To align with this extremely subtle dharma, dharma is placed last. Alternatively, because craving for desires mainly occurs in relation to the body, the mindfulness of body is placed first among the four mindfulnesses. However, craving for the body arises from delighting in feeling. Or, because of delighting in feeling, the mindfulness of feeling is placed second. Delighting in feeling arises from the mind being untamed, so the mindfulness of mind is observed third. The untamed mind arises from the lack of severing of delusion (moha), and delusion is included in dharma, so the mindfulness of dharma is observed fourth.

'These four mindfulnesses, neither increasing nor decreasing', explains the eighth phrase, clarifying that there are only four mindfulnesses. Among the four mindfulnesses, observing the body as impure is to counteract the inverted view that the body is pure; observing feeling as suffering is to counteract the inverted view that feeling is pleasurable; observing the mind as impermanent is to counteract the inverted view that the mind is permanent; observing dharma as selfless is to counteract the inverted view that dharma has a self. Furthermore, the Nyāyasūtra says: Or, to counteract coarse food (kabaḍīkāra āhāra), contact food (sparśa āhāra), consciousness food (vijñāna āhāra), and volitional food (manasañcetanā āhāra), the four mindfulnesses, such as mindfulness of body, are established in sequence. Therefore, there are only four mindfulnesses, neither more nor less.

'Among the four, three are observed separately, called non-mixed objects', shows that the four objects have mixed and non-mixed aspects. Among the four mindfulnesses, the first three are observed individually, belonging to non-mixed objects. The fourth object, dharma, is common to both mixed and non-mixed objects. If one only observes dharma, it is called a non-mixed object. Regarding the four mindfulnesses of body, etc., one can observe two combined, or three combined, or all four combined. Combining two has six possibilities, combining three has four possibilities, combining four has one possibility, totaling eleven mixed objects. Dharma universally includes all dharmas, so the non-mixed mindfulnesses of body and feeling are mentioned first.

．心．法。從不雜緣法念住后無間引起雜緣法念住。

如是熟修至苦空非我者。此即第二明總相念住。七加行中第三加行也。彼觀行者居緣總雜法念住中。唯觀所緣身等四境修四行相。觀諸有為皆非常性。觀諸有漏皆是苦性。觀一切法空．非我性。雜緣法念住總有三種。謂二．三．四唯總緣四名此所修。前雜非唯故與差別　問婆沙云三義觀．七處善。此論何故不說。三義觀者。謂次第觀蘊．處．界也。七處善者。謂觀色苦。觀色集。觀色滅。觀色道。觀色愛味。觀色過患。觀色出離。前之四種觀色四諦。色愛味言重觀色集。色過患言重觀色苦。色出離言重觀色滅諦。先觀集者隨說次第。不言道者。以諸能觀多是道故。受．想．行．識各七亦然。應言三十五。不過七故但言七處善　解云亦應說有。而不說者略而不論　又解三義．七處聲聞作。佛．及獨覺不作。此中通據三乘加行。是故不說彼二觀門　問三義觀．七處善何位起耶　解云在雜緣法念住后。總相念住前加行位起此二種。故正理六十一云。論曰雜緣法念住總有四種。二．三．四．五蘊為境別故。唯總緣五名此所修。彼居此中修四行相。總觀一切身．受．心．法。所謂非常．苦．空．非我。然于修習此念住時。有餘善根能為方便。彼應次第修令現前。謂彼已

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心念處。從不雜的因緣法念住之後，緊接著生起雜的因緣法念住。

像這樣熟練地修習到苦、空、非我。這就是第二種明瞭總相的念住。是七種加行中的第三種加行。那位觀行者住在因緣總雜法念住中，只是觀察所緣的身等四境，修習四種行相。觀察諸有為法都是無常的性質，觀察諸有漏法都是苦的性質，觀察一切法都是空和非我的性質。雜緣法念住總共有三種，就是二、三、四，只有總緣四種（蘊、處、界、諦）才稱為這裡所修的。前面的雜不是唯一的，所以與此有差別。問：為什麼《婆沙論》中說的『三義觀』（Trividha-artha-darshana）和『七處善』（Sapta-sthana-kushala）這裡沒有說？三義觀，就是次第觀察蘊（Skandha）、處（Ayatana）、界（Dhatu）。七處善，就是觀察色（Rupa）的苦、色集、色滅、色道、色愛味、色過患、色出離。前面的四種是觀察色的四諦（Cattari-ariya-saccani）。色愛味是重複觀察色集，色過患是重複觀察色苦，色出離是重複觀察色滅諦。先觀察集是因為隨順所說的次第。不說色道是因為諸能觀多是道。受（Vedana）、想（Samjna）、行（Samskara）、識（Vijnana）各自的七種也是這樣。應該說三十五種，但不超過七種，所以只說七處善。解釋說：也應該說有，但不說是因為省略而不論。又解釋說：三義、七處是聲聞（Shravaka）所作的，佛（Buddha）和獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）不作。這裡是通用於三乘（Triyana）的加行，所以不說那兩種觀門。問：三義觀、七處善在什麼位次生起？解答說：在雜緣法念住之後，總相念住之前的加行位生起這兩種。所以《正理》第六十一說：論中說雜緣法念住總共有四種，因為二、三、四、五蘊為境不同。只有總緣五蘊才稱為這裡所修的。他住在這裡修習四種行相，總觀一切身、受、心、法，所謂無常、苦、空、非我。然而在修習這種念住時，有其餘的善根能作為方便，他應該次第修習使之現前，就是他已經...

【English Translation】 English version: Mind. From the impure causal Dharma mindfulness, the impure causal Dharma mindfulness arises immediately.

Thus, when practiced skillfully to the point of suffering, emptiness, and non-self, this is the second clear general characteristic mindfulness. It is the third practice among the seven preliminary practices. That practitioner dwells in the causal general mixed Dharma mindfulness, only observing the four objects of focus, such as the body, and cultivating the four aspects. Observing that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent in nature, observing that all defiled phenomena are of the nature of suffering, observing that all dharmas are empty and of the nature of non-self. Mixed causal Dharma mindfulness has three types in total, namely two, three, and four. Only the general focus on the four (Skandha, Ayatana, Dhatu, Satya) is called what is cultivated here. The previous mixed is not unique, so it is different from this. Question: Why are the 'Threefold Meaning Contemplation' (Trividha-artha-darshana) and the 'Sevenfold Goodness' (Sapta-sthana-kushala) mentioned in the Vibhasha not mentioned here? The Threefold Meaning Contemplation is the sequential contemplation of the aggregates (Skandha), bases (Ayatana), and realms (Dhatu). The Sevenfold Goodness is the contemplation of the suffering of form (Rupa), the arising of form, the cessation of form, the path to the cessation of form, the allure of form, the danger of form, and the escape from form. The first four are the contemplation of the Four Noble Truths (Cattari-ariya-saccani) regarding form. The allure of form is the repeated contemplation of the arising of form, the danger of form is the repeated contemplation of the suffering of form, and the escape from form is the repeated contemplation of the cessation of truth. The reason for contemplating arising first is to follow the order of what is said. The path to the cessation of form is not mentioned because many of the contemplations are the path. The seven aspects of feeling (Vedana), perception (Samjna), formations (Samskara), and consciousness (Vijnana) are also like this. It should be said that there are thirty-five, but since it does not exceed seven, it is only called the Sevenfold Goodness. The explanation is that it should also be said to exist, but it is not said because it is omitted and not discussed. Another explanation is that the Threefold Meaning and Sevenfold Goodness are practiced by Shravakas, not by Buddhas and Pratyekabuddhas. Here, it is generally based on the preliminary practices of the Three Vehicles (Triyana), so those two contemplation methods are not mentioned. Question: In what stage do the Threefold Meaning Contemplation and Sevenfold Goodness arise? The answer is: These two arise in the preliminary practice stage after the mixed causal Dharma mindfulness and before the general characteristic mindfulness. Therefore, Nyayanusara 61 says: The treatise says that mixed causal Dharma mindfulness has four types in total because the two, three, four, and five aggregates are different as objects. Only the general focus on the five aggregates is called what is cultivated here. He dwells here cultivating the four aspects, generally contemplating all body, feeling, mind, and Dharma, namely impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self. However, when cultivating this mindfulness, there are other good roots that can serve as a means, and he should cultivate them sequentially to make them manifest, that is, he has already...

熟修雜緣法念住。將欲修習此念住時。先應總緣修無我行。次觀生．滅。次觀緣起。以觀行者先觀諸行從因生滅。便於因果相屬觀門易趣入故。或有欲令先觀緣起。此後引起緣三義觀。此觀無間修七處善。於七處善得善巧故。能于先來諸所見境立因果諦次第觀察。如是熟修智及定已便能安立順現觀諦。謂欲．上界苦等各別。于如是八隨次第觀修未曾修十六行相。彼由聞慧於八諦中。初起如斯十六行觀。如隔薄絹睹見眾色。齊此名為聞慧圓滿。思所成慧準此應說。次於生死深生厭患。欣樂涅槃寂靜功德。此後多引厭觀現前。方便勤修漸增漸勝。引起如是能順抉擇思所成攝最勝善根。即是所修總緣共相法念住　解云此顯雜緣法念住后。是總緣共相法念住前加行。一修無我行。二觀生．滅。三觀緣起。或有欲令先觀緣起。四緣三義觀。五修七處善。六聞慧學作十六行觀。七思慧學作十六行觀。八深厭生死欣樂涅槃。此並是總相加行。從此便能引起如是能順抉擇思所成攝最勝善根。即是所修總緣共相法念住也。此中且據未離欲染故。言總相思慧所攝。若已離欲。總相念住即修慧所攝。故正理六十一云。若有先離欲界染者。依色界攝修所成慧。厭患生死欣樂涅槃。多厭行俱作意次第能引異類暖善根生。諸有先時未離欲染依思所成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本熟練地修習雜緣法念住。當要修習這種念住時，首先應當總的觀照修習無我之行（Anatta-lakkhana，佛教術語，指沒有永恒不變的自我）。其次觀察生起和滅去（Uppada-vaya，佛教術語，指事物產生和消滅的現象）。再次觀察緣起（Paticcasamuppada，佛教術語，指事物相互依存的產生）。因為觀行者先觀察諸行從因緣生滅，這樣就容易進入因果相屬的觀門。或者有人希望先觀察緣起，然後引起緣三義觀（不確定是否為專有名詞，指對緣起的三種意義的觀察）。在這種觀察之後，修習七處善（Satta-thana-kusala，佛教術語，指七種善巧之處）。因為對七處善得到善巧，就能對先前所見到的各種境界，建立因果諦的次第觀察。像這樣熟練地修習智慧和禪定之後，便能安立順於現觀的真諦。也就是欲界（Kama-loka，佛教術語，指眾生有情慾的世界）和上界（Rupa-loka and Arupa-loka，佛教術語，指色界和無色界）的苦等各自不同。對於像這樣的八諦（Attha-sacca，佛教術語，指八種真理），按照次第觀察修習未曾修過的十六行相（Solasa-karana，佛教術語，指十六種觀智）。他們由於聽聞而獲得的智慧，在八諦中，最初生起這樣的十六行觀，就像隔著薄絹看到各種顏色一樣。達到這種程度，就叫做聞慧圓滿。思所成慧（Cinta-maya-panna，佛教術語，指通過思考獲得的智慧）也應該按照這個來說明。接下來，對於生死輪迴深深地產生厭惡和恐懼，欣喜和嚮往涅槃（Nibbana，佛教術語，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）寂靜的功德。此後，更多地引發厭離的觀察顯現，方便地勤奮修習，逐漸增長和殊勝，引起像這樣能夠順於抉擇的思所成攝的最殊勝的善根。這就是所修的總緣共相法念住。解釋說，這顯示了雜緣法念住之後，是總緣共相法念住之前的加行。一是修無我行。二是觀察生滅。三是觀察緣起。或者有人希望先觀察緣起。四是緣三義觀。五是修七處善。六是聞慧學習作十六行觀。七是思慧學習作十六行觀。八是深深厭惡生死，欣喜向往涅槃。這些都是總相加行。從此便能引起像這樣能夠順於抉擇的思所成攝的最殊勝的善根。這就是所修的總緣共相法念住。這裡且根據還沒有離開欲染的緣故，說是總相思慧所攝。如果已經離開了欲染，總相念住就是修慧所攝。所以《正理》（Abhidharmakosabhasya，佛教論書名）第六十一卷說，如果有人先離開了欲界染，依靠修所成慧（Bhavana-maya-panna，佛教術語，指通過修行獲得的智慧），厭惡生死，欣喜向往涅槃，多次與厭離之行相應的作意次第，能夠引發異類的暖善根生起。那些先前沒有離開欲染的人，依靠思所成慧。

【English Translation】 English version One should diligently cultivate the mindfulness of the Dharma with mixed conditions. When about to cultivate this mindfulness, one should first generally contemplate and practice the non-self aspect (Anatta-lakkhana). Next, observe arising and ceasing (Uppada-vaya). Then, observe dependent origination (Paticcasamuppada). Because the practitioner first observes that all phenomena arise and cease from causes, it is easier to enter the gate of contemplating the relationship between cause and effect. Or some may wish to first observe dependent origination, and then arouse the contemplation of the three meanings of conditions (uncertain if this is a proper noun, referring to the observation of the three meanings of dependent origination). After this contemplation, cultivate the seven skillful practices (Satta-thana-kusala). Because one becomes skillful in the seven skillful practices, one can establish the order of cause and effect in observing the various realms previously seen. Having diligently cultivated wisdom and concentration in this way, one can then establish the truths that accord with direct perception. That is, the suffering of the desire realm (Kama-loka) and the upper realms (Rupa-loka and Arupa-loka) are each different. For such eight truths (Attha-sacca), one sequentially observes and cultivates the sixteen aspects (Solasa-karana) that have not been cultivated before. Through the wisdom gained from hearing, they initially arise with such sixteen aspects of contemplation in the eight truths, like seeing various colors through thin silk. Reaching this point is called the perfection of wisdom from hearing. The wisdom gained from thinking (Cinta-maya-panna) should be explained accordingly. Next, one deeply generates aversion and fear towards the cycle of birth and death, and rejoices in and yearns for the peaceful merits of Nirvana (Nibbana). Thereafter, one evokes more and more the manifestation of aversion contemplation, diligently cultivating with skillful means, gradually increasing and becoming superior, arousing such supreme roots of goodness that are in accordance with the wisdom gained from thinking that leads to decisive understanding. This is the mindfulness of Dharma with the general characteristic of all conditions that is being cultivated. It is explained that this shows that after the mindfulness of Dharma with mixed conditions, it is the preliminary practice before the mindfulness of Dharma with the general characteristic of all conditions. First, cultivate the practice of non-self. Second, observe arising and ceasing. Third, observe dependent origination. Or some may wish to first observe dependent origination. Fourth, contemplate the three meanings of conditions. Fifth, cultivate the seven skillful practices. Sixth, learn to contemplate the sixteen aspects with the wisdom gained from hearing. Seventh, learn to contemplate the sixteen aspects with the wisdom gained from thinking. Eighth, deeply loathe birth and death and rejoice in and yearn for Nirvana. These are all general preliminary practices. From this, one can arouse such supreme roots of goodness that are in accordance with the wisdom gained from thinking that leads to decisive understanding. This is the mindfulness of Dharma with the general characteristic of all conditions that is being cultivated. Here, it is said to be included in the general wisdom of thinking because it is based on the reason that one has not yet left the defilements of desire. If one has already left the defilements of desire, the general mindfulness is included in the wisdom of cultivation. Therefore, the sixty-first volume of the 'Abhidharmakosabhasya' says, 'If someone has first left the defilements of the desire realm, relying on the wisdom gained from cultivation (Bhavana-maya-panna), loathes birth and death, and rejoices in and yearns for Nirvana, the intention in accordance with the practice of aversion many times can arouse the arising of different kinds of warm roots of goodness. Those who have not left the defilements of desire before, rely on the wisdom gained from thinking.'

慧引暖善根生故。彼不應作一向執。

修此觀已至皆慧五除得者。此下第四明暖等四善根。七加行中后四加行也。就中。一明善根觀行。二諸門分別。三明善根勝利。四明三乘轉根。五明修果久近　此即明善根觀行。

論曰至故名為暖者。釋初句可知。

此暖善根至如后當辨者。釋第二．第三句。亦可解。

此暖善根至十六行相者。釋第四句。此亦可知。

如是暖頂至唯法念住者。釋第五句及第六句中皆初法。

以何義故．名．初安足者。問。

謂隨何善根至四聖諦跡者。答。

后增進時至欽重心故者。釋第六句中后四。

此頂善根至與前有異者。釋第七句。於四諦理忍可最勝故名為忍。及此位忍無退墮故名為忍法。又正理云。世第一法雖于聖諦亦能忍可。無間必能入見道故。必無退墮。而不具觀四聖諦理。此具觀故偏得忍名。故偏說此名順諦忍。余文可知。

然此忍法至十六行相者。釋第八句。忍有三品。下．中同頂具觀四諦。修十六行。此總相說。若別分別。于中品忍雖初具觀上．下八諦。行相漸略至后位中諦亦漸略。次後當說。

上品有異至不相續故者。釋第九．第十句。上品有異。唯觀欲苦。與世第一相鄰接故。由此上忍唯觀欲苦。由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由於智慧引導，暖善根得以生起。因此，不應執著于單一的觀點。

修習此觀行，達到具備智慧並能去除五蓋的境界。以下第四部分闡明暖、頂、忍、世第一法四種善根，即七加行中的后四種加行。其中：一、闡明善根的觀行；二、對各種門類進行分別；三、闡明善根的殊勝利益；四、闡明三乘（Sravakayana，聲聞乘；Pratyekabuddhayana，緣覺乘；Bodhisattvayana，菩薩乘）的轉根；五、闡明修習成果所需時間的長短。此處即闡明善根的觀行。

論中說：『至故名為暖者』。解釋第一句，容易理解。

『此暖善根至如后當辨者』。解釋第二、第三句，也可理解。

『此暖善根至十六行相者』。解釋第四句，此處也容易理解。

『如是暖頂至唯法念住者』。解釋第五句以及第六句中的『皆初法』。

『以何義故．名．初安足者』。問：因為什麼緣故，稱為最初的安足處？

『謂隨何善根至四聖諦跡者』。答：因為無論哪種善根，都能隨順四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni）的足跡。

『后增進時至欽重心故者』。解釋第六句中的『后四』。

『此頂善根至與前有異者』。解釋第七句。因為對於四諦之理的忍可最為殊勝，所以稱為忍。並且此位的忍沒有退墮，所以稱為忍法。又《正理》中說，世第一法雖然也能忍可四聖諦，但因為無間必能進入見道，必定不會退墮，而且不具足對四聖諦之理的觀照。此處的忍因為具足觀照，所以特別得到『忍』的名稱。因此特別說此名為順諦忍。其餘文字容易理解。

『然此忍法至十六行相者』。解釋第八句。忍有下品、中品。下品、中品與頂位一樣，具足觀照四諦，修習十六行相。這是總相來說。如果分別來說，于中品忍中，雖然最初具足觀照上、下八諦，但行相逐漸省略，到后位中，諦也逐漸省略。接下來會說到。

『上品有異至不相續故者』。解釋第九、第十句。上品有所不同，只觀照欲界的苦諦，因為它與世第一法相鄰接。因此，上品忍只觀照欲界的苦諦。 English version: Because wisdom guides, the root of warmth (ūṣmagata) arises. Therefore, one should not cling to a single view.

Having cultivated this contemplation and reached the state of possessing wisdom and being able to remove the five hindrances, the fourth section below elucidates the four roots of goodness: warmth (ūṣmagata), summit (mūrdhan), forbearance (kṣānti), and supreme mundane dharma (laukikāgradharma), which are the last four of the seven preparatory practices (saptavidha prayoga). Among them: 1. Elucidating the contemplation practice of the roots of goodness; 2. Differentiating the various categories; 3. Elucidating the excellent benefits of the roots of goodness; 4. Elucidating the transformation of roots in the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana); 5. Elucidating the length of time required for the cultivation to bear fruit. Here, the contemplation practice of the roots of goodness is elucidated.

The treatise says: 'Up to the point that it is called warmth (ūṣmagata)'. The explanation of the first sentence is easy to understand.

'This root of warmth (ūṣmagata) up to what will be explained later'. Explains the second and third sentences, which can also be understood.

'This root of warmth (ūṣmagata) up to the sixteen aspects'. Explains the fourth sentence, which is also easy to understand.

'Thus, warmth (ūṣmagata), summit (mūrdhan) up to only the mindfulness of dharma'. Explains the fifth sentence and 'all the initial dharmas' in the sixth sentence.

'For what reason is it called the initial foothold?' Question.

'It means that whatever root of goodness up to the traces of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni)'. Answer: Because whatever root of goodness can follow the traces of the Four Noble Truths.

'When further progress is made up to the reason for reverence and respect'. Explains the 'latter four' in the sixth sentence.

'This summit (mūrdhan) root of goodness up to being different from the previous one'. Explains the seventh sentence. Because the acceptance of the principles of the Four Truths is most excellent, it is called forbearance (kṣānti). And the forbearance in this position does not regress, so it is called the dharma of forbearance. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that although the supreme mundane dharma (laukikāgradharma) can also accept the Four Noble Truths, because it will inevitably enter the path of seeing (darśanamārga) without interruption, it will certainly not regress, and it does not fully contemplate the principles of the Four Noble Truths. Because this forbearance fully contemplates, it particularly obtains the name 'forbearance'. Therefore, it is specifically said that this is called forbearance in accordance with the truth. The remaining text is easy to understand.

'However, this dharma of forbearance up to the sixteen aspects'. Explains the eighth sentence. Forbearance has three grades: lower, middle. The lower and middle grades, like the summit (mūrdhan), fully contemplate the Four Truths and cultivate the sixteen aspects. This is a general statement. If we differentiate, in the middle grade of forbearance, although initially fully contemplating the upper and lower eight truths, the aspects are gradually omitted, and in the later position, the truths are also gradually omitted. This will be discussed next.

'The superior grade is different up to not being continuous'. Explains the ninth and tenth sentences. The superior grade is different, only contemplating the truth of suffering in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), because it is adjacent to the supreme mundane dharma (laukikāgradharma). Therefore, the superior forbearance only contemplates the truth of suffering in the desire realm.

【English Translation】 Due to the guidance of wisdom, the root of warmth arises. Therefore, one should not cling to a single view.

Having cultivated this contemplation and reached the state of possessing wisdom and being able to remove the five hindrances, the fourth section below elucidates the four roots of goodness: warmth, summit, forbearance, and supreme mundane dharma, which are the last four of the seven preparatory practices. Among them: 1. Elucidating the contemplation practice of the roots of goodness; 2. Differentiating the various categories; 3. Elucidating the excellent benefits of the roots of goodness; 4. Elucidating the transformation of roots in the Three Vehicles; 5. Elucidating the length of time required for the cultivation to bear fruit. Here, the contemplation practice of the roots of goodness is elucidated.

The treatise says: 'Up to the point that it is called warmth'. The explanation of the first sentence is easy to understand.

'This root of warmth up to what will be explained later'. Explains the second and third sentences, which can also be understood.

'This root of warmth up to the sixteen aspects'. Explains the fourth sentence, which is also easy to understand.

'Thus, warmth, summit up to only the mindfulness of dharma'. Explains the fifth sentence and 'all the initial dharmas' in the sixth sentence.

'For what reason is it called the initial foothold?' Question.

'It means that whatever root of goodness up to the traces of the Four Noble Truths'. Answer: Because whatever root of goodness can follow the traces of the Four Noble Truths.

'When further progress is made up to the reason for reverence and respect'. Explains the 'latter four' in the sixth sentence.

'This summit root of goodness up to being different from the previous one'. Explains the seventh sentence. Because the acceptance of the principles of the Four Truths is most excellent, it is called forbearance. And the forbearance in this position does not regress, so it is called the dharma of forbearance. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that although the supreme mundane dharma can also accept the Four Noble Truths, because it will inevitably enter the path of seeing without interruption, it will certainly not regress, and it does not fully contemplate the principles of the Four Noble Truths. Because this forbearance fully contemplates, it particularly obtains the name 'forbearance'. Therefore, it is specifically said that this is called forbearance in accordance with the truth. The remaining text is easy to understand.

'However, this dharma of forbearance up to the sixteen aspects'. Explains the eighth sentence. Forbearance has three grades: lower, middle. The lower and middle grades, like the summit, fully contemplate the Four Truths and cultivate the sixteen aspects. This is a general statement. If we differentiate, in the middle grade of forbearance, although initially fully contemplating the upper and lower eight truths, the aspects are gradually omitted, and in the later position, the truths are also gradually omitted. This will be discussed next.

'The superior grade is different up to not being continuous'. Explains the ninth and tenth sentences. The superior grade is different, only contemplating the truth of suffering in the desire realm, because it is adjacent to the supreme mundane dharma. Therefore, the superior forbearance only contemplates the truth of suffering in the desire realm.

此義準。暖．頂及下．中忍善根。皆能具緣三界四諦義已成立。于暖等位無簡別故　謂瑜伽師已下。顯中上忍兩位分齊　對治道等。等取餘七諦。舉后等前。於一一諦能緣行相三十二種。及所緣境上．下八諦。隨其所應漸減漸略。唯二念心思惟欲苦齊此已前名中忍位。后一剎那名為上忍。故正理六十一云。忍下．中．上如何分別。且下品忍具八類心。謂瑜伽師以四行相觀欲界苦名一類心。如是次觀色．無色。苦．集．滅．道諦。亦如是觀成八類心。名下品忍。中忍減略行相．所緣。謂瑜伽師以四行相觀欲界苦。乃至具足以四行相觀欲界道。于上界道減一行相。從此名曰中品忍初。如是次第漸減漸略行相所緣。乃至極少唯以二心觀欲界苦。如苦法忍．苦法智位。齊此名為中忍位滿。上忍唯觀欲界苦諦修一行相唯一剎那。此善根起不相續故　問中忍如何減行減緣　解云行相有三十二。所緣有八諦。謂欲苦上苦。欲集上集。欲滅上滅。欲道上道。各有四行。如其次第從後向前減行減緣。第一週以四行相觀欲界苦。如是乃至以四行相觀欲界道。后以三行觀上界道。減上界道下一行相。第二週以二行觀上界道復減一行。第三週以一行觀上界道復減一行。第四周以四行相觀欲道諦不觀上道名曰減緣。減緣之時亦雖減行。減緣攝故不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此處的『義準』指的是，『暖』（指四加行位的第一個階段，預示著智慧的開始），『頂』（四加行位的第二個階段，智慧增長），以及『下』、『中』忍善根，都能夠具備緣三界四諦之義的條件，這一點已經成立。因為在『暖』等階段，沒有簡別的必要。

『謂瑜伽師已下』，這句話是爲了顯明中忍和上忍這兩個階段的差別。『對治道等』，這裡的『等』字包括其餘七諦。這句話採用了舉后等前的方式，對於每一個諦，能夠緣的行相有三十二種，以及所緣的境界，包括上界和地獄的八諦，都根據情況逐漸減少和省略。只有用兩個念頭心思惟欲界苦諦時，才達到中忍位的程度。之後的一個剎那，就進入了上忍位。所以，《正理》第六十一卷中說：『下忍、中忍、上忍如何區分？』

首先，下品忍具有八類心。也就是說，瑜伽師用四種行相觀察欲界的苦諦，這被稱為一類心。像這樣依次觀察色界、無色界的苦諦，以及集諦、滅諦、道諦，也像這樣觀察，就形成了八類心，這被稱為下品忍。中忍則減少和省略行相和所緣。也就是說，瑜伽師用四種行相觀察欲界的苦諦，乃至具足用四種行相觀察欲界的道諦。對於上界的道諦，減少一種行相。從這裡開始，就稱為中品忍的開始。像這樣依次逐漸減少和省略行相和所緣，乃至極少，只用兩個心觀察欲界的苦諦，就像苦法忍、苦法智位一樣，達到這個程度，就稱為中忍位圓滿。上忍只觀察欲界的苦諦，修習一種行相，只有一剎那。因為這種善根生起后不會相續。

問：中忍如何減少行相和減少所緣？

答：行相有三十二種，所緣有八諦，包括欲界的苦諦和上界的苦諦，欲界的集諦和上界的集諦，欲界的滅諦和上界的滅諦，欲界的道諦和上界的道諦。每一個諦都有四種行相。按照次第，從後向前減少行相和減少所緣。第一週，用四種行相觀察欲界的苦諦，像這樣乃至用四種行相觀察欲界的道諦。然後用三種行相觀察上界的道諦，減少上界道諦的一種行相。第二週，用兩種行相觀察上界的道諦，再次減少一種行相。第三週，用一種行相觀察上界的道諦，再次減少一種行相。第四周，用四種行相觀察欲界的道諦，不觀察上界的道諦，這被稱為減少所緣。減少所緣的時候，即使也減少行相，因為減少所緣已經包含了減少行相，所以不再單獨說明。

【English Translation】 English version: This 'Yi Zhun' (義準, meaning 'according to the principle') refers to the fact that 'Nuan' (暖, the first stage of the four preparatory practices, indicating the beginning of wisdom), 'Ding' (頂, the second stage of the four preparatory practices, where wisdom increases), and the 'lower' and 'middle' forbearance (忍, kshanti) good roots are all able to fulfill the conditions for the meaning of the three realms and four noble truths. This is already established because there is no need for differentiation in the 'Nuan' and other stages.

'Wei Yu Jia Shi Yi Xia' (謂瑜伽師已下, meaning 'what the Yogachara says below') This sentence is to clarify the difference between the middle and upper forbearance stages. 'Dui Zhi Dao Deng' (對治道等, meaning 'the path of counteracting etc.'), the word 'etc.' here includes the remaining seven truths. This sentence uses the method of mentioning the latter to include the former. For each truth, there are thirty-two kinds of aspects that can be related to, and the objects to be related to, including the eight truths of the upper and lower realms, are gradually reduced and omitted according to the situation. Only when thinking about the suffering of the desire realm with two thoughts does one reach the level of middle forbearance. The next moment enters the upper forbearance stage. Therefore, the sixty-first volume of the Zheng Li (正理, Abhidharmakoshabhashya) says: 'How are lower, middle, and upper forbearance distinguished?'

First, lower forbearance has eight types of minds. That is, the yogi observes the suffering truth of the desire realm with four aspects, which is called one type of mind. Observing the suffering truth of the form realm and the formless realm, as well as the truth of accumulation, the truth of cessation, and the truth of the path, in the same way, forms eight types of minds, which is called lower forbearance. Middle forbearance reduces and omits aspects and objects. That is, the yogi observes the suffering truth of the desire realm with four aspects, and even fully observes the path truth of the desire realm with four aspects. For the path truth of the upper realm, one aspect is reduced. From here on, it is called the beginning of middle forbearance. Gradually reducing and omitting aspects and objects in this way, until very little, only using two minds to observe the suffering truth of the desire realm, just like the position of Ku Fa Ren (苦法忍, Kshanti towards the truth of suffering) and Ku Fa Zhi (苦法智, Jnana towards the truth of suffering), reaching this level is called the completion of the middle forbearance stage. Upper forbearance only observes the suffering truth of the desire realm, practicing one aspect, only for a moment. Because this good root does not continue after it arises.

Question: How does middle forbearance reduce aspects and reduce objects?

Answer: There are thirty-two aspects, and there are eight truths to be related to, including the suffering truth of the desire realm and the suffering truth of the upper realm, the accumulation truth of the desire realm and the accumulation truth of the upper realm, the cessation truth of the desire realm and the cessation truth of the upper realm, the path truth of the desire realm and the path truth of the upper realm. Each truth has four aspects. According to the order, reduce aspects and reduce objects from back to front. In the first week, observe the suffering truth of the desire realm with four aspects, and so on, until observing the path truth of the desire realm with four aspects. Then observe the path truth of the upper realm with three aspects, reducing one aspect of the path truth of the upper realm. In the second week, observe the path truth of the upper realm with two aspects, reducing one aspect again. In the third week, observe the path truth of the upper realm with one aspect, reducing one aspect again. In the fourth week, observe the path truth of the desire realm with four aspects, not observing the path truth of the upper realm, which is called reducing the object. When reducing the object, even if the aspect is also reduced, because reducing the object already includes reducing the aspect, it is not explained separately.

名減行。如上道諦餘七諦亦爾。唯于緣中不除欲苦．及與一行。總而言之。上．下八諦。諦減三行。三八二十四周減行。七週減緣。唯留欲苦．及與一行　又解云二十四周唯減行。七週減行亦減緣。望能緣邊名減行。望所緣邊名減緣　問如何得知。諦諦之下先減行。后減緣　答如正理論云。于上界道減一行相。從此名曰中品忍初　古德解云。於八諦中減七諦名七週減緣。于欲苦諦減三行名三週減行　七週減緣此亦可然。三週減行此即不爾　問若先減行應不能修彼所減行。何故婆沙云。問增長忍一切時修十六行耶。答不爾。或時十六。或時十二。或時八。或時四　解云雖減行相未至減緣。猶緣諦故亦能修所減行。若至減緣不修彼行。夫修彼者欣慕故修。既不緣彼諦。所以亦不修彼行。故論云。隨略彼所緣不修彼行相。故得有時修十六。無修十五．十四．十三故。得有時修十二。無修十一．十九故。得有時修八。無修七．六．五故。得有時修四。無修三．二．一　問若修十六與下忍何別　解云得修雖同。行修即異　問上．下八諦各四行相。既言減行先減何行　解云上．下八諦。諦各四行。總三十二。于中唯留欲苦一行擬入見道。餘三十一如名次第從後向前漸漸除之。一週減一。乃至終盡。緣既從後向前漸除。除行亦應爾　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『名減行』。如上述道諦（Dukha Satya，苦諦）的其餘七諦也是如此。唯獨在緣中不去除欲苦以及一行。總而言之，上界和地獄的八諦，每一諦都減少三行。三乘以八等於二十四，所以是二十四周減行。七週減緣。只留下欲苦以及一行。又有一種解釋說，二十四周只減行，七週減行也減緣。從能緣的角度來說，叫做減行；從所緣的角度來說，叫做減緣。問：如何得知，在每一諦之下，先減行，后減緣？答：如《正理論》所說：『于上界道減一行相，從此名曰中品忍初。』古德解釋說：『於八諦中減七諦，名為七週減緣。于欲苦諦減三行，名為三週減行。』七週減緣，這還可以理解。三週減行，這就不是這樣了。問：如果先減行，應該不能修習那些被減掉的行。為什麼《婆沙論》中說：『問：增長忍一切時修十六行耶？答：不爾。或時十六，或時十二，或時八，或時四。』解釋說：雖然減了行相，但還沒有到減緣的程度，仍然緣著諦，所以也能修習所減的行。如果到了減緣的程度，就不修習那些行了。修習那些行，是因為欣慕的緣故才修習。既然不緣著那個諦，所以也不修習那個行。所以論中說：『隨略彼所緣，不修彼行相。』所以才會有時修十六行，沒有修十五、十四、十三行的情況。才會有時修十二行，沒有修十一、十、九行的情況。才會有時修八行，沒有修七、六、五行的情況。才會有時修四行，沒有修三、二、一行的情況。問：如果修十六行，和下忍有什麼區別？解釋說：雖然得到的修習相同，但行修卻不同。問：上界和地獄的八諦，每一諦各有四種行相。既然說減行，先減哪種行？解釋說：上界和地獄的八諦，每一諦各有四種行，總共三十二種。其中只留下欲苦的一行，準備進入見道。其餘三十一種，按照名稱的順序，從後向前漸漸去除。一週減一種，直到最終全部減完。緣既然是從後向前漸漸去除，除行也應該是這樣。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Name reduces aspect'. The same applies to the remaining seven truths of the aforementioned Path Truth (Dukha Satya, Truth of Suffering). Only in 'condition' (緣) are desire-suffering and one aspect not removed. In summary, the eight truths of the upper and lower realms each have three aspects reduced. Three times eight equals twenty-four, hence twenty-four cycles reduce aspects. Seven cycles reduce conditions. Only desire-suffering and one aspect remain. Another explanation states that twenty-four cycles only reduce aspects, and seven cycles reduce both aspects and conditions. From the perspective of the 'able to condition' (能緣), it is called reducing aspects; from the perspective of the 'conditioned' (所緣), it is called reducing conditions. Question: How do we know that under each truth, aspects are reduced first, and then conditions? Answer: As stated in the Treatise on Right Principles (正理論): 'In the path of the upper realm, one aspect is reduced, and from this, it is called the beginning of the middle-grade forbearance.' An ancient master explained: 'Reducing seven truths from the eight truths is called seven cycles reducing conditions. Reducing three aspects from the desire-suffering truth is called three cycles reducing aspects.' Seven cycles reducing conditions is understandable. Three cycles reducing aspects is not so. Question: If aspects are reduced first, one should not be able to cultivate those reduced aspects. Why does the Vibhasa (婆沙論) say: 'Question: Does increasing forbearance cultivate sixteen aspects at all times? Answer: No. Sometimes sixteen, sometimes twelve, sometimes eight, sometimes four.' The explanation is: Although aspects are reduced, it has not reached the point of reducing conditions. Because one still conditions on the truth, one can still cultivate the reduced aspects. If it reaches the point of reducing conditions, one does not cultivate those aspects. Cultivating those aspects is done because of admiration. Since one does not condition on that truth, one also does not cultivate that aspect. Therefore, the treatise says: 'According to what is omitted from the conditioned, one does not cultivate those aspects.' Therefore, there are times when sixteen aspects are cultivated, and there are no instances of cultivating fifteen, fourteen, or thirteen aspects. There are times when twelve aspects are cultivated, and there are no instances of cultivating eleven, ten, or nine aspects. There are times when eight aspects are cultivated, and there are no instances of cultivating seven, six, or five aspects. There are times when four aspects are cultivated, and there are no instances of cultivating three, two, or one aspect. Question: If sixteen aspects are cultivated, what is the difference from lower forbearance? The explanation is: Although the attainment of cultivation is the same, the cultivation of aspects is different. Question: The eight truths of the upper and lower realms each have four aspects. Since it is said that aspects are reduced, which aspect is reduced first? The explanation is: The eight truths of the upper and lower realms each have four aspects, totaling thirty-two. Among them, only one aspect of desire-suffering is left, preparing to enter the path of seeing (見道). The remaining thirty-one are gradually removed in order of their names, from back to front. One is reduced per cycle, until the end. Since conditions are gradually removed from back to front, the removal of aspects should also be like this.

問欲苦四行留何行耶　解云將入見道有二行者　一見行者。于中有二。著我見者作非我行相。著我所見者作空行相　二愛行者。于中有二。我慢增者作無常行相。懈怠增者作苦行相。於此四．人應以此行擬入見道即留此行。故婆沙一百九云。問何等補特伽羅依空入正性離生。何等補特伽羅依無愿入正性離生耶。答若見行者依空入正性離生。若愛行者依無愿入正性離生。唯除菩薩。雖是愛行而依空入正性離生。又見行者復有二種。著我見者依非我行相入正性離生。著我所見者依空行相入正性離生。諸愛行者亦有二種。我慢增者依非常行相入正性離生。懈怠增者依苦行相入正性離生。複次若利根者多依空入正性離生。若鈍根者多依無愿入正性離生(已上論文)。夫增上忍。世第一法。及苦法忍。行相皆同故引為證　問于見道中餘三諦下各有四行作何行耶　解云隨先串習即作此行。又依西方德光論師解減行雲。上．下八諦。諦各四行。如名次第擬儀相當皆相系屬　如於后時應以欲界苦諦下無常行相入見道者。于自諦下從後向前先除非我。次空。后苦　若以苦行擬入見道。先除非我。次空。后無常　若以空行擬入見道。先除非我。次苦。后無常　若以非我擬入見道。先除空。次苦。后無常。除欲苦諦四行。既爾。除上道諦四行

亦然。

如以欲界無常入見道。先除上界道下出。次行。次如。后道。以道屬無常故后除也。

若以苦入見道者。先除出。次行。次道。后如。以如屬苦故后除也　若以空行入見道。先除出。次如。次道。後行。以行屬空故后除也　若以非我行入見道。先除行次如。次道。后出。以出屬非我故后除也。如欲苦下行相從后漸除。上界道下行相應系屬彼欲界行相。如欲界說先後除之。如除上界道下四行。除餘六諦各四行相隨應皆爾　準此應知。于見道中所起行相。系屬增上忍時行相者即先起彼行　又德光解云。無常．苦是愛行。空．非我是見行。如於后時減欲苦諦四種行相先後次第。減餘七諦行相前後應知亦爾。減欲苦下四行相者。如以無常擬入見道。先除空。以空除我所故先除。次除非我。以除我故后除。此二是見行故先除也。后除苦行。以此苦行與無常行同愛行故　若以苦行擬入見道除空．非我如前說。后除無常。以無常行與此苦行同愛行故　若以空行擬入見道。先除苦以懈怠增故。次除無常以我慢增故。帶於我故。見行相涉。在苦后除。此二並是愛行者起故先除也。后除非我。以非我行與此空行同見行故所以後除　若以非我行相擬入見道。先除苦．無常如先說。后除空行。以空行相與非我行同見行故所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：也是如此。

如果以欲界的無常相進入見道（Darsana-marga，佛教修行中的見道位），先去除上界的道（marga，道路、方法），然後是地獄的出（utpada，生起），其次是行（gati，行相），再次是如（tathata，如如），最後是道。因為道屬於無常，所以最後去除。

如果以苦相進入見道，先去除出，其次是行，再次是道，最後是如。因為如屬於苦，所以最後去除。如果以空相進入見道，先去除出，其次是如，再次是道，最後是行。因為行屬於空，所以最後去除。如果以非我相進入見道，先去除行，其次是如，再次是道，最後是出。因為出屬於非我，所以最後去除。如同欲界苦諦的行相從后逐漸去除一樣，上界道諦的行相也相應地與欲界的行相相關聯。如同欲界所說的那樣，先後去除它們。如同去除上界道諦的四種行相一樣，去除其餘六諦（satya，真諦）的每種四種行相也應相應地如此。根據這個原則應該知道，在見道中所生起的行相，如果與增上忍（adhimukti-ksanti，殊勝的忍耐力）時的行相相關聯，那麼就先升起那個行相。

此外，德光（Gunaprabha，一位佛教論師）解釋說，無常和苦是愛行（sneha-gati，與愛相關的行相），空和非我是見行（drsti-gati，與見解相關的行相）。如同在後來的時間裡減少欲界苦諦的四種行相的先後次第一樣，減少其餘七諦的行相的先後也應該知道是這樣的。減少欲界苦諦的四種行相，例如以無常相擬進入見道，先去除空，因為空去除我所（atmaniya，屬於我的），所以先去除。其次去除「非我」，因為去除「我」的緣故，所以後去除。這二者是見行，所以先去除。最後去除苦行，因為這個苦行與無常行同屬於愛行。

如果以苦行擬進入見道，去除空和非我如前所述。最後去除無常，因為無常行與這個苦行同屬於愛行。如果以空行擬進入見道，先去除苦，因為懈怠（kausidya，懶惰）增加的緣故。其次去除無常，因為我慢（mana，驕慢）增加的緣故。因為它帶有「我」的緣故，見行相牽涉其中，所以在苦之後去除。這二者都是愛行生起的原因，所以先去除。最後去除「非我」，因為「非我」行與這個空行同屬於見行，所以最後去除。如果以「非我」行相擬進入見道，先去除苦和無常如前所述。最後去除空行，因為空行相與「非我」行同屬於見行。

【English Translation】 English version: Likewise.

If one enters the Path of Seeing (Darsana-marga) with impermanence (anitya) of the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu), first remove the Path (marga) of the Upper Realm, then the arising (utpada) of the Lower Realm, then the activity (gati), then suchness (tathata), and lastly the Path. Because the Path belongs to impermanence, it is removed last.

If one enters the Path of Seeing with suffering (duhkha), first remove the arising, then the activity, then the Path, and lastly suchness. Because suchness belongs to suffering, it is removed last. If one enters the Path of Seeing with emptiness (sunyata), first remove the arising, then suchness, then the Path, and lastly the activity. Because the activity belongs to emptiness, it is removed last. If one enters the Path of Seeing with non-self (anatman), first remove the activity, then suchness, then the Path, and lastly the arising. Because the arising belongs to non-self, it is removed last. Just as the aspects of suffering in the Desire Realm are gradually removed from the end, the aspects of the Path in the Upper Realm are correspondingly related to the aspects of the Desire Realm. As stated regarding the Desire Realm, remove them in sequence. Just as the four aspects of the Path in the Upper Realm are removed, the removal of the four aspects of each of the remaining six Truths (satya) should be done accordingly. Based on this principle, it should be known that among the aspects arising in the Path of Seeing, if an aspect is related to the aspect at the time of increased patience (adhimukti-ksanti), then that aspect arises first.

Furthermore, Gunaprabha explains that impermanence and suffering are aspects of affection (sneha-gati), while emptiness and non-self are aspects of view (drsti-gati). Just as the four aspects of suffering in the Desire Realm are reduced in sequence at a later time, it should be known that the reduction of the aspects of the remaining seven Truths should also be done in the same way. Regarding the reduction of the four aspects of suffering in the Desire Realm, for example, if one intends to enter the Path of Seeing with impermanence, first remove emptiness, because emptiness removes what belongs to 'self' (atmaniya), so it is removed first. Next, remove 'non-self', because of removing 'self', it is removed last. These two are aspects of view, so they are removed first. Finally, remove the aspect of suffering, because this aspect of suffering belongs to the same aspect of affection as impermanence.

If one intends to enter the Path of Seeing with suffering, remove emptiness and non-self as mentioned before. Finally, remove impermanence, because the aspect of impermanence belongs to the same aspect of affection as this aspect of suffering. If one intends to enter the Path of Seeing with emptiness, first remove suffering, because laziness (kausidya) increases. Next, remove impermanence, because pride (mana) increases. Because it carries 'self', the aspect of view is involved, so it is removed after suffering. These two are the cause of the arising of the aspect of affection, so they are removed first. Finally, remove 'non-self', because the aspect of 'non-self' belongs to the same aspect of view as this aspect of emptiness, so it is removed last. If one intends to enter the Path of Seeing with the aspect of 'non-self', first remove suffering and impermanence as mentioned before. Finally, remove the aspect of emptiness, because the aspect of emptiness belongs to the same aspect of view as the aspect of 'non-self'.

以後除。如欲苦下四種行相不定先後隨應而除。除餘七諦四種行相應知亦爾。除上界道四行相者。如以欲界無常入見。先除道下行。以行屬空故。次除出以出屬非我故。次如除以如屬苦故。后除道以道屬無常故　若以苦入見道。先除行。次除出。次除道。后除如　若以空入見道。先除如。次除道。次除出。后除行　若以非我入見道。先除如。次除道。次除行。后除出。皆準前釋。如除上道四種行相準欲苦下四種行相。除餘六諦各四行相應知亦爾。準此應知。于見道中所起行相應合系屬增上忍者。即先起之。德光所解于理為勝。若不爾者。諦各四行起何行耶。

上品忍無間至故名最勝者。釋第十一句。于上忍后即生第一。如上品忍。緣苦諦行修一行。唯一剎那。有漏名世。勝故第一。能作等無間緣有士用力離同類因引聖道生故名最勝。

如是暖等至重現前故者。釋第十二句。暖等善根皆慧為體。若並助伴皆五蘊性。然除彼得。勿諸聖者暖等善根重現前故。本起暖等為求聖道。既得聖已。理不應起加行善根。以無用故。然得聖已有成暖等。若得為體即有暖等重現前過。由此暖等非得為體　問何故四沙門果得是沙門果。暖等上得非暖等耶　解云沙門果體成就所顯故。得是沙門果。暖等善根聖不重起故。得非暖等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此後依次去除。如果想要去除苦諦、下諦的四種行相，順序不固定，可以根據情況靈活調整。去除其餘七諦的四種行相，也應知曉其方法與此類似。去除上界道（指色界和無色界之道）的四種行相，例如，如果以欲界的無常觀進入見道，首先去除『道』下的『行』相，因為『行』屬於『空』；其次去除『出』相，因為『出』屬於『非我』；再次去除『如』相，因為『如』屬於『苦』；最後去除『道』相，因為『道』屬於『無常』。如果以『苦』觀進入見道，則先去除『行』，再去除『出』，再去除『道』，最後去除『如』。如果以『空』觀進入見道，則先去除『如』，再去除『道』，再去除『出』，最後去除『行』。如果以『非我』觀進入見道，則先去除『如』，再去除『道』，再去除『行』，最後去除『出』。都按照前面的解釋類推。如同去除上道四種行相的方法，可以參照去除欲界、苦諦、下諦四種行相的方法。去除其餘六諦的各種行相，也應該知道與此類似。根據這些，應該知道在見道中所生起的行相，與系屬、增上忍相關聯的，就先升起。德光的解釋在理上更為殊勝。如果不是這樣，那麼對於每個諦的四種行相，應該生起哪一種呢？上品忍無間至故名最勝者：解釋第十一句。在上品忍之後立即生起第一，例如上品忍，緣苦諦的『行』修習一行，只有一剎那。有漏法名為『世』，因為殊勝所以稱為『第一』。能夠作為等無間緣，有士夫的力量，遠離同類因，引導聖道生起，所以名為『最勝』。如是暖等至重現前故者：解釋第十二句。暖位等善根都是以智慧為體，如果加上助伴，都是五蘊的性質。然而要去除它們的『得』，不要讓聖者的暖位等善根重新現前。最初生起暖位等是爲了求得聖道，既然已經證得聖果，理應不再生起加行善根，因為沒有用處。然而如果證得聖果后又有暖位等，如果以『得』為體，就會有暖位等重新現前的過失。因此，暖位等不是以『得』為體。問：為什麼四沙門果的『得』是沙門果，而暖位等的『得』不是暖位等呢？解答說：沙門果的體性是成就所顯現的，所以『得』是沙門果。暖位等善根聖者不再重新生起，所以『得』不是暖位等。

【English Translation】 English version: Thereafter, they are removed successively. If one wishes to remove the four aspects of suffering and the lower realms, the order is not fixed and can be adjusted flexibly according to the circumstances. It should also be understood that the method for removing the four aspects of the remaining seven truths is similar to this. To remove the four aspects of the path of the upper realms (referring to the form and formless realms), for example, if one enters the path of seeing with the impermanence contemplation of the desire realm, first remove the 'aspect of action' under 'path', because 'action' belongs to 'emptiness'; second, remove the 'arising' aspect, because 'arising' belongs to 'non-self'; third, remove the 'suchness' aspect, because 'suchness' belongs to 'suffering'; and finally, remove the 'path' aspect, because 'path' belongs to 'impermanence'. If one enters the path of seeing with the 'suffering' contemplation, then first remove 'action', then remove 'arising', then remove 'path', and finally remove 'suchness'. If one enters the path of seeing with the 'emptiness' contemplation, then first remove 'suchness', then remove 'path', then remove 'arising', and finally remove 'action'. If one enters the path of seeing with the 'non-self' contemplation, then first remove 'suchness', then remove 'path', then remove 'action', and finally remove 'arising'. All are inferred according to the previous explanation. Just as the method of removing the four aspects of the upper path, one can refer to the method of removing the four aspects of the desire realm, suffering, and the lower realms. It should also be known that the removal of the various aspects of the remaining six truths is similar to this. According to these, it should be known that the aspects arising in the path of seeing, which are related to affiliation and the superior forbearance, arise first. The explanation of De Guang (name of a commentator) is more superior in reason. If it is not like this, then for each of the four aspects of each truth, which one should arise? 'The one named most excellent because the highest forbearance is immediately adjacent': Explains the eleventh sentence. Immediately after the highest forbearance, the first arises, such as the highest forbearance, cultivating one aspect of the 'action' of suffering, only for a moment. Conditioned dharmas are called 'worldly', and because they are superior, they are called 'first'. Being able to serve as an immediately adjacent condition, having the power of a person, being far from similar causes, and guiding the arising of the holy path, it is called 'most excellent'. 'Thus, the warmth, etc., reach and reappear': Explains the twelfth sentence. The roots of goodness such as the stage of warmth are all based on wisdom. If combined with assistants, they are all of the nature of the five aggregates. However, their 'attainment' must be removed, lest the good roots of the stage of warmth, etc., of the saints reappear. The initial arising of the stage of warmth, etc., was to seek the holy path. Since the holy fruit has already been attained, one should no longer generate additional practices, because they are useless. However, if after attaining the holy fruit there is still the stage of warmth, etc., if 'attainment' is taken as the substance, there will be the fault of the stage of warmth, etc., reappearing. Therefore, the stage of warmth, etc., is not based on 'attainment'. Question: Why is the 'attainment' of the four fruits of a Śrāmaṇa (ascetic) the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa, while the 'attainment' of the stage of warmth, etc., is not the stage of warmth, etc.? The answer is: The nature of the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa is manifested by accomplishment, so 'attainment' is the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa. The good roots of the stage of warmth, etc., are no longer generated by the saints, so 'attainment' is not the stage of warmth, etc.

問若得是沙門果。起後果向道前果得現行。應相雜亂　解云果得雖起。所得果法即不現行。故不相雜。故正理六十一云。又沙門果諸相續得。雖亦許為沙門果體。而無八聖位相雜失。以諸安住勝果道者果攝所得法必定不行故。安住果者勝果道攝。諸所得法亦不成故。

此中暖法至亦能修故者。此下別明行修．得修念住行相。此明暖法初修．后修。初修暖位由此種姓先未曾得。初緣諦起勢力嬴劣要同分者方能修故。不能傍修余諦念行。后增進時．由此種姓先已曾得已緣諦故。勢力強盛不同分者亦能修故。故能傍修余諦念行。夫順抉擇皆順見道。見道位中唯法念住。故於初位現唯法念。故婆沙云。然順抉擇分善根順見道故。初起位中現在皆唯修法念住(已上論文)后稍容豫於四念住隨應現修。又苦．集．道有色．受．心．及余法故具四念住。滅唯無為但有法念。又增進位應言修十三念住。謂苦．集．道各四念住。滅諦唯法。不過四故名修四念。

頂初安足至未來十六者。此明頂法初．后兩位修念住．行相。初順見道現唯法念。由曾習故而能傍修余諦念住及余行相。后位容豫故四念住隨應現修。

忍初安足至不修彼行相者。此明忍位初．后能修念住．行相。漸近見道似見道故。故初．后忍皆唯法念。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

問：如果獲得了沙門果（Sramana-phala，修道者的果位），在（更高）果位生起之後，之前的果位是否會顯現並行？這樣是否會導致（果位之間）相互混雜？

答：雖然果位之『得』生起，但所『得』的果法並不會顯現並行，因此不會相互混雜。所以《正理》（Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra）第六十一卷說：『又沙門果的諸相續之『得』，雖然也允許作為沙門果的本體，但不會有八聖位（指須陀洹等八個聖者階位）相互混雜的過失。因為安住于殊勝果道的人，果所攝的『得』必定不行；安住于果位的人，殊勝果道所攝的『得』也不會成就。』此中，『暖法』（Usnagata，四加行位的第一個階段）至『亦能修故』：這以下分別說明行修和得修的念住行相。這裡說明暖法初修和后修的情況。初修暖位時，由於這種姓（Gotra，潛在的能力）先前未曾獲得，最初緣于諦理生起的勢力微弱，必須是同分者（指與所緣境相同類別的念住）才能修習，所以不能同時修習其他諦的念住行相。后增進時，由於這種姓先前已經獲得，已經緣于諦理，勢力強盛，不同分者也能修習，所以能夠同時修習其他諦的念住行相。凡是順抉擇分（Nirvedha-bhagiya，趨向于決定的部分）都順於見道（Darsana-marga，見真理之道）。見道位中只有法念住（Dharma-smrtyupasthana，對法的念住）。所以在初位顯現的只有法念。所以《婆沙》（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）說：『然而順抉擇分善根順於見道，所以在初起位中，現在都只是修法念住。』（以上是論文內容）之後稍有餘裕，可以於四念住（Catus-smrtyupasthana，四種念住）中隨應修習。又苦、集、道諦有色、受、心及其他法，所以具足四念住。滅諦唯是無為法，只有法念。又在增進位，應該說修習十三念住，即苦、集、道各四念住，滅諦只有法念，不超過四種，所以名為修習四念住。『頂初安足』（Murdhan，四加行位的第二個階段）至『未來十六者』：這裡說明頂法初位和后位修習念住的行相。初順於見道，顯現的只有法念。由於曾經習得，所以能夠同時修習其他諦的念住以及其他行相。后位有餘裕，所以四念住隨應修習。『忍初安足』（Ksanti，四加行位的第三個階段）至『不修彼行相者』：這裡說明忍位初位和后位能夠修習的念住行相。由於逐漸接近見道，類似於見道，所以初忍和后忍都只有法念。

【English Translation】 English version:

Question: If one attains the Sramana-phala (fruits of asceticism), when a (higher) fruit arises, does the previous fruit manifest and operate concurrently? Would this not lead to confusion among the fruits? Answer: Although the 'attainment' (prapti) of a fruit arises, the 'obtained' (adhigata) dharma of that fruit does not manifest and operate concurrently; therefore, there is no confusion. Thus, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra, volume 61, states: 'Furthermore, although the continuities of 'attainment' of the Sramana-phala are also accepted as the substance of the Sramana-phala, there is no fault of the eight noble stages (referring to the eight stages of noble beings such as Srotapanna) being mixed up. This is because for those who abide in the superior path of the fruit, the 'attainment' included in the fruit certainly does not operate; and for those who abide in the fruit, the 'attainment' included in the superior path of the fruit also does not become accomplished.' Here, from 'Usnagata (heat, the first stage of the four preparatory practices)' to 'can also cultivate': The following separately explains the aspects of mindfulness in practice-cultivation and attainment-cultivation. This explains the initial and subsequent cultivation of Usnagata. In the initial cultivation of Usnagata, because this Gotra (potential, lineage) has not been previously attained, the power arising from initially focusing on the truth is weak, and only those of the same category (referring to mindfulness of the same category as the object of focus) can cultivate it; therefore, one cannot simultaneously cultivate mindfulness of other truths. When progressing later, because this Gotra has been previously attained and has already focused on the truth, the power is strong, and even those not of the same category can cultivate it; therefore, one can simultaneously cultivate mindfulness of other truths. All Nirvedha-bhagiya (parts leading to certainty) are in accordance with the Darsana-marga (path of seeing the truth). In the stage of Darsana-marga, there is only Dharma-smrtyupasthana (mindfulness of dharma). Therefore, in the initial stage, only mindfulness of dharma manifests. Thus, the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra) states: 'However, because the roots of good of the Nirvedha-bhagiya are in accordance with the Darsana-marga, in the initial arising stage, all that is present is the cultivation of mindfulness of dharma.' (The above is the content of the treatise.) Later, with some leisure, one can cultivate the four Catus-smrtyupasthana (four mindfulnesses) as appropriate. Furthermore, because the truths of suffering, origination, and the path have form, sensation, mind, and other dharmas, they are complete with the four mindfulnesses. Cessation is only unconditioned dharma, and there is only mindfulness of dharma. Moreover, in the progressing stage, it should be said that one cultivates thirteen mindfulnesses, namely, four mindfulnesses for each of the truths of suffering, origination, and the path. The truth of cessation has only mindfulness of dharma, not exceeding four, so it is called cultivating four mindfulnesses. From 'Murdhan (peak, the second stage of the four preparatory practices)' to 'future sixteen': This explains the aspects of mindfulness in the initial and subsequent stages of Murdhan. Initially, in accordance with the Darsana-marga, only mindfulness of dharma manifests. Because of previous practice, one can simultaneously cultivate mindfulness of other truths and other aspects. In the later stage, there is leisure, so the four mindfulnesses are cultivated as appropriate. From 'Ksanti (patience, the third stage of the four preparatory practices)' to 'does not cultivate those aspects': This explains the aspects of mindfulness that can be cultivated in the initial and subsequent stages of Ksanti. Because it gradually approaches the Darsana-marga and resembles the Darsana-marga, both the initial and subsequent Ksanti have only mindfulness of dharma.

婆沙一百八十八云。問何故初忍及增長位。皆唯法念住現在修耶。答以忍近見道故。與見道相似。如見道中唯法念住現在修。忍亦爾(已上論文)由曾修故傍修余諦念住．行相。然于增進略所緣時。隨略彼所緣不修彼行相。由心欣欲。引得令生。減略所緣心有所舍故不能修。若略所緣即不修行。未至減緣行具能修故。故正理云。差別說者。略所緣時隨略彼所緣不修彼行相。謂具緣四。具修十六。若緣三．二．一修十二．八．四(已上論文)言增進者。重緣已去名為增進。或略緣．行已去名增進。

世第一法至似見道故者。此明第一行修．得修．念住．行相。世第一法緣欲苦諦。以欲苦諦粗顯易觀故。觀欲苦入于見道。法念現修未來四。隨一行現修未來四。無異分力故不能傍修余諦念行。似見道故唯法念現修。唯修自諦念住行相。故婆沙一百八十八云。問世第一法亦是曾得種姓。已緣諦起行相。何故唯同分修非不同分。答世第一法。是極鄰近見道善根。最與見道相似。如見道中唯同分修非不同分。世第一法亦爾(廣如彼說)。

已辨所生至二舍性非得者。此即第二諸門分別。初一句標總名。第二句修所成。第三句所依地。第四句所依身。第五．第六句二依得。第七．第八．第九句聖．凡舍。第十句得久近。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《婆沙》第一百八十八卷中說：問：為什麼在初忍位（Ksanti，忍位，佛教修行階位）和增長位（Vrddhi，增長位，佛教修行階位）都只是修習法念住（Dharma-smrtyupasthana，四念住之一，專注于對法的觀察）的現在分呢？答：因為忍位接近見道（Darsana-marga，佛教修行階位），與見道相似。就像在見道中只修習法念住的現在分一樣，忍位也是如此（以上是論文原文）。由於曾經修習過，所以可以兼修其他諦（Satya，真諦，佛教教義中的四聖諦）的念住和行相（Akara，行相，事物呈現的特徵）。然而，在增進略所緣（Alambana，所緣，心識的對象）時，隨著所緣的減少，就不修習那些行相。因為內心欣求，引導生起，減少所緣是因為心中有所捨棄，所以不能修習。如果減少所緣，就不修行。未至減緣行（在尚未減少所緣的情況下）具足能夠修習，所以《正理》中說：『差別說者，略所緣時隨略彼所緣不修彼行相。』意思是說，具足緣四諦（四聖諦）時，具足修習十六行相。如果緣三諦、二諦、一諦，則修習十二行相、八行相、四行相（以上是論文原文）。所說的『增進』，是指重複緣取已經過去的所緣，稱為增進。或者減少所緣和行相之後，稱為增進。

從『世第一法至似見道故者』，這裡說明了第一行的修習、得修、念住、行相。世第一法（Laukikagradharma，世第一法，佛教修行階位）緣取欲苦諦（Kama-duhkha-satya，欲界之苦諦），因為欲苦諦粗顯易於觀察。觀察欲苦可以進入見道。法念現修，未來四。隨一行現修，未來四。因為沒有異分力，所以不能兼修其他諦的念住和行相。因為類似於見道，所以只修習法念的現在分。只修習自己所緣諦的念住和行相。所以《婆沙》第一百八十八卷中說：問：世第一法也是曾經獲得種姓（Gotra，種姓，潛在的能力），已經緣取締而生起行相，為什麼只是同分修而不是不同分修？答：世第一法是極其鄰近見道的善根，最與見道相似。就像在見道中只是同分修而不是不同分修一樣，世第一法也是如此（詳細內容如彼處所說）。

從『已辨所生至二舍性非得者』，這裡是對第二類諸門（Dvara，門，此處指分類）的分別。第一句是標出總名。第二句是修所成。第三句是所依地（Bhumi，地，此處指禪定境界）。第四句是所依身。第五句和第六句是二依得。第七句、第八句和第九句是聖者和凡夫的捨棄。第十句是獲得的時間長短。

【English Translation】 English version The Vibhasa, volume one hundred and eighty-eight, states: Question: Why is it that in both the initial Ksanti (Patience, a stage in Buddhist practice) and the Vrddhi (Growth, a stage in Buddhist practice) stages, only the present moment of Dharma-smrtyupasthana (Mindfulness of Dharma, one of the four foundations of mindfulness, focusing on the observation of the Dharma) is practiced? Answer: Because Ksanti is close to Darsana-marga (Path of Seeing, a stage in Buddhist practice), it is similar to Darsana-marga. Just as in Darsana-marga only the present moment of Dharma-smrtyupasthana is practiced, so it is with Ksanti (the above is the original text of the treatise). Because of previous practice, one can also practice the mindfulness and characteristics (Akara, characteristics, the features of things as they appear) of other Satyas (Truths, the Four Noble Truths in Buddhist doctrine). However, when progressing to a reduced Alambana (Object of Focus, the object of the mind), as the object of focus is reduced, one does not practice those characteristics. Because the mind is delighted and leads to arising, reducing the object of focus is because the mind has abandoned something, so it cannot practice. If the object of focus is reduced, one does not practice. Before reducing the object of focus, one is fully capable of practicing the characteristics, so the Hetu-vidya says: 'Those who speak of difference, when reducing the object of focus, as the object of focus is reduced, one does not practice those characteristics.' This means that when fully focusing on the four Satyas, one fully practices the sixteen characteristics. If focusing on three, two, or one Satya, one practices twelve, eight, or four characteristics (the above is the original text of the treatise). The term 'progressing' refers to repeatedly focusing on what has already passed, which is called progressing. Or reducing the object of focus and characteristics is called progressing.

From 'The Laukikagradharma to similar to the Path of Seeing,' this explains the practice, attainment, mindfulness, and characteristics of the first line. The Laukikagradharma (Supreme Worldly Dharma, a stage in Buddhist practice) focuses on the Kama-duhkha-satya (Truth of Suffering in the Desire Realm), because the Kama-duhkha-satya is coarse, obvious, and easy to observe. Observing Kama-duhkha can lead to entering the Path of Seeing. Mindfulness of Dharma is practiced in the present, and the future four. Following one practice, the future four. Because there is no different power, one cannot also practice the mindfulness and characteristics of other Satyas. Because it is similar to the Path of Seeing, only the present moment of mindfulness of Dharma is practiced. Only the mindfulness and characteristics of the Truth that one focuses on are practiced. Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume one hundred and eighty-eight, states: Question: The Laukikagradharma is also a Gotra (Lineage, potential ability) that has been attained, and characteristics have arisen from focusing on the Truth, why is it only practiced in the same category and not in different categories? Answer: The Laukikagradharma is an extremely close root of goodness to the Path of Seeing, and is most similar to the Path of Seeing. Just as in the Path of Seeing only the same category is practiced and not different categories, so it is with the Laukikagradharma (as explained in detail there).

From 'Having distinguished what arises to the two abandonments that are not attained,' this is a distinction of the second category of Dvaras (Gates, here referring to classifications). The first sentence marks the general name. The second sentence is what is accomplished through practice. The third sentence is the Bhumi (Ground, here referring to the state of meditative absorption) that is relied upon. The fourth sentence is the body that is relied upon. The fifth and sixth sentences are the two attainments that are relied upon. The seventh, eighth, and ninth sentences are the abandonments of the saints and ordinary beings. The tenth sentence is the length of time of attainment.

第十一句非重得。第十二句舍體性。

論曰至名順抉擇分者。釋第一句。

依何義建立順抉擇分名者。問。

決謂決斷至順抉擇分者。答。決謂決斷。擇謂簡擇。決斷．簡擇謂諸聖道。以慧為體性。以諸聖道能斷疑故名決。及．能分別四諦相故名擇。分謂分段。此言意顯所順唯是見道一分非修．無學抉擇。聖道總有三種。所謂見．修．無學三分。見道唯是抉擇之一分故得抉擇分名。此四善根能為勝緣。引抉擇分順益彼故得順彼名。順是其因。抉擇分是果。從因及果為名。故此名為順抉擇分。

如是四種至獨是上品者。釋第二句。四皆是修非是聞．思。唯等引故　雖同修攝。四中前二是下品攝。以俱可動。猶可退故　忍中品攝。勝前暖．頂二善根故。有後第一為其上故。所以名中　世第一法獨是上品。由三品不同故分四種。若論暖．頂．忍位不同皆有三品。此中且據束九為三攝四善根　若依正理。由下．中．上及上上品分為四種　又婆沙第六云。答總有三品。謂下．中．上。暖是下品。頂是中品。忍及世第一法是上品。廣如彼說。

此四善根至及欲七地者。釋第三句。此四依六。謂四靜慮．未至．中間。欲界中無。闕等引故。余上無色地中亦無。以是見道近眷屬故。又無色心不緣欲故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第十一句，並非是重新獲得（非重得）。（非重得：指已經獲得過的東西不會再次獲得）第十二句，是捨棄個體自性（舍體性）。（舍體性：指放棄對個體自我本質的執著）

論曰：至於名為順抉擇分（順抉擇分：指順應決斷和選擇的部分）者。解釋第一句。

依何種意義建立順抉擇分這個名稱呢？（問）

決，是指決斷；至，順抉擇分。（答）決，是指決斷。擇，是指簡擇。決斷和簡擇，指的是諸聖道（諸聖道：指通往解脫的道路）。以智慧為本體。因為諸聖道能夠斷除疑惑，所以名為『決』。並且，能夠分別四諦（四諦：苦、集、滅、道）的真相，所以名為『擇』。分，是指分段。這句話的意思是顯示所順應的只是見道（見道：佛教修行階段，指初見真理的階段）的一部分，而不是修道（修道：佛教修行階段，指通過修行來培養智慧和慈悲的階段）和無學道（無學道：佛教修行階段，指修行圓滿，不再需要學習的階段）的抉擇。聖道總共有三種，即見道、修道、無學道三分。見道只是抉擇的一部分，所以得名抉擇分。這四種善根（四善根：指暖、頂、忍、世第一法四種修行階段）能夠作為殊勝的助緣，引導抉擇分，順益於它，所以得名順彼。順是其因，抉擇分是果。從因和果來命名，所以這個名稱是順抉擇分。

如是四種，至，唯獨是上品者。解釋第二句。四者都是修所成，不是聽聞或思惟所成。因為都是等引（等引：指禪定狀態）的緣故。雖然同屬于修所攝，四者中前兩種是下品所攝，因為都可以動搖，仍然可以退失的緣故。忍（忍：四善根之一，指安忍于真理）是中品所攝，勝過前面的暖（暖：四善根之一，指智慧之火開始生起）和頂（頂：四善根之一，指智慧到達頂峰）兩種善根的緣故。有後面的第一位作為它的上品，所以名為中品。世第一法（世第一法：四善根之一，指世間法中最高的智慧）唯獨是上品。由於三品不同，所以分為四種。如果說暖、頂、忍的位次不同，都有三品。這裡且根據將九品歸納為三品來攝取四善根。如果依據正理，由下品、中品、上品以及上上品分為四種。又，《婆沙論》第六卷說：回答說總共有三品，即下品、中品、上品。暖是下品，頂是中品，忍和世第一法是上品。詳細情況如該論所述。

此四善根，至，以及欲界七地者。解釋第三句。這四種善根依於六地，即四靜慮（四靜慮：指色界的四種禪定）、未至定（未至定：指接近初禪但尚未達到的禪定）、中間定（中間定：指位於未至定和初禪之間的禪定）。欲界中沒有，因為缺少等引的緣故。其餘上面的無色界（無色界：佛教三界之一，指沒有物質存在的精神世界）中也沒有，因為這是見道的近親眷屬的緣故。而且無色界的心不緣于欲界的事物。

【English Translation】 English version The eleventh sentence, '[It is] not re-obtained (非重得).' (非重得: refers to something that has already been obtained will not be obtained again) The twelfth sentence, '[It is] abandoning self-nature (舍體性).' (舍體性: refers to abandoning attachment to the essence of individual self)

The treatise says: 'As for the name 'Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment (順抉擇分)' (順抉擇分: refers to the part that accords with definitive judgment and selection).' Explaining the first sentence.

According to what meaning is the name 'Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment' established? (Question)

'Definitive' means definitive judgment; to, 'Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment.' (Answer) 'Definitive' means definitive judgment. 'Selection' means discernment. 'Definitive judgment' and 'discernment' refer to the Noble Paths (諸聖道: refers to the paths to liberation). Its essence is wisdom. Because the Noble Paths can cut off doubts, it is called 'definitive.' And, because it can distinguish the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths (四諦: suffering, accumulation, cessation, path), it is called 'selection.' 'Stages' means segments. This statement means to show that what is being approached is only a part of the Path of Seeing (見道: the stage of Buddhist practice, referring to the initial seeing of truth), not the definitive judgment of the Path of Cultivation (修道: the stage of Buddhist practice, referring to cultivating wisdom and compassion through practice) and the Path of No More Learning (無學道: the stage of Buddhist practice, referring to the perfection of practice, no longer needing to learn). There are three types of Noble Paths in total, namely the Path of Seeing, the Path of Cultivation, and the Path of No More Learning. The Path of Seeing is only a part of definitive judgment, so it is named 'Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment.' These four roots of goodness (四善根: the four stages of practice: warmth, peak, forbearance, and the highest mundane dharma) can serve as excellent conditions, guiding the Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment, benefiting it, so it is named 'Approaching that.' 'Approaching' is the cause, and 'Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment' is the result. Named from cause and effect, so this name is 'Stages of Approaching Definitive Judgment.'

As for these four types, to, 'Only the highest grade.' Explaining the second sentence. All four are cultivated, not heard or thought about. Because they are all due to samadhi (等引: refers to the state of meditation). Although they are all included in cultivation, the first two of the four are included in the lower grade, because they can be shaken and can still regress. Forbearance (忍: one of the four roots of goodness, referring to enduring the truth) is included in the middle grade, surpassing the previous two roots of goodness, warmth (暖: one of the four roots of goodness, referring to the fire of wisdom beginning to arise) and peak (頂: one of the four roots of goodness, referring to wisdom reaching its peak). Having the first one at the end as its highest grade, so it is called the middle grade. The Highest Mundane Dharma (世第一法: one of the four roots of goodness, referring to the highest wisdom in mundane dharma) alone is the highest grade. Because the three grades are different, they are divided into four types. If it is said that the positions of warmth, peak, and forbearance are different, they all have three grades. Here, let's take the summary of nine grades into three to include the four roots of goodness. If according to the correct principle, they are divided into four types by lower, middle, upper, and highest upper grades. Also, the sixth volume of the Vibhasa says: The answer is that there are three grades in total, namely lower, middle, and upper. Warmth is the lower grade, peak is the middle grade, and forbearance and the Highest Mundane Dharma are the upper grade. Details are as described in that treatise.

These four roots of goodness, to, 'and the seven realms of the desire realm.' Explaining the third sentence. These four rely on six realms, namely the four dhyanas (四靜慮: refers to the four meditations of the form realm), the Unreached Concentration (未至定: refers to the concentration close to the first dhyana but not yet reached), and the Intermediate Concentration (中間定: refers to the concentration between the Unreached Concentration and the first dhyana). There is none in the desire realm, because it lacks samadhi. There is also none in the upper formless realm (無色界: one of the three realms in Buddhism, referring to the spiritual world without material existence), because this is a close relative of the Path of Seeing. Moreover, the mind of the formless realm does not relate to the things of the desire realm.

于欲界苦先應遍知。于欲界集先應斷故。故無色界無有見道。無見道故亦無暖．等。此四善根是有漏故。能感色界五蘊異熟。為圓滿因不能牽引。憎背有。故。故唯依色　頌說或聲。顯二異說。謂暖．頂二　尊者妙音說。依前六及欲七地　此非正義。故正理破云。對法諸師不許彼說。非聞．思所成順抉擇分故。

此四善根至一剎那故者。釋第四句。此四善根依欲界身起。人．天九處。除北俱盧。唯依欲九身。以依彼身容入見道。彼是見道近眷屬故。余不能入故不依彼。前三善根三洲初起。後生天處亦續現前。第四善根天亦初起。一剎那故。又婆沙第七云。問何故天中不能初起。答彼處無勝厭離等作意故。問惡趣中有勝厭離等作意。何故不起此善根耶。答惡趣中無勝依身故。若有勝厭離等作意。亦有勝依身者。則能初起。此類善根。欲天中雖有勝依身。而無勝厭離等作意。惡趣中雖有勝厭離等作意。而無勝依身。人中具二故能初起。

此四善根至非擇滅故者。釋第五．第六句。此四善根唯依男．女。不依扇搋．半擇．無形．二形。前三善根男．女二身俱通得二。第四女身亦得男．女身中二種。世第一法。可為男故。故得男身世第一法。依男唯得男身善根世第一法。增上忍時已得女身非擇滅故。此人畢竟更不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於欲界的痛苦，首先應該普遍地瞭解。對於欲界的集（苦的根源），首先應該斷除。因此，沒有無有見道（dṛṣṭimārga，見道的缺失）。因為沒有見道，所以也沒有暖位（uṣmagata，四加行位的第一個階段）、頂位（mūrdhan，四加行位的第二個階段）等。這四種善根是有漏的，能夠感生五蘊的異熟果報。作為圓滿的原因，它們不能牽引（解脫），因為它們憎恨和背離有（bhava，存在）。因此，只能依靠色（rūpa，形態）——頌文說或者聲（śabda，聲音）——來顯示兩種不同的說法。所謂的暖位和頂位，尊者妙音（Ārya-ghoṣa）說，是依靠前六識以及欲界的七個地（bhūmi，層次）。這並非正確的見解。因此，《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）駁斥說，對法諸師（Abhidharmikas）不認可他的說法，因為它們不是由聽聞和思惟所產生的順抉擇分（anulomikī kṣānti，與抉擇分相應的忍）。

『此四善根至一剎那故』，解釋第四句。這四種善根依欲界的身而生起，在人界和天界的九個處所（sthāna，地點）。除了北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru），僅僅依靠欲界的九種身。因為依靠這些身可以進入見道。它們是見道的近親眷屬。其餘的不能進入，所以不依靠它們。前三種善根在南贍部洲（Jambudvīpa）、東勝身洲（Pūrvavideha）、西牛貨洲（Aparagodānīya）最初生起。後來生到天界，也會繼續顯現。第四種善根在天界也會最初生起，只持續一剎那。此外，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第七卷說：『問：為什麼在天界不能最初生起？答：因為彼處沒有殊勝的厭離等作意（manaskāra，心理活動）。問：惡趣中有殊勝的厭離等作意，為什麼不生起這種善根呢？答：惡趣中沒有殊勝的所依身。』如果既有殊勝的厭離等作意，又有殊勝的所依身，那麼就能最初生起這類善根。欲界天中雖然有殊勝的所依身，但是沒有殊勝的厭離等作意。惡趣中雖然有殊勝的厭離等作意，但是沒有殊勝的所依身。人界兼具二者，所以能夠最初生起。

『此四善根至非擇滅故』，解釋第五、第六句。這四種善根僅僅依靠男人和女人，不依靠扇搋（paṇḍaka，閹人）、半擇迦（napuṃsaka，兩性人）、無形（avyakta，無性人）、二形（ubhayavyañjanaka，雙性人）。前三種善根，男人和女人兩種身都可以獲得兩種。第四種善根，女人身也可以獲得。男人和女人身中兩種世第一法（laukikāgradharma，世間第一法）。可以成為男人，所以獲得男人身的世第一法。依靠男人只能獲得男人身的善根世第一法。因為在增上忍（adhikṣānti，增上忍位）時已經獲得了女人身的非擇滅（pratisaṃkhyānirodha，擇滅的一種），所以這個人畢竟不再...

【English Translation】 English version: With regard to the suffering of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), one should first universally understand it. With regard to the accumulation (the origin of suffering) of the Desire Realm, one should first eliminate it. Therefore, there is no absence of the Path of Seeing (dṛṣṭimārga). Because there is no Path of Seeing, there is also no Heat Stage (uṣmagata, the first stage of the Four Preparatory Practices), Summit Stage (mūrdhan, the second stage of the Four Preparatory Practices), etc. These four roots of good are tainted (sāsrava), capable of producing the ripened result of the five aggregates (skandha). As a complete cause, they cannot attract (liberation) because they hate and turn away from existence (bhava). Therefore, one can only rely on form (rūpa)—the verse says, or sound (śabda)—to reveal two different explanations. The so-called Heat Stage and Summit Stage, Venerable Ārya-ghoṣa says, rely on the first six consciousnesses and the seven grounds (bhūmi) of the Desire Realm. This is not a correct view. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya refutes it, saying that the Abhidharma masters (Abhidharmikas) do not accept his view because they are not the sequential acceptance (anulomikī kṣānti) produced by hearing and thinking.

'These four roots of good up to a single moment' explains the fourth sentence. These four roots of good arise depending on the body of the Desire Realm, in the nine places (sthāna) of humans and gods. Except for Uttarakuru, they rely solely on the nine bodies of the Desire Realm. Because relying on these bodies, one can enter the Path of Seeing. They are close relatives of the Path of Seeing. The others cannot enter, so they do not rely on them. The first three roots of good initially arise in Jambudvīpa, Pūrvavideha, and Aparagodānīya. Later, when born in the heavens, they will continue to manifest. The fourth root of good will also initially arise in the heavens, lasting only a single moment. Furthermore, the seventh volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: Why can't it initially arise in the heavens? Answer: Because there is no superior intention of renunciation, etc., in that place (manaskāra). Question: There is a superior intention of renunciation, etc., in the evil realms. Why doesn't this root of good arise? Answer: There is no superior dependent body in the evil realms.' If there is both a superior intention of renunciation, etc., and a superior dependent body, then this type of root of good can initially arise. Although there is a superior dependent body in the Desire Realm heavens, there is no superior intention of renunciation, etc. Although there is a superior intention of renunciation, etc., in the evil realms, there is no superior dependent body. Humans possess both, so they can initially arise.

'These four roots of good up to non-selective cessation' explains the fifth and sixth sentences. These four roots of good rely solely on men and women, not on eunuchs (paṇḍaka), hermaphrodites (napuṃsaka), sexless beings (avyakta), or bisexual beings (ubhayavyañjanaka). The first three roots of good, both men and women can obtain both. The fourth root of good, women can also obtain. The two mundane supreme dharmas (laukikāgradharma) in men and women. One can become a man, so one obtains the mundane supreme dharma of a man's body. Relying on a man, one can only obtain the root of good, the mundane supreme dharma of a man's body. Because at the time of increased acceptance (adhikṣānti), one has already obtained the non-selective cessation (pratisaṃkhyānirodha) of a woman's body, therefore this person will never again...

為女。所以不得女身第一　問前三善根位亦有男．女身得非擇滅。依彼暖等為修。不修　解云即由此因證不修也　又解得世第一法必不為女。故不修女。前三容有成男．女義。設非擇滅亦互相修。又正理六十一云。此四善根唯依男．女。前三男．女俱通得二。第四女身亦得二種。勿后得男身不成暖等故。依男唯得男身善根。聖轉至餘生亦不為女故。暖．頂．忍位容有轉形。故二依善根展轉為因性。世第一法依女身者能為二因。女得聖已容有轉得男身理故。依男身者但與一因。已得女身非擇滅故　又婆沙第七云。問此暖．頂．忍．世第一法依何身起。答依男．女身。問依女身得女身所起暖。為亦得男身所起暖耶。答得。如得暖得頂．忍亦爾。問依男身得男身所起暖。為亦得女身所起暖耶。答得。如得暖得頂．忍亦爾。女身於女身所起暖亦得。亦在身亦成就。亦現在前。于男身所起暖得。而不在身。成就。不現在前。如說暖．說頂．忍亦爾。男身於男身所起暖亦得。亦在身亦成就。亦現在前。于女身所起暖得。而不在身成就。不現在前。如說暖說頂．忍亦爾。女身所起暖與女身所起暖為因。與男身所起暖亦為因。如說暖說頃．忍亦爾。男身所起暖與男身所起暖為因。不與女身所起暖為因。所以者何。勝非劣因。彼是劣故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：為什麼不能以女身獲得（四善根中的）世第一法？答：所以不能以女身獲得（世第一法）。問：前三善根位（暖位、頂位、忍位）也有男身和女身獲得非擇滅（非擇滅：通過智慧的力量，使煩惱種子斷滅，從而不再產生煩惱的狀態）。是依據彼（指男身或女身）修習（善根），還是不修習？解：即由此原因證明不修習（世第一法）。又解：獲得世第一法必定不是女身，所以不修習女身。前三善根位容許有成就男身和女身的可能性。即使獲得非擇滅，也可以互相修習。又《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第六十一卷說：『這四善根（暖、頂、忍、世第一法）唯有依靠男身或女身才能獲得。前三善根男身和女身都可獲得兩種（非擇滅和擇滅）。第四善根（世第一法）女身也可以獲得兩種（非擇滅和擇滅）。以免後來獲得男身後無法成就暖等善根。依靠男身只能獲得男身的善根。聖者轉生到其他生命形態也不會是女身。』暖位、頂位、忍位容許有轉變形體的可能，所以兩種所依（男身和女身）的善根可以輾轉作為因性。世第一法依靠女身者能作為兩種因（男身和女身的善根之因）。女身證得聖果后，容許有轉為男身的道理，所以依靠男身者只能作為一種因（男身的善根之因）。因為已經獲得女身的非擇滅。又《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第七卷說：問：這暖位、頂位、忍位、世第一法依靠什麼身體生起？答：依靠男身和女身。問：依靠女身獲得女身所生起的暖法，也能獲得男身所生起的暖法嗎？答：能獲得。如獲得暖法，獲得頂法、忍法也是如此。問：依靠男身獲得男身所生起的暖法，也能獲得女身所生起的暖法嗎？答：能獲得。如獲得暖法，獲得頂法、忍法也是如此。女身對於女身所生起的暖法，也能獲得，也在身中，也成就，也現在前。對於男身所生起的暖法，能獲得，但不在身中，成就，不現在前。如說暖法，說頂法、忍法也是如此。男身對於男身所生起的暖法，也能獲得，也在身中，也成就，也現在前。對於女身所生起的暖法，能獲得，但不在身中，成就，不現在前。如說暖法，說頂法、忍法也是如此。女身所生起的暖法與女身所生起的暖法為因，與男身所生起的暖法也為因。如說暖法，說頂法、忍法也是如此。男身所生起的暖法與男身所生起的暖法為因，不與女身所生起的暖法為因。為什麼呢？殊勝的法不是低劣的法的因，因為女身是低劣的。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why is it not possible to attain the World's First Dharma (Śeṣa-prathama-dharma) in a female body? Answer: Therefore, one cannot attain a female body (to achieve Śeṣa-prathama-dharma). Question: In the positions of the first three roots of goodness (warmth, peak, and forbearance), are there also male and female bodies that attain Non-Selective Cessation (asaṃskṛta-nirodha)? Is it based on them (referring to male or female bodies) that one cultivates (good roots), or does one not cultivate? Explanation: This reason proves that one does not cultivate (Śeṣa-prathama-dharma). Another explanation: Attaining the World's First Dharma is definitely not possible in a female body, so one does not cultivate a female body. The first three roots of goodness allow for the possibility of achieving male and female bodies. Even if Non-Selective Cessation is attained, they can still cultivate each other. Furthermore, the sixty-first volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'These four roots of goodness (warmth, peak, forbearance, and the World's First Dharma) can only be attained by relying on male or female bodies. The first three roots of goodness can be attained by both male and female bodies in two ways (Non-Selective Cessation and Selective Cessation). The fourth root of goodness (the World's First Dharma) can also be attained by female bodies in two ways (Non-Selective Cessation and Selective Cessation), so that one does not fail to achieve warmth and other good roots after attaining a male body. Relying on a male body, one can only attain the good roots of a male body. A sage will not be reborn as a female in other life forms.' The positions of warmth, peak, and forbearance allow for the possibility of transforming the body, so the good roots of the two supports (male and female bodies) can serve as the cause of each other. The World's First Dharma, relying on a female body, can serve as two causes (the cause of the good roots of male and female bodies). After a female body attains sainthood, there is the possibility of transforming into a male body, so relying on a male body can only serve as one cause (the cause of the good roots of a male body) because Non-Selective Cessation of the female body has already been attained. Furthermore, the seventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: Question: What body does this warmth, peak, forbearance, and World's First Dharma rely on to arise? Answer: It relies on male and female bodies. Question: Relying on a female body to attain the warmth arising from a female body, can one also attain the warmth arising from a male body? Answer: Yes, one can. Just as one attains warmth, one also attains peak and forbearance. Question: Relying on a male body to attain the warmth arising from a male body, can one also attain the warmth arising from a female body? Answer: Yes, one can. Just as one attains warmth, one also attains peak and forbearance. The warmth arising from a female body can be attained by a female body, is also in the body, is also accomplished, and is also present. The warmth arising from a male body can be attained, but is not in the body, is not accomplished, and is not present. The same is said for warmth, peak, and forbearance. The warmth arising from a male body can be attained by a male body, is also in the body, is also accomplished, and is also present. The warmth arising from a female body can be attained, but is not in the body, is not accomplished, and is not present. The same is said for warmth, peak, and forbearance. The warmth arising from a female body is the cause of the warmth arising from a female body, and is also the cause of the warmth arising from a male body. The same is said for warmth, peak, and forbearance. The warmth arising from a male body is the cause of the warmth arising from a male body, but is not the cause of the warmth arising from a female body. Why? The superior is not the cause of the inferior, because the female body is inferior.

如說暖說頂．忍亦爾　解云俱舍前三男．女互得。第四善根依女得二。依男唯一。不說為因。正理說得文同俱舍。前三男．女展轉為因。第四女為二因。男非女因。婆沙前三男．女互得。女為男因。男非女因。不說第四為因相得。舊婆沙云。男不得女暖等善根。譯家誤耳。俱舍不說為因。婆沙不說第四善根為因相得者略而不說。準餘論解　問正理．婆沙既說不同。如何會釋　解云正理．婆沙論意各別　正理依一道義。前三善根依身雖復男．女不同。或轉男為女。或轉女為男。而暖等一約依身別分為男．女。如一戒體于轉形位。容依苾芻．及苾芻尼。由形不同說為二戒。可言苾芻．及苾芻尼俱得二戒故。前三善根應知亦爾　言為因者前三善根男．女互得為同類因。第四善根女可為男。故女得二。與二為因。男不為女故男不得女唯一為因　婆沙依多道義。謂有多類暖等依身各別　言得者前三男．女通得二種。一亦得亦在身亦成就亦現行。一得而不在身成就不現行故知各別。第四善根女可成男故女得男。男不可成女故男不得女。

言為因者依女身中善根劣故與二為因。依男身中善根勝故唯一為因　上來雖說一道多道。多道當婆沙評家義。一道當婆沙不正義　又解正理．婆沙俱依多道義。婆沙約所依勝劣顯道勝劣。所以

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『暖位』和『頂位』，忍位也是如此。俱舍論解釋說，前三個善根位（暖、頂、忍）的男子和女子可以互相獲得。第四個善根位（世第一法）依女子可以獲得兩種，依男子只能獲得一種。俱舍論沒有說它們互為因。正理論的說法與俱舍論相同，前三個善根位，男子和女子可以輾轉互為因。第四個善根位，女子可以作為兩種因，男子不是女子的因。毗婆沙論認為，前三個善根位，男子和女子可以互相獲得，女子可以作為男子的因，男子不是女子的因。沒有說第四個善根位互為因。舊的毗婆沙論說，男子不能獲得女子的暖位等善根，這是翻譯者的錯誤。俱舍論沒有說它們互為因。毗婆沙論沒有說第四個善根位互為因，這是省略了沒有說。參照其他論典來解釋。問：正理論和毗婆沙論既然說法不同，如何會通解釋？答：正理論和毗婆沙論的意圖各不相同。正理論依據『一道義』。前三個善根位，雖然依身來說，男子和女子不同，或者可以轉男為女，或者可以轉女為男，但是暖位等是按照依身來區分男女。就像一個戒體，在轉變形體位置時，可以依附於比丘和比丘尼，因為形體不同，所以說為兩種戒。可以說比丘和比丘尼都獲得兩種戒。前三個善根位也應該這樣理解。說『為因』，是指前三個善根位，男子和女子互相獲得，作為同類因。第四個善根位，女子可以成為男子，所以女子獲得兩種，作為兩種因。男子不能成為女子，所以男子不能獲得女子，只有一種因。毗婆沙論依據『多道義』。認為有多種型別的暖位等，依身各不相同。說『獲得』，是指前三個善根位，男子和女子都可以獲得兩種。一種是既獲得，又在身，又成就，又現行。一種是獲得了，但是不在身，成就了，不現行，所以知道它們是各不相同的。第四個善根位，女子可以成就男子，所以女子獲得男子。男子不能成就女子，所以男子不能獲得女子。說『為因』，是指依女子身中的善根比較弱，所以作為兩種因。依男子身中的善根比較強，所以只有一種因。上面雖然說了一道和多道，多道是毗婆沙論評家的觀點，一道是毗婆沙論不正確的觀點。又一種解釋是，正理論和毗婆沙論都依據多道義。毗婆沙論是根據所依身的殊勝和低劣來顯示道的殊勝和低劣。所以這樣說。

English version: Regarding 『Warmth』 (warmth stage) and 『Summit』 (summit stage), so is forbearance (kshanti). The Abhidharmakośa explains that the first three roots of good (kuśala) (warmth, summit, forbearance) can be mutually obtained by men and women. The fourth root of good (the highest mundane dharma) can be obtained in two ways depending on women, and only one way depending on men. The Abhidharmakośa does not say that they are causes of each other. The Nyāyānusāra says the same as the Abhidharmakośa, that the first three roots of good can be causes of each other for men and women. The fourth root of good, women can be two causes, men are not the cause of women. The Vibhasa says that the first three roots of good can be mutually obtained by men and women, women can be the cause of men, and men are not the cause of women. It does not say that the fourth root of good is obtained as a cause. The old Vibhasa says that men cannot obtain the warmth, etc., roots of good of women, which is a translator's error. The Abhidharmakośa does not say that they are causes of each other. The Vibhasa does not say that the fourth root of good is obtained as a cause, which is omitted. Interpret according to other treatises. Question: Since the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhasa say different things, how can they be reconciled and explained? Answer: The intentions of the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhasa are different. The Nyāyānusāra is based on the 『one path doctrine』. Although the first three roots of good are different for men and women in terms of the body they rely on, or men can be transformed into women, or women can be transformed into men, warmth, etc., are distinguished as men and women according to the body they rely on. Just like a precept body, when transforming the position of the body, it can rely on bhikshus (monks) and bhikshunis (nuns), because the bodies are different, so it is said to be two precepts. It can be said that both bhikshus and bhikshunis obtain two precepts. The first three roots of good should also be understood in this way. Saying 『as a cause』 means that the first three roots of good are mutually obtained by men and women as homogeneous causes. The fourth root of good, women can become men, so women obtain two kinds, as two causes. Men cannot become women, so men cannot obtain women, only one cause. The Vibhasa is based on the 『multiple paths doctrine』. It believes that there are many types of warmth, etc., which are different depending on the body they rely on. Saying 『obtain』 means that the first three roots of good can be obtained by both men and women in two ways. One is that they are obtained, are in the body, are accomplished, and are currently active. One is that they are obtained, but are not in the body, are accomplished, and are not currently active, so it is known that they are different. The fourth root of good, women can accomplish men, so women obtain men. Men cannot accomplish women, so men cannot obtain women. Saying 『as a cause』 means that the roots of good in the body of women are weaker, so they are two causes. The roots of good in the body of men are stronger, so there is only one cause. Although one path and multiple paths have been mentioned above, multiple paths are the views of the Vibhasa commentators, and one path is the incorrect view of the Vibhasa. Another explanation is that both the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhasa are based on the multiple paths doctrine. The Vibhasa shows the superiority and inferiority of the path based on the superiority and inferiority of the body it relies on. That's why it says so.

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 『Warmth』 (warmth stage) and 『Summit』 (summit stage), so is forbearance (kshanti). The Abhidharmakośa explains that the first three roots of good (kuśala) (warmth, summit, forbearance) can be mutually obtained by men and women. The fourth root of good (the highest mundane dharma) can be obtained in two ways depending on women, and only one way depending on men. The Abhidharmakośa does not say that they are causes of each other. The Nyāyānusāra says the same as the Abhidharmakośa, that the first three roots of good can be causes of each other for men and women. The fourth root of good, women can be two causes, men are not the cause of women. The Vibhasa says that the first three roots of good can be mutually obtained by men and women, women can be the cause of men, and men are not the cause of women. It does not say that the fourth root of good is obtained as a cause. The old Vibhasa says that men cannot obtain the warmth, etc., roots of good of women, which is a translator's error. The Abhidharmakośa does not say that they are causes of each other. The Vibhasa does not say that the fourth root of good is obtained as a cause, which is omitted. Interpret according to other treatises. Question: Since the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhasa say different things, how can they be reconciled and explained? Answer: The intentions of the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhasa are different. The Nyāyānusāra is based on the 『one path doctrine』. Although the first three roots of good are different for men and women in terms of the body they rely on, or men can be transformed into women, or women can be transformed into men, warmth, etc., are distinguished as men and women according to the body they rely on. Just like a precept body, when transforming the position of the body, it can rely on bhikshus (monks) and bhikshunis (nuns), because the bodies are different, so it is said to be two precepts. It can be said that both bhikshus and bhikshunis obtain two precepts. The first three roots of good should also be understood in this way. Saying 『as a cause』 means that the first three roots of good are mutually obtained by men and women as homogeneous causes. The fourth root of good, women can become men, so women obtain two kinds, as two causes. Men cannot become women, so men cannot obtain women, only one cause. The Vibhasa is based on the 『multiple paths doctrine』. It believes that there are many types of warmth, etc., which are different depending on the body they rely on. Saying 『obtain』 means that the first three roots of good can be obtained by both men and women in two ways. One is that they are obtained, are in the body, are accomplished, and are currently active. One is that they are obtained, but are not in the body, are accomplished, and are not currently active, so it is known that they are different. The fourth root of good, women can accomplish men, so women obtain men. Men cannot accomplish women, so men cannot obtain women. Saying 『as a cause』 means that the roots of good in the body of women are weaker, so they are two causes. The roots of good in the body of men are stronger, so there is only one cause. Although one path and multiple paths have been mentioned above, multiple paths are the views of the Vibhasa commentators, and one path is the incorrect view of the Vibhasa. Another explanation is that both the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhasa are based on the multiple paths doctrine. The Vibhasa shows the superiority and inferiority of the path based on the superiority and inferiority of the body it relies on. That's why it says so.

勝非劣因正理論意男．女所依雖有勝劣。而能依道展轉為因。如依九地聖道雖有所依勝劣差別。而能依道展轉為因。俱舍或同正理。或同婆沙。皆無有妨　又解四種善根。男．女異身皆互相修皆互為因。諸論但說前三善根男．女互得者。得前三已容為男．女。所以別說。得世第一必不為女故言不得。理實而言。未來女身雖得非擇滅。依彼第一亦得修也。婆沙論言前三善根女與二為因。男唯一因。且據一相以說。以實而言。男亦與女為因。以有下．中．上品別故。若不爾者豈可男身下品暖等。非與女身上品為因。第四善根男．女互為因。釋所以者如前得說　又解正理據現轉形為男．女說。婆沙據一期身男．女異說。故有差別。

聖依此地至異生亦無退者。釋第七．第八．第九句。舍諸善根總有三種。一失地舍。二命終舍。三退舍。聖依此地得此善根。失此地時善根方舍。失地言顯下地命終遷生上地。異生於地若失．不失。但命終時失眾同分必舍此善根。故正理云。聖身見道力所資故。此四善根無命終舍。寧知命終舍唯異生非聖。以本論說卵．胎中異生唯成就身不成身業故。豈不異生先依下地起暖法等後生上地亦必定舍暖等善根。無如是失。以彼異生爾時舍善根。由舍同分故。謂住死有無聖道資舍諸善根。非由上地

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於勝非劣因正理論，雖然男性和女性所依賴的（善根）有優劣之分，但所能依賴的道是可以輾轉為因的。例如，依據九地（指欲界、未至定、中間定、四禪、四無色定）的聖道，雖然所依賴的（善根）有優劣差別，但所能依賴的道是可以輾轉為因的。《俱舍論》或者與《正理》一致，或者與《婆沙論》一致，都沒有妨礙。又解釋四種善根（暖、頂、忍、世第一法），男性和女性不同的身體都可以互相修習，都可以互為因。各論典只說前三種善根（暖、頂、忍）男性和女性可以互相獲得，是因為獲得前三種善根后，有可能成為男性或女性，所以特別說明。獲得世第一法必定不會成為女性，所以說不能獲得。但實際上來說，未來的女性身體雖然可以獲得非擇滅（通過智慧斷滅煩惱），依據那個世第一法也可以修習。《婆沙論》說前三種善根，女性與兩種（暖、頂）為因，男性只有一種（忍）為因，這只是根據一種情況來說。實際上來說，男性也與女性為因，因為有下品、中品、上品之分。如果不是這樣，難道男性身體的下品暖等，不是與女性身體的上品（頂、忍）為因嗎？第四種善根（世第一法）男性和女性互為因，解釋原因如前面所說。又解釋《正理》是根據現在轉變形體為男性或女性來說的，《婆沙論》是根據一期生命中男性或女性的不同來說的，所以有差別。

聖者依據此地（指欲界、未至定、中間定、四禪、四無色定）乃至異生（指凡夫）也沒有退失（善根）的，解釋第七、第八、第九句。捨棄諸善根總共有三種情況：一是失地舍，二是命終舍，三是退舍。聖者依據此地獲得此善根，失去此地時善根才捨棄。失地是指在下地命終后遷生到上地。異生於此地，無論失去或不失去此地，但命終時失去眾同分（指同一類眾生的共業果報）必定捨棄此善根。所以《正理》說，聖者身體有見道的力量資助，所以這四種善根沒有命終舍。憑什麼知道命終舍只有異生才有，而不是聖者？因為本論說卵生、胎生的異生只成就身體，不成就身業。難道異生先依據下地生起暖法等，後生到上地也必定捨棄暖等善根嗎？沒有這樣的失去，因為那些異生爾時捨棄善根，是因為捨棄了同分。是指住在死有（指中陰身）沒有聖道資助而捨棄諸善根，不是因為上地。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the theory of 'superior cause, non-inferior result,' although the bases (of merit) relied upon by men and women have superior and inferior aspects, the path that can be relied upon can be a cause that transforms reciprocally. For example, based on the holy path of the nine grounds (desire realm, unreached concentration, intermediate concentration, the four dhyanas, the four formless attainments), although there are differences in the superiority and inferiority of the bases relied upon, the path that can be relied upon can be a cause that transforms reciprocally. The Abhidharmakośa either agrees with the Nyāyānusāra, or agrees with the Mahāvibhāṣā, and there is no contradiction. Furthermore, explaining the four roots of good (warmth, peak, forbearance, worldly supreme dharma), different bodies of men and women can cultivate each other and can be mutual causes. The various treatises only say that the first three roots of good (warmth, peak, forbearance) can be mutually obtained by men and women because after obtaining the first three roots of good, it is possible to become a man or a woman, so it is specifically explained. Obtaining the worldly supreme dharma will definitely not lead to becoming a woman, so it is said that it cannot be obtained. But in reality, although a future female body can obtain non-selective cessation (nirvāṇa achieved through wisdom), based on that worldly supreme dharma, it can also be cultivated. The Mahāvibhāṣā says that the first three roots of good, the woman is caused by two (warmth, peak), and the man is caused by only one (forbearance), which is based on one aspect. In reality, the man is also caused by the woman, because there are inferior, intermediate, and superior distinctions. If this were not the case, how could the inferior warmth, etc., of the male body not be the cause of the superior (peak, forbearance) of the female body? The fourth root of good (worldly supreme dharma) is a mutual cause for men and women, and the reason for this is as explained earlier. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra is explained based on the present transformation of form into male or female, while the Mahāvibhāṣā is explained based on the differences between male and female in one lifetime, so there are differences.

Even a holy person relying on this ground (desire realm, unreached concentration, intermediate concentration, the four dhyanas, the four formless attainments) and even an ordinary being (prthagjana) will not regress (from merit), explaining the seventh, eighth, and ninth sentences. There are three general situations for abandoning all roots of good: first, abandoning due to loss of ground; second, abandoning at the end of life; and third, abandoning due to regression. A holy person obtains this root of good based on this ground, and the root of good is only abandoned when this ground is lost. Losing the ground refers to being reborn in a higher ground after dying in a lower ground. An ordinary being in this ground, whether or not they lose this ground, will definitely abandon this root of good when they lose the commonality of beings (the shared karmic results of the same type of beings) at the end of life. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says that the body of a holy person is aided by the power of the path of seeing, so these four roots of good are not abandoned at the end of life. How do we know that only ordinary beings abandon at the end of life, and not holy persons? Because this treatise says that ordinary beings born from eggs or wombs only accomplish the body, and do not accomplish bodily karma. Could it be that ordinary beings first arise warmth dharma, etc., based on the lower ground, and then are reborn in the higher ground and also definitely abandon warmth, etc., roots of good? There is no such loss, because those ordinary beings abandon the roots of good at that time because they abandon the commonality. It refers to abandoning all roots of good while dwelling in the intermediate state (bardo) without the aid of the holy path, not because of the higher ground.

中有等起。若諸聖者住死有中由聖道資不捨暖等。但由上地中有等起舍下善根。舍時雖同而所由別。是故異生無失地舍。聖者必無由命終舍(已上論文)初二善根不但由失地．命終舍亦由退舍。由死．退舍唯異生非聖。由失地舍唯聖非異生。忍及第一異生亦無退。命終．失地隨應舍故。

依根本地至極猛利故者。釋第十句。依四根本起暖等善必三生滿。彼於此生必定得見諦。厭生死心極猛利故。若依未至．及與中間。厭非猛利或入．不入。又婆沙第六云。依根本地起暖等者。現身必入正性離生。所以者何。彼由聖道引暖等故。依未至定．靜慮中間。起暖等者。此則不定。所以者何。彼由暖等引聖道故(解雲根本樂道聖道易起。能引暖等故現入聖。未至．中間是其苦道聖道難起。由暖等引故。依彼地或人．不入)。又正理六十一云。依根本地起暖等善根。彼於此生必定得見諦。以根利故厭有深故。依未至．中間起暖等者於此生不必得入見諦。有餘師言。依根本定起暖等者。此生必定得至涅槃。厭有深故　俱舍師難云。如得暖等人有六種姓。復言暖等通依六地。又下文說。一隨信行離染故成七十三人。又四通行中鈍．利二人俱通苦．樂。以此故知。鈍根之人亦依根本得入見道。正理如何言依根本以利根故必入聖耶。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：中有等起（bardo arising）。如果諸位聖者住在死有（dying bardo）之中，憑藉聖道的資糧，不捨棄暖等善根。只是由於上地中有等起，才捨棄下地的善根。捨棄的時間雖然相同，但所憑藉的原因不同。因此，異生（non-Arya）不會失去地舍（ground-abandonment）。聖者必定不會因為命終而捨棄（善根）。（以上是論文內容）最初的兩種善根，不僅因為失去地、命終而捨棄，也因為退失而捨棄。因為死亡、退失而捨棄，只有異生才會發生，聖者不會。因為失去地而捨棄，只有聖者才會發生，異生不會。忍位（kṣānti）和第一位（first stage）的異生也不會退失，因為命終、失去地會隨之捨棄。

『依根本地至極猛利故』（because of relying on the root ground to the extreme of intensity）是解釋第十句。依靠四根本定（four dhyānas）生起暖等善根，必定三生圓滿。他們在此生必定得見諦（darśana-satya，truth of seeing），因為厭離生死的決心極其強烈。如果依靠未至定（anāgamya-samādhi）以及中間定（dhyānāntara），厭離心並非強烈，或者入定，或者不入定。此外，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第六卷說，依靠根本地生起暖等善根的人，現世必定進入正性離生（rightly entered the separation from birth）。為什麼呢？因為他們通過聖道引導暖等善根的緣故。依靠未至定、靜慮中間定生起暖等善根的人，這就不能確定了。為什麼呢？因為他們通過暖等善根引導聖道的緣故。（解釋說，根本定的樂道，聖道容易生起，能夠引導暖等善根，因此現世進入聖道。未至定、中間定是苦道，聖道難以生起，因為通過暖等善根引導，所以依靠這些地，或者入聖道，或者不入聖道）。此外，《正理》（Nyāyānusāra）第六十一卷說，依靠根本地生起暖等善根的人，他們在此生必定得見諦，因為根器銳利，厭離心深刻的緣故。依靠未至定、中間定生起暖等善根的人，在此生不一定能夠進入見諦。有其他論師說，依靠根本定生起暖等善根的人，此生必定能夠達到涅槃（nirvāṇa），因為厭離心深刻的緣故。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośakāra）反駁說，例如得到暖位（ūṣmagata）的人有六種姓（six kinds of lineage）。又說暖等善根普遍依靠六地（six grounds）。此外，下文說，一位隨信行（anudhārmacārin）因為遠離染污而成就七十三人。此外，四通行（four paths of practice）中，鈍根（dull faculties）、利根（sharp faculties）二人都普遍經歷苦、樂。因此可知，鈍根之人也依靠根本定得以進入見道。那麼《正理》怎麼說依靠根本定，因為根器銳利就必定進入聖道呢？

【English Translation】 English version: The arising of the intermediate state (antarābhava-samutthāna). If noble ones dwell in the intermediate state of death (maraṇāntarābhava), they do not abandon the heat and other roots of virtue due to the support of the noble path. They only abandon the lower roots of virtue due to the arising of the intermediate state of the higher realms. Although the time of abandonment is the same, the reasons for it are different. Therefore, ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) do not lose the abandonment of the ground (bhūmi-tyāga). Noble ones will certainly not abandon (virtuous roots) due to the end of life. (The above is the content of the treatise.) The first two roots of virtue are abandoned not only due to the loss of the ground and the end of life, but also due to regression. Abandonment due to death and regression only occurs in ordinary beings, not in noble ones. Abandonment due to the loss of the ground only occurs in noble ones, not in ordinary beings. Ordinary beings in the stage of forbearance (kṣānti) and the first stage also do not regress, because abandonment due to the end of life and the loss of the ground will follow accordingly.

'Because of relying on the root ground to the extreme of intensity' explains the tenth sentence. Relying on the four dhyānas to generate heat and other roots of virtue will certainly fulfill three lives. They will certainly attain the truth of seeing (darśana-satya) in this life because their determination to renounce birth and death is extremely strong. If relying on the anāgamya-samādhi and the dhyānāntara, the determination to renounce is not strong, or they may enter samādhi or not. Furthermore, the sixth volume of the Vibhāṣā says that those who generate heat and other roots of virtue relying on the root ground will certainly enter the rightly entered the separation from birth in this life. Why? Because they guide heat and other roots of virtue through the noble path. Those who generate heat and other roots of virtue relying on the anāgamya-samādhi and the dhyānāntara, this is uncertain. Why? Because they guide the noble path through heat and other roots of virtue. (The explanation is that the path of bliss of the root ground, the noble path is easy to arise, and can guide heat and other roots of virtue, so they enter the noble path in this life. The anāgamya-samādhi and the dhyānāntara are the path of suffering, the noble path is difficult to arise, because they are guided by heat and other roots of virtue, so relying on these grounds, they may enter the noble path or not.) Furthermore, the sixty-first volume of the Nyāyānusāra says that those who generate heat and other roots of virtue relying on the root ground will certainly attain the truth of seeing in this life because their faculties are sharp and their determination to renounce is profound. Those who generate heat and other roots of virtue relying on the anāgamya-samādhi and the dhyānāntara may not be able to enter the truth of seeing in this life. Other teachers say that those who generate heat and other roots of virtue relying on the root dhyāna will certainly be able to reach nirvāṇa in this life because their determination to renounce is profound. The Abhidharmakośakāra refutes that, for example, those who attain the stage of heat (ūṣmagata) have six kinds of lineage. It is also said that heat and other roots of virtue universally rely on the six grounds. Furthermore, the following text says that one who follows the doctrine (anudhārmacārin) achieves seventy-three people because they are separated from defilements. Furthermore, in the four paths of practice, both those with dull faculties and those with sharp faculties universally experience suffering and bliss. Therefore, it can be known that those with dull faculties also rely on the root dhyāna to enter the path of seeing. Then how does the Nyāyānusāra say that relying on the root dhyāna, because the faculties are sharp, one will certainly enter the noble path?

此言有失。設作救言利根者。厭心猛利名為利根。非是不動名為利根。設作此救名相濫失。又正理云。若依越次以利根故除練根得。以此故知。正理意說依根本地是利根也。

若先舍已至還從本修者。釋第十一句。暖等善根若先舍已後重得時所得。必非先之所舍。如人先舍別解脫已。後重得戒所得。必非先之所舍。以暖等善從無始來未曾熟修。要由廣大功用成故。于未曾得生欽重故得先未得。于已曾得不欣樂故非得曾得。以趣聖道求升進故。若得余定以曾熟修非由大功故後重得得先所舍。若先已得暖等善根修習圓滿經生故舍。至於後身遇了分位善說法師。得宿住智知曾過去已修暖等。為說頂等便生頂等。若不遇者還從暖等根本修故。或從持息念等根本修故。故婆沙云。問若餘生中即起頂者。從何作意無間起耶。答如起暖時所有作意。如說從暖起頂。從頂起忍亦爾　問若爾何故說暖無間起頂頂無間起忍耶　答依一身中相續起者作如是說。然非一切。

失退二舍至失不必然者。釋后一句。失．退二舍以捨得故非得為體。退必起過。起惑退故失不必然。失謂命終。或是易地。不必起過。以命終心通三性故。故正理云。退舍必因起過而得。失舍或有由位增進(解云。失謂越地。或但命終。聖越地時名位增進。異生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這種說法是不對的。假設有人辯解說，這裡所說的『利根』是指那些厭離心非常強烈的人，這種猛烈的厭離心才叫做『利根』，而不是指那些心不動搖的人。如果這樣辯解，那就是混淆了概念。而且，《正理》中也說，如果因為是利根，所以可以越過次第，直接通過修習練根而獲得果位，由此可知，《正理》的意思是說，在根本地上的修習才是利根。如果先捨棄了暖等善根，之後又重新從根本修起，這是解釋第十一句。暖等善根如果先捨棄了，之後又重新獲得，那麼這次獲得的，一定不是先前所捨棄的。就像一個人先捨棄了別解脫戒，之後又重新獲得戒律，那麼這次獲得的，一定不是先前所捨棄的。因為暖等善根從無始以來，沒有經過熟練的修習，需要通過廣大的功用才能成就，所以對於未曾獲得的，會產生欽佩和重視，因此能夠獲得先前未曾獲得的；對於已經曾獲得的，不會感到欣喜和快樂，因此不能獲得曾獲得的。這是因為要趣向聖道，尋求提升和進步。如果獲得其他的禪定，因為曾經熟練修習過，不需要通過大的功用，所以之後重新獲得時，獲得的是先前所捨棄的。如果先前已經獲得了暖等善根，並且修習圓滿，因為轉生的緣故而捨棄了，到了後世，遇到了能夠分辨法義、善於說法的大法師，並且通過宿住智知道自己過去曾經修習過暖等善根，（法師）為他說頂等法，於是就生起了頂等善根。如果沒有遇到（這樣的法師），那麼就還是需要從暖等根本善根修起，或者從持息念等根本修起。所以《婆沙論》中說：『問：如果在其他生中直接生起了頂位，那麼是從什麼作意無間生起的呢？答：就像生起暖位時所用的作意一樣。』就像說從暖位生起頂位，從頂位生起忍位也是一樣。問：如果是這樣，為什麼說暖位無間生起頂位，頂位無間生起忍位呢？答：這是依據在同一個身體中相續生起的情況來說的，但並非所有情況都是如此。解釋失去、退失這兩種捨棄，直到『失去不必然』一句。解釋最後一句。失去、退失這兩種捨棄，因為有捨棄和獲得，所以不是以獲得為本體。退失一定會引起過失，因為生起惑而退失的緣故。失去不一定是這樣。失去是指命終，或者是改變所處的地位，不一定引起過失，因為命終時的心通於三性。所以《正理》中說：『退失的捨棄必定是因為生起過失而得到的，失去的捨棄有時是因為地位的增進而得到的。』（解釋說：失去是指越過地位，或者只是命終。聖人越過地位時，叫做地位的增進，異生...

【English Translation】 English version: This statement is incorrect. Suppose someone argues that 'sharp faculties' (利根, lì gēn) refers to those with extremely strong aversion, and this intense aversion is what constitutes 'sharp faculties,' not those with unwavering minds. Such an argument would be a confusion of concepts. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理, Zhèng lǐ) states that if one can bypass the sequential stages and directly attain results through the practice of refining the roots due to having sharp faculties, then it is understood that the Nyāyānusāra means that cultivation on the fundamental ground constitutes sharp faculties. If one first abandons the warm stage (暖, nuǎn) and other wholesome roots, and then returns to cultivate from the foundation, this explains the eleventh sentence. If the warm stage and other wholesome roots are first abandoned and then re-attained, what is attained is certainly not what was previously abandoned. Just as when someone first abandons the vows of individual liberation (別解脫, bié jiě tuō) and then re-attains the precepts, what is attained is certainly not what was previously abandoned. Because the warm stage and other wholesome roots have not been skillfully cultivated since beginningless time, they require great effort to achieve. Therefore, one develops reverence and importance for what has not been attained, and thus can attain what was previously unattained. One does not feel joy or pleasure for what has already been attained, and thus cannot attain what was previously attained. This is because one is heading towards the holy path, seeking advancement and progress. If one attains other samādhis (定, dìng), because they have been skillfully cultivated and do not require great effort, then re-attaining them means attaining what was previously abandoned. If one had previously attained the warm stage and other wholesome roots, and cultivated them to perfection, but abandoned them due to rebirth, then in a later life, one might encounter a teacher who can discern the meaning of the Dharma and is skilled in teaching, and who, through the knowledge of past lives (宿住智, sù zhù zhì), knows that one had cultivated the warm stage in the past. The teacher then speaks of the peak stage (頂, dǐng) and other stages, and thus the peak stage and other wholesome roots arise. If one does not encounter such a teacher, then one must still cultivate from the fundamental wholesome roots such as the warm stage, or from the fundamental practices such as mindfulness of breathing (持息念, chí xī niàn). Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙, Pó shā) says: 'Question: If one directly arises in the peak stage in another life, from what mental activity does it arise without interruption? Answer: It is like the mental activity used when arising in the warm stage.' It is like saying that one arises from the warm stage to the peak stage, and from the peak stage to the forbearance stage (忍, rěn) in the same way. Question: If that is the case, why is it said that the warm stage arises without interruption to the peak stage, and the peak stage arises without interruption to the forbearance stage? Answer: This is said based on the situation where they arise continuously in the same body, but this is not always the case. Explaining the two types of abandonment: loss (失, shī) and regression (退, tuì), up to the phrase 'loss is not necessarily so.' Explaining the last sentence. These two types of abandonment, loss and regression, are not based on attainment because there is abandonment and attainment. Regression necessarily causes faults because it arises from delusion and regression. Loss is not necessarily so. Loss refers to death or changing one's position, and does not necessarily cause faults, because the mind at the time of death is connected to the three natures (三性, sān xìng). Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Abandonment through regression is necessarily obtained through arising faults, while abandonment through loss is sometimes obtained through advancement in position.' (Explanation: Loss refers to surpassing a position, or simply death. When a sage surpasses a position, it is called advancement in position, while a common being...

不爾。故說或言)得此善根至第一入離生者。此即第三明善根勝利。

論曰至必至涅槃故者。釋初句。四善根中若得暖法。雖有四失而有一德。如文可知。

若爾何殊順解脫分者。問。

若無障礙至行相同故者。答。若無障礙去見道近。或由二生。或但一生。能入見道。又與見道十六行相皆悉同故。

若得頂法至不斷善根者。釋第二句。若得頂法雖復有退造無間業墮惡趣。於前暖法更增畢竟不斷善根。又正理云。若得頂已不斷善根。如何經說天授退頂。由彼曾起近頂善根。依未得退密作是說。

若得忍時至上忍方得者。釋第三句。若得忍時雖命終舍住異生位有此二失。於前頂法而增無退不造無間不墮惡趣。有此三德不墮惡趣。準知不造五無間業。言無惡果顯無惡因。忍位無退如前已辨。故前文言。又此位忍無退墮故名為忍法。若至忍位於少分趣等中得不生法故。趣謂三惡趣。生謂卵濕生。正理云。由此二生多愚癡故。處謂無想．北俱盧．大梵處。正理云。無想．大梵僻見處故。北俱盧洲無現觀故。身謂扇搋等。正理云。身謂扇搋等。多諸煩惱故。有謂欲界第八有等。正理云。有謂第八有等。聖必不受故。惑謂見所斷惑。正理云。惑謂見所斷必不復起故　此之六種于下．上忍隨應而得。

謂于下忍得惡趣不生。餘五不生至上忍方得。于中忍位無別不生故不說也　問若至上忍于扇搋等方得不生。何故婆沙第七云。問起順抉擇分善根已。更可受扇搋．半擇迦．無形．二形身不。答更可受。唯暖．頂非余。所以者何。若得忍已便違惡趣。彼扇搋等身形醜陋。是人中惡趣。若得忍等殊勝善根。必更不受彼類身故　準婆沙文。得忍不受扇搋等身。云何俱舍．正理乃言至上忍位。于扇搋等方得不生　解云婆沙言忍不受彼類顯增上忍。據總相說。與惡趣同於忍位中得不生故。若別分別。惡趣下忍得不生。扇搋等身至上忍位方得不生　又解論意各別。

得世第一法至無命終舍者。釋第四句。得世第一法雖住異生有斯一失。於前忍位加能趣入正性離生。及至此位無命終舍。

何緣唯此能入離生者。問。

已得異生至舍異生性者。答。增上忍時除世第一法一剎那異生性。餘一切異生性皆得非擇滅。至第一法故。言已得異生非擇滅故。世第一法能如無間道舍異生性故。苦法忍如解脫道舍異生性故。世第一法住現在時。說名為入。故婆沙第二云。如是說者。世第一法住時名入。問若爾異生應即聖者。入聖道故。答無如是過。世第一法至住位時。苦法智忍在正生時。未成就故不名聖者。苦法智忍雖未已生。以

在正生名等無間。世第一法爾時為彼等無間緣故名為入。

此四善根至一坐成覺故者。此即第四明三乘根轉。問．及頌答。

論曰至故說為餘者。釋初兩句。未殖佛乘順解脫分聲聞種姓。可轉向余乘獨覺非住惡趣。故於忍位可轉成。彼若轉向佛乘。經三無數．及百劫已起彼暖等。轉向麟角經百劫已。起彼暖等皆一坐故　菩提云覺　薩埵云有情。言菩薩者略也。余文可知。

麟角佛言至乃至菩提者。釋下兩句。如麟一角獨出如佛。故婆沙云。樂獨居故　余文可知。自古諸師皆言。七加行中具作五停。今依此論及婆沙等。但言不凈．及持息念隨一亦得。大智度論具說五停。

有餘獨覺至理無遮礙者。有餘部行獨覺異麟角喻。起彼種姓初二善根。轉向余乘理無遮礙。如聲聞說。亦應說忍略而不論。雖初發心由其教力。后將入聖獨悟道故得獨覺名。若麟角喻唯獨悟道。故正理云。然獨覺乘總有二種。一麟角喻。二先聲聞。若先聲聞如聲聞說世第一法。一剎那故不可言轉。故此不說。此約順抉擇分。三乘轉說。若約解脫分位轉者。如婆沙第七云。轉聲聞種姓順解脫分。起獨覺．及佛種姓順解脫分。轉獨覺種姓順解脫分。起聲聞．及佛種姓順解脫分。若起佛種姓順解脫分已則不可轉。極猛利故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在正生（zhèng shēng，指正確的出生）名等無間（děng wú jiàn，指無間等），世第一法（shì dì yī fǎ，指世間第一法）爾時為彼等無間緣（děng wú jiàn yuán，指無間等緣）故名為入。

此四善根（sì shàn gēn，指四種善根）至一坐成覺（yī zuò chéng jué，指一次坐禪就能成就覺悟）故者。此即第四明三乘根轉（sān shèng gēn zhuǎn，指三乘根性的轉變）。問．及頌答。

論曰至故說為餘者。釋初兩句。未殖佛乘順解脫分（fó shèng shùn jiě tuō fēn，指順應解脫分的佛乘）聲聞種姓（shēng wén zhǒng xìng，指聲聞的種姓）。可轉向余乘獨覺（dú jué，指獨覺乘）非住惡趣（è qù，指惡道）。故於忍位（rěn wèi，指忍位）可轉成。彼若轉向佛乘。經三無數（sān wú shù，指三大阿僧祇劫）.及百劫已起彼暖等。轉向麟角（lín jiǎo，指麟角喻獨覺）經百劫已。起彼暖等皆一坐故。菩提（pú tí，指覺悟）云覺。薩埵（sà duǒ，指有情）云有情。言菩薩（pú sà，指菩提薩埵）者略也。余文可知。

麟角佛言至乃至菩提者。釋下兩句。如麟一角獨出如佛。故婆沙（pó shā，指《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）云。樂獨居故。余文可知。自古諸師皆言。七加行中具作五停（wǔ tíng，指五停心觀）。今依此論及婆沙等。但言不凈（bù jìng，指不凈觀）.及持息念（chí xī niàn，指持息念）隨一亦得。大智度論（dà zhì dù lùn，指《大智度論》）具說五停。

有餘獨覺至理無遮礙者。有餘部行獨覺異麟角喻。起彼種姓初二善根。轉向余乘理無遮礙。如聲聞說。亦應說忍略而不論。雖初發心由其教力。后將入聖獨悟道故得獨覺名。若麟角喻唯獨悟道。故正理（zhèng lǐ，指《阿毗達磨順正理論》）云。然獨覺乘總有二種。一麟角喻。二先聲聞。若先聲聞如聲聞說世第一法。一剎那故不可言轉。故此不說。此約順抉擇分（shùn jué zé fēn，指順抉擇分）。三乘轉說。若約解脫分位轉者。如婆沙第七云。轉聲聞種姓順解脫分。起獨覺．及佛種姓順解脫分。轉獨覺種姓順解脫分。起聲聞．及佛種姓順解脫分。若起佛種姓順解脫分已則不可轉。極猛利故。

【English Translation】 English version: In the immediate state of 'Correct Birth' (zhèng shēng, referring to correct birth), and 'Equanimity Without Interval' (děng wú jiàn, referring to equanimity without interval), the 'World's First Dharma' (shì dì yī fǎ, referring to the world's first dharma) at that time is called 'Entry' because of its condition of 'Equanimity Without Interval' (děng wú jiàn yuán, referring to the condition of equanimity without interval).

These 'Four Good Roots' (sì shàn gēn, referring to the four good roots) leading to 'Awakening in One Sitting' (yī zuò chéng jué, referring to achieving enlightenment in one sitting) – this is the fourth section explaining the transformation of the roots of the Three Vehicles (sān shèng gēn zhuǎn, referring to the transformation of the roots of the three vehicles). Question and answer in verse.

The treatise says, 'Therefore, it is said to be the remainder' – explaining the first two sentences. Those who have not cultivated the 'Śrāvakayāna' (shēng wén zhǒng xìng, referring to the Śrāvakayāna lineage) in accordance with the 'Part of Liberation' (fó shèng shùn jiě tuō fēn, referring to the Buddha-vehicle in accordance with the part of liberation) can be transformed into the 'Pratyekabuddhayāna' (dú jué, referring to the Pratyekabuddhayāna), and do not remain in the 'Evil Realms' (è qù, referring to the evil realms). Therefore, in the 'Stage of Forbearance' (rěn wèi, referring to the stage of forbearance), transformation is possible. If they transform towards the 'Buddha-vehicle', after three countless kalpas (sān wú shù, referring to three asamkhyeya kalpas) and hundreds of kalpas, they will arise with the 'Warmth' etc. If they transform towards the 'Rhinoceros Horn' (lín jiǎo, referring to the Pratyekabuddha like a rhinoceros horn), after hundreds of kalpas, they will arise with the 'Warmth' etc., all because of one sitting. 'Bodhi' (pú tí, referring to enlightenment) means awakening. 'Sattva' (sà duǒ, referring to sentient being) means sentient being. 'Bodhisattva' (pú sà, referring to Bodhisattva) is an abbreviation. The rest of the text is understandable.

The 'Rhinoceros Horn Buddha' says, 'Up to and including Bodhi' – explaining the last two sentences. Like the single horn of a rhinoceros standing out like a Buddha. Therefore, the 'Vibhasa' (pó shā, referring to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says, 'Because they enjoy solitude.' The rest of the text is understandable. All the teachers of ancient times have said that the seven preparatory practices fully perform the 'Five Stoppages' (wǔ tíng, referring to the five stopping-the-mind contemplations). Now, according to this treatise and the Vibhasa etc., it is sufficient to say that either 'Impurity Contemplation' (bù jìng, referring to impurity contemplation) or 'Mindfulness of Breathing' (chí xī niàn, referring to mindfulness of breathing) is sufficient. The 'Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra' (dà zhì dù lùn, referring to the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra) fully explains the Five Stoppages.

That other Pratyekabuddhas have no obstruction in principle – other schools practice Pratyekabuddhas differently from the Rhinoceros Horn analogy. The first two good roots of that lineage, transforming towards other vehicles, have no obstruction in principle. As with the Śrāvakas, it should also be said that forbearance is omitted and not discussed. Although the initial aspiration is due to the power of the teachings, later, when entering the holy path, they attain the name Pratyekabuddha because they awaken alone. If it is the Rhinoceros Horn analogy, they only awaken alone. Therefore, the 'Nyāyānusāra' (zhèng lǐ, referring to the Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says, 'However, the Pratyekabuddhayāna has two types in general: one is the Rhinoceros Horn analogy, and the other is the former Śrāvaka.' If it is the former Śrāvaka, like the Śrāvakas who speak of the World's First Dharma, it cannot be said to transform in one instant. Therefore, it is not discussed here. This is discussed in terms of the 'Part of Conformity to Determination' (shùn jué zé fēn, referring to the part of conformity to determination) for the transformation of the Three Vehicles. If it is discussed in terms of the transformation of the 'Part of Liberation', as the seventh Vibhasa says, 'Transforming the Śrāvaka lineage in accordance with the Part of Liberation, arising with the Pratyekabuddha and Buddha lineages in accordance with the Part of Liberation; transforming the Pratyekabuddha lineage in accordance with the Part of Liberation, arising with the Śrāvaka and Buddha lineages in accordance with the Part of Liberation. If the Buddha lineage has already arisen in accordance with the Part of Liberation, then it cannot be transformed, because it is extremely powerful.'

頗有此生至殖在人三洲者。此即第五明修果久近。

論曰至三位亦爾者。釋上三句　言順解脫分者。解脫謂涅槃。此善順彼名順解脫分。譬如種田。第一下種。第二苗成。第三結實。三位不同。修道亦爾。第一生身入法性。即種順解脫分善。第二產生就。即成就順抉擇分善根。第三生得解脫。即能證得解脫涅槃。故言三位亦爾。此據聲聞。極疾三生修加行。極遲六十劫修加行。若據獨覺。極疾四生修加行。極遲百劫修加行。若據佛乘。極疾三無數劫．及餘九十一劫修加行。若極遲者三無數劫。及余百劫修加行。此據修者。余即不定。或有殖已經一劫或無量劫不能入聖。佛時長故其根最利。聲聞三生。獨覺四生。非要利根亦通鈍根。若極利者要經六十。要經百劫。故婆沙三十一云。非如聲聞極利根者經六十劫。非如獨覺極利根者唯經百劫。余文可知。正理六十一破云。極疾三生方得解脫。謂初生殖順解脫分。次產生熟。第三生起順抉擇分即入聖道。若謂第二生起順抉擇分。第三生入聖乃至得解脫。彼言便與前說相違。謂依根本地起暖等者。彼必於此生得入見諦。或彼應許極速二生。謂第二生依根本地起暖等者。彼于理生必入聖道得解脫故　俱舍師救云。若依根本起暖等者。必於前生已起暖等故不與彼前文相違。亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：有些人此生就到達了在人道三洲（指東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）播種善根的階段。這說明第五種明修果的時間長短。

論中說『乃至三位也是這樣』，這是解釋上面三句話。『順解脫分』的意思是，解脫指的是涅槃（Nirvana）。這種善行順應涅槃，所以叫做順解脫分。比如種田，第一步是下種子，第二步是苗長成，第三步是結果實。這三個階段不同，修道也是這樣。第一階段是生身進入法性，也就是種下順解脫分的善根；第二階段是產生成就，也就是成就順抉擇分的善根；第三階段是獲得解脫，也就是能夠證得解脫涅槃。所以說『三位也是這樣』。這是根據聲聞（Śrāvaka）來說的，最快三生修加行，最慢六十劫修加行。如果是根據獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）來說，最快四生修加行，最慢一百劫修加行。如果是根據佛乘（Buddhayāna）來說，最快三個無數劫以及另外九十一劫修加行，最慢是三個無數劫以及另外一百劫修加行。這是根據修行者來說的，其餘情況就不確定了。有的人播種善根已經一劫或者無量劫，也不能進入聖道。佛（Buddha）的時代長，所以根器最利。聲聞三生，獨覺四生，不一定需要利根，也包括鈍根。如果根器最利，也要經過六十劫，也要經過一百劫。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第三十一卷說，不像聲聞那樣根器最利的人，要經過六十劫；不像獨覺那樣根器最利的人，只需要經過一百劫。其餘的文字可以自己理解。《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第六十一卷反駁說，最快三生才能得到解脫，第一生播種順解脫分，第二產生熟，第三生起順抉擇分，就進入聖道。如果說第二生起順抉擇分，第三生進入聖道乃至得到解脫，這種說法就和前面的說法相違背。所謂依靠根本地起暖等，那他一定是在這一生得到見諦（Darśana-satya）。或者他應該允許最快兩生，所謂第二生依靠根本地起暖等，那他在理應必然進入聖道得到解脫。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośa）辯解說，如果依靠根本地起暖等，那他一定在前生已經起暖等，所以不和前面的文字相違背。也是

【English Translation】 English version: Some beings in this life reach the stage of planting roots of virtue in the three continents of the human realm (referring to Pūrvavideha, Jambudvīpa, and Aparagodānīya). This explains the fifth point: the duration of cultivating the fruit of clear understanding.

The treatise states, 'Even the three stages are the same,' which explains the previous three sentences. 'Following the part of liberation' (anuloma-nirvāṇa-bhāgīya) means that liberation refers to Nirvana. This virtue accords with Nirvana, so it is called 'following the part of liberation.' For example, in farming, the first step is sowing seeds, the second step is the growth of seedlings, and the third step is bearing fruit. These three stages are different, and so is the path of cultivation. The first stage is entering the Dharma-nature with the physical body, which is planting the roots of virtue that follow the part of liberation. The second stage is generation and accomplishment, which is accomplishing the roots of virtue that follow the part of determination. The third stage is attaining liberation, which is being able to realize liberation and Nirvana. Therefore, it is said that 'the three stages are the same.' This is according to the Śrāvakas. The fastest is three lifetimes of practicing application, and the slowest is sixty kalpas of practicing application. If it is according to the Pratyekabuddhas, the fastest is four lifetimes of practicing application, and the slowest is one hundred kalpas of practicing application. If it is according to the Buddhayāna, the fastest is three asamkhyeya-kalpas and another ninety-one kalpas of practicing application, and the slowest is three asamkhyeya-kalpas and another one hundred kalpas of practicing application. This is according to the practitioners; the other situations are uncertain. Some have planted roots of virtue for one kalpa or countless kalpas and still cannot enter the path of the sages. The Buddha's era was long, so the faculties were the sharpest. Śrāvakas take three lifetimes, and Pratyekabuddhas take four lifetimes; it does not necessarily require sharp faculties, but also includes dull faculties. If the faculties are the sharpest, it still requires sixty kalpas, and it still requires one hundred kalpas. Therefore, the thirty-first volume of the Vibhasa states that those who are not as sharp as the Śrāvakas require sixty kalpas; those who are not as sharp as the Pratyekabuddhas only require one hundred kalpas. The rest of the text can be understood on your own. The sixty-first volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra refutes that the fastest way to attain liberation is in three lifetimes: the first lifetime plants the part of liberation, the second lifetime matures, and the third lifetime arises the part of determination, and then enters the path of the sages. If it is said that the second lifetime arises the part of determination, and the third lifetime enters the path of the sages and attains liberation, then this statement contradicts the previous statement. The so-called relying on the fundamental ground to arise warmth, etc., then he must have attained the vision of truth (Darśana-satya) in this lifetime. Or he should allow the fastest two lifetimes, the so-called second lifetime relying on the fundamental ground to arise warmth, etc., then he should necessarily enter the path of the sages and attain liberation. The Abhidharmakośa defends that if relying on the fundamental ground to arise warmth, etc., then he must have already arisen warmth, etc., in the previous lifetime, so it does not contradict the previous text. Also

復無有減三生失。

傳說如是至順解脫分者。釋第三句。明體。毗婆沙師傳說如是。順解脫分唯聞．思所成。非生得善以彼劣故。非修所成唯欲界故　通三業為體。雖就最勝唯是聞．思相應意業。而此聞．思慧相應思愿攝。起身．語亦得名為順解脫分。如施一食持一戒等。深厭生死深樂解脫。願力所持便名種殖順解脫分。愿以信為體。或勝解為體。或欲為體。即思相應愿也。準此論文。加行善根能發身．語。

殖順解脫分至亦遇獨覺者。釋第四句。明處。殖順解脫分唯人三洲。餘三惡趣．天趣．北洲。厭離．般若如應無故。三惡趣雖有厭離以厭苦故。無勝般若以慧劣故。天趣雖有勝般若。無深厭離以苦輕故。北洲無深厭離以苦輕故。無勝般若以慧劣故。余文可知。又正理云。有佛出世。若無佛時。俱能種殖順解脫分。

已因便說至謂見緣事別者。此下大文第二約三道辨人。就中。一明三道建立。二明七種聖人。三明學．無學滿　就明三道建立中。一約現觀位明。二約修無學道　就約現觀位明中。一明十六心。二依位建立　就明十六心中。一正明十六心。二明十六依地。三明忍智次第。四明見．修道別　此即第一正明十六心也。

論曰至如果花樹者。釋初三句。舉后等流果即苦法智　樹生花果

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：而且不會有減少三善道果報，失去三善道的情況。

『傳說如是至順解脫分者』，解釋第三句，闡明其體性。毗婆沙師的傳說是這樣的：順解脫分僅僅由聽聞和思惟所成就，不是與生俱來的善法，因為它比較低劣；也不是由修習所成就，因為它只存在於欲界。它的體性貫通身、口、意三業。雖然就最殊勝的情況而言，它只是與聽聞、思惟相應的意業，而這種與聽聞、思惟的智慧相應的思愿所攝持，起身、語也可以被稱作順解脫分。例如，佈施一食、持守一戒等等，如果對生死深感厭惡，對解脫深感欣樂，被這種願力所支援，便可稱作種殖順解脫分。這種愿以信為體，或者以勝解為體，或者以欲為體，也就是與思惟相應的愿。根據這段論文，加行善根能夠引發身、語。

『殖順解脫分至亦遇獨覺者』，解釋第四句，闡明其處所。種殖順解脫分只存在於人道的三洲。其餘的三惡趣、天趣、北俱盧洲，因為沒有厭離和般若智慧，所以不具備種殖順解脫分的條件。三惡趣雖然有厭離心，但那是由於厭惡痛苦；沒有殊勝的般若智慧，因為他們的智慧低劣。天趣雖然有殊勝的般若智慧，但沒有深刻的厭離心，因為他們所受的痛苦輕微。北俱盧洲既沒有深刻的厭離心，因為他們所受的痛苦輕微；也沒有殊勝的般若智慧，因為他們的智慧低劣。其餘文句的意思可以類推得知。另外，《正理》中說，無論是有佛出世，還是沒有佛出世的時候，都能夠種殖順解脫分。

『已因便說至謂見緣事別者』，以下是第二大段，從三道的角度來辨別人。其中，一、闡明三道的建立；二、闡明七種聖人；三、闡明有學、無學的圓滿。在闡明三道的建立中，一、從現觀位的角度來闡明；二、從修道和無學道的角度來闡明。在從現觀位的角度來闡明中，一、闡明十六心；二、依據各個位次來建立。在闡明十六心中，一、正式闡明十六心；二、闡明十六心所依的土地；三、闡明忍智的次第；四、闡明見道和修道的區別。這裡是第一部分，正式闡明十六心。

論中說『論曰至如果花樹者』，解釋最初的三句，舉出後面的等流果，也就是苦法智。就像樹木生長出花朵和果實一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, there will be no loss of the three wholesome realms or the fruits thereof.

'Tradition says, 'to the part conforming to liberation,'' explains the third sentence, clarifying its nature. The tradition of the Vibhasha masters is as follows: the part conforming to liberation is achieved only through hearing and thinking; it is not an innate wholesome quality because it is inferior; nor is it achieved through cultivation because it exists only in the desire realm. Its nature pervades the three karmas of body, speech, and mind. Although, in the most excellent case, it is only the mental karma corresponding to hearing and thinking, and is encompassed by the aspiration corresponding to the wisdom of hearing and thinking, the actions of body and speech can also be called the part conforming to liberation. For example, offering a meal, upholding a precept, etc., if one deeply loathes samsara and deeply delights in liberation, supported by this power of aspiration, it can be called planting the part conforming to liberation. This aspiration takes faith as its essence, or conviction as its essence, or desire as its essence, which is the aspiration corresponding to thinking. According to this treatise, the preliminary wholesome roots can give rise to body and speech.

'Planting the part conforming to liberation, up to also encountering a Pratyekabuddha,' explains the fourth sentence, clarifying its location. Planting the part conforming to liberation exists only in the three continents of the human realm. The remaining three evil realms, the heavenly realms, and Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), do not have the conditions for planting the part conforming to liberation because they lack aversion and prajna (wisdom) as appropriate. Although the three evil realms have aversion, it is due to loathing suffering; they do not have superior prajna because their wisdom is inferior. Although the heavenly realms have superior prajna, they do not have deep aversion because their suffering is light. Uttarakuru has neither deep aversion because their suffering is light, nor superior prajna because their wisdom is inferior. The meaning of the remaining sentences can be inferred. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakosha says that whether a Buddha appears in the world or not, one can plant the part conforming to liberation.

'Having spoken of the cause, then speaking of... distinguishing the objects of perception,' the following is the second major section, distinguishing people from the perspective of the three paths. Among them, 1. Explaining the establishment of the three paths; 2. Explaining the seven types of noble ones; 3. Explaining the fulfillment of the learners and non-learners. In explaining the establishment of the three paths, 1. Explaining from the perspective of the stage of direct realization; 2. Explaining from the perspective of the paths of cultivation and non-learning. In explaining from the perspective of the stage of direct realization, 1. Explaining the sixteen moments of mind; 2. Establishing based on the various stages. In explaining the sixteen moments of mind, 1. Formally explaining the sixteen moments of mind; 2. Explaining the grounds on which the sixteen moments of mind rely; 3. Explaining the sequence of forbearance and wisdom; 4. Explaining the difference between the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. This is the first part, formally explaining the sixteen moments of mind.

The treatise says, 'The treatise says... like a flowering tree,' explaining the first three sentences, citing the subsequent result of outflow, which is the knowledge of suffering in the realm of desire. Just as trees grow flowers and fruits.

名花果樹。忍生法智名法智忍。余文可知。

即此名入至如燈．及生相者。釋忍異名。即此苦忍名入正性離生。亦複名入正性決定。此忍初入故得二名。經言正性。所謂涅槃。或目聖道。生謂煩惱。故婆沙第三云。複次見所斷惑。令諸有情墮諸惡趣。受諸劇苦。譬如生食久在身中。能作種種極苦惱事。是故此惑說名為生。見道能滅故名離生。複次有身見等剛強難伏。如狩龍戾。故說名生。見道能滅故名離生(廣如彼說)或謂善根未熟名生。故婆沙云。複次一切煩惱或諸貪愛。能令善根不得成就。及令諸有潤令起過皆名為生。見道起已摧彼勢力。令不復為增上生過。由此見道獨名離生(廣如彼說)　能決趣涅槃。謂正性之決定　或決了諦相。謂正性即決定。故諸聖道得決定名。苦法智忍初至此位說名為入。此忍生已至現在位得聖者名。此忍在未來能捨異生性。謂許此忍。未來生時。有此能捨異生性用。非余法能。如燈．及生相未來有用。燈有除闇用令闇不至。生相有生法用。故婆沙云。謂一切法能于未來有作用者總有三類。一者內法如苦法忍。二者外法如日等光明。三者內．外法如諸生相。

有餘師說至舍異生性者。有餘師說。世第一法獨能捨異生性。

此義不然至世間法故者。難。此義不然。彼此

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：名花果樹（著名的花卉和果樹）。忍生法智名法智忍（通過忍耐而產生的對法的智慧，被稱為法智忍）。其餘的文字可以自行理解。

即此名入至如燈．及生相者（這就是所謂的『入』，就像燈和生相一樣）。解釋忍的不同的名稱。即此苦忍名入正性離生（這種苦忍被稱為『入正性離生』），也叫做入正性決定（進入正確的性質的決定）。這種忍耐是最初的進入，所以得到了這兩個名稱。經文里說的『正性』，指的是涅槃（寂滅的境界），或者指的是聖道（通往解脫的道路）。『生』指的是煩惱。所以《婆沙論》第三卷說：『再者，見所斷惑（通過見道所斷除的迷惑），讓有情眾生墮入惡趣（不好的去處），遭受各種劇烈的痛苦，就像生食長時間留在身體里，會產生各種極度痛苦的事情。因此，這種迷惑被稱為『生』。見道能夠滅除它，所以叫做『離生』。』再者，有身見等（有身見等等）剛強難以馴服，像兇猛的獵龍一樣，所以叫做『生』。見道能夠滅除它，所以叫做『離生』（詳細的解釋可以參考《婆沙論》）。或者說，善根沒有成熟叫做『生』。所以《婆沙論》說：『再者，一切煩惱或者各種貪愛，能夠讓善根無法成就，以及讓各種有（存在）滋潤而產生過患，都叫做『生』。見道生起之後，摧毀它們的力量，讓它們不再成為增長的過患。因此，見道獨自被稱為『離生』（詳細的解釋可以參考《婆沙論》）。』能決定趨向涅槃，叫做正性的決定。或者決斷了解真諦的相狀，叫做正性即決定。所以各種聖道得到決定的名稱。苦法智忍最初到達這個位置，被稱為『入』。這種忍耐產生之後，到達現在的階段，得到聖者的名稱。這種忍耐在未來能夠捨棄異生性（不同於聖人的狀態），也就是說，允許這種忍耐在未來產生時，具有這種能夠捨棄異生性的作用，而不是其他法能夠做到的。就像燈和生相在未來有用處一樣。燈有去除黑暗的作用，讓黑暗無法到達。生相有產生法的作用。所以《婆沙論》說：『所謂一切法能夠在未來有作用的，總共有三種：一是內法，如苦法忍；二是外法，如太陽等光明；三是內外法，如各種生相。』

有餘師說至舍異生性者（有些論師說，乃至捨棄異生性的人）。有些論師說，世第一法（世間最高的法）獨自能夠捨棄異生性。

此義不然至世間法故者（這個說法是不對的，乃至世間法的原因）。反駁。這個說法是不對的，彼此

【English Translation】 English version: 'Famous flowers and fruit trees.' 'Endurance-born Dharma-wisdom' is called 'Dharma-wisdom Endurance.' The remaining text can be understood on its own.

'That which is called 'entry,' like a lamp and the characteristic of birth.' This explains the different names of endurance. This 'suffering endurance' is called 'entry into the correctness of the nature of detachment from birth,' and is also called 'entry into the certainty of the correctness of nature.' This endurance is the initial entry, so it obtains these two names. The 'correctness of nature' mentioned in the scriptures refers to Nirvana (the state of extinction), or it refers to the Noble Path (the path to liberation). 'Birth' refers to afflictions. Therefore, the third volume of the Vibhasa states: 'Furthermore, the afflictions severed by the path of seeing cause sentient beings to fall into evil destinies, enduring various intense sufferings, just as raw food remains in the body for a long time, causing various extremely painful things. Therefore, these afflictions are called 'birth.' The path of seeing can extinguish them, so it is called 'detachment from birth.'' Furthermore, views such as the view of a self are rigid and difficult to subdue, like a fierce hunting dragon, so they are called 'birth.' The path of seeing can extinguish them, so it is called 'detachment from birth' (a detailed explanation can be found in the Vibhasa). Or it is said that immature roots of goodness are called 'birth.' Therefore, the Vibhasa states: 'Furthermore, all afflictions or various attachments can prevent the accomplishment of roots of goodness, and cause various existences to be nourished and produce faults, all of which are called 'birth.' After the path of seeing arises, it destroys their power, preventing them from becoming causes of increasing faults. Therefore, the path of seeing alone is called 'detachment from birth' (a detailed explanation can be found in the Vibhasa).' Being able to decisively move towards Nirvana is called the certainty of the correctness of nature. Or decisively understanding the characteristics of truth is called the correctness of nature, which is certainty. Therefore, the various Noble Paths obtain the name of certainty. 'Suffering Dharma-wisdom Endurance' initially arriving at this position is called 'entry.' After this endurance arises, arriving at the present stage, it obtains the name of a sage. This endurance in the future can abandon the nature of an ordinary being, that is, allowing this endurance to have the function of abandoning the nature of an ordinary being when it arises in the future, which other dharmas cannot do. Just like a lamp and the characteristic of birth are useful in the future. A lamp has the function of removing darkness, preventing darkness from arriving. The characteristic of birth has the function of producing dharmas. Therefore, the Vibhasa states: 'That is to say, all dharmas that can have a function in the future are generally of three types: first, internal dharmas, such as 'Suffering Dharma-wisdom Endurance'; second, external dharmas, such as the light of the sun; third, internal and external dharmas, such as various characteristics of birth.'

'Some teachers say, up to abandoning the nature of an ordinary being.' Some teachers say that the highest mundane dharma alone can abandon the nature of an ordinary being.

'This meaning is not so, up to the reason of mundane dharma.' Refutation. This meaning is not so, each other

同名世間法故。如何世間法能捨世間法。

性相違故至能害怨命者。有餘師釋。雖世第一與異生性同是世間。性相違故能捨異生性。亦無有失。如上怨肩能害怨命。二人雖復同是世間。性相違故。一能害怨。

有餘師說至解脫道故者。有餘師說。二相資共舍異生性。世第一法如似無間道。苦法智忍如似解脫道。故婆沙第三云。有餘師言世第一法．苦法智忍。更互相資舍異生性。謂世第一法與異生性雖性相違。而力劣故不能獨舍。由此引生苦法智忍。共相助力舍異生性。譬如羸人依因健者更相助力能伏怨家。由此因緣。世第一法如無間道。苦法智忍如解脫道。舍異生性。是故世第一法與異生性。成就．得俱滅。苦法智忍與異生性。不成就．得俱生。俱舍．婆沙皆有三說。若說苦法智忍舍。如二形生舍戒。若世第一舍如命終舍戒。若世第一法．及苦法忍舍相資共舍。各據一義並不相違。

此忍無間至遍流后故者。釋第四句。前第三句無漏之言。遍流至后十五心故。余文可知。

如緣欲界至名苦類智忍者。釋第五．第六句。

最初證知至而證境故者。釋法類智。如文可知。

如緣苦諦至聖諦現觀者。釋第七．第八．第九．第十句。現觀之名理通見．修。見道猛利偏得其名　問上．下八

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『同名世間法故。如何世間法能捨世間法？』因為它們都屬於『世間法』。那麼，如何用一種世間法來捨棄另一種世間法呢？

『性相違故至能害怨命者。有餘師釋。雖世第一與異生性同是世間。性相違故能捨異生性。亦無有失。如上怨肩能害怨命。二人雖復同是世間。性相違故。一能害怨。』因為它們的性質相反，就像能傷害敵人性命的人一樣。有些論師解釋說，雖然『世第一法』（laukika-agradharma，世間最高法）和『異生性』（prthag-jana-dharma，凡夫之性）都屬於世間法，但因為它們的性質相反，所以『世第一法』能夠捨棄『異生性』，這並沒有什麼不妥。就像前面所說的，怨肩能夠傷害怨命。這兩個人雖然都屬於世間，但因為他們的性質相反，所以一個能夠傷害另一個。

『有餘師說至解脫道故者。有餘師說。二相資共舍異生性。世第一法如似無間道。苦法智忍如似解脫道。故婆沙第三云。有餘師言世第一法．苦法智忍。更互相資舍異生性。謂世第一法與異生性雖性相違。而力劣故不能獨舍。由此引生苦法智忍。共相助力舍異生性。譬如羸人依因健者更相助力能伏怨家。由此因緣。世第一法如無間道。苦法智忍如解脫道。舍異生性。是故世第一法與異生性。成就．得俱滅。苦法智忍與異生性。不成就．得俱生。俱舍．婆沙皆有三說。若說苦法智忍舍。如二形生舍戒。若世第一舍如命終舍戒。若世第一法．及苦法忍舍相資共舍。各據一義並不相違。』有些論師說，『世第一法』和『苦法智忍』（duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti，對苦諦的法智忍）相互輔助，共同捨棄『異生性』。『世第一法』就像『無間道』（anantarya-marga，無間道），『苦法智忍』就像『解脫道』（vimukti-marga，解脫道）。因此，《大毗婆沙論》第三卷說，有些論師認為，『世第一法』和『苦法智忍』相互資助，共同捨棄『異生性』。也就是說，雖然『世第一法』與『異生性』的性質相反，但因為力量弱小，所以不能獨自捨棄『異生性』。因此，它引發了『苦法智忍』，共同幫助捨棄『異生性』。就像虛弱的人依靠強壯的人相互幫助，才能制服仇敵一樣。因為這個原因，『世第一法』就像『無間道』，『苦法智忍』就像『解脫道』，捨棄『異生性』。因此，『世第一法』與『異生性』，是成就和獲得同時滅盡。『苦法智忍』與『異生性』，是不成就和獲得同時生起。俱舍論和毗婆沙論都有三種說法。如果說是『苦法智忍』捨棄，就像雙性人出生時捨棄戒律一樣。如果是『世第一法』捨棄，就像臨終時捨棄戒律一樣。如果是『世第一法』和『苦法忍』相互資助共同捨棄，那麼每種說法都依據一個角度，並不互相矛盾。

『此忍無間至遍流后故者。釋第四句。前第三句無漏之言。遍流至后十五心故。余文可知。』『此忍無間至遍流后故者』，解釋第四句。前面第三句的『無漏』（anasrava，無煩惱）一詞，普遍流佈到後面的十五個心念中。其餘的文字可以理解。

『如緣欲界至名苦類智忍者。釋第五．第六句。』『如緣欲界至名苦類智忍者』，解釋第五、第六句。

『最初證知至而證境故者。釋法類智。如文可知。』『最初證知至而證境故者』，解釋『法類智』（dharma-anvaya-jnana，對法之類智）。如文字所說，可以理解。

『如緣苦諦至聖諦現觀者。釋第七．第八．第九．第十句。現觀之名理通見．修。見道猛利偏得其名　問上．下八』『如緣苦諦至聖諦現觀者』，解釋第七、第八、第九、第十句。『現觀』（abhisamaya，現觀）這個名稱，從道理上來說，貫通見道和修道。見道最為猛利，所以偏得這個名稱。問：上面和下面的八

【English Translation】 English version 『同名世間法故。如何世間法能捨世間法？』『Because they are both worldly dharmas. How can one worldly dharma abandon another worldly dharma?』

『性相違故至能害怨命者。有餘師釋。雖世第一與異生性同是世間。性相違故能捨異生性。亦無有失。如上怨肩能害怨命。二人雖復同是世間。性相違故。一能害怨。』『Because their natures are contradictory, like one who can harm the life of an enemy. Some teachers explain that although 『laukika-agradharma』 (世第一法, the highest worldly dharma) and 『prthag-jana-dharma』 (異生性, the nature of ordinary beings) are both worldly, because their natures are contradictory, 『laukika-agradharma』 can abandon 『prthag-jana-dharma』 without any fault. Just as mentioned above, an enemy shoulder can harm the life of an enemy. Although both are worldly, because their natures are contradictory, one can harm the other.』

『有餘師說至解脫道故者。有餘師說。二相資共舍異生性。世第一法如似無間道。苦法智忍如似解脫道。故婆沙第三云。有餘師言世第一法．苦法智忍。更互相資舍異生性。謂世第一法與異生性雖性相違。而力劣故不能獨舍。由此引生苦法智忍。共相助力舍異生性。譬如羸人依因健者更相助力能伏怨家。由此因緣。世第一法如無間道。苦法智忍如解脫道。舍異生性。是故世第一法與異生性。成就．得俱滅。苦法智忍與異生性。不成就．得俱生。俱舍．婆沙皆有三說。若說苦法智忍舍。如二形生舍戒。若世第一舍如命終舍戒。若世第一法．及苦法忍舍相資共舍。各據一義並不相違。』『Some teachers say that 『laukika-agradharma』 and 『duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』 (苦法智忍, forbearance of the knowledge of dharma regarding suffering) mutually assist each other in abandoning 『prthag-jana-dharma』. 『Laukika-agradharma』 is like 『anantarya-marga』 (無間道, the path of immediate consequence), and 『duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』 is like 『vimukti-marga』 (解脫道, the path of liberation). Therefore, the third volume of the Mahavibhasa says that some teachers believe that 『laukika-agradharma』 and 『duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』 mutually support each other in abandoning 『prthag-jana-dharma』. That is, although 『laukika-agradharma』 and 『prthag-jana-dharma』 are contradictory in nature, because its power is weak, it cannot abandon 『prthag-jana-dharma』 alone. Therefore, it gives rise to 『duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』, which helps to abandon 『prthag-jana-dharma』 together. It is like a weak person relying on a strong person to help each other to subdue an enemy. For this reason, 『laukika-agradharma』 is like 『anantarya-marga』, and 『duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』 is like 『vimukti-marga』, abandoning 『prthag-jana-dharma』. Therefore, 『laukika-agradharma』 and 『prthag-jana-dharma』 are accomplished and obtained, both ceasing simultaneously. 『Duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』 and 『prthag-jana-dharma』 are not accomplished and obtained, both arising simultaneously. Both the Abhidharmakosa and the Mahavibhasa have three explanations. If it is said that 『duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti』 abandons, it is like a hermaphrodite abandoning precepts at birth. If 『laukika-agradharma』 abandons, it is like abandoning precepts at the end of life. If 『laukika-agradharma』 and 『duhkha-ksanti』 mutually assist each other in abandoning, then each statement is based on one perspective and does not contradict each other.』

『此忍無間至遍流后故者。釋第四句。前第三句無漏之言。遍流至后十五心故。余文可知。』『此忍無間至遍流后故者』, explains the fourth sentence. The word 『anasrava』 (無漏, without outflows) in the third sentence above pervades the fifteen subsequent moments of consciousness. The rest of the text is understandable.

『如緣欲界至名苦類智忍者。釋第五．第六句。』『如緣欲界至名苦類智忍者』, explains the fifth and sixth sentences.

『最初證知至而證境故者。釋法類智。如文可知。』『最初證知至而證境故者』, explains 『dharma-anvaya-jnana』 (法類智, knowledge of dharma by analogy). As the text says, it is understandable.

『如緣苦諦至聖諦現觀者。釋第七．第八．第九．第十句。現觀之名理通見．修。見道猛利偏得其名　問上．下八』『如緣苦諦至聖諦現觀者』, explains the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth sentences. The name 『abhisamaya』 (現觀, direct realization) in principle encompasses both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. The path of seeing is the most intense, so it particularly gets this name. Question: The upper and lower eight

諦何故先觀下苦。后合觀上苦。乃至先觀下道。后合觀上道　解云婆沙七十九一解云。欲界四諦非定地攝。故先觀。色．無色界四諦俱定地攝故后合觀　廣如彼說。

此中餘部至唯頓現觀者。此下釋后兩句。先敘異計。此中有餘即大眾部等。有作是言。於四諦中　一剎那心唯頓現觀。

然彼意趣至名事現觀者。說一切有部徴。然彼餘部所有意趣應更推尋。彼現觀言無差別故。不知定約何現觀說。詳諸現觀總有三種。謂見．緣．事。唯無漏慧于諸諦境。現見分明名見現觀　心．心所法是能緣。境是所緣。心．心所法同一所緣名緣現觀。或心．心所取境分明與現觀同名緣現觀　事謂事業。即是遍知．永斷．作證．修習四種事業。謂諸能緣．及俱有法同一事業名事現觀。戒謂隨轉戒。生相等等住．異．滅。俱有因故。泛明現觀有斯三種。故正理云。如是應知非相應法唯一現觀。除慧所餘心．心所法有二現觀。唯無漏慧具足有三。

見苦諦時至謂斷證修者。顯三現觀四諦通局。見苦諦時于苦聖諦具三現觀。由見苦故有見現觀。由緣苦故有緣現觀。由知苦故有事現觀。即見苦時于餘三諦唯事現觀。謂斷．證．修。見苦之時斷煩惱故即名斷集。見苦之時得擇滅故即名證滅。證有二種。一見證。二得證。此是得證

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：為什麼先觀察地獄的苦諦（Dukkha Satya，痛苦的真諦），然後合併觀察上界的苦諦？乃至為什麼先觀察地獄的道諦（Marga Satya，道的真諦），然後合併觀察上界的道諦？解釋說，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第七十九卷第一種解釋說，欲界的四諦不是禪定地所攝，所以先觀察。色界和無色界的四諦都是禪定地所攝，所以之後合併觀察。詳細內容如彼論所說。

從『此中餘部至唯頓現觀者』開始，解釋後面兩句。首先敘述不同的觀點。這裡說的『餘部』，即大眾部等。他們認為，對於四諦，一個剎那的心只能頓然現觀。

從『然彼意趣至名事現觀者』開始，這是說一切有部的質疑。然而，那些其他部派的意趣應該進一步推敲。因為他們所說的『現觀』沒有差別，不知道具體指的是哪種現觀。詳細來說，現觀總共有三種，即見現觀、緣現觀和事現觀。只有無漏智慧對於諸諦的境界，能夠清楚地現見，這叫做見現觀。心和心所法是能緣，境界是所緣。心和心所法具有相同的所緣，這叫做緣現觀。或者說，心和心所法取境分明，與現觀相同，也叫做緣現觀。事，指的是事業，即是遍知、永斷、作證、修習四種事業。也就是說，諸能緣以及俱有的法具有相同的事業，這叫做事現觀。戒，指的是隨轉戒。生、相、等等，住、異、滅，因為有俱有的因。泛泛地說明現觀有這三種。所以《正理》中說：『應當知道，非相應法只有一種現觀。』除了智慧，其餘的心和心所法有兩種現觀。只有無漏智慧才具足三種現觀。

從『見苦諦時至謂斷證修者』開始，顯示三種現觀在四諦中的普遍性和侷限性。在見苦諦時，對於苦聖諦具足三種現觀。因為見到苦，所以有見現觀。因為緣于苦，所以有緣現觀。因為知曉苦，所以有事現觀。也就是說，在見苦時，對於其餘的三諦只有事現觀，即斷、證、修。見苦之時斷煩惱，就叫做斷集（Samudaya，集諦，苦的根源）。見苦之時得到擇滅，就叫做證滅（Nirodha，滅諦，苦的止息）。證有兩種，一是見證，二是得證。這裡說的是得證。

【English Translation】 English version: Why do we first contemplate the lower realm's Dukkha Satya (Truth of Suffering), and then combine and contemplate the upper realm's Dukkha Satya? And why do we first contemplate the lower realm's Marga Satya (Truth of the Path), and then combine and contemplate the upper realm's Marga Satya? The explanation is that, according to the first explanation in Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) Volume 79, the Four Noble Truths of the desire realm are not included in the meditative states, so they are contemplated first. The Four Noble Truths of the form and formless realms are all included in the meditative states, so they are combined and contemplated later. The details are as described in that treatise.

Starting from 'Among these, the other schools to only sudden Abhisamaya (direct realization)', the following explains the latter two sentences. First, it narrates different views. The 'other schools' mentioned here refer to the Mahasanghika school, etc. They believe that, regarding the Four Noble Truths, a single moment of mind can only have a sudden Abhisamaya.

Starting from 'However, their intention to the name of event Abhisamaya', this is the Sarvastivada school's questioning. However, the intention of those other schools should be further examined. Because their 'Abhisamaya' is not differentiated, it is not known which specific Abhisamaya they are referring to. In detail, there are three types of Abhisamaya in total, namely, visual Abhisamaya, relational Abhisamaya, and event Abhisamaya. Only non-outflow wisdom can clearly see the realms of the Truths, which is called visual Abhisamaya. Mind and mental factors are the perceivers, and the realm is the perceived. Mind and mental factors have the same perceived object, which is called relational Abhisamaya. Or, mind and mental factors clearly grasp the realm, which is the same as Abhisamaya, and is also called relational Abhisamaya. Event refers to the activities, which are the four activities of pervasive knowledge, permanent cessation, realization, and cultivation. That is to say, the perceivers and the co-existent dharmas have the same activity, which is called event Abhisamaya. Sila (precepts) refers to the following precepts. Birth, characteristics, etc., duration, change, and cessation, because there are co-existent causes. Generally speaking, there are these three types of Abhisamaya. Therefore, the Nyaya-anusara-sastra says: 'It should be known that non-associated dharmas have only one type of Abhisamaya.' Except for wisdom, the remaining mind and mental factors have two types of Abhisamaya. Only non-outflow wisdom fully possesses three types of Abhisamaya.

Starting from 'When seeing the Truth of Suffering to the so-called cessation, realization, and cultivation', it shows the universality and limitations of the three types of Abhisamaya in the Four Noble Truths. When seeing the Truth of Suffering, one fully possesses three types of Abhisamaya for the Dukkha Satya. Because one sees suffering, there is visual Abhisamaya. Because one relates to suffering, there is relational Abhisamaya. Because one knows suffering, there is event Abhisamaya. That is to say, when seeing suffering, one only has event Abhisamaya for the remaining three Truths, namely, cessation, realization, and cultivation. When seeing suffering, ceasing afflictions is called ceasing Samudaya (Truth of the Origin of Suffering). When seeing suffering, obtaining Nirodha (Truth of the Cessation of Suffering) is called realizing Nirodha. There are two types of realization, one is visual realization, and the other is obtained realization. Here, it refers to obtained realization.

。見苦之時無漏現前即名修道。非見餘三無見現觀。非緣餘三無緣現觀　問論說一切法皆應遍知。諸有漏法皆應永斷。一切善法皆應作證。善有為法皆應修習。何故經云知苦．斷集．證滅．修道　解云論說盡理。經依別意。故婆沙七十九有一師云。脅尊者言世尊唯說應遍知苦。或謂唯苦是應遍知。故對法中說一切法是所遍知。世尊唯說集應永斷。或謂唯是集應永斷。故對法中說有漏法皆應永斷。世尊唯說滅應作證。或謂唯滅是應作證。故對法中依得作證說諸善法皆應作證。世尊唯說道應修習。或謂唯道是唯應修習。故對法中總說一切善有為法皆應修習。此則顯示經義不了。阿毗達磨是了義說。

若諸諦中至有事現觀故者。牒計破。若諸諦中約見現觀說頓現觀。理必不然。以四諦中十六行相各差別故。若言以一無我行相。總見四諦名頓現觀。則不應用苦等行相見苦諦等。如是便與契經相違　如契經下．舉所違經。經別說行觀於四諦。明行非一。思惟之言皆顯作意。舉別作意取俱擇法。此諸行相即是無漏作意相應擇法。若言此經說修道位以諸行相別觀諦者。此亦不然。如見道中次第觀諦。修道位中亦次第觀。若見道中頓現觀諦者。應修道位亦有頓觀。若彼復謂見一諦時。于余諦中得自在故說頓現觀。若作此救於我道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：見到苦諦時，無漏智慧現前，就叫做修道。不是見到其餘三諦時才算見現觀，也不是緣于其餘三諦才算緣現觀。問：論典中說一切法都應該普遍知曉，所有有漏法都應該永遠斷除，一切善法都應該作證，善的有為法都應該修習。為什麼經中卻說知苦、斷集、證滅、修道呢？答：論典說的是究竟的道理，經典是依據特別的含義。所以《婆沙論》第七十九卷中有一位論師說，脅尊者認為世尊只說應該普遍知曉苦，或者認為只有苦是應該普遍知曉的。所以在《對法論》中說一切法都是所應該普遍知曉的。世尊只說集應該永遠斷除，或者認為只有集是應該永遠斷除的。所以在《對法論》中說有漏法都應該永遠斷除。世尊只說滅應該作證，或者認為只有滅是應該作證的。所以在《對法論》中依據獲得作證來說諸善法都應該作證。世尊只說應該修習道，或者認為只有道是唯一應該修習的。所以在《對法論》中總說一切善的有為法都應該修習。這說明經典的含義是不究竟的，阿毗達磨是究竟的說法。如果諸諦中乃至有事現觀的緣故，這是揭示並破斥一種觀點。如果在諸諦中，依據見現觀來說頓現觀，道理一定是不成立的。因為四諦中的十六行相各有差別。如果說用一個『無我』行相，總括地見到四諦，叫做頓現觀，那麼就不應該用苦等行相來見苦諦等。這樣就與契經相違背。如同契經下文所說，舉出所違背的經典。經典分別地說用行相來觀察四諦，說明行相不是單一的。『思惟』這個詞都顯示出作意。舉出個別的作意，選取相應的法。這些行相就是與無漏作意相應的擇法。如果說這部經說的是在修道位用各種行相分別觀察諦，這也是不成立的。如同在見道中次第觀察諦，在修道位中也次第觀察。如果在見道中頓現觀諦，那麼在修道位中也應該有頓觀。如果他們又認為在見一個諦時，對於其餘的諦中得到自在的緣故，所以說頓現觀。如果這樣辯解，對於我的道...

【English Translation】 English version: When perceiving suffering (Dukkha Satya), the manifestation of non-outflow (Anasrava) is called cultivation of the path (Marga). It is not considered 'seeing the present' (Sakshad-kriya) when perceiving the other three truths, nor is it considered 'related to the present' (Alambana Sakshad-kriya) when related to the other three truths. Question: The Shastra states that all dharmas should be universally known, all defiled dharmas (Sasrava) should be permanently eliminated, all wholesome dharmas should be realized, and wholesome conditioned dharmas (Savata) should be cultivated. Why does the Sutra say 'Know suffering, eliminate the origin (Samudaya), realize cessation (Nirodha), cultivate the path'? Answer: The Shastra speaks of ultimate truth, while the Sutra speaks with specific intent. Therefore, in Vibhasha, volume 79, a teacher says that Venerable Ghosha stated that the World-Honored One only said that suffering should be universally known, or that only suffering is what should be universally known. Therefore, in Abhidharma, it is said that all dharmas are what should be universally known. The World-Honored One only said that the origin should be permanently eliminated, or that only the origin is what should be permanently eliminated. Therefore, in Abhidharma, it is said that defiled dharmas should be permanently eliminated. The World-Honored One only said that cessation should be realized, or that only cessation is what should be realized. Therefore, in Abhidharma, based on attaining realization, it is said that all wholesome dharmas should be realized. The World-Honored One only said that the path should be cultivated, or that only the path is what should be cultivated. Therefore, in Abhidharma, it is generally said that all wholesome conditioned dharmas should be cultivated. This shows that the meaning of the Sutra is not definitive, while the Abhidharma is definitive. If, among the truths, up to the reason for 'seeing the present of things' (Vastu Sakshad-kriya), this is to reveal and refute a view. If, among the truths, based on 'seeing the present' (Darshana Sakshad-kriya), one speaks of 'sudden seeing the present' (Ekaksana Sakshad-kriya), the reasoning must not be valid. This is because the sixteen aspects (Akara) within the Four Noble Truths (Arya Satya) are each different. If one says that using one aspect of 'no-self' (Anatma), one sees the Four Noble Truths in totality, calling it 'sudden seeing the present', then one should not use aspects such as suffering to see the truth of suffering, etc. This would contradict the Sutra. As the Sutra says below, it cites the Sutra that is being contradicted. The Sutra separately speaks of using aspects to contemplate the Four Noble Truths, indicating that the aspects are not singular. The word 'thinking' (Manaskara) all reveals intention (Cetanā). Citing individual intentions, selecting corresponding dharmas. These aspects are the selective dharma (Dharma-vicaya) corresponding to non-outflow intention. If one says that this Sutra speaks of separately contemplating the truths with various aspects in the stage of cultivating the path, this is also not valid. Just as in the path of seeing (Darshana-marga), one contemplates the truths in sequence, in the stage of cultivating the path, one also contemplates in sequence. If in the path of seeing, one suddenly sees the present of the truths, then in the stage of cultivating the path, there should also be sudden seeing. If they again think that when seeing one truth, because one attains freedom in the remaining truths, therefore one speaks of 'sudden seeing the present'. If one argues in this way, regarding my path...

理亦無有失。然于如是見四諦時現觀中間。有說出現觀。有說不出現觀。諸部不同。如斯之義別應思擇。若彼復謂于見苦時即能斷集．證滅．修道。約事現觀說頓現觀。理亦無失。我先已說見苦諦時于餘三諦中有事現觀故。

依見現觀至有別喻者。說一切有部依見現觀引經證漸　言三經者。一善授經即此所引。二慶喜經。三一苾芻經。故正理六十三云。如善授經。佛告長者。於四聖諦非頓現觀必漸現觀。廣說乃至。無處無容於苦聖諦。未現觀已能現觀集。如是乃至。無處無容於滅聖諦。未現觀已能現觀道。如是慶喜．及一苾芻二經所言意皆同此。三經一一各有別喻　解云善授梵云蘇揭多。舊雲鬚達者訛也。然彼長者請問世尊。諦現觀時為漸為頓。世尊告曰非頓必漸。以四諦境自相別故。廣說乃至。能現觀道。慶喜梵云阿難陀。舊云阿難者訛也。慶喜問經．苾芻問經問答語端皆同善授。然所舉喻各各不同。第一善授經中作如是說。佛告長者。於四聖諦非頓現觀必漸現觀。以四諦境相各別故。猶如世間造臺觀者。必先筑基。次方壘壁。次上樑栿。后以板覆。此四前後必不俱時。無處無容未筑基訖便壘于壁。乃至廣說。第二慶喜經作如是說。猶如隥上四橫梯時。先隥最初方隥第二。無處無容不隥最初而隥第二。乃至廣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在道理上也沒有過失。然而在這樣見到四諦（四個真理：苦、集、滅、道）的時候，在現觀（親身體驗真理）的中間，有的學派說出現現觀，有的學派說不出現現觀，各個部派的說法不同。像這樣的意義應該分別加以思考。如果他們又說在見到苦諦（關於痛苦的真理）的時候，就能斷除集諦（關於痛苦根源的真理）、證得滅諦（關於痛苦止息的真理）、修習道諦（關於達到止息痛苦的道路的真理），這是從事情的現觀來說的頓悟，道理上也沒有過失。我先前已經說過，在見到苦諦的時候，對於其餘三個諦中也有事情的現觀的緣故。

從依靠見現觀到有不同的比喻。說一切有部（佛教部派名）依靠見現觀引用經典來證明漸悟。所說的三部經是：一是《善授經》（即此處所引用的），二是《慶喜經》，三是《一苾芻經》。所以《正理》（論書名）第六十三卷說：『如《善授經》所說，佛告訴長者，對於四聖諦（四諦的另一種說法）不是頓悟而是必須漸悟。』廣泛地說乃至，『沒有地方沒有可能在沒有現觀苦聖諦的情況下就能現觀集諦。』像這樣乃至，『沒有地方沒有可能在沒有現觀滅聖諦的情況下就能現觀道諦。』像這樣，《慶喜經》和《一苾芻經》兩部經所說的意思都與此相同。這三部經各自有不同的比喻。解釋說，《善授》的梵語是蘇揭多（Sugata），舊譯的『須達』是訛誤。那位長者請問世尊，諦現觀的時候是漸悟還是頓悟。世尊告訴他說不是頓悟而是必須漸悟，因為四諦的境界自相不同。廣泛地說乃至，能夠現觀道諦。《慶喜》的梵語是阿難陀（Ānanda），舊譯的『阿難』是訛誤。《慶喜問經》、《苾芻問經》的問答語氣都與《善授經》相同，然而所舉的比喻各自不同。第一部《善授經》中這樣說，佛告訴長者，對於四聖諦不是頓悟而是必須漸悟，因為四諦的境界相狀各自不同。猶如世間建造臺觀的人，必須先打地基，然後壘砌墻壁，然後上樑，最後用木板覆蓋。這四個步驟的前後順序必定不能同時進行。沒有地方沒有可能在沒有打好地基的情況下就壘砌墻壁，乃至廣泛地說。第二部《慶喜經》中這樣說，猶如登上四個橫梯的時候，先登上第一個，然後登上第二個，沒有地方沒有可能不登上第一個就登上第二個，乃至廣泛地說。

【English Translation】 English version: In terms of principle, there is no fault either. However, when seeing the Four Noble Truths (four truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation) in this way, during the process of Abhisamaya (direct realization of the truth), some schools say that Abhisamaya occurs, while others say that it does not occur; different schools have different views. Such meanings should be considered separately. If they further say that upon seeing the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya), one can immediately abandon the Truth of Origin (Samudaya Satya), realize the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya), and practice the Truth of the Path (Magga Satya), this refers to the sudden realization from the perspective of practical Abhisamaya, and there is no fault in principle either. I have already said that when seeing the Truth of Suffering, there is also practical Abhisamaya in the other three truths.

From relying on the Abhisamaya of Seeing to having different metaphors. The Sarvastivada school (a Buddhist school) relies on the Abhisamaya of Seeing to cite scriptures to prove gradual enlightenment. The three sutras mentioned are: first, the Sugata Sutra (which is cited here), second, the Ananda Sutra, and third, the A Bhikshu Sutra. Therefore, the sixty-third volume of Abhidharma-nyayanusara says: 'As the Sugata Sutra says, the Buddha told the elder that the Four Noble Truths (another way of saying the Four Truths) are not realized suddenly but must be realized gradually.' Broadly speaking, 'There is no place, no possibility of realizing the Truth of Origin without having realized the Truth of Suffering.' Likewise, 'There is no place, no possibility of realizing the Truth of the Path without having realized the Truth of Cessation.' Similarly, the meanings expressed in the Ananda Sutra and the A Bhikshu Sutra are the same. Each of these three sutras has different metaphors. The explanation says that Sugata is the Sanskrit name, and the old translation 'Sudatta' is a corruption. That elder asked the World Honored One whether the realization of the Truths is gradual or sudden. The World Honored One told him that it is not sudden but must be gradual because the realms of the Four Truths have different characteristics. Broadly speaking, one can realize the Truth of the Path. Ananda is the Sanskrit name (Ānanda), and the old translation 'Anan' is a corruption. The question-and-answer tone of the Ananda Sutra and the A Bhikshu Sutra are the same as the Sugata Sutra, but the metaphors used are different. The first Sugata Sutra says, the Buddha told the elder that the Four Noble Truths are not realized suddenly but must be realized gradually because the characteristics of the realms of the Four Truths are different. It is like a person building a pavilion in the world, who must first lay the foundation, then build the walls, then put on the beams, and finally cover it with boards. These four steps must not be done simultaneously. There is no place, no possibility of building the walls without laying the foundation, and so on. The second Ananda Sutra says, it is like climbing four horizontal ladders, first climbing the first one, then climbing the second one. There is no place, no possibility of climbing the second one without climbing the first one, and so on.

說。第三一苾芻經作如是喻。猶如隥上四級階時。先隥最初方隥第二。無處無容不隥最初而隥第二。乃至廣說。依如是喻必漸非頓。

若謂有經至蜜意說故者。又牒經通難。若謂經說但于苦諦無惑無疑。于佛亦無惑無疑。佛是道諦攝故。既于佛道亦無惑．疑。以此故知頓現觀者。此亦非證。于見苦時。于餘三諦。亦無疑者。依定不現行。或必定當斷。密意說故。

已辨現觀至如先已說者。此即第二明十六心依地　言六地者。謂四靜慮．未至．中間。

何緣必有至無間解脫道者。此即第三明忍．智次第。

論曰至無能隔礙故者。于現觀位十六心中。八忍是無間道。間謂間隔。此無間道證離系果。所斷惑得。無有力能為隔礙故令不證果。惑得雖與無間道俱。無力能引惑得至生相故無能礙。昔時能引能為隔礙。障覆涅槃令不得證。故婆沙九十云。無間道能斷煩惱。隔煩惱得令不續故。亦能證滅引離系得令正起故。

正理難云。若爾解脫道亦應名無間。約與離系得俱亦無能隔礙故　俱舍師救云。此無間道與惑得俱。惑得無力能為隔礙令不證果故名無間。彼解脫道雖復與彼離系得俱名為證果。非惑得俱。不可說言惑得能礙。不能礙故。為難不齊。

智是解脫至驅賊閉戶者。八智是解脫道。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：佛陀說：『第三十一苾芻經』中作了這樣的比喻：就像登上四級臺階時，先登上最初一級，然後登上第二級。不可能不登上最初一級就登上第二級。』乃至廣為解說。依據這樣的比喻，一定是漸悟而非頓悟。

如果說有經典是根據密意而說的，那麼又引用經典來普遍駁斥這種說法。如果說經典說只是對於苦諦沒有疑惑，對於佛（Buddha，覺悟者）也沒有疑惑，因為佛是道諦所包含的。既然對於佛道也沒有疑惑，以此可知是頓現觀者，這也是不能作為證據的。在見到苦諦時，對於其餘三諦（集諦、滅諦、道諦）也沒有疑惑，這是依據禪定不現行，或者必定應當斷除，因為是密意所說。

已經辨析了現觀，到『如先已說』，這第二部分說明十六心（十六種心念）所依據的地位。所說的六地（六種禪定境界），是指四靜慮（四種禪定）、未至定（未到地定）、中間定（中間禪定）。

為什麼必定有忍（忍位）、智（智位）的次第，直到無間道（無間道）、解脫道（解脫道）呢？這第三部分說明忍、智的次第。

論中說：『到無能隔礙故』，在現觀位的十六心中，八忍（八種忍）是無間道。『間』是指間隔。這無間道證得離系果（脫離束縛的果位），所斷的煩惱得到解脫。沒有力量能夠作為間隔阻礙，因此能夠證得果位。煩惱的解脫雖然與無間道同時存在，但沒有力量引發煩惱的產生，因此不能阻礙證果。過去能夠引發煩惱，能夠作為間隔阻礙，遮蔽涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）使人不得證悟。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第九十卷說：『無間道能夠斷除煩惱，隔斷煩惱的產生，使之不再延續，也能證得寂滅，引導脫離束縛的果位，使其真正生起。』

正理論者反駁說：『如果這樣，解脫道也應該被稱為無間道，因為它與脫離束縛的果位同時存在，也沒有任何阻礙。』俱舍師（Kosha，俱舍宗的學者）解釋說：『這無間道與煩惱的解脫同時存在，煩惱的解脫沒有力量能夠作為間隔阻礙，使人不能證得果位，所以稱為無間。那解脫道雖然與脫離束縛的果位同時存在，被稱為證果，但不是與煩惱的解脫同時存在，不能說煩惱的解脫能夠阻礙證果。因為不能阻礙，所以這個反駁是不恰當的。』

智是解脫道，到『驅賊閉戶』，八智（八種智）是解脫道。

【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha said: 'In the thirty-first Bhikshu Sutra,' an analogy is made: 'It is like climbing four steps, first climbing the initial step, then climbing the second step. It is impossible to climb the second step without climbing the initial step.' And so on, elaborating further. According to this analogy, it must be gradual enlightenment rather than sudden enlightenment.

If it is said that some sutras are spoken with a hidden meaning, then the sutra is quoted again to universally refute this claim. If it is said that the sutra states there is no doubt regarding the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya), and no doubt regarding the Buddha (Buddha, the Awakened One), because the Buddha is included in the Truth of the Path (Marga Satya). Since there is no doubt regarding the Buddha's path, it can be known that those who have sudden direct realization cannot use this as evidence. When seeing the Truth of Suffering, if there is no doubt regarding the other three Truths (the Truth of Origin, the Truth of Cessation, and the Truth of the Path), it is because it is based on meditative absorption not being active, or because it must be eliminated, as it is spoken with a hidden meaning.

Having distinguished direct realization, up to 'as previously said,' this second part explains the grounds upon which the sixteen minds (sixteen types of mental states) are based. The six planes (six meditative states) refer to the four Dhyanas (four meditative absorptions), the preliminary stage (preliminary concentration), and the intermediate stage (intermediate concentration).

Why must there necessarily be a sequence of forbearance (Ksanti), wisdom (Jnana), up to the uninterrupted path (Anantarya-marga) and the path of liberation (Vimukti-marga)? This third part explains the sequence of forbearance and wisdom.

The treatise says: 'Up to 'because there is no obstruction,' in the sixteen minds of the direct realization stage, the eight forbearances (eight types of forbearance) are the uninterrupted path. 'Interruption' refers to interval. This uninterrupted path attains the fruit of detachment (Visamyoga-phala), and the defilements that are severed are liberated. There is no power that can act as an interval to obstruct the attainment of the fruit. Although the liberation from defilements exists simultaneously with the uninterrupted path, it has no power to cause the arising of defilements, therefore it cannot obstruct the attainment of the fruit. In the past, it could cause defilements to arise, acting as an interval to obstruct, obscuring Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation) and preventing one from attaining enlightenment. Therefore, the ninety-ninth volume of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Buddhist treatise) says: 'The uninterrupted path can sever defilements, separating the arising of defilements, preventing them from continuing, and can also attain cessation, guiding the fruit of detachment to truly arise.'

The proponent of the Nyaya (Nyaya, school of logic) refutes: 'If that is the case, the path of liberation should also be called the uninterrupted path, because it exists simultaneously with the fruit of detachment, and there is no obstruction.' The Kosha master (Kosha, scholar of the Abhidharma-kosa) explains: 'This uninterrupted path exists simultaneously with the liberation from defilements, and the liberation from defilements has no power to act as an interval to obstruct one from attaining the fruit, therefore it is called uninterrupted. Although that path of liberation exists simultaneously with the fruit of detachment, and is called the attainment of the fruit, it does not exist simultaneously with the liberation from defilements, and it cannot be said that the liberation from defilements can obstruct the attainment of the fruit. Because it cannot obstruct, this refutation is inappropriate.'

Wisdom is the path of liberation, up to 'chasing away the thief and closing the door,' the eight wisdoms (eight types of wisdom) are the path of liberation.

在生相時非惑得俱名正解脫。令至現在名已解脫惑得。與離系得俱時起故名解脫道。故婆沙云。諸解脫道唯名證滅。與離系得俱現前故　無間道如驅賊。解脫道如閉戶。

若謂第二至已斷疑智者。牒異計破。若謂初剎那苦法忍后第二剎那苦類忍唯無間道。與欲界見苦所斷離系得俱時而生。無解脫道。乃至道類忍應知亦爾　破云。則此現觀位中。于其彼彼四法忍境。四類忍境。應定不起已斷疑智。故正理云。苦法忍后即有苦類忍。與前忍果斷得俱生。餘位亦然。斯有何失。若爾此位緣欲苦等已斷疑智應不得生。計此不生復有何過。則於後修位我已知苦等。諸決定智應不得生。于苦等境中先未生智故。若於先位未有智生。后已知言便成無義。

若謂見位至九結聚相違者。難。若謂見道位唯八忍斷惑。即與本論說九結聚相違。彼說九結是智斷故　言九結聚者。謂見道中上．下八諦所斷為八。及修道惑足前為九。用九智斷。即八諦智．及修道智。故正理云。若見道位唯忍能斷惑。應與本論九結聚相違。以本論中說四法．類智。及修所斷。為九結聚故。

此難不然至名王所作者。通。此難不然。彼論中說忍為智故。諸忍皆是智眷屬故。忍所作者即名智所作。引喻可知。

此十六心至見道攝耶者。此下第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果認為在生起（生相）的時候，不是由於迷惑和獲得同時具備才叫做真正的解脫，而是到了現在才叫做已經解脫迷惑和獲得，因為與離系得（vi-saṃyoga-prāpti，斷煩惱所得之法）同時生起才叫做解脫道。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『各種解脫道只是名為證滅，因為與離系得同時現前。』無間道（ānantarya-mārga，能斷煩惱之道）就像驅趕盜賊，解脫道就像關閉門戶。

如果認為從第二剎那到已斷疑智（vicikitsa-prahāṇa-jñāna，斷除懷疑的智慧）的人，這是引述不同的觀點來駁斥。如果認為在初剎那的苦法忍（duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti，對苦諦的忍可）之後，第二剎那的苦類忍（duḥkha-anvaya-kṣānti，對苦諦的類比忍可）只是無間道，與欲界見苦所斷的離系得同時生起，沒有解脫道，乃至道類忍（marga-anvaya-kṣānti，對道諦的類比忍可）也應該知道是這樣。駁斥說：那麼在這種現觀位（abhisamaya-avasthā，證悟的階段）中，對於彼彼四法忍境（catvāri dharma-kṣānti-āyatana，四種法忍的境界），四類忍境（catvāri anvaya-kṣānti-āyatana，四種類忍的境界），應該一定不會生起已斷疑智。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說：『苦法忍之後立即有苦類忍，與前忍的果，也就是斷得（prahāṇa-prāpti，斷除煩惱的獲得）同時生起，其餘的位也是這樣，這有什麼過失呢？』如果這樣，那麼在這個位中，緣于欲苦等的已斷疑智應該不能生起。認為這不生起又有什麼過錯呢？那麼在後修位（bhāvanā-avasthā，修習的階段）中，『我已知苦』等的各種決定智（niścaya-jñāna，確定的智慧）應該不能生起，因為在苦等境界中先前沒有生起智慧的緣故。如果在先前的位中沒有智慧生起，那麼後來『已知』的說法就變得沒有意義。

如果認為見位（darśana-avasthā，見道的階段）到與九結聚（nava-bandhana-rāśi，九種煩惱的集合）相違背，這是責難。如果認為見道位只有八忍（aṣṭa-kṣānti，八種忍）能斷惑，就與本論所說的九結聚相違背，因為本論說九結是智斷的。所說的九結聚，是指見道中上、下八諦所斷為八，以及修道惑（bhāvanā-heya，修道所斷的煩惱）加上前面為九，用九智（nava-jñāna，九種智慧）來斷，也就是八諦智（aṣṭa-satya-jñāna，八種真諦的智慧）以及修道智（bhāvanā-mārga-jñāna，修道的智慧）。所以《正理》說：『如果見道位只有忍能斷惑，應該與本論的九結聚相違背，因為本論中說四法、類智（catvāri dharma-anvaya-jñāna，四種法、類智），以及修所斷（bhāvanā-heya，修道所斷的煩惱），為九結聚的緣故。』

這個責難不然，到名為國王所作，這是通達。這個責難是不成立的，因為那部論中說忍是智的緣故，各種忍都是智的眷屬的緣故，忍所作的就名為智所作，引喻就可以知道。

這十六心（ṣoḍaśa citta，十六心）到見道所攝嗎？這是下面第...

English version: If one thinks that at the time of arising (utpāda-kṣaṇa), it is not because delusion and attainment are simultaneously present that it is called true liberation (samyak-vimukti), but only when it reaches the present that it is called already liberated from delusion and attainment, because it arises simultaneously with vi-saṃyoga-prāpti (the attainment of separation from defilements), it is called the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga). Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'All paths of liberation are only named as the cessation of proof, because they are simultaneously present with vi-saṃyoga-prāpti.' The ānantarya-mārga (path of immediate consequence) is like driving away thieves, and the vimukti-mārga is like closing the door.

If one thinks that from the second kṣaṇa (moment) to those who have already severed doubt-wisdom (vicikitsa-prahāṇa-jñāna), this is quoting different views to refute. If one thinks that after the duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti (forbearance of the dharma of suffering) in the first kṣaṇa, the duḥkha-anvaya-kṣānti (forbearance of the analogy of suffering) in the second kṣaṇa is only the ānantarya-mārga, arising simultaneously with the vi-saṃyoga-prāpti severed by seeing suffering in the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), without the vimukti-mārga, and even the marga-anvaya-kṣānti (forbearance of the analogy of the path) should also be known to be the same. The refutation says: Then in this abhisamaya-avasthā (stage of realization), for those catvāri dharma-kṣānti-āyatana (four objects of dharma-kṣānti), catvāri anvaya-kṣānti-āyatana (four objects of anvaya-kṣānti), it should definitely not arise the already severed doubt-wisdom. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'After the duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti, there is immediately the duḥkha-anvaya-kṣānti, arising simultaneously with the fruit of the previous kṣānti, which is prahāṇa-prāpti (the attainment of severance), and the other stages are also the same, what fault is there in this?' If so, then in this stage, the already severed doubt-wisdom related to desire-suffering, etc., should not be able to arise. What fault is there in thinking that this does not arise? Then in the later bhāvanā-avasthā (stage of cultivation), the various niścaya-jñāna (certain wisdom) such as 'I have already known suffering' should not be able to arise, because wisdom has not arisen previously in the objects of suffering, etc. If wisdom has not arisen in the previous stage, then the later statement of 'already known' becomes meaningless.

If one thinks that the darśana-avasthā (stage of seeing the path) is contrary to the nava-bandhana-rāśi (collection of nine bonds), this is a difficulty. If one thinks that only aṣṭa-kṣānti (eight forbearances) can sever defilements in the darśana-mārga, it contradicts the nava-bandhana-rāśi mentioned in this treatise, because this treatise says that the nine bonds are severed by wisdom. The so-called nava-bandhana-rāśi refers to the eight severed by the upper and lower eight truths in the darśana-mārga, and the bhāvanā-heya (defilements to be severed by cultivation) plus the previous ones are nine, severed by nava-jñāna (nine wisdoms), which are the aṣṭa-satya-jñāna (wisdom of the eight truths) and the bhāvanā-mārga-jñāna (wisdom of the path of cultivation). Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If only forbearance can sever defilements in the darśana-mārga, it should contradict the nava-bandhana-rāśi in this treatise, because this treatise says that the catvāri dharma-anvaya-jñāna (four dharma and analogy wisdoms) and the bhāvanā-heya (defilements to be severed by cultivation) are the reason for the nava-bandhana-rāśi.'

This difficulty is not so, to what is called done by the king, this is understanding. This difficulty is not established, because that treatise says that forbearance is wisdom, because all forbearances are the retinue of wisdom, what is done by forbearance is called done by wisdom, the analogy can be known.

Are these ṣoḍaśa citta (sixteen minds) included in the darśana-mārga? This is the following...

【English Translation】 English version: If one thinks that at the time of arising (utpāda-kṣaṇa), it is not because delusion and attainment are simultaneously present that it is called true liberation (samyak-vimukti), but only when it reaches the present that it is called already liberated from delusion and attainment, because it arises simultaneously with vi-saṃyoga-prāpti (the attainment of separation from defilements), it is called the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga). Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'All paths of liberation are only named as the cessation of proof, because they are simultaneously present with vi-saṃyoga-prāpti.' The ānantarya-mārga (path of immediate consequence) is like driving away thieves, and the vimukti-mārga is like closing the door.

If one thinks that from the second kṣaṇa (moment) to those who have already severed doubt-wisdom (vicikitsa-prahāṇa-jñāna), this is quoting different views to refute. If one thinks that after the duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti (forbearance of the dharma of suffering) in the first kṣaṇa, the duḥkha-anvaya-kṣānti (forbearance of the analogy of suffering) in the second kṣaṇa is only the ānantarya-mārga, arising simultaneously with the vi-saṃyoga-prāpti severed by seeing suffering in the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), without the vimukti-mārga, and even the marga-anvaya-kṣānti (forbearance of the analogy of the path) should also be known to be the same. The refutation says: Then in this abhisamaya-avasthā (stage of realization), for those catvāri dharma-kṣānti-āyatana (four objects of dharma-kṣānti), catvāri anvaya-kṣānti-āyatana (four objects of anvaya-kṣānti), it should definitely not arise the already severed doubt-wisdom. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'After the duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti, there is immediately the duḥkha-anvaya-kṣānti, arising simultaneously with the fruit of the previous kṣānti, which is prahāṇa-prāpti (the attainment of severance), and the other stages are also the same, what fault is there in this?' If so, then in this stage, the already severed doubt-wisdom related to desire-suffering, etc., should not be able to arise. What fault is there in thinking that this does not arise? Then in the later bhāvanā-avasthā (stage of cultivation), the various niścaya-jñāna (certain wisdom) such as 'I have already known suffering' should not be able to arise, because wisdom has not arisen previously in the objects of suffering, etc. If wisdom has not arisen in the previous stage, then the later statement of 'already known' becomes meaningless.

If one thinks that the darśana-avasthā (stage of seeing the path) is contrary to the nava-bandhana-rāśi (collection of nine bonds), this is a difficulty. If one thinks that only aṣṭa-kṣānti (eight forbearances) can sever defilements in the darśana-mārga, it contradicts the nava-bandhana-rāśi mentioned in this treatise, because this treatise says that the nine bonds are severed by wisdom. The so-called nava-bandhana-rāśi refers to the eight severed by the upper and lower eight truths in the darśana-mārga, and the bhāvanā-heya (defilements to be severed by cultivation) plus the previous ones are nine, severed by nava-jñāna (nine wisdoms), which are the aṣṭa-satya-jñāna (wisdom of the eight truths) and the bhāvanā-mārga-jñāna (wisdom of the path of cultivation). Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If only forbearance can sever defilements in the darśana-mārga, it should contradict the nava-bandhana-rāśi in this treatise, because this treatise says that the catvāri dharma-anvaya-jñāna (four dharma and analogy wisdoms) and the bhāvanā-heya (defilements to be severed by cultivation) are the reason for the nava-bandhana-rāśi.'

This difficulty is not so, to what is called done by the king, this is understanding. This difficulty is not established, because that treatise says that forbearance is wisdom, because all forbearances are the retinue of wisdom, what is done by forbearance is called done by wisdom, the analogy can be known.

Are these ṣoḍaśa citta (sixteen minds) included in the darśana-mārga? This is the following...

四明見修道別。此即問也。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至見未曾見故者。頌答。

論曰至故修道攝者。現觀八諦總十六心。前十五心皆見道攝。于諸諦理見未見諦故。至第十六無一諦理未見今見。如習曾見故修道攝。

豈不爾時至未見今見者。問。至第十六道類智時。豈不爾時觀道類智次前念忍。相應．俱有一剎那法。是道諦理未見今見。

此中約諦至此畦未刈者。答。此中但約上下八諦不約剎那。非道類忍一剎那法未見今見。可名今見未見諦理。喻況可知。

又道類智至非見道攝者。又釋　道類智非見道攝。是果攝故。如余修果　道類智非見道攝。頓修八智．十六行故。如余修果　道類智非見道攝。舍前道故。如余修果　道類智非見道攝。相續起故。如余修道。

然道類智至所斷斷故者。牒外難通。外難意云。見道不退。修道有退。若道類智是修道攝亦應有退。寧道類智必不退耶　論主通云然道類智必不退者。以能任持見道所斷煩惱斷故。所以不退。以見所斷擇滅不退。故道類智亦不退也。

即由此故應見道攝者。難。即由道類智任持見道所斷斷故。應見道攝。

此難不然太過失故者。論主破。一來果等亦能任持見斷法斷。亦應見攝。若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『四明見修道別』。這是提問。

『不爾者』。這是回答。

『云何者』。這是徵詢。

『頌曰至見未曾見故者』。這是用偈頌回答。

『論曰至故修道攝者』。現觀八諦（Ashtasatya，佛教中的八種真理）總共十六心。前十五心都屬於見道（Darshana-marga，佛教修行道中的見道位）。因為對於諸諦之理，有未見而今見的緣故。到了第十六心，沒有一個諦理是未見而今見的，如同已經習慣了曾經見過的，所以屬於修道（Bhavana-marga，佛教修行道中的修道位）。

『豈不爾時至未見今見者』。這是提問。到了第十六道類智（Dharmakayajnana，對治煩惱障的智慧）時，難道不是在觀道類智之前的念忍（Ksanti，安忍）時，相應、俱有一剎那法，是道諦（Marga-satya，佛教八正道）之理未見而今見嗎？

『此中約諦至此畦未刈者』。這是回答。這裡只是就上下八諦而言，不是就剎那而言。並非道類忍的一剎那法是未見而今見，可以稱作今見未見諦理。用比喻來說明就可以理解。

『又道類智至非見道攝者』。這是又一種解釋。道類智不是見道所攝，因為它是果（Phala，結果）所攝。如同其餘的修果。道類智不是見道所攝，因為它頓修八智（Ashtajnana，八種智慧）、十六行（Shodasha-akara，十六種行相）。如同其餘的修果。道類智不是見道所攝，因為它捨棄了前面的道。如同其餘的修果。道類智不是見道所攝，因為它相續生起。如同其餘的修道。

『然道類智至所斷斷故者』。這是引述外人的詰難來辯通。外人的詰難意思是說，見道不會退轉，修道會有退轉。如果道類智是修道所攝，也應該會有退轉，為什麼道類智一定不會退轉呢？論主的辯通是說，道類智一定不會退轉，因為它能夠任持見道所斷的煩惱斷滅的緣故。所以不會退轉。因為見道所斷的擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅盡）不會退轉，所以道類智也不會退轉。

『即由此故應見道攝者』。這是反駁。正因為道類智任持見道所斷的煩惱斷滅的緣故，就應該屬於見道所攝。

『此難不然太過失故者』。這是論主的反駁。一來果（Sakridagamin，一來果）等也能任持見斷法（Darshana-heya-dharma，見道所斷之法）的斷滅，也應該屬於見道所攝。如果……

【English Translation】 English version 『Simingjian xiudao bie』. This is a question.

『Bu erzhe』. This is an answer.

『Yunhezhe』. This is an inquiry.

『Song yue zhi jian wei ceng jian gu zhe』. This is answering with a verse.

『Lun yue zhi gu xiudao she zhe』. The sixteen minds of the Abhisamaya (direct realization) of the Eight Noble Truths (Ashtasatya) in total. The first fifteen minds are all included in the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga). Because regarding the principles of the Truths, there is the reason of seeing what was not seen before. Arriving at the sixteenth mind, there is not a single Truth that is not seen and is now seen, just like being accustomed to what has been seen before, therefore it is included in the Path of Cultivation (Bhavana-marga).

『Qi bu er shi zhi wei jian jin jian zhe』. This is a question. When arriving at the sixteenth Dharmakayajnana (wisdom of the Dharma body) , isn't it that when observing the Ksanti (patience) before Dharmakayajnana, corresponding and co-occurring with a momentary dharma, is the principle of the Truth of the Path (Marga-satya) not seen before and now seen?

『Ci zhong yue di zhi ci qi wei yi zhe』. This is an answer. Here, it is only in terms of the upper and lower Eight Truths, not in terms of the moment. It is not that the momentary dharma of Dharmakaya-ksanti is not seen before and now seen, and can be called seeing what was not seen before regarding the Truth. The analogy can be understood.

『You daolei zhi zhi fei jiandao she zhe』. This is another explanation. Dharmakayajnana is not included in the Path of Seeing, because it is included in the Fruit (Phala). Like the remaining Fruits of Cultivation. Dharmakayajnana is not included in the Path of Seeing, because it cultivates the Eight Wisdoms (Ashtajnana) and Sixteen Aspects (Shodasha-akara) all at once. Like the remaining Fruits of Cultivation. Dharmakayajnana is not included in the Path of Seeing, because it abandons the previous Path. Like the remaining Fruits of Cultivation. Dharmakayajnana is not included in the Path of Seeing, because it arises continuously. Like the remaining Paths of Cultivation.

『Ran daolei zhi zhi suo duan duan gu zhe』. This is quoting external difficulties to clarify. The meaning of the external difficulty is that the Path of Seeing does not regress, while the Path of Cultivation can regress. If Dharmakayajnana is included in the Path of Cultivation, it should also regress, why is it that Dharmakayajnana certainly does not regress? The master's clarification is that Dharmakayajnana certainly does not regress, because it can uphold the severance of the afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing. Therefore, it does not regress. Because the Pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) severed by the Path of Seeing does not regress, therefore Dharmakayajnana also does not regress.

『Ji you ci gu ying jiandao she zhe』. This is a rebuttal. Precisely because Dharmakayajnana upholds the severance of the afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing, it should be included in the Path of Seeing.

『Ci nan bu ran tai guo shi gu zhe』. This is the master's rebuttal. The Sakridagamin (Once-Returner) and others can also uphold the severance of the Darshana-heya-dharma (dharma to be severed by the Path of Seeing), and should also be included in the Path of Seeing. If...

謂后位亦能任持修斷法斷無斯過者。理亦不然。既持二斷應二道攝。故不應言能持彼斷即彼道收。太過失也。正理意同斯解。

何緣七智亦見道攝者。問何緣七智。已見今見。亦見道攝。

見諸諦理至亦見道攝者。答。見諸上．下八聖諦理未究竟故。謂未周遍見八諦理。而於中間起七智故亦見道攝。

已說見修至離八地向三者。此下第二依位建立。就中。一依十五心立。二依第十六心立　此即第一依十五心立　就生起中。一總生起。二別生起。及頌可知。

論曰至隨行義故者。釋初兩句。由信隨行名隨信行。彼人有隨信行名隨信行者。此即約成以釋。或由串習此隨信行以成其性故名隨信行者。此約習以釋。所以見位信標名者。彼先異生位中信他隨行義故。從加行位以立其名　準此兩解應釋隨法行者。所以見位法標名者。彼于先時異生位中。由目披閱契經等法隨行義故。從加行位以立其名　等謂等取餘十一部經。或等餘二藏。

即二聖者至數準前釋者。釋后四句。隨信．法行若於先時異生位中。未以世道斷修斷惑名為具縛。或先異生位中。已斷欲一至五。至此見位名初果向。趣初果故。言初果者謂預流果。此於一切四沙門果中。必初得故名為初果　若先凡位已斷欲界或六．或七．或八品

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果說后得位也能任持修道和斷惑之法，從而斷除過失，這在理上也是不成立的。既然任持了兩種斷，就應該被兩種道所攝。所以不應該說能任持彼斷，就被彼道所收攝，這是太過分的過失。正理的觀點與此相同。

為什麼七智也屬於見道所攝？問：為什麼七智，無論是已見的還是現在見的，都屬於見道所攝？

因為見到諸諦之理，但未究竟，所以也屬於見道所攝。答：因為還沒有周遍地見到上界和地獄的八聖諦之理，而在中間生起了七智，所以也屬於見道所攝。

上面已經說了見道和修道，以及離八地向的三者。下面第二部分是依位建立。其中，一是依十五心建立，二是依第十六心建立。這裡是第一部分，依十五心建立。就生起而言，一總生起，二別生起，以及頌文，都可以知道。

論中說：『由信隨行，名為隨信行』等，這是解釋最初的兩句。由於信隨行，所以叫做隨信行（Sradhanusarin）。那個人有隨信行，所以叫做隨信行者（Sradhanusarin）。這是從成就的角度來解釋。或者由於串習這種隨信行，從而成就了他的性質，所以叫做隨信行者。這是從習性的角度來解釋。所以在見道位用『信』來標明名稱，是因為他在之前的異生位中，相信他人而隨行。從加行位來建立他的名稱。參照這兩種解釋，應該解釋隨法行者（Dharmanusarin）。所以在見道位用『法』來標明名稱，是因為他在之前的異生位中，通過閱讀契經等法而隨行。從加行位來建立他的名稱。『等』是指等取其餘的十二部經，或者等取其餘的二藏。

『即二聖者』等，數量與前面的解釋相同。這是解釋後面的四句。隨信行者和隨法行者，如果在之前的異生位中，沒有用世俗道斷除修斷的煩惱，就叫做具縛（baddha）。或者在之前的異生位中，已經斷除了欲界的一到五品煩惱，到了見道位，就叫做初果向（srota-apatti-pratipannaka），趣向初果的緣故。說到初果（srota-apanna），是指預流果（srota-apanna）。這是在一切四沙門果中，最初得到的果位，所以叫做初果。如果在之前的凡夫位，已經斷除了欲界的六、七或八品煩惱。

【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that the subsequent stage can also uphold the practices of the path of cultivation and the abandonment of afflictions, thereby eliminating faults, this is not logically sound. Since it upholds two types of abandonment, it should be included in two paths. Therefore, it should not be said that what can uphold that abandonment is included in that path; this is an excessive fault. The view of the Proper Reasoning (Nyaya) is the same as this explanation.

Why are the seven knowledges also included in the path of seeing? Question: Why are the seven knowledges, whether already seen or currently seen, also included in the path of seeing?

Because the principles of the Truths are seen, but not completely, they are also included in the path of seeing. Answer: Because the eight noble truths of the upper and lower realms have not been seen comprehensively, and the seven knowledges arise in between, they are also included in the path of seeing.

Above, the path of seeing and the path of cultivation have been discussed, as well as the three who are approaching the stage of leaving the eight realms. The second part below is established based on the stages. Among them, one is established based on the fifteen moments of mind, and the other is established based on the sixteenth moment of mind. This is the first part, established based on the fifteen moments of mind. In terms of arising, there is a general arising and a specific arising, and the verses can be understood.

The treatise says: 'Due to following with faith, it is called a follower of faith' etc., which explains the first two sentences. Because of following with faith, it is called a Sradhanusarin (follower of faith). That person has following with faith, so he is called a Sradhanusarin. This is explained from the perspective of accomplishment. Or, because of familiarizing with this following with faith, thereby accomplishing his nature, he is called a Sradhanusarin. This is explained from the perspective of habituation. Therefore, the name is marked with 'faith' in the stage of seeing because he followed others with faith in the previous stage of an ordinary being. His name is established from the stage of application. Referring to these two explanations, the Dharmanusarin (follower of Dharma) should be explained. Therefore, the name is marked with 'Dharma' in the stage of seeing because he followed by reading sutras and other Dharmas in the previous stage of an ordinary being. His name is established from the stage of application. 'Etc.' refers to including the remaining twelve divisions of scriptures, or including the remaining two baskets (of the Tripitaka).

'That is, the two holy ones' etc., the number is the same as the previous explanation. This explains the last four sentences. If the follower of faith and the follower of Dharma have not abandoned the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation with the worldly path in the previous stage of an ordinary being, they are called baddha (bound). Or, if they have already abandoned one to five grades of desire realm afflictions in the previous stage of an ordinary being, they are called srota-apatti-pratipannaka (stream-enterer-approacher) in this stage of seeing, because they are approaching the stream-entry fruit. Speaking of srota-apanna (stream-enterer), it refers to the srota-apanna (stream-entry fruit). This is the first fruit obtained among all four fruits of a Sramana, so it is called the first fruit. If they have already abandoned six, seven, or eight grades of desire realm afflictions in the previous stage of an ordinary being.

染。至此見位名第二果向。趣第二果故。第二果者謂一來果。若據超越亦是初得。今據次第遍得果中此第二故　若凡位已離欲界第九品染。或先已斷初定一品。乃至具離無處有所第九品染。至此見位名第三向。趣第三果故。第三果者謂不還果。數準次前一來果釋。若據超越亦是初得。今據次第遍得果中此第三故　總而言之。信．法二．人各七十三。故正理六十四云。如是隨信．隨法行者。由先具縛．斷惑有殊。數別各成七十三種。謂于欲界具縛為初。至斷九品以為第十。如是乃至無所有處。地地各九為七十三。諸后具縛即前離九。故后七地無別具縛　準此論等。鈍根亦能證超越果。

次依修道至亦由鈍利別者。此即第二依第十六心立。就中。一建立果差別。二明住果非向　此即第一建立果差別。

論曰至離有頂故者。釋上兩句。即前信．法至道類智名果非向。隨前七十三人三向今住三果。謂前六人預流向今住預流果。前三人一來向今住一來果。前六十四人不還向今住不還果　阿羅漢果於四果中必無初得。所以者何。見道無容斷修惑故。昔在凡位世道無容離有頂故。所以第四必非初得。

至住果位至見至名別者。釋下兩句。至住果位舍信．法二名得信解．見至二名　言信解者。信謂凈信。解謂勝解。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本染。至此見位，名為第二果向（即將證得第二果的階段）。因為趨向于第二果的緣故。第二果指的是一來果（只往來欲界一次即可證果的聖者）。如果按照超越證果的方式來說，這也是初次證果。但現在是按照次第證果的方式，這是次第證果中的第二階段。若凡夫位已經斷除了欲界第九品煩惱的染污，或者先前已經斷除了初禪定的一品煩惱，乃至完全斷除了無所有處第九品煩惱的染污，到達這個見位，就名為第三向（即將證得第三果的階段）。因為趨向于第三果的緣故。第三果指的是不還果（不再返回欲界的聖者）。數量上參照前面一來果的解釋。如果按照超越證果的方式來說，這也是初次證果。但現在是按照次第證果的方式，這是次第證果中的第三階段。總而言之，隨信行（Sradhanusarin）、隨法行（Dharmanusarin）二種人各有七十三種。所以《正理》第六十四中說：『像這樣隨信行、隨法行的人，由於先前煩惱的束縛和斷惑的情況不同，數量上各有七十三種差別。』也就是從在欲界具有煩惱束縛開始，到斷除九品煩惱為止，是第十種。像這樣乃至無所有處，每一地各九品煩惱，總共七十三種。後面具有煩惱束縛的人，就是前面斷除九品煩惱的人，所以後面的七地沒有另外的具有煩惱束縛的人。按照此論等，鈍根的人也能證得超越果。接下來依靠修道，也因為鈍根和利根的不同而有差別。這指的是第二，依據第十六心而建立。其中，一、建立果的差別；二、說明安住于果位而非趨向于果位。這指的是第一，建立果的差別。論中說：『至離有頂故』，解釋上面兩句話。也就是前面的隨信行、隨法行到達道類智（Dharmajñāna）時，名為果而非向。隨著前面七十三種人中的三種向，現在安住於三種果。也就是前面的六種預流向（Srotapatti-pratipadaka）現在安住于預流果（Srotapanna）。前面的三種一來向（Sakrdagami-pratipadaka）現在安住於一來果（Sakrdagamin）。前面的六十四種不還向（Anagami-pratipadaka）現在安住于不還果（Anagamin）。阿羅漢果（Arhat）在四果中必定不是初次證得的。為什麼呢？因為見道（Darshana-marga）無法斷除修惑（Bhavana-marga）的緣故。過去在凡夫位時，世俗道無法斷除有頂天的煩惱的緣故。所以第四果必定不是初次證得的。至住果位，捨棄隨信行、隨法行二種名稱，得到信解（Sraddhadhimukta）、見至（Dristiprapta）二種名稱。所說的信解，信指的是凈信，解指的是勝解。

【English Translation】 English version …defilement. At this point of the path of seeing, it is called the 'approaching the second fruit' (Sakrdagami-pratipadaka). It is called so because it is approaching the second fruit. The second fruit refers to the Once-Returner fruit (Sakrdagamin), who only needs to return to the desire realm once more to attain the fruit. According to the way of transcendence, this is also the first attainment. But now, according to the gradual attainment of fruits, this is the second stage. If an ordinary person has already abandoned the ninth grade of defilement in the desire realm, or has previously abandoned one grade of the first dhyana, or even completely abandoned the ninth grade of defilement in the realm of No-Thingness, reaching this stage of seeing is called the 'approaching the third fruit' (Anagami-pratipadaka). It is called so because it is approaching the third fruit. The third fruit refers to the Non-Returner fruit (Anagamin). The number is explained in the same way as the Once-Returner fruit. According to the way of transcendence, this is also the first attainment. But now, according to the gradual attainment of fruits, this is the third stage. In summary, there are seventy-three types each of the Faith-follower (Sradhanusarin) and Dharma-follower (Dharmanusarin). Therefore, the sixty-fourth verse of the Nyayanusara says: 'Thus, the Faith-follower and Dharma-follower each have seventy-three types due to the differences in their previous bonds and the severing of delusions.' That is, starting from being bound by defilements in the desire realm, to severing the nine grades of defilements, is the tenth type. Thus, up to the realm of No-Thingness, each realm has nine grades of defilements, totaling seventy-three types. Those who are bound by defilements later are those who have severed the nine grades of defilements earlier, so the later seven realms do not have separate individuals bound by defilements. According to this treatise, even those with dull faculties can attain the fruit of transcendence. Next, relying on the path of cultivation, there are also differences due to dull and sharp faculties. This refers to the second, established based on the sixteenth moment of consciousness. Among them, 1. Establishing the differences in fruits; 2. Explaining that dwelling in the fruit is not approaching the fruit. This refers to the first, establishing the differences in fruits. The treatise says: 'To leaving the peak of existence,' explaining the above two sentences. That is, the Faith-follower and Dharma-follower reaching the Knowledge of the Dharma (Dharmajñāna) are called fruits, not approaching the fruit. Following the three approaches among the previous seventy-three types of people, they now dwell in the three fruits. That is, the previous six types of Stream-Enterer approachers (Srotapatti-pratipadaka) now dwell in the Stream-Enterer fruit (Srotapanna). The previous three types of Once-Returner approachers (Sakrdagami-pratipadaka) now dwell in the Once-Returner fruit (Sakrdagamin). The previous sixty-four types of Non-Returner approachers (Anagami-pratipadaka) now dwell in the Non-Returner fruit (Anagamin). The Arhat fruit (Arhat) is definitely not the first attainment among the four fruits. Why? Because the path of seeing (Darshana-marga) cannot sever the delusions of cultivation (Bhavana-marga). In the past, when one was an ordinary person, the worldly path could not sever the defilements of the peak of existence. Therefore, the fourth fruit is definitely not the first attainment. To dwelling in the fruit position, abandoning the names of Faith-follower and Dharma-follower, one obtains the names of Faith-liberated (Sraddhadhimukta) and Vision-attained (Dristiprapta). The so-called Faith-liberated, faith refers to pure faith, and liberation refers to superior liberation.

由信增上勝解顯故。故名信解。故正理云。由信增上力勝解顯故　言見至者。由慧增上正見顯故故名見至。故正理論云。由慧增上力正見顯故　所言至者。由前向見。得至果見故名見至。故婆沙五十三云。謂依見道所攝信。得修道所攝信勝解　又云。依向信得果信勝解　又云。以信為先心脫三結故名信勝解。謂依見道所攝見。得至修道所攝見　又云。依向道所攝見。得至果道所攝見　又云。以見為先心脫三結故名見至。

何緣先斷至名住果非曏者。此即第二明住果非向　五等。等取斷六品等。乃至無所有處第九品　果等。等取一來．不還果。問何緣凡位先斷欲界修惑一品乃至五等。至第十六道類智心。但說名為住前三果非后三向。此即問．及頌答。

論曰至不名後向者。至道類智得三果時。于勝果道必定未得。故住三果未起勝道。但名住三果。不名后三向。故正理云。依得聖道建立八聖。如先已說。故得果時于勝果道必定未得。以得果心於勝果道所對治惑非對治故。非非彼治現在前時得彼治道。如先已說。又非得果時即有勝果道所斷煩惱離系得生。道類忍不能斷彼系得故。若道力能斷彼系得。此道引彼離系得生。可說此道能證彼滅。以得前果時未得勝果道。故住果者乃至未起勝果道時。雖前已斷彼修所斷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本由信增上，殊勝理解顯現的緣故，所以稱為『信解』（Śraddhādhimukti，通過信心增長而獲得的殊勝理解）。因此，《正理》中說：『由信心增長的力量，殊勝理解顯現的緣故。』所言『見至』（Dṛṣṭiprāpta，通過智慧達到目標的人），由智慧增上，正確的見解顯現的緣故，所以稱為『見至』。因此，《正理論》中說：『由智慧增上的力量，正確的見解顯現的緣故。』所說的『至』，由於先前趨向（向道）的見解，得以達到果位的見解，所以稱為『見至』。因此，《婆沙》第五十三卷中說：『指依靠見道所包含的信心，獲得修道所包含的信勝解。』又說：『依靠向道的信心，獲得果位的信勝解。』又說：『以信心為先導，內心解脫三種結縛，所以稱為信勝解。』指依靠見道所包含的見解，得以達到修道所包含的見解。又說：『依靠向道所包含的見解，得以達到果道所包含的見解。』又說：『以見解為先導，內心解脫三種結縛，所以稱為見至。』

什麼緣故先斷除（欲界）至（色界）的惑，而稱為安住果位，而不是（安住）于向位呢？這正是第二點，說明安住果位而不是安住于向位。五等，『等』字包括斷除六品等，乃至無所有處第九品。果等，『等』字包括一來果、不還果。問：什麼緣故凡夫位先斷除欲界修惑一品乃至五等，直到第十六道類智心（Dharmānujñāna-jñāna-kṣānti），只說名為安住前三果，而不是后三向？這是提問以及頌文的回答。

論曰：達到（果位）不稱為后（面的）向位，達到道類智（Dharmānujñāna-jñāna）時，得到三果時，對於殊勝果位的道必定尚未得到。所以安住於三果，尚未生起殊勝的道，只稱為安住於三果，不稱為后三向。因此，《正理》中說：『依靠得到聖道而建立八聖，如先前已經說過。』所以得到果位時，對於殊勝果位的道必定尚未得到，因為得到果位的心，對於殊勝果位之道所要對治的煩惱並非對治，因為不是對治的法現在前的時候，能夠得到對治的道，如先前已經說過。又不是得到果位時，立即有殊勝果位之道所斷的煩惱的離系得生，因為道類忍（Dharmānujñāna-kṣānti）不能斷除那些系得的緣故。如果道的力量能夠斷除那些系得，此道引導那些離系得生，可以說此道能夠證得那些滅。因為得到前果時，尚未得到殊勝果位之道，所以安住于果位的人，乃至尚未生起殊勝果位之道時，雖然先前已經斷除了那些修所斷的煩惱。

【English Translation】 English version Because of the increasing faith, the excellent understanding is manifested, hence it is called 'Śraddhādhimukti' (信解, Faith-Release, excellent understanding obtained through the increase of faith). Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Because of the power of increasing faith, the excellent understanding is manifested.' The so-called 'Dṛṣṭiprāpta' (見至, Vision-Attained, one who reaches the goal through wisdom), because of the increasing wisdom, the correct view is manifested, hence it is called 'Vision-Attained'. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Because of the power of increasing wisdom, the correct view is manifested.' The so-called 'Attained', because of the previous tendency (path of tendency) of view, one can reach the view of the fruition, hence it is called 'Vision-Attained'. Therefore, the fifty-third volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'It refers to relying on the faith contained in the path of seeing, to obtain the faith-release contained in the path of cultivation.' It also says: 'Relying on the faith of the path of tendency, one obtains the faith-release of the fruition.' It also says: 'Taking faith as the guide, the mind is liberated from the three bonds, hence it is called Faith-Release.' It refers to relying on the view contained in the path of seeing, to reach the view contained in the path of cultivation. It also says: 'Relying on the view contained in the path of tendency, one can reach the view contained in the path of fruition.' It also says: 'Taking view as the guide, the mind is liberated from the three bonds, hence it is called Vision-Attained.'

What is the reason that one first cuts off the afflictions of the Desire Realm up to the Form Realm, and is called abiding in the fruition, rather than abiding in the path of tendency? This is the second point, explaining that one abides in the fruition rather than abiding in the path of tendency. 'Five equals', 'equals' includes cutting off the six categories, up to the ninth category of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception. 'Fruition equals', 'equals' includes the Once-Returner fruition and the Non-Returner fruition. Question: What is the reason that in the position of an ordinary person, one first cuts off one category to five equals of the afflictions to be cultivated in the Desire Realm, until the sixteenth moment of the Mind of Knowledge of the Categories of Dharma (Dharmānujñāna-jñāna-kṣānti, 道類智心), it is only said to be abiding in the first three fruitions, rather than the latter three paths of tendency? This is the question and the answer in verse.

The treatise says: Reaching (the fruition) is not called the latter (subsequent) path of tendency. When one reaches the Knowledge of the Categories of Dharma (Dharmānujñāna-jñāna, 道類智), when one obtains the three fruitions, one must not have yet obtained the path of the superior fruition. Therefore, abiding in the three fruitions, without having yet arisen the superior path, it is only called abiding in the three fruitions, not called the latter three paths of tendency. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Relying on obtaining the Noble Path, the Eight Noble Ones are established, as previously stated.' Therefore, when one obtains the fruition, one must not have yet obtained the path of the superior fruition, because the mind that obtains the fruition is not the antidote to the afflictions to be counteracted by the path of the superior fruition, because when the non-antidote is present, one cannot obtain the antidotal path, as previously stated. Furthermore, it is not that when one obtains the fruition, the detachment of the afflictions to be cut off by the path of the superior fruition immediately arises, because the forbearance of the Knowledge of the Categories of Dharma (Dharmānujñāna-kṣānti, 道類忍) cannot cut off those attachments. If the power of the path can cut off those attachments, this path guides the arising of those detachments, it can be said that this path can realize those cessations. Because when one obtains the previous fruition, one has not yet obtained the path of the superior fruition, therefore, the one who abides in the fruition, until the time when the path of the superior fruition has not yet arisen, although one has previously cut off those afflictions to be cultivated.

惑欲一品等。但名住果不名後向。後於何時得先所斷修惑離系無漏得耶。于勝果道現前時得(已上論文)　然諸先斷至定成樂根者。然諸先斷欲界修惑一至五等。至得果時此生必定起勝果道然後命終。必無未起而命終者。即引證言。由此凡位先離下三靜慮染。后依下地入見道者。彼得果已於現生中必能引起后勝果道。若異此者聖生第四靜慮已上諸地。應不可說定成樂根。然本論皆說聖生上地定成樂根。故知此身決定能起后勝果道。勝果道者後果向道。勝前果故名勝果道。或後果名勝。此道趣彼名勝果道。

問起后勝果道為頓為漸　答漸起非頓。故婆沙一百七十一云。頗有無漏四靜慮漸得耶。答有。以聖者離下地染。及有起勝果道時漸次得故　又云。頗有無漏三無色漸得耶。答有。以離下地染。及有起勝果道時漸次得故。

如是已依至下中上各三者。此下第二約修．無學道。就中。一明德失數。二歷位廣明　此即明德失數。

論曰至九品亦然者。釋第一句。

失德如何各分九品者。此下釋第二句。此即問也。

謂根本品至小燈能滅者。答。失德各九順逆相對及喻可知。

已辨失德至都未斷者者。此下第二歷位廣明。就中。一明預流七生。二明一來向．果。三明不還向．果。四明無

學向．果　此即明預流七生。頌前有四。一結前。謂已辨失德差別九品。二總生下。謂次當依修彼無學道立聖者別。三別生修道。謂且諸有學修道位中。總亦名為信解．見至。隨位多種。四別起頌文。謂先應建立都未斷者。

頌曰至七返生義者。可知。

諸無漏道至說名預流者。釋預流名。諸無漏道總名為流。由此無漏為因流趣涅槃故。預言為顯最初至得義。彼預無漏法流中故說名預流。

此預流名至應名預流者。問。此預流名為目何義。若初得聖道名為預流。即預流名應名第八。第八者謂預流向也。四向四果從後向前初向第八。故婆沙四十六云。第八聖者謂隨信行．及隨法行。從勝數之是第八故　又解於八忍中從後向前數苦法忍為第八故。智度論說見道名八人地。若初得果名為預流。則倍離欲．全離欲者。至道類智得一來果。得不還果此亦初得應名預流。

此預流名至故名預流者。答。此預流名目初得果不目第八。然依遍得一切四果者初所得果。建立此名。一來．不還非定初得。雖超越者有初得義。若次第者即非初得。此若得時決定初得故名預流。

何緣此名不目第八者。問。何緣此預流名不目第八。第八如前釋。

以要至得至不目第八者。答。以要至得道類智時。一具得向

．果無漏道故。二具得見．修無漏道故。三于現觀流四諦十六遍至得故。具斯三義名預流者。第八不然。三義不具。故預流名不目第八。

彼從此後至所說如是者。此下別釋七生。彼從此身得聖果已后。別於人中極多結七中有．生有。天中亦然。四七總有二十八生。應言二十八。皆七等故說極七生　如七處善。五蘊各七。五七應言有三十五。而言七處善者。以七同故但言七也。七處善者如前說　如七葉樹。西方有樹枝枝之上皆有七葉。以實而言葉有無量。言七葉樹者以七同故　毗婆沙師所說如是　結謂結續不斷義也。或結謂煩惱。由結受七。

若爾何故至第八有義者。難。或是彌沙塞部難。彼執人．天合受七生。若於人．天各受七生。何故經言。無處無容見圓滿者。更可有受第八有義。

此契經意至中有應無者。說一切有部答。此契經意約一趣說作如是言不受第八。若如言執不受第八。中有應無。

若爾上流至無第八生者。難。若言一趣無第八生。上流遍生乃至有頂。亦應一趣無第八生。

依欲界說故無有過者。答。言無第八依欲界說故無有過。

此何為證至非合受七者。徴。此何為證。為依教耶。為依理耶。于教．理中以何證彼於人．天中各受七生非合受七。

以契經

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為沒有無漏道（anāsrava-mārga）的緣故。二者都能夠得見。因為修習無漏道的緣故。三者在於現觀（abhisamaya）四聖諦（catvāri ārya-satyāni）十六行相（ākāra）直至獲得。具備這三種意義，稱為預流（srota-āpanna）。第八有不是這樣，不具備這三種意義，所以預流之名不適用于第八有。

從那以後到『所說如是』。以下分別解釋七有（sapta-bhava）。從他此身獲得聖果（phala）之後，分別在人中最多經歷七次中有（antarābhava）、生有（upapattibhava），在天中也是如此。四個七加起來總共有二十八有，應該說是二十八有。因為都是七等，所以說最多七有。如同七處善（sapta-kuśala）。五蘊（pañca-skandha）各有七，五個七應該說有三十五，而說七處善，是因為七相同，所以只說七。七處善如前所說。如同七葉樹。西方有樹，枝條之上都有七片葉子。以實際而言，葉子有無量，說七葉樹是因為七相同。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）所說就是這樣。結（bandhana）的意思是連線、持續不斷。或者結指煩惱（kleśa），因為煩惱而受七有。

如果這樣，為什麼到『第八有義』？這是提問。或許是彌沙塞部（Mahīśāsaka）的提問。他們認為人、天合起來受七有。如果人、天各自受七有，為什麼經中說，『沒有地方、沒有可能見到圓滿者』，還可以有受第八有的說法。

這段契經（sūtra）的意思到『中有應無』？這是一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的回答。這段契經的意思是就單一趣（gati）而說，所以這樣說不受第八有。如果像你所說認為不受第八有，那麼中有就應該不存在。

如果這樣，上流到『無第八生』？這是提問。如果說單一趣沒有第八生，那麼上流（ūrdhvasrotas）、遍生（sarvatragāmin）乃至有頂（abhavāgra），也應該單一趣沒有第八生。

依據欲界（kāma-dhātu）而說，所以沒有過失。回答。說沒有第八有，是依據欲界而說，所以沒有過失。

這用什麼來證明到『非合受七』？這是質問。這用什麼來證明？是依據教證（āgama）嗎？是依據理證（yukti）嗎？在教證、理證中，用什麼來證明他們在人、天中各自受七有，而不是合起來受七有？

以契經（sūtra）...

【English Translation】 English version Because there is no undefiled path (anāsrava-mārga). Both can be seen. Because of cultivating the undefiled path. Third, because of the sixteen aspects (ākāra) of the four noble truths (catvāri ārya-satyāni) in the direct realization (abhisamaya) until attainment. Possessing these three meanings is called a Stream-enterer (srota-āpanna). The eighth existence is not like this, not possessing these three meanings, so the name Stream-enterer does not apply to the eighth existence.

From then on to 'as it is said'. The following separately explains the seven existences (sapta-bhava). After he attains the holy fruit (phala) from this body, he experiences at most seven intermediate existences (antarābhava) and birth existences (upapattibhava) separately in the human realm, and the same in the heavenly realm. Four sevens add up to a total of twenty-eight existences, it should be said twenty-eight existences. Because they are all equal to seven, it is said at most seven existences. Like the seven good places (sapta-kuśala). Each of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) has seven, five sevens should be said to be thirty-five, but it is said seven good places because the seven are the same, so only seven are mentioned. The seven good places are as previously described. Like the seven-leaf tree. In the west, there are trees with seven leaves on each branch. In reality, there are countless leaves, but it is called the seven-leaf tree because the seven are the same. This is what the Vaibhāṣika says. Bond (bandhana) means connection, continuous. Or bond refers to afflictions (kleśa), because of afflictions one experiences seven existences.

If so, why to 'the meaning of the eighth existence'? This is a question. Perhaps it is a question from the Mahīśāsaka. They believe that humans and gods together experience seven existences. If humans and gods each experience seven existences, why does the sutra say, 'There is no place, no possibility to see the perfected one,' and there can still be the saying of experiencing the eighth existence.

What does this sutra (sūtra) mean to 'intermediate existence should not exist'? This is the answer of the Sarvāstivāda. The meaning of this sutra is spoken in terms of a single destiny (gati), so it is said that one does not experience the eighth existence. If, as you say, it is believed that one does not experience the eighth existence, then the intermediate existence should not exist.

If so, the upstream to 'no eighth birth'? This is a question. If it is said that a single destiny has no eighth birth, then the upstream (ūrdhvasrotas), the all-pervading (sarvatragāmin), and even the peak of existence (abhavāgra), should also have no eighth birth in a single destiny.

It is said according to the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), so there is no fault. Answer. Saying that there is no eighth existence is said according to the desire realm, so there is no fault.

What is the proof for this to 'not experiencing seven together'? This is a question. What is the proof for this? Is it based on scriptural authority (āgama)? Is it based on logical reasoning (yukti)? Among scriptural authority and logical reasoning, what is used to prove that they each experience seven existences in the human and heavenly realms, rather than experiencing seven together?

Based on the sutra (sūtra)...

說至不應固執者。說一切有部答。以契經說天七及人。既說及言。明知各七。飲光部經亦各受七。由是此中不應固執人．天合七。

若於人趣至還於天趣者。明滿七生處。若於人趣得預流果。七生天上七生人中。至第七生彼還人趣得般涅槃。若於天趣得預流果。七下生人七生天上。至第七生彼還天趣得般涅槃。以此故知。除得道身。若取得道身便成二十九。

何緣彼無受第八有者。問。何緣彼人但受七生無受第八。

相續齊此至第四日瘧者。答。謂相續身齊此七生。所有聖道必成就故。此顯業力故受七生。聖道種類至第七生。法應如是能斷惑盡。此顯道力故不至八。如七步蛇。故婆沙云。複次彼業力能受七有。聖道力故不至第八。如為七步毒蛇所螫。大種力故能行七步。毒勢力故不至第八。亦如第四日瘧。諸患瘧者發時不同。或有半日不發半日發。或有一日不發一日發。或有極遲發者第一日發第二日第三日不發至第四日必發。此名第四日瘧。至第四日法爾此瘧必定發也。聖道亦爾。必不過七。至第七生法爾必定斷余惑盡而般涅槃。此取法爾極遲分限以喻第七。非取數喻。

又彼有餘至五上分結者。第二解。又彼有餘七結在故。故受七生。謂二下分結欲貪．瞋恚。五上分結謂色愛．無色愛．掉

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於不應固執己見的說法。一切有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一）回答說：根據契經（Sutra，佛經）所說，天道有七生，人道也有七生。既然經文分別說了『及』字，就明確知道各有七生。飲光部（Kāśyapīya，佛教部派之一）的經典也說各自接受七生。因此，這裡不應該固執地認為人道和天道合起來是七生。

如果從人道轉生到天道，這表明滿了七次生死輪迴。如果有人在人道獲得了預流果（Srota-āpanna，佛教修行 प्रथम果位），他將在天上轉生七次，在人間轉生七次，直到第七次轉生時，他回到人間並證得般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。如果有人在天道獲得了預流果，他將下生人間七次，在天上轉生七次，直到第七次轉生時，他回到天道並證得般涅槃。因此可知，除去已經得道之身，如果未得道，則會經歷二十九次轉生。

為什麼他們沒有接受第八次轉生呢？（問）為什麼這些人只接受七次轉生，而沒有接受第八次轉生呢？

相續到此為止，就像第四天發作的瘧疾一樣。（答）意思是說，相續之身到這七次轉生為止，所有的聖道（ārya-mārga，通往解脫的道路）必定會成就。這表明業力（karma-bala，行為的力量）導致了七次轉生。聖道的種類到第七次轉生時，按照法則就應該能夠斷除所有的迷惑。這表明道力（mārga-bala，道路的力量）導致了不再有第八次轉生，就像七步蛇一樣。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）中說：『其次，他們的業力能夠接受七次有（bhava，存在），因為聖道的力量，不會有第八次。就像被七步毒蛇咬傷一樣，四大種（mahābhūta，構成物質世界的四種元素）的力量能夠行走七步，毒的力量導致不能走到第八步。』也像第四天發作的瘧疾一樣。患瘧疾的人發病的時間不同，有的人半天不發作，半天發作；有的人一天不發作，一天發作；有的人發作得很遲，第一天發作，第二天、第三天不發作，到第四天必定發作。這叫做第四天發作的瘧疾。到第四天，按照法則，這種瘧疾必定會發作。聖道也是這樣，必定不會超過七次轉生。到第七次轉生，按照法則，必定會斷除剩餘的迷惑，證得般涅槃。這裡取的是按照法則最遲的時間期限來比喻第七次轉生，而不是取數字來比喻。

此外，他們還有剩餘的五上分結。（第二種解釋）此外，他們還有剩餘的七結（samyojana，束縛）存在，所以接受七次轉生。這七結是：二下分結，即欲貪（kāma-rāga，對感官快樂的貪求）和瞋恚（pratigha，嗔恨）；五上分結，即色愛（rūpa-rāga，對色界的貪愛）、無色愛（arūpa-rāga，對無色界的貪愛）和掉舉（auddhatya，掉舉）。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the statement that one should not be obstinate. The Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school) answers: According to the Sutra (Buddhist scripture), there are seven lives in the heavens and seven lives in the human realm. Since the scripture specifically uses the word 'and', it is clear that there are seven each. The Kāśyapīya (a Buddhist school) scriptures also state that each receives seven. Therefore, one should not stubbornly insist that the human and heavenly realms combined are seven.

If one transmigrates from the human realm to the heavenly realm, this indicates the completion of seven births. If someone attains the Srota-āpanna (stream-enterer, the first stage of enlightenment) in the human realm, they will be reborn in the heavens seven times and in the human realm seven times, until their seventh rebirth when they return to the human realm and attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). If someone attains the Srota-āpanna in the heavenly realm, they will be reborn in the human realm seven times and in the heavens seven times, until their seventh rebirth when they return to the heavenly realm and attain Parinirvana. Therefore, it is known that, excluding those who have already attained the path, if one has not attained the path, they will experience twenty-nine rebirths.

Why do they not receive an eighth existence? (Question) Why do these people only receive seven existences and not an eighth?

The continuum ends here, like malaria that occurs on the fourth day. (Answer) It means that the continuum of the body ends with these seven existences, and all the ārya-mārga (noble paths, paths to liberation) will definitely be accomplished. This shows that karma-bala (the power of action) causes seven existences. The types of noble paths, by the seventh existence, according to the Dharma, should be able to cut off all delusions. This shows that mārga-bala (the power of the path) causes there to be no eighth existence, like a seven-step snake. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Buddhist treatise) says: 'Furthermore, their karma-bala is able to receive seven bhavas (existences), because of the power of the noble path, there will be no eighth. It is like being bitten by a seven-step poisonous snake, the power of the four mahābhūtas (great elements, the four elements that constitute the material world) is able to walk seven steps, the power of the poison causes it not to reach the eighth step.' It is also like malaria that occurs on the fourth day. The onset of malaria differs among those who suffer from it, some have it for half a day and not for half a day; some have it for one day and not for one day; some have a very late onset, occurring on the first day, not occurring on the second and third days, and definitely occurring on the fourth day. This is called malaria that occurs on the fourth day. On the fourth day, according to the Dharma, this malaria will definitely occur. The noble path is also like this, it will definitely not exceed seven existences. By the seventh existence, according to the Dharma, one will definitely cut off the remaining delusions and attain Parinirvana. Here, the latest time limit according to the Dharma is taken to illustrate the seventh existence, not taking the number as an analogy.

Furthermore, they still have the remaining five higher fetters. (Second explanation) Furthermore, they still have the remaining seven samyojanas (fetters) present, so they receive seven existences. These seven fetters are: the two lower fetters, namely kāma-rāga (sensual desire, craving for sense pleasures) and pratigha (aversion, hatred); the five higher fetters, namely rūpa-rāga (desire for the realm of form), arūpa-rāga (desire for the formless realm), and auddhatya (restlessness).

．慢．無明。正理破云。此亦無能證唯七有。唯貪．瞋結引七有故。又無契經說不還者受極七有。又無經說五上分結引欲界生。故彼所言無能證力。但由法爾極受七生。于中不應強申理趣　俱舍師救云。雖上界結非引欲生。由成彼故二下分結。而有勢力引欲界生。此亦何妨　問住預流果容受幾生　泰法師解云。住預流果無受一生。乃至一來向中亦無受一生者。若有一生業不可轉。令不受余悉可轉者。彼人先斷六品惑方受一生。若先斷六品惑已。此人即是一來人。后受一生時。即是一來果上受一生。非是向中受也。如涅槃經云。是須陀洹凡有二種。一者利根。二者鈍根。鈍根之人人．天七返。是鈍根人復有五種。或有六．五．四．三．二．種。利根之人現身獲得須陀洹果乃至阿羅漢果。若有一生何故不說。又成實論云。須陀洹人。若受二生乃至七生。若有一生。何故不說。又婆沙四十六云。七生天上七生人中者。此依圓滿預流而說。故人．天有。等受七生。然有預流人．天生別。謂天七．人六。或人七．天六　或天六．人五。或人六．天五　或天五．人四。或人五．天四　或天四．人三。或人四．天三　或天三．人二。或人三．天二　或天二．人一。或人二．天一　此中且說極多生者故說預流人．天各七。婆沙極多之中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『慢』和『無明』（avidyā，無知），正理能夠破除這種說法。這也無法證明只有七有（seven existences）。因為只有貪（rāga，貪慾）和瞋（dveṣa，嗔恨）的結才能牽引七有。而且沒有契經（sūtra，佛經）說不還者（anāgāmin，不還果）會經歷最多七有。也沒有經文說五上分結（five higher fetters）會牽引欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）的生。所以他們的說法沒有證明的力量。只是因為法爾（dharmatā，事物本性）最多經歷七次出生。對此不應該強行解釋理趣。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośakāra，俱舍論作者）辯護說：『雖然上界的結不會牽引欲界的生，但由於成就了上界的結，兩個下分結（two lower fetters）卻有力量牽引欲界的生。這又有什麼妨礙呢？』問：安住于預流果（srotaāpanna-phala，入流果）的人，最多會經歷幾次出生？泰法師解釋說：『安住于預流果的人不會只受一次生。甚至在一來向（sakṛdāgāmi-pratipannaka，一來向）中也沒有隻受一次生的人。如果有一種業力不可轉變，導致不能不受餘業，那麼這個人先斷除了六品惑（six categories of delusion）才能受一次生。如果先斷除了六品惑，這個人就是一來人（sakṛdāgāmin，一來果）。之後受一次生時，就是在一來果上受一次生，而不是在（一來）向中受。』如《涅槃經》（Nirvāṇa Sūtra）所說：『須陀洹（srotaāpanna，入流果）有兩種，一是利根（sharp faculties），二是鈍根（dull faculties）。鈍根之人會在人（manussa，人類）和天（deva，天神）之間往返七次。鈍根之人又有五種，或者六次、五次、四次、三次、兩次。利根之人現世就能獲得須陀洹果，乃至阿羅漢果（arhat，阿羅漢果）。』如果只有一次生，為什麼不說呢？又《成實論》（Satyasiddhi Śāstra）說：『須陀洹人，如果受兩次生乃至七次生。如果只有一次生，為什麼不說呢？』又《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第四十六卷說：『七生天上，七生人中』，這是依據圓滿的預流果而說的。所以人天各有等同的七次生。然而有預流人天生的差別，比如天七次，人六次；或者人七次，天六次；或者天六次，人五次；或者人六次，天五次；或者天五次，人四次；或者人五次，天四次；或者天四次，人三次；或者人四次，天三次；或者天三次，人兩次；或者人三次，天兩次；或者天兩次，人一次；或者人兩次，天一次。這裡只是說了最多生的情形，所以說預流人天各有七次。婆沙論在極多的情形中。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'conceit' (māna) and 'ignorance' (avidyā), right reasoning can refute this. This also cannot prove that there are only seven existences. Because only the fetters of 'greed' (rāga) and 'hatred' (dveṣa) can lead to seven existences. Moreover, there is no sūtra (canonical text) that says a 'non-returner' (anāgāmin) experiences at most seven existences. Nor is there any sūtra that says the 'five higher fetters' (pañca uddhambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni) lead to birth in the 'desire realm' (kāmadhātu). Therefore, their statement has no power of proof. It is merely because of 'dharmatā' (the nature of things) that one experiences at most seven births. One should not forcefully interpret the underlying principle in this. The Abhidharmakośakāra defends by saying: 'Although the fetters of the upper realms do not lead to birth in the desire realm, by accomplishing the fetters of the upper realms, the two lower fetters (two lower fetters) have the power to lead to birth in the desire realm. What harm is there in this?' Question: How many births can one abiding in the 'stream-enterer fruit' (srotaāpanna-phala) experience? Master Tai explains: 'One abiding in the stream-enterer fruit will not experience only one birth. Even in the 'once-returner path' (sakṛdāgāmi-pratipannaka), there is no one who experiences only one birth. If there is a karma that cannot be transformed, causing one to be unable to avoid experiencing the remaining karma, then that person must first cut off six categories of delusion (six categories of delusion) in order to experience one birth. If one has first cut off six categories of delusion, that person is a 'once-returner' (sakṛdāgāmin). When experiencing one birth later, it is experiencing one birth on the once-returner fruit, not in the (once-returner) path.' As the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'There are two types of srotaāpanna (stream-enterer), one with sharp faculties and one with dull faculties. A person with dull faculties will return seven times between humans (manussa) and gods (deva). There are five types of people with dull faculties, or six, five, four, three, or two times. A person with sharp faculties can attain the srotaāpanna fruit, or even the arhat fruit (arhat), in this life.' If there is only one birth, why is it not mentioned? Furthermore, the Satyasiddhi Śāstra says: 'A srotaāpanna person, if they experience two births or even seven births. If there is only one birth, why is it not mentioned?' Moreover, the Vibhāṣā, volume 46, says: 'Seven births in the heavens, seven births among humans,' this is said based on the complete stream-enterer fruit. Therefore, humans and gods each have an equal seven births. However, there are differences in the births of stream-enterers among humans and gods, such as seven times in the heavens and six times among humans; or seven times among humans and six times in the heavens; or six times in the heavens and five times among humans; or six times among humans and five times in the heavens; or five times in the heavens and four times among humans; or five times among humans and four times in the heavens; or four times in the heavens and three times among humans; or four times among humans and three times in the heavens; or three times in the heavens and two times among humans; or three times among humans and two times in the heavens; or two times in the heavens and one time among humans; or two times among humans and one time in the heavens. Here, only the case of the most births is mentioned, so it is said that stream-enterers among humans and gods each have seven times. The Vibhāṣā, in the case of the most.

即說人．天各受七生。極少中不言人一．天一。故知住預流果無受一生　更廣云云。不能具述　今解不然。住預流果有受七生。乃至有受一生。論文既說極言。為顯受生最多。非諸預流皆受七返。以此故知。不遮極少亦受一生。婆沙不言人一．天一各一生者。且據乘前綺互多少不言各一。以實而言亦容各受一生。若以不說即言無者。彼亦不說天六．人六等。應無人．天各六生等。故知略而不論。或影略互顯。有何道理許天二．人一。人二．天一等。而不許彼各受一生。又引涅槃．成實以為證者。非是當部。如何為證。涅槃經說皆有佛性。成實論說有諸種子。此豈同彼。不可為證。更有云云。不能廣破。

中間雖有至不證圓寂者。于彼七生中間雖有聖道現前。餘業力持不證圓寂　梵云般涅槃。般云圓。涅槃云寂。

至第七有至余道出家者。明七生滿無佛法時其身形相。前師意說。逢無佛法得阿羅漢已必不住家。法爾自得苾芻形相剃髮染衣。不言得戒。十種得戒中不言得阿羅漢時而得戒故　后師意說。彼往諸餘外道出家作外道形相。於二說中前說為正。故正理六十四云。唯依佛出世有別解律儀。故彼第七有若不遇佛法。便在家得阿羅漢果。既得果已必不住家。苾芻威儀法爾成就。雖不會遇前佛所說。而於余命

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前面說到人界和天界各自承受七次轉生。極少的情況下沒有提到人界一次、天界一次的情況。因此可知，安住于預流果（Srota-apanna-phala）的聖者並非都要承受一生。更廣的論述云云，無法在此詳述。現在我的理解不同。安住于預流果的聖者，有的會承受七次轉生，乃至有的只承受一次轉生。論文既然說了『極』字，是爲了顯示承受轉生次數最多，並非所有預流果聖者都要經歷七次往返。因此可知，不能排除極少數只承受一次轉生的情況。《婆沙論》沒有說人界一次、天界一次各自一生的情況，只是根據之前互相穿插的多少情況，沒有說各自一次。但實際上也可能各自承受一生。如果因為沒有說就認為沒有，那麼他們也沒有說天界六次、人界六次等情況，難道就沒有人界、天界各自六次轉生等情況了嗎？因此可知，這是省略而不論述，或者互相映襯顯現。有什麼道理允許天界兩次、人界一次，人界兩次、天界一次等情況，而不允許他們各自承受一生呢？又引用《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）、《成實論》（Satyasiddhi Shastra）作為證據，但它們並非同一部派的經典，如何能作為證據呢？《涅槃經》說一切眾生皆有佛性（Buddha-dhatu），《成實論》說有各種種子（Bija）。這與我們所討論的內容相同嗎？不能作為證據。還有其他論述云云，無法在此一一駁斥。

中間雖有至不證圓寂者：在七次轉生中間，即使有聖道（Arya-marga）現前，也會因為剩餘業力的支援而無法證得圓寂（Parinirvana）。梵語般涅槃（Parinirvana），般（Pari）意為圓滿，涅槃（Nirvana）意為寂靜。

至第七有至余道出家者：說明七次轉生圓滿，沒有佛法（Buddha-dharma）時，其身形相。前師的觀點認為，遇到沒有佛法的時候，得到阿羅漢（Arhat）果位后必定不會住在家裡，自然而然地得到比丘（Bhiksu）的形相，剃髮染衣，但沒有說得到戒律（Sila）。因為十種得戒方式中沒有說得到阿羅漢果位時就能得到戒律。后師的觀點認為，他們前往其他外道（Tirthika）那裡出家，做外道的形相。在這兩種說法中，前一種說法是正確的。所以《正理經》（Nyaya Sutra）第六十四卷說，只有依靠佛陀出世才有特殊的解脫律儀。因此，第七有如果遇不到佛法，便在家中得到阿羅漢果位。既然得到果位，必定不會住在家裡，比丘的威儀自然成就。即使不會遇到前佛所說的教法，也能在剩餘的生命中...

【English Translation】 English version: It was previously stated that beings in the human and heavenly realms each undergo seven rebirths. In very few cases, it is not mentioned that there is one rebirth in the human realm and one in the heavenly realm. Therefore, it can be known that those who abide in the Srota-apanna-phala (stream-enterer fruit) do not necessarily have to undergo one lifetime. More extensive discussions are not detailed here. Now, my understanding is different. Those who abide in the Srota-apanna-phala may undergo seven rebirths, or even just one rebirth. Since the treatise uses the word 'extreme,' it is to show that the maximum number of rebirths is possible, but not all Srota-apannas experience seven returns. Therefore, it can be known that it does not preclude the very few who undergo only one rebirth. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa Sastra) does not mention one rebirth each in the human and heavenly realms, but only according to the previous interspersed amounts, without mentioning each one. But in reality, it is also possible to undergo one rebirth each. If it is assumed that what is not mentioned does not exist, then they also do not mention six rebirths in the heavenly realm and six in the human realm, etc. Does that mean there are no six rebirths each in the human and heavenly realms? Therefore, it can be known that this is omitted without discussion, or mutually reflecting and revealing. What reason is there to allow two rebirths in the heavenly realm and one in the human realm, or two in the human realm and one in the heavenly realm, etc., but not allow them to undergo one rebirth each? Furthermore, the Nirvana Sutra and the Satyasisddhi Shastra are cited as evidence, but they are not from the same school of thought, so how can they be used as evidence? The Nirvana Sutra says that all beings have Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-nature), and the Satyasisddhi Shastra says that there are various Bija (seeds). Are these the same as what we are discussing? They cannot be used as evidence. There are other arguments, but they cannot be refuted in detail here.

『Though there may be those who do not attain Parinirvana』: In the middle of the seven rebirths, even if Arya-marga (the Noble Path) manifests, one may not attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana) due to the remaining force of karma. Parinirvana in Sanskrit, Pari means complete, and Nirvana means tranquility.

『Until the seventh existence, one may leave home for other paths』: This explains the form and appearance when the seven rebirths are complete and there is no Buddha-dharma. The former teacher's view is that when encountering a time without Buddha-dharma, after attaining Arhat (Arhatship), one will definitely not stay at home, and will naturally obtain the form of a Bhiksu (monk), shaving the head and wearing dyed robes, but it is not said that one obtains Sila (precepts). Because among the ten ways of obtaining precepts, it is not said that one can obtain precepts when attaining Arhatship. The latter teacher's view is that they go to other Tirthika (non-Buddhist) to leave home, taking on the form of non-Buddhists. Among these two views, the former is correct. Therefore, the Nyaya Sutra, volume sixty-four, says that only by relying on the Buddha's appearance in the world is there a special Vinaya (discipline) of liberation. Therefore, if the seventh existence does not encounter the Buddha-dharma, one will attain Arhatship at home. Since one has attained the fruit, one will definitely not stay at home, and the demeanor of a Bhiksu will naturally be accomplished. Even if one does not encounter the teachings spoken by the previous Buddha, one can still in the remaining life...

生極厭心。不經久時便入圓寂。有言彼往余道出家。理不應然。往余道者由惡見力邪業轉故　又婆沙四十六云。問若滿七有無佛出世。彼在居家得阿羅漢果耶。有說不得。彼要出家受余法服得阿羅漢。有說彼在家得阿羅漢已。后必出家受余法服。如是說者彼法爾成佛弟子相。乃至得極果。如五百仙人。在伊師迦山中修道。本是聲聞出無佛世。獼猴為現佛弟子相。彼皆學之證獨覺果。無學不受外道相故。

云何彼名無退墮法者。問。預流亦起不善修惑。云何契經說彼預流名名無退墮惡趣法耶。

以不生長至亦能浮者。答。一以不生長退墮業故。二違彼生長業與果故。三強盛善根鎮彼身故。四身語加行．及與意樂俱清凈故。五諸有決定墮惡趣業尚不起忍。況得預流。以劣況勝。故有頌言。愚作罪小。亦墮惡趣。無慚愧故。智為罪大。亦能解脫惡趣苦果。有慚愧故。喻況可知。引此頌意凡夫愚人名退墮法。聖者智人名無退墮。凡雖亦有不墮惡趣。以少不定。故不名為無退墮法　問聖亦起惑何非墮退　解云雖起修惑無見惑助故不能感三惡趣也。故婆沙一百二十五云。由二部結縛諸有情令墮惡趣。謂見所斷．修所斷結。諸預流者雖未永斷修所斷結。而已永斷見所斷結。闕一資糧不墮惡趣。如車二輪有所運載。鳥有二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

（某人）極度厭惡生命，不久便進入圓寂（涅槃）。有人說他往其他道出家，這在理上是不應該的。前往其他道的人，是由於惡見的力量和邪惡的業力所轉變的。又，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第四十六卷說：『問：如果充滿七有（指欲界、色界、無色界）而沒有佛出世，那人在家能否得到阿羅漢果？』有人說不能。他必須出家，接受其他的法服，才能得到阿羅漢果。有人說，那人在家得到阿羅漢果后，必定會出家，接受其他的法服。這樣說的人認為，那人自然會成為佛的弟子，乃至得到最高的果位。例如五百仙人，在伊師迦山（地名）中修行，本來是聲聞（聽聞佛法而修行的人），出生在沒有佛的時代。獼猴為他們示現佛弟子的形象，他們都學習這些形象，證得了獨覺果（不依師教，自己覺悟的聖者）。因為無學（阿羅漢）不會接受外道的形象。

什麼樣的人被稱為『無退墮法』者？問：預流（須陀洹，初果聖人）也會生起不善的修惑（思惑），為什麼契經（佛經）說預流被稱為『無退墮惡趣法』呢？

就像不會沉沒的物體，即使生長到一定程度也能漂浮一樣。答：一是因為不生長退墮的業；二是因為違背了那些生長退墮的業及其果報；三是因為強盛的善根鎮住了他的身心；四是因為身語的加行以及意樂都清凈；五是因為那些決定墮入惡趣的業，尚且不能生起忍（安忍），更何況是得到預流果的人呢？以小的來比況大的。所以有頌說：『愚人作小罪，亦墮惡趣，因為沒有慚愧心。智者作大罪，也能解脫惡趣的苦果，因為有慚愧心。』比喻的情況可以知道。引用這首頌的意思是，凡夫愚人被稱為退墮法，聖者智人被稱為無退墮法。凡夫雖然也有不墮惡趣的，但因為很少而且不確定，所以不能被稱為無退墮法。問：聖人也會生起惑，為什麼不會墮落退轉呢？解釋說，雖然生起修惑，但沒有見惑（錯誤的見解）的幫助，所以不能感得三惡趣的果報。所以《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百二十五卷說：『由於兩種結（煩惱）的束縛，使有情墮入惡趣，即見所斷結和修所斷結。諸預流者雖然沒有永遠斷除修所斷結，但已經永遠斷除了見所斷結。缺少一種資糧，就不會墮入惡趣。』就像車子有兩個輪子才能運載，鳥有兩隻翅膀才能飛行一樣。

【English Translation】 English version:

He developed an extreme aversion to life and soon entered Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). Some say that he went to another path to become a monk, but this is not reasonable. Those who go to other paths are transformed by the power of evil views and evil karma. Furthermore, the Abhidharma Mahavibhasha Shastra, volume 46, says: 'Question: If the seven existences (referring to the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) are full and no Buddha appears in the world, can a person attain the Arhat fruit while remaining at home?' Some say no. He must become a monk, receive other Dharma robes, and then attain the Arhat fruit. Some say that after a person attains the Arhat fruit at home, he will definitely become a monk and receive other Dharma robes. Those who say this believe that the person will naturally become a disciple of the Buddha and even attain the highest fruit. For example, the five hundred immortals who practiced in Mount Ishika (a place name) were originally Shravakas (those who practice by hearing the Buddha's teachings), born in an era without a Buddha. A monkey showed them the appearance of a Buddha's disciple, and they all learned these appearances and attained the Pratyekabuddha fruit (a saint who awakens on their own without a teacher's instruction). Because the non-learners (Arhats) do not accept the appearances of external paths.

What kind of person is called 'one who does not regress from the Dharma'? Question: A Stream-enterer (Srotapanna, the first fruit of a saint) also gives rise to unwholesome cultivation delusions (thought delusions), so why does the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) say that a Stream-enterer is called 'one who does not regress from the evil realms'?

Like something that does not sink, even if it grows to a certain extent, it can still float. Answer: First, because he does not cultivate the karma of regression; second, because he opposes those karmas of growth and regression and their consequences; third, because strong wholesome roots suppress his body and mind; fourth, because the actions of body and speech, as well as the intention, are pure; fifth, because those karmas that are destined to fall into the evil realms cannot even give rise to patience (acceptance), let alone the attainment of the Stream-entry fruit? Using the small to compare with the large. Therefore, there is a verse that says: 'A fool commits a small sin and also falls into the evil realms because he has no shame. A wise person commits a great sin but can also be liberated from the suffering of the evil realms because he has shame.' The situation of the analogy can be understood. The meaning of quoting this verse is that ordinary foolish people are called those who regress from the Dharma, while wise saints are called those who do not regress. Although ordinary people may also not fall into the evil realms, because it is rare and uncertain, they cannot be called those who do not regress. Question: Saints also give rise to delusions, so why do they not fall and regress? It is explained that although they give rise to cultivation delusions, they do not have the help of view delusions (wrong views), so they cannot experience the consequences of the three evil realms. Therefore, the Abhidharma Mahavibhasha Shastra, volume 125, says: 'Due to the bondage of two kinds of fetters (afflictions), sentient beings fall into the evil realms, namely the fetters severed by view and the fetters severed by cultivation. Although Stream-enterers have not permanently severed the fetters severed by cultivation, they have permanently severed the fetters severed by view. Lacking one kind of resource, they will not fall into the evil realms.' Just as a cart needs two wheels to carry things, and a bird needs two wings to fly.

翼能飛虛空。闕一不然。此亦如是。故預流者不墮惡趣。然有說者。愚者墮惡趣。智則不然。一切預流是智者故　廣如彼釋。

經說預流至苦邊際名者。依經起問。

依齊此生至所謂涅槃者。答。此中兩解。前解據苦盡處名苦邊際。后解據出苦處名苦邊際。故婆沙云。作苦邊際者是證苦邊際義。問此苦邊際為在苦中。為在苦外。若在苦中應非邊際。若在苦外世間現喻當云何通。如世金籌初中后際無不是金。苦之邊際亦應是苦。有作是說苦邊際者謂在苦中。即阿羅漢最後諸蘊體雖是苦。非后苦因。不生后苦。后苦不續。名苦邊際。有餘師說苦邊際者謂在苦外。即是涅槃永出苦故名苦邊際。世間現喻不必須通。非三藏攝不須釋故也。俗法．聖法理各別故。

如何涅槃可是所作者。問后解也。

除彼得障至謂毀臺觀者。答。除彼涅槃得之障故。此得被他惑障不生若斷惑障得彼涅槃。此得起故涅槃體顯。故說涅槃名為所作　又解除彼惑得障起得涅槃。涅槃現故說所作言。如言作空。謂毀臺觀。空顯義邊空名所作。涅槃亦爾。

餘位亦有至是故不說者。余異生位。雖復亦有極七返生得般涅槃。然非決定。或有過者。是故不說。聖極唯七。是故別說。故正理六十四云。若於人趣得預流果。人中滿七

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『翼能飛虛空。闕一不然。此亦如是。故預流者不墮惡趣。』意思是說，就像鳥的翅膀能夠飛向天空，缺少一個翅膀就不能飛一樣。因此，證得預流果（Sotapanna，須陀洹，初果聖人）的人不會墮入惡趣（apāya，地獄、餓鬼、畜生三惡道）。然而，有人說：愚笨的人會墮入惡趣，聰明的人則不會。一切預流果的聖人都是聰明人，所以不會墮入惡趣。更詳細的解釋可以參考相關的論釋。

經文中說『預流至苦邊際名者』，是根據經文提出的問題。

『依齊此生至所謂涅槃者』，這是對上述問題的回答。這裡有兩種解釋。第一種解釋認為，『苦邊際』是指苦已經完全止息的地方。第二種解釋認為，『苦邊際』是指脫離苦的地方。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中說：『作苦邊際者是證苦邊際義。』意思是說，『達到苦的邊際』就是『證得苦的邊際』的意思。有人問：這個『苦邊際』是在苦之中，還是在苦之外？如果在苦之中，就不應該是邊際；如果在苦之外，世間的例子又該如何解釋呢？比如世間的金條，無論開始、中間還是結尾，都是金子。苦的邊際也應該是苦。有人這樣解釋：『苦邊際』是指在苦之中，即阿羅漢（Arhat，應供）最後的諸蘊（skandha，五蘊，色、受、想、行、識），雖然其體性是苦，但不是產生未來苦的原因，不會產生未來的苦，未來的苦不會延續，所以稱為『苦邊際』。還有其他老師說，『苦邊際』是指在苦之外，即是涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅），因為永遠脫離了苦，所以稱為『苦邊際』。世間的例子不一定都要完全對應，因為不是三藏（Tripitaka，經、律、論）所攝的內容，所以不需要解釋。世俗的法和聖人的法，道理各自不同。

『如何涅槃可是所作者』，這是針對后一種解釋提出的問題。

『除彼得障至謂毀臺觀者』，回答是：因為排除了獲得涅槃的障礙。這種獲得會被其他的迷惑所障礙，無法產生。如果斷除了迷惑的障礙，就能獲得涅槃。這種獲得生起，涅槃的本體就顯現出來。所以說涅槃是『所作』。又可以解釋為，排除了那些迷惑，獲得障礙，生起獲得涅槃。涅槃顯現的緣故，所以說『所作』。比如我們說『作空』，是指毀壞了樓臺亭閣，空顯現出來，從空顯現的意義上來說，空被稱為『所作』。涅槃也是這樣。

『餘位亦有至是故不說者』，其他的異生位（bāla-pṛthag-jana，凡夫位），雖然也有極少數能在七次往返生死後證得涅槃，但並非是確定的，或者會有超過七次的情況，所以不說。聖人的最多隻有七次，所以特別說明。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第六十四卷中說：『如果有人在人道證得預流果，在人道中最多經歷七次生死。』

【English Translation】 English version 『Wings can fly in the sky. Lacking one, it cannot. It is also like this. Therefore, a Stream-enterer (Sotapanna) does not fall into the evil realms (apāya).』 This means that just as a bird's wings can fly into the sky, lacking one wing, it cannot fly. Therefore, one who has attained the Stream-entry fruit does not fall into the evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals). However, some say: foolish people fall into the evil realms, while wise people do not. All Stream-enterers are wise, so they do not fall into the evil realms. A more detailed explanation can be found in the related commentaries.

The phrase in the sutra, 『Stream-enterer reaches the limit of suffering,』 is a question based on the sutra.

『Relying on this life to what is called Nirvana,』 is the answer to the above question. There are two explanations here. The first explanation considers 『the limit of suffering』 to be the place where suffering has completely ceased. The second explanation considers 『the limit of suffering』 to be the place of liberation from suffering. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 『Making the limit of suffering means realizing the meaning of the limit of suffering.』 Someone asks: Is this 『limit of suffering』 within suffering or outside of suffering? If it is within suffering, it should not be a limit; if it is outside of suffering, how can worldly examples be explained? For example, a gold bar, whether at the beginning, middle, or end, is all gold. The limit of suffering should also be suffering. Some explain it this way: 『The limit of suffering』 refers to being within suffering, that is, the last aggregates (skandha) of an Arhat, although their nature is suffering, they are not the cause of future suffering, they do not produce future suffering, and future suffering does not continue, so it is called 『the limit of suffering.』 Other teachers say that 『the limit of suffering』 refers to being outside of suffering, that is, Nirvana, because it is a permanent escape from suffering, so it is called 『the limit of suffering.』 Worldly examples do not necessarily have to correspond completely, because they are not included in the Tripitaka, so they do not need to be explained. The principles of mundane law and the principles of the holy law are different.

『How can Nirvana be something that is made?』 This is a question directed at the latter explanation.

『Removing the obstacles to obtaining it, like destroying a tower,』 The answer is: because the obstacles to obtaining Nirvana are removed. This attainment is obstructed by other delusions and cannot arise. If the obstacles of delusion are cut off, Nirvana can be attained. This attainment arises, and the essence of Nirvana manifests. Therefore, it is said that Nirvana is 『made.』 It can also be explained as, removing those delusions, obtaining obstacles, and giving rise to obtaining Nirvana. Because Nirvana manifests, it is said to be 『made.』 For example, when we say 『making emptiness,』 it refers to destroying towers and pavilions, and emptiness manifests. From the meaning of emptiness manifesting, emptiness is called 『made.』 Nirvana is also like this.

『Other positions also have... therefore it is not said.』 Other positions of ordinary beings (bāla-pṛthag-jana), although there are very few who can attain Nirvana after seven rebirths, it is not certain, or there may be more than seven times, so it is not said. The maximum for saints is only seven, so it is specifically stated. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, volume 64, says: 『If someone attains the Stream-entry fruit in the human realm, they will experience a maximum of seven rebirths in the human realm.』

天準應知。非聖亦有極七返生。相續成就得涅槃義。然非決定。是故不說。

俱舍論記卷第二十三

長承四年二月二十日午上于山城國田原里大道寺與三弟共切句了

權少僧都覺樹

病逐日增老眼亦闇為之如何。

（別　筆）

天養二年六月十七日于貝津房一見了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十四

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之三

已辨住果至一來向果者。此下第二明一來向．果。就此文中。一結前。二總生下。三別起頌。

頌曰至斷六一來果者。頌答。就中。上三句明向。下一句明果　就向中。上兩句明家家。第三句正明向。

論曰至轉名家家者。此下釋上兩句此即總標。若三緣具轉名家家。隨有所闕不名家家。

一由斷惑至三四品故者。一由斷惑。斷欲修斷三．四品故。謂或於先異生位斷。或今預流進修位斷。三．四品簡斷一品．二品．五品。雖有斷一品．二品．五品。或有出觀者。或有退者。必無中間經死生者。故無斷一品．二品．五品名家家者。所以得知無死生者。故婆沙五十三云。複次諸預流者。若斷欲界一．二品結。無死生義故不說之。如斷五品。謂瑜伽師得初果已。為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：天準（Devadatta，佛陀的堂弟）應該知道。即使不是聖者，也有可能達到最多七次往返生死（七返生），通過持續的修行最終證得涅槃（Nirvana）的意義。然而，這並非是絕對確定的，因此經典中沒有明確說明。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十三

長承四年二月二十日午時，于山城國田原里大道寺與三弟共同完成切句。

權少僧都覺樹

疾病日益加重，老眼也昏花，該如何是好。

（別筆）

天養二年六月十七日于貝津房一見《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第二十四

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之三

已經辨析了住果，接下來要講的是一來向果（Sakrdagami-pratipannaka）。下面第二部分闡明一來向和一來果（Sakrdagami-phala）。就這段經文而言，一是總結前文，二是總起下文，三是分別解釋偈頌。

偈頌說：『斷六一來果』。這是用偈頌來回答。其中，前三句說明一來向，后一句說明一來果。就一來向而言，前兩句說明家家（Kula-kula），第三句正式說明一來向。

論中說：『轉名家家』。下面解釋上面兩句，這是總的標示。如果三個條件都具備，就轉名為家家。如果缺少任何一個條件，就不能稱為家家。

一是因為斷惑，斷除欲界修斷的三品或四品煩惱。一是因為斷惑，斷除欲界修斷的三品或四品煩惱的緣故。指的是或者在先前的異生位（未入聖位）斷除，或者在現在的預流（Srotapanna，須陀洹）進修位斷除。三品或四品是爲了簡別斷除一品、二品、五品的情況。雖然有斷除一品、二品、五品的情況，或者有出觀者，或者有退轉者，但一定沒有中間經歷死亡和轉生者。因此，斷除一品、二品、五品不能稱為家家。如何得知沒有死生呢？所以《婆沙論》第五十三卷說：『再次，諸預流者，如果斷除欲界一品、二品結，沒有死生之義，所以不說。如同斷除五品。』意思是瑜伽師得到初果后，爲了...

【English Translation】 English version: Devadatta (Buddha's cousin) should know this. Even those who are not saints can achieve a maximum of seven rebirths (seven more lives), and through continuous practice, eventually attain the meaning of Nirvana. However, this is not absolutely certain, so it is not explicitly stated in the scriptures.

Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika, Volume 23

On the 20th day of the second month of Chosho 4 (1135), at noon, at Daido-ji Temple in Tawara Village, Yamashiro Province, I finished cutting the phrases together with my three younger brothers.

Acting Junior Monk Supervisor Kakuju

The illness increases daily, and my old eyes are also dimming. What should I do?

(Separate handwriting)

Seen once on the 17th day of the sixth month of Ten'yo 2 (1125) at Beijin-bo Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika

Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika, Volume 24

Commentary by Shramana Shakya-prabha

Chapter 6, Section 3: Analysis of the Wise and the Noble

Having discussed the Fruition of Stream-enterer, next is the path to Once-returner (Sakrdagami-pratipannaka). The second part below clarifies the path to Once-returner and the Fruition of Once-returner (Sakrdagami-phala). Regarding this passage, first, it summarizes the previous text; second, it introduces the following text in general; and third, it explains the verses separately.

The verse says: 'Cutting six, Once-returner Fruition.' This is answering with a verse. Among them, the first three lines explain the path, and the last line explains the Fruition. Regarding the path, the first two lines explain Kula-kula (family to family), and the third line formally explains the path to Once-returner.

The treatise says: 'Turning is called Kula-kula.' Below explains the above two lines, which is a general indication. If three conditions are met, it is called Kula-kula. If any condition is missing, it cannot be called Kula-kula.

One is due to cutting off defilements, cutting off the three or four categories of afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation in the Desire Realm. One is due to cutting off defilements, because of cutting off the three or four categories of afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation in the Desire Realm. This refers to either cutting off in the previous ordinary being state (before entering the state of a noble one), or cutting off in the current Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) progressive cultivation state. The three or four categories are to distinguish the cases of cutting off one, two, or five categories. Although there are cases of cutting off one, two, or five categories, there are either those who emerge from meditation, or those who regress. But there are certainly none who experience death and rebirth in between. Therefore, cutting off one, two, or five categories cannot be called Kula-kula. How is it known that there is no death and rebirth? Therefore, Vibhasa, Volume 53, says: 'Again, those who are Stream-enterers, if they cut off one or two categories of fetters in the Desire Realm, there is no meaning of death and rebirth, so it is not mentioned. Like cutting off five categories.' It means that after a yogi attains the first Fruition, in order to...

斷欲界修所斷結起大加行。必無未斷一大品結有死生故。如斷五品。必無未斷第六品結有死生義。家家等三有死生故。此中偏說。準彼論文故知斷一．二．五品必無中間有死生義　問準婆沙文不言出觀亦不言退。如何得知出觀．及退　答如婆沙三十二云。預流者趣一來果時。不起定者加行道時于欲六生得非擇滅。若起定者要至第六無間道時于欲六生得非擇滅。一來者趣不還果時。不起定者加行道時于欲一生得非擇滅。若起定者要至第九無間道時。于欲一生得非擇滅。婆沙既不言第五無間道得欲六生非擇滅。又不言初無間道得二生非擇滅。第二無間道得三生非擇滅。明知品品皆可出觀。皆可退也。論言以斷第五必斷第六者。據不退者說。無中間有死生故。必于現身斷第六也。

二由成根至無滅根故者。第二緣。謂由成根得能治彼三品．四品無漏諸根。先凡位中斷三．四品。后住初果未起勝果道。雖有初後緣猶未成彼無漏根故。

三由受生至三．二生故者。第三緣。謂由受生更受欲有三．二生故。若斷三品更受三生。若斷四品更受二生。無斷一品．二品．五品中間死生。故無五生．四生．一生．半生家家。

問聖人造牽引業不　解云若依正理六十四云。此三．二生。由異生位造作及增長。感三．二生業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本斷除欲界修所斷的煩惱結，發起大的精進行為，必定不會有未斷除一大品煩惱結而有死亡和轉生的事情發生。如同斷除了前五品煩惱結，必定不會有未斷除第六品煩惱結而有死亡和轉生的道理一樣。因為家家（Ekabija，一種果位）、一間（Sakadagamin，一種果位）等三果位有死亡和轉生。這裡偏重說明，根據《大毗婆沙論》的文義可知，斷除一品、二品、五品煩惱結，必定沒有中間有死亡和轉生的道理。問：根據《大毗婆沙論》的文義，沒有說出觀，也沒有說退，如何得知出觀和退呢？答：如《大毗婆沙論》第三十二卷所說：『預流者（Srotapanna，一種果位）趣向一來果（Sakadagami-phala，一種果位）時，不起定者在加行道（Prayogamarga，一種修行階段）時，對於欲界的六種生處得到非擇滅（Apratisamkhyanirodha，一種滅盡狀態）。如果起定者要到第六無間道（Anantaryamarga，一種修行階段）時，對於欲界的六種生處得到非擇滅。一來者趣向不還果（Anagami-phala，一種果位）時，不起定者在加行道時，對於欲界的一種生處得到非擇滅。如果起定者要到第九無間道時，對於欲界的一種生處得到非擇滅。』《大毗婆沙論》既然沒有說第五無間道得到欲界六種生處的非擇滅，也沒有說初無間道得到二生處的非擇滅，第二無間道得到三生處的非擇滅，明顯可知品品都可以出觀，都可以退。論中說『以斷第五品必定斷第六品』，是根據不退轉者說的，因為沒有中間有死亡和轉生，必定在現身斷除第六品。二、由成就根至無滅根的緣故：這是第二個緣。意思是說，由成就根，得到能夠對治彼三品、四品煩惱的無漏諸根。先前在凡夫位中斷除三品、四品煩惱，後來住在初果（Sotapatti，一種果位），未發起殊勝果道，雖然有初後緣，但仍然未成就彼無漏根的緣故。三、由受生至三生、二生的緣故：這是第三個緣。意思是說，由受生，更受欲界的三生、二生的緣故。如果斷除三品煩惱，更受三生；如果斷除四品煩惱，更受二生。沒有斷除一品、二品、五品煩惱而中間有死亡和轉生的，所以沒有五生、四生、一生、半生家家。問：聖人造作牽引業嗎？解答說：如果依據《正理六十四》所說：『這三生、二生，由異生位造作和增長，感得三生、二生的業。』

【English Translation】 English version By severing the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation in the Desire Realm and initiating great effort, there will certainly be no death and rebirth with a large category of afflictions unsevered. Just as with severing the first five categories, there will certainly be no death and rebirth with the sixth category unsevered. Because Ekabija (家家, one who is reborn only once more), Sakadagamin (一間, once-returner) and the like have death and rebirth. The emphasis here is on stating that, according to the meaning of the Vibhasa (《大毗婆沙論》), severing one, two, or five categories of afflictions certainly does not involve death and rebirth in between. Question: According to the Vibhasa, there is no mention of emerging from meditation or regressing. How can we know about emerging from meditation and regressing? Answer: As stated in the thirty-second volume of the Vibhasa: 'When a Srotapanna (預流者, stream-enterer) approaches the Sakadagami-phala (一來果, once-returner fruit), one who does not arise from meditation, during the Prayogamarga (加行道, path of application), obtains Apratisamkhyanirodha (非擇滅, cessation by non-discrimination) for the six realms of rebirth in the Desire Realm. If one arises from meditation, one must reach the sixth Anantaryamarga (無間道, path of immediate consequence) to obtain Apratisamkhyanirodha for the six realms of rebirth in the Desire Realm. When a Sakadagamin approaches the Anagami-phala (不還果, non-returner fruit), one who does not arise from meditation, during the Prayogamarga, obtains Apratisamkhyanirodha for one realm of rebirth in the Desire Realm. If one arises from meditation, one must reach the ninth Anantaryamarga to obtain Apratisamkhyanirodha for one realm of rebirth in the Desire Realm.' Since the Vibhasa does not say that the fifth Anantaryamarga obtains Apratisamkhyanirodha for the six realms of rebirth in the Desire Realm, nor does it say that the first Anantaryamarga obtains Apratisamkhyanirodha for two realms of rebirth, and the second Anantaryamarga obtains Apratisamkhyanirodha for three realms of rebirth, it is clear that one can emerge from meditation and regress in each category. The statement in the treatise that 'by severing the fifth, one will certainly sever the sixth' is based on those who do not regress, because there is no death and rebirth in between, and one will certainly sever the sixth in this lifetime. Two, because of achieving roots up to the non-extinction of roots: This is the second condition. It means that by achieving roots, one obtains the non-outflow roots that can counteract those three or four categories of afflictions. Previously, in the position of an ordinary being, one severed three or four categories of afflictions, and later, residing in the Sotapatti (初果, stream-entry fruit), without initiating the superior path of fruition, although there are initial and subsequent conditions, one still has not achieved those non-outflow roots. Three, because of receiving rebirth up to three or two rebirths: This is the third condition. It means that by receiving rebirth, one further receives three or two rebirths in the Desire Realm. If one severs three categories of afflictions, one further receives three rebirths; if one severs four categories of afflictions, one further receives two rebirths. There is no death and rebirth in between severing one, two, or five categories of afflictions, so there is no five rebirths, four rebirths, one rebirth, or half a rebirth for the Ekabija. Question: Do the sages create karma that leads to rebirth? The explanation says: If according to what is said in the Sixty-Fourth of the Abhidharmakosha (《正理六十四》): 'These three or two rebirths are caused by the creation and increase of karma in the position of an ordinary being, resulting in the karma for three or two rebirths.'

。非諸聖者于聖位中。更能新作牽後有業。以背生死向涅槃故。由此契經說。諸聖者唯受故業更不受新。又婆沙五十三解家家．一間中雲。問聖者為造欲界引眾同分業不。有說不造。所以者何。欲界多諸過患。多諸災橫。是故聖者不造欲界引眾同分業。但造欲界滿眾同分業。有說聖者亦造欲界引眾同分業。雖有兩說然無評文。又正理同前說　問若言聖人不造引業。寧得生彼五凈居天　解云言不造者據欲界說。唯受故業應知亦爾　問順抉擇分善根尚不造引業。今何至聖位造引業耶　解云順抉擇分善根憎背有故。趣見道故。順見道故。所以但造滿業不造引業。聖位不爾。容造引業。又婆沙六十四云。問何聖者有分離染而命終。異生不爾。答以諸聖者有無漏定。任持相續令極堅固。異生但有世俗諸定。任持相續非極堅固。廣如彼釋。

頌中但說至故不具說者。此釋頌中不說第二緣所以。三緣之內頌中但說初後緣者。預流果后說更進斷三．四品惑。成能治彼諸無漏根義準已成故不具說。

然復應說至或過此故者。此釋伏難。伏難意云。頌中亦應不說後緣。斷三．四品義準亦知受三．二生。為通此伏難故作是言。然復應說三．二生者。以有增進。斷惑時于所受生。或少三．二生。或無三．二生。或過此三．二生。如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：非諸聖者于聖位中，更能新作牽引後有之業（指導致未來輪迴的業力），因為他們已經背離生死，趨向涅槃（佛教術語，指解脫）。因此，契經（佛教經典）說，諸聖者只承受過去的業力，不再造新的業力。又如《大毗婆沙論》第五十三卷解釋『家家』、『一間』時說：『問：聖者還會造欲界（佛教宇宙觀中的一個領域，充滿慾望和誘惑）中，能引發眾生共同命運的業力嗎？』有人說不會。為什麼呢？因為欲界充滿過患，充滿災難橫禍。所以聖者不造欲界中，能引發眾生共同命運的業力，但會造欲界中，能圓滿眾生共同命運的業力。也有人說聖者也會造欲界中，能引發眾生共同命運的業力。雖然有兩種說法，但沒有評判性的結論。又如《阿毗達磨順正理論》的說法與前面相同。問：如果說聖人不造引發業力的行為，那怎麼能生到五凈居天（色界天的最高層）呢？解答說：『說不造引發業力的行為，是就欲界而言。』應該知道，只承受過去的業力也是這個意思。問：順抉擇分（指修行過程中，接近見道位的階段）的善根尚且不造引發業力的行為，現在怎麼會到了聖位反而造引發業力的行為呢？解答說：順抉擇分的善根，因為憎恨背離有（指輪迴），趨向見道，順應見道，所以只造圓滿業力的行為，不造引發業力的行為。聖位則不然，有可能造引發業力的行為。又如《大毗婆沙論》第六十四卷說：『問：哪種聖者會有在分離煩惱時命終的情況，而異生（指凡夫）不會這樣？』答：因為諸聖者有無漏定（指超越世俗的禪定），能保持相續（指生命流）極其堅固。異生只有世俗的各種禪定，保持相續並非極其堅固。』詳細內容如該論的解釋。頌中只說到『至故』，沒有完全說明，是因為這解釋了頌中沒有說第二種緣由的原因。三種緣由中，頌中只說了最初和最後的緣由，是因為預流果（佛教果位之一）之後，說更進一步斷除三品或四品惑，成就能夠對治那些煩惱的無漏根，這個意義已經隱含在其中，所以沒有完全說明。『然而還應該說到，或者超過這個』，這是爲了解釋一個潛在的疑問。疑問是：頌中也應該不說最後的緣由，因為斷除三品或四品惑的意義，也可以通過義理推斷得知會受到三次或兩次的轉生。爲了消除這個疑問，所以這樣說：『然而還應該說到三次或兩次的轉生』，因為在增進斷惑的時候，對於所受的轉生，或者少於三次或兩次的轉生，或者沒有三次或兩次的轉生，或者超過這三次或兩次的轉生，例如...

【English Translation】 English version: Non-saints, in the state of sainthood, can no longer create new karma (actions leading to future rebirths) that pulls them into future existence, because they have turned their backs on birth and death and are heading towards Nirvana (Buddhist term for liberation). Therefore, the sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say that saints only receive the effects of past karma and do not create new karma. Furthermore, in the 53rd volume of the Mahavibhasa, when explaining 'householder' and 'one interval', it says: 'Question: Do saints still create karma in the desire realm (a realm in Buddhist cosmology, full of desires and temptations) that can trigger the common destiny of beings?' Some say they do not. Why? Because the desire realm is full of faults and disasters. Therefore, saints do not create karma in the desire realm that can trigger the common destiny of beings, but they create karma in the desire realm that can fulfill the common destiny of beings. Others say that saints also create karma in the desire realm that can trigger the common destiny of beings. Although there are two views, there is no definitive conclusion. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya says the same as before. Question: If it is said that saints do not create karma that triggers rebirth, how can they be born in the Five Pure Abodes (the highest level of the Form Realm)? The answer is: 'Saying they do not create karma that triggers rebirth refers to the desire realm.' It should be understood that only receiving the effects of past karma also means this. Question: The roots of good in the stage of preparatory practice (referring to the stage of practice close to the path of seeing) do not create karma that triggers rebirth, so how can they create karma that triggers rebirth now that they have reached the state of sainthood? The answer is: The roots of good in the stage of preparatory practice, because they hate and turn away from existence (referring to samsara) and are heading towards the path of seeing, so they only create karma that fulfills, not karma that triggers. The state of sainthood is different; it is possible to create karma that triggers. Furthermore, the 64th volume of the Mahavibhasa says: 'Question: Which saints will die while separating from defilements, while ordinary beings (referring to common people) will not? The answer is: Because saints have undefiled samadhi (referring to meditation beyond the mundane), which can maintain the continuum (referring to the stream of life) extremely firmly. Ordinary beings only have mundane samadhi, which does not maintain the continuum extremely firmly.' The details are as explained in that treatise. The verse only mentions 'to the extent', without fully explaining, because this explains why the verse does not mention the second reason. Among the three reasons, the verse only mentions the first and last reasons, because after the stage of Stream-enterer (one of the Buddhist stages of enlightenment), it is said that further eliminating three or four categories of delusion and achieving undefiled roots that can counteract those delusions, this meaning is already implied, so it is not fully explained. 'However, it should also be said, or beyond this', this is to explain a potential question. The question is: The verse should also not mention the last reason, because the meaning of eliminating three or four categories of delusion can also be inferred through reasoning that one will receive three or two rebirths. To eliminate this question, it is said: 'However, it should also be said that three or two rebirths', because when progressing in eliminating delusion, regarding the rebirths received, there may be fewer than three or two rebirths, or there may be no three or two rebirths, or there may be more than these three or two rebirths, such as...

受一生或受半生名為或少。如於欲界現般涅槃名為或無。如上流受四生已上名或過此。所以頌文別說受生。不同第二成無漏根。

何緣此無斷五品者者。問。

以斷第五至未越界故者。答。以斷第五若不卻退於此生中必斷第六。無有中間命終受生。若不卻退必斷第六。非第六一品惑。能障得一來果。猶如一間。斷第八品未斷第九受一種子。以斷第九越欲界故。彼第九品極為障礙。雖斷第八品住第九受生。斷第五品欲斷第六。未越界故。此第六品非極為障。故斷第五不得經生。必斷第六得一來果　有古德言。若斷第五更不出觀剩斷第六　此釋不然。違毗婆沙。如前具引。

應知總有至或二或三者。別釋家家。應知總有二種家家。一天家家。謂欲天趣生三．二家而證圓寂。或於一天處受三．二生。或於二天處受三．二生。或於三天處而受三生　二人家家。謂於人趣生三．二家而證圓寂。或於一洲處受三．二生。或於二洲處受三．二生。或於三洲處而受三生　今案此論。許一天處．或一洲處受三．二生。又準婆沙五十三。亦許一天家。一人家受三．二生。故彼論云。或一天家。或二天家。或三天家。受二．三生　又云。或一人家。或二人家。或三人家。受二．三生　問三生．二生家家。人．天各受三．二

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本受一生或受半生名為『或少』。例如在欲界直接證得般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）名為『或無』。如果上流者已經接受了四次或更多次的轉生，則稱為『或過此』。因此，頌文特別說明了受生的情況，這與第二種情況，即成就無漏根的情況不同。

為什麼斷除了五品煩惱的人不會經歷中陰身呢？（問）

因為斷除了第五品煩惱，但還沒有超越欲界。（答）如果斷除了第五品煩惱，若不退轉，在此生中必定會斷除第六品煩惱，不會有中間命終受生的情況。如果不退轉，必定會斷除第六品煩惱，而第六品煩惱本身並不能夠阻礙獲得一來果（Sakrdagamin，一來果）。就像只隔了一間房一樣。斷除了第八品煩惱，但未斷除第九品煩惱，仍然會接受一種子。因為斷除了第九品煩惱就超越了欲界。這第九品煩惱是極大的障礙。即使斷除了第八品煩惱，仍然會因為第九品煩惱而受生。斷除了第五品煩惱，想要斷除第六品煩惱，但還沒有超越欲界。因此，這第六品煩惱並非極大的障礙。所以斷除了第五品煩惱，不會經歷中陰身，必定會斷除第六品煩惱，從而獲得一來果。有古德說，如果斷除了第五品煩惱，就不需要再進行觀修，只需繼續斷除第六品煩惱即可。這種解釋是不正確的，與《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）相違背，如前文所引。

應當知道總共有兩種家家（Kula-kula，家家）。分別解釋家家。應當知道總共有兩種家家：一天家家，指在欲天趣（Kama-dhatu，欲界天）中經歷三家或兩家而證得圓寂。或者在一天處接受三生或兩生，或者在二天處接受三生或兩生，或者在三天處接受三生。二人家家，指在人趣中經歷三家或兩家而證得圓寂。或者在一個洲處接受三生或兩生，或者在二洲處接受三生或兩生，或者在三洲處接受三生。現在根據此論，允許在一天處或一洲處接受三生或兩生。又根據《婆沙論》第五十三卷，也允許一天家、一人家接受三生或兩生。所以該論說，或者一天家，或者二天家，或者三天家，接受二生或三生。又說，或者一人家，或者二人家，或者三人家，接受二生或三生。問：三生、二生家家，人、天各接受三生、二生嗎？

【English Translation】 English version Receiving one life or half a life is called 'or less'. For example, attaining Parinirvana (complete Nirvana) directly in the desire realm is called 'or none'. If an Anagamin (never-returner) has already received four or more rebirths, it is called 'or more than this'. Therefore, the verse specifically explains the situation of receiving rebirths, which is different from the second case, which is achieving the root of non-outflow.

Why doesn't someone who has severed the five categories of afflictions experience an intermediate state (antarabhava)? (Question)

Because they have severed the fifth category of afflictions but have not yet transcended the desire realm. (Answer) If the fifth category of afflictions has been severed, and there is no regression, then in this life, the sixth category of afflictions will definitely be severed. There will be no intermediate state of dying and being reborn. If there is no regression, the sixth category of afflictions will definitely be severed, and the sixth category of afflictions itself cannot hinder the attainment of the Sakrdagamin (once-returner) fruit. It's like only being separated by one room. Severing the eighth category of afflictions but not severing the ninth category of afflictions still results in receiving a seed. Because severing the ninth category of afflictions transcends the desire realm. This ninth category of afflictions is a great obstacle. Even if the eighth category of afflictions is severed, rebirth will still occur because of the ninth category of afflictions. Severing the fifth category of afflictions means wanting to sever the sixth category of afflictions, but not yet transcending the desire realm. Therefore, this sixth category of afflictions is not a great obstacle. So, severing the fifth category of afflictions does not result in experiencing an intermediate state; the sixth category of afflictions will definitely be severed, thereby attaining the Sakrdagamin fruit. Some ancient masters say that if the fifth category of afflictions is severed, there is no need to continue practicing contemplation; just continue severing the sixth category of afflictions. This explanation is incorrect and contradicts the Vibhasa (Buddhist treatise), as quoted earlier.

It should be known that there are two types of Kula-kula (family to family) in general. Explain Kula-kula separately. It should be known that there are two types of Kula-kula in general: deva Kula-kula, which refers to attaining Parinirvana after experiencing three or two families in the Kama-dhatu (desire realm heavens). Or receiving three or two rebirths in one heaven, or receiving three or two rebirths in two heavens, or receiving three rebirths in three heavens. Human Kula-kula, which refers to attaining Parinirvana after experiencing three or two families in the human realm. Or receiving three or two rebirths in one continent, or receiving three or two rebirths in two continents, or receiving three rebirths in three continents. Now, according to this treatise, it is permissible to receive three or two rebirths in one heaven or one continent. Also, according to the fifty-third volume of the Vibhasa, it is also permissible for one deva family or one human family to receive three or two rebirths. Therefore, that treatise says, 'Either one deva family, or two deva families, or three deva families, receive two or three rebirths.' It also says, 'Either one human family, or two human families, or three human families, receive two or three rebirths.' Question: Do three-rebirth and two-rebirth Kula-kula each receive three or two rebirths in the human and deva realms?

生不　解云若天三生家家。天三．人二。若天二生家家。天二．人一。若人家家翻此應知。故正理六十四云。若天家家受三生者。人間受二天上受三。受二生者人一天二。如應例釋人中家家　問何故住果人．天往返各有具受七。家家不受一小生耶　解云住果容預各具受七。向中匆迫二．三數滿即般涅槃。故不受后一小生也　又解家傢俱緣。若天家家天三．人二。若人家家人三．天二。三生．二生緣滿即休。故不受后一小生也。應知天家家者人中得道。人家家者天中得道　又解天家家天中得道。還於天中入般涅槃。謂于天中初得道已。從彼處沒還生天中。以樂生天故。初受生還生天處。初得道身非是家家二．三生攝。故生天趣不名重生。後方人．天往還間生。人家家例此應釋。雖有兩解前解為勝　問俱舍．婆沙同正理不　解云俱舍．婆沙既無明文與正理同。或正理據極少家家說。此論．婆沙據極多家家說。或論意各別。若作此解。俱舍．婆沙人．天各受二生．三生。又正理云。若有七生不必滿七。非家家位中間涅槃。何類所攝攝屬七生。七中極聲顯極多故。由此已顯生未滿前得般涅槃。亦是彼攝。根最鈍者具經七生。非諸利根生定滿七　問未滿七生得般涅槃即七生攝。未滿二．三生得般涅槃家家攝不　解云七生不具緣。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本生不瞭解，如果天道眾生家家（每個眾生）受三生，那麼人間眾生受二生，天上眾生受三生。如果天道眾生家家受二生，那麼人間眾生受一生，天上眾生受二生。如果人間眾生家家翻轉過來也是如此，應該知道。所以《正理記》六十四中說，如果天道眾生家家受三生，那麼人間受二生，天上受三生；受二生的，人間受一生，天上受二生。像這樣應該按照例子解釋人間眾生家家。問：為什麼證得果位的聖人，在人天往返各有具足的七生之後，家家（每個眾生）不再受一個小的生命呢？答：證得果位的聖人容許預先各自具足受七生，在往生的過程中不匆忙急迫，二生或三生圓滿就入般涅槃（涅槃，指佛教修行者達到的超脫生死輪迴的境界），所以不再受後面的一個小生命。又解釋說，家家各有因緣，如果天道眾生家家天上受三生，人間受二生；如果人間眾生家家人間受三生，天上受二生，三生或二生的因緣圓滿就停止，所以不再受後面的一個小生命。應該知道，天道眾生家家是在人間得道，人間眾生家家是在天上得道。又解釋說，天道眾生家家在天中得道，還在天中入般涅槃。說的是在天中初次得道之後，從那個地方去世還生到天中，因為喜歡生在天上。所以初次受生還生在天處，初次得道的身體不是家家二生或三生所攝，所以在天道中受生不稱為重生，之後才在人天往還之間受生。人間眾生家家可以按照這個例子來解釋。雖然有兩種解釋，但前面的解釋更為殊勝。問：《俱舍論》、《婆沙論》與《正理記》的說法相同嗎？答：《俱舍論》、《婆沙論》既然沒有明確的文字與《正理記》相同，或許《正理記》是根據極少數的家家來說的，而此論和《婆沙論》是根據極多數的家家來說的。或者論的意義各有不同。如果這樣解釋，《俱舍論》、《婆沙論》認為人天各自受二生或三生。另外，《正理記》說，如果有七生，不必一定要滿七生，如果不是家家的地位，在中間就入涅槃，屬於哪一類所攝？屬於七生所攝。七中極的聲音顯示極多。由此已經顯示，在生命未滿之前得般涅槃，也是屬於七生所攝。根器最遲鈍的人具足經歷七生，並非所有根器銳利的人生命一定滿七生。問：未滿七生而得般涅槃就屬於七生所攝，那麼未滿二生或三生而得般涅槃，屬於家家所攝嗎？答：七生是不具足因緣的。

【English Translation】 English version If one doesn't understand, consider that if celestial beings, each and every one (家家), experience three lives, then human beings experience two lives, and celestial beings experience three lives. If celestial beings, each and every one, experience two lives, then human beings experience one life, and celestial beings experience two lives. If it's reversed for human beings, each and every one, it should be understood similarly. Therefore, the commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理記) 64 states that if celestial beings, each and every one, experience three lives, then humans experience two lives, and celestial beings experience three lives; if they experience two lives, humans experience one life, and celestial beings experience two lives. Thus, the cases of human beings, each and every one, should be explained accordingly. Question: Why is it that after an Arhat (住果人, one who has attained the fruit of enlightenment) has completed the seven lives in the realms of humans and devas (天, gods), each and every one having fully experienced them, they do not experience one more small life? Answer: An Arhat is allowed to pre-emptively complete the seven lives, each and every one having fully experienced them. During the process of rebirth, they are not rushed or hurried; when two or three lives are completed, they enter Parinirvana (般涅槃, the complete cessation of rebirth). Therefore, they do not experience one more small life. Another explanation is that each and every one has their own conditions. If celestial beings, each and every one, experience three lives in the heavens and two lives as humans, or if human beings, each and every one, experience three lives as humans and two lives in the heavens, when the conditions for three or two lives are fulfilled, they cease, and therefore do not experience one more small life. It should be understood that celestial beings, each and every one, attain the path in the human realm, and human beings, each and every one, attain the path in the celestial realm. Another explanation is that celestial beings, each and every one, attain the path in the heavens and enter Parinirvana in the heavens. This means that after initially attaining the path in the heavens, they pass away from that place and are reborn in the heavens because they enjoy being born in the heavens. Therefore, they are initially reborn in the heavenly realm. The body in which they initially attained the path is not included in the two or three lives of each and every one, so being born in the heavens is not called rebirth. Afterwards, they are born between the realms of humans and devas. The cases of human beings, each and every one, should be explained accordingly. Although there are two explanations, the former is more superior. Question: Are the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) and the Mahāvibhāṣa (婆沙論) the same as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya? Answer: Since the Abhidharmakośa and the Mahāvibhāṣa do not have explicit statements that are the same as the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, perhaps the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is based on a very small number of 'each and every one,' while this treatise and the Mahāvibhāṣa are based on a very large number of 'each and every one.' Or perhaps the meanings of the treatises are different. If explained in this way, the Abhidharmakośa and the Mahāvibhāṣa consider that humans and devas each experience two or three lives. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states that if there are seven lives, it is not necessary to complete all seven. If it is not the position of 'each and every one,' and one enters Nirvana in the middle, to which category does it belong? It belongs to the category of seven lives. The extreme sound in 'seven' indicates a great number. From this, it is already clear that entering Parinirvana before the life is completed also belongs to the category of seven lives. Those with the dullest faculties fully experience seven lives, but not all those with sharp faculties necessarily complete seven lives. Question: If entering Parinirvana before completing seven lives belongs to the category of seven lives, then does entering Parinirvana before completing two or three lives belong to the category of 'each and every one'? Answer: Seven lives do not have complete conditions.

雖不滿七是彼攝。家家約具緣。要鬚生滿方彼攝　問不滿二．三便般涅槃。既非家家。是何攝耶　解云一來向攝。以向寬故。家家義狹。故非彼攝。

即預流者至貪瞋癡故者。釋下兩句。即預流者。進斷欲界一品修惑。乃至五品。應知轉名一來果．向。第六無間亦應是向。頌不說者以第六品非全向故。半是果攝。若斷第六品解脫道現前成一來果。除得道身彼往天上一來人間。而般涅槃名一來果。過此以後更無生故。若來必往故言一來。有往無來不言一往。此文且據人中得道。故言彼往天上一來人間。若據天中得道。亦可應言彼往人中一來天上。此一來果。或亦名曰薄貪嗔癡。於九品中已斷上．中六品厚重。唯餘下三品薄貪．嗔癡。應知欲界經生聖者。若起聖道能進斷惑。必於此生得無學果。但為斷道起時艱辛勵力起得。誰肯更生。以曾受生極厭苦故。若七生位經生聖者。能進斷惑。必不更作家家等人。若家家位經生聖者。能進斷惑。必不更為一來等人。若一來位經生聖者。能進斷惑。必更不為一間等人　今因家家．一來義便略明欲界九品煩惱增生．損生。依諸經論說七生不同。或說七生人．天總論。中．生合說。或說十四生人．天別論中．生合說。或說二十八生人．天別論中．生別說。開合為異。隨應增損。且

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：即使不滿七次往返，也屬於『家家』(Kula-kula，指須于諸家受生才能解脫的修行者)所攝。因為家家大約都具備了往返諸家的因緣，必須經歷完整的受生次數才被『家家』所攝。問：如果修行者不滿兩次或三次往返就般涅槃(Parinirvana，指完全的涅槃)，既然不是家家，那又屬於什麼所攝呢？答：屬於『一來向』(Sakrdagami-pratipannaka，指正在證得一來果位的修行者)所攝。因為『一來向』的範圍更寬泛，而『家家』的定義較為狹窄，所以不屬於『家家』所攝。

『即預流者至貪瞋癡故者』，解釋下面兩句經文。『即預流者』，進一步斷除欲界的一品修惑，乃至五品。應當知道，這時轉而稱為『一來果向』(Sakrdagami-phala-pratipannaka，指趨向一來果的修行者)。斷除第六品惑時，在無間道也應屬於『一來向』。頌文中沒有說，是因為第六品並非完全屬於『一來向』，一半屬於『一來果』(Sakrdagami-phala，指證得一來果的聖者)所攝。如果斷除了第六品，解脫道現前，就成就『一來果』。除去已經得道之身，他們往天上一次，來人間一次，然後般涅槃，稱為『一來果』。超過這個次數以後，就不會再生了。如果來了必定要往，所以說『一來』。只有往而沒有來，就不能說『一往』。這段經文且根據在人間得道的情況來說，所以說他們往天上一次，來人間一次。如果根據在天上得道的情況來說，也可以說他們往人間一次，來天上一次。這個『一來果』，或者也叫做『薄貪嗔癡』，因為在九品煩惱中，已經斷除了上、中六品厚重的煩惱，只剩下下三品輕薄的貪、嗔、癡。應當知道，欲界經歷受生的聖者，如果生起聖道，能夠進一步斷除煩惱，必定在此生證得無學果(Arhat，指阿羅漢果)。只是因為斷道生起時艱難辛苦，努力才能生起，誰肯再次受生呢？因為曾經受生，極其厭惡痛苦的緣故。如果處於七生位的經歷受生的聖者，能夠進一步斷除煩惱，必定不再做『家家』等人。如果處於『家家』位的經歷受生的聖者，能夠進一步斷除煩惱，必定不再做『一來』等人。如果處於『一來』位的經歷受生的聖者，能夠進一步斷除煩惱，必定不再做『一間』等人。現在因為『家家』、『一來』的含義，就簡略地說明欲界九品煩惱的增生、損生。依據各種經論所說，七生之說各有不同，或者說七生是人、天總括而論，中生、有生合在一起說；或者說十四生是人、天分別而論，中生、有生合在一起說；或者說二十八生是人、天分別而論，中生、有生分別來說。開合不同，隨應增減。暫且...

【English Translation】 English version: Even if it's less than seven times of rebirths, it is included in 'Kula-kula' (家家, those who need to be reborn in various families to attain liberation). Because Kula-kula generally have the conditions for rebirth in various families, they must experience the complete number of rebirths to be included in 'Kula-kula'. Question: If a practitioner attains Parinirvana (般涅槃, complete Nirvana) in less than two or three rebirths, since they are not Kula-kula, what are they included in? Answer: They are included in 'Sakrdagami-pratipannaka' (一來向, those who are on the path to attaining the Sakrdagami fruit). Because the scope of 'Sakrdagami-pratipannaka' is broader, while the definition of 'Kula-kula' is narrower, they are not included in 'Kula-kula'.

'That is, the Stream-enterer up to the cause of greed, hatred, and delusion' explains the following two sentences. 'That is, the Stream-enterer' further cuts off one category of delusive afflictions in the desire realm, up to five categories. It should be known that they are then called 'Sakrdagami-phala-pratipannaka' (一來果向, those who are approaching the Sakrdagami fruit). When the sixth category of afflictions is cut off, it should also belong to 'Sakrdagami-pratipannaka' in the immediate path. The verse does not mention it because the sixth category does not entirely belong to 'Sakrdagami-pratipannaka'; half of it belongs to 'Sakrdagami-phala' (一來果, the Sakrdagami fruit). If the sixth category is cut off and the path of liberation manifests, the 'Sakrdagami fruit' is achieved. Except for those who have already attained the path, they go to heaven once and come to the human realm once, and then attain Parinirvana, which is called the 'Sakrdagami fruit'. Beyond this number of times, there will be no more rebirths. If they come, they must go, so it is called 'one coming'. If there is only going and no coming, it cannot be called 'one going'. This passage is based on the situation of attaining the path in the human realm, so it says they go to heaven once and come to the human realm once. If it is based on the situation of attaining the path in heaven, it can also be said that they go to the human realm once and come to heaven once. This 'Sakrdagami fruit' may also be called 'thin greed, hatred, and delusion' because, among the nine categories of afflictions, the upper and middle six categories of heavy afflictions have been cut off, leaving only the lower three categories of thin greed, hatred, and delusion. It should be known that the saints who experience rebirth in the desire realm, if they generate the holy path and can further cut off afflictions, will surely attain the Arhat fruit (無學果, the fruit of Arhat) in this life. It is only because the generation of the path of cutting off is difficult and laborious, and it takes effort to generate it, who would be willing to be reborn again? Because they have experienced rebirth, they extremely detest suffering. If the saints who experience rebirth in the seven-life position can further cut off afflictions, they will surely no longer be 'Kula-kula' and others. If the saints who experience rebirth in the 'Kula-kula' position can further cut off afflictions, they will surely no longer be 'Sakrdagami' and others. If the saints who experience rebirth in the 'Sakrdagami' position can further cut off afflictions, they will surely no longer be 'one interval' and others. Now, because of the meanings of 'Kula-kula' and 'Sakrdagami', I will briefly explain the increase and decrease of rebirths due to the nine categories of afflictions in the desire realm. According to various sutras and treatises, the seven rebirths are described differently. Some say that the seven rebirths are discussed in general for humans and gods, and the middle rebirth and the existing rebirth are combined. Others say that the fourteen rebirths are discussed separately for humans and gods, and the middle rebirth and the existing rebirth are combined. Others say that the twenty-eight rebirths are discussed separately for humans and gods, and the middle rebirth and the existing rebirth are discussed separately. The opening and closing are different, and they can be increased or decreased accordingly. For now...

約七生以明增損。總而言之。欲九品惑增損七生。未斷名增已斷名損。若別分別上三品惑增損四生。中三品惑增損二生。下三品惑增損一生。強弱不同展轉相望各增一倍　問如何得知　解云於九品中若斷三品余有三生。明知上三品惑增損四生。復斷中三品惑余有一生。明知中三品惑增損二生。下三品惑增損一生。若更細分九品煩惱增損七生者。上三品惑上上品惑增損二生。上中．上下品惑各增損一生。若中三品惑中上品惑增損一生。中中．中下品惑各增損半生。若下三品惑。下上品惑增損半生。下中．下下品惑共增損半生　問三三品惑。如何得知各別增損　解雲中三品惑下三品惑說別增損。論文可知。上三品惑雖無論文別釋。準中三品準下三品增損可知。如中三品別增損者。於九品中若斷三品余有三生。若斷四品余有二生。故知中上品增損一生。若斷第四餘有二生。若斷第六餘有一生。故知中中．中下共增損一生。若更別說中中．中下各增損半生。雖無別文配釋以理應然。若不爾者。太增減過。若中中品獨增損一。中下品惑便無增損。若言中中增損半生．及中有中下但能增損生有。便有中下不如下上。又中有．生有名為半生。引業必同不可分也。故知中中．中下各增損半。如中三品總增損二生。別說中上增損一生。中

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本大約用七次轉生來闡明煩惱的增減。總的來說，想要了解九品煩惱的增減與七次轉生的關係，未斷除煩惱稱為『增』，已斷除煩惱稱為『損』。如果分別詳細解釋，上三品煩惱的增損對應四次轉生，中三品煩惱的增損對應兩次轉生，下三品煩惱的增損對應一次轉生。煩惱的強弱不同，相互比較，各自增加一倍。問：如何得知這些增損的對應關係？答：在九品煩惱中，如果斷除了三品煩惱，還剩下三次轉生，這表明上三品煩惱的增損對應四次轉生。如果再斷除中三品煩惱，還剩下一次轉生，這表明中三品煩惱的增損對應兩次轉生。下三品煩惱的增損對應一次轉生。如果更細緻地劃分九品煩惱的增損與七次轉生的關係，上三品煩惱中的上上品煩惱增損兩次轉生，上中品和上下品煩惱各自增損一次轉生。如果中三品煩惱中的中上品煩惱增損一次轉生，中中品和中下品煩惱各自增損半次轉生。如果下三品煩惱中的下上品煩惱增損半次轉生，下中品和下下品煩惱共同增損半次轉生。問：如何得知三三品煩惱各自的增損情況？答：中三品煩惱和下三品煩惱的分別增損，可以通過經文得知。上三品煩惱雖然沒有經文單獨解釋，但可以參照中三品和下三品煩惱的增損情況來推斷。例如，中三品煩惱的分別增損是：在九品煩惱中，如果斷除了三品煩惱，還剩下三次轉生；如果斷除了四品煩惱，還剩下兩次轉生。因此可知中上品煩惱增損一次轉生。如果斷除了第四品煩惱，還剩下兩次轉生；如果斷除了第六品煩惱，還剩下一次轉生。因此可知中中品和中下品煩惱共同增損一次轉生。如果更分別地說中中品和中下品煩惱各自增損半次轉生，雖然沒有單獨的經文來解釋，但從道理上來說應該是這樣。如果不是這樣，那麼增減就太過分了。如果中中品煩惱單獨增損一次，中下品煩惱就沒有增損了。如果說中中品煩惱增損半次轉生，並且中中品和中下品煩惱只能增加轉生中的『有』，那麼就會出現中下品煩惱不如上下品煩惱的情況。而且，轉生中的『有』和『名』被稱為半次轉生，其引業必定相同，不可分割。因此可知中中品和中下品煩惱各自增損半次轉生。例如，中三品煩惱總共增損兩次轉生，分別來說，中上品煩惱增損一次轉生，中

【English Translation】 English version Approximately using seven births to clarify the increase and decrease of afflictions. In summary, to understand the relationship between the increase and decrease of the nine grades of afflictions and the seven births, not having severed the afflictions is called 'increase,' and having severed the afflictions is called 'decrease.' If explained separately in detail, the increase and decrease of the upper three grades of afflictions correspond to four births, the increase and decrease of the middle three grades of afflictions correspond to two births, and the increase and decrease of the lower three grades of afflictions correspond to one birth. The strength of the afflictions differs, and comparing them to each other, each increases by a factor of one. Question: How can one know these corresponding relationships of increase and decrease? Answer: Among the nine grades of afflictions, if three grades of afflictions are severed, three births remain, indicating that the increase and decrease of the upper three grades of afflictions correspond to four births. If the middle three grades of afflictions are severed again, one birth remains, indicating that the increase and decrease of the middle three grades of afflictions correspond to two births. The increase and decrease of the lower three grades of afflictions correspond to one birth. If the increase and decrease of the nine grades of afflictions and the seven births are divided more finely, the highest of the upper three grades of afflictions increases and decreases by two births, and the middle and lowest of the upper three grades of afflictions each increase and decrease by one birth. If the highest of the middle three grades of afflictions increases and decreases by one birth, the middle and lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions each increase and decrease by half a birth. If the highest of the lower three grades of afflictions increases and decreases by half a birth, the middle and lowest of the lower three grades of afflictions together increase and decrease by half a birth. Question: How can one know the respective increase and decrease of the three grades within the three grades? Answer: The separate increase and decrease of the middle three grades of afflictions and the lower three grades of afflictions can be known from the scriptures. Although there is no separate scriptural explanation for the upper three grades of afflictions, it can be inferred by referring to the increase and decrease of the middle three grades and the lower three grades of afflictions. For example, the separate increase and decrease of the middle three grades of afflictions is: among the nine grades of afflictions, if three grades of afflictions are severed, three births remain; if four grades of afflictions are severed, two births remain. Therefore, it can be known that the highest of the middle three grades of afflictions increases and decreases by one birth. If the fourth grade of affliction is severed, two births remain; if the sixth grade of affliction is severed, one birth remains. Therefore, it can be known that the middle and lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions together increase and decrease by one birth. If it is said separately that the middle and lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions each increase and decrease by half a birth, although there is no separate scriptural explanation, it should be so in principle. If it is not so, then the increase and decrease would be excessive. If the middle of the middle three grades of afflictions alone increases and decreases by one, the lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions would have no increase and decrease. If it is said that the middle of the middle three grades of afflictions increases and decreases by half a birth, and the middle and lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions can only increase the 'existence' in birth, then the lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions would be inferior to the highest of the upper three grades of afflictions. Moreover, the 'existence' and 'name' in birth are called half a birth, and their inducing karma must be the same and cannot be separated. Therefore, it can be known that the middle and lowest of the middle three grades of afflictions each increase and decrease by half a birth. For example, the middle three grades of afflictions together increase and decrease by two births, and separately speaking, the highest of the middle three grades of afflictions increases and decreases by one birth, the middle

中．中下各增損半生。上三品惑應知亦爾。總說增損四生。別說上上增損二生。上中．上下共增損二。若更別說。上中．上下各增損一。若上中品獨增損二。上下品惑便無增損。若言上中增損一生半。上下增損半生者。便有上下不如中上皆成過也。如前應知。又如下三品惑。若斷六品余有一生。若斷七品余有半生。故知下．上品增損半生。下中．下下增損半生　問如何得知共增損一。故婆沙云。問曰余有二種結在何以言有一種子耶。答不以二種結在名一種子。以有一有業種子故名一種子(已上論文)　問如斷第八猶受半。如何乃言兩品共增損半生　解云理實亦有第九一品增損半生。極能障故。今據未斷第八品說故。言兩品共增損半生。中有．生有名為半生。引業必同。不可於中別分增損。故共增損。又受中有為于生有。不可斷第八品損於中有。而唯受生。故更不別增損也。如下三品總說增損一生。別說下上增損一小生。下中．下下共增損一小生。上三品惑應知亦爾。總說增損四生。別說上上增損二生。上中．上下共增損二生。若更別說上中．上下各增損一生者作余說皆成增減過。如前說　問何故九品之中第二．第三．第四品惑各增損一生。第五．第六．第七品惑各增損半生。氣力相似　解云九品。七生相對增損。上三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中品、中下品各自增減半生。上品三品的迷惑，應當知道也是這樣。總的來說，增減四生。分別來說，上上品增減二生。上中品、上下品共同增減二生。如果更分別地說，上中品、上下品各自增減一生。如果上中品單獨增減二生，上下品的迷惑便沒有增減。如果說上中品增減一生半，上下品增減半生，便會出現上下品不如中上品的情況，這都是不合理的。如同前面所說的那樣理解。另外，如下品三品的迷惑，如果斷了六品，還剩一生；如果斷了七品，還剩半生。所以知道下上品增減半生，下中品、下下品增減半生。問：如何得知共同增減一生？《婆沙論》中說：『問：還有兩種結存在，為什麼說有一種子呢？』答：不是因為有兩種結存在而稱為一種子，因為有一種有業的種子，所以稱為一種子。』（以上是論文內容）問：如果斷了第八品，仍然要承受半生，為什麼說兩品共同增減半生？答：實際上也有第九品增減半生，因為它極能障礙。現在是根據未斷第八品來說的，所以說兩品共同增減半生。中有（Antarabhava，指死亡到投胎之間的過渡期）、生有名為半生。引業必定相同，不能在其中分別增減，所以共同增減。又承受中有是爲了生有，不能斷了第八品而減少中有，只承受生有，所以不再分別增減。如下品三品總的說增減一生，分別說下上品增減一小生，下中品、下下品共同增減一小生。上品三品的迷惑，應當知道也是這樣。總的說增減四生，分別說上上品增減二生，上中品、上下品共同增減二生。如果更分別地說上中品、上下品各自增減一生，如果作其他的說法都會造成增減的過失，如同前面所說的那樣。問：為什麼九品之中，第二品、第三品、第四品的迷惑各自增減一生，第五品、第六品、第七品的迷惑各自增減半生，它們的氣力相似？答：九品與七生相對，進行增減。上三品...

【English Translation】 English version The middle grade and the lower-middle grade each increase or decrease by half a life. The delusions of the upper three grades should also be understood in the same way. Generally speaking, there is an increase or decrease of four lives. Specifically speaking, the highest-upper grade increases or decreases by two lives. The upper-middle grade and the upper-lower grade together increase or decrease by two lives. If we speak even more specifically, the upper-middle grade and the upper-lower grade each increase or decrease by one life. If the upper-middle grade alone increases or decreases by two lives, then the delusions of the upper-lower grade would have no increase or decrease. If it is said that the upper-middle grade increases or decreases by one and a half lives, and the upper-lower grade increases or decreases by half a life, then it would appear that the upper-lower grade is inferior to the upper-middle grade, which is unreasonable. It should be understood as previously stated. Furthermore, regarding the delusions of the lower three grades, if six grades are severed, one life remains; if seven grades are severed, half a life remains. Therefore, it is known that the lower-upper grade increases or decreases by half a life, and the lower-middle grade and the lower-lower grade increase or decrease by half a life. Question: How is it known that they jointly increase or decrease by one life? The Vibhasa says: 'Question: There are still two kinds of fetters present, why is it said that there is one seed? Answer: It is not because there are two kinds of fetters present that it is called one seed, but because there is one seed of karma, it is called one seed.' (The above is the content of the treatise) Question: If the eighth grade is severed, one still has to undergo half a life, why is it said that the two grades jointly increase or decrease by half a life? Answer: In reality, there is also a ninth grade that increases or decreases by half a life, because it is extremely obstructive. Now, it is being said based on the fact that the eighth grade has not been severed, so it is said that the two grades jointly increase or decrease by half a life. The Antarabhava (intermediate existence, the transitional period between death and rebirth) and the existence of birth are called half a life. The karma that leads to rebirth must be the same, and there cannot be separate increases or decreases within it, so they jointly increase or decrease. Furthermore, undergoing the Antarabhava is for the sake of the existence of birth. One cannot sever the eighth grade and reduce the Antarabhava, only undergoing the existence of birth, so there is no further separate increase or decrease. Generally speaking, the lower three grades increase or decrease by one life. Specifically speaking, the lower-upper grade increases or decreases by one small life, and the lower-middle grade and the lower-lower grade jointly increase or decrease by one small life. The delusions of the upper three grades should also be understood in the same way. Generally speaking, there is an increase or decrease of four lives. Specifically speaking, the highest-upper grade increases or decreases by two lives, and the upper-middle grade and the upper-lower grade jointly increase or decrease by two lives. If we speak even more specifically, if the upper-middle grade and the upper-lower grade each increase or decrease by one life, if other statements are made, they will all result in the fault of increase or decrease, as previously stated. Question: Why is it that among the nine grades, the delusions of the second, third, and fourth grades each increase or decrease by one life, while the delusions of the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades each increase or decrease by half a life, when their strength is similar? Answer: The nine grades are related to the seven lives, and there is an increase or decrease. The upper three grades...

增損四。中三增損二。下三增損一。似相形說。於三品內復自相形。前等后二故。更不可以第四品類前第三第二品。以第七品類前第六．第五品。又若於中更辨多少。便有太多太少過也　又解上上增損二生。上中．上下共增損二生。中上增損一生。中中．中下共增損一生。下上增損半生。下中．下下共增損半生。然第八品。有時雖斷。第九品惑獨能增損半生。極能障故別緣力也。不可以彼第六第三品例。無別緣故　又解。上上一品增損二生。上下一品增損二生。上中一品但能相助。非正增損。以在中間性不定故。猶如黃門。如第八品若斷．不斷。第九一品增損半生。與第七品等。各增損半生。以此準知。上下一品與上上品等。若中三品。中上一品增損一生。中下一品增損一生。中中一品但能相助非正增損。如前通釋。若下三品。下上一品增損半生。下下一品增損半生。下．中．一品但能相助非正增損。亦如前釋。若前家難我如何第一．第三力等。第四．第六力等。第七．第九力等者。我亦難汝。云何第二與第四力等。第五與第七力等　又解。九品未斷。皆能增損七生。然于其中強弱不等。猶如九人大小不同力有強弱。共舉七石谷。若斷一品餘八品惑增損五生。猶如八人共舉五石。余例應知。上來且約七生以釋。若十四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本增損有四種情況。上三品（指上上、上中、上下）的增損為二。中三品（指中上、中中、中下）的增損為一。下三品（指下上、下中、下下）的增損為半。這似乎是相互比較而言的。在三品之內又各自相互比較。因為前面的品級等於後面的兩個品級，所以不能用第四品來類比前面的第三品和第二品。用第七品來類比前面的第六品和第五品。而且如果在中間品級中進一步區分多少，就會出現太多或太少的問題。又解釋說，上上品的增損為二生。上中品和上下品共同的增損為二生。中上品增損一生。中中品和中下品共同增損一生。下上品增損半生。下中品和下下品共同增損半生。然而第八品（指第八識，阿賴耶識），有時即使斷了，第九品（指第九識，阿摩羅識）的迷惑仍然能夠增損半生。因為它的障礙力量極大，是特別的因緣所致。不能用第六品和第三品來類比，因為它們沒有特別的因緣。又解釋說，上上品增損二生。上下品增損二生。上中品只能相互幫助，不是真正的增損，因為它處在中間，性質不定，就像黃門（指閹人）。像第八品，無論斷與不斷，第九品增損半生，與第七品相等，各自增損半生。由此可以推知，上下品與上上品相等。如果中三品，中上品增損一生。中下品增損一生。中中品只能相互幫助，不是真正的增損，如前面的通釋。如果下三品，下上品增損半生。下下品增損半生。下中品只能相互幫助，不是真正的增損，也如前面的解釋。如果前一家（指其他學派）質問我，為什麼第一品和第三品的力量相等，第四品和第六品的力量相等，第七品和第九品的力量相等呢？我也要質問你，為什麼第二品與第四品的力量相等，第五品與第七品的力量相等呢？又解釋說，九品（指九種煩惱）未斷，都能增損七生。然而在其中，力量的強弱不相等，就像九個人大小不同，力量有強弱。共同舉起七石谷。如果斷了一品，剩餘的八品迷惑增損五生，就像八個人共同舉起五石。其餘的例子應該知道。上面且約七生來解釋。如果是十四生，道理也是一樣的。

【English Translation】 English version There are four types of increase and decrease. The upper three grades (referring to the highest, middle, and lowest of the upper grades) increase or decrease by two. The middle three grades (referring to the highest, middle, and lowest of the middle grades) increase or decrease by one. The lower three grades (referring to the highest, middle, and lowest of the lower grades) increase or decrease by half. This seems to be in relation to each other. Within the three grades, they compare with each other. Because the preceding grade is equal to the following two grades, the fourth grade cannot be used to compare with the preceding third and second grades. The seventh grade is used to compare with the preceding sixth and fifth grades. Moreover, if further distinctions are made between more and less within the middle grades, there will be problems of too much or too little. It is also explained that the highest of the upper grades increases or decreases by two lives. The middle and lowest of the upper grades together increase or decrease by two lives. The highest of the middle grades increases or decreases by one life. The middle and lowest of the middle grades together increase or decrease by one life. The highest of the lower grades increases or decreases by half a life. The middle and lowest of the lower grades together increase or decrease by half a life. However, the eighth grade (referring to the eighth consciousness, Ālaya-vijñāna), even if it is severed sometimes, the delusion of the ninth grade (referring to the ninth consciousness, Amala-vijñāna) can still increase or decrease by half a life. This is because its obstructive power is extremely great, due to special conditions. It cannot be compared to the sixth and third grades, because they do not have special conditions. It is also explained that the highest of the upper grades increases or decreases by two lives. The lowest of the upper grades increases or decreases by two lives. The middle of the upper grades can only help each other, not truly increase or decrease, because it is in the middle and its nature is uncertain, like a eunuch. Like the eighth grade, whether severed or not, the ninth grade increases or decreases by half a life, equal to the seventh grade, each increasing or decreasing by half a life. From this, it can be inferred that the lowest of the upper grades is equal to the highest of the upper grades. If the middle three grades, the highest of the middle grades increases or decreases by one life. The lowest of the middle grades increases or decreases by one life. The middle of the middle grades can only help each other, not truly increase or decrease, as explained earlier. If the lower three grades, the highest of the lower grades increases or decreases by half a life. The lowest of the lower grades increases or decreases by half a life. The middle of the lower grades can only help each other, not truly increase or decrease, also as explained earlier. If the previous school (referring to other schools) questions me, why are the powers of the first and third grades equal, the powers of the fourth and sixth grades equal, and the powers of the seventh and ninth grades equal? I will also question you, why are the powers of the second and fourth grades equal, and the powers of the fifth and seventh grades equal? It is also explained that if the nine grades (referring to the nine kinds of afflictions) are not severed, they can all increase or decrease by seven lives. However, among them, the strength of the power is not equal, just like nine people of different sizes have different strengths. Together they lift seven stones of grain. If one grade is severed, the remaining eight grades of delusion increase or decrease by five lives, just like eight people lifting five stones together. The remaining examples should be known. The above is explained in terms of seven lives. If it is fourteen lives, the principle is the same.

生。二十八生。準釋可知。

已辨一來至斷九不還果者。此即第三明不還向果。就中。一明不還向．果。二明不還差別。此即第一明不還向．果。結前生起。就頌答中上三句明向。下一句明果。就向中上兩句明一間。第三句正明向。

論曰至義如前釋者。此下釋上兩句。即一來者進斷余惑。若三緣具轉名一間。隨有所闕不名一間。一由斷惑。斷欲界中修斷七品．或八品故。二由成根。得能治彼無間．解脫無漏根故。三由受生。更受欲有天。或人中餘一生故。頌中但說初后二緣不說成根。義準如前家家中釋。

如何一品惑障得不還果者。問。如何第九一品惑。障得不還果。

由彼若斷至異熟地故者。答。由彼若斷便越欲界。前說三時業極為障。應知煩惱亦與業同。若斷第九。越彼欲界所繫煩惱等流果地。異熟果地。故極為障。

間謂間隔至說名一間者。釋一間名。前約異熟。后約煩惱釋一間名。有人成就此一間者說名一間。又正理云。所言間者是隙異名。謂彼位中。由有一隙得一生。故未得涅槃。

即斷修惑至無漏根故者。釋第三句。即斷修惑七八品者。應知亦名不還果．向。一間具緣以立。向但據斷惑。故二差別。若於凡位。先斷三．四品惑。或七．八品惑入見諦者。后得預流

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生。二十八生。準釋可知。

已辨一來（Sakrdagamin，一種果位）至斷九不還果（Anagamin，一種果位）者。此即第三明不還向．果。就中。一明不還向．果。二明不還差別。此即第一明不還向．果。結前生起。就頌答中上三句明向。下一句明果。就向中上兩句明一間。第三句正明向。

論曰至義如前釋者。此下釋上兩句。即一來者進斷余惑。若三緣具轉名一間。隨有所闕不名一間。一由斷惑。斷欲界中修斷七品．或八品故。二由成根。得能治彼無間．解脫無漏根故。三由受生。更受欲有天。或人中餘一生故。頌中但說初后二緣不說成根。義準如前家家中釋。

如何一品惑障得不還果者。問。如何第九一品惑。障得不還果。

由彼若斷至異熟地故者。答。由彼若斷便越欲界。前說三時業極為障。應知煩惱亦與業同。若斷第九。越彼欲界所繫煩惱等流果地。異熟果地。故極為障。

間謂間隔至說名一間者。釋一間名。前約異熟。后約煩惱釋一間名。有人成就此一間者說名一間。又正理云。所言間者是隙異名。謂彼位中。由有一隙得一生。故未得涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）。

即斷修惑至無漏根故者。釋第三句。即斷修惑七八品者。應知亦名不還果．向。一間具緣以立。向但據斷惑。故二差別。若於凡位。先斷三．四品惑。或七．八品惑入見諦者。后得預流（Srotapanna，一種果位）

【English Translation】 English version: Birth. Twenty-eight births. It can be understood according to the commentary.

Having discussed the Sakrdagamin (Once-Returner, a stage of enlightenment) up to the attainment of the Anagamin (Non-Returner, a stage of enlightenment) fruit. This is the third section explaining the path and fruit of the Non-Returner. Among these, first, the path and fruit of the Non-Returner are explained; second, the differences of the Non-Returner are explained. This is the first part, explaining the path and fruit of the Non-Returner. It connects with the previous discussion and arises from it. In the verse's answer, the first three lines explain the path, and the last line explains the fruit. Within the path, the first two lines explain 'one interval' (ekantara), and the third line directly explains the path.

The treatise says, 'The meaning is as explained before.' This explains the above two lines. That is, the Once-Returner further cuts off remaining delusions. If three conditions are complete, it is transformed and called 'one interval.' If anything is lacking, it is not called 'one interval.' First, by cutting off delusions, namely, cutting off the seven or eight categories of delusions to be cultivated in the desire realm. Second, by establishing roots, namely, obtaining the non-outflow root that can cure those without interval and liberation. Third, by receiving birth, namely, further receiving one more birth in the heavens or among humans in the desire realm. The verse only mentions the first and last two conditions and does not mention establishing roots. The meaning should be inferred as explained in the previous 'house by house.'

How can one category of delusion obstruct the attainment of the Non-Returner fruit? This asks: How can the ninth category of delusion obstruct the attainment of the Non-Returner fruit?

Because if that is cut off, it transcends the desire realm. The previous discussion said that the karma of the three times is a great obstruction. It should be known that afflictions are also the same as karma. If the ninth is cut off, it transcends the outflow fruit ground and the resultant fruit ground associated with that desire realm. Therefore, it is a great obstruction.

'Interval' means separation, explaining the name 'one interval.' The former explains the name 'one interval' in terms of resultant fruit, and the latter explains it in terms of afflictions. Someone who achieves this 'one interval' is called 'one interval.' Also, the Abhidharmakosha says, 'The so-called interval is another name for gap.' That is, in that position, because there is a gap to obtain one birth, Nirvana (Nirvana) has not yet been attained.

'Namely, cutting off cultivated delusions up to the non-outflow root' explains the third line. Namely, cutting off the seven or eight categories of cultivated delusions should also be known as the Non-Returner fruit and path. 'One interval' is established with complete conditions, while the path is only based on cutting off delusions. Therefore, there are two differences. If, in the position of an ordinary person, one first cuts off three or four categories of delusions, or seven or eight categories of delusions, and enters the seeing of truth, one later obtains the Srotapanna (Stream-Enterer, a stage of enlightenment).

果。或一來果時。乃至未修三．四。七．八品后勝果道。仍不名曰家家．一間雖具二緣未成治彼三．四品惑或七．八品惑無漏根故。自古諸師皆云。先凡夫時斷五品修惑。后一來果時得解脫證者。不然。故婆沙一百五十八云。問若先離欲界五品染。后入正性離生。苦法智生時。于先所斷見苦所斷五品法。及今所斷見苦所斷四品法。皆得無漏離系得。乃至道法智生時。于先所斷見道所斷五品法。及今所斷見道所斷四品法。皆得無漏離系得　彼先所斷修所斷五品法。無漏離系得。何時當得　尊者僧伽筏蘇作如是說。道類智時。以于爾時名預流果亦名一來向故。彼說不然。所以者何。以于爾時得預流果。於一來果．向道乃至未起一剎那現前。如何可說為一來向。有作是說。起一來果加行道時。以是一來向所攝故。有餘師說。得一來果時得。以住第六無間道時。能引三界見所斷。及欲界修所斷前六品法無漏離系得令起。得一來果故。如是說者。從預流果決定起勝進道。彼現前時得。以從下果起趣上果勝進道時。必修先所斷上位諸結對治道。

若斷第九至總集斷故者。釋第四句。若斷第九成不還果。要不還來生欲界故名不還果。此不還果。或亦名曰五下結斷。若超越人。先斷貪．嗔二結。后斷身見．戒取．疑三結。若次第

【現代漢語翻譯】果。或者在一來果位時，乃至未修習第三、第四、第七、第八品后更殊勝的果位之道時，仍然不能稱作『家家』、『一間』。雖然具備這兩種因緣，但因為沒有能對治第三、第四品惑，或者第七、第八品惑的無漏根，所以不能成就。自古以來的諸位論師都說，先在凡夫位時斷除五品修惑，然後在證得一來果時獲得解脫，這種說法是不對的。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十八卷說：『問：如果先斷除了欲界的五品染，然後進入正性離生（證入聖道），在苦法智生起時，對於先前所斷的見苦所斷的五品法，以及現在所斷的見苦所斷的四品法，都能獲得無漏的離系得。乃至道法智生起時，對於先前所斷的見道所斷的五品法，以及現在所斷的見道所斷的四品法，都能獲得無漏的離系得。』『那麼先前所斷的修所斷五品法，無漏的離系得，什麼時候才能獲得呢？』尊者僧伽筏蘇這樣說：『在道類智時，因為在那個時候既名為預流果，也名一來向。』他的說法不對。為什麼呢？因為在那個時候已經證得預流果，對於一來果、向道，乃至還沒有生起一剎那現前，怎麼能說是『一來向』呢？有人這樣說：『生起一來果的加行道時，因為被一來向所攝。』有其他論師說：『在證得一來果時獲得，因為安住于第六無間道時，能夠引導三界見所斷，以及欲界修所斷的前六品法的無漏離系得生起，從而證得一來果。』這樣說的人認為，從預流果決定生起殊勝的精進道，當它現前時獲得。因為從下位果位生起趣向上位果位的殊勝精進道時，必定修習先前所斷的上位諸結的對治道。

『若斷第九至總集斷故者』，解釋第四句。如果斷除了第九品惑，成就阿那含果（Anāgāmin-phala，不還果），因為阿那含必定不會再來欲界受生，所以叫做不還果。這個不還果，或者也叫做五下分結（pañcāvarabhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni）斷。如果超越次第的人，先斷除貪（rāga）、嗔（dosa）二結，后斷除身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi）、戒禁取（śīlabbata-parāmāsa）、疑（vicikicchā）三結。如果按照次第

【English Translation】 English version: Result. Or at the time of once-returner fruition (Sakadāgāmi-phala), even if one has not cultivated the superior path of the third, fourth, seventh, or eighth grades, one is still not called a 'householder' or 'one interval'. Although possessing these two conditions, it is not accomplished because there is no non-outflow root to cure the delusions of the third, fourth, seventh, or eighth grades. Therefore, all the teachers of ancient times have said that one first cuts off the five grades of delusions of cultivation when one is an ordinary person, and then attains liberation when one attains the once-returner fruition. This is not the case. Therefore, the one hundred and fifty-eighth volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: If one first separates from the five grades of defilement of the desire realm, and then enters the rightness of separation from birth (enters the holy path), when the knowledge of suffering-dharma arises, one obtains the non-outflow separation-attainment for the five grades of dharmas already cut off by seeing suffering, and the four grades of dharmas now cut off by seeing suffering. Even when the knowledge of the path-dharma arises, one obtains the non-outflow separation-attainment for the five grades of dharmas already cut off by seeing the path, and the four grades of dharmas now cut off by seeing the path.' 'When will one obtain the non-outflow separation-attainment for the five grades of dharmas already cut off by cultivation?' Venerable Saṅghavarma said: 'At the time of the knowledge of the category of the path, because at that time it is called both stream-enterer fruition (Sotāpanna-phala) and once-returner directed.' His statement is not correct. Why? Because at that time one has already attained the stream-enterer fruition, and how can it be said to be 'once-returner directed' when one has not even generated a single moment of the once-returner fruition or the path directed towards it? Some say: 'When the path of effort for the once-returner fruition arises, because it is included in the once-returner directed.' Other teachers say: 'One obtains it when one attains the once-returner fruition, because when abiding in the sixth uninterrupted path, one can lead to the arising of the non-outflow separation-attainment of the three realms' seeing-severed and the first six grades of the desire realm's cultivation-severed dharmas, thus attaining the once-returner fruition.' Those who say this believe that one definitely arises from the stream-enterer fruition to the superior progressive path, and one obtains it when it manifests. Because when arising from a lower fruition to the superior progressive path towards a higher fruition, one must cultivate the curative path for the higher-level fetters that were previously severed.

'If the ninth is severed, it is because of the total collection of severances', explains the fourth sentence. If the ninth grade of delusion is severed, one attains the non-returner fruition (Anāgāmin-phala), because the non-returner will definitely not come to the desire realm to be born again, so it is called the non-returner fruition. This non-returner fruition is also called the severance of the five lower fetters (pañcāvarabhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni). If a person transcends the order, first severing the two fetters of greed (rāga) and hatred (dosa), and then severing the three fetters of self-view (satkāya-dṛṣṭi), attachment to precepts (śīlabbata-parāmāsa), and doubt (vicikicchā). If according to the order

人。先斷身見．戒取．疑三結。后斷貪．嗔二結。雖必先斷或二。或三。然於此時總集斷故。名五下結斷。

依不還位至住此般涅槃者。此下第二不還差別。就中。一明七種不還。二明九種不還。三明七善不還。四明非生上界。五明雜修靜慮。六明凈居唯五。七明身證不還　此即第一明七種不還。依經生起。及舉頌辨。

論曰至名為上流者。此不還者通約三界總說有七。今且就行色界差別有其五種。列名可知。五中前四。唯於此身定般涅槃故。所以偏與般涅槃名。上流容有受多生者方般涅槃。非諸上流皆定涅槃。以不定故。所以不言般涅槃也　言釋名者。此於二趣中間般涅槃故名中般涅槃。如是應知。此于初生已。此由有行道。此由無行道。般涅槃故。名生般等三人。此二生已上向上流故名為上流。

言中般者至便般涅槃者。此下別解。言中般者。謂欲界沒往於色界住中有位。起應生地聖道現前。斷余煩惱成阿羅漢。即便般無餘涅槃故名中般。故婆沙百七十四云。從彼命終起色界中有。即住彼中有得如是種類無漏道。由此道方進斷余結。于無餘依涅槃界而般涅槃。是名中般涅槃　準婆沙文。約無餘依釋中般也　又解云。亦通有餘涅槃。婆沙不說。以相不顯略不言。豈有斷惑已第二剎那即入無餘。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：人，首先斷除身見（認為身體是真實存在的錯誤觀念）、戒禁取（錯誤地認為遵守某些戒律或儀式可以獲得解脫）、疑（對佛法真理的懷疑）這三種結縛。然後斷除貪（貪慾）和嗔（嗔恨）這兩種結縛。雖然斷除這五下分結的順序是先斷前三種，再斷後兩種，但在這個時候是總集地斷除，所以稱為『五下分結斷』。

依據不還果位，到達住於此地而般涅槃（入滅）的修行者。下面第二部分說明不還果位的差別，其中：一、說明七種不還；二、說明九種不還；三、說明七善不還；四、說明非生上界；五、說明雜修靜慮；六、說明凈居天唯有五種不還；七、說明身證不還。這裡是第一部分，說明七種不還，依據經典生起，並用偈頌辨別。

論曰：至名為上流者。這些不還果位的修行者，總括三界來說有七種。現在就其行道上的差別來說，有五種。列出名字就可以知道。這五種中的前四種，唯有在此身必定般涅槃，所以特別給予『般涅槃』的名稱。『上流』可能需要經歷多次生死才能般涅槃，並非所有『上流』都必定涅槃，因為有不定性，所以不說『般涅槃』。

解釋名稱：『中般涅槃』是指在二趣（指欲界和色界）中間般涅槃，應當這樣理解。『生般涅槃』是指初生時就般涅槃。『有行般涅槃』是指通過有行道而般涅槃。『無行般涅槃』是指通過無行道而般涅槃。所以稱為生般涅槃等三人。這二生之後向上流動的，稱為『上流』。

言中般者至便般涅槃者。下面分別解釋。『中般』是指欲界眾生死後，往生到色界，住在中有（中陰身）的階段，生起應生地的聖道現前，斷除剩餘的煩惱，成就阿羅漢果，隨即般入無餘涅槃，所以稱為『中般』。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十四卷說：『從彼命終，起色界中有，即住彼中有，得如是種類無漏道。由此道方進斷余結，于無餘依涅槃界而般涅槃，是名中般涅槃。』

準照《婆沙論》的文義，是依據無餘依涅槃來解釋『中般』。另一種解釋說，也通於有餘涅槃。《婆沙論》沒有說，因為相狀不明顯，所以省略不說。難道有斷除煩惱后第二個剎那就能進入無餘涅槃的嗎？所以。

【English Translation】 English version: A person first severs the three fetters of Sakkayaditthi (belief in a self), Silabbataparamasa (clinging to rites and rituals), and Vicikiccha (doubt). Then, they sever the two fetters of Raga (greed) and Patigha (hatred). Although the order of severing these five lower fetters is first the initial three, then the latter two, at this time, they are severed collectively, hence the name 'severance of the five lower fetters'.

Based on the Anagami (Non-Returning) stage, reaching the practitioner who dwells here and attains Parinibbana (final liberation). The second part below explains the differences in the Anagami stage, including: 1. Explaining the seven types of Non-Returners; 2. Explaining the nine types of Non-Returners; 3. Explaining the seven good Non-Returners; 4. Explaining those not born in the upper realms; 5. Explaining those who practice mixed meditative absorptions; 6. Explaining that the Pure Abodes only have five types of Non-Returners; 7. Explaining the Non-Returner who has attained bodily realization. Here is the first part, explaining the seven types of Non-Returners, arising from the sutras and distinguished by verses.

The Treatise says: 'To be named Upstream-goers'. These Non-Returners, generally speaking across the three realms, are of seven types. Now, based on the differences in their practice, there are five types. Listing the names will make it known. The first four of these five types are certain to attain Parinibbana in this very life, so they are specifically given the name 'Parinibbana'. 'Upstream-goers' may need to experience many lives before attaining Parinibbana. Not all 'Upstream-goers' are certain to attain Nibbana, because of the uncertainty, so 'Parinibbana' is not mentioned.

Explanation of the names: 'Intermediate Parinibbana' refers to attaining Parinibbana in between the two realms (the desire realm and the form realm). It should be understood this way. 'Born-and-Parinibbana' refers to attaining Parinibbana immediately after birth. 'With-Effort Parinibbana' refers to attaining Parinibbana through the path of effort. 'Without-Effort Parinibbana' refers to attaining Parinibbana through the path without effort. Therefore, they are called the three types of Born-and-Parinibbana. Those who flow upstream after these two births are called 'Upstream-goers'.

The term 'Intermediate Parinibbana' means to attain Parinibbana. The 'Intermediate Parinibbana' refers to a being who, after dying in the desire realm, is reborn in the form realm, dwelling in the intermediate state (antarabhava), and the noble path appropriate to that realm arises, severing the remaining defilements and attaining Arhatship, and then immediately entering Parinibbana without remainder, hence the name 'Intermediate Parinibbana'. Therefore, the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra, volume 174, says: 'From the end of that life, arising in the intermediate state of the form realm, dwelling in that intermediate state, one attains such a kind of undefiled path. By this path, one further severs the remaining fetters, and attains Parinibbana in the realm of Nibbana without remainder. This is called Intermediate Parinibbana.'

According to the meaning of the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra, 'Intermediate Parinibbana' is explained based on Nibbana without remainder. Another explanation says that it also applies to Nibbana with remainder. The Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra does not mention it because the characteristics are not obvious, so it is omitted. Is it possible to enter Nibbana without remainder in the second moment after severing the defilements? Therefore...

知亦通有餘　問起何地聖道　解云起應生彼根本地道。以是樂道起時易故。不起未至．中間．無色。以是苦道起艱辛故。得無學已亦不能起。如婆沙百七十五廣說。

言生般者至謂有餘依者。言生般者。謂欲界沒往於色界。生已不久能起聖道。斷余煩惱成阿羅漢。便般涅槃。以具勤修速進二道。故生不久便般涅槃。生已簡異中般。具二道故簡異有行．無行。此生般中所說般涅槃者。謂有餘依。后壽命盡方入無餘。故約有餘以釋生般不據無餘。前中般中所以不別釋涅槃者。相不顯故。下有行等準生可知。故亦不釋。

有餘師說亦無餘依者。有餘師說。生般不但約有餘依。亦據無餘。以斷惑已即入無餘故通二種。此師意謂同於中般。以中般人斷余惑盡般有餘已。無惑潤生不求生有即般無餘。例彼生般亦無餘依。

此不應理至無自在故者。論主破。此不應理。彼色界中於舍壽命促入涅槃無自在故。于初生時斷余惑盡名為生般。后盡彼壽方般無餘。故釋生般不約無餘。故正理云。約有餘依說為生般。非才生已便般無餘。彼舍壽中無自在故。

有行般者至無速進道故者。有行般者。謂欲界沒往於色界。生已長時加行勤修。由多功用方般有餘涅槃。此唯有勤修行故名有行無速進道故。生已簡異中般。長時

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：知亦通有餘，問：從何處發起聖道？答：解釋說，聖道應當從彼根本地道發起。因為在那裡發起樂道比較容易。不在未至定、中間定、無色界發起，因為在那裡發起苦道比較艱難。證得無學果位后也不能發起，如《婆沙論》第一百七十五卷廣說。

『言生般者』至『謂有餘依者』。『言生般者』，是指在欲界死後往生到色界，出生后不久就能發起聖道，斷除剩餘的煩惱，成就阿羅漢果，隨即入般涅槃。因為具備勤奮修行和快速精進兩種道，所以在出生后不久便入般涅槃。『生已』是爲了區別于『中般』。因為具備兩種道，所以區別于『有行般』和『無行般』。這裡『生般』中所說的般涅槃，是指有餘依涅槃，在壽命結束后才入無餘依涅槃。所以是用有餘依來解釋『生般』，而不是指無餘依。前面『中般』中沒有特別解釋涅槃，是因為涅槃的相狀不明顯。下面的『有行般』等可以參照『生般』來理解，所以也不再解釋。

有其他老師說，也包括無餘依涅槃。有其他老師說，『生般』不僅指有餘依涅槃，也包括無餘依涅槃，因為斷除煩惱后立即進入無餘依涅槃，所以包括兩種情況。這位老師認為，這和『中般』類似。因為『中般』的人斷除剩餘的煩惱，在有餘依涅槃后，沒有煩惱來潤生，不求再生，就直接進入無餘依涅槃。以此類推，『生般』也包括無餘依涅槃。

『此不應理』至『無自在故者』。論主反駁說：這種說法不合理。因為在色界中，對於捨棄壽命而快速進入涅槃是沒有自主權的。在剛出生時斷除剩餘的煩惱，稱為『生般』，在壽命結束后才進入無餘依涅槃。所以解釋『生般』不包括無餘依涅槃。所以《正理》中說，用有餘依來解釋『生般』，而不是說剛出生就進入無餘依涅槃。因為在捨棄壽命方面沒有自主權。

『有行般者』至『無速進道故者』。『有行般者』，是指在欲界死後往生到色界，出生后經過長時間的加行勤奮修行，通過大量的功用才進入有餘依涅槃。這僅僅是因為具有勤奮修行，所以稱為『有行般』，沒有快速精進之道。『生已』是爲了區別于『中般』，需要很長時間。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Knowing also encompasses the remainder.' Question: From what ground does the Noble Path arise? Answer: It is explained that the Noble Path should arise from that fundamental ground of the path. This is because it is easier to initiate the Path of Joy there. It does not arise in the Unattained Concentration (未至定), the Intermediate Concentration (中間定), or the Formless Realms (無色界), because it is more difficult to initiate the Path of Suffering there. Having attained the state of No More Learning (無學), one also cannot initiate it, as extensively explained in the Vibhasa (婆沙) Chapter 175.

'The term 'born-Nirvana' refers to those with remainder.' 'The term 'born-Nirvana' (生般)' refers to those who, having died in the Desire Realm (欲界), are reborn in the Form Realm (色界). Soon after birth, they are able to initiate the Noble Path, sever the remaining afflictions, attain Arhatship (阿羅漢), and then enter Parinirvana (般涅槃). Because they possess both diligent practice and rapid progress on the path, they enter Parinirvana soon after birth. 'Soon after birth' distinguishes them from 'intermediate-Nirvana' (中般). Because they possess both paths, they are distinguished from 'effortful-Nirvana' (有行般) and 'effortless-Nirvana' (無行般). The Parinirvana mentioned in 'born-Nirvana' refers to Nirvana with remainder (有餘依). Only after the end of their lifespan do they enter Nirvana without remainder (無餘依). Therefore, 'born-Nirvana' is explained in terms of Nirvana with remainder, not Nirvana without remainder. The reason why Nirvana was not specifically explained in the previous 'intermediate-Nirvana' is because its characteristics are not obvious. The following 'effortful-Nirvana' and others can be understood by analogy to 'born-Nirvana', so they are also not explained.

Other teachers say that it also includes Nirvana without remainder. Other teachers say that 'born-Nirvana' refers not only to Nirvana with remainder, but also to Nirvana without remainder, because after severing afflictions, one immediately enters Nirvana without remainder, so it includes both cases. This teacher believes that it is similar to 'intermediate-Nirvana'. Because those in 'intermediate-Nirvana' sever the remaining afflictions, and after Nirvana with remainder, there are no afflictions to fuel rebirth, they do not seek rebirth and directly enter Nirvana without remainder. By analogy, 'born-Nirvana' also includes Nirvana without remainder.

'This is not reasonable' to 'because there is no autonomy.' The author refutes: This statement is not reasonable. Because in the Form Realm, there is no autonomy over abandoning one's lifespan and quickly entering Nirvana. Severing the remaining afflictions at the time of birth is called 'born-Nirvana'. Only after the end of their lifespan do they enter Nirvana without remainder. Therefore, the explanation of 'born-Nirvana' does not include Nirvana without remainder. Therefore, the Hetu-vidya (正理) says that 'born-Nirvana' is explained in terms of Nirvana with remainder, not that one enters Nirvana without remainder immediately after birth. Because there is no autonomy over abandoning one's lifespan.

'Effortful-Nirvana' to 'because there is no path of rapid progress.' 'Effortful-Nirvana' refers to those who, having died in the Desire Realm, are reborn in the Form Realm. After birth, they engage in diligent practice with effort over a long period of time, and only through great effort do they enter Nirvana with remainder. This is only because they possess diligent practice, so it is called 'effortful-Nirvana', and there is no path of rapid progress. 'Soon after birth' distinguishes them from 'intermediate-Nirvana', requiring a long time.

簡異生般。有勤修簡異無行。

無行般者至速進道故者。無行般者。謂欲界沒往於色界。生已經久加行懈怠。不多功用便般有餘涅槃。以闕勤修．速進二道故名無行。生已簡異中般。經久簡異生般。闕勤修簡異有行。

有說此二至得涅槃故者。敘異說。由緣有為聖道斷惑得涅槃者名為有行。由緣無為聖道斷惑得涅槃者名為無行。

此說非理太過失故者。論主破。中．生般等亦緣有為．無為斷惑。亦應名為有行．無行。

然契經中至便般涅槃者。述經部解。然契經中先說無行。后說有行般涅槃者。如是次第與理相應。論主意朋經部所以印可。無勤修行有速進道。無行之人而成辨故。無速進道有勤修行。有行之人而成辨故。或無行有行而能成辨無學果故。無行之人起速進道不由功用得般涅槃。有行之人起勤修行要由功用得般涅槃　因此義便復解生般涅槃。得最上品道隨眠最劣。故生不久便般涅槃名為生般。

言上流者至方般涅槃者。謂生色界二生已去。般涅槃者總名上流。此唯上流不下流故名為上流。異生之人雖有上流。亦下流故不名上流。

即此上流至為極處故者。明上流別。開章略釋。

謂若於靜慮至般涅槃者者。別釋雜修上流。于中有三　一者全超。初生梵眾次生色究

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本簡異生般（Ekabija）：指那些通過簡易的方式證得涅槃的眾生。存在勤奮修行而簡易證得涅槃，以及無需勤奮修行而簡易證得涅槃的情況。

無需勤奮修行而證得涅槃（無行般，Asamskarika-parinirvanayin）是因為他們能夠迅速進入正道。無需勤奮修行而證得涅槃是指那些從欲界死後往生到**（凈居天，Suddhavasa heavens），由於過去世已經長期積累了功德，即使今生修行懈怠，不需要太多的努力就能證得有餘涅槃（Sopadhisesa-nirvana）。因為他們缺乏勤奮修行和迅速進入正道的兩種條件，所以被稱為『無行』。那些往生后通過簡易的方式證得涅槃，或者經過很長時間才通過簡易的方式證得涅槃的眾生，因為缺乏勤奮修行，所以屬於有行（Sasamskarika）。

有人說，這兩種（有行和無行）最終都能證得涅槃。這是在敘述不同的觀點。通過緣有為（有為法，conditioned phenomena）的聖道斷除煩惱而證得涅槃的，被稱為『有行』。通過緣無為（無為法，unconditioned phenomena）的聖道斷除煩惱而證得涅槃的，被稱為『無行』。

這種說法是不合理的，因為它存在過度推論的過失。論主對此進行了駁斥。因為中般（Antaraparinnayin）、生般（Upapadukaparinirvanayin）等眾生也是通過緣有為或無為的聖道斷除煩惱，所以也應該被稱為『有行』或『無行』。

然而，契經中先說無需勤奮修行，后說勤奮修行才能證得涅槃。這是在闡述經部的解釋。契經中先說無需勤奮修行，后說勤奮修行才能證得涅槃，這樣的順序與道理是相應的。論主的意思是贊同經部的觀點，因為無需勤奮修行也能迅速進入正道，無需勤奮修行的人也能成就；而沒有迅速進入正道，就需要勤奮修行，勤奮修行的人才能成就。或者說，無論是否需要勤奮修行，都能成就無學果（Arhatship）。無需勤奮修行的人，能夠迅速進入正道，不需要太多努力就能證得涅槃。勤奮修行的人，需要通過勤奮修行才能證得涅槃。因此，這個道理也可以用來解釋生般涅槃，即那些證得上品道（superior path），隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱）最弱的人，往生后不久就能證得涅槃，所以被稱為『生般』。

所謂上流般（Urdhvamsrotas）是指從**（凈居天，Suddhavasa heavens）二生之後開始，證得涅槃的眾生，總稱為上流。他們只向上界流轉，不向地獄流轉，所以被稱為『上流』。異生（凡夫，non-ariya）雖然也有向上界流轉的情況，但也會向下界流轉，所以不被稱為『上流』。

這個上流般，以至於達到有頂天（Akanistha）為最終的歸宿。這是在說明上流般的區別，並對章節進行簡要解釋。

如果於靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）中證得涅槃。這是在分別解釋雜修上流（雜修，mixed practice）。其中有三種：第一種是全超（total transcendence），初生梵眾天（Brahma-parisadya），次生色究竟天（Akanistha）。

【English Translation】 English version Ekabija: Refers to beings who attain Nirvana through simple means. There are cases of diligently cultivating and easily attaining Nirvana, and cases of attaining Nirvana easily without diligent cultivation.

Asamskarika-parinirvanayin (attaining Nirvana without diligent effort) is because they can quickly enter the right path. Asamskarika-parinirvanayin refers to those who, after dying in the desire realm, are reborn in the Suddhavasa heavens (Pure Abodes). Because they have accumulated merit for a long time in past lives, even if they are lazy in cultivation in this life, they can attain Sopadhisesa-nirvana (Nirvana with remainder) without much effort. Because they lack both diligent cultivation and quick entry into the right path, they are called 'Asamskarika'. Those who attain Nirvana easily after being reborn, or who attain Nirvana easily after a long time, belong to Sasamskarika (with effort) because they lack diligent cultivation.

Some say that both of these (Sasamskarika and Asamskarika) eventually attain Nirvana. This is narrating different views. Those who attain Nirvana by severing afflictions through the noble path that is conditioned (Samskrta, conditioned phenomena) are called 'Sasamskarika'. Those who attain Nirvana by severing afflictions through the noble path that is unconditioned (Asamskrta, unconditioned phenomena) are called 'Asamskarika'.

This statement is unreasonable because it has the fault of over-inference. The author refutes this. Because Antaraparinnayin (intermediate Nirvana attainers), Upapadukaparinirvanayin (Nirvana attainers upon rebirth), etc., also sever afflictions through the noble path that is conditioned or unconditioned, they should also be called 'Sasamskarika' or 'Asamskarika'.

However, the sutras first speak of attaining Nirvana without diligent effort, and then speak of attaining Nirvana with diligent effort. This is explaining the interpretation of the Sautrantika school. The order in which the sutras first speak of attaining Nirvana without diligent effort and then speak of attaining Nirvana with diligent effort is consistent with reason. The author's intention is to agree with the view of the Sautrantika school, because one can quickly enter the right path without diligent cultivation, and those who do not need diligent cultivation can achieve; while without quick entry into the right path, one needs diligent cultivation, and those who cultivate diligently can achieve. Or, whether or not diligent cultivation is needed, one can achieve Arhatship (the fruit of no more learning). Those who do not need diligent cultivation can quickly enter the right path and attain Nirvana without much effort. Those who cultivate diligently need to attain Nirvana through diligent cultivation. Therefore, this principle can also be used to explain Upapadukaparinirvanayin, that is, those who attain the superior path and whose anusaya (latent defilements) are the weakest, can attain Nirvana soon after rebirth, so they are called 'Upapadukaparinirvanayin'.

The so-called Urdhvamsrotas (stream-enterer who goes upwards) refers to beings who, starting from the second rebirth in the Suddhavasa heavens (Pure Abodes), attain Nirvana, and are collectively called Urdhvamsrotas. They only flow upwards and do not flow downwards, so they are called 'Urdhvamsrotas'. Although non-ariyas (ordinary beings) also have cases of flowing upwards, they also flow downwards, so they are not called 'Urdhvamsrotas'.

This Urdhvamsrotas, to the point of reaching Akanistha (the highest heaven), is the final destination. This is explaining the differences of Urdhvamsrotas and briefly explaining the chapters.

If one attains Nirvana in Dhyana (meditative absorption). This is separately explaining the mixed practice of Urdhvamsrotas. There are three types: The first is total transcendence, first being born in the Brahma-parisadya heaven, and then being born in the Akanistha heaven.

竟。頓超中間十四天處是名全超　二者半超。於色界中十六天處。從彼梵眾漸漸次第生下凈居。或超十三處或十二處。乃至中間。能超一處。生色究竟。超非全故名為半超。聖必不生大梵天處。是起戒禁僻見處故。自謂究竟一道師故。故不生彼。不生無想理在絕言故不別簡。或可影顯　此半超人於十六天極少三生。初生梵眾。次十四天中隨生一處。後生色究竟　若極多生十五。於十六天隨其所應中間越一。生餘十五　三者遍沒。從彼梵眾漸次生后十四天處。皆遍受生。最後方能生色究竟。一切處死故名遍沒。一切處謂十六處。無不還者于已生處受第二生。由彼于生容求勝進所以上生。非求等故故不重生。非求劣故故不下生。即由此故不還義滿。不復還生曾生處故尚不生本處況有生下。即由此義顯欲生聖不名不還。而於一處有重生義。故婆沙一百七十四云。複次生欲界聖者不名不還。而名七返有等。故生上．下亦一處重生。生上界聖者名曰不還。故唯生上亦不重生。由此義故不還義滿。以尚不生本處況有生下者(已上論文)　復總結言。應知此謂二上流中由有雜修靜慮因故。往色究竟般涅槃者。

余于靜慮至方般涅槃者。別釋無雜修上流。有餘上流。于諸靜慮無雜修者。能往有頂方般涅槃。謂彼先無雜修靜慮。由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：竟。頓超：在中間十四天的地方，這被稱為全超。二者半超：在中間十六天的地方，從那些梵眾天逐漸依次下生到凈居天，或者超越十三處，或者十二處，乃至中間，能夠超越一處，而生到色究竟天（Akanistha）。因為超越不是完全的，所以稱為半超。聖者必定不生到大梵天（Mahabrahma）的地方，因為那是產生戒禁取見的地方，他們自認為是究竟的唯一導師，所以不生在那裡。不生到無想天（Asanjnasattva）的原因在於理在絕言，所以不特別說明，或許可以隱約地顯示。這種半超的人在十六天中極少會經歷三生。最初生到梵眾天（Brahmakayika），其次在十四天中隨意生到一處，最後生到色究竟天。如果極多生，則會經歷十五生，在十六天中根據情況，中間越過一處，生到其餘十五處。三者遍沒：從那些梵眾天逐漸依次生到後面的十四天處，都普遍地接受生，最後才能夠生到色究竟天。因為在一切處都經歷死亡，所以稱為遍沒。一切處指的是十六處。不還果（Anagamin）的聖者在已經生過的地方接受第二次生。因為他們對於生容許追求勝進，所以向上生，不是追求相等，所以不重生。不是追求低劣，所以不向下生。正因為如此，不還的意義才圓滿。因為不再返回生到曾經生過的地方，尚且不生到本處，更何況生到下面。正因為這個意義，顯示了欲界生聖者不能稱為不還，而在一處有重生的意義。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十四卷說：『再次，生到欲界的聖者不稱為不還，而稱為七返有等。』所以生到上方、下方也是在一處重生。生到上界的聖者才稱為不還，所以唯有生到上方才不重生。因為這個意義，不還的意義才圓滿。因為尚且不生到本處，更何況生到下面（以上是論文）。再次總結說：應當知道這指的是二種上流中，因為有雜修靜慮的因緣，所以前往色究竟天而般涅槃的人。其餘在靜慮中直到方般涅槃的人，分別解釋沒有雜修的上流。有餘上流：在各種靜慮中沒有雜修的人，能夠前往有頂天（Bhavagra）而般涅槃。指的是他們先前沒有雜修靜慮，因為...

【English Translation】 English version: In the end. Sudden transcendence: Being in the middle fourteen heavens is called complete transcendence. The second is half transcendence: Being in the middle sixteen heavens, gradually descending from those Brahmakayika (梵眾) heavens to the Suddhavasa (凈居) heavens, either transcending thirteen realms, or twelve realms, or even in the middle, being able to transcend one realm, and being born in Akanistha (色究竟). Because the transcendence is not complete, it is called half transcendence. A sage will certainly not be born in the Mahabrahma (大梵天) realm, because that is where clinging to precepts and observances arises, they consider themselves to be the ultimate unique teacher, so they are not born there. The reason for not being born in the Asanjnasattva (無想天) realm is that the principle is beyond words, so it is not specifically explained, perhaps it can be vaguely shown. Such a half-transcending person will experience a minimum of three lives in the sixteen heavens. First born in the Brahmakayika heaven, then randomly born in one of the fourteen heavens, and finally born in the Akanistha heaven. If there are a maximum number of births, then fifteen births will be experienced, skipping one realm in the middle according to the situation in the sixteen heavens, and being born in the remaining fifteen realms. The third is complete immersion: Gradually being born from those Brahmakayika heavens to the subsequent fourteen heavens, universally accepting birth, and finally being able to be born in the Akanistha heaven. Because death is experienced in all places, it is called complete immersion. All places refer to the sixteen realms. An Anagamin (不還果) does not accept a second birth in a place where they have already been born. Because they allow the pursuit of advancement in birth, they are born upwards, not seeking equality, so they are not reborn. Not seeking inferiority, so they are not born downwards. Precisely because of this, the meaning of Anagamin is fulfilled. Because they no longer return to be born in a place where they have been born, let alone being born in the original place, how much more so being born downwards. Precisely because of this meaning, it shows that a sage born in the desire realm cannot be called an Anagamin, but has the meaning of rebirth in one place. Therefore, the 174th volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Again, a sage born in the desire realm is not called an Anagamin, but is called a seven-times returner, etc.' Therefore, being born upwards or downwards is also rebirth in one place. A sage born in the upper realm is called an Anagamin, so only being born upwards is not rebirth. Because of this meaning, the meaning of Anagamin is fulfilled. Because they do not even return to be born in the original place, let alone being born downwards (the above is the thesis). Again, to summarize: It should be known that this refers to the two types of upward streams, because of the cause of mixed cultivation of dhyana, those who go to the Akanistha heaven and attain nirvana. The rest who attain nirvana in dhyana, separately explain the upward stream without mixed cultivation. The remaining upward stream: Those who do not have mixed cultivation in various dhyanas are able to go to the Bhavagra (有頂) and attain nirvana. This refers to those who did not have mixed cultivation of dhyana before, because...

于諸四定愛味為生緣。此沒遍生色界十一處。唯不能往五凈居天。復從色界廣果天沒。于下三無色次第生已。後生有頂方般涅槃。應知樂定上流。於十五處。全超受二生。半超極少三生。極多十四生。遍沒十五生也。故婆沙一百七十四云。複次上流有三種。一全超。二半超。三一切處沒　全超者。謂欲界沒生梵眾天。梵眾天沒生色究竟。或生非想非非想處而般涅槃　半超者。謂欲界沒生梵眾天。梵眾天沒于上一切天處或更生一處。或二．或三．或四．或五。乃至或唯超一處遍生余處。然後生色究竟。或生非想非非想處而般涅槃　一切處沒者謂欲界沒生梵眾天。梵眾天沒生梵先行天。如是次第生上諸處。乃至廣果天。從此以上有二路別。一入凈居。二入無色　入凈居者廣果天沒生無煩天。次第乃至生色究竟而般涅槃　入無色者廣果天沒生空無邊處。次第乃至生非想非非想處而般涅槃　如一切處沒有二路別。應知全超．半超亦爾　解云言梵先行天者。梵王欲出在前行列。或在前行。又婆沙云。問如說退住初靜慮生梵眾天。作全超．半超．一切處沒上流。彼若退住第二靜慮生少光天。退住第三靜慮生少凈天。退住第四靜慮生無雲天等。彼亦得作全超．半超．一切處沒上流不耶。有說不得。以生梵世于上不還所應生處更無缺減

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本對於那些以對四禪定的喜愛和執著為生命之緣的人來說，從這裡（指欲界或色界下層天）死亡后，會普遍地投生到十一處地方。唯一不能去的是五凈居天（Pañca-śuddhāvāsa，色界最高的五層天）。如果從廣果天（Bṛhatphala，色界第四禪天）死亡，會依次投生到下方的三個無色界（Ārūpyadhātu，空無邊處、識無邊處、無所有處），之後投生到有頂天（Bhavāgra，非想非非想處）才般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。應該瞭解，喜愛禪定之人的向上流動，在十五處地方，完全超越受生兩次，部分超越極少的三次受生，最多超越十四次受生，普遍死亡十五次。所以《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā，說一切有部的重要論書）第一百七十四卷說，向上流動有三種：一是完全超越，二是部分超越，三是一切處死亡。完全超越是指，從欲界死亡后投生到梵眾天（Brahmakāyika，色界初禪天），從梵眾天死亡后投生到色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha，色界最高的凈居天），或者投生到非想非非想處（Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，無色界最高的禪定處）而般涅槃。部分超越是指，從欲界死亡后投生到梵眾天，從梵眾天死亡后，在上方的一切天處，或者再生一處，或者兩處，或者三處，或者四處，或者五處，乃至或者只超越一處，普遍地投生到其餘各處，然後投生到色究竟天，或者投生到非想非非想處而般涅槃。一切處死亡是指，從欲界死亡后投生到梵眾天，從梵眾天死亡后投生到梵先行天（Brahmapurohita，色界初禪天），像這樣依次投生到上方的各個地方，乃至廣果天。從這裡以上，有兩條不同的道路：一是進入凈居天，二是進入無色界。進入凈居天是指，從廣果天死亡后投生到無煩天（Avṛha，五凈居天之一），依次乃至投生到色究竟天而般涅槃。進入無色界是指，從廣果天死亡后投生到空無邊處（Ākāśānantyāyatana，無色界第一禪定處），依次乃至投生到非想非非想處而般涅槃。像一切處死亡有兩條不同的道路一樣，應該瞭解，完全超越和部分超越也是如此。解釋說，梵先行天是指，梵王（Brahmā，色界之主）想要出行，所以在前行列，或者在前行。另外，《婆沙論》說，問：如果說從初禪定退失而住在初禪定，投生到梵眾天，作為完全超越、部分超越、一切處死亡的向上流動，如果他們從第二禪定退失而住在第二禪定，投生到少光天（Parīttābha，色界第二禪天），從第三禪定退失而住在第三禪定，投生到少凈天（Parīttaśubha，色界第三禪天），從第四禪定退失而住在第四禪定，投生到無雲天（Anabhraka，色界第四禪天）等，他們也可以作為完全超越、部分超越、一切處死亡的向上流動嗎？有人說不可以，因為投生到梵世，對於上方不還果（Anāgāmin，不再返回欲界的聖者）所應該投生的地方，不再有缺少和減少。

【English Translation】 English version For those who take delight in and are attached to the four dhyānas (catu-dhyāna, four levels of meditative absorption) as the condition for their existence, upon death, they are universally reborn in eleven places. The only place they cannot go is the five Śuddhāvāsa heavens (Pañca-śuddhāvāsa, the Pure Abodes, the highest five heavens of the Form Realm). Furthermore, upon death from the Bṛhatphala heaven (Bṛhatphala, Great Fruit Heaven, the fourth dhyāna heaven of the Form Realm), they are born successively in the three lower realms of the Ārūpyadhātu (Ārūpyadhātu, Formless Realm, the realms of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothingness), and after that, they attain Parinirvana (Parinirvana, complete Nirvana) only after being born in the Bhavāgra (Bhavāgra, Peak of Existence, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception). It should be understood that the upward flow of those who delight in dhyāna, in fifteen places, completely transcends two rebirths, partially transcends a very few three rebirths, at most transcends fourteen rebirths, and universally dies fifteen times. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā, a major treatise of the Sarvāstivāda school), volume one hundred and seventy-four, says that there are three types of upward flow: one is complete transcendence, two is partial transcendence, and three is death in all places. Complete transcendence means that, upon death from the Desire Realm, one is born in the Brahmakāyika heaven (Brahmakāyika, the Heaven of Brahma's Assembly, the first dhyāna heaven of the Form Realm), and upon death from the Brahmakāyika heaven, one is born in the Akaniṣṭha heaven (Akaniṣṭha, the highest of the Pure Abodes in the Form Realm), or one attains Parinirvana after being born in the Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana (Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, the highest meditative state of the Formless Realm). Partial transcendence means that, upon death from the Desire Realm, one is born in the Brahmakāyika heaven, and upon death from the Brahmakāyika heaven, in all the heavens above, one is reborn in one place, or two places, or three places, or four places, or five places, or even transcends only one place, universally being born in the remaining places, and then is born in the Akaniṣṭha heaven, or attains Parinirvana after being born in the Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana. Death in all places means that, upon death from the Desire Realm, one is born in the Brahmakāyika heaven, and upon death from the Brahmakāyika heaven, one is born in the Brahmapurohita heaven (Brahmapurohita, the Heaven of Brahma's Ministers, the first dhyāna heaven of the Form Realm), and in this way, one is successively born in the various places above, up to the Bṛhatphala heaven. From here above, there are two different paths: one is to enter the Śuddhāvāsa heavens, and the other is to enter the Ārūpyadhātu. Entering the Śuddhāvāsa heavens means that, upon death from the Bṛhatphala heaven, one is born in the Avṛha heaven (Avṛha, the Heaven of No Trouble, one of the five Pure Abodes), successively up to being born in the Akaniṣṭha heaven and attaining Parinirvana. Entering the Ārūpyadhātu means that, upon death from the Bṛhatphala heaven, one is born in the Ākāśānantyāyatana (Ākāśānantyāyatana, the realm of infinite space, the first meditative state of the Formless Realm), successively up to being born in the Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana and attaining Parinirvana. Just as there are two different paths for death in all places, it should be understood that complete transcendence and partial transcendence are also like this. It is explained that the Brahmapurohita heaven refers to when Brahmā (Brahmā, the lord of the Form Realm) wants to go out, so he is in the front row, or goes in front. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā says, 'Question: If it is said that those who regress from the first dhyāna and reside in the first dhyāna, and are born in the Brahmakāyika heaven, as an upward flow of complete transcendence, partial transcendence, and death in all places, if they regress from the second dhyāna and reside in the second dhyāna, and are born in the Parīttābha heaven (Parīttābha, the Heaven of Limited Light, the second dhyāna heaven of the Form Realm), regress from the third dhyāna and reside in the third dhyāna, and are born in the Parīttaśubha heaven (Parīttaśubha, the Heaven of Limited Purity, the third dhyāna heaven of the Form Realm), regress from the fourth dhyāna and reside in the fourth dhyāna, and are born in the Anabhraka heaven (Anabhraka, the Heaven of No Clouds, the fourth dhyāna heaven of the Form Realm), etc., can they also be an upward flow of complete transcendence, partial transcendence, and death in all places?' Some say no, because having been born in the Brahma world, for the place where the Anāgāmin (Anāgāmin, Non-Returner, a saint who does not return to the Desire Realm) should be born above, there is no longer any lack or reduction.

故。依彼建立全超．半超．一切處沒。若退生上地處便缺減故。不依彼立全超等。有說彼亦得名半超。以超少分中間處故。有說亦得具名三種。彼說從欲界沒隨生何處。即于彼上所應生處。亦可施設全超．半超．一切處沒故。問若不還者欲界沒生無色界。亦得作全超等不耶。有說不得。有說彼亦得名半超。有說彼亦具名三種　此中所以皆如前釋。

二上流中至行色界者者。明二上流差別不同。二上流中前觀。后止。樂慧．樂定有差別故。二上流者二生已上于下地中得般涅槃。見不違理。而言此往色究竟天．及有頂天為極處者。由此過彼無行處故。如預流者極七返生。于中亦有一．二生等。又總結言。此五名為行色界者。樂定上流雖生有頂。曾經色界生故亦名行色界。是五不還中上流攝也。

行無色者至成六不還者。上來釋前六句。此釋第七句。明無色界四種不還。行無色者差別有四。謂在欲界從此命終。不生色界超生無色。此中差別唯有四種。由生般等有差別故。於前五內唯除中般。此四合名無色不還。此無色一。並前五種成六不還。

復有不行至並前六為七者。釋第八句。此明現般。復有不行色．無色界。即住於此欲界生中得不還果。既得果已。即於此生能般涅槃名現般涅槃。縱于欲界曾經七生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，依據（欲界）建立全超（Sarvatikrama，完全超越）、半超（Ardhatikrama，部分超越）、一切處沒（Sarvatra-anupapatti，一切處不生）。如果（不還者）退生到上地處，便會缺少（這些情況），所以不依據（上地）建立全超等。有人說，（退生上地者）也可以稱為半超，因為他超越了少部分中間的處所。也有人說，也可以具足三種名稱，他們的觀點是從欲界死後，無論生到何處，對於那個地方之上所應生的處所，也可以施設全超、半超、一切處沒。問：如果不還者從欲界死後生到無色界，也可以算作全超等嗎？有人說不可以。有人說，他們也可以稱為半超。也有人說，他們也可以具足三種名稱。這些解釋都和前面一樣。

二上流中至行**者（Urdhvasrotas-agamigamin，上流者-行盡者）者：說明二上流的差別不同。二上流中，有先觀后止的，有樂於智慧的，有樂於禪定的，因此有差別。二上流是指二生以上，在下地中得到般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全解脫）。認為這不違背道理，而說此（二上流者）往色究竟天（Akanistha，最高色界天）及有頂天（Bhavagra，非想非非想處天）為極處，是因為超過這些地方就沒有修行的處所了。如同預流者（Srotapanna，入流者）最多七次往返生死，其中也有一生、二生等。又總結說，這五種（不還者）名為行盡者。樂於禪定的上流者雖然生到有頂天，因為曾經行盡（煩惱），所以也名為行盡。這五種都屬於不還者中的上流。

行無色者至成六不還者：上面解釋了前六句，這裡解釋第七句，說明無色界的四種不還者。行無色者，差別有四種，即在欲界從此命終，不生色界，直接超生到無色界。這其中差別只有四種，因為在生、般涅槃等方面有差別。在前面的五種（不還者）中，唯獨除去中般（Antara-parinirvayin，中般涅槃者）。這四種合起來稱為無色不還。這無色界的一種，加上前面的五種，成為六種不還。

復有不行至並前六為七者：解釋第八句，說明現般（Drsta-dharma-parinirvayin，現法涅槃者）。復有不行色界、無色界，即安住在欲界此生中得到不還果。既然得到果位，就在此生能夠般涅槃，名為現般涅槃。即使在欲界曾經有七次生死。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, based on the desire realm, we establish Sarvatikrama (complete transcendence), Ardhatikrama (partial transcendence), and Sarvatra-anupapatti (non-arising in all places). If an Anagamin (non-returner) regresses to a higher realm, these conditions would be lacking, so we do not establish Sarvatikrama, etc., based on the higher realms. Some say that one who regresses to a higher realm can also be called Ardhatikrama because they have transcended a small portion of the intermediate places. Some say they can also be fully named with all three terms. Their view is that from the desire realm, wherever one is born, for the place above that where one should be born, Sarvatikrama, Ardhatikrama, and Sarvatra-anupapatti can also be applied. Question: If a non-returner dies in the desire realm and is born in the formless realm, can they also be considered Sarvatikrama, etc.? Some say no. Some say they can also be called Ardhatikrama. Some say they can also be fully named with all three terms. The explanations for all of these are the same as before.

Among the Urdhvasrotas-agamigamin (upstream-goers-going to exhaustion), the differences between the two types of upstream-goers are explained. Among the two types of upstream-goers, there are those who first contemplate and then cease, and there are differences in those who delight in wisdom and those who delight in meditation. The two types of upstream-goers refer to those who, after two or more lives, attain Parinirvana (complete liberation) in a lower realm. It is considered not contrary to reason to say that these (upstream-goers) go to Akanistha (the highest form realm heaven) and Bhavagra (the peak of existence, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) as the ultimate places because there is no place to practice beyond these. Just as a Srotapanna (stream-enterer) has a maximum of seven rebirths, there are also those with one or two rebirths, etc. Furthermore, it is summarized that these five (types of non-returners) are called those who have exhausted (karma). Although the upstream-goers who delight in meditation are born in the peak of existence, they are also called those who have exhausted (karma) because they have exhausted (afflictions). These five belong to the upstream-goers among the non-returners.

Those who go to the formless realm to become six types of non-returners: The previous six sentences have been explained; this explains the seventh sentence, clarifying the four types of non-returners in the formless realm. Those who go to the formless realm have four differences, namely, those who die in the desire realm and, without being born in the form realm, directly transcend to the formless realm. The differences here are only four because there are differences in birth, Parinirvana, etc. Among the previous five (types of non-returners), only Antara-parinirvayin (one who attains Nirvana in between) is excluded. These four together are called non-returners to the formless realm. This one from the formless realm, together with the previous five, becomes six types of non-returners.

Furthermore, there are those who do not go to become seven types along with the previous six: This explains the eighth sentence, clarifying Drsta-dharma-parinirvayin (one who attains Nirvana in this life). Furthermore, there are those who do not go to the form realm or the formless realm, but abide in this life in the desire realm and attain the fruit of non-returning. Since they have attained the fruit, they are able to attain Parinirvana in this life, and are called Drsta-dharma-parinirvayin. Even if they have had seven rebirths in the desire realm.

。家家．一來．一間等人。至此位中亦名現般。此現般一。並前六種為七不還。

於行色界至故成三九別者。此即第二明九不還。

論曰至故成九種者。此即總標。

何等為三者。問。

中生上流有差別故者。答。

云何三種各分為三者。復問九種。

且中般涅槃至無雜亂失者。答。中般分三。一速。二非速。三經久得般涅槃。三火星喻如前應知。故正理云。初起至遠．近．當生處得般涅槃　生般亦三。一生。二有行。三無行般涅槃故　上流亦三。一全超。二半超。三遍沒有差別故　三三非一名諸三種。然諸三種一切皆由速．非速．經久得般涅槃故分為九種。更互相望無雜亂失。中三是速。生三非速。上流三經久。就此三三各分三種。一速。二非速。三經久。

如是三種至經久不同者。別釋三種九種不還。此即總標。

且總成三至根差別故者。此即別明三種不還。且總成三。由造作增長順起業故名為中般。中有名起。對向當生暫時起故。如前已說。由造作增長順生業故名為生般。由造作增長順后業故名為上流。如其次第配釋三種。或如其次第中般下品。生般中品。上流上品。煩惱現行有差別故分為三種。及中般上根。生般中根。上流下根。有差別故分為三種。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『家家』、『一來』、『一間』等等，到達這種果位也稱為『現般』（在現世入滅）。這種『現般』，加上前面的六種，合為七種不還果。

關於『於行至故成三九別者』，這部分是第二段，闡明九種不還果。

論曰『至故成九種者』，這是總體的標示。

『何等為三者』，這是提問。

『中生上流有差別故者』，這是回答。

『云何三種各分為三者』，這是再次提問，關於九種不還果。

『且中般涅槃至無雜亂失者』，這是回答。中般（中間入滅）分為三種：一是速疾般涅槃，二是非速疾般涅槃，三是經歷長久才得般涅槃。這三種情況可以用之前的火星的比喻來理解。所以《正理》中說：最初從近處、遠處、將要出生的地方獲得般涅槃。生般（生起入滅）也有三種：一生般涅槃，二有行般涅槃，三無行般涅槃。上流般（向上流轉入滅）也有三種：一全超般涅槃，二半超般涅槃，三遍沒般涅槃，沒有差別。這三種情況並非只是一個名稱，而是三種不同的情況。然而，這三種情況都是因為速疾、非速疾、經歷長久才得般涅槃，所以分為九種。互相之間沒有混淆。中般三種是速疾，生般三種是非速疾，上流三種是經歷長久。就這三種情況各自再分三種：一是速疾，二是非速疾，三是經歷長久。

『如是三種至經久不同者』，分別解釋三種不還果和九種不還果，這是總體的標示。

『且總成三至根差別故者』，這是分別闡明三種不還果。總的來說，成就三種不還果，是因為造作、增長順著生起業的緣故，所以稱為中般（中間入滅）。『中』是指在有生之間生起，對向將要出生的狀態暫時生起。如前所述，因為造作、增長順著生業的緣故，所以稱為生般（生起入滅）。因為造作、增長順著后業的緣故，所以稱為上流（向上流轉）。按照這樣的順序來解釋這三種情況。或者按照這樣的順序，中般是下品，生般是中品，上流是上品。煩惱現行有差別，所以分為三種。以及中般是上根器，生般是中根器，上流是下根器，有差別，所以分為三種。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Jiajia' (family to family), 'Yilai' (coming once), 'Yijian' (one interval), and so on. Reaching this position is also called 'Xianban' (extinguishing in the present life). This 'Xianban', together with the previous six, makes up the seven types of Anagami (non-returner).

Regarding 'Yu xing zhi gu cheng san jiu bie zhe' (regarding the differences in practice leading to the three nines), this section is the second part, clarifying the nine types of Anagami.

The treatise says 'Zhi gu cheng jiu zhong zhe' (reaching the cause and achieving the nine types), this is the overall indication.

'He deng wei san zhe?' (What are the three?), this is the question.

'Zhong sheng shang liu you chabie gu zhe' (the intermediate, arising, and upward-flowing have differences), this is the answer.

'Yun he san zhong ge fen wei san zhe?' (How are the three types each divided into three?), this is another question, regarding the nine types of Anagami.

'Qie zhong ban niepan zhi wu zaluan shi zhe' (furthermore, the intermediate Parinirvana until there is no confusion or loss), this is the answer. Zhongban (intermediate extinction) is divided into three types: first, rapid Parinirvana; second, non-rapid Parinirvana; and third, Parinirvana attained after a long time. These three situations can be understood using the previous analogy of the spark. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: initially, obtaining Parinirvana from a near, far, or about-to-be-born place. Shenban (arising extinction) also has three types: arising Parinirvana, effortful Parinirvana, and effortless Parinirvana. Shangliu ban (upward-flowing extinction) also has three types: complete transcendence Parinirvana, half-transcendence Parinirvana, and pervasive non-difference Parinirvana. These three situations are not just one name, but three different situations. However, these three situations are all because of rapid, non-rapid, and long-lasting attainment of Parinirvana, so they are divided into nine types. There is no confusion between them. The three Zhongban are rapid, the three Shenban are non-rapid, and the three Shangliu are long-lasting. Each of these three situations is further divided into three types: first, rapid; second, non-rapid; and third, long-lasting.

'Ru shi san zhong zhi jingjiu butong zhe' (thus, the three types until the long-lasting are different), separately explaining the three types of Anagami and the nine types of Anagami, this is the overall indication.

'Qie zong cheng san zhi gen chabie gu zhe' (furthermore, generally achieving the three until the root differences), this is separately clarifying the three types of Anagami. Generally speaking, achieving the three types of Anagami is because of creating and increasing karma that accords with arising, so it is called Zhongban (intermediate extinction). 'Intermediate' refers to arising between existences, temporarily arising towards the state of about to be born. As mentioned before, because of creating and increasing karma that accords with birth, it is called Shenban (arising extinction). Because of creating and increasing karma that accords with subsequent karma, it is called Shangliu (upward-flowing). Explain these three situations in this order. Or, in this order, Zhongban is of inferior quality, Shenban is of medium quality, and Shangliu is of superior quality. There are differences in the manifestation of afflictions, so they are divided into three types. And Zhongban is of superior faculties, Shenban is of medium faculties, and Shangliu is of inferior faculties, there are differences, so they are divided into three types.

此三一一至成三九別者。此即別明九種不還。中．生．上流此三一一。如其所應亦由業．惑．根有差別故。各有三別故成九種。此三非皆由業．惑．根故。言如其所應。粗類大同。于中細說非無差別　謂初二．三。三三之內初二三也。即是中三．生三。但由惑．根有差別故各成三種。非由業異。中般三人同受起業。無差別故。生般三人同受生業。無差別故。后三上流不但由有惑．根不同。亦由順后受業有差別故分成三種。上流得有全超．半超．遍沒業異故分三種　言順后受業者。非唯四業中順后受定業。聖人亦造不定業故。言順后受業。對中．生說　又解理實聖人亦造不定業。此文且說順后受定業　問如生色界樂慧上流具生五凈居天。初應名生。第二已去名后。如何此文總名順后　解云身在欲界造五凈居引業。若不爾者如何名后　又解亦造順生。而言後者從多分說。若作此解。色界亦造凈居引業　又解亦造順生。言順後者。對中．生說名為后故　總結可知。

若爾何故至有往無還故者。此即第三明七善士趣問。若行色界有九種不還。何故經中佛唯說有七善士趣。問及頌答。

論曰至且立為一者。釋上兩句。中．生二種各分為三。上流為一。經依此立七善士趣。謂上流人有上流法故名上流。由此義同雖

有三種且立為一。又婆沙一百七十五云。問如生．不生各有三種。上流亦爾。謂全超．半超．一切處沒。何故說一耶。答生．不生各是一有相續。于中分位差別難知。欲令知故各說三種。上流三種生數自辨。差別易知。是故但隨上行義勝合說一種　複次生與不生一期時促。於差別義唯有爾所易可建立。是故分三。上流時長差別多種。分齊難辨故合立一　複次生不生亦有等義。上流亦有別義。欲以二文互相顯故作如是說　複次生與不生。善士趣相現前易了。以彼速趣般涅槃故各分為三。其上流者。善士趣相微隱難知。以彼尚經多生死故但合說一(解云生者生有。不生者中有)。

何獨依此至無差別故者。釋下兩句問。何獨依此立善士趣。不依所餘預流．一來有學聖者立善士趣。趣是行義。所餘有學預流．一來皆行善業與不還人無差別故。

唯此七種至立善士趣者。答。唯此七種皆行善業不行惡業。余預流等即不爾故。彼雖行善亦行惡故。又唯七種行往上界。不復還來欲界受生。余預流等則不爾故。不往上界但生欲故。故獨依此立善士趣。

若爾何故至乃至廣說者。難。若爾何故契經中言。云何善士。謂若成就有學正見。乃至廣說。具成八正。是則有學皆名善士。何故言余非善士趣。

諸餘有學

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有三種情況，但被歸為一種。另外，《婆沙論》第一百七十五卷說：『問：如生、不生各有三種，上流也是如此，即全超、半超、一切處沒。』為什麼說是一種呢？答：生和不生各自代表一種有相續，其中的分位差別難以知曉，爲了讓人瞭解，所以各自說了三種。上流的三種情況，其生數可以自行分辨，差別容易知曉，因此只是隨著上行之義的殊勝而合說為一種。其次，生與不生，一期時間短暫，在差別之義上只有那些容易建立的，所以分為三種。上流的時間長，差別多種，分界難以分辨，所以合立為一種。再次，生與不生也有相同之處，上流也有不同之處，想要用這兩段文字互相顯明，所以這樣說。再次，生與不生，善士趣向的相狀顯現，容易瞭解，因為他們迅速趣向般涅槃（Parinirvana），所以各自分為三種。而上流者，善士趣向的相狀微弱隱蔽，難以知曉，因為他們還要經歷多次生死，所以只合說為一種。（解釋說，生者是生有，不生者是中有）。

『為何唯獨依據這些而達到無差別呢？』這是解釋下面兩句的提問。為何唯獨依據這些來建立善士趣（Kalyana-gati），而不依據其餘的預流（Srota-apanna）、一來（Sakrdagamin）有學聖者來建立善士趣呢？趣是行義。其餘的有學，預流、一來，都行善業，與不還人（Anagamin）沒有差別。

『唯有這七種達到建立善士趣』這是回答。唯有這七種都行善業，不行惡業，其餘的預流等就不是這樣，他們雖然行善，也行惡。而且，唯有這七種行往上界，不再返回欲界受生，其餘的預流等就不是這樣，他們不往上界，只是在欲界受生。所以唯獨依據這些來建立善士趣。

『如果這樣，為何』這是提問。如果這樣，為何契經（Sutra）中說：『什麼是善士？就是成就有學正見，乃至廣說。』具備成就八正道（Arya Ashtanga Marga），那麼有學都可以稱為善士，為何說其餘的不是善士趣呢？

其餘的有學

【English Translation】 English version There are three types, yet they are established as one. Furthermore, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha-bhasya, volume 175, states: 'Question: As for 'born' and 'unborn,' each has three types, and so does 'upstream-goers,' namely, 'completely transcending,' 'partially transcending,' and 'submerged in all places.' Why is it said to be one?' Answer: 'Born' and 'unborn' each represent a continuum of existence, within which the distinctions of stages are difficult to discern. To make them known, each is described in three types. The three types of 'upstream-goers' can be distinguished by their birth numbers, and the differences are easily known. Therefore, they are combined into one based on the superiority of the meaning of going upstream. Secondly, the time span of 'born' and 'unborn' is short, and only those differences that are easily established exist in terms of distinction. Therefore, they are divided into three. The time span of 'upstream-goers' is long, with many differences, and the boundaries are difficult to distinguish, so they are combined into one. Thirdly, 'born' and 'unborn' also have similarities, while 'upstream-goers' also have differences. To mutually clarify these two texts, it is said in this way. Fourthly, for 'born' and 'unborn,' the characteristics of a virtuous person's path are manifest and easy to understand because they quickly proceed towards Parinirvana (般涅槃), so each is divided into three. As for 'upstream-goers,' the characteristics of a virtuous person's path are subtle and hidden, difficult to know, because they still undergo many births and deaths, so they are combined into one.' (Explanation: 'Born' refers to existence in the realm of birth, 'unborn' refers to existence in the intermediate state).

'Why solely rely on these to reach non-differentiation?' This explains the question in the following two sentences. Why solely rely on these to establish the path of the virtuous (Kalyana-gati), and not rely on the remaining Stream-enterers (Srota-apanna), Once-returners (Sakrdagamin), and learners who are noble ones to establish the path of the virtuous? 'Path' means practice. The remaining learners, Stream-enterers and Once-returners, all perform virtuous deeds, and are no different from Non-returners (Anagamin).

'Only these seven reach the establishment of the path of the virtuous' This is the answer. Only these seven perform virtuous deeds and do not perform evil deeds. The remaining Stream-enterers, etc., are not like that, because although they perform virtuous deeds, they also perform evil deeds. Moreover, only these seven go to the upper realms and do not return to be born in the desire realm. The remaining Stream-enterers, etc., are not like that, because they do not go to the upper realms but are only born in the desire realm. Therefore, solely rely on these to establish the path of the virtuous.

'If so, why' This is the question. If so, why does the Sutra (契經) say: 'What is a virtuous person? It is one who has accomplished the right view of a learner, and so on.' Having accomplished the Noble Eightfold Path (Arya Ashtanga Marga), then all learners can be called virtuous persons. Why is it said that the rest are not on the path of the virtuous?

The remaining learners

至往上界故者。通。諸餘有學預流等人。若就異門成就八正。亦可說為有善士性。以諸有學由成八正。於五種惡殺．盜．邪淫．誑語．飲酒皆獲得畢竟不作律儀故。不善煩惱多已斷故。應名善士。今者所立七善士趣。不就異門。約唯行善不行惡故。唯托勝因往上界故。立善士趣。又婆沙云。問行無色界不還於行色界不還有五事勝。謂界勝．地勝．斷煩惱勝．損減蘊勝．三摩缽底勝。何故不立為善士趣。有說若粗顯易了立善士趣。彼不顯了是故不說。廣如彼說　又云。問何故阿羅漢非善士趣。答覆次趣上生者立善士趣。阿羅漢無生。是故不立　複次趣上果者立善士趣。阿羅漢即是上果。更無上果可趣。是故不立。廣如彼說。

諸在聖位至無練根並退者。此即第四明非生上界。上兩句明非生上。下兩句明無練根退。

論曰至極有頂者者。欲聖經生。若能勵力起得聖道。斷諸煩惱必不生上。厭欲界生多苦惱故。恐生上界有長時苦。同欲界故。故欲界經生不生上界。色界無苦厭心劣故。故於色界經生聖者。容生無色　問欲聖經生不生上界。欲聖經生亦應不更生欲　解云雖于欲界經生聖者極生厭離。惑難斷故。道未熟故。所以更受欲界多生。若經生聖能起聖道。於此身中必斷惑盡故。不往彼上界受生。

然天

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本對於那些往生到上界的聖者來說，這是普遍適用的。至於其他有學的預流（Srota-apanna，入流果），如果從不同的角度來看，他們成就了八正道（Arya Ashtanga Marga，八聖道），也可以說他們具有善士的品性。因為這些有學者通過成就八正道，對於五種惡行——殺生、偷盜、邪淫、妄語、飲酒——都能獲得究竟的不作律儀（不作的誓約），並且已經斷除了許多不善的煩惱，所以應該被稱為善士。然而，現在所建立的七善士趣，不是從不同的角度來看，而是僅僅因為他們只行善而不作惡，僅僅依靠殊勝的因緣往生到上界，所以才建立善士趣。此外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasha）中說：『問：行無（Arūpadhātu，無色界）不還（Anagami，不還果）與行（Kāmadhātu，欲界）不還相比，有五種殊勝之處，即界勝、地勝、斷煩惱勝、損減蘊勝、三摩缽底（Samāpatti，等至）勝。為什麼不將行無不還立為善士趣？』有人說，因為粗顯易懂的才被立為善士趣，而行無不還並不顯了，所以沒有被提及。詳細內容可以參考《婆沙論》。又說：『問：為什麼阿羅漢（Arhat，應供）不是善士趣？』答：因為建立善士趣是爲了趣向上生者，而阿羅漢已經沒有生死，所以不被列入。又因為建立善士趣是爲了趣向上果者，而阿羅漢已經是最高的果位，沒有更高的果位可以趣向，所以不被列入。詳細內容可以參考《婆沙論》。那些處於聖位，直到沒有練根（不再通過修習來提升根器）並且退轉的人，這說明了第四種情況，即非生上界。前面的兩句話說明了非生上，後面的兩句話說明了沒有練根和退轉。論中說，『直到極有頂者』，指的是欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界）的聖者經歷生死。如果他們能夠努力修習，證得聖道，斷除各種煩惱，必定不會往生到上界。因為他們厭惡欲界的生死，認為欲界的生死充滿痛苦，並且擔心往生到上界也會有長久的痛苦，因為上界和欲界相似。因此，欲界的經歷生死的聖者不會往生到上界。而（Arūpadhātu，無色界）的聖者沒有對痛苦的厭離心，這種厭離心比較弱，所以的經歷生死的聖者有可能往生到無色界。問：欲界的經歷生死的聖者不會往生到上界，那麼欲界的經歷生死的聖者也不應該再次往生到欲界。』解釋說，雖然在欲界經歷生死的聖者對欲界產生了極大的厭離，但是因為迷惑難以斷除，道力尚未成熟，所以還會再次承受欲界的多次生死。如果經歷生死的聖者能夠發起聖道，在此身中必定能夠斷除所有的迷惑，因此不會往生到上界受生。然而，天...

【English Translation】 English version Regarding those who are reborn in the upper realms, this is generally applicable. As for other 'with-learning' Srota-apannas (Stream-enterers), if viewed from a different perspective, those who have accomplished the Eightfold Path (Arya Ashtanga Marga) can also be said to possess the nature of a virtuous person. This is because these 'with-learning' individuals, by accomplishing the Eightfold Path, are able to attain the ultimate non-committing precepts (vows not to commit) regarding the five evils—killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drinking—and have already severed many unwholesome afflictions, so they should be called virtuous persons. However, the seven destinies of virtuous persons now established are not viewed from a different perspective, but solely because they only perform good deeds and do not commit evil, and solely rely on superior causes to be reborn in the upper realms, hence the establishment of the destinies of virtuous persons. Furthermore, the Vibhasha states: 'Question: An Anagami (Non-returner) who practices in the Arūpadhātu (Formless Realm) has five superiorities compared to an Anagami who practices in the Kāmadhātu (Desire Realm), namely superiority in realm, superiority in ground, superiority in severing afflictions, superiority in diminishing aggregates, and superiority in Samāpatti (Attainment). Why is an Anagami who practices in the Arūpadhātu not established as a destiny of virtuous persons?' Some say that because what is coarse, obvious, and easily understood is established as a destiny of virtuous persons, and the Anagami who practices in the Arūpadhātu is not obvious, it is not mentioned. Detailed content can be found in the Vibhasha. It also says: 'Question: Why is an Arhat (Worthy One) not a destiny of virtuous persons?' Answer: Because the destiny of virtuous persons is established for those who aspire to be reborn upwards, and an Arhat has no more birth, they are not included. Also, because the destiny of virtuous persons is established for those who aspire to the highest fruit, and an Arhat is already the highest fruit, there is no higher fruit to aspire to, so they are not included. Detailed content can be found in the Vibhasha. Those who are in the position of a noble one, up to those who have no more cultivation of their faculties (no longer improving their faculties through practice) and regress, this explains the fourth situation, which is not being reborn in the upper realms. The first two sentences explain not being reborn upwards, and the last two sentences explain having no more cultivation of faculties and regressing. The treatise states, 'Up to those at the peak of existence,' referring to noble ones in the Kāmadhātu (Desire Realm) who experience birth and death. If they can diligently practice and attain the noble path, severing various afflictions, they will certainly not be reborn in the upper realms. This is because they detest the birth and death in the Desire Realm, considering it full of suffering, and fear that being reborn in the upper realms will also involve prolonged suffering, as the upper realms are similar to the Desire Realm. Therefore, noble ones in the Desire Realm who experience birth and death will not be reborn in the upper realms. As for noble ones in the Arūpadhātu (Formless Realm), they do not have a strong aversion to suffering, so it is possible for noble ones in the Arūpadhātu who experience birth and death to be reborn in the Formless Realm. Question: Noble ones in the Desire Realm who experience birth and death will not be reborn in the upper realms, so should noble ones in the Desire Realm who experience birth and death not be reborn in the Desire Realm again?' It is explained that although noble ones in the Desire Realm who experience birth and death have developed a great aversion to the Desire Realm, because delusion is difficult to sever and the power of the path is not yet mature, they will still undergo multiple births and deaths in the Desire Realm. If noble ones who experience birth and death can initiate the noble path, they will certainly be able to sever all delusions in this lifetime, and therefore will not be reborn in the upper realms. However, the gods...

帝釋至佛亦不遮者。會釋經文。然天帝釋。五衰相現來歸世尊。佛為說法得預流果。雖復得果。然作是言。曾聞有天名色究竟。愿我命終後退落人中為佛弟子。若不獲得阿羅漢果當生彼天　毗婆沙師作如是釋。彼天帝釋雖得預流由不能了對法相故作斯謬說。若謬說者佛何不遮。為令帝釋一時喜故佛亦不遮。故正理六十五釋云。我後者。三十三天自在異熟最後邊際。言退落者謂於後時若不獲得阿羅漢果。當生彼者。謂愿當生色究竟天。勿生欲界。以天帝釋緣五死相極生憂苦。來歸世尊。死相才除。便作是說。為令喜故。又觀遮彼無多益故。佛不遮止。

即此已經至並退者。釋下兩句。明經生聖無練根退。

何緣不許至並退者。問。

以必無故者。答。

何緣必無者。徴。

經生習根至所依止故者。釋。經生習根極成熟故。及得殊勝所依身故。昔是凡身未名殊勝。經生聖者唯是聖身方名殊勝。或上界身亦名殊勝。由此彼無練根．退理　又解經生習根極成熟故顯無練根。及得殊勝所依止故顯無退也。應知欲界唯人趣退。三惡趣中無聖道退。天趣雖有。彼無退具功德堅牢。設不經生亦不退也。

何緣有學至般涅槃者者。問意可知。

以彼聖道至無如是能者。答。一聖道未熟。二難

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本帝釋天（Indra，佛教的護法神）去拜見佛陀，佛陀也沒有阻止他，這是爲了解釋經文。當時，天帝釋五衰相（five signs of decay）顯現，前來歸依世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）。佛陀為他說法，使他證得預流果（Srotapanna，須陀洹果，小乘四果中的初果）。即使證得了果位，帝釋天仍然說：『我曾聽說有天叫做色究竟天（Akanistha），愿我命終後退落到人間，成為佛陀的弟子。如果不能獲得阿羅漢果（Arhat），就當往生到那個天界。』毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，說一切有部論師）這樣解釋：那位天帝釋雖然證得了預流果，但由於不能完全瞭解對法（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩，論藏）的法相，所以說了這種錯誤的話。如果說了錯誤的話，佛陀為什麼不阻止他呢？爲了讓帝釋天一時高興，佛陀也沒有阻止。所以《正理》（Nyaya）第六十五解釋說：『我后』，是指三十三天（Trayastrimsa）自在異熟（vipaka）的最後邊際。『退落』，是指在以後的時候，如果不能獲得阿羅漢果。『當生彼』，是指希望往生到色究竟天，不要往生到欲界（Kamadhatu）。因為天帝釋因五死相（five signs of death）而極度憂愁痛苦，前來歸依世尊，死相才剛剛消除，就說了這樣的話，爲了讓他高興，又考慮到阻止他也沒有多大益處，所以佛陀沒有阻止他。

『即此已經至並退者』，解釋下面兩句經文，說明經由禪定而生於上界的聖者，沒有練根（parivarta，轉根）和退轉（cyavana）的情況。

『何緣不許至並退者』，這是提問。

『以必無故者』，這是回答。

『何緣必無者』，這是追問。

『經生習根至所依止故者』，這是解釋。因為經由禪定而生於上界的聖者，其習根（bhava-hetu，有習）極其成熟，並且獲得了殊勝的所依之身。以前是凡夫之身，不能稱為殊勝。經由禪定而生於上界的聖者，唯有聖者之身才能稱為殊勝，或者上界之身也稱為殊勝。因此，他們沒有練根和退轉的道理。又可以這樣解釋，經由禪定而生於上界的聖者，其習根極其成熟，這表明沒有練根；以及獲得了殊勝的所依之身，這表明沒有退轉。應當知道，欲界（Kamadhatu）只有人趣（manusya-gati）會退轉，三惡趣（tri-apaya-gati）中沒有聖道（arya-marga）的退轉。天趣（deva-gati）雖然有，但他們沒有退轉的工具，功德堅固，即使不是經由禪定而生，也不會退轉。

『何緣有學至般涅槃者者』，提問的意圖可以理解。

『以彼聖道至無如是能者』，這是回答。一是聖道沒有成熟，二是困難。

【English Translation】 English version That Indra (Śakra, the lord of devas) went to the Buddha and was not prevented, is to explain the sutra. At that time, the five signs of decay (five signs of impending death) appeared on Indra, and he came to take refuge in the Bhagavan (Blessed One, an epithet of the Buddha). The Buddha preached the Dharma to him, enabling him to attain the fruit of Stream-enterer (Srotapanna, the first of the four stages of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism). Even after attaining the fruit, Indra still said: 'I have heard that there is a heaven called Akanistha (the highest of the form realms), and I wish that after my death, I may fall back into the human realm and become a disciple of the Buddha. If I cannot attain Arhatship (the state of liberation), then I should be reborn in that heaven.' The Vaibhashikas (a school of early Buddhism) explain it this way: Although that Indra attained the fruit of Stream-enterer, he spoke such erroneous words because he could not fully understand the characteristics of Abhidharma (the philosophical analysis and systematization of the Buddha's teachings). If he spoke erroneous words, why didn't the Buddha stop him? To make Indra happy for a moment, the Buddha did not stop him. Therefore, the sixty-fifth explanation of the Nyaya (a system of Indian philosophy) says: 'My latter', refers to the final boundary of the independent fruition (vipaka) of the Trayastrimsa (the Heaven of the Thirty-three Gods). 'Falling back', refers to if one cannot attain Arhatship in the future. 'Should be born there', refers to the wish to be born in Akanistha heaven, not in the Kamadhatu (the realm of desire). Because Indra was extremely worried and distressed by the five signs of death, he came to take refuge in the Bhagavan. The signs of death had just disappeared, and he spoke these words. To make him happy, and considering that stopping him would not be of much benefit, the Buddha did not stop him.

'That which has already reached and also regresses', explains the following two sentences of the sutra, clarifying that saints who are born in higher realms through meditation do not have the conditions of transformation of faculties (parivarta) or regression (cyavana).

'Why is it not permitted to reach and also regress?', this is a question.

'Because it is certainly not possible', this is the answer.

'Why is it certainly not possible?', this is an inquiry.

'Because the habitual roots of those born through meditation are relied upon', this is the explanation. Because the habitual roots (bhava-hetu) of those born in higher realms through meditation are extremely mature, and they have obtained a superior body to rely on. Previously, it was an ordinary body, which could not be called superior. Saints born in higher realms through meditation, only the body of a saint can be called superior, or the body of a higher realm can also be called superior. Therefore, they do not have the reason for transformation of faculties or regression. It can also be explained this way: the habitual roots of those born in higher realms through meditation are extremely mature, which indicates that there is no transformation of faculties; and obtaining a superior body to rely on indicates that there is no regression. It should be known that in the Kamadhatu (realm of desire), only humans (manusya-gati) regress, and there is no regression of the holy path (arya-marga) in the three evil realms (tri-apaya-gati). Although the deva-gati (realm of gods) exists, they do not have the means of regression, and their merits are firm. Even if they are not born through meditation, they will not regress.

'Why do those who are still learning reach Parinirvana?', the intention of the question is understandable.

'Because their holy path is not mature and there is no such ability', this is the answer. First, the holy path is not mature, and second, it is difficult.

令現起。三隨眠非劣。故住彼中有無有般涅槃。又毗婆沙者作如是釋。一諸欲界法極難越故。二彼尚有餘多所作故。多所作者。謂應進斷欲界不善．上界無記二煩惱故。及應進得若二沙門果。謂從一來進得不還．阿羅漢果。若三沙門果。謂從預流進得一來．不還．阿羅漢果。並應總越三界生死有漏法故　又解及應進得若第二一來果。若第三不還果。並應總越三界法故得阿羅漢果。住中有位無如是能。色界不爾。故住中有能般涅槃。又婆沙一百七十四云。問如欲界沒受色界中有得般涅槃。如是從色界沒受色界中有。亦般涅槃不。答不爾。所以者何。彼于欲界多苦多障多諸災橫可厭之身極生厭逆。既舍離已。起色界中有現在前時。于當所受長時異熟亦生厭患便般涅槃。色界無有如是災橫極可厭事令生厭逆。如於本有有緣礙故不般涅槃。今中有亦爾。故從彼沒所起中有不般涅槃。

前說上流至及遮煩惱退者。此即第五明雜修靜慮。初句答初問。第二句答第二問。下兩句答第三問。

論曰至彼最勝故者。釋初句。等持堪能樂行最勝故。先雜修第四靜慮。後方雜修下三靜慮。

如是雜修至雜修靜慮者。釋第二句。不還無學方能雜修。起多念心是遠加行。至二念心加行成滿　次後唯從一念無漏如無間道。即入有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：令（使）現起。三隨眠（三種潛在的煩惱：欲貪隨眠、有貪隨眠、無明隨眠）並非微弱。因此，住在彼中有（中陰身）中，沒有般涅槃（完全的解脫）。

又，毗婆沙師這樣解釋：一，諸欲界法極難超越的緣故；二，他尚有許多事情要做。許多事情要做是指：應該進一步斷除欲界的不善法，以及上界（色界和無色界）的無記二煩惱的緣故；以及應該進一步證得若二沙門果（聲聞乘的兩種果位），即從一來果進一步證得不還果、阿羅漢果；若三沙門果，即從預流果進一步證得一來果、不還果、阿羅漢果；並且應該總括超越三界（欲界、色界、無色界）生死有漏法（有煩惱的法）的緣故。

又解釋為，應該進一步證得若第二一來果，若第三不還果，並且應該總括超越三界法，證得阿羅漢果。住在中有位沒有這樣的能力。不是這樣的。因此，住在中有能般涅槃。又，《婆沙論》第一百七十四卷說：『問：如欲界死後受中有，能得般涅槃。如是從沒（死亡）受中有，也能般涅槃嗎？答：不能。為什麼呢？因為他對於欲界多苦、多障礙、多諸災橫、可厭惡之身，極生厭逆。既然舍離了，起中有現在前時，對於當所受長時異熟（果報）也生厭患，便般涅槃。沒有像這樣災橫、極其可厭惡的事情，令他生厭逆。如在本有（活著的狀態）有緣礙的緣故，不般涅槃，現在中有也一樣。所以從彼沒所起的中有，不能般涅槃。』

前面所說的上流（指證果位高的人）乃至遮煩惱退失的人，這即是第五部分，說明雜修靜慮（混合修習禪定）。初句回答第一個問題，第二句回答第二個問題，下面兩句回答第三個問題。

論曰乃至彼最勝故：解釋第一句。等持（禪定）堪能、樂於修行是最殊勝的緣故，先雜修第四靜慮，然後才雜修下三靜慮。

如是雜修乃至雜修靜慮：解釋第二句。不還果位的無學（不再需要學習的人）才能雜修。起多念心是遠加行（預備階段），到二念心加行成滿（完成階段）。次後唯從一念無漏如無間道（直接證入），即入有。

【English Translation】 English version: May it arise now. The three anusayas (three latent tendencies: attachment to desire, attachment to existence, and ignorance) are not weak. Therefore, residing in that antarabhava (intermediate state), there is no parinirvana (complete liberation).

Furthermore, the Vaibhashikas explain it this way: Firstly, because the dharmas of the desire realm are extremely difficult to transcend; secondly, because there are still many things for him to do. 'Many things to do' means that he should further sever the unwholesome dharmas of the desire realm, as well as the two avyakrta (unspecified) kleshas (afflictions) of the upper realms (the form realm and the formless realm); and that he should further attain either two shramana fruits (fruits of the Hearer vehicle), namely progressing from the once-returner fruit to the non-returner fruit and the arhat fruit; or three shramana fruits, namely progressing from the stream-enterer fruit to the once-returner fruit, the non-returner fruit, and the arhat fruit; and that he should comprehensively transcend the samsaric (cyclic existence) and asrava (tainted) dharmas of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm).

Another explanation is that he should further attain either the second once-returner fruit or the third non-returner fruit, and that he should comprehensively transcend the dharmas of the three realms, attaining the arhat fruit. Residing in the antarabhava position does not have such abilities. It is not so. Therefore, residing in the antarabhava can achieve parinirvana. Moreover, the Vibhasha volume one hundred and seventy-four says: 'Question: Just as one who dies in the desire realm and receives the antarabhava can attain parinirvana, can one who dies from death and receives the antarabhava also attain parinirvana? Answer: No. Why? Because he has extreme aversion to the body in the desire realm, which is full of suffering, obstacles, calamities, and is extremely detestable. Since he has abandoned it, when the antarabhava arises, he also feels aversion to the long-term vipaka (result) that he is about to receive, and then attains parinirvana. There are no such calamities or extremely detestable things to cause aversion. Just as in the bhava (existing state), there are causal hindrances that prevent parinirvana, so it is with the antarabhava now. Therefore, the antarabhava arising from death does not attain parinirvana.'

What was said earlier about the 'superior stream' (referring to those with high attainments) up to those who lose their afflictions, this is the fifth part, explaining the mixed cultivation of dhyana (meditative absorption). The first sentence answers the first question, the second sentence answers the second question, and the following two sentences answer the third question.

The treatise says, 'Up to because it is the most excellent': Explains the first sentence. Because samadhi (concentration) is capable, and delighting in practice is the most excellent, one first mixes the cultivation of the fourth dhyana, and then mixes the cultivation of the lower three dhyanas.

'Thus, mixing cultivation up to mixing cultivation of dhyana': Explains the second sentence. Only a non-returner who is an arhat (one beyond learning) can mix cultivation. Arousing many thoughts is a distant preparation, up to two thoughts, the preparation is complete. After that, only from one thought, without outflows, like the anantarya-marga (path of immediate succession), one immediately enters into existence.

漏不染無知定障成就得俱滅　引起一念有漏現前亦如無間道則入無漏不染無知定障成就得俱滅。望前應是解脫道。與從無漏入有漏不染無知定障不成就得俱生故。今但望后從有漏入無漏不染無知定障成就得俱滅故。如無間道　第三剎那無漏心起。與從有漏入無漏不染無知定障不成就得俱生故。如解脫道　如是有漏中間剎那。前後剎那無漏雜故。名雜修定根本圓成。前二剎那似斷惑無間道。與不染無知成就得俱滅。第三剎那似解脫道。與不染無知不成就得俱生。如是雜修第四定已。乘此勢力隨其所應亦能雜修下三靜慮。又顯宗三十一云。雜修靜慮五蘊為體。然於此中諸世俗智是四法．四類八智所雜修(已上論文)此雜修定說力起故。先於欲界人趣三洲。雜修定已后若退失生色界中。亦能如前欲界雜修靜慮。三洲厭強。又慧勝故能初雜修。不通余處。故顯宗三十一云。誰于靜慮能雜熏修。唯諸聖者通學．無學。學位唯通訊解．見至。于無學位通時．非時。必先三洲雜修靜慮。退生色界。亦能雜修。退已練根成見至姓。從欲界沒生色界中。乘前復能雜修靜慮。故六種姓皆有上流。

雜修靜慮至起煩惱退者。釋下兩句。如文可知。

雜修靜慮至生有五凈居者。此即第六明凈居唯五。

論曰至凈居唯五者。略

釋可知。

何謂五品者。問。

謂下中上至令感凈居者。答。一下．二中．三上．四上勝．五上極品差別故。此中初品據成滿時三心現前便得成滿。第二品成滿更有三心加前為六。第三品成滿更有三心加前為九。第四品成滿更有三心加前為十二。第五品成滿更有三心加前為十五。故婆沙一百七十五云。此一一品。于成滿位皆有三心。一心有漏。二心無漏。如是總有十五心。五心有漏。十心無漏(已上論文)　又解初品最劣修至三心即得成滿。第二品漸勝至起三心猶為加行。更起三心方始成滿。並說近加行。故言第二有六心也。后三品心準釋可知。故正理六十五云。此中初品三心現前便得成滿。謂初無漏次起有漏後起無漏。第二中品六心現前方得成滿。謂二有漏為四無漏之所雜修。如是所餘隨其次第有九．十二．十五念心如應現前方得成滿(已上論文)雖有兩解前解為勝。真諦亦同前解。又正理云。如是十五有漏無漏心。皆是先來未曾得今得　有餘師說。初五無漏是從先來未得今得。餘十皆是曾所得心。前五現前時已未來修故。正理所說皆非正義。故婆沙一百七十五。有說五是未曾得十是曾得。謂前五現在前時。餘十未來修故　有說十是未曾得五是曾得。謂前十現在前時。后五未來修故。

如是說者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本釋可知。

何謂五品者？（問：什麼是五品？）

謂下、中、上至令感凈居者。（答：指的是下品、中品、上品，直至能夠感得凈居天果位的修行者。）一下品、二中品、三上品、四上勝品、五上極品，品位差別就在於此。其中，初品是指在成就圓滿時，三心現前便得成就圓滿。第二品成就圓滿時，更有三心加入之前的，總共為六心。第三品成就圓滿時，更有三心加入之前的，總共為九心。第四品成就圓滿時，更有三心加入之前的，總共為十二心。第五品成就圓滿時，更有三心加入之前的，總共為十五心。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十五卷說，這每一品，在成就圓滿的階段都有三心。一心是有漏心，二心是無漏心。總共有十五心，五心是有漏心，十心是無漏心。（以上是論文內容）

又有一種解釋是，初品是最差的，修行到三心就能成就圓滿。第二品逐漸殊勝，發起三心仍然是加行位，更發起三心才開始成就圓滿。並且說了近加行，所以說第二品有六心。后三品的心可以參照這個解釋來理解。所以《正理》第六十五卷說，這其中初品三心現前便得成就圓滿，指的是先起無漏心，其次起有漏心，最後起無漏心。第二中品六心現前才能成就圓滿，指的是二有漏心被四無漏心所夾雜修習。像這樣，其餘的品位依次有九念心、十二念心、十五念心，相應地現前才能成就圓滿。（以上是論文內容）雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更為殊勝。真諦的觀點也與前一種解釋相同。又《正理》說，這十五個有漏無漏心，都是先前未曾得到，現在才得到的。

有其他論師說，最初的五個無漏心是從先前未得，現在才得到的。其餘的十個心都是曾經得到過的。因為前五個心現前的時候，其餘的十個心還在未來修習的階段。正理所說的都不是正確的意義。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十五卷說，有人說五心是未曾得到的，十心是曾經得到的。指的是前五心現在前的時候，其餘的十心還在未來修習的階段。有人說十心是未曾得到的，五心是曾經得到的。指的是前十心現在前的時候，后五心還在未來修習的階段。

像這樣說的人

【English Translation】 English version It is knowable through explanation.

What are the Five Grades? (Question)

They refer to the Lower, Middle, and Upper grades, up to those who can attain rebirth in the Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa). (Answer) The differences lie in the Lower, Middle, Upper, Superior Upper, and Supreme Upper Grades. Among these, the First Grade refers to achieving fulfillment when the three minds manifest, leading to complete attainment. The Second Grade achieves fulfillment with three additional minds, totaling six minds. The Third Grade achieves fulfillment with three more minds, totaling nine minds. The Fourth Grade achieves fulfillment with three more minds, totaling twelve minds. The Fifth Grade achieves fulfillment with three more minds, totaling fifteen minds. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra) Volume 175 states that each of these grades has three minds at the stage of fulfillment: one mind is defiled (with outflows - sāsrava), and two minds are undefiled (without outflows - anāsrava). Thus, there are a total of fifteen minds, with five defiled minds and ten undefiled minds. (End of the treatise)

Another explanation is that the First Grade is the lowest, achieving fulfillment with three minds. The Second Grade is gradually superior, with the arising of three minds still being in the preparatory stage. Only with the arising of three more minds does fulfillment begin. It also speaks of the proximate preparatory stage, hence the statement that the Second Grade has six minds. The minds of the latter three grades can be understood by analogy. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (Nyāyānusāriṇī-śāstra) Volume 65 states that in the First Grade, fulfillment is attained when three minds manifest: first an undefiled mind arises, then a defiled mind, and finally an undefiled mind. The Second Middle Grade attains fulfillment only when six minds manifest, meaning two defiled minds are mixed with the cultivation of four undefiled minds. Similarly, the remaining grades attain fulfillment only when nine, twelve, and fifteen thought-moments manifest accordingly. (End of the treatise) Although there are two explanations, the former is superior. Paramārtha (真諦) also agrees with the former explanation. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states that these fifteen defiled and undefiled minds are all newly attained, never having been obtained before.

Some teachers say that the first five undefiled minds are newly attained, never having been obtained before. The remaining ten minds are all minds that have been obtained before because when the first five minds manifest, the remaining ten minds are still in the future stage of cultivation. The statements in the Nyāyānusāra are not correct. Therefore, the Vibhasa Volume 175 states that some say five are newly attained and ten have been obtained before, meaning when the first five are present, the remaining ten are in the future stage of cultivation. Some say ten are newly attained and five have been obtained before, meaning when the first ten are present, the latter five are in the future stage of cultivation.

Those who say thus

此則不定。或有十五皆未曾得。或有十五皆是曾得。或有少分曾得。少分未曾得　又云。如是說者。此即不定。或有不起定能十五心相續而轉。或復起定。于中或有起三心已而便起定。或有起六心已而便起定。或有起九心已而便起定。或有起十二心已而便起定。是故於彼五品中間。或起．不起雜修成滿　又婆沙云。如是說者。能雜修作十六行相。所雜修或作十六行相。或作余行相。謂無量．解脫．勝處(已上論文)如是五品雜修靜慮如其次第感五凈居。應知此中前後無漏勢力。熏修中間有漏令感凈居。非無漏感。棄背有故。以因有五品故凈居唯五。故婆沙一百七十五云。有說雜修靜慮有五品故。所感凈居亦唯有五。問則雜修靜慮何故唯五不增不減。答雜修勢力唯爾所故。如見道十五心勢力。唯爾所不增不減。如是雜修靜慮勢力。亦十五心而無增減　廣如彼說。

有餘師言至感五凈居者。有餘師言。由信等五次第增上感五凈居。謂或有時信根增上雜修靜慮。或有乃至慧根增上雜修靜慮。隨此差別感五凈居故唯有五。又婆沙云。問雜修下三靜慮有幾品。有說但有三品。謂下．中．上。下地無有五凈居果故。如是說者。亦有五品。問彼無五果何故有五品因。答雖無五果。而其彼定法有五品。複次下地雖無。五凈居果。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這種情況是不確定的。或者有十五個心念都未曾獲得，或者有十五個心念都是曾經獲得，或者有少部分曾經獲得，少部分未曾獲得。又說，像這樣說是不確定的。或者有不起定（aniyata，不定的）也能使十五個心念相續不斷地運轉。或者進入禪定，其中或者有生起三個心念之後便進入禪定，或者有生起六個心念之後便進入禪定，或者有生起九個心念之後便進入禪定，或者有生起十二個心念之後便進入禪定。因此，在那五品（pañca-vidha，五種）中間，或者生起、或者不生起，混合修習而成就圓滿。又《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，像這樣說，能夠混合修習，作出十六種行相（ākāra，方面，形式）。所混合修習的，或者作出十六種行相，或者作出其他的行相，例如無量（apramāṇa，無限）、解脫（vimokṣa，解脫）、勝處（abhibhāyatana，克服處）。（以上是論文內容）像這樣，五品混合修習的靜慮（dhyāna，禪定），按照次第感得五凈居天（pañca śuddhāvāsa，色界最高的五層天）。應當知道，這裡前後無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）的勢力，熏修中間的有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱），使得感得凈居天，不是無漏感得，因為捨棄了有漏的緣故。因為因有五品，所以凈居天只有五處。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十五卷說，有人說混合修習的靜慮有五品，所以感得的凈居天也只有五處。問：那麼混合修習的靜慮為什麼只有五品，不多也不少？答：混合修習的勢力只有這麼多。如同見道（darśana-mārga，見道）十五心的勢力，只有這麼多，不多也不少。像這樣，混合修習的靜慮的勢力，也是十五心而沒有增減。詳細的可以參考那裡的說法。

有其他老師說，至於感得五凈居天，有其他老師說，由於信（śraddhā，信仰）、等五根（pañcendriyāṇi，五種能力）次第增上，感得五凈居天。意思是或者有時信根增上，混合修習靜慮，或者乃至慧根（prajñā-indriya，智慧能力）增上，混合修習靜慮。隨著這種差別，感得五凈居天，所以只有五處。又《婆沙論》說，問：混合修習下三靜慮（adho-dhyāna，較低的三個禪定）有幾品？有人說只有三品，即下品、中品、上品。因為下地沒有五凈居天的果報。像這樣說，也有五品。問：那裡沒有五種果報，為什麼有五品因？答：雖然沒有五種果報，但是那裡的禪定法有五品。再次，下地雖然沒有五凈居天的果報。

【English Translation】 English version: This is uncertain. There are those who have never attained all fifteen, and those who have attained all fifteen. There are those who have attained a few, and those who have not attained a few. Furthermore, to say it like this is uncertain. There are those who, without entering into fixed concentration (aniyata), can cause the fifteen thoughts to continue to arise in succession. Or, having entered into fixed concentration, among them, some enter into fixed concentration after three thoughts have arisen, some after six thoughts have arisen, some after nine thoughts have arisen, and some after twelve thoughts have arisen. Therefore, among those five categories (pañca-vidha), either arising or not arising, mixed cultivation is accomplished and perfected. Moreover, the Vibhasa says, 'To say it like this, one can cultivate mixed practices, creating sixteen aspects (ākāra). What is cultivated in a mixed manner either creates sixteen aspects or creates other aspects, such as immeasurable (apramāṇa), liberation (vimokṣa), and overcoming places (abhibhāyatana).' (The above is the content of the treatise.) Thus, the five categories of mixed cultivation of meditative absorption (dhyāna) sequentially cause the attainment of the Five Pure Abodes (pañca śuddhāvāsa). It should be understood that here, the power of the preceding and following unconditioned (anāsrava) influences the intermediate conditioned (sāsrava), causing the attainment of the Pure Abodes, not the unconditioned, because it has abandoned the conditioned. Because the cause has five categories, the Pure Abodes are only five. Therefore, Vibhasa volume one hundred and seventy-five says, 'Some say that because mixed cultivation of meditative absorption has five categories, the resulting Pure Abodes are also only five.' Question: Then why does mixed cultivation of meditative absorption have only five categories, neither increasing nor decreasing? Answer: The power of mixed cultivation is only so much. Just like the power of the fifteen thoughts of the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga) is only so much, neither increasing nor decreasing. Likewise, the power of mixed cultivation of meditative absorption is also fifteen thoughts without increase or decrease. For details, refer to the explanation there.

Other teachers say, regarding the attainment of the Five Pure Abodes, other teachers say that due to the five faculties (pañcendriyāṇi) such as faith (śraddhā) progressively increasing, the Five Pure Abodes are attained. This means that sometimes the faculty of faith increases, and mixed cultivation of meditative absorption occurs, or even the faculty of wisdom (prajñā-indriya) increases, and mixed cultivation of meditative absorption occurs. According to this difference, the Five Pure Abodes are attained, so there are only five. Furthermore, the Vibhasa says, 'Question: How many categories are there for mixed cultivation of the lower three meditative absorptions (adho-dhyāna)? Some say there are only three categories, namely lower, middle, and upper. Because the lower realms do not have the result of the Five Pure Abodes.' To say it like this, there are also five categories. Question: If there are no five results there, why are there five categories of causes? Answer: Although there are no five results, the Dharma of meditative absorption there has five categories. Furthermore, although the lower realms do not have the result of the Five Pure Abodes.

而有五品根故　問因論生論下三靜慮既有五品雜修。何緣無有五凈居果　答如非其因非其器。乃至廣說。複次聖者厭患異生共生處故求生凈居。若下地有凈居者。便於異生共生處所不能厭離。于上處所未離染故。複次聖者厭災患處故求生凈居。下三地中皆有災患故無凈居(廣如彼說)問聖生凈居造引業不。解云此論既云熏修有漏令感凈居。明知聖人造牽引業。又婆沙異熟因雜修靜慮業引五凈居眾同分。

經說不還至轉名為身證者。此即第七明身證不還。

論曰至故名身證者。有滅定得起名得滅定。即不還者。若於身中有滅定得。轉名身證。謂不還者。由此色身而能證得滅盡定似涅槃法故名身證。

如何說彼但名身證者。問。

以心無故依身生故者。答。入滅盡定以心無故。依身生故名身證。后出定已猶名得彼。得依身生故亦名為身證。

理實應言至身寂靜故者。論主述經部解。理實應言非正入彼滅盡定時名為身證。彼從滅定起。得先未得有識身寂靜。色身有識名有識身。簡無識位。初從定出此身寂靜。返緣前定便作是思。此滅盡定最為寂靜極似涅槃。如是證得出定位中身之寂靜故名身證。由滅定得及出定后。緣滅定智現前。證得身之寂靜　又解由得身寂靜。及出定智現前。證得身之寂

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為有五品根器的緣故。問：根據《因論》、《生論》的說法，下三禪既然有五品雜修，為什麼沒有五凈居天的果報呢？答：如同不是那個原因，不是那個器皿一樣。（乃至廣說）。再者，聖者厭惡與凡夫共同居住的地方，所以求生凈居天。如果地獄有凈居天，就不能厭離與凡夫共同居住的地方，因為對上界還沒有離染的緣故。再者，聖者厭惡災患的地方，所以求生凈居天。下三地都有災患，所以沒有凈居天（詳細的解釋如彼處所說）。問：聖者生到凈居天，是否造作了牽引業？解釋說：此論既然說熏修有漏法，能夠感得凈居天，明顯知道聖人造作了牽引業。而且《婆沙論》說，異熟因雜修靜慮業，能夠牽引五凈居天的眾同分。

經中說『不還果轉名為身證』，這就是第七種，說明身證不還果。

論中說：『因為這個緣故名為身證』。有滅盡定，得到之後生起，名為得到滅盡定，就是不還果的人。如果身中有滅盡定的獲得，就轉名為身證。就是指不還果的人。因為這個色身能夠證得滅盡定，類似於涅槃的法，所以名為身證。

『如何說他們只是名為身證呢？』問。

『因為心識沒有了，依靠身體而生起的緣故』。答：進入滅盡定的時候，因為心識沒有了，依靠身體而生起的緣故，名為身證。後來出定之後，仍然名為得到那個滅盡定。因為滅盡定的獲得是依靠身體而生起的，所以也名為身證。

『實際上應該說是因為身體寂靜的緣故』。論主闡述經部的解釋：實際上應該說，不是正在進入滅盡定的時候名為身證，而是從滅盡定出來，得到先前沒有得到的有識之身寂靜。色身有識，名為有識之身，這裡是爲了簡別無識的狀態。剛從滅盡定出來的時候，這個身體是寂靜的，反過來緣於之前的滅盡定，於是這樣思惟：這個滅盡定最為寂靜，極其類似於涅槃。這樣證得出定位中的身體的寂靜，所以名為身證。由於得到滅盡定，以及出定之後，緣于滅盡定的智慧現前，證得身體的寂靜。又一種解釋是，由於得到身體的寂靜，以及出定智慧現前，證得身體的寂靜。

【English Translation】 English version Because there are five grades of roots. Question: According to the Hetu-śāstra (因論, cause treatise) and the Utpāda-śāstra (生論, arising treatise), since the lower three dhyānas (靜慮, meditative absorptions) have five grades of mixed practice, why are there no five Śuddhāvāsa (凈居, Pure Abodes) fruits? Answer: It is like not being the cause, not being the vessel. (And so on, extensively explained). Furthermore, the noble ones厭患 (yanhuan, detest) living together with ordinary beings, therefore they seek to be born in the Śuddhāvāsa. If there were Śuddhāvāsa in the lower realms, they would not be able to厭離 (yanli, detest and leave) living together with ordinary beings, because they have not yet離染 (liran, detached from desire) from the upper realms. Furthermore, the noble ones厭患 (yanhuan, detest) places of calamity and suffering, therefore they seek to be born in the Śuddhāvāsa. The lower three realms all have calamities and suffering, therefore there are no Śuddhāvāsa (detailed explanation as mentioned there). Question: Do the noble ones who are born in the Śuddhāvāsa create 引業 (yinye, karma that attracts rebirth)? The explanation says: Since this treatise says that熏修 (xunxiu, perfuming and cultivating) 有漏法 (youloufa, defiled dharmas) can cause one to experience the Śuddhāvāsa, it is clear that the noble ones create 引業 (yinye, karma that attracts rebirth). Moreover, the Vibhāṣā (婆沙, commentary) says that the heterogeneous cause of the maturation of mixed practice of dhyāna (靜慮, meditative absorptions) can attract the commonality of the five Śuddhāvāsa.

The Sutra says, 'The Anāgāmin (不還, Non-Returner) is transformed and named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness),' this is the seventh, explaining the 身證 (shenzheng, body witness) of the Anāgāmin (不還, Non-Returner).

The Treatise says, 'Because of this reason, it is named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness).' Having Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), arising after obtaining it, is named obtaining Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), which is the Anāgāmin (不還, Non-Returner). If there is an attainment of Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) in the body, it is transformed and named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness). This refers to the Anāgāmin (不還, Non-Returner). Because this physical body can attain Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), which is similar to the Dharma of Nirvana, it is named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness).

'How can it be said that they are only named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness)?' Question.

'Because the mind is absent, and it arises relying on the body.' Answer: When entering Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), because the mind is absent, and it arises relying on the body, it is named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness). Later, after emerging from the samadhi, it is still named obtaining that Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment). Because the attainment of Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) arises relying on the body, it is also named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness).

'In reality, it should be said it is because of the body's tranquility.' The Treatise master elaborates on the Sautrāntika (經部, Sutra School) explanation: In reality, it should be said that it is not when one is entering Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) that it is named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness), but rather, upon emerging from Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), one obtains the tranquility of the previously unattained conscious body. The physical body with consciousness is named the conscious body, this is to distinguish it from the state of non-consciousness. When one first emerges from the samadhi, this body is tranquil, and one reflects on the previous samadhi, and then thinks: This Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) is the most tranquil, extremely similar to Nirvana. Thus, one witnesses the tranquility of the body in the state of emerging from samadhi, therefore it is named 身證 (shenzheng, body witness). Because of obtaining Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment), and after emerging from samadhi, the wisdom that reflects on Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) manifests, one witnesses the tranquility of the body. Another explanation is that, because of obtaining the tranquility of the body, and the wisdom of emerging from samadhi manifests, one witnesses the tranquility of the body.

靜。

契經說有至不說身證者。依經起問　言十八者。於二十七賢聖中除九無學。故正理六十五云。何緣佛說有學福田。身證不還不預其數。謂世尊告給孤獨言。長者當知。福田有二。一者有學。二者無學。有學十八。無學唯九。何等名為十八有學。謂預流向。預流果。一來向。一來果。不還向。不還果。阿羅漢向。隨信行。隨法行。信解。見至。家家。一間。中。生。有行。無行。上流。是名十八。何等名為九種無學。謂退法。思法。護法。安住法。堪達法。不動法。不退法。慧解脫。俱解脫。是名為九種(解云。俱舍二十五云。非練根得名為不退。練根所得名為不動)　依因無故者。答。

何謂依因者。徴。

謂諸無漏至說有學差別者釋。謂諸無漏戒．定．慧三學。及擇滅果法。依彼差別立有學故。故名依因。因彼立故故名為因。此滅盡定非是三學以有漏故。亦非學果以有為故。故不約成彼說有學差別。

不還差別至數成多千者。結前生后。

其義云何者。問。

且如中般至九十二者。答。且如中般約根成三。約地成四。約姓成六。約處成十六。約地離染成三十六。色界具縛乃至已離第四靜慮八品染故。離第九品即是空處具縛故不說之。若約處．種姓．離染．根建立總成二

千五百九十二。

云何如是者。問。

且於一處至九百六十者。答。諸離下地九品染者。即說名為上地具縛。為成四靜慮。一一地離染九數皆等故。以斷下地第九品染不生下故。故斷第九為上具縛。斷下地第九並上地前八品即成九品。故名離染九數等也。余文例釋。總結可知。

已辨第三至成無學應果者。此下第四明阿羅漢向．果。就中。一明向．果差別。二因論明治道。三明盡智．后智。四便通明道果。五明六種種姓。此即第一明向．果差別。一結前。二生下。三頌釋。就頌中前一頌半明向。后兩句明果。又婆沙六十五云。問何故離欲界染立二沙門果。謂一來．不還果。離色界．無色界染立一沙門果謂阿羅漢果。複次以欲界難斷難破難可越度故離彼染立二果。色界．無色界易斷易破易可越度故離彼染唯立一果(廣如彼釋)　又云。問何故離見所斷染立一沙門果。離修所斷染立后三沙門果耶。答見所斷染易可遠離故。離彼時立初一沙門果。修所斷染難可遠離故。離彼時立后三沙門果。

論曰至阿羅漢曏者。釋初行頌。如文可知。

即此所說至最為勝故者。釋第五．第六．句。此定從喻為名故名金剛喻定。如世金剛能破一切。此定亦爾。能破一切惑。故正理云。此定堅銳喻若金剛。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：千五百九十二。

『什麼是像這樣呢？』問。

『暫且在一個地方達到九百六十呢？』答：『那些遠離下地九品煩惱的人，就被稱為上地具有束縛。爲了成就四靜慮（指色界四禪），每一地遠離煩惱的九個品類數量都相等。因為斷除了下地第九品煩惱就不會再生於下地，所以斷除第九品煩惱就被稱為上地具有束縛。斷除下地第九品煩惱並加上上地的前八品，就成就了九品。』所以稱為遠離煩惱的九個品類數量相等。其餘的文字可以依此類推解釋，總結起來就明白了。

『已經辨明了第三個問題，直到成就無學應果』。這以下第四部分闡明阿羅漢向（arahantship-path，趨向阿羅漢果位的修行階段）和阿羅漢果（arahantship-fruit，證得阿羅漢果位的階段）。其中，一、闡明向和果的差別；二、通過論述來闡明智道；三、闡明盡智（knowledge of exhaustion，斷盡煩惱的智慧）和后智（knowledge of non-arising，不再產生煩惱的智慧）；四、順便通達地闡明道和果；五、闡明六種種姓（six kinds of dispositions，六種不同的根性）。這裡是第一部分，闡明向和果的差別。一、總結前面的內容；二、引出下面的內容；三、用頌文來解釋。在頌文中，前一頌半闡明『向』，后兩句闡明『果』。另外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第六十五卷說：『問：為什麼離開欲界（desire realm）的染污而設立二個沙門果（sramana-fruit，修道者的果位）？』答：『指一來果（sakrdagamin-fruit，證得一來果的階段）和不還果（anagamin-fruit，證得不還果的階段）。離開和無的染污而設立一個沙門果，指阿羅漢果。』又，因為欲界難以斷除、難以破除、難以超越，所以離開那裡的染污而設立二個果位。和無容易斷除、容易破除、容易超越，所以離開那裡的染污只設立一個果位（詳細的解釋如彼處）。又說：『問：為什麼離開見所斷（dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的染污而設立一個沙門果，離開修所斷（bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的染污而設立後面的三個沙門果呢？』答：『見所斷的染污容易遠離，所以離開它們時設立第一個沙門果。修所斷的染污難以遠離，所以離開它們時設立後面的三個沙門果。』

『論曰，直到阿羅漢向』。解釋最初的頌文，如文字所說的那樣就可以理解。

『即此所說，直到最為殊勝的緣故』。解釋第五、第六句。這個禪定一定是從比喻而得名，所以稱為金剛喻定（vajropama-samadhi，如金剛般堅固的禪定）。就像世間的金剛能夠摧毀一切，這個禪定也是這樣，能夠摧毀一切迷惑。所以《正理》（Nyaya，古印度正理學派）中說：『這個禪定堅固銳利，比喻就像金剛。』

【English Translation】 English version: 1592.

'What is it that is like this?' Question.

'For the time being, reaching nine hundred and sixty in one place?' Answer: 'Those who have departed from the nine grades of defilements of the lower realms are said to be bound in the upper realms. To accomplish the four dhyanas (four meditative absorptions in the Form Realm), the number of the nine grades of defilements that are abandoned in each realm is equal. Because one does not arise in the lower realms after cutting off the ninth grade of defilement of the lower realms, therefore cutting off the ninth is called being bound in the upper realms. Cutting off the ninth grade of the lower realms, together with the first eight grades of the upper realms, constitutes nine grades.' Therefore, it is called the equal number of nine grades of defilements abandoned. The remaining texts can be explained by analogy, and it can be understood by summarizing.

'Having distinguished the third question, until the attainment of the Arhat Fruit.' The fourth part below elucidates the path to arahantship (arahantship-path) and the fruit of arahantship (arahantship-fruit). Among them: 1. Elucidating the difference between the path and the fruit; 2. Elucidating the path of wisdom through discussion; 3. Elucidating the knowledge of exhaustion (knowledge of exhaustion) and the knowledge of non-arising (knowledge of non-arising); 4. Explaining the path and the fruit comprehensively; 5. Elucidating the six kinds of dispositions (six kinds of dispositions). This is the first part, elucidating the difference between the path and the fruit. 1. Summarizing the previous content; 2. Introducing the following content; 3. Explaining with verses. In the verses, the first one and a half verses elucidate the 'path,' and the last two sentences elucidate the 'fruit.' Furthermore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), volume 65, says: 'Question: Why are two sramana-fruits (sramana-fruit) established upon leaving the defilements of the desire realm (desire realm)?' Answer: 'Referring to the Once-Returner Fruit (sakrdagamin-fruit) and the Non-Returner Fruit (anagamin-fruit). One sramana-fruit is established upon leaving the defilements of ** and non-, referring to the Arhat Fruit.' Moreover, because the desire realm is difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to transcend, two fruits are established upon leaving its defilements. ** and non- are easy to cut off, easy to break, and easy to transcend, so only one fruit is established upon leaving their defilements (detailed explanation as in that place). It also says: 'Question: Why is one sramana-fruit established upon leaving the defilements that are abandoned by seeing (dṛṣṭi-heya), and the latter three sramana-fruits established upon leaving the defilements that are abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya)?' Answer: 'The defilements that are abandoned by seeing are easy to abandon, so the first sramana-fruit is established when leaving them. The defilements that are abandoned by cultivation are difficult to abandon, so the latter three sramana-fruits are established when leaving them.'

'The treatise says, until the path to arahantship.' Explaining the initial verse, it can be understood as the text says.

'That which is said here, until the reason for being the most excellent.' Explaining the fifth and sixth sentences. This samadhi (samadhi) is certainly named from a metaphor, so it is called the Vajra-like Samadhi (vajropama-samadhi). Just as the worldly vajra can destroy everything, this samadhi is also like that, able to destroy all delusions. Therefore, the Nyaya (Nyaya) says: 'This samadhi is firm and sharp, the metaphor is like a vajra.'

金剛喻定至互為因故者。總有三說。此即初師。金剛喻定說有多種。謂斷有頂第九品惑無間道生。通依九地。故說此定約諸智別。約行相別。約所緣諦別。未至定攝有五十二。如文可知。如未至定攝有五十二。靜慮中間及四靜慮應知亦爾　空處二十八。謂於前五十二內。除緣滅．道二法智。及除緣下四靜慮滅類智。總除六智各四行相四六二十四。余有二十八　識處二十四。於前二十八。又除緣空處滅類智四行　無所有處二十。於前二十四。又除緣識處滅類智四行。以依無色無有法智及緣下滅滅類智故。所以除法智及緣下滅類智。然緣下地對治道者。以同品道互相因故。故三無色道類智慧緣九地道。

有說此定至二十四者。第二師解。有說此定約智約行約緣別故。未至定攝有八十種。謂道類智緣八地道。亦各別有四行相應四八三十二。于中除四已入前五十二中故。由此於前五十二上。增二十八成八十種。如未至定攝有八十種。靜慮中間及四靜慮。應知亦爾　空處四十。除緣滅．道法智。及緣四靜慮。四滅類智．四道類智。總除十智各別有四行。總除四十。故八十中唯有四十　識處三十二。於前四十。又除緣空處滅．道類智八行但有三十二　無所有處二十四。於前三十二。又除緣識處滅．道類智八行。但有二十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於金剛喻定（Vajropama-samadhi）達到互為因果關係，總共有三種說法。這是第一位論師的觀點。金剛喻定有多種說法，指的是斷除有頂天（Bhavagra）第九品惑的無間道（anantarya-marga）生起。它普遍依賴於九地（nine grounds）。因此，這種禪定是根據諸智（various wisdoms）的差別、行相（aspects）的差別以及所緣諦（objects of truth）的差別來區分的。未至定（Upacarasmadhi）包含五十二種，如經文所述。正如未至定包含五十二種一樣，靜慮中間（Dhyana-antarika）和四靜慮（four dhyanas）也應如此理解。空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana）有二十八種。這是指在之前的五十二種中，除去緣滅諦（Nirodha-satya）和道諦（Marga-satya）的二法智（dharma-jnana），以及除去緣下四靜慮（lower four dhyanas）的滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）。總共除去六智（six wisdoms），每種智慧各有四種行相，四六二十四。剩餘二十八種。識無邊處定（Vijnananantyayatana）有二十四種。在之前的二十八種中，又除去緣空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana）的滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）的四種行相。無所有處定（Akincanyayatana）有二十種。在之前的二十四種中，又除去緣識無邊處定（Vijnananantyayatana）的滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）的四種行相。因為依賴於無色界（Arupa-dhatu），沒有法智（dharma-jnana）以及緣下地滅諦（Nirodha-satya）的滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）。所以要除去法智以及緣下地滅諦的滅類智。然而，緣下地對治道（remedial path）的原因是，因為同品道（paths of the same category）互相為因。因此，三無色界（three formless realms）的道類智（Marga-anvaya-jnana）能夠緣九地道（paths of the nine grounds）。有人說這種禪定達到二十四種，這是第二位論師的解釋。有人說這種禪定是根據智（wisdom）、行（aspect）和緣（object）的差別來區分的。未至定（Upacarasmadhi）包含八十種。指的是道類智（Marga-anvaya-jnana）緣八地道（paths of the eight grounds），也各自有四種行相與之相應，四八三十二。其中除去四種已經包含在之前的五十二種中。因此，在之前的五十二種之上，增加二十八種，成為八十種。正如未至定包含八十種一樣，靜慮中間（Dhyana-antarika）和四靜慮（four dhyanas）也應如此理解。空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana）有四十種。除去緣滅諦（Nirodha-satya）、道諦（Marga-satya）的法智（dharma-jnana），以及緣四靜慮（four dhyanas）的四種滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）、四種道類智（Marga-anvaya-jnana）。總共除去十智（ten wisdoms），每種智慧各有四種行相，總共除去四十種。因此，在八十種中只有四十種。識無邊處定（Vijnananantyayatana）有三十二種。在之前的四十種中，又除去緣空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana）的滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）、道類智（Marga-anvaya-jnana）的八種行相，只有三十二種。無所有處定（Akincanyayatana）有二十四種。在之前的三十二種中，又除去緣識無邊處定（Vijnananantyayatana）的滅類智（Nirodha-anvaya-jnana）、道類智（Marga-anvaya-jnana）的八種行相，只有二十四種。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the Vajropama-samadhi (diamond-like concentration) reaching the state of being mutually causal, there are three general explanations. This is the view of the first teacher. There are various explanations of Vajropama-samadhi, referring to the arising of the anantarya-marga (path of immediate result) that cuts off the ninth level of delusion in Bhavagra (the peak of existence). It universally relies on the nine grounds. Therefore, this samadhi is distinguished according to the differences in various wisdoms, the differences in aspects, and the differences in the objects of truth. Upacarasmadhi (access concentration) includes fifty-two types, as stated in the text. Just as Upacarasmadhi includes fifty-two types, Dhyana-antarika (intermediate dhyana) and the four dhyanas should also be understood in the same way. Akasanantyayatana (the sphere of infinite space) has twenty-eight types. This refers to, within the previous fifty-two, removing the two dharma-jnana (wisdom of phenomena) that cognize Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation) and Marga-satya (truth of the path), and removing the Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) that cognizes the lower four dhyanas. In total, six wisdoms are removed, each wisdom having four aspects, four times six is twenty-four. The remaining twenty-eight types. Vijnananantyayatana (the sphere of infinite consciousness) has twenty-four types. Within the previous twenty-eight, the four aspects of Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) that cognizes Akasanantyayatana (the sphere of infinite space) are also removed. Akincanyayatana (the sphere of nothingness) has twenty types. Within the previous twenty-four, the four aspects of Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) that cognizes Vijnananantyayatana (the sphere of infinite consciousness) are also removed. Because it relies on the Arupa-dhatu (formless realm), there is no dharma-jnana (wisdom of phenomena) and Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) that cognizes the lower ground's Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation). Therefore, dharma-jnana and Nirodha-anvaya-jnana that cognizes the lower ground's Nirodha-satya are removed. However, the reason for cognizing the remedial path of the lower ground is because paths of the same category are mutually causal. Therefore, the Marga-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of the path) of the three formless realms can cognize the paths of the nine grounds. Some say that this samadhi reaches twenty-four types, which is the explanation of the second teacher. Some say that this samadhi is distinguished according to the differences in wisdom, aspect, and object. Upacarasmadhi (access concentration) includes eighty types. This refers to Marga-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of the path) cognizing the paths of the eight grounds, and each also has four aspects corresponding to it, four times eight is thirty-two. Among them, four types have already been included in the previous fifty-two. Therefore, on top of the previous fifty-two, twenty-eight types are added, making it eighty types. Just as Upacarasmadhi includes eighty types, Dhyana-antarika (intermediate dhyana) and the four dhyanas should also be understood in the same way. Akasanantyayatana (the sphere of infinite space) has forty types. Dharma-jnana (wisdom of phenomena) that cognizes Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation) and Marga-satya (truth of the path), and the four Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) and four Marga-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of the path) that cognize the four dhyanas are removed. In total, ten wisdoms are removed, each wisdom having four aspects, totaling forty types removed. Therefore, out of the eighty types, there are only forty types. Vijnananantyayatana (the sphere of infinite consciousness) has thirty-two types. Within the previous forty, the eight aspects of Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) and Marga-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of the path) that cognize Akasanantyayatana (the sphere of infinite space) are also removed, leaving only thirty-two types. Akincanyayatana (the sphere of nothingness) has twenty-four types. Within the previous thirty-two, the eight aspects of Nirodha-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of cessation) and Marga-anvaya-jnana (subsequent wisdom of the path) that cognize Vijnananantyayatana (the sphere of infinite consciousness) are also removed, leaving only twenty-four types.

四。

復有欲令至二十四者。第三師解。復有欲令金剛喻定。約智約行約緣別故。未至地攝總有一百六十四種。謂滅類智緣八地滅。有別有總。各四行相應八地別緣有八。如初師說　言總緣者。以二合緣有七。以三合緣有六。足前成十三。以四合緣有五。足前成十八。以五合緣有四。足前成二十二。以六合緣有三。足前成二十五。以七合緣有二。足前成二十七。以八合緣有一。足前成二十八。凡此合緣鄰次合緣。不得超間而緣。以四行相乘二十八智各有四行。成一百一十二。故言由此于初師五十二上。增一百一十二。總成一百六十四種。如未至定攝百六十四。靜慮中間及四靜慮應知亦爾　空處五十二。但加合緣滅。余皆如初師。言合緣者。以二合緣有三。以三合緣有二。足前成五。以四合緣有一。足前成六。以四行乘前六智四六二十四。于初師二十八上增二十四。故成五十二　識處三十六。但加合緣滅。余皆如初師。言合緣者以二合緣有二。以三合緣有一。足前成三。以四行乘三智三四十二。于初師二十四上。加十二。即成三十六也　無所有處二十四。但加合緣滅。余皆如初師。以二合緣唯有一種。以四行乘一智成四。于初師二十上加四。成二十四也。於三說中第三為正。故婆沙二十八評家云。如是說者。依未

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：四、還有想要達到二十四種（定）的說法。第三位論師解釋說，還有想要達到金剛喻定（Vajropama Samadhi，一種堅不可摧的禪定）。根據智慧、修行和所緣境的不同，未至定（Upacarasmadhi，接近初禪的禪定）所包含的總共有164種。也就是滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種止息一切心識活動的禪定）的類智緣（滅盡定的智慧和所緣）在八地（八種禪定境界）中滅盡。有別緣和總緣的區別。每種都有四行（四種行相）與之相應，八地有八種別緣，如同第一位論師所說。所說的總緣，以二者結合爲緣的有七種，以三者結合爲緣的有六種，加起來總共有十三種。以四者結合爲緣的有五種，加起來總共有十八種。以五者結合爲緣的有四種，加起來總共有二十二種。以六者結合爲緣的有三種，加起來總共有二十五種。以七者結合爲緣的有兩種，加起來總共有二十七種。以八者結合爲緣有一種，加起來總共有二十八種。凡是這種結合緣，都是鄰次結合緣，不能跳躍間隔地結合。用四行相乘，二十八種智慧各有四種行相，總共一百一十二種。所以說，由此在第一位論師的五十二種基礎上，增加一百一十二種，總共成為一百六十四種。如同未至定包含一百六十四種，靜慮中間定（Dhyana-antarika，介於初禪和二禪之間的禪定）和四靜慮（四種禪定）也應該知道是這樣。空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana，超越色界，以虛空為所緣的禪定）有五十二種。只是增加了結合緣的滅盡定，其餘都和第一位論師所說的一樣。所說的結合緣，以二者結合爲緣的有三種，以三者結合爲緣的有兩種，加起來總共有五種。以四者結合爲緣有一種，加起來總共有六種。用四行相乘，前面的六種智慧各有四種行相，四六二十四種。在第一位論師的二十八種基礎上增加二十四種，所以成為五十二種。識無邊處定（Vijnananantyayatana，以識為所緣的禪定）有三十六種。只是增加了結合緣的滅盡定，其餘都和第一位論師所說的一樣。所說的結合緣，以二者結合爲緣的有兩種，以三者結合爲緣有一種，加起來總共有三種。用四行相乘，三種智慧各有四種行相，三四十二種。在第一位論師的二十四種基礎上，增加十二種，就成為三十六種。無所有處定（Akincanyayatana，以無所有為所緣的禪定）有二十四種。只是增加了結合緣的滅盡定，其餘都和第一位論師所說的一樣。以二者結合爲緣只有一種。用四行相乘，一種智慧有四種行相，成為四種。在第一位論師的二十種基礎上增加四種，成為二十四種。在三種說法中，第三種是正確的。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）二十八位評家說，這樣說的人，是依據未至定。

【English Translation】 English version: 4. Furthermore, there are those who wish to reach twenty-four. The third teacher explains that there are also those who wish to reach the Vajropama Samadhi (Vajropama Samadhi, a diamond-like samadhi). Based on the differences in wisdom, practice, and object of focus, the Upacarasmadhi (Upacarasmadhi, preliminary stage of the first Dhyana) contains a total of 164 types. That is, the Nirodha-samapatti (Nirodha-samapatti, cessation attainment) of the knowledge of extinction in the eight grounds (eight levels of meditative absorption) ceases. There are distinctions between specific and general conditions. Each has four aspects corresponding to it, and the eight grounds have eight specific conditions, as the first teacher said. The so-called general conditions are seven when two are combined as a condition, and six when three are combined as a condition, totaling thirteen. There are five when four are combined as a condition, totaling eighteen. There are four when five are combined as a condition, totaling twenty-two. There are three when six are combined as a condition, totaling twenty-five. There are two when seven are combined as a condition, totaling twenty-seven. There is one when eight are combined as a condition, totaling twenty-eight. All these combined conditions are adjacent combined conditions and cannot be combined by skipping over. Multiplying by the four aspects, each of the twenty-eight types of wisdom has four aspects, totaling one hundred and twelve. Therefore, it is said that based on the fifty-two types of the first teacher, one hundred and twelve are added, totaling one hundred and sixty-four types. Just as the Upacarasmadhi contains one hundred and sixty-four types, so too should it be known for the Dhyana-antarika (Dhyana-antarika, the intermediate state between the first and second Dhyana) and the four Dhyanas (four meditative absorptions). The Akasanantyayatana (Akasanantyayatana, the sphere of infinite space) has fifty-two types. Only the extinction of combined conditions is added, and the rest are the same as the first teacher said. The so-called combined conditions are three when two are combined as a condition, and two when three are combined as a condition, totaling five. There is one when four are combined as a condition, totaling six. Multiplying by the four aspects, each of the preceding six types of wisdom has four aspects, four sixes are twenty-four. Adding twenty-four to the twenty-eight types of the first teacher, it becomes fifty-two. The Vijnananantyayatana (Vijnananantyayatana, the sphere of infinite consciousness) has thirty-six types. Only the extinction of combined conditions is added, and the rest are the same as the first teacher said. The so-called combined conditions are two when two are combined as a condition, and one when three are combined as a condition, totaling three. Multiplying by the four aspects, each of the three types of wisdom has four aspects, three fours are twelve. Adding twelve to the twenty-four types of the first teacher, it becomes thirty-six. The Akincanyayatana (Akincanyayatana, the sphere of nothingness) has twenty-four types. Only the extinction of combined conditions is added, and the rest are the same as the first teacher said. There is only one when two are combined as a condition. Multiplying by the four aspects, one type of wisdom has four aspects, becoming four. Adding four to the twenty types of the first teacher, it becomes twenty-four. Among the three explanations, the third is correct. Therefore, the twenty-eight commentators of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Buddhist commentary) say that those who say this rely on the Upacarasmadhi.

至定有百六十四金剛喻定。

若就種姓至如理應思者。此金剛喻定若就六種種姓三根等分別。更成多種。如理應思。

此定既能至皆名有學者。釋后兩句。此定既能斷有頂地第九品惑。能引此第九品惑盡得俱行盡智．令起至生相中　又解能引此惑盡得令起。能引此惑盡得俱行盡智令起。金剛喻定是最後無間道。盡智．是最後解脫道由此解脫道與諸漏盡得最初俱生。從俱生得為名故名盡智。余無生等雖盡得俱而非初故。又正理云。或此盡言顯一切盡。謂第九品及所餘惑。皆得擇滅故名為盡。金剛喻定能引諸惑盡得俱行盡智．令起。此與一切煩惱盡得最初俱生故名盡智　有餘師說。惑盡身中此最初生故名盡智(已上論文)如是盡智至現已生。便成無學阿羅漢果。阿羅漢此云應。已得無學應果法故。為得別果所應修學。此無有故得無學名。即此無學唯應作他利益事故。諸有染者所應供故。依應義立阿羅漢名。又婆沙九十四釋云。複次阿羅者。謂一切煩惱。漢名能害。用利慧力害煩惱賊。令無餘故名阿羅漢。複次羅漢名生。阿是無義。以無生故名阿羅漢。彼于諸界．諸趣．諸生生死法中不復生故。複次漢名一切惡不善法。言阿羅者。是遠離義。遠離諸惡不善法故名阿羅漢(已上論文)義準已成四向．三果皆名有學

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：達到具有一百六十四種金剛喻定（Vajropama-samadhi，一種堅固如金剛的比喻性禪定）。

若就種姓（gotra，意為根性、種性）而言，達到如理作意（yathābhūtaṃ manasikaroti，如實地思惟、作意）者。此金剛喻定若就六種種姓、三根（三種根器）等分別，更成多種，應如理思惟。

此定既能達到，都名為有學者（śaikṣa，還在修學的人）。解釋后兩句。此定既能斷有頂地（abhavāgra，三界最高處）第九品惑（煩惱），能引此第九品惑的斷盡，得到俱行盡智（kṣayajñāna，煩惱已盡的智慧），令其生起。又解釋為能引此惑的斷盡，令其生起。能引此惑的斷盡，得到俱行盡智令其生起。金剛喻定是最後無間道（anantarya-marga，無間斷的道）。盡智是最後解脫道（vimukti-marga，解脫的道路），由此解脫道與諸漏（煩惱）的斷盡最初俱生。從俱生得名為盡智。其餘無生等雖然斷盡俱生，但並非最初。又《正理經》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）說：『或者此盡字顯示一切斷盡，謂第九品及所餘惑，都得到擇滅（pratisamkhyanirodha，通過智慧選擇而滅除），故名為盡。』金剛喻定能引諸惑的斷盡，得到俱行盡智令其生起。此與一切煩惱的斷盡最初俱生，故名盡智。有其餘師說：惑盡身中此最初生，故名盡智（以上論文）。如此盡智一旦顯現已生，便成就無學阿羅漢果（arhat，斷盡煩惱，不再需要學習者）。阿羅漢，此云應（arha，應供養者），已得到無學應果法故，為得到別的果位所應修學，此已沒有了，故得無學之名。即此無學唯應作他利益之事，諸有染污者所應供養，依應義立阿羅漢名。又《婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第九十四卷解釋說：『複次，阿羅者，謂一切煩惱。漢名能害，用利慧力害煩惱賊，令無餘故名阿羅漢。複次，羅漢名生，阿是無義，以無生故名阿羅漢。彼于諸界、諸趣、諸生生死法中不復生故。複次，漢名一切惡不善法，言阿羅者，是遠離義，遠離諸惡不善法故名阿羅漢（以上論文）。』義理上可以推斷，已成就四向（srotaāpanna，一來，不還，阿羅漢）三果（預流果，一來果，不還果）者，都名為有學。

【English Translation】 English version: Reaching the one hundred and sixty-four Vajropama-samadhis (Vajropama-samadhi, a diamond-like samadhi).

Regarding those who, based on their gotra (gotra, lineage, nature), attain proper reflection (yathābhūtaṃ manasikaroti, reflecting and contemplating in accordance with reality). This Vajropama-samadhi, when differentiated based on the six types of gotra, the three roots (three types of faculties), etc., becomes manifold and should be contemplated accordingly.

This samadhi, once attained, is called a śaikṣa (śaikṣa, one who is still learning). Explaining the latter two phrases: This samadhi can sever the ninth grade of delusion (klesha, affliction) in the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (abhavāgra, the highest realm of the Three Realms), and can lead to the exhaustion of this ninth grade of delusion, attaining the kṣayajñāna (kṣayajñāna, the wisdom of the exhaustion of afflictions) that arises simultaneously. It is also explained as being able to lead to the exhaustion of this delusion, causing it to arise. It can lead to the exhaustion of this delusion, attaining the kṣayajñāna that arises simultaneously. The Vajropama-samadhi is the final anantarya-marga (anantarya-marga, the path of immediate consequence). Kṣayajñāna is the final vimukti-marga (vimukti-marga, the path of liberation), and through this path of liberation, it initially arises simultaneously with the exhaustion of all asravas (asravas, outflows, defilements). It is named kṣayajñāna because it is obtained simultaneously from the beginning. Although the non-arising and others are exhausted simultaneously, they are not initial. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states: 'Or this word 'exhaustion' indicates the exhaustion of everything, meaning that the ninth grade and the remaining delusions all attain pratisamkhyanirodha (pratisamkhyanirodha, cessation through wisdom), hence it is called exhaustion.' The Vajropama-samadhi can lead to the exhaustion of all delusions, attaining the kṣayajñāna that arises simultaneously. This initially arises simultaneously with the exhaustion of all afflictions, hence it is called kṣayajñāna. Some other teachers say: This initially arises in the body where afflictions are exhausted, hence it is called kṣayajñāna (end of quote). Once this kṣayajñāna manifests and arises, one attains the fruit of an arhat (arhat, one who has exhausted afflictions and no longer needs to learn). Arhat, which means 'worthy' (arha, worthy of offering), has already attained the Dharma of the fruit of non-learning. There is nothing left to be learned to attain another fruit, hence the name 'non-learning'. This non-learner should only work for the benefit of others and is worthy of being offered to by those who are defiled. The name arhat is established based on the meaning of 'worthy'. Furthermore, the ninety-fourth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā explains: 'Moreover, ara means all afflictions. Han means 'able to harm'. Using the power of sharp wisdom to harm the thieves of afflictions, leaving none remaining, hence the name arhat. Furthermore, rohan means birth, and a is without meaning, hence arhat means without birth. They are no longer born in the realms, destinies, and lives within the cycle of birth and death. Furthermore, han means all evil and unwholesome dharmas, and ara means 'separation'. Because they are separated from all evil and unwholesome dharmas, they are called arhat (end of quote).' Logically, it can be inferred that those who have attained the four paths (srotaāpanna, sakrdāgāmin, anāgāmin, arhat) and three fruits (srotaāpanna, sakrdāgāmin, anāgāmin) are all called śaikṣa.

。

何緣前七得有學名者。問。

為得漏盡至為三自體者。答。為得漏盡常樂學故。學體有三。謂戒．定．慧。言定是心。從所依為名。

若爾異生應名有學者。難。若爾異生應名有學。亦為得漏盡常樂學彼戒．定．慧故。

不爾未如實至重說學言者。釋。不爾。異生雖學戒等。未得無漏慧如實見知四諦理故。彼容后時退失正學。入諸外道作邪學故。故不于彼立有學名。諸有學已能如實見諦。正學無退得有學名。由此善逝為顯定義。于有學者再說學言。如契經中佛告憺怕。學所應學無漏正法。學所應學無漏正法。我唯說此名有學者。論主釋經為令了知學正所學無漏戒等。無有退失名有學者。故薄伽梵重說學言。聖雖有退。必無退盡作邪學理。故名不退。

聖者住本性如何名有學者。問。聖者住本性。如何名有學　言住本性。或不退轉。或不進修。故婆沙一百七十六云。謂學住本性有二因緣名住本性。一守賢善性而無退轉。二守自分位而不進修。廣如彼釋。

學意未滿至常隨逐故者。答。雖住本性學意未滿。如路行者暫止息時行意不息亦名為行　又解云。雖住本性或學法得常隨逐故亦名為學。

學法雲何至無漏有為法者。問答明學無學．法。可知。

云何涅槃至亦成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：什麼因緣使得前七位聖者獲得『有學』的名稱？（問）是因為他們爲了獲得漏盡，直至成就三種自性嗎？（答）因為他們爲了獲得漏盡，並且恒常喜好學習的緣故。『學』的體性有三種，即戒、定、慧。這裡說的『定』是指心，從所依處而得名。如果這樣，那麼異生（凡夫）也應該被稱為『有學』了。（難）如果這樣，那麼異生也應該被稱為『有學』，因為他們也爲了獲得漏盡，並且恒常喜好學習那些戒、定、慧。不是這樣的，因為他們沒有如實地…（釋）不是這樣的。異生雖然學習戒等，但沒有獲得無漏的智慧，如實地見知四諦的道理。他們可能會在以後退失正學，進入外道而修習邪學。所以，不給他們安立『有學』的名稱。那些『有學』已經能夠如實地見諦，正學不會退失，所以獲得『有學』的名稱。因此，善逝（佛陀）爲了顯明定義，對於『有學』再次說了『學』這個字。如同契經中，佛陀告訴憺怕（Dampa）：『學習所應該學習的無漏正法，學習所應該學習的無漏正法。我只說這樣的人才被稱為『有學』。』論主解釋經典，是爲了讓人瞭解學習真正應該學習的無漏戒等，不會退失，才能被稱為『有學』。所以，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）再次說了『學』這個字。聖者即使有退步，也絕對不會退到完全失去而修習邪學的地步，所以被稱為『不退』。聖者安住于本性，為什麼還被稱為『有學』？（問）聖者安住于本性，為什麼還被稱為『有學』？這裡說的『安住于本性』，或者是不退轉，或者是不再進步修習。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十六卷說：『所謂安住于本性，有兩種因緣，稱為安住于本性。一是守護賢善的本性而沒有退轉，二是守護自己的位次而不進步修習。』詳細的解釋如同該論中所說。雖然安住于本性，但學習的意願還沒有滿足…（答）雖然安住于本性，但學習的意願還沒有滿足。如同在路上行走的人，暫時停止休息的時候，行走的意願並沒有停止，也可以稱為行走。又有一種解釋說，雖然安住于本性，或者因為所學的法經常隨逐，所以也可以稱為學習。學習的法是什麼？…（問答）說明了有學和無學的法，可以知道。什麼是涅槃？…（亦成）

【English Translation】 English version: What is the reason that the first seven Holy Ones are called 'With Learning' (Sanskrit: Saiksha)? (Question) Is it because they are striving to attain the exhaustion of outflows (Sanskrit: Asrava), up to achieving the three self-natures? (Answer) It is because they are striving to attain the exhaustion of outflows and constantly delight in learning. The nature of 'learning' has three aspects, namely morality (Sanskrit: Sila), concentration (Sanskrit: Samadhi), and wisdom (Sanskrit: Prajna). Here, 'concentration' refers to the mind, named after its basis. If so, then ordinary beings (Sanskrit: Prthagjana) should also be called 'With Learning'. (Objection) If so, then ordinary beings should also be called 'With Learning', because they are also striving to attain the exhaustion of outflows and constantly delight in learning those morality, concentration, and wisdom. That is not the case, because they have not truly… (Explanation) That is not the case. Although ordinary beings learn morality, etc., they have not attained the wisdom without outflows (Sanskrit: Anasrava-prajna), and do not truly know the truth of the Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: Arya-satya). They may later regress from the right learning and enter into external paths, practicing wrong learning. Therefore, the name 'With Learning' is not established for them. Those 'With Learning' are already able to truly see the truth, and the right learning will not regress, so they obtain the name 'With Learning'. Therefore, the Well-Gone One (Sanskrit: Sugata, an epithet of the Buddha) in order to clarify the definition, repeats the word 'learning' for 'With Learning'. Just as in the sutra, the Buddha told Dampa: 'Learn what should be learned, the right Dharma without outflows; learn what should be learned, the right Dharma without outflows. I only say that such a person is called 'With Learning'.' The commentator explains the sutra in order to make people understand that learning the truly right learning, such as morality without outflows, will not regress, and can be called 'With Learning'. Therefore, the Blessed One (Sanskrit: Bhagavan) repeats the word 'learning'. Even if a Holy One regresses, they will never regress to the point of completely losing it and practicing wrong learning, so they are called 'Non-Regressing'. How can a Holy One who abides in their inherent nature still be called 'With Learning'? (Question) How can a Holy One who abides in their inherent nature still be called 'With Learning'? Here, 'abiding in their inherent nature' means either not regressing or not progressing in cultivation. Therefore, the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-Sastra, volume 176, says: 'So-called abiding in their inherent nature has two causes, called abiding in their inherent nature. One is guarding the virtuous nature without regressing, and the other is guarding one's own position without progressing in cultivation.' The detailed explanation is as described in that treatise. Although abiding in their inherent nature, the intention to learn has not yet been fulfilled… (Answer) Although abiding in their inherent nature, the intention to learn has not yet been fulfilled. Just like a person walking on the road, when temporarily stopping to rest, the intention to walk has not stopped, and can also be called walking. Another explanation says that although abiding in their inherent nature, or because the Dharma learned constantly accompanies them, they can also be called learning. What is the Dharma of learning?… (Question and Answer) Explains the Dharma of those with learning and without learning, which can be understood. What is Nirvana?… (Also becomes)

就故者。此明涅槃非學無學。如文可知。

如是有學至非前果攝者。此總結也。如是有學及無學者四向四果。總成八聖補特伽羅。名雖有八事唯有五。謂住四果及初果向。以後三果向不離前三果故。以帶前果行後向故。初向以無前果可攝故別立一。此依漸次得果者說　若倍離欲前六品染。及全離欲九品染者。住見道中名為一來．不還果．向。複名二事。非前預流．一來果攝　或非前果攝以前無果故。

如前所說至余由二離染者。此下第二因論明治道。就中。一地由道離染。二道引離系得。三道離地通局。四近分攝道別。五世俗道緣行　此即第一地由道離染。

論曰至俱能離故者。唯無漏道離有頂染。此于無漏勢力增強。自．上地等皆能治故。非有漏道。所以者何。唯于次上近分地中。起世俗道治下地惑。此有頂上更無世俗近分道故非上斷下。雖有自地有漏治道。自地不能治自地故。所以者何。自地治道。自地煩惱所隨增故。如人被縛不能自解。復正理云。若彼煩惱於此道隨增。此道必不能治彼煩惱。若此道力能對治彼。則彼惑於此道必不隨增。故自地道不治自地。雖下地道非上地惑之所隨增。勢力劣故下非斷上　釋下一句。如文可知。

既通由二至同所作故者。此即第二道引離系得。如文可

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『就故者』，這說明涅槃並非有學或無學所能達到，正如文中所述。關於『如是有學至非前果攝者』，這是總結。像這樣，有學和無學者包括四向（Srotaāpanna-pratipadā，預流向，入流道；Sakrdāgāmi-pratipadā，一來向，一還道；Anāgāmi-pratipadā，不還向，不還道；Arhat-pratipadā，阿羅漢向，無學道）和四果（Srotaāpanna，預流果，入流果；Sakrdāgāmi，一來果，一還果；Anāgāmi，不還果，不還果；Arhat，阿羅漢果，無學果），總共構成八聖補特伽羅（arya-pudgala，聖者）。雖然名義上有八種，但實際上只有五種。指的是安住於四果和初果向（Srotaāpanna-pratipadā，預流向，入流道）的聖者。因為後面的三果向（Sakrdāgāmi-pratipadā，一來向，一還道；Anāgāmi-pratipadā，不還向，不還道；Arhat-pratipadā，阿羅漢向，無學道）不離於前面的三果。因為它們帶著前一果的行相而趨向后一向。初向（Srotaāpanna-pratipadā，預流向，入流道）因為沒有之前的果位可以包含，所以單獨成立。這是依據漸次獲得果位的人來說的。如果有人通過逐漸遠離慾望，先斷除了欲界的六品煩惱，然後完全斷除了欲界的九品煩惱，那麼他安住在見道（darśana-mārga）中，被稱為一來果向（Sakrdāgāmi-pratipadā，一來向，一還道）或不還果向（Anāgāmi-pratipadā，不還向，不還道）。又被稱為二事，不被包含在之前的預流果（Srotaāpanna，預流果，入流果）或一來果（Sakrdāgāmi，一來果，一還果）中。或者說，不被包含在之前的果位中，因為之前沒有果位。關於『如前所說至余由二離染者』，這以下第二部分通過因論來闡明智道。其中包含五個方面：一、地由道離染；二、道引導離系得；三、道離地的通局；四、近分攝道別；五、世俗道緣行。這裡是第一方面，即地由道離染。論曰：唯有無漏道才能斷離有頂（Bhavāgra）的煩惱，因為無漏道的勢力更加強大，能夠對治自身和上地的煩惱。而有漏道則不能。為什麼呢？因為只有在次上的近分地中，才能生起世俗道來對治下地的迷惑。有頂之上沒有世俗的近分道，所以不能從上面斷除下面的煩惱。雖然有自地的有漏治道，但自地的治道不能對治自地的煩惱。為什麼呢？因為自地的治道會被自地的煩惱所隨增。就像人被束縛，無法自己解脫一樣。此外，《正理》中說，如果煩惱隨著這個道而增長，那麼這個道一定不能對治那個煩惱。如果這個道的力量能夠對治那個煩惱，那麼那個迷惑一定不會隨著這個道而增長。所以自地的道不能對治自地的煩惱。雖然下地的道不會被上地的迷惑所隨增，但因為勢力弱小，所以下地的道不能斷除上地的煩惱。』解釋下一句，正如文中所述。關於『既通由二至同所作故者』，這是第二方面，即道引導離系得，正如文中所述。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding '就故者 (jiù gù zhě)', this clarifies that Nirvana is not attainable by either those in the stage of learning (有學, yǒu xué) or those beyond learning (無學, wú xué), as the text indicates. Regarding '如是有學至非前果攝者 (rú shì yǒu xué zhì fēi qián guǒ shè zhě)', this is a summary. Thus, those in the stage of learning and those beyond learning encompass the four paths (Srotaāpanna-pratipadā, path to stream-entry; Sakrdāgāmi-pratipadā, path to once-returning; Anāgāmi-pratipadā, path to non-returning; Arhat-pratipadā, path to Arhatship) and the four fruits (Srotaāpanna, stream-enterer; Sakrdāgāmi, once-returner; Anāgāmi, non-returner; Arhat, Arhat), forming a total of eight noble individuals (arya-pudgala). Although there are eight in name, there are only five in reality. This refers to those who abide in the four fruits and the path to the first fruit (Srotaāpanna-pratipadā). Because the subsequent three paths (Sakrdāgāmi-pratipadā, Anāgāmi-pratipadā, Arhat-pratipadā) are inseparable from the preceding three fruits, as they carry the characteristics of the previous fruit while progressing towards the subsequent path. The first path (Srotaāpanna-pratipadā) is established separately because there is no preceding fruit to include it. This is spoken in accordance with those who gradually attain the fruits. If someone gradually abandons desire, first severing the six categories of defilements in the desire realm, and then completely severing the nine categories of defilements in the desire realm, then abiding in the path of seeing (darśana-mārga), they are called a once-returner on the path (Sakrdāgāmi-pratipadā) or a non-returner on the path (Anāgāmi-pratipadā). They are also called two matters, not included in the previous stream-enterer (Srotaāpanna) or once-returner (Sakrdāgāmi). Or, not included in the previous fruit because there was no fruit before. Regarding '如前所說至余由二離染者 (rú qián suǒ shuō zhì yú yóu èr lí rǎn zhě)', the second part below elucidates the path of wisdom through the theory of causes. It includes five aspects: first, the ground is purified of defilements by the path; second, the path guides to the attainment of separation; third, the scope of the path's separation from the ground; fourth, the distinction of the paths included in the proximate division; fifth, the conditions for the worldly path. Here is the first aspect, that is, the ground is purified of defilements by the path. The treatise states: Only the undefiled path (無漏道, wú lòu dào) can sever the defilements of the peak of existence (Bhavāgra), because the power of the undefiled path is stronger, capable of treating its own and higher grounds. The defiled path (有漏道, yǒu lòu dào) cannot. Why? Because only in the proximate division of the next higher ground can the worldly path arise to treat the delusions of the lower ground. There is no worldly proximate path above the peak of existence, so it cannot sever the lower from above. Although there is a defiled path in its own ground, the path of its own ground cannot treat the defilements of its own ground. Why? Because the path of its own ground is accompanied by the defilements of its own ground. It is like a person being bound, unable to untie themselves. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states, 'If the defilements increase along with this path, then this path certainly cannot treat those defilements. If the power of this path can treat those defilements, then those delusions will certainly not increase along with this path.' Therefore, the path of its own ground does not treat its own ground. Although the path of the lower ground is not accompanied by the delusions of the higher ground, because its power is weak, the path of the lower ground cannot sever the higher ground.' Explaining the next sentence, as the text indicates. Regarding '既通由二至同所作故者 (jì tōng yóu èr zhì tóng suǒ zuò gù zhě)', this is the second aspect, that is, the path guides to the attainment of separation, as the text indicates.

知。又顯宗三十二云。由此有學離八修斷。世．出世道隨一現前。各未來修世．出世道。此總相說。以無漏道離上七地前八品時。不修上邊世俗道故。唯有無漏一離系得。離第九品方可具二。或應許得離系道而修。或應斷染時許依下修上。

有餘師釋至成彼煩惱者。述異釋。此師意證以無漏道離染。必能引起有漏離系得。有舍無漏得煩惱不成故。謂有學聖以無漏道離彼地染時。若不引生同治有漏離系得者。則以聖道具離八地染得九地勝果道。后依靜慮得轉根時。頓舍先來九地所有果．向諸鈍聖道。唯得靜慮利果聖道。於八地中下五離系可言有無漏得。上三無色煩惱離系應皆不成。以無漏得隨鈍道。舍于彼離系得既不成。是則還應成彼煩惱。

此證非理至故不成證者。論主破。此證非理。所以者何。彼聖設無有漏斷得。亦不成就上地煩惱。如聖分離有頂一品乃至八品得轉根時。及異生生上不成惑故。謂如聖者分離有頂一品乃至八品染已。后依靜慮得轉根時。無漏斷得既已頓舍。彼地離系無有漏得。而彼地惑亦不成就。又如異生生二定等。雖舍欲界等煩惱斷得。而不成就欲界等煩惱。故正理云。以欲界等有漏離系得初定等攝。唯彼能治故。若生上地此得必舍。生上地必舍下有漏善故　問此二離系既無有得。惑

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：知曉。此外，《顯宗》第三十二卷中說，因此，有學者在遠離八種修斷時，世間道和出世間道會隨之顯現。各自未來會修習世間道和出世間道。這是總體的說法。因為無漏道在遠離上方七地的前八品時，不修習上邊的世俗道，所以只有無漏的『一離系得』。只有在遠離第九品時，才可以具備兩種。或者應該允許獲得『離系道』而修習，或者應該在斷除染污時允許依靠下方的修習上方的。

有其他論師解釋『直至成就那些煩惱』時，提出了不同的解釋。這位論師認為，通過無漏道遠離染污，必定能夠引起有漏的『離系得』，因為捨棄無漏的獲得，煩惱就無法成就。也就是說，有學的聖者通過無漏道遠離那個地的染污時，如果不引發同類的有漏『離系得』，那麼憑藉聖者的工具，遠離八地的染污，獲得九地的殊勝果道。之後依靠靜慮獲得轉根時，會立即捨棄先前九地所有的果、向等遲鈍的聖道，只獲得靜慮的利益果聖道。在八地中，下五種『離系』可以說有無漏的獲得，而上三種無色煩惱的『離系』應該都無法成就。因為無漏的獲得隨著遲鈍的道，捨棄了那個『離系得』既然無法成就，那麼就應該還會成就那些煩惱。

論主駁斥說，『這個論證不合理，直至因此無法成就論證』。這個論證不合理。為什麼呢？因為那位聖者即使沒有有漏的斷得，也不會成就上地的煩惱。例如聖者分離有頂（Bhavagra，三界最高處）的一品乃至八品，獲得轉根時，以及異生（prthagjana，凡夫）生到上方，煩惱無法成就一樣。也就是說，例如聖者分離有頂的一品乃至八品染污之後，之後依靠靜慮獲得轉根時，無漏的斷得既然已經立即捨棄，那個地的『離系』沒有有漏的獲得，而那個地的迷惑也不會成就。又例如異生生到二禪等，即使捨棄了欲界等的煩惱斷得，也不會成就欲界等的煩惱。所以《正理》中說，因為欲界等的有漏『離系得』被初禪等所攝，只有那些能夠對治，所以如果生到上方，這個獲得必定會捨棄。生到上方必定會捨棄下方的有漏善法。問：這兩種『離系』既然沒有獲得，迷惑

【English Translation】 English version: Know. Furthermore, the thirty-second volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states that, consequently, a learner, upon abandoning the eight kinds of cultivation and severance, the mundane and supramundane paths will manifest accordingly. Each will cultivate the mundane and supramundane paths in the future. This is a general statement. Because the non-outflow path does not cultivate the mundane path above when abandoning the first eight categories of the upper seven realms, there is only the 'one severance attainment' (ekaviyogaprapti) of non-outflow. Only upon abandoning the ninth category can one possess both. Or, one should allow the attainment of the 'severance path' (viyogamarga) while cultivating, or one should allow relying on the lower to cultivate the upper when severing defilements.

Other teachers, in explaining 'until those afflictions are accomplished,' offer different interpretations. This teacher believes that severing defilements through the non-outflow path will inevitably lead to the attainment of outflow severance, because if the non-outflow attainment is abandoned, afflictions cannot be accomplished. That is, when a learner-saint severs the defilements of that realm through the non-outflow path, if it does not induce a similar outflow 'severance attainment,' then relying on the saint's tools, severing the defilements of the eight realms, one obtains the supreme fruit path of the ninth realm. Later, when obtaining root transformation (gotrabheda) by relying on dhyana (meditative absorption), one immediately abandons all the fruits and tendencies of the previous nine realms, such as dull saintly paths, and only obtains the saintly path of the beneficial fruit of dhyana. In the eight realms, it can be said that the lower five 'severances' have non-outflow attainment, while the upper three formless afflictions' 'severances' should all be unachievable. Because the non-outflow attainment follows the dull path, abandoning that 'severance attainment' cannot be accomplished, then those afflictions should still be accomplished.

The master refutes, saying, 'This argument is unreasonable, until it cannot accomplish the proof.' This argument is unreasonable. Why? Because that saint, even without the outflow severance attainment, will not accomplish the afflictions of the upper realm. For example, when a saint separates the first to eighth categories of the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra, the highest point in the three realms) and obtains root transformation, and when an ordinary being (prthagjana, a common person) is born above, afflictions cannot be accomplished. That is, for example, when a saint separates the defilements of the first to eighth categories of the Peak of Existence, and later obtains root transformation by relying on dhyana, since the non-outflow severance attainment has already been immediately abandoned, that realm's 'severance' does not have outflow attainment, and that realm's delusion will not be accomplished. Also, for example, when an ordinary being is born into the second dhyana, even if they abandon the severance attainment of the desire realm's afflictions, they will not accomplish the desire realm's afflictions. Therefore, the Nyayanusara states that because the outflow 'severance attainment' of the desire realm is included in the first dhyana, only those can counteract it, so if one is born above, this attainment will inevitably be abandoned. Being born above will inevitably abandon the lower outflow good deeds. Question: Since these two 'severances' have no attainment, delusion

寧不成　答如正理云。此二雖無煩惱斷得。而勝進故遮惑得生(已上論文)此亦應然。故不成證。

既說聖者至無漏斷得者。此即類釋。義準異生用有漏道離下八地。唯能引起有漏斷得不修無漏。未入聖故。並諸聖者用無漏道。離見斷惑及有頂修。唯能引生無漏斷得不修世俗。與世俗道不同事故。雖世俗道亦能斷下八地見惑。見道不能斷彼修惑。故言不同。

由何地道至已離故者。此即第三道離地通局。諸無漏道通依九地。謂四靜慮．未至．中間．及三無色。若未至攝能離九地。餘八地攝隨其所應各能離自及上地染。初定中間能離自地及上七地。乃至無所有處能離自地及上有頂。不能離下。上道現前下已離故。諸有漏道一切唯能離次下地。非自地。非上地。非更下地。如依第二靜慮近分起世俗道。唯能離次下初靜慮染。自地煩惱所隨增故。不能離自地。勢力劣故不能離上。欲已離故不能離下。

諸依近分至必入根本者。此即第四近分攝道別。近分但能離下八地。此文應言所離有八。謂除非想而言九者。此通舉也　又解初定近分是無漏者。亦能通離有頂地染故云九也。以實而言。初定近分亦能離上。前句中言近分離下。從多分說。初定．二定根本喜受。第三靜慮根本樂受。近分皆舍故言受異。上五近

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：寧不成回答說，正如正理所說的那樣。這兩種情況雖然沒有煩惱被斷除，但由於勝進的緣故，可以阻止迷惑的產生（以上是論文原文），這種情況也應該如此。因此，這不能構成論證。

既然說了聖者以至於無漏斷得的情況，這實際上是一種類比解釋。按照這個道理，異生（指凡夫）使用有漏道來脫離下八地（指欲界和色界）的煩惱，只能引發有漏的斷得，而不能修習無漏道，因為他們還沒有進入聖者的行列。同樣，所有聖者使用無漏道來脫離見斷惑（指見道所斷的煩惱）以及有頂（指非想非非想處天）的修惑，只能引發無漏的斷得，而不能修習世俗道，因為這與世俗道的作用不同。雖然世俗道也能斷除下八地的見惑，但見道不能斷除那些修惑，所以說它們的作用不同。

由什麼地的道以至於已經脫離的緣故呢？這指的是第三個問題，即道所能脫離的地的範圍。所有的無漏道都可以依於九地（指四禪、未至定、中間定以及三個無色界）。如果依于未至定，就能脫離九地的煩惱。其餘八地所攝的無漏道，根據情況，各自能脫離自身以及更高地的染污。初禪和中間定能脫離自身以及上面七地的煩惱，乃至無所有處定能脫離自身以及上面的有頂天的煩惱，但不能脫離下面的煩惱，因為上面的道現前時，下面的煩惱就已經脫離了。所有的有漏道都只能脫離緊挨著的下一地的煩惱，不能脫離自身、上面的地或者更下面的地。例如，如果依于第二禪的近分定而生起世俗道，就只能脫離緊挨著的下面的初禪的染污。因為自身地的煩惱會隨之增長，所以不能脫離自身地的煩惱。因為力量弱，所以不能脫離上面的煩惱。因為已經脫離了欲界，所以不能脫離下面的煩惱。

所有依于近分定以至於必定進入根本定的情況，這指的是第四個問題，即近分定所攝的道的區別。近分定只能脫離下八地的煩惱。這段文字應該說『所脫離的有八地』。之所以說除非想非非想處天之外還有九地，這是總的來說。另一種解釋是，初禪的近分定是無漏的，也能普遍脫離有頂天的染污，所以說是九地。但實際上，初禪的近分定也能脫離上面的煩惱。前面說近分定脫離下面的煩惱，是從大多數情況來說的。初禪和二禪的根本定是喜受，第三禪的根本定是樂受，近分定都是舍受，所以說感受不同。上面的五個近分定...

【English Translation】 English version: 'Ning Bu Cheng' replied, 'As 'Ru Zheng Li' (Proper Reasoning) says, although these two cases do not involve the elimination of afflictions, they can prevent the arising of delusion due to superior progress (the above is the original text of the treatise). This should also be the case here. Therefore, this does not constitute a valid argument.'

Having discussed the case of the noble ones up to the attainment of non-outflow elimination, this is actually an analogy. According to this principle, ordinary beings (referring to common people) using contaminated paths to detach from the lower eight realms (referring to the desire realm and the form realm) can only induce contaminated elimination attainment and cannot cultivate the uncontaminated path because they have not yet entered the ranks of the noble ones. Similarly, all noble ones using the uncontaminated path to detach from the afflictions to be eliminated by the path of seeing (referring to the afflictions eliminated by the path of seeing) and the afflictions of cultivation in the peak of existence (referring to the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) can only induce uncontaminated elimination attainment and cannot cultivate the mundane path because this is different from the function of the mundane path. Although the mundane path can also eliminate the afflictions to be eliminated by the path of seeing in the lower eight realms, the path of seeing cannot eliminate those afflictions of cultivation, so it is said that their functions are different.

'By what realm's path, up to the reason of already being detached?' This refers to the third question, namely the scope of the realms that the path can detach from. All uncontaminated paths can rely on the nine realms (referring to the four dhyanas, the preliminary concentration, the intermediate concentration, and the three formless realms). If relying on the preliminary concentration, it can detach from the afflictions of the nine realms. The uncontaminated paths contained in the remaining eight realms, according to the situation, can each detach from their own and higher realms' defilements. The first dhyana and the intermediate concentration can detach from their own realm and the afflictions of the seven realms above. Even the realm of nothingness can detach from its own realm and the afflictions of the peak of existence above, but cannot detach from the afflictions below because when the path above manifests, the afflictions below have already been detached. All contaminated paths can only detach from the afflictions of the immediately lower realm, not from their own realm, the realms above, or the realms further below. For example, if relying on the proximate concentration of the second dhyana to generate the mundane path, it can only detach from the afflictions of the immediately lower first dhyana. Because the afflictions of one's own realm will increase accordingly, one cannot detach from the afflictions of one's own realm. Because the power is weak, one cannot detach from the afflictions above. Because one has already detached from the desire realm, one cannot detach from the afflictions below.

'All cases of relying on proximate concentration up to necessarily entering fundamental concentration,' this refers to the fourth question, namely the distinction of the paths contained in proximate concentration. Proximate concentration can only detach from the afflictions of the lower eight realms. This passage should say 'what is detached has eight realms.' The reason for saying nine realms besides the realm of neither perception nor non-perception is a general statement. Another explanation is that the proximate concentration of the first dhyana is uncontaminated and can also universally detach from the defilements of the peak of existence, so it is said to be nine realms. But in reality, the proximate concentration of the first dhyana can also detach from the afflictions above. The previous statement that proximate concentration detaches from the afflictions below is from the majority of cases. The fundamental concentration of the first and second dhyanas is the feeling of joy, the fundamental concentration of the third dhyana is the feeling of pleasure, and the proximate concentrations are all the feeling of equanimity, so it is said that the feelings are different. The above five proximate concentrations...

分根本皆是舍受。余文可知。

諸出世道至及靜妙離三者。此即第五世俗道緣行。上兩句答初問。下兩句答后問。

論曰至翻此應釋者。謂諸無間道緣自次下地諸有漏法。作粗．苦等三行相中隨一行相。若諸解脫道緣次上地諸有漏法。作靜．妙等三行相中隨一行相。故正理云。約容有說二道各三。非諸有情于離染位無間．解脫皆各具三(已上論文)下地有漏法。非同上地寂靜故說名為粗。由大劬勞方能越故。下地有漏法。非同上地美妙故說名為苦。下地有漏法。由多煩惱粗重不調柔效能違害故。下地有漏法。非同上地出離故說名為障。由此能礙越自地故。如獄厚壁能障出離。解脫道中靜．妙．離三。如其次第。翻此無間粗．苦．障三應知準釋　問何無間後起何解脫　解云隨一一后皆容起三。故婆沙六十四云。評曰此事不定。從粗行相無間道。后容起靜等三種行相為解脫道。從苦行相無間道。后容起妙等三種行相為解脫道。從障行相無間道。后容起離等三種行相為解脫道。以此六種有漏行相隨離染者所樂起故　問世俗無間緣次下地。世俗解脫緣次上地。為約行修為約得修　解云但據行修。若據得修及與所緣此即不定。故正理六十六云。此中異生離欲界染。九無間道。粗等三行隨一現前。各未來修粗等三行。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『分根本皆是舍受』。其餘文句可以類推理解。

『諸出世道至及靜妙離三者』。這指的是第五種世俗道緣行。前面兩句回答第一個問題，後面兩句回答第二個問題。

論曰：至於『翻此應釋者』，意思是說，諸無間道緣自次下地諸有漏法，以粗、苦等三種行相中的任一行相為緣。如果諸解脫道緣次上地諸有漏法，以靜、妙等三種行相中的任一行相為緣。所以《正理》中說：『就容許的情況來說，兩種道各有三種。並非所有有情在離染位時，無間道和解脫道都各自具備三種。』（以上是論文內容）下地的有漏法，不同於上地的寂靜，所以稱為『粗』。因為需要極大的努力才能超越。下地的有漏法，不同於上地的美妙，所以稱為『苦』。下地的有漏法，因為有許多煩惱粗重不調柔的效能違害，所以稱為『障』。因為它能阻礙超越自身所處的地界。就像監獄厚厚的墻壁能夠阻礙出離。解脫道中的靜、妙、離三種行相，按照順序，可以參照無間道中的粗、苦、障三種行相來理解。問題：什麼無間道之後會生起什麼解脫道？回答說：在任何一種無間道之後，都可能生起三種解脫道。所以《婆沙》第六十四卷中說：評論說，這件事是不定的。從粗行相的無間道之後，可能生起靜等三種行相作為解脫道。從苦行相的無間道之後，可能生起妙等三種行相作為解脫道。從障行相的無間道之後，可能生起離等三種行相作為解脫道。因為這六種有漏行相，隨著離染者所喜好而生起。問題：世俗無間道緣次下地，世俗解脫道緣次上地，這是就修行來說，還是就證得來說？回答說：僅僅是就修行來說。如果就證得以及所緣來說，這就不是一定的。所以《正理》第六十六卷中說：這裡，異生（yisheng，指凡夫）離開欲界染污，九個無間道，粗等三種行相隨一種現前，各自在未來修習粗等三種行相。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The fundamental division is the feeling of equanimity (舍受, shě shòu)'. The rest of the text can be understood by analogy.

'The supramundane path (出世道, chū shì dào) leads to stillness, subtlety, and detachment (靜妙離, jìng miào lí)'. This refers to the fifth mundane path of conditioning (世俗道緣行, shì sú dào yuán xíng). The first two sentences answer the first question, and the last two sentences answer the second question.

The treatise says: As for 'reversing this should be explained', it means that the paths of immediate consequence (無間道, wú jiàn dào) condition the lower realms' contaminated dharmas (有漏法, yǒu lòu fǎ), with any one of the three characteristics of coarseness, suffering, etc. If the paths of liberation (解脫道, jiě tuō dào) condition the contaminated dharmas of the next higher realm, with any one of the three characteristics of stillness, subtlety, etc. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Speaking in terms of possibility, the two paths each have three. It is not that all sentient beings in the position of detachment each possess all three of the paths of immediate consequence and liberation.' (The above is the content of the treatise.) The contaminated dharmas of the lower realms are not as tranquil as those of the higher realms, so they are called 'coarse'. Because it takes great effort to overcome them. The contaminated dharmas of the lower realms are not as wonderful as those of the higher realms, so they are called 'suffering'. The contaminated dharmas of the lower realms are called 'obstacles' because they have many afflictions, are heavy, unyielding, and have the nature of hindering. Because they can hinder the overcoming of one's own realm. Like the thick walls of a prison that can hinder liberation. The three characteristics of stillness, subtlety, and detachment in the path of liberation should be understood by analogy to the three characteristics of coarseness, suffering, and obstacles in the path of immediate consequence. Question: What path of liberation arises after what path of immediate consequence? Answer: After any one of the paths of immediate consequence, all three paths of liberation can arise. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā 64 says: It is commented that this matter is not fixed. After the path of immediate consequence with the characteristic of coarseness, the three characteristics of stillness, etc., can arise as the path of liberation. After the path of immediate consequence with the characteristic of suffering, the three characteristics of subtlety, etc., can arise as the path of liberation. After the path of immediate consequence with the characteristic of obstacles, the three characteristics of detachment, etc., can arise as the path of liberation. Because these six contaminated characteristics arise according to what the one detaching from defilements desires. Question: The mundane path of immediate consequence conditions the next lower realm, and the mundane path of liberation conditions the next higher realm. Is this in terms of practice or in terms of attainment? Answer: It is only in terms of practice. If it is in terms of attainment and what is conditioned, then this is not fixed. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra 66 says: Here, an ordinary being (異生, yì shēng) detaching from desire realm defilements, the nine paths of immediate consequence, any one of the three characteristics of coarseness, etc., manifests, and each cultivates the three characteristics of coarseness, etc., in the future.

八解脫道。靜等三行隨一現前。各未來修粗等六行。后解脫道現在。未來所修如前八解脫道。與前別者。復修未來初靜慮攝無邊行相　如是乃至離無所有染無間．解脫道所修應知　若諸聖者。以世俗道離欲界染九無間道。粗等三行隨一現前。各于未來修十九行。謂粗等三．有漏．無漏十六聖行。八解脫道。靜等三行相隨一現前。各未來修二十二行。謂前十九加靜等三。后解脫道現在。未來所修如前八解脫道。與前別者。復修未來初靜慮攝無邊行相　離初定染九無間道。粗等三行隨一現前。各于未來修十九行。謂粗等三．及唯無漏十六聖行。此十六行是下地攝。以上地邊無聖行故。后修聖行準此應知。八解脫道。靜等三行隨一現前。各未來修二十二行。謂前十九加靜等三。后解脫道現在．未來所修如前八解脫道與前別者。復修未來二靜慮攝無邊行相　如是乃至離無所有處染無間．解脫道所修應知　有餘師言。異生．聖者。離欲無間．解脫道中。亦修不凈．息念．慈等。離余上地所修如前。初靜慮邊善根廣故修如是行。上諸定邊善根少故所修如前。又欲界中有多煩惱。為欲斷彼修多對治。上地不然。故修治少　離欲界染九無間道。未來所修粗等三行唯緣欲界。八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行通緣欲界及初靜慮。靜等三行緣初

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本八解脫道（Aṣṭavimokṣa）：靜（Śānta）、等（Samatha）、粗（Odarika）三種行相隨一現前。各自於未來修習粗等六種行相。后解脫道現在，未來所修如前八解脫道。與前不同之處在於，復修未來初靜慮（Prathama-dhyāna）所攝的無邊行相。如此乃至離無所有染（Ākiṃcanyāyatana-rāga）的無間（Ānantarika）、解脫道（Vimokṣamārga）所修習的，應當知曉。若諸聖者，以世俗道離欲界染（Kāmadhātu-rāga）的九無間道，粗等三種行相隨一現前。各自於未來修習十九種行相，即粗等三、有漏（Sāsrava）、無漏（Anāsrava）十六聖行。八解脫道，靜等三種行相隨一現前。各自於未來修習二十二種行相，即前十九種加上靜等三。后解脫道現在，未來所修如前八解脫道。與前不同之處在於，復修未來初靜慮所攝的無邊行相。離初定染（Prathama-dhyāna-rāga）的九無間道，粗等三種行相隨一現前。各自於未來修習十九種行相，即粗等三，以及唯無漏十六聖行。這十六行是下地所攝，因為上地沒有聖行。后修聖行，準此應知。八解脫道，靜等三種行相隨一現前。各自於未來修習二十二種行相，即前十九種加上靜等三。后解脫道現在，未來所修如前八解脫道，與前不同之處在於，復修未來二靜慮（Dvitīya-dhyāna）所攝的無邊行相。如此乃至離無所有處染（Ākiṃcanyāyatana-rāga）的無間、解脫道所修習的，應當知曉。有其餘師說，異生（Pṛthagjana）、聖者，離欲無間、解脫道中，也修不凈（Aśubha）、息念（Ānāpānasmṛti）、慈（Maitrī）等。離其餘上地所修如前。初靜慮邊善根廣，所以修習這些行相。上諸定邊善根少，所以修習的如前。又欲界中有多煩惱，爲了斷除它們，修習多種對治。上地不是這樣，所以修習的對治少。離欲界染的九無間道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，唯緣欲界。八解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，通緣欲界及初靜慮。靜等三種行相，緣初靜慮。

【English Translation】 English version The Eight Deliverances (Aṣṭavimokṣa): When any one of the three aspects—Tranquility (Śānta), Equanimity (Samatha), or Coarseness (Odarika)—manifests, each will cultivate the six aspects of coarseness, etc., in the future. The subsequent deliverance path is present; what is cultivated in the future is like the previous eight deliverances. The difference from the previous is that one further cultivates the boundless aspects included in the first Dhyana (Prathama-dhyāna) in the future. Thus, it should be understood what is cultivated in the uninterrupted (Ānantarika) and deliverance paths (Vimokṣamārga) when detaching from the defilement of the Realm of Nothingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana-rāga). If noble ones, through mundane paths, detach from the defilement of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu-rāga) with the nine uninterrupted paths, when any one of the three aspects—coarseness, etc.—manifests, each will cultivate nineteen aspects in the future, namely, the three of coarseness, etc., and the sixteen noble aspects of defiled (Sāsrava) and undefiled (Anāsrava). When any one of the three aspects—tranquility, etc.—manifests in the eight deliverances, each will cultivate twenty-two aspects in the future, namely, the previous nineteen plus the three of tranquility, etc. The subsequent deliverance path is present; what is cultivated in the future is like the previous eight deliverances. The difference from the previous is that one further cultivates the boundless aspects included in the first Dhyana in the future. When detaching from the defilement of the first Dhyana (Prathama-dhyāna-rāga) with the nine uninterrupted paths, when any one of the three aspects—coarseness, etc.—manifests, each will cultivate nineteen aspects in the future, namely, the three of coarseness, etc., and only the sixteen undefiled noble aspects. These sixteen aspects are included in the lower realm because there are no noble aspects in the higher realms. It should be understood that the subsequent cultivation of noble aspects follows this principle. When any one of the three aspects—tranquility, etc.—manifests in the eight deliverances, each will cultivate twenty-two aspects in the future, namely, the previous nineteen plus the three of tranquility, etc. The subsequent deliverance path is present; what is cultivated in the future is like the previous eight deliverances. The difference from the previous is that one further cultivates the boundless aspects included in the second Dhyana (Dvitīya-dhyāna) in the future. Thus, it should be understood what is cultivated in the uninterrupted and deliverance paths when detaching from the defilement of the Realm of Nothingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana-rāga). Some other teachers say that ordinary beings (Pṛthagjana) and noble ones also cultivate impurity (Aśubha), mindfulness of breathing (Ānāpānasmṛti), loving-kindness (Maitrī), etc., in the uninterrupted and deliverance paths when detaching from desire. What is cultivated when detaching from the remaining higher realms is as before. Because the roots of goodness are extensive in the first Dhyana, these aspects are cultivated. Because the roots of goodness are few in the higher Dhyanas, what is cultivated is as before. Moreover, there are many afflictions in the Desire Realm; to eliminate them, many antidotes are cultivated. The higher realms are not like this, so fewer antidotes are cultivated. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future in the nine uninterrupted paths when detaching from the defilement of the Desire Realm, only pertain to the Desire Realm. The three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future in the eight deliverances, pertain to both the Desire Realm and the first Dhyana. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., pertain to the first Dhyana.

靜慮。后解脫道。未來所修粗等三行通緣三界。靜等三行緣初靜慮乃至有頂　離初定染九無間道。未來所修粗等三行緣初靜慮。八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行緣初．二定。靜等三行緣第二定。后解脫道。未來所修粗等三行通緣三界。靜等三行緣第二定乃至有頂　離二靜慮．三靜慮染隨其所應皆準前說　離四定染九無間道未來所修粗等三行。緣第四定。八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行。緣第四定及緣空處。然非一念以界別故。靜等三行唯緣空處。后解脫道。未來所修粗等三行．靜等三行。皆緣空處乃至有頂　離空處染九無間道未來所修粗等三行唯緣空處八解脫道。未來所修粗等三行。緣空處．識處。靜等三行。唯緣識處。后解脫道。未來所修粗等三行．靜等三行。俱緣識處乃至有頂。離識處染無所有染。隨其所應皆準前說。何緣最後解脫道中。未來所修粗等三行靜慮攝者通緣三界。無色攝者唯自．上緣。諸靜慮中有遍緣智。無色根本必不下緣。故二所修所緣有別。

傍論已了至此應果皆有者。此即第三明盡智．后智。結問頌答。

論曰至后容退故者。不動種姓諸羅漢盡智無間后必起無生智。非盡智．后。更有盡智．無學正見無間而生。除不動法餘五阿羅漢。盡智．無間后。或有盡智生。或即引生無學正見。非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本靜慮（禪定）。后解脫道（指在獲得解脫之後所修行的道路）。未來所修的粗等三行（指粗想、粗行、粗受三種行相），普遍緣於三界（欲界、色界、無色界）。靜等三行（指靜想、靜行、靜受三種行相），緣于初靜慮（初禪）乃至有頂（非想非非想處天）。遠離初定染（初禪的染污）的九無間道（九種次第相續的解脫道）。未來所修的粗等三行，緣于初靜慮。八解脫道（八種解脫的修行方法）。未來所修的粗等三行，緣于初禪、二禪。靜等三行，緣于第二禪。后解脫道。未來所修的粗等三行，普遍緣於三界。靜等三行，緣于第二禪乃至有頂。遠離二靜慮（二禪）、三靜慮（三禪）染，都可按照前面的說法類推。遠離四定染（四禪的染污）的九無間道，未來所修的粗等三行，緣于第四禪。八解脫道。未來所修的粗等三行，緣于第四禪及緣于空處（無色界的第一處）。然而並非一念之間，因為有界別的區分。靜等三行，只緣于空處。后解脫道。未來所修的粗等三行、靜等三行，都緣于空處乃至有頂。遠離空處染的九無間道，未來所修的粗等三行，只緣于空處。八解脫道。未來所修的粗等三行，緣于空處、識處（無色界的第二處）。靜等三行，只緣于識處。后解脫道。未來所修的粗等三行、靜等三行，都緣于識處乃至有頂。遠離識處染、無所有染（無色界的第三處），都可按照前面的說法類推。為何最後解脫道中，未來所修的粗等三行，靜慮所攝的普遍緣於三界，無色界所攝的只緣于自身及上界？因為靜慮中有遍緣智，而無色界的根本定必定不會向下緣。所以二者所修的所緣是有區別的。旁論已經結束，到此為止，應果（阿羅漢果）都有。這即是第三部分，說明盡智（知一切煩惱已盡的智慧）、后智（盡智之後的智慧）。總結提問並回答。論曰：乃至后容退故。不動種姓（不會退轉的阿羅漢）的諸阿羅漢，盡智無間之後必定生起無生智（不再受生的智慧）。並非盡智、后智之後，更有盡智、無學正見（無學位的正見）無間而生。除了不動法（不會退轉的法）之外，其餘五種阿羅漢，盡智無間之後，或者有盡智生，或者直接引生無學正見。並非……

【English Translation】 English version 'Jhāna' (meditative absorption). 'Later path of liberation' (referring to the path practiced after attaining liberation). The 'three coarse practices' (referring to the three aspects of coarse thought, coarse practice, and coarse feeling) to be cultivated in the future universally pertain to the 'three realms' (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). The 'three tranquil practices' (referring to the three aspects of tranquil thought, tranquil practice, and tranquil feeling) pertain to the 'first Jhāna' (first dhyana) up to the 'peak of existence' (neither perception nor non-perception). The 'nine uninterrupted paths' (nine successive paths of liberation) that are free from the defilement of the 'first dhyana'. The 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future pertain to the 'first Jhāna'. The 'eight paths of liberation' (eight methods of liberation practice). The 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future pertain to the 'first and second dhyanas'. The 'three tranquil practices' pertain to the 'second dhyana'. 'Later path of liberation'. The 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future universally pertain to the 'three realms'. The 'three tranquil practices' pertain to the 'second dhyana' up to the 'peak of existence'. The defilements of the 'second dhyana' and 'third dhyana' can be inferred according to the preceding explanation as appropriate. The 'nine uninterrupted paths' that are free from the defilement of the 'fourth dhyana', the 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future, pertain to the 'fourth dhyana'. The 'eight paths of liberation'. The 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future pertain to the 'fourth dhyana' and pertain to the 'sphere of emptiness' (the first realm of the formless realm). However, it is not in a single moment, because there is a distinction of realms. The 'three tranquil practices' only pertain to the 'sphere of emptiness'. 'Later path of liberation'. The 'three coarse practices' and 'three tranquil practices' to be cultivated in the future all pertain to the 'sphere of emptiness' up to the 'peak of existence'. The 'nine uninterrupted paths' that are free from the defilement of the 'sphere of emptiness', the 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future only pertain to the 'sphere of emptiness'. The 'eight paths of liberation'. The 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future pertain to the 'sphere of emptiness' and the 'sphere of consciousness' (the second realm of the formless realm). The 'three tranquil practices' only pertain to the 'sphere of consciousness'. 'Later path of liberation'. The 'three coarse practices' and 'three tranquil practices' all pertain to the 'sphere of consciousness' up to the 'peak of existence'. The defilements of the 'sphere of consciousness' and the 'sphere of nothingness' (the third realm of the formless realm) can be inferred according to the preceding explanation as appropriate. Why is it that in the final path of liberation, the 'three coarse practices' to be cultivated in the future, those included in 'Jhāna', universally pertain to the 'three realms', while those included in the 'formless realm' only pertain to themselves and the realms above? Because in 'Jhāna' there is pervasive wisdom, while the fundamental concentration of the 'formless realm' certainly does not pertain to the realms below. Therefore, the objects of what the two cultivate are different. The side discussion has ended, and up to this point, all have the 'fruit of Arhatship' (arahantship). This is the third part, explaining 'exhaustive knowledge' (knowledge that all defilements have been exhausted) and 'subsequent knowledge' (knowledge after exhaustive knowledge). Summarizing the question and answering. The treatise says: 'Up to the point where later there is room for regression.' For those Arhats of the 'immovable lineage' (those who do not regress), after 'exhaustive knowledge', 'unborn knowledge' (knowledge of no more rebirth) will certainly arise without interruption. It is not that after 'exhaustive knowledge' and 'subsequent knowledge', there is more 'exhaustive knowledge' and 'unlearned right view' (right view of the unlearned) arising without interruption. Except for the 'immovable Dharma' (the Dharma that does not regress), for the other five types of Arhats, after 'exhaustive knowledge', either 'exhaustive knowledge' arises, or 'unlearned right view' is directly induced. It is not...

無生智后容退故。

前不動種姓無正見生耶者。問。

有正見生至或無學正見者。答。有正見生。而不說者。一切應果皆有此見故。故前不動不別說之。謂不動法無生智后。或有無生智起。或無學正見生。故正理六十六云。於此位中總略義者。若不動法初起盡智唯一剎那。次無生智亦一剎那。或有相續　若時解脫初起盡智．或一剎那。或有相續。此二所起無學正見皆無決定。剎那．相續如前說。彼非正求故　問若言時解脫盡智或一剎那。不動無生智或一剎那。彼二智后但起無學正見不起世俗心者何故婆沙一百二云。此中時愛心解脫阿羅漢。金剛喻定唯一剎那。盡智流注長時相續。從盡智．出或起無學正見。或起世俗心　不動心解脫阿羅漢。金剛喻定及盡智．唯一剎那。無生智流注長時相續。從無生智出或起無學正見。或起世俗心　一切羅漢皆修無學正見圓滿。而非一切皆現在前　解云正理通據剎那。唯據無漏心。婆沙通據有漏心。唯據相續。各據一相併不相違。

前說四果是誰果耶者。此下第四便通明道果。就中。一沙門性．果．數。二立四果因緣。三別明中二果。四明沙門果異名。五沙門果依身　此下第一明沙門性．果．數。此問也。

此四應知是沙門果者。答。

何謂沙門性至總

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無生智（Anutpāda-jñāna）之後，仍然有可能退轉。

有人問：『在先前的不動種姓（Acala-gotra）中，是否會生起正見？』

回答：『會生起正見，乃至無學正見。』之所以這樣回答，是因為所有應果（Arhat）都具有這種見解。因此，先前的不動種姓沒有特別說明這一點。也就是說，在不動法（Acala-dharma）的無生智之後，或者生起無生智，或者生起無學正見。』因此，《正理六十六》中說：『在這個階段中，總括而言，如果是不動法最初生起盡智（Kṣaya-jñāna），則只有一剎那。其次，無生智也只有一剎那，或者有相續。如果時解脫（Samaya-vimukta）最初生起盡智，或者只有一剎那，或者有相續。這兩種情況所生起的無學正見都沒有決定，剎那和相續的情況如前所述。』因為這不是主要追求的目標。

有人問：『如果說時解脫的盡智只有一剎那，不動種姓的無生智也只有一剎那，那麼為什麼在這兩種智慧之後，只會生起無學正見，而不會生起世俗心呢？』《婆沙一百二》中說：『時愛心解脫（Samaya-rāga-citta-vimukta）的阿羅漢，金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）只有一剎那，盡智的流注長時間相續。從盡智中出來，或者生起無學正見，或者生起世俗心。不動心解脫（Acala-citta-vimukta）的阿羅漢，金剛喻定和盡智都只有一剎那，無生智的流注長時間相續。從無生智中出來，或者生起無學正見，或者生起世俗心。一切阿羅漢都修習無學正見圓滿，但並非一切都現在前。』解釋說，《正理》通用於剎那，只適用於無漏心。《婆沙》通用於有漏心，只適用於相續。各自依據一個方面，並不互相矛盾。

先前所說的四果（Śrāmaṇya-phala）是誰的果呢？』下面第四部分將全面闡明道果。其中：一、沙門性、果、數；二、建立四果的因緣；三、分別闡明中間二果；四、闡明沙門果的異名；五、沙門果所依之身。下面第一部分闡明沙門性、果、數。這是提問。

回答：『這四果應當知道是沙門果。』

什麼是沙門性（Śrāmaṇya-lakṣaṇa）？總而言之……

【English Translation】 English version After the Anutpāda-jñāna (knowledge of non-arising), there is still the possibility of regression.

Question: 'In the preceding Acala-gotra (immovable lineage), does right view arise?'

Answer: 'Right view arises, even Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi (unlearned right view).' The reason for this answer is that all Arhats (worthy ones) possess this view. Therefore, the preceding Acala-gotra does not specifically mention it. That is to say, after the Anutpāda-jñāna of Acala-dharma (immovable dharma), either Anutpāda-jñāna arises, or Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi arises.' Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Course of Reason) 66 says: 'In this stage, to summarize, if the Kṣaya-jñāna (knowledge of destruction) initially arises in Acala-dharma, it is only for one kṣaṇa (instant). Secondly, Anutpāda-jñāna is also only for one kṣaṇa, or there is continuity. If Samaya-vimukta (liberated by time) initially arises Kṣaya-jñāna, it is either only for one kṣaṇa, or there is continuity. The Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi that arises in these two situations is not definite; the situations of kṣaṇa and continuity are as previously described.' Because this is not the primary goal being sought.

Question: 'If it is said that the Kṣaya-jñāna of Samaya-vimukta is only for one kṣaṇa, and the Anutpāda-jñāna of Acala-gotra is also only for one kṣaṇa, then why, after these two types of wisdom, does only Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi arise, and not mundane citta (mind)?' The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary on the Abhidharma) 102 says: 'The Arhat of Samaya-rāga-citta-vimukta (liberated from passion by time), Vajropama-samādhi (diamond-like concentration) is only for one kṣaṇa, and the flow of Kṣaya-jñāna continues for a long time. Emerging from Kṣaya-jñāna, either Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi arises, or mundane citta arises. The Arhat of Acala-citta-vimukta (liberated from mind by immovability), Vajropama-samādhi and Kṣaya-jñāna are both only for one kṣaṇa, and the flow of Anutpāda-jñāna continues for a long time. Emerging from Anutpāda-jñāna, either Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi arises, or mundane citta arises. All Arhats cultivate Anāsrava-samyagdṛṣṭi to perfection, but not all of them manifest it in the present.' The explanation is that the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra applies to kṣaṇa in general, and only applies to Anāsrava-citta (untainted mind). The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra applies to mundane citta in general, and only applies to continuity. Each is based on one aspect, and they do not contradict each other.

Whose fruits are the four Śrāmaṇya-phala (fruits of asceticism) previously mentioned?' The fourth part below will fully explain the path and its fruits. Among them: 1. Śrāmaṇya-lakṣaṇa (characteristics of asceticism), fruits, and numbers; 2. The causes and conditions for establishing the four fruits; 3. Separate explanations of the two intermediate fruits; 4. Explanations of the different names of the fruits of asceticism; 5. The body upon which the fruits of asceticism depend. The first part below explains Śrāmaṇya-lakṣaṇa, fruits, and numbers. This is the question.

Answer: 'These four fruits should be known as the fruits of asceticism.'

What is Śrāmaṇya-lakṣaṇa? In short...

有幾種者。復為三問。

頌曰至解脫道及滅者。初句答初問。第二句答第二問。下兩句答第三問。

論曰至非真沙門者。釋初句。沙門此云勤息。以能勤勞息煩惱故。諸異生類雖欲斷惑。有計無想能趣涅槃。此名異趣涅槃。故言異生不能無異趣涅槃。非真沙門。設求涅槃亦非究竟。故言異生不能究竟趣涅槃。非真沙門。余文可知。

有為無為是沙門果者。釋第二句。有為無漏五蘊及擇滅無為是沙門果體。

契經說此至八十九種者。釋下兩句。經依別意說。此果體差別有四。論依法相。理實就位分有八十九。皆解脫道．擇滅為性謂為永斷見所斷惑。有八忍無間道。八智解脫道。及為永斷九地修惑各有九品九九八十一無間道。八十一解脫道。見．修位中諸無間道。唯沙門性非沙門果。以能斷障引後起故諸解脫道是沙門性。亦是沙門有為果體。是彼無間所引等流．士用果故。雖解脫道亦引無間。非遍引故。非斷障故不說無間為解脫果。一一擇滅唯是沙門無為果體。是彼無間道離系．士用果。即是正理不生士用。如是總說合成八十九種沙門果也。

若爾世尊何不具說者。此即第二立四果因緣。問。有八十九世尊何故不具說耶。

果雖有多至故佛不說者。答。若於斷位。若於道位。具足五

【現代漢語翻譯】有幾種沙門（Śrāmaṇa，勤息者）果？對此有三個問題。

頌文說：『至解脫道及滅者』。第一句回答第一個問題。第二句回答第二個問題。下面兩句回答第三個問題。

論述說：『至非真沙門者』。解釋第一句。沙門，這裡的意思是勤息，因為能夠勤勞地止息煩惱。那些異生（bāla-pṛthag-jana，凡夫）雖然想要斷除迷惑，但有的認為無想（asaṃjñā）能夠趨向涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）。這被稱為異趣涅槃。所以說異生不能沒有異趣涅槃，不是真正的沙門。假設他們尋求涅槃，也不是究竟的。所以說異生不能究竟地趨向涅槃，不是真正的沙門。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『有為無為是沙門果』，解釋第二句。有為（saṃskṛta）無漏（anāsrava）的五蘊（pañca-skandha）以及擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）無為（asaṃskṛta）是沙門果的本體。

『契經說此至八十九種者』，解釋下面兩句。經文是依據特別的含義說的。這個果體的差別有四種。論典是依據法相（dharma-lakṣaṇa）說的。實際上就階段來說，有八十九種。都是以解脫道（vimukti-mārga）和擇滅為自性。所謂永斷見所斷惑（dṛṣṭi-heya），有八忍（kṣānti）無間道（ānantarya-mārga），八智（jñāna）解脫道。以及爲了永斷九地（bhūmi）修惑（bhāvanā-heya），各有九品，九九八十一無間道，八十一解脫道。在見道位（darśana-mārga）和修道位（bhāvanā-mārga）中的各種無間道，只有沙門的性質，不是沙門果。因為能夠斷除障礙，引發後續的生起。各種解脫道是沙門的性質，也是沙門有為果的本體。是那些無間道所引發的等流果（nisyanda-phala）和士用果（puruṣakāra-phala）。雖然解脫道也能引發無間道，但不是普遍引發，也不是斷除障礙，所以不說無間道是解脫果。每一個擇滅都只是沙門無為果的本體。是那些無間道的離系果（visamyoga-phala）和士用果。這就是正理，不生士用。這樣總的來說，合成了八十九種沙門果。

『若爾世尊何不具說者』，這是第二個建立四果的因緣。問：有八十九種，世尊為什麼不全部說出來呢？

『果雖有多至故佛不說者』，答：如果在斷除的階段，如果在道位，具足五根（pañcendriya）。

【English Translation】 How many types of Śrāmaṇa (one who diligently pacifies) fruits are there? There are three questions regarding this.

The verse says: 'Reaching the path of liberation and cessation.' The first line answers the first question. The second line answers the second question. The following two lines answer the third question.

The treatise says: 'Reaching the non-true Śrāmaṇa.' Explaining the first line. Śrāmaṇa, here it means diligent pacification, because it can diligently pacify afflictions. Those ordinary beings (bāla-pṛthag-jana) although wanting to cut off delusion, some think that non-perception (asaṃjñā) can lead to Nirvāṇa (extinction). This is called a different path to Nirvāṇa. Therefore, it is said that ordinary beings cannot be without a different path to Nirvāṇa, and are not true Śrāmaṇas. Supposing they seek Nirvāṇa, it is also not ultimate. Therefore, it is said that ordinary beings cannot ultimately reach Nirvāṇa, and are not true Śrāmaṇas. The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

'The conditioned and unconditioned are the fruits of Śrāmaṇa,' explaining the second line. The conditioned (saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) five aggregates (pañca-skandha) without outflows (anāsrava), and the unconditioned cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) are the substance of the Śrāmaṇa fruit.

'The sutras say this reaches eighty-nine types,' explaining the following two lines. The sutras speak according to a special meaning. The differences in this fruit body are of four types. The treatise speaks according to the characteristics of dharmas (dharma-lakṣaṇa). In reality, in terms of stages, there are eighty-nine types. All are of the nature of the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga) and cessation through discrimination. So-called permanently cutting off delusions to be abandoned by seeing (dṛṣṭi-heya), there are eight forbearance (kṣānti) immediate paths (ānantarya-mārga), eight wisdom (jñāna) liberation paths. And in order to permanently cut off delusions to be cultivated (bhāvanā-heya) in the nine grounds (bhūmi), each has nine grades, nine nines are eighty-one immediate paths, eighty-one liberation paths. In the paths of seeing (darśana-mārga) and cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga), all the immediate paths only have the nature of Śrāmaṇa, and are not the fruit of Śrāmaṇa. Because they can cut off obstacles and cause subsequent arising. All the liberation paths are the nature of Śrāmaṇa, and are also the substance of the conditioned fruit of Śrāmaṇa. They are the outflow fruit (nisyanda-phala) and the exertion fruit (puruṣakāra-phala) caused by those immediate paths. Although the liberation path can also cause the immediate path, it does not cause it universally, nor does it cut off obstacles, so it is not said that the immediate path is the liberation fruit. Each cessation through discrimination is only the substance of the unconditioned fruit of Śrāmaṇa. It is the separation fruit (visamyoga-phala) and the exertion fruit of those immediate paths. This is the correct principle, not giving rise to exertion. Thus, generally speaking, it combines into eighty-nine types of Śrāmaṇa fruits.

'If so, why did the World Honored One not fully explain them?' This is the second cause and condition for establishing the four fruits. Question: There are eighty-nine types, why did the World Honored One not explain them all?

'Although there are many fruits, the Buddha did not speak of them because...' Answer: If in the stage of cutting off, if in the stage of the path, possessing the five roots (pañcendriya) completely.

因佛于經中建立為果。言五因者。一舍曾道。謂舍先曾得果道．向道故。若預流果但舍向道。若后三果舍前果道及前向道。二得勝道。謂得果位攝殊勝道故。三總集斷。謂總能起一類勝得得諸斷故。非唯一得得諸斷也。得智．得行如文可知　問何故於此四位具五因建立四果非餘位耶　解曰一切煩惱總有二類。所謂見．修。見惑易斷總立一果。修惑難斷別立三果。所以斷見煩惱最初盡故立預流果。就修位中欲惑難斷別立二果。上界易斷總立一果。就斷欲界九品之中。已斷六品三分斷二立一來果。次斷後三。雖非斷強惑。不善煩惱初斷盡故。出欲界故。立不還果。后復斷上界修惑總盡無記惑初故立阿羅漢。故於此四具足五因。建立四果。非餘位也。又正理六十七云。或有本有二。謂欲界．有頂。　二越有頂。二越欲界。故唯立四為沙門果(已上論文)。

若唯凈道至亦名沙門果者。此即第三別明中二果。一來．不還。問及頌答。

論曰至謂斷五下結者。釋上兩句。以世俗道斷六品惑得一來果。斷九品惑得不還果時。此果非唯以世俗道所得擇滅為斷果性。兼以見道所得擇滅。于中相雜總成一果。同起一類果道勝得。得彼所得諸擇滅故。由此契經言。云何一來果。謂斷見道三結。及斷修所斷六品名薄貪嗔癡。云何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因為佛在經中建立了果位。所說的五因是：一、舍曾道，即捨棄先前曾經獲得的果道和向道。如果是預流果，則只捨棄向道；如果是后三果，則捨棄之前的果道和之前的向道。二、得勝道，即獲得果位所攝持的殊勝之道。三、總集斷，即總能生起一類殊勝之得，從而獲得各種斷除，並非僅僅一次獲得就能獲得各種斷除。得智、得行等含義可以參考原文理解。問：為什麼在這四個果位上具備五因，從而建立四個果位，而不是在其他果位上呢？答：一切煩惱總共有兩類，即見惑和修惑。見惑容易斷除，所以總共建立一個果位。修惑難以斷除，所以分別建立三個果位。因此，斷除見煩惱最先窮盡，所以建立預流果。在修惑的果位中，欲惑難以斷除，所以分別建立兩個果位；上界的煩惱容易斷除，所以總共建立一個果位。在斷除欲界九品煩惱之中，已經斷除了六品，三分之二的斷除，建立一來果。接著斷除剩餘的三品，雖然不是斷除強烈的煩惱，但是不善的煩惱最初被斷盡，並且脫離了欲界，所以建立不還果。之後又斷除上界的修惑，總共窮盡，並且無記惑最初被斷除，所以建立阿羅漢果。因此，在這四個果位上具備五因，從而建立四個果位，而不是在其他果位上。此外，《正理》第六十七卷說：『或者有本有二，即欲界和有頂；二越有頂；二越欲界。』所以只建立四個沙門果（以上是論文內容）。如果僅僅憑藉清凈之道也能達到，也稱為沙門果，那麼這就是第三種分別說明中的二果，即一來果和不還果。下面是問答環節。論曰：『至』是指斷除五下分結的人。解釋上面兩句話。憑藉世俗道斷除六品煩惱，獲得一來果；斷除九品煩惱，獲得不還果時，這個果位並非僅僅以世俗道所獲得的擇滅作為斷果的性質，還兼有見道所獲得的擇滅，在其中相互混合，總共形成一個果位，共同生起一類果道殊勝之得，獲得他們所獲得的各種擇滅。因此，契經上說：『什麼是一來果？』是指斷除見道的三結，以及斷除修所斷的六品，名為薄貪嗔癡。『什麼是

【English Translation】 English version Because the Buddha establishes the fruition in the scriptures. The so-called five causes are: first, abandoning the past path, which means abandoning the path of fruition and the path of approach that were previously attained. If it is the Stream-enterer Fruition (Srota-apanna) , only the path of approach is abandoned; if it is the latter three fruitions, the previous path of fruition and the previous path of approach are abandoned. Second, attaining the superior path, which means attaining the superior path contained within the fruition position. Third, the total collection of severance, which means being able to generate a superior attainment of one kind, thereby obtaining various severances, not just obtaining various severances with a single attainment. The meanings of 'attaining wisdom' (得智, de zhi) and 'attaining practice' (得行, de xing) can be understood from the text. Question: Why are the five causes present in these four positions, thereby establishing the four fruitions, and not in other positions? Answer: All afflictions are generally of two types, namely, afflictions of view (見惑, jian huo) and afflictions of cultivation (修惑, xiu huo). Afflictions of view are easy to sever, so one fruition is established in total. Afflictions of cultivation are difficult to sever, so three fruitions are established separately. Therefore, the severance of afflictions of view is exhausted first, so the Stream-enterer Fruition is established. Within the position of cultivation, afflictions of desire are difficult to sever, so two fruitions are established separately; the afflictions of the upper realms are easy to sever, so one fruition is established in total. Among the severance of the nine grades of afflictions of the desire realm, six grades have already been severed, two-thirds of the severance, establishing the Once-returner Fruition (Sakrdagamin). Then, the remaining three grades are severed, although it is not severing strong afflictions, the unwholesome afflictions are initially exhausted, and one is liberated from the desire realm, so the Non-returner Fruition (Anagamin) is established. Afterwards, the afflictions of cultivation of the upper realms are severed, completely exhausted, and the afflictions of non-discrimination are initially severed, so the Arhat Fruition is established. Therefore, the five causes are present in these four positions, thereby establishing the four fruitions, and not in other positions. Furthermore, the sixty-seventh volume of the Abhidharmakosha says: 'Or there are two that are fundamental, namely, the desire realm and the peak of existence (有頂, you ding); two that transcend the peak of existence; two that transcend the desire realm.' Therefore, only four are established as the fruits of a sramana (沙門, shamen) (the above is the content of the treatise). If one can reach it solely through the pure path, it is also called the fruit of a sramana, then these are the two fruits in the third separate explanation, namely, the Once-returner and Non-returner. The following is a question and answer session. The treatise says: 'To reach' refers to those who have severed the five lower fetters. Explaining the above two sentences. By severing the six grades of afflictions with the mundane path, one attains the Once-returner Fruition; when severing the nine grades of afflictions, one attains the Non-returner Fruition. This fruition is not only based on the pratisankhya-nirodha (擇滅, ze mie) obtained by the mundane path as the nature of the severed fruition, but also includes the pratisankhya-nirodha obtained by the path of seeing, which are mixed together to form one fruition, jointly generating a superior attainment of one kind of fruition path, obtaining the various pratisankhya-nirodha that they have obtained. Therefore, the sutra says: 'What is the Once-returner Fruition?' It refers to severing the three fetters of the path of seeing, and severing the six grades severed by cultivation, called mild greed, hatred, and delusion. 'What is

不還果。謂斷五下分結。於五結中。三是見斷。二是修斷。引經意證二果相雜。故世俗道所得擇滅。與無漏道所得雜故。以少從多。名沙門果。故婆沙六十六云。應作是說從多立名。多是聖道所得果故。謂世俗道得二果時。三界一切見所斷斷。皆是聖道力所得故名沙門果。雖有欲界六品．九品修所斷斷。非聖道得。然從多分亦得建立沙門果名。一無漏得總所得故。

又世俗道至沙門果體者。釋下兩句。又世俗道所得擇滅亦有現起。無漏斷得所任持故。由此無漏得力所持。退不命終還得果故。無漏斷得即所印故。亦得名為沙門果體。約得說也。

此沙門性有異名耶者。此下第四沙門果異名。牒前起問。

亦有者。答。

云何者徴。

頌曰至或具輻等故者。答。初頌辨異名。后頌明法輪。

論曰至亦名清涼者。釋初頌。依世俗理。則諸沙門異婆羅門。依勝義理即前所說真沙門性。經亦說名婆羅門。以能遣除諸煩惱故。與能勤勞息諸煩惱義相似故。故沙門體即婆羅門　即此婆羅門則亦名為梵輪。是真梵王力所轉故。梵所轉輪故名梵輪。佛與無上梵德相應。是故世尊獨應名梵。由契經說佛名梵等　梵此云凈。

即於此中至故名法輪者。釋第五．第六．句。即於此梵輪中。唯依見道

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『不還果』，指的是斷除了『五下分結』（Orambhagiya-samyojana，束縛眾生於欲界的五種煩惱）。在這五種煩惱中，三種是見道所斷（見惑），兩種是修道所斷（思惑）。引經文的意義來證明二果的體性是混雜的。因此，世俗道（Laukika-marga，指不以解脫為目標的修行）所獲得的『擇滅』（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧力量實現的滅盡），與無漏道（Anasrava-marga，指以解脫為目標的修行）所獲得的『擇滅』是混雜的。因為以少部分從屬於大部分，所以稱為『沙門果』（Sramana-phala，修道者的果位）。因此，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）第六十六卷說：『應該這樣說，從多數來立名。多數是聖道所獲得的果位。』意思是說，世俗道獲得二果時，三界一切見所斷的煩惱斷滅，都是聖道的力量所獲得的，因此名為沙門果。雖然有欲界六品、九品修所斷的煩惱斷滅，不是聖道獲得的，但是從大部分來說，也可以建立沙門果的名稱。因為無漏道獲得總體的所得。

又，世俗道達到沙門果的體性，解釋下面兩句。又，世俗道所獲得的擇滅也有現起，因為無漏斷得（Anasrava-prapti，無漏道獲得的成就）所任持。由此無漏斷得的力量所支援，即使退失也不會命終，還能再次獲得果位。無漏斷得就是所印證的，也可以名為沙門果的體性。這是就『得』（Prapti，獲得）的角度來說的。

『此沙門性有異名耶？』，下面第四部分討論沙門果的異名。先提出問題。

『亦有者』，回答。

『云何者』，追問。

『頌曰至或具輻等故者』，回答。最初的頌文辨別異名，後面的頌文說明法輪（Dharmacakra，佛法的象徵）。

『論曰至亦名清涼者』，解釋最初的頌文。依據世俗的道理，那麼諸沙門不同於婆羅門（Brahmana，印度教祭司）。依據勝義的道理，就是前面所說的真沙門性。經典也說名為婆羅門，因為能夠去除諸煩惱。與能夠勤勞止息諸煩惱的意義相似。所以沙門的體性就是婆羅門。即此婆羅門，也名為梵輪（Brahma-cakra，清凈之輪），是真梵王（Brahma-raja，偉大的統治者）的力量所轉動。梵所轉動的輪，所以名為梵輪。佛與無上梵德相應，因此世尊獨自應名為梵。由於契經說佛名為梵等。梵，這裡的意思是清凈。

『即於此中至故名法輪者』，解釋第五、第六句。即於此梵輪中，唯獨依靠見道。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-returning fruit' refers to the severing of the 'Five Lower Fetters' (Orambhagiya-samyojana, the five fetters that bind beings to the realm of desire). Among these five fetters, three are severed by the path of seeing (wrong views), and two are severed by the path of cultivation (wrong thoughts). The meaning of the sutra is cited to prove that the nature of the second fruit is mixed. Therefore, the 'cessation through discrimination' (Pratisankhya-nirodha, cessation achieved through the power of wisdom) obtained by the mundane path (Laukika-marga, referring to practice that does not aim for liberation) is mixed with the 'cessation through discrimination' obtained by the unconditioned path (Anasrava-marga, referring to practice that aims for liberation). Because the smaller part belongs to the larger part, it is called 'Sramana-phala' (the fruit of a renunciate). Therefore, the sixty-sixth volume of the Mahavibhasa says: 'It should be said that the name is established from the majority. The majority is the fruit obtained by the noble path.' This means that when the mundane path obtains the second fruit, all the afflictions severed by seeing in the three realms are severed by the power of the noble path, hence it is called Sramana-phala. Although there are six or nine grades of afflictions severed by cultivation in the desire realm that are not obtained by the noble path, the name Sramana-phala can still be established from the majority. Because the unconditioned path obtains the overall attainment.

Furthermore, regarding the nature of the mundane path reaching the Sramana-phala, the following two sentences are explained. Moreover, the cessation through discrimination obtained by the mundane path also arises, because it is upheld by the unconditioned attainment (Anasrava-prapti, the achievement obtained by the unconditioned path). Supported by the power of this unconditioned attainment, even if one regresses, one will not die and can still obtain the fruit again. The unconditioned attainment is what is certified, and it can also be called the nature of the Sramana-phala. This is from the perspective of 'attainment' (Prapti, obtaining).

'Does this Sramana-nature have different names?' The fourth part below discusses the different names of the Sramana-phala. First, a question is raised.

'There are', is the answer.

'What is it?' is the inquiry.

'The verse says to or possessing spokes etc.', is the answer. The initial verse distinguishes different names, and the later verse explains the Dharma wheel (Dharmacakra, the symbol of the Buddha's teaching).

'The treatise says to also called coolness', explains the initial verse. According to mundane reasoning, the Sramanas are different from the Brahmanas (Brahmana, Hindu priests). According to ultimate reasoning, it is the true Sramana-nature mentioned earlier. The sutras also say it is called Brahmana, because it can remove all afflictions. It is similar to the meaning of being able to diligently pacify all afflictions. Therefore, the nature of the Sramana is the Brahmana. This Brahmana is also called Brahma-cakra (the wheel of purity), which is turned by the power of the true Brahma-raja (the great ruler). The wheel turned by Brahma is therefore called Brahma-cakra. The Buddha corresponds to the supreme Brahma-virtue, therefore the World-Honored One alone should be called Brahma. Because the sutras say that the Buddha is called Brahma, etc. Brahma here means purity.

'Within this to therefore called Dharma wheel', explains the fifth and sixth sentences. Within this Brahma-cakra, it relies solely on the path of seeing.

。世尊有處說名法輪。以法為輪故名法輪。猶如世間聖王輪故。有速等五相。見道似彼故名法輪。

見道如何與彼相似者。釋第七句。此即問也。

由速行等至似世間輪者。答。如正理六十七云。如聖王輪行用速疾。見道亦爾各一念故。如聖王輪取前舍后。見道亦爾。舍苦等境取集等故。此即顯示見四聖諦必不俱時。如聖王輪降伏未伏鎮壓已伏。見道亦爾。能見未見能斷未斷。已見斷者無迷退故。如聖王輪上下回轉。見道亦爾。觀上苦等已觀下苦等故。由此見道獨名法輪。

尊者妙音至故名法輪者。釋后一句。尊者妙音作如是說。如世間輪有輻．轂．輞。八支聖道似彼名輪正見等四依戒緣境。似世間輪輻。正語等三以戒為體。戒是眾行所依處故。似世輪轂。正定能攝正見等四令不散故。似世輪輞。故名法輪。

寧知法輪唯是見道者。問。

憍陳那等至正法輪故者。答。憍陳那等五苾芻眾見道生時。地空天神即傳唱言世尊既轉正法輪故。故知見道名為法輪。雖佛自身先時已轉。佛意益他。據他說故。復言佛轉。授能說手轉彼輪故。推在世尊令所化者生尊重故　憍陳那是婆羅門中之一姓也。從姓為名。若云阿若多憍陳那。阿若多此云已解。憍陳那如前說。

云何三轉十二行相者。因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：世尊在某個地方提到『法輪』（Dharmachakra）。因為『法』是輪子的主體，所以稱為『法輪』。這就像世間的聖王之輪，具有快速等五種特性。『見道』（Darshana-marga）與聖王之輪相似，因此稱為『法輪』。

『見道』在哪些方面與聖王之輪相似呢？這是對第七句的解釋，也是一個提問。

因為『見道』的快速執行等特性類似於世間的輪子。正如《正理》第六十七卷所說：『如同聖王之輪的執行快速而有力，『見道』也是如此，每一念都迅速生滅。』如同聖王之輪取前舍后，『見道』也是如此，捨棄對苦等境界的執著，而專注于集等真諦。這表明了同時證悟四聖諦是不可能的。如同聖王之輪降伏未被降伏的，鎮壓已被降伏的，『見道』也是如此，能見到未見的，能斷除未斷除的。對於已經見到和斷除的，不會再有迷惑和退轉。如同聖王之輪上下回轉，『見道』也是如此，觀照上面的苦等，也觀照下面的苦等。』因此，只有『見道』才能被稱為『法輪』。

『尊者妙音』（Arya-ghosha）的說法也支援『法輪』的說法。這是對后一句的解釋。尊者妙音這樣說：『如同世間的輪子有輪輻、輪轂、輪輞，八支聖道（Arya Ashtanga Marga）類似於輪子的各個部分。正見（Samyag-drishti）等四者依賴於戒律和所緣境，類似於世間輪子的輪輻。正語（Samyag-vak）等三者以戒律為根本，因為戒律是所有行為的基礎，類似於世間輪子的輪轂。正定（Samyak-samadhi）能夠攝持正見等四者，使它們不散亂，類似於世間輪子的輪輞。』因此稱為『法輪』。

如何得知『法輪』僅僅是『見道』呢？這是一個提問。

因為『憍陳那』（Kaundinya）等人證悟時，『正法輪』得以轉動。這是回答。當『憍陳那』等五位比丘眾生起『見道』時，地居和空居的天神就傳唱說：『世尊已經轉動了正法輪。』因此可知『見道』被稱為『法輪』。雖然佛陀自身先前已經轉動過法輪，但佛陀的意圖是利益他人，所以根據他人的說法，才說佛陀轉動法輪。這是因為佛陀授予了能說法的手，轉動了那個法輪。將功勞歸於世尊，是爲了讓所教化的人產生尊重。『憍陳那』是婆羅門中的一個姓氏，以姓為名。如果說『阿若多憍陳那』，『阿若多』的意思是『已解』，『憍陳那』如前所述。

什麼是三轉十二行相呢？這是一個提問的開端。

【English Translation】 English version: The World-Honored One mentioned 『Dharmachakra』 (Wheel of Dharma) in a certain place. Because 『Dharma』 is the essence of the wheel, it is called 『Dharmachakra』. This is like the wheel of a Chakravartin (Universal Monarch) in the world, possessing five characteristics such as speed. 『Darshana-marga』 (Path of Seeing) is similar to that wheel, hence it is called 『Dharmachakra』.

In what ways is 『Darshana-marga』 similar to that wheel? This is an explanation of the seventh sentence, and also a question.

Because the swift operation and other characteristics of 『Darshana-marga』 are similar to the wheel in the world. As stated in the Shastra of Reasoning, Volume 67: 『Just as the wheel of a Chakravartin moves swiftly and powerfully, so too is 『Darshana-marga』, with each thought arising and ceasing rapidly.』 Just as the wheel of a Chakravartin takes what is in front and discards what is behind, so too is 『Darshana-marga』, abandoning attachment to realms such as suffering and focusing on truths such as the origin. This demonstrates that it is impossible to realize the Four Noble Truths simultaneously. Just as the wheel of a Chakravartin subdues the unsubdued and suppresses the already subdued, so too is 『Darshana-marga』, able to see the unseen and able to sever the unsevered. For those who have already seen and severed, there will be no more confusion or regression. Just as the wheel of a Chakravartin revolves up and down, so too is 『Darshana-marga』, contemplating suffering etc. above and also contemplating suffering etc. below.』 Therefore, only 『Darshana-marga』 can be called 『Dharmachakra』.

The statement of 『Arya-ghosha』 (Venerable Myo-on) also supports the claim of 『Dharmachakra』. This is an explanation of the latter sentence. Arya-ghosha said: 『Just as the wheel in the world has spokes, a hub, and a rim, the Arya Ashtanga Marga (Noble Eightfold Path) is similar to the various parts of the wheel. Samyag-drishti (Right View) and the other four rely on precepts and the object of focus, similar to the spokes of a worldly wheel. Samyag-vak (Right Speech) and the other three have precepts as their foundation, because precepts are the basis of all actions, similar to the hub of a worldly wheel. Samyak-samadhi (Right Concentration) is able to hold Samyag-drishti and the other four, preventing them from scattering, similar to the rim of a worldly wheel.』 Therefore, it is called 『Dharmachakra』.

How is it known that 『Dharmachakra』 is solely 『Darshana-marga』? This is a question.

Because when 『Kaundinya』 (Ajñata Kaundinya) and others attained enlightenment, the 『Right Dharmachakra』 was turned. This is the answer. When 『Kaundinya』 and the other five Bhikshus (monks) generated 『Darshana-marga』, the gods residing on earth and in the sky proclaimed: 『The World-Honored One has already turned the Right Dharmachakra.』 Therefore, it is known that 『Darshana-marga』 is called 『Dharmachakra』. Although the Buddha himself had previously turned the Dharmachakra, the Buddha's intention was to benefit others, so according to the statements of others, it is said that the Buddha turned the Dharmachakra. This is because the Buddha bestowed the hand capable of expounding the Dharma, turning that Dharmachakra. Attributing the merit to the World-Honored One is to inspire respect in those being taught. 『Kaundinya』 is a surname among Brahmins, and the name is derived from the surname. If it is said 『Ajñata Kaundinya』, 『Ajñata』 means 『understood』, and 『Kaundinya』 is as previously explained.

What are the three turnings and twelve aspects? This is the beginning of a question.

斯義便復問三轉十二行相。

此苦聖諦至所說如是者。答。此苦聖諦為說見道。此應遍知為說修道。此已遍知為說無學道。是名三轉。即于如是一一轉時別別發生眼．智．明．覺。說此名曰十二行相。於三位中各觀苦諦有四行相。三四即成十二行相　言眼智明覺者。婆沙七十九云。眼者謂法智忍。智者謂諸法智。明者謂諸類忍。覺者謂諸類智　複次眼是觀見義。智是決斷義。明是照了義。覺是警察義(解云。前解約見道。后解通三道)　如是三轉十二行相。諦諦皆有。應言十二轉四十八行相。然一．一諦皆數等故。但說三轉十二行相　如說二法。二謂眼．色乃至意．法應言十二。而言二者以數等故　如七處善。五蘊各七。應言三十五。而言七者以數等故。三轉十二行相。應知亦爾。由此三轉如其次第。初轉顯示見道。第二轉顯示修道。第三轉顯示無學道　毗婆沙師所說如是。

若爾三轉至立法輪名者。經部難。或論主難。若言三轉顯示三道。是則三轉十二行相。非唯見道亦通修道．無學道二。如何可說唯于見道立法輪名。

是故唯應至可應正理者。述經部解。或論主申正解。是故唯．應則此三轉十二行相所有言教。四諦法門名法輪體。可應正理。

如何三轉者。問。

三週轉故者。經

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本斯義（Siyi，人名）便又問關於三轉十二行相（sān zhuǎn shí èr xíng xiàng，佛教術語，指對四聖諦的三個階段的理解和十二種觀察方式）的問題。

『此苦聖諦至所說如是者』，回答：『此苦聖諦』是爲了說明見道（jiàn dào，佛教修行階段，指初見真理的階段）。『此應遍知』是爲了說明修道（xiū dào，佛教修行階段，指通過修行來完善自己）。『此已遍知』是爲了說明無學道（wú xué dào，佛教修行階段，指修行圓滿，無需再學的階段）。這被稱為三轉。即在每一個轉時，分別產生眼（yǎn，此處指智慧之眼）、智（zhì，智慧）、明（míng，光明）、覺（jué，覺悟）。這被稱為十二行相。在三個階段中，每個階段觀察苦諦（kǔ dì，四聖諦之一，指人生的痛苦本質）都有四種行相。三乘以四就形成了十二行相。關於眼、智、明、覺，在《婆沙論》（Póshā lùn，佛教論書）第七十九卷中說：『眼』指的是法智忍（fǎ zhì rěn，對法的智慧的忍耐）。『智』指的是諸法智（zhū fǎ zhì，對一切法的智慧）。『明』指的是諸類忍（zhū lèi rěn，對各種類別的忍耐）。『覺』指的是諸類智（zhū lèi zhì，對各種類別的智慧）。再次，『眼』是觀見之義，『智』是決斷之義，『明』是照了之義，『覺』是警察之義。（解釋說：前面的解釋是關於見道的，後面的解釋是通用於三個道的）。像這樣的三轉十二行相，每一個諦（dì，真理）都有。應該說有十二轉四十八行相。然而，因為每一個諦的數量都相等，所以只說三轉十二行相。就像說二法，二指的是眼、色（sè，佛教術語，指物質現象）乃至意（yì，意識）、法（fǎ，佛教術語，指事物規律），應該說有十二個，但只說二，是因為數量相等。就像七處善（qī chù shàn，佛教術語），五蘊（wǔ yùn，佛教術語，指構成人身的五種要素）各有七個，應該說有三十五個，但只說七個，是因為數量相等。三轉十二行相，應該知道也是這樣。由此，三轉按照次第，初轉顯示見道，第二轉顯示修道，第三轉顯示無學道。毗婆沙師（Pípóshā shī，《婆沙論》的作者或學派）所說是這樣的。

『若爾三轉至立法輪名者』，經部（Jīng bù，佛教部派之一）提出疑問，或者論主（lùn zhǔ，論典的作者或權威）提出疑問：如果說三轉顯示三個道，那麼三轉十二行相，不僅僅是見道，也通用於修道、無學道這兩個道。怎麼能說只在見道上建立法輪（fǎ lún，佛法之輪，象徵佛法的傳播）之名呢？

『是故唯應至可應正理者』，敘述經部的解釋，或者論主闡述正確的解釋：因此，只有、應該，那麼這三轉十二行相的所有言教，四諦法門（sì dì fǎ mén，四聖諦的法門）的本體，才可以說是符合正理的。

『如何三轉者』，提問。

『三週轉故者』，解釋。

【English Translation】 English version Siyi (name of a person) then asked again about the three turnings and twelve aspects (sān zhuǎn shí èr xíng xiàng, Buddhist term referring to the three stages of understanding the Four Noble Truths and the twelve ways of observation).

'This Noble Truth of Suffering to what is said as such,' the answer is: 'This Noble Truth of Suffering' is to explain the Path of Seeing (jiàn dào, the stage of initial insight into the truth in Buddhist practice). 'This should be fully known' is to explain the Path of Cultivation (xiū dào, the stage of perfecting oneself through practice in Buddhism). 'This has been fully known' is to explain the Path of No More Learning (wú xué dào, the stage of complete enlightenment where no further learning is needed). This is called the three turnings. That is, in each turning, the eye (yǎn, here referring to the eye of wisdom), wisdom (zhì), clarity (míng), and awakening (jué) arise separately. This is called the twelve aspects. In the three stages, each stage observes the Truth of Suffering (kǔ dì, one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to the nature of suffering in life) with four aspects. Three times four forms the twelve aspects. Regarding the eye, wisdom, clarity, and awakening, it is said in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Póshā lùn, a Buddhist treatise), volume seventy-nine: 'Eye' refers to the forbearance of the wisdom of Dharma (fǎ zhì rěn, endurance of wisdom regarding the Dharma). 'Wisdom' refers to the wisdom of all Dharmas (zhū fǎ zhì, wisdom regarding all things). 'Clarity' refers to the forbearance of all categories (zhū lèi rěn, endurance regarding all categories). 'Awakening' refers to the wisdom of all categories (zhū lèi zhì, wisdom regarding all categories). Furthermore, 'eye' is the meaning of seeing, 'wisdom' is the meaning of decision, 'clarity' is the meaning of illumination, and 'awakening' is the meaning of vigilance. (The explanation says: The previous explanation is about the Path of Seeing, and the latter explanation applies to all three paths.) Such three turnings and twelve aspects exist in every Truth (dì, truth). It should be said that there are twelve turnings and forty-eight aspects. However, because the number of each Truth is equal, only the three turnings and twelve aspects are mentioned. Just like saying two dharmas, two refers to eye and form (sè, Buddhist term referring to material phenomena), and even consciousness (yì) and dharma (fǎ, Buddhist term referring to the laws of things), it should be said that there are twelve, but only two are mentioned because the numbers are equal. Just like the seven good places (qī chù shàn, Buddhist term), each of the five aggregates (wǔ yùn, Buddhist term referring to the five elements that constitute a person) has seven, it should be said that there are thirty-five, but only seven are mentioned because the numbers are equal. The three turnings and twelve aspects should be understood in the same way. Therefore, the three turnings, in order, the first turning reveals the Path of Seeing, the second turning reveals the Path of Cultivation, and the third turning reveals the Path of No More Learning. This is what the Vibhāṣā master (Pípóshā shī, the author or school of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) said.

'If so, the three turnings to the establishment of the name of the Dharma wheel,' the Sautrāntika school (Jīng bù, one of the Buddhist schools) raises a question, or the author of the treatise (lùn zhǔ, the author or authority of the treatise) raises a question: If it is said that the three turnings reveal the three paths, then the three turnings and twelve aspects not only apply to the Path of Seeing but also to the two paths of Cultivation and No More Learning. How can it be said that the name of the Dharma wheel (fǎ lún, the wheel of Dharma, symbolizing the propagation of the Dharma) is established only on the Path of Seeing?

'Therefore, only should to what is in accordance with right reason,' describes the explanation of the Sautrāntika school, or the author of the treatise elaborates on the correct explanation: Therefore, only and should, then all the teachings of these three turnings and twelve aspects, the essence of the Four Noble Truths (sì dì fǎ mén, the Dharma gate of the Four Noble Truths), can be said to be in accordance with right reason.

'How are the three turnings?' asks the question.

'Because of the three revolutions,' explains.

部答。或論主答。三週轉四諦故名為三轉。

如何具足十二行相者。問。

三週循歷至此已修習者。經部答。或論主答。三週循歷四聖諦故三四十二　言十二者。謂佛為說此是苦。此是集。此是滅。此是道。此說見道所證四諦。憍陳那等依佛所說能入見道。是名初轉四行相也。又佛為說此苦應遍知。此集應永斷。此滅應作證。此道應修習。此說修道所證四諦。憍陳那等依佛所說進入修道。是第二轉四行相也。又佛為說此苦已遍知。此集已永斷。此滅已作證。此道已修習。憍陳那等依佛所說入無學道。是第三轉四行相也。於十二中初四示相轉。中四勸學轉。后四引證轉。

云何名轉者。問。

由此法門至名已轉者。經部答。或論主答。由此三轉十二行相所有法門。往他相續身中令解義故。故名為轉。約教法輪名為轉也　或諸見．修．無學聖道皆是法輪。于所化生身中轉故。故名為轉。約聖道法轉名為輪也。于憍陳那他相續身見道生時。已至轉初故名已轉。理實三道皆名法輪。經云見道名法輪者。法輪初故從初立名不依餘二。故正理云。依他相續見道生時。已至轉初故名已轉。然唯見道是法輪初。故說法輪唯是見道。諸天神類即就最初言轉法輪不依二道(已上論文)　何沙門果至無厭及經故者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：部派的回答，或者論主的回答。因為圍繞四諦進行了三週的運轉，所以稱為三轉。

如何才能具足十二行相呢？（提問）

經部的回答，或者論主的回答。三週圍繞四聖諦執行，所以三乘以四等於十二。所說的十二行相是：佛陀宣說『這是苦（Dukkha）』，『這是集（Samudaya）』，『這是滅（Nirodha）』，『這是道（Marga）』。這是宣說見道所證悟的四諦。憍陳那（Kaundinya）等人依據佛陀所說，能夠進入見道。這稱為初轉四行相。佛陀又宣說『此苦應該遍知』，『此集應該永斷』，『此滅應該作證』，『此道應該修習』。這是宣說修道所證悟的四諦。憍陳那等人依據佛陀所說，進入修道。這是第二轉四行相。佛陀又宣說『此苦已經遍知』，『此集已經永斷』，『此滅已經作證』，『此道已經修習』。憍陳那等人依據佛陀所說，進入無學道。這是第三轉四行相。在這十二行相中，最初的四個是示相轉，中間的四個是勸學轉，最後的四個是引證轉。

什麼是『轉』呢？（提問）

經部的回答，或者論主的回答。由於這三轉十二行相的所有法門，能夠使其他眾生的相續身中理解其意義，所以稱為『轉』。這是就教法的法輪而言的『轉』。或者說，見道、修道、無學道這些聖道都是法輪，因為在所化度的眾生身中運轉，所以稱為『轉』。這是就聖道之法運轉而言的『輪』。在憍陳那其他相續身中見道生起時，已經到達『轉』的開始，所以稱為『已轉』。實際上，三種道都可以稱為法輪。經中說見道是法輪，是因為見道是法輪的開始，所以從最初的見道來立名，而不依據其餘兩種道。所以《正理》中說：『依據其他相續身中見道生起時，已經到達轉的開始，所以稱為已轉。』然而只有見道是法輪的開始，所以說法輪只是見道。諸天神類就最初的見道而言『轉法輪』，不依據修道和無學道（以上是論文）。什麼沙門果乃至無厭以及經呢？

【English Translation】 English version: The answer from the Vaibhashika school, or the answer from the author of the treatise. It is called the 'Three Turnings' because it revolves around the Four Noble Truths for three cycles.

How can one fully possess the twelve aspects? (Question)

The answer from the Sutra school, or the answer from the author of the treatise. The three cycles revolve around the Four Noble Truths, so three times four equals twelve. The twelve aspects are: the Buddha proclaimed, 'This is suffering (Dukkha),' 'This is the origin (Samudaya),' 'This is cessation (Nirodha),' 'This is the path (Marga).' This is proclaiming the Four Noble Truths as realized in the Path of Seeing. Kaundinya (Kaundinya) and others, based on what the Buddha said, were able to enter the Path of Seeing. This is called the first turning of the four aspects. The Buddha further proclaimed, 'This suffering should be fully understood,' 'This origin should be completely abandoned,' 'This cessation should be realized,' 'This path should be cultivated.' This is proclaiming the Four Noble Truths as realized in the Path of Cultivation. Kaundinya and others, based on what the Buddha said, entered the Path of Cultivation. This is the second turning of the four aspects. The Buddha further proclaimed, 'This suffering has been fully understood,' 'This origin has been completely abandoned,' 'This cessation has been realized,' 'This path has been cultivated.' Kaundinya and others, based on what the Buddha said, entered the Path of No More Learning. This is the third turning of the four aspects. Among these twelve aspects, the first four are the turning of showing the aspects, the middle four are the turning of encouraging learning, and the last four are the turning of providing evidence.

What is meant by 'Turning'? (Question)

The answer from the Sutra school, or the answer from the author of the treatise. Because all the teachings of these three turnings and twelve aspects can enable others' mind-streams to understand their meaning, it is called 'Turning.' This 'Turning' refers to the Dharma wheel of teachings. Alternatively, the holy paths of Seeing, Cultivation, and No More Learning are all Dharma wheels, because they turn within the beings to be transformed, so it is called 'Turning.' This 'Wheel' refers to the turning of the Dharma of the holy path. When the Path of Seeing arises in Kaundinya's mind-stream, it has reached the beginning of the 'Turning,' so it is called 'Turned.' In reality, all three paths can be called Dharma wheels. The Sutra says that the Path of Seeing is the Dharma wheel because the Path of Seeing is the beginning of the Dharma wheel, so the name is established from the beginning and does not rely on the other two paths. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha says: 'Based on the arising of the Path of Seeing in another's mind-stream, it has reached the beginning of the turning, so it is called 'Turned'.' However, only the Path of Seeing is the beginning of the Dharma wheel, so the Dharma wheel is said to be only the Path of Seeing. The gods and deities refer to the 'Turning the Dharma wheel' in terms of the initial Path of Seeing, not relying on the Paths of Cultivation and No More Learning (the above is from the treatise). What is the fruit of the Shramana, up to no weariness and the Sutra?

此即第五沙門果依身。問。何沙門果依何界身得。上句正答。下三句釋所以。

論曰至依三界身者。釋第一句。於四果中。前三但依欲界身得。得阿羅漢通依三界身也。

前之二果至非依上得者。此下釋后三句問。前之二果預流．一來未離欲故。非依上界身得。理且可然。第三不還云何非依上界身得。已離欲者亦可得故。

由理教故者。答。

且理云何者。問。

依上界身至不還果義者。答。依上二界身無見道故。非離見道已離欲者。可有超證不還果義。所以不還非依上得。

何緣上界必無見道者。問。

且無色中至能得見道者。答。且無色中無正聞故。離聞正教必定無容入見道故。此釋無聞。又身生彼無色界中不緣下故。見道先緣欲界苦故。此釋無緣下。由此無色非見道依。色界。異生著勝定樂。又無苦受不生勝厭。故非無有勝厭。能得見道。此釋無厭。故依色界身不起見道。

教復云何者。問。

由經說故至上界定無者。答。由經說故經言有五補特伽羅此欲界處通達四諦。彼上界處究竟漏盡。所謂中般乃至上流。此通達言唯目見道。是證涅槃初加行故。經既不言彼處通達。由此見道上界定無。

俱舍論記卷第二十四

長承四年四月十二日于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這就是第五種沙門果，取決於身體。問：哪種沙門果取決於哪個界的身才能獲得？上面一句是正面回答，下面三句解釋原因。

論中說：『取決於三界的身』，這是解釋第一句。在四種果位中，前三種只能取決於欲界的身才能獲得。獲得阿羅漢果可以取決於三界的身。

『之前的二果…非取決於上界獲得』，這下面解釋后三句。問：之前的二果，即預流果（Srotapanna，入流者）和一來果（Sakrdagamin，一來者），因為沒有脫離慾望，所以不能取決於上界的身獲得，這個道理還說得過去。但是第三果，不還果（Anagamin，不還者），為什麼不能取決於上界的身獲得呢？因為已經脫離慾望的人也可以獲得啊。

『由於理和教的原因』，答。

『且理是什麼』，問。

『取決於上界的身…不還果的意義』，答：取決於上二界的身沒有見道（Darshana-marga，見道）的緣故，沒有脫離見道就已經脫離慾望的人，可能有超越證得不還果的意義。所以不還果不是取決於上界獲得的。

『什麼原因導致上界一定沒有見道呢』，問。

『且在無色界中…能獲得見道』，答：且在無色界中沒有正確的聽聞，因為離開了聽聞正確的教法，必定沒有辦法進入見道。這是解釋沒有聽聞。又因為身體生在那裡，在無色界中不緣于地獄，見道首先緣于欲界的苦。這是解釋沒有緣于地獄。因此無色界不是見道的所依。**。異生（Prthag-jana，凡夫）執著于殊勝的禪定之樂，又沒有苦受，不產生殊勝的厭離。所以沒有殊勝的厭離，就不能獲得見道。這是解釋沒有厭離。所以在無色界的身中，不會生起見道。

『教又是什麼呢』，問。

『由於經書所說…上界一定沒有』，答：由於經書所說，經書上說有五種補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅），在這個欲界之處通達四諦（Satya，諦），在那個上界之處究竟漏盡（Asrava-ksaya，漏盡），所謂中般（Antara-parinirvayin，中般涅槃者）乃至上流（Urdhvasrotas，上流者）。這個『通達』一詞，僅僅指見道，是證得涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）最初的加行。經書既然沒有說那個地方通達，因此見道在上界一定沒有。

俱舍論記卷第二十四

長承四年四月十二日于

【English Translation】 English version: This is the fifth Śrāmaṇa-phala (fruit of asceticism), dependent on the body. Question: Which Śrāmaṇa-phala is obtained depending on which realm's body? The sentence above is a direct answer, and the three sentences below explain the reason.

The treatise says: 'Dependent on the bodies of the three realms,' this explains the first sentence. Among the four fruits, the first three can only be obtained depending on the body of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu). Obtaining Arhatship (Arhat) can depend on the bodies of the three realms.

'The previous two fruits... are not obtained depending on the upper realms,' this below explains the latter three sentences. Question: The previous two fruits, namely Srotapanna (stream-enterer) and Sakrdagamin (once-returner), because they have not detached from desire, cannot be obtained depending on the body of the upper realms, this reason is acceptable. But the third fruit, Anagamin (non-returner), why can't it be obtained depending on the body of the upper realms? Because those who have already detached from desire can also obtain it.

'Due to reasons of both principle and teaching,' Answer.

'And what is the principle?' Question.

'Depending on the body of the upper realms... the meaning of Anagamin fruit,' Answer: Because there is no Darshana-marga (path of seeing) depending on the bodies of the upper two realms, those who have not detached from the path of seeing but have already detached from desire may have the meaning of transcending to attain the Anagamin fruit. Therefore, the Anagamin fruit is not obtained depending on the upper realms.

'What reason leads to the certainty that there is no path of seeing in the upper realms?' Question.

'And in the formless realm... can obtain the path of seeing,' Answer: And in the formless realm, there is no correct hearing, because without hearing the correct teachings, there is definitely no way to enter the path of seeing. This explains the absence of hearing. Also, because the body is born there, in the formless realm, it does not relate to the lower realm, and the path of seeing first relates to the suffering of the desire realm. This explains the absence of relating to the lower realm. Therefore, the formless realm is not the basis of the path of seeing. **. Ordinary beings (Prthag-jana) are attached to the supreme bliss of meditation, and there is no suffering, so they do not generate supreme renunciation. Therefore, without supreme renunciation, one cannot obtain the path of seeing. This explains the absence of renunciation. Therefore, in the body of the formless realm, the path of seeing does not arise.

'What is the teaching?' Question.

'Due to what the scriptures say... there is certainly none in the upper realms,' Answer: Due to what the scriptures say, the scriptures say that there are five types of Pudgala (individuals), who in this desire realm penetrate the four Satyas (truths), and in that upper realm, they ultimately exhaust the outflows (Asrava-ksaya), namely Antara-parinirvayin (one who attains Nirvana in the intermediate state) and Urdhvasrotas (one who goes upstream). The word 'penetrate' only refers to the path of seeing, which is the initial practice for attaining Nirvana. Since the scriptures do not say that they penetrate in that place, therefore, the path of seeing certainly does not exist in the upper realms.

Kosa Commentary, Volume 24

On the 12th day of the fourth month of Chōshō 4 (1017)

大道寺切句了

病中相扶畢功　　　　　　　覺樹大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十五

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之四

如前所說至有差別不者。此下第五明六種種姓。就中。一明六阿羅漢。二明六姓先後。三明從姓．果退。四明學．凡種姓。五明三退不同。六明退果時相。七明練根不同。八明無學九人　此即第一明六阿羅漢。牒前問起。

亦有者。答。

云何者徴。

頌曰至從前見至生者。頌答。

論曰至六不動法者。釋初兩句。舉數列名。又正理六十七云。然余經說。無學有九。謂初退法。后俱解脫。彼不退法此不動攝。彼二解脫通此六攝。故阿毗達磨唯說有六種(已上論文)　於此六中至方入定故者。釋第三．第四句。於此六種姓中前之五種。從先學位鈍根種姓信解姓生。即此五種總說名為時愛心解脫。恒時愛護所證得法故名時愛及心解脫煩惱縛故名心解脫。具斯二義名時愛心解脫。有學鈍根雖恒時愛護。而心不解脫。無學利根雖心解脫。而非恒時愛護。各闕一義不名時愛心解脫也。此時愛心解脫。亦說名為時解脫者。以要待時方能入定。及能解脫煩惱縛故。具此二義名時解脫。有學鈍根雖要待時。而非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：大道寺切句了

病中相扶畢功覺樹大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十五

沙門釋光述

分別賢聖品第六之四

如前所說至有差別不者。此下第五明六種種姓。就中。一明六阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的修行者）。二明六姓先後。三明從姓．果退。四明學．凡種姓。五明三退不同。六明退果時相。七明練根不同。八明無學九人此即第一明六阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的修行者）。牒前問起。

亦有者。答。

云何者徴。

頌曰至從前見至生者。頌答。

論曰至六不動法者。釋初兩句。舉數列名。又正理六十七云。然余經說。無學有九。謂初退法。后俱解脫。彼不退法此不動攝。彼二解脫通此六攝。故阿毗達磨唯說有六種(已上論文) 於此六中至方入定故者。釋第三．第四句。於此六種姓中前之五種。從先學位鈍根種姓信解姓生。即此五種總說名為時愛心解脫。恒時愛護所證得法故名時愛及心解脫煩惱縛故名心解脫。具斯二義名時愛心解脫。有學鈍根雖恒時愛護。而心不解脫。無學利根雖心解脫。而非恒時愛護。各闕一義不名時愛心解脫也。此時愛心解脫。亦說名為時解脫者。以要待時方能入定。及能解脫煩惱縛故。具此二義名時解脫。有學鈍根雖要待時。而非

【English Translation】 English version: Daidoji cut sentence.

Supporting each other in sickness completes the merit. - Kakuju Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma)

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 25

Commentary by Śramaṇa釋光 (Shigong)

Chapter Six, Section Four: Distinguishing the Wise and the Saints

As previously stated, 'up to whether there are differences or not.' Below, the fifth section explains the six types of lineages. Among them: 1. Explaining the six Arhats (those who have attained Nirvana). 2. Explaining the order of the six lineages. 3. Explaining regression from lineage and fruition. 4. Explaining the lineages of learners and ordinary beings. 5. Explaining the differences in the three types of regression. 6. Explaining the timing of regression from fruition. 7. Explaining the differences in training faculties. 8. Explaining the nine types of non-learners. This is the first section, explaining the six Arhats (those who have attained Nirvana), based on the previous question.

'Also exists?' Answer.

'How?' Inquiry.

The verse says, 'From previous views to birth.' Verse answer.

The treatise says, 'Up to the six immovable dharmas.' Explaining the first two lines, listing the names in order. Also, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra 67 says, 'However, other sutras say that there are nine types of non-learners, namely, the initial regressing dharma and the subsequent both-liberated. Their non-regressing dharma is included in this immovable. Their two liberations encompass these six. Therefore, the Abhidharma only speaks of six types (end of the text).' Among these six, 'up to the point of entering samadhi.' Explaining the third and fourth lines. Among these six lineages, the first five arise from the faith-understanding lineage of dull-rooted learners in previous stages. These five types are collectively called 'time-loving mind-liberation.' Constantly cherishing the dharma attained is called 'time-loving,' and liberating from the bonds of afflictions is called 'mind-liberation.' Possessing these two meanings is called 'time-loving mind-liberation.' Although dull-rooted learners constantly cherish the dharma, their minds are not liberated. Although sharp-rooted non-learners' minds are liberated, they do not constantly cherish the dharma. Lacking either meaning, they are not called 'time-loving mind-liberation.' This 'time-loving mind-liberation' is also called 'time-liberation' because it requires waiting for the right time to enter samadhi and to liberate from the bonds of afflictions. Possessing these two meanings is called 'time-liberation.' Although dull-rooted learners need to wait for the right time, they are not...

解脫。無學利根雖復解脫。非要待時。各闕一義不名時解脫者。具足應言待時解脫。略初待言但說時解脫。如言蘇瓶。具足應言盛蘇瓶。略初盛字但言蘇瓶。由此鈍根要待勝時方能入定。言勝時者謂待資具。資具有三一好衣．二好食．三好臥具。無病。處即是好處　等。謂等取得好說法。及得好人。如是六種勝緣合時方能入定故故婆沙一百一云。時雖有多略有六種。一得好衣時。二得好食時。三得好臥具時。四得好處所時。五得好說法時。六得好補特伽羅時(如彼廣說)　不動法姓至見至姓生者。釋后兩句。六種姓中不動法姓說名為后。即此名為不動心解脫。不為煩惱所退動故。及心解脫煩惱縛故。具斯二義名不動心解脫。有學利根雖無退動。而心不解脫。無學鈍根雖心解脫。而有退動。各闕一義不名不動心解脫。亦說名為不時解脫。以不待時能入定故。及能解脫煩惱縛故。具斯二義名不時解脫。有學利根雖不待時。而非解脫。無學鈍根雖復解脫。非不待時。各闕一義。不名不時解脫　言不待時者。謂三摩地隨欲現前。不待前說六種勝緣和合時故。又更釋云。或依暫時解脫故建立時解脫名。容有退墮時故。依畢竟解．脫故建立不時解脫名。無退墮時故。此不動姓從先學位見至姓生。若依婆沙釋心解脫心解脫以勝解為體

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本解脫。無學利根（已經證得阿羅漢果位，且根器敏銳者）雖然已經解脫，但並非不需要等待時機。各自缺少一個條件，不能稱為『時解脫』。完整地說，應該稱為『待時解脫』。省略了『待』字，所以只說『時解脫』。例如說『蘇瓶』，完整地說應該是『盛蘇的瓶子』，省略了『盛』字，所以只說『蘇瓶』。因此，鈍根（根器遲鈍者）需要等待殊勝的時機才能入定。所謂的殊勝時機，是指等待資具。資具有三種：一、好的衣服；二、好的食物；三、好的臥具。沒有疾病，所處的地點是好的地方等等。『等』是指得到好的說法，以及遇到好的人。像這樣六種殊勝的因緣聚合時，才能入定。所以《婆沙論》第一百一卷說，時機雖然有很多種，但略而言之有六種：一、得到好衣服的時機；二、得到好食物的時機；三、得到好臥具的時機；四、得到好的處所的時機；五、得到好的說法的時機；六、遇到好的補特伽羅（人）的時機（如彼處廣說）。『不動法姓』到『見至姓』的產生。解釋后兩句。六種姓中，『不動法姓』被稱為『后』，也就是『不動心解脫』。因為不被煩惱所動搖，以及心從煩惱的束縛中解脫。具備這兩種含義，稱為『不動心解脫』。有學利根（還在學習階段，但根器敏銳者）雖然沒有退動，但心沒有解脫。無學鈍根（已經證得阿羅漢果位，但根器遲鈍者）雖然心已解脫，但有退動。各自缺少一個條件，不能稱為『不動心解脫』。也可以稱為『不時解脫』，因為不需要等待時機就能入定，以及能夠解脫煩惱的束縛。具備這兩種含義，稱為『不時解脫』。有學利根雖然不需要等待時機，但並非已經解脫。無學鈍根雖然已經解脫，但並非不需要等待時機。各自缺少一個條件，不能稱為『不時解脫』。所謂『不待時』，是指三摩地（禪定）隨心所欲地顯現，不需要等待前面所說的六種殊勝因緣和合的時機。又進一步解釋說，或者依據暫時的解脫，所以建立『時解脫』的名稱，因為容許有退墮的時候。依據畢竟解脫，所以建立『不時解脫』的名稱，因為沒有退墮的時候。這『不動姓』從先前的學位『見至姓』產生。如果依據《婆沙論》解釋，心解脫以勝解為體。

【English Translation】 English version Liberation. Although those Ārhats (those who have attained the state of Arhatship) with sharp faculties are liberated, they still need to wait for the right time. Lacking one of the conditions, they cannot be called 'liberated at the right time'. To be complete, it should be called 'liberation dependent on time'. The word 'dependent' is omitted, so it is only called 'liberation at the right time'. For example, saying 'butter pot', to be complete, it should be 'pot for holding butter'. The word 'holding' is omitted, so it is only called 'butter pot'. Therefore, those with dull faculties need to wait for a superior time to enter samādhi (meditative absorption). The so-called superior time refers to waiting for resources. There are three kinds of resources: 1. good clothes; 2. good food; 3. good bedding. Being free from illness and being in a good place, etc. 'Etc.' refers to obtaining good teachings and meeting good people. Only when these six kinds of superior conditions come together can one enter samādhi. Therefore, the one hundred and first volume of the Vibhasa says that although there are many kinds of times, there are six kinds in brief: 1. the time to obtain good clothes; 2. the time to obtain good food; 3. the time to obtain good bedding; 4. the time to obtain a good place; 5. the time to obtain good teachings; 6. the time to meet a good pudgala (person) (as explained in detail there). The arising of 'immovable Dharma lineage' to 'seen-to lineage'. Explaining the latter two sentences. Among the six lineages, 'immovable Dharma lineage' is called 'later', which is 'immovable mind liberation'. Because it is not moved by afflictions, and the mind is liberated from the bonds of afflictions. Possessing these two meanings is called 'immovable mind liberation'. Those with sharp faculties who are still learning (those still in the learning stage) are not moved, but their minds are not liberated. Those Ārhats with dull faculties, although their minds are liberated, are subject to being moved. Lacking one of the conditions, they cannot be called 'immovable mind liberation'. It can also be called 'liberation not dependent on time', because one can enter samādhi without waiting for the right time, and can liberate oneself from the bonds of afflictions. Possessing these two meanings is called 'liberation not dependent on time'. Those with sharp faculties who are still learning, although they do not need to wait for the right time, are not yet liberated. Those Ārhats with dull faculties, although they are liberated, still need to wait for the right time. Lacking one of the conditions, they cannot be called 'liberation not dependent on time'. The so-called 'not dependent on time' refers to samādhi manifesting at will, without waiting for the six kinds of superior conditions mentioned earlier to come together. It is further explained that 'liberation at the right time' is established based on temporary liberation, because there is the possibility of falling back. 'Liberation not dependent on time' is established based on ultimate liberation, because there is no time for falling back. This 'immovable lineage' arises from the previous stage of learning, the 'seen-to lineage'. According to the Vibhasa, mind liberation has superior understanding as its essence.

。故婆沙一百一云。云何時愛心解脫。答時解脫阿羅漢盡智．或無學正見相應心。勝解．已勝解．當勝解。云何不動心解脫。答不動法阿羅漢盡智．無生智．或無學正見相應心。勝解．已勝解．當勝解。此中盡．無生智．無學正見相應心者。簡別有學及有漏心。勝解者謂現在。已勝解者謂過去。當勝解者謂未來。此即簡異無為解脫。顯二解脫唯以無學無漏心相應勝解為自性。

如是所明至為後方得者。此下第二明種姓先後問。無學六姓為是學位先有。為后無學方得。不定者。答。

云何者徴。

頌曰至有後練根得者。頌答。

論曰至隨應當說者。正釋頌文。無學位中。退法種姓必是學位先有。思法等五亦有至后無學方得。謂有先來學位是思法姓。后至無學亦是思法種姓。或有先學位是退法姓。后至無學位練根成思。如思既爾。乃至不動隨應當說。

言退法者至彼必無退者。別釋六姓差別不同　言退法者。謂遇少緣便退所得。非思法等遇少緣退　言思法者謂懼退失所獲功德。以刀扣頭恒思自害。

言護法者。謂于所得恐退失故喜自防護　安住法者。離勝退緣雖不自防。亦能不退。離勝加行亦不增進。多住自位故名安住　堪達法者。彼性堪能好修練根速達不動　不動法者。不退動故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，《婆沙論》第一百一卷說：『何時是愛心解脫？』回答：『是時解脫阿羅漢（Arhat，已斷除所有煩惱，達到涅槃的聖者）的盡智（知道煩惱已盡的智慧），或與無學正見（聖者所具有的正確見解）相應的心。勝解（深刻的理解），已勝解，當勝解。』『什麼是不動心解脫？』回答：『是不動法阿羅漢的盡智、無生智（知道不再輪迴的智慧），或與無學正見相應的心。勝解，已勝解，當勝解。』這裡，盡智、無生智、與無學正見相應的心，是爲了區別有學（還在學習階段的聖者）和有漏心（受煩惱影響的心）。勝解是指現在，已勝解是指過去，當勝解是指未來。這便是爲了區別無為解脫（不依賴任何條件而獲得的解脫）。顯示這兩種解脫僅僅以無學無漏心（聖者無煩惱的心）相應的勝解為自性。

像這樣所闡明的『至於後方得者』，以下第二部分闡明種姓（根性）的先後問題。無學六姓（六種不同根性的阿羅漢）是在學習階段就已具有，還是在成為無學之後才獲得的？不確定。回答。

『云何者』是提問。

『頌曰』到『有後練根得者』是偈頌回答。

『論曰』到『隨應當說者』是正式解釋偈頌的文義。在無學位中，退法種姓（容易退失已得成就的根性）必定是在學習階段就已具有的。思法（通過思考才能進步的根性）等五種根性也有在成為無學之後才獲得的。例如，有的人先前在學習階段是思法種姓，後來成為無學時仍然是思法種姓。或者有的人先前在學習階段是退法種姓，後來成為無學時通過修練根性而成為思法。像思法這樣，乃至不動法（不會退轉的根性）也應當根據情況分別說明。

『言退法者』到『彼必無退者』是分別解釋六種根性的差別不同。『言退法者』，是指遇到微小的因緣就會退失已獲得的成就。而思法等根性即使遇到微小的因緣也不會退失。『言思法者』，是指害怕退失所獲得的功德，因此經常用刀敲打頭部，總是想著自我傷害。

『言護法者』，是指對於所獲得的成就，因為害怕退失而喜歡自我防護。『安住法者』，是指遠離了導致退轉的因緣，雖然不自我防護，也能不退失。遠離了增進的努力，也不會增進，大多安住在自己的位置，所以叫做安住。『堪達法者』，是指他的根性堪能很好地修練，迅速達到不動法。『不動法者』，是不會退轉動搖的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) Volume 101 says: 'When is the liberation of loving-kindness?' The answer is: 'It is the Arhat (阿羅漢, one who has eradicated all defilements and attained Nirvana) of samayavimutta (時解脫, liberation in due time) who possesses the ksaya-jnana (盡智, the wisdom of knowing the end of afflictions), or the mind that corresponds to the asaiksha-samyagdrsti (無學正見, the right view of a saint who has completed their training). Adhimukti (勝解, profound understanding), already adhimukti, and about to adhimukti.' 'What is the liberation of the unmoving mind?' The answer is: 'It is the Arhat of akopyadharma (不動法, the unshakeable dharma) who possesses the ksaya-jnana, anutpada-jnana (無生智, the wisdom of knowing no more rebirth), or the mind that corresponds to the asaiksha-samyagdrsti. Adhimukti, already adhimukti, and about to adhimukti.' Here, the ksaya-jnana, anutpada-jnana, and the mind corresponding to the asaiksha-samyagdrsti are to distinguish the saiksha (有學, those still in training) and the sasrava-citta (有漏心, mind influenced by afflictions). Adhimukti refers to the present, already adhimukti refers to the past, and about to adhimukti refers to the future. This is to distinguish asamskrta-vimoksha (無為解脫, unconditioned liberation). It shows that these two liberations only take the asaiksha-anasrava-citta (無學無漏心, the undefiled mind of a saint who has completed their training) corresponding to adhimukti as their nature.

As explained above, regarding 'those who attain it later,' the second part below clarifies the question of the order of gotra (種姓, lineage or nature). Do the six asaiksha-gotras (無學六姓, six types of Arhats with different natures) exist prior to the stage of learning, or are they attained only after becoming asaiksha? It is uncertain. The answer is:

'What' (云何者) is the question.

'The verse says' (頌曰) to 'some attain it through later cultivation' (有後練根得者) is the verse's answer.

'The treatise says' (論曰) to 'should be explained accordingly' (隨應當說者) is the formal explanation of the verse's meaning. In the stage of asaiksha, the parahanadharma-gotra (退法種姓, the nature of easily regressing) must exist prior to the stage of learning. The five sravanadharma (思法, progressing through thinking) and others can also be attained after becoming asaiksha. For example, some initially have the sravanadharma-gotra in the stage of learning, and remain the sravanadharma-gotra after becoming asaiksha. Or some initially have the parahanadharma-gotra in the stage of learning, and later, through cultivating their roots, become sravanadharma after becoming asaiksha. Just as with sravanadharma, so too with akopyadharma (不動法, the unshakeable dharma), it should be explained accordingly.

'Speaking of parahanadharma' (言退法者) to 'they will never regress' (彼必無退者) separately explains the differences among the six gotras. 'Speaking of parahanadharma', it refers to those who regress from their attainments due to minor causes. The sravanadharma and others do not regress even when encountering minor causes. 'Speaking of sravanadharma', it refers to those who fear losing their attained merits, so they constantly strike their heads with a knife, always thinking of harming themselves.

'Speaking of samrakshanadharma' (護法者), it refers to those who cherish and protect their attainments for fear of losing them. 'Sthitadharma' (安住法者) refers to those who, being far from the causes of regression, do not protect themselves, yet do not regress. Being far from the efforts of advancement, they also do not advance, mostly abiding in their own position, hence the name sthitadharma. 'Bhedanadharma' (堪達法者) refers to those whose nature is capable of cultivating their roots well, quickly attaining akopyadharma. 'Akopyadharma' refers to those who do not regress or waver.

彼必無退。

此六種姓至具二加行者。又釋六姓差別不同　恒時。謂長時修　尊重。謂起時猛利尊勝殷重。初二闕二。后二具二。由根異故。余文可知。

退法種姓至通三界皆有者。別釋立名。六種姓中前之五種。但約容有建立此名。故六阿羅漢通三界皆有。

若執退者至故唯有二者。敘異執破。若執前五必退等者。于欲界中可具六種。于上二界應唯有二安住．不動無餘四種。彼無退失故無退種姓。彼無自害故無思種姓。彼無自防故無護種姓。彼無練根故無堪達種姓。故唯有二。

如是六種至五從果非先者。此即第三明從姓．果退。問。如是六種阿羅漢中。誰從何退。為從姓退為從果退。問及頌答。

論曰至然並非先者。總標釋頌。六種姓中不動種姓。必無退姓及退果理。前之五種皆有退義。於前五中后思等四。皆有可從種姓退義。如從堪達等退至安住等。退法一種無退姓理。由此種姓最居下故更無退處。五種皆有從果退義。雖思等四俱有退姓及退果義。然並非先。所以不言先退法者。以先退法有退果義故。此文中雲並非先。不攝退法　或可。此文言並非先從多分說。理實退法先亦退果。

謂諸無學至容有退理者。此即別明姓退．不退。謂諸無學先學位中所住思等四種種姓。彼

【現代漢語翻譯】彼必無退。

此六種姓至具二加行者。又釋六姓差別不同　恒時。謂長時修　尊重。謂起時猛利尊勝殷重。初二闕二。后二具二。由根異故。余文可知。

退法種姓至通三界皆有者。別釋立名。六種姓中前之五種。但約容有建立此名。故六阿羅漢通三界皆有。

若執退者至故唯有二者。敘異執破。若執前五必退等者。于欲界中可具六種。于上二界應唯有二安住．不動無餘四種。彼無退失故無退種姓。彼無自害故無思種姓。彼無自防故無護種姓。彼無練根故無堪達種姓。故唯有二。

如是六種至五從果非先者。此即第三明從姓．果退。問。如是六種阿羅漢中。誰從何退。為從姓退為從果退。問及頌答。

論曰至然並非先者。總標釋頌。六種姓中不動種姓。必無退姓及退果理。前之五種皆有退義。於前五中后思等四。皆有可從種姓退義。如從堪達等退至安住等。退法一種無退姓理。由此種姓最居下故更無退處。五種皆有從果退義。雖思等四俱有退姓及退果義。然並非先。所以不言先退法者。以先退法有退果義故。此文中雲並非先。不攝退法　或可。此文言並非先從多分說。理實退法先亦退果。

謂諸無學至容有退理者。此即別明姓退．不退。謂諸無學先學位中所住思等四種種姓。彼

【English Translation】 He will certainly not regress.

These six lineages possess two kinds of additional practices. Furthermore, the differences among the six lineages are explained: 'Constantly' means practicing for a long time; 'Respectfully' means being vigorous, reverent, and earnest when arising. The first two lack both, while the latter two possess both, due to differences in their roots. The remaining text can be understood accordingly.

The Regressive Lineage extends to all three realms. This separately explains the establishment of the names. Among the six lineages, the first five are named based on the possibility of regression. Therefore, the six Arhats exist in all three realms.

If one insists on regression, then there are only two. This narrates and refutes different views. If one insists that the first five necessarily regress, then in the Desire Realm (欲界) all six types can exist. In the upper two realms (色界 and 無色界), there should only be two: the Abiding (安住) and Non-Regressing (不動), lacking the other four. Because they do not regress, there is no Regressive Lineage. Because they do not harm themselves, there is no Reflective Lineage. Because they do not protect themselves, there is no Protective Lineage. Because they do not refine their roots, there is no Capable Lineage. Therefore, there are only two.

These six types regress from the result, not the cause. This is the third point, clarifying regression from lineage and result. Question: Among these six types of Arhats, who regresses from what? Do they regress from lineage or from result? This is the question and the verse's answer.

The treatise says: 'But not from the cause first.' This generally explains the verse. Among the six lineages, the Non-Regressing Lineage (不動種姓) certainly has no reason to regress in lineage or result. The first five all have the meaning of regression. Among the first five, the latter four—Reflective (思), Protective (護), etc.—all have the possibility of regressing from lineage, such as regressing from Capable (堪達) to Abiding (安住), etc. The Regressive Lineage (退法一種) has no reason to regress in lineage, because this lineage is the lowest and has nowhere further to regress. The five all have the meaning of regressing from the result. Although the Reflective (思) and the other three have both the meaning of regressing in lineage and result, it is 'not from the cause first.' The reason for not mentioning first regressing from the Dharma (退法) is that first regressing from the Dharma implies regressing from the result. The phrase 'not from the cause first' in this text does not include regressing from the Dharma, or perhaps it does. This text says 'not from the cause first' from a majority perspective. In reality, regressing from the Dharma also regresses from the result first.

That is, those non-learners have the possibility of regression. This specifically clarifies lineage regression and non-regression. That is, those non-learners who previously resided in the Reflective (思) and other four lineages during the stage of learning.

從此姓必無退理。以學．無學二道所成極堅牢故。若諸有學先凡位中所住思等四種種姓。彼從此姓亦無退理。以世．出世二道所成極堅牢故。文中正明無學。有學義便兼明。若住無學及住學位。從退種姓后修練根。所得思等四種種姓。彼從此姓容有退理。以此種姓非二道成不堅牢故。

二先位中至有退果義者。此即別明果退．不退。

言二先者。一學位先。二凡位先。謂諸無學先學位中。住思等四必亦無退此無學果。此姓二道所成堅故。若諸有學先凡位中住思等四。必亦無退此有學果。此姓二道所成堅故。唯先學位退法種姓。至無學位有退果義。唯先凡位退法種姓至後學位有退果義。于無學位及學位中。或有住退姓有退果義。退雖先得亦二道成。姓最劣故。是退法故。容有退果。或至無學及學位中。從退種姓后能修練根。得思等四亦容退果。以此種姓非二道成不堅牢故。雖于無學及學退果五姓不同。皆可說言唯先退法有退果義。準上退姓及退果義。應知定有二。先位中住思等姓。至后無學及學位中。從思等三修練根行得護等三皆容退姓。所轉護等進得學果亦有退果。故正理六十八云。彼從思等修練根行。轉得護等唯可退姓。轉所得姓進得學果亦有退義。由此種姓非二道成不堅牢故。

又亦無退至應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從此種姓必定沒有退轉的道理。因為由有學道和無學道兩種道所成就，極其堅牢的緣故。如果是有學之人，先前在凡夫位中所安住的隨信行、隨法行、信解、見至四種種姓（四種依根性、修行和證悟程度劃分的聖者型別）。他們從此種姓也沒有退轉的道理。因為由世間道和出世間道兩種道所成就，極其堅牢的緣故。文中正面闡明無學，有學的含義也便兼而明瞭。如果安住于無學果位以及安住于有學位，從退轉的種姓之後修習磨練根器，所得到的隨信行等四種種姓，他們從此種姓容許有退轉的道理。因為此種姓不是由兩種道所成就，不夠堅牢的緣故。

二、先前位中至有退果的含義：這是分別說明果位的退轉與不退轉。

所說的『二先』，一是學位先，二是凡位先。指那些無學之人，先前在學位中，安住于隨信行等四種姓，必定也不會退失這無學果位。因為此種姓由兩種道所成就，非常堅固的緣故。如果是有學之人，先前在凡夫位中安住于隨信行等四種姓，必定也不會退失這有學果位。因為此種姓由兩種道所成就，非常堅固的緣故。只有先前在學位中的退法種姓，到達無學位時才有退果的可能。只有先前在凡夫位中的退法種姓，到達後來的學位時才有退果的可能。在無學位以及學位中，或者有安住于退轉的種姓，有退果的可能。退轉雖然先前已經得到，也是由兩種道成就的，但因為種姓最差，是退法的緣故，容許有退果。或者到達無學以及學位中，從退轉的種姓之後能夠修習磨練根器，得到隨信行等四種姓，也容許退果。因為此種姓不是由兩種道成就，不夠堅牢的緣故。雖然在無學以及有學果位退轉的五種姓不同，都可以說只有先前退法的有退果的含義。參照上面的退轉種姓以及退轉果位的含義，應當知道決定有二。先前位中安住于隨信行等種姓，到達後來的無學以及學位中，從隨信行等三種修習磨練根行得到信勝解等三種，都容許退轉種姓。所轉變的信勝解等，進一步得到有學果位，也有退果的可能。所以《正理》第六十八卷說，他們從隨信行等修習磨練根行，轉變得到信勝解等，只有可能是退轉的種姓。轉變所得到的種姓，進一步得到有學果位，也有退轉的含義。因為由此種姓不是由兩種道成就，不夠堅牢的緣故。

又，也沒有退轉到應...

【English Translation】 English version: From this lineage, there is certainly no reason for regression, because it is extremely firm, being accomplished by both the paths of the 'with-learning' (有學, youxue, those still in training) and 'without-learning' (無學, wuxue, those who have completed training). If those 'with-learning' previously dwelt in the four lineages of 'follower of faith' (隨信行, suixinxing), 'follower of dharma' (隨法行, suifaxing), 'faith-liberated' (信解, xinjie), and 'attained-to-vision' (見至, jianzhe) in the ordinary position (凡位, fanwei), they also have no reason to regress from this lineage, because it is extremely firm, being accomplished by both the mundane and supramundane paths. The text explicitly clarifies the 'without-learning', and the meaning of 'with-learning' is also implicitly clarified. If one dwells in the fruit of 'without-learning' or in the stage of 'with-learning', and after regressing from the lineage, cultivates and refines the roots, obtaining the four lineages of 'follower of faith' etc., they may regress from this lineage, because this lineage is not accomplished by the two paths and is not firm.

Secondly, regarding the meaning of 'in the previous position, there is the meaning of regressing from the fruit': This separately clarifies the regression and non-regression from the fruit.

The 'two previous' refer to: first, the previous stage of learning; second, the previous ordinary position. It refers to those 'without-learning' who, previously in the stage of learning, dwelt in the four lineages of 'follower of faith' etc., and will certainly not regress from this fruit of 'without-learning', because this lineage is accomplished by the two paths and is very firm. If those 'with-learning' previously dwelt in the four lineages of 'follower of faith' etc. in the ordinary position, they will certainly not regress from this fruit of 'with-learning', because this lineage is accomplished by the two paths and is very firm. Only those of the 'lineage of regression' (退法種姓, tuifazhongxing) who were previously in the stage of learning may regress from the fruit upon reaching the stage of 'without-learning'. Only those of the 'lineage of regression' who were previously in the ordinary position may regress from the fruit upon reaching the later stage of learning. In the stage of 'without-learning' and the stage of learning, there may be those who dwell in the regressing lineage and have the meaning of regressing from the fruit. Although regression was previously attained, it is also accomplished by the two paths, but because the lineage is the worst, being of the 'regression dharma', it may regress from the fruit. Or, upon reaching the 'without-learning' and the stage of learning, one can cultivate and refine the roots after regressing from the lineage, obtaining the four lineages of 'follower of faith' etc., and may also regress from the fruit, because this lineage is not accomplished by the two paths and is not firm. Although the five lineages that regress from the fruit in the 'without-learning' and 'with-learning' are different, it can be said that only those who previously regressed from the dharma have the meaning of regressing from the fruit. Referring to the above meaning of regressing from the lineage and regressing from the fruit, it should be known that there are definitely two. Those who dwell in the lineages of 'follower of faith' etc. in the previous position, upon reaching the later 'without-learning' and the stage of learning, may regress from the lineage after cultivating and refining the roots from the three of 'follower of faith' etc. to obtain the three of 'faith-victorious understanding' (信勝解, xinshengjie) etc. The transformed 'faith-victorious understanding' etc., further obtaining the fruit of 'with-learning', may also regress from the fruit. Therefore, the sixty-eighth volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says, 'They cultivate and refine the roots from 'follower of faith' etc., transforming to obtain 'faith-victorious understanding' etc., and can only be of the regressing lineage. The lineage obtained by transformation, further obtaining the fruit of 'with-learning', also has the meaning of regression, because this lineage is not accomplished by the two paths and is not firm.'

Also, there is no regression to the state of...

是進非退者。就四果中明退果義。雖五種姓皆可退果。又亦無退先所得果。四果之中但先得者必定不退。若預流果得必先得。一來．不還超越證者亦是先得。后所得果容有退義。若以第一果為先。即以二．三．四果為后。若以第二果為先。即以三．四果為后。若以第三果為先。即以第四果為后。是故定無退預流果。以預流果必先得故。此中偏說。一來．不還以不定故。故不別舉。應知預流唯先非后。羅漢唯后非先。一來．不還俱通先．后。由此無退先得果義。退後果義。所以應果退法有三。一增進根。二退住學。三住自位而般涅槃。但言退住學位。不言退住異生。以此明知。非退初果。思法有四。三如前說。更加一種退住退姓。餘三如次。護法有五。四如前說。更加一種退住思姓。安住法有六。五如前說。更加一種退住護法姓。堪達法有七。六如前說。更加一種退住安住姓。思法等四退住學位時。還住先退姓非餘思等四。若異此者。先時學位是退種姓。今退住學思等四姓。得勝種姓故。應是進非退。

何緣定無退先果者者。此下明諸部諍論四果退不退。若依說一切有部。初果不退。后三果容退。如前具說。問何緣定無退先果者。

以見所斷至必無退理者。說一切有部答。以見所斷依無事故必無退理。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『是進非退者』，就四果（Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat，分別為預流果、一來果、不還果、阿羅漢果）中說明退果的意義。雖然五種姓（不確定具體指哪五種姓，此處指不同根性的眾生）都可以退果，但也沒有退轉先前所得果位的說法。四果之中，最先證得的果位必定不會退轉。如果證得預流果必定是最先證得的。一來果、不還果超越證得的也是最先證得的。之後證得的果位可能存在退轉的情況。如果以第一果為先，那麼第二、第三、第四果就是后。如果以第二果為先，那麼第三、第四果就是后。如果以第三果為先，那麼第四果就是后。因此，必定沒有退轉預流果的情況，因為預流果必定是最先證得的。這裡偏重說明一來果、不還果，因為它們具有不確定性，所以沒有單獨列舉。應該知道預流果只有先得，沒有後得。阿羅漢果只有后得，沒有先得。一來果、不還果則既有先得，也有後得。因此，沒有退轉先得果位的說法，只有退轉后得果位的說法。所以，應果（指阿羅漢果）的退法有三種：一是增進根器，二是退住于學地（指尚未證得阿羅漢果的修行階段），三是安住于自身果位而般涅槃。這裡只說退住于學位，沒有說退住于異生位（指凡夫位），由此可以明確知道，不會退轉到初果。思法有四種：前三種如前所述，再加上一種退住于退姓。其餘三種依次類推。護法有五種：前四種如前所述，再加上一種退住于思姓。安住法有六種：前五種如前所述，再加上一種退住于護法姓。堪達法有七種：前六種如前所述，再加上一種退住于安住姓。思法等四種退住于學位時，仍然安住于先前退轉的姓，而不是其他的思法等四種。如果不是這樣，先前在學位時就已經退轉了種姓，現在退住于學位的思法等四姓，因為獲得了更殊勝的種姓，所以應該是進步而不是退步。

『何緣定無退先果者』，這以下說明各部派對於四果是否會退轉的爭論。如果依據說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）的觀點，初果不會退轉，后三果可能退轉，如前文所詳細說明。問：為什麼必定沒有退轉先前果位的說法呢？

『以見所斷至必無退理者』，說一切有部回答說：因為見所斷（Dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的煩惱已經斷除，沒有再生的因緣，所以必定沒有退轉的道理。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Those who advance and do not regress' refers to explaining the meaning of regressing from the fruits in the context of the four fruits (Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat, respectively meaning Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner, and Arhat). Although the five lineages (uncertain which five lineages are specifically referred to here, indicating beings of different capacities) can all regress from the fruits, there is no concept of regressing from a previously attained fruit. Among the four fruits, the first fruit attained will definitely not regress. If the Stream-enterer fruit is attained, it must be the first attained. Those who attain the Once-returner and Non-returner fruits by skipping stages have also attained them first. The later attained fruits may have the possibility of regression. If the first fruit is considered the first, then the second, third, and fourth fruits are later. If the second fruit is considered the first, then the third and fourth fruits are later. If the third fruit is considered the first, then the fourth fruit is later. Therefore, there is definitely no regression from the Stream-enterer fruit, because the Stream-enterer fruit must be attained first. Here, the Once-returner and Non-returner are emphasized because they are uncertain, so they are not listed separately. It should be known that the Stream-enterer fruit is only first, not later. The Arhat fruit is only later, not first. The Once-returner and Non-returner fruits can be both first and later. Therefore, there is no concept of regressing from a previously attained fruit, only regressing from a later attained fruit. Therefore, there are three ways for an Arhat (應果) to regress: first, by increasing their capacity; second, by regressing and dwelling in the stage of learning (學地, referring to the stage of practice before attaining Arhatship); and third, by dwelling in their own fruit and entering Parinirvana. Here, it only speaks of regressing and dwelling in the stage of learning, not regressing and dwelling in the stage of an ordinary being (異生位, referring to the stage of a common person), from which it can be clearly known that there will be no regression to the first fruit. There are four types of 'thinking Dharma' (思法): the first three are as mentioned before, plus one type of regressing and dwelling in the regressed lineage. The remaining three are analogous. There are five types of 'protecting Dharma' (護法): the first four are as mentioned before, plus one type of regressing and dwelling in the 'thinking' lineage. There are six types of 'dwelling in Dharma' (安住法): the first five are as mentioned before, plus one type of regressing and dwelling in the 'protecting' lineage. There are seven types of 'capable Dharma' (堪達法): the first six are as mentioned before, plus one type of regressing and dwelling in the 'dwelling' lineage. When the four types of 'thinking Dharma' etc. regress and dwell in the stage of learning, they still dwell in the previously regressed lineage, not in the other four types of 'thinking Dharma' etc. If this were not the case, then the lineage would have already regressed during the previous stage of learning, and now the four lineages of 'thinking Dharma' etc. that regress and dwell in the stage of learning should be advancing rather than regressing because they have obtained a more superior lineage.

『What is the reason why there is definitely no regression from the first fruit?』 The following explains the disputes among various schools regarding whether the four fruits can regress or not. According to the Sarvastivada (說一切有部, one of the Buddhist schools) view, the first fruit does not regress, and the latter three fruits may regress, as detailed earlier. Question: What is the reason why there is definitely no regression from the first fruit?

『Because what is severed by seeing... there is definitely no reason for regression.』 The Sarvastivada replies: Because the afflictions severed by seeing (Dṛṣṭi-heya, 見所斷, afflictions severed through the path of seeing) have been eliminated and there is no cause for rebirth, there is definitely no reason for regression.

若爾應說此惑緣無者。難。既無我事應說緣無。

非此緣無至不如實緣者。通。非此我見緣于無法。諦為境故。然于諦境不如實緣。

諸煩惱中誰不如是者。徴。

雖皆如是至依有事惑者。釋有事無事差別不同　作者。謂能造作世間　受者。謂能受用世間。於此造作．受用之中得自在故。于可愛境起貪染著。于不可愛境起瞋憎背。於劣．等．勝境起慢高舉。於事不了故起無明。余文可了。

又見斷惑至依有事惑者。又解有無事差別不同。又見斷惑于諦理中。身見執我．我所。邊見執斷執常。邪見執無。等者等見取．戒禁取．無明．疑。此七皆迷諦理而起。非諦中有少我等事。見所斷中貪．瞋．慢三緣七而生。是故皆名依無事惑。相應無明如貪等說。修所斷惑於色等中謂好．丑等。非無少分好．丑等別。是故可名依有事惑。

又見斷惑至有失念退者。又解斷迷理惑所以不退。斷迷事惑所以容退。

或修斷惑至定無退義者。又解修惑非審慮生聖容退起。見惑由審慮生故聖不退　上來說一切有部明初得果不退義也。

經部師說至彼說應理者。此下經部明四果退．不退。論主意朋經部故言彼說應理。經部意說。預流．阿羅漢唯聖慧斷必無有退。一來．不還世俗道得亦容有退。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若有人說這種迷惑是緣于『無』（不存在的事物）而產生的，這是難以成立的。既然沒有『我』（ātman）及與『我』相關的事物，就不應該說是緣于『無』而產生迷惑。如果說這種緣『無』的迷惑，不如實地緣于『有』（存在的事物）而產生，這是可以解釋的。因為這種我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi）並非緣于完全不存在的事物，而是以真諦（satya）為境界。然而，對於真諦的境界，卻不能如實地認識。在各種煩惱（kleśa）中，哪些煩惱是不如實地緣于『有』而產生的呢？這是一個提問。雖然所有煩惱都如此，但以下要解釋依『有』事和依『無』事的迷惑之間的差別。『作者』（kāraka）指的是能夠造作世間事物者，『受者』（bhoktṛ）指的是能夠受用世間事物者。因為在這種造作和受用之中獲得了自在，所以對於可愛的境界會產生貪染執著，對於不可愛的境界會產生嗔恨背離，對於不如自己、與自己相等或勝過自己的境界會產生傲慢高舉，對於事物不瞭解而產生無明（avidyā）。其餘的文句可以自行理解。進一步解釋，見斷惑（darśana-heya）是依于『無』事而產生的迷惑，修斷惑（bhāvanā-heya）是依于『有』事而產生的迷惑。見斷惑在真諦的道理中，身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi）執著于『我』和『我所』（屬於我的事物），邊見（antagrāhika-dṛṣṭi）執著于斷見（uccheda-dṛṣṭi）和常見（śāśvata-dṛṣṭi），邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi）執著于『無』。『等』指的是見取（dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa）、戒禁取（śīla-vrata-parāmarśa）、無明、疑（vicikitsā）。這七種都是因為迷惑真諦的道理而產生的，真諦中並沒有絲毫『我』等事物。見所斷的煩惱中，貪（rāga）、嗔（dveṣa）、慢（māna）這三種是緣于上述七種邪見而產生的，所以都稱為依『無』事惑。與這些煩惱相應的無明，可以像貪等煩惱一樣解釋。修所斷的煩惱，對於色（rūpa）等事物，認為有好、丑等差別。並非完全沒有好、丑等差別，所以可以稱為依『有』事惑。進一步解釋，見斷惑不會退失，是因為斷除了迷惑真理的迷惑；修斷惑容易退失，是因為斷除了迷惑事相的迷惑。或者說，修斷惑並非經過審慮而產生的，所以聖者（ārya）有可能退失；見惑是經過審慮而產生的，所以聖者不會退失。以上是說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）說明初果（Srotaāpanna）不會退失的意義。經部師（Sautrāntika）說……他們所說的才合乎道理。以下是經部說明四果（Arhat）的退失與不退失。論主的意願是贊同經部的觀點，所以說他們所說的才合乎道理。經部的意思是說，預流果（Srotaāpanna）和阿羅漢果（Arhat）是唯有聖慧（ārya-prajñā）才能斷除煩惱，必定不會退失。一來果（Sakṛdāgāmin）和不還果（Anāgāmin）是通過世俗道（laukika-mārga）獲得的，所以有可能退失。

【English Translation】 English version If one should say that this delusion arises from 'non-existence' (abhāva), it is difficult to maintain. Since there is no 'self' (ātman) or anything related to 'self', it should not be said to arise from 'non-existence'. If it is said that this delusion arising from 'non-existence' is not as real as arising from 'existence' (bhāva), it can be explained. This view of self (ātma-dṛṣṭi) does not arise from something completely non-existent, but takes truth (satya) as its object. However, it does not truly perceive the realm of truth. Among all the afflictions (kleśa), which ones do not arise from 'existence' in this way? This is a question. Although all afflictions are like this, the difference between delusions based on 'existence' and those based on 'non-existence' will be explained below. 'Agent' (kāraka) refers to one who can create worldly things, and 'experiencer' (bhoktṛ) refers to one who can enjoy worldly things. Because one gains freedom in this creation and enjoyment, one develops attachment and clinging to pleasant objects, aversion and rejection to unpleasant objects, arrogance and pride towards objects inferior, equal, or superior to oneself, and ignorance (avidyā) due to not understanding things. The remaining sentences can be understood on their own. Furthermore, delusions to be abandoned by seeing (darśana-heya) arise from 'non-existence', while delusions to be abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya) arise from 'existence'. Among the truths, the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) clings to 'self' and 'what belongs to self' (mine), the extreme views (antagrāhika-dṛṣṭi) cling to annihilationism (uccheda-dṛṣṭi) and eternalism (śāśvata-dṛṣṭi), and wrong views (mithyā-dṛṣṭi) cling to 'non-existence'. 'Etc.' refers to views of holding to views (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), views of holding to precepts and vows (śīla-vrata-parāmarśa), ignorance, and doubt (vicikitsā). These seven all arise from being deluded about the truth, and there is not the slightest 'self' or anything like it in the truth. Among the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), and pride (māna) arise from the above seven wrong views, so they are all called delusions based on 'non-existence'. The ignorance associated with these afflictions can be explained like greed, etc. The afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation, regarding things like form (rūpa), consider them to be good, bad, etc. It is not that there is no difference between good and bad, so they can be called delusions based on 'existence'. Furthermore, the delusions to be abandoned by seeing do not regress because they have eliminated the delusions that obscure the truth; the delusions to be abandoned by cultivation are prone to regression because they have eliminated the delusions that obscure phenomena. Or, the delusions to be abandoned by cultivation do not arise from deliberation, so it is possible for a noble one (ārya) to regress; the delusions to be abandoned by seeing arise from deliberation, so a noble one does not regress. The above explains the meaning of the Sarvāstivāda school that the first fruit (Srotaāpanna) does not regress. The Sautrāntika school says... what they say is reasonable. The following is the Sautrāntika school explaining the regression and non-regression of the four fruits (Arhat). The intention of the author of the treatise is to agree with the views of the Sautrāntika school, so he says that what they say is reasonable. The meaning of the Sautrāntika school is that the Stream-enterer (Srotaāpanna) and the Arhat (Arhat) can only eliminate afflictions through noble wisdom (ārya-prajñā), and they will definitely not regress. The Once-returner (Sakṛdāgāmin) and the Non-returner (Anāgāmin) are attained through the mundane path (laukika-mārga), so it is possible for them to regress.

無漏道斷亦不退也。故正理六十八云。然經主意作如是言。阿羅漢果亦無有退。一來．不還世俗道得容有退義。引經證言聖慧斷惑名為實斷。初．后二果但由聖慧。斷惑而證故無退理。

云何知然者。問。

由教理故者。經部答。

如何由教者。徴問。

經言苾芻至非阿羅漢者。答。經云無漏聖慧斷惑名為實斷。阿羅漢果唯聖慧斷。既言實斷。明知不退。經誡有學應不放逸。恐學退故。非說阿羅漢應不放逸。明知不退。

雖有經言至現法樂住者。經部會釋經文雖有經言佛告慶喜。我說利養等亦障阿羅漢。雖有此言。而不說退阿羅漢果無漏諸法。但說退失現法樂住有漏諸定。

經言不動至從此退故者。經部引證。又經說言不為惑動。心解脫惑身中證得滅。我定說無因緣從此退故。不動即是阿羅漢果。故知不退。

若謂有退至故不名愛者。經部牒救通釋。若謂有退由經說有時愛解脫我許亦退。但應觀察彼之所退。為是應果無漏性耶。為是有漏靜慮等耶。我宗言退退有漏定。此時解脫據有漏定說。復釋名云。然彼根本四種靜慮．無色等持。鈍根之人要持勝時方現前故。解脫定障名時解脫。彼為獲得現法樂住。有善法欲數希現前故名為愛。有作是說。此有漏定。是彼貪愛所愛味處

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無漏道所斷的煩惱，是不會退轉的。所以《正理》第六十八卷中說：『經部的意圖是這樣說的，阿羅漢（Arhat，已斷盡一切煩惱，證得最高果位的人）的果位也是沒有退轉的。一來果（Sakrdagamin，斷除欲界思惑中的部分煩惱，需再次往返欲界一次）、不還果（Anagamin，斷除欲界所有思惑，不再返回欲界受生）的世俗道，才可能存在退轉的含義。』引用經典來證明，聖慧斷除煩惱稱為真實的斷除。初果（Srotapanna，斷除三界見惑，進入聖道之流）和阿羅漢果，都是由於聖慧斷除煩惱而證得，所以沒有退轉的道理。

『如何知道是這樣的呢？』問。

『由教證和理證的緣故。』經部回答。

『如何由教證呢？』提問。

『經典說，比丘（Bhikkhu，出家修行的男子）乃至不是阿羅漢。』回答。經典說，無漏的聖慧斷除煩惱，稱為真實的斷除。阿羅漢果唯有聖慧才能斷除。既然說是真實的斷除，明顯知道不會退轉。經典告誡有學之人應當不放逸，是恐怕有學之人退轉的緣故，不是說阿羅漢應當不放逸，明顯知道不會退轉。

『雖然有經典說乃至現法樂住。』經部會通解釋經文，雖然有經典說佛（Buddha，覺悟者）告訴慶喜（Ananda，阿難，佛陀的十大弟子之一）：『我說利養等也會障礙阿羅漢。』雖然有這樣的話，但不說退失阿羅漢果的無漏諸法，只是說退失現法樂住的有漏諸定。

『經典說不動乃至從此退轉的緣故。』經部引用證明。又經典說，不為煩惱所動，心解脫煩惱，身中證得滅，我一定說沒有因緣從此退轉的緣故。不動就是阿羅漢果，所以知道不會退轉。

『如果說有退轉乃至所以不名為愛。』經部解釋並救護，通達並解釋。如果說有退轉，由於經典說有時愛解脫，我承認也會退轉。但應當觀察他所退轉的，是應果的無漏自性呢？還是有漏的靜慮等呢？我宗認為退轉的是有漏定。此時的解脫，是根據有漏定說的。又解釋名稱說，然而那根本的四種靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）和無色等持（Samapatti，等至），鈍根的人要等到修持殊勝的時候才能顯現，所以解脫定障名為時解脫。他們爲了獲得現法樂住，有善法欲常常顯現的緣故，所以名為愛。有人這樣說，這種有漏定，是他們貪愛所愛味的地方。

【English Translation】 English version: The defilements severed by the undefiled path do not regress. Therefore, the sixty-eighth volume of the Nyāyānusāra states: 'The intention of the Sūtra Master is as follows: the fruit of an Arhat (one who has eradicated all defilements and attained the highest state) also does not regress. Only the mundane paths of a Sakrdagamin (Once-Returner, who has eliminated some defilements of the desire realm and needs to return to the desire realm once more) and an Anagamin (Non-Returner, who has eliminated all defilements of the desire realm and will not return to the desire realm) may have the meaning of regression.' Citing the Sūtra to prove it, it says that the wisdom of the noble ones severing defilements is called a real severance. The first fruit (Srotapanna, Stream-Enterer, who has eliminated the afflictions of views in the three realms and entered the stream of the holy path) and the fruit of an Arhat are attained only by the wisdom of the noble ones severing defilements, so there is no reason for regression.

'How is it known to be so?' Question.

'Because of scriptural and logical reasons.' The Sautrāntika replies.

'How is it due to scriptural reasons?' Question.

'The Sūtra says, 'Bhikkhus (monks, ordained male practitioners), even those who are not Arhats.' Answer. The Sūtra says that the undefiled wisdom of the noble ones severing defilements is called a real severance. The fruit of an Arhat can only be severed by the wisdom of the noble ones. Since it is said to be a real severance, it is clear that it does not regress. The Sūtra admonishes those who are still learning not to be negligent, for fear that they may regress, not that Arhats should not be negligent, which clearly shows that they do not regress.

'Although there is a Sūtra saying, '...to abide in the pleasure of the present life.'' The Sautrāntika explains the meaning of the Sūtra. Although there is a Sūtra saying that the Buddha (Enlightened One) told Ananda (one of the Buddha's ten principal disciples): 'I say that gains and offerings also obstruct Arhats,' although there are such words, it does not say that the undefiled dharmas of the fruit of an Arhat are lost, but only that the defiled samadhis (meditative stabilizations) of abiding in the pleasure of the present life are lost.

'The Sūtra says, 'Unmoved...because of regression from this.'' The Sautrāntika cites evidence. Also, the Sūtra says, 'Not moved by defilements, the mind is liberated from defilements, and the cessation is attained in the body. I certainly say that there is no cause for regression from this.' 'Unmoved' is the fruit of an Arhat, so it is known that it does not regress.

'If it is said that there is regression...therefore it is not called love.' The Sautrāntika explains and defends, understanding and explaining. If it is said that there is regression because the Sūtra says that sometimes love-liberation also regresses, I admit that it also regresses. But it should be observed whether what regresses is the undefiled nature of the fruit or the defiled dhyanas (meditative absorptions), etc. Our school believes that what regresses is the defiled samadhi. The liberation at this time is based on the defiled samadhi. Furthermore, explaining the name, it says that the four fundamental dhyanas and formless samapattis (attainments) can only appear when those of dull faculties cultivate at a superior time, so the liberation from the obstruction of samadhi is called 'liberation at a time.' Because they often manifest the desire for good dharmas in order to obtain the pleasure of abiding in the present life, it is called 'love.' Some say that this defiled samadhi is the place loved and savored by their craving.

故名為愛。釋時解脫如前應知。諸阿羅漢無漏果性解脫煩惱。於一切時恒隨逐故不應名時。既恒隨逐是即滿足。更不欣求故不名愛。

若應果性至如理應思者。經部反難。若言無漏應果體性。鈍根亦容有退失者。如何世尊但說所證有漏諸定現法樂住。有可退理。不說無漏。由此證知羅漢果性必是不動。不動決定不退動也。然由利養等擾亂過失故。有于所得現法樂住退失自在不成就故。此退自在謂諸鈍根。若諸利根于現法樂則無退失。故於所得現法樂住。有退故名第一退法。無退故名第六不退法。如是思等四種種姓如理應思。有退故名思法。無退故名第六不退法。如是乃至有退故名堪達法。無退故名第六不退法。第六亦名不動。經部但約有漏定邊明六種姓差別不同。若據無漏果性義邊。唯是不動無六差別。亦無有退　又解有退名第一退法。無退名第六不退法。思等四種如理應思。然皆容退現法樂住。有思名第二思法。無思名不思法即是第六。如是乃至有堪達名第五堪達法。無堪達名不堪達即是第六。

不退安住不動何別者。問。第六不退亦名不動第四安住三義相似何差別耶。

非練根得至三種差別者。經部答。不退是本性得。非由練根。若練根得名為不動。此二所起有漏功德殊勝等至遇緣不退。安住

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此稱之為『愛』（Ais）。關於『釋時解脫』，應如前文所述理解。諸位阿羅漢（Arahan），以其無漏的果性，從煩惱中解脫，因為這種解脫在任何時候都恒常伴隨，所以不應稱之為『時』。既然恒常伴隨，那就是滿足的，不再有任何欣求，因此不稱為『愛』。

如果應果的體性達到如理應思的程度，經部（Sutra School）會反駁說，如果說無漏的應果體性，鈍根之人也可能退失，那麼世尊（Buddha）為什麼只說所證的有漏諸定（Dhyana）是『現法樂住』（visible-fruitful abiding），有退失的可能，而不說無漏的果性呢？由此可以證明，阿羅漢的果性必定是不動的，不動就決定不會退動。然而，由於利養等擾亂的過失，有些人會對所得的『現法樂住』退失自在，不能成就。這種退失自在指的是那些鈍根之人。如果是有利根之人，對於『現法樂住』則不會退失。因此，對於所得的『現法樂住』，有退失的稱為第一『退法』（degrading），沒有退失的稱為第六『不退法』（non-degrading）。像這樣，『思』（thinking）等四種種姓（four kinds of lineage）應該如理應思。有退失的稱為『思法』，沒有退失的稱為第六『不退法』。像這樣乃至有退失的稱為『堪達法』（capable of attaining），沒有退失的稱為第六『不退法』。第六也稱為『不動』（immovable）。經部只是就著有漏定的方面來說明六種姓的差別不同。如果根據無漏果性的意義來說，只有不動，沒有六種差別，也沒有退失。又有一種解釋，有退失的稱為第一『退法』，沒有退失的稱為第六『不退法』。『思』等四種應該如理應思。然而，都可能退失『現法樂住』。有『思』的稱為第二『思法』，沒有『思』的稱為『不思法』，也就是第六。像這樣乃至有『堪達』的稱為第五『堪達法』，沒有『堪達』的稱為『不堪達』，也就是第六。

『不退』（non-degrading）、『安住』（abiding）、『不動』（immovable）有什麼區別呢？這是提問。第六『不退』也稱為『不動』，第四『安住』，這三種意義相似，有什麼差別呢？

不是通過練習根器而得到的，這三種有差別。經部回答說，『不退』是本性所得，不是通過練習根器而得到的。如果是通過練習根器而得到的，就稱為『不動』。這二者所產生的有漏功德殊勝等至（samadhi），遇到因緣也不會退失，這就是『安住』。

【English Translation】 English version: Hence it is called 'Ais' (Love). The 'released-at-times liberation' should be understood as previously explained. The Arhats (Arahan), with their un-leaking fruit nature, are liberated from afflictions. Because this liberation constantly accompanies them at all times, it should not be called 'time'. Since it constantly accompanies, it is fulfillment, and there is no longer any seeking, therefore it is not called 'Love'.

If the nature of the fruit of Arhatship reaches the level of 'appropriate thinking', the Sutra School (Sutra School) would retort: If it is said that the un-leaking nature of the fruit of Arhatship can be lost even by those of dull faculties, then why did the Buddha (Buddha) only say that the visible-fruitful abiding (visible-fruitful abiding) of the leaking Dhyanas (Dhyana) that are attained has the possibility of being lost, and not mention the un-leaking nature of the fruit? From this, it can be proven that the nature of the fruit of Arhatship must be immovable, and immovability is definitely not degrading. However, due to the faults of disturbances such as gain and offerings, some people may lose the freedom of the visible-fruitful abiding that they have attained, and fail to achieve it. This loss of freedom refers to those of dull faculties. If they are of sharp faculties, they will not lose the visible-fruitful abiding. Therefore, regarding the visible-fruitful abiding that has been attained, those who degrade are called the first 'Degrading' (degrading), and those who do not degrade are called the sixth 'Non-degrading' (non-degrading). In this way, the four kinds of lineages (four kinds of lineage) such as 'Thinking' (thinking) should be thought of appropriately. Those who degrade are called 'Thinking-nature', and those who do not degrade are called the sixth 'Non-degrading'. In this way, even those who degrade are called 'Capable of Attaining' (capable of attaining), and those who do not degrade are called the sixth 'Non-degrading'. The sixth is also called 'Immovable' (immovable). The Sutra School only explains the differences between the six lineages based on the aspect of leaking Dhyana. If based on the meaning of the un-leaking fruit nature, there is only immovability, without the six differences, and without degradation. Another explanation is that those who degrade are called the first 'Degrading', and those who do not degrade are called the sixth 'Non-degrading'. The four kinds such as 'Thinking' should be thought of appropriately. However, they may all lose the visible-fruitful abiding. Those who have 'Thinking' are called the second 'Thinking-nature', and those who do not have 'Thinking' are called 'Non-thinking-nature', which is the sixth. In this way, even those who have 'Capable of Attaining' are called the fifth 'Capable of Attaining', and those who do not have 'Capable of Attaining' are called 'Incapable of Attaining', which is the sixth.

What is the difference between 'Non-degrading' (non-degrading), 'Abiding' (abiding), and 'Immovable' (immovable)? This is a question. The sixth 'Non-degrading' is also called 'Immovable', and the fourth 'Abiding'. These three meanings are similar. What is the difference?

It is not obtained through practicing the faculties. These three have differences. The Sutra School answers that 'Non-degrading' is obtained by nature, not through practicing the faculties. If it is obtained through practicing the faculties, it is called 'Immovable'. The leaking merits and excellent Samadhi (samadhi) produced by these two will not degrade even when encountering conditions, and this is 'Abiding'.

但于已住有漏諸勝德中能無退失。不能更引余勝有漏諸功德生。後設復引生從彼可退。是三差別。

然喬底迦至阿羅漢果者。經部又復通經。所以須通此經文者。說一切有部意。有阿羅漢名喬底迦。由鈍根故六返退失阿羅漢已。第七返還得阿羅漢果時。恐復退失以刀自害。故今通言。然喬底迦六返退者。昔在學位於時解脫有漏定中極啖味故。又鈍根故。六反退失。深自厭責執刀自害。由於身命無所戀惜。至第七返臨命終時。得阿羅漢便般涅槃。故喬底迦。但于學位退有漏定。亦非退失阿羅漢果　喬底迦是牧牛種。又真諦云。喬底迦此云瓦器。本是外道。恒執瓦器自隨。仍本為名。

又增十經至非應果性者。經部引經證應果體性非是時解脫　言增十者。從一法門增至十種名增十經。又阿笈摩中增十經作如是說。一法應起。謂有漏定時愛心解脫。一法應證謂諸無漏不動心解脫。依經呵嘖。如文可知。故時解脫唯是有漏非應果性。或名時解脫。或名時愛解脫。或名時愛心解脫。廣略異耳義皆相似。待時數希心脫定障名時愛心解脫。不時解脫準此應知。若言不動心解脫。無漏應果無有退動心解脫惑。

若爾何故說時解脫應果者。說一切有部難。若時解脫非應果體。何故說時解脫應果。

謂有應果至名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：然而，對於已經安住于有漏的殊勝功德中，能夠不退失，但不能更進一步引發其餘殊勝的有漏功德生起。之後如果再次引發，（功德）可能會從那裡退失，這是三種差別。

關於喬底迦（Gautamaka，人名）證得阿羅漢果這件事，經部（Sautrantika）又引用了經文來解釋。之所以需要引用這段經文，是因為說一切有部（Sarvastivada）認為，有一位阿羅漢名叫喬底迦，由於根器遲鈍，六次退失阿羅漢果位，第七次才重新獲得阿羅漢果。他們擔心他再次退失，所以用刀自殺。因此，現在引用經文說，喬底迦六次退失，是因為過去在學地（Siksha-bhumi）時，對於有漏定（Sasrava-samadhi）中的滋味過於貪戀，又因為根器遲鈍，所以六次退失。他深深地自我厭惡和責備，於是拿起刀自殺。由於對身命沒有絲毫的留戀和珍惜，在第七次臨命終時，證得阿羅漢果，隨即般涅槃（Parinirvana）。所以，喬底迦只是在學地退失了有漏定，並非退失了阿羅漢果。喬底迦是牧牛種姓（Gavampati）。真諦（Paramartha）說，喬底迦的意思是『瓦器』，他原本是外道，經常拿著瓦器隨身攜帶，因此就用這個（瓦器）作為他的名字。

另外，關於《增十經》（Ekottara Agama）中『並非應果性』的說法，經部引用經文來證明應果（Srota-apanna-phala）的體性並非是時解脫（Samayika-vimukti）。《增十經》指的是從一種法門逐漸增加到十種法門，所以叫做《增十經》。阿笈摩（Agama）中的《增十經》是這樣說的：一種法應當生起，指的是有漏定時愛心解脫；一種法應當證得，指的是諸無漏不動心解脫。依據經文的呵責，如經文所說的那樣可以知道。所以，時解脫只是有漏的，並非應果的體性。或者叫做時解脫，或者叫做時愛解脫，或者叫做時愛心解脫，只是說法上的廣略不同，意義都相似。等待時機，心思稀少，從禪定障礙中解脫，叫做時愛心解脫。不時解脫可以依此類推。如果說不動心解脫，無漏的應果沒有退動心解脫的疑惑。

如果這樣，為什麼說時解脫是應果呢？這是說一切有部提出的疑問：如果時解脫不是應果的體性，為什麼又說時解脫是應果呢？

（回答是）說有應果（Srota-apanna-phala）……叫做……

【English Translation】 English version: However, with regard to already dwelling in the meritorious qualities of the contaminated (Sasrava), one is able to not regress, but is unable to further induce the arising of other superior contaminated meritorious qualities. If one induces them again later, (the meritorious qualities) may regress from there. These are the three differences.

Regarding Gautamaka (Gautamaka, a personal name) attaining the Arhatship, the Sautrantika school again cites the sutras to explain. The reason for needing to cite this sutra is that the Sarvastivada school believes that there was an Arhat named Gautamaka, who, due to dull faculties, lost the Arhatship six times, and only regained the Arhatship on the seventh time. They were worried that he would regress again, so he killed himself with a knife. Therefore, now the sutra is cited to say that Gautamaka regressed six times because in the past, when he was in the stage of learning (Siksha-bhumi), he was overly attached to the taste of contaminated samadhi (Sasrava-samadhi), and also because of his dull faculties, he regressed six times. He deeply loathed and blamed himself, so he picked up a knife and killed himself. Because he had no attachment or cherishment for his life, he attained Arhatship at the moment of his seventh death, and then entered Parinirvana (Parinirvana). Therefore, Gautamaka only regressed from contaminated samadhi in the stage of learning, and did not regress from Arhatship. Gautamaka was of the cowherd caste (Gavampati). Paramartha (Paramartha) said that Gautamaka means 'earthenware pot'. He was originally a heretic who always carried an earthenware pot with him, so he used this (earthenware pot) as his name.

In addition, regarding the statement in the Ekottara Agama (Ekottara Agama) that 'it is not of the nature of Srota-apanna-phala', the Sautrantika school cites the sutras to prove that the nature of Srota-apanna-phala (Srota-apanna-phala) is not Samayika-vimukti (Samayika-vimukti). Ekottara Agama refers to gradually increasing from one Dharma gate to ten Dharma gates, so it is called Ekottara Agama. The Ekottara Agama in the Agama (Agama) says this: one Dharma should arise, referring to the liberation of the mind of love in contaminated samadhi; one Dharma should be attained, referring to the liberation of the immovable mind of the uncontaminated. According to the rebuke of the sutras, it can be known as the sutras say. Therefore, Samayika-vimukti is only contaminated and is not of the nature of Srota-apanna-phala. Or it is called Samayika-vimukti, or it is called Samaya-raga-vimukti, or it is called Samaya-raga-citta-vimukti, only the wording is different in breadth, and the meanings are similar. Waiting for the opportunity, with few thoughts, liberating from the obstacles of meditation is called Samaya-raga-citta-vimukti. Non-Samayika-vimukti can be inferred by analogy. If it is said that the liberation of the immovable mind, the uncontaminated Srota-apanna-phala has no doubt of the liberation of the regressive mind.

If so, why is it said that Samayika-vimukti is Srota-apanna-phala? This is the question raised by the Sarvastivada school: if Samayika-vimukti is not of the nature of Srota-apanna-phala, why is it said that Samayika-vimukti is Srota-apanna-phala?

(The answer is) saying that there is Srota-apanna-phala (Srota-apanna-phala)... called...

不時解脫者。經部答。謂有應果根性鈍故要待時故。諸有漏定方現在前名時解脫。非言時解脫是應果性。若與彼相違名為不時解脫應果。準釋可知。

阿毗達磨至是名由教者。經部復引論教。證無學人不退果也。論具三因惑方得起。應果起惑不具三因。明知不退。若謂彼據具足三因生煩惱說。復有何惑法因不具足生。若謂無學退起煩惱因不具生惑既已斷。如何得起。此即以理徴責。必須具因　又解若謂彼據具三因生說。復更有何法因不具足生。如染心．心所法必具五因生無不具五而得生者。三因起惑應知亦爾。此即責例。是名由教。

如何由理者。問。

若阿羅漢至是名由理者。經部答。若阿羅漢有令煩惱畢竟不起。無漏治道已生實斷。是則不應退起煩惱。若阿羅漢治道未生。未能永拔煩惱種子。應非漏盡。若非漏盡寧說為應果。進退徴責。阿羅漢人必無有退。是名由理。

若爾應釋至是阿羅漢者。說一切有部復引經難。若說應果定不退者。應釋炭喻契經中文。此經既言諸聖弟子有時失念生不善覺。明知應果亦容有退。如何得知彼是應果。此經唯說阿羅漢故。復以何文證知應果。由此炭喻契經中。言彼聖弟子。心於長夜隨順遠離等。既言隨順遠離。明知即是阿羅漢果。復如何知。隨順遠離是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『不時解脫者』（asamayavimutta，指非時解脫的阿羅漢）。經部（Sautrāntika）回答說：這是因為有些阿羅漢的根性遲鈍，需要等待時機才能解脫。只有那些有漏定（sāsrava-samādhi，指伴隨煩惱的禪定）現在才生起的人，才被稱為『時解脫』（samayavimutta）。並非說『時解脫』是一種阿羅漢的根性。如果與此相反，就稱為『不時解脫』阿羅漢。參照解釋可知。

『阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）至是名由教者』。經部再次引用論藏的教義，來證明無學（aśaikṣa，指阿羅漢）之人不會退失果位。論中說，必須具備三種因緣，煩惱才能生起。阿羅漢生起煩惱不具備這三種因緣，這表明他們不會退轉。如果有人說，論中是根據具備三種因緣而生煩惱的情況來說的，那麼還有什麼煩惱的生起是不具備因緣的呢？如果有人說，無學退轉生起煩惱時，因為生起煩惱的因緣不具備，煩惱已經被斷除了，怎麼還會生起呢？這就是用道理來責問。必須具備因緣。

又一種解釋是，如果有人說，論中是根據具備三種因緣而生煩惱的情況來說的，那麼還有什麼法是不具備因緣而生起的呢？例如，染污心和心所法（citta-caitta，指與心相關的心理現象）必須具備五種因緣才能生起，沒有不具備五種因緣而能生起的。三種因緣生起煩惱也應該如此。這就是類比責問。這就是『是名由教』。

『如何由理者』。問。

『若阿羅漢至是名由理者』。經部回答說：如果阿羅漢有能力使煩惱永遠不生起，並且已經生起了無漏的對治之道，實際上已經斷除了煩惱，那麼就不應該退轉生起煩惱。如果阿羅漢的對治之道還沒有生起，未能永遠拔除煩惱的種子，那麼就不應該是漏盡者（anāsrava，指沒有煩惱的人）。如果不是漏盡者，怎麼能說是阿羅漢呢？這是進退兩難的責問。阿羅漢必定不會退轉。這就是『是名由理』。

『若爾應釋至是阿羅漢者』。說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）再次引用經文來反駁。如果說阿羅漢一定不會退轉，那麼應該解釋《炭喻契經》（Aṅgāra Sūtra）中的文字。這部經中說，有些聖弟子有時會失念，生起不善的念頭，這表明阿羅漢也可能退轉。怎麼知道他們是阿羅漢呢？因為這部經只說了阿羅漢。又用什麼經文來證明他們是阿羅漢呢？因為這部《炭喻契經》中說，這位聖弟子，心在漫長的夜晚里隨順遠離等等。既然說隨順遠離，表明他們就是阿羅漢果。又怎麼知道隨順遠離是

【English Translation】 English version: 'Those liberated out of season' (asamayavimutta, referring to Arhats liberated not in due time). The Sautrāntika school answers: This is because some Arhats have dull faculties and need to wait for the right time to be liberated. Only those who have defiled concentration (sāsrava-samādhi, referring to meditation accompanied by afflictions) arising in the present are called 'liberated in season' (samayavimutta). It is not to say that 'liberated in season' is a characteristic of Arhats. If it is contrary to this, it is called 'Arhat liberated out of season'. It can be understood by referring to the explanation.

'Abhidharma to this is called by doctrine'. The Sautrāntika school again quotes the teachings of the Abhidharma to prove that those who are beyond learning (aśaikṣa, referring to Arhats) do not regress from their fruition. The treatise states that afflictions can only arise when three causes are present. Arhats do not have these three causes for afflictions to arise, which shows that they do not regress. If someone says that the treatise speaks of the arising of afflictions based on the presence of three causes, then what afflictions arise without the presence of causes? If someone says that when those beyond learning regress and afflictions arise, the causes for the arising of afflictions are not present, and since afflictions have already been cut off, how can they arise? This is questioning with reason. Causes must be present.

Another explanation is, if someone says that the treatise speaks of the arising of afflictions based on the presence of three causes, then what other dharmas arise without the presence of causes? For example, defiled mind and mental factors (citta-caitta, referring to mental phenomena related to the mind) must have five causes to arise; none can arise without five causes. The arising of afflictions with three causes should also be the same. This is questioning by analogy. This is 'called by doctrine'.

'How by reason?' Question.

'If Arhats to this is called by reason'. The Sautrāntika school answers: If Arhats have the ability to prevent afflictions from ever arising, and have already generated the undefiled antidote, and have actually cut off afflictions, then they should not regress and generate afflictions. If the Arhat's antidote has not yet arisen, and they have not been able to permanently uproot the seeds of afflictions, then they should not be free from outflows (anāsrava, referring to those without afflictions). If they are not free from outflows, how can they be called Arhats? This is a dilemma. Arhats certainly do not regress. This is 'called by reason'.

'If so, it should be explained to this is Arhat'. The Sarvāstivāda school again quotes the scriptures to refute. If it is said that Arhats certainly do not regress, then the words in the 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' (Aṅgāra Sūtra) should be explained. This sutra says that some noble disciples sometimes lose mindfulness and generate unwholesome thoughts, which shows that Arhats may also regress. How do we know that they are Arhats? Because this sutra only speaks of Arhats. What sutra is used to prove that they are Arhats? Because this 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' says that this noble disciple's mind, in the long night, accords with and is far away from, etc. Since it says accords with and is far away from, it shows that they are the fruition of Arhatship. How do we know that according with and being far away from is

阿羅漢。余契經中有即說此順遠離等名應果力。又此炭喻經說彼聖弟子。於一切順漏已能永吐。顯能永斷一切有漏。已得清涼。顯彼已得清涼涅槃。由此定知。炭喻經說是阿羅漢。

實后所說至故說無失者。經部通經。實后所說或炭喻經中後文所說。已能永吐已得清涼是阿羅漢。然彼所引炭喻前文諸聖弟子。於行．住時未善通達四聖諦理。有時失念生不善覺容有此事。謂有學者一來．不還。以世俗道得彼二果。於行住時由失念故容起煩惱。后以聖慧斷余修惑成無學果。善達諦理則無起義。前引經文依有學位說退無失。或炭喻經中前文所說。

毗婆沙師至亦有退義者。廣諍既訖。結歸本宗。若依宗輪論。大眾部等預流者有退義。阿羅漢無退義。

唯阿羅漢至修練根不者。此即第四明學．凡種姓。問。唯阿羅漢種姓有六。為余有學異生亦有六種姓耶。設有皆能修練根不。

頌曰至如無學位者。答。由先凡位有六種故有學有六。由前有學有六種故。應果有六。見道速疾無起加行。餘位得起能修練根。唯于信解．異生位中能修練根如無學位。婆沙第七云。順解脫分亦有六種。謂退種姓乃至不動種姓。轉退法種姓順解脫分。起思法種姓順解脫分。乃至轉堪達起不動法。轉聲聞起獨覺及佛。轉獨覺起聲聞

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：阿羅漢（Arhat，已斷盡一切煩惱，證得最高果位的人）。在其他的契經（Sutra，佛經）中，也用『順遠離』等名稱來表示這種應果力（Phala，修行所證得的果位）。此外，《炭喻經》中說，那些聖弟子（Arya-śrāvaka，證悟真理的弟子）對於一切煩惱的來源已經能夠永遠斷除，並且已經獲得了清涼。這表明他們已經獲得了清涼的涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）。由此可以確定，《炭喻經》所說的就是阿羅漢。

關於『後文所說』到『所以說沒有過失』的解釋：經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）解釋說，『後文所說』或者說《炭喻經》後文所說的『已經能夠永遠斷除』、『已經獲得了清涼』指的是阿羅漢。然而，他們所引用的《炭喻經》前文說，那些聖弟子在行走、站立時，還沒有完全通達四聖諦（Four Noble Truths，佛教的基本教義）的道理，有時會因為失念而產生不善的念頭，這種情況是可能發生的。這是指有些有學位的聖者，如一來果（Sakrdagamin，證得一來果位的聖者）、不還果（Anagamin，證得不還果位的聖者），他們通過世俗的修行方法獲得了這兩種果位。在行走站立時，由於失唸的緣故，可能會生起煩惱。之後，他們通過聖慧（Arya-prajna，聖者的智慧）斷除了剩餘的修惑（Bhavana-prahana，通過修行斷除的煩惱），從而成就了無學果（Arhatship，阿羅漢果位）。如果能夠很好地通達四聖諦的道理，就不會再有煩惱生起了。前面引用的經文是依據有學位的聖者可能會退步的情況來說的，所以沒有過失。或者說，是《炭喻經》前文所說的。

毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，佛教部派之一）的觀點是，『也有退步的可能性』：在廣泛的爭論結束后，最終迴歸到本宗的觀點。如果依據《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra，一部關於佛教部派的論著），大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika，佛教部派之一）等宗派認為，預流果（Srotapanna，證得預流果位的聖者）是有退步的可能性的，而阿羅漢是沒有退步的可能性的。

只有阿羅漢到『是否修習鍛鍊根器』的討論：這部分是第四個問題，關於學、凡兩種姓（Gotra，種性）。問題是：只有阿羅漢的種姓有六種嗎？其他的有學位聖者和凡夫也有這六種種姓嗎？如果都有，那麼他們都能修習鍛鍊根器嗎？

頌文說，『如同無學位者』：回答是：由於先前的凡夫位有六種種姓，所以有學位聖者也有六種。由於先前的有學位聖者有六種，所以應果也有六種。見道（Darśana-mārga，證悟真理的道路）是快速的，沒有額外的努力。其他果位可以生起，能夠修習鍛鍊根器。只有在信解（Śraddhāvimukta，通過信仰解脫的人）、異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）的階段才能修習鍛鍊根器，如同無學位者一樣。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第七卷說，順解脫分（Anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya，順向解脫的部分）也有六種，即退種姓乃至不動種姓。轉變退法種姓的順解脫分，生起思法種姓的順解脫分，乃至轉變堪達生起不動法。轉變聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的人）生起獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自證悟的人）以及佛（Buddha，覺悟者）。轉變獨覺生起聲聞。

【English Translation】 English version: Arhat (Arhat, one who has eradicated all defilements and attained the highest fruit). In other Sutras (Sutra, Buddhist scriptures), terms such as 'following detachment' are also used to represent this power of fruition (Phala, the fruit attained through practice). Furthermore, the 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' states that those noble disciples (Arya-śrāvaka, disciples who have realized the truth) are able to permanently eliminate the source of all defilements and have attained coolness. This indicates that they have attained the coolness of Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation). From this, it can be determined that the 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' is referring to Arhats.

Regarding the explanation from 'what is said later' to 'therefore there is no fault': The Sautrāntika (Sautrāntika, one of the Buddhist schools) explains that 'what is said later,' or what the 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' says later, 'able to permanently eliminate' and 'has attained coolness' refers to Arhats. However, the earlier part of the 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' that they cite states that those noble disciples, when walking and standing, have not fully understood the principles of the Four Noble Truths (Four Noble Truths, the basic teachings of Buddhism), and sometimes may have unwholesome thoughts due to forgetfulness, which is possible. This refers to some who are in the stage of learning, such as Sakrdagamin (Sakrdagamin, one who has attained the Sakrdagamin fruit) and Anagamin (Anagamin, one who has attained the Anagamin fruit), who have attained these two fruits through worldly practices. When walking and standing, due to forgetfulness, defilements may arise. Later, they eliminate the remaining Bhavana-prahana (Bhavana-prahana, defilements eliminated through practice) through Arya-prajna (Arya-prajna, the wisdom of the noble ones), thereby achieving Arhatship (Arhatship, the fruit of Arhat). If one can fully understand the principles of the Four Noble Truths, defilements will no longer arise. The previously cited scripture is based on the possibility that those in the stage of learning may regress, so there is no fault. Or, it is what the earlier part of the 'Charcoal Simile Sutra' says.

The Vaibhāṣika's (Vaibhāṣika, one of the Buddhist schools) view is that 'there is also the possibility of regression': After extensive debate, it ultimately returns to the view of the school. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Samayabhedoparacanacakra, a treatise on Buddhist schools), the Mahāsāṃghika (Mahāsāṃghika, one of the Buddhist schools) and other schools believe that Srotapanna (Srotapanna, one who has attained the Srotapanna fruit) has the possibility of regression, while Arhats do not have the possibility of regression.

The discussion from only Arhats to 'whether to practice and cultivate the roots': This part is the fourth question, regarding the two Gotras (Gotra, lineage), those in the stage of learning and ordinary beings. The question is: Do only Arhats have six Gotras? Do other noble ones in the stage of learning and ordinary beings also have these six Gotras? If they all do, can they all practice and cultivate the roots?

The verse says, 'like those without learning': The answer is: Because the previous stage of ordinary beings has six Gotras, those in the stage of learning also have six. Because the previous noble ones in the stage of learning have six, the fruition also has six. The Darśana-mārga (Darśana-mārga, the path of realizing the truth) is fast, without additional effort. Other fruits can arise, and one can practice and cultivate the roots. Only in the stage of Śraddhāvimukta (Śraddhāvimukta, those liberated through faith) and Pṛthagjana (Pṛthagjana, ordinary beings) can one practice and cultivate the roots, like those without learning. The seventh volume of the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Buddhist treatise) says that Anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya (Anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya, the part that goes along with liberation) also has six types, namely the regressing Gotra to the non-regressing Gotra. Transforming the Anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya of the regressing Dharma Gotra, arising the Anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya of the thinking Dharma Gotra, and even transforming the capable to arise the non-regressing Dharma. Transforming Śrāvaka (Śrāvaka, those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) to arise Pratyekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha, those who attain enlightenment independently) and Buddha (Buddha, the enlightened one). Transforming Pratyekabuddha to arise Śrāvaka.

．及佛。若起佛種姓順解脫分已。即不可轉。極猛利故。又說順抉擇分亦有六性　問若言凡位順解脫分亦有六種姓。何故婆沙六十八但說抉擇分有六種姓不說前位。故彼論云。如見道位有六種性。相應行地亦有此六種姓。謂相應行退法種姓。乃至相應行不動法種姓。此地中有六種姓者。謂暖．頂．忍．世第一法。此是聖道近加行故。緣諦行相似聖道故。依身．及定同見道故。前位不爾故不立六種姓　解云後文且據一相。前文具說學位。轉根加行道等如后當說。

如契經說至退現法樂住者。此即第五明三退不同。依經起問。如契經說。我說由斯所證四種根本靜慮增上心所。住現前法樂隨一現行。餘名有退。所得不動而言無退。如何不動法退現法樂住。心所謂定。或勝解心所。故婆沙八十一云。如契經說。有四種增上心所現法樂住。問何故名為增上心所。答此心所即三摩地。無三摩地具大勢力有大功用能成大事。能如根本四靜慮者故。此獨名增上心所。複次四靜慮四。有無量種增上心所殊勝功德。如無量等。廣如彼釋。

頌曰至利中后鈍三者。上二句舉三退。下二句約人明。

論曰至不現在前者。釋上二句。如文可知。正理論云。三中前二非得為體。第三唯彼不現在前。

於此三中至已得德故者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以及佛。如果生起佛的種姓，順於解脫分，那麼就不可轉變，因為極其猛利。又說順抉擇分也有六種姓。問：如果說凡夫位的順解脫分也有六種姓，為什麼《婆沙論》第六十八卷只說抉擇分有六種姓，而不說前一位呢？所以該論說：『如見道位有六種姓，相應行地也有這六種姓，即相應行退法種姓，乃至相應行不動法種姓。』此地中有六種姓，是指暖（指四加行位的第一個階段）、頂（指四加行位的第二個階段）、忍（指四加行位的第三個階段）、世第一法（指四加行位的第四個階段）。這是聖道（指見道位）的近加行，因為緣于諦理而行，相似於聖道，依據身和定，與見道相同。前一位不是這樣，所以不立六種姓。』解答說：後面的文只是根據一個方面來說，前面的文則具足地說了學位、轉根加行道等，如同後面將要說的。如契經所說，到退現法樂住的，這即是第五個方面，說明三種退的不同。依據契經提出問題。如契經所說：『我說由斯所證四種根本靜慮（指色界四禪）增上心所，住現前法樂隨一現行，其餘名為有退。』所得不動而言無退，如何不動法退現法樂住？心是指定，或者勝解心所。所以《婆沙論》第八十一卷說：『如契經說，有四種增上心所現法樂住。』問：為什麼名為增上心所？答：此心所即是三摩地（指心專注一境的狀態），沒有三摩地，就不能具足大的勢力，有大的功用，能成就大事，能如根本四靜慮一樣。所以這單獨名為增上心所。再次，四靜慮有無量種增上心所殊勝功德，如無量等。』詳細的解釋如同該論所說。頌說，到利中后鈍三者的，上面兩句舉出三種退，下面兩句約人來說明。論說，到不現在前者，解釋上面兩句。如文可知。《正理論》說：『三種中，前兩種不是以得為體，第三種只是它們不現在前。』於此三中，到已得德故者。

【English Translation】 English version: And the Buddha. If the Buddha's lineage arises, in accordance with the 'part of liberation', then it cannot be changed, because it is extremely powerful. It is also said that the 'part of ascertainment' also has six lineages. Question: If it is said that the 'part of liberation' in the position of ordinary beings also has six lineages, why does the sixty-eighth volume of the Vibhasa only say that the 'part of ascertainment' has six lineages, and does not mention the previous position? Therefore, the treatise says: 'Like the position of the 'path of seeing' having six lineages, the corresponding practice ground also has these six lineages, namely, the corresponding practice 'lineage of regression', up to the corresponding practice 'immovable lineage'. This ground has six lineages, referring to 'warmth' (the first stage of the four preparatory practices), 'peak' (the second stage of the four preparatory practices), 'patience' (the third stage of the four preparatory practices), and 'the foremost dharma in the world' (the fourth stage of the four preparatory practices). This is the near preparatory practice of the 'holy path' (the path of seeing), because it is based on the truth and is similar to the 'holy path', based on body and samadhi (state of meditative concentration), and is the same as the 'path of seeing'. The previous position is not like this, so six lineages are not established.' The answer is: The following text only refers to one aspect, while the previous text fully describes the stages of learning, the path of transforming roots and preparatory practices, as will be discussed later. As the sutra says, regarding 'retreating from the dwelling in the pleasure of the present dharma', this is the fifth aspect, explaining the differences in the three types of retreat. The question is raised based on the sutra. As the sutra says: 'I say that the four fundamental dhyanas (meditative states of the form realm) attained through this, with the mind of increased concentration, dwelling in the pleasure of the present dharma, with one of them manifesting, the rest are called retreats.' What is attained is immovable, yet it is said to be without retreat. How can the immovable dharma retreat from the dwelling in the pleasure of the present dharma? The mind refers to samadhi (state of meditative concentration), or the adhimoksha (resolution) mental factor. Therefore, the eighty-first volume of the Vibhasa says: 'As the sutra says, there are four types of dwelling in the pleasure of the present dharma with increased concentration.' Question: Why is it called increased concentration? Answer: This mental factor is samadhi (state of meditative concentration). Without samadhi, one cannot have great power, great function, and be able to accomplish great things, like the four fundamental dhyanas. Therefore, this alone is called increased concentration. Furthermore, the four dhyanas have countless kinds of increased concentration, superior merits, such as the immeasurable ones.' The detailed explanation is as described in that treatise. The verse says, regarding 'sharp, medium, and dull three', the first two lines mention the three types of retreat, and the last two lines explain it in terms of people. The treatise says, regarding 'not now present before', explaining the above two lines. As the text shows. The Nyayanusara says: 'Among the three types, the first two are not based on attainment, and the third type is only that they are not now present before.' Among these three, regarding 'because of the merits already attained'.

。釋下兩句。於三退中。世尊唯有最後一種受用退也。以具眾德無容一時頓現前故。隨一現前余不現前名受用退。餘利不動阿羅漢．獨覺。於三退內有後受用。中未得退。亦于勝己不共佛法殊勝功德猶未得故。釋利中后。已得功德必不退故無已得退。餘五種姓容具有三以鈍根故。亦容退失已得德故釋鈍三。

約受用退至無相違過者。正通前難。經言退者。於三退中約受用退。說不動法皆退現法樂住。無相違過。

無退論者至不應為難者。述經部宗。無退論者作如是說。無學身中諸無漏解脫皆名不動。無退動故。伏難云。若無學身中諸無漏法皆無退動。應六種姓皆名不動。如何別建立第六不動法。為通此伏難故作如是言。然六姓中別立第六不動法者。約有漏定現法樂住明六種姓。前五有退。第六不退名為不動。不據無漏如前通釋。不應為難。

諸阿羅漢至退時作不者。此下第六明退果時相。牃前問起。

不爾者。答。

何緣者。徴。頌曰至慚增故不作者。頌答。

論曰至可委信處者。釋上兩句。此明退果必不命終。如文可知　問退果不命終。何故退向即有命終　答如婆沙六十一云。複次根本果位具五因緣。一舍曾得道。二得未曾得道。三證結斷一味得。四頓得八智。五一時修十六

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：解釋上面兩句。在三種退失中，世尊只有最後一種受用退。因為具備眾多功德，無法一時全部顯現，隨著一種功德顯現，其餘功德不顯現，稱為受用退。其餘利根不動阿羅漢（arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）、獨覺（pratyekabuddha，無師自悟的聖者），在三種退失中有後受用，中根者未得退失，也是因為對於勝過自己的不共佛法殊勝功德尚未獲得。解釋利根中的後退。已經獲得的功德必定不會退失，所以沒有已得退。其餘五種姓可能具有三種退失，因為根器遲鈍，也可能退失已得的功德。解釋鈍根的三種退失。

關於受用退不會有相違背的過失，這正是爲了解決前面的難題。《經》中說的退失，在三種退失中指的是受用退，說不動法都會退失現法樂住（dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra，指在禪定中體驗到的快樂），沒有相違背的過失。

『無退論者』到『不應為難』，這是敘述經部宗的觀點。『無退論者』這樣說：無學（aśaikṣa，已證得阿羅漢果位的人）身中的所有無漏解脫（anāsrava-vimokṣa，沒有煩惱的解脫）都稱為不動，因為不會退失或動搖。反駁的觀點是：如果無學身中的所有無漏法都不會退失或動搖，那麼六種姓都應該稱為不動，為什麼特別建立第六種不動法？爲了解釋這個反駁，他們這樣說：然而在六種姓中特別建立第六種不動法，是根據有漏定（sāsrava-samādhi，有煩惱的禪定）的現法樂住來區分六種姓。前五種有退失，第六種不退失，稱為不動。不是根據無漏法來解釋，如前面所說。不應該以此為難。

『諸阿羅漢』到『退時作不』，下面第六點說明退果時的狀態，是爲了回答前面的提問而提出的。

『不爾者』，回答。

『何緣者』，提問。頌曰到『慚增故不作者』，用偈頌回答。

論曰到『可委信處者』，解釋上面兩句。這裡說明退果時必定不會死亡，如文中所說。問：退果時不會死亡，為什麼退向時就會死亡？答：如《婆沙論》第六十一卷所說：其次，根本果位具備五種因緣：一是捨棄曾經獲得的道，二是獲得未曾獲得的道，三是證得結斷一味得，四是頓得八智，五是一時修十六行相。

【English Translation】 English version: Explaining the previous two sentences. Among the three types of regression, the World Honored One (世尊, Śākyamuni Buddha) only experiences the last type, the regression of enjoyment. This is because having numerous virtues cannot manifest all at once; as one virtue manifests, the others do not, which is called the regression of enjoyment. The remaining sharp-witted, non-regressing Arhats (阿羅漢, arhat, enlightened beings who have attained Nirvana) and Pratyekabuddhas (獨覺, pratyekabuddha, enlightened beings who attain enlightenment on their own without a teacher) have subsequent enjoyment within the three types of regression. Those of middling capacity do not experience regression because they have not yet attained the extraordinary virtues of the unique Buddha-dharma that surpass their own. Explaining the subsequent regression among the sharp-witted. Virtues that have already been attained will certainly not regress, so there is no regression of what has already been attained. The remaining five lineages may possess all three types of regression because of their dull faculties, and they may also regress from the virtues they have already attained. Explaining the three types of regression for the dull-witted.

Regarding the absence of contradiction in the regression of enjoyment, this precisely addresses the previous difficulty. The 'regression' mentioned in the Sutra refers to the regression of enjoyment among the three types of regression, stating that all non-regressing dharmas will regress from the present-life blissful abiding (現法樂住, dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra, the happiness experienced in meditative absorption), without any contradiction.

From 'Those who argue against regression' to 'should not be questioned,' this narrates the perspective of the Sautrāntika school. 'Those who argue against regression' say this: all the undefiled liberations (無漏解脫, anāsrava-vimokṣa, liberation without defilements) in the body of a non-learner (無學, aśaikṣa, one who has attained the Arhat fruit) are called non-regressing because they do not regress or waver. The opposing view is: if all undefiled dharmas in the body of a non-learner do not regress or waver, then all six lineages should be called non-regressing. Why specifically establish the sixth non-regressing dharma? To explain this rebuttal, they say this: However, the special establishment of the sixth non-regressing dharma among the six lineages is based on the present-life blissful abiding of defiled concentration (有漏定, sāsrava-samādhi, concentration with defilements) to distinguish the six lineages. The first five regress, and the sixth does not regress, which is called non-regressing. It is not explained based on undefiled dharmas, as mentioned earlier. It should not be questioned.

From 'All Arhats' to 'do not act at the time of regression,' the sixth point below explains the state at the time of the fruit of regression, which is raised to answer the previous question.

'If not,' is the answer.

'What is the reason?' is the question. The verse says 'to not act because of increased shame,' answering with a verse.

The treatise says 'to a trustworthy place,' explaining the previous two sentences. This explains that one will certainly not die at the time of the fruit of regression, as stated in the text. Question: One will not die at the time of the fruit of regression, so why will one die at the time of the direction of regression? Answer: As stated in the sixty-first volume of the Vibhāṣā: Furthermore, the fundamental fruit position possesses five causes and conditions: first, abandoning the path that was once attained; second, attaining the path that was never attained; third, realizing the attainment of the cessation of defilements; fourth, suddenly attaining the eight wisdoms; fifth, simultaneously cultivating the sixteen aspects.

行相。故退果時。若未還得無命終理。向中不爾。故退彼時。雖未還得有命終義。廣如彼釋。

又住果位至雖蹶不仆者。釋下兩句。如文可知。又正理七十云。又誰有退。誰無退耶。修不凈觀入聖道者容有退失。修持息念入聖道者必無退失。尊重止．觀無貪．癡增。如次應知有退。無退。

如上所言至唯得果道故者。此即第七明練根不同。初三句答初問。無漏答第二問　依人三下答第三問。

論曰至諸位各一者。釋初三句。無學練根轉一一姓。各九無間．九解脫道。如得應果以九無間．九解脫道斷有頂惑。鈍根久習學．無學道所成堅故。有學練根轉一一姓。各一無間．一解脫道。如得初預流果以一無間。一解脫道斷上界見惑。非久串習易可轉故。故正理云。然無學位修練根時道數所修如斷有頂。若有學位修練根時道數所修。如斷上界見道所斷。由彼但與鄰得果時道相似故(已上論文)　彼加行道學．無學位。轉一一姓各一加行。若無學位。一加行．九無間．九解脫。若學位一加行．一無間．一解脫　問無學鈍根學．無學道所成堅故。用九無間．九解脫道。有學鈍根世．出世道亦成堅故應還用九　解云無學練根皆于應果。有學練根皆于初果。又于無學二聖所成。學乃一凡不可為例　問二道所成俱可升

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『行相』（xingxiang，行為的特徵或方式）。因此，在退果位時，如果還沒有死亡，這是合理的。但在趨向果位時則不然。因此，在退果位時，即使還沒有死亡，也有可能死亡。詳細的解釋可以參考相關的論述。

『又住果位至雖蹶不仆者』（you zhu guo wei zhi sui jue bu pu zhe，即使處於果位，即使跌倒也不會倒下），解釋了下面的兩句話，如字面意思可知。此外，《正理七十》（Zhengli Qishi）中說：『誰會退失？誰不會退失呢？』修習不凈觀而進入聖道的人可能會退失，修習持息念而進入聖道的人必定不會退失。尊重止（shamatha，奢摩他，止禪）和觀（vipassana，毗婆舍那，觀禪）能分別減少貪（tanha，貪慾）和癡（moha，愚癡）。因此，應該知道，前者會退失，後者不會退失。

如上面所說『至唯得果道故者』（zhi wei de guo dao gu zhe，直到只獲得果道為止），這實際上是第七個方面，說明了練根的不同。前三句回答了第一個問題，『無漏』（wulou，無煩惱）回答了第二個問題，『依人三下』（yi ren san xia，根據三種人）回答了第三個問題。

論曰『至諸位各一者』（zhi zhu wei ge yi zhe，直到各個果位各有一個），解釋了前三句。無學（arhat，阿羅漢）練根時，轉變每一個姓（種姓），各有九個無間道（anantarya-marga，無間道）和九個解脫道（vimukti-marga，解脫道）。例如，獲得應果（arhatship，阿羅漢果）時，用九個無間道和九個解脫道來斷除有頂惑（bhava-agra，有頂天的煩惱）。鈍根（duna，根器遲鈍）的人長期修習學道（saiksa-marga，有學道）和無學道（asiksa-marga，無學道），所形成的根基堅固。有學（saiksa，有學者）練根時，轉變每一個姓，各有一個無間道和一個解脫道。例如，獲得初果（srota-apanna，預流果）時，用一個無間道和一個解脫道來斷除上界見惑（darshana-heya，見道所斷的煩惱）。因為不是長期串習，所以容易轉變。因此，《正理》（Nyaya，正理經）中說：『然而，無學位（arhat，阿羅漢）修習練根時，所修的道的數量就像斷除有頂惑一樣。如果有學位（saiksa，有學者）修習練根時，所修的道的數量就像斷除上界見道所斷的煩惱一樣。』因為它們只是與鄰近的得果時的道相似。

（以上是論文的內容）

他們的加行道（prayoga-marga，加行道）在學（saiksa，有學）和無學（asiksa，無學）位，轉變每一個姓，各有一個加行。如果是無學位，則有一個加行、九個無間道和九個解脫道。如果有學位，則有一個加行、一個無間道和一個解脫道。

問：無學鈍根（arhat duna，阿羅漢鈍根）長期修習學道和無學道，所形成的根基堅固，所以使用九個無間道和九個解脫道。有學鈍根（saiksa duna，有學鈍根）長期修習世間道（laukika-marga，世間道）和出世間道（lokottara-marga，出世間道），也形成了堅固的根基，應該也使用九個無間道和九個解脫道嗎？

解答：無學練根都是在應果（arhatship，阿羅漢果）位，有學練根都是在初果（srota-apanna，預流果）位。而且無學是兩個聖者所成就的，而有學只是一個凡夫，不能作為例子。

問：兩種道所成就的都可以提升嗎？

【English Translation】 English version: 'Xingxiang' (行相, characteristic or manner of behavior). Therefore, when regressing from a fruit position, if one has not yet died, it is reasonable. However, it is not so when progressing towards a fruit position. Therefore, when regressing from that position, even if one has not yet died, there is a possibility of death. A detailed explanation can be found in the relevant discussions.

'You zhu guo wei zhi sui jue bu pu zhe' (又住果位至雖蹶不仆者, even if one is in a fruit position, even if one stumbles, one will not fall), explains the following two sentences, as can be understood from the literal meaning. Furthermore, the 'Zhengli Qishi' (正理七十, Seventy Verses on Logic) states: 'Who will regress? Who will not regress?' Those who cultivate the contemplation of impurity and enter the holy path may regress, while those who cultivate mindfulness of breathing and enter the holy path will certainly not regress. Respecting shamatha (止, calming meditation) and vipassana (觀, insight meditation) respectively reduces tanha (貪, craving) and moha (癡, delusion). Therefore, it should be known that the former will regress, while the latter will not.

As mentioned above, 'zhi wei de guo dao gu zhe' (至唯得果道故者, until only the fruit path is attained), this is actually the seventh aspect, explaining the difference in root training. The first three sentences answer the first question, 'wulou' (無漏, without defilements) answers the second question, and 'yi ren san xia' (依人三下, according to the three types of people) answers the third question.

The treatise states, 'zhi zhu wei ge yi zhe' (至諸位各一者, until each position has one), explaining the first three sentences. When an arhat (無學, one who has completed training) trains their roots, they transform each gotra (姓, lineage), each having nine anantarya-marga (無間道, paths of immediate consequence) and nine vimukti-marga (解脫道, paths of liberation). For example, when attaining arhatship (應果, fruit of arhatship), one uses nine anantarya-marga and nine vimukti-marga to sever the bhava-agra (有頂惑, afflictions of the peak of existence). Those with dull faculties (鈍根, dull roots) who have long cultivated the saiksa-marga (學道, path of learning) and asiksa-marga (無學道, path of no more learning) have a firm foundation. When a saiksa (有學, one who is still learning) trains their roots, they transform each gotra, each having one anantarya-marga and one vimukti-marga. For example, when attaining the srota-apanna (初果, stream-enterer) fruit, one uses one anantarya-marga and one vimukti-marga to sever the darshana-heya (上界見惑, afflictions to be abandoned by seeing) of the upper realms. Because it is not a long-term habit, it is easy to transform. Therefore, the 'Nyaya' (正理, Logic) states: 'However, when an arhat cultivates root training, the number of paths cultivated is like severing the afflictions of the peak of existence. When a saiksa cultivates root training, the number of paths cultivated is like severing the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing in the upper realms.' Because they are only similar to the paths at the time of attaining the adjacent fruit.

(The above is the content of the treatise)

Their prayoga-marga (加行道, path of application) in the saiksa and asiksa positions transforms each gotra, each having one prayoga. If it is the asiksa position, there is one prayoga, nine anantarya-marga, and nine vimukti-marga. If it is the saiksa position, there is one prayoga, one anantarya-marga, and one vimukti-marga.

Question: An arhat with dull faculties (無學鈍根, arhat with dull roots) has a firm foundation formed by long cultivation of the saiksa-marga and asiksa-marga, so they use nine anantarya-marga and nine vimukti-marga. A saiksa with dull faculties (有學鈍根, saiksa with dull roots) has also formed a firm foundation by long cultivation of the laukika-marga (世間道, worldly path) and lokottara-marga (出世間道, supramundane path), so should they also use nine anantarya-marga and nine vimukti-marga?

Answer: Arhat root training is all in the arhatship position, and saiksa root training is all in the srota-apanna position. Moreover, the arhat is accomplished by two holy ones, while the saiksa is only an ordinary person and cannot be taken as an example.

Question: Can both paths that have been accomplished be elevated?

進。亦二道所成皆可退耶　解云求勝心猛二持亦轉。趣劣心漫二成不退　問凡位練根加行．無間．解脫如何　答如婆沙六十八云。評曰相應行地諸轉根者。雖不捨劣得勝品根。而得勝時劣品種姓不現行故亦名為舍。故轉退法種姓等起思法種姓等時。用多加行引一無間．一解脫道。而得轉根亦不違理。修習暖等非久遠故。有漏加行難成辨故。若轉趣余乘無無間．解脫。時經久遠乃成辨故(解云相應地謂暖等四善根)　又正理七十云。我所承稟諸大論師咸云。練根皆為遮遣見．修斷惑力所引發無覆無記無知現行。故學位中修練根者。正為遮遣見惑所發。無學位中修練根者。正為遮遣修惑所發。如如斷彼能發惑時。所起無間．解脫多少。如是如是斷彼所發無知現行道數亦爾。是故無學修練根時。用九無間．九解脫道。學位練根二道各一。然見．修惑所發無知。隨所障殊有多品類。故轉退等成思等時。諸道現前各有所遣。由此無有超得勝姓(已上論文)解云學位練根雖亦能遣修惑所發。正為遮遣見惑所發。故一無間．一解脫道。無學練根雖亦能遣見惑所發。正為遮遣修惑所發。故九無間九解脫道。

如是無間至非增上故者。釋頌無漏。此據無間及解脫道言唯無漏。若依加行通有漏無漏。故婆沙六十八云。彼加行道或有漏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果兩種道（指見道和修道）所成就的果位都可以退失嗎？答：如果追求殊勝的心猛烈，即使是二持（指持戒和持見）也有可能轉變。如果趨向低劣的心散漫，即使是二成（指成就見道和修道）也不會退轉。問：凡夫位的練根（指通過修行提升根器），以及加行道、無間道、解脫道是如何運作的？答：如《婆沙論》第六十八卷所說：評論說，在相應行地（指四善根位）中，那些轉變根器的人，雖然不捨棄低劣的根器而獲得殊勝的根器，但在獲得殊勝根器時，低劣根器的種姓不再顯現，因此也稱為捨棄。所以，當轉變退法種姓等，生起思法種姓等時，使用多次加行，引導一個無間道、一個解脫道，從而獲得根器的轉變，這並不違背道理。因為修習暖位等時間不長，有漏的加行難以成就。如果轉趣其他乘，沒有無間道、解脫道，時間長久才能成就。（解說：相應地指暖位等四善根位）又《正理》第七十卷說：我所承稟的各位大論師都說，練根都是爲了遮遣見惑、修惑的力量所引發的無覆無記的無知現行。所以，在有學位（指見道位到無學位之間的階段）中修練根的人，主要是爲了遮遣見惑所引發的無知。在無學位（指阿羅漢果位）中修練根的人，主要是爲了遮遣修惑所引發的無知。像斷除那些能引發惑業的惑時，所生起的無間道、解脫道有多少，像這樣斷除那些惑所引發的無知現行的道數也是如此。所以，無學（指阿羅漢）修練根時，使用九個無間道、九個解脫道。有學位練根時，兩種道各一個。然而，見惑、修惑所引發的無知，隨著所障礙的不同，有很多品類。所以，當轉變退法等，成就思法等時，各種道現前，各自有所遮遣。由此沒有超越而獲得殊勝種姓（以上是論文）。解說：有學位練根雖然也能遮遣修惑所引發的無知，但主要是爲了遮遣見惑所引發的無知，所以用一個無間道、一個解脫道。無學練根雖然也能遮遣見惑所引發的無知，但主要是爲了遮遣修惑所引發的無知，所以用九個無間道、九個解脫道。『如是無間至非增上故者』，解釋頌文中的無漏。這裡是根據無間道及解脫道來說，只有無漏。如果依據加行道，則通於有漏和無漏。所以《婆沙論》第六十八卷說：『彼加行道或有漏』。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the fruits achieved by both paths (referring to the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation) can be lost, is that so? Answer: If the mind seeking superiority is fierce, even the two holdings (referring to holding precepts and holding views) can be transformed. If the mind tending towards inferiority is lax, even the two accomplishments (referring to accomplishing the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation) will not regress. Question: How do the practice of 'sharpening the roots' (練根, liàn gēn, referring to improving one's faculties through practice) in the position of an ordinary person, as well as the stages of 'preparatory practice' (加行, jiāxíng), 'immediate path' (無間, wújiàn), and 'liberation path' (解脫, jiětuō) operate? Answer: As stated in Volume 68 of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論, Póshā lùn): The commentary says that among those who transform their faculties in the corresponding practice ground (referring to the four roots of goodness), although they do not abandon the inferior faculties to obtain superior ones, the lineage of the inferior faculties does not manifest when superior faculties are obtained, so it is also called abandonment. Therefore, when transforming the lineage of those who are prone to regression, and when the lineage of those who are prone to contemplation arises, multiple preparatory practices are used to guide one immediate path and one liberation path, thereby obtaining the transformation of faculties, which is not contrary to reason. Because the practice of the 'warmth stage' (暖位, nuǎnwèi) and others is not long-lasting, it is difficult to accomplish the preparatory practices with outflows. If one turns to another vehicle, there are no immediate paths or liberation paths, and it takes a long time to accomplish. (Explanation: 'Corresponding ground' refers to the four roots of goodness such as the warmth stage) Furthermore, Volume 70 of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (正理, Zhènglǐ) states: All the great teachers I have received teachings from say that sharpening the roots is all to prevent the non-afflicted, indeterminate ignorance that is manifested by the power of the afflictions severed by seeing and cultivation. Therefore, those who practice sharpening the roots in the stage of learning (referring to the stages between the Path of Seeing and the stage of no-more-learning) mainly aim to prevent the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by seeing. Those who practice sharpening the roots in the stage of no-more-learning (referring to the stage of an Arhat) mainly aim to prevent the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by cultivation. Just as there are immediate paths and liberation paths arising when severing those afflictions that can cause karma, so too is the number of paths for severing the manifested ignorance caused by those afflictions. Therefore, when a 'no-more-learner' (無學, wúxué, referring to an Arhat) practices sharpening the roots, they use nine immediate paths and nine liberation paths. When a learner practices sharpening the roots, there is one of each path. However, the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by seeing and cultivation has many categories depending on what is being obstructed. Therefore, when transforming those prone to regression, and when accomplishing those prone to contemplation, various paths manifest, each preventing something different. Therefore, there is no surpassing to obtain a superior lineage (the above is from the text). Explanation: Although a learner practicing sharpening the roots can also prevent the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by cultivation, they mainly aim to prevent the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by seeing, so they use one immediate path and one liberation path. Although a no-more-learner practicing sharpening the roots can also prevent the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by seeing, they mainly aim to prevent the ignorance caused by the afflictions severed by cultivation, so they use nine immediate paths and nine liberation paths. 'As such, 'immediate' up to 'not increasing', explains the 'without outflows' in the verse. This is based on the immediate path and the liberation path, saying that only those without outflows are included. If based on the preparatory practice, it applies to both those with and without outflows. Therefore, Volume 68 of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'That preparatory practice may have outflows.'

。或無漏　正理亦云。一切加行皆通二種。

依謂身地至但依六地者。釋依人三及后一頌。唯於三洲怖畏退故。故修練根。北洲．惡趣無聖道故。余天趣中雖有聖道。而無退故不修練根。無學依九。有學依六。若住果轉根。即舍果得果。若住勝果道轉根。舍果．及向。所得唯果。由此不定故說容言。心唯欣果。所以所得唯果。意總棄劣。所以舍通果．向。又正理七十云。又諸聖位修練根時。與本得果地或同或異。謂初．二果依地必同。彼此俱依未至地故。不還．應果依地不定。或依本地。或上或下。有差別者。若諸不還依下練根不得上果。阿羅漢不爾。如本得果故　問正理若言諸不還果依下練根不得上果者何故婆沙六十七評家云。應作是說。若於上地已得自在。而依下地學轉根等。亦得上地無漏果道。然轉根時不得無色。彼定無有不還果故　解云正理但據于上地中不自在者。婆沙通據于上地中得自在者。各據一義並不相違　問諸依上地得不還果。后依下地修轉根者。于彼上地皆應自在。如何乃言正理論中據不自在言不修上　解云非依上地而得果者。于彼上地皆得自在。為欲得果勵力抑起而非自在故。有依下地而轉根者有不得上。

諸無學位至成九差別者。此即第八明九無學。不動有二。后練根得。先來本

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者說是無漏法，正理也這樣說：一切加行都包含這兩種情況。

關於『依』，即從身地到只依六地的情況，解釋依據《人三》以及後面的一頌。這是因為只有在南贍部洲、東勝身洲、西牛賀洲才會有對退轉的怖畏，所以要修習練根。北俱盧洲和惡趣沒有聖道，所以不修習練根。其他天趣雖然有聖道，但沒有退轉的怖畏，所以也不修習練根。無學果位的人依據九地，有學果位的人依據六地。如果安住于果位而轉根，就是捨棄較低的果位而獲得較高的果位。如果安住于殊勝的果道而轉根，則捨棄果位和向位，所獲得的只有果位。因此，由於情況不確定，所以說『容』。心只欣求果位，所以所得的只有果位。意念完全捨棄低劣的果位，所以捨棄包括果位和向位。此外，《正理》第七十卷說：『又諸聖位修習練根時，與原本所證得的果位之地可能相同，也可能不同。』也就是說，初果和二果所依據的地必定相同，因為兩者都依據未至定地。不還果和阿羅漢果所依據的地不確定，可能依據本地，也可能依據更高的地，也可能依據更低的地。有差別的情況是，如果諸位不還果的人依據較低的地修習練根，則不能證得更高的果位，阿羅漢則不是這樣，如同原本證得的果位一樣。

問：如果《正理》說諸位不還果的人依據較低的地修習練根不能證得更高的果位，那麼為什麼《婆沙論》第六十七卷的評家說：『應該這樣說，如果於上地已經獲得自在，而依據下地學習轉根等，也能證得上地的無漏果道，然而轉根時不能證得無色界果位，因為那裡一定沒有不還果。』

解：解釋說，《正理》只是根據于上地中不自在的人而言。《婆沙論》則通用於在上地中獲得自在的人而言。各自根據一種情況，並不互相違背。

問：諸位依據上地證得不還果，後來依據下地修習轉根的人，對於那些上地都應該自在，為什麼說《正理》中根據不自在的情況而言，不修習上地？

解：解釋說，不是依據上地而證得果位的人，對於那些上地都能自在。爲了獲得果位而努力勉強生起，而不是自在的緣故。有依據下地而轉根的人，有不能證得上地的。

關於諸位無學位的人直到成就九種差別的情況，這指的是第八部分，說明九種無學。不動無學有兩種，后一種是通過練根獲得的，前一種是本來就有的。

【English Translation】 English version: Or it is unconditioned (anāsrava), the Nyāyānusāra also says so: all applications (prayoga) include both types.

Regarding 『depending on』, that is, from the body-ground (kāya-bhūmi) to only depending on the six grounds, the explanation depends on Pudgala-tritaya and the subsequent verse. This is because only in Jambudvīpa (南贍部洲), Pūrvavideha (東勝身洲), and Aparagodānīya (西牛賀洲) is there fear of regression, therefore root-cultivation (mūla-saṃskāra) is practiced. Uttarakuru (北俱盧洲) and the evil destinies (durgati) do not have the Noble Path (ārya-mārga), therefore root-cultivation is not practiced. Although other heavenly realms (deva-gati) have the Noble Path, they do not have regression, so root-cultivation is not practiced. Those in the state of no-more-learning (aśaikṣa) depend on the nine grounds, those in the state of learning (śaikṣa) depend on the six grounds. If one dwells in the fruition (phala) and transforms the root, then one abandons the lower fruition and obtains the higher fruition. If one dwells in the superior fruition-path (phala-mārga) and transforms the root, then one abandons the fruition and the path, and what is obtained is only the fruition. Therefore, because the situation is uncertain, the word 『may』 is used. The mind only rejoices in the fruition, so what is obtained is only the fruition. The intention completely abandons the inferior, so the abandonment includes both the fruition and the path. Furthermore, the seventieth fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra says: 『Also, when those in the Noble states (ārya-avasthā) cultivate root-transformation, the ground of the fruition they originally attained may be the same or different.』 That is to say, the grounds that the Stream-enterer (srota-āpanna) and Once-returner (sakṛdāgāmin) depend on must be the same, because both depend on the Unreached Concentration ground (anāgamya-bhūmi). The grounds that the Non-returner (anāgāmin) and Arhat (arhat) depend on are uncertain, they may depend on their own ground, or on a higher ground, or on a lower ground. The difference is that if those Non-returners cultivate root-transformation depending on a lower ground, they cannot attain a higher fruition, but this is not the case for Arhats, as it is like the fruition they originally attained.

Question: If the Nyāyānusāra says that those Non-returners who cultivate root-transformation depending on a lower ground cannot attain a higher fruition, then why does the commentator in the sixty-seventh fascicle of the Vibhāṣā say: 『It should be said that if one has already attained mastery in the higher ground, and learns root-transformation etc. depending on the lower ground, one can also attain the unconditioned fruition-path of the higher ground, but one cannot attain the formless fruition when transforming the root, because there is definitely no Non-returner there.』

Answer: The explanation is that the Nyāyānusāra only refers to those who are not masters in the higher ground. The Vibhāṣā applies to those who have attained mastery in the higher ground. Each is based on one situation, and they do not contradict each other.

Question: Those who attain the Non-returner fruition depending on the higher ground, and later cultivate root-transformation depending on the lower ground, should all be masters of those higher grounds, so why does the Nyāyānusāra say that it is based on the situation of not being a master, and not cultivating the higher ground?

Answer: The explanation is that not everyone who attains fruition depending on the higher ground is a master of those higher grounds. They strive to force themselves to arise in order to attain the fruition, but they are not masters. There are those who transform the root depending on the lower ground, and there are those who cannot attain the higher ground.

Regarding the situation of all those in the state of no-more-learning up to the accomplishment of the nine distinctions, this refers to the eighth part, explaining the nine types of no-more-learning. The immovable (acala) no-more-learning has two types, the latter is obtained through root-cultivation, the former is inherent.

得。余文可知。

學無學位至三道各二故者。此下大文第二明七種聖人。就中。一明建立七人。二明慧．俱解脫　此即第一明建立七人。依彼七名而為二問。上兩句答初問。下兩句答后問。

論曰至立俱解脫者。釋上兩句。滅盡定名解脫。八解脫中第八解脫。據不染無知是障體性障他解脫故名解脫障。得滅定時能離解脫障故名離解脫障。故言依兼得滅定離解脫障者立俱解脫。余文可知。

此名雖七至如理應思者。釋下兩句。七中身證即是六中信解．見至二種所攝有名無事。七中慧．俱。皆通六中時．不時攝。具縛為一離八地染八九七十二。總成七十三　欲天。謂六慾天　隨法行等。等餘四人。余文可知。

何等名俱至得解脫故者。此即第二明慧．俱解脫。前來未釋故更別明。諸阿羅漢得滅定者名俱解脫。謂由慧力解脫煩惱障故。由滅定力解脫彼解脫障故名解脫障。所餘阿羅漢未得滅定者名慧解脫。但由慧力于煩惱障得解脫故。即此煩惱能障慧生名煩惱障。又正理七十云。何等名為解脫障體。諸阿羅漢心已解脫。而更求解脫。為解脫彼障。謂于所障諸解脫中有劣無知。無覆無記效能障解脫是解脫障體。于彼彼界得離染時。雖已無餘斷而起解脫彼不行時方名解脫。復有餘師說。此解脫障即以于諸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：好。其餘文字可以理解。

『學無學位至三道各二故者』。以下是正文的第二部分，闡明七種聖人。其中，第一部分闡明建立七人，第二部分闡明慧解脫和俱解脫。這即是第一部分，闡明建立七人。根據這七個名稱提出兩個問題。上面兩句回答第一個問題，下面兩句回答第二個問題。

『論曰至立俱解脫者』。解釋上面兩句。滅盡定被稱為解脫，是八解脫中的第八解脫。根據不染無知是障礙的體性，它會障礙其他的解脫，因此被稱為解脫障。獲得滅盡定時，能夠脫離解脫障，因此被稱為離解脫障。所以說，依據兼得滅盡定和脫離解脫障的人，建立為俱解脫。其餘文字可以理解。

『此名雖七至如理應思者』。解釋下面兩句。七種聖人中的身證，就是六種聖人中的信解和見至兩種所包含的，有名無實。七種聖人中的慧解脫和俱解脫，都通於六種聖人中的時解脫和不時解脫。具縛者為一，離開八地染為八九七十二。總共構成七十三種。欲天（指六慾天）。隨法行等（等同於其餘四人）。其餘文字可以理解。

『何等名俱至得解脫故者』。這是第二部分，闡明慧解脫和俱解脫。前面沒有解釋，所以在這裡特別說明。諸位阿羅漢獲得滅盡定的，稱為俱解脫。這是因為通過智慧的力量解脫了煩惱障，又通過滅盡定的力量解脫了彼解脫障，所以稱為俱解脫。其餘沒有獲得滅盡定的阿羅漢，稱為慧解脫。只是通過智慧的力量，對於煩惱障獲得解脫。這種煩惱能夠障礙智慧的產生，稱為煩惱障。另外，《正理七十》中說：『什麼叫做解脫障的體性？』諸位阿羅漢的心已經解脫，但仍然尋求解脫，爲了解脫那個障礙。指的是在所障礙的諸解脫中，有低劣的無知，無覆無記的效能障礙解脫，這就是解脫障的體性。在那個境界獲得離染時，即使已經完全斷除，但當解脫不行時，才稱為解脫。還有其他老師說，這個解脫障就是對於諸

【English Translation】 English version: Understood. The remaining text is understandable.

'Xue Wu Xuewei Zhi San Dao Ge Er Gu Zhe'. The following is the second major section, clarifying the seven types of noble ones. Among them, the first clarifies the establishment of the seven, and the second clarifies the Prajna (wisdom) liberation and Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta (both-ways-liberated). This is the first part, clarifying the establishment of the seven. Based on these seven names, two questions are raised. The above two sentences answer the first question, and the below two sentences answer the second question.

'Lun Yue Zhi Li Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta Zhe'. Explains the above two sentences. Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment) is called liberation, which is the eighth liberation among the eight liberations. According to the non-defiled ignorance being the nature of the obstacle, it obstructs other liberations, hence it is called liberation-obstacle. When obtaining Nirodha-samapatti, one can be free from the liberation-obstacle, hence it is called freedom from liberation-obstacle. Therefore, it is said that those who rely on simultaneously obtaining Nirodha-samapatti and being free from the liberation-obstacle are established as Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta. The remaining text is understandable.

'Ci Ming Sui Qi Zhi Ru Li Ying Si Zhe'. Explains the below two sentences. Among the seven types of noble ones, Kayasakkhi (body witness) is included in the two types of Saddhanusari (faith-follower) and Ditthipatta (truth-attainer) among the six types of noble ones, having name but no substance. Prajna-vimutta and Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta among the seven types of noble ones both encompass Samayavimutta (liberated-by-faith) and Asamayavimutta (liberated-by-wisdom) among the six types of noble ones. The bound one is one, leaving the eight realms of defilement is eight times nine, seventy-two. In total, it constitutes seventy-three. Kamadhatu (desire realm) (referring to the six desire realms). Saddhanusari etc. (equivalent to the remaining four people). The remaining text is understandable.

'He Deng Ming Ubhaya Zhi De Jie Tuo Gu Zhe'. This is the second part, clarifying Prajna-vimutta and Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta. Because it was not explained earlier, it is specifically clarified here. Those Arhats (worthy ones) who have attained Nirodha-samapatti are called Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta. This is because they are liberated from the klesa-avarana (affliction-obstacle) through the power of wisdom, and they are liberated from that liberation-obstacle through the power of Nirodha-samapatti, hence they are called Ubhaya-bhaga-vimutta. The remaining Arhats who have not attained Nirodha-samapatti are called Prajna-vimutta. They are liberated from the klesa-avarana only through the power of wisdom. This affliction can obstruct the arising of wisdom, hence it is called klesa-avarana. Furthermore, the Nyayasiddhanta (Seventy Verses on Logic) says: 'What is called the nature of the liberation-obstacle?' The minds of the Arhats have already been liberated, but they still seek liberation, in order to liberate that obstacle. It refers to the inferior ignorance in the obstructed liberations, the non-covering and non-specified nature obstructs liberation, this is the nature of the liberation-obstacle. When that realm obtains freedom from defilement, even if it has been completely cut off, it is only called liberation when that liberation is not practiced. There are other teachers who say that this liberation-obstacle is the

定不自在為體。有餘師說。此解脫障即以諸定不得為體。有餘師說。于彼加行不勤求故。不聽聞故。不數習故。解脫不生。即此名為解脫障體。初說應理。所以者何。必有少法力能為障。令彼于定不自在轉。若不爾者。彼有何緣于諸定中不得自在。不得定者必有所因。不可說言即因不得。自體不應還因自故。或煩惱障亦應可說即以應果不得為性。彼既不然。此云何爾。阿羅漢果亦由於加行不勤求等故。體不得生豈便無別煩惱障體。故后三說皆不應理(解云四說之中初說應理。所以者何。必有不染無知劣法力能為障令彼于定不自在轉。若不爾者彼有何緣于諸定中不得自在　此破第二師。不得定者至此云何爾此破第三師。阿羅漢果下破第四師。故后三說皆不應理也)。

如世尊說至獨稱為滿者。此下大文第三明學．無學滿。問。如世尊說。五下分煩惱永斷是不還果。不可更為欲界惑業之所牽引。于欲界受生雖根果滿。由彼未得滅盡定故未名滿學。依經起問。學．無學位各由幾因。于等是學位等是無學位中獨稱為滿。

頌曰至但由根定二者。就答中。上兩句明學滿。下兩句明無學滿。

論曰至亦得滿名者。釋上兩句。明有學滿。根謂利根。勝鈍根故。果謂不還。勝前二故。定謂滅定。極寂靜故。或八解脫

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以『定不自在』作為它的體性。有些老師說，這種解脫的障礙就是以各種禪定無法獲得為體性。另一些老師說，因為對於那些（禪定）的加行不勤奮尋求，不聽聞，不反覆修習，所以解脫無法產生，這就是所謂的解脫障的體性。第一種說法是合理的。為什麼呢？必定有某種微小的法力能夠成為障礙，使得修行者在禪定中無法自在運轉。如果不是這樣，那麼他們有什麼原因在各種禪定中無法獲得自在呢？無法獲得禪定必定有其原因，不能說原因就是無法獲得禪定本身，因為自體不應該反過來成為自身的原因。或者，煩惱障也應該可以說以應得的果位無法獲得為體性。既然那樣不對，那麼這個（解脫障）為什麼可以這樣說呢？阿羅漢果也是因為對於加行不勤奮尋求等等原因而無法產生，難道就可以說沒有別的煩惱障的體性了嗎？所以後面三種說法都是不合理的（解釋說四種說法中第一種說法是合理的。為什麼呢？必定有不染污的無知這種低劣的法力能夠成為障礙，使得修行者在禪定中無法自在運轉。如果不是這樣，那麼他們有什麼原因在各種禪定中無法獲得自在呢？這駁斥了第二位老師的觀點。『無法獲得禪定必定有其原因』到『為什麼可以這樣說呢』，這駁斥了第三位老師的觀點。『阿羅漢果』以下駁斥了第四位老師的觀點。所以後面三種說法都是不合理的）。

如世尊所說直到『獨自稱為圓滿』，這以下是大的科判中的第三部分，闡明有學和無學的圓滿。問：如世尊所說，斷除五下分煩惱（指貪慾、嗔恚、身見、戒禁取見、疑）就是不還果（Anagamin，佛教修行果位之一），不可能再被欲界的迷惑和業力所牽引，在欲界中再次受生。雖然根和果都圓滿了，但因為他們沒有獲得滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種高級禪定），所以不能稱為圓滿的有學。這是根據經文提出的問題：有學和無學位各自因為幾個原因，在『等於是有學位』和『等於是有學位』中獨自被稱為圓滿？

頌文說直到『但由根和定這二者』。就回答中，上面兩句闡明有學的圓滿，下面兩句闡明無學的圓滿。

論述說直到『也獲得圓滿的名稱』。解釋上面的兩句，闡明有學的圓滿。根指的是利根，勝過遲鈍的根器；果指的是不還果，勝過前面的兩種果位；定指的是滅盡定，極其寂靜。或者指八解脫（Ashta-vimoksha，八種解脫的禪定）。

【English Translation】 English version: Taking 'non-自在 (Zizai, self-mastery) in Samadhi' as its essence. Some teachers say that this obstacle to liberation is essentially the inability to attain various Samadhis. Other teachers say that because one does not diligently seek, hear, or repeatedly practice those (Samadhis)'s preparatory practices (加行, Jiaxing), liberation does not arise; this is called the essence of the obstacle to liberation. The first statement is reasonable. Why? There must be some small Dharma force that can act as an obstacle, causing the practitioner to be unable to operate freely in Samadhi. If not, then what reason do they have for not being able to attain self-mastery in various Samadhis? The inability to attain Samadhi must have a cause; it cannot be said that the cause is the inability to attain it itself, because the self should not in turn be the cause of itself. Alternatively, the obstacle of afflictions (煩惱障, Fannaozhang) should also be said to have the nature of being unable to attain the deserved fruit. Since that is not the case, why should this (obstacle to liberation) be so? The fruit of Arhat (阿羅漢果, A Luohan Guo) is also unable to arise due to not diligently seeking preparatory practices, etc. Can it be said that there is no separate essence of the obstacle of afflictions? Therefore, the latter three statements are all unreasonable (The explanation says that among the four statements, the first statement is reasonable. Why? There must be a non-defiled ignorance, a inferior Dharma force, that can act as an obstacle, causing the practitioner to be unable to operate freely in Samadhi. If not, then what reason do they have for not being able to attain self-mastery in various Samadhis? This refutes the second teacher's view. 'The inability to attain Samadhi must have a cause' to 'why should this be so', this refutes the third teacher's view. 'The fruit of Arhat' below refutes the fourth teacher's view. Therefore, the latter three statements are all unreasonable).

As the World Honored One said, up to 'uniquely called complete'. Below this is the third part of the large classification, clarifying the completeness of the learner (有學, Youxue) and the non-learner (無學, Wuxue). Question: As the World Honored One said, the permanent severing of the five lower fetters (五下分煩惱, Wu Xia Fen Fannao) (referring to greed, hatred, self-view, adherence to rituals, and doubt) is the fruit of Non-Returner (不還果, Anagamin, one of the Buddhist stages of attainment), and it is impossible to be drawn again by the delusions and karma of the desire realm, to be reborn in the desire realm again. Although the root and fruit are complete, because they have not attained the Cessation Attainment (滅盡定, Nirodha-samapatti, a high-level Samadhi), they cannot be called a complete learner. This is a question raised based on the sutra: For what reasons are the learner and non-learner each uniquely called complete in 'equal to being a learner' and 'equal to being a non-learner'?

The verse says up to 'but by root and Samadhi these two'. In the answer, the above two lines clarify the completeness of the learner, and the below two lines clarify the completeness of the non-learner.

The treatise says up to 'also obtains the name of complete'. Explaining the above two lines, clarifying the completeness of the learner. Root refers to sharp faculties, surpassing dull faculties; fruit refers to the fruit of Non-Returner, surpassing the previous two fruits; Samadhi refers to Cessation Attainment, extremely tranquil. Or it refers to the Eight Liberations (Ashta-vimoksha, eight Samadhis of liberation).

中勝前七故。于有學位若具三因獨得滿名若於三中隨有所闕。雖名分滿不名為獨。正理論意。要具三因方稱為滿。隨有所闕皆不名滿。破俱舍云。此不可依。如何有學于諸有學勝功德中。猶未具證而許名滿　俱舍師救云。滿有二種。一者具滿。謂具三因獨稱為滿。二者分滿謂於三因得二或一約分名滿。于義無違。正理不說翻成義減。

諸無學者至已得滅盡定者。釋下兩句。明無學滿。于無學位若具根．定獨得滿名。若於二中隨有所闕。雖名分．滿不名為獨。于有學位有三果故得言果滿。無學唯一不約果論。正理論意。要具二因方稱為滿。隨有所闕皆不名滿。正理破意準前應說。俱舍救意亦準前說。

廣說諸道至謂三餘道者。此下大文第三明諸道差別　就中。一明四道差別。二明四種通行。三明菩提分法。四明四種證凈。五明正智解脫。六明厭離通局　此即第一明四道差別。舉廣問略及釋可知。

道義云何者。問。

謂涅槃路至涅槃果故者。答。謂涅槃路。三乘聖眾乘此能往涅槃城故故名為道　或複道者。是求所依。依此尋求涅槃果故。故名為道。

解脫．勝進如何名道者。問。加行．無間趣求涅槃可名為道。解脫．勝進既非趣求。如何名道。

與道類同至無餘依故者答。解脫勝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本中勝前七故。于有學位若具三因獨得滿名若於三中隨有所闕。雖名分滿不名為獨。正理論意。要具三因方稱為滿。隨有所闕皆不名滿。破俱舍云。此不可依。如何有學于諸有學勝功德中。猶未具證而許名滿　俱舍師救云。滿有二種。一者具滿。謂具三因獨稱為滿。二者分滿謂於三因得二或一約分名滿。于義無違。正理不說翻成義減。譯：在有學位中，如果具備三種原因，才能獨自獲得『滿』的名稱。如果在這三種原因中有所欠缺，即使名義上是『滿』，也不能稱為『獨』。正理論的觀點是，必須具備三種原因才能稱為『滿』，任何一種原因的欠缺都不能稱為『滿』。破斥《俱舍論》的觀點說：『這不可靠。為什麼有學者在勝過其他有學者的功德中，還沒有完全證得，就被允許稱為『滿』呢？』俱舍論的論師辯解說：『『滿』有兩種：一種是具滿，指具備三種原因，獨自稱為『滿』；另一種是分滿，指在三種原因中得到兩種或一種，按照部分來說是『滿』。在意義上沒有違背。正理論沒有這樣說，反而造成了意義的減少。』

諸無學者至已得滅盡定者。釋下兩句。明無學滿。于無學位若具根．定獨得滿名。若於二中隨有所闕。雖名分．滿不名為獨。于有學位有三果故得言果滿。無學唯一不約果論。正理論意。要具二因方稱為滿。隨有所闕皆不名滿。正理破意準前應說。俱舍救意亦準前說。譯：對於無學者，直到已經獲得滅盡定的人。解釋下面兩句，說明無學位的『滿』。在無學位中，如果具備根和定，才能獨自獲得『滿』的名稱。如果在這兩種原因中有所欠缺，即使名義上是『滿』，也不能稱為『獨』。在有學位中有三種果位，所以可以稱為『果滿』。無學位只有一種，不按照果位來討論。正理論的觀點是，必須具備兩種原因才能稱為『滿』，任何一種原因的欠缺都不能稱為『滿』。正理論破斥的觀點應該按照前面的說法來理解。《俱舍論》辯解的觀點也按照前面的說法來理解。

廣說諸道至謂三餘道者。此下大文第三明諸道差別　就中。一明四道差別。二明四種通行。三明菩提分法。四明四種證凈。五明正智解脫。六明厭離通局　此即第一明四道差別。舉廣問略及釋可知。譯：廣泛地講述各種道，直到『所謂三種其餘道』。下面這段大的文字是第三部分，說明各種道的差別。其中，第一是說明四道的差別；第二是說明四種通行；第三是說明菩提分法；第四是說明四種證凈；第五是說明正智解脫；第六是說明厭離的普遍性和侷限性。這裡是第一部分，說明四道的差別。提出廣泛的問題，簡略地回答，以及解釋，這些都是可以理解的。

道義云何者。問。譯：道的意義是什麼？（問）

謂涅槃路至涅槃果故者。答。謂涅槃路。三乘聖眾乘此能往涅槃城故故名為道　或複道者。是求所依。依此尋求涅槃果故。故名為道。譯：所謂涅槃之路，直到涅槃的果實。（答）所謂涅槃之路，三乘（Sravakayana，Pratyekabuddhayana，Bodhisattvayana）的聖眾乘坐這條路能夠到達涅槃城（Nirvana），所以稱為道。或者說，道是尋求的依靠，依靠它來尋求涅槃的果實，所以稱為道。

解脫．勝進如何名道者。問。加行．無間趣求涅槃可名為道。解脫．勝進既非趣求。如何名道。譯：解脫（vimoksha）、勝進（visesa-gamana）如何稱為道？（問）加行（prayoga-marga）、無間（anantara-marga）趨向尋求涅槃可以稱為道。解脫、勝進既然不是趨向尋求，如何稱為道？

與道類同至無餘依故者答。解脫勝譯：與道同類，直到無餘依的緣故。（答）解脫勝

English version Concerning the former seven superior ones. Regarding those in the state of learning (saiksa) who possess the three causes, they alone attain the full designation. If any of the three is lacking, although nominally 'full,' they are not considered 'alone.' According to the Nyaya-anusara-sastra, one must possess all three causes to be considered 'full'; any deficiency renders one not 'full.' The refutation of the Abhidharmakosa states, 'This is unreliable. How can a learner, surpassing other learners in merit, who has not yet fully realized, be considered 'full'?' The Kosa master defends, 'There are two types of 'fullness': complete fullness, referring to possessing all three causes and being uniquely considered 'full,' and partial fullness, referring to attaining two or one of the three causes, and being named 'full' in part. There is no contradiction in meaning. The Nyaya-anusara-sastra does not state this, resulting in a reduction of meaning.'

Regarding those without learning up to those who have attained the cessation of feeling and perception. Explaining the following two sentences, clarifying the 'fullness' of the state of no learning (asiksa). In the state of no learning, if one possesses both roots (indriya) and concentration (samadhi), one alone attains the full designation. If either of the two is lacking, although nominally 'full,' one is not considered 'alone.' In the state of learning, there are three fruits, hence one can speak of 'fruit fullness.' The state of no learning is unique and not discussed in terms of fruits. According to the Nyaya-anusara-sastra, one must possess both causes to be considered 'full'; any deficiency renders one not 'full.' The refutation by the Nyaya-anusara-sastra should be understood as before. The defense by the Abhidharmakosa should also be understood as before.

Expounding extensively on the various paths up to 'the three remaining paths.' The following major section is the third, clarifying the distinctions among the various paths. Among these: first, clarifying the distinctions among the four paths; second, clarifying the four types of progress; third, clarifying the factors of enlightenment (bodhipaksika-dharma); fourth, clarifying the four types of purification; fifth, clarifying correct knowledge and liberation; sixth, clarifying the universality and limitations of detachment. This is the first part, clarifying the distinctions among the four paths. Raising broad questions, answering concisely, and explaining—these are all understandable.

'What is the meaning of 'path'?' (Question)

'Referring to the path to Nirvana up to the fruit of Nirvana.' (Answer) Referring to the path to Nirvana. The holy assembly of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), riding this, can go to the city of Nirvana (Nirvana), hence it is called 'path.' Or, 'path' is the reliance for seeking. Relying on this, one seeks the fruit of Nirvana, hence it is called 'path.'

'How are liberation (vimoksha) and superior progress (visesa-gamana) called 'path'?' (Question) Preliminary practice (prayoga-marga) and the immediately following (anantara-marga) approaching and seeking Nirvana can be called 'path.' Since liberation and superior progress are not approaching and seeking, how are they called 'path'?

'Being of the same category as the path up to the reason of having no remainder of dependence.' (Answer) Liberation and superior

【English Translation】 English version Concerning the former seven superior ones. Regarding those in the state of learning (saiksa) who possess the three causes, they alone attain the full designation. If any of the three is lacking, although nominally 'full,' they are not considered 'alone.' According to the Nyaya-anusara-sastra, one must possess all three causes to be considered 'full'; any deficiency renders one not 'full.' The refutation of the Abhidharmakosa states, 'This is unreliable. How can a learner, surpassing other learners in merit, who has not yet fully realized, be considered 'full'?' The Kosa master defends, 'There are two types of 'fullness': complete fullness, referring to possessing all three causes and being uniquely considered 'full,' and partial fullness, referring to attaining two or one of the three causes, and being named 'full' in part. There is no contradiction in meaning. The Nyaya-anusara-sastra does not state this, resulting in a reduction of meaning.'

Regarding those without learning up to those who have attained the cessation of feeling and perception. Explaining the following two sentences, clarifying the 'fullness' of the state of no learning (asiksa). In the state of no learning, if one possesses both roots (indriya) and concentration (samadhi), one alone attains the full designation. If either of the two is lacking, although nominally 'full,' one is not considered 'alone.' In the state of learning, there are three fruits, hence one can speak of 'fruit fullness.' The state of no learning is unique and not discussed in terms of fruits. According to the Nyaya-anusara-sastra, one must possess both causes to be considered 'full'; any deficiency renders one not 'full.' The refutation by the Nyaya-anusara-sastra should be understood as before. The defense by the Abhidharmakosa should also be understood as before.

Expounding extensively on the various paths up to 'the three remaining paths.' The following major section is the third, clarifying the distinctions among the various paths. Among these: first, clarifying the distinctions among the four paths; second, clarifying the four types of progress; third, clarifying the factors of enlightenment (bodhipaksika-dharma); fourth, clarifying the four types of purification; fifth, clarifying correct knowledge and liberation; sixth, clarifying the universality and limitations of detachment. This is the first part, clarifying the distinctions among the four paths. Raising broad questions, answering concisely, and explaining—these are all understandable.

'What is the meaning of 'path'?' (Question)

'Referring to the path to Nirvana up to the fruit of Nirvana.' (Answer) Referring to the path to Nirvana. The holy assembly of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), riding this, can go to the city of Nirvana (Nirvana), hence it is called 'path.' Or, 'path' is the reliance for seeking. Relying on this, one seeks the fruit of Nirvana, hence it is called 'path.'

'How are liberation (vimoksha) and superior progress (visesa-gamana) called 'path'?' (Question) Preliminary practice (prayoga-marga) and the immediately following (anantara-marga) approaching and seeking Nirvana can be called 'path.' Since liberation and superior progress are not approaching and seeking, how are they called 'path'?

'Being of the same category as the path up to the reason of having no remainder of dependence.' (Answer) Liberation and superior

進與加行．無間。道類同故名道　又解解脫．勝進漸漸轉向後上品故。與后為道故名道　又解解脫道與加行．無間道同類故名道。若勝進道轉上品故名道。或由前前解脫．勝進力隨其所應能至後後諸道位中故名為道。或此二種俱能趣入無餘依故亦名為道。

道于余處至依何建立者。此下第二明四通行問。道于余處立通行名　通謂通達　行謂行跡。能正通達名通。趣向涅槃名行　此有幾種。依何建立。

頌曰至遲速鈍利根者。上句答初問。下三句答第二問。

論曰至速此相違者。依地明苦．樂。依根或人明遲速。依本靜慮止．觀均平。所有聖道起時。任運名樂通行。非是樂受。若依餘地止．觀不等。所有聖道起時。艱辛名苦通行。非是苦受　支謂靜慮支　余文可知。又正理七十一云。此行五蘊．四蘊為性。由依色定．無色定別。而名通者。顯慧勝故。如見道位雖具五蘊。以慧勝故偏立見名。

道亦名為至菩提分法者。此即第三明菩提分法。就中。一舉數總釋。二正出體性。三明念等三。四明覺分增。五明漏．無漏。六約地分別　此即第一舉數總釋。無明．睡眠皆永斷故。及如實知四聖諦境　已作已事。是盡智　不復作故。是無生智。此二名覺　梵謂菩提。此云覺也。余文可知。

此三十

七至餘九同前者。此即第二正出體性。名雖三十七。實體唯有十。毗婆沙師說有十一。身．語二業不相雜故。戒分為二。正命即是正語．業故不別說也。餘九同前。婆沙九十五有三說。兩說同此論。復有一說。正語．業外有正命故。若說有三即有十二。然無評家。雖復開合不同並戒為體。總而言之。名雖三十七實體唯十。謂慧．勤．定．信．念．喜．舍．輕安．及戒．尋為體　問何故七十五法中。立此十法為覺分。余不立耶。

解云若順凈偏強立為覺分。余非順凈故皆非立。如婆沙云。問何故一切色等法中。唯無表色有立覺分。非余法耶。答正語．業命隨順聖道。勢用偏增故立覺分。余皆不爾是故不立　又解戒能為轂。余色不爾。又正理云。何故表業不立覺分。覺分唯是順定善法。心俱無表有勝順能。表業不然。是故不立。婆沙九十六云。問何不立心為菩提分法。答心無菩提分法相故。複次心於雜染．清凈品中勢用均等。菩提分法于清凈品勢用偏增。是故不立。複次菩提分法輔佐菩提。心王不應輔佐于覺。如王無有輔佐臣義。廣如彼釋　問於四十六心所法中。何故但立念．定．慧．受．信．勤．舍．輕安．尋。不立余法　答如婆沙云。問大地。法中何故但立念．定．慧．受為菩提分法。答念．定．慧三順清凈品

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：七種到餘下的九種與前面相同。這即是第二種，直接指出其體性。名稱雖有三十七種，但實體只有十種。毗婆沙師說有十一種，因為身業和語業不相混雜。戒律分為兩種。正命即是正語和正業，因此不另外說明。餘下的九種與前面相同。《婆沙》第九十五卷有三種說法，兩種說法與此論相同。還有一種說法是，正語和正業之外還有正命，如果說有三種，即有十二種。然而沒有評判家。雖然開合不同，都以戒為體。總而言之，名稱雖有三十七種，實體只有十種，即慧（智慧）、勤（精進）、定（禪定）、信（信心）、念（正念）、喜（喜悅）、舍（捨棄）、輕安（身心輕快安適）、以及戒（戒律）、尋（尋思）。

問：為什麼在七十五法中，只設立這十法為覺分（菩提分），其餘的不設立呢？

答：如果順應清凈且力量偏強，就設立為覺分，其餘的不是順應清凈，因此都不設立。如《婆沙》所說：問：為什麼在一切色等法中，只有無表色可以設立為覺分，而不是其餘的法呢？答：正語、正業、正命隨順聖道，其勢用偏增，因此設立為覺分，其餘的不是這樣，所以不設立。

又解釋說，戒能作為車轂，其餘的色法不能這樣。又《正理》說：為什麼表業不設立為覺分？覺分只是順應禪定的善法，與心俱生的無表色有殊勝的順應能力，表業不是這樣，因此不設立。《婆沙》第九十六卷說：問：為什麼不設立心為菩提分法？答：因為心沒有菩提分法的相狀。其次，心在雜染和清凈品中，勢用均等，而菩提分法在清凈品中勢用偏增，因此不設立。再次，菩提分法輔佐菩提（覺悟），心王不應該輔佐覺悟，如同國王沒有輔佐臣子的道理。詳細的解釋如彼處所說。

問：在四十六種心所法中，為什麼只設立念（正念）、定（禪定）、慧（智慧）、受（感受）、信（信心）、勤（精進）、舍（捨棄）、輕安（身心輕快安適）、尋（尋思），而不設立其餘的法呢？答：如《婆沙》所說：問：在大地法中，為什麼只設立念（正念）、定（禪定）、慧（智慧）、受（感受）為菩提分法？答：念（正念）、定（禪定）、慧（智慧）三種順應清凈品。

【English Translation】 English version: The seven to the remaining nine are the same as before. This is the second, directly pointing out its essence. Although there are thirty-seven names, there are only ten entities. The Vibhasha masters say there are eleven because body karma and speech karma are not mixed. Precepts are divided into two. Right livelihood is right speech and right action, so it is not mentioned separately. The remaining nine are the same as before. In the Vibhasha, volume 95, there are three views, two of which are the same as this treatise. Another view is that there is right livelihood besides right speech and right action, so if there are three, there would be twelve. However, there are no commentators. Although the opening and closing are different, they all take precepts as the essence. In summary, although there are thirty-seven names, there are only ten entities, namely: Prajna (wisdom), Virya (diligence), Samadhi (concentration), Shraddha (faith), Smriti (mindfulness), Priti (joy), Upeksha (equanimity), Prashrabdhi (ease), and Shila (precepts), Vitarka (initial application of mind).

Question: Why are only these ten dharmas established as limbs of enlightenment (bodhyanga) among the seventy-five dharmas, and not the others?

Answer: If it accords with purity and its strength is particularly strong, it is established as a limb of enlightenment; the others do not accord with purity, so they are not established. As the Vibhasha says: Question: Why, among all the dharmas such as form, is only non-revealing form established as a limb of enlightenment, and not the other dharmas? Answer: Right speech, right action, and right livelihood accord with the noble path, and their strength is particularly increased, so they are established as limbs of enlightenment; the others are not like this, so they are not established.

Another explanation is that precepts can serve as the hub of a wheel, but other forms cannot. Also, the Nyayanusara says: Why is revealing karma not established as a limb of enlightenment? Limbs of enlightenment are only good dharmas that accord with concentration. Non-revealing form that arises together with the mind has a superior ability to accord, but revealing karma does not, so it is not established. The Vibhasha, volume 96, says: Question: Why is the mind not established as a factor of enlightenment (bodhipakshika dharma)? Answer: Because the mind does not have the characteristics of a factor of enlightenment. Furthermore, the mind's strength is equal in both defiled and pure qualities, while the strength of the factors of enlightenment is particularly increased in pure qualities, so it is not established. Furthermore, the factors of enlightenment assist enlightenment (bodhi), and the mind-king should not assist enlightenment, just as a king does not have assisting ministers. The detailed explanation is as stated there.

Question: Among the forty-six mental factors (citta-caitta dharmas), why are only Smriti (mindfulness), Samadhi (concentration), Prajna (wisdom), Vedana (feeling), Shraddha (faith), Virya (diligence), Upeksha (equanimity), Prashrabdhi (ease), and Vitarka (initial application of mind) established, and not the other dharmas? Answer: As the Vibhasha says: Question: Among the great earth dharmas, why are only Smriti (mindfulness), Samadhi (concentration), Prajna (wisdom), and Vedana (feeling) established as factors of enlightenment? Answer: The three, Smriti (mindfulness), Samadhi (concentration), and Prajna (wisdom), accord with pure qualities.

中勢用增上。菩提分法亦復如是。故攝此三。受于雜染．清凈品中勢用俱勝。故亦立為菩提分法。有餘師說。受于雜染勢用雖勝。而於凈品作饒益事。如旃荼羅姓雖鄙劣。而與豪族作饒益事。故亦立為菩提分法。想．思．觸欲。于雜染品勢用偏增。故不立為菩提分法。于假想觀勝解偏增。菩提分法順真實觀。是故勝解非彼所攝。有餘師說。菩提分法學位偏增。至無學位勝解方勝。故不立為菩提分法。作意于境令心發覺易脫不定。菩提分法令心住境。義不相應故亦不立有餘師說。初取境時作意力勝。至境相續彼力漸微。菩提分法要取境已多時方有。義不相應故亦不立。問何故三受皆通無漏唯立喜為菩提分法。答樂．舍二受無彼相故。複次菩提分法行相猛利。樂．舍遲鈍故俱不立。複次無漏樂受為輕安樂所覆損故。舍為行舍所覆損故。相不明瞭。故不立為菩提分法。問大善地法中。何故但立信．精進．輕安．舍四種為菩提分法耶。答由此四種順菩提勝。故偏立為菩提分法。謂趣菩提信為上首。將起眾行信為初基。故立信為菩提分法。精進遍策趣菩提行。令速趣向三乘菩提。故亦立為菩提分法。輕安調適對治惛沈助觀品勝。行舍平等對治掉舉助止品勝。菩提分中止．觀為主。故俱立為菩提分法。慚．愧等六散善品中勢用雖勝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：中等的力量增長。菩提分法（bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā，通往覺悟的要素）也是如此。因此，將這三者包含在內。因為受（vedanā，感受）在雜染（saṃkilesa，煩惱）和清凈（vodāna，凈化）的品類中，其力量和作用都非常強大。所以也將其設立為菩提分法。有些其他的老師說，受在雜染方面的力量雖然強大，但對於清凈的品類也能起到饒益的作用，就像旃荼羅（caṇḍāla，賤民）的姓氏雖然卑賤，但也能為豪門貴族提供幫助。所以也將其設立為菩提分法。想（saṃjñā，認知）、思（cetanā，意志）、觸（sparśa，接觸）、欲（chanda，意願）在雜染品類中的力量和作用偏重增加，所以不將其設立為菩提分法。對於假想觀（parikalpita-darśana，虛構的觀點），勝解（adhimokṣa，勝解）的力量增加。菩提分法順應真實觀（yathābhūta-darśana，如實知見）。因此，勝解不被包含在其中。有些其他的老師說，菩提分法在有學位（śaikṣa，還在學習的階段）時力量增加，到了無學位（aśaikṣa，完成學習的階段）時，勝解的力量才強大。所以不將其設立為菩提分法。作意（manasikāra，注意）對於境界，使心容易發覺，容易脫離，不穩定。菩提分法則使心安住于境界。意義不相應，所以也不設立。有些其他的老師說，最初取境的時候，作意的力量強大，等到境界相續的時候，它的力量就逐漸減弱。菩提分法要取境之後，經過很長時間才會有作用。意義不相應，所以也不設立。問：為什麼三種受都通於無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱），唯獨設立喜（prīti，喜悅）為菩提分法？答：樂（sukha，快樂）和舍（upekṣā，平靜）這兩種受沒有喜的特性。而且，菩提分法的行相猛烈，樂和舍遲鈍，所以都不設立。而且，無漏的樂受被輕安樂（praśrabdhi-sukha，輕安所帶來的快樂）所覆蓋和損害，舍被行舍（tatramadhyasthata-upekṣā，對所有行法的舍）所覆蓋和損害，相狀不明顯。所以不設立為菩提分法。問：在大善地法（mahākusalabhūmikā dharmā，普遍的善心所）中，為什麼只設立信（śraddhā，信心）、精進（vīrya，精進）、輕安（praśrabdhi，輕安）、舍（upekṣā，舍）這四種為菩提分法呢？答：因為這四種順應菩提，殊勝。所以偏重設立為菩提分法。所謂趣向菩提，信為首要。將要發起各種修行，信是最初的基礎。所以設立信為菩提分法。精進普遍策勵趣向菩提的修行，使之迅速趣向三乘菩提（triyāna-bodhi，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘的菩提）。所以也設立精進為菩提分法。輕安調和適應，對治昏沉，輔助觀（vipaśyanā，內觀）的品類殊勝。行舍平等，對治掉舉，輔助止（śamatha，止禪）的品類殊勝。菩提分法中，止和觀是主要的。所以都設立為菩提分法。慚（hrī，慚愧）、愧（apatrāpya，羞恥）等六種散善品中，力量和作用雖然強大。

【English Translation】 English version: The increase of middling strength. The bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā (factors conducive to enlightenment) are also like this. Therefore, these three are included. Because vedanā (feeling) in the categories of saṃkilesa (defilement) and vodāna (purification) has both strength and function that are very powerful. Therefore, it is also established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Some other teachers say that although vedanā is strong in terms of defilement, it can also benefit the category of purification, just as the caṇḍāla (outcaste) surname is humble, it can also provide assistance to wealthy families. Therefore, it is also established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Saṃjñā (perception), cetanā (volition), sparśa (contact), and chanda (desire) have a biased increase in strength and function in the category of defilement, so they are not established as bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. For parikalpita-darśana (imaginary views), adhimokṣa (resolution) increases in strength. The bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā are in accordance with yathābhūta-darśana (seeing things as they are). Therefore, adhimokṣa is not included in them. Some other teachers say that the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā increase in strength during the śaikṣa (stage of learning), and adhimokṣa becomes strong only in the aśaikṣa (stage of no further learning). Therefore, it is not established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Manasikāra (attention) to the object makes the mind easily aware, easily detached, and unstable. The bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā, on the other hand, keep the mind dwelling on the object. The meanings are not corresponding, so it is not established either. Some other teachers say that when first taking an object, the strength of manasikāra is strong, but when the object continues, its strength gradually weakens. The bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā require a long time after taking the object to have an effect. The meanings are not corresponding, so it is not established either. Question: Why do the three vedanā all connect to anāsrava (non-affliction), but only prīti (joy) is established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā? Answer: The two vedanā of sukha (happiness) and upekṣā (equanimity) do not have the characteristics of joy. Moreover, the characteristics of the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā are fierce, and happiness and equanimity are slow, so neither is established. Moreover, the anāsrava happiness is covered and damaged by praśrabdhi-sukha (the happiness of tranquility), and equanimity is covered and damaged by tatramadhyasthata-upekṣā (equanimity towards all phenomena), and the characteristics are not clear. Therefore, it is not established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Question: In the mahākusalabhūmikā dharmā (universal wholesome mental factors), why are only śraddhā (faith), vīrya (effort), praśrabdhi (tranquility), and upekṣā (equanimity) established as bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā? Answer: Because these four are in accordance with bodhi and are superior. Therefore, they are preferentially established as bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. In terms of approaching bodhi, faith is the most important. When about to initiate various practices, faith is the initial foundation. Therefore, faith is established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Effort universally encourages the practice of approaching bodhi, causing it to quickly approach the triyāna-bodhi (bodhi of the Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna). Therefore, effort is also established as a bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Tranquility harmonizes and adapts, counteracts dullness, and assists the category of vipaśyanā (insight) to be superior. Equanimity is equal, counteracts agitation, and assists the category of śamatha (calm abiding) to be superior. In the bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā, calm abiding and insight are the main ones. Therefore, both are established as bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā. Hrī (shame), apatrāpya (embarrassment), and the other six scattered wholesome factors, although their strength and function are strong.

。而於定善勢用微劣。故不立為菩提分法。以菩提分定善攝故。有餘師說。大善法中。若所治強．自性勝者立為覺分。余則不爾。所治強者謂與一切染心相應。自性勝者謂眾行本。策發眾行助止．觀勝。信．精進．輕安．舍皆具二義。慚．愧等六無具二者。謂慚等五二義並無。不放逸一種唯闕自性勝。故不立為菩提分法。問何故欣．厭亦體是善。而不立為菩提分法。答欣．厭二法不能遍緣一心品中無容俱起。助覺非勝是故不立。問何故尋．伺俱通無漏。唯立尋為菩提分法。答伺無彼相是故不立。複次菩提分法行相猛利。伺用微劣是故不立。複次伺為尋所覆損故。于策正見尋用偏增。故伺不立菩提分法(已上婆沙文。正理意亦同婆沙)余大不善地法二。大煩惱地法六。少煩惱地法十。及不定地中貪．瞋．慢．疑。並順雜染故皆不立。睡眠．惡作雖亦通善唯是生得。菩提分法是加行善。又正理七十一云。何緣不立不相應行以為覺分。彼于助覺無別勝能。不相應故。非如無表雖不相應。而於道輪有為轂用。故於覺分不別建立。有餘師說二無心定能滅心故與覺相違。四相及得於所相．成有遷．成用。此于染．凈起用平等。菩提分法順凈用增故不別立(解云餘七是無記理在絕言。故彼余師不別釋也)　問三無為何故不立　解云夫

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：而對於定善（Dhyana-kusala，禪定之善）來說，其作用微弱，所以不將其設立為菩提分法（bodhyanga，覺支）。因為它已經被菩提分定善所包含。還有其他老師說，在大的善法中，如果所對治的煩惱強烈，或者其自性殊勝的，就設立為覺分（bodhyanga，覺支），否則就不設立。所對治的煩惱強烈，指的是與一切染污心相應的煩惱。自性殊勝，指的是作為眾行的根本，能夠策發眾行，並且在幫助止（samatha，奢摩他）和觀（vipassana，毗婆舍那）方面殊勝。信（saddha，信）、精進（viriya，毗梨耶）、輕安（passaddhi，缽舍提）、舍（upekkha，優婆舍）都具備這兩種含義。慚（hri，呵梨）、愧（apatrapya，阿缽多羅避夜）等六種心所不具備這兩種含義，慚等五種心所兩種含義都沒有。不放逸（apramada，阿缽羅摩達）這一種只缺少自性殊勝，所以不將其設立為菩提分法。問：為什麼欣（nandi，難提）、厭（arati，阿羅底）的體性也是善，卻不將其設立為菩提分法？答：欣、厭這兩種法不能普遍緣取，在一個心品中無法同時生起，並且在幫助覺悟方面不夠殊勝，所以不設立。問：為什麼尋（vitarka，毗達磨）、伺（vicara，毗剎羅）都通於無漏（anasrava，阿那斯rava），卻只設立尋為菩提分法？答：因為伺不具備尋的特性，所以不設立。而且，菩提分法的行相猛利，伺的作用微弱，所以不設立。再者，伺被尋所覆蓋和減損，所以在策發正見（samyag-drsti，正見）方面，尋的作用更加顯著，所以伺不設立為菩提分法。（以上是《婆沙論》的文句，《正理》的觀點也與《婆沙論》相同）其餘的大不善地法（akusala-mahabhumika，不善大地法）兩種，大煩惱地法（klesa-mahabhumika，煩惱大地法）六種，少煩惱地法（klesa-parittabhumika，小煩惱地法）十種，以及不定地法（aniyata-bhumika，不定地法）中的貪（lobha，羅巴）、瞋（dvesa，吠沙）、慢（mana，摩那）、疑（vicikitsa，毗支吉察），都順應雜染（samklesa，僧伽梨沙），所以都不設立。睡眠（middha，米栗陀）、惡作（kaukuttya，考考itya）雖然也通於善，但只是生得的，而菩提分法是加行善。另外，《正理》第七十一卷說，為什麼不設立不相應行（visamyukta-samskara，毗僧瑜伽達-僧斯嘎拉）作為覺分？因為它在幫助覺悟方面沒有特別殊勝的能力，因為它是不相應的。不像無表色（avijnapti-rupa，阿毗若提-盧帕），雖然不相應，但對於道輪（marga-cakra，瑪嘎-恰克拉）來說，有作為車轂的作用，所以對於覺分不特別設立。還有其他老師說，二無心定（dve asamsjnika-samapatti，二無想定）能夠滅除心識，所以與覺悟相違背。四相（caturlaksana，四相）以及得（prapti，缽喇提）對於所相、成有遷變、成用。這些對於染污和清凈的生起作用是平等的，而菩提分法順應清凈的作用更加顯著，所以不特別設立。（解釋說，其餘七種是無記（avyakrta，阿維亞克塔），道理在於絕言，所以那位其他老師沒有特別解釋。）問：三無為（trayo asamskrtah，三無為法）為什麼不設立？解說：那...

【English Translation】 English version: As for Dhyana-kusala (meditative wholesome actions), its function is weak, so it is not established as a bodhyanga (factor of enlightenment). It is already included in the Dhyana-kusala of the bodhyangas. Some other teachers say that among the great wholesome dharmas, if what is being counteracted is strong, or if its own nature is superior, then it is established as a factor of enlightenment; otherwise, it is not. 'What is being counteracted is strong' refers to what is associated with all defiled minds. 'Its own nature is superior' refers to being the root of all practices, capable of urging on practices, and superior in assisting samatha (tranquility) and vipassana (insight). Saddha (faith), viriya (effort), passaddhi (tranquility), and upekkha (equanimity) all possess both meanings. Hri (shame), apatrapya (embarrassment), and the other six do not possess both meanings; the five such as shame do not possess either meaning. Apramada (non-negligence) only lacks the superiority of its own nature, so it is not established as a factor of enlightenment. Question: Why are nandi (joy) and arati (discontent), whose nature is also wholesome, not established as factors of enlightenment? Answer: Nandi and arati cannot universally apprehend objects, and they cannot arise simultaneously in one mind-moment. Furthermore, they are not superior in assisting enlightenment, so they are not established. Question: Why are vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicara (sustained application of thought) both connected to the anasrava (untainted), but only vitarka is established as a factor of enlightenment? Answer: Because vicara does not possess the characteristics of vitarka, it is not established. Moreover, the characteristics of the factors of enlightenment are vigorous, while the function of vicara is weak, so it is not established. Furthermore, vicara is covered and diminished by vitarka, so in urging on samyag-drsti (right view), the function of vitarka is more prominent, so vicara is not established as a factor of enlightenment. (The above is from the text of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra; the view of the Abhidharmakosabhasyam is also the same as the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra.) The remaining two akusala-mahabhumika (universal unwholesome mental factors), six klesa-mahabhumika (universal afflictive mental factors), ten klesa-parittabhumika (minor afflictive mental factors), and the lobha (greed), dvesa (hatred), mana (pride), and vicikitsa (doubt) among the aniyata-bhumika (indefinite mental factors) all accord with samklesa (defilement), so they are not established. Middha (sleep) and kaukuttya (remorse), although also connected to the wholesome, are only naturally acquired, while the factors of enlightenment are wholesome through effort. Furthermore, Abhidharmakosabhasyam, volume 71, says, 'Why are visamyukta-samskara (non-associated formations) not established as factors of enlightenment?' Because they do not have a particularly superior ability to assist enlightenment, because they are non-associated. Unlike avijnapti-rupa (non-manifest matter), although it is non-associated, it has the function of a hub for the marga-cakra (wheel of the path), so it is not specifically established as a factor of enlightenment. Some other teachers say that the dve asamsjnika-samapatti (two unconscious attainments) can extinguish consciousness, so they are contrary to enlightenment. The caturlaksana (four characteristics) and prapti (attainment) have change and accomplishment in relation to what is characterized and accomplished. These are equal in their function of arising for defilement and purity, while the function of the factors of enlightenment is more prominent in accordance with purity, so they are not specifically established. (It is explained that the remaining seven are avyakrta (indeterminate), and the principle lies in being beyond words, so that other teacher did not specifically explain them.) Question: Why are the trayo asamskrtah (three unconditioned dharmas) not established? Explanation: That...

順菩提必須起用。無為無用是故不立。由斯廢立故唯十種是菩提分法。余皆不立。又正理云。何緣不立信為覺．及道支。初發趣時信用增上。已入聖位立覺．道支。信于爾時勢用微劣。故不立在覺．道支中。何緣于覺支立喜．輕安．舍。非亦立彼在道支中。彼偏順覺不順道故。云何順覺。且修道中地地各修九品勝覺如如於諦數數覺悟。如是如是發生勝喜。由生勝喜復樂觀諦。如人掘地獲寶生喜。由生喜故復樂更掘。故喜于覺隨順力增。要由輕安息諸事務。及由舍力令心平等。方能于境審諦觀察故立安．舍在覺支中。云何此三不順於道。速疾運轉是聖道義。此于速運少有相違。並能令心安隱住故。何緣于道立尋．戒支。于覺支中非亦立彼。彼偏順道不順覺故。云何順道。且見道中尋策正見。令于上下八諦境中速疾觀察。戒能為轂成見道輪。令于諦中速疾迴轉。故尋．及戒俱立道支。此復云何不順於覺。且尋于諦不寂靜轉。于聖諦理尋求相故。覺已見諦安靜而轉。故尋于覺少有相違。覺是相應有所緣境所依行相。戒此相違。故於覺支不建立彼。通運名道不可為例。

念住等三至為慧勤定者。此下第三明念住等三問。念住．神足．正斷三種名中更無別有屬當。如何念住獨說為慧。如何正斷獨說為勤。如何神足獨說為定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：須要啟用菩提分法。因為無為和無用，所以不特別設立。由於這種設立和廢除的原則，所以只有十種法是菩提分法，其餘的都不設立。另外，《正理》中說：『為什麼不設立信為覺支和道支呢？』因為最初開始修行的時候，信心最為重要。已經進入聖位后，才設立覺支和道支。信心在那個時候作用已經很小了，所以不設立在覺支和道支中。『為什麼在覺支中設立喜、輕安、舍，而不把它們也設立在道支中呢？』因為它們偏向于順應覺悟，而不順應道路。『怎樣順應覺悟呢？』在修道的過程中，每一地都要修習九品殊勝的覺悟，像這樣一次又一次地覺悟真諦，就會產生殊勝的喜悅。由於產生殊勝的喜悅，又會更加仔細地觀察真諦，就像人挖地挖到寶貝一樣感到喜悅，因為產生喜悅，所以又樂於繼續挖掘。所以喜悅對於覺悟的隨順力量更強。一定要通過輕安來停止各種事務，並且通過舍的力量使心平等，才能對所觀察的境界進行審慎而仔細的觀察，所以設立輕安和舍在覺支中。『這三種法為什麼不順應道路呢？』快速運轉是聖道的意義，這三種法對於快速運轉稍微有些違背，並且能夠使心安穩地住于其中。『為什麼在道支中設立尋和戒支，而不把它們也設立在覺支中呢？』因為它們偏向于順應道路，而不順應覺悟。『怎樣順應道路呢？』在見道中，尋能鞭策正見，使之能夠在上下的八諦境界中快速地觀察。戒能夠作為輪轂，成就見道的車輪，使之能夠在真諦中快速地迴轉。所以尋和戒都設立在道支中。『這又為什麼不順應于覺悟呢？』因為尋對於真諦的觀察是不寂靜的，因為它還在尋求真諦的相狀。覺悟是已經見到真諦，並且安靜地運轉。所以尋對於覺悟稍微有些違背。覺悟是相應的，有所緣的境界，所依靠的行相。戒與此相違背，所以不在覺支中設立它。』貫通運轉叫做道，不可以作為例子。念住等三，至於為慧、勤、定者：這下面第三部分說明關於念住等三個問題的提問。念住（smṛtyupasthāna）、神足（ṛddhipāda）、正斷（samyakprahāṇa）這三種名稱中，沒有其他的歸屬，為什麼念住單獨被說成是慧（prajñā）？為什麼正斷單獨被說成是勤（vyāyāma）？為什麼神足單獨被說成是定（samādhi）？

【English Translation】 English version: Bodhi (awakening) must be put into use. Because it is non-active and non-functional, it is not established separately. Due to this principle of establishment and rejection, only ten dharmas are Bodhi-anga (factors of enlightenment), and the rest are not established. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on Accordance with Reason) says: 'Why is faith (śraddhā) not established as a bodhyanga (factor of awakening) and a mārgaṅga (factor of the path)?' Because at the initial stage of practice, faith is the most important. After entering the stage of the noble ones, bodhyanga and mārgaṅga are established. At that time, the function of faith is very weak, so it is not established in bodhyanga and mārgaṅga. 'Why are joy (prīti), tranquility (praśrabdhi), and equanimity (upekṣā) established in bodhyanga, but not also established in mārgaṅga?' Because they are biased towards conforming to awakening, not conforming to the path. 'How do they conform to awakening?' In the process of practicing the path, in each stage, one must practice the nine grades of excellent awakening. Just like this, again and again, awakening to the truth, one will generate excellent joy. Due to the generation of excellent joy, one will observe the truth more carefully, just like a person digging the ground and finding treasure, feeling joy. Because of the generation of joy, one is happy to continue digging. Therefore, joy has a stronger force of conforming to awakening. It is necessary to stop various affairs through tranquility, and to make the mind equal through the power of equanimity, in order to observe the object of observation prudently and carefully. Therefore, tranquility and equanimity are established in bodhyanga. 'Why do these three dharmas not conform to the path?' Rapid movement is the meaning of the noble path. These three dharmas are slightly contrary to rapid movement, and they can make the mind dwell in peace. 'Why are vitarka (initial application of thought) and śīla (ethical conduct) established in mārgaṅga, but not also established in bodhyanga?' Because they are biased towards conforming to the path, not conforming to awakening. 'How do they conform to the path?' In the path of seeing, vitarka can spur on right view, enabling it to quickly observe the upper and lower eight truths. Śīla can serve as the hub, accomplishing the wheel of the path of seeing, enabling it to quickly revolve in the truths. Therefore, vitarka and śīla are both established in mārgaṅga. 'Why is this not conforming to awakening?' Because the observation of truth by vitarka is not tranquil, because it is still seeking the characteristics of truth. Awakening is already seeing the truth and moving quietly. Therefore, vitarka is slightly contrary to awakening. Awakening is corresponding, having an object of focus, and relying on characteristics. Śīla is contrary to this, so it is not established in bodhyanga.' The all-encompassing movement is called the path, and it cannot be taken as an example. The three, such as mindfulness, etc., as to being wisdom, diligence, and concentration: The third part below explains the questions about the three, such as mindfulness. Among the three names of smṛtyupasthāna (foundations of mindfulness), ṛddhipāda (bases of magical power), and samyakprahāṇa (right exertion), there are no other attributions. Why is smṛtyupasthāna said to be solely prajñā (wisdom)? Why is samyakprahāṇa said to be solely vyāyāma (diligence)? Why is ṛddhipāda said to be solely samādhi (concentration)?

。

頌曰至及定者。答。四念住．四正斷．四神足三品善根。若據相應及俱有法以出體性。體實遍攝諸加行善。然隨同品增上善根以出體性。如次應說。念住為慧。正斷為勤。神足為定。

何緣于慧立念住名者。問。

毗婆沙師至持令住故者。答。慧名念住。從因為名。

理實由慧至已廣成立者。論主正解。慧名念住從果為名。指同前意。

何故說勤名為正斷者。問。

于正修習至此最勝故者。答。于正修習勤斷二惡勤修二善位中。此勤力能斷懈怠故。是故四種通名正斷　言四種者。一已生惡法方便令斷。二未生惡法遮令不生。三未生善法方便令生。四已生善法修令增廣。故婆沙云。一正勤體有四作用。如燈一時有四作用．又婆沙一百四十一云。四正斷者。一于已生惡不善法為令斷故生欲發勤攝心持心。二于未生惡不善法為令不生故。余如前說。三于未生善法為令生故。余說如前。四于已生善法為令安住不忘倍修增廣故。余說如前　問此四何緣說為正斷。答由此四種能正斷故　問前二可爾。后二云何。答以初為名。故無有失。或此四種皆有斷義。謂前二斷煩惱障。后二斷所知障。修善法時斷無知故。暫斷．永斷俱名斷故　又雜心第八云。阿羅漢雖無不善法．及斷對治。而有壞對

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

問：什麼（善法）可以稱為『至』及『定』？

答：四念住（Sati-patthana，四種專注的修行）、四正斷（Samma-ppadhana，四種正確的努力）、四神足（Iddhipada，四種成就的基石）這三類善根。如果根據它們相應的和同時存在的法來確定其體性，那麼它們的體性實際上遍攝一切加行善。然而，根據同類的增上善根來確定其體性，應該依次說：念住是慧（Prajna，智慧），正斷是勤（Viriya，精進），神足是定（Samadhi，禪定）。

問：為什麼在慧上建立念住這個名稱？

答：毗婆沙師（Vibhasa masters）說，慧被稱爲念住，是從因的角度來命名的，因為慧能執持（正念）令其安住。

論主正確地解釋說，實際上，慧被稱爲念住，是從果的角度來命名的，這與前面的意思相同，即由慧而廣為成立（正念）。

問：為什麼說勤名為正斷？

答：在正確修習勤斷兩種惡法、勤修兩種善法的階段中，這種勤奮的力量能夠斷除懈怠，因此這四種（努力）通稱為正斷。所說的四種是：一、對於已經產生的惡法，想方設法使之斷除；二、對於尚未產生的惡法，遮止使其不產生；三、對於尚未產生的善法，想方設法使之產生；四、對於已經產生的善法，修習使其增長廣大。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中說，一種正勤的體性有四種作用，就像燈在同一時間有四種作用一樣。又《婆沙論》第一百四十一卷中說，四正斷是：一、對於已經產生的惡不善法，爲了使之斷除，生起欲、發起勤奮、攝心、持心；二、對於未產生的惡不善法，爲了使之不產生，其餘的如前所說；三、對於未產生的善法，爲了使之產生，其餘的如前所說；四、對於已經產生的善法，爲了使之安住不忘、加倍修習增長廣大，其餘的如前所說。問：這四種為什麼被稱為正斷？答：因為這四種能夠正確地斷除（煩惱）。問：前兩種可以這樣說，后兩種又如何解釋呢？答：以最初的（斷惡）來命名，所以沒有過失。或者說，這四種都有斷的含義，即前兩種斷除煩惱障，后兩種斷除所知障，修習善法時斷除無知。暫時的斷除和永久的斷除都可以稱為斷。又《雜心論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）第八卷中說，阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟者）雖然沒有不善法以及斷除對治，但有壞對治。

【English Translation】 English version:

Question: What (wholesome dharmas) can be termed 'to,' 'reaching,' and 'establishment'?

Answer: The Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sati-patthana, four kinds of focused practice), the Four Right Exertions (Samma-ppadhana, four kinds of correct effort), and the Four Bases of Power (Iddhipada, four foundations for accomplishment)—these three categories of wholesome roots. If we determine their nature based on their corresponding and co-existent dharmas, then their nature actually encompasses all preliminary wholesome actions. However, according to the similar, increasing wholesome roots to determine its nature, it should be said in order: Mindfulness is wisdom (Prajna), Right Exertion is diligence (Viriya), and Bases of Power is concentration (Samadhi).

Question: Why is the name 'Foundation of Mindfulness' established upon wisdom?

Answer: The Vibhasa masters say that wisdom is called 'Foundation of Mindfulness' because it is named from the cause, because wisdom can hold (right mindfulness) and cause it to abide.

The master of the treatise correctly explains that, in reality, wisdom is called 'Foundation of Mindfulness' because it is named from the result, which is the same as the previous meaning, that is, it is widely established by wisdom (right mindfulness).

Question: Why is diligence called Right Exertion?

Answer: In the stage of correctly practicing diligence to abandon two kinds of evil dharmas and diligently cultivating two kinds of wholesome dharmas, this power of diligence can cut off laziness. Therefore, these four (efforts) are commonly called Right Exertions. The four mentioned are: 1. For evil dharmas that have already arisen, find ways to eliminate them; 2. For evil dharmas that have not yet arisen, prevent them from arising; 3. For wholesome dharmas that have not yet arisen, find ways to bring them into existence; 4. For wholesome dharmas that have already arisen, cultivate them to increase and expand them. Therefore, the Vibhasa says that one Right Exertion has four functions, just as a lamp has four functions at the same time. Also, Vibhasa, volume 141, says that the Four Right Exertions are: 1. For evil and unwholesome dharmas that have already arisen, in order to eliminate them, generate desire, initiate diligence, collect the mind, and maintain the mind; 2. For evil and unwholesome dharmas that have not yet arisen, in order to prevent them from arising, the rest is as previously stated; 3. For wholesome dharmas that have not yet arisen, in order to bring them into existence, the rest is as previously stated; 4. For wholesome dharmas that have already arisen, in order to keep them abiding without forgetting, and to cultivate them doubly to increase and expand them, the rest is as previously stated. Question: Why are these four called Right Exertions? Answer: Because these four can correctly cut off (afflictions). Question: The first two can be said that way, but how are the latter two explained? Answer: Named after the initial (abandoning evil), so there is no fault. Or, all four have the meaning of cutting off, that is, the first two cut off the afflictive obscurations, and the latter two cut off the cognitive obscurations, cutting off ignorance when cultivating wholesome dharmas. Temporary cutting off and permanent cutting off can both be called cutting off. Also, Abhidharmasamuccaya, volume 8, says that although an Arhat (enlightened being) has no unwholesome dharmas and cutting off antidotes, there is destructive antidote.

治．持對治．遠分對治故亦說四正斷。色．無色界亦如是(已上論文)　或名已下。敘異名釋。如文可知。

何緣于定立神足名者。問。

諸靈妙德所依止故者。答。謂諸神靈勝妙功德故名為神。定是彼神所依止故名之為足。神之足故名為神足。

有餘師說至足謂欲等者。敘余師說。神即是定。有神用故。足謂欲．勤．心．觀四種。彼應覺分至等持名足者。論主破余師。若言足謂欲等。彼應覺分事有十三。於前毗婆沙師十一事上。增欲．心二故有十三。以勤．觀二種。十一已有故。不言增。欲．心非有故別言增。古來諸德言。心是定。此義不然。若心是定。應但增欲。定先有故。今增欲．心。知心非定。若神即定。又違經說。契經既言神謂受用種種神境分一為多等。故知神者神靈妙德。足謂欲等四三摩地。故知是神所依止定名之為足。論主釋經。此中佛說定果名神。欲等四因所生等持名之為足。故知此神非即是定。以實而論定為體性。而言四神足者。從因說四。就果。名神。就用稱足。故婆沙云。一三摩地由四因生。故從所因立四名稱　問從四因生。為據同時為據前後　解云此據同時立名。與定同時雖有多法。此四資益等持勝故。欲謂希求。勤謂勤策。心謂所依。觀謂觀察。故從同時四因為名。故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『治』指對治，『持』指持續對治，『遠分』指遠離煩惱的對治，因此也說四正斷（四種正確的斷除方法）。色（rupa，物質）、無（arupa，非物質）也是如此。（以上是論文內容）『或名已下』以下，敘述不同的名稱並加以解釋，如文中所述即可明白。

為什麼對於禪定要設立『神足』（rddhipada，成就神通的基礎）這個名稱呢？（提問）

因為是各種靈妙功德所依止之處。（回答）意思是說，各種具有神靈般勝妙的功德，因此稱為『神』。禪定是這些『神』所依止的地方，所以稱為『足』。是『神』的『足』，所以稱為『神足』。

有其他論師說，『足』指的是欲（chanda，願望）、勤（virya，精進）等。（敘述其他論師的說法）『神』就是禪定，因為它具有神奇的作用。『足』指的是欲、勤、心（citta，心念）、觀（mimamsa，觀察）這四種。論主反駁其他論師：如果說『足』指的是欲等，那麼覺支（bodhyanga，覺悟的組成部分）的事項就有十三種。在之前的毗婆沙師所說的十一種事項上，增加了欲、心兩種，所以有十三種。因為勤、觀兩種，在之前的十一種中已經有了，所以不說增加。欲、心不是已經存在的，所以特別說增加。古來的各位大德說，心就是禪定，這個說法是不對的。如果心就是禪定，應該只增加『欲』，因為禪定已經存在了。現在增加了『欲』、『心』，就知道心不是禪定。如果『神』就是禪定，又違背了經典所說。經典中說，『神』指的是能夠受用種種神通境界，能將一化為多等等。因此可知，『神』指的是神靈般勝妙的功德，『足』指的是欲等四種三摩地（samadhi，禪定）。因此可知，是『神』所依止的禪定，才被稱為『足』。論主解釋經典：這裡佛陀所說的是，禪定的果報稱為『神』，由欲等四種原因所產生的等持（samahita，專注的狀態）稱為『足』。因此可知，這個『神』不是禪定本身。實際上，禪定的體性是禪定本身，而說『四神足』，是從原因上來說的。就結果來說，稱為『神』。就作用來說，稱為『足』。所以《婆沙論》說，一個三摩地由四種原因產生，因此從所因上設立四種名稱。提問：從四種原因產生，是根據同時還是根據前後？解釋說：這是根據同時而立名的。與禪定同時雖然有很多法，但這四種對等持的資助最為殊勝。欲指的是希求，勤指的是勤勉策勵，心指的是所依，觀指的是觀察。因此從同時的四種原因來命名。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Curing' refers to counteracting, 'sustaining' refers to continuously counteracting, 'distancing' refers to counteracting by distancing oneself from afflictions, hence the Four Right Exertions are also spoken of. So it is with rupa (form, materiality) and arupa (formlessness, immateriality). (The above is from the treatise) From 'Or named below' onwards, different names are narrated and explained, as can be understood from the text.

For what reason is the name 'rddhipada' (bases of spiritual power) established for samadhi (concentration)? (Question)

Because it is the place where all spiritual and wondrous virtues rely. (Answer) Meaning, various virtues that are spiritual and excellent, hence called 'rddhi' (spiritual power). Samadhi is where these 'rddhi' rely, hence called 'pada' (base). Because it is the 'pada' of 'rddhi', it is called 'rddhipada'.

Some other teachers say that 'pada' refers to chanda (desire), virya (effort), etc. (Narrating the views of other teachers) 'Rddhi' is samadhi, because it has spiritual function. 'Pada' refers to the four: chanda, virya, citta (mind), and mimamsa (investigation). The author refutes other teachers: If 'pada' refers to chanda, etc., then the factors of bodhyanga (factors of enlightenment) would be thirteen. On top of the eleven factors mentioned by the previous Vaibhashika masters, chanda and citta are added, hence there are thirteen. Because virya and mimamsa are already included in the previous eleven, it is not said that they are added. Chanda and citta are not already present, hence it is specifically said that they are added. Ancient virtuous ones say that citta is samadhi, but this view is incorrect. If citta were samadhi, only chanda should be added, because samadhi is already present. Now that both chanda and citta are added, it is known that citta is not samadhi. If 'rddhi' were samadhi, it would contradict the sutras. The sutras say that 'rddhi' refers to being able to enjoy various spiritual realms, being able to transform one into many, etc. Therefore, it is known that 'rddhi' refers to spiritual and wondrous virtues, and 'pada' refers to the four samadhis of chanda, etc. Therefore, it is known that the samadhi on which 'rddhi' relies is called 'pada'. The author explains the sutras: Here, the Buddha said that the result of samadhi is called 'rddhi', and the samahita (state of concentration) produced by the four causes of chanda, etc., is called 'pada'. Therefore, it is known that this 'rddhi' is not samadhi itself. In reality, the essence of samadhi is samadhi itself, and the term 'Four Rddhipadas' is used from the perspective of the causes. In terms of the result, it is called 'rddhi'. In terms of the function, it is called 'pada'. Therefore, the Vibhasha says that one samadhi is produced by four causes, hence four names are established from the causes. Question: Are the four causes simultaneous or sequential? Explanation: This is named based on simultaneity. Although there are many dharmas (elements) simultaneous with samadhi, these four are the most beneficial to samahita. Chanda refers to aspiration, virya refers to diligence and encouragement, citta refers to the basis, and mimamsa refers to investigation. Therefore, it is named from the four simultaneous causes.

婆沙云。謂于俱有．相應法中。資益等持此四勝故(已上論文)　又解。此據加行立名。欲者欲起此定。謂加行位由欲力故引發定起。勤者勤修此定。謂加行位由勤力故引發定起。心者心所所依。謂加行位由心力故引發定起。觀者慧觀察境。謂加行位由觀力故引發定起。加行位中雖有多法。此四資勝從四為名。故婆沙云。謂加行位或由欲力引發等持令其現起。廣說乃至。或由觀力引令現起(已上論文)所言四者。一欲神足。二勤神足。三心神足。四觀神足。

何緣信等至后名為力者。問。何緣信等五法體俱根力。先說為根。后說為力。

由此五法至不可屈伏故者。答。由此五法依下品先說根。依上品后說力。又依可屈伏名根。不可屈伏名力。

信等何緣次第如是者。問。

謂于因果至如是次第者。答。如文可知。

當言何位至應知次第增者。此即第四明覺分增。問及頌答。

論曰至所說如是者。初業位中。能審照了身等四境自相．共相。慧用勝故說念住增。暖法位中。能證異品抉擇分善殊勝功德說正斷增。頂法位中能持勝善趣忍無退位故說神足增。忍法位中。必不卻退必不墮惡善根堅固得增上義故說根增。第一位中。非諸惑法．及余世法所能屈伏故說力增。修道位中。近菩提位

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：《婆沙論》說：『在俱有、相應法中，欲、勤、心、觀這四種要素對於增益等持（Samadhi，禪定）最為殊勝。』（以上是論文原文）另一種解釋是，這是根據加行位（修行過程中的預備階段）來命名的。『欲』是指想要發起這種禪定，即在加行位，通過『欲』的力量來引發禪定的生起。『勤』是指勤奮地修習這種禪定，即在加行位，通過『勤』的力量來引發禪定的生起。『心』是指心所（Citta，心理活動）所依賴的，即在加行位，通過『心』的力量來引發禪定的生起。『觀』是指用智慧觀察境界，即在加行位，通過『觀』的力量來引發禪定的生起。在加行位中雖然有很多法，但以這四種要素最為重要，因此以這四種要素來命名。所以《婆沙論》說：『在加行位中，或者通過『欲』的力量來引發等持，使其顯現；』一直到『或者通過『觀』的力量來引發等持，使其顯現。』（以上是論文原文）所說的四種要素是：一、欲神足（Chandasamādhi，欲定）。二、勤神足（Vīriyasamādhi，精進定）。三、心神足（Cittasamādhi，心定）。四、觀神足（Vimamsāsamādhi，觀定）。

為什麼信等五根在達到一定程度后被稱為『力』呢？問：為什麼信（Śrāddha，信仰）、精進（Vīrya，努力）、念（Smṛti，正念）、定（Samādhi，禪定）、慧（Prajñā，智慧）這五種法，既是根（Indriya，能力），又是力（Bala，力量）？

因為這五種法達到了不可屈伏的程度。答：因為這五種法，依據其下品階段，先稱為『根』；依據其上品階段，后稱為『力』。或者說，依據其可屈伏的狀態，稱為『根』；依據其不可屈伏的狀態，稱為『力』。

為什麼信等五根的順序是這樣的呢？問：

因為在因果關係中，是這樣的順序。答：如原文所說。

應當說在哪個階段，覺分（Bodhyanga，菩提分）的增長是怎樣的呢？這實際上是第四個問題，說明覺分的增長。問答。

論中說：在初業位（初學者的階段）中，能夠審視照了身（Kāya，身體）等四境（四念住的對象）的自相（Svalakṣaṇa，自身特性）和共相（Sāmānyalakṣaṇa，普遍特性），因為智慧的作用殊勝，所以說念住（Smṛtyupasthāna，正念住）增長。在暖法位（修行升溫的階段）中，能夠證明與異品（不善法）相對的抉擇分善（善法）的殊勝功德，所以說正斷（Samyakprahāṇa，正精進）增長。在頂法位（修行達到頂點的階段）中，能夠保持殊勝的善趣（Sugati，好的去處），安忍（Kṣānti，忍耐）于沒有退轉的位置，所以說神足（Ṛddhipāda，神足）增長。在忍法位（安忍的階段）中，必定不會退轉，必定不會墮落到惡趣（Durgati，壞的去處），善根（Kuśalamūla，善的根基）堅固，獲得增長的意義，所以說根（Indriya，根）增長。在第一位（證果的最初階段）中，不會被各種迷惑之法以及其他世俗之法所屈伏，所以說力（Bala，力）增長。在修道位（修行的階段）中，接近菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）的位置。

【English Translation】 English version: The Vibhasa says: 'Among co-existent and associated dharmas, desire, effort, mind, and observation are the most excellent for increasing samadhi (concentration).' (The above is the original text of the treatise) Another explanation is that this is named according to the stage of application (prayoga-marga, the preparatory stage of practice). 'Desire' refers to the desire to initiate this samadhi, that is, in the stage of application, the arising of samadhi is initiated by the power of 'desire'. 'Effort' refers to diligently practicing this samadhi, that is, in the stage of application, the arising of samadhi is initiated by the power of 'effort'. 'Mind' refers to what the mental factors (citta) rely on, that is, in the stage of application, the arising of samadhi is initiated by the power of 'mind'. 'Observation' refers to observing the object with wisdom, that is, in the stage of application, the arising of samadhi is initiated by the power of 'observation'. Although there are many dharmas in the stage of application, these four are the most important, so they are named after these four. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'In the stage of application, either the power of 'desire' initiates samadhi, causing it to manifest;' all the way to 'or the power of 'observation' initiates it, causing it to manifest.' (The above is the original text of the treatise) The four elements mentioned are: 1. Chandasamādhi (concentration of desire). 2. Vīriyasamādhi (concentration of effort). 3. Cittasamādhi (concentration of mind). 4. Vimamsāsamādhi (concentration of observation).

Why are the five indriyas (faculties) such as faith called 'powers' after reaching a certain level? Question: Why are the five dharmas of Śrāddha (faith), Vīrya (effort), Smṛti (mindfulness), Samādhi (concentration), and Prajñā (wisdom) both indriyas and balas (powers)?

Because these five dharmas have reached an invincible state. Answer: Because these five dharmas, according to their inferior stage, are first called indriyas; according to their superior stage, they are later called balas. Or, according to their vulnerable state, they are called indriyas; according to their invincible state, they are called balas.

Why is the order of the five indriyas such as faith like this? Question:

Because in the relationship of cause and effect, the order is like this. Answer: As the original text says.

In which stage should it be said that the bodhyangas (factors of enlightenment) increase, and how? This is actually the fourth question, explaining the increase of the bodhyangas. Question and answer.

The treatise says: In the initial stage of practice, one can examine and illuminate the svalakṣaṇa (own-characteristic) and sāmānyalakṣaṇa (common-characteristic) of the four objects (of the four Smṛtyupasthāna (foundations of mindfulness)) such as the Kāya (body). Because the function of wisdom is excellent, it is said that Smṛtyupasthāna increases. In the stage of warming dharma, one can prove the excellent merits of the kuśala (wholesome) aspects of the nirvedha-bhāgīya (aspects of decision) that are opposite to the heterogenous aspects (unwholesome dharmas), so it is said that Samyakprahāṇa (right exertion) increases. In the stage of the peak dharma, one can maintain the excellent Sugati (good destination), endure (Kṣānti) in a position without regression, so it is said that Ṛddhipāda (supernatural power) increases. In the stage of endurance, one will definitely not regress, will definitely not fall into the Durgati (bad destination), the Kuśalamūla (roots of goodness) are firm, and one obtains the meaning of increase, so it is said that Indriya (faculty) increases. In the first stage (the initial stage of attaining the fruit), one will not be subdued by various delusive dharmas and other worldly dharmas, so it is said that Bala (power) increases. In the stage of the path of cultivation, one is close to the position of Bodhi (enlightenment).

助覺勝故說覺支增。見道位中。十五剎那速疾而轉。通行勝故說道支增。然契經中隨數增說先七．后八。非修次第若據修次第。先八．后七　八中已下義便兼明。毗婆沙師所說如是。

有餘於此至說為第五者。敘余師說　言四事者勤斷二惡。勤修二善。列名如前。力是不可屈伏義。能正伏除所治煩惱。令不現行牽生聖法。由此五力說為第五。余文可知。

于見道位至四聖諦故者。于見道位建立七覺支。如實覺知四聖諦故。

通於二位至涅槃城故者。通於見．修二位建立八聖道支。俱通直往無餘涅槃城故。或此涅槃亦通有餘。

如契經說至亦修圓滿者。余師引經證八聖道支亦通修位。經文既言於八道支修圓滿者。乃至七覺亦修圓滿。故知八道亦通修道。若言七覺修道。八在見道。寧修八時七亦圓滿。以此明知。據修道位修八滿時名修圓滿。

又契經說至八聖道支者。復引經證八道通修　宣如實言者。喻佛世尊說四聖諦。此顯見道。以四聖諦皆如實故　令依本路速行出者。喻令修習八聖道支。此顯修道。以八道支皆是過去佛本游路故。如契經中說有商侶乘船入海至一海誕。有羅剎女現可愛形誘諸商侶。漸入己城各配一女。時經多日。空中天神告商侶曰。今此城內非是人類。皆是羅剎幻惑故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『助覺』（Bo jiao，幫助覺悟）殊勝的緣故，所以說『覺支』（Jue zhi，覺悟的組成部分）增長。在『見道位』（Jian dao wei，證悟真理的階段）中，十五個剎那迅速地轉變。『通行』（Tong xing，普遍實行）殊勝的緣故，所以說『道支』（Dao zhi，通往覺悟的道路的組成部分）增長。然而，契經中隨著數量的增加而說先七后八，並非修行的次第。如果根據修行的次第，則是先八后七。八支中已下的意義便兼而明瞭。『毗婆沙師』（Pi po sha shi，論師）所說就是這樣。

『有餘於此至說為第五者』，敘述其他論師的說法。『言四事者』，指的是勤奮斷除兩種惡，勤奮修習兩種善。名稱如前所述。『力』（Li，力量）是不可屈服的意思，能夠正確地降伏和消除所要對治的煩惱，使它們不再現行，牽引產生聖法。因此，五力被說為第五。其餘的文字可以理解。

『于見道位至四聖諦故者』，在見道位建立七覺支，是爲了如實地覺知四聖諦（Si sheng di，佛教的四個真理）。

『通於二位至涅槃城故者』，貫通見道位和修道位建立八聖道支（Ba sheng dao zhi，達到涅槃的八條途徑），共同直接通往無餘涅槃城（Wu yu nie pan cheng，沒有剩餘煩惱的涅槃境界）。或者，這裡的涅槃也貫通有餘涅槃（You yu nie pan，還有剩餘煩惱的涅槃）。

『如契經說至亦修圓滿者』，其他論師引用經典來證明八聖道支也貫通修道位。經文既然說在八道支上修習圓滿，乃至七覺支也修習圓滿，所以知道八道也貫通修道。如果說七覺在修道，八道在見道，那麼修習八道時七覺怎麼會圓滿呢？因此可以明白，根據修道位，修習八道圓滿時，就叫做修習圓滿。

『又契經說至八聖道支者』，再次引用經典來證明八道貫通修道。『宣如實言者』，比喻佛世尊宣說四聖諦。這顯示了見道，因為四聖諦都是如實的。『令依本路速行出者』，比喻使人修習八聖道支。這顯示了修道，因為八道支都是過去佛所行走的道路。如契經中說，有商隊乘船入海，到達一個海島。有羅剎女（Luo cha nu，女妖）顯現出可愛的形象來引誘商隊，逐漸進入自己的城市，給每個人分配一個女子。時間過了很久，空中的天神告訴商隊說，現在這個城市裡沒有人類，都是羅剎幻化出來的。

【English Translation】 English version Because the 『aids to awakening』 (Bo jiao) are superior, it is said that the 『constituents of awakening』 (Jue zhi) increase. In the 『stage of seeing the path』 (Jian dao wei), fifteen moments rapidly transform. Because 『universal practice』 (Tong xing) is superior, it is said that the 『constituents of the path』 (Dao zhi) increase. However, the sutras speak of seven first and eight later, according to the increase in number, not the order of practice. If based on the order of practice, it would be eight first and seven later. The meanings below the eight are also clarified. This is what the 『Vibhasha masters』 (Pi po sha shi) say.

『Some say up to the fifth』 refers to the sayings of other teachers. 『The four things』 refer to diligently abandoning two evils and diligently cultivating two goods. The names are as mentioned before. 『Power』 (Li) means being unyielding, able to correctly subdue and eliminate the afflictions to be treated, preventing them from manifesting and leading to the arising of holy Dharma. Therefore, the five powers are said to be the fifth. The remaining text is understandable.

『In the stage of seeing the path, up to the reason of the Four Noble Truths』 means that in the stage of seeing the path, the seven constituents of awakening are established in order to truly know the Four Noble Truths (Si sheng di).

『Penetrating the two stages up to the city of Nirvana』 means that the Eightfold Noble Path (Ba sheng dao zhi) is established, penetrating both the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation, leading directly to the city of Nirvana without remainder (Wu yu nie pan cheng). Or, this Nirvana also penetrates Nirvana with remainder (You yu nie pan).

『As the sutra says, up to also cultivating to perfection』 means that other teachers cite the sutras to prove that the Eightfold Noble Path also penetrates the stage of cultivation. Since the sutra says that one cultivates to perfection in the Eightfold Path, and even the seven constituents of awakening are cultivated to perfection, it is known that the Eightfold Path also penetrates the path of cultivation. If it is said that the seven constituents of awakening are in the path of cultivation and the eight are in the path of seeing, how can the seven be perfected when cultivating the eight? Therefore, it can be understood that according to the stage of cultivation, when cultivating the eight to perfection, it is called cultivating to perfection.

『Also, the sutra says, up to the Eightfold Noble Path』 means that the sutra is cited again to prove that the Eightfold Path penetrates cultivation. 『Declaring truthful words』 is likened to the Buddha declaring the Four Noble Truths. This reveals the path of seeing, because the Four Noble Truths are all truthful. 『Causing them to quickly go out according to the original path』 is likened to causing people to cultivate the Eightfold Noble Path. This reveals the path of cultivation, because the Eightfold Path is the path walked by the Buddhas of the past. As the sutra says, there was a group of merchants who sailed into the sea and arrived at an island. A Rakshasa woman (Luo cha nu) manifested a lovely form to seduce the merchants, gradually entering her city, and assigning a woman to each person. After a long time, a deity in the sky told the merchants that there were no humans in this city, but all Rakshasas transformed.

爾不久之間皆被食啖。即為宣說如實之言。於是城中皆悉受苦。此喻苦諦。汝勿貪染。此喻集諦。匆求出城。此喻滅諦。急覓出道。此喻道諦。故宣如實言者。此喻四聖諦。顯見道也。空中天神復告商侶。可依本路速行出去。即此本路。喻令修習八聖道支是顯修道。過去諸佛皆悉依此修道本路而出生死。若欲求出生死海者。可依過去諸佛本路速行出之。求速出者當勤修習八聖道支。以此故知。亦通修道　又解。本路之言通喻見修。若作此解即證八道通見．修二。

故知八道支通依二位說者。引二證訖。余師總結。

隨增位說至有漏無漏者。此即第五明有漏．無漏。如文可知。又正理云。謂修道位七覺支增鄰近菩提。謂治有頂故覺支體一向無漏。一切覺分皆助菩提。唯此獨標覺支名者。以最鄰近菩提果故。由此理趣證七覺支。應知但依治有頂說。此為上首類治下地。唯于無漏立覺支名。若不許然。寧不通二。或於一切菩提分中。依近菩提立覺支號。道中修道位近菩提性近菩提唯是無漏。故無漏修道方立覺支名。見道位中八道支勝。故此一向無漏性攝。

此三十七至無無漏故者。此即第六約地分別。勵力轉故。猶疑慮故。所以無喜。余文可知此文但約諸地總說。若約現行四念住中唯取一種。余容並起。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：你們不久之後都會被吃掉。我現在為你們宣說真實不虛的道理。於是，城中的人都感到痛苦。這比喻苦諦（duhkha satya，關於苦難的真理）。你們不要貪戀執著。這比喻集諦（samudaya satya，關於苦難起因的真理）。不要想著出城。這比喻滅諦（nirodha satya，關於苦難止息的真理）。趕緊尋找出路。這比喻道諦（marga satya，關於通往苦難止息之道的真理）。所以，宣說真實不虛的道理，這比喻四聖諦（catuh arya satyani，佛教的四個基本真理），顯示了見道（darshana-marga，證悟真理的道路）。空中的天神又告訴商人們，可以沿著原來的路快速出去。這條原來的路，比喻修習八聖道支（arya astangika marga，達到涅槃的八正道），顯示了修道（bhavana-marga，通過修行來完善智慧的道路）。過去的諸佛都是依靠這條修道的道路而脫離生死的。如果想要脫離生死苦海，可以沿著過去諸佛的道路快速出去。想要快速出去的人應當勤奮修習八聖道支。因此可知，這也適用於修道。另一種解釋是，原來的路可以比喻見道和修道。如果這樣解釋，就證明八正道貫通見道和修道兩個階段。因此可知，八聖道支可以依據見道位和修道位兩種情況來說明，以上引用了兩個論證。其他法師總結說：隨著增進的階段來說明，直到有漏和無漏。這是第五點，說明有漏（sasrava，與煩惱相關的）和無漏（anasrava，沒有煩惱的）。如文中所說。又，《正理》（Nyaya，古印度正理學派的論著）中說，在修道位，七覺支（sapta bodhyangani，七種覺悟的要素）增長，接近菩提（bodhi，覺悟）。因為要對治有頂天（bhavagra，三界中的最高處），所以覺支的本體一定是無漏的。一切覺分都幫助達到菩提，唯獨這裡特別標明覺支的名字，是因為它最接近菩提的果實。由此道理可以證明，七覺支應該只是依據對治有頂天來說明。這是以上統攝下，類似於對治下層境界。只有在無漏的狀態下才建立覺支的名稱。如果不允許這樣，難道不會貫通有漏和無漏兩種情況嗎？或者在一切菩提分中，依據接近菩提來建立覺支的名稱。在道中，修道位接近菩提的性質，接近菩提的唯有無漏。所以只有無漏的修道才能建立覺支的名稱。在見道位中，八聖道支殊勝，所以它一定是無漏的。這三十七道品（bodhipaksika-dharmas，通往覺悟的三十七種要素）直到沒有有漏和無漏的區分，這是第六點，從不同地（bhumi，修行的不同階段）的角度來分別。因為努力轉化，還存在疑惑，所以沒有喜悅。其餘的文字可以理解。這段文字只是從總的方面來說明各個地。如果從現行的四念住（catvari smrtyupasthanani，四種正念的修習）來說，只取一種，其餘的可以同時生起。

【English Translation】 English version: You will all be devoured before long. I will now proclaim the truth as it is. Thereupon, everyone in the city suffered. This is a metaphor for duhkha satya (the truth of suffering). Do not be greedy and attached. This is a metaphor for samudaya satya (the truth of the origin of suffering). Do not seek to leave the city. This is a metaphor for nirodha satya (the truth of the cessation of suffering). Quickly seek a way out. This is a metaphor for marga satya (the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering). Therefore, proclaiming the truth as it is, this is a metaphor for the catuh arya satyani (the Four Noble Truths), revealing the darshana-marga (the path of seeing, the path of insight). The heavenly beings in the sky further told the merchants, 'You can quickly leave by the original road.' This original road is a metaphor for cultivating the arya astangika marga (the Noble Eightfold Path), revealing the bhavana-marga (the path of cultivation). The Buddhas of the past all relied on this path of cultivation to escape birth and death. If you wish to escape the sea of birth and death, you can quickly leave by the path of the Buddhas of the past. Those who seek to leave quickly should diligently cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path. Therefore, it is known that this also applies to the path of cultivation. Another explanation is that the original road can be a metaphor for both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. If interpreted in this way, it proves that the Eightfold Path encompasses both the stages of seeing and cultivation. Therefore, it is known that the Eightfold Path can be explained based on both the stage of seeing and the stage of cultivation. The above quotes two arguments. Other Dharma masters conclude: Explaining according to the stages of increase, up to the sasrava (with outflows) and anasrava (without outflows). This is the fifth point, explaining the sasrava and anasrava. As the text says. Furthermore, the Nyaya (ancient Indian school of logic) says, 'In the stage of cultivation, the sapta bodhyangani (seven factors of enlightenment) increase, approaching bodhi (enlightenment). Because one must counteract bhavagra (the peak of existence), the essence of the enlightenment factors must be anasrava. All factors of enlightenment help to achieve bodhi, but only here is the name 'enlightenment factor' specifically marked because it is closest to the fruit of bodhi.' From this reasoning, it can be proven that the seven factors of enlightenment should only be explained based on counteracting bhavagra. This is the upper encompassing the lower, similar to counteracting the lower realms. Only in the state of anasrava is the name 'enlightenment factor' established. If this is not allowed, wouldn't it encompass both the sasrava and anasrava? Or, in all factors of bodhi, the name 'enlightenment factor' is established based on proximity to bodhi. In the path, the stage of cultivation is close to the nature of bodhi, and only the anasrava is close to bodhi. Therefore, only the anasrava path of cultivation can establish the name 'enlightenment factor'. In the stage of seeing, the Noble Eightfold Path is superior, so it must be of anasrava nature. These bodhipaksika-dharmas (thirty-seven factors of enlightenment) up to the point where there is no distinction between sasrava and anasrava, this is the sixth point, distinguishing from the perspective of different bhumi (stages of practice). Because of the effort to transform, there is still doubt, so there is no joy. The remaining text can be understood. This text only explains the various bhumi in general terms. If considering the currently practiced catvari smrtyupasthanani (Four Foundations of Mindfulness), only one is taken, and the others can arise simultaneously.

故婆沙九十六云。問何地有幾菩提分法俱時現前。答未至定中有三十六菩提分法。唯三十三俱時現前。除三念住。所以者何。以四念住所緣各別。尚無有二俱時理前。況有三．四。初靜慮中有三十七。唯二十四俱時現前。除三念住。靜慮中間及第三．第四靜慮各三十五。唯三十二俱時現前。除三念住。第二靜慮有三十六唯三十三俱時現前。除三念住前三無色有三十二。唯二十九俱時現前。除三念住。欲界．有頂有二十二。唯有十九俱時現前。除三念住。余隨義說。非要別體。

覺分轉時至四皆唯無漏者。此即大文第四明四種證凈。總有四問。初兩句答初問。次四句答第二問。第七句答第三問。第八句答第四問。

論曰至戒證凈者。釋初兩句。由證諦理于佛起信名佛證凈。法．僧準釋。聖人所愛慕戒故名聖戒。其戒體凈。依證起故亦名證凈。前三信所緣故置於言。第四依證故無于字。故婆沙一百三云。此中佛者謂佛身中諸無學法。緣彼無漏信名佛證凈。此中法者。謂獨覺身中三無漏根等學．無學法。菩薩身中二無漏根等諸學。及苦．集．滅三諦。緣彼無漏信名法證凈。此中僧者。謂聲聞身中學．無學法。緣彼無漏信名僧證凈。諸無漏戒名戒證凈。自性凈故。依證起故。亦名證凈。且見道位至無不亦得者。釋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《婆沙論》第九十六卷說：問：在哪個禪定境界中有幾種菩提分法同時現前？答：在未至定（Upacāra-samādhi，指接近初禪但尚未達到的禪定狀態）中有三十六種菩提分法，但只有三十三種同時現前，去除了三種念住（Smṛtyupasthāna，四念住中的三種）。為什麼呢？因為四念住所緣的對象各不相同，尚且沒有兩種同時現前的道理，更何況是三種或四種。初禪（Prathama Dhyāna）中有三十七種，但只有二十四種同時現前，去除了三種念住。靜慮中間定（Dhyānāntara）以及第三禪（Tṛtīya Dhyāna）、第四禪（Caturtha Dhyāna）各有三十五種，但只有三十二種同時現前，去除了三種念住。第二禪（Dvitīya Dhyāna）中有三十六種，但只有三十三種同時現前，去除了三種念住。前三個無色界（Ārūpyadhātu）有三十二種，但只有二十九種同時現前，去除了三種念住。欲界（Kāmadhātu）、有頂天（Bhavāgra）有二十二種，但只有十九種同時現前，去除了三種念住。其餘的根據意義解釋，並非一定要有特別的體性。

覺悟之分（Bodhipākṣika-dharmas）轉變時，達到四種都是無漏（Anāsrava）的境界。這正是大文的第四部分，闡明四種證凈（Vaiśāradya）。總共有四個問題。開頭兩句回答第一個問題，接著四句回答第二個問題，第七句回答第三個問題，第八句回答第四個問題。

論曰：至戒證凈者。解釋開頭兩句。由於證悟真諦的道理，對佛產生信心，名為佛證凈（Buddha-vaiśāradya）。法（Dharma）、僧（Saṃgha）可以參照解釋。聖人所愛慕的戒律，所以名為聖戒（Ārya-śīla）。其戒體清凈，依靠證悟而生起，所以也名為證凈。前三種是信所緣的對象，所以用『于』字。第四種依靠證悟而生起，所以沒有『于』字。《婆沙論》第一百零三卷說：這裡所說的佛，是指佛身中的各種無學法（Aśaikṣa-dharma）。緣于這些無漏法而產生的信心，名為佛證凈。這裡所說的法，是指獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）身中的三種無漏根等學法（Śaikṣa-dharma）、無學法，菩薩（Bodhisattva）身中的兩種無漏根等各種學法，以及苦（Duḥkha）、集（Samudāya）、滅（Nirodha）三諦。緣于這些無漏法而產生的信心，名為法證凈。這裡所說的僧，是指聲聞（Śrāvaka）身中的學法、無學法。緣于這些無漏法而產生的信心，名為僧證凈（Saṃgha-vaiśāradya）。各種無漏戒律名為戒證凈（Śīla-vaiśāradya），因為自性清凈，依靠證悟而生起，所以也名為證凈。且見道位（Darśana-mārga）至無不亦得者，解釋...

【English Translation】 English version The Vibhāṣā, ninety-sixth fascicle, says: Question: In which meditative state do several factors of enlightenment (Bodhipākṣika-dharmas) simultaneously manifest? Answer: In the Upacāra-samādhi (preparatory concentration, the state approaching the first Dhyāna), there are thirty-six factors of enlightenment, but only thirty-three manifest simultaneously, excluding the three Smṛtyupasthānas (foundations of mindfulness, three out of the four). Why is that? Because the objects of the four Smṛtyupasthānas are distinct, there is no reason for even two to manifest simultaneously, let alone three or four. In the first Dhyāna (Prathama Dhyāna), there are thirty-seven, but only twenty-four manifest simultaneously, excluding the three Smṛtyupasthānas. In the Dhyānāntara (intermediate Dhyāna), as well as the third Dhyāna (Tṛtīya Dhyāna) and fourth Dhyāna (Caturtha Dhyāna), there are thirty-five each, but only thirty-two manifest simultaneously, excluding the three Smṛtyupasthānas. In the second Dhyāna (Dvitīya Dhyāna), there are thirty-six, but only thirty-three manifest simultaneously, excluding the three Smṛtyupasthānas. In the first three formless realms (Ārūpyadhātu), there are thirty-two, but only twenty-nine manifest simultaneously, excluding the three Smṛtyupasthānas. In the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) and the peak of existence (Bhavāgra), there are twenty-two, but only nineteen manifest simultaneously, excluding the three Smṛtyupasthānas. The rest is explained according to the meaning, not necessarily having a distinct entity.

When the factors of enlightenment (Bodhipākṣika-dharmas) transform, reaching the state where all four are unconditioned (Anāsrava). This is precisely the fourth part of the main text, clarifying the four kinds of assurances (Vaiśāradya). There are a total of four questions. The first two sentences answer the first question, the next four sentences answer the second question, the seventh sentence answers the third question, and the eighth sentence answers the fourth question.

The treatise says: 'To the assurance of precepts.' This explains the first two sentences. Due to realizing the truth, faith arises in the Buddha, which is called Buddha-vaiśāradya (assurance of the Buddha). The Dharma and Saṃgha can be explained similarly. The precepts admired by the noble ones are called Ārya-śīla (noble precepts). Their essence is pure, arising from realization, so they are also called assurance. The first three are objects of faith, so the preposition 'in' is used. The fourth arises from realization, so there is no 'in'. The Vibhāṣā, one hundred and third fascicle, says: Here, 'Buddha' refers to the various unconditioned dharmas (Aśaikṣa-dharma) in the Buddha's body. The unconditioned faith arising from them is called Buddha-vaiśāradya. Here, 'Dharma' refers to the Śaikṣa-dharma (dharmas of training) and Aśaikṣa-dharma, such as the three unconditioned roots in the body of a Pratyekabuddha (solitary Buddha), the various Śaikṣa-dharma, such as the two unconditioned roots in the body of a Bodhisattva, and the three truths of suffering (Duḥkha), accumulation (Samudāya), and cessation (Nirodha). The unconditioned faith arising from them is called Dharma-vaiśāradya. Here, 'Saṃgha' refers to the Śaikṣa-dharma and Aśaikṣa-dharma in the body of a Śrāvaka (hearer). The unconditioned faith arising from them is called Saṃgha-vaiśāradya. The various unconditioned precepts are called Śīla-vaiśāradya (assurance of precepts), because they are pure in nature and arise from realization, so they are also called assurance. Furthermore, the stage of the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga) to 'none is not attainable', explains...

次四句。且見道位見前三諦時。一一唯得法．戒證凈。所證三諦是理法寶。緣彼信故名法證凈。道起之時必有俱戒名戒證凈。見道諦位不但得法．戒二。兼得佛．僧。以佛．僧體有為無漏道諦攝故。不通餘三。謂于爾時兼于成佛諸無學法。成聲聞僧學．無學法亦得證凈。行修雖是法證凈。得修別緣三寶故。更別得佛．僧二證凈。兼言為顯見道諦時亦得於法及戒證凈。然所信法略有二種。一別。二總。總通四諦皆是法故。別唯苦．集．滅三諦全。道諦少分。謂菩薩道即菩薩身中學法。及獨覺道即獨覺身中學．無學法。皆是法攝。夫言僧者。四人已上和合名僧。菩薩．獨覺各獨出世故不名僧。菩薩據三十四念也。獨覺據麟角喻　問菩薩．獨覺獨一出世不成僧眾。身中無漏法中所攝。天中聖人。在家聖等。不成僧眾。何寶所攝　有古德解。法寶所攝　此解不然。論不簡故　今解云。僧有二種。一者事和。二者理和。聖人據理故皆名僧。又解通四諦法皆是理法。證諦理故。或滅諦亦理法。證理法故。或苦．集亦有教法．行法。道諦中菩薩．獨覺道亦是行法。證行法故。故見四諦時皆得法證凈。聖所愛戒與現觀俱故。一切時無不亦得。於四諦中。行修雖但法．戒證凈。得修別緣故具四種。故正理七十二云。若無漏信緣別法生。名

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：其次是四句。並且在見道位見到前面三個諦時，每一個都只能獲得法證凈、戒證凈。所證的三諦是理法寶（真理之法寶）。因為信奉它們，所以稱為法證凈。道生起的時候必定有俱戒，名為戒證凈。見道諦位不僅僅獲得法、戒二者，還兼得佛、僧。因為佛、僧的本體是有為無漏的道諦所攝。不通於其餘三者。意思是說，在那時兼有成就佛的各種無學法，成就聲聞僧的學法、無學法也都能獲得證凈。行修雖然是法證凈，因為獲得修習是分別緣於三寶的緣故，所以另外獲得佛、僧二證凈。『兼』字是爲了顯示見道諦時也能獲得法和戒的證凈。然而所信奉的法略有二種：一是別，二是總。總的來說，四諦都是法。特別來說，只有苦、集、滅三諦是完全的，道諦是少部分。菩薩道即菩薩身中的學法，以及獨覺道即獨覺身中的學法、無學法，都屬於法所攝。所謂僧，是指四人以上和合稱為僧。菩薩、獨覺各自獨自出世，所以不稱為僧。菩薩是根據三十四念來說的，獨覺是根據麟角喻來說的。問：菩薩、獨覺獨自一人出世，不能成為僧眾，他們身中的無漏法中所攝的天中聖人、在家聖人等，不能成為僧眾，那麼屬於什麼寶所攝？有古德解釋說，屬於法寶所攝。這種解釋不對，因為論中沒有簡化。現在的解釋是：僧有兩種，一是事和，二是理和。聖人根據理來說，都稱為僧。又解釋說，通於四諦法都是理法，因為證悟諦理的緣故。或者滅諦也是理法，因為證悟理法的緣故。或者苦、集也有教法、行法。道諦中的菩薩、獨覺道也是行法，因為證悟行法的緣故。所以見到四諦時都能獲得法證凈。聖所愛戒與現觀同時存在，所以任何時候沒有不能獲得的。在四諦中，行修雖然只有法、戒證凈，因為獲得修習是分別緣於三寶的緣故，所以具足四種。所以《正理》第七十二說：如果無漏信緣于別法而生，名為...

【English Translation】 English version: Next are the four lines. Furthermore, when seeing the first three Noble Truths in the Path of Seeing, one only attains Dharma-saṃjñā (purity of Dharma), and Śīla-saṃjñā (purity of precepts) in each case. The three Noble Truths that are realized are the Dharma Jewel of principle. Because of faith in them, it is called Dharma-saṃjñā. When the Path arises, there must be concurrent precepts, called Śīla-saṃjñā. In the position of seeing the Path Truth, one not only attains Dharma and Śīla, but also attains Buddha and Saṃgha. Because the essence of Buddha and Saṃgha is included in the conditioned, undefiled Path Truth. It does not extend to the other three. That is to say, at that time, one also attains purity in various non-learning Dharmas for attaining Buddhahood, and also attains purity in learning and non-learning Dharmas for attaining Śrāvaka-saṃgha. Although practice and cultivation are Dharma-saṃjñā, because the attainment of cultivation is separately conditioned by the Three Jewels, one separately attains Buddha and Saṃgha saṃjñā. The word 'also' is to show that one can also attain Dharma and Śīla saṃjñā when seeing the Path Truth. However, the Dharma that is believed in is roughly of two kinds: one is specific, and the other is general. Generally speaking, the Four Noble Truths are all Dharma. Specifically, only the Truths of Suffering, Accumulation, and Cessation are complete, and the Truth of the Path is a small part. The Bodhisattva Path is the learning Dharma in the body of the Bodhisattva, and the Pratyekabuddha Path is the learning and non-learning Dharma in the body of the Pratyekabuddha, all of which are included in the Dharma. The so-called Saṃgha refers to four or more people harmoniously together called Saṃgha. Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas each appear alone in the world, so they are not called Saṃgha. Bodhisattvas are based on the thirty-four thoughts, and Pratyekabuddhas are based on the rhinoceros horn analogy. Question: Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas appear alone in the world and cannot form a Saṃgha. The sages in the heavens and the lay sages included in the undefiled Dharma in their bodies cannot form a Saṃgha. What Jewel are they included in? Some ancient worthies explain that they are included in the Dharma Jewel. This explanation is not correct because the treatise does not simplify it. The current explanation is: there are two kinds of Saṃgha, one is harmonious in affairs, and the other is harmonious in principle. Sages are based on principle, so they are all called Saṃgha. Another explanation is that all Dharmas of the Four Noble Truths are principle Dharma because they realize the principle of the Truths. Or the Truth of Cessation is also principle Dharma because it realizes principle Dharma. Or the Truths of Suffering and Accumulation also have teaching Dharma and practice Dharma. The Bodhisattva and Pratyekabuddha Paths in the Truth of the Path are also practice Dharma because they realize practice Dharma. Therefore, one can attain Dharma-saṃjñā when seeing the Four Noble Truths. The precepts loved by the sages exist simultaneously with direct perception, so there is no time when one cannot attain them. Among the Four Noble Truths, although practice and cultivation are only Dharma and Śīla saṃjñā, because the attainment of cultivation is separately conditioned by the Three Jewels, one possesses all four kinds. Therefore, the seventy-second verse of the Nyāyasūtra says: If undefiled faith arises from a separate Dharma, it is called...

不雜緣於法證凈。若無漏信兼緣佛．僧。名為雜緣於法證凈。故見三諦唯得二種。見道諦時具足得四。見道諦位為于現前得佛．法．僧三證凈不。非皆現得。見道諦時現行總緣諸道諦故。應知現在唯有雜緣一法證凈。乘此勢力修得未來多剎那信。于中有別緣佛．法．僧。或有總緣二．三寶者。諸別緣者名三證凈。諸總緣者法證凈攝。道類智時修八智故。亦得三諦法戒二種。道法忍等三剎那中。未來唯修道諦四種　婆沙一百三評家意同正理。

由所信別至非證凈故者。釋后兩句。所信不同故。名有四實事唯二。信．戒為體四唯無漏。以有漏法非證凈故。

為依何義立證凈名者。問。

如實覺知至立證凈名者。答。謂無漏慧。如實覺知四聖諦理故名為證。正信三寶．及妙尸羅。皆名為凈。離不信垢故信名為凈。離破戒垢故戒名為凈。由證四諦得信．戒凈。立證凈名。

如出觀時至次第如是者。明四次第。

如何出時現起次第者。問。

謂出觀位至及所乘乘者。答。此中兩解。前解可知。后解云。或此四種。佛如導師。法如道路。僧如商侶。戒如所乘乘。

經言學位至其體是何者。此下第五明正智．解脫。就中。一正明二支。二明解脫時。三明斷障時。四明滅．離．斷　此即第

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不雜緣於法證凈（Dharma-prasāda-vaiśāradya，對法的清凈證信不與其他事物混雜）。如果無漏的信心同時緣于佛（Buddha，覺悟者）、僧（Saṅgha，僧團），就稱為雜緣於法證凈。因此，見三諦（tri-satya，三種真諦，即苦諦、集諦、滅諦）時只能得到兩種證凈。見道諦（mārga-satya，道諦）時，才能具足得到四種證凈。在見道諦的階段，是否能現前得到佛、法、僧三種證凈呢？並非都能現前得到。因為見道諦時，現行的是總緣所有道諦的智慧。應當知道現在只有雜緣一法證凈。憑藉這種力量，修得未來多剎那的信心。其中有分別緣于佛、法、僧的，也有總緣二寶或三寶的。那些分別緣的稱為三證凈，那些總緣的則屬於法證凈所攝。在道類智（mārga-anvaya-jñāna，類比于道的智慧）時，因為修習八智（aṣṭa-jñāna，八種智慧），也能得到三諦的法戒二種證凈。在道法忍（mārga-dharma-kṣānti，對道的法之忍）、道法智（mārga-dharma-jñāna，對道的法之智）等三個剎那中，未來唯有修習道諦的四種證凈。《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）第一百零三卷中，評家們的意見與《正理》（Nyāyānusāra，論書名）相同。『由所信別至非證凈故者』，解釋後面兩句。因為所信的不同，所以說有四實事（catuḥ-satya，四聖諦）唯有二種是證凈。信（śraddhā，信心）、戒（śīla，戒律）為體，四種證凈唯有無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）才是。因為有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱之法）不是證凈的緣故。『為依何義立證凈名者』，這是提問。『如實覺知至立證凈名者』，這是回答。指的是無漏慧（anāsrava-prajñā，無漏的智慧）。因為如實覺知四聖諦的道理，所以稱為證。正信三寶（tri-ratna，佛、法、僧三寶）以及妙尸羅（samyak-śīla，正戒），都稱為凈。因為遠離不信的垢染，所以信稱為凈；因為遠離破戒的垢染，所以戒稱為凈。由於證得四諦而得到信、戒的清凈，所以立名為證凈。『如出觀時至次第如是者』，說明四種證凈的次第。『如何出時現起次第者』，這是提問。『謂出觀位至及所乘乘者』，這是回答。這裡有兩種解釋。前一種解釋容易理解。后一種解釋說：或者這四種證凈，佛如導師，法如道路，僧如商侶，戒如所乘坐的車輛。『經言學位至其體是何者』，這以下第五部分說明正智（samyak-jñāna，正智）、解脫（vimukti，解脫）。其中，一是正面說明兩種支分，二是說明解脫時，三是說明斷障時，四是說明滅、離、斷。這即是第五部分。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Not mixed, based on the Dharma, is the purity of faith.' If unconditioned faith is also directed towards the Buddha (the Awakened One), and the Saṅgha (the monastic community), it is called 'mixed, based on the Dharma, is the purity of faith.' Therefore, seeing the three truths (tri-satya, i.e., suffering, origin, cessation) only yields two kinds of purity of faith. Only when seeing the truth of the path (mārga-satya) does one fully obtain all four. In the stage of seeing the truth of the path, does one attain the three purities of faith in the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha directly? Not all are attained directly. Because when seeing the truth of the path, what is currently active is the wisdom that encompasses all aspects of the path. It should be known that currently, there is only one purity of faith that is mixed and based on the Dharma. Relying on this power, one cultivates faith for many future moments. Among these, some are directed separately towards the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, while others are directed generally towards the two or three jewels. Those directed separately are called the three purities of faith, while those directed generally are included within the purity of faith based on the Dharma. At the time of knowledge of the path's analogy (mārga-anvaya-jñāna), because one cultivates the eight knowledges (aṣṭa-jñāna), one also obtains the two kinds of purity of faith, Dharma and precepts, related to the three truths. In the three moments of forbearance of the Dharma of the path (mārga-dharma-kṣānti), knowledge of the Dharma of the path (mārga-dharma-jñāna), etc., in the future, one only cultivates the four kinds of purity of faith related to the truth of the path. In the Vibhāṣā (a Buddhist treatise), volume 103, the opinions of the commentators are the same as those in the Nyāyānusāra (a treatise). 'Because of the difference in what is believed, it is not purity of faith,' explains the latter two sentences. Because what is believed is different, it is said that of the four realities (catuḥ-satya, the Four Noble Truths), only two are purity of faith. Faith (śraddhā) and precepts (śīla) are the essence; only the unconditioned (anāsrava) of the four is purity of faith, because conditioned dharmas (sāsrava-dharma) are not purity of faith. 『Based on what meaning is the name 'purity of faith' established?』 This is a question. 『Knowing truthfully... establishes the name 'purity of faith,』 is the answer. It refers to unconditioned wisdom (anāsrava-prajñā). Because it truthfully knows the principles of the Four Noble Truths, it is called 'knowing.' Right faith in the Three Jewels (tri-ratna, Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha) and excellent precepts (samyak-śīla) are all called 'purity.' Because it is free from the defilement of disbelief, faith is called 'purity'; because it is free from the defilement of breaking precepts, precepts are called 'purity.' Because one attains the purity of faith and precepts by realizing the Four Noble Truths, the name 'purity of faith' is established. 『Like when emerging from contemplation... the order is thus,』 explains the order of the four purities of faith. 『How does the order arise when emerging from contemplation?』 This is a question. 『It means in the position of emerging from contemplation... and the vehicle one rides,』 is the answer. There are two explanations here. The former explanation is easy to understand. The latter explanation says: Or these four purities of faith, the Buddha is like a guide, the Dharma is like a road, the Saṅgha is like fellow travelers, and precepts are like the vehicle one rides. 『The sutra says, 'The stage of learning... what is its essence?』』 Below, the fifth part explains right knowledge (samyak-jñāna) and liberation (vimukti). Among them, first, it directly explains the two branches; second, it explains the time of liberation; third, it explains the time of cutting off obstacles; fourth, it explains cessation, separation, and cutting off. This is the fifth part.

一正明二支。依經兩問。

頌曰至謂盡無生智者。初兩句答初問。后六句答第二問。

論曰至故唯成八者。釋上兩句。有學位中。尚有所餘煩惱繫縛。未解脫故無解脫支。非離少縛可名脫者。非無解脫體可立有彼了解脫智。故有學位不立二支。無學已脫諸煩惱縛。立解脫支。復能起彼盡．無生二了解脫智。立正智支。由無學位正脫．正智二顯了故可立二支。有學不然。故唯成八。

解脫體有二至即解脫蘊者。釋次四句。總明解脫有其二種。如文可知。於二解脫中有為解脫名無學支。以立支名依有為故。無為解脫無支用故不依彼立。就有為中支攝解脫復有二種。即余經言。一心解脫。二慧解脫。即是心．慧相應勝解。應知此二五分法身中即解脫蘊攝。

若爾不應至非唯勝解者。經部難。若解脫蘊體唯勝解。不應經說云何解脫清凈最勝。答謂心從貪離染解脫。及從瞋．癡離染解脫。若有學人于解脫蘊未滿。為滿修欲．勤等勝行令滿。若無學人于解脫蘊已滿。為攝令不退失修欲．勤等勝行功德。經中既言心從貪等離染解脫。故知解脫蘊非唯是勝解。言欲．勤等者。等取信．安．念．智．思．舍。故正理第二云。又如經說。彼有如是信．欲．勤．安．念．智．思．舍名為勝行。舊云八滅。

若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一正明二支（「正」指正解脫，「明」指正智，二支指解脫支和解脫智支）。依據經文，有兩個問題。

頌文說，達到所謂盡智和無生智的人，前兩句回答第一個問題，后六句回答第二個問題。

論述說，因此只有八支成就。解釋上面的兩句。在有學位（指還在修行的階段）中，尚有剩餘的煩惱束縛，沒有完全解脫，所以沒有解脫支。不能因為脫離少許束縛就稱為解脫。並非沒有解脫的本體，就可以建立了解脫智。所以有學位不設立二支（解脫支和解脫智支）。無學（指修行圓滿的階段）已經脫離各種煩惱的束縛，所以設立解脫支。又能生起盡智和無生智這兩種了解脫的智慧，所以設立正智支。由於無學位有正解脫和正智兩種顯現，所以可以設立二支。有學位不是這樣，所以只有八支成就。

解脫的本體有兩種，直到解脫蘊（蘊為聚集之意，五蘊指色、受、想、行、識五種聚合）為止。解釋下面的四句。總的說明解脫有兩種。如經文所說。在兩種解脫中，有為解脫（指通過修行努力而獲得的解脫）名為無學支，因為設立支的名義是依據有為法。無為解脫（指自然而然的解脫狀態）沒有支的作用，所以不依據它設立。在有為解脫中，支所包含的解脫又有兩種，就是其他經文所說的，一心解脫和二慧解脫。就是與心和慧相應的殊勝解脫。應當知道這兩種解脫在五分法身（指戒、定、慧、解脫、解脫知見五種功德聚集的身體）中，屬於解脫蘊所包含的。

如果這樣，就不應該，直到不僅僅是殊勝的理解為止。經部（佛教的一個派別）提出疑問。如果解脫蘊的本體僅僅是殊勝的理解，那麼經文不應該說，什麼是解脫清凈最殊勝？回答說，是指心從貪慾的遠離和染污的解脫，以及從嗔恨和愚癡的遠離和染污的解脫。如果有學之人對於解脫蘊還沒有圓滿，爲了圓滿而修習慾望、精勤等殊勝的行為，使之圓滿。如果無學之人對於解脫蘊已經圓滿，爲了攝持使之不退失而修習慾望、精勤等殊勝行為的功德。經文中既然說心從貪慾等遠離染污而解脫，所以知道解脫蘊不僅僅是殊勝的理解。說到慾望、精勤等，等同於包括了信心、安穩、憶念、智慧、思考、捨棄。所以正理第二中說，又如經文所說，他們有這樣的信心、慾望、精勤、安穩、憶念、智慧、思考、捨棄，名為殊勝的行為。舊譯為八滅。

【English Translation】 English version: One 'Zhengming' (正明, Correct Illumination) and two 'Zhi' (支, Limbs/Factors). Based on the sutra, there are two questions.

The verse says, 'To those who have attained the so-called Exhaustion Knowledge and Non-arising Knowledge.' The first two lines answer the first question, and the last six lines answer the second question.

The treatise says, 'Therefore, only eight factors are accomplished.' This explains the above two lines. In the stage of 'With Learning' (有學位, referring to the stage of practice), there are still remaining afflictions that bind, and one is not yet fully liberated, so there is no 'Liberation Factor' (解脫支). One cannot be called liberated just by escaping a few bonds. It is not that there is no essence of liberation, but that one can establish the knowledge of liberation. Therefore, the stage of 'With Learning' does not establish two factors (Liberation Factor and Knowledge of Liberation Factor). The 'No Learning' (無學, referring to the stage of complete practice) has already escaped the bonds of various afflictions, so the Liberation Factor is established. Furthermore, it can generate the two kinds of wisdom that understand liberation: Exhaustion Knowledge and Non-arising Knowledge, so the 'Correct Knowledge Factor' (正智支) is established. Because the 'No Learning' stage has the manifestation of Correct Liberation and Correct Knowledge, two factors can be established. The 'With Learning' stage is not like this, so only eight factors are accomplished.

The essence of liberation has two aspects, up to the 'Liberation Aggregate' (解脫蘊, Skandha of Liberation, 'Skandha' means aggregate, the five skandhas are form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). This explains the next four lines. It generally clarifies that there are two kinds of liberation. As the text says. Among the two kinds of liberation, 'conditioned liberation' (有為解脫, liberation achieved through effort and practice) is called the 'No Learning Factor', because the establishment of the name of the factor is based on conditioned phenomena. 'Unconditioned liberation' (無為解脫, the natural state of liberation) has no function of a factor, so it is not established based on it. Among conditioned liberation, the liberation contained in the factor has two kinds, which are what other sutras say: 'One-Mind Liberation' and 'Two-Wisdom Liberation'. These are the excellent liberations corresponding to mind and wisdom. It should be known that these two liberations are contained within the Liberation Aggregate in the Fivefold Dharma Body (五分法身, the body of five aggregates of virtue: morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation).

If that's the case, it shouldn't be, up to not just excellent understanding. The Sautrāntika school (經部, a school of Buddhism) raises a question. If the essence of the Liberation Aggregate is only excellent understanding, then the sutra should not say, what is the most excellent purity of liberation? The answer is, it refers to the mind's liberation from the separation of greed and defilement, as well as the separation of hatred and ignorance from defilement. If a person in the 'With Learning' stage has not yet perfected the Liberation Aggregate, they cultivate excellent practices such as desire and diligence to perfect it. If a person in the 'No Learning' stage has already perfected the Liberation Aggregate, they cultivate the merits of excellent practices such as desire and diligence to maintain it and prevent it from regressing. Since the sutra says that the mind is liberated from the separation of greed and other defilements, it is known that the Liberation Aggregate is not just excellent understanding. When it comes to desire, diligence, etc., it includes faith, tranquility, mindfulness, wisdom, thought, and equanimity. Therefore, the second volume of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says, 'Also, as the sutra says, they have such faith, desire, diligence, tranquility, mindfulness, wisdom, thought, and equanimity, which are called excellent practices.' The old translation calls them the Eight Extinctions.

爾是何者。問　有餘師說至名解脫蘊者。經部答。有餘經部師說。由真智力遣貪．瞋．癡。即心遠離煩惱垢義名解脫蘊。

如是已說至盡無生智者。釋第七．第八句。結前如是已說正解脫體　正智體者。如前三十七覺分中說。謂即前說盡智．無生智名為正智。即是五分法身中解脫知見蘊。

心於何世至心解脫耶者。此下第二明正解脫。問。三世之中心於何世正得解脫。而言無學心解脫耶。

頌曰至從障解脫者。答。如本論說　初言。簡后　無學。簡有學等　心言亦攝心所等。以心所等必定隨心故　未來。簡過．現生時。簡余未來。正在生時從障解脫。

何謂為障者。問。

謂煩惱得至行身世故者。答。謂煩惱得。由彼惑得能遮無學初心生故。說名為障。金剛喻定於現在世正滅位中。彼煩惱得不至生相者名為正斷。由正斷故不能為障。初無學心復至生相。于正生位正得解脫。非惑得俱名正解脫。金剛喻定流至過去已滅位中。彼煩惱得名為已斷。初無學心流至現在已生位中名已解脫。未生無學心．及世俗心。當於無學初心生相時亦名解脫。然今且說決定生者。以于爾時無學初心定行現身及現世故。余心或生．不生以不定故不說。

諸世俗心從何解脫者。問。諸無學未來世俗心從何障

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『爾是何者。』問：『有餘師說至名解脫蘊者。』答：『經部答。有餘經部師說。由真智力遣貪、瞋、癡（三種煩惱）。即心遠離煩惱垢義名解脫蘊。』

『如是已說至盡無生智者。』釋第七、第八句。結前如是已說正解脫體、正智體者。如前三十七覺分中說。謂即前說盡智（知盡一切煩惱的智慧）、無生智（不再產生煩惱的智慧）名為正智。即是五分法身中解脫知見蘊。

『心於何世至心解脫耶者。』此下第二明正解脫。問：『三世之中心於何世正得解脫。而言無學心解脫耶。』

『頌曰至從障解脫者。』答：『如本論說。初言簡后無學。簡有學等。心言亦攝心所等。以心所等必定隨心故。未來簡過、現。生時簡余未來。正在生時從障解脫。』

『何謂為障者。』問。

『謂煩惱得至行身世故者。』答：『謂煩惱得。由彼惑得能遮無學初心生故。說名為障。金剛喻定（一種堅固的禪定）于現在世正滅位中。彼煩惱得不至生相者名為正斷。由正斷故不能為障。初無學心復至生相。于正生位正得解脫。非惑得俱名正解脫。金剛喻定流至過去已滅位中。彼煩惱得名為已斷。初無學心流至現在已生位中名已解脫。未生無學心、及世俗心。當於無學初心生相時亦名解脫。然今且說決定生者。以于爾時無學初心定行現身及現世故。余心或生、不生以不定故不說。』

『諸世俗心從何解脫者。』問：『諸無學未來世俗心從何障？』

【English Translation】 English version: 'Who are you?' Question: 'Some teachers speak of the aggregate called liberation.' Answer: 'The Sautrāntikas (those who uphold the authority of the sutras) answer. Some Sautrāntika teachers say that by the power of true wisdom, greed, hatred, and delusion (the three poisons) are eliminated. The meaning of the mind being separated from the defilements of afflictions is called the aggregate of liberation.'

'Having thus spoken up to the wisdom of exhaustion and non-arising.' Explaining the seventh and eighth lines. Concluding, having thus spoken of the nature of right liberation, the nature of right wisdom, as explained in the previous thirty-seven factors of enlightenment. That is, the previously mentioned wisdom of exhaustion (wisdom that knows the exhaustion of all afflictions) and wisdom of non-arising (wisdom that knows no further arising of afflictions) are called right wisdom. This is the aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation within the fivefold Dharma body.

'In which of the three times does the mind attain liberation?' Here below, the second point clarifies right liberation. Question: 'In which of the three times does the mind rightly attain liberation, such that it is called the liberation of the non-learning mind?'

'The verse says, up to liberation from obstructions.' Answer: 'As the treatise says, the initial word distinguishes the later non-learning. It distinguishes those still learning, etc. The word 'mind' also includes mental factors, etc., because mental factors, etc., necessarily follow the mind. 'Future' distinguishes past and present. 'At the time of arising' distinguishes the remaining future. It is at the very moment of arising that one is liberated from obstructions.'

'What is meant by obstructions?' Question.

'Meaning the attainment of afflictions, up to the body and world of action.' Answer: 'Meaning the attainment of afflictions. Because the attainment of those afflictions can obstruct the arising of the initial non-learning mind, it is called an obstruction. Vajra-like samadhi (a firm state of meditation) in the present world, in the state of right cessation, the attainment of those afflictions not reaching the state of arising is called right cessation. Because of right cessation, it cannot be an obstruction. The initial non-learning mind again reaches the state of arising. In the state of right arising, one rightly attains liberation. It is not the simultaneous attainment of afflictions that is called right liberation. Vajra-like samadhi flowing to the past, the state of having ceased, the attainment of those afflictions is called already ceased. The initial non-learning mind flowing to the present, the state of having arisen, is called already liberated. The yet-to-arise non-learning mind and the mundane mind, when the initial non-learning mind arises, are also called liberation. However, now we speak only of that which is certain to arise, because at that time, the initial non-learning mind is definitely acting, manifesting in body and world. Other minds, whether they arise or not, are not spoken of because they are uncertain.'

'From what are the mundane minds liberated?' Question: 'From what obstructions are the future mundane minds of the non-learner liberated?'

得解脫。

亦即從彼遮心生障者。答。亦即從彼諸煩惱得遮心生障。

未解脫位此豈不生者。問。未解脫位此俗善心豈不生耶。

雖有已生不似今者者。答。未解脫位雖有已生世俗善心。不似今者無學身中世俗善心。

彼何所似者。問。

與惑得俱至無俱惑得者。答。未解脫位俗善心生與惑得俱。此初心后俗善心若生。無俱惑得故名解脫。

道於何位至離障同故者。此即第三明道斷障。正滅位言。顯居現在與滅相俱。正生言。顯未來世故與生相俱。正滅．正生同時別世。此明正滅兼顯正生以同時故。道能斷障唯居現在正滅相時。衰現惑得令無勢力引后惑得至其生相。爾時名斷。餘位定無斷障用故。非如解脫通未生者。以生相時未至生相時。離障同故。通於兩位俱名解脫。斷障不爾。

經說三界至滅界滅彼事者。此即第四明斷．離．滅。依經起二問。上一句答初問。后三句答后問。

論曰至即無為解脫者。斷等三界即分前說無為解脫以為自體。言離界者。謂但離貪。言斷界者。謂斷餘八結。言滅界者。謂滅所餘貪等隨眠所隨增事。即是所餘諸有漏法。三界皆以擇滅為體。故經說三界。即無為解脫。且據世俗說三界異。若約實義體無差別。一一擇滅皆悉名為斷．離．滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本得解脫。亦即從彼遮心生障者。答：亦即從彼諸煩惱得遮心生障。未解脫位此豈不生者。問：未解脫位此俗善心豈不生耶？雖有已生不似今者者。答：未解脫位雖有已生世俗善心。不似今者無學身中世俗善心。彼何所似者。問：與惑得俱至無俱惑得者。答：未解脫位俗善心生與惑得俱。此初心后俗善心若生。無俱惑得故名解脫。道於何位至離障同故者。此即第三明道斷障。正滅位言。顯居現在與滅相俱。正生言。顯未來世故與生相俱。正滅．正生同時別世。此明正滅兼顯正生以同時故。道能斷障唯居現在正滅相時。衰現惑得令無勢力引后惑得至其生相。爾時名斷。餘位定無斷障用故。非如解脫通未生者。以生相時未至生相時。離障同故。通於兩位俱名解脫。斷障不爾。經說三界至滅界滅彼事者。此即第四明斷．離．滅。依經起二問。上一句答初問。后三句答后問。論曰至即無為解脫者。斷等三界即分前說無為解脫以為自體。言離界者。謂但離貪。言斷界者。謂斷餘八結。言滅界者。謂滅所餘貪等隨眠所隨增事。即是所餘諸有漏法。三界皆以擇滅為體。故經說三界。即無為解脫。且據世俗說三界異。若約實義體無差別。一一擇滅皆悉名為斷．離．滅。

【English Translation】 English version Attaining liberation. That is, arising from those obscurations that hinder the mind. Answer: That is, arising from those afflictions that obstruct the mind. In the state of non-liberation, does this not arise? Question: In the state of non-liberation, does this mundane wholesome mind not arise? Although it has arisen, it is not like the present one. Answer: Although mundane wholesome minds have arisen in the state of non-liberation, they are not like the mundane wholesome minds in the body of a non-learner (arhat). What is it like? Question: It occurs together with the attainment of defilements, until there is no attainment of defilements together. Answer: In the state of non-liberation, the arising of mundane wholesome mind occurs together with the attainment of defilements. If, after this initial mind, a mundane wholesome mind arises, it does not occur together with the attainment of defilements, hence it is called liberation. In what state does the path reach the same as being free from obstructions? This is the third point, explaining that the path severs obstructions. 'The state of cessation' indicates being present and simultaneous with cessation. 'The state of arising' indicates the future, hence being simultaneous with arising. Cessation and arising are simultaneous but in different moments. This explains that cessation also reveals arising because they are simultaneous. The path can only sever obstructions when it is present and in the state of cessation. It weakens the attainment of defilements, making them powerless to lead to the subsequent attainment of defilements until their arising. At that time, it is called severance. In other states, there is definitely no function of severing obstructions, so it is not like liberation, which extends to the unarisen. Because the time of arising has not yet arrived, it is the same as being free from obstructions. Both states are called liberation. Severing obstructions is not like that. The sutra says, 'The three realms lead to the cessation of the realm, extinguishing those things.' This is the fourth point, explaining severance, separation, and cessation. Based on the sutra, two questions arise. The first sentence answers the first question, and the last three sentences answer the second question. The treatise says, 'Leading to the unconditioned liberation.' Severance, etc., of the three realms divides the previously mentioned unconditioned liberation as its own essence. 'Separation from the realm' means only separation from greed. 'Severance of the realm' means severing the remaining eight fetters. 'Cessation of the realm' means extinguishing the remaining latent tendencies of greed, etc., and the things that accompany them, which are the remaining conditioned dharmas. The three realms all have cessation through discernment (擇滅, 擇滅) as their essence. Therefore, the sutra says the three realms are unconditioned liberation. For the sake of convention, the three realms are said to be different. But according to the true meaning, their essence is not different. Each cessation through discernment is called severance, separation, and cessation.

故。故正理云。然三界體約假有異。若就實事則無差別。

若事能厭必能離耶者。此下大文第六明厭離通局。此即問也。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至故成四句者。但緣苦．集皆名為厭緣厭境故但緣四諦能斷惑者皆名為離。能離染故。寬狹不同便成四句。

有厭非離至非離染故者。第一句。有厭非離。謂緣苦．集不令惑斷所有忍智。緣厭境故有厭。非離染故非離。正理七十二釋云。應知此中先離欲染后見諦者苦．集法忍。及見道中苦智．集智但名為厭緣厭境故。忍不名離惑先斷故。智不名離非斷治故。並修道中加行．解脫．勝進道攝。苦智．集智但名為厭緣厭境故。不名為離非斷治故。

有離非厭至能離染故者。第二句。有離非厭。謂緣滅．道能令惑斷所有忍智。緣欣境故非厭。能離染故有離。正理釋云。應知此中未離欲染入見諦者滅．道法忍。及諸所有滅道類忍。並修道中無間道攝滅智．道智但名為離。是斷治故。不名為厭緣欣境故。

有厭亦離至所有忍智智。第三句。有厭亦離。謂緣苦．集能令惑斷所有忍智。緣厭境故有厭。能離染故有離。正理釋云。應知此中未離欲染入見諦者苦．集法忍。及諸所有苦．集類忍。並修道中無間道攝苦．集智。

有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，《正理》中說：『雖然三界的本體在假有層面有所不同，但如果就真實的事物而言，則沒有差別。』

如果能夠對某事物感到厭惡，是否一定能夠遠離它呢？』這是下面大段文字第六部分，闡明『厭』和『離』的共通性和侷限性。這實際上是一個提問。

『不一定。』這是回答。

『為什麼呢？』這是反問。

『頌曰至故成四句者』：只是因為緣于苦、集都被稱為『厭』，緣于『厭』的境界，所以只是緣於四諦才能斷除迷惑，這都被稱為『離』，因為能夠遠離染污。寬泛和狹窄不同，便形成了四種情況。

『有厭非離至非離染故者』：第一句，『有厭非離』，指的是緣于苦、集，但不能使迷惑斷除的所有忍智（指對事物真理的認識和智慧）。因為緣于『厭』的境界，所以有『厭』；因為不能遠離染污，所以非『離』。《正理》第七十二卷解釋說：『應當知道，這裡先離欲染后見諦（指證悟真理）的人，對於苦、集所產生的法忍，以及見道（指修行道路的開始）中的苦智、集智，都只能稱為『厭』，因為緣于『厭』的境界。忍不能稱為『離』，因為迷惑是先斷除的；智不能稱為『離』，因為它不是斷除煩惱的對治法。』並且包括修道（指修行道路的實踐）中的加行道、解脫道、勝進道所包含的苦智、集智，也只能稱為『厭』，因為緣于『厭』的境界，不能稱為『離』，因為它不是斷除煩惱的對治法。

『有離非厭至能離染故者』：第二句，『有離非厭』，指的是緣于滅、道，能夠使迷惑斷除的所有忍智。因為緣于欣樂的境界，所以非『厭』；因為能夠遠離染污，所以有『離』。《正理》解釋說：『應當知道，這裡未離欲染而進入見諦的人，對於滅、道所產生的法忍，以及所有滅道類忍，並且包括修道中的無間道（指直接斷除煩惱的道路）所包含的滅智、道智，都只能稱為『離』，因為是斷除煩惱的對治法。不能稱為『厭』，因為緣于欣樂的境界。

『有厭亦離至所有忍智智』：第三句，『有厭亦離』，指的是緣于苦、集，能夠使迷惑斷除的所有忍智。因為緣于『厭』的境界，所以有『厭』；因為能夠遠離染污，所以有『離』。《正理》解釋說：『應當知道，這裡未離欲染而進入見諦的人，對於苦、集所產生的法忍，以及所有苦、集類忍，並且包括修道中的無間道所包含的苦智、集智。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Zhengli (Pramāṇavārttika-bhāṣya, Commentary on Dignāga's Pramāṇavārttika) states: 'Although the substance of the Three Realms differs in terms of provisional existence, there is no difference in terms of actual entities.'

If one can be disgusted with something, can one necessarily be separated from it?' This is the sixth part of the following major text, clarifying the commonality and limitations of 'disgust' and 'separation'. This is actually a question.

'Not necessarily.' This is the answer.

'Why?' This is a counter-question.

'The verse says to form four sentences': It is only because clinging to duhkha (suffering) and samudaya (the origin of suffering) are both called 'disgust', clinging to the realm of 'disgust', so only clinging to the Four Noble Truths can cut off delusion, which are all called 'separation', because they can separate from defilement. The difference between broad and narrow forms four situations.

'There is disgust but no separation to not separating from defilement': The first sentence, 'There is disgust but no separation', refers to all kṣānti (patience, forbearance) and jñāna (knowledge, wisdom) that cling to duhkha and samudaya but cannot cut off delusion. Because it clings to the realm of 'disgust', there is 'disgust'; because it cannot separate from defilement, there is no 'separation'. Zhengli, volume seventy-two, explains: 'It should be known that, here, for those who first separate from desire and then see the truth, the dharma-kṣānti (acceptance of the law) arising from duhkha and samudaya, and the duhkha-jñāna (knowledge of suffering) and samudaya-jñāna (knowledge of the origin of suffering) in the path of seeing, can only be called 'disgust', because they cling to the realm of 'disgust'. Kṣānti cannot be called 'separation' because delusion is cut off first; jñāna cannot be called 'separation' because it is not the antidote to cutting off afflictions.' And including the duhkha-jñāna and samudaya-jñāna contained in the preparatory path, the path of liberation, and the path of advancement in the path of cultivation, can only be called 'disgust', because they cling to the realm of 'disgust', and cannot be called 'separation' because they are not the antidote to cutting off afflictions.

'There is separation but no disgust to being able to separate from defilement': The second sentence, 'There is separation but no disgust', refers to all kṣānti and jñāna that cling to nirodha (cessation) and mārga (path) and can cut off delusion. Because it clings to the realm of joy, there is no 'disgust'; because it can separate from defilement, there is 'separation'. Zhengli explains: 'It should be known that, here, for those who have not separated from desire and enter the seeing of truth, the dharma-kṣānti arising from nirodha and mārga, and all nirodha-anvaya-kṣānti (acceptance of the law of cessation) and mārga-anvaya-kṣānti (acceptance of the law of the path), and including the nirodha-jñāna (knowledge of cessation) and mārga-jñāna (knowledge of the path) contained in the immediate path in the path of cultivation, can only be called 'separation', because they are the antidote to cutting off afflictions. They cannot be called 'disgust' because they cling to the realm of joy.

'There is disgust and also separation to all kṣānti and jñāna': The third sentence, 'There is disgust and also separation', refers to all kṣānti and jñāna that cling to duhkha and samudaya and can cut off delusion. Because it clings to the realm of 'disgust', there is 'disgust'; because it can separate from defilement, there is 'separation'. Zhengli explains: 'It should be known that, here, for those who have not separated from desire and enter the seeing of truth, the dharma-kṣānti arising from duhkha and samudaya, and all duhkha-anvaya-kṣānti (acceptance of the law of suffering) and samudaya-anvaya-kṣānti (acceptance of the law of the origin of suffering), and including the duhkha-jñāna and samudaya-jñāna contained in the immediate path in the path of cultivation.

非厭離至所有忍智者。第四句。有非厭離。謂緣滅．道不令惑斷所有忍智。緣欣境故非厭。非離染故非離正理釋云。應知此中先離欲染后見諦者滅．道法忍。及見道中滅智．道智。並修道中加行．解脫．勝進道攝滅智．道智。

應知此中至非斷治故者。重釋前文。應知此四句中。若先離欲染后入見諦者所有法忍。若緣苦．集者有厭非離。緣厭境故。惑已斷故。第一句攝。若緣滅．道非厭非離。緣欣境故。惑已斷故。第四句攝。及諸智中若見道位解脫道攝。若修道位加行．解脫．勝進道攝。若緣苦．集有厭非離。緣厭境故。非斷治故。第一句攝。若緣滅．道非厭非離。緣欣境故。非斷治故。第四句攝。

俱舍論記卷第二十五

長承四年四月二十四日于田原里大道寺指點了

病後暗眼為之如何。

覺樹記大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十六

沙門釋光述

分別智品第七之一

分別智品者。決斷重知故名為智。此品廣明故名分別。所以次明智品者。前品明果。此品明因。因望果親故次辨智。

前品初說至智非見耶者。就此品中。大文有二。一明諸智差別。二明智所成德　就明智差別中。一明忍．智．見別。二明十智

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『非厭離至所有忍智者。第四句。有非厭離』：指的是緣于滅（Nirvana，寂滅）和道（Magga，解脫之道）時，不令煩惱斷滅的所有忍（Kshanti，安忍）和智（Jnana，智慧）。因為緣于欣樂之境，所以『非厭』；因為沒有遠離染污，所以『非離』。《正理釋》解釋說，應當知道，這裡指的是先離欲染后見諦者，他們的滅法忍（滅盡之忍）和道法忍（道諦之忍），以及見道位中的滅智（滅盡之智）和道智（道諦之智），還有修道位中加行道（資糧道）、解脫道（見道）和勝進道（修道）所攝的滅智和道智。

『應知此中至非斷治故者』：這是對前文的重新解釋。應當知道，在這四句中，如果是先離欲染后入見諦者，他們所有的法忍（Dharma-kshanti，對法的安忍），如果緣于苦（Dukkha，痛苦）、集（Samudaya，苦之根源）二諦，則有『厭』而非『離』，因為緣于厭惡之境，並且煩惱已經斷滅，屬於第一句所攝。如果緣于滅（Nirvana，寂滅）和道（Magga，解脫之道），則『非厭』也『非離』，因為緣于欣樂之境，並且煩惱已經斷滅，屬於第四句所攝。以及在各種智慧中，如果是見道位解脫道所攝，或者修道位加行道、解脫道、勝進道所攝，如果緣于苦、集二諦，則有『厭』而非『離』，因為緣于厭惡之境，並且不是爲了斷滅煩惱，屬於第一句所攝。如果緣于滅、道二諦，則『非厭』也『非離』，因為緣于欣樂之境，並且不是爲了斷滅煩惱，屬於第四句所攝。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十五

長承四年四月二十四日于田原里大道寺指點了

病後暗眼為之如何。

覺樹記大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第二十六

沙門釋光述

分別智品第七之一

『分別智品』：決斷並重新認識，所以稱為『智』（Jnana，智慧）。此品廣泛闡明，所以稱為『分別』。之所以在前面一品之後闡明智品，是因為前一品闡明果（Phala，結果），這一品闡明因（Hetu，原因）。因相對於果來說更為直接，所以接著辨析智慧。

『前品初說至智非見耶者』：就這一品中，大的綱要有二：一是闡明諸智的差別，二是闡明智慧所成就的功德。在闡明智慧的差別中，一是闡明忍（Kshanti，安忍）、智（Jnana，智慧）、見（Darshana，見解）的區別，二是闡明十智（Dasa-jnana，十種智慧）。

【English Translation】 English version 『Non-disgust and non-separation to all forbearance-knowledges. The fourth phrase. There is non-disgust and non-separation』: This refers to all the forbearance (Kshanti, patience) and knowledges (Jnana, wisdom) that, when conditioned by cessation (Nirvana) and the path (Magga, the path to liberation), do not cause the severance of afflictions. Because they are conditioned by a desirable state, they are 『non-disgust』; because there is no separation from defilement, they are 『non-separation』. The Nyayanusara explains, 『It should be known that here, those who first separate from desire and then see the truth have the forbearance of the Dharma of cessation (extinction) and the forbearance of the Dharma of the path, as well as the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path in the stage of seeing the path, and the knowledge of cessation and the knowledge of the path included in the path of application, the path of liberation, and the path of surpassing progress in the stage of cultivation.』

『It should be known that here, up to 『because they are not the antidote for severance』': This is a re-explanation of the previous text. It should be known that in these four phrases, if those who first separate from desire and then enter the seeing of truth have all the forbearance of Dharma (Dharma-kshanti, patience towards the Dharma), if they are conditioned by suffering (Dukkha, suffering) and accumulation (Samudaya, the origin of suffering), then there is 『disgust』 but not 『separation』, because they are conditioned by a disgusting state, and the afflictions have already been severed, belonging to what is included in the first phrase. If they are conditioned by cessation (Nirvana) and the path (Magga, the path to liberation), then they are 『non-disgust』 and 『non-separation』, because they are conditioned by a desirable state, and the afflictions have already been severed, belonging to what is included in the fourth phrase. And among all the knowledges, if they are included in the path of liberation in the stage of seeing the path, or included in the path of application, the path of liberation, and the path of surpassing progress in the stage of cultivation, if they are conditioned by suffering and accumulation, then there is 『disgust』 but not 『separation』, because they are conditioned by a disgusting state, and because they are not the antidote for severance, belonging to what is included in the first phrase. If they are conditioned by cessation and the path, then they are 『non-disgust』 and 『non-separation』, because they are conditioned by a desirable state, and because they are not the antidote for severance, belonging to what is included in the fourth phrase.

Commentary on the Abhidharmakosha, Volume 25

Pointed out at Daidoji Temple in Tawara Village on April 24th of the 4th year of Chosho

What to do about darkened eyes after illness.

Record of the Bodhi Tree Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Commentary on the Abhidharmakosha

Commentary on the Abhidharmakosha, Volume 26

Commentary by Shramana Shiguang

Chapter Seven on the Discrimination of Knowledge, Part One

『Chapter on the Discrimination of Knowledge』: Deciding and knowing again is called 『knowledge』 (Jnana, wisdom). This chapter extensively elucidates, so it is called 『discrimination』. The reason for elucidating the chapter on knowledge after the previous chapter is that the previous chapter elucidates the result (Phala, fruit), and this chapter elucidates the cause (Hetu, cause). Because the cause is more direct in relation to the result, knowledge is then analyzed.

『The initial statement in the previous chapter up to 『Is knowledge not seeing?』': Within this chapter, there are two major outlines: first, elucidating the differences among the various knowledges; second, elucidating the virtues accomplished by knowledge. Within the elucidation of the differences among the knowledges, first, elucidating the differences among forbearance (Kshanti, patience), knowledge (Jnana, wisdom), and seeing (Darshana, vision); second, elucidating the ten knowledges (Dasa-jnana, ten wisdoms).

相殊。三明十智行相。四諸門分別智　此即第一明忍．智．見別。牒前問起。前賢聖品初于見道位說諸八忍說諸八智。于彼品后八聖道中復說正見。十無學中復說正智。為有忍非智耶。為有智非見耶。

頌曰至皆智六見性者。就頌答中。上兩句及餘二。約無漏以明。有漏慧及後下一句。約有漏以辨　忍通凡．聖。聖言簡凡。此忍雖慧。而非是智。泛言諸忍略有四種。若忍辱名為忍。即無嗔名為忍　若安受苦忍名為忍。即精進名為忍　若忍許名為忍。即信名為忍　若觀察法忍名為忍。即慧名為忍　此中言忍。以慧為性　泛言諸見。略有二種。一推度名見。以慧為性。二照囑名見。即以眼根及十智。性皆有照囑前境用故。此中言見推度名見。故盡．無生言非見也。余如長行。

論曰至推度性故者。釋初句。總而言之。慧有二種。一者有漏。二者無漏。唯無漏慧立以聖名。以能如實正觀四諦故名為聖。有漏之慧雖亦觀諦。不分明故不名為聖。就聖慧中八忍非智性。決斷名智。疑是猶預自性相違。八忍起時與自所斷疑得正俱。爾時正斷敵對相違。未已斷故而非決斷。非決斷故不名智。可見性攝推度性故。雖先離欲四法忍位自疑已斷。是疑得俱忍流類故。故亦非智。異生斷惑諸無間道。雖疑得俱非真對治。非極相違

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不同之處在於，三明（Trividya，三種明智）和十智（Dasa-jnana，十種智慧）的行相（ākāra，形態、方面）。四種是諸門分別智（pratisamvidā-jñāna，四無礙解智）。這實際上是關於第一明（忍、智、見）的差別。承接前面的問題而提出。前面在『賢聖品』的開始，在見道位（darśana-mārga，見道位）解釋了八忍（aṣṭau kṣāntayaḥ，八種忍）和八智（aṣṭau jñānāni，八種智）。在那一品之後，在八聖道（āryāṣṭāṅga-mārga，八聖道）中又解釋了正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi，正見）。在十無學（aśaikṣa，十無學）中又解釋了正智（samyag-jñāna，正智）。難道存在只有忍而不是智的情況嗎？難道存在只有智而不是見的情況嗎？頌文說：『皆智六見性』。就頌文的回答來說，上面兩句和其餘兩句，是依據無漏（anāsrava，無漏）來闡明的。有漏慧（sāsrava-prajñā，有漏的智慧）以及後面的下一句，是依據有漏（sāsrava，有漏）來辨別的。忍通於凡夫和聖人。聖人言簡意賅，這裡指凡夫。這種忍雖然是慧，但不是智。泛泛地說，諸忍略有四種：如果忍辱（kṣānti，忍辱）名為忍，那就是無嗔（adveṣa，無嗔）名為忍；如果安受苦忍（duḥkhādhivāsanā-kṣānti，安受苦忍）名為忍，那就是精進（vīrya，精進）名為忍；如果忍許（adhyadhi-mukti-kṣānti，忍許）名為忍，那就是信（śraddhā，信）名為忍；如果觀察法忍（dharma-kṣānti，觀察法忍）名為忍，那就是慧（prajñā，慧）名為忍。這裡所說的忍，以慧為自性。泛泛地說，諸見略有二種：一是推度名見，以慧為自性；二是照矚名見，即以眼根（cakṣur-indriya，眼根）以及十智（dasa-jñāna，十智）為自性，因為它們都具有照矚前境的作用。這裡所說的見，是推度名見。所以盡智（kṣaya-jñāna，盡智）和無生智（anutpāda-jñāna，無生智）不能稱為見。其餘的如同長行（prasthāna，長行）。論中說：『推度性故』。解釋第一句。總而言之，慧有兩種：一是有漏，二是無漏。只有無漏的慧才被賦予聖名，因為它能夠如實地正確觀察四諦（catvāri ārya-satyāni，四聖諦），所以被稱為聖。有漏的慧雖然也觀察四諦，但不分明，所以不被稱為聖。就聖慧而言，八忍不是智的自性。決斷（viniscaya，決斷）才名為智。疑是猶豫的自性，與決斷相違。八忍生起時，與它所斷的疑同時存在。那時，正斷（samyak-prahāṇa，正斷）與敵對的疑相違背，因為還沒有斷除，所以不是決斷。因為不是決斷，所以不名為智。可見性攝屬於推度性。雖然在先前的離欲四法忍位（vītarāga-dharma-kṣānti，離欲四法忍位），自疑已經斷除，但那是與疑同時生起的忍的流類，所以也不是智。異生（pṛthag-jana，異生）斷惑的諸無間道（ānantarya-mārga，無間道），雖然與疑同時生起，但不是真正的對治，也不是極度相違。

【English Translation】 English version: The difference lies in the characteristics (ākāra) of the Three Vidyas (Trividya) and the Ten Wisdoms (Dasa-jnana). The four are the Discriminating Wisdoms of the Four Doors (pratisamvidā-jñāna). This actually concerns the distinction between the first 'Ming' (Kṣānti, Jñāna, Dṛṣṭi). It arises from the previous question. Earlier, at the beginning of the 'Noble and Saintly Chapter,' the Eight Kṣāntis (aṣṭau kṣāntayaḥ) and Eight Jñānas (aṣṭau jñānāni) were explained in the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga). After that chapter, Right View (samyag-dṛṣṭi) was again explained in the Eightfold Noble Path (āryāṣṭāṅga-mārga). In the Ten Non-Learnings (aśaikṣa), Right Knowledge (samyag-jñāna) was again explained. Is there a case where there is only Kṣānti and not Jñāna? Is there a case where there is only Jñāna and not Dṛṣṭi? The verse says: 'All Wisdoms are of the nature of the Six Views.' Regarding the answer in the verse, the first two lines and the remaining two lines are explained based on the Unconditioned (anāsrava). Conditioned Wisdom (sāsrava-prajñā) and the next line below are distinguished based on the Conditioned (sāsrava). Kṣānti is common to both ordinary beings and noble ones. The noble ones speak concisely, referring here to ordinary beings. Although this Kṣānti is wisdom, it is not Jñāna. Generally speaking, there are roughly four types of Kṣānti: If Endurance (kṣānti) is called Kṣānti, then Non-Anger (adveṣa) is called Kṣānti; if the Endurance of Accepting Suffering (duḥkhādhivāsanā-kṣānti) is called Kṣānti, then Diligence (vīrya) is called Kṣānti; if Acceptance (adhyadhi-mukti-kṣānti) is called Kṣānti, then Faith (śraddhā) is called Kṣānti; if the Kṣānti of Observing the Dharma (dharma-kṣānti) is called Kṣānti, then Wisdom (prajñā) is called Kṣānti. The Kṣānti mentioned here has wisdom as its nature. Generally speaking, there are roughly two types of Views: one is Inference, which is called View, with wisdom as its nature; the other is Illumination, which is called View, that is, with the Eye Faculty (cakṣur-indriya) and the Ten Wisdoms (dasa-jñāna) as its nature, because they all have the function of illuminating the objects in front. The View mentioned here is Inference, which is called View. Therefore, the Wisdom of Exhaustion (kṣaya-jñāna) and the Wisdom of Non-Arising (anutpāda-jñāna) cannot be called Views. The rest is as in the prose (prasthāna). The treatise says: 'Because of the nature of Inference.' Explaining the first line. Generally speaking, there are two types of wisdom: one is Conditioned, and the other is Unconditioned. Only Unconditioned wisdom is given the name 'Noble,' because it can truly and correctly observe the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ārya-satyāni), so it is called 'Noble.' Although Conditioned wisdom also observes the Four Noble Truths, it is not clear, so it is not called 'Noble.' Regarding Noble wisdom, the Eight Kṣāntis are not the nature of Jñāna. Decision (viniscaya) is called Jñāna. Doubt is the nature of hesitation, which contradicts decision. When the Eight Kṣāntis arise, they exist simultaneously with the doubt that they are cutting off. At that time, the Correct Cutting Off (samyak-prahāṇa) contradicts the opposing doubt, because it has not yet been cut off, so it is not decision. Because it is not decision, it is not called Jñāna. The nature of visibility belongs to the nature of inference. Although in the previous position of the Four Kṣāntis of Detachment from Desire (vītarāga-dharma-kṣānti), one doubts that it has been cut off, that is the stream of Kṣānti arising simultaneously with doubt, so it is also not Jñāna. The Intervening Paths (ānantarya-mārga) of ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana) cutting off afflictions, although arising simultaneously with doubt, are not true antidotes and are not extremely contradictory.

后容退故。而得名智。故婆沙四十四云。複次。忍與所斷疑得俱故非智所攝。設不與俱而是彼類。有漏無間道非真對治故。雖疑得俱而亦是智(已上論文)　問疑障決斷。忍與疑得俱忍即不名智。無明障推度。忍與癡得俱忍應不名見　解云疑有相應無明。助疑得有力能違忍。獨頭無明無惑助。忍與彼得俱可說名見。若言亦有相應無明。今言助者據別剎那　又解。重觀名智。未已斷言顯未重知。故婆沙云。問諸無漏忍何故非智。答于諸見境未重觀故。謂無始來於四聖諦。未以無漏真實慧見。今雖創見而未重觀。故不名智。要同類慧于境重觀方成智故。又婆沙一百九十六云。顯示諸忍與自所斷疑得俱生未重審決不得智名。

盡與無生至不推度故者。釋第二句。于聖慧中盡與無生二種是智。決斷性故。或重知故。非是見性。已息求心不推度故。

所餘皆通至推度性故者。釋第三句中餘二。除前八忍及盡．無生余無漏慧一一皆通智．見二性。已斷自疑。決斷性故。或重知故名智。推度性故名見。

諸有漏慧至世正見為六者。釋有漏慧．及下一句。諸有漏慧決斷性故。皆智性攝於中明六亦是見性。推度性故。謂身見等五染污見。及意識相應世俗正見為六　問忍與疑得俱忍即不名智。與疑俱生慧應亦不名智　解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『后容退故。而得名智。』這是因為在之後才容許退失，所以才得名為『智』（jnana，智慧）。故《婆沙論》第四十四卷說：『複次。忍（ksanti，忍位）與所斷疑（vicikitsa，疑）得俱故非智所攝。』又，忍與所要斷除的『疑』同時生起，所以不被攝屬於『智』。『設不與俱而是彼類。有漏無間道非真對治故。』假設忍不與『疑』同時生起，而是與『疑』同類的法生起，那麼有漏的無間道（anantarya-marga，無間道）不是真實的對治道。『雖疑得俱而亦是智。』雖然與『疑』同時生起，但它也是『智』。（以上是論文原文）問：如果『疑』的障礙被決斷，『忍』與『疑』同時生起，那麼『忍』就不應被稱作『智』。如果無明（avidya，無明）的障礙被推度，『忍』與『癡』（moha，癡）同時生起，那麼『忍』就不應被稱作『見』（drsti，見）。解：『疑』有相應的無明，幫助『疑』產生力量，能夠違背『忍』。而獨頭的無明沒有煩惱的幫助，『忍』與它同時生起，可以說名為『見』。如果說也有相應的無明，那麼現在所說的『幫助』，是指不同的剎那。又解釋說，重複觀察名為『智』。『未已斷言顯未重知。』『未已斷』這句話顯示了尚未重複知曉。故《婆沙論》說：『問：諸無漏忍何故非智？答：于諸見境未重觀故。』為什麼所有的無漏忍（anāsrava-ksānti，無漏忍）不是『智』呢？回答是：因為對於所見的境界，沒有重複觀察的緣故。也就是說，從無始以來，對於四聖諦（catvāri ārya-satyāni，四聖諦），沒有用無漏的真實智慧去見。『今雖創見而未重觀。故不名智。要同類慧于境重觀方成智故。』現在雖然初次見到，但沒有重複觀察，所以不名為『智』。一定要同類的智慧對於境界重複觀察，才能成為『智』。又，《婆沙論》第一百九十六卷說：『顯示諸忍與自所斷疑得俱生未重審決不得智名。』這顯示了所有的『忍』與自己所要斷除的『疑』同時生起，沒有經過重複審察決斷，就不能得到『智』的名稱。

『盡與無生至不推度故者。』這是解釋第二句話。在聖慧（ārya-prajñā，聖慧）中，盡智（ksaya-jnana，盡智）和無生智（anutpada-jnana，無生智）兩種是『智』，因為它們具有決斷的性質，或者因為它們是重複知曉的緣故。但它們不是『見』的性質，因為已經止息了尋求的心，不再推度的緣故。

『所餘皆通至推度性故者。』這是解釋第三句話中的其餘兩種。除了前面的八忍以及盡智、無生智之外，其餘的無漏智慧都通於『智』和『見』兩種性質。因為已經斷除了自己的疑惑，具有決斷的性質，或者因為是重複知曉的緣故，所以名為『智』。因為具有推度的性質，所以名為『見』。

『諸有漏慧至世正見為六者。』這是解釋有漏慧（sāsrava-prajñā，有漏慧）以及下一句話。所有的有漏智慧因為具有決斷的性質，都被攝屬於『智』的性質。其中，明確說明有六種也是『見』的性質，因為它們具有推度的性質。這六種是：身見（satkaya-drsti，身見）等五種染污見（klista-drsti，染污見），以及與意識相應的世俗正見（laukika-samyag-drsti，世俗正見）。問：如果『忍』與『疑』同時生起，『忍』就不應被稱作『智』。那麼與『疑』同時生起的智慧，也應不被稱作『智』。解：

【English Translation】 English version: 'After allowing retreat, it is named Jnana (智, wisdom).' This is because retreat is allowed afterward, hence it is named 'Jnana'. Therefore, the forty-fourth volume of the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙論) says: 'Furthermore, Ksanti (忍, forbearance) is not included in Jnana because it arises simultaneously with the doubt (疑, vicikitsa) to be eliminated.' Also, Ksanti arises simultaneously with the 'doubt' to be eliminated, so it is not included in 'Jnana'. 'Suppose it does not arise simultaneously but is of the same category. The contaminated immediate path (有漏無間道, anantarya-marga) is not a true antidote.' Suppose Ksanti does not arise simultaneously with 'doubt' but arises with a dharma of the same category as 'doubt', then the contaminated immediate path is not a true antidote. 'Although doubt arises simultaneously, it is also Jnana.' Although it arises simultaneously with 'doubt', it is also 'Jnana'. (The above is the original text of the treatise) Question: If the obstacle of 'doubt' is resolved, and Ksanti arises simultaneously with 'doubt', then Ksanti should not be called 'Jnana'. If the obstacle of ignorance (無明, avidya) is inferred, and Ksanti arises simultaneously with 'delusion' (癡, moha), then Ksanti should not be called 'view' (見, drsti). Answer: 'Doubt' has corresponding ignorance, which helps 'doubt' to generate power and can oppose Ksanti. But solitary ignorance does not have the help of afflictions. When Ksanti arises simultaneously with it, it can be called 'view'. If it is said that there is also corresponding ignorance, then the 'help' mentioned now refers to different kshanas (剎那, moments). Another explanation is that repeated observation is called 'Jnana'. 'The statement 'not yet cut off' shows that it is not yet known repeatedly.' The phrase 'not yet cut off' shows that it has not yet been repeatedly known. Therefore, the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'Question: Why are all the uncontaminated Ksantis (無漏忍, anāsrava-ksānti) not Jnana? Answer: Because they have not repeatedly observed the objects of view.' Why are all the uncontaminated Ksantis not 'Jnana'? The answer is: Because, for the objects of view, there is no repeated observation. 'Although they are seen for the first time now, they have not been repeatedly observed. Therefore, they are not called Jnana. It is necessary for wisdom of the same kind to repeatedly observe the object to become Jnana.' Although they are seen for the first time now, they have not been repeatedly observed, so they are not called 'Jnana'. It is necessary for wisdom of the same kind to repeatedly observe the object to become 'Jnana'. Also, the one hundred and ninety-sixth volume of the Abhidharma-Mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'It shows that all Ksantis, arising simultaneously with the doubt they are to eliminate, without repeated examination and resolution, cannot obtain the name of Jnana.' This shows that all 'Ksantis', arising simultaneously with the 'doubt' they are to eliminate, without repeated examination and resolution, cannot obtain the name of 'Jnana'.

'Exhaustion and non-arising, up to the reason for not inferring.' This explains the second sentence. In noble wisdom (聖慧, ārya-prajñā), the wisdom of exhaustion (盡智, ksaya-jnana) and the wisdom of non-arising (無生智, anutpada-jnana) are both 'Jnana' because they have the nature of resolution, or because they are repeatedly known. But they are not of the nature of 'view' because the mind of seeking has ceased, and there is no longer any inference.

'All the rest are common, up to the reason for inferring.' This explains the remaining two in the third sentence. Except for the previous eight Ksantis and the wisdom of exhaustion and non-arising, the remaining uncontaminated wisdom all share the two natures of 'Jnana' and 'view'. Because they have eliminated their own doubts and have the nature of resolution, or because they are repeatedly known, they are called 'Jnana'. Because they have the nature of inference, they are called 'view'.

'All contaminated wisdom, up to the worldly right view being six.' This explains contaminated wisdom (有漏慧, sāsrava-prajñā) and the next sentence. All contaminated wisdom, because it has the nature of resolution, is included in the nature of 'Jnana'. Among them, it is clearly stated that six are also of the nature of 'view' because they have the nature of inference. These six are: the five defiled views (染污見, klista-drsti) such as the view of self (身見, satkaya-drsti), and the worldly right view (世俗正見, laukika-samyag-drsti) corresponding to consciousness. Question: If Ksanti arises simultaneously with 'doubt', Ksanti should not be called 'Jnana'. Then the wisdom arising simultaneously with 'doubt' should also not be called 'Jnana'. Answer:

云與疑俱慧相順同緣。于境決斷亦名為智。故婆沙一百六云。問何故名智。智是何義。答決斷義是智義。問若爾疑相應慧應不名智。于所緣境不決定故。答彼亦是智。一剎那頃于所緣境亦決定故。然此聚中疑勢用勝。令心於境多剎那中猶豫不決說名疑聚。如三摩地一剎那中於境恒住。有時若與掉舉相應。令多剎那于境轉易說名為亂　又解諸有漏慧以重知故皆智性攝。見如前釋。故婆沙四十四云。無一有情於一切境。無始時來非有漏慧數數觀之。故有漏慧皆智所攝(已上論文)　問五識俱慧唸唸別緣。既不重知。應不名智　解云五識俱慧雖非重緣。約自種類說重緣故。有漏意識于彼五境必定曾緣。五識俱慧今時復緣得名重知。故亦名智　如是所說至並慧性攝者。如是聖慧及有漏慧。皆能簡擇所緣法故並慧性攝。

智有幾種至苦等諦為境者。此下第二明諸智相殊。就中。一明漸增至十。二明盡．無生別。三明建立為十。四明法．類兼治　就第一明漸增至十中。一明二智．三智。二明三增至九。三明九增至十　此即第一明二智．三智　智十答初問。余答第二問　或此頌中智十。總標名數。余文別明二智．三智。

論曰至四諦為境者。此中論文大分可知。又正理七十三云。前有漏智總名世俗。瓶．衣等物性可毀壞

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『云』（指慧）與『疑』（指猶豫不決）都是與『慧』（智慧）相順的同緣。對於所緣之境能夠決斷，也稱為『智』（智慧）。所以《婆沙論》第一百零六卷說：『問：為什麼稱為智？智是什麼意思？答：決斷的意思就是智的意思。』問：如果這樣，與疑相應的慧，應不稱為智，因為它對於所緣之境不決定。答：它也是智。在一剎那間，對於所緣之境也是決定的。然而在此聚集中，疑的勢力作用更強，令心對於所緣之境在多個剎那中猶豫不決，所以稱為疑聚。如同三摩地在一剎那中對於所緣之境恒常安住。有時如果與掉舉相應，令多個剎那中對於所緣之境轉移變易，這稱為散亂。』又解釋說，所有有漏的慧，因為是重複了知，所以都屬於智的性質所攝。見如前面的解釋。所以《婆沙論》第四十四卷說：『沒有一個有情對於一切境，從無始以來沒有用有漏慧數數觀察過。』所以有漏慧都屬於智所攝。（以上是論文）問：五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）相應的慧，唸唸分別緣取不同的境界，既然不是重複了知，應不稱為智。解釋說，五識相應的慧雖然不是重複緣取，但就其自身種類來說是重複緣取，有漏意識對於那五種境界必定曾經緣取過，五識相應的慧現在又再次緣取，可以稱為重複了知，所以也稱為智。像這樣所說的，直到併入慧性所攝，像這樣聖慧以及有漏慧，都能簡擇所緣之法，所以都併入慧性所攝。『智有幾種』，直到『以苦等諦為境』。下面第二部分說明諸智的相狀差別。其中，一、說明從漸增到十。二、說明盡智、無生智的差別。三、說明建立為十智。四、說明法智、類智兼治。在第一部分說明從漸增到十中，一、說明二智、三智。二、說明從三智增到九智。三、說明從九智增到十智。這裡就是第一部分說明二智、三智。智十回答最初的提問，其餘回答第二個提問。或者這首頌中的『智十』，是總的標明名數，其餘的文字分別說明二智、三智。論曰，直到『以四諦為境』。這裡面的論文大部分可以理解。又《正理論》第七十三卷說：『前面的有漏智總稱為世俗智，瓶、衣等物的性質是可以毀壞的。』

【English Translation】 English version 『Clod』 (referring to wisdom) and 『doubt』 (referring to hesitation) are both similar conditions that accord with 『wisdom』. The ability to make decisive judgments about objects is also called 『wisdom』. Therefore, the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Chapter 106, says: 『Question: Why is it called wisdom? What is the meaning of wisdom? Answer: The meaning of decisiveness is the meaning of wisdom.』 Question: If so, the wisdom associated with doubt should not be called wisdom, because it is not decisive about the object. Answer: It is also wisdom. In an instant, it is also decisive about the object. However, in this aggregation, the power of doubt is stronger, causing the mind to hesitate about the object for many moments, so it is called the aggregation of doubt. Just as samādhi constantly abides in the object in an instant. Sometimes, if it is associated with agitation, causing it to change easily in the object for many moments, this is called distraction.』 It is also explained that all defiled wisdom is included in the nature of wisdom because it is known repeatedly. See the previous explanation. Therefore, the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Chapter 44, says: 『There is no sentient being who has not repeatedly observed all objects with defiled wisdom since beginningless time.』 Therefore, defiled wisdom is all included in wisdom. (The above is the treatise) Question: The wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) separately grasps different realms in each moment. Since it is not repeatedly known, it should not be called wisdom. It is explained that although the wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses is not repeatedly grasping, it is said to be repeatedly grasping in terms of its own kind. The defiled consciousness must have grasped those five realms before. The wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses now grasps again, which can be called repeatedly knowing, so it is also called wisdom. As it is said, until it is included in the nature of wisdom, like this, both holy wisdom and defiled wisdom can discern the objects, so they are all included in the nature of wisdom. 『How many kinds of wisdom are there,』 until 『taking the truths of suffering, etc., as objects.』 The second part below explains the differences in the characteristics of the various wisdoms. Among them, 1. Explain the gradual increase to ten. 2. Explain the difference between the wisdom of exhaustion and the wisdom of non-arising. 3. Explain the establishment of ten wisdoms. 4. Explain that the wisdom of the Dharma and the wisdom of categories are both treated. In the first part, explaining the gradual increase to ten, 1. Explain the two wisdoms and the three wisdoms. 2. Explain the increase from three wisdoms to nine wisdoms. 3. Explain the increase from nine wisdoms to ten wisdoms. This is the first part, explaining the two wisdoms and the three wisdoms. The ten wisdoms answer the initial question, and the rest answer the second question. Or the 『ten wisdoms』 in this verse are a general indication of the names and numbers, and the rest of the text separately explains the two wisdoms and the three wisdoms. The treatise says, until 『taking the Four Noble Truths as objects.』 Most of the treatise here can be understood. Also, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Chapter 73, says: 『The previous defiled wisdom is generally called mundane wisdom, and the nature of things like bottles and clothes can be destroyed.』

。顯世俗情。故名世俗。此智多取世俗境故。多順世間俗事轉故。從多建立世俗智名。非無取勝義順勝義事轉。然是愛境。無勝功能息內眾惑。故非無漏。或覆出世引發世間得世俗名。體即無智。智隨屬彼得彼智名。意顯此名目有漏智　廣如彼說。

即于如是至初唯苦集類者。此即第二明三增至九。

論曰至滅道四智者。釋上二句。於前三智。法．類境別。復分四種。正理七十三云。何緣俗智亦緣苦等作苦等行相。而非苦等智。由彼先以苦等行相觀苦等已。后時復容觀苦等境為樂等故。又得如是世俗智已。後緣諦疑容現行故。

如是六智至為境界故者。釋下兩句。如是法．類．及與四諦。若無學攝非見性者名盡．無生。此盡．無生。若在後時通緣四諦作十四行。然此二智最初生時唯苦．集類。以緣苦．集六種行相。觀有頂蘊為境界故。

問何緣初位唯緣有頂苦．集為境　解云有頂苦．集。從無始來不能得斷。今時創斷。故先緣彼自生慶慰　問何故不作空．非我行相　解云以此二智涉於世俗。謂出觀後作我生等解故。前觀內不作空．非我行。此即因涉于果。彼前觀內作空．非我。后出觀心。亦不能作我生等解。

金剛喻定境同此耶者。問。

緣苦．集同緣滅道異者。答。金剛喻定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：顯現世俗之情，所以叫做世俗。這種智慧多取世俗境界的緣故，多順應世間俗事的運轉的緣故，所以從多數情況建立世俗智這個名稱。並非沒有取勝義、順勝義之事運轉的情況，然而它是愛著的境界，沒有殊勝的功能來止息內在的各種迷惑，所以不是無漏智。或者覆蓋出世間法，引發世間法，因此得到世俗的名稱。它的本體就是無智，智慧隨屬於它，因此得到它的智慧之名。意思是顯示這個名稱是指有漏智，詳細的解釋如彼處所說。

『即于如是至初唯苦集類者』，這句是第二點，說明從三智增加到九智。

『論曰至滅道四智者』，解釋上面兩句。在前三種智慧中，法智和類智的境界不同，又分為四種。《正理》第七十三卷說：『什麼緣故世俗智也能緣苦等，作苦等行相，而不是苦等智？因為他先以苦等行相觀察苦等之後，之後又容許觀察苦等境界為樂等。又得到這樣的世俗智之後，之後緣諦的疑惑容許現行。』

『如是六智至為境界故者』，解釋下面兩句。像這樣法智、類智，以及四諦智，如果屬於無學，不是見性的，就叫做盡智、無生智。這盡智、無生智，如果在之後的時間，通緣四諦，作十四種行相。然而這兩種智慧最初生起的時候，唯有苦類智和集類智，以緣苦、集六種行相，觀察有頂蘊為境界的緣故。

問：『什麼緣故最初的時候唯有緣有頂的苦、集為境界？』答：『有頂的苦、集，從無始以來不能斷除，現在開始斷除，所以先緣彼而自我慶賀。』問：『什麼緣故不作空、非我的行相？』答：『因為這兩種智慧涉及到世俗，意思是出觀之後作我生等的理解的緣故。』前面觀內不作空、非我行。這是因為涉及到果，他在前面觀內作空、非我，之後出觀的心，也不能作我生等的理解。

『金剛喻定境同此耶者』，這是提問。

『緣苦．集同緣滅道異者』，這是回答。金剛喻定。

【English Translation】 English version: Manifesting worldly emotions, hence it is called 'worldly' (世俗). This wisdom mostly takes worldly realms as its object, and mostly accords with the workings of worldly affairs, therefore, the name 'worldly wisdom' is established from the majority of cases. It is not that there is no taking of supreme meaning or according with the workings of supreme meaning, however, it is a realm of attachment, without the supreme function of ceasing inner afflictions, therefore, it is not un-leaked (無漏). Or it covers the transcendental and induces the mundane, thus obtaining the name 'worldly'. Its substance is non-wisdom (無智), wisdom follows belonging to it, thus obtaining its name of wisdom. The meaning is to show that this name refers to leaked wisdom (有漏智). The detailed explanation is as described there.

'即于如是至初唯苦集類者' - 'Regarding 'in this way, up to the initial only suffering and accumulation categories', this is the second point, explaining the increase from three wisdoms to nine.

'論曰至滅道四智者' - 'The treatise says, up to the four wisdoms of cessation and path', explains the above two sentences. Among the previous three wisdoms, the realms of Dharma-wisdom (法智) and Category-wisdom (類智) are different, and are further divided into four types. The seventy-third volume of Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'What is the reason that worldly wisdom can also cognize suffering etc., making the aspects of suffering etc., but is not the wisdom of suffering etc.? Because he first observes suffering etc. with the aspects of suffering etc., and later allows observing the realms of suffering etc. as pleasure etc. Also, after obtaining such worldly wisdom, later the doubts about the truths are allowed to manifest.'

'如是六智至為境界故者' - 'Thus, the six wisdoms up to being the realm', explains the following two sentences. Like this, Dharma-wisdom (法智), Category-wisdom (類智), and the four Truths-wisdoms, if they belong to the non-learner (無學), and are not of the nature of seeing, they are called Exhaustion-wisdom (盡智) and Non-arising-wisdom (無生智). These Exhaustion-wisdom and Non-arising-wisdom, if they are at a later time, universally cognize the four Truths, making fourteen aspects. However, these two wisdoms, when they first arise, are only the suffering-category (苦類) and accumulation-category (集類), because they cognize the six aspects of suffering and accumulation, observing the peak of existence aggregates (有頂蘊) as the realm.

Question: 'What is the reason that initially only the suffering and accumulation of the peak of existence are taken as the realm?' Answer: 'The suffering and accumulation of the peak of existence have not been able to be cut off since beginningless time, and now they are initially cut off, so they first cognize them and celebrate themselves.' Question: 'What is the reason for not making the aspects of emptiness and non-self?' Answer: 'Because these two wisdoms involve the worldly, meaning that after coming out of contemplation, they make understandings of 'I am born' etc.' The previous contemplation does not make the actions of emptiness and non-self. This is because it involves the result, in the previous contemplation he makes emptiness and non-self, and after coming out of contemplation, the mind also cannot make understandings of 'I am born' etc.

'金剛喻定境同此耶者' - ''Is the realm of the Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛喻定) the same as this?', this is a question.

'緣苦．集同緣滅道異者' - 'Cognizing suffering and accumulation is the same, cognizing cessation and path is different', this is the answer. The Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛喻定).

。若緣非想苦．集即同。若緣九地滅．道即異。以緣三界滅．道皆能斷彼惑故。

於前所說至二三念一切者。此即第三明九增至十。

論曰至余則不然者。釋上兩句。於前所說九智之中。有法．類．道．及世俗智成他心智。若知他無漏心。以法．類．道他心智知。若知他有漏心。以世俗．他心智知。餘五不然。無漏他心智。不知有漏心故非苦．集智。滅是無為故非滅智。他心智是見性。盡．無生智非見性故非盡．無生智。

此智于境至謂地根位者。釋第三．第四句。此即開章。

地謂下地智不知上地心者。別釋。既下地智不知上心。義準能知自地．下地。一切下地智不知上地心。若知自．下即有差別。故婆沙九十九云。曾得有漏心．心所法有十五種。是他心智所應取境。謂欲界及四靜慮。各有下．中．上三品心．心所法。曾得有漏他心智有十二。謂四靜慮各有下．中．上三品他心智。此中初靜慮曾得有漏他心智下品者。能知欲界三品。及初靜慮下品曾得有漏心心所法。中品者能知欲界三品。及初靜慮下．中二品。曾得有漏心．心所法。上品者能知欲界。及初靜慮各三品曾得有漏心．心所法。如是展轉乃至第四靜慮曾得有漏上品他心智。能知欲界。及四靜慮各三品曾得有漏心．心所法。如曾得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果以非想非非想處天的苦諦為所緣，那麼集諦也就相同。如果以九地的滅諦為所緣，那麼道諦就不同。因為以三界的滅諦為所緣，道諦都能斷除那些迷惑。對於前面所說的達到二三念一切，這便是第三個說明九智增至十智。論中說『其餘則不然』，這是解釋上面兩句。在前面所說的九智之中，有法智、類智、道智以及世俗智成就他心智。如果知道他人無漏心，就用法智、類智、道智和他心智來知。如果知道他人有漏心，就用世俗智和他心智來知。其餘五智則不然。無漏的他心智，不能知道有漏心，所以不是苦智、集智。滅智是無為法，所以不是滅智。他心智是見性，盡智、無生智不是見性，所以不是盡智、無生智。此智對於境界達到所謂地、根、位，這是解釋第三、第四句。這便是開啟章節。所謂『地』是指下地的智慧不能知道上地的心，這是分別解釋。既然下地的智慧不能知道上地的心，那麼依此推斷，就能知道自己地和下地的（心）。一切下地的智慧不能知道上地的心。如果知道自己地和下地，就會有差別。所以《婆沙論》第九十九卷說，曾經獲得的有漏心、心所法有十五種，是他心智所應該取境的。即欲界和四禪定，各有下、中、上三品心、心所法。曾經獲得有漏他心智的有十二種，即四禪定各有下、中、上三品他心智。這其中，初禪曾經獲得有漏他心智下品者，能知道欲界三品，以及初禪下品曾經獲得的有漏心、心所法。中品者能知道欲界三品，以及初禪下、中二品曾經獲得的有漏心、心所法。上品者能知道欲界和初禪各三品曾經獲得的有漏心、心所法。這樣輾轉乃至第四禪曾經獲得有漏上品他心智，能知道欲界和四禪各三品曾經獲得的有漏心、心所法。如同曾經獲得（一樣）。

【English Translation】 English version: If the object of contemplation is the suffering (Dukkha) of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (Nāsaññānāsaññāyatana), then the origin (Samudaya) is also the same. If the object of contemplation is the cessation (Nirodha) of the nine realms, then the path (Mārga) is different. Because when the object of contemplation is the cessation of the three realms, the path is able to sever those delusions. Regarding the previously mentioned 'reaching two or three thoughts of everything,' this is the third explanation of the nine knowledges increasing to ten. The treatise says 'the rest are not,' which explains the above two sentences. Among the nine knowledges mentioned earlier, the Dharma-knowledge (Dharma-jñāna), the inferential knowledge (Anvaya-jñāna), the Path-knowledge (Mārga-jñāna), and the conventional knowledge (Saṃvṛti-jñāna) accomplish the knowledge of others' minds (Paracitta-jñāna). If one knows the non-outflow mind of others, one knows it with Dharma-knowledge, inferential knowledge, Path-knowledge, and the knowledge of others' minds. If one knows the outflow mind of others, one knows it with conventional knowledge and the knowledge of others' minds. The remaining five are not. The non-outflow knowledge of others' minds cannot know the outflow mind, so it is not the knowledge of suffering (Dukkha-jñāna) or the knowledge of origin (Samudaya-jñāna). Cessation-knowledge (Nirodha-jñāna) is unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta), so it is not cessation-knowledge. The knowledge of others' minds is of the nature of seeing (Darśana), while Exhaustion-knowledge (Kṣaya-jñāna) and Non-arising-knowledge (Anutpāda-jñāna) are not of the nature of seeing, so they are not Exhaustion-knowledge or Non-arising-knowledge. This knowledge, with respect to the realm, reaches what is called 'ground, faculty, position,' which explains the third and fourth sentences. This is the opening of the chapter. The 'ground' refers to the wisdom of the lower ground not knowing the mind of the higher ground, which is a separate explanation. Since the wisdom of the lower ground does not know the mind of the higher ground, it can be inferred that it can know its own ground and the lower ground. All the wisdom of the lower ground does not know the mind of the higher ground. If it knows its own ground and the lower ground, there will be differences. Therefore, the ninety-ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that there are fifteen kinds of outflow mind and mental factors that have been obtained, which are the objects that the knowledge of others' minds should take. That is, the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) and the four Dhyānas (meditative states), each having lower, middle, and upper grades of mind and mental factors. There are twelve kinds of outflow knowledge of others' minds that have been obtained, that is, the four Dhyānas each having lower, middle, and upper grades of the knowledge of others' minds. Among these, the one who has obtained the lower grade of outflow knowledge of others' minds in the first Dhyāna can know the three grades of the Desire Realm, and the outflow mind and mental factors that have been obtained in the lower grade of the first Dhyāna. The one of the middle grade can know the three grades of the Desire Realm, and the lower and middle grades of the first Dhyāna that have been obtained. The one of the upper grade can know the three grades of the Desire Realm and the first Dhyāna that have been obtained. Thus, gradually, even the one who has obtained the upper grade of outflow knowledge of others' minds in the fourth Dhyāna can know the three grades of the Desire Realm and the four Dhyānas that have been obtained. It is like having obtained (them).

有漏十二種他心智。知十五種曾得有漏心．心所法。未曾得有漏十二種他心智。知十五種未曾得有漏心．心所法亦爾。無漏心．心所法有十二種。是他心智所應取境。無漏他心智亦有十二種。謂四靜慮各有三品。此中第二靜慮無漏他心智下品者。能知初靜慮。及第二靜慮各唯下品無漏心．心所法。中品者能知初靜慮。及第二靜慮各下．中二品無漏心．心所法。上品者能知初靜慮。及第二靜慮各三品無漏心．心所法。如是展轉乃至第四靜慮上品無漏他心智。能知四靜慮各三品無漏心．心所法。問何故上地下．中品有漏他心智。俱能知下地三品有漏心．心所法。上地下．中品無漏他心智。不知下地中．上品無漏心．心所法耶。答有漏．無漏心．心所法建立各異。謂有漏心．心所法依相續建立。有一身相續中成就三品有漏心．心所法。無漏心．心所法依根品建立。無一身相續中成就二品無漏心．心所法。況有成就三者。建立既別。故知有異　又正理七十三云。如何說一補特伽羅成就九品道斷九品惑。此道差別非根有異。由因漸長后道轉增。如次能令多品惑斷。或諸種姓各有九品。成一九品必不成余。故前後言無相違過。又婆沙云。問初靜慮他心智。于欲界四靜慮通果心．心所法能知幾種。有作是說。能知四種。所以者何。一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本有十二種有漏的他心智（Paracitta-jñāna，知他人心智）。能夠知曉十五種曾經獲得的有漏心、心所法（Citta-caitta dharma，心和心理活動）。未曾獲得有漏的他心智有十二種。知曉十五種未曾獲得的有漏心、心所法也是如此。無漏的心、心所法有十二種，是這些他心智所應取之境。無漏的他心智也有十二種，即四禪定（Dhyāna，禪那）各自有上、中、下三品。其中，第二禪定無漏的他心智下品者，能夠知曉初禪定和第二禪定各自的下品無漏心、心所法。中品者能夠知曉初禪定和第二禪定各自的下、中二品無漏心、心所法。上品者能夠知曉初禪定和第二禪定各自的上、中、下三品無漏心、心所法。如此遞進，乃至第四禪定上品無漏的他心智，能夠知曉四禪定各自的上、中、下三品無漏心、心所法。問：為什麼上地（更高的禪定層次）下、中品有漏的他心智，都能夠知曉下地（較低的禪定層次）上、中、下三品有漏心、心所法，而上地下、中品無漏的他心智，卻不能知曉下地中、上品無漏心、心所法呢？答：有漏和無漏的心、心所法的建立方式各不相同。有漏的心、心所法是依相續（Saṃtāna，心流）建立的，在一個人的相續中可以成就上、中、下三品有漏心、心所法。無漏的心、心所法是依根品（Indriya，根的品級）建立的，一個人的相續中不能成就二品無漏心、心所法，更何況是成就三品呢？建立方式既然不同，所以知曉的能力也有差異。又，《正理》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）第七十三卷說：『如何說一個補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，人）成就九品道，斷除九品惑？』這種道的差別不是因為根器不同，而是因為因逐漸增長，後來的道逐漸增強，依次能夠使多種品級的煩惱斷除。或者各種姓（Gotra，種姓）各有九品，成就一種九品必定不能成就其他的。所以前後所說沒有互相違背的過失。又，《婆沙》（Mahāvibhāṣā，大毗婆沙論）中說：問：初禪的他心智，對於欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界）、四禪定通果的心、心所法，能夠知曉幾種？有人這樣說，能夠知曉四種。為什麼呢？一

【English Translation】 English version There are twelve types of contaminated other-minds-knowing (Paracitta-jñāna, knowledge of others' minds). They can know fifteen types of contaminated minds and mental factors (Citta-caitta dharma, mind and mental activities) that have been previously attained. There are twelve types of uncontaminated other-minds-knowing that have not been attained. Knowing the fifteen types of contaminated minds and mental factors that have not been attained is also the same. There are twelve types of uncontaminated minds and mental factors, which are the objects that these other-minds-knowing should take. There are also twelve types of uncontaminated other-minds-knowing, namely, the four Dhyānas (Dhyāna, meditation) each having three grades: superior, medium, and inferior. Among them, the inferior grade of uncontaminated other-minds-knowing of the second Dhyāna can know the inferior grade of uncontaminated minds and mental factors of the first Dhyāna and the second Dhyāna respectively. The medium grade can know the inferior and medium grades of uncontaminated minds and mental factors of the first Dhyāna and the second Dhyāna respectively. The superior grade can know the superior, medium, and inferior grades of uncontaminated minds and mental factors of the first Dhyāna and the second Dhyāna respectively. Progressing in this way, up to the superior grade of uncontaminated other-minds-knowing of the fourth Dhyāna, it can know the superior, medium, and inferior grades of uncontaminated minds and mental factors of each of the four Dhyānas. Question: Why is it that the inferior and medium grades of contaminated other-minds-knowing of the higher planes (higher levels of meditation) can know the superior, medium, and inferior grades of contaminated minds and mental factors of the lower planes (lower levels of meditation), while the inferior and medium grades of uncontaminated other-minds-knowing of the higher planes cannot know the medium and superior grades of uncontaminated minds and mental factors of the lower planes? Answer: The establishment of contaminated and uncontaminated minds and mental factors is different. Contaminated minds and mental factors are established based on the continuum (Saṃtāna, mindstream), and within one person's continuum, the superior, medium, and inferior grades of contaminated minds and mental factors can be achieved. Uncontaminated minds and mental factors are established based on the faculties (Indriya, faculty) and their grades, and within one person's continuum, two grades of uncontaminated minds and mental factors cannot be achieved, let alone three grades. Since the establishment is different, the ability to know is also different. Furthermore, the seventy-third fascicle of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Treasury of Metaphysics) says: 'How can it be said that one Pudgala (Pudgala, person) achieves the nine grades of the path and eradicates the nine grades of defilements?' This difference in the path is not because of different faculties, but because the cause gradually increases, and the later path gradually strengthens, sequentially enabling the eradication of multiple grades of afflictions. Or each Gotra (Gotra, lineage) has nine grades, and achieving one of the nine grades necessarily prevents the achievement of others. Therefore, there is no contradiction between what is said before and after. Moreover, the Mahāvibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā, Great Commentary) says: Question: How many types of minds and mental factors of the resultant states of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, desire realm) and the four Dhyānas can the other-minds-knowing of the first Dhyāna know? Some say that it can know four types. Why? One

切皆是欲界攝故。復有說者。唯能知初靜慮通果。不知餘三。所以者何。如不知因。果亦爾故。又婆沙云。問靜慮中間心．心所法。何地智慧知耶。有作是說。初靜慮上品智慧知。復有說者。第二靜慮下品智慧知。評曰應作是說。初靜慮三品智皆能知。所以者何。一地攝故(解云且說初定。以實二定等亦能知)又婆沙云。如來曾得有漏心心所法。佛欲令他知者即知。廣如彼說。根謂信解至勝位者心者。既不能知上根．上位。義準能知自根．下根。自位．下位。

此智不知至為所緣境者。於三世中唯知現在他心等用。去．來無用故不能知。

又法．類品至為所緣故者。釋第五句。由法智以欲界全分對治為所緣故。由類智以上界全分對治為所緣故。所以法．類不互相緣。雖欲滅．道法智亦能治上修惑。而非全治。苦．集法智。見道法智。不治上故。

此他心智至此智所緣者。此下釋后三句。此他心智知他別相是容預修道。見道中無。總觀諦理極速轉故。雖無行．得二修。然皆容作此智所緣。或總觀諦理故無行．修。極速轉故無得修。

若諸有情至非知見道者。聲聞或由上加行。或由中加行。至加行滿能知見道初二念心。且據初說但言二念。后十三念。皆亦容作他心智所緣　問知前初二念心已。何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本一切都屬於欲界所包含的。還有一種說法是，只能知道初禪（初靜慮）的共通果報，不能知道其餘的三禪。為什麼呢？因為如果不知道原因，也就不知道結果。另外，《婆沙論》中說：『請問，靜慮中間的心和心所法，是哪個層次的智慧能夠知道呢？』有人這樣說，初禪的上品智慧能夠知道。還有人說，第二禪的下品智慧能夠知道。評論說，應該這樣說，初禪的三品智慧都能夠知道。為什麼呢？因為屬於同一層次的緣故（解釋說，這裡只是說了初禪，實際上二禪等也能夠知道）。另外，《婆沙論》中說，如來曾經獲得有漏的心和心所法，佛如果想讓別人知道，別人就能知道。詳細內容如《婆沙論》所說。根，指的是信解達到勝位的人的心。既然不能知道上根、上位，那麼按照這個道理，就能知道自己的根、下根，自己的位、下位。

這種智慧不能知道作為所緣境的至極狀態，在過去、現在、未來三世中，只能知道現在他人的心等作用。因為過去和未來沒有作用，所以不能知道。

『又法、類品至為所緣故』，這是解釋第五句。因為法智以欲界全部分的對治作為所緣，類智以上界全部分的對治作為所緣。所以法智和類智不互相緣。雖然欲滅和道法智也能對治上界的修惑，但不是完全對治。苦、集法智，見道法智，不能對治上界的修惑。

『此他心智至此智所緣者』，這是解釋後面的三句。這種他心智知道他人不同的相狀，是容許在修道中產生的，在見道中沒有。因為總觀真諦的道理非常迅速，所以沒有行修和得修。然而，都可以作為這種智慧的所緣。或者因為總觀真諦的道理，所以沒有行修；因為非常迅速地運轉，所以沒有得修。

『若諸有情至非知見道者』，聲聞或者通過上加行，或者通過中加行，直到加行圓滿，能夠知道見道最初的兩個念頭的心。這裡暫且根據最初的情況來說，只說兩個念頭。後面的十三個念頭，也都可以作為他心智的所緣。請問，知道前面最初的兩個念頭的心之後，又如何呢？

【English Translation】 English version Everything is included within the Desire Realm (欲界). Furthermore, some say that it can only know the common result of the first Dhyana (初靜慮), but not the other three. Why? Because if one does not know the cause, one also does not know the result. Moreover, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) says: 'Question: The mind and mental factors in the intermediate state of Dhyana, which level of wisdom can know them?' Some say that the superior wisdom of the first Dhyana can know them. Others say that the inferior wisdom of the second Dhyana can know them. The commentary says that it should be said that the three grades of wisdom of the first Dhyana can all know them. Why? Because they belong to the same realm (explaining that it is only talking about the first Dhyana, but in reality, the second Dhyana, etc., can also know them). Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that the Tathagata (如來) once obtained defiled (有漏) mind and mental factors. If the Buddha (佛) wants others to know them, they will know them. The details are as described in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. 'Root' refers to the mind of those who have attained a superior position in faith and understanding. Since it cannot know the superior root or superior position, then according to this principle, it can know its own root, inferior root, its own position, and inferior position.

This wisdom cannot know the ultimate state as its object. Among the three times (past, present, and future), it can only know the present functions of others' minds, etc. Because the past and future have no function, it cannot know them.

'Moreover, the Dharma (法) and Category (類) divisions are the reason for the object.' This explains the fifth sentence. Because Dharma-wisdom (法智) takes the entire division of the Desire Realm as its object of counteraction, and Category-wisdom (類智) takes the entire division of the Form Realm and Formless Realm as its object of counteraction. Therefore, Dharma-wisdom and Category-wisdom do not mutually condition each other. Although the Dharma-wisdom of Cessation (滅) and Path (道) can also counteract the afflictions of the higher realms, it does not completely counteract them. The Dharma-wisdom of Suffering (苦) and Accumulation (集), and the Dharma-wisdom of the Path of Seeing (見道), do not counteract the higher realms.

'This Other-minds Wisdom (他心智) to the object of this wisdom.' This explains the last three sentences. This Other-minds Wisdom knows the different characteristics of others, which is permissible in the Path of Cultivation (修道), but not in the Path of Seeing. Because the general contemplation of the truth is extremely rapid, there is no practice-cultivation (行修) or attainment-cultivation (得修). However, they can all be taken as the object of this wisdom. Or, because of the general contemplation of the truth, there is no practice-cultivation; because it operates extremely rapidly, there is no attainment-cultivation.

'If all sentient beings to those who do not know the Path of Seeing.' A Śrāvaka (聲聞), either through superior effort or through intermediate effort, until the effort is complete, can know the minds of the first two moments of the Path of Seeing. Here, based on the initial situation, only two moments are mentioned. The subsequent thirteen moments can also be taken as the object of Other-minds Wisdom. Question: After knowing the minds of the first two moments, what then?

故不即知第三念類分心等　解云法．類不同。所緣境別。故不能知。若為更知類分心故。別修加行。經十三念至加行滿。彼已度至第十六心。雖知此心。而非見道。

麟喻法分至第十五心者。獨覺能知見道三念心。知初二念已更以五心修加行知第八心。以此但由下加行故。且據一相知此三念。餘十二念皆亦容作他心所緣　問知第八心已。何故不更以五心為加行知第十四心　解云欲知亦得。而不知者。見道位心總有二分。一法分。二類分。知初二念是法分。知第八分是類分。既具知二其心委歇故不更知　又解欲知亦不得。初修加行知初二念。第二復以五心為加行知第八心。至第三更修加行其力微劣。以五．六心為加行不能成也　又解前心稍劣。五心加行即能得知。後心漸勝。以五．六心為其加行不能知也　又解知初二念已。意欲知彼第三苦類忍心五心加行。至加行滿乘知第八集類智心。以彼第三第八所緣。苦．集一物因果義分。知時即易。雖不能知第三。能知第八。知第八已。更欲知彼第九滅法忍心。用五心為加行。不知第十四道法智心。以彼二心所緣各別。一緣有為。一緣無為。非是一物。知時即難故不能知。設用六心為其加行。亦不能知第十五心。有說獨覺知初二念。更十二念為加行知第十五心。又正理七十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此不能立即知道第三唸的類分心等等。解釋說，法和類不同，所緣的境界也不同，所以不能知道。如果爲了進一步瞭解類分心，另外修習加行，經過十三念直到加行圓滿，他已經度到第十六心，雖然知道這個心，但不是見道。

至於麟喻法分到第十五心的情況，獨覺能夠知道見道的三念心。知道最初二念后，再用五心修加行來知道第八心。因為這只是通過下加行，所以暫且根據一個相來知道這三念。其餘十二念都可能成為他心所緣。有人問：知道第八心后，為什麼不再用五心作為加行來知道第十四心？解釋說，想知道也可以，但之所以不這樣做，是因為見道位的心總共有兩部分：一是法分，二是類分。知道最初二念是法分，知道第八分是類分。既然已經完全知道了這兩部分，他的心就委頓止息了，所以不再進一步瞭解。

又一種解釋是，想知道也不可能。最初修加行知道最初二念，第二次再用五心作為加行知道第八心，到第三次再修加行，其力量就微弱了，用五、六心作為加行也不能成功。另一種解釋是，前面的心稍微弱一些，五心加行就能得知；後面的心逐漸強盛，用五、六心作為加行也不能知道。還有一種解釋是，知道最初二念后，想要知道第三苦類忍心，用五心加行，到加行圓滿時，乘勢知道第八集類智心。因為第三和第八所緣的苦、集是同一事物的因果義理區分，知道起來容易。雖然不能知道第三，但能知道第八。知道第八后，再想知道第九滅法忍心，用五心作為加行，卻不能知道第十四道法智心。因為這兩個心所緣的各不相同，一個緣有為法，一個緣無為法，不是同一事物，知道起來困難，所以不能知道。即使使用六心作為加行，也不能知道第十五心。有人說，獨覺知道最初二念，再用十二唸作為加行來知道第十五心。又見《正理七十》。

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, one cannot immediately know the third thought's category-division mind, etc. The explanation is that the dharma (法) and category (類) are different, and the objects they cognize (所緣境) are different, so one cannot know. If one wants to further understand the category-division mind, one separately cultivates the preparatory practice (加行), passing through thirteen thoughts until the preparatory practice is complete. He has already crossed to the sixteenth mind, and although he knows this mind, it is not the path of seeing (見道).

As for the case of the rhinoceros analogy (麟喻) from the dharma-division (法分) to the fifteenth mind, a Pratyekabuddha (獨覺) is able to know the three thoughts of the path of seeing. After knowing the first two thoughts, he further uses five minds to cultivate the preparatory practice to know the eighth mind. Because this is only through the lower preparatory practice, it is temporarily based on one aspect to know these three thoughts. The remaining twelve thoughts can all become objects cognized by other minds. Someone asks: After knowing the eighth mind, why not use five minds as preparatory practice to know the fourteenth mind? The explanation is that one could know if one wanted to, but the reason for not doing so is that the mind in the position of the path of seeing has two parts in total: one is the dharma-division, and the other is the category-division. Knowing the first two thoughts is the dharma-division, and knowing the eighth division is the category-division. Since he has completely known these two parts, his mind becomes weary and ceases, so he does not further understand.

Another explanation is that it is also impossible to know. Initially, one cultivates the preparatory practice to know the first two thoughts, and the second time, one again uses five minds as preparatory practice to know the eighth mind. By the third time, when one cultivates the preparatory practice again, its strength is weak, and using five or six minds as preparatory practice cannot succeed. Another explanation is that the preceding mind is slightly weaker, and five minds of preparatory practice can be used to know it; the subsequent mind gradually becomes stronger, and using five or six minds as its preparatory practice cannot know it. Yet another explanation is that after knowing the first two thoughts, wanting to know the third suffering-category forbearance-mind (苦類忍心), one uses five minds of preparatory practice, and when the preparatory practice is complete, one takes advantage of the momentum to know the eighth arising-category wisdom-mind (集類智心). Because the suffering (苦) and arising (集) that the third and eighth cognize are the causal-reasoning division of the same thing, it is easy to know. Although one cannot know the third, one can know the eighth. After knowing the eighth, wanting to know the ninth cessation-dharma forbearance-mind (滅法忍心), using five minds as preparatory practice, one cannot know the fourteenth path-dharma wisdom-mind (道法智心). Because the objects that these two minds cognize are different from each other, one cognizes conditioned dharmas (有為法), and the other cognizes unconditioned dharmas (無為法), they are not the same thing, and it is difficult to know, so one cannot know. Even if one uses six minds as preparatory practice, one cannot know the fifteenth mind. Some say that a Pratyekabuddha knows the first two thoughts and then uses twelve thoughts as preparatory practice to know the fifteenth mind. See also Nyāyasiddhāntaśāstra (正理七十).

三。獨覺有四說。初兩說同此論。后二說言有說麟喻知四剎那。謂初二心．第八．十四。此言應理。所以者何。許從知初二念心已。唯隔五念知第八心。若復更修法分加行。經五念頃加行應成。何不許知第十四念。有餘亦說。知四剎那。謂初二念第十一．二(正理故違此論印取第三)又婆沙九十九。亦有四說同正理。然無評家。

世尊欲知至一切能知者。世尊欲知。不由加行具知見道十五念心。

盡無生智至名無生智者。此即第二明盡．無生別。引本論文顯二智別。智謂決斷。或謂重知。見謂推求。或謂現照。明謂照明。覺謂覺悟。解謂達解。慧謂簡擇。光謂慧光。觀謂觀察。智等八種並慧異名。正理七十三云。何緣論說無生智中復作是言。我已知苦等。理但應說不復更知等。二行不應俱時轉故。若次第轉。前與盡智無差別故。不應重說。應知此說意為遣疑。恐有生疑。如時解脫先起盡智。后得無生。如是應許不時解脫先起無生后得盡智。為顯一切盡智先起。故復先說已知等言。或先但言我已知等。顯時解脫唯有盡智。后復重言我已知等。顯不時解脫盡後起無生。故雖重言而無有失。無生智者。何謂無生。正理師言。謂非擇滅。有無生故此智得生。智托無生名無生智。滅雖常有而得非常。得彼滅時此智方

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三。關於獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）有四種說法。最初兩種說法與此論相同。后兩種說法認為，獨覺如麟喻（Rishyasringa）般了知四個剎那（ksana）。即最初的兩個心念、第八個心念和第十四個心念。這種說法是合理的。為什麼呢？因為如果允許從了知最初兩個心念開始，只間隔五個心念就能了知第八個心念。如果再修習法分加行（dharmabhaga prayoga），經過五個心念的時間，加行就應該成就。為什麼不允許了知第十四個心念呢？也有其他人說，了知四個剎那，即最初的兩個心念、第十一個和第十二個心念（因為不合正理，所以此論印可第三種說法）。此外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第九十九卷中，也有四種說法與《正理》（Nyaya）相同，但沒有評論家。

世尊想要了知一切能知者（Sarvajna）。世尊想要了知，不是通過加行，而是具足了知見道（darshana-marga）的十五個心念。

盡無生智（ksaya-anutpada-jnana）到名為無生智者。這說明了盡智（ksaya-jnana）和無生智（anutpada-jnana）的區別。引用本論的論文來顯示兩種智慧的區別。智（jnana）是指決斷，或者說是重複了知。見（darshana）是指推求，或者說是顯現照見。明（avabhasa）是指照明。覺（bodhi）是指覺悟。解（moksha）是指通達理解。慧（prajna）是指簡擇。光（aloka）是指慧光。觀（vipashyana）是指觀察。智等八種都是慧的不同名稱。《正理》第七十三卷說：『為什麼論中在無生智中又說我已知苦等？理應只說不再了知等。因為兩種行為不能同時進行。如果次第進行，那麼與盡智就沒有差別了，不應該重複說。』應該知道，這種說法是爲了消除疑惑。恐怕有人懷疑，如時解脫（samayika-vimukta）先起盡智，后得無生智。如果是這樣，就應該允許不時解脫（asamayika-vimukta）先起無生智，后得盡智。爲了顯示一切盡智先起，所以又先說已知等。或者先只說我已知等，顯示時解脫只有盡智。後來又重複說我已知等，顯示不時解脫在盡智之後生起無生智。所以雖然重複說，但沒有過失。無生智者，什麼是無生？正理師說：是指非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha）。因為有無生，所以此智得以生起。智依託無生，名為無生智。滅雖然常有，但得滅並非恒常，得到彼滅時，此智才

【English Translation】 English version 3. There are four views on the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha). The first two views are the same as this treatise. The latter two views state that the Pratyekabuddha, like Rishyasringa (a mythical hermit with a horn), knows four kshanas (moments). These are the first two moments of mind, the eighth, and the fourteenth. This statement is reasonable. Why? Because if it is allowed to know the eighth moment of mind only five moments after knowing the first two moments of mind, and if one further cultivates dharmabhaga prayoga (practice of the division of dharma), the practice should be accomplished after five moments. Why is it not allowed to know the fourteenth moment? Others also say that they know four kshanas, namely the first two moments, the eleventh, and the twelfth (because it is contrary to reason, this treatise approves the third view). Furthermore, in Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) 99, there are also four views that are the same as Nyaya (Nyayanusara-sastra), but there is no commentator.

The World-Honored One (Bhagavan) wants to know the Sarvajna (All-Knowing One). The World-Honored One wants to know, not through practice, but by fully knowing the fifteen moments of mind of the darshana-marga (path of seeing).

From ksaya-anutpada-jnana (knowledge of the exhaustion and non-arising) to the one named anutpada-jnana (knowledge of non-arising). This explains the difference between ksaya-jnana (knowledge of exhaustion) and anutpada-jnana (knowledge of non-arising). Quoting the thesis of this treatise shows the difference between the two wisdoms. Jnana (wisdom) refers to decisive judgment, or repeated knowing. Darshana (seeing) refers to seeking, or manifest illumination. Avabhasa (illumination) refers to illuminating. Bodhi (awakening) refers to enlightenment. Moksha (liberation) refers to thorough understanding. Prajna (wisdom) refers to discernment. Aloka (light) refers to the light of wisdom. Vipashyana (insight) refers to observation. The eight types of jnana, etc., are different names for prajna. Nyaya 73 says: 'Why does the treatise say again in anutpada-jnana, 'I have already known suffering, etc.'? It should only say 'no longer knowing, etc.' Because two actions cannot occur simultaneously. If they occur sequentially, then there is no difference from ksaya-jnana, and it should not be repeated.' It should be known that this statement is to dispel doubts. It is feared that some may doubt that samayika-vimukta (liberation in due time) first arises ksaya-jnana and then obtains anutpada-jnana. If so, it should be allowed that asamayika-vimukta (liberation out of due time) first arises anutpada-jnana and then obtains ksaya-jnana. In order to show that all ksaya-jnana arises first, it is said again 'already known, etc.' Or it is first said only 'I have already known, etc.,' showing that samayika-vimukta only has ksaya-jnana. Later, it is repeated 'I have already known, etc.,' showing that asamayika-vimukta arises anutpada-jnana after ksaya-jnana. Therefore, although it is repeated, there is no fault. Anutpada-jnana, what is anutpada (non-arising)? The Nyaya master says: It refers to pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through wisdom). Because there is non-arising, this wisdom can arise. Wisdom relies on non-arising and is called anutpada-jnana. Although cessation is constant, obtaining cessation is not constant. This wisdom only arises when that cessation is obtained.

轉。要由得起方名有滅。于有滅位此智方生。或無生言目彼滅得。如涅槃得亦名涅槃。經說以涅槃置在心中故。有彼得位此智方生。智托無生名無生智。有餘於此作是難言。若托無生名無生智。則無生智緣非諦法。是則所說違害自宗。無漏慧生唯緣四諦。彼不審察設此難詞。我上已言于出觀後方起如是分別智故。或此托聲是有第七。非境第七。如盡智故。或許此智緣無生得。此苦諦攝。非非諦故(已上論文)　如何無漏智可作如是知者。問。如何無漏智可作如是知。我已知苦等解。

迦濕彌羅至二智差別者。答。說一切有部正義。從盡．無生二智觀出后得有漏智中。作如是知我已知苦等。非無漏觀作如是知。故無有失。由此後得二智果別故。表前觀中二智因差別。由二因引是彼士用果。此即以果別因。若無餘心隔。應盡智無間即有我已知苦等解。無生智無間即有不應更知等解。然為無學正見等隔故後方起。

有說無漏智亦作如是知者。西方沙門經部等計。說有無漏智不作十六行。亦作如是知。我已知苦等。

然說見言至亦是見者。通本論文。以實而言。盡．無生智息求非見。以本論中解其十智。一一皆言智見等八。至盡．無生猶說見者。乘言便故　又解盡．無生智。若據息求即不名見。于諸諦理現

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本轉。要由得起方名有滅（有為法的生滅）。于有滅位此智方生。或無生言目彼滅得（證得）。如涅槃得（證得涅槃）亦名涅槃。經說以涅槃置在心中故。有彼得位此智方生。智托無生名無生智。有餘於此作是難言。若托無生名無生智。則無生智緣非諦法。是則所說違害自宗。無漏慧生唯緣四諦。彼不審察設此難詞。我上已言于出觀後方起如是分別智故。或此托聲是有第七。非境第七。如盡智故。或許此智緣無生得。此苦諦攝。非非諦故(已上論文) 如何無漏智可作如是知者。問。如何無漏智可作如是知。我已知苦等解。迦濕彌羅至二智差別者。答。說一切有部正義。從盡．無生二智觀出后得有漏智中。作如是知我已知苦等。非無漏觀作如是知。故無有失。由此後得二智果別故。表前觀中二智因差別。由二因引是彼士用果。此即以果別因。若無餘心隔。應盡智無間即有我已知苦等解。無生智無間即有不應更知等解。然為無學正見等隔故後方起。有說無漏智亦作如是知者。西方沙門經部等計。說有無漏智不作十六行。亦作如是知。我已知苦等。然說見言至亦是見者。通本論文。以實而言。盡．無生智息求非見。以本論中解其十智。一一皆言智見等八。至盡．無生猶說見者。乘言便故　又解盡．無生智。若據息求即不名見。于諸諦理現

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, the arising and ceasing of conditioned phenomena are named 'having extinction'. This wisdom arises in the position of 'having extinction'. Or, the term 'non-arising' refers to the attainment of that extinction. Just as the attainment of Nirvana is also called Nirvana. The sutra says, 'Because Nirvana is placed in the heart,' this wisdom arises in the position of that attainment. Wisdom relying on non-arising is called 'wisdom of non-arising'. Some raise this objection: If wisdom relying on non-arising is called 'wisdom of non-arising', then the object of 'wisdom of non-arising' is not a truth. This contradicts the stated doctrine, because undefiled wisdom arises only in relation to the Four Noble Truths. They raise this objection without careful consideration. I have already said above that such discriminating wisdom arises after emerging from contemplation. Or, this 'relying on' is a seventh case relation, not a seventh case of object, like the wisdom of exhaustion. Perhaps this wisdom is related to the attainment of non-arising, which is included in the Truth of Suffering, and is therefore not a non-truth (end of the treatise excerpt). How can undefiled wisdom know in this way? Question: How can undefiled wisdom know in this way? 'I have already understood suffering,' etc.? Regarding the difference between the two wisdoms according to the Kashmira school: Answer: The correct view of the Sarvastivada school is that after emerging from the contemplation of the two wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising, one knows in defiled wisdom, 'I have already understood suffering,' etc. It is not that undefiled contemplation knows in this way, so there is no fault. Because the results of the two wisdoms obtained afterward are different, this indicates the difference in the causes of the two wisdoms in the preceding contemplation. The two causes lead to their respective results. This is distinguishing the cause by the difference in the result. If there were no intervening mental states, then immediately after the wisdom of exhaustion, there should be the understanding 'I have already understood suffering,' etc., and immediately after the wisdom of non-arising, there should be the understanding 'There is no further knowing,' etc. However, it arises later because it is separated by the right view of the Arhat, etc. Some say that undefiled wisdom also knows in this way. The Sautrantika school of Western monks and others say that undefiled wisdom, without practicing the sixteen aspects, also knows in this way, 'I have already understood suffering,' etc. Regarding the statement 'The word 'seeing' is also seeing': This applies to the entire treatise. In reality, the wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising are not seeing in the sense of seeking cessation. Because in this treatise, each of the ten wisdoms is explained as 'wisdom-seeing,' etc., up to the wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising, which are still called 'seeing,' it is simply a matter of convenience. Furthermore, explaining the wisdoms of exhaustion and non-arising, if based on seeking cessation, they are not called 'seeing'. They are manifest in the principles of the truths.

照轉故亦名為見。由此本論亦作是言。且諸智亦是見。

如是十智相攝云何者。問。

謂世俗智至六少分者。答。謂世俗智攝自一全。他心智一少分。法智．類智各攝自一全。苦．集．滅．道．盡．無生．他心智七少分。苦．集．滅智各攝自一全。法．類．盡．無生四少分。道智攝自一全。法．類．盡．無生．他心五少分。他心智攝自一全。法．類．道．俗四少分。盡．無生智各攝自一全。苦．集．滅．道．法．類六少分。

何緣二智建立為十者。此下第三明建立十智　問。何緣有漏．無漏二智建立為十。

頌曰至為因生故者。答。由七緣故立二為十。一自性故立世俗智。體是有漏。世俗法故。此世俗智非以無漏勝義智為自性故。若據前文亦從境立名。故前文言。前有漏智總名世俗。多取瓶等世俗境故　二對治故立法．類智。法智全能對治欲界。類智全能對治上界。滅．道法智雖亦能治上界修惑。而非全故　三行相故立苦．集智。此二智境體無別故。但由能緣行相不同。由無常等四行相故立苦智。由因．集等四行相故立集智　又解行相在境。此二智境體雖無別。約行不同分成苦．集　又解行相通在能緣及所緣境。由彼境上有無常等八種行相。能緣之上似彼八行說名能緣。此二智境體雖無別。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，照見（照了知見）的緣故，也叫做見（認知）。因此，本論（《俱舍論》）也這樣說。而且，諸智（各種智慧）也是見（認知）。

如何理解這十智（十種智慧）的相互包含關係呢？問。

世俗智包含自身全部和六種智慧的少部分。答：世俗智包含自身全部。他心智包含一少部分。法智（觀察諸法的智慧）、類智（觀察同類法的智慧）各自包含自身全部。苦智（知苦諦的智慧）、集智（知集諦的智慧）、滅智（知滅諦的智慧）、道智（知道諦的智慧）、盡智（知煩惱已盡的智慧）、無生智（知不再生的智慧）、他心智七種智慧的少部分。苦智、集智、滅智各自包含自身全部。法智、類智、盡智、無生智四種智慧的少部分。道智包含自身全部。法智、類智、盡智、無生智、他心智五種智慧的少部分。他心智包含自身全部。法智、類智、道智、世俗智四種智慧的少部分。盡智、無生智各自包含自身全部。苦智、集智、滅智、道智、法智、類智六種智慧的少部分。

為何建立兩種智慧為十種智慧呢？以下第三部分說明建立十智的原因。問：為何有漏智（有煩惱的智慧）和無漏智（沒有煩惱的智慧）這兩種智慧要建立為十種智慧？

頌曰：乃至為因生故。答：由於七種原因，建立二智為十智。一、自性（自身性質）的緣故，建立世俗智（認識世俗事物的智慧）。它的本體是有漏的，是世俗法。此世俗智不是以無漏的勝義智（殊勝真實的智慧）為自性。如果根據前面的文義，也是從所觀的境界來立名。所以前面的文義說：前面的有漏智總稱為世俗智，多取瓶子等世俗境界的緣故。二、對治（對治煩惱）的緣故，建立法智（知四諦理的智慧）和類智（知四諦同類理的智慧）。法智完全能夠對治欲界（眾生對慾望的執著）。類智完全能夠對治上界（色界和無色界）。滅法智和道法智雖然也能對治上界的修惑（通過修行產生的迷惑），但不是完全的對治。三、行相（認知方式）的緣故，建立苦智（知苦諦的智慧）和集智（知集諦的智慧）。這兩種智慧所觀的境界本體沒有差別。但由於能緣的行相不同。由於無常等四種行相的緣故，建立苦智。由於因、集等四種行相的緣故，建立集智。又解釋說，行相在於境界。這兩種智慧所觀的境界本體雖然沒有差別，但根據行相的不同，分成苦智和集智。又解釋說，行相既存在於能緣（能認知的主體）之上，也存在於所緣境（被認知的客體）之上。由於那個境界上有無常等八種行相。能緣之上類似於那八種行相，所以說能緣。這兩種智慧所觀的境界本體雖然沒有差別。

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, because of 'zhao zhuan' (照轉, illuminating and transferring), it is also called 'jian' (見, seeing/cognition). Hence, this treatise (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) also states this. Moreover, all 'zhi' (智, wisdoms) are also 'jian' (見, seeing/cognition).

How are these ten 'zhi' (智, wisdoms) mutually inclusive? Question.

'Shi su zhi' (世俗智, mundane wisdom) includes itself entirely and a small portion of six others. Answer: 'Shi su zhi' (世俗智, mundane wisdom) includes itself entirely. 'Ta xin zhi' (他心智, wisdom of others' minds) includes a small portion. 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma) and 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories) each include themselves entirely. 'Ku zhi' (苦智, wisdom of suffering), 'Ji zhi' (集智, wisdom of accumulation), 'Mie zhi' (滅智, wisdom of cessation), 'Dao zhi' (道智, wisdom of the path), 'Jin zhi' (盡智, wisdom of exhaustion), 'Wu sheng zhi' (無生智, wisdom of non-arising), and 'Ta xin zhi' (他心智, wisdom of others' minds) each include a small portion of seven wisdoms. 'Ku zhi' (苦智, wisdom of suffering), 'Ji zhi' (集智, wisdom of accumulation), and 'Mie zhi' (滅智, wisdom of cessation) each include themselves entirely. 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma), 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories), 'Jin zhi' (盡智, wisdom of exhaustion), and 'Wu sheng zhi' (無生智, wisdom of non-arising) each include a small portion of four wisdoms. 'Dao zhi' (道智, wisdom of the path) includes itself entirely. 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma), 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories), 'Jin zhi' (盡智, wisdom of exhaustion), 'Wu sheng zhi' (無生智, wisdom of non-arising), and 'Ta xin zhi' (他心智, wisdom of others' minds) each include a small portion of five wisdoms. 'Ta xin zhi' (他心智, wisdom of others' minds) includes itself entirely. 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma), 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories), 'Dao zhi' (道智, wisdom of the path), and 'Shi su zhi' (世俗智, mundane wisdom) each include a small portion of four wisdoms. 'Jin zhi' (盡智, wisdom of exhaustion) and 'Wu sheng zhi' (無生智, wisdom of non-arising) each include themselves entirely. 'Ku zhi' (苦智, wisdom of suffering), 'Ji zhi' (集智, wisdom of accumulation), 'Mie zhi' (滅智, wisdom of cessation), 'Dao zhi' (道智, wisdom of the path), 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma), and 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories) each include a small portion of six wisdoms.

Why are two wisdoms established as ten? The third part below explains the establishment of the ten wisdoms. Question: Why are 'you lou zhi' (有漏智, wisdom with outflows) and 'wu lou zhi' (無漏智, wisdom without outflows) established as ten wisdoms?

Verse says: Even to the cause of arising. Answer: Due to seven reasons, two wisdoms are established as ten. First, due to 'zi xing' (自性, self-nature), 'Shi su zhi' (世俗智, mundane wisdom) is established. Its substance is with outflows, it is mundane Dharma. This 'Shi su zhi' (世俗智, mundane wisdom) is not characterized by 'wu lou de sheng yi zhi' (無漏的勝義智, undefiled ultimate wisdom). If based on the preceding text, it is also named from the object. Therefore, the preceding text says: The preceding wisdom with outflows is generally called 'Shi su zhi' (世俗智, mundane wisdom), mostly taking mundane objects such as bottles. Second, due to 'dui zhi' (對治, counteracting), 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma) and 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories) are established. 'Fa zhi' (法智, wisdom of Dharma) can completely counteract the desire realm. 'Lei zhi' (類智, wisdom of categories) can completely counteract the upper realms (form and formless realms). Although 'Mie fa zhi' (滅法智, wisdom of cessation of Dharma) and 'Dao fa zhi' (道法智, wisdom of the path of Dharma) can also counteract the cultivation delusions of the upper realms, it is not complete. Third, due to 'xing xiang' (行相, aspects), 'Ku zhi' (苦智, wisdom of suffering) and 'Ji zhi' (集智, wisdom of accumulation) are established. The objects of these two wisdoms have no difference in substance. However, due to the different aspects of what can be cognized. Due to the four aspects of impermanence, etc., 'Ku zhi' (苦智, wisdom of suffering) is established. Due to the four aspects of cause, accumulation, etc., 'Ji zhi' (集智, wisdom of accumulation) is established. Another explanation is that the aspects are in the object. Although the objects of these two wisdoms have no difference in substance, they are divided into 'Ku zhi' (苦智, wisdom of suffering) and 'Ji zhi' (集智, wisdom of accumulation) according to the difference in aspects. Another explanation is that the aspects exist both in the cognizer and the cognized object. Because there are eight aspects such as impermanence on that object. The cognizer is similar to those eight aspects, so it is called the cognizer. Although the objects of these two wisdoms have no difference in substance.

約行分二　四行相．境故立滅．道智。此二行相有差別故。一作滅等四種行相。一作道等四種行相。行相三解準前應知。此二境界有差別故。一緣無為。一緣有為。由行不同．及境差別立滅．道智。

五加行故立他心智。從加行立名。以心是主故初唯知心　六事辦故建立盡智。謂阿羅漢事辦身中最初生故　七因圓故立無生智。具以見．修．及與無學一切聖道。為同類因生故名因圓。初盡智生雖以見．修聖道為因。未以無學聖道為因。不名因圓。后相續位。雖亦無學聖道為因應名因圓。據初說故。或彼盡智非無生智為因故生。不名因圓。

如上所言至治上欲耶者。此即第四明法．類兼治。牒前問起。如上所言。法智全能對治欲法。類智全能對治上法。為有少分法智治上界耶。為有少分類智治欲界耶。

頌曰至無能治欲者。答。修道所攝滅．道法智。兼能對治上界修斷。欲界滅．道勝於上界苦．集法故。故緣下勝能治上劣。欲苦．集粗。上苦．集細。緣粗不能治細。故苦．集法智。不治上修惑。又復已除自界怨已。能兼對治他界怨故。由此類智無能治欲。故正理云。要于自界所作已圓。方可兼為他界所作。非諸類智己事成時。他事未成。有須助義。故無類智治欲界法(已上論文)　又婆沙一百五十八云

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：約行分二：四行相，境故立滅、道智。此二行相有差別故：一作滅等四種行相，一作道等四種行相。行相三解準前應知。此二境界有差別故：一緣無為，一緣有為。由行不同及境差別立滅智、道智。五加行故立他心智。從加行立名，以心是主故初唯知心。六事辦故建立盡智。謂阿羅漢事辦身中最初生故。七因圓故立無生智。具以見、修及與無學一切聖道，為同類因生故名因圓。初盡智生雖以見、修聖道為因，未以無學聖道為因，不名因圓。后相續位，雖亦無學聖道為因應名因圓，據初說故。或彼盡智非無生智為因故生，不名因圓。如上所言至治上欲耶者，此即第四明法、類兼治。牒前問起：如上所言，法智全能對治欲法，類智全能對治上法，為有少分法智治上界耶？為有少分類智治欲界耶？頌曰至無能治欲者。答：修道所攝滅、道法智，兼能對治上界修斷。欲界滅、道勝於上界苦、集法故。故緣下勝能治上劣。欲苦、集粗，上苦、集細。緣粗不能治細，故苦、集法智不治上修惑。又復已除自界怨已，能兼對治他界怨故。由此類智無能治欲。故正理云：『要于自界所作已圓，方可兼為他界所作。非諸類智己事成時，他事未成，有須助義。』故無類智治欲界法(已上論文)。又《婆沙》一百五十八云

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the division of practices, there are two: the four aspects of practice, and the establishment of Cessation Knowledge (滅智, Mie Zhi) and Path Knowledge (道智, Dao Zhi) based on the object. These two aspects of practice differ: one involves the four aspects of cessation, and the other involves the four aspects of the path. The three explanations of the aspects of practice should be understood as before. These two realms differ: one is related to the unconditioned (無為, Wu Wei), and the other is related to the conditioned (有為, You Wei). Due to the difference in practice and the distinction in realms, Cessation Knowledge and Path Knowledge are established. The Mind-Reading Knowledge (他心智, Ta Xin Zhi) is established because of the five preparatory practices. It is named based on the preparatory practices, because the mind is the master, so initially only the mind is known. Exhaustion Knowledge (盡智, Jin Zhi) is established because the six tasks are completed. This refers to the initial arising in the body when an Arhat (阿羅漢) has completed their tasks. Non-Arising Knowledge (無生智, Wu Sheng Zhi) is established because the seven causes are complete. It is named 'cause complete' because it is fully endowed with all the noble paths of Seeing (見, Jian), Cultivation (修, Xiu), and Non-Learning (無學, Wu Xue) as causes of the same kind. Although the initial arising of Exhaustion Knowledge takes the noble paths of Seeing and Cultivation as its cause, it does not take the noble path of Non-Learning as its cause, so it is not called 'cause complete'. In the subsequent continuous state, although the noble path of Non-Learning is also a cause, it should be called 'cause complete', according to the initial statement. Or, that Exhaustion Knowledge arises because it is not caused by Non-Arising Knowledge, so it is not called 'cause complete'. As mentioned above, 'Does it govern the desire realm above?' This is the fourth clarification of the combined governance of Dharma Knowledge (法智, Fa Zhi) and Category Knowledge (類智, Lei Zhi). It refers back to the previous question: As mentioned above, Dharma Knowledge is fully capable of governing the laws of the desire realm, and Category Knowledge is fully capable of governing the laws of the upper realms. Is there a small portion of Dharma Knowledge that governs the upper realms? Is there a small portion of Category Knowledge that governs the desire realm? The verse says, 'Until there is no one who can govern the desire realm.' The answer is: Cessation Knowledge and Path Knowledge, which are included in the path of cultivation, can also govern the afflictions to be severed through cultivation in the upper realms. This is because the cessation and path of the desire realm are superior to the suffering and accumulation of the upper realms. Therefore, what is related to the lower and superior can govern the upper and inferior. The suffering and accumulation of the desire realm are coarse, while the suffering and accumulation of the upper realms are subtle. Because what is related to the coarse cannot govern the subtle, the Dharma Knowledge of suffering and accumulation does not govern the afflictions to be cultivated in the upper realms. Furthermore, having already eliminated the enemies of one's own realm, one can also govern the enemies of other realms. Therefore, Category Knowledge cannot govern the desire realm. Hence, the Proper Reasoning says: 'Only when what has been done in one's own realm is complete can one also do what is to be done in other realms. It is not that when the affairs of Category Knowledge are accomplished, the affairs of others are not accomplished, and there is a need for assistance.' Therefore, there is no Category Knowledge that governs the laws of the desire realm (end of the treatise). Also, the Vibhasa (婆沙) says in chapter one hundred and fifty-eight:

。問若以滅．道法智。離色．無色界修所斷染時。彼色．無色界修所斷法無漏離系得。為法智品攝。為類智品攝耶。若法智品攝。此不應理。彼法及斷。類智所知故。若類智品攝。亦不應理。彼斷及得。法智所證故。有作是說。彼離系得類智品攝。問豈不彼斷及得法智所證耶。答雖法智所證。而類智所知故。有餘師說。彼無漏離系得。法智品攝。問豈不彼法及斷。類智所知耶。答雖類智所知。而法智攝法智所證故。評曰。此中初說為善。以類智品是彼不共決定對治故　於此十智中至謂離空．非我者。此即第三明十智行相。就中。一明十智行相。二明行攝淨盡。三明實體能所　此即明十智行相。論曰至四種行相者。釋初行頌　等謂等取假想觀等。余文可知。

他心智中至不緣想等者。釋第二頌。無漏他心智雖作共相。是欣行故。而能別觀。余文可知　問知他無漏心作道下四行相。知他有漏心何故不作苦．集八行相　解云將答此問。略作三門分別。一敘古解。二出過非。三述正義。

敘古解者　第一遠法師云。知他無漏心。道智為加行故作道四行。知他有漏心。不以苦．集智為加行。所以不作苦．集八行相　第二魏念法師云。若知他無漏心。作道下四行相。即知他心用盡。若知他有漏心。不作苦等八行相。即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果以滅（Nirvana，涅槃）、道法智（Dharmakaya-jnana，法身智）來觀察，當離色（rupa，色蘊）、無修所斷染（asrava-prahana-hetuka-klesa，煩惱障的修道所斷之染污）時，那麼彼色、無修所斷法之無漏離系得（anasrava-visamyoga-prapti，無漏解脫之獲得），是屬於法智品（dharma-jnana-prakara，法智的範疇）所攝，還是屬於類智品（anvaya-jnana-prakara，類智的範疇）所攝呢？如果屬於法智品所攝，這不應道理，因為彼法及斷（prahana，斷滅），是類智所知（anvaya-jnana-jneya，類智所能知曉的）。如果屬於類智品所攝，也不應道理，因為彼斷及得（prapti，獲得），是法智所證（dharma-jnana-saksat-kriya，法智所能證得的）。有人這樣說：彼離系得（visamyoga-prapti，解脫之獲得）屬於類智品所攝。問：難道彼斷及得不是法智所證嗎？答：雖然是法智所證，但卻是類智所知。有其他論師說：彼無漏離系得（anasrava-visamyoga-prapti，無漏解脫之獲得）屬於法智品所攝。問：難道彼法及斷不是類智所知嗎？答：雖然是類智所知，但卻是法智所攝，為法智所證。評論說：這裡最初的說法是好的，因為類智品是彼不共決定對治（asadharana-niscita-pratipaksa，獨特的、確定的對治）。於此十智中至謂離空．非我者：這即是第三部分，闡明十智的行相（akara，aspect）。其中，一、闡明十智的行相；二、闡明行攝淨盡（parisuddhi，清凈）；三、闡明實體能所（vastu-samarthya，實體的能力和作用）。這即是闡明十智的行相。論曰至四種行相者：解釋最初的行頌（akara-gatha，行相之偈）。等謂等取假想觀等：『等』字表示也包括假想觀等。其餘文字可以理解。他心智中至不緣想等者：解釋第二頌。無漏他心智（anasrava-paracitta-jnana，無漏的他心智）雖然是作共相（samanya-laksana，普遍相），是欣行（abhinandana-akara，欣悅之行）的緣故，而能分別觀察。其餘文字可以理解。問：知他無漏心作道下四行相（marga-adho-catuh-akara，道諦之下的四種行相），知他有漏心（sasrava-citta，有漏心）為何不作苦．集八行相（duhkha-samudaya-asta-akara，苦集二諦的八種行相）？解釋說：將要回答這個問題，略作三個方面分別：一、敘述古老的解釋；二、指出過失和錯誤；三、陳述正確的意義。敘述古老的解釋：第一位遠法師說：知他無漏心，因為道智（marga-jnana，道智）作為加行（prayoga，預備階段），所以作道四行。知他有漏心，不以苦．集智（duhkha-samudaya-jnana，苦集智）作為加行，所以不作苦．集八行相。第二位魏念法師說：如果知他無漏心，作道下四行相，即是知他心用盡（citta-ksaya，心之止息）。如果知他有漏心，不作苦等八行相，即是...

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If, with regard to extinction (Nirvana), the wisdom of the Dharma body (Dharmakaya-jnana), when separated from form (rupa), and from defilements severed by cultivation (asrava-prahana-hetuka-klesa), is that form, the un-defiled separation attainment of the Dharma severed by cultivation (anasrava-visamyoga-prapti), included in the category of Dharma-wisdom (dharma-jnana-prakara), or is it included in the category of inferential wisdom (anvaya-jnana-prakara)? If it is included in the category of Dharma-wisdom, this is unreasonable, because that Dharma and severance (prahana) are knowable by inferential wisdom (anvaya-jnana-jneya). If it is included in the category of inferential wisdom, it is also unreasonable, because that severance and attainment (prapti) are realized by Dharma-wisdom (dharma-jnana-saksat-kriya). Some say that separation attainment (visamyoga-prapti) is included in the category of inferential wisdom. Question: Is that severance and attainment not realized by Dharma-wisdom? Answer: Although it is realized by Dharma-wisdom, it is knowable by inferential wisdom. Other teachers say that un-defiled separation attainment (anasrava-visamyoga-prapti) is included in the category of Dharma-wisdom. Question: Is that Dharma and severance not knowable by inferential wisdom? Answer: Although it is knowable by inferential wisdom, it is included in Dharma-wisdom and realized by Dharma-wisdom. Commentary: Here, the initial statement is good, because the category of inferential wisdom is its unique and definite antidote (asadharana-niscita-pratipaksa). Among these ten wisdoms, up to 'namely, separated from emptiness and non-self': This is the third part, clarifying the aspects (akara) of the ten wisdoms. Among them, 1. clarifying the aspects of the ten wisdoms; 2. clarifying the complete purity (parisuddhi) of the aspects; 3. clarifying the entity's ability and function (vastu-samarthya). This is clarifying the aspects of the ten wisdoms. The treatise says up to 'four aspects': Explaining the initial verse on aspects (akara-gatha). 'Etc.' means including mental constructs, etc.: 'Etc.' indicates that it also includes mental constructs, etc. The remaining text is understandable. In the wisdom of others' minds, up to 'not related to thought, etc.': Explaining the second verse. Although un-defiled wisdom of others' minds (anasrava-paracitta-jnana) is a general characteristic (samanya-laksana), it can separately observe because it is a joyful practice (abhinandana-akara). The remaining text is understandable. Question: Knowing that the un-defiled mind of others has the four aspects of the path (marga-adho-catuh-akara), why does knowing the defiled mind of others (sasrava-citta) not have the eight aspects of suffering and origination (duhkha-samudaya-asta-akara)? Explanation: To answer this question, we will briefly make three distinctions: 1. Narrating the old explanations; 2. Pointing out faults and errors; 3. Stating the correct meaning. Narrating the old explanations: The first Dharma master Yuan said: Knowing the un-defiled mind of others, because path-wisdom (marga-jnana) is the preliminary practice (prayoga), it has the four aspects of the path. Knowing the defiled mind of others, because wisdom of suffering and origination (duhkha-samudaya-jnana) is not the preliminary practice, it does not have the eight aspects of suffering and origination. The second Dharma master Wei Nian said: If one knows the un-defiled mind of others and it has the four aspects of the path, it means one knows the exhaustion of the mind (citta-ksaya). If one knows the defiled mind of others and it does not have the eight aspects of suffering, etc., it means...

知他心用不盡。知苦不知集。知集不知苦。所以不作苦．集八行相　第三彭城嵩法師云。能緣所緣理事須等。所緣無漏心既是理觀。能緣他心智還須作理觀知。故知他無漏心。作道下四行相。所緣有漏心既是事觀。能緣他心智還須事觀知。故知他有漏心。不作苦．集八行相　第二齣過非者。一破遠法師云。本論既言有學八智展轉相望皆容作等無間緣。而言道智他心加行。豈不相違　二破魏念法師云。無漏心上亦有四行。知一非余還不知盡。應當不作道下行相　三破嵩法師云。有漏暖等既作理觀。能緣他心智。應亦作理觀。若言非真理觀是似理觀。亦應他心智作似理觀知。非事觀知　第三述正義者。一解云無漏心勝。難可知故。有漏他心智不能知彼。要起無漏方能知彼。所以知他無漏心。作道下四行相。有漏心劣易可知故。有漏他心智。是能知彼故。不起彼無漏他心智知。所以者何。有漏他心智。從無始來數數修習。起時即易。無漏他心智。從無始來不多修習。起時即難。有漏起易故。知他有漏心。還起有漏他心智。無漏起難故。知他有漏心。不作苦．集八行觀。起易足知。誰復舍易從難　問但應初定他心智。知欲界心。起時易故。二定已上他心智。應不能知欲界他心。起時難故。誰復舍易從難　解云欲知欲界心。必不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『知他心用不盡』（知道他人之心作用無窮盡）。『知苦不知集』（知道苦諦卻不知道集諦）。『知集不知苦』（知道集諦卻不知道苦諦）。所以不作苦、集八行相（因此不生起苦諦和集諦的八種行相）。第三，彭城嵩法師說：『能緣』（能認識的主體）和『所緣』（被認識的客體）在理和事上必須相等。所緣是無漏心，這本身就是理觀。能緣的他心智也必須以理觀來認知。所以，知道他人的無漏心，會生起道諦之下的四種行相。所緣是有漏心，這本身就是事觀。能緣的他心智也必須以事觀來認知。所以，知道他人的有漏心，不會生起苦諦和集諦的八種行相。第二，指出過失的人：一，破斥遠法師的觀點，認為本論既然說有學之人的八智可以互相作為等無間緣，卻又說『道智』（證道的智慧）和他心智的加行不作為等無間緣，這不是自相矛盾嗎？二，破斥魏念法師的觀點，認為無漏心上也有四種行相，知道其中一種就不能知道其餘的，也無法完全知盡，因此不應該不生起道諦之下的行相。三，破斥嵩法師的觀點，認為有漏的暖位等既然可以作為理觀的對象，那麼能緣的他心智也應該以理觀來認知。如果說這不是真正的理觀，而是相似的理觀，那麼他心智也應該以相似理觀來認知，而不是以事觀來認知。第三，闡述正確的觀點：一種解釋是，無漏心殊勝，難以被認知。有漏的他心智不能認知它，必須生起無漏的智慧才能認知它。所以，知道他人的無漏心，會生起道諦之下的四種行相。有漏心低劣，容易被認知。有漏的他心智慧夠認知它。因此，不會生起彼無漏的他心智來認知。為什麼呢？因為有漏的他心智，從無始以來就經常修習，生起時容易。無漏的他心智，從無始以來沒有怎麼修習，生起時困難。有漏的容易生起，所以知道他人的有漏心，還是生起有漏的他心智。無漏的生起困難，所以知道他人的有漏心，不生起苦諦和集諦的八種觀想。容易生起的就足夠認知了，誰又會捨棄容易的而選擇困難的呢？問：但應該最初禪定中的他心智，知道欲界眾生的心，因為生起容易。二禪以上的他心智，應該不能知道欲界眾生的心，因為生起困難。誰又會捨棄容易的而選擇困難的呢？解：要了解欲界眾生的心，必定不能...

【English Translation】 English version 'Knowing the minds of others is inexhaustible' (knowing that the function of others' minds is inexhaustible). 'Knowing suffering but not accumulation' (knowing the truth of suffering but not knowing the truth of accumulation). 'Knowing accumulation but not suffering' (knowing the truth of accumulation but not knowing the truth of suffering). Therefore, not generating the eight aspects of suffering and accumulation (therefore, not arising the eight aspects of the truths of suffering and accumulation). Third, Dharma Master Song of Pengcheng said: 'The knower' (the subject that knows) and 'the known' (the object that is known) must be equal in terms of principle and phenomena. The known is the unconditioned mind, which is itself a contemplation of principle. The knower, the wisdom of knowing others' minds, must also know through contemplation of principle. Therefore, knowing the unconditioned minds of others, the four aspects under the truth of the path will arise. The known is the conditioned mind, which is itself a contemplation of phenomena. The knower, the wisdom of knowing others' minds, must also know through contemplation of phenomena. Therefore, knowing the conditioned minds of others, the eight aspects of suffering and accumulation will not arise. Second, those who point out faults: First, refuting Dharma Master Yuan's view, arguing that since the treatise states that the eight wisdoms of those still learning can mutually serve as the immediately preceding condition, how can it be said that the 'wisdom of the path' (wisdom of enlightenment) and the preliminary practices of the wisdom of knowing others' minds do not serve as the immediately preceding condition? Isn't this contradictory? Second, refuting Dharma Master Wei Nian's view, arguing that there are also four aspects on the unconditioned mind, knowing one of them means not knowing the others, and it is impossible to know them completely, therefore the aspects under the truth of the path should not fail to arise. Third, refuting Dharma Master Song's view, arguing that since the conditioned 'warmth' etc. can be objects of contemplation of principle, then the wisdom of knowing others' minds should also know through contemplation of principle. If it is said that this is not true contemplation of principle, but a similar contemplation of principle, then the wisdom of knowing others' minds should also know through similar contemplation of principle, not through contemplation of phenomena. Third, elaborating the correct view: One explanation is that the unconditioned mind is superior and difficult to know. The conditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds cannot know it; it is necessary to generate unconditioned wisdom to know it. Therefore, knowing the unconditioned minds of others, the four aspects under the truth of the path will arise. The conditioned mind is inferior and easy to know. The conditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds can know it. Therefore, the unconditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds will not arise to know it. Why? Because the conditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds has been frequently practiced since beginningless time, and it is easy to arise. The unconditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds has not been practiced much since beginningless time, and it is difficult to arise. Because the conditioned is easy to arise, knowing the conditioned minds of others, the conditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds still arises. Because the unconditioned is difficult to arise, knowing the conditioned minds of others, the eight contemplations of suffering and accumulation do not arise. What is easy to arise is sufficient to know; who would abandon the easy and choose the difficult? Question: But the wisdom of knowing others' minds in the initial samadhi should know the minds of sentient beings in the desire realm, because it is easy to arise. The wisdom of knowing others' minds in the second samadhi and above should not be able to know the minds of sentient beings in the desire realm, because it is difficult to arise. Who would abandon the easy and choose the difficult? Answer: To understand the minds of sentient beings in the desire realm, it is certainly not possible to...

故起二定已上他心智知。但為餘事入二定等。因入彼定便起彼他心智。知欲界心也　難云亦可因為餘事起無漏心。便起無漏他心智知他有漏心　解云從無漏心起有漏他心智易。起無漏他心智難。起易足知。故不起難　問入二定等知欲界心時。何故不還起初定他心智知欲界心。而起二定等知欲心耶　解云當地起易故起當地。異地起難不起初定　第二解云。欣觀容可別知。故知他無漏心。作道下四行相。厭觀必欲總遣。故知他有漏心。不作苦．集八行觀。故正理七十三云。他身無漏心．心所法細故。勝故。非己有漏他心智境。其理可然。何緣己身無漏他心智。不能知他有漏心．心所。于有漏境無漏智生。行相所緣異此智故。謂無漏智緣有漏時。必是總緣厭背行相。是故決定不能別緣他心．心所成他心智。以諸聖智緣有漏時。必于所緣深生厭背。樂總棄捨不樂別觀。緣無漏時生欣樂故。既總觀已亦樂別觀。如有見聞非所愛事。總緣便舍。不樂別緣。于所愛中則不如是。總見聞已亦樂別緣。是故於他有漏心等。必無聖智一一別觀。成緣有漏心無漏他心智。以他心智決定。於他心．心所法別別知故。豈不亦有三念住攝苦．集忍智。雖有而非但緣一法。緣多體故(已上論文)。

若爾何故至有貪心等者。難。若他心智心．心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因此，只有從二禪以上的禪定狀態中才能生起他心智（Paracitta-ñāṇa，知他人心的智慧）。但如果是爲了其他事情進入二禪等禪定，因為進入了那種禪定狀態，就能生起那種他心智，從而得知欲界眾生的心念。有人可能會問：『也可以因為其他事情生起無漏心（Anāsava-citta，沒有煩惱的心），然後生起無漏他心智，從而得知他人有漏心（Sāsava-citta，有煩惱的心）嗎？』回答是：從無漏心生起有漏他心智容易，而生起無漏他心智則困難。因為容易的已經足夠了，所以不會生起困難的。有人問：『進入二禪等禪定狀態，得知欲界眾生的心念時，為什麼不返回到初禪的他心智來得知欲界眾生的心念，而是用二禪等禪定狀態來得知欲界眾生的心念呢？』回答是：在當地生起容易，所以生起當地的（他心智）。在異地生起困難，所以不生起初禪的（他心智）。第二種解釋是：因為欣觀（Adhimokkha，勝解）可以分別地瞭解，所以能知曉他人的無漏心，並觀察道之下的四種行相（ākāra，狀態）。厭觀（Nirveda，厭離）必定想要全部捨棄，所以只能知曉他人的有漏心，而不能觀察苦、集（duḥkha-samudaya，苦和苦的生起）的八種行相。因此，《正理》（Abhidharmakośa，阿毗達摩俱舍論）第七十三卷說：『他人的無漏心和心所法非常微細和殊勝，不是自己有漏他心智的境界。』這個道理是可信的。為什麼自己的無漏他心智不能知曉他人的有漏心和心所呢？因為在有漏境界中生起無漏智慧時，其行相和所緣是不同的。也就是說，無漏智慧緣于有漏時，必定是總體的緣取和厭背的行相。因此，絕對不能分別地緣取他人的心和心所，從而成就他心智。因為諸聖智緣于有漏時，必定對所緣產生深深的厭背，喜歡總體捨棄而不喜歡分別觀察。緣于無漏時，會生起欣樂，既然總體觀察了，也喜歡分別觀察。比如，看到或聽到不喜愛的事情，就會總體地捨棄，而不喜歡分別地緣取。對於喜愛的事物則不是這樣，總體地看到或聽到后，也喜歡分別地緣取。因此，對於他人的有漏心等，必定沒有聖智來一一分別觀察，從而成就緣于有漏心的無漏他心智。因為他心智決定要分別地知曉他人的心和心所法。』難道沒有三念住（Smṛtyupasthāna，三種念住）所攝的苦、集忍智（duḥkha-samudaya-kṣānti-jñāna，對苦和集諦的忍和智）嗎？雖然有，但並非只緣於一種法，而是緣于多種法（以上是論文內容）。如果是這樣，為什麼會有『至有貪心等』的說法呢？這是一個難題。如果他心智的心和心所……

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, only from the second Dhyana (Jhāna, meditative state) and above can one generate the Paracitta-ñāṇa (knowledge of others' minds). However, if one enters the second Dhyana etc. for other purposes, because of entering that Dhyana, one can generate that Paracitta-ñāṇa, thereby knowing the minds of beings in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu). One might ask: 'Can one also generate Anāsava-citta (undefiled mind) for other purposes, and then generate Anāsava Paracitta-ñāṇa, thereby knowing the Sāsava-citta (defiled mind) of others?' The answer is: It is easy to generate defiled Paracitta-ñāṇa from an undefiled mind, but difficult to generate undefiled Paracitta-ñāṇa. Because what is easy is sufficient, one does not generate what is difficult. Someone asks: 'When entering the second Dhyana etc. and knowing the minds of beings in the desire realm, why not return to the first Dhyana's Paracitta-ñāṇa to know the minds of beings in the desire realm, but instead use the second Dhyana etc. to know the minds of beings in the desire realm?' The answer is: It is easy to generate in the local state, so one generates the local (Paracitta-ñāṇa). It is difficult to generate in a different state, so one does not generate the first Dhyana's (Paracitta-ñāṇa). A second explanation is: Because Adhimokkha (conviction) can be known separately, one can know the undefiled mind of others and observe the four ākāra (aspects) below the path. Nirveda (disgust) certainly wants to abandon everything, so one can only know the defiled mind of others, but cannot observe the eight aspects of duḥkha-samudaya (suffering and the arising of suffering). Therefore, the seventy-third volume of the Abhidharmakośa (Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'The undefiled mind and mental factors of others are very subtle and superior, and are not the object of one's own defiled Paracitta-ñāṇa.' This reasoning is credible. Why can't one's own undefiled Paracitta-ñāṇa know the defiled mind and mental factors of others? Because when undefiled wisdom arises in the defiled realm, its aspects and objects are different. That is to say, when undefiled wisdom is directed towards the defiled, it must be a general grasping and aversion. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to separately grasp the minds and mental factors of others, thereby achieving Paracitta-ñāṇa. Because all noble wisdom, when directed towards the defiled, must generate deep aversion to the object, preferring to abandon it completely rather than observe it separately. When directed towards the undefiled, it generates joy, and once it has been generally observed, it also likes to observe it separately. For example, when seeing or hearing something unloved, one abandons it generally and does not like to grasp it separately. It is not like this with beloved things; after seeing or hearing them generally, one also likes to grasp them separately. Therefore, with regard to the defiled minds of others, there is certainly no noble wisdom to observe them separately one by one, thereby achieving undefiled Paracitta-ñāṇa that is directed towards the defiled mind. Because Paracitta-ñāṇa is determined to know the minds and mental factors of others separately.' Are there not also the duḥkha-samudaya-kṣānti-jñāna (knowledge of endurance and wisdom regarding suffering and its origin) included in the three Smṛtyupasthāna (foundations of mindfulness)? Although there are, they do not only focus on one dharma, but on multiple dharmas (the above is the content of the treatise). If so, why is there the saying 'to have a greedy mind, etc.'? This is a difficult question. If the mind and mental factors of Paracitta-ñāṇa...

所法一一別緣。何故佛說如實了知有貪心等。準此經文。貪等與心俱時取也。

非俱時取至及垢者。答。如取衣不取垢。取垢不取衣。取貪等心前後別取。非俱時取也。

有貪心者至唯貪所繫者。因解經中有貪心等。總明十一對心。此下第一釋有貪心離貪心。泛明有貪心者。二義有貪。一貪相應名有貪心。二貪所繫名有貪心。貪相應心具由二義。余有漏心唯貪所繫。

有說經言至應得離貪名者。此下諸師解他心智經有貪心等。說一切有部有一師說。此經中言有貪心者。於前二種唯說第一貪相應心。離貪心者。謂治貪心。即是有漏無漏善心。但能對治貪者名離貪心。若異我說有餘師言貪不相應名離貪心者。余瞋等。惑相應者。應得離貪名。然不可說名離貪心。以染污故。

若爾有心至離貪心等者。論主難。若爾有心非貪對治不染污性。即是無覆無記一分善心。應許此心非名有貪心貪不相應故。非名離貪心不治貪故。然彼亦是有貪心。貪所繫故。等者等取有嗔心等。若非攝者。即有十一對攝心不盡。

是故應許至名有貪心者。論主難訖復作是言。是故應許說一切有部余師所說。為貪所繫名有貪心。對治貪心名離貪心。其離貪心同第一師。故不別說。故婆沙云。如是說者好。謂貪所繫故名有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『所法一一別緣』（一切法都是由各種不同的因緣條件所產生的）。為什麼佛陀說要『如實了知有貪心等』（如實地瞭解具有貪心等等）？按照這個經文的說法，貪心等煩惱是與心同時生起的嗎？並非同時生起，就像取衣時不取垢，取垢時不取衣一樣。取貪等煩惱與取心是前後分別的，不是同時生起的。『有貪心者』（具有貪心的人）……乃至『唯貪所繫者』（僅僅被貪所束縛的人）。因為解釋經文中有『貪心』等等，總共說明了十一對心（指有貪心/離貪心、有嗔心/離嗔心等十一對）。下面首先解釋『有貪心』和『離貪心』，泛泛地說明『有貪心者』有兩種含義：一是與貪相應，名為『有貪心』；二是為貪所束縛，名為『有貪心』。與貪相應的心同時具備這兩種含義。其餘的有漏心僅僅是被貪所束縛。『有說經言』（有人說經文）……乃至『應得離貪名者』（應該可以得到『離貪』的名稱）。下面是各位論師解釋《他心智經》中『有貪心』等等。說一切有部有一位論師說，這部經中所說的『有貪心者』，對於前面所說的兩種含義，僅僅是指第一種，即與貪相應的心。『離貪心者』，是指對治貪心的心，也就是有漏的或無漏的善心。只要能夠對治貪心，就可以稱為『離貪心』。如果像我之外的其他人所說，貪心不相應就稱為『離貪心』，那麼其餘的嗔心等煩惱相應的心，也應該可以得到『離貪』的名稱，但不能說就是『離貪心』，因為它仍然是被染污的。『若爾有心』（如果這樣說，那麼有一種心）……乃至『離貪心等者』（離貪心等等）。論主提出疑問：如果這樣說，那麼有一種心既不是貪心的對治，也不是染污的性質，也就是無覆無記的一部分善心，應該允許這種心既不稱為『有貪心』，因為它與貪不相應；也不稱為『離貪心』，因為它不能對治貪心。然而，這種心也是『有貪心』，因為它被貪所束縛。『等者』，是指有嗔心等等。『若非攝者』（如果不是這樣包含），那麼十一對心就不能完全包含。『是故應許』（因此應該允許）……乃至『名有貪心者』（稱為『有貪心』）。論主提出疑問之後又說：因此應該允許說一切有部另一位論師所說的，被貪所束縛稱為『有貪心』，對治貪心稱為『離貪心』。這種『離貪心』的說法與第一位論師相同，所以不再單獨說明。所以《婆沙論》說：『這樣說很好。』意思是說，因為被貪所束縛，所以稱為『有貪心』。

【English Translation】 English version:

'So fa yi yi bie yuan' (All dharmas arise from various different causes and conditions). Why did the Buddha say to 'truly know the mind with greed, etc.' (to truly understand the mind with greed, etc.)? According to this sutra, do afflictions such as greed arise simultaneously with the mind? They do not arise simultaneously, just as when taking clothes, one does not take the dirt, and when taking the dirt, one does not take the clothes. Taking afflictions such as greed and taking the mind are separate and sequential, not simultaneous. 'Those with greedy minds' ... to 'those who are only bound by greed'. Because the explanation of the sutra mentions 'greedy minds', it generally explains eleven pairs of minds (referring to eleven pairs such as greedy mind/non-greedy mind, angry mind/non-angry mind, etc.). Below, it first explains 'greedy mind' and 'non-greedy mind', generally stating that 'those with greedy minds' have two meanings: first, being associated with greed is called 'greedy mind'; second, being bound by greed is called 'greedy mind'. A mind associated with greed possesses both meanings simultaneously. The remaining defiled minds are only bound by greed. 'Some say in the sutra' ... to 'should be able to obtain the name of non-greed'. Below are the explanations of various masters on 'greedy mind', etc., in the Other Minds Sutra. A master from the Sarvastivada school says that 'those with greedy minds' in this sutra only refer to the first meaning mentioned earlier, which is the mind associated with greed. 'Non-greedy mind' refers to the mind that counteracts greed, which is a defiled or undefiled wholesome mind. As long as it can counteract greed, it can be called 'non-greedy mind'. If, as others besides me say, not being associated with greed is called 'non-greedy mind', then the remaining minds associated with afflictions such as anger should also be able to obtain the name of 'non-greed', but cannot be said to be 'non-greedy mind' because it is still defiled. 'If so, there is a mind' ... to 'non-greedy mind, etc.'. The master raises a question: If this is the case, then there is a mind that is neither a counteraction to greed nor of a defiled nature, which is a part of the uncovered and unspecified wholesome mind. It should be allowed that this mind is neither called 'greedy mind' because it is not associated with greed, nor called 'non-greedy mind' because it cannot counteract greed. However, this mind is also a 'greedy mind' because it is bound by greed. 'Etc.' refers to minds with anger, etc. 'If it is not included' (if it is not included in this way), then the eleven pairs of minds cannot be fully included. 'Therefore, it should be allowed' ... to 'called a greedy mind'. After raising the question, the master says again: Therefore, it should be allowed that another master from the Sarvastivada school says that being bound by greed is called 'greedy mind', and counteracting greed is called 'non-greedy mind'. This statement of 'non-greedy mind' is the same as the first master, so it is not explained separately. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'Saying it this way is good.' It means that because it is bound by greed, it is called 'greedy mind'.

貪心。貪對治故名離貪心　又解后師既說為貪所繫名有貪心。明知貪對治故名離貪心。唯取無漏若作此解可攝心盡。論主此文權難第一師立第二師。至後文中第二亦破。

乃至有癡離癡亦爾者。此即類釋。第二對有嗔．離嗔。第三對有癡．離癡。應知亦爾。

毗婆沙師至相應知故者。第四對聚．散心。散動即是散亂異名。體即是定。約相續位數散動故立散動名。問散動定能除。散動定為體。智慧遣無明。無明慧為體　解云約相續位說定散動。若約剎那定亦不散。無明不爾。相續剎那皆無智故。故體非慧。余文可知。婆沙說聚心為略心。名異義同。

西方諸師至說名為散者。西方諸師即是健馱羅國諸師也。婆沙云外國師。

此不應理至道智者。毗婆沙師破。此不應理。諸染污心若與眠相應。應通聚．散故。眠故名聚。染故名散。又應違害發智本論所言。如實知聚心。具足有四智。謂法智．類智．世俗智．道智。又婆沙一百九十云。略心如實知略心。此四智謂法智．類智．世俗智．道智。散心如實知散心。此一智謂世俗智　此隨所應如前。婆沙前卷釋云。問何故此中不說他心智。答他心智知他相續心．心所法。此中如實智知自相續心．心所法。是故不說。複次他心智知現在心．心所法。此中如實

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『貪心』。因為對治『貪』，所以稱為『離貪心』。又解釋說，後來的老師既然說被『貪』所束縛名為『有貪心』，那麼明確知道對治『貪』，所以稱為『離貪心』。只取無漏，如果這樣解釋，可以涵蓋所有心。論主這段文字是權巧地反駁第一位老師，而立第二位老師的觀點，到後面的文字中，第二位老師的觀點也被破斥了。

『乃至有癡離癡亦爾者』。這是用類比來解釋。第二組對應的是『有嗔』和『離嗔』，第三組對應的是『有癡』和『離癡』，應該知道也是一樣的道理。

『毗婆沙師至相應知故者』。第四組對應的是『聚心』（concentrated mind）和『散心』（scattered mind）。『散動』就是『散亂』的另一種說法，其體性就是『定』（concentration）。因為從相續的位次來說是散動的，所以立名為『散動』。問：『散動』能被『定』所去除，『散動』以『定』為體嗎？智慧能去除無明（ignorance），無明以智慧為體嗎？解釋說：從相續的位次來說『定』和『散動』。如果從剎那來說，『定』也不會散動。『無明』不是這樣，無論是相續還是剎那，都沒有智慧，所以其體性不是智慧。其餘的文字可以自己理解。婆沙（Vibhasa）說『聚心』為『略心』，名稱不同，意義相同。

『西方諸師至說名為散者』。『西方諸師』就是健馱羅國（Gandhara）的諸位老師。婆沙（Vibhasa）中說是『外國師』。

『此不應理至道智者』。毗婆沙師（Vibhasa）破斥說：『這不合道理。』如果各種染污心（defiled mind）與睡眠相應，應該貫通『聚心』和『散心』。因為睡眠的緣故，所以名為『聚』；因為染污的緣故，所以名為『散』。又應該違背發智論（Jnanaprasthana Shastra）的原本所說：『如實地知道聚心，具足有四種智慧，即法智（Dharma-jnana）、類智（Anvaya-jnana）、世俗智（Samvriti-jnana）、道智（Marga-jnana）。』又婆沙（Vibhasa）第一百九十卷說：『如實地知道略心，這四種智慧是法智（Dharma-jnana）、類智（Anvaya-jnana）、世俗智（Samvriti-jnana）、道智（Marga-jnana）。如實地知道散心，這是一種智慧，即世俗智（Samvriti-jnana）。』這隨所應，如前面所說。婆沙（Vibhasa）前卷解釋說：問：『為什麼這裡不說他心智（Paracitta-jnana）？』答：『他心智（Paracitta-jnana）知道他人相續的心和心所法（mental factors），這裡如實地知道自己相續的心和心所法（mental factors），所以不說。』再次，他心智（Paracitta-jnana）知道現在的心和心所法（mental factors），這裡如實地

【English Translation】 English version: 'Greed'. Because it counteracts 'greed', it is called 'non-greed mind'. It is also explained that since the later teachers said that being bound by 'greed' is called 'greedy mind', then clearly knowing how to counteract 'greed' is called 'non-greed mind'. Only take the un-leaked (anāsrava), if explained in this way, it can encompass all minds. The author of the treatise uses this passage to cleverly refute the first teacher and establish the second teacher's view. In the later text, the second teacher's view is also refuted.

'Even having ignorance and being without ignorance is also like that'. This is explained by analogy. The second pair corresponds to 'having hatred' and 'being without hatred', and the third pair corresponds to 'having ignorance' and 'being without ignorance'. It should be known that the principle is the same.

'The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) masters to accordingly know the reason'. The fourth pair corresponds to 'concentrated mind' (samāhita citta) and 'scattered mind' (vikshipta citta). 'Scattered movement' is another name for 'scatteredness', and its essence is 'concentration' (samādhi). Because it is scattered from the perspective of continuous positions, it is named 'scattered movement'. Question: Can 'scattered movement' be removed by 'concentration'? Is 'scattered movement' based on 'concentration'? Wisdom can remove ignorance (avidyā), is ignorance based on wisdom? The explanation is: 'concentration' and 'scattered movement' are discussed from the perspective of continuous positions. If it is from the perspective of a moment, 'concentration' will not be scattered. 'Ignorance' is not like that; whether it is continuous or momentary, there is no wisdom, so its essence is not wisdom. The remaining text can be understood by oneself. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) says that 'concentrated mind' is 'contracted mind' (samksipta citta), the names are different, but the meanings are the same.

'The Western teachers to say the name is scattered'. The 'Western teachers' are the teachers of Gandhara. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) calls them 'foreign teachers'.

'This is unreasonable to the wisdom of the path'. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) masters refute: 'This is unreasonable.' If various defiled minds (klista citta) are associated with sleep, they should penetrate both 'concentrated mind' and 'scattered mind'. Because of sleep, it is called 'concentrated'; because of defilement, it is called 'scattered'. It should also violate what is originally said in the Jnanaprasthana Shastra: 'Truly knowing the concentrated mind, it is fully equipped with four wisdoms, namely Dharma-jnana, Anvaya-jnana, Samvriti-jnana, and Marga-jnana.' Also, Vibhasa (Vibhasa), volume 190, says: 'Truly knowing the contracted mind, these four wisdoms are Dharma-jnana, Anvaya-jnana, Samvriti-jnana, and Marga-jnana. Truly knowing the scattered mind, this is one wisdom, namely Samvriti-jnana.' This follows what is appropriate, as mentioned earlier. The previous volume of Vibhasa (Vibhasa) explains: Question: 'Why is Paracitta-jnana (knowledge of others' minds) not mentioned here?' Answer: 'Paracitta-jnana (knowledge of others' minds) knows the minds and mental factors (citta-caitta) of others' continuums. Here, one truly knows the minds and mental factors (citta-caitta) of one's own continuum, so it is not mentioned.' Furthermore, Paracitta-jnana (knowledge of others' minds) knows the present minds and mental factors (citta-caitta). Here, one truly

智知過去心．心所法。廣如彼釋　又云。問此中復何故不說苦．集智耶。有說此中亦應說苦．集而不說者當知此義有餘。有說。苦．集智是厭行相智。此中如實智是欣行相智。是故不說。有說。苦．集智緣所厭事。此中如實智緣所欣事。廣如彼釋　又云。不說盡．無生智者。此是見蘊但說諸見性智。非彼見性智是故不說　婆沙論文不簡滅智。不知心故。此在絕言。若說睡眠名為聚心。準婆沙文。但應說一世俗智知。如何乃言四智知也。婆沙評家同此論破。

沉心者至相應起故者。第五對沉心．策心。婆沙云下心．舉心。名異義同。

少心者至得少大名者。第六對少心．大心。少心者謂染心。少凈品人所好習故。大心者謂善心。多凈品人所好習故。故染名少。善名為大。或由三根少．多。或由價數少．多。或由眷屬少．多。或由隨轉少．多。或由力用少．多。故名少．大。染心根少。若與獨頭無明俱起。即一根相應。若與貪．嗔俱起。即二根相應。以貪．嗔起必有相應無明故。故言極二相應。理實現染亦不名修。現在善法亦名為修。且望未來以明眷屬。染心隨轉少。唯受．想．行三蘊故。善心隨轉多。散心雖復受．想．行三蘊隨轉。若在定心。通色．受．想．行四蘊隨轉。余文可知。

掉心者至能治

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於了知過去的心和心所法，詳細內容可參考相關解釋。有人問：『為什麼這裡沒有提到苦智（Dukkha-jnana，對苦諦的智慧）和集智（Samudaya-jnana，對集諦的智慧）呢？』一種說法是，這裡也應該提到苦智和集智，但沒有提到，這其中一定有未盡之意。另一種說法是，苦智和集智是厭離世間的行相之智，而這裡所說的如實智是欣樂涅槃的行相之智，所以沒有提到。還有一種說法是，苦智和集智所緣的是令人厭惡的事物，而這裡所說的如實智所緣的是令人欣樂的事物。詳細內容可參考相關解釋。又有人說：『沒有提到盡智（Nirodha-jnana，對滅諦的智慧）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana，對道諦的智慧），是因為這裡所見的是蘊，只說了諸見的自性之智，而不是彼見的自性之智，所以沒有提到。』《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）的論文沒有區分滅智，因為不知心。這在言語無法表達的境界。如果說睡眠名為聚心，按照《婆沙論》的說法，應該只說一世俗智知，怎麼能說四智知呢？《婆沙論》的評家也同樣批判了這個觀點。沉心是指心與沉沒相應而生起的狀態。第五個對治是針對沉心和策心。在《婆沙論》中，下心和舉心，名稱不同，意義相同。少心是指獲得少許大名的狀態。第六個對治是針對少心和大心。少心指的是染污心，因為少凈品的人喜歡修習。大心指的是善良的心，因為多凈品的人喜歡修習。所以染污被稱為『少』，善良被稱為『大』。或者是因為三根（無貪、無嗔、無癡）的少和多，或者是因為價值的少和多，或者是因為眷屬的少和多，或者是因為隨轉的少和多，或者是因為力量作用的少和多，所以被稱為『少』和『大』。染污心的根少，如果與獨頭無明一起生起，就只有一個根相應。如果與貪、嗔一起生起，就有兩個根相應，因為貪、嗔生起時必然有相應的無明。所以說最多隻有兩個相應。實際上染污也不被稱為修。現在的善法也被稱為修。姑且從未來的角度來說明眷屬。染污心隨轉的少，只有受蘊、想蘊、行蘊三個蘊。善心隨轉的多，散心雖然也是受蘊、想蘊、行蘊三個蘊隨轉，如果在定心中，則通色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊四個蘊隨轉。其餘內容可以自己理解。掉心（uddhacca，掉舉心）者，能對治。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the knowledge of past mind and mental factors, detailed explanations can be found in relevant commentaries. Someone asks: 'Why are Dukkha-jnana (wisdom of suffering) and Samudaya-jnana (wisdom of the origin of suffering) not mentioned here?' One explanation is that Dukkha-jnana and Samudaya-jnana should also be mentioned here, but the omission implies a deeper meaning. Another explanation is that Dukkha-jnana and Samudaya-jnana are the wisdom of aversion towards the world, while the 'as it is' wisdom mentioned here is the wisdom of delight in Nirvana, hence they are not mentioned. Yet another explanation is that Dukkha-jnana and Samudaya-jnana are related to objects that are repulsive, while the 'as it is' wisdom here is related to objects that are delightful. Detailed explanations can be found in relevant commentaries. Furthermore, someone says: 'The reason Nirodha-jnana (wisdom of cessation) and Anutpada-jnana (wisdom of non-arising) are not mentioned is because what is seen here are the skandhas (aggregates), and only the wisdom of the nature of views is discussed, not the wisdom of the nature of those views, hence they are not mentioned.' The essays in the 'Vibhasa' (Mahavibhasa) do not distinguish Nirodha-jnana because they do not understand the mind. This is in the realm beyond words. If sleep is called gathering the mind, according to the 'Vibhasa', only one mundane wisdom should be mentioned, how can four wisdoms be mentioned? The commentators of the 'Vibhasa' also criticize this view. Sinking mind refers to the state where the mind arises in accordance with sinking. The fifth antidote is against sinking mind and uplifting mind. In the 'Vibhasa', lower mind and raising mind have different names but the same meaning. Small mind refers to the state of obtaining a small great name. The sixth antidote is against small mind and great mind. Small mind refers to defiled mind because people of small purity like to practice it. Great mind refers to virtuous mind because people of great purity like to practice it. Therefore, defilement is called 'small', and virtue is called 'great'. Or it is due to the fewness or manyness of the three roots (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion), or due to the smallness or greatness of value, or due to the smallness or greatness of retinue, or due to the smallness or greatness of following, or due to the smallness or greatness of power, hence it is called 'small' and 'great'. The roots of defiled mind are few; if it arises together with independent ignorance, then only one root is in accordance. If it arises together with greed and hatred, then two roots are in accordance, because when greed and hatred arise, there must be corresponding ignorance. Therefore, it is said that at most two are in accordance. In reality, defilement is not called cultivation. Present virtuous dharmas are also called cultivation. Let us explain the retinue from the perspective of the future. The following of defiled mind is few, only the three skandhas of feeling, perception, and mental formations. The following of virtuous mind is many; although the scattered mind also follows the three skandhas of feeling, perception, and mental formations, if it is in a concentrated mind, then it follows all four skandhas of form, feeling, perception, and mental formations. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself. Distracted mind (uddhacca) is what can be counteracted.

彼故者。第七對掉心．不掉心。能治彼故即是定心。故婆沙云。不掉心者。謂善心奢摩他相應故。或能治彼即是行舍。故婆沙云。不掉心者。謂善心行舍相應故。

不靜靜心應知亦爾者。第八對不靜心．靜心。準掉．不掉釋。又婆沙云。不靜心者。謂染污心。不寂靜相應故。一切煩惱皆不寂靜性。靜心者謂善心。寂靜相應故。一切善法皆寂靜性。

不定心者至能治彼故者。第九對不定．定心。謂能治彼散動之心。即是定心。故婆沙云。不定心者。謂染污心。散亂相應故。定心者。謂善心。等持相應故。

不修心者至容有二修故者。第十對不修．修心。不修心者。謂染心。得．習二修俱不攝故。修心者。謂善心。容有得．習二種修故。從來未得今時創得名得修。此通法俱及法前得。體現在前即名習修。此通初．后皆名習修。于善法中。或有得修非習修。如未來善今時創修。或有習修非得修。如曾修善體現在前。或有得．修亦習修。如未來曾修善今創現前。或有非得．修非習修。除前三相。非皆具有故置容言。故婆沙云。修心者。謂于得修．習修。隨一或俱修心。

不解脫心至容解脫故者。第十一對不解脫解脫心。不解脫心者。謂染心。體是染故。自性不解脫。于有惑身中起故。名相續不解脫。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『彼故者。第七對掉心（distracted mind, 心神不寧）·不掉心（non-distracted mind, 心神安定）。能治彼故即是定心（concentrated mind, 專注的心）。』意思是說，能夠對治散亂心的就是定心。所以《婆沙論》中說：『不掉心者，謂善心奢摩他（śamatha, 止）相應故。』意思是說，不散亂的心，是與善良的心和奢摩他相應的緣故。或者說，能夠對治散亂心的就是行舍（equanimity, 平等舍）。所以《婆沙論》中說：『不掉心者，謂善心行舍相應故。』意思是說，不散亂的心，是與善良的心和平等舍相應的緣故。

『不靜靜心應知亦爾者。』第八對不靜心（unsettled mind, 不平靜的心）·靜心（settled mind, 平靜的心）。準掉·不掉釋。意思是說，不平靜的心和靜心，可以參照散亂心和不散亂心的解釋。又《婆沙論》中說：『不靜心者，謂染污心。不寂靜相應故。一切煩惱皆不寂靜性。』意思是說，不平靜的心，是與染污心和不寂靜相應的緣故，一切煩惱都是不寂靜的性質。『靜心者謂善心。寂靜相應故。一切善法皆寂靜性。』意思是說，平靜的心，是與善良的心和寂靜相應的緣故，一切善良的法都是寂靜的性質。

『不定心者至能治彼故者。』第九對不定（unconcentrated, 不專注）·定心（concentrated mind, 專注的心）。謂能治彼散動之心。即是定心。意思是說，能夠對治散亂動搖的心的，就是定心。所以《婆沙論》中說：『不定心者。謂染污心。散亂相應故。』意思是說，不專注的心，是與染污心和散亂相應的緣故。『定心者。謂善心。等持（samādhi, 三摩地）相應故。』意思是說，專注的心，是與善良的心和等持相應的緣故。

『不修心者至容有二修故者。』第十對不修（uncultivated, 未修習的）·修心（cultivated mind, 已修習的心）。不修心者。謂染心。得（attainment, 獲得）·習（practice, 習修）二修俱不攝故。意思是說，未修習的心，是指染污心，因為它不包含獲得和習修這兩種修習。修心者。謂善心。容有得·習二種修故。意思是說，已修習的心，是指善良的心，因為它可能包含獲得和習修這兩種修習。從來未得今時創得名得修。意思是說，從來沒有獲得過，現在開始獲得，叫做獲得修。此通法俱及法前得。意思是說，這包括在法生起的同時獲得，以及在法生起之前獲得。體現在前即名習修。意思是說，（過去修習的善法）現在顯現出來，就叫做習修。此通初·后皆名習修。意思是說，這包括最初的修習和後來的修習，都叫做習修。于善法中。或有得修非習修。如未來善今時創修。意思是說，在善良的法中，有的只是獲得修而不是習修，例如未來的善法現在開始修習。或有習修非得修。如曾修善體現在前。意思是說，有的只是習修而不是獲得修，例如曾經修習的善法現在顯現出來。或有得·修亦習修。如未來曾修善今創現前。意思是說，有的既是獲得修也是習修，例如未來曾經修習的善法現在開始顯現出來。或有非得·修非習修。除前三相。意思是說，有的既不是獲得修也不是習修，就是除了前面三種情況之外的情況。非皆具有故置容言。意思是說，因為不是所有情況都具備，所以用了『容』字。故《婆沙論》中說：『修心者。謂于得修·習修。隨一或俱修心。』意思是說，已修習的心，是指對於獲得修和習修，隨一或者兩者都修習的心。

『不解脫心至容解脫故者。』第十一對不解脫（unliberated, 未解脫的）解脫心（liberated mind, 解脫的心）。不解脫心者。謂染心。體是染故。自性不解脫。意思是說，未解脫的心，是指染污心，因為它的本體是染污的，所以自性上是不解脫的。于有惑身中起故。名相續不解脫。意思是說，因為它在有迷惑的身體中生起，所以叫做相續不解脫。

【English Translation】 English version 『彼故者。The seventh pair is distracted mind (掉心, diao xin) and non-distracted mind (不掉心, bu diao xin). That which can cure the former is concentrated mind (定心, ding xin).』 This means that the mind that can counteract the distracted mind is the concentrated mind. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā states: 『Non-distracted mind refers to a virtuous mind that is in accordance with śamatha (奢摩他, 止).』 This means that a non-distracted mind is one that is in accordance with a virtuous mind and śamatha.

『Or that which can cure the former is equanimity (行舍, xing she).』 Therefore, the Vibhāṣā states: 『Non-distracted mind refers to a virtuous mind that is in accordance with equanimity.』 This means that a non-distracted mind is one that is in accordance with a virtuous mind and equanimity.

『不靜靜心應知亦爾者。The eighth pair is unsettled mind (不靜心, bu jing xin) and settled mind (靜心, jing xin).』 These can be explained in the same way as distracted and non-distracted minds. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā states: 『Unsettled mind refers to a defiled mind that is not in accordance with tranquility. All afflictions are of the nature of non-tranquility.』 This means that an unsettled mind is one that is in accordance with a defiled mind and non-tranquility; all afflictions are of the nature of non-tranquility. 『Settled mind refers to a virtuous mind that is in accordance with tranquility. All virtuous dharmas are of the nature of tranquility.』 This means that a settled mind is one that is in accordance with a virtuous mind and tranquility; all virtuous dharmas are of the nature of tranquility.

『不定心者至能治彼故者。The ninth pair is unconcentrated (不定, bu ding) and concentrated mind (定心, ding xin).』 That which can cure the scattered mind is the concentrated mind. This means that the mind that can counteract the scattered and agitated mind is the concentrated mind. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā states: 『Unconcentrated mind refers to a defiled mind that is in accordance with scattering.』 This means that an unconcentrated mind is one that is in accordance with a defiled mind and scattering. 『Concentrated mind refers to a virtuous mind that is in accordance with samādhi (等持, samādhi).』 This means that a concentrated mind is one that is in accordance with a virtuous mind and samādhi.

『不修心者至容有二修故者。The tenth pair is uncultivated (不修, bu xiu) and cultivated mind (修心, xiu xin).』 Uncultivated mind refers to a defiled mind that is not included in either the attainment (得, de) or practice (習, xi) cultivation. This means that an uncultivated mind refers to a defiled mind because it does not encompass both attainment and practice cultivation. Cultivated mind refers to a virtuous mind that may have both attainment and practice cultivation. This means that a cultivated mind refers to a virtuous mind because it may encompass both attainment and practice cultivation. 『Never attained before, now newly attained, is called attainment cultivation.』 This means that what has never been attained before, and is now newly attained, is called attainment cultivation. 『This includes both simultaneous attainment and prior attainment.』 This means that this includes both attainment at the same time as the dharma arises, and attainment before the dharma arises. 『Manifesting in the present is called practice cultivation.』 This means that (virtuous dharmas cultivated in the past) manifesting in the present is called practice cultivation. 『This includes both initial and subsequent practice cultivation.』 This means that this includes both the initial cultivation and subsequent cultivation, both of which are called practice cultivation. 『Among virtuous dharmas, some are attainment cultivation but not practice cultivation, such as future virtuous dharmas now newly cultivated.』 This means that among virtuous dharmas, some are only attainment cultivation and not practice cultivation, such as future virtuous dharmas that are now newly cultivated. 『Some are practice cultivation but not attainment cultivation, such as previously cultivated virtuous dharmas manifesting in the present.』 This means that some are only practice cultivation and not attainment cultivation, such as previously cultivated virtuous dharmas manifesting in the present. 『Some are both attainment and practice cultivation, such as future previously cultivated virtuous dharmas now newly manifesting.』 This means that some are both attainment and practice cultivation, such as future previously cultivated virtuous dharmas that are now newly manifesting. 『Some are neither attainment nor practice cultivation, excluding the previous three aspects.』 This means that some are neither attainment nor practice cultivation, which excludes the previous three situations. 『Because not all are fully possessed, the word 『may』 is used.』 This means that because not all situations are fully possessed, the word 『may』 is used. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā states: 『Cultivated mind refers to a mind that cultivates either attainment or practice cultivation, or both.』 This means that a cultivated mind refers to a mind that cultivates either attainment or practice cultivation, or both.

『不解脫心至容解脫故者。The eleventh pair is unliberated (不解脫, bu jie tuo) and liberated mind (解脫心, jie tuo xin).』 Unliberated mind refers to a defiled mind, whose essence is defiled, and is therefore not liberated by nature. This means that an unliberated mind refers to a defiled mind because its essence is defiled, and therefore it is not liberated by nature. 『Because it arises in a body with afflictions, it is called continuously unliberated.』 This means that because it arises in a body with afflictions, it is called continuously unliberated.

故婆沙云。不解脫心者。謂于自性解脫．相續解脫不解脫。解脫心者。謂善心。自性容解脫。相續容解脫。一切善心略有二種。一有漏。二無漏。若無漏者。名自性解脫。體離縛故。通學．無學。非諸善心法皆名解脫故置容言。善心依身略有二種。一有惑身。二無惑身。若依無惑身名相續解脫。此據出障名解脫身。非諸依身皆名解脫故置容言。謂善心中若自性解脫名解脫心。若依相續解脫身亦名解脫心。應作四句　或有善心自性解脫非相續解脫。謂學無漏心　或有善心相續解脫非自性解脫。謂無學有漏善心　或有善心自性解脫亦相續解脫。謂無學無漏心　或有善心非自性解脫亦非相續解脫。謂學有漏及異生善心　於四句中前三名解脫心。故婆沙云。解脫心者。謂于自性解脫相續解脫。隨一或俱解脫心。

如是所釋至諸句別義者。經部師問。如是所釋一即不順契經。二不能辨諸句別義。

如何此釋不順契經者。毗婆沙師問。如何我釋不順契經。

經言此心至有觀無止者。經部師答。經言此心云何內聚。謂心若與惛沈俱行。睡眠俱行。或內相應有止無觀。謂無色定。或言內者。謂內心中非要在定。經部定．慧不俱起故。故言有止無觀。如是等類皆名內聚。云何外散。謂心遊涉色等五境隨散隨流。或內相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『不解脫心』，是指對於自性解脫、相續解脫不解脫。『解脫心』，是指善心。自性容許解脫，相續容許解脫。一切善心略有二種：一是有漏，二是無漏。如果是無漏的，名為自性解脫，因為其體性遠離束縛，通於有學（Siksa，還在學習的修行者）和無學（Asaiksa，已經完成學習的修行者）。並非所有善心都名為解脫，所以用『容』字。善心依附於身，略有二種：一是有惑身，二是無惑身。如果依附於無惑身，名為相續解脫。這是根據脫離障礙而稱為解脫身。並非所有依附的身都名為解脫，所以用『容』字。也就是說，在善心中，如果是自性解脫，名為解脫心；如果依附於相續解脫身，也名為解脫心。應該作四句區分：或者有善心是自性解脫，不是相續解脫，指有學的無漏心；或者有善心是相續解脫，不是自性解脫，指無學的有漏善心；或者有善心是自性解脫，也是相續解脫，指無學的無漏心；或者有善心不是自性解脫，也不是相續解脫，指有學的有漏心以及異生（Prthag-jana，凡夫）的善心。在這四句中，前三種名為解脫心。所以《婆沙論》說：『解脫心』，是指對於自性解脫、相續解脫，隨一或俱解脫的心。

就像這樣解釋一直到各個句子的不同含義。《經部師》（Sautrantika）提問：像這樣解釋，一是不能順應契經（Sutra，佛經），二是不能分辨各個句子的不同含義。

毗婆沙師（Vaibhasika）反問：為什麼我的解釋不能順應契經？

經部師回答：經中說，『此心如何內聚？』是指心如果與惛沈（Styana，精神昏沉）俱行，與睡眠俱行，或者與內在相應，有止（Samatha，止禪）而無觀（Vipassana，觀禪），指無色定（Arupadhatu，無色界）。或者說『內』，是指內心之中，並非一定要在禪定之中。《經部》認為定和慧不能同時生起，所以說『有止無觀』。像這些都名為內聚。『如何外散？』是指心遊走於色等五境，隨之散亂流蕩，或者與內在的...

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'Non-liberated mind' refers to not being liberated from self-nature liberation and continuity liberation. 'Liberated mind' refers to wholesome mind. Self-nature allows liberation, and continuity allows liberation. All wholesome minds can be broadly divided into two types: one is with outflows (asrava), and the other is without outflows (anasrava). If it is without outflows, it is called self-nature liberation because its essence is free from bondage, applicable to both learners (Siksa) and non-learners (Asaiksa). Not all wholesome minds are called liberation, hence the use of the word 'allows'. Wholesome mind relies on the body, broadly divided into two types: one is with afflicted body, and the other is without afflicted body. If it relies on a body without afflictions, it is called continuity liberation. This is based on the removal of obstacles being called a liberated body. Not all bodies relied upon are called liberation, hence the use of the word 'allows'. That is to say, among wholesome minds, if it is self-nature liberation, it is called liberated mind; if it relies on a continuity-liberated body, it is also called liberated mind. Four distinctions should be made: There are wholesome minds that are self-nature liberation but not continuity liberation, referring to the non-outflow mind of learners; there are wholesome minds that are continuity liberation but not self-nature liberation, referring to the outflow wholesome mind of non-learners; there are wholesome minds that are both self-nature liberation and continuity liberation, referring to the non-outflow mind of non-learners; there are wholesome minds that are neither self-nature liberation nor continuity liberation, referring to the outflow mind of learners and the wholesome mind of ordinary beings (Prthag-jana). Among these four distinctions, the first three are called liberated mind. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: 'Liberated mind' refers to the mind that is either self-nature liberation, continuity liberation, or both.

As explained up to the different meanings of each sentence. The Sautrantika asked: As explained in this way, firstly, it does not accord with the Sutras, and secondly, it cannot distinguish the different meanings of each sentence.

The Vaibhasika asked in return: Why does my explanation not accord with the Sutras?

The Sautrantika replied: The Sutra says, 'How does this mind gather inward?' It refers to the mind that is accompanied by dullness (Styana), accompanied by sleep, or corresponds internally, having cessation (Samatha) but no insight (Vipassana), referring to the formless realm (Arupadhatu). Or 'inward' refers to within the mind, not necessarily in meditation. The Sautrantika believes that cessation and wisdom cannot arise simultaneously, hence the saying 'having cessation but no insight'. Such things are all called gathering inward. 'How does it scatter outward?' It refers to the mind wandering through the five objects of form, etc., scattering and flowing along with them, or corresponding internally with...

應有觀無止。謂未至．中間。或言內者。謂內心中非要在定。經部定．慧不俱起故。故言有觀無止。如是等類皆名外散。

豈不前說至通聚散過者。毗婆沙師責。豈不前難西方諸師染心眠俱便有一心通聚．散過。

雖說非理至是散心故者。經部師釋。雖說非理。我宗不許與睡眠俱諸染污心是散心故。眠俱染心。唯聚心故。故無一心通聚．散過。

豈不又說本論相違者。毗婆沙師難。豈不又說本論相違聚心具足四智知耶。

寧違論文勿違經說者。經部師答。

如何不辨諸句別義者。毗婆沙師問。

謂依此釋至八異相故者。經部師答。十一對中初之三對貪等不併。分明別說理且可然。不能辨了散等．聚等八對異相。謂一剎那染心。即是散等八。一剎那善心即是聚等八。

依我所釋至別立八名者。毗婆沙師救。依我所釋非不能辨此契經中八句別義。謂雖散等同是染心。而為顯其過失差別。故依八義別立八名。欲令有情生厭離故。及雖聚等同是善心。而為顯其功德差別。故依八義別立八名。欲令有情生欣樂故。

既不能通至名非時修者。經部師破。既不能通所違經說。所辨八義。不依經故理亦不成。又若沈相應心即掉相應心者。經不應說。若於爾時心沈。恐沈修安．定．舍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『應有觀無止』，指的是心未達到專注的狀態，處於中間狀態。或者說『內』，指的是內心，不一定需要在禪定中。經部認為，禪定和智慧不能同時生起，所以說『有觀無止』。像這些情況都叫做外散。

毗婆沙師責問：『難道前面沒有說過通聚散的過失嗎？』難道前面沒有反駁過西方諸師，認為染污心和睡眠同時存在，就會出現一個心同時具有通、聚、散的過失嗎？

經部師解釋：『雖然說不合理，但我宗不認為與睡眠同時存在的染污心是散心。』與睡眠同時存在的染污心，只是聚心，所以沒有一個心同時具有通、聚、散的過失。

毗婆沙師反駁：『難道又說這與本論相違背嗎？聚心難道不是具足四智的嗎？』

經部師回答：『寧可違背論文，也不可違背經文的說法。』

毗婆沙師問：『為什麼不能分辨這些句子的不同含義呢？』

經部師回答：『按照這種解釋，十一對中的前三對，貪等煩惱不能同時並起，分明地分別說明，道理上還說得過去。』但是不能辨別散等、聚等八對的不同之處。因為一個剎那的染污心，就是散等八種狀態；一個剎那的善心，就是聚等八種狀態。

毗婆沙師辯解：『按照我的解釋，並非不能辨別這部契經中八句的不同含義。』雖然散等都屬於染污心，但爲了顯示它們過失的差別，所以根據八種意義分別設立八個名稱，想要讓有情眾生生起厭離之心。以及雖然聚等都屬於善心，但爲了顯示它們功德的差別，所以根據八種意義分別設立八個名稱，想要讓有情眾生生起欣樂之心。

經部師駁斥：『既然不能通達所違背的經文說法，所辨別的八種意義，不依據經文，所以道理也無法成立。』另外，如果沉相應的心就是掉舉相應的心，那麼經文就不應該說，如果在那個時候心沉沒，恐怕因為沉沒而修習安、定、舍（平靜的心）。

【English Translation】 English version 'Should have observation without cessation' refers to the mind not reaching a state of focus, being in an intermediate state. Or 'internal' refers to the mind, not necessarily requiring to be in Samadhi (定). The Sautrantika (經部) school believes that Samadhi and wisdom cannot arise simultaneously, so it is said 'have observation without cessation'. These kinds of situations are all called external distraction.

The Vaibhashika (毗婆沙師) master questioned: 'Didn't you say earlier about the fault of encompassing gathering and scattering?' Didn't you refute the Western masters earlier, arguing that if defiled mind and sleep exist simultaneously, there would be a fault of one mind simultaneously possessing encompassing, gathering, and scattering?

The Sautrantika master explained: 'Although it is said to be unreasonable, my school does not consider defiled minds that exist simultaneously with sleep to be distracted minds.' Defiled minds that exist simultaneously with sleep are only gathered minds, so there is no fault of one mind simultaneously possessing encompassing, gathering, and scattering.

The Vaibhashika master retorted: 'Are you again saying that this contradicts the original treatise? Doesn't the gathered mind possess the four wisdoms?'

The Sautrantika master replied: 'Rather violate the treatise than violate the words of the Sutra.'

The Vaibhashika master asked: 'Why can't you distinguish the different meanings of these sentences?'

The Sautrantika master replied: 'According to this explanation, in the first three pairs of the eleven pairs, afflictions such as greed cannot arise simultaneously, and clearly distinguishing them is reasonable.' However, one cannot distinguish the differences between the eight pairs of scattering, gathering, etc. Because a moment of defiled mind is the eight states of scattering, etc.; a moment of wholesome mind is the eight states of gathering, etc.

The Vaibhashika master defended: 'According to my explanation, it is not that I cannot distinguish the different meanings of the eight sentences in this Sutra.' Although scattering, etc., all belong to defiled minds, in order to show the differences in their faults, eight names are established separately according to eight meanings, wanting to make sentient beings generate a mind of aversion. And although gathering, etc., all belong to wholesome minds, in order to show the differences in their merits, eight names are established separately according to eight meanings, wanting to make sentient beings generate a mind of joy.

The Sautrantika master refuted: 'Since you cannot understand the Sutra's statements that you contradict, the eight meanings you distinguish do not rely on the Sutra, so the reasoning cannot be established.' Furthermore, if the mind associated with sinking is the same as the mind associated with agitation, then the Sutra should not say that if the mind sinks at that time, there is fear of cultivating tranquility, Samadhi (定), and equanimity (舍) due to sinking.

三覺支者名非時修。修擇．進．喜名依時修。若於爾時心掉。恐掉修擇．進．喜名非時修。修安．定．舍名依時修。此經意說。心沈須策。心掉須抑。沉心．掉心經既別說。明知沈．掉起不俱時。如何可言沉心即掉心。

豈修覺支有散別理者。毗婆沙師難。七覺在定支必具有。豈修覺支。有散心中別修道理。如何乃言時．非時別。

此據作意至故無有失者。經部師釋。此據作意將入定時欲修覺支名修。非現前修無漏覺支。故無有失。

豈不我說至我說體一者。毗婆沙師釋經。若據偏增。別說沈．掉。若據恒與沈．掉相應。我說染心其體一也。隨自意語至意不如是者。經部師非。

前說一切至名有貪心者。論主前難權許第二師解。今還徴破。前說一切貪所繫心皆名有貪心貪系是何義　牒計徴問　若貪得隨故名貪所繫。有學無漏心應名有貪心。貪得隨故　若貪所緣故名貪所繫。無學有漏心應名有貪心。亦為他人貪所緣故。若不許彼無學有漏心為貪所緣。云何彼心可成有漏。汝若轉計。言謂無學有漏心。由為見等共相惑緣故名有漏心。不為貪等自相惑緣故。不名有貪心。不為貪緣可非有貪。既為無明共相惑緣。應名有癡。癡所緣故。復以理破。然他心智不緣貪得。亦不可說緣彼緣心之貪。既不得緣

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：三種覺支（Bojjhanga，菩提的組成部分）在不適當的時候修習，指的是修習擇（Dhammavicaya，選擇）、進（Viriya，精進）、喜（Piti，喜悅）。修習擇、進、喜在適當的時候修習，指的是在心處於昏沉狀態時。如果在那個時候心變得掉舉（uddhacca，躁動），恐怕會更加掉舉，那麼修習擇、進、喜就叫做非時修。修習安（Passaddhi，平靜）、定（Samadhi，禪定）、舍（Upekkha，捨棄）叫做依時修。這句經文的意思是說，心沉沒的時候需要策勵，心掉舉的時候需要抑制。沉沒的心和掉舉的心，經典已經分別說明，明顯知道沉沒和掉舉不是同時生起的。怎麼能說沉沒的心就是掉舉的心呢？難道修習覺支有散亂分別的道理嗎？毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教的一個學派）提出疑問：七覺支（sapta bojjhaṅgāḥ，七種覺悟的要素）在禪定中必定具備，難道修習覺支，有在散亂心中分別修習的道理嗎？為什麼說有時、非時的區別呢？這是根據作意（manasikara，心理活動）將要進入禪定時的情況，所以沒有過失。經部師（Sautrantika，佛教的一個學派）解釋說：這是根據作意將要進入禪定時，想要修習覺支，叫做修。不是現前修習無漏（anasrava，沒有煩惱）的覺支，所以沒有過失。難道我沒有說過，根據偏重而分別說沉沒、掉舉嗎？如果根據恒常與沉沒、掉舉相應，我說染污心（citta，心）的體性是一樣的。毗婆沙師解釋經文：如果根據偏重，分別說沉沒、掉舉。如果根據恒常與沉沒、掉舉相應，我說染污心的體性是一樣的。經部師否定說：隨自己的意思說話，意思不是這樣的。前面說一切被貪所繫縛的心都叫做有貪心。論主（abhidharmakara，論藏的作者）先前提出疑問，暫時允許第二位論師的解釋，現在又反過來徵詢駁斥。前面說一切被貪所繫縛的心都叫做有貪心，貪繫縛是什麼意思？提出問題進行徵詢：如果因為貪得隨逐的緣故叫做貪所繫，那麼有學（saiksha，還在學習的修行者）的無漏心（anasrava-citta，沒有煩惱的心）應該叫做有貪心，因為貪得隨逐的緣故。如果因為貪所緣的緣故叫做貪所繫，那麼無學（asaiksha，已經完成學習的修行者）的有漏心（sasrava-citta，有煩惱的心）應該叫做有貪心，也因為是他人貪所緣的緣故。如果不允許那個無學的有漏心是貪所緣，怎麼能說那個心可以成為有漏？你如果轉變說法，說無學的有漏心，因為被見等共同迷惑的因緣所迷惑的緣故，叫做有漏心，不是因為被貪等自身迷惑的因緣所迷惑的緣故，所以不叫做有貪心。不因為是貪的所緣，就可以不是有貪嗎？既然因為是無明（Avidya，無知）共同迷惑的因緣所迷惑，應該叫做有癡（moha，愚癡），因為是癡的所緣的緣故。又用道理來駁斥：然而他心智（paracitta-jnana，瞭解他人想法的智慧）不緣貪得，也不可說緣彼緣心的貪，既然不能夠緣取。

【English Translation】 English version: The three Bojjhangas (constituents of enlightenment) that are improperly cultivated are the cultivation of Dhammavicaya (investigation of phenomena), Viriya (energy), and Piti (joy). Cultivating Dhammavicaya, Viriya, and Piti at the appropriate time refers to when the mind is in a state of lethargy. If at that time the mind becomes agitated (uddhacca), fearing further agitation, then cultivating Dhammavicaya, Viriya, and Piti is called untimely cultivation. Cultivating Passaddhi (tranquility), Samadhi (concentration), and Upekkha (equanimity) is called timely cultivation. The meaning of this sutra is that when the mind is sinking, it needs to be encouraged, and when the mind is agitated, it needs to be restrained. The sinking mind and the agitated mind have been separately explained in the sutras, clearly indicating that sinking and agitation do not arise simultaneously. How can it be said that the sinking mind is the same as the agitated mind? Is there a reason to separately cultivate the Bojjhangas in a distracted state? The Vaibhashika (a school of Buddhism) raises the question: The seven Bojjhangas (sapta bojjhaṅgāḥ, seven factors of enlightenment) must be present in meditation. Is there a reason to separately cultivate the Bojjhangas in a distracted state? Why is there a distinction between timely and untimely? This is based on the intention (manasikara) to enter meditation, so there is no fault. The Sautrantika (a school of Buddhism) explains: This is based on the intention to enter meditation, wanting to cultivate the Bojjhangas, which is called cultivation. It is not the present cultivation of the unconditioned (anasrava) Bojjhangas, so there is no fault. Didn't I say that sinking and agitation are separately mentioned based on emphasis? If based on constant association with sinking and agitation, I say that the nature of the defiled mind (citta) is the same. The Vaibhashika explains the sutra: If based on emphasis, sinking and agitation are separately mentioned. If based on constant association with sinking and agitation, I say that the nature of the defiled mind is the same. The Sautrantika refutes: Speaking according to one's own intention, the meaning is not like that. Earlier, it was said that all minds bound by greed are called greedy minds. The Abhidharmakara (author of the Abhidharma) previously raised a question, temporarily allowing the explanation of the second teacher, and now turns around to inquire and refute. Earlier, it was said that all minds bound by greed are called greedy minds. What is the meaning of being bound by greed? Raising a question for inquiry: If it is called being bound by greed because greed follows, then the unconditioned mind (anasrava-citta) of a trainee (saiksha) should be called a greedy mind, because greed follows. If it is called being bound by greed because of the object of greed, then the conditioned mind (sasrava-citta) of a non-trainee (asaiksha) should be called a greedy mind, also because it is the object of greed for others. If it is not allowed that the conditioned mind of that non-trainee is the object of greed, how can it be said that that mind can be conditioned? If you change your statement and say that the conditioned mind of the non-trainee is called a conditioned mind because it is deluded by the causes of common delusions such as views, not because it is deluded by the causes of delusions such as greed, then it is not called a greedy mind. Not being the object of greed, can it not be greedy? Since it is deluded by the causes of common delusions of ignorance (Avidya), it should be called ignorant (moha), because it is the object of ignorance. Furthermore, it is refuted with reason: However, the knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jnana) does not grasp greed, nor can it be said to grasp the greed that grasps the mind, since it cannot grasp.

。寧知他心是有貪等。故非貪系名有貪心。以彼釋經亦不得意。故今論主復敘徴破。

若爾云何者。前第二師問。

今詳經意至名離貪等者。論主第三正解。今詳經意。貪相應故名有貪心。貪不相應名離貪心。即諸善心及諸無覆。等者等取有嗔心等。準釋可知。

若爾何故至不還墮三有者。第二師難。若言離貪嗔癡心亦通有漏。何故經言離貪．嗔．癡心不還墮三有。既言不墮三有。明知離貪心等唯是無漏。

依離得說故無有過者。論主通經。依離三界煩惱得說故。言不還墮三有受生。非唯無漏體不通彼三有所攝。彼據離得不墮三有名離貪等。我據貪不相應名離貪等。各據一義故無有失。

豈不於前至不相應故者。第二師指同前破。豈不於前第一師已破此說。若貪不相應名離貪心者。余惑相應者應得離貪名。彼亦與貪不相應故。如何乃立所破義耶。

若依此意至有癡等故者。論主救。我以理為正。豈以前破即是非耶。若依此意。余惑相應亦名離貪許亦無違。然不說為離貪心者。以屬有嗔．有癡等故。準此故知。有漏．無漏善心及無覆心皆名離貪心。泛由二義心名有貪。一貪相應。二貪所繫。泛由二義心名離貪。一貪不相應。二是貪對治。上來總有三解。第一師依貪相應故名有貪心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：難道能知道他人心中是有貪慾等煩惱的嗎？所以，並非被貪慾所束縛的心才能被稱為『有貪心』。因為之前的解釋經文也不盡如人意，所以現在論主再次提出疑問並進行駁斥。

『若爾云何者』（如果這樣，那該如何解釋呢？）：這是之前的第二位論師提出的問題。

『今詳經意至名離貪等者』（現在詳細考察經文的含義，乃至稱為『離貪』等）：這是論主的第三種正確解釋。現在詳細考察經文的含義，因為與貪慾相應，所以稱為『有貪心』；因為與貪慾不相應，所以稱為『離貪心』。這裡指的是各種善心以及各種無覆無記心。『等』字包括有嗔心等，可以參照解釋。

『若爾何故至不還墮三有者』（如果這樣，為什麼說離貪嗔癡心不會再墮入三有輪迴呢？）：這是第二位論師提出的疑問。如果說離貪、嗔、癡的心也可能是有漏的，那麼為什麼經文中說離貪、嗔、癡的心不會再墮入三有輪迴呢？既然說不會墮入三有輪迴，那就明顯說明離貪心等只有無漏的。

『依離得說故無有過者』（依據斷離煩惱而說，所以沒有過失）：這是論主對經文的解釋。依據斷離三界煩惱的功德而說，所以說不會再墮入三有輪迴受生。並非只有無漏的本體才不被三有輪迴所包含。經文是根據斷離煩惱的功德而說，稱為『離貪』等，不會墮入三有輪迴；我所說的是根據與貪慾不相應而稱為『離貪』等。各自依據不同的含義，所以沒有過失。

『豈不於前至不相應故者』（難道不是之前已經因為不相應而駁斥過了嗎？）：這是第二位論師指出之前已經駁斥過類似的觀點。難道不是之前第一位論師已經駁斥過這種說法了嗎？如果說與貪慾不相應就稱為『離貪心』，那麼與其他煩惱相應的心也應該可以稱為『離貪』，因為它也與貪慾不相應。為什麼現在又提出之前已經駁斥過的觀點呢？

『若依此意至有癡等故者』（如果依據這個意思，乃至因為有愚癡等煩惱的緣故）：這是論主進行辯護。我以道理為準繩，難道因為之前被駁斥過就一定是不對的嗎？如果依據這個意思，與其他煩惱相應的心也可以稱為『離貪』，允許這樣說也沒有什麼衝突。然而，之所以不稱其為『離貪心』，是因為它屬於有嗔、有癡等煩惱。由此可知，有漏的、無漏的善心以及無覆無記心都可以稱為『離貪心』。總的來說，有兩種情況導致心被稱為『有貪』：一是與貪慾相應，二是受貪慾的束縛。總的來說，有兩種情況導致心被稱為『離貪』：一是與貪慾不相應，二是貪慾的對治。以上總共有三種解釋。第一位論師認為，因為與貪慾相應，所以稱為『有貪心』。

【English Translation】 English version: How can one know whether another's mind has greed, etc.? Therefore, it is not that only a mind bound by greed is called 'having greed'. Because the previous explanation of the sutra was also not satisfactory, the author of the treatise now raises questions again and refutes them.

'If so, what then?' This is the question raised by the second teacher earlier.

'Now, examining the meaning of the sutra, up to being called 'free from greed', etc.': This is the third correct explanation by the author of the treatise. Now, examining the meaning of the sutra in detail, because it is associated with greed, it is called 'having greed'; because it is not associated with greed, it is called 'free from greed'. This refers to various wholesome minds and various non-obscured minds. 'Etc.' includes having anger, etc., which can be understood by referring to the explanation.

'If so, why does it say that a mind free from greed, anger, and delusion will not fall into the Three Realms again?': This is the question raised by the second teacher. If it is said that a mind free from greed, anger, and delusion can also be defiled, then why does the sutra say that a mind free from greed, anger, and delusion will not fall into the Three Realms again? Since it says that it will not fall into the Three Realms again, it clearly indicates that only the mind free from greed, etc., is unconditioned.

'It is said based on the attainment of detachment, so there is no fault': This is the author of the treatise's explanation of the sutra. It is said based on the merit of detaching from the afflictions of the Three Realms, so it is said that one will not fall into the Three Realms again to be reborn. It is not only the unconditioned essence that is not included in the Three Realms. The sutra is based on the merit of detaching from afflictions, called 'free from greed', etc., and will not fall into the Three Realms; what I am saying is based on not being associated with greed, called 'free from greed', etc. Each is based on a different meaning, so there is no fault.

'Isn't it that it was refuted earlier because of non-association?': This is the second teacher pointing out that a similar view had been refuted earlier. Wasn't this view already refuted by the first teacher earlier? If it is said that not being associated with greed is called 'free from greed', then a mind associated with other afflictions should also be called 'free from greed', because it is also not associated with greed. Why is the view that was refuted earlier being proposed again now?

'If based on this meaning, up to because of having delusion, etc.': This is the author of the treatise defending. I take reason as the standard, is it necessarily wrong just because it was refuted earlier? If based on this meaning, a mind associated with other afflictions can also be called 'free from greed', and there is no conflict in allowing this. However, the reason why it is not called 'free from greed' is because it belongs to having anger, having delusion, etc. From this, it can be known that wholesome minds, both conditioned and unconditioned, and non-obscured minds can all be called 'free from greed'. In general, there are two situations that cause a mind to be called 'having greed': one is being associated with greed, and the other is being bound by greed. In general, there are two situations that cause a mind to be called 'free from greed': one is not being associated with greed, and the other is the antidote to greed. There are three explanations in total above. The first teacher believes that because it is associated with greed, it is called 'having greed'.

。對治貪故名離貪心。第二師依貪所繫故名有貪心。對治貪故名離貪心。第三論主依貪相應故名有貪心。貪不相應名離貪心　問準婆沙一百九十。亦有此三說。破初．后兩說取此第二為正。如何論主取婆沙不正義　解云論主以理為正。非以婆沙評家為量。初師釋經攝心不盡。第二師說不得經意。故今論主以此為正。

旦止傍論至能緣行相不者。止諍述宗。問。此所明他心智既知他心。為亦能取他心所緣色等境不。及亦取他心家能緣行相不。如有餘人緣彼他心。此餘人心名他心家能緣行相。

俱不能取至能自緣失者。答。俱不能取。知彼心時不觀彼心所緣。不觀彼心家能緣行相故。謂他心智但知彼心有染等心。不知彼心家所染色等。亦不知彼心家能緣行相。若知他心所緣境者。即有他心智應亦緣色等名他色智過。若知他心家能緣行相者。又亦應有能自緣失。以他心智是彼他心能緣行相故。此宗不許心自緣也　又解他心智起為他心緣邊是他心所緣。復緣他心是他心能緣行相。若他心智知他心所緣．能緣行相者。又亦應有能自緣失。非他心智。此即雙破。故婆沙九十九云。他心智但緣他心不緣他心所緣行相。若緣他心所緣行相。應緣自心非他心智。自心是彼所緣及能緣行相故。諸德皆云。能緣行相者。即是他心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爲了對治貪慾，所以稱為離貪心。第二位師父因為被貪慾所束縛，所以稱為有貪心。爲了對治貪慾，所以稱為離貪心。第三位論主因為與貪慾相應，所以稱為有貪心；與貪慾不相應，就稱為離貪心。問：按照《婆沙論》第一百九十卷，也有這三種說法。破斥最初和最後的兩種說法，而採納這第二種說法作為正確的。為什麼論主採用《婆沙論》中不正確的意義呢？解答說：論主以道理為正確，而不是以《婆沙論》的評家為標準。第一位師父解釋經典，攝取心意不全面；第二位師父的說法沒有得到經典的真意。所以現在論主以這第三種說法為正確。

從『旦止傍論』到『能緣行相不者』。這是爲了停止爭論，闡述宗義。問：這裡所說明的他心智，既然能夠知道他人的心，那麼它也能取他心所緣的色等境嗎？以及也能取他心家的能緣行相嗎？如果另一個人緣彼他心，這個另一個人心就稱為他心家的能緣行相。

『俱不能取』到『能自緣失者』。答：都不能取。知道他人心的時候，不觀察他人心所緣的境，不觀察他人心家的能緣行相。所以說，他心智只是知道他人心有染污等心，不知道他人心家的所緣色等，也不知道他人心家的能緣行相。如果知道他人心所緣的境，那麼就會有他心智也應該緣色等，而成為『他色智』的過失。如果知道他人心家的能緣行相，那麼又應該有能自緣的過失，因為他心智是彼他心的能緣行相。這個宗義不許可心自緣。又解釋說，他心智生起，以他心為所緣的邊是他心所緣，再緣他心是他心能緣行相。如果他心智知道他心所緣、能緣行相，那麼又應該有能自緣的過失。不是他心智。這實際上是雙重破斥。所以《婆沙論》第九十九卷說：他心智只緣他心，不緣他心所緣的行相。如果緣他心所緣的行相，就應該緣自心，而不是他心智。自心是彼所緣以及能緣行相。諸位大德都說，能緣行相，就是他心。

【English Translation】 English version: To counteract greed, it is called 'mind free from greed' (離貪心, lí tān xīn). The second teacher is called 'mind with greed' (有貪心, yǒu tān xīn) because he is bound by greed. To counteract greed, it is called 'mind free from greed'. The third commentator is called 'mind with greed' because it corresponds to greed; when it does not correspond to greed, it is called 'mind free from greed'. Question: According to the Vibhasa (婆沙, Póshā) volume 190, there are also these three views. Rejecting the first and last two views, and adopting this second view as correct. Why does the commentator adopt the incorrect meaning in the Vibhasa? The answer is: The commentator takes reason as correct, not the commentators of the Vibhasa as the standard. The first teacher's explanation of the sutra (經, jīng) does not fully capture the mind; the second teacher's statement does not grasp the true meaning of the sutra. Therefore, the commentator now takes this as correct.

From 'Danzhi's side discussion' (旦止傍論, Dànzhǐ bànglùn) to 'can the object-cognizing aspect be taken?' (能緣行相不者, néng yuán xíngxiàng bù zhě). This is to stop the argument and explain the tenets of the school. Question: This mind-reading wisdom (他心智, tāxīnzhì) that is being explained here, since it can know the minds of others, can it also grasp the objects of others' minds, such as form (色, sè) etc.? And can it also grasp the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind? If another person cognizes that other's mind, that other person's mind is called the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind.

'Both cannot grasp' to 'can lose self-cognition' (能自緣失者, néng zì yuán shī zhě). Answer: Both cannot grasp. When knowing the minds of others, one does not observe the objects of others' minds, nor does one observe the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind. Therefore, mind-reading wisdom only knows that the other's mind has defilements (染, rǎn) etc., but does not know the objects of the other's mind, such as form, etc., nor does it know the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind. If one knows the objects of others' minds, then there would be the fault that mind-reading wisdom should also cognize form etc., and become 'other-form wisdom' (他色智, tāsèzhì). If one knows the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind, then there should also be the fault of being able to cognize oneself, because mind-reading wisdom is the object-cognizing aspect of that other's mind. This school does not allow the mind to cognize itself. Another explanation is that when mind-reading wisdom arises, taking the other's mind as the object-cognized side is the object of the other's mind, and then cognizing the other's mind is the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind. If mind-reading wisdom knows the object and object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind, then there should also be the fault of being able to cognize oneself. It is not mind-reading wisdom. This is actually a double refutation. Therefore, Vibhasa volume 99 says: Mind-reading wisdom only cognizes the other's mind, not the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind. If one cognizes the object-cognizing aspect of the other's mind, then one should cognize one's own mind, not mind-reading wisdom. One's own mind is the object and object-cognizing aspect. All the virtuous ones say that the object-cognizing aspect is the other's mind.

上能緣行相。但知他心體。不知他心上能緣行相者。不然。婆沙論文極分明故。

諸他心智至如應容有者。述己宗也　又解此文亦答前問。顯他心智不知他心所緣能緣。諸他心智有決定相。謂唯能取欲．色界系。及非所繫　欲界等言。簡異無色。不知上故　他相續。簡自身。不知自故　現在。簡過．未。以彼過．未無作用故　同類。謂法分知法分　類分知類分　有漏知有漏　無漏。知無漏等。此即簡異類。心心所法簡色等。以不能知色等境故　一簡二等。謂但知一非二等故　實簡于假。以他心智不知假故　自相。簡共相。以不知共相故。如識了別名自相等。無漏他心智雖作共相。別觀一法不觀多法。故亦名自相。以此等法為所緣境作道四行故。與無愿三摩地相應。不作余行相。空．無相三摩地不相應。盡．無生所不攝。他心智是見性。此是息求非見性故。苦．集．滅智如前已簡。為盡．無生亦通道諦故復重簡。不在見道。以速疾故。非容預故。不在無間道。以斷障故。非容預故。余修道中加行．解脫．勝進道中。如其所應容可有故。

盡無生智至不受後有者。釋后兩句。盡．無生智初起唯緣有頂苦．集作六行相。若在後時通緣四諦。十六行中除空．非我。各具餘十四行相。所以不作空．非我者。由此二智

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『上能緣行相』（能夠緣取行相），但只知道他心的本體，卻不知道他心上的『能緣行相』嗎？不是這樣的。婆沙論的論文已經解釋得非常清楚了。

各種他心智，至於說『如應容有』（在適當情況下可能存在）的情況，這是在陳述自己的宗派觀點。又解釋這段文字，也是爲了回答前面的問題，表明他心智並不知道他心所緣的能緣。各種他心智有其決定的特性，即只能取欲界、色界和非所繫（不屬於欲界和色界）的心和心所法。『欲界等』的說法，是爲了區別于無色界，因為他心智不能知道更高層次的境界。『他相續』（其他眾生的心相續），是爲了區別于自身，因為他心智不能知道自身的心。『現在』，是爲了區別於過去和未來，因為過去和未來的心沒有作用。『同類』，是指法心所知法心所，類心所知類心所，有漏心所知有漏心所，無漏心所知無漏心所等等。這即是爲了區別于異類。心和心所法是爲了區別於色法等，因為他心智不能知道色法等境界。『一』是爲了區別于『二等』，即只能知道一個心，而不能知道兩個或多個。『實』是爲了區別于『假』，因為他心智不能知道假法。『自相』是爲了區別于『共相』，因為他心智不能知道共相。例如，識的了別作用稱為自相等。無漏的他心智雖然可以作用於共相，但只是分別觀察一個法，而不是觀察多個法，所以也稱為自相。以這些法作為所緣境，作為道的四種行相（苦、集、滅、道）而修行，與無愿三摩地相應，而不作其他的行相。空三摩地和無相三摩地不相應。盡智和無生智所不包含。他心智是見性，而盡智和無生智是息求，不是見性。苦智、集智、滅智如前已經簡別。爲了說明盡智和無生智也通達道諦，所以再次簡別。不在見道中，因為見道非常迅速，不允許有其他預先的準備。不在無間道中，因為無間道是爲了斷除煩惱障礙，不允許有其他預先的準備。在修道中的加行道、解脫道和勝進道中，根據具體情況，可能存在。

『盡無生智』（盡智和無生智）到『不受後有』（不再接受後有），這是解釋後面兩句話。盡智和無生智最初生起時，只能緣取有頂天的苦諦和集諦，並作六種行相。如果在後面的時間，可以通達緣取四諦，在十六種行相中，除了空和非我之外，各自具有其餘的十四種行相。之所以不作空和非我行相，是因為這兩種智慧...

【English Translation】 English version: 『上能緣行相』 (shàng néng yuán xíng xiàng - 'Being able to cognize the characteristics'), but only knowing the substance of another's mind, and not knowing the 『能緣行相』 (néng yuán xíng xiàng - 'cognizing characteristics') on another's mind? That is not the case. The treatises in the Vibhasa (婆沙 - Póshā) are very clear on this.

As for the various other-minds knowledges, regarding the cases of 『如應容有』 (rú yìng róng yǒu - 'appropriately possibly existing'), this is stating one's own sectarian viewpoint. Furthermore, explaining this passage also answers the previous question, showing that other-minds knowledge does not know the cognizing of what another's mind cognizes. The various other-minds knowledges have their determined characteristics, namely, they can only grasp the desire realm, the form realm, and the non-affiliated (not belonging to the desire and form realms) minds and mental factors. The statement 『欲界等』 (yù jiè děng - 'desire realm, etc.') is to distinguish it from the formless realm, because other-minds knowledge cannot know higher realms. 『他相續』 (tā xiāngxù - 'other's mental continuum') is to distinguish it from oneself, because other-minds knowledge cannot know one's own mind. 『現在』 (xiànzài - 'present') is to distinguish it from the past and future, because the past and future minds have no function. 『同類』 (tónglèi - 'same type') means that mental factors of dharma know mental factors of dharma, mental factors of class know mental factors of class, defiled mental factors know defiled mental factors, undefiled know undefiled, and so on. This is to distinguish it from different types. Minds and mental factors are to distinguish them from form, etc., because other-minds knowledge cannot know objects such as form. 『一』 (yī - 'one') is to distinguish it from 『二等』 (èr děng - 'two, etc.'), meaning that it can only know one mind, and not two or more. 『實』 (shí - 'real') is to distinguish it from 『假』 (jiǎ - 'false'), because other-minds knowledge cannot know false dharmas. 『自相』 (zìxiàng - 'own-characteristic') is to distinguish it from 『共相』 (gòngxiàng - 'common characteristic'), because it does not know common characteristics. For example, the distinguishing function of consciousness is called own-characteristic, etc. Although undefiled other-minds knowledge can act on common characteristics, it only separately observes one dharma, and does not observe multiple dharmas, so it is also called own-characteristic. Using these dharmas as the object of cognition, practicing the four aspects of the path (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path), it is in accordance with the wishless samadhi, and does not act on other characteristics. The emptiness samadhi and the signless samadhi are not in accordance. It is not included in the exhaustion knowledge and the non-arising knowledge. Other-minds knowledge is of the nature of seeing, while exhaustion knowledge and non-arising knowledge are seeking cessation, not of the nature of seeing. Suffering knowledge, accumulation knowledge, cessation knowledge have already been distinguished as before. In order to explain that exhaustion knowledge and non-arising knowledge also penetrate the path truth, they are distinguished again. It is not in the path of seeing, because the path of seeing is very rapid, and does not allow for other prior preparations. It is not in the path of no interval, because the path of no interval is for cutting off afflictions and obstacles, and does not allow for other prior preparations. In the path of cultivation, in the path of application, the path of liberation, and the path of advancement, it may exist as appropriate.

『盡無生智』 (jìn wú shēng zhì - 'Exhaustion knowledge and non-arising knowledge') to 『不受後有』 (bù shòu hòu yǒu - 'no longer accepting future existence'), this is explaining the latter two sentences. When exhaustion knowledge and non-arising knowledge first arise, they can only cognize the suffering truth and accumulation truth of the peak of existence, and act on six characteristics. If in later times, they can penetrate and cognize the four truths, and among the sixteen characteristics, except for emptiness and non-self, each possesses the remaining fourteen characteristics. The reason for not acting on the characteristics of emptiness and non-self is because these two knowledges...

雖勝義攝。而涉於世俗我生已盡等。故在觀內離空．非我。此即前因涉於後果。謂由觀內盡．無生力。于出觀時後得智中作如是言。我生已盡等。故在觀內離空．非我。以空．非我違於我故。故婆沙二十九云。我生已盡者。是緣集四行相　梵行已立者。是緣道四行相　所作已辦者。是緣滅四行相　不受後有者。是緣苦二行相。謂苦．非常。又婆沙一百二云。如契經說。諸阿羅漢。如實自知我生已盡．梵行已立．所作已辦．不受後有。此中我生已盡者。然諸生名顯多種義。謂或有生名顯入母胎。或有生名顯出母胎。或有生名顯分位五蘊。或有生名顯不相應行蘊少分。或有生名顯非想非非想處四蘊(前四種生如婆沙彼釋不能具引)。或有生名顯非想非非想處四蘊者。如此中說我生已盡。問此盡何生。過去耶。未來耶。現在耶。若盡過去生。過去生已滅何須盡。若盡未來生。未來生未至何所盡。若盡現在生。現在生不住。何須盡。答應作是說。盡三世生。所以者何。此中生名既顯非想非非想處四蘊。諸瑜伽師總觀非想非非想處三世四蘊離彼染故。令生因果皆不得成。廣如彼釋。

梵行已立者。謂無漏行已立。問為學梵行已立為無學梵行已立耶。答學梵行已立。非無學梵行。所以者何。無學梵行今始立故　所作已辦者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：即使從勝義諦（Paramārtha-satya）的角度來看，仍然涉及到世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya）的『我生已盡』等說法。因此，在觀照（Vipaśyanā）的內在狀態中，是遠離空性（Śūnyatā），而非『我』（Ātman）。這指的是前因涉及到後果。也就是說，由於在觀照的內在狀態中，（煩惱）已經止息，沒有產生的能力，所以在出觀時，於後得智（Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna）中，才會說『我生已盡』等。因此，在觀照的內在狀態中，是遠離空性，而非『我』，因為空性和非我與『我』相違背。所以，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第二十九卷說：『我生已盡』，這是指緣取集諦（Samudaya-satya）的四種行相（ākāra）；『梵行已立』，這是指緣取道諦（Mārga-satya）的四種行相；『所作已辦』，這是指緣取滅諦（Nirodha-satya）的四種行相；『不受後有』，這是指緣取苦諦（Duḥkha-satya）的兩種行相，即苦和無常。又《婆沙論》第一百零二卷說：如契經（Sūtra）所說，諸阿羅漢（Arhat）如實自知『我生已盡、梵行已立、所作已辦、不受後有』。這裡，『我生已盡』，實際上，『生』這個名稱顯示了多種含義。或者，『生』這個名稱顯示入母胎；或者，『生』這個名稱顯示出母胎；或者，『生』這個名稱顯示分位五蘊（Pañca-skandha）；或者，『生』這個名稱顯示不相應行蘊（Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra-skandha）的少分；或者，『生』這個名稱顯示非想非非想處（Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana）的四蘊（Catur-skandha）（前四種『生』的解釋如《婆沙論》所述，不能全部引用）。或者，『生』這個名稱顯示非想非非想處的四蘊，如此處所說『我生已盡』。問：這盡的是什麼『生』？是過去（Atīta）的嗎？是未來（Anāgata）的嗎？是現在（Pratyutpanna）的嗎？如果盡的是過去的『生』，過去的『生』已經滅了，何須再盡？如果盡的是未來的『生』，未來的『生』尚未到來，又從何處去盡？如果盡的是現在的『生』，現在的『生』不住留，何須再盡？答：應當這樣說，盡的是三世（Tri-adhvan）的『生』。為什麼這樣說呢？因為這裡『生』這個名稱既然顯示的是非想非非想處的四蘊，諸瑜伽師（Yogācāra）總觀非想非非想處的三世四蘊，遠離對它們的染著，從而使『生』的因果都不能成立。詳細的解釋如《婆沙論》所述。『梵行已立』，指的是無漏行（Anāsrava-mārga）已經確立。問：是學位的梵行（Śaikṣa-brahmacarya）已經確立，還是無學位的梵行（Aśaikṣa-brahmacarya）已經確立呢？答：是學位的梵行已經確立，不是無學位的梵行。為什麼這樣說呢？因為無學位的梵行是現在才開始確立的。『所作已辦』，指的是...

【English Translation】 English version: Even though it is included within the ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya), it still involves the conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya) such as 'My birth is exhausted.' Therefore, in the inner state of contemplation (Vipaśyanā), it is being apart from emptiness (Śūnyatā), not 'self' (Ātman). This refers to the prior cause involving the subsequent effect. That is to say, because in the inner state of contemplation, (afflictions) have ceased and there is no power of arising, so when coming out of contemplation, in the subsequent acquired wisdom (Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna), one speaks like this, 'My birth is exhausted,' etc. Therefore, in the inner state of contemplation, it is being apart from emptiness, not 'self,' because emptiness and non-self are contrary to 'self.' Therefore, the twenty-ninth volume of the Vibhāṣā says: 'My birth is exhausted' refers to the four aspects (ākāra) of contemplating the truth of origination (Samudaya-satya); 'The holy life has been established' refers to the four aspects of contemplating the truth of the path (Mārga-satya); 'What had to be done has been done' refers to the four aspects of contemplating the truth of cessation (Nirodha-satya); 'There is no more coming into existence' refers to the two aspects of contemplating the truth of suffering (Duḥkha-satya), namely suffering and impermanence. Moreover, the one hundred and second volume of the Vibhāṣā says: As the Sūtra says, the Arhats truly know for themselves, 'My birth is exhausted, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming into existence.' Here, 'My birth is exhausted,' in reality, the name 'birth' reveals many meanings. Either the name 'birth' reveals entering the mother's womb; or the name 'birth' reveals exiting the mother's womb; or the name 'birth' reveals the aggregates (Pañca-skandha) in phases; or the name 'birth' reveals a small part of the aggregates disassociated from mind (Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra-skandha); or the name 'birth' reveals the four aggregates (Catur-skandha) of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana) (the explanations of the previous four kinds of 'birth' are as described in the Vibhāṣā, and cannot all be quoted). Or the name 'birth' reveals the four aggregates of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, as it is said here, 'My birth is exhausted.' Question: What 'birth' is exhausted? Is it the past (Atīta)? Is it the future (Anāgata)? Is it the present (Pratyutpanna)? If it is exhausting the past 'birth,' the past 'birth' has already ceased, why exhaust it again? If it is exhausting the future 'birth,' the future 'birth' has not yet arrived, so where is there to exhaust it from? If it is exhausting the present 'birth,' the present 'birth' does not stay, so why exhaust it? Answer: It should be said that it is exhausting the 'birth' of the three times (Tri-adhvan). Why is this said? Because since the name 'birth' here reveals the four aggregates of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, the Yogācāras contemplate the four aggregates of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception in the three times, being apart from their defilements, thereby making the cause and effect of 'birth' unable to be established. The detailed explanation is as described in the Vibhāṣā. 'The holy life has been established' refers to the unpolluted path (Anāsrava-mārga) that has been established. Question: Is it the holy life of the stage of learning (Śaikṣa-brahmacarya) that has been established, or the holy life of the stage of no more learning (Aśaikṣa-brahmacarya) that has been established? Answer: It is the holy life of the stage of learning that has been established, not the holy life of the stage of no more learning. Why is this said? Because the holy life of the stage of no more learning is only now beginning to be established. 'What had to be done has been done' refers to...

一切煩惱皆已斷故。一切所作已究竟故。一切道路已遮塞故。廣如彼釋　不受後有者。尊者妙音作如是說。諸阿羅漢皆無後有故。通說為不受後有。廣如彼釋　又云。問我生已盡乃至不受後有。一一當言是何智耶。有說此中我生已儘是集智。梵行已立是道智。所作已辦是滅智。不受後有是苦智。廣如彼釋。

為有無漏至余說有論故者。此即第二明行攝淨盡。上句述正宗。下句敘異說。

論曰至越此十六者。釋上句。正理七十三云。豈不有說盡無生智必自了知我生盡等。此不相違前已說故。謂前已說無漏觀后。世俗智中作此行相。非無漏智此行相轉。由盡．無生引起俗智。推功于本言彼了知。故許此智離空．非我　又云。若爾既有無漏他心智。應越十六有無漏行相。謂他心智皆以一實自相為境。道等行相皆以聚集共相為境。彼．此既殊。知離十六決定別有無漏行相。非定許故所難不然。謂我所宗。非決定許共相行相但緣聚集。許有受．心二念住故。如觀一受體是非常。此智生時以共相行相。觀一實自相為境極成。如是寧不許無漏他心智。以共相行相緣一實自相。謂知他心是真道等。即緣一實是道等相。若謂應如受心念住總緣三世所有受心。為非常等共相行相。無漏他心智亦總緣三世他無漏心等。為道等行相

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為一切煩惱都已斷除，一切該做的事情都已經完成，一切道路都已被堵塞，正如彼處所解釋的，所以不再承受後有（指輪迴）。尊者妙音如此說道：所有的阿羅漢都沒有後有，所以總的來說他們不再承受後有。正如彼處所解釋的。又說：『問我生已盡，乃至不受後有』，每一個都應當說是哪種智慧呢？有人說，這裡面『我生已盡』是集智（Dukkha-samudaya-ñāṇa，知曉痛苦根源的智慧），『梵行已立』是道智（Magga-ñāṇa，知曉解脫之道的智慧），『所作已辦』是滅智（Nirodha-ñāṇa，知曉寂滅的智慧），『不受後有』是苦智（Dukkha-ñāṇa，知曉痛苦的智慧）。正如彼處所解釋的。

『爲了有無漏智，乃至其他人說有論』，這實際上是第二種明行攝淨盡。上句陳述了正宗，下句敘述了不同的說法。

論曰：『乃至超過這十六種』，解釋了上句。正理七十三說：『難道不是有人說，盡智（khaye-ñāṇa，知曉煩惱已盡的智慧）和無生智（anuppāda-ñāṇa，知曉不再產生煩惱的智慧）必定自己了知我生已盡等等嗎？』這與前面所說的並不矛盾，因為前面已經說過，在無漏觀之後，世俗智中會產生這種行相。並非無漏智會產生這種行相的轉變，而是由盡智和無生智引起世俗智，將功勞歸於根本，說他們了知。所以允許這種智慧離開空性和非我。又說：『如果這樣，既然有無漏他心智（paracitta-ñāṇa，知曉他人內心的智慧），就應該超過十六種無漏行相。』因為他心智都是以一個真實的自相為境界，而道等行相都是以聚集的共相為境界。彼和此既然不同，就知道除了十六種之外，必定還有其他的無漏行相。因為不是一定允許的，所以所提出的問題不成立。因為我所宗的，不是一定允許共相行相只緣聚集，允許有受念住（vedanānupassanā，對感受的觀照）和心念住（cittānupassanā，對心念的觀照）的緣故。例如觀察一個感受的本體是非常的，這種智慧產生時，以共相行相，觀察一個真實的自相為境界，這是極其確定的。這樣，為什麼不允許無漏他心智，以共相行相緣一個真實的自相呢？也就是說，知道他人的心是真道等，就是緣一個真實的是道等相。如果說應該像受心念住那樣，總緣三世所有的受心，作為非常等共相行相，無漏他心智也應該總緣三世他人的無漏心等，作為道等行相。

【English Translation】 English version: Because all afflictions have been severed, all that needs to be done has been completed, and all paths have been blocked, as explained there, therefore, one no longer undergoes future existence (referring to rebirth). Venerable Myoyin said: All Arhats have no future existence, so generally speaking, they no longer undergo future existence. As explained there. It is also said: 'Question: 'My birth is exhausted, up to no longer undergoing future existence,' what kind of wisdom should each be said to be?' Some say that in this, 'My birth is exhausted' is Dukkha-samudaya-ñāṇa (wisdom of knowing the origin of suffering), 'The holy life has been established' is Magga-ñāṇa (wisdom of knowing the path to liberation), 'What needs to be done has been done' is Nirodha-ñāṇa (wisdom of knowing cessation), 'No longer undergoing future existence' is Dukkha-ñāṇa (wisdom of knowing suffering). As explained there.

'In order to have undefiled wisdom, up to others saying there is a theory,' this is actually the second kind of pure exhaustion of clear conduct. The first sentence states the orthodox view, and the second sentence describes different views.

The treatise says: 'Up to exceeding these sixteen,' explains the first sentence. Zhengli seventy-three says: 'Isn't it said that the wisdom of exhaustion (khaye-ñāṇa, wisdom of knowing the exhaustion of afflictions) and the wisdom of non-arising (anuppāda-ñāṇa, wisdom of knowing the non-arising of afflictions) must know for themselves that my birth is exhausted, etc.?' This does not contradict what was said earlier, because it has been said before that after undefiled contemplation, this kind of characteristic arises in worldly wisdom. It is not that undefiled wisdom produces this kind of characteristic transformation, but rather that worldly wisdom is caused by the wisdom of exhaustion and the wisdom of non-arising, attributing the merit to the root, saying that they know. Therefore, this wisdom is allowed to be apart from emptiness and non-self. It is also said: 'If so, since there is undefiled telepathy (paracitta-ñāṇa, wisdom of knowing the minds of others), it should exceed the sixteen undefiled characteristics.' Because telepathy is all based on one real self-characteristic as its object, while the characteristics of the path, etc., are all based on the common characteristics of aggregation as their object. Since they are different, it is known that in addition to the sixteen, there must be other undefiled characteristics. Because it is not necessarily allowed, the question raised is not valid. Because what I uphold is not necessarily allowing common characteristics to only be related to aggregation, allowing the mindfulness of feeling (vedanānupassanā, contemplation of feelings) and the mindfulness of mind (cittānupassanā, contemplation of mind) for this reason. For example, observing that the substance of a feeling is impermanent, when this wisdom arises, it observes a real self-characteristic as its object with common characteristics, which is extremely certain. In this way, why not allow undefiled telepathy to be related to a real self-characteristic with common characteristics? That is to say, knowing that the minds of others are the true path, etc., is related to a real one that is the characteristic of the path, etc. If it is said that it should be like the mindfulness of feeling and mind, generally related to all feelings and minds of the three times, as impermanent and other common characteristics, undefiled telepathy should also generally be related to the undefiled minds of others in the three times, as the characteristics of the path, etc.

。便違自宗他心智起唯緣現在一實自相。此亦不然。加行異故。此智加行為欲知他現能緣心有貪等別。修非常等念住加行為總厭背諸有漏法。由前加行勢力有殊。至成滿時現總緣別。是故無有應相例過。若謂非常非受自體故。應觀受為非常時。非緣一實自相為境。寧可引此喻他心智。則彼應許受非非常。不應于受起非常觀。如受與心其體各別。必定無有觀受為心。雖即觀受以為非常。而無一物有多體過。領納非常體無別故。如損．益等非離領納所餘行相。余法亦然(已上論文)。

外國師說至越於十六者。此下釋下句外國師即是西方沙門。此敘異說。

云何知然者。迦濕彌羅問。

由本論故至故釋非理者。外國師答。由本論故。即是識身足論。如本論說。頗有無漏不繫心能了別欲界系法耶。答曰能了別。謂非常等八種行相。及有是處。處是稱合道理相容受義。及有是事。事謂事用。此十皆名如理所引了別。本論既離八行相。外別說有是處．有是事是不繫心。故知離十六行相。外別有無漏心。汝迦濕彌羅。若謂彼文不為顯示不繫心了別欲界系法時。除前所明八行相。外別有有是處。有是事行相。但為顯示不繫之心作八行相。緣欲界系法。斯有是處。斯有是事。前八別說。后二總結。無別體性。此釋不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果說因為違背了自宗，他心智只能緣取現在的真實自相，這也是不對的。因為加行不同。這種智慧的加行是爲了知曉他人現在能緣的心中是否有貪等差別，而修習非常等念住的加行是爲了總體厭背各種有漏法。由於之前的加行勢力不同，到了成就圓滿時，就顯現出總體緣取差別。因此，沒有可以類比的過失。如果說因為非常不是受的自體，所以在觀察受為非常時，不應該緣取真實自相為境。怎麼能用這個來比喻他心智呢？那麼他們應該承認受不是非常，不應該對受生起非常觀。就像受和心，它們的體性各自不同，必定沒有觀察受為心的情況。即使是觀察受為非常，也沒有一個事物有多個體性的過失，因為領納非常，體性沒有差別。就像損害、利益等，不是脫離領納之外的其他行相，其他法也是這樣（以上是論文內容）。

外國師說到超過十六種行相，下面解釋下句。外國師就是西方的沙門。這是敘述不同的說法。

『怎麼知道是這樣呢？』迦濕彌羅人問道。

『因為本論的緣故……所以解釋不合理。』外國師回答。因為本論的緣故，就是《識身足論》。如本論所說：『有沒有無漏不繫的心能夠了別欲界系法呢？』回答說：『能夠了別。』就是非常等八種行相，以及『有是處』。『處』是稱合道理、可以容受的意思。以及『有是事』，『事』是指事用。這十種都叫做如理所引的了別。本論既然在八種行相之外，另外說有『有是處』、『有是事』是不繫心，所以知道在十六種行相之外，另外有無漏心。你們迦濕彌羅人，如果說那段經文不是爲了顯示不繫心了別欲界系法時，除了前面所說的八種行相之外，另外有『有是處』、『有是事』的行相，只是爲了顯示不繫的心作八種行相，緣取欲界系法，有『有是處』，有『有是事』，前面八種是分別說明，後面兩種是總結，沒有別的體性。這種解釋不合理。

【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that because it violates its own tenets, the other-minds wisdom (他心智) can only cognize the present real self-nature, this is also incorrect. Because the preliminary practices (加行) are different. The preliminary practice of this wisdom is to know whether there are distinctions such as greed in the minds that others can presently cognize, while the preliminary practice of cultivating the mindfulness of impermanence (非常) etc. is to generally detest all conditioned dharmas (有漏法). Because the power of the previous preliminary practices is different, when it reaches completion, it manifests as generally cognizing distinctions. Therefore, there is no fault of analogy. If it is said that because impermanence (非常) is not the self-nature of feeling (受), therefore, when observing feeling as impermanent, one should not take the real self-nature as the object. How can this be used to compare with other-minds wisdom? Then they should admit that feeling is not impermanent, and one should not generate the view of impermanence towards feeling. Just like feeling and mind, their natures are different, and there is definitely no situation of observing feeling as mind. Even if one observes feeling as impermanent, there is no fault of one thing having multiple natures, because the nature of experiencing impermanence is not different. Just like harm, benefit, etc., are not other aspects apart from experiencing, other dharmas are also like this (the above is the content of the treatise).

The foreign teacher (外國師) speaks of exceeding sixteen aspects; the following explains the next sentence. The foreign teacher is the Shramana (沙門) from the West. This narrates different views.

'How do you know this is so?' asked the Kashmira (迦濕彌羅) person.

'Because of the original treatise... therefore the explanation is unreasonable,' replied the foreign teacher. Because of the original treatise, which is the Vijñānakāyaśāstra (識身足論). As the original treatise says: 'Is there a non-outflow (無漏), unattached (不繫) mind that can discern dharmas attached to the desire realm (欲界系法)?' The answer is: 'It can discern.' That is, the eight aspects such as impermanence (非常), etc., and 'there is a place' (有是處). 'Place' means conforming to reason, capable of being accommodated. And 'there is a matter' (有是事), 'matter' refers to the function of the matter. These ten are all called discernment led by reason. Since the original treatise separately states 'there is a place' and 'there is a matter' as unattached minds apart from the eight aspects, it is known that there is a non-outflow mind apart from the sixteen aspects. You Kashmira people, if you say that the passage is not to show that the unattached mind discerns dharmas attached to the desire realm, but that apart from the eight aspects mentioned earlier, there are the aspects of 'there is a place' and 'there is a matter', it is only to show that the unattached mind makes eight aspects, cognizing dharmas attached to the desire realm, there is 'there is a place', there is 'there is a matter', the first eight are explained separately, and the last two are summarized, without a separate nature. This explanation is unreasonable.

然。本論余文無此說故。謂若本論依此意說。應于本論余處文中。亦說此言。有是處。有是事。總結前文。然彼余文但作是說。頗有見斷心能了別欲界系法耶。答能了別。謂我故。我所故。是有身見。斷故。常故。是邊執見。無因故。無作故。損減故。是邪見。或無因故集下邪見。無作故道下邪見。損減故苦滅下邪見。或無因故謗因邪見。無作故謗果邪見。損減故謗因果邪見。尊故．勝故．上故．第一故是見取。或尊故苦下見取。勝故集下見取。上故滅下見取。第一故道下見取。或尊故計勝預流。勝故計勝一來。上故計勝不還。第一故計勝應果。能清凈故。能解脫故．能出離故是戒禁取。能清凈欲界。能解脫色界。能出離無色界。或能清凈煩惱障。能解脫業障。能出離異熟障。惑故．疑故．猶豫故．是疑　又解惑是欲界。疑是色界。猶豫是無色界。又解惑佛。疑法。猶預僧。及．貪．嗔慢。並癡隨眠不如理所引了別。此等亦應說有是處有是事言。見斷心后既無結言。故迦濕彌羅前解非理。

十六行相至所行諸有法者。此即第三明實體能所。一問十六行相實事有幾。二問何謂行相。三問能行。四問所行　頌中四句如其次第答前四問。

論曰至名四實一者。此下釋第一句。此敘異說是不正義。有餘師說。十六

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不然。因為在本論的其他部分沒有這樣的說法。意思是說，如果本論是按照這個意思說的，那麼應該在本論的其他地方也提到這些話。『有是處，有是事』，這是總結前文。然而，本論的其他部分只是這樣說：『有沒有見斷心能夠了別欲界系的法呢？』回答是『能夠了別』。因為『我』的緣故，『我所』的緣故，這是有身見。因為『斷』的緣故，『常』的緣故，這是邊執見。因為『無因』的緣故，『無作』的緣故，『損減』的緣故，這是邪見。或者因為『無因』的緣故，是集下的邪見；因為『無作』的緣故，是道下的邪見；因為『損減』的緣故，是苦滅下的邪見。或者因為『無因』的緣故，是謗因的邪見；因為『無作』的緣故，是謗果的邪見；因為『損減』的緣故，是謗因果的邪見。因為『尊』的緣故，『勝』的緣故，『上』的緣故，『第一』的緣故，這是見取。或者因為『尊』的緣故，是苦下的見取；因為『勝』的緣故，是集下的見取；因為『上』的緣故，是滅下的見取；因為『第一』的緣故，是道下的見取。或者因為『尊』的緣故，計為勝過預流(Srotapanna，入流者)；因為『勝』的緣故，計為勝過一來(Sakrdagamin，一來果)；因為『上』的緣故，計為勝過不還(Anagamin，不還果)；因為『第一』的緣故，計為勝過應果(Arhat，阿羅漢)。因為『能清凈』的緣故，『能解脫』的緣故，『能出離』的緣故，這是戒禁取。能清凈欲界，能解脫（此處原文缺失），能出離無（此處原文缺失）。或者能清凈煩惱障，能解脫業障，能出離異熟障。因為『惑』的緣故，『疑』的緣故，『猶豫』的緣故，這是疑。又解釋為，『惑』是欲界，『疑』是（此處原文缺失），『猶豫』是無（此處原文缺失）。又解釋為，『惑』是佛，『疑』是法，『猶豫』是僧。以及貪、嗔、慢，並癡隨眠，不如理所引起的了別。這些也應該說『有是處，有是事』這樣的話。見斷心之後既然沒有結的說法，所以迦濕彌羅(Kashmir)之前的解釋是不合理的。

從十六行相到所行諸有法，這部分內容是第三部分，說明實體能所。第一問：十六行相實事有幾個？第二問：什麼是行相？第三問：什麼是能行？第四問：什麼是所行？頌中的四句依次回答前面的四個問題。

論曰到名四實一者，這部分是解釋第一句。這裡敘述不同的說法，是不正確的。有其他老師說，十六行相...

【English Translation】 English version: No. Because there is no such statement in the rest of this treatise. It means that if this treatise were saying it according to this meaning, then these words should also be mentioned in other parts of this treatise. 'There is a place, there is a thing,' this is a summary of the previous text. However, the rest of this treatise only says this: 'Is there a mind severed by view that can discern the dharmas of the desire realm?' The answer is 'It can discern.' Because of 'self,' because of 'what belongs to self,' this is the view of a real self (satkayadristi). Because of 'cessation,' because of 'permanence,' this is the extreme view (antagrahadristi). Because of 'no cause,' because of 'no maker,' because of 'diminution,' this is the wrong view (mithyadristi). Or because of 'no cause,' it is the wrong view under the origin (samudaya); because of 'no maker,' it is the wrong view under the path (marga); because of 'diminution,' it is the wrong view under the cessation of suffering (nirodha). Or because of 'no cause,' it is the wrong view of denying cause; because of 'no maker,' it is the wrong view of denying effect; because of 'diminution,' it is the wrong view of denying cause and effect. Because of 'honorable,' because of 'superior,' because of 'supreme,' because of 'first,' this is view of holding (dristiparamarsa). Or because of 'honorable,' it is the view of holding under suffering (duhkha); because of 'superior,' it is the view of holding under origin; because of 'supreme,' it is the view of holding under cessation; because of 'first,' it is the view of holding under the path. Or because of 'honorable,' it is considered superior to a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna); because of 'superior,' it is considered superior to a Once-returner (Sakrdagamin); because of 'supreme,' it is considered superior to a Non-returner (Anagamin); because of 'first,' it is considered superior to an Arhat. Because of 'being able to purify,' because of 'being able to liberate,' because of 'being able to deliver,' this is the adherence to rules and vows (silavrataparamarsa). Being able to purify the desire realm, being able to liberate , being able to deliver from no . Or being able to purify the obstacle of afflictions, being able to liberate from the obstacle of karma, being able to deliver from the obstacle of different maturation. Because of 'confusion,' because of 'doubt,' because of 'hesitation,' this is doubt (vicikitsa). Also explained as, 'confusion' is the desire realm, 'doubt' is , 'hesitation' is no . Also explained as, 'confusion' is the Buddha, 'doubt' is the Dharma, 'hesitation' is the Sangha. As well as greed, hatred, pride, and ignorance latent tendencies, the discernment caused by irrationality. These should also be said to have 'there is a place, there is a thing.' Since there is no mention of fetters after the mind severed by view, the previous explanation of Kashmir is unreasonable.

From the sixteen aspects to the dharmas of all existences, this part is the third part, explaining the entity, the able, and the object. First question: How many real events are there in the sixteen aspects? Second question: What are the aspects? Third question: What is the able? Fourth question: What is the object? The four sentences in the verse answer the previous four questions in order.

The treatise says to the name of four real ones, this part is to explain the first sentence. Here, narrating different statements is incorrect. Some other teachers say that the sixteen aspects...

行相。名雖十六實事唯七。謂緣苦諦四種行相。治四倒故名．實俱四。緣餘三諦四種行相。非治倒故名雖有四實事唯一。故婆沙七十九云。問何故緣苦有四行相。名有四種實體亦四。緣餘三諦而不爾耶。答緣苦諦行相是四顛倒近對治故。如四顛倒名．體各四。緣餘三諦所起行相。非四顛倒近對治故。名雖有四實體唯一。

如是說者至永超故出者。此是正義。如是說者。實亦十六。總有四番釋十六相。此即初番。苦諦有四相。待眾緣生故非常。遷流逼迫性故苦。違我所見故空。違我見故非我。集諦有四相。猶如種子生芽道理故因。能等現果理故集。令果相續理故生。能成辨果理故緣。喻況可知。滅諦有四相。諸有漏蘊斷盡故滅。貪．瞋．癡三火息故靜。體無眾患故妙。解脫眾災橫故離。道諦有四相。通眾聖行義故道。契合正理故如。正趣向涅槃故行。能永超生死故出。

又非究竟故至有故出者。第二番釋。非是究竟涅槃常故非常。有漏行法如人荷重檐故苦。五蘊內離士夫我故空。體非自在故非我。牽引果義故因能出現果義故集。滋產果義故生。能與果為依義故緣。滅性不相續。令諸三有相續斷故滅。故婆沙云。性不相續盡諸相續故名為滅。離生．異．滅三有為相故靜。涅槃善．常。四種善中勝義善故妙。至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：行相（Xingxiang，佛教術語，指事物的表現形式或特徵）。名義上雖有十六種，但實際上只有七種。這是指緣于苦諦（Dukha Satya，佛教四聖諦之一，指人生的痛苦本質）的四種行相。因為它們能對治四種顛倒（Si Dian Dao，佛教術語，指凡夫對事物真相的四種錯誤認知），所以名義和實體都是四種。緣于其餘三諦（指集諦、滅諦、道諦）的四種行相，因為不能對治顛倒，所以名義上雖有四種，但實際上只有一種。因此，《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa，佛教論書）第七十九卷說：『問：為什麼緣于苦諦有四種行相，名義有四種，實體也有四種？緣于其餘三諦卻不是這樣呢？答：因為緣于苦諦的行相是四種顛倒的直接對治。就像四種顛倒，名義和實體各有四種。緣于其餘三諦所產生的行相，不是四種顛倒的直接對治，所以名義上雖有四種，實體只有一種。』如此說來，直到『能永遠超越生死』才算完整。這是正確的解釋。如此說來，實際上也有十六種。總共有四種解釋十六相的方法。這便是第一種。苦諦有四種相：依賴眾多因緣而生，所以是無常（Anitya）；遷流變化，逼迫身心，所以是苦（Dukha）；違揹我所的見解，所以是空（Sunyata）；違揹我的見解，所以是非我（Anatma）。集諦（Samudaya Satya，佛教四聖諦之一，指痛苦的根源）有四種相：猶如種子產生幼芽的道理，所以是因（Hetu）；能夠平等地顯現果報的道理，所以是集（Samudaya）；使果報相續不斷的道理，所以是生（Prabhava）；能夠成就果報的道理，所以是緣（Pratyaya）。比喻的情況可以類推得知。滅諦（Nirodha Satya，佛教四聖諦之一，指滅除痛苦的境界）有四種相：各種有漏蘊（指色、受、想、行、識五蘊，是有煩惱和業力的）斷盡，所以是滅（Nirodha）；貪、嗔、癡（Tanha, Dosa, Moha，佛教三毒）三火熄滅，所以是靜（Santa）；本體沒有各種禍患，所以是妙（Pranita）；解脫各種災難橫禍，所以是離（Nihsarana）。道諦（Marga Satya，佛教四聖諦之一，指通往滅苦的道路）有四種相：通達各種聖賢的修行，所以是道（Marga）；與正理契合，所以是如（Nyaya）；正確地趨向涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫的境界），所以是行（Pratipada）；能夠永遠超越生死，所以是出（Niryana）。另外，從『不是究竟』到『有，所以是出』是第二種解釋。不是究竟的涅槃，因為是常，所以是無常。有漏的修行就像人挑著重擔，所以是苦。五蘊內在遠離士夫我，所以是空。本體不是自在的，所以是非我。牽引果報的意義，所以是因；能夠出現果報的意義，所以是集；滋養產生果報的意義，所以是生；能夠給果報提供依靠的意義，所以是緣。滅的性質是不相續的，使各種三有（指欲有、色有、無色有，是輪迴的三個領域）相續斷絕，所以是滅。因此，《大毗婆沙論》說：『性質不相續，窮盡各種相續，所以叫做滅。』遠離生、異、滅三種有為相，所以是靜。涅槃是善、常。在四種善中，是殊勝的意義上的善，所以是妙。到達

【English Translation】 English version: 行相 (Xingxiang, Buddhist term referring to the appearance or characteristics of things). Although there are sixteen in name, there are actually only seven. This refers to the four aspects associated with the Truth of Suffering (Dukha Satya, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the essence of suffering in life). Because they can counteract the four inversions (Si Dian Dao, Buddhist term referring to the four erroneous perceptions of ordinary people about the truth of things), both the name and the substance are four. The four aspects associated with the remaining three truths (referring to the Truth of Origin, the Truth of Cessation, and the Truth of the Path), because they cannot counteract the inversions, although there are four in name, there is actually only one in substance. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) Volume 79 says: 'Question: Why are there four aspects associated with the Truth of Suffering, with four names and four substances? Why is it not so with the remaining three truths? Answer: Because the aspects associated with the Truth of Suffering are the direct counteractions to the four inversions. Just like the four inversions, each has four names and four substances. The aspects arising from the remaining three truths are not direct counteractions to the four inversions, so although there are four in name, there is only one in substance.' As such, it is complete until 'able to transcend birth and death forever.' This is the correct explanation. As such, there are actually sixteen. There are a total of four ways to explain the sixteen aspects. This is the first. The Truth of Suffering has four aspects: it arises dependent on numerous conditions, so it is impermanent (Anitya); it is constantly changing and pressing on the body and mind, so it is suffering (Dukha); it contradicts the view of 'what is mine,' so it is emptiness (Sunyata); it contradicts the view of 'I,' so it is non-self (Anatma). The Truth of Origin (Samudaya Satya, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the root of suffering) has four aspects: like the principle of a seed producing a sprout, so it is cause (Hetu); it can equally manifest the result, so it is accumulation (Samudaya); it makes the result continue, so it is arising (Prabhava); it can accomplish the result, so it is condition (Pratyaya). The metaphorical situation can be inferred. The Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the state of eliminating suffering) has four aspects: the various contaminated aggregates (referring to the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, which are with afflictions and karma) are completely extinguished, so it is cessation (Nirodha); the three fires of greed, hatred, and delusion (Tanha, Dosa, Moha, the three poisons in Buddhism) are extinguished, so it is tranquility (Santa); the essence has no various misfortunes, so it is wonderful (Pranita); it is liberated from various disasters and misfortunes, so it is detachment (Nihsarana). The Truth of the Path (Marga Satya, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the path to the cessation of suffering) has four aspects: it penetrates the practices of various sages, so it is path (Marga); it is in accordance with the correct principle, so it is accordance (Nyaya); it correctly tends towards Nirvana (Buddhist term referring to the state of liberation), so it is practice (Pratipada); it can transcend birth and death forever, so it is exit (Niryana). In addition, from 'not ultimate' to 'exists, therefore it is exit' is the second explanation. It is not the ultimate Nirvana, because it is constant, so it is impermanent. Contaminated practice is like a person carrying a heavy burden, so it is suffering. The five aggregates are internally separated from the self, so it is emptiness. The essence is not independent, so it is non-self. It leads to the result, so it is cause; it can manifest the result, so it is accumulation; it nourishes and produces the result, so it is arising; it can provide reliance for the result, so it is condition. The nature of cessation is non-continuous, causing the various three realms of existence (referring to the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm, which are the three realms of reincarnation) to be cut off, so it is cessation. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa says: 'The nature is non-continuous, exhausting various continuations, so it is called cessation.' It is far from the three conditioned characteristics of arising, change, and cessation, so it is tranquility. Nirvana is good and constant. Among the four kinds of goodness, it is goodness in the ultimate sense, so it is wonderful. Reaching

此涅槃得極安穩故離。治外道．邪道故道。治不如理故如。趣入涅槃宮故行。棄捨一切三有故出　問四諦各有四行相。何故各一行標名　解云婆沙七十九云。複次苦相不共。唯有漏法是苦非余故名苦諦。非常等三是余共相。謂非常相三諦皆有。空．非我相遍一切法。故此不名非常等諦。複次集相但于有漏法有。招集生死非無漏故。因．生．緣相無漏亦有。聖道亦名因．生．緣故。集不共故立以諦名。是故世尊但名集諦。複次滅名不共故立諦名。滅名唯顯究竟滅故。靜名濫定。妙．離濫道。故不名為靜妙離諦。複次道名唯顯趣涅槃路故立諦名。如濫正理。行通有漏。出通涅槃。故此不名如．行．出諦。廣如彼說。

如是古釋至非我者。論主言。如是古釋既非一門故隨所樂。又作后兩解。此即第三番釋。體生滅故非常。有漏之法違聖心故苦。於此蘊中無我故空如舍中無人。即蘊自體非我故非我。如言即舍非人。

因．集．生．緣至與論為異者。論主述經部解。集諦四行相。因．集．生．緣。如經所釋。諸五取蘊以貪慾為根。根能生長即因義也。以貪慾為集。集能集起果也。以貪慾為類。類謂種類即眾緣也。以貪慾為生。生即能生果也。於此四中唯說生聲。應知在緣后說。與論為異。以論說生為第三故。因．集

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此涅槃（Nirvana，指解脫的境界）因獲得極度的安穩而被稱為『離』（指遠離煩惱）。因為能糾正外道和邪道，所以被稱為『道』（指正道）。因為能糾正不如理的觀念，所以被稱為『如』（指真如）。因為能引導進入涅槃的宮殿，所以被稱為『行』（指修行）。因為能捨棄一切三有（指欲有、色有、無色有），所以被稱為『出』（指出離）。問：四諦（指苦、集、滅、道四聖諦）各有四種行相（指對四諦的不同理解和體驗），為什麼每個諦只用一個行相來標明名稱？答：婆沙論第七十九卷中說：再者，苦相是不共的，只有有漏法（指有煩惱的法）才是苦，其他的不是，所以稱為苦諦。非常等三種行相是其餘的共相，例如非常相在三諦中都有，空和非我相遍及一切法。因此，不以非常等作為諦的名稱。再者，集相只在有漏法中才有，能招集生死輪迴，無漏法（指沒有煩惱的法）沒有這種作用。因、生、緣相無漏法也有，聖道（指通往解脫的道路）也可以稱為因、生、緣。集是不共的，所以用它來立為諦名。因此，世尊只說了集諦。再者，滅的名稱是不共的，所以用它來立為諦名。滅的名稱只顯示究竟的寂滅。靜容易與禪定混淆，妙和離容易與道混淆。因此，不稱為靜諦、妙諦或離諦。再者，道的名稱只顯示通往涅槃的道路，所以用它來立為諦名。如容易與正理混淆，行可以通往有漏法，出可以通往涅槃。因此，不稱為如諦、行諦或出諦。詳細的解釋可以參考《婆沙論》。像這樣，古老的解釋說到『非我』。論主說：像這樣的古老解釋不是唯一的途徑，所以可以隨自己的喜好選擇。又作了後面的兩種解釋。這實際上是第三種解釋。因為自體生滅變化，所以是『非常』。因為有漏之法違背聖人的心意，所以是『苦』。因為在這個五蘊（指色、受、想、行、識五蘊）中沒有『我』，所以是『空』，就像房屋中沒有人一樣。五蘊的自體不是『我』，所以是『非我』，就像說房屋不是人一樣。關於因、集、生、緣與論典不同的地方，論主闡述了經部的解釋。集諦的四種行相是因、集、生、緣，如經文所解釋的。諸五取蘊（指以貪慾為根源的五蘊）以貪慾為根本。根本能夠生長，這就是『因』的含義。以貪慾為『集』，集能夠聚集產生果報。以貪慾為『類』，類指的是種類，也就是眾緣。以貪慾為『生』，生就是能夠產生果報。在這四種行相中，只說了『生』這個詞，應該知道它是在『緣』之後說的，這與論典不同，因為論典說『生』是第三個行相。因、集

【English Translation】 English version: This Nirvana (Nirvana, referring to the state of liberation) is called 'cessation' because it attains supreme peace and stability (cessation means being away from afflictions). Because it can correct external and heretical paths, it is called 'path' (referring to the right path). Because it can correct irrational views, it is called 'suchness' (referring to true suchness). Because it can guide one into the palace of Nirvana, it is called 'practice' (referring to cultivation). Because it can abandon all three realms of existence (referring to the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm), it is called 'escape' (referring to liberation). Question: The Four Noble Truths (referring to the truths of suffering, origination, cessation, and path) each have four aspects (referring to different understandings and experiences of the Four Noble Truths). Why is only one aspect used to name each truth? Answer: The Vibhasa Shastra, volume 79, says: Furthermore, the aspect of suffering is unique. Only defiled dharmas (dharmas with afflictions) are suffering, and others are not. Therefore, it is called the Truth of Suffering. The three aspects of impermanence, etc., are common aspects. For example, the aspect of impermanence is present in all three truths. The aspects of emptiness and non-self pervade all dharmas. Therefore, impermanence, etc., are not used as the names of the truths. Furthermore, the aspect of origination is only present in defiled dharmas, which can gather and produce the cycle of birth and death. Undefiled dharmas (dharmas without afflictions) do not have this function. The aspects of cause, arising, and condition are also present in undefiled dharmas. The Noble Path (referring to the path to liberation) can also be called cause, arising, and condition. Origination is unique, so it is used to establish the name of the truth. Therefore, the World Honored One only spoke of the Truth of Origination. Furthermore, the name of cessation is unique, so it is used to establish the name of the truth. The name of cessation only reveals ultimate extinction. Tranquility is easily confused with samadhi (meditative concentration). Sublimity and detachment are easily confused with the path. Therefore, it is not called the Truth of Tranquility, the Truth of Sublimity, or the Truth of Detachment. Furthermore, the name of path only reveals the road to Nirvana, so it is used to establish the name of the truth. Suchness is easily confused with right reasoning. Practice can lead to defiled dharmas, and escape can lead to Nirvana. Therefore, it is not called the Truth of Suchness, the Truth of Practice, or the Truth of Escape. A detailed explanation can be found in the Vibhasa Shastra. Like this, the ancient explanation speaks of 'non-self.' The master of the treatise says: Like this ancient explanation is not the only way, so one can choose according to one's preference. He also made the following two explanations. This is actually the third explanation. Because the self arises and ceases, it is 'impermanent.' Because defiled dharmas go against the minds of the sages, they are 'suffering.' Because there is no 'self' in these five aggregates (referring to the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), they are 'empty,' like a house with no one in it. The self-nature of the five aggregates is not 'self,' so it is 'non-self,' just like saying the house is not a person. Regarding the differences between cause, origination, arising, and condition and the treatises, the master of the treatise explains the explanation of the Sutra school. The four aspects of the Truth of Origination are cause, origination, arising, and condition, as explained in the sutras. The five aggregates of grasping (referring to the five aggregates rooted in desire) have desire as their root. The root can grow, and this is the meaning of 'cause.' With desire as 'origination,' origination can gather and produce karmic results. With desire as 'category,' category refers to types, which are the various conditions. With desire as 'arising,' arising is what can produce karmic results. Among these four aspects, only the word 'arising' is mentioned. It should be known that it is said after 'condition,' which is different from the treatises, because the treatises say that 'arising' is the third aspect. Cause, origination

．生．緣皆貪慾為體。

此四體相差別云何者。問。

由隨位別至如華蕊于果者。經部答。由隨分位差別不同。四貪慾異。一執現總我起總自體欲。謂諸有情于最初位。執現五蘊總計為我。起總自體貪慾。二執當總我起總後有欲。謂諸有情次於后位。執當來五蘊總計為我。起總後有貪慾。三執當別我起別後有欲。謂諸有情次於后位。執當來五蘊別計為我。起別後有貪慾。或計四天王天。或計三十三天等名當別我。四執續生我起續生時欲。謂諸有情次於后位。執彼當來中有五蘊。為續生我起續生時貪慾　又解執彼當來生有初位續生時我。起續生時貪慾　又解中．生二種俱名續生我。于當中．生起續生時貪慾。或執造業我起造業時欲。謂諸有情執此現在造當業我。起造業時貪慾以為第四。次別配釋云　第一執現總我起慾望于苦果是初因故。說名為因。猶如種子遠望于果。即是經中以欲為根　第二執當總我起欲。望于苦果漸近等招集故。說名為集。如芽．莖等於果漸近。即是經中以欲為集　第三執當別我起欲。望于苦果為別緣故。說名為緣。猶如田等於所生果。謂由田．水．糞等力故。令所生果味有甘等。勢力差別。熟變不同德用別生。除饑．渴等名為德也。即是經中以欲為類　第四執續生我起欲。或執造業我

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生的因緣都以貪慾為本體。

這四種本體的差別是什麼呢？（問）

由於隨順不同階段的差別，以至於像花蕊對於果實一樣。（經部答）由於隨順分位，差別不同，四種貪慾也不同。第一種是執著現在的總體之我，生起總體的自體之慾。這是說，諸有情在最初的階段，執著現在的五蘊總合起來作為我，生起總體的自體貪慾。第二種是執著將來的總體之我，生起總體的後有之慾。這是說，諸有情在隨後的階段，執著將來的五蘊總合起來作為我，生起總體的後有貪慾。第三種是執著將來的個別之我，生起個別的後有之慾。這是說，諸有情在隨後的階段，執著將來的五蘊分別地作為我，生起個別的後有貪慾。或者計度四天王天（Catummaharajika-deva，四大天王所居住的天界），或者計度三十三天（Tavatimsa，帝釋天所居住的天界）等，名為將來的個別之我。第四種是執著延續生命的之我，生起延續生命時的慾望。這是說，諸有情在隨後的階段，執著那將來的中陰（Antarabhava，死亡到投胎之間的過渡期）五蘊，作為延續生命的之我，生起延續生命時的貪慾。又解釋為，執著那將來的生有（Upapattibhava，投生時的存在）最初階段延續生命時的我，生起延續生命時的貪慾。又解釋為，中陰和生有這兩種都名為延續生命的之我，對於中陰和生有生起延續生命時的貪慾。或者執著造業的我，生起造業時的慾望。這是說，諸有情執著這現在造將來業的我，生起造業時的貪慾，作為第四種。

接下來分別配合解釋：第一種，執著現在的總體之我，生起慾望，對於苦果是最初的因，所以說名為因。猶如種子遙望果實。這就是經中所說的以欲為根。第二種，執著將來的總體之我，生起慾望，對於苦果逐漸接近，等同於招集，所以說名為集。如芽、莖等對於果實逐漸接近。這就是經中所說的以欲為集。第三種，執著將來的個別之我，生起慾望，對於苦果是特別的因緣，所以說名為緣。猶如田地等對於所生的果實。這是說，由於田地、水、糞等的力量，使得所生的果實味道有甘甜等，勢力差別，成熟變化不同，德用分別產生，解除飢渴等名為德。這就是經中所說的以欲為類。第四種，執著延續生命的之我，生起慾望，或者執著造業的我

【English Translation】 English version: The origin of birth is all based on craving.

What are the differences in these four aspects? (Question)

Due to the differences in stages, it is like the flower bud to the fruit. (Reply from the Sautrantika school) Due to the differences in the divisions and positions, the four types of craving are different. The first is grasping the present general 'I' (Atman), giving rise to the desire for the general self. This means that sentient beings, in the initial stage, grasp the present five aggregates (Skandhas) as a whole and consider them as 'I', giving rise to the general craving for the self. The second is grasping the future general 'I', giving rise to the desire for the general future existence. This means that sentient beings, in the subsequent stage, grasp the future five aggregates as a whole and consider them as 'I', giving rise to the general craving for future existence. The third is grasping the future individual 'I', giving rise to the desire for individual future existence. This means that sentient beings, in the subsequent stage, grasp the future five aggregates individually as 'I', giving rise to the individual craving for future existence. Or they may consider the Heaven of the Four Great Kings (Catummaharajika-deva, the heaven where the Four Heavenly Kings reside), or the Heaven of the Thirty-three (Tavatimsa, the heaven where Indra resides), etc., as the future individual 'I'. The fourth is grasping the 'I' that continues life, giving rise to the desire at the time of continued life. This means that sentient beings, in the subsequent stage, grasp the future intermediate state (Antarabhava, the transitional period between death and rebirth) five aggregates as the 'I' that continues life, giving rise to craving at the time of continued life. Another explanation is grasping the 'I' at the initial stage of future existence (Upapattibhava, the existence at the time of rebirth) that continues life, giving rise to craving at the time of continued life. Another explanation is that both the intermediate state and the state of existence are called the 'I' that continues life, and craving arises for the intermediate state and the state of existence at the time of continued life. Or grasping the 'I' that creates karma, giving rise to the desire at the time of creating karma. This means that sentient beings grasp this present 'I' that creates future karma, giving rise to craving at the time of creating karma, as the fourth type.

Next, explain each type separately: The first type, grasping the present general 'I', gives rise to desire, and is the initial cause for the suffering result, so it is called the cause. It is like a seed looking forward to the fruit from afar. This is what the sutra means by 'craving as the root'. The second type, grasping the future general 'I', gives rise to desire, and gradually approaches the suffering result, similar to accumulation, so it is called accumulation. It is like the sprout and stem gradually approaching the fruit. This is what the sutra means by 'craving as accumulation'. The third type, grasping the future individual 'I', gives rise to desire, and is a special condition for the suffering result, so it is called the condition. It is like the field for the fruit that is produced. This means that due to the power of the field, water, fertilizer, etc., the taste of the fruit produced has sweetness, etc., with differences in power, different maturation and changes, and separate production of virtues and functions, such as relieving hunger and thirst, which are called virtues. This is what the sutra means by 'craving as a type'. The fourth type, grasping the 'I' that continues life, gives rise to desire, or grasping the 'I' that creates karma

起欲。望于苦果能近生故說名為生。猶如華．蕊近生於果。即是經中以欲為生　問何故現起貪慾總非別。當來即于總．別起愛　解云現體已起。即於此體但可總貪。當體未生。生不定故。或於總相起貪。或於別生起貪　又解執造業我起造業時欲。亦名于現別我起貪。

或如契經至亦當反異有者。又解四欲。或如經說。有二種五。二種四愛行。為四種欲。執現總我有五種異。一執總我現在決定有其自性。二執總我現如是有。或是婆羅門。或是剎帝利等。三執總我現變異有。謂嬰孩童子．少年．盛年．老年變異不同。四執總我於三世中是現在世有。五執總我于現在世必滅歸無　執當總我亦有五異。準現應釋　執當別我即有四種異。一執別我於三世中是當來世別有。二執別我當來決定別有自性。三執別我當來如是別有。如婆羅門等。四執別我當來變異別有。如嬰孩等。于當總我五種之中但闕當無。餘四同前。唯回第四為今第一。次第不同。別執堅固故不言無。總執稍寬容計無也　不但執當別我有四種異。執續生我等亦有四種異。等者等取執造業我。釋此四種準前應知。準此中文造業時我。亦望當來說四種異　又解所言亦者。不但造業時我。于現在世有四種異。續生時我。于當來世亦有四種異　又解前一總亦。顯續生造

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『起欲』（Qiyu，生起慾望）。因為希望在苦果附近產生，所以稱為『生』（Sheng，產生）。就像花和花蕊靠近果實而生。這就是經文中所說的以慾望為『生』。問：為什麼現在生起的貪慾總是總相的，而不是別相的？而未來卻會對總相和別相都生起愛？答：因為現在的自體已經生起，所以只能對這個自體產生總的貪愛。而未來的自體尚未產生，其產生是不確定的，所以或者對總相產生貪愛，或者對別相產生貪愛。又解：執著于造業的我，在造業時產生的慾望，也稱為對現在的別相的我產生貪愛。或者像契經所說，乃至也應當反過來理解『異有』（Yiyou，不同的存在）的情況。又解釋說，四種慾望，或者像經文所說，有兩種五和兩種四愛行，作為四種慾望。執著于現在的總相的我，有五種不同。第一，執著于總相的我，現在決定具有其自性。第二，執著于總相的我，現在就是這樣，或者是婆羅門（Poluomen，Brahmin），或者是剎帝利（Chaxidili，Kshatriya）等。第三，執著于總相的我，現在是變異的，比如嬰兒、孩童、少年、盛年、老年，變異不同。第四，執著于總相的我，在三世中是現在世存在的。第五，執著于總相的我，在現在世必定滅亡歸於無。執著于未來的總相的我，也有五種不同。參照現在的解釋。執著于未來的別相的我，就有四種不同。第一，執著于別相的我，在三世中是未來世特別存在的。第二，執著于別相的我，未來決定特別具有自性。第三，執著于別相的我，未來就是這樣特別存在，比如婆羅門等。第四，執著于別相的我，未來變異特別存在，比如嬰兒等。在未來的總相的我的五種情況中，只是缺少未來的『無』（Wu，不存在）。其餘四種與前面相同。只是把第四種變為現在的第一種，次第不同。因為對別相的執著堅固，所以不說『無』。對總相的執著稍微寬容，所以會認為有『無』的情況。不只是執著于未來的別相的我，有四種不同。執著于續生的我等，也有四種不同。『等』（Deng，等等）字，包括執著于造業的我。解釋這四種不同，參照前面應該知道。參照這段中文，造業時的我，也希望對未來世說四種不同。又解釋說，所說的『亦』（Yi，也）字，不只是造業時的我，在現在世有四種不同，續生時的我，在未來世也有四種不同。又解釋說，前面的一個『總亦』（Zongyi，總的也），顯示續生和造業。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Qiyu' (起欲, arising desire). It is called 'Sheng' (生, arising) because it is hoped that it will arise near the bitter fruit. It is like flowers and stamens arising near the fruit. This is what the sutra means by taking desire as 'arising'. Question: Why is the greed that arises now always general and not specific? And why will love arise for both general and specific aspects in the future? Answer: Because the present self has already arisen, one can only have general greed for this self. But the future self has not yet arisen, and its arising is uncertain, so one may have greed for the general aspect or greed for the specific aspect. Another explanation: Attachment to the 'I' that creates karma, the desire that arises when creating karma, is also called attachment to the specific 'I' in the present. Or, as the sutra says, even the case of 'Yiyou' (異有, different existence) should be understood in reverse. Another explanation is that the four desires, or as the sutra says, there are two kinds of five and two kinds of four love-conducts, as the four desires. Attachment to the general 'I' in the present has five differences. First, attachment to the general 'I', believing that it definitely has its own nature in the present. Second, attachment to the general 'I', believing that it is like this in the present, either a Brahmin (婆羅門, Poluomen) or a Kshatriya (剎帝利, Chaxidili), etc. Third, attachment to the general 'I', believing that it is changing in the present, such as infants, children, teenagers, adults, and the elderly, with different changes. Fourth, attachment to the general 'I', believing that it exists in the present world among the three worlds. Fifth, attachment to the general 'I', believing that it will definitely perish and return to nothing in the present world. Attachment to the future general 'I' also has five differences. Refer to the explanation of the present. Attachment to the future specific 'I' has four differences. First, attachment to the specific 'I', believing that it exists specifically in the future world among the three worlds. Second, attachment to the specific 'I', believing that it will definitely have its own specific nature in the future. Third, attachment to the specific 'I', believing that it will exist specifically like this in the future, such as Brahmins, etc. Fourth, attachment to the specific 'I', believing that it will exist specifically with changes in the future, such as infants, etc. Among the five cases of the future general 'I', only the future 'Wu' (無, non-existence) is missing. The other four are the same as before. Only the fourth is changed to the first of the present, with a different order. Because the attachment to the specific aspect is firm, 'non-existence' is not mentioned. The attachment to the general aspect is slightly more tolerant, so it is considered that there is a case of 'non-existence'. It is not only that attachment to the future specific 'I' has four differences. Attachment to the 'I' of continued existence, etc., also has four differences. The word 'Deng' (等, etc.) includes attachment to the 'I' that creates karma. The explanation of these four differences should be known by referring to the previous explanation. Referring to this Chinese text, the 'I' at the time of creating karma also hopes to say four differences about the future world. Another explanation is that the word 'Yi' (亦, also) means that not only does the 'I' at the time of creating karma have four differences in the present world, but the 'I' at the time of continued existence also has four differences in the future world. Another explanation is that the previous 'Zongyi' (總亦, general also) shows continued existence and karma creation.

業四數同前執當別我。后四別亦復顯續生四數同后造業時我。但當．現不同。余皆相似。

流轉斷故至永離有故出者。生死流轉法斷故滅。至此涅槃眾苦息故靜。如契經說。苾芻當知。諸有漏法皆悉是苦。唯有涅槃最為寂靜。涅槃最勝更無上故妙。一證永證不退轉故離。猶如世間正道路故道。如實諦理轉故如。定能趣向涅槃故行。如契經說。此無漏道至清凈涅槃餘外道見必無能至清凈理也。永離三有故出。

又為治常樂至行出行相者。此即第四番釋。為治常見故修非常行相。為治樂見故修苦行相。為治我所見故修空行相。為治我見故修非我行相。為治外道無因見故修因行相。為治梵王．自在天等一因見故修集行相。多法聚集為因生果。為治數論轉變常因等見故修生行相。彼宗體常前後轉變能生諸法。如金轉變成環玔等。為治以知為先能生因見故修緣行相。遇緣即起。何須以知為先　言知先因者。如自在天將變境時。先起欲知彼境。起欲知已然後方變。大自在天以知為先。故名知先因也。或數論自性名知先因。欲變境時。要我先思欲知境界。起欲知已自性方變。此之自性以知為先。方能變境故名知先因也　為治解脫是無見。修滅行相。謂諸外道起大邪見撥無解脫。為對治彼修滅行相。生緣滅故明知有滅　為

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：前四個（『業』的四種屬性）與之前所執持的『我』相同。后四個（『業』的四種屬性）的差別也同樣顯現，與相續而生的四種屬性相同，與之後造業時的『我』相同。只是『當』和『現』不同，其餘都相似。

因為流轉斷絕，到達永遠脫離『有』的境界，所以說是『出』。因為生死流轉之法斷絕而滅盡，到達涅槃，眾苦止息，所以說是『靜』。正如契經所說：『比丘們應當知道，所有有漏之法都是苦，只有涅槃最為寂靜。』涅槃最為殊勝，再沒有比它更高的，所以說是『妙』。一次證得，永遠證得，不會退轉，所以說是『離』。猶如世間的正道，所以說是『道』。如實不虛的真理運轉，所以說是『如』。決定能夠趣向涅槃，所以說是『行』。正如契經所說：『這無漏之道通往清凈涅槃，其他外道的見解必定無法到達清凈的真理。』永遠脫離三有，所以說是『出』。

爲了對治常樂等見解，而修習行、出行相：這是第四次解釋。爲了對治常見，所以修習非常行相。爲了對治樂見，所以修習苦行相。爲了對治我所見，所以修習空行相。爲了對治我見，所以修習非我行相。爲了對治外道無因見，所以修習因行相。爲了對治梵王（Brahma，創造之神）、自在天（Ishvara，主宰之神）等一因見，所以修習集行相，多種法聚整合為產生結果的原因。爲了對治數論（Samkhya，古印度哲學流派）的轉變常因等見，所以修習生行相。他們的宗義認為本體是常的，前後轉變能夠產生諸法，就像黃金轉變成為環、釧等。爲了對治以『知』為先的能生因見，所以修習緣行相。遇到緣就會生起，何須以『知』為先？

所說的『知先因』，例如自在天將要變化境界時，先產生想要知道那個境界的意願，產生意願之後才變化。大自在天以『知』為先，所以稱為『知先因』。或者數論的自性名為『知先因』，想要變化境界時，先要思考想要知道的境界，產生意願之後自性才變化。這個自性以『知』為先，才能變化境界，所以稱為『知先因』。爲了對治解脫是『無』的見解，修習滅行相。說的是那些外道產生大的邪見，否定解脫。爲了對治他們，修習滅行相。因為生的緣滅了，所以明明知道有滅。

【English Translation】 English version: The first four (attributes of 'karma') are the same as the 'self' previously held. The difference of the latter four (attributes of 'karma') is also evident, being the same as the four attributes of continuous arising, and the same as the 'self' at the time of creating karma later. Only 'present' and 'manifest' are different; the rest are similar.

Because the cycle of transmigration is cut off, reaching the state of eternally being free from 'existence,' it is called 'departure.' Because the law of the cycle of birth and death is cut off and extinguished, reaching Nirvana, and all suffering ceases, it is called 'tranquility.' As the sutra says: 'Monks, you should know that all conditioned dharmas are suffering; only Nirvana is the most tranquil.' Nirvana is the most supreme, and there is nothing higher than it, so it is called 'wonderful.' Once attained, eternally attained, without regression, so it is called 'separation.' Like the right path in the world, it is called 'path.' The true and unfalse truth revolves, so it is called 'suchness.' Definitely able to lead to Nirvana, so it is called 'practice.' As the sutra says: 'This unconditioned path leads to pure Nirvana; other external paths' views will definitely not be able to reach the pure truth.' Eternally free from the three realms of existence, so it is called 'departure.'

To counteract the views of permanence and pleasure, cultivate the aspects of practice and departure: This is the fourth explanation. To counteract the view of permanence, cultivate the aspect of impermanence. To counteract the view of pleasure, cultivate the aspect of suffering. To counteract the view of 'mine,' cultivate the aspect of emptiness. To counteract the view of 'self,' cultivate the aspect of non-self. To counteract the externalist view of no cause, cultivate the aspect of cause. To counteract the view of a single cause, such as Brahma (the creator god) and Ishvara (the lord god), cultivate the aspect of accumulation, where many dharmas gather to become the cause of producing results. To counteract the Samkhya (an ancient Indian philosophical school) view of transformation and permanent cause, cultivate the aspect of arising. Their doctrine holds that the essence is permanent, and transformations before and after can produce all dharmas, like gold transforming into rings, bracelets, etc. To counteract the view of 'knowing' as the prior cause of production, cultivate the aspect of condition. When conditions are met, it arises immediately; why is 'knowing' necessary as the prior cause?

The so-called 'knowing as the prior cause' is like when Ishvara is about to transform a realm, he first generates the desire to know that realm, and only after generating the desire does he transform it. The Great Ishvara takes 'knowing' as prior, so it is called 'knowing as the prior cause.' Or the nature of Samkhya is called 'knowing as the prior cause'; when wanting to transform a realm, one must first contemplate the realm one wants to know, and only after generating the desire does the nature transform. This nature takes 'knowing' as prior in order to transform the realm, so it is called 'knowing as the prior cause.' To counteract the view that liberation is 'nothingness,' cultivate the aspect of cessation. This refers to those externalists who generate great wrong views and deny liberation. To counteract them, cultivate the aspect of cessation. Because the conditions for arising cease, it is clearly known that there is cessation.

治解脫是苦見故。修靜行相。謂諸外道作如是執。我見世間。無一眼者尚以為苦。況復涅槃。諸根總滅。而不苦哉。為治此見修靜行相。以涅槃中。苦皆寂靜　為治外道執四靜慮及四無色等至樂是妙見故。修妙行相。此有漏定非真妙法。唯有涅槃是真妙法　為治解脫是數退墮非永見故。修離行相。謂諸外道執無想天等為真解脫。后時觀見數退墮落便作是執。解脫涅槃是數退墮。非永出離。為治彼見修離行相。以證涅槃必不退故　為治撥無聖道邪見故。修道行相。以道行相緣實道故　為治外道執苦行等邪道見故。修如行相。契正理故名之為如　為治計余法為道是真見故。修行行相。故正理云。為治世間離染是真道故。修行行相　為治退道數見故。修出行相。故正理云。為治嘗遭不永離染道所誑惑。于真聖道亦不敬故。修出行相。

如是行相以慧為體者。釋第二句。此即標宗。

若爾慧應至不相應故者。論主難。若此行相唯慧為體。不通余心心所。是即慧應非有行相。若兩慧俱起。可言彼此相有。以慧與慧不相應故。不可說言慧有行相。

由此應言至皆名行相者。論主難殺。自為一解。由此應言。諸心．心所取境之時。有影像相類各別故皆名行相　或於境中實類差別。青非黃等取境類別皆名行相。可得

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爲了對治認為解脫是苦的錯誤見解，修習寂靜的行相。這是因為一些外道持有這樣的觀點：『我看到世間上，即使失去一隻眼睛都認為是痛苦的，更何況是涅槃，所有感官都完全滅盡，那怎麼可能不是痛苦的呢？』爲了對治這種見解，修習寂靜的行相，因為在涅槃中，一切痛苦都寂靜止息。爲了對治外道執著於四禪定（catuh-dhyana）和四無色定（catuh-arupa-samapatti）等境界的快樂是殊勝的錯誤見解，修習殊勝的行相。因為這些有漏的禪定並非真正的殊勝之法，只有涅槃才是真正的殊勝之法。爲了對治認為解脫是會退轉墮落而非永恒的錯誤見解，修習遠離的行相。這是因為一些外道執著于無想天（asaṃjñika-deva）等境界為真正的解脫，但後來觀察到會退轉墮落，於是就認為解脫涅槃是會退轉墮落的，並非永恒的解脫。爲了對治這種見解，修習遠離的行相，因為證得涅槃必定不會退轉。爲了對治否定聖道的邪見，修習道的行相，因為道的行相是緣于真實的道。爲了對治外道執著苦行等為邪道的錯誤見解，修習如的行相，因為符合正理，所以稱為『如』。爲了對治認為其他法是道的錯誤見解，修習行的行相。所以正理中說：『爲了對治世間認為離染是真正的道，修習行的行相。』爲了對治退道的錯誤見解，修習出（niryaṇa）的行相。所以正理中說：『爲了對治曾經遭受不永恒的離染之道所迷惑，以至於對真正的聖道也不恭敬，修習出的行相。』這些行相以智慧（prajna）為體性，這是解釋第二句話，也就是標明宗旨。如果這樣，智慧應該是不相應的，這是論主的提問。如果這些行相只有智慧為體性，不包括其他心和心所，那麼智慧就不應該具有行相。如果兩個智慧同時生起，可以說彼此具有行相，因為智慧與智慧是不相應的，所以不能說智慧具有行相。因此應該說，這是論主的駁斥，也是一種解釋。因此應該說，各種心和心所在取境的時候，有影像和相狀的類別差別，所以都稱為行相。或者在境界中存在真實的類別差別，比如青色不是黃色等等，取境的類別都稱為行相，這是可以理解的。

【English Translation】 English version: To counteract the erroneous view that liberation (moksha) is suffering, one cultivates the aspect of tranquility (shanta-akara). This is because some non-Buddhists hold the view: 'I see that in the world, even losing one eye is considered suffering, how much more so is nirvana (nirvana), where all senses are completely extinguished? How could that not be suffering?' To counteract this view, one cultivates the aspect of tranquility, because in nirvana, all suffering is pacified. To counteract the erroneous view of non-Buddhists who cling to the pleasure of the four dhyanas (catuh-dhyana) and the four formless attainments (catuh-arupa-samapatti) as being supreme, one cultivates the aspect of excellence (pranita-akara). Because these contaminated samadhis are not truly excellent dharmas, only nirvana is the truly excellent dharma. To counteract the erroneous view that liberation is subject to regression and not permanent, one cultivates the aspect of detachment (nihsarana-akara). This is because some non-Buddhists cling to the realm of non-perception (asaṃjñika-deva) as true liberation, but later observe that it is subject to regression, and thus they believe that liberation and nirvana are subject to regression and not permanent release. To counteract this view, one cultivates the aspect of detachment, because attaining nirvana is definitely not subject to regression. To counteract the heretical view of denying the Noble Path, one cultivates the aspect of the path (marga-akara), because the aspect of the path is related to the real path. To counteract the erroneous view of non-Buddhists who cling to ascetic practices as heretical paths, one cultivates the aspect of suchness (tathata-akara), because it accords with right reason, it is called 'suchness'. To counteract the erroneous view that other dharmas are the path, one cultivates the aspect of practice (pratipatti-akara). Therefore, right reason says: 'To counteract the world's view that detachment from defilements is the true path, one cultivates the aspect of practice.' To counteract the erroneous view of regression from the path, one cultivates the aspect of emergence (niryaṇa-akara). Therefore, right reason says: 'To counteract those who have been deceived by paths of detachment from defilements that are not permanent, and thus do not respect the true Noble Path, one cultivates the aspect of emergence.' These aspects, whose essence is wisdom (prajna), this explains the second sentence, which is to state the principle. If that is so, wisdom should be non-associated, this is the question of the treatise master. If these aspects only have wisdom as their essence, and do not include other minds and mental factors, then wisdom should not have aspects. If two wisdoms arise simultaneously, it can be said that they have aspects of each other, because wisdom and wisdom are not associated, so it cannot be said that wisdom has aspects. Therefore, it should be said, this is the refutation of the treatise master, and also an explanation. Therefore, it should be said that when various minds and mental factors take objects, there are differences in the categories of images and appearances, so they are all called aspects. Or, in the objects, there are real differences in categories, such as blue is not yellow, etc., the categories of taking objects are all called aspects, this is understandable.

言有　問如婆沙七十九一說行相通心．心所。一說行相以一切法為性。評家行相以慧為性。論主何故以不正義為難　解云論主意樂即立。非以婆沙評家為量。

慧及諸餘至皆是所行者。釋后兩句。心．心所法由有所緣故皆是能行於境。一切有法皆是所行境界。

由此三門至唯是所行者。對辨差別。由此行相．能行．所行體有寬狹。慧是簡擇名為行相。能取境故名能行。為他緣故是所行。余心．心所能取境故是能行。為他緣故是所行。非簡擇故不名行相。諸餘有法為他緣故名所行。不能取境故非能行。不能簡擇故非行相。若據通名行相。諸心．心所皆名行相。此據簡擇唯慧非余　又解論主前雖難殺今還約宗明義。

已辨十智至餘八通三界者。此下第四諸門分別智。就中。一明性．地．依身。二明念住攝智。三明十智相緣。四明十智緣境。五明人成就智。六約位辨修智　此即第一明性．地．依身。結前生起　已辨十智差別行相差別　或已辨十智家行相差別　前解總結。后解別結。初句明性。次三句明依地。后一頌明依身。

論曰至唯是善者。釋初句。可知。

依地別者至三無色者。釋次三句。世俗智通依一切地。他心智唯依四根本靜慮不依餘地。故正理七十四云。他心智唯依四根本靜慮。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：有人說，如《婆沙論》第七十九卷第一說，『行相』通於心和心所。有人說，『行相』以一切法為自性。評家認為，『行相』以智慧為自性。論主為何以不正當的觀點來責難？答：論主的意圖在於確立自己的觀點，而不是以《婆沙論》或評家的觀點為標準。

『慧及諸餘，至皆是所行者』。解釋後面兩句。心和心所法因為有所緣，所以都能行於境界。一切有法都是所行的境界。

『由此三門，至唯是所行者』。對比辨別差別。由此，行相、能行、所行，在體性上有寬窄之分。智慧是簡擇，名為行相。能取境，所以名為能行。為其他所緣，是所行。其餘的心和心所，能取境，所以是能行。為其他所緣，是所行。但不是簡擇，所以不名為行相。諸餘有法，為其他所緣，名為所行。不能取境，所以不是能行。不能簡擇，所以不是行相。如果按照通用的名稱，行相，諸心和心所都可以名為行相。這裡是按照簡擇來說，只有智慧，沒有其餘。又解釋說，論主前面雖然責難，現在還是按照宗義來闡明意義。

『已辨十智，至餘八通三界者』。下面第四個部分，諸門分別智。其中：一、闡明自性、地、依身。二、闡明念住攝智。三、闡明十智相緣。四、闡明十智緣境。五、闡明人成就智。六、按照位次辨別修智。這裡是第一部分，闡明自性、地、依身。總結前面，引出後面。已經辨別了十智的差別行相差別。或者已經辨別了十智的家行相差別。前面的解釋是總結。後面的解釋是分別總結。第一句闡明自性。其次三句闡明依地。后一頌闡明依身。

論曰：『至唯是善者』。解釋第一句。可知。

『依地別者，至三無色者』。解釋其次三句。世俗智通於依一切地。他心智只依四根本靜慮，不依其餘地。所以《正理》第七十四卷說：『他心智唯依四根本靜慮。』

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Someone says, as stated in the first section of the seventy-ninth volume of the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra (Mahāvibhāṣā), 'aspect' (ākāra) is common to mind and mental factors. Someone says, 'aspect' has the nature of all dharmas. The commentator believes that 'aspect' has the nature of wisdom (prajñā). Why does the author of the treatise use an improper view to criticize? Answer: The author of the treatise intends to establish his own view, not to use the Mahāvibhāṣā or the commentator's view as the standard.

'Wisdom and all others, up to all are the objects.' Explaining the latter two sentences. Mind and mental factors, because they have an object of focus, can all act upon the realm. All existent dharmas are the objects of action.

'From these three aspects, up to only the objects.' Contrasting and distinguishing the differences. From this, aspect, the actor, and the object have broad and narrow distinctions in their nature. Wisdom is discernment, called aspect. It can grasp the realm, so it is called the actor. It is objectified by others, so it is the object. The remaining mind and mental factors can grasp the realm, so they are the actor. They are objectified by others, so they are the object. But they are not discernment, so they are not called aspect. All other existent dharmas are objectified by others, so they are called the object. They cannot grasp the realm, so they are not the actor. They cannot discern, so they are not aspect. If according to the common name, aspect, all minds and mental factors can be called aspect. Here, according to discernment, only wisdom, not the others. Also explaining that although the author of the treatise criticized earlier, he is now clarifying the meaning according to the tenets of his school.

'Having distinguished the ten wisdoms, up to the remaining eight pervade the three realms.' The fourth part below, the wisdoms distinguished by various categories. Among them: 1. Clarifying nature, ground, and support. 2. Clarifying the wisdoms included in the mindfulness establishments. 3. Clarifying the mutual relationship of the ten wisdoms. 4. Clarifying the objects of the ten wisdoms. 5. Clarifying the wisdoms attained by people. 6. Distinguishing the cultivation of wisdoms according to stages. This is the first part, clarifying nature, ground, and support. Summarizing the previous and introducing the following. Having distinguished the differences in the aspects of the ten wisdoms. Or having distinguished the differences in the family aspects of the ten wisdoms. The previous explanation is a summary. The following explanation is a separate summary. The first sentence clarifies nature. The next three sentences clarify the ground. The last verse clarifies the support.

Treatise says: 'Up to only the virtuous.' Explaining the first sentence. Knowable.

'Distinguished by ground, up to the three formless realms.' Explaining the next three sentences. Conventional wisdom (saṃvṛti-jñāna) pervades and relies on all grounds. The wisdom of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna) only relies on the four fundamental dhyānas (dhyāna), not on other grounds. Therefore, the seventy-fourth volume of the Nyāyānusāraśāstra says: 'The wisdom of others' minds only relies on the four fundamental dhyānas.'

不依近分．靜慮中間。此智所緣極微細故。謂依彼地道力微劣。不能了達他相續中現在微細心心所法。亦不依無色無此加行故。又通性故。餘地非依。五通所依止．觀等故　法智依此四靜慮。及未至．中間六地。故正理云。法智通以六地為依。謂未至．中間．四根本靜慮。不依余近分。彼唯有漏故。亦不依無色。此緣欲界故　餘七依此六地及下三無色。故正理云。所餘七智九地為依。謂下三無色。及前說六地。總說如是。然有差別。謂此所說七種智中。類智決定依九地起。苦．集．滅．道．盡。無生智。若法智攝六地為依。類智攝者通依九地。

依身別者至通依三界身者。釋后一頌。正理云。謂他心智依欲．色界俱可現前。不依無色彼自無故。不起下地他心智者。此智隨轉色彼無容起故　法智但依欲界身起非依上界。以緣欲界四諦境故。生上二果不起法智緣欲四諦。又婆沙二十八云。謂生上二界必不起法智。以彼厭下苦．集諦故。不欲重觀既不觀下苦．集。亦不觀下滅．道。以滅．道智用苦．集智為上首故(已上論文)　問若不欲觀者。如何生色天眼．耳等亦緣欲法　解云事觀起易得緣欲界。理觀起難故不緣欲　問身生色界得起無漏他心智緣欲心不　解云既言法智不緣欲道。明知不緣。又正理云。法智但依欲界

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不依賴於近分定（Kinkanbun，指色界四禪之前的預備階段）和靜慮中間定（Jōryo Chūkan，指色界初禪和未至定之間的狀態）。因為這種智慧所緣的對象極其微細。也就是說，依賴於這些禪定之地的道力微弱，不能夠了達其他眾生相續中現在存在的微細心和心所法。也不依賴於無色界，因為無色界沒有這種加行（Kegyō，指為獲得禪定而進行的努力）。又因為通性（Tsūshō，指普遍的性質），所以不依賴於其他禪定之地。五神通（Goshinzū，指天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿命通、神足通）所依賴的止觀等都屬於這種情況。法智（Hōchi，指了解事物本質的智慧）依賴於色界四靜慮（Shijōryo，指色界四禪）以及未至定（Mishi Jō，指色界初禪之前的預備階段）和中間定（Chūkan Jō，指色界初禪和未至定之間的狀態）這六地。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abidatsuma Junshōri Ron）中說，法智普遍以六地為所依，即未至定、中間定和四根本靜慮（Shikonpon Jōryo，指色界四禪）。不依賴於其他的近分定，因為那些禪定只有有漏（Uro，指受煩惱影響）。也不依賴於無色界，因為法智所緣的是欲界（Yokkai，指眾生有情慾和物質慾望的生存領域）。其餘七智（包括類智、苦智、集智、滅智、道智、盡智、無生智）依賴於這六地以及下方的三個無色界（即空無邊處定、識無邊處定、無所有處定）。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，其餘七智以九地為所依，即下方的三個無色界和前面所說的六地。總的來說是這樣，但也有差別。也就是說，這裡所說的七種智慧中，類智（Rui Chi，指通過推理了解事物本質的智慧）必定依九地而生起。苦智（Kuchi，指了解痛苦本質的智慧）、集智（Jicchi，指了解痛苦根源的智慧）、滅智（Mecchi，指了解痛苦止息的智慧）、道智（Dōchi，指了解通往痛苦止息之道的智慧）、盡智（Jinchi，指了解煩惱已盡的智慧）、無生智（Mushōchi，指了解不再輪迴的智慧），如果是法智所攝，則以六地為所依；如果是類智所攝，則普遍依九地。從所依之身的不同來說，到普遍依賴三界之身，這是解釋後面一頌的內容。《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，他心智（Tashinchi，指了解他人內心的智慧）依賴於欲界和色界，都可以現前。不依賴於無色界，因為無色界自身沒有心識活動。不起下地眾生的他心智，是因為這種智慧隨著色界而運轉，在無色界沒有生起的可能。法智只依賴於欲界之身而生起，不依賴於上界之身。因為法智所緣的是欲界的四諦（Shitai，指苦、集、滅、道）之境。生於上二界（指色界和無色界）的眾生不起法智，因為他們所緣的是欲界的四諦。又《大毗婆沙論》（Daibibasha Ron）第二十八卷中說，生於上二界的眾生必定不起法智，因為他們厭惡地獄的苦諦和集諦，不想再次觀察。既然不觀察地獄的苦諦和集諦，也就不觀察地獄的滅諦和道諦，因為滅諦智和道諦智以苦諦智和集諦智為先導（以上是論文原文）。問：如果不願意觀察，那麼生於色界的眾生如何通過天眼（Tengenn，指能看見遠處或隱藏事物的能力）、天耳（Tengen，指能聽見遠處或隱藏聲音的能力）等來觀察欲界的事物呢？答：通過天眼、天耳等進行的事觀（Jikan，指對事物的直接觀察）容易生起，所以能夠緣欲界。而通過法智進行的理觀（Rikan，指對事物本質的理性觀察）難以生起，所以不緣欲界。問：生於色界的眾生，如果得到無漏（Muro，指不受煩惱影響）的他心智，能夠緣欲界眾生的心識嗎？答：既然說連法智都不緣欲界的道諦，那麼很明顯他心智也不緣欲界。而且《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，法智只依賴於欲界。

【English Translation】 English version: It does not rely on the Kinkanbun (preparatory stages before the four Dhyanas of the Form Realm) or the Jōryo Chūkan (the state between the first Dhyana of the Form Realm and the Mishi Jō). This is because the object of this wisdom is extremely subtle. That is, relying on the power of the path in these meditative states is weak, and it is not possible to understand the subtle mind and mental factors that are currently present in the continuum of other beings. It also does not rely on the Formless Realm, because the Formless Realm does not have this Kegyō (effort made to attain meditation). Moreover, because of the Tsūshō (universal nature), it does not rely on other meditative states. The Samatha-Vipassana (止觀) etc. on which the five supernormal powers (Goshinzū, referring to the divine eye, divine ear, knowledge of others' minds, knowledge of past lives, and divine feet) rely are all of this kind. The Dharma Wisdom (Hōchi, wisdom that understands the essence of things) relies on the six grounds of the four Dhyanas (Shijōryo, the four Dhyanas of the Form Realm) of the Form Realm, as well as the Mishi Jō (preparatory stage before the first Dhyana of the Form Realm) and the Chūkan Jō (the state between the first Dhyana of the Form Realm and the Mishi Jō). Therefore, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (Abidatsuma Junshōri Ron) says that Dharma Wisdom universally relies on the six grounds, namely the Mishi Jō, the Chūkan Jō, and the four fundamental Dhyanas (Shikonpon Jōryo, the four Dhyanas of the Form Realm). It does not rely on other Kinkanbun, because those meditative states only have outflows (Uro, affected by afflictions). It also does not rely on the Formless Realm, because Dharma Wisdom is concerned with the Desire Realm (Yokkai, the realm of existence where beings have desires and material cravings). The remaining seven wisdoms (including Knowledge of Categories, Knowledge of Suffering, Knowledge of Origin, Knowledge of Cessation, Knowledge of the Path, Exhaustion Knowledge, and Non-arising Knowledge) rely on these six grounds and the three Formless Realms below (namely the Sphere of Infinite Space, the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness, and the Sphere of Nothingness). Therefore, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says that the remaining seven wisdoms rely on the nine grounds, namely the three Formless Realms below and the six grounds mentioned earlier. This is the general statement, but there are also differences. That is, among the seven types of wisdom mentioned here, Knowledge of Categories (Rui Chi, wisdom that understands the essence of things through reasoning) necessarily arises based on the nine grounds. Knowledge of Suffering (Kuchi, wisdom that understands the nature of suffering), Knowledge of Origin (Jicchi, wisdom that understands the origin of suffering), Knowledge of Cessation (Mecchi, wisdom that understands the cessation of suffering), Knowledge of the Path (Dōchi, wisdom that understands the path to the cessation of suffering), Exhaustion Knowledge (Jinchi, wisdom that understands that afflictions have been exhausted), and Non-arising Knowledge (Mushōchi, wisdom that understands that there will be no more rebirth), if included in Dharma Wisdom, rely on the six grounds; if included in Knowledge of Categories, they universally rely on the nine grounds. In terms of the difference in the body on which it relies, up to universally relying on the bodies of the three realms, this is an explanation of the content of the following verse. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says that the Knowledge of Others' Minds (Tashinchi, wisdom that understands the minds of others) relies on the Desire Realm and the Form Realm, and can manifest in both. It does not rely on the Formless Realm, because the Formless Realm itself does not have mental activity. It does not arise in the minds of beings in the lower realms, because this wisdom operates in accordance with the Form Realm, and there is no possibility of it arising in the Formless Realm. Dharma Wisdom only arises relying on the body of the Desire Realm, and does not rely on the bodies of the upper realms. This is because Dharma Wisdom is concerned with the objects of the Four Noble Truths (Shitai, suffering, origin, cessation, and path) of the Desire Realm. Beings born in the upper two realms (referring to the Form Realm and the Formless Realm) do not give rise to Dharma Wisdom, because they are concerned with the Four Noble Truths of the Desire Realm. Moreover, the twenty-eighth volume of the Mahavibhasa (Daibibasha Ron) says that beings born in the upper two realms necessarily do not give rise to Dharma Wisdom, because they are disgusted with the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origin of the lower realm, and do not want to observe them again. Since they do not observe the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origin of the lower realm, they also do not observe the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path of the lower realm, because the Wisdom of Cessation and the Wisdom of the Path take the Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Origin as their guide (the above is the original text of the treatise). Question: If they do not want to observe, then how do beings born in the Form Realm observe the things of the Desire Realm through the divine eye (Tengenn, the ability to see distant or hidden things), the divine ear (Tengen, the ability to hear distant or hidden sounds), etc.? Answer: The direct observation of things (Jikan, direct observation of things) through the divine eye, divine ear, etc. is easy to arise, so it can be concerned with the Desire Realm. However, the rational observation of the essence of things (Rikan, rational observation of the essence of things) through Dharma Wisdom is difficult to arise, so it is not concerned with the Desire Realm. Question: If beings born in the Form Realm obtain the non-outflow (Muro, unaffected by afflictions) Knowledge of Others' Minds, can they be concerned with the minds of beings in the Desire Realm? Answer: Since it is said that even Dharma Wisdom is not concerned with the Truth of the Path of the Desire Realm, it is clear that the Knowledge of Others' Minds is also not concerned with the Desire Realm. Moreover, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says that Dharma Wisdom only relies on the Desire Realm.

身起非上二界。入出此智諸有漏心唯欲有故。又法智隨轉色所依大種。唯欲界系故。又此能治起破戒惑。破戒唯欲非上界故　除前他心及與法智。餘八智現起通依三界身。

已辨性地至皆通四者。此即第二明念住攝智。思之可知。

如是十智至為所緣故者。此即第三明十智相緣。婆沙一百七云。法智緣下。類智緣上。故不相緣。如有二人同住一處。一人觀地一人觀空。如是不相見面。余文可知。

十智所緣至及善無為者。此下第四明十智緣境。就中。一正明智緣境。二別明俗總緣　此即第一正明智緣境。初三句答前問。后五句答后問。心．心所法名相應。色．不相應名不相應。余文可知。

頗有一念智緣一切法不者。此下第二明俗總緣。此即問也。

不爾者。答。

豈不非我至皆非我耶者。難。

此亦不能緣一切法者。通。

不緣何法至此體是何者。徴。

頌曰至唯聞思所成者。上三句答初問。后句答第二問。

論曰至應頓離染者。以世俗智觀一切法。為非我時猶除自品。自品即是自體等法。自體謂俗智自體。相應謂俗智相應心．心所法。俱有謂俗智同時謂四相。故雜心雜品云。亦不緣共有。同一果故。或可。此論言俱有法亦攝於得。以得亦是極相鄰

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本身所起的（煩惱）並非來自色界和無色界。這些智慧生起和熄滅時，所有有煩惱的心都只與欲界有關。此外，法智（Dharma-jnana）隨著色所依大種（rupa-asraya mahabhuta）運轉，也只屬於欲界。而且，法智慧夠對治破戒的迷惑，而破戒只存在於欲界，不存在於色界和無色界。除了前述的他心智（Paracitta-jnana）和法智，其餘八種智慧的生起普遍依賴於三界之身。

已經辨析了『性地』到『皆通四者』。這部分是第二點，闡明念住（smrti-upasthana）所包含的智慧。仔細思考就能明白。

像這樣，十智（dasa-jnana）到『為所緣故者』。這部分是第三點，闡明十智相互為緣。婆沙（Vibhasa）第一百零七卷說：『法智緣于地獄，類智（Anvaya-jnana）緣于上界，所以不相互為緣。』就像兩個人同住一處，一人觀地，一人觀空，因此不能相見。其餘部分可以自己理解。

十智所緣（dasa-jnana alambana）到『及善無為者』。這部分是第四點，闡明十智所緣的境界。其中，一是正式闡明智慧所緣的境界，二是分別闡明世俗智（samvrti-jnana）總的所緣。這部分是第一點，正式闡明智慧所緣的境界。前三句回答前面的問題，后五句回答後面的問題。心和心所法（citta-caitta dharma）稱為相應，色法（rupa-dharma）和不相應行法（viprayukta-samskara dharma）稱為不相應。其餘部分可以自己理解。

是否有一念智慧能夠緣於一切法呢？這部分是第二點，闡明世俗智總的所緣。這是提問。

不是這樣的。這是回答。

難道不是『非我』（anatta）直到『皆非我耶』嗎？這是詰難。

這也不能緣於一切法。這是通達。

不緣于什麼法，直到『此體是什麼』？這是征問。

頌說，直到『唯聞思所成者』。前面三句回答第一個問題，後面一句回答第二個問題。

論說，直到『應頓離染者』。用世俗智觀察一切法，作為非我的時候，仍然排除了自身的部分。自身的部分就是自體等法。自體指的是世俗智的自體。相應指的是世俗智相應的心的心所法。俱有指的是世俗智同時的四相（caturlaksana）。所以雜心雜品說，也不緣于共有，因為果相同。或者，這個論述中說的俱有法也包括了『得』（prapti），因為『得』也是極其相鄰的。

【English Translation】 English version The arising of (afflictions) does not originate from the Form Realm (Rupa-dhatu) and Formless Realm (Arupa-dhatu). When these wisdoms arise and cease, all afflicted minds are solely related to the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu). Furthermore, Dharma-jnana (Knowledge of the Law), which operates in accordance with the material elements (rupa-asraya mahabhuta), is also exclusively associated with the Desire Realm. Moreover, this (Dharma-jnana) can counteract the delusion of violating precepts, and the violation of precepts exists only in the Desire Realm, not in the Form Realm or Formless Realm. Except for the aforementioned Paracitta-jnana (Knowledge of Others' Minds) and Dharma-jnana, the arising of the remaining eight wisdoms universally relies on the body of the three realms.

The 'nature-ground' (性地) to 'all connect to the four' (皆通四者) has already been distinguished. This part is the second point, clarifying the wisdom included in the mindfulness (smrti-upasthana). It can be understood through careful consideration.

Like this, the ten wisdoms (dasa-jnana) to 'because of what is cognized' (為所緣故者). This part is the third point, clarifying the mutual conditionality of the ten wisdoms. The Vibhasa (婆沙), in its one hundred and seventh fascicle, states: 'Dharma-jnana cognizes the lower realm, and Anvaya-jnana (Inferential Knowledge) cognizes the upper realm, so they do not cognize each other.' It is like two people living in the same place, one observing the ground and the other observing the sky, thus they cannot see each other. The remaining parts can be understood on your own.

The objects of the ten wisdoms (dasa-jnana alambana) to 'and wholesome unconditioned' (及善無為者). This part is the fourth point, clarifying the objects cognized by the ten wisdoms. Among them, one is to formally clarify the objects cognized by wisdom, and the other is to separately clarify the general objects cognized by conventional wisdom (samvrti-jnana). This part is the first point, formally clarifying the objects cognized by wisdom. The first three sentences answer the previous question, and the last five sentences answer the subsequent question. Mind and mental factors (citta-caitta dharma) are called associated, and material form (rupa-dharma) and non-associated formations (viprayukta-samskara dharma) are called non-associated. The remaining parts can be understood on your own.

Is there a single moment of wisdom that can cognize all dharmas? This part is the second point, clarifying the general objects cognized by conventional wisdom. This is a question.

It is not like that. This is the answer.

Isn't it 'not-self' (anatta) until 'all are not-self' (皆非我耶)? This is a challenge.

This also cannot cognize all dharmas. This is understanding.

What dharmas are not cognized, until 'what is this entity' (此體是什麼)? This is an inquiry.

The verse says, until 'only accomplished through hearing and thinking' (唯聞思所成者). The first three sentences answer the first question, and the last sentence answers the second question.

The treatise says, until 'should immediately abandon defilements' (應頓離染者). When observing all dharmas as not-self with conventional wisdom, it still excludes its own part. Its own part is the self-nature and other such dharmas. Self-nature refers to the self-nature of conventional wisdom. Associated refers to the mind and mental factors associated with conventional wisdom. Co-existent refers to the four characteristics (caturlaksana) simultaneous with conventional wisdom. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Collection (雜心) says that it also does not cognize what is shared, because the result is the same. Or, the co-existent dharmas mentioned in this treatise also include 'attainment' (prapti), because 'attainment' is also extremely adjacent.

近故。雜心論說同一果者。不相應中且據親說。或論意各別。

問何故婆沙非我觀中雲。問何等名俱有諸法。答此隨轉色。及此隨轉不相應行　準婆沙亦通色。何故但言四相　解云此論俗智散位聞思故不言色。婆沙俗智亦通修慧故兼言色。論意不同無勞會釋。又婆沙第九云。不知自性者。即止大眾部執。不知相應諸法者。即止法密部執。不知俱有諸法者。即止化地部執。言智慧知。即止犢子部執(已上論文)　境是所緣境。有境是能緣智。以境．有境別故不緣自體。若緣自體應無差別。同一所緣故不緣相應法。譬如眾人同觀初月不相見面。極相鄰近故不緣俱有法。如眼不見近眼根色。故剎那三法非此智所緣。此智唯是欲．色界攝。聞．思所成非修所成以修所成地別緣故不能總緣。若異此者。修能頓緣應頓離染。正理七十四破云。此不應理。言修所成唯地別緣。非極成故。謂我宗許靜慮地攝修所成慧。有能總緣隨所依身自上境故。厭下欣上方能離染。此既總緣唯欣行相。故於離染無有功能。故彼所言皆為非理。

若作俱舍師救言。修所成慧有能總緣亦非極成。我宗不許修總緣故。此乃宗別無勞會釋。若依說一切有宗。非我觀亦通修慧。故正理七十四云。此智唯是欲色界攝。無色界中雖有此類。而緣法少。非

此所明。此通聞．思．修所成慧。皆能除自品緣一切法故。又婆沙第十解無我觀中雲。聞．思．修所成者通三種。又云。地者此行相在七地。謂欲界．未至．靜慮中間．及根本四靜慮。此則總說。若別說者。聞所成慧唯在五地。謂欲界．四靜慮。思所成慧唯在欲界。修所成慧唯在六地。謂前說七地中除欲界。又準婆沙依地門。聞慧不通未至．中間　問若依婆沙下文解三慧中。一云。聞慧唯在五地。謂欲界．四靜慮。有說在六地。謂前五．及靜慮中間。有說在七地。謂前六及未至。然無評家。何者為正　解云婆沙前文既無異說。依五地為正　又解若據非我觀等。殊勝聞慧唯在五地。若據常徒起者。亦通未至．中間。若作此解。俱容為正　問身生下地起上聞慧不　解云不起。如婆沙第十云。加行得．離染得．生得者。可言通三種。此則總說。若別說者。欲界聞思所成非我行相唯加行得。色界聞所成非我行相。可言加行得。可言生得。云何可言加行得。謂若此間于自．共相。善修習者生彼便得。若不爾者生彼不得。云何可言生得。謂雖此間善修習已。若未生彼終不能得。生彼方得。彼聞所成非我行相。必依此間所修加行。生彼得故。色界修所成非我行相。是加行得．及離染得。亦可言生得　婆沙既解色界聞慧非我行相。若加

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：這裡所闡明的是通過聽聞（聞，Sutra-maya-prajna，聽聞佛法而獲得的智慧）、思維（思，Cinta-maya-prajna，通過思考佛法而獲得的智慧）和修習（修，Bhavana-maya-prajna，通過禪修而獲得的智慧）所成就的智慧。這些智慧都能去除屬於自身範疇的一切法。此外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）第十卷解釋無我觀時說，通過聽聞、思維和修習所成就的智慧，普遍存在於三種智慧之中。又說，『地』（Bhumi，修行的層次或境界）指的是這種行相存在於七個『地』中，即欲界（Kama-dhatu，眾生對感官享樂有強烈慾望的境界）、未至定（未至，the state of mind before reaching the first Dhyana）、靜慮中間定（靜慮中間，the state between the unreleased and released states of mind）以及根本四靜慮（根本四靜慮，the four basic Dhyanas）。這是總體的說法。如果分別來說，聽聞所成慧只存在於五個『地』中，即欲界和四靜慮。思維所成慧只存在於欲界。修習所成慧存在於六個『地』中，即前面所說的七個『地』中除去欲界。又根據《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》關於『地』的分類，聽聞慧不包括未至定和中間定。問：如果根據《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》下文對三種智慧的解釋，其中一種說法是，聽聞慧只存在於五個『地』中，即欲界和四靜慮；有的說存在於六個『地』中，即前五個『地』加上靜慮中間定；有的說存在於七個『地』中，即前六個『地』加上未至定。但沒有評判者，哪種說法是正確的？答：因為《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》前文沒有不同的說法，所以依據五地說是正確的。又解：如果根據非我觀等殊勝的聽聞慧，只存在於五個『地』中。如果根據常隨眾生而生起的聽聞慧，也包括未至定和中間定。如果這樣解釋，都可認為是正確的。問：從地獄轉生到上界，是否能生起上界的聽聞慧？答：不能生起。如《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第十卷所說，通過加行（加行，effort）、離染（離染，separation from defilements）和生得（生得，innate）而獲得的智慧，可以說普遍存在於三種智慧之中。這是總體的說法。如果分別來說，欲界的聽聞和思維所成就的非我行相，只能通過加行獲得。聽聞所成就的非我行相，可以說通過加行獲得，也可以說通過生得獲得。如何說通過加行獲得？即如果在此處對自相（自相，own-character）和共相（共相，common-character）善於修習，那麼轉生到彼處就能獲得；如果不這樣，轉生到彼處就不能獲得。如何說通過生得獲得？即雖然在此處善於修習，如果未轉生到彼處，最終也不能獲得，轉生到彼處才能獲得。彼處的聽聞所成就的非我行相，必定依賴於此處所修的加行，轉生到彼處才能獲得。修習所成就的非我行相，是通過加行獲得和離染獲得，也可以說是生得。既然《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》解釋了聽聞慧的非我行相，如果通過加行獲得……

【English Translation】 English version: What is clarified here is the wisdom attained through hearing (Sutra-maya-prajna, wisdom gained through hearing the Buddha's teachings), thinking (Cinta-maya-prajna, wisdom gained through contemplating the Buddha's teachings), and cultivation (Bhavana-maya-prajna, wisdom gained through meditation). These wisdoms can all remove all dharmas belonging to their respective categories. Furthermore, the tenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra explains that the wisdom attained through hearing, thinking, and cultivation is universally present in the three types of wisdom. It also says that 'Bhumi' (Bhumi, levels or realms of practice) refers to this characteristic being present in seven 'Bhumis,' namely the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu, the realm where beings have strong desires for sensory pleasures), the Unreached Concentration (未至, the state of mind before reaching the first Dhyana), the Intermediate Concentration (靜慮中間, the state between the unreleased and released states of mind), and the Four Fundamental Dhyanas (根本四靜慮, the four basic Dhyanas). This is a general statement. If we speak separately, the wisdom attained through hearing is only present in five 'Bhumis,' namely the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas. The wisdom attained through thinking is only present in the Desire Realm. The wisdom attained through cultivation is present in six 'Bhumis,' namely the seven 'Bhumis' mentioned earlier, excluding the Desire Realm. Moreover, according to the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra's classification of 'Bhumis,' the wisdom of hearing does not include the Unreached Concentration and the Intermediate Concentration. Question: If, according to the lower text of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra's explanation of the three wisdoms, one statement is that the wisdom of hearing is only present in five 'Bhumis,' namely the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas; some say it is present in six 'Bhumis,' namely the previous five 'Bhumis' plus the Intermediate Concentration; some say it is present in seven 'Bhumis,' namely the previous six 'Bhumis' plus the Unreached Concentration. But there is no commentator, which statement is correct? Answer: Because the previous text of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra has no different statement, it is correct to rely on the five Bhumis. Another explanation: If according to the superior wisdom of hearing such as the non-self contemplation, it is only present in five 'Bhumis.' If according to the wisdom of hearing that arises with ordinary beings, it also includes the Unreached Concentration and the Intermediate Concentration. If explained in this way, both can be considered correct. Question: Can one who is born from a lower realm to a higher realm generate the wisdom of hearing of the higher realm? Answer: Cannot generate. As the tenth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says, the wisdom attained through effort (加行, effort), separation from defilements (離染, separation from defilements), and innate (生得, innate) can be said to be universally present in the three wisdoms. This is a general statement. If we speak separately, the non-self characteristic attained through hearing and thinking in the Desire Realm can only be attained through effort. The non-self characteristic attained through hearing can be said to be attained through effort, and can also be said to be attained through innate. How can it be said to be attained through effort? That is, if one is skilled in cultivating the own-character (自相, own-character) and common-character (共相, common-character) here, then one can attain it upon being reborn there; if not, one cannot attain it upon being reborn there. How can it be said to be attained through innate? That is, even if one is skilled in cultivating here, if one is not reborn there, one cannot ultimately attain it, one can only attain it upon being reborn there. The non-self characteristic attained through hearing there must rely on the effort cultivated here, and one can only attain it upon being reborn there. The non-self characteristic attained through cultivation is attained through effort and attained through separation from defilements, and can also be said to be innate. Since the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra explains the non-self characteristic of the wisdom of hearing, if attained through effort...

行得者生彼便得。若生得者亦言生方得。明知身在下地不得起上聞慧。若先已得。如何論言生彼便得。古德皆言。身在欲界修習色界聞慧非我觀。生彼即得者。不然。若言先得。何須復言生彼即得。又婆沙云。問云何起非我行相耶。答若生欲界起欲．色界非我行相。俱能緣一切法。若生初靜慮起初靜慮非我行相。不定者亦能緣一切法。定者唯緣從初靜慮乃至有頂。起上三靜慮非我行相。亦唯能緣從初靜慮乃至有頂。若生第二靜慮起第二靜慮非我行相。不定者能緣一切法。定者唯緣從第二靜慮乃至有頂。起第三．第四靜慮非我行相。亦唯能緣從第二靜慮乃至有頂。若生第三．第四靜慮。如理應說。婆沙既言。身生此地起此地非我觀分定．不定。若起上地非我觀。唯約定心緣自．上地不言不定。以此故知。身生下地不起上地聞慧非我觀。聞慧非我既不得起。所餘聞慧唯皆不起。

已辨所緣至定成九成十者。此即第五約人成智。總約四位以辨。

論曰至謂增無生者。諸異生位及聖見道第一剎那定成俗智。第二剎那定成三智。加法智及與苦智。以重知故。第四剎那又增類智。第六剎那又增集智。第十剎那又增滅智。第十四剎那又增道智。于見道中諸未增位。成數多少。如前位說。故至修位中由未增故亦定成七智。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果行者能夠往生到彼處，就能獲得（聞慧）。如果往生才能獲得，那就說明只有往生到彼處才能獲得。這清楚地表明，身處地獄無法生起上界的聞慧。如果先前已經獲得，又何必說往生到彼處才能獲得呢？過去的德行高尚之人說，身處欲界修習聞慧和非我觀，往生到彼處就能獲得，這是不對的。如果說先前已經獲得，又何必再說往生到彼處才能獲得呢？此外，《婆沙論》中說：『問：如何生起非我行相呢？』答：『如果生在欲界，生起欲界和非我行相，都能緣一切法。如果生在初禪，生起初禪的非我行相，不定者也能緣一切法，定者只能緣從初禪乃至有頂。生起上三禪的非我行相，也只能緣從初禪乃至有頂。如果生在二禪，生起二禪的非我行相，不定者能緣一切法，定者只能緣從二禪乃至有頂。生起三禪、四禪的非我行相，也只能緣從二禪乃至有頂。』如果生在三禪、四禪，應該如理如實地說。《婆沙論》既然說，身生於此地，生起此地的非我觀，有定和不定之分。如果生起上地的非我觀，只有約定心才能緣自地和上地，沒有不定之說。因此可知，身生於下地，不能生起上地的聞慧和非我觀。聞慧和非我觀既然不能生起，其餘的聞慧也都不可能生起。已經辨明了所緣，至於定成九智或十智，這是第五個方面，從人的角度成就智慧。總共從四個階段來辨析。論中說，『至於增加無生智』，在凡夫位和聖者見道的第一剎那，定成世俗智。第二剎那，定成三智，加上法智和苦智，因為重複了知。第四剎那又增加類智。第六剎那又增加集智。第十剎那又增加滅智。第十四剎那又增加道智。在見道中，各個未增加的階段，成就的數量多少，如前所述。所以到了修道位中，由於沒有增加，也定成七智。

【English Translation】 English version: If a practitioner can be reborn there, they can obtain (Śruta-jñāna). If it is only through rebirth that one can obtain it, then it means that only by being reborn there can one obtain it. This clearly indicates that being in the lower realms, one cannot generate the Śruta-jñāna of the higher realms. If one has already obtained it previously, why would one say that one can only obtain it by being reborn there? Past virtuous individuals said that being in the desire realm and practicing Śruta-jñāna and non-self contemplation (Anatta-lakkhana), one can obtain it by being reborn there, but this is incorrect. If one says that one has already obtained it previously, why would one need to say that one can only obtain it by being reborn there? Furthermore, the Vibhasa says: 'Question: How does one generate the aspect of non-self (Anatta-lakkhana)?' Answer: 'If one is born in the desire realm, generating the non-self aspect of the desire realm, one can cognize all dharmas. If one is born in the first Dhyana (Jhāna), generating the non-self aspect of the first Dhyana, the unfixed can also cognize all dharmas, while the fixed can only cognize from the first Dhyana up to the peak of existence (Bhavagra). Generating the non-self aspect of the upper three Dhyanas, one can only cognize from the first Dhyana up to the peak of existence. If one is born in the second Dhyana, generating the non-self aspect of the second Dhyana, the unfixed can cognize all dharmas, while the fixed can only cognize from the second Dhyana up to the peak of existence. Generating the non-self aspect of the third and fourth Dhyanas, one can only cognize from the second Dhyana up to the peak of existence.' If one is born in the third and fourth Dhyanas, one should speak truthfully and accordingly. Since the Vibhasa says that if one is born in this realm, one generates the non-self contemplation of this realm, with fixed and unfixed divisions. If one generates the non-self contemplation of the upper realms, only with a fixed mind can one cognize one's own realm and the upper realms, there is no unfixed division. Therefore, it can be known that if one is born in the lower realms, one cannot generate the Śruta-jñāna and non-self contemplation of the upper realms. Since Śruta-jñāna and non-self contemplation cannot be generated, the remaining Śruta-jñāna cannot be generated either. Having already distinguished the object of cognition, as for the fixed attainment of nine or ten wisdoms, this is the fifth aspect, achieving wisdom from the perspective of the person. It is analyzed from a total of four stages. The treatise says, 'As for increasing the wisdom of non-origination (Anutpāda-jñāna)', in the position of ordinary beings and the first moment of the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga) of the saints, mundane wisdom (Saṃvṛti-satya-jñāna) is fixedly attained. In the second moment, three wisdoms are fixedly attained, adding Dharma-wisdom (Dharma-jñāna) and Suffering-wisdom (Dukkha-jñāna), because of repeated knowing. In the fourth moment, class-wisdom (Anvaya-jñāna) is increased again. In the sixth moment, accumulation-wisdom (Samudaya-jñāna) is increased again. In the tenth moment, cessation-wisdom (Nirodha-jñāna) is increased again. In the fourteenth moment, path-wisdom (Mārga-jñāna) is increased again. In the path of seeing, the number of attainments in each unincreased stage is as described previously. Therefore, in the path of cultivation (Bhāvanā-mārga), because there is no increase, seven wisdoms are also fixedly attained.

如是異生及十六心位。若已離欲各增他心。于離染位唯除異生生無色者。不成他心。余皆成就。故正理云。然異生位。及見道中。唯可成就俗．他心智道類智時具成二種。爾時初得不還果故。兼得無漏以成果體。余修位中皆具成二。生無色者便舍世俗(已上論文)　時解脫者定成九智者。又加盡智。不時解脫定成十智。又增無生。

於何位中頓修幾智者。此下第六約位辨修智。就中。一約見道辨修。二約修道辨修。三約無學辨修。四約餘位辨修。五約依地辨修。六通明四修義　此即總問。修總有四。得．習．治．遣。此下且約得．習二修以辨。又正理云。且應思擇。何謂為修。謂習善有為令圓滿自在。非染．無記者。無勝愛果故。非善無為者不在相續故。又無為無果故。

且於見道至唯加行所得者。就答中。此即第一約見道辨修。將辨諸修。略依加行．無間．解脫．勝進四道明其十智。得修．習修者。苦．集．滅．道．法．類．世俗皆容四道得修．習修。以寬通故。若他心智加行道中非斷障故容得．修。非容預故無習修。無間道中以斷障故非得．習修。解脫．勝進非斷障故容得．修。容預道故容習修。若盡智四道之中。相系屬故皆容得修。加行．無間是見性故非習修。解脫．勝進容息求故容習修。若無生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如是異生（指凡夫）及十六心位（指修行過程中的十六個階段）。若已離欲者，各增加他心智（能知他人心念的智慧）。于離染位（指脫離煩惱染污的階段），唯除異生生於無色界者，不能成就他心智，其餘皆能成就。故《正理》中說：『然異生位，及見道（指初見真理的階段）中，唯可成就世俗智（認識世俗現象的智慧）和他心智。道類智（認識四聖諦之理的智慧）時，具成二種。』爾時初得不還果（指斷除欲界煩惱的果位）故，兼得無漏智（指超越世間煩惱的智慧）以成果體。其餘修位中皆具成二。生無色界者便舍世俗智（因為無色界眾生沒有色身，不需要認識世俗現象）。（以上是論文內容）時解脫者（指通過特定時間修行而解脫的人）必定成就九智，又加盡智（斷盡煩惱的智慧）。不時解脫者（指不通過特定時間修行而解脫的人）必定成就十智，又增無生智（證悟不生不滅之理的智慧）。

於何位中頓修幾智者？此下第六，約位辨修智。就中：一、約見道辨修；二、約修道辨修；三、約無學道辨修；四、約餘位辨修；五、約依地辨修；六、通明四修義。此即總問。修總有四：得（獲得）、習（修習）、治（對治）、遣（去除）。此下且約得、習二修以辨。又《正理》中說：『且應思擇，何謂為修？謂習善有為法（指通過修行善的有為法）令圓滿自在。』非染污、無記法者，無殊勝可愛之果故。非善無為法者，不在相續中故。又無為法無果故。

且於見道至唯加行所得者。就答中，此即第一約見道辨修。將辨諸修，略依加行道（指為進入正修所做的準備階段）、無間道（指直接斷除煩惱的階段）、解脫道（指斷除煩惱后獲得解脫的階段）、勝進道（指在解脫道基礎上繼續提升的階段）四道，明其十智。得修、習修者，苦智（認識苦諦的智慧）、集智（認識集諦的智慧）、滅智（認識滅諦的智慧）、道智（認識道諦的智慧）、法智（認識四諦之理的智慧）、類智（與法智同類，但觀察對像不同）、世俗智皆容四道得修、習修，以寬通故。若他心智，加行道中非斷障故，容得修，非容預故，無習修。無間道中以斷障故，非得修、習修。解脫道、勝進道非斷障故，容得修，容預道故，容習修。若盡智，四道之中，相系屬故，皆容得修。加行道、無間道是見性故，非習修。解脫道、勝進道容息求故，容習修。若無生智（證悟不生不滅之理的智慧）。

【English Translation】 English version: Thus are the ordinary beings (異生, referring to common mortals) and the sixteen mind moments (十六心位, referring to the sixteen stages in the process of cultivation). If one has already detached from desire, each gains the knowledge of others' minds (他心智, the wisdom to know the thoughts of others). In the stage of detachment from defilements (離染位, the stage of liberation from afflictions), only those ordinary beings born in the Formless Realm are excluded, as they cannot achieve the knowledge of others' minds; all others can achieve it. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'However, in the stage of ordinary beings and in the Path of Seeing (見道, the stage of initial insight into the truth), only mundane knowledge (世俗智, the wisdom to understand worldly phenomena) and the knowledge of others' minds can be achieved. At the moment of the Knowledge of Conformity to the Path (道類智, the wisdom to understand the principles of the Four Noble Truths), both types are fully achieved.' At that time, because one initially attains the fruit of Non-Returner (不還果, the stage of eliminating desire realm afflictions), one also gains unconditioned knowledge (無漏智, the wisdom transcending worldly afflictions) as the substance of the fruit. In the remaining stages of cultivation, both are fully achieved. Those born in the Formless Realm abandon mundane knowledge (because beings in the Formless Realm do not have a physical body and do not need to understand worldly phenomena). (The above is from the treatise) Those liberated in due time (時解脫者, those who attain liberation through specific timed practice) will certainly achieve nine knowledges, and also add the Exhaustion Knowledge (盡智, the wisdom of exhausting afflictions). Those liberated out of due time (不時解脫者, those who attain liberation without specific timed practice) will certainly achieve ten knowledges, and also add the Non-Arising Knowledge (無生智, the wisdom of realizing the principle of non-arising and non-ceasing).

In which stage does one cultivate how many knowledges at once? The following, the sixth, distinguishes the cultivation of knowledge according to the stage. Among them: 1. Distinguishing cultivation in relation to the Path of Seeing; 2. Distinguishing cultivation in relation to the Path of Cultivation; 3. Distinguishing cultivation in relation to the Path of No More Learning; 4. Distinguishing cultivation in relation to other stages; 5. Distinguishing cultivation in relation to the basis of the realm; 6. Generally clarifying the meaning of the four cultivations. This is the general question. There are four types of cultivation in total: attainment (得), practice (習), counteraction (治), and removal (遣). The following will only distinguish between the two cultivations of attainment and practice. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Moreover, one should consider, what is meant by cultivation? It means practicing wholesome conditioned dharmas (善有為法, referring to practicing wholesome conditioned dharmas) to make them complete and free.' Not defiled or neutral dharmas, because they have no excellent and desirable fruit. Not wholesome unconditioned dharmas, because they are not in the continuum. Moreover, unconditioned dharmas have no fruit.

Moreover, in the Path of Seeing to only what is attained through the preparatory stage. In the answer, this is the first distinguishing cultivation in relation to the Path of Seeing. When distinguishing the various cultivations, briefly rely on the four paths of the preparatory path (加行道, the stage of preparation for entering into proper cultivation), the immediate path (無間道, the stage of directly cutting off afflictions), the path of liberation (解脫道, the stage of attaining liberation after cutting off afflictions), and the path of superior progress (勝進道, the stage of continuing to improve on the basis of the path of liberation) to clarify the ten knowledges. Those who attain and practice cultivation, the Knowledge of Suffering (苦智, the wisdom of recognizing the truth of suffering), the Knowledge of Accumulation (集智, the wisdom of recognizing the truth of the cause of suffering), the Knowledge of Cessation (滅智, the wisdom of recognizing the truth of the cessation of suffering), the Knowledge of the Path (道智, the wisdom of recognizing the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering), the Knowledge of Dharma (法智, the wisdom of recognizing the principles of the Four Noble Truths), the Knowledge of Conformity (類智, similar to the Knowledge of Dharma but observing different objects), and Mundane Knowledge can all accommodate the four paths for attaining and practicing cultivation, because they are broad and comprehensive. If the Knowledge of Others' Minds, in the preparatory path, because it does not cut off obstacles, it can accommodate attainment and cultivation, but because it does not accommodate anticipation, there is no practice cultivation. In the immediate path, because it cuts off obstacles, it does not accommodate attainment or practice cultivation. The path of liberation and the path of superior progress, because they do not cut off obstacles, can accommodate attainment and cultivation, and because they accommodate the anticipated path, they can accommodate practice cultivation. If the Exhaustion Knowledge, among the four paths, because they are related, they can all accommodate attainment cultivation. The preparatory path and the immediate path are seeing nature, so they are not practice cultivation. The path of liberation and the path of superior progress can accommodate the cessation of seeking, so they can accommodate practice cultivation. If the Non-Arising Knowledge.

智如盡智說。差別者。解脫道中無習修無容起故。應知略依一切四道隨其所應各有二修。作此判釋。其中差別如下論文。

論曰至念住者。釋初兩句。見道位中隨起八忍．七智。皆即彼類于未來修。忍自修忍。智自修智。然能具修自諦下四行相念住。得忍未得智。得智忍已得互不相修。所修忍智通四行相及四念住故。各具修四。

何緣見道唯同類修者。問。

先未曾得至俱決定故者。答。先未曾得此種姓故。今時創得。勢力未廣故修同類不能傍修。又諸忍．智對治決定．所緣決定。唯修同類不能傍修。如苦忍．苦智決定對治苦下煩惱。決定以苦諦為所緣境。如是乃至道忍．道智應知亦爾。故婆沙一百七云。複次以見道所緣定．對治定故。唯修同分。修道所緣不定．對治不定。故能修同分．不同分。

唯苦集滅至未能兼修者。釋第三．第四句。唯苦．集．滅三類智時。能兼修未來現觀邊俗智。於一一諦現觀後邊。方能兼修此世俗智。故立現觀邊世俗智號。由此名故。見道餘位不能兼修。以世俗智從無始來。數曾知苦。斷集。證滅三現觀邊亦復知苦。斷集。證滅。同爲一事。又此俗智從無始來不斷非想。今斷非想。俗智欣慶起得隨喜。

道類智時何不修此者。問。道類智時亦現觀邊。何不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：智如盡智所說，差別在於，在解脫道中，沒有習修，沒有容許生起，因此應該知道，大致依據一切四道，根據其各自相應的情況，各有二種修習。以此作出判釋。其中的差別如下文所述。

論曰：至念住者。解釋最初兩句。在見道位中，隨之生起八忍（Kṣānti，指無間道中的忍位），七智（Jñāna，指無間道中的智位），都是屬於那一類，用於未來的修習。忍修習忍，智修習智。然而能夠具足修習自諦之下的四行相念住（catuḥ-ākāra-smṛtyupasthāna，觀身不凈、觀受是苦、觀心無常、觀法無我）。得到忍而未得到智，得到智而忍已經得到，互相不修習。所修習的忍智通達四行相以及四念住，因此各自具足修習四種。

什麼緣故見道唯修習同類呢？（問）

先前未曾得到，以至於俱皆決定之故。（答）先前未曾得到這種姓故，現在才開始得到，勢力尚未廣大，所以修習同類，不能兼修其他。而且諸忍智，對治決定，所緣決定，唯有修習同類，不能兼修其他。例如苦忍（duḥkha-kṣānti）、苦智（duḥkha-jñāna）決定對治苦下的煩惱，決定以苦諦（duḥkha-satya）為所緣境。像這樣乃至道忍（mārga-kṣānti）、道智（mārga-jñāna）也應當知道也是如此。所以《婆沙論》第一百零七卷說：『再者，因為見道所緣是決定的，對治是決定的緣故，唯有修習同分。修道所緣是不定的，對治是不定的，所以能夠修習同分、不同分。』

唯有苦集滅三類智時，才能兼修未來現觀邊俗智，未能兼修。（釋第三、第四句）唯有苦、集、滅三類智時，才能兼修未來現觀邊俗智。在每一諦現觀之後，才能兼修此世俗智，所以立名為現觀邊世俗智。因為這個名稱的緣故，見道其餘位不能兼修。因為世俗智從無始以來，多次曾經知苦，斷集，證滅，三現觀邊也同樣知苦，斷集，證滅，同爲一事。又此俗智從無始以來不斷非想（naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñā-āyatana，非想非非想處），現在斷除非想，俗智欣喜慶幸而隨喜。

道類智時為什麼不修習這個呢？（問）道類智時也是現觀邊，為什麼不修習呢？

【English Translation】 English version: As stated by Wisdom like Exhaustive Wisdom, the difference lies in the fact that in the path of liberation, there is no practice, no allowance for arising. Therefore, it should be understood that, broadly based on all four paths, each has two types of practice according to their respective suitability. This is the judgment made. The differences among them are as described in the following text.

The Treatise says: 'To mindfulness.' This explains the first two sentences. In the stage of the Path of Seeing (Darśana-mārga), the eight Kṣānti (忍, forbearance, referring to the Kṣānti positions in the immediate path) and seven Jñāna (智, knowledge, referring to the Jñāna positions in the immediate path) that arise are all of that category, used for future practice. Kṣānti practices Kṣānti, Jñāna practices Jñāna. However, one can fully practice the four aspects of mindfulness (catuḥ-ākāra-smṛtyupasthāna, 四行相念住, contemplation of the body as impure, feeling as suffering, mind as impermanent, and phenomena as selfless) under one's own truth. Having attained Kṣānti but not yet attained Jñāna, having attained Jñāna and Kṣānti already attained, they do not practice each other. The Kṣānti and Jñāna that are practiced encompass the four aspects and the four mindfulnesses, so each fully practices four.

What is the reason that only those of the same category are practiced in the Path of Seeing? (Question)

Because one has not obtained them before, so that they are all determined. (Answer) Because one has not obtained this lineage before, now one is just beginning to obtain it, and the power is not yet extensive, so one practices the same category and cannot practice others. Moreover, the Kṣānti and Jñāna, the antidotes are determined, and the objects are determined. One can only practice the same category and cannot practice others. For example, duḥkha-kṣānti (苦忍, forbearance regarding suffering) and duḥkha-jñāna (苦智, knowledge regarding suffering) are determined to counteract the afflictions under suffering, and are determined to take duḥkha-satya (苦諦, the truth of suffering) as the object. Likewise, it should be known that mārga-kṣānti (道忍, forbearance regarding the path) and mārga-jñāna (道智, knowledge regarding the path) are also like this. Therefore, the 107th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā states: 'Furthermore, because the object of the Path of Seeing is fixed and the antidote is fixed, one only practices the same division. The object of the Path of Cultivation is unfixed and the antidote is unfixed, so one can practice the same division and different divisions.'

Only when there are three types of knowledge of suffering, accumulation, and cessation can one concurrently practice the mundane knowledge at the edge of future direct perception, and one cannot concurrently practice. (Explanation of the third and fourth sentences) Only when there are three types of knowledge of suffering, accumulation, and cessation can one concurrently practice the mundane knowledge at the edge of future direct perception. Only after the direct perception of each truth can one concurrently practice this mundane knowledge, so it is named mundane knowledge at the edge of direct perception. Because of this name, the other positions of the Path of Seeing cannot concurrently practice. Because mundane knowledge has known suffering, cut off accumulation, and realized cessation many times since beginningless time, the three edges of direct perception also know suffering, cut off accumulation, and realize cessation, which is the same thing. Moreover, this mundane knowledge has not ceased naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñā-āyatana (非想非非想處, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) since beginningless time. Now that it has ceased naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjā-āyatana, the mundane knowledge rejoices and is happy and rejoices.

Why is this not practiced at the time of the knowledge of the path? (Question) It is also the edge of direct perception at the time of the knowledge of the path, why is it not practiced?

修此世俗智耶。

俗智曾於至種姓多故者。答。俗智數曾於三諦中知．斷．證故。現觀邊修俗智。曾於道無事現觀故不名修。道非為一事故道類智不修世俗。又必無于道遍事現觀故。謂於三界苦．集．滅三。可遍知苦。可遍斷集。可遍證滅。故現觀邊能修俗智。必無于道可能遍修。故現觀邊不修俗智。雖集諦邊未斷一切集盡。而於當集位斷集已周。雖滅諦邊未能證一切滅盡。而於當滅位證滅已周。道則不然。種姓多故。異種姓道不能修故。于自根姓雖容得．修。百千分中不起一故。苦現觀邊苦必遍知。故不別釋。

有言此是至故不能修者。有言。此世俗智是見道眷屬。彼道類智是修道攝故不能修。

理非極成不應為證者。論主難。諸部大有說第十六心亦見道攝。言非見道理非極成不應為證。

此世俗智至無容起故者。釋第五句中不生。故正理云。此智依身定不生故。謂隨信行．隨法行身。容有為依引此智起。在見道位此無容生。故此依身住不生法。依不生故此必不生　問何時得非擇滅　解云三現觀邊得非擇滅。故正理云。謂于爾時起得自在。余緣障故體不現前。

若爾何故說名為修者。經部問。起時自在可說名修。此既不生何名為修。

先未曾得今方得故者。說一切有部答。今

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

是否修習這種世俗智（Samskrita-jnana，指凡夫的智慧）呢？

答：世俗智曾經在達到種姓（Gotra，指修行者的根性）的眾多情況下出現過。世俗智曾經在三諦（Tri-satya，指苦、集、滅）中被認知、斷除、證悟。在現觀（Abhisamaya，指對四聖諦的證悟）的邊緣修習世俗智。曾經在道（Marga，指八正道）的無事現觀中，所以不稱為修習。道不是爲了單一的目的，所以道類智（Marga-jnanakshanti，指對道的忍）不修習世俗智。而且一定沒有在道上普遍地進行現觀，因為在三界（Tri-dhatu，指欲界、色界、無色界）的苦、集、滅三諦中，可以普遍地認知苦，可以普遍地斷除集，可以普遍地證悟滅，所以在現觀的邊緣能夠修習世俗智。一定沒有在道上可能普遍地修習，所以在現觀的邊緣不修習世俗智。雖然在集諦（Samudaya-satya，指苦的根源）的邊緣未能斷除一切的集盡，但在當集位斷除集已經周遍。雖然在滅諦（Nirodha-satya，指涅槃）的邊緣未能證悟一切的滅盡，但在當滅位證悟滅已經周遍。道則不是這樣，因為種姓眾多，異種姓的道不能修習，所以在自己的根性中雖然容許獲得和修習，但在百千分中不起作用，所以在苦現觀（Dukkha-abhisamaya，指對苦諦的證悟）的邊緣，苦一定會被普遍認知，所以不另外解釋。

有人說這是因為已經達到極致所以不能修習。有人說，這種世俗智是見道（Darshana-marga，指初果的道）的眷屬，而道類智是修道（Bhavana-marga，指二果到四果的道）所攝，所以不能修習。

如果道理不明確，就不應該作為證據。論主反駁說，各個部派大多說第十六心也是見道所攝。說不是見道的道理不明確，不應該作為證據。

這種世俗智達到沒有容許生起的地方。解釋第五句中的不生。所以正理（Nyaya，指因明）說，這種智慧依靠身體一定不會生起。指隨信行（Shraddhanusarin，指隨順他人信心修行的人）、隨法行（Dharmanusarin，指隨順他人教法修行的人）的身體，容許作為依靠引導這種智慧生起。在見道位，這種智慧沒有容許生起的地方，所以這種依靠身體住于不生法，因為依靠不生，所以這種智慧一定不會生起。問：什麼時候獲得非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha，指不依靠智慧力量而自然獲得的滅）？解答說：在三個現觀的邊緣獲得非擇滅。所以正理說，在那個時候生起獲得自在，因為其餘的因緣障礙，所以本體不顯現。

如果是這樣，為什麼說名為修習呢？經部（Sutra-vada，佛教部派之一）問道：生起時自在可以說名為修習，這種智慧既然不生起，為什麼名為修習呢？

一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）回答說：因為先前沒有獲得，現在才獲得。

【English Translation】 English version:

Is this mundane wisdom (Samskrita-jnana) cultivated?

Answer: Mundane wisdom has occurred in many instances of attaining lineage (Gotra). Mundane wisdom has been known, abandoned, and realized in the three truths (Tri-satya). Mundane wisdom is cultivated at the edge of Abhisamaya (direct realization). It has been in the no-event Abhisamaya of the path (Marga), so it is not called cultivation. The path is not for a single purpose, so Marga-jnanakshanti (the forbearance of the knowledge of the path) does not cultivate mundane wisdom. Moreover, there is certainly no universal Abhisamaya on the path, because in the three realms (Tri-dhatu), in the three truths of suffering, accumulation, and cessation, suffering can be universally known, accumulation can be universally abandoned, and cessation can be universally realized. Therefore, at the edge of Abhisamaya, mundane wisdom can be cultivated. There is certainly no possibility of universally cultivating on the path, so mundane wisdom is not cultivated at the edge of Abhisamaya. Although at the edge of the truth of accumulation (Samudaya-satya), not all accumulations have been completely abandoned, abandoning accumulation in the position of accumulation is already complete. Although at the edge of the truth of cessation (Nirodha-satya), not all cessations have been completely realized, realizing cessation in the position of cessation is already complete. The path is not like this, because there are many lineages, and the path of a different lineage cannot be cultivated. Therefore, although it is permissible to obtain and cultivate in one's own lineage, it does not arise in one out of a hundred thousand parts. Therefore, at the edge of the Abhisamaya of suffering (Dukkha-abhisamaya), suffering must be universally known, so it is not explained separately.

Some say that it cannot be cultivated because it has reached the extreme. Some say that this mundane wisdom is an associate of the path of seeing (Darshana-marga), while Marga-jnanakshanti is included in the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga), so it cannot be cultivated.

If the principle is not fully established, it should not be used as evidence. The master refutes that many schools say that the sixteenth mind is also included in the path of seeing. Saying that the principle is not the path of seeing is not fully established and should not be used as evidence.

This mundane wisdom reaches a place where there is no possibility of arising. Explaining the non-arising in the fifth sentence. Therefore, Nyaya (logic) says that this wisdom certainly does not arise depending on the body. It refers to the bodies of those who follow faith (Shraddhanusarin) and those who follow the Dharma (Dharmanusarin), which allow for relying on and guiding this wisdom to arise. In the position of the path of seeing, this wisdom has no place to arise, so this reliance on the body dwells in the non-arising Dharma. Because it relies on non-arising, this wisdom certainly does not arise. Question: When is Apratisankhya-nirodha (cessation without deliberation) obtained? The answer is that Apratisankhya-nirodha is obtained at the edge of the three Abhisamayas. Therefore, Nyaya says that at that time, arising obtains freedom, but because of other causal obstacles, the substance does not appear.

If that is the case, why is it said to be cultivation? The Sutra-vada (a Buddhist school) asks: It can be said to be cultivation when arising is free, but since this wisdom does not arise, why is it called cultivation?

The Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school) answers: Because it was not obtained before, but is obtained now.

方得故說名為修。

既不能起得義何依者。經部難。彼世俗智既不能起。得義何依。以經部宗得是假故。

但由得故說名為得者。說一切有部答。但由現在起得得故說名為得。非要現起。

由得故得至理不成立者。經部復徴。我問不起得義何依。應以余義來釋。不以余釋。而今乃言由得故名得。此乃以得釋得。如是所釋曾所未聞。故所辨修理不成立。

如古師說修義可成者。難訖述經部義。如經部古師說。修義可成。

彼說云何者。說一切有部問。

由聖道力至不樂此義者。經部答。由此觀內聖道力故。熏修俗智種子增勝。于出觀後有勝緣諦俗智現前勝於往日。正在觀內由聖道力。得此出觀俗智起依。依即種子故。名得此出觀俗智。此即得因說名得果。如得金礦因名為得金果　或得此俗智起依身。故名得此世俗智果。應言種子。為毗婆沙師不信種子。故言依身。以彼種子不離身故　或得此起俗智所依聖道因。故名得此後俗智果。雖作是說。毗婆沙師不樂此義。

隨依何地至七地俗智者。釋自．下地。俗智別緣雖是有漏能修自．下。余有漏法無別緣故。多分修自。又婆沙第四云。問何故六地見道上能修下。下不修上。答上地法勝。現在前時則能修下。下地法劣。現在前時不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『方得故說名為修』（因為才獲得，所以才叫做修習）。

『既不能起得義何依者』（如果不能生起，那麼獲得的意義又依據什麼呢）？經部（ Sautrāntika ）提出疑問。既然世俗的智慧不能生起，那麼獲得的意義又依據什麼呢？因為經部的宗義認為『得』是假有的。

『但由得故說名為得者』（僅僅因為獲得，所以才叫做獲得）？說一切有部（ Sarvāstivāda ）回答。僅僅因為現在生起獲得，所以才叫做獲得，並非一定要現在生起。

『由得故得至理不成立者』（因為獲得所以獲得，這個道理不成立）？經部再次質問。我問的是不能生起，獲得的意義依據什麼，應該用其他的意義來解釋，而不是用其他的解釋。而現在卻說因為獲得所以叫做獲得，這是用『得』來解釋『得』，這樣解釋前所未聞，所以所辨別的修習的道理不成立。

『如古師說修義可成者』（如同古代的老師說修習的意義可以成立）？駁難完畢，陳述經部的意義。如同經部的古代老師所說，修習的意義是可以成立的。

『彼說云何者』（他們怎麼說的）？說一切有部問道。

『由聖道力至不樂此義者』（依靠聖道的威力，直到不喜歡這個意義）？經部回答。因為觀察內在的聖道的力量，熏習世俗智慧的種子，使其增長殊勝，在出觀之後，有殊勝的因緣，使世俗智慧現前，勝過往日。正在觀內，依靠聖道的力量，獲得這個出觀的世俗智慧生起的所依，所依就是種子，所以叫做獲得這個出觀的世俗智慧。這是以獲得的因，說成獲得的果，如同獲得金礦的因，叫做獲得金子的果。或者獲得這個生起世俗智慧的所依之身，所以叫做獲得這個世俗智慧的果。應該說是種子，因為毗婆沙師（ Vaibhāṣika ）不相信種子，所以說是所依之身，因為他們的種子不離身。或者獲得這個生起世俗智慧的所依的聖道因，所以叫做獲得這個後來的世俗智慧果。雖然這樣說，毗婆沙師不喜歡這個意義。

『隨依何地至七地俗智者』（隨順依靠哪個地，直到七地的世俗智慧）？解釋自地和下地的世俗智慧的差別。雖然有漏的世俗智慧能夠修習自地和下地的法，因為沒有其他的因緣，所以多分修習自地。而且《婆沙論》第四卷說：問：為什麼六地的見道以上能夠修習下地，下地不能修習上地？答：上地的法殊勝，現在前的時候就能修習下地，下地的法劣，現在前的時候不能。

【English Translation】 English version 'Fang de gu shuo ming wei xiu' (方得故說名為修) (Only when it is obtained, it is called cultivation).

'Ji buneng qi de yi he yi zhe' (既不能起得義何依者) (If it cannot arise, what does the meaning of obtaining rely on)? The Sautrāntika school raises a question. Since mundane wisdom cannot arise, what does the meaning of obtaining rely on? Because the Sautrāntika school believes that 'obtaining' is hypothetical.

'Dan you de gu shuo ming wei de zhe' (但由得故說名為得者) (Only because of obtaining, it is called obtaining)? The Sarvāstivāda school answers. Only because the present arises and obtains, it is called obtaining, not necessarily the present arises.

'You de gu de zhi li bu chengli zhe' (由得故得至理不成立者) (Because of obtaining, therefore obtaining, this principle is not established)? The Sautrāntika school questions again. I am asking what the meaning of obtaining relies on when it cannot arise. It should be explained with other meanings, not with other explanations. But now it is said that because of obtaining, it is called obtaining. This is using 'obtaining' to explain 'obtaining'. Such an explanation has never been heard before, so the principle of cultivation that is distinguished is not established.

'Ru gu shi shuo xiu yi ke cheng zhe' (如古師說修義可成者) (As the ancient teachers said, the meaning of cultivation can be established)? After the refutation, the meaning of the Sautrāntika school is stated. As the ancient teachers of the Sautrāntika school said, the meaning of cultivation can be established.

'Bi shuo yun he zhe' (彼說云何者) (What did they say)? The Sarvāstivāda school asks.

'You sheng dao li zhi bu le ci yi zhe' (由聖道力至不樂此義者) (Relying on the power of the holy path, until disliking this meaning)? The Sautrāntika school answers. Because of observing the power of the inner holy path, the seeds of mundane wisdom are cultivated, making them grow superior. After emerging from contemplation, there are superior conditions that make mundane wisdom appear, surpassing the past. While in contemplation, relying on the power of the holy path, one obtains the basis for the arising of this mundane wisdom of emerging from contemplation. The basis is the seed, so it is called obtaining this mundane wisdom of emerging from contemplation. This is using the cause of obtaining to say the result of obtaining, just like the cause of obtaining a gold mine is called obtaining the result of gold. Or obtaining the body that is the basis for the arising of this mundane wisdom, so it is called obtaining the result of this mundane wisdom. It should be said that it is the seed, because the Vaibhāṣika school does not believe in seeds, so it is said that it is the body that is relied upon, because their seeds are inseparable from the body. Or obtaining the cause of the holy path that is the basis for the arising of this mundane wisdom, so it is called obtaining the result of this later mundane wisdom. Although it is said like this, the Vaibhāṣika school does not like this meaning.

'Sui yi he di zhi qi di su zhi zhe' (隨依何地至七地俗智者) (Following which ground, until the mundane wisdom of the seventh ground)? Explaining the difference between the mundane wisdom of one's own ground and the lower ground. Although the defiled mundane wisdom can cultivate the dharma of one's own ground and the lower ground, because there are no other conditions, most of the cultivation is of one's own ground. Moreover, the fourth volume of the Vibhāṣa says: Question: Why can those above the path of seeing of the sixth ground cultivate the lower ground, but the lower ground cannot cultivate the upper ground? Answer: The dharma of the upper ground is superior, and when it appears, it can cultivate the lower ground. The dharma of the lower ground is inferior, and when it appears, it cannot.

能修上。如劣朝勝非勝朝劣。此亦如是。廣如彼釋。又婆沙一百六十八云。見道依下必不修上。以是初得道故。無漏依上必修下地。以自在不繫故。

苦．集邊修至唯法念住者。釋第六句可知。

隨於何諦至此諦為境者。釋第七句。又正理云。隨於何諦現觀邊修。即以此行相緣此諦為境。謂若苦諦現觀邊修。即以緣苦四種行相若欲界系緣欲界苦。色界系者緣上苦諦。若於集諦現觀邊修。即以緣集四種行相。若欲界系緣欲界集。色界系者緣上集諦。若於滅諦現觀邊修。即以緣滅四種行相。若欲界系緣欲界滅。色界系者緣上滅諦。

見道力得故唯加行所得者。釋第八句。見道力得故。唯加行所得。非是生得．離染得。

智增故至為其自性者。出體。于見道中以智增故立智名。若並眷屬。以欲界四蘊．色界五蘊為其自性。又正理云。欲界攝者是思所成。色界攝者是修所成非聞所成。彼微劣故。

次於修道至如次修六八者。此即第二約修道辨修。

論曰至有頂治故者。修道初念道類智時現修二智。謂道及類。未離欲者未來修六。謂法．及類．苦．集．滅．道。離欲修七。謂加他心。正理云。先已離欲入聖道者。何緣見道中不修他心智。以他心智遊觀位攝。依容預道方有修義。見道位中為

【現代漢語翻譯】能修習更高層次的禪定。例如，下等禪定可以勝過非勝禪定，而非勝禪定也可以劣於勝禪定。情況就是這樣。詳細解釋如同《大毗婆沙論》中的解釋。此外，《大毗婆沙論》第一百六十八卷說，見道（Darsana-marga，見道）依于下地，必定不修習上地，因為這是初次得道。無漏（Anasrava，無漏）依于上地，必定修習下地，因為自在而不受束縛。

從苦諦（Dukkha-satya，苦諦）、集諦（Samudaya-satya，集諦）的現觀邊修到唯法念住（Dharma-smrtyupasthana，法念住）的修習，可以參考對第六句的解釋。

關於『隨於何諦至此諦為境者』，可以參考對第七句的解釋。此外，《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharma-nyayanusara，阿毗達磨順正理論）說，隨於何諦現觀邊修，即以此行相緣此諦為境。也就是說，如果對苦諦進行現觀邊修，就以緣苦的四種行相（Anitya, Dukkha, Sunya, Anatma，無常、苦、空、無我）為境；如果是欲界（Kama-dhatu，欲界）所繫的，就緣欲界的苦諦；如果是色界（Rupa-dhatu，色界）或無色界（Arupa-dhatu，無色界）所繫的，就緣上界的苦諦。如果對集諦進行現觀邊修，就以緣集的四種行相（Hetu, Samudaya, Prabhava, Pratyaya，因、集、生、緣）為境；如果是欲界所繫的，就緣欲界的集諦；如果是色界或無色界所繫的，就緣上界的集諦。如果對滅諦（Nirodha-satya，滅諦）進行現觀邊修，就以緣滅的四種行相（Nirodha, Santi, Pranita, Nihsarana，滅、靜、妙、離）為境；如果是欲界所繫的，就緣欲界的滅諦；如果是色界或無色界所繫的，就緣上界的滅諦。

『見道力得故唯加行所得者』，解釋第八句。見道的力量所得，唯有通過加行（Prayoga-marga，加行道）才能獲得，不是生得或離染得。

『智增故至為其自性者』，是指出體性。在見道中，因為智慧增長而立名為智。如果包括眷屬，就以欲界的四蘊（色、受、想、行）或五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）為其自性。此外，《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，欲界所攝的是思所成（Cintamaya，思所成），色界或無色界所攝的是修所成（Bhavanamaya，修所成），不是聞所成（Srutamaya，聞所成），因為聞所成微弱。

『次於修道至如次修六八者』，這是第二部分，關於修道（Bhavana-marga，修道）的修習辨析。

論曰：乃至有頂（Bhavagra，有頂）的對治。修道初念道類智（Dharmanvaya-jnana，道類智）時，現前修習兩種智慧，即道智（Dharma-jnana，道智）和類智（Anvaya-jnana，類智）。未離欲界者，未來修習六種智慧，即法智（Dharma-jnana，法智）、類智（Anvaya-jnana，類智）、苦智（Dukkha-jnana，苦智）、集智（Samudaya-jnana，集智）、滅智（Nirodha-jnana，滅智）、道智（Marga-jnana，道智）。離欲界者，修習七種智慧，加上他心智（Para-citta-jnana，他心智）。《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，先已離欲界而入聖道者，為何在見道中不修習他心智？因為他心智屬於遊觀位所攝，依于容預道（Anantarya-marga，無間道）才有修習的意義。見道位中是爲了...

【English Translation】 One can cultivate higher levels of Samadhi (concentration). For example, an inferior Samadhi can surpass a non-superior Samadhi, and a non-superior Samadhi can be inferior to a superior Samadhi. This is how it is. The detailed explanation is as in the Mahavibhasa. Furthermore, the 168th fascicle of the Mahavibhasa says that the Path of Seeing (Darsana-marga) relies on the lower realm and definitely does not cultivate the higher realm, because this is the first attainment of the Path. The Unconditioned (Anasrava) relies on the higher realm and definitely cultivates the lower realm, because it is free and unbound.

Regarding the cultivation from the contemplation of the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha-satya) and the Truth of Accumulation (Samudaya-satya) to the exclusive Dharma-smrtyupasthana (Foundation of Mindfulness of Dharma), refer to the explanation of the sixth sentence.

Regarding 'Following whatever Truth, this Truth is taken as the object', refer to the explanation of the seventh sentence. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara says that following whatever Truth is contemplated in the vicinity of realization, that aspect is taken as the object of that Truth. That is to say, if one contemplates the Truth of Suffering in the vicinity of realization, then the four aspects of contemplating suffering (Anitya, Dukkha, Sunya, Anatma) are taken as the object; if it is related to the Desire Realm (Kama-dhatu), then the Truth of Suffering of the Desire Realm is taken as the object; if it is related to the Form Realm (Rupa-dhatu) or the Formless Realm (Arupa-dhatu), then the Truth of Suffering of the higher realm is taken as the object. If one contemplates the Truth of Accumulation in the vicinity of realization, then the four aspects of contemplating accumulation (Hetu, Samudaya, Prabhava, Pratyaya) are taken as the object; if it is related to the Desire Realm, then the Truth of Accumulation of the Desire Realm is taken as the object; if it is related to the Form Realm or the Formless Realm, then the Truth of Accumulation of the higher realm is taken as the object. If one contemplates the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha-satya) in the vicinity of realization, then the four aspects of contemplating cessation (Nirodha, Santi, Pranita, Nihsarana) are taken as the object; if it is related to the Desire Realm, then the Truth of Cessation of the Desire Realm is taken as the object; if it is related to the Form Realm or the Formless Realm, then the Truth of Cessation of the higher realm is taken as the object.

'Because it is obtained by the power of the Path of Seeing, it is only obtained by application', explains the eighth sentence. Because it is obtained by the power of the Path of Seeing, it is only obtained through the Path of Application (Prayoga-marga), not obtained innately or by detachment.

'Because of the increase of wisdom, it is its nature', indicates the substance. In the Path of Seeing, because of the increase of wisdom, it is named wisdom. If including the retinue, the four aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition) or five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) of the Desire Realm are its nature. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara says that what is included in the Desire Realm is mind-made (Cintamaya), and what is included in the Form Realm or the Formless Realm is cultivation-made (Bhavanamaya), not hearing-made (Srutamaya), because hearing-made is weak.

'Next, in the Path of Cultivation, cultivate six or eight in order', this is the second part, discussing the cultivation of the Path of Cultivation (Bhavana-marga).

The treatise says: even the antidote to the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra). When the first thought of Dharmanvaya-jnana (Knowledge of Conformity with Dharma) arises in the Path of Cultivation, two kinds of wisdom are presently cultivated, namely Dharma-jnana (Knowledge of Dharma) and Anvaya-jnana (Knowledge of Conformity). Those who have not left the Desire Realm will cultivate six kinds of wisdom in the future, namely Dharma-jnana, Anvaya-jnana, Dukkha-jnana (Knowledge of Suffering), Samudaya-jnana (Knowledge of Accumulation), Nirodha-jnana (Knowledge of Cessation), and Marga-jnana (Knowledge of the Path). Those who have left the Desire Realm will cultivate seven kinds of wisdom, adding Para-citta-jnana (Knowledge of Others' Minds). The Abhidharma-nyayanusara says that those who have already left the Desire Realm and entered the Noble Path, why do they not cultivate Para-citta-jnana in the Path of Seeing? Because Para-citta-jnana belongs to the realm of wandering observation, and only relies on the Anantarya-marga (Path of Immediate Consequence) to have the meaning of cultivation. The Path of Seeing is for...

觀諦理。加行極速故不能修。無間道中義亦同此。今第十六道類智時。容預道收。故修此智(已上論文)　不修世俗。以道類智有頂治。故。雖三諦邊是有頂治。修俗智者別緣故修。此無別緣故不修也。

斷欲修斷至苦集滅道者。釋第三．第四句。斷欲修斷九無間道八解脫道。世俗智．四諦智．法智隨應現修。斷上七地諸無間道。四諦智．類智．世俗智．滅道法智。隨應現修。斷欲界加行道。有欲勝進道　有欲言。顯斷惑未盡。即前八勝進道　俗智．四諦智．法智．類智。隨應現修。解脫．加行．勝進。是無間余道。此上未來皆修七智。謂俗智．法智．類智．苦．集．滅．道智。現修不同故前別舉。未來修同所以合說。

斷有頂地至加他心智者。釋第五．六句。現修可知。未來亦七。於前未來修中然除世俗有頂治故。加他心智容預道故。

斷有頂地至四諦他心者。釋第七．第八句。斷欲修斷第九勝進。所以他心不現修者。初離欲染猶未容預故非現修。上地勝進是容預故。所以現修。諸加行道非容預故。亦非現修他心智也。非斷障故得．修他心。余文可知。又正理云。四．類不能斷欲界染。苦．集二法非上對治。何緣起彼治。此智未來修。若許兼修非對治者。離有頂染等。應兼修世俗。此難非理。唯

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：觀諦理（觀察真理）。因為加行道過於迅速，所以無法修習。無間道中也是同樣的道理。現在在第十六道類智（Dharmānvaya-jñāna）的時候，可以包含在道中，所以修習這種智慧（以上是論文內容）。不修習世俗智（Saṃvṛti-jñāna），因為道類智慧夠對治有頂天（Bhavāgra）。雖然三諦（苦、集、滅）的邊緣是有頂天的對治，但修習世俗智的人因為有其他的緣故而修習。這裡沒有其他的緣故，所以不修習。『斷欲修斷至苦集滅道者』，解釋第三、第四句。斷欲界的修斷，包括九個無間道（Ānantarya-mārga）和八個解脫道（Vimukti-mārga）。世俗智、四諦智（Satya-jñāna）、法智（Dharma-jñāna）根據情況相應地現前修習。斷除上面七地的所有無間道，四諦智、類智、世俗智、滅道法智（Nirodha-mārga-dharma-jñāna）根據情況相應地現前修習。斷除欲界的加行道（Prayoga-mārga），有欲勝進道（Kāmāvacara-prayogamārga）。『有欲』這個詞，顯示斷除煩惱還沒有完全結束，也就是前面的八個勝進道（Prāpti-mārga）。世俗智、四諦智、法智、類智根據情況相應地現前修習。解脫道、加行道、勝進道，是無間道的其餘部分。以上未來都修習七種智慧，即世俗智、法智、類智、苦智（Duhkha-jñāna）、集智（Samudaya-jñāna）、滅智（Nirodha-jñāna）、道智（Mārga-jñāna）。因為現在修習的不同，所以前面分別舉出。未來修習相同，所以合在一起說。『斷有頂地至加他心智者』，解釋第五、第六句。現在修習的情況可以知道。未來也是七種智慧。在前面的未來修習中，然而因為世俗智慧夠對治有頂天，加上他心智（Paracitta-jñāna）可以包含在道中。『斷有頂地至四諦他心者』，解釋第七、第八句。斷除欲界的修斷，包括第九個勝進道。他心智之所以不現前修習，是因為剛離開欲界的染污，還沒有包含在道中，所以不是現在修習。上地的勝進道是可以包含在道中的，所以現在修習。各種加行道因為沒有包含在道中，所以也不是現在修習他心智。不是因為斷除障礙，所以得到、修習他心智。其餘的文字可以知道。另外，《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）中說，四智（苦、集、滅、道）和類智不能斷除欲界的染污，苦智和集智兩種法不是上面的對治，為什麼會生起對治？這種智慧在未來修習。如果允許兼修不是對治的法，那麼離開有頂天的染污等，應該兼修世俗智。這種責難沒有道理，只有...

【English Translation】 English version: Observing the truth (觀諦理, Guan Di Li). Because the application path (加行, Jia Xing) is extremely rapid, it cannot be cultivated. The same principle applies in the immediate path (無間道, Wu Jian Dao). Now, at the time of the sixteenth path, knowledge of kinds (道類智, Dao Lei Zhi) can be included in the path, therefore this wisdom is cultivated (the above is from the treatise). The conventional wisdom (世俗智, Shi Su Zhi) is not cultivated because the knowledge of kinds can subdue the peak of existence (有頂天, You Ding Tian). Although the edges of the three truths (三諦, San Di) – suffering, accumulation, and cessation – are subdued by the peak of existence, those who cultivate conventional wisdom cultivate it because of other causes. Here, there are no other causes, so it is not cultivated. 'Cutting off desire and cultivating severance, up to suffering, accumulation, cessation, and path (斷欲修斷至苦集滅道者, Duan Yu Xiu Duan Zhi Ku Ji Mie Dao Zhe),' explains the third and fourth sentences. Cutting off desire and cultivating severance includes the nine immediate paths (九無間道, Jiu Wu Jian Dao) and the eight liberation paths (八解脫道, Ba Jie Tuo Dao). Conventional wisdom, the four noble truths wisdom (四諦智, Si Di Zhi), and Dharma wisdom (法智, Fa Zhi) are cultivated accordingly as they manifest. Cutting off all the immediate paths of the upper seven realms, the four noble truths wisdom, knowledge of kinds, conventional wisdom, and cessation-path Dharma wisdom (滅道法智, Mie Dao Fa Zhi) are cultivated accordingly as they manifest. Cutting off the application path of the desire realm, there is the desire-advancing path (欲勝進道, Yu Sheng Jin Dao). The term 'desire' (欲, Yu) indicates that the cutting off of afflictions is not yet complete, which refers to the previous eight advancing paths (八勝進道, Ba Sheng Jin Dao). Conventional wisdom, the four noble truths wisdom, Dharma wisdom, and knowledge of kinds are cultivated accordingly as they manifest. The liberation path, application path, and advancing path are the remaining parts of the immediate path. In the future, all of the above will cultivate the seven wisdoms, namely conventional wisdom, Dharma wisdom, knowledge of kinds, suffering wisdom (苦智, Ku Zhi), accumulation wisdom (集智, Ji Zhi), cessation wisdom (滅智, Mie Zhi), and path wisdom (道智, Dao Zhi). Because the present cultivation is different, they are listed separately above. Because the future cultivation is the same, they are mentioned together. 'Cutting off the peak of existence up to adding the mind-reading wisdom (斷有頂地至加他心智者, Duan You Ding Di Zhi Jia Ta Xin Zhi Zhe),' explains the fifth and sixth sentences. The present cultivation can be known. The future also involves seven wisdoms. In the previous future cultivation, however, because conventional wisdom can subdue the peak of existence, and because mind-reading wisdom (他心智, Ta Xin Zhi) can be included in the path. 'Cutting off the peak of existence up to the four truths mind-reading (斷有頂地至四諦他心者, Duan You Ding Di Zhi Si Di Ta Xin Zhe),' explains the seventh and eighth sentences. Cutting off desire and cultivating severance includes the ninth advancing path. The reason why mind-reading wisdom is not presently cultivated is that, having just left the defilements of the desire realm, it is not yet included in the path, so it is not presently cultivated. The advancing path of the upper realms can be included in the path, so it is presently cultivated. Because the various application paths are not included in the path, they are also not presently cultivated as mind-reading wisdom. It is not because of cutting off obstacles that mind-reading is attained and cultivated. The remaining text can be understood. Furthermore, the Nyāyasūtra (正理經, Zheng Li Jing) says that the four wisdoms (苦, 集, 滅, 道) and knowledge of kinds cannot cut off the defilements of the desire realm, and the two dharmas of suffering and accumulation are not the antidotes to the above. Why would they arise as antidotes? This wisdom is cultivated in the future. If it is permitted to cultivate what is not an antidote concurrently, then upon leaving the defilements of the peak of existence, etc., one should concurrently cultivate conventional wisdom. This criticism is unreasonable, only...

同對治。于未來修非所許故。謂亦許有相屬故修。如見道中修世俗智。或由因力相資故修。如斷欲時兼修四．類。斷上染位修苦．集法。若斷欲染不修類智。斷上不修苦．集二法。則漸次得不還果者。應無容起類智現前。阿羅漢應無起苦．集法智。先所得者皆已舍故。先未得者非所修故。由約種類。若先已得為同類因力。引等流智生此智。由先彼智引故。于彼智類復能為因。故此智生因力。資彼雖非同治亦未來修。

次辨離染至勝進道亦然者。此即第三約無學辨修。

論曰至緣有頂故者。釋初句。無學初念。謂斷有頂第九解脫苦類盡智。或集類盡智。隨應現修緣有頂故。

勝進九十隨應現修者。釋第四句。第二念后諸勝進道。九智．十智隨應現修。現修與前解脫道。得修數同故言亦然。

未來隨應至無生智故者。釋第二。第三句。解脫勝進未來隨應修九修十。

次辨餘位至皆如理應思者。此即第四約餘位辨修。初頌約練根明修。第二頌約雜．通明修。后頌約聖凡明修。

論曰至不修他心者。釋初句及第二句中學六。學位練根前五種姓諸無間道。四法智．四．類智隨應現修。以學練根斷障根無知。正是見惑所引發故。如斷見惑。四法類智隨應現修。故學練根如彼現起未來修六。四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：同樣是對治。因為在未來修習非所允許的法。意思是也允許有相屬的法，所以修習。例如在見道中修習世俗智。或者由於因的力量互相資助所以修習。例如在斷除欲界煩惱時兼修四類智。在斷除上界染污時修習苦、集二諦法。如果斷除欲界染污時不修類智，斷除上界染污時不修苦、集二法，那麼漸次獲得不還果的人，應該沒有機會生起類智現前。阿羅漢應該沒有機會生起苦、集法智。因為先前所得的都已經捨棄，先前未得的又不是所修習的。這是從種類上來說。如果先前已經得到的法作為同類因的力量，引生等流智，由此智生起。由於先前那個智慧的引導，對於那個智慧的種類又能作為因。所以這個智慧生起的因的力量，資助那個智慧，即使不是同時對治，也是未來要修習的。其次辨別離染至於勝進道也是這樣，這是第三，約無學來辨別修習。論中說：『至於緣有頂故』，這是解釋第一句。無學初念，是指斷除有頂第九解脫道的苦類盡智，或者集類盡智，隨其相應而現前修習緣有頂的法。『勝進九十隨應現修』，這是解釋第四句。第二念之后諸勝進道，九智、十智隨其相應而現前修習。現前修習與前面的解脫道，得到修習的次數相同，所以說也是這樣。『未來隨應至於無生智故』，這是解釋第二、第三句。解脫勝進未來隨其相應修習九智、十智。其次辨別其餘位次至於皆如理應思，這是第四，約其餘位次來辨別修習。初頌約練根明修，第二頌約雜、通明修，后頌約聖凡明修。論中說：『至於不修他心者』，這是解釋第一句和第二句。學位的六種姓，在學位練根的前五種姓的諸無間道中，四法智、四類智隨其相應而現前修習。因為學位的練根斷除障礙根的無知，正是見惑所引發的緣故。例如斷除見惑，四法智、四類智隨其相應而現前修習。所以學位的練根如彼現起，未來修習六智、四智。

【English Translation】 English version: Likewise, it is a counteractive force. Because in the future, practicing what is not permitted. It means that it is also permissible to practice related dharmas, therefore one practices. For example, in the path of seeing (見道), one practices mundane knowledge (世俗智). Or, due to the power of causes mutually assisting each other, one practices. For example, when cutting off desires, one also practices the four kinds of wisdom (四類智). When cutting off defilements of the higher realms, one practices the truths of suffering and origination (苦、集二諦法). If one does not practice the wisdom of kinds (類智) when cutting off desires, and does not practice the truths of suffering and origination (苦、集二法) when cutting off defilements of the higher realms, then those who gradually attain the state of non-returner (不還果) should have no opportunity to generate the wisdom of kinds (類智) in the present. Arhats (阿羅漢) should have no opportunity to generate the wisdom of the truths of suffering and origination (苦、集法智). Because what was previously attained has already been abandoned, and what was not previously attained is not what is being practiced. This is from the perspective of categories. If what was previously attained serves as the power of a cause of the same kind, it gives rise to the wisdom of outflow (等流智), and from this wisdom arises. Due to the guidance of that previous wisdom, it can again serve as a cause for that kind of wisdom. Therefore, the causal power of this wisdom arising assists that wisdom, even if it is not simultaneously counteractive, it will be practiced in the future. Next, distinguishing the separation from defilements up to the path of progress is also like this. This is the third, distinguishing practice based on the state of no-more-learning (無學). The treatise says: 'As for the condition of the peak of existence (有頂故),' this explains the first sentence. The initial thought of no-more-learning refers to the wisdom of the exhaustion of suffering in the category of suffering (苦類盡智), or the wisdom of the exhaustion of origination in the category of origination (集類盡智), in the ninth liberation path of the peak of existence, practicing the dharma that conditions the peak of existence accordingly. 'Progressive nine or ten are practiced accordingly in the present,' this explains the fourth sentence. After the second thought, the progressive paths, the nine wisdoms or ten wisdoms are practiced accordingly in the present. The present practice and the preceding liberation path have the same number of practices, so it is said to be like this. 'In the future, accordingly, up to the wisdom of non-arising (無生智故),' this explains the second and third sentences. Liberation and progress in the future accordingly practice nine wisdoms or ten wisdoms. Next, distinguishing the remaining positions up to 'all should be considered reasonably,' this is the fourth, distinguishing practice based on the remaining positions. The first verse explains practice based on sharpening the faculties (練根), the second verse explains practice based on mixed and common (雜、通), and the last verse explains practice based on the holy and the mundane (聖凡). The treatise says: 'As for not practicing the mind of others (他心者),' this explains the first and second sentences. The six lineages of the stage of learning (學位), in the intermediate paths of the first five lineages of sharpening the faculties in the stage of learning, the four wisdoms of dharma (四法智) and the four wisdoms of kinds (四類智) are practiced accordingly in the present. Because sharpening the faculties in the stage of learning cuts off the ignorance that obstructs the roots, which is precisely what is caused by the delusions of views (見惑). For example, when cutting off the delusions of views, the four wisdoms of dharma and the four wisdoms of kinds are practiced accordingly in the present. Therefore, sharpening the faculties in the stage of learning arises like that, and in the future, one practices six wisdoms and four wisdoms.

諦．法．類。似見道中八忍無間道。不別標故。或似見道斷非想地四無間道。彼地見惑非俗斷故。或似見道斷非想地。道諦所斷一無間故。以學練根如得初果一無間故　雖三解異皆不修俗。以無間道能斷障故不修他心。他心是通彼正斷障故不能修。

諸解脫道至謂加他心者。此下釋第三句。學位練根前五種種姓。諸解脫道四法智四．類智隨應現修。釋所以如前解。未離欲者未來修六。謂四諦智．法智．類智。已離欲者未來修七。謂加他心。非斷障故修未來他心。斷障解脫非容預故。他心非現修。

問如見道中三現觀邊三解脫道。亦修世俗。練根解脫何故不修　解云見道解脫總有七種。三雖修俗四不能修。從多分似故不修俗。以非全似故。論不言似見　又解見惑解脫總有八種。三修世俗智。五不能修。從多分似故不修俗　又解解脫不修世俗智者。如第十六解脫道故。以學練根如得初果一解脫故。雖三解異皆不修俗。

有餘師言至亦修世俗者。此師意說。以見道中三現觀邊解脫道修世俗智故。說練根解脫亦修世俗。此非正義。俗智不能斷有頂見惑故。

諸加行道至謂加他心者。學位練根。前五種姓諸加行道。俗四法．類。隨應現修。俗智亦容為加行故故得現修。非容預故他心非現修。未離欲者未

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『諦』（Satya，真諦）、『法』（Dharma，佛法）、『類』（Anvaya，比類智）。類似於見道中的八忍無間道，因為沒有特別標明。或者類似於見道斷除非想非非想處地的四個無間道，因為那個地方的見惑不是用世俗智斷除的。或者類似於見道斷除非想非非想處地，道諦所斷的一個無間道，因為在有學位時練習根性，就像獲得初果時的一個無間道一樣。雖然三種解釋不同，但都不修習世俗智，因為無間道能夠斷除障礙，所以不修習他心智。他心智是一種神通，而他們正在斷除障礙，所以不能修習。

『諸解脫道至謂加他心者』。這以下解釋第三句。在有學位時練習根性，前五種種姓，各種解脫道，四法智、四類智，根據情況相應地修習。解釋的原因如前面的解釋。沒有離欲的人，未來修習六種，即四諦智、法智、類智。已經離欲的人，未來修習七種，即加上他心智。因為不是爲了斷除障礙，所以修習未來的他心智。斷除障礙的解脫道不容許預先修習，所以他心智不是現在修習。

問：如果像見道中的三個現觀邊解脫道一樣，也修習世俗智，那麼練習根性的解脫道為什麼不修習？答：見道解脫總共有七種，三種修習世俗智，四種不能修習。因為從大多數情況來看相似，所以不修習世俗智。因為並非完全相似，所以論中沒有說『類似於見道』。又解：見惑解脫總共有八種，三種修習世俗智，五種不能修習。因為從大多數情況來看相似，所以不修習世俗智。又解：解脫道不修習世俗智，就像第十六解脫道一樣。因為在有學位時練習根性，就像獲得初果時的一個解脫道一樣。雖然三種解釋不同，但都不修習世俗智。

『有餘師言至亦修世俗者』。這位老師的意思是說，因為見道中的三個現觀邊解脫道修習世俗智，所以說練習根性的解脫道也修習世俗智。這不是正確的解釋，因為世俗智不能斷除有頂的見惑。

『諸加行道至謂加他心者』。在有學位時練習根性，前五種種姓的各種加行道，世俗的四法智、類智，根據情況相應地現在修習。因為世俗智也可以作為加行道，所以可以現在修習。因為不容許預先修習，所以他心智不是現在修習。沒有離欲的人，未來...

【English Translation】 English version 'Satya' (Truth), 'Dharma' (Law), 'Anvaya' (Inference). Similar to the eight forbearance-kshanas (eight忍) of the immediate path (無間道) in the Path of Seeing (見道), because it is not specifically indicated. Or similar to the four immediate paths of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (非想非非想處地) that sever afflictions of views (見惑) in the Path of Seeing, because the afflictions of views in that realm are not severed by mundane wisdom (俗智). Or similar to the one immediate path severed by the Truth of Suffering (道諦) in the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception in the Path of Seeing, because practicing the roots in the stage of learning (學) is like the one immediate path of attaining the first fruit (初果). Although the three explanations differ, none of them cultivate mundane wisdom, because the immediate path can sever obstacles, so it does not cultivate the mind-reading faculty (他心). The mind-reading faculty is a supernormal power (通), and they are precisely severing obstacles, so they cannot cultivate it.

'The paths of liberation up to those who add the mind-reading faculty.' This below explains the third sentence. Practicing the roots in the stage of learning, the first five lineages (種姓), the various paths of liberation, the four Dharma-knowledges (法智) and four Anvaya-knowledges (類智) are cultivated accordingly. The reason for the explanation is as in the previous explanation. Those who have not detached from desire (未離欲) will cultivate six in the future, namely the four Truth-knowledges, Dharma-knowledge, and Anvaya-knowledge. Those who have detached from desire will cultivate seven in the future, namely adding the mind-reading faculty. Because it is not for severing obstacles, they cultivate the future mind-reading faculty. The path of liberation that severs obstacles does not allow for prior cultivation, so the mind-reading faculty is not cultivated in the present.

Question: If, like the three paths of liberation bordering on direct realization (現觀) in the Path of Seeing, they also cultivate mundane wisdom, then why don't the paths of liberation of practicing the roots cultivate it? Answer: There are a total of seven types of liberation in the Path of Seeing. Three cultivate mundane wisdom, and four cannot cultivate it. Because it is similar in most cases, they do not cultivate mundane wisdom. Because it is not entirely similar, the treatise does not say 'similar to the Path of Seeing.' Another explanation: There are a total of eight types of liberation from afflictions of views. Three cultivate mundane wisdom, and five cannot cultivate it. Because it is similar in most cases, they do not cultivate mundane wisdom. Another explanation: The path of liberation does not cultivate mundane wisdom, just like the sixteenth path of liberation. Because practicing the roots in the stage of learning is like one path of liberation of attaining the first fruit. Although the three explanations differ, none of them cultivate mundane wisdom.

'Some other teachers say up to also cultivate mundane wisdom.' This teacher means that because the three paths of liberation bordering on direct realization in the Path of Seeing cultivate mundane wisdom, they say that the paths of liberation of practicing the roots also cultivate mundane wisdom. This is not the correct explanation, because mundane wisdom cannot sever the afflictions of views in the Peak of Existence (有頂).

'The paths of application up to those who add the mind-reading faculty.' Practicing the roots in the stage of learning, the various paths of application of the first five lineages, the mundane four Dharma-knowledges and Anvaya-knowledges, are cultivated accordingly in the present. Because mundane wisdom can also be a path of application, it can be cultivated in the present. Because it does not allow for prior cultivation, the mind-reading faculty is not cultivated in the present. Those who have not detached from desire, in the future...

來修七。已離欲八謂加他心。非斷障故得修他心。

諸勝進道至未來亦八者。學位練根前五種姓諸勝進道。如文可知。容預道故。非斷障故。容可行修得．修他心。

無學練根至如治有頂故者。重釋第一句及第二句中無學七。無學練根前五種姓九無間道。四．類智．滅．道二法智。隨應現修。以彼無學練根所斷。障根無知。正是有頂修惑所引發故。如斷有頂修惑四．類．二法隨應現修。故今練根如彼現起。未來修七四諦．法．類．盡。無間是見道非息求故盡智非現修。種類相屬故未來修盡智。不修世俗。如治有頂修道惑故不修世俗。練根亦爾。能斷障故不修他心五前八解脫至未來修十者。此下釋第四句。無學練根前五種姓中各前八解脫。四．類。二法隨應現修。未來修八。四諦．法．類．他心．及盡。非通解脫故。他心無現修非斷障故。他心有得．修。前八解脫未是息求。猶是見故。盡非現修。種類相屬故得．修盡智。此釋應八。就前五種姓中。前四種姓各第九解脫。苦．集．類．盡隨應現修。如斷有頂第九解脫。得應果時初起盡智。未來修九除無生智。此釋應九。前五種姓中第五種姓。第九最後解脫道。苦．集．類．盡。隨應現修。未來修十加無生智。此釋應一切。

諸加行道至未來修九者。重

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本來修七。已離欲八謂加他心（能夠附加修習他心通）。非斷障故得修他心（並非因為斷除了障礙才能修習他心通）。諸勝進道至未來亦八者。學位練根前五種姓諸勝進道。如文可知。容預道故（包含在道中）。非斷障故（不是因為斷除障礙）。容可行修得．修他心（可以進行修習並獲得他心通）。無學練根至如治有頂故者。重釋第一句及第二句中無學七。無學練根前五種姓九無間道。四．類智．滅．道二法智。隨應現修（根據情況進行修習）。以彼無學練根所斷。障根無知。正是有頂修惑所引發故（正是由有頂天的修惑所引發的）。如斷有頂修惑四．類．二法隨應現修（根據情況進行修習）。故今練根如彼現起（所以現在的練根也像那樣生起）。未來修七四諦．法．類．盡（未來修習七種：四聖諦、法智、類智、盡智）。無間是見道非息求故盡智非現修（無間道是見道，不是爲了止息煩惱，所以盡智不是現在修習的）。種類相屬故未來修盡智（因為種類相關，所以未來修習盡智）。不修世俗（不修習世俗智）。如治有頂修道惑故不修世俗（就像治理有頂天的修道惑一樣，所以不修習世俗智）。練根亦爾（練根也是這樣）。能斷障故不修他心（因為能夠斷除障礙，所以不修習他心通）。五前八解脫至未來修十者。此下釋第四句。無學練根前五種姓中各前八解脫。四．類。二法隨應現修（根據情況進行修習）。未來修八。四諦．法．類．他心．及盡（未來修習八種：四聖諦、法智、類智、他心通、以及盡智）。非通解脫故（不是普遍的解脫）。他心無現修非斷障故（他心通沒有現在修習，因為不是斷除障礙）。他心有得．修（他心通有獲得和修習）。前八解脫未是息求（前面的八種解脫還不是爲了止息煩惱）。猶是見故（仍然是見道）。盡非現修（盡智不是現在修習的）。種類相屬故得．修盡智（因為種類相關，所以獲得和修習盡智）。此釋應八（這是解釋應該修習八種）。就前五種姓中。前四種姓各第九解脫。苦．集．類．盡隨應現修（根據情況進行修習）。如斷有頂第九解脫（就像斷除有頂天的第九種解脫一樣）。得應果時初起盡智（獲得阿羅漢果時，最初生起盡智）。未來修九除無生智（未來修習九種，除了無生智）。此釋應九（這是解釋應該修習九種）。前五種姓中第五種姓。第九最後解脫道。苦．集．類．盡（苦諦、集諦、類智、盡智）。隨應現修（根據情況進行修習）。未來修十加無生智（未來修習十種，加上無生智）。此釋應一切（這是解釋應該修習一切）。諸加行道至未來修九者。重

【English Translation】 English version To cultivate seven. Having departed from desire, eight means adding 'knowledge of others' minds' (being able to additionally cultivate the power of knowing others' minds). It is not because of severing obstacles that one can cultivate 'knowledge of others' minds' (it is not because one has eliminated obstacles that one can cultivate the power of knowing others' minds). Those superior paths of progress, up to the future, are also eight. The paths of progress for those in the stage of learning, who are refining their roots, and who belong to the first five lineages. As the text indicates, they include the path (are included in the path). It is not because of severing obstacles (it is not because of eliminating obstacles). It is possible to practice and attain, and cultivate 'knowledge of others' minds' (it is possible to practice and attain the power of knowing others' minds). Regarding 'the root refinement of the non-learner, up to like treating the peak of existence': This re-explains the 'seven' of the non-learner in the first and second sentences. The nine uninterrupted paths of the first five lineages of the root refinement of the non-learner. The four 'knowledge of kinds' (類智), 'cessation' (滅), and the two 'knowledge of dharma' (法智) of the path. They are cultivated accordingly (practiced according to the circumstances). Because what is severed by the root refinement of the non-learner. The ignorance that obstructs the root. Is precisely what is aroused by the afflictions of the peak of existence (is precisely what is aroused by the afflictions of the realm of existence). Like severing the afflictions of the peak of existence, the four 'knowledge of kinds' (類智) and the two 'knowledge of dharma' (法智) are cultivated accordingly (practiced according to the circumstances). Therefore, the current root refinement arises like that (so the current root refinement arises like that). In the future, cultivate seven: the four noble truths (四諦), 'knowledge of dharma' (法智), 'knowledge of kinds' (類智), and 'knowledge of extinction' (盡智). The uninterrupted path is the path of seeing, not the seeking of cessation, therefore 'knowledge of extinction' (盡智) is not cultivated now (the uninterrupted path is the path of seeing, not for ceasing afflictions, so 'knowledge of extinction' is not practiced now). Because they belong to the same category, in the future cultivate 'knowledge of extinction' (盡智) (because they are related, so in the future cultivate 'knowledge of extinction'). Do not cultivate conventional knowledge (do not practice mundane knowledge). Like treating the afflictions of the path of cultivation of the peak of existence, do not cultivate conventional knowledge (just like treating the afflictions of the path of cultivation of the peak of existence, so do not practice mundane knowledge). Root refinement is also like that (root refinement is also like that). Because it can sever obstacles, do not cultivate 'knowledge of others' minds' (because it can eliminate obstacles, so do not practice the power of knowing others' minds). Regarding 'the first eight liberations, up to the future, cultivate ten': Below, this explains the fourth sentence. Among the first five lineages of the root refinement of the non-learner, each of the first eight liberations. The four 'knowledge of kinds' (類智). The two 'knowledge of dharma' (法智) are cultivated accordingly (practiced according to the circumstances). In the future, cultivate eight: the four noble truths (四諦), 'knowledge of dharma' (法智), 'knowledge of kinds' (類智), 'knowledge of others' minds' (他心通), and 'knowledge of extinction' (盡智). Because it is not a universal liberation (because it is not a common liberation). 'Knowledge of others' minds' (他心通) is not cultivated now because it does not sever obstacles (the power of knowing others' minds is not practiced now because it does not eliminate obstacles). 'Knowledge of others' minds' (他心通) can be attained and cultivated (the power of knowing others' minds can be attained and practiced). The first eight liberations are not yet the seeking of cessation (the first eight liberations are not yet for ceasing afflictions). They are still the path of seeing (they are still the path of seeing). 'Knowledge of extinction' (盡智) is not cultivated now (knowledge of extinction is not practiced now). Because they belong to the same category, attain and cultivate 'knowledge of extinction' (盡智) (because they are related, so attain and practice knowledge of extinction). This explains that eight should be cultivated (this explains that eight should be practiced). Regarding the first five lineages. Each of the first four lineages has the ninth liberation. Suffering (苦), accumulation (集), 'knowledge of kinds' (類智), and extinction (盡) are cultivated accordingly (practiced according to the circumstances). Like severing the ninth liberation of the peak of existence (just like eliminating the ninth liberation of the peak of existence). When attaining the fruit of Arhatship, 'knowledge of extinction' (盡智) initially arises (when attaining the fruit of Arhatship, knowledge of extinction initially arises). In the future, cultivate nine, excluding 'knowledge of non-arising' (無生智) (in the future, practice nine, except for knowledge of non-arising). This explains that nine should be cultivated (this explains that nine should be practiced). Among the first five lineages, the fifth lineage. The ninth and final path of liberation. Suffering (苦), accumulation (集), 'knowledge of kinds' (類智), and extinction (盡). They are cultivated accordingly (practiced according to the circumstances). In the future, cultivate ten, adding 'knowledge of non-arising' (無生智) (in the future, practice ten, adding knowledge of non-arising). This explains that everything should be cultivated (this explains that everything should be practiced). Regarding the paths of application, up to the future, cultivate nine. Re-

釋應九。無學練根前五種姓諸加行道。現修如學。俗．四．法．類隨應現修。加行道非容預故。他心非現修。未息求故盡智非現修。未來修九。謂除無生。

諸勝進道至未來亦十者。重釋應一切。無學練根諸勝進道。于無學位第二念已后並是勝進道隨其所應盡．無生智可得現修。容預道故他心亦得現修。

學位雜修至未來修七者。此下釋第二頌釋雜修及通此釋雜修無間學七。學位雜修諸無間道通有漏無漏。於二無間道中初無間道。四．法。四．類隨應現修。第二無間道。俗智隨應現修。未來修七。能斷障故不修他心。

諸解脫道至未來皆八者。釋第三句。學位雜修諸解脫道唯無漏故。唯四法．類隨應現修。無漏故世俗智非現修。非是他心解脫道故他心非現修。若加行道於前六上增世俗智隨應現修。以世俗智慧為加行故。加行非容預故他心非現修。諸勝進道於前七上。又加他心隨應現修。勝進容預他心現修。此上三道未來皆修八智。皆非斷障得修他心。

無學雜修至鈍八利九者。釋雜修無間應八九。無學雜修諸無間道現修如學。四．法．類俗。無間見性非息求故。盡．無生智非是現修。未來所修鈍八．利九。各除他心以斷障故。

諸解脫道至與練根同者。釋余道應九或一切。無學雜修諸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本釋應九：無學（arhat，阿羅漢）練根（perfecting faculties）前五種姓（five types of individuals）諸加行道（paths of preparation）。現修（presently cultivated）如學（like a learner）。世俗智（conventional knowledge）、四聖諦（four noble truths）中的法智（knowledge of dharma）、類智（knowledge of analogy）隨應現修。加行道非容預故（because the paths of preparation do not allow for anticipation）。他心智（knowledge of others' minds）非現修（not presently cultivated）。未息求故（because the seeking has not ceased），盡智（knowledge of exhaustion）非現修（not presently cultivated）。未來修九（nine to be cultivated in the future）。謂除無生智（namely, excluding the knowledge of non-arising）。

諸勝進道（paths of progress）至未來亦十者（even in the future, there are ten）：重釋應一切（re-explaining all）。無學練根諸勝進道（all paths of progress for an arhat perfecting faculties）。于無學位第二念已后（from the second thought-moment after the state of arhatship）並是勝進道（all are paths of progress），隨其所應（according to what is appropriate），盡智（knowledge of exhaustion）、無生智（knowledge of non-arising）可得現修（can be presently cultivated）。容預道故（because it is a path of anticipation），他心智（knowledge of others' minds）亦得現修（can also be presently cultivated）。

學位雜修（mixed cultivation in the stage of learning）至未來修七者（up to seven to be cultivated in the future）：此下釋第二頌（below explains the second verse），釋雜修無間（explaining the immediate path of mixed cultivation），學七（seven for the learner）。學位雜修諸無間道（all immediate paths of mixed cultivation in the stage of learning）通有漏（include defiled）無漏（undefiled）。於二無間道中（among the two immediate paths），初無間道（the first immediate path）。四聖諦（four noble truths）中的法智（knowledge of dharma）、類智（knowledge of analogy）隨應現修（are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate）。第二無間道（the second immediate path）。世俗智（conventional knowledge）隨應現修（is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate）。未來修七（seven to be cultivated in the future）。能斷障故（because it can sever obstructions），不修他心智（not cultivating knowledge of others' minds）。

諸解脫道（paths of liberation）至未來皆八者（all eight in the future）：釋第三句（explaining the third line）。學位雜修諸解脫道（all paths of liberation in the mixed cultivation of the stage of learning）唯無漏故（are only undefiled）。唯四聖諦（four noble truths）中的法智（knowledge of dharma）、類智（knowledge of analogy）隨應現修（are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate）。無漏故（because it is undefiled），世俗智（conventional knowledge）非現修（is not presently cultivated）。非是他心解脫道故（because it is not the path of liberation through knowledge of others' minds），他心智（knowledge of others' minds）非現修（is not presently cultivated）。若加行道（if it is a path of preparation），於前六上增世俗智（adding conventional knowledge to the previous six），隨應現修（is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate）。以世俗智慧為加行故（because conventional knowledge can be a path of preparation）。加行非容預故（because the path of preparation does not allow for anticipation），他心智（knowledge of others' minds）非現修（is not presently cultivated）。諸勝進道（all paths of progress）於前七上（on top of the previous seven）。又加他心智（also adding knowledge of others' minds），隨應現修（is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate）。勝進容預（progress allows for anticipation），他心現修（knowledge of others' minds is presently cultivated）。此上三道（these above three paths）未來皆修八智（all cultivate eight knowledges in the future）。皆非斷障（all are not severing obstructions），得修他心智（can cultivate knowledge of others' minds）。

無學雜修（mixed cultivation of an arhat）至鈍八利九者（eight for the dull, nine for the sharp）：釋雜修無間應八九（explaining the immediate path of mixed cultivation, it should be eight or nine）。無學雜修諸無間道（all immediate paths of mixed cultivation for an arhat）現修如學（presently cultivated like a learner）。四聖諦（four noble truths）中的法智（knowledge of dharma）、類智（knowledge of analogy）、世俗智（conventional knowledge）。無間見性（immediate seeing of nature）非息求故（because the seeking has not ceased）。盡智（knowledge of exhaustion）、無生智（knowledge of non-arising）非是現修（are not presently cultivated）。未來所修（what is cultivated in the future）鈍八（eight for the dull）、利九（nine for the sharp）。各除他心智（each excluding knowledge of others' minds），以斷障故（because of severing obstructions）。

諸解脫道（paths of liberation）至與練根同者（are the same as perfecting faculties）：釋余道應九或一切（explaining the remaining paths, it should be nine or all）。無學雜修諸（all mixed cultivation of an arhat）

【English Translation】 English version Explained by Yingjiu: For an arhat (arhat, 阿羅漢) perfecting faculties (perfecting faculties), the paths of preparation (paths of preparation) for the five types of individuals (five types of individuals). Presently cultivated (presently cultivated) like a learner (like a learner). Conventional knowledge (conventional knowledge), knowledge of dharma (knowledge of dharma) and knowledge of analogy (knowledge of analogy) from the four noble truths (four noble truths) are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate. Because the paths of preparation do not allow for anticipation (because the paths of preparation do not allow for anticipation). Knowledge of others' minds (knowledge of others' minds) is not presently cultivated (not presently cultivated). Because the seeking has not ceased (because the seeking has not ceased), knowledge of exhaustion (knowledge of exhaustion) is not presently cultivated (not presently cultivated). Nine to be cultivated in the future (nine to be cultivated in the future). Namely, excluding the knowledge of non-arising (namely, excluding the knowledge of non-arising).

The paths of progress (paths of progress), even in the future, there are ten (even in the future, there are ten): Re-explaining all (re-explaining all). All paths of progress for an arhat perfecting faculties (all paths of progress for an arhat perfecting faculties). From the second thought-moment after the state of arhatship (from the second thought-moment after the state of arhatship), all are paths of progress (all are paths of progress), according to what is appropriate (according to what is appropriate), knowledge of exhaustion (knowledge of exhaustion) and knowledge of non-arising (knowledge of non-arising) can be presently cultivated (can be presently cultivated). Because it is a path of anticipation (because it is a path of anticipation), knowledge of others' minds (knowledge of others' minds) can also be presently cultivated (can also be presently cultivated).

Mixed cultivation in the stage of learning (mixed cultivation in the stage of learning), up to seven to be cultivated in the future (up to seven to be cultivated in the future): Below explains the second verse (below explains the second verse), explaining the immediate path of mixed cultivation (explaining the immediate path of mixed cultivation), seven for the learner (seven for the learner). All immediate paths of mixed cultivation in the stage of learning (all immediate paths of mixed cultivation in the stage of learning) include defiled (include defiled) and undefiled (undefiled). Among the two immediate paths (among the two immediate paths), the first immediate path (the first immediate path). Knowledge of dharma (knowledge of dharma) and knowledge of analogy (knowledge of analogy) from the four noble truths (four noble truths) are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate (are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate). The second immediate path (the second immediate path). Conventional knowledge (conventional knowledge) is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate (is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate). Seven to be cultivated in the future (seven to be cultivated in the future). Because it can sever obstructions (because it can sever obstructions), not cultivating knowledge of others' minds (not cultivating knowledge of others' minds).

The paths of liberation (paths of liberation), all eight in the future (all eight in the future): Explaining the third line (explaining the third line). All paths of liberation in the mixed cultivation of the stage of learning (all paths of liberation in the mixed cultivation of the stage of learning) are only undefiled (are only undefiled). Only knowledge of dharma (knowledge of dharma) and knowledge of analogy (knowledge of analogy) from the four noble truths (four noble truths) are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate (are presently cultivated according to what is appropriate). Because it is undefiled (because it is undefiled), conventional knowledge (conventional knowledge) is not presently cultivated (is not presently cultivated). Because it is not the path of liberation through knowledge of others' minds (because it is not the path of liberation through knowledge of others' minds), knowledge of others' minds (knowledge of others' minds) is not presently cultivated (is not presently cultivated). If it is a path of preparation (if it is a path of preparation), adding conventional knowledge to the previous six (adding conventional knowledge to the previous six), is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate (is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate). Because conventional knowledge can be a path of preparation (because conventional knowledge can be a path of preparation). Because the path of preparation does not allow for anticipation (because the path of preparation does not allow for anticipation), knowledge of others' minds (knowledge of others' minds) is not presently cultivated (is not presently cultivated). All paths of progress (all paths of progress), on top of the previous seven (on top of the previous seven). Also adding knowledge of others' minds (also adding knowledge of others' minds), is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate (is presently cultivated according to what is appropriate). Progress allows for anticipation (progress allows for anticipation), knowledge of others' minds is presently cultivated (knowledge of others' minds is presently cultivated). These above three paths (these above three paths) all cultivate eight knowledges in the future (all cultivate eight knowledges in the future). All are not severing obstructions (all are not severing obstructions), can cultivate knowledge of others' minds (can cultivate knowledge of others' minds).

Mixed cultivation of an arhat (mixed cultivation of an arhat), eight for the dull, nine for the sharp (eight for the dull, nine for the sharp): Explaining the immediate path of mixed cultivation, it should be eight or nine (explaining the immediate path of mixed cultivation, it should be eight or nine). All immediate paths of mixed cultivation for an arhat (all immediate paths of mixed cultivation for an arhat) are presently cultivated like a learner (are presently cultivated like a learner). Knowledge of dharma (knowledge of dharma), knowledge of analogy (knowledge of analogy), and conventional knowledge (conventional knowledge) from the four noble truths (four noble truths). Immediate seeing of nature (immediate seeing of nature), because the seeking has not ceased (because the seeking has not ceased). Knowledge of exhaustion (knowledge of exhaustion) and knowledge of non-arising (knowledge of non-arising) are not presently cultivated (are not presently cultivated). What is cultivated in the future (what is cultivated in the future), eight for the dull (eight for the dull), nine for the sharp (nine for the sharp). Each excluding knowledge of others' minds (each excluding knowledge of others' minds), because of severing obstructions (because of severing obstructions).

The paths of liberation (paths of liberation) are the same as perfecting faculties (are the same as perfecting faculties): Explaining the remaining paths, it should be nine or all (explaining the remaining paths, it should be nine or all). All mixed cultivation of an arhat (all mixed cultivation of an arhat)

解脫道。唯四．法．類隨應現修。無漏故現不修俗。非他心通解脫道故非現修他心。此解脫道是見非息求。故盡．無生智非現修。若加行道於前六上又增世俗隨應現修。俗作加行故得現修。非容預故他心非現修。加行是見非息求故。盡．無生智非是現修。此上二道未來所修鈍九．利十。諸勝進道與練根同。鈍者九智隨應現修。未來亦九。利者十智隨應現修。未來亦十。

學位修通至未來修七者。此下明修通。此釋修通無間學七。學位修通五無間道。是事觀故現修俗智。他心解脫雖通無漏及三念住。無間事觀唯是有漏。唯心念住。未來修七能斷障故不修他心。

宿住神境至皆修八智者。釋第三句。宿住．神境二解脫道。是事觀故現修俗智。五加行道皆是事觀現修俗智。為五無間皆是俗智。不可加行有勝無漏。為劣加行。故加行道唯俗現修　他心解脫通有漏無漏。若無漏者。法．類．道．他心智隨應現修。若有漏者。俗．他心智隨應現修　一切五通諸勝進道。即前法．類．道．俗．他心。並苦．集．滅隨應現修。五通勝進既容起他心。準知五通勝進亦容起餘四通　此上三道未來皆修八智。除盡．無生。以未得故。

無學修通至利九者。釋修通無間應八九。無學修通五無間道。現修如學唯世俗智。未來所

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本解脫道（vimutti-magga）。只有四種：法智（dhamma-ñāṇa）、類智（anvaya-ñāṇa）隨其相應而現前修習。因為是無漏（anāsava）的，所以現前修習的不是世俗智（lokiya-ñāṇa）。因為他心通（paracitta-vijānana）不是解脫道，所以不是現前修習他心通。這解脫道是見道（dassana-magga），不是止息煩惱的求道，所以盡智（khaya-ñāṇa）、無生智（anutpāda-ñāṇa）不是現前修習。如果加行道（payoga-magga）在前六種智之上又增加了世俗智，則隨其相應而現前修習。因為世俗智作為加行，所以能夠現前修習。因為不包含預流果（sotāpatti-phala），所以他心通不是現前修習。加行道是見道，不是止息煩惱的求道，所以盡智、無生智不是現前修習。這以上兩種道，未來所修的，鈍根者修九種智，利根者修十種智。各種勝進道（viseṣa-gamanā-magga）與練根（indriya-bhāvanā）相同。鈍根者九種智隨其相應而現前修習，未來也是九種。利根者十種智隨其相應而現前修習，未來也是十種。

學位修通到未來修七種智。這下面說明修通（abhiññā-bhāvanā）。這裡解釋修通無間道（anantara-magga）的七種智。學位修通五種無間道，因為是事觀（kicca-pariññā），所以現前修習世俗智。他心通雖然通於無漏和三種念住（sati-paṭṭhāna），但無間道的事觀只是有漏（sāsava）的，只有心念住（citta-sati-paṭṭhāna）。未來修習七種智，因為能夠斷除障礙，所以不修習他心通。

宿住通（pubbe-nivāsānussati-abhiññā）、神境通（iddhi-vidhā-abhiññā）到都修習八種智。解釋第三句。宿住通、神境通兩種解脫道，因為是事觀，所以現前修習世俗智。五種加行道都是事觀，現前修習世俗智。因為五種無間道都是世俗智，不可加行道有殊勝的無漏智，是劣加行道。所以加行道只有世俗智現前修習。他心通通於有漏和無漏。如果是無漏的，那麼法智、類智、道智（magga-ñāṇa）、他心智（paracitta-ñāṇa）隨其相應而現前修習。如果是有漏的，那麼世俗智、他心智隨其相應而現前修習。一切五通（pañcā-abhiññā）的各種勝進道，就是前面的法智、類智、道智、世俗智、他心智，以及苦智（dukkha-ñāṇa）、集智（samudaya-ñāṇa）、滅智（nirodha-ñāṇa）隨其相應而現前修習。五通勝進既然容許生起他心通，那麼可以推知五通勝進也容許生起其餘四通。這以上三種道，未來都修習八種智，除去盡智、無生智，因為尚未證得。

無學修通到利根者修九種智。解釋修通無間道應修八種或九種智。無學（asekha）修通五種無間道，現前修習如同有學位（sekha），只有世俗智。未來所修的

【English Translation】 English version The path of deliverance (vimutti-magga). There are only four: knowledge of the Dhamma (dhamma-ñāṇa), knowledge by inference (anvaya-ñāṇa), which are cultivated accordingly as they arise. Because it is unpolluted (anāsava), the mundane knowledge (lokiya-ñāṇa) is not cultivated presently. Because telepathy (paracitta-vijānana) is not the path of deliverance, telepathy is not cultivated presently. This path of deliverance is the path of seeing (dassana-magga), not the path of seeking cessation of defilements, so the knowledge of destruction (khaya-ñāṇa) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpāda-ñāṇa) are not cultivated presently. If the path of endeavor (payoga-magga) adds mundane knowledge on top of the previous six knowledges, then it is cultivated presently accordingly. Because mundane knowledge serves as endeavor, it can be cultivated presently. Because it does not include the stream-entry fruition (sotāpatti-phala), telepathy is not cultivated presently. The path of endeavor is the path of seeing, not the path of seeking cessation of defilements, so the knowledge of destruction and the knowledge of non-arising are not cultivated presently. For the two paths above, in the future, the dull ones cultivate nine knowledges, and the sharp ones cultivate ten knowledges. The various paths of progress (viseṣa-gamanā-magga) are the same as cultivating faculties (indriya-bhāvanā). The dull ones cultivate nine knowledges accordingly as they arise, and it will be nine in the future as well. The sharp ones cultivate ten knowledges accordingly as they arise, and it will be ten in the future as well.

The training in supernormal powers (abhiññā-bhāvanā) at the stage of a learner (sekha) up to cultivating seven knowledges in the future. The following explains the training in supernormal powers. This explains the seven knowledges of the immediately following path (anantara-magga) of supernormal powers. The training in supernormal powers at the stage of a learner involves five immediately following paths. Because it is the task of comprehension (kicca-pariññā), mundane knowledge is cultivated presently. Although telepathy is common to the unpolluted and the three foundations of mindfulness (sati-paṭṭhāna), the task of comprehension of the immediately following path is only polluted (sāsava), only mindfulness of the mind (citta-sati-paṭṭhāna). In the future, seven knowledges are cultivated because they can cut off obstacles, so telepathy is not cultivated.

The supernormal power of recollecting past lives (pubbe-nivāsānussati-abhiññā), the supernormal power of psychic abilities (iddhi-vidhā-abhiññā), up to all cultivate eight knowledges. Explains the third sentence. The two paths of deliverance of the supernormal power of recollecting past lives and the supernormal power of psychic abilities, because they are the task of comprehension, mundane knowledge is cultivated presently. All five paths of endeavor are the task of comprehension, and mundane knowledge is cultivated presently. Because all five immediately following paths are mundane knowledge, the path of endeavor cannot have superior unpolluted knowledge; it is an inferior path of endeavor. Therefore, only mundane knowledge is cultivated presently in the path of endeavor. Telepathy is common to the polluted and the unpolluted. If it is unpolluted, then knowledge of the Dhamma, knowledge by inference, knowledge of the path (magga-ñāṇa), and telepathic knowledge (paracitta-ñāṇa) are cultivated presently accordingly. If it is polluted, then mundane knowledge and telepathic knowledge are cultivated presently accordingly. All the various paths of progress of the five supernormal powers (pañcā-abhiññā) are the aforementioned knowledge of the Dhamma, knowledge by inference, knowledge of the path, mundane knowledge, telepathic knowledge, as well as knowledge of suffering (dukkha-ñāṇa), knowledge of arising (samudaya-ñāṇa), and knowledge of cessation (nirodha-ñāṇa), which are cultivated presently accordingly. Since the progress of the five supernormal powers allows for the arising of telepathy, it can be inferred that the progress of the five supernormal powers also allows for the arising of the other four supernormal powers. For the three paths above, eight knowledges are cultivated in the future, except for the knowledge of destruction and the knowledge of non-arising, because they have not yet been attained.

The training in supernormal powers of an adept (asekha) up to the sharp ones cultivate nine knowledges. Explains that the immediately following path of supernormal powers should cultivate eight or nine knowledges. The training in supernormal powers of an adept involves five immediately following paths. The present cultivation is like that of a learner, only mundane knowledge. What is cultivated in the future

修鈍八。利九。能斷障故不修他心。

解脫加行至余練根同者。釋余道應九或一切。解脫．加行現修如學準前可知。未來所修鈍九。利十。諸勝進道與練根同準前可知。

天眼．天耳至不名為修者。簡二不修。於六通中不言漏盡者。即是前說斷惑盡故。

聖起所餘至唯修俗故者。此下釋第三頌。此下即釋第一句及下兩句。此明聖者起余有漏功德。不別除障。所以不約四道以明。臨入滅定心名微微心。此心羸劣現．未唯俗。不修無漏。故婆沙一百五十五云。若起微微心時。若起聞．思．慧等時。于無漏根非舍。非得。非滅。非起　準彼婆沙微微心及聞．思慧等不修無漏。余文可知。

若起所餘至同前有漏者。明起余無漏功德。此亦無別除障。所以不約四道以明　問盡．無生智。此中何故不言現修　解云此明遊觀無漏功德。皆是見性。盡．無生智息求非見故此不說　又解盡．無生智前已說故。今者所明。明起余德。或四．法．類即攝盡．無生智。前二解為勝。

異生離染至唯修世俗者。此下釋第二句及后兩句。此後兩句通上兩處。異生離染現修世俗　問何故聖人離欲染勝進容起他心。異生勝進不言現修　解云聖于離欲染勝進位中。唯起無漏他心智。以作四行似斷道故。又順斷道于道有力。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本修道遲緩者（鈍根）修習八種（功德），修道迅速者（利根）修習九種（功德）。因為（他心智）能夠斷除障礙，所以不修習他心智。

從解脫道的加行位到餘下的練根位相同的情況。（問：）解釋余道時，應該說修習九種還是全部（十種功德）？解脫道和加行道現在修習的情況，可以參照之前的解釋來理解。未來所修習的，鈍根者修習九種，利根者修習十種。各種勝進道與練根位相同，參照之前的解釋來理解。

從天眼、天耳到不名為修習的情況。（答：）這是爲了簡別兩種不修習的情況。在六神通中沒有提到漏盡通，是因為前面已經說過斷盡煩惱的緣故。

從聖者生起其餘（功德）到唯修習世俗（功德）的情況。（答：）下面解釋第三頌。下面即解釋第一句及下面的兩句。這裡說明聖者生起其餘有漏功德，不特別去除障礙。所以不按照四道來說明。臨近進入滅盡定時的心叫做微微心。這種心微弱，現在和未來都只是世俗（功德），不修習無漏（功德）。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十五卷說，如果生起微微心時，如果生起聞、思、慧等時，對於無漏根來說，不是捨棄，不是獲得，不是滅除，不是生起。參照《婆沙論》，微微心以及聞、思、慧等不修習無漏（功德），其餘的文字可以理解。

如果生起其餘（功德）到與前面的有漏（功德）相同的情況。（答：）說明生起其餘無漏功德。這也沒有特別去除障礙。所以不按照四道來說明。（問：）盡智（Ksaya-jnana）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana），這裡為什麼不說現在修習？（答：）解釋說，這裡說明遊觀無漏功德，都是見性。盡智和無生智息滅求證，不是見性，所以這裡不說。又解釋說，盡智和無生智前面已經說過，現在所說明的，是說明生起其餘功德。或者四智（法智、類智、他心智、世俗智）即攝盡智和無生智。前兩種解釋更為殊勝。

從異生（Prthag-jana）離染到唯修習世俗（功德）的情況。（答：）下面解釋第二句及後面的兩句。後面的兩句貫通上面的兩處。異生離染現在修習世俗（功德）。（問：）為什麼聖人在離欲染的勝進位中，能夠生起他心智，而異生勝進卻不說是現在修習？（答：）解釋說，聖人在離欲染的勝進位中，只生起無漏的他心智，因為（他心智）作為四行，類似於斷道。又因為順應斷道，對於道有力量。

【English Translation】 English version The slow (dull-witted) one cultivates eight (meritorious qualities). The quick (sharp-witted) one cultivates nine (meritorious qualities). Because (the knowledge of others' minds) can sever obstacles, they do not cultivate the knowledge of others' minds (Paracitta-jnana).

From the application stage of liberation to the remaining stages of root-training being the same. (Question:) When explaining the remaining paths, should it be said that nine or all (ten meritorious qualities) are cultivated? The present cultivation of the path of liberation and the application path can be understood by referring to the previous explanations. In the future, the dull-witted will cultivate nine, and the sharp-witted will cultivate ten. The various paths of progress are the same as the root-training, which can be understood by referring to the previous explanations.

From the divine eye (Divyacaksu) and divine ear (Divyasrotra) to not being called cultivation. (Answer:) This is to distinguish between the two cases of non-cultivation. Among the six superknowledges (Sadabhijna), the exhaustion of outflows (Asravaksaya-jnana) is not mentioned because it has already been said that afflictions are completely severed.

From the sage arising the remaining (merits) to only cultivating the mundane. (Answer:) The following explains the third verse. The following explains the first sentence and the following two sentences. This explains that when a sage arises other contaminated merits, they do not specifically remove obstacles. Therefore, it is not explained according to the four paths. The mind near entering cessation is called the subtle mind. This mind is weak, and both present and future are only mundane (merits), not cultivating uncontaminated (merits). Therefore, the 155th volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says, 'If a subtle mind arises, if hearing, thinking, wisdom, etc., arise, then for the uncontaminated root, it is neither abandoning, nor obtaining, nor ceasing, nor arising.' Referring to the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, the subtle mind and hearing, thinking, wisdom, etc., do not cultivate uncontaminated (merits). The remaining text can be understood.

If the remaining (merits) arise to being the same as the previous contaminated (merits). (Answer:) Explains the arising of other uncontaminated merits. This also does not specifically remove obstacles. Therefore, it is not explained according to the four paths. (Question:) Why are the knowledge of exhaustion (Ksaya-jnana) and the knowledge of non-arising (Anutpada-jnana) not mentioned here as being presently cultivated? (Answer:) It is explained that this explains the wandering observation of uncontaminated merits, which are all of the nature of seeing. The knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising cease seeking proof and are not of the nature of seeing, so they are not mentioned here. It is also explained that the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising have already been mentioned before. What is now being explained is the arising of other merits. Or the four knowledges (knowledge of the Dharma, knowledge of kinds, knowledge of others' minds, and conventional knowledge) include the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising. The first two explanations are superior.

From the ordinary being (Prthag-jana) separating from desire to only cultivating the mundane. (Answer:) The following explains the second sentence and the following two sentences. The following two sentences connect the above two places. The ordinary being separating from desire presently cultivates the mundane (merits). (Question:) Why can a sage arise the knowledge of others' minds in the progressive stage of separating from desire, but it is not said that an ordinary being presently cultivates it in the progressive stage? (Answer:) It is explained that in the progressive stage of separating from desire, a sage only arises the uncontaminated knowledge of others' minds because (the knowledge of others' minds) acts as the four practices, similar to severing the path. Also, because it accords with severing the path, it has power over the path.

異生他心唯是有漏。與能斷道六行。不同。理．事別故。不相順故。不得現修　或異生位離染勝進容起他心。此文但言世俗智者。據加行．無間．解脫。從多分說。或亦應說。而不說者略而不論。若斷欲界第九解脫。及斷色界前三定第九解脫。得上根本他心。前八未得。復不修下。故不別標。及依根本四靜慮定起離染勝進離染加行道。此等未來皆修二智謂於前俗。又加他心。除前所說所餘一切加行無間．解脫．勝進。未來皆唯修世俗智。

修五通時至現未唯俗者。明異生修五通。修五通時。五加行道。宿住．神境二解脫道現修俗智。他心一解脫道。現修俗．他心。五勝進道。俗．他心二隨應現修。此上未來一切皆修俗．他心二。五無間道。現在．未來唯修俗智。天眼．天耳二解脫道。無記性故不名為修。

依本靜慮至現未來修者。明異生修余功德。若依根本四靜慮地修余功德。四無量等皆現修俗。未來修二謂加他心。唯順抉擇分必不修他心。以是見道近眷屬故。除依本靜慮。若依餘地定修余功德不凈觀等皆唯世俗智。現在．未來修。頌文窄故但說修未來。長行文寬兼說修現世。

諸未來修至曾所得非修者。此即第五約地辨修。一問諸未來修為修幾地。二問諸所起得皆是修耶。前七句答初問。后一句

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：異生（指凡夫）所擁有的他心通，都屬於有漏的。這與能斷煩惱之道的六行觀不同，因為理和事有所區別，彼此不相順應，所以不能在當下修習。或者，在異生位，通過離染的殊勝進步，有可能生起他心通。這裡的經文只提到世俗智，是根據加行道、無間道、解脫道這三個階段從大多數情況來說的。或者也應該說能生起他心通，但沒有說，是因為省略而不論述。如果斷除了欲界的第九解脫，以及斷除了**界前三定的第九解脫，就能獲得根本的他心通，前八個解脫道尚未獲得。而且不再修習下地的解脫道，所以不特別標明。以及依靠根本四靜慮定，生起離染的殊勝進步的離染加行道，這些在未來都會修習兩種智慧，即世俗智和他心智。除了前面所說的，其餘一切加行道、無間道、解脫道、殊勝進步道，未來都只修習世俗智。修習五神通時，從現在到未來都只修習世俗智的情況，說明了異生修習五神通。在修習五神通時，五個加行道，宿住通和神境通這兩個解脫道，現在修習世俗智。他心通這一個解脫道，現在修習世俗智和他心智。五個勝進道，世俗智和他心智兩種智慧隨應地現在修習。在此之上，未來一切都修習世俗智和他心智兩種智慧。五個無間道，現在和未來都只修習世俗智。天眼通和天耳通這兩個解脫道，因為是無記性的，所以不稱為修習。依靠根本靜慮定，從現在到未來都修習的情況，說明了異生修習其他功德。如果依靠根本四靜慮地修習其他功德，四無量心等都現在修習世俗智，未來修習兩種智慧，即世俗智和他心智。只有順抉擇分必定不修習他心智，因為它是見道的近親眷屬。除了依靠根本靜慮定，如果依靠其他地的禪定修習其他功德，如不凈觀等，都只修習世俗智。現在和未來都修習。頌文簡略，所以只說了修習未來。長行文詳細，兼說了修習現在。諸未來修習到曾經所得的不是修習的情況，這是第五個方面，從地的角度辨別修習。第一個問題是，諸未來修習是修習幾地？第二個問題是，諸所生起的功德都是修習嗎？前七句回答第一個問題，后一句回答第二個問題。

【English Translation】 English version: The other-minds (telepathy) possessed by ordinary beings (異生, Yisheng) are all with outflows (有漏, Youlou). This is different from the six aspects of the path that cuts off afflictions, because the principles (理, Li) and phenomena (事, Shi) are different and do not correspond to each other, so they cannot be cultivated in the present moment. Alternatively, in the position of an ordinary being, through the excellent progress of detachment, it is possible to generate other-minds. This text only mentions mundane wisdom (世俗智, Shisuzhi), based on the stages of preparatory practice (加行, Jiaxing), immediate path (無間, Wujian), and liberation (解脫, Jietuo), speaking from the majority of cases. Or it should also be said that other-minds can be generated, but it is not mentioned because it is omitted. If the ninth liberation of the desire realm is severed, and the ninth liberation of the first three dhyanas (定, Ding) of the form realm is severed, then fundamental other-minds can be obtained; the previous eight liberation paths have not yet been obtained. Moreover, one no longer cultivates the liberation paths of lower realms, so it is not specifically indicated. And relying on the fundamental four dhyanas, one generates the detachment preparatory practice path of excellent progress in detachment; in the future, all of these will cultivate two wisdoms, namely mundane wisdom and other-minds wisdom. Except for what was mentioned earlier, all other preparatory practices, immediate paths, liberation paths, and excellent progress paths will only cultivate mundane wisdom in the future. The situation where one only cultivates mundane wisdom from the present to the future when cultivating the five supernormal powers (五神通, Wushentong) explains that ordinary beings cultivate the five supernormal powers. When cultivating the five supernormal powers, the five preparatory practice paths, the two liberation paths of the knowledge of past lives (宿住, Suzhu) and the power of miraculous abilities (神境, Shenjing), one currently cultivates mundane wisdom. The one liberation path of other-minds, one currently cultivates mundane wisdom and other-minds wisdom. The five excellent progress paths, mundane wisdom and other-minds wisdom are cultivated accordingly in the present. Above this, in the future, all will cultivate mundane wisdom and other-minds wisdom. The five immediate paths, one only cultivates mundane wisdom in the present and future. The two liberation paths of the divine eye (天眼, Tianyan) and the divine ear (天耳, Tianer), because they are of an indeterminate nature (無記性, Wujixing), are not called cultivation. The situation where one cultivates from the present to the future relying on the fundamental dhyana explains that ordinary beings cultivate other merits. If one cultivates other merits relying on the fundamental four dhyana grounds, the four immeasurables (四無量, Siwuliang), etc., all currently cultivate mundane wisdom, and in the future, one cultivates two wisdoms, namely mundane wisdom and other-minds wisdom. Only the path of definite determination (順抉擇分, Shunjuezefen) will certainly not cultivate other-minds wisdom, because it is a close relative of the path of seeing (見道, Jiandao). Except for relying on the fundamental dhyana, if one cultivates other merits relying on the dhyana of other grounds, such as the contemplation of impurity (不凈觀, Bujingguan), etc., one only cultivates mundane wisdom. One cultivates in the present and future. The verse is concise, so it only mentions cultivating in the future. The extended text is detailed, so it also mentions cultivating in the present. The situation where what is cultivated in the future is not what was previously attained is the fifth aspect, distinguishing cultivation from the perspective of grounds. The first question is, on how many grounds is what is cultivated in the future cultivated? The second question is, are all the merits that arise cultivation? The first seven sentences answer the first question, and the last sentence answers the second question.

答第二問。

論曰至此地有漏者。釋初兩句。此明修有漏也。諸有漏道及無漏道。修有漏法。總有二類。一依此地現起之時。能修未來此地有漏。二得此地時。能修未來此地有漏。故顯宗三十六云。諸道依此地及得此地時。能修未來此地有漏。謂依此地世俗聖道現在前時。未來唯修此地有漏。以有漏法系地堅牢難修余故。隨依何地離下地染。第九解脫現在前時。亦修未來所得上地根本．近分有漏功德。離下地縛必得上故(正理七十四。文同顯宗)　問修有漏中何故不言為離此地時。修此地有漏　解云用有漏道及無漏道離染之時。修諸有漏不異依此地及得此地時。修此地有漏。依下地道漸離上染。復不能修上地有漏。不同修無漏故不別說　問如無漏道依此下地離下地染。九無間道．八解脫道。修上近分有漏道不。若言修者。此文何故不說。又與正理七十四相違。如彼論云。雖下聖道斷煩惱時。諸上地邊有能同治。然由有漏系地堅牢。未離下時未能修彼　若不修者雖順此文。依此修此即與前說賢聖品相違。如彼頌云。聖二離八修各二離系得。長行解云。諸有學聖用有漏道。離下八地修斷染時。能具引生二離系得。用無漏道離彼亦然。由二種道同所作故　解云無漏道離下染時九無間道．八解脫道。不能修上近分有漏　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本回答第二個問題。

論述：『到此地有漏者』。解釋最初的兩句。這說明修習有漏法。所有有漏道和無漏道，修習有漏法，總共有兩類：一是依此地現起之時，能修未來此地的有漏法；二是得到此地時，能修未來此地的有漏法。所以《顯宗論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya，佛教論著名）第三十六卷說：『諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。』意思是說，依此地世俗聖道現在前時，未來只能修習此地的有漏法，因為有漏法系縛於此地非常堅固，難以修習其他的有漏法。隨所依何地，當離開下地染污時，第九解脫道現在前時，也修習未來所得上地根本定（Dhyana，禪定的一種）和近分定（Upacarasamadhi，接近根本定的禪定）的有漏功德，因為離開下地束縛必定能得到上地（見《阿毗達磨順正理論》第七十四卷，文義與《顯宗論》相同）。

問：在修習有漏法中，為什麼不說『為離此地時，修此地有漏』？

答：因為用有漏道和無漏道離染之時，修諸有漏法，與依此地及得此地時修此地有漏法沒有區別。依下地道逐漸離開上地染污，又不能修習上地有漏法，與修習無漏法不同，所以不另外說明。

問：如果無漏道依此下地離開下地染污，九無間道（Navanantarika-marga，九種無間斷的修行道）和八解脫道（Asta-vimukti-marga，八種解脫道）是否修習上近分有漏道？如果說修習，那麼此文為什麼不說？又與《阿毗達磨順正理論》第七十四卷相違背，如該論說：『雖然下聖道斷煩惱時，諸上地邊有能同治，然而由於有漏繫縛於此地非常堅固，未離開下地時不能修習彼地。』

如果不修習，雖然順應此文『依此修此』，卻與前面所說的賢聖品相違背，如該頌說：『聖二離八修，各二離系得。』長行解釋說：『諸有學聖者用有漏道，離開下八地修斷染時，能具足引生二離系得（Dvi-visamyoga-pratilambha，兩種離系果）。用無漏道離開彼地也是這樣，因為兩種道所作相同。』

答：無漏道離開下地染污時，九無間道和八解脫道不能修習上近分有漏法。

【English Translation】 English version Answering the second question.

Treatise: 'Reaching this realm with outflows.' Explaining the first two sentences. This clarifies the cultivation of conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma) with outflows. All paths with outflows and without outflows, cultivating dharmas with outflows, generally fall into two categories: first, when arising in this realm, one can cultivate future outflows of this realm; second, upon attaining this realm, one can cultivate future outflows of this realm. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya, volume 36, states: 'All paths, relying on this realm and upon attaining this realm, can cultivate future outflows of this realm.' This means that when the mundane noble path (Lokiya-arya-marga) of this realm is present, one can only cultivate the outflows of this realm in the future, because conditioned dharmas with outflows are firmly bound to this realm, making it difficult to cultivate other outflows. Depending on which realm one relies on, when departing from the defilements of the lower realm, and when the ninth liberation path (Navama-vimukti-marga) is present, one also cultivates the conditioned merits with outflows of the fundamental concentration (Dhyana) and the access concentration (Upacarasamadhi) of the upper realm to be attained, because departing from the bonds of the lower realm necessarily leads to attaining the upper realm (see Abhidharmanyayanusara, volume 74, the meaning is the same as in Abhidharmasamuccaya).

Question: In the cultivation of conditioned dharmas with outflows, why not say 'For the time of departing from this realm, cultivate the outflows of this realm'?

Answer: Because when using paths with outflows and without outflows to depart from defilements, cultivating all conditioned dharmas with outflows is no different from relying on this realm and upon attaining this realm to cultivate the outflows of this realm. Relying on the path of the lower realm to gradually depart from the defilements of the upper realm, one cannot cultivate the outflows of the upper realm, which is different from cultivating dharmas without outflows, so it is not explained separately.

Question: If the path without outflows relies on this lower realm to depart from the defilements of the lower realm, do the nine uninterrupted paths (Navanantarika-marga) and the eight liberation paths (Asta-vimukti-marga) cultivate the access concentration with outflows of the upper realm? If it is said that they cultivate, then why does this text not mention it? Furthermore, it contradicts Abhidharmanyayanusara, volume 74, as that treatise states: 'Although when the lower noble path severs afflictions, the edges of the upper realms have the ability to co-govern, however, because conditioned dharmas with outflows are firmly bound to this realm, one cannot cultivate that realm before departing from the lower realm.'

If they do not cultivate, although it aligns with this text 'relying on this to cultivate this,' it contradicts the previously mentioned chapter on the noble ones, as that verse states: 'The two noble ones depart from eight to cultivate, each attains two separations.' The extended explanation says: 'All noble ones who are still learning use paths with outflows, when departing from the lower eight realms to cultivate and sever defilements, they can fully bring forth the two separations (Dvi-visamyoga-pratilambha). Using paths without outflows to depart from those realms is also the same, because the two types of paths do the same thing.'

Answer: When the path without outflows departs from the defilements of the lower realm, the nine uninterrupted paths and the eight liberation paths cannot cultivate the access concentration with outflows of the upper realm.

問若作此解雖順論文亦符正理。賢聖品文云何釋通　解云若以無漏道離下八地染。亦能引生二離系得者此據第九解脫道離下染盡。方修上地近分有漏。若別而言。前九無間．八解脫道離下染時。未修上地近分有漏。爾時唯有一無漏得。故不相違　又解云。以無漏道離下染時。九無間道．八解脫道。亦修上地近分有漏。同治修故　問若作此解雖順賢聖品文。何故此文不說依此修上。又正理論云何釋通　解云從多分說依此修此。故偏說之。上地近分或修。不修。若無漏道離下染即修。若余無漏依下地起。即不修上近分有漏。以不定故是故不說。正理論說自是彼計。非所許故無勞會釋。顯宗亦有兩說云。雖下聖道斷煩惱時。諸上地邊有能同治。然由有漏系地堅牢。未離下時未能修彼。有說亦修彼。起彼斷得故。前解同顯宗前說。后解同顯宗后師。又顯宗三十二云。由此有學離八修斷。世出世道隨一現前。各未來修世．出世道。此總相說。以無漏道離上七地前八品時。不修上邊世俗道故。唯有無漏一離系得。離第九品方可具二。或應許得離系道而修。或應斷染時許依下修上。顯宗三解。前解同顯宗前師。后解同顯宗后二說　問俱舍為同何說　解云或同前解。或同后解。皆無妨矣　問依此地起無漏皆修此地有漏法耶　解云亦有不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果這樣解釋，雖然符合論文，也符合正理，那麼《賢聖品》中的文字該如何解釋呢？答：如果用無漏道來斷除下八地的染污，也能引發兩種離系得（Vimoksha-bhāga, 解脫分），這是指第九解脫道斷盡下地染污后，才修習上地的近分有漏（Sāmanta-bhāga, 順抉擇分）。如果分別來說，前九無間道（Ānantarya-mārga, 無間道）、八解脫道在斷除下地染污時，尚未修習上地的近分有漏，那時只有一種無漏得，所以沒有矛盾。又答：用無漏道斷除下地染污時，九無間道、八解脫道也同時修習上地的近分有漏，因為是共同修習的。問：如果這樣解釋，雖然符合《賢聖品》的文字，為什麼這段文字不說依此修習上地呢？《正理論》又該如何解釋呢？答：從多數情況來說，是依此修習此地，所以偏重這樣說。上地的近分有漏，有時修習，有時不修習。如果無漏道斷除下地染污時就修習，如果其餘無漏道依下地生起，就不修習上地的近分有漏，因為不確定，所以不說。《正理論》的說法是他們自己的觀點，不是我們認可的，所以不必解釋。顯宗也有兩種說法：雖然下地的聖道斷除煩惱時，上地的部分法也能同時修習，但由於有漏束縛堅固，未離開下地時不能修習上地。有的人說也修習上地，因為生起上地的斷得。前一種解釋同於《顯宗》的前一種說法，后一種解釋同於《顯宗》的后一種說法。又《顯宗》三十二說：因此有學（Śaikṣa, 有學）斷除八修斷（Bhāvanā-heya, 修所斷）時，世間道（Laukika-mārga, 世間道）和出世間道（Lokottara-mārga, 出世間道）隨一現前，各自未來修習世間道和出世間道。這是總的來說，因為無漏道斷除上七地前八品時，不修習上地的世俗道，所以只有無漏一種離系得。斷除第九品時才能具備兩種。或者應該允許得到離系道而修習，或者應該允許斷染時依下地修習上地。《顯宗》有三種解釋，前一種解釋同於《顯宗》的前一種說法，后一種解釋同於《顯宗》的后兩種說法。問：《俱舍論》的觀點同於哪種說法？答：或者同於前一種解釋，或者同於后一種解釋，都沒有妨礙。問：依此地生起的無漏道，都修習此地的有漏法嗎？答：也有不修習的。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If we interpret it this way, although it accords with the treatise and also conforms to correct reasoning, how should the text in the 'Noble and Saintly' chapter be explained? Answer: If one uses the unconditioned path (Asaiksa-mārga, 無漏道) to sever the defilements of the lower eight realms, it can also give rise to two 'separations' (Vimoksha-bhāga, 解脫分). This refers to the fact that only when the ninth path of liberation has completely severed the defilements of the lower realm, does one cultivate the 'proximate division with outflows' (Sāmanta-bhāga, 順抉擇分) of the upper realm. If we speak separately, when the first nine 'paths of immediate consequence' (Ānantarya-mārga, 無間道) and the eight 'paths of liberation' sever the defilements of the lower realm, they have not yet cultivated the 'proximate division with outflows' of the upper realm. At that time, there is only one unconditioned attainment, so there is no contradiction. Another answer: When the unconditioned path severs the defilements of the lower realm, the nine 'paths of immediate consequence' and the eight 'paths of liberation' also simultaneously cultivate the 'proximate division with outflows' of the upper realm, because they are cultivated together. Question: If we interpret it this way, although it accords with the text of the 'Noble and Saintly' chapter, why does this text not say that one cultivates the upper realm based on this? How should the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) be explained? Answer: Speaking from the majority of cases, one cultivates this realm based on this, so it is emphasized in this way. The 'proximate division with outflows' of the upper realm is sometimes cultivated and sometimes not. If the unconditioned path severs the defilements of the lower realm, then it is cultivated. If the remaining unconditioned paths arise based on the lower realm, then they do not cultivate the 'proximate division with outflows' of the upper realm, because it is uncertain, so it is not mentioned. The statement in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is their own view, not what we acknowledge, so there is no need to explain it. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (顯宗) also has two views: although when the holy path of the lower realm severs afflictions, some aspects of the upper realm can be cultivated simultaneously, because the bonds of outflows are firm, one cannot cultivate the upper realm without leaving the lower realm. Some say that one also cultivates the upper realm, because the attainment of severance of the upper realm arises. The former explanation is the same as the former view of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, and the latter explanation is the same as the latter view of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya. Furthermore, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya thirty-two says: Therefore, when a learner (Śaikṣa, 有學) severs the eight 'abandonments by cultivation' (Bhāvanā-heya, 修所斷), either the mundane path (Laukika-mārga, 世間道) or the supramundane path (Lokottara-mārga, 出世間道) manifests, and each will cultivate the mundane path and the supramundane path in the future. This is a general statement, because when the unconditioned path severs the first eight categories of the upper seven realms, it does not cultivate the mundane path of the upper realm, so there is only one unconditioned 'separation'. Only when the ninth category is severed can one possess both. Or one should allow that one obtains the path of separation and cultivates, or one should allow that when severing defilements, one cultivates the upper realm based on the lower realm. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya has three explanations. The former explanation is the same as the former view of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, and the latter explanation is the same as the latter two views of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya. Question: Which view does the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) agree with? Answer: It either agrees with the former explanation or agrees with the latter explanation, and there is no obstacle. Question: Does the unconditioned path that arises based on this realm always cultivate the conditioned dharmas of this realm? Answer: There are also cases where it does not cultivate.

修者如婆沙百六十三。解初定凈．無漏四句中。有修無漏初靜慮非凈中雲。聖者依初靜慮離初靜慮乃至無所有處染。九無間九解脫道時。及離非非想處染。九無間道八解脫道時。婆沙既言。依初定離初定染。不修初定凈。明知有無漏依此地不修此地有漏。又準此文。依初定起無漏解脫道等。不修當地有漏他心智。前言修者。據無漏他心智說。

聖為離此地至通二四道者。釋第三第四句。此明修無漏也。修無漏中總有三類。一為離此地時。能修此地及下無漏。望離染地言修此地。不望依地。若望依地亦名修上。二得此地時。能修此地及下無漏。三依此地中諸道現起。能修此地及下無漏。故顯宗三十六云。聖為離此地及得此地時。並此地中諸道現起。皆能修此及下無漏。謂隨何地有漏．無漏加行等道。正現在前為欲斷除此地煩惱。未來修此及下無漏。下於上染同能治故。雖下聖道斷煩惱時。諸上地邊有能同治。然由有漏系地堅牢。未離下時未能修彼。有說亦修彼。起彼斷得故。隨依何地離下地染第九解脫現在前時。亦修未來所得上地。及諸下地無漏功德。隨起此地世俗．聖道現在前時。未來皆修此及下地無漏功德(正理同顯宗唯無有說)　問若言離此能修此及下無漏法者。見道能離三界見惑。隨依何地但修自．下。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：修習者，如《婆沙論》第一百六十三卷所說。解釋『初禪定凈、無漏』四句中，『有修無漏初靜慮非凈』時說：聖者依靠初禪定，爲了離開初禪定乃至無所有處（ākincanyāyatana）的染污，生起九無間道（anantarya-mārga）、九解脫道（vimukti-mārga）時；以及爲了離開非想非非想處（nevasaññānāsaññāyatana）的染污，生起九無間道、八解脫道時。《婆沙論》既然說，依靠初禪定離開初禪定的染污，（因此）不修初禪定的清凈，明確知道有無漏法依靠此地，但不修此地有漏法。又根據這段經文，依靠初禪定生起無漏解脫道等，不修此地有漏他心智（para-citta-jñāna）。前面所說的『修習者』，是根據無漏他心智來說的。

『聖者爲了離開此地，通達二四道』，這是解釋第三、第四句。這說明修習無漏法。修習無漏法總共有三類：一是爲了離開此地時，能修習此地及下地的無漏法。這是相對於所要離開的染污地而言，說修習此地，而不是相對於所依靠的地而言。如果相對於所依靠的地而言，也可以說是修習上地。二是得到此地時，能修習此地及下地的無漏法。三是依靠此地時，諸道現起，能修習此地及下地的無漏法。所以《顯宗論》第三十六卷說：聖者爲了離開此地以及得到此地時，並且在此地中諸道現起時，都能修習此地及下地的無漏法。也就是說，無論依靠何地，有漏、無漏的加行道等道，正在面前顯現，爲了斷除此地的煩惱，未來修習此地及下地的無漏法。因為下地的聖道與上地的染污，具有相同的能對治性。雖然下地的聖道斷除煩惱時，諸上地也有能共同對治的作用，但是由於有漏的繫縛堅固，沒有離開下地時，不能修習上地。有人說也修習上地，因為生起上地的斷得故。無論依靠何地，離開下地染污的第九解脫道現在面前時，也修習未來所得到的上地，以及諸下地的無漏功德。無論生起此地的世俗道、聖道現在面前時，未來都修習此地及下地的無漏功德（《正理論》與《顯宗論》相同，只是沒有『有人說』）。問：如果說離開此地能修習此地及下地的無漏法，那麼見道（darśana-mārga）能離開三界（trayo dhātavaḥ）的見惑（darśana-heya），無論依靠何地，只能修習自地及下地的無漏法。

【English Translation】 English version: The practitioner, as stated in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, volume 163. In explaining the four phrases 'first dhyāna (jhāna) is pure, free from outflows (anāsrava),' when discussing 'there is cultivation of the first dhyāna free from outflows, not pure,' it says: When a noble one, relying on the first dhyāna, in order to depart from the defilements of the first dhyāna up to the realm of nothingness (ākincanyāyatana), generates the nine uninterrupted paths (anantarya-mārga) and nine liberation paths (vimukti-mārga); and when departing from the defilements of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (nevasaññānāsaññāyatana), generates the nine uninterrupted paths and eight liberation paths. Since the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states that relying on the first dhyāna to depart from the defilements of the first dhyāna, (therefore) not cultivating the purity of the first dhyāna, it is clearly known that there are outflow-free dharmas that rely on this ground but do not cultivate the outflow-bearing dharmas of this ground. Furthermore, according to this passage, relying on the first dhyāna to generate outflow-free liberation paths, etc., one does not cultivate the outflow-bearing knowledge of others' minds (para-citta-jñāna) of that ground. The previously mentioned 'practitioner' refers to the outflow-free knowledge of others' minds.

'The noble one, in order to depart from this ground, penetrates the two or four paths,' this explains the third and fourth phrases. This explains the cultivation of outflow-free dharmas. There are three categories of cultivating outflow-free dharmas: first, when departing from this ground, one can cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of this ground and the lower grounds. This is in relation to the defiled ground that is being departed from, saying that one cultivates this ground, not in relation to the ground that is being relied upon. If in relation to the ground that is being relied upon, it can also be said that one cultivates the higher ground. Second, when attaining this ground, one can cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of this ground and the lower grounds. Third, when relying on this ground, when the paths manifest, one can cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of this ground and the lower grounds. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya, volume 36, says: When a noble one is departing from this ground and when attaining this ground, and when the paths manifest in this ground, one can cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of this ground and the lower grounds. That is to say, no matter which ground one relies on, the outflow-bearing and outflow-free preparatory paths, etc., are manifesting before one, in order to eliminate the afflictions of this ground, one will cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of this ground and the lower grounds in the future. Because the lower ground's noble path and the higher ground's defilements have the same ability to counteract each other. Although the lower ground's noble path has the ability to jointly counteract the afflictions of the higher grounds when eliminating afflictions, because the bonds of outflows are strong, one cannot cultivate the higher grounds when one has not departed from the lower ground. Some say that one also cultivates the higher grounds, because the attainment of severance of the higher grounds arises. No matter which ground one relies on, when the ninth liberation path of departing from the defilements of the lower ground manifests before one, one also cultivates the future attained higher grounds, and the outflow-free merits of the lower grounds. No matter when the mundane path and noble path of this ground arise before one, one will cultivate the outflow-free merits of this ground and the lower grounds in the future (The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāraśāstra is the same as the Abhidharmasamuccaya, except that it does not have 'some say'). Question: If it is said that departing from this ground one can cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of this ground and the lower grounds, then the path of seeing (darśana-mārga) can depart from the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing (darśana-heya) of the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ), no matter which ground one relies on, one can only cultivate the outflow-free dharmas of one's own ground and the lower grounds.

不修上地無漏見道　答婆沙云。見道依下必不修上。以是初得道故。無漏依上必修下地以自在不繫故　解云見道初得不自在故勢力未強。隨依何地但修自．下不能修上。已離見惑無漏見道．雖上地中有同對治。下勢力劣不能修上。修道無漏非是初得。勢力增強隨依何地離上染時。能修上地同對治道修道無漏　問若第三類云依此地能修此地及下無漏不修上者。即與婆沙定蘊相違。如彼說云。離上地染依下地轉根。亦能修上已離染地　解云俱舍且依漸次得地言修自．下。不修上者以未得故　或可。俱舍言修自．下。據決定說。修上不定故不別說　或可。俱舍言不修上據不自在。婆沙定蘊言修上者據自在說。以實而言。若於上地得自在者能修上地。若於上地不自在者不能修上。故婆沙六十七云。應作是說。若於上地已得自在。而依下地學轉根等。亦得上地無漏果道。又婆沙九十解樂根中雲。問若已離第三靜慮染依第二靜慮及下三地。信勝解練根作見至。彼不起後向命終。往生第四靜慮以上諸地。彼成就何樂根。答彼于上地若得自在。當練根時亦能修上無漏樂根。設於上地不得自在。彼得果已亦必起勝果道。修上無漏然後命終。是故聖者生第四靜慮以上。決定成就無漏樂根。

唯初盡智至第九解脫道者。釋第五．第六．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不修上地無漏見道：答《婆沙論》說：『見道』（Darsanamarga，佛教修行中的見諦道）依于下地，必定不修上地，因為這是初次得道。『無漏』（Anasrava，無煩惱的）依于上地，必定修下地，因為自在而不受束縛。解釋：『見道』是初次獲得，不自在，所以勢力不強。無論依於何地，只能修習自身及下方的地，不能修習上方的地。已經脫離『見惑』（Dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的『無漏見道』，即使在上地中有相同的對治法門，但因為下地的勢力弱，所以不能修習上地。『修道無漏』（Bhavana-marga-anasrava，通過修道斷除煩惱的無漏道）不是初次獲得，勢力增強，無論依於何地，在脫離上地染污時，能夠修習上地相同的對治道。『修道無漏』。問：如果第三類說『依此地能修此地及下地的無漏，不修上地』，就與《婆沙論》和《定蘊》相違背。因為它們說：『脫離上地染污，依于下地轉根，也能修習已經脫離染污的上地』。解釋：《俱舍論》只是依據漸次獲得地的說法，說修習自身及下地，不修習上地，是因為尚未獲得上地。或者，《俱舍論》說修習自身及下地，是根據決定的情況來說的。修習上地是不定的，所以沒有特別說明。或者，《俱舍論》說不修習上地，是根據不自在的情況來說的。《婆沙論》和《定蘊》說修習上地，是根據自在的情況來說的。實際上，如果對於上地獲得自在，就能修習上地；如果對於上地不自在，就不能修習上地。所以《婆沙論》第六十七卷說：『應該這樣說，如果對於上地已經獲得自在，而依于下地學習轉根等，也能獲得上地的無漏果道』。另外，《婆沙論》第九十卷解釋『樂根』（Sukha-indriya，感受快樂的能力）時說：『問：如果已經脫離第三禪的染污，依于第二禪及下方的三地，以信勝解練根而成為見至，他不發起後有而命終，往生到第四禪以上的諸地，他成就什麼樂根？答：他對於上地如果獲得自在，在練根時也能修習上地的無漏樂根。如果對於上地沒有獲得自在，他得果后也必定發起勝果道，修習上地的無漏，然後命終。所以聖者生於第四禪以上，必定成就無漏樂根。』

唯有初盡智至第九解脫道者：解釋第五、第六。

【English Translation】 English version Not cultivating the higher grounds with undefiled Path of Seeing: The Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'The Path of Seeing (Darsanamarga) relies on the lower grounds and definitely does not cultivate the higher grounds, because this is the first attainment of the Path.' 'Undefiled (Anasrava)' relies on the higher grounds and definitely cultivates the lower grounds, because it is free and unbound. Explanation: 'The Path of Seeing' is the first attainment, not free, so its power is not strong. No matter which ground it relies on, it can only cultivate itself and the lower grounds, and cannot cultivate the higher grounds. The 'undefiled Path of Seeing' that has already escaped the 'afflictions to be abandoned by seeing' (Dṛṣṭi-heya), even if there are the same antidotes in the higher grounds, cannot cultivate the higher grounds because the power of the lower grounds is weak. 'The undefiled Path of Cultivation (Bhavana-marga-anasrava)' is not the first attainment, its power is enhanced, no matter which ground it relies on, when escaping the defilements of the higher grounds, it can cultivate the same antidote path of the higher grounds. 'The undefiled Path of Cultivation'. Question: If the third category says 'Relying on this ground, one can cultivate the undefiled of this ground and the lower grounds, but not cultivate the higher grounds,' then it contradicts the Vibhasa and the Samadhi-skandha (Dhyana-skandha). Because they say: 'Escaping the defilements of the higher grounds, relying on the lower grounds to transform the roots, one can also cultivate the higher grounds that have already escaped the defilements.' Explanation: The Kosa (Abhidharmakośa) only relies on the statement of gradually attaining the grounds, saying that one cultivates oneself and the lower grounds, and does not cultivate the higher grounds, because one has not yet attained the higher grounds. Or, the Kosa says that one cultivates oneself and the lower grounds, according to the definite situation. Cultivating the higher grounds is uncertain, so it is not specifically stated. Or, the Kosa says that one does not cultivate the higher grounds, according to the situation of not being free. The Vibhasa and the Samadhi-skandha say that one cultivates the higher grounds, according to the situation of being free. In reality, if one has attained freedom in the higher grounds, one can cultivate the higher grounds; if one is not free in the higher grounds, one cannot cultivate the higher grounds. Therefore, Vibhasa sixty-seven says: 'It should be said that if one has already attained freedom in the higher grounds, and relies on the lower grounds to learn the transformation of roots, etc., one can also attain the undefiled fruit path of the higher grounds.' Also, Vibhasa ninety explains 'Pleasure Faculty (Sukha-indriya)' by saying: 'Question: If one has already escaped the defilements of the third Dhyana (third meditation), relying on the second Dhyana and the three lower grounds, transforming the roots with faith and understanding to become a 'seen-to-be-reached' (Dṛṣṭi-prāpta), he does not initiate a subsequent existence and dies, being reborn in the fourth Dhyana and above, what pleasure faculty does he attain? Answer: If he has attained freedom in the higher grounds, he can also cultivate the undefiled pleasure faculty of the higher grounds when transforming the roots. If he has not attained freedom in the higher grounds, he will definitely initiate the superior fruit path after attaining the fruit, cultivate the undefiled of the higher grounds, and then die. Therefore, a sage born in the fourth Dhyana and above will definitely attain the undefiled pleasure faculty.'

Only the initial Exhaustion Knowledge to the ninth Path of Liberation: Explains the fifth and sixth.

第七句。此顯別緣修諸有漏。唯初盡智隨依何地現在前時。力能遍修九地有漏意地所攝。聞．思．修所成不凈觀等無量功德。所以者何。三界．九地能縛眾惑斷無餘故。所縛善法通暢故。如能縛繩斷所縛人氣通。又彼自心殺惑怨已今登王位。一切善法起得來朝。譬如大王登祚之日。西國風俗以水灑頂。是故經言灌頂大王。一切境土皆來朝貢隨方所尚種種珍奇。然此生上必不修下。如生初定得阿羅漢不修欲界諸有漏善。乃至生有頂得阿羅漢。不修下八地諸有漏善。以身生上定不成下有漏善故。所以生上不能修下。初盡智言。顯離有頂第九解脫道。及前五種姓練根時位第九解脫道。皆舍前道創得果故。並能通修九地有漏　問三類智邊亦是別緣。能修自．下有漏俗智。何故此中唯言盡智　答如正理云。于見道位三類智邊。雖亦能修自．下俗智。先已說故此不復論。

諸所言修至勢力劣故者。釋第八句。諸所言修。唯先未得現在今起此是能修。未來今得此是所修。謂下別釋。一明是所修．非所修。二明是能修．非能修　問若言未得今得方是所修。曾得棄捨還得非修。何故婆沙一百五十云。問若退上果住下果時。所得下果名得．修耶。答名得非修。問彼還進得所退果時。所得上果名得修不。答若過去者名得非修。若未來者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：第七句。這種特別的因緣能夠修習所有有漏法。只有最初的盡智（Kṣayajñāna，斷盡煩惱的智慧）隨所依的任何地界現前時，其力量能夠普遍修習九地（三界九地）所攝的有漏意地。例如聞、思、修所成就的不凈觀等無量功德。為什麼這樣說呢？因為三界九地能夠束縛眾多的迷惑，而盡智慧夠斷除這些迷惑，使其沒有剩餘。被束縛的善法因此能夠通暢無阻。就像能夠束縛的繩索被斬斷，被束縛的人氣就能暢通一樣。又像他自己內心殺死了迷惑的怨敵，現在登上了王位，一切善法都興起前來朝拜。譬如大王登上王位的那一天，西方的風俗是用水灑在頭頂。所以經中說『灌頂大王』。一切境土都來朝貢，隨著各地的風俗獻上各種珍奇的物品。然而，在上面的地界出生，必定不會修習下面的地界。例如，生在初禪天而證得阿羅漢果位的人，不會修習欲界的各種有漏善法。乃至生在有頂天而證得阿羅漢果位的人，不會修習下面八地的各種有漏善法。因為身體生在上面的禪定中，就不會成就下面的有漏善法。所以生在上面的地界就不能修習下面的地界。『最初的盡智』這句話，顯示了離開有頂天的第九解脫道，以及前面五種姓練根時的第九解脫道。都是捨棄了前面的道路而新證得果位的緣故。並且能夠普遍修習九地的有漏法。問：三類智（tritayajñāna，三種智慧）的邊緣也是特別的因緣，能夠修習自己和下面的有漏世俗智。為什麼這裡只說盡智呢？答：如《阿毗達磨順正理論》所說，在見道位（darśanamārga）三類智的邊緣，雖然也能夠修習自己和下面的世俗智，但因為之前已經說過了，所以這裡不再討論。諸所言修至勢力劣故者。解釋第八句。諸所言修。唯先未得現在今起此是能修。未來今得此是所修。謂下別釋。一明是所修．非所修。二明是能修．非能修　問若言未得今得方是所修。曾得棄捨還得非修。何故婆沙一百五十云。問若退上果住下果時。所得下果名得．修耶。答名得非修。問彼還進得所退果時。所得上果名得修不。答若過去者名得非修。若未來者

【English Translation】 English version: Verse 7. This distinct condition enables the cultivation of all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma). Only when the initial Kṣayajñāna (wisdom of exhaustion, the wisdom that exhausts afflictions) manifests, depending on whatever realm it relies upon, does its power enable the pervasive cultivation of the conditioned mental realms encompassed by the nine realms (nine grounds of the three realms). For example, the immeasurable merits such as the impure contemplation (aśubha-bhāvanā) achieved through hearing, thinking, and cultivation. Why is this so? Because the three realms and nine grounds can bind numerous delusions, and Kṣayajñāna can sever these delusions completely without remainder. The bound wholesome dharmas can therefore flow freely without obstruction. Just as when a rope that can bind is cut, the bound person's qi (vital energy) can flow freely. Furthermore, like someone who has killed the enemy of delusion in their own mind and now ascends the throne, all wholesome dharmas arise and come to pay homage. It is like the day a great king ascends the throne, when the custom in Western countries is to sprinkle water on the head. Therefore, the sutra speaks of the 'crowned great king'. All territories come to pay tribute, offering various rare and precious items according to local customs. However, one born in a higher realm will certainly not cultivate in a lower realm. For example, one born in the first dhyana (meditative absorption) and attaining Arhatship will not cultivate the various conditioned wholesome dharmas of the desire realm. Even one born in the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (the peak of existence) and attaining Arhatship will not cultivate the various conditioned wholesome dharmas of the lower eight realms. Because the body is born in the higher dhyana, it will not accomplish the lower conditioned wholesome dharmas. Therefore, one born in a higher realm cannot cultivate in a lower realm. The phrase 'initial Kṣayajñāna' indicates the ninth path of liberation that departs from the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, as well as the ninth path of liberation during the practice of refining the roots of the preceding five lineages. All are abandoning the previous path and newly attaining the fruit. And it is able to universally cultivate the conditioned dharmas of the nine realms. Question: The edge of the three types of wisdom (tritayajñāna) is also a distinct condition, capable of cultivating one's own and lower conditioned mundane wisdom. Why is only Kṣayajñāna mentioned here? Answer: As stated in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, although the edge of the three types of wisdom in the stage of the path of seeing (darśanamārga) is also capable of cultivating one's own and lower mundane wisdom, it has already been discussed previously, so it is not discussed here again. The phrase 'all that is cultivated' up to 'because the power is weak' explains verse 8. 'All that is cultivated' refers only to what was not previously attained but is now arising in the present; this is what is capable of cultivating. What will be attained in the future and is now being attained is what is being cultivated. The following separately explains: first, clarifying what is being cultivated and what is not being cultivated; second, clarifying what is capable of cultivating and what is not capable of cultivating. Question: If it is said that only what was not attained but is now being attained is what is being cultivated, then what was once attained, abandoned, and then re-attained is not cultivation. Why does the Mahāvibhāṣā (T1545) state in fascicle 150: Question: If one regresses from a higher fruit and dwells in a lower fruit, is the lower fruit attained called 'attainment and cultivation'? Answer: It is called 'attainment but not cultivation'. Question: When one progresses again and attains the fruit that was regressed from, is the higher fruit attained called 'attainment and cultivation'? Answer: If it is past, it is called 'attainment but not cultivation'; if it is future...

名為得．修。問何故過去者名得非修。未來者名得．修耶。答若現在道與彼為因者。可說彼為得．修。現在道與過去道無因義。故名得非修。問諸退上果住下果時。所得未來下無漏果既有現在無漏得因。何不名修。答若現在因由勝進故得未來者彼可名修。退住下果時。現在無漏得雖是彼因。而非勝進故不名修。不由現在得．修彼未來故。但由退故彼得現前　準婆沙文。退上果得下果。下果不名修。復從下果還得上果上果名修。此既曾得。如何名修。豈不與此俱舍相違　解云未曾得有二。一從來未曾得。二得勝曾得名未曾得。如退上果後重得時。雖有昔曾得。由勝進位得勝曾得故。亦名未曾得。未曾得言含斯二義。故非此文曾得所攝　又解曾得有三。一得劣曾得。如退上果得下果時。二得等曾得。如第二念已去得自類法。三得勝曾得。如退上果後重得時。此論據前二曾得從多分說。故言曾得非所修也。若據少分得勝曾得亦是所修。婆沙據此第三說也。各據一義並不相違　又解論意各別。無勞會釋。余文可知。

為唯約得說名為修者。此下第六通明四修義。此即問也。

不爾者。答。云何者。徴。

修有四種至四除遣修者。釋。

如是四修依何法立者。問。

頌曰至立治修遣修者。就頌答

中。上兩句明得．習二修。下兩句明治．遣二修。

論曰至現具二修者。釋上兩句。若現。若未創得彼法名為得修。此唯初念不通后也。但至現在體現在前名為習修。或名行修。此通初．后。故正理云。諸未曾得功德現前。及得未來所餘功德。新修得故皆名得修。曾得．未曾功德現起。現修習故皆名習修(已上論文)　雜心擇品云。習修者謂曾得善法相續生(已上論文)　彼說不然豈有未曾得法體初現前不名習修。應是譯家誤耳。此二俱依有為善立。有為簡異無為。善言簡染．無記。故婆沙一百六云。如契經說。善有為法應修非余。所以者何。若諸智者為愛果故。精勤修習令漸增長說名為修。善有為法能得愛果。謂得世間可愛異熟增上果故。亦得出世離系果故。諸有智者精勤修習。從下至中從中至上。令速能獲得所求愛果。染．無記法及善無為。無如是用故不名修(已上論文)　問色．不相應亦名修不　解云皆名為修。若生得善等起者是生得善攝。若加行善等起者是加行善攝。諸論既言諸有為善皆名為修。是修何幾。故品類足論十五千問品修．不修分別十二處云。幾應修等者八不應修。四應分別。謂色處或應修或不應修。云何應修。謂善色處。云何不應修。謂不善．無記色處。聲處．意處亦爾。法處或應修或不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『中』字和『上』字的兩句，闡明了『習修』和『得修』中的『習修』。『治』字和『下』字的兩句，闡明了『習修』和『得修』中的『得修』。

論述說，達到『現具二修』的狀態，是爲了解釋上面兩句。如果是現在，如果還沒有開始獲得某種法，那麼獲得該法的行為就稱為『得修』(Datta-samvara)。這僅僅指最初的念頭，不包括後續的念頭。只有達到現在，身體呈現在眼前，才稱為『習修』(Abhyasa-samvara)，或者稱為『行修』。這包括最初和後續。所以《正理》中說：『所有未曾獲得的功德現在顯現，以及獲得未來剩餘的功德，因為是新修獲得的，所以都稱為得修。曾經獲得和未曾獲得的功德現在生起，現在修習，所以都稱為習修。』（以上是論文內容）《雜心擇品》中說：『習修是指曾經獲得的善法相續不斷地產生。』（以上是論文內容）

他們的說法不對，難道會有未曾獲得的法的本體初次顯現，卻不稱為習修的嗎？應該是翻譯的人弄錯了。這兩種修都依據有為善法而建立。『有為』是爲了區別于無為法，『善』是爲了區別于染污和無記法。所以《婆沙》第一百零六卷中說：『正如契經所說，善的有為法應該修習，其他的則不應該。為什麼呢？如果那些有智慧的人爲了愛果的緣故，精勤修習，使之逐漸增長，這就被稱為修。善的有為法能夠獲得愛果，即獲得世間可愛的異熟增上果，也能獲得出世的離系果。那些有智慧的人精勤修習，從下到中，從中到上，使之能夠迅速獲得所求的愛果。染污法、無記法以及善的無為法，沒有這樣的作用，所以不稱為修。』（以上是論文內容）

問：色法和不相應行法也稱為修嗎？

解答說：都稱為修。如果是生得的善等起，就屬於生得善所攝；如果是加行善等起，就屬於加行善所攝。各種論典既然說各種有為善法都稱為修，那麼修有多少種呢？所以《品類足論》第十五千問品中，關於修與不修的分別，在十二個處所說：『有多少應該修等等？』八種不應該修，四種應該分別。即色處，或者應該修，或者不應該修。什麼情況下應該修？即善的色處。什麼情況下不應該修？即不善和無記的色處。聲處和意處也是如此。法處，或者應該修，或者不應該修。

【English Translation】 English version: The sentences with '中 (zhong)' and '上 (shang)' clarify 'Abhyasa-samvara' (習修, practice-restraint) within 'Abhyasa-samvara' and 'Datta-samvara' (得修, attainment-restraint). The sentences with '治 (zhi)' and '下 (xia)' clarify 'Datta-samvara' within 'Abhyasa-samvara' and 'Datta-samvara'.

The treatise states that reaching the state of '現具二修 (xian ju er xiu, possessing both restraints)' is to explain the above two sentences. If it is now, if one has not yet begun to acquire a certain dharma, then the act of acquiring that dharma is called 'Datta-samvara'. This refers only to the initial thought and does not include subsequent thoughts. Only when it reaches the present, and the body is present before one, is it called 'Abhyasa-samvara', or '行修 (xing xiu, practice-cultivation)'. This includes both the initial and subsequent stages. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理) states: 'All previously unobtained merits now manifest, and the acquisition of future remaining merits, because they are newly cultivated and obtained, are all called Datta-samvara. Merits that have been obtained and have not been obtained now arise, and are now practiced, so they are all called Abhyasa-samvara.' (The above is the content of the treatise) The Vibhasa-hrdaya (雜心) Prakaranaviniścaya (擇品) states: 'Abhyasa-samvara refers to the continuous arising of previously obtained good dharmas.' (The above is the content of the treatise)

Their statement is incorrect. How can there be a case where the essence of a dharma that has never been obtained appears for the first time, but is not called Abhyasa-samvara? It must be a mistake by the translator. These two types of restraint are both established based on conditioned good dharmas. 'Conditioned' is to distinguish it from unconditioned dharmas, and 'good' is to distinguish it from defiled and indeterminate dharmas. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa (婆沙) Volume 106 states: 'As the sutra says, good conditioned dharmas should be cultivated, and others should not. Why? If those who are wise diligently cultivate for the sake of the fruit of love, causing it to gradually increase, this is called cultivation. Good conditioned dharmas can obtain the fruit of love, namely, obtaining the desirable Vipaka (異熟, result) and Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result) in the world, and also obtaining the Nirvāna (離系果, liberation result) in transcendence. Those who are wise diligently cultivate, from the lower to the middle, and from the middle to the upper, so that they can quickly obtain the desired fruit of love. Defiled dharmas, indeterminate dharmas, and good unconditioned dharmas do not have such a function, so they are not called cultivation.' (The above is the content of the treatise)

Question: Are form (色, rupa) and non-associated formations (不相應行, citta-viprayukta-samskara) also called cultivation?

The answer is: They are all called cultivation. If it is an innately good arising, it belongs to the category of innately good; if it is an effort-born good arising, it belongs to the category of effort-born good. Since various treatises say that all conditioned good dharmas are called cultivation, then how many types of cultivation are there? Therefore, in the Prakaranapada (品類足論) Fifteenth Thousand Questions Chapter, regarding the distinction between cultivation and non-cultivation, it is said in twelve places: 'How many should be cultivated, etc.?' Eight should not be cultivated, and four should be distinguished. That is, the sense-sphere of form, either should be cultivated or should not be cultivated. Under what circumstances should it be cultivated? That is, the good sense-sphere of form. Under what circumstances should it not be cultivated? That is, the unwholesome and indeterminate sense-sphere of form. The sense-spheres of sound and mind are also the same. The sense-sphere of dharma, either should be cultivated or should not be cultivated.

應修。云何應修。謂善有為法處。云何不應修。謂不善．無記法處。及擇滅(以此故知。色等定是修)約世分別。未來唯得。起得得故有得．修。體未現前無習修。現具二修有法俱得故有得修。體現前故有習修　問聞．思二慧能修未來不　解云不能修。故婆沙一百八十八云。問此三念住誰現前修幾。答聞所成現在前時。唯修聞非思．修。思所成現在前時。唯修思非聞．修。此中聞．思剎那現前時。以習修故名修。非修未來以勢劣故。則以此故唯修自不修他。修所成現前時。能修三種。聞．思自力雖不能修未來。而由他力有未來修義(已上論文)　治遣二修依有漏法者。釋下兩句。明對治修．除遣修。此之二修依有漏法立。此有漏法望對治道生邊有能治故名對治修。對治即是四種對治。故雜心擇品云。對治修者。謂修四種對治名為對治修。是有漏法敵對治故(已上論文)　若望離縛義邊。除遣惑縛名除遣修。故正理七十四云。于身等法得能治故。所治身等名對治修。故於身等得對治時。即說名為修于身等。余有漏法．類亦應然。緣身等境煩惱斷故。說身等法名除遣修。故緣身等煩惱斷時。亦說名為修于身等。余有漏法例亦應然。此二但依有漏法立。又婆沙一百五十五云。問眼等根云何不修。復云何修。答乃至眼等諸根。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本應修。什麼應該修習？指的是良善的有為法之處。什麼不應該修習？指的是不善、無記法之處。以及擇滅（因此可知，色等一定是修習的對象）。從世俗角度分別，未來（之法）唯有『得』。因為生起『得』，所以有『得』和『修』。本體尚未顯現，所以沒有習修。現在（之法）具足兩種修，有法同時得到，所以有『得修』。本體顯現，所以有『習修』。問：聽聞和思惟這兩種智慧，能夠修習未來（之法）嗎？答：不能修習。所以《婆沙論》第一百八十八卷說：『問：這三種念住，誰在現在修習幾種？答：聽聞所成的念住在現在顯現時，只修習聽聞，不修習思惟和修習。思惟所成的念住在現在顯現時，只修習思惟，不修習聽聞和修習。』這裡，聽聞和思惟的剎那顯現時，因為習修的緣故，稱為修習，不是修習未來，因為勢力弱小的緣故。因此，因為這個緣故，只修習自己，不修習其他。修所成的念住在現在顯現時，能夠修習三種。聽聞和思惟的自力雖然不能修習未來，但是由於他力的緣故，有未來修習的意義（以上是論文）。對治修和除遣修，是依據有漏法而立的。解釋下面兩句，說明對治修和除遣修。這兩種修是依據有漏法而建立的。這種有漏法，從對治道生起的角度來看，因為有能對治的作用，所以稱為對治修。對治就是四種對治。所以《雜心論》擇品說：『對治修，指的是修習四種對治，稱為對治修。』這是因為有漏法敵對對治的緣故（以上是論文）。如果從脫離束縛的意義來看，去除迷惑的束縛稱為除遣修。所以《正理》第七十四卷說：『對於身體等法得到能對治的作用，所以被對治的身體等稱為對治修。』所以在身體等得到對治時，就說成是修習身體等。其餘的有漏法也應該如此。因為緣于身體等境界的煩惱斷除的緣故，所以說身體等法稱為除遣修。所以在緣于身體等的煩惱斷除時，也說成是修習身體等。其餘的有漏法也應該如此。這兩種修只是依據有漏法而立。另外，《婆沙論》第一百五十五卷說：『問：眼等根為什麼不修習？又為什麼修習？答：乃至眼等諸根，』

【English Translation】 English version What should be cultivated? It refers to the place of wholesome conditioned dharmas. What should not be cultivated? It refers to the place of unwholesome and neutral dharmas, as well as Nirodha-satya (cessation) (from this, it can be known that form, etc., are definitely objects of cultivation). Distinguishing from a mundane perspective, only 'attainment' (得) exists in the future. Because of the arising of 'attainment', there is 'attainment' and 'cultivation'. Since the substance has not yet manifested, there is no habitual cultivation. The present (dharma) possesses both types of cultivation; when dharmas are attained simultaneously, there is 'attainment-cultivation'. Because the substance has manifested, there is 'habitual cultivation'. Question: Can the two wisdoms of hearing (聞) and thinking (思) cultivate the future (dharmas)? Answer: They cannot cultivate. Therefore, Volume 188 of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: Among these three foundations of mindfulness (念住), who cultivates how many in the present? Answer: When the mindfulness attained through hearing manifests in the present, it only cultivates hearing, not thinking or cultivation. When the mindfulness attained through thinking manifests in the present, it only cultivates thinking, not hearing or cultivation.' Here, when the moment of hearing and thinking manifests, it is called cultivation because of habitual cultivation, not cultivating the future because of its weak power. Therefore, for this reason, one only cultivates oneself and not others. When the mindfulness attained through cultivation manifests in the present, it can cultivate all three. Although the self-power of hearing and thinking cannot cultivate the future, there is a meaning of future cultivation due to the power of others (the above is from the treatise). The corrective cultivation (對治修) and the expelling cultivation (除遣修) are established based on defiled (with outflows) dharmas. Explaining the following two sentences clarifies corrective cultivation and expelling cultivation. These two types of cultivation are established based on defiled dharmas. From the perspective of the arising of the corrective path in relation to these defiled dharmas, it is called corrective cultivation because it has the ability to correct. Correction is the four types of correction. Therefore, the Samayuktabhidharmahrdaya (雜心論) says in the chapter on discrimination: 'Corrective cultivation refers to cultivating the four types of correction, which is called corrective cultivation.' This is because defiled dharmas are opposed to correction (the above is from the treatise). If viewed from the perspective of liberation from bondage, removing the bondage of delusion is called expelling cultivation. Therefore, Volume 74 of the Nyayanusara (正理) says: 'Because one attains the ability to correct the body and other dharmas, the body and other things that are corrected are called corrective cultivation.' Therefore, when the body and other things attain correction, it is said to be cultivating the body and other things. The remaining defiled dharmas should also be the same. Because the afflictions related to the realm of the body and other things are severed, it is said that the body and other dharmas are called expelling cultivation. Therefore, when the afflictions related to the body and other things are severed, it is also said to be cultivating the body and other things. The remaining defiled dharmas should also be the same. These two types of cultivation are only established based on defiled dharmas. Furthermore, Volume 155 of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: Why are the sense organs such as the eyes not cultivated? And why are they cultivated? Answer: Up to the sense organs such as the eyes,'

對治道未生名不修根。此依對治修說。又乃至緣眼等所有煩惱。未斷．未知名不修根此依除遣修說。若眼等諸根對治道已生名為修根。此依對治修說。又緣眼等所有煩惱。已斷．已知名為修根。此依除遣修說。

故有漏善至前後二修者。對辨寬狹。故有漏善具足四修。若望善義邊有得．習二修。若望有漏義邊有治．遣二修。故具四種。無漏有為具前得．習二種修也。余有漏染及無記法。具后治．遣二種修也。故婆沙一百五云。然四種修曆法分別。應作四句。有法是前二修非后二修。謂無漏有為法　有法是后二修非前二修。謂染污及無覆無記有為法　有法是前二修亦是后二修。謂善有漏法　有法非前二修亦非后二修。謂無為法。

外國諸師至乃至廣說者。敘異說。此論名外國諸師。婆沙云西方諸師。在迦濕彌羅國外故名外國。在迦濕彌羅國西故名西方。說修有六。於前四上加防．觀二修。防護諸根名防護修。觀察身故名觀察修。婆沙名分別修。名異義同。前經證防護修。后經證觀察修。

迦濕彌羅國至即治遣修攝者。正義通經。迦濕彌羅國諸論師云。所言防護．觀察二修。應知即是前四修中。對治．除遣二修所攝。于根及身。若望能防．能護．能觀察義邊名對治修。若望所防所觀遣惑義邊名除遣修　

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本對治道（pratipaksa-marga）尚未生起，稱為『不修根』。這是依據對治修（pratipaksa-bhavana）而說的。又，乃至緣于眼等（caksu-adi）所有煩惱（klesa），尚未斷除、尚未知曉，稱為『不修根』，這是依據除遣修（prahana-bhavana）而說的。如果眼等諸根（indriya）的對治道已經生起，稱為『修根』，這是依據對治修而說的。又，緣于眼等所有煩惱，已經斷除、已經知曉，稱為『修根』，這是依據除遣修而說的。

所以說有漏善（sasrava-kusala）具有前後二種修，是爲了辨別寬狹。所以有漏善具足四種修。如果從善的意義方面來說，有得修（pratilambha-bhavana）和習修（abhyasa-bhavana）二種修。如果從有漏的意義方面來說，有對治修和除遣修二種修。所以具足四種。無漏有為（anasrava-samskrta）只具有前面的得修和習修二種修。其餘有漏染污（sasrava-klista）及無記法（avyakrta-dharma），具有後面的對治修和除遣修二種修。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百零五卷說，然而四種修曆法分別，應當作四句：有法是前二修而非后二修，謂無漏有為法；有法是后二修而非前二修，謂染污及無覆無記有為法；有法是前二修也是后二修，謂善有漏法；有法非前二修也非后二修，謂無為法（asamskrta-dharma）。

『外國諸師至乃至廣說者』，敘述不同的說法。這裡說的『外國諸師』，《婆沙論》中說是『西方諸師』。因為他們位於迦濕彌羅國（Kasmira）國外，所以稱為外國；位於迦濕彌羅國西邊，所以稱為西方。他們說修有六種，在前四種的基礎上加上防護修（samvara-bhavana）和觀察修（darsana-bhavana）二種修。防護諸根（indriya）名為防護修，觀察身（kaya）的過患名為觀察修。《婆沙論》中稱為分別修，名稱不同，意義相同。前面的經文可以證明防護修，後面的經文可以證明觀察修。

『迦濕彌羅國至即治遣修攝者』，是正義，通達經義。迦濕彌羅國的諸論師說，所說的防護修和觀察修，應當知道就是前面四種修中的對治修和除遣修所攝。對於根和身，如果從能夠防護、能夠保護、能夠觀察的意義方面來說，名為對治修；如果從所防護、所觀察的遣除迷惑的意義方面來說，名為除遣修。

【English Translation】 English version 'Not cultivating the roots' means the path of counteraction (pratipaksa-marga) has not yet arisen. This is according to the cultivation of counteraction (pratipaksa-bhavana). Furthermore, until all afflictions (klesa) related to the eye, etc. (caksu-adi), are not severed and not known, it is called 'not cultivating the roots.' This is according to the cultivation of elimination (prahana-bhavana). If the path of counteraction for the roots such as the eye has already arisen, it is called 'cultivating the roots.' This is according to the cultivation of counteraction. Furthermore, when all afflictions related to the eye, etc., have been severed and are known, it is called 'cultivating the roots.' This is according to the cultivation of elimination.

The reason for saying that defiled wholesome (sasrava-kusala) has two kinds of cultivation, before and after, is to distinguish between broad and narrow. Therefore, defiled wholesome possesses four kinds of cultivation. If viewed from the aspect of the meaning of wholesome, there are two kinds of cultivation: attainment cultivation (pratilambha-bhavana) and practice cultivation (abhyasa-bhavana). If viewed from the aspect of defilement, there are two kinds of cultivation: counteraction cultivation and elimination cultivation. Therefore, it possesses four kinds. Undefiled conditioned (anasrava-samskrta) only possesses the preceding two kinds of cultivation: attainment and practice. The remaining defiled (sasrava-klista) and neutral (avyakrta-dharma) phenomena possess the latter two kinds of cultivation: counteraction and elimination. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Vibhasa), in chapter 105, says: 'However, the four kinds of cultivation are distinguished by examining the dharmas. There should be four statements: There are dharmas that are the former two cultivations but not the latter two, namely, undefiled conditioned dharmas; there are dharmas that are the latter two cultivations but not the former two, namely, defiled and morally neutral conditioned dharmas; there are dharmas that are both the former two cultivations and the latter two, namely, wholesome defiled dharmas; there are dharmas that are neither the former two cultivations nor the latter two, namely, unconditioned dharmas (asamskrta-dharma).'

'The foreign teachers, up to and including the extensive explanation,' narrates different views. The 'foreign teachers' mentioned here are called 'Western teachers' in the Vibhasa. Because they are located outside the country of Kasmira (Kasmira), they are called foreign; because they are located west of the country of Kasmira, they are called Western. They say there are six kinds of cultivation, adding protection cultivation (samvara-bhavana) and observation cultivation (darsana-bhavana) to the preceding four. Protecting the roots (indriya) is called protection cultivation, and observing the faults of the body (kaya) is called observation cultivation. In the Vibhasa, it is called discrimination cultivation; the names are different, but the meaning is the same. The preceding sutra can prove protection cultivation, and the following sutra can prove observation cultivation.

'The country of Kasmira, up to and including being included in counteraction and elimination cultivation,' is the correct meaning, understanding the meaning of the sutras. The teachers of the country of Kasmira say that the so-called protection cultivation and observation cultivation should be known to be included in the counteraction cultivation and elimination cultivation of the preceding four. Regarding the roots and the body, if viewed from the aspect of being able to protect, being able to guard, and being able to observe, it is called counteraction cultivation; if viewed from the aspect of eliminating delusion by what is protected and observed, it is called elimination cultivation.

上來明四修皆據正修。若據當修與前差別。故正理七十四云。有於此中約當修義分別諸法具修多少。有法具四名為當修。有法具三。有法具二。有法具一。有法全無。謂善有漏未永斷時。可得可生具足四種。此未永斷故當具治．遣修。以可得故當具得修。是可生故當具習修。已得可生具三除得。可得不生具三除習。已得不生及不可得已生具二。謂治．遣修。及染．無記未斷亦爾。若善有漏已永斷時。可得可生具得．習二。可得不生具一謂得。已得可生具一謂習。有為無漏應知亦爾。除前所說皆是全無。謂無漏法中已得不生等　若不生法不住身中。但由得故即名修者。應許擇滅亦名為修。無差別故　此難非理。彼同類法住身中故。謂不生法雖不住身。同類住身名修無失。又彼由得為果住故。謂未來世不生善法。由今得生表為果住。義言我等闕緣不生。非謂今時不蒙招引。擇滅異此不可為例。又未來世不生善法。亦有因力攝益現身。擇滅不然故無修義。又由擇滅唯是果故。謂修本為獲得勝果。滅非有果故不應修。又由擇滅無增．減故。謂可修法依下至中。依中至上。擇滅不爾。于修無用故。

俱舍論記卷第二十六

保延元年七月十九日于大道寺點了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『上來明四修皆據正修』，如果根據『當修』（dāng xiū，應當修習）來理解，則與之前的說法有所差別。因此，《正理》第七十四卷中說：『在此處，根據「當修」的意義來分別諸法，具有不同程度的修習。』有些法具足四種修習，稱為『當修』；有些法具足三種；有些法具足兩種；有些法具足一種；有些法則完全沒有。所謂善的有漏法，在未被永遠斷除時，是『可得』（kě dé，可以獲得）、『可生』（kě shēng，可以生起）的，因此具足四種修習。因為尚未被永遠斷除，所以應當具足『治』（zhì，對治）、『遣』（qiǎn，遣除）修。因為是『可得』的，所以應當具足『得』（dé，獲得）修。因為是『可生』的，所以應當具足『習』（xí，習修）修。已經獲得且可以生起的，具足三種修習，除去『得』修。可以獲得但不會生起的，具足三種修習，除去『習』修。已經獲得且不會生起，以及不可獲得但已經生起的，具足兩種修習，即『治』修和『遣』修。染污法和無記法未斷除時也是如此。如果善的有漏法已經被永遠斷除，那麼『可得』、『可生』的，具足『得』修和『習』修兩種。『可得』但不會生起的，具足一種修習，即『得』修。已經獲得且可以生起的，具足一種修習，即『習』修。有為的無漏法也應當知道是這樣的。除了前面所說的，其餘情況都是完全沒有修習。例如，在無漏法中，已經獲得且不會生起等等。如果說不生起的法不住在身中，僅僅因為獲得就稱為修習，那麼應該允許『擇滅』（zé miè，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態）也稱為修習，因為沒有差別。這種責難是不合理的，因為與它同類的法住在身中。也就是說，不生起的法雖然不住在身中，但與它同類的法住在身中，稱為修習沒有過失。而且，它由獲得而成為結果而住留。也就是說，未來世不生起的善法，由於現在的獲得而生起，表明是作為結果而住留。意思是說，我們缺少因緣而不能生起，而不是說現在沒有受到招引。『擇滅』與此不同，不能作為例子。而且，未來世不生起的善法，也有因的力量攝益現在的身。『擇滅』不是這樣，所以沒有修習的意義。而且，由於『擇滅』僅僅是果，修習本來是爲了獲得殊勝的果，而『滅』不是有果的，所以不應該修習。而且，由於『擇滅』沒有增加和減少，可修習的法可以從下到中，從中到上，而『擇滅』不是這樣，對修習沒有用處。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十六

保延元年七月十九日于大道寺點了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

English version: Regarding 'the above explanation that the four types of cultivation are all based on correct cultivation,' if understood according to 'what should be cultivated' (dāng xiū, that which should be cultivated), there is a difference from the previous explanation. Therefore, in the seventy-fourth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Zhènglǐ): 'Here, according to the meaning of 'what should be cultivated,' the dharmas are distinguished, possessing different degrees of cultivation.' Some dharmas possess all four types of cultivation, called 'what should be cultivated'; some possess three types; some possess two types; some possess one type; and some possess none at all. The wholesome conditioned dharmas, when not yet permanently severed, are 'attainable' (kě dé, can be attained) and 'arising' (kě shēng, can arise), thus possessing all four types of cultivation. Because they have not yet been permanently severed, they should possess 'antidotal' (zhì, counteracting), 'eliminating' (qiǎn, eliminating) cultivation. Because they are 'attainable,' they should possess 'attaining' (dé, attaining) cultivation. Because they are 'arising,' they should possess 'habitual' (xí, habitual) cultivation. Those that have already been attained and can arise possess three types of cultivation, excluding 'attaining' cultivation. Those that can be attained but will not arise possess three types of cultivation, excluding 'habitual' cultivation. Those that have already been attained and will not arise, and those that cannot be attained but have already arisen, possess two types of cultivation, namely 'antidotal' and 'eliminating' cultivation. This is also the case when defiled and neutral dharmas have not been severed. If wholesome conditioned dharmas have been permanently severed, then those that are 'attainable' and 'arising' possess 'attaining' and 'habitual' cultivation. Those that are 'attainable' but will not arise possess one type of cultivation, namely 'attaining' cultivation. Those that have already been attained and can arise possess one type of cultivation, namely 'habitual' cultivation. Conditioned unconditioned dharmas should also be understood in this way. Except for what was mentioned earlier, all other situations have no cultivation at all. For example, in unconditioned dharmas, those that have already been attained and will not arise, etc. If it is said that dharmas that do not arise do not abide in the body, and are called cultivation merely because of attainment, then it should be allowed that 'cessation through discrimination' (zé miè, cessation attained through wisdom) is also called cultivation, because there is no difference. This criticism is unreasonable, because dharmas of the same category abide in the body. That is to say, although dharmas that do not arise do not abide in the body, dharmas of the same category abide in the body, and it is not a fault to call it cultivation. Moreover, it abides as a result of attainment. That is to say, wholesome dharmas that will not arise in the future, arising from present attainment, indicate that they abide as a result. The meaning is that we lack conditions and cannot arise, not that we are not being attracted now. 'Cessation through discrimination' is different from this and cannot be taken as an example. Moreover, wholesome dharmas that will not arise in the future also have the power of causes to benefit the present body. 'Cessation through discrimination' is not like this, so it has no meaning of cultivation. Moreover, because 'cessation through discrimination' is only a result, cultivation is originally for obtaining superior results, but 'cessation' is not a result, so it should not be cultivated. Moreover, because 'cessation through discrimination' has no increase or decrease, cultivatable dharmas can go from lower to middle, and from middle to upper, but 'cessation through discrimination' is not like this, so it is useless for cultivation.

Notes on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 26

Pointed out at Daidoji Temple on July 19, the first year of Hoen Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Notes on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'the above explanation that the four types of cultivation are all based on correct cultivation,' if understood according to 'what should be cultivated' (dāng xiū, that which should be cultivated), there is a difference from the previous explanation. Therefore, in the seventy-fourth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Zhènglǐ): 'Here, according to the meaning of 'what should be cultivated,' the dharmas are distinguished, possessing different degrees of cultivation.' Some dharmas possess all four types of cultivation, called 'what should be cultivated'; some possess three types; some possess two types; some possess one type; and some possess none at all. The wholesome conditioned dharmas, when not yet permanently severed, are 'attainable' (kě dé, can be attained) and 'arising' (kě shēng, can arise), thus possessing all four types of cultivation. Because they have not yet been permanently severed, they should possess 'antidotal' (zhì, counteracting), 'eliminating' (qiǎn, eliminating) cultivation. Because they are 'attainable,' they should possess 'attaining' (dé, attaining) cultivation. Because they are 'arising,' they should possess 'habitual' (xí, habitual) cultivation. Those that have already been attained and can arise possess three types of cultivation, excluding 'attaining' cultivation. Those that can be attained but will not arise possess three types of cultivation, excluding 'habitual' cultivation. Those that have already been attained and will not arise, and those that cannot be attained but have already arisen, possess two types of cultivation, namely 'antidotal' and 'eliminating' cultivation. This is also the case when defiled and neutral dharmas have not been severed. If wholesome conditioned dharmas have been permanently severed, then those that are 'attainable' and 'arising' possess 'attaining' and 'habitual' cultivation. Those that are 'attainable' but will not arise possess one type of cultivation, namely 'attaining' cultivation. Those that have already been attained and can arise possess one type of cultivation, namely 'habitual' cultivation. Conditioned unconditioned dharmas should also be understood in this way. Except for what was mentioned earlier, all other situations have no cultivation at all. For example, in unconditioned dharmas, those that have already been attained and will not arise, etc. If it is said that dharmas that do not arise do not abide in the body, and are called cultivation merely because of attainment, then it should be allowed that 'cessation through discrimination' (zé miè, cessation attained through wisdom) is also called cultivation, because there is no difference. This criticism is unreasonable, because dharmas of the same category abide in the body. That is to say, although dharmas that do not arise do not abide in the body, dharmas of the same category abide in the body, and it is not a fault to call it cultivation. Moreover, it abides as a result of attainment. That is to say, wholesome dharmas that will not arise in the future, arising from present attainment, indicate that they abide as a result. The meaning is that we lack conditions and cannot arise, not that we are not being attracted now. 'Cessation through discrimination' is different from this and cannot be taken as an example. Moreover, wholesome dharmas that will not arise in the future also have the power of causes to benefit the present body. 'Cessation through discrimination' is not like this, so it has no meaning of cultivation. Moreover, because 'cessation through discrimination' is only a result, cultivation is originally for obtaining superior results, but 'cessation' is not a result, so it should not be cultivated. Moreover, because 'cessation through discrimination' has no increase or decrease, cultivatable dharmas can go from lower to middle, and from middle to upper, but 'cessation through discrimination' is not like this, so it is useless for cultivation.

Notes on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 26

Pointed out at Daidoji Temple on July 19, the first year of Hoen Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1821, Notes on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya

俱舍論記卷第二十七

沙門釋光述

分別智品第七之二

如是已辨至今當顯示者。此下當品大文第二明智所成德。就中。一結前生起。二別明　此即結前生起。

于中先辨至有十八種者。此下第二別明。就中。一明不共法。二明共功德　就明不共法中。一舉數標名。二依名別解　此下第一舉數標名。就中。一生起。二問。三釋。此即生起。

何謂十八者。此即問也。

頌曰至故名不共者。此即釋也。

且佛十力相別云何者。此下第二依名別解。就中。一明佛十力。二明四無畏。三明三念住。四明佛大悲。五明佛同．異　就明佛十力中。一明佛心力。二明佛身力　此下第一明佛心力。此即問也。頌曰至於境無礙故者。就頌答中。初六句出體。次兩句依地。次一句依處．依身。后一句釋力義。

論曰至十智為性者。釋初句。處謂是處。稱合道理相容受義名為是處。如說善因感愛果等。定有是處。非合道理不相容受義名為非處。如說善因感非愛果等。必無是處。此處．非處通一切法。以一切法皆有是處．非處義故。智慧知此處．非處故名處．非處智力。具以如來十智為性。以佛十智隨應皆知處．非處故。故顯宗三十六云。知一切法自性功能理定是有。名為處智。知一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《俱舍論記》卷第二十七

沙門釋光述

分別智品第七之二

如上已辨明，現在應當顯示的內容是：接下來這一品的主要內容是第二部分，闡明由智慧所成就的功德。其中分為兩個部分：一是總結前文並引出下文，二是分別闡明。這裡是總結前文並引出下文。

『于中先辨至有十八種者』，接下來是第二部分，分別闡明。其中分為兩個部分：一是闡明不共之法，二是闡明共同的功德。在闡明不共之法中，又分為兩個部分：一是列舉數目並標明名稱，二是根據名稱分別解釋。這裡是第一部分，列舉數目並標明名稱。其中分為三個部分：一是生起，二是提問，三是解釋。這裡是生起。

『何謂十八者』，這是提問。

『頌曰至故名不共者』，這是解釋。

『且佛十力相別云何者』，接下來是第二部分，根據名稱分別解釋。其中分為五個部分：一是闡明佛的十力，二是闡明四無畏，三是闡明三念住，四是闡明佛的大悲，五是闡明佛的同與異。在闡明佛的十力中，又分為兩個部分：一是闡明佛的心力，二是闡明佛的身力。這裡是第一部分，闡明佛的心力。這是提問。『頌曰至於境無礙故者』，在用頌文回答中，前六句是說明本體，接著兩句是依據地，再一句是依據處所和身體，最後一句是解釋力的含義。

『論曰至十智為性者』，解釋第一句。『處』（sthāna）是指『是處』，符合道理、相互容納的意義稱為『是處』。例如說善因感得可愛的果報等，必定有這樣的『是處』。不符合道理、不相互容納的意義稱為『非處』。例如說善因感得不可愛的果報等，必定沒有這樣的『是處』。『此處』（sthāna）、『非處』（asthāna）通於一切法，因為一切法都有『是處』、『非處』的意義。智慧夠知曉『此處』、『非處』，所以稱為『處非處智力』。完全以如來的十智（daśa-jñāna）為體性，因為佛的十智隨其相應都能知曉『處』、『非處』。所以《顯宗論》第三十六卷說：『知曉一切法的自性、功能、道理決定是有的，稱為處智（sthāna-jñāna）。』

【English Translation】 English version Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 27

Commentary by the Śramaṇa Śākyaprabha

Chapter 7, Section 2: Analysis of Wisdom

As has been explained above, what should be shown now is: the main content of this chapter is the second part, elucidating the merits accomplished by wisdom. It is divided into two parts: first, summarizing the previous text and introducing the following text; second, explaining separately. This is summarizing the previous text and introducing the following text.

『Among them, first explaining up to 『there are eighteen kinds』』, next is the second part, explaining separately. It is divided into two parts: first, elucidating the uncommon dharmas; second, elucidating the common merits. In elucidating the uncommon dharmas, it is divided into two parts: first, listing the numbers and indicating the names; second, explaining separately according to the names. This is the first part, listing the numbers and indicating the names. It is divided into three parts: first, arising; second, questioning; third, explaining. This is arising.

『What are the eighteen?』, this is the question.

『The verse says up to 『therefore named uncommon』』, this is the explanation.

『Furthermore, how are the ten powers of the Buddha distinguished?』, next is the second part, explaining separately according to the names. It is divided into five parts: first, elucidating the ten powers (daśa-bala) of the Buddha; second, elucidating the four fearlessnesses (catuḥ-vaiśāradya); third, elucidating the three establishments of mindfulness (tri-smṛtyupasthāna); fourth, elucidating the great compassion (mahā-karuṇā) of the Buddha; fifth, elucidating the similarities and differences of the Buddha. In elucidating the ten powers of the Buddha, it is divided into two parts: first, elucidating the mental power of the Buddha; second, elucidating the physical power of the Buddha. This is the first part, elucidating the mental power of the Buddha. This is the question. 『The verse says up to 『because there is no obstruction to the object』』, in answering with the verse, the first six lines explain the substance, the next two lines are based on the ground, the next line is based on the place and body, and the last line explains the meaning of power.

『The treatise says up to 『ten wisdoms are its nature』』, explaining the first line. 『Sthāna』 (處) means 『is-place』 (是處), the meaning of conforming to reason and mutually accommodating is called 『is-place』. For example, saying that a good cause brings about a lovable result, etc., there must be such a 『is-place』. The meaning of not conforming to reason and not mutually accommodating is called 『non-place』 (非處). For example, saying that a good cause brings about an unlovable result, etc., there must be no such 『non-place』. 『Sthāna』 and 『asthāna』 are common to all dharmas, because all dharmas have the meaning of 『is-place』 and 『non-place』. Intelligence is able to know 『is-place』 and 『non-place』, therefore it is called 『power of knowledge of is-place and non-place』 (處非處智力). It is entirely of the nature of the ten wisdoms (daśa-jñāna) of the Tathāgata, because the ten wisdoms of the Buddha can all know 『is-place』 and 『non-place』 accordingly. Therefore, the thirty-sixth volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 『Knowing that the self-nature, function, and reason of all dharmas are definitely existent is called knowledge of place (sthāna-jñāna).』

切法自性功能理定非有。名非處智。此智通緣情．非情境。與一切智皆不相違。恐于略說少功難悟。故復此中折出餘九。

二業異熟至謂除滅道者。釋第二句。知是類業感是異熟。名業異熟智力。頌但言業。影顯異熟。此業異熟。若遠相望說業為因。異熟是果。若細分別。剎那前後自類相望。皆有因果。並通苦．集。故十智中八智為性。除滅．道智。不緣苦．集業異熟故。故顯宗云。謂善分別如是類業感如是類諸異熟果。無掛礙智名業異熟智力。或說名為自業智力。謂善分別如是類果。是自所造業力所招。非妻子等所能與奪。如是類業必招自果。不可貿易。無掛礙智名自業智力。婆沙三十名業法集智力。業是因。法是果。集通因．果。業是能集。法是所集。與此俱舍名異義同。

三靜慮至等至智力者。此下釋第三句　靜慮。謂四靜慮　解脫。謂八解脫　等持。謂三三摩地　等至。謂八等至　此等並是定之異名。智慧如實知靜慮等。名靜慮等智力。

四根上下智力者。知信根等上下差別。名根上下智力。故顯宗云。若如實知諸有情類能逮勝德根品差別。無掛礙智名根上下智力。雖有中根。而待勝劣是劣勝攝故不別顯。此中根名為目何法。謂目信等。斷善根者總相續中亦有去來信等善法。或目意等。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『切法自性功能理定非有』，指的是『名非處智』（知道事物真實名稱和處所的智慧）。這種智慧普遍地關聯著有情和非有情的境界，與一切智（佛陀所具有的智慧）並不相違背。恐怕用簡略的言語難以理解其中精妙，所以在這裡進一步剖析出其餘九種智力。

『二業異熟至謂除滅道者』，這是解釋第二句。知道是哪一類的業，感得哪一類的異熟果報，稱為『業異熟智力』（知道業力成熟的智慧）。頌文中只說了『業』，實際上也包含了『異熟』。這種業異熟，如果從長遠來看，可以說業是因，異熟是果。如果仔細分別，剎那前後，同類相望，都有因果關係，並且貫通苦諦和集諦。因此，在十種智力中，有八種智力是它的體性，除了滅智和道智，因為它們不緣于苦諦和集諦的業異熟。所以《顯宗論》中說：『能夠清楚地分辨出哪一類的業，感得哪一類的異熟果報，沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為業異熟智力。』或者說稱為『自業智力』（知道自己業力的智慧），能夠清楚地分辨出哪一類的果報，是自己所造的業力所招感的，不是妻子等所能給予或剝奪的。這樣一類的業，必定招感自己的果報，不可以交換。沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為自業智力。《婆沙論》第三十卷中稱為『業法集智力』（知道業、法聚集的智慧），業是因，法是果，集貫通因和果，業是能聚集，法是所聚集，與此《俱舍論》的名稱不同，意義相同。

『三靜慮至等至智力者』，以下解釋第三句。『靜慮』，指的是四靜慮（色界四禪）；『解脫』，指的是八解脫（八種從禪定中解脫的方法）；『等持』，指的是三三摩地（三種禪定狀態）；『等至』，指的是八等至（八種達到禪定境界的狀態）。這些都是禪定的不同名稱。智慧如實地知道靜慮等，稱為『靜慮等智力』（知道禪定等境界的智慧）。

『四根上下智力者』，知道信根等上下差別，稱為『根上下智力』（知道眾生根器高下的智慧）。所以《顯宗論》中說：『如果如實地知道各種有情眾生能夠獲得殊勝功德的根器品類的差別，沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為根上下智力。』雖然有中根，但是相對於殊勝和低劣的根器來說，中根也被包含在低劣和殊勝的範疇內，所以不單獨顯示。這裡所說的『中根』指的是什麼法？指的是信等。對於斷善根的人來說，總的相續中也有過去和未來的信等善法，或者指的是意等。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The nature of cutting off, the function of self-nature, the principle of determination, are not existent.' This refers to 'wisdom of knowing what is not the proper place' (knowing the true names and locations of things). This wisdom universally relates to sentient and non-sentient realms and does not contradict the all-knowing wisdom (wisdom possessed by the Buddha). Fearing that it might be difficult to understand with a brief explanation, I further analyze the remaining nine powers of wisdom here.

'The second, the maturation of karma, up to excluding cessation and the path.' This explains the second sentence. Knowing what kind of karma leads to what kind of maturation is called 'power of wisdom regarding the maturation of karma' (knowing the wisdom of the maturation of karma). The verse only mentions 'karma,' but it implicitly includes 'maturation.' This maturation of karma, if viewed from a long-term perspective, can be said that karma is the cause and maturation is the result. If analyzed carefully, moment by moment, similar things related to each other, there are cause and effect relationships, and it penetrates the truths of suffering and accumulation. Therefore, among the ten wisdoms, eight wisdoms are its nature, excluding the wisdom of cessation and the wisdom of the path, because they do not relate to the maturation of karma in the truths of suffering and accumulation. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'The unobstructed wisdom that can clearly distinguish what kind of karma leads to what kind of maturation is called the power of wisdom regarding the maturation of karma.' Or it is called 'power of wisdom regarding one's own karma' (knowing the wisdom of one's own karma), which can clearly distinguish what kind of result is caused by one's own karma, and cannot be given or taken away by one's wife or others. Such karma will definitely lead to its own result and cannot be exchanged. The unobstructed wisdom is called the power of wisdom regarding one's own karma. The thirtieth volume of the Mahavibhasa calls it 'power of wisdom regarding the collection of karma and dharma' (knowing the wisdom of the collection of karma and dharma), where karma is the cause, dharma is the result, and collection penetrates both cause and result. Karma is the collector, and dharma is what is collected. Although the name is different from this Abhidharmakosa, the meaning is the same.

'The third, the dhyanas up to the samapattis, the power of wisdom.' The following explains the third sentence. 'Dhyanas' refers to the four dhyanas (the four meditations of the form realm); 'liberations' refers to the eight liberations (eight methods of liberation from meditation); 'samadhi' refers to the three samadhis (three states of meditation); 'samapatti' refers to the eight samapattis (eight states of attaining meditation). These are all different names for meditation. The wisdom that truly knows the dhyanas, etc., is called 'power of wisdom regarding the dhyanas, etc.' (knowing the wisdom of the states of meditation).

'The fourth, the superior and inferior faculties, the power of wisdom.' Knowing the differences between the superior and inferior faculties, such as the faculty of faith, is called 'power of wisdom regarding the superior and inferior faculties' (knowing the wisdom of the high and low capacities of beings). Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'If one truly knows the differences in the categories of faculties of various sentient beings who can attain excellent merits, the unobstructed wisdom is called the power of wisdom regarding the superior and inferior faculties.' Although there are intermediate faculties, they are included in the categories of inferior and superior in relation to the superior and inferior faculties, so they are not shown separately. What does 'intermediate faculty' refer to here? It refers to faith, etc. For those who have severed their roots of goodness, there are also good dharmas such as past and future faith in the overall continuum, or it refers to mind, etc.

五種種勝解智力者。知有情類種種勝解意樂差別。名種種勝解智力。勝解即是心所法也。故顯宗云。若如實知諸有情類意樂差別無掛礙智。名種種勝解智力。意樂勝解名差別故。

六種種界智力者。知有情類種種界性名種種界智力。故顯宗云。若如實知諸有情類前際無始數習所成志性。隨眠．及諸法姓種種差別。無掛礙智名種種界智力。應知此中界。與志性．隨眠．法姓名之差別。

如是四力至謂除滅智者。如上所明四力所緣定．根．解．界皆通苦．集．道諦所攝。故此四力皆九智性。不緣無為故除滅智。

七遍趣行智力至十智為性者。釋第四句。一切諸行隨其所應。皆能趣果名遍趣行。佛於一切遍趣行中。皆如實知名遍趣行智力。前解九智除滅。準此所趣果唯是滅。后解十智通知因果。故顯宗云。謂如實知生死因果。及知盡道無掛礙智。名遍趣行智力。

八宿住至皆俗智性者。釋第五句。知昔過去宿住曾事。故名宿住隨念智力。以念強故此中別標。隨更事念故名隨念。于未來世死此生彼名為死生。智如實知名死生智如是二力並是事觀。皆俗智性。故顯宗云。謂如實知自他過去宿住差別。無掛礙智名第八力。若如實知諸有情類于未來世諸有續生。無掛礙智名第九力(已上論文)　其死

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本五、種種勝解智力：了知有情眾生在勝解（adhimoksha，強烈的意願或傾向）和意樂（ashaya，潛在的傾向或意圖）上的種種差別，稱為種種勝解智力。勝解是一種心所法（caitasika，心理因素）。因此，《顯揚聖教論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）中說：『如果如實地了知所有有情眾生意樂的差別，並且沒有阻礙的智慧，就稱為種種勝解智力。』意樂和勝解的名稱是不同的。六、種種界智力：了知有情眾生在種種界性（dhatu，元素或性質）上的差別，稱為種種界智力。因此，《顯揚聖教論》中說：『如果如實地了知所有有情眾生過去無始以來長期熏習所形成的志性（adhimukti，傾向或決心）、隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱）、以及諸法（dharma，事物或現象）的姓（gotra，種姓或類別）的種種差別，並且沒有阻礙的智慧，就稱為種種界智力。』應當知道，這裡的『界』，與志性、隨眠、法姓的名稱是不同的。像這樣，從四力到所謂的除滅智：如上所說明的四力所緣的定（samadhi，專注）、根（indriya，感官或能力）、解（adhimoksha，勝解）、界（dhatu，界性）都通於苦諦（duhkha satya，苦的真理）、集諦（samudaya satya，苦的根源的真理）、道諦（marga satya，解脫苦的道路的真理）所攝。因此，這四力都是九智（jnana，智慧）的性質，因為不緣于無為法（asamskrta dharma，非因緣和合的法），所以除去了滅智（nirodha jnana，滅盡的智慧）。七、遍趣行智力到十智為性：解釋第四句。一切諸行（karman，行為），隨其所應，都能趨向于果（phala，結果），稱為遍趣行。佛對於一切遍趣行中，都能如實了知，稱為遍趣行智力。前面的解釋是九智，除去了滅智。按照這個標準，所趨向的果唯有滅（nirodha，滅盡）。後面的解釋是十智，通達因果。因此，《顯揚聖教論》中說：『所謂如實地了知生死（samsara，輪迴）的因果，以及了知滅盡之道，並且沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為遍趣行智力。』八、宿住到都是俗智的性質：解釋第五句。了知過去世的宿住（purva-nivasa，前世的住所）和曾經做過的事情，所以稱為宿住隨念智力。因為憶念力強，所以在這裡特別標明。隨著經歷的事情而憶念，所以稱為隨念。對於未來世死後生到哪裡，稱為死生（cyuti-utpada，死亡和出生）。智慧如實了知，稱為死生智。像這樣的兩種智力都是事觀（vastu-darsana，對事物的觀察），都是俗智（samvrti-satya，世俗諦）的性質。因此，《顯揚聖教論》中說：『所謂如實地了知自己和他人過去宿住的差別，並且沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為第八力。如果如實地了知所有有情眾生在未來世的各種有（bhava，存在）的續生，並且沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為第九力。』（以上是論文內容）其死亡

【English Translation】 English version Five, the power of knowledge of various resolutions (adhimoksha-jnana-bala): Knowing the differences in the various resolutions (adhimoksha, strong intention or inclination) and intentions (ashaya, latent tendencies or intentions) of sentient beings is called the power of knowledge of various resolutions. Resolution is a mental factor (caitasika, mental element). Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'If one truly knows the differences in the intentions of all sentient beings and has unobstructed wisdom, it is called the power of knowledge of various resolutions.' The names of intention and resolution are different. Six, the power of knowledge of various realms (dhatu-jnana-bala): Knowing the differences in the various realm-natures (dhatu, elements or properties) of sentient beings is called the power of knowledge of various realms. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'If one truly knows the various differences in the dispositions (adhimukti, inclination or determination), latent afflictions (anusaya, latent defilements), and the lineages (gotra, caste or category) of all dharmas (dharma, things or phenomena) formed by the long-term cultivation from the beginningless past of all sentient beings, and has unobstructed wisdom, it is called the power of knowledge of various realms.' It should be known that the 'realm' here is different from the names of disposition, latent afflictions, and dharma-lineage. Like this, from the four powers to the so-called knowledge of cessation: The concentration (samadhi, focus), faculties (indriya, senses or abilities), resolution (adhimoksha, strong intention), and realms (dhatu, realm-nature) that are the objects of the four powers explained above all pertain to the truths of suffering (duhkha satya, the truth of suffering), the origin of suffering (samudaya satya, the truth of the origin of suffering), and the path to liberation from suffering (marga satya, the truth of the path to liberation from suffering). Therefore, these four powers are all of the nature of the nine wisdoms (jnana, wisdom), because they do not pertain to unconditioned dharmas (asamskrta dharma, unconditioned phenomena), so the knowledge of cessation (nirodha jnana, the wisdom of cessation) is excluded. Seven, the power of knowledge of the path leading everywhere to the nature of the ten wisdoms: Explaining the fourth sentence. All actions (karman, actions), according to their suitability, can lead to results (phala, results), which are called the path leading everywhere. The Buddha truly knows all paths leading everywhere, which is called the power of knowledge of the path leading everywhere. The previous explanation was the nine wisdoms, excluding the knowledge of cessation. According to this standard, the result that is led to is only cessation (nirodha, cessation). The later explanation is the ten wisdoms, which understand cause and effect. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'That is, truly knowing the cause and effect of samsara (samsara, cycle of rebirth), and knowing the path to cessation, and having unobstructed wisdom, is called the power of knowledge of the path leading everywhere.' Eight, from past lives to all being of the nature of conventional wisdom: Explaining the fifth sentence. Knowing the past lives (purva-nivasa, previous abodes) and the things that were done, so it is called the power of knowledge of recollection of past lives. Because the power of memory is strong, it is specifically marked here. Recalling things as they are experienced, so it is called recollection. Regarding where one will be born after death in the future, it is called death and birth (cyuti-utpada, death and birth). Wisdom truly knows, which is called the knowledge of death and birth. Such two powers are both observations of things (vastu-darsana, observation of things), and are both of the nature of conventional wisdom (samvrti-satya, conventional truth). Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'That is, truly knowing the differences in the past lives of oneself and others, and having unobstructed wisdom, is called the eighth power. If one truly knows the continuation of all existences (bhava, existence) of all sentient beings in the future, and has unobstructed wisdom, it is called the ninth power.' (The above is the content of the thesis) Their death

生智若據根本。是天眼通唯緣現在。言緣未來。據通所引眷屬說也。如下六通當更別釋。

十漏盡智力至十智為性者。釋第六句。漏盡是滅。余文可知。又顯宗云。此後三力即是三通。以六通中此三殊勝。在無學位立為三明。在如來身亦名為力。神境．天耳設在佛身。亦無大用故不名力。且如天眼能見有情善惡趣中異熟差別。由此能引殊勝智生。亦正了知能感彼業。由此建立死生智名。神境．天耳無此大用。是故彼亦不立為力。然不別說他心力者。義已攝在根等力中。以他根等中有心心所故。

已辨自性至男子佛身者。釋第七．第八．第九句。第八宿住隨念智力。第九死生智力。五通性故。依四本定。餘八通依十一地。俗智寬故。依身可知　又約念住分別者。如婆沙三十四云。念住者種種勝解智力。宿住隨念智力。唯法念住。死生智力。唯身念住。漏盡智力。若緣漏盡境故則法念住。若依漏盡身故則四念住。餘力皆四念住　解云勝解智力。別緣心所勝解法故唯法念住。宿住隨念智力。通緣過去五蘊為境。亦唯法念住。死生智力。緣色法故唯身念住。漏盡智力。兩說如文　餘六種力皆四念住。於六種中處非處．業異熟．遍趣行智力。此三通四。相顯可知　定力通四者。定言總攝相應．俱有。若知隨轉色。是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：生智若依據根本而說，天眼通（divine eye, 能看見遙遠或微細事物的一種超自然能力）只能觀察現在。如果說能觀察未來，那是根據神通所引申的眷屬來說的。下面的六通（six superknowledges, 佛教中六種神通能力）將會分別解釋。

以十漏盡智力（ten powers of the exhaustion of outflows, 如來所具有的十種智慧力量）到十智（ten knowledges, 十種智慧）為自性：這是解釋第六句。漏盡（exhaustion of outflows, 斷盡一切煩惱）是滅。其餘文字可以理解。又《顯宗論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya, 佛教論書）說，這後面的三種力就是三種通。因為在六通中，這三種最為殊勝。在無學位（state of no more learning, 阿羅漢的果位）時，建立為三明（three knowledges, 三種智慧）。在如來（Tathagata, 佛的稱號）身上，也稱為力。神境通（supernatural power, 能夠隨意變化的神通）、天耳通（divine ear, 能夠聽見遙遠聲音的神通）即使在佛身，也沒有大的作用，所以不稱為力。例如天眼能看見有情（sentient beings, 一切有感覺和知覺的生命）在善惡趣（good and evil realms, 善與惡的輪迴境界）中的異熟差別（vipaka difference, 果報的差別）。由此能引生殊勝的智慧。也能正確了知能感得那些業（karma, 行為）。因此建立死生智（knowledge of death and rebirth, 瞭解眾生死生因果的智慧）之名。神境通、天耳通沒有這樣大的作用。所以它們不被立為力。然而不單獨說他心力（power of knowing others' minds, 瞭解他人內心的能力），是因為意義已經包含在根等力中。因為他的根等中有心心所（mental factors, 心理活動）。

已經辨明自性到男子佛身：這是解釋第七、第八、第九句。第八宿住隨念智力（power of knowing past lives, 能夠回憶過去世的智慧）。第九死生智力。因為是五通（five superknowledges, 五種神通能力）的自性，所以依靠四本定（four fundamental concentrations, 四種根本禪定）。其餘八通依靠十一地（eleven grounds, 十一種修行階段）。俗智（mundane knowledge, 世俗的智慧）範圍寬廣，所以依靠身體可以得知。又根據念住（mindfulness, 正念）來分別：如《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-vibhāṣā, 佛教論書）第三十四卷說，念住是種種勝解智力（power of understanding, 能夠徹底理解事物的智慧）、宿住隨念智力，唯有法念住（mindfulness of dharma, 對法的正念）。死生智力，唯有身念住（mindfulness of body, 對身體的正念）。漏盡智力，如果緣于漏盡的境界，則是法念住。如果依靠漏盡之身，則是四念住（four mindfulnesses, 四種正念）。其餘力都是四念住。解釋說，勝解智力，特別緣於心所的勝解法，所以唯有法念住。宿住隨念智力，普遍緣於過去的五蘊（five aggregates, 構成人身的五種要素）為境界，也唯有法念住。死生智力，緣於色法（form, 物質現象），所以唯有身念住。漏盡智力，兩種說法如原文。其餘六種力都是四念住。在六種力中，處非處（possible and impossible, 可能性與不可能性的智慧）、業異熟（karmic result, 業報的智慧）、遍趣行智力（power of knowing the path to all destinations, 瞭解通往一切目的地的道路的智慧），這三種通四相顯而易見。定力（power of concentration, 禪定的力量）通於四者，定這個詞總括了相應、俱有。如果知道隨之轉變的色，是

【English Translation】 English version: If we speak of the wisdom of birth based on its root, the divine eye (Tiantong, a supernatural ability to see distant or subtle things) only perceives the present. If it is said to perceive the future, it is based on the retinue drawn from the superknowledge. The following six superknowledges (liu tong, six supernatural abilities in Buddhism) will be explained separately.

Regarding the nature of the ten powers of the exhaustion of outflows (shi loujin zhili, the ten wisdom powers possessed by the Tathagata) up to the ten knowledges (shi zhi, ten types of wisdom): This explains the sixth sentence. Exhaustion of outflows (loujin, the complete eradication of all afflictions) is extinction. The remaining text is understandable. Furthermore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya (Xian Zong Lun, a Buddhist treatise) states that these last three powers are the three knowledges. Because among the six superknowledges, these three are the most outstanding. In the state of no more learning (wuxue wei, the state of an Arhat), they are established as the three knowledges. In the body of the Tathagata (Rulai, title of the Buddha), they are also called powers. Supernatural power (shenjing tong, the ability to transform at will) and divine ear (tian'er tong, the ability to hear distant sounds) even in the Buddha's body, do not have great use, so they are not called powers. For example, the divine eye can see the differences in the ripening of karma (yishu chabie, differences in karmic retribution) of sentient beings (youqing, all beings with sensation and perception) in the good and evil realms (shan'e qu, realms of good and evil rebirth). From this, it can give rise to outstanding wisdom. It can also correctly know the karma that causes those results. Therefore, the name 'knowledge of death and rebirth' (si sheng zhi, wisdom of knowing the causes and effects of beings' death and rebirth) is established. Supernatural power and divine ear do not have such great use. Therefore, they are not established as powers. However, the power of knowing others' minds (taxin li, the ability to know the minds of others) is not mentioned separately because its meaning is already included in the powers of the faculties, etc. Because in his faculties, etc., there are mental factors (xin xin suo, mental activities).

Having distinguished the nature up to the male Buddha body: This explains the seventh, eighth, and ninth sentences. The eighth is the power of knowing past lives (su zhu suinian zhili, the wisdom of being able to recall past lives). The ninth is the power of knowing death and rebirth. Because it is the nature of the five superknowledges (wu tong, five supernatural abilities), it relies on the four fundamental concentrations (si ben ding, four fundamental meditative states). The remaining eight superknowledges rely on the eleven grounds (shi yi di, eleven stages of practice). Mundane knowledge (su zhi, worldly knowledge) is broad, so it can be known through the body. Furthermore, distinguishing according to mindfulness (nian zhu, correct mindfulness): As the Abhidharma-vibhāṣā (Po Sha Lun, a Buddhist treatise), volume 34, says, mindfulness is the power of understanding (shengjie zhili, the wisdom of being able to thoroughly understand things), the power of knowing past lives, only mindfulness of dharma (fa nian zhu, correct mindfulness of dharma). The power of knowing death and rebirth, only mindfulness of body (shen nian zhu, correct mindfulness of the body). The power of the exhaustion of outflows, if it is focused on the state of the exhaustion of outflows, then it is mindfulness of dharma. If it relies on the body of the exhaustion of outflows, then it is the four mindfulnesses (si nian zhu, four types of mindfulness). The remaining powers are all the four mindfulnesses. The explanation says that the power of understanding, especially focused on the dharma of understanding in mental factors, therefore it is only mindfulness of dharma. The power of knowing past lives, universally focused on the past five aggregates (wu yun, five elements that constitute the human body) as its object, is also only mindfulness of dharma. The power of knowing death and rebirth, focused on form (se fa, material phenomena), therefore it is only mindfulness of body. The power of the exhaustion of outflows, the two explanations are as in the original text. The remaining six powers are all the four mindfulnesses. Among the six powers, the power of knowing what is possible and impossible (chu fei chu, wisdom of possibility and impossibility), the karmic result (ye yishu, wisdom of karmic retribution), the power of knowing the path to all destinations (bian qu xing zhili, wisdom of knowing the path to all destinations), these three are all obviously connected to the four characteristics. The power of concentration (ding li, the power of meditation) is connected to the four, the word 'concentration' encompasses both correspondence and co-existence. If one knows that the form that changes accordingly is

身念住。若知受心。是受．心念住。若知余法。名法念住　根力通四者。根謂信等善根。或意根等故通四念住　界力通四者。界者即是志性隨眠。及諸法姓故亦通四。

已辨依身何故名力者。釋后一句。此即問也。

以於一切至生多少等者答。以於一切所知境中。智無礙轉故名為力。由此十力唯依佛身。所以者何。唯佛已除諸惑習氣。於一切境。隨欲能知。餘二乘等與此相違。雖亦有智于境有礙。故不名力。如舍利子舍求度人。昔佛在世時有一人。誓多門首求度出家。舍利子等觀知此人。八萬劫來未種解脫分善。以無出家因緣故舍而不度。其人嘆恨求度不捨。后佛來見。度令出家。說法獲果。舍利子等怪而請問。佛告彼曰。我昔過去于那伽羅喝國。共此國人。掃灑街衢。嚴諸供具。欲請定光如來供養。時求度人入城賣柴。因知此事遂即發願我更取柴得錢供養。至彼山中遂被蟲食。臨欲命終。欲稱彼佛名號。忘而不憶。乃雲南無城中欲所迎者。即名種順解脫分善。雖昔起善。由時遠故。舍利子等而不能知　問聲聞極疾三生。極遲六十劫。如何八萬不入聖耶　解云三生．六十據相續修。若有間斷無妨多劫　問昔未曾起順抉擇分。今生如何能入聖耶　解云彼昔亦曾起順抉擇分善。故於今生入聖獲果　又如舍利子

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：身念住，如果知道感受和心，就是受念住和心念住。如果知道其餘的法，就叫做法念住。根、力、通這四者，根指的是信等善根，或者意根等，所以通於四念住。界、力通於四者，界指的是志性隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態），以及諸法的自性，所以也通於四念住。

已經辨明了依身為什麼叫做力，這是解釋后一句。這是提問。

『以於一切至生多少等』是回答。因為對於一切所知的境界中，智慧沒有障礙地運轉，所以叫做力。由此十力唯獨依于佛身。為什麼呢？只有佛已經除去了各種迷惑和習氣，對於一切境界，隨心所欲地能夠知曉。其餘的二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）等與此相反，雖然也有智慧，但是對於境界有障礙，所以不叫做力。例如舍利子（Śāriputra，佛陀十大弟子之一）捨棄了求度之人。過去佛在世的時候，有一個人，在很多門前請求度化出家。舍利子等觀察知道這個人，八萬劫以來沒有種下解脫分的善根，因為沒有出家的因緣所以捨棄而不度化。那個人嘆息怨恨，請求度化不停止。後來佛來了，度化他出家，說法使他獲得果位。舍利子等感到奇怪而請問。佛告訴他們說：『我過去在那伽羅喝國（Nagarahara），和這個國家的人一起，掃灑街道，準備各種供具，想要請定光如來（Dīpaṃkara）來接受供養。當時這個求度的人進城賣柴，因為知道這件事，於是就發願說我再拿柴得到錢來供養。到那座山中，就被蟲子咬食。臨近要死的時候，想要稱念那位佛的名號，忘記而不記得，就說「南無城中想要迎接的人」。這就叫做種下了順解脫分的善根。』雖然過去起了善，由於時間久遠，舍利子等也不能知道。

問：聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的修行者）最快三生，最慢六十劫，為什麼八萬劫不能入聖位呢？

解答說：三生、六十劫是根據相續修行的說法。如果有間斷，不妨礙經歷很多劫。

問：過去沒有起過順抉擇分（趨向于決定的善）的善，今生怎麼能夠入聖位呢？

解答說：他過去也曾經起過順抉擇分的善，所以在今生入聖獲得果位。

又如舍利子（Śāriputra） English version: Body Mindfulness. If one knows feeling and mind, it is feeling mindfulness and mind mindfulness. If one knows the remaining dharmas, it is called dharma mindfulness. The four, roots, powers, and superknowledges, 'roots' refers to good roots such as faith, or the root of mind, thus encompassing the four mindfulnesses. The four, realms and powers, 'realms' refers to inherent tendencies and latent afflictions, as well as the nature of all dharmas, thus also encompassing the four.

Having explained why relying on the body is called 'power,' this explains the latter phrase. This is a question.

'Because in all, up to birth, how much, etc.' is the answer. Because in all knowable realms, wisdom operates without obstruction, it is called 'power.' Therefore, the ten powers rely solely on the body of the Buddha. Why? Only the Buddha has removed all delusions and habitual tendencies, and in all realms, can know as desired. The remaining Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are contrary to this; although they also have wisdom, they have obstructions in realms, so they are not called 'power.' For example, Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) abandoned a person seeking deliverance. In the past, when the Buddha was in the world, there was a person who requested ordination at many gates. Śāriputra and others observed that this person had not planted roots of liberation for eighty thousand kalpas, so because there was no cause for ordination, they abandoned him without delivering him. That person sighed and resented, requesting deliverance without stopping. Later, the Buddha came and ordained him, and taught the Dharma, causing him to attain fruition. Śāriputra and others were surprised and asked. The Buddha told them, 'In the past, in the country of Nagarahara, I swept the streets with the people of this country, preparing various offerings, wanting to invite Dīpaṃkara (a past Buddha) to receive offerings. At that time, this person seeking deliverance entered the city to sell firewood, and because he knew of this event, he made a vow, saying, 'I will take firewood again and get money to make offerings.' When he went to that mountain, he was eaten by insects. When he was about to die, he wanted to recite the name of that Buddha, but forgot and did not remember, and said, 'Namo to the one in the city who wants to be welcomed.' This is called planting the good root of conforming to liberation.' Although he had aroused good in the past, because of the distance in time, Śāriputra and others could not know.

Question: The Śrāvaka (a practitioner who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) is at the fastest three lives, and at the slowest sixty kalpas, so why can't he enter the holy position in eighty thousand kalpas?

The explanation is: three lives and sixty kalpas are based on continuous practice. If there are interruptions, it does not prevent experiencing many kalpas.

Question: In the past, he had never aroused the good of conforming to the decisive part (goodness tending towards determination), so how can he enter the holy position in this life?

The explanation is: he had also aroused the good of conforming to the decisive part in the past, so in this life he enters the holy position and attains fruition.

Also, like Śāriputra

【English Translation】 Body Mindfulness. If one knows feeling and mind, it is feeling mindfulness and mind mindfulness. If one knows the remaining dharmas, it is called dharma mindfulness. The four, roots, powers, and superknowledges, 'roots' refers to good roots such as faith, or the root of mind, thus encompassing the four mindfulnesses. The four, realms and powers, 'realms' refers to inherent tendencies and latent afflictions, as well as the nature of all dharmas, thus also encompassing the four. Having explained why relying on the body is called 'power,' this explains the latter phrase. This is a question. 'Because in all, up to birth, how much, etc.' is the answer. Because in all knowable realms, wisdom operates without obstruction, it is called 'power.' Therefore, the ten powers rely solely on the body of the Buddha. Why? Only the Buddha has removed all delusions and habitual tendencies, and in all realms, can know as desired. The remaining Two Vehicles (Śāravakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are contrary to this; although they also have wisdom, they have obstructions in realms, so they are not called 'power.' For example, Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) abandoned a person seeking deliverance. In the past, when the Buddha was in the world, there was a person who requested ordination at many gates. Śāriputra and others observed that this person had not planted roots of liberation for eighty thousand kalpas, so because there was no cause for ordination, they abandoned him without delivering him. That person sighed and resented, requesting deliverance without stopping. Later, the Buddha came and ordained him, and taught the Dharma, causing him to attain fruition. Śāriputra and others were surprised and asked. The Buddha told them, 'In the past, in the country of Nagarahara, I swept the streets with the people of this country, preparing various offerings, wanting to invite Dīpaṃkara (a past Buddha) to receive offerings. At that time, this person seeking deliverance entered the city to sell firewood, and because he knew of this event, he made a vow, saying, 'I will take firewood again and get money to make offerings.' When he went to that mountain, he was eaten by insects. When he was about to die, he wanted to recite the name of that Buddha, but forgot and did not remember, and said, 'Namo to the one in the city who wants to be welcomed.' This is called planting the good root of conforming to liberation.' Although he had aroused good in the past, because of the distance in time, Śāriputra and others could not know. Question: The Śrāvaka (a practitioner who attains enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) is at the fastest three lives, and at the slowest sixty kalpas, so why can't he enter the holy position in eighty thousand kalpas? The explanation is: three lives and sixty kalpas are based on continuous practice. If there are interruptions, it does not prevent experiencing many kalpas. Question: In the past, he had never aroused the good of conforming to the decisive part (goodness tending towards determination), so how can he enter the holy position in this life? The explanation is: he had also aroused the good of conforming to the decisive part in the past, so in this life he enters the holy position and attains fruition. Also, like Śāriputra

不能觀知鷹所逐鴿前後二際生多少等。如大智度論云。佛在祇洹住。晡時經行。是時有鷹逐鴿。鴿飛來佛邊住。佛經行過之影覆鴿上。鴿身安隱。怖畏即除。不復作聲。后舍利子影到鴿。便作聲戰怖如初。舍利弗白佛言。佛及我身俱無三毒。以何因緣佛影覆鴿鴿便無聲不復怖畏。我影覆上鴿便作聲戰怖如初。佛言。汝三毒習氣未盡。以是故汝影覆之怖畏不除。汝觀此鴿宿世因緣幾世作鴿。舍利弗即時入宿命智三昧。觀見此鴿從鴿中來。如是一．二．三世乃至八萬大劫。常作鴿身。過是已往不復能見　舍利弗從三昧起白佛言。是鴿八萬大劫中常作鴿身。過是已前不能復知。佛言。汝若不能盡知過去世。試觀未來世。此鴿何時當脫。舍利弗即入愿智三昧。觀見此鴿。一．二．三世乃至八萬大劫。未脫鴿身。過是已往亦不能知。從三昧起白佛言。我見此鴿從一世．二世。乃至八萬大劫未免鴿身。過此已往不復能知。我不知過去．未來齊限。不審。此鴿何時當脫。佛告舍利弗。此鴿非諸聲聞．獨覺所知齊限。後於恒河沙等大劫中。常作鴿身。罪訖得出。輪轉五道后得為人。經五百世中乃得利根。是時有佛度無量阿僧祇眾生。然後入無餘涅槃。遺法在世。是人作五戒優婆塞。從比丘聞贊佛功德。於是初發心願欲作佛。然後於三阿

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：無法完全知曉老鷹追逐鴿子時，鴿子在過去和未來會經歷多少次生死輪迴。正如《大智度論》所說：佛陀住在祇洹精舍時，傍晚時分在經行。當時有老鷹追逐鴿子，鴿子飛到佛陀身邊停住。佛陀經行時，身影覆蓋在鴿子身上，鴿子便感到安全，恐懼立即消除，不再發出聲音。後來，舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）的影子覆蓋到鴿子身上，鴿子便像最初一樣發出聲音，戰慄恐懼。舍利弗問佛陀：『佛陀和我都沒有貪嗔癡三毒，為什麼佛陀的影子覆蓋鴿子，鴿子便沒有聲音，不再恐懼，而我的影子覆蓋鴿子，鴿子便發出聲音，戰慄恐懼如初？』佛陀說：『你的三毒習氣還沒有完全消除，因此你的影子覆蓋它，恐懼不能消除。你觀察這隻鴿子宿世的因緣，幾世做鴿子？』舍利弗立即進入宿命智三昧（Jnana-samadhi，一種禪定狀態，能回憶起過去世），觀察到這隻鴿子從鴿子中來，像這樣一世、兩世、三世，乃至八萬大劫（Kalpa，極長的時間單位），常常做鴿子的身體。超過這個時間，便不能再看見。舍利弗從三昧中起身，告訴佛陀：『這隻鴿子在八萬大劫中常常做鴿子的身體，超過這個時間，便不能再知道。』佛陀說：『你如果不能完全知道過去世，試著觀察未來世，這隻鴿子什麼時候能夠脫離鴿子的身體？』舍利弗立即進入愿智三昧（Pranidhana-jnana-samadhi，一種禪定狀態，能預見未來），觀察到這隻鴿子，一世、兩世、三世，乃至八萬大劫，還不能脫離鴿子的身體。超過這個時間，也不能知道。從三昧中起身，告訴佛陀：『我看見這隻鴿子從一世、兩世，乃至八萬大劫還不能免除鴿子的身體，超過這個時間，便不能再知道。我不知道過去和未來的期限，不知道這隻鴿子什麼時候能夠脫離。』佛陀告訴舍利弗：『這隻鴿子不是所有聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的弟子）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教，自己覺悟的修行者）所能知道的期限。之後在恒河沙數（Ganges river sands，比喻極多的數量）的大劫中，常常做鴿子的身體，罪業結束才能脫離，在五道（五種輪迴的途徑，包括地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）中輪轉，之後才能得到人身。經歷五百世才能得到銳利的根器。那時有佛陀度化無量阿僧祇（Asankhya，極大的數字）眾生，然後進入無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃，不再有任何殘留）。遺留的佛法還在世間，這個人做五戒優婆塞（Upasaka，在家男居士，受持五戒），從比丘（Bhiksu，出家男眾）那裡聽聞讚歎佛陀的功德，於是最初發心，願望將來成佛，然後在三阿

【English Translation】 English version: It is impossible to fully know how many births and deaths a pigeon will experience in the past and future when a hawk chases it. As stated in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom): When the Buddha was residing in Jeta Grove, he was walking in the evening. At that time, a hawk was chasing a pigeon, and the pigeon flew to the Buddha's side and stayed there. When the Buddha walked past, his shadow covered the pigeon, and the pigeon felt safe, its fear immediately disappeared, and it no longer made a sound. Later, when Sariputra's (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) shadow covered the pigeon, it made a sound and trembled with fear as before. Sariputra asked the Buddha: 'Both the Buddha and I are free from the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion. Why is it that when the Buddha's shadow covers the pigeon, it makes no sound and is no longer afraid, while when my shadow covers it, the pigeon makes a sound and trembles with fear as before?' The Buddha said: 'Your habitual tendencies of the three poisons have not been completely eliminated, therefore your shadow covering it cannot eliminate its fear. Observe the karmic conditions of this pigeon in its past lives, how many lives has it been a pigeon?' Sariputra immediately entered the Samadhi of Knowing Past Lives (Jnana-samadhi, a meditative state that allows one to recall past lives), and observed that this pigeon came from being a pigeon. In this way, for one, two, three, up to eighty thousand kalpas (Kalpa, an extremely long unit of time), it has always been a pigeon. Beyond this time, he could no longer see. Sariputra arose from the samadhi and told the Buddha: 'This pigeon has been a pigeon for eighty thousand kalpas, and beyond this time, I can no longer know.' The Buddha said: 'If you cannot fully know the past lives, try to observe the future lives, when will this pigeon be able to escape being a pigeon?' Sariputra immediately entered the Samadhi of Wish-Fulfillment (Pranidhana-jnana-samadhi, a meditative state that allows one to foresee the future), and observed that this pigeon, for one, two, three, up to eighty thousand kalpas, will not be able to escape being a pigeon. Beyond this time, he could not know either. Arising from the samadhi, he told the Buddha: 'I see that this pigeon will not be freed from being a pigeon for one, two, up to eighty thousand kalpas, and beyond this time, I can no longer know. I do not know the limits of the past and future, and I do not know when this pigeon will be able to escape.' The Buddha told Sariputra: 'The limits of this pigeon are not knowable by all Sravakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma) and Pratyekabuddhas (those who attain enlightenment on their own, without a teacher). Afterwards, in kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges River (Ganges river sands, a metaphor for an extremely large number), it will always be a pigeon. Only when its sins are exhausted will it be able to escape, and it will transmigrate through the five paths (the five realms of rebirth: hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods), and then it will be able to obtain a human body. After five hundred lives, it will be able to obtain sharp faculties. At that time, there will be a Buddha who liberates immeasurable Asankhya (Asankhya, an extremely large number) beings, and then enters Parinirvana (complete Nirvana, with no residue remaining). The remaining Dharma will still be in the world, and this person will be a Upasaka (a lay male devotee who observes the five precepts), and will hear from a Bhiksu (ordained male monastic) praises of the Buddha's virtues, and then he will initially generate the aspiration to become a Buddha in the future, and then in three A

僧祇。行六波羅蜜。十地具足得作佛。度無量眾生已入無餘涅槃。是時舍利弗向佛懺悔。白佛言。我於一鴿尚不能知其本末。何況諸法(亦由時遠而不知也)。

如是諸佛至此觸處為性者。此即第二明佛身力。

論曰至那羅延者。此釋初句　那羅延。此是神名。此云人種。

有餘師言至無邊心力者。釋第二句。敘異說。

大覺獨覺至力有勝劣者。復對三人支節相連對愿差別。大覺支節相連似龍蟠結。獨覺支節相連似連鎖。輪王支節相連似相鉤。故三相望力有勝劣。準婆沙三十。支節相鉤是銅輪王。若據金輪骨節連鎖。

那羅延力其量云何者。釋第三句。此即問也。

十十倍增至成那羅延者。答。于凡象等十十倍增故。說後後力增前前十倍。一凡象。謂西國凡受用象。二香象。西國別有一類好像名為香象。擬戰時用。三摩訶諾健那(此神名。此云大露形)。四缽羅塞建提(亦是神名。缽羅此云勝。塞建提此云蘊)。五伐浪伽(亦是神名。此云妙支)。六遮努羅(亦是神名。此云執持)。七那羅延(如前說)。有說可知。

于所說中唯多應理者。上來總有三說。如來身力。論主評取法救所說。故言於三說中唯多應理。正理．顯宗亦同此說。

如是身力至離七外別有者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本僧祇（Samghati，一種僧袍）。修行六波羅蜜（Six Paramitas，六種達到彼岸的方法），十地（Ten Bhumis，菩薩修行的十個階段）圓滿具足，得以成佛。度化無量眾生后，進入無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。這時，舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一）向佛懺悔，稟告佛陀說：『我對一隻鴿子的來龍去脈尚且不能知曉，更何況是諸法（一切事物），也是因為時間久遠而不知曉啊。』像這樣，諸佛到達此處，以觸處為自性。這便是第二種說明佛身之力。論曰：到達那羅延（Narayana，印度教神祇）者。這是解釋第一句，那羅延（Narayana）。這是神的名字，這裡說是人種。有其他老師說：到達無邊心力者。這是解釋第二句，敘述不同的說法。大覺（Buddha，佛陀）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）到達力量有勝劣的說法，又將三人支節相連的情況與愿的差別進行對比。大覺（Buddha）支節相連，像龍盤繞一樣。獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）支節相連，像鎖鏈一樣。輪王（Chakravartin，轉輪聖王）支節相連，像相互鉤連一樣。所以從這三種情況來看，力量有勝劣之分。按照《婆沙論》第三十卷的說法，支節相鉤是銅輪王（Copper Wheel King）。如果按照金輪王（Golden Wheel King）的說法，骨節就像鎖鏈一樣。那羅延（Narayana）的力量有多大呢？這是解釋第三句，這是提問。十十倍增，最終成為那羅延（Narayana）。回答：在普通的象等等的基礎上，十十倍地增加，所以說後面的力量比前面的力量增加十倍。一、凡象，指西國普通的供人使用的象。二、香象，西國有一種特別好的象，叫做香象，用於戰時。三、摩訶諾健那（Mahanoggana，此神名，意思是「大露形」）。四、缽羅塞建提（Prasenkanti，也是神名，缽羅（Prasa）意思是「勝」，塞建提（kanti）意思是「蘊」）。五、伐浪伽（Varanga，也是神名，意思是「妙支」）。六、遮努羅（Chanura，也是神名，意思是「執持」）。七、那羅延（Narayana，如前所述）。有的說法可以知道。在所說的這些說法中，唯有法救所說的更合乎道理。上面總共有三種說法，關於如來（Tathagata，佛陀）的身力。論主評論並選取了法救所說的。所以說在三種說法中，唯有法救所說的更合乎道理。《正理》、《顯宗》也同意這種說法。像這樣的身力，到達離開七種外道之外，另有其他說法。

【English Translation】 English version Samghati (a type of monastic robe). By practicing the Six Paramitas (Six Perfections, the six ways to cross over to the other shore) and fully accomplishing the Ten Bhumis (Ten Stages, the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice), one can attain Buddhahood. After liberating countless sentient beings, one enters Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). At this time, Sariputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) repented to the Buddha and said: 'I cannot even know the beginning and end of a single pigeon, let alone all dharmas (all things), also because it has been too long and I do not know.' Like this, when the Buddhas arrive at this place, they take 'touching' as their nature. This is the second explanation of the Buddha's bodily strength. The treatise says: 'Reaching Narayana (a Hindu deity).' This explains the first sentence, Narayana. This is the name of a god, here it is said to be a race of people. Some other teachers say: 'Reaching boundless mental strength.' This explains the second sentence, narrating different views. The statement that the Buddha (Buddha), Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) have superior and inferior strength, also compares the connection of the three people's limbs with the difference in vows. The Buddha's limbs are connected like a coiling dragon. The Pratyekabuddha's limbs are connected like a chain. The Chakravartin (Wheel-Turning King)'s limbs are connected like interlocking hooks. Therefore, from these three situations, the strength has superior and inferior differences. According to the thirtieth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, limbs connected by hooks are the Copper Wheel King. If according to the Golden Wheel King, the joints are like chains. How great is the strength of Narayana? This explains the third sentence, this is a question. Increasing tenfold, eventually becoming Narayana. Answer: Based on ordinary elephants and so on, increasing tenfold, so it is said that the later strength increases tenfold compared to the previous strength. 1. Ordinary elephant, refers to ordinary elephants used by people in the Western countries. 2. Fragrant elephant, there is a special kind of good elephant in the Western countries called fragrant elephant, used in wartime. 3. Mahanoggana (this is the name of a god, meaning 'great naked form'). 4. Prasenkanti (also the name of a god, Prasa means 'victory', kanti means 'aggregate'). 5. Varanga (also the name of a god, meaning 'wonderful limb'). 6. Chanura (also the name of a god, meaning 'holder'). 7. Narayana (as mentioned before). Some statements can be known. Among the statements made, only what Dharmatrata said is more reasonable. There are a total of three statements above, regarding the bodily strength of the Tathagata (Buddha). The author of the treatise commented on and selected what Dharmatrata said. Therefore, it is said that among the three statements, only what Dharmatrata said is more reasonable. The Nyayasutra and Abhidharmakosha also agree with this statement. Like this bodily strength, reaching beyond the seven heretical paths, there are other statements.

釋第四句。此中兩說。一說力是所觸中大種差別。若大種勝即名為力。異余大種故名差別。有說力是所造觸。離七外別有力觸。此非正義。又婆沙三十辨身力身劣中總有五說。一說四大無偏增。強勝名身力羸弱名身劣。第二說地增名身力。水增名身劣。此說大種增。第三說重增名身力。輕增名身劣。第四說離七所造觸。外別有所造觸。名身力身劣。第五評曰應作是說。即四大種及所造觸。俱是身力身劣自性。謂若調和俱名身力。若不調和俱名身劣。正理意同婆沙。俱舍初說當婆沙初說。第二說當婆沙第四說。俱舍既無評家。即以婆沙第五評家為正　又解俱舍非以婆沙評家為量。若作此解以初師為正　又解俱舍言力是所觸中大種差別者。是經部義。彼宗觸中大種是實。余皆是假。依大種立故。今說力是大種差別。論主意朋經部。故敘彼宗此解似勝。

佛四無畏至初十二七力者。此即第二明四無畏。

論曰至如第七力者。佛四無畏如經廣說。一我于諸法皆正等覺。若外難言非正等覺。如理為釋無怖畏故十智為性。如前第一處非處力。二我于諸漏皆得永盡。若外難言非漏永盡。如理為釋無怖畏故。或以六智為性。或以十智為性。如前第十漏盡力說。三我為弟子說能障法染必為障。若外難言染非能障。如理為釋無

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：解釋第四句。這裡有兩種說法。一種說法是，『力』是所觸知事物中四大種（地、水、火、風，構成物質世界的基本元素）的差別。如果某個大種特別強盛，就稱為『力』，因為它不同於其他大種，所以說是差別。另一種說法是，『力』是一種所造觸（由四大種相互作用產生的觸覺），獨立於七種基本觸覺之外，存在另一種『力觸』。但這並非正確的解釋。此外，《大毗婆沙論》第三十卷在辨析身力（身體的力量）和身劣（身體的虛弱）時，總共有五種說法。第一種說法是，四大種沒有偏頗的增減，強盛就稱為身力，羸弱就稱為身劣。第二種說法是，地大增多就稱為身力，水大增多就稱為身劣。這種說法強調大種的增減。第三種說法是，重性增多就稱為身力，輕性增多就稱為身劣。第四種說法是，除了七種所造觸之外，還存在另一種所造觸，稱為身力或身劣。第五種評論說，應該這樣認為，四大種和所造觸都是身力或身劣的自性。如果它們調和，就都稱為身力；如果不調和，就都稱為身劣。《正理經》的觀點與《毗婆沙論》相同。《俱舍論》最初的說法相當於《毗婆沙論》最初的說法，第二種說法相當於《毗婆沙論》第四種說法。《俱舍論》既然沒有評論家，就以《毗婆沙論》第五種評論家的觀點為正確。

另一種解釋是，《俱舍論》並非以《毗婆沙論》的評論家為標準。如果這樣解釋，就以最初的說法為正確。還有一種解釋是，《俱舍論》所說的『力是所觸中大種差別』，是經部的觀點。經部認為，觸覺中的大種是真實的，其餘都是假立的，是依大種而建立的。現在說『力』是大種的差別，論主的意圖是支援經部，所以敘述了他們的觀點。這種解釋似乎更勝一籌。

『佛四無畏至初十二七力者』，這部分是第二段，闡明佛的四種無畏。

論曰至如第七力者。佛的四種無畏，如經典中廣泛闡述的那樣。第一，『我于諸法皆正等覺』（我對一切法都如實覺悟）。如果有人反駁說並非如實覺悟，佛能依據正理進行解釋，沒有怖畏，因此以十智（十種智慧）為自性，如同前面第一種處非處力（知是處非處智力）。第二，『我于諸漏皆得永盡』（我已徹底斷盡一切煩惱）。如果有人反駁說煩惱沒有斷盡，佛能依據正理進行解釋，沒有怖畏，或者以六智為自性，或者以十智為自性，如同前面第十種漏盡力（漏盡智力）所說。第三，『我為弟子說能障法染必為障』（我為弟子們說，能夠障礙修行的染污法必定會造成障礙）。如果有人反駁說染污法不能造成障礙，佛能依據正理進行解釋，沒有怖畏。

【English Translation】 English version: Explaining the fourth phrase. There are two views on this. One view is that 'strength' (力) is the difference in the four great elements (地、水、火、風, earth, water, fire, and wind, the basic elements constituting the material world) within what is touched. If a great element is particularly strong, it is called 'strength,' because it is different from other great elements, hence the term 'difference.' Another view is that 'strength' is a derived touch (所造觸, a touch sensation produced by the interaction of the four great elements), existing separately from the seven basic touches, another 'strength touch' exists. But this is not the correct explanation. Furthermore, the thirtieth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra discusses five views in total when distinguishing between body strength (身力) and body weakness (身劣). The first view is that there is no biased increase or decrease in the four great elements; strength is called body strength, and weakness is called body weakness. The second view is that an increase in the earth element is called body strength, and an increase in the water element is called body weakness. This view emphasizes the increase or decrease of the great elements. The third view is that an increase in heaviness is called body strength, and an increase in lightness is called body weakness. The fourth view is that, apart from the seven derived touches, there is another derived touch, called body strength or body weakness. The fifth commentary says that it should be considered that the four great elements and the derived touches are both the nature of body strength or body weakness. If they are harmonious, they are both called body strength; if they are not harmonious, they are both called body weakness. The view of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is the same as that of the Mahāvibhāṣā. The initial statement of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is equivalent to the initial statement of the Mahāvibhāṣā, and the second statement is equivalent to the fourth statement of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Since the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya has no commentator, the fifth commentator of the Mahāvibhāṣā is considered correct.

Another explanation is that the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya does not take the commentator of the Mahāvibhāṣā as the standard. If interpreted in this way, the initial statement is considered correct. Yet another explanation is that the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya's statement that 'strength is the difference in the great elements within what is touched' is the view of the Sautrāntika school (經部). The Sautrāntika school believes that the great elements in touch are real, and the rest are provisionally established, based on the great elements. Now, saying that 'strength' is the difference of the great elements, the author's intention is to support the Sautrāntika school, so he narrates their view. This explanation seems superior.

'The Buddha's four fearlessnesses to the initial twelve seven powers,' this part is the second section, elucidating the Buddha's four fearlessnesses.

'The treatise says to the seventh power.' The Buddha's four fearlessnesses are extensively explained in the scriptures. First, 'I have rightly awakened to all dharmas (諸法).' If someone objects that he has not rightly awakened, the Buddha can explain according to reason, without fear, therefore taking the ten wisdoms (十智, ten types of wisdom) as its nature, like the first power of knowing what is possible and impossible (處非處力, sthānāsthāna-jñāna-bala). Second, 'I have completely exhausted all outflows (諸漏).' If someone objects that the outflows have not been exhausted, the Buddha can explain according to reason, without fear, either taking six wisdoms as its nature, or taking ten wisdoms as its nature, as mentioned in the tenth power of the exhaustion of outflows (漏盡力, āsravakṣaya-jñāna-bala). Third, 'I tell my disciples that defilements (染) that obstruct the Dharma (法) will certainly be an obstruction.' If someone objects that defilements cannot cause obstruction, the Buddha can explain according to reason, without fear.

怖畏故八智為性。如前第二業異熟力。四我為弟子說能出道修必出苦。若外難言道非出苦。如理為釋無怖畏故。或以九智為性。或以十智為性。如前第七遍趣行力。故婆沙三十一云。一正等覺無畏。如契經說。我是諸法正等覺者。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等。依法立難。或令憶念于如是法非正等覺無有是處。設當有者我於是事正見無由。故得安隱無怖無畏自稱。我處大仙尊位。于大眾中正師子吼轉大梵輪。一切世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等所不能轉。二漏永盡無畏。如契經說。我于諸漏已得永盡。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等依法立難。或令憶念有如是漏未得永盡無有是處。設當有者乃至廣說。三說障法無畏。如契經說。我為弟子說能障法染必為障。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等依法立難。或令憶念有此障法染不為障無有是處。設當有者乃至廣說。四說出苦道無畏。如契經說。我為弟子說能出道。修必出苦。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等依法立難。或令憶念修如是道不能出苦無有是處。設當有者我於是事正見無由。故得安隱無怖無畏。自稱我處大仙尊位。于大眾中正師子吼轉大梵輪。一切世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等所不能轉。又婆沙三十一云。如是所說十力．四無所畏。一一力攝四無畏。一一四無畏攝十力故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由於對怖畏的克服，所以四無所畏以八智為自性。如同前面所說的第二種力，即業異熟力。因為我為弟子宣說能夠出離世間的道路，修習此道必定能夠脫離痛苦。如果有人從外部提出質疑，說道並非能夠脫離痛苦，那麼可以如理地解釋，因為已經沒有了怖畏。或者說，四無所畏以九智為自性，或者以十智為自性。如同前面所說的第七種力，即遍趣行力。所以《大毗婆沙論》第三十一卷中說：一、正等覺無畏。如契經所說：『我是諸法正等覺者（Samyak-saṃbuddha，完全覺悟的人）。』如果有世間的沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家修行者）、梵志（Brāhmaṇa，婆羅門）、天魔（Deva-māra，天界的魔）、梵天（Brahmā，創造神）等，依法提出質疑，或者使我回憶起在這樣的法上並非正等覺，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，我對此事的正確見解是不會改變的。因此，我能夠安穩、沒有怖畏地自稱，我處於大仙尊位，在大眾之中發出真正的獅子吼，轉動偉大的梵輪（Brahma-cakra，佛法之輪），這是所有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔、梵天等都無法轉動的。二、漏永盡無畏。如契經所說：『我對於諸漏（Āsrava，煩惱）已經得到永遠的斷盡。』如果有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔、梵天等，依法提出質疑，或者使我回憶起有這樣的煩惱還沒有得到永遠的斷盡，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，乃至廣說。三、說障法無畏。如契經所說：『我為弟子宣說能夠障礙正道的法，如果被染污必定會成為障礙。』如果有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔、梵天等，依法提出質疑，或者使我回憶起有這種障礙正道的法，被染污卻不會成為障礙，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，乃至廣說。四、說出苦道無畏。如契經所說：『我為弟子宣說能夠出離痛苦的道路，修習此道必定能夠脫離痛苦。』如果有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔、梵天等，依法提出質疑，或者使我回憶起修習這樣的道路不能夠脫離痛苦，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，我對此事的正確見解是不會改變的。因此，我能夠安穩、沒有怖畏地自稱，我處於大仙尊位，在大眾之中發出真正的獅子吼，轉動偉大的梵輪，這是所有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔、梵天等都無法轉動的。』又《大毗婆沙論》第三十一卷中說：『像這樣所說的十力（Daśa-balāni，佛的十種力量）、四無所畏（Catvāri vaiśāradyāni，四種無畏），每一種力都包含四種無畏，每一種四無畏都包含十力。』

【English Translation】 English version: The four Vaiśāradyas (fearlessnesses) are characterized by the eight wisdoms because of the overcoming of fear. This is like the second power mentioned earlier, the power of karmic maturation. Because I explain to my disciples the path that can lead out of the world, and practicing this path will surely lead to the end of suffering. If someone raises an external objection, saying that the path does not lead to the end of suffering, then it can be explained rationally, because there is no more fear. Alternatively, the four fearlessnesses are characterized by the nine wisdoms, or by the ten wisdoms. This is like the seventh power mentioned earlier, the power of universally applicable conduct. Therefore, the thirty-first volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 1. Fearlessness of perfect enlightenment. As the sutra says: 'I am the Samyak-saṃbuddha (perfectly enlightened one) of all dharmas.' If there are Śrāmaṇas (ascetics), Brāhmaṇas (priests), Deva-māras (heavenly demons), Brahmās (creator gods), etc. in the world who raise objections according to the Dharma, or cause me to recall that I am not perfectly enlightened in such dharmas, this is impossible. If such a thing were to happen, my correct view on this matter would not change. Therefore, I can confidently and without fear proclaim that I am in the position of a great sage, roaring a true lion's roar in the assembly, turning the great Brahma-cakra (wheel of Dharma), which cannot be turned by all the Śrāmaṇas, Brāhmaṇas, Deva-māras, Brahmās, etc. in the world. 2. Fearlessness of the complete exhaustion of outflows. As the sutra says: 'I have attained the complete exhaustion of all Āsravas (defilements).' If there are Śrāmaṇas, Brāhmaṇas, Deva-māras, Brahmās, etc. in the world who raise objections according to the Dharma, or cause me to recall that there are such defilements that have not been completely exhausted, this is impossible. If such a thing were to happen, and so on. 3. Fearlessness of speaking about obstructing dharmas. As the sutra says: 'I explain to my disciples the dharmas that can obstruct the path, and if they are contaminated, they will surely become obstacles.' If there are Śrāmaṇas, Brāhmaṇas, Deva-māras, Brahmās, etc. in the world who raise objections according to the Dharma, or cause me to recall that there are such obstructing dharmas that, even if contaminated, will not become obstacles, this is impossible. If such a thing were to happen, and so on. 4. Fearlessness of speaking about the path to the end of suffering. As the sutra says: 'I explain to my disciples the path that can lead out of suffering, and practicing this path will surely lead to the end of suffering.' If there are Śrāmaṇas, Brāhmaṇas, Deva-māras, Brahmās, etc. in the world who raise objections according to the Dharma, or cause me to recall that practicing such a path cannot lead to the end of suffering, this is impossible. If such a thing were to happen, my correct view on this matter would not change. Therefore, I can confidently and without fear proclaim that I am in the position of a great sage, roaring a true lion's roar in the assembly, turning the great Brahma-cakra, which cannot be turned by all the Śrāmaṇas, Brāhmaṇas, Deva-māras, Brahmās, etc. in the world.' Furthermore, the thirty-first volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'The ten Daśa-balāni (powers) and the four Catvāri vaiśāradyāni (fearlessnesses) mentioned in this way, each power includes the four fearlessnesses, and each of the four fearlessnesses includes the ten powers.'

。則有四十力．四十無畏。然前說初無畏即初力。第二無畏即第十力。第三無畏即第二力。第四無畏即第七力者。依相顯說。理實世尊成就四十力．四十無畏。依根本說但言成就十力．四無所畏。

如何于智立無畏名者。問。

此無畏名至目諸智體者。答文可知。

理實無畏至體即是智者。論主解。理實無畏是智所成。智即是因。無畏是果。不應說言體即是智。故正理七十五云。如何可說無畏即智。應言無畏是智所成。理實應然。但為顯示無畏以智為親近因。是故就智出無畏體。夫無畏者。謂不怯懼。由有智故不怯懼他。故智得為無畏因性　又解論主敘經部解。離智別有無畏體性。正理若言離智別有其體是何。

佛三念住至緣順違俱境者。此即第三明三念住。問及頌答。

論曰至第三念住者。釋上句三念住及下一句。初指經說。二別釋三。一緣順境不生歡喜住正念知。二緣違境不生憂戚住正念知。三緣順．違不生歡．戚住正念知。正理論云。如前說四今復說三。可總說言念住有七。今三攝在前四中故。謂在緣外法念住攝。又婆沙三十云。如是三種不共念住。應知亦攝在處非處智力。廣分別義如理應思。

此三皆用念惠為體者。釋上一句中念惠。此即出體。

諸大聲聞至不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因此，佛具有四十種力量和四十種無畏。然而，之前所說的第一個無畏即是第一個力量，第二個無畏即是第十個力量，第三個無畏即是第二個力量，第四個無畏即是第七個力量，這是依據（佛的）相貌來顯現說明。實際上，世尊成就了四十種力量和四十種無畏。依據根本來說，只是說成就了十種力量和四種無所畏。

如何以智慧來建立無畏之名呢？（這是）提問。

這個無畏之名指向各種智慧的本體，（這是）回答，從文義可以得知。

實際上，無畏的本體就是智慧。（這是）論主的解釋。實際上，無畏是智慧所成就的。智慧是因，無畏是果。不應該說本體就是智慧。所以《正理七十五》中說：『怎麼能說無畏就是智慧呢？』應該說無畏是智慧所成就的。理應如此。但爲了顯示無畏以智慧為親近因，所以就智慧而說無畏的本體。所謂無畏，就是不怯懦恐懼。因為有智慧，所以不怯懦恐懼他人。所以智慧可以作為無畏的因性。又一種解釋是，論主敘述經部的解釋，認為離開智慧，另有無畏的本體。正理如果說離開智慧，另有其本體，那是什麼呢？

佛的三念住，即緣于順境、違境和俱境。（這是）第三個說明三念住。是提問和頌的回答。

論中說：『到第三念住。』（這是）解釋上一句的三念住和下一句。首先指經文來說明，其次分別解釋三種念住。第一種是緣于順境不生歡喜，安住于正念和覺知。第二種是緣于違境不生憂愁，安住于正念和覺知。第三種是緣于順境和違境，不生歡喜和憂愁，安住于正念和覺知。《正理論》中說：『如前面所說的四種念住，現在又說三種念住，可以總的說念住有七種。』現在所說的三種念住包含在前面的四種念住中，即包含在緣于外法的念住中。另外，《婆沙三十》中說：『像這樣的三種不共念住，應該知道也包含在處非處智力中。』廣泛分別其中的意義，應該如理思維。

這三種念住都以念和慧為本體。（這是）解釋上一句中的『念惠』，即說明其本體。

諸大聲聞……不

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Buddha possesses forty powers and forty fearlessnesses (catvāri vaiśāradyāni). However, the previous statement that the first fearlessness is the first power, the second fearlessness is the tenth power, the third fearlessness is the second power, and the fourth fearlessness is the seventh power, is based on the manifestation and explanation according to (the Buddha's) appearance. In reality, the World Honored One (Bhagavan) has accomplished forty powers and forty fearlessnesses. According to the fundamental explanation, it is only said that he has accomplished ten powers and four fearlessnesses (catvāri vaiśāradyāni).

How is the name 'fearlessness' established in relation to wisdom (jñāna)? (This is) a question.

This name 'fearlessness' refers to the essence of various wisdoms. (This is) the answer, which can be understood from the text.

In reality, the essence of fearlessness is wisdom. (This is) the explanation of the treatise master. In reality, fearlessness is accomplished by wisdom. Wisdom is the cause, and fearlessness is the result. It should not be said that the essence is wisdom. Therefore, it is said in Nyāyasūtra 75: 'How can it be said that fearlessness is wisdom?' It should be said that fearlessness is accomplished by wisdom. It should be so in principle. However, in order to show that fearlessness takes wisdom as its proximate cause, the essence of fearlessness is explained in terms of wisdom. Fearlessness means not being timid or fearful. Because of having wisdom, one is not timid or fearful of others. Therefore, wisdom can be the causal nature of fearlessness. Another explanation is that the treatise master narrates the explanation of the Sautrāntika school, which believes that there is a separate entity of fearlessness apart from wisdom. If Nyāyasūtra says that there is a separate entity apart from wisdom, what is it?

The Buddha's three establishments of mindfulness (trīṇi smṛtyupasthānāni), namely, being related to favorable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances, and both. (This is) the third explanation of the three establishments of mindfulness. It is a question and a verse answer.

The treatise says: 'To the third establishment of mindfulness.' (This is) explaining the previous sentence about the three establishments of mindfulness and the following sentence. First, it refers to the sutra to explain, and second, it explains the three establishments of mindfulness separately. The first is to not generate joy when related to favorable circumstances, and to abide in right mindfulness and awareness. The second is to not generate sorrow when related to unfavorable circumstances, and to abide in right mindfulness and awareness. The third is to not generate joy or sorrow when related to favorable and unfavorable circumstances, and to abide in right mindfulness and awareness. Nyāyānusāra says: 'As the four establishments of mindfulness mentioned earlier, now there are three establishments of mindfulness, so it can be said in general that there are seven establishments of mindfulness.' The three establishments of mindfulness mentioned now are included in the previous four establishments of mindfulness, that is, included in the establishment of mindfulness related to external dharmas. In addition, Vibhāṣā 30 says: 'It should be known that these three uncommon establishments of mindfulness are also included in the power of knowledge of what is appropriate and inappropriate.' The meaning of the extensive differentiation should be thought about reasonably.

These three all use mindfulness (smṛti) and wisdom (prajñā) as their essence. (This is) explaining 'mindfulness and wisdom' in the previous sentence, that is, explaining its essence.

All great Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka)… not

共佛法者。問。此三念住聲聞亦能具。如何唯佛名不共法。

唯佛於此至得不共名者。答。唯佛於此弟子歡．戚。不但惑除並習亦斷。故名不共。聲聞猶有歡戚習故　或諸一切出家弟子。皆隨屬佛有順。有違。及有順違。應甚歡．戚。佛能不起可謂希奇。非屬諸聲聞不起歡．戚非奇特故。諸聲聞等雖有弟子。但相依住非真隨屬。若真隨屬唯佛大師。故唯在佛得不共名。

諸佛大悲至異悲由八因者。此即第四明佛大悲。

論曰至如共有悲者。釋初句。如來大悲俗智為性。若異此俗智者。則不能緣一切有情。亦不能作三苦行相。如共有悲無嗔為性。唯緣欲界有情作苦苦行相。

此大悲名依何義立者。釋第二．第三句。此即問也。

依五義故至能齊此故者。答文可知。

此與悲異至哀愍異故者。釋第四句。明大悲異悲。大悲無癡為性。悲無嗔為性。大悲三苦行相。悲苦苦行相。大悲緣三界有情。悲緣欲界有情。大悲依第四靜慮。悲通依余靜慮。大悲唯依佛身。悲通依余身。大悲離有頂證得。悲離欲界證得。大悲事成。悲但希望。大悲於一切有情平等拔苦。悲不平等但拔欲界有情苦故　問此大悲何力攝　答處．非處智力攝。以佛世尊不共功德多分。攝在處非處智力中故。

已辨佛

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於佛法共同之處的問題：如果這三種念住（smṛtyupasthāna）聲聞（Śrāvaka）也能具備，為什麼只有佛陀才能被稱為不共之法？

只有佛陀才能因此獲得不共之名，原因在於：佛陀對於弟子的歡喜和憂愁，不僅能斷除煩惱，還能斷除習氣，所以被稱為不共。而聲聞仍然有歡喜和憂愁的習氣。或者說，所有出家的弟子，有的順從佛陀，有的違背佛陀，有的既順從又違背，如果佛陀能夠不起歡喜和憂愁，那是非常稀奇的。而不屬於聲聞的弟子不起歡喜和憂愁，就不是什麼奇特的事情。聲聞等雖然有弟子，但只是相互依靠居住，並非真正地隨從。如果真正地隨從，只有佛陀大師。所以只有佛陀才能獲得不共之名。

諸佛的大悲（mahākaruṇā）之所以與衆不同，是因為有八個原因：這說明了佛陀的大悲的第四個方面。

論曰：至於像共同的悲（karuṇā）那樣。解釋第一句：如來的大悲以世俗智（lokasaṃvṛti-jñāna）為體性。如果不是以世俗智為體性，就不能緣一切有情（sattva），也不能作三苦（duḥkha-duḥkhatā, vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā, saṃskāra-duḥkhatā）的行相。像共同的悲以無嗔（adveṣa）為體性，只能緣欲界（kāmadhātu）的有情，作苦苦（duḥkha-duḥkhatā）的行相。

此大悲之名是依據什麼意義而建立的？解釋第二、第三句。這是提問。

依據五種意義，乃至能夠齊同於此。答案在文中可以得知。

此大悲與悲有什麼不同？乃至哀愍不同。解釋第四句：說明大悲與悲的不同。大悲以無癡（amoha）為體性，悲以無嗔為體性。大悲是三苦的行相，悲是苦苦的行相。大悲緣三界（tridhātu）的有情，悲緣欲界有情。大悲依第四靜慮（dhyāna），悲通於其餘靜慮。大悲唯依佛身，悲通於其餘身。大悲是離開有頂（abhavāgra）而證得的，悲是離開欲界而證得的。大悲是事情已經成就，悲只是希望。大悲對於一切有情平等地拔除痛苦，悲不平等，只是拔除欲界有情的痛苦。問：此大悲被什麼力量所攝？答：被處非處智（sthānāsthāna-jñāna）的力量所攝。因為佛陀世尊的不共功德，大部分都包含在處非處智的力量之中。

已經辨明了佛陀的大悲。

【English Translation】 English version Question regarding shared aspects of the Buddha's Dharma: If these three foundations of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna) can also be possessed by Śrāvakas (Śrāvaka), why is it that only the Buddha is named as unshared Dharma?

The reason why only the Buddha attains the name of 'unshared' in this regard is: Only the Buddha, regarding the joy and sorrow of disciples, not only eliminates afflictions but also severs habitual tendencies (vāsanā), hence being called 'unshared'. Śrāvakas still possess the habitual tendencies of joy and sorrow. Alternatively, all ordained disciples either follow the Buddha, oppose the Buddha, or both follow and oppose. If the Buddha can remain unmoved by joy and sorrow, it is considered extraordinary. However, it is not extraordinary for those who are not disciples of Śrāvakas to remain unmoved by joy and sorrow. Although Śrāvakas have disciples, they merely rely on each other for dwelling and are not truly followers. If there are true followers, it is only the great master, the Buddha. Therefore, only the Buddha attains the name of 'unshared'.

The reason why the great compassion (mahākaruṇā) of the Buddhas is distinct is due to eight causes: This explains the fourth aspect of the Buddha's great compassion.

Treatise says: As for common compassion (karuṇā). Explaining the first sentence: The Tathāgata's great compassion has conventional wisdom (lokasaṃvṛti-jñāna) as its nature. If it were not conventional wisdom, it could not cognize all sentient beings (sattva), nor could it manifest the aspects of the three sufferings (duḥkha-duḥkhatā, vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā, saṃskāra-duḥkhatā). Common compassion has non-anger (adveṣa) as its nature, and can only cognize sentient beings in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), manifesting the aspect of suffering of suffering (duḥkha-duḥkhatā).

Upon what meaning is this name of great compassion established? Explaining the second and third sentences. This is a question.

It is based on five meanings, up to being able to be equal to this. The answer can be known from the text.

What is the difference between this great compassion and compassion? Up to the difference in pity. Explaining the fourth sentence: Explaining the difference between great compassion and compassion. Great compassion has non-ignorance (amoha) as its nature, while compassion has non-anger as its nature. Great compassion manifests the aspects of the three sufferings, while compassion manifests the aspect of suffering of suffering. Great compassion cognizes sentient beings in the three realms (tridhātu), while compassion cognizes sentient beings in the desire realm. Great compassion relies on the fourth dhyāna (dhyāna), while compassion is common to the other dhyānas. Great compassion relies only on the Buddha's body, while compassion is common to other bodies. Great compassion is attained by departing from the peak of existence (abhavāgra), while compassion is attained by departing from the desire realm. Great compassion is the accomplishment of things, while compassion is merely hope. Great compassion equally removes suffering for all sentient beings, while compassion is not equal, but only removes the suffering of sentient beings in the desire realm. Question: By what power is this great compassion encompassed? Answer: It is encompassed by the power of knowledge of what is and is not possible (sthānāsthāna-jñāna). Because the unshared merits of the World-Honored Buddha are mostly contained within the power of knowledge of what is and is not possible.

The great compassion of the Buddha has been distinguished.

德至諸佛有差別者。此即第五明佛同異。結問頌答。

論曰至等究竟故者。釋上兩句。由三事等。一由三無數劫福德智慧二種資糧等圓滿故。二由五分法身等成辨故。三由利他所化有情等究竟故。

由壽種姓至機宜別故者。釋下兩句。顯佛差別。或有諸佛壽年一百。或有諸佛壽二萬等　種謂種類。此據總說。姓即種中差別姓也。應知種中各有多姓。喬答摩是剎帝利中之一姓。喬中所生名喬答摩也。舊云瞿曇訛也。曾聞往昔剎帝利種被賊篡位。父死子逃。有仙人慈收其子養。意念其種不絕後嗣。后漸長大。有瞻星者白彼怨王。剎帝利種還有星玉。怨王出賞募人令捉。仙行去。后遂被捉獲。將送怨王。怨王逐令鏘身令罪。仙還所止。不見小兒。觀知所在來至其所。知不可活。遙勸小兒令起世情。冀留遺體。小兒苦惱有志不從。仙化蜜云爲其掩障。細雨沽灑暫息苦饑。現一女人以動其想。小兒緣此泄精於地。仙以牛糞承裹而歸。致甘蔗園。因日光觸糞團開割。生一男子。形容殊妙。后長為王。因以相傳為牛糞種。或名地種。或名日種　迦葉波。此云飲光。即婆羅門種中之一姓也　或有諸佛身長丈六。或有諸佛復過於此。或有諸佛般涅槃后法住千年。或有諸佛般涅槃后法住七日等。余文可知。

諸有智者至

【現代漢語翻譯】德至諸佛有差別者，此即第五明佛同異，總結提問並回答。

論曰至等究竟故者，解釋上面兩句。由於三件事相等：一、由於三無數劫福德智慧兩種資糧等同圓滿；二、由於五分法身等同成就辨別；三、由於利益他人的所化有情等同究竟。

由壽種姓至機宜別故者，解釋下面兩句，顯示佛的差別。或者有諸佛壽命一百年，或者有諸佛壽命二萬年等。種，指的是種類，這裡是總的說法。姓，就是種類中的差別姓。應當知道種類中各有多個姓。喬答摩（Gautama，釋迦牟尼的姓氏）是剎帝利（Kshatriya，印度種姓制度中的第二等級，通常是武士和統治者）中的一個姓。喬中所生的人名為喬答摩。舊譯『瞿曇』是訛誤。曾聽說往昔剎帝利種被賊人篡位，父親死了兒子逃亡，有仙人慈悲收留其子養育，心想其種不能斷絕後嗣。後來漸漸長大，有瞻星者告訴那怨恨的國王，剎帝利種還有星玉。怨王出賞金招募人去捉拿。仙人行走離去，後來（小兒）就被捉獲，將要送給怨王。怨王命令用鏘身之刑來懲罰他。仙人回到住處，不見小兒，觀察知道（小兒）所在，來到那裡，知道（小兒）不可活了，遙遠地勸小兒放下世俗之情，希望留下遺體。小兒苦惱有志向不聽從。仙人變化蜜云爲他掩蓋遮擋，細雨沾濕灑下暫時停止他的苦楚飢餓。顯現一個女人來挑動他的想法。小兒因此泄精於地。仙人用牛糞承裹而歸，放在甘蔗園中。因為日光觸碰糞團裂開，生出一個男子，形容殊妙。後來長大成為國王，因此相傳為牛糞種，或者名叫地種，或者名叫日種。迦葉波（Kashyapa，古印度仙人之一，被認為是許多人的祖先），這裡翻譯為飲光，就是婆羅門（Brahmin，印度種姓制度中的最高等級，通常是祭司和學者）種中的一個姓。或者有諸佛身長一丈六尺，或者有諸佛超過這個高度。或者有諸佛般涅槃（Parinirvana，佛教術語，指佛或阿羅漢去世）后法住世千年，或者有諸佛般涅槃后法住世七天等。其餘的文字可以知道（含義）。

諸有智者至

【English Translation】 Regarding the differences among Buddhas in virtue, this is the fifth section explaining the similarities and differences among Buddhas, concluding with a question and answer.

The treatise says, '...equal in all respects to the end,' which explains the previous two lines. They are equal in three aspects: first, they are equally perfect in the accumulation of merit and wisdom over three countless kalpas (aeons); second, they are equally accomplished in the fivefold Dharmakaya (the body of the Dharma); third, they are equally ultimate in benefiting sentient beings who are to be transformed.

The phrase '...different in lifespan, lineage, and suitability' explains the following two lines, revealing the differences among Buddhas. Some Buddhas have a lifespan of one hundred years, while others have a lifespan of twenty thousand years, and so on. 'Lineage' refers to the type or kind, which is a general term. 'Surname' refers to the specific surname within a lineage. It should be understood that each lineage contains multiple surnames. Gautama (釋迦牟尼的姓氏) is one surname within the Kshatriya (印度種姓制度中的第二等級，通常是武士和統治者) lineage. Those born within the Gautama clan are named Gautama. The old translation '瞿曇' is a mistake. It is said that in the past, the Kshatriya lineage was usurped by thieves. The father died, and the son fled. A compassionate sage took in the son and raised him, thinking that his lineage should not be cut off. Later, as he grew up, an astrologer told the vengeful king that the Kshatriya lineage still had a 'star jade.' The vengeful king offered a reward for someone to capture him. The sage left, and later (the child) was captured and was about to be sent to the vengeful king. The vengeful king ordered him to be punished with the 'qiang shen' punishment. The sage returned to his dwelling, not seeing the child. Observing, he knew where (the child) was and came there, knowing that (the child) could not live. He remotely advised the child to let go of worldly attachments, hoping to leave behind a corpse. The child was distressed and determined not to comply. The sage transformed into honey clouds to cover and shield him, and fine rain moistened and sprinkled down, temporarily stopping his suffering and hunger. He manifested a woman to stir his thoughts. The child, because of this, ejaculated onto the ground. The sage used cow dung to wrap it up and returned, placing it in a sugarcane garden. Because the sunlight touched the dung ball and it split open, a man was born, with an extraordinary appearance. Later, he grew up to become a king, and thus it was passed down as the 'cow dung lineage,' or called the 'earth lineage,' or called the 'sun lineage.' Kashyapa (古印度仙人之一，被認為是許多人的祖先), here translated as 'drinker of light,' is one surname within the Brahmin (印度種姓制度中的最高等級，通常是祭司和學者) lineage. Some Buddhas are sixteen feet tall, while others are taller than this. Some Buddhas, after Parinirvana (佛教術語，指佛或阿羅漢去世), have their Dharma remain in the world for a thousand years, while others have their Dharma remain in the world for seven days, and so on. The remaining text can be understood (in meaning).

Those with wisdom...

深生愛敬者。此下因前義便略明佛德勸人修學標名舉數。

其三者何者。問。

一因圓德至三恩圓德者。答。列三德名。

初因圓德至修無慢故者。此下別釋。此釋因圓德復有四種。如文可知。

次果圓德至逾百千日者。釋第二果圓德亦有四種。一智。二斷。三威勢。四色身　就智圓德復有四種。一無師智。由自悟故。二一切智。知諸法體。三一切種智。知諸法用別。或一切智知諸法自相。一切種智知諸法共相。或一切智證真理。一切種智達俗事。四無功用智。不作加行任運起故　二斷圓德復有四種。一一切煩惱障斷得擇滅。二一切定障不染無知斷得非擇滅。三即前二障斷已不退名畢竟斷。簡異鈍根。四不但斷煩惱並習氣亦斷。簡異二乘。惑之習氣無有別體。但習無時說名為斷。斷無別體。此中亦應別說斷根障等。言斷定障。影顯可知以類同故。或略不說。又準此中所明。斷得通於二滅。或正斷德唯是擇滅。若據兼說通非擇滅。此文斷德據正及兼。故通二滅。前明斷德。據正以論故唯擇滅。

第三威勢圓德亦有四種。一于外境或時先無。今匆化有。或時先有。變轉異本。化變住持自在威勢。二于壽量或促至八十。或劫延三月自在威勢。三于空于障于極遠中皆能速行。或偃臥空中或極障

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於那些深深地敬愛佛陀的人，以下內容是基於前面的意義，簡要地闡明佛陀的功德，勸勉人們修學，並標明名稱和列舉數量。

其三者是什麼呢？（問）

一、因圓滿的功德到三恩圓滿的功德，指的是什麼呢？（答）列舉三種功德的名稱。

最初的因圓滿的功德到修習沒有傲慢的緣故。以下分別解釋。這裡解釋因圓滿的功德，又有四種，如文中所述。

其次，果圓滿的功德到超過百千個太陽。解釋第二種果圓滿的功德，也有四種：一、智慧；二、斷除；三、威勢；四、色身。就智慧圓滿的功德來說，又有四種：一、無師智（不由老師教導而自然獲得的智慧，由自己領悟的緣故）；二、一切智（瞭解所有法的本體）；三、一切種智（瞭解所有法的用途差別，或者說一切智瞭解諸法的自相，一切種智瞭解諸法的共相，或者說一切智證悟真理，一切種智通達世俗之事）；四、無功用智（不需任何努力就能自然生起的智慧）。二、斷除圓滿的功德也有四種：一、一切煩惱障斷除，獲得擇滅（通過智慧選擇而滅除煩惱）；二、一切定障（禪定中的障礙）和不染無知斷除，獲得非擇滅（不通過選擇而自然滅除）；三、在前兩種障礙斷除后不再退轉，稱為畢竟斷（徹底斷除），區別于鈍根之人；四、不但斷除煩惱，連習氣也斷除，區別於二乘（聲聞和緣覺）。惑的習氣沒有單獨的實體，只是習慣沒有停止，說為斷除。斷除也沒有單獨的實體。這裡也應該分別說明斷除根障等。說到斷除定障，暗示可知，因為類別相同，或者省略不說。又根據這裡所說明的，斷除可以通於二滅（擇滅和非擇滅），或者正面的斷除功德只是擇滅。如果根據兼帶的說法，則通於非擇滅。此文中的斷除功德，根據正面和兼帶兩種情況，所以通於二滅。前面說明斷除功德，根據正面來論述，所以只是擇滅。

第三，威勢圓滿的功德也有四種：一、對於外境，有時先前沒有，現在忽然變化出現；有時先前有，變化轉移不同於原本，變化住持自在的威勢；二、對於壽命長短，有時縮短到八十歲，有時延長到三個月，自在的威勢；三、在空中、在障礙中、在極遠的地方，都能快速行走，或者在空中躺臥，或者在極大的障礙

【English Translation】 English version: For those who deeply love and respect the Buddha, the following is based on the previous meaning, briefly elucidating the Buddha's virtues, exhorting people to study and practice, and marking names and enumerating numbers.

What are the three? (Question)

What does 'the perfection of causal virtue to the perfection of the three kindnesses' refer to? (Answer) List the names of the three virtues.

From the initial perfection of causal virtue to 'cultivating without arrogance'. The following explains separately. This explanation of the perfection of causal virtue has four aspects, as described in the text.

Secondly, from the perfection of resultant virtue to 'exceeding hundreds of thousands of suns'. The explanation of the second perfection of resultant virtue also has four aspects: 1. Wisdom; 2. Cessation; 3. Power; 4. Form Body. Regarding the perfection of wisdom, there are four aspects: 1. Uninstructed Wisdom (wisdom gained naturally without a teacher, due to one's own enlightenment); 2. All-Knowing Wisdom (knowing the essence of all dharmas); 3. Wisdom of All Kinds (knowing the different uses of all dharmas, or All-Knowing Wisdom knows the self-nature of dharmas, Wisdom of All Kinds knows the common nature of dharmas, or All-Knowing Wisdom realizes the truth, Wisdom of All Kinds understands worldly affairs); 4. Effortless Wisdom (wisdom that arises naturally without any effort). 2. The perfection of cessation also has four aspects: 1. The cessation of all afflictive obstructions, attaining Cessation by Discrimination (cessation of afflictions through wise choice); 2. The cessation of all meditative obstructions (obstacles in meditation) and non-defiled ignorance, attaining Cessation without Discrimination (natural cessation without choice); 3. After the first two obstructions are ceased, there is no regression, called Ultimate Cessation, distinguishing it from those of dull faculties; 4. Not only are afflictions ceased, but also habitual tendencies, distinguishing it from the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas). The habitual tendencies of delusion have no separate entity, but are simply habits that have not stopped, and are said to be ceased. Cessation also has no separate entity. Here, one should also separately explain the cessation of root obstructions, etc. When speaking of the cessation of meditative obstructions, it is implied and knowable, because they are of the same category, or it is omitted. Furthermore, according to what is explained here, cessation can apply to both cessations (Cessation by Discrimination and Cessation without Discrimination), or the positive virtue of cessation is only Cessation by Discrimination. If based on the inclusive explanation, it applies to Cessation without Discrimination. The virtue of cessation in this text, according to both positive and inclusive cases, therefore applies to both cessations. The previous explanation of the virtue of cessation, according to the positive case, is only Cessation by Discrimination.

Thirdly, the perfection of power also has four aspects: 1. Regarding external objects, sometimes what was not there before suddenly appears through transformation; sometimes what was there before changes and transforms differently from the original, the power of transformation, abiding, and sustaining freely; 2. Regarding the length of life, sometimes shortened to eighty years, sometimes extended to three months, the power of freedom; 3. In the sky, in obstacles, in extremely distant places, one can travel quickly, or lie down in the sky, or in great obstacles

能度。或極遠速行。或小芥子．大妙高山展轉相入。自在威勢。四佛所至處能令世間華果等物。種種本性法爾轉變殊勝於前。希奇威勢　又威勢圓德復有四種如文可知　第四色身圓德亦有四種。一具三十二眾相。二具八十隨好。三具大力。力如前說。第四可知。

后恩圓德至善趣三乘者。於前三中后恩圓德亦有四種。謂令永解脫三惡趣為三。令永解脫善趣生死為一。故名為四　或能安置善趣為一。復能安置三乘為三。故名為四。

總說如來至如大寶山者。總說如上。別說難窮。此則顯佛三德寶山。

有諸愚夫至不能信重者。傷愚不信。

諸有智者至后必得滅者。贊智獲福。依佛引生五種果故。一得不空果。以見佛時必得果故。二得可愛果。三得殊勝果。四得速疾果。五得究竟涅槃果故。引頌可知。正理．顯宗釋佛因．果．恩德三種。又同此論。

已說如來至今當辨者。此下大文第二明共功德。就中。一總標名二別解釋　此即總標結前生起。

頌曰至亦共異生者。明佛共德。謂無諍．愿智．四無礙解．六神通．四靜慮．四無色．八等至．三三摩地　此云等至四無量．八解脫．八勝處．十遍處等。隨其所應。謂前三門唯共二乘。通．靜慮等亦共異生。正理論云。雖佛身中一切功德行

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能度。或者能夠極遠地快速行動。或者小小的芥子，能夠與巨大的妙高山（須彌山）相互進入。具有自在的威勢。四佛（指東方妙喜世界阿閦佛、南方歡喜世界寶相佛、西方極樂世界阿彌陀佛、北方勝樂世界微妙聲佛）所到達之處，能夠令世間的花果等物，種種本性自然而然地轉變，比之前更加殊勝。這是希奇的威勢。又威勢圓德還有四種，如經文可知。第四種色身圓德也有四種。一是具足三十二種大丈夫相。二是具足八十種隨形好。三是具足大力。力量如前文所說。第四種可以自己瞭解。

后恩圓德至善趣三乘者。對於前面的三種圓德，后恩圓德也有四種。一是令眾生永遠解脫三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生），這算三種。二是令眾生永遠解脫善趣（人、天）的生死輪迴，這算一種。所以總共是四種。或者說，能夠安置眾生於善趣算一種。又能安置眾生於聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘這三乘，算三種。所以總共是四種。

總說如來至如大寶山者。總的來說，如上所述。分別來說，難以窮盡。這則顯示了佛的三德（法身德、般若德、解脫德）如大寶山一般。

有諸愚夫至不能信重者。這是感嘆愚癡的人不相信佛法。

諸有智者至后必得滅者。這是讚歎有智慧的人能夠獲得福報。因為依止佛法能夠引生五種果報：一是得到不空果，因為見到佛時必定能得到果報。二是得到可愛果。三是得到殊勝果。四是得到快速果。五是得到究竟涅槃果。引用的偈頌可以說明。正理、顯宗解釋了佛的因、果、恩德這三種。又與此論相同。

已說如來至今當辨者。上面已經說了如來，現在應當辨明共同功德。其中，一是總標名稱，二是分別解釋。這即是總標，總結前文，生起下文。

頌曰至亦共異生者。說明佛的共同功德。包括無諍、愿智、四無礙解（法無礙解、義無礙解、詞無礙解、辯無礙解）、六神通（天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿命通、神足通、漏盡通）、四靜慮（初禪、二禪、三禪、四禪）、四無色定（空無邊處定、識無邊處定、無所有處定、非想非非想處定）、八等至、三三摩地（空三昧、無相三昧、無愿三昧）。這裡說的『等至』包括四無量心（慈、悲、喜、舍）、八解脫、八勝處、十遍處等。根據具體情況而定。前面的三種（無諍、愿智、四無礙解）只與二乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘）共有。神通、靜慮等也與異生（凡夫）共有。《正理論》說，雖然佛身中一切功德行

【English Translation】 English version: Able to cross over. Or extremely far and fast movement. Or a small mustard seed can enter into the great Mount Myoho (Mount Sumeru) and interact with it. Possessing自在(zìzài, self-mastery) and威勢(wēishì, majestic power). The places reached by the Four Buddhas (Akshobhya Buddha of the Eastern World of Wonderful Joy, Ratnasambhava Buddha of the Southern World of Joy, Amitabha Buddha of the Western Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss, and Subtle Sound Buddha of the Northern World of Supreme Joy) can cause the flowers, fruits, and other things in the world to naturally transform in various ways, becoming even more extraordinary than before. This is wondrous威勢(wēishì, majestic power). Furthermore, there are four types of complete virtues of威勢(wēishì, majestic power), as can be understood from the text. The fourth type, the complete virtue of the physical body, also has four aspects: First, possessing the thirty-two major marks of a great man. Second, possessing the eighty minor marks. Third, possessing great strength. The strength is as described earlier. The fourth can be understood on one's own.

Regarding the 后恩圓德(hòu ēn yuán dé, complete virtue of subsequent grace) leading to the three vehicles of good destinies: Among the previous three complete virtues, the 后恩圓德(hòu ēn yuán dé, complete virtue of subsequent grace) also has four aspects. One is to liberate beings forever from the three evil destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals), which counts as three. The second is to liberate beings forever from the cycle of birth and death in the good destinies (humans, gods), which counts as one. Therefore, there are four in total. Alternatively, being able to place beings in good destinies counts as one. And being able to place beings in the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) counts as three. Therefore, there are four in total.

The general explanation of the Tathagata up to 'like a great treasure mountain': Generally speaking, as described above. Specifically speaking, it is difficult to exhaust. This reveals that the Buddha's three virtues (Dharmakāya, Prajñā, and Liberation) are like a great treasure mountain.

Those foolish people who do not believe and respect: This laments the foolish who do not believe in the Dharma.

Those wise people who will surely attain extinction later: This praises the wise who can obtain blessings. Because relying on the Buddha's teachings can lead to five kinds of results: First, obtaining the non-empty result, because seeing the Buddha will surely lead to results. Second, obtaining the lovable result. Third, obtaining the extraordinary result. Fourth, obtaining the swift result. Fifth, obtaining the ultimate Nirvana result. The cited verses can explain this. The Nyaya and Abhidharmakośa explain the Buddha's three aspects of cause, effect, and grace. And it is the same as this treatise.

Having spoken of the Tathagata, now we should discuss: Above, the Tathagata has been discussed, and now we should clarify the common merits. Among them, first, a general statement of the names; second, a separate explanation. This is the general statement, summarizing the previous text and giving rise to the following text.

The verse says, 'Also shared with ordinary beings': Explaining the Buddha's common merits, including non-contention, wisdom of vows, the four unimpeded knowledges (法無礙解(fǎ wú ài jiě, unobstructed knowledge of the Dharma), 義無礙解(yì wú ài jiě, unobstructed knowledge of the meaning), 詞無礙解(cí wú ài jiě, unobstructed knowledge of the words), 辯無礙解(biàn wú ài jiě, unobstructed knowledge of eloquence)), the six supernormal powers (天眼通(tiānyǎn tōng, divine eye), 天耳通(tiāntīng tōng, divine ear), 他心通(tāxīn tōng, knowing others' minds), 宿命通(sùmìng tōng, knowing past lives), 神足通(shénzú tōng, divine feet), 漏盡通(lòujìn tōng, extinction of outflows)), the four dhyanas (初禪(chū chán, first dhyana), 二禪(èr chán, second dhyana), 三禪(sān chán, third dhyana), 四禪(sì chán, fourth dhyana)), the four formless absorptions (空無邊處定(kōng wúbiān chù dìng, sphere of infinite space), 識無邊處定(shí wúbiān chù dìng, sphere of infinite consciousness), 無所有處定(wú suǒyǒu chù dìng, sphere of nothingness), 非想非非想處定(fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chù dìng, sphere of neither perception nor non-perception)), the eight attainments, and the three samadhis (空三昧(kōng sānmèi, emptiness samadhi), 無相三昧(wúxiàng sānmèi, signlessness samadhi), 無愿三昧(wúyuàn sānmèi, wishlessness samadhi)). The 'attainments' here include the four immeasurables (慈(cí, loving-kindness), 悲(bēi, compassion), 喜(xǐ, joy), 舍(shě, equanimity)), the eight liberations, the eight victories, the ten pervasive spheres, and so on. Depending on the specific situation. The previous three (non-contention, wisdom of vows, and the four unimpeded knowledges) are only shared with the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). The supernormal powers, dhyanas, etc., are also shared with ordinary beings. The Abhidharmakośa states that although all the virtuous practices in the Buddha's body

相清凈殊勝自在。與聲聞等功德有殊。然依類同說名為共。

前三門中至欲界有事惑者。此下第二別解。就中。一明共聖德。二明共凡德　就明共聖德中。一明無諍行。二明修愿智。三明無礙解。四依邊定得　此即第一明無諍行。

論曰至俗智為性者。釋第一句。釋名出體。故正理云。然一切諍總有三種。蘊．言．煩惱有差別故。蘊諍謂死。言諍謂鬥。煩惱諍謂百八煩惱。由此俗智力能。止息煩惱諍故。得無諍名。

第四靜慮至他身煩惱者。釋第二句。第四靜慮為其所依。四樂通行中最為勝故。不動簡前五種姓。應果簡有學。第六種姓不動應果能起。非餘五種姓及有學人能起。余尚不能自防起惑。況能止息他身煩惱。

此唯依止至總緣境故者。釋下兩句。此唯依止三洲人身。性猛利故非依余處。謂緣欲界未來有事修斷煩惱。勿他煩惱緣已生故。諸見所斷無事煩惱。不可遮防。迷諦理生。內起隨應總緣境故。

辨無諍已至為所緣故者。此即第二明愿智。釋名可知。此愿智自性是世俗智。地是第四定。種姓是不動。身是三洲人身。與無諍同。但所緣別。以能遍緣三界．三世一切法故。

毗婆沙者至如田夫類者。毗婆沙者有作是言。愿智不能證知無色。觀彼將入無色因行寂靜相別。即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：相清凈殊勝自在，與聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的修行者）等功德有所不同。然而，依據類別相同，可以共同稱說為『共』。

在前三個門中，針對欲界有事惑（Kāmadhātu，指欲界中與具體事物相關的迷惑）的討論，以下是第二部分，分別解釋。其中，第一部分闡明共同的聖者功德，第二部分闡明共同的凡夫功德。在闡明共同的聖者功德中，第一部分闡明無諍行（Araṇā-vihāra，不爭論的行為），第二部分闡明修愿智（Praṇidhijñāna，通過發願而獲得的智慧），第三部分闡明無礙解（Pratisaṃvidā，四種無礙的智慧），第四部分闡明依靠邊定（Śamatha-vipassanā，止觀禪定）而獲得。

這裡是第一部分，闡明無諍行。

論曰：乃至俗智為自性。解釋第一句，解釋名稱並說明其體性。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）中說：『然而，一切爭論總共有三種，即蘊諍（Skandha-vivāda，關於五蘊的爭論）、言諍（Vacī-vivāda，言語上的爭論）和煩惱諍（Kleśa-vivāda，煩惱引起的爭論），因為它們有差別。』蘊諍是指死亡，言諍是指爭鬥，煩惱諍是指一百零八種煩惱。因此，憑藉俗智（Saṃvṛti-jñāna，世俗諦的智慧）的力量，能夠止息煩惱諍，所以得到『無諍』的名稱。

第四靜慮乃至他身煩惱。解釋第二句，第四靜慮（Caturtha-dhyāna，第四禪定）是無諍行的所依，因為在四樂通行（Sukha-vihāra，四種安樂的修行方式）中，第四靜慮最為殊勝。『不動』是爲了區別前面的五種姓（Gotra，五種根性），『應果』是爲了區別有學（Śaikṣa，還在學習的修行者）。第六種姓（指不動種姓）的不動應果（指已經證得阿羅漢果位，且不會退轉者）能夠生起無諍行，而其餘五種姓以及有學之人不能生起。其餘的人尚且不能防止自己生起迷惑，更何況能夠止息他人身上的煩惱。

此唯依止乃至總緣境故。解釋下面兩句，無諍行唯獨依靠南贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，我們所居住的洲）的人身，因為這裡的人的根性猛利，而不是依靠其他地方。無諍行是針對欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界）未來有事修斷的煩惱（Bhava-āgra，有頂天）而修習的，以免他人的煩惱已經產生。諸見所斷的無事煩惱（指通過見道斷除的，與具體事物無關的煩惱），是不可遮防的，因為它們是迷惑真諦而產生的，從內心生起，並且相應地總緣一切境界。

辨別了無諍行之後，乃至為所緣故。這裡是第二部分，闡明愿智。解釋名稱可知，愿智的自性是世俗智，地是第四禪定，種姓是不動種姓，身是南贍部洲的人身，與無諍行相同。但所緣不同，因為它能夠普遍地緣三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）、三世（Tryadhvan，過去、現在、未來）的一切法。

《毗婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）中說，乃至如同田夫一樣。有些《毗婆沙》的作者這樣說，愿智不能證知無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界），但可以觀察到將要進入無色界的因行（Hetu-phala，因和果）的寂靜相，就像田夫...

【English Translation】 English version: The aspect is pure, supremely free and unconstrained, differing in merit from Śrāvakas (listeners who attain enlightenment through the Buddha's teachings) and others. However, based on their shared category, they are collectively referred to as 'common'.

In the first three sections, concerning afflictions related to tangible matters in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), the following is the second part, explaining them separately. Among these, the first part elucidates the common virtues of the noble ones, and the second part elucidates the common virtues of ordinary beings. Within the elucidation of the common virtues of the noble ones, the first part elucidates Araṇā-vihāra (the practice of non-contention), the second part elucidates Praṇidhijñāna (wisdom attained through vows), the third part elucidates Pratisaṃvidā (the four kinds of unimpeded wisdom), and the fourth part elucidates attainment through Śamatha-vipassanā (calm abiding and insight meditation).

This is the first part, elucidating Araṇā-vihāra.

The treatise says: 'Up to mundane wisdom as its nature.' This explains the first sentence, explaining the name and revealing its essence. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principles) states: 'However, all contentions are generally of three types: Skandha-vivāda (contention regarding the five aggregates), Vacī-vivāda (verbal contention), and Kleśa-vivāda (contention arising from afflictions), because they have differences.' Skandha-vivāda refers to death, Vacī-vivāda refers to fighting, and Kleśa-vivāda refers to the one hundred and eight afflictions. Therefore, by the power of Saṃvṛti-jñāna (conventional wisdom), one can cease Kleśa-vivāda, hence obtaining the name 'non-contention'.

'The fourth Dhyāna up to the afflictions of others.' This explains the second sentence. The Caturtha-dhyāna (fourth meditation) is the basis for Araṇā-vihāra, because it is the most supreme among the Sukha-vihāras (four pleasant abidings). 'Immovable' distinguishes it from the preceding five Gotras (lineages), and 'deserving of the fruit' distinguishes it from the Śaikṣas (those still in training). The immovable deserving of the fruit of the sixth Gotra (referring to the immovable lineage) can generate Araṇā-vihāra, while the other five Gotras and the Śaikṣas cannot. The others are not even able to prevent themselves from arising afflictions, let alone cease the afflictions of others.

'This relies solely up to because it universally cognizes objects.' This explains the following two sentences. Araṇā-vihāra relies solely on the human body of Jambudvīpa (the continent we inhabit), because the nature of the people here is sharp, and not on other places. Araṇā-vihāra is practiced against the afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation related to tangible matters in the future of the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), so as not to allow the afflictions of others to arise. The afflictions to be abandoned through views that are intangible (referring to afflictions abandoned through the path of seeing) cannot be prevented, because they arise from delusion about the true principle, arise from within, and universally cognize all objects accordingly.

Having distinguished Araṇā-vihāra, up to 'because it is the object of cognition.' This is the second part, elucidating Praṇidhijñāna. The explanation of the name is self-explanatory. The nature of Praṇidhijñāna is mundane wisdom, the ground is the fourth Dhyāna, the lineage is the immovable lineage, and the body is the human body of Jambudvīpa, the same as Araṇā-vihāra. But the object of cognition is different, because it can universally cognize all dharmas of the Trailokya (three realms: desire, form, and formless realms) and the Tryadhvan (three times: past, present, and future).

The Vibhāṣā (Buddhist treatise) says, up to 'like a farmer.' Some authors of the Vibhāṣā say that Praṇidhijñāna cannot cognize the Arūpadhātu (formless realm), but it can observe the tranquil aspect of the causal actions (Hetu-phala, cause and effect) of those about to enter the Arūpadhātu, just like a farmer...

能比知無色界果。觀彼初出無色界心。等流果別猶寂靜故。與彼無色心相似名為等流。即能比知前無色因。如田夫類見芽知種。見種知芽。此非正義。應作是說。證知無色。故婆沙一百七十九云。問云何愿智知無色界。有說由觀等流及行差別。如觀行路之人知所從至。有說若爾愿智應是比量智非現量智。應作是說。此愿智不觀因而知果。不觀果而知因。故此智是現量智非比量智　又婆沙云。問宿住隨念智。與緣過去愿智何差別。複次宿住隨念智。知有漏五蘊。此愿智知有漏．無漏諸蘊。複次宿住隨念智。知欲．色界五蘊。此愿智知三界及不繫諸蘊。複次。宿住隨念智。知諸蘊共相。此愿智知諸蘊自相及共相　又云。問他心智與緣現在愿智何差別。複次。他心智緣一物為境。此愿智緣一物或多物為境。複次。他心智緣自相境。此愿智緣自．共相境。複次。他心智緣他相續。此愿智緣自．他相續。複次。他心智緣心．心所法。此愿智緣五蘊　又云。問云何愿智慧知未來。有說以過去．現在比知。如田夫下種已比知有如是果生。彼亦如是。有說。若爾愿智應是比量智非現量智。應作是說。此愿智不待觀因而能知果。是故此智是現量智非比量智。

諸有欲起至皆如實知者。此明加行。將起愿智先發誠愿求知彼境。順逆出

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能通過比對得知沒有果（Rūpa，色）。觀察那最初生起的沒有心。因為等流果的差別仍然寂靜的緣故。與那無色心相似，稱作等流。就能通過比對得知先前的無色因。如同農夫看見幼苗就知道種子，看見種子就知道幼苗。這並非正確的解釋。應當這樣說：證知無色。所以《婆沙論》第一百七十九卷說：『問：愿智如何得知沒有？』有人說：『通過觀察等流和行為的差別。如同觀察行走道路的人，知道他從哪裡來，要到哪裡去。』有人說：『如果這樣，愿智應該是比量智，而不是現量智。』應當這樣說：這愿智不觀察因而知果，不觀察果而知因。所以這智慧是現量智，不是比量智。』又《婆沙論》說：『問：宿住隨念智（Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，回憶過去生智）與緣過去愿智有什麼差別？』回答：宿住隨念智，知道有漏的五蘊（Pañca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）。這愿智知道有漏、無漏的諸蘊。宿住隨念智，知道欲界、界的五蘊。這愿智知道三界及不繫（不屬於任何一界）的諸蘊。宿住隨念智，知道諸蘊的共相。這愿智知道諸蘊的自相及共相。又說：『問：他心智（Para-citta-jñāna，知他人心智）與緣現在愿智有什麼差別？』回答：他心智以一物為境界。這愿智以一物或多物為境界。他心智緣自相境。這愿智緣自相、共相境。他心智緣他人相續。這愿智緣自己、他人相續。他心智緣心、心所法。這愿智緣五蘊。又說：『問：愿智如何能知未來？』有人說：『以過去、現在比對來得知。如同農夫播下種子后，比對得知會有這樣的果實產生。愿智也是這樣。』有人說：『如果這樣，愿智應該是比量智，而不是現量智。』應當這樣說：這愿智不等待觀察因就能知道果，所以這智慧是現量智，不是比量智。對於那些想要生起（某種狀態）直至完全如實知曉的人，這說明了加行（Prayoga，修行）。將要生起愿智之前，先發出誠懇的願望，求知那個境界，順著或逆著（觀察）。

【English Translation】 English version: It can be known by comparison that there is no Rūpa (form) fruit. Observe that initially arising mind without Rūpa. Because the difference in the equiflow fruit is still quiescent. Similar to that formless mind, it is called equiflow. Thus, it can be known by comparison that the preceding cause was formless. Just as a farmer sees a sprout and knows the seed, and sees the seed and knows the sprout. This is not the correct explanation. It should be said: to know formlessness. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) volume one hundred and seventy-nine says: 'Question: How does the Knowledge of Wishes know the absence of Rūpa?' Some say: 'By observing the equiflow and the differences in actions. Just as observing a person walking a road, one knows where they came from and where they are going.' Some say: 'If that is so, the Knowledge of Wishes should be inferential knowledge, not direct knowledge.' It should be said: This Knowledge of Wishes knows the fruit without observing the cause, and knows the cause without observing the fruit. Therefore, this wisdom is direct knowledge, not inferential knowledge.' Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: What is the difference between the Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna (Knowledge of Recollecting Past Lives) and the Knowledge of Wishes that focuses on the past?' Answer: The Knowledge of Recollecting Past Lives knows the contaminated five Skandhas (aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). This Knowledge of Wishes knows the contaminated and uncontaminated Skandhas. The Knowledge of Recollecting Past Lives knows the five Skandhas of the Desire Realm and the **Realm. This Knowledge of Wishes knows the three realms and the unconditioned (not belonging to any realm) Skandhas. The Knowledge of Recollecting Past Lives knows the common characteristics of the Skandhas. This Knowledge of Wishes knows the individual and common characteristics of the Skandhas.' It also says: 'Question: What is the difference between the Para-citta-jñāna (Knowledge of Others' Minds) and the Knowledge of Wishes that focuses on the present?' Answer: The Knowledge of Others' Minds takes one object as its scope. This Knowledge of Wishes takes one or many objects as its scope. The Knowledge of Others' Minds focuses on the object of self-characteristics. This Knowledge of Wishes focuses on the object of self and common characteristics. The Knowledge of Others' Minds focuses on the continuum of others. This Knowledge of Wishes focuses on the continuum of oneself and others. The Knowledge of Others' Minds focuses on mental and mental factors. This Knowledge of Wishes focuses on the five Skandhas.' It also says: 'Question: How can the Knowledge of Wishes know the future?' Some say: 'By comparing the past and present to know. Just as a farmer, after sowing seeds, compares and knows that such a fruit will be produced. It is also like that.' Some say: 'If that is so, the Knowledge of Wishes should be inferential knowledge, not direct knowledge.' It should be said: This Knowledge of Wishes does not wait to observe the cause to know the fruit. Therefore, this wisdom is direct knowledge, not inferential knowledge.' For those who desire to arise (a certain state) until they fully and truly know, this explains the Prayoga (application). Before the Knowledge of Wishes is about to arise, first make a sincere wish, seeking to know that realm, observing in a forward or reverse (manner).

入八有心定。乃至后時便入邊際第四靜慮以為加行。從此定無間隨前所入邊際定勢力勝劣。如先願力引正智起。此名愿智。于所求境皆如實知。

已辨愿智至余如無諍說者。此即第三明四無礙解。

論曰至兼顯所緣者。此釋初頌。于境領悟決斷無礙名無礙解。是利根故名無退智。謂無退智緣能詮法名．句．文．身立為第一。正理七十六云。趣所詮義說之為名。即是表召法自性義。辨所詮義說之為句。即是辨了法差別義。不待義聲獨能為覺生所依託說之為文。即是迦．遮．吒．多．波等。理應有覺不待義聲。此覺不應無所緣境。此所緣境說之為文。文謂不能親目于義。但與名．句為詮義依。此三能持諸所詮義。及軌生解故名為法。即三自性說之為身。自性．體．身名差別故。三與聲義極相鄰雜。為境生覺。別相難知。故說身言顯有別體(已上論文)　除名．句．文緣所詮義。立為第二義無礙解　緣諸方域種種言詞。立為第三詞無礙解　緣應正理無滯礙說。此無滯說名之為辨。及緣自在任運現前定．慧二道。由有道故善應物機能無滯說。道是辨因亦名為辨。立為第四辨無礙解。故正理云。若無退智緣應正理無滯礙說。及緣自在定．慧二道立為第四。即于文．義能正宣揚無滯言詞說名為辨。及諸所有已得功德。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：進入具有八種心的禪定。乃至之後進入邊際第四禪定作為加行。從此禪定無間隙地，根據之前所入邊際禪定的力量強弱，如同先前的願力引導，生起正智。這被稱為愿智（pranidhana-jnana，通過願力獲得的智慧）。對於所尋求的境界，都能如實地瞭解。

已經辨明愿智，至於其餘的，如同在《無諍論》中所說。這即是第三種，闡明四無礙解（catasrah-pratisamvidah，四種無礙的智慧）。

論曰：乃至兼顯所緣者。這是解釋第一頌。對於境界的領悟和決斷沒有障礙，稱為無礙解。因為是利根，所以稱為無退智。所謂無退智緣于能詮釋的法，名（nama，名稱）、句（pada，句子）、文（vyanjana，詞語）、身（kaya，集合），立為第一。正理七十六說：『趣向所詮釋的意義，稱之為名。』即是表示法自身性質的意義。『辨別所詮釋的意義，稱之為句。』即是辨別了法的差別意義。『不依賴意義的聲音，獨自能夠作為覺知的生起所依託，稱之為文。』即是迦（ka）、遮（ca）、吒（ta）、多（ta）、波（pa）等。理應有覺知不依賴意義的聲音。此覺知不應沒有所緣的境界。此所緣的境界稱之為文。文是指不能直接看到意義，但是與名、句一起作為詮釋意義的依據。這三者能夠保持諸所詮釋的意義，以及引導生起理解，所以稱為法。即三者的自性稱之為身。自性、體、身，名稱有差別。三者與聲音和意義極其相鄰近和混雜，作為境界生起覺知，別相難以知曉。所以說身，是爲了顯示有別的自體（以上是論文）。

除去名、句、文，緣于所詮釋的意義，立為第二義無礙解（artha-pratisamvida，對意義無礙的智慧）。緣于諸方域的種種言詞，立為第三詞無礙解（nirukti-pratisamvida，對語言無礙的智慧）。緣于應合正理沒有滯礙的說法。此無滯礙的說法稱之為辨。以及緣于自在任運現前的定（samadhi，禪定）、慧（prajna，智慧）二道。由於有道，所以能夠很好地適應事物，機能沒有滯礙地說。道是辨的原因，也稱之為辨。立為第四辨無礙解（pratibhana-pratisamvida，對辯才無礙的智慧）。所以《正理》說：『若無退智緣于應合正理沒有滯礙的說法，以及緣于自在的定、慧二道，立為第四。』即對於文、義能夠正確宣揚沒有滯礙的言詞，稱之為辨。以及諸所有已經獲得的功德。

【English Translation】 English version: Entering into the concentration with eight minds. And even later, entering the fourth dhyana (caturtha-dhyana, fourth level of meditative absorption) at the boundary as an application. From this concentration, without interruption, according to the strength or weakness of the previously entered boundary concentration, just as the previous power of aspiration guides, correct wisdom arises. This is called pranidhana-jnana (wisdom arising from aspiration). For the sought-after realms, one knows them as they truly are.

Having distinguished pranidhana-jnana, as for the rest, as it is said in the Niruttara-tantra. This is the third, clarifying the four pratisamvida (four kinds of unobstructed knowledge).

The treatise says: 'Up to and including revealing the object.' This explains the first verse. Understanding and deciding on objects without obstruction is called pratisamvida. Because it is sharp-witted, it is called non-regressing wisdom. That is, non-regressing wisdom is related to the expressive dharma, nama (name), pada (sentence), vyanjana (word), and kaya (collection), which are established as the first. The seventy-sixth verse of the Nyaya-sutra says: 'Directing towards the meaning to be expressed is called nama.' That is, it expresses the meaning of the nature of the dharma itself. 'Distinguishing the meaning to be expressed is called pada.' That is, it distinguishes the different meanings of the dharma. 'Not relying on the sound of meaning, but being able to independently serve as the basis for the arising of awareness is called vyanjana.' That is, ka, ca, ta, ta, pa, etc. It is reasonable to have awareness that does not rely on the sound of meaning. This awareness should not be without an object. This object is called vyanjana. Vyanjana refers to not being able to directly see the meaning, but together with nama and pada, it serves as the basis for expressing meaning. These three can maintain all the meanings to be expressed, and guide the arising of understanding, so they are called dharma. That is, the nature of the three is called kaya. Nature, essence, and kaya have different names. The three are extremely close and mixed with sound and meaning, and as an object, they give rise to awareness, and their distinct characteristics are difficult to know. Therefore, kaya is said to show that there is a separate self-nature (the above is the treatise).

Apart from nama, pada, and vyanjana, relating to the meaning to be expressed, the second artha-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of meaning) is established. Relating to various languages of all regions, the third nirukti-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of language) is established. Relating to saying that accords with correct reasoning without obstruction. This unobstructed saying is called pratibhana. And relating to the samadhi (concentration) and prajna (wisdom) of the present moment that are freely and spontaneously present. Because there is the path, one can adapt well to things, and the function is said to be unobstructed. The path is the cause of pratibhana, and is also called pratibhana. The fourth pratibhana-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of eloquence) is established. Therefore, the Nyaya-sutra says: 'If non-regressing wisdom relates to saying that accords with correct reasoning without obstruction, and relates to the samadhi and prajna of the present moment that are freely present, the fourth is established.' That is, being able to correctly proclaim words without obstruction regarding vyanjana and artha is called pratibhana. And all the merits that have already been obtained.

不由加行任運現前自在功能亦名為辨。此能起辨立以辨名。了辨及因智名辨無礙解。

廣如彼釋。此則總說無礙解體。兼顯所緣。

于中法詞至無尋伺故者。釋第五．第六句。四中法．詞二無礙解唯俗智攝。非無漏智緣名身等及世言詞事境界故。此即出體　言依地者。法無礙解通依五地。謂依欲界．四本靜慮。以于上地無名等故。彼不別緣下名等故。又婆沙一百八十云。地者法無礙解。有說在二地。謂欲界．初靜慮。有說在五地。謂欲界．四靜慮。有說在七地。謂欲界．未至．靜慮中間。及四靜慮　然無評家。解云初說據名隨語系故。說法無礙解但依二地。后二說據名隨身繫。說法無礙解通依上地。以緣法難要依自地緣自地法。此論．正理．顯宗。並同婆沙第二說以五地為正。詞無礙解唯依二地。謂依欲界．初本靜慮。以于上地無尋．伺故定無言詞。以緣詞難唯自地故。

義無礙解至皆得起故者。釋第七．第八句。義無礙解或十智攝。或六智攝。謂若諸法皆名為義。義無礙解則十智攝。婆沙有說八智為性除盡．無生。以無礙解是見性故。若唯涅槃名為義者。義無礙解則六智攝。謂俗．法．類．滅．盡．無生。婆沙有說四智為性除盡．無生。以無礙解是見性故。辨無礙解九智所攝。謂唯除滅。以緣言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不由加行，任運現前自在的功能，也叫做辨（pratibhāna，頓悟）。這種能力能夠發起辨別，因此用『辨』來命名。了辨（pratibhāna，頓悟）以及因智（hetu-jñāna，因明智慧）被稱為辨無礙解（pratibhāna-pratisamvit，頓悟無礙解）。

詳細內容見相關解釋。這裡總括地說明了無礙解的體性，同時也顯示了所緣境。

關於『于中法詞至無尋伺故』，解釋了第五、第六句。四種無礙解中的法無礙解（dharma-pratisamvit，法無礙解）和詞無礙解（nirukti-pratisamvit，詞無礙解）僅由俗智（samvriti-jñāna，世俗智）所攝。因為它們並非無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna，無漏智），所緣的是名身等以及世間的言詞事物境界。這裡指出了它們的體性。關於『言依地者』，法無礙解通於五地，即欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）、四本靜慮（catasro dhyāna，四禪定）。因為在上地沒有名等，而且它們不特別緣下地的名等。此外，《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百八十卷說，『地』是指法無礙解。有人說它在二地，即欲界和初靜慮（prathama-dhyāna，初禪）。有人說它在五地，即欲界和四靜慮。有人說它在七地，即欲界、未至定（anāgamya，未至定）、靜慮中間定（dhyānāntara，禪定中間）以及四靜慮。然而沒有評家。解釋說，最初的說法是根據名隨語系。說法無礙解（dharma-pratisamvit，法無礙解）只依二地。后兩種說法是根據名隨身繫。說法無礙解通於上地。因為緣法很難，必須要依自地緣自地的法。此論、《正理》（Nyāya-anusāra-śāstra，順正理論）、《顯宗》（Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā，阿毗達磨集論）都與《婆沙論》的第二種說法相同，以五地為正確。詞無礙解只依二地，即欲界和初本靜慮。因為在上地沒有尋（vitarka，尋）和伺（vicāra，伺），肯定沒有言詞。因為緣詞很難，只能緣自地的詞。

關於『義無礙解至皆得起故』，解釋了第七、第八句。義無礙解（artha-pratisamvit，義無礙解）或者由十智所攝，或者由六智所攝。如果所有法都稱為義，那麼義無礙解則由十智所攝。《婆沙論》有人說以八智為體性，除了盡智（kṣaya-jñāna，盡智）和無生智（anutpāda-jñāna，無生智）。因為無礙解是見性。如果只有涅槃（nirvāṇa，涅槃）稱為義，那麼義無礙解則由六智所攝，即俗智、法智（dharma-jñāna，法智）、類智（anvaya-jñāna，類智）、滅智（nirodha-jñāna，滅智）、盡智和無生智。《婆沙論》有人說以四智為體性，除了盡智和無生智。因為無礙解是見性。辨無礙解由九智所攝，即除了滅智。因為緣言

【English Translation】 English version: The function of spontaneously manifesting unobstructed and unconditioned freedom, without additional effort, is also called Pratibhāna (頓悟, intuitive understanding). This ability can initiate discernment, hence the name 'Discernment'. Pratibhāna (頓悟, intuitive understanding) and Hetu-jñāna (因明智慧, the wisdom of reasoning) are called Pratibhāna-pratisamvit (頓悟無礙解, unobstructed intuitive understanding).

See the relevant explanations for details. This provides a general description of the nature of unobstructed understanding and also reveals the object of focus.

Regarding 'Among these, from Dharma and Word to because there is no coarse thought', it explains the fifth and sixth sentences. Among the four unobstructed understandings, Dharma-pratisamvit (法無礙解, unobstructed understanding of Dharma) and Nirukti-pratisamvit (詞無礙解, unobstructed understanding of language) are only included in Samvriti-jñāna (世俗智, conventional wisdom). This is because they are not Anāsrava-jñāna (無漏智, wisdom free from outflows), and their objects of focus are name-bodies, worldly language, and the realm of things. This points out their nature. Regarding 'Words depend on the ground', Dharma-pratisamvit extends to the five grounds, namely Kāmadhātu (慾望界, the desire realm), and the four basic Dhyānas (四禪定, meditative absorptions). This is because there are no names, etc., in the higher grounds, and they do not specifically focus on the names, etc., of the lower grounds. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (《婆沙論》) in its 180th fascicle says, 'Ground' refers to Dharma-pratisamvit. Some say it is in two grounds, namely the desire realm and the first Dhyāna (prathama-dhyāna, 初禪, first meditative absorption). Some say it is in five grounds, namely the desire realm and the four Dhyānas. Some say it is in seven grounds, namely the desire realm, Anāgamya (未至定, the state of nearness to absorption), Dhyānāntara (禪定中間, the intermediate state of absorption), and the four Dhyānas. However, there are no commentators. The explanation is that the initial statement is based on names following the linguistic system. Dharma-pratisamvit only depends on two grounds. The latter two statements are based on names following the physical system. Dharma-pratisamvit extends to the higher grounds. Because it is difficult to focus on Dharma, it is necessary to rely on one's own ground to focus on the Dharma of one's own ground. This treatise, the Nyāya-anusāra-śāstra (《正理》, Following the Path of Reasoning), and the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā (《顯宗》, Explanation of the Compendium of Abhidharma) all agree with the second statement of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, considering the five grounds to be correct. Nirukti-pratisamvit only depends on two grounds, namely the desire realm and the first basic Dhyāna. Because there is no Vitarka (尋, coarse thought) and Vicāra (伺, subtle thought) in the higher grounds, there are definitely no words. Because it is difficult to focus on words, one can only focus on the words of one's own ground.

Regarding 'Artha-pratisamvit to because all can arise', it explains the seventh and eighth sentences. Artha-pratisamvit (義無礙解, unobstructed understanding of meaning) is either included in the ten wisdoms or in the six wisdoms. If all Dharmas are called meaning, then Artha-pratisamvit is included in the ten wisdoms. Some in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra say that it is characterized by eight wisdoms, excluding Kṣaya-jñāna (盡智, wisdom of exhaustion) and Anutpāda-jñāna (無生智, wisdom of non-arising). This is because unobstructed understanding is of the nature of seeing. If only Nirvāṇa (涅槃, Nirvana) is called meaning, then Artha-pratisamvit is included in the six wisdoms, namely conventional wisdom, Dharma-jñāna (法智, wisdom of Dharma), Anvaya-jñāna (類智, wisdom of analogy), Nirodha-jñāna (滅智, wisdom of cessation), Kṣaya-jñāna, and Anutpāda-jñāna. Some in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra say that it is characterized by four wisdoms, excluding Kṣaya-jñāna and Anutpāda-jñāna. This is because unobstructed understanding is of the nature of seeing. Pratibhāna-pratisamvit is included in the nine wisdoms, namely excluding Nirodha-jñāna. Because it focuses on words

說．定．慧．道故。婆沙有說七智。除盡．無生。以無礙解是見性故。此即出體　言依地者。此二通依一切地起。謂依欲界乃至有頂。言說唯在欲初定中。辨無礙解如何通九。辨無礙解于說及道。許隨緣一皆得起故。故通九地。

施設足論至四種次第者。述施設論。釋此四言。緣名．句．文無退轉智立法無礙解。緣此名等所詮諸義無退轉智立義無礙解。緣即此義一言．二言．多言．男聲言．女聲言．非男非女聲言等別。無退轉智。立詞無礙解。緣此言詞無滯礙說。及說所依定．慧二道。以有此道方能說故。無退轉智立辨無礙解。先起能詮次方取義。既取義已方乃有言說無滯礙。由此先．后顯四次第。

有餘師說至無滯礙者。敘異說。詞．辨同言故相對明。法．義差別故不對顯。

傳說此四至無礙解故者。此明加行。毗婆沙師有傳說。此四無礙解生如次。串習算計名．句．文身為法無礙解加行。串習佛語解諸法義為義無礙解加行。串習聲明論言詞為詞無礙解加行。串習因明論宗．因．喻等立破道理為辨無礙解加行。若於四處未得善巧。必不能生無礙解故。此非正義。

理實一切至能為加行者。論主述正義。理實一切無礙解生。唯學佛語能為加行。以佛語中具明法．義．詞．辨四故。故婆沙一百

八十評家云。如是說者。四無礙解皆以習佛語為加行。如於一伽陀中應如是說彼名習如是說名。是法無礙解加行。應如是解彼義習如是解義。是義無礙解加行。應如是訓彼詞習如是訓詞。是詞無礙解加行。應如是無滯說。習如是無滯說。是辨無礙解加行。是故四無礙解皆以習佛語為加行。

如是四種至可名為得者。釋第九句。顯得必具。以得第四邊際定時。四無礙解起自在故。名具得四。故下文言。詞無礙解雖依彼得。而體非彼靜慮所收。又正理云。有餘師言。有不具得。無理得一。必令得四。

此四所緣至如無諍說者。釋第十句。此顯同．異。此四無礙所緣．自性．依地三種。與前無諍差別如是。種姓．依身如無諍說。謂不動種姓依三洲人身。又婆沙一百八十云。世者皆墮三世。法．辨二無礙解緣三世。詞無礙解過去緣過去。現在緣現在。未來生者緣未來。不生緣三世。有說法與詞同。有說法．詞．辨三無礙解。過去．現在緣過去。未來緣三世。義無礙解或有欲令唯緣離世。或有欲令緣三世及離世。然無評家。

如是所說至佛余加行得者。此即第四明依邊際定得。

論曰至邊際定得者。釋初句。此明六種依邊際得。邊際力所引發故。

邊際靜慮至靜慮所收者。釋第二句邊際六。總而

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：八十評家這樣說：『像這樣說』，四無礙解（catu-pratisamvida，四種無礙的智慧）都以學習佛語作為預備修行。例如，在一個偈頌中，應該這樣說，稱它為『像這樣說名』，這就是法無礙解（dharma-pratisamvida，對佛法的無礙智慧）的預備修行。應該這樣解釋它的意義，稱它為『像這樣解釋義』，這就是義無礙解（artha-pratisamvida，對意義的無礙智慧）的預備修行。應該這樣訓釋它的詞語，稱它為『像這樣訓詞』，這就是詞無礙解（nirukti-pratisamvida，對語言的無礙智慧）的預備修行。應該這樣無滯礙地說，稱它為『像這樣無滯說』，這就是辨無礙解（pratibhana-pratisamvida，對辯才的無礙智慧）的預備修行。因此，四無礙解都以學習佛語作為預備修行。像這樣四種達到可以稱為『獲得』的程度，這是解釋第九句，顯示必須具備。因為在獲得第四禪定的邊際定時，四無礙解生起而自在，所以稱為具備獲得四種無礙解。因此，下文說，詞無礙解雖然依靠它獲得，但其本體並非彼靜慮（dhyana，禪定）所包含。又，《正理》中說，有其他老師說，有不完全獲得，沒有隻獲得一種而無理的，必須使之獲得四種。這四種所緣直到像無諍（arana，無諍三昧）所說，這是解釋第十句，這裡顯示了相同和不同。這四種無礙解的所緣、自性、依地這三種，與之前的無諍三昧的差別是這樣的。種姓、依身像無諍三昧所說。所謂不動種姓，依靠三洲的人身。又，《婆沙》第一百八十卷中說，世間眾生都墮入三世（過去、現在、未來）。法無礙解和辨無礙解緣於三世。詞無礙解，過去緣於過去，現在緣于現在，未來生者緣于未來，不生者緣於三世。有人說，說法與詞無礙解相同。有人說，法無礙解、詞無礙解、辨無礙解這三種，過去和現在緣於過去，未來緣於三世。義無礙解，或者有人想要它只緣于離世，或者有人想要它緣於三世和離世。然而沒有評家這樣說。像這樣所說直到佛陀其餘加行獲得，這也就是第四種說明依靠邊際定獲得。論中說直到邊際定獲得，這是解釋第一句，這裡說明六種依靠邊際定獲得，因為是邊際力所引發的。邊際靜慮直到靜慮所包含，這是解釋第二句邊際六，總而言之。

【English Translation】 English version: The eighty critics say: 'Thus it is said,' the four unhindered knowledges (catu-pratisamvida) all take learning the Buddha's words as preliminary practice. For example, in one verse, it should be said like this, calling it 'thus it is said name,' this is the preliminary practice of dharma-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of the Dharma). It should be explained like this its meaning, calling it 'thus it is explained meaning,' this is the preliminary practice of artha-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of meaning). It should be interpreted like this its words, calling it 'thus it is interpreted words,' this is the preliminary practice of nirukti-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of language). It should be spoken like this without hindrance, calling it 'thus it is spoken without hindrance,' this is the preliminary practice of pratibhana-pratisamvida (unobstructed knowledge of eloquence). Therefore, the four unhindered knowledges all take learning the Buddha's words as preliminary practice. Like these four kinds reaching the extent that they can be called 'obtained,' this is explaining the ninth sentence, showing that it must be complete. Because when obtaining the boundary of the fourth dhyana (meditative state), the four unhindered knowledges arise and are at ease, therefore it is called possessing and obtaining the four. Therefore, the following text says, although nirukti-pratisamvida is obtained relying on it, its essence is not contained by that dhyana. Also, the Nyaya says, some other teachers say that there is incomplete attainment, there is no reason to obtain one without obtaining four, it must cause one to obtain four. These four objects until like the Arana (non-contention samadhi) says, this is explaining the tenth sentence, here it shows the similarities and differences. The objects, nature, and dependent ground of these four unhindered knowledges are different from the previous Arana like this. Lineage and dependent body are like what the Arana says. The so-called immovable lineage relies on the human body of the three continents. Also, the Vibhasa volume one hundred and eighty says, sentient beings all fall into the three times (past, present, future). Dharma-pratisamvida and pratibhana-pratisamvida are related to the three times. Nirukti-pratisamvida, the past is related to the past, the present is related to the present, the future is related to the future, the unborn is related to the three times. Some say that the way of speaking is the same as nirukti-pratisamvida. Some say that dharma-pratisamvida, nirukti-pratisamvida, and pratibhana-pratisamvida, the past and present are related to the past, the future is related to the three times. Artha-pratisamvida, some want it to only be related to the world apart, or some want it to be related to the three times and the world apart. However, no critics say this. Like this what is said until the Buddha's remaining preliminary practice is obtained, this is the fourth explanation of obtaining by relying on the boundary samadhi. The treatise says until the boundary samadhi is obtained, this is explaining the first sentence, here it explains the six kinds of obtaining by relying on the boundary samadhi, because it is caused by the boundary power. The boundary dhyana until contained by dhyana, this is explaining the second sentence boundary six, in summary.

言之。邊際靜慮體有六種。於前六中除詞無礙。以在欲界及初定故。取五少分。以五有通非邊際故。故取少分加余邊際。即延促等。故正理云。邊際靜慮體有六種。前六除詞。餘五少分．及除此外。復更有餘加行所得上品靜慮。名邊際定。故成六種。(已上論文)　詞無礙解雖依第四邊際靜慮。起自在故說名為得。如佛盡智時說名得滅定。據起自在故。前文說四無礙解一時得也。然詞無礙解欲．初定系。得邊際時。而體非彼靜慮所收。又依婆沙一百八十云。此中愿智攝愿智．邊際智．無諍智．四無礙解。如願智應知。義無礙解亦爾。邊際智不攝詞。余如願智說。無諍智攝無諍智．愿智．邊際智．義無礙解。不攝法．詞．辨三無礙解。如無諍應知。法．詞．辨三無礙解亦爾。如其所應各說自攝。除無諍．詞無礙解。又不攝邊際智。此七種皆依邊際定得。邊際定力所引發故。邊際靜慮體有六種。謂七除詞。以第四靜慮最上品名邊際故　解云愿智若依殊勝。及依初起。但依第四。若依非勝。及依後起。亦通下地乃至欲界。諸論中言愿智依第四者。據勝及初。婆沙通據非勝．後起。故說愿智攝詞無礙解。又據諸法通名義故。故義無礙如願智說。又邊際智唯在第四。故不攝詞。又無諍智緣未生惑故。不攝法．詞．辨三。又法．詞

．辨三所緣各異故。不緣未生惑故。不攝無諍。又詞無礙唯欲．初定故。不攝邊際智。此七雖復系地不同。皆依邊際定力引發得。

邊際名但依第四靜慮故者。釋后定。

此一切地至得邊際名者。釋第三句。總開三章。一此一切地遍所隨順故。二增至究竟故。三得邊際名。

云何此名至遍所隨順者。此釋初章。問答可知。

云何此名至名至究竟者。釋第二章。問答亦可知。

如是靜慮至及實際言者。釋第三章。如是靜慮得邊際名。此中邊名顯無越義。勝無越此定故此定名邊。際言為顯類義。謂此定中有多種類相似義故。如說四際。謂一頌中四句分齊。或如一界四海分齊。皆是種類相似義也。或顯極義。如說金剛實際。或如說言諸法實際所謂涅槃。皆是極義。

除佛所餘至自在轉故者。釋第四句。除佛所餘一切聖者所說六種。唯加行得非離染得。非皆得故。若別修邊際定者得。若不修者不得。唯佛於此六種功德亦離染得。后隨現前不由加行　然婆沙明愿智．無諍智中皆言。如是說者。若決定可得者彼離染得。盡智時得故。後加行現在前。佛不加行。獨覺下加行。聲聞或中．或上。然有愿智．無諍。由邊際定加行故得。加行故現在前　解云婆沙通據少分故。說二乘亦有離染得。俱舍

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本辨別三種所緣（所緣：心所緣唸的對像）各自不同，因為不緣未生起的煩惱的緣故，並且不包括無諍（無諍：一種禪定境界）。又詞無礙（詞無礙：四無礙解之一，指通達諸法名相、術語，能正確解釋其意義的智慧）唯有欲界和初禪的緣故，不包括邊際智（邊際智：一種智慧，能達到禪定的最高境界）。這七種功德雖然所依的境界不同，都是依靠邊際定（邊際定：指第四禪定）的力量引發而得到的。

『邊際』這個名稱只是依第四靜慮（第四靜慮：色界第四禪定）而說的緣故——這是解釋後面的『定』字。

『此一切地至得邊際名者』——這是解釋第三句。總共展開三個方面：一、此一切地普遍隨順；二、增至究竟；三、得邊際名。

『云何此名至遍所隨順者』——這是解釋第一個方面。問答的內容可以理解。

『云何此名至名至究竟者』——這是解釋第二個方面。問答的內容也可以理解。

『如是靜慮至及實際言者』——這是解釋第三個方面。像這樣，靜慮得到邊際這個名稱。這裡，『邊』這個字顯示了沒有超越的意思。因為沒有勝過這個定的，所以這個定名為『邊』。『際』這個字是爲了顯示種類相似的意義。意思是說，這個定中有多種類似的意義。例如所說的『四際』，指的是一首偈頌中四句的分界；或者像一個世界四海的分界，都是種類相似的意義。或者顯示極致的意義，例如所說的金剛實際。或者像所說的諸法實際，也就是涅槃，都是極致的意義。

『除佛所餘至自在轉故者』——這是解釋第四句。除了佛以外，一切聖者所說的六種功德，只有通過加行（加行：修行過程中的努力）才能得到，不是通過離染（離染：脫離煩惱）就能得到。因為不是所有人都能得到。如果特別修習邊際定的人才能得到，如果不修習的人就不能得到。只有佛對於這六種功德，也是通過離染而得到的，之後隨心所欲地顯現，不需要通過加行。然而《婆沙論》（《婆沙論》：全稱《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》，佛教論書）中說明愿智（愿智：一種智慧，能隨心所愿地瞭解事物）、無諍智（無諍智：一種智慧，能避免爭論）時都說：像這樣說的人，如果確定可以得到，那麼他們是通過離染而得到的，在盡智（盡智：一種智慧，知道自己已經斷盡一切煩惱）時得到。之後加行現在前，佛不需要加行，獨覺（獨覺：不依靠他人教導而獨自覺悟的人）下品加行，聲聞（聲聞：聽聞佛法而修行證果的人）或者中品或者上品。然而有愿智、無諍，由於邊際定的加行而得到，通過加行而現在前。解釋說，《婆沙論》是通盤考慮了少部分情況，所以說二乘（二乘：聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也有通過離染而得到的。《俱舍論》（《俱舍論》：全稱《阿毗達磨俱舍論》，佛教論書）

【English Translation】 English version Distinguishing the three objects of focus (所緣, suoyuan: objects of mental focus) as each being different, because they do not focus on unarisen afflictions, and do not include Wu Zheng (無諍, Wuzheng: a state of meditative equipoise free from contention). Furthermore, unimpeded eloquence (詞無礙, ci wu ai: one of the four unimpeded eloquences, referring to the wisdom of understanding the names and terms of all dharmas and being able to correctly explain their meanings) is only in the desire realm and the first dhyana, therefore it does not include Bianji Zhi (邊際智, Bianji Zhi: wisdom of the ultimate limit, a type of wisdom that can reach the highest state of dhyana). Although these seven merits rely on different realms, they are all induced and attained by relying on the power of Bianji Ding (邊際定, Bianji Ding: the ultimate limit concentration, referring to the fourth dhyana).

The name 'ultimate limit' is only based on the fourth dhyana (第四靜慮, disi jinglv: the fourth dhyana of the form realm) – this explains the 'concentration' (ding) mentioned later.

'These all grounds to attain the name of ultimate limit' – this explains the third sentence. It unfolds three aspects in total: 1. These all grounds are universally compliant; 2. Increasing to the ultimate; 3. Attaining the name of ultimate limit.

'How does this name reach universal compliance?' – This explains the first aspect. The content of the question and answer can be understood.

'How does this name reach the ultimate name?' – This explains the second aspect. The content of the question and answer can also be understood.

'Thus, dhyana reaches the words of reality' – This explains the third aspect. In this way, dhyana attains the name of ultimate limit. Here, the word 'limit' shows the meaning of not surpassing. Because there is nothing that surpasses this dhyana, this dhyana is named 'limit'. The word 'ultimate' is to show the meaning of similar categories. It means that there are many similar meanings in this dhyana. For example, the so-called 'four limits' refers to the boundaries of the four lines in a verse; or like the boundaries of the four seas in a world, they are all meanings of similar categories. Or it shows the meaning of the ultimate, such as the so-called diamond reality. Or like the so-called reality of all dharmas, which is Nirvana, they are all meanings of the ultimate.

'Except for the Buddha, the rest reach free transformation' – This explains the fourth sentence. Except for the Buddha, the six merits spoken of by all aryas (聖者, shengzhe: noble ones) can only be attained through jiāxíng (加行: effort in practice), not through lí rǎn (離染: detachment from defilements). Because not everyone can attain them. Only those who specifically practice Bianji Ding can attain them, and those who do not practice cannot attain them. Only the Buddha attains these six merits through detachment from defilements, and then manifests them at will, without needing to go through jiāxíng. However, the Vibhasa (《婆沙論》, Vibhasa: short for Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Shastra, a Buddhist treatise) explains that in yuan zhi (愿智: wisdom of aspiration, a type of wisdom that can understand things according to one's wishes) and wu zheng zhi (無諍智: wisdom of non-contention, a type of wisdom that can avoid disputes), it is said: Those who say that they can definitely attain them, then they attain them through detachment from defilements, and attain them at the time of jin zhi (盡智: wisdom of exhaustion, a type of wisdom that knows that one has exhausted all afflictions). Afterwards, jiāxíng manifests, the Buddha does not need jiāxíng, the Pratyekabuddha (獨覺, dujue: one who attains enlightenment independently without relying on the teachings of others) has inferior jiāxíng, and the Sravaka (聲聞, shengwen: one who practices and attains fruition by hearing the Buddha's teachings) has medium or superior jiāxíng. However, there are yuan zhi and wu zheng, which are attained through the jiāxíng of Bianji Ding, and manifest through jiāxíng. The explanation is that the Vibhasa considers a small portion of the situation comprehensively, so it says that the Two Vehicles (二乘, ercheng: Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) also attain them through detachment from defilements. The Kosa (《俱舍論》, Kosa: short for Abhidharmakosa Shastra, a Buddhist treatise)

以二乘離染得不定故。但言加行得。

已辨前三至且應辨通者。此下第二明共凡德。即明六通。就中。一正明六通。二辨三種明。三明三示導。四別明神境。五別釋眼．耳。六明通種類　此即第一正明六通。結前起后。

頌曰至餘四通唯善者。就頌中。一列名。二出體。三智。四依地。五通境。六二得。七念住。八三性。

論曰至亦共異生者。釋初三句列六通名。神謂等持。境謂所作。智證境時無擁名通。從定．及境．能證為名。故名神境智證通。余通雖亦依定。此通相顯偏標神名。天眼．天耳是所依根。智是二識相應慧。智緣二境無擁名通。從根．及能證為名。名天眼智證通．天耳智證通。從加行．及能證智為名。名他心智證通。從境．及相應．並能證智為名。名宿住隨念智證通。若涅槃名漏盡。從所證．及能證智為名。名漏盡智證通。若漏盡身名漏盡。從所依．及能證智為名。名漏盡智證通。於六通中第六唯聖。前五通凡。從多據總言共異生。

如是六通至顯出障義者。釋第四句。且言解脫。顯出障初。理實亦容勝進道起。故正理七十六云。解脫道言顯出障義。勝進道中亦容有故。

神境等四至緣一切境者。釋第五．第六句。神境．天眼．天耳．宿住四通。緣事境故唯俗智攝。他

{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：因為二乘（Śrāvaka-yāna and Pratyekabuddha-yāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的離染所得並不確定，所以只說是通過加行（prayoga，修行）才能獲得。", "", "前面已經辨析了前三種，接下來應當辨析共通的。下面第二部分闡明與凡夫共通的功德，即闡明六通（ṣaṭ abhijñā，六種神通）。其中，一、正式闡明六通；二、辨析三種明（tisro vidyā，三種智慧）；三、闡明三種教導；四、分別闡明神境通（ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna，神通）；五、分別解釋天眼（divya-cakṣus，天眼通）和天耳（divya-śrotra，天耳通）；六、闡明神通的種類。這裡是第一部分，正式闡明六通，總結前文，開啟後文。", "", "頌文說：『其餘四通唯善者』。就頌文而言，一、列出名稱；二、說明本體；三、智慧；四、所依地；五、神通的境界；六、兩種獲得方式；七、念住（smṛti-upasthāna，四念住）；八、三種性質。", "", "論述說：『也與異生共通』。解釋最初三句，列出六通的名稱。『神』指的是等持（samādhi，禪定），『境』指的是所作。智慧證悟境界時沒有阻礙，稱為『通』。從禪定、境界以及能證悟的智慧來命名，所以稱為神境智證通（ṛddhi-vidhi-jñānābhi-jñā，神境智證通）。其餘的神通雖然也依賴禪定，但此通的相狀明顯，所以特別標出『神』這個名稱。天眼和天耳是所依之根，『智』是與二識相應的智慧。智慧緣於二境沒有阻礙，稱為『通』。從根以及能證悟的智慧來命名，稱為天眼智證通（divya-cakṣur-abhijñā，天眼智證通）、天耳智證通（divya-śrotrā-abhijñā，天耳智證通）。從加行以及能證悟的智慧來命名，稱為他心智證通（para-citta-jñāna-abhijñā，他心智證通）。從境界以及相應，並能證悟的智慧來命名，稱為宿住隨念智證通（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñānābhijñā，宿命通）。如果涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）稱為漏盡（āsrava-kṣaya，煩惱斷盡），從所證悟的以及能證悟的智慧來命名，稱為漏盡智證通（āsravakṣayajñānābhijñā，漏盡通）。如果漏盡之身稱為漏盡，從所依以及能證悟的智慧來命名，稱為漏盡智證通。在六通中，第六種只有聖者才能獲得，前五種凡夫也能獲得。從多數情況來說，總的來說是與異生共通。", "", "『如是六通』到『顯出障義者』。解釋第四句。暫且說解脫道（vimukti-mārga，解脫之道），顯現出障礙的意義。實際上也容許勝進道（viśeṣa-mārga，殊勝之道）生起。所以《正理》第七十六卷說，『解脫道』一詞顯現出脫離障礙的意義，殊勝道中也容許有這種情況。", "", "『神境等四』到『緣一切境者』。解釋第五、第六句。神境通、天眼通、天耳通、宿住通這四種神通，因為緣於事境，所以只屬於俗智（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦）所攝。他心通", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ] }

心通五智攝。名如文漏盡通如前漏盡智力說。若緣漏盡為境。六智攝。若依漏盡身起。十智攝。以十智攝故。由此已顯漏盡智通依一切地緣一切境。因明智攝。便明漏盡依地．所緣。

前之五通依四靜慮者。釋第七句。此明依地。於六通中前之五通。依四靜慮不依無色．近分．中間。漏盡通依地．緣境。前已便明。故不重辨。

何緣此五不依無色者。問。

初三別緣至無如是能者。總答。初三神境．天眼．天耳。各別緣色為境界故。修他心通。必先觀色為門入故。修宿住通。漸次憶念前前色相。出胎五位．胎內五位．及中有位。十一分位差別不同方得成故。成時能緣昔在某處及種姓等。應知但約分位漸憶不約剎那。若約剎那向前漸憶。憶半生事即便命終。豈能修至加行成滿。依無色地。無如是能　諸有欲修至能如實知者。此下別明五通加行。此即明修他心通加行。如文可知。

諸有欲修至自相續起者。別明修宿住通加行。諸有欲修宿住通者。先自審察次前滅心。漸覆逆觀於此生中十時分位前前差別。至結生心。乃至能漸憶知中有前一念前生命終心。名自身宿住加行已成。婆沙一百云。應作是說。漸審憶念至此中有前一剎那心。名加行成滿。彼是前生命終心故。能隨念知名善成滿　解云婆沙據

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本心通被五種智慧所包含。名稱如前文『漏盡通』（knowing the extinction of outflows）所說的『漏盡智力』。如果以漏盡為境界，則被六種智慧所包含。如果依于漏盡之身而生起，則被十種智慧所包含。因為被十種智慧所包含，由此已經顯示漏盡智通依於一切地，緣於一切境。因明智所包含，就明確了漏盡所依之地和所緣之境。

前五種神通依於四禪定，這是解釋第七句。這裡說明所依之地。在六神通中，前五種神通依於四禪定，不依于無色界、近分定、中間定。漏盡通所依之地和所緣之境，前面已經說明，所以不再重複辨析。

為什麼這五種神通不依于無色界呢？這是提問。

『初三別緣至無如是能者』，這是總的回答。最初的三種神通，即神境通（supernatural powers）、天眼通（divine eye）、天耳通（divine ear），各自特別地以色為境界。修習他心通（telepathy），必須先觀察色作為入門的途徑。修習宿住通（recollection of past lives），逐漸地憶念前前的色相，出胎五位、胎內五位、以及中有位，這十一種分位的差別不同，才能夠成就。成就時能夠憶起過去在某處以及種姓等等。應當知道只是就分位逐漸憶念，不是就剎那。如果就剎那向前逐漸憶念，憶起半生的事情就會命終，怎麼能夠修習到加行成滿？依于無色地，沒有這樣的能力。『諸有欲修至能如實知者』，這下面分別說明五種神通的加行。這裡是說明修習他心通的加行，如文可知。

『諸有欲修至自相續起者』，分別說明修習宿住通的加行。想要修習宿住通的人，先自己審察緊接著前一個滅去的心，逐漸地逆向觀察此生中的十個時分位的前前差別，直到結生心。乃至能夠逐漸憶知中有前一念的前生命終心，名為自身宿住加行已經成就。《婆沙論》第一百卷說，應該這樣說，逐漸審察憶念到此中有前一個剎那的心，名為加行成滿。那是前生命終的心，所以能夠隨念知名為善成滿。解釋說《婆沙論》根據……

【English Translation】 English version The psychic power of knowing others' minds is encompassed by the five wisdoms. Its name, like the 'exhaustion of outflows psychic power' (漏盡通), is as described earlier regarding the 'power of wisdom of the exhaustion of outflows'. If the object is the exhaustion of outflows, it is encompassed by six wisdoms. If it arises based on the body of the exhaustion of outflows, it is encompassed by ten wisdoms. Because it is encompassed by ten wisdoms, it is thus shown that the psychic power of the wisdom of the exhaustion of outflows relies on all realms and is connected to all objects. Being encompassed by the wisdom of logic, it clarifies the realm relied upon and the object connected to the exhaustion of outflows.

That the previous five psychic powers rely on the four dhyanas (靜慮) is an explanation of the seventh sentence. This clarifies the realm relied upon. Among the six psychic powers, the previous five rely on the four dhyanas, not on the formless realms, the near-attainment concentration, or the intermediate concentration. The realm relied upon and the object connected to the psychic power of the exhaustion of outflows have already been clarified, so there is no need to repeat the analysis.

Why do these five psychic powers not rely on the formless realms? This is a question.

'The initial three separately connect to... without such ability' is the general answer. The initial three psychic powers, namely the psychic power of magical abilities (神境通), the psychic power of the divine eye (天眼通), and the psychic power of the divine ear (天耳通), each separately connect to form as their object. To cultivate the psychic power of knowing others' minds (他心通), one must first observe form as the gateway to entry. To cultivate the psychic power of recollecting past lives (宿住通), one gradually recollects the preceding forms, the five stages after birth, the five stages within the womb, and the intermediate state. Only with these eleven stages of different distinctions can it be accomplished. When accomplished, one can recall being in a certain place and lineage in the past. It should be understood that it is only about gradually recollecting the stages, not about the moment. If one gradually recollects forward from the moment, one would die after recalling half a lifetime of events. How could one cultivate to the stage of complete practice? Relying on the formless realms, there is no such ability. 'Those who wish to cultivate to the point of truly knowing...' Below, the preliminary practices for the five psychic powers are explained separately. This explains the preliminary practice for cultivating the psychic power of knowing others' minds, as can be understood from the text.

'Those who wish to cultivate to the point of arising from one's own mental continuum...' Separately explains the preliminary practice for cultivating the psychic power of recollecting past lives. Those who wish to cultivate the psychic power of recollecting past lives should first examine their own immediately preceding extinguished mind, and gradually observe in reverse the preceding differences of the ten time stages in this life, up to the mind at conception. Until one can gradually recall the mind at the end of the previous life, one thought before the intermediate state, this is called the accomplishment of the preliminary practice of recollecting one's own past lives. The hundredth volume of the Mahavibhasa says, 'It should be said that gradually examining and recollecting up to the mind one moment before this intermediate state is called the completion of the preliminary practice.' Because that is the mind at the end of the previous life, being able to recollect and know the name is called good completion. The explanation says that the Mahavibhasa is based on...

無間道起說加行成滿。俱舍據加行落謝名已成滿　或成滿言顯已成滿。正理．顯宗文同俱舍　或可。論意各別。于已成位名無間道。總緣前生命終五蘊。如婆沙說。宿住無間道是法念住。以中．生二蘊一業感故。所以乃至。知中有位初念心來。猶此生攝。未得名為知宿住事乃至知前身命終時心。方名無間道。第二念名解脫道宿住通成。如是自修加行既然。為憶念他加行亦爾。二乘．異生此通初起。唯次第知過去諸生。串習成時。亦能超憶過去諸生。諸所憶事要於過去。曾所領受方能憶念。宿住通憶凈居天者。雖不生彼。昔聞說今時能憶。故婆沙一百云。問此宿住隨念智。為但憶知曾所更事。為亦憶知未曾更事。答此但憶知曾所更事。問若爾此智應不憶知五凈居事。無始時來未生彼故。答曾所更事略有二種。一者曾見。二者曾聞。雖未曾見五凈居事。而曾聞故亦能憶知。余欲．色界極遠極勝。諸難知事準此應知(已上論文)　若彼自身從無色沒來生欲．色者。依自相續修加行滿。依他相續初起此通。若從所餘欲．色沒還生欲．色界者。亦依自相續初起此通若依下地起宿住通。從上地沒來生下者。類此應知。

修神境等至不依無色者。次明修餘三通加行。修神境等前三通時。神境思輕以為加行。天眼思光以為加行。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道）的生起，經部認為加行（prayoga，加行）圓滿時產生。但《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa，俱舍論）認為，加行衰退時才名為已成滿，或者說，『成滿』一詞本身就顯示了已成滿。《正理經》（Nyāyabhāṣya，正理）和《顯宗論》（Abhidharmadīpa，顯宗）的觀點與《俱舍論》相同。或許各論的意圖有所不同。在已成就的階段，稱為無間道。總的來說，它緣於前一生命終結時的五蘊（pañca-skandha，五蘊）。正如《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā，大毗婆沙論）所說，宿住隨念智（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，宿住隨念智）的無間道是法念住（dharma-smṛtyupasthāna，法念住），因為中陰和此生二蘊是由同一業力所感。所以，乃至知道中陰身位最初一念心生起時，仍然屬於此生所攝。尚未能稱為知宿住事，乃至知道前一生命終結時的心，才名為無間道。第二念名為解脫道（vimukti-mārga，解脫道），宿住隨念智普遍成就。如此，自己修行加行是這樣，為憶念他人加行也是這樣。聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna，聲聞乘）和異生（pṛthagjana，異生）最初生起此神通時，只能次第地知道過去諸生。串習成熟時，也能超越次第憶起過去諸生。所憶起的事情必須是過去曾經領受過的，才能憶念。宿住隨念智慧夠憶起凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa，凈居天）的事情，雖然沒有生於彼處，但因為過去曾經聽聞過，現在能夠憶起。所以《大毗婆沙論》第一百卷說：『問：此宿住隨念智，是隻憶知曾經經歷過的事情，還是也能憶知未曾經歷過的事情？答：此智只憶知曾經經歷過的事情。問：如果這樣，此智應該不能憶知五凈居天的事情，因為從無始以來未曾生於彼處。答：曾經經歷過的事情略有二種：一是曾經見過，二是曾經聽聞。雖然未曾見過五凈居天的事情，但因為曾經聽聞過，所以也能憶知。』其餘欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界）、極遠、極殊勝等難以知曉的事情，可以依此類推。（以上是論文內容）如果那個人自身從無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界）死後，來生欲界或色界（Rūpadhātu，色界），那麼依自己的相續（saṃtāna，相續）修行加行圓滿，依他人的相續最初生起此神通。如果從其餘欲界或色界死後，還生欲界或色界，也是依自己的相續最初生起此神通。如果依下地生起宿住隨念智，從上地死後，來生下地的人，可以依此類推。

修習神境通（ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna，神境通）等至（samāpatti，等至）不依賴無色界：接下來闡明修習其餘三種神通的加行。修習神境通等前三種神通時，以神境通的思擇輕安（prasrabdhi，輕安）作為加行，天眼通（divya-cakṣus-jñāna，天眼通）以思擇光明作為加行。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the arising of Anantarya-marga (無間道, Path of Immediate Succession), the Sautrāntikas (經部) say it arises when the prayoga (加行, application) is complete. However, the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論, Treasury of Abhidharma) states that it is named 'already complete' when the prayoga declines, or that the term 'complete' itself indicates 'already complete.' The Nyāyabhāṣya (正理經, Commentary on the Nyaya Sutras) and Abhidharmadīpa (顯宗論, Lamp of Abhidharma) share the same view as the Abhidharmakośa. Perhaps the intentions of each treatise differ. In the stage of being already accomplished, it is called Anantarya-marga. Generally, it is conditioned by the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, 五蘊) at the end of the previous life. As the Mahāvibhāṣā (大毗婆沙論, Great Commentary) says, the Anantarya-marga of the pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna (宿住隨念智, knowledge of past lives) is dharma-smṛtyupasthāna (法念住, mindfulness of dharma), because the intermediate state (antarābhava, 中陰) and the two skandhas of this life are felt by the same karma. Therefore, even up to knowing when the first thought arises in the intermediate state, it is still included in this life. It is not yet called knowing past lives, until one knows the mind at the end of the previous life, then it is called Anantarya-marga. The second thought is called vimukti-mārga (解脫道, path of liberation), and the knowledge of past lives is universally accomplished. Thus, one's own practice of application is like this, and the application for recollecting others is also like this. Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, Hearer Vehicle) practitioners and pṛthagjana (異生, ordinary beings) can only know past lives in sequence when this supernormal power first arises. When practice becomes mature, they can also transcend the sequence and recall past lives. The things recalled must be things that were experienced in the past in order to be remembered. The knowledge of past lives can recall the Śuddhāvāsa (凈居天, Pure Abodes) heavens, although one has not been born there, but because one has heard of them in the past, one can now recall them. Therefore, the hundredth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: Does this knowledge of past lives only recall things that have been experienced, or can it also recall things that have not been experienced? Answer: This knowledge only recalls things that have been experienced. Question: If so, this knowledge should not be able to recall the affairs of the five Śuddhāvāsa heavens, because one has not been born there since beginningless time. Answer: There are roughly two kinds of things that have been experienced: one is having seen, and the other is having heard. Although one has not seen the affairs of the five Śuddhāvāsa heavens, one can recall them because one has heard of them.' Other difficult-to-know things in the Kāmadhātu (欲界, Desire Realm), extremely distant, extremely excellent, should be understood by analogy. (The above is the content of the treatise.) If that person dies from the Arūpadhātu (無色界, Formless Realm) and is reborn in the Kāmadhātu or Rūpadhātu (色界, Form Realm), then based on their own saṃtāna (相續, continuum) the practice of application is complete, and based on the continuum of others, this supernormal power first arises. If one dies from the remaining Kāmadhātu or Rūpadhātu and is reborn in the Kāmadhātu or Rūpadhātu, this supernormal power also first arises based on one's own continuum. If one arises the knowledge of past lives based on a lower realm, and dies from a higher realm and is reborn in a lower realm, it should be understood by analogy.

Cultivating the samāpatti (等至, attainment) of ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna (神境通, supernormal powers) does not rely on the Arūpadhātu: Next, the application for cultivating the remaining three supernormal powers is explained. When cultivating the first three supernormal powers, such as supernormal powers, the prasrabdhi (輕安, pliancy) of contemplation on supernormal powers is taken as the application, and divya-cakṣus-jñāna (天眼通, divine eye) takes contemplation on light as the application.

天耳思聲以為加行。成已自在隨所應為。無色界中無斯色故。故此五通不依無色。

又諸無色至由此已遮者。第二解。又諸無色觀減。止增。五通必依止．觀均地。未至．中間由此已遮。觀增。止減故。又正理云。若爾何緣有漏盡通。樂．苦．遲．速．地皆能盡漏故。五是別修殊勝功德。要殊勝地方能發起。

如是五通至無數世界者。釋第八．第九．第十句。一約豎明寬狹。境唯自．下。不通上地勢力劣故。二約傍顯作用寬狹。如文可知。

如是五通至不由加行者。釋第十一第十二句。明二得。如是五通。若有殊勝勢用猛利。未曾得者由加行得。若過去世已曾串習無勝勢用。及未來世是彼無勝種類。由離染得。二乘．異生。隨其所應。若加行得。若離染得。若起現前皆由加行。佛於一切皆離染得。隨欲現前不由加行。又正理云。三乘聖者．後有異生。通得曾得．未曾得者。所餘異生唯得曾得。

六中前三至天耳緣聲者。此下釋第十三．十四句。念住分別。於六通中前三種通。唯身念住。但緣色故。

若爾何緣至諸惡行等者。問。若天眼通但緣色處何緣契經。說死生智。知有情類由現身中成身．語．意諸惡行等。當生惡趣。此中難意說。死生智是天眼通。既是天眼通。只可知色身。如何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：以天耳傾聽聲音作為一種輔助修行。一旦修成，便能隨心所欲地運用。因為在無色界中沒有形色，所以這五種神通不依賴於無色界。

關於『又諸無色至由此已遮者』，這是第二種解釋。無色界的眾生觀察（有色界的）衰減，停止（對無色界的）增長。五神通必定依賴於止觀均等的禪定境界。未至定和中間定因為這個原因已經被排除在外，因為它們觀增而止減。而且，《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，『如果這樣，為什麼有漏盡通？』因為樂受、苦受、遲緩、快速、各種禪定境界都能斷盡煩惱。這五種神通是特別修習的殊勝功德，需要在殊勝的地方才能發起。

關於『如是五通至無數世界者』，這是解釋第八、第九、第十句。第一，從豎向說明寬窄，神通的境界只在自身和下層境界，不能通達上層境界，因為力量弱小。第二，從橫向顯示作用的寬窄，如經文所說。

關於『如是五通至不由加行者』，這是解釋第十一、第十二句。說明兩種獲得方式。這五種神通，如果有殊勝的力量和猛利的作用，對於未曾獲得者，通過加行修行可以獲得。如果過去世已經串習過，沒有殊勝的力量和作用，以及未來世是這種沒有殊勝力量和作用的同類，可以通過遠離煩惱而獲得。聲聞乘、緣覺乘的聖者和凡夫，根據他們的情況，有的通過加行獲得，有的通過離染獲得。如果發起神通的顯現，都需要通過加行。佛陀對於一切神通都是通過離染而獲得，隨心所欲地顯現，不需要通過加行。而且，《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，三乘聖者和後有異生，可以獲得曾經獲得和未曾獲得的神通，其餘的凡夫只能獲得曾經獲得的神通。

關於『六中前三至天耳緣聲者』，這是解釋第十三、第十四句。通過念住進行分別。在六種神通中，前三種神通只屬於身念住，因為它們只緣於色法。

關於『若爾何緣至諸惡行等者』，這是提問。如果天眼通只能緣於色處，為什麼契經中說，死生智慧夠知道有情眾生由於現世的身、語、意所造作的各種惡行等，將會墮入惡趣？這裡提出的疑問是，死生智就是天眼通。既然是天眼通，只能知道色身，如何能知道惡行等？

【English Translation】 English version: He considers hearing sounds with the divine ear as an auxiliary practice. Once accomplished, he can freely use it as needed. Because there is no form in the Formless Realm, these five supernormal powers do not rely on the Formless Realm.

Regarding 'Moreover, all formless realms up to this point have been excluded,' this is the second explanation. Beings in the Formless Realm observe the decrease (of the Form Realm) and stop the increase (of the Formless Realm). The five supernormal powers must rely on meditative states where cessation and contemplation are balanced. The preliminary concentration and intermediate concentration have been excluded because of this reason, as they increase contemplation and decrease cessation. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states, 'If so, why is there the supernormal power of the exhaustion of outflows?' Because pleasant feelings, painful feelings, slowness, speed, and various meditative states can exhaust defilements. These five supernormal powers are special meritorious qualities cultivated through special practice, and they can only arise in special places.

Regarding 'These five supernormal powers extend to countless worlds,' this explains the eighth, ninth, and tenth sentences. First, vertically, it explains the width and narrowness. The scope of the supernormal powers is only within oneself and lower realms; it cannot reach higher realms because the power is weak. Second, horizontally, it shows the width and narrowness of the function, as the text indicates.

Regarding 'These five supernormal powers are not obtained through additional practice,' this explains the eleventh and twelfth sentences. It explains the two ways of obtaining them. These five supernormal powers, if they have special power and intense function, for those who have not obtained them, can be obtained through additional practice. If in past lives one has already practiced them, without special power and function, and in future lives they are of the same kind without special power and function, they can be obtained through detachment from defilements. Śrāvakas (Hearers), Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas), and ordinary beings, according to their circumstances, some obtain them through additional practice, and some obtain them through detachment from defilements. If the manifestation of supernormal powers arises, it is necessary through additional practice. Buddhas obtain all supernormal powers through detachment from defilements, and they can manifest them at will without additional practice. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya states that Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and ordinary beings in the next life can obtain supernormal powers that they have obtained before and have not obtained before, while other ordinary beings can only obtain supernormal powers that they have obtained before.

Regarding 'Among the six, the first three relate to mindfulness of the body and the divine ear relates to sound,' this explains the thirteenth and fourteenth sentences. It distinguishes them through the mindfulness establishments. Among the six supernormal powers, the first three supernormal powers only belong to the mindfulness of the body, because they only relate to form.

Regarding 'If so, why does the sutra say that one knows the evil deeds, etc.?' This is a question. If the divine eye only relates to form, why does the sutra say that the knowledge of death and rebirth knows that sentient beings, due to the various evil deeds of body, speech, and mind performed in their present lives, will fall into evil destinies? The question here is that the knowledge of death and rebirth is the divine eye. Since it is the divine eye, it can only know the physical body, how can it know evil deeds, etc.?

知語．意。

非天眼通至死生智名者。答。非天眼通能知語．意。以天眼通但知色處。有別勝智是通眷屬。依聖身起能如是知。此眷屬智是天眼通力所引故。所以與通合立死生智名　問何故死生智。是天眼通所引眷屬　解云謂天眼通於現在世。見有情類死此生彼。其死生智。復知有情死此生彼。流類相似故由彼引。是彼眷屬名天眼通。如變化心是神境智證通攝。彼通能作運身等用。彼變化心．能變化事。流類相似故在彼攝。若說天眼通名死生智。從果為名。若說死生智名天眼通。就因為名　問若說死生智名天眼通。何故婆沙七十六云。死生智觀未來事　解云彼據眷屬。對宿住說言觀未來　又問若死生智慧緣未來。何故婆沙三十云。死生智力過去緣過去。現在緣現在。未來生法緣未來。若不生法緣三世　解云彼據根本不言緣未來。或據眷屬。眷屬有二。一緣未來。二緣現在。此據緣現　又問若死生智通緣三業。何故婆沙三十云。死生智力緣色處　解云彼據根本言緣色處。若據眷屬通緣三業。或據眷屬。眷屬有二。一緣色處。二緣三業。彼據緣色處說　又問若死生智是天眼通應是無記。何故婆沙三十云。十力唯善　解云彼據眷屬說。死生智力唯是善性。若據根本。天眼通說唯是無記。若據現起緣境寬狹。應知天眼通

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本知語和意（有情眾生的語言和意念活動）。

問：如果不是通過天眼通達到知曉眾生死生之智，那是什麼呢？答：不是天眼通能夠知曉語言和意念。因為天眼通只能知曉色處（物質現象）。有一種特別殊勝的智慧是天眼通的眷屬，依靠聖者的身體生起，能夠像這樣知曉（語言和意念）。這種眷屬智是由天眼通的力量所引發的，所以與天眼通合起來建立死生智（能夠知曉眾生死生因果的智慧）的名稱。問：為什麼死生智是天眼通所引發的眷屬呢？解釋說：因為天眼通在現在世，見到有情眾生死在這裡，生在那裡。而死生智，也知曉有情眾生死在這裡，生在那裡，（兩者）流類相似，所以由天眼通引發，是天眼通的眷屬，名為天眼通。如同變化心是神境智證通（通過神通變化境界的智慧）所攝。那個神通能夠作出運身等作用，那個變化心能夠變化事物，（兩者）流類相似，所以在那個（神境智證通）所攝。如果說天眼通名為死生智，是從結果來命名的。如果說死生智名為天眼通，就是從原因來命名的。問：如果說死生智名為天眼通，為什麼《婆沙論》第七十六卷說，死生智觀察未來的事情？解釋說：那是根據眷屬（來說的）。相對於宿住智（能夠知曉過去世的智慧）來說，說它觀察未來。又問：如果死生智慧夠緣取未來，為什麼《婆沙論》第三十卷說，死生智的力量，過去緣過去，現在緣現在，未來生法緣未來，若不生法緣三世？解釋說：那是根據根本（來說的），沒有說緣取未來。或者根據眷屬，眷屬有兩種，一種緣取未來，一種緣取現在。這裡是根據緣取現在來說的。又問：如果死生智通達緣取三業（身語意），為什麼《婆沙論》第三十卷說，死生智的力量緣取色處？解釋說：那是根據根本來說的，說緣取色處。如果根據眷屬，就通達緣取三業。或者根據眷屬，眷屬有兩種，一種緣取色處，一種緣取三業。那裡是根據緣取色處來說的。又問：如果死生智是天眼通，應該是無記性（非善非惡），為什麼《婆沙論》第三十卷說，十力（佛的十種力量）唯是善性？解釋說：那是根據眷屬來說的，死生智的力量唯是善性。如果根據根本，天眼通說是唯是無記性。如果根據現起緣境的寬狹，應當知曉天眼通（的範圍）。

【English Translation】 English version Knowing Speech and Intention.

Question: If it is not the supernormal power of the divine eye (天眼通, tiān yǎn tōng) that leads to the wisdom of knowing the death and birth of beings, what is it? Answer: It is not the supernormal power of the divine eye that can know speech and intention. Because the supernormal power of the divine eye only knows the realm of form (色處, sè chù). There is a particularly superior wisdom that is an attribute of the supernormal power. Relying on the body of a sage, it arises and can know in this way (speech and intention). This attribute wisdom is brought about by the power of the supernormal power of the divine eye. Therefore, it is combined with the supernormal power to establish the name 'wisdom of death and birth' (死生智, sǐ shēng zhì, the wisdom to know the causes and effects of beings' death and rebirth). Question: Why is the wisdom of death and birth an attribute brought about by the supernormal power of the divine eye? Explanation: Because the supernormal power of the divine eye, in the present world, sees sentient beings die here and be born there. And the wisdom of death and birth also knows that sentient beings die here and are born there. (The two) are similar in kind, so it is brought about by the supernormal power of the divine eye, and is an attribute of the supernormal power of the divine eye, named the supernormal power of the divine eye. Just as the mind of transformation is included in the supernormal power of the wisdom of magical powers (神境智證通, shén jìng zhì zhèng tōng, the wisdom to transform realms through magical powers). That supernormal power can perform functions such as moving the body, and that mind of transformation can transform things. (The two) are similar in kind, so it is included in that (supernormal power of the wisdom of magical powers). If it is said that the supernormal power of the divine eye is named the wisdom of death and birth, it is named from the result. If it is said that the wisdom of death and birth is named the supernormal power of the divine eye, it is named from the cause. Question: If it is said that the wisdom of death and birth is named the supernormal power of the divine eye, why does the seventy-sixth volume of the Vibhasa (《婆沙論》, Póshā lùn) say that the wisdom of death and birth observes future events? Explanation: That is according to the attribute (being discussed). Relative to the wisdom of abiding in the past (宿住智, sù zhù zhì, the wisdom to know past lives), it is said to observe the future. Question: If the wisdom of death and birth can grasp the future, why does the thirtieth volume of the Vibhasa say that the power of the wisdom of death and birth, the past grasps the past, the present grasps the present, the future dharma of birth grasps the future, and if it is not the dharma of birth, it grasps the three times? Explanation: That is according to the root (being discussed), not saying that it grasps the future. Or according to the attribute, there are two kinds of attributes, one grasps the future, and one grasps the present. Here it is according to grasping the present that it is being discussed. Question: If the wisdom of death and birth penetrates and grasps the three karmas (三業, sān yè, body, speech, and mind), why does the thirtieth volume of the Vibhasa say that the power of the wisdom of death and birth grasps the realm of form? Explanation: That is according to the root that it is said to grasp the realm of form. If according to the attribute, it penetrates and grasps the three karmas. Or according to the attribute, there are two kinds of attributes, one grasps the realm of form, and one grasps the three karmas. There it is according to grasping the realm of form that it is being discussed. Question: If the wisdom of death and birth is the supernormal power of the divine eye, it should be neutral (無記性, wú jì xìng, neither good nor evil), why does the thirtieth volume of the Vibhasa say that the ten powers (十力, shí lì, the ten powers of a Buddha) are only good? Explanation: That is according to the attribute that it is being said that the power of the wisdom of death and birth is only good. If according to the root, the supernormal power of the divine eye is said to be only neutral. If according to the breadth of the realm grasped when it arises, one should know the (scope of the) supernormal power of the divine eye.

狹。唯緣現在色處。死生智寬。通緣五蘊。或緣現在。或緣未來。

他心智通至一切境故者。他心通三念住攝。宿住通四念住攝。通緣五蘊故。漏盡通四念住攝。通緣一切故。正理破云。宿住．漏盡。經主欲令一一皆通四念住攝。通緣五蘊一切境故。而實宿住法念住攝。雖契經說念曾領受苦．樂等事。是憶前生苦．樂等受所領眾具。即是雜緣。法念住攝。漏盡如力。或法或四。不應定言四念住攝　俱舍師救云。我許宿住亦有別緣故通四念。言漏盡通四念住者。據十智說。六智唯法。類顯可知。故不別說　問若言宿住通四念住。即與婆沙評家相違。如婆沙一百云。念住者。唯是雜緣法念住。尊者妙音作如是說。通四念住。如契經說。我念過去受苦．樂。既知樂．苦。即是受念住。評曰應作是說。念過去世諸樂．苦具名受樂．苦。非但緣受故彼非證。然宿住隨念智。總觀前生分位差別。唯是雜緣法念生攝　解云我以理為正。非以婆沙評家為量。雖同妙音亦無有過。經分明故不應異釋。此六通中至相應慧故者。此下釋后兩句。三性分別。眼．耳二通是無記性。許是二識相應慧故。言非善者。五識是生得善。不得異地起故。或色界生得善不能生定心。以彼二通唯定相生　問既是無記。四無記中是何無記　解云是通果無記

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『狹』（Narrow）：唯獨緣于現在的色處（rūpa-āyatana，色界）。『死生智寬』（The wisdom of death and rebirth is broad）：普遍緣於五蘊（pañca-khandha，五蘊）。或者緣于現在，或者緣于未來。

『他心智通至一切境故者』（Because the knowledge of others' minds reaches all objects）：他心通（paracitta-vijñāna，他心通）包含於三種念住（smṛtyupasthāna，念住）之中。宿住通（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，宿住通）包含於四種念住之中。因為它普遍緣於五蘊。漏盡通（āsravakṣaya-jñāna，漏盡通）包含於四種念住之中。因為它普遍緣於一切。

《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）駁斥說：『經主想要讓宿住通和漏盡通都包含於四種念住之中，因為它們普遍緣於五蘊和一切境界。』但實際上，宿住通包含於法念住（dharma-smṛtyupasthāna，法念住）之中。雖然契經（sūtra，佛經）說念住是曾經領受苦、樂等事，是回憶前生的苦、樂等感受所領受的眾具，這就是雜緣，包含於法念住之中。漏盡通如其能力，或者屬於法念住，或者屬於四念住。不應該斷言它包含於四念住之中。

俱舍師（Abhidharmakośa-ācārya，俱舍論師）辯護說：『我承認宿住通也有其他的緣故，所以通於四念住。』說漏盡通通於四念住，是根據十智（daśa-jñāna，十智）來說的。六智唯獨屬於法念住，可以類推得知，所以沒有分別說明。

問：如果說宿住通通於四念住，就與《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）的評家相違背。如《婆沙》第一百卷說：『念住，唯獨是雜緣法念住。』尊者妙音（Ārya-Sughoṣa，妙音尊者）這樣說：『通於四念住。』如契經說：『我念過去受苦、樂。』既然知道樂、苦，就是受念住（vedanā-smṛtyupasthāna，受念住）。評家說：『應該這樣說，念過去世的諸樂、苦具名受樂、苦，並非只是緣于感受，所以它不是證據。』然而，宿住隨念智（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，宿住隨念智）總體觀察前生的分位差別，唯獨是雜緣法念住所包含。

解釋說：我以理為正確，不以《婆沙》的評家為標準。即使與妙音尊者相同也沒有過錯，因為經文分明，不應該做其他的解釋。

『此六通中至相應慧故』（Among these six superknowledges, up to the corresponding wisdom）：以下解釋后兩句的三性（tri-svabhāva，三自性）分別。眼通（divya-cakṣus，天眼通）和耳通（divya-śrotra，天耳通）是無記性（avyākṛta，無記），因為它們是與二識（two consciousnesses，二識）相應的慧（prajñā，智慧）。說『非善者』（not wholesome），五識（pañca-vijñāna，五識）是生得善（sahaja-kuśala，俱生善），不能在不同的地（bhūmi，地）生起，或者生得善不能生起定心（samādhi-citta，定心），因為這兩種神通唯獨從定（samādhi，禪定）中產生。

問：既然是無記，在四種無記中屬於哪種無記？

解答說：是通果無記（abhijñā-phala-avyākṛta，神通果報無記）。

【English Translation】 English version 'Narrow': Exclusively related to the present rūpa-āyatana (sphere of form). 'The wisdom of death and rebirth is broad': Universally related to the five skandhas (pañca-khandha, five aggregates). Either related to the present or related to the future.

'Because the knowledge of others' minds reaches all objects': Telepathy (paracitta-vijñāna, knowledge of others' minds) is included within the three smṛtyupasthānas (foundations of mindfulness). The knowledge of past lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna, knowledge of previous abodes) is included within the four smṛtyupasthānas. Because it universally relates to the five skandhas. The exhaustion of outflows (āsravakṣaya-jñāna, knowledge of the extinction of outflows) is included within the four smṛtyupasthānas. Because it universally relates to everything.

The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Principles) refutes: 'The sūtra master wants to include both the knowledge of past lives and the exhaustion of outflows within the four smṛtyupasthānas, because they universally relate to the five skandhas and all objects.' But in reality, the knowledge of past lives is included within the dharma-smṛtyupasthāna (mindfulness of phenomena). Although the sūtra says that mindfulness is about having experienced suffering, joy, etc., it is recalling the aggregates experienced in past lives, which is mixed and included within the dharma-smṛtyupasthāna. The exhaustion of outflows, according to its capacity, either belongs to the dharma-smṛtyupasthāna or to the four smṛtyupasthānas. It should not be asserted that it is included within the four smṛtyupasthānas.

The Abhidharmakośa-ācārya (master of the Abhidharma-kośa) defends: 'I admit that the knowledge of past lives also has other relationships, so it is connected to the four smṛtyupasthānas.' Saying that the exhaustion of outflows is connected to the four smṛtyupasthānas is based on the ten knowledges (daśa-jñāna, ten wisdoms). Six knowledges exclusively belong to the dharma-smṛtyupasthāna, which can be inferred, so it is not separately explained.

Question: If it is said that the knowledge of past lives is connected to the four smṛtyupasthānas, it contradicts the commentators of the Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary). As the hundredth fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says: 'Mindfulness is exclusively the mixed dharma-smṛtyupasthāna.' Ārya-Sughoṣa (Venerable Sughoṣa) said this: 'Connected to the four smṛtyupasthānas.' As the sūtra says: 'I remember experiencing suffering and joy in the past.' Since joy and suffering are known, it is the vedanā-smṛtyupasthāna (mindfulness of feeling). The commentator says: 'It should be said that remembering the joy and suffering of past lives is called experiencing joy and suffering, it is not just related to feeling, so it is not evidence.' However, the knowledge of recollecting past lives generally observes the differences in the states of past lives, and is exclusively included within the mixed dharma-smṛtyupasthāna.

Explanation: I consider reason to be correct, and do not take the commentators of the Vibhāṣā as the standard. Even if it is the same as Ārya-Sughoṣa, there is no fault, because the sūtra is clear and should not be interpreted differently.

'Among these six superknowledges, up to the corresponding wisdom': The following explains the distinction of the three svabhāvas (tri-svabhāva, three natures) of the last two sentences. Clairvoyance (divya-cakṣus, divine eye) and clairaudience (divya-śrotra, divine ear) are avyākṛta (unspecified), because they are the prajñā (wisdom) corresponding to the two consciousnesses. Saying 'not wholesome', the five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna, five consciousnesses) are sahaja-kuśala (innate wholesome), and cannot arise in different bhūmis (planes), or innate wholesome cannot give rise to samādhi-citta (concentrated mind), because these two superknowledges exclusively arise from samādhi (concentration).

Question: Since it is unspecified, which kind of unspecified is it among the four kinds of unspecified?

Answer: It is abhijñā-phala-avyākṛta (unspecified result of superknowledge).

問既天眼．耳相應慧名通。如何名果　解云即通名果故名通果。無擁故名通。從定生故名果。

若爾寧說依四靜慮者。問若爾寧說依四靜慮。二識但是初定散心。不依定故。

隨根說故至依四地故者。答。通所依根四靜慮攝。隨根說故說依四言。或此依通無間道說。通無間道依四地故。隨無間道說依四言　正理破云。此解不然。六通皆是解脫道攝。眼．耳二識是解脫道。理不成故。應作是說。四靜慮中有定相應勝無記慧。能引自地勝大種果。此慧現前便引自地天眼．天耳令現在前。為所依根發眼．耳識故。眼．耳二識相應慧非通。但可說言是通所引　解云正理論意。六通解脫皆是意識。眼．耳二識是五識攝非解脫道。應作是說。四靜慮中從凈定起。有勝無記慧。與凈定相鄰出入名定相應。凈定為無間道。意地勝無記慧為解脫道。即是二通自性。能引自地勝大種果造天眼．耳。為所依根發眼．耳識。故眼．耳二識相應慧非通。但可說言是通所引。意地勝無記慧。體非根．耳。能引天眼．天耳。從果為名故名天眼．天耳通。眼．耳二識相應慧。體非是通。而言通者通所引故。從因為名。言通果者。若天眼．耳二識相應慧是果非通。言通果者通之果故。從因為名。依主釋也。若意地勝無記慧。是通非果。或亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：既然天眼（divine eye）、天耳（divine ear）與相應的智慧被稱為『通』（神通，abhijñā），那麼如何稱呼它們的結果呢？

解：解釋說，『通』本身就是結果，所以稱為『通果』。沒有阻礙，所以稱為『通』。從禪定產生，所以稱為『果』。

問：如果這樣，為什麼說依賴於四靜慮（catu-dhyāna，四禪定）呢？

問：如果這樣，為什麼說依賴於四靜慮呢？因為眼識和耳識只是初禪的散亂心，不依賴於禪定。

答：回答說，『通』所依賴的根是四靜慮所包含的。隨順根的說法，所以說依賴於四靜慮。或者這是依據『通』的無間道（ānantarya-mārga，直接導致解脫的道路）來說的，因為『通』的無間道依賴於四地（catu-bhūmi，四禪定地）。隨順無間道的說法，所以說依賴於四靜慮。

正理（Nyāya）駁斥說：這種解釋不對。六通（ṣaṭ abhijñā，六種神通）都屬於解脫道（vimokṣa-mārga）。眼識和耳識是解脫道，這個道理不成立。應該這樣說：在四靜慮中，有與禪定相應的殊勝無記慧（upekṣā-jñāna，不苦不樂的智慧），能夠引生自地的殊勝大種果（mahābhūta-phala，四大元素的結果）。這種智慧現前，便引生自地的天眼、天耳令其現在前，作為發起眼識、耳識所依賴的根。因此，眼識、耳識相應的智慧不是『通』，但可以說它是『通』所引發的。

解：解釋說，正理論的意思是，六通的解脫都是意識（manas-vijñāna）的作用。眼識和耳識屬於五識（pañca-vijñāna）的範疇，不是解脫道。應該這樣說：在四靜慮中，從清凈的禪定生起，有殊勝的無記慧。與清凈的禪定相鄰，出入于禪定，稱為與禪定相應。清凈的禪定是無間道，意地的殊勝無記慧是解脫道，也就是天眼通和天耳通的自性。能夠引生自地的殊勝大種果，創造天眼、天耳，作為發起眼識、耳識所依賴的根。因此，眼識、耳識相應的智慧不是『通』，但可以說它是『通』所引發的。意地的殊勝無記慧，其體性不是眼根、耳根，但能引生天眼、天耳。從結果來命名，所以稱為天眼通、天耳通。眼識、耳識相應的智慧，其體性不是『通』，但之所以稱為『通』，是因為它是『通』所引發的，是從原因來命名，稱為『通果』。如果天眼、天耳二識相應的智慧是果而不是『通』，那麼稱為『通果』，是因為它是『通』的結果，是從原因來命名，是依主釋（tat-puruṣa）。如果意地的殊勝無記慧是『通』而不是果，或者也是果……

【English Translation】 English version: Question: Since the divine eye (divya-cakṣus), the divine ear (divya-śrotra), and the corresponding wisdom are called 'abhijñā' (supernormal knowledge), how are their results named?

Answer: It is explained that 'abhijñā' itself is the result, hence it is called 'abhijñā-phala' (result of supernormal knowledge). It is without obstruction, hence it is called 'abhijñā'. It arises from samādhi (concentration), hence it is called 'phala' (result).

Question: If so, why is it said to rely on the four dhyānas (catu-dhyāna, four meditative absorptions)?

Question: If so, why is it said to rely on the four dhyānas? Because eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness are merely the distracted mind of the first dhyāna, not relying on samādhi.

Answer: The root on which 'abhijñā' relies is included in the four dhyānas. Following the statement about the root, it is said to rely on the four dhyānas. Or this relies on the ānantarya-mārga (path of immediate consequence) of 'abhijñā', because the ānantarya-mārga of 'abhijñā' relies on the four bhūmis (catu-bhūmi, four levels of existence corresponding to the four dhyānas). Following the statement about the ānantarya-mārga, it is said to rely on the four dhyānas.

The Nyāya (logical school) refutes: This explanation is incorrect. All six abhijñās (ṣaṭ abhijñā, six supernormal knowledges) are included in the vimokṣa-mārga (path of liberation). Eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness are the path of liberation; this reasoning is not established. It should be said like this: In the four dhyānas, there is superior upekṣā-jñāna (equanimous wisdom) corresponding to samādhi, which can bring about the superior mahābhūta-phala (result of the great elements) of its own level. When this wisdom manifests, it brings about the divine eye and divine ear of its own level, making them manifest as the root on which eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness arise. Therefore, the wisdom corresponding to eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness is not 'abhijñā', but it can be said that it is brought about by 'abhijñā'.

Explanation: The meaning of the Nyāya school is that the liberation of the six abhijñās is all the function of manas-vijñāna (mind-consciousness). Eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness belong to the category of pañca-vijñāna (five consciousnesses), not the path of liberation. It should be said like this: In the four dhyānas, arising from pure samādhi, there is superior upekṣā-jñāna. Adjacent to pure samādhi, entering and exiting samādhi, it is called corresponding to samādhi. Pure samādhi is the ānantarya-mārga, and the superior upekṣā-jñāna of the mind-basis is the vimokṣa-mārga, which is the nature of the divine eye and divine ear abhijñās. It can bring about the superior mahābhūta-phala of its own level, creating the divine eye and divine ear as the root on which eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness arise. Therefore, the wisdom corresponding to eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness is not 'abhijñā', but it can be said that it is brought about by 'abhijñā'. The nature of the superior upekṣā-jñāna of the mind-basis is not the eye-sense or ear-sense, but it can bring about the divine eye and divine ear. It is named from the result, hence it is called divine eye abhijñā and divine ear abhijñā. The wisdom corresponding to eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness, its nature is not 'abhijñā', but it is called 'abhijñā' because it is brought about by 'abhijñā', named from the cause, called 'abhijñā-phala'. If the wisdom corresponding to divine eye and divine ear consciousnesses is the result and not 'abhijñā', then it is called 'abhijñā-phala' because it is the result of 'abhijñā', named from the cause, which is tat-puruṣa (dependent compound). If the superior upekṣā-jñāna of the mind-basis is 'abhijñā' and not the result, or it is also the result...

是果。定所引故名果。無擁故名通。即通名果。持業釋也　俱舍師救云。本起二通為遠見聞。得遠見聞即顯無障。眼．耳二識名解脫道。何理能遮。如他心通等解脫道中知他心等。斷惑解脫可唯意識。無擁解脫何妨通五。若說意地勝無記慧名為通體。能見聞耶。若不見聞然名通者。起通何用。若謂引大種及引眼耳。本起二通欲遠見聞。非引大等。又復自有勝善定引。何須無記劣慧引耶。又彼所言有定相應勝無記慧。何處有定是無記耶。而言相應。若謂別有勝無記慧。與定前後出入相順名定相應。應言相順。何謂相應。此即言失。又諸經．論皆言天眼．天耳二通。不言意識勝無記慧名為通體。非但與理相違。亦無文可證。由斯理．教。二識相應慧定是通體。言通果者。定所引故名果。無擁故名通。即通名果。持業釋也　問若爾何故。婆沙三十二云。如天眼．耳。是通果故亦名為通　解云是通無間道果故。亦名為通。或是通果所依根故。亦名為通。或同正理。無勞會釋　余之四通性皆是善者。除天眼．耳餘四皆善。

若爾何故至謂善慧者。問。若眼．耳通是無記性。何故品類言通是善。

彼據多分或就勝說者。答。六中四善。二是無記。彼據多分言通是善。或通有二。一善。二無記。彼就勝說言通是善　又解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本是果（結果）。由禪定所引發，所以稱為果。沒有阻礙，所以稱為通。這個『通』就是『果』，這是持業釋（主謂結構）。俱舍師救（俱舍論的論師救）說：最初生起的天眼通和天耳通是爲了能夠遠距離地看見和聽見。能夠遠距離地看見和聽見就表明沒有障礙。眼識和耳識被稱為解脫道，什麼道理能夠阻礙它們呢？就像他心通等在解脫道中能夠知道他人的心念一樣。斷除煩惱的解脫可能只有通過意識才能做到，但沒有阻礙的解脫為什麼不能通過五識來實現呢？如果說在意識層面上的殊勝的無記慧是通的本體，那麼它能夠看見和聽見嗎？如果不能看見和聽見卻被稱為通，那麼生起通有什麼用呢？如果說（生起通）是爲了引導四大種以及引導眼根和耳根，那麼最初生起的天眼通和天耳通是爲了遠距離地看見和聽見，而不是爲了引導四大種等。而且，本來就有殊勝的善定能夠引導（見聞），為什麼需要無記的低劣智慧來引導呢？而且，他所說的有與禪定相應的殊勝的無記慧，哪裡有禪定是無記的呢？卻說與禪定相應。如果說另外有殊勝的無記慧，與禪定前後相隨，出入相順，所以稱為與禪定相應，那麼應該說是相順，為什麼要說是相應呢？這簡直是言語上的錯誤。而且，各種經和論都說天眼通和天耳通，沒有說意識的殊勝的無記慧是通的本體。這不僅與道理相違背，也沒有任何經文可以證明。因此，從道理和教義上來說，與眼識和耳識相應的智慧和禪定才是通的本體。說『通果』，是因為由禪定所引發，所以稱為果；沒有阻礙，所以稱為通。這個『通』就是『果』，這是持業釋（主謂結構）。問：如果是這樣，那麼為什麼《婆沙論》第三十二卷說：『如天眼、天耳，是通的果，所以也稱為通』？答：這是因為天眼通和天耳通是通的無間道果，所以也稱為通。或者是因為通果所依賴的根，所以也稱為通。或者與《正理》相同，不需要費力解釋。其餘四種通的性質都是善的。除了天眼通和天耳通，其餘四種都是善的。問：如果是這樣，那麼為什麼（《品類足論》）說通是善的呢？答：這是根據多數情況來說的，或者就殊勝的情況來說的。六種通中有四種是善的，兩種是無記的。這是根據多數情況來說通是善的。或者通有兩種，一種是善的，一種是無記的。這是就殊勝的情況來說通是善的。又一種解釋是...

【English Translation】 English version It is a result (果). It is called a result because it is induced by Samadhi (定). It is called unobstructed (通) because it has no obstruction. This 'unobstructed' is the 'result,' which is a Karmadharaya compound (持業釋, appositional compound). The Kosa master Savior (俱舍師救, commentator of Abhidharmakosa) said: The initial arising of Divine Eye (天眼通, clairvoyance) and Divine Ear (天耳通, clairaudience) is to be able to see and hear from a distance. Being able to see and hear from a distance shows that there is no obstruction. Eye consciousness and ear consciousness are called the path of liberation; what reason can obstruct them? Just as the knowledge of others' minds in the path of liberation, such as telepathy (他心通), is possible. The liberation of cutting off afflictions may only be achieved through consciousness, but why can't unobstructed liberation be achieved through the five consciousnesses? If it is said that the superior indeterminate wisdom in the realm of consciousness is the essence of unobstructedness, then can it see and hear? If it cannot see and hear but is called unobstructedness, then what is the use of arising unobstructedness? If it is said that (arising unobstructedness) is to guide the four great elements and to guide the eye and ear faculties, then the initial arising of Divine Eye and Divine Ear is to see and hear from a distance, not to guide the four great elements, etc. Moreover, there is originally a superior wholesome Samadhi that can guide (seeing and hearing), so why is there a need for inferior indeterminate wisdom to guide it? Furthermore, what he said about having superior indeterminate wisdom corresponding to Samadhi, where is there Samadhi that is indeterminate? Yet he says it corresponds to Samadhi. If it is said that there is another superior indeterminate wisdom that follows Samadhi before and after, entering and exiting in accordance, so it is called corresponding to Samadhi, then it should be said to be in accordance, why say corresponding? This is simply a mistake in language. Moreover, various sutras and treatises all speak of Divine Eye and Divine Ear, not saying that the superior indeterminate wisdom of consciousness is the essence of unobstructedness. This not only contradicts reason but also has no textual evidence to prove it. Therefore, from the perspective of reason and doctrine, the wisdom and Samadhi corresponding to eye consciousness and ear consciousness are the essence of unobstructedness. Saying 'unobstructed result' is because it is induced by Samadhi, so it is called a result; it has no obstruction, so it is called unobstructed. This 'unobstructed' is the 'result,' which is a Karmadharaya compound. Question: If that is the case, then why does the thirty-second volume of the Mahavibhasa (婆沙論) say: 'Like Divine Eye and Divine Ear, they are the results of unobstructedness, so they are also called unobstructedness'? Answer: This is because Divine Eye and Divine Ear are the immediate path results of unobstructedness, so they are also called unobstructedness. Or because they are the roots upon which the unobstructed result depends, so they are also called unobstructedness. Or it is the same as the Nyayasutra (正理), no need for laborious explanation. The nature of the remaining four unobstructednesses are all wholesome. Except for Divine Eye and Divine Ear, the remaining four are all wholesome. Question: If that is the case, then why does the Prakaranapada (品類足論) say that unobstructedness is wholesome? Answer: This is based on the majority of cases, or it is said in terms of the superior. Among the six unobstructednesses, four are wholesome, and two are indeterminate. This is based on the majority of cases to say that unobstructedness is wholesome. Or there are two types of unobstructedness, one is wholesome, and one is indeterminate. This is said in terms of the superior. Another explanation is...

品類足據善心達境皆名為通。若據別修勝慧名通。唯六是通。或善．或無記。故不相違。故婆沙一百四十一云。問品類足論當云何通。答彼所說通。與此說異。彼說善慧皆名為通。以說一切法皆是所通達故。此中所說勝慧名通。此通。或善．或無記。通與善慧得作四句。有通非善慧。謂天眼．天耳通。有善慧非通。謂除通余善慧。有俱是。謂餘四通。有俱非。謂除前相。

如契經說至學有闇非明者。此即第二辨三種明。依經起問及頌略答。

論曰至為其自性者。釋第一句　言三明者。一宿住智證明。以第五通為性。二死生智證明。以第二通為性。從因出體。據本為言。三漏盡智證明。以第六通為性。

六中三種至治中際愚者。釋第二句。六中三種獨名明者。宿住智通治前際愚。死生智通治后際愚。漏盡智通治中際愚。由智現前。令彼現在惑不起故名治中際。餘三不爾故不立明。又正理云。宿住智通憶念前際自．他苦事。死生智通觀察后際他身苦事。由此厭背生死眾苦。起漏盡通觀涅槃樂故。唯三種偏立為明。廣如彼說。

此三皆名至非無學故者。釋第三句。此三皆名無學明者。俱在無學身中起故。于中最後漏盡智明。或六智性。或十智性。容真無學通無漏故。餘二假說名為無學。體唯非學非

無學故。故正理云。由此最後得無學名。自性．相續皆無學故。前之二種得無學名。但由相續。不由自性。有學身中至故不名明者。釋第四句。有學身中有愚闇故。惑未除盡。於三明中雖有前二。由無後故不立為明。雖有暫時伏滅愚闇。后還被蔽故不名明。愚闇永無方名明故。

契經說有至引利樂果故者。此即第三明三示導。依經起問。及頌略答。

論曰至餘三不爾者釋上一句　三示導者。如其次第。一神變示導。以六通中第一神境通為性。二記心示導。以第四他心通為性。三教誡示導。以第六漏盡通為性。於六通中。三是示導三非示導者。唯此三種引所化生令初發心。最為勝故得示導名　或此能引外道憎背正法。及非內外處中之者令發心故。能示現希有事故。能導引入正法故。得示導名　又唯此三。令諸有情于佛法中如其次第。神變能令歸伏。記心能令信受。教誡能令修行。故唯三種得示導名。餘三不爾。故非示導。故婆沙一百三云。謂若自說我能遠聞。我能遠見。我能遠憶諸宿住事。他皆生疑為虛為實。即不信伏故非示導。

於三示導至最勝非餘者。釋下三句。校量勝劣。於三示導教誡最尊。唯此定由通所成故。定能引他人．天利益果。及取涅槃安樂果故。由決定故。故名最尊。謂前神變．記

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為是無學位的緣故。《正理》中說：『由此最後獲得無學之名，因為自性和相續都是無學的緣故。』之前的兩種（有學位）獲得無學之名，只是因為相續，不是因為自性。有學之身中有未斷盡的煩惱，所以不稱為『明』。這是解釋第四句。有學之身中有愚昧和黑暗，因為惑還沒有完全斷除。在三種明中，雖然有前兩種，但因為沒有後一種（漏盡明），所以不稱為『明』。即使有暫時伏滅的愚昧和黑暗，之後還會被遮蔽，所以不稱為『明』。愚昧和黑暗永遠消失才能稱為『明』。

『契經說有，能引導利益和安樂的果報』，這是指第三種明，即三示導。根據經文提出問題，並用頌文簡略回答。

論曰：『其餘三種不是這樣』，這是解釋上一句。『三示導』，按照順序分別是：一、神變示導（神通變化的引導），以六神通中的第一種，即神境通（能夠隨意變化的神通）為體性。二、記心示導（知曉他人心思的引導），以第四種，即他心通（瞭解他人心思的神通）為體性。三、教誡示導（教導勸誡的引導），以第六種，即漏盡通（斷除一切煩惱的神通）為體性。在六神通中，這三種是示導，其餘三種不是示導，因為只有這三種能夠引導被教化的人最初發菩提心，最為殊勝，所以得到『示導』之名。或者說，這三種能夠引導外道憎恨背離正法，以及非內非外處於中間狀態的人發菩提心，能夠示現稀有之事，能夠引導進入正法，所以得到『示導』之名。又或者說，只有這三種，能夠使眾生在佛法中按照順序，神變能夠使人歸順，記心能夠使人信受，教誡能夠使人修行，所以只有這三種得到『示導』之名，其餘三種不是這樣，所以不是示導。所以《婆沙論》第一百零三卷說：『如果自己說我能聽到遠處的聲音，我能看到遠處的事物，我能回憶起過去世的事情，他人都會懷疑是真是假，因此不信服，所以不是示導。』

『在三種示導中，最殊勝的不是其他的』，這是解釋下面三句，衡量勝劣。在三種示導中，教誡最為尊貴，只有這種示導必定是由神通所成就的，必定能夠引導他人和天人獲得利益的果報，以及獲得涅槃安樂的果報，因為是決定的緣故，所以稱為最尊貴。所謂之前的神變、記心

【English Translation】 English version: Because of being in the state of No-More-Learning (Wu Xue, 無學). The Zhengli (正理, Correct Reasoning) says: 'Therefore, one finally obtains the name of No-More-Learning, because both self-nature and continuity are No-More-Learning.' The previous two (states of learning) obtain the name of No-More-Learning, but only due to continuity, not due to self-nature. Those in the state of Learning have not completely eliminated afflictions, so they are not called 'Clarity'. This explains the fourth sentence. Those in the state of Learning have ignorance and darkness because afflictions have not been completely eliminated. Among the three clarities, although they have the first two, they are not called 'Clarity' because they lack the last one (the clarity of the extinction of outflows, Lou Jin Ming, 漏盡明). Even if there is temporary suppression of ignorance and darkness, they will still be obscured later, so they are not called 'Clarity'. Only when ignorance and darkness are permanently eliminated can it be called 'Clarity'.

'The Sutra says there are those that lead to beneficial and joyful results,' this refers to the third clarity, the three guidances (San Shi Dao, 三示導). Questions are raised based on the sutra, and answered briefly with verses.

The treatise says: 'The other three are not like this,' this explains the previous sentence. The 'three guidances' are, in order: 1. Guidance through miraculous transformation (Shen Bian Shi Dao, 神變示導), whose nature is the first of the six superknowledges (Liu Tong, 六通), namely the superknowledge of magical powers (Shen Jing Tong, 神境通). 2. Guidance through knowing others' minds (Ji Xin Shi Dao, 記心示導), whose nature is the fourth, namely the superknowledge of knowing others' minds (Ta Xin Tong, 他心通). 3. Guidance through teaching and admonition (Jiao Jie Shi Dao, 教誡示導), whose nature is the sixth, namely the superknowledge of the extinction of outflows (Lou Jin Tong, 漏盡通). Among the six superknowledges, these three are guidances, and the other three are not, because only these three can guide those being taught to initially generate the Bodhi mind, and are the most supreme, so they obtain the name 'guidance'. Or, these three can guide those of external paths to hate and turn away from the correct Dharma, and those who are neither internal nor external, in a neutral state, to generate the Bodhi mind, can demonstrate rare and wonderful things, and can guide them into the correct Dharma, so they obtain the name 'guidance'. Furthermore, only these three can, in order, cause sentient beings to submit to the Buddha-dharma through miraculous transformation, to believe and accept through knowing others' minds, and to practice through teaching and admonition, so only these three obtain the name 'guidance'. The other three are not like this, so they are not guidances. Therefore, the Vibhasa (婆沙, Commentary) volume 103 says: 'If one says that I can hear distant sounds, I can see distant things, I can recall past lives, others will doubt whether it is true or false, and therefore will not believe and submit, so it is not guidance.'

'Among the three guidances, the most supreme is not the others,' this explains the following three sentences, comparing superiority and inferiority. Among the three guidances, teaching and admonition is the most venerable, only this guidance is certainly accomplished by superknowledge, and certainly can lead others and devas to obtain the fruit of benefit, and to obtain the fruit of Nirvana bliss, because it is definite, so it is called the most venerable. The previous miraculous transformation and knowing others' minds

心二導。咒術亦能。不但由通故非決定。如有咒術名健馱梨。持此便能騰空自在如神境通。健馱是國名。此國所出名健馱梨。又真諦云。有女天名健馱梨。翻為持地。此咒是健馱梨所說。從能說女天為名故稱健馱梨。復有咒術名伊剎尼。持此便能知他心念。如他心通。伊剎尼此云觀察。又真諦云。伊剎尼是論名。是露形外道師所造。翻為觀察。此咒從彼所造論為名故。稱伊剎尼　教誡示導除漏盡通。余咒術等必不能為故是決定。又前神變．記心二導。有但令他暫時迴心。非引勝果。教誡示導不但令他迴心趣正。亦定令他引當來世人．天利益果。及涅槃安樂果。以能如實方便說故。由是教誡。三示導中最尊最勝。非余神變記心二導　言教誡者。教謂教授。誡謂誡勖。

神境二言至謂似自他身者。此下第四別明神境。就中。一正明神境。二明能所化　此即正明神境。問及頌答。

論曰至謂行及化者。釋初兩句。依毗婆沙所說理趣。神名所目唯勝等持。有神用故從用為名。由定能為神變事故。諸神變事說名為境。此境有二。謂行及化。

行復三種至猶如飛鳥者。此下釋第三．第四句。此解運身。可解。

二者勝解至便能速至者。由勝解力極遠速至。又正理七十六云。本無來去何謂速行。此實不行但

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：心二導（兩種引導方式）。咒術也能做到（引導），但並非完全依靠神通，因此不是絕對的。例如，有一種咒術名為健馱梨（Gandhari，國名，或持地女天名），持誦此咒便能騰空自在，如同獲得神境通（神通的一種）。健馱（Gandhara）是一個國名，這個國家出產的咒術被稱為健馱梨。另一種說法，真諦（Paramārtha，印度僧人）說，有一位女天名為健馱梨，翻譯為持地。此咒是健馱梨所說。因為咒語由能說的女天命名，所以稱為健馱梨。還有一種咒術名為伊剎尼（Īkṣaṇī，觀察），持誦此咒便能知道他人的心念，如同他心通（神通的一種）。伊剎尼的意思是觀察。真諦又說，伊剎尼是一種論典的名字，是露形外道師所造，翻譯為觀察。此咒因為是從他們所造的論典命名，所以稱為伊剎尼。教誡示導（通過教導和引導）可以去除煩惱，達到漏盡通（神通的一種）。其他的咒術等必定不能做到這一點，所以教誡示導是絕對的。而且，之前的神變（神通變化）和記心（記住他人心念）這兩種引導，有的只是暫時使他人回心轉意，並不能引導獲得殊勝的果報。教誡示導不僅能使他人迴心向善，也必定能引導他們獲得未來世人天（人和天人）的利益果報，以及涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）的安樂果報，因為它能如實地用方便法門說法。因此，教誡在三種引導方式中是最尊貴最殊勝的，不是其他神變和記心這兩種引導可以比擬的。所說的教誡，教是教授，誡是誡勉。神境二言至謂似自他身者（神境的兩種說法，直到可以變化成自己或他人的身體）。下面第四部分分別說明神境。其中，一是正面說明神境，二是說明能變化的主體和所變化的對象。這部分就是正面說明神境。通過提問和頌文來回答。論曰至謂行及化者（論中說，神境包括行和化）。解釋最初的兩句。依據毗婆沙（Vibhasa，佛教論書）所說的道理，神這個名稱所指的只是殊勝的等持（Samadhi，禪定）。因為有神奇的作用，所以從作用來命名。因為禪定能夠產生神變的事情，所以各種神變的事情被稱為境。這種境有兩種，即行和化。行復三種至猶如飛鳥者（行又有三種，就像飛鳥一樣）。下面解釋第三句和第四句。這部分解釋的是運身（移動身體），可以理解。二者勝解至便能速至者（第二種是殊勝的理解，因此能夠快速到達）。依靠殊勝理解的力量，即使極遠的地方也能快速到達。而且《正理》（Nyaya，古印度邏輯學派）第七十六卷說，本來就沒有來去，怎麼能說是快速行走呢？這實際上不是行走，只是...

【English Translation】 English version: The two guides of mind. Spells can also (guide), but they do not entirely rely on supernormal powers, so they are not absolute. For example, there is a spell called Gandhari (name of a country, or the name of a goddess holding the earth). Holding this spell allows one to fly freely in the air, just like obtaining divine powers (a type of supernormal power). Gandhara is the name of a country, and the spells produced in this country are called Gandhari. Another explanation is that Paramārtha (an Indian monk) said that there is a goddess named Gandhari, which translates to 'holder of the earth.' This spell was spoken by Gandhari. Because the spell is named after the goddess who speaks it, it is called Gandhari. There is also a spell called Īkṣaṇī (observation). Holding this spell allows one to know the thoughts of others, just like telepathy (a type of supernormal power). Īkṣaṇī means observation. Paramārtha also said that Īkṣaṇī is the name of a treatise, created by naked heretic teachers, and translates to 'observation.' This spell is named after the treatise they created, so it is called Īkṣaṇī. Teaching and guiding (through instruction and guidance) can remove afflictions and achieve the extinction of outflows (a type of supernormal power). Other spells cannot achieve this, so teaching and guiding are absolute. Moreover, the previous transformations (supernatural transformations) and mind-reading (remembering the thoughts of others) these two guides, some only temporarily cause others to change their minds, and cannot lead to obtaining superior rewards. Teaching and guiding not only enable others to turn to good, but also certainly lead them to obtain the benefits of future human and heavenly (human and celestial beings) rewards, as well as the blissful reward of Nirvana (extinction), because it can truthfully speak using skillful means. Therefore, teaching is the most noble and supreme among the three guides, and cannot be compared to the other two guides of transformation and mind-reading. What is said to be teaching, teaching is instruction, and guiding is exhortation. The two words 'divine realm' to 'meaning similar to one's own or another's body' (the two explanations of the divine realm, until it can transform into one's own or another's body). The fourth part below separately explains the divine realm. Among them, one is to explain the divine realm directly, and the other is to explain the subject that can transform and the object that is transformed. This part is to explain the divine realm directly. Answer through questions and verses. The treatise says 'to include conduct and transformation' (the treatise says that the divine realm includes conduct and transformation). Explain the first two sentences. According to the principles stated in the Vibhasa (Buddhist treatise), the name 'divine' refers only to the superior Samadhi (meditative concentration). Because it has magical effects, it is named after its function. Because Samadhi can produce supernatural events, various supernatural events are called realms. There are two types of realms, namely conduct and transformation. Conduct is further divided into three types, like flying birds (conduct is further divided into three types, just like flying birds). The following explains the third and fourth sentences. This part explains the movement of the body, which can be understood. The second is superior understanding, therefore, one can arrive quickly (the second is superior understanding, therefore, one can arrive quickly). Relying on the power of superior understanding, even extremely distant places can be reached quickly. Moreover, the seventy-sixth volume of the Nyaya (ancient Indian school of logic) says, 'Originally there is no coming and going, how can it be said to be fast walking?' This is actually not walking, but...

由近解。行極速故得勝解名。或世尊言靜慮境界不思議故。唯佛能了。

三者意勢至並異生者。意勢極遠。舉心即至。諸佛境界不可思議。又正理解意勢中雲。如日舒光。蘊流亦爾。能頓至遠故說為行。若謂不然。此沒彼出。中間既斷。行義應無。或佛威神不思議故。舉心即至。不可測量。故意勢行唯世尊有。正理論解。一即舉喻以顯。二即贊不思議。然意不許中間間斷　問若非間斷如至極遠。度一極微經一剎那。如何舉心身即至彼　解云此贊極速言舉心緣身即能至。然于中間亦經多念。身微妙故非余所見。大而不停故能速至　又解第一剎那舉心緣時。第二剎那隨方遠近現一大身。中間續起第三剎那方至彼處　又解非從此處漸行至彼。舉心緣時不離本處隨方遠近現一大身。故說此身即能至彼。如應持菩薩量佛身時。上過無量無邊世界常見佛身　問如何得知中間不斷　解云正理既言如日舒光。蘊流亦爾。能頓至遠故說為行。又正理二十四解中有云。有餘復言。死．生二有雖隔而至。如意勢通。此亦不然非所許故　以此文證。故知意勢中間不斷。於三種中故意勢行唯世尊有。勝解兼余聖。運身並異生。又婆沙一百四十一云。有說聲聞成一謂運身。獨覺成二除意勢。唯佛世尊具成三種。有說異產生一。謂運身。二乘成

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從接近的方面解釋。因為行動極其迅速，所以得到『勝解』（殊勝的理解）這個名稱。或者世尊說，靜慮的境界不可思議，只有佛才能完全瞭解。

第三種是『意勢』（心意所至）行，只有佛和異生（指凡夫）才具備。『意勢』極其遙遠，只要心念一動就能到達。諸佛的境界不可思議。而且《正理論》對『意勢』的解釋中說，就像太陽舒展光芒，蘊流也是這樣，能夠立即到達遙遠的地方，所以稱為『行』。如果說不是這樣，那麼這邊消失，那邊出現，中間既然斷絕，『行』的意義就應該不存在了。或者因為佛的威神不可思議，心念一動就能到達，不可測量。所以『意勢』行只有世尊才有。《正理論》的解釋，一是舉例子來顯明，二是讚歎不可思議。然而心意並不允許中間間斷。問：如果不是間斷，像到達極其遙遠的地方，度過一個極微，經過一個剎那，如何心念一動身體就能到達那裡？答：這是讚歎極其迅速，說心念一動，緣于身體，就能到達。然而在中間也經過很多念頭。身體非常微妙，所以不是其他人所能看見的。因為廣大而不停滯，所以能夠迅速到達。又解釋說，第一個剎那心念一動，緣于那個時候，第二個剎那隨著方向遠近顯現一個巨大的身體，中間連續生起，第三個剎那才到達那個地方。又解釋說，不是從這裡逐漸行走到達那裡。心念一動，緣于那個時候，不離開原來的地方，隨著方向遠近顯現一個巨大的身體。所以說這個身體就能到達那裡。就像應持菩薩測量佛身的時候，向上超過無量無邊的世界，常見佛身。問：如何得知中間不斷？答：《正理論》既然說，就像太陽舒展光芒，蘊流也是這樣，能夠立即到達遙遠的地方，所以稱為『行』。而且《正理論》第二十四解中有說：『有的人又說，死和生兩種存在雖然隔開也能到達，就像意勢通。』這也是不對的，因為不是我們所允許的。用這段文字來證明，所以知道意勢中間不斷。在三種行中，『意勢』行只有世尊才有，『勝解』行兼有其餘聖者，『運身』行和異生都有。而且《婆沙》第一百四十一卷中說：有的人說聲聞成就一種，就是『運身』。獨覺成就兩種，除了『意勢』。只有佛世尊具足成就三種。有的人說異產生就一種，就是『運身』。二乘成就兩種。

【English Translation】 English version: Explained from the perspective of proximity. Because the action is extremely swift, it is named 'Adhimukti' (superior understanding). Or the World Honored One says that the realm of Samadhi is inconceivable, and only the Buddha can fully comprehend it.

The third is 'Iddhi' (psychic power) travel, which only the Buddha and ordinary beings possess. 'Iddhi' is extremely far-reaching; the moment a thought arises, one can arrive. The realms of all Buddhas are inconceivable. Moreover, the Abhidharma-nyayanusara explains 'Iddhi' by saying that just as the sun extends its rays, so too does the stream of aggregates; it can instantly reach distant places, hence it is called 'travel'. If it were not so, then this disappears and that appears, and since the middle is severed, the meaning of 'travel' would be nonexistent. Or because the Buddha's majestic power is inconceivable, one can arrive the moment a thought arises, which is immeasurable. Therefore, only the World Honored One possesses 'Iddhi' travel. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara explains this by first using an analogy to illustrate, and then praising its inconceivability. However, the mind does not allow for interruption in the middle. Question: If it is not interrupted, like reaching an extremely distant place, traversing one atom in one kshana (instant), how can the body arrive there the moment a thought arises? Answer: This praises extreme speed, saying that the moment a thought arises, connected to the body, one can arrive. However, many thoughts also pass in between. The body is very subtle, so it cannot be seen by others. Because it is vast and unceasing, it can arrive quickly. Another explanation is that in the first kshana, a thought arises, connected to that time; in the second kshana, a large body appears according to the direction and distance; in between, it continuously arises, and in the third kshana, it arrives at that place. Another explanation is that one does not gradually travel from here to there. The moment a thought arises, connected to that time, without leaving the original place, a large body appears according to the direction and distance. Therefore, it is said that this body can arrive there. Just as when Bodhisattva Ayushmat measures the Buddha's body, he often sees the Buddha's body extending beyond countless worlds. Question: How do we know that the middle is not interrupted? Answer: The Abhidharma-nyayanusara says that just as the sun extends its rays, so too does the stream of aggregates; it can instantly reach distant places, hence it is called 'travel'. Moreover, the twenty-fourth explanation in the Abhidharma-nyayanusara says: 'Some others say that although death and birth are separated, they can still reach each other, like psychic powers.' This is also incorrect because it is not what we allow. Using this passage as proof, we know that Iddhi is not interrupted in the middle. Among the three types of travel, only the World Honored One possesses 'Iddhi' travel, other sages also possess 'Adhimukti' travel, and both ordinary beings and others possess 'Vikurvana' travel. Moreover, the one hundred and forty-first volume of the Mahavibhasa says: Some say that Sravakas (hearers) achieve one type, which is 'Vikurvana'. Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas) achieve two types, excluding 'Iddhi'. Only the World Honored Buddha fully achieves all three types. Some say that ordinary beings achieve one type, which is 'Vikurvana'. The Two Vehicles achieve two types.

二。除意勢。然聲聞運身所顯。獨覺意解所顯。佛具成三。意勢所顯婆沙雖無評家。此論正理．顯宗等。皆同第二說。即以第二師為正。

化復二種至無香味故者。釋第五．第六句。如文可知。

此二界化至故總成八者。釋后兩句。此二界化各有二種。謂欲界中化。屬自身．他身別故。謂色界中化。屬自身．他身別故。身在欲界化有四種。欲界自身．他身化。色界自身．他身化身。在色界化亦有四。色界自身．他身化。欲界自身．他身化。故總成八。

若生在色至成香．味失者。問。欲界八微體不相離。生上化下。如何不有成就香．味二種失耶。

如衣嚴具至唯化二處者。答。身生色界化欲香．味。而不成就。無生上界成下香．味。猶如衣服及莊嚴具。雖不離身作而不成就。有說。在色作欲界化。唯化色．觸二處不化香．味。欲界八微不相離者。據非化者說。又如色界眼根八微不相離。然有身生欲界得色天眼。但得眼根．及四大。不得身．色．觸。即有相離時。何妨欲界香．味亦有相離時　問於二說中何者為正　解云前說為正。故婆沙一百三十五云。問所化作身幾處所攝。答若生欲界作欲界化自身．他身。皆四處攝謂色．香．味．觸。作色界化自身．他身。皆二處攝謂色．觸。若生色界作色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二、關於意勢（Ishi）。聲聞（Sravaka）乘的身所顯現，獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）的意解所顯現，佛（Buddha）則具足成就這三種。關於意勢所顯現，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）雖然沒有評判家，但《此論正理》、《顯宗論》等都同意第二種說法，即以第二位論師的觀點為正確。

『化復二種至無香味故者』，解釋第五、第六句。如文中所述可知。

『此二界化至故總成八者』，解釋後面的兩句。這兩個界（欲界和色界）的化各有兩種，即欲界中的化，因為自身和他身的區別；以及色界中的化，因為自身和他身的區別。身在欲界所化有四種：欲界自身、他身之化，色界自身、他身之化身。身在色界所化也有四種：色界自身、他身之化，欲界自身、他身之化。所以總共形成八種。

『若生在色至成香．味失者』，提問：欲界的八微（八種基本粒子）體不相離，如果生在上界而化在地獄，為什麼不會有成就香、味兩種的缺失呢？

『如衣嚴具至唯化二處者』，回答：身生在色界，化在欲界，香、味不會成就。沒有生在上界而成就地獄的香、味的情況，就像衣服和莊嚴具，雖然不離身，但作用卻不能成就。有人說，在色界作欲界的化，只能化色、觸二處，不能化香、味。欲界的八微不相離，是就非化的情況來說的。又如色界的眼根八微不相離，但有身生在欲界而得到色界天眼的情況，但只能得到眼根和四大，得不到身、色、觸，即有相離的時候。為什麼不能有欲界的香、味也有相離的時候呢？問：這兩種說法中哪一種是正確的？解答說：前一種說法是正確的。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷說：問：所化作的身，被幾處所攝？答：如果生在欲界，作欲界的化，自身、他身，都被四處所攝，即色、香、味、觸。作色界的化，自身、他身，都被二處所攝，即色、觸。如果生在色界作色界的化。

【English Translation】 English version: Two. Regarding Ishi (意勢, mental power). What is manifested by the body in the Sravaka (聲聞, Hearer) vehicle, what is manifested by the understanding of the Pratyekabuddha (獨覺, Solitary Buddha), the Buddha (佛) fully possesses all three. Regarding what is manifested by Ishi, although the Vibhasa (婆沙) does not have commentators, the Nyayanusara-sastra (此論正理), Abhidharmasamuccaya (顯宗論), etc., all agree with the second view, that is, taking the view of the second teacher as correct.

'The transformation is again of two kinds, up to the reason why there is no fragrance or taste,' explains the fifth and sixth sentences. As can be understood from the text.

'These two realms of transformation, up to the reason why they total eight,' explains the last two sentences. The transformations of these two realms (the Desire Realm and the Form Realm) each have two kinds, namely, the transformation in the Desire Realm, due to the distinction between self-body and other-body; and the transformation in the Form Realm, due to the distinction between self-body and other-body. The transformations of a body in the Desire Realm are of four kinds: the transformation of the self-body and other-body of the Desire Realm, and the transformation body of the self-body and other-body of the Form Realm. The transformations of a body in the Form Realm are also of four kinds: the transformation of the self-body and other-body of the Form Realm, and the transformation of the self-body and other-body of the Desire Realm. Therefore, a total of eight are formed.

'If born in the Form Realm, up to the loss of the accomplishment of fragrance and taste,' asks: The eight subtle elements (八微, eight basic particles) of the Desire Realm are not separate in substance. If one is born in the upper realm and transforms in the lower realm, why would there not be a loss of the accomplishment of the two, fragrance and taste?

'Like clothing and ornaments, up to the transformation of only two places,' answers: If the body is born in the Form Realm and transforms in the Desire Realm, fragrance and taste will not be accomplished. There is no case of being born in the upper realm and accomplishing the fragrance and taste of the lower realm, just like clothing and ornaments, although they are not separate from the body, their function cannot be accomplished. Some say that when making a transformation of the Desire Realm in the Form Realm, only the two places of color and touch can be transformed, not fragrance and taste. The eight subtle elements of the Desire Realm not being separate refers to the case of non-transformation. Also, like the eight subtle elements of the eye-organ in the Form Realm not being separate, but there are cases of a body being born in the Desire Realm and obtaining the heavenly eye of the Form Realm, but only the eye-organ and the four great elements are obtained, not the body, color, and touch, that is, there are times when they are separate. Why can't there be times when the fragrance and taste of the Desire Realm are also separate? Question: Which of these two views is correct? The answer is: The former view is correct. Therefore, the Vibhasa, volume one hundred and thirty-five, says: Question: How many places are included in the body that is transformed? Answer: If born in the Desire Realm and making a transformation of the Desire Realm, the self-body and other-body are both included in four places, namely, color, fragrance, taste, and touch. Making a transformation of the Form Realm, the self-body and other-body are both included in two places, namely, color and touch. If born in the Form Realm and making a transformation of the Form Realm.

界化自身．他身。皆二處攝。作欲界化自身．他身皆四處攝。如前說　有說。若化他身則四處攝。若化自身唯二處攝。勿彼成就香．味處故。

如是說者。雖化香．味無成就失。如人衣服．嚴具．華香。雖覆在身而不成就　問異界化色．觸皆成就不　解云皆成就。如婆沙一百三十二云。有成就欲界系大種。亦色界系大種。謂生欲界色界大種現在前。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語　又云。有成就欲界系大種。亦色界系所造色。謂生欲界得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語　又云。有成就欲界系所造色。亦色界系大種。謂生欲界色界大種現在前。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語　又云。有成就欲界系所造色。亦色界系所造色。謂生欲界得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語　婆沙既言若生色界作欲界化。發欲界語。成就欲界大種．及所造色。文不別簡。明知異界化若化自身。若化他身。色．觸二種皆悉成就。義準應知。若即身化。若離身化。亦皆成就　或可若即身化即成就。若離身化即不成就。婆沙言成就者據即身化。雖有兩解前解為勝。又婆沙云。如是說者。離所化身不發化語。語者必由粗四大種相擊起故。

化作化事為即是通者。此下第二明能．所化。問。化作化事。為即是神境通能起化事。

不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：將自身變化為其他身，都包含在兩個處所（指色處和觸處）中。如果變化欲界的自身或其他身，則包含在四個處所（指色處、香處、味處和觸處）中，如前所述。有人說，如果變化其他身，則包含在四個處所中；如果變化自身，則只包含在兩個處所中，因為自身不會成就香處和味處。

如此說來，即使變化出香處和味處，也不會有成就上的缺失。就像人的衣服、裝飾品、花香，即使在身上也不會成就香處和味處。問：在不同界變化出的色處和觸處都能成就嗎？答：都能成就。如《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷所說：『有成就欲界系的大種（四大元素），也有成就色界系的大種。』這是指生在欲界，色界的大種現在前。如果生在色界，卻變化出欲界的形體，發出欲界的語言。又說：『有成就欲界系的大種，也有成就色界系的所造色（由四大元素所造的顏色和形狀）。』這是指生在欲界，得到色界的善心。如果生在色界，卻變化出欲界的形體，發出欲界的語言。又說：『有成就欲界系的所造色，也有成就色界系的大種。』這是指生在欲界，色界的大種現在前。如果生在色界，卻變化出欲界的形體，發出欲界的語言。又說：『有成就欲界系的所造色，也有成就色界系的所造色。』這是指生在欲界，得到色界的善心。如果生在色界，卻變化出欲界的形體，發出欲界的語言。《婆沙論》既然說如果生在色界，卻變化出欲界的形體，發出欲界的語言，就能成就欲界的大種和所造色，文中沒有特別區分，明顯可知在不同界變化，無論是變化自身還是變化他身，色處和觸處兩種都能成就。依此推斷，無論是即身變化還是離身變化，都能成就。或者說，如果是即身變化就能成就，如果是離身變化就不能成就。《婆沙論》所說的成就，是根據即身變化而言。雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更好。又《婆沙論》說：『如此說來，離開所變化的身體就不能發出變化的語言。』因為語言必定是由粗四大種相互撞擊而產生的。

變化所作之物是否等同於神通？接下來第二部分說明能變化者和所變化者。問：變化所作之物，是否等同於神境通（Abhijñā，神通）所能引發的變化之物？

不。

【English Translation】 English version: Transforming oneself into another body is encompassed by two āyatanas (spheres of perception) – rūpa (form) and sparśa (touch). Transforming oneself or another into a body of the Kāmadhātu (desire realm) is encompassed by four āyatanas – rūpa, gandha (smell), rasa (taste), and sparśa, as previously stated. Some say that transforming another's body involves four āyatanas, while transforming one's own body involves only two, as one's own body does not achieve gandha and rasa.

According to this view, even if gandha and rasa are transformed, there is no loss of achievement. Like a person's clothes, ornaments, flowers, and fragrances, even when on the body, gandha and rasa are not achieved. Question: Are the rūpa and sparśa transformed in a different realm achieved? Answer: They are all achieved. As the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra (Great Commentary) 132 says: 'There is achievement of mahābhūtas (great elements) pertaining to the Kāmadhātu, and also achievement of mahābhūtas pertaining to the Rūpadhātu (form realm).' This refers to being born in the Kāmadhātu, with the mahābhūtas of the Rūpadhātu manifesting. If one is born in the Rūpadhātu but transforms into a form of the Kāmadhātu and speaks in the language of the Kāmadhātu. It also says: 'There is achievement of mahābhūtas pertaining to the Kāmadhātu, and also achievement of rūpa-dhātu upādā-rūpa (derived form).' This refers to being born in the Kāmadhātu and attaining wholesome mind of the Rūpadhātu. If one is born in the Rūpadhātu but transforms into a form of the Kāmadhātu and speaks in the language of the Kāmadhātu. It also says: 'There is achievement of upādā-rūpa pertaining to the Kāmadhātu, and also achievement of mahābhūtas pertaining to the Rūpadhātu.' This refers to being born in the Kāmadhātu, with the mahābhūtas of the Rūpadhātu manifesting. If one is born in the Rūpadhātu but transforms into a form of the Kāmadhātu and speaks in the language of the Kāmadhātu. It also says: 'There is achievement of upādā-rūpa pertaining to the Kāmadhātu, and also achievement of upādā-rūpa pertaining to the Rūpadhātu.' This refers to being born in the Kāmadhātu and attaining wholesome mind of the Rūpadhātu. If one is born in the Rūpadhātu but transforms into a form of the Kāmadhātu and speaks in the language of the Kāmadhātu. Since the Mahāvibhāṣā states that if one is born in the Rūpadhātu but transforms into a form of the Kāmadhātu and speaks in the language of the Kāmadhātu, there is achievement of the mahābhūtas and upādā-rūpa of the Kāmadhātu, without any specific distinction in the text, it is clear that in transformations across realms, whether transforming oneself or another, both rūpa and sparśa are achieved. By inference, it should be known that whether the transformation is immediate or remote, both are achieved. Alternatively, immediate transformation leads to achievement, while remote transformation does not. The achievement mentioned in the Mahāvibhāṣā refers to immediate transformation. Although there are two interpretations, the former is superior. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'According to this view, transformed speech cannot arise apart from the transformed body.' Speech necessarily arises from the collision of the gross four great elements.

Is the transformed object identical to the power of Abhijñā? The second part below explains the transformer and the transformed. Question: Is the transformed object identical to the transformation caused by the power of ṛddhi (spiritual power)?

No.

爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

是通之果者。答。是神境通之果。諸能化心能起化事。

此有幾種差別云何者。問。此果化心總有幾種。此果化心差別云何。

頌曰至余得通三性者。就頌答中。初兩句答初問。下十四句答第二問。

論曰至一切化事者。釋初句中能化心。神境通後起果化心力。能化生一切化事。此據同時能起化事。故說化心不言通化。若據前後通亦名化。故婆沙一百二十二。一說言諸所化事由神境通道化作。一說言諸所化事由化心化作。第三評家云。如是說者。諸所化事由道化作。亦由化心。謂神境通隨道無間而滅。化心與所化俱時而起。雖俱時起。而能化心唯是道果。諸所化事是前道果及化心果。

此有十四至亦得名勝者。釋十四及第二句。化心有十四。初定有二。二定有三。三定有四。四定有五。謂各自．下。如理應思　諸果化心。或依自地。如初定等果化心依初定等或依上地。如欲界等果化心依初定等。必無依下地起上果化心。下地定心不生上果。勢力劣故　以第二定等果下地欲界等化心　謂二定等化作欲界等化。望初定等名下　對初定等果上地初定等化心　謂初定等作初定等化。望欲界等名上　彼二定等欲界等化心。由依第二定等勝故。及由行至第二定等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『爾者』，回答。『云何者』，提問。『是通之果者』，回答。是神境通（神通的一種，指能隨意變化境界）的果報。諸（所有）能化心（具有變化能力的心）能生起變化之事。『此有幾種差別云何者』，提問。此果化心總共有幾種？此果化心的差別是什麼？『頌曰至余得通三性者』，就頌文回答中，最初兩句回答第一個問題，下面十四句回答第二個問題。『論曰至一切化事者』，解釋最初一句中的『能化心』。神境通之後生起的果報化心之力，能變化生出一切變化之事。這是根據同時能生起變化之事來說的，所以說『化心』而不說『通化』。如果根據前後次第，『通』也稱為『化』。所以《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷中，一種說法是：『所有變化之事由神境通道變化而成』，另一種說法是：『所有變化之事由化心變化而成』。第三種評判者說：『這樣說來，所有變化之事由道（修行之道）變化而成，也由化心變化而成。』所謂神境通隨著道無間斷地滅去，化心與所變化的事物同時生起。雖然同時生起，但能化心只是道的果報，所有變化之事是前一道的果報以及化心的果報。『此有十四至亦得名勝者』，解釋十四句以及第二句。化心有十四種。初禪定有二種，二禪定有三種，三禪定有四種，四禪定有五種。所謂各自、下，應該如理思維。各種果報化心，或者依靠自地（自身所處的禪定層次），如初禪定等的果報化心依靠初禪定等；或者依靠上地（比自身所處更高的禪定層次），如欲界等的果報化心依靠初禪定等。一定沒有依靠下地而生起上地果報化心的情況，因為下地禪定之心不能產生上地的果報，勢力弱小的緣故。以第二禪定等的果報化心，下地欲界等化心。所謂二禪定等變化出欲界等的變化，相對於初禪定等來說稱為『下』。對於初禪定等果報，上地初禪定等化心。所謂初禪定等變化出初禪定等的變化，相對於欲界等來說稱為『上』。那些二禪定等欲界等化心，由於依靠第二禪定等殊勝的緣故，以及由於修行到達第二禪定等。

【English Translation】 English version: 『Er zhe (爾者)』，answer. 『Yun he zhe (云何者)』，question. 『Shi tong zhi guo zhe (是通之果者)』，answer. It is the result of Shenjing Tong (神境通) (iddhi-vidhā-jñāna, a type of supernatural power, referring to the ability to freely transform realms). All the Neng Hua Xin (能化心) (minds capable of transformation) can generate transformative events. 『Ci you ji zhong cha bie yun he zhe (此有幾種差別云何者)』，question. How many kinds of differences are there in total for this Guo Hua Xin (果化心) (resultant transformation mind)? What are the differences in this Guo Hua Xin (果化心)? 『Song yue zhi yu de tong san xing zhe (頌曰至余得通三性者)』，in the answer based on the verse, the first two lines answer the first question, and the following fourteen lines answer the second question. 『Lun yue zhi yi qie hua shi zhe (論曰至一切化事者)』，explains the 『Neng Hua Xin (能化心)』 in the first sentence. The power of the resultant transformation mind arising after Shenjing Tong (神境通) can transform and generate all transformative events. This is based on the simultaneous generation of transformative events, so it is called 『Hua Xin (化心)』 and not 『Tong Hua (通化)』. If based on the sequence of before and after, 『Tong (通)』 is also called 『Hua (化)』. Therefore, in the one hundred and twenty-second volume of the 《Vibhasa》 (《婆沙論》), one explanation is: 『All transformative events are transformed by Shenjing Tong (神境通道)』, and another explanation is: 『All transformative events are transformed by Hua Xin (化心)』. The third commentator says: 『In this way, all transformative events are transformed by the Dao (道) (path of practice), and also by Hua Xin (化心)』. The so-called Shenjing Tong (神境通) ceases without interruption along with the Dao (道), and Hua Xin (化心) arises simultaneously with the transformed things. Although they arise simultaneously, the Neng Hua Xin (能化心) is only the result of the Dao (道), and all transformative events are the result of the previous Dao (道) and the result of Hua Xin (化心).』『Ci you shi si zhi yi de ming sheng zhe (此有十四至亦得名勝者)』，explains the fourteen lines and the second sentence. There are fourteen kinds of Hua Xin (化心). There are two kinds in the first Dhyana (禪定) (meditative state), three kinds in the second Dhyana (禪定), four kinds in the third Dhyana (禪定), and five kinds in the fourth Dhyana (禪定). The so-called each, below, should be contemplated as it should be. Various Guo Hua Xin (果化心) either rely on their own ground (the level of Dhyana (禪定) they are in), such as the Guo Hua Xin (果化心) of the first Dhyana (禪定) relying on the first Dhyana (禪定), etc.; or rely on the upper ground (a higher level of Dhyana (禪定) than they are in), such as the Guo Hua Xin (果化心) of the desire realm relying on the first Dhyana (禪定), etc. There is definitely no situation where the Guo Hua Xin (果化心) of the upper ground arises relying on the lower ground, because the mind of the lower ground Dhyana (禪定) cannot produce the result of the upper ground, because its power is weak. Taking the Guo Hua Xin (果化心) of the second Dhyana (禪定), etc., the Hua Xin (化心) of the lower desire realm, etc. The so-called second Dhyana (禪定), etc., transforms the transformations of the desire realm, etc., which is called 『lower』 relative to the first Dhyana (禪定), etc. For the result of the first Dhyana (禪定), etc., the Hua Xin (化心) of the upper first Dhyana (禪定), etc. The so-called first Dhyana (禪定), etc., transforms the transformations of the first Dhyana (禪定), etc., which is called 『upper』 relative to the desire realm, etc. Those Hua Xin (化心) of the second Dhyana (禪定), etc., and the desire realm, etc., are due to relying on the superiority of the second Dhyana (禪定), etc., and due to practicing to reach the second Dhyana (禪定), etc.

勝故。亦得名勝。

如得靜慮至俱時得故者。釋第三句。明定及果俱時得故。

諸從靜慮至還從門出者。釋第四句。化心從二心生。謂從凈定及化心生　能生二心。謂能生化心及凈定心。余文可知。

諸所化事至起餘地化故者。釋第五句。顯事及心必同地化。

化所發言至起表心故者。釋第六句。若依化人所發語言通由自．下。謂若身生欲界．初定。若身生二定已上。但起欲界．初定化所發言。此言必由自地之中通果心起。有尋．伺故。若生二定已上。若生欲界．初定。但作第二定已上化人起語。由初定中通果心發。上地自無起表之心。無尋．伺故。應知通果心寬。變化心狹。離化心外別有一類通果心能發表業。化心但能變化諸事非能發表。如身在初定作欲界化發欲界語。還以欲界通果心發。故知身在二定已上。化所發言但起初定通果心發。不起下地威儀心發。如化發言。化身亦爾。故婆沙一百三十五云。答如生初靜慮以發起表心。令化身轉作往來等用。如是生上諸靜慮。亦以初靜慮發起表心。令所化身起往來等用。如眼識等。有餘師說。諸所化身無往來等種種作用。但默然住。由化主力令彼似有往來等事。如帝網戲非有現有(前師為正)　若一化主至亦容有別者。釋第七．第八句。餘二乘

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：勝故：因為殊勝的緣故，也因此得名為『勝』。如得靜慮至俱時得故者：解釋第三句，說明禪定和果報是同時獲得的緣故。諸從靜慮至還從門出者：解釋第四句，化生之心從兩種心產生，即從清凈禪定和化生之心產生。能產生兩種心，即能產生化生之心和清凈禪定之心。其餘文句可以類推得知。諸所化事至起餘地化故者：解釋第五句，顯示所變化的事物和心識必定在同一地界變化。化所發言至起表心故者：解釋第六句，如果依據化人所發出的語言，普遍由自身所處的地界發起。如果身體處於欲界或初禪，或者身體處於二禪以上，但發起欲界或初禪的化人所發出的語言，這些語言必定由自身所處的地界之中，通過果報心而發起，因為有尋和伺。如果身處二禪以上，或者身處欲界或初禪，但創造第二禪以上的化人並使其說話，則由初禪中的果報心發起。上地自身沒有發起表達之心的能力，因為沒有尋和伺。應該知道，果報心範圍寬廣，變化心範圍狹窄。在變化心之外，另有一類果報心能夠表達行為。變化心只能變化事物，不能表達行為。例如，身體在初禪中，變化出欲界之身併發出欲界之語，仍然是通過欲界的果報心來發出的。因此可知，身體在二禪以上，化人所發出的語言，只是通過初禪的果報心來發出的，不會通過下地的威儀心來發出。如同化人發出的語言一樣，化身也是如此。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷說：『回答說，如同生在初禪，以發起表達之心，令化身轉動，作出往來等動作。如同生在上層禪定，也是以初禪發起表達之心，令所化之身作出往來等動作。』如同眼識等。有其他論師說，所有化身沒有往來等種種作用，只是默默地站立。由於化生的力量，使他們看起來好像有往來等事情發生，如同帝釋天的網，並非真實存在，只是顯現而已（前一種說法是正確的）。若一化主至亦容有別者：解釋第七、第八句。其餘二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Sheng Gu': Because of the superior reason, it is also named 'Sheng' (superior). 'Ru De Jing Lu Zhi Ju Shi De Gu Zhe': Explains the third sentence, clarifying that meditative concentration (dhyana) and its result are obtained simultaneously. 'Zhu Cong Jing Lu Zhi Huan Cong Men Chu Zhe': Explains the fourth sentence, that the mind of transformation arises from two minds, namely from pure meditative concentration and the mind of transformation. It can generate two minds, namely the mind of transformation and the mind of pure meditative concentration. The remaining sentences can be understood by analogy. 'Zhu Suo Hua Shi Zhi Qi Yu Di Hua Gu Zhe': Explains the fifth sentence, showing that the transformed things and consciousness must transform in the same realm. 'Hua Suo Fa Yan Zhi Qi Biao Xin Gu Zhe': Explains the sixth sentence, that if based on the language spoken by the transformed person, it universally originates from the realm where the person is. If the body is in the desire realm or the first dhyana, or if the body is in the second dhyana or above, but the language spoken by the transformed person of the desire realm or the first dhyana is initiated, these languages must be initiated from within the realm where the person is, through the resultant mind (vipākacitta), because there are initial and sustained thought (vitarka and vicāra). If one is in the second dhyana or above, or if one is in the desire realm or the first dhyana, but creates a transformed person of the second dhyana or above and makes them speak, then it is initiated by the resultant mind in the first dhyana. The higher realms themselves do not have the ability to initiate expressive thoughts, because there are no initial and sustained thought. It should be known that the scope of the resultant mind is broad, and the scope of the transformation mind is narrow. Outside of the transformation mind, there is another type of resultant mind that can express actions. The transformation mind can only transform things and cannot express actions. For example, if the body is in the first dhyana, transforms a body of the desire realm and speaks the language of the desire realm, it is still issued through the resultant mind of the desire realm. Therefore, it can be known that if the body is in the second dhyana or above, the language spoken by the transformed person is only issued through the resultant mind of the first dhyana, and will not be issued through the demeanor mind of the lower realm. Just like the language spoken by the transformed person, so is the transformed body. Therefore, the 135th volume of the Vibhāṣā says: 'Answer, just like being born in the first dhyana, initiating the expressive mind, causing the transformed body to move, making actions such as going back and forth. Just like being born in the upper dhyanas, it is also initiating the expressive mind with the first dhyana, causing the transformed body to make actions such as going back and forth.' Like eye consciousness, etc. Other teachers say that all transformed bodies do not have various functions such as going back and forth, but just stand silently. Due to the power of transformation, they appear to have things such as going back and forth, just like Indra's net, which is not real, but just appears (the former statement is correct). 'Ruo Yi Hua Zhu Zhi Yi Rong You Bie Zhe': Explains the seventh and eighth sentences. The remaining two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna).

．異生定非自在。而不能令一語一默。要語皆同。佛定自在。或時皆同。或復能令一語一默。準婆沙文。乃至諸佛化主。及所化能發語心。前後各別。于中迅速謂語俱時。理實前後言一心發。謂一相續心。

發語心起至化如何語者。釋第九．第十句。問。發語通果心起。變化通果心既無。應無化身。化如何發語。

由先願力至亦得發語者。答。由先願力留所化身。後起余通果心發語表業故。雖變化通果心．發語通果心。二心不俱。而依化身亦得發語。應知通果心寬。化心．發語心皆名通果。以此故知。發語心非是化心。別有一類通果心。能發語業。以化心不能化聲處故　又空法師云。化心不能發業。然別有發業心。如身生欲界．初定。化作欲界．初定身已。還卻入定。從定出已。起自地善．無記發業心。令化主語化人方語。若生上三定。雖無發業心。以初定發業心發自地語。令下欲界及上三定化人言語　此解不然。檢尋諸論未見有文以初定發業心令其欲界化人語言。故說非理　又泰法師云。自古諸師。皆依俱舍。發語心起化心既無。故知化心不能發語。又前論云。若欲界化外四處除聲。故知化心不化聲處者。不然。依舊十四卷鞞婆沙云。欲界化六入。色界化四入。故知化心亦化聲處。又今婆沙一百三十九

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『異生定』（凡夫的禪定）並非完全自在，不能完全控制說話或沉默。如果說話，大家說的都一樣。而『佛定』（佛的禪定）是自在的，有時大家說的都一樣，有時又能讓一個人說話，一個人沉默。根據《婆沙論》的說法，乃至諸佛的化主，以及被化者能發出語言的心，前後各有不同。其中迅速的，可以認為是同時說話。但實際上，說話是在一心發起的，指的是一個相續的心。

『發語心』（發起語言的心）生起，如何使變化之身說話？這是解釋第九句和第十句。問：『發語心』可以從果報心生起，但變化之身沒有果報心，那麼應該沒有化身，化身如何發語？

答：由於先前的願力，可以使化身也能說話。由於先前的願力，留下了被化之身，之後生起其餘的通果心，發出語言的表業。因此，雖然變化通果心和發語通果心這兩個心不是同時生起，但依靠化身也能說話。應該知道，通果心的範圍很寬泛，化心和發語心都屬於通果心。因此可知，發語心不是化心，而是另一種通果心，能夠發起語言的業。因為化心不能化出聲塵。

另外，空法師說，化心不能發起業，但另外有發起業的心。例如，自身生在欲界或初禪，變化出欲界或初禪的身之後，又回到禪定中。從禪定出來后，生起自身所處的善或無記的發業心，讓化主說話，化人才能說話。如果生在上三禪，雖然沒有發業心，但可以用初禪的發業心發起自身所處的語言，讓下方的欲界以及上三禪的化人說話。這種解釋是不對的。查閱各種論典，沒有看到有文章說可以用初禪的發業心讓欲界的化人說話，所以這種說法不合理。

另外，泰法師說，自古以來的各位法師，都依據《俱舍論》，認為發語心生起時，化心已經沒有了，所以知道化心不能發語。而且前面的論典說，如果欲界變化外四處，除了聲塵。所以知道化心不化聲塵。這種說法也是不對的。依舊是第十四卷《鞞婆沙論》說，欲界變化六入，**變化四入，所以知道化心也能化出聲塵。而且現在的《婆沙論》第一百三十九卷

【English Translation】 English version: 『Different-being Samadhi』 (the Samadhi of ordinary beings) is not completely free and cannot completely control speech or silence. If speaking, everyone says the same thing. But 『Buddha Samadhi』 (the Samadhi of the Buddha) is free. Sometimes everyone says the same thing, and sometimes it can allow one person to speak and another to remain silent. According to the 『Vibhasa』, even the transformation master of the Buddhas, and the mind of the transformed being that can produce language, are different before and after. Among them, the rapid ones can be considered to speak simultaneously. But in reality, speaking is initiated by one mind, referring to a continuous mind.

『Speech-initiating mind』 (the mind that initiates language) arises, how does it make the transformed body speak? This explains the ninth and tenth sentences. Question: 『Speech-initiating mind』 can arise from the resultant mind, but the transformed body does not have a resultant mind, so there should be no transformation body, how does the transformation body speak?

Answer: Due to previous vows, the transformed body can also speak. Due to previous vows, the transformed body is retained, and then the remaining supernormal resultant mind arises, producing the expressive karma of language. Therefore, although the transformation supernormal resultant mind and the speech-initiating supernormal resultant mind do not arise simultaneously, the transformed body can also speak. It should be known that the scope of the supernormal resultant mind is very broad, and both the transformation mind and the speech-initiating mind belong to the supernormal resultant mind. Therefore, it can be known that the speech-initiating mind is not the transformation mind, but another type of supernormal resultant mind that can initiate the karma of language. Because the transformation mind cannot transform sound dust.

In addition, Dharma Master Kong said that the transformation mind cannot initiate karma, but there is another mind that initiates karma. For example, if one is born in the desire realm or the first dhyana, after transforming into a body of the desire realm or the first dhyana, one returns to Samadhi. After emerging from Samadhi, one generates the good or non-committal karma-initiating mind of one's own realm, so that the transformation master can speak, and the transformed person can speak. If one is born in the upper three dhyanas, although there is no karma-initiating mind, one can use the karma-initiating mind of the first dhyana to initiate the language of one's own realm, so that the transformed people of the lower desire realm and the upper three dhyanas can speak. This explanation is incorrect. After examining various treatises, there is no text that says that the karma-initiating mind of the first dhyana can be used to make the transformed people of the desire realm speak, so this statement is unreasonable.

In addition, Dharma Master Tai said that since ancient times, all Dharma masters have relied on the 『Abhidharmakosha』, believing that when the speech-initiating mind arises, the transformation mind is already gone, so it is known that the transformation mind cannot initiate speech. Moreover, the previous treatise said that if the desire realm transforms the outer four places, except for sound dust. So it is known that the transformation mind does not transform sound dust. This statement is also incorrect. It is still said in the fourteenth volume of the 『Vibhasa』 that the desire realm transforms the six entrances, ** transforms the four entrances, so it is known that the transformation mind can also transform sound dust. And the current 『Vibhasa』 volume 139.

云。若生初靜慮成就欲界一。謂法舍意近行。即通果心俱。總緣色等為境起故　有說。彼成就三。謂色．聲．法舍意近行。即通果心俱。此心若緣所起身表。即有緣色舍意近行。此心若緣所起語表。即有緣聲舍意近行。此心若緣所發化事。以總緣故。即有緣法舍意近行　有說。彼成就六。謂六舍意近行。即通果心俱。此心容有總別緣故　又依婆沙。梵王請佛轉法輪時。評家云。以欲界不隱沒無記心語。故作梵福。由此多證故知。化心亦能發語。然此論云。發語心起化心既無者。此中問意。化心．發語名發語心。化心依化身立化心名。欲明二心不併起。如何身語並。故化語心別立發語心名。若發語心亦立化心名者。不成問答。欲彰二心別故。此中別說發語心名。能變化心實能發語。故與前引文不相違。然論云。唯化四處除聲者。聲不常有。四相．及得．名．句．文等非是色法。故略不論。若通據聲．及非色法即化六處。如前所引　今解不然。別有通果心發語。化心不能發語。寬狹如前說。法師未委通果心寬。變化心狹。謂諸通果心皆是化心故作斯釋。檢尋婆沙．及諸論文。皆言欲界化四除聲。色界化二謂色觸。不言化聲處。亦不言化法處。又婆沙上下論文皆言。若生色界作欲界化。發欲界語。但言發不言化　問舊鞞婆沙

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果眾生獲得了初禪，那麼在欲界中成就了什麼？答：有人說，成就了一種，即法、舍意近行（指與神通果報相應的心）。因為這種心總的以色等為境界而生起。另有人說，成就了三種，即色、聲、法、舍意近行（指與神通果報相應的心）。這種心如果緣于所產生的身表，就是緣於色舍意近行；如果緣于所產生的語表，就是緣于聲舍意近行；如果緣于所發出的變化事物，因為是總的緣故，就是緣於法舍意近行。又有人說，成就了六種，即六種舍意近行（指與神通果報相應的心）。因為這種心可能總的或分別地緣取境界。又根據《婆沙論》的記載，梵天（Brahmā）請求佛陀（Buddha）轉法輪（Dharmacakra）時，評論家說，因為欲界沒有隱沒的無記心語，所以才能造作梵福。由此可以證明，變化心也能發出語言。然而此論說，『發出語言的心生起時，變化心就沒有了』。這裡問的意思是，變化心、發出語言的心，名為發出語言的心。變化心依據化身而立名為變化心。想要說明這兩種心不會同時生起，那麼身語如何同時存在？所以變化語心另外立名為發出語言的心。如果發出語言的心也立名為變化心，就不能成立問答。想要彰顯這兩種心的區別，所以這裡特別說發出語言的心。能夠變化的心實際上能夠發出語言，所以與前面引用的經文不相違背。然而論中說，『只有變化四處，除了聲』，是因為聲音不是常有的。四相（生、住、異、滅）、以及得、名、句、文等不是色法，所以略而不論。如果總的包括聲音以及非色法，就是變化六處，如前面所引用的。現在解釋不是這樣。另外有神通果報心發出語言，變化心不能發出語言。寬狹如前面所說。法師沒有詳細瞭解神通果報心寬廣，變化心狹窄。認為所有的神通果報心都是變化心，所以作這樣的解釋。檢查《婆沙論》以及各種論文，都說欲界變化四處，除了聲，變化二處是色觸，沒有說變化聲處，也沒有說變化法處。又《婆沙論》上下論文都說，如果眾生造作欲界變化，發出欲界語言，只說發出，沒有說變化。問：舊的《鞞婆沙》（Vibhasa）怎麼說？

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If a being attains the first Dhyana (初靜慮, first level of meditative absorption), what does he accomplish in the desire realm (欲界, realm of desire)? Answer: Some say he accomplishes one thing, namely Dharma (法, law/phenomena), equanimity (舍, equanimity), and access concentration (意近行, access concentration), which are associated with the mind of supernormal power fruition (通果心, mind associated with the result of supernormal powers). This is because this mind arises generally with forms etc. as its object. Others say he accomplishes three things, namely form (色, form), sound (聲, sound), and Dharma (法, law/phenomena), equanimity (舍, equanimity), and access concentration (意近行, access concentration), which are associated with the mind of supernormal power fruition (通果心, mind associated with the result of supernormal powers). If this mind focuses on the bodily expression that arises, then it is associated with form, equanimity, and access concentration. If this mind focuses on the verbal expression that arises, then it is associated with sound, equanimity, and access concentration. If this mind focuses on the transformations it emanates, because it is a general focus, then it is associated with Dharma, equanimity, and access concentration. Still others say he accomplishes six things, namely the six equanimities and access concentrations (舍意近行, equanimity and access concentration), which are associated with the mind of supernormal power fruition (通果心, mind associated with the result of supernormal powers). This is because this mind can focus on objects generally or specifically. Furthermore, according to the Vibhasa (婆沙, commentary), when Brahma (梵天, the creator god) requested the Buddha (佛陀, the enlightened one) to turn the Wheel of Dharma (法輪, the wheel of Dharma), the commentators said that because the desire realm does not have obscured, indeterminate verbal actions, he could create merit. From this, it can be proven that the transformation mind can also produce speech. However, this treatise says, 'When the mind that produces speech arises, the transformation mind is absent.' The meaning of the question here is that the transformation mind and the mind that produces speech are both called the mind that produces speech. The transformation mind is named based on the transformed body. The intention is to clarify that these two minds do not arise simultaneously. How then can body and speech exist simultaneously? Therefore, the mind of transformed speech is separately named the mind that produces speech. If the mind that produces speech were also named the transformation mind, the question and answer would not be valid. To highlight the distinction between these two minds, the name 'mind that produces speech' is specifically used here. The mind capable of transformation can actually produce speech, so it does not contradict the previously cited text. However, the treatise says, 'Only four places are transformed, except for sound,' because sound is not constant. The four characteristics (四相, arising, abiding, changing, ceasing), as well as attainment, name, phrase, and sentence, are not material phenomena, so they are omitted. If we include sound and non-material phenomena, then there are six places of transformation, as cited earlier. Now, the explanation is not like this. There is a separate mind of supernormal power fruition that produces speech; the transformation mind cannot produce speech. The scope is as described earlier. The Dharma master did not understand the broadness of the mind of supernormal power fruition and the narrowness of the transformation mind. He thought that all minds of supernormal power fruition are transformation minds, so he made this explanation. Examining the Vibhasa (婆沙, commentary) and various treatises, they all say that in the desire realm, four places are transformed, except for sound; two places are transformed, namely form and touch. They do not say that the place of sound is transformed, nor do they say that the place of Dharma is transformed. Furthermore, the upper and lower texts of the Vibhasa (婆沙, commentary) all say that if a being creates transformations in the desire realm, he produces speech in the desire realm, only saying 'produces,' not 'transforms.' Question: What does the old Vibhasa (鞞婆沙, Vibhasa) say?

云。欲界化六入。色界化四入者。云何釋通　解云未審。此論定是何部。引來為證。設是當部。從多分說。如品類足言。通云何謂善慧。或相從說。或非正義。違諸論故　問若語聲非可化者。何故集異門足論第五。解三欲生中。云謂他化自在天造作增長如是類業。彼由此業。與諸他化自在天。雖同一類身．同一趣．同一生．同一進趣。而有高．下勝．劣差別。諸下劣天子化作種種色．聲．香．味．觸．法諸妙欲境。令高勝天子于中受用　解云彼由業力令他化作。非由化心。不可為例　或可。從多分說。以實而言。聲由擊發。不可言化。以間斷故。或聲不離所化色．香．味．觸四種。相從說故亦名為化　復有古德云。梵王請佛轉法輪。以欲界威儀．工巧心語者　此不成釋。如二十心中色界六心。必不能生欲界威儀．工巧心。又欲界通果心。亦不能生欲界威儀．工巧心。梵王如何得起欲界威儀．工巧語。

非唯化主至持令久住者。釋第十一．第十二句。初解化骨瑣身令久時住。既言留化身。明非本身骨。第二解可知　迦葉波。此云飲光。前解為正。故婆沙一百三十五云。有說有留化事。有說無留化事。如是說者。有留化事。是故大迦葉波已入涅槃。

初習業者至多少化事者。釋第十三．十四句。可知。又正理

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果欲界可以變化出六入（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官），那麼為什麼只變化出四入呢？如何解釋這個問題？答：我不知道。這部論典是哪個部的？引用來作為證據。即使是本部的，也是從多數情況來說的。如《品類足論》所說，『通』是什麼意思？是指善慧。或者說是相互關聯的說法，或者不是正確的解釋，因為它違背了其他論典的說法。問：如果語聲不是可以變化的，那麼為什麼《集異門足論》第五卷中，在解釋三欲生（三種欲界眾生的出生方式）時說，『指他化自在天（欲界第六天）造作增長這樣的業。他們憑藉這種業，與其他的他化自在天，雖然是同一類身、同一趣（同一道）、同一生、同一進趣，但有高下勝劣的差別。那些下劣的天子變化出種種色、聲、香、味、觸、法這些美妙的欲境，讓高勝的天子在其中享受』？答：他們是由業力讓他人變化出來的，不是由變化的心。不能作為例子。或者可以從多數情況來說。以實際情況而言，聲音是由擊打發出的，不能說是變化出來的，因為它是間斷的。或者說聲音不離所變化的色、香、味、觸四種，相互關聯的說法也可以稱為變化。又有古德（古代德行高尚的僧人）說，梵王（色界天主）請佛（釋迦牟尼佛）轉法輪（宣講佛法），是用欲界的威儀、工巧心語（巧妙的語言）來表達的。這種解釋不成立。如二十心中第六心，必定不能產生欲界的威儀、工巧心。又欲界通果心，也不能產生欲界的威儀、工巧心。梵王如何能生起欲界的威儀、工巧語？『非唯化主至持令久住者』，解釋第十一、第十二句。最初解釋變化骨骼瑣身（鎖住身體），使之長久住世。既然說是留下化身，就說明不是本身的骨骼。第二種解釋可以理解。迦葉波（佛陀十大弟子之一，以頭陀苦行著稱），這裡的意思是飲光。前面的解釋是正確的。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷說，『有人說有留下化身的事情，有人說沒有留下化身的事情。』這樣說的人，認為有留下化身的事情。所以大迦葉波已經入涅槃（死亡）。『初習業者至多少化事者』，解釋第十三、十四句。可以理解。又《正理》

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the desire realm can transform the six entrances (the six sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind), then why does it only transform four entrances? How to explain this? Answer: I don't know. Which school does this treatise belong to? It is cited as evidence. Even if it belongs to this school, it is speaking from the majority of cases. As the Prakaranapada says, what does 'thorough' mean? It refers to good wisdom. Or it is a mutually related statement, or it is not a correct explanation, because it contradicts the statements of other treatises. Question: If speech sounds are not transformable, then why does the fifth volume of the Sangitiparyaya say, when explaining the three types of births in the desire realm, 'It refers to the Paranirmitavasavartin Devas (the sixth heaven of the desire realm) creating and increasing such karma. By this karma, they, along with other Paranirmitavasavartin Devas, although they are of the same kind of body, the same gati (same realm), the same birth, and the same progress, have differences in height, superiority, and inferiority. Those inferior devas transform various colors, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and dharmas, these wonderful objects of desire, allowing the superior devas to enjoy them'? Answer: They are transformed by the power of karma, not by the mind of transformation. It cannot be taken as an example. Or it can be said from the majority of cases. In reality, sound is produced by striking, and cannot be said to be transformed, because it is intermittent. Or sound is inseparable from the four transformed elements of color, smell, taste, and touch, and the mutually related statement can also be called transformation. There are also ancient virtuous monks who say that Brahma (the lord of the form realm) requested the Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) to turn the Dharma wheel (preach the Dharma), using the majesty, skillful mind, and speech (skillful language) of the desire realm to express it. This explanation is not valid. For example, the sixth mind among the twenty minds, certainly cannot produce the majesty and skillful mind of the desire realm. Also, the universal resultant mind of the desire realm cannot produce the majesty and skillful mind of the desire realm. How could Brahma generate the majesty and skillful speech of the desire realm? 'Those who are not only transformation masters but also maintain it for a long time,' explains the eleventh and twelfth sentences. The initial explanation is to transform the skeletal body (lock the body) to make it last for a long time. Since it is said to leave behind a transformation body, it indicates that it is not the original skeleton. The second explanation is understandable. Kasyapa (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his ascetic practices), here it means 'drinking light'. The previous explanation is correct. Therefore, the 135th volume of the Mahavibhasa says, 'Some say there is the matter of leaving behind a transformation body, and some say there is no matter of leaving behind a transformation body.' Those who say this believe that there is the matter of leaving behind a transformation body. Therefore, Mahakasyapa has already entered Nirvana (death). 'Those who initially practice karma to the extent of how many transformation matters,' explains the thirteenth and fourteenth sentences. It is understandable. Also, the Nyaya.

云。初習業者。由多化心要附所依起一化事。習成滿者。由一化心能不附所依起眾多化事(解云所依謂木石等)。

如是十四至亦無有失者。釋第十五．十六句。十四修得。無記性攝。餘生得等能變心通三性攝。如天龍等能變化心。彼亦能為自．他身化。於十色處化九除聲。理實無能化為根者。然所化境改轉本形。不離根故言化九處。亦無有失。若修得化不轉本形但化四處。以離根故不說化根。故婆沙一百三十五云。修得化。若欲界系四處攝。若色界系二處攝。生得化若欲界九處攝。若色界系七處攝　問由如是法成化身故。化當有心。無心耶　答當言無心。然化有二種。一修得此無心。二生得此有心。此中說修得化。非心依故　又有二種。一化他身此無心。二化自身此有心。此中說他身化非心依故。若變化他有情身者如自身說。

天眼耳言至取障細遠等者。此即第五別明眼．耳。問及頌答。

論曰至名天眼耳者。釋上兩句。

如是眼．耳何故名天者。問　體即是天至及中有等者。答。生得謂生欲．色天中。余文可知。

修得眼耳至能見聞故者。釋恒同分。以天眼．耳識必俱故。恒名同分。

處所必具至一切有情者。釋無缺。左右二眼處所。必具無翳無缺。如生色界一切有情。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：云：初學者，由於需要依附所依（解：指木頭、石頭等）才能生起變化之心，所以只能變化一件事物。而修行圓滿的人，能夠不依附任何事物，僅憑一個變化之心就能生起眾多變化的事物。

像這樣，說十四至也沒有過失。解釋第十五、十六句。十四種是修習而得的，屬於無記性。其餘的生得等變化之心，則屬於善、惡、無記三性。比如天龍等能夠變化的心，他們也能為自己或他人變化身體。在十種色處中，可以變化九種，除了聲音。實際上，沒有能變化為根的。然而，所變化的境界改變了原來的形狀，但不離開根，所以說變化九處，也沒有過失。如果修習而得的變化不改變原來的形狀，只能變化四處。因為離開了根，所以不說變化根。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷說，修習而得的變化，如果是欲界系的，則屬於四處；如果是系的，則屬於二處。生得的變化，如果是欲界系的，則屬於九處；如果是系的，則屬於七處。問：由於這樣的法成就化身，那麼化身是有心還是無心呢？答：應當說是無心。然而，化身有兩種：一是修習而得的，這種是無心的；二是生來就有的，這種是有心的。這裡說的是修習而得的變化，因為它不是心所依附的。又有兩種：一是變化他人的身體，這種是無心的；二是變化自己的身體，這種是有心的。這裡說的是變化他人的身體，因為它不是心所依附的。如果變化其他有情眾生的身體，就像變化自身一樣。

『天眼耳言至取障細遠等者』，這部分是第五個方面，分別說明天眼和天耳。問答形式。

論曰至名天眼耳者：解釋上面兩句。

『如是眼．耳何故名天者』：提問。『體即是天至及中有等者』：回答。生得是指生在欲界、色界天中。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『修得眼耳至能見聞故者』：解釋『恒同分』。因為天眼和天耳的識必定同時存在，所以稱為『恒同分』。

『處所必具至一切有情者』：解釋『無缺』。左右兩眼的處所，必定具備，沒有遮蔽，沒有殘缺。就像生在**的一切有情眾生。

【English Translation】 English version: It is said: For beginners, because the mind of transformation needs to rely on a support (explained as wood, stone, etc.) to arise, it can only transform one thing. But those who have completed their practice can, without relying on anything, generate numerous transformed things with just one mind of transformation.

Thus, there is no fault in saying 'fourteen to'. Explaining the fifteenth and sixteenth sentences. The fourteen are acquired through practice and belong to the unrecordable nature. The remaining innate transformations belong to the three natures of good, evil, and unrecordable. For example, the minds of transformation of dragons and other celestial beings can transform their own or others' bodies. Among the ten sense objects, they can transform nine, except for sound. In reality, there is no ability to transform into roots. However, the transformed realm changes its original shape but does not depart from the roots, so it is said to transform nine places without fault. If the transformation acquired through practice does not change the original shape, it can only transform four places. Because it is separated from the roots, it is not said to transform the roots. Therefore, the 135th volume of the Vibhasa says that the transformation acquired through practice, if it belongs to the desire realm, belongs to four places; if it belongs to the ** realm, it belongs to two places. The innate transformation, if it belongs to the desire realm, belongs to nine places; if it belongs to the ** realm, it belongs to seven places. Question: Since the transformation body is accomplished by such a dharma, is the transformation body with or without mind? Answer: It should be said to be without mind. However, there are two kinds of transformation bodies: one is acquired through practice, which is without mind; the other is innate, which is with mind. Here, we are talking about the transformation acquired through practice, because it is not dependent on the mind. There are also two kinds: one is the transformation of others' bodies, which is without mind; the other is the transformation of one's own body, which is with mind. Here, we are talking about the transformation of others' bodies, because it is not dependent on the mind. If transforming the bodies of other sentient beings, it is like transforming oneself.

'The heavenly eye and ear say to take obstacles, subtle distances, etc.' This part is the fifth aspect, explaining the heavenly eye and heavenly ear separately. In question and answer form.

The treatise says to name the heavenly eye and ear: Explaining the above two sentences.

'Why are these eyes and ears called heavenly?' Question. 'The body is heavenly to and including the intermediate state': Answer. Innate means being born in the desire or form realm heavens. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.

'The acquired heavenly eye and ear to be able to see and hear': Explaining 'constant commonality'. Because the consciousness of the heavenly eye and ear must exist simultaneously, it is called 'constant commonality'.

'The location must be complete to all sentient beings': Explaining 'without defect'. The location of the left and right eyes must be complete, without obstruction, without defect. Like all sentient beings born in the ** realm.

能隨所應至天眼見無遺者。釋下一句。天眼．天耳依四靜慮。能隨所應取自．下地。被障隔等諸方色．聲。引證可知。

前說化心至各有異耶者。此下第六明五通種類。問。前說化心修得與餘生得等異。神境等五各有異耶。

亦有者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至地獄初能知者。就頌答中。初五句明五通類。次一句三性分別。后兩句約趣通局。

論曰至是業成攝者。釋初兩句。總以六義明五通異。神境智類總有五種。一修得。由修定得故。二生得。生彼處得故。三咒成。由咒力成故。四藥成。由藥力成故。五業成。由業力成故。曼馱多王．及中有等諸神境智是業成攝。隨難別解。不由占相得飛行等故無占相　曼馱多。此云我養。如前具說。

他心智類至加占相成者。釋第三．第四句。他心智類總有四種。前三如上。謂修．生．咒。又加占相。占謂占卜。相謂睹相能知他心。夫他心智知他心上一別相用。行相微細難可知故。非藥．業成。

餘三各三謂修生業者。釋第五句。謂余天眼．天耳．宿住三類各三。謂修．生．業以難成故。非咒．藥．占。謂眼．耳鈍故非咒．藥成。占相唯意亦非眼．耳。身雖是色以相顯故。神咒．塗藥可以飛行。不同眼．耳。知過去難所以宿

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『能隨所應至天眼見無遺者』，解釋下一句。天眼、天耳的獲得依賴於四靜慮（指色界四禪）。能夠根據需要，從自身或下層境界獲得。對於被遮擋隔離等各種方位的事物顏色和聲音，可以通過引證來了解。

『前說化心至各有異耶者』，接下來第六部分闡明五神通的種類。問：前面所說的化心（指變化出來的化身）通過修行獲得，與其餘由業力而生等情況有區別嗎？神境通等五種神通各自有區別嗎？

『亦有者』，答：是的，有區別。

『云何者』，問：如何區分？

『頌曰至地獄初能知者』，在用頌文回答中，前五句闡明五神通的種類，接下來一句區分三種性質（指善、惡、無記），最後兩句說明神通所能到達的範圍。

『論曰至是業成攝者』，解釋最初的兩句。總共用六種方式來說明五神通的差異。神境智（神境通）的種類總共有五種：一是修得，通過修習禪定而獲得；二是生得，出生在相應的境界自然獲得；三是咒成，通過咒語的力量而成就；四是藥成，通過藥物的力量而成就；五是業成，通過業力的作用而成就。曼馱多王（Mandhata，古印度傳說中的轉輪聖王）以及中有（Antarabhava，指死亡到投生之間的過渡狀態）等所擁有的神境智屬於業力成就。根據疑問分別解釋，不是通過占卜相術而獲得飛行等能力，所以不屬於占相。曼馱多（Mandhata），意思是『我養』，如前面已經詳細說明。

『他心智類至加占相成者』，解釋第三、第四句。他心智（他心通）的種類總共有四種。前三種如上所述，即修得、生得、咒成。另外加上佔相，占指占卜，相指觀察相貌，從而得知他人心意。他心智瞭解他人心中細微的差別和作用，因為心念的行相非常細微難以得知，所以不是通過藥物或業力成就。

『餘三各三謂修生業者』，解釋第五句。其餘的天眼、天耳、宿住三種神通各有三種，即修得、生得、業成，因為難以成就，所以不是通過咒語、藥物、占卜。眼睛和耳朵比較遲鈍，所以不是通過咒語或藥物成就。占相只與意識有關，與眼睛和耳朵無關。身體雖然是色法，但可以通過相來顯現，神咒和塗藥可以用來飛行，這與眼睛和耳朵不同。瞭解過去的事情比較困難，所以宿命通（Purvanivasanusmrti，指知曉過去世的能力）

【English Translation】 English version 『Able to reach and see everything without omission with the heavenly eye according to what is appropriate.』 Explaining the next sentence. Heavenly eye and heavenly ear rely on the four Dhyanas (referring to the four meditative states in the Realm of Form). Able to obtain from oneself or lower realms as needed. The colors and sounds of things in various directions that are blocked or separated can be understood through citations.

『The previous discussion of transformation mind to each having differences.』 The sixth part explains the types of five supernormal powers. Question: Is there a difference between the transformation mind (referring to the manifested body) obtained through cultivation and other situations such as being born with it due to karma? Are the five supernormal powers such as magical powers different from each other?

『Also exists.』 Answer: Yes, there are differences.

『How so?』 Inquiry.

『Verse says to the beginning capable of knowing hell.』 In answering with the verse, the first five lines explain the types of five supernormal powers, the next line distinguishes the three natures (referring to good, evil, and neutral), and the last two lines explain the scope that the supernormal powers can reach.

『Treatise says to being included in karma accomplishment.』 Explaining the first two lines. There are a total of six ways to explain the differences in the five supernormal powers. There are five types of magical powers (神通,神通): first, obtained through cultivation, because it is obtained through cultivating meditation; second, born with it, naturally obtained by being born in the corresponding realm; third, accomplished through mantras, accomplished through the power of mantras; fourth, accomplished through medicine, accomplished through the power of medicine; fifth, accomplished through karma, accomplished through the effect of karma. King Mandhata (曼馱多, an ancient Indian Chakravarti king in legends) and Antarabhava (中有, the intermediate state between death and rebirth) and others possess magical powers that are accomplished through karma. Explain separately according to the questions, not obtaining the ability to fly through divination or physiognomy, so it does not belong to divination. Mandhata (曼馱多), meaning 『I nurture,』 as explained in detail earlier.

『Types of others' mind intelligence to adding divination accomplishment.』 Explaining the third and fourth lines. There are four types of others' mind intelligence (他心通, telepathy). The first three are as mentioned above, namely obtained through cultivation, born with it, and accomplished through mantras. In addition, there is divination, where divination refers to divination and physiognomy refers to observing appearances to know the minds of others. Others' mind intelligence understands the subtle differences and functions in the minds of others, because the actions of thoughts are very subtle and difficult to know, so it is not accomplished through medicine or karma.

『The remaining three each have three, namely cultivation, birth, and karma.』 Explaining the fifth line. The remaining three supernormal powers of heavenly eye, heavenly ear, and knowledge of past lives each have three types, namely obtained through cultivation, born with it, and accomplished through karma, because they are difficult to accomplish, so they are not accomplished through mantras, medicine, or divination. The eyes and ears are relatively dull, so they are not accomplished through mantras or medicine. Divination is only related to consciousness and has nothing to do with the eyes and ears. Although the body is form, it can be manifested through appearances, and mantras and applying medicine can be used to fly, which is different from the eyes and ears. Understanding past events is more difficult, so the supernormal power of knowing past lives (宿命通, ability to know past lives)

住非咒．藥．占　問知現在易。他心如何非由業耶。解云他心雖知現在。知一用故。行相微細。難可知故。非由業成。宿住知過去多體故。雖緣過去。對彼他心總易知故。可由業成　問他心知一用難如何咒知他心。不知過去　解云咒力唯及現在。故在他心。不及過去故不通宿住。

除修所得至不得通名者。釋第六句。三性分別。於六類中除修所得。餘生得等皆通善等三性。咒．藥據心說故。非定果故。雖類相似不得通名。若據修得。三善二無記。

人中都無至業所成攝者。釋第七句。此約趣通局。於前六類。人中都無生所得者。以占相智所覆損故。有他心智及愿智等所映蔽故。餘五皆容有隨其所應。本性生念業所成攝。故正理云。人由先業能憶過去　此文應言本性生念智。故婆沙一百一釋名云。問何故名本性念生智。本性念生智是何義耶。答生謂前生諸有漏法。智謂此生能知彼智。念謂此智俱生勝念。言本性念生者。簡別修得。即本性智由勝念力。知過去生諸有漏法故名本性念生智　複次住本性心由勝念力發起此智。知過去生諸有漏法故。名本性念生智。本性心者。謂善．染污．無覆無記。不由修得故名本性　複次本性者。謂諸法自性。即過去生諸有漏法自性。智由念力知本性生故。名本性念生智　複次

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：憑藉咒語、藥物、占卜來了解現在的事情比較容易，那麼瞭解他人的想法，難道不是因為業力造成的嗎？答：瞭解他人的想法雖然可以知道現在的事情，但因為只瞭解一個方面，而且行為狀態非常細微，所以很難了解，因此不是由業力造成的。而宿命通可以瞭解過去很多方面的事情，雖然也是緣於過去，但相對於瞭解他人的想法來說，總體上更容易瞭解，所以可以由業力造成。問：瞭解他人的想法，因為只瞭解一個方面所以很難，那麼用咒語瞭解他人的想法，卻不能瞭解過去的事情，這是為什麼？答：咒語的力量只能作用於現在，所以在瞭解他人的想法方面有效，但不能作用於過去，所以不能通達宿命通。

『除了通過修行獲得的，其餘都不能稱為通』，這是解釋第六句。三種性質的分別：在六種神通中，除了通過修行獲得的，其餘如天生獲得的等，都通於善、惡等三種性質。咒語、藥物是根據心來說的，所以不是固定的結果。雖然類別相似，但不能都稱為通。如果是通過修行獲得的，則有三種善和兩種無記。

『人中都沒有通過天生獲得的』，這是解釋第七句。這是關於神通的範圍。在前面的六種神通中，人中都沒有天生獲得的，因為被佔卜相術的智慧所覆蓋和損害，又因為有他心智和愿智等所掩蓋。其餘五種都可能存在，根據情況而定。本性生念屬於業力所成。所以《正理》中說：『人由於先前的業力能夠回憶過去』。這裡應該說本性生念智。所以《婆沙論》第一百零一品解釋名稱時說：『問：為什麼叫做本性念生智？本性念生智是什麼意思呢？答：生是指前生的各種有漏法。智是指今生能夠了解前生的智慧。念是指這種智慧同時產生的殊勝念頭。說本性念生，是爲了區別于通過修行獲得的。也就是本性智通過殊勝的念力，瞭解過去生的各種有漏法，所以叫做本性念生智。』進一步說，安住于本性心，通過殊勝的念力發起這種智慧，瞭解過去生的各種有漏法，所以叫做本性念生智。本性心是指善、染污、無覆無記，不是通過修行獲得的，所以叫做本性。進一步說，本性是指各種法的自性，也就是過去生各種有漏法的自性。智慧通過念力瞭解本性所生，所以叫做本性念生智。進一步說，……

【English Translation】 English version: Question: It is easy to know the present by means of mantras, medicines, and divination. Is knowing the minds of others not caused by karma? Answer: Although knowing the minds of others can reveal present matters, it only understands one aspect, and the behavioral states are very subtle, making it difficult to understand. Therefore, it is not caused by karma. However, the knowledge of past lives (宿住通, Sù zhù tōng) can understand many aspects of the past. Although it is also related to the past, it is easier to understand overall compared to knowing the minds of others, so it can be caused by karma. Question: Knowing the minds of others is difficult because it only understands one aspect. So, why can knowing the minds of others through mantras not reveal past events? Answer: The power of mantras only works in the present, so it is effective in knowing the minds of others, but it does not work in the past, so it cannot penetrate the knowledge of past lives.

'Except for what is obtained through cultivation, the rest cannot be called supernatural powers (通, tōng)', this explains the sixth sentence. The distinction of the three natures: among the six types of supernatural powers, except for those obtained through cultivation, the rest, such as those obtained innately, are all connected to the three natures of good, evil, etc. Mantras and medicines are spoken according to the mind, so they are not fixed results. Although the categories are similar, they cannot all be called supernatural powers. If it is obtained through cultivation, then there are three good and two neutral.

'Among humans, there are none obtained innately', this explains the seventh sentence. This is about the scope of supernatural powers. Among the previous six types of supernatural powers, there are none obtained innately among humans, because they are covered and damaged by the wisdom of divination and astrology, and also obscured by the wisdom of knowing the minds of others (他心智, Tā xīn zhì) and the wisdom of vows (願智, Yuàn zhì). The remaining five may exist, depending on the circumstances. The innate thought of birth belongs to what is accomplished by karma. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Humans can recall the past due to previous karma.' Here, it should be said innate thought of birth wisdom. Therefore, the 101st chapter of the Vibhāṣā explains the name, saying: 'Question: Why is it called innate thought of birth wisdom? What does innate thought of birth wisdom mean? Answer: Birth refers to the various contaminated dharmas of previous lives. Wisdom refers to the wisdom that can understand previous lives in this life. Thought refers to the superior thought that arises simultaneously with this wisdom. Saying innate thought of birth is to distinguish it from what is obtained through cultivation. That is, innate wisdom understands the various contaminated dharmas of past lives through the power of superior thought, so it is called innate thought of birth wisdom.' Furthermore, abiding in the innate mind, initiating this wisdom through the power of superior thought, understanding the various contaminated dharmas of past lives, so it is called innate thought of birth wisdom. Innate mind refers to good, defiled, and neutral without obstruction, not obtained through cultivation, so it is called innate. Furthermore, innate refers to the self-nature of various dharmas, that is, the self-nature of various contaminated dharmas of past lives. Wisdom understands what is born from innate through the power of thought, so it is called innate thought of birth wisdom. Furthermore,……

本性者。謂前際法性。即過去生有漏法性。智由念力知本性生故。名本性念生智。問此智俱生法有多種。何故但說念耶。答念力增故。如四念住等。此亦如是雖體是慧而念增故。名本性念生智　又云。唯欲界人趣中能造殊勝業。引得此智　又云。人趣中。智慧猛利勝餘趣故。

于地獄趣至更無知義者。釋第八句。于地獄趣。初受生時唯以生得他心知他心等。唯以生得宿住智知過去生。苦受逼已。更無知義。

若生余趣如應當知者。總指余趣。若生天．鬼．傍生趣中辨其通局如應當知　問六類對五趣通局云何　解云。修得唯人．天能入定故。生得除人通餘四趣。咒．藥．佔三唯人趣。以無生得故。三唯人　或可。咒．藥亦通人．天．鬼．傍生。業通五趣。以中有是業。通五趣故　又解天有修．生．咒．藥．業無占相。或可。亦無咒．藥。人除生得有餘五種。鬼及傍生有生．咒．藥．業。無修．占相。或可。亦無咒．藥。地獄有生．業。無修．咒．藥．占相。雖作兩解仍更勘文。婆沙一百一說。人趣有占相。有本性念生智。無生得。又說。天．鬼．傍生．地獄。有生得他心宿住。余不別釋。此文與前兩解亦不相違。

俱舍論記卷第二十七

一校畢

保延元年七月七日黃昏于田原里大道寺點

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『本性』指的是前際法性（Purva-koti dharmata）（指過去生中的有漏法性）。因為智慧通過念力得知本性的產生，所以稱為本性念生智（Purva-koti-anusmriti-jnana）。問：這種智慧的俱生法有很多種，為什麼只說『念』呢？答：因爲念的力量增強的緣故，就像四念住（catur-smrtyupasthana）等一樣。這裡也是如此，雖然本體是慧，但因爲念的力量增強，所以稱為本性念生智。』又說，只有欲界（Kama-dhatu）的人趣（Manusya-gati）中才能造作殊勝的業，從而獲得這種智慧。又說，人趣中，智慧猛利，勝過其他趣。

『于地獄趣至更無知義者』，解釋第八句。在地獄趣（Naraka-gati）中，最初受生時，只能以生得的他心智（Paracitta-jnana）知道他人的心等，只能以生得的宿住智（Purva-nivasanusmriti-jnana）知道過去生。被痛苦所逼迫后，就再也沒有知的能力了。

『若生余趣如應當知者』，總括地指其他趣。如果生於天（Deva-gati）、鬼（Preta-gati）、傍生（Tiryagyoni-gati）趣中，辨別其通局，應當如實了知。問：六類（指六種神通或智慧）對於五趣（五道輪迴）的通局情況如何？解釋說：修得的（指通過修行獲得的）只有人、天能夠入定，所以才能獲得。生得的（指與生俱來的）除了人趣，通於其餘四趣。咒（Mantra）、藥（Ausadha）、占（Nimitta）三種只有人趣才有，因為沒有生得的。所以這三種只有人趣才有。或者說，咒、藥也通於人、天、鬼、傍生。業（Karma）通於五趣，因為中有（Antarabhava）是業，所以通於五趣。又解釋說，天有修、生、咒、藥、業，沒有占相。或者說，也沒有咒、藥。人除了生得之外，有其餘五種。鬼及傍生有生、咒、藥、業，沒有修、占相。或者說，也沒有咒、藥。地獄有生、業，沒有修、咒、藥、占相。雖然作了兩種解釋，仍然需要進一步勘查原文。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百一卷說，人趣有占相，有本性念生智，沒有生得。又說，天、鬼、傍生、地獄，有生得的他心智、宿住智，其餘沒有分別解釋。這段文字與前面的兩種解釋也不相違背。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十七

一校畢

保延元年七月七日黃昏于田原里大道寺點

【English Translation】 English version: 'Original nature' refers to the Purva-koti dharmata (the nature of defiled dharmas in past lives). Because wisdom knows the arising of original nature through the power of mindfulness, it is called Purva-koti-anusmriti-jnana (wisdom born from mindfulness of original nature). Question: There are many kinds of co-arisen dharmas of this wisdom, why is only 'mindfulness' mentioned? Answer: Because the power of mindfulness is increased, like the four smrtyupasthanas (foundations of mindfulness). It is the same here, although the substance is wisdom, it is called Purva-koti-anusmriti-jnana because the power of mindfulness is increased.' It is also said that only in the Manusya-gati (human realm) of the Kama-dhatu (desire realm) can one create superior karma to obtain this wisdom. It is also said that in the human realm, wisdom is sharp and surpasses other realms.

'In the Naraka-gati (hell realm), until there is no more knowing', explains the eighth sentence. In the hell realm, at the initial moment of rebirth, one can only know the minds of others with innate Paracitta-jnana (knowledge of others' minds), and can only know past lives with innate Purva-nivasanusmriti-jnana (knowledge of past lives). After being forced by suffering, there is no more ability to know.

'If born in other realms, it should be known accordingly', generally refers to other realms. If born in the Deva-gati (heaven realm), Preta-gati (ghost realm), or Tiryagyoni-gati (animal realm), the scope and limitations should be known as they truly are. Question: How do the six types (referring to six superknowledges or wisdoms) relate to the five realms (five paths of reincarnation)? It is explained that only humans and devas can enter samadhi (meditative absorption) through cultivation, so they can obtain it. Innate abilities are common to the other four realms except for the human realm. Mantra, Ausadha (medicine), and Nimitta (omens) are only found in the human realm because they are not innate. Therefore, these three are only found in the human realm. Alternatively, Mantra and Ausadha are also common to humans, devas, ghosts, and animals. Karma is common to the five realms because Antarabhava (intermediate state) is karma, so it is common to the five realms. It is also explained that devas have cultivation, innate abilities, Mantra, Ausadha, and karma, but no Nimitta. Alternatively, they may also have no Mantra or Ausadha. Humans have the other five types except for innate abilities. Ghosts and animals have innate abilities, Mantra, Ausadha, and karma, but no cultivation or Nimitta. Alternatively, they may also have no Mantra or Ausadha. Hell beings have innate abilities and karma, but no cultivation, Mantra, Ausadha, or Nimitta. Although two explanations are given, the original text still needs to be further examined. The Vibhasa, volume 101, says that the human realm has Nimitta, has Purva-koti-anusmriti-jnana, but no innate abilities. It also says that devas, ghosts, animals, and hell beings have innate Paracitta-jnana and Purva-nivasanusmriti-jnana, and the rest are not explained separately. This passage does not contradict the previous two explanations.

Kosa-tika (Commentary on Abhidharmakosa-bhasya), Volume 27

First proofreading completed

Evening of July 7th, in the first year of Hoen, at Daido-ji Temple in Tawarano-sato

了

羊僧覺樹大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十八

沙門釋光述

分別定品第八之一

分別定品者。專注一緣名之為定。此品廣明故名分別。所以次明定品者。賢聖品明果。智品明因。定品明緣。緣望果疏故次明定也　又解依定發智故次明定。

已說諸智至今次當辨者。就此品中。一明諸定功德。二明正法住世。三明造論宗旨。

就第一明諸定功德中。一明所依諸定。二明能依功德　就第一明所依諸定中。一明四靜慮。二明四無色。三明八等至。四明諸等持　此下第一明四靜慮。將明生起　就生起中。一總結生起。二別生起定。三問起頌文　此即第一總結生起。于先所辨共功德中。已說諸智所成無諍等功德。余靜慮等功德今次當辨。

于中先辨所依止定者。此即第二別生起定。

且諸定內靜慮云何者。此即第三問起頌文。

頌曰至后漸離前支者。就頌答中。初頌出體。後半頌顯差別。此中言樂。樂有二種。若初．二定樂輕安名樂。若第三定樂樂受名樂。以樂名同。頌總言樂。若不爾者。寧得通前三靜慮耶。余如長行釋。

論曰至靜慮差別者。明先說意。

此總有四至五蘊為性者。釋初頌。此四靜

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本羊僧覺樹大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十八

沙門釋光述

分別定品第八之一

分別定品者。專注一緣名之為定。此品廣明故名分別。所以次明定品者。賢聖品明果。智品明因。定品明緣。緣望果疏故次明定也。又解依定發智故次明定。

已說諸智至今次當辨者。就此品中。一明諸定功德。二明正法住世。三明造論宗旨。

就第一明諸定功德中。一明所依諸定。二明能依功德。就第一明所依諸定中。一明四靜慮（catasro dhyānāni）。二明四無色（catasra ārūpya samāpattaya）。三明八等至（aṣṭa samāpattaya）。四明諸等持（samādhi）。此下第一明四靜慮（catasro dhyānāni）。將明生起。就生起中。一總結生起。二別生起定。三問起頌文。此即第一總結生起。于先所辨共功德中。已說諸智所成無諍等功德。余靜慮（dhyāna）等功德今次當辨。

于中先辨所依止定者。此即第二別生起定。

且諸定內靜慮（dhyāna）云何者。此即第三問起頌文。

頌曰至后漸離前支者。就頌答中。初頌出體。後半頌顯差別。此中言樂。樂有二種。若初．二定樂輕安名樂。若第三定樂樂受名樂。以樂名同。頌總言樂。若不爾者。寧得通前三靜慮（dhyāna）耶。余如長行釋。

論曰至靜慮（dhyāna）差別者。明先說意。

此總有四至五蘊為性者。釋初頌。此四靜慮（catasro dhyānāni）。

【English Translation】 English version Yang Sengjue Tree Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1821 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Volume 28

Commentary by Shramana Shi Guang

Chapter Eight on the Differentiation of Dhyāna (Samādhi) - Part One

The chapter on differentiating dhyāna (samādhi). Focusing on a single object is called dhyāna (samādhi). This chapter explains it extensively, hence the name 'differentiation'. The reason for explaining the dhyāna (samādhi) chapter next is that the chapter on the Noble Ones explains the result, the chapter on Wisdom explains the cause, and the dhyāna (samādhi) chapter explains the condition. Because the condition is distant from the result, the dhyāna (samādhi) is explained next. Another explanation is that wisdom arises based on dhyāna (samādhi), so dhyāna (samādhi) is explained next.

Having explained the various wisdoms, next we should discuss this. In this chapter, first, the merits of the various dhyānas (samādhis) are explained; second, the abiding of the True Dharma in the world is explained; and third, the purpose of writing the treatise is explained.

Regarding the first, explaining the merits of the various dhyānas (samādhis), first, the dhyānas (samādhis) on which they rely are explained; second, the merits on which they rely are explained. Regarding the first, explaining the dhyānas (samādhis) on which they rely, first, the four dhyānas (catasro dhyānāni) are explained; second, the four formless attainments (catasra ārūpya samāpattaya) are explained; third, the eight attainments (aṣṭa samāpattaya) are explained; and fourth, the various samādhis (samādhi) are explained. Below, first, the four dhyānas (catasro dhyānāni) are explained, and their arising will be explained. Regarding the arising, first, the arising is summarized; second, the dhyānas (samādhis) are separately arisen; and third, the verse is asked. This is the first summary of the arising. Among the common merits previously explained, the merits of non-contention, etc., accomplished by the various wisdoms have been explained. The merits of the remaining dhyānas (dhyāna), etc., should now be explained.

Among these, first, the dhyānas (samādhis) on which they rely are explained. This is the second separate arising of dhyānas (samādhis).

Furthermore, what are the dhyānas (dhyāna) within the various dhyānas (samādhis)? This is the third question that initiates the verse.

The verse says 'gradually abandoning the previous branches later'. Regarding the verse's answer, the first verse presents the substance, and the latter half of the verse reveals the differences. Here, 'joy' is mentioned. There are two types of joy. If the joy of the first and second dhyānas (samādhis) is the joy of lightness and ease, it is called joy. If the joy of the third dhyāna (samādhi) is the feeling of joy, it is called joy. Because the name 'joy' is the same, the verse generally speaks of joy. If not, how could it encompass the first three dhyānas (dhyāna)? The rest is explained in the prose.

The treatise says 'the differences of dhyāna (dhyāna)'. It clarifies the intention of the previous statement.

There are a total of four, whose nature is the five aggregates. This explains the first verse. These four dhyānas (catasro dhyānāni).

慮各有二種。謂定及生。生即如前世品已說。定靜慮體。總而言之是善性攝。能令心王住一境性。克性出體。以善等持為自性故。若並助伴相應．俱有。五蘊為性。

何名一境性者。問。

謂專一所緣者。答。專一所緣名之為定。

若爾即心至余心所法者。經部難。若專一緣即此心王。專一境位。依之建立三摩地名。不應別有余心所法說名等持。經部依心假立定故。

別法令心至非體即心者。說一切有部釋。別有心所令彼心王於一境轉。名三摩地。非體即心。

豈不諸心至皆一境轉者。經部復難。豈不諸心剎那．剎那前後滅故皆一境轉。心王之外何用等持。汝若謂等持令彼心王于第二念不散亂故須有等持。即于剎那相應心王等持無用。經部復難。汝立余心．心所。由三摩地故於一境轉。此三摩地復由誰故於一境轉。汝即解云還即由此余心．心所令三摩地於一境轉故　牒破云。又由此余心．心所故三摩地成。寧不即由此余心．心所法故。心於一境轉。何用等持令心一境。此文稍隱。應善思之。又三摩地是大地法。遍與一切三性相應。應一切心皆一境轉。皆應名定。

不爾余品等持劣故者。說一切有部救云。不爾。余散品心性雖有等持。體性劣故不名為定。

有餘師說至即四

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

靜慮有兩種，即禪定和生起。生起如前面『世品』中已經說過的。禪定的體性，總的來說是善的性質，能夠使心專注于單一的境界。它的特性和作用在於使心專注於一境。因為它以善的等持（Samadhi）為自性。如果加上助伴（輔助因素），以及與之心相應的、同時生起的，那麼它的體性就是五蘊（Skandha）。什麼是『一境性』呢？（問）是指專注于單一所緣境。（答）專注于單一所緣境就叫做禪定。如果這樣，那麼心就等同於其他心所法了嗎？（經部宗的提問）如果專注于單一所緣境，那麼就是這個心王（Citta-raja），專注于單一境界。依此建立三摩地（Samadhi）之名，不應該另外有其他心所法叫做等持。經部宗認為，禪定是依心而假立的。另外有法使心專注於一境，而不是體性等同於心嗎？（說一切有部宗的解釋）另外有心所法使那個心王在一境上運轉，叫做三摩地（Samadhi），而不是體性等同於心。難道不是所有心都專注於一境運轉嗎？（經部宗再次提問）難道不是所有心剎那、剎那前後滅去，都專注於一境運轉嗎？在心王之外，還要等持做什麼？如果你們認為等持使那個心王在第二念不散亂，所以需要等持，那麼對於剎那相應的心王來說，等持就沒有用了。經部宗再次提問：你們設立另外的心、心所，因為三摩地（Samadhi）的緣故而專注於一境運轉，那麼這個三摩地（Samadhi）又是因為誰的緣故而專注於一境運轉呢？你們就解釋說，還是因為這個另外的心、心所使三摩地（Samadhi）專注於一境運轉。駁斥說：又因為這個另外的心、心所的緣故，三摩地（Samadhi）成就。難道不是因為這個另外的心、心所法的緣故，心才專注於一境運轉嗎？還要等持做什麼來使心專注於一境？這段文字比較隱晦，應該好好思考。而且三摩地（Samadhi）是大地法（Mahabhumi-ka），普遍與一切三性（善、惡、無記）相應，應該一切心都專注於一境運轉，都應該叫做禪定。不是這樣的，其他品類的等持很弱。（說一切有部宗的辯護）不是這樣的。其他散亂品類的心性雖然有等持，但是體性很弱，所以不叫做禪定。有其他論師說，就是四...

【English Translation】 English version:

There are two types of contemplation (Dhyana): namely, concentration (Samadhi) and arising. Arising has already been discussed in the previous chapter on 'Worlds'. The nature of concentration, generally speaking, is of a wholesome (kusala) nature, capable of focusing the mind on a single object. Its characteristic and function lie in enabling the mind to abide in a single object. Because it has wholesome (kusala) equanimity (Samadhi) as its own nature. If combined with auxiliary factors (aids), and those that are associated and co-arisen with it, its nature is the five aggregates (Skandhas). What is meant by 'one-pointedness' (eka-agrata)? (Question) It refers to focusing on a single object of attention. (Answer) Focusing on a single object of attention is called concentration (Samadhi). If that's the case, then is the mind identical to other mental factors? (Objection from the Sautrantika school) If one is focused on a single object, then it is this mind-king (Citta-raja) that is focused on a single state. Based on this, the name Samadhi is established. There should not be other mental factors called equanimity (Samadhi). The Sautrantika school believes that concentration is hypothetically established based on the mind. Is there a separate dharma (element) that causes the mind to focus on one object, and is not identical in nature to the mind? (Explanation from the Sarvastivada school) There is a separate mental factor that causes that mind-king to operate on one object, called Samadhi, and it is not identical in nature to the mind. Isn't it the case that all minds operate on one object? (The Sautrantika school asks again) Isn't it the case that all minds, moment by moment, arising and ceasing in succession, operate on one object? Outside of the mind-king, what is the use of equanimity (Samadhi)? If you say that equanimity (Samadhi) prevents that mind-king from being distracted in the second thought, so equanimity (Samadhi) is needed, then for the mind-king that is associated with the moment, equanimity (Samadhi) is useless. The Sautrantika school asks again: You establish separate mind and mental factors, which, because of Samadhi, operate on one object. Then, for whose sake does this Samadhi operate on one object? You would then explain that it is still because of this other mind and mental factors that Samadhi operates on one object. Refutation: Again, because of this other mind and mental factors, Samadhi is accomplished. Isn't it because of this other mind and mental factors that the mind operates on one object? What is the use of equanimity (Samadhi) to make the mind operate on one object? This passage is somewhat obscure and should be carefully considered. Moreover, Samadhi is a universal mental factor (Mahabhumi-ka), universally associated with all three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), so all minds should operate on one object, and all should be called concentration (Samadhi). That's not the case; the equanimity (Samadhi) of other categories is weak. (Defense from the Sarvastivada school) That's not the case. Although the nature of minds in other distracted categories has equanimity (Samadhi), its nature is weak, so it is not called concentration (Samadhi). Some other teachers say that it is the four...

靜慮故者。有餘經部師說。即心一境前後相續轉時名三摩地。離心之外無別有體　契經說此定為增上心學故。顯定即心。

心清凈最勝即四靜慮故。顯心即定。故知離心無別定體。依何義故立靜慮名者。問名。

由此寂靜至以慧為體者。說一切有部答。由定寂靜慧能審慮。審慮即是實了知義。從用及果為名故名靜慮。如契經說心若在定能如實了知　印度造字聲明論中有字界．字緣審慮梵云振多。是字緣。于振多義中置地界故。地是梵音。復以餘聲明法助此振多地界。變成馱南。馱南此云靜慮。舊云禪。或云禪那。或云持阿那。皆訛也。有餘部計審慮是思。為簡彼說故言此宗審慮以慧為體。又婆沙八十三云。靜謂等引。慮謂遍觀。故名靜慮。

若爾諸等持皆應名靜慮者難。若寂靜審慮名靜慮者。諸八地等持皆應名靜慮。

不爾唯勝至亦得日名者。答。不爾。唯勝方立此名。如世間言發光名日。非螢．燭等發於劣光亦得日名。

靜慮如何獨名為勝者。問。

諸等持內至獨名靜慮者。答。八等持內唯此四種。一攝受靜慮支。二止．觀均行最能審慮。三得現法樂住。四得樂通行名。故四等持獨名靜慮。余定不爾。

若爾染污寧得此名者　問。

由彼亦能邪審慮故者。答。由

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『靜慮故』，有分別說部（有餘經部師）的論師說，心專注于單一對象，前後相續不斷地運轉時，稱為三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）。除了心之外，沒有其他的實體。契經（佛經）說這種禪定是爲了增上心學（Adhicitta-sikkha，更高的心性訓練），因此表明禪定就是心。

心清凈且最為殊勝的狀態就是四靜慮（catvari dhyanani，色界四禪），因此表明心就是禪定。所以可知，離開心就沒有其他的禪定實體。依據什麼意義而立『靜慮』這個名稱呢？（問名）

一切有部（Sarvastivada）回答說，由於禪定寂靜，智慧能夠審慎地思慮。審慮就是真實瞭解事物的意義。從作用和結果來命名，所以稱為靜慮。正如契經所說，心如果在禪定中，就能如實地瞭解事物。印度的造字聲明論中，字界（字母的界限）、字緣（字母的來源）的審慮，梵文稱為振多（cinta）。振多是字緣。在振多的意義中，設定地界（Dhi，智慧）。地是梵語。再用其他的聲明法來輔助這個振多地界，就變成了馱南（dhyana）。馱南的意思就是靜慮。舊譯為禪，或者禪那（dhyana），或者持阿那，都是訛誤。有其他部派認為審慮是思，爲了簡別他們的說法，所以說本宗認為審慮是以智慧為體。另外，《大毗婆沙論》第八十三卷說，靜是指等引（Samapatti，入定），慮是指遍觀（Vipassana，觀），所以名為靜慮。

如果這樣，那麼所有的等持（Samadhi，禪定）都應該叫做靜慮了。（難）如果寂靜和審慮就叫做靜慮，那麼八地（astabhumi，三界九地中的前八地）的等持都應該叫做靜慮。

不是這樣的，只有殊勝的才能立這個名稱。（答）不是這樣的。只有殊勝的才能建立這個名稱。就像世間說發光叫做日，不是螢火蟲、蠟燭等發出微弱的光芒也能叫做日。

靜慮如何獨自被稱為殊勝呢？（問）

在各種等持中，只有這四種等持才能獨自被稱為靜慮。（答）在八種等持中，只有這四種：一、攝受靜慮的支分（dhyananga，禪支）；二、止（Samatha，奢摩他）和觀（Vipassana，毗婆舍那）並行，最能審慮；三、能夠獲得現法樂住（drstadharma-sukhavihara，現世安樂的住所）；四、能夠獲得安樂的通行之名。所以這四種等持獨自被稱為靜慮，其他的禪定不是這樣。

如果這樣，那麼染污的禪定怎麼能得到這個名稱呢？（問）

因為它們也能進行邪惡的審慮。（答）因為它們也能進行邪惡的審慮。

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'because of meditative absorption (dhyana)', some teachers of the Sautrantika school (Atya-desika) say that when the mind focuses on a single object, continuing uninterruptedly, it is called Samadhi (concentration). There is no separate entity apart from the mind. The Sutra (scripture) says that this Samadhi is for the sake of higher mental training (Adhicitta-sikkha), thus showing that Samadhi is the mind.

The state of mind that is pure and most excellent is the four meditative absorptions (catvari dhyanani), thus showing that the mind is meditative absorption. Therefore, it is known that there is no separate entity of meditative absorption apart from the mind. According to what meaning is the name 'meditative absorption (dhyana)' established? (Question about the name)

The Sarvastivada school answers, 'Because meditative absorption is tranquil, wisdom can carefully contemplate. Careful contemplation is the meaning of truly understanding things. Named from function and result, it is called meditative absorption.' As the Sutra says, 'If the mind is in Samadhi, it can truly understand things.' In the Indian treatise on the science of language, the careful contemplation of the boundaries of letters (aksara-sima) and the origins of letters (aksara-yonih) is called Cinta in Sanskrit. Cinta is the origin of letters. In the meaning of Cinta, the element of Dhi (wisdom) is placed. Dhi is a Sanskrit word. Then, other linguistic methods are used to assist this Cinta-Dhi element, which becomes Dhyana. The meaning of Dhyana is meditative absorption. The old translations as Chan, or Dhyana, or Chi-a-na, are all corruptions. Other schools consider careful contemplation to be thought. To distinguish their views, it is said that this school considers careful contemplation to be based on wisdom. Furthermore, the eighty-third volume of the Mahavibhasa says, 'Tranquility refers to Samapatti (attainment), and contemplation refers to Vipassana (insight), hence the name meditative absorption.'

If so, then all Samadhis (concentrations) should be called meditative absorption. (Objection) If tranquility and careful contemplation are called meditative absorption, then the Samadhis of the eight grounds (astabhumi) should all be called meditative absorption.

It is not so; only the superior ones establish this name. (Answer) It is not so. Only the superior ones can establish this name. Just as the world says that emitting light is called the sun, it is not that fireflies, candles, etc., emitting inferior light can also be called the sun.

How is meditative absorption uniquely called superior? (Question)

Among all Samadhis, only these four can be uniquely called meditative absorption. (Answer) Among the eight Samadhis, only these four: 1. Embrace the limbs of meditative absorption (dhyananga); 2. Samatha (tranquility) and Vipassana (insight) proceed in parallel, being most capable of careful contemplation; 3. Able to attain dwelling in happiness in the present life (drstadharma-sukhavihara); 4. Able to attain the name of a pleasant path. Therefore, these four Samadhis are uniquely called meditative absorption; other Samadhis are not like this.

If so, then how can defiled meditative absorption obtain this name? (Question)

Because they can also engage in evil careful contemplation. (Answer) Because they can also engage in evil careful contemplation.

彼染定發得邪慧能邪審慮亦名靜慮。

是則應有太過之失者。難。若能令慧邪審慮故名靜慮者。是即應有太過之失。一切三界諸惑相應慧。皆能邪審慮與彼相應定亦應名靜慮。

無太過失至有惡靜慮者。答。無太過失。要與善靜慮相似義中方名染靜慮。余非相似不名靜慮。生芽名種。敗種名種。似生種故立以種名。等謂等取涸池．死人等。此即引喻。世尊亦說有惡靜慮。即味靜慮。此即引證。

若一境性至初二．三．四者。釋第五．第六句。問。若一境性是靜慮體。依何相立初．二．三．四差別不同。

具伺喜．樂至分為四種者。答。具伺．喜．樂建立為初。由此已明亦具尋義。以此三法必與尋俱。如煙與火必定俱行。非伺有喜．樂而不與尋俱。影顯可知。頌不別說。定通四定不約彼明。漸離前支立二．三．四。離伺但有喜．樂二種立第二定。離伺．喜二但有樂一立第三定。具離伺．喜．樂三種立第四定。如次配釋。但言離伺。亦定離尋不別說也。故一境性分為四種。

已辨靜慮無色云何者。此下第二明四無色。結前問起。

頌曰至昧劣故立名者。就頌答中初句及四蘊明體性。離下地約生分四。次兩句顯除色想。次一句釋總名。次一句釋妨。后四句釋別名。

論曰至隨轉

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：彼染污的禪定，如果能產生邪慧和邪審慮，也可以稱為靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）。

難：如果因為能令智慧產生邪審慮的緣故而稱為靜慮，那麼就應該有太過之失。一切三界諸惑相應的智慧，都能產生邪審慮，與這些智慧相應的禪定也應該稱為靜慮。

答：沒有太過之失。只有與善靜慮相似的情況下，才能稱為染污的靜慮。其餘不相似的，不能稱為靜慮。例如，能生芽的稱為種子，腐敗的種子也稱為種子，因為它們類似於能生芽的種子，所以也稱為種子。『等』字，是等取乾涸的池塘、死去的人等。這是引用的比喻。世尊也說過有惡靜慮，即味靜慮。這是引用的證據。

問：如果一境性是靜慮的本體，那麼依據什麼相來建立初禪、二禪、三禪、四禪的差別呢？

答：具有尋（Vitarka，粗分別）、伺（Vicara，細分別）、喜（Priti，喜受）、樂（Sukha，樂受）的禪定建立為初禪。由此已經說明也具有尋義。因為這三種法必定與尋俱生，就像煙與火必定一起出現一樣。如果只有伺、喜、樂，而不與尋俱生，這是不可能的，顯而易見。頌文中沒有分別說明。禪定通於四禪，所以不特別說明。逐漸離開前面的支分，建立二禪、三禪、四禪。離開伺，只有喜、樂兩種，建立第二禪。離開伺、喜兩種，只有樂一種，建立第三禪。完全離開伺、喜、樂三種，建立第四禪。依次配合解釋。只說離開伺，也必定離開尋，所以不再分別說明。因此，一境性分為四種。

已經辨明了靜慮，那麼無色界（Arupa-dhatu，沒有物質的色界）的禪定是怎樣的呢？

頌曰：至昧劣故立名者。在頌文的回答中，第一句和四蘊（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）說明了體性。離開下地，從生處劃分四種。接下來的兩句顯示了去除色想。再下一句解釋了總名。再下一句解釋了妨難。最後四句解釋了別名。

論曰：至隨轉

【English Translation】 English version: That defiled Dhyana (meditative absorption), if it can generate wrong wisdom and wrong deliberation, can also be called Dhyana.

Objection: If it is called Dhyana because it can cause wisdom to generate wrong deliberation, then there should be the fault of being too broad. All wisdom associated with the afflictions of the three realms can generate wrong deliberation, and the concentration associated with these wisdoms should also be called Dhyana.

Answer: There is no fault of being too broad. Only when it is similar to wholesome Dhyana can it be called defiled Dhyana. The rest, which are not similar, are not called Dhyana. For example, that which can produce sprouts is called a seed, and a rotten seed is also called a seed because it is similar to a seed that can produce sprouts. The word 'etc.' includes dried-up ponds, dead people, etc. This is an analogy. The World Honored One also said that there is evil Dhyana, which is taste-Dhyana. This is a quote as evidence.

Question: If one-pointedness of mind is the essence of Dhyana, then based on what characteristics are the differences between the first, second, third, and fourth Dhyanas established?

Answer: Having Vitarka (initial application of thought), Vicara (sustained application of thought), Priti (joy), and Sukha (happiness) is established as the first Dhyana. From this, it is already clear that it also has Vitarka. Because these three dharmas must arise together with Vitarka, just as smoke and fire must appear together. If there is only Vicara, Priti, and Sukha, without Vitarka, this is impossible, it is obvious. The verse does not explain this separately. Dhyana is common to the four Dhyanas, so it is not specifically explained. Gradually leaving the previous limbs, the second, third, and fourth Dhyanas are established. Leaving Vicara, having only Priti and Sukha, the second Dhyana is established. Leaving Vicara and Priti, having only Sukha, the third Dhyana is established. Completely leaving Vicara, Priti, and Sukha, the fourth Dhyana is established. Explain them in order. Only saying leaving Vicara, it is also certain to leave Vitarka, so it is not explained separately. Therefore, one-pointedness of mind is divided into four types.

Having already distinguished Dhyana, what about the Dhyana of the Arupa-dhatu (formless realm)?

Verse says: To inferior so establish name. In the answer of the verse, the first sentence and the four Skandhas (aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) explain the essence. Leaving the lower ground, divide into four from the place of birth. The next two sentences show the removal of the perception of form. The next sentence explains the general name. The next sentence explains the objection. The last four sentences explain the specific names.

Treatise says: To follow transformation

色故者。釋初句及四蘊。此四無色與四靜慮。數同。自性同。謂數有四。自性各二。生如前說。即世品說由生有四種。定無色體總而言之。亦善性攝心一境性。依此數．性．同故。頌中說亦如是言。然助伴中此除色蘊有餘四蘊。無色無有隨轉色故。

雖一境性至非非想處者。釋離下地。約生不同分四。雖一境性四無色定體相無差別。離下地染生彼上地。約生不同故分四種。謂若已離第四靜慮染生上地時。立空無邊處。乃至已離無所有處染生上地時。立非想非非想處。

離名何義者。問。

謂由此道至離下染義者。答。謂隨由何道解脫下地惑。是離下染義。

即此四根本至起色想故者。釋第三．第四句。因解無色明除色想　緣下地色。謂第四定色。余文可知　無色雖亦緣下六地類智品道俱生戒色。今據有漏言除色想。

皆無色故立無色名者。釋第五句。空等四處皆無色故立無色名。

此因不成許有色故者。大眾部．化地部等出過。皆無色故立無色名。此因不成。我許彼界亦有色故。

若爾何故立無色名者。問。

由彼色微至亦名無黃者。大眾部等答。由彼色微故名無色。引喻可知。

許彼界中至亦遮有故者。說一切有部責破大眾部等　許彼界中色有何相。此即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『色故者』，解釋第一句以及四蘊（skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）。這四種無色蘊與四靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）在數量上相同，自性也相同。所謂數量上有四種，自性各有兩種。生起的方式如前所述，即在『世品』中說到的，由生而有四種。定（samādhi，專注）的無色之體總的來說，也屬於善性，是心一境性（ekāgratā，專注）。因為在數量和自性上相同，所以在頌（gāthā，偈頌）中也這樣說。然而在助伴中，這裡除了色蘊（rūpa-skandha，物質的集合）之外，還有其餘四蘊。無色界沒有隨之轉變的色蘊。

『雖一境性至非非想處者』，解釋離開下地。根據生起不同分為四種。雖然一境性，四無色定（arūpa-dhyāna，無色禪定）的體相沒有差別，但離開下地染污而生到彼上地，根據生起不同所以分為四種。即如果已經離開第四靜慮的染污而生到上地時，就建立空無邊處（ākāśānantyāyatana，空無邊處定），乃至已經離開無所有處（ākiñcanyāyatana，無所有處定）的染污而生到上地時，就建立非想非非想處（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，非想非非想處定）。

『離名何義者』，提問。

『謂由此道至離下染義者』，回答。即隨著由什麼道解脫下地惑，就是離開下染的意義。

『即此四根本至起色想故者』，解釋第三、第四句。因爲了解無色而明白去除色想，緣于下地色，即第四定色。其餘文字可以理解。無色界雖然也緣于下六地類智品道俱生戒色，但現在根據有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）來說去除色想。

『皆無色故立無色名者』，解釋第五句。空等四處都無色，所以立無色名。

『此因不成許有色故者』，大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）、化地部（Mahīśāsaka）等提出反駁。『都無色所以立無色名』，這個理由不成立，我承認彼界也有色。

『若爾何故立無色名者』，提問。

『由彼色微至亦名無黃者』，大眾部等回答。因為彼色微細，所以名為無色。引用的比喻可以理解。

『許彼界中至亦遮有故者』，說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）責難破斥大眾部等。『承認彼界中有色，有什麼相？』這就是...

【English Translation】 English version 'Because of rūpa (form)', explains the first phrase and the four skandhas (aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). These four formless skandhas are the same in number as the four dhyānas (meditative absorptions), and their nature is also the same. That is, there are four in number, and each has two natures. Their arising is as previously described, that is, as stated in the 'World Chapter', there are four kinds due to arising. The formless essence of samādhi (concentration), generally speaking, is also included in the nature of goodness, being one-pointedness of mind (ekāgratā). Because they are the same in number and nature, it is also said thus in the gāthā (verse). However, among the auxiliaries, here, apart from the rūpa-skandha, there are the remaining four skandhas. In the formless realm, there is no rūpa that transforms along with them.

'Although of one object, up to the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception', explains leaving the lower realms. Based on the difference in arising, it is divided into four. Although of one object, the essence and characteristics of the four arūpa-dhyānas (formless absorptions) are not different, but leaving the defilements of the lower realms and being born in those higher realms, it is divided into four kinds based on the difference in arising. That is, if one has already left the defilements of the fourth dhyāna and is born in the higher realm, then the ākāśānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite space) is established, and so on, until one has already left the defilements of the ākiñcanyāyatana (sphere of nothingness) and is born in the higher realm, then the naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana (sphere of neither perception nor non-perception) is established.

'What is the meaning of 'leaving'?', a question.

'That is, by this path, up to the meaning of leaving lower defilements', an answer. That is, following whatever path one is liberated from the afflictions of the lower realms, that is the meaning of leaving lower defilements.

'That is, these four fundamental, up to the arising of the thought of rūpa', explains the third and fourth phrases. Because of understanding the formless, one understands the removal of the thought of rūpa, conditioned by the rūpa of the lower realms, that is, the rūpa of the fourth dhyāna. The remaining text can be understood. Although the formless realm is also conditioned by the rūpa of the precepts that arise together with the wisdom of categories and the path of the lower six realms, now, according to the afflicted (sāsrava), it is said to remove the thought of rūpa.

'Because all are formless, the name 'formless' is established', explains the fifth phrase. The four spheres, such as the sphere of infinite space, are all formless, so the name 'formless' is established.

'This reason is not established, because it is admitted that there is rūpa', the Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly School), Mahīśāsaka (Earth-Ruling School), etc., raise an objection. 'Because all are formless, the name 'formless' is established', this reason is not established, I admit that there is also rūpa in that realm.

'If so, why is the name 'formless' established?', a question.

'Because that rūpa is subtle, up to also being called without yellow', the Mahāsāṃghika, etc., answer. Because that rūpa is subtle, it is called formless. The cited analogy can be understood.

'Admitting that in that realm, up to also obstructing existence', the Sarvāstivāda (All-Existing School) criticizes and refutes the Mahāsāṃghika, etc. 'Admitting that there is rūpa in that realm, what is its appearance?' This is...

總責。下牒計破。若言彼界雖無餘色。唯有身．語律儀。破云身．語既無。律儀寧有。夫有律儀。謂于彼地容起身．語。于無色界身．語既無。律儀寧有。又無大種何有造色。夫所造色由大種造。彼無色界既無大種。何有造色身．語律儀　若謂如有無漏律儀。雖無無漏身．語大種。而有無漏律儀。隨身大造。彼界雖無身．語大種。何妨得有身．語律儀。隨身大造。破云。不爾。無漏律儀是不繫故。雖無無漏身．語大種。而有無漏律儀。隨所依身。有漏大造。無色律儀體是有漏。是界系故。不可說言彼界雖無身．語大種。而有律儀隨身大造。又彼定中不但遮彼無漏律儀。亦遮有彼有漏律儀　又解謂彼定中不但遮彼身．語大種。亦遮有彼身．語律儀。言無色故。律儀寧有。

若許于彼至此有何理者。又縱許牒破　若許于彼無色界中有色根身。破云。如何可言彼色微少　若謂于彼身量小故名無色者。破云。水細蟲極微。亦應名無色。小不可見故　若謂身極清妙故名無色者。破云。中有．色界應名無色。亦清妙故　若謂彼身清妙中極故名無色。中有．色界。清妙非極不名無色。破云。應唯有頂得無色名。清妙中極故。如定有勝．劣上．下不同。生身亦有勝．劣上．下不等。故有頂最勝　若言彼色非下地眼見故名無色。破

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：總責。下牒計破。如果說彼界雖然沒有其餘的色法，唯有身、語律儀（行爲規範）。駁斥說，身、語既然沒有，律儀怎麼會有？有律儀，是指在那片土地上能夠起身、語。在沒有身、語的情況下，既然沒有身、語，律儀怎麼會有？又沒有四大種（地、水、火、風），怎麼會有造色（由四大種產生的色法）？所造的色法是由四大種造的。彼界既然沒有四大種，怎麼會有造色身、語律儀？如果說如有無漏律儀（沒有煩惱的律儀），雖然沒有無漏身、語大種，而有無漏律儀，隨身大造。彼界雖然沒有身、語大種，為什麼不能有身、語律儀，隨身大造？駁斥說，不是這樣的。無漏律儀是不受束縛的，所以雖然沒有無漏身、語大種，而有無漏律儀，隨著所依之身，由有漏大種造。無色律儀的本體是有漏的，是界系（屬於某個界）的，所以不能說彼界雖然沒有身、語大種，而有律儀隨身大造。而且彼定中不但遮止彼無漏律儀，也遮止有彼有漏律儀。又解釋說，彼定中不但遮止彼身、語大種，也遮止有彼身、語律儀。因為是無色界，律儀怎麼會有？如果允許從彼界到此界有什麼道理呢？又縱然允許牒破。如果允許在那無色界中有色根身（感覺器官和身體）。駁斥說，怎麼能說那色法微少？如果說在那裡的身量小所以名叫無色，駁斥說，水中的細小蟲子極其微小，也應該名叫無色。因為小而不可見。如果說那身體極其清凈微妙所以名叫無色，駁斥說，中有（死亡到投胎之間的狀態）、也應該名叫無色。也清凈微妙。如果說那身體在清凈微妙中達到極致所以名叫無色，中有、，清凈微妙並非極致所以不名叫無色。駁斥說，應該只有有頂天（色界最高的禪定天）才能得到無色之名。因為清凈微妙達到極致。如同禪定有殊勝、低劣、上、下不同。眾生的身體也有殊勝、低劣、上、下不等。所以有頂天最殊勝。如果說那色法不是下地（較低的境界）的眼睛所能看見的，所以名叫無色。駁斥

【English Translation】 English version: General responsibility. Issue an edict to plan the refutation. If it is said that although that realm has no other form, it only has bodily and verbal discipline (rules of conduct). Refute by saying, since body and speech do not exist, how can there be discipline? Having discipline means that in that land, one can arise in body and speech. In the absence of body and speech, since there is no body and speech, how can there be discipline? Furthermore, without the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind), how can there be derived form (form produced by the four great elements)? Derived form is produced by the four great elements. Since that realm has no four great elements, how can there be bodily and verbal discipline of derived form? If it is said that just as there is unconditioned discipline (discipline without defilements), although there are no unconditioned bodily and verbal great elements, there is unconditioned discipline, greatly created along with the body. Although that realm has no bodily and verbal great elements, why can't there be bodily and verbal discipline, greatly created along with the body? Refute by saying, that is not so. Unconditioned discipline is unbound, so although there are no unconditioned bodily and verbal great elements, there is unconditioned discipline, created by conditioned great elements along with the body it relies on. The substance of formless discipline is conditioned, belonging to a realm, so it cannot be said that although that realm has no bodily and verbal great elements, there is discipline greatly created along with the body. Moreover, that samadhi (meditative state) not only prevents that unconditioned discipline, but also prevents the existence of that conditioned discipline. Furthermore, it is explained that that samadhi not only prevents those bodily and verbal great elements, but also prevents the existence of those bodily and verbal disciplines. Because it is the formless realm, how can there be discipline? If it is allowed that there is some reason to go from that realm to this realm? And even if the refutation is allowed. If it is allowed that in that formless realm there is a body with sense faculties (organs of perception and the body). Refute by saying, how can it be said that that form is minimal? If it is said that the body's size is small, so it is called formless, refute by saying, the tiny insects in the water are extremely small, and should also be called formless, because they are small and invisible. If it is said that that body is extremely pure and subtle, so it is called formless, refute by saying, the intermediate state (the state between death and rebirth), and ** should also be called formless, as they are also pure and subtle. If it is said that that body is the ultimate in purity and subtlety, so it is called formless, the intermediate state and **, are not the ultimate in purity and subtlety, so they are not called formless. Refute by saying, only the Peak of Existence (the highest meditative heaven in the Form Realm) should be called formless, because it is the ultimate in purity and subtlety. Just as samadhi has superior, inferior, higher, and lower differences, the bodies of beings also have superior, inferior, higher, and lower inequalities. Therefore, the Peak of Existence is the most superior. If it is said that that form is not visible to the eyes of the lower realms, so it is called formless. Refute

云。又生四靜慮所有色身。非下地眼所能取故。與彼無色何異不名無色。此即以下同上　若謂欲．色隨義立名。實有欲．色名欲．色界。無色不然。非隨義立。雖實有色。而名無色。此有何理。

若謂經說至有色理成者。牒大眾部等所引四經證無色界有色。一若謂經說壽．暖和合。彼既有壽。明知有暖。暖即色故。二又經說名色與識相依。如二蘆束相依住故。既許彼界識體非無。是則亦應許有名色。三又經說名色識為緣故。彼界既有識。明知有名色。四又經說。遮離色．受．想．行四。識有來．去。故彼界既有識。明知亦具有色．受．想．行。故婆沙云。復說離色．受．想．行。不應說識有去．來。住有死有生。無色界中既得有識。亦應具足有四識住(已上論文)。故總結言。由此無色有色理成。

此證不成至為遮離一切者。說一切有部。總非勸思。通前引教。且初經言壽．暖合者。為約三界說如汝異執。為約欲界說如我所宗。理應約欲說。若通上二界不應言暖。據暖顯相。且言約欲不言色界。若隱顯合論。暖亦通色界　通第二經云．名色與識相依住者。為約三界說如汝異執。為約欲．色說如我所宗。理應但約欲．色說也。若通無色不應言色　通第三經云。所說名色識為緣者。為說一切識皆為名色緣如汝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本云。又產生四靜慮（指色界四禪）所擁有的色身。因為不是下地（指欲界和色界下層）的眼睛所能看到的，這和無色界有什麼不同，為什麼不稱為無色界呢？這就像以地獄的情況一樣。如果說欲界和色界是根據意義來命名的，確實存在欲和色，所以稱為欲界和色界。無色界不是這樣，不是根據意義來命名的。雖然實際上有色，卻稱為無色，這有什麼道理呢？如果說經文說到了有色的道理成立，這是大眾部等引用的四部經來證明無色界有色。第一，如果說經文說壽（壽命）、暖（體溫）和合，既然有壽命，明顯知道有體溫，體溫就是色。第二，又經文說名色（精神和物質）與識（意識）相互依存，就像兩束蘆葦相互依靠一樣。既然允許彼界（無色界）的識體不是沒有，那麼也應該允許有名色。第三，又經文說名色是識的緣（條件），彼界既然有識，明顯知道有名色。第四，又經文說，遮離色、受、想、行四蘊，識有來去。所以彼界既然有識，明顯也具有色、受、想、行。所以《婆沙論》說，又說離色、受、想、行，不應該說識有去來，住有死有生。無色界中既然可以有識，也應該具足有四識住（以上是論文）。所以總結說，由此無色界有色的道理成立。這種證明不成立，是爲了遮離一切。說一切有部，總的來說不是勸思，而是通盤考慮前面引用的教義。且最初經文說壽、暖和合，是就三界（欲界、色界、無色界）來說，像你們的異端執著，還是就欲界來說，像我們所宗奉的。理應就欲界來說。如果通用於上二界（色界、無色界）就不應該說暖。根據暖的顯現，且說是就欲界而言，不說無色界。如果隱顯合論，暖也通於無色界。通於第二經文說，名色與識相互依存，是就三界來說，像你們的異端執著，還是就欲界、色界來說，像我們所宗奉的。理應只就欲界、色界來說。如果通於無色界就不應該說色。通於第三經文說，所說名色是識的緣，是說一切識都是名色的緣，像你們...

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, they arise from the form bodies possessed by the four Dhyanas (referring to the four form realms). Because they cannot be perceived by the eyes of the lower realms (referring to the desire realm and the lower levels of the form realm), how is this different from the formless realm, and why isn't it called the formless realm? This is similar to the situation of the lower realms. If it is said that the desire and form realms are named according to their meanings, and there truly exist desire and form, hence they are called the desire and form realms. The formless realm is not like this; it is not named according to its meaning. Although there actually is form, it is called formless. What is the reason for this? If it is said that the sutras state that the principle of having form is established, this is the Mahasamghika school and others citing four sutras to prove that the formless realm has form. First, if it is said that the sutra states that life (jīvitendriya) and warmth (uṣma) are in harmony, since there is life, it is clear that there is warmth, and warmth is form. Second, the sutra also states that name and form (nāmarūpa) are interdependent with consciousness (vijñāna), like two bundles of reeds leaning on each other. Since it is admitted that the entity of consciousness in that realm (the formless realm) is not non-existent, then it should also be admitted that there is name and form. Third, the sutra also states that name and form are the condition (hetu) for consciousness, since there is consciousness in that realm, it is clear that there is name and form. Fourth, the sutra also states that by excluding the four aggregates of form (rūpa), sensation (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), and volition (saṃskāra), consciousness has coming and going. Therefore, since there is consciousness in that realm, it is clear that it also possesses form, sensation, perception, and volition. Therefore, the Vibhasha states, 'Furthermore, saying that it is apart from form, sensation, perception, and volition, one should not say that consciousness has coming and going, dwelling has death and birth.' Since consciousness can exist in the formless realm, it should also fully possess the four abodes of consciousness (the above is the thesis). Therefore, it is concluded that the principle of the formless realm having form is established. This proof is not established, it is to exclude everything. The Sarvastivada school, in general, does not encourage contemplation, but comprehensively considers the teachings cited earlier. And the initial sutra states that life and warmth are in harmony, is it speaking about the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), like your heretical attachment, or is it speaking about the desire realm, like what we uphold? It should be speaking about the desire realm. If it is applied to the upper two realms (form realm, formless realm), one should not say warmth. According to the manifestation of warmth, it is said to be about the desire realm, not the formless realm. If discussing hidden and manifest together, warmth also applies to the formless realm. Regarding the second sutra, saying that name and form are interdependent with consciousness, is it speaking about the three realms, like your heretical attachment, or is it speaking about the desire and form realms, like what we uphold? It should only be speaking about the desire and form realms. If it is applied to the formless realm, one should not say form. Regarding the third sutra, saying that name and form are the condition for consciousness, is it saying that all consciousness is conditioned by name and form, like you...

異執。為說名色生無不緣于識如我所宗。理實亦有識唯生名不能生色　通第四經云。遮離色乃至行。識有來．去者。於四蘊中。為遮隨離一識有來．去如汝異執。於四蘊中為遮離一切識有來．去如我所宗。理實無色亦有離色有餘三蘊。識有來．去。言無去．來。遮離一切。

若謂契經至應有段食者。說一切有部牒救破。若謂契經言無簡別。不應於此更致審思。此說不然。太過失故　破第一云。若經無簡別。無色有壽亦有暖者。經無簡別。謂應外暖亦與壽合　破第二云。若經無簡別。無色有識亦有名色。相依住者。經無簡別。又應外名色與識相依　破第三云。若經無簡別無色有識與名色為緣者。經無簡別。又應外名色以識為緣。此文雙破第二．第三　破第四云。若經無簡別。言四識住能持于識。無色有識亦有色識住。經無簡別。說四食能持有情。色．無色界既有有情。應有段食。故說四食如四識住。言四識住。即是彼引第四經文。遮離色乃至行識。四識住經。

若謂經說至超色想等者。牒救徴破。汝若謂經說有一類天超段食故。又說彼天喜為食故。說段食上界非有。無斯過者。則無色界不應有色。汝引二經證上二界無有段食。我引三經證無色界而無有色　契經說彼無色界中出離色故。若彼界中猶有色者。何

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：關於『異執』（不同的執著），爲了說明『名色』（name and form, 構成個體存在的精神和物質要素）的產生沒有不依賴於『識』（consciousness, 意識）的，就像我所宗奉的。但實際上也有『識』只能產生『名』而不能產生『色』的情況。『通第四經』中說，遮止離開『色』乃至『行』（formations, 構成個體存在的心理活動），『識』有來、去。在『四蘊』（four aggregates, 構成個體存在的四個要素，即色、受、想、行）中，是爲了遮止像你那樣，認為可以分離出一個『識』有來、去的異端執著；在『四蘊』中，是爲了遮止像我所宗奉的，認為可以分離出一切『識』有來、去的觀點。實際上，即使沒有『色』，也有離開『色』而剩餘的三個蘊，『識』有來、去。說『無去、來』，是爲了遮止離開一切（蘊）。

如果說『契經』（sutras, 佛經）中說到了『應有段食』（should have coarse food, 粗糙的食物），這是說一切有部（Sarvastivada, 一個佛教部派）在記錄、辯護和反駁。如果說『契經』的說法沒有簡別，不應該在這裡進一步審視思考，這種說法是不對的，因為會犯下太過（過度推論）的錯誤。反駁的第一點是：如果經文沒有簡別，那麼沒有『色』（form, 物質）的眾生也應該有『壽』（life, 壽命）和『暖』（warmth, 體溫）。經文沒有簡別，意味著外在的『暖』也應該與『壽』結合。反駁的第二點是：如果經文沒有簡別，那麼沒有『色』的眾生也應該有『識』和『名色』相互依存。經文沒有簡別，又意味著外在的『名色』與『識』相互依存。這段文字同時反駁了第二點和第三點。反駁的第四點是：如果經文沒有簡別，說『四識住』（four supports of consciousness, 意識的四種住所）能夠維持『識』，那麼沒有『色』的眾生有『識』，也應該有『色識住』。經文沒有簡別，說四種食物能夠維持有（有情，sentient beings, 有感覺的生命）。、無（無情，insentient beings, 沒有感覺的生命）既然有有情，就應該有『段食』。所以說四種食物就像四識住。說『四識住』，就是他們引用的第四經文，遮止離開『色』乃至『行』的『識』。『四識住經』。

如果說經文說到了『超色想』（transcending the perception of form, 超越對物質的感知）等等，這是記錄、辯護、提問和反駁。如果你認為經文說有一類天超越了『段食』，又說那些天以喜悅為食，所以說在上界沒有『段食』，沒有這種過失。那麼沒有（此處原文缺失，根據上下文推測可能為「色」）就不應該有『色』。你引用兩部經來證明上二界沒有『段食』，我引用三部經來證明沒有而沒有『色』。『契經』說他們在沒有**中脫離了『色』。如果那個界中還有『色』，為什麼還要脫離呢？

【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'different attachments,' to explain that the arising of 'nama-rupa' (name and form, the mental and physical elements constituting an individual's existence) is never without dependence on 'vijnana' (consciousness), as my school upholds. But in reality, there are also cases where 'vijnana' can only produce 'nama' and not 'rupa.' The 'Fourth Sutra' states, 'Preventing separation from 'rupa' (form, matter) to 'samskara' (formations, mental constructs), 'vijnana' has coming and going.' Within the 'four skandhas' (four aggregates, the four elements constituting an individual's existence: form, feeling, perception, formations), it is to prevent, like you, the heterodox attachment that one 'vijnana' can be separated and have coming and going; within the 'four skandhas,' it is to prevent, like my school upholds, the view that all 'vijnana' can be separated and have coming and going. In reality, even without 'rupa,' there are the remaining three skandhas apart from 'rupa,' and 'vijnana' has coming and going. Saying 'no coming and going' is to prevent separation from everything.

If it is said that the 'sutras' mention 'should have coarse food,' this is the Sarvastivada school recording, defending, and refuting. If it is said that the 'sutras' do not make distinctions and should not be further scrutinized, this is incorrect because it leads to the error of overreach. The first point of refutation is: if the sutras do not make distinctions, then beings without 'rupa' should also have 'ayu' (life) and 'usma' (warmth). The sutras do not make distinctions, implying that external 'warmth' should also be combined with 'life.' The second point of refutation is: if the sutras do not make distinctions, then beings without 'rupa' should also have 'vijnana' and 'nama-rupa' mutually dependent. The sutras do not make distinctions, again implying that external 'nama-rupa' is mutually dependent on 'vijnana.' This passage simultaneously refutes the second and third points. The fourth point of refutation is: if the sutras do not make distinctions, saying that the 'four supports of consciousness' can maintain 'vijnana,' then beings without 'rupa' who have 'vijnana' should also have 'rupa-vijnana-stithi' (support of consciousness in form). The sutras do not make distinctions, saying that the four foods can maintain sentient beings. Since sentient and insentient beings exist, there should be 'kabalikahara' (coarse food). Therefore, the four foods are like the four supports of consciousness. Saying 'four supports of consciousness' is the fourth sutra passage they cite, preventing the separation of 'vijnana' from 'rupa' to 'samskara.' 'The Sutra on the Four Supports of Consciousness.'

If it is said that the sutras mention 'transcending the perception of form,' etc., this is recording, defending, questioning, and refuting. If you think that the sutras say there is a class of gods who transcend 'kabalikahara,' and also say that those gods take joy as food, so there is no 'kabalikahara' in the upper realms, there is no such fault. Then without (the original text is missing here, inferred from the context to be 'rupa') there should be no 'rupa.' You cite two sutras to prove that there is no 'kabalikahara' in the upper two realms, I cite three sutras to prove that there is no ** without 'rupa.' The 'Sutras' say that they are liberated from 'rupa' in the absence of **. If there is still 'rupa' in that realm, why would they be liberated from it?

名出離　又契經云四無色解脫。最為寂靜超諸色故。既云超諸色。明知彼無色　又契經說無色有情。一切色想皆超越故。斷緣色貪名超色想。或據四根本及上三邊既超色想。明非有色　若無色界如汝所執實有色者。定應彼色自相可知。如何可言超色想　等。等取前二經。

若謂觀下至彼界無色者。又牒救破。若謂無色觀下欲．色界粗色故。說超色想等。則于段食亦應許然。應超下粗段食有細段食　又四靜慮超下粗色。亦應可說出離色言。是則四靜慮亦應名無色　又亦應說無色界中出離受等。彼亦超下粗受等故。經既不說無色界中超受等言。知無色中遍超色類非超受等。由此定知。彼界無色。

然契經中至非永出故者。說一切有部通大眾等伏難。伏難意云。經中既言有不出有。明知無色有不能出色有。若能出者應言有出有。為通此伏難故釋斯經　然契經中說三有不能出三有者。為自地惑之所縛故。故言于自地有不能出故。但離八地非離有頂故。故言非遍出故。凡夫斷惑后還退故。故言非永出故。是故經言有不出有。不言無色有不能出色有。

又薄伽梵至無不成過者。復引經證無色界無色。如文可知。破訖結言。故所立因皆無色。故立無色名。無不成過。

在彼多劫至色從何生者。釋第六句。問

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本

名為『出離』，又《契經》（Sutra）中說，四無色解脫是最為寂靜的，因為它超越了所有的色（rupa，物質）。既然說『超越了所有的色』，就明確地表明瞭彼無色（arupa，非物質）。又《契經》中說，無色有情（arupa beings）超越了一切色想（rupa-samjna，對物質的感知）。斷除了對色的貪戀，就叫做『超越色想』。或者根據四根本定（four fundamental dhyanas）以及上面的三邊定（three higher dhyanas），既然超越了色想，就表明不是有色（rupa，物質）的。如果沒有像你所執著的真實存在的色，那麼這種色就應該可以被其自相所認知。如何能說『超越色想』等等呢？『等等』包括了前面提到的兩部經。如果說觀想地獄直到彼界無色，那麼這就是重複之前的觀點並進行駁斥。如果說無色界觀想地獄的欲界（kama-dhatu，慾望界）和色界（rupa-dhatu，色界）的粗色（gross matter），所以說『超越色想』等等，那麼對於段食（material food）也應該允許這種說法。應該說超越了地獄的粗段食，因為有細段食。而且四靜慮（four dhyanas）超越了地獄的粗色，也應該可以說『出離色』。這樣的話，四靜慮也應該被稱為無色。而且也應該說在無色界中出離了受（vedana，感受）等等，因為它們也超越了地獄的粗受等等。既然經中沒有說無色界中超越受等等，就知道無色界中普遍超越了色類，而不是超越了受等等。由此可以確定，彼界是無色的。然而，《契經》中『直到非永出故』，說的是一切有部（Sarvastivadins）和大眾部（Mahasamghika）等提出的詰難。詰難的意思是，經中既然說『有不出有』，就明確地表明瞭無色有（arupa bhava，非物質存在）不能出離色有（rupa bhava，物質存在）。如果能出離，就應該說『有出有』。爲了解釋這個詰難，所以解釋這部經。然而，《契經》中說三有（three existences）不能出離三有，是因為被各自所處的地的迷惑所束縛。所以說對於自己所處的地不能出離。只是離開了八地（eight grounds），而不是離開了有頂天（Bhavagra，存在之頂）。所以說『非遍出故』。凡夫斷除迷惑后還會退轉。所以說『非永出故』。因此，經中說『有不出有』，而不是說無色有不能出離色有。而且，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀）『直到無不成過者』，再次引用經文來證明無色界是無色的，如文中所說。駁斥完畢后總結說，所以所立的因都是無色的，所以立名為無色，沒有不成立的過失。『在彼多劫直到色從何生者』，解釋第六句。提問。

【English Translation】 English version

It is called 'Departure,' and the Sutra says that the Four Formless Liberations are the most tranquil because they transcend all form (rupa). Since it says 'transcends all form,' it clearly indicates that the formless (arupa) is without form. Also, the Sutra says that formless beings (arupa beings) transcend all perceptions of form (rupa-samjna). Cutting off attachment to form is called 'transcending perceptions of form.' Or, based on the Four Fundamental Dhyanas and the three higher dhyanas above, since they transcend perceptions of form, it indicates that they are not with form (rupa). If there were no real form as you insist, then that form should be knowable by its own nature. How can it be said to 'transcend perceptions of form,' etc.? 'Etc.' includes the two sutras mentioned earlier. If it is said that one contemplates the lower realms up to the formless realm, then this is repeating the previous view and refuting it. If it is said that the formless realm contemplates the gross form (gross matter) of the desire realm (kama-dhatu) and the form realm (rupa-dhatu) below, and therefore it is said 'transcends perceptions of form,' etc., then this should also be allowed for material food (material food). It should be said that it transcends the gross material food of the lower realms because there is subtle material food. Moreover, the Four Dhyanas transcend the gross form of the lower realms, and it should also be possible to say 'departure from form.' In that case, the Four Dhyanas should also be called formless. And it should also be said that in the formless realm, there is departure from feeling (vedana), etc., because they also transcend the gross feelings, etc., of the lower realms. Since the Sutra does not say that in the formless realm there is transcendence of feeling, etc., it is known that in the formless realm, there is universal transcendence of the category of form, but not transcendence of feeling, etc. From this, it can be determined that that realm is formless. However, in the Sutra, 'until not eternally departing,' it refers to the difficulties raised by the Sarvastivadins and the Mahasanghikas, etc. The meaning of the difficulty is that since the Sutra says 'existence does not depart from existence,' it clearly indicates that formless existence (arupa bhava) cannot depart from form existence (rupa bhava). If it could depart, it should be said 'existence departs from existence.' In order to explain this difficulty, this Sutra is explained. However, the Sutra says that the three existences cannot depart from the three existences because they are bound by the delusions of their respective grounds. Therefore, it is said that one cannot depart from one's own ground. It is only departing from the eight grounds, not departing from the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra). Therefore, it is said 'not universally departing.' Ordinary beings still regress after cutting off delusions. Therefore, it is said 'not eternally departing.' Therefore, the Sutra says 'existence does not depart from existence,' but it does not say that formless existence cannot depart from form existence. Moreover, the Bhagavan (Buddha) 'until there is no fault of non-establishment,' again quotes the Sutra to prove that the formless realm is without form, as stated in the text. After refuting, it concludes that therefore the established cause is all without form, so it is named formless, and there is no fault of non-establishment. 'Existing there for many kalpas until from where does form arise,' explains the sixth sentence. Question.

。在彼無色經于多劫色相續斷。后沒生下欲．色界時。色從何生。

此從心生至從彼心生者。論主以經部義答。正釋頌文后色起從心此色從心生。非從色起。謂昔所起感色果因。熏習在心功能今熟。是故今時欲．色界色。從彼無色界心中色種生。

彼無色身心依何轉者。大眾部等問。

離身何不轉者。說一切有部反責。

下曾不見故者。大眾部等答。下欲．色界。曾不見有離於色身。心得轉故。

色界無段食至心轉所依者。說一切有部反責。色界無段食。身復依何轉。下欲界中。亦不見色身離段食轉故。又先世品。說彼無色心轉所依。謂依命根眾同分轉。

已釋總名至得別名耶者。釋后四句。結前問起。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

下三無色至建立三名者。釋前三無色從加行立名。故正理七十七云。若由勝解思惟無邊空。加行所成名空無邊處。謂若有法雖與色俱。而其自體不依屬色諸有於色求出離者。必應最初思惟彼法。謂虛空體雖與色俱。而待色無方得顯了。外法所攝其相無邊。思惟彼時易能離色。故加行位思惟虛空成時。隨應亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名。若由勝解思惟無邊識。加行所成名識無邊處。謂于純凈六種識身能了別中。善取相已安住勝解

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：在無色界中，經過多個劫數，色蘊（rupa-skandha，構成物質存在的要素）持續斷滅。後來，當（眾生）死亡並轉生到欲界（kama-dhatu，充滿慾望的領域）或色界（rupa-dhatu，物質存在的領域）時，色蘊從何處產生？

『此從心生』乃至『從彼心生者』，論主（abhidharma master，精通阿毗達摩的導師）以經部（sautrantika，佛教的一個學派）的觀點回答。正確解釋頌文后，色蘊從心而起，此色蘊從心生，不是從色蘊而起。意思是，過去所產生的感受色蘊果報的因，熏習在心中，其功能現在成熟。因此，現在欲界或色界的色蘊，是從那無色界的心中色蘊的種子所生。

『彼無色身心依何轉者』，大眾部（mahāsāṃghika，早期佛教的一個學派）等提問。

『離身何不轉者』，說一切有部（sarvāstivāda，早期佛教的一個學派）反駁。

『下曾不見故者』，大眾部等回答。在下方的欲界或色界中，從未見過心可以離開色身而轉動。

『無段食至心轉所依者』，說一切有部反駁。沒有段食（kabali-kara-ahara，粗糙的食物），身體又依靠什麼轉動？在下方的欲界中，也未見過色身可以離開段食而轉動。而且，在《先世品》（purva-yoga）中說，那無色界的心轉動所依靠的是命根（jivitendriya，生命力）和眾同分（nikayasabhaga，同類眾生的共性）。

『已釋總名至得別名耶者』，解釋後面的四句，總結前面並提出問題。

『不爾者』，回答。

『云何者』，提問。

『下三無色至建立三名者』，解釋前面的三個無色界（arupa-dhatu，沒有物質的領域）是從加行（prayoga，修行）而立名。所以《正理》（nyayanusara-sastra）第七十七卷說，如果通過殊勝的理解思惟無邊的虛空，由加行所成就的，名為空無邊處（akasanantyayatana，無限虛空的境界）。意思是，如果有法雖然與色蘊同在，但其自體不依賴於色蘊，那些想要從色蘊中求得解脫的人，必須首先思惟那個法。也就是虛空的體性雖然與色蘊同在，但要依賴於色蘊沒有方位的顯現。外法所包含的，它的相是無邊的。思惟它的時候容易離開色蘊。所以加行位思惟虛空成就的時候，隨之也緣于其他的法，但從加行建立這個名稱。如果通過殊勝的理解思惟無邊的識，由加行所成就的，名為識無邊處（vijnananantyayatana，無限意識的境界）。意思是在純凈的六種識身（sad-vijnanakaya，六種意識的集合）能夠了別之中，好好地取相併安住于殊勝的理解。

【English Translation】 English version: In the Arupa-dhatu (realm of formlessness), the rupa-skandha (aggregate of form, element constituting material existence) is continuously severed for many kalpas (eons). Later, when (beings) die and are reborn into the Kama-dhatu (realm of desire) or the Rupa-dhatu (realm of form), from where does the rupa-skandha arise?

'This arises from the mind' up to 'from that mind,' the Abhidharma master (one proficient in Abhidharma) answers from the perspective of the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school). After correctly explaining the verse, the rupa arises from the mind; this rupa arises from the mind, not from the rupa. This means that the cause of the fruition of the rupa-skandha experienced in the past, having been imprinted in the mind, its function now matures. Therefore, the rupa in the Kama-dhatu or Rupa-dhatu at this time arises from the seed of rupa in that mind of the Arupa-dhatu.

'What does the mind of that formless body rely on to turn?' the Mahāsāṃghika (an early Buddhist school) and others ask.

'Why does it not turn when separated from the body?' the Sarvāstivāda (an early Buddhist school) retorts.

'Because it has never been seen below,' the Mahāsāṃghika and others answer. In the lower Kama-dhatu or Rupa-dhatu, it has never been seen that the mind can turn when separated from the rupa-body.

'Without coarse food, what does it rely on to turn?' the Sarvāstivāda retorts. Without kabali-kara-ahara (coarse food), what does the body rely on to turn? In the lower Kama-dhatu, it has also not been seen that the rupa-body can turn when separated from coarse food. Moreover, in the Purva-yoga (previous existence) section, it says that what the mind of that Arupa-dhatu relies on to turn is the jivitendriya (faculty of life) and the nikayasabhaga (commonality of beings of the same kind).

'Having explained the general name, does it obtain a specific name?' Explaining the latter four lines, summarizing the preceding and raising a question.

'It is not so,' the answer.

'How so?' the question.

'The lower three formless realms up to the establishment of the three names,' explaining that the names of the preceding three Arupa-dhatus (realms of formlessness) are established from prayoga (practice). Therefore, the Nyayanusara-sastra (Treatise Following the Principle) in the seventy-seventh fascicle says, 'If, through superior understanding, one contemplates infinite space, what is accomplished by practice is called Akasanantyayatana (sphere of infinite space).』 This means that if there is a dharma (phenomenon) that, although coexisting with rupa, its self-nature does not depend on rupa, those who seek liberation from rupa must first contemplate that dharma. That is, although the nature of space coexists with rupa, it depends on the manifestation of rupa without direction. What is encompassed by external dharmas, its appearance is infinite. When contemplating it, it is easy to separate from rupa. Therefore, when contemplating space in the stage of practice is accomplished, it also accordingly relates to other dharmas, but this name is established from practice. If, through superior understanding, one contemplates infinite consciousness, what is accomplished by practice is called Vijnananantyayatana (sphere of infinite consciousness). This means that within the pure six vijnanakayas (aggregate of six consciousnesses) that are capable of distinguishing, one should skillfully grasp the characteristics and abide in superior understanding.

。由假想力。思惟觀察無邊識相。由此加行為先所成。隨其所應亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名。若由勝解舍一切所有。加行所成。名無所有處。謂見無邊行相粗動為欲厭舍起此加行。是故此處名最勝舍。以於此中不復樂作無邊行相。心於所緣舍諸所有寂然住故(已上論文)　立第四名至是立名正因者。釋后無色。立第四名由想昧劣。謂無下七地明勝想故。得非想名。有昧劣想故不同二無心名非非想。雖加行時亦作是念。前七定諸想如病．如箭．如癰　或初二定喜想如病。三定樂想如箭。四．五．六．七地舍想如癰　若想全無如二無心。便同愚癡黑闇。相似無所覺知。唯有非想非非想中與上相違寂靜美妙。于加行中厭想厭無想。應名非想非非想　而不就此加行立名。以若詰言何緣加行作如是念。必應答言以于彼有頂根本處想昧劣故。所以加行隨彼根本作如是念。由此根本想昧劣故。是立非想非非想名正因。故從根本立名。不從加行立名。又正理云。此四無色皆言處者。以是諸有生長處故。

已辨無色至無漏謂出世者。此下第三明八等至　就中。一總明八等至。二別明八等至　此即總明八等至。結問頌答。

論曰至無無漏故者。釋初頌。可知。

初味等至至此得味名者。釋第五句。初味等至。謂愛相應

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：由假想力，思惟觀察無邊識相。由此加行（Upacara，預備階段）為先所成。隨其所應亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名。若由勝解舍一切所有，加行所成。名無所有處（Akincanyayatana，無所有處定）。謂見無邊行相粗動為欲厭舍起此加行。是故此處名最勝舍。以於此中不復樂作無邊行相。心於所緣舍諸所有寂然住故。(以上論文) 立第四名至是立名正因者。釋后無色。立第四名由想昧劣。謂無下七地明勝想故。得非想名。有昧劣想故不同二無心名非非想（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana，非想非非想處定）。雖加行時亦作是念。前七定諸想如病．如箭．如癰　或初二定喜想如病。三定樂想如箭。四．五．六．七地舍想如癰　若想全無如二無心。便同愚癡黑闇。相似無所覺知。唯有非想非非想中與上相違寂靜美妙。于加行中厭想厭無想。應名非想非非想　而不就此加行立名。以若詰言何緣加行作如是念。必應答言以于彼有頂根本處想昧劣故。所以加行隨彼根本作如是念。由此根本想昧劣故。是立非想非非想名正因。故從根本立名。不從加行立名。又正理云。此四無色皆言處者。以是諸有生長處故。已辨無色至無漏謂出世者。此下第三明八等至　就中。一總明八等至。二別明八等至　此即總明八等至。結問頌答。論曰至無無漏故者。釋初頌。可知。初味等至至此得味名者。釋第五句。初味等至。謂愛相應

【English Translation】 English version: Through the power of imagination, one contemplates the aspect of boundless consciousness. This is accomplished through the preliminary practice (Upacara). According to what is appropriate, it also focuses on other dharmas. However, this name is established based on the preliminary practice. If, through firm understanding, one relinquishes all possessions, the resulting preliminary practice is called the 'Sphere of Nothingness' (Akincanyayatana). It means seeing the coarse and active aspects of the boundless realm and, desiring to renounce them, initiating this preliminary practice. Therefore, this place is called the supreme renunciation. Because in this state, one no longer delights in engaging in boundless activities, and the mind dwells in stillness, having relinquished all possessions related to its objects. (End of the treatise) Establishing the fourth name to be the direct cause of establishing the name, explains the latter formless realm. Establishing the fourth name is due to the faintness and weakness of thought. It means lacking the clear and superior thought of the lower seven realms, hence obtaining the name 'Neither Perception nor Non-Perception' (Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana). Having faint and weak thought distinguishes it from the two mindless states. Although during the preliminary practice, one also thinks like this: the thoughts of the previous seven concentrations are like a disease, an arrow, or a boil; or the joyful thought of the first two concentrations is like a disease, the pleasurable thought of the third concentration is like an arrow, and the thoughts of relinquishment of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh realms are like a boil. If thought is completely absent, like in the two mindless states, it would be the same as foolishness and darkness, similar to being without awareness. Only in the state of 'Neither Perception nor Non-Perception' is there tranquility and exquisiteness contrary to the above. In the preliminary practice, disliking thought and disliking non-thought should be called 'Neither Perception nor Non-Perception.' However, the name is not established based on this preliminary practice. Because if one were to ask why the preliminary practice produces such thoughts, the answer must be that the thought at the fundamental place of the summit of existence is faint and weak. Therefore, the preliminary practice follows the fundamental place in producing such thoughts. Because of the faintness and weakness of thought in this fundamental place, it is the direct cause of establishing the name 'Neither Perception nor Non-Perception.' Therefore, the name is established based on the fundamental place, not based on the preliminary practice. Furthermore, the principle states that these four formless realms are all called 'spheres' because they are the places where these beings grow. Having explained the formless realms up to the unconditioned, which refers to those who have transcended the world, the third section below explains the eight attainments. Among them, first, the eight attainments are explained generally; second, the eight attainments are explained individually. This is the general explanation of the eight attainments, concluding with a question and answer in verse. The treatise says, 'Up to the absence of the unconditioned,' explains the first verse. It is understandable. The initial 'taste' attainment, up to 'this obtains the name of taste,' explains the fifth line. The initial 'taste' attainment refers to being in accordance with love.

。愛能味著凈定故名為味。等至與彼相應故。此等至得味名。又婆沙云。問何故但說與愛相應。非余煩惱。有說此中說相似者。謂愛與定相似。非余煩惱。所以者何。定於所緣流注相續。愛亦如是。廣如彼說。

凈等至名至得名為入者。釋第六．第七句。凈等至名。目諸世間有漏善定。與無貪等自性善諸白凈法相應起故。此等至得凈名。即是第一味相應所味著境。此凈定無間滅。彼味定生。緣過去凈定深生味著。不緣現在。以必不觀自性等故。不緣未來。未曾領故。過去曾領故偏說過去。爾時雖名出所味定。于能味定得名為入。

無漏定者至非所味著者。釋后一句。如文可知。應知味．凈．無漏三種名入．出者。於五入．出中是異類心入．出。故婆沙一百六十一云。此中入出者。入出有五種。一地。二行相。三所緣。四異類心。五剎那。地入出者。謂初靜慮等無間。第二靜慮現在前時。名入第二靜慮出初靜慮。乃至無所有處等。無間。非想非非想處現在前時。名入非想非非想處出無所有處。如順次入出。如是逆次入出。及順逆超入出亦爾。行相入出者。謂無常行相無間。苦行相現在前時。名入苦行相出無常行相。余行相亦爾。所緣入出者。謂緣色定等無間。緣受定現在前時。名入緣受定出緣色定。緣余定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：愛能帶來清凈和禪定，因此被稱為『味』（Āsvāda，滋味）。等至（Samāpatti，等持）與愛相應，所以這種等至被稱為『味』。另外，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā）中說：『問：為什麼只說與愛相應，而不是其他煩惱？』有一種說法是，這裡說的是相似之處。愛與禪定相似，而其他煩惱則不然。為什麼呢？因為禪定在所緣境上持續不斷地流注相續，愛也是如此。詳細內容見該論。

『凈等至』（Śuddhā Samāpatti，清凈等持）被稱為『至』，『得』被稱為『入』，這是解釋第六、七句。『凈等至』指的是世間有漏的善良禪定，因為它與無貪等自性的善良清凈法相應而生起。這種等至被稱為『凈』。它就是與第一『味』相應的所味著之境。這種清凈的禪定無間斷地滅去，而『味』的禪定生起，緣於過去清凈的禪定而深深地產生味著，不緣于現在，因為必定不觀察自性等等；不緣于未來，因為未曾領受過。因為過去曾經領受過，所以偏說過去。這時，雖然名為出離所味著的禪定，但在能味著的禪定中，則被稱為『入』。

『無漏定』（Anāsrava Samādhi，無漏禪定）等等，直到『非所味著』，這是解釋最後一句。如文可知。應該知道，『味』、『凈』、『無漏』這三種名稱的『入』、『出』，在五種『入』、『出』中，是異類心的『入』、『出』。所以《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百六十一卷中說：『這裡所說的入出，有五種：一、地；二、行相；三、所緣；四、異類心；五、剎那。地的入出，是指從初禪等無間，第二禪現在前時，名為入第二禪，出初禪。乃至從無所有處等無間，非想非非想處現在前時，名為入非想非非想處，出無所有處。如順次入出，如此逆次入出，以及順逆超入出也是如此。行相的入出，是指無常行相無間，苦行相現在前時，名為入苦行相，出無常行相。其餘行相也是如此。所緣的入出，是指緣色定等無間，緣受定現在前時，名為入緣受定，出緣色定。緣其餘定……』

【English Translation】 English version: 'Taste' (Āsvāda) means purity and concentration, hence it is called 'taste'. Equanimity (Samāpatti) is in accordance with love, therefore this equanimity is called 'taste'. Furthermore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: Why only say it is in accordance with love, and not other afflictions?' One explanation is that it speaks of similarities here. Love is similar to concentration, but other afflictions are not. Why? Because concentration flows continuously on its object, and so does love. The details are as described there.

'Pure Equanimity' (Śuddhā Samāpatti) is called 'arrival', and 'attainment' is called 'entry'. This explains the sixth and seventh sentences. 'Pure Equanimity' refers to worldly wholesome concentrations with outflows, because it arises in accordance with wholesome pure dharmas of non-greed and other natures. This equanimity is called 'pure'. It is the object tasted and clung to in accordance with the first 'taste'. This pure concentration ceases without interruption, and the concentration of 'taste' arises, deeply savoring the past pure concentration, not savoring the present, because it certainly does not observe its own nature, etc.; not savoring the future, because it has not been experienced. Because it has been experienced in the past, it specifically speaks of the past. At this time, although it is called exiting the concentration that is tasted, in the concentration that can taste, it is called 'entry'.

'Non-outflow concentration' (Anāsrava Samādhi), etc., until 'not tasted', this explains the last sentence. As the text shows. It should be known that the 'entry' and 'exit' of the three names 'taste', 'purity', and 'non-outflow' are the 'entry' and 'exit' of different kinds of minds among the five 'entries' and 'exits'. Therefore, the one hundred and sixty-first volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā says: 'The entry and exit mentioned here are of five kinds: one, ground; two, characteristics; three, object; four, different kinds of minds; five, moment. The entry and exit of ground refers to when the second dhyana is present without interruption from the first dhyana, it is called entering the second dhyana and exiting the first dhyana. Up to when the realm of neither perception nor non-perception is present without interruption from the realm of nothingness, it is called entering the realm of neither perception nor non-perception and exiting the realm of nothingness. Just as there is sequential entry and exit, so too there is reverse sequential entry and exit, as well as sequential and reverse leap entry and exit. The entry and exit of characteristics refers to when the characteristic of suffering is present without interruption from the characteristic of impermanence, it is called entering the characteristic of suffering and exiting the characteristic of impermanence. The remaining characteristics are also like this. The entry and exit of object refers to when the concentration on feeling is present without interruption from the concentration on form, it is called entering the concentration on feeling and exiting the concentration on form. Concentration on other objects...'

亦爾。異類心入出者。謂欲界心等無間。色界或不繫心現在前時。名入色界或不繫心出欲界心。色界心等說亦爾。如欲界等心。學等心亦如是。余善等心隨應亦爾。剎那入出者。謂初剎那等無間。第二剎那現在前時。名入第二剎那出初剎那。余剎那亦爾。

如是所說至非諸無色者。此下第二別明八等至　就中。一別明靜慮。二明三等至　就第一別明靜慮中。一明靜慮支。二明靜慮支體性。三明染無支。四明名不動。五明生受異。六明起下心。此即第一明靜慮支。故先標宗　如是所說八等至中靜慮攝支止．觀等故。非諸無色止增．觀減。由此未至及中間定。亦不立支。觀增．止減。

於四靜慮各有幾支者。問。

頌曰至舍念中受定者。頌答。就此頌中。略作二門分別。一明諸地通局。二明支數不等　言諸地通局者。四靜慮支總有十八。大例有三。一是所依定。此有四種。即四定體。此與諸支為所依故。故通諸地無勞問答　二地法應有。此有六種。謂初定尋．伺．喜。二定喜。三定樂。四定中受。此之六種地法應有。故於諸地或有。或無。無勞問答　三別緣建立。此有八種。謂初定樂。二定內凈樂。三定舍．念．慧。四定舍．念　略依第三問答分別。婆沙八十意解云。問輕安．行舍一切地有。何故初．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：是的。異類心（指不同型別的心）的入和出，指的是欲界心等無間（指前後相續，沒有間隔）的狀態。或者說，當不繫心（指不屬於任何界的心）現在前時，稱為『入』；或者說，不繫心出欲界心，心等（指心與心所）的說法也是如此。如同欲界等心一樣，學等心（指有學位的修行者的心）也是如此。其餘的善等心（指各種善心）也應隨其情況而定，剎那（指極短的時間單位）的入和出，指的是初剎那等無間，第二個剎那現在前時，稱為『入』；第二個剎那出初剎那。其餘的剎那也是如此。

如上所說的『至非諸無色者』，以下第二部分分別說明八等至（指八種禪定境界），其中，一是分別說明靜慮（指禪定），二是說明三等至（指三種禪定境界）。在第一部分分別說明靜慮中，一是說明靜慮的支（指禪定的組成部分），二是說明靜慮支的體性（指禪定組成部分的本質），三是說明染無支（指染污的禪定沒有的組成部分），四是說明名稱為『不動』，五是說明生受（指感受）的差異，六是說明起下心（指生起較低層次的心）。這即是第一部分說明靜慮支，所以先標明宗旨：如上所說的八等至中，靜慮包含止（指止息雜念）和觀（指觀察實相）等支，所以不是所有的無色定（指無色界的禪定）都是止增觀減，因此，未至定（指未到地定）和中間定（指中間禪定）也不設立支，因為觀增止減。

『於四靜慮各有幾支者』，這是提問。

『頌曰至舍念中受定者』，這是用偈頌回答。就這個偈頌來說，大概可以分為兩個方面來分別說明：一是說明諸地的通局（指各禪定境界的共通和侷限），二是說明支數的不同。說到諸地的通局，四靜慮的支總共有十八個。大致有三種情況：一是所依定（指禪定所依賴的定），這有四種，即四禪定的本體。這四種禪定是諸支所依賴的，所以通於各個禪定境界，無需問答。二是地法應有（指各禪定境界應該具有的法），這有六種，即初禪的尋（指尋求）和伺（指伺察）、喜（指喜悅），二禪的喜，三禪的樂（指快樂），四禪的中受（指不苦不樂的感受）。這六種地法應該具有，所以在各個禪定境界中，或者有，或者沒有，無需問答。三是別緣建立（指特別的因緣所建立的），這有八種，即初禪的樂，二禪的內凈樂（指內心的清凈所帶來的快樂），三禪的舍（指捨棄）、念（指正念）、慧（指智慧），四禪的舍、念。大概依據第三種情況來問答分別。婆沙八十的解釋是：問：輕安（指身心的輕快安適）、行舍（指對一切事物不起執著）在一切禪定境界中都有，為什麼初禪...

【English Translation】 English version: Yes. The entering and exiting of dissimilar minds (referring to minds of different types) refers to the state of anantara (uninterrupted sequence) of the desire realm mind. Or, when a non-attached mind (referring to a mind that does not belong to any realm) manifests, it is called 'entering'; or, when a non-attached mind exits the desire realm mind, the same applies to the mind and its concomitants. Just as with the desire realm mind, so it is with the mind of a śaikṣa (one who is still learning). The same applies to other wholesome minds, depending on the circumstances. The entering and exiting of kṣaṇa (instant), refers to the anantara of the first kṣaṇa; when the second kṣaṇa manifests, it is called 'entering'; the second kṣaṇa exits the first kṣaṇa. The same applies to the remaining kṣaṇas.

As mentioned above, 'up to not all arūpas' (formless realms), the second part below separately explains the eight samāpattis (attainments), among which, one is to separately explain dhyāna (meditative absorption), and two is to explain the three samāpattis. In the first part separately explaining dhyāna, one is to explain the limbs of dhyāna, two is to explain the nature of the limbs of dhyāna, three is to explain the absence of limbs in defilement, four is to explain the name 'immovable', five is to explain the difference in vedanā (feeling), and six is to explain the arising of lower minds. This is the first part explaining the limbs of dhyāna, so first state the purpose: Among the eight samāpattis mentioned above, dhyāna includes limbs such as śamatha (calm abiding) and vipaśyanā (insight), so not all formless samādhis (meditative concentrations) are increased śamatha and decreased vipaśyanā. Therefore, upacāra-samādhi (access concentration) and antarāla-samādhi (intermediate concentration) are also not established with limbs, because vipaśyanā is increased and śamatha is decreased.

'How many limbs are there in each of the four dhyānas?' This is a question.

'The verse says up to upekṣā-smṛti-pariśuddhi (purity of equanimity and mindfulness) in the fourth dhyāna.' This is answering with a verse. Regarding this verse, it can be roughly divided into two aspects to explain separately: one is to explain the commonality and limitations of the realms, and two is to explain the difference in the number of limbs. Speaking of the commonality and limitations of the realms, there are a total of eighteen limbs in the four dhyānas. There are roughly three situations: one is the dependent samādhi, which has four types, namely the essence of the four dhyānas. These four dhyānas are what the limbs depend on, so they are common to all dhyāna realms, and there is no need for questions and answers. Two is the dharma that should be present in the realm, which has six types, namely vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicāra (sustained application of thought), prīti (joy) in the first dhyāna, prīti in the second dhyāna, sukha (happiness) in the third dhyāna, and upekṣā (equanimity) in the fourth dhyāna. These six dharmas should be present, so they are either present or absent in each dhyāna realm, and there is no need for questions and answers. Three is the establishment based on special conditions, which has eight types, namely sukha in the first dhyāna, adhyātma-samprasādana-sukha (happiness of inner clarity) in the second dhyāna, upekṣā, smṛti (mindfulness), and prajñā (wisdom) in the third dhyāna, and upekṣā and smṛti in the fourth dhyāna. Roughly based on the third situation, questions and answers are separated. The explanation in Vibhāṣā eighty is: Question: Prasrabdhi (ease) and upekṣā are present in all dhyāna realms, why is the first dhyāna...

二立輕安非行舍。三．四立行舍非輕安。複次初．二輕安用勝。性舉治惛沈。三．四行舍用勝。沉靜治掉舉。複次為治五識及所引身粗重故。初定立輕安。為治初定三識及所引身粗重故。第二定立輕安。二．三定中無粗識身及所引身粗重可對治故。三．四不立輕安為支。既無輕安故立行舍。複次三定舍極喜四定舍極樂。故立行舍。初．二定不立行舍。故立輕安　問信通諸地何故唯於二定立支　婆沙意云。複次初定尋．伺如火。身識如泥。令心相續熱惱濁亂。信不明凈。如熱泥中面像不現。二定無如是事。信相明凈。如清冷水面像得現。第三靜慮有極悅受。第四靜慮有勝舍受。覆心相續信相不現。複次諸瑜伽師。得第二定初生勝信。既于界．地俱能分離。乃至有頂后必當離。初定未生定信。后二而非是初起。複次起增上信必依大喜。因喜信者信必堅固。第二靜慮有極勝喜。故唯此立內等凈支　問慧通諸地。何故唯于第三定立　婆沙意云。順三定故。複次第三定有極適悅受。為耽此樂。不欣上地勝法。能為自地留難。對治此故立正慧支。故世尊說。應以正慧覺了此樂。上．下地中無有自地極樂留難如此地者。複次初定有粗尋．伺。二定有極喜躍。四定有勝舍受。以勝。舍受是無明。正慧是明。明．無明分互相違害。由尋．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二禪（Dhyana）建立輕安，而非行舍（Upeksha）。三禪和四禪建立行舍，而非輕安。進一步說，初禪和二禪中，輕安的作用更勝一籌，其特性是向上提升，用以對治昏沉。三禪和四禪中，行舍的作用更勝一籌，其特性是沉靜，用以對治掉舉。進一步說，爲了對治五識（五種感官意識）以及它們所引發的身體上的粗重感，初禪中建立輕安。爲了對治初禪中的三種意識（意識，末那識，阿賴耶識）以及它們所引發的身體上的粗重感，第二禪中建立輕安。由於二禪和三禪中沒有粗顯的意識和身體以及它們所引發的身體上的粗重感需要對治，所以三禪和四禪不建立輕安作為禪支。既然沒有輕安，所以建立行舍。進一步說，三禪捨棄極喜，四禪捨棄極樂，所以建立行舍。初禪和二禪不建立行舍，所以建立輕安。問：信（Śrāddha）遍通各個禪定層次，為什麼唯獨在二禪中建立為禪支？《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）的觀點是：進一步說，初禪中的尋（Vitarka）、伺（Vicāra）就像火，身識就像泥，使心相續不斷地受到熱惱和擾亂，信心因此不明凈，就像在熱泥中無法顯現面容的影像一樣。二禪中沒有這樣的情況，信心明凈，就像在清澈的水中可以顯現面容的影像一樣。第三禪有極悅受（Sukha），第四禪有殊勝的舍受，覆蓋了心相續，信心無法顯現。進一步說，瑜伽師（Yogācāra）在獲得第二禪時，最初生起殊勝的信心，既然能夠將欲界（Kāmadhātu）和色界（Rūpadhātu）分離，乃至有頂天（Bhavāgra）之後必定會分離。初禪沒有生起禪定之信，後兩者並非最初生起。進一步說，生起增上信必定依賴於大喜，因為因喜而生的信必定堅固。第二禪有極其殊勝的喜，所以唯獨在此建立內等凈支（Adhyātmasaṃprasādana）。問：慧（Prajñā）遍通各個禪定層次，為什麼唯獨在第三禪中建立為禪支？《大毗婆沙論》的觀點是：順應第三禪的特性。進一步說，第三禪有極其適意的悅受，因為貪戀這種快樂，而不欣求上地更殊勝的法，這會成為自身禪定層次的障礙。爲了對治這種情況，所以建立正慧支。所以世尊（Śākyamuni）說，應當以正慧覺了這種快樂。上地和下地中，沒有像此地這樣，因為自身的極樂而成為障礙的情況。進一步說，初禪有粗顯的尋和伺，二禪有極度的喜悅，四禪有殊勝的舍受。因為殊勝的舍受是無明（Avidyā），正慧是明（Vidyā），明和無明互相違背。由於尋...

【English Translation】 English version The second Dhyana establishes light ease (Prasrabdhi), not equanimity (Upeksha). The third and fourth Dhyanas establish equanimity, not light ease. Furthermore, in the first and second Dhyanas, light ease is superior, its characteristic is uplifting, used to counteract dullness. In the third and fourth Dhyanas, equanimity is superior, its characteristic is tranquility, used to counteract restlessness. Furthermore, in order to counteract the coarseness of the five consciousnesses (five sense consciousnesses) and the physical heaviness they induce, light ease is established in the first Dhyana. In order to counteract the coarseness of the three consciousnesses (consciousness, manas, alaya) in the first Dhyana and the physical heaviness they induce, light ease is established in the second Dhyana. Since there are no coarse consciousnesses and bodies in the second and third Dhyanas, nor the physical heaviness they induce to be counteracted, light ease is not established as a limb in the third and fourth Dhyanas. Since there is no light ease, equanimity is established. Furthermore, the third Dhyana abandons extreme joy, and the fourth Dhyana abandons extreme pleasure, therefore equanimity is established. The first and second Dhyanas do not establish equanimity, therefore light ease is established. Question: Faith (Śrāddha) is common to all Dhyana levels, why is it established as a limb only in the second Dhyana? The view of the Mahāvibhāṣā is: Furthermore, the initial thought (Vitarka) and sustained thought (Vicāra) in the first Dhyana are like fire, and the body consciousness is like mud, causing the mind to be continuously heated, troubled, and confused. Faith is therefore not clear, just as the image of a face cannot appear in hot mud. There is no such situation in the second Dhyana, faith is clear, just as the image of a face can appear in clear, cold water. The third Dhyana has extreme pleasant feeling (Sukha), and the fourth Dhyana has superior equanimity, covering the mind stream, and faith cannot appear. Furthermore, when Yogācāras attain the second Dhyana, they initially generate superior faith. Since they are able to separate the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) and the form realm (Rūpadhātu), they will inevitably separate even after the peak of existence (Bhavāgra). The first Dhyana does not generate Dhyana-faith, and the latter two are not initially generated. Furthermore, generating increasing faith necessarily relies on great joy, because faith born of joy is necessarily firm. The second Dhyana has extremely superior joy, therefore only here is the limb of inner clarity (Adhyātmasaṃprasādana) established. Question: Wisdom (Prajñā) is common to all Dhyana levels, why is it established as a limb only in the third Dhyana? The view of the Mahāvibhāṣā is: It accords with the characteristics of the third Dhyana. Furthermore, the third Dhyana has extremely pleasant feeling, because of craving this pleasure, one does not rejoice in the superior Dharma of the higher realms, which becomes an obstacle to one's own Dhyana level. In order to counteract this situation, the limb of right wisdom is established. Therefore, the World Honored One (Śākyamuni) said that one should realize this pleasure with right wisdom. In the higher and lower realms, there is no situation like this realm, where one's own extreme pleasure becomes an obstacle. Furthermore, the first Dhyana has coarse initial and sustained thought, the second Dhyana has extreme joy, and the fourth Dhyana has superior equanimity. Because superior equanimity is ignorance (Avidyā), and right wisdom is knowledge (Vidyā), knowledge and ignorance contradict each other. Due to initial...

伺等覆障正慧。不于彼立。第三定中無有如彼覆正慧法　問念通諸地。何故唯於三．四立支　婆沙意云。念順后二。複次第三定為第二定勝喜所漂溺。第四定為第三定勝樂留礙。由為下地所留難故。于自地染不能出離。是故世尊勸住正念。複次初定有粗尋伺。猶如暴風。二定有極喜躍。如水濤波。覆障正念。后二即無此過　二明支數不等者　問何故初．三等五。二．四齊四　婆沙解云。複次欲界諸惡難斷難破難可越度故。初靜慮建立五支。為牢強對治。第二靜慮重地極喜。難斷難破難可越度。第三靜慮建立五支。為牢強對治。初及第三俱無是事故。二．四唯四。複次為對治欲界增上五欲境貪。故初立五為治。二定五部重地喜受故三定五。初及第三俱無是事故。二．四各四。複次為欲隨順超定法故。謂從五支定超入五支定。復從四支定超入四支定。以支等者易可超故　問若從第三靜慮超入空無邊處。復從第四靜慮超入識無邊處。彼俱無支云何隨順　答諸外．內事初作時難。后成辨時不假隨順。且外事者。如遮諾迦與臣壞月。十二年中學造金法初成一粒如擴麥量。便師子吼。我等今者能造金山。言內事者。如瑜伽師修神境通。初學離地如半巨勝。后離地如一巨勝。如是漸漸半麥一麥乃至一尋彼后成時。隨心欲往色究竟天。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本伺等覆障正慧，不于彼立。第三禪定中沒有像那樣覆蓋真正智慧的法。問：正念通於所有禪定層次，為什麼只在第三禪和第四禪中建立正念支？答：譬喻者解釋說，正念順應后兩個禪定。另外，第三禪定容易被第二禪定的強烈喜悅所淹沒，第四禪定容易被第三禪定的強烈快樂所阻礙。由於被較低層次的禪定所阻礙，修行者不能從自身禪定的染污中解脫出來。因此，世尊勸導安住于正念。另外，初禪有粗糙的尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的思考），就像暴風一樣；二禪有極大的喜悅，像水中的波濤。這些都會覆蓋和阻礙正念。后兩個禪定沒有這些過失。二、說明禪定支數不相等的原因：問：為什麼初禪和三禪都有五個支，而二禪和四禪只有四個支？答：譬喻者解釋說，因為欲界的各種惡念難以斷除、難以破除、難以超越，所以初禪建立五個支，作為牢固強大的對治方法。第二禪定中，重大的喜悅難以斷除、難以破除、難以超越。第三禪定建立五個支，作為牢固強大的對治方法。初禪和第三禪都沒有這些問題，所以二禪和四禪只有四個支。另外，爲了對治欲界中增長的對五種感官慾望的貪戀，所以初禪建立五個支作為對治。二禪中五種感官的重大喜悅，所以三禪有五個支。初禪和第三禪都沒有這些問題，所以二禪和四禪各有四個支。另外，爲了順應超越禪定的方法。意思是說，從五個支的禪定超越進入五個支的禪定，又從四個支的禪定超越進入四個支的禪定，因為支數相等更容易超越。問：如果從第三禪定超越進入空無邊處（Akasanantyayatana），又從第四禪定超越進入識無邊處（Vijnananantyayatana），這兩個境界都沒有禪定支，如何順應呢？答：各種外部和內部的事情，開始做的時候困難，後來完成的時候不需要順應。比如外部的事情，遮諾迦（Canakya）和他的大臣摧毀月亮，十二年中學習製造黃金的方法，最初成功製造出一粒像擴大的麥子那麼大的黃金，就獅子吼說：『我們現在能夠製造金山了！』內部的事情，比如瑜伽師修行神通，最初學習離開地面像半個巨勝子（一種豆）那麼高，後來離開地面像一個巨勝子那麼高。這樣漸漸地半麥、一麥，甚至一尋（古代長度單位），他後來成功的時候，隨心所欲地前往色究竟天（Akanistha）。

【English Translation】 English version They cover and obstruct right wisdom, and do not establish themselves in that state. In the third Dhyana (Jhana, meditative state), there is no Dharma (teaching, law) like that which covers right wisdom. Question: Mindfulness (Smriti) is common to all levels of Dhyana, why is it only established as a limb (anga) in the third and fourth Dhyanas? Answer: The commentators explain that mindfulness accords with the latter two Dhyanas. Furthermore, the third Dhyana is easily drowned by the overwhelming joy of the second Dhyana, and the fourth Dhyana is easily hindered by the overwhelming pleasure of the third Dhyana. Because they are hindered by the lower levels, practitioners cannot liberate themselves from the defilements of their own Dhyana. Therefore, the World Honored One (Bhagavan) advises dwelling in right mindfulness. Additionally, the first Dhyana has coarse Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought), like a violent wind; the second Dhyana has extreme joy, like waves in the water. These cover and obstruct right mindfulness. The latter two Dhyanas do not have these faults. Two, explaining the reason for the unequal number of limbs: Question: Why do the first and third Dhyanas have five limbs each, while the second and fourth Dhyanas have only four each? Answer: The commentators explain that because the various evils of the desire realm (Kama-dhatu) are difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to overcome, the first Dhyana establishes five limbs as a firm and strong antidote. In the second Dhyana, the significant joy is difficult to cut off, difficult to break, and difficult to overcome. The third Dhyana establishes five limbs as a firm and strong antidote. The first and third Dhyanas do not have these problems, so the second and fourth Dhyanas have only four limbs. Additionally, in order to counteract the increasing attachment to the five sense objects in the desire realm, the first Dhyana establishes five limbs as a remedy. In the second Dhyana, the significant joy of the five senses, so the third Dhyana has five limbs. The first and third Dhyanas do not have these problems, so the second and fourth Dhyanas each have four limbs. Additionally, in order to accord with the method of transcending Dhyanas. It means that from a Dhyana with five limbs, one transcends into a Dhyana with five limbs, and from a Dhyana with four limbs, one transcends into a Dhyana with four limbs, because it is easier to transcend when the number of limbs is equal. Question: If one transcends from the third Dhyana into the Akasanantyayatana (sphere of infinite space), and from the fourth Dhyana into the Vijnananantyayatana (sphere of infinite consciousness), neither of these realms has Dhyana limbs, how does it accord? Answer: Various external and internal matters are difficult when starting, but do not require accordance when completed. For example, external matters, Canakya and his ministers destroyed the moon, and in twelve years of studying the method of making gold, they initially succeeded in making a grain of gold the size of an enlarged barley, and roared like a lion, 'We are now able to make a mountain of gold!' Internal matters, such as a yogi practicing supernatural powers (Siddhi), initially learning to leave the ground like half a kidney bean, and later leaving the ground like a whole kidney bean. Gradually, half a barley, one barley, even one fathom (an ancient unit of length), when he later succeeds, he can go to the Akanistha (highest form realm) at will.

自在能往。超定亦爾。初時難故假支齊等。后時易故設不立支。亦能超入(已上論文)　論曰至義如前釋者。釋初兩句。此中等持頌說為定。等持與定名異體同。故契經說。心定及平等定名正等持。經既以定釋正等持。明知等持與定名異體同。此等持亦名心一境性。義如前釋。

傳說唯定至非靜慮者。毗婆沙師傳說。唯定是靜慮亦靜慮支。餘四支是靜慮支非靜慮。

如實義者如四支軍者。論主述經部義。如實義者象．馬．車．步名四支軍。別即是支。總即是軍。攬別成總。軍即是假。靜慮五支。應知亦爾．別即是支。靜慮是總。以別成總。靜慮是假。

余靜慮支應知亦爾者。餘三靜慮各作兩釋。應知亦爾。

第二靜慮至四等持者。釋后六句。如文可知。又婆沙八十一云。問下地亦有無漏舍．念。何故但說第四靜慮舍．念清凈。答第四靜慮舍．念俱離八擾亂事。故名清凈。苦．樂．憂．喜．入息．出息．尋．伺名為八擾亂事。此中皆無獨名清凈。廣如彼說。

靜慮支名至總有幾種者。此即第二明支體性。牒前問起。

頌曰至喜即是喜受者。就頌答中。初句總顯體數。下三句顯異外宗。

論曰至足前為十一者。釋初句。此支實事唯有十一。謂初五支尋．伺．喜．樂．定。即五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『自在能往』（能夠自由地前往），『超定亦爾』（超越禪定也是如此）。開始時因為困難，所以假設有『支』（anga，禪支）的齊等；後來容易了，即使不設立『支』，也能超越進入。（以上是論文原文）論曰『至義如前釋者』（至於意義如前面解釋的），解釋最初的兩句。這裡，『等持』（samadhi，三摩地）在頌中被說成是『定』（dhyana，禪定）。『等持』與『定』名稱不同，但本體相同。所以契經上說：『心定及平等定名為正等持』。經文既然用『定』來解釋『正等持』，明顯可知『等持』與『定』名稱不同，本體相同。這『等持』也叫做『心一境性』，意義如前面解釋的。『傳說唯定至非靜慮者』（傳說只有『定』才是靜慮，也才是靜慮的支；其餘四支是靜慮的支，但不是靜慮本身）。毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，分別說者）這樣傳說。『如實義者如四支軍者』（真實的意義就像四支軍隊一樣）。論主闡述經部（Sautrantika）的意義。真實的意義是，像、馬、車、步兵稱為四支軍隊。各個部分是『支』，總體是『軍』。聚集各個部分形成總體，『軍』是假立的。靜慮的五支，應當知道也是如此。各個部分是『支』，靜慮是總體。用各個部分形成總體，靜慮是假立的。『余靜慮支應知亦爾者』（其餘靜慮的支，應當知道也是如此）。其餘的三種靜慮，各自做了兩種解釋，應當知道也是如此。『第二靜慮至四等持者』（第二靜慮到第四等持），解釋後面的六句，如文可知。另外，《婆沙論》第八十一卷說：『問：下地也有無漏的舍（upeksa，舍受）、念（smrti，正念），為什麼只說第四靜慮的舍、念清凈？』『答：第四靜慮的舍、念都遠離了八種擾亂的事情，所以名為清凈。苦（duhkha，苦受）、樂（sukha，樂受）、憂（daumanasya，憂受）、喜（priti，喜受）、入息（anapana，入息）、出息（apana，出息）、尋（vitarka，尋）、伺（vicara，伺）名為八種擾亂的事情。此中都沒有這些，唯獨名為清凈。』詳細的解釋如彼論所說。『靜慮支名至總有幾種者』（靜慮的支的名稱，總共有幾種）。這是第二部分，說明支的體性。承接前面的問題而提出。『頌曰至喜即是喜受者』（頌說…喜就是喜受）。在用頌回答的部分，第一句總的顯示了體和數量，下面的三句顯示了與外道的不同。『論曰至足前為十一者』（論說…加起來總共是十一個）。解釋第一句。這些支的真實事物只有十一個，就是最初的五支：尋、伺、喜、樂、定，就是五種。

【English Translation】 English version 'Freely able to go' (being able to go freely), 'transcending samadhi is also thus' (transcending dhyana is also like this). Initially, because it is difficult, the equality of 'angas' (limbs, dhyana-angas) is assumed; later, when it becomes easy, even without establishing 'angas', one can transcend and enter. (The above is the original text of the treatise) The commentary says, 'As for the meaning, as explained earlier,' explaining the first two sentences. Here, 'samadhi' is said to be 'dhyana' in the verse. 'Samadhi' and 'dhyana' have different names but the same essence. Therefore, the sutras say: 'Mental concentration and equal concentration are called right samadhi.' Since the sutra uses 'dhyana' to explain 'right samadhi,' it is clear that 'samadhi' and 'dhyana' have different names but the same essence. This 'samadhi' is also called 'one-pointedness of mind,' and its meaning is as explained earlier. 'The tradition says that only dhyana is dhyana and also a limb of dhyana; the other four limbs are limbs of dhyana but not dhyana itself.' This is what the Vaibhashikas (the 'Distinctionists') traditionally say. 'The true meaning is like an army of four divisions.' The author of the treatise elaborates on the meaning of the Sautrantikas (the 'Sutra Followers'). The true meaning is that elephants, horses, chariots, and infantry are called an army of four divisions. Each part is a 'limb,' and the whole is an 'army.' Gathering the parts forms the whole, and the 'army' is a conceptual construct. The five limbs of dhyana should be understood in the same way. Each part is a 'limb,' and dhyana is the whole. Using the parts to form the whole, dhyana is a conceptual construct. 'The remaining limbs of dhyana should be understood in the same way.' For the remaining three dhyanas, two explanations are given for each, and it should be understood in the same way. 'The second dhyana to the fourth samadhi' explains the last six sentences, as can be understood from the text. Furthermore, the eighty-first volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'Question: The lower realms also have non-outflow upeksa (equanimity) and smrti (mindfulness), so why is it only said that the upeksa and smrti of the fourth dhyana are pure?' 'Answer: The upeksa and smrti of the fourth dhyana are both free from the eight disturbing things, so they are called pure. Duhkha (suffering), sukha (happiness), daumanasya (sadness), priti (joy), anapana (in-breath), apana (out-breath), vitarka (initial thought), and vicara (sustained thought) are called the eight disturbing things. None of these are present here, so it is uniquely called pure.' The detailed explanation is as described in that treatise. 'The names of the limbs of dhyana, how many kinds are there in total?' This is the second part, explaining the nature of the limbs. It is raised by continuing the previous question. 'The verse says... joy is joy-feeling.' In the part answering with a verse, the first sentence generally shows the essence and number, and the following three sentences show the difference from external paths. 'The commentary says... adding up to eleven in total.' Explaining the first sentence. The real entities of these limbs are only eleven, which are the first five limbs: vitarka, vicara, priti, sukha, and dhyana, which are five kinds.

實事。第二靜慮喜．樂．等持三支。如前增內凈支。足前為六。第三靜慮等持。如前增余舍．念．慧．樂四支。足前為十。第四靜慮舍．念定三支如前增非苦樂支。足前為十一。此中別說喜．樂．舍三。故言十一。若據種類。唯有九種。喜．樂．舍三同是受故。所言九者。謂念．定．慧．受．信．輕安．行舍．尋．伺　今於此中略作二門分別。一廢立。二問答　言廢立者　問七十五法中何故唯九立靜慮支。余不立耶　解云若順凈偏勝與定同緣立靜慮支。不爾不立。第一色法十一不立支者。非與定同緣故不立支。無表雖定俱有。非定同緣故不立支。故正理云。何緣無表非靜慮支。諸靜慮支助定住境。彼不緣境故不立支。第二心法不立支者。婆沙八十云。心順流轉。定順還滅。故心不立為靜慮支。複次心勝如王。諸心所法皆如臣佐。定是心所故不立為靜慮支。如諸國王不事臣佐。第三四十六心所法中。唯九立支余不立者。大不善地法二。大煩惱地法六。小煩惱地法十。及不定地中貪．嗔．慢．疑。體皆是染非順定故並不立支。大地法十中雖並通善。唯四立支余不立者。念．定．慧三。順凈偏勝故立為支。受于雜染．清凈分中。勢用俱勝是故俱立。由此流轉緣起分中立為受支。及於還滅清凈分中立為受支。據順凈邊立為支也

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本實事。第二靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）喜、樂、等持（Samadhi，三摩地）三支。如前增內凈支。足前為六。第三靜慮等持。如前增余舍（Upeksha，舍）、念（Smriti，憶念）、慧（Prajna，智慧）、樂四支。足前為十。第四靜慮舍、念定三支如前增非苦樂支。足前為十一。此中別說喜、樂、舍三。故言十一。若據種類。唯有九種。喜、樂、舍三同是受故。所言九者。謂念、定、慧、受、信、輕安、行舍、尋（Vitarka，尋）、伺（Vichara，伺）。今於此中略作二門分別。一廢立。二問答。言廢立者。問：七十五法中何故唯九立靜慮支。余不立耶？解云：若順凈偏勝與定同緣立靜慮支。不爾不立。第一色法十一不立支者。非與定同緣故不立支。無表雖定俱有。非定同緣故不立支。故正理云：何緣無表非靜慮支？諸靜慮支助定住境。彼不緣境故不立支。第二心法不立支者。婆沙八十云：心順流轉。定順還滅。故心不立為靜慮支。複次心勝如王。諸心所法皆如臣佐。定是心所故不立為靜慮支。如諸國王不事臣佐。第三四十六心所法中。唯九立支余不立者。大不善地法二。大煩惱地法六。小煩惱地法十。及不定地中貪（Lobha，貪）、嗔（Dvesha，嗔）、慢（Mana，慢）、疑（Vicikitsa，疑）。體皆是染非順定故並不立支。大地法十中雖並通善。唯四立支余不立者。念、定、慧三。順凈偏勝故立為支。受于雜染、清凈分中。勢用俱勝是故俱立。由此流轉緣起分中立為受支。及於還滅清凈分中立為受支。據順凈邊立為支也。

【English Translation】 English version The reality. The second Dhyana (meditative absorption) has three branches: joy, pleasure, and Samadhi (concentration). As before, add the branch of inner purity, making six in total. The third Dhyana has Samadhi. As before, add the remaining four branches of Upeksha (equanimity), Smriti (mindfulness), Prajna (wisdom), and pleasure, making ten in total. The fourth Dhyana has three branches: equanimity, mindfulness, and concentration. As before, add the branch of neither-suffering-nor-pleasure, making eleven in total. Here, joy, pleasure, and equanimity are mentioned separately, hence the number eleven. If based on categories, there are only nine types, as joy, pleasure, and equanimity are all feelings. The nine are: mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, feeling, faith, pliancy, equanimity of action, Vitarka (initial application of thought), and Vichara (sustained application of thought). Now, we will briefly analyze this in two aspects: establishment and rejection, and questions and answers. Regarding establishment and rejection: Question: Among the seventy-five dharmas, why are only nine established as branches of Dhyana, and why are the others not established? Answer: If something is predominantly conducive to purity and shares the same object as concentration, it is established as a branch of Dhyana; otherwise, it is not. Firstly, the eleven forms of matter are not established as branches because they do not share the same object as concentration. Although non-revealing form exists together with concentration, it is not the same object as concentration, so it is not established as a branch. Therefore, the Hetuvidya-nyaya states: 'Why is non-revealing form not a branch of Dhyana? The branches of Dhyana help concentration to abide in its object, but it does not cognize an object, so it is not established as a branch.' Secondly, the mind is not established as a branch. The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra states: 'The mind follows the flow of samsara, while concentration follows cessation. Therefore, the mind is not established as a branch of Dhyana.' Furthermore, the mind is like a king, and all mental factors are like ministers. Concentration is a mental factor, so it is not established as a branch of Dhyana, just as kings do not serve their ministers. Thirdly, among the forty-six mental factors, only nine are established as branches, and the others are not. The two universal unwholesome mental factors, the six universal afflictive mental factors, the ten minor afflictive mental factors, and the Lobha (greed), Dvesha (hatred), Mana (pride), and Vicikitsa (doubt) among the undetermined mental factors are all inherently defiled and not conducive to concentration, so they are not established as branches. Among the ten universal mental factors, although they are all connected to goodness, only four are established as branches, and the others are not. Mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are established as branches because they are predominantly conducive to purity. Feeling has a superior function in both defiled and pure aspects, so it is established in both. Therefore, it is established as a branch of feeling in the aspect of the arising of samsara and also established as a branch of feeling in the aspect of the cessation of purity. It is established as a branch based on its conduciveness to purity.

。又正理七十一云。有餘師說。受于雜染雖是增上。而為凈品作饒益事亦有功能。如旃荼羅性雖卑劣。能與豪族作饒益事。故於靜慮為饒益事。菩提分中立覺支號　問何故五受唯三非二　解云與定同緣立靜慮支。憂．苦唯欲故三非二。想．思．觸．欲．作意．勝解不立支者。婆沙云。想．思．觸．欲皆順流轉作用偏勝。定順還滅故不立為靜慮支。作意唯在欲界散地對境用勝。非諸定地故亦不立為靜慮支。勝解唯于無學位勝。靜慮遍於一切位勝。故彼不立為靜慮支。大善地法十雖並是善。唯三立支。余不立者。信．舍．輕安順凈偏勝故立為支。信是一切眾行初基。或如清水珠。置心品中令心澄凈故立為支。無始時來惛．掉亂心不能得定。輕安治惛沈。行舍治掉舉。由此得定。或掉舉定障。行舍能治。惛沈是慧障。輕安能治。此二能治定．慧重障。是故別立。餘七雖善順凈非偏勝。婆沙云。問何故精進非靜慮支。答諸靜慮支順自地勝。精進于順他地為勝。謂初靜慮精進。順第二靜慮為勝。乃至無所有處精進。順悲想非非想處為勝。故彼不立為靜慮支。複次精進損害三摩地因。三摩地因即是勝樂。如契經說樂故心定。勤精進者。身心多苦。修三摩地身．心多樂。是故精進非靜慮支　又云。問何故慚．愧．無貪．無嗔．不放逸

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此外，《正理》第七十一卷說：『有些老師說，雖然接受雜染是增上的，但對於清凈的品類也有饒益的作用。比如旃荼羅（賤民）的身份雖然卑賤，也能給豪門望族帶來利益。』因此，對於靜慮（禪定）也有饒益的作用，所以在菩提分（覺悟的組成部分）中設立覺支（覺悟的支分）的名號。問：為什麼五受（五種感受：苦、樂、喜、憂、舍）中只有三種（樂、喜、舍）而非兩種（苦、憂）？答：因為它們與禪定有共同的所緣，所以被立為靜慮支。憂和苦只存在於欲界，所以是三種而非兩種。想、思、觸、欲、作意、勝解（六種心所）沒有被立為支的原因是：婆沙（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）中說，想、思、觸、欲都順著輪迴流轉，作用偏向於此。而禪定是順著還滅（涅槃）的方向，所以不被立為靜慮支。作意只在欲界的散亂狀態下對境作用最強，在各種禪定境界中並不突出，所以也不被立為靜慮支。勝解只在無學位（阿羅漢果位）時最強，而靜慮普遍存在於一切果位，所以勝解不被立為靜慮支。大善地法（十種普遍存在的善心所）雖然都是善的，但只有三種（信、舍、輕安）被立為支，其餘的沒有被立為支的原因是：信、舍、輕安順應清凈的作用特別突出，所以被立為支。信是一切善行的基礎，或者像清澈的水晶珠，放在心中能使心澄凈，所以被立為支。從無始以來，昏沉和掉舉擾亂人心，使人無法得定。輕安能對治昏沉，行舍能對治掉舉，因此才能得定。或者說，掉舉是禪定的障礙，行舍能對治；昏沉是智慧的障礙，輕安能對治。這二者能對治禪定和智慧的重大障礙，所以特別設立。其餘七種雖然也是善的，但順應清凈的作用不夠突出。婆沙中說：問：為什麼精進不是靜慮支？答：因為各種靜慮支順應自身所處的境界最為殊勝，而精進順應其他境界最為殊勝。比如初禪的精進，順應二禪最為殊勝；乃至無所有處的精進，順應悲想非非想處最為殊勝。所以精進不被立為靜慮支。此外，精進會損害三摩地（禪定）的因，而三摩地的因是殊勝的快樂。正如契經（佛經）所說：『因為快樂，所以心能安定。』勤奮精進的人，身心多有苦惱。修習三摩地的人，身心多有快樂。所以精進不是靜慮支。又說：問：為什麼慚、愧、無貪、無嗔、不放逸（五種善心所）

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, the seventy-first volume of the Zhengli says: 'Some teachers say that although receiving defilements is an increase, it also has the function of benefiting pure qualities. For example, although the nature of a Chandala (outcaste) is lowly, he can benefit a powerful clan.' Therefore, it also benefits Dhyana (meditative absorption), so the name Bodhyanga (limb of enlightenment) is established in the Bodhipaksa (constituents of enlightenment). Question: Why are there only three of the five Vedana (feelings: suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, equanimity) and not two? Answer: Because they share a common object with Samadhi (concentration), they are established as Dhyananga (limb of Dhyana). Sorrow and suffering only exist in the desire realm, so there are three and not two. The reason why Samjna (perception), Chetana (volition), Sparsha (contact), Chanda (desire), Manaskara (attention), and Adhimoksha (resolution) are not established as limbs is: The Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhasha-shastra) says that Samjna, Chetana, Sparsha, and Chanda all flow along with Samsara (cyclic existence), and their functions are predominantly in that direction. Samadhi is in the direction of cessation (Nirvana), so it is not established as a Dhyananga. Manaskara is only most effective in the scattered state of the desire realm when facing objects, and it is not prominent in various Samadhi states, so it is also not established as a Dhyananga. Adhimoksha is only strongest in the Asaiksa (state of no more learning, i.e., Arhatship), while Dhyana is universally present in all states, so Adhimoksha is not established as a Dhyananga. Although the ten Mahakusalabhumi (great wholesome mental factors) are all wholesome, only three (Sraddha (faith), Upeksa (equanimity), Prasrabdhi (pliancy)) are established as limbs. The reason why the others are not established is that Sraddha, Upeksa, and Prasrabdhi are particularly prominent in promoting purity, so they are established as limbs. Sraddha is the foundation of all good deeds, or like a clear crystal ball, placing it in the mind makes the mind clear, so it is established as a limb. From beginningless time, dullness and agitation disturb the mind, making it impossible to attain Samadhi. Prasrabdhi counteracts dullness, and Upeksa counteracts agitation, so one can attain Samadhi. Or, agitation is an obstacle to Samadhi, and Upeksa can counteract it; dullness is an obstacle to wisdom, and Prasrabdhi can counteract it. These two can counteract the major obstacles to Samadhi and wisdom, so they are established separately. Although the other seven are also wholesome, their effect in promoting purity is not prominent enough. The Vibhasa says: Question: Why is Virya (effort) not a Dhyananga? Answer: Because the various Dhyananga are most excellent in accordance with their own realm, while Virya is most excellent in accordance with other realms. For example, the Virya of the first Dhyana is most excellent in accordance with the second Dhyana; even the Virya of the realm of nothingness is most excellent in accordance with the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. Therefore, Virya is not established as a Dhyananga. Furthermore, Virya harms the cause of Samadhi, and the cause of Samadhi is supreme bliss. As the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'Because of bliss, the mind is stable.' Those who are diligent and energetic have much suffering in body and mind. Those who cultivate Samadhi have much bliss in body and mind. Therefore, Virya is not a Dhyananga. It also says: Question: Why are Hri (shame), Apatrapya (embarrassment), Allobha (non-greed), Advesha (non-hatred), Apramada (non-negligence) (five wholesome mental factors)

．不害等。非靜慮支耶。答非極隨順諸靜慮故。此諸善法。多於欲界散地惡法為近對治。勢力增強。非於定地。是故不立為靜慮支　問何故欣．厭不別立耶　解雲精進等七。恒與心俱尚不別立。何況欣．厭定不俱起而立為支。不定地法中尋．伺．惡作．睡眠。雖並通善。二立。二不立者。尋．伺二法順凈偏強。能助等持制策於心。令離粗．細。對治欲惡故並立支。惡作．睡眠不立支者。支唯加行唯在定地。此二生得唯在欲界。是故不立　第四十四不相應行非靜慮支者。助定同緣立靜慮支。此非相應故不立支　第五三無為不立靜慮支者。夫立靜慮支要須起用與定同緣。此非起用故不立支　言問答者。婆沙云。問何故伺．樂受．舍受。不立菩提分法耶。答被覆損故。謂伺被正思惟之所覆損。樂受被輕安樂之所覆損。舍受被行舍之所覆損故不立為菩提分法。問若爾何故立靜慮支。答菩提分中為策正見。立正思惟為菩提分。伺行相細。策正見中為尋覆損。立靜慮支。為遮下地惡不善法不相覆損。菩提分中輕安．樂受。同一剎那有相覆損。靜慮支中地別建立無覆損義。菩提分中行舍．舍受。同一剎那有相覆損。靜慮支中。對治．利益支用各別不相覆損　精進非靜慮支。問答如前　問何故正語．正業．正命非靜慮支　答靜慮支者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不害等（不害等善法）。不是靜慮支嗎？回答說：因為它們不是完全隨順於諸靜慮的。這些善法，多半是對於欲界散亂之地的惡法，作為近似的對治，勢力增強，而不是對於定地。因此不被設立為靜慮支。問：為什麼欣（歡喜）.厭（厭惡）不分別設立為支？解釋說：精進等七法，經常與心同時生起，尚且不分別設立。何況欣.厭必定不會同時生起，而設立為支。不定地法中，尋（粗略的思考）.伺（精細的思考）.惡作（後悔）.睡眠，雖然都通於善，但尋.伺二者被設立，惡作.睡眠二者不被設立。尋.伺二法順於清凈的力量偏強，能夠幫助等持，制約策勵於心，使之離開粗.細的境界，對治欲界的惡法，所以都被設立為支。惡作.睡眠不被設立為支的原因是，支唯有加行，唯有在定地才有。此二者是生得的，唯有在欲界才有。因此不被設立為支。第四十四，不相應行（既非色法，亦非心法，亦非心所有法）不是靜慮支的原因是，幫助禪定的，與禪定同所緣境的，才被設立為靜慮支。此不相應行不是相應的，所以不被設立為支。第五十三，無為法（不生不滅的真如理體）不被設立為靜慮支的原因是，設立靜慮支，必須要能起作用，與禪定同所緣境。此無為法不能起作用，所以不被設立為支。關於問答，婆沙論中說：問：為什麼伺（精細的思考）.樂受（快樂的感受）.舍受（不苦不樂的感受），不被設立為菩提分法（通往覺悟的要素）？答：因為被覆蓋和損害的緣故。意思是說，伺被正思惟（正確的思考）所覆蓋和損害，樂受被輕安樂（輕快安樂）所覆蓋和損害，舍受被行舍（平等正直的心）所覆蓋和損害，所以不被設立為菩提分法。問：如果這樣，為什麼設立為靜慮支？答：在菩提分中，爲了策勵正見（正確的見解），設立正思惟作為菩提分。伺的行相微細，在策勵正見中被尋覆蓋和損害，設立靜慮支，是爲了遮止下地的惡不善法，不會互相覆蓋和損害。菩提分中，輕安.樂受，同一剎那有互相覆蓋和損害。靜慮支中，因為地不同而建立，沒有覆蓋和損害的意義。菩提分中，行舍.舍受，同一剎那有互相覆蓋和損害。靜慮支中，對治.利益，支用各自不同，不會互相覆蓋和損害。精進不是靜慮支。問答如前。問：為什麼正語（正確的言語）.正業（正確的行為）.正命（正確的謀生方式）不是靜慮支？答：靜慮支，

【English Translation】 English version 'Not-harming' etc. (good dharmas such as not-harming). Are they not limbs of Dhyana (meditative absorption)? The answer is: Because they are not fully in accordance with the various Dhyanas. These good dharmas mostly serve as approximate antidotes to the evil dharmas in the scattered state of the desire realm, increasing their strength, but not in the realm of Samadhi (concentration). Therefore, they are not established as limbs of Dhyana. Question: Why are 'joy' (欣) and 'disgust' (厭) not separately established as limbs? Explanation: The seven factors such as effort (精進) constantly arise simultaneously with the mind, yet they are not separately established. How much more so since joy and disgust certainly do not arise simultaneously, to be established as limbs. Among the dharmas of the undetermined ground, initial thought (尋), sustained thought (伺), regret (惡作), and sleep (睡眠), although all are connected to goodness, two are established and two are not. The power of initial and sustained thought to accord with purity is particularly strong, capable of assisting in equanimity, restraining and urging the mind, causing it to leave coarse and subtle states, and counteracting the evil dharmas of the desire realm, so both are established as limbs. The reason why regret and sleep are not established as limbs is that limbs only have effort and only exist in the realm of Samadhi. These two are innate and only exist in the desire realm. Therefore, they are not established as limbs. Forty-fourth, non-associated formations (不相應行) (neither form, nor mind, nor mental factors) are not limbs of Dhyana because only those that aid meditation and share the same object of focus as meditation are established as limbs of Dhyana. These non-associated formations are not associated, so they are not established as limbs. Fifty-third, unconditioned dharmas (無為法) (the true suchness that neither arises nor ceases) are not established as limbs of Dhyana because the establishment of limbs of Dhyana requires the ability to function and share the same object of focus as meditation. These unconditioned dharmas cannot function, so they are not established as limbs. Regarding questions and answers, the Vibhasa (婆沙論) says: Question: Why are sustained thought (伺), pleasurable feeling (樂受), and neutral feeling (舍受) not established as factors of enlightenment (菩提分法) (elements leading to awakening)? Answer: Because they are covered and harmed. That is to say, sustained thought is covered and harmed by right thought (正思惟), pleasurable feeling is covered and harmed by ease and joy (輕安樂), and neutral feeling is covered and harmed by equanimity (行舍), so they are not established as factors of enlightenment. Question: If that is the case, why are they established as limbs of Dhyana? Answer: In the factors of enlightenment, in order to encourage right view (正見), right thought is established as a factor of enlightenment. The characteristic of sustained thought is subtle, and it is covered and harmed by initial thought in encouraging right view. The establishment of limbs of Dhyana is to prevent the evil and unwholesome dharmas of the lower realms from covering and harming each other. In the factors of enlightenment, ease and joy, in the same moment, cover and harm each other. In the limbs of Dhyana, because the grounds are different, there is no meaning of covering and harming. In the factors of enlightenment, equanimity and neutral feeling, in the same moment, cover and harm each other. In the limbs of Dhyana, the antidotes and benefits, the functions of the limbs are each different and do not cover and harm each other. Effort is not a limb of Dhyana. The question and answer are as before. Question: Why are right speech (正語), right action (正業), and right livelihood (正命) not limbs of Dhyana? Answer: The limbs of Dhyana,

謂與靜慮相應住境。必有所依．所緣行相。及有警覺乃名相應。正語．業．命無如是義。是故不立為靜慮支。由此四相．及諸得等不相應法。皆不應立為靜慮支。非助等持往一境故(已上論文)　問何故精進等四是菩提分　解云菩提是慧其性勤勇。精進亦勤勇性相隨順策精進馬而趣菩提。正語．業．命以戒為體。為成八正法輪轂故。此四皆順菩提強勝。故皆立為菩提分法。

由此故說至如理應思者。初對第二。四句可知。以初對三．四。以二對三．四。以三對四。思之可知。故言余支相對如理應思。

何故第三說增樂受者。釋第二句。此即問也。

由初二樂輕安攝故者。說一切有部答。由初．二定樂輕安攝故。所以第三說增樂受。

何理為證知是輕安者。問。

初二定中至及四支故者。說一切有部答。雖初定有三識樂。正在定中無樂根故。非初．二定有身受樂。正在定中無五識故。亦無心受樂。以說有喜故。喜即喜受。無一心中喜．樂二受俱行故無樂受。不可喜．樂受更互現前。說初靜慮具五支故。第二靜慮具四支故。

有說無有至所攝樂根者。述經部解。有說無有心受樂根。前三靜慮中說樂支者。皆是身受所攝樂根。此即標宗。

若爾何故至身心樂受者。說一切有部難

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所謂與靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）相應的住境，必定有所依（Alambana，所緣）、所緣行相（Gocara，行境），以及有警覺（Aupalabdhi，覺察）才可稱為相應。正語（Samyag-vac，正語）、正業（Samyak-karmanta，正業）、正命（Samyag-ajiva，正命）沒有這樣的意義，因此不被設立為靜慮支（Dhyanga，禪支）。由此四相（Lakshana，相）以及諸如得（Lābha，獲得）等不相應法，都不應被設立為靜慮支，因為它們不能幫助等持（Samadhi，三摩地）往一境（Ekagra，專注一境）。問：為什麼精進（Virya，精進）等四者是菩提分（Bodhipakshika-dharma，菩提分法）？答：菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）是慧（Prajna，智慧），其性質是勤勇（Utsaha，努力）。精進也是勤勇的性質，兩者性質相隨順，策勵精進之馬而趨向菩提。正語、正業、正命以戒（Sila，戒律）為體，爲了成就八正道（Aryastangika-marga，八正道）法輪轂（Nabhi，輪轂）的緣故。這四者都順於菩提的強勝，所以都被設立為菩提分法。由此故說至如理應思者，最初對第二，四句可知。以初對三、四，以二對三、四，以三對四，思之可知。故言其餘支相對如理應思。何故第三說增樂受者。釋第二句。此即問也。由初二樂輕安攝故者。說一切有部答。由初、二定樂輕安攝故。所以第三說增樂受。何理為證知是輕安者。問。初二定中至及四支故者。說一切有部答。雖初定有三識樂。正在定中無樂根故。非初、二定有身受樂。正在定中無五識故。亦無心受樂。以說有喜故。喜即喜受。無一心中喜、樂二受俱行故無樂受。不可喜、樂受更互現前。說初靜慮具五支故。第二靜慮具四支故。有說無有至所攝樂根者。述經部解。有說無有心受樂根。前三靜慮中說樂支者。皆是身受所攝樂根。此即標宗。若爾何故至身心樂受者。說一切有部難。

【English Translation】 English version: That which is said to be dwelling in a state corresponding to Dhyana (meditative absorption) must have a basis (Alambana, object of focus), an aspect of the object (Gocara, field of experience), and an awareness (Aupalabdhi, perception) to be called corresponding. Right Speech (Samyag-vac), Right Action (Samyak-karmanta), and Right Livelihood (Samyag-ajiva) do not have such meanings, therefore they are not established as limbs of Dhyana (Dhyanga, factors of meditation). Therefore, these four characteristics (Lakshana, characteristics), and non-corresponding dharmas such as attainment (Lābha, gain), should not be established as limbs of Dhyana, because they do not help Samadhi (concentration) towards one-pointedness (Ekagra, one-pointed focus). Question: Why are Effort (Virya, energy) and the other three factors considered limbs of Bodhi (Bodhipakshika-dharma, factors conducive to enlightenment)? Answer: Bodhi (Enlightenment) is wisdom (Prajna, insight), and its nature is diligence (Utsaha, effort). Effort also has the nature of diligence, and the two natures are in accordance, urging the horse of effort towards Bodhi. Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood have morality (Sila, ethical conduct) as their essence, for the sake of completing the hub (Nabhi, hub) of the wheel of the Eightfold Noble Path (Aryastangika-marga, Noble Eightfold Path). These four all accord with the strength and superiority of Bodhi, so they are all established as dharmas that are limbs of Bodhi. Therefore, it is said that one should contemplate the remaining limbs in relation to each other as appropriate. Initially, compare the first with the second, and the four sentences can be understood. Then compare the first with the third and fourth, the second with the third and fourth, and the third with the fourth. Through contemplation, it can be understood. Therefore, it is said that one should contemplate the remaining limbs in relation to each other as appropriate. Why is it said that the third Dhyana has increased pleasurable feeling? This explains the second sentence. This is the question. Because the pleasure of the first two Dhyanas is included in tranquility. The Sarvastivadins answer: Because the pleasure of the first and second Dhyanas is included in tranquility, therefore the third Dhyana speaks of increased pleasurable feeling. What reason is there to know that it is tranquility? Question. Because the first two Dhyanas have three consciousnesses of pleasure, but there is no root of pleasure in the state of concentration. The Sarvastivadins answer: Although the first Dhyana has three consciousnesses of pleasure, there is no root of pleasure in the state of concentration. The first and second Dhyanas do not have bodily pleasure because there are no five consciousnesses in the state of concentration. There is also no mental pleasure because it is said to have joy. Joy is the feeling of joy. There cannot be both joy and pleasure occurring simultaneously in one mind, so there is no pleasurable feeling. It is not possible for joy and pleasure to alternate. It is said that the first Dhyana has five limbs, and the second Dhyana has four limbs. Some say that there is no root of pleasure included in the first three Dhyanas. The Sautrantikas explain: Some say that there is no root of mental pleasure. The factor of pleasure mentioned in the first three Dhyanas is the root of pleasure included in bodily feeling. This is the statement of the principle. If that is the case, why is it said that there is bodily and mental pleasurable feeling? The Sarvastivadins challenge.

。經既說心。明知亦有心受樂根。

有餘於此至為有何德者。經部師通。有餘說一切有部師。於此經中增益心言。諸部經中唯說身故。又第三定所立樂支。契經自說為身所受樂故。汝說一切有部師。若謂於此經中說意為身。說意名身。為有何功德。

又第四定至勝前二故者。經部復難。又第四定輕安倍增初．二靜慮。而不說彼有樂支故。汝若謂初．二定中輕安。要順樂受方名為樂。約三受說言初．二喜名樂受也。破云第三靜慮輕安既順樂受。應是樂支。汝若謂彼三．四輕安。或彼三定輕安。為行舍所損故立行舍不立輕安。破云不爾。行舍同是善法增輕安故。非損輕安。又彼三．四輕安。或彼三定輕安。勝前初．二定輕安故何不立支。

又契經說至非即輕安者。經部又引經證初二樂非是輕安。又契經說。若於爾時諸聖弟子。于離欲染生喜身中。證得此定具足成就安住彼定。彼于爾時已斷五順下分法。或已斷五蓋法。修習五法。皆得圓滿究竟。廣說乃至問答可知。此經輕安與樂別說故。初．二定樂非即是輕安。

若言定中至許生無過者。經部又牒說一切有部難破。汝若言定中寧有身識起身受樂者。破云有亦無失。我經部宗許在定中有輕安風觸。從勝定所起。順生身識相應樂受。遍觸身根故。汝若

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：經文既然講到了『心』，就明確表明也有『心』感受快樂的根源。

如果有人問，『有餘』（指有餘依涅槃）在此處有什麼功德？經部師認為，『有餘』是說一切有部師的觀點。他們在這部經中增加了關於『心』的論述，因為其他部的經中只講了『身』。而且，第三禪定所建立的『樂』支，經文自己也說是身體所感受的快樂。你們說一切有部師，如果認為這部經中說的『意』就是『身』，說『意』的名字就是『身』，那又有什麼功德呢？

如果有人問，『又第四定至勝前二故者』是什麼意思？經部師反駁說，第四禪定中的輕安勝過初禪和二禪，但經中並沒有說第四禪定有『樂』支。如果你們認為初禪和二禪中的輕安，一定要順應快樂的感受才能稱為『樂』，並且用三種感受來說明初禪和二禪中的『喜』就是『樂受』，那麼反駁的觀點是，第三禪定中的輕安既然也順應快樂的感受，就應該也是『樂』支。如果你們認為第三禪和第四禪中的輕安，或者第三禪定中的輕安，因為受到『行舍』的損害，所以只建立『行舍』而不建立『輕安』，那麼反駁的觀點是，不是這樣的。『行舍』同樣是善法，能夠增益輕安，而不是損害輕安。而且，第三禪和第四禪中的輕安，或者第三禪定中的輕安，勝過初禪和二禪中的輕安，為什麼不建立為『樂』支呢？

如果有人問，『又契經說至非即輕安者』是什麼意思？經部師又引用經文來證明初禪和二禪中的『樂』不是輕安。經文說，如果那時有聖弟子，在脫離慾望的喜悅中，證得這種禪定，具足成就並安住于這種禪定，那麼那時他已經斷除了五順下分法，或者已經斷除了五蓋法，修習五法，都能夠圓滿究竟。詳細的解釋可以通過問答來了解。這部經中，輕安和快樂是分別說明的，所以初禪和二禪中的『樂』不是輕安。

如果有人問，『若言定中至許生無過者』是什麼意思？經部師又重複說一切有部師的觀點並加以反駁。如果你們說禪定中怎麼會有身識起身感受快樂呢？反駁的觀點是，有也沒有過失。我們經部宗認為在禪定中有輕安的風觸，是從殊勝的禪定中產生的，能夠順應產生與身識相應的快樂感受，普遍觸及身體的根源。如果你們...

【English Translation】 English version: Since the sutra speaks of 'mind', it clearly indicates that there is also a root for the 'mind' to experience pleasure.

If someone asks, 'What merit does 'with remainder' (referring to Nirvana with remainder) have here?' The Sautrāntika master believes that 'with remainder' is the view of the Sarvāstivāda masters. They added a discussion about 'mind' in this sutra because other sutras only talk about 'body'. Moreover, the 'pleasure' limb established in the third dhyana (meditative absorption) is said by the sutra itself to be the pleasure experienced by the body. You, the Sarvāstivāda masters, if you think that the 'intention' mentioned in this sutra is the 'body', and that the name 'intention' is the 'body', then what merit is there?

If someone asks, 'What does 'and the fourth dhyana surpasses the previous two' mean?' The Sautrāntika master refutes, saying that the ease and tranquility (lightness and comfort) in the fourth dhyana surpasses the first and second dhyanas, but the sutra does not say that the fourth dhyana has a 'pleasure' limb. If you think that the ease and tranquility in the first and second dhyanas must conform to the feeling of pleasure to be called 'pleasure', and use the three feelings to explain that the 'joy' in the first and second dhyanas is the 'feeling of pleasure', then the refutation is that since the ease and tranquility in the third dhyana also conforms to the feeling of pleasure, it should also be a 'pleasure' limb. If you think that the ease and tranquility in the third and fourth dhyanas, or the ease and tranquility in the third dhyana, is damaged by 'equanimity of disposition (行舍)', so only 'equanimity of disposition' is established and not 'ease and tranquility', then the refutation is that it is not so. 'Equanimity of disposition' is also a wholesome dharma (善法) that can increase ease and tranquility, not damage it. Moreover, the ease and tranquility in the third and fourth dhyanas, or the ease and tranquility in the third dhyana, surpasses the ease and tranquility in the first and second dhyanas, so why not establish it as a 'pleasure' limb?

If someone asks, 'What does 'and the sutra says that it is not ease and tranquility' mean?' The Sautrāntika master again quotes the sutra to prove that the 'pleasure' in the first and second dhyanas is not ease and tranquility. The sutra says that if at that time there are noble disciples who, in the joy of being free from desire, attain this dhyana, fully accomplish it, and abide in this dhyana, then at that time they have already cut off the five lower fetters (五順下分法), or have already cut off the five hindrances (五蓋法), and cultivate the five dharmas, all of which can be perfectly accomplished. Detailed explanations can be understood through questions and answers. In this sutra, ease and tranquility and pleasure are explained separately, so the 'pleasure' in the first and second dhyanas is not ease and tranquility.

If someone asks, 'What does 'if you say that there is no fault in allowing birth in dhyana' mean?' The Sautrāntika master repeats the view of the Sarvāstivāda masters and refutes it. If you say how can there be body consciousness (身識) arising in dhyana to feel pleasure? The refutation is that there is no fault in having it. Our Sautrāntika school believes that there is the touch of ease and tranquility wind in dhyana, which arises from the superior dhyana and can conform to the pleasure feeling corresponding to body consciousness, universally touching the root of the body. If you...

謂起身識是外。散故應失壞定者。破云無如是失。此輕安風觸從勝定生。引內身識相應樂受。還能順起意識相應三摩地故。不失壞定。汝若謂起身識應名出定者。破云此難不然。由前因故。前因即是此輕安風。從勝定生引內身樂。還能順起三摩地故。不名出定。或可。因是所以由前相順所以不名出定汝若謂依止欲界身根。不應得生色界觸．色界識。以彼身．觸即自地故。破云若從散心依欲身根。不發身識緣色界觸。若在定內順起輕安。許依欲身。生彼定內緣輕安身識。故無有過。

若爾正在至成違理失者。說一切有部難。若爾正在無漏定中。輕安風觸．及與身識。應成無漏。勿所立輕安支少分輕安風觸是有漏。少分意識相應輕安心所是無漏。成違理失。或勿所立支輕安風觸少分是有漏。意識相應小分是無漏。成違理失。或勿所立支輕安風觸．及身識樂少分是有漏。意識相應少分是無漏。成違理失。

無違理失者。經部答。

所以者何者。說一切有部徴。

許說身輕安至蜜意說故者。經部答言。汝說一切有部亦同許經說身輕安是覺支攝故。何須難我。雖複意說身識相應輕安心所。然身輕安名同經故。汝若謂身輕安實非覺支。順彼覺支名覺支。無漏亦應許如是說觸及身識順無漏故名為無漏。無少

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果起身識是外在的，那麼散亂就應該會破壞禪定，是這樣嗎？答：並非如此。這種輕安風觸是從殊勝的禪定中產生的，它能引導內在的身識相應樂受，並且還能順勢引發意識相應的三摩地，因此不會破壞禪定。問：如果起身識應該被稱作是出定，是這樣嗎？答：並非如此。因為之前的因緣，也就是這種輕安風觸，它從殊勝的禪定中產生，引導內在的身樂，並且還能順勢引發三摩地，因此不能稱作是出定。或者說，因為之前的相互順應，所以不稱作是出定。問：如果依止欲界的身根，不應該產生觸和識，因為那個身和觸就是自地（指欲界）的，是這樣嗎？答：如果是從散亂的心依止欲界的身根，就不會引發身識去緣觸。如果在禪定之內，順勢產生輕安，就允許依止欲界的身，產生那個禪定之內的緣輕安的身識，所以沒有過失。

問：如果是這樣，那麼正在至成就會有違背道理的過失，是這樣嗎？（這是說一切有部的提問）如果在無漏的禪定中，輕安風觸以及身識，應該成為無漏的。不要認為所建立的輕安支，少部分的輕安風觸是有漏的，少部分的意識相應的輕安心所是無漏的，這樣會造成違背道理的過失。或者不要認為所建立的支，輕安風觸少部分是有漏的，意識相應的小部分是無漏的，這樣會造成違背道理的過失。或者不要認為所建立的支，輕安風觸以及身識樂少部分是有漏的，意識相應少部分是無漏的，這樣會造成違背道理的過失。

答：沒有違背道理的過失。（這是經部的回答）

問：為什麼呢？（這是說一切有部的質問）

答：允許說身輕安乃至密意說故。（這是經部的回答）你們說一切有部也同樣允許經典說身輕安是覺支所攝，為什麼還要為難我呢？雖然密意說身識相應的輕安心所，但是身輕安這個名稱和經典相同，所以沒有過失。如果你們認為身輕安實際上不是覺支，只是順應那個覺支而稱作覺支，那麼無漏也應該允許這樣說，觸和身識順應無漏的緣故，稱作無漏，沒有少許的過失。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the arising consciousness (起 Shenshi) is external, then distraction should destroy the Samadhi (定 Ding), is that so? Answer: It is not so. This lightness and ease wind-touch (輕安風觸 Qingan fengchu) arises from the superior Samadhi, it can guide the inner body consciousness (身識 Shenshi) corresponding to pleasant feeling (樂受 Leshou), and it can also smoothly initiate the mind consciousness (意識 Yishi) corresponding to Samadhi, therefore it does not destroy the Samadhi. Question: If the arising consciousness should be called exiting Samadhi, is that so? Answer: It is not so. Because of the previous causes and conditions, that is, this lightness and ease wind-touch, it arises from the superior Samadhi, guides the inner body pleasure, and can also smoothly initiate Samadhi, therefore it is not called exiting Samadhi. Or perhaps, because of the previous mutual compliance, it is not called exiting Samadhi. Question: If relying on the body root (身根 Shengen) of the desire realm (欲界 Yujie), touch (觸 Chu) and consciousness should not arise, because that body and touch are of the same realm (referring to the desire realm), is that so? Answer: If from a distracted mind relying on the body root of the desire realm, body consciousness will not be initiated to perceive touch. If within Samadhi, lightness and ease smoothly arise, it is permissible to rely on the body of the desire realm, to generate the body consciousness within that Samadhi that perceives lightness and ease, therefore there is no fault.

Question: If so, then being in the process of becoming will have the fault of contradicting reason, is that so? (This is the question from the Sarvastivada school (說一切有部 Shuo yiqie youbu)). If in the undefiled (無漏 Wulou) Samadhi, lightness and ease wind-touch, as well as body consciousness, should become undefiled. Do not consider that the established lightness and ease limb, a small portion of the lightness and ease wind-touch is defiled (有漏 Youlou), and a small portion of the mind consciousness corresponding to lightness and ease mental factor is undefiled, this will cause the fault of contradicting reason. Or do not consider that the established limb, the lightness and ease wind-touch, a small portion is defiled, and the mind consciousness corresponding to a small portion is undefiled, this will cause the fault of contradicting reason. Or do not consider that the established limb, the lightness and ease wind-touch, as well as body consciousness pleasure, a small portion is defiled, and the mind consciousness corresponding to a small portion is undefiled, this will cause the fault of contradicting reason.

Answer: There is no fault of contradicting reason. (This is the answer from the Sautrantika school (經部 Jingbu)).

Question: Why? (This is the question from the Sarvastivada school).

Answer: It is permissible to say body lightness and ease, even to the extent of saying it with hidden meaning. (This is the answer from the Sautrantika school). You, the Sarvastivada school, also similarly allow the sutras to say that body lightness and ease is included in the enlightenment factor (覺支 Juezhi), why do you still make things difficult for me? Although the hidden meaning says that the mind consciousness corresponds to the lightness and ease mental factor, the name 'body lightness and ease' is the same as in the sutras, therefore there is no fault. If you think that body lightness and ease is actually not an enlightenment factor, but is only called an enlightenment factor in accordance with that enlightenment factor, then undefiled should also be allowed to be said in this way, touch and body consciousness are called undefiled because they comply with the undefiled, there is not the slightest fault.

分有漏少分無漏失　又解經部師云。我宗許說身輕安觸是覺支攝故。汝若謂身輕安實非覺支。順彼覺支故說覺支。無漏亦應許如是說實非無漏。順無漏故名為無漏。有何違理。汝若謂許說觸及身識是無漏者。便違契經。此經意說十五界全皆有漏故。通云無違經過。此經意約余散位觸。及余散位身識蜜意。說彼十五界全皆是有漏。不約定位。非盡理說故言蜜意。

如何無漏至少支無漏者。說一切有部難。如何無漏靜慮現前。觸．及身識樂少支有漏。意識相應少支無漏。此約體難。

起不俱時至不能說過故者。經部答。於前．后位起不俱時或說有漏。或說無漏。斯有何失。汝若謂意喜．及身識樂不俱起故。初定應無五支理。二定應無四支理者。此亦無過。一地前後約容有說有喜．樂支。如有尋．伺雖一地有二不俱起。汝若謂尋．伺亦許俱起。于彼喜．樂不俱起法。為喻不成。經部救云。此非不成。心之粗細互相違故。不應俱起。又于尋．伺不俱起法。汝說一切有部不能說過故。既不能出過。為喻還成。

由此可說至不說想等者。經部依宗自釋。由此可說。依初五支減尋．伺二立第二定。減尋．伺．喜三立第三定。減尋．伺．喜．樂四立第四定。即由此道理初定說五支。擬漸離前支建立后定故。無漸減故

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『分有漏少分無漏失』，又經部師解釋說：『我宗派允許說身輕安觸是覺支所包含的。』如果你認為身輕安實際上不是覺支，只是順應覺支才說是覺支，那麼無漏也應該允許這樣說，實際上不是無漏，只是順應無漏才稱為無漏，這有什麼不合道理的？如果你認為允許說觸及身識是無漏的，就違背了契經。這部經的意思是說十五界全部都是有漏的。』通宗派的人說：『沒有違背經過。這部經的意思是針對其餘散亂狀態的觸，以及其餘散亂狀態的身識，秘密地說明那十五界全部都是有漏的，不是針對禪定狀態，不是完全徹底的說法，所以說是秘密的。』『如何無漏至少支無漏者』，說一切有部提出疑問：『如何無漏的靜慮現前，觸及身識樂這些少部分支是有漏的，而與意識相應的少部分支是無漏的？』這是從本體上提出的疑問。『起不俱時至不能說過故者』，經部回答說：『在前位和后位，生起的時間不相同，或者說是有漏的，或者說是無漏的，這有什麼過失？』如果你認為意喜和身識樂不是同時生起的，所以初禪定應該沒有五支的道理，二禪定應該沒有四支的道理，這也是沒有過失的。在一個禪定境界的前後，可以容許說有喜支和樂支，例如有尋和有伺，雖然在一個禪定境界中有，但不是同時生起的。如果你認為尋和伺也允許同時生起，那麼用喜和樂不是同時生起的法來作比喻就不成立了。經部辯解說：『這並非不成立，因為心的粗細是互相違背的，所以不應該同時生起。』而且對於尋和伺不是同時生起的法，你們說一切有部不能反駁，既然不能反駁，那麼用這個來作比喻還是成立的。『由此可說至不說想等者』，經部依據自己的宗派解釋說：『由此可以說，依據初禪的五支，減去尋和伺二支，建立第二禪定；減去尋、伺、喜三支，建立第三禪定；減去尋、伺、喜、樂四支，建立第四禪定。』也就是根據這個道理，初禪說有五支，是爲了逐漸離開前面的支而建立後面的禪定，因為沒有逐漸減少的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: 'The fault of dividing into a portion with outflows and a small portion without outflows' - Furthermore, the Sautrāntika master explains: 'Our school allows that bodily pliancy and contact are included within the limbs of enlightenment (bodhyaṅga).' If you say that bodily pliancy is not actually a limb of enlightenment, but is called a limb of enlightenment because it accords with the limbs of enlightenment, then it should also be allowed to say of the outflowless that it is not actually outflowless, but is called outflowless because it accords with the outflowless. What is unreasonable about this? If you say that allowing contact and body consciousness to be outflowless contradicts the sutras, because this sutra means that all fifteen realms are with outflows,' The Sarvāstivāda school says: 'There is no contradiction in passing through. This sutra means that the fifteen realms are all with outflows in a hidden way, referring to contact in other scattered states and body consciousness in other scattered states, not referring to the state of samadhi, and not speaking exhaustively, so it is called hidden.' 'How can the outflowless have at least a small portion of outflowless limbs?' The Sarvāstivāda school asks: 'How can outflowless dhyana (jhāna) manifest when contact, body consciousness, and pleasure, which are small portions of limbs, have outflows, while the small portion of limbs corresponding to consciousness is outflowless?' This is a question about the substance. 'Arising not simultaneously, therefore, cannot be refuted' - The Sautrāntika school replies: 'In the former and latter positions, arising is not simultaneous, and it is said to be with outflows or without outflows. What fault is there in this?' If you say that mental joy and body consciousness pleasure do not arise simultaneously, so the first dhyana should not have the principle of five limbs, and the second dhyana should not have the principle of four limbs, this is also without fault. In the former and latter of a single ground, it can be allowed to say that there are limbs of joy and pleasure, such as thought (vitarka) and discernment (vicāra), although they are in one ground, they do not arise simultaneously. If you say that thought and discernment are also allowed to arise simultaneously, then the analogy is not established with the dharma of joy and pleasure not arising simultaneously. The Sautrāntika school defends: 'This is not not established, because the coarseness and fineness of the mind contradict each other, so they should not arise simultaneously.' Moreover, regarding the dharma of thought and discernment not arising simultaneously, you say that the Sarvāstivāda school cannot refute it, since it cannot refute it, then using this as an analogy is still established. 'From this it can be said to not speak of perception, etc.' - The Sautrāntika school explains based on its own school: 'From this it can be said that based on the five limbs of the first dhyana, subtracting the two limbs of thought and discernment, the second dhyana is established; subtracting the three limbs of thought, discernment, and joy, the third dhyana is established; subtracting the four limbs of thought, discernment, joy, and pleasure, the fourth dhyana is established.' That is, according to this principle, the first dhyana is said to have five limbs, in order to gradually leave the previous limbs and establish the later dhyanas, because there is no gradual reduction.

。所以不說想等為支。

或應說何故至勝尋．伺故者。經部又難。或應說何故初唯立五支。汝若謂此五資初定勝立為支者。此不應理。念．慧能資初定勝尋．伺故。應立念．慧為支。

雖有一類至共施設故者。經部師言。雖有一類毗婆沙師。作如是說初定等支。然非古昔經部諸軌範師共施設故　又解說一切有部師言。雖有一類經部作如是說初定等支。然非古昔說一切有部諸軌範師共施設故。

應審思擇至名內等凈者。釋第三句。此即問也。

此定遠離至如河有浪者。經部師答。此第二定能遠離彼尋．伺鼓動。定體相續清凈寂靜轉。名為內等凈。若有尋．伺鼓動。此定相續不清凈。不寂靜轉如河有浪。不名內等凈。

若爾此應至內等凈名者。說一切有部以已宗難。若此定體遠離尋．伺即名內等凈者。此內等凈應無別體。如何許有十一實事。難訖述宗。是故應說此內等凈即是信根。謂若證得第二靜慮。于定地染亦可離中。有深信生名內等凈。得初定時。離散地染復雖生信。離定地染猶未生信。故於初定不立信支。后離初定染復于定地信。故於二定立以信支。信是凈相故立凈名。離外鼓動定內等流故名內等。凈而內。等故立內等凈名。

有餘師言至皆無別體者。有餘經部師言。此內等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：所以不能說『想』等同於『支』（anga，肢體，此處指禪定的組成部分）。

或者應該說，為什麼勝尋（vitarka，粗分別）和勝伺（vicara，細分別）是到達（禪定）的原因呢？經部（Sautrantika）對此提出疑問。或者應該說，為什麼最初只建立五個支？如果你認為這五個支是最初的禪定勝立的支，這是不合理的。因為『念』（smrti，憶念）和『慧』（prajna，智慧）能夠資助最初的禪定勝尋和勝伺，所以應該建立『念』和『慧』為支。

雖然有一類（毗婆沙師）共同施設（認為初禪等有支），經部師說：雖然有一類毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika），這樣說初禪等有支，但並非古代經部的諸位軌範師（acharya，導師）共同施設的。又，一切有部（Sarvastivada）的論師解釋說：雖然有一類經部這樣說初禪等有支，但並非古代說一切有部的諸位軌範師共同施設的。

應該審慎思考，直到『名內等凈』（adhyatma-samprasada，內等凈）為止。這是解釋第三句，也就是提問。

此定（禪定）遠離（尋伺的鼓動），就像河流沒有波浪一樣。經部師回答說：這第二禪定能夠遠離尋和伺的鼓動，禪定的本體相續清凈寂靜地運轉，名為『內等凈』。如果有尋和伺的鼓動，這個禪定的相續不清凈，不寂靜地運轉，就像河流有波浪一樣，不能稱為『內等凈』。

如果這樣，那麼這（內等凈）應該（沒有獨立的實體），才能稱為『內等凈』。說一切有部以自己的宗義提出詰難：如果這個禪定的本體遠離尋和伺就稱為『內等凈』，那麼這個『內等凈』應該沒有別的實體。如何允許有十一實事（dravya，實體）？詰難完畢后陳述自己的宗義：所以應該說這個『內等凈』就是『信根』（sraddha-indriya，信根）。意思是說，如果證得了第二靜慮（dhyana，禪定），對於禪定地的染污也可以遠離，這時會產生深刻的信心，名為『內等凈』。得到初禪時，雖然也生起了遠離散亂地染污的信心，但還沒有生起遠離禪定地染污的信心。所以在初禪不設立『信』支。後來遠離了初禪的染污，又對禪定地生起了信心，所以在二禪設立『信』支。『信』是清凈的相，所以立為『凈』名。遠離外在的鼓動，禪定內在平等流動，所以名為『內等』。因為清凈而內在平等，所以立為『內等凈』名。

有其他論師說，（此內等）皆無別體。有其他經部師說，這個『內等』

【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it cannot be said that 'thought' (samjna) is equivalent to an 'anga' (limb, here referring to a component of dhyana).

Or, it should be asked, why are vitarka (gross investigation) and vicara (subtle investigation) the reasons for attaining (dhyana)? The Sautrantika (Scripturalist) school raises this question. Or, it should be asked, why are only five angas initially established? If you claim that these five angas are established as the limbs of the initial dhyana, this is unreasonable. Because smrti (mindfulness) and prajna (wisdom) can support the initial dhyana's vitarka and vicara, smrti and prajna should be established as angas.

Although some (Vaibhashikas) commonly posit (that the first dhyana, etc., have angas), the Sautrantika teacher says: Although some Vaibhashika teachers say that the first dhyana, etc., have angas, this is not commonly posited by the ancient Sautrantika acharyas (teachers). Furthermore, the Sarvastivada (All Exists) teachers explain: Although some Sautrantikas say that the first dhyana, etc., have angas, this is not commonly posited by the ancient Sarvastivada acharyas.

One should carefully consider up to 'adhyatma-samprasada' (inner serenity). This is explaining the third phrase, which is a question.

This dhyana (is free from the agitation of vitarka and vicara), like a river without waves. The Sautrantika teacher answers: This second dhyana can be free from the agitation of vitarka and vicara, the essence of dhyana continuously flows purely and tranquilly, and is called 'adhyatma-samprasada' (inner serenity). If there is agitation of vitarka and vicara, the continuity of this dhyana is not pure, and does not flow tranquilly, like a river with waves, and cannot be called 'adhyatma-samprasada'.

If so, then this (adhyatma-samprasada) should (not have an independent entity) to be called 'adhyatma-samprasada'. The Sarvastivada school raises an objection based on its own tenets: If the essence of this dhyana is free from vitarka and vicara, then this 'adhyatma-samprasada' should not have a separate entity. How can it be allowed to have eleven dravyas (real entities)? After raising the objection, they state their own tenets: Therefore, it should be said that this 'adhyatma-samprasada' is sraddha-indriya (the faculty of faith). That is, if one attains the second dhyana, one can also be free from the defilements of the dhyana realm, and at this time, deep faith arises, which is called 'adhyatma-samprasada'. When one attains the first dhyana, although faith in being free from the defilements of the distracted realm also arises, faith in being free from the defilements of the dhyana realm has not yet arisen. Therefore, the 'faith' anga is not established in the first dhyana. Later, when one is free from the defilements of the first dhyana, faith in the dhyana realm arises again, so the 'faith' anga is established in the second dhyana. 'Faith' is a pure aspect, so it is established as 'purity'. Being free from external agitation, the dhyana flows equally internally, so it is called 'inner equality'. Because it is pure and internally equal, it is established as 'adhyatma-samprasada'.

Other teachers say that (this adhyatma) has no separate entity. Other Sautrantika teachers say that this 'inner equality'

凈．等持．尋．伺皆無別體。

若無別體心所應不成者。說一切有部難。

心分位殊亦得名心所者。經部答。於心分位殊假建立。故亦得名心所。

雖有此理非我所宗者。說一切有部言。汝經部師雖有此理。非我所宗。

如上所言至知決定然者。釋第四句。外人徴問。如上頌言喜即喜受。以何為證知決定然。

汝等豈言喜非喜受者說一切有部反責。

如餘部許我亦許然者。外人答。

餘部云何許非喜受者。說一切有部徴。

謂別有喜至其體各異者。外人引餘部答　或餘部言顯上坐部。謂別有喜。是心所法非是喜受。前三定樂皆是喜受。故喜．喜受其體各異。

非三定樂至是喜非樂者。說一切有部破。非前三定樂皆可名喜受。二阿笈摩分明證故　阿笈摩。此云傳。謂三世諸佛所傳說故。舊云阿含訛也　第一經云。漸無餘滅憂等五根。于初定中無餘滅憂。第二定中無餘滅苦。第三定中無餘滅喜。于第四定中無餘滅樂。既喜．樂別滅。明知第三定樂非是喜受。婆沙八十一釋云。如契經說初靜慮憂根滅。第二靜慮苦根滅。問離欲染時斷憂及苦。契經何故作是說耶。答依過對治故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根。而未名為過苦對治。于初靜慮得離染時。過苦對治故說苦滅

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『凈』（śuddha，純凈），『等持』（samādhi，禪定），『尋』（vitarka，粗略的思考），『伺』（vicāra，精細的思考）皆無別體（svabhāva，自性）。

若無別體，心所（caitta，與心相應的心理活動）應不成者。——說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）難。

心分位殊亦得名心所者。——經部（Sautrāntika）答：於心分位殊假建立，故亦得名心所。

雖有此理非我所宗者。——說一切有部言：汝經部師雖有此理，非我所宗。

如上所言至知決定然者。——釋第四句。外人徴問：如上頌言喜即喜受，以何為證知決定然？

汝等豈言喜非喜受者？——說一切有部反責。

如餘部許，我亦許然者。——外人答。

餘部云何許非喜受者？——說一切有部徴。

謂別有喜至其體各異者。——外人引餘部答：或餘部言顯上座部（Sthavira Nikāya）。謂別有喜，是心所法非是喜受。前三定樂皆是喜受。故喜、喜受其體各異。

非三定樂至是喜非樂者。——說一切有部破：非前三定樂皆可名喜受。二阿笈摩（āgama，聖傳）分明證故。阿笈摩，此云傳，謂三世諸佛所傳說故。舊云阿含訛也。第一經云：漸無餘滅憂等五根（indriya，感覺器官）。于初定中無餘滅憂，第二定中無餘滅苦，第三定中無餘滅喜，于第四定中無餘滅樂。既喜、樂別滅，明知第三定樂非是喜受。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，註釋）八十一釋云：如契經說初靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）憂根滅，第二靜慮苦根滅。問：離欲染時斷憂及苦，契經何故作是說耶？答：依過對治故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根，而未名為過苦對治。于初靜慮得離染時，過苦對治故說苦滅。

【English Translation】 English version 'Śuddha' (pure), 'samādhi' (concentration), 'vitarka' (initial application of thought), and 'vicāra' (sustained application of thought) have no separate 'svabhāva' (own-being).

If they have no separate 'svabhāva', then 'caitta' (mental factors) should not exist. - Objection from the Sarvāstivāda.

Different phases of mind can also be called 'caitta'. - Reply from the Sautrāntika: They are nominally established in different phases of mind, therefore they can also be called 'caitta'.

Although this principle exists, it is not what I uphold. - The Sarvāstivāda says: Although this principle exists for you, the Sautrāntika masters, it is not what I uphold.

As stated above, to know for certain. - Explanation of the fourth line. An outsider asks: As the verse above says that joy is the same as joyful feeling, what is the proof to know for certain?

Do you say that joy is not joyful feeling? - The Sarvāstivāda retorts.

As other schools allow, I also allow it. - The outsider replies.

How do other schools allow that joy is not joyful feeling? - The Sarvāstivāda asks.

It means that there is a separate joy, so their entities are different. - The outsider quotes other schools to answer: Or other schools, revealing the Sthavira Nikāya, say that there is a separate joy, which is a mental factor and not a joyful feeling. The joy of the first three 'dhyānas' (meditative absorptions) are all joyful feelings. Therefore, joy and joyful feeling have different entities.

The joy of the three 'dhyānas' is not joy, nor is it pleasure. - The Sarvāstivāda refutes: The joy of the first three 'dhyānas' cannot all be called joyful feeling, because the two 'āgamas' (scriptural traditions) clearly prove it. 'Āgama' means 'transmission', because it is transmitted by the Buddhas of the three times. The old translation 'āgama' is a mistake. The first 'sūtra' says: Gradually, the five 'indriyas' (sense faculties) such as sorrow are extinguished without remainder. In the first 'dhyāna', sorrow is extinguished without remainder; in the second 'dhyāna', suffering is extinguished without remainder; in the third 'dhyāna', joy is extinguished without remainder; in the fourth 'dhyāna', pleasure is extinguished without remainder. Since joy and pleasure are extinguished separately, it is clear that the pleasure of the third 'dhyāna' is not a joyful feeling. The 'Vibhāṣā' (commentary) eighty-one explains: As the 'sūtra' says, in the first 'dhyāna', the root of sorrow is extinguished; in the second 'dhyāna', the root of suffering is extinguished. Question: When one is free from desire, sorrow and suffering are cut off. Why does the 'sūtra' say this? Answer: It is said according to the antidote to faults. Although the root of suffering is cut off when one is free from desire, it is not yet called an antidote to excessive suffering. When one attains freedom from desire in the first 'dhyāna', it is said that suffering is extinguished because it is an antidote to excessive suffering.

。苦對治者謂初靜慮　複次依過族姓及苦所依故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根。而未過苦所依．族姓于初靜慮得離染時。過苦所依及苦族姓故說苦滅。所依．族姓。謂諸識身。問離欲染位雖斷憂根。而未過彼對治．所依．及彼族姓。不應說憂初靜慮滅。答憂根對治．所依．族姓皆在意識。既與憂根同在意識。故正斷時即說彼滅。苦根所依．及苦族姓。不與對治同在一識。故過對治．所依．族姓方說苦滅。有作是說。第二靜慮苦根滅者。謂尋．伺滅。以諸賢聖于尋．伺中發生苦想。過諸異生厭地獄苦能生苦想。故名苦根(已上論文)　第二經云。第四靜慮斷樂斷苦。先離第二靜慮染時喜沒。先離欲染時憂沒。此經既說樂后斷喜先沒。故知第三靜慮必無喜根。但是其樂。由此二經證知。喜受是喜非樂。婆沙八十一釋第二經云。斷樂者。問得第四靜慮時。總離第三靜慮諸有漏法。何故但說斷樂耶。答以樂為上首。總離第三靜慮諸有漏法。故偏說樂。複次以樂難斷難破難可越度。故偏說之。複次以樂多諸過患熾盛堅牢。是故偏說。複次以樂離第三靜慮染時。極為障礙繫縛留難如暴獄卒。故偏說之。複次諸瑜伽師。專為對治樂故修第四靜慮。是故偏說。複次諸瑜伽師。憎厭樂故總離第三靜慮。故偏說之。複次樂上地無。余法容有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對於苦的對治，指的是初禪（初靜慮）。進一步說，因為有苦所依的種姓和苦的依存，所以這樣說。意思是，雖然在離欲染位斷除了苦的根本，但還沒有超越苦的所依。在初禪（初靜慮）得到離染時，超越了苦的所依和苦的種姓，所以說苦滅。所依和種姓，指的是各種識身。問：在離欲染位，雖然斷除了憂的根本，但還沒有超越憂的對治、所依以及憂的種姓，不應該說憂在初禪（初靜慮）時滅。答：憂的根本、對治、所依、種姓都在意識中。既然與憂的根本同在意識中，所以在正斷除時就說它滅了。苦的根本的所依和苦的種姓，不與對治同在一個識中，所以超越對治、所依、種姓才說苦滅。有人這樣說，第二禪（第二靜慮）苦的根本滅，指的是尋和伺的滅。因為諸位賢聖在尋和伺中產生苦想，超越了各種異生厭惡地獄苦而能生起苦想，所以稱為苦的根本（以上是論文）。第二經中說，第四禪（第四靜慮）斷樂斷苦。先前在離開第二禪（第二靜慮）的染時，喜滅沒。先前在離開欲染時，憂滅沒。這部經既然說樂在後斷，喜先前滅沒，所以知道第三禪（第三靜慮）必定沒有喜的根本，只有樂。由此兩部經可以證明，喜受是喜而不是樂。《婆沙》第八十一解釋第二經說，斷樂：問：在得到第四禪（第四靜慮）時，總共離開了第三禪（第三靜慮）的各種有漏法，為什麼只說斷樂呢？答：因為以樂為首要，總共離開了第三禪（第三靜慮）的各種有漏法，所以偏重說樂。其次，因為樂難以斷除、難以破除、難以超越，所以偏重說它。再次，因為樂有很多過患，熾盛而堅固，所以偏重說它。再次，因為在離開第三禪（第三靜慮）的染時，樂是極大的障礙，束縛和留難，就像暴虐的獄卒，所以偏重說它。再次，各位瑜伽師，專門爲了對治樂而修習第四禪（第四靜慮），所以偏重說它。再次，各位瑜伽師，因為憎恨厭惡樂，所以總共離開了第三禪（第三靜慮），所以偏重說它。再次，樂在上地沒有，其他法可能還有。

【English Translation】 English version: As for the antidote to suffering, it refers to the first Dhyana (初靜慮). Furthermore, it is said so because of the lineage of suffering's support and the dependence on suffering. It means that although the root of suffering is severed in the position of detachment from desire, it has not yet surpassed the support of suffering. When detachment is attained in the first Dhyana (初靜慮), the support of suffering and the lineage of suffering are surpassed, so it is said that suffering is extinguished. The support and lineage refer to the various bodies of consciousness (識身). Question: Although the root of sorrow is severed in the position of detachment from desire, it has not yet surpassed the antidote, support, and lineage of sorrow, so it should not be said that sorrow is extinguished in the first Dhyana (初靜慮). Answer: The root, antidote, support, and lineage of sorrow are all in consciousness. Since they are in consciousness together with the root of sorrow, it is said to be extinguished when it is being severed. The support of the root of suffering and the lineage of suffering are not in the same consciousness as the antidote, so it is said that suffering is extinguished only after surpassing the antidote, support, and lineage. Some say that the root of suffering is extinguished in the second Dhyana (第二靜慮), which refers to the extinction of Vitarka (尋) and Vicara (伺). Because the sages generate the thought of suffering in Vitarka (尋) and Vicara (伺), surpassing the various ordinary beings who are disgusted with the suffering of hell and can generate the thought of suffering, it is called the root of suffering (the above is the thesis). The second Sutra says that the fourth Dhyana (第四靜慮) severs pleasure and severs suffering. Previously, when leaving the defilement of the second Dhyana (第二靜慮), joy ceased. Previously, when leaving the defilement of desire, sorrow ceased. Since this Sutra says that pleasure is severed later and joy ceases earlier, it is known that the third Dhyana (第三靜慮) certainly has no root of joy, but only pleasure. From these two Sutras, it can be proved that the feeling of joy is joy and not pleasure. The eighty-first chapter of the 《Vibhasa》 explains the second Sutra, saying, 'Severing pleasure': Question: When attaining the fourth Dhyana (第四靜慮), all the contaminated dharmas of the third Dhyana (第三靜慮) are completely abandoned. Why is only the severing of pleasure mentioned? Answer: Because pleasure is the most important, all the contaminated dharmas of the third Dhyana (第三靜慮) are completely abandoned, so pleasure is emphasized. Secondly, because pleasure is difficult to sever, difficult to break, and difficult to overcome, it is emphasized. Again, because pleasure has many faults, is intense and firm, it is emphasized. Again, because when leaving the defilement of the third Dhyana (第三靜慮), pleasure is a great obstacle, binding and hindering, like a tyrannical jailer, it is emphasized. Again, the Yogis specifically cultivate the fourth Dhyana (第四靜慮) to counteract pleasure, so it is emphasized. Again, the Yogis totally abandon the third Dhyana (第三靜慮) because they hate and detest pleasure, so it is emphasized. Again, pleasure does not exist in the higher realms, but other dharmas may exist.

故偏說樂。由如是等種種因緣唯說斷樂　斷苦者。問離欲染時修觀行者已斷苦根。何故今離第三靜慮染時乃說斷苦。答此于已斷說名為斷。謂于遠事而說近聲。如已來者亦說今來。如說大王從何處來。複次依雙法盡俱說斷聲　言雙法者。謂苦與樂。離欲染時雖苦已盡而樂未盡。今離第三靜慮染。已苦．樂俱盡俱說斷聲。複次斷樂者。謂斷第三靜慮樂根。斷苦者。謂斷彼相應心．心所法。複次斷樂者。謂斷第三靜慮樂根。斷苦者。謂斷第三靜慮入．出息。謂賢聖者于入．出息生於苦想。過諸異生於無間獄所起苦想。複次斷樂者。謂斷第三靜慮樂根。斷苦者。謂即斷彼樂根。如說無常故苦。先喜憂沒者。離欲染時憂根已沒。離第二靜慮染時喜根已沒。是故說今先喜憂沒。

如是所說至為皆有不者。此下第三明染無支。牒前問起。如是所說諸凈．無漏靜慮十八種支。染靜慮中為皆有不。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至余說無安舍者。頌答。

論曰至非皆具有者。此即總標。如上所說諸凈．無漏靜慮支。染靜慮中非皆具有。

且有一類至而得生故者。有二師釋。此下初師解。此明初染無喜．樂支有尋．伺．定支。故正理七十八云。且有一類隨相說言。初染中無離生喜樂。非離煩

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所以才偏重於說『樂』。就像這樣種種因緣，只是爲了說明斷除快樂和斷除痛苦。有人問：『在斷除欲界染時，修觀行的人已經斷除了苦的根源，為什麼現在在斷除第三禪的染時，才說斷除痛苦呢？』回答說：『這是對於已經斷除的，說成是斷除。』這是指對於遙遠的事情，而用近期的說法。就像已經來的人，也說成現在來。例如說大王從哪裡來。再者，依據雙法（苦和樂）都滅盡的情況，才一起說斷除。所謂雙法，就是指苦和樂。在斷除欲界染時，雖然苦已經滅盡，但樂還沒有滅盡。現在斷除第三禪的染，苦和樂都滅盡了，所以一起說斷除。再者，斷除樂，是指斷除第三禪的樂的根源。斷除苦，是指斷除與樂相應的心理和心理作用。再者，斷除樂，是指斷除第三禪的樂的根源。斷除苦，是指斷除第三禪的入息和出息。因為賢聖者對於入息和出息會產生痛苦的想法，超過了凡夫在無間地獄所產生的痛苦想法。再者，斷除樂，是指斷除第三禪的樂的根源。斷除苦，是指斷除那個樂的根源。就像說無常所以是苦。先前喜和憂消失的人，在斷除欲界染時，憂的根源已經消失。在斷除第二禪的染時，喜的根源已經消失。所以說現在先前喜和憂消失。

像這樣所說的，全部都有嗎？』下面第三部分說明染污禪沒有全部的禪支。這是引用前面的問題而提出的。像這樣所說的各種清凈和無漏的禪定十八種禪支，在染污禪中是否全部都有呢？

『不是全部都有。』回答。

『是怎樣的呢？』提問。

『頌曰…其餘說沒有安舍。』用頌來回答。

論曰…不是全部具有。』這是總體的標示。像上面所說的各種清凈和無漏的禪定禪支，在染污禪中不是全部都具有。

『而且有一類…而能夠產生。』有兩種論師的解釋。下面是第一位論師的解釋。這說明最初的染污禪沒有喜和樂的禪支，但有尋、伺、定的禪支。所以《正理論》第七十八卷說：『而且有一類隨著相貌來說，最初的染污禪中沒有離生喜樂，不是脫離煩惱。』

【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it is emphasized to speak of 'joy'. Just like these various causes and conditions, it is only to explain the cessation of joy and the cessation of suffering. Someone asks: 'When severing the desire realm defilements, those who cultivate contemplation have already severed the root of suffering. Why is it that now, when severing the third dhyana (meditative absorption) defilements, it is said to sever suffering?' The answer is: 'This is speaking of what has already been severed as being severed.' This refers to using a recent expression for a distant matter. Just like someone who has already arrived is also said to be arriving now. For example, saying, 'Where does the great king come from?' Furthermore, based on the situation where both dharmas (suffering and joy) are exhausted, it is said together to be cessation. The so-called dual dharmas refer to suffering and joy. When severing the desire realm defilements, although suffering has been exhausted, joy has not yet been exhausted. Now, severing the third dhyana defilements, both suffering and joy are exhausted, so it is said together to be cessation. Furthermore, severing joy refers to severing the root of joy in the third dhyana. Severing suffering refers to severing the mental and mental factors corresponding to joy. Furthermore, severing joy refers to severing the root of joy in the third dhyana. Severing suffering refers to severing the in-breath and out-breath in the third dhyana. Because the noble ones generate thoughts of suffering towards in-breath and out-breath, exceeding the thoughts of suffering generated by ordinary beings in the Avici Hell (uninterrupted hell). Furthermore, severing joy refers to severing the root of joy in the third dhyana. Severing suffering refers to severing that root of joy. Just like saying that impermanence is therefore suffering. Those whose previous joy and sorrow have disappeared, when severing the desire realm defilements, the root of sorrow has already disappeared. When severing the second dhyana defilements, the root of joy has already disappeared. Therefore, it is said that previous joy and sorrow have now disappeared.

Are all these things that have been spoken of present?' The third part below explains that defiled dhyana does not have all the dhyana factors. This is raised by quoting the previous question. Are all the eighteen dhyana factors of various pure and non-outflow dhyanas that have been spoken of in this way present in defiled dhyana?

'Not all of them are present.' The answer.

'How is it?' The question.

'The verse says... the rest say there is no ease and abandonment.' Use the verse to answer.

The treatise says... not all are possessed.' This is a general indication. Like the various pure and non-outflow dhyana factors mentioned above, not all are possessed in defiled dhyana.

'Moreover, there is a type... and can be produced.' There are two teachers' explanations. Below is the explanation of the first teacher. This explains that the initial defiled dhyana does not have the dhyana factors of joy and pleasure, but it has the dhyana factors of initial thought (vitarka), sustained thought (vicara), and concentration (samadhi). Therefore, the seventy-eighth volume of the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya says: 'Moreover, there is a type that speaks according to the appearance, in the initial defiled dhyana there is no joy and pleasure born of detachment, not detachment from afflictions.'

惱而得生故。雖染污定亦喜相應。非因離生故非支攝。此不唯說離欲生喜。亦說因離自地染生。以契經中先作是說。離諸欲惡不善法已。復作是言離生喜．樂。此中重說離生言者。為顯亦有喜離自地惑生。為顯喜支唯是善性。故薄伽梵與樂合說。輕安相應必是善性故。由此染定必無喜支。故初染支唯有三種(已上論文)。

第二染中至所擾濁故者。此明二定染無內等凈。樂同初定故不別簡。有喜．定二。故正理云。第二染中無內等凈。彼為煩惱所擾濁故。雖諸世間說有染信。而不信攝故不立支。樂是輕安唯善性攝。例同初定故不重遮。故此染支唯有二種。第二染定許有喜支。初染中無。以何為證。以初定喜說從離生。第二中無離生言故。

第三染中至所迷亂故者。此明三定染無念．慧二。行舍理無。同第四簡故不別說。但有樂．定。故正理云。第三染中無正念慧。彼為染樂所迷亂故染污定中雖有念．慧。而得失念．不正慧名。故此二支染中非有。行舍唯是大善法攝。例同第四故此不遮。故此染支唯有二種。

第四染中至所染污故者。此明第　染定無舍．念二。有中受．定。故正理云。第四染中無舍．念凈。彼為煩惱所染污故。由此第四染唯二支。有餘師說至大善攝故者。此是第二師解。有餘師說。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本因從煩惱中產生，所以會有惱怒。即使是染污定（Dhyana，禪定），也與喜（Priti，喜悅）相應。但喜不是因為脫離（煩惱）而產生，所以不是禪支（Dhyana-anga，禪定的組成部分）。這裡不僅僅是說脫離慾望會產生喜，也說是因脫離自身所處層次的染污而產生。因為經文中先這樣說：『脫離各種慾望、邪惡和不善之法后』，又說『脫離（煩惱）而生喜和樂』。這裡重複說『離生』，是爲了表明也有喜是從脫離自身所處層次的迷惑而產生的。爲了表明喜支（Priti-anga，喜悅支）僅僅是善的性質，所以薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）將喜與樂（Sukha，快樂）合在一起說。與輕安（Prasrabdhi，輕快安適）相應的必定是善的性質。因此，染污定中必定沒有喜支。所以，最初的染污定只有三種禪支。

關於第二染污定，『被煩惱所擾濁』，這說明第二禪定染污沒有內等凈（Adhyatma-samprasada，內心的平靜和澄澈）。樂（Sukha，快樂）與初禪定相同，所以不特別區分。有喜和定（Samadhi，專注）。所以《正理》中說：『第二染污定中沒有內等凈，因為它被煩惱所擾濁。』雖然世間上有人說有染污的信（Sraddha，信仰），但信不屬於（禪）支，所以不設立為禪支。樂是輕安，僅僅屬於善的性質，與初禪定相同，所以不再重複遮止。因此，這個染污定只有兩種禪支。第二染污定允許有喜支，而初染污定中沒有。以什麼為證據呢？因為初禪定中的喜說是從脫離（煩惱）而產生，而第二禪定中沒有『脫離而生』的說法。

關於第三染污定，『被（染污的）快樂所迷惑』，這說明第三禪定染污沒有念（Smrti，正念）和慧（Prajna，智慧）兩種禪支。行舍（Upeksa，行舍）的道理沒有，與第四禪定相同，所以不特別說明。只有樂和定。所以《正理》中說：『第三染污定中沒有正念和智慧，因為它被染污的快樂所迷惑。』染污定中即使有念和慧，也只能得到失念和不正慧的名稱。因此，這兩種禪支在染污定中是不存在的。行舍僅僅屬於大善法，與第四禪定相同，所以這裡不遮止。因此，這個染污定只有兩種禪支。

關於第四染污定，『被煩惱所染污』，這說明第四禪定染污沒有舍（Upeksa，舍）和念兩種禪支。有中受（Upeksa-vedana，中性的感受）和定。所以《正理》中說：『第四染污定中沒有舍和唸的清凈，因為它被煩惱所染污。』因此，第四染污定只有兩種禪支。有其他論師說『屬於大善』，這是第二位論師的解釋。有其他論師說。

【English Translation】 English version Because it arises from affliction, there is vexation. Even defiled Dhyana (meditative absorption) is associated with Priti (joy). However, Priti is not born from detachment, so it is not a Dhyana-anga (factor of Dhyana). This does not only refer to joy arising from detachment from desires, but also from detachment from defilements of one's own plane. As the Sutra states, 'Having detached from all desires, evil, and unwholesome dharmas,' it further says, 'Joy and happiness are born from detachment.' The repetition of 'born from detachment' here is to show that there is also joy born from detachment from the delusions of one's own plane. To show that the Priti-anga is only of a wholesome nature, the Bhagavan (Blessed One) speaks of joy together with Sukha (happiness). That which is associated with Prasrabdhi (ease) is certainly of a wholesome nature. Therefore, defiled Dhyana certainly does not have the Priti-anga. Thus, the initial defiled Dhyana has only three Dhyana-angas.

Regarding the second defiled Dhyana, 'being disturbed and turbid by afflictions,' this explains that the second defiled Dhyana lacks Adhyatma-samprasada (inner tranquility). Sukha (happiness) is the same as in the first Dhyana, so it is not specifically distinguished. There are Priti and Samadhi (concentration). Therefore, the Nyaya-sutra states, 'In the second defiled Dhyana, there is no inner tranquility, because it is disturbed and turbid by afflictions.' Although some in the world speak of defiled Sraddha (faith), faith is not included as a (Dhyana-)anga, so it is not established as one. Sukha is Prasrabdhi, belonging only to the wholesome nature, the same as in the first Dhyana, so it is not repeatedly prohibited. Therefore, this defiled Dhyana has only two Dhyana-angas. The second defiled Dhyana is allowed to have the Priti-anga, while the first defiled Dhyana does not. What is the evidence for this? Because the joy in the first Dhyana is said to arise from detachment, while in the second Dhyana, there is no mention of 'arising from detachment.'

Regarding the third defiled Dhyana, 'being deluded by (defiled) happiness,' this explains that the third defiled Dhyana lacks the two Dhyana-angas of Smrti (mindfulness) and Prajna (wisdom). The principle of Upeksa (equanimity) is absent, the same as in the fourth Dhyana, so it is not specifically explained. There are only Sukha and Samadhi. Therefore, the Nyaya-sutra states, 'In the third defiled Dhyana, there are no right mindfulness and wisdom, because it is deluded by defiled happiness.' Even if there are mindfulness and wisdom in defiled Dhyana, they only receive the names of lost mindfulness and incorrect wisdom. Therefore, these two Dhyana-angas are not present in defiled Dhyana. Upeksa belongs only to great wholesome dharmas, the same as in the fourth Dhyana, so it is not prohibited here. Therefore, this defiled Dhyana has only two Dhyana-angas.

Regarding the fourth defiled Dhyana, 'being defiled by afflictions,' this explains that the fourth defiled Dhyana lacks the two Dhyana-angas of Upeksa (equanimity) and Smrti (mindfulness). There are neutral feeling (Upeksa-vedana) and Samadhi. Therefore, the Nyaya-sutra states, 'In the fourth defiled Dhyana, there is no purity of equanimity and mindfulness, because it is defiled by afflictions.' Therefore, the fourth defiled Dhyana has only two Dhyana-angas. Some teachers say 'belonging to great wholesomeness,' this is the explanation of the second teacher. Some other teachers say.

初二染中但無輕安。初染有四支。第二染有三支。后二染中但無行舍。第三染有四支。第四染有三支。以輕安．行舍大善地攝故。內等凈是信。信通染．不染。故第二染說有三支。正理云。有餘師說。初二染定但無輕安。后二染中但無行舍。大善攝故。彼說染中喜．信．念．慧皆是支攝皆通染故。婆沙一百六十亦有此論兩解。又云。此中有作是說。諸染靜慮皆不立支。而唯說無喜．樂等者。隨明瞭義說。謂初靜慮離生喜樂。有離生言故。第二靜慮內等凈。有凈言故。第三靜慮正念．正知。有正言故。第四靜慮舍念清凈。有清凈言故。此皆于染明瞭相違故偏說無。而實染中一切支皆非有。有說隨勝者說。謂初靜慮出欲界重苦。利益支勝。上三靜慮于勝妙離染。對治支勝。是故於染靜．慮隨勝者說無。然其餘支于染靜慮亦不建立(已上論文)　問何故名離生喜．樂等　解云離欲惡不善法。生喜．樂故名離生喜樂。離尋．伺故信名為凈。由離喜故念．慧名正。離八災故舍．念名清凈。故隨四地相顯別標。

契經中說至四受入出息者。此即第四釋經不動。依經問答。

論曰至災患有八者。釋上兩句。

其八者何者。釋下兩句。此即問也。

尋．伺四受至說為不動者。答可知。

然契經說至喜．

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本初禪的兩種染污狀態中，只有初染沒有輕安（Prasrabdhi，一種身心輕快安適的狀態）。初染有四個組成部分（支）。第二染有三個組成部分。后兩種染污狀態中，只有行舍（Tatramadhyasthata，一種平等舍離的狀態）不存在。第三染有四個組成部分。第四染有三個組成部分。因為輕安和行舍屬於大善地法所包含的。內等凈是信（Śraddhā，一種對真理的堅定信念）。信可以存在於染污和不染污的狀態中。因此，第二染說有三個組成部分。《正理》中說：『有其他老師說，初禪的兩種染污狀態中，只有輕安不存在。后兩種染污狀態中，只有行舍不存在。因為它們屬於大善地法所包含的。』他們認為，在染污狀態中，喜（Prīti，一種愉悅的心情）、信、念（Smṛti，一種記憶和正念）、慧（Prajñā，一種智慧）都是組成部分，因為它們都可以存在於染污狀態中。《婆沙》第一百六十卷也有關於此論的兩種解釋。又說：『這裡有人這樣認為，所有的染污靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）都不設立組成部分，而只是說沒有喜、樂（Sukha，一種快樂的感受）等，這是根據明瞭的意義來說的。』也就是說，初禪是離生喜樂，因為有『離生』這個詞。第二禪是內等凈，因為有『凈』這個詞。第三禪是正念、正知（Samprajanya，一種清晰的覺知），因為有『正』這個詞。第四禪是舍念清凈，因為有『清凈』這個詞。這些都是在染污狀態中與明瞭的意義相違背的，所以偏重說明沒有這些。但實際上，在染污狀態中，所有的組成部分都不存在。有人說，這是根據殊勝的方面來說的。也就是說，初禪擺脫了欲界的沉重痛苦，利益的組成部分殊勝。上面的三種靜慮對於殊勝微妙的離染，對治的組成部分殊勝。因此，對於染污的靜慮，是根據殊勝的方面來說明沒有這些。然而，其餘的組成部分在染污的靜慮中也不成立（以上是論文）。問：為什麼稱為離生喜樂等？答：因為遠離了欲惡不善法，產生喜樂，所以稱為離生喜樂。因為遠離了尋（Vitarka，一種粗略的思考）、伺（Vicara，一種細緻的思考），所以信被稱為凈。由於遠離了喜，所以念、慧被稱為正。遠離了八種災患，所以舍、念被稱為清凈。因此，是根據四種禪定各自不同的特點來分別標示。契經中說到四受（Vedanā，感受）進入和呼出氣息，這正是第四種解釋經典的方式，即根據經典進行提問和回答。論中說，災患有八種，這是解釋上面兩句話。這八種是什麼？這是解釋下面兩句話，也就是提問。尋、伺、四受直到被稱為不動，答案是顯而易見的。然而，契經中說，喜……

【English Translation】 English version In the two defiled states of the first Dhyāna (禪定, meditation), only the first defilement lacks Prasrabdhi (輕安, a state of lightness and comfort of body and mind). The first defilement has four components (limbs). The second defilement has three components. In the latter two defiled states, only Tatramadhyasthata (行舍, a state of equanimity and detachment) is absent. The third defilement has four components. The fourth defilement has three components. This is because Prasrabdhi and Tatramadhyasthata are included in the Mahā-kuśala-bhūmi-dharmas (大善地法, great wholesome mental factors). Antah-samprasāda (內等凈, inner purity) is Śraddhā (信, faith). Faith can exist in both defiled and undefiled states. Therefore, the second defilement is said to have three components. The Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 'Some other teachers say that in the two defiled states of the first Dhyāna, only Prasrabdhi is absent. In the latter two defiled states, only Tatramadhyasthata is absent because they are included in the Mahā-kuśala-bhūmi-dharmas.' They believe that in the defiled state, Prīti (喜, joy), Śraddhā, Smṛti (念, mindfulness), and Prajñā (慧, wisdom) are all components because they can all exist in the defiled state. The Vibhāṣā (婆沙) volume one hundred and sixty also has two interpretations of this theory. It also says: 'Here, some say that no components are established in all defiled Dhyānas, and it is only said that there is no joy, Sukha (樂, pleasure), etc. This is according to the meaning of clarity.' That is, the first Dhyāna is vivekajaṃ prītisukham (離生喜樂, joy and pleasure born of detachment) because there is the word 'born of detachment'. The second Dhyāna is adhyātmasaṃprasāda (內等凈, inner purity) because there is the word 'purity'. The third Dhyāna is smṛtisamprajanya (正念正知, mindfulness and clear comprehension) because there is the word 'right'. The fourth Dhyāna is upekṣāsmṛtipāriśuddhi (舍念清凈, purity of mindfulness and equanimity) because there is the word 'purity'. These are all contrary to the clear meaning in the defiled state, so it is emphasized that these are absent. But in reality, in the defiled state, all components are non-existent. Some say that this is according to the superior aspect. That is, the first Dhyāna gets rid of the heavy suffering of the desire realm, and the component of benefit is superior. The above three Dhyānas are superior in the subtle detachment from defilement, and the component of counteraction is superior. Therefore, for the defiled Dhyāna, it is said that these are absent according to the superior aspect. However, the remaining components are also not established in the defiled Dhyāna (the above is the thesis).' Question: Why are they called vivekajaṃ prītisukham (離生喜樂, joy and pleasure born of detachment), etc.? Answer: Because they are separated from evil and unwholesome dharmas (法, phenomena), and joy and pleasure are produced, they are called vivekajaṃ prītisukham. Because Vitarka (尋, initial application of thought) and Vicara (伺, sustained application of thought) are separated, faith is called purity. Because joy is separated, mindfulness and wisdom are called right. Because the eight calamities are separated, equanimity and mindfulness are called purity. Therefore, they are marked separately according to the different characteristics of the four grounds. The Sutra (契經, scripture) says that the four Vedanās (受, feelings) enter and exit the breath. This is precisely the fourth way of explaining the Sutra, that is, asking and answering according to the Sutra. The treatise says that there are eight calamities. This is an explanation of the above two sentences. What are these eight? This is an explanation of the following two sentences, which is a question. Vitarka, Vicara, the four Vedanās, up to being called immovable, the answer is obvious. However, the Sutra says, joy...

樂所動者。此依經釋。然契經中蜜作是說。第四靜慮不為尋．伺．喜．樂所動。但約支說不言非支　又解經非盡理。論盡理說。故正理云。然經唯說第四靜慮。不為尋．伺．喜．樂動者。經蜜意說。論依法相。以薄伽梵。有處說言斷樂斷苦。先喜．憂沒。具足安住第四靜慮。又說彼定身行俱滅。入息．出息名為身行。故知此定非唯獨免尋．伺．喜．樂四動災患。

有餘師說至照而無動者。有餘師說。第四靜慮如蜜室燈照而無動故名不動。喻經說故。

如定靜慮至生亦爾不者。此即第五明生受異。問。如定靜慮所有諸受。初．二有喜。第三有樂。第四有舍。生靜慮亦爾不。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至受有差別者。釋第二靜慮無有樂受。無餘三識故。心悅粗故。但名為喜不名為樂。余文可知。

上三靜慮至及起表業者。此即第六明起下心。問。生上三定無三識身及無尋．伺。如何生彼能見．聞．觸。及起表業。

非生彼地至但非彼系者。答。非生彼地無有三識及與尋．伺。但非彼系。

所以者何者。徴。

頌曰至以下劣故者。釋。生上三地起下三識。及發表心。皆初定系。生上起下。如起下地化心。故能見．聞．觸。及發表。此四皆是無覆無記。不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『樂所動者』。這是依照經文來解釋的。然而，在契經（Kiejing）中，蜜部這樣說：『第四靜慮（disi jinglv）不為尋（xun，尋求）.伺（si，觀察）.喜（xi，喜悅）.樂（le，快樂）所動。』但這是就禪定的組成部分來說的，並沒有說非組成部分的情況。另一種解釋是，經文並沒有完全揭示真理，而論典則完全揭示了真理。所以正理（zhengli）中說：『然而經文只說了第四靜慮不為尋.伺.喜.樂所動，這是經文的秘密含義。論典是依照法相（faxiang）來說的。』因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）在有些地方說斷樂斷苦，先前的喜和憂都沒了，完全安住在第四靜慮中。又說那個禪定中，身體的活動都滅了，入息（ruxi，吸氣）.出息（chuxi，呼氣）被稱為身行（shenxing）。所以知道這個禪定不僅僅是避免了尋.伺.喜.樂這四種動搖的災患。

『有餘師說至照而無動者』。有其他老師說，第四靜慮就像密室裡的燈一樣，照亮而沒有動搖，所以叫做不動。這是用比喻經文來說明的。

『如定靜慮至生亦爾不者』。這說明第五靜慮（diwu jinglv）的產生和感受是不同的。問：就像禪定靜慮（chanding jinglv）中所有的感受一樣，初禪（chuchan）.二禪（erchan）有喜，三禪（sanchan）有樂，四禪（sichan）有舍（she，捨棄），生靜慮（sheng jinglv）也是這樣嗎？

『不爾者』。答：不是這樣的。

『云何者』。問：那是怎樣的呢？

『頌曰至受有差別者』。解釋說第二靜慮沒有樂受，因為沒有其餘三種識（sanshi），而且心悅（xinyue）比較粗糙，所以只叫做喜，不叫做樂。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『上三靜慮至及起表業者』。這說明第六靜慮（diliu jinglv）中，可以生起下層的心識。問：生到上三禪（shang sanchan）沒有三種識身（sanshi shen），也沒有尋和伺，那麼如何能夠見.聞.觸，以及生起表業（biaoye，表達行為）呢？

『非生彼地至但非彼系者』。答：不是說生到那個地方就沒有三種識以及尋和伺，只是不屬於那個地方的系統。

『所以者何者』。問：為什麼呢？

『頌曰至以下劣故者』。解釋說：生到上三地（shang san di）可以生起下三識（xia san shi），以及表達心意，這些都是初禪所管轄的。生到高處可以生起低處的心識，就像生起低處的化心（huaxin）一樣，所以能夠見.聞.觸，以及表達行為。這四種都是無覆無記（wufu wuji，既不善也不惡）。

【English Translation】 English version 'Those moved by joy.' This is explained according to the sutra. However, in the secret teachings of the sutras, it is said: 'The Fourth Dhyana (disi jinglv) is not moved by seeking (xun), observation (si), joy (xi), or pleasure (le).' But this is in terms of the components of the dhyana; it doesn't speak of what is not a component. Another explanation is that the sutra does not fully reveal the truth, while the treatises fully reveal the truth. Therefore, the Zhengli (zhengli) says: 'However, the sutra only says that the Fourth Dhyana is not moved by seeking, observation, joy, or pleasure; this is the secret meaning of the sutra.' The treatises speak according to the characteristics of the Dharma (faxiang). Because the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, a respectful term for the Buddha) says in some places that pleasure and pain are cut off, and previous joy and sorrow are gone, one dwells completely in the Fourth Dhyana. It is also said that in that dhyana, the activities of the body are extinguished, and inhalation (ruxi) and exhalation (chuxi) are called bodily activities (shenxing). Therefore, it is known that this dhyana not only avoids the calamities of being shaken by seeking, observation, joy, and pleasure.

'Some teachers say that it illuminates without moving.' Other teachers say that the Fourth Dhyana is like a lamp in a secret room, illuminating without moving, so it is called immovable. This is explained using metaphorical sutras.

'Like the Dhyana-Samadhi, is the arising the same or not?' This explains that the arising and sensations of the Fifth Dhyana (diwu jinglv) are different. Question: Just like all the sensations in the Dhyana-Samadhi (chanding jinglv), the First Dhyana (chuchan) and Second Dhyana (erchan) have joy, the Third Dhyana (sanchan) has pleasure, and the Fourth Dhyana (sichan) has equanimity (she), is the arising of the Dhyana the same?

'Not the same.' Answer: It is not the same.

'How is it?' Question: How is it then?

'The verse says that the sensations are different.' Explanation: The Second Dhyana does not have the sensation of pleasure because it does not have the other three consciousnesses (sanshi), and the mental delight (xinyue) is relatively coarse, so it is only called joy and not pleasure. The rest of the text can be understood on your own.

'The upper three Dhyanas and the arising of expressive actions.' This explains that in the Sixth Dhyana (diliu jinglv), lower consciousnesses can arise. Question: Having arisen in the upper three Dhyanas (shang sanchan), without the three bodies of consciousness (sanshi shen) and without seeking and observation, how can one see, hear, touch, and produce expressive actions (biaoye)?

'It is not that there are no three consciousnesses in that place, but they are not of that system.' Answer: It is not that there are no three consciousnesses and seeking and observation in that place, but they do not belong to that place's system.

'Why is that?' Question: Why is that?

'The verse says that it is because of inferiority.' Explanation: Having arisen in the upper three realms (shang san di), one can produce the lower three consciousnesses (xia san shi) and express intentions, which are all governed by the First Dhyana. Arising in a higher place can produce the consciousnesses of a lower place, just like producing a transformation mind (huaxin) in a lower place, so one can see, hear, touch, and express actions. These four are all neither good nor bad (wufu wuji).

起下染已離染故。不起下善以下劣故。無記雖劣非是正厭。中庸故起　問生上起下無覆無記。四無記中是何無記　泰法師解。云然眼．耳．身識雖非化心無記。是化心類。定他系故。總名禪果心。故雜心定品云。不起欲界非禪果故。然變化心亦名禪果。故雜心擇品廣心中。解無色界有四心。無變化心無威儀心云。離禪果．威儀餘四在無色　以此文證。起三識身。是化心種類故禪果無記攝。若起語業唯變化心。故前論云。若化若所化人。在三定上則以初定心語。色界無工巧心。不可以工巧心語。以聲無行．住．坐．臥相。不可以威儀心語。以前論云四識緣威儀故。以此理推。身生三定但以化心語。若起身表業通威儀．變化　問何故得知。化心起身．語表　答如婆沙一百三十九云。若生初靜慮成就欲界一。謂法舍意近行。即通果心俱。總緣色等為境起故。有說彼成就三。謂色．聲．法舍意近行。即通果心俱。此心若緣所起身表。即有緣色舍意近行。此心若緣所起語表。即有緣聲舍意近行。此心若緣所變化事以總緣故。即有緣法舍意近行。即通果心俱。此心容有總別緣故　今解。不然。生上三定起下諸識。若起下身識。唯是威儀心。或是緣威儀心。或是似威儀心。若起下眼識。修得者通果攝。泛爾起者是威儀心。或是緣威儀

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不起（指煩惱）是因為已經遠離了染污的緣故。不起下善（指地獄的善法）是因為地獄善法低劣的緣故。無記心雖然低劣，但不是真正的厭離，而是中庸的狀態，所以才會生起。問：生於上界（指色界或無色界）的眾生，會生起地獄（指欲界）的無覆無記心嗎？四種無記心中，是哪一種無記心？泰法師解釋說：是的，眼識、耳識、身識雖然不是變化心無記，但屬於變化心的種類，因為它們受他力所繫縛。總的來說，可以稱為禪定果報心。所以《雜心論》的定品中說：『不起欲界心，因為不是禪定果報的緣故。』然而，變化心也稱為禪定果報。所以《雜心論》的擇品廣心中，解釋無有四心時說：『沒有變化心，沒有威儀心』，意思是說，離開了禪定果報和威儀心，其餘四心（指意識、眼識、耳識、身識）存在於無色界。用這段文字可以證明，生起三種識身（指眼識、耳識、身識）是變化心的種類，所以被禪定果報的無記心所攝。如果生起語業，就只有變化心。所以前面的論中說：『如果變化者或被變化者，在三禪定之上，就用初禪定心說話。』沒有工巧心（指技巧性的心），不可以用工巧心說話，因為聲音沒有行、住、坐、臥的相狀。不可以用威儀心說話，因為前面的論中說四識緣威儀的緣故。用這個道理來推斷，身生於三禪定，只能用變化心說話。如果起身表業（指身體的表達行為），就通於威儀心和變化心。問：為什麼知道變化心能起身表和語表？答：如《婆沙論》第一百三十九卷說：『如果生於初靜慮（初禪），成就欲界一法，指的是法舍意近行（舍受相應的意識的近分定），就通於果報心，總的以色等為境界而生起。』有人說，他成就三種，指的是色、聲、法舍意近行，就通於果報心。此心如果緣所起身表，就有緣色舍意近行。此心如果緣所起語表，就有緣聲舍意近行。此心如果緣所變化的事物，因為總緣的緣故，就有緣法舍意近行，就通於果報心。此心容許有總緣和別緣的緣故。現在解釋，不是這樣的。生於上三禪定（指二禪、三禪、四禪）而生起地獄諸識，如果生起地獄身識，就只是威儀心，或是緣威儀心，或是類似威儀心。如果生起地獄眼識，如果是通過修習而得到的，就屬於果報所攝；如果是泛泛而起的，就是威儀心，或是緣威儀心。

【English Translation】 English version: Non-arising (referring to afflictions) is because one has already departed from defilement. Not arising to lower good (referring to the good dharmas of the lower realms) is because the good dharmas of the lower realms are inferior. Although the non-specified mind is inferior, it is not true aversion, but a state of mediocrity, so it arises. Question: Do beings born in the upper realms (referring to the Form Realm or Formless Realm) generate non-defiled, non-specified minds of the lower realm (referring to the Desire Realm)? Among the four types of non-specified minds, which type is it? Master Tai explains: 'Yes, although eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and body consciousness are not transformation-mind non-specified, they belong to the category of transformation-mind because they are bound by external forces. Generally speaking, they can be called the mind of the result of meditative concentration (dhyana). Therefore, the chapter on concentration in the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Not arising to the Desire Realm mind because it is not the result of meditative concentration.' However, the transformation-mind is also called the result of meditative concentration. Therefore, in the chapter on discernment in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, when explaining the absence of four minds, it says: 'There is no transformation-mind, no deportment-mind,' meaning that apart from the result of meditative concentration and the deportment-mind, the remaining four minds (referring to consciousness, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, body consciousness) exist in the Formless Realm.' This passage can prove that the arising of the three sense-consciousnesses (eye, ear, and body) is a type of transformation-mind, so it is included in the non-specified mind of the result of meditative concentration. If verbal karma arises, it is only the transformation-mind. Therefore, the previous treatise says: 'If the transformer or the transformed person is above the third dhyana, they speak with the mind of the first dhyana.' There is no skillful-mind (referring to a mind of skill), and one cannot speak with a skillful-mind because sound does not have the characteristics of walking, standing, sitting, or lying down. One cannot speak with a deportment-mind because the previous treatise says that the four consciousnesses are conditioned by deportment. Based on this reasoning, one born in the three dhyanas (second, third, and fourth dhyanas) can only speak with the transformation-mind. If bodily expressive actions arise, they are common to both deportment-mind and transformation-mind. Question: How do we know that the transformation-mind can generate bodily expressive actions and verbal expressions? Answer: As the 139th volume of the Mahavibhasa says: 'If one is born in the first dhyana (first meditative concentration), they accomplish one dharma of the Desire Realm, which refers to the equanimity-associated ideation of the near-attainment (upacara-samadhi) of the mind of abandonment (upeksha), which is common to the resultant mind, generally arising with form, etc., as its object.' Some say that they accomplish three, referring to the equanimity-associated ideation of form, sound, and dharma, which is common to the resultant mind. If this mind is conditioned by the bodily expressive actions that arise, there is equanimity-associated ideation conditioned by form. If this mind is conditioned by the verbal expressions that arise, there is equanimity-associated ideation conditioned by sound. If this mind is conditioned by the things that are transformed, because of the general conditioning, there is equanimity-associated ideation conditioned by dharma, which is common to the resultant mind. This mind allows for both general and specific conditioning. Now, the explanation is not like this. If one is born in the upper three dhyanas (second, third, and fourth dhyanas) and generates the consciousnesses of the lower realm, if the body consciousness of the lower realm arises, it is only the deportment-mind, or conditioned by the deportment-mind, or similar to the deportment-mind. If the eye consciousness of the lower realm arises, if it is obtained through practice, it belongs to the resultant; if it arises casually, it is the deportment-mind, or conditioned by the deportment-mind.

心。或是似威儀心。若起下耳識。修得者通果攝。泛爾起者唯是似威儀心。若起下發業心。若泛爾發身．語業者是威儀心。威儀心尚得通緣十二處。能發語業理亦應得　又空法師章解威儀五蘊中雲。色聚有五謂五塵。問若說威儀具有五塵。何故婆沙．俱舍。並說唯有四塵除聲。解云行．住．坐．臥名威儀。聲非威儀正體。所以二論說無。今據威儀心發聲義所以說有(已上空解)。若上地化人發非身．語業。即起下通果心發。非變化心。泰法師。若將修得天眼．天耳二識是化心類同名通果容有此理。若將泛爾起眼．耳．身．識名通果心。良謂不然。準諸論。二十心中通果心唯與定心相生。豈有泛爾起下三識皆入定耶。雜心云。不起欲界非禪果故者。今更委檢雜心定品。身生上地起初定三識不起欲界中。云非欲界非修果故。不言禪果。此即誤引證。言修果者。定地系故。總名修果。若言修果即禪果者。定地系故總名禪果。不同化心名為禪果通果心攝。又引婆沙證化心發身．語業者。還是未達通果心寬。變化心狹。謂諸通果皆是化心。處處文中作斯異解。于先已破。義便復來　又空法師云。生上三定起初定威儀三識。及威儀發業心者。亦非盡理。若據泛爾起者。無有妨。若據二通及化人發業皆名威儀。此即不然。準前應破。

如是別釋至初得云何者。此下第二明三等至。就中。一明初得等至。二明等至相生。三明順．四分定。四明修超等至。五明等至依身。六明等至緣境。七明等至斷惑。八明近分差別。九明中定不同　此即第一明初得等至。結前問起。

頌曰至染由生及退者。頌答。

論曰至無由生故者。釋上兩句。八本等至隨其所應。若全不成而獲得者。諸凈等至由二因緣。一由離染。二由受生　言離染者。謂在下地離下地染得上地凈　言受生者。謂從上地生自地時得自地凈。八等至中下七皆然。有頂不爾。唯由離染有離染得。由無從上生下地故。無受生得。正理論云。此中但說本等至者。以諸近分未離染時。有全不成由加行得。

遮何故說全不成言者。問。

為遮已成至應如理思者。答。為遮已成更得少分如由加行得順抉擇分等　等。謂等取順勝進分。所以不等住．退分者。以先得故。謂先得退分．住分。後由加行得勝進分。或得抉擇分。此不名得。以此四分同凈定故。及由退離自染時得退分。以先得住分．勝進分。或抉擇分。今雖更得退分。不名為得。以此四分同凈定故。即依此義毗婆沙論作是問言。頗有凈定由離染得。由離染舍。由退得。由退舍。由生得。由生舍。為問亦爾。答曰有謂順退分

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『如是別釋至初得云何者』，這是下面第二部分，闡明三種等至（Samāpatti，禪定）的差別。其中：第一，闡明初得等至；第二，闡明等至相生；第三，闡明順、四分定；第四，闡明修超等至；第五，闡明等至依身；第六，闡明等至緣境；第七，闡明等至斷惑；第八，闡明近分差別；第九，闡明中定不同。這裡是第一部分，闡明初得等至，總結前面的內容並提出問題。

『頌曰至染由生及退者』，這是用頌文來回答。

『論曰至無由生故者』，這是解釋上面的兩句頌文。八種根本等至（aṣṭa samāpattayaḥ）根據情況，如果完全沒有成就而獲得，那麼諸種清凈等至（śuddha-samāpatti）由兩種因緣產生：第一，由於離染（virāga）；第二，由於受生（upapatti）。

所謂『離染』，是指在下地（adho-bhūmi）離開下地的染污，而獲得上地（adho-bhūmi）的清凈。所謂『受生』，是指從上地（adho-bhūmi）轉生到自地（sva-bhūmi）時，獲得自地的清凈。八種等至中，下七地都是這樣，只有有頂地（abhavāgra）不是這樣，唯獨由於離染而獲得，因為沒有從上地轉生到下地的情況，所以沒有受生而得。正理論（Abhidharmakośa）說：『這裡只說根本等至，因為諸近分定（sāmanta-samādhi）在未離染時，有完全不能成就，通過加行（prayoga）而獲得的。』

『遮何故說全不成言者』，這是提問，為什麼要說『完全不成』這句話？

『為遮已成至應如理思者』，這是回答。爲了遮止已經成就，又獲得少分的情況，例如通過加行獲得順抉擇分（anuloma-nirvedhabhāgīya）等。『等』，是指等取順勝進分（anuloma-viśeṣabhāgīya）。不包括順住分（anuloma-sthānabhāgīya）和順退分（anuloma-hānabhāgīya）的原因是，因為先前已經獲得。也就是說，先前已經獲得退分和住分，後來通過加行獲得勝進分，或者獲得抉擇分，這不能稱為『得』，因為這四分都屬於清凈定（śuddha-samādhi）。以及由於退離自染時獲得退分，因為先前已經獲得住分、勝進分，或者抉擇分，現在即使再次獲得退分，也不能稱為『得』，因為這四分都屬於清凈定。就是根據這個意義，毗婆沙論（Vibhāṣā）這樣提問：『有沒有清凈定由於離染而得，由於離染而舍，由於退而得，由於退而舍，由於生而得，由於生而舍？』提問也是一樣。回答是：『有，指順退分。』

【English Translation】 English version 『As explained separately up to 「How is the initial attainment?」』 This is the second part below, clarifying the three types of Samāpatti (meditative absorption). Among them: First, clarifying the initial attainment of Samāpatti; second, clarifying the arising of Samāpatti; third, clarifying sequential and fourfold determinations; fourth, clarifying the transcendence of Samāpatti; fifth, clarifying the dependence of Samāpatti on the body; sixth, clarifying the object of Samāpatti; seventh, clarifying the severing of afflictions by Samāpatti; eighth, clarifying the differences in proximity; ninth, clarifying the differences in intermediate concentration. This is the first part, clarifying the initial attainment of Samāpatti, summarizing the previous content and raising questions.

『The verse says, 「Attainment and defilement arise from birth and decline.」』 This is answering with a verse.

『The treatise says, 「Because there is no arising from…」』 This is explaining the two lines above. The eight fundamental Samāpattis (aṣṭa samāpattayaḥ), according to the circumstances, if they are obtained without being fully accomplished, then the various pure Samāpattis (śuddha-samāpatti) arise from two causes: first, due to detachment (virāga); second, due to rebirth (upapatti).

The so-called 『detachment』 refers to leaving the defilements of the lower realm (adho-bhūmi) in the lower realm and obtaining the purity of the upper realm (adho-bhūmi). The so-called 『rebirth』 refers to obtaining the purity of one's own realm when being reborn from the upper realm (adho-bhūmi) to one's own realm (sva-bhūmi). Among the eight Samāpattis, the lower seven realms are like this, only the Peak of Existence (abhavāgra) is not, solely obtained through detachment, because there is no situation of being reborn from the upper realm to the lower realm, so there is no obtaining through rebirth. The Abhidharmakośa (Abhidharmakośa) says: 『Here, only the fundamental Samāpattis are mentioned, because the proximate concentrations (sāmanta-samādhi), when not yet detached, may not be fully accomplished and are obtained through effort (prayoga).』

『Why is the statement 「completely unaccomplished」 made?』 This is asking, why say the phrase 『completely unaccomplished』?

『To prevent what has already been accomplished from…』 This is answering. To prevent the situation where something has already been accomplished and a small portion is obtained again, such as obtaining sequential discriminative wisdom (anuloma-nirvedhabhāgīya) through effort. 『Etc.』 refers to including sequential progressive wisdom (anuloma-viśeṣabhāgīya). The reason for not including sequential abiding wisdom (anuloma-sthānabhāgīya) and sequential declining wisdom (anuloma-hānabhāgīya) is because they were obtained previously. That is, declining and abiding wisdom were obtained previously, and later progressive wisdom is obtained through effort, or discriminative wisdom is obtained, this cannot be called 『obtaining』 because these four divisions all belong to pure concentration (śuddha-samādhi). And because declining wisdom is obtained when retreating from one's own defilements, because abiding wisdom, progressive wisdom, or discriminative wisdom were obtained previously, even if declining wisdom is obtained again now, it cannot be called 『obtaining』 because these four divisions all belong to pure concentration. Based on this meaning, the Vibhāṣā (Vibhāṣā) asks: 『Is there pure concentration that is obtained due to detachment, abandoned due to detachment, obtained due to decline, abandoned due to decline, obtained due to birth, abandoned due to birth?』 The question is the same. The answer is: 『Yes, referring to sequential declining wisdom.』

。且初靜慮順退分攝。離欲界染時得。離自地染時舍。退離自地染時得。退離欲界染時舍。從上生自初定時得。從自生下欲界時舍。餘地所攝應如理思。

無漏但由至如理應思者。釋第三句。無漏但由離染故得。謂聖離下地染得上地無漏。此亦但據根本靜慮。全不成者今時創得。若先已成。余時亦得。謂盡智位更得無學道。于練根時更得學．無學道。或由加行修得當地勝無漏法。或由有退得當地無漏法。皆如理應思。如是等法。皆悉非是先時不成今時創得。是故不說。以此中約根本地。說先全不成今時創成方名為得。先成少分今雖更得。皆不名得。

豈不由入至無漏等至者。問。豈不由入正性離生。亦名初得無漏等至。何故但言無漏由離染得。不言入正性離生時得。

此非決定至決定得者者。答。入見道得此非決定。雖超越人依根本地入見道者。亦得根本無漏等至。以次第者入見道時。爾時未得根本定故即非決定。此中但論決定得者。故正理云。聖離下染必定獲得上地根本無漏定故。

染由受生至得此地染者。釋第四句。染由受生．及退故得。謂上地沒生下地時得下地染。及於此地離染退時。得此地染。必非離染及加行得。故正理云。無由離染及加行得。如是二時能捨染故。

何等至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：而且，（這種獲得）最初是在靜慮的順退分中所包含的。在離開欲界染污時獲得，在離開自地染污時捨棄。在退離自地染污時獲得，在退離欲界染污時捨棄。從上地轉生到自地最初入定時獲得，從自地轉生到下方的欲界時捨棄。其他地所包含的情況，應該如理思維。

『無漏但由至如理應思者』，這是解釋第三句話。無漏（的獲得）僅僅由於離開染污的緣故而獲得。意思是說，聖者離開下地的染污，就能獲得上地的無漏（法）。這裡也只是就根本靜慮而言。『全不成者今時創得』，是指先前完全沒有成就，現在才首次獲得。如果先前已經成就，其他時候也能獲得。例如，在盡智位時，可以再次獲得無學道；在練根時，可以再次獲得學道和無學道；或者通過加行修習，獲得本地殊勝的無漏法；或者由於（從高處）退墮，獲得本地的無漏法。這些都應該如理思維。像這些法，都不是先前沒有成就，現在才首次獲得的，所以這裡沒有說。因為這裡是就根本地而言，說先前完全沒有成就，現在才首次成就才叫做獲得。先前已經成就少分，現在即使再次獲得，也不叫做獲得。

『豈不由入至無漏等至者』，這是提問。難道不是因為進入正性離生，也叫做初次獲得無漏等至嗎？為什麼只說無漏（的獲得）由於離開染污而獲得，而不說進入正性離生時獲得呢？

『此非決定至決定得者者』，這是回答。進入見道獲得（無漏等至）並非是決定的。即使是超越者，依靠根本地進入見道，也能獲得根本的無漏等至。因為次第修行的人，在進入見道時，那時還沒有獲得根本定，所以就不是決定的。這裡只是討論決定獲得的情況。所以《正理》中說，聖者離開下地的染污，必定獲得上地的根本無漏定。

『染由受生至得此地染者』，這是解釋第四句話。染污由於受生以及退墮的緣故而獲得。意思是說，從上地死亡而轉生到下地時，獲得下地的染污；以及在此地離開染污而退墮時，獲得此地的染污。一定不是由於離開染污以及加行而獲得。所以《正理》中說，沒有由於離開染污以及加行而獲得（染污）的情況。因為這兩種情況都能捨棄染污。

何等至

【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, (this attainment) is initially included in the sequential retrogressive aspect of dhyana (meditative absorption). It is attained upon separation from the defilements of the desire realm and abandoned upon separation from the defilements of one's own realm. It is attained upon retrogressing from the defilements of one's own realm and abandoned upon retrogressing from the defilements of the desire realm. It is attained upon being reborn from a higher realm into one's own realm at the initial moment of entering samadhi (meditative state), and abandoned upon being reborn from one's own realm into the lower desire realm. The conditions included in other realms should be considered accordingly.

'The phrase 'Non-outflow (Anasrava) is only attained through... should be considered accordingly' explains the third sentence. Non-outflow is only attained due to separation from defilements. This means that a noble one (Arya) separates from the defilements of a lower realm and attains the non-outflow (dharmas) of a higher realm. This also refers only to fundamental dhyana. 'Those who have never attained it before, now attain it for the first time' refers to those who had never achieved it before and now attain it for the first time. If it has already been achieved before, it can be attained at other times as well. For example, at the stage of Exhaustion of Knowledge (Ksaya-jnana), one can attain the No-more-learning Path (Asaiksa-marga) again; during the refinement of faculties, one can attain the Path of Learning (Saiksa-marga) and the No-more-learning Path again; or through the practice of effort, one attains superior non-outflow dharmas of the local realm; or due to regression (from a higher state), one attains non-outflow dharmas of the local realm. All these should be considered accordingly. These dharmas are not cases of 'never having been attained before, now attained for the first time,' so they are not mentioned here. Because this refers to the fundamental realm, only the case of 'never having been attained before, now attained for the first time' is called attainment. If a portion has already been achieved before, even if it is attained again now, it is not called attainment.

'The question 'Isn't it also through entering... non-outflow samapatti?' is a question. Isn't it also called the initial attainment of non-outflow samapatti (state of meditative absorption) upon entering the Correct Order (of Dharma, i.e., stream-entry)? Why is it only said that non-outflow is attained through separation from defilements, and not said that it is attained upon entering the Correct Order?

'The answer 'This is not necessarily... certain attainment' is an answer. Attaining (non-outflow samapatti) upon entering the Path of Seeing (Darsana-marga) is not necessarily certain. Even those who transcend (certain limitations), relying on the fundamental realm to enter the Path of Seeing, can attain the fundamental non-outflow samapatti. Because those who progress sequentially, when entering the Path of Seeing, have not yet attained the fundamental samadhi, it is not certain. This only discusses cases of certain attainment. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosa states that noble ones certainly attain the fundamental non-outflow samadhi of the higher realm upon separating from the defilements of the lower realm.

'The phrase 'Defilements are attained through... attaining the defilements of this realm' explains the fourth sentence. Defilements are attained due to rebirth and regression. This means that when dying from a higher realm and being reborn into a lower realm, one attains the defilements of the lower realm; and when regressing from separation from defilements in this realm, one attains the defilements of this realm. It is certainly not attained due to separation from defilements or effort. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosa states that there is no attainment (of defilements) due to separation from defilements or effort, because both of these conditions can abandon defilements.

What samapatti

后至染生自下染者。此即第二明等至相生。問及頌答。

論曰至並自地二者。釋上兩句。無漏等至次第生自地．上地。下地善。善言具攝凈及無漏。極相違故。必不生染。然于上．下各至第三。遠故無能超至第四。故於無漏四靜慮。三無色．七等至中。從初靜慮無間生六。謂自地．二地．三地。各凈．無漏。無所有處無間生七。謂自地二。下地四合有六。上地唯凈總有七種。第二靜慮無間生八。謂自地二。上地四合有六。並下地二總有八。識無邊處無間生九。謂自地二。下地四合有六。並上地三。謂無所有二。非想一總有九。第三靜慮．第四靜慮．空無邊處。各無間生十。謂上地四。下地四合有八。並自地二。總有十。

類智無間至依緣下故者。簡差別。于靜慮中類智無間能生無色。法智不然。依下欲界身故。緣下欲境故。超有二種。一者超定。二者超緣。此二種超俱至第三。不至第四。以法智緣欲界境。無色等至緣無色境。不可頓超色界四地故。法智無間不生無色。故婆沙一百六十五云。問云何觀行者于所緣超答彼由不念作意以初靜慮於九地一一別緣。于中唯能超緣一地。謂緣欲界無間。能上緣初靜慮。或第二靜慮非余。緣初靜慮無間。能下緣欲界。上緣第二靜慮。或第三靜慮非余。緣第二靜慮無間。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『后至染生自下染者』，這說明了等至（Samāpatti，指禪定）相生的第二種情況。以下是提問和解答。

論曰：『至並自地二者』，解釋了上面的兩句話。無漏等至（Anāsrava-samāpatti，指無漏禪定）次第相生於自地和上地。下地的善法（Kusala，指好的、有益的心理狀態）——這裡的『善』字包含了清凈和無漏——因為與染污（Kilesa，指煩惱）極端相違背，所以必定不會產生染污。然而，在上地和下地，都只能達到第三地，因為距離遙遠，無法超越到第四地。因此，在無漏的四靜慮（Catū Jhāna，指四種禪定）、三無色定（Arūpa-samāpatti，指三種無色界的禪定）和七等至中，從初靜慮（Paṭhama Jhāna，指初禪）無間（Anantara，指沒有間隔）產生六種：即自地、二地、三地的清凈和無漏。無所有處定（Ākiñcaññāyatana，指無所有處定）無間產生七種：即自地二種，下地四種合起來有六種，上地只有清凈的一種，總共有七種。第二靜慮（Dutiya Jhāna，指二禪）無間產生八種：即自地二種，上地四種合起來有六種，加上下地二種，總共有八種。識無邊處定（Viññāṇañcāyatana，指識無邊處定）無間產生九種：即自地二種，下地四種合起來有六種，加上上地三種，即無所有處二種，非想非非想處一種，總共有九種。第三靜慮（Tatiya Jhāna，指三禪）、第四靜慮（Catuttha Jhāna，指四禪）、空無邊處定（Ākāsānañcāyatana，指空無邊處定）各自無間產生十種：即上地四種，下地四種合起來有八種，加上自地二種，總共有十種。

『類智無間至依緣下故者』，是爲了區分差別。在靜慮中，類智（Anvaya-jñāna，指類智）無間能夠產生無色定，而法智（Dharma-jñāna，指法智）則不能，因為法智依賴下方的欲界（Kāmadhātu，指慾望界）之身，緣于下方的欲界之境。超越有兩種：一是超越禪定，二是超越所緣。這兩種超越都只能達到第三地，不能達到第四地。因為法智緣于欲界之境，無色等至緣于無色界之境，不可能一下子超越四地。法智無間不能產生無色定。所以《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，指《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第一百六十五卷說：『問：觀行者如何超越所緣？答：他們通過不念作意，以初靜慮對九地一一分別緣取。其中只能超越緣取一地，即緣取欲界無間，能夠向上緣取初靜慮，或者第二靜慮，不能緣取其他的。緣取初靜慮無間，能夠向下緣取欲界，向上緣取第二靜慮，或者第三靜慮，不能緣取其他的。緣取第二靜慮無間……』

【English Translation】 English version: 『Those who subsequently attain defilement are defiled from below.』 This explains the second aspect of the arising of Samāpattis (states of meditative absorption). The following is a question and answer.

The Treatise says: 『Attaining and the self-ground, these two.』 This explains the two sentences above. Anāsrava-samāpattis (undefiled meditative absorptions) arise sequentially from their own ground and higher grounds. The 『good』 (Kusala, wholesome mental states) of lower grounds—the word 『good』 encompasses both pure and undefiled—because they are extremely opposed to defilements (Kilesa, afflictions), they will certainly not produce defilement. However, in both higher and lower grounds, one can only reach the third ground, because the distance is too great to surpass to the fourth. Therefore, among the four Jhānas (Catū Jhāna, four meditative states), the three Arūpa-samāpattis (Arūpa-samāpatti, formless absorptions), and the seven Samāpattis, from the first Jhāna (Paṭhama Jhāna, first dhyana) arises six without interval (Anantara, without interruption): namely, the pure and undefiled of its own ground, the second ground, and the third ground. From the Ākiñcaññāyatana (sphere of nothingness) arises seven without interval: namely, two of its own ground, four of the lower ground combined make six, and only one pure of the higher ground, totaling seven. From the second Jhāna (Dutiya Jhāna, second dhyana) arises eight without interval: namely, two of its own ground, four of the higher ground combined make six, plus two of the lower ground, totaling eight. From the Viññāṇañcāyatana (sphere of infinite consciousness) arises nine without interval: namely, two of its own ground, four of the lower ground combined make six, plus three of the higher ground, namely, two of the sphere of nothingness, and one of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, totaling nine. The third Jhāna (Tatiya Jhāna, third dhyana), the fourth Jhāna (Catuttha Jhāna, fourth dhyana), and the Ākāsānañcāyatana (sphere of infinite space) each arise ten without interval: namely, four of the higher ground, four of the lower ground combined make eight, plus two of its own ground, totaling ten.

『From Anvaya-jñāna (knowledge of conformity) without interval to because it relies on and is conditioned by the lower.』 This is to distinguish the differences. Among the Jhānas, Anvaya-jñāna without interval can produce Arūpa-samāpatti, but Dharma-jñāna (knowledge of phenomena) cannot, because Dharma-jñāna relies on the body of the lower Kāmadhātu (Kāmadhātu, desire realm) and is conditioned by the objects of the lower desire realm. There are two types of surpassing: one is surpassing the meditation, and the other is surpassing the object. Both of these surpassings can only reach the third ground, not the fourth. Because Dharma-jñāna is conditioned by the objects of the desire realm, and Arūpa-samāpatti is conditioned by the objects of the formless realm, it is impossible to surpass four grounds at once. Dharma-jñāna without interval cannot produce Arūpa-samāpatti. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (Vibhāṣā, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) volume one hundred and sixty-five says: 『Question: How do practitioners surpass the object of conditioning? Answer: They, through non-attention, separately condition each of the nine grounds with the first Jhāna. Among them, they can only surpass conditioning one ground, namely, conditioning the desire realm without interval, they can ascend to condition the first Jhāna, or the second Jhāna, but not others. Conditioning the first Jhāna without interval, they can descend to condition the desire realm, ascend to condition the second Jhāna, or the third Jhāna, but not others. Conditioning the second Jhāna without interval…』

能下緣欲界或初靜慮。上緣第三靜慮或第四靜慮非余。緣第三靜慮無間。能下緣初靜慮。或第二靜慮。上緣第四靜慮。或空無邊處非余。如是乃至緣非想非非想處無間。能下緣識無邊處。或無所有處非余。如依初定。如是依余定。隨其所應于所緣緣皆應廣說。如不能越二地所緣。超定亦爾。故不入第四。問若爾何故說凈解脫次起五心。凈解脫心緣于欲界。第四靜慮遍行隨眠。能緣自．上乃至有頂。豈非能越二地所緣。答說不染心不能超二。彼心是染故不相違。問如苦法智緣欲界無間起苦類忍。乃至緣有頂。云何說不染污心不能超二。答彼但是總緣不名為超。亦俱緣餘地故是故非難　解云五心謂五部心。

從凈等至至餘生十一者。釋第三．第四句。從凈等至所生亦然。而各兼生自地染污。以凈等至上參無漏。下接染污故。有頂凈無間生六。謂自凈．染二．下無所有處．識處．凈．無漏四。從初靜慮無間生七。謂自地三．上地四．無所有處八。謂自地三．上地一．下地四。第二定九。謂自地三．上地四．下地二。識處生十。謂自地三．上地三．下地四。余第三定．第四定．空處。皆生十一。謂自地三．上地．下地各有四種。

從染等至至生次下凈者。釋第五．第六句。如文可知。正理論云。極相違故不生無漏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：能下緣欲界（Kāmadhātu，desire realm）或初靜慮（prathama-dhyāna，first dhyana）。上緣第三靜慮（tṛtīya-dhyāna，third dhyana）或第四靜慮（caturtha-dhyāna，fourth dhyana），而非其他。緣第三靜慮無間，能下緣初靜慮或第二靜慮（dvitīya-dhyāna，second dhyana）。上緣第四靜慮，或空無邊處（ākāśānantyāyatana，sphere of infinite space），而非其他。如是乃至緣非想非非想處（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，sphere of neither perception nor non-perception）無間，能下緣識無邊處（vijñānānantyāyatana，sphere of infinite consciousness）或無所有處（ākiṃcanyāyatana，sphere of nothingness），而非其他。如依初定，如是依余定，隨其所應于所緣緣皆應廣說。如不能越二地所緣，超定亦爾，故不入第四。問：若爾，何故說凈解脫次起五心？凈解脫心緣于欲界，第四靜慮遍行隨眠，能緣自·上乃至有頂（abhavāgra，peak of existence）。豈非能越二地所緣？答：說不染心不能超二，彼心是染故不相違。問：如苦法智緣欲界無間起苦類忍，乃至緣有頂，云何說不染污心不能超二？答：彼但是總緣不名為超，亦俱緣餘地，故是故非難。解云：五心謂五部心。從凈等至至餘生十一者，釋第三·第四句。從凈等至所生亦然，而各兼生自地染污。以凈等至上參無漏（anāsrava，unconditioned），下接染污故。有頂凈無間生六，謂自凈·染二、下無所有處·識處·凈·無漏四。從初靜慮無間生七，謂自地三、上地四、無所有處八，謂自地三、上地一、下地四。第二定九，謂自地三、上地四、下地二。識處生十，謂自地三、上地三、下地四。余第三定·第四定·空處，皆生十一，謂自地三、上地、下地各有四種。從染等至至生次下凈者，釋第五·第六句。如文可知。正理論云：極相違故不生無漏。

【English Translation】 English version: It can condition downward to the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) or the first dhyana (prathama-dhyāna). Upward, it conditions the third dhyana (tṛtīya-dhyāna) or the fourth dhyana (caturtha-dhyāna), and no other. Immediately following the third dhyana, it can condition downward to the first dhyana or the second dhyana (dvitīya-dhyāna). Upward, it conditions the fourth dhyana, or the sphere of infinite space (ākāśānantyāyatana), and no other. Thus, even immediately following the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana), it can condition downward to the sphere of infinite consciousness (vijñānānantyāyatana) or the sphere of nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana), and no other. Just as based on the first dhyana, so too based on other dhyanas, one should extensively explain the object-condition (ālambana-pratyaya) accordingly. Just as it cannot transcend the object-condition of two realms, so too with supernormal cognition (abhijñā); therefore, it does not enter the fourth. Question: If so, why is it said that five minds arise successively from pure liberation? The mind of pure liberation conditions the desire realm, and the pervasive latent tendencies of the fourth dhyana can condition itself, upward to the peak of existence (abhavāgra). Does it not transcend the object-condition of two realms? Answer: It is said that a non-defiled mind cannot transcend two; that mind is defiled, so there is no contradiction. Question: Just as the knowledge of suffering (duḥkha-jñāna) conditions the desire realm and immediately gives rise to the forbearance of suffering (duḥkha-kṣānti), and even conditions the peak of existence, how is it said that a non-defiled mind cannot transcend two? Answer: That is only a general condition and is not called transcendence; it also conditions other realms simultaneously, therefore there is no difficulty. Explanation: The five minds refer to the minds of the five aggregates. Regarding 'from pure attainment to other births, eleven,' this explains the third and fourth sentences. What arises from pure attainment is also the same, but each also gives rise to defilement in its own realm. Because pure attainment participates upward with the unconditioned (anāsrava), and connects downward with defilement. From the pure peak of existence, six arise immediately: namely, its own pure and defiled two, the sphere of nothingness below, the sphere of consciousness, pure, and the four unconditioned. From the first dhyana, seven arise immediately: namely, three of its own realm, four of the upper realm, and eight of the sphere of nothingness: namely, three of its own realm, one of the upper realm, and four of the lower realm. From the second dhyana, nine: namely, three of its own realm, four of the upper realm, and two of the lower realm. From the sphere of consciousness, ten arise: namely, three of its own realm, three of the upper realm, and four of the lower realm. From the remaining third dhyana, fourth dhyana, and sphere of space, eleven arise: namely, three of its own realm, and four each of the upper and lower realms. Regarding 'from defiled attainment to the birth of the next lower pure,' this explains the fifth and sixth sentences. As the text indicates. The Nyāyānusāra states: Because they are extremely contradictory, the unconditioned does not arise.

。

若於染凈至從染生凈者。問意可知。

先願力故至便能覺悟者。答亦可知。

無漏與染至故三有別者。簡差別。無漏與染必不相生極相違故。凈俱相生。在中間故故三有別。

如是所說至未離下故者。釋后兩句。如上所說。凈．染生染。但約在定凈．及染說。生彼地得名生凈．生染。生凈謂生得善。生染謂彼地散惑。若生凈．生染能生染者。其理不然。謂命終時從生得善凈。一一無間。生自．上．下一切地染。若從生染一一無間。能生自地．一切下地染。不生上者未離下故。

所言從凈至皆能生耶者。此即第三明順四分定。牒前問起。

不爾者。答。

云何者。徴。

頌曰至生二三三一者。頌答。

論曰至順勝進分攝者。釋初頌。舉數列名。於前七地各有四分。有頂唯三。除勝進分無上地故。婆沙十一同此論說。有頂地但有三分。除勝進分　問若爾何故。婆沙業蘊說有頂地有四分耶　解云此論及婆沙十一。據有頂地更無上地可欣趣故。故說彼地無勝進分。婆沙業蘊。據當地中更有勝德可欣趣故。言有勝進。故正理七十八云。就勝進分總有二種。一者自地殊勝功德。二者上地殊勝功德。若能牽引彼名順勝進分(已上論文)　故說有頂或有或無。各據一義。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本若關於染污和清凈，以及從染污生出清凈的問題，通過提問的意圖就可以理解。

關於由於先前的願力而能夠覺悟的問題，答案也是可以理解的。

關於無漏和染污，以及因此而產生三有差別的問題，這裡需要簡要說明其差別。無漏和染污絕對不會相互產生，因為它們是完全相反的。清凈和染污可以相互產生，因為它們處於中間狀態，所以產生了三有的差別。

關於上面所說的，以及尚未脫離下層境界的問題，這是對後面兩句話的解釋。如上所述，清凈和染污產生染污，只是就處於禪定狀態的清凈和染污而言。在那個境界產生，就被稱為生凈（Śuddha，清凈）或生染（Raaga，染污）。生凈指的是產生善法，生染指的是那個境界中的散亂迷惑。如果生凈或生染能夠產生染污，這個道理是不成立的。例如，臨終時從生得的善凈，一一無間地產生自身、上層、下層一切境界的染污。如果從生染一一無間地，能夠產生自身境界和一切下層境界的染污，而不能產生上層境界的染污，那是因為尚未脫離下層境界的緣故。

所說的從清凈境界開始，是否都能產生呢？這實際上是第三個問題，闡明順四分定（caturbhāga-samādhi，四分定）。這是引用前面的問題而提出的。

『不是這樣的』，這是回答。

『為什麼呢？』這是提問。

偈頌說：『生二三三一』，這是用偈頌來回答。

論述說：『屬於順勝進分』，這是解釋第一個偈頌。列舉數列名稱。在前七個境界中，各有四分。有頂天（Bhavāgra，有頂天）只有三分，因為沒有勝進分（viśeṣa-gāmin，勝進分），因為沒有更高的境界。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，婆沙）第十一卷的說法與此論相同，認為有頂天只有三分，沒有勝進分。問：如果是這樣，為什麼《婆沙業蘊》（Karma-skandha-Vibhāṣā，婆沙業蘊）說有頂天有四分呢？解釋說，此論和《婆沙》第十一卷，是根據有頂天沒有更高的境界可以欣求的緣故，所以說那個境界沒有勝進分。《婆沙業蘊》是根據當地中還有更殊勝的功德可以欣求的緣故，所以說有勝進分。因此，《正理》（Nyāyānusāra，正理）第七十八卷說，就勝進分而言，總共有兩種：一種是自身境界的殊勝功德，另一種是上層境界的殊勝功德。如果能夠牽引上層境界的殊勝功德，就稱為順勝進分（anukūla-viśeṣa-gāmin，順勝進分）。（以上是論文內容）因此說有頂天或者有或者沒有勝進分，各自根據一種含義。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding the questions of defilement and purity, and the arising of purity from defilement, the meaning can be understood through the intention of the question.

Regarding the question of being able to awaken due to prior vows, the answer is also understandable.

Regarding the question of the difference between the unconditioned (anāsrava, 無漏) and the conditioned (sāsrava, 染污), and the resulting differences in the three realms of existence (trayo dhātavaḥ, 三有), here it is necessary to briefly explain the differences. The unconditioned and the conditioned absolutely do not arise from each other, because they are completely opposite. Purity and defilement can arise from each other, because they are in an intermediate state, thus creating the differences in the three realms of existence.

Regarding what was said above, and the issue of not yet having left the lower realms, this is an explanation of the latter two sentences. As mentioned above, purity and defilement giving rise to defilement only applies to purity and defilement in a state of meditative concentration (samādhi, 禪定). Being born in that realm is called 'birth of purity' (Śuddha, 清凈) or 'birth of defilement' (Raaga, 染污). 'Birth of purity' refers to the arising of wholesome qualities, and 'birth of defilement' refers to the scattered confusion in that realm. If 'birth of purity' or 'birth of defilement' can give rise to defilement, this principle is not valid. For example, at the time of death, from the wholesome purity that is born, defilement arises in one's own realm, the upper realms, and all the lower realms, without interruption. If, from 'birth of defilement', defilement can arise in one's own realm and all the lower realms without interruption, but cannot arise in the upper realms, it is because one has not yet left the lower realms.

The question of whether everything can arise from the state of purity is actually the third question, clarifying the sequential fourfold concentration (caturbhāga-samādhi, 四分定). This is raised by quoting the previous question.

'It is not so,' is the answer.

'Why?' is the question.

The verse says: 'Arising two, three, three, one,' this is answering with a verse.

The treatise says: 'Belongs to the sequential progressive division (anukūla-viśeṣa-gāmin, 順勝進分),' this is explaining the first verse. Listing the names of the numerical series. In the first seven realms, there are four divisions each. The Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra, 有頂天) has only three, because there is no progressive division (viśeṣa-gāmin, 勝進分), because there is no higher realm. The eleventh volume of the Vibhāṣā (婆沙) agrees with this treatise, stating that the Peak of Existence has only three divisions, without the progressive division. Question: If that is the case, why does the Karma-skandha-Vibhāṣā (婆沙業蘊) say that the Peak of Existence has four divisions? Explanation: This treatise and the eleventh volume of the Vibhāṣā state that the Peak of Existence has no progressive division because there is no higher realm to aspire to. The Karma-skandha-Vibhāṣā states that there is a progressive division because there are more excellent qualities to aspire to within that realm. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (正理), volume seventy-eight, says that in terms of the progressive division, there are two types in total: one is the excellent qualities of one's own realm, and the other is the excellent qualities of the upper realms. If one can attract the excellent qualities of the upper realms, it is called the sequential progressive division (anukūla-viśeṣa-gāmin, 順勝進分). (The above is the content of the treatise.) Therefore, it is said that the Peak of Existence either has or does not have a progressive division, each based on a different meaning.

於此四中至唯從此生者。釋第五．第六句。如文可知。若依婆沙一百六十五凈生無漏中雲。此但從順抉擇分。有說亦從順勝進分。雖無評家以前解為正。故正理七十八云。應知此中決定義者。謂諸聖道必此無間生。非此無間必能生聖道。若異此者是則應說。唯世第一法名順抉擇分(已上論文)　又諸論皆言順抉擇分能生聖道　問無漏復能生幾分耶　解云生后二分。故正理七十八云。無漏無間何分現前。有說通三除順退分。理實唯二謂后二種。又婆沙一百六十五無漏生凈中雲。如是說者。漸次入時亦與勝進分為等無間。超越入時唯與順抉擇分為等無間。問何故超越入時。唯順抉擇分與無漏道互為等無間緣。余時不爾。答于超越時唯有猛盛堅固善根。能相引發順抉擇分猛盛堅固。余分不爾　問若順退分能順煩惱。如已離此地染退起此地染。退分既舍從何生惑　解云從住分生。故正理七十八云。若順煩惱名順退分。諸阿羅漢寧有退理。非彼猶有順退分定可令現行。離染舍故。雖有此難。而實無違。謂順住中有順退者亦得建立順退分名。從彼有退。如前已說　又婆沙一百六十五云凈定等。無間煩惱現在前者。當知此從順退分．或順住分起。由已離未離自地染者。起自地煩惱有差別故　以此文證故知。有從住分亦生煩惱

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本關於『於此四中至唯從此生者』，解釋第五句和第六句。字面意思如文中所述。如果依據《婆沙論》第一百六十五卷關於凈生無漏的說法，這僅僅是從順抉擇分產生的。有人說也可能從順勝進分產生。雖然沒有評判家認為之前的解釋是正確的，但《正理》第七十八卷說：『應當知道，這裡所說的決定義是指，諸聖道必定在此無間產生，但並非在此無間就必定能產生聖道。如果不是這樣，就應該說，只有世第一法才被稱為順抉擇分。』（以上是論文原文）而且，各種論述都說順抉擇分能夠產生聖道。問：無漏又能產生幾分呢？答：產生后兩分。所以《正理》第七十八卷說：『無漏無間，什麼分會現前呢？』有人說，通達三者，除了順退分。但實際上只有兩種，即后兩種。另外，《婆沙論》第一百六十五卷關於無漏生凈中說：『這樣說來，漸次進入時，也與勝進分作為等無間；超越進入時，只與順抉擇分作為等無間。』問：為什麼超越進入時，只有順抉擇分與無漏道互為等無間緣，其他時候不是這樣呢？答：在超越時，只有猛盛堅固的善根，能夠相互引發。順抉擇分猛盛堅固，其他分不是這樣。問：如果順退分能夠順從煩惱，比如已經離開了此地的染污，又退回到此地的染污。退分既然已經捨棄，那麼煩惱從哪裡產生呢？答：從住分產生。所以《正理》第七十八卷說：『如果順從煩惱，就叫做順退分。阿羅漢難道會有退步的道理嗎？並非他們仍然有順退分，一定能夠讓它現行，因為已經離開了染污而捨棄了。』雖然有這樣的疑問，但實際上沒有衝突。也就是說，在順住分中，有順退分的情況，也可以建立順退分的名字。從那裡有退步，就像之前已經說過的。另外，《婆沙論》第一百六十五卷說，凈定等，無間煩惱現在前者，應當知道這是從順退分或順住分產生的。因為已經離開或尚未離開自地染污的人，所產生的自地煩惱是有差別的。根據這段文字可以知道，也有從住分產生煩惱的情況。

【English Translation】 English version Regarding '於此四中至唯從此生者 (yú cǐ sì zhōng zhì wéi cóng cǐ shēng zhě)' [Among these four, only from this one does it arise], explaining the fifth and sixth sentences. The literal meaning is as stated in the text. If according to the Vibhasa (婆沙 Póshā) Volume 165 regarding pure birth without outflows, this arises only from the Anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya (順抉擇分 shùn juézé fēn) [Part conforming to discernment]. Some say it may also arise from the Anuloma-visesa-bhagiya (順勝進分 shùn shèngjìn fēn) [Part conforming to superior progress]. Although no commentator considers the previous explanation to be correct, the Nyāyānusāra (正理 Zhènglǐ) Volume 78 says: 'It should be known that the definition here refers to the fact that the noble paths necessarily arise without interval from this, but not necessarily that the noble path can arise without interval from this. If it were not so, it should be said that only the Laukikāgradharma (世第一法 shì dì yī fǎ) [World's Highest Dharma] is called Anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya.' (The above is the original text of the treatise) Moreover, various treatises say that the Anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya can generate the noble path. Question: How many parts can the Anasrava (無漏 wúlòu) [Without outflows] generate? Answer: It generates the latter two parts. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra Volume 78 says: 'Without interval from the Anasrava, which part will manifest?' Some say it encompasses three, except for the Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya (順退分 shùn tuì fēn) [Part conforming to decline]. But in reality, there are only two, namely the latter two. Furthermore, the Vibhasa Volume 165 regarding Anasrava generating purity states: 'Thus it is said that when entering gradually, it also serves as an immediate condition with the Visesa-bhagiya; when entering transcendently, it only serves as an immediate condition with the Anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya.' Question: Why is it that when entering transcendently, only the Anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya and the Anasrava-marga (無漏道 wúlòu dào) [Path without outflows] serve as immediate conditions for each other, and not at other times? Answer: At the time of transcendence, only the vigorous and firm roots of goodness can mutually induce each other. The Anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya is vigorous and firm, while the other parts are not. Question: If the Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya can conform to afflictions, such as having left the defilements of this realm and then regressing to the defilements of this realm, since the declining part has been abandoned, where do the afflictions arise from? Answer: They arise from the Sthiti-bhagiya (住分 zhù fēn) [Part of abiding]. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra Volume 78 says: 'If conforming to afflictions is called Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya, would Arhats (阿羅漢 āluóhàn) [Worthy ones] have a reason to regress? It is not that they still have the Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya that can necessarily cause it to manifest, because they have left the defilements and abandoned it.' Although there is such a question, there is actually no contradiction. That is to say, in the Anuloma-sthiti-bhagiya (順住分 shùn zhù fēn) [Part conforming to abiding], there is a situation of Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya, and the name Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya can also be established. From there, there is regression, as has been said before. Furthermore, the Vibhasa Volume 165 says that when pure concentration and other immediate afflictions manifest, it should be known that this arises from the Anuloma-hāni-bhagiya or the Anuloma-sthiti-bhagiya. Because those who have left or have not yet left the defilements of their own realm have differences in the afflictions of their own realm that arise. According to this passage, it can be known that there are also cases where afflictions arise from the Sthiti-bhagiya.

。

此四相望至謂自非餘者。釋后兩句。此四相望互相生者。初能生二。謂順退分及順住分。不生后二以隔遠故。諸論皆同。第二生三除順抉擇。亦隔遠故。諸論皆同。第三生三除順退分。以隔遠故。婆沙十一．正理．顯宗皆同此論。若依婆沙一百六十五即有異說。故彼論云。順勝進分與順退分。有說。但為所緣．增上。順勝進分無間順退分不現前故。如是說者。亦現在前。是故與順退分為三緣。除因緣以彼劣故。與順住分亦爾。婆沙兩說后說評傢俱舍等前師不正義。但生三種。評家生四種。既有評文。即以後師為正　或論意各別。俱舍以理為正。非以婆沙評家為量。夫凈相生理應鄰次。何容超越。第四生一謂自非余。以欣無漏不生余故。

問順住．勝進能次生前。何故抉擇非生勝進　解云抉擇欣無漏不生次前。住與勝進非欣無漏容次生前。或勝進相欣求上法。性非止息故。抉擇分不生勝進。住．退二分性有止息。可從勝進生住住生退分。正理．顯宗皆有兩說。一說同此論。又一說云。有說亦生順勝進分。然無評家。后家意說。如住．勝進能生前一。順抉擇分亦生前一。若依婆沙十一。同正理后師。若依婆沙一百六十五云。順抉擇分與順住分。有說。但為所緣．增上。以順抉擇分無間　順住分不現前故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本這四種相（指順退分、順住分、順勝進分、順抉擇分）互相觀望，都認為自己不是其他。這是解釋後面兩句經文。這四種相是互相產生的：最初的順退分能產生兩種，即順退分和順住分，不能產生後面的順勝進分和順抉擇分，因為間隔太遠。各種論典都這樣認為。第二種順住分能產生三種，除了順抉擇分，也是因為間隔太遠。各種論典也這樣認為。第三種順勝進分能產生三種，除了順退分，因為間隔太遠。《婆沙論》第十一卷、《正理經》、《顯宗論》都與此論相同。如果依據《婆沙論》第一百六十五卷，則有不同的說法。該論說：順勝進分與順退分，有人說，只能作為所緣緣和增上緣，因為順勝進分之後，順退分不會立即出現。如果這樣說，順退分也會立即出現，所以與順退分有三種緣，除了因緣，因為順退分比較弱。與順住分也是這樣。《婆沙論》有兩種說法，后一種說法被評家（指《俱舍論》的作者）認為是前一種說法不正確，只能產生三種緣。評家認為能產生四種緣。既然有評文，就以後一種說法為正確。或者說，各種論典的意義各有不同。《俱舍論》以理為正確，而不是以《婆沙論》評家的說法為標準。清凈的相產生理應是相鄰的，怎麼能超越呢？第四種順抉擇分只能產生一種，即自身，不是其他。因為欣求無漏的智慧，不會產生其他的相。

問：順住分和順勝進分能夠依次產生前面的相，為什麼順抉擇分不能產生順勝進分？答：順抉擇分欣求無漏的智慧，不能產生依次在前面的相。順住分和順勝進分不是欣求無漏的智慧，可以依次產生前面的相。或者說，順勝進分的相是欣求更高的法，性質不是止息的，所以順抉擇分不能產生順勝進分。順住分和順退分性質是止息的，可以從順勝進分產生順住分，順住分產生順退分。《正理經》和《顯宗論》都有兩種說法，一種說法與此論相同。另一種說法是：有人說也能產生順勝進分，但是沒有評家。后一種說法的意思是，像順住分和順勝進分能產生前面的一個相一樣，順抉擇分也能產生前面的一個相。如果依據《婆沙論》第十一卷，與《正理經》后一種說法相同。如果依據《婆沙論》第一百六十五卷，說：順抉擇分與順住分，有人說，只能作為所緣緣和增上緣，因為順抉擇分之後，順住分不會立即出現。

【English Translation】 English version These four 'states' (xiang) (referring to the regressive, dwelling, progressive, and decisive stages) look to each other, each considering itself distinct from the others. This explains the latter two sentences. These four 'states' arise mutually: the initial regressive stage can generate two, namely the regressive and dwelling stages. It cannot generate the subsequent progressive and decisive stages because they are too distant. All treatises agree on this. The second, dwelling stage, generates three, excluding the decisive stage, also due to distance. All treatises agree on this as well. The third, progressive stage, generates three, excluding the regressive stage, due to distance. The Vibhasa (Póshā) (a commentary on the Abhidharma) (eleventh fascicle), Nyāyānusāra (Zhènglǐ) (a commentary on the Abhidharma), and Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Xiǎnzōng) (another commentary on the Abhidharma) all align with this treatise. However, according to the Vibhasa (one hundred and sixty-fifth fascicle), there is a different view. That treatise states: the progressive stage and the regressive stage, some say, only serve as the object-condition (suǒyuán) and the dominant condition (zēngshàng). This is because the regressive stage does not immediately follow the progressive stage. If it is said that the regressive stage also appears immediately, then it has three conditions with the regressive stage, excluding the causal condition (yīnyuán) because it is inferior. The same applies to the dwelling stage. The Vibhasa has two views; the latter view is considered by the commentators (referring to the author of the Abhidharmakośa) as the former view being incorrect, only generating three conditions. The commentator believes it can generate four conditions. Since there is commentary, the latter view is considered correct. Alternatively, the meanings of the various treatises may differ. The Abhidharmakośa considers reason to be correct, not relying on the Vibhasa's commentator as the standard. The arising of pure 'states' should be adjacent; how can it be transcended? The fourth, decisive stage, only generates one, namely itself, not others. Because of the aspiration for non-outflow (wúlòu), it does not generate other 'states'.

Question: The dwelling and progressive stages can sequentially generate the preceding stages. Why can't the decisive stage generate the progressive stage? Answer: The decisive stage aspires for non-outflow wisdom and cannot generate the sequentially preceding stages. The dwelling and progressive stages do not aspire for non-outflow wisdom and can sequentially generate the preceding stages. Alternatively, the progressive stage's characteristic is to aspire for higher Dharma, and its nature is not cessation. Therefore, the decisive stage cannot generate the progressive stage. The dwelling and regressive stages have a nature of cessation and can generate the dwelling stage from the progressive stage, and the regressive stage from the dwelling stage. The Nyāyānusāra and Abhidharmakośabhāṣya both have two views, one view being the same as this treatise. Another view is: some say that it can also generate the progressive stage, but there is no commentator. The latter view means that, just as the dwelling and progressive stages can generate one preceding stage, the decisive stage can also generate one preceding stage. According to the Vibhasa (eleventh fascicle), it is the same as the latter view of the Nyāyānusāra. According to the Vibhasa (one hundred and sixty-fifth fascicle), it says: the decisive stage and the dwelling stage, some say, only serve as the object-condition and the dominant condition, because the dwelling stage does not immediately follow the decisive stage.

如是說者。亦現在前。是故與彼為三緣除因緣。與順勝進分亦爾。前說同正理后師。能生二分。后正義家能生三分。

問何故婆沙后唯生一。前有超一　解云起勝生難故唯生一。起劣生易有能超一　問諸論不同何者為正　解云婆沙既有評家。生三為正。餘論並是述異師義　或論意別。俱舍以理為正。非以婆沙評家為量　問味定生凈定四分之中生何分耶　解云若味生自凈。婆沙云。有說。味相應等至無間。唯起順退分現在前。有說。亦起順住分。然無評家。若味生下凈。婆沙云。有說。起順住分以易起故。有說。起順勝進分。防護上地故(然無評家)。

如上所言至三洲利無學者。此即第四明修超等至。牒問頌答。

論曰至越一名超者。釋初兩句可知。

謂觀行者至超入第四者。釋第三句。總有六種。前五加行。后一超成。如文可了。

修超等至至修超等至者。釋第四句。正理云。修超等至唯欲三洲。除北俱盧。然通男．女。不時解脫諸阿羅漢要得無諍妙愿智等邊際定者。能超非余。定自在故。無煩惱故　又云勝解作意。不能無間修超等至。勢力劣故。

此諸等至至起下盡余惑者。此即第五明等至依身。牒問頌答。

論曰至可厭毀故者。釋上兩句。諸等至起依自．下身。依

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如是說者，也現在眼前。因此，它與彼（指前一剎那的法）構成三種緣，除了因緣之外。與順勝進分（指增長善法的力量）也是如此。前面所說的（觀點）與正理派後來的論師相同，認為能生起二分（指順退分和順住分）。後來的正義派則認為能生起三分（加上順勝進分）。

問：為什麼《婆沙論》之後只生起一分，而之前卻能超過一分？答：因為生起殊勝的（順勝進分）困難，所以只能生起一分。生起低劣的（順退分和順住分）容易，所以有可能超過一分。問：各種論典的說法不同，哪一種才是正確的？答：《婆沙論》既然有評家，認為生起三分是正確的。其餘論典都是敘述不同論師的觀點。或者論典的意圖不同。《俱舍論》以理為正，不以《婆沙論》的評家為標準。問：味定（指初禪定）生起凈定（指二禪以上的定）的四分（指順退分、順住分、順勝進分、順抉擇分）之中，生起哪一分？答：如果味定生起自凈定（指從初禪定生起二禪定），《婆沙論》說：『有人說，與味定相應的等至（指禪定），在無間（指沒有間隔）的情況下，只生起順退分現在眼前。』有人說：『也生起順住分。』但沒有評家。如果味定生起下凈定（指從初禪定生起初禪定），《婆沙論》說：『有人說，生起順住分，因為容易生起。』有人說：『生起順勝進分，爲了防護上地（指更高的禪定）。』（但沒有評家）。

如上所言，直到三洲（指欲界中的東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）的利無學者（指已經證得阿羅漢果，但還未完全解脫的聖者）。這即是第四部分，說明修超等至（指超越次第的禪定）。先提出問題，然後回答。

論曰：直到越一名超者。解釋最初兩句，可以理解。

謂觀行者，直到超入第四者。解釋第三句。總共有六種（階段）。前五種是加行（指準備階段），后一種是超成（指完成階段）。如文中所述，可以明白。

修超等至，直到修超等至者。解釋第四句。《正理》說：『修超等至只在欲界的三洲（東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲），除了北俱盧洲。』然而，男女都可以修。不是時解脫的諸阿羅漢，要得到無諍（指沒有爭論的智慧）、妙愿智（指能實現美好願望的智慧）等邊際定（指最高層次的禪定）的人，才能修超等至，其他人不能。因為他們對禪定自在，沒有煩惱。又說：『勝解作意（指強烈的意願和專注）不能無間（指沒有間隔）地修超等至，因為力量弱。』

此諸等至，直到起下盡余惑者。這即是第五部分，說明等至（指禪定）所依之身。先提出問題，然後回答。

論曰：直到可厭毀故者。解釋上面兩句。諸等至（指禪定）的生起，依自（指自身）、下身（指比自身低劣的身）。依自身是因為...

【English Translation】 English version: 'As it is said' also appears before one. Therefore, it constitutes three conditions with the previous moment of dharma, excluding the causal condition. It is also the same with the 'progressive aspect' (referring to the power of increasing wholesome qualities). The previously mentioned view is the same as that of the later masters of the Sautrāntika school, who believe that it can generate two aspects (referring to the regressive and static aspects). The later proponents of the orthodox view believe that it can generate three aspects (adding the progressive aspect).

Question: Why does only one aspect arise after the Vibhāṣā, while more than one could arise before? Answer: Because it is difficult to generate the superior (progressive aspect), only one aspect can arise. It is easy to generate the inferior (regressive and static aspects), so it is possible to exceed one. Question: Since the statements of various treatises differ, which one is correct? Answer: Since the Vibhāṣā has commentators, it is correct to say that three aspects arise. The remaining treatises are all narrations of the views of different masters. Or the intentions of the treatises are different. The Abhidharmakośa considers reason to be correct, not the commentators of the Vibhāṣā as the standard. Question: Among the four aspects (regressive, static, progressive, and decisive) of pure meditation that arise from the 'taste concentration' (referring to the first dhyāna), which aspect arises? Answer: If pure meditation arises from the 'taste concentration' (meaning from the first dhyāna arises the second dhyāna), the Vibhāṣā says: 'Some say that in the immediate succession of the samāpatti (referring to meditation) corresponding to the 'taste concentration', only the regressive aspect appears before one.' Some say: 'The static aspect also arises.' But there are no commentators. If lower pure meditation arises from the 'taste concentration' (meaning from the first dhyāna arises the first dhyāna), the Vibhāṣā says: 'Some say that the static aspect arises because it is easy to arise.' Some say: 'The progressive aspect arises in order to protect the higher ground (referring to higher meditations).' (But there are no commentators).

As mentioned above, up to the 'learners without further training' (referring to Arhats who have attained Arhatship but are not yet fully liberated) in the three continents (referring to Jambudvipa, Purvavideha, and Aparagodaniya in the desire realm). This is the fourth part, explaining the 'transcending samāpatti' (referring to meditation that transcends the sequential order). First, a question is raised, and then answered.

The treatise says: 'Up to 'transcending' is called 'transcendence'.' The explanation of the first two sentences is understandable.

'Those who practice contemplation, up to 'transcending and entering the fourth'.' This explains the third sentence. There are a total of six (stages). The first five are preliminary practices (referring to preparatory stages), and the last one is the accomplishment of transcendence (referring to the completion stage). As stated in the text, it can be understood.

'Practicing the transcending samāpatti, up to 'practicing the transcending samāpatti'.' This explains the fourth sentence. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Practicing the transcending samāpatti only occurs in the three continents (Jambudvipa, Purvavideha, and Aparagodaniya) of the desire realm, except for Uttarakuru.' However, both men and women can practice it. Those Arhats who are not liberated in time must attain the 'non-contention' (referring to wisdom without dispute), 'wonderful aspiration knowledge' (referring to wisdom that can fulfill wonderful aspirations), and other 'ultimate samādhis' (referring to the highest level of meditation) in order to practice the transcending samāpatti; others cannot. Because they are free in meditation and have no afflictions. It also says: 'Strong aspiration and attention cannot practice the transcending samāpatti without interruption because their power is weak.'

'These samāpattis, up to 'arising from the lower body and exhausting the remaining defilements'.' This is the fifth part, explaining the body on which the samāpatti (referring to meditation) relies. First, a question is raised, and then answered.

The treatise says: 'Up to 'can be disliked and destroyed'.' This explains the above two sentences. The arising of all samāpattis (referring to meditation) relies on one's own body and the lower body (referring to a body inferior to one's own). It relies on one's own body because...

上地身無容起下。一上地起下無所用故。二上地自有勝定故。三下地勢力劣故。此上三種通凈．無漏等至。四已棄捨故。五可厭毀故。后二唯凈等至。以無漏定非是棄捨可厭毀故。

總相雖然至盡余煩惱者。釋下兩句。此簡差別總相雖然。若委細說。聖生有頂從自凈定。必起無漏無所有處。為儘自地所餘煩惱。自地無聖道欣樂起下故。就起下中唯無所有最鄰近故。起彼現前盡余煩惱。故正理云。離無漏道。必無有能斷彼余惑成阿羅漢。是故有頂。無漏無所有處依九地身。有漏無所有處依八地身。有漏無漏識無邊處依七地身。空無邊處依六地身。乃至初定依二地身謂自及欲。

此諸等至至不緣下有漏者。此即第六明等至緣境。牒問頌答。

論曰至應成善故者。釋初句。味定緣自。不緣下．上．及無漏法。

凈及無漏至非無漏境者。釋第二句。無記無為非無漏境。非諦攝故。余文可知。

根本地攝至必緣下故者。釋下兩句。根本地攝善無色定。不緣下地諸有漏法。已厭離故。定狹劣故。準義應知。隨其所應。緣下無漏．自及上地有漏．無漏一切諸法無不能緣。雖亦能緣下地無漏。緣類智品道。不緣法智品。故正理云。以但能緣自全治故。法非全治如先已說。又法品道于無色界雖能對治。是

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『上地身無容起下』的原因有五點：第一，上地（指色界和無色界）之身沒有理由再回到下地（指欲界和色界）。因為一旦上升到更高的境界，就不會再有理由回到較低的境界。第二，上地自身具有更殊勝的禪定。第三，下地的勢力較為低劣。以上三種情況適用於通凈（指同時具有止和觀的禪定）和無漏等至（指無漏的禪定）。第四，（下地）已經被捨棄。第五，（下地）令人厭惡和可以被毀壞。后兩種情況只適用於凈等至。因為無漏定不是可以被捨棄或令人厭惡和可以被毀壞的。

『總相雖然至盡余煩惱者』，這是解釋下面兩句話。這裡是爲了區分總相上的相同。如果詳細來說，聖者從有頂天（Bhava-agra，三界最高處）入滅盡定，必定會生起無漏的無所有處定（Akincanyayatana，無色界第三禪）。這是爲了斷儘自地所剩餘的煩惱。因為自地沒有聖道，並且欣樂於回到下地。在回到下地的情況中，只有無所有處定是最鄰近的。生起這種定，就能斷盡剩餘的煩惱。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmasamayapradipika）中說，離開無漏道，絕對沒有能力斷除剩餘的迷惑，成就阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）。因此，有頂天的無漏無所有處定依賴於九地之身，有漏無所有處定依賴於八地之身，有漏無漏的識無邊處定（Vijnananantyayatana，無色界第二禪）依賴於七地之身，空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana，無色界第一禪）依賴於六地之身，乃至初禪（Prathama-dhyana，色界第一禪）依賴於二地之身，即自身和欲界。

『此諸等至至不緣下有漏者』，這是第六個方面，說明等至所緣的境界。這是對問頌的回答。

論曰：『至應成善故者』，這是解釋第一句話。味定（指有漏的禪定）所緣的是自身，不緣下地、上地以及無漏法。

『凈及無漏至非無漏境者』，這是解釋第二句話。無記法和無為法不是無漏境，因為它們不屬於四聖諦（Aryasatya，苦、集、滅、道）。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『根本地攝至必緣下故者』，這是解釋下面兩句話。根本地所攝的善無色定，不緣下地的各種有漏法，因為已經厭離了下地，並且禪定狹隘低劣。根據這個道理，應該知道，根據情況，它可以緣下地的無漏法、自身以及上地的有漏法和無漏法，沒有不能緣的。雖然它也能緣下地的無漏法，但它緣的是緣類智品（Anvaya-jnana-ksanti）的道，不緣法智品（Dharma-jnana-ksanti）。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，因為它只能緣自地的全部對治。法智品不是全部對治，如先前已經說過的。而且，法智品道雖然能對治無所有處定。

【English Translation】 English version: There are five reasons why 'the body in the higher realms cannot arise in the lower realms': First, there is no reason for the body in the higher realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) to return to the lower realms (referring to the Desire Realm and Form Realm). Once one has risen to a higher state, there is no reason to return to a lower state. Second, the higher realms possess more superior Samadhi (state of meditative concentration). Third, the power of the lower realms is inferior. The above three situations apply to both Pure (referring to Samadhi that simultaneously possesses both Samatha and Vipassana) and Anāsrava-samāpatti (referring to undefiled Samadhi). Fourth, (the lower realms) have already been abandoned. Fifth, (the lower realms) are repulsive and can be destroyed. The latter two situations only apply to Pure Samadhi. This is because undefiled Samadhi cannot be abandoned, nor is it repulsive or can be destroyed.

'Although the general characteristics...to exhaust the remaining afflictions,' this explains the following two sentences. This is to distinguish the similarities in general characteristics. In detail, when a sage arises from the Peak of Existence (Bhava-agra, the highest point in the Three Realms) from his own pure Samadhi, he will definitely arise in the undefiled state of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (Akincanyayatana, the third Dhyana of the Formless Realm). This is to exhaust the remaining afflictions of his own realm. Because there is no holy path in his own realm, and he delights in returning to the lower realms. Among the situations of returning to the lower realms, only the state of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception is the closest. By arising in this state, he can exhaust the remaining afflictions. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamayapradipika says that without the undefiled path, there is absolutely no ability to cut off the remaining delusions and achieve Arhat (a saint who has exhausted all afflictions). Therefore, the undefiled state of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception in the Peak of Existence relies on the body of the ninth ground, the defiled state of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception relies on the body of the eighth ground, the defiled and undefiled state of Infinite Consciousness (Vijnananantyayatana, the second Dhyana of the Formless Realm) relies on the body of the seventh ground, the state of Infinite Space (Akasanantyayatana, the first Dhyana of the Formless Realm) relies on the body of the sixth ground, and even the First Dhyana (Prathama-dhyana, the first Dhyana of the Form Realm) relies on the body of the second ground, which is oneself and the Desire Realm.

'These Samapattis...do not condition defiled things of the lower realms,' this is the sixth aspect, explaining the objects conditioned by Samapattis. This is the answer to the verse of inquiry.

The treatise says: '...to become wholesome,' this explains the first sentence. Samadhi of taste (referring to defiled Samadhi) conditions itself, not the lower realms, the higher realms, or undefiled Dharmas.

'Pure and undefiled...not undefiled objects,' this explains the second sentence. Indeterminate and unconditioned Dharmas are not undefiled objects, because they do not belong to the Four Noble Truths (Aryasatya, suffering, origination, cessation, and the path). The remaining text can be understood by oneself.

'Included in the fundamental ground...must condition the lower realms,' this explains the following two sentences. The wholesome Formless Samadhi included in the fundamental ground does not condition the various defiled Dharmas of the lower realms, because it has already become disgusted with the lower realms, and the Samadhi is narrow and inferior. According to this principle, it should be known that, depending on the situation, it can condition the undefiled Dharmas of the lower realms, itself, and the defiled and undefiled Dharmas of the higher realms, and there is nothing it cannot condition. Although it can also condition the undefiled Dharmas of the lower realms, it conditions the path of Anvaya-jnana-ksanti (knowledge of inference), not Dharma-jnana-ksanti (knowledge of the law). Therefore, the Abhidharmasamayapradipika says that it can only condition the complete antidote of its own realm. Dharma-jnana-ksanti is not a complete antidote, as has been said before. Moreover, the path of Dharma-jnana-ksanti, although it can counteract the state of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception.

客非主既不能緣下地有漏。亦不能緣下地有漏法上擇滅．非擇滅　問既緣下地類智品道。亦緣彼道非擇滅耶　解云亦緣下地類智品上非擇滅。故婆沙第十解非我行相中雲。四無色地亦有此行相。而不能緣一切法。謂空無邊處非我行相。緣四無色彼因彼滅。一切類智品道。及四無色非擇滅。一切類智品道非擇滅。並一切虛空無為。或欲令是一物。或欲令是多物。此行相盡能緣。如是乃至非想非非想處非我行相。緣非想非非想處彼因彼滅。一切類智品道。及非想非非想處非擇滅。一切類智品道非擇滅。並一切虛空無為。或欲令是一物。或欲令是多物。此行相盡能緣。此當婆沙評家義。以此準知。四無色定亦緣下地類智品上非擇滅也。無色近分亦緣下地。彼無間道必緣下故。

味凈無漏至斷諸煩惱者。此即第七明等至斷惑。此即問也。

頌曰至亦不能斷者。諸無漏定皆能斷惑　本凈尚無能況諸染能斷。以勝況劣。謂本凈定不能斷下地。已離染故。不能斷自地惑。以自地惑所縛故。不能斷上地。以勝己故。若凈近分亦能斷惑。以皆能斷次下地故。又婆沙一百六十二云。問何故有漏道不能斷自地。及上地。無漏道則能斷耶。答以無漏道是不繫法。于有漏法無非是勝。是故能斷。又有漏道作六行相。厭下地欣自地故唯

斷下。無漏道作十六行相。厭背一切地故能遍斷。問有漏道亦作十六行相。何故不能遍斷。答彼雖學作聖道行相。不明瞭故不斷煩惱。如師子子未能害獸(已上論文)　若中間攝凈亦不能斷。如根本說。

近分有幾至初亦聖或三者。此即第八明近分差別。一問近分有幾。二問何受相應。三問于味等三為皆具不。頌答可知。

論曰至為入門故者。釋近分八。可知。

一切唯一至未離下怖故者。釋舍。一切近分唯一舍受相應。此近分定起時。艱辛作功用轉故。未離下染情懷怖故。非喜．樂相應。

此八近分至具有三種者。釋凈及下句。此八近分皆凈定攝。唯初近分亦通無漏。未離欲者依近分定起聖道故。故正理云。上七近分無無漏者。于自地法不厭背故。唯初近分通無漏者。于自地法能厭背故。此地極鄰近多災患界故(已上論文)　皆無有味是離染道故。起艱辛故。不生貪愛。以彼味定非離染道生故。是容預道生故。近分地中雖亦有道非正離染。助離染故。離染類故。非容預故。不生貪愛。雖近分心有結生染。以受生．命終舍受相應故。必起近分。而遮定染故作是說。近分無味。唯在根本。有說未至定亦有味相應。以未起根本亦貪此定故。由此未至具有三種。上七近分由已曾得下根本故。于彼近

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：斷盡煩惱。無漏道具有十六種行相。因為厭惡背離一切世俗之地，所以能夠徹底斷除煩惱。問：有漏道也具有十六種行相，為什麼不能徹底斷除煩惱呢？答：它們雖然學習並實踐聖道的行相，但因為不夠明瞭，所以不能斷除煩惱。就像幼小的獅子還不能傷害野獸一樣（以上是論文內容）。如果中間夾雜著不清凈的因素，也不能斷除煩惱，就像根本論中所說的那樣。

近分定有幾種？與什麼感受相應？對於味覺等三種感受是否都具備？這些是第八部分，闡明近分定的差別。一問：近分定有幾種？二問：與什麼感受相應？三問：對於味覺等三種感受是否都具備？答案在頌文中可以找到。

論曰：到『作為入門』是因為解釋近分定的八種差別，內容可知。

『一切唯一』到『未離開地獄的恐懼』，這是解釋舍受。一切近分定都只與舍受相應。這是因為近分定生起時，需要艱辛地努力和運用功用，並且還沒有脫離地獄的染污，心懷恐懼，所以不與喜受或樂受相應。

『這八種近分定』到『具有三種』，這是解釋清凈以及下句。這八種近分定都屬於清凈定。只有初禪近分定也通於無漏。因為還沒有脫離慾望的人，可以依靠近分定生起聖道。所以正理論中說：『上面的七種近分定沒有無漏的』，因為對於自己所在地的法沒有厭惡背離。只有初禪近分定通於無漏，因為對於自己所在地的法能夠厭惡背離。這個地方極其鄰近充滿災患的欲界（以上是論文內容）。所有近分定都沒有味覺，因為是脫離染污的道路。因為生起艱難，所以不會產生貪愛。因為那些與味覺相應的禪定不是脫離染污的道路，而是容預道產生的。雖然近分定中也有道，但不是真正脫離染污的，只是輔助脫離染污，屬於脫離染污的種類，而不是容預道，所以不會產生貪愛。雖然近分心中有結生染，但因為受生和命終都與舍受相應，所以必定會生起近分定，從而遮蔽禪定的染污，所以才這樣說近分定沒有味覺。只有在根本定中才有與味覺相應的。有人說未至定也與味覺相應，因為在沒有生起根本定時，也會貪戀這種禪定。因此，未至定具有三種感受。上面的七種近分定，因為已經獲得過地獄的根本定，所以對於那些近分定

【English Translation】 English version: Cutting off afflictions completely. The undefiled path possesses sixteen aspects. Because of loathing and turning away from all mundane realms, it can thoroughly sever afflictions. Question: The defiled path also possesses sixteen aspects, why can't it thoroughly sever afflictions? Answer: Although they learn and practice the aspects of the holy path, they cannot sever afflictions because they are not clear enough. It's like a young lion cub that cannot yet harm beasts (the above is from the treatise). If there is impurity mixed in the middle, it also cannot sever afflictions, as stated in the fundamental treatise.

How many kinds of proximity concentration (近分, jìn fēn, proximity concentration)? What feeling does it correspond to? Does it possess all three of taste, etc.? This is the eighth section, clarifying the differences of proximity concentration. First question: How many kinds of proximity concentration are there? Second question: What feeling does it correspond to? Third question: Does it possess all three of taste, etc.? The answers can be found in the verses.

The treatise says: 'To 'as an entry' is because it explains the eight differences of proximity concentration, the content is knowable.

'Everything is unique' to 'not leaving the fear of the lower realm', this explains equanimity (舍, shě, equanimity). All proximity concentrations only correspond to the feeling of equanimity. This is because when proximity concentration arises, it requires arduous effort and the application of function, and it has not yet escaped the defilements of the lower realm, harboring fear, so it does not correspond to joy or pleasure.

'These eight proximity concentrations' to 'possess three kinds', this explains purity and the following sentence. These eight proximity concentrations all belong to pure concentration. Only the first proximity concentration also extends to the undefiled. Because those who have not yet left desire can rely on proximity concentration to generate the holy path. Therefore, the Zhengli Lun says: 'The upper seven proximity concentrations do not have the undefiled', because they do not loathe and turn away from the dharmas of their own realm. Only the first proximity concentration extends to the undefiled, because it can loathe and turn away from the dharmas of its own realm. This place is extremely close to the desire realm, which is full of disasters (the above is from the treatise). All proximity concentrations do not have taste, because it is the path of leaving defilement. Because it is difficult to arise, it does not generate craving. Because those concentrations that correspond to taste are not the path of leaving defilement, but are produced by the rongyu path. Although there is also a path in proximity concentration, it is not truly leaving defilement, but only assists in leaving defilement, belonging to the category of leaving defilement, and not the rongyu path, so it does not generate craving. Although there is jiesheng (結生, jié shēng, rebirth-linking) defilement in the proximity concentration mind, because rebirth and death both correspond to the feeling of equanimity, proximity concentration will definitely arise, thereby obscuring the defilement of concentration, so it is said that proximity concentration has no taste. Only in fundamental concentration does it correspond to taste. Some say that the weizhi (未至, wèi zhì, preliminary) concentration also corresponds to taste, because when fundamental concentration has not yet arisen, one will also crave this concentration. Therefore, the weizhi concentration has three kinds of feelings. The upper seven proximity concentrations, because they have already obtained the fundamental concentration of the lower realm, so for those proximity concentrations

分不生貪愛。故不說有。此即敘異說也。

中間靜慮至為亦有殊者。此下第九明中定不同。此即問也。

義亦有殊至具三唯舍受者。答。義亦有殊。謂諸近分為離下染是入初因。中定不然。非離下染非入初因。是初果故。復有別義。

論曰至無如此故者。釋初句。初定根本及初定近分。尋．伺相應。上七定中。根本．近分皆無尋．伺。唯中間靜慮有伺無尋．故與近分差別不同。由無尋故勝初靜慮。由有伺故未及第二。依此義故立中間名。由此上地無中間靜慮。一地升降無如此故。

此定具有至可愛味故者。釋具三。此中間定具有味等三種相應。以有大梵殊勝功德可愛味故。有味相應。

同諸近分至苦通行攝者。釋舍受。此中間定同諸近分。唯舍相應非喜相應。由自勉勵功用轉故。由此說是苦通行攝。亦無有樂．無三識故。故正理云。無三識身故無樂受　準正理文。中定無三識。

問何故無耶。解云五識定與尋．伺相應。彼無尋故。

此定能招至為大梵故者。別顯中定能招勝果。若多修習為大梵王。不多修習便為梵輔。同一處故。

已說等至云何等持者。此下第四明諸等持。就中。一明尋．伺等三。二明單空等三。三明重空等三。四明修四等持　此下第一明尋．伺等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不分別產生貪愛，所以不說『有』。這只是敘述不同的說法。

『中間靜慮』乃至『也有不同之處』。下面第九部分說明『中間定』的不同。這是提問。

『意義也有不同』乃至『具備三種唯有舍受』。回答：意義也有不同。意思是說，各種『近分定』是爲了離開下方的染污，是進入初禪的原因。『中間定』不是這樣，它不是離開下方的染污，也不是進入初禪的原因，因為它是初禪的果。還有其他的意義。

論曰：乃至『沒有像這樣的緣故』。解釋第一句。初禪的『根本定』和初禪的『近分定』，與『尋』（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和『伺』（Vicara，精細的思考）相應。上面的七種禪定中，『根本定』和『近分定』都沒有『尋』和『伺』。只有『中間靜慮』有『伺』而沒有『尋』，所以與『近分定』有差別不同。因為沒有『尋』，所以勝過初禪。因為有『伺』，所以不及第二禪。依據這個意義，立名為『中間』。因此，上面的地沒有『中間靜慮』，一個禪定升降沒有像這樣的緣故。

『此定具有』乃至『因為可愛味的緣故』。解釋『具備三種』。這個『中間定』具有『味』等三種相應。因為有『大梵』殊勝的功德，因為有可愛味的緣故，所以有『味』相應。

『同各種近分』乃至『苦通行所攝』。解釋『舍受』。這個『中間定』同各種『近分定』，唯有『舍』（Upeksha，不苦不樂的感受）相應，沒有『喜』（Priti，愉悅的感受）相應。因為自己勉勵，功用運轉的緣故。因此，說這是『苦通行』所攝。也沒有『樂』（Sukha，快樂的感受），沒有三種『識』（Vijnana，意識）的緣故。所以《正理》說：『沒有三種識身，所以沒有樂受。』依照《正理》的文，『中間定』沒有三種識。

問：為什麼沒有呢？解釋說：五識定與『尋』和『伺』相應，而『中間定』沒有『尋』。

『此定能招』乃至『成為大梵的緣故』。分別顯示『中間定』能招感殊勝的果報。如果多多修習，就能成為『大梵天王』（Mahabrahma）。如果不多修習，就成為『梵輔』（Brahmapurohita）。因為在同一個地方的緣故。

『已經說了等至』，『什麼是等持』？下面第四部分說明各種『等持』（Samadhi，禪定）。其中，一、說明『尋』、『伺』等三種。二、說明『單空』等三種。三、說明『重空』等三種。四、說明修習四種『等持』。下面第一部分說明『尋』、『伺』等。

【English Translation】 English version: Not differentiating gives rise to craving and attachment. Therefore, it is not said to 'exist'. This is merely narrating different views.

'Intermediate Dhyana' up to 'there are also differences'. The ninth section below explains the differences in 'Intermediate Samadhi'. This is a question.

'The meaning also has differences' up to 'possessing three, only with equanimity'. Answer: The meaning also has differences. It means that various 'proximate concentrations' are to leave the lower defilements and are the cause of entering the first Dhyana. 'Intermediate Samadhi' is not like this; it is not leaving the lower defilements, nor is it the cause of entering the first Dhyana, because it is the result of the first Dhyana. There are also other meanings.

The treatise says: up to 'there is no such reason'. Explaining the first sentence. The 'fundamental samadhi' of the first Dhyana and the 'proximate samadhi' of the first Dhyana are associated with 'Vitarka' (rough thought) and 'Vicara' (subtle thought). In the upper seven Dhyanas, both the 'fundamental samadhi' and the 'proximate samadhi' have no 'Vitarka' and 'Vicara'. Only 'Intermediate Dhyana' has 'Vicara' but no 'Vitarka', so it is different from 'proximate samadhi'. Because there is no 'Vitarka', it surpasses the first Dhyana. Because there is 'Vicara', it does not reach the second Dhyana. According to this meaning, it is named 'Intermediate'. Therefore, the upper realms have no 'Intermediate Dhyana', and there is no such reason for the rise and fall of a samadhi.

'This samadhi possesses' up to 'because of the lovable taste'. Explaining 'possessing three'. This 'Intermediate Samadhi' possesses three corresponding aspects, such as 'taste'. Because it has the excellent merits of 'Mahabrahma' (Great Brahma), and because it has a lovable taste, it has the corresponding 'taste'.

'Same as various proximate concentrations' up to 'included in the path of suffering'. Explaining 'equanimity'. This 'Intermediate Samadhi' is the same as various 'proximate concentrations', only corresponding to 'Upeksha' (equanimity), not corresponding to 'Priti' (joy). Because of self-exertion and the functioning of effort. Therefore, it is said to be included in the 'path of suffering'. Also, there is no 'Sukha' (pleasure), and there are no three 'Vijnana' (consciousness). Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha says: 'Because there is no body of three consciousnesses, there is no pleasurable feeling.' According to the text of the Abhidharmakosha, 'Intermediate Samadhi' has no three consciousnesses.

Question: Why not? Explanation: The five consciousness samadhi corresponds to 'Vitarka' and 'Vicara', but 'Intermediate Samadhi' has no 'Vitarka'.

'This samadhi can attract' up to 'becoming Mahabrahma'. Separately showing that 'Intermediate Samadhi' can attract excellent results. If one cultivates it a lot, one can become 'Mahabrahma' (Great Brahma King). If one does not cultivate it a lot, one becomes 'Brahmapurohita' (Brahma's minister). Because they are in the same place.

'Having spoken of Samapatti (attainment), what is Samadhi (concentration)?' The fourth section below explains various 'Samadhi'. Among them, first, explain the three types of 'Vitarka', 'Vicara', etc. Second, explain the three types of 'single emptiness', etc. Third, explain the three types of 'double emptiness', etc. Fourth, explain the cultivation of the four types of 'Samadhi'. The first section below explains 'Vitarka', 'Vicara', etc.

三。就頌前中。一總。二別。此即總結前問起。

經說等持至其相云何者。此即別依經問起。

頌曰至非非想攝者。答文可知。平等持心至境故名等持。

契經復說至無漏三脫門者。此即第二明單空等三。依經起問。及與頌答。

論曰至相應等持者。釋初句。此空對治有身見故。故婆沙一百四云。對治故者。謂空三摩地是有身見近對治故。問空三摩地有空．非我二行相。有身見有我．我所二行相。此中以何等行相。對治何等行相耶。答以非我行相對治我行相。以空行相對治我所行相(廣如彼釋)　無相三摩地至三有為相者。釋第二句。住濫無為故不說住。余文可知。

無愿三摩地至相相似故者釋第三．第四句。無愿三摩地。謂緣余苦．集．道諦十種行相相應等持。十行即是非常．及苦。因．集．生．緣。道．如．行．出。非常及苦此是苦諦。苦中四行二是二非。是故別標。因顯集諦。即是因．集．生．緣。或舉初顯后。苦．集二諦皆是有漏可厭患故。道雖無漏。加行位中並作是念。道如船筏必應舍故。能緣彼定得無愿名。皆為超過現前所對。苦．集．道境可厭舍故。空．非我相非是所厭。非是所舍。以與涅槃相似故。故此二行相不得無愿名。由前期心不願此故立無愿名。故婆沙云。期

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本三。關於頌文之前的內容。一為總說，二為別說。這裡是對前面問題的總結和引出。

經文中說『等持』（Samadhi，禪定）直到『其相云何者』，這是特別依據經文提出的問題。

頌文說『至非非想攝者』，答案在文中可以找到。以平等之心保持于境界，因此名為『等持』。

契經中又說『至無漏三脫門者』，這是第二部分，闡明單空等三種三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）。依據經文提出問題，以及頌文的回答。

論中說『至相應等持者』，解釋第一句。此空三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）對治有身見（Satkayadrishti，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實存在的我）的緣故。所以《婆沙論》第一百零四卷說，『對治故者』，是指空三摩地是有身見的直接對治。問：空三摩地有空、非我兩種行相（相狀）。有身見有我、我所兩種行相。這其中以何種行相，對治何種行相呢？答：以非我行相對治我行相，以空行相對治我所行相（詳細內容見該論的解釋）。無相三摩地（Animitta-samadhi，無相禪定）至『三有為相者』，解釋第二句。因為安住于類似無為的境界，所以不說『住』。其餘文句可以理解。

無愿三摩地（Apranihita-samadhi，無愿禪定）至『相相似故者』，解釋第三、第四句。無愿三摩地，是指緣于餘下的苦諦（Dukkha-satya，苦的真理）、集諦（Samudaya-satya，苦的根源的真理）、道諦（Marga-satya，通往解脫的道路的真理）的十種行相相應的等持。十種行相即是非常、以及苦，因、集、生、緣，道、如、行、出。非常和苦，這是苦諦。苦中四種行相，二是二非，因此特別標出。因，顯示集諦，即是因、集、生、緣，或者舉出開始的來顯示後面的。苦、集二諦都是有漏的，可以厭惡的緣故。道雖然是無漏的，但在加行位中也這樣認為，道如船筏，必定應該捨棄的緣故。能夠緣于這些，此禪定得到無愿的名稱。都是爲了超過現前所對治的，苦、集、道境是可以厭惡捨棄的緣故。空、非我相不是所厭惡的，不是所捨棄的，因為與涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）相似的緣故。因此這兩種行相不得無愿的名稱。由於前期心中不願這些，因此立無愿名。所以《婆沙論》說，期

【English Translation】 English version III. Regarding the content preceding the verses. First, a general statement; second, a specific statement. This summarizes the previous questions and introduces the following.

The sutra says 'Samadhi (等持) until 'what is its characteristic (其相云何者)?' This is a question specifically based on the sutra.

The verse says 'to the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (至非非想攝者),' the answer can be found in the text. Maintaining the mind equally on the object, hence it is called 'Samadhi (等持)'.

The sutra also says 'to the three unconditioned doors of liberation (無漏三脫門者),' this is the second part, clarifying the three Samadhis (三摩地) of emptiness, etc. Questions are raised based on the sutra, and answers are given in the verses.

The treatise says 'to corresponding Samadhi (相應等持者),' explaining the first sentence. This emptiness Samadhi (禪定) counteracts the view of a real self (有身見, Satkayadrishti) in the aggregates. Therefore, the Vibhasha (婆沙論), volume 104, says, 'The reason for counteracting is that emptiness Samadhi is the direct antidote to the view of a real self.' Question: Emptiness Samadhi has two aspects: emptiness and non-self. The view of a real self has two aspects: self and what belongs to self. Which aspect counteracts which aspect? Answer: The aspect of non-self counteracts the aspect of self, and the aspect of emptiness counteracts the aspect of what belongs to self (see the detailed explanation in that treatise). 'Signlessness Samadhi (無相三摩地) to the characteristics of the three conditioned realms (三有為相者),' explains the second sentence. Because it abides in something similar to the unconditioned, it is not said to 'abide.' The remaining sentences can be understood.

'Wishlessness Samadhi (無愿三摩地) to 'because of similar characteristics (相相似故者),' explains the third and fourth sentences. Wishlessness Samadhi refers to the Samadhi that corresponds to the ten aspects of the remaining truths of suffering (苦諦, Dukkha-satya), origin (集諦, Samudaya-satya), and path (道諦, Marga-satya). The ten aspects are impermanence and suffering, cause, accumulation, arising, condition, path, suchness, practice, and deliverance. Impermanence and suffering are the truth of suffering. Among the four aspects of suffering, two are and two are not, therefore they are specifically marked. Cause reveals the truth of origin, which is cause, accumulation, arising, and condition, or it reveals the latter by mentioning the beginning. The truths of suffering and origin are both conditioned and can be loathed. Although the path is unconditioned, it is also thought of in this way during the stage of application, that the path is like a raft and must be discarded. Being able to focus on these, this Samadhi obtains the name of wishlessness. All are for surpassing what is currently being counteracted, the realms of suffering, origin, and path are loathsome and can be discarded. The aspects of emptiness and non-self are not loathed and are not discarded because they are similar to Nirvana (涅槃). Therefore, these two aspects do not obtain the name of wishlessness. Because the mind in the preliminary stage does not wish for these, the name of wishlessness is established. Therefore, the Vibhasha says, 'expectation'

心故者。謂無愿三摩地諸修行者。期心不願三有法故　問彼于聖道亦不願耶。答雖于聖道非全不願。而彼期心不願三有。聖道依有故亦不願。問若爾何故修聖道耶。答為趣涅槃故修聖道。謂修行者作是思惟。究竟涅槃由何趣證。思已定知必由聖道。故雖不願而要修之。如越暴流要憑船筏(廣如彼說)。

此三各二種至為入門故者。釋后兩句。正理論云。世間攝者通十一地。出世攝者唯通九地。上七定邊無勝德故。于中無漏者名三解脫門。能與涅槃為入門故。非諸有漏法是真解脫門。性住世間違解脫故。三三摩地緣境別者。若有漏空緣一切法。若無漏空唯緣苦諦。無愿能緣苦．集．道諦。無相唯緣滅諦為境。

契經復說至離上七近分者。此即第三明重空等三。依經起問。及與頌答　重謂二也。

論曰至空空等名者。釋名。

空空等持至勝非我故者。明空空等持。又顯宗三十九云。空空等持緣前無學空三摩地取彼空相。空相順厭勝非我故。謂彼先起無學等持。於五取蘊思惟空相。從此後起殊勝善根相應等持。緣前無學空三摩地思惟空相。于空取空故名空空。如燒死屍以杖迴轉。尸既盡已杖亦應燒。如是由空燒煩惱已。復起空定厭舍前空。重空等持空行相後起。即復還與空行相相應。唯此最能順厭

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『心故』指的是無愿三摩地（Apranihita-samādhi）的修行者。他們期望內心不希求三有（Traidhātu）之法。

問：他們對於聖道（Ārya-mārga）也不希求嗎？

答：雖然對於聖道並非完全不希求，但他們期望內心不希求三有，而聖道依存於有，所以也不希求。

問：如果這樣，為什麼還要修習聖道呢？

答：爲了趨向涅槃（Nirvāṇa）才修習聖道。也就是說，修行者這樣思惟：究竟的涅槃要通過什麼才能證得呢？思惟后確定必須通過聖道。所以雖然不希求三有，但還是要修習聖道。就像要渡過暴漲的河流，必須要依靠船筏（詳細內容如彼處所說）。

『此三各二種至為入門故』，解釋後面兩句。《正理論》中說：世間所攝包含十一地（Ekādaśa-bhūmi），出世間所攝只包含九地（Nava-bhūmi）。因為上面的七定（Sapta-samāpatti）沒有殊勝的功德。其中無漏（Anāsrava）的法被稱為三解脫門（Tri-vimokṣa-dvāra），能夠作為進入涅槃的門徑。不是所有的有漏（Sāsrava）法都是真正的解脫門，因為它們的性質是停留在世間，與解脫相違背。三三摩地（Tri-samādhi）所緣的境界不同：有漏的空（Śūnyatā）緣於一切法，無漏的空只緣于苦諦（Duḥkha-satya）；無愿（Apranihita）能緣于苦、集（Samudaya）、道諦（Mārga-satya）；無相（Animitta）只緣于滅諦（Nirodha-satya）作為境界。

『契經復說至離上七近分者』，這指的是第三個，闡明重空等三摩地。依據契經提出問題，並用頌文回答。重，指的是二。

『論曰至空空等名者』，解釋名稱。

『空空等持至勝非我故』，闡明空空等持。又《顯宗》第三十九中說：空空等持緣於之前的無學空三摩地，取其空相。空相順應厭離，勝過非我（Anātman）的觀念。也就是說，他先發起無學的等持，對於五取蘊（Pañca-upādāna-skandha）思惟空相。從此之後，發起殊勝的善根相應的等持，緣於之前的無學空三摩地，思惟空相。在空的基礎上取空，所以叫做空空。就像燒完屍體後用木杖撥弄，屍體既然已經燒盡，木杖也應該燒掉。像這樣，通過空燒掉煩惱后，又發起空定，厭棄捨棄之前的空。重空等持在空行相之後生起，隨即又與空行相相應。只有這樣才能最順應厭離。

【English Translation】 English version:

『Mind-cause』 refers to practitioners of Apranihita-samādhi (the desireless concentration). They aspire in their minds not to desire the laws of the Traidhātu (the Three Realms of Existence).

Question: Do they also not desire the Ārya-mārga (Noble Path)?

Answer: Although they do not completely renounce the desire for the Ārya-mārga, they aspire in their minds not to desire the Three Realms of Existence, and since the Noble Path relies on existence, they also do not desire it.

Question: If that is the case, why do they practice the Noble Path?

Answer: They practice the Noble Path in order to approach Nirvāṇa (Liberation). That is to say, practitioners think in this way: By what means can ultimate Nirvāṇa be attained? After thinking, they determine that it must be through the Noble Path. Therefore, although they do not desire the Three Realms of Existence, they must still practice the Noble Path. It is like needing to rely on a boat or raft to cross a raging river (as explained in detail elsewhere).

『These three each have two types, hence they are the entrance』 explains the latter two phrases. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: What is included in the mundane encompasses the eleven grounds (Ekādaśa-bhūmi), while what is included in the supramundane encompasses only the nine grounds (Nava-bhūmi), because the seven concentrations (Sapta-samāpatti) above do not have superior merits. Among them, the Anāsrava (untainted) dharmas are called the Tri-vimokṣa-dvāra (Three Doors of Liberation), as they can serve as the entrance to Nirvāṇa. Not all Sāsrava (tainted) dharmas are true Doors of Liberation, because their nature is to remain in the world, which contradicts liberation. The Tri-samādhi (Three Concentrations) differ in the objects they focus on: the Śūnyatā (emptiness) with taint focuses on all dharmas, while the Śūnyatā without taint focuses only on the Duḥkha-satya (Truth of Suffering); Apranihita (desirelessness) can focus on the Duḥkha (suffering), Samudaya (accumulation), and Mārga-satya (Truth of the Path); Animitta (signlessness) only focuses on the Nirodha-satya (Truth of Cessation) as its object.

『The scripture further says, up to being apart from the near-access of the upper seven』 refers to the third, clarifying the three concentrations of double emptiness, etc. Questions are raised based on the scripture, and answered with verses. Double refers to two.

『The treatise says, up to the name of emptiness of emptiness, etc.』 explains the names.

『The concentration of emptiness of emptiness, etc., is superior because it is non-self』 clarifies the concentration of emptiness of emptiness. Furthermore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya 39 says: The concentration of emptiness of emptiness focuses on the previous Anāsrava (untainted) concentration of emptiness, taking its aspect of emptiness. The aspect of emptiness accords with aversion and surpasses the concept of Anātman (non-self). That is to say, one first generates the Anāsrava (untainted) concentration, contemplating the aspect of emptiness regarding the Pañca-upādāna-skandha (Five Aggregates of Clinging). After this, one generates a superior concentration corresponding to wholesome roots, focusing on the previous Anāsrava (untainted) concentration of emptiness, contemplating its aspect of emptiness. Taking emptiness on the basis of emptiness is therefore called emptiness of emptiness. It is like stirring a burnt corpse with a wooden stick; since the corpse has already been burned to ashes, the stick should also be burned. In this way, after burning away afflictions through emptiness, one again generates the concentration of emptiness, disliking and abandoning the previous emptiness. The concentration of double emptiness arises after the aspect of emptiness, and then corresponds again with the aspect of emptiness. Only this is most in accordance with aversion.

舍故。非我行相則不如是。見非我者。于諸有為法起厭背心。不如見空故。諸有已見諸法非我。而於諸有猶生樂著。以于諸行中不審見空故。由此空定雖二行相俱。而但名空不說為非我。空于厭舍極隨順故　又婆沙一百五云。如人在道獨行遇逢一伴。雖知非屬於己而不太愁。后若別時便極愁惱。故空行相於厭生死勝於非我。由是此定不作非我行相。

無愿無愿至為厭舍故者。明無愿無愿等持。無愿無愿。緣前無學無愿等持取非常相。不取苦因．集．生．緣非無漏相故。聖道非苦不取苦相。聖道不能招三有故。不取因．集．生．緣四相。不取道．如．行．出。為厭舍故。以彼道等是欣觀故。若緣道等應欣聖道。不應厭背故十相中但取非常　又顯宗云。無愿無愿。緣前無學無愿等持取非常相。謂彼先起無學等持。於五取蘊中思惟非常相。從此後起殊勝善根相應等持。緣前無學無愿三摩地思惟非常相。于無願不願名無愿無愿。舉喻顯示如前應知。重無愿等持。非常行相後起。即復還與非常行相相應唯此可能緣厭道故。非苦行相能緣聖道。聖道非苦趣苦滅故。苦法不能趣苦寂滅。亦非因等四能緣聖道。以聖道不能令苦續故。非道等四者此厭舍道故。非欣行相能為厭舍　豈不如無願不願聖道。而作道等四。此亦應然　此例

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：捨棄的緣故。如果不是『非我』（anatta，無我）的行相，就不會是這樣。見到『非我』的人，對於各種有為法會生起厭惡背離之心。不如見到『空』（sunyata，空性）的緣故。有些人已經見到諸法『非我』，但對於諸有仍然生起樂著，因為在諸行中沒有審察地見到『空』的緣故。因此，雖然『空』定（sunyata-samadhi，空三昧）與『非我』兩種行相都有，但只稱為『空』，不說是『非我』。『空』對於厭離捨棄極其隨順的緣故。又，《婆沙論》第一百零五卷說，如同人在道路上獨自行走，遇到一個同伴，雖然知道不屬於自己，但不太憂愁。後來如果分別時，就會極其愁惱。所以，『空』的行相在厭離生死方面勝過『非我』。因此，這個禪定不作『非我』的行相。

『無愿無愿』（apranihita-apranihita，無愿）達到厭離捨棄的緣故：說明『無愿無愿』等持（apranihita-apranihita-samadhi，無愿三昧）。『無愿無愿』，緣于先前的無學『無愿』等持，取『非常』（anitya，無常）相。不取『苦』（duhkha，苦）因、『集』（samudaya，集）、『生』（jati，生）、『緣』（pratyaya，緣），因為不是無漏相的緣故。聖道（arya-marga，聖道）不是苦，所以不取『苦』相。聖道不能招感三有（tri-bhava，三有），所以不取因、集、生、緣四相。不取道（marga，道）、如（tathata，如）、行（gati，行）、出（nirvana，出），爲了厭離捨棄的緣故。因為那些道等是欣樂的觀察的緣故。如果緣于道等，應該欣樂聖道，不應該厭惡背離，所以十相中只取『非常』。又，《顯宗論》說，『無愿無愿』，緣于先前的無學『無愿』等持，取『非常』相。就是說，他先前生起無學等持，在五取蘊（panca-upadanakkhandha，五取蘊）中思惟『非常』相。從此之後生起殊勝的善根相應的等持，緣于先前的無學『無愿』三摩地（apranihita-samadhi，無愿三摩地），思惟『非常』相。在『無願不願』中名為『無愿無愿』。舉例顯示如同前面應該知道的。重複『無愿』等持，『非常』行相後起，就又還與『非常』行相相應，只有這樣才可能緣于厭離道。『苦』的行相不能緣于聖道，聖道不是苦，是趣向苦滅的緣故。苦法不能趣向苦的寂滅。也不是因等四能緣于聖道，因為聖道不能令苦延續的緣故。不是道等四，因為這厭離捨棄道的緣故。不是欣樂的行相能作為厭離捨棄。難道不如『無願不願』聖道，而作道等四？這也應該是這樣。這個例子

【English Translation】 English version: Because of abandonment. If it were not the characteristic of 'anatta' (non-self), it would not be like this. Seeing 'anatta', one arises with a mind of aversion and turning away from all conditioned dharmas. It is not as good as seeing 'sunyata' (emptiness). Some people have already seen that all dharmas are 'anatta', but they still give rise to attachment to all existences, because they have not thoroughly seen 'emptiness' in all activities. Therefore, although 'sunyata-samadhi' (emptiness concentration) has both characteristics of 'emptiness' and 'non-self', it is only called 'emptiness' and not 'non-self'. 'Emptiness' is extremely conducive to aversion and abandonment. Furthermore, the one hundred and fifth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says, 'It is like a person walking alone on a road, encountering a companion. Although he knows that the companion does not belong to him, he is not too worried. Later, if they separate, he will be extremely distressed.' Therefore, the characteristic of 'emptiness' is superior to 'non-self' in terms of aversion to birth and death. Therefore, this samadhi does not take 'non-self' as its characteristic.

'Apranihita-apranihita' (non-wishing) reaches the point of aversion and abandonment: Explaining 'apranihita-apranihita-samadhi' (non-wishing concentration). 'Apranihita-apranihita' takes the 'anitya' (impermanence) aspect, based on the previous non-learning 'apranihita' concentration. It does not take the 'duhkha' (suffering) cause, 'samudaya' (accumulation), 'jati' (birth), 'pratyaya' (condition), because it is not a non-leaking aspect. The 'arya-marga' (noble path) is not suffering, so it does not take the 'suffering' aspect. The noble path cannot attract the three existences (tri-bhava), so it does not take the four aspects of cause, accumulation, birth, and condition. It does not take the path (marga), suchness (tathata), going (gati), and exit (nirvana), for the sake of aversion and abandonment. Because those paths, etc., are aspects of joyful observation. If one focuses on the path, etc., one should rejoice in the noble path and should not be averse to it, so only 'impermanence' is taken from the ten aspects. Furthermore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says, 'Apranihita-apranihita' takes the 'impermanence' aspect, based on the previous non-learning 'apranihita' concentration. That is to say, he previously arose with non-learning concentration, contemplating the 'impermanence' aspect in the five aggregates of grasping (panca-upadanakkhandha). From this, he later arises with a superior concentration corresponding to good roots, contemplating the 'impermanence' aspect based on the previous non-learning 'apranihita-samadhi'. In 'non-wishing non-wishing', it is called 'non-wishing non-wishing'. The example is shown as it should be known before. Repeating 'non-wishing' concentration, the 'impermanence' aspect arises later, and then it corresponds to the 'impermanence' aspect again. Only this is possible to focus on the path of aversion. The 'suffering' aspect cannot focus on the noble path, the noble path is not suffering, it is going towards the cessation of suffering. The suffering dharma cannot go towards the quiescence of suffering. Nor can the four of cause, etc., focus on the noble path, because the noble path cannot cause suffering to continue. It is not the four of path, etc., because this is the path of aversion and abandonment. It is not the aspect of joy that can be used for aversion and abandonment. Is it not like the 'non-wishing non-wishing' noble path, which makes the four of path, etc.? This should also be the case. This example

不然。無愿正厭有。兼于聖道起不願心故。謂前無愿正厭于有。聖道依有故兼不願。雖望意樂說不願道。而於聖道非正憎厭。故亦能作道等四種。無愿無愿正憎厭道。故以非常觀道過失。道等行相無容厭道。是故於此不作彼四。

無相無相至非離系果故者。明無相無相三摩地。無相無相即緣無學無相三摩地。非擇滅為境。所以不即緣前無學無相三摩地者。言無相者。無十種相。彼三摩地。雖無色等五相．及男．女二相。是有為故有三有為相。是故不緣。以無漏法無擇滅故。唯觀非擇滅不緣擇滅。于非擇滅但取靜相。非滅．妙．離恐濫非常滅故不作滅行相。故婆沙一百五云。問何故此定不作滅行相耶。答滅有二種。一非擇滅。二無常滅。若作滅行相則不知緣何滅　問若爾亦應非靜行相。謂靜亦有二種。一非擇滅。二擇滅。若作靜行相。則亦不知緣何靜。答有處說二滅。無處說二靜。故不應例。複次滅義濫多。靜義濫少。謂滅有三。靜唯二故。若復不作靜行相者。此更作何行相(已上婆沙)　問緣擇滅時。亦應不作彼滅行相。濫無常滅故　解云擇滅諦收聖心現證。雖作滅行。而無有濫。不同非擇滅是無記性故。不作妙行相。非離系果故。不作離行相。又顯宗云。無相無相。即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境。以無漏法

無擇滅故。但取靜相非滅．妙．離。謂彼先起無學等持。于擇滅中思惟靜相。從此後起殊勝善根相應等持。即緣無學無相三摩地非擇滅為境。思惟靜相。于無相滅復觀為無相。名無相無相。舉喻亦如前應知。重無相等持。靜行相後起。即復還與靜行相相應。唯此能觀非擇滅故非妙行相。境無記故非離行相。以雖證得彼非擇滅。猶縛隨故。非滅行相。以非擇非永解脫一切苦故。又若觀滅濫非常故。所言靜者。唯顯止息故非擇滅得有靜相。以修聖道經久劬勞。于彼息中便生樂相。故重無相取靜非余。

此三等持至無漏不然者。釋有漏此三摩地唯是有漏．厭聖道故。無漏不然。若緣聖道是欣非厭。又顯宗云。重三等持唯是有漏。以于聖道生厭舍故。非無漏定厭舍聖道。亦緣聖道。取空。非常理可名為厭舍聖道。無相無相。但緣無為作靜行相。何名厭道　此欣無學無相等持不轉之因故名厭道。謂彼定起而作是言。無相等持不生為善。此既欣贊聖道不生。如何不名厭舍聖道　前無相定非此所緣。如何此名無相無相。或應許此定不緣非擇滅。但緣無學無相不生　此亦不然。準前釋故。謂緣無相之非擇滅。此非擇滅亦離諸相。緣無相無相故得無相無相名。緣無相境作靜行相。是故此定從境立名。

唯三洲人至重三摩地者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為沒有非擇滅的緣故，只能取靜止之相，而非滅、妙、離之相。這是說，先發起無學（Asekha，不再需要學習的聖者）的等持（Samadhi，禪定），在非擇滅中思維靜止之相。從此之後，發起與殊勝善根相應的等持，即以無學的無相三摩地（Animitta-samadhi，無相禪定）和非擇滅為境界，思維靜止之相。對於無相之滅，又觀其為無相，名為無相無相。舉例來說，也應如前所述。重複無相等持，在靜止的行相之後生起，又再次與靜止的行相相應。只有這個才能觀察非擇滅，所以不是妙行相。因為境界是無記（Avyakrta，非善非惡）的，所以不是離行相。因為即使證得了那個非擇滅，仍然被煩惱所束縛，所以不是滅行相。因為非擇滅並非永遠解脫一切痛苦。而且，如果觀察滅，就會氾濫到非常（Anitya，無常）的境界。所說的靜止，只是爲了顯示止息，所以非擇滅才會有靜止之相。因為修習聖道經歷了長久的勤勞，所以在那個止息中便生起快樂之相。所以重複無相，取靜止之相，而非其他。這三種等持達到無漏（Anasrava，無煩惱）的境界就不是這樣了。解釋有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱）的這三種三摩地，只有有漏，因為厭惡聖道。無漏就不是這樣。如果緣于聖道，就是欣喜而非厭惡。又顯宗（Abhidharma，阿毗達摩）說，重複的三種等持只有有漏，因為對於聖道生起厭惡和捨棄。非無漏定（Anasrava-samadhi，無漏禪定）會厭惡和捨棄聖道，也會緣于聖道，取空（Sunyata，空性）。從道理上來說，不能稱之為厭惡和捨棄聖道。無相無相，只是緣于無為（Asamskrta，不生不滅的），作為靜止的行相，怎麼能說是厭惡聖道呢？這是欣喜無學的無相等持不生起的原因，所以名為厭道。這是說，那個禪定生起，並且這樣說，無相等持不生起是好的。這既然是欣贊聖道不生起，怎麼能不稱為厭惡和捨棄聖道呢？之前的無相禪定不是這個所緣的，怎麼能說這個是無相無相呢？或者應該允許這個禪定不緣于非擇滅，只是緣于無學的無相不生起。這也是不對的。按照之前的解釋。這是緣于無相的非擇滅。這個非擇滅也遠離諸相。緣于無相無相，所以得到無相無相的名字。緣于無相的境界，作為靜止的行相。所以這個禪定是從境界來立名的。只有三洲（Tri-dvipa，三個大洲）的人才能修習重複的三摩地。

【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment), one can only take the aspect of quiescence, not the aspects of cessation, excellence, or detachment. This means that one first arises from the Asekha (one beyond learning) Samadhi (concentration), contemplating the aspect of quiescence in Nirodha-samapatti. After this, one arises from a Samadhi corresponding to superior wholesome roots, which takes the Asekha Animitta-samadhi (signless concentration) and Nirodha-samapatti as its object, contemplating the aspect of quiescence. Regarding the cessation of signlessness, one further contemplates it as signless, which is called Animitta-animitta (signlessness of signlessness). The analogy should be understood as before. Repeating the Animitta-samadhi, after the aspect of quiescence arises, it corresponds again to the aspect of quiescence. Only this can observe Nirodha-samapatti, so it is not the aspect of excellence. Because the object is Avyakrta (unspecified), it is not the aspect of detachment. Because even if one attains that Nirodha-samapatti, one is still bound by afflictions, it is not the aspect of cessation. Because Nirodha-samapatti is not the permanent liberation from all suffering. Moreover, if one observes cessation, it will overflow into the realm of Anitya (impermanence). What is called quiescence only reveals cessation, so Nirodha-samapatti can have the aspect of quiescence. Because one has practiced the holy path with prolonged effort, a sense of joy arises in that cessation. Therefore, repeating signlessness, one takes the aspect of quiescence, not others. These three Samadhis are not like this when they reach the Anasrava (untainted) state. Explaining the Sasrava (tainted) nature of these three Samadhis, they are only tainted because they are averse to the holy path. It is not like this for the untainted. If one focuses on the holy path, it is joy, not aversion. Furthermore, the Abhidharma (higher knowledge) says that the repeated three Samadhis are only tainted because they generate aversion and abandonment towards the holy path. Untainted Samadhi does not generate aversion and abandonment towards the holy path, and it also focuses on the holy path, taking Sunyata (emptiness). It is not reasonable to call this aversion and abandonment towards the holy path. Animitta-animitta only focuses on the Asamskrta (unconditioned), taking it as the aspect of quiescence. How can it be called aversion to the path? This is the reason for rejoicing in the non-arising of the Asekha Animitta-samadhi, so it is called aversion to the path. This means that that Samadhi arises and says, 'It is good that Animitta-samadhi does not arise.' Since this rejoices in the non-arising of the holy path, how can it not be called aversion and abandonment towards the holy path? The previous Animitta-samadhi is not the object of this, so how can this be called Animitta-animitta? Or one should allow that this Samadhi does not focus on Nirodha-samapatti, but only focuses on the non-arising of the Asekha Animitta-samadhi. This is also incorrect, according to the previous explanation. This focuses on the Nirodha-samapatti of signlessness. This Nirodha-samapatti is also free from all signs. Focusing on Animitta-animitta, one obtains the name Animitta-animitta. Focusing on the object of signlessness, taking it as the aspect of quiescence. Therefore, this Samadhi is named after its object. Only people from the Tri-dvipa (three continents) can practice the repeated three Samadhis.

。釋人不時。顯宗云。唯三洲人能起此定。通依男．女。以依女身亦能自在延促壽故。唯無學位。以有學者但欣聖道未能厭故。此亦非一切。唯不時解脫。以時解脫愛聖道故　又婆沙一百五云。答聖者能起非異生。無學能起非有學。不時解脫起非時解脫。所以者何。若於定得自在及無煩惱身。方能起此三摩地故。一切異生及信勝解二事俱無。見至雖于定得自在。而身中猶有煩惱。時解脫雖身中無煩惱。而於定不得自在。故皆不能起此定。唯有不時解脫具二事故。能起此定(已上論文)　依十一地至中間者。釋后句。顯宗云。依十一地除上七邊。以上七邊無勝德故。若在欲界。從未至攝聖道後起。若在有頂。無所有攝聖道後生。余皆自地聖道後起。就總類說。此從法．類．苦．滅四智無間而生。若就別說。欲界攝者非類後生。上界攝者非法後起。前二非滅後起。第三非苦後生。余行相後起此定故。應得此者。皆盡智時由離染得。後由加行方起現前。唯我世尊。不由加行。順趣解脫起此現前。于道尚厭。豈欣諸有。此後亦起聖道現前。然厭道故非無間起。欲界攝者是思所成。余修所成依定起故(已上論文)。

契經復說至脩金剛喻定者。此即第四明修四等持。依經問起及與頌答。

論曰至乃至廣說者。此即引

經。顯宗釋云。此經所說。若習．若修。若多所作義差別者。為欲顯示習修．得修．所治更遠如其次第。

善言通攝至便不住故者。釋初兩句。住現前法樂名住現法樂。經但說初。舉初顯后。理實通余上三靜慮。余文可知。

若依諸定至殊勝知見者。釋第三．第四句。若依諸定。修天眼通便能獲得殊勝知見。知見即是清凈眼識相應勝慧故法蘊足論第八解四修中雲。清凈眼識相應勝慧說名為智。亦名為見。謂天眼識相應勝慧。領受觀察彼彼諸色。是名此中殊勝智見。彼於此定。若習。若修。若多所作。能令證得殊勝智見。

若修三界至得分別慧者。釋第五．第六句　此亦可知。

若脩金剛至依自說故者。釋后兩句。若脩金剛喻定便得諸漏永盡。理實修此金剛喻定通依諸地。而經但說第四靜慮得漏盡者。毗婆沙師傳說。世尊依自說故。以佛世尊但依第四得漏盡故於六通中但說二者。天眼通能觀生死。漏盡通能得涅槃經偏說。

俱舍論記卷第二十八

保延元年七月十九日于田原里大道寺點了

覺樹

一挍了大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第二十九

沙門釋光述

分別定品第八之二

如是已說至所起功德者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：經文。《顯宗》解釋說，這部經所說的『若習、若修、若多所作』（若習：指最初的練習；若修：指持續的修習；若多所作：指精進的實踐）的意義差別，是爲了顯示練習、得修、所治（所應斷除的煩惱）的程度，依次是越來越遠。

『善言通攝至便不住故』，解釋最初的兩句。『住現前法樂』（安住于當下的法樂）名為『住現法樂』。經文只說了最初的，舉出最初的來顯示後面的。實際上，這個道理也適用於上面的三個靜慮（禪定）。其餘的文字可以自己理解。

『若依諸定至殊勝知見』，解釋第三、第四句。如果依靠各種禪定，修習天眼通（能夠看到超自然事物的能力），便能獲得殊勝的知見。知見就是清凈的眼識相應的殊勝智慧。所以《法蘊足論》第八卷解釋四種修習時說，清凈的眼識相應的殊勝智慧，被稱為智，也稱為見。也就是天眼識相應的殊勝智慧，領受和觀察各種各樣的色法。這就是這裡所說的殊勝智見。對於這種禪定，如果練習、修習、精進實踐，能使人證得殊勝的智見。

『若修三界至得分別慧者』，解釋第五、第六句，這個也可以自己理解。

『若脩金剛至依自說故』，解釋最後兩句。如果修習金剛喻定（一種堅不可摧的禪定），便能使各種煩惱永遠斷盡。實際上，修習這種金剛喻定可以依據各個地（禪定層次）。而經文只說在第四靜慮（第四禪定）中才能斷盡煩惱，這是因為毗婆沙師（論師）傳說，世尊（佛陀）是依據自己所證說的。因為佛世尊只是依靠第四禪定才斷盡煩惱，所以在六通（六種神通）中只說了兩種：天眼通能觀察生死，漏盡通（斷盡煩惱的神通）能證得涅槃（解脫）。經文偏重於這兩種神通。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十八

保延元年七月十九日于田原里大道寺點了

覺樹

一挍了《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

《俱舍論記》卷第二十九

沙門釋光述

分別定品第八之二

如是已說至所起功德者。

【English Translation】 English version: Sutra. The Xianzong explains that the differences in meaning of 'if practiced, if cultivated, if much performed' (若習、若修、若多所作 - ruo xi, ruo xiu, ruo duo suo zuo: 'if practiced' refers to initial practice; 'if cultivated' refers to continuous cultivation; 'if much performed' refers to diligent practice) as mentioned in this sutra, are to show that the degree of practice, attainment of cultivation, and what is to be subdued (the afflictions to be eliminated) are increasingly distant in that order.

'Good words encompass until not abiding,' explains the first two sentences. 'Abiding in the bliss of the present Dharma' (住現前法樂 - zhu xian qian fa le) is called 'abiding in the bliss of the present Dharma' (住現法樂 - zhu xian fa le). The sutra only mentions the first, using the first to reveal the latter. In reality, this principle also applies to the other three dhyanas (meditative states) above. The remaining text can be understood on one's own.

'If relying on various samadhis to superior knowledge and vision,' explains the third and fourth sentences. If relying on various samadhis, cultivating the divyacakṣus (天眼通 - tian yan tong, the ability to see supernatural things), one can obtain superior knowledge and vision. Knowledge and vision are the superior wisdom corresponding to pure eye consciousness. Therefore, the eighth volume of the Dharmaskandha explains the four cultivations, saying that the superior wisdom corresponding to pure eye consciousness is called wisdom and also called vision. That is, the superior wisdom corresponding to divyacakṣus perceives and observes various forms. This is what is called superior knowledge and vision here. For this samadhi, if practiced, cultivated, and diligently performed, it can enable one to attain superior knowledge and vision.

'If cultivating the three realms to obtaining discriminating wisdom,' explains the fifth and sixth sentences. This can also be understood on one's own.

'If cultivating the Vajra to relying on self-explanation,' explains the last two sentences. If cultivating the Vajra-like samadhi (金剛喻定 - jin gang yu ding, an indestructible samadhi), one can permanently eliminate all defilements. In reality, cultivating this Vajra-like samadhi can be based on various bhumis (levels of samadhi). However, the sutra only says that defilements can be eliminated in the fourth dhyana (fourth meditative state) because the Vaibhashikas (論師 - lun shi, commentators) say that the Bhagavan (世尊 - Shi Zun, the Buddha) explained it based on his own realization. Because the Bhagavan only eliminated defilements by relying on the fourth dhyana, only two of the six abhijñās (六通 - liu tong, six superknowledges) are mentioned: divyacakṣus can observe birth and death, and āsravakṣaya-jñāna (漏盡通 - lou jin tong, the superknowledge of the extinction of defilements) can attain nirvana (涅槃 - nie pan, liberation). The sutra emphasizes these two superknowledges.

Kusha-loka-abhidharma-tika Volume 28

Pointed out at Daidoji Temple in Tawarari on July 19th, Baen 1st year

Kakuju

One proofread Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1821, Kusha-loka-abhidharma-tika

Kusha-loka-abhidharma-tika Volume 29

Commented by Shramana Shakya Guang

Chapter 8, Part 2 on Distinguishing Samadhi

Thus, what has been said up to the merits arising from it.

此下大文第二明能依功德。就中。一明四無量。二明八解脫。三明八勝處。四明十遍處。五明得依身。六明起定緣此下即第一明四無量。就頌前中。一總結生下。二別起頌文　此即總結生下。

諸功德中先辨無量者。此即別起頌文。

頌曰至人起定成三者。就此頌中。初句標名舉數。次一句顯唯有四。次兩句出體。次三句明行相。次一句明所緣。次兩句明所依。次一句明不斷惑。后一句明處及成。

論曰至感無量果故者。釋初句。標名舉數。及與列名釋名　言無量者無量有情為所緣故。從境為名　引無量福故。從等流果為名　感無量果故。從異熟果為名。

此何緣故唯有四種者。釋第二句。此即問也。

對治四種多行障故者。答。由治四障故唯四種。

何謂四障者。問。

謂諸瞋害至建立慈等者。答。不欣慰以嫉為體。正理云。如契經說。慈能斷瞋。悲能斷害。喜斷不欣慰。舍斷欲．貪．瞋。

不凈與舍至斯有何別者。問。

毗婆沙說至舍能對治者。答。毗婆沙說。欲貪有二。一色。色謂顯．形。二淫。淫謂淫慾。若不凈觀能治色貪。由觀不凈色貪不起。若舍無量能治淫貪由觀平等淫貪不起　論主解云。理實不凈觀能治淫貪。由觀不凈淫貪不起余親友貪舍能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此下是解釋大乘佛法中第二部分，關於依止功德的內容。其中分為六個方面：一、四無量心；二、八解脫；三、八勝處；四、十遍處；五、獲得依止身；六、生起禪定的因緣。以下即是第一部分，解釋四無量心。就頌文而言，前面部分分為兩部分：一、總結產生的原因；二、分別開始頌文。這裡是總結產生的原因。『諸功德中先辨無量者』，這是分別開始頌文。『頌曰至人起定成三者』。就這首頌文而言，第一句標明名稱和數量；第二句說明只有四種；第三、四句說明四無量心的體性；第五、六、七句說明四無量心的行相；第八句說明四無量心的所緣；第九、十句說明四無量心的所依；第十一句說明不斷除惑；最後一句說明四無量心的處所和成就。『論曰至感無量果故者』，這是解釋第一句，標明名稱和數量，以及列出名稱並解釋名稱。『言無量者無量有情為所緣故』，這是從所緣的境界來命名。『引無量福故』，這是從等流果來命名。『感無量果故』，這是從異熟果來命名。『此何緣故唯有四種者』，這是解釋第二句，這是一個提問。『對治四種多行障故者』，回答是：因為能對治四種障礙，所以只有四種。『何謂四障者』，提問。『謂諸瞋害至建立慈等者』，回答是：不欣慰以嫉妒為體。《正理》中說：『如契經所說，慈能斷除瞋恚，悲能斷除損害，喜能斷除不欣慰，舍能斷除欲貪和瞋恚。』『不凈與舍至斯有何別者』，提問。『毗婆沙說至舍能對治者』，回答是：《毗婆沙論》中說：『欲貪有兩種，一種是色，指的是顯現和形貌；另一種是淫，指的是淫慾。如果修不凈觀能對治色貪，因為觀察不凈，色貪就不會生起。如果修舍無量心能對治淫貪，因為觀察平等，淫貪就不會生起。』論主解釋說：『實際上，不凈觀能對治淫貪，因為觀察不凈，淫貪就不會生起，其餘對於親友的貪愛，舍無量心能夠對治。』

【English Translation】 English version: Hereafter is the second part of explaining the Mahayana Dharma, concerning the merits of reliance. It is divided into six aspects: 1. Four Immeasurables (catvāri apramāṇāni); 2. Eight Liberations (aṣṭa vimokṣa); 3. Eight Overcomings (aṣṭāv abhibhāyatanāni); 4. Ten Kasinas (daśa kṛtsnāyatanāni); 5. Obtaining a Body of Reliance; 6. Conditions for arising Samadhi. The following is the first part, explaining the Four Immeasurables. Regarding the verses, the preceding part is divided into two parts: 1. Summarizing the cause of arising; 2. Separately starting the verses. This is summarizing the cause of arising. 'Among all merits, first discern the Immeasurables,' this is separately starting the verses. 'The verse says, 'The perfect person arises from Samadhi, accomplishing three.' Regarding this verse, the first line indicates the name and number; the second line explains that there are only four types; the third and fourth lines explain the nature of the Four Immeasurables; the fifth, sixth, and seventh lines explain the characteristics of the Four Immeasurables; the eighth line explains the object of the Four Immeasurables; the ninth and tenth lines explain the basis of the Four Immeasurables; the eleventh line explains not cutting off delusion; the last line explains the place and accomplishment of the Four Immeasurables. 'The treatise says, 'Because it senses immeasurable results,' this is explaining the first line, indicating the name and number, as well as listing the names and explaining the names. 'The term 'immeasurable' means that immeasurable sentient beings are the object,' this is naming from the object of focus. 'Because it draws immeasurable blessings,' this is naming from the equable result. 'Because it senses immeasurable results,' this is naming from the vipāka result. 'For what reason are there only four types?' This is explaining the second line, which is a question. 'Because it counteracts the four types of frequent obstacles,' the answer is: Because it can counteract the four obstacles, there are only four types. 'What are the four obstacles?' Question. 'Namely, all anger and harm, to establish loving-kindness, etc.,' the answer is: Discontentment takes jealousy as its essence. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'As the sutra says, loving-kindness can cut off anger, compassion can cut off harm, joy can cut off discontentment, equanimity can cut off desire, greed, and anger.' 'What is the difference between impurity and equanimity?' Question. 'The Vibhasa says, 'Equanimity can counteract,' the answer is: The Vibhasa says: 'There are two types of desire-greed, one is form, referring to appearance and shape; the other is lust, referring to sexual desire. If one cultivates the contemplation of impurity, it can counteract form-greed, because by observing impurity, form-greed will not arise. If one cultivates immeasurable equanimity, it can counteract lust-greed, because by observing equality, lust-greed will not arise.' The treatise master explains: 'In reality, the contemplation of impurity can counteract lust-greed, because by observing impurity, lust-greed will not arise; for the remaining attachment to relatives and friends, immeasurable equanimity can counteract it.'

對治。由觀平等怨親。貪不起。

四中初．二至悲是不害者。釋第三句。四中慈．悲體是無瞋。正理云。性雖無別。然慈能治殺有情瞋。歡行相轉。悲能對治惱有情瞋。戚行相轉。是謂差別　問若悲無瞋為體能治瞋者。何故前說悲能治害。

解云以實而言悲正除瞋。害是瞋家等流果故。悲亦治害　或悲治害。述論主義。論主解云。理實應言悲是不害　問雖順長行悲能治害。如何頌說悲是無瞋　解云不害似無瞋以無瞋名說。故正理云。有作是言。悲是不害近治害故。理實如是。但害似瞋以瞋名說。悲之行相亦似無瞋。立無瞋名實是不害(已上論文)　又解頌文是前師義。

喜即喜受。釋第四句中喜喜。此論喜無量以喜受為體　又婆沙一百四十一云。喜謂慶慰作意相應喜根為性。有餘師說。以善心所中欣為自性(然無評家)　若依正理七十九。出喜體性三說不同。一以喜受為體二以欣為體。三以無貪為體。然彼論意。破初說存后兩家。故彼論云。諸古師說喜即喜受。何緣觀行者爾時喜受生。若緣與樂與慈無異。若緣拔苦應與悲同。又契經言欣故生喜。喜即喜受。如先已說。此喜行相與彼欣同。喜故生喜義有何異。若言下．上義有異者。輕安與樂義亦應然。差別因緣不可得故。又違本論云何名喜。謂喜喜

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：對治（pratipaksa）。通過觀察對怨親的平等心，貪慾就不會生起。

四無量心中，首先，慈和悲是不害（avihimsa）的體現。解釋第三句。四無量心中，慈和悲的體性是無瞋（adosa）。《正理經》（Nyayasutra）中說：『雖然在本質上沒有區別，但慈能對治對有情眾生的殺害之瞋，以歡喜的行相轉變；悲能對治惱害有情眾生的瞋，以戚容的行相轉變。』這就是它們的差別。問：如果悲以無瞋為體性，能夠對治瞋，為什麼前面說悲能對治害？

解答：實際上，悲能直接去除瞋。害是瞋的等流果，所以悲也能對治害。或者說，悲能對治害，這是《述論》（述記）的觀點。《論主》解釋說：『理應說悲是不害。』問：雖然順應長行，悲能對治害，但為什麼頌中說悲是無瞋？

解答：不害類似於無瞋，所以用無瞋來命名。因此，《正理經》中說：『有人這樣說，悲是不害，因為它能近似地對治害。』實際上就是這樣。只是害類似於瞋，所以用瞋來命名。悲的行相也類似於無瞋，所以立名為無瞋，實際上是不害（以上是論文的內容）。另一種解釋是，頌文是前代老師的觀點。

喜（mudita）就是喜受（sukha）。解釋第四句中的喜。此論認為喜無量心以喜受為體性。此外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百四十一卷中說：『喜是指與慶慰作意相應的喜根為體性。』有其他老師說：『以善心所中的欣為自性。』（然而沒有評判者）。如果依據《正理經》第七十九卷，關於喜的體性有三種不同的說法：一是喜受為體，二是欣為體，三是無貪為體。然而該論的意圖是，破斥第一種說法，保留後兩種說法。因此，該論說：『各位古師說喜就是喜受。為什麼觀行者在那個時候生起喜受？如果緣于給予快樂，那麼就與慈沒有區別；如果緣于拔除痛苦，那麼就與悲相同。』此外，契經中說『因為欣而生喜』，喜就是喜受，正如先前已經說過的。這種喜的行相與欣相同。『因為喜而生喜』，意義上有什麼不同？如果說上下有區別，那麼輕安和樂也應該如此。因為無法找到差別的因緣。此外，這違背了本論，什麼是喜？就是喜喜。

【English Translation】 English version: Antidote (pratipaksa). By observing equanimity towards enemies and loved ones, greed does not arise.

Among the four immeasurables, first, loving-kindness (metta) and compassion (karuna) are the embodiment of non-harming (avihimsa). Explaining the third line. Among the four immeasurables, the nature of loving-kindness and compassion is non-anger (adosa). The Nyayasutra states: 'Although there is no difference in essence, loving-kindness can counteract the anger of harming sentient beings, transforming with an appearance of joy; compassion can counteract the anger of afflicting sentient beings, transforming with an appearance of sorrow.' This is their difference. Question: If compassion has non-anger as its nature and can counteract anger, why was it previously said that compassion can counteract harm?

Answer: In reality, compassion directly removes anger. Harm is the resultant effect of anger, so compassion can also counteract harm. Alternatively, compassion can counteract harm, which is the view of the Commentary (述記). The commentator explains: 'It should be said that compassion is non-harming.' Question: Although in accordance with the prose, compassion can counteract harm, why does the verse say that compassion is non-anger?

Answer: Non-harming is similar to non-anger, so it is named non-anger. Therefore, the Nyayasutra states: 'Some say that compassion is non-harming because it can closely counteract harm.' This is indeed the case. It's just that harm is similar to anger, so it is named anger. The appearance of compassion is also similar to non-anger, so it is named non-anger, but in reality, it is non-harming (the above is the content of the treatise). Another explanation is that the verse is the view of previous teachers.

Joy (mudita) is joyful feeling (sukha). Explaining the joy in the fourth line. This treatise considers the immeasurable joy to have joyful feeling as its nature. Furthermore, the Vibhasa, volume 141, states: 'Joy refers to the root of joy corresponding to the mental activity of rejoicing and comforting as its nature.' Other teachers say: 'It takes delight (欣) in wholesome mental factors as its nature.' (However, there are no critics). If based on the Nyayamanusara, volume 79, there are three different explanations regarding the nature of joy: one is that joyful feeling is its nature, two is that delight is its nature, and three is that non-greed is its nature. However, the intention of that treatise is to refute the first explanation and retain the latter two. Therefore, that treatise says: 'The ancient teachers say that joy is joyful feeling. Why does the practitioner generate joyful feeling at that time? If it is due to giving happiness, then there is no difference from loving-kindness; if it is due to removing suffering, then it is the same as compassion.' Furthermore, the sutras say 'Because of delight, joy arises,' joy is joyful feeling, as has been said before. This appearance of joy is the same as delight. 'Because of joy, joy arises,' what is the difference in meaning? If it is said that there is a difference between above and below, then lightness and bliss should also be the same. Because the cause of the difference cannot be found. Furthermore, this contradicts the original treatise, what is joy? It is joyful joy.

相應受．想．行．識等。此中意顯喜俱品法喜增上故。總立喜名。非受受俱其理決定。若喜即喜受。何言與受俱。若言對法以理為量應知無過誦本論文。此亦不然。理為量論。要有經證方可定文。若與經違理必可壞。不應隨意輒改論文。是故此喜定非喜受　以欣為體　或即無貪。謂別有貪是噁心所。于有情類作是思惟。云何當令諸所有樂。彼不能得皆屬於我。喜能治彼故是無貪。此與喜根必俱行故。三地可得。如悔憂俱。喜亦無貪。分明相者。於他盛事心不貪著。於他獲得深生欣慰。心熱對治說名為喜。故知此喜亦無貪性(以上論文)　問諸論不同。何者為正　解云正理既有立破。即以彼為正　又解俱舍為正。無異說故。又當婆沙初師說故。說喜為欣乃當婆沙余師義故。與樂拔苦俱是無瞋。喜是喜受。體性各別。如何此中舉以為難又喜與欣名義俱別。寧言喜行與彼欣同。說喜喜受。名．義．行相皆順契經。本論非經。無勞會釋。若必須釋。自有明文故婆沙八十一通品類足云。彼文應說。謂喜及喜相應想．行．識。不應言受。而言受者是誦者謬。複次彼論。總說五蘊為喜無量自性。雖喜受與受不相應。而余心．心所法。與受相應故作是說。亦不違理(已上論文)　若言前解改論文故我已破者。此乃自破毗婆沙義。雖欲意

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：相應的受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，知覺）、行（saṃskāra，意志）、識（vijñāna，意識）等。這裡的意思是顯示與喜（prīti，喜悅）相應的品類法，因為喜增長的緣故，總稱為喜。並非感受一定與感受相應，這個道理是確定的。如果喜就是喜受（sukha vedanā，快樂的感受），為什麼說它與受相應？如果說對於法，應該以理為衡量標準，那麼應該知道誦讀原本的論文沒有過錯。但這樣說也不對。以理為衡量標準來論述，一定要有經文的證明才能確定。如果與經文相違背，那麼理一定是可以被破壞的，不應該隨意更改論文。因此，這個喜一定不是喜受，而是以欣（abhinandana，歡欣）為體性，或者就是無貪（alobha，不貪婪）。因為另外有貪是噁心所（akuśala-caitasika，不善的心所），對於有情眾生作這樣的思惟：『怎麼樣才能讓所有快樂都屬於我，讓他們不能得到？』喜能夠對治貪，所以是無貪。這個喜與喜根（prīti-indriya，喜根）必定一起執行，因此在三地（trayo bhūmayaḥ，三界）可以得到。如同悔（kaukṛtya，後悔）和憂（daurmanasya，憂愁）一樣，喜也是無貪。分明相（sphuṭārtha，清晰的意義）是，對於他人的興盛之事，心中不貪著；對於他人獲得，深深地感到欣慰。用熱烈的心來對治貪，所以說名為喜。因此，要知道這個喜也是無貪的（以上論文）。問：各種論典說法不同，哪一種是正確的？答：正理（nyāya，正理）既有立論又有破斥，就以正理為正確。又答：以俱舍（Abhidharmakośa，阿毗達磨俱舍論）為正確，因為沒有不同的說法。又因為是《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）最初的老師所說。說喜為欣，乃是《大毗婆沙論》其他老師的意義，與樂（sukha，快樂）拔苦（duḥkha，痛苦）都是無瞋（adveṣa，不嗔恨）。喜是喜受，體性和樂受各自不同，為什麼在這裡舉出來作為難題？而且喜與欣，名義都不同，怎麼能說喜行與欣相同？說喜是喜受，名、義、行相都順應契經（sūtra，佛經）。本論不是佛經，不需要解釋。如果必須解釋，自有明文，所以《大毗婆沙論》第八十一通品類足（dhātu-prakaraṇa-pāda，界品）說：『那裡的文句應該說，喜以及與喜相應的想、行、識，不應該說受，而說受是誦讀者的謬誤。』再次，那部論典，總說五蘊（pañca-skandha，五蘊）為喜無量（prīti-apramāṇa，喜無量心）的自性。雖然喜受與受不相應，而其餘的心、心所法，與受相應，所以這樣說，也不違背道理（以上論文）。如果說前面的解釋更改了論文，所以我已經破斥了，那麼這乃是自己破壞了《毗婆沙論》的意義。雖然想要……

【English Translation】 English version: Correspondingly, feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā), volition (saṃskāra), consciousness (vijñāna), etc. The meaning here is to show the categories of dharmas associated with joy (prīti), and because of the increase of joy, it is generally called joy. It is not necessarily the case that feeling is always associated with feeling; this principle is certain. If joy is the same as pleasant feeling (sukha vedanā), why is it said to be associated with feeling? If it is said that for the Dharma, one should use reason as the standard of measurement, then it should be known that there is no fault in reciting the original treatise. But this is also not correct. To argue with reason as the standard, there must be scriptural proof to confirm it. If it contradicts the scriptures, then reason can certainly be broken; one should not arbitrarily change the treatise. Therefore, this joy is definitely not pleasant feeling, but its nature is delight (abhinandana), or it is non-greed (alobha). Because there is greed as an unwholesome mental factor (akuśala-caitasika), thinking about sentient beings in this way: 'How can I make all happiness belong to me, so that they cannot obtain it?' Joy can counteract greed, so it is non-greed. This joy must always operate together with the root of joy (prīti-indriya), so it can be obtained in the three realms (trayo bhūmayaḥ). Like regret (kaukṛtya) and sorrow (daurmanasya), joy is also non-greed. The clear meaning (sphuṭārtha) is that one does not covet the prosperity of others; one feels deep joy for the gains of others. Using a fervent heart to counteract greed is called joy. Therefore, know that this joy is also non-greedy (above is the treatise). Question: Since the various treatises have different explanations, which one is correct? Answer: Since right reason (nyāya) has both establishment and refutation, right reason is correct. Another answer: The Abhidharmakośa is correct because there are no different explanations. Also, because it was said by the first teacher of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Saying that joy is delight is the meaning of other teachers of the Mahāvibhāṣā; both pleasure (sukha) and the removal of suffering (duḥkha) are non-hatred (adveṣa). Joy is pleasant feeling, and their natures are different, so why is it brought up here as a difficult question? Moreover, joy and delight have different names and meanings, so how can it be said that the practice of joy is the same as delight? Saying that joy is pleasant feeling, its name, meaning, and characteristics all accord with the sūtras. This treatise is not a sūtra, so there is no need to explain it. If it must be explained, there is clear text, so the eighty-first category section of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'The sentence there should say joy and the perception, volition, and consciousness corresponding to joy; it should not say feeling, and saying feeling is the mistake of the reciter.' Furthermore, that treatise generally says that the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) are the nature of immeasurable joy (prīti-apramāṇa). Although pleasant feeling does not correspond to feeling, the remaining mental factors correspond to feeling, so it is said in this way, and it does not contradict reason (above is the treatise). If it is said that the previous explanation changed the treatise, so I have refuted it, then this is destroying the meaning of the Vibhāṣā itself. Although wanting to...

違俱舍。何故返害自師婆沙。后釋不改論文足通品類。何故隱而將不通釋。又言無貪為喜無量。此亦非理。一即無文可證。二即名義全殊曲解順情將為未可。如悔憂俱。二唯欲界。無貪．喜俱三地可得。此無貪性應不通上。喜唯三地本由喜根。非喜為性。言無貪者有何意趣。良恐臆度無真理教。

舍即無貪至五蘊為體者。釋舍無貪。上來克性出體。若並眷屬五蘊為體。

若舍無貪性如何能治瞋者。問。若舍無量無貪為性。但應治貪。如何前說亦能治瞋。

此所治瞋貪所引故者。答。此舍無量所治瞋恚。貪所引故。貪是其本。瞋是其末。若貪不起瞋亦不生。故舍無貪性亦能兼治瞋。謂于親友起三品貪。次緣怨家恐害親友起三品瞋。此瞋由貪引起。此舍無量最初修時。于處中起不貪．瞋故。欲令怨．親與處中等。是故最初于處中起。應知。初舍怨三品。瞋末易舍故。次舍親三品。貪本難捨故。由如是理。舍雖無貪亦能治瞋　問若舍亦能治瞋。如何頌本言舍無貪　解云正能治貪。故前頌文無貪為體。兼能治瞋。故后長行亦言治瞋。又正理云。若舍無量亦能治瞋。寧唯無貪。與慈何異。且舍與慈有差別者。慈能對治瞋所引瞋。無瞋為體。舍能對治貪所引瞋。無貪為體。豈不如舍無貪為性。亦能對治貪所引瞋

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本《違俱舍》（Abhidharmakośa，論藏）。為何反而詆譭自己的老師《婆沙》（Vibhasa，即《大毗婆沙論》）？後來的解釋沒有修改論文，足以貫通品類。為何隱瞞而不作貫通解釋？又說『無貪』是『喜無量』（mudita apramana，喜無量心）。這也是沒有道理的。一是沒有經文可以證明，二是名稱和意義完全不同，曲解順應自己的想法，恐怕是不可以的。例如『悔』和『憂』，都只存在於欲界。『無貪』和『喜』在三界都可以得到。這個『無貪』的性質應該不能通於上界。『喜』只在三界，本來由『喜根』產生，不是以『喜』為性質。說『無貪』有什麼意義呢？恐怕是臆測，沒有真正的道理和教義。

『舍』即『無貪』，以五蘊為體。解釋『舍』就是『無貪』。上面已經確定了性質，現在說明它的體。如果包括眷屬，那麼以五蘊為體。

如果『舍』的性質是『無貪』，如何能調伏嗔恚？問：如果『舍無量』以『無貪』為性質，那麼只應該調伏貪慾。為什麼前面說也能調伏嗔恚？

此所調伏的嗔恚是由貪慾引起的。答：這個『舍無量』所調伏的嗔恚，是由貪慾引起的。貪慾是根本，嗔恚是末端。如果貪慾不生起，嗔恚也不會產生。所以『舍』的『無貪』性質也能兼帶調伏嗔恚。例如對於親友生起上中下三品貪慾，然後因為擔心怨家傷害親友而生起上中下三品嗔恚。這個嗔恚是由貪慾引起的。這個『舍無量』最初修習的時候，對於不親不疏的人產生不貪不嗔的心，想要讓怨家、親友和不親不疏的人平等。所以最初對於不親不疏的人修習。應該知道，最初捨棄對怨家的三品嗔恚，因為嗔恚容易捨棄。然後捨棄對親友的三品貪慾，因為貪慾根本上難以捨棄。因為這樣的道理，『舍』雖然是『無貪』，也能調伏嗔恚。問：如果『舍』也能調伏嗔恚，為什麼頌文說『舍』是『無貪』？解釋說：主要是調伏貪慾。所以前面的頌文說以『無貪』為體。兼帶能調伏嗔恚。所以後面的長行也說調伏嗔恚。又《正理》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，《俱舍論》的註釋）說：如果『舍無量』也能調伏嗔恚，難道只有『無貪』嗎？和『慈』有什麼不同？而且『舍』和『慈』有差別。『慈』能對治嗔恚所引起的嗔恚，以『無嗔』為體。『舍』能對治貪慾所引起的嗔恚，以『無貪』為體。難道不像『舍』以『無貪』為性質，也能對治貪慾所引起的嗔恚嗎？

【English Translation】 English version 《Abhidharmakośa》（Abhidharmakośa, Treasury of Higher Knowledge). Why do you turn around and harm your own teacher's 《Vibhasa》（Vibhasa, Commentary, specifically the Mahavibhasa)? Later explanations did not change the original text, and were sufficient to connect the categories. Why conceal it and not provide a comprehensive explanation? Furthermore, it is said that 'non-greed' is 'joyous immeasurable' (mudita apramana, immeasurable joy). This is also unreasonable. Firstly, there is no scriptural evidence to support it. Secondly, the names and meanings are completely different, distorting the meaning to suit one's own desires, which is probably unacceptable. For example, 'regret' and 'sorrow' both only exist in the desire realm. 'Non-greed' and 'joy' can both be attained in the three realms. The nature of this 'non-greed' should not extend to the higher realms. 'Joy' only exists in the three realms, originally arising from the 'root of joy', not having 'joy' as its nature. What is the meaning of saying 'non-greed'? I fear it is speculation, lacking true reason and teaching.

'Equanimity' is 'non-greed', with the five aggregates as its substance. Explaining that 'equanimity' is 'non-greed'. The above has determined the nature, now explaining its substance. If including its retinue, then it has the five aggregates as its substance.

If the nature of 'equanimity' is 'non-greed', how can it subdue anger? Question: If 'immeasurable equanimity' has 'non-greed' as its nature, then it should only subdue greed. Why was it said earlier that it can also subdue anger?

The anger that is subdued is caused by greed. Answer: The anger that is subdued by this 'immeasurable equanimity' is caused by greed. Greed is the root, and anger is the end. If greed does not arise, anger will not arise either. Therefore, the 'non-greed' nature of 'equanimity' can also incidentally subdue anger. For example, towards relatives and friends, one generates greed of the superior, middling, and inferior grades, and then, fearing that enemies will harm relatives and friends, one generates anger of the superior, middling, and inferior grades. This anger is caused by greed. When this 'immeasurable equanimity' is initially cultivated, one generates a mind of non-greed and non-anger towards neutral individuals, wanting to make enemies, relatives and friends, and neutral individuals equal. Therefore, one initially cultivates towards neutral individuals. It should be known that one initially abandons the three grades of anger towards enemies, because anger is easy to abandon. Then one abandons the three grades of greed towards relatives and friends, because greed is fundamentally difficult to abandon. Because of this reason, although 'equanimity' is 'non-greed', it can also subdue anger. Question: If 'equanimity' can also subdue anger, why does the verse say that 'equanimity' is 'non-greed'? The explanation is: it mainly subdues greed. Therefore, the previous verse said that it has 'non-greed' as its substance. It can also incidentally subdue anger. Therefore, the subsequent prose also says that it subdues anger. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa) says: If 'immeasurable equanimity' can also subdue anger, is it only 'non-greed'? What is the difference between it and 'loving-kindness'? Moreover, 'equanimity' and 'loving-kindness' are different. 'Loving-kindness' can counteract the anger caused by anger, having 'non-anger' as its substance. 'Equanimity' can counteract the anger caused by greed, having 'non-greed' as its substance. Is it not like 'equanimity' having 'non-greed' as its nature, and also being able to counteract the anger caused by greed?

。如是許慈無瞋為性亦應能治瞋所引貪。此難不然。行相違故。謂舍行相雙違貪．瞋。舍親．非親差別相故。從此愛．恚俱不生故。即由此故。舍唯無貪正能治貪。兼治瞋故。慈之行相違瞋非貪。于諸有情與樂轉故。由此慈舍雖俱違瞋。而慈順貪。舍能違害。是故此二極有差別。或修舍者治非處瞋。慈治處瞋。故有差別。

理實應用二法為體者。論主意解。此舍無量能治貪．瞋。理實應用無貪．無瞋二法為體　問若舍無量二法為體。如何頌文不言無瞋　解云理實此舍二法為體。頌言無貪。且從強說。或頌無貪是前師義。

此四無量至入舍等至者。釋第五．第六．第七句。明四行相。慈謂與樂。悲謂拔苦。喜謂喜慰。舍謂平等。

此四無量至寧非顛倒者。問。

愿欲令彼至治瞋等故者。答。雖實未得。愿欲令彼得樂等故。非是顛倒　阿世耶。此云意樂。雖實未得。由善意樂無顛倒故。雖實未得。與勝解想相應起故。非執真實故非顛倒　設是顛倒復有何失抑外道出過。若言顛倒應非善者。理則不然。此與善根相應起故。若言顛倒應引惡者。理亦不然。由此力能治瞋等故。

此緣欲界至以顯器中者。釋第八句。此緣欲界一切有情。不緣上界。能治緣彼瞋等障故。故正理云。皆緣欲界有情為境

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果像這樣，認為舍（Upeksha，平等心）的本質是無瞋（Adosa，不嗔恨），那麼它也應該能夠對治由瞋恨引起的貪愛。這種說法是不成立的，因為它們的行相（行狀、作用）是相違背的。舍的行相同時違背貪和瞋，因為它捨棄了對親人和非親人的差別對待。由於這樣，愛和恚（怨恨）都不會產生。正因為如此，舍僅僅是無貪，才能真正對治貪愛，同時兼帶對治瞋恨。而慈（Metta，慈愛）的行相是違背瞋恨而不是貪愛，因為它致力於給予一切有情快樂。因此，慈和舍雖然都違背瞋恨，但慈順應貪愛，而舍能夠違害貪愛。所以，這二者之間存在極大的差別。或者，修習舍的人對治的是不應有的瞋恨，而慈對治的是應有的瞋恨，因此存在差別。

論主認為，實際上應該用兩種法作為舍的體性。這種舍無量能夠對治貪和瞋。實際上應該用無貪和無瞋這兩種法作為它的體性。問：如果舍無量以兩種法為體性，為什麼頌文中沒有提到無瞋？解釋說：實際上，這種舍以兩種法為體性，頌文中只說了無貪，這是從主要方面來說的。或者，頌文中說無貪是前代論師的觀點。

解釋第五、第六、第七句，說明四種行相。慈是指給予快樂，悲（Karuna，悲憫）是指拔除痛苦，喜（Mudita，隨喜）是指喜悅安慰，舍是指平等對待。

這是提問：這四種無量心難道不是顛倒嗎？

回答：雖然實際上還沒有得到（樂等），但希望讓眾生得到快樂等等，所以不是顛倒。阿世耶（Asaya），這裡的意思是意樂。雖然實際上還沒有得到，但由於意樂是善的，所以沒有顛倒。雖然實際上還沒有得到，但由於與勝解想相應而生起，不是執著于真實，所以不是顛倒。假設是顛倒，又有什麼過失呢？這是爲了駁斥外道的過失。如果說顛倒就應該不是善的，那麼這種說法是不成立的，因為它與善根相應而生起。如果說顛倒就應該會引發惡，那麼這種說法也是不成立的，因為它能夠對治瞋恨等等。

解釋第八句。這種慈心緣于欲界的一切有情，不緣于上界（色界和無色界）。因為它能夠對治緣于上界的瞋恨等障礙。所以，《正理經》中說，都以緣于欲界有情為對境。

【English Translation】 English version: If, as such, Upeksha (equanimity) is considered to be of the nature of Adosa (non-hatred), then it should also be able to counteract the greed caused by hatred. This argument is not valid because their characteristics (actions, functions) are contradictory. The characteristic of Upeksha contradicts both greed and hatred because it abandons the differential treatment of relatives and non-relatives. Because of this, neither love nor resentment arises. Precisely because of this, Upeksha, being merely non-greed, can truly counteract greed, while also incidentally counteracting hatred. However, the characteristic of Metta (loving-kindness) contradicts hatred but not greed, as it is dedicated to giving happiness to all sentient beings. Therefore, although both Metta and Upeksha contradict hatred, Metta conforms to greed, while Upeksha can counteract greed. Thus, there is a great difference between the two. Alternatively, the person who cultivates Upeksha counteracts inappropriate hatred, while Metta counteracts appropriate hatred, hence the difference.

The author of the treatise believes that, in reality, two dharmas should be used as the essence of Upeksha. This immeasurable Upeksha can counteract greed and hatred. In reality, the two dharmas of non-greed and non-hatred should be used as its essence. Question: If immeasurable Upeksha has two dharmas as its essence, why does the verse not mention non-hatred? The explanation is: In reality, this Upeksha has two dharmas as its essence, but the verse only mentions non-greed, which is from the perspective of what is primary. Alternatively, the verse mentioning non-greed is the view of previous teachers.

Explaining the fifth, sixth, and seventh lines, clarifying the four aspects. Metta refers to giving happiness, Karuna (compassion) refers to removing suffering, Mudita (sympathetic joy) refers to joyful consolation, and Upeksha refers to treating all beings equally.

This is a question: Are these four immeasurables not inverted?

Answer: Although one has not actually attained (happiness, etc.), the wish is to enable beings to attain happiness, etc., so it is not inverted. Asaya, here means intention. Although one has not actually attained it, it is not inverted because the intention is good. Although one has not actually attained it, it arises in accordance with the thought of superior understanding, and is not attached to reality, so it is not inverted. Supposing it is inverted, what fault is there? This is to refute the faults of the externalists. If it is said that if it is inverted, it should not be good, then this statement is not valid, because it arises in accordance with good roots. If it is said that if it is inverted, it should lead to evil, then this statement is also not valid, because it is able to counteract hatred, etc.

Explaining the eighth line. This loving-kindness is directed towards all sentient beings in the desire realm, not towards the upper realms (the form realm and the formless realm). Because it is able to counteract the obstacles of hatred, etc., directed towards the upper realms. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says that all take sentient beings in the desire realm as their object.

。能治緣彼瞋等障故。謂于欲界有怨．親．中三聚有情能生瞋等。于中有舍怨．親等相。便能伏除瞋等煩惱。是故此境唯欲有情。必不能緣色．無色界。大悲體是無癡善根。由此力能通緣三界(已上論文)　又通經云。然契經說。修習慈等思惟一方一切世界　此經舉器以顯器中一切有情。故無有失。

第三但依至皆無量攝者。釋第九．第十句。依地分別。第三喜無量但依初．二靜慮喜受攝故。余定地中無此喜故。所餘慈．悲．舍三無量。通依六地。此師唯約定地以說。或有欲令唯依五地。謂除未至。是容豫功德。已離欲者方能起故。未至定是未離欲道。設已離欲亦不能起。此師但約容豫位明。或有欲令此四無量隨其所應。喜在三地謂欲．初．二。三通十地。謂欲．四根本．四近分．中間。總而言之。通依十地。此意欲令定不定地根本加行皆無量攝。又正理云。若悲亦依下三靜慮。如何得與喜．樂相應。悲緣苦有情。戚行相轉故。此如無漏厭作意生。是故通依下三靜慮。彼真實作意能順生欣。喜．樂相應可無有過。此勝解作意不順生欣。如何可言與彼相似。疑是戚性不順生欣。如何許疑．喜．樂俱起勝解作意應與彼同。然此于欣極相隨順。力能引生真實作意故。疑則不爾極違真故。彼尚相應。此寧不許。此勝解作

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本。因為能夠對治以嗔恨等為緣的障礙。也就是說，對於欲界中存在怨恨、親近、中立這三類眾生，會產生嗔恨等煩惱。對於這些眾生，如果能夠捨棄怨恨、親近等分別之相，便能夠降伏和消除嗔恨等煩惱。因此，這種境界只存在於欲界眾生中，必定不能緣於色界和無色界。大悲的本體是無癡的善根，憑藉這種力量能夠普遍緣於三界（以上是論文內容）。此外，經典中也說：『修習慈心等，思惟一方一切世界』。這部經典以容器來顯示容器中的一切有情，因此沒有過失。

第三，『但依至皆無量攝者』，解釋第九句和第十句。根據所依之地來分別，第三喜無量只依于初禪和二禪的喜受所攝，因為其餘禪定之地沒有這種喜受。其餘的慈、悲、舍三種無量，普遍依於六地。這位論師只是約定禪定之地來說明。或者有人想要讓它們只依於五地，即除去未至定，因為這是容豫的功德，已經脫離慾望的人才能生起。未至定是尚未脫離慾望的道。即使已經脫離慾望，也不能生起。這位論師只是就容豫的位次來闡明。或者有人想要讓這四種無量隨其所應，喜在三地，即欲界、初禪、二禪。慈、悲、舍三種無量通於十地，即欲界、四根本禪、四近分禪、中間禪。總而言之，普遍依於十地。這種意思是想要讓禪定和不定地的根本定和加行都包含在無量之中。此外，《正理》中說：『如果悲心也依于下三禪，如何能夠與喜、樂相應？』因為悲心緣于受苦的有情，以戚（悲傷）的行相運轉。這就像無漏的厭離作意產生一樣。因此，普遍依于下三禪。那種真實的作意能夠順應產生欣悅，與喜、樂相應可能沒有過失。這種勝解作意不順應產生欣悅，如何可以說與它相似？懷疑是戚的性質，不順應產生欣悅，如何允許懷疑、喜、樂同時生起？勝解作意應該與它們相同。然而，這種勝解作意對於欣悅極其隨順，有力量引導產生真實的作意，因此可以與喜樂相應。懷疑則不是這樣，因為它與真實作意極其違背。懷疑尚且可以與喜樂相應，這種勝解作意難道不允許嗎？這種勝解作意...

【English Translation】 English version. Because it can cure the obstacles caused by hatred and other conditions. That is to say, in the desire realm, there are three types of sentient beings: those who are hated, those who are close, and those who are neutral, which can generate hatred and other afflictions. For these sentient beings, if one can abandon the aspects of hatred, closeness, and so on, one can subdue and eliminate hatred and other afflictions. Therefore, this state only exists in sentient beings in the desire realm and cannot be related to the form realm and formless realm. The essence of great compassion is the root of non-ignorance, and with this power, it can universally relate to the three realms (the above is the content of the thesis). In addition, the sutra also says: 'Cultivate loving-kindness, etc., contemplate one direction, all worlds'. This sutra uses a container to show all sentient beings in the container, so there is no fault.

Third, 'But relying on to all immeasurable aggregates', explains the ninth and tenth sentences. According to the ground on which they rely, the third immeasurable joy is only included in the joy feeling of the first and second dhyanas, because there is no such joy feeling in the other dhyana grounds. The remaining three immeasurables of loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity universally rely on the six grounds. This teacher only agrees to explain according to the dhyana ground. Or some people want to make them only rely on the five grounds, that is, to remove the preliminary concentration (未至定, Weizhiding), because this is the merit of accommodation, and only those who have left desire can generate it. The preliminary concentration is the path that has not yet left desire. Even if one has left desire, one cannot generate it. This teacher only clarifies according to the position of accommodation. Or some people want to make these four immeasurables as appropriate, joy in the three grounds, that is, the desire realm, the first dhyana, and the second dhyana. The three immeasurables of loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity are common to the ten grounds, that is, the desire realm, the four fundamental dhyanas (四根本禪, Sigengenbenchan), the four close-to-absorption dhyanas (四近分禪, Sijinfenchan), and the intermediate dhyana (中間禪, Zhongjianchan). In general, they universally rely on the ten grounds. This meaning is to make the fundamental concentration and preliminary practices of the concentration and non-concentration grounds all included in the immeasurable. In addition, the Nyāyānusāra (正理, Zhengli) says: 'If compassion also relies on the lower three dhyanas, how can it be compatible with joy and happiness?' Because compassion is related to suffering sentient beings, it operates with the aspect of sorrow. This is like the arising of the uncontaminated aversion intention. Therefore, it universally relies on the lower three dhyanas. That true intention can accord with the generation of joy, and it may be without fault to be compatible with joy and happiness. This superior understanding intention does not accord with the generation of joy, how can it be said to be similar to it? Doubt is the nature of sorrow, and it does not accord with the generation of joy, how can it be allowed that doubt, joy, and happiness arise simultaneously? The superior understanding intention should be the same as them. However, this superior understanding intention is extremely compliant with joy and has the power to guide the generation of true intention, so it can be compatible with joy and happiness. Doubt is not like this, because it is extremely contrary to true intention. Doubt can still be compatible with joy and happiness, how can this superior understanding intention not be allowed? This superior understanding intention...

意理應違欣。有歡．戚處中行相別故。悲既戚行相轉。應非喜．樂相應。勿二行相俱時轉故。若爾應不許與舍受相應。舍受處中行相轉故。既非不許舍受相應。與喜．樂俱。理定應許。勿全不與受相應故(已上論文)　前雖說此至有情境故者。釋第十一句。明非斷惑。前雖說此能治四障。而不能令諸惑得斷。有漏根本靜慮攝故。雖復亦有近分攝者。且簡根本。以得根本下惑必斷。有漏根本尚不斷惑。中間不斷理在絕言。故不別簡。或影顯彼中間不斷　勝解作意相應起故。真實作意方能斷惑　過緣一切有情境故。緣法作意方能斷惑。

此加行位至能治四障者。會釋前文開二章門。一此加行位制伏瞋等。二或此能令已斷更遠。由此二義故前說此能治四障　或通伏難。伏難意云若非斷惑如何前說能治四障。

謂欲未至至能治諸惑者。釋初章。謂欲未至加行位中。亦有慈等。似所修成根本靜慮四種無量。由此加行位中制伏瞋等障已。能引未至斷治道生。能斷諸惑。約伏及引說能治障。

諸惑斷已至之所蔽伏者。釋第二章。由未至定。九無間道諸惑斷已。離染位中方得根本四種無量。於此離染后位之中。雖遇起惑強緣。而非瞋等之所蔽伏。以此能令已斷更遠。說能治障。應知無量。若據加行似修。在欲．未至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本意理應與欣悅相違背。因為在歡喜和憂戚之處，是處於中等狀態的行相有所區別的緣故。悲傷既然是憂戚的行相轉變而來，那麼它理應與喜悅和快樂不相應。因為不要讓兩種行相同時轉變的緣故。如果這樣，那麼理應不允許它與舍受相應。因為舍受處於中等狀態的行相轉變的緣故。既然並非不允許它與舍受相應，並且與喜悅和快樂同時存在，那麼道理上一定應該允許。因為不要完全不與感受相應（以上是論文內容）。前面雖然說『此至有情境故』，是爲了解釋第十一句，表明並非斷除迷惑。前面雖然說此能對治四種障礙，但不能使各種迷惑得以斷除，因為它是有漏的根本靜慮所攝的緣故。雖然也有近分所攝的，但這裡只簡擇根本。因為得到根本靜慮后，下層的迷惑必定斷除。有漏的根本靜慮尚且不能斷除迷惑，中間的不斷除，道理上就不用說了。所以不特別簡擇。或者暗示了中間的不斷除。因為與勝解作意相應而生起。只有真實的作意才能斷除迷惑。因為所緣是所有有情境界的緣故。只有緣法作意才能斷除迷惑。這個加行位到『能治四障』，是爲了會合解釋前文開啟的兩個章節。一是這個加行位能制伏瞋恨等。二是或者這個加行位能使已經斷除的迷惑更加遠離。由於這兩個意義，所以前面說此能對治四種障礙。或者可以用來通達和駁斥疑問。駁斥疑問的意思是，如果不是斷除迷惑，為什麼前面說能對治四種障礙？『謂欲未至至能治諸惑者』，是爲了解釋第一個章節。意思是說，在欲界和未至定的加行位中，也有慈心等等，類似於所修成的根本靜慮的四種無量心。由於這個加行位中制伏了瞋恨等障礙，能夠引生未至定的斷除煩惱的道，能夠斷除各種迷惑。這是從制伏和引導的角度來說能對治障礙。『諸惑斷已至之所蔽伏者』，是爲了解釋第二個章節。由於未至定，在九個無間道中各種迷惑已經斷除。在離染位中，才能得到根本的四種無量心。在這個離染后的位置中，即使遇到引發迷惑的強烈因緣，也不會被瞋恨等所矇蔽和制伏。這是因為這個加行位能夠使已經斷除的迷惑更加遠離，所以說能對治障礙。應該知道無量心，如果是根據加行位的相似修習，那麼它就在欲界和未至定中。

【English Translation】 English version The principle should contradict joy. Because in the places of joy and sorrow, the characteristics of being in a middle state are different. Since sadness is a transformation of the characteristic of sorrow, it should not correspond to joy and happiness. Because one should not allow two characteristics to transform simultaneously. If so, then it should not be allowed to correspond with neutral sensation (舍受, she shou). Because neutral sensation transforms in a middle state. Since it is not that it is not allowed to correspond with neutral sensation, and it exists simultaneously with joy and happiness, then it should definitely be allowed in principle. Because it should not be that it does not correspond with sensation at all (the above is the content of the thesis). Although it was previously said 'this reaches the realm of sentient beings', it is to explain the eleventh sentence, clarifying that it is not cutting off delusion. Although it was previously said that this can cure the four hindrances, it cannot cause the various delusions to be cut off, because it is included in the fundamental meditative absorption (靜慮, jing lu) of the contaminated realm. Although there are also those included in the proximate concentration, only the fundamental is selected here. Because after obtaining the fundamental meditative absorption, the lower delusions will definitely be cut off. If the contaminated fundamental meditative absorption still cannot cut off delusions, then there is no need to say that the intermediate ones cannot be cut off. Therefore, it is not specifically selected. Or it implies that the intermediate ones cannot be cut off. Because it arises in correspondence with the resolve-based attention (勝解作意, sheng jie zuo yi). Only genuine attention can cut off delusions. Because the object of focus is the realm of all sentient beings. Only attention focused on the Dharma (法, fa) can cut off delusions. This stage of application, up to 'can cure the four hindrances', is to explain the two chapters opened in the previous text. First, this stage of application subdues anger and so on. Second, or this can make what has already been cut off even more distant. Because of these two meanings, it was previously said that this can cure the four hindrances. Or it can be used to understand and refute questions. The meaning of refuting questions is, if it is not cutting off delusions, why was it previously said that it can cure the four hindrances? 'That the desire realm and the unreached realm reach the ability to cure all delusions' is to explain the first chapter. It means that in the stage of application of the desire realm and the unreached concentration (未至定, wei zhi ding), there are also loving-kindness and so on, similar to the four immeasurables of the fundamental meditative absorption that has been cultivated. Because in this stage of application, anger and other hindrances have been subdued, it can lead to the arising of the path of cutting off afflictions of the unreached concentration, and it can cut off various delusions. This is from the perspective of subduing and guiding that it is said to be able to cure hindrances. 'That the various delusions have been cut off and are obscured by what has been reached' is to explain the second chapter. Because of the unreached concentration, the various delusions have been cut off in the nine uninterrupted paths. Only in the stage of detachment from defilements can one obtain the fundamental four immeasurables. In this position after detachment from defilements, even if one encounters strong conditions that trigger delusions, one will not be obscured and subdued by anger and so on. This is because this stage of application can make the delusions that have already been cut off even more distant, so it is said to be able to cure hindrances. It should be known that the immeasurables, if based on the similar cultivation of the stage of application, then it is in the desire realm and the unreached concentration.

。若據根本修成。在四本定。

初習業位云何修慈者。因治障便問初修。

謂先思惟至現可見故者。答。若惑非增盛。但起與樂。若惑增盛。作七品修。乃至修習慈無量成。若於有情樂求德者。能修慈定令速疾成。以于斷善者有德可錄。先福業果貌端正等。現可見故。非於有情樂求失者。以于麟喻獨覺有失可取。先罪業果貌黑疲等現可見故　若依正理。修四無量各分九品。中復開三。故彼論云。初欲引起四無量時。先於有情分為三品。所謂親友．處中．怨仇。三各分三。謂上．中．下。上親友者。謂生法身賴彼重恩。舍便難住。中親友者。謂財．法交極相親愛。下親友者。謂唯財交亦相親愛。上處中者。謂于自昔曾不見聞。中處中者。謂雖見聞而不交往。下處中者。謂雖交往而離恩．怨。上怨仇者。謂奪名譽．命及親友。中怨仇者。謂奪己身命緣資具。下怨仇者。謂奪親友命緣資具(已上論文)　或可。俱舍中亦有三。以處中故。且合為一。

修悲喜法至實為樂哉者。類釋悲．喜。皆準前慈。復略釋悲。謂觀有情沒眾苦海。便愿令彼皆得解脫。復略釋喜。謂想有情得樂離苦。便深欣慰實為樂哉。

修舍最初至與處中等者。此別釋舍。修舍最初從處中起。處中非怨．親不起瞋．貪。易舍初起。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果根據根本禪定修習，就在四種根本定中進行。

『初習業位云何修慈者』（最初學習的階段如何修習慈心）？因為要對治障礙，所以問最初的修習。

『謂先思惟至現可見故者』（意思是先思維到可以清楚看見的程度）。回答：如果煩惱不是特別強烈，就僅僅生起給予快樂的想法。如果煩惱強烈，就進行七品修習。乃至修習慈無量心成就。如果對於有情眾生，樂於尋求他們的優點，就能修習慈定，使其迅速成就。因為對於斷絕善根的人，也有可以記錄的優點，比如先前的福業果報，相貌端正等等，這些都是可以清楚看見的。而不是對於有情眾生，樂於尋求他們的缺點，因為對於麟喻獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）也有可以挑剔的缺點，比如先前的罪業果報，相貌醜陋疲憊等等，這些都是可以清楚看見的。如果依據正理，修習四無量心，每一種都分為九品，中間又可以分為三品。所以《俱舍論》中說：『最初想要引發四無量心時，先將有情眾生分為三類，即親友、中人和怨仇。每一類又分為上、中、下三品。上等親友，是指生生世世依賴他們的大恩大德，一旦失去他們就難以生存的人。中等親友，是指在財物和佛法上交往密切，彼此相親相愛的人。下等親友，是指僅僅在財物上有交往，也彼此相親相愛的人。上等中人，是指自己過去從未見過或聽過的人。中等中人，是指雖然見過或聽過，但沒有交往的人。下等中人，是指雖然有交往，但沒有恩情或怨恨的人。上等怨仇，是指奪走自己的名譽、性命以及親友的人。中等怨仇，是指奪走自己性命所依賴的資具的人。下等怨仇，是指奪走親友性命所依賴的資具的人。』（以上是《俱舍論》原文）或者，在《俱舍論》中也有三類，因為有中人的緣故，暫且合為一類。

『修悲喜法至實為樂哉者』（修習悲心和喜心的方法，直到真正感到快樂）。類似於解釋慈心，悲心和喜心也參照前面的慈心。再簡要解釋悲心，是指觀察到有情眾生沉沒在眾多的痛苦之海中，便希望他們都能得到解脫。再簡要解釋喜心，是指想到有情眾生得到快樂，脫離痛苦，便深深地感到欣慰，真正感到快樂。

『修舍最初至與處中等者』（修習舍心最初從與中人開始）。這裡分別解釋舍心。修習舍心最初從中人開始，因為對於中人既沒有怨恨也沒有親愛，不起嗔恨和貪戀，容易開始修習舍心。

【English Translation】 English version: If one cultivates according to the fundamental Samadhi (Dhyana, 禪定), it is done within the four fundamental Samadhis.

'How does one cultivate loving-kindness in the initial stage of practice?' The question is about the initial practice because it is to counteract obstacles.

'Meaning, first contemplate to the point of being clearly visible.' The answer: If afflictions are not overwhelming, simply generate the thought of giving happiness. If afflictions are overwhelming, practice the sevenfold method, until the immeasurable loving-kindness is accomplished. If one delights in seeking the virtues of sentient beings, one can cultivate the Samadhi of loving-kindness to achieve it quickly. Because even in those who have severed roots of goodness, there are virtues that can be recorded, such as the results of previous meritorious deeds, a handsome appearance, etc., which are clearly visible. It is not about delighting in seeking the faults of sentient beings, because even in a Pratyekabuddha (麟喻獨覺), there are faults that can be picked out, such as the results of previous sinful deeds, an ugly and weary appearance, etc., which are clearly visible. If one relies on correct reasoning, each of the four immeasurables is divided into nine categories, and the middle one is further divided into three. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) says: 'When initially wanting to arouse the four immeasurables, first divide sentient beings into three categories: friends, neutrals, and enemies. Each of the three is further divided into three: superior, middling, and inferior. Superior friends are those upon whose great kindness one relies for life after life, and it is difficult to live without them. Middling friends are those with whom one has close interactions in terms of wealth and Dharma (佛法), and one loves them dearly. Inferior friends are those with whom one only has interactions in terms of wealth, and one also loves them dearly. Superior neutrals are those whom one has never seen or heard of in the past. Middling neutrals are those whom one has seen or heard of but does not interact with. Inferior neutrals are those with whom one interacts but has no feelings of kindness or resentment. Superior enemies are those who take away one's reputation, life, and friends. Middling enemies are those who take away the resources upon which one's own life depends. Inferior enemies are those who take away the resources upon which the lives of one's friends depend.' (The above is from the Abhidharmakośa). Or perhaps, there are also three categories in the Abhidharmakośa, because of the neutral category, let's temporarily combine them into one.

'Cultivating compassion and joy until truly feeling joy.' Similar to explaining loving-kindness, compassion and joy are also based on the preceding loving-kindness. Briefly explaining compassion, it refers to observing sentient beings submerged in the sea of suffering, and wishing that they could all be liberated. Briefly explaining joy, it refers to thinking of sentient beings attaining happiness and being free from suffering, and deeply rejoicing, truly feeling joy.

'Cultivating equanimity initially starts with neutrals.' Here, equanimity is explained separately. Cultivating equanimity initially starts with neutrals, because one has neither resentment nor affection for neutrals, and does not arise with anger or attachment, making it easy to begin cultivating equanimity.

次舍下．中．上怨。次舍下．中．上親。起平等心與處中等。怨瞋易舍故先舍怨。親愛難除故后舍親。故正理云。初修舍者先舍處中。非先舍怨．親。恚．愛難捨故。又處中品順舍力增。于中如前先舍上品。次舍中．下及與怨．親。從下至中。從中至上。先舍怨者。以親難捨故。如契經說。貪難斷非瞋。如是漸次修習于舍至上親友等上處中。普于有情舍差別相。齊此名曰修舍成滿(唯處中開三。與俱舍不同。或可俱舍處中亦三。以處中故合為一)此四無量至唯不成喜故者。釋第十二句。此四無量人中現起非於余處。此即現起分別。隨得一時。必成慈．悲．及舍三種　生第三定等唯不成喜故。此即成就分別。(此四無量廣如婆沙八十一八十二解)。

已辨無量至非擇滅虛空者。此即第二明八解脫。結前生起及與頌釋。就中。初句總標。次兩句別明前三解脫。第四句別明次四解脫。第二頌別明第八解脫。后一頌總明所緣。

論曰至為第八解脫者。釋初句。一于內色身有色想貪。為除想貪觀外不凈青瘀等色。而方內身令貪不起。名初解脫　二于內色身無色想貪。雖已除貪為堅牢故。觀于外不凈青瘀等色令貪不起。名第二解脫　三觀凈色令貪不起名凈解脫。顯觀轉勝。此凈解脫。彼觀行者身中證得名身作證。具足

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本次等住所，中等住所，上等怨恨。次等住所，中等住所，上等親近。發起平等心對待中等之人等等。怨恨容易捨棄，所以先捨棄怨恨。親愛難以去除，所以後捨棄親愛。所以《正理》中說：『最初修習舍心的人，先捨棄中等之人，而不是先捨棄怨恨和親近之人。』因為嗔恨和愛難以捨棄。而且，對待中等之人，順應舍心的力量會增長。對於中等之人，像之前一樣，先捨棄上品，然後捨棄中品和下品，以及怨恨和親近之人。從下品到中品，從中品到上品。先捨棄怨恨，因為親愛難以捨棄。如契經所說：『貪難以斷除，而不是嗔恨。』像這樣逐漸修習舍心，直到對上等的親友等等上等的中等之人，普遍地對有情眾生捨棄差別之相。達到這個程度，就叫做修習舍心圓滿（只有對中等之人分為三等，與《俱舍論》不同。或許《俱舍論》中對中等之人也分為三等，因為是中等之人，所以合為一）。這四種無量心，直到唯獨不能成就喜無量心，這是解釋第十二句。這四種無量心在人中顯現，而不是在其他地方。這就是顯現的分別。隨之得到一時，必定成就慈、悲、舍三種。生於第三禪等，唯獨不能成就喜無量心，這是成就的分別。（這四種無量心廣泛地如《婆沙論》第八十一卷和第八十二卷所解釋）。已經辨明無量心，直到非擇滅和虛空，這是第二部分，闡明八解脫。連線前面的內容，並引出頌文的解釋。其中，第一句是總標，接下來的兩句分別闡明前三種解脫，第四句分別闡明接下來的四種解脫，第二首頌文分別闡明第八種解脫，最後一首頌文總的闡明所緣。論中說，直到第八解脫，這是解釋第一句。第一，對於內在的色身有色想貪（指對自身形體的貪戀）。爲了去除這種想貪，觀察外在不凈的青瘀等色，從而使內在的身體不再生起貪戀。這叫做初解脫。第二，對於內在的色身沒有色想貪（指已經去除對自身形體的貪戀）。雖然已經去除貪戀，爲了更加堅固，觀察外在不凈的青瘀等色，使貪戀不再生起。這叫做第二解脫。第三，觀察清凈的顏色，使貪戀不再生起，叫做凈解脫。顯示觀察更加殊勝。這種凈解脫，被觀行者在自身中證得，叫做身作證（自身證悟）。具足。

【English Translation】 English version Inferior dwelling, medium dwelling, superior resentment. Inferior dwelling, medium dwelling, superior affection. Generate an equanimous mind towards those who are neutral, etc. Resentment is easy to abandon, so abandon resentment first. Affection is difficult to remove, so abandon affection later. Therefore, the Hetu-vidya (正理, logical treatise) says: 'Those who initially cultivate equanimity first abandon those who are neutral, not first abandoning those who are resented or loved.' Because hatred and love are difficult to abandon. Moreover, treating those who are neutral increases the power of equanimity. Regarding those who are neutral, as before, first abandon the superior, then abandon the medium and inferior, as well as those who are resented and loved. From inferior to medium, from medium to superior. Abandoning resentment first is because affection is difficult to abandon. As the Agama (契經, scripture) says: 'Greed is difficult to sever, not anger.' Thus, gradually cultivate equanimity, until towards superior friends, etc., superior neutral individuals, universally towards sentient beings, abandon the appearance of differentiation. Reaching this point is called the complete fulfillment of cultivating equanimity (only the neutral are divided into three, which differs from the Abhidharmakosa (俱舍論, Treasury of Knowledge). Perhaps the Abhidharmakosa also divides the neutral into three; because they are neutral, they are combined into one). These four immeasurables, until only joy is not accomplished, this explains the twelfth sentence. These four immeasurables manifest in humans, not in other places. This is the distinction of manifestation. Upon obtaining it at one time, one will certainly accomplish the three: loving-kindness, compassion, and equanimity. Born in the third dhyana (禪定, meditative absorption), etc., only joy is not accomplished, this is the distinction of accomplishment. (These four immeasurables are extensively explained in Vibhasa (婆沙論, Great Commentary) volumes eighty-one and eighty-two). Having distinguished the immeasurables, until non-selective cessation and space, this is the second part, clarifying the eight liberations. Connecting the preceding content and introducing the explanation of the verses. Among them, the first sentence is a general statement, the next two sentences separately clarify the first three liberations, the fourth sentence separately clarifies the next four liberations, the second verse separately clarifies the eighth liberation, and the last verse generally clarifies the object of focus. The treatise says, until the eighth liberation, this explains the first sentence. First, regarding the internal colored body, there is desire and attachment to color (色想貪, desire for one's own form). To remove this desire and attachment, one contemplates external impure colors such as livid and decaying colors, so that desire does not arise in the internal body. This is called the first liberation. Second, regarding the internal colored body, there is no desire and attachment to color (無色想貪, absence of desire for one's own form). Although desire has been removed, to make it more firm, one contemplates external impure colors such as livid and decaying colors, so that desire does not arise. This is called the second liberation. Third, observing pure colors so that desire does not arise is called pure liberation. It shows that the observation is even more excellent. This pure liberation, attained by the practitioner in their own body, is called 'body witness' (身作證, self-realization). Complete.

圓滿得住此定名具足住　空無邊等四無色定。各能解脫下地貪故為次四解脫　滅受想定棄背受等名第八解脫。故婆沙八十四云。棄背義是解脫義。問若棄背故名解脫者。何等解脫棄背何心。答初．二解脫棄背色貪心。第三解脫棄背不凈觀心。四無色處解脫各自棄背次下地心。想受滅解脫棄背一切所緣心。故棄背義是解脫義(廣如婆沙)。

八中前三至皆五蘊性者。釋第二句。八解脫中前三解脫。無貪為性近治貪故。然契經中言。想觀者。于貪聚中想增言想。于無貪聚中觀增言觀。故言想觀。三中初．二不凈相轉。作青瘀等諸行相故。第三解脫清凈相轉。作凈光鮮行相轉故。俱治于貪故以無貪為體。若並助伴皆五蘊性　問何故婆沙云。欲界者以四蘊為自性。色界者以五蘊為自性　解云此論據勝。婆沙兼據似說　問婆沙明依界．依地中。何故不言依欲界地　解云出體強．弱兼論。故言四蘊。界．地唯約勝說。不言欲界。

初二解脫至非增上故者。釋第三句。初二解脫一一通依初．二靜慮。初．二亦攝近分．中間。能治欲界眼識所引顯色貪故。能治初定眼識所引顯色貪故。故初．二解脫但依初．二定。此釋二．二定。又正理云。何緣此中厭逆色想。可得說與喜受相應。地力使然。如苦．集智(已上論文)　第三

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：圓滿地安住於此定，名為具足住，即空無邊處定（ākāśānantyāyatana-samāpatti，超越色界對物質的執著，專注于無限的虛空）、識無邊處定（vijñānānantyāyatana-samāpatti，超越對虛空的執著，專注于無限的意識）、無所有處定（ākiṃcanyāyatana-samāpatti，超越對意識的執著，專注於一無所有的狀態）和非想非非想處定（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana-samāpatti，超越有想和無想的界限，達到一種微妙的意識狀態）這四種無色定。每一種都能解脫對地獄的貪慾，因此是次第的四種解脫。滅受想定（saṃjñāvedayitanirodha-samāpatti，一種止息意識和感受的禪定狀態）捨棄背離感受等，名為第八解脫。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）第八十四卷說：『捨棄背離的意義就是解脫的意義。』問：如果因為捨棄背離而名為解脫，那麼什麼解脫捨棄背離什麼心？答：初禪解脫（prathama dhyāna vimokṣa，通過禪定初步解脫對慾望的束縛）和二禪解脫（dvitīya dhyāna vimokṣa，通過禪定進一步解脫對感官的依賴）捨棄背離對色界的貪心。第三解脫（tṛtīya dhyāna vimokṣa，通過禪定解脫對快樂的執著）捨棄背離不凈觀（aśubha-bhāvanā，一種通過觀想身體不凈來克服慾望的修行方法）的心。四無色處定解脫各自捨棄背離次第的下地之心。想受滅解脫捨棄背離一切所緣之心。所以捨棄背離的意義就是解脫的意義（詳細內容見《婆沙論》）。

八解脫中前三種解脫都具有五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）的性質。這是解釋第二句。八解脫中的前三種解脫，以無貪（alobha，不貪婪）為自性，因為它們接近並對治貪慾。然而，契經（sūtra，佛經）中說『想觀』，是在貪慾的聚集中心想增盛時稱為『想』，在無貪的聚集中心觀增盛時稱為『觀』，所以說『想觀』。三種解脫中，初禪和二禪解脫是不凈相的轉變，因為它們會產生青瘀等各種不凈的行相。第三解脫是清凈相的轉變，因為它會產生凈光鮮明的行相。它們都對治貪慾，所以以無貪為體。如果加上助伴，則都具有五蘊的性質。問：為什麼《婆沙論》說欲界（kāmadhātu，眾生對感官享樂有強烈慾望的生存領域）以四蘊為自性，**界以五蘊為自性？解釋說，此論據殊勝，而《婆沙論》兼顧相似之處。問：《婆沙論》中闡明依界、依地時，為什麼不提依欲界地？解釋說，這是因為出體的強弱兼顧討論，所以說四蘊。界和地只就殊勝之處來說，所以不提欲界。

初禪和二禪解脫通達初禪和二禪，但不是增上，這是解釋第三句。初禪和二禪解脫一一通達初禪和二禪。初禪和二禪也包括近分定（upacāra-samādhi，接近正式禪定的預備階段）和中間禪（dhyānāntara，介於初禪和未至定之間的禪定狀態）。因為它們能對治欲界眼識所引起的顯色貪，能對治初禪定眼識所引起的顯色貪，所以初禪和二禪解脫只依初禪和二禪。這是解釋二禪和二禪。又《正理》（Nyāya，古印度的一個哲學流派）中說：『為什麼在這裡厭惡逆反色想，可以說與喜受相應？』這是地力的作用，就像苦智和集智（duḥkha-jñāna and samudaya-jñāna，對苦和苦因的認知）（以上是論文）。第三解脫也是如此。

【English Translation】 English version: Perfectly dwelling in this samādhi (state of meditative absorption) is called 'dwelling in fullness,' namely, the four formless attainments: the ākāśānantyāyatana-samāpatti (sphere of infinite space, transcending attachment to materiality and focusing on limitless space), the vijñānānantyāyatana-samāpatti (sphere of infinite consciousness, transcending attachment to space and focusing on limitless consciousness), the ākiṃcanyāyatana-samāpatti (sphere of nothingness, transcending attachment to consciousness and focusing on the state of nothingness), and the naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana-samāpatti (sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, transcending the limits of perception and non-perception, reaching a subtle state of awareness). Each of these can liberate from the desire for the lower realms, hence they are the four successive liberations. The saṃjñāvedayitanirodha-samāpatti (cessation of perception and feeling, a meditative state where consciousness and sensations are temporarily suspended), abandoning and turning away from feelings, is called the eighth liberation. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā (a Buddhist commentary) in its eighty-fourth fascicle says: 'The meaning of abandoning and turning away is the meaning of liberation.' Question: If it is called liberation because of abandoning and turning away, then what liberation abandons and turns away from what mind? Answer: The first dhyāna vimokṣa (liberation through the first dhyāna, initial liberation from the fetters of desire through meditation) and the second dhyāna vimokṣa (liberation through the second dhyāna, further liberation from dependence on the senses through meditation) abandon and turn away from the mind of desire for the realm of form. The third liberation (tṛtīya dhyāna vimokṣa, liberation through the third dhyāna, liberation from attachment to pleasure through meditation) abandons and turns away from the mind of aśubha-bhāvanā (contemplation of impurity, a practice to overcome desire by contemplating the impurity of the body). The four formless attainments each abandon and turn away from the mind of the successively lower realms. The saṃjñāvedayitanirodha-samāpatti abandons and turns away from the mind of all objects of perception. Therefore, the meaning of abandoning and turning away is the meaning of liberation (see the Vibhāṣā for details).

The first three of the eight liberations all have the nature of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates that constitute individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). This explains the second sentence. The first three liberations among the eight liberations have alobha (non-greed) as their nature, because they are close to and counteract greed. However, the sūtra (Buddhist scripture) says 'thought and observation,' meaning that when thought increases in the accumulation of greed, it is called 'thought,' and when observation increases in the accumulation of non-greed, it is called 'observation,' hence the term 'thought and observation.' Among the three liberations, the first and second dhyānas are transformations of the impure aspect, because they produce various impure aspects such as bluish discoloration. The third liberation is a transformation of the pure aspect, because it produces bright and pure aspects. They all counteract greed, so they have non-greed as their essence. If combined with their associates, they all have the nature of the five skandhas. Question: Why does the Vibhāṣā say that the kāmadhātu (realm of desire, the realm of existence where beings have strong desires for sensual pleasures) has four skandhas as its nature, and the ** realm has five skandhas as its nature? The explanation is that this argument is superior, while the Vibhāṣā considers similarities. Question: When the Vibhāṣā clarifies reliance on realms and reliance on grounds, why does it not mention reliance on the ground of the desire realm? The explanation is that this is because the strength and weakness of the emerging entity are discussed together, so it says four skandhas. Realms and grounds are only discussed in terms of superiority, so the desire realm is not mentioned.

The first and second liberations penetrate the first and second dhyānas, but are not superior, which explains the third sentence. The first and second liberations each penetrate the first and second dhyānas. The first and second dhyānas also include the upacāra-samādhi (access concentration, the preparatory stage approaching formal dhyāna) and the dhyānāntara (intermediate dhyāna, the meditative state between the first dhyāna and the unreleased concentration). Because they can counteract the greed for visible forms caused by the eye consciousness of the desire realm, and can counteract the greed for visible forms caused by the eye consciousness of the first dhyāna, the first and second liberations only rely on the first and second dhyānas. This explains the second dhyāna and the second dhyāna. Furthermore, the Nyāya (a school of ancient Indian philosophy) says: 'Why is it that here, the aversion to and reversal of the thought of form can be said to be associated with the feeling of joy?' This is the effect of the power of the ground, just like the duḥkha-jñāna and samudaya-jñāna (knowledge of suffering and the cause of suffering) (the above is the thesis). The third liberation is also like this.

解脫唯觀凈色令貪不起。此極為難。要依勝定方可得成。故依第四。以第四定離八災患心澄凈故。此釋一一定。餘三．四定。及欲界地。亦有初．二相似解脫。余初．二．三定。及欲界地。亦有第三相似解脫。而不建立。非增上故。故正理云。初．二解脫一一通依初．二靜慮。能治欲界．初靜慮中顯色貪故。初．二通攝近分中間。五地皆能起初．二故。欲及初定有顯色貪。由眼識身所引起故。為解脫彼。初．二定中建立初．二不凈解脫。二．三定中眼識無故。亦無所引緣顯色貪。復三．四定中無不凈解脫。初．二解脫相似善根。雖欲界中亦容得有。而為欲界貪所凌雜。故不建立二解脫名。三．四定中雖亦得有。去所治遠。勢力微劣。又樂凈伏故。不得名第三解脫。依后靜慮離八災患。心澄凈故。第四並近分。立后靜慮名。相似善根下地雖有。非增上故不名解脫。欲界欲貪所凌雜故。初．二定中不凈伏故。第三定中樂所迷故。又並八災所擾亂故(已上論文)　次四解脫至非全分故者。釋第四句。次四解脫如其次第。以四無色定善為性。非無記．染非解脫故。亦非散善性微劣故。彼無色界有散善者。如命終善心。有說不但命終有善。余時亦有生得散善。但無聞．思。無色近分諸解脫道。亦得解脫名。無間道不然以緣下故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本唯有觀察清凈的顏色而不生起貪慾，這是極其困難的。必須依靠殊勝的禪定才能成就，所以依靠第四禪定。因為第四禪定遠離八種災患，心境澄澈清凈。這是解釋第一禪定和第二禪定。其餘的第三禪定和第四禪定，以及欲界，也有第一和第二種相似的解脫。其餘的第一禪定、第二禪定、第三禪定，以及欲界，也有第三種相似的解脫，但是不建立這些解脫，因為它們不是增上的。所以《正理》中說，第一和第二種解脫各自通於第一和第二靜慮（禪定），能夠對治欲界和初禪定中的顯色貪（對鮮艷色彩的貪戀）。第一和第二種解脫普遍包含近分定（臨近禪定的狀態）和中間定（禪定中間的狀態）。五地（五種境界）都能生起第一和第二種解脫。欲界和初禪定有顯色貪，這是由眼識和身體所引起的。爲了解脫這種貪慾，在第一和第二禪定中建立第一和第二種不凈解脫（通過觀想不凈之物來消除貪慾）。在第二和第三禪定中，沒有眼識，因此也沒有引起緣顯色貪的因素。而且，在第三和第四禪定中沒有不凈解脫。第一和第二種解脫的相似善根，雖然在欲界中也可能存在，但是被欲界的貪慾所擾亂，所以不建立這兩種解脫的名稱。在第三和第四禪定中，雖然也可能存在，但是距離所要對治的貪慾很遠，勢力微弱。而且被快樂和清凈所抑制，所以不能稱為第三種解脫。依靠後面的靜慮（禪定），遠離八種災患，心境澄澈清凈，第四禪定以及近分定，建立後面的靜慮的名稱。相似的善根在下地雖然也有，但是因為不是增上的，所以不稱為解脫。欲界被欲貪所擾亂，第一和第二禪定被不凈所抑制，第三禪定被快樂所迷惑，而且被八種災患所擾亂（以上是論文內容）。接下來，『次四解脫至非全分故者』，解釋第四句。接下來的四種解脫，按照次第，以四無色定（四種無色界的禪定）的善為體性。不是無記（非善非惡）和染污的，因為它們不是解脫。也不是散善（不集中的善），因為體性微弱。那些沒有**有散善的人，比如臨終時的善心。有人說，不僅僅是臨終時有善心，其他時候也有生來就有的散善，但是沒有聽聞和思考。無色界的近分定中的各種解脫道，也可以得到解脫的名稱。無間道（證悟的直接道路）不是這樣，因為它緣于地獄。

【English Translation】 English version To observe pure colors without arousing greed is extremely difficult. It requires relying on superior Samadhi (state of meditative consciousness) to achieve. Therefore, it relies on the Fourth Dhyana (meditative state). Because the Fourth Dhyana is free from the eight calamities and the mind is clear and pure. This explains the First Dhyana and Second Dhyana. The remaining Third and Fourth Dhyanas, as well as the Desire Realm, also have similar liberations to the first and second. The remaining First, Second, and Third Dhyanas, as well as the Desire Realm, also have similar liberations to the third, but these are not established because they are not predominant. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (a commentary) says that the first and second liberations each generally rely on the first and second Dhyanas, and can cure the greed for visible forms in the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana. The first and second liberations universally include the Upacāra Samadhi (access concentration) and the Intermediate Dhyana. The five realms can all give rise to the first and second liberations. The Desire Realm and the First Dhyana have greed for visible forms, which is caused by the eye consciousness and the body. To liberate from this greed, the first and second impure liberations (contemplating impurity to eliminate greed) are established in the First and Second Dhyanas. In the Second and Third Dhyanas, there is no eye consciousness, so there is no cause to arouse greed for visible forms. Furthermore, there are no impure liberations in the Third and Fourth Dhyanas. Similar roots of goodness to the first and second liberations may also exist in the Desire Realm, but they are disturbed by the greed of the Desire Realm, so these two liberations are not established. Although they may also exist in the Third and Fourth Dhyanas, they are far from what needs to be cured and their power is weak. Moreover, they are suppressed by pleasure and purity, so they cannot be called the third liberation. Relying on the later Dhyanas, free from the eight calamities, the mind is clear and pure, the Fourth Dhyana and the Upacāra Samadhi establish the name of the later Dhyanas. Similar roots of goodness, although they exist in the lower realms, are not called liberation because they are not predominant. The Desire Realm is disturbed by desire and greed, the First and Second Dhyanas are suppressed by impurity, and the Third Dhyana is deluded by pleasure and disturbed by the eight calamities (the above is from the treatise). Next, 『The following four liberations up to not being complete』 explains the fourth sentence. The following four liberations, in order, have the goodness of the Four Formless Dhyanas (the four meditative states of the Formless Realm) as their nature. They are not indeterminate (neither good nor evil) or defiled, because they are not liberation. Nor are they scattered goodness, because their nature is weak. Those who do not have ** have scattered goodness, such as the good mind at the time of death. Some say that not only is there a good mind at the time of death, but there is also innate scattered goodness at other times, but without hearing and thinking. The various paths of liberation in the Upacāra Samadhi of the Formless Realm can also obtain the name of liberation. The Anantarya-marga (path of immediate liberation) is not like this, because it is based on the lower realm.

彼要背下地方名解脫故。然于余處多分唯說彼根本地名解脫者。以近分中非全分是解脫故。所以但說根本地也。正理兩說。一說同此論。又一說云。諸近分地九無間道．八解脫道。亦非解脫不背下地故。緣下道雜故。又未令全脫下地染。故契經說彼超過下故(已上論文)　第八解脫至無漏心出者。釋第二頌。第八解脫即滅盡定。彼自性等如先根品不相應中已具說故。厭背受．想起此定故。此滅盡定得解脫名。或總厭背諸有所緣心．心所故。此滅盡定得解脫名。有說由此滅定解脫不染無知定障故名解脫。于滅定前有三種心。一想心。二微細心。三微微心。從此第三微微心后。此滅盡定方現在前。第二心對前第一想心已名微細。此第三心轉更微細故名微微。次如是微微心后入滅盡定。入心緣彼滅定寂靜方能入故故。唯有漏。出心不必反緣滅定故通二種。

八中前三至為所緣境者。釋第三頌。明解脫緣境。八中前三。唯以欲界色處為境。有差別者。二境可憎緣不凈故。一境可愛緣凈色故　問色界色凈觀欲不凈。如何能離色界色貪　解云此非正能斷。令暫遠離故。次四無色解脫。各以自．上苦．集．滅諦。及一切地類智品道。彼自．上地苦．集非擇滅。及彼一切類智品道非擇滅。及與虛空。為所緣境。又婆沙八十四云。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：爲了背誦下方的地名以獲得解脫。然而，在其他地方，大多隻說根本地的名稱才能獲得解脫，因為在近分地中，並非全部都是解脫。因此，只說了根本地。正理中有兩種說法。一種說法與此論相同。另一種說法是，諸近分地的九無間道、八解脫道，也不是解脫，因為沒有背離下方的地，因為緣于下方的道是雜染的。而且，也沒有完全脫離下方的染污。所以契經說，它們超過了下方。（以上是論文內容）第八解脫至無漏心出者，解釋第二頌。第八解脫就是滅盡定。它的自性等，如先前的根品不相應中已經詳細說明。因為厭背受和想，才入此定。因此，此滅盡定才得到解脫的名稱。或者，總的來說，因為厭背所有有所緣的心和心所，此滅盡定才得到解脫的名稱。有人說，由此滅定解脫了不染無知定的障礙，所以名為解脫。在滅定之前，有三種心。一是想心，二是微細心，三是微微心。從此第三微微心之後，此滅盡定才顯現出來。第二心相對於前面的第一想心，已經名為微細。此第三心轉而更加微細，所以名為微微。其次，如此微微心后，才進入滅盡定。進入的心緣于滅定的寂靜，才能進入，所以只有有漏。出定的心不必反過來緣于滅定，所以通於兩種。八中前三至為所緣境者，解釋第三頌。說明解脫的緣境。八中前三，唯以欲界色處為境。有差別的是，兩種境是可憎的，因為緣于不凈。一種境是可愛的，因為緣于凈色。問：色凈觀（Rupa-subha-kammatthana）欲不凈，如何能夠脫離色貪？解答說，這並非真正能夠斷除，只是令暫時遠離。其次，四無色解脫，各自以自地、上地的苦諦（Dukkha Satya）、集諦（Samudaya Satya）、滅諦（Nirodha Satya），以及一切地類的智品道，他們自地、上地的苦諦、集諦的非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha），以及他們一切類智品道的非擇滅，以及與虛空，作為所緣境。另外，《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第八十四卷說。

【English Translation】 English version: In order to recite the names of the lower realms to attain liberation. However, in other places, it is mostly said that only the names of the fundamental realms can lead to liberation, because not all of the proximate realms are liberation. Therefore, only the fundamental realms are mentioned. The Hetu-vidya (reasoning) has two explanations. One explanation is the same as this treatise. Another explanation is that the nine uninterrupted paths (anantarya-marga) and eight liberation paths (vimukti-marga) of the proximate realms are also not liberation, because they do not turn away from the lower realms, because the path associated with the lower realms is impure. Moreover, they do not completely detach from the defilements of the lower realms. Therefore, the sutras say that they surpass the lower realms. (The above is the content of the thesis) Regarding 'The eighth liberation leads to the emergence of non-outflow mind,' this explains the second verse. The eighth liberation is the Cessation Attainment (nirodha-samapatti). Its nature, etc., has been explained in detail in the previous chapter on faculties in the section on non-correspondence. Because of aversion to feeling (vedana) and perception (samjna), one enters this attainment. Therefore, this Cessation Attainment is given the name 'liberation.' Or, generally speaking, because of aversion to all objects of mind (citta) and mental factors (caitasika), this Cessation Attainment is given the name 'liberation.' Some say that this Cessation Attainment liberates from the obstruction of non-defiled ignorance (anāsrava-ajñāna), hence it is called 'liberation.' Before the Cessation Attainment, there are three types of mind. First, the mind of perception (samjna-citta). Second, the subtle mind (suksma-citta). Third, the very subtle mind (atisuksma-citta). Only after this third very subtle mind does the Cessation Attainment manifest. The second mind is already called subtle compared to the first mind of perception. This third mind becomes even more subtle, hence it is called very subtle. Next, after this very subtle mind, one enters the Cessation Attainment. The entering mind relies on the tranquility of the Cessation Attainment to enter, so it is only with outflows (sasrava). The exiting mind does not necessarily rely on the Cessation Attainment, so it is of two types. Regarding 'Among the eight, the first three to the object of focus,' this explains the third verse. It explains the object of focus for liberation. Among the eight, the first three only have the form realm (rupa-dhatu) of the desire realm (kama-dhatu) as their object. The difference is that two objects are repulsive because they focus on impurity (asubha). One object is lovely because it focuses on pure color (subha-rupa). Question: If one contemplates pure color (Rupa-subha-kammatthana) and impurity of desire, how can one be liberated from desire for color? The answer is that this is not truly able to cut off, but only causes temporary separation. Next, the four formless liberations (arupa-vimoksha) each take the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya), the Truth of Origin (Samudaya Satya), the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya) of their own and higher realms, and the wisdom-related paths of all realms, the non-arising cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha) of the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origin of their own and higher realms, and the non-arising cessation of the wisdom-related paths of all realms, and space, as their object of focus. Furthermore, the Vibhasa, volume 84, says.

所緣者。初三解脫緣欲界色處。第四解脫緣四無色。及彼因。彼滅。一切類智品。若四無色。及類智品。非擇滅。並虛空。若謂一物。若謂多物。一切皆緣(第五．第六解脫。準釋可知)第七解脫緣非想非非想處。及彼因。彼滅。一切類智品。若非想非非想處。及類智品非擇滅。並虛空。若謂一物。若謂多物。一切皆緣。想受滅解脫無所緣。有作是說。空無邊處解脫亦緣第四靜慮非擇滅。余所緣如前所說。乃至非想非非想處解脫。亦緣無所有處非擇滅。余所緣如前說(準彼婆沙兩說。皆許緣下非擇滅)。

第三靜慮寧無解脫者。明第三定無解脫所以。此即問也。

第二定中至所動亂故者。答。第二定中無眼識所引顯色貪故。故第三靜慮不立解脫。又自地妙樂所動亂故。

行者何緣修凈解脫者。明修凈解脫。此即問也。

為欲令心至彼方成故者。答。一為策心令欣。二為審知成滿。

由二緣故至種種作用者。此明修意。等謂等取勝處．遍處。余文可知。

何故經中至非餘六耶者。舉妨別問。

以於八中至各在邊故者。答。一以勝故。二在邊故。偏名身證。又婆沙一百五十二云。有說凈解脫。雖取凈相。而不起煩惱。以殊勝故。世尊安立身作證名。想受滅解脫。以無心故。在

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本所緣（Suo Yuan）：最初的三個解脫以欲界（Yu Jie）的色處（Se Chu）為所緣。第四個解脫以四無色定（Si Wu Se Ding）及其因、其滅、一切類智品（Yi Qie Lei Zhi Pin）為所緣。如果四無色定及類智品是非擇滅（Fei Ze Mie），以及虛空，無論是認為是一物還是多物，一切都可作為所緣（第五、第六解脫可以參照解釋）。第七個解脫以非想非非想處（Fei Xiang Fei Fei Xiang Chu）及其因、其滅、一切類智品為所緣。如果非想非非想處及類智品是非擇滅，以及虛空，無論是認為是一物還是多物，一切都可作為所緣。想受滅解脫（Xiang Shou Mie Jie Tuo）沒有所緣。有人這樣說，空無邊處解脫（Kong Wu Bian Chu Jie Tuo）也以第四禪定（Di Si Chan Ding）的非擇滅為所緣，其餘所緣如前所述。乃至非想非非想處解脫，也以無所有處（Wu Suo You Chu）的非擇滅為所緣，其餘所緣如前所述（參照《婆沙論》的兩種說法，都認可以下位的非擇滅為所緣）。

為什麼第三禪定（Di San Chan Ding）沒有解脫呢？這是爲了說明第三禪定沒有解脫的原因，這是一個提問。

因為第二禪定（Di Er Chan Ding）中沒有眼識所引起的對顯色（Xian Se）的貪愛，所以第三禪定不設立解脫。而且因為自身所處的妙樂所動亂。

修行者因為什麼原因修習凈解脫（Jing Jie Tuo）呢？這是爲了說明修習凈解脫，這是一個提問。

爲了使心能夠欣樂，以及爲了審知其成就圓滿。

由於這兩個原因，才能達到種種作用。這是說明修習意（Yi），等等包括勝處（Sheng Chu）、遍處（Bian Chu），其餘文字可以理解。

為什麼經文中只說八解脫，而不是其餘六種呢？這是舉出妨難，分別提問。

因為在八解脫中，殊勝，並且處於邊際，所以偏稱為身證（Shen Zheng）。另外，《婆沙論》第一百五十二卷說，有人說凈解脫雖然取凈相，但不起煩惱，因為殊勝的緣故，世尊安立了身作證這個名稱。想受滅解脫因為沒有心，所以處於邊際。

【English Translation】 English version The objects of focus (所緣, Suo Yuan): The first three liberations focus on the 'color sphere' (色處, Se Chu) of the desire realm (欲界, Yu Jie). The fourth liberation focuses on the four formless realms (四無色, Si Wu Se), their causes, their cessation, and all categories of knowledge (一切類智品, Yi Qie Lei Zhi Pin). If the four formless realms and categories of knowledge are 'non-selective cessation' (非擇滅, Fei Ze Mie), along with space, whether considered as one thing or many, all can be objects of focus (the fifth and sixth liberations can be understood similarly). The seventh liberation focuses on the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (非想非非想處, Fei Xiang Fei Fei Xiang Chu), its causes, its cessation, and all categories of knowledge. If the realm of neither perception nor non-perception and categories of knowledge are 'non-selective cessation', along with space, whether considered as one thing or many, all can be objects of focus. The liberation of cessation of perception and feeling (想受滅解脫, Xiang Shou Mie Jie Tuo) has no object of focus. Some say that the liberation of the sphere of infinite space (空無邊處解脫, Kong Wu Bian Chu Jie Tuo) also focuses on the 'non-selective cessation' of the fourth dhyana (第四禪定, Di Si Chan Ding), with the remaining objects of focus as previously stated. Even the liberation of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception also focuses on the 'non-selective cessation' of the sphere of nothingness (無所有處, Wu Suo You Chu), with the remaining objects of focus as previously stated (according to the two explanations in the Vibhasa, both acknowledge focusing on the lower 'non-selective cessation').

Why is there no liberation in the third dhyana (第三禪定, Di San Chan Ding)? This is to explain why there is no liberation in the third dhyana; this is a question.

Because in the second dhyana (第二禪定, Di Er Chan Ding) there is no craving for visible forms (顯色, Xian Se) caused by eye consciousness, therefore liberation is not established in the third dhyana. Also, because it is disturbed by the exquisite bliss of its own realm.

For what reason do practitioners cultivate pure liberations (凈解脫, Jing Jie Tuo)? This is to explain the cultivation of pure liberations; this is a question.

Firstly, to encourage the mind to rejoice; secondly, to thoroughly know its accomplishment and fulfillment.

Due to these two reasons, various functions are attained. This explains the cultivation of 'intention' (意, Yi), including the 'superior abodes' (勝處, Sheng Chu) and 'all-encompassing spheres' (遍處, Bian Chu), the remaining text is understandable.

Why does the sutra only mention the eight liberations and not the other six? This raises an objection and asks separately.

Because among the eight liberations, they are superior and located at the periphery, therefore they are specifically called 'body witness' (身證, Shen Zheng). Furthermore, the one hundred and fifty-second volume of the Vibhasa states that some say that although pure liberation takes pure appearances, it does not give rise to afflictions because of its superiority. The World-Honored One established the name 'body witness'. The liberation of cessation of perception and feeling is at the periphery because there is no mind.

身非心。身力所起。非心力起。是故世尊說為身證(廣如彼說)又正理云。唯第三．八說身證者。舉二邊際類顯所餘。色解脫中凈為邊際。于諸無色滅定為邊。有說第三初于身色以勝解力取清凈相。后漸遣除解脫成滿。緣身解脫此為究竟。故偏於此立身證名。滅定無心唯依身住故。亦于彼立身證名就勝故然。理實皆爾依通有理。有契經言。何名身證。謂八解脫。(此八解脫諸門分別。廣如婆沙八十四解)。

已辨解脫至后四如第三者。此即第三明八勝處。初句標名舉數。下三句指同解脫。

論曰至足前成八者。釋初句。勝處有八。一于內色身有色想貪。為對治彼。觀外少色作青瘀等。二于內色身有色想貪。為對除彼。觀外多色作青瘀等。三于內色身無色想貪。但為堅牢。觀外少色作青瘀等。令貪不起。四于內色身無色想貪。但為堅牢。觀外多色作青瘀等。令貪不起。又于內身無色想貪。但為策心或試煩惱。觀外青．黃．赤．白四色。令貪不起。此四足前總成八種。

八中初．二至如第三解脫者。釋下三句。八勝處中初二勝處自性地等。如初解脫。是初解脫果故。次二勝處自性地等。如第二解脫。是第二解脫果故。后四勝處自性地等。如第三解脫。是第三解脫果故。

若爾八勝處何殊三解脫者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本身不是心，身體的力量所產生的，不是心的力量所產生的。因此，世尊說這是身證（詳細內容如彼處所說）。《正理》中也說，只有第三禪和第八定說身證，這是舉兩個極端的情況來顯示其餘的情況。在色解脫中，清凈是邊際；在諸無色定中，滅盡定是邊際。有人說，第三禪最初以殊勝的勝解力，對身體的色相取清凈相，之後逐漸去除，解脫才圓滿成就，因為緣于身體的解脫是究竟的，所以偏於此立身證之名。滅盡定沒有心識，唯獨依靠身體而住，因此也在那裡立身證之名，這是就殊勝之處而言。實際上，所有情況都是如此，依靠神通是有道理的。有契經說：『什麼叫做身證？』就是指八解脫。（這八解脫的各種門類的分別，詳細內容如《大毗婆沙論》第八十四卷）。

已經辨析了解脫，至於后四種，如同第三禪的情況。這裡就是指第三禪，說明八勝處。第一句標明名稱和數量，下面的三句指出與解脫的相同之處。

論曰：『至於足前成八者』，這是解釋第一句。勝處有八種：第一，對於自身內的色身，有色想貪，爲了對治這種貪慾，觀察外面的少量顏色，觀想成青瘀等不凈之相。第二，對於自身內的色身，有色想貪，爲了對除這種貪慾，觀察外面的大量顏色，觀想成青瘀等不凈之相。第三，對於自身內的色身，沒有色想貪，只是爲了堅固，觀察外面的少量顏色，觀想成青瘀等不凈之相，使貪慾不起。第四，對於自身內的色身，沒有色想貪，只是爲了堅固，觀察外面的大量顏色，觀想成青瘀等不凈之相，使貪慾不起。此外，對於自身內的色身，沒有色想貪，只是爲了策勵內心或者測試煩惱，觀察外面的青、黃、赤、白四種顏色，使貪慾不起。這四種加上前面的四種，總共構成八種。

八種勝處中，最初的兩種勝處的自性、地等，如同初禪解脫，因為它們是初禪解脫的果。接下來的兩種勝處的自性、地等，如同第二禪解脫，因為它們是第二禪解脫的果。最後的四種勝處的自性、地等，如同第三禪解脫，因為它們是第三禪解脫的果。

如果這樣，那麼八勝處和三解脫有什麼區別呢？

【English Translation】 English version The body is not the mind. The strength of the body arises, not the strength of the mind. Therefore, the World-Honored One said it is 'body-witness' (shen zheng) (explained extensively there). Also, the Nyayanusara says, 'Only the third and eighth [meditative states] are said to be 'body-witness'; this is to illustrate the remainder by citing the two extremes. In the liberation from form, purity is the extreme; in the formless states, cessation is the extreme.' Some say that in the third [dhyana], one initially takes the aspect of purity in the physical form with superior understanding, and then gradually removes it, completing the liberation. Because liberation through the body is ultimate, the name 'body-witness' is specifically established here. In the cessation attainment, there is no mind, only reliance on the body, so the name 'body-witness' is also established there, because of its superiority. In reality, all cases are like this; relying on supernormal powers is reasonable. A sutra says, 'What is called 'body-witness'?' It refers to the eight liberations (ba jie tuo).(The distinctions of these eight liberations are explained extensively in the Mahavibhasa, chapter 84).

Having distinguished the liberations, as for the latter four, they are like the third [dhyana]. This refers to the third [dhyana], explaining the eight mastery spheres (ba sheng chu). The first sentence indicates the name and number; the following three sentences point out the similarities with the liberations.

The treatise says, 'As for the 'completing eight before the feet',' this explains the first sentence. There are eight mastery spheres: First, with regard to one's own internal physical form, there is desire for the form thought. To counteract this, one observes external limited colors, contemplating them as livid and decaying. Second, with regard to one's own internal physical form, there is desire for the form thought. To eliminate this, one observes external abundant colors, contemplating them as livid and decaying. Third, with regard to one's own internal physical form, there is no desire for the form thought, but only to strengthen [concentration], one observes external limited colors, contemplating them as livid and decaying, preventing desire from arising. Fourth, with regard to one's own internal physical form, there is no desire for the form thought, but only to strengthen [concentration], one observes external abundant colors, contemplating them as livid and decaying, preventing desire from arising. Furthermore, with regard to one's own internal physical form, there is no desire for the form thought, but only to encourage the mind or test afflictions, one observes the four external colors of blue, yellow, red, and white, preventing desire from arising. These four, together with the previous four, constitute eight in total.

Among the eight mastery spheres, the nature, ground, etc., of the first two mastery spheres are like the first liberation, because they are the result of the first liberation. The nature, ground, etc., of the next two mastery spheres are like the second liberation, because they are the result of the second liberation. The nature, ground, etc., of the last four mastery spheres are like the third liberation, because they are the result of the third liberation.

If so, what is the difference between the eight mastery spheres and the three liberations?

。問。

前修解脫至惑終不起者。答。前修解脫。唯能棄背彼貪不起。不能制境。后修勝處。能制所緣。隨所樂觀。惑終不起。能制伏境心勝境處。故名勝處　或勝煩惱故名勝處　或此善根即名為處。處能勝故立勝處名　此八勝處諸門分別。廣如婆沙八十五解。

已辨勝處至緣自地四蘊者。此即第四明十遍處。結前生起頌答。

論曰至故名遍處者。此釋初句。如文可知。

十中前八至欲可見色者。釋第二句。實緣色處假想地等。故正理云。如何地等亦名色處。地地界等有差別故。顯．形名地等。如先已說故。說地等遍處。不言地界等。故前八種但緣色處。風與風界既無差別。如何可言亦緣色處。此難非理。以諸世間亦說黑風．團風等故。由此前八緣色理成(已上論文)　有餘師說至風界為境者。敘異說。唯風遍處緣所觸中實風界為境。風即風界。餘七同前。

后二遍處至四蘊為境者。釋下兩句。后二遍處。如次空．識二凈無色為其自性。前八正治于貪。故自性以無貪為體。后二但觀空．識。故以無色為其自性。各緣自地四蘊為境。假想思惟作無邊空解。作無邊識解。又正理云。何故唯十得遍處名。此上更無遍行相故。唯第四定．空．識無邊。可得說有無邊行相。

應知此中至勝

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：　　先前修習解脫的人，達到惑業終究不再生起的狀態，是為什麼？答：先前修習解脫，只能捨棄背離那些貪慾，不能制伏外境。後來修習勝處（Adhibhāyatana，指能克服感官慾望的禪定），能制伏所緣境。隨著所觀察的境界，惑業終究不再生起。能夠制伏外境，心勝過外境的處所，所以名為勝處；或者勝過煩惱，所以名為勝處；或者此善根就名為處。處所能夠勝過，所以立名為勝處。這八勝處（Eight stages of mastery）的各種門類的分別，詳細的解釋在《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第八十五卷中。

已經辨明勝處，達到緣自地的四蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）的狀態。這即是第四個說明十遍處（Ten Kasinas，十種普遍的禪修境界）。總結前面的內容，生起頌文來回答。

論曰：達到故名遍處的狀態。這是解釋第一句，如文中所說就可以理解。

十種遍處中，前八種達到欲界可見色的狀態。這是解釋第二句。實際上是緣於色處（Rūpāyatana，色蘊的境界），假想地等。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）中說：『為什麼地等也名為色處？因為地、地界等有差別。』顯色、形色名為地等，如先前已經說過。所以說地等遍處，不言地界等。所以前八種只是緣於色處。風與風界（Vāyu-dhātu，風元素）既然沒有差別，為什麼可以說也緣於色處？這種疑問不合理。因為世間也說黑風、團風等。由此，前八種緣於色處的道理成立（以上是論文內容）。有其他論師說，達到風界為境界的狀態。這是敘述不同的說法。只有風遍處緣于所觸中真實的風界為境界。風即是風界，其餘七種與前面相同。

后兩種遍處，達到四蘊為境界的狀態。這是解釋下面兩句。后兩種遍處，依次是空無邊處（Ākāśānantyāyatana，無限虛空處）和識無邊處（Vijñānānantyāyatana，無限意識處），以二種清凈的無色為其自性。前八種主要對治貪慾，所以自性以無貪為體。后兩種只是觀察空和識，所以以無色為其自性。各自緣于自地的四蘊為境界。假想思惟，作無邊虛空的理解，作無邊意識的理解。又《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說：『為什麼只有十種得到遍處的名稱？因為這之上再沒有普遍行相的緣故。』只有第四禪定（Fourth Dhyana）、空無邊處、識無邊處，可以得到說有無邊行相。

應當知道，這其中達到勝...

【English Translation】 English version: Question: 　　Why is it that those who previously cultivated liberation reach a state where delusion never arises again? Answer: Previous cultivation of liberation can only abandon and turn away from those desires; it cannot control the external environment. Later cultivation of the Adhibhāyatana (stages of mastery), can control the object of focus. Depending on the observed state, delusion never arises again. Being able to control the external environment, the mind surpasses the environment, hence it is called Adhibhāyatana; or it overcomes afflictions, hence it is called Adhibhāyatana; or this root of goodness is called a 'place' (Adhi). Because the place is able to overcome, it is named Adhibhāyatana. The various categories of these Eight Stages of Mastery are explained in detail in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 85.

Having clarified the Adhibhāyatana, reaching the state of focusing on the four Skandhas (the five aggregates constituting an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) of one's own realm. This is the fourth explanation of the Ten Kasinas (ten universal spheres of meditation). Summarizing the previous content, a verse arises to answer.

The treatise says: 'Reaching the state of being called Kasina.' This explains the first sentence, which can be understood as it is written.

Among the ten Kasinas, the first eight reach the state of visible form in the desire realm. This explains the second sentence. In reality, they focus on the Rūpāyatana (sphere of form), imagining earth, etc. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Why are earth, etc., also called the sphere of form? Because earth, the earth element, etc., are different.' Visible form and shape are called earth, etc., as previously stated. Therefore, when speaking of the earth Kasina, one does not mention the earth element, etc. Thus, the first eight only focus on the sphere of form. Since wind and the Vāyu-dhātu (wind element) are not different, how can it be said that they also focus on the sphere of form? This question is unreasonable because the world also speaks of black wind, swirling wind, etc. Therefore, the principle of the first eight focusing on form is established (the above is the content of the treatise). Some other teachers say that reaching the wind element as the object. This narrates a different view. Only the wind Kasina focuses on the real wind element in the tangible as the object. Wind is the wind element; the other seven are the same as before.

The latter two Kasinas reach the state of the four Skandhas as the object. This explains the following two sentences. The latter two Kasinas are, in order, the Ākāśānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite space) and the Vijñānānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite consciousness), with the two pure formless realms as their nature. The first eight mainly counteract desire, so their nature is non-desire. The latter two only observe space and consciousness, so their nature is formless. Each focuses on the four Skandhas of its own realm. Imagining and contemplating, understanding infinite space, understanding infinite consciousness. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Why do only ten receive the name Kasina? Because there is no more universal characteristic above this.' Only the Fourth Dhyana (Fourth Meditation), the sphere of infinite space, and the sphere of infinite consciousness can be said to have infinite characteristics.

It should be known that, in this, reaching the state of surpassing...

前前故者。對簡差別。由前引后故后勝前。故婆沙八十五云。此中解脫唯于所緣總取凈相。未能分別青．黃．赤．白。后四勝處雖能分別青．黃．赤．白。而未能作無邊行相。前四遍處非唯分別青．黃．赤．白。而亦能作無邊行相。謂觀青等一一無邊后。復思青等為何所依。知依大種故。次觀地等一一無邊。復思此所覺色由何廣大。知由虛空故。次起空無邊處。復思此能覺誰為所依起。知依廣識故。次復起識無邊處。此所依識無別所依。故更不立上為遍處。此十遍處諸門分別。廣如婆沙八十五解。

此解脫等至余唯人趣起者。此即第五明得．依身。上兩句答初問。下兩句答后問。

論曰至未曾習故者。釋初兩句。第八解脫如先根品已辨。以即是前滅盡定故。佛唯離染得。余皆加行得。唯依欲．色二界身起。唯聖者起。餘七解脫．八勝處．十遍處。通由二得。若曾習者。由離染得。未曾習者。由加行得。

四無色解脫至皆能現起者。釋下兩句。四無色解脫二無色遍處。非由教力。一一通依三界身起。余前三解脫。及八勝處。前八遍處。唯人三洲能起。由教力故不通余處此七解脫．八勝處．十遍處　異生及聖皆能現起滅盡定指前故不別說。

諸有生在至亦由法爾力者。此即第六明起定緣。問。生

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：先前所說的解脫，是對簡略和差別而言的。因為後面的境界是由前面的境界引導而產生的，所以後面的境界勝過前面的境界。因此，《婆沙論》第八十五卷說：『這裡所說的解脫，只是對於所緣境總括地取其清凈的相狀，不能夠分別青、黃、赤、白等顏色。後面的四種勝處雖然能夠分別青、黃、赤、白等顏色，但是不能夠作無邊行相的觀想。前面的四種遍處，不僅能夠分別青、黃、赤、白等顏色，而且也能夠作無邊行相的觀想。』也就是說，觀想青等顏色一一無邊之後，又思惟青等顏色是依什麼而存在的，知道是依於四大種（Mahabhuta）而存在的。所以，接著觀想地等四大種一一無邊。又思惟這些所覺知的色法是由什麼而廣大的，知道是由虛空而廣大的。所以，接著生起空無邊處（Akasanantyatana）。又思惟這個能覺知的心識是依誰而生起的，知道是依于廣大的識而生起的。所以，接著生起識無邊處（Vijnananantyatana）。這個所依的識沒有其他的所依，所以不再建立更高的境界作為遍處。這十種遍處的各種門類的分別，詳細地記載在《婆沙論》第八十五卷中。這裡所說的解脫等以及等至，只有人趣（Manusyaloka）能夠生起，這是第五個問題，說明了明得（明瞭獲得）和依身（所依之身）。上面兩句回答了第一個問題，下面兩句回答了後面的問題。論中說『乃至未曾習故』，這是解釋最初的兩句。第八解脫，如先前在根品中已經辨明，因為它就是前面的滅盡定（Nirodhasamapatti）。佛陀（Buddha）只是通過離染而獲得，其餘的人都是通過加行而獲得。只能依靠欲界（Kamadhatu）、色界（Rupadhatu）二界之身而生起，只有聖者（Arya）才能生起。其餘的七種解脫、八勝處、十遍處，都是通過兩種方式獲得的。如果曾經修習過，就是通過離染而獲得；如果未曾修習過，就是通過加行而獲得。四無色解脫乃至皆能現起，這是解釋下面的兩句。四無色解脫和二無色遍處，不是通過教力而獲得的，一一都能夠依靠三界（Tridhatu）之身而生起。其餘的前三種解脫，以及八勝處，前八種遍處，只有人三洲（Jambudvipa, Purvavideha, Aparagodaniya）能夠生起，因為是通過教力而獲得的，所以不能夠在其他地方生起。這七種解脫、八勝處、十遍處，異生（凡夫）以及聖者都能夠現起。滅盡定因為前面已經指出了，所以不再單獨說明。諸有生在乃至亦由法爾力者，這是第六個問題，說明了生起禪定的因緣。問：生

【English Translation】 English version: The aforementioned liberations are in relation to simplicity and differentiation. Because the later realms are produced by the guidance of the former realms, the later realms surpass the former. Therefore, Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 85, states: 'The liberation mentioned here only takes the pure aspect of the object of focus in a general way, and cannot distinguish between colors such as blue, yellow, red, and white. The latter four overcoming bases (Kasina-ayatana) can distinguish between colors such as blue, yellow, red, and white, but cannot perform the contemplation of boundless aspects. The former four all-encompassing bases (Kasina-ayatana) can not only distinguish between colors such as blue, yellow, red, and white, but can also perform the contemplation of boundless aspects.' That is to say, after contemplating each of the blue colors, etc., as boundless, one then contemplates what the blue colors, etc., are dependent on, knowing that they are dependent on the four great elements (Mahabhuta). Therefore, one then contemplates each of the four great elements, such as earth, as boundless. One then contemplates what these perceived forms are made vast by, knowing that they are made vast by space. Therefore, one then arises in the sphere of boundless space (Akasanantyatana). One then contemplates who this knowing consciousness is dependent on, knowing that it is dependent on vast consciousness. Therefore, one then arises in the sphere of boundless consciousness (Vijnananantyatana). This dependent consciousness has no other dependence, so no higher realm is established as an all-encompassing base. The various categories of distinctions of these ten all-encompassing bases are recorded in detail in Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 85. The liberations, etc., and attainments mentioned here can only be arisen in the human realm (Manusyaloka). This is the fifth question, explaining the clear attainment (manifest attainment) and the dependent body. The above two sentences answer the first question, and the following two sentences answer the latter question. The treatise says 'up to because they have not been practiced', which explains the first two sentences. The eighth liberation, as has been explained earlier in the chapter on faculties, is because it is the preceding cessation attainment (Nirodhasamapatti). The Buddha (Buddha) attains it only through detachment, while others attain it through effort. It can only arise relying on the bodies of the desire realm (Kamadhatu) and the form realm (Rupadhatu), and only the noble ones (Arya) can arise it. The remaining seven liberations, eight overcoming bases, and ten all-encompassing bases are all attained through two ways. If they have been practiced before, they are attained through detachment; if they have not been practiced before, they are attained through effort. The four formless liberations up to all can manifest, which explains the following two sentences. The four formless liberations and the two formless all-encompassing bases are not attained through the power of teaching, and each can rely on the bodies of the three realms (Tridhatu) to arise. The remaining preceding three liberations, as well as the eight overcoming bases, and the preceding eight all-encompassing bases, can only be arisen in the three continents of humans (Jambudvipa, Purvavideha, Aparagodaniya), because they are attained through the power of teaching, so they cannot be arisen in other places. These seven liberations, eight overcoming bases, and ten all-encompassing bases can be manifested by both ordinary beings and noble ones. Cessation attainment is not mentioned separately because it has been pointed out earlier. Those who are born in up to also by the power of Dharma, this is the sixth question, explaining the conditions for arising samadhi. Question: Born

上二界起上二定。既不由教由何等緣。頌答可知。

論曰至皆增盛故者。此即總釋。生上二界總由三緣起二界定。一由因力。謂于先時。隨在何界。前生近起。及數修習。為今現起同類因故。二由業力。謂先曾造感上地生順后受業。業果將現前。勢力令起定。以必離下方生上故。三法爾力。世界將壞。法爾能得上界定故。

諸有生在至之所壞故者。別明生上二界由因．業力。起無色定非法爾力災不壞故。

生在色界至及法爾力者。別明生色界具由三緣起色界定。

若生欲界至加由教力者。義便兼明若生欲界起上定時。不但由上三緣。一一應知加由教力。正理云。由教力者。謂人三州。天亦聞教。微故不說。

前來分別至當住幾時者。此下當品大文第二明正法住世時。標前說意以為二問。若．序．正．流通三分依前一解。從此已下至破我品末一部之中。大文第三名流通分　又依前一解。從此已下至定品末。就前八品之中。大文第三名流通分。

頌曰至此便住世間者。上兩句答初問。下兩句答后問。

論曰至菩提分法者。釋上兩句。世尊正法體有二種。一者教法。二者證法。教法者。謂三藏法。一素呾纜藏。此云契經。二毗奈耶藏。此云謂伏。身．語律儀調伏行者。教詮調伏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從上二界（色界和無色界）生起上二定（更高級的禪定），如果不是通過教導，那是通過什麼因緣呢？頌文的回答已經說明了。

論述說：『乃至皆增盛故』，這是總體的解釋。生到上二界總共有三種因緣可以生起二界的禪定。第一是因的力量，指的是在過去的時候，無論在哪個界，前一生接近生起，以及多次修習，作為現在生起同類禪定的原因。第二是業的力量，指的是先前曾經造作過能感得上地（更高層次的境界）的順后受業（在未來才成熟的業），業的果報將要顯現的時候，它的勢力會令禪定生起，因為必定要離開下方的境界才能生到上方。第三是法爾力（自然規律的力量），世界將要壞滅的時候，自然而然能夠得到上界的禪定。

『諸有生在乃至之所壞故』，這是分別說明生到上二界是由因和業的力量生起無色定，不是因為法爾力，因為災難不會破壞無色界。

『生在乃至及法爾力者』，這是分別說明生到（原文此處有缺失，無法確定具體指代，推測可能為色界）完全是由三種因緣生起定（同上）。

『若生欲界乃至加由教力者』，這個意思也兼帶說明了如果生在欲界而生起上定時，不僅僅是由上面三種因緣，應該知道還要加上教導的力量。《正理》中說：『由教力者』，指的是人間的三個洲（指東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲），天界也能聽到教法，因為（教法的力量）很微弱，所以沒有特別說明。

前面分別說明『乃至當住幾時者』，這以下這一品的大文第二部分，說明正法住世的時間，標明前面所說內容的意圖，作為兩個提問。若、序、正、流通這三個部分依照前面的解釋。從這以下直到破我品末尾，在這一部之中，大文第三部分叫做流通分。又依照前面的解釋，從這以下直到定品末尾，就在前面的八品之中，大文第三部分叫做流通分。

頌文說：『乃至此便住世間者』，上面兩句回答第一個問題，下面兩句回答第二個問題。

論述說：『乃至菩提分法者』，解釋上面的兩句。世尊的正法體有兩種，第一種是教法，第二種是證法。教法指的是三藏法，第一是素呾纜藏（Sutrantika，經藏），這裡翻譯為契經。第二是毗奈耶藏（Vinaya，律藏），這裡翻譯為調伏，（指的是）身語的律儀調伏修行者，教法詮釋調伏。

【English Translation】 English version: From the upper two realms (Rupadhatu and Arupadhatu) arises the upper two Samadhis (higher levels of meditation). If not through teaching, through what causes and conditions does it arise? The answer is known from the verse.

The treatise says: 'Up to all increasing,' this is a general explanation. Being born in the upper two realms is generally due to three causes and conditions for arising the Samadhis of the two realms. First, the power of cause, referring to in the past, no matter in which realm, the previous life closely arising, and repeatedly practicing, as the cause for the present arising of similar Samadhi. Second, the power of karma, referring to previously creating karma that can cause birth in a higher realm (higher level of existence), karma that will ripen in the future. When the fruit of karma is about to manifest, its power will cause the Samadhi to arise, because it is necessary to leave the lower realm to be born in the upper realm. Third, the power of Dharma-nature (the power of natural law), when the world is about to be destroyed, it is naturally possible to attain the Samadhi of the upper realm.

'Those born in up to what is destroyed,' this specifically explains that being born in the upper two realms is due to the power of cause and karma arising the formless Samadhi, not because of the power of Dharma-nature, because disasters do not destroy the formless realm.

'Born in up to and the power of Dharma-nature,' this specifically explains that being born in ** (the original text is missing here, making it impossible to determine the specific reference, presumably Rupadhatu) ** is entirely due to the three causes and conditions arising ** Samadhi (same as above) **.

'If born in the desire realm up to adding the power of teaching,' this meaning also implies that if born in the desire realm and arising the upper Samadhi, it is not only due to the above three causes and conditions, it should be known that the power of teaching is also added. The Nyayanusara says: 'By the power of teaching,' referring to the three continents of the human world (referring to Purvavideha, Jambudvipa, Aparagodaniya), the heavens can also hear the teachings, because (the power of the teachings) is very weak, so it is not specifically mentioned.

The previous separate explanation 'up to how long will it abide,' below this, the second major section of this chapter explains the time when the Proper Dharma abides in the world, marking the intention of the previous statement as two questions. The three parts of If, Introduction, Main Body, and Circulation are based on the previous explanation. From here onwards until the end of the Breaking Self chapter, in this section, the third major section is called the Circulation section. Also according to the previous explanation, from here onwards until the end of the Samadhi chapter, in the previous eight chapters, the third major section is called the Circulation section.

The verse says: 'Up to this then abides in the world,' the above two lines answer the first question, and the below two lines answer the second question.

The treatise says: 'Up to the factors of enlightenment,' explaining the above two lines. There are two kinds of body of the Proper Dharma of the World Honored One, the first is the Teaching Dharma, and the second is the Realization Dharma. The Teaching Dharma refers to the Tripitaka, the first is the Sutrantika (Sutrantika, Sutra Pitaka), here translated as Discourses. The second is the Vinaya (Vinaya, Discipline Pitaka), here translated as Subduing, (referring to) the discipline of body and speech subduing practitioners, the Teaching Dharma explains subduing.

。從所詮為名。三阿毗達磨藏。此云對法。廣如前釋　證法者。謂聲聞．獨覺．如來三乘菩提分法。

有能受持至唯住千載者。釋下兩句　有能受持。謂能誦持三藏教法。即誦教者。此釋有持者　及正說者。謂能正說三藏教法。即說法師。此釋有說者。由此二人佛正教法便住世間。有能依教正能修行三乘菩提分法者。佛正證法便住世間。故隨三人住世時量。應知正法住爾所時。聖教總言唯住千載。

有釋證法至復過於此者。敘異說。有釋證法唯住千年。過千年已不得入聖。教法住時復過於此。千年已后雖無得聖。亦有受持．及說法者。

此論依攝至釋對法耶者。此即第三明造論宗旨。牒前問起。前界品中說。此藏論依阿毗達磨。攝阿毗達磨。論主造論。諸部之中。為依何理釋對法耶。

頌曰至在牟尼者。初兩句正答。后兩句謙讓。

論曰至大聖弟子者。就長行中。一正釋頌本。二傷嘆勸學。此即正釋頌本。迦濕彌羅國。五百大阿羅漢毗婆沙師。相共相議論阿毗達磨理善成立。我多依彼釋對法宗。于中時以經部義宗。少有貶量為我過失。然亦未敢即為指南。判法正理唯在世尊。及諸如來大聖弟子舍利子等。

大師世眼久已閉堪為證者多散滅者。此下第二傷嘆勸學。就中。一傷嘆人

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：從所詮釋的內容來命名。三《阿毗達磨藏》（Abhidharma Pitaka，論藏）。這裡稱為『對法』，詳細解釋如前所述。證法指的是聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法者）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）、如來（Tathāgata，佛的稱號之一）三乘的菩提分法（bodhipakṣa-dharmas，通往覺悟的要素）。

有能夠受持乃至唯住世千年的情況。解釋下面兩句：有能夠受持，指的是能夠誦讀和受持三藏（Tripiṭaka，佛教經典的總稱）的教法，也就是誦經者。這是對『有持』的解釋。以及正說者，指的是能夠正確宣說三藏的教法，也就是說法師。這是對『有說』的解釋。由於這兩種人，佛的正教法才能住世。有能夠依照教法正確修行三乘菩提分法的人，佛的正證法才能住世。因此，根據這三種人住世的時間長短，應當知道正法住世的時間。聖教總的來說只能住世一千年。

有解釋說證法只能住世一千年，過了千年就不能證入聖果。教法住世的時間比這更長。千年以後，即使沒有證得聖果的人，也有受持和說法的人。

此論依據攝取乃至解釋對法嗎？這是第三個說明造論的宗旨。承接前面的問題。前面在界品中說過，這個論藏依據《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma），攝取《阿毗達磨》。論主造論，在各個部派之中，依據什麼道理來解釋對法呢？

頌文說乃至在於牟尼。開始兩句是正面回答，後面兩句是謙虛之詞。

論中說乃至大聖弟子。在長行文中，一是正面解釋頌文字身，二是傷感嘆息並勸勉學習。這是正面解釋頌文字身。迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的五百大阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，毗婆沙宗的學者），共同商議討論《阿毗達磨》的道理，善於成立。我大多依據他們的觀點來解釋對法的宗旨。其中有時採用經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）的義理，稍微有所貶損衡量，這是我的過失。然而也不敢就此作為指南，判斷佛法的正理，唯有在於世尊（Bhagavān，佛的稱號之一）以及諸如來大聖弟子舍利子（Śāriputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一）等。

大師的世間之眼已經閉上，可以作為證明的人大多散滅。下面是第二部分，傷感嘆息並勸勉學習。其中，一是傷感嘆息人才凋零。

【English Translation】 English version: It is named based on what it elucidates. The three Abhidharma Pitakas (Abhidharma Pitaka, the collection of treatises). Here it is called 'Counter-Dharma,' explained in detail as before. 'Attainment-Dharma' refers to the bodhipakṣa-dharmas (factors leading to enlightenment) of the three vehicles: Śrāvaka (hearers), Pratyekabuddha (solitary realizers), and Tathāgata (one of the titles of the Buddha).

There are those who can uphold it, even to the extent that it only remains for a thousand years. Explaining the following two sentences: 'There are those who can uphold,' refers to those who can recite and uphold the teachings of the Tripiṭaka (the three baskets of Buddhist scriptures), that is, the reciters. This explains 'those who uphold.' 'And those who correctly explain,' refers to those who can correctly expound the teachings of the Tripiṭaka, that is, the Dharma masters. This explains 'those who explain.' Because of these two types of people, the Buddha's correct teachings can remain in the world. 'There are those who can correctly practice the bodhipakṣa-dharmas of the three vehicles according to the teachings,' the Buddha's correct attainment-dharma can remain in the world. Therefore, according to the length of time these three types of people remain in the world, it should be known how long the correct Dharma will remain. The holy teachings, in general, will only remain for a thousand years.

Some explain that the attainment-dharma will only remain for a thousand years, and after a thousand years, one cannot enter into sainthood. The time that the teachings remain is even longer than this. After a thousand years, even if there are no people who attain sainthood, there are still those who uphold and explain the teachings.

Does this treatise rely on and incorporate, and even explain, the Counter-Dharma? This is the third point, explaining the purpose of writing the treatise. Continuing from the previous question. It was said earlier in the 'Realm' chapter that this collection of treatises relies on the Abhidharma, incorporating the Abhidharma. The author, in writing the treatise, among the various schools, what principles does he rely on to explain the Counter-Dharma?

The verse says '...resides in the Muni.' The first two lines are a direct answer, and the last two lines are words of humility.

The treatise says '...the great disciples of the Sage.' In the prose section, first, it directly explains the verse itself, and second, it laments and exhorts learning. This is the direct explanation of the verse itself. The five hundred great Arhats (saints who have extinguished all afflictions) of Kashmir (Kashmir), the Vaibhāṣikas (scholars of the Vaibhāṣika school), together discussed and debated the principles of the Abhidharma, skillfully establishing them. I mostly rely on their views to explain the tenets of the Counter-Dharma. Among them, sometimes adopting the principles of the Sautrāntika (one of the Buddhist schools), with slight depreciation and evaluation, this is my fault. However, I dare not take this as a guide, judging the correct principles of the Dharma, which only reside in the Bhagavan (one of the titles of the Buddha) and the great disciples of the Tathāgatas, such as Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples).

The world-eye of the great master is already closed, and those who can serve as proof are mostly scattered and extinguished. Below is the second part, lamenting and exhorting learning. Among them, first, it laments the decline of talent.

。二勸學法　就傷嘆人中。一正傷嘆人。二重釋傷嘆　就正傷嘆人中。一傷嘆有德。二傷嘆起失　此即第一傷嘆有德。上句傷嘆如來。下句傷嘆弟子。三界大師為世眼目　入寂多時。名久已閉　諸聖弟子舍利子等。堪為證得佛正法者。亦入涅槃。多分散滅。

不見真理無制人由鄙尋思亂聖教者。此即第二傷嘆起失　凡夫愚癡無有慧眼。不能觀見四真諦理　起惑任情無法自制。名無制人　由起鄙惡尋思。獨途橫計惑亂聖教。

自覺已歸勝寂靜持彼教者多隨滅者。此下第二重釋傷嘆。就中。一重釋有德。二重釋起失。此即第一重釋有德　無師自悟名為自覺。簡異二乘。有此覺者名曰大師　於今已歸最勝寂靜常樂涅槃。釋前世眼久已閉　持彼教者。諸大聲聞舍利子等多分隨滅。釋前堪為證者多散滅。

世無依怙喪眾德無釣制惑隨意轉者。此即第二重釋起失　世間有情由喪如來及諸弟子眾德故。無所歸依。無所恃怙。所以不見真理名無制人。此即釋前不見真理無制人　無有正法之鉤制諸惑象。隨意起執。釋由鄙尋思亂聖教　又解世無依怙喪眾德。雙結釋前傷嘆有德兩句。由佛及弟子滅故名喪眾德。一切世間無依。無怙　無鉤制惑隨意轉。釋前傷嘆起失兩句。無鉤制惑釋不見真理無制人。隨意轉。釋由鄙尋思

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二、勸學法就傷嘆人中。

一、正傷嘆人。二、重釋傷嘆就正傷嘆人中。

一、傷嘆有德。二、傷嘆起失此即第一傷嘆有德。上句傷嘆如來（Tathagata），下句傷嘆弟子。三界大師為世間眼目，入寂滅已經很久，名聲也已經沉寂。諸位聖弟子，如舍利子（Sariputra）等，本可以作為證得佛陀正法的人，也已經進入涅槃（Nirvana），大多分散滅亡。不見真理，沒有能夠自我控制的人，因為卑劣的思索擾亂聖教。此即第二傷嘆起失。凡夫愚癡，沒有智慧的眼睛，不能觀見四聖諦（Four Noble Truths）的真理，生起迷惑，放縱情感，無法自我控制，所以叫做『無制人』。由於生起卑劣的思索，以自己的想法橫加揣測，擾亂聖教。自覺已經歸於殊勝的寂靜，持有佛陀教法的人大多隨之滅亡。此下第二重釋傷嘆。就中。一、重釋有德。二、重釋起失。此即第一重釋有德。沒有老師而自己覺悟，叫做自覺，區別於二乘。有這種覺悟的人叫做大師。如今已經歸於最殊勝的寂靜常樂涅槃，解釋了前面『世眼久已閉』。持有佛陀教法的人，如諸大聲聞舍利子等，大多隨之滅亡，解釋了前面『堪為證者多散滅』。世間沒有依靠，喪失了眾多的功德，沒有鉤子來控制迷惑，任憑其隨意流轉。此即第二重釋起失。世間有情由於喪失如來（Tathagata）以及諸位弟子眾多的功德，所以沒有可以歸依的地方，沒有可以依靠的。所以不能見到真理，叫做『無制人』。這解釋了前面『不見真理無制人』。沒有正法的鉤子來控制各種迷惑的象，任憑它們隨意生起執著，解釋了『由鄙尋思亂聖教』。又解釋了『世無依怙喪眾德』，雙重總結解釋了前面傷嘆有德的兩句。由於佛陀以及弟子滅亡的緣故，叫做『喪眾德』，一切世間沒有依靠，沒有怙恃。『無鉤制惑隨意轉』，解釋了前面傷嘆起失的兩句。『無鉤制惑』解釋了『不見真理無制人』，『隨意轉』解釋了『由鄙尋思』。

【English Translation】 English version Section Two: Encouragement of Learning - Concerning Lamenting People.

Part One: Directly Lamenting People. Part Two: Re-explaining the Lament - Concerning Directly Lamenting People.

Part One: Lamenting Those with Virtue. Part Two: Lamenting the Arising of Loss. This is the first part, lamenting those with virtue. The first sentence laments the Tathagata (如來), and the second sentence laments the disciples. The great teacher of the Three Realms (三界) was the eye of the world, but has entered into stillness for a long time, and his name has long been closed. The noble disciples, such as Sariputra (舍利子), who could have been witnesses to the Buddha's true Dharma, have also entered Nirvana (涅槃), and are mostly scattered and extinguished. Not seeing the truth, there are uncontrolled people due to base thoughts disturbing the holy teachings. This is the second part, lamenting the arising of loss. Ordinary people are foolish and lack the eye of wisdom, unable to see the truth of the Four Noble Truths (四聖諦), giving rise to delusion, indulging in emotions, and unable to control themselves, hence the name 'uncontrolled people.' Due to arising base thoughts, speculating wildly, they disturb the holy teachings. The self-awakened one has already returned to supreme stillness, and those who uphold his teachings mostly follow him into extinction. This is the second part, re-explaining the lament. Within this: Part One: Re-explaining those with virtue. Part Two: Re-explaining the arising of loss. This is the first part, re-explaining those with virtue. Self-awakening without a teacher is called self-awareness, distinguishing it from the Two Vehicles. One with this awakening is called a great teacher. Now, he has returned to the most supreme stillness, the constant joy of Nirvana, explaining the previous 'the eye of the world has long been closed.' Those who uphold his teachings, such as the great Sravakas like Sariputra, mostly follow him into extinction, explaining the previous 'those who could have been witnesses are mostly scattered and extinguished.' The world has no refuge, having lost many virtues, and there is no hook to control delusions, allowing them to turn at will. This is the second part, re-explaining the arising of loss. Sentient beings in the world, due to losing the Tathagata (如來) and the many virtues of the disciples, have no place to turn to, no one to rely on. Therefore, they cannot see the truth and are called 'uncontrolled people.' This explains the previous 'not seeing the truth, there are uncontrolled people.' There is no hook of the true Dharma to control the elephants of delusion, allowing them to arise attachments at will, explaining 'due to base thoughts disturbing the holy teachings.' It also explains 'the world has no refuge, having lost many virtues,' doubly summarizing and explaining the previous two sentences lamenting those with virtue. Due to the extinction of the Buddha and the disciples, it is called 'losing many virtues,' and the entire world has no refuge, no support. 'No hook to control delusions, allowing them to turn at will,' explains the previous two sentences lamenting the arising of loss. 'No hook to control delusions' explains 'not seeing the truth, there are uncontrolled people,' and 'allowing them to turn at will' explains 'due to base thoughts.'

亂聖教　后解似勝。

既知如來正法壽至應求解脫勿放逸者。此即第二勸學法。既知如來正法壽命漸次淪亡。如人慾終氣臨至喉即便斷滅。於此時中。是諸煩惱勢力增盛。應速欣求解脫涅槃。而勿放逸起諸煩惱。◎◎

破執我品第九之一

破執我品者我體實無。諸有橫執。此品廣破執我。所以次明破我品者。此論一部。釋佛契經三法印中諸法無我。前八品明諸法事。后一品明無我理。事粗先辨。理細后明。或事是所依。是故前說。理是能依。故后明也。

越此依余豈無解脫者。就此品中大文有二。一廣破異執。二勸學流通　就廣破中。一總破。二別破　此下第一總破中。一問。二答。三徴。四釋。五責。六破。此即問也　問越此佛法。依余法中。豈無解脫。何故前言應求解脫。此即乘前起問。依前一解判釋三分。就破我品中。此初兩句名為序分。

理必無有者。此即答也。以理推尋。必定無有。應知。破我品中所有立破。論主多敘經部宗也。若依前一解三分。就破我品中。此下名曰正宗。

所以者何者。此即徴也。

虛妄我執至無容解脫者。此即釋也。虛妄我執所迷亂故。謂此佛法外勝論師等所執我。非即於五蘊相續法上假立為我。別執有真實離蘊我故。由此橫計我執勢

【現代漢語翻譯】亂聖教，后解似勝。

既已知如來正法壽命將盡，應求解脫，勿放逸。這是第二勸學法。既已知如來正法壽命逐漸淪亡，就像人將死，氣息臨近喉嚨即將斷絕。此時，各種煩惱勢力增盛，應儘快欣求涅槃解脫，不要放逸而生起各種煩惱。

破執我品第九之一

破執我品，意在說明『我』的本體實際上並不存在，而人們卻橫生執念。此品廣泛破斥對『我』的執著。之所以接著說明破我品，是因為這部論著旨在解釋佛陀契經中三法印中的『諸法無我』。前八品闡明諸法的事相，后一品闡明無我的道理。事相粗顯，所以先辨明；道理精微，所以後闡明。或者說，事相是所依，所以先說；道理是能依，所以後說明。

越過佛法，依靠其他法難道就沒有解脫嗎？此品中，大體分為兩部分：一是廣泛破斥各種異端執著，二是勸勉學習流通。在廣泛破斥異端執著中，又分為總破和別破。以下是第一部分總破，分為問、答、徴（設問）、釋（解釋）、責（責問）、破。這是提問：

提問：越過佛法，依靠其他法門，難道就沒有解脫嗎？為什麼前面說應該求解脫？這是承接前文而提出的問題。依照前文的理解，將此品判釋為三分。就破我品而言，最初兩句可視為序分。

回答：從道理上來說，必定沒有解脫。這是回答。以理推尋，必定沒有解脫。應當知道，破我品中所有的立論和破斥，論主大多是敘述經部宗的觀點。如果依照前文的理解，將此品分為三分，那麼從這裡開始，就稱為正宗。

所以是什麼原因呢？這是設問。

解釋：因為虛妄的我執所迷惑。這裡所說的『我』，是指佛法之外的勝論師等所執著的『我』，並非在五蘊相續法上假立的『我』，而是另外執著有一個真實的、脫離五蘊的『我』。由於這種橫生的計較，我執的勢力...

【English Translation】 Confused sacred teachings, later interpretations seem superior.

Having known that the lifespan of the Tathagata's (如來) [Thus Come One, Buddha] true Dharma (正法) [true law/teachings] is nearing its end, one should seek liberation and not be negligent. This is the second method of encouraging learning. Having known that the lifespan of the Tathagata's true Dharma is gradually declining, like a person nearing death, with breath approaching the throat and about to be cut off. At this time, the power of various afflictions increases, one should quickly rejoice in seeking liberation and Nirvana (涅槃) [state of enlightenment], and not be negligent in generating various afflictions.

Chapter Nine, Part One: Refuting Attachment to Self

The chapter on refuting attachment to self aims to explain that the essence of 'self' (我) [ego, the concept of 'I'] does not actually exist, yet people create attachments to it. This chapter extensively refutes the attachment to 'self'. The reason for explaining the chapter on refuting self next is that this treatise aims to explain 'all dharmas (諸法) [phenomena, teachings] are without self' from the Three Dharma Seals (三法印) [three marks of existence] in the Buddha's sutras. The first eight chapters clarify the phenomena of all dharmas, and the last chapter clarifies the principle of no-self. Phenomena are coarse, so they are explained first; the principle is subtle, so it is explained later. Or, phenomena are what is relied upon, so they are explained first; the principle is what relies, so it is explained later.

Is there no liberation by relying on other dharmas besides this Buddha-dharma (佛法) [Buddha's teachings]? In this chapter, there are two main parts: one is to extensively refute various heterodox attachments, and the other is to encourage learning and circulation. In the extensive refutation of heterodox attachments, there are general refutation and specific refutation. The following is the first part, general refutation, divided into question, answer, inquiry, explanation, rebuke, and refutation. This is the question:

Question: Beyond the Buddha-dharma, relying on other dharmas, is there no liberation? Why did you say earlier that one should seek liberation? This question arises from the previous text. According to the previous understanding, this chapter is divided into three parts. As for the chapter on refuting self, the first two sentences can be regarded as the introductory part.

Answer: In terms of principle, there is definitely no liberation. This is the answer. By reasoning, there is definitely no liberation. It should be known that in the chapter on refuting self, all the arguments and refutations are mostly narrations of the views of the Sautrantika (經部) [a school of Buddhism] school. If according to the previous understanding, this chapter is divided into three parts, then from here on, it is called the main section.

What is the reason? This is the inquiry.

Explanation: Because of the delusion of the false attachment to self. The 'self' mentioned here refers to the 'self' clung to by the Samkhya (勝論) [a school of Indian philosophy] and others outside of the Buddha-dharma, not the 'self' falsely established on the continuum of the five skandhas (五蘊) [five aggregates], but rather clinging to a real 'self' separate from the five skandhas. Due to this unwarranted calculation, the power of attachment to self...

力。為根本故諸煩惱生。由煩惱生。感異熟果。於三有中輪迴不息。故依外法無容解脫。

以何為證至非別目我體者。此即嘖也。以何為證。知彼諸我能詮之名。唯名五蘊相續法。非離蘊外別目我體。

于彼所計至無真我體者。此即破也。于彼外道諸有所計離蘊我中。無有真實現比量故。於三量中。所以不約聖言量證者。內外二道各謂自師所說聖教。以聖教證。互不稟承。故三量中但約現量比量以破。謂若我體離五蘊外別有實物。如余有體法。若無障礙因緣。應現量得十二處中如六境意。謂色等五境。眼等五識現量證得。於法境中。諸心．心所法。及與意處。為他心智現量證得　謂若我體離五蘊外別有實物。如余有體法。若無障礙因緣。應比量得如五色根　言五色根比量得者。如世間現見。雖有水土人功眾緣。由闕種子別緣。芽果即便非有。不闕種子別緣。芽果便有。如種生芽。見芽比知有種。此舉外喻如是亦見。雖有色等現境作意等緣。等取明空。若眼識。由色．作意．明．空四緣。若耳識。由聲．作意．空三緣。若鼻．舌．身三識。由作意及香．味．觸二緣。而諸盲．聾等識不起。以闕眼等別緣故。不盲．聾等識起。以有眼等別緣。定知別緣有闕之時。識不得起。不闕之時。識便得起。此別緣者。即

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為這是根本，所以各種煩惱產生。由於煩惱的產生，招感不同的果報，在三有（指欲有、色有、無色有）中輪迴不止。因此，依靠外道的方法是無法解脫的。

用什麼來證明，所說的『我』並非與五蘊不同的實體呢？這就是駁斥。用什麼來證明，那些用來描述『我』的名稱，僅僅是指五蘊相續的法，而不是離開五蘊之外的另一個『我』的實體呢？

對於他們所設想的，沒有真實的『我』的實體。這就是破斥。對於那些外道所設想的離開五蘊的『我』，沒有真實的現量和比量可以證明。在三種量（指現量、比量、聖言量）中，之所以不使用聖言量來證明，是因為內外兩道都認為自己老師所說的聖教是正確的。用聖教來證明，彼此不會接受。所以，在三種量中，只使用現量和比量來破斥。也就是說，如果『我』的實體離開五蘊之外，是另一個真實存在的物體，就像其他有實體的法一樣，如果沒有障礙的因緣，應該可以通過現量在十二處（指六根和六境）中獲得，比如六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）和意處。也就是說，色等五境，可以通過眼等五識的現量來證得。在法境中，各種心和心所法，以及意處，可以通過他心智的現量來證得。也就是說，如果『我』的實體離開五蘊之外，是另一個真實存在的物體，就像其他有實體的法一樣，如果沒有障礙的因緣，應該可以通過比量來獲得，就像五色根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根）一樣。說到五色根可以通過比量獲得，就像世間現在所見到的那樣，即使有水、土、人工等眾多因緣，由於缺少種子這種特別的因緣，芽和果實就不會產生。不缺少種子這種特別的因緣，芽和果實就會產生。就像種子產生芽一樣，看到芽就可以推知有種子。這是舉一個外在的例子。同樣也可以看到，即使有色等現境和作意等因緣（等取光明和空間），如果眼識缺少色、作意、光明、空間這四種因緣，如果耳識缺少聲、作意、空間這三種因緣，如果鼻、舌、身這三種識缺少作意以及香、味、觸這兩種因緣，那麼盲人、聾人等的識就不會產生，因為缺少眼等特別的因緣。不盲、不聾等人的識會產生，因為有眼等特別的因緣。可以確定，在特別的因緣缺少的時候，識就不能產生；在不缺少的時候，識就能產生。這個特別的因緣，就是……

【English Translation】 English version: Because this is the root, all kinds of afflictions arise. Due to the arising of afflictions, different karmic results are experienced, and one continues to revolve endlessly in the three realms of existence (the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm). Therefore, relying on external methods cannot lead to liberation.

What is the proof that the so-called 'self' is not a separate entity from the five skandhas (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness)? This is refutation. What is the proof that those names used to describe the 'self' only refer to the continuous flow of the five skandhas, and not a separate 'self' entity apart from the skandhas?

Regarding their assumption that there is no true 'self' entity, this is rejection. Regarding the 'self' that those non-Buddhist (外道, Wàidào) schools assume to be separate from the skandhas, there is no true direct perception (現量, xiànliàng) or inference (比量, bǐliàng) to prove it. Among the three kinds of valid cognition (現量, 比量, 聖言量 - direct perception, inference, and scriptural authority), the reason why scriptural authority is not used to prove it is because both internal (Buddhist) and external schools consider the teachings of their own teachers to be correct. Using scriptural authority to prove it would not be accepted by each other. Therefore, among the three kinds of valid cognition, only direct perception and inference are used to refute it. That is to say, if the 'self' entity is separate from the five skandhas and is another real object, like other entities, if there are no obstructing conditions, it should be obtainable through direct perception in the twelve sense bases (六根 and 六境 - the six sense organs and the six sense objects), such as the six sense objects (色, 聲, 香, 味, 觸, 法 - form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental objects) and the mind base (意處, yìchù). That is to say, the five sense objects such as form can be directly perceived by the five consciousnesses such as eye consciousness. In the realm of mental objects, various mental states (心, xīn) and mental factors (心所法, xīnsuǒfǎ), as well as the mind base, can be directly perceived by the mind that knows the minds of others (他心智, tāxīnzhì). That is to say, if the 'self' entity is separate from the five skandhas and is another real object, like other entities, if there are no obstructing conditions, it should be obtainable through inference, like the five sense faculties (五色根, wǔsègēn - eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body). Speaking of the five sense faculties being obtainable through inference, just as it is seen in the world, even if there are many conditions such as water, soil, and human effort, if the special condition of the seed is lacking, the sprout and fruit will not arise. If the special condition of the seed is not lacking, the sprout and fruit will arise. Just as a seed produces a sprout, seeing the sprout can infer that there is a seed. This is giving an external example. Similarly, it can also be seen that even if there are present objects such as form and conditions such as attention (等取光明和空間 - including light and space), if eye consciousness lacks the four conditions of form, attention, light, and space, if ear consciousness lacks the three conditions of sound, attention, and space, if nose, tongue, and body consciousness lack the two conditions of attention and smell, taste, and touch, then the consciousnesses of blind, deaf, etc. people will not arise, because they lack the special conditions of the eye, etc. The consciousnesses of non-blind, non-deaf, etc. people will arise, because they have the special conditions of the eye, etc. It can be determined that when the special conditions are lacking, consciousness cannot arise; when they are not lacking, consciousness can arise. This special condition is...

眼等根。作意等是共緣。眼等是別緣。五識是果。由能發識。比知有根。如是名為色根比量。于離蘊我二量都無。非如六境意根現量得故。非如眼等五根比量得故。由此證知。無真我體。此約現．比總破諸我。文中既不別標。明知總破。

然犢子部執至不一不異者。此下第二別破。就別中一破犢子部。二破數論師。三破勝論師　此下第一破犢子部。就中。一敘宗。二正破。三通難　此即第一敘宗。言犢子部者。十八部中之一稱也。佛在世時有犢子外道計有實我。計同外道故以標名。如來弟子不應執我。而橫計我故先破也。犢子部執。有補特伽羅。此云數取趣。我之異名。數取五趣其體實有。與彼五蘊不一不異。彼計我體非斷非常。若與蘊一。蘊滅我滅我等應斷。不可言一。若與蘊異。蘊滅我不滅我應是常。不可言異。

此應思擇為實為假者。此下第二正破。就中。一以理破。二以教破　就以理破中。一約假實破。二約依徴破。三約五法藏破。四約所託破。五約所識破　此下第一約假實破。論主勸思此應思擇。汝所執我為實為假。

實有假有相別云何者犢子部問。實有假有相別云何。勸我思擇。

別有事物至如乳酪等者。論主答。如色聲等是實有相。如乳．酪等。是假有相多法成故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本眼等根（indriya，感覺器官）的所緣是色等境，作意等（manaskara，心理活動）是共同的所緣，眼等是各自不同的所緣。五識（五種感官意識）是結果。由於能夠引發意識，可以通過比量（anumana，推理）得知有根（indriya，感覺器官）的存在。這被稱為色根比量。對於離蘊我（atman，靈魂）的兩種量（ प्रमाण ，pramana，認知方式）都不存在。不像六境（六種感官對像）可以通過意根（manas-indriya，意識器官）的現量（pratyaksa，直接感知）獲得，也不像眼等五根可以通過比量獲得。由此可以證明，沒有真實的我的存在。這裡是從現量和比量兩個方面總破各種我。文中既然沒有特別標明，就表明是總破。

然而，犢子部（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派）執著于不一不異的觀點。下面第二部分是分別破斥。在分別破斥中，一是破斥犢子部，二是破斥數論師（Samkhya，印度哲學流派），三是破斥勝論師（Vaisesika，印度哲學流派）。下面首先破斥犢子部。在破斥犢子部中，一是敘述其宗義，二是正式破斥，三是通達難點。這裡是第一部分，敘述其宗義。所說的犢子部，是十八部（佛教的十八個部派）中的一個稱謂。佛陀在世時，有犢子外道，他們認為存在真實的自我。因為他們的觀點與外道相同，所以用這個名字來標示。如來的弟子不應該執著於我，但他們卻橫生執著，所以首先要破斥他們。犢子部認為，存在補特伽羅（pudgala），這個詞翻譯成數取趣（指眾生輪迴於五道之中）。我是不同的名稱。數取五趣，它的本體是真實存在的，與那五蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素）不一不異。他們認為我的本體不是斷滅的，也不是常恒的。如果與蘊是一體的，那麼蘊滅我也會滅，我等同於斷滅，所以不能說是一。如果與蘊是不同的，那麼蘊滅我不會滅，我應該是常恒的，所以不能說是異。

『這個應該思考是真實的還是虛假的』。下面第二部分是正式破斥。在正式破斥中，一是通過假實來破斥，二是通過依憑和徵象來破斥，三是通過五法藏來破斥，四是通過所依託來破斥，五是通過所認識來破斥。下面首先是通過假實來破斥。論主勸告說，這個應該思考，你所執著的我是真實的還是虛假的。

『真實有和虛假有的區別是什麼』。犢子部問道：『真實有和虛假有的區別是什麼？你勸我思考。』

『區別在於事物』。論主回答說：『像色、聲等是真實有的相狀，像乳、酪等是虛假有的相狀，因為是由多種法和合而成。』

【English Translation】 English version The objects of the sense faculties such as the eye (indriya) are forms etc., while mental activities such as attention (manaskara) are common objects, and the eye etc. are distinct objects. The five consciousnesses (five types of sensory consciousness) are the result. Because they can give rise to consciousness, the existence of faculties (indriya) can be inferred through inference (anumana). This is called the inference of the form faculty. There are no two means of valid cognition (pramana) for the self (atman) apart from the aggregates (skandha). It is not like the six objects of sense which can be obtained through the direct perception (pratyaksa) of the mind faculty (manas-indriya), nor like the five faculties such as the eye which can be obtained through inference. From this, it can be proven that there is no real self. Here, all kinds of selves are refuted in general from the perspectives of direct perception and inference. Since the text does not specifically indicate, it shows that it is a general refutation.

However, the Vatsiputriya (a Buddhist school) adheres to the view of neither identity nor difference. The second part below is a separate refutation. Among the separate refutations, the first is to refute the Vatsiputriya, the second is to refute the Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy), and the third is to refute the Vaisesika (a school of Indian philosophy). Below, the Vatsiputriya is refuted first. In the refutation of the Vatsiputriya, the first is to state their doctrine, the second is to formally refute it, and the third is to understand the difficult points. Here is the first part, stating their doctrine. The so-called Vatsiputriya is one of the eighteen schools (of Buddhism). During the Buddha's time, there were Vatsiputriya heretics who believed in the existence of a real self. Because their views are the same as those of the heretics, they are labeled with this name. The disciples of the Tathagata should not be attached to the self, but they arbitrarily cling to it, so they must be refuted first. The Vatsiputriya believes that there is a pudgala, which is translated as 'one who repeatedly takes rebirth' (referring to sentient beings who transmigrate through the five realms). 'Self' is a different name. The one who repeatedly takes the five realms, its essence is real, and it is neither identical nor different from the five aggregates (skandha, the five elements that constitute an individual). They believe that the essence of the self is neither annihilated nor permanent. If it is identical to the aggregates, then when the aggregates cease, the self will also cease, and the self is equivalent to annihilation, so it cannot be said to be identical. If it is different from the aggregates, then when the aggregates cease, the self will not cease, and the self should be permanent, so it cannot be said to be different.

'This should be considered whether it is real or false.' The second part below is the formal refutation. In the formal refutation, the first is to refute through the real and the false, the second is to refute through reliance and signs, the third is to refute through the five dharma treasuries, the fourth is to refute through what is relied upon, and the fifth is to refute through what is recognized. Below, the first is to refute through the real and the false. The author advises, this should be considered, is the self that you cling to real or false?

'What is the difference between the real and the false?' The Vatsiputriya asked: 'What is the difference between the real and the false? You advise me to consider.'

'The difference lies in things.' The author replied: 'Like form, sound, etc. are the characteristics of the real, like milk, cheese, etc. are the characteristics of the false, because they are formed by the combination of many dharmas.'

許實許假各有何失者。犢子又問。許我實假各有何失。

體若是實至便同我說者。論主出過。我體若是實。破云。汝所執我應與蘊異。有別性故。如色異受等。若與蘊異。便違汝宗我蘊不異。又所執我必應有因。有實體故。猶如色等。若從因生即是無常。然彼計我非是無常。若是無常即三世攝。彼宗說我必非是三世法藏所收。若言不從因生。汝所執我應是無為。非因生故。猶如虛空。若是無為便同外道見。又違自宗。五法藏中我非無為。復言我體非是常故。又若是無為應無有用。既無有用。徒執實有竟何所為。我體若是假。如乳．酪等。便同我說。違汝本宗。

非我所立至立補特伽羅者。此下第二約依徴破。先述犢子部宗。非我所立補特伽羅。如仁所徴實有假有　但可。依內。簡外山等　現在。簡過．未　有執受。簡內身中不凈等物無執受者。依此諸蘊立補特伽羅。

如是謬言至亦同此失者。論主正破。如是謬言于義未顯。我猶未了。如何名依。若攬諸蘊是此我依義。既攬諸蘊成補特伽羅。則補特伽羅應成假有。如乳酪等攬色等成體是假故。若言不攬諸蘊。但因諸蘊。是此我依義。既因諸蘊立補特伽羅。蘊從因生。我復因蘊而有。則補特伽羅亦同諸蘊從因而生。若我因生。此我成失。以汝執我非因

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：犢子（Vatsiputra，佛教部派之一）又問：『許我（Atman，意為「自我」）是實有還是假有，各有何過失？』

若『我』的體性是實有，那就與我說的一樣了。論主（指論述的作者）指出其過失：如果我所執著的『我』是實有的，那麼你所執著的『我』應該與五蘊（Skandha，色、受、想、行、識）不同，因為它有不同的自性，就像色蘊與受蘊等不同一樣。如果『我』與五蘊不同，那就違背了你自己的宗義，即『我』與五蘊不是不同的。而且，你所執著的『我』必定應該有因，因為它有實體，就像色蘊等一樣。如果『我』是從因緣而生，那就是無常的。然而，他們認為『我』不是無常的。如果『我』是無常的，那就屬於三世（過去、現在、未來）所攝。他們的宗義說『我』必定不是三世法藏所包含的。如果說『我』不是從因緣而生，那麼你所執著的『我』應該是無為法（Asamskrta，不依賴因緣而存在的法），因為它不是因緣所生，就像虛空一樣。如果是無為法，那就與外道的見解相同，又違背了自己的宗義，即在五法藏中，『我』不是無為法。而且，他們說『我』的體性不是常，又如果『我』是無為法，那就應該沒有作用。既然沒有作用，徒然執著『我』是實有，又有什麼用呢？如果『我』的體性是假有，就像牛奶、乳酪等一樣，那就與我說的一樣了，違背了你原本的宗義。

下面第二點是依據征難來破斥。首先陳述犢子部的宗義：『我』所安立的補特伽羅（Pudgala，意為「人」或「有情」）不是像你所征難的那樣，是實有還是假有，但可以依據內在的（五蘊），排除外在的山等；依據現在的（五蘊），排除過去、未來的（五蘊）；依據有執受的（五蘊），排除內在身體中不凈等沒有執受的事物。依據這些五蘊來安立補特伽羅。

論主正式破斥：像這樣錯誤的言論，在義理上沒有顯明，我還是不明白。什麼是『依據』？如果說，總攬諸蘊是『我』所依據的意義，既然總攬諸蘊而成就補特伽羅，那麼補特伽羅就應該成為假有，就像牛奶、乳酪等總攬色等而成為假有一樣。如果說，不是總攬諸蘊，而是因為諸蘊，是『我』所依據的意義，既然因為諸蘊而安立補特伽羅，五蘊是從因緣而生，『我』又因為五蘊而有，那麼補特伽羅也與諸蘊一樣，是從因緣而生。如果『我』是從因緣而生，這個『我』就成了過失，因為你執著『我』不是因緣所生。

【English Translation】 English version: Vatsiputra (a Buddhist school) further asked: 'What are the respective faults of asserting the 'Atman' (self) as either real or unreal?'

If the nature of the 'Atman' is real, then it would be the same as what I say. The author of the treatise (the debater) points out the fault: If the 'Atman' you adhere to is real, then the 'Atman' you adhere to should be different from the five Skandhas (aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), because it has a different nature, just as form and feeling are different. If the 'Atman' is different from the five Skandhas, then it contradicts your own doctrine, which states that the 'Atman' and the five Skandhas are not different. Moreover, the 'Atman' you adhere to must have a cause, because it has substance, just like form. If the 'Atman' arises from causes, then it is impermanent. However, they believe that the 'Atman' is not impermanent. If the 'Atman' is impermanent, then it is included in the three times (past, present, and future). Their doctrine says that the 'Atman' is definitely not included in the three times. If it is said that the 'Atman' does not arise from causes, then the 'Atman' you adhere to should be unconditioned (Asamskrta, not dependent on causes), because it is not caused, just like space. If it is unconditioned, then it is the same as the views of the non-Buddhists, and it also contradicts your own doctrine, which states that in the five Dharmakayas, the 'Atman' is not unconditioned. Moreover, they say that the nature of the 'Atman' is not permanent, and if the 'Atman' is unconditioned, then it should have no function. Since it has no function, what is the point of adhering to the 'Atman' as real in vain? If the nature of the 'Atman' is unreal, like milk, cheese, etc., then it is the same as what I say, contradicting your original doctrine.

The second point below is to refute based on the challenge. First, state the doctrine of the Vatsiputra school: The Pudgala (person or sentient being) established by 'Atman' is not as you challenge, whether it is real or unreal, but can be based on the internal (five Skandhas), excluding external mountains, etc.; based on the present (five Skandhas), excluding the past and future (five Skandhas); based on the possessed (five Skandhas), excluding impure things in the internal body that are not possessed. Establish Pudgala based on these five Skandhas.

The author of the treatise formally refutes: Such erroneous statements are not clear in meaning, and I still do not understand. What is 'based on'? If it is said that encompassing the Skandhas is the meaning of 'Atman' being based on, since encompassing the Skandhas achieves Pudgala, then Pudgala should become unreal, just as milk, cheese, etc., encompass form, etc., and become unreal. If it is said that it is not encompassing the Skandhas, but because of the Skandhas, is the meaning of 'Atman' being based on, since establishing Pudgala because of the Skandhas, the five Skandhas arise from causes, and 'Atman' exists because of the five Skandhas, then Pudgala is also the same as the Skandhas, arising from causes. If 'Atman' arises from causes, then this 'Atman' becomes a fault, because you adhere to 'Atman' not being caused.

生故　又解既因諸蘊聚集立補特伽羅。則補特伽羅。亦同諸蘊體是假有。以經部家許蘊假故。若我是假。此我成失以汝執我體實有故。

不如是立者。犢子部云不如是立。

所立云何者。論主徴。

此如世間依薪立火者。犢子部答。

如何立火可說依薪者。論主復問。

謂非離薪至體應成斷者。犢子部答。謂非離薪可立有火。而薪與火非異非一。自設難云。若火異薪。薪應不熱。既薪有熱。不得言異。若火與薪一。應所燒即能燒。既能．所別不得言一。舉法同喻云。如是不離蘊立補特伽羅然補特伽羅與蘊非異．一。若與蘊異。體應是常。不可言異。若與蘊一。體應成斷。不可言一。以彼計我非斷非常。

仁今於此至火依薪義者。論主復責。

何所應說至能燒是火者。犢子部答。

此復應說至名薪名火者。論主復問。此復應說。何者所燒名薪。何者能燒名火。

且世共了至依薪有火者。犢子復答。且世共了。諸不炎熾所然之物名所燒薪。諸有光明極熱炎熾名能燒火。此能燒然彼物相續。令其後后色變體微異前前故。此火彼薪。雖俱四大．色．香．味．觸八事為體。而緣前薪故后火方得生。如緣前乳生於后酪。如緣前酒生后酢。乳．酒．酪．酢雖俱八事。而緣乳

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『生故』，又解釋說，既然因為諸蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）聚集而建立補特伽羅（pudgala，人或個體），那麼補特伽羅也和諸蘊一樣，其體性是假有的，因為經部宗（Sautrantika）認為蘊是假有的。如果『我』是假有的，那麼這個『我』就成了虛妄，因為你執著『我』的體性是實有的。

『不如是立者』，犢子部（Vatsiputriya）說，不能這樣建立。

『所立云何者』，論主提問：那麼你們是如何建立的呢？

『此如世間依薪立火者』，犢子部回答：這就像世間依據柴薪而立火一樣。

『如何立火可說依薪者』，論主再次發問：如何建立火，才能說是依賴柴薪呢？

『謂非離薪至體應成斷者』，犢子部回答：不能離開柴薪而立火，否則火的體性就應該成為斷滅。柴薪和火不是異體，也不是一體。他們自己設立難題說：如果火和柴薪是異體的，那麼柴薪就不應該發熱；既然柴薪有熱，就不能說是異體。如果火和柴薪是一體的，那麼被燒的就應該能燒。既然能燒和所燒是不同的，就不能說是一體的。他們舉例說：就像不離開蘊而建立補特伽羅一樣，補特伽羅和蘊不是異體，也不是一體。如果和蘊是異體的，那麼補特伽羅的體性就應該是常恒的，不能說是異體；如果和蘊是一體的，那麼補特伽羅的體性就應該成為斷滅，不能說是一體的。因為他們認為『我』不是斷滅的，也不是常恒的。

『仁今於此至火依薪義者』，論主再次責問：你現在在這裡所說的，到底是什麼意思？火依賴柴薪又是什麼意思？

『何所應說至能燒是火者』，犢子部回答：應該說，所燒的是柴薪，能燒的是火。

『此復應說至名薪名火者』，論主再次發問：這又應該說，什麼叫做所燒的柴薪，什麼叫做能燒的火？

『且世共了至依薪有火者』，犢子部再次回答：世間普遍認為，那些沒有火焰、不熾熱、被燃燒的東西叫做所燒的柴薪；那些有光明、極熱、有火焰、熾熱的東西叫做能燒的火。這種能燒的火燃燒那些柴薪，使其後后的顏色改變，體性變得微小，和之前的柴薪不同。因此，這是火，那是柴薪。雖然柴薪和火都是以四大（四大元素：地、水、火、風）、色（顏色）、香（氣味）、味（味道）、觸（觸感）這八種事物為體性，但是因為有之前的柴薪，所以後來的火才能產生，就像因為有之前的乳，所以才能產生後來的酪；就像因為有之前的酒，所以才能產生後來的醋。乳、酒、酪、醋雖然都是八種事物，但是因為有乳

【English Translation】 English version: 'Because of birth,' and further explained, since the pudgala (person or individual) is established because of the aggregation of the skandhas (the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), then the pudgala, like the skandhas, is also provisionally existent in its nature, because the Sautrantikas (those who uphold the Sutras) consider the skandhas to be provisionally existent. If 'I' is provisionally existent, then this 'I' becomes a fallacy because you cling to the nature of 'I' as truly existent.

'Not established in this way,' the Vatsiputriyas (a Buddhist school) say, it cannot be established in this way.

'What is established?' the debater asks: Then how do you establish it?

'This is like establishing fire based on fuel in the world,' the Vatsiputriyas answer: It is like establishing fire based on firewood in the world.

'How can establishing fire be said to rely on fuel?' the debater asks again: How can establishing fire be said to rely on firewood?

'It means that fire cannot be established apart from fuel, otherwise its nature would become annihilation,' the Vatsiputriyas answer: Fire cannot be established apart from firewood, otherwise the nature of fire would become annihilation. Firewood and fire are neither different nor the same. They themselves set up a difficult question: If fire and firewood are different, then the firewood should not be hot; since the firewood is hot, it cannot be said to be different. If fire and firewood are the same, then what is burned should be able to burn. Since what can burn and what is burned are different, it cannot be said to be the same. They give an example: Just like establishing the pudgala without being apart from the skandhas, the pudgala and the skandhas are neither different nor the same. If it is different from the skandhas, then the nature of the pudgala should be permanent, and it cannot be said to be different; if it is the same as the skandhas, then the nature of the pudgala should become annihilation, and it cannot be said to be the same. Because they consider 'I' to be neither annihilated nor permanent.

'What do you mean by this, and what is the meaning of fire relying on fuel?' the debater asks again:

'What should be said is that what is burned is firewood, and what can burn is fire,' the Vatsiputriyas answer:

'This should also be said, what is called firewood and what is called fire?' the debater asks again: This should also be said, what is called firewood that is burned, and what is called fire that can burn?

'Generally, the world knows that what does not have flames, is not blazing, and is burned is called firewood that is burned; what has light, is extremely hot, has flames, and is blazing is called fire that can burn. This fire that can burn burns that firewood, causing its color to change later and its nature to become subtle, different from the previous firewood. Therefore, this is fire, and that is firewood. Although firewood and fire are both composed of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind), color, smell, taste, and touch, these eight things, the later fire can only arise because of the previous firewood, just like later cheese can only arise because of the previous milk; just like later vinegar can only arise because of the previous wine. Although milk, wine, cheese, and vinegar are all eight things, because of milk

．酒生於酪．酢。由此理故。故世共說依薪有火。

若依此理至理不成立者。論主破。若依此理。火則異薪。后火前薪。時各別故　又汝計我如火依薪。依諸蘊者。則定應說緣蘊我生。體異諸蘊。成無常性。如何汝言我非異蘊。而非無常　又牒轉計破。汝若謂即于炎熾木等八事之中。暖觸名火。餘七事名薪。破云。則是火．薪俱時而起。應成異體。相有異故　又破云。應說依義。此既俱生如牛兩角。如何可言依薪立火。謂非此火用薪為因。所以者何。火之與薪。各從過去自同類因俱時生故。亦非此火名因薪立。以立火名因暖觸故。非依彼薪。又牒轉計破。汝若謂所說火依薪言。為顯俱生。或依止義者。破云。是則應許補特伽羅與蘊俱生。或依止蘊。已分明許體與蘊異。此即約喻難法　又理則應許若諸蘊無。我亦非有。如薪非有。火體亦無。而不許然。彼部不許蘊無。我無。以入無餘蘊無。我有。彼宗所計。我在生死。與蘊不一不異。若入無餘。與涅槃不一不異。既違己宗。故釋非理　然彼犢子。於此不異。前文之中自設難言。若火異薪。薪應不熱。明知不異　論主徴云。彼應定說。熱體謂何　若彼釋云熱謂暖觸。餘七名薪　破云則薪非熱體相異故。何得設難薪應不熱　若復釋言薪名熱。與暖合故薪名熱。破云。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本酒是由乳酪和醋產生的。基於這個道理，世俗之人常說火依存於柴薪而存在。

如果依據這個道理，至理就不能成立。論主駁斥：如果依據這個道理，火就與柴薪不同，因為後來的火和之前的柴薪，在時間上是各自不同的。而且，你認為我像火依存於柴薪一樣，依存於諸蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）而存在，那麼就應該明確地說，我是緣于諸蘊而生，我的本體與諸蘊不同，因此是無常的。你又怎麼能說我不是異於諸蘊，又不是無常的呢？

又駁斥另一種說法：如果你認為在燃燒的木頭等八種事物中，暖觸（thermal sensation）名為火，其餘七種事物名為柴薪。駁斥說：那麼火和柴薪就應該同時產生，並且成為不同的實體，因為它們的相狀是不同的。

又駁斥說：應該說火是依存於意義而存在。既然火和柴薪是同時產生的，就像牛的兩隻角一樣，怎麼能說依存於柴薪而建立火呢？也就是說，火併非以柴薪為因。為什麼呢？因為火和柴薪各自從過去世的同類因同時產生。而且，也不是因為柴薪而立火的名字，而是因為暖觸而立火的名字，不是依存於柴薪。又駁斥另一種說法：如果你認為所說的火依存於柴薪，是爲了顯示火和柴薪是同時產生，或者火依止於柴薪的意義。駁斥說：那麼就應該承認補特伽羅（pudgala，個體、人）與蘊同時產生，或者依止於蘊。這已經明確承認了補特伽羅的本體與蘊是不同的。這是用比喻來責難本體。

而且，按照道理，就應該承認如果諸蘊不存在，我也就不存在，就像柴薪不存在，火的本體也就不存在一樣。但是他們不承認這樣。他們不承認蘊滅盡時，我也不存在，因為他們認為進入無餘涅槃（nirvana，佛教的最高目標，指從輪迴中解脫）時，蘊滅盡而我存在。他們宗派認為，我在生死輪迴中，與蘊既不是同一也不是不同一；如果進入無餘涅槃，與涅槃既不是同一也不是不同一。這既違背了自己的宗義，所以這種解釋是不合理的。

然而，犢子部（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派之一）對此並不認同。他們在前面的文章中自己提出疑問：如果火與柴薪不同，柴薪就不應該發熱。這明明是知道火與柴薪不是不同的。

論主反問道：他們應該明確地說，熱的本體是什麼？

如果他們解釋說，熱就是暖觸，其餘七種事物是柴薪。駁斥說：那麼柴薪就不是熱的本體，因為它們的相狀是不同的。怎麼能提出柴薪不應該發熱這樣的疑問呢？

如果他們又解釋說，柴薪之所以被稱為熱，是因為它與暖觸結合在一起。駁斥說：

【English Translation】 English version Wine is produced from cheese and vinegar. Based on this principle, people commonly say that fire exists dependent on firewood.

If according to this principle, the ultimate truth cannot be established. The treatise master refutes: If according to this principle, fire is different from firewood, because the later fire and the previous firewood are different in time. Moreover, if you consider me to be like fire dependent on firewood, dependent on the skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness), then it should be clearly stated that I am born from the skandhas, and my essence is different from the skandhas, therefore impermanent. How can you say that I am not different from the skandhas, and not impermanent?

Furthermore, refuting another view: If you think that among the eight things such as burning wood, the warm touch (thermal sensation) is called fire, and the remaining seven things are called firewood. The refutation says: Then fire and firewood should arise simultaneously and become different entities, because their characteristics are different.

Furthermore, the refutation says: It should be said that fire exists dependent on meaning. Since fire and firewood arise simultaneously, like the two horns of a cow, how can it be said that fire is established dependent on firewood? That is to say, fire is not caused by firewood. Why? Because fire and firewood each arise simultaneously from their own past causes of the same kind. Moreover, the name of fire is not established because of firewood, but the name of fire is established because of warm touch, not dependent on firewood. Furthermore, refuting another view: If you think that the saying 'fire is dependent on firewood' is to show that fire and firewood arise simultaneously, or that fire relies on the meaning of firewood. The refutation says: Then it should be admitted that the pudgala (individual, person) arises simultaneously with the skandhas, or relies on the skandhas. This has clearly admitted that the essence of the pudgala is different from the skandhas. This is using a metaphor to question the substance.

Moreover, according to reason, it should be admitted that if the skandhas do not exist, then I do not exist either, just as if firewood does not exist, the essence of fire does not exist either. But they do not admit this. They do not admit that when the skandhas are extinguished, I do not exist either, because they believe that when entering nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhism, referring to liberation from samsara) without remainder, the skandhas are extinguished but I exist. Their sect believes that in the cycle of birth and death, I am neither the same nor different from the skandhas; if entering nirvana without remainder, I am neither the same nor different from nirvana. This contradicts their own doctrine, so this explanation is unreasonable.

However, the Vatsiputriya (a Buddhist school) does not agree with this. They themselves raised the question in the previous article: If fire is different from firewood, firewood should not be hot. This clearly knows that fire and firewood are not different.

The treatise master asked in return: They should clearly say, what is the essence of heat?

If they explain that heat is warm touch, and the remaining seven things are firewood. The refutation says: Then firewood is not the essence of heat, because their characteristics are different. How can you raise the question that firewood should not be hot?

If they further explain that firewood is called hot because it is combined with warm touch. The refutation says:

則應七事異於暖體亦得熱名。以實道理。火名唯目暖觸。餘七事與暖合皆得熱名。是則分明許七事薪亦名為熱。雖薪．火異。而過不成。如何此中舉以為難。若火異薪。薪應不熱。然薪異火薪亦名熱　又汝轉計。若謂水等遍炎熾時。說名為薪亦名為火。一體義說　破云。既薪火一是則應說。依義謂何。我與色等蘊定應是一。無理能遮。故彼所言如依薪立火。如是依蘊立補特伽羅。進退推徴理不成立。

又彼若許至非第五故者。此即第三約五法藏破　爾焰。此云所知。舊云知母不然　彼犢子部立所知法藏。總有五種。謂三世為三。無為第四。不可說第五。即補特伽羅是不可說攝。彼宗立我。若在生死中。與三世五蘊不可定說一．異。若捨生死入無餘涅槃。又與無為不可定說一．異。故說此我為其第五不可說法藏。故牒破云。又彼若許我與五蘊若一若異俱不可說。則彼所許五種所知。亦應不可說具有五種。以我與前四法藏不可說為異故。不可說為第五法藏。以與前四法藏不可說為一故。不可說為非第五　非第五者。即是前四法藏。既第五．非第五。俱不可說。但應建立前四法藏。不應別立第五法藏　又真諦師云。神我若異前四。則是可言。不應立第五為不可言。若不異前四。則唯有四。無第五不可言　故不可說第五

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本如果七種事物不同於暖體，也能得到熱的名稱，這是根據實際道理。火的名稱只能通過眼睛看到和觸控感受到。其餘七種事物與暖結合，都能得到熱的名稱。這樣就分明地允許七種事物，例如薪柴，也稱為熱。雖然薪柴和火不同，但這個推論並沒有過失。為什麼在這裡舉這個例子來作為難題呢？如果火和薪柴不同，那麼薪柴就不應該熱。然而，薪柴和火不同，薪柴也稱為熱。此外，你又轉變計策，如果認為水等在普遍燃燒熾盛的時候，說它既名為薪柴，也名為火，這是從一體的角度來說的。破斥說：既然薪柴和火是一體的，那麼就應該直接說是一體的，為什麼還要依據意義來說呢？我和色等五蘊肯定應該是一體的，沒有道理可以遮止。所以他們所說，就像依據薪柴而立火，像這樣依據五蘊而立補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為'人'或'個體'），無論如何推論都不能成立。此外，如果他們承認『乃至非第五故』，這實際上是第三種，即依據五法藏來破斥。『爾焰』，這裡指的是所知。舊譯為『知母』是不對的。彼犢子部（Vātsīputrīya，佛教部派之一）設立所知法藏，總共有五種，即三世為三種，無為第四種，不可說為第五種。即補特伽羅（Pudgala）是不可說所攝。他們的宗派立我，如果在生死中，與三世五蘊不可確定地說是一或異。如果捨棄生死進入無餘涅槃，又與無為不可確定地說是一或異。所以說這個我是他們的第五個不可說法藏。所以加以駁斥說：如果他們承認『我』與五蘊若一若異都不可說，那麼他們所承認的五種所知，也應該不可說，具有五種。因為『我』與前四法藏不可說為異，所以不可說為第五法藏。因為與前四法藏不可說為一，所以不可說為非第五。『非第五』，就是指前四法藏。既然第五和非第五，都不可說，那麼就應該只建立前四法藏，不應該另外建立第五法藏。又真諦法師說：神我如果異於前四，那就是可以說的，不應該立第五為不可說。如果不異於前四，那就只有四種，沒有第五不可說。所以不可說第五。

【English Translation】 English version If seven things are different from a warm body, they can also be called 'hot,' according to actual reasoning. The name 'fire' can only be perceived through sight and touch. The remaining seven things, when combined with warmth, can all be called 'hot.' Thus, it is clearly permissible for seven things, such as firewood, to also be called 'hot.' Although firewood and fire are different, this inference is not flawed. Why is this example used here as a difficult question? If fire is different from firewood, then firewood should not be hot. However, firewood is different from fire, yet firewood is also called 'hot.' Furthermore, you change your strategy again, arguing that when water and other things are universally burning intensely, they are said to be both 'firewood' and 'fire,' speaking from the perspective of oneness. The refutation says: Since firewood and fire are one, then it should be directly stated as one; why speak in terms of meaning? I and the five skandhas (khandhas, aggregates) such as form (rūpa) should definitely be one; there is no reason to prevent it. Therefore, what they say, like establishing fire based on firewood, like establishing a Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'individual') based on the skandhas, cannot be established no matter how it is argued. Furthermore, if they admit 'up to the point of not being the fifth,' this is actually the third, which is to refute based on the five dharma-treasuries. 'Er Yan,' here refers to the knowable (所知). The old translation as 'knowing mother' is incorrect. The Vātsīputrīya (犢子部, a Buddhist school) establishes the knowable dharma-treasury, which has a total of five types: the three times (past, present, future) as three types, the unconditioned (無為, asaṃskṛta) as the fourth type, and the inexpressible as the fifth type. That is, the Pudgala (補特伽羅) is included in the inexpressible. Their school establishes the self (ātman); if it is in saṃsāra (生死, cycle of rebirth), it cannot be definitively said to be one or different from the five skandhas of the three times. If it abandons saṃsāra and enters nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無余涅槃, nirvana without remainder), it also cannot be definitively said to be one or different from the unconditioned. Therefore, it is said that this self is their fifth inexpressible dharma-treasury. Therefore, it is refuted by saying: If they admit that the 'self' and the five skandhas are both inexpressible as either one or different, then the five types of knowable that they admit should also be inexpressible, possessing five types. Because the 'self' cannot be said to be different from the previous four dharma-treasuries, it cannot be said to be the fifth dharma-treasury. Because it cannot be said to be one with the previous four dharma-treasuries, it cannot be said to be non-fifth. 'Non-fifth' refers to the previous four dharma-treasuries. Since the fifth and non-fifth are both inexpressible, then only the previous four dharma-treasuries should be established, and the fifth dharma-treasury should not be established separately. Furthermore, the Tripitaka Master Paramārtha (真諦法師) said: If the spirit-self (神我) is different from the previous four, then it is expressible, and the fifth should not be established as inexpressible. If it is not different from the previous four, then there are only four, and there is no fifth inexpressible. Therefore, the fifth inexpressible is not established.

及非第五。

又彼施設至應言依眼等者。此即第四約所託破。又施設我應更確陳。為何所託。汝若言托蘊。破云。假義已成。以施設我不託我故　汝若言此我托我。破云。如何上言依諸蘊立。理則但應說依補特伽羅。既汝不許我依於我。故唯托蘊　汝若謂有蘊。此我則可知故。我上言此依蘊立者。破云。是則諸色境有眼等緣。方可了知彼色等故。應言色等依眼等立。然五色境雖由根知。不說依根。我亦應爾。雖依蘊知。不應依蘊。

又且應說至何識所識者。此下第五約所識破。此即問也。

六識所識者。犢子部答。

所以者何者。論主徴。

若於一時至與法一．異者。犢子部答。若於一時眼識識色。因茲知有我。言是某甲。說此名為眼識所識。而不可說與色一．異。乃至意識知法等。準此可知。

若爾所計至是假非實者。論主例破。若爾計我。應同乳等唯假施設。攬四境成無有別體。謂如眼識識諸色時。因此若能知有乳等。便說乳等眼識所識。以假不離實色之時。亦言識乳等。而不可說乳等與色一．異。乃至身識識諸觸時。因此若能知有乳等。便說乳等身識所識。而不可說乳等與觸一．異。乳等若與色等一者。勿乳等成四。乳等若與色等異者。勿乳等非四所成。故說乳等與彼色

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本第五，關於『施設』（Prajñapti，假名安立）的問題。

如果他們說，『施設』的依據是眼等（感官），這是第四個方面，即從所依賴的事物來破斥。如果『施設』是『我』（Atman，靈魂），那麼應該更明確地說明，『我』所依賴的是什麼？如果你說依賴的是『蘊』（Skandha，五蘊，構成個體的要素），那麼『假義』（虛假的概念）已經成立，因為『施設』的『我』並不依賴於真實的『我』。

如果你說，這個『我』依賴於『我』自身，那麼如何解釋前面所說的『依據諸蘊而安立』呢？按照這個邏輯，應該直接說依據『補特伽羅』（Pudgala，個體）而安立。既然你不允許『我』依賴於『我』自身，那麼就只能是依賴於『蘊』了。

如果你認為，因為有『蘊』，所以這個『我』才能被認知，因此前面才說『此依蘊立』，那麼按照這個邏輯，因為諸『色境』（Rupa-dhatu，色法）需要眼等（感官）的條件才能被認知，所以應該說『色等』依賴於『眼等』而安立。然而，五『色境』雖然通過感官來認知，但我們不說它依賴於感官。『我』也應該如此，雖然通過『蘊』來認知，但不應該說依賴於『蘊』。

此外，還應該說明，『我』是被什麼『識』（Vijnana，意識）所認識的？這是第五個方面，即從所認識的事物來破斥。這是一個提問。

『六識』（Sad-vijnana，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）所認識的。『犢子部』（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派）回答。

為什麼呢？論主提問。

如果在某一時刻，眼識認識了顏色，因此知道有『我』，說這是『某甲』，這就被稱為眼識所認識的。但不能說『我』與顏色是一還是異。乃至意識知道法等，可以依此類推。

如果這樣，那麼你所認為的『我』，應該像乳等一樣，只是虛假的施設，由四種要素構成，沒有獨立的實體。例如，當眼識認識諸顏色時，如果因此能夠知道有乳等，就說乳等是眼識所認識的。因為虛假的乳等不離開真實的顏色，所以也說認識乳等，但不能說乳等與顏色是一還是異。乃至身識認識諸觸覺時，如果因此能夠知道有乳等，就說乳等是身識所認識的。但不能說乳等與觸覺是一還是異。如果乳等與顏色等是一，那麼乳等就變成了四種要素。如果乳等與顏色等是異，那麼乳等就不是由四種要素構成。所以說乳等與顏色等的關係是...

English version Fifth, regarding the issue of 'Prajñapti' (designation, conceptual construction).

If they say that the basis of 'Prajñapti' is the eye, etc. (sense organs), this is the fourth aspect, namely refuting from the perspective of what is relied upon. If 'Prajñapti' is 'Atman' (soul), then it should be stated more clearly, what does 'Atman' rely on? If you say it relies on 'Skandha' (the five aggregates, the elements that constitute an individual), then the 'falsity' (false concept) has already been established, because the 'Atman' of 'Prajñapti' does not rely on the real 'Atman'.

If you say that this 'Atman' relies on 'Atman' itself, then how to explain what was said earlier, 'established based on the aggregates'? According to this logic, it should be said directly that it is established based on 'Pudgala' (individual). Since you do not allow 'Atman' to rely on 'Atman' itself, then it can only be relying on 'Skandha'.

If you think that because there are 'Skandhas', this 'Atman' can be cognized, therefore it was said earlier 'this is established based on the aggregates', then according to this logic, because the various 'Rupa-dhatu' (forms) need the conditions of the eye, etc. (sense organs) to be cognized, it should be said that 'forms, etc.' are established based on 'eye, etc.'. However, although the five 'Rupa-dhatu' are cognized through the senses, we do not say that they rely on the senses. 'Atman' should also be like this, although cognized through 'Skandha', it should not be said to rely on 'Skandha'.

Furthermore, it should also be explained, by what 'Vijnana' (consciousness) is 'Atman' cognized? This is the fifth aspect, namely refuting from the perspective of what is cognized. This is a question.

Cognized by the 'six consciousnesses' (Sad-vijnana, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness). The 'Vatsiputriya' (a Buddhist school) answers.

Why? The debater asks.

If at a certain moment, the eye consciousness cognizes color, therefore knowing that there is 'Atman', saying that this is 'so-and-so', this is called cognized by the eye consciousness. But it cannot be said that 'Atman' is the same as or different from color. And so on, the mind consciousness knows dharmas, etc., and this can be inferred by analogy.

If so, then what you consider to be 'Atman' should be like milk, etc., just a false designation, composed of four elements, without an independent entity. For example, when the eye consciousness cognizes various colors, if it can therefore know that there is milk, etc., it is said that milk, etc. is cognized by the eye consciousness. Because the false milk, etc. does not leave the real color, it is also said to cognize milk, etc., but it cannot be said that milk, etc. is the same as or different from color. And so on, when the body consciousness cognizes various tactile sensations, if it can therefore know that there is milk, etc., it is said that milk, etc. is cognized by the body consciousness. But it cannot be said that milk, etc. is the same as or different from tactile sensations. If milk, etc. is the same as color, etc., then milk, etc. becomes four elements. If milk, etc. is different from color, etc., then milk, etc. is not composed of four elements. Therefore, the relationship between milk, etc. and color, etc. is...

【English Translation】 Fifth, regarding the issue of 'Prajñapti' (designation, conceptual construction).

If they say that the basis of 'Prajñapti' is the eye, etc. (sense organs), this is the fourth aspect, namely refuting from the perspective of what is relied upon. If 'Prajñapti' is 'Atman' (soul), then it should be stated more clearly, what does 'Atman' rely on? If you say it relies on 'Skandha' (the five aggregates, the elements that constitute an individual), then the 'falsity' (false concept) has already been established, because the 'Atman' of 'Prajñapti' does not rely on the real 'Atman'.

If you say that this 'Atman' relies on 'Atman' itself, then how to explain what was said earlier, 'established based on the aggregates'? According to this logic, it should be said directly that it is established based on 'Pudgala' (individual). Since you do not allow 'Atman' to rely on 'Atman' itself, then it can only be relying on 'Skandha'.

If you think that because there are 'Skandhas', this 'Atman' can be cognized, therefore it was said earlier 'this is established based on the aggregates', then according to this logic, because the various 'Rupa-dhatu' (forms) need the conditions of the eye, etc. (sense organs) to be cognized, it should be said that 'forms, etc.' are established based on 'eye, etc.'. However, although the five 'Rupa-dhatu' are cognized through the senses, we do not say that they rely on the senses. 'Atman' should also be like this, although cognized through 'Skandha', it should not be said to rely on 'Skandha'.

Furthermore, it should also be explained, by what 'Vijnana' (consciousness) is 'Atman' cognized? This is the fifth aspect, namely refuting from the perspective of what is cognized. This is a question.

Cognized by the 'six consciousnesses' (Sad-vijnana, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness). The 'Vatsiputriya' (a Buddhist school) answers.

Why? The debater asks.

If at a certain moment, the eye consciousness cognizes color, therefore knowing that there is 'Atman', saying that this is 'so-and-so', this is called cognized by the eye consciousness. But it cannot be said that 'Atman' is the same as or different from color. And so on, the mind consciousness knows dharmas, etc., and this can be inferred by analogy.

If so, then what you consider to be 'Atman' should be like milk, etc., just a false designation, composed of four elements, without an independent entity. For example, when the eye consciousness cognizes various colors, if it can therefore know that there is milk, etc., it is said that milk, etc. is cognized by the eye consciousness. Because the false milk, etc. does not leave the real color, it is also said to cognize milk, etc., but it cannot be said that milk, etc. is the same as or different from color. And so on, when the body consciousness cognizes various tactile sensations, if it can therefore know that there is milk, etc., it is said that milk, etc. is cognized by the body consciousness. But it cannot be said that milk, etc. is the same as or different from tactile sensations. If milk, etc. is the same as color, etc., then milk, etc. becomes four elements. If milk, etc. is different from color, etc., then milk, etc. is not composed of four elements. Therefore, the relationship between milk, etc. and color, etc. is...

等。不可說言定一定異。由此應成總依諸蘊。假施設有補特伽羅。猶如世間總依色等。施設乳等是假非實　若依成實論。總有四假。一相續假。如身．語業以色．聲成。一念色．聲不成身．語業。要色．聲相續方成身．語業。二相待假。如長．短等相待故立。三緣成假。如攬五蘊成人。攬四境成乳等。四因生假。一切有為法從因所生。皆無自性　今此文中以緣成假例破緣成假。

又彼所說至徴難亦然者。論主又牒徴破　又彼所說若於一時眼識識色。因茲知我此言何義。兩關徴定。若說諸色是了此我因。然不可言此我異色者。牒先初關。破云。是則諸色。以眼．及明．作意等緣爲了色因。故應不可說色異眼等　若了色時此我亦可了者。牒后關。又作兩關徴定。為色能了識即了此我耶。為於此中別有能了識　若言色能了即能了此我者。破云。則應許此我體即是色。以了色時亦了我故。或唯於色假立此我。以無別有能了別故。或不應有如是分別如是類是色。如是類是此我。無別體故。若無如是色．我分別。如何可立有色有我。有性必由分別立故　若於此中別有能了了此我者。破云色．我二了既不併生。了時別故。此我應異色。如黃異青。別有能了體各不同　前異后等能了亦別。體亦不同。如色即爾乃至。於法徴難亦然

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『等。不可說言定一定異。』這意味著不能絕對地說補特伽羅（pudgalā，人或個體）與諸蘊（skandha，構成要素）相同或不同。因此，補特伽羅是總依于諸蘊的假施設。就像世間總依於色等而施設乳等一樣，這些都是假而非真實的。若依據《成實論》，總共有四種假：一是相續假，例如身語業由色聲而成，一念的色聲不能構成身語業，必須是色聲相續才能構成身語業。二是相待假，例如長短等是相互比較而成立的。三是緣成假，例如集合五蘊成為人，集合四境成為乳等。四是因生假，一切有為法都是從因所生，都沒有自性。現在這段文字中，用緣成假來反駁緣成假。

『又彼所說至徴難亦然者。』論主又重複並駁斥了對方的論點：『又彼所說若於一時眼識識色。因茲知我此言何義。』這裡設定了兩重關卡來確定對方的觀點。如果說諸色是瞭解『我』的原因，但又不能說『我』與色不同，這是重複之前的第一個關卡。駁斥如下：那麼諸色，以眼、光明、作意等為緣，是瞭解色的原因，所以不應該說色與眼等不同。如果瞭解色的時候，『我』也可以被瞭解，這是重複後面的關卡。又設定了兩重關卡來確定對方的觀點：是色能夠了解，意識也因此瞭解『我』嗎？還是在此之中另有能夠了解的意識？如果說是色能夠了解，也就能瞭解『我』，那麼就應該承認『我』的本體就是色，因爲了解色的時候也瞭解了『我』。或者只是在色上假立『我』，因為沒有另外能夠了解的意識。或者不應該有這樣的分別：哪些是色，哪些是『我』，因為沒有不同的本體。如果沒有色和『我』的分別，如何能夠成立有色有『我』？有性質必定是通過分別而成立的。如果在此之中另有能夠了解的意識來了解『我』，那麼色和『我』的兩種瞭解既然不是同時產生，瞭解的時間不同，那麼『我』就應該與色不同，就像黃色與青色不同一樣，另有能夠了解的本體各不相同。前面不同，後面相同，能夠了解的也不同，本體也不同，就像色一樣。對於法的質疑也是如此。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Etc. It cannot be said that they are definitely the same or definitely different.' This means that it cannot be absolutely said that a pudgala (person or individual) is the same as or different from the skandhas (aggregates). Therefore, a pudgala is a provisional designation based on the aggregates. Just as in the world, milk, etc., are designated based on form, etc., these are provisional and not real. According to the Satyasiddhi Shastra, there are four types of provisionality in total: first, the provisionality of continuity, such as bodily and verbal actions being formed by form and sound. A single moment of form and sound cannot constitute bodily and verbal actions; only the continuity of form and sound can constitute bodily and verbal actions. Second, the provisionality of relativity, such as long and short being established through mutual comparison. Third, the provisionality of arising from conditions, such as the aggregation of the five skandhas forming a person, and the aggregation of the four objects forming milk, etc. Fourth, the provisionality of arising from causes, where all conditioned dharmas arise from causes and have no self-nature. In this passage, the provisionality of arising from conditions is used to refute the provisionality of arising from conditions.

'Moreover, what was said by them, up to the difficulty, is also the same.' The author of the treatise repeats and refutes the opponent's argument: 'Moreover, what was said by them, if at one time eye-consciousness cognizes form, what is the meaning of saying that because of this, I know myself?' Here, two barriers are set up to determine the opponent's viewpoint. If it is said that forms are the cause of understanding 'I', but it cannot be said that 'I' is different from form, this is repeating the first barrier. The refutation is as follows: Then forms, with the eye, light, attention, etc., as conditions, are the cause of understanding form, so it should not be said that form is different from the eye, etc. If when form is understood, 'I' can also be understood, this is repeating the later barrier. Again, two barriers are set up to determine the opponent's viewpoint: Is it that form can understand, and consciousness therefore also understands 'I'? Or is there another consciousness that can understand within this? If it is said that form can understand, and therefore can understand 'I', then it should be admitted that the substance of 'I' is form, because when form is understood, 'I' is also understood. Or 'I' is provisionally established on form, because there is no other consciousness that can understand. Or there should not be such distinctions: what is form, and what is 'I', because there is no different substance. If there is no distinction between form and 'I', how can it be established that there is form and there is 'I'? Having a nature must be established through distinction. If there is another consciousness that can understand 'I' within this, then since the two understandings of form and 'I' do not arise simultaneously, and the time of understanding is different, then 'I' should be different from form, just as yellow is different from blue, and the substances of the other consciousnesses that can understand are different. The former is different, the latter is the same, what can understand is also different, and the substance is also different, just like form. The questioning of the Dharma is also the same.

。

若彼救言至便壞自宗者。又牒救破。若彼救云。如此我與色不可定說是一是異。二種能了相望亦然。色之能了我之能了。亦不可說定一定異。以所了不定一．異。能了亦非一．異。何得責言為一為異　論主破云。如我與色不可定說是一是異。此我即非是有為攝。是第五不可說法藏收。我之能了與色能了。亦不可說是一．是異。能了不應是有為攝。應是第五不可說法藏收。若許爾者。便壞自宗。自宗能了是三世法藏有為攝故　又若實有至皆無有我者。此下就正破中。第二以教破犢子。經言無我。汝言有我豈不相違。此引初經牒破。

又彼既許至由二緣故者。論主又引第二經牒計徴破。又既許我眼識所得。如是眼識。於色境。於此我。於色．我．俱。此三中為緣何起。若緣色起。則不應說眼識了我。此我非眼識緣。如聲處等故。汝所執我非眼識緣。非色處故。如聲處等　謂若救云。有一類識。泛緣此青等境起。即用此青等境為所緣緣。破云。補特伽羅非眼識緣者。如何前說我為眼識所緣。由此定非眼識所了　或者已上總是牒救。若眼識起。唯緣此我。或緣色．我．俱。便違經說識二緣生。若唯緣我便闕色緣。若緣色．我應由三緣。以經唯說二緣生故。

又契經說至眼色故者。論主又引第三經。證識

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：　　如果他們用救濟之言導致自身宗義崩潰，那就再進行駁斥。如果他們辯解說：『這樣，我和色法（Rupa，物質現象）不可確定地說是一還是異。兩種能了別（即認識能力）相互比較也是如此。色法的能了別和我的能了別，也不可確定地說是一定是異。因為所了別的對像不確定是一還是異，能了別也不是一或異。怎麼能責問說是一還是異呢？』論主駁斥說：『如果我和色法不可確定地說是一還是異，那麼這個我就不是有為法（conditioned phenomena）所包含的，而是屬於第五種不可說法藏（indescribable category）。我的能了別和色法的能了別，也不可確定地說是一還是異，能了別不應是有為法所包含的，而應是第五種不可說法藏所包含的。』如果承認這樣，就違背了你們自己的宗義。你們自己的宗義認為能了別是三世法藏（three times of Dharma）所包含的有為法。　　如果確實有我，以至於一切法中都沒有我，這以下就正式破斥犢子部（Vatsiputriya）的觀點。第二，用佛經來破斥。佛經說『無我』，你們卻說『有我』，這豈不是相互矛盾？這是引用最初的佛經進行駁斥。　　而且，他們既然承認我是眼識所獲得的，那麼眼識對於色境（form），對於這個我，對於色和我兩者，這三者中是緣何而生起的呢？如果緣色法而生起，就不應說眼識了別了我。這個我不是眼識所緣的，就像聲處（sound element）等一樣。你們所執著的我不是眼識所緣的，因為它不是色處，就像聲處等一樣。』如果他們辯解說：『有一類識，普遍地緣取青色等境而生起，就用這青色等境作為所緣緣（object condition）。』駁斥說：『補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』，犢子部認為是一種非即蘊非離蘊的存在，是輪迴的主體）不是眼識所緣的，那麼之前怎麼說我是眼識所緣的呢？由此可以確定我不是眼識所了別的。』或者以上都是駁斥他們的辯解。如果眼識生起，只緣取這個我，或者緣取色和我兩者，就違背了佛經所說『識由二緣而生』。如果只緣取我，就缺少了色緣。如果緣取色和我，就應由三緣而生，因為佛經只說了二緣而生。　　而且，契經說，識...

【English Translation】 English version: If their saving words lead to the collapse of their own doctrine, then refute them again. If they argue, 'Thus, it cannot be definitively said whether 'I' and Rupa (form, material phenomena) are the same or different. The same applies when comparing two types of cognition (i.e., the ability to know). The cognition of Rupa and the cognition of 'I' cannot be definitively said to be the same or different. Because the objects of cognition are not definitively the same or different, the cognitions are also not the same or different. How can you ask whether they are the same or different?' The proponent refutes, 'If it cannot be definitively said whether 'I' and Rupa are the same or different, then this 'I' is not included in conditioned phenomena (Samskrta Dharmas), but belongs to the fifth indescribable category (Avaktavya). The cognition of 'I' and the cognition of Rupa cannot be definitively said to be the same or different. Cognition should not be included in conditioned phenomena, but should belong to the fifth indescribable category.' If you admit this, you violate your own doctrine. Your own doctrine holds that cognition is a conditioned phenomenon included in the three times of Dharma (past, present, and future).' If there truly is an 'I', to the extent that there is no 'I' in all dharmas, then what follows is a formal refutation of the Vatsiputriya school. Secondly, using the sutras to refute. The sutras say 'no-self' (Anatman), but you say 'there is a self' (Atman), is this not contradictory? This is a refutation using the initial sutras. Moreover, since they admit that 'I' is obtained by eye-consciousness, then of the three, form (Rupa), this 'I', and both form and 'I', what does eye-consciousness arise from? If it arises from form, then it should not be said that eye-consciousness cognizes 'I'. This 'I' is not an object of eye-consciousness, just like sound element (Shabda Dhatu) etc. The 'I' that you cling to is not an object of eye-consciousness, because it is not a form element, just like sound element etc.' If they argue, 'There is a type of consciousness that arises universally from objects such as blue, and uses these objects such as blue as the object condition (Alambana Pratyaya).' The refutation says, 'Pudgala (person, individual, considered by the Vatsiputriya school as an existent that is neither identical to nor separate from the skandhas, and is the subject of rebirth) is not an object of eye-consciousness, then how did you previously say that 'I' is an object of eye-consciousness? From this, it can be determined that 'I' is not cognized by eye-consciousness.' Or the above are all refutations of their arguments. If eye-consciousness arises, only taking this 'I' as its object, or taking both form and 'I' as its object, it violates the sutra which says 'consciousness arises from two conditions'. If it only takes 'I' as its object, it lacks the condition of form. If it takes both form and 'I' as its object, it should arise from three conditions, because the sutra only says it arises from two conditions. Moreover, the sutra says that consciousness...

二緣生。非由我起。

又若爾者至便壞自宗者。論主又引第四經破。又若此我是眼識緣。能生眼識。我應無常。經說因緣能生識者皆無常故。犢子不許我是無常　若彼轉救我非識緣。破云。應非所識。若非所識應非所知。若非所知如何立有我。若不立有我便壞自宗。自宗立我第五不可說法藏中攝。

又若許為至有違宗過者。論主又引第五經破。將顯違經。先立量言。我異六境。又若許我六識所識。汝所執我應異聲。眼識識故。猶如色。汝所執我應異色等。耳識識故。譬如聲。余識所識一一比量為難準此。此即難令我異六境。如何乃言我與六境非定一．異。定訖顯違。又立此我六識所識。便違經說。經言梵志。五根行處各別境界各別。各唯受用自所行處。及自境界。或前約處明。后約界辨。非有異色．根。亦能受用異根行處．及異境界。意兼受用五根行處。及彼境界。以彼五識亦依意故。所以意根正能受用十三界。兼能受用五根行處。及彼境界　又解以彼意識依意根故。所以意根與能依識同緣諸法。正緣十三。兼緣五根行處。五根境界。前解為勝　汝意一我六識同取。是則五根亦能兼取異根行處。異根境界。此經復言五根行處．境界各別。豈不違經。既違經過　或不應執我是五根境。若非五根境。如是便非

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：二緣所生，並非由我（Atman）獨立產生。

如果按照你們的說法，就會破壞你們自己的宗義。論主又引用第四部經來破斥。如果這個『我』（Atman）是眼識的緣，能夠產生眼識，那麼『我』（Atman）應該是無常的。經中說，因緣所生的識都是無常的。犢子部不承認『我』（Atman）是無常的。

如果他們辯解說，『我』（Atman）不是識的緣，那麼就反駁說，『我』（Atman）應該不是所能被認識的。如果不是所能被認識的，就應該不是所能被知曉的。如果不是所能被知曉的，又如何能成立有『我』（Atman）的存在呢？如果不成立有『我』（Atman）的存在，就破壞了他們自己的宗義。他們宗義所立的『我』（Atman）包含在第五種不可說的法藏中。

如果承認『我』（Atman）為六識所識，就會有違背宗義的過失。論主又引用第五部經來破斥。爲了顯示違背經義，首先建立量：『我』（Atman）不同於六境。如果承認『我』（Atman）為六識所識，那麼你們所執著的『我』（Atman）應該不同於聲，因為眼識能夠識別它，就像色一樣。你們所執著的『我』（Atman）應該不同於色等等，因為耳識能夠識別它，就像聲一樣。其餘的識所識別的，都可以用一一比量來為難，以此來證明『我』（Atman）不同於六境。這樣怎麼能說『我』（Atman）與六境不是絕對的一或異呢？確定之後就顯示出違背之處。又立此『我』（Atman）為六識所識，就違背了經中所說。經中說，梵志（Brahmin），五根（five sense organs）的行處（sphere of activity）各不相同，境界（object）各不相同，各自唯有受用自己所行之處和自己的境界。或者前面是就處所而言，後面是就界限來辨別。沒有不同的色根（rupa-indriya），也能受用不同的根的行處和不同的境界。意（manas）兼能受用五根的行處和它們的境界，因為這五識也依賴於意。所以意根（mano-indriya）真正能夠受用十三界（thirteen realms），兼能受用五根的行處和它們的境界。前面的解釋更為殊勝。你們認為一個『我』（Atman）被六識共同取用，那麼五根也能兼取不同的根的行處和不同的境界。這部經又說五根的行處和境界各不相同，豈不是違背了經義？既然違背了經義，或者不應該執著『我』（Atman）是五根的境界。如果不是五根的境界，那麼就不是所能被認識的。

【English Translation】 English version: It arises from two conditions; it does not arise independently from the self (Atman).

Furthermore, if it were as you say, it would undermine your own tenets. The author again cites the fourth sutra to refute this. If this 'self' (Atman) is a condition for eye-consciousness and can generate eye-consciousness, then the 'self' (Atman) should be impermanent. The sutra states that any consciousness generated by conditions is impermanent. The Vatsiputriyas do not accept that the 'self' (Atman) is impermanent.

If they try to defend by saying that the 'self' (Atman) is not a condition for consciousness, then it is refuted by saying that the 'self' (Atman) should not be knowable. If it is not knowable, then it should not be cognizable. If it is not cognizable, how can the existence of the 'self' (Atman) be established? If the existence of the 'self' (Atman) is not established, it undermines their own tenets. Their tenet of establishing the 'self' (Atman) is included in the fifth indescribable category of the Dharma treasury.

If it is admitted that the 'self' (Atman) is cognized by the six consciousnesses, there would be a fault of contradicting the tenets. The author again cites the fifth sutra to refute this. To show the contradiction of the sutra, first establish the inference: the 'self' (Atman) is different from the six objects. If it is admitted that the 'self' (Atman) is cognized by the six consciousnesses, then the 'self' (Atman) you uphold should be different from sound, because eye-consciousness can cognize it, just like form. The 'self' (Atman) you uphold should be different from form, etc., because ear-consciousness can cognize it, just like sound. The cognition by the remaining consciousnesses can be used for individual inferences to make it difficult, in order to prove that the 'self' (Atman) is different from the six objects. How can it be said that the 'self' (Atman) and the six objects are not definitely one or different? After determining this, the contradiction is revealed. Furthermore, establishing this 'self' (Atman) as cognized by the six consciousnesses contradicts what is said in the sutra. The sutra says, 'Brahmin, the spheres of activity (行處) of the five sense organs (五根) are different, and the objects (境界) are different. Each only experiences its own sphere of activity and its own object.' Or, the former refers to the location, and the latter distinguishes the boundaries. There is no different form-faculty (rupa-indriya) that can also experience the sphere of activity and different objects of different faculties. The mind (manas) also experiences the spheres of activity of the five faculties and their objects, because these five consciousnesses also rely on the mind. Therefore, the mind-faculty (mano-indriya) truly can experience the thirteen realms (thirteen realms), and also experiences the spheres of activity of the five faculties and their objects. The previous explanation is more superior. You believe that one 'self' (Atman) is jointly apprehended by the six consciousnesses, then the five faculties can also jointly apprehend the spheres of activity and different objects of different faculties. This sutra also says that the spheres of activity and objects of the five faculties are different. Isn't this contradicting the sutra? Since it contradicts the sutra, then it should not be held that the 'self' (Atman) is the object of the five faculties. If it is not the object of the five faculties, then it is not knowable.

五識所識。若非五識所識。雖不違經。又違宗過。以汝宗說我五識所識故。

若爾意根至及自境界者。犢子部難。言若五根取別境不許取於我。第六意根境亦應別。六生喻契經中言。如是六根行處．境界各有差別。乃至自境界。此中意說。六生喻經六根行處．境界各別。理實意根兼能受用五根行處。及彼境界。何妨前經五根行處．境界各別。而能兼取異根我境。經言五根取各別境。未是盡理之言。言六生喻經者。彼經說以繩系鳥．蛇．豬．鼉．野干．彌猴。令不得隨意。鳥飛空中喻眼根遠見。蛇多住穴喻耳根在深孔內。豬受糞穢臭物。喻鼻著香。鼉樂水中喻舌著味。味必因津液通之舌方得味。野干樂住山林草菴喻身著觸。彌猴性[跳-兆+參]動不停喻意多緣慮。以六眾生喻彼六根。名六生喻經。

非此中說至無違前失者。論主為彼通六生經。非此中說眼等六根。此經意說第六意識。所以者何。眼等五根及所生五識。無有勢力樂見等故。經言樂求。故知不約彼說。但說眼等五根增上勢力。所引意識緣色等境。從因為名名眼等根。獨行意根增上勢力。所引意識緣十三界。亦從因為名名為意根。彼眼等既不因所引。不能樂求眼等五根所引境界。故此六生喻經義。無違前說梵志經失。前梵志經據六根體。故說眼

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：五識所識別的，如果不是五識所識別的，雖然不違背經文，但又違背了宗義的過失。因為你們宗派說我（補特伽羅，Pudgala）是被五識所識別的。

如果這樣，那麼意根（Manovijnana）乃至其自身境界又如何呢？犢子部（Vatsiputriya）會提出疑問：如果五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）各自取不同的境界，不允許取於我（補特伽羅，Pudgala），那麼第六意根（Manovijnana）的境界也應該是不同的。《六生喻契經》中說：『如此六根的行處、境界各有差別，乃至自境界。』這裡的意思是說，《六生喻經》中六根的行處、境界各自不同。但實際上意根（Manovijnana）能夠兼而受用五根的行處以及它們的境界。這不妨礙前面的經文說五根的行處、境界各自不同，而意根（Manovijnana）能夠兼取其他根和我（補特伽羅，Pudgala）的境界。經文說五根取各自不同的境界，並不是完全徹底的說法。所說的《六生喻經》，那部經中說用繩子繫住鳥、蛇、豬、鼉（tuó，揚子鱷）、野干（豺）和獼猴，使它們不能隨意活動。鳥在空中飛翔比喻眼根遠見。蛇多住在洞穴里比喻耳根在深孔內。豬喜歡糞便臭物比喻鼻根接觸香。鼉喜歡在水中比喻舌根接觸味道。味道必定要通過津液才能傳到舌頭，舌頭才能嚐到味道。野干喜歡住在山林草菴里比喻身根接觸觸覺。獼猴的習性是跳動不停比喻意根多緣慮。用這六種眾生來比喻這六根，所以叫做《六生喻經》。

『非此中說』乃至『無違前失』的意思是，論主爲了解釋《六生經》，說這裡所說的不是眼等六根。這部經的意思是說第六意識（Manovijnana）。為什麼這樣說呢？因為眼等五根以及所生的五識，沒有能力去『樂見』等等。經文說『樂求』，所以知道不是就眼等五根來說的。只是說眼等五根增上勢力所引導的意識緣取色等境界，從原因上命名為眼等根。獨行意根增上勢力所引導的意識緣取十三界，也從原因上命名為意根。眼等五根既然不是因為所引導的意識，就不能『樂求』眼等五根所引導的境界。所以這部《六生喻經》的意義，沒有違背前面所說的《梵志經》的過失。前面的《梵志經》是根據六根的本體來說的，所以說眼。

【English Translation】 English version: What is cognized by the five consciousnesses, if it is not cognized by the five consciousnesses, although it does not contradict the sutras, it also violates the fault of the tenet. Because your school says that I (Pudgala) am cognized by the five consciousnesses.

If so, then what about the mind-root (Manovijnana) and its own realm? The Vatsiputriya school would ask: If the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) each take different realms and are not allowed to take I (Pudgala), then the realm of the sixth mind-root (Manovijnana) should also be different. The Sutra of the Six Similes of Birth says: 'Thus, the activities and realms of the six roots are different, even to their own realms.' The meaning here is that in the Sutra of the Six Similes of Birth, the activities and realms of the six roots are different. But in reality, the mind-root (Manovijnana) can also enjoy the activities of the five roots and their realms. This does not prevent the previous sutra from saying that the activities and realms of the five roots are different, while the mind-root (Manovijnana) can also take the realms of other roots and I (Pudgala). The sutra says that the five roots take their own different realms, which is not a complete statement. The Sutra of the Six Similes of Birth says that a rope is used to tie up a bird, snake, pig, gharial (alligator), jackal, and monkey, so that they cannot move freely. A bird flying in the air is a metaphor for the eye-root seeing far. A snake living in a cave is a metaphor for the ear-root being in a deep hole. A pig liking feces and smelly things is a metaphor for the nose-root contacting fragrance. A gharial liking water is a metaphor for the tongue-root contacting taste. Taste must be transmitted to the tongue through saliva for the tongue to taste it. A jackal liking to live in mountain forests and thatched huts is a metaphor for the body-root contacting touch. A monkey's nature is to jump around constantly, which is a metaphor for the mind-root having many thoughts. These six beings are used as metaphors for the six roots, so it is called the Sutra of the Six Similes of Birth.

'Not spoken of here' to 'no violation of previous faults' means that the author of the treatise, in order to explain the Sutra of the Six Similes of Birth, says that what is spoken of here is not the six roots such as the eye. The meaning of this sutra is the sixth consciousness (Manovijnana). Why is this so? Because the five roots such as the eye and the five consciousnesses that arise from them do not have the power to 'enjoy seeing' and so on. The sutra says 'seek joy', so it is known that it is not speaking of the five roots such as the eye. It only says that the consciousnesses led by the increasing power of the five roots such as the eye take the realms of form and so on, and are named eye-roots and so on from the cause. The consciousnesses led by the increasing power of the independent mind-root take the thirteen realms, and are also named mind-root from the cause. Since the five roots such as the eye are not because of the consciousnesses they lead, they cannot 'seek joy' in the realms led by the five roots such as the eye. Therefore, the meaning of this Sutra of the Six Similes of Birth does not violate the fault of the Brahmana Sutra mentioned earlier. The previous Brahmana Sutra was based on the substance of the six roots, so it spoke of the eye.

等五根境界各別。意根若由眼等引者。亦兼能緣五根行處及彼境界。六生喻經但據六根增上勢力。所引意識名為六根。隨六根引各別緣境。以彼意識隨根說六。故說六根名樂求也。前後兩經明義各別。故此後經無違前失。

又世尊說至境必同故者。論主又引第六經破　所達謂無間道　所知謂解脫道　或所達謂慧所達。所知謂智所知　皆是智慧所達知法。眼目異名。此經既說所達．知法。唯有爾所。無有我體。故知我體亦非所識。雖達與智是慧非識。以慧與識境必同故。我非所識。

諸謂眼見至不應異釋者。論主又引第七經破。先敘妄計。后引經非。諸犢子部謂眼見我。破云。應知眼根見所有色。于見非我妄謂見我。故彼便顛墜惡見深坑。故佛經中自決此義。謂唯于蘊假說為我。如人經說。眼．及色為緣生於眼識。三和合觸俱起受．想．思。于中后四所謂眼識．及受．想．思。是無色蘊。觸攬三成無別體故。故不別數。論主以經部義破。不同說一切有宗觸有別體。初眼及色名為色蘊。唯由五蘊量。假說名為人。契經即於此假名人中。隨義差別假立名相。或謂有情。有情識故。或名不悅。劫初時人見地味等沒心不悅故。從此為名。或名意生。從意受生故。或名儒童善童子故。或名能養者。或名所養者。或名有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）的境界各不相同。如果意根（意識的根源）是由眼根等引導的，也能同時緣取五根所作用之處及其境界。《六生喻經》只是根據六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）增上的勢力，所引發的意識稱為六根。隨著六根的引導，各自緣取境界。因為那些意識隨著根而分為六種，所以說六根名為樂求。前後兩部經文所闡明的意義各有不同，因此這部後來的經文並沒有違背之前的經文。

論主又引用第六部經來破斥『世尊說達到境界必定相同』的觀點。所達到的境界指的是無間道（證悟的道路上緊接著解脫道的階段），所知的是解脫道（脫離輪迴的道路），或者所達到的境界指的是由智慧所達到的，所知的是由智慧所知的。這些都是智慧所達到和知曉的法。『眼』和『目』只是不同的名稱。這部經既然說了所達到和知曉的法，只有這些，沒有『我』的存在。因此可知『我』也不是所能認識的。雖然『達』和『智』是智慧的作用而不是識的作用，但因為智慧和識的境界必定相同，所以『我』不是所能認識的。

論主又引用第七部經來破斥『那些認為眼見不能有不同解釋』的觀點。先敘述虛妄的計度，然後引用經文來否定。犢子部（佛教部派之一）認為眼能見到『我』。破斥說：應該知道眼根見到的是所有色法（物質現象），對於『見』並非『我』，卻錯誤地認為見到『我』。因此他們便會顛倒墮入惡見的深坑。所以佛經中自己決斷了這個意義，認為只是在五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）上假說為『我』。如《人經》所說，眼和色為緣而生眼識，三者和合產生觸，同時生起受、想、思。其中后四者，即眼識以及受、想、思，是無色蘊。觸是攬取三者而成，沒有單獨的自體，所以不單獨計數。論主以經部的義理來破斥，不同於說一切有部宗（佛教部派之一）認為觸有單獨的自體。最初的眼和色稱為色蘊。只是由五蘊衡量，假說名為『人』。契經就在這假名『人』中，隨著意義的差別假立名相，或者稱為『有情』，因為有情有識；或者稱為『不悅』，因為劫初時的人見到地味等而心生不悅，因此得名；或者稱為『意生』，因為從意受生；或者稱為『儒童』，因為是善良的童子；或者稱為『能養者』，或者稱為『所養者』，或者稱為『有』

【English Translation】 English version: The realms of the five roots (the five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) are distinct from each other. If the mind-root (the root of consciousness) is guided by the eye-root, etc., it can also simultaneously perceive the places where the five roots operate and their realms. The Sutra of Six Births only relies on the increasing power of the six roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), and the consciousness arising from them is called the six roots. Following the guidance of the six roots, each perceives its respective realm. Because those consciousnesses are divided into six according to the root, it is said that the six roots are called 'seeking pleasure'. The meanings explained in the two sutras, before and after, are different, so this later sutra does not contradict the previous one.

The master of the treatise also quotes the sixth sutra to refute the view that 'the World Honored One said that reaching the realm must be the same'. What is reached refers to the Anantarya-marga (the stage on the path to enlightenment immediately following the Vimukti-marga), and what is known refers to the Vimukti-marga (the path of liberation from samsara), or what is reached refers to what is reached by wisdom, and what is known refers to what is known by wisdom. These are all dharmas reached and known by wisdom. 'Eye' and 'sight' are just different names. Since this sutra speaks of the dharmas that are reached and known, there are only these, and there is no 'self'. Therefore, it can be known that 'self' is also not what can be recognized. Although 'reaching' and 'knowing' are the functions of wisdom and not the functions of consciousness, because the realms of wisdom and consciousness must be the same, 'self' is not what can be recognized.

The master of the treatise also quotes the seventh sutra to refute the view that 'those who say that seeing with the eye should not have different interpretations'. First, it describes false assumptions, and then it quotes the sutra to deny them. The Vatsiputriya school (a Buddhist school) believes that the eye can see the 'self'. The refutation says: It should be known that the eye-root sees all forms (material phenomena), and regarding 'seeing' as not 'self', it mistakenly believes that it sees 'self'. Therefore, they will be inverted and fall into the deep pit of evil views. Therefore, the Buddha's sutras themselves have decided this meaning, believing that it is only on the five skandhas (rupa, vedana, samjna, samskara, vijnana) that 'self' is falsely spoken of. As the Sutra of Man says, the eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness, and the combination of the three produces contact, and simultaneously arises feeling, perception, and volition. Among them, the latter four, namely eye-consciousness and feeling, perception, and volition, are formless skandhas. Contact is formed by grasping the three and has no separate entity, so it is not counted separately. The master of the treatise refutes with the meaning of the Sautrantika school, which is different from the Sarvastivada school (a Buddhist school) which believes that contact has a separate entity. The initial eye and form are called the rupa-skandha. It is only measured by the five skandhas that it is falsely called 'man'. The sutras establish names and appearances in this false name 'man' according to the difference in meaning, or it is called 'sentient being' because sentient beings have consciousness; or it is called 'unpleasant' because people at the beginning of the kalpa saw the taste of the earth and felt unpleasant, hence the name; or it is called 'mind-born' because it is born from the mind; or it is called 'Brahmin boy' because it is a good boy; or it is called 'nourisher', or it is called 'nourished', or it is called 'existing'.

命者。或名生者。是生數故。或是能生者。或是所生者。或名補特伽羅。謂數取諸趣故。亦自稱言我眼見色。復隨世俗說此具壽。謂具足壽命故。有如是天授等名。有如是婆羅門等種族。有如是迦葉波等姓類。乃至世尊恒敕依了義經。此經了義。不應異釋。

又薄伽梵至是不可說者。論主又引第八經破。又薄伽梵告梵志言。我說一切有唯是十二處攝法皆盡。十二處外更無有法。若數取趣非是處攝。無體理成。若是處攝。汝不應言是不可說第五法藏以十二處是可說故。

彼部所誦至此有實體者。論主又引第九經破。彼犢子部所誦契經亦言。諸所有眼。諸所有色。廣說乃至。諸所有意。諸所有法。廣說乃至。如來齊此施設一切。建立一切有自體法。此中無我。如何可說我有實體。

頻毗娑羅至乃至廣說者。論主又引第十經證無有我體。如文可知　頻毗。此云圓。娑羅。此云貞實。

有阿羅漢至應知攬諸蘊者。論主第十一引羅漢說證無有我。如文可知　世羅。此云小山。

世尊于雜至亦都不可得者。論主又引第十二經證無有我　婆拖梨。是西方小棗名。父母憐子以此標名　就十六句中。初兩句先聽欲說。后十四句正為解釋　就正釋中。前兩句標章。后十二句別釋　就別釋中。前兩句釋依心染

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『命』，或者稱為『生』，是因為它是生命的計數。或者，它是能產生生命者，或者，它是被產生者。或者稱為『補特伽羅』（Pudgala），意思是不斷在各個趣向中輪迴。也會自稱『我』，說『我眼見色』。並且隨順世俗的說法，稱呼『具壽』，意思是具有足夠壽命。有像『天授』這樣的名字，有像『婆羅門』這樣的種族，有像『迦葉波』這樣的姓氏。乃至世尊總是教導要依據了義經，此經是了義的，不應該用不同的方式解釋。

關於薄伽梵（Bhagavan）所說的『是不可說』，論主又引用第八部經來駁斥。薄伽梵告訴梵志說：『我說一切有，都包含在十二處中，所有的法都盡於此。十二處之外，再沒有其他的法。』如果數取趣（Pudgala）不是十二處所包含的，那麼它就沒有存在的理由。如果是十二處所包含的，那麼你不應該說它是不可說的第五法藏，因為十二處是可說的。

關於他們所誦讀的經文，說到『此有實體』，論主又引用第九部經來駁斥。犢子部所誦讀的契經也說：『所有眼，所有色，廣而言之，所有意，所有法，廣而言之，如來以此施設一切，建立一切有自體之法。』這裡面沒有『我』，怎麼能說『我』有實體呢？

關於頻毗娑羅（Bimbisara），乃至廣說，論主又引用第十部經來證明沒有『我』的存在。如經文所說，頻毗（Bimbi）的意思是『圓』，娑羅（Sara）的意思是『貞實』。

關於阿羅漢（Arhat），說到『應知攬諸蘊者』，論主第十一引用阿羅漢所說來證明沒有『我』的存在。如經文所說，世羅（Sela）的意思是『小山』。

世尊在雜經中說到『亦都不可得』，論主又引用第十二部經來證明沒有『我』的存在。婆拖梨（Bhatorī）是西方小棗的名字，父母因為憐愛孩子而用這個名字命名。在十六句中，前兩句是先聽取想要說的話，后十四句是正式的解釋。在正式的解釋中，前兩句是標明綱要，后十二句是分別解釋。在分別解釋中，前兩句是解釋依心而產生的染污。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Life' or called 'birth', is because it is the count of life. Or, it is the one who can generate life, or it is the one who is generated. Or it is called 'Pudgala' (補特伽羅), meaning constantly reincarnating in various destinies. It will also call itself 'I', saying 'My eyes see form'. And following the common saying, calling 'Ayushman', meaning having sufficient lifespan. There are names like 'Devadatta', there are races like 'Brahmin', there are surnames like 'Kashyapa'. Even the World-Honored One always teaches to rely on the definitive meaning sutras, this sutra is of definitive meaning, and should not be interpreted in different ways.

Regarding what Bhagavan (薄伽梵) said, 'is unspeakable', the commentator again quotes the eighth sutra to refute it. Bhagavan told the Brahmin: 'I say that all existence is contained in the twelve sense bases, and all dharmas are exhausted in this. Outside the twelve sense bases, there are no other dharmas.' If Pudgala (數取趣) is not contained in the twelve sense bases, then it has no reason to exist. If it is contained in the twelve sense bases, then you should not say that it is the unspeakable fifth dharma store, because the twelve sense bases are speakable.

Regarding the scriptures they recite, saying 'this has substance', the commentator again quotes the ninth sutra to refute it. The scriptures recited by the Vatsiputriya school also say: 'All eyes, all forms, broadly speaking, all minds, all dharmas, broadly speaking, the Tathagata establishes everything with this, establishing all dharmas with self-nature.' There is no 'I' in this, how can it be said that 'I' has substance?

Regarding Bimbisara (頻毗娑羅), and so on, the commentator again quotes the tenth sutra to prove that there is no 'I'. As the sutra says, Bimbi (頻毗) means 'round', and Sara (娑羅) means 'truthful'.

Regarding Arhat (阿羅漢), saying 'one should know that those who grasp the aggregates', the commentator quotes the words of the Arhat in the eleventh sutra to prove that there is no 'I'. As the sutra says, Sela (世羅) means 'small mountain'.

The World-Honored One said in the Samyukta Agama, 'also cannot be obtained', the commentator again quotes the twelfth sutra to prove that there is no 'I'. Bhatorī (婆拖梨) is the name of a small western date, and parents named their child with this name because they loved him. In the sixteen sentences, the first two sentences are to first listen to what one wants to say, and the last fourteen sentences are the formal explanation. In the formal explanation, the first two sentences are to state the outline, and the last twelve sentences are to explain separately. In the separate explanation, the first two sentences explain the defilement arising from the mind.

。后十句釋依心凈　就后十句中。前兩句總標。后八句別釋　結。謂蟠結難義　從因生法名有因法。余文可知　頌言無我。明無我體。

經說執我至不能清凈者。論主又引第十三經顯我無有。經說。執我有五種失。一謂起我見。二有情見。三墮惡見趣。四同諸外道。五越路而行　于空性中心不悟入。釋起我見　不能凈信。釋有情見　不能安住。釋墮惡見趣　不得解脫。釋同諸外道　聖法于彼不能清凈。釋越路而行　又解言五失者。一謂起我見及有情見墮惡趣。二同諸外道執我。三越正路而行。四于空性中心不悟入。不能凈信三寶。不能安住四諦。不得解脫涅槃。五聖法于彼執我身中由惑覆障不能清凈。

此皆非量者。犢子部非。

所以者何者。論主徴。

於我部中曾不誦故者。犢子部答。

汝宗許是至如何非量者。論主兩關徴責。

彼謂此說皆非真佛言者。犢子部答。

所以者何。論主復徴。

我部不誦故者。犢子部答。

此極非理者。論主非。

非理者何者。犢子部問。

如是經文至故極非理者。論主答。顯彼非理。

又于彼部至經決判故者。論主復徴。又于彼部豈無此經謂一切法皆非我性。若彼犢子意。謂此我與所依法不一不異故。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：后十句解釋依靠心凈，就后十句中，前兩句總括標明，后八句分別解釋。'結'，意為蟠結難解的意義。從因產生的法稱為'有因法'，其餘文字可以自行理解。頌文說'無我'，闡明無我的本體。

經文說執著於我以至於不能清凈，論主又引用第十三經來顯示我並不存在。經文說，執著於我有五種過失：一是產生我見（認為存在永恒不變的自我），二是有情見（對眾生的執著），三是墮入惡見趣（錯誤的見解），四是與外道相同，五是越過正路而行，對於空性的道理心中不能領悟。解釋'起我見'。不能清凈地信受。解釋'有情見'。不能安住。解釋'墮惡見趣'。不得解脫。解釋'與外道相同'。聖法對於他們不能清凈。解釋'越過正路而行'。又解釋說，五種過失是：一是產生我見以及有情見，墮入惡趣；二是與外道一樣執著於我；三是越過正確的道路而行；四是對於空性的道理心中不能領悟，不能清凈地信受三寶（佛、法、僧），不能安住於四諦（苦、集、滅、道），不得解脫涅槃（寂滅）；五是聖法在他們執著於我的身心中，由於迷惑的覆蓋和障礙而不能清凈。

'這些都不是正確的量'，這是犢子部（Vatsiputriya）的否定。

'為什麼這樣說呢？'，論主提問。

'因為在我們的經典中從來沒有誦讀過這些'，犢子部回答。

'你們宗派承認這些是...，為什麼說不是正確的量呢？'，論主兩次設關提問責難。

'他們認為這些說法都不是真正的佛所說'，犢子部回答。

'為什麼這樣說呢？'，論主再次提問。

'因為我們的經典中沒有誦讀過這些'，犢子部回答。

'這非常沒有道理'，論主否定。

'沒有道理是什麼意思呢？'，犢子部問道。

'像這樣的經文...，所以說非常沒有道理'，論主回答，顯示他們的說法沒有道理。

'而且在他們的經典中...，因為經文明確地判決了'，論主再次提問。而且在他們的經典中難道沒有這樣的經文說一切法都不是我的自性嗎？如果犢子部的意思是說，這個'我'與所依賴的法不是既不相同也不相異的緣故。

【English Translation】 English version: The latter ten sentences explain relying on the purity of mind. Within these ten sentences, the first two provide a general overview, while the latter eight offer separate explanations. 'Conclusion' refers to the difficult-to-understand meaning that is intertwined. A dharma arising from a cause is called 'conditioned dharma' (hetu-pratyaya-dharma), and the remaining text can be understood on your own. The verse speaks of 'no-self' (anatta), clarifying the essence of no-self.

The sutra says that clinging to self leads to impurity. The commentator further cites the thirteenth sutra to show that self does not exist. The sutra says that clinging to self has five faults: first, it gives rise to the view of self (atma-drishti), second, it gives rise to the view of sentient beings (sattva-drishti), third, it leads to falling into evil views (dushkrita-drishti), fourth, it is the same as the heretics, and fifth, it goes beyond the right path, and the mind cannot comprehend the principle of emptiness (shunyata). Explaining 'arising the view of self'. Unable to purely believe. Explaining 'the view of sentient beings'. Unable to abide. Explaining 'falling into evil views'. Unable to attain liberation. Explaining 'the same as the heretics'. The holy dharma cannot be purified for them. Explaining 'going beyond the right path'. Furthermore, explaining that the five faults are: first, giving rise to the view of self and the view of sentient beings, falling into evil realms; second, clinging to self like the heretics; third, going beyond the correct path; fourth, the mind cannot comprehend the principle of emptiness, unable to purely believe in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha), unable to abide in the Four Noble Truths (duhkha, samudaya, nirodha, marga), unable to attain liberation of Nirvana (extinction); fifth, the holy dharma in their bodies clinging to self cannot be purified due to the covering and obstruction of delusion.

'These are all not valid means of knowledge', this is the negation of the Vatsiputriya school.

'Why is that so?', the commentator asks.

'Because these have never been recited in our scriptures', the Vatsiputriya school replies.

'Your school admits that these are..., why do you say they are not valid means of knowledge?', the commentator questions and challenges twice.

'They think that these sayings are not the true words of the Buddha', the Vatsiputriya school replies.

'Why is that so?', the commentator asks again.

'Because these have not been recited in our scriptures', the Vatsiputriya school replies.

'This is extremely unreasonable', the commentator negates.

'What does it mean to be unreasonable?', the Vatsiputriya school asks.

'Like such sutra texts..., therefore it is extremely unreasonable', the commentator replies, showing that their statement is unreasonable.

'Moreover, in their scriptures..., because the sutra clearly judges', the commentator asks again. Moreover, in their scriptures, is there no such sutra saying that all dharmas are not of the nature of self? If the Vatsiputriya school means that this 'self' and the dharma it relies on are neither the same nor different.

說一切所依五蘊法皆非我。破云。既爾應非意識所識。二緣生識經決判故。若我生意識。應從三緣生。

又于余經至想心見倒者。論主舉經徴責犢子。

計我成倒至何煩會釋者。犢子部答。計我成倒。說于非我橫計為我不言於我計我。何煩會釋。

非我者何。論主問。

謂蘊處界者。犢子部答。

便違前說至不一不異者。論主出過。便違前說我與色等蘊不一不異。若言蘊．處．界體非我者。如何言我不異蘊耶。

又余經說至妄分別為我者。論主又出過。經言計我于取蘊起。不言於我。故無依我起於我見。但非我法妄分別為我。何得說言不言於我。

又余經言至補特伽羅者。論主又出過。經言唯於五取蘊起。不言於我起。故定無我。

若爾何緣至有如是色等者。此下大文第三通難。犢子難云。若言無我。何緣此經復作是說。我於過去世。有如是色等。

此經為顯至如聚如流者。論主通難。此經為顯能憶宿生一相續身中假說於我有種種事。若見實我於過去生能有色等。如何非墮起有身見失。然聖知過去非是有身見　作斯徴責。汝或應非撥言無此經。是故此經依總五蘊相續假我。言有色等　如聚。緣成假　如流。相續假。無有別體。假立其名。

若爾世尊至

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）認為五蘊（skandha，色、受、想、行、識五種聚合）法都不是『我』（ātman）。對方反駁說：如果這樣，那麼『我』就不應該被意識所認識，因為《二緣生識經》明確判定了這一點。如果『我』產生意識，那麼意識應該從三種因緣（三緣）產生。

此外，在其他經典中，提到了『想』、『心』、『見』的顛倒。論主（作者）引用經典來責難犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）。

犢子部回答說：認為『我』是顛倒的，是指把非『我』（anātman）的東西錯誤地認為是『我』，而不是說在『我』的基礎上認為『我』。因此，沒有什麼需要解釋的。

論主問：什麼是非『我』？

犢子部回答：是指蘊（skandha）、處（āyatana，感覺器官和感覺對像）、界（dhātu，構成要素）。

論主指出過失：這就違背了之前所說的『我』與色等蘊既非一也非異。如果說蘊、處、界的本體不是『我』，那麼怎麼能說『我』不異於蘊呢？

此外，其他經典說，錯誤地把非『我』的東西認為是『我』。論主又指出過失：經典說，認為『我』是在取蘊（upādānaskandha，執取的蘊）上產生的，而不是在『我』的基礎上產生的。因此，沒有依賴於『我』而產生的『我』見（ātma-dṛṣṭi）。只是把非『我』的法錯誤地認為是『我』。怎麼能說沒有在『我』的基礎上產生呢？

此外，其他經典說，只是在五取蘊（pañca-upādānaskandha）上產生補特伽羅（pudgala，人）。論主又指出過失：經典說，只是在五取蘊上產生，而不是在『我』的基礎上產生。因此，必定沒有『我』。

犢子部反駁說：如果這樣，那麼為什麼這部經又這樣說：『我在過去世，有這樣的色等』？

論主解釋說：這部經是爲了顯示能夠回憶過去生，在一個相續的身中假說有『我』，並且有種種事情。如果認為真實的『我』在過去生中能夠有色等，那麼怎麼能不墮入產生有身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi）的過失呢？然而，聖者知道過去並非是有身見，所以才這樣責問。你們或許應該不會否認有這部經吧？因此，這部經是依據總體的五蘊相續假立『我』，說有色等。就像聚集一樣，因緣和合而假立；就像河流一樣，相續不斷而假立。沒有別的實體，只是假立一個名稱。

犢子部反駁說：如果這樣，那麼世尊（釋迦摩尼佛）...

【English Translation】 English version: The Sarvāstivāda school asserts that the five skandhas (aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are all not 'ātman' (self). The opponent rebuts: If that's the case, then 'ātman' should not be cognized by consciousness, as the Dvaya-utpāda-vijñāna-sūtra (Sūtra on Consciousness Arising from Two Conditions) clearly states. If 'ātman' generates consciousness, then consciousness should arise from three conditions (tri-pratyaya).

Furthermore, in other sutras, the inversions of 'saṃjñā' (perception), 'citta' (mind), and 'dṛṣṭi' (views) are mentioned. The author (Bhikkhu Vasubandhu) cites the sutras to challenge the Vātsīputrīya school.

The Vātsīputrīya school replies: Considering 'ātman' as inverted means wrongly considering what is 'anātman' (non-self) as 'ātman', not considering 'ātman' based on 'ātman'. Therefore, there is nothing to explain.

The author asks: What is 'anātman'?

The Vātsīputrīya school replies: It refers to the skandhas (aggregates), āyatanas (sense bases), and dhātus (elements).

The author points out the fault: This contradicts what was previously said, that 'ātman' and the skandhas such as rūpa (form) are neither the same nor different. If you say that the essence of the skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus is not 'ātman', then how can you say that 'ātman' is not different from the skandhas?

Furthermore, other sutras say that non-self is falsely regarded as self. The author further points out the fault: The sutras say that the notion of 'ātman' arises in relation to the upādānaskandhas (aggregates of clinging), not based on 'ātman'. Therefore, there is no ātma-dṛṣṭi (view of self) arising dependent on 'ātman'. It is merely that non-self dharmas are falsely regarded as 'ātman'. How can you say that it does not arise based on 'ātman'?

Furthermore, other sutras say that pudgala (person) arises only in relation to the pañca-upādānaskandhas (five aggregates of clinging). The author further points out the fault: The sutras say that it arises only in relation to the five aggregates of clinging, not based on 'ātman'. Therefore, there is definitely no 'ātman'.

The Vātsīputrīya school rebuts: If that's the case, then why does this sutra say, 'In the past, I had such rūpa (form), etc.'?

The author explains: This sutra is to show that one can recall past lives, and within a continuous body, it is conventionally said that there is 'ātman' and that there are various things. If one believes that the real 'ātman' could have rūpa, etc., in past lives, then how can one avoid falling into the fault of generating satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of a real self)? However, the noble ones know that the past is not a view of a real self, so they question in this way. Perhaps you should not deny that this sutra exists? Therefore, this sutra relies on the overall continuity of the five skandhas to conventionally establish 'ātman', saying that there is rūpa, etc. Like an accumulation, it is conventionally established due to the aggregation of conditions; like a stream, it is conventionally established due to continuity. There is no separate entity, only a name is conventionally established.

The Vātsīputrīya school rebuts: If that's the case, then the Blessed One (Śākyamuni Buddha)...

可能遍知者。犢子部難。若無我者。世尊應非是一切智。無心．心所能知一切法。乃至。無我觀亦不知自性．相應．俱有法。剎那．剎那前後不同異生滅故。若許有我不剎那滅。多時經停可能遍知。

補特伽羅至非由頓遍知者。論主通難。將通彼難。先破云。我應常住。許心滅時我不滅故。我若不滅。如是便越汝所許宗我非常故。復正通云。我等不言佛於一切。一剎那中能頓遍知故。名一切智者。但約前後相續多時有堪能故。謂得佛名。諸蘊相續成就如是殊勝堪能一切智德。才作意時。于所欲知境。無倒智起。名一切智。非於一念能頓遍知名一切智。故於相續中有如是頌　由約前後相續有能　如火漸能燒諸物非一剎那　如是一切智相續遍知　非由剎那頓遍知也　若依宗輪論。大眾部等。一剎那心相應般若。知一切法。

如何得知至非我遍知者。犢子部問。如何得知約相續智說知一切法。非我遍知。

說佛世尊有三世故者。論主答。說佛世尊有三世故。明知約相續說知一切法。非我遍知　彼計世尊以我為體。是第五不可說法藏攝。非三世法藏。故論主答。說佛世尊是三世法藏。約智相續遍知一切。非我遍知。

於何處說者。犢子部問。於何處說佛世尊有三世耶。

如有頌言至故定應爾者

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：可能遍知者：犢子部（Vatsiputriya）提出異議：如果不存在『我』（atman），世尊（世尊，釋迦牟尼佛的尊稱）就不應該是一切智者（sarvajna，指對一切事物都有透徹瞭解的人）。因為沒有心和心所（citta-caitta，心理活動及其伴隨物）能夠知曉一切法（dharma，佛法的基本組成部分），甚至連無我觀（anatman-darshana，觀察事物無自性的智慧）也無法認知其自性、相應法（samprayukta-dharma，與心識相應的心理現象）和俱有法（sahabhu-dharma，同時產生的現象）。這是因為剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位）生滅變化，前後不同。如果承認存在不剎那滅的『我』，那麼經過長時間的停滯，『我』才可能遍知一切。

補特伽羅（pudgala，意為『人』或『有情』）至非由頓遍知者：論主（論師，佛教論著的作者）通過普遍的難題來反駁。在闡述這個難題之前，先破斥對方的觀點：『我』應該是常住的，因為心滅的時候『我』並沒有滅。如果『我』不滅，那就違背了你們所承認的宗義，即『我』不是常恒不變的。然後正面回答：我們並不認為佛陀在同一剎那中能夠頓然遍知一切，所以才被稱為一切智者。而是說，佛陀在前後相續的時間裡具有這種能力，因此才獲得佛的稱號。諸蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）相續成就了這種殊勝的、能夠遍知一切的智慧。當佛陀作意（manaskara，心理活動中的注意或專注）時，對於想要了解的境界，就會生起無倒的智慧（aviparita-jnana，如實知見的智慧），所以被稱為一切智者。而不是說在一念之間能夠頓然遍知一切，才被稱為一切智者。因此，在相續中有一首偈頌說：『由於約前後相續有能力，就像火逐漸能夠燃燒物體，而不是在一剎那間完成。同樣，一切智者通過相續遍知一切，而不是通過剎那頓遍知。』如果依據《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra）的觀點，大眾部（Mahasanghika）等宗派認為，一剎那的心相應般若（prajna，智慧）能夠知曉一切法。

如何得知至非我遍知者：犢子部問道：如何得知是根據相續的智慧來說明知曉一切法，而不是『我』遍知一切？

說佛世尊有三世故者：論主回答：因為經典中說佛世尊具有三世（過去、現在、未來），所以很明顯是根據相續來說明知曉一切法，而不是『我』遍知一切。他們認為世尊以『我』為本體，屬於第五不可說法藏（avaktavya-dharma-skandha，既不能說是存在，也不能說是不存在的法），而不是三世法藏。所以論主回答說，佛世尊是三世法藏，通過智慧的相續遍知一切，而不是『我』遍知一切。

於何處說者：犢子部問道：在什麼地方說佛世尊具有三世呢？

如有頌言至故定應爾者：

【English Translation】 English version: Possible Omniscient One: The Vatsiputriya school objects: If there is no 'self' (atman), the World-Honored One (Bhagavan, a respectful title for Shakyamuni Buddha) should not be omniscient (sarvajna, referring to someone who has a thorough understanding of all things). Because no mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta, mental activities and their accompaniments) can know all dharmas (dharma, the basic components of Buddhist teachings), even the contemplation of no-self (anatman-darshana, the wisdom of observing the non-self nature of things) cannot recognize its own nature, associated dharmas (samprayukta-dharma, mental phenomena associated with consciousness), and co-existent dharmas (sahabhu-dharma, phenomena that arise simultaneously). This is because each moment (ksana, an extremely short unit of time) arises and ceases differently, with differences between before and after. If it is admitted that there is a 'self' that does not cease momentarily, then after a long period of stagnation, the 'self' could possibly know everything universally.

Pudgala (pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'sentient being') to not through sudden universal knowledge: The author of the treatise (acharya, the author of Buddhist treatises) refutes with a common difficulty. Before explaining this difficulty, he first refutes the opponent's view: 'The 'self' should be permanent, because when the mind ceases, the 'self' does not cease.' If the 'self' does not cease, then it violates your admitted tenet that the 'self' is not permanent. Then he answers directly: We do not say that the Buddha can suddenly know everything universally in one moment, which is why he is called omniscient. Rather, it is said that the Buddha has this ability over a continuous period of time, and therefore attains the title of Buddha. The continuity of the aggregates (skandha, the five elements that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) achieves this supreme ability to know everything. When the Buddha directs his attention (manaskara, attention or focus in mental activity), unperverted wisdom (aviparita-jnana, wisdom of seeing things as they truly are) arises towards the object he wishes to know, so he is called omniscient. It is not that he can suddenly know everything universally in one thought, and therefore is called omniscient. Therefore, there is a verse in the continuity that says: 'Because of the ability through continuous succession, just as fire can gradually burn objects, not in one moment. Similarly, the omniscient one knows everything universally through continuity, not through sudden universal knowledge in a moment.' According to the view of the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Treatise on the Schools of Buddhism), the Mahasanghika school and others believe that the prajna (prajna, wisdom) associated with the mind in one moment can know all dharmas.

How to know to not the self universally knows: The Vatsiputriya asks: How do we know that it is based on the wisdom of continuity to explain knowing all dharmas, and not the 'self' universally knowing everything?

Saying the Buddha World-Honored One has three times: The author of the treatise answers: Because the scriptures say that the Buddha World-Honored One has three times (past, present, future), it is clear that it is based on continuity to explain knowing all dharmas, and not the 'self' universally knowing everything. They believe that the World-Honored One has the 'self' as his essence, belonging to the fifth unexplainable dharma-skandha (avaktavya-dharma-skandha, a dharma that can neither be said to exist nor not exist), and not the three times dharma-skandha. Therefore, the author of the treatise answers that the Buddha World-Honored One is the three times dharma-skandha, knowing everything universally through the continuity of wisdom, and not the 'self' universally knowing everything.

Where is it said: The Vatsiputriya asks: Where is it said that the Buddha World-Honored One has three times?

As there is a verse saying to therefore it should be so:

。許論主答。如經頌言。三世諸佛滅眾生憂　故約相續名佛遍知。汝宗唯許蘊有三世非數取趣。以數取趣是第五不可說法藏收故　故定應爾。謂定應說約三世法。許約相續說。三世諸佛。約智相續遍知一切。非數取趣。若數取趣。是世尊體。遍知一切。不應說佛有其三世。◎

俱舍論記卷第二十九

交了

保延元年七月二十八日

京都宿處故入道大相國舊居點了

破我品頗有文字不審。

權少僧都覺樹記大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1821 俱舍論記

俱舍論記卷第三十

沙門釋光述

破執我品第九之二

◎若唯五取蘊至荷重擔者。犢子部師又引經難。論主若言唯五取蘊假名我者。何故佛說吾今為汝說諸五取蘊重擔。取後重擔。舍前重擔。現荷重擔者。若無有我。於此經中。世尊不應作如是說荷重擔等。

何緣於此佛不應說者。論主卻徴。何緣於此佛不應說。

荷重擔至曾未見故者。犢子部答。不應重擔五取蘊體。即名能荷。所以者何。謂曾未見於此重擔即名能荷。故知有我名為能荷。蘊是所。取捨二種。略而不論。

不可說事至補特伽羅者。論主為釋。就釋中先難。后釋　難云。汝宗所立第五不可說法藏事。亦不應說。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：許論主回答說：正如經文頌詞所言：『三世諸佛滅除眾生的憂愁，所以依相續假名為佛，普遍了知一切。』你們宗派只承認蘊有三世，不承認數取趣（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『有情』或『人』）有三世。因為數取趣屬於第五種不可說法藏所攝，所以必定應該是這樣。也就是說，必定應該說依三世法，允許依相續說三世諸佛，依智慧相續普遍了知一切，而不是數取趣。如果數取趣是世尊的身體，普遍了知一切，就不應該說佛有三世。

《俱舍論記》卷第二十九

結束

保延元年七月二十八日

在京都住所，故入道大相國舊居校對完畢

破我品中頗有文字不確定。

權少僧都覺樹記《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1821 《俱舍論記》

現代漢語譯本：《俱舍論記》卷第三十

沙門釋光述

破執我品第九之二

如果只有五取蘊（Panca-skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）到荷重擔者。犢子部（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派之一，主張『不可說我』）的論師又引用經文來詰難。論主如果說只有五取蘊是假名我，那麼為什麼佛說：『我現在為你們說諸五取蘊的重擔，取後來的重擔，捨棄之前的重擔，現在荷重擔者。』如果沒有我，在這部經中，世尊不應該這樣說荷重擔等。

憑什麼佛不應該這樣說呢？論主反問：憑什麼佛不應該這樣說？

荷重擔到從未見過的緣故。犢子部回答：不應該說重擔五取蘊的自體，就叫做能負荷者。為什麼呢？因為從未見過重擔本身就是能負荷者，所以知道有我名為能負荷者。蘊是所負荷的，取捨兩種作用，這裡略而不論。

不可說的事到補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『有情』或『人』）者。論主爲了解釋，在解釋中先提問，后解釋。提問說：你們宗派所立的第五種不可說法藏的事，也不應該說。

【English Translation】 English version: Xu Lunzhu (Author of the Treatise) replied: As the verse in the sutra says, 'The Buddhas of the three times extinguish the sorrows of sentient beings, therefore, based on the continuity, they are nominally called Buddhas, universally knowing everything.' Your school only acknowledges that the skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five aggregates constituting individual existence: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) exist in the three times, and does not acknowledge that the Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 'sentient being' or 'person') exists in the three times. Because the Pudgala is included in the fifth unspeakable category, it must be so. That is to say, it must be said based on the three times of dharmas, and it is permissible to speak of the Buddhas of the three times based on continuity, universally knowing everything based on the continuity of wisdom, not the Pudgala. If the Pudgala is the body of the World-Honored One, universally knowing everything, it should not be said that the Buddha has the three times.

Kusha-luna-ji (Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika) Volume 29

Finished

July 28th, Baoyan 1st year

Checked and proofread at the old residence of the former Daixiangguo monk in Kyoto

There are some uncertain words in the 'Breaking Self' chapter.

Written by Quan Shao Sengdu Jueshu Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1821 Kusha-luna-ji

English version: Kusha-luna-ji (Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika) Volume 30

Commentary by Shramana Shiguang

Breaking Attachment to Self, Chapter 9, Part 2

If only the five skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five aggregates constituting individual existence: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) exist, up to 'the one who bears the heavy burden.' The Vatsiputriya (Vatsiputriya, a Buddhist school that advocated the 'inexpressible self') master again quotes the sutra to challenge. If the author of the treatise says that only the five skandhas are a nominal self, then why did the Buddha say, 'I will now tell you about the heavy burden of the five skandhas, taking on the later burden, abandoning the previous burden, and now the one who bears the heavy burden.' If there is no self, in this sutra, the World-Honored One should not have said such things as 'bearing the heavy burden'.

Why shouldn't the Buddha have said this here? The author of the treatise asks in return: Why shouldn't the Buddha have said this here?

From 'bearing the heavy burden' to 'never seen before.' The Vatsiputriya replies: It should not be said that the very substance of the heavy burden, the five skandhas, is called the bearer. Why? Because it has never been seen that the heavy burden itself is the bearer, so it is known that there is a self called the bearer. The skandhas are what is borne, and the two functions of taking and abandoning are omitted here.

From 'unspeakable things' to 'Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 'sentient being' or 'person').' The author of the treatise explains, first questioning and then explaining in the explanation. The question says: The matter of the fifth unspeakable category established by your school should also not be spoken of.

所以者何。亦曾未見故　又難。例釋。難云能取重擔應非蘊攝。重擔自取曾未見故。此中難意。我是能荷即非蘊攝。取是能取。應非蘊攝　例釋云。然經說愛因名取果重擔者。愛是能取。既即蘊攝　能荷蘊者亦應蘊攝。即于諸蘊上假立數取趣　然佛恐彼犢子部經。謂此我體是第五不可說法藏常住實有。故此經后佛自釋言。但隨世俗說此具壽有如是名。乃至廣說　眾多名字如上所引人經文句。為令了此五蘊假我。可說無常非實有性　即五取蘊自相逼害得擔害名。前前剎那引後後故。故名為荷者。此即前因能荷後果。故非實有補特伽羅。

補特伽羅至邪見攝故者。犢子部又引經難。顯我實有　我定實有。經說撥無化生有情邪見攝故。化生有情即是實我。撥無邪見。明有實我。

誰言無有至修所斷故者。論主通難。誰言無有化生有情。如佛所言。化生中有我說有故。謂蘊相續能往後世。不由胎．卵．濕名化生有情。撥此中有無故邪見攝。化生五蘊理實有故　義便復徴。又許此邪見謗補特伽羅　是何所斷。見．修所斷。理並不然。汝執實我非四諦攝故非見諦斷。又此邪見不應說言修所斷故。

若謂經說有至生世間故者。論主又牒計破。若謂經說有一補特伽羅生在世間我一．蘊蘊者。破云。亦不應理。經言一

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『所以者何。亦曾未見故』又是一個難題。舉例解釋。難題說：『能夠承擔重擔的，應該不是五蘊所包含的。』因為重擔是自己承擔的，從未見過五蘊自己承擔重擔。這個難題的意思是：『我是能夠承擔的，所以不是五蘊所包含的。』承擔是能夠取受的，所以不應是五蘊所包含的。例釋說：『然而經中說，愛因為名而取，結果是重擔。』愛是能夠取受的，既然是五蘊所包含的，那麼能夠承擔五蘊的，也應該是五蘊所包含的。』這只是在五蘊上假立的數取趣（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』）。然而佛陀恐怕那些犢子部（Vatsiputriya，古印度佛教部派之一）的經典，說這個我的本體是第五種不可言說的法藏，是常住實有的。因此這部經後面，佛陀自己解釋說：『只是隨順世俗的說法，說這位具壽（Ayushman，對年長比丘的尊稱）有這樣的名字。』乃至廣說眾多名字，如上面所引用的人經文句，是爲了讓人明白這五蘊是虛假的『我』，可以說無常，不是真實存在的。五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha，佛教術語，指色、受、想、行、識五種構成有情的要素）的自相逼迫損害，得到了『擔』和『害』的名稱。因為前一個剎那引導后一個剎那，所以名為『荷』（承擔者）。這只是前因能夠承擔後果，所以沒有真實存在的補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』）。『補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』）至邪見攝故』，犢子部（Vatsiputriya，古印度佛教部派之一）又引用經典來提出難題，顯示『我』是真實存在的。『我』一定是真實存在的，因為經典說否定化生有情（upapaduka，指無父母而突然出生的有情）會被邪見所攝。化生有情就是真實的我，否定化生有情，就說明有真實的我。『誰言無有至修所斷故』，論主（作者）通過難題。誰說沒有化生有情（upapaduka，指無父母而突然出生的有情）？正如佛陀所說，化生中有（antarabhava，指死亡到再生的過渡狀態）我說有。』意思是說，五蘊的相續能夠前往後世，不是由胎、卵、濕而生，就叫做化生有情。否定這種中有，就會被邪見所攝。化生的五蘊在道理上是真實存在的。義理上又進一步追問，又允許這種邪見誹謗補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』），是什麼所斷除的？是見所斷（darśana-prahātavya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）還是修所斷（bhāvanā-prahātavya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）？道理上並非如此。你所執著的真實『我』，不是四聖諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，佛教的基本教義）所包含的，所以不是見諦所斷。而且這種邪見不應該說是修所斷。『若謂經說有至生世間故者』，論主（作者）又列舉並破斥對方的觀點。如果說經典中說有一個補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『有情』）生在世間，『我』是一，五蘊是一。破斥說：『也不應該這樣理解。』經典說『一』

【English Translation】 English version: 『What is the reason? Because it has never been seen.』 This is another difficult point. An example is given to explain. The difficulty states: 『That which can take on a heavy burden should not be included within the aggregates (skandha).』 Because the heavy burden is taken on by oneself, it has never been seen that the aggregates themselves take on the heavy burden. The meaning of this difficulty is: 『I am able to bear it, therefore I am not included within the aggregates.』 Taking is the ability to take, so it should not be included within the aggregates. The example explanation says: 『However, the sutra says that love takes because of name, and the result is a heavy burden.』 Love is able to take, and since it is included within the aggregates, then that which can bear the aggregates should also be included within the aggregates.』 This is merely a designation established on the aggregates, a designation of Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 『person』 or 『being』 ). However, the Buddha feared that those Sutras of the Vatsiputriya (Vatsiputriya, an ancient Indian Buddhist school) would say that this self-entity is the fifth unspeakable Dharma treasury, which is permanent and truly existent. Therefore, later in this sutra, the Buddha himself explained: 『It is only in accordance with worldly conventions that it is said that this Ayushman (Ayushman, an honorific title for senior monks) has such a name.』 And so on, extensively explaining many names, such as the phrases from the Manava Sutra quoted above, in order to make it clear that these five aggregates are a false 『self,』 which can be said to be impermanent and not truly existent. The self-aspects of the five aggregates of clinging (Panca-upadanakkhandha, a Buddhist term referring to the five elements that constitute a sentient being: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) oppress and harm each other, resulting in the names 『burden』 and 『harm.』 Because the previous moment leads to the subsequent moment, it is called 『bearing』 (the one who bears). This is only the previous cause being able to bear the subsequent result, so there is no truly existent Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 『person』 or 『being』 ). 『From Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 『person』 or 『being』) to being included in wrong views,』 the Vatsiputriya (Vatsiputriya, an ancient Indian Buddhist school) again quotes the sutras to raise a difficulty, showing that the 『self』 is truly existent. 『The 『self』 must be truly existent, because the sutra says that denying beings born by transformation (upapaduka, referring to beings born suddenly without parents) is included in wrong views.』 Beings born by transformation are the true self, and denying beings born by transformation demonstrates that there is a true self. 『Who says there are no beings born by transformation to being abandoned by cultivation,』 the author refutes the difficulty. 『Who says there are no beings born by transformation (upapaduka, referring to beings born suddenly without parents)? Just as the Buddha said, 『I say there is an intermediate state (antarabhava, referring to the transitional state between death and rebirth) for beings born by transformation.』 This means that the continuation of the five aggregates can go to the next life, and those not born from a womb, egg, or moisture are called beings born by transformation. Denying this intermediate state is included in wrong views. The five aggregates of beings born by transformation are truly existent in principle. The meaning is further questioned, 『And you allow this wrong view to slander the Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 『person』 or 『being』), what is it abandoned by? Is it abandoned by seeing (darśana-prahātavya, afflictions abandoned through the path of seeing) or abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya, afflictions abandoned through the path of cultivation)?』 The principle is not so. The true 『self』 that you cling to is not included in the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism), so it is not abandoned by the truth of seeing. Moreover, this wrong view should not be said to be abandoned by cultivation. 『If it is said that the sutra says there is to being born in the world,』 the author again lists and refutes the opponent's viewpoint. If it is said that the sutra says there is a Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 『person』 or 『being』) born in the world, 『I』 is one, and the five aggregates are one. The refutation says: 『It should not be understood in this way either.』 The sutra says 『one』

我。此于總蘊中假說一我故。如世間說眾多極微。名為一麻．一米。多穀麥等名為一聚。多念音聲名為一言　或汝立我應許有為攝。以契經說生世間故。然宗不許是有為攝。

非此言生如蘊斷起者。犢子部救。非此我生如蘊新起。

依何義說生在世間者。論主徴問。

依此今時至取別位故者。犢子部答。

言我生者。依我今時舍前別蘊聚后別蘊。非新我生。如世間說習學祠祭得成就者。名能祠者生。毗伽羅論名為記論。即是聲明論。習學記論得成就者。名記論者生。

以此二種取明論故名生。彼所習論名為明論　又如世說初出家時名苾芻生。初入外道名外道生。以此二種取自威儀．自法式故名生。或如世說發白面皺名老者生。四大乖違名病者生。以此二種取別位故名生　上所言生據別得法。非初生也。我生亦爾。據取別蘊非我雜新生。

佛已遮故至故佛已遮者。此下論主破。此即引經破。經說有業有異熟。真實作者不可得故。謂能捨此前蘊。及能續余后蘊。唯除五蘊相續法假說名為我。故佛已遮蘊外實我。

頗勒具那至取捨諸蘊者。論主又引經破。不說有實能取者。故無實我能取捨蘊。

又汝所引至亦如心等者。論主又約喻破。又汝所引祠者等生。其體是何。而能

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本我。這是因為在總括的蘊（skandha）中假立一個『我』的緣故。就像世間常說，許多極小的微塵，稱為『一麻』、『一米』。許多穀物麥子等，稱為『一聚』。許多念頭聲音，稱為『一言』。或者你所立的『我』，應該被歸為有為法（saṃskṛta）。因為契經（sūtra）中說『生在世間』的緣故。然而你們宗派不承認『我』是有為法所攝。

『並非此言生，如蘊斷滅而生起』，這是犢子部（Vātsīputrīya）的辯解。『並非此我生，如蘊新產生起。』

『依據什麼意義說生在世間呢？』論主提問。

『依據此時此刻，到達並取得不同的位置的緣故』，犢子部回答。

說『我生』，是依據『我』此時此刻，捨棄之前的蘊，聚合之後的其他蘊。並非新的『我』產生。就像世間常說，學習祭祀並獲得成就的人，被稱為『能祭祀者生』。毗伽羅論（Vyākaraṇa）被稱為記論，也就是聲明論。學習記論並獲得成就的人，被稱為『記論者生』。

因為這兩種取得明論的緣故，稱為『生』。他們所學習的論，稱為明論。又如世間常說，剛出家時，稱為『比丘生』（bhikṣu）。剛進入外道，稱為『外道生』。因為這兩種取得自身威儀、自身法式的緣故，稱為『生』。或者如世間常說，頭髮變白，面容起皺，稱為『老者生』。四大（四大元素）不調，稱為『病者生』。因為這兩種取得不同位置的緣故，稱為『生』。上面所說的『生』，是依據取得不同的法。並非最初的生。『我生』也是如此，是依據取得不同的蘊，並非『我』雜亂地新生。

『佛陀已經遮止的緣故...所以佛陀已經遮止』，以下是論主進行破斥。這是引用經文進行破斥。經文說有業（karma）有異熟（vipāka），但真實的作者是不可得的。所謂能捨棄此前的蘊，以及能延續其餘之後的蘊，除了五蘊（pañca-skandha）相續的法，假說名為『我』，所以佛陀已經遮止了蘊之外的實『我』。

『頗勒具那...取捨諸蘊』，論主又引用經文進行破斥。不說有真實的能取者，所以沒有真實的『我』能夠取捨蘊。

『又你所引用的...也如心等』，論主又用比喻進行破斥。又你所引用的祭祀者等生，他們的本體是什麼？而能夠...

【English Translation】 English version I. This is because a 'self' is hypothetically established within the totality of the aggregates (skandha). Just as it is commonly said in the world that many extremely small particles are called 'one sesame seed,' 'one grain of rice.' Many grains of wheat, etc., are called 'one heap.' Many thoughts and sounds are called 'one word.' Or the 'self' that you posit should be included in the conditioned (saṃskṛta). Because the sutras say 'born in the world.' However, your school does not admit that the 'self' is included in the conditioned.

'It is not that this birth is like the arising of aggregates that have been cut off,' this is the defense of the Vātsīputrīya school. 'It is not that this self is born like the new arising of aggregates.'

'According to what meaning is it said to be born in the world?' The master of the treatise asks.

'According to this moment, reaching and obtaining a different position,' the Vātsīputrīya school answers.

Saying 'I am born' is based on 'I' at this moment, abandoning the previous aggregates and gathering other aggregates afterward. It is not a new 'I' that arises. Just as it is commonly said in the world that a person who learns sacrifices and achieves them is called 'the sacrificer is born.' Vyākaraṇa is called grammar, which is the study of language. A person who learns grammar and achieves it is called 'the grammarian is born.'

Because of these two kinds of obtaining clear doctrines, it is called 'birth.' The doctrines they learn are called clear doctrines. Also, as it is commonly said in the world, when first becoming a monk, it is called 'bhikṣu is born.' When first entering a non-Buddhist path, it is called 'non-Buddhist is born.' Because of these two kinds of obtaining one's own demeanor and one's own rules, it is called 'birth.' Or as it is commonly said in the world, when hair turns white and the face wrinkles, it is called 'the old person is born.' When the four great elements (mahābhūta) are imbalanced, it is called 'the sick person is born.' Because of these two kinds of obtaining different positions, it is called 'birth.' The 'birth' mentioned above is based on obtaining different dharmas. It is not the initial birth. The 'self is born' is also like this, it is based on obtaining different aggregates, it is not that the 'self' is newly born in a mixed way.

'Because the Buddha has already prohibited... therefore the Buddha has already prohibited,' the following is the refutation by the master of the treatise. This is refuting by quoting the sutras. The sutras say that there is karma (karma) and there is vipāka (vipāka), but the real agent is unobtainable. What is called abandoning the previous aggregates and continuing the remaining aggregates afterward, except for the continuous dharma of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), is hypothetically called 'self,' so the Buddha has already prohibited the real 'self' outside the aggregates.

'Phalguna... abandoning the aggregates,' the master of the treatise again refutes by quoting the sutras. It is not said that there is a real taker, so there is no real 'self' that can abandon the aggregates.

'Also, what you quoted... is also like the mind, etc.,' the master of the treatise again refutes by analogy. Also, what you quoted, the sacrificer, etc., being born, what is their substance? And what can...

喻我　汝若執祠者是我。喻不極成。我不許有實我體故　若執祠者是心．心所。彼唸唸滅。新生故。取捨不成　若許祠者即是色身。亦如心等。彼唸唸滅。新新生故。取捨不成。

又如明等至為喻不成者。論主又約喻破。又如明論等與祠者等身異。蘊亦應異我。如何言不異。老身．病身各與前位身有別異。亦應蘊與補特伽羅異　若言少身好身轉作身。便同數論變義宗。數論轉變如前已遣。故彼所引祠者生等為喻不成。

又許蘊生至與蘊有異者。論主又破。許蘊新生非數取趣。則定許我異蘊及常。如何汝宗言不異蘊及非常耶　又我唯一。蘊體有五。寧不說我與蘊有異。

大種有四至不異大種者。犢子部反責。論主我一。蘊五。命我異蘊　大種有四。造色唯一。寧言造色不異大種。

是彼宗過者。論主答。是彼宗過。非關我事。

何謂彼宗者。犢子新問。

諸計造色至補特伽羅者。論主答。諸覺天等計諸造色即大種論　設如彼見應作是質。如諸造色即四大種　亦應即五蘊立補特伽羅。如何言我不即蘊耶。

若補特伽羅至命者即身者。犢子部難。

觀能問者至與身一異者。論主答。觀能問者阿邪世故。問者執一內我實體名為命者。依此問佛與身一．異。我都無故。一．異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『喻我』，如果你執著于『祠者』（祭祀者）就是『我』(Atman)。這個比喻並不成立。因為我不承認有真實的『我』的實體。如果執著于『祠者』是『心』(citta)、『心所』(caitta)。它們唸唸生滅，不斷新生，所以『取』(taking)和『舍』(rejection)無法成立。如果承認『祠者』就是『色身』(rupa-kaya)，也和『心』等一樣。因為它們唸唸生滅，不斷新生，所以『取』和『舍』無法成立。

又如『明』(clarity)等，作為比喻並不成立。論主又用比喻來破斥。又如『明論』等與『祠者』等，身體不同，『蘊』(skandha)也應該與『我』不同。怎麼能說不不同呢？老年的身體、生病的身體，各自與之前的身體有區別，也應該『蘊』與『補特伽羅』(pudgala，補特伽羅)不同。如果說年少的身體、好的身體轉變成其他身體，就等同於數論派(Samkhya)的『變義宗』(doctrine of transformation)。數論派的轉變之前已經駁斥過。所以他們引用的『祠者』的生等作為比喻並不成立。

又承認『蘊』新生，直到與『蘊』有差異。論主又進行破斥。承認『蘊』新生，不是『數取趣』(pudgala，補特伽羅)，那就必定承認『我』與『蘊』不同，並且是常恒的。為什麼你們宗派說不異於『蘊』，並且不是常恒的呢？而且『我』是唯一的，『蘊』的體性有五種。怎麼能不說『我』與『蘊』有差異呢？

『大種』(mahabhuta)有四種，直到不異於『大種』。犢子部(Vatsiputriya)反過來責問。論主說，『我』是一個，『蘊』有五種，就說『我』異於『蘊』。『大種』有四種，『造色』(rupa)只有一種，怎麼能說『造色』不異於『大種』？

『這是他們的宗派的過失』。論主回答說，這是他們的宗派的過失，與我無關。

『什麼是他們的宗派？』犢子部重新提問。

『諸計造色』，直到『補特伽羅』。論主回答說，那些覺天等，認為諸『造色』就是『大種』的理論。假設像他們那樣認為，就應該這樣質問：就像諸『造色』就是四大『大種』，也應該用五『蘊』來安立『補特伽羅』。怎麼能說『我』不即是『蘊』呢？

『如果補特伽羅』，直到『命者即身者』。犢子部提出詰難。

觀察能夠提問的人，直到與身體是一還是異。論主回答說，觀察能夠提問的人，是因為阿邪世(Ajita Kesakambalin)的緣故。提問者執著於一個內在的『我』的實體，名為『命者』(jiva)。依據這個來問佛，與身體是一還是異。我都認為沒有，所以不存在一和異。

【English Translation】 English version 'Analogy of the Sacrificer': If you cling to the 'sacrificer' (the one who performs the sacrifice) as being the 'Self' (Atman), this analogy is not valid. Because I do not accept that there is a real entity of the 'Self'. If you cling to the 'sacrificer' as being 'mind' (citta) and 'mental factors' (caitta), they arise and cease in every moment, constantly being newly born. Therefore, 'taking' and 'rejection' cannot be established. If you admit that the 'sacrificer' is the 'form body' (rupa-kaya), it is also like the 'mind' and so on. Because they arise and cease in every moment, constantly being newly born, 'taking' and 'rejection' cannot be established.

Furthermore, 'clarity' (clarity) and so on, as an analogy, are not valid. The proponent refutes again with an analogy. Furthermore, just as 'clear arguments' and so on are different from the 'sacrificer' in body, the 'skandhas' (aggregates) should also be different from the 'Self'. How can you say they are not different? The body of old age, the body of sickness, each is different from the previous body. The 'skandhas' should also be different from the 'pudgala' (person). If you say that a young body, a good body transforms into another body, it is equivalent to the Samkhya school's 'doctrine of transformation'. The transformation of the Samkhya school has already been refuted before. Therefore, their citation of the 'sacrificer's' birth and so on as an analogy is not valid.

Furthermore, admitting that 'skandhas' are newly born, up to being different from the 'skandhas'. The proponent refutes again. Admitting that 'skandhas' are newly born, not 'pudgala' (person), then you must admit that the 'Self' is different from the 'skandhas' and is permanent. Why does your school say that it is not different from the 'skandhas' and is not permanent? Moreover, the 'Self' is singular, and the nature of the 'skandhas' is fivefold. How can you not say that the 'Self' is different from the 'skandhas'?

'The great elements' (mahabhuta) are four, up to not being different from the 'great elements'. The Vatsiputriya school counter-questions. The proponent says, 'The 'Self' is one, the 'skandhas' are five, so you say the 'Self' is different from the 'skandhas'. The 'great elements' are four, 'derived matter' (rupa) is only one, how can you say 'derived matter' is not different from the 'great elements'?

'This is the fault of their school'. The proponent replies, this is the fault of their school, it is not my concern.

'What is their school?' The Vatsiputriya asks again.

'Those who assert derived matter', up to 'pudgala'. The proponent replies, those like the gods of perception, who assert that derived matter is the same as the great elements. Suppose they think like that, then you should question them like this: Just as derived matter is the same as the four great elements, you should also use the five skandhas to establish the 'pudgala'. How can you say that the 'Self' is not the same as the 'skandhas'?

'If the pudgala', up to 'the life is the body'. The Vatsiputriya raises an objection.

Observing the one who is able to ask, up to whether it is the same or different from the body. The proponent replies, observing the one who is able to ask, it is because of Ajita Kesakambalin. The questioner clings to an inner entity of the 'Self', called 'life' (jiva). Based on this, he asks the Buddha whether it is the same or different from the body. I consider that there is none, so there is no same or different.

不成。如何與身可記一．異。如不可言龜毛勒軟。龜毛本無何論硬軟　古昔諸師已解釋斯蟠結難義　昔有已下。指事可知　庵羅樹。在西方城外生。非王宮有。

佛何不說命者都無者。犢子部問。

亦觀問者至佛不答有無者。論主答。亦觀問者阿世邪故。問者或於諸蘊相續。假謂命者。依之發問。佛若答無。彼墮邪見。故佛不說　何不為說假名命者。彼未能了緣起甚深諸法理故。非是能受正法器故。佛不為說假有命者　理必應爾。世尊說故　筏蹉此云犢子。筏蹉外道請問世尊。我於世間為有非有。佛不為記。若記為有違法真理。若說為無增彼愚惑。彼便謂我先有今斷。便起斷見。以彼斷見對執有愚。此愚更甚以愚重故。謂執有我則墮常邊。若執無我便墮斷邊。執有過輕。執無過重。如經廣說。寧起我見如須彌。不起斷見如芥子。以起我見能修諸善故過是輕。以起斷見能造眾惡故過是重。故佛不為說無我也　依如是不可說義故。經部中鳩摩邏多有是頌言。初頌總說。后頌別釋　觀為見所傷。不為說有　及壞諸善業。不為說無　故佛說正法。不急不緩　猶如牡虎銜子相似。緩急得所。太急即傷。太緩即墮　佛若說有我。彼執真我有　則為見所傷。見如牙利能傷人故。此釋初句　佛若說無我。彼撥俗我為無　便

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不成。如何將『身』（Kāya，指身體）與『我』（Ātman，指靈魂）視為一體或相異？如同不能說『龜毛』（Kūrma-loma，指烏龜的毛）的硬或軟，因為龜毛本不存在，又何來硬軟之說？古時的諸位大師已經解釋了這種蟠結難解的意義。『昔有已下』，指事情顯而易見。『庵羅樹』（Āmra tree，指芒果樹），生長在西方城外，並非王宮所有。

『佛陀為何不說命者都無？』（Why doesn't the Buddha say that the 'living being' (jīva) is completely non-existent?）這是犢子部（Vātsīputrīya，一個佛教部派）的提問。

論主回答：『也觀察提問者，所以佛陀不回答有或無。』（The master answers: Also observing the questioner, the Buddha does not answer existence or non-existence.）也因為觀察提問者阿世邪（Āsēvaka，指阿世邪外道）。提問者或許認為諸蘊（Skandha，指五蘊，即色、受、想、行、識）相續，假立為『命者』，並依此發問。佛陀如果回答『無』，他們就會墮入邪見。所以佛陀不說『無』。為何不為他們說假名安立的『命者』？因為他們未能瞭解緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda，指因緣生法）甚深的諸法道理。不是能夠接受正法的器皿。所以佛陀不為他們說假有的『命者』。道理必定是這樣，因為世尊（Bhagavān，指佛陀）這樣說過。筏蹉（Vatsa，指犢子），這裡指犢子。筏蹉外道（Vatsa heretic）請問世尊：『我於世間為有還是非有？』（Am I in the world existent or non-existent?）佛陀不為他記別（Vyākarana，指回答）。如果記別為『有』，就違背了法的真理。如果說『無』，就增加了他們的愚惑。他們就會認為我先前存在，現在斷滅，便生起斷見（Ucchedadṛṣṭi，指斷滅見）。因為他們的斷見，對於執『有』的愚癡來說，這種愚癡更加嚴重。如果執著『有我』，就墮入常邊（Śāśvatavāda，指常見）。如果執著『無我』，就墮入斷邊。執著『有』的過失較輕，執著『無』的過失較重。如經中所廣說：寧願生起如須彌山（Sumeru，指須彌山，佛教宇宙觀中的聖山）般的我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi，指我見），也不要生起如芥子般的斷見。因為生起我見能夠修諸善，所以過失較輕。因為生起斷見能夠造諸惡，所以過失較重。所以佛陀不為他們說『無我』。

依據這種不可說義，經部（Sūtra school，指經量部）中的鳩摩邏多（Kumāralāta，人名）有這樣的頌：初頌總說，后頌別釋。『觀察到會被（邪）見所傷害，所以不為他們說「有」。以及會壞諸善業，所以不為他們說「無」。』（Observing that they would be harmed by (wrong) views, he does not say 'existent'; and that they would destroy all good deeds, he does not say 'non-existent'.）所以佛陀說正法，不急不緩，猶如母老虎銜著幼崽一樣，緩急得當。太急就會傷害幼崽，太緩就會使幼崽掉落。佛陀如果說『有我』，他們就會執著真我（sat-ātman，指真實的自我），則會被（邪）見所傷害。見如牙齒般鋒利，能夠傷害人。這是解釋第一句。佛陀如果說『無我』，他們就會否定世俗的我（saṃvṛti-ātman，指世俗意義上的自我）為無，便

【English Translation】 English version It is not so. How can 'body' (Kāya) and 'self' (Ātman) be regarded as one or different? It's like not being able to say whether 'turtle hair' (Kūrma-loma) is hard or soft, because turtle hair does not exist in the first place, so how can one discuss hardness or softness? The ancient masters have already explained this entangled and difficult meaning. 'Formerly, below' refers to matters that are obvious. 'Āmra tree' grows outside the western city, not in the royal palace.

'Why doesn't the Buddha say that the 'living being' (jīva) is completely non-existent?' This is a question from the Vātsīputrīya school.

The master answers: 'Also observing the questioner, the Buddha does not answer existence or non-existence.' Also because of observing the questioner Āsēvaka. The questioner may think that the continuity of the aggregates (Skandha) is falsely called 'living being', and asks based on this. If the Buddha answers 'non-existent', they will fall into wrong views. Therefore, the Buddha does not say 'non-existent'. Why not tell them about the nominally established 'living being'? Because they have not been able to understand the profound principles of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda). They are not vessels capable of receiving the right Dharma. Therefore, the Buddha does not tell them about the provisionally existent 'living being'. The principle must be so, because the Bhagavan said so. Vatsa, here refers to Vātsīputrīya. The Vatsa heretic asked the Bhagavan: 'Am I in the world existent or non-existent?' The Buddha did not answer (Vyākarana) him. If he answered 'existent', it would violate the truth of the Dharma. If he said 'non-existent', it would increase their ignorance. They would think that I existed before, but now I am annihilated, and they would give rise to annihilationism (Ucchedadṛṣṭi). Because of their annihilationism, compared to the ignorance of clinging to 'existence', this ignorance is even more serious. If they cling to 'I exist', they will fall into eternalism (Śāśvatavāda). If they cling to 'I do not exist', they will fall into annihilationism. Clinging to 'existence' has a lighter fault, while clinging to 'non-existence' has a heavier fault. As explained in detail in the scriptures: It is better to give rise to the view of self (ātma-dṛṣṭi) like Mount Sumeru than to give rise to annihilationism like a mustard seed. Because giving rise to the view of self can cultivate all good deeds, the fault is lighter. Because giving rise to annihilationism can create all evils, the fault is heavier. Therefore, the Buddha does not tell them 'no-self'.

Based on this unspeakable meaning, Kumāralāta of the Sūtra school has this verse: The first verse is a general statement, and the second verse is a separate explanation. 'Observing that they would be harmed by (wrong) views, he does not say 'existent'; and that they would destroy all good deeds, he does not say 'non-existent'.' Therefore, the Buddha speaks the right Dharma, neither too fast nor too slow, just like a tigress holding her cub in her mouth, with the right balance of speed and gentleness. Too fast would harm the cub, and too slow would cause the cub to fall. If the Buddha said 'I exist', they would cling to a real self (sat-ātman), and they would be harmed by (wrong) views. Views are like sharp teeth, which can harm people. This explains the first sentence. If the Buddha said 'no-self', they would deny the conventional self (saṃvṛti-ātman) as non-existent, and then

壞業子。善業如子名善業子。釋第二句　依如是理故今論主復說頌言重攝前義。就四頌中。初兩句頌前命者與身不一不異。次六句頌前佛何不說命者都無。乃至彼墮邪見故佛不說者。就六句中。前兩句總頌。后四句別釋　恐彼問者撥無假我。佛亦不說命者都無。謂諸五蘊相續道中。有業有果假名命者。佛若為說無有命者。恐彼問者撥假命者。亦為無故。不說都無　第三行頌前彼未能了緣起理故非受正法器。不為說假有。世尊不說諸蘊之中有假命者。由觀問者無有力能悟解緣起真空理故。故不為說　第四行頌前筏蹉經佛觀筏蹉意樂差別。彼問世尊有我．無我。佛不答彼有我．無我。

何緣不記世間常等者。犢子部問。何緣世尊不記世間常等四句。

亦觀問者至不為定記者。論主亦觀問者阿世邪故。問者若執我為世間。而問世尊。世間常耶．無常耶。亦常亦無常．非常非無常耶　以彼問者實我世間。我體都無故。四答皆非理。故佛不答　若復執言生死五蘊皆名世間。佛四經答亦皆非理。故亦不答　謂若世間常者則不可斷。無得涅槃。若是非常便自斷滅。不由功力勤勞修道感得涅槃　若答為常亦非常者。于生死中定應一分有情無得涅槃。一分有情自證圓寂　若答非常非非常者。此世間亦應非得涅槃。非不得涅槃

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本壞業之子。善業如同兒子一樣，名為善業之子。（解釋第二句）依據這樣的道理，所以論主再次用偈頌來概括前面的含義。在四句偈頌中，前兩句概括了前面所說的『命者』（jīva，有情）與『身』（kāya，身體）非一非異。接下來的六句概括了前面所說的『佛陀為何不說命者完全不存在』，乃至『因為他們會墮入邪見所以佛陀不說』。在這六句中，前兩句是總的概括，后四句是分別解釋。恐怕提問者會否定假我的存在，所以佛陀也不說命者完全不存在。因為在五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體經驗的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）相續的道路中，有業（karma，行為）有果（phala，結果），假名為命者。如果佛陀說沒有命者，恐怕提問者會認為假命者也是不存在的，因此不說完全不存在。第三行偈頌概括了前面所說的『因為他們未能瞭解緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，事物相互依存的法則）的道理，所以不是接受正法的器皿』，因此不說假有。世尊不說在諸蘊之中有假命者，是因為觀察到提問者沒有能力領悟緣起真空的道理，所以不為他們說。第四行偈頌概括了前面所說的『筏蹉經（Vatsagotra Sūtra）中，佛陀觀察筏蹉（Vatsagotra，人名）的意樂差別』。他問世尊『有我（ātman，靈魂，真我）』還是『無我（anātman，無我）』，佛陀沒有回答他『有我』或『無我』。什麼原因不記說世間是常等呢？犢子部（Vātsīputrīya，佛教部派之一）提問：什麼原因世尊不記說世間是常等四句呢？論主也觀察提問者阿世邪（Āśaya，意樂、傾向）的緣故。提問者如果執著『我』（ātman，靈魂，真我）就是世間，而問世尊，世間是常（nitya，永恒）嗎？無常（anitya，無常）嗎？亦常亦無常（nityānitya，既永恒又無常）嗎？非常非無常（nānityanānitya，非永恒亦非無常）嗎？因為提問者執著實我（sat-ātman，真實存在的我）就是世間，而我的本體根本不存在，所以四種回答都不合理，因此佛陀不回答。如果又執著說生死五蘊都名為世間，佛陀用四種經文回答也都不合理，所以也不回答。如果世間是常，那就不可斷，無法得到涅槃（nirvāṇa，解脫）。如果是非常，那就自己斷滅，不是通過功力勤勞修道而感得涅槃。如果回答為常亦非常，那麼在生死中必定有一部分有情無法得到涅槃，一部分有情自己證得圓寂。如果回答非常非非常，那麼這個世間也應該非得涅槃，非不得涅槃。

【English Translation】 English version 'Son of bad karma'. Good karma is like a son, named 'son of good karma'. (Explanation of the second sentence) Based on such reasoning, the commentator again uses verses to summarize the preceding meaning. Among the four verses, the first two summarize the preceding statement that the 'jīva (sentient being)' and the 'kāya (body)' are neither the same nor different. The following six sentences summarize the preceding statement 'Why didn't the Buddha say that the jīva completely does not exist?', and 'Because they would fall into wrong views, the Buddha did not say'. In these six sentences, the first two are a general summary, and the last four are separate explanations. Fearing that the questioner would deny the existence of the imputed self, the Buddha also did not say that the jīva completely does not exist. Because in the continuum of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates constituting individual experience: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), there is karma (action) and phala (result), nominally called jīva. If the Buddha said there is no jīva, fearing that the questioner would think that the imputed jīva also does not exist, therefore he did not say it completely does not exist. The third verse summarizes the preceding statement 'Because they failed to understand the principle of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination, the law of interdependence of things), they are not vessels for receiving the true Dharma', therefore he did not say it is imputedly existent. The World-Honored One did not say that among the skandhas there is an imputed jīva, because he observed that the questioner did not have the ability to understand the principle of emptiness of dependent origination, so he did not say it for them. The fourth verse summarizes the preceding statement 'In the Vatsagotra Sūtra, the Buddha observed the difference in the āśaya (inclination, intention) of Vatsagotra (name of a person)'. He asked the World-Honored One 'Is there ātman (soul, true self)' or 'Is there anātman (no-self)', the Buddha did not answer him 'There is ātman' or 'There is anātman'. What is the reason for not recording the world as permanent, etc.? The Vātsīputrīya (one of the Buddhist schools) asked: What is the reason the World-Honored One did not record the four statements that the world is permanent, etc.? The commentator also observed the questioner's āśaya (inclination, intention). If the questioner clings to 'I' (ātman, soul, true self) as the world, and asks the World-Honored One, is the world nitya (permanent)? Is it anitya (impermanent)? Is it nityānitya (both permanent and impermanent)? Is it nānityanānitya (neither permanent nor impermanent)? Because the questioner clings to the sat-ātman (truly existing self) as the world, and the essence of the self does not exist at all, therefore the four answers are all unreasonable, so the Buddha did not answer. If one clings to saying that the five skandhas of birth and death are all called the world, the Buddha's answers in the four sutras are also all unreasonable, so he also did not answer. If the world is permanent, then it cannot be severed, and one cannot attain nirvāṇa (liberation). If it is impermanent, then it will self-destruct, not through the effort of diligent cultivation of the path to attain nirvāṇa. If the answer is both permanent and impermanent, then in birth and death, there must be a portion of sentient beings who cannot attain nirvāṇa, and a portion of sentient beings who attain parinirvāṇa (complete extinction) by themselves. If the answer is neither permanent nor impermanent, then this world should also be neither attainable to nirvāṇa nor unattainable to nirvāṇa.

又解非是非常故則應非得涅槃。非是常故則應非不得涅槃　非常非非常決定相違。便成戲論。何成答問　然依聖道可般涅槃。故四定記皆不應理　如外道離系子以手執雀問佛死．生。佛知彼心不為定。若答言死。彼便放活。若答言生。彼便舍殺。故佛不答。此亦如是。

有邊等四至皆有失故者。論主例釋。若問世間有邊等四句。佛亦不記者。以同常等皆有失故。

寧知此四義同常等者。犢子部問。

以有外道至義與前同者。論主答。以有外道名嗢底迦。此云能說。先問世間有邊等四。世尊不答。後設方便矯問世尊。為諸世間常等皆由聖道能得出離。為但一分出離。一分不出離耶　尊者阿難在於佛側。因告彼曰汝以此事已問世尊。世間有邊．無邊等四　今復何緣改邊．無邊等四。名為常．非常等四。重問世尊　有邊是非常　無邊是常　亦有邊．亦無邊是亦常．亦非常　非有邊非無邊。是非常非非常　故知后四義與前同。

復以何緣至有等四邪者。犢子部問。復以何緣世尊不記如來死後有。非有。亦有．亦非有。非有．非非有等四句耶。

亦觀問者至而發故者。論主答。亦觀問者阿世邪故。問者妄計已解脫我名為如來。而發問故。以無實我故佛不答。

今應詰問至死後亦有者。論

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本此外，如果『非常』，那麼就不應該能夠得到涅槃（Nirvana）；如果『不是常』，那麼就不應該不能得到涅槃。『非常』和『不是非常』是絕對矛盾的，這樣就變成了戲論，如何能成為問答呢？然而，依靠聖道可以達到涅槃，所以四種定記都不合理。例如，外道離系子用手抓住一隻麻雀，問佛是死是生。佛知道他的心思，所以不作肯定回答。如果回答說是死的，他就會放了麻雀讓它活；如果回答說是生的，他就會捨棄麻雀讓它死。所以佛不回答。這裡的情況也是如此。

關於『有邊等四至皆有失故者』，論主舉例解釋說，如果問世間是有邊等四句，佛也不作回答，因為與常等問題一樣，都有過失。

『寧知此四義同常等者』，這是犢子部提出的問題。

『以有外道至義與前同者』，論主回答說，因為有個外道名叫嗢底迦（Uddika），意思是『能說』。他先問世間是有邊等四種情況，世尊不回答。後來他設法巧妙地問世尊，所有世間是常等，都可以通過聖道得到解脫，還是隻有一部分可以解脫，一部分不能解脫？尊者阿難（Ananda）在佛陀身邊，於是告訴他說，你已經用這件事問過世尊，關於世間有邊、無邊等四種情況了。現在又因為什麼緣故，把邊、無邊等四種情況，改為常、非常等四種情況，重新問世尊呢？有邊就是非常，無邊就是常，亦有邊亦無邊就是亦常亦非常，非有邊非無邊就是非常非非常。所以知道後面的四種情況與前面的相同。

『復以何緣至有等四邪者』，這是犢子部提出的問題。又因為什麼緣故，世尊不記說如來（Tathagata）死後是有、非有、亦有亦非有、非有非非有等四種說法呢？

『亦觀問者至而發故者』，論主回答說，也考慮到提問者阿世邪（Asheyya）的身份，提問者錯誤地認為已經解脫的我名為如來，才提出這樣的問題。因為沒有真實的我，所以佛不回答。

『今應詰問至死後亦有者』，論

【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, if it is 'impermanent,' then it should not be possible to attain Nirvana (Nirvana); if it is 'not permanent,' then it should not be impossible to attain Nirvana. 'Impermanent' and 'not impermanent' are absolutely contradictory, which turns it into frivolous talk. How can this be a question and answer? However, Nirvana can be attained by relying on the Noble Path, so all four fixed assertions are unreasonable. For example, an externalist Nirgrantha (Nirgrantha) held a sparrow in his hand and asked the Buddha whether it was dead or alive. The Buddha knew his intention and did not give a definite answer. If he answered that it was dead, he would release the sparrow to let it live; if he answered that it was alive, he would abandon the sparrow to let it die. Therefore, the Buddha did not answer. The situation here is similar.

Regarding 'the four assertions of having boundaries, etc., all have faults,' the commentator explains by example that if one asks about the four assertions of the world having boundaries, etc., the Buddha would not answer because, like the questions about permanence, etc., they all have faults.

'How do you know that these four meanings are the same as permanence, etc.?' This is a question raised by the Vatsiputriya school.

'Because there is an externalist, the meaning is the same as before,' the commentator answers, because there was an externalist named Uddika (Uddika), meaning 'able to speak.' He first asked about the four possibilities of the world having boundaries, etc., and the World-Honored One did not answer. Later, he cleverly devised a way to ask the World-Honored One whether all beings in the world, being permanent, etc., can attain liberation through the Noble Path, or whether only some can be liberated and some cannot? Venerable Ananda (Ananda) was by the Buddha's side, so he told him that you had already asked the World-Honored One about this matter, regarding the four possibilities of the world having boundaries, no boundaries, etc. Now, for what reason do you change the four possibilities of boundaries, no boundaries, etc., to the four possibilities of permanence, impermanence, etc., and ask the World-Honored One again? Having boundaries is impermanent, having no boundaries is permanent, having both boundaries and no boundaries is both permanent and impermanent, and having neither boundaries nor no boundaries is neither permanent nor impermanent. Therefore, it is known that the latter four possibilities are the same as the former.

'For what reason does the World-Honored One not record the four assertions of whether the Tathagata (Tathagata) exists after death, does not exist, both exists and does not exist, neither exists nor does not exist?' This is a question raised by the Vatsiputriya school.

'Also considering the questioner, etc., and thus speaking,' the commentator answers, also considering the questioner Asheyya's (Asheyya) identity, the questioner mistakenly believes that the self that has already been liberated is called Tathagata, and thus raises such a question. Because there is no real self, the Buddha does not answer.

'Now one should question whether there is also existence after death,' the

主反詰。今應詰問犢子部師。計有我者。佛何緣記有現在我。不記如來死後亦有我耶。

彼言恐有墮常失故者。犢子部答。恐墮常失故佛不記。

若爾何緣至非一切智者。論主難。若爾何緣佛記慈氏菩薩。及記弟子未來世事。此豈非有墮常過失。

亦汝若言佛先見我。彼般涅槃已便不復見我。以不知故不記有者　破云則撥大師具一切智。以不能知解脫我故　汝或應許不記由我體都無故　汝若謂佛見解脫我。而不說者　破云則有離蘊過。計入涅槃蘊滅。我不滅故。及常住過。何得說言我與五蘊不異非常　汝若言已解脫我。佛見非見我俱不可說　破云則應徴言。不可說佛是一切智。不可說佛非一切智　或應徴言。不可說佛是一切智。以不見我故。不可說佛非一切智。以見我故。

若謂實有至分明說故者。論主又牒計證破。汝若謂有我以契經言審諦而住。定執無我者。墮惡見處故者　破云。此不成證。彼經亦說定執有我者。墮惡見處故。不應計我　對法師言。執我有無俱邊見攝。若執我有即墮常邊。若執我無即墮斷邊　論主許云。彼師所說深為應理。以執有．無墮常．斷邊。前筏蹉經分明說故。引說證成。

若定無有至補特伽羅者。犢子部難。引證成。若定無我。為可說誰流轉生死。不應自

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：主反詰：現在應該詰問犢子部（Vatsiputriya）的師父，如果他們認為存在『我』（Atman），那麼佛陀為何只記載現在有『我』，而不記載如來（Tathagata）死後也有『我』呢？

彼言恐有墮常失故者：犢子部回答說，因為害怕落入常見的錯誤，所以佛陀沒有記載。

若爾何緣至非一切智者：論主反駁，如果這樣，那又為何佛陀要記載慈氏菩薩（Maitreya Bodhisattva），以及記載弟子們未來世的事情呢？這難道不是有落入常見的過失嗎？

亦汝若言佛先見我。彼般涅槃已便不復見我。以不知故不記有者：如果你們說佛陀先前見到『我』，但『我』般涅槃（Parinirvana）后，佛陀便不再見到『我』，因為不知曉的緣故而不記載有『我』—— 破云則撥大師具一切智：那麼就等於否定大師具備一切智慧，因為他不能知曉解脫的『我』。汝或應許不記由我體都無故：或許你們應該承認不記載是因為『我』的本體根本不存在。汝若謂佛見解脫我。而不說者：如果你們認為佛陀見到解脫的『我』，但不說出來—— 破云則有離蘊過。計入涅槃蘊滅。我不滅故。及常住過。何得說言我與五蘊不異非常：那麼就有了脫離五蘊（Skandha）的過失。如果認為進入涅槃（Nirvana）后五蘊滅盡，而『我』不滅，那就有了常住的過失。又怎麼能說『我』與五蘊不異，不是常呢？汝若言已解脫我。佛見非見我俱不可說：如果你們說已經解脫的『我』，佛陀見到或沒見到『我』都不可說—— 破云則應徴言。不可說佛是一切智。不可說佛非一切智：那麼就應該反問，不可說佛陀是一切智慧，不可說佛陀不是一切智慧。或應徴言。不可說佛是一切智。以不見我故。不可說佛非一切智。以見我故：或者應該反問，不可說佛陀是一切智慧，因為他沒見到『我』的緣故；不可說佛陀不是一切智慧，因為他見到『我』的緣故。

若謂實有至分明說故者：如果認為確實有『我』，以至於分明說—— 論主又牒計證破。汝若謂有我以契經言審諦而住。定執無我者。墮惡見處故者：論主又根據他們的論點進行駁斥。如果你們認為有『我』，因為契經（Sutra）上說要審諦而住，而如果一定執著沒有『我』，就會墮入惡見之處—— 破云。此不成證。彼經亦說定執有我者。墮惡見處故。不應計我：駁斥說，這不能作為證據。那部經也說了，如果一定執著有『我』，也會墮入惡見之處，所以不應該執著有『我』。對法師言。執我有無俱邊見攝。若執我有即墮常邊。若執我無即墮斷邊：對法師說，執著有『我』或沒有『我』，都屬於邊見。如果執著有『我』，就會墮入常見邊；如果執著沒有『我』，就會墮入斷見邊。論主許云。彼師所說深為應理。以執有．無墮常．斷邊。前筏蹉經分明說故。引說證成：論主贊同說，那位師父所說的非常合理，因為執著有或無都會墮入常見或斷見邊。之前的《筏蹉經》（Vatsagotra Sutra）已經分明地說過了，引用經文來證明。

若定無有至補特伽羅者：如果一定沒有『我』，以至於補特伽羅（Pudgala）—— 犢子部難。引證成。若定無我。為可說誰流轉生死。不應自：犢子部提出疑問，引用證據來證明。如果一定沒有『我』，那麼可以說誰在流轉生死呢？不應該自己……

【English Translation】 English version: The main counter-argument: Now, we should question the teachers of the Vatsiputriya school. If they believe in the existence of 'Atman' (self), why did the Buddha only record the existence of 'self' in the present, and not record that the Tathagata (Buddha) also has 'self' after death?

They say, 'For fear of falling into the error of permanence': The Vatsiputriya school replies that the Buddha did not record it for fear of falling into the error of eternalism.

If so, why does it lead to not being omniscient?: The debater refutes, 'If so, then why did the Buddha record Maitreya Bodhisattva, and record the future events of his disciples? Isn't this a fault of falling into eternalism?'

Also, if you say that the Buddha saw 'self' before, but after 'self' attained Parinirvana, the Buddha no longer sees 'self', and does not record its existence because he does not know it— Refutation: Then it is denying that the master possesses all wisdom, because he cannot know the liberated 'self'. Perhaps you should admit that the reason for not recording is because the substance of 'self' does not exist at all. If you think that the Buddha saw the liberated 'self', but did not say it— Refutation: Then there is the fault of being separate from the Skandhas (aggregates). If it is believed that after entering Nirvana, the Skandhas are extinguished, but 'self' is not extinguished, then there is the fault of permanence. How can it be said that 'self' is not different from the five Skandhas and is not permanent? If you say that the already liberated 'self', whether the Buddha sees or does not see 'self', is both unspeakable— Refutation: Then it should be questioned, 'It cannot be said that the Buddha is omniscient, it cannot be said that the Buddha is not omniscient.' Or it should be questioned, 'It cannot be said that the Buddha is omniscient, because he does not see 'self'; it cannot be said that the Buddha is not omniscient, because he sees 'self'.'

If it is said that there is indeed 'self', to the point of clearly saying— The debater again cites the argument and refutes it. If you think there is 'self' because the Sutra says to abide with careful consideration, and those who are determined to hold that there is no 'self' will fall into a place of evil views— Refutation: This cannot be used as evidence. That Sutra also says that those who are determined to hold that there is 'self' will fall into a place of evil views, so one should not cling to the idea of 'self'. To the Dharma master, holding onto the existence or non-existence of 'self' is included in extreme views. If you cling to the existence of 'self', you will fall into the extreme of eternalism; if you cling to the non-existence of 'self', you will fall into the extreme of annihilationism. The debater agrees, saying, 'What that teacher said is very reasonable, because clinging to existence or non-existence will fall into the extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. The previous Vatsagotra Sutra has clearly stated this, citing the Sutra to prove it.'

If there is definitely no 'self', to the point of Pudgala (person)— The Vatsiputriya school raises a question, citing evidence to prove it. If there is definitely no 'self', then who can be said to transmigrate through Samsara (cycle of rebirth)? It should not be self...

流轉故。經說有情無明所覆。貪愛所繫。馳流生死故定有我。

此復如何流轉生死者。論主問。此我復如何流轉生死。

由舍前蘊取后蘊故者。犢子部答。由我舍前蘊能取后蘊故。說我流轉生死。

如是義宗至流轉生死者。論主指同前破。複述正義。如燎原火雖剎那滅。而由前後相續不斷。說有流轉從此至彼。如是蘊聚上假說為有情。愛．取為緣。異熟果起相續不斷。名流轉生死。

若唯有蘊至名為妙眼者。犢子部難。若唯有蘊而無我者。何故佛說今我于昔為世導師。既說今我昔為師言。明知有我。

此說何咎者。論主反責。

蘊各異故者。犢子部答。今蘊．昔蘊。前後各異。若無我者。何得說言今我于昔為世導師。

若爾是何物者。論主問。若爾今我于昔為世導師。此是何物。

謂補特伽羅者。犢子部答。

昔我即今至曾燒彼事者。論主難。若昔我即今我。體應常住。如何說我非是常耶。難訖通經。故說今我昔為師言。顯昔與今是一相續假者　如言此火曾燒彼事。亦顯昔火與今時火同一相續火。故言此火曾燒彼事。

若謂決定至去解脫遠者。論主又牒計破。敘計正破。引說證成。若如是者。則為謗佛。為煩惱縛。去解脫遠。

若謂於我至此言

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：流轉的緣故。《經》中說有情被無明所覆蓋，被貪愛所束縛，在生死中奔流，所以必定有『我』的存在。論主問：這又是如何流轉生死的呢？這個『我』又是如何流轉生死的呢？犢子部答：由於捨棄前一蘊而取后一蘊的緣故。由於『我』捨棄前一蘊能夠取后一蘊，所以說『我』流轉生死。論主指出與前面破斥的觀點相同，並重述正確的意義：如同燎原之火，雖然剎那間熄滅，但由於前後相續不斷，所以說有流轉，從這裡到那裡。像這樣，在蘊聚上假立為有情，以愛和取為緣，異熟果生起相續不斷，名為流轉生死。犢子部提出疑問：如果只有蘊而沒有『我』，為什麼佛說『今我于昔為世導師』（Tathagata）？既然說『今我』過去是導師，明顯知道有『我』的存在。論主反問道：這樣說有什麼過失嗎？犢子部答：現在的蘊和過去的蘊，前後各不相同。如果沒有『我』，怎麼能說『今我于昔為世導師』呢？論主問道：如果這樣，那麼『今我于昔為世導師』，這又是什麼呢？犢子部答：是補特伽羅（Pudgala）。論主反駁道：如果過去的『我』就是現在的『我』，本體就應該是常住不變的，怎麼能說『我』不是常呢？反駁完畢后，引用經文來解釋。所以說『今我昔為師』，是顯示過去和現在是一個相續的假象，如同說『這火曾經燒過那東西』，也是顯示過去的火和現在的火是同一個相續的火，所以說『這火曾經燒過那東西』。論主再次引用並破斥他們的觀點，敘述他們的觀點，然後進行破斥，並引用經文來證明。如果像他們所說的那樣，那就是誹謗佛，被煩惱束縛，遠離解脫。如果說對於『我』……此言……

【English Translation】 English version: It is due to transmigration. The Sutra says that sentient beings are covered by ignorance (Avidya) and bound by craving (Trsna), rushing through Samsara (生死), therefore, there must be an 'I' (Atman). The proponent asks: How does this transmigration occur? How does this 'I' transmigrate through Samsara? The Vatsiputriya (犢子部) answers: It is because of abandoning the former Skandhas (蘊) and taking up the latter Skandhas. Because the 'I' abandons the former Skandhas and is able to take up the latter Skandhas, it is said that the 'I' transmigrates through Samsara. The proponent points out that it is the same as the previous refutation and restates the correct meaning: Like a prairie fire, although it is extinguished in an instant, it is said to transmigrate from here to there because it continues uninterruptedly from beginning to end. In this way, the aggregation of Skandhas is nominally called a sentient being, with craving and grasping as conditions, and the ripening result arises continuously, which is called transmigration through Samsara. The Vatsiputriya raises a question: If there are only Skandhas and no 'I', why did the Buddha say 'I was once a world leader in the past'? Since it is said that 'I' was a teacher in the past, it is clear that there is an 'I'. The proponent retorts: What fault is there in saying this? The Vatsiputriya answers: The present Skandhas and the past Skandhas are different from each other. If there is no 'I', how can it be said that 'I was once a world leader in the past'? The proponent asks: If so, what is it that 'I was once a world leader in the past'? The Vatsiputriya answers: It is the Pudgala (補特伽羅). The proponent refutes: If the past 'I' is the same as the present 'I', then the substance should be permanent. How can it be said that 'I' is not permanent? After the refutation, the Sutra is cited to explain. Therefore, it is said that 'I was a teacher in the past' to show that the past and the present are a continuous phenomenon, just as it is said that 'this fire once burned that thing', which also shows that the past fire and the present fire are the same continuous fire. Therefore, it is said that 'this fire once burned that thing'. The proponent again quotes and refutes their view, stating their view, then refuting it, and citing the Sutra to prove it. If it is as they say, then it is slandering the Buddha, being bound by afflictions, and being far from liberation. If it is said that regarding 'I' ... this statement ...

無義者。論主又牒救破。汝若謂於我不起我愛俱起我見無愛縛者。破云。此言無義。

所以者何者。犢子部徴。

于非我中至起見瘡皰者。論主答。汝若計言于非我中橫計為我。容起我愛非實我中者　破云。如是所言無理為證。故彼犢子。于佛教中無有因緣。匆然橫起我見瘡皰。

如是一類至無解脫過者。論主結破犢子。義便兼顯余非。如是一類犢子部。執有不可說補特伽羅。復有一類空見外道。總撥一切法體皆非有。數．勝論等外道執有別真我性。此等一切見不如理。皆不能免無解脫過。

若一切類至何能憶知者。犢子部問。若一切種類我體都無。剎那滅心。于曾所受及遠相似境。何能憶念。何能記知。昔境似今名相似境。

如是憶知至心差別生者。論主答。如是憶念。如是記知。從自相續內。有念境想熏成種子名念境相類。此種在心功能差別名心差別。后之憶知從此念境想類種子。心中差別功能而生。經部念知無別有體。故想種生　又解如是憶知。從相續身內念境類種想境類種。境通兩處。此文但應言念類種。而言想者。想強別標。所以不言知境類者。知由念引故不別言。故下論云。由此憶念力有後記知生　又解憶念從念境類生。記知從想境類生。以經部知無別體故。此念想種熏

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

『無義者』。論主再次提出並駁斥。如果你們認為在我（非我）之中不會生起我愛，只有在我見中才會生起，沒有愛慾的束縛，那麼這種說法是沒有意義的。『所以者何者』。犢子部提出質疑。『于非我中至起見瘡皰者』。論主回答：如果你們認為在非我的事物中錯誤地認為是『我』，或許會生起我愛，但在真實的『我』之中則不會。駁斥道：這樣說沒有道理可以證明。因此，犢子部在佛教中沒有任何因緣，突然錯誤地生起我見的瘡皰。『如是一類至無解脫過者』。論主總結並駁斥犢子部，同時也暗示了其他錯誤的觀點。像犢子部這樣，執著于不可說的補特伽羅（pudgala，一種既非恒常不變，也非完全斷滅的存在），還有一類持空見的外道，完全否定一切法的本體，認為都是空無。數論派、勝論派等外道則執著于存在一個與衆不同的真我。所有這些不合理的見解，都無法避免無法解脫的過失。『若一切類至何能憶知者』。犢子部問道：如果一切種類中都沒有『我』的本體，剎那生滅的心，對於曾經經歷過的以及與過去相似的境界，如何能夠回憶和記起？過去的境界與現在相似，稱為相似境。『如是憶知至心差別生者』。論主回答：像這樣的回憶和記起，是從自身相續中，由念境的印象熏習而成的種子，稱爲念境相類（與念境相關的種類）。這種種子在心中產生功能上的差別，稱為心差別（心的差別）。後來的回憶和記起，就是從此念境相類種子在心中產生的差別功能而生起的。經部認爲念和知沒有單獨的實體，所以是由想的種子產生。另一種解釋是，像這樣的回憶，是從相續身內的念境類種（與念境相關的種類種子）產生；想境類種（與想境相關的種類種子），境可以指兩種情況。這段文字應該只說念類種。之所以說『想』，是因為想的作用更強，所以特別標明。之所以不說『知境類』，是因為知是由念引導的，所以沒有單獨說明。因此，下面的論述說：由此憶念的力量，才會有後來的記知產生。還有一種解釋是，回憶是從念境類產生，記知是從想境類產生。因為經部認為知沒有單獨的實體，所以這種念想的種子熏習。

【English Translation】 English version:

'Meaningless one.' The debater refutes again. If you claim that 'I-love' does not arise in relation to what is 'not-self,' and only 'I-view' arises, without the bondage of love, then this statement is meaningless. 'What is the reason for this?' The Vatsiputriya (犢子部) sect questions. 'Regarding the arising of view-sores in what is not-self.' The debater answers: If you suppose that 'I' is mistakenly conceived in what is not-self, then 'I-love' might arise, but not in what is actually 'I.' The refutation states: Such a statement is unreasonable and cannot be proven. Therefore, the Vatsiputriya sect, without any cause in Buddhism, suddenly and wrongly gives rise to the sores of 'I-view'. 'Such a category until the fault of no liberation.' The debater concludes by refuting the Vatsiputriya sect, also implicitly revealing other incorrect views. Like the Vatsiputriya sect, which clings to the inexpressible pudgala (補特伽羅, a being that is neither permanent nor completely annihilated), there is also a category of externalists holding the view of emptiness, who completely deny the substance of all dharmas, considering them all to be empty. The Samkhya and Vaisheshika schools, among other externalists, cling to the existence of a distinct true self. All these unreasonable views cannot avoid the fault of being unable to achieve liberation. 'If all categories until how can one remember?' The Vatsiputriya sect asks: If there is no 'I' in any category, how can the mind, which is momentary and perishing, recall and remember what it has experienced and the environments that are similar to the past? The past environment that is similar to the present is called a similar environment. 'Such remembering until the arising of mind-distinction.' The debater answers: Such remembering and such knowing arise from the seeds formed by the impressions of the object of thought within one's own continuum, called 'categories related to the object of thought' (念境相類). This seed produces a functional distinction in the mind, called 'mind-distinction' (心差別). Later remembering and knowing arise from this functional distinction produced in the mind by the seeds of the categories related to the object of thought. The Sautrantika school believes that thought and knowledge do not have separate entities, so they arise from the seeds of thought. Another explanation is that such remembering arises from the 'seed of the category of thought-object' (念境類種) within the continuum of the body; the 'seed of the category of perception-object' (想境類種), 'object' can refer to both situations. This passage should only say 'category of thought' (念類種). The reason for saying 'perception' (想) is because the function of perception is stronger, so it is specifically indicated. The reason for not saying 'category of knowledge-object' (知境類) is because knowledge is guided by thought, so it is not specifically mentioned. Therefore, the following discussion says: 'From the power of this remembering, later knowing arises.' Another explanation is that remembering arises from the category of thought-object, and knowing arises from the category of perception-object. Because the Sautrantika school believes that knowledge does not have a separate entity, these seeds of thought and perception are imprinted.

在心中。差別功能名心差別。現行憶念。從及與記知從彼種生。

且初憶念至無間生者。犢子部問憶念．記知二種之中。且初憶念。為從何等心差別種子。前念無間滅。后念無間生。經部因果前後別時。故從前念種子生后憶念故作此問。

從有緣彼至有功能故者。論主答。初憶念生。一由緣生。二由因生。一由緣生者。從有緣彼過去境界。作意力故為緣生念。過去境界與念境等名為相似。由彼相似境界力故為緣生念。或見今境與昔相似。便能引起緣昔境念故言相似。或前念似后念故為緣引起。言念相屬者。謂屬自身作意等緣。簡異他身。或因果相屬為緣起念。言想等者。等取愛等。從有緣彼作意等緣力故初憶念起　二由因生者。從所依止身不為差別．愁憂．散亂等緣。損壞功能。心差別因力故初憶念起。憶念起雖有如是作意等緣。若無彼類心差別因。則無堪能修此憶念。雖有彼類心差別因。若無如是作意等緣。亦無能修憶念之理。要具因．緣二種勢力。方可能修。諸憶念生。但由於此因．緣力生。不見離此二種因．緣。有別真實我功能憶念故。

如何異心見至有憶念理者。犢子部難。若無有我。如何前時異心見境。后時異心能憶彼境。非天授心曾所見境。后祠授心有憶念理。天授梵云提婆達多。天

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本在心中。『差別功能』（Visesa-karitra）名為『心差別』（citta-visesa）。現行憶念，從以及與記知，從彼種子生。

且說最初的憶念至無間生起。犢子部（Vatsiputriya）問道：憶念和記知這兩種之中，最初的憶念，是從何種『心差別』的種子，前念無間滅，后念無間生？經部（Sautrantika）認為因果前後有別時，所以從前唸的種子生起後來的憶念，因此作此提問。

從有緣彼至有功能故。論主回答：最初的憶念生起，一由緣生，二由因生。一由緣生：從有緣的過去境界，由於作意力而作為緣生起憶念。過去境界與憶念的境相等，名為相似。由於彼相似境界的力量而作為緣生起憶念。或者見到現在的境界與過去相似，便能引起緣於過去境界的憶念，所以說相似。或者前念類似於后念，作為緣而引起。『念相屬』，是指屬於自身作意等緣，區別於他身。或者因果相屬作為緣而生起憶念。『想等』，等同於取愛等。從有緣的過去境界作意等緣的力量，最初的憶念生起。二由因生：從所依止的身不被差別、愁憂、散亂等緣損壞功能，『心差別』的因的力量，最初的憶念生起。憶念生起雖然有如此的作意等緣，如果沒有那類『心差別』的因，就沒有堪能修習此憶念。雖然有那類『心差別』的因，如果沒有如此的作意等緣，也沒有能修習憶念的道理。需要具備因、緣兩種勢力，才可能修習。諸憶念生起，但由於此因、緣力生起，不見離開這兩種因、緣，有別的真實我功能憶念。

如何異心見至有憶念理。犢子部詰難：如果沒有我，如何前時不同的心見境，后時不同的心能憶起那個境界？不是天授（Devadatta）的心曾經見過的境界，後來祠授（Yajnadatta）的心有憶念的道理。天授，梵文是提婆達多（Devadatta）。

【English Translation】 English version In the mind. 'Distinguishing function' (Visesa-karitra) is named 'mind-distinction' (citta-visesa). Present mindfulness, from, as well as with cognition, arises from that seed.

And speaking of the initial mindfulness up to uninterrupted arising. The Vatsiputriya school asks: Among the two types of mindfulness and cognition, the initial mindfulness, from what kind of 'mind-distinction' seed, does the previous thought cease without interruption, and the subsequent thought arise without interruption? The Sautrantika school believes that cause and effect are distinct in time, so later mindfulness arises from the seed of the previous thought, hence this question is posed.

From having affinity with that, to having functionality. The master of the treatise answers: The initial mindfulness arises, one from conditions, two from causes. One, arising from conditions: from past realms with affinity, due to the power of attention, it arises as a condition for mindfulness. The past realm is equal to the realm of mindfulness, named similarity. Due to the power of that similar realm, it arises as a condition for mindfulness. Or seeing the present realm similar to the past, it can evoke mindfulness of the past realm, hence it is called similarity. Or the previous thought is similar to the subsequent thought, arising as a condition. 'Mindfulness belonging to' refers to belonging to one's own attention and other conditions, distinguishing it from others. Or cause and effect belonging to each other arise as a condition for mindfulness. 'Thought, etc.' includes grasping, attachment, etc. From the power of attention and other conditions of the past realm with affinity, the initial mindfulness arises. Two, arising from causes: from the body on which it relies not being damaged in function by distinctions, sorrow, agitation, and other conditions, the power of the cause of 'mind-distinction', the initial mindfulness arises. Although the arising of mindfulness has such conditions as attention, if there is no cause of that kind of 'mind-distinction', there is no capacity to cultivate this mindfulness. Although there is a cause of that kind of 'mind-distinction', if there are no such conditions as attention, there is no reason to be able to cultivate mindfulness. It is necessary to have both the power of cause and condition to be able to cultivate. The arising of all mindfulness arises only from the power of these causes and conditions, and it is not seen that apart from these two kinds of causes and conditions, there is a separate real self-functioning mindfulness.

How can different minds seeing lead to the reason for having mindfulness? The Vatsiputriya school challenges: If there is no self, how can different minds seeing realms at different times, later different minds recall that realm? It is not that the realm once seen by the mind of Devadatta (Devadatta), later the mind of Yajnadatta (Yajnadatta) has the reason for mindfulness. Devadatta, in Sanskrit, is Devadatta (Devadatta).

處乞從謂天授與。從所乞處為名。故言天授。祠授梵云延若達多。因祭祠天而乞得子。故言祠授。印度人名。天授．祠授。其類寔多。故偏舉也。

此難非理至有後記知生者。論主答。此難非理。不相屬故。謂彼天授．祠授二心展轉相望無因果性。互不相屬故。天授心曾所見境。后祠授心不能憶念。非如一人相續身中有因果性。前後相屬故。前心曾見。後心能憶。我等不言異心見境異心能憶。前後相續是一類故。前同類心能憶。然後過去緣彼境心。熏成種子。從此種子引起今時能憶念識。謂如前說。一相續。二轉變。三差別力故。生念何失。由此前憶念種子力故。有其後念記憶知生。

我體既無孰為能憶者。犢子部問。我體既無。誰為能憶。

能憶是何義者。論主反問。

由念能取境者。犢子部答。

此取境豈異念者。論主又責。

雖不異念但由作者者。犢子部答。取彼境時雖不異念。但由我經者念方能取境。

作者即是至說彼能憶者。論主述宗通釋。作者即是前說念因。非是實我。謂彼念類心差別種。能令後果念取境故。說前念因名為作者。然世間所言。制怛羅能憶。此制怛羅。非是實我。此于蘊相續假我立制怛羅名。從先見心熏種為因。后憶念果起。于憶念果起。于

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：處乞（Place Begging）從天授（Devadatta）處乞討而來。因從所乞之處得名，故稱天授。祠授（Yajnadatta），梵文為延若達多（Yajnadatta），因祭祀天神而乞得兒子，故稱祠授。天授、祠授是印度人的名字，這類名字很多，所以只舉這兩個為例。

犢子部（Vatsiputriya）提出質疑：如果認為非理作意導致了後來的記憶和認知產生，那麼這種說法是不合理的。論主回答：這種質疑是不合理的，因為它們之間沒有必然的聯繫。所謂天授和祠授這兩個心識，它們之間輾轉相望，沒有因果關係，彼此不相干。天授的心識曾經見過的境界，後來的祠授的心識無法憶念。不像在同一個人的相續身中，有因果關係，前後相連。前一個心識曾經見過，后一個心識能夠憶念。我們並沒有說不同的心識見到的境界，不同的心識能夠憶念。因為前後相續是同一類心識。前一個同類的心識能夠憶念，然後過去緣彼境的心識，熏習成種子。從此種子引起現在能夠憶念的意識。就像前面所說的，由於一相續、二轉變、三差別力的緣故，產生憶念有什麼過失呢？由此前一個憶念的種子力量，才會有後來的念頭記憶認知產生。

犢子部問：如果『我』（Atman）的實體不存在，那麼誰來憶念呢？

論主反問：能憶念是什麼意思呢？

犢子部答：通過念頭能夠獲取境界。

論主又責問：這種獲取境界難道和念頭不同嗎？

犢子部答：雖然和念頭沒有不同，但是因為有『我』的作者作用。獲取那個境界的時候，雖然和念頭沒有不同，但是因為經過了『我』的念頭才能夠獲取境界。

論主闡述宗義並解釋：作者就是前面所說的唸的因，不是真實的『我』。所謂唸的類別，心識的差別種子，能夠使後來的念頭獲取境界，所以說前一個唸的因叫做作者。然而世間所說的，制怛羅（Chaitra）能夠憶念，這個制怛羅，不是真實的『我』。這是在五蘊相續的假『我』上安立制怛羅的名字。從先前見到的心識熏習種子為因，後來的憶念結果產生。在憶念結果產生的時候。

【English Translation】 English version: 'Place Begging' (處乞) comes from begging at Devadatta's (天授) place. It is named after the place from which it was begged, hence the name Devadatta. 'Sacrifice Begging' (祠授), in Sanskrit is Yajnadatta (延若達多), is named because a son was obtained by sacrificing to the gods. Devadatta and Yajnadatta are Indian names, and there are many names of this kind, so only these two are given as examples.

The Vatsiputriya (犢子部) raises a question: If it is believed that irrational attention leads to later memories and cognitive generation, then this statement is unreasonable. The master responds: This question is unreasonable because there is no necessary connection between them. The so-called Devadatta and Yajnadatta, these two consciousnesses, look at each other in turn, but there is no causal relationship between them, and they are not related to each other. The realm that Devadatta's consciousness once saw cannot be remembered by Yajnadatta's consciousness later. It is not like in the continuous body of the same person, there is a causal relationship, and the front and back are connected. The previous consciousness has seen it, and the later consciousness can remember it. We did not say that different consciousnesses see different realms, and different consciousnesses can remember. Because the front and back continuity is the same kind of consciousness. The previous consciousness of the same kind can remember, and then the consciousness that has passed through that realm is cultivated into a seed. From this seed arises the consciousness that can now remember. Just as mentioned earlier, due to the power of one continuity, two transformations, and three differences, what is wrong with generating memory? Because of the power of the previous memory seed, there will be later thoughts, memories, and cognitive generation.

The Vatsiputriya asks: If the entity of 'I' (Atman) does not exist, then who will remember?

The master asks back: What does it mean to be able to remember?

The Vatsiputriya answers: Being able to obtain the realm through thoughts.

The master asks again: Is this obtaining of the realm different from thoughts?

The Vatsiputriya answers: Although it is not different from thoughts, it is because of the authorial function of 'I'. When obtaining that realm, although it is not different from thoughts, it is only through the thoughts of 'I' that the realm can be obtained.

The master elaborates on the doctrine and explains: The author is the cause of thought mentioned earlier, not the real 'I'. The so-called category of thought, the seed of the difference of consciousness, can enable later thoughts to obtain the realm, so the cause of the previous thought is called the author. However, as the world says, Chaitra (制怛羅) can remember, this Chaitra is not the real 'I'. This is the name of Chaitra established on the false 'I' of the five aggregates continuity. From the seed cultivated by the previously seen consciousness as the cause, the later memory result arises. When the memory result arises.

憶念果上立制怛羅名。故言依如是理說彼能憶　制怛羅。是星名。正月出現。正月從此星為名。於此月生故。以此星為名。若執我者於此月生。即說實我名制怛羅。故今通釋。

我體若無是誰之念者。犢子部問。若有我體。可念屬是我。第六轉成。我體若無。是誰之念。

為依何義說第六聲者。論主反問。

此第六聲依屬主義者。犢子部答。

如何物屬何主者。論主復徴。

此如牛等屬制怛羅者。犢子部答。此如牛等物屬制怛羅人主。

彼如何為牛主者。論主又問。

謂依彼至得自在者。犢子部答。謂依彼彼所乘．構乳．役使等中彼制怛羅得自在故名為牛主。

欲於何所至尋求念主者。論主復問。欲於何處驅役於念。而勤方便尋求念主我邪。

于所念境驅使于念者。犢子部答。

役念為何者。論主復問。

為令念起者。犢子部答。

奇哉自在至為令念行者。論主又徴責。奇哉自在起無理言。寧為此我生而驅役此念　又解寧為此念。復作兩關徴定。又我于念如何驅役。為令念起。為令念行。

念無行故但應令起者。犢子部答。

則因名主至亦不離因者。論主示正義。若令念起名念主者。則念因名主是其所屬。念果名能屬。由念

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本憶念果上立制怛羅(Caitra，星名)名。故言依如是理說彼能憶制怛羅(Caitra，星名)。是星名。正月出現。正月從此星為名。於此月生故。以此星為名。若執我者於此月生。即說實我名制怛羅(Caitra，星名)。故今通釋。

『我體若無是誰之念者？』犢子部問。若有我體。可念屬是我。第六轉成。我體若無。是誰之念？

『為依何義說第六聲者？』論主反問。

『此第六聲依屬主義者。』犢子部答。

『如何物屬何主者？』論主復徴。

『此如牛等屬制怛羅(Caitra，人名)者。』犢子部答。此如牛等物屬制怛羅(Caitra，人名)人主。

『彼如何為牛主者？』論主又問。

『謂依彼至得自在者。』犢子部答。謂依彼彼所乘、構乳、役使等中彼制怛羅(Caitra，人名)得自在故名為牛主。

『欲於何所至尋求念主者？』論主復問。欲於何處驅役於念。而勤方便尋求念主我邪？

『于所念境驅使于念者。』犢子部答。

『役念為何者？』論主復問。

『為令念起者。』犢子部答。

『奇哉自在至為令念行者。』論主又徴責。奇哉自在起無理言。寧為此我生而驅役此念？又解寧為此念。復作兩關徴定。又我于念如何驅役？為令念起？為令念行？

『念無行故但應令起者。』犢子部答。

『則因名主至亦不離因者。』論主示正義。若令念起名念主者。則念因名主是其所屬。念果名能屬。由念

【English Translation】 English version Remembering the name Caitra (a star name) established on the result. Therefore, it is said that according to this principle, it can remember Caitra (a star name). It is a star name that appears in the first month. The first month is named after this star. Because it is born in this month, it is named after this star. If one clings to 'I' and is born in this month, it is said that the real 'I' is named Caitra (a star name). Therefore, a general explanation is given now.

『If there is no 'I' entity, whose thought is it?』 The Vatsiputriya school asked. If there is an 'I' entity, the thought can belong to 'I'. The sixth case is formed. If there is no 'I' entity, whose thought is it?

『According to what meaning is the sixth case said?』 The master of the treatise asked back.

『This sixth case is based on the meaning of belonging.』 The Vatsiputriya school answered.

『How does an object belong to a master?』 The master of the treatise further questioned.

『This is like cows belonging to Caitra (a person's name).』 The Vatsiputriya school answered. This is like cows and other things belonging to Caitra (a person's name), the master of the people.

『How is he the master of the cows?』 The master of the treatise asked again.

『It is said that he attains freedom through them.』 The Vatsiputriya school answered. It is said that Caitra (a person's name) obtains freedom in riding, milking, and employing them, and therefore is called the master of the cows.

『Where do you want to go to seek the master of thought?』 The master of the treatise asked again. Where do you want to drive thought and diligently seek the master of thought, the 'I'?

『One drives thought in the object of thought.』 The Vatsiputriya school answered.

『What is the employment of thought?』 The master of the treatise asked again.

『It is to make thought arise.』 The Vatsiputriya school answered.

『How strange is it to be free to make thought act.』 The master of the treatise further questioned and blamed. How strange it is to be free to utter unreasonable words. Would this 'I' be born to drive this thought? Also, explain that it is for this thought. Make two checkpoints to determine. Also, how do I drive thought? Is it to make thought arise? Is it to make thought act?

『Since thought does not act, it should only be made to arise.』 The Vatsiputriya school answered.

『Then the cause is named master, and it is also inseparable from the cause.』 The master of the treatise showed the correct meaning. If making thought arise is called the master of thought, then the cause of thought is named master, which is what it belongs to. The result of thought is named the one who can belong. Because of thought

因增上力。令念果得生。故因名主。果於生時是因所有故名能屬。即生念因足爲念主。何勞立我爲念主邪　即諸行五蘊聚。是緣成假。前後一類相續。是相屬假。世間共施設是制怛羅牛。立制怛羅名為牛主。即此牛主是牛相續。從此至彼于異方生。變異生因故名牛主。此中無一實我制怛羅牛主。亦無實我是牛。但假施設。故言牛主亦不離因。牛是所驅役名果。牛主能驅役名因。同前念主不離念因。

憶念既念至如應當知者。此即例釋。明初憶念。其義既爾。釋後記知其義亦然。皆準憶念及與記知。孰為能了。誰之識等亦應例釋。粗類大同非無差別　且識因緣與前別者。謂六根．六境等。如應當知　或識種名因。根等名緣。憶念．記知唯在意地。故與識別。

有作是言至能了等者者。此下就別破中。大文第二破數論師。就中。一敘宗。二正破。三通難　此即第一敘宗。數論者言。決定有我。事用必待事用者故。謂諸事用。待事用者。如天授行事用。必待天授我。行是事用。天授我名者。如是識等所有了別等事用。必待所依真實我體能了等者。

今應詰彼至識能了亦爾者。此即第二正破。論主破云。今應詰彼。天授謂何。若是實我此如先破。若假士夫五蘊上立體非一物。于諸行相續假立此天授名故。如

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為增上緣的力量，使得憶念的結果得以產生，所以憶念的因被稱為『主』。結果在產生時是因所擁有的，所以被稱為『能屬』。產生憶念的因足以成為憶念的主，何必另外設立一個『我』作為憶念的主呢？所有諸行（saṃskāra）五蘊（pañca-skandha）的聚合，是因緣和合而成的假象。前後相似的一類相續，是相互關聯的假象。世俗共同施設的『制怛羅牛』（Citra cow），設立制怛羅（Citra）這個人作為牛的主人。這個牛主是牛的相續。從這裡到那裡，在不同的地方出生，變化產生的原因，所以被稱為牛主。這裡面沒有一個真實的『我』，沒有真實的制怛羅牛主，也沒有真實的『我』是牛，只是假施設而已。所以說牛主也不離牛的因。牛是被驅使役用的，稱為果；牛主是能驅使役用的，稱為因。如同前面的憶念之主不離憶念之因。『憶念既念至如應當知者』，這只是一個例子，用來說明最初的憶念。它的意義既然如此，那麼解釋後面的記知（smṛti）也是同樣的道理。都依照憶念和記知。『孰為能了，誰之識等』也應該用同樣的例子來解釋。大致相同，並非沒有差別。而且識（vijñāna）的因緣與前面不同，指的是六根（ṣaḍ indriya）、六境（ṣaḍ viṣaya）等，應該如實了知。或者識的種子名為因，根等名為緣。憶念和記知只存在於意地（mano-bhūmi），所以與識有所區別。『有作是言至能了等者者』，這以下是就個別破斥中的第二大段，破斥數論師（Sāṃkhya）。其中分為三部分：一、敘述宗義；二、正式破斥；三、解釋難題。這裡是第一部分，敘述宗義。數論者說：『必定有我（ātman），因為事物的功用必定依賴於使用事物的人。』所謂的諸事物的功用，依賴於使用事物的人，比如天授（Devadatta）的行為功用，必定依賴於天授這個『我』。行為是事物的功用，天授是我的名稱。像這樣，識等所有的了別等功用，必定依賴於所依的真實『我』體，也就是能了知等。『今應詰彼至識能了亦爾者』，這是第二部分，正式破斥。論主破斥說：『現在應該詰問他們，天授指的是什麼？』如果是真實的我，這就像先前破斥的那樣。如果是假立的士夫（puruṣa），在五蘊上假立，並非一個實體。在諸行相續上假立這個天授的名字。就像...

【English Translation】 English version: Because of the power of the augmenting condition (adhipati-pratyaya), the result of recollection (smṛti) is able to arise. Therefore, the cause of recollection is called the 'lord' (adhipati). The result, at the time of its arising, is possessed by the cause, so it is called 'belonging to the capable' (samartha-sambandha). The cause that produces recollection is sufficient to be the lord of recollection. Why bother establishing a 'self' (ātman) as the lord of recollection? The aggregation of all activities (saṃskāra) and the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) is a false appearance formed by causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya). The continuous succession of similar categories before and after is a false appearance of mutual relation. The 'Citra cow' (Citra cow) is a common designation in the world, establishing Citra (Citra) as the owner of the cow. This cow owner is the continuity of the cow. From here to there, born in different places, the cause of change and production, so it is called the cow owner. There is no real 'self' (ātman) here, no real Citra cow owner, and no real 'self' (ātman) that is the cow, but only a false designation. Therefore, it is said that the cow owner is also inseparable from the cause of the cow. The cow is what is driven and used, called the result; the cow owner is what is able to drive and use, called the cause. Just like the lord of recollection before is inseparable from the cause of recollection. 'Recollection is already thought of as it should be known', this is just an example to illustrate the initial recollection. Since its meaning is like this, then explaining the subsequent memory (smṛti) is also the same principle. Both follow recollection and memory. 'Who is the knower, whose consciousness (vijñāna) and so on' should also be explained using the same example. Largely the same, not without differences. Moreover, the causes and conditions of consciousness (vijñāna) are different from before, referring to the six sense organs (ṣaḍ indriya), the six sense objects (ṣaḍ viṣaya), etc., which should be known as they really are. Or the seed of consciousness is called the cause, and the organs, etc., are called the conditions. Recollection and memory only exist in the mind-ground (mano-bhūmi), so they are different from consciousness. 'Some say that those who are able to know, etc.', this below is the second major section of individual refutations, refuting the Sāṃkhya school. It is divided into three parts: 1. Narrating the tenets; 2. Formal refutation; 3. Explaining difficult questions. This is the first part, narrating the tenets. The Sāṃkhya says: 'There must be a self (ātman), because the function of things must depend on the person who uses the things.' The so-called functions of things depend on the person who uses the things, such as the behavioral function of Devadatta, which must depend on the 'self' (ātman) of Devadatta. Behavior is the function of things, and Devadatta is the name of the self. In this way, all the functions of discernment, etc., of consciousness, etc., must depend on the real 'self' (ātman) body on which they rely, that is, the one who is able to know, etc. 'Now it should be questioned to him that the consciousness is also able to know', this is the second part, the formal refutation. The proponent refutes: 'Now it should be questioned to them, what does Devadatta refer to?' If it is the real self, this is like the previous refutation. If it is a falsely established person (puruṣa), falsely established on the five aggregates, not a single entity. The name of Devadatta is falsely established on the continuous succession of activities. Just like...

假天授說為能行。識了別應知亦爾。但于假我說能了者名。非別實我。

依何理說天授能行者。此下第三通難。數論難。若無實我。依何理說天授能行。

謂于剎那至亦作是說者。論主答。謂于剎那生滅。諸行是緣成假。不異相續。是相續假。於二假上立天授名。愚夫于中執為一實我體。此之假我為自相續身異方生因。后念異處生名行。前念因即名行者。依此理說天授能行。如執燈焰行。及傳聲喚人。從此至彼異處相續。世依此說焰．聲能行　如是天授前念身能為彼念識因故。世間亦謂天授能了　然諸聖者為順世間言說理故。亦作是說。天授能了。

經說諸識至為何所作者。數論問言。經說諸識能了所緣。識于所緣為何所作。

都無所至說名了境者。論主答。識于所緣都無所作。但似境生說能了境。如麥果等酬麥因等。雖無所作。而似因起說名酬因。如是識生雖無所作。而似境故說名了境。

如何似境者。數論問。

謂帶彼相至識能了亦爾者。論主答。謂能緣識上帶彼所緣境界行相。如緣青色能緣識上。帶青相現。識似境說識能緣。如鏡對質帶質像生。名似本質能照。是故諸識雖亦托根生。識無根相不似根故。不名了根。但名了境　或識于境相續生時。前識為因別後識起。說前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本假天授（由各種因素聚合而成的個體）被說成能夠行動。認識和辨別也應該這樣理解。只是在假立的『我』上面說能夠認識，而不是另外存在一個真實的『我』。

根據什麼道理說天授能夠行動呢？這是第三個反駁。數論者反駁說，如果沒有真實的『我』，根據什麼道理說天授能夠行動？

論主回答說，所謂在剎那生滅的諸行是因緣和合而成的假象，不異於相續。這是相續的假象。在這兩種假象上安立天授的名字。愚昧的人在其中執著地認為是一個真實的『我』。這個假立的『我』是自身相續、身體在不同地方產生的因。后念在不同地方產生叫做行動。前唸的因就叫做行動者。根據這個道理說天授能夠行動。就像執著于燈焰的移動，以及傳遞聲音呼喚人，從這裡到那裡在不同地方相續。世間根據這個說燈焰和聲音能夠行動。像這樣，天授前一念的身能作為后一念識的因，所以世間也說天授能夠認識。然而諸位聖者爲了順應世間的言說方式，也這樣說，天授能夠認識。

經中說諸識能夠了別所緣，識對於所緣做了什麼呢？數論者問道，經中說諸識能夠了別所緣，識對於所緣做了什麼？

論主回答說，識對於所緣什麼也沒做，只是相似於所緣的顯現，所以說能夠了別境界。就像麥子和果實等酬謝麥子的因等，雖然沒有做什麼，但是相似於因的生起，所以說酬謝因。像這樣，識的產生雖然沒有做什麼，但是相似於境界，所以說能夠了別境界。

數論者問，如何相似於境界呢？

論主回答說，所謂能緣的識上帶有它所緣境界的行相。比如緣取青色，能緣的識上就帶有青色的顯現。識相似於境界，所以說識能夠緣取。就像鏡子對著物體，帶有物體的影像產生，叫做相似於本質，能夠照見。因此，諸識雖然也依託于根而生，但識沒有根的相，不相似於根，所以不叫做了別根，只叫做了別境界。或者識對於境界相續產生時，前識作為因，差別於後識的生起，說前識...

【English Translation】 English version 'The imputed Tavasya (a name given to an individual), is said to be able to act. Understanding and distinguishing should also be understood in the same way. It is only upon the imputed 『self』 that the ability to know is predicated, not upon a separate, real 『self.』

Based on what principle is Tavasya said to be able to act? This is the third refutation. The Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy) refutes, saying, if there is no real 『self,』 based on what principle is Tavasya said to be able to act?

The proponent answers, 『The so-called momentary arising and ceasing of actions are a false appearance formed by causes and conditions, not different from continuity. This is the false appearance of continuity. Upon these two false appearances, the name Tavasya is established. Ignorant people stubbornly believe that it is a real 『self.』 This imputed 『self』 is the cause of the continuation of oneself, the body arising in different places. The subsequent thought arising in different places is called action. The cause of the previous thought is called the actor. Based on this principle, Tavasya is said to be able to act. It is like clinging to the movement of a lamp flame, and transmitting sound to call people, continuing from here to there in different places. The world says that the lamp flame and sound are able to act. In this way, the previous thought of Tavasya』s body can be the cause of the subsequent thought of consciousness, so the world also says that Tavasya is able to know. However, the sages, in order to comply with the world』s way of speaking, also say that Tavasya is able to know.』

The sutra says that the consciousnesses are able to cognize their objects, what do the consciousnesses do to their objects? The Samkhya asks, 『The sutra says that the consciousnesses are able to cognize their objects, what do the consciousnesses do to their objects?』

The proponent answers, 『Consciousness does nothing to its objects, but it appears similar to the appearance of the object, so it is said to be able to cognize the object. It is like wheat and fruit repaying the cause of wheat, etc. Although nothing is done, it appears similar to the arising of the cause, so it is said to repay the cause. In this way, although the arising of consciousness does nothing, it is similar to the object, so it is said to be able to cognize the object.』

The Samkhya asks, 『How is it similar to the object?』

The proponent answers, 『The cognizing consciousness carries the characteristics of the object it cognizes. For example, when cognizing blue, the cognizing consciousness carries the appearance of blue. Consciousness is similar to the object, so it is said that consciousness is able to cognize. It is like a mirror facing an object, carrying the image of the object, which is called similar to the essence, able to reflect. Therefore, although the consciousnesses also rely on the sense organs to arise, consciousness does not have the characteristics of the sense organs, and is not similar to the sense organs, so it is not called cognizing the sense organs, but only called cognizing the object. Or, when consciousness arises continuously in relation to an object, the previous consciousness is the cause, differentiating the arising of the subsequent consciousness, saying that the previous consciousness...』

因識名為能了。亦無有失。世間于因說作者故。如世間說鐘．鼓能鳴。能生鳴果故於因立能鳴。或如燈能行無別能行者。識能了亦爾。無別能了者。

為依何理說燈數論問。

焰續中至理亦應然者。論主答。火相續中假立燈號。燈于異處。從此至彼相續生時。說為燈行。無別行者。如是心相續上假立識名。于青．黃等異境生時。說名能了。如成實論一念實識無能了故。要識相續。別於后念境上生時。相續假識名能了。或如色有體色生次色住。此中無別有者住者。說識能了理亦應然。無別了者。

若后識生至如芽莖葉等者。數論難。此中難意。由有我故。我是自在義。欲得此法前生此法生。此法後生。所以後不恒相似。不定次第　若后識生。從前識生非從我有。略為二難。一何緣后識不恒似前善．染識等。二既從識生。何緣不先定次第生如先芽．次莖．次葉等次第而生。

有為皆有至身外緣差別者。論主答　言住異者。謂住之異。約住明異。即異別名。有為之法皆有異相。后必異前故不相似。若異此者應無出定。又諸心相續亦有定次。若此心次後彼心應生。於此心后彼心必生。如二十心相生中說。又諸心相續。亦有少分行相等前後相似方能相生。不生余心種姓別故。如女心無間。或起莊嚴身心

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為『識』（vijñāna，了別作用）被稱為『能了』（認知者），這並沒有什麼錯誤。世俗中常說『因』是作者。例如，世俗中說鐘和鼓能發出聲音，因為它們能產生聲音的結果，所以將『能鳴』（發出聲音的能力）歸於『因』。或者像燈能照亮，而沒有其他的照亮者一樣，『識』能了別也是如此，沒有其他的了別者。

數論者問：根據什麼道理說燈是這樣的呢？

論主回答：在火焰的相續中，假立了『燈』這個名稱。燈在不同的地方，從這裡到那裡相續產生時，就說燈在『行』（移動），而沒有其他的『行者』（移動者）。同樣，在心的相續上假立『識』這個名稱，在青、黃等不同的境界產生時，就說『識』能了別。正如成實論所說，一念的真實的『識』沒有能了別的作用，所以需要『識』的相續，在後一念的境界上產生時，相續的假『識』才被稱為『能了』。或者像色法有『體』（本體），有『色生』（顏色產生），『次色住』（顏色持續），這裡面沒有其他的『有者』（存在者）和『住者』（持續者），說『識』能了別也是同樣的道理，沒有其他的了別者。

數論者反駁：如果后識的產生就像芽、莖、葉等一樣呢？這裡反駁的意思是，因為有『我』（ātman，靈魂），『我』是自在的意思，想要得到這個法，前面就產生這個法，這個法後面才產生，所以後面的不總是相似的，沒有一定的次第。如果后識的產生是從前識產生的，而不是從『我』產生的，可以概括為兩個難點：一是為什麼后識不總是像前面的善識、染污識等一樣？二是既然是從識產生的，為什麼不按照一定的次第產生，比如先是芽，然後是莖，然後是葉等次第而產生？

論主回答：有為法都有異相，以及身外的因緣差別。所說的『住異』，是指『住』的差異。通過『住』來表明差異，也就是不同的名稱。有為法都有異相，後面的必然不同於前面的，所以不相似。如果不是這樣，就應該沒有出定的情況。而且，各種心的相續也有一定的次第，如果這個心之後應該產生那個心，那麼在這個心之後必然產生那個心，就像二十種心相生中所說的那樣。而且，各種心的相續，也有少部分行相相等，前後相似才能相生，否則不會產生，因為種姓不同。比如在女人的心之後，可能會產生莊嚴身心的想法。

【English Translation】 English version: Because 『consciousness』 (vijñāna, the function of discernment) is called 『the able knower,』 there is nothing wrong with that. In the world, it is commonly said that 『cause』 is the maker. For example, in the world, it is said that bells and drums can make sounds, because they can produce the result of sound, so the 『ability to sound』 is attributed to 『cause.』 Or just as a lamp can illuminate, and there is no other illuminator, 『consciousness』 being able to discern is also like that, there is no other discerner.

The Samkhya (Sāṃkhya) philosopher asks: According to what principle is the lamp said to be like this?

The proponent replies: In the continuum of flames, the name 『lamp』 is provisionally established. When the lamp is in different places, and continuously arises from here to there, it is said that the lamp is 『moving,』 and there is no other 『mover.』 Similarly, on the continuum of mind, the name 『consciousness』 is provisionally established, and when different objects such as blue and yellow arise, it is said that 『consciousness』 is able to discern. Just as the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra (Satyasiddhi Śāstra) says, a single moment of real 『consciousness』 has no ability to discern, so it requires the continuum of 『consciousness,』 and when it arises on the object of the next moment, the provisional 『consciousness』 of the continuum is called 『the able knower.』 Or just as form has 『substance,』 there is 『color arising,』 and 『subsequent color abiding,』 there is no other 『existent』 and 『abider』 in this, saying that 『consciousness』 is able to discern is also the same principle, there is no other discerner.

The Samkhya philosopher retorts: If the arising of subsequent consciousness is like sprouts, stems, leaves, etc. then what? The meaning of this retort is that because there is 『self』 (ātman, soul), 『self』 means being independent, wanting to obtain this dharma, this dharma arises first, and this dharma arises later, so the later is not always similar, and there is no fixed order. If the arising of subsequent consciousness arises from previous consciousness, and not from 『self,』 it can be summarized into two difficulties: one is why is subsequent consciousness not always like the previous wholesome consciousness, defiled consciousness, etc.? Second, since it arises from consciousness, why does it not arise in a fixed order, such as first sprouts, then stems, then leaves, etc.?

The proponent replies: Conditioned phenomena all have characteristics of change, and differences in external conditions. What is said as 『abiding differently』 refers to the difference in 『abiding.』 The difference is shown through 『abiding,』 which is another name for difference. Conditioned phenomena all have characteristics of change, and the later is necessarily different from the former, so they are not similar. If it were not like this, there should be no emergence from meditative absorption. Moreover, the continuums of various minds also have a fixed order, if that mind should arise after this mind, then that mind will necessarily arise after this mind, as it is said in the arising of twenty minds. Moreover, the continuums of various minds also have a small part of aspects that are equal, and they can arise together only if they are similar before and after, otherwise they will not arise, because the lineage is different. For example, after a woman's mind, the thought of adorning the body and mind may arise.

。或起染污心。或起彼夫心。或起彼子等時。從此諸心。相續．轉變．差別熏成種。后還生女心。如是女心。於後所起嚴．污心等。有生功能。異此余無生功能。種姓別故。女心無間容起多心。然多心中。或先數起者。或明瞭近起者。先起非余　又解或先數起者。或先明瞭者。或先近起者。先起非余　有解若先數起者。就數起中起明瞭者。就明瞭中起近起者。由此義故先起非余　由如是心修力強故。唯除將起位時身。被外緣損壞。差別即不得起　又解唯除將起位身。遇外緣善．惡差別。逢此勝緣起即不定。

諸有修力至生於自果者。數論難。諸有修力最強盛者。寧不恒時生自強果。有生劣邪。

由此心有至最隨順故者。論主答。由此心有住異相故。后漸劣前。此住異相。于上中下別修果類相續生中。最隨順故。所以不恒生自勝果。有生劣果。

諸心品類至可易了知者。論主謙讓仰推世尊。依如是義。于經部中故有頌言　於一孔雀輪青．黃．赤．白等　有一切種因相。如是如是果。從如是如是因生　知此等相非余智境界　唯一切智知　舉易況難。一孔雀輪色差別因尚為難了。況心．心所諸無色法因緣差別可易了知。

一類外道至皆從於我者。此下就別破中。大文第三破勝論師。就中。一敘宗。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：或者生起染污心，或者生起對丈夫的心，或者生起對子女等的心時，從此諸心，相續、轉變、差別熏習成為種子，之後還會生起女人的心。像這樣的女人心，對於之後所生起的莊嚴心、染污心等，具有生起的功能。除了這些，其餘的沒有生起的功能。因為種姓有差別，女人的心可以無間斷地容納生起多種心。然而在多種心中，或者先多次生起的心，或者明瞭清晰生起的心，或者接近當下生起的心，先產生的（心）就不是其他的（心）。又一種解釋是，或者先多次生起的心，或者先明瞭的心，或者先接近當下生起的心，先產生的（心）就不是其他的（心）。還有一種解釋是，如果先多次生起的心，就在多次生起的心中生起明瞭的心，就在明瞭的心中生起接近當下生起的心，因為這個道理，先產生的（心）就不是其他的（心）。由於這樣的心修習的力量強大，除非將要生起（作用）的時候身體被外在的因緣損壞，這種差別（作用）就不能生起。又一種解釋是，除非將要生起（作用）的時候身體遇到外在因緣的善、惡差別，遇到這種殊勝的因緣，生起（的作用）就不一定了。

那些修習的力量達到能夠產生自身果報的心，數論派（Samkhya）提出疑問：那些修習的力量最強大旺盛的心，為什麼不恒常地產生自身強大的果報，反而會產生低劣邪惡的果報？

對此，論主回答：由於這些心具有安住于不同狀態的特性。後來的心逐漸不如之前的。這種安住于不同狀態的特性，在上、中、下不同修習果報的類別相續產生中，是最為隨順的。所以不恒常產生自身殊勝的果報，有時會產生低劣的果報。

各種心識的品類，乃至可以輕易瞭解，論主謙虛地推崇世尊（Buddha）。依據這樣的道理，在經部（Sutra）中所以有頌詞說：『在一個孔雀輪（peacock wheel）上，青色、黃色、紅色、白色等，具有一切種子的因相，像這樣像這樣的果，從像這樣像這樣的因產生。』瞭解這些現象不是其他智慧的境界，只有一切智者（Sarvajna）才能瞭解。舉容易的來比況困難的，一個孔雀輪的顏色差別的原因尚且難以瞭解，何況心、心所（citta-caitta）這些無色法的因緣差別可以輕易瞭解。

有一類外道，乃至都來自於我，這以下就分別破斥中，大的方面第三個破斥勝論師（Vaisheshika）。就其中，一是敘述宗義。

【English Translation】 English version: Or arising defiled mind, or arising mind towards her husband, or arising mind towards her children, etc., from these minds, continuously, transforming, and differentially imprinting into seeds, later also giving rise to a woman's mind. Such a woman's mind, towards the subsequent arising of adorned mind, defiled mind, etc., has the function of arising. Apart from these, there is no other function of arising. Because of the difference in lineage, a woman's mind can continuously accommodate the arising of multiple minds. However, among the multiple minds, either the mind that arises frequently first, or the mind that arises clearly, or the mind that arises closely in the present, the one that arises first is not the other. Another explanation is, either the mind that arises frequently first, or the mind that is clear first, or the mind that arises closely in the present, the one that arises first is not the other. Yet another explanation is, if the mind that arises frequently first, then within the minds that arise frequently, the clear mind arises, and within the clear mind, the mind that arises closely in the present arises. Because of this reason, the one that arises first is not the other. Because of the strong power of cultivation of such a mind, unless the body is damaged by external conditions at the time of its impending arising (of function), this difference (of function) cannot arise. Another explanation is, unless the body encounters the differences of good and evil external conditions at the time of its impending arising (of function), encountering this superior condition, the arising (of function) is uncertain.

Those minds whose power of cultivation reaches the point of producing their own results, the Samkhya school questions: Those minds whose power of cultivation is the strongest and most flourishing, why do they not constantly produce their own strong results, but instead produce inferior and evil results?

To this, the master of the treatise replies: Because these minds have the characteristic of abiding in different states. The later minds gradually become inferior to the previous ones. This characteristic of abiding in different states is most conducive in the continuous arising of the categories of superior, middle, and inferior cultivation results. Therefore, they do not constantly produce their own superior results, and sometimes produce inferior results.

The categories of various minds, even to the point of being easily understood, the master of the treatise humbly praises the World Honored One (Buddha). According to this principle, in the Sutra, there is a verse that says: 'In a peacock wheel (peacock wheel), blue, yellow, red, white, etc., have the causal appearances of all seeds, like this like this result, arises from like this like this cause.' Understanding these phenomena is not the realm of other wisdom, only the All-Knowing One (Sarvajna) can understand. Using the easy to compare with the difficult, the cause of the color difference of a peacock wheel is already difficult to understand, let alone the causal differences of mind and mental factors (citta-caitta), these formless dharmas, can be easily understood.

A certain type of heretics, even to the point that everything comes from me, below this, in the separate refutations, the third major aspect refutes the Vaisheshika school. Among them, one is to narrate the tenets.

二正破。三通難。此即第一敘宗。有一類勝論外道作如是執。諸心生時。皆從於我。以彼心是我家德故。

前之二難至如芽．莖．葉等者。此下第二正破。論主以前數論二難。難彼勝論。前之數論所說二難。于彼勝論為難最切　若諸心生皆從於我者。我一自在。何緣后識不恒似前。及不定次第生如芽莖葉等。

若謂由待至別住失故者。牒計別破。汝若謂我由待實句義色意合差別。方有異識生。及不定次第。破云。理定不然。我與色意合非極成故。以佛法宗不許有我．色意合故　又以理破。夫二物合必有分限。非無分故。謂彼勝論外道自類釋合相言。非至為先彼后至名合　破云。若我．意合。意有分限故我應有分限。勝論計我周遍法界無分限故。又我．意合。意移轉故我應移轉。或我與意相就和合。我應與意俱有壞滅。然彼宗計我．意俱常　又汝若謂我體遍滿。不可遍合。色意俱與一分我合者　破云。理定不然。我體是一。於一我體中無別分故。何得說言與一分合。不與余分合。假設許有合。我體既常。意無別異。還是一常。合寧有異生別識耶　又汝若救言我待德句義中別覺慧故方生異識　破云。為難亦與待意義同。我既遍滿無有差別。謂覺因何得有差別。生異識耶　又汝若言待德句中行別。我方意合生異

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本二、正破。三、通難。此即第一敘宗。有一類勝論外道（Vaisheshika，古印度哲學流派，重視知識分類和邏輯分析）作如是執：諸心生時，皆從於我（Atman，靈魂、真我）。以彼心是我家德故。

前之二難至如芽、莖、葉等者。此下第二正破。論主以前數論（Samkhya，古印度哲學流派，主張二元論，將宇宙分為自性和神我）二難，難彼勝論。前之數論所說二難，于彼勝論為難最切。若諸心生皆從於我者，我一自在，何緣后識不恒似前？及不定次第生如芽莖葉等？

若謂由待至別住失故者。牒計別破。汝若謂我由待實句義色意合差別，方有異識生，及不定次第。破云：理定不然。我與色意合非極成故。以佛法宗不許有我、色意合故。又以理破。夫二物合必有分限，非無分故。謂彼勝論外道自類釋合相言：非至為先彼后至名合。破云：若我、意合，意有分限故我應有分限。勝論計我周遍法界無分限故。又我、意合，意移轉故我應移轉。或我與意相就和合，我應與意俱有壞滅。然彼宗計我、意俱常。又汝若謂我體遍滿，不可遍合。色意俱與一分我合者，破云：理定不然。我體是一，於一我體中無別分故。何得說言與一分合，不與余分合。假設許有合，我體既常，意無別異，還是一常，合寧有異生別識耶？又汝若救言我待德句義中別覺慧故方生異識，破云：為難亦與待意義同。我既遍滿無有差別，謂覺因何得有差別，生異識耶？又汝若言待德句中行別，我方意合生異。

【English Translation】 English version 2. Refuting Directly. 3. Answering Difficulties. This is the first section, stating the doctrine. There is a type of Vaisheshika (an ancient Indian philosophical school emphasizing categories of knowledge and logical analysis) heretics who hold this view: When all minds arise, they all originate from the Atman (soul, self). Because those minds are the qualities of my home.

The previous two difficulties, such as sprouts, stems, leaves, etc. This is the second section, directly refuting. The author uses the two difficulties of the Samkhya (an ancient Indian philosophical school advocating dualism, dividing the universe into Prakriti and Purusha) to challenge the Vaisheshika. The two difficulties mentioned by the previous Samkhya are the most critical challenges to the Vaisheshika. If all minds arise from the Atman, and the Atman is singular and independent, why aren't subsequent consciousnesses always similar to the previous ones? And why do they arise in an unfixed order, like sprouts, stems, and leaves?

If it is said that it is due to waiting for the distinction of substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, and inherence, then this is refuting each claim separately. If you say that the Atman, by waiting for the differences in substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence, mind, and sense objects, then different consciousnesses arise, and in an unfixed order. The refutation says: It is definitely not so. The combination of the Atman with sense objects and mind is not established. Because the Buddhist doctrine does not allow for the combination of the Atman with sense objects and mind. Furthermore, it is refuted by reason. When two things combine, they must have boundaries, not be without boundaries. The Vaisheshika heretics themselves explain the nature of combination, saying: 'Not reaching first, then reaching later, is called combination.' The refutation says: If the Atman and mind combine, and the mind has boundaries, then the Atman should have boundaries. The Vaisheshika considers the Atman to be pervasive throughout the Dharma realm without boundaries. Also, if the Atman and mind combine, and the mind moves, then the Atman should move. Or if the Atman and mind come together and harmonize, then the Atman should perish together with the mind. However, that school considers both the Atman and mind to be eternal. Furthermore, if you say that the Atman's essence is pervasive and cannot be completely combined, and that sense objects and mind combine with a portion of the Atman, the refutation says: It is definitely not so. The Atman's essence is one, and there are no separate parts within the one Atman. How can it be said that it combines with one part and not with other parts? Assuming that there is a combination, since the Atman's essence is constant, and the mind has no difference, it is still a constant. How can a different consciousness arise from the combination? Furthermore, if you try to defend by saying that the Atman relies on the distinct wisdom within the qualities, actions, generality, particularity, and inherence to give rise to different consciousnesses, the refutation says: The difficulty is the same as the meaning of waiting. Since the Atman is pervasive and without difference, how can the cause of awareness have differences, giving rise to different consciousnesses? Furthermore, if you say that it relies on the difference in action within the qualities, actions, generality, particularity, and inherence, and then the Atman combines with the mind to give rise to differences.

識者　破云。則應但心待行差別能生異識。何用我為。又總非。我于識生都無有用。而勝論言識皆我生。如藥事成能除痼疾已。誑醫矯說普莎訶言　普莎訶。此云吉祥　今此痼疾由我故除。此中亦爾。行足生心。何須此我　又汝若謂此心．行二由我故有　破云。此但有言。無理為證由我故有　又汝若謂此心．行二。我為所依。徴云。如誰與誰為所依義。非心與行如畫．如果。我為能持如壁持畫。如器持果。若如彼喻。如是便有我與心行更相礙失。同色法故。若如彼喻。及有或時別住失故。以畫色果與彼壁．器有時別故。然計我體無有障礙。望彼心．行無障礙失。我遍法界。望彼心．行無別住失。

非如壁器我為彼依者。勝論救。非如壁．器我為彼心．行依。

若爾如何者。論主徴問。

此但如地至所依者。勝論答。此我但如地能為香等四物所依。雖彼宗計香是地家德。彼說眼見大地為香等所依。

彼如是言至假立我名者。論主破。世間假地無有別體。不離香等假立地名。我亦如是。無有別體。不離心．行假立我名　若依經部假地攬色．香．味．觸成此假地。地是緣成假。論主述經部義。故說此地攬四物成無別有體。若依勝論。離香等外別有地。故喻離心．行。外別有實我。

若離香等

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：識者反駁：如果破除了對『我』的執著，那麼只需依靠心和行的差別就能產生不同的意識，又何必需要『我』呢？而且總的來說，『我』對於意識的產生沒有任何作用。而勝論卻說一切意識都是由『我』產生的，這就像庸醫在治好慢性病後，假裝說『普莎訶』（此云吉祥），聲稱這個慢性病是因為『我』才被治好的。現在的情況也是一樣，心和行本身就能產生意識，又何須這個『我』呢？如果你認為心和行二者是由『我』而產生的，那麼我反駁說：這只是你的一面之詞，沒有任何道理可以證明心和行是由『我』而產生的。如果你認為心和行二者以『我』為所依，那麼請問：『我』和誰互為所依呢？心和行並非像畫和水果一樣，而『我』作為能持者，就像墻壁支撐畫，器皿盛放水果。如果像你所說的比喻那樣，那麼『我』與心行之間就會互相妨礙，因為它們都是有色法的緣故。如果像你所說的比喻那樣，那麼『我』與心行有時會分離，因為畫和水果有時會離開墻壁和器皿。然而，你所認為的『我』的本體是沒有障礙的，那麼『我』對於心和行就沒有妨礙；『我』遍佈法界，那麼『我』對於心和行就沒有分離。勝論派辯解說：『我』並非像墻壁和器皿那樣作為心和行的所依。論主提問：如果不是像墻壁和器皿那樣，那又是如何呢？勝論派回答說：『我』就像地一樣，能作為香等四種物質的所依。雖然勝論派認為香是地的屬性，但他們也說眼睛能看到大地作為香等的所依。論主駁斥說：世間假立的地並沒有獨立的實體，只是不離開香等而假立為地。『我』也是如此，沒有獨立的實體，只是不離開心和行而假立為『我』。如果按照經部的觀點，假立的地是集合了色、香、味、觸而成的。地是因緣和合而成的假象。論主闡述了經部的觀點，所以說地是集合了四種物質而成的，沒有獨立的實體。如果按照勝論的觀點，地是獨立於香等之外而存在的，所以用它來比喻『我』是獨立於心和行之外而存在的實體。如果離開香等...

【English Translation】 English version: The knowing one refutes: If one breaks through the cloud of 'self', then merely relying on the differences in mind and actions can generate different consciousnesses. What need is there for 'I'? Moreover, in general, 'I' has no use at all in the arising of consciousness. Yet the Vaisheshika school says that all consciousnesses are produced by 'I'. This is like a quack doctor, after curing a chronic illness, falsely saying 'Puṣāḥā' (meaning auspicious), claiming that the chronic illness was cured because of 'I'. The current situation is the same; mind and actions themselves can generate consciousness. What need is there for this 'I'? If you say that these two, mind and actions, are produced by 'I', then I refute: This is merely your statement, without any reason to prove that mind and actions are produced by 'I'. If you say that these two, mind and actions, take 'I' as their support, then I ask: Who supports whom? Mind and actions are not like a painting and a fruit, with 'I' as the supporter, like a wall supporting a painting or a container holding a fruit. If it is like your analogy, then there would be mutual obstruction between 'I' and mind and actions, because they are all forms with color. If it is like your analogy, then 'I' and mind and actions would sometimes be separate, because the painting and fruit sometimes leave the wall and container. However, the 'I' that you posit has no obstruction, so 'I' would not obstruct mind and actions; 'I' pervades the Dharma realm, so 'I' would not be separate from mind and actions. The Vaisheshika school defends: 'I' is not like a wall or container as the support for mind and actions. The proponent asks: If not like a wall or container, then how is it? The Vaisheshika school answers: 'I' is just like the earth, which can be the support for the four elements such as scent. Although that school considers scent to be a quality of earth, they also say that the eye can see the earth as the support for scent and so on. The proponent refutes: The conventionally established earth in the world has no separate entity; it is merely conventionally established as earth without being separate from scent and so on. 'I' is also like this, having no separate entity, merely conventionally established as 'I' without being separate from mind and actions. If according to the Sautrantika school's view, the conventionally established earth is formed by the aggregation of form, scent, taste, and touch. Earth is a phenomenon arising from conditions, a mere appearance. The proponent describes the Sautrantika school's view, so he says that earth is formed by the aggregation of four elements, having no separate entity. If according to the Vaisheshika school's view, earth exists separately from scent and so on, so it is used as an analogy for 'I' existing as a separate entity apart from mind and actions. If separated from scent and so on...

至地有香等者。勝論難。若離香等四物無別有地。如何可言地有香等。

為顯地體至木像身等者。論主答。地是假名。香等為體。為顯假地體有香等別。故即假地說有香等。令他了達是此香等非是余物。如木像身。身即是木。離木之外無別像身。地即是香等。離香等外無別有地。

又若有我至生一切智者。論主又牒計徴。又若有我待行差別。行既眾多。何不俱時生一切智。

若時此行至令不生果者。勝論答。行有強弱。強者先起遮劣不生。故不俱時生一切智。

寧從強者果不恒生者。論主復徴。強既先生。寧從強者果不恒生。有時生劣。

答此如前至漸變異故者。勝論答。以內例外。答此妨難。如前論主論修力道理。我許行非常。漸變異故。所以從強者。果不恒生。

若爾計我至體無異故者。論主難。若行生生心。我即唐捐。彼勝論行。此佛法修。體無異故。

必定應信至理不成故者。勝論標宗勸論主信。必定應信我體實有。以有念等德句義故。失德必依實句義故。我是實句。為彼念等德句所依。明知有體。我實若無。何成依止實句。九中念等依我。念等依餘地等八實。理不成故。

此證非理至但有虛言者。論主破。此證非理。夫引為證彼此極成。汝所引證。皆不

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本『至地有香等者』（如果說地具有香味等性質）。勝論派提出疑問：如果離開香味等地、水、火、風四種元素，就沒有獨立存在的『地』，那麼怎麼能說『地』具有香味等性質呢？

『為顯地體至木像身等者』（爲了顯示『地』的本體，就像木頭雕刻的雕像一樣）。論主回答：『地』只是一個假名，香味等才是它的本體。爲了顯示這個假立的『地』的本體具有香味等差別，所以才假借地說『地』具有香味等性質，讓人們明白這些香味等性質屬於『地』，而不是其他事物。就像木頭雕刻的雕像，雕像的本體就是木頭，離開木頭就沒有獨立的雕像。『地』的本體就是香味等，離開香味等就沒有獨立的『地』。

『又若有我至生一切智者』（如果存在『我』，就能通過修行獲得一切智慧）。論主再次提出質疑：如果存在『我』，並且『我』依賴於行為的差別，而行為有多種多樣，為什麼不能同時產生一切智慧呢？

『若時此行至令不生果者』（當這些行為產生作用時，有些行為會阻礙其他行為產生結果）。勝論派回答：行為有強弱之分，強大的行為先產生作用，會阻礙弱小的行為產生作用，使其不能產生結果。所以不能同時產生一切智慧。

『寧從強者果不恒生者』（既然是強大的行為先產生作用，為什麼從強大的行為產生的結果不是恒常不變的呢？）。論主再次提出質疑：既然強大的行為先產生作用，為什麼從強大的行為產生的結果不是恒常不變的，有時反而產生弱小的結果呢？

『答此如前至漸變異故者』（回答這個問題就像前面所說的一樣，因為行為是逐漸變化差異的）。勝論派回答：以內外兩種情況為例，來回答這個疑問。就像前面論主所說的修行的力量的道理一樣，我承認行為不是恒常不變的，而是逐漸變化差異的。所以即使是強大的行為，產生的結果也不是恒常不變的。

『若爾計我至體無異故者』（如果這樣，那麼計算『我』的存在就沒有意義了，因為它們的本體沒有差別）。論主提出疑問：如果行為能夠產生心，那麼計算『我』的存在就沒有意義了。勝論派的行為和佛教的修行，它們的本體沒有差別。

『必定應信至理不成故者』（必須相信『我』的本體是真實存在的，否則道理就不能成立）。勝論派表明自己的觀點，勸論主相信：必須相信『我』的本體是真實存在的，因為有念頭等屬性詞的意義存在。屬性必須依賴於實體詞的意義，『我』是實體詞，是念頭等屬性詞所依賴的對象。這表明『我』是真實存在的。如果『我』不存在，那麼念頭等屬性詞就無法找到可以依賴的實體詞，九種實體中，念頭等屬性詞依賴於『我』，念頭等屬性詞依賴於其他地等八種實體，這個道理就不能成立。

『此證非理至但有虛言者』（這個證明是不合理的，因為你所引用的證據都是不成立的）。論主反駁：這個證明是不合理的。作為論證的依據，必須是雙方都認可的。你所引用的證據，都是不

【English Translation】 English version 『Concerning the statement that earth possesses fragrance, etc.』 The Vaisheshika (Visheshika) school raises an objection: If, apart from the four elements of fragrance, etc., there is no separate entity called 『earth,』 how can it be said that earth possesses fragrance, etc.?

『To show that the substance of earth is like a wooden statue, etc.』 The proponent (of the Buddhist view) replies: 『Earth』 is merely a provisional name; fragrance, etc., are its substance. To show that this provisionally designated 『earth』 possesses the distinctions of fragrance, etc., we speak of 『earth』 as having fragrance, etc., so that others may understand that these fragrances, etc., belong to 『earth』 and not to other things. Just as with a wooden statue, the substance of the statue is wood; apart from the wood, there is no separate statue. The substance of 『earth』 is fragrance, etc.; apart from fragrance, etc., there is no separate 『earth.』

『Furthermore, if there is a self that can attain omniscience through practice.』 The proponent (of the Buddhist view) reiterates the objection: If there is a self and this self depends on the distinctions of actions, and since actions are numerous, why does it not simultaneously produce all knowledge?

『When these actions arise, some actions prevent others from producing results.』 The Vaisheshika school replies: Actions have strengths and weaknesses. The stronger actions arise first and prevent the weaker ones from arising. Therefore, all knowledge is not produced simultaneously.

『Since the stronger actions arise first, why is the result from the stronger actions not constant?』 The proponent (of the Buddhist view) raises another objection: Since the stronger actions arise first, why is the result from the stronger actions not constant, and sometimes a weaker result is produced?

『The answer to this is as before, because actions gradually change.』 The Vaisheshika school replies: Using internal and external examples, we answer this objection. Just as the proponent (of the Buddhist view) discussed the principle of the power of cultivation, I admit that actions are impermanent and gradually change. Therefore, even from stronger actions, the result is not constant.

『If so, then calculating the self is meaningless, because their substance is not different.』 The proponent (of the Buddhist view) objects: If actions can produce mind, then calculating the self is meaningless. The actions of the Vaisheshika school and the practice of Buddhism have no difference in their substance.

『One must believe that the substance of the self is real, otherwise the principle cannot be established.』 The Vaisheshika school states its view and advises the proponent (of the Buddhist view) to believe: One must believe that the substance of the self is real, because there are attribute words such as thought. Attributes must rely on the meaning of substance words. 『Self』 is a substance word, which is relied upon by attribute words such as thought. This shows that the self is real. If the self does not exist, then attribute words such as thought cannot find a substance word to rely on. Among the nine substances, attribute words such as thought rely on the self, and attribute words such as thought rely on the other eight substances such as earth. This principle cannot be established.

『This proof is unreasonable, because the evidence you cite is not established.』 The proponent (of the Buddhist view) refutes: This proof is unreasonable. As the basis of an argument, it must be something that both sides agree on. The evidence you cite is not

極成。謂說念等德句義攝。是實家德體皆非實。義不極成。我許念等有別體故。皆名為實非無體故。經說六實物。名沙門果故。六物謂無漏五蘊．及與擇滅。於五蘊中念等心．心所法既名實物。明知皆有實體　又彼念等依止實我。理亦不成。依義如前心行依我中已遮遣故。由此所立但有虛言。

若我實無為何造業者。此下第三通外難。此即勝論師難也。

為我為當受苦樂為我果故者。論主答。

我體是何者。勝論問。

謂我執境者。論主答。謂我何執境。

何名我執境者。勝論問。

謂諸蘊相續者。論主答。

云何知然者。勝論問。

貪愛彼故至但緣諸蘊者。論主答。一貪愛彼五蘊故。二我執與白等覺同處起故。謂世有言我白．黑。現見世間緣白等覺。與計我執同處而生。非汝所許橫計我體有白等別。故知我執但緣諸蘊。

以身於我至即是我身者。勝論通釋。以身於我有防護恩故。亦于身假說為我。我白．黑等。如言臣等。如言臣等能防護王。王言臣等即是我身。

于有恩中至所取不然者。論主難。于有恩中實假說我。而諸我執所取不然。但緣身等言我白等。非緣別我。

若許緣身至緣他身起。勝論難意可知。

他與我執至如是習故者。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『極成』（Siddha）。如果說念等德句義都包含在內，那麼實體論者所說的德的本體都不是真實的，這種說法是不成立的。因為我承認念等有不同的本體，所以都稱為實，並非沒有本體。經中說有六種實物，稱為沙門果（Śrāmaṇyaphala），這六物是指無漏五蘊（pañca-skandha）以及擇滅（pratisamkhya-nirodha）。在五蘊中，念等心、心所法既然稱為實物，就明確知道它們都有實體。而且，念等依止於真實的我，這個道理也是不成立的。依止的意義如前，心行依止於我的觀點已經在前面駁斥過了。因此，你所建立的只是虛妄之言。

『如果我不是真實的，那麼誰是造業者呢？』下面是第三個用來駁斥外道的詰難。這是勝論師（Vaiśeṣika）的詰難。

『爲了我，爲了我將要承受苦樂，爲了我的果報。』論主回答。

『我的本體是什麼？』勝論師問。

『就是我執（ātma-graha）的對境。』論主回答。意思是，什麼是『我』所執著的對境？

『什麼叫做我執的對境？』勝論師問。

『就是諸蘊（skandha）的相續。』論主回答。

『怎麼知道是這樣的呢？』勝論師問。

『因為貪愛它們，乃至只是緣于諸蘊。』論主回答。一是貪愛這五蘊的緣故；二是我執與『白』等感覺在同一處生起。世間常說『我白』、『我黑』，現見世間緣于『白』等感覺，與計度為『我』的執著在同一處產生。這與你所承認的橫計的『我』的本體有『白』等差別不同。所以知道我執只是緣于諸蘊。

『因為身體對於我有防護的恩德，乃至就是我的身體。』勝論師解釋說：因為身體對於我有防護的恩德，所以也假說身體為『我』，『我白』、『我黑』等，就像說『臣等』。就像說『臣等』能夠防護國王，國王說『臣等就是我的身體』。

『在有恩德中，乃至所取不是這樣。』論主反駁說：在有恩德中，可以假說為『我』，但是諸『我』的執著所取不是這樣，只是緣于身體等，說『我白』等，不是緣于另外的『我』。

『如果承認緣于身體，乃至緣於他人的身體生起。』勝論師的詰難意思可以理解。

『他人與我執，乃至像這樣習慣的緣故。』

【English Translation】 English version: 『Siddha』 (established). If it is said that the meanings of the qualities such as 『thought』 are all included, then the substance of the qualities as asserted by the realist school is not real; this statement is not established. Because I admit that 『thought』 and others have distinct substances, therefore they are all called 『real,』 not without substance. The scriptures speak of six real entities, called Śrāmaṇyaphala (fruits of asceticism), which refer to the five unconditioned aggregates (pañca-skandha) and pratisamkhya-nirodha (cessation through wisdom). Among the five aggregates, since mental factors such as 『thought』 are called real entities, it is clear that they all have substance. Moreover, the idea that 『thought』 and others rely on a real self is also untenable. The meaning of reliance is as before; the view that mental activities rely on the self has already been refuted. Therefore, what you establish is merely empty words.

『If the self is not real, then who is the agent of actions?』 The following is the third refutation of external challenges. This is a challenge from the Vaiśeṣika school.

『For the self, for the self to experience suffering and happiness, for the sake of the self's results.』 The proponent answers.

『What is the nature of the self?』 The Vaiśeṣika asks.

『It is the object of ātma-graha (self-grasping).』 The proponent answers. Meaning, what is the object grasped by 『self』?

『What is called the object of self-grasping?』 The Vaiśeṣika asks.

『It is the continuity of the aggregates (skandha).』 The proponent answers.

『How is it known to be so?』 The Vaiśeṣika asks.

『Because of attachment to them, and even just relying on the aggregates.』 The proponent answers. Firstly, because of attachment to these five aggregates; secondly, because self-grasping and the perception of 『white』 and other qualities arise in the same place. It is commonly said 『I am white,』『I am black.』 It is evident that the perception of 『white』 and other qualities arises in the same place as the grasping of 『I.』 This is different from your assertion that the self, which you arbitrarily posit, has distinctions such as 『white.』 Therefore, it is known that self-grasping only relies on the aggregates.

『Because the body has the kindness of protecting me, and even is my body.』 The Vaiśeṣika explains: Because the body has the kindness of protecting me, therefore the body is also falsely called 『I,』『I am white,』『I am black,』 etc., just like saying 『the ministers.』 Just like saying 『the ministers』 can protect the king, the king says 『the ministers are my body.』

『In having kindness, and even what is grasped is not so.』 The proponent refutes: In having kindness, it can be falsely called 『I,』 but what is grasped by the grasping of 『I』 is not so; it only relies on the body, etc., saying 『I am white,』 etc., not relying on a separate 『I.』

『If it is admitted to rely on the body, and even to arise relying on the body of others.』 The meaning of the Vaiśeṣika's challenge is understandable.

『The other and self-grasping, and even because of such habituation.』

論主答。他五蘊身與自我執相。不相屬故。謂若自身．及與自心。與我執相屬。此我執起緣彼自蘊。非余他蘊。無始時來如是習故。緣自計我。非緣他計。

相屬謂何者。勝論問。

謂因果性者。論主答。于自身中有因果相系屬。故名為相屬。望他身中無因果性。不名相屬。

若無我體誰之我執者。勝論問。

此前已釋至為果所屬者。論主答。指同前釋。

若爾我執以何為因者。勝論問。

謂無始來至有垢染心者。論主答。謂無始來我執熏習種子。緣自相續有垢染心。為我執因生此執。

我體若無誰有苦樂者。勝論問。

若依于至及樹有花者。論主答。若依於此身有苦．樂生。即說名為此身有苦．樂。如林有果及樹有花。

苦樂依何者。勝論問。

謂內六處至說為后依者。論主答。謂內六處隨其所起。苦．樂二種。說內六處。為彼苦．樂所依。

若我實無至誰能受果者。勝論問。

作受何義者。論主反責。

作謂能作受謂受者者。勝論答。

此但易名未顯其義者。論主復責。前問作．受是何義耶。今答作謂能作。受謂受者。此但易名未顯其義。

辨法相者至名浴等者者。即勝論師名辨法相者。釋此作者．受者相言。別

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本論主回答：五蘊之身與我執（Atma-graha，對自我的執著）之間沒有歸屬關係。如果說自身以及自心與我執有歸屬關係，那麼這種我執的生起是緣于自身的五蘊，而不是其他的蘊。這是因為從無始以來就習慣於這樣，緣于自身而執著於我，而不是緣於他者而執著於我。

勝論師問：什麼是相屬？

論主回答：是指因果關係。在自身中有因果相續的關係，所以稱為相屬。對於他人的身體，沒有因果關係，所以不稱為相屬。

勝論師問：如果沒有我（Atman，靈魂）的實體，那麼我執屬於誰？

論主回答：這個問題之前已經解釋過了，直到作為果的所屬。

勝論師問：如果這樣，那麼我執以什麼為因？

論主回答：是指從無始以來我執熏習的種子，緣于自身的相續而產生有垢染的心，這是產生我執的原因。

勝論師問：如果我（Atman，靈魂）的實體不存在，那麼誰來感受苦樂？

論主回答：就像依存於此身而產生苦樂，就說此身有苦樂，如同林中有果實，樹上有花朵。

勝論師問：苦樂依存於什麼？

論主回答：是指內在的六處（Sadayatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）隨著它們的生起，苦和樂兩種感受，就說內在的六處是苦樂所依。

勝論師問：如果我（Atman，靈魂）確實不存在，那麼誰來承受果報？

論主反問道：『作』和『受』是什麼意思？

勝論師回答：『作』是指能作者，『受』是指受者。

論主再次責問道：這只是換了個說法，並沒有顯明其意義。之前問『作』和『受』是什麼意思，現在回答『作』是指能作者，『受』是指受者，這只是換了個說法，並沒有顯明其意義。

辨法相者（Dharmalakshana，勝論師的別稱）解釋作者和受者的含義，用洗浴等名稱來區分。

【English Translation】 English version The master answers: The five skandhas (Panca-skandha, the five aggregates of existence) of the body and the attachment to self (Atma-graha) are not related. If one says that the self and the mind are related to the attachment to self, then this attachment to self arises from one's own skandhas, not from other skandhas. This is because, from beginningless time, one has been accustomed to this, attaching to self based on oneself, not attaching to self based on others.

The Vaisheshika (a school of Indian philosophy) asks: What is 'relatedness'?

The master answers: It refers to the nature of cause and effect. Within oneself, there is a continuous relationship of cause and effect, so it is called 'relatedness'. In relation to the body of another, there is no causal relationship, so it is not called 'relatedness'.

The Vaisheshika asks: If there is no self (Atman, soul), to whom does the attachment to self belong?

The master answers: This question has already been explained, up to being the property of the result.

The Vaisheshika asks: If so, what is the cause of the attachment to self?

The master answers: It refers to the seeds of attachment to self that have been accumulated from beginningless time. Due to one's own continuous stream of consciousness having a defiled mind, this is the cause of the attachment to self, giving rise to this attachment.

The Vaisheshika asks: If the self (Atman, soul) does not exist, who experiences suffering and happiness?

The master answers: If suffering and happiness arise dependent on this body, it is said that this body experiences suffering and happiness, just as a forest has fruits and a tree has flowers.

The Vaisheshika asks: On what does suffering and happiness depend?

The master answers: It refers to the six internal sense bases (Sadayatana, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind). According to their arising, the two kinds of feelings, suffering and happiness, are said to depend on the six internal sense bases.

The Vaisheshika asks: If the self (Atman, soul) truly does not exist, who receives the consequences?

The master retorts: What is the meaning of 'doing' and 'receiving'?

The Vaisheshika answers: 'Doing' means the one who does, and 'receiving' means the one who receives.

The master retorts again: This is merely changing the terms and does not reveal the meaning. Previously, the question was what is the meaning of 'doing' and 'receiving'? Now the answer is 'doing' means the one who does, and 'receiving' means the one who receives. This is merely changing the terms and does not reveal the meaning.

The one who distinguishes the characteristics of phenomena (Dharmalakshana, another name for the Vaisheshika) explains the meaning of the doer and receiver, distinguishing them by names such as bathing.

釋引證如文　又解勝論引引毗伽羅論中辨法相者釋此作者相言。

此中汝等至名為作者者。論主破。此中汝等說何天授。若說實我喻不極成。說蘊便非自在作者　業有已下。約三種業顯非自在。乃至於中無一自在起。一切有為屬因緣故。汝所執我其體是常。不待因緣。亦無所作。故非自在。由此道理。彼勝論說能自在為名作者相。上來徴責求不可得。論主復中正義云。然于諸法生因緣中。若有勝用假名作者。非執常我于因緣中見有少用。故定不應名為作者。

能生身業勝因者何者。勝論師問。

謂從憶念至類此應思者。論主答。始從憶念展轉乃至風起身業。汝所執我此中何用。故於身業我非作者。語．意業起。類身應思。

我復云何至已遮遣故者。論主上來破我是作者。今破我是受者　我復云何能領業果得受者名。汝若謂于果我能了別　破云何此定不然。我于了別都無有用。指同前破。

若實無我至罪福生長者。勝論難。

彼非受等至如前已說者。論主答。彼外非情非受．想等所依止故。唯內六是彼受等所依止故。我非彼受等之所依止。如前已說。

若實無我至生未來果者。勝論難。若有我體。可造業已能生後果。若實無我。業已滅壞。復云何能生未來果。

設有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：釋引證如文，又解釋勝論（Vaisheshika，印度正統哲學派別之一）引用毗伽羅論（Vyakaran，古代印度語法學派）中辨別法相者，解釋此作者相說：

『此中汝等』至『名為作者者』。論主破斥：『此中汝等說何天授（Devadatta，古印度人名）？』若說實我，譬喻不極成。說蘊，便非自在作者。『業有已下』，約三種業顯示非自在，乃至於中無一自在起，一切有為法都屬於因緣。汝所執的我，其體是常，不待因緣，也無所作，故非自在。由此道理，彼勝論說能自在為名作者相。上來征責求不可得。論主復中正義說：『然于諸法生因緣中，若有勝用，假名作者。非執常我于因緣中見有少用，故定不應名為作者。』

『能生身業勝因者何者？』勝論師問。

『謂從憶念』至『類此應思者』。論主答：『始從憶念展轉乃至風起身業，汝所執的我此中何用？故於身業我非作者。語．意業起，類身應思。』

『我復云何』至『已遮遣故者』。論主上來破我是作者，今破我是受者。『我復云何能領業果得受者名？』汝若謂于果我能了別，破『云何此定不然？』我于了別都無有用，指同前破。

『若實無我』至『罪福生長者』。勝論難。

『彼非受等』至『如前已說者』。論主答：『彼外非情非受．想等所依止故，唯內六是彼受等所依止故，我非彼受等之所依止，如前已說。』

『若實無我』至『生未來果者』。勝論難：『若有我體，可造業已能生後果。若實無我，業已滅壞，復云何能生未來果？』

『設有』

【English Translation】 English version: Explaining the citations is as the text says. Furthermore, explaining the Vaisheshika (one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy) citing the Vyakaran (ancient Indian grammar school) in which those who distinguish the characteristics of dharmas explain the characteristic of the 'agent' (kartri) by saying:

'Among these, you all' to 'named the agent.' The proponent refutes: 'Among these, what Devadatta (an ancient Indian name) do you speak of?' If you speak of a real self (Atman), the analogy is not well-established. If you speak of aggregates (skandha), then it is not a self-governing agent. 'From karma onwards,' concerning the three types of karma, it shows that it is not self-governing, to the point that nothing arises independently within them, because all conditioned phenomena (samskrta) belong to causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya). The self that you hold onto, its essence is permanent, not relying on causes and conditions, and also does nothing, therefore it is not self-governing. Because of this reasoning, that Vaisheshika says that being self-governing is named the characteristic of an agent. The above questioning seeks but cannot obtain. The proponent replies with the correct meaning, saying: 'However, among the causes and conditions for the arising of all dharmas, if there is a superior function, it is nominally called an agent. It is not holding onto a permanent self that is seen to have little use among causes and conditions, therefore it definitely should not be named an agent.'

'What is the superior cause that can generate bodily karma?' The Vaisheshika master asks.

'It is from recollection' to 'similar to this, one should contemplate.' The proponent replies: 'Beginning from recollection, gradually leading to wind arising as bodily karma, what use is the self that you hold onto in this? Therefore, regarding bodily karma, the self is not the agent. The arising of verbal and mental karma should be contemplated similarly to the body.'

'How can I' to 'already refuted.' The proponent above refutes that the self is the agent, now refuting that the self is the receiver. 'How can I receive the karmic result and obtain the name of receiver?' If you say that I can discern the result, refute 'Why is this definitely not so?' I have no use at all in discernment, pointing to the same refutation as before.

'If there is truly no self' to 'the growth of merit and demerit.' The Vaisheshika objects.

'Those are not feeling, etc.' to 'as previously said.' The proponent replies: 'Those external non-sentient beings are not the support of feeling, perception, etc., therefore only the six internal senses are the support of those feelings, etc., therefore I am not the support of those feelings, etc., as previously said.'

'If there is truly no self' to 'generate future results.' The Vaisheshika objects: 'If there is a self, it can create karma and generate future results. If there is truly no self, the karma has already perished, how can it generate future results?'

'Even if'

實我至未來果者。論主反責。

從依止我法．非法生者。勝論答。彼計德句義中法．非法二。能生諸法依止實句義中我。從依止我法．非法二。能生諸法。此法．非法能生諸法如前已說。

如誰依誰至未來果生者。論主破。此法．非法依止於我。如誰依誰。此法非如畫．如果。我為能持。如壁如器等。此前已破。法．非法不應依我　然聖已下。亦正義。

若爾從何者。勝論師問。

說業相續至無間即生者。論主答。此後果起。從業所熏相續轉變差別種生。如種生果。謂如世間說果從種生。然果不從已壞種起。亦非從種無間即生。要經多時轉生果。

若爾從何者。勝論師問。

從種相續至方引生果者。論主答。此後果起。從種展轉付囑功能相續．轉變．差別果方得生。謂種次生芽．莖．葉等。華為最後。展轉付囑功能至後方引果生。此種功能中間不斷名相續。前後不同名轉變。無間生果名差別。

若爾何言從種生果者。勝論師問。

由種展轉至轉變差別生者。論主答。由初種子所有功能。展轉付囑。引起華中生果功能。從初為名故作是說。種能生果。若此華內生果功能。非種為先所引起者。所生果相應與種別。不應遠麥等似前麥因等。舉法同喻云。如是雖言從業生果

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：『實我』（eternal self）導致未來果報，論主對此進行反駁。

勝論派回答：從依賴於『我』（self）的『法』（dharma，正法）和『非法』（adharma，邪法）所生。他們認為在『德句義』（attribute category）中，『法』和『非法』二者能夠產生諸法，依賴於『實句義』（substance category）中的『我』。從依賴於『我』的『法』和『非法』二者，能夠產生諸法。這些『法』和『非法』能夠產生諸法，如前所述。

論主駁斥：這些『法』和『非法』依賴於『我』，如同誰依賴於誰？這些『法』並非如繪畫或果實。『我』作為能持者，如同墻壁或容器等。這之前已經駁斥過，『法』和『非法』不應依賴於『我』。然而，聖者以下，也是正義。

勝論師問：如果不是依賴於『我』，那麼是從什麼產生的呢？

論主回答：從業的相續到無間即生。這是後果的生起，從業所熏習的相續轉變差別而產生種子，如同種子產生果實。如同世間所說，果實從種子產生，然而果實不是從已經壞滅的種子產生，也不是從種子無間斷地立即產生，需要經過很長時間的轉變才能產生果實。

勝論師問：如果不是從壞滅的種子產生，那麼是從什麼產生的呢？

論主回答：從種子相續展轉付囑功能，經過相續、轉變、差別，果實才能產生。從種子次第產生芽、莖、葉等，花為最後，展轉付囑功能到最後才能引生果實。這種種子的功能中間不斷，名為相續；前後不同，名為轉變；無間生果，名為差別。

勝論師問：如果是這樣，為什麼說從種子生果呢？

論主回答：由於最初種子所具有的功能，展轉付囑，引起花中產生果實的功能，從最初的種子為名，所以才這樣說，種子能夠產生果實。如果這花內產生果實的功能，不是以種子為先所引起的，那麼所生的果實應該與種子不同，不應該像遠處的麥子等相似於之前的麥子等。舉法同喻說，如同雖然說從業產生果報。

【English Translation】 English version: The proponent of 『eternal self』 (Atman) posits that it leads to future results, to which the principal debater retorts.

The Vaisheshika (school) replies: (Results) arise from dharma (righteousness) and adharma (unrighteousness) that depend on the 『self』 (Atman). They believe that in the category of 『attribute』 (guna), dharma and adharma are capable of producing all dharmas (phenomena), relying on the 『self』 in the category of 『substance』 (dravya). From dharma and adharma, which depend on the 『self』, all dharmas can arise. These dharma and adharma can produce all dharmas, as previously stated.

The principal debater refutes: These dharma and adharma depend on the 『self』; how does one depend on the other? These dharma are not like a painting or a fruit. The 『self』 as the sustainer is like a wall or a container, etc. This has been refuted before; dharma and adharma should not depend on the 『self』. However, for those below the level of a saint, it is also the correct view.

The Vaisheshika asks: If it is not dependent on the 『self』, then from what does it arise?

The principal debater replies: From the continuity of karma (action) to immediate arising. This is the arising of the subsequent result, from the continuity of karma-influenced transformations and differentiations that produce a seed, just as a seed produces a fruit. As it is said in the world, a fruit arises from a seed; however, a fruit does not arise from a seed that has already perished, nor does it arise immediately and without interruption from the seed. It requires a long period of transformation to produce the fruit.

The Vaisheshika asks: If it does not arise from a perished seed, then from what does it arise?

The principal debater replies: From the continuous entrustment of functions of the seed, through continuity, transformation, and differentiation, the fruit can arise. From the seed, sprouts, stems, leaves, etc., arise in sequence, with the flower being the last. The continuous entrustment of functions until the end leads to the production of the fruit. This function of the seed, which is uninterrupted in the middle, is called continuity; the difference between the beginning and the end is called transformation; the immediate arising of the fruit is called differentiation.

The Vaisheshika asks: If this is the case, why is it said that the fruit arises from the seed?

The principal debater replies: Because the function inherent in the initial seed is continuously entrusted, causing the function of producing the fruit to arise in the flower. It is named after the initial seed, so it is said that the seed can produce the fruit. If the function of producing the fruit in this flower is not caused by the seed as the initial cause, then the fruit produced should be different from the seed, and should not be similar to the distant wheat, etc., resembling the previous wheat, etc. To illustrate the similarity in principle, it is said that although it is said that results arise from karma.

。而非從彼已壞業生。亦非從業無間生。果但從前業相續．轉變．差別種生　何名相續轉變差別者。勝論師問。

謂業為先至故名差別者。論主答。謂現起業最初為先。后熏成種在色．心中。起此色．心中種。中無間斷名為相續。即相續種。後後剎那。異前前種名為轉變。即轉變種。于最後位一剎那時。有勝功能無間生果。勝前轉變故名差別。

如有取識至輪轉于生死者。因解差別顯業先受。如有取識正命終時。雖色心中帶彼眾多感後有業。所引熏習功能種子。一重業者今先受果。譬如負債強者先牽。二近起者今先受果。如將命終遇善．惡友生善．惡趣。三數習者今先受果　如一生來偏習此業。三所引由明瞭故先起。非余轉等業也。如經部中有是頌言。一業極重。二業近起　三種業習數。即先所作　如其次第配釋三前。謂重業前熟。近起前熟。數習前熟。余輕等業后熟　由斯業故轉生死。

於此義中至爾時永滅故者。因解感異熟業。以異熟因對同類因。引果差別。如文可知。

何緣異熟果至有別果生者。勝論師問。何緣異熟果不能招異熟。如從麥種果有別麥果生。

且非譬喻至無別果生者。論主答。且非譬喻是法皆一等。然從種果無別果生。顯喻同法。

若爾從何。勝論師問。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：並非從已經毀壞的業產生，也不是從無間業產生。果報只是從先前的業的相續、轉變、差別之種產生。勝論師問道：『什麼叫做相續、轉變、差別呢？』論主回答說：『以業為先導而至，這叫做差別。』意思是說，現在生起的業最初為先導，之後熏習成種子，在色（rupa，物質）和心中生起。生起這色和心中的種子，中間沒有間斷，叫做相續。這相續的種子，後後的剎那，不同於前前的種子，叫做轉變。這轉變的種子，在最後一位，一剎那的時候，有殊勝的功能，無間地產生果報，勝過之前的轉變，所以叫做差別。例如，如有取識（upadanaskandha，取蘊）輪轉于生死之中，這是因為解釋差別，顯示業先受報。例如，如有取識正在命終的時候，雖然色心中帶有眾多感後有的業，但其中所牽引的熏習功能種子，如果有一重業，現在先受果報。譬如欠債，強者先牽。第二種是近起業，現在先受果報，如將要命終時，遇到善友或惡友，生善趣或惡趣。第三種是數習業，現在先受果報，如一生以來偏習此業。這三種業所牽引的果報，因為明瞭的緣故先起，不是其餘轉變等等的業。如經部中有一頌說：『一業極重，二業近起，三種業習數。即先所作。』按照次序配釋這三種『前』，就是說重業先成熟，近起業先成熟，數習業先成熟，其餘輕等業后成熟。由於這些業的緣故，輪轉于生死之中。對於這個意義中，直到爾時永滅的緣故，這是因為解釋感異熟業（vipaka-hetu，異熟因），用異熟因來對待同類因，引生果報的差別，如文可知。勝論師問道：『什麼緣故異熟果不能招感異熟？』例如從麥種的果實有別的麥果產生。論主回答說：『且非譬喻是法皆一等。』然而從種果沒有別的果產生，顯示比喻的同法。勝論師問道：『如果這樣，從什麼產生呢？』

【English Translation】 English version: It does not arise from already destroyed karma, nor does it arise from uninterrupted karma. The result only arises from the continuity, transformation, and differentiated seeds of previous karma. The Vaisheshika (a school of Indian philosophy) asked: 'What is meant by continuity, transformation, and differentiation?' The master replied: 'That which arrives with karma as the precursor is called differentiation.' This means that the karma that arises now is initially the precursor, and then it is perfumed into seeds that arise in form (rupa, matter) and mind. The arising of these seeds in form and mind, without interruption in between, is called continuity. These continuous seeds, in each subsequent moment, are different from the preceding seeds, which is called transformation. These transformed seeds, in the final position, at the moment, have a superior function and produce results without interruption, surpassing the previous transformation, hence it is called differentiation. For example, if the aggregates of grasping (upadanaskandha) revolve in samsara (cyclic existence), it is because explaining the differences reveals that karma receives its retribution first. For example, if the aggregates of grasping are just about to die, although the form and mind carry many karmas that induce future existence, among them, the seeds of perfumed functions that are drawn forth, if there is one heavy karma, it will receive its result first. It is like owing a debt, the stronger creditor pulls first. The second type is karma that arises recently, which receives its result first, such as when one is about to die and encounters good or bad friends, leading to birth in good or bad realms. The third type is karma that is repeatedly practiced, which receives its result first, such as karma that has been practiced predominantly throughout one's life. The results drawn forth by these three types of karma arise first because they are clear, not other karmas of transformation, etc. As there is a verse in the Sautrantika school (a school of Buddhism): 'One karma is extremely heavy, two karmas arise recently, three karmas are repeatedly practiced. These are what were done first.' According to the order, these three 'firsts' are explained, which means that heavy karma matures first, recently arisen karma matures first, and repeatedly practiced karma matures first, while other light karmas mature later. Due to these karmas, one revolves in samsara. Regarding the meaning of this, up to the reason for its eternal cessation at that time, it is because explaining the karma that induces different maturation (vipaka-hetu), using the cause of different maturation to treat the cause of the same kind, leading to differences in the results, as can be understood from the text. The Vaisheshika asked: 'For what reason does the result of different maturation not cause different maturation?' For example, from the fruit of a wheat seed, another wheat fruit is produced. The master replied: 'It is not appropriate to say that all dharmas (phenomena) are the same.' However, from the seed fruit, no other fruit is produced, showing the similarity of the metaphor. The Vaisheshika asked: 'If so, from what does it arise?'

生於後果至故喻同法者。論主答。彼後果起。從后熟變差別．功能種子所生。謂於後時有前種果。遇水．土等諸熟變緣。便能引生熟變差別功能。正生芽位方得種名。未熟變時亦名種者。從當名說。未熟變時。或似種故。世說為種。舉法同喻。此異熟亦復如是。即前異熟果。遇聞正邪等諸起善惡緣。于異熟身中。便能引生諸善有漏．及諸不善有異熟心。起現在前。從此有異熟心引生所熏種子。相續．轉變。展轉能引最後剎那轉變之差別。從此最後差別功能。后異熟果生。非從余異熟果生。故喻同法。

或由別法至余異熟生者。論主又引喻顯。或由別法類此異熟果可知。如拘櫞華涂紫礦汁其汁色赤。在彼花中展轉付囑赤色功能。相續．轉變．差別為因。後果生時。瓤便色赤色。從此赤色。更不生余。舉法同喻。如是應知從業異熟。更不能引余異熟生。如瓤色赤便不生余。其拘櫞子色黃。印度國人慾令子赤以致皆國王。故涂下其花令子赤也。

前來且隨至離佛無能知者。論主謙讓仰推世尊。前來且隨自己覺慧所知境界。于諸業．諸果略顯粗相。其間異類差別功能。諸業所熏相續．轉變種子。隨其所應。至彼彼位彼彼果應生。唯佛所知。非餘二乘見凡夫境界　依如是義。于經部中故有頌言　此善．惡業

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果說由前一個異熟果產生后一個異熟果，那麼這就像種子產生果實一樣嗎？答：不是的。后一個異熟果的生起，是由於前一個異熟果成熟變化所產生的差別功能種子所生。也就是說，在後來的時間裡，前一個異熟果的種子，遇到水、土等成熟變化的因緣，就能引發產產生熟變化的差別功能。只有在種子真正發芽的時候，才能稱為種子。在沒有成熟變化的時候也稱為種子，是從將來的名稱來說的。在沒有成熟變化的時候，或者因為類似種子，所以世俗上稱為種子。舉例來說明，這個異熟也是如此。就是前一個異熟果，遇到聽聞正法或邪法等引發善惡的因緣，在異熟身中，就能引發產生各種善的有漏心，以及各種不善的有異熟心，在現在生起。從此有異熟心引發產生所熏習的種子，相續不斷，轉變變化，逐漸能夠引發最後剎那的轉變差別。從此最後的差別功能，后一個異熟果產生，不是從其他的異熟果產生。所以這個比喻是相同的。或者說，由其他不同的法類比異熟果可以理解。比如，用紫礦汁塗抹拘櫞花，紫礦汁的顏色是紅色的。在拘櫞花中逐漸賦予紅色功能，相續不斷，轉變變化，以差別為因，後果生起的時候，果肉的顏色就是紅色的。從此紅色，不再產生其他的顏色。舉例來說明，應該知道從業產生的異熟，不能再引發其他的異熟產生。就像果肉的紅色不再產生其他的顏色一樣。拘櫞的種子是黃色的，印度人想要讓種子變成紅色，以進貢給國王，所以把紫礦汁塗在花上，讓種子變成紅色。以上只是根據自己覺悟的智慧所瞭解的境界，對於各種業和各種果報，略微顯示粗略的相狀。其中不同種類的差別功能，各種業所熏習的相續不斷、轉變變化的種子，隨著它們所應該到達的那個位置，那個果報就應該產生。這些只有佛才能完全瞭解，不是其他二乘聖者和凡夫所能瞭解的境界。根據這個道理，在經部中有一首偈頌說：『此善業、惡業……』（此處省略偈頌的具體內容）。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If one says that the subsequent Vipaka (result of action) arises from the preceding Vipaka, is it like a seed producing a fruit? Answer: No, it is not. The arising of the subsequent Vipaka is due to the seed of differentiated function produced by the maturation and transformation of the preceding Vipaka. That is to say, in the later time, the seed of the preceding Vipaka, encountering conditions of maturation and transformation such as water and soil, can then trigger the production of differentiated functions of maturation and transformation. Only when the seed truly sprouts can it be called a seed. When it has not yet matured and transformed, it is also called a seed, speaking from the perspective of its future name. When it has not yet matured and transformed, or because it resembles a seed, it is commonly called a seed. To illustrate with an analogy, this Vipaka is also like this. That is, the preceding Vipaka, encountering conditions that trigger good and evil, such as hearing the correct or incorrect Dharma, in the Vipaka body, can then trigger the production of various good contaminated minds, as well as various evil Vipaka minds, arising in the present. From this Vipaka mind arises the seed that has been perfumed, continuously, transforming and changing, gradually able to trigger the differentiated transformation of the final moment. From this final differentiated function, the subsequent Vipaka arises, not from other Vipakas. Therefore, this analogy is the same. Or, it can be understood that other different Dharmas are analogous to Vipaka. For example, if one smears a citron flower with purple mineral juice, the color of the purple mineral juice is red. Gradually imparting the red function in the citron flower, continuously, transforming and changing, with differentiation as the cause, when the subsequent fruit arises, the color of the pulp will be red. From this red color, no other color arises. To illustrate with an analogy, it should be known that the Vipaka arising from karma cannot trigger the production of other Vipakas. Just as the red color of the pulp does not produce other colors. The seeds of citrons are yellow, and people in India want to make the seeds red in order to present them to the king, so they smear the flowers with purple mineral juice to make the seeds red. The above is only based on the realm known by one's own enlightened wisdom, and only slightly reveals the rough appearances of various karmas and various retributions. Among them, the differentiated functions of different kinds, the continuously transforming and changing seeds perfumed by various karmas, according to where they should arrive, that retribution should arise. Only the Buddha can fully understand these, not the realm that other Arhats and ordinary people can understand. According to this principle, there is a verse in the Sutra Pitaka that says: 'This good karma, evil karma...' (The specific content of the verse is omitted here).

此熏習種　至此時中應合與果　此一切種因果定理　離佛世尊無能知者。

已善說此至求慧眼者。此下一部之中大文第三名流通分。依前一解。一就破我品中名流通分　就三頌。初一頌讚道勸舍。第二頌讚道不睹。第三頌顯毗勸學　此即第一讚道勸舍　我于上來已善說此清凈涅槃無漏因。道即因名道　或因是能證因。道是所游無量道　謂佛世尊至理言說。真無漏法性。此即是前無漏因道　或真法性。是所游道。真實無我諸法性也。此顯道體　不照真理名闇。無慧眼故名盲。應舍闇．盲諸外道等所起邪執　邪執但由惡見所為。應求慧眼除斯僻執照無我理。

此涅槃宮至不能睹者。此即第二讚道不睹　大涅槃眾聖所居。名涅槃宮。無我大路趣涅槃宮。名一廣道　此一廣道。千聖所游。即無我性。此無我道　諸佛如日。其言似光。所照。無我大道　顯諸外等由無勝慧。雖開昧眼。而不能睹　或無我道。諸佛日言光明所照。雖后復開僻見昧眼。而不能睹。

於此方隅至成勝業者。此即第三顯略勸學　方謂四方。隅謂四隅。於此無我理教方隅。我已略說　為開智者慧毒利門。如身少破著少毒藥。須臾毒氣遍一身中為毒門。今造此論亦復如是。開少慧門諸有智者能深悟入。如似毒門名慧毒門。從喻為名　庶各隨

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此熏習種（指由熏習而成的種子），至此時中應合與果（指在特定時間會產生相應的結果），此一切種因果定理（指所有種子的因果關係法則），離佛世尊無能知者（除了佛陀，沒有人能夠完全瞭解）。

已善說此至求慧眼者（已經很好地闡述了這些內容，直到那些尋求智慧之眼的人）。此下一部之中大文第三名流通分（接下來的部分，第三個主要部分被稱為流通分）。依前一解（根據之前的解釋），一就破我品中名流通分（第一種解釋，在破我品中稱為流通分），就三頌（包含三個頌）。初一頌讚道勸舍（第一個頌讚美正道並勸人捨棄邪見），第二頌讚道不睹（第二個頌讚美正道，但邪見者無法看見），第三頌顯毗勸學（第三個頌顯揚佛法並勸人學習）。此即第一讚道勸舍（這是第一個頌，讚美正道並勸人捨棄邪見）。我于上來已善說此清凈涅槃無漏因（我已經在前面很好地闡述了這清凈涅槃的無漏之因）。道即因名道（正道即是因，所以稱為道），或因是能證因（或者說，因是能夠證悟的因），道是所游無量道（道是所行走的無量道路），謂佛世尊至理言說（指佛陀所說的至理名言），真無漏法性（真實的無漏法性）。此即是前無漏因道（這就是之前的無漏因道），或真法性（或者說是真實的法性），是所游道（是所行走的道路），真實無我諸法性也（是真實無我的諸法之本性）。此顯道體（這顯示了道的本體），不照真理名闇（不照見真理就稱為黑暗），無慧眼故名盲（沒有智慧之眼所以稱為盲）。應舍闇．盲諸外道等所起邪執（應該捨棄由黑暗和盲目所導致的，以及其他外道等所產生的邪見），邪執但由惡見所為（邪見只是由錯誤的見解所導致）。應求慧眼除斯僻執照無我理（應該尋求智慧之眼，去除這些偏頗的執著，照亮無我的真理）。

此涅槃宮至不能睹者（這涅槃之宮，直到那些不能看見的人）。此即第二讚道不睹（這是第二個頌，讚美正道，但邪見者無法看見）。大涅槃眾聖所居（大涅槃是眾多聖人所居住的地方），名涅槃宮（稱為涅槃宮）。無我大路趣涅槃宮（通往涅槃宮的無我大道），名一廣道（稱為一條寬廣的道路）。此一廣道（這條寬廣的道路），千聖所游（是無數聖人所行走的），即無我性（即是無我的本性）。此無我道（這條無我的道路），諸佛如日（諸佛就像太陽），其言似光（他們的話語就像陽光），所照（所照耀的）。無我大道（無我的大道），顯諸外等由無勝慧（顯示了那些外道等因為沒有殊勝的智慧），雖開昧眼（即使睜開了昏昧的眼睛），而不能睹（也不能看見）。或無我道（或者說，無我的道路），諸佛日言光明所照（被諸佛如太陽般的話語的光明所照耀），雖后復開僻見昧眼（即使後來再次睜開了被偏頗見解所矇蔽的眼睛），而不能睹（也不能看見）。

於此方隅至成勝業者（在這四面八方，直到成就殊勝事業的人）。此即第三顯略勸學（這是第三個頌，簡要地顯揚佛法並勸人學習）。方謂四方（方指四方），隅謂四隅（隅指四隅）。於此無我理教方隅（在這無我真理教法的各個方面），我已略說（我已經簡要地說明了）。為開智者慧毒利門（為開啟有智慧的人的智慧之門，就像毒藥的鋒利入口）。如身少破著少毒藥（就像身體稍微破損，沾染了少許毒藥），須臾毒氣遍一身中為毒門（很快毒氣就會遍佈全身，成為毒藥的入口）。今造此論亦復如是（現在撰寫這部論著也是如此），開少慧門諸有智者能深悟入（開啟少許智慧之門，那些有智慧的人就能深入領悟）。如似毒門名慧毒門（就像毒藥的入口，所以稱為智慧毒藥的入口），從喻為名（從比喻中得名）。庶各隨（希望各位能夠隨順）。

【English Translation】 English version: This karmic seed, at this time should combine with its fruit; this causal law of all seeds, none but the World Honored One, the Buddha, can know it.

Having well explained this, up to those who seek the eye of wisdom. The third major section in the following part is called the 'Circulation Section'. According to the previous explanation, firstly, in the 'Breaking Down the Self' chapter, it is called the 'Circulation Section', consisting of three verses. The first verse praises the path and encourages abandonment; the second verse praises the path but speaks of non-seeing; the third verse reveals the Buddha's teachings and encourages learning. This is the first verse, praising the path and encouraging abandonment. I have already well explained above this pure Nirvana, the unconditioned cause. The path is the cause, hence it is named 'path'; or the cause is the cause that can be realized, and the path is the immeasurable path that is traveled, referring to the truthful words of the World Honored One, the Buddha, the true unconditioned Dharma-nature. This is the aforementioned unconditioned causal path, or the true Dharma-nature, which is the path to be traveled, the true selflessness and the nature of all dharmas. This reveals the essence of the path. Not illuminating the truth is called darkness; lacking the eye of wisdom is called blindness. One should abandon the evil attachments arising from darkness, blindness, and other external paths, etc. Evil attachments are solely caused by evil views. One should seek the eye of wisdom to eliminate these biased attachments and illuminate the principle of selflessness.

This Nirvana palace, up to those who cannot see. This is the second verse, praising the path but speaking of non-seeing. The great Nirvana, where the multitude of sages reside, is called the Nirvana palace. The great path of selflessness leading to the Nirvana palace is called the one broad path. This one broad path, traveled by a thousand sages, is the nature of selflessness. This path of selflessness, the Buddhas are like the sun, their words are like light, illuminating the great path of selflessness, revealing that those of external paths, etc., lack superior wisdom, and although they open their dim eyes, they cannot see. Or the path of selflessness, illuminated by the light of the Buddhas' sun-like words, even if they later open their eyes clouded by biased views, they still cannot see.

In this direction, up to those who accomplish superior deeds. This is the third verse, briefly revealing and encouraging learning. Direction refers to the four directions; corner refers to the four corners. In this teaching of selflessness, in all directions and corners, I have briefly explained, to open the sharp gate of wisdom for the intelligent. Just as if the body is slightly broken and touched by a small amount of poison, the poisonous air will quickly spread throughout the body, becoming the gate of poison. The creation of this treatise is also like this, opening a small gate of wisdom, those with intelligence can deeply understand and enter. Like the gate of poison, it is called the 'gate of wisdom-poison', named from the metaphor. May each follow accordingly.

己自力堪能。修三乘行　遍悟所知四諦深理。成諸勝業。

俱舍論記卷第三十

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：依靠自身的力量和能力，修行聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘這三乘之行，普遍領悟所應知曉的四聖諦（苦、集、滅、道）的深刻道理，成就各種殊勝的功業。

《俱舍論記》卷第三十

【English Translation】 English version: Relying on one's own strength and ability, cultivate the practices of the Three Vehicles—the Śrāvakayāna (Vehicle of Hearers), Pratyekabuddhayāna (Vehicle of Solitary Buddhas), and Bodhisattvayāna (Bodhisattva Vehicle)—comprehensively realize the profound principles of the Four Noble Truths (duḥkha (suffering), samudaya (the cause of suffering), nirodha (the cessation of suffering), and mārga (the path to the cessation of suffering)), and accomplish all kinds of supreme achievements.

Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 30